Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA80-135 iQZ/®y 44 Planning
12-1979
RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
Application : Xxr C (t- 5: ..". 6 ("V e y r. reagnole satiecy-
fi e rt ,MIi " b or ` �Q� d• d'ffe.Pt 9 A-d ai . � ( E+,P/a
�Q y
Location : , jj, Qof `A / ,.{� , d• .'_ _op,pio_k. ®,'00eS. a.s'edet3 °.I'., a.
Applicant : , f°.r� lpi°' >
el '
TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : c //7/ /
0
Police Department A, R, C. MEETING DATE : //) * 9/
Public Works Department E e % 1I II
Engineering Division
T affic Engineering
Building Division
Utilities Engineering -
Fire Department
(Other) :
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN
WRIT G F THREVIEW
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 ATTEND THE ARC,
PLEASE PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P .M. ON
.
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 2,L1) 63, '
Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
•
4 Arta
C- -, es-- ________ /-0-,d
Sign) ure of Director or Authorized Representative Date
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION :
Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
r „,r,.:. •.u! . _ , 7 . . .
• -1- s'
, • . . .
_ ,.. .. ...
. . ..
• it
, .
. .-, -- . '. • , 111 . cr.•
.• . zitiV• •--. ':_if±*''• t ' 414. •
.4
• d•-;(' A.,4 L.
ii
f Ifili f
.. - 4 Or 1 46 A i*Nr %at
,... ;- . . 2 id
-
, t , de f• • t • . *i t..,P or• '
' f
,104!)t .-:' wf.••• .
ip/ k x. ,,,. .. t. . • , .
. .
. .,... . 4
• •
IPS*# I
.
" • OP Ov`l -N.-_ .
1 '
T.
. .
• ' ''' ‘ :it
• . • . ' 1
. . , .• +•: .
." , • • • li- i ir 'A
ik •
.4
. .. „
)
i... ' , .
i -,,
• - f .
..
.
. . i .• .•dr%
till,
F,*• ,
' " • .
. .
r.•:..... 41 ,t2?.:74 41.4'..'..'74. t4 :,:I " . • t'
1'
• • •
•
. . V if, ;
—
. ii , •,.
., i• . '•.• 4k,---.. :'-• .. 1 , .` -- i,
. -... " ,•
. ,• • . ••••;,,, .'‘.4,.,,• ‘ z.s•# 4: , ' • . 0
,.. •- .. i p,„
. - ,-,,,,, , . . , •
, , at '44 ''' ''' 1 . fre•id
i., r . - • 'i 4 Ilk#(.1‘f*“•• '.41. ‘:;iit _:
)14I-Y ! 3 4. ri
• .
. •
..... ... , . 4''k' *V
`r.. 9' • ' ' • i jii:" lik :W • fi'ilii:*.es
i 4 ; i ' ...,,41i. •
t • , p t ; ' , at .-,.s,
, -4 '..., . . VE ..-- 4
4 'a°
t. '1 , ''
. •.• aft ,
. • 6 .1 -'41 I ,100 14. ° b 141 V6• 411
-*MI • ,, .•10411W0 .. 't 'stiV . ' 1 t '
tii'. i --• ''•• .6, 4%, • t,
,,,...:
,•. •('
4
P i:'''' ‘, t' W*- ... '. ' IP - • 4
401 1 i . \., .',. .., ,..' h.' 1...t.,,,,t'to 0 • 1: ;k t 1
p ,- , I •
AO ' 01
.. .... , . ,s . ti is
;fr.' ' ....- t 440 -v .. , 1
I .-' . f'
.
i
0
, . ‘; r 4,
1 'V
', . :. r.4.. .
v ... •• . !.,, ,...t. r ; iii i • i.
..,...-. (
• , 0.,
A si •' • ' IP 4 •
4.1111, 117, •••• • „, . •
A ' • t
t ile' ' •
f .
, :"
..
t• •
,Or• t
t, ' _ •il .... i
A Tiofr t.... ,
. •, -.4. 1,1111b- ..f.,,, ' .
to..,.,, A! • .• . ' • • , . il 1
I i ie tit
. o
r.. .. .... , ,.. , .., ..: .
. di4 • ' •'• •' 4 ,
.. _ ..:: ,,,,, „ , • •.
. i1/4 ,Ift
, ...-,. . .
._.
i -
BEGINNINU
OF FILE
FILE TITLE al .I.I.
iliirH C i F I LEA ED
/ 4 /3 --'° P. •
/ i ,. ..4 • 4 1
....,... ..-.4 ,.. •-•• •:::',..'',;.,:•,,,,,,,:,,,,-•':.'":F!,!".•;.;:;','"i•;`, .*,.:,.1.",h-4 4',dr:.'','•;. 4.1, ''',lt,„..,,t4f,„',,,,r,,Z.q.^,y';::-iN.,,,..;,A„..±-4- -k6i$'7,?::,4,`',',.. 11,ftalrialfc .,..--.7::;. ,p--7.,..",:i.,;..,.,„.;:„.,,,,;,,,,,,..%,;:,„'.• •,,,,,,..,..1r:.•..,,,,, , .„.:-,.'
"5 --,--•• '•• t f•'•;:.1':;',..,i.:‘,7!".7•:-..,--.!;•.'",7,,'•4.1.!•i'„',.'iti.','; :'‘'‘L'''k".4.1):r.411.;..PA ''..'it-7.'+ir,f4:1A:7".A*.it•:".e,'"FitgAV't.".' .1'''' 4''''',Y..eill‘R"alt,',. '",..0.4 '',""'.....;,'',''Vli.,',:,!,...:.i',..„.• ,.''4 L.,. -...'',•:',.,,'.,'. :," • ,ii
f, .., :..:....:,...,:i......:e-1.:,,;,;-,.„-..rf-i0.,,:..-2.?-..„4,1',„:..".',pC"..,:,.43i,.ptg.it.."1 _V-Y. '.--;-•,-,..',44-1..'":1,v, ` .,,,,,-.. ,,i-,..;-",,,,-.-..„,fets,-5-,'",..;„,-'1,4"45‘...",e. ,1-;re,!--„:',,,,A.,--j,-,,'W,:----.:..E.;"7., ,,!',....,..1;:. . ,'..,4:.",'''f'.Z;e.Q};::. .',:i4.*:•=::..',','1,"i'''''':,':.WASi:,1,1:At-•.,15'A, ',/,''.•.'5gi.gr. ?1,,,,4",,l''',;)• :.,A*.fi•, ' ''•'— `4, ..:'#4,.w.0.1Ar:. ':•:.,.-4 .•••,.::: ,.:q.,,'.V4',..,, ,..;,':-''':-.,.'A,..n:•I''''''., -'. ',,e''',• -
rt:t . . ti '.•„ • ....... ',,,.`,1•0'.i.i,' 't''''"ie'S'•-•-•41.:^ 4-r""'''''‘A;'.:I'' ' T''''-,,,NACO%';e'a4.,„„‘"....F0,114,....,•'45i,4.-Vit _,, ''''' ,.- ' . • k'''....., l•'4.• ,'' el.A!:j'I'''''''''''%::°:'''.11', ';'.i ',-,'::'''N..•'',;".•." ''''''''':- ' .• ,
'': •'' • ,"''''' "-f''';':',A'',.'2''''''''::i'Vf....iVree '414* :'%; '' ;i 7 V•4405".41tr,q ;:'Z:1";1 q''C','''.'i'Vr..irr,.'11-*;64';', '' ', i',,,t,'„t. ''''t ., . 10' :''1',,,,qta:4"?,,;:,;/;i0jr.,;.,-,,,,..:' .:,.24;4`:.,"•?.'" :...II,'..,•-, , ,
1,1' - - --,'S'2:--'11,','","'''-'4-.6',"'i''', 4,-r,V!;.Vi,`-"Ii. ••'''4.rk4w,..jf,eo,,,,,,:a,,,qi..;.-4,0mv.,,12,.....g4- ,;,i4:-. „FP.-..,*, •. -..,; , •.1......-.1„-Aio-34.--.t.vii',. , ..:.,'::!,':'..,''.:.1...', ,",-.'.. -
e
.„ . . . ..
..‘ .- •• . •..,........"-. ....".7,-,.J,,,,, ,4,-,t;?,,,,,,,..:.,,,,,,.,,c.,4.1- ..-;, ..-,,,,o, 't,...,,,-.4,...p.a-wv.y.,,,,,,,....,p.....,-,,,,,v.:,,,,,,,,,,,,•.,.!,Ael„,, ,,,tir.., ",.. t...• .,„•;,..„,.4n.„.....,,z,. „.,...„.„„.,.... ..,.._y . ,.:‘,.:•••.• . . .
,. . .•,..:,.,.....,,..‹..r..m,:i.T,,,-,:T„,,,,,..,...,,,,,,.....,..,, r -,.,7 4,,-, • .a ,, Int 1,.,,,944,,,,,f41.,, ,A,,T..,,r:0,,,,i,4,4,1,,11,•,,11., t., jekli. 1,k:4r ,-1Tz. 129..?,.:0.1.,:,4,,,,,-...:...v, ,,..,,..,-.. -,•;•:...-•,,,• • .. ••
- -- ' •,...-1,,,,,,,:•,,,,,-' , - •i-Ns.p.' '.,9-,,.•, .,414 lt-x-, '4••••',w7,-,a•••-•.•$,-,,,,,,,,,,..,,...,,Av, .,,,t,.......•—,• ,,,,1 .47.1,,, 41-1,,,,,,4,,,,,4,,g..,-,-,,,••...,....,,,,--,•,.•'--••,,i,•......,4•... ::. . . .
. ....,,,p..;.;.i.pyg.,„:•=i„,,..74eLek-ptiort41,,t4,X413•,- '•/,-'".1,' 31 ''' 4:0S.*..,.,4":.'14,r-'.'4.:1,::',-,,,":7'-k-v,itg:43.,'.4-?::,,,,,-INV?..41-714974:7,4t5r.'1,,`':;1''' '''i,-;1'.!(`•',...:""11"',-','''',",'-''";'.., '-'"''' '- . ;
• ''','',-'•,'F'i4-.s• ';',.`,-3'4,V.'-:'z'44riT.-41.*:.,',,!:t 'ai,04,,.;... -1.:.r.L. •,i..•6, -'1,,„,g, `,!4',,t't5,-,"?-;',',','-',.,t"''''-','P"`4'.::?'..-!.4K:54`A'7'-1,14'''')•4-1 -',';':- ,"---; .P./',-:',-.:-. ''''4'A, :.'','-' . 7.",1:: ' '. '''' '' •-:-' , i
'1,4*,4411,4r-ektt.PZ4.-4 kr
1
'•:`,i',':'-',':'."1'-;i1,7.. ."-;.-.;',:`'-'7--•!.'1:,.=.1 .':'04...1'V.••';'t: '..-.,..:.:•;• '''4' ...., • 'l'.;„ •.• '..•.", '•-•'044.
" , .'...''';",,JA-.";!t;',7,1,441-.50L'4; ' - -"4,"-3,'"iik,,;.--ict,,,,,,,,k tpg.,:tee4,17,,,,y, .t, ‘•..tf,15,-,.s..-J-:.„4,,,,,,:"V.1,-,,,. .,,-.'-,:,4 " "•-•.:,-'.- ' 4, -",:..",„,,..t.....;:..t'.- .....i.‘. .• ,: • •• , , ;,,,• ;.,,,,•,.
itrle$114'144 ' ,..%••' l'''4'.*,-Wtt4J'''''.:1;',1•1:F",; ',,:.•-:..'.'.,''.'';'-';,?.?i,,'.1‘r'I'?'.''..,":::,'".".'.".' '• -,; ' : ' .:, ' . . 1
• •-•';'.1-:'-;:,''1”,';'-i:',4'5';',Iii,.11,0--'. itY)1f'' .',..., , .#;n1 _,:ir,„.„, .,A'''kl...'(-•g,k,,•',,lfg4''''41-.'. 1'".'''';':,,•':',..•:'•:::-.. V- ". .:'••
). .k.;!'',;:1A451e,'W,,t '.". #1,,-JV:,' ::,A,• ':. %,,•• ,1,41,1pir ,,r 414T,;A:.. •I'.0.14:.',1,Z04..44g'in;?4•A'•'''•:;::::':•'..'''''';'.?.... . •' .' •
2:1.0 03:11:6•7iNk;46,4 :.."1f2 •. 24':',4tr,71'.1iNt10•42iQ:;:r•'.i.: ' ' •,;:t.',-.,
.': •': 4:', i;',.,..*11,7',.PU',,,,•'4,1 '4gi-.034:',...,• )1,4,-44, ,-.'....':...0.4 ,,:.,,,-.,471'.- : W ;1 -• ::•.,-6';',.:-•..',.'...4., (
'I; !'''''''''-i.',:l',..':':.'''s'iii:1?. .-At'it;i,e 'g.,:t:.V.1'...V..1:-.'4.`:-,1-11., '-',1'-',-0., ..•'•b'''.:''.-r' -. I').1'VRs,,:,'N.
. ..4,•.;..'.'.1 •:',''.4•61::%f•ti_TereY'R;;•:<i'd 46':'q ii.'•P 5,:''',..%•.'7-:..' 1. ","/M."4''''„Iye4'.':.' '..i•.1101.i."",,.4-'1'' A•PO...1,:Viii?,v
••';-!'"';';''')•':Vr,','',,t--,,.i'.A,,,,,t-: .t •:•.,,,i.-Orv:;-,,,74,0,1i•, ,'.-F.•i4,;--,?••• ,,,e.t••• ..V,44r,$ ',.i.-,:1,..!. . ;5S.-Aokai.i.,..-4,,-:?.'.:;,f4Ei•-i-.,It'f...:',:','•17::••- . :
'.:'-'-';,:;,'''',',,'!Iiligs,t..igilt2;,,f t•:,4:.*54',..:ii,-041,5":tei*' !Vat:. •.'`,„,..•,'-,r--'.44.$ .../,-.41'',,A.,-,4„„,.,--4„..tzw•-titi-?.!.-7,,,i,y2,k,<, ..;:',,,;,;..k,,,r-i;s;-,,.... .,. ',. . 0
''.'.:,,,,,T,r,..?-zMi,,,t1,1,:*.44sAt.-Ratr,..7 -4,,n4 ,R4V-A-4.--•;.•`..-OtV.',vi,' r, `.1•,,o.t, •Int.o'FAP-ri,."fit.,d1'''.A4V4,/*P14,...,,,H1,:q-ft- .• ..',:.': :. • • • ••
- .P'..!;,;n,"0-A•';`.1-•,',7,41;e".4-!N;k:04,-.4%,;:,04t...4)',/,'1...c.z4ifj,,,4i!!'„,',:14,L.kif0.--z,...,7',.;::*; ;.7,'1A,'', .,,.,4 4-,,,, •., t'...,4, "4"?',44;0;',.',''.'4::.::•,•.,..•:.:•*-,.,•• •.•'i; ; ,' r:,r';', ...;•;',*-,,I,',, ,',..A•::,';;W:; •4.&'..4;„diii. .t.',..X4'4,Vg.f,';•tg.,,O-t1:443Atiii14',',j1A,,tf: '''''' '. %..• 4/-.. '':-,-* ‘,4--- ''A k.4-0.0t., ,,i.:',:.t-,;;:2.,:- -,'.'"! - -:'.',' .
. .,4-4'), ,k.,q*.).4.:
a:..:,,,,4,,cii:114.th.,•-,,-Af!5. ..V1. IIA'''1,1,;.•g.•,..:,.?„' 1,,,t,'*•,,,•'.,1; i..,',.‘.,' '' ,. ',.+Af.-,.1*.P., Al.M.411,f.,:":g.::::f1,.'4',‘.::':'',.':aVi-.'"!•'-:...'; •• . ,
.., ...-:•.. ,, , f, ,.p,;v0. . .
1 ..-.: '. '.- ii.4.,,.;', .,f-'w.v!-v,,,,,...-1,..-,:, .. .
. . ..
• .• t,,3^,,,r;:-.,•,'..,:.'..,,,y,'01,1,1,,,,,,,,t,:,,,f,,,c, ;t
" . .: '.•,7'',",er'''.';.4.;',7"),-,:k......,,,,:,...,,,,.,-•.,.,,,,,.,„,..,,,i., .
11-...:ii.`5.J..-.•Y'',..'s,,P=r:.±..ilt.`,:',.:,::
. .
., • '•. ,. !:.'''";,:-,`;1'. ,;--;,t''.",,-41-'•-ti-'%;•`.2-'',;t1'.",',''.":, , .
. ..."
. „ !, ',.'t,i';)-.,4.-„•••.,...:,1:::„..co-,..4'.c.1":;',;,,o,,tt",' .' •-•-•-,,rl r.'
. 1... :-,--... ,•,.,-,....,F.,,,'...-,,,•::•,,,-..-- . . . . . ,
- •....-,,,-,:,..,,,,.,..1",,-..,:,,,..1.,,,f:a'...,, 0 c.' gi . -. .,
. ,:...,:.:...,..„,,,,,,...:„ ......,:.„.....,.,....., !„:v.,,.z.s.: iz.-30 v., 1.... ....•
..., . I
‘,;t, " ".,.'•:v,-.,....,,,,:..,.„,;,,,..,.;,.,.. .,.,,
Applicant FRED' BOWS ER ., 1. . , .
....,, . - uC r i Jidtsi I .
I
File NO. R-135-80
A • .„
..„ WARREN&KELLOGG
Project Namej3y__________... _SAME . ,
, ,. . •
. .,,,, ." .. . ..... • .
• , .,. . .
1
I
.11 Property Location West side of Talbot Road S
:. . . .
. 1
i
1
•
i.: • : approximately one-fourth mile south of S.W. 43rd St.
.,
,.
ji.
X . •
HEARING EXAMINER: Date ! 7-28-81 )' .
l- (q- i/ • •
.', . /- : i 1
t .
Recommendation Dismissed with prejudice (Reapplication
t
1
‘,./a_e....--/A-2_,:_s• _V:
1 .
not to occur prior to July 27, 1982) .)if4 .
1,A1
Date.Req./Rec. Received '/.. 7 _r/ Date Response e4s—r.,... ....--,-,-e--....-1
.V.I'
.,.:!
Appea 1 - Date Received
1 •
P''': .
Council Approval - Date v• /—a.,L5--- f -,`bc.cb 67 8 9/v,f-,
..,- Yit . . ,..,
Ord i nance/iiititookAssicen_if -3 4E24/ ale te cl:\c2
, . .
".•. .
41. . .
t-,-,
Mylar to County for Recording (..4,,,,cr,,...-, ) '''`"4`t*r
,.
-,r/ ,0C3 \,, . ,;; •' ''.'.• , ,
gl'ib Mylar Recording #
. „,... ... ,,
;a: ' cl>262eZ0v
g`,...;: . . • . ,. , --::.,,,:-..i.i...' , •
/ , ., • i Renia rks: .._ ,:-,, .,-- ( ti,:.) 7))' . , _ ) c,./ -40_, _,,,
VI ,
• / / %I'• ., / ,l/, ,
1 .. •
`4,'•
. ,
,;',,,'. . . • •
• , . .
lj'4' •171r1:)iL0/61glai=, . .
:..'1. . .
::;.•• •
.. .2':,-'--.. '• -.
. • •
.. ' - • ,
, . .
• • I ...,.
... .;.. . . .
,1:',;,. ,.".':':' : ';" : ' •• ''• + .
. , .
• .1'. '' .
. .
. . ,
:.;':-', ' ',;'";. ' '•
•
r/,',;;', • . '-:::•',.,,;,, .. -.' . . , .
. .
ii.;..i:' '':.,''••••• ;-:::',.:-'',—'.• . . . :. .
. , .
:'•'...Q!''''• . . ",.,,."'' ,... .' • . , • . .
, .
, .
. ,. . . ,.... , , .. .
• ..,
. . ,
:.•.-:':', .',,,;'.' '• ., • . ,
•
,..ijii,. ' •- •.:.:',.:' ,,' ,
. ,
. • .
. ,
.,
, .
1...i . '...-.' 1''. . •
. - . .. , .
t..:,,, • '....1..' . '- . .
. .. ,
;7,,,ji.,'. • ',• !i,"- • . ,-- .
•';',1-i-• ' '.'-• •' • • ''.' ' . • • .' •.
,.
. , . . .
. •
. • . . .
. ,.. ' • •..:•,'If 1• •••• • *1','•.•,•,'•:;*:•.•: ,.'." ''' • ' .
•
• •.
• , . •
.. .. ,
'I 1:...''''''":.;;;:" '*: ' '" ''.• .
• . I
•• -I
i .i 7: • •'.••,:::• ••*•f*•''.• '•••!... .-•'•• •.. • .
. , • I
. . •
, . .
•• ,•. ... .., • , . , .
,',,I,*;:f...,,'-,;:;'•;:,=-.;;,, ,:-;'--- ' -.: . , • . •
• .•
; . .
:,:.- I::::i-li-,•.;,-- -,,. ;,•,:,.. : -- • . .
, .. ..
'' 1.;''. • -.--:.'`-, •• •• • • : .
.• . .— . ..
• 2 — Os - g0 _ -
CITY --�ENTON f classification of said prnrt .
i WA GTON ilty has been filed with ti
% ONDIN) 'NO.3604 ,Planning Department on't
' 'AN ORDINANCE OF THE t about December 24, 1980,
i CITY OF RENTON, 'which petition was duly re-
WASHINGTON CHANG- ferred to the Hearing Ex- 1:
- ING THE ZONING CLAS- aminer for investigation, o,
SIFICATION OF CERTAIN study and public hearing,
Affidavit of Publication ' PROPERTIES WITHIN THE and a public hearing having i
CITY OF RENTON'FROM been held thereon on or AP
GENERAL CLASSIFICA- about June9,1981,andsaid L2
TION DISTRICT(G)TO RE- matter having been duly �'`�
STATE OF WASHINGTON ss SIDENCE DISTRICT (R-2) considered by the Hearing
COUNTY OF KING (R-135-80—BOWSER). Examiner and said zoning ,
' WHEREAS under Chap- request having been or:. ,
ter 7,Title IV(Building Regu- proved and the matter q.v.
lations) of Ordinance No. ing been appealed to the
Ginny Rabago 1628 known as the"Code of City Council of the City of .
being first duly sworn on General Ordinances of the Renton and said City Coun-
she chief clerk City of Renton",as amend- cil having modified the Hear-
oath,deposes and says that is the of ed• and the maps and re ing Examiner's Decision and
ports adopted in conjunction said zoning request being in
THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a therewith, the property 'conformity.with the City's-
week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been hereinbelow described has Comprehensive Plan, as
for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, heretofore been zoned as amended, and the City
printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper General Classification Dis- Council having duly consi- •
published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,and it is trict(G);and dered all matters relevant
now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the WHEREAS a proper peti- thereto, and all parties hay-
aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Daily Record lion for change of zone m9 been heard appearing in
Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior �_ - support thereofor in opposi-
Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County, tion thereto, NOW THERE-
FOREOrdinance No.
Washington.That the annexed is a - 3604 THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DO OR-
DAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I:The following
described property in the
as it was published in regular issues(and i City of Renton is hereby
not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period rezoned to Residence Dis
trict (R-2) as hereinbelow
specified; the Planning, Di-
1 • rector is hereby authorized
of consecutive issues,commencing on the and directed to change.the
maps of the Zoning Ordi- ,
29th January 82 nance, as amended,to
of ,19 ,and ending the dence said rezoning,to- it:
' The North half of Wit.:
' North half of the Noht 1;1' '
29th January 82 west quarter of ilia. '
day of ,19 both dates Southeast quarter, 4�irY,'
inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- Section 31,Township,423+�•
scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee North, Range 5 Easir•x I
W.M., in King Coity }o I
charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $59•' 0, which Washington, Lying * -,
of Kent-Renton RoacF
has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the EXCEPT the East 300
first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent feet of the North half of . ,
insertion. _ „14:_et_i_. ea the North half of the •
North half of the North-
west quarter of the
Southeast quarter in said
- Section 31, and Except
Chief Clerk that portion thereof con-
- veyed to the State of
- '' 29th i Washington for Primary- .
Subscribed and,sw orn to before me this day of _ State Highway No. 5 by
•
- • deed recorded under au-
January lq $� ditor's file No.5282262.
Subject to: Easement,
' restrictions and reserve-
, / ', / , tions of record.
(Said property being lo-
Notary Public in and / the t. - .f Washington, cated at West side of
'` `'' King County. Talbot Road South 1/4
residing a ,fay mile South of Southwest
! 43rd Street.) --- ----
—Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June AND SUBJECT FURTH
9th, 1955. ER to that certain Declara-
tion of. Restrictive Coven-
-Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, ants executed by Petitioner-
adopted by the newspapers of the State. Owners on or,_about,
November 19, 1981 and
recorded in the office of the
Director of Records and
Elections Receiving No.
8201120466 and which said
Covenants'are hereby incor-
porated and made a part
V.P.C.Form No.87 Rev.7-79 hereof as if fully set forth.
SECTION II: This Ordi-
nance shall be effective up-
onitspassage,approval and
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 3604
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON , WASHINGTON
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN
PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM GENERAL
CLASSIFICATION DISTRICT (G ) TO RESIDENCE DISTRICT
(R-2 ) (R-135-80 — BOWSER ) .
WHEREAS under Chapter 7 , Title IV ( Building Regulations ) of
Ordinance No . 1628 known as the " Code of General Ordinances of the
City of Renton" , as amended , and the maps and reports adopted in
conjunction therewith , the property hereinbelow described has
heretofore been zoned as General Classification District (G ) ; and
WHEREAS a proper petition for change of zone classification
of said property has been filed with the Planning Department on or
about December 24 , 1980 , which petition was duly referred to the
Hearing Examiner for investigation , study and public hearing , an.: a
public hearing having been held thereon on or about June 9 , 1981 ,
and said matter having been duly considered by the Hearing Examiner
and said zoning request having been approved and the matter having
been appealed to the City Council of the City of Renton and said
City Council having modified the Hearing Examiner ' s Decision and
said zoning request being in conformity with the City ' s
Comprehensive Plan , as amended , and the City Council having duly
considered all matters relevant thereto , and all parties having been
heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto , NOW
THEREFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON , WASHINGTON , DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS :
SECTION I : The following described property in the City of
Renton is hereby rezoned to Residence District (R-2 ) as hereinbelow
specified; the Planning Director is hereby authorized and directed
to _change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance , as amended , to evidence
said rezoning , to—wit :
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a pair hereof
as if fully set forth herein .
APPEAL REZONE ORDINANCE
PAGE 1
(Said property being located at West side of Talbot
Road South 1 /4 mile South of Southwest 43rd Street . )
AND SUBJECT FURTHER to that certain Declaration of
Restrictive Covenants executed by Petitioner—Owners on or about
November 19 , Bland recorded in the office of the Director of Records
and Elections Receiving No . 820112_0a___ and which said Covenants
are hereby incorporated and made a part hereof as if fully set
forth .
SECTION II : This Ordinance shall be effective upon its
passage , approval and five days after its publication .
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 25th day of January, 1982
Delores A. Mead , City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 25th day of January, 1982
..i64.)
c.A.cJ • SG►.tn�o c.L
Barbara Y. hinpoch , Mayor
Approved as to form: •
1� J
Lawrence J. Wa en, City ,Aftorney
Date of Publication: January 29, 1982
•
APPEAL REZONE ORDINANCE
PAGE 2
a
EXHIBIT "A"
Bowser Rezone R-135-80
The North half of the North half of the Northwest quarter of
the Southeast quarter, in Section 31, Township 23 North ,
Range 5 East , W.M. , 'in King County, Washington, Lying west of
Kent-Renton Road; EXCEPT the East 300 feet of the North half of
the North half of the North half of the Northwest quarter of
the Southeast quarter in said Section 31 , and Except that portion
thereof conveyed to the State of Washington for Primary State
Highway No . 5 by deed recorded under auditor' s file No . 5282262 .
Subject to : Easement , restrictions and reservations of record.
i
...-,
• -,_
- ---1 .
_ •am,essorrmar•Senun: cispi_crEsxraa.,,, ,_
1 I ' •;! ..?-.'".....97.4%
f • IL-;) I-Will_11'1:.'.
. .
. E
I
.......7.f:100,5 I'r•,..
• I
_.... .1.:_.. . ...._- i__.--- - -• 4' \ 1\4-. -- ii IT 61164=1 6116411DEMON611.1061.1•6.161616".1.4"4.'"
. i ' ' : 1- •,.. 41.44,';'.:"...i'i.; 'I 1 , , .• .4 : ., •4''.1i,i.:4;'Ili :
. .
.___.___ _ i
; 1 ;
• I . . ' ' - ' ••• 41' .ii!, 4.
_L_I I•11 -
' I . . ' I '• - 'dp,'''!ii '
- 1 --4 -• 4'.;4:`,•," '
:-
i -- - ilil ,- -
I
• • --' .- ' ''P'1'11 ...
4 6 e • . .
p I • • ill '•' j
ilii
• . . • '''1:' ;';i: '
• . i,11)',•••.'i;
r...... .„ . . i,-17. .4 , , ,i . . . r 1 .1'7-7--• 4_____ i
.4 7 • II' S R7I -- . •E; • I l'''j:il'.1? 1
M!MD
4. • ._6.. 9. r 7 2 / ., /1../• is r• . i
. 6 0 •i
'•LL'17'Ili - . ..-' ;'•• 71'..r I;V;Ipc I
P' ' .'E j 1 E'l.1i •
'• ••-'• '''i ;''.A!I I. .
----r 7 --7 - - --r-- i •.-. - : .... •••=.4/.7••••:• \
- -•--;- : • • ;•1
i 1.4• •Ir 9 • - ''.:1 '•4.'11.IA' , 'i•.' ••:,,11 t, i•/i !.,I' ;I:I.9..,‘` .f s •.. •. t..ta I
•..i A• •• 4. 44 of•.51 • ,48 39 56 1' 31.. '3. '64 ii• Si da i;" ' •
•'• !.i I.... . • ''''i IIII•',.. iji';'
3"Yet . 7 .. .• • I 11. -•
•a •
.a ii i 1.._. . .: !t''.:' .....Vt../
' ' .- •, ' -• '7.•!
99 80 S. .. 54 55 I .1. 5 56 55;.• . .1 .5: •• .5 l'• ''. i' . •It i:•N' 'i•, SR 1
• I
r..
1 ...,,.!.....1 4,
.. , :., • , PZ'q d '-L--....2-;.---...----7:7-1.7,---1. j 7.--..-- - I --T1---4 .-.::::: , ,
•'At' .',..1]
'I ..-- !
.',.., i • •..'•
I ,, c-1.
':' ' •t: ;; C':' I 63 S. 60 '9 '6 r•. iir i •6 •• ' • • i r•-• ioi .8 .• ..
, I ' 711/ 4-ii--, ' . . 1' "t'ir.• 4
; i 1
41:A2 -..:,-a. I ../..--...-.1---, i.--A--- . --a--_1----L-.1-__-L--:-__
p_
. ___ - --.- -- _
7 .'•"!.k.!--7--.. L ::-. i'L1. li-.; --,...,,H.:11!•!..'.1c:.1-41-:::Iii::-
‘,'•'''•;‘
•' Nt' - 1.;' ,I
1 ' _.% ' I df':,,'•-i.,ii .
It ••,.
: , i': I .
i 9/11 SO Si 3/ 33 \
'\ . 'i,;71".:•i I • '
. i
i
• I I . i t 17'''11; " • •i' . , • ,'iI i'•;'.'.•!• „'
p.1 I /./.6 ,-„,!'7,''' t 7,1 - „ 1,.., . .,Kii,',11
'.1. :.213.1.'\.;41 . . ''' -1••••'•-•-' •••••;•-•i'''.'1:t4L:''''
I • .
• ' ' I
9 ...PiaHI i;r-"if:
. • i I .. •
1 li •is 4.9 „II 22/..,..,a' -____ di • •••• '''Hi':141--='.-1::.-----
I 1
IRIMMilf:L.--.-=:-..;-.- D.:•..11-:-.--:1;•-•;-; - ..--- I. : •';.,,i'.., :j ,
. ••.=1. ••••-• •7._8••••••.. . •_19
.1.t I
' • . . ,.. ,1't-,1'1"‘" ..--
,'
/ / ./ --. UM
IMID3
: .. r :,r'l •
• / .- I . ' ''' •. ,.;''; 1 '!.,19 •1
. CIO
40, 1
TZONN ,...
.6.,:.
45 '
‘1 I G .1341.1 • , •
. • 't j •'V ‘'`
• i '.4 : I - - .' -' ' '.-
. ,. ,. ,•,: .,'11';',';;1. '' •
I
. .
' .
• .A1 Al 10° I. F'' -IiI01°?r-i .dill0501: -
• -
' • •- •.- -
, • 11 ;, ' ,
. -
FRED BOWSER _ R-.13 5-8 0 •
.
. •. ,.. • 1: ;
• . .
. - !
APPLICANT FRED BOWSER TOTAL AREA : +8.4E3 acres •!I„'!:.';' 1
_
. •I; i ;i•.!; •;•
PRINCIPAL ACCESS ,
Talbot Road South
• .
EXISTING ZONING G, General Classification District : • • .I• i
• .
EXISTING USE Undeveloped •
. .. ; ;,. . .!
. ii 3 :iop : " •
•PROPOSED USE Multiple Family Development COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Low Density Multiple Family; Medium DenSi•tY!,,,.!,, ...
Multiple Family
COMMENTS . • ,' : •.i .., J.:1 .1,,
. . ..,;•,• v„ 1 ,
•
., I.•;• (; !
. :; , :;'•
i . . ........_....
OF R��
4.4 „ . 0 THE CITY OF RENTON
�� © Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
n BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • DELORES A. MEAD
09A co. CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500
0gTED SEP'�°
March 30, 1982
Mr. Daryl Connell
C-D Debco
Box 580
Bellevue, WA 98009
RE: City of Renton - Ordinance Nos. 3603 & 3604
Best/Connell Rezone (R-125-80)
Bowser Rezone (R-135-80)
Dear Mr. Connell:
The Renton City Council at its regular meeting of January 25, 1982
has adopted Ordinance Nos.3603 and 3604 rezoning your property from
General Classification District (G) to Residence District (R-2) and
(R-3) .
A condition of the rezones included a restrictive covenant recorded
with King Co. Records & Elections,Recording No. 8201120466.
Copies of the Ordinances and Restrictive Covenant are enclosed.
Very truly yours,
CITY O�F� RENTON�
,2-G'uo C.G.
Delores A. Mead, C.M.C.
City Clerk
DAM:db
ENC: 3
--_� ��51617f�gj9 �yZC ?aL
SEP1931
0
RECEIVED
op CITY of RENTON c s'
September 15, 1981 �o
CLERK'S CFFiCE„n
Honorable Members of the City Council
City of Renton
Municipal Building
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, WA 98055
Re: File #R-125-80 & R-135-80
Applicant: Herman Allenbach & Lucky Seven Investments
Location: West Side of Talbot Rd. S. , 1000 feet
south of S.W. 43rd Street, and
West Side of Talbot Rd. S. , 1/4 mile
south of S.W. 43rd Street.
Dear Council Members :
On August 19, 1981 the Hearing Examiner for the City of Renton
rendered a decision with respect to the above project. On
September 1, 1981 in accordance with Chapter 30 , Subsection
4-3015 of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton,
we requested a reconsideration. This reconsideration was
rejected by the Hearing Examiner by letter dated September 11, 1981.
We wish to take this opportunity to request the City Council
review of the decision of the Hearing Examiner pursuant to
Subsection 4-3016 , of the above ordinance.
We are attaching for your review and/or files documentation
regarding NEW EVIDENCE, and CONCLUSIONS. We trust that you will
agree with your planning and engineering staff that all of the
elements have been thoroughly reviewed and mitigating measures
properly identified so that this project can move forward to the
benefit of the City of Renton.
The subject proposal is the rezoning of two adjacent parcels of
property to allow a multi-family residential development of 325
dwelling units.
Because these parcels are adjacent to One Valley Place, a
commercial property, a single traffic report was prepared ad-
dressing the combined impacts of the subject development along
with One Valley Place and also other developments in the immediate
vicinity including those in King County. This traffic report was
found to be acceptable to city staff and the Hearing Examiner for
One Valley Place. This property was thus rezoned.
City of Renton
September 15, 1981
Page Two
How is it possible that the Hearing Examiner can approve one
development (One Valley Place) and disapprove the adjacent
development (R-125-80 & R-135-80) when both developments were
based on the same traffic, analysis and the same traffic report
complete with conclusions and mitigating measures all of which
were found to be adequate and approved by staff?
NEW EVIDENCE
First, on August 31, 1981 the Washington State Highway Department,
District 1 (Mr. John Klasell, P.E. ) was notified by headquarters
administration that the "date for construction bid advertisement"
for the reconstruction of SR-515 from Carr Road to Puget Drive
had been fixed for October 19 , 1981. Further, that $5 . 7 million
had been obligated for the project which would include "new
construction on a new alignment" with a completion date scheduled
for the spring of 1983. A copy of the announcement is attached.
Second, in addition, the Washington State Department of Transpor-
tation, District 1, has assigned Mr. Tom Brown, P.E. the duties
of "location engineer" with respect to the preliminary engineering
and design of the S. 212th Street interchange on SR-167. Money
has been allocated for this specific purpose. Probable construction
i•s expected in. the 1984-86 biennium.
Third, the traffic signal at the intersection of SR-167 and S .W.
43rd Street is recognized by the Washington State Department of
Transportation and appears as a "line item" in their priority
program. " In other words , the need for the traffic signal has
been recognized by its placement within the priority program
system. Changing conditions such as increased traffic volumes will
raise the priority although, at the present time, signalization
is not expected before July, 1982 .
Fourth, King County is planning to upgrade Petrovitsky to a five
lane road from 108th to 140th. They have started property ac-
quisition from 108th to 116th and engineering is also underway.
In addition, King County has approved the rezone of Fairwood
No. 7 subject to this widening which is holding up this project.
Since it has been the traffic generated by King County' s rather
liberal zoning policies that is impacting Renton' s streets , we
are encouraged by these developments.
City of Renton •
September 15 , 1981
Page Three
ERRORS IN FINDINGS
(11) SR-515, which the State proposed construction between
Carr Road and Puget Drive, is unfunded and is not expected to
be constructed within the near future . . .
This is incorrect, the project has been funded and a contract
will be advertised on October 19 , 1981.
(14) The LOS on S.W. 43rd Street is adverse today . . . Neither
the loop ramp nor a traffic signal are immediately contemplated
by the State in the current funding climate.
•
This is incorrect, the Washington State Department of Trans-
portation recognizes the need of the traffic signal and has
placed this within their priority program which is the funda-
mental document for budgetary considerations.
(15) The intersection of Rainier Avenue South and S.W. Grady
Way is at capacity and would be expected to provide a link to
employment areas North of the subject site in Bellevue or Seattle.
It would serve as an alternative to SR-156/I-405 .
This is incorrect. SR-156 is not in the immediate area. Also,
the forthcoming construction of SR-515 provides an opportunity
for bypassing the subject intersection.
(18) The city 's traffic engineer disputed the historic growth
figures which provide for background traffic growth not attributed
to specific projects such as the subject proposal. The difference
could amount to approximately 4,100 vehicles per day on S.W.
43rd Street between Talbot Road South and SR-167 . The amount is
calculated on the applicant' s figure of 3% compound growth versus
the city' s figure of 6% compound growth.
•
This is incorrect. The original traffic report prepared by the
consultant' s traffic engineer (Christopher Brown, P.E. ) utilized
an annual growth of 1.15%/year derived from examination of data
generated by the permanent count station operated by the Washington
State Department of Transportation. At the request of the City
of Renton, City Traffic Engineer, made at a meeting attended by
Gary Norris, Daryl Connell, David Clemens , and Christopher Brown,
on March 16, 1981 the annual compound growth rate was requested
of 3% per year, for this area. Never has the City of Renton
suggested a "figure of 6% compound growth. " This is a significant
error that should be correctec1 because it improperly suggests a
difference . in growth rates by the applicant' s traffic engineer
against the city' s traffic engineer when, in fact, both traffic
engineers used the same growth rate and the city's traffic
engineer has repeatedly testified that the mitigating measures
are acceptable.
City of Renton
September 15, 1981
Page Four
(21) The applicant proposes creating a roadway, Talbot Place,
just East of SR-167 and West of Talbot Road which would intersect
with S.W. 43rd Street. The roadway would serve as a primary
access for the two subject properties and a northerly P-1
property.
This is incorrect. The proposed Talbot Place would not neces-
sarily be the primary access for the two subject properties .
Figure 4 of the traffic report entitled 1982-83 Directional
Design Hourly Volumes, noted in our letter dated July 16 , 1981
shows some ten vehicles per hour using Talbot Place against
217 vehicles per hour using an access from Talbot Road South.
The influence of Talbot Place is delimited in this figure since
turn restrictions have been assumed.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request
is in the public interest and will not impair the public health,
safety and welfare . . .
The proposed development is in the public interest in that it
provides for increased housing opportunities within an incorporated
community which, in turn, will reduce the need for housing in
the more distant and unincorporated portion of the county. This,
in turn, reduces travel demands, reduces energy consumption,
reduces opportunities for traffic accidents due to increased
travel distances, and provides for housing units more centrally
located to job opportunities as well as retail-social-recreational
centers.
(2) While the applicant has demonstrated that the map element
of the Comprehensive Plan designates the areas in which the two
parcels are located are suitable for the development of medium
density multi-family dwellings . . . , the problems of traffic
congestion and solutions to such problems presented the major
issues.
And while the Planning Department indicated the city has
no control over growth outside of its boundaries in this area,
and in addition, little or no say in growth issues beyond its
boundaries, the city officials cannot beg the questions raised
by the continuing deterioration in the levels of service on the
various roads servicing this area. The major issues of traffic
congestion must be confronted. Decreasing the development level
will decrease demands on the roads.
City of Renton •
September 15, 1981
Page Five
We believe that traffic flow can be improved on these streets
and highways. King County is beginning to improve Petrovitsky
Road. The construction of SR-515 is going to relieve 43rd
Street considerably. Interstate 405 from Renton to Bellevue
is going to be altered to accommodate an HOV lane in each
direction in the near future. If all jurisdictions continue
to responsibly plan to solve their traffic problems, the traffic
system will not deteriorate.
(4) The applicant' s argument that the percentage increase on
I-405 generated by the subject proposal is predictably small is
not persuasive. Even the samll increase on a roadway with little
or no additional capacity cannot be ignored. Each additional
proposal such as the subject proposal only causes a minuscule
increase in proportion to the load now carried, but each is
causing a new, small incremental decrease in service. . .therefore,
in order to mitigate the impacts the potential' traffic on the
area-wide network of roads, the proposal should be scaled down.
Again, we ask, why was the traffic report for One Valley Place
acceptable to the Hearing Examiner when it did not address any
impacts to I-405? This traffic report outlined mitigating
traffic measures for both projects in their entirety and was
found acceptable by the Hearing Examiner and city staff.
(6) Further reduction in peak hour traffic could be realized
if the applicant provided three van pool vehicles as an initial
asset to the Homeowners Association. Each vehicle would be
capable of providing transportation to about ten to twelve in-
dividuals. . .
To recommend the provision of van pool vehicles to the Homeowners
Association and, at the same time, suggest the delimitation of
density cannot be balanced. Also, it appears to place a burden
on the developer., a burden not shared by others . Van pool
vehicles are a viable alternative if the project is of a sufficient
size to be economically justified.
•
(10) Since the state appears to be unable to install a traffic
signal at the intersection of SR-167 and S.W. 43rd Street, the
applicants proposed Talbot Place should be restricted to right
turn only movements as indicated by the city' s traffic engineering
division. All parties agreed that there was a problem in this
vicinity and the state indicated that the signal was warranted
but cannot be provided at this juncture. Any additional demand
for left-turning capacity could cause serious traffic hazard,.
The applicant ,should provide any additional signals required
as a result of . . .
•
City of Renton •
September 15, 1981
Page Six
Conversations with the State of Washington (Ms. Renata Prochaska)
on September 1, 1981 indicates that the subject traffic signal
is still on the priority list with a bid advertisement for
July, 1982. The staff report outlined some funds to be paid
by the developer towards a portion of this cost and we concur
with their report.
SUMMARY
We believe this application should be approved for R-3 and R-2
subject to a maximum of 325 units. The Comprehensive Plan
calls for this zoning and we have mitigated all impacts of this
project including traffic.
The Staff Report recommends that these properties be developed
together as a P.U.D. due to their common configuration and
topographical features. This will also encourage a creative
design.
We agree that these properties be developed together but would
suggest that a restrictive covenant will achieve the same goal
especially if this document requires planning staff approval
of the final site plan. This method will shorten the approval
period by up to six months which will be in the public interest
to seek lower housing costs .
TAnkyou for your attention in the above matter.
�� J
QI
1%, ' ,A00
• " "i A k LENB/ CH RED BOWSER, Acting General
ek ' Partner
,...,...„......overnm.,.............„...,---...=-2- ,, ---- . --,..0.•,-y.....,:rwactven,ununtsvation Trom :1
• -7theledefal gent fof.70,unitt. A site is still-tci bechosen and.construction could notstait•before the ,13
es of,i.,
_ -.end of..1982,at the earliest.Bids on the Pike building g61.6.the authority office at:120 Sixth Ave -*here • ,
1,:nars:' plans May be obtained"-for:$75:deposit The official:bid-advertisement as published in the Angi:.2l'lour,.
t.gov_ lid;page 9. i 1!•-- - : -: ;:.,,,... . ,t7 Bi u ,-.:. ...,... .;, , : :, .e.th- i exxs, f
‘:.._ .. . tAA • :
$VS EX- .;-1 '''. '
98 _million4nbighwayiconstruction -
F me
1;' .:p-- to—jects'.::?.-is',..,.--thithorizedby- state
•rer
.., .
. . . .
. . . ,
, ; , . .. • • , . ,,
• ,Co
Icon- .• . OLYMPIA--,••• ;1The • •State .,,...Route.16 from 12th Street•to the . Bridge which \will ::bypass the bic
'zison -Transportation Commission•this" Tacoma Narrows Bridge in Taco-
t commercial area along TacoM6.'s
-week authorized• work on six s.--. ma; f SR 151, the .:Watergrade ;'Sixth Ave. -Construction will -ka
anti- :state-funded::highway:_construc-H Highway along' the Columbia
I , ,
. .' - ; .'" • - :• River from':Chelan' Station to begin this:fall, with completion. Be
The
Can' ' scheduled for the 1983-135 bien: Sc
t tion projects
The six projects 'worth aP-: •;Hugo; .the• :Hamilton Street
!:ople :,proximately f$98 -Million; •:had .. Bridge• on State Route 240 in Mum: : .Chelan,
: SR i51, helan Station to CC
!mi'''. ';...,originally, been .-'scheduled for -.,:Spokane; SR.500 in Vancouver - Hugo, 5:17: .miles •at ',$14.6 , I
• -construction :•starts-I\durink the• from near 39th and!V Street to million This work will complete co
icedt . .1979-81.biennium.:-However, de- :Andresen Road; SR:515 in Ren- the final segment:of a two-lane F
.fills• ."clining fuel tax revenues'•forced ,ton between • Carr !Road, and , Watergrade route highway along gii
l•
tern- ..their deferral The work will poi! Puget Drive; and, SR 516 from the Columbia River from Chelan* 99 the -..,
Proceed••'4ith luild1ngs.:7from• a,'" 'Reith Road to SR 181,in Kent.•' •••• Station north to Hugo,
Ties ''.'.'$2254nillion'tond Authorization -:-' Preliminary :engineering .and - This five-mile segment will be a 33
ri to.....
s for l'state-funded higliway .... P right-of-way acquisition.on the , ,
- - - s A - new two-lane highway on;mew• •bn
', • --.--proved by the Legislature-dining -.---
yrojeCts;has .already been au- alignment with connections to the ,. fic
1 re- its last session.'The bonds will be ::thorized.'The projects approved existing SR'151 at the south end :.ni;
pro-. `:supported by the lOolo fuel tax.'; : :-,by the :Transportation Commis- • of the project and to U..S.-97 at .-cei
hav-. ' .
'Action by :.the 1-conunisiithi 'i sion are: the north. Preliminary engineer- the
and ' Tuesday authorizedi the •Depart- ' .
:-.:SR Ilk $ 12th Street:to Nar- .ing work will continue with con- cei
:or :meat of Transportation to spend , lows Bridge;2.14,miles,•at $22.8 ' struction slated for the fall of
$37.6 million on the projects dur ':
, . !.•Million.:This is a new four-lane•• ' 1983. Completion will come in - al
re- ing the 1981-83 biennium. '. .: :highway between South 12th .-
!the 1983-85 bienniuin. ne
....The 'projects include: ''State ...-Street and the Tacoma Narrows : ,. • (Continued on Page 8,Column 1)
•,.....— . . ... .... .
'compieteu uy ..,..7 ____ __ ___._ I
, .
'SR 515; Carr Road to Puget
Y :•Drive, 1.17 miles,at$5.7 million.
This project will•consist of con- ,
struction of a new ;.four-lane
highway on new alignment from
' .Carr Road to Puget Drive inRen- ,
ton. The roadway work will in- '.
dude construction of curbs and
sidewalks. A pedestrian separa-
tion structure will also be built. I
•-Work will begin this'fall, with
• completion scheduled for •.the, i
1983-85 biennium. - :• ' - : •
I••• . •,SR 516,Reign-Road to SR 181,-
1,22 miles,at$1:0.7 million.Four . •
STA• �`1 Z _ASTh
JOHN SPELLMAN 6 I
�. 41 DUANE BERENTSON
Governor J•..21' p�„��' Secretary
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of District Administrator • D-1,6431 Corson Ave.So., C-81410 • Seattle, Washington 98108
September 14, 1981
Daryl Connell
2691 - 168th Avenue S.E.
Bellevue, WA 98008
SR-167 CS 1766
Dear Mr. Connell :
Thank you for your recent letter addressing traffic problems at the
intersection of SR-167 and the S.W. 43rd Street northbound off-ramp.
Since you have already discussed this with our staff, I won' t re-
iterate the elements of the projected time schedule. As . I am sure
you were told, we are also very anxious to complete this needed
project.
Very truly yours,
J. D. ZIRKLE, P.E.
District Administrator
A. W. CARTER, P.E.
Traffic Operations Engineer
AWC:jk
cc: J. Olson
• PIONEER•NATIONAL
TITLE INSURANCE
Policy of Title Insurance
ATICOR COMPANY
PIONEER NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, herein called the Company, for a
valuable consideration, and subject to the conditions and stipulations of this policy, does hereby insure the
person or persons named in item 1 of Schedule A, together with the persons and corporations included in the
definition of "the insured" as set forth in the conditions and stipulations, against loss or damage sustained
by reason of:
1. Title to the estate, lien or interest defined in items 3 and 4 of Schedule A being vested, at the date hereof,
otherwise than as stated in item 2 of Schedule A; or
2. Any defect in, or lien or encumbrance on, said title existing at the date hereof, not shown in Schedule B; or
3. Any defect in the execution of any instrument shown in item 3 of Schedule A, or priority, at the date hereof,
over any such instrument, of any lien or encumbrance not shown in Schedule B;
provided, however, the Company shall not be liable for any loss, damage or expense resulting from the refusal of
any person to enter into, or perform, any contract respecting the estate, lien or interest insured.
The total liability is limited to the amount shown in Schedule A, exclusive of costs incurred by the Company as an
incident to defense or settlement of claims hereunder.
This policy shall not be valid or binding until countersigned below by a validating officer of the Company.
Pioneer National Title Insurance Company
by 2/„A)
President
Attest ,
U�
Secretary
Countersigned;
By
Validating Signatory
TO 1483 PNTI WA (7.74) Washington Land Title Association Standard Form Policy
•
NUMBER + A-143212 WLTA
DATE a OCTOBER 10 , 1975 AT 8 + 30 A.M.
AMOUNT ' S100,000.00
PREMIUM + $384.00
SCHEDULE A
1. INSURED
CENTER COURT SPORTS iNCORPORATED , A WAS,HINGTON CORPORATION
2. TITLE TO THE ESTATE + LIEN OR INTEREST INSURED BY THIS POLICY IS
VESTED IN
CHARLES 0. "SOREHEAD AND EVELYN M. MOREHEAD , HIS WIFE
3. ESTATE , LIEN OR INTEREST INSURED
FEE SIMPLE ESTATE
4. DESCRIPTION OF THE REAL ESTATE WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS POLICY
IS ISSUED
THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER , SECTION 31 , TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH , RANGE
5 EAST , W.m. , IN !LING COUNTY, h'ASHINGTON , LYING WEST OF KENT—RENTON
ROAD ; EXCEPT THE EAST 300 FEET OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH
HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER : AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE STATE
OF WASHINGTON FOR PRIMARY STATE HIGHWA.Y NO. 5 BY DEED RECORDED
UNDER AUDITOR ' S FILE NC. 5282262.
SUBJECT TO: AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS , EGRESS AND UTILITIES
1 OVER THE NORTH 30 FEET OF THE EAST 300 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF
OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 31 , AND
TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER THE SOUTH
30 FEET OF THE EAST 300 FEET OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH
HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 31 , EXCEPT COUNTY ROAD.
A-143212 PAGE 1
The. Comp has not surveyed the premises descri in A 1432
1 2
The sketch below is furnished without charge solely for the purpose of assisting in locating said premises and the
Company assumes no liability for inaccuracies therein. It does not purport to show ALL highways, roads and ease-
ments adjoining or affecting said premises.
/ 3__
97G)±
a exc. PIN
W
0 1JVa- Nv2. NW - SE 3l- 23-5
r+ 70
m
h
i
0 rozs!
+ I 71
I
•
•
7 -7! c C 1 l - �."
I
SCHEDULE B
DEFECTS , LIENS , ENCUMBRANCES AND OTHER MATTERS AGAINST WHICH THE COMPANY
DOES NOT INSURE'
GENERAL EXCEPTIONS
ALL MATTERS SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPHS NUMBERED 1 TO 4 INCLUSIVE ON THE COVER
SHEET OF THIS POLICY UNDER THE HEADING SCHEDULE B GENERAL EXCEPTIONS
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
1 . DEED OF TRUST TO SECURE AN INDEBTEDNESS OF THE AMOUNT HEREIN
STATED AND ANY OTHER AMOUNTS PAYABLE UNDER THE TERMS THEREOF ,
RECORDED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF RECORDS AND ELECTIONS OF
KING COUNTY , WASHINGTON.
AMOUNT : S38 ,000. 00
DATED : OCTOBER 6 . 1972
RECORDED : OCTOBER 12 + 1972
RECEIVING NO. : 7210120477
GRANTOR : CHARLES 0. MOREHEAD AND EVELYN M. MOREHEAD ,
HIS w' IFE
TRUSTEE : PIONEER NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY , A.
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
BENEFICIARY : GUARANTY NATIONAL BANK OF WHITE CENTER , SPRING
GLEN OFFICE , A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION
2. RELINQUISHMENT OF RIGHT OF ACCESS TO STATE HIGHWAY AND OF LIGHT ,
VIEW AND AIR . UNDER TERMS OF DEED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON .
RECORDED MAY 10 , 1961
AUDITOR ' S NO. : 5282262
3. AN EASEMENT AFFECTING THE PORTION OF SAID PREMISES AND FOR THE PURPOSES
STATED HEREIN , AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES.
FOR : COMMUNITY DRIVEWAY
RECORDED : MARCH 12 , 1963
AUDITORS NO. : 5554497
AFFECTS 8 NORTH 30 FEET OF THE EAST 300 FEET OF THE SOUTH
HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
OF SAID SECTION 31 , EXCEPT COUNTY ROAD
4. CONTRACT OF SALE
VENDOR : CHARLES O. MOREHEAD AND EVELYN M. MOREHEAD ,
HIS WIFE
VENDEE 8 CENTER COURT SPORTS INCORPORATED , A WASHINGTON
CORPORATION
DATED : OCTOBER 2 , 1975
RECOPOL77 : OCTOBER 10 , 1975
.
AUDITOR ' S NO. ' 7510100367
RECEIPT NO. o E-322962
. . . END OF SCHEDULE B. . .
TH TERMS OF THIS POLICY ARE MODIFIED BY THE ATTACHED WA 10
INDORSEMENT.
• TO 1919.1 PN TI WA (5-75)
ENDORSEMENT FORM WA 10- "
OWNED:a INFLATION PROTECTION ENDOicEMENT
• ATTACHED TO POLICY NO. A—1 t+3 2 12
ISSUED BY
Pioneer National Title Insurance Company
The Company,recognizing the current effect of inflation on real property valuation and intending
to provide additional monetary protection to the Insured Owner named in said Policy,hereby modifies
said Policy,as follows:
1. Notwithstanding anything contained in said Policy to the contrary, the amount of insurance
provided by said Policy, as stated in Schedule A thereof, is subject to cumulative annual
upward adjustments in the manner and to the extent hereinafter specified.
2. "Adjustment Date" is defined, for the purpose of this Endorsement, to be 12:01 a.m. on the
first January 1 which occurs more than six months after the Date of Policy, as shown in
Schedule A of the Policy to which this Endorsement is attached, and on each succeeding
January 1.
3. An upward adjustment will be made on each of the Adjustment Dates, as defined above, by
increasing the maximum amount of insurance provided by said Policy (as said amount may
have been increased theretofore under the terms of this Endorsement) by the same percentage,
if any, by which the United States Department of Commerce Composite Construction Cost
Index (base period 1967) for the month of September immediately preceding exceeds the
highest Index number for the month of September in any previous year which is subsequent
to Date of Policy; provided, however, that the maximum amount of insurance in force shall
never exceed 150% of the amount of insurance stated in Schedule A of said Policy, less the
amount of any claim paid under said Policy which, under the terms of the Conditions and
Stipulations, reduces the'amount of insurance in force. There shall be no annual adjustment
in.the amount of insurance for years in which there is no increase in said Construction Cost
Index.
4. In the settlement of any claim against the Company under said Policy, the amount of
insurance in force shall be deemed to be the amount which is in force as of the date on which
the insured claimant first learned of the assertion or possible assertion of such claim, or as
of the date of receipt by the Company of the first notice of such claim, whichever shall first
occur.
Nothing herein contained shall be construed as extending or changing the effective date of said
Policy.
This Endorsement is made a part of said Policy and is subject to the schedules, conditions and
stipulations therein, except as modified by the provisions hereof.
Pioneer National Title Insurance Company
gal2"Td) 91' President
Attest: a"
7 al Secretary
NOTE: In connection with a future application for title insurance covering said land, reissue credit
on_premium charges (if applicable at all) will be allowed only upon the original face amount of
,t'd in Schedule A of -z d Poli y.
li
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
Municipal Building
October 12, 1981 Council Chambers
I
Monday, 8 :00 P .M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch led the Pledge of Allegiance to the
, flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order.
IRICHARD M. STREDICKE, Council President; RANDALL ROCKHILL,
OUL CALL OF THOMAS W. TRIMM AND JOHN W.
COUNCIL ROBERT J. HUGHES, EARL H. CLYMER,
REED. Councilman CHARLES F. SHANE arrived at 8:02 P.M.
CITY OFFICIALS IN BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, Mayor;
DANIEL KELLOGG, Asst. City Attorney;
ATTENDANCE DEL MEAD, City Clerk; MICHAEL PARNESS, Administrative Assistant;
LT. DONALD PERSSON, Police; W. E. BENNETT, Acting Finance
Director; DAVID CLEMENS, Acting Planning Director; RICHARD
GEISSLER, Fire Chief; DON MONOGRAM, Public Works Department;
M. MOTOR, Deputy City Clerk/Recorder.
PRESS . GREG ANDERSON, Renton Record Chronicle
MINUTE APPROVAL MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND CLYMER, APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES
OF OCTOBER 5, 1981 AS PRESENTED. CARRIED.
PUBLIC MEETING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted
Garrett Annexation and published, Mayor Shinpoch opened the public meeting to con-
Duvall Ave. NE ' sider the 10% letter of intent to annex property to the City,
north of contiguous on thewest side of Duvall Ave. NE (138th Ave. SE) ,
NE Sunset Blvd. north of NE Sunset Blvd. Acting Planning Director
eClemensepused
wall maps and explained the two single family pa
rcels
of an existing unincorporated island which was created by annexa-
tion of property to the east in 1975. Clemens explained the two
lots would need to be treated as two separate annexations with the
King County Boundary Review Board unless tied together in some
manner. Clemens noted it was the consensus -of reviewing depart-
ments that annexation of the two lots would not be in the best
interest of the City, causing further jurisdictional problems,
especially with the Fire Department; however, favored annexation._.____—
of the entire island. Clemens noted State law allows procedure to
adopt resolution declaring election for annexation. Mr. Shannon
O'Neil, 2259. 70th SE, Mercer Island, acted as spokesman for the
annexation, explaining, dedication of 20 ft. on east Side of Duvall
Ave. NE, plus installation of fire hydrant and water line for his
_ development. O'Neil suggested that property on the west side of ____
-�--"-- Duvall would donate 20 -ft. , upon annexation, for the purpose
co
widening Duvall to four lanes. O'Neil noted area building mora=l_�
_ - •
torium; that sewers were out for bid._" 0 Neil noted one of annexa-
tion lots was his daughter, other Steve Garrett and introduced_Mr..
and Mrs. McCloud. Discussion ensued. Public Works Representative
- Don Don Monoghan explained re building moratorium and those properties
proposed for sewer connection, noting that upon annexation connec-
tion to sewer would not be permitted for property within the,Sunset
75% Petition Lift Station service area. Fire Chief Geissler noted mutual aid
Authorized for agreement exists for County island. Mr. O'Neil acting as spokesman
Annexation to agreed that upon annexation, the City's zoning and any pre-existing
Include all indebtedness would be accepted. Motion to deny the annexation was
Property fronting withdrawn. MOVED BYCLYMER, SECOND SHANE, COUNCIL AUTHORIZE CIRCU-
P -- --
on Duvall Ave. NE I,ATIONOF THE 75% PETITION FOR ALL PROPERTY FRONTING O�NIID L
AVE. NE (FROM SOUTH TO NORTH EDGE OF THE ISLAND) . -
AUDIENCE COMMENT Robert Wilson, 720 S. 55th St. , requested reading of Planning
Best/Connell and Development Committee report and three letters submitted re
•
Appeal of Appeal of Best/Connell Rezone R-125-80. MOVED BY ROCKHILL, SECOND
Rezone R-125-80 REED, SUSPEND ORDER OF BUSINESS AND ADVANCE TO PLANNING AND DEVELOP-
MENT COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee
report noted consideration of appeal by David Best/Daryl Connel, of
rezone application from G to R-3 for multiple family development;
Requegt._wS denied by the Land Use Hearing Examiner in decision
f August 19, 1981. "
Renton City Council
10/12/81 Page 2
Audience Comment - Continued - Planning and Development Committee - Continued
Best/Connell The committee report found the Examiner in error as a matter of
Rezone Appeal fact and law and recommended mo.difiaatiion:;: (1). Last sentence of
Continued Conclusion No. 1 should be modified to read: "The applicant has
demonstrated requested rezone is in the public interest and will
not impair the public health, safety and welfare. The requested
rezone meets the criteria of Section 4-3014;" (2) Conclusion No. 4
should be deleted as it is in error in that, technical evidence
before the Examiner from the traffic experts shows traffic generate
by the proposal will not significantly affect the level' of service
on I-405 or streets adjacent to the development; (3) Conclusion
No.. 7 'is in error in that requested reclassification is compatible
with the elements of the Comprehensive Plan and creates a reason-
able transition between the P-1 zoning and proposed PUD to north
and low•density 'single family uses located south and east. No. 7
should be modified; (4) Conclusion No. 9 in error•.teeding modifica-
tion.:as the Examiner may not consider the impact of "other antici-
pated projects" on the streets and freeways adjacent to project
only present proposal. The committee recommended granting requested
reclassification (R-3).. MOVED ROCKHILL, SECOND CLYMER, CONCUR IN
• RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE.*
•
Continued Letters were read from: Nancy Purcell and Clyde Medlock asked
consideration of the impact of increased traffic, increased recre-
ational and open space demands, modification of existing neighbor-
hoods adjacent to the hospital and increased school demands. The
letter favored low density. G. Warren and R. Elaine Diamond,
4914 Talbot Rd. S, supported Hearing Examiner Kaufman's decision
of 8/19/81 and recommended R-2 zoning. Robert D. and Doravin
Wilson, 720 S. 55th, noted attendance for two days of discussion
and testimony and agreed with the Examiner's recommendation for
the lower density. The letter noted streets needing repair and
ditching, worsening traffic conditions and questioned a one hour
meeting which overturned the Examiner's decision.
Continued Council discussion ensued. Daryl Connell, 2691 168th SE, Bellevue,
Appellant, explained need for housing and area compatibility.
*ROLL CALL: 4-AYES: ROCKHILL, HUGHES, CLYMER, SHANE; 3-NO:
STREDICKE, TRIMM AND REED. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT AGENDA The following items are adopted by one motion which follows
the business matters included:
King County Letter from Planning Dept. Housing and Community Development
Consortium Coordinator Ed Hayduk presented agreement between the City and
King County for continuance of the Housing and Community Develop-
. went Block Grant Program from 1982 through 1984. The letter
requested authorization for the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the
agreement. Concur.
Final Estimate Letter from Parks and Recreation Dept. requested acceptance of
Coulon Beach Park CAG 057-80 Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park Contract No. 1 by
Aldrich & Hedman Aldrich and Hedman Inc. , approval of final payment in amount of
$2,935.92 plus partial release of retainage subject to stipula-
tions $35,255.30. The letter explained replacement of certain
plant materials (value $1,656.00) is required but plantings must
be deferred until the Fall season; therefore, in accordance with
State law, the $1,656.00 has been deleted from the original con-
tract to allow finalization. A separate contract will be arranged
for deferred plant replacement work. Concur.
Utilities - SR 515 Public Works Department Utility Division requests authorization for
Carr Road to the Mayor and City Clerk to execute agreement with the State Dept.
Puget Drive of Transportation to relocate and reconstruct utility facilities
in connection with SR 515 from Carr Road to Puget Drive, CG 6681.
Council concur.
SR 515 Release Public Works Dept. Utility Div. requests the Mayor and City Clerk
of Easement be authorized to execute Agreement and Quit Claim Deed to the
State for utility relocation re SR 515, Carr Road to Grady Way.
Concur. (See Page 3, Resolution #2426 adopted.)
T+\ /
I J
PLANNING. AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT
October 12 , 1981
TO: Renton City Council '
FROM: Planning and Development. Cd'mmittee
Re: David Best/Daryl Connell/ Fred Bowser
File No . R-125-80 and R-135-80
The Planning and Development Committee has considered the appeal
of the recommendation of theLand Use Hearing Examiner dated ..
August 19, 1981, in reference to the above matter, and finds
that the Hearing Examiner is in error as a matter of fact and
law in the following particulars : ,
1. The last sentence of Conclusion No. 1 should be
modified to read as. follows : "The applicant has
demonstrated that the requested rezone is in the
public interest and will not impair the public
health, safety and welfare. The requested rezone
meets the criteria of Section 4-3014."
2. Conclusion No.. 4 is in error in that the technical
evidence before the Hearing Examiner from the
traffic experts shows that the traffic generated by
the subject proposal will not significantly affect
the level of service on 1-405 or the streets adjacent
to the development. Conclusion No. 4 should be
deleted.
3 . . Conclusion No. 7 is in error in that the requested
reclassification is compatible with the elements
of the Comprehensive Plan, and creates a reasonable
transition between the P-1 zoning and proposed PUD
for the northerly properties and the low density .
single family uses located south and east of the
subject site. Conclusion No. 7 should be modified
accordingly.
4. Conclusion No. 9 is in error in that the Hearing
Examiner may not consider the impact of "other = .
c
anticipated projects" on the streets and freeways
adjacent to the project . The consideration of the
requested reclassification must be focused upon the
impacts from the present proposal alone. The City
Council should approve the requested reclassification.
Conclusion No. 9 should be modified accordingly.
The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the City
Council modify the decision of the Hearing Examiner and grant the
requested reclassification, subject. to the conditions set forth
in the report of the Hearing Examiner.
6;7
/6i)
Cr A
i
MEMO FROM: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
TO: L/241/
DATE: 9 3 -2/ //20-vkill
RE: Ole526tt 2 60-( A-gQ4)V C
,- / 3S -f
MEMO:AA,
SIffree.44.,
li,,.-4Z-401 ,
TANK YOU, •Y‘'‘•-•
•
For.Use By City Clerk's Office Only
A. I . 1Y
AGENDA ITEM
RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING
c_== ==_ =-----z==- ==== =======
SUBMITTING
Dept./Div./Bd./Comm. City Clerk's Office. For Agenda Of September 28, 1981
(Meeting Date)
Staff Contact Delores Mead, City Clerk
(Name) Agenda Status:
XX
SUBJECT: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Consent
Reconsideration Denial Decision; Best/Connell Public Hearing
Rezone R-125-80 and Bowser/Lucky Seven Invest. Correspondence
Ordinance/Resolution
Rezone R-135-80. Old Business
Exhibits: (Legal Descr. , Maps, Etc.)Attach New Business
Study Session
A. Appeal Other
B. Hearing Examiner's Decision 9/11/81 •
C. City Clerk's Letter 9/21/81 Approval :
Legal Dept. Yes No N/A X
COUNCIL ACTION RECOMMENDED: Finance Dept. Yes No. N/A X
Refer to Planning & Development Committee 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.)
Appeal filed by Connell Co. for Best/Connell and filed by Lucky Seven Investment Co.
for Bowser/Lucky Seven Investment received Setember 17, 1981.
PARTIES OF RECORD/INTERESTED CITIZENS TO BE CONTACTED:
OF R4,A
4-1 ,y THE CITY OF RENTON
U `� Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • DELORES A. MEAD
09,0 co- CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500
0,9gr�D SE131°�P
September 21, 1981
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
ss.
COUNTY OF KING
DELORES A. MEAD, City Clerk of the City of Renton, being first
duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United
States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and
not a party to nor interested in this matter.
That on the 21st day of September, 1981, at the hour of 5:00 p.m. ,
your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at
Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail, to all parties of
record, a true and correct NOTICE OF APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S
RECONSIDERATION DECISION FILED BY FRED BOWSER, LUCKY SEVEN INVESTMENT
FOR BOWSER REZONE R-135-80.
'�°� ettd-
Delores A. Mead, CitY Cle }c
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 21st day of September, 1981.
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing in King County
OF R4�
;� z THE CITY OF RENTON
MUNICIPAL BUI LDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055
oammo rn BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • DELORES A. MEAD
9 `z' CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500
o9grco
SEP1°4' September 21, 1981
APPEAL FILED BY FRED BOWSER/LUCKY SEVEN INVESTMENT, FILE NO. R-135-80
RE: Appeal of Land Use Examiner's reconsideration decision
dated September 11, 1981 denying Bowser/Lucky .Seven
Investment Rezone R-135-80 from G to R-2; property
located at S.W. Talbot Road and S.W. 43rd in the
vicinity of Valley General Hospital.
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to Title 4, Chapter 30, City Code, written appeal of Land Use
Hearing Examiner's decision has been filed with the City Clerk, along
with the proper fee of $25.00.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent
documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development
Committee and will be considered by the City Council when the matter
is reported out of the Committee.
Please contact the Council Secretary, 235-2586, for date and time of
the committee and council meetings, should you desire to attend.
Yours very truly,
CITY OF RENTON
idhte4(1 (?
Delores A. Mead, C.M.C.
City Clerk
DM/gh
/ C 9 -FQ-
NE COPIES TO: - —'SENT
CITY, ATTORNEY'S 'OFFICE q41
RECORD CHRONICLE (PRESS)
MAYOR' S OFFICE 61-
CITY COUNCIL I I 5'_a
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
HEARING EXAMINER (2)
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
'/C tea` ' IfOuf ' d
UBLIC WORKS D _ CTOR 9-02/
PARK DEPARTMENT
PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT
7 4.)/,evlr� r. t 1-,2-1
•
Rat( ( :
4;"\ �5161 18 j9`)
e.
SEP1981 ;\
.0
RECEIVED tit
co
CITY of RENTON
September 15, 1981 9S, LERK'S OFFICE25.
Honorable Members of the City Council •
City of Renton
Municipal Building
200 Mill Avenue South •
Renton, WA 98055
Re: File . #R-125-80 & R-135-80
Applicant: Herman Allenbach & Lucky Seven Investments
Location: West Side of Talbot Rd. S. , 1000 feet
south of S.W. 43rd Street, and
West Side of Talbot Rd. S. , 1/4 mile
south of S.W. 43rd Street.
Dear Council Members:
On August 19, 1981 the Hearing Examiner for the City of Renton
• rendered a decision with respect to the above project. On
September 1, 1981 in accordance with Chapter 30 , Subsection
4-3015 of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton,
we requested a reconsideration. This reconsideration was
rejected by the Hearing Examiner by letter dated September 11, 1981.
We wish to take this opportunity to request the City Council
review of the decision of the Hearing Examiner pursuant to
Subsection 4-3016, of the above ordinance.
We are attaching for your review and/or files documentation
regarding NEW EVIDENCE, and CONCLUSIONS. We trust that you will
agree with your planning and engineering staff that all of the
elements have been thoroughly reviewed and mitigating measures
properly identified so that this project can move forward to the
benefit of the City of Renton.
The subject proposal is the rezoning of two adjacent parcels of
property to allow a multi-family residential development of 325
dwelling units.
Because these parcels are adjacent to One Valley Place, a
commercial property, a single traffic report was prepared ad-
dressing the combined impacts of the subject development along
with One Valley Place and also other developments in the immediate
vicinity including those in King County. This traffic report was
found to be acceptable to city staff and the Hearing Examiner for
One Valley Place. This property was thus rezoned.
City of Renton
September 15, 1981
Page Two
How is it possible that the Hearing Examiner can approve one
development (One Valley Place) and disapprove the adjacent
development (R-125-80 & R-135-80) when both developments were
based on the same traffic analysis and the same traffic report
complete with conclusions and mitigating measures all of which
were found to be adequate and approved by staff? •
NEW EVIDENCE
First, on August 31, 1981 the Washington State Highway Department,
District 1 (Mr. John Klasell, P.E. ) was notified by headquarters
administration that the "date for construction bid advertisement"
for the reconstruction of SR-515 from Carr Road to Puget Drive
had been fixed for October 19 , 1981. Further, that $5 . 7 million
had been obligated for the project which would include "new
construction on a new alignment" with a completion date scheduled
for the spring of 1983. A copy of the announcement is attached.
Second, in addition, the Washington State Department of Transpor-
tation, District 1, has assigned Mr. Tom Brown, P.E. the duties
of "location engineer" with respect to the preliminary engineering
and design of the S. 212th Street interchange on SR-167. Money
has been allocated for this specific purpose. Probable construction
is expected in the 1984-86 biennium.
Third, the traffic signal at the intersection of SR-167 and S.W.
43rd Street is recognized by the Washington State Department of
Transportation and appears as a "line item" in their priority
program. " In other words , the need for the traffic signal has
been recognized; by its placement within the priority program
system. Changing conditions such as increased traffic volumes will
raise the priority although, at the present time, signalization
is not expected before July, 1982.
Fourth, King County is planning to upgrade Petrovitsky to a five
lane road from 108th to 140th. They have started property ac-
quisition from 108th to 116th and engineering is also underway.
In addition, King County has approved the rezone of Fairwood '
No. 7 subject to this widening which is holding up this project.
Since it has been the traffic generated by King County' s rather
liberal zoning policies that is impacting Renton' s streets , we
are encouraged by these developments.
City of Renton
September 15, 1981
Page Three
ERRORS IN FINDINGS
(11) SR-515, which the State proposed construction between
Carr Road and Puget Drive, is unfunded and is not expected to
be constructed within the near future . . .
This is incorrect, the project has been funded and a contract
will be advertised on October 19 , 1981.
(14) The LOS on S.W. 43rd Street is adverse today . . . Neither
the loop ramp nor a traffic signal are immediately contemplated
by the State in the current funding climate.
This is incorrect, the Washington State Department of Trans-
portation recognizes the need of the traffic signal and has
placed this within their priority program which is the funda-
mental document for budgetary considerations.
(15) The intersection of Rainier Avenue South and S.W. Grady
Way is at capacity and would be expected to provide a link to
employment area North of the subject site in Bellevue or Seattle.
It would serve as an alternative to SR-156/I-405 .
This is incorrect. SR-156 is not in the immediate area. Also,
the forthcoming construction of SR-515 provides an opportunity
for bypassing the subject intersection.
(18) The city' s traffic engineer disputed the historic growth
figures which provide for background traffic growth not attributed
to specific projects such as the subject proposal. The difference
could amount tolapproximately 4 ,100 vehicles per day on S.W.
43rd Street between Talbot Road South and SR-167. The amount is
calculated on the applicant' s figure of 3% compound growth versus
the city's figure of 6% compound growth.
•
This is incorrect. The original traffic report prepared by the
consultant' s traffic engineer (Christopher Brown, P.E. ) utilized
an annual growth of 1.15%/year derived from examination of data
generated by the permanent count station operated by the Washington
State Department, of Transportation. At the request of the City
of Renton, City ;Traffic Engineer, made at a meeting attended by
Gary Norris, Daryl Connell, David Clemens, and Christopher Brown,
on March 16, 1981 the annual compound growth rate was requested
of 3% per year, for this area. Never has the City of Renton
suggested a "figure of 6% compound growth. " This is a significant
error that should be corrected because it improperly suggests a
difference in growth rates by the applicant' s traffic engineer
against the city' s traffic engineer when, in fact, both traffic
engineers used the same growth rate and the city's traffic
engineer has repeatedly testified that the mitigating measures
are acceptable.
City of Renton
September 15, 1981
Page Four
(21) The applicant proposes creating a roadway, Talbot Place,
just East of SR-167 and West of Talbot Road which would intersect
with S.W. 43rd Street. The roadway would serve as a primary
access for the two subject properties and a northerly P-1
property.
This is incorrect. The proposed Talbot Place would not neces-
sarily be the primary access for the two subject properties .
Figure 4 of the traffic report entitled 1982-83 Directional
Design Hourly Volumes, noted in our letter dated July 16 , 1981
shows some ten vehicles per hour using Talbot Place against
217 vehicles per hour using an access from Talbot Road South.
The influence of Talbot Place is delimited in this figure since
turn restrictions have been assumed.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request
is in the public interest and will not impair the public health,
safety and welfare . . .
The proposed development is in the public interest in that it
provides for increased housing opportunities within an incorporated
community which, in turn, will reduce the need for housing in
the more distant ,and unincorporated portion of the county. This,
in turn, reduces travel demands, reduces energy consumption,
reduces opportunities for traffic accidents due to increased
travel distances, and provides for housing units more centrally
located to job opportunities as well as retail-social-recreational
centers.
(2) While the applicant has demonstrated that the map element
of the Comprehensive Plan designates the areas in which the two
parcels are located are suitable for the development of medium
density multi-family dwellings . . . , the problems of traffic
congestion and solutions to such problems presented the major
issues.
And while the Planning Department indicated the city has
no control over growth outside of its boundaries in this area,
and in addition, little or no say in growth issues beyond its
boundaries, the city officials cannot beg the questions raised
by the continuing deterioration in the levels of service on the
various roads servicing this area. The major issues of traffic
congestion must be confronted. Decreasing the development level
will decrease demands on the roads.
City of Renton
September 15, 1981
Page Five
We believe that! traffic flow can be improved on these streets
and highways. King County is beginning to improve Petrovitsky
Road. The construction of SR-515 is_ going to relieve 43rd
Street considerably. Interstate 405 from Renton to Bellevue
is going to be altered to accommodate an HOV lane in each •
direction in the near future. If all jurisdictions continue
to responsibly plan to solve their traffic problems, the traffic
system will not deteriorate.
(4) The applicant's argument that the percentage increase on
I-405 generated ,by the subject proposal is predictably small is
not persuasive. Even the samll increase on a roadway with little
or no additional capacity cannot be ignored. Each additional
proposal such as the subject proposal only causes a minuscule
increase in proportion to the load now carried, but each is
causing a new, small incremental decrease in service. . . therefore,
in order to mitigate the impacts the potential traffic on the
area-wide network of roads , the proposal should be scaled down.
Again, we ask, why was the traffic report for One Valley Place
acceptable to the Hearing Examiner when it did not address any
impacts to I-405? This traffic report outlined mitigating
traffic measures for both projects in their entirety and was
found acceptable by the Hearing Examiner and city staff.
(6) Further reduction in peak hour traffic could be realized
if the applicant provided three van pool vehicles as an initial
asset to the Homeowners Association. Each vehicle would be
capable of providing transportation to about ten to twelve in-
dividuals. . .
To recommend the provision of van pool vehicles to the Homeowners
Association and, at the same time, suggest the delimitation of
density cannot be balanced. Also, it appears to place a burden
on the developeri, a burden not shared by others. Van pool
vehicles are a viable alternative if the project is of a sufficient
size to be economically justified.
(10) Since the state appears to be unable to install a traffic
signal at the intersection of SR-167 and S.W. 43rd Street, the
applicants proposed Talbot Place should be restricted to right
turn only movements as indicated by the city' s traffic engineering
division. All parties agreed that there was a problem in this
vicinity and the state indicated that the signal was warranted
but cannot be provided at this juncture. Any additional demand
for left-turning capacity could cause serious traffic hazard.
The applicant ,should provide any additional signals required
as a result of . . .
•
' i
•
City of Renton •
September 15, 1981
Page Six
Conversations with the State of Washington (Ms. Renata Prochaska)
on September 1, 1981 indicates that the subject traffic signal
is still on the priority list with a bid advertisement for
July, 1982. The staff report outlined some funds to be paid
by the developer towards a portion of this cost and we concur '
with their report.
SUMMARY I
1
We believe this application should be approved for R-3 and R-2
subject to a maximum of 325 units . The Comprehensive Plan
calls for this zoning and we have mitigated all impacts of this
project including traffic.
The Staff Report recommends that these properties be developed
together as a P.U.D. due to their common configuration and
topographical features. This will also encourage a creative
design. ,
i
We agree that these properties be developed together but would
suggest that a restrictive covenant will achieve the same goal
especially if this document requires planning staff approval
of the final site plan. This method will shorten the approval
period by up to six months which will be in the public interest
to seek lower housing costs .
Thank you for your attention in the above matter.
.,-,. /7
11111 4. Or /AA
Ali: ,mpaughtkaillidlik
• . :1 ' Ter LENB..CH FRED BOWSER, Acting General
i Partner
4110,7
•
•
— --••...s reuerven a turns.%ocrvauon irom
es of • the federal government for 70 units. A site is still to be chosen and construct'on could not itart before the b
t new -. end of 1982 at the earliest. Bids on the Pike building go to the authority offc:at 120 Sixth Ave.N, where
-dis- plans may be obtained for$75 deposit. The official bid-advertisement published in the Aug.21 Jour-
gov- nal,page 9. , C2) •Q
'ed in - O l� .G f
vs ex_ $98 million- in highway construction . 1
Co
me projects is authorized by. state pr'
some
txical •
con- OLYMPIA ;The. State Route 16 from•12th Street to the bic
Cc
nson Trans ortation Commission this Bridge which will bypass the b
p Tacoma Narrows Bridge in Taco- • commercial area along Tacofna's
week authorized work on six ma; SR 151, the Watergrade . Sixth Ave. Construction will ka
anti- state-funded •
highway construc- Highway along the Columbia begin this fall, with completion Be
xn'i tion projects. - River from Chelan Station to • scheduled for the 1983-85 bien- S c
�ople The six projects, worth ap- Hugo; the Hamilton Street nium. $3
any„ proximately $98 million, had Bridge on State Route 240 in • SR 151, Chelan Station to Cc
originally been scheduled for Spokane; SR 500 in Vancouver Hugo, 5.17 miles at $14.6
need construction starts . during the from near 39th and V Street to million. This work will complete co
1979-81 biennium. However, de- Andresen Road; SR 515 in Ren- the final segment of a two-lane F
ums dining fuel tax'revenues forced ton between Carr Road and
em- their deferral.The work will now Watergrade route highway along gil
Drive; and, SR 516 from the ColumbiaaRiver from Chelan 99
t the
proceed with funding from- a Reith Road to SR 181,in Kent. Station north to Hugo.
d'Piesto •$225 million bond authorization . Preliminary engineering and This five-mile segment will be a 33
.for state-funded highways ap- right-of-way acquisition on the new two-lane highway on new bu
- •proved by the Legislature during projects has already- been au- alignment with connections to the fic
I re- ..its last session.The bonds will be thorized. The projects approved existing SR 151 at the south end m;
pro- supported by the 10% fuel tax. by the Transportation Commis-
lay- Action by . the commission sion are: tli
and Tuesday authorized. the Depart- SR 16, S 12th Street to Nar- the worknorth.will contrary engineer-- ce
or ment of Transportation to spend str t d for thee fallconf Ce
rows Bridge, 2.14 miles, at $22.8 struction slated for of
$37.6 million on the projects dur- million. This is a new four-lane ; 1983. Completion will come in al$
re- ing the L981-83 biennium. . highway between South 12th :the 1983-85 biennium. ne
')- • The projects include: State Street and the Tacoma Narrows • (Continued on Page 8,Column t)
• I
completeu w •••- -- -- -- •--- ,,
nium.
SR 515, Can Road to Puget
Drive, 1.17 miles,at$5.7 million.
This project will consist of con- • ,
• struction of a new four-lane
highway on new alignment from .
Can Road to Puget Drive in Ren-
ton. The roadway work will in- ,
elude construction of.curbs and
sidewalks. A pedestrian separa-
tion structure will also be built.
• Work will begin this fall, with
completion scheduled for the
1983-85 biennium. •
• SR 516, Reith Road to SR 181,
1.22 miles,at$10.7 million.Four
. .......1.:..1........inn... .... no.., ol:nn_
I
�f .rA7r
JOHN SPELLMAN ._ DUANE BERENTSON
Governor ''�i 40 Secretary
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of District Administrator • D-1,6431 Corson Ave.So., C-81410 • Seattle, Washington 98108
•
September 14, 1981
Daryl Connell
2691 - 168th Avenue S.E.
Bellevue, WA 98008
SR-167 CS 1766
Dear Mr. Connell :
Thank you for your recent letter addressing traffic problems at the
intersection of SR-167 and the S.W. 43rd Street northbound off-ramp.
Since you have already discussed this with our staff, I won' t re-
iterate the elements of the projected time schedule. As I am sure
you were told, we are also very anxious to complete this needed
project.
Very truly yours,
J. D. ZIRKLE, P.E.
District Administrator
A. ti•1. CARTER, P.E.
Traffic Operations Engineer
AW C:j k
cc: J. Olson
OF R4,,
•
�� THE CITY OF RENTON
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055
o BARBARA'. Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
9,0 co, FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593
04
7'
ED SEPI°1'
September 11 , 1981
Herman M. Allenbach
17600 Talbot Road South
Renton, Washington 98055
RE: File Nos. R-125-80 and R-135-80; Request for Reconsideration.
Dear Dr. Allenbach:
I have reviewed your request in the above entitled matter and can find no
merit in your request.
Your request presents facts which indicate that: 1) other developments in
the immediate area have been held in abeyance pending the improvement of
certain roads; and 2) that a rezone to allow greater density was denied by
the county for property located east of the subject site. Each of these
matters reflect the fact that the applicant in the instant case is not being
subjected to special treatment but that there is a growing awareness of the
traffic problems in the area. The recommendation to reclassify the subject
property to R-2 permits the applicant to make reasonable use of the property
and is reasonable in light of concerns for the public health, safety and
welfare. The request for R-3 zoning on the northerly parcel is both untimely
and inappropriate.
Your right to appeal this matter to the City Council will remain until 5:00 pm
on September 25,_ 1981 , upon expiration of the newly established appeal period.
Very truly yours,
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
cc: Fred Bowser
Parties of Record
NORTHWEST ORAL SURGERY ASSOCIATES, P.S.
.Ir ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
N. ti W. RENTON CLINIC
ORAL SURGERY 17600 TALBOT ROAD SOUTH • RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055
. 226-5 940
HEADMAN M. ALLENEACH, D.D.S., M.S.
•
Sep.emben 1, 1981 CITYROFElvED , f
HEArnNG ,NTON
AN SEP 21981
7+8+9,%n ,Ii2t�.q�5
Mn. Fned J. Kausman `s
Land Use Heaati,ng Fxam,in.en
City oi Renton
200 ate Avenue. South.
Renton, WA 98055
Dean Mn. Kausman:
P.eeaae Sind attached own nequeat Son necanaidenati.on oi yowl.
decLt,.Lan Son the nezonLng os oun. pnopext.iea (Fite #R-125-80 and
Fite #R-135-80).
We believe there have been s.ign.is.icant changes since yowl.
S.Lnd-Lngs that w.iLL be £mpontant Soh you to evacuate .in rezoning
own pnapenty to R7'3 and R-2 ne4pectsu.2ey.
S.incexeey,
, 7 i ( /1,eII L
fM r , torch Fned Bawler, Acting Genena.e Pantnen
•
Re: File #R-125-80 & R-135-80
Applicant: Herman Allenbach & Lucky Seven Investments
Location: West Side of Talbot Rd. S. , 1000 feet
south of S.W. 43rd Street
West Side of Talbot Rd. S. , 1/4 mile
south of S.W. 43rd Street
In accordance with Title IV, Section 3015 of the City 's
Code, we are rbquesting reconsideration of the above decision.
The request for reconsideration is based on new evidence and
errors of fact.
•
NEW EVIDENCE
First, on August 31, 1981 the Washington State Highway
Department, District 1 (Mr. John Klasell , P.E .) was notified
by headquarters administration that the "date for construction
bid advertisement" for the reconstruction of SR-515 from
Carr Road to Puget Drive had been fixed for October 19,
1981 . Further, that $5.7 million had been obligated for
the project which would include "new construction on a new
alignment" with a completion date scheduled for the spring
of 1983.
Second, in addition, the Washington State Department of
Transportation, District 1, has assigned Mr. Tom Brown, P.E.
the duties of "location engineer" with respect to the pre-
liminary engineering and design of the S. 212th Street
interchange on SR-167. Money has been allocated for this
specific purpose. Probable construction is expected in the
1984-86 biennium.
Third, the traffic signal at the intersection of SR-167 and
S.W. 43rd Street is recognized by the Washington State
Department of Transportation and appears as a "line item" in
their "priority program" . In other words, the need for the
traffic signal has been recognized by its placement within
the priority program system. Changing conditions such as
increased traffic volumes will raise the priority although,
at the present time, signalization is not expected before
July, 1982 .
ERRORS IN FINDINGS
11. SR-515, which the state proposed construction between
Carr Road and Puget Drive, is unfunded and is not
expected to be constructed within the near future. . .
This is incorrect, the project has been funded and a contract
will be advertised on October 19, 1981 .
•
14. The LOS on S.W. 43rd Street is adverse today. . .
Neither the loop ramp nor a traffic signal are
immediately contemplated by the state in the current
funding climate.
This is incorrect, the Washington State Department of
Transportation recognizes the need of the traffic signal
and has placed this within their priority program which is
the fundamental document for budgetary considerations.
15. The intersection of Rainier Avenue South and S.W. Grady
Way is at capacity and would be expected to provide a
link to employment areas north of the subject site in
Bellevue or Seattle. It would serve as an alternative
to SR-156/I-405.
This is incorrect. SR-156 is not in the immediate area. Also,
the forthcoming construction of SR-515 provides an opportunity
for bypassing the subject intersection.
18. 'The city's traffic engineer disputed the historic growth
figures which provide for background traffic growth not
attributed to specific projects such as the subject
proposal .
The difference would amount to approximately 4 ,100
vehicles per day on S.W. 43rd Street between Talbot
Road South and SR-167 . The amount is calculated on
the applicant's figure of 3% compound growth versus
the city's figure of 6% compound growth.
This is incorrect. The original traffic report prepared by
the consultant 's traffic ' engineer (Chrisopher Brown, P.E .)
utilized an annual growth of 1.15%/year derived from exam-
ination of data generated by the permanent count station
operated by the Washington State Department of Transportation.
At the request of the City of Renton, City Traffic Engineer,
made at a meeting attended by Gary Norris, Daryl Connell ,
David Clemens, and Christopher Brown, on March 16, 1981 the
annual compound growth rate was defined as "3% per year" for
the city. Never has the City of Renton suggested a "figure
of 6% compound growth" . This is a significant error that
should be corrected because it improperly suggests a dif-
ference in growth rates by the applic ant,'s traffic engineer
against the city's traffic engineer when, in fact, both
traffic engineers used the same growth rate and the c ty' s
traffic engineer has repeatedly testified that the mitigating
measures are acceptable. The 3% per year rate was requested
by none other than the City of Renton.
21. The applicant proposes creating a roadway, Talbot Place, "
just east of SR-167 and west of Talbot Road which would
intersect with S.W. 43rd Street. The roadway would serve
as a primary access for the two subject properties and
a northerly P-1 property.
This is incorrect. The proposed Talbot Place would not
necessarily be the primary access for the two subject
properties. Indeed, Figure 4 of the traffic report entitled
1982-83 Directional Design Hourly Volumes, noted in our letter
dated July 16, 1981 shows some ten vehicles per hour using
Talbot Place against 217 vehicles per hour using an access.
from Talbot Road South. The influence of Talbot Place is
delimited in this figure since turn restrictions have been
assumed.
CONCLUS IONS
1. The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the
request is in the public interest and will not impare
the public health, safety and welfare. . .
The proposed development is in the public interest in that
it provides for increased housing opportunities within an
incorporated community which, in turn, will reduce the need
for housing in the more distant and unincorporated portions
of the county. This, in turn, reduces travel demands, reduces
energy consumption, reduces opportunities for traffic accidents
due to increased travel distances, and provides for housing
units more centrally located to job opportunities as well as
retail-social-recreational centers. Decreasing the intensity
of development will inhibit opportunities for on-site rec-
reational systems and preclude the full and potential populace
from participating in and partaking of work, shopping, and
recreational opportunities within the City of Renton and its
immediate environs.
Obviously, the demonstration of R-2 and R-3 zoning rather
than solely R-2 as recommended by the hearing examiner is in
keeping with other agencies such as City of Seattle and King
County who are attempting to "in-fill" properties presently
situated to major urban centers.
2. While the applicant has demonstrated that the map
element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the areas
in which the two parcels are located are suitable for
the development of medium density multi-family dwellings. . . ,
the problems of traffic congestion and solutions to such
problems presented the major issues.
And while the Planning Department indicated the city has
no control over growth outside of its boundaries in this
area, and in addition, little or no say in growth issues
beyond its boundaries, the city officials cannot beg
the questions raised by the continuing deterioration in
the levels of service on the various roads servicing
this area. The major issues of traffic congestion must
be confronted. Decreasing the development level will
decrease demands on the roads.
We would suggest that while the "map element does not stand
alone" , we believe that to assume "the traffic issues must
override the map" is totally erroneous. Improvements in the
arterial and highway network must be based on some document
and the Comprehensive Plan is such a document. The very
nature of forecasting future traffic which in the subject
property was based on a worst case analysis does not make
the traffic issue sufficient to override the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The hearing examiner must surely understand that the traffic
report was based on the worst possible case, that future
traffic forecasts were not delimited by virtue of transit
and high occupancy vehicle uses including commuter pool and
van pooling, and in fact did not consider (in developing
traffic forecasts) the present moritorium on developments to
the east of the project including Fairwood Division 7 and
Carriage Wood. These developments, for example, have been
held in abeyance pending improvements to Petrovitsky Road.
Thus, to reiterate, even though the traffic elements were
e
ase, these
ng
considered were found acceptable t ltoccity staff and m capable
measuuress
of being fully implemented.
We disagree that "city officials cannot beg the questions"
on deteriorating levels of service since the city has, through
various traffic signal timing stategies, every opportunity
enhance levels of service by implementing alternative signal
timing strategies which, at the least would inhibit vehicles
from entering the city. This type of control strategy, the
examiner may note, is about to be tested on Interstate 5.
Fundamentally, it suggests that you can limit the number of
vehicles entering a particular corridor and thereby improve
the Level of Service. For the moment, this technique has not
been explored beyond the discussion stage. Of course, it is
recognized that this is a policy decision which would need to
be addressed by the city council.
s
•
First, we have been unable to identify "Fernwood 7" .
Probably, the hearing examiner means Fairwood 7. Similarly,
the project further east is not Doan, it is Daon.
With respect to Fairwood 7 please note that the Fairwood 7
project is in a de facto moritorium status pending improve-
ments on Petrovitsky Road. Thus , while the development
has been approved, it cannot proceed until Petrovitsky Road
has been improved.
Next, the Daon organization was attempting to rezone a
substantial portion of the area lying to the east of Carriage
Wood from one D.U./5 acres to one D.U./acre. This attempt
has failed. Thus, there is little doubt, due to moritoriums
in King County; that this particular project "will dominate
the housing markets" so that the hearing examinerg assessment
is wrong.
With respect to changes in peak hour demand, we acknowledge
that "forty vehicles in only a small decrease" . As discussed
earlier, this is not a measureable amount and would therefore
have no significance in terms of improving roadway capacity.
6. Further reduction in peak hour traffic could he realized
if the applicant provided three van pool vehicles as an
initial asset to the Homeowners Association. Each vehicle
would be capable of providing transportation to about ten
to twelve individuals
To recommend the provision of van pool vehicles to the
Homeowners Association and, at the same time, suggests the
delimitation of density cannot be balanced. Also, it appears
to place a burden on the developer, a burden not shared by
others.
10. Since the state appears to be unable to install a traffic
signal at the intersection of SR-167 and S.W. 43rd Street,
the applicants proposed Talbot Place should be restricted
to right turn only movements as indicated by the city's
traffic engineering division. All parties agreed that
there was a problem in this vicinity and the state
indicated that the signal was warranted but cannot be
provided at this juncture. . Any additional demand for
left-turning capacity could cause serious traffic hazard.
The applicant should provide any additional signals
required as a result of
Conversations with the State of Washington (Ms. Renata Prochaska)
on September 1, 1981 indicates that the subject traffic signal
is still on the priority list with a potential bid advertisement
for July, 1982 . This date could be accellerated if the
developer would offer assistance in terms of funding.
Accordingly, it is incorrect to note that, "the state appears
to be unable to install a traffic signal. . . " This is a
perception on behalf of the hearing examiner, a perception
not shared by the Washington State Department of Transportation.
RECOMMENDATION
The hearing examiner recommends that, "The city council
should reclassify both the northern and southern parcels
to R-2 subject to the following conditions : . . .
In conclusion, we would like to point out to the hearing
examiner that traffic reports reflect all of the parameters
requested by the traffic engineer of the City of Renton, has
met all of the requirements of the ERC, contains mitigating
measures sufficient for mitigating all of the adverse
consequences occasioned by the development within the area
of incluence defined by the Department of Public Works, and
in view of the forthcoming work by the Washington State
Department of Transportation attendant to the improvement of
SR-515 should be approved, as originally requested.
We believe that the above errors in findings, conclusions,
and errors of fact particularly with respect to the imposition
of mitigating measures without similar measures required of
others, mandates the reconsideration by the hearing examiner.
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 19th day of August , 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 VA - day of A cvj S{ , 19 gti .
Notary Public in and for the State,{�- of
Washington, residing at �e?.n\ovi
Application, Petition or Case: Best/Bowser; R-125-80, R-135-80
(The minuwe4 contain a list of the pa ti.e4 o4 n.econd. )
4
August 19, 1981
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL.
APPLICANT: David Best/Daryl Connell FILE NO. R-125-80
Fred Bowser R-135-80
LOCATION: West side of Talbot Road South approximately 1 ,000 square feet
south of S.W. 43rd Street (Best) ; west side of Talbot Road
South approximately one-fourth mile south of S.W. 43rd Street
(Bowser) .
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant requests a rezone of the subject site from G to
R-3 for purposes of future multiple family development (Best) .
The applicant requests a rezone of the subject site from G to
R-2 for the purpose of future multiple family development (Bowser) .
SUMMARY OF Planning Department: (Best) Approval with conditions..
RECOMMENDATION: (Bowser) Approval with restrictive covenants..
Hearing Examiner: Approval of both properties to R-2 with
restrictive covenants.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department preliminary report was received by the
REPORT: Examiner on June 4, 1981 .
MINUTES OF PUBLIC Upon dismissal with prejudice by the Examiner, the minutes of
HEARING: • the public hearings were published and mailed to all parties of
record on July 28, 1981 .
HISTORICAL REVIEW: The publication of this report follows a complex procedural life.
The items were heard separately at the original public hearing,
but the record of each was incorporated by reference in the other
in order to avoid repetitious testimony concerning the two
adjacent parcels. The matters were then reopened for the taking
of additional testimony. During the period of review which
followed, the owner of one of the parcels withdrew the item
from consideration. At that point both items were dismissed
simultaneously since they had been constantly referred to as a .
joint proposal , coordinated by one representative/agent and
evaluated for all purposes as one item.
The applicant then requested reconsideration of the joint
dismissal , again submitting the applications for joint
consideration. Upon reconsideration of the dismissal , it was
determined that issuing the report at this time would be more
expeditious and serve the public interest than holding new
hearings in one year.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the
Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
The traffic report and analysis, as well as most of the testimony and exhibits reflected
the close association between the reclassification of the Best and Bowser properties; and
therefore one report was drafted to reflect that association. The applicants' representative
indicated development of the subject parcels would be coordinated, and referred to the
simultaneous development of these two parcels and some portions of the proposed P-1 property
of One Valley Place (File No. R-047-81) as Phase I . The unity of the properties was
therefore maintained for the report.
1 . The request is for -approval of reclassifications of two adjoining properties. The
southerly property is approximately 8.48 and the request is for a change from G (General ;'
Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size - 35,000 square feet) to R-2 (Duplex ,
Residential) . The northerly parcel is approximately 8.71 acres and the request 'is
for a change from G to R-3 (Medium Density Multifamily Residential ) .
2. The application files containing the applications, SEPA documentation, the Planning
Department reports, and other pertinent documents was entered into the record.
R-125-80, R-135-80 Page Two
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 proposed reclassifications by the Environmental Review Committee,
responsible official .
• I
4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the
impact of this development.
5. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity.
6. _The subject property is located on the west side of Talbot Road South about one-fourth
mile south of S.W. 43rd Street.
7. The sites are similar topographically and rise from west to east at an approximately
9 to 10% slope. Vegetation consists of predominantly scrub grass and blackberries
with some scattered alder and cottonwood. The sites are generally undeveloped with
a single family home located at the south end of the southerly site.
8. The area surrounding the subject sites is developed with predominantly scattered
single family uses to the east and south. SR-167 is located immediately west of the
property and forms the western boundary of the sites'. North of the northern property
is about 11 .7 acres of land which has been recommended for reclassification to P-1
(Public/Quasi-Public) by the Hearing Examiner. Access to the residential- property
would be via the proposed P-1 parcel .
Further to the north is the Valley General Hospital and various clinics are north and
east of the hospital .
9. The Comprehensive Plan amendment of the southeast quadrant designates the area in
which the subject property is located as suitable for the development of low density
and medium density multifamily dwellings.
10. The Comprehensive Plan, at pages 11-18, also indicates that the Talbot Road
intersection with Carr Road (S.W. 43rd Street) experienced unstable traffic flows;
that is, that peak hour traffic was exceeding capacity. This statement was drafted
in 1979, and conditions have not improved greatly since that time.
These conditions were attributed to the fact that these were rural roads which were
not designed for the level of development which had occurred in the area.
At page 11-21 the Comprehensive Plan indicates that without improved capacity, the
road networks will be strained by any extra load. In that plan, Talbot Road is
designated as a community arterial which would have a right-of-way of from two to
four lanes and having a width of from 60 to 84 feet. Talbot Road north of the
hospital is two lanes wide and there are no foreseeable plans for widening that
roadway.
11 . SR-515, which the state proposed construction between Carr Road and Puget Drive, is
unfunded and not expected to be constructed within the near future (letter to Mayor,
March 20, 1981 , from Department of Transportation, J.D. Zirkle) . The Traffic
Engineering Department indicated that as of July 20, 1981 , the situation is unchanged.
12. From 1974 to 1978 there was a 46% increase in average daily traffic volumes on
S.W. 43rd Street between Talbot Road South and SR-167. There was another nine percent
increase between 1978 and May of 1981 .
Between Benson Road and Talbot Road there has been an increase of almost 6,000
vehicle trips per day since 1978.
An increase of about 9,000 vehicle trips per day has been experienced on SR-167 north
of S.W. 43rd Street. And approximately the same increase was experienced on SR-167
south of S.W. 43rd Street. (Traffic counts from the Environmental Impact Statement
prepared for the Southeast Quadrant Comprehensive Plan and the Christopher Brown
Traffic Reports, Exhibit #8.')
13. The traffic report did not attempt to provide analysis for traffic data for 1-405.
The Level of Service on 1-405 is approaching LOS F, which is the worst calculable
level of service, meaning that when the traffic moves, it moves at stops and starts.
14. The LOS on S.W. 43rd Street is adverse today with an LOS of D/E and expected LOS of
F by 1985 if a loop ramp (which would avoid left turn movements across opposing
traffic) is not constructed by the state. Neither the loop ramp nor a traffic signal
are immediately contemplated by the state in the current funding climate.
R-125-80, R-135-80 . Page Three
15. The intersection at Rainier Avenue S, and S.W. Grady Way is at capacity and would be
expected to provide a link to employment areas north of the subject site in Bellevue
or Seattle. It would serve as an alternative to SR-156/I-405.
16. The Environmental Review Committee has assessed a mitigation fee of $15.00 per vehicle
trip (approximately 2,000 trips; see below) . The minimum improvements required in the
vicinity of the hospital amount to $200,000, .broken down as follows: signal/lane
modification at S.W. 43rd and Talbot Road - $50,000; signal at SR-167 and S.W. 43rd -
$110,000; and widening of S.W. 43rd at hospital - $40,000. The mitigation fee would
provide 13% of the total cost, or about $30,000.
17. An additional signal at the proposed intersection of S.W. 43rd and TalbotPlace would
cost approximatley another $100,000. This intersection's need would be entirely
attributable to the applicant.
The loop ramp cost was not estimated but would be a state sponsored project as is
the proposed signal at SR-167 and S.W. 43rd Street. As is indicated above these
projects remain unfunded.
18. The city's Traffic Engineer disputed the historic growth figures which provide for
background traffic growth not attributed to specific projects such as the subject
proposal .
The difference would amount to approximately 4,100 vehicles per day on S.W. 43rd
Street between Talbot Road. S. and SR-167. The amount is calculated on the applicant's
figure of 3% compounded growth versus the city's figure of 6% compounded growth.
19. The applicant proposes. developing the subject sites as an integrated Planned Unit
Development (PUD) . Both parcels would be developed simultaneously as one large
complex.
Developed to full density, the proposed R-2 property would permit the development of
approximately 85 units. The applicant has proposed to construct less units in a
proposed PUD and reserve greenbelt areas on the western perimeter of the site adjacent
to SR-167.
Developed to full density, the impacts on the schools would be an increase of some
21 students (about .25 student per unit) . There would be an increase in the population
of the city of some 210 people (2.5 per unit) . The increase in traffic could be 520
trips per day (6. 1 per unit) .
20. About 8.71 acres of proposed R-3 property to the north would be developed as part
of the PUD, and the total units permitted would be about 260 units if developed to
full potential . This would increase the population by about 650 persons (2.5/unit) .
There would be about an additional 65 students (.25/unit) . The average vehicle
count would increase by about 1 ,585 trips per day (6. 1/unit) .
The PUD proposed by the applicant will provide 325 units instead of 345 units (85 on
the R-2 portion of the property together with the 260 units on the R-3 portion) . The
population increase would therefore be about 812 people; the student population would
increase by about 81 students; and the daily vehicle trips would increase by about
1 ,983 trips per day. Approximately 10% of these trips would be associated with each
of the peak hour traffic periods.
21 . The applicant proposes creating a roadway, Talbot Place, just east of SR-167 and west
of Talbot Road which would intersect with S.W. 43rd Street. The roadway would serve
as a primary access for the two subject properties and the northerly P-1 property..
The Traffic Engineering Division indicated that left turns should not be permitted
from the proposed Talbot Place onto S.W. 43rd Street. Such movements would interfere
with vehicles entering onto or exiting off of SR-167 and increase accident potential .
If such movements are permitted, then a traffic signal would provide a better means
of controlling such movements and the costs of same should be borne by the applicant.
22. The parks and other recreational facilities in the area surrounding the subject
properties are limited. The Planning Department indicated that the Valley General
Hospital grounds could provide for some recreational needs. Talbot Hill Park is one-&
one-half miles north and meets limited recreational needs. The ERC imposed a
mitigation fee of $150 per unit for a total of about $49,000 for 325 units. This
amount will not provide many recreational amenities.
23. Methods of reducing traffic congestion were outlined by both the applicant's traffic
consultant and the city staff. Modifications of signal timing and turning lane
configurations were suggested for the Talbot Road and S.W. 43rd Street intersection;
permitting versus prohibiting left turns from the proposed Talbot Place onto S.W. 43rd
R-135-80, R-135-80 Page Four
Street; the placement of a signal at and/or reconstruction of the exits and entrances
from SR-167 as a cloverleaf; the availability of Metro service to the subject area;
and the use of' vanpooling to decrease the number of single occupancy vehicles.
Some of these methods may be achieved by the city with the applicant's cooperation
and/or participation; some must be implemented by the state; and some may be provided
solely by the applicant.
CONCLUSIONS:
1 . The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest
and will not impair the public health, safety and welfare in addition to compliance
with at least one of the three criteria listed in Section 4-3014 which provides in
part that:
a. The subject site has not been considered in a previous area-wide rezone or land
use analysis; or
b. The subject site is potentially designated for the new classification per the
Comprehensive Plan; or
c. There has been material and substantial change in the circumstances in the area
in which the subject site is located since the last rezoning of the property or
area.
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the parcels should be reclassified to
R-2 and R-3, respectively; instead, both parcels should be reclassified to R-2.
2. While the applicant has demonstrated that the map element of the Comprehensive Plan
designates the areas in which the two parcels are located are suitable for the
development of medium density multifamily dwellings (the northerly parcel) and low
density multifamily dwellings (the southerly parcel ) , the problems of traffic
congestion and solutions to such problems presented the major issues. And since the
map element does not stand alone, the traffic issues must override the map. The
Comprehensive Plan also indicates (Finding No. 10) that the roadways in this area
were not intended for the levels of use now occurring or the levels of use anticipated
to be generated by this and other development south and east of the subject site. The
roadways were already at capacity in 1979.
And while the Planning Department indicated the city has no control over growth
outside of its boundaries in this area, and in addition, little or no say in growth
issues beyond its boundaries, the city officials cannot beg the questions raised by
the continuing deterioration in the levels of service on the various roads servicing
this area. The major issue of traffic congestion must be confronted. Decreasing
the development level will decrease demands on the roads.
3. Based on the record, the roads and traffic signals in the immediate area may be
made to serve some amounts of additional growth by some alterations in signal timing
and turning lane configurations. Other roads and intersections such as I'-405 and
Rainier/Grady Way intersection are at capacity and cannot reasonably carry additional
burdens without lengthening the peak hour flow or causing diversion of traffic onto
other local streets which are not generally favored for arterial use and cannot
accommodate higher levels of use.
4. The applicant's argument that the percentage increase on 1-405 generated by the subject
proposals is predictably small is not persuasive. Even the small increase on a roadway
with little or no additional capacity cannot be ignored. Each additional proposal
such as the subject proposal only causes a miniscule increase in proportion to the load
now carried, but each is causing a new, small incremental decrease in service. The
level of service on 1-405 has been conceded by the applicant's traffic engineer as
generally at E and more often. F. F is the lowest level of service and it indicates
an interrupted traffic flow. The traffic generated by the subject proposal will
further impair this already poor level of service. It will also. help to lengthen
the peak hour flow of "stop or start" service, and will cause people to use alternative
roadways.
Therefore, in order to mitigate the impacts of the potential traffic on the area-wide
network of roads, the proposal should be scaled down.
5. The statement of the May Traffic Report, page 5 (subtitled, Residential Sector) , that
the subject residential development will dominate the housing market is incorrect. The
Springbrook development is proposed just northeast of the site, Fernwood 7 is underway,
and there is the potential development by the Doan organization further east.
Therefore, in order to mitigate each of these project's effects on traffic, the
precedent to scale down development intensity should begin now. So should the effort
R-125-80, R-135-80 Page Five
to decrease the number of single occupancy vehicles.
Reducing the classification from R-3 on the northerly 8.71 acres to R-2 would reduce
the potential units for the entire project to about 170.and reduce the number of trips
from almost 2,000 per day to just over 1 ,000. The peak hour traffic would be reduced
accordingly by about 40 vehicles. While 40 vehicles is only a small decrease, it is
better than the corresponding increase on a roadway system which is already over design
capacity.
6. Further reduction in the peak. hour.'traffic could be realized if the applicant provided
three van pool vehicles. as an initial asset to the homeowners' association. Each
vehicle would be capable of providing transportation to about 10 to 12 individuals.
The development itself would not have to provide the total ridership. Other
developments in the area will also be generating commuters such as the Springbrook
development. The effects of such vanpooling could remove another 30 to 40 single
occupancy vehicles from the system. The applicant should coordinate any effort in
this direction with the commuter pool organizations of this area.
7. 'The reclassification to R-2 of the two parcels would be compatible with the other
elements of the Comprehensive Plan including the map element. The creation of low
density multifamily dwellings woul.d provide a reasonable transition between the P-1
(Public/Quasi-Public) zoning and proposed PUD for the northerly properties and the
low density single family uses located south and east of the subject site. The single
family uses would be buffered by the R-2 uses (Policy Element 4.C.4) from these more
intense uses.
8. The less intense developments would also lessen the impact on the park and recreational
facilities which are limited in this area. The grounds of the hospital cannot really
provide recreational outlets as such hospital areas are generally required to be
quiet, and further, hospital expansion may decrease open space on the hospital grounds.
9. To conclude, the City Council should approve the reclassification of the two parcels
to R-2 in order to mitigate to some extent the impacts of this proposal and other
anticipated projects on the strained roads in the immediate vicinity and to lessen
the impact of the proposal on the severely overused highway systems of 1-405 and
Rainier/Grady Way north of the project. R-2 will allow a reasonable use of the
property and will have a less deleterious effect on various public services in the
area.
10. Since the state appears to be unable to install a traffic signal at the intersection
of SR-167 and S.W. 43rd Street, the applicant's proposed Talbot Place should be
restricted to right turn only movements' as indicated by the city's Traffic Engineering
Division. All parties agreed that there was a problem in this vicinity and the state
indicated that a signal was warranted but cannot be provided at this juncture. Any
additional demand for left turning capacity could cause serious traffic hazards.
The applicant should provide any additional signals required as a result of any of
its activities. If a signal becomes warranted on Talbot Road at the intersection of
the project 's access road, costs of such signal should be borne by the applicant as
should the cost of any signal erected at the Talbot Place and S.W. 43rd Street
intersection. Such requirements should be included within any homeowners' association
covenants.
11 . The subject properties should be developed as a PUD and covenants filed to reflect
such requirements. Coordinated development was reflected in the applicant's traffic
analysis, illustrative site plan, and internal circulation pattern. Coordinated
development would limit the access driveways onto Talbot Road and thereby increase
the safety due to limited access and help maintain the rural character of the area.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council should reclassify both the northern and southern parcels to R-2 subject
to the following conditions:
1. Development of the two parcels as a PUD reflecting the common circulation and access
patterns exemplified in Exhibit # 3 (File No. R-125-80) . -
2. The provision of three van pool vehicles to the homeowners' association and the provision
of a maintenance fund for same in homeowners' association covenants.
3. Coordination of vanpooling with the commuter pool organization.
4. Full cost responsibility for the installation of any traffic control device or lane
configuration necessary at the intersection of Tal.bot Place and S.W. 43rd Street.
•
R-125-80, __-135-80 Page Six
5. Full cost responsibility for any traffic control device or lane modifications or
roadway expansion at the intersection of access roads to the subject properties from
Talbot Road S.
6. Covenants drafted to reflect the above required conditions.
ORDERED THIS 19th day of August, 1981 .
17-Cs..91(00'
Land Use aring xaminer
TRANSMITTED THIS 19th day of August, 1981 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties
of record:
Don Lochner, 3540 128th Avenue S.E. , Bellevue, WA 98006
Daryl Connell , 2691 168th Avenue S.E. , Bellevue, WA 98008
Thomas Emrich, Mithun Associates, Architects, 2000 112th N.E. ,
Bellevue, WA 98004
Doravin Wilson, 720 .S. 55th Street, Renton, WA 98055
Nancy Purcell , M.D. , 10006 S.E. 192nd, Renton, WA 98055
Grover Shegrud, 4518 Talbot Road S. , Renton, WA 98055
Christopher Brown, 9688 Rainier Avenue S. , Seattle, WA 98118
Douglas L. Morell , D.M.D. , 1015 Houser Way S. , Renton, WA 98055
Vincent Ferrese, Mithun Associates, Architects, 2000 112th N.E. ,
Bellevue, WA 98004
Robert Page, 4907 Talbot Road S. , Renton, WA 98055
Roy Fournier, 4700 Talbot Road S. , Renton, WA 98055
Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer, City of Renton
Lt. Don Persson, Renton Police Department
Ronda Johnson, 17818 98th S. , Renton, WA 98055
Mike Cvitkovic, Valley General Hospital , 400 S. 43rd St. ,
Renton, WA 98055
Fred Bowser, 22737 72nd Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98031
Ellyn Sylvia, c/o Wallace & Wheeler, 12433 Bellevue-Redmond Road,
Suite E, Building A, Bellevue, WA 98005
TRANSMITTED THIS 19th day of August, 1981 to the following:
Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch
Councilman Richard M. Stredicke
Richard Houghton, Acting Public Works Director
David Clemens, Acting Planning Director
Michael Porter, Planning Commission Chairman
Barbara Schellert, Planning Commissioner
Ron Nelson, Building Official
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must
be filed in writing on or before September 2, 1981 . Any aggrieved person feeling that
the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous..procedure, errors or law or fact, error
in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at
the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen
(14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the
specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the
record, take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that
such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting
other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in
the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall , or same may be purchased at cost in
said department.
t3a .^un
,
0 ,: "• ='' - FRED BOWSER REZONE - R-135-80
:V r.- •
.•'xo
•
11*
..
____
1 . -. .±4ort . j7L0TLt1— -
. 43rd Ave.-- -- - - — / ^• _ !
_______Y
f , /
ti fl
- j
1 • cc
1fff2 '
ro
// I h• —
!I/ , I IIIJj j�
ii
/441
- 1UI# j
II f —_
i
/ Ill
;/ / y,
./... : ./ I li,,,,,i / /e..,4,.. j
i ff 1,4 _ ,i
• • , . rff . 1 . , , i ,r( ,=__41. -- ,''. --* - •
•
c L.,• _ ,.1 '
•
4 , / j‘e i ril II.1110 j-- r
ti(": At (‘Ii I i • / -_:_—:4.-
re;-,,,-7 ____ 11 1 i' .y*7 ./ -.
- ) ii is .i 7., ____...--_-- ,
�• l _1 ....s..r0 ;*•• hit rJ 1 I`1 •rw W r V.....-•. '741 Th.......,W ,r�/1 II - .� -
I I II -- -R: 1: !1. 1' -,- Ny '� -—•}gljT�1 Jii 11llll
/ . ,- : Lo ..=.----Q••• ;.,..WIT' a ii-r. ,..,,,.„. I -•• truce: .
-,ei: " u • Ni n...'. kgI•`T- '{:•i .�-...-1 •iV'- •r....++..r :- ..-r...W' I)
r
• ' 1 . - - '- n I 3 1. `.� �. —^-r1•� 1I 1,'._
�III // I i rr .' i : e..r-:0 I! T. s- .! ___ - '--- �f)11
• •� 1 �' •111 i ` t:
d .�
�. ,z. r;{a4 5 4°x `.^' -,'a4,,,4�4r'Xa- ..i -s T;:'1 rt4�', a'•5�, 1:.,Yr•';"7.,,ta ;_
r.
r ., x '"' t '4 "a •frL�'' "F^'�gi 1 ;r.. �4 Yhh..,,:,(::�'? III
,2 J., -�,7. 'C-ia,r.t.%0'.. 1 4v_�.:rA i r In44;i 1 N w. r a
A. Gm •` a `hz"�upl (.� :`'e .,„ ,_,t •o _
� _. �r\ „� �.� �I � f;.��f-1 � s rs:��. �:�0': �:
in .
F . ' - ,e�o�x,•:,';: t;,4rr a::to t?,-.4- ... J\ ,ra x;. 1
i, �! ; b,,t 1PCL,+• ,f,..�1,14, %,d,.ft '.?`;' Y f is ' �s' �.--C.kt.i.t,5b,r'".
.17:k.-'Ci=.''..'� ';'. Yi,n:c3�px. "' c�}�;5t��.e;'�rl'1'M x�:;.• ...tur4:Y,•vtir' t• ":ta:�'.:y M�2•�'E7.,'.s�=�f,`' •a�%.tw �a•�'A" 's^ i
el-ni
f.'X' r;�P '� �.t:dt..r..�r1r ,. ,1if^sa�,S o .+_`t'`4 y,,"'.as r.E.p�t-+ 4.` ''. - d.'�:�.;1`syr' 'fr` 4j'.>'"1wv'-'i�;
'c.-y8 ; riii� .dc -7 •.a+4`.';;,y T 5 Y y f.•Y Z?,:" Yf; n... s T:t'A r y.,1 ^ f0.. .'� `t•tt- ')T-r r YTs' -•!'.y- .cr<7rs'• 'Fs1•0+.4 .:: ` ta'r: ._ �; ty�4.:',P, ill `"1
I _ f • - 1R1 r
(�::a°;1L
A uou� .rti�� n _ ;.li 0
•
0
DAVI 1EST RE ZONE R-125-80 " to. R-3
..•
. •
. •
•
, .
• .....0 .. . .4 .
•' . .
0 -- Nort _ . •
•
• .•
. •
• • •
. VALLEY, GENE—RAL____
HOS• ,PilTg. . ._ _ .• -
p
.
_
•
I .
,.
• , ..."
r-e , e , • -. .•••••-'4"..
--- I ....•
.....- , ,..-- • A
• • ,
gra vo,1+1 ,,,-.M."V":..ttr,... • \`‘....-4-_._....7:-::-s--- .
'c rd, Avo. _ . :,, , i I (
• • .
— —
--.........
1 r
,
/
ITI i
sir.,., e...H
/
...i
iv .....,.
v.........,.. .,...
. . .).... , ...1 c , ..e.vit. ..
... ... I 1
/;,. /, I,G. /,....., v .:. , ..
if IIII) /
1 .... ,......1
ale 0/
Okt •IN
/ ../.... , 1.
i f
. ify mitiiirs.,,, 114
. 1 ,
lir .
I ii....
eit: si /If
it .
1 :•il 4 4/ wee...ne
.
/ ...r:
•;is ,,,, it.
1 f 11
WWII
/ :I .4:11 - c't l't (( Air
---
,...,0. „:„.,,,,,,,..1...,.......„..,........„„.....,„ ,...,„
11)
' I
read
.
i t / 0 j Q--11 4 Comig.,1701.4 7,...p int air
to
,
... -Tim,.....e.p.7111110M, . . a I • 1 r
/ r r-
.... .4, anlm - t. IN wain unummisis
a • I I 'I—
:7--
....,„_/i• \....lit
/ . .
Ph)id tt,
1 ,111
...o. •f• .,..,2( '71 •
11 i I 1
i t _ill.tt.,. 1• •,.-i,,.•4 47' '....J .t. . '' ' --.. - li ' \••••-• ..... .. \
,‘ f?' '-'1"If eA:` . :''. ',fp''Al k,"e., v:';i4,-.1',1,1./iiktv',..,tefe4i-,' q?...V.,.',.....; fiq•(,* 4,1t;'!' r-,,';‘-i,:,..„itt,,,,, .„,.0..,,, • .., ...... _ _
. ,,,ftp r,% n 11/5. ''.'1". .4.1...ess...•.11,?.• • ;42Wr;S.Y.:';'`.'W iill.'.. '-,a 1.a , .4:45e4i:. ki '4...lit '/ . ),I '..,', •
14+,1,•' ' la r li44,itiitkite;i , ' '‘lAt,„,,'P‘t*iq.1.*V4.414;0,Varilii fp 4:01404744''.•44.:'4 V11,:;7:V;41 0' ti''',‘.14.. . -
• •• '3.- 4:,014)i i:,7 -14,,le,t'beik"44:Pi 44.,it;7; P•444Mrg•Wgiv.:••tteV.144;1$, f%iTA,44.7,S,1-1,14:01,,k,}7;$'.c`l:;,
/
i
''4&Cif ti4TIV''' '1S41111 ,i4.''V-illte4AAAY5144f41141F;Ki itlirlW•V *40:"g-1:1 :1 1111
• ' -1;'',V,'• ?t' '.71.4...-kf.,-,4,c;' '9- ,..„:1. 1•tta, C•ign-A-ViVti 7.'s':* .,:pikIkk44t,tiptfirri .4 At..'1.',71, *
15441 .'61.*,..k:;•;.Xi::. ..Z:,A On ' ' w..Ltiti' •, .v>..*'14%...' At t,;ts.4,4 z. it:','ct.;'•V: '7AY--' ,i' . ' '.'"' .3. 11 '.V.
kiv:‘, .,i,.,;,..),..!•,ip,,,,t,..,.5i.FA.,, tg.,, . 4:.,... t5 -'I,•ciy Iv t,-•,•,•‘: .9: iti,,,-'Jr k: ii. ii..4.!„ i,-,...... - , .f0,r4,14-1.' • l'uccr 1111 '
I ..,
,i4... .,ip ,•:,1,..4.4 -7-4,..H.ii.... ct. .. .4‘...,•1.-4M-..41,1r.'...,-01„.tz +1,11 lk: 01,41i . ,- „ 4 r _v_ri.,•,,i,:je•.::
xt,..., : . 7x.k loc..: •{, v•,..,-;?,,,,r,„-..; • 0.r. k5g,..3••••• -•, ; A; .:Pil• 3„li ,I; v,,,,..,,,, ,:, . .... .........-. ..... .
i...,"°'''.:`,41.• S.::1De.‘'Ir-.Itpri''vkl...-.A.,1"-"1...--t-49'.24,J11,41.'.* '.:PiOrs',i'.--k...-rk:i.'ig: 7,4,‘4';4 e'V‘tk.,''C. k‘'S'l .7-.'1,,'7411,'1':1' t
'11. ‘*1'I" 51.elittigliN V>‘Nit(WV't:04 1)!qt.*i tte4-741041# VIUateiNe\4411 4''!'' .
10 •
— •- •
it-21s.'4.,‘1?:314t1; . .•••••V‘J, IP f."4:. ''1?fn.!'" 7 Frt:*,,44-',Sii4d.A.*!. .1.1.:::*-.14V6*:4,1':, 1,44..Aqi4.1(.4747',;; •rkitqlq41.4tKr;I::' ;:ltiemY't.. .7.;•".. .Iri,'.1i '''.!N 4e-IIVA:f0 1 '•V'''Li.4131,*::ik.'4h0143'="03. '4* ''''.`''.; I% '
'1,,:i.,.,,,a ,..}' I:. ;••-•.:•'4,f;•,•..; *" ,„I f r 4; :, ;:,,•. •,, '' ...-,,., -i:7.4,;.• 1_
• ' i '71"N '
IS/7.. li ,,,. t
III [144
1,
I .,
.1. I
/ "t• ,
4 . .. ,,,..,,
A •, ), , iliii
I 1 •
Y 'I,„(• ' El
rq„
Pt
kill
1 \ Ibi,
- -.-- * ..•
1 T‘ 1 iirt,'
..,.. .
E• • .
1111114)
i zi i 1
1 "sill
1 in.- . -•, 10'
. - ....is< ...1_____ .--1... ....• !
T 1. .\\,.- IL,„„,,,,,,
P',...L.
11,.,
riEl it
IINFRINF Mpg
r 1s.?"1": .1111
I I i
) 1
: ' •
1101
: • :14
\.1 N ai diet
SITE PLAM SCALE _1:50_ _ 47.2". 'a 114 "• ••G - =II
I OP
... 1
,• -2- 0 -
• , i ..4--- ......---.
restr,CINI (....
•
I
i
rr(c(T11 (c--- (C7-- \ r"(
.111 L \ I .. &I ,.....
... ! le
it 1
i • IL
1
1 '', I * --4;..*----°°
L.
_ .
El
_____ 11
I 1 •
valley General Hospital
11M)SOL FFI4 RO�1REEI RE ION 1\-1'0I;; 4If,-2.28-1110
('ununi..Iontr.'LEOPO\\ERS )'.•••:• • \1ORTON I li\hl)\\ICh. '.• '••••:
CI \RLOI TE I\URTH;COOPER R\ \1\. •• I-\Ch 11 KICK I()FI\R SHIELDS \tn
lrinlini.trItcir \\\t E \IL'KR.A\
August 13, 1981 - ' '1'•
. J
CP V \S''‘‘Ogc ):\j-71
The Renton City Council c- �'\�,\``� `.%
Municipal Building p.E L C��
200 Mill Street South
Renton, Wa 98055
Gentlemen:
The Hospital has reviewed the report and recommendation of the Land
Use Hearing Examiner regarding the zoning request by One Valley Place
Properties . I
Our abiding concern regards the traffic control between the on/off ramps
from Highway 1.67 east to the intersection of Springbrook Road and 43rd
Street. Development! of the property will result in additional traffic
to and from that project, plus our current hospital expansion will be
generating more visits to our facility.
The recommendation of the applicant to position a traffic light between
Highway 167 overpass and the intersection at Springbrook Road and 43rd
Street, at such a location as to serve the entrance to both properties,
is supported by the Hospital . Such a signal device will permit safe
access to our Emergency Room entrance.
Also, we support the renovating of the traffic signal at the intersec-
tion of Springbrook Road and 43rd Street to include a quick response
left turn signal when traffic volumes permit. This will facilitate
speedy access to the Hospital 's Emergency Room for physicians and
personnel who are responding to urgent situations.
Sinc rely,
• '1
.E E. M'u rray
Administrator
WEM/mt
cc: Richard Lomas, MD
Mr. Daryl Connell
1
OF J
%4 o THE CITY OF RENTON
U `� © Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
n aL BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • DELORES A. MEAD
00 o CITY CLERK
0
9,47,60 SEPl-�e�P
MEMORANDUM
August 12, 1981
TO: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
FROM: Delores Mead, City Clerk
RE: Fred Bowser/David Best, Daryl Connell/Allenbach
R-125-80, 135-80 ,
Dear Fred:
Letter requesting that you rescind dismissal action,concerning the
above-referenced matter, was filed with this office on August 11,
1981. The petitioner advised this was the deadline date and the
• Hearing Examiners office was closed. (This was the day of our
heat problem) .
We forward herewith the subject file folders. In the event dismissal
is not rescinded please return the folders in order that appeal can
be forwarded to the City Council, $25.00 appeal fee filed in the event
of your denial.
Dm/gh
RECEIVED
CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
AUG1 3 1981
AM PM
7,8i9110,1111211,2i31415,6
u;1i112j(3J
4, y
t rO 'vim
'
AUG 1981 ;t
RECEIVED
CITY of RENTON r%
ec`' CLERK'S OFFICE V'`c
City of Renton August 11, 1981
Renton City Council
Municipal Building
200 Mill Avenue S.
Renton, Wash. 98055
Subject : Request for appeal of the hearing examiners decision on file #
R-135-80 Fred Bowser rezone dated`; 7-28-81.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council.
We are writing this letter of appeal as a back up to our primary effort
which is to seek a continuation and completion of the hearings on our
rezone and joint development with Dr. Herman Allenbach. If our recon-
sideration request is approved then this appeal maybe set aside; but
in light of the 14 day appeal period (land use code 4-3016) we deemed
it necessary to submit this appeal.
We are appealing the hearing examiners decision to dismiss our rezone
petition with prejudice which will delay our resubmittal of a new app-.
licationfor one year. We had nothing to do with the withdrawal of the
David Best ( Dr. Herman Allenbach ) rezone file # R-125-80. We were
not advised consulted or understand the reason for the application
withdrawal yet: we are being penalized to the same extent as the indivi-
dual who has withdrawn his application.
Our rezone requests were submitted at separate times and are assigned.
separate file numbers and should be treated as such. We realize that the
hearing examiner could not render a decision on only one rezone request
with the information which was available to him through the previous
public hearings. All information regarding the rezone petitions was
consolidated and it would be difficult to analyze on an individual basis.
We believe a more reasonable course of action for the hearing examiner
to have taken would be to dismiss the David Best petition as requested
and reschedule a hearing on the Fred Bowser petition to examine the merit
of that petition when it stands alone.
City of Renton August 11, 1981
Renton City Council
Page 2
After consulting with the City Attorney Mr. Larry Warn it was concluded
that our only recourse was to appeal the hearing examiners decision to
the City Council which is the intent of this letter. We are asking that
you rescind the hearing examiners dismissal of our rezone petition with
prejudice and allow us to haveanother public hearing scheduled to eval-
uate our petition as it was orginally submitted.
Thank You Very Much.
.red Bowser
Lucky Seven Investment
Copy: Larry Warn, City Attorney
Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
David Clemens, Planning Director
' I
•
•
sq.,
�C= AUG 1981 ,.,\
,r RECEIVED
jirj
CITY of RENTON
\?-.,CLERK'S OFFICE,'i'•'
'(,??? 925Z7?c�'
August 10, 1981
Mr. Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
Municipal Building
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, WA 98055
RE: Allenbach/Talbot Property
File No. R-125-80
File No. R-135-80
Dear Mr. Kaufman:
This letter is to formally request that you rescind the dismissal
of the above-referenced matters, which you ruled in your letter
of July 28, 1981 .
The undersigned parties have resolved their differences and are
now willing to proceed with development of the properties on a
joint basis as was recommended in the staff report.
Your letter cited the unfairness of future public hearings, but
it is our understanding that no further hearings were to be held
by you, and indeed that you were prepared to render your written
decision when you received Dr. Allenbach' s letter of July 27,
1981. Thus, continuation of the matter and the rendering of your
decision will serve the public interest in resolving zoning
matters in an expeditious manner.
We feel that your failure to reinstate the applications, particu-
larly in light of the fact that all hearings have been held and
your decision is ready, would be arbitrary and not in the public
interest.
Mr. Fred J. Kaufman
August 10, 1981
Page 2
i
While we believe that your decision should and will be rescinded,
a of this letter is being delivered to the Renton City
Co -ncil and should .e considered by that body as a notice of
a. .eal of y• • ''dism' sal of the above-referenced file.
V= y . • y you a,
/I, - /.it. /
It: t'tc �•
No R 48!
UC INVESTMENTS
By �-,-.72
red owser, Partner
File No. R-135-80
DISMISSED
July 28, 1981
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL.
APPLICANT: David Best/Daryl Connell FILE NO. R-125-80
LOCATION: West side of Talbot Road South approximately 1 ,000 square feet
south of S.W. 43rd Street.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant requests a rezone of the subject site from G to
R-3 for purposes of future multiple family development.
SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Approval with conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Hearing Examiner: Dismissal with prejudice.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department preliminary report was received by the
REPORT: Examiner on June 3, 1981 .
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 June 9, 1981 at 9:00 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 preliminary report. Roger Blaylock, Associate Planner, presented the
report, and entered the following exhibits into the record:
Exhibit #1 : Application File containing Planning Department
report and other pertinent documents
Exhibit #2: King County Assessor's Map
Exhibit #3: Schematic PUD Map (Not binding upon the
applicant or the city)
Also displayed was a colored diagram identical to Exhibit #3 for illustrative purposes
only.
Responding to the Examiner's numerous inquiries regarding aspects of the proposal , Mr.
Blaylock stated that the sewer system is currently sufficient to carry the increased
demand, the entire area is being upgraded with a pressure water pumping plant, approximately
150. to 200 feet of the property is estimated to remain -for passive recreational purposes,
improvements are planned over the next two years at the SR-167 interchange, the width of
Talbot Road S. narrows down to approximately 22 feet adjacent to the site although the
width at the intersection of Talbot and S.W. 43rd Street is four-lane, the parcel of
property located approximately 350 feet north of the subject site is utilized for a
medical facility under special permit, all costs of improvements would be re-evaluated
at a later date if construction does not occur immediately, shopping services to serve
residential development are proposed through development of a major commercial center
near 108th and Carr Road by King County, and the applicant is proposing restaurants and
banks in, the adjacent development.
The Examiner requested testimony by the applicant. Responding was:
Daryl Connell
2691 168th Avenue S.E.
Bellevue, WA 98008
Mr. Connell gave a brief overview of the proposal , noting that overall needs of the area
were considered with regard to the proximity of Valley General Hospital . He indicated
that an ongoing problem with traffic exists in the vicinity, and delay in growth in the
area has occurred due to inadequate water pressure. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry
regarding the area the proposal will serve, Mr. Connell stated that a survey of 1100
employees of Valley General Hospital indicates that within five years, 25% of the people
living in the area will be involved with the hospital or providing medical health care in
Page Two R-125-80
some manner.
Responding for the applicant was:
Vincent Ferrese
Mithun Associates, Architects
2000 112th Avenue N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98004
Mr. Ferrese discussed the development proposal and location of two to three story
structures in clusters on the site and provision of landscaping to screen the development
from surrounding areas and the freeway. Briefly discussed were means of access to the
site and location of parking areas and berming. He indicated that two to two and one-half
acres of open green space have been reserved for a 3500-foot recreational center in
addition to provision of interior recreational facilities. Mr. Ferrese advised that many
of the firm's projects have won national awards in the Bellevue-Redmond area of Washington.
Responding for the applicant was:
Christopher Brown
9688 Rainier Avenue S.
Seattle, WA 98118
Mr. Brown advised that three separate traffic reports have been prepared for the subject
project. In the first, he noted, no major growth was assumed outside of the subject
proposal which was projected at 180,000 gross square feet of commercial area and 350
dwelling units. Then, responding to a request by the city's Traffic Engineer, a 3%
compound growth rate was taken into account in the second report in which 160,000 gross
square feet was projected with a residential dwelling unit count of 325. He advised that
the project had been split into two components, commercial and residential . In the
third report , dated May 15, 1981 , it was expected that there would be some adverse levels
of traffic service, in fact , as they exist today. However, he stated, by the time the
second phase of construction is completed, the Department of Transportation should be
making improvements to the interchange at SR-167 and possible construction of a loop ramp.
He noted that all three reports contain a series of traffic forecasts, and the final report
incorporates the projected demands on a phase by phase basis which he reviewed in detail .
Mr. Brown stated that by the time the fifth phase of the commercial development is
completed in 1985, it is anticipated that the loop ramp will be constructed. The Examiner
inquired regarding traffic impacts if that assumption is not fulfilled. Mr. Brown
responded that the level of service would probably drop down to LOS F, but he indicated
the possibility that Talbot Road can be improved from the existing intersection adjacent
to the hospital further to the north into Renton to provide a bypass from SR-167. He also
noted several differences of opinion regarding traffic improvements held by the applicant
and the city's Traffic Engineer, the applicant being in favor of widening S.W. 43rd from
Talbot Place to SR-167 and providing a westbound right turn lane which gives added capacity;
also, provision of a signal at Talbot Place and S.W. 43rd Street; and finally, channelization
at S.W. 43rd Street and Talbot Road S. to enhance the turning movements on Talbot Road.
The Examiner inquired if sufficient right-of-way is available to widen S.W. 43rd Street
and Talbot Road in the future. Mr. Brown stated his belief that sufficient width does
not exist, to which the Examiner noted that widening would not be possible without
;ondemnation of property. Mr. Brown discussed positive aspects of provision of a signal
at Talbot Place such as enhancement of emergency vehicle access to the hospital ,
enhancement of movement out of bound, and enhancement of pedestrian travel across 43rd
during off-peak hours which might become significant, particularly during lunch hour when
substantial commercial food enterprises become available.
The Examiner inquired regarding cost of improvements. Mr. Brown advised that the signal
at SR-167 and 43rd is planned by the Department of Transportation in the 1981-1983 biennium;
the modifications such as the signal at S.W. 43rd and Talbot Place would be borne by the
developer, and if this improvement occurs, he suggested that the only modification necessary
at Talbot Road and S.W. 43rd would be signal timing. He summarized by stating that the
important improvements would be the signal at Talbot Place, the westbound left turn lane
from Talbot Place to SR-167, and ultimately, the loop ramp from 43rd down to SR-167.
Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding timing of improvements, Mr. Brown suggested
that improvements be in place prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, and that with the
Phase I , commercial development, and completion of the residential sector, channelization
be removed from Talbot and 43rd, the signal retimed, and conduits placed underneath Talbot
Place for signalization and implementation of the westbound left turn movement. He also
recommended that the signal be operating into the third commercial phase.
The Examiner requested testimony in opposition to the proposal . Responding was:
Robert Page
4907 Talbot Road S.
Page Three R-125-80
Mr. Page indicated his concern that provision of a left turn northbound lane on Talbot
Road would cause inconvenience to motorists who would be forced to go a considerable
distance to turn around and return. He also noted his opinion that sufficient space
does not exist to provide a loop ramp off of SR-167. The character of the residential
neighborhood was noted by--Mr. Page, who advised that large lots and small population
currently exist. Referencing the poll taken at Valley General Hospital , he advised that
a response to questionnaires was received from 88 of 1100 employees, and he felt that
existing residents should be queried regarding the impact of the development, noting
his opinion that such impact would be detrimental to both their residence value and
lifestyle. Mr. Page questioned whether the developer or existing residents would bear
the financial burden of improving Talbot Road S. , and he felt that the estimated traffic
generation rates were low at five trips per unit since most households consist of two
employed persons who both drive.
The Examiner requested further testimony in opposition. Responding was:
Nancy Purcell , M.D.
10006 S.E. 192nd
Renton, WA 98055
Dr. Purcell was affirmed by the Examiner. She indicated concern that access to Talbot
Road without stop signs or signals would further deteriorate an already existing dangerous
traffic situation on that arterial . Also cited were difficulties entering Talbot Road
from 192nd, a feeder arterial , after 2:30 p.m. , and impaired safety for pedestrians near
the hospital . Dr. Purcell requested that the area remain low key in intensity to allow
patients who are confined to the hospital for months at a time to remain in a pleasant
environment.
Dr. Purcell submitted a letter of protest from residents in the neighborhood. The letter
was entered as follows by the Examiner:
Exhibit #4: Letter of Protest, dated June 4, 1981 ,
containing 13 signatures
Following further discussion regarding proposed access to Talbot Road S. from the
proposal , it was clarified by the applicant that the primary access to the project would
be onto that roadway, with an additional access which would be opened only to the Fire
Department in the event of an emergency. Dr. Purcell stated her opposition to an
unsignalized access to Talbot Road S.
Responding in opposition was:
Roy Fournier
4700 Talbot Road S.
Renton, WA 98055
Mr. Fournier indicated concern regarding water pressure in the area; supported landscaping,
setbacks, and berming on the east side of the proposal ; questioned the financial burden
for widening Talbot Road; and inquired whether fast food restaurants would be allowed in
the proposal . Mr. Blaylock indicated that water pressure would be increased through
installation of a separate water line connecting to the proposal . The Examiner stated
that Mr. Fournier's additional inquiries should be addressed during subsequent public
hearings to review the commercial portion of the development.
Responding in opposition was:
Grover Shegrud
4518 Talbot Road S.
Renton, WA 98055
Mr. Shegrud stated his opinion that development in the area is satisfactory as it exists,
and indicated his concern that proposed density is excessive at 20 urtiits per acre and
incompatible with the existing neighborhood character. He advised other concerns related
to traffic, recreational facilities, and the overall impact of the development upon the
natural and human environment of the community; and questioned impact upon schools which
are already crowded since only one grade school serves the community. Responding to Mr.
Shegrud's concern regarding water pressure on the east side of Talbot Road, the Examiner
asked Mr. Blaylock if the fire flow is, sufficient at this time to meet Fire Department
requirements. Mr. Blaylock advised that the subject development would not impact the
water pressure on the east side of that street. Mr. Shegrud emphasized that access should
be provided from each individual property in the development; otherwise, from 70 to 90%
of the traffic will utilize the access road to Talbot Road at the location of his driveway,
and a traffic control device should be considered to alleviate congestion.
Page Four R-125-80
The Examiner requested testimony by the city's Traffic Engineer. Responding was:
Gary Norris
'Traffic Engineer
Mr. Norris discussed his objection to installation of a traffic signal at Talbot Place and
S.W. 43rd Street, noting that S.W. 43rd Street is a principal arterial in the city, and
the primary purpose of a major arterial is to provide through access for vehicles and limit
access to adjacent property. He advised the city's policy to orient access from adjacent
properties to side streets as the most feasible and desirable method, and consent has been
given to allow the concept of right in, right out turning movements at Talbot Place. He
stated the city's concern regarding accident potential at signalized intersections and the
fact that a two-phase signal at the intersection of Talbot Place and S.W. 43rd Street
would have to be coordinated with a multi-phase signal at Talbot Road and S.W. 43rd Street.
Mr. Norris explained the two-phase versus multi-phase signal process at the Examiner' s
request.
Responding to earlier testimony regarding enhancement of access to the hospital site, Mr.
Norris clarified that median barriers prohibiting such access would probably be constructed
in that location to reduce accident potential , and further access at this point would not
be encouraged. He also indicated concern regarding the operation of the freeway and access
from the subject site to the freeway in a northerly direction towards 1-405, Rainier Avenue,
and Grady Way intersections because of existing traffic congestion. He noted that unless
major action is taken to improve the capacity of these facilities, it would not be desirable
for people living in the area of the site to commute to work utilizing these roadways.
Mr. Norris advised that although provision of a signal has been identified in the state's
construction program, total funding has not been designated at this time.
Responding was:
Lt. Don Persson
Renton Police Department
Mitigation of safety concerns by the Police Department was discussed by Lt. Persson,
such as installation of a traffic signal at the on ramp to SR-167, improvement of S.W.
43rd Street and Talbot Road to provide more efficient operation, prohibition of left
turn movements from Talbot Place onto S.W. 43rd Street, and improvement of both sides of
Talbot Road the entire length of the development. He also encouraged installation of
security locks, properly placed lighting, provision of large addresses on the buildings
for patrol identification purposes, and installation of prewiring to allow provision of
burglar alarm systems at a later date.
The Examiner asked Mr. Norris to discuss the improvements necessary to allow construction
of the project , and whether improvements will retain a reasonable level of service or if
the level will deteriorate on Talbot Road and S.W. 43rd Street. He also inquired if the
city has control over any intersection which provides state highway access. Mr. Norris
indicated concurrence in the mitigation measures provided by the developer, such as the
right turn lane from Talbot Place to the freeway ramps, and the widening and signalization
of the ramps. He also stated concern regarding overall intensification of this area
because of traffic impacts, and levels of service may drop to LOS D and possibly E,
although the applicants have indicated a strong desire to mitigate those impacts. The
Examiner inquired if concerns' should be mitigated with each phase. Mr. Norris indicated
his understanding that mitigating improvements can be provided in Phase I , but as
surrounding growth occurs, he is not convinced that mitigation measures can be provided
during Phase II construction as a 3% regional-wide average growth occurs.
Mr. Page discussed the infeasibility of providing a right in, right out turning movement
on S.W. 43rd Street from Talbot Place, noting heavy traffic from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. which
will prohibit lane changes. Responding to testimony by Lt. Persson, Mr. Page indicated
concern that the development will create incidence of crime in the area. Lt. Persson
stated that the subject development would not necessarily lend itself, to crime any more
than any other kind of proposal ; however, burglaries should be deterred at the commencement
of construction of commercial development.
The Examiner noted that a driveway exists just east of the S.W. 43rd Street off ramp, and
inquired regarding ownership of the property for which it provides access. Mr. Connell
indicated that a residence, which will be removed, is located in the center of the 1 .09
acre property. He also responded to various concerns indicated by the Traffic Engineer
and existing residents in the area, and reiterated previous comments regarding traffic
mitigation measures through signalization and controlled access. He noted that sufficient
space exists to enable widening of the loop ramp to SR-167., the applicant has proposed a
lesser density on the site than is allowed by code, and signalization is necessary at
Talbot Place to expedite traffic and pedestrian access from the proposal . Mr. Connell
noted that existing traffic congestion on Talbot Road has occurred not because of the
Page Five R-125-80
150 residents but because other proposed roadway projects have not commenced, i .e.
construction of SR-515 and improvement of 212th to provide alternate routes for traffic,
and it would be infeasible to widen Talbot Road due to location of existing rock retaining
walls and sidewalks. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry, Mr. Connell advised that the
distance between Talbot Road and Talbot Place is 430 feet on center which he felt was
sufficient to allow installation of the second signal .
Responding to Mr. Connell 's discussion of impacts from additional school age population
in the area, which he felt would be minimal in view of reduced enrollment in past years,
Dr. Purcell clarified that Talbot Hill Elementary School currently is overcrowded. She
further discussed increased traffic congestion from other developments in the area, and
stated that although only 150 residents actually live in the vicinity of the subject site,
their concerns should be carefully considered.
Responding to the Examiner's request for final comments, Mr. Blaylock submitted a letter
of support into the record, which was entered by the Examiner as follows:
Exhibit #5: Letter to Roger Blaylock from Virginia
and Arthur Ealy, dated June 7, 1981
Mr. Blaylock discussed mitigation measures imposed by the Environmental Review Committee,
responsibility of King County in providing street improvements, and timeliness of the
proposal in view of availability of public services and compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan.
The Examiner requested final comments. Responding was:
Rhonda Johnsen
17818 98th S.
Renton, WA 98055
Mrs. Johnsen submitted a letter of opposition which was entered as follows by the Examiner:
Exhibit #6: Letter to Hearing Examiner from
Mrs. Johnsen, dated June 9, 1981
The letter discussed existing traffic congestion, impaired safety for pedestrians and
capability of emergency services to accommodate increased development if the subject
application is approved.
Noting the length of associated public hearings and the bulk of the material to be
reviewed, the Examiner requested a 21-day period in which to publish a recommendation
regarding the matter. Since there was no objection, the hearing regarding File No.
R-125-80 was closed by the Examiner at 11 : 15 a.m.
Page Six R-135-80
•
Dun,ing neview o .th,i,e ma..tet, the Examine& deWenmi.ned that addi ti.oncl .in6onma Lon wa4 •
neeedaany to ctatiliy .cmpaetA o 6 tab 6 Lc to ex at i.ng an tet at . M.inwte4 o 6 the n.eopened
pubtAlc hearing 6oUow.
REOPENED HEARING:
The hearing was reopened on July 21 , 1981 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the
Renton Municipal Building. The Examiner explained the purpose of the hearing to gather
further information regarding traffic conditions in the area surrounding the subject site
and up to and including 1-405,' a major freeway which may be impacted by ultimate
development. He requested testimony by the city' s traffic engineer pertaining to various
levels of service on surrounding streets from the city's perspective, and noted that the
applicant's most recent submission indicates that roadways in the area are sufficient to
carry extra traffic from the subject proposals. Because both the Best and Bowser rezones
are directly related, he advised that the hearing would consolidate testimony into a single
record. Responding was:
Gary Norris
Traffic Engineer
fir. Norris advised that although he did not have a detailed traffic analysis of the major
arterials surrounding the subject site, it was apparent in field observations that 1-405
as well as arterials feeding to it , particularly Rainier Avenue and Grady Way and the ramps
from SR-167 to 1-405, are operating at a low level of service due to congestion, and any
backup on freeway facilities creates long lines and delays which carry through the peak
hours of operation. However, Mr. Norris did not feel that the generation of 62 vehicles
from the proposed development would severely impact the functioning of the operation, but
the cumulative effect of several different developments may. More acceptable alternatives
than requiring one developer to make extensive improvements to correct current problems
were discussed by Mr. Norris, such as requesting developers to participate in the funding
of a traffic study to determine what types of improvements will be necessary or propose
certain measures to mitigate those problems.
The Examiner noted that the applicant has considered a 3% historic growth rate for the
area in assessing traffic generation rates , and inquired if the percentage provides a
sufficient projection for purposes of review. Mr. Norris advised that the rate had been
suggested by the Planning Director and himself and was based upon regional growth rates
for overall trips, not site specific growth. The Examiner asked which specific developments
the 3% rate includes, since it does not include the subject development or the Springbrook
development to the northeast. Mr. Norris indicated that the percentage would include
developments which are not defined at this time to reflect the overall growth rate of this
area as it has been occurring in the past. He noted that the applicant had been requested
to identify developments which are occurring immediately adjacent and in the immediate area
of the proposal in addition to that 3%, which could result in an 8 to 10% increase in
traffic generation on a specific arterial ; the developer, through economic analysis,
determined a reasonable absorption rate for residential growth in that area and arrived at
certpin proposals for levels of growth which may be anticipated at the time of his development
and are included in the traffic analysis submitted into the record.
The Examiner requested Mr. Norris' opinion of whether the roads in the immediate vicinity
of the subject site, Talbot Road, Talbot Place and S.W. 43rd Street, can handle traffic
from all three phases of the proposal and whether certain improvements are slated to allow
all phases. Mr. Norris advised that Phase I and possibly Phase II are being proposed in
1982-1983. Beyond that, he declined to comment, but he indicated his opinion that the
immediate development within the next two years can be accommodated on existing arterials
with modifications proposed by the developer.
The development proposal and timing of Phase I were discussed, and it was clarified that
it would include the entire 325 multiple family proposal which is expected to be completed
in late 1982 with occupancy projected for the spring of 1983. The Examiner then inquired
if the roads can adequately accommodate traffic generated from the Phase I residential
development. Mr. Norris felt that the improvements denoted in the traffic report, such as
signalization of the SR-167 ramps, modification to the signal at Talbot Road, and widening
of S.W. 43rd Street would alleviate congestion; however, he declined to comment regarding
problems at 1-405, Rainier and Grady since a detailed analysis is unavailable and it is
Pay Seven R-135-80
unknown whether traffic will divert away from those locations.
The Examiner noted, that the report also alluded to the fact that SR-515 will be going
oJt to bid in August, 1981 . Mr. Norris clarified that the statement is incorrect;
although the Location Engineer of District 1 of the Department of Transportation had
indicated that it is included in their plans, final determination will not be made until
September when the Transportation Commission meets again. He noted that some question
still remains regarding revenues which may jeopardize the project and construction is
till an uncertainty at this point.
The Examiner noted that the applicant had referenced the Highway Research Report, '87,
in stating that the level of service on 1-405 is LOS D, and he inquired if the predictions
were based on the size of the highway or if an actual field inspection had been accomplished.
Mr. Norris indicated that he had not reviewed calculations which state that the level of
service is at D, and it was his impression that the freeway was operating at closer to
level E at peak hours. The Examiner referenced the Department of Transportation predictions
contained in the Environmental Impact Statement for the Earlington Park development which
`indicate the level of service at E or F. He then inquired regarding the approximate number
of trips per day the proposed 325 units will generate, noting that the applicant had utilized
low rise development ratios. Mr. Norris stated that the approximate 6. 1 trips per day
projected by the applicant is an acceptable figure for the area and would create approximately
2,000 trips per day. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding whether Mr. Norris
had insight into which direction those trips would flow from the development, he indicated
that the majority would be' directed north on SR-167 to 1-405 where they would travel either
north or south.
The Examiner requested testimony by the applicant. Mr. Daryl Connell stated his opinion
that the roadway system developed by the applicant and mitigating measures proposed for
kite development would accommodate traffic generated from the proposal . Mitigating measures
-.ere discussed and include limiting access points, providing Metro service to reduce the
umber of vehicle trips, as well as other measures previously discussed. Mr. Connell
concurred with Mr. Norris ' opinion that the developers of the proposal should not be
responsible for correcting the entire existing traffic problem and the arterial system
should not be impacted by traffic from the subject site. The proposed signal at SR-167
ramps was discussed by Mr. Connell and Mr. Norris, and it was stated that the signal is
programmed in the state's 1982 budget, although funds are not available for construction.
The Examiner inquired if the city would have authority to install the traffic signal at
SR-167 if it could provide the funding. Mr. Norris advised that although signalization
is under control of the state, the state would be willing to cooperate with the city if
funding were provided by the city or developer. Mr. Connell responded that because funding
for the signal would equal 15% of the value of the land, the developer could noL afford to
Finance the entire project, but would be willing to pay his fair share. The Examiner
inquired regarding traffic impacts to the area from the proposal if the ramp is not
signalized. Mr. Connell discussed existing traffic volumes entering S.W. 43rd Street
from SR-.167 in the a.m. hours, noting that the proposal would contribute approximately
8% to that volume. He further discussed proposed signals, signal modifications, and
channelization to mitigate traffic problems, and advised his concern that the state is
unaware of existing problems and methods to correct them have not been implemented.
The Examiner inquired regarding the effect of attempts by exiting traffic to make left
turns from Talbot Place to SR-167 during morning and afternoon hours, and what the queueing
space"would be between Talbot Place and the freeway ramp. Mr. Norris stated his position
that left turn access would not be allowed out of the development from Talbot Place. Mr.
Norris was asked by the Examiner for the effects of left turns onto S.W. 43rd Street by
northbound traffic on Talbot Road and the problem with backup from the freeway ramp
blocking the hospital access dr •l.W. 43rd Street. Mr. Norris indicated that heavy left
turn movements will result in queues backing down S.W. 43rd Street to the freeway bridge
and eastbound traffic on S.W. 43rd turning north on SR-167, but the flow for right turning
vehicles will not be impeded. He also noted that the gap which drivers are willing to
accept will decrease the longer they wait which creates accident problems at locations
where heavy turning movements occur. Mr. Connell discussed the traffic study submitted
for the proposal , and indicated that it does not include a traffic signal at Talbot Place,
but projects left turning movements on Talbot Road. He noted that the queueing problems
exist only in the afternoon for vehicles making left hand turns to head north on SR-167
and those wishing to around channelization and head north on Talbot Road. He added that
the approximately 10% additional traffic from the proposal would not significantly increase
the existing problems.
David Clemens, Acting Planning Director, was affirmed by the Examiner. Mr. Clemens stated
that traffic volumes will inevitably increase in the future on S.W. 43rd Street regardless
of whether the proposal is constructed, the hospital expands or additional development
occurs within King County. He indicated his opinion that it would be preferable to allow
the proposed development to proceed since mitigation measures have been identified to solve
some of the problems which are in the applicant's and city's best interest rather than
taking a stand that the problems are insoluble. Problems which exist in King County were
Pa,-: Eight R-135-80
reviewed by Mr. Clemens, and relate to issuance of building permits without Hearing Examiner
review of traffic impacts from county development. He concluded that the city' s policy
towards close-in development in the community should be a positive one and if solutions
can be addressed to potential problems, the development should be approved. The Examiner
stated that potential solutions to the traffic problems on 1-405 and various intersections
had not been addresssed, and since it is highly unlikely that SR-515 will be built or that
Metro will expand its service, the addition of 2,000 vehicle trips per day in the area
should be carefully considered. Mr. Clemens agreed that the question is a difficult one,
but he felt that some of the concerns can be addressed, such as reprogramming the signal
at Talbot Road and S.W. 43rd Street, making improvements to lane widths and the state
right-of-way on Talbot Road and S.W. 43rd, and achieving signalization at the off ramp at
S.W. 43rd Street. Responding to the Examiner' s inquiry regarding what will occur when
vehicles enter 1-405, Mr. Clemens felt that people living within the subject area will
avoid I-405 just as people living in southeast King County are ignoring that freeway
whenever possible. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the impact to Grady
Way and Rainier Avenue, Mr. Clemens concurred that the situation would worsen.
The Examiner requested further comments regarding traffic. Responding was:
Elaine Diamond
4914 Talbot Road S.
Renton, WA 98055
Mrs. Diamond, a 17-year resident in the area, indicated concern regarding increased
traffic and questioned responsibility for funding for inevitable improvements to the
arterials in the area. She requested specific answers to be provided in a plan for the
future.
The Examiner inquired if the applicant would be willing to provide van pools as part of
the development as a progressive solution to the transportation problem. Mr. Connell
advised that representatives of the van pool program had been contacted and the feasibility
and cost benefit had been discussed. He stated that the matter would be investigated
further since he had no objection to provision of v.an pools as a transportation alternative
to and from the site.
Chris Brown, Traffic Engineer for the project, read a letter which he had sent to Daryl
Connell confirming a telephone conservation with Washington State Department of Transportation
representative, Bill Carter, in which Mr. Carter stated that the contract for improvement
of SR-515 would be put out to bid on August 3, 1981 . It was noted that the information was
incorrect. The letter was entered into the record by the Examiner as follows:
Exhibit #7: Letter to Daryl Connell from Chris
Brown, dated July 14, 1981
The Examiner advised that a letter had been sent by J. D. Zirkle, Department of
Transportation Administrator, to the Mayor of Renton in March of 1981 , which stated that
no future plans were in effect for construction of SR-515, and he assumed that the Mayor
would have received updated information if the project were set up for bid. Mr. Brown
discussed the growth rate percentage of 3% utilized in determining traffic impacts in the
area, and noted his opinion that incorporation of the Springbrook project would result in
an overestimate in the figures. He referenced page 4 of a letter addressed to Daryl
Connell from himself, dated July 16, 1981 , in which he cites Table 9-1 , Levels of Service
and Maximum Service Volumes for Freeways and Expressways Under Uninterrupted Flow Conditions,
page 252, Highway Research Board, Special Report '87, Highway Capacity Manual , 1965,
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. , which states that the percentage increases
on both the east and west legs. of..I-405 are sufficiently small as to be non-computable in
terms of changes of levels of service. The level of service will be D with traffic flow
conditions "approaching unstable flow." The Examiner noted that the optimum level of
service is not at issue, but rather, the practical level of service which exists on 1-405
on an average daily basis. Mr. Brown indicated that the LOS is reduced to F on a routine
basis, but the addition of traffic from the subject proposal would be insignificant. The
Examiner questioned whether 1-405 could accommodate traffic from even one more project,
however insignificant. Mr. Brown discussed alternatives such as vanpooling, future
construction of SR-515 and transit access to N.E. 4th Street in Bellevue which should •
alleviate congestion in the future. He then referenced Figure 4 attached to the July 16
submission which describes the 1982-1983 directional design hourly volumes on completion
of the residential and first phase commercial sector. The submission was entered into the
record as follows:
Exhibit #8: Letter to Daryl Connell from Chris
Brown, dated July 16, 1981
The Examiner requested additional time of 21 days in which to make a recommendation in the
matter. Since there was no objection, the hearing regarding File No. R-125-80 and R-135-80
was closed by the Examiner at 10:07 a.m.
. J
OF R4+
;� • ) THE CITY OF RENTON
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
o BARBARA' Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
9,0 `O FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593
011l?ED SEP1t34. P
July 28, 1981
Herman M. Allenbach, D.D.S. , M.S.
Northwest Oral Surgery Associates, P.S.
17600 Talbot Road South
Renton, WA 98055
RE: File No. R-125-80, David Best/Daryl Connell ; File No. R-135-80, Fred
Bowser; Request for Withdrawal of Best Rezone; Dismissal of Files.
Dear Dr. Allenbach:
In response to your written request for withdrawal of the David Best rezone
application as the owner of the property, the item has been dismissed under
the conditions outlined below.
At this point in the proceedings two public hearings have been held on the
matters and the public has been required to attend these hearings to present
its views and indicate opposition to the requests; and such testimony has
helped to form the public record. The applicants' representative and the
property owners also had the opportunity to represent the owners' viewpoints
during the entire course of the proceedings, and at this late date, one of
the reclassification requests has been withdrawn.
During the course of the hearings, the Best and Bowser rezones were treated
by the applicants' representative as one matter for purposes of development
potential . Issues of access, internal circulation, utilities, integrated
development and traffic analysis were handled as one. Therefore, it is
impossible at this point to separate the items for consideration, and it is
only proper to dismiss both items.
The matters were presented by a developer/agent who represented both interests
and presented to the city an integrated development proposal for not only these
two parcels but also a northerly parcel which was to provide both primary access
points for the Best and Bowser properties. The integration of the three
proposals was to provide a unified solution to the traffic problems which
development in this area was expected to generate.
As is indicated above, both matters were already opened for public hearing and
public hearings held, and the question of the public interest must prevail in
determining whether the items should be dismissed. It would be both unfair and
unfortunate to have to reopen the matters for public hearing again within the
near future. The general public and the immediate parties with an interest in
this matter have now on two occasions presented their respective views on the
proposal , and it would not be fair to wear down the general public by repeated .
hearings on these applications. Rather than subject the parties to such
eventualities, the rezone applications will be dismissed with prejudice, and
Dr. Herman M. Allenbach
Page Two
July 28, 1981
will not be heard again for a period of one year.
When and if the application or applications again are scheduled for public
hearing, public notice shall be sent to all parties of record in the above
matters and to all property owners within 300 feet of the affected property.
The notice shall be sent ;by the applicant(s) via certified letter and an
affidavit of mailing shall accompany the application(s) . The record of the
proceedings will be available as a public record reflecting the testimony
of the various parties to' the proceedings and mailed in the near future. •
Therefore, File No. R-125-80 and File No. R-135-80 are ordered dismissed
with prejudice this 23th ;day of July, 1981 . Reapplication may not occur
prior to July 27, 1982.
Yours truly,
'ice •�
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
cc: Parties of Record
-4LI."i
NORTHWEST ORAL SURGERY ASSOCIATES, P.S.
ORAL AND MARILLOFACIAL SURGERY
N. �� W. RENTON CLINIC
ORAL SURGERY 17600 TALIIOT ROAD SOUTH • RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055
226-5940
HLRMAN M. ALLLNRACH, D.D.S., M.S.
Jay 29, 1981
FRED J. KAUFMAN
Heahi.ng Exami.nen
Mun.ic i.pa.Z Buitd.i.ng
200 Mitt Avenue South
Renton, WA 98055
•
Dean Mk. Kaubman:
I hen.eby nequeat that the appti,cati.on tion nezoning- os my
pnopenty (Fite #R-125-80, Beat Attenbach) be w.i thdnawn. We do
not wish to deveeop aun pnopen ty An conjunction with the adjacent
pnope. tty (Fite #R-135-80, Lucky Seven Investment) .to the south
oli auk pnopelcty as nequiked by the ataiiii nepont. .
cetety yowls,
/ ,
41,
1111111
H, 4 M. 1(!!!1, , •
RECEIVED
CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
JUL 2 71981
AM PM
71819,I0,11112,11213,4,5t6
OF
0$ THE CITY OF RENTON
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
o P.) BARBARA` Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
9'O FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593
O94TEo SEPS *��P
June 30, 1981
Mr. Daryl Connell
2691 168th Avenue S.E.
Bellevue, WA 98008
RE: File No. R-125-80, David Best Rezone; File No. R-135-80,
Fred Bowser Rezone.
Dear Mr. Connell :
After a thorough review of the above entitled matters including a review of
the composite testimony and the traffic reports submitted by the applicant,
it has been found necessary to reopen the hearings in these matters.
Because of the nature and scope of the proposed development, traffic impacts
are treated as one, and the matter will be consolidated for review purposes.
The specific reason for reopening the hearing is to further consider the
traffic impacts on the arterial network which would serve the proposed
residential PUD. The consideration of the impacts should not be limited to
impacts on just the adjacent roadways, as the impacts on I-405, a major
route through and around the city, must be analyzed. Further, analysis of
other potential traffic generators should be incorporated into the report,
such as the Springbrook housing proposal which may include up to 225 units,
and is located in King County just northeast of the Talbot Road S./S.W.
43rd Street intersection.
The applicant for a rezone has the burden of demonstrating not only that the
Comprehensive Plan maplelement designates the subject area for the purposes
proposed, but that the rezone is timely, that is, public services including
roadways are capable of handling the proposed development, and, finally,
that the rezone request is in the public interest. In this case, the
matters relating to traffic are most important to any such determination
of the public interest.'
The applicant must be prepared to clearly elucidate the traffic impacts of
the proposal and demonstrate that concrete methods are currently available
or will be in place to handle the potential traffic when the proposed units
are occupied.
The applicant should come prepared with large display maps and clear,
concise charts of roadway configurations which aid in illustrating testimony.
Such submittals must be available for review by the city Traffic Engineer
prior to the public hearing. Copies must also be available to members of
the public prior to the public hearing for their considered review. Comments
and questions of other interested parties will be limited to those pertaining
to the traffic impacts of the proposal .
A
Daryl Connell
Page Two
June 30, 1981
It is incumbent on the applicant and his representatives to demonstrate .
that the rezone classifications requested for the two sites are appropriate
at this time.
Therefore, it is hereby ordered this day that the public hearing in the
above entitled matters be consolidated and reopened at 9:00 a.m. on
Tuesday, July 21 , 1981 in the City Council Chambers of the Renton
Municipal Building.
For further information or assistance in this matter, please contact the
office of the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
cc: Parties of Record
Planning Department
_} •
i , Wi,-.111)am E. Bennett, Acting Finance Director, City of Renton,
do hereby certify ,that t.h,e below shown Receipt 19399 was received
• -August 1 a'1 , 1981 ter '4:0O P.M. thereby falling- into'•following -, •.
day receipts for bookkeeping purposes and dated the following day. 0"`:` ,'•
Fred Bowser Appeal .. received 8/11/81 .
Dated this 12th day of •August; 1981 y� �����fi.C/�
• Wi ll iam E. Bennett �. � �.
•'cam;-c:,;iY::;,.:'�s-���= ;�• -., - �,,...• �; i
;1c.,:....0 Actin Finance Director `l. •=4} .
;^ r Ka•: g -`?�n :ems s .n
CITY •
OF RENTON ,,� _ 1 '-398 _
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
11 3 - 1 _ 19�_- ._
RE 1 i T O N, WASH S i i i.NCI L 3 l�,. 9 8 0 5 — ----SC Y6/�a• 1
C73.(:)‘3"1N
R. 0 E I.V E D OF __-_.-----_1 l&a --- 7t _..�—
TOTAL _.
GWEN E MARSHALL,l , _\FIN NCE DIRECTOR
BY l X l�J p_/}'Y)C�-'y---__
i
I
` :.•. •.. .t•. '',•' ty.-. ,4-'-
•
M^`t. .,.%.•,,.. - c,. . 'jar;c •=."l• 1z
v'
1
`'M4!fY
% _
t
t . chrikopher brown p7.
9688 rainier avenue a
Le7a2314567Uashing98118�
July 16, 1981
EXHIBIT - �4,O. O' -__
ITEM NO. /.SS--g6 J F- /3S f'o • RECEIVED
Mr. Daryl Connell CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
The Daryl Connell Company
-2691 - 168th Avenue S.E. JUL 2 0 1981
Bellevue , WA 98008 AM PM
'18191101111121112130415,6
Re: City of Renton
File Numbers R-125-80 and R-135-80
• Best/Bowser Rezone
Additional Testimony
Dear Mr. Connell :
We have reviewed the June 30, 1981 letter by Mr. Fred Kaufman,
Land Use Hearing Examiner, City of Renton. We note that he
is requesting additional information concerning traffic
impacts without limitation to adjacent roadwas'•btit . extend-
ing to I-405 , has requested the analysis of potential, traffic
generators such as "Springbrook" , and has requested. that we
demonstrate that the project is timely, services will be in
place prior to occupancy, ,and that it• is in the public interest.
_Particular attention has been requested by the hearing
examiner towards the traffic impacts and)'to demonstrate
that "concrete ,nethods are currently available or will be
in place to handle the potential traffic', when the proposed
units are occupied. "
The traffic study dated May 15, 1981 entitled "One Valley
Place" addressed not only the various- phases of the corn-
mercial sector but also the residential sector. Essentially,
the traffic study synthesized impacts from all proposed
on-site developments and considered, in addition, adjacent
residential developments in the following, expected schedule.
1985 55 dwelling units
1986 1 160 dwelling units
1987 155 dwelling units
Further, in order to encompass other developments more distant
from the site, an overall compound annual traffic growth
rate was applied. This was the 3% compound rate discussed
in the report and described at the last public hearing .
Mr. Daryl Connell
July 16 , 1981
page two •
It is our understanding from the architects associated with
"Springbrook" that the total development will amount to some
216 residential dwelling units in both townhouse and multi-
story structures. The anticipated schedule provides for the
first phase to be completed in the 1982-83 biennium compris-
ing 60 townhouses.
The 60 townhouses are expected to produce the following
traffic :
"Springbrook"
First Phase Development
Trip Production
AWDT 366
A.M. , Inbound 6
A.M. , Outbound 24
P.M. , Inbound 24
P.M. , Outbound 12
(This data assumes ITE Land Use Code 220 . Apartment,
General . )
Excluding commercial , on-site residential , and off-site
residential developments the increase in traffic demand on
S.W. 43rd Street between SR-167 and Talbot Road South will
amount to about 1800 vehicles per day. That is, between
1981 and 1983 current traffic volumes will increase from
30,040 to 33,870 vehicles per day.
The 1800 vehicle per day increase is due to the three
percent compound growth rate. If the "Springbrook" project
is considered as a part of that growth rate, it would account
for about 20 percent of the demand. This is probably in
keeping with expected absorption rates- of residential units
in the general area.
From a planning standpoint, it would be incorrect if not
entirely inappropriate to segregate the "Springhrook" project
and, at the same time, utilize a three percent compound
growth rate. Indeed, the three percent compound growth rate
was selected in that it would include external developments
such as "Springbrook" .
To conclude this particular aspect, since the three percent
compound growth rate can be considered to include the in-
fluence of developments such as "Spr_ingbrook" ; all of the
mitigating measures identified in the traffic study of May
15, 1981 can only be considered complete. To arbitrarily
Mr. Daryl Connell
July 16 , 1981
page three
increase traffic 'volumes by including a compound growth rate
and non-adjacent developments along with adjacent develop-
ments would be misleading .
Next, considering the impacts to I-405 the following ref-
erences may be recalled. On March 16, 1981 we forwarded
to you (Daryl Connell from Christopher Brown, P.E.) a
relatively lengthy letter definirrg expected commercial and
residential development, impacts associated with the three
percent per year compound growth rate, and on page 3 of that
'letter identified the two types of distributions that were
made with respect to both residential and commercial de-
velopments.. These. were, respectively, 1980-90 employment
and 1980-90 population forecasts . The trips associated with
the residential sector were allocated on the basis of 18 . 5%
employment and 81.5% non-employment (social-recreation-
shopping) . The trip distribution was attached to that
letter and represented by Figures 2-A (Employment) and 3-A'
(Population). ' In addition, Figure 4-A described the resi-
dential trips -- the matter under discussion at the moment,
as requested by ,Mr. Kaufman.
Those estimates showed SR-167 receiving approximately 74
trips per hour during the evening peak hour (northbound)
and producing 134 vehicles per hour (southbound) from SR-167
to East Valley Road and thence to S.W. 43rd Steet, etc . Of
the 74 northbound/134 southbound trips, about 60%. are oriented
to the north via: I-405, 30% to the west via I-405, and 10%
continue on Rainier Avenue South and then disperse on the
local Renton/Bryn Mawr/South Seattle system. This is
schematically represented in the diagram, below.2/2g r isog
(Ai) (8)
66v
9.6b
All�G� Cab) (2v) 4& . !
5) lye
St, bb
3 XX eX/f(lhf �C�r
�1 //oar 7f a1
68 (xx) r /WI
•
Mr. Daryl Connell
July 16 , 1981
page four
With respect to the ramp volumes on the full cloverleaf
interchange of SR-167 and I-405 , there will be no sub-
stantial change in levels of service. Essentially,
freeway operations are not associated with ramp volumes
but, rather, with congested conditions on the mainline
system itself, with the ramp/mainline merge/diverge
maneuver and, in the case of SR-167 with the signalized
intersection of Grady Way. • 4
The east leg of 1-405 at SR-167 will experience increase
-in traffic demand of 124 vehicles per hour raising the
traffic volume from 7110 vehicles per hour to 7234 vehicles
per hour or a percentage increase of 1.17% .
On the west leg of I-405 the increased demand will amount
• to some 62 vehicles per hour increasing total demand from
7040 vehicles per hour to 7102 vehicles _per hour represent-
ing a percentage increase of 0 .9% .
The percentage increases on both the east and west legs of
I-405 are sufficiently small as to be. non-computable in
terms of changes of levels of service. The Level of Service
will be "D" with traffic flow conditions "approaching un-
stable flow" . (Table 9-1, Levels of Service and' Maximum
Service Volumes for Freeways and Expressways Under
Uninterrupted Flow Conditions, page 252 , Highway Research
Board, Special Report 87, Hihway Capacity Manual , 1965 ,
National Academy of Sciences , Washington, D.C. )
Considering the" traffic impacts associated with the resi-
dential sector, Figure. 4 of the May 15, 1981 traffic report
is reproduced. ,.
This Figure also includes the first phase development of the
commercial area amounting to some 20 iG00 g.s.f. situated in
the vicinity of Talbot Place at S .W. 43rd. Within the same
context, the "Springbrook" project is expected ,to have 60
townhouses completed as noted before.
•
Note that we are not recommending the inclusion of these
since they would be more than accounted for in the three
percent annual growth rate. However, if they were included
as an additional element over and above the three percent
annual growth rate the following changes would be suggested
to Figure 4 . The changed demands are noted in () 's.
Mr. Daryl Connell
July .16 , 1981
page five
Including the "Springbrook" development traffic as an addi-
tional demand on Figure 4, no changes in terms of mitigating
measures are suggested other than those previously described
in the May 15th study and approved by the City of Renton' s
Environmental Review Committee. The mitigating measures are :
1. Signalization at northbound off-ramp, SR-167 at
S.W. 43rd Street. (This will be under construction
by April , 1982 according to Mr. Bill Carter of
District 1, DOT)
2. Internal signal modifications at S .W. 43rd Street
Talbot Road .South signal . (This signal modification
is based on a 120-second cycle length, changing the
signal to a 4-phase operation with northbound and
• southbound movements on Talbot Road proceeding under
their own, exclusive phase. Note that the utilization
of a 120-second .cycle length would be in keeping with
probable'' signal timing at SR-167 off-ramp and, there-
fore, ensuring reasonable progression on 43rd) .
We are attaching copies of the Capacity Computations for
your files. These show the proposed phasing, timing, and
other matters relating to the computational procedures .
Last, please note that while we discussed channelization
modifications at 43rd/Talbot and the adding of a Right Only
lane on the east leg of S.W. 43rd at SR-167 , these are not
necessary for the matter under discussion. Also, since
SR-515 is going' to "bid" on August, 3rd, 1981, we would
suggest holding back on those two mitigating measures until
the area is restudied on completion of SR-515.
I believe that we have covered the elements requested by
Mr. Kaufman in his June 30,' 1981 letter. Essentially, we
do not believe that the residential portion of this project
will materially impact. .traffic operations on Carr Road
given the recommended revisions discussed above. In addition,
while it is recognized that additional demands will be
placed on SR-167 '.and I-405, the demands will be relatively
small when contrasted against current demands to the extent
that no measurable changes in levels of service can be
expected. Naturally, the cumulative impacts of many other
developments and overall growth will adversely impact all
highway and arterial facilities . However, considering the
Best-Bowser rezone and the residential sector proposed for
the properties in concert with the three percent annual
Mr. Daryl Connell
July 16, .1981
page six
growth rate . and "Springbrook" , there should be no measureable
change in traffic operations in the 1982-83 biennium given
the mitigating measures discussed above particularly in view
of current, published Wash. DOT construction such as SR-515 .
If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to
contact us.
Yours truly,. ;
C. . Brown, P.E.
CVB/ap
• Enclosures : 1. Capacity Computations
2 . Figures 2-A, 3-A, 4-A of March 16 letter report
3. Figure 4 of May 16 study report
4 : ' Modified Figure 4 of May 15 report describing
"Springbrook" demands .
•
if
SIGN ZED INTERSECTION
CAPACITY ANALYSIS •
��YZ• 'C.. 2f
•
/' / • pry �y si, y • ��A'y
PROJECT (a2,Te!/ Ø� /9 2—d.� �s� .2�� d 29
INTERSECTION 7 3?fa lQ 4/4- ISVo ?rol(edi-
AO
BASIC CONDITIONS: . )`Gi
• /
METRO POPULATION / �f1/11O� PHF Ziy * NOrt.
AREA: CBI) FRINGE OBD SELOw
RESIO. RURAL (Curdle Onel hh
' C •'SIGNAL CYCLE ./2bSEC. A/C•1�././ .. C.c',.
PHASE I PHASE PHASE PHASE
, . cz.4 t,......>
. . .
_...., , . .
(--, CC
W W V.7
CC
W W
4 s i a
Q 4 4 Q
G/C • 0 •/C G/C ■ ally G/C■ G/C •
G • SEC. SEC G • SEC. SEC. G • SEC. SEC. G • SEC. sCC
•
•
APPROACH ..Jfr 4 T■ / % R■/7 x L• 7% , BUS STOP ....
MOVEMENT WA CHART G/C CAPACITY j DHV ' REMARKS
FELT REFERENCE.. REO'D USED CO ' Cp
iv--/k/ /2 /�FA 0.. 6- d• sr- JQ 2` d /�6
• id/ ��s 241 ' <f ' g•yy 4•4' / W) 670 /27?
APPROACH 4.. T• / x R•S% L■ / % BUS STOP . .
WA CHART G/C CAPACITY DHV f
• MOVEMENT FEET REFERENCE REG.() ,USED CD Cp REMARKS
r'-s /2 /P 0 0.03 0 Jr NM ,2..
. . .'-w/� 2. 1 4' • o •IC o•yi S
APPROACH .-r T. / x R•A %.. L■j9% BUS STOP ..
•
MOVEMENT TWA CHART D O G/C - ,'CAPACITY DHV( REMARKS II:
REFERENCE RE USED • CD C.
.r#50v 21 U./Z l2/2 270 - .2c., 276 .-
•
•
• APPROACH /t T. / i. R=2r L• x BUS STOP . .
•
' WA CHART G/C. CAPACITY DHV' 0
MOVEMENT FL[T REFERENCE RED.!) USED CD Cp REMARKS
iv-Viv I ?y /./ Q is air /4' �'5° yy) 57$-/s/ice
1Bh ore . _
• DESIGNATE EACH APPROACH HY LETTER; l-W OR 2-W (I- OH 2-WAY); PKG., N.I'. (NU PKG.); ENTER OHV'• BY �f —.I MARK A.M., OK COMP. (CUNPOSI'1'E PEAK.) / r
CHECKED
i TURN LANE LENGTHS -- U2, U3; TRUCKS -- T2, T3; HIUENEU APPROACH LENGTHS -- II•, DU, ETC. -
•
iI
SI•GNA !ED INTERSECTION
CAPACITY ANALYSIS Lj 'C__2� fi,`
•
• /51 26/ -PROJECT [ 911e .f (/10.2 i IINTERSECTION /4A� j43
'
rjV/s s. ,.-oJ P C `7.-> T�,
a .
BASIC CONDITIONS: • • / /o RO / A 'r
METRO POPULATION .. /211�/ PHF 3V7 �I ��J •Hot[
AREA: COD FRINGE OND •ILOV
' RESID RURAL (Circle One .
• ��JJ/��
' C C . SIGNAL CYCLE •/.20SEC. A/C• '� /.'2�..0�.. .
PHASE I PHASE PHASE PHASE
. . <---'-''' *4 .
cc
W .. W Wc • <1 ite.--1, c . .
al
co
W
22 i 3
G/C ■Q./S-- G/C ■ a 417 G/C ■ 0 ./2 G/C ■ 0./6
G • SEC. SEC G • SEC. SEC. G • SEC. SEC. G • SEC. SF.0
APPROACH ... A.4.T• % R. % L■ x ' - BUS STOP - .
MOVEMENT WA CHART G/C CAPACITY DHV 9 0
Fitt REFERENCE REO'D USED Cp Cp REMARKS
r- - 9 o./2 Q/2 . 6 9/ 53
a<
APPROACH . . . .. T• x R• % L• x BUS STOP
•
MOVEMENT WA CHART; G/C CAPACITY DHV T REMARKS i
FEET REFERENCE REQ.!) USED CD •Cp
fir- 2r .90, /‘ O./ yqo . sSo ysD 44440//d/=
. cif., e 7 r
Ro.
. /',.
APPROACH T. x R• x. L. x eus sroP
•
WA CHART G/C CAPg01TY t
MOVEMENT FEET REFERENCE REO'D USED CD Cp DHV NEMAkKS a
tv—N /2 /M D-/c 6.15- //° .. 2/O /C°
4. w-Pf1'' 2 9 9 D. 1/7a?? ._1_5)8O /00 l v78
_ ..]'
APPROACH T. x R• x L• x • BUS STOP
MOVEMENT WA CHART G/C CAPACITY DHVr gEMAHKi4
FEET. REFERENCE REO'D USED Cp Cp if.' 1.'j- /2- /F4 p. ' d,/3" /10 2/1) r6
f ✓-A/ ' 2 9 y o./! o.4/7 /3J0 /6'O 9P51
1
• DESIGNATE EACH APPROACH IlY LETTER; 1-W OR 2-W (I- OR 2-WAY); PKG., N.I'. (NU PKG.); ENTER DHV'• BY_ -. ....
t HARK A.N., OR Cd7P. (COMPOSITE PEN(.) CHECKED—__-
TURNN LANE LENGTHS -- D2, DT; TRUCES -- T . T3; WIDENED APPROACHL.ENG1'HS -- U•, Db, ETC.
/ t • t' /ncY'uL)/e.f 01 -,4 Z 0•7r vv/2i1sw///
•
I a d al
to R. O tn
0 _ 0 •1
•u x
H x
o
rtd A O
0 E1 a)
a
r
W 0
o
•
p.2 S.W. 43rd b
IMF 72. 6 f
Th/
•
.)
, It di)
J7111.1FJ) .
., Distribution is expressed in terms
of percent of all trips for the.
category.
4
FIGURE 2-A
Distribution by 1980-90 chrisLopher !gown p
Employment 0. .*:'•
9688 rainier rivcnuc
K _ �i; al tle wash i rI��r
Id.7234567 `-`1 11
N
ro
od v)
a r-I a tr
4-1 b •H
a cn a, o x
� a
0 0
971 o
H A
m °' H 67.9
41
(Ti
7 111111111111\vin- S.G . 43rd
0 •
. ..
Srfv -)
. .
. ,. ,
. .
c
rr
•• ..,
........
. .. .
..
I
, cir.D tip
Distribution is expressed' in terms of ,
percent of all trips for the category
FIGURE 3-A
. ii
� c hri��Lopher iw�r n per,
Distribution by 1980-90 i
I 9688 rainier �ivcnu� ti p
Population �/ h4'�lI.tic Wil+,fllll�'� ;II t
I c.72'34567 ��ti I I,�
• % r, .
T-1
ro %
as
o co •
>1
• co cd
>1 3
o 4
'8 tr
•H lk
H :
a) M
insig) 4-) •
u) LI u)
rd iN . H
pzi El CCI
4n, ,
1
:-..‘.., .
• q. \iii. .:-.1 ,,
t..
7p pg.
....... . , „........
..?s-- 20/ . A 2 89 Y.2.... g
IN,
.
vfj ..tiiz
/41))
•
\
i ?) \I
A-44.) ace .th,\ )C /11(,, Atilie
s r t,rl 1 Ofr
c
. •
Distribution
By Population 81. 5 %
By Employment , 18. 5 %
FIGURE 4-A , --,-,.
chrikopher 15rowil peN,
1987 Peak Hour - Residential Trips
:
9688 rainier avenue
67
6';Tatile wai
Aln6lotii}
ic:72'345 q811,_
!I N
01
N c7 4
Talbot. Road S.
__� 43' �� �N
V
1\ lk ,,, •
kl cl
., Rs
0
s� a;
41
' j
i b n t P 1. .______ --v.- v
N.
.... .. rC
b a
U W
Data describes the b N aai H
design hour volumes �r N
on completion of the • \. u
residential and first s
phase commercial sector.
m
KI-) ) .....C\f-1
?). I r '... --- . ,
�--.�_ S. R.. 167�_ N_____•:///
n
_....4).- 1..%)N ‘10
L. ',-' 110 y Rd.
T Cal ... -..--A.. .(f_v
C`
FIGURE 4 � hri��Lopher ►�ro\rn p.c',,r-- \
982-83 Directional Design qo 9688 rainier avenue
Hourly Volumes M ",,�,ti' lt`r '
,K:c,aLtie W%iAi114 LII
ICI 72'34567 0N N /
S� _ : ,,
,3•_•!.-— , ,
., . .
(I ) fr_7/) -
.....
,t.,
.11 1 4,3
No, Qi
0 . )1 kc v) . }
.c. n
i1.bot Road S.
, --,7-\ it:
M �� ^N N
. 0) NI 1(1 (
I_ 22) .
rd
K
fa
-J 1•
ralbot Pl.
c -I In
I m r�
U W
E.
Data describes the 1MmH
design hour volumes , �"� rs1(7Z)
on completion of the 3 �j 8.
residential and first
phase commercial .sector. ( VC) re"/ri�befir+t
2'1 ,
41
Di / .. orin9 6roat CO Is , (7) 71/24-ft 7.
�,. 'ft /
AfJv�c,f
i . ‘ 14 _rwrsc 00r7.` 0
• 0 1 -- )
iYer !i!
13
W t . (I t .i ) ,
M K1
ad..—„,........ S S. R R. 16 7 N___ _a„
4) 3 ‘t (,-?-__-}
� ./ �^
E. Valley Rd. ' ,..L_____,,...)
(..___,..A/
01
t-----!: -. cm r, ..,,,
c_o ,.,, .. cie,e,
„ ,
FIGURE 4 Christopher brown
1982-83 Directional Design 1 117 ( tip. 9688 rainier avenue s.
Hourly Volumes. -- ,rf Sattle WashtngLon
f jl vki/rr -�ri>r 1 A.. to:7234567 981 l8 „
• �ir..+ o+a t fi 4. (Z)
OF R��
4, 7..10 0
THE CITY OF RENTON
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
Z '4 o
o MIND BARBARA'. Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR a LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
114, co. FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593
oR�rEo sEP1����P July 7, 1981
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Land Use Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, is reopening the public
hearing on the following petitions for the purpose of discussion of traffic
impacts in the vicinity:
DAVID BEST
Application for rezone from G to R-3, multiple family residential of
approximately 8.7 acres, File No. R-125-80; property located on the west
side of Talbot Road S. approximately 1 ,000 feet south of S.W. 43rd Street.
FRED BOWSER
Application for rezone from G to R-2, low density multiple family residential
of approximately 8.5 acres, File No. R-135-80; property located on the west
side of Talbot Road S. approximately 1/4 mile south of S.W. 43rd Street.
If approved, the aforementioned proposals will be developed concurrently
with an approved planned unit development consisting of 11 .7 acres in a
P-1 zone to allow the construction of approximately 140,000 square feet
of office and commercial space as support activities for Valley General
Hospital ; property located south of Valley General Hospital , southwest of
the intersection of Talbot Road S. and S.W. 43rd Street.
Because of concerns regarding the potential traffic impacts to S.W. 43rd
Street, Talbot Road S. , and freeway ramps to SR-167, a representative of
your department may wish to attend this public hearing. For further
information regarding the applications, please contact Roger Blaylock,
Associate Planner, at 235-2550. The hearing will be held at 9:00 a.m.
on Tuesday, July 21 , 1981 , in the Council Chambers of Renton City Hall .
t y ..
OF R4,f1r
THE CITY OF RENTON
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
o ° BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593
0,917-E.0
SEP100
June 30, 1981
Mr. Daryl Connell
2691 168th Avenue S.E.
Bellevue, WA 98008
RE: File No. R-125-80, David Best Rezone; File No. R-135-80,
Fred Bowser Rezone.
Dear Mr. Connell :
After a thorough review of the above entitled matters including a review of.
the composite testimony and the traffic reports submitted by the applicant,
it has been found necessary to reopen the hearings in these matters.
Because of the nature and scope of the proposed development, traffic impacts
are treated as one, and the matter will be consolidated for review purposes.
The specific reason for reopening the hearing is to further consider the
traffic impacts on the arterial network which would serve the proposed
residential PUD. The consideration of the impacts should not be limited to
impacts on just the adjacent roadways, as the impacts on 1-405, a major
route through and around the city, must be analyzed. Further, analysis of
other potential traffic generators should be incorporated into the report,
such as the Springbrook housing proposal which may include up to 225 units,
and is located in King County just northeast of the Talbot Road S./S.W.
43rd Street intersection.
The applicant for a rezone has the burden of demonstrating not only that the
Comprehensive Plan map element designates the subject area for the purposes
proposed, but that the rezone is timely, that is, public services including
roadways are capable of handling the proposed development, and, finally,
that the rezone request is in the public interest. In this case, the
matters relating to traffic are most important to any such determination
of the public interest.
The applicant must be prepared to clearly elucidate the traffic impacts of
the proposal and demonstrate that concrete methods are currently available
or will be in place to handle the potential traffic when the proposed units
are occupied.
The applicant should come prepared with large display maps and clear,
concise charts of roadway configurations which aid in illustrating testimony.
Such submittals must be available for review by the city Traffic Engineer
prior to the public hearing. Copies must also be available to members of
the public prior to the public hearing for their considered review. Comments
and questions of other interested parties will be limited to those pertaining
to the traffic impacts of the proposal .
0
Daryl Connell
Page Two
June 30, 1981
It is incumbent on the applicant and his representatives to demonstrate
that the rezone classifications requested for the two sites are appropriate
at this time.
Therefore, it is hereby ordered this day that the public hearing in the
above entitled matters be consolidated and reopened at 9:00 a.m. on
Tuesday, July 21 , 1981 in the City Council Chambers of the Renton
Municipal Building.
For further information or assistance in this matter, please contact the
office of the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
cc: Parties of Record
Planning Department
c I
DOUGLAS L. MORELL, D. M. D.
1015 HOUSER WAY SOUTH
RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055
TELEPHONE AL 5-4450
7/5/81
City of Renton,
Municipal Bldg. ,
200 Mill Ave. South,
Renton, Wa. 98055,
Attention Hearing Examiner
Dear Sir:- s v: -
My wife and I live on a 4 s/re parcel of land on the East side
of Talbot Rd. South, about 400 yards of the Valley General Hospital.
10.
We are in receipt of the enclosed letter, and werheartly
in favor of rezoning and liberalizing the building code in this area.
Further we believe that increased vehicular traffic will not be
a problem which should deny anyone the right to. build dwellings or
commercial buildings thereon.
4 ,111I •ur s/trul
AV•/ •4(...‘4
Do as L. Morell
f .
RECEIVED
CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
dy ;-' 98
AM PM
7181%t1011111211 o2:3141316
A
0F
d THE CITY OF RENTON
U `� Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
Z sdL
o ° BARBARA'. Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
9A `O FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593
01'4). SEP1°'�P
June 30, 1981
Mr. Daryl Connell
2691 168th Avenue S.E.
Bellevue, WA 98008
RE: File No. R-125-80, David Best Rezone; File No. R-135-80,
Fred Bowser Rezone.
Dear Mr. Connell :
After a thorough review of the above entitled matters including a review of
the composite testimony and the traffic reports submitted by the applicant,
it has been found necessary to reopen the hearings in these matters.
Because of the nature and scope of the proposed development, traffic impacts
are treated as one, and the matter will be consolidated for review purposes.
The specific reason for reopening the hearing is to further consider the
traffic impacts on the arterial network which would serve the proposed
residential PUD. The consideration of the impacts should not be limited to
impacts on just the adjacent roadways, as the impacts on 1-405, a major
route through and around the city, must be analyzed. Further, analysis of
other potential traffic generators should be incorporated into the report,
such as the Springbrook housing proposal which may include up to 225 units.,
and is located in King County just northeast of the Talbot Road S./S.W.
43rd Street intersection.
The applicant for a rezone has the burden of demonstrating not only that the
Comprehensive Plan map element designates the subject area for the purposes
proposed, but that the rezone is timely, that is, public services including
roadways are capable of handling the proposed development, and, finally,
that the rezone request is in the public interest. In this case, the
matters relating to traffic are most important to any such determination
of the public interest.
The applicant must be prepared to clearly elucidate the traffic impacts of
the proposal and demonstrate that concrete methods are currently available
or will be in place to handle the potential traffic when the proposed units
are occupied.
The applicant should come prepared with large display maps and clear,
concise charts of roadway configurations which aid in illustrating testimony.
Such submittals must be available for review by the city Traffic Engineer
prior to the public hearing. Copies, must also be available to members of
the public prior to the public hearing for their considered review. Comments
and questions of other interested parties will be limited t'o those pertaining
to the traffic impacts of the proposal . '
r s� !
•
Daryl Connell
Page Two
June 30, 1981
It is incumbent on the applicant and his representatives to demonstrate
that the rezone classifications requested for the two sites are appropriate
at this time.
Therefore, it is hereby ordered this day that the public hearing in the
above entitled matters be consolidated and reopened at 9:00 a.m. on
Tuesday, July 21 , 1981 in the City Council Chambers of the Renton
Municipal Building.
For further information or assistance in this matter, please contact the
office of the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
•‘6041"°0^'
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
cc: Parties of Record
Planning Department
• .„ . . • ' • 'Eop ..71i.e...11L—
•
•
' . .
e's.57.,
,'',, ,:.,... '''',,;;: ....A„,-" ' ",0,,, kqe -"'''
.';'5,6,,-.,. ,:.ii'l q-',4'''' • ;', -1
..;,.
• „..-„, .;k,L;
. ,
I { •
t j
E71,77, ',.: ' 1,,.. V, 0:',4, -,77-1 ',.•7,4.• ..7773.A.- k7,,,,,, P.)•, , , (i,
, .'-f-t.,. -,,,,. ,':.y, ,"--,, ,-,.,,. ,,',A-1,.;0 ,•?:".111::: ,,:::fi :-.:-1,1 ,o, .4,;:T Vi4 ( i 'ki '.'" .,:ti 4,,,1 i , .
• ::r'',:,, ,,,141• - ' ;., :-..4.*"' .4';'..tM IP, i‘,'.,' ,.;,.-G.. ,;',f:-',, ,„ii,f-i ii.,.-, . ;-, .A,,,. ! ..
[ ;.,, ;7-4.: * r ,: ..„4.,,,,,, ,,:, „A ,,,,,..„ „,„ ,,,:,,,, .„.:;,, , ,,, „,,,, ,, ,, ,. :•
„, , 4 "C... ,:o,..-. 1, 331 A':21 1 Vf,',.,1,,.”40,' 1:),4 ',40.t t ,..t, it..., . /,.. ' •
. ' alL... ",,,t.> .,..•11% -i,:Axt ai. . 4-4.;',,... , :
46.1,0q.30
ettAN liID:7L LOCATIOM :M9 OR ADD . "ROPERTY, LOCATED,,ON THE WEST
SIDE OF TAIBOT ROAD SOUTH APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE S@JTH or ..S. W, 43RD STREET
1 , .. ;. • 1: i ' ,• .
•.,
• . :: .: : I : ..
LEGAL. DEMRIPTION: , , . . . .
ii •• '• . , 1 ,
• : .
t.!' .. . .
. , .
• i
DETAILED LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE 7. "1"11,, O , F",COF THE \ \ ,
RENTON. PLANNING DEPARTMEN1. . .
•, : . , . •
,.. I
. • , .
, .
• i:
. . ,
. .•. ,
. ,, • ' ' I .
. ,
, ' ( . I, • , , •.
., .
, • . , ' " ' i"! • !, : , : i ..
„• • . ,• , • „.
. . , , , • .'.
. ,
. ,
.. . ,
. .
1 S POSTED TO NOTOFY PR'',.. :,;PERTY -OVLAE133:, OF.
.
• :' !, .. •-. , ,
- , ,..• .: ;- •:.;:- ; :liva IA .:•.:' - ' "I. *'' ''''' '
0, . ,:;• , ,:. ; ... -: 1• '4;;: ,,,v. :. . ' ,ne-3 i,:, ' .j . '44. ' ;:-..,.. -.; ': i ,Y•..,‘-..,',., ! ,ir:- :,44. ,:r. c.. '.! , .:i*„.,-.„-t, it.. 4,.! .4.;.fi,.,:.:, !„,„: • ,
4L:, .
l:: ''';' -it', •..: . ri:'.,. NI
TO BE HELD
•
. • ,.-. . i .
, ..,.% :
Ciartif COLP,IC1L CHAMBERS9 MINgt:4;11PP-4L, thULANU
ON
JUNE 9, 1981 BEGINNilit.1 AT ....._...,\LL01. . , ,,'‘ ,41'44.1
..nraga . ' .
.........,... ......_____. , 7----- .
Ii • .. ••
P
xacazarsaarmas....r....... ,..,. . 6 Pet 0
1 , 1
. . . f
,•. ) '1 ' '12:'?A,!--- ' -2.'''' 'I, , :
Hi:0) C 11/ LA, \--:,, NI G !I II ic'
Fmk -
'cl'f..,...., ., r-2.'
'L Y.,.., i ! . .,
I
.,,,,.. -
1 , • . : ,, ! . , :
,., .
:
• .
k .:
i.:-:::1;: FROM G TO R-2„ APPROXIMATELY 815 ,ACRESf: (FILE 'il.F)-135.-80)
. , ,: ,...,,,,A
0 0 .- . (
.
1 ,47:::Y 4:..:,. '' ,..„,-, .P-:-' ', -;`,,z, tr- ,..,.,.: : B 1 . t
-
ih i ,,, , , .
A Eii0 . :.NIC 10 ..r. ' •
tuj ., . ..
' . , ,; : 1 •
1 ,
,
.
, . .:.,
•
..,•,--
A .„ .
E . .
• , , ,,,, ,, , .
• , . . ,
. i1, ,1; 1ni ,
,tri. ,
. ' ' '''' ' .7 ' ''''' ''''' 7::) '''' I 1 *:''. r,,, Al ..:,
, ,,,: ,,, ,.,:, „.,.•:.,„:: ,
•
, .. ,.,.• „ . .... . „.., ,,, E. ,,,,, ..., .,,,. , , .:,. ,, ..4 1) 1 ..'..',. I ,, i,,, ..,,,i ,.ti: 4. '. ''', '''''' 1 .0 C i..,.,.; .,,..0 r ,;',,,..,,,,, 5 .3: ..3-"r:•?,,,.-. 4 ri'r''-'... r.i',-.,.41' ' -, .! vi:. ::' - '.. 1 t. , i i.' . ..
, .i;., ;I !, ,‘,1.., •
THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW tOMMITTEE , HAS ISSUED A FLPI4YDEciaARATIOt,:y •01: 'NON-
, . It „oil !
'-'411 SIGNIFICANCE TilITH.1(1011LTIM___ i: ,
. .:- : ,
. .! . i I
,
1 0.
ANY APPEALS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE HEARING EXAMInER .3-,,Y iD v :oo pm.i,
JUNE 8, 1981
. • =.1
AA, 5, SO 1 •
FOR FURTHER INFORMATM CALL 13S"
. ;
II
_.;
THIS NOTICE NOT TO A',1E :4'i..'::'areOV't,':'!:t via-HourPI0PS., IA.AUTHORIZATION
l''LANNINGDEP!\1 i M E H T
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO Th mrAR {EG EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING
JUNE 9, 1981
APPLICANT: FRED BOWSER
FILE NUMBER: R-135-80
A. ',I1J Mi'q!•\feY PURPOSE OF I:+ti)>11 ST:
The applicant requests a rezone of the subject site '
from G to R-2 for the purpose of future multiple family
development.
B. GENERAL Iffy'® i'i!,TON:
1 . Owner of Record: LUCKY SEVEN INVESTMENTS
2. Applicant : FREDERICK R. BOWSER
Acting General Partner
•
3. Location:
(Vicinity Map Attached) West side of Talbot
Road South approximately
1/4 mile south of
S.W. 43rd Street
4 . Legal Description: A detailed legal
description is available
on file in the Renton
Planning Department.
5. Size ,bf Property: +8. 48 acres
6. Access : Via Talbot Road South
7. Existing Zoning: G, General Classification ,
District; minimum
lot size 35, 000 sq.
ft.
8. Existing Zoning in the Area: G
9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Low Density Multiple
Family, Medium Density
Multiple Family
10. Notification: The applicant was
notified in writing
of the hearing date. Notice
was properly published in
the Daily Record Chronicle
on May 25 , 1981 ,
and posted in three
places on or near
the site as required
by City Ordinance
on' May 28 , 1981 .
C. lIS'7L"®I Y/ms'\=Romp :
The subject site was annexed into the City by Ordinance
No. 3031 of May 17, 1976, at which time the present
zoning classification was applied.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING: FRED BOWSER, R-135-80
JUNE 9, 1981
PAGE TWO
D. 1„':YSICAL ILACKG OUND:
1 . Topography: The subject site rises from west to
east at approximately a 9% slope.
2. Soils: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgC) . Perme-
ability is moderately rapid in the surface layer
and subsoil. Runoff is slow to medium and the
erosion hazard is moderate. This soil is used
for timber, pasture, row crops, and for urban devel-
opment.
3. Vegetation: Much of the subject site is composed
of scrub grass and blackberries with some alder
and cottonwood scattered throughout.
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 (May 27, 1981 ) .
6. Land Use: The subject site is largely undeveloped
except for a single family dwelling in the extreme
southeast portion. Similar dwellings are scattered
on parcels to the north, east, and south. State
Route 167 lies to the west.
E. iN EIr,r;r:;o,:m OOD CHARACTERISTICS:
The surrounding properties are a mixture of clinic and
other medical related uses along with some scattered
single family housing.
F. m eal.IC SERVICES:
1 . Water and Sewer: A 12-inch water main and 8-inch
sanitary sewer extend north-south on Talbot Road
South adjacent to the subject site.
2. Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton
as per ordinance requirements.
3 . Transit: Metro Transit Route No. 145 operates
along S.W. 43rd Street within one-half mile to
the north of the subject site.
4 . Schools : Talbot Hill Elementary School is within
11/2 miles to the north of the subject site while
Fred Nelsen Junior High is within 2 miles to the
northeast and Lindbergh Senior High School is approxi-
mately 31 miles east.
5. Recreation: The subject site is approximately
1z miles south of Talbot Hill Park. In addition,
the grounds of Valley General Hospital may provide
some recreational opportunities.
G. M PPLICya1LE SECTIONS OF THE Z S KING CODE:
1 . Section 4-729 , G, General Classification District
2. Section 4-708, R-2, Residence Two Family
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING: ! FRED BOWSER, R-135-80
JUNE 9 , 1981
PAGE THREE
H. APPLE ' ;:,TM-SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PICK OR OTHER
OFFICIAL AL CITY DOCUMENT:
Comprehensive Plan, 1965, Land Use Report, Objective
6, Page 18.
I. IMPACT On THE IA'7 UAL OR M ui i,i.\i\I ENVIRONMENT:
1 . Natural Systems: Rezoning the subject property
will not directly affect the subject site. Future
development will, however, disturb the soils, remove
the vegetation, increase storm water runoff and
have an effect on traffic and noise levels in the
area. Through proper development controls and •
procedures, however, these impacts can be mitigated.
2. Population/Employment : If the subject site were
developed to the maximum permitted under the proposed
R-2 zoning (Special Permit) , the area..population
• would increase by approximately 210 persons (85
units x 2. 5 persons/unit) .
3. Schools : The school population would increase
by approximately 21 pupils , if the site were devel-
oped to 85 units.
4 . Social: Increased opportunities for social interaction
would be available for residents of the proposed
development.
5. Trafic: Construction of 85 units would increase
traffic in the area by approximately 520 trips/day
(6 . 1 trips per unit x 85 units) or an' 8. 6% increase
• over present levels on Talbot Road South.
J. ENV>I ICAPInI:WTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION:
Pursuant to the City of Renton ' s Environmental Ordinance
and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended,
RCW 43-21C, a final declaration of non-significance
was issued for the subject proposal by the Environmental
Review Committee on May 25, 1981 . The appeal period
expired on June 8, 1981 .
K. AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED:
1 . City of Renton Building Division.
2. City ' of Renton Engineering • Division.
3. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division.
4. City; of Renton Utilities Division.
5. City of Renton Fire Department.
6. City of Renton Parks Department
L. PLANNING 4'ETPAR"IPNIIEHT ANALYSIS:
1 . The proposed rezone to R-2 is' consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan land use designation of medium
density multiple family for the subject site and
• surrounding area. (Sec. 4-3014C-1b)
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING: FRED BOWSER, R-135-80
JUNE 9, 1981
PAGE FOUR
2. A parcel of property approximately 650 feet north
of the subject site was rezoned from G to R-3 by
Ordinance 2433 of September 23, 1968. In addition,
two parcels on the east side of Talbot Road South
• approximately the same distance and farther north
were rezoned in 1968 to R-3 by ordinance numbers
2431 and 2442 (Sec. 4-3024C-1C) .
3. Proposed development of the site through a Residential
Planned Unit Development would include 325 units
in a series of two and three-story buildings with
associated parking (covered and uncovered) .
4 . Off-site improvements will be required on Talbot
Road South as well as storm water retention/detention
as advised by the Engineering Division.
5. The Utilities Engineering Division indicates that
approved utility plans (water and sewer) are neces-
sary and any special utility fees or assessments
will also apply.
6. The following traffic improvements and associated
costs have been determined by the Environmental
Review Committee to be necessary in the vicinity
of Valley General Hospital.
a. Signal and lane modifications at S.W. 43rd Street
and Talbot Road South estimated at $50, 000.
b. New signal installation at S.W. 43rd Street and
SR-167 estimated at $110, 000.
c. Widening of S.W. 43rd Street adjacent to the
Hospital estimated at $40, 000. Total anticipated
traffic improvements would cost approximately
$200, 000.
Traffic studies by Christopher Brown, P.E. , show present
volumes of 30, 040 trips per day. The Environmental
Impact Statement of the Southeast Renton Comprehensive
Plan anticipated a volume of 38, 825 trips per day in
1990. The anticipated increase is therefore 8,785 daily,
trips . Using this figure and the estimated improvement
cost of $200,000, a cost figure of $22. 77 per vehicle
trip is established. Because all of the future impacts
will not be generated by developers wholly within the
City, the Environmental Review Committee has assessed
a cost of $15 per trip for the subject proposal and
other projects in this sub-area with the remaining one-
third to be borne by other developments contributing
traffic to this intersection. This fee is to be paid
at the time of building permit application. (If the
cost of improvements has increased, the mitigation fee
will be recomputed at the time of building construction. )
7 . Ingress and egress requirements of the Fire Marshall
must be met. A pre-construction conference with the
Fire Marshall will also be necessary.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING: FRED BOWSER, R-135-80
JUNE 9 , 1981
PAGE FIVE
8. Future buildings are to be marked with three foot
high letters for ease of location in emergencies.
The Police Department also will require that all
exterior lighting be placed away from the buildings
and shine on the structures.
9 . During the application review, the Environmental
Review Committee also expressed concern over what
recreational facilities may be provided by the
applicant. To insure that those impacts of the
proposed development are mitigated and facilities
provided for, the Committee determined that the
proponent will be subject to a fee of $150 per
unit for park acquisition and development fees
for off-site recreational requirements. This is
to be paid at the time of building construction.
10. The subject site is more than 21/2 times as long
as it is wide; This configuration results in design,
access and internal circulation problems. These
can ,only reasonably be resolved by combining the
site with the proposed R-2 rezone to the south.
The applicant has submitted a schematic site plan
for 325 unit residential planned unit development
on the two sites. It may be advisable to combine
these two parcels into a single application for
future review.
M. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based upon the above analysis, it is recommended that
the Hearing Examiner recommend approval of the rezone
request tb the City Council subject to the filing of
restrictive covenants that both parcels develop under
the Planned Unit Development process.
2P_"e-T,t^'�'i".S.^'s•ec,-rr•.._LILT.�,.�'.:,.__ _ .�1�.___ �.-,. _-._.. -_-.C___ 'F'*L•a• CS 1"i --- _y — .� eqa___. _.
1 \ .\ I `-'-'. .4 P"..c7 '
`4 G.r,el
1— — r — -- -- T— w® oar„®®®mm.m®e®.o��se�aa�..a
1 1 i e -
d• ®__,
j '©
.. 11 ill
F 6 .
t
. I
ilt I y
l i B-I
k e z n ea• n . .9 , -- -I 4 - y f��
—T ,--,- . -• .1 --, - ,- ;__.:,_ .- - ---,— I I I. / .
• 1 . _ I
(;
a.S OA, 2 ] _ I 117
a ar .,. y•. as 41 .or a ac 39 )B ,- 3. t t�� 3a St JJ9 � f?� , +
•
•
•9 53 9 l •, so `.3 Z .e 3' 59 SS .r .1 .[ ( I, ;. w of . (. .a.
�- r t -. -�,: T T ._.- �f I p
y I Y
82 B. 80 '9 'N „, fy 5 [ } r fS .S .0 •. ..•p r }I • I l.._ .
•
` }
O '29 30 Si 3Z 33 ,\
yy I i 3�
M F i ® `9_p f
j
t r- I ' L , �Qt 9r-
%
15
.:n %i. 2a 2
22
"21-3
�qj� s 1JJ
�.a_.a�. 1.....•sar•.0.2•Sa•
— � e�c 1 1
e, , i
. ...... .
0. ziNING
. : 5
,- u r.
..r i ICI .p..1
l
GF __ in !I -e="2.--%, ,er e . ) .ri."k .
/ 1
FRED BOWSER
APPL I CANT .FRED BOWSER TOTAL AREA +8.48 acres
PRINCIPAL ACCESS Talbot Road South
EXISTING ZON,I NG G, General Classification District
EXISTING USE Undeveloped
'PROPOSED USE Multiple Family Development
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Low Density Multiple Family; Medium Density
Multiple Family
? COMMENTS
3
r�fin:ti.`.7;-:e',i ,.,..-
•
'+' .Y"+ _
"' ;'; 'FRED BOWSER REZONE - R-135-80
(QJ, r
•
Y))I 1i..%'i
iv
t /}
1 .... ..
•
•
J •ill
•
' - —-..JS-s- ----:• 1. •---. ...._ VALLEY G__ NERAI.
—-Air. imilr
MI 1
_ _ , -0-- 1 1-`r 1
��� _43rd_= Ave._.:- _ �� / i ..
F.;,,—"•"%i I
i,,,,'
iii ,---
1 . , ,i�J, r If_ r,
,,,, ,,
��.• CUG�cY/IANJd7 - 1 III -griiV 1 r
if
O
Ai",
„ . . . „ .
, • ;, �� �iil. /
�- � .____ _
, /- .------ . 7,-
4,, it
Alivi,
1
/tit f •
. 1 i 1 i :44 ..,..r . ..../...
? i! .
. / ,„,,,f .. ,
Y .• jakle .=-;.t'1-rt_" - - .1 -
So / ,
a/MMILMIRint/MI Mina
1 /ell I I 1 egia
/ Iii) 1 - ' '
i*• . M 111 1 i'
a} ,...o..,.o. iae..n-.M'I� 1. m..• Mo 7n,.. 1 7e>. ,1���1 -+ �r
Plit
• it:-
1 S+_,,,,. i • • • , _� I. -ri i �''r --- '), i `' i� AN
4 n... ` ...py• �j • r t'.,.; .z..s.e,( •i 7........,=�'. -.T yi
, ,,, ir _
1._. fqtrti
41
i n„e,J5jZJUa..y175\ tV :
U
h f a `.! „'1't z"Y, tsiel.'y}J, oei' f"`"1•;P-4: e "5� "`f 3 A as" ",xs _ — I/ -
1..sa : ,' , „".}} BSI' ft ..1* ^ 14' r 9 , "c �� I_6
Y4 -, a n am G,'+rFk" t,. 4- I "Yo 4 nr m6� , - _ i
'- -('` ''i..1 4 t" ",4 :**,,,,fl''131,,,•;11,,:114':''''"4*,i,..M,..• i:„:.
• "' hJ L ii �•.+"f AA ,'`Rl�, ,1I �i q_L �,t?5� ^F"• 1 J�� ' '/'Y�
Fr /lt '�511�Y :.:L":,fr'Oe'll' 14"Y..4ti ` r spy 00,
w''6¢ 11 yyK',S '■JI�� f , 4 I 4. rpK 7' .'-j,` 1�,, ,
r'f. ' Ff`�t a.�i _ t' u ..30.;;Avt.F.,,,,f,,y-f° "e * r Sri. 1 .Jr. .F,i4,-4: h �'' d iI ��'� w t41'�"` �`, *F'tcti " 4 " ,} zX •k'� c '-'1 ya ,,- ' 1' IKI
``��"" ,' 6��@*'` "f � t � �Ci� ;�,15 f g '+k+.w£,1f• y L'`�ni� a'C`w.� �!�*d- xr*f S
r.. w,:,. ,1 1- ujv iAtj,P1 '1 Pf.4 ra�aY [ eV
,.:,a4 'i .4.e 1 t `' ON.,':.. ' ' .44, 11,7 vs•:,;, .
r i'
,F"fi *[ �, r S'� "�.�.<s'' Ar a�t ` •„- ��4 'a',1` ' `"4 • ^, .
�,c. " ' mot. "' r r!^, ',A L. . n i.* —r, y , e' 'k� i Y li t 4.0" 1
s ,..yr t fryer .f�.,�}, - + *.;,Sf.{�. , x e'�,pr,,. ,o w ... S ' ,,v .,e{a• 3� �9/}
ii'n:, .'X M ?w7.;�:1 •=il�:A '.:.'3. '4_1.'•- .',' ,. '.. e' ..i„ ».A!'Wje .�.r° SF s- �� {4 ��\
ummommis
1 ,I — e +�a• 0 od
tjp. tj
• ' i \ 11 •
S
rI I AI, �v pq y �±••
. ij kd t.�'': . ED E A ._ . Se r LE._L:6O1_ t "_ Ai
' rel 1111 c
• \ 41 • -,... f` r Sill•
_ _
III III
! ��,I�. mR�ou _ �I I� . It e'���1
•
...,:-....,,. ,r
a_
•
' :ram-,:..°•$nLq • - i•_-r r. ,,, np .,
1'. -:-:-.71:1/4:'
Le ''', { -s'r::.'- '- -ti 'rn' rf Y`• rAy 'r. t";r.-s" �a ,.f1.' _ 7 r� ser,a,>.t s ,
J •
/ . .
>,, { n \ _ _ a ..
. .. � _ ``'' )). ":''.:i . '-' • t
!, 1.•.4. i, ; •
...__
, • L_.i,...
I i , it yill) :� �, "I ( �u ".f
ii i ¢y ' t
" it:Imo ~� , v �,� _ e 1 rC 7�,,, ,,v �.�_,;:._,4 . ,,x,� ,..._ r .v.,jj,� I Ii
_.-��. _ �'. . .—i.....i /!' t ' `,,/ `•7` ' '- -=-' M 1. -emu - --�-- 5 1 ••�.1 ram. kk'
• I / r. t • ••Ft •V 1. d.
- .:
1;
1• rf ,11 a q (( f Hili
- ,
.0•••���ppp.--...,,, -'."'C\ f�ljl164-
\ /r• • y _.7„,,,....„....,1',':.,,c.:1/• ,„, ,
!I'IIt g� • \7. '�f .'' �7,s . �.J ':" Ijt:;t t+± lC..'La- te ,\�
,,,,..,.„.,p,.
, / _,.... 1
-'# *;".7,
i ., t y- { ..LSG., -. d•"'` ' ,+1' 1~ v �n',f 12 Pr 1 r
.-'--_,•( ‘, , ,• ,__E' ,,,,,.:. ---it,./d •,:l . Apr .
•
• 1 .p=;. "� jj I I G'I Id
•
. y., F L... ;;+} •,/ �Il!(! ',. - �':F�. a rP, a?,' F- ,Y:.. Y. ram f'Fz" ,h
. . ,, ) _ _ _--:-L f,'--_.--( • r----'-—., ti''. 1.
pry, \ .,. I• ,:i
/ _ F'. P 1
•
Sera 17o2. QC. _ ' 1 ``' PL .Ril
FRED BOWSER REZONE ta 6\,..q B�
I
R-135-80 "G" to R-2A � `' !
•
SCHEMATIC RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT •
-
I
RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
Application : :.2o CR-- 1`< -- SO
‘, it5 eDarae gWif.
►5ev'e ' "
� ._� �, Ifi :,d 1. ' 6 r rlt tvhl cr <Oa� y Pa 4E a?(� ti A e�'�n�4E,dal °
Location : V. 1>00 , o /COO ® - ki cm, t z
wd'-
Applicant : Bafte6 r" Fied
TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : 47,'
Police Department A. R. C. MEETING DATE : , ,
Public Works Department 9a 08
Engineering Division
' ' Traffic Engineering
BC ding Division
it
Utilities Engineering •
V/
Fire Department
(Other) :
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN
WRITING FO THE APPLICATION REVIEW 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 ATTEND THE ARC
PLEASE PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:OU P.M. ON
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ; •--- "
Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
l / �L�i , %, j ;/,L i` , ., ' L ? //Y- FZ (/ls'( '9 l u /L"�G L-/
7 (i�,t:- /`" ;(//c.s(j'lt /CC' j', ,'(1: :/L t•. _) j-,1,L //�/l. .f .-IS - C /�.`.�
C-D,1 c e,/,L,"S '/,: C. < / e„s ;:,_5 ( ,i- ,- ,--7' i( .C" [ t"C"f.C=1(/ 'C J7 GL./ /,'t f/1'C_e-
/i , 5 iii l6 %�..i•,/ • /2( I 6.c c / is /6;4Li .Sir//GL. /--lc.`G � /CL /1f%--ai '/�/�c,
1,--. J`S ///s-1). c:/L.')>,,ti,.4j'J.c. ('L- -s , /1
L 1 /
c- 1 - cz-- - Y " t - --- /-___ 4774/
Signature of Director or Autho ized Representative Date
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 07-", urY
Approved ( / Approved with Conditions Not Approved
-!?-"LJ4 .i'- CC'.. ,)'��t` .0 i �� ,i.,��-LU "1.w1-- �1,,`-e-t-- '1— /j..)a,.l:,C-L—
0 Al
Signature oflDirector or Authorized Representative Date
„t,,.c c ri/'LC/
• `
Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
CO / /oriceze.(4 . /7 e c >7, / /c--e.e/,•'�� //Cr,'t� G:-!S;t?c2.T
4 pt- i„.. °`-- '7-- - - At. 42 ...,.._ 7.
mc„,, i,e_____,,,,
3) Ivi ei.4._ kit-rt.,--.- -.,-:-------g--6e'
c: „,,,(4,1_,
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative die
.�
ate
REVIEWING. DEPARTMENT/DIVISION :
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : c ��:b
•
X Approved . Approved with Conditions Not Approved
•
a'y'Q: C //12-:,e•-- �' /, —d
Sign ure of Director or Authorized Representative. • Date
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : POLICE
Approved XXXX Approved with Conditions Not Approved
1) Talbot Road whould be improved to its full width prior to
any construction being started on the project . The improvements
should go all the way to the South property line both sides of st]
xg) -
2) Roadway should be kept clean at all times during construction & $5,(
cash bond should be posted to insure that roadway is kept clean.
Even though there may not be any land filling this area has general.
caused a lot of problems during past construction projects due to
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
e uippfnt & work personel going in & out of const . 'site. •
Lt . r.75Vdrsson 1/9/81
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : lya/.{7� Ei f i- C :'i'lj
Approved L-Approved with Conditions ' Not Approved
L, A
1 4 7_, . .
6-..:.z/,._ ,,„ , -:---
0, ,,,--, ,_, _ ,
re of Director or Authorized Re resentati /e I Date
Signature p
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION :
Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
MEMORANDUM
DATE : January 6, 1981
TO: Planning Department
FROM : Traffic Engineering Division -
SUBJECT : Fred Bowser Rezone (R-135-80)
West Side of Talbot Road South, Approx. 1 ,500' South of SW -43rd St.
Please advise developer that before building begins there will be an assessment
for future environmental and transportation improvements required to accommodate
new developments. This assessment will be $20 per average daily trip generated
by the development. Trip generations are determined from ITE standards.
Estimated assessment is as follows:
No. of x Trip Generated x Assessment Value = Total Assessment
Units Per Unit
90 x 6. 1 x $20 = $10,980
The estimated assessment value will be more or less than $10,980 depending on
the number of units in the final planning stage and type of building use.
)14)1/1/V.//
Gary A. N'prris , P. E.
CEM:ad UU
o
e.
i•
f`
+ti.
•
•
•
FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
Application No (s) : R7125-80
Environmental Checklist No. : ECF-634-80
Description of Proposal: Request to rezone
8. 7 acres from "G"
to R-3 ' to permit
future 'construction
of multiple family
dwellings.
Proponent:]� Dave t3est/Daryl Connell
Location of Proposal: West side of Talbot •
Road, south approximately
1 ,000 feet south
of S.W; 43rd Street,
Lead Agency: Renton Planning Department
This proposal was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee
on the following dates :
December 17, 1980
•
January 21 , 1981
March 40' 1981
March 11 , 1981
March 25, 1981
May 13, , 1981
May 20, . 1981
Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings
of the ERC on application ECF-634-80 are the following:
' 1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheet, prepared by;
Roger J. Blaylock DATED: December 17, 1980
2) Applications:' , Rezone R-125-80
3) Correspondence: •
Dated To From
•
January 23, 1981 Daryl Connell Roger Blaylock
February 27, 1981 Roger Blaylock Daryl Connell
March 16, 1981 Daryl Connell Christopher Brown, PE
May 15, 1981 Daryl Connell Christopher Brown, PE
May 21 , 1981 Files Environmental Review
Committee
4 ) Proposed Declaration of Non-Significance
DATED: December 17, 1980
5) Recommendations :
A declaration of non-significance was recommended by
the Engineering and Traffic Divisions and the Fire Department.
A declaration of significance was recommended by the
Planning Department.
•
Both the Building and ' Police Departments ' requested more '
information.
R-125-80
ECF-634-80 • I
This Declaration of Non-Significance is provisioned on the
following mitigating measures :
1 ) The mitigation of off-site traffic impacts specifically
at the intersections of Talbot Road South and S.W. 43rd
Street and S.W. 43rd Street and SR 167 as outlined in
the memorandum of May 21 , 1981 . Mitigation is to be
payment of $15 per vehicle trip generation at time of
building permit application. (If the cost of improve-
ments has increased the mitigation fee will be recomputed
at the time of building construction. )
2) The mitigation of off-site recreational impacts is subject
to the payment of $150 per unit park acquisition and
development fees at the time of building construction.
Signatures: "1/7
..ZW40; •
/&((
(.0114/3
Ronald G. Nelson David R. Clemens, Acting
Building Director Planning Director
r r
"!\)4-<-12
Richard C. fra- 7E3R7 Acting
Public Works Director
DATE OF PUBLICATION: May 25L 1981
EXPIRATION OF APPEAL PERIOD: June 7, 1981
"eINAL DECLARATION OF NON SIGNIFICANCE
Application No (s) : R-135-80
Environmental Checklist No. : ECF-642-80
Description of Proposal : Request to rezone
8. 5 acres from "G"
to R-2 to permit
future construction
of multiple family
dwellings.
Proponent : Fred Bowser/Daryl Connell
Location of Proposal: West side of Talbot
Road, south approximately
44 mile, south of
S.W. 43rd Street_.
Lead Agency: Renton Planning Department
This proposal was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee
on the following dates :
January 21 , 1981
March 4 , 1981
March 11 , 1981
March 25, 1981
May 13, 1981
May 20, 1981
Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings
of the ERC on application ECF-642-80 are the following:
1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheet, prepared by:
Steve Munson DATED: January 13, 1981
2) Applications : Rezone: R-135-80
3) Correspondence:
Dated To From
January 23, 1981 Daryl Connell Roger Blaylock
February 27, 1981 Roger Blaylock Daryl Connell
March 16, 1981 Daryl Connell Christopher Brown, PE
May 15 , 1981 Daryl Connell Christopher Brown, PE
May 20, 1981 Files Environmental Review
Committee
4) Recommendations :
A declaration of non-significance was recommended by
the Engineering and Utilities Divisions and the Fire
and Planning Departments.
Both the Building and the Police Departments requested
more information.
This Declaration of Non-Significance is provisioned on the
,following mitigating measures :
1 ) The mitigation of off-site traffic impacts specifically
at the intersections of Talbot Road South and S.W. 43rd
Street and S.W. 43rd Street and SR 167 as outlined in
the memorandum of May 20, 1981 . Mitigation is to be
R-135-80
.,ECF-642-80
payment of $15 per vehicle trip generation at time of
building permit application. (If the cost of improvements
has increased the mitigation fee will be recomputed
at the time of building construction. )
2) The mitigation of off-site recreational impacts is subject
to the payment of $150 per unit park acquisition and
development fees at the time of building construction.
Signatures :
(iyi(7.4 -ezocfe
Ronald G. Nelson D d R. Clemens, Acting
Building Director Planning Director
Richard C. Houghto)i, Acting
Public Works Director
DATE OF PUBLICATION : May 25, 1981
EXPIRATION OF APPEAL PERIOD: June 7 , 1981
__ ' "491 ,. Planning
12-1979
RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
Appli cation : kg70Al CR%- /3S- S0 v,...yelo 'e.... 5c.4jec?
$/fe 4,8in " " -et`ear Cf v 0 Le/rtfiaeGtGeatihi;dsdmd
ykkfisiii
Location : kP Slip et la /let A4• S. 4011,p 1x. 'COO 'S.el%red y 3 'bid SY,
r
Applicant $emsl
c.: TA;e40/
TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : a/P7/8/
Police Department A, R, C, MEETING DATE : //. 'i/
Public ks Department E.R.C. 1741/,/g/
Engineering Division
Traffic Engineering
Building Division
Utilities Engineering
Fire Department
(Other) :
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN
.> WRIW GZ ��$�FO THE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON
AT 9 :00 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
i/27/8/
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : —
Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
CO hirdraul G pe,r.-y-,r 71 ✓'e7t4 teed -"row, �J5.v v,T.
4 ea.&_ /..-„------ --
ia-4-y-- la_
3) C4r-t- clvirIt'Z'r: •42-e°444 "— S
—:714 $1--' 4-0..--- 1/7/
senta .
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative ate
-4S
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION :
Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
\\\\\Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
® a Planninc
12-l979
RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
Application : M40,4 47 - /33 9 '',.., ecit tio S0 ee1C?1
Qpr4' p deo.r 7 Ae e'en
Location : 1
Applicant: 4966,07) Fie- '
TO: P s Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : ,, 4'6
Police Department A, R,C, MEETING DATE : OAKIV
"
Public Works Department CAL. 1 ! ti: , ',71
Engineering Division
Traffic Engineering
_ Building Division
Utilities Engineering
Fire Department
(Other) :
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED "IN
WRITING FORTHE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON
`/ AT 9: 0 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM,
IF YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE Tp ATTEND THE ARC,
PLEASE PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P .M. ON
® 'a /V .
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : POLICE
Approved XXXX Approved with Conditions Not Approved
•
1) Talbot Road whould be improved to its full width prior to
any construction being started on the project . The improvements
should po all the way to the South property line both sides of stree
x t)
2) Roadway should be kept clean at all times during construction & $5 ,000
cash bond should be posted to insure that roadway is kept clean.
Even though there may not be any land filling this area has generally
caused a lot of problems during past construction projects due to
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
,uippicnt & work personel going in & out of const . site .
Lt . r.gRjf-");ersson 1/9/81
P
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION :
Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
44 Planning
�� ��� 12-1979
RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
Appli cation : kg7® '' (Re- au '" ',) /.#.4 owlet tc 'e tenve 't, , :'tattl
$ Ile "Ow IV 10 kva r(a r 4Calocio, (Am f604Ainerntet4/016asice/7 4 0,0
Location : 1. SideerraIit J. ,"m etepip6F?, /COO ,afSU493 ftokSif.
I.. d
Applicant.: '"i�-�1 �'I'/ �tia
TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE ; `' '`r,
Police Department #'F ''
P A. R. C. MEETING DATE :
Public Works Department A r�
P E r 8 % 11
En neering Division
Traffic Engineering
Building Division
Utilities Engineering
Fire Department
(Other) :
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN
WRITiO.� �G FOs �'E APPLICATION REVI CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON
TH EW 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:OU P .M. ON
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : / y4;; En,: ,��/j
Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
5-e-_ c _-_. --- Yla (--k-LA-A-Q-4-
1,___4-- ---2 - 8
Signature of Director or Authorized Representati e I Date
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION :
Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
/
MEMORANDUM
DATE : January 6, 1981
TO : Planning Department
FROM : Traffic Engineering Division
SUBJECT : Fred Bowser Rezone (R-135-80)
West Side of Talbot Road South, Approx. 1 ,500' South of SW 43rd St.
Please advise developer that before building begins there will be an assessment
for future environmental and transportation improvements required to accommodate
new developments. This assessment will be $20 per average daily trip generated
by the development. Trip generations are determined from ITE standards.
Estimated assessment is as follows:
No. of x Trip Generated x Assessment Value = Total Assessment
Units Per Unit
90 x 6. 1 x $20 = $10,980
The estimated assessment value will be more or less than $10,980 depending on
the number of units in the final planning stage and type of building use.
a• )7/01/147'4/
Gary A. rris, P.E.
,eglt
CEM:ad
76 PECFNEb 26
N 8 1991 JA 1
1J /gl 5%. Pl anni n
12-1979
RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
Application : Ocetg2® C,Q.- /, ® t?) ei e�rebae p seeiiit't?
et op
® d r 1,42 016 1, ' eft-diva ° ReA
Location : side act ��-. O iat liet g. lop,tot, /Coo ®�o0''f Stee it93°d t:
Applicant : $Pr e r
d
TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : c72/POZe
Police Department A, R, C, MEETING DATE : /f , ,,,
Public Works Department E.R.C.9 4 1 0 ,;; ,''
Engineering Division
Traffic Engineering
Bu ' ding Division
Ili
Utilities Engineering
Fire Department
(Other) :
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN
WRIT G FO THREVIEW
E APPLICATION 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 ATTEND THE ARC,
PLEASE PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P .M. ON
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ; 5.-
Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
12CSiu/ 1 4--/?f(-KS ga(e�t_O 4) Q. jet-:V4G`70 /> A �7
(JZL' ix. /<lleS7/' -S /ez--0.) r i N/C,c)73 r�2 /Av6::,6-c`sS 4-- zG/2c`�
74 - cl/K/S l-CiC -GS /j Cc1/1"%G`n�ii- `Y=-&�c-e( Z-7 4„ 6.7/ fiJc--
/i/'2S//J L /_,%//ZG 9 i',G--d/e/- 6z-x / (-9/- 7k-L- 1-ie e/ / -LL_ /1/"Ze C,&6
Cc)10b 47-10 a ` / tiGL
C f '�— /4;4%
Signature of Director or Autho ized Representative Date
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : IA-pi-try
Approved '/ Approved with Conditions Not Approved
j14..j it), alr*iri Athtli fLi-- „4011E1L1-- 4,04,ye-i- .
c„,,,JL afit ,4rej -{JUi- lw_ .,t) ago4.4_e—_,,h
l 7/o
Signature of 'Director or Authorized Representative Date
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 JUNE 9, 1981 , AT 9: 00 A.M.
TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS :
1 . DAVE BEST
App] iction for rezone from G to R-3, multiple
family residential of approximately 8. 7 acres ,
file number R-125-80; property located on the
west side of Talbot Road South approximately
1 ,000 feet south of S.W. 43rd Street .
2 . FRED BOWSER
Application for rezone from G to R-2 , low density
multiple family residential of approximately 8 . 5
acres, file number R-135-80; property located on
the west side of Talbot Road South approximately
1/4 mile south of S.W. 43rd Street .
3. ONE VALLEY PLACE PROPERTIES
Application for rezone from G to P-1 , Public Use
of approximately 11 . 7 acres, file number R-047-81 ;
property located south of Valley General Hospital ,
southwest of the intersection of Talbot Road South
and S.W. 43rd Street .
4. ONE VALLEY PLACE PROPERTIES
Application for a preliminary commercial planned
unit development to allow the construction of
approximately 140,000 square feet of office
and commercial complex as support activities for
Valley General Hospital on a 11 .7 acre site, file
number PPUD-032-81; property located south of Valley
General Hospital , southwest of the intersection of
Talbot Road South and S.W. 43rd Street .
5. ONE VALLEY PLACE PROPERTIES
Application for a preliminary plat to accompany
the proposed rezone and commercial planned unit
development of 11 . 7 acres into 12 lots, file
number PP-044-81 ; property located south of Valley
General Hospital , southwest of the intersection of
Talbot Road South and S.W. 43rd Street .
Legal descriptions of the 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 JUNE 9, 1981 , AT 9 : 00 A.M.
TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS .
PUBLISHED: May 25, 1981 DAVID R. CLEMENS
ACTING PLANNING DIRECTOR
CERTIFICATION
I , STEVE MUNSON, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE
ABOVE DOCUMENTS WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES
ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW.
ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to
before me, a Notary Public, in
and for the State of Washington
residing in King County, on the
15th day of May, ?981 .
SIGNED:
I
pF R4,4
4y 0 THE CITY OF RENTON
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
NAL
BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR ® PLANNING DEPARTMENT
9A co' 235- 2550
094rF0 SEP�„.10-
May 28, 1981
Mr. Fred Bowser
16044 16th Avenue S.W.
Seattle, Washington 98166
Re: Application for rezone from G to R-2, low density multiple
family residential of approzimately 8. 5 acres , File No.
R-135-80; property located on the west side of Talbot
Road South approximately one-fourth mile south of S.W.
43rd Street.
Dear Mr. Bowser:
The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above
mentioned application on December 24 , 1980. A public hearing
before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for
June 9 , 1981 , 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 ,
Roger J. Blaylock
Associate Planner
RJB:gh
NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
RENTON, WASHINGTON
The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a final
declaration of non-significance for the following projects :
DURWOOD BLOOD (ECF-601-80 and ECF-001-81)
Application for a rezone from R-1 to R-2 along with
a special permit to construct ten townhouse condo-
minium units; property lying west of Edmonds Avenue N, E .
between N . E . 13th Street and N. E. 14th Street .
The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has further issued a
final declaration of non-significance with conditions for the
following projects :
PIETRO ' S GOLD COAST PIZZA PARLOR (ECF-048-81)
(PIETRO ' S CORPORATION)
Application for building permit to construct an approxi-
mate 4300 sq. ft . wood frame, single story building to
house a family restaurant; property located on the south
side of N. E . Sunset Boulevard, east of Whitman Court N . E .
DAVE. BEST (ECF-634-80)
Application for rezone from G to R-3 to permit future
construction of multiple family dwellings; property
located on the west side of Talbot Road South approxi-
mately 1, 000 feet south of S .W. 43rd Street .
FRED BOWSER (ECF-033-81)
Application for rezone from G to R-2 to permit future
construction of multiple family dwellings; property
located on the west side of Talbot Road South approxi-
mately 1/4 mile south of S . W. 43rd Street .
ONE VALLEY PLACE PROPERTIES (ECF-033-81)
Applications for rezone from G to P-i to allow development
of office complex and preliminary plat approval for 12-lot
commercial plat; property located south of Valley General
Hospital, southwest of the intersection of Talbot Road
South and S .W. 43rd Street .
Further information regarding this action is available in the Planning Depart-
ment, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 234-2550. Any appeal of ERC
acton must be filet' with the Hearing Examiner by June 8, 1981
Published: May 25, 1981
FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
Application No (s) : R-125-80
Environmental Checklist No. : ECF-634-80
Description of Proposal : Request to rezone
8. 7 acres from "G"
to R-3 to permit
future construction
of multiple family
dwellings.
Proponent : Dave Best/Daryl Connell
Location of Proposal: West side of Talbot
Road, south approximately
1 ,000 feet south
of S.W. 43rd Street.
Lead Agency: Renton Planning Department
This proposal was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee
on the following dates :
December 17, 1980
January 21 , 1981
March 4 , 1981
March 11 , 1981
March 25, 1981
May 13, 1981
May 20, 1981
Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings
of the ERC on application ECF-634-80 are the following:
1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheet, prepared by:
Roger J. Blaylock DATED: December 17, 1980
2) Applications : Rezone R-125-80
3) Correspondence:
Dated To From
January 23, 1981 Daryl Connell Roger Blaylock
February 27, 1981 Roger Blaylock Daryl Connell
March 16, 1981 Daryl Connell Christopher Brown, PE
May 15, 1981 Daryl Connell Christopher Brown, PE
May 21 , 1981 Files Environmental Review
Committee
4) Proposed Declaration of Non-Significance
DATED: December 17, 1980
5) Recommendations :
A declaration of non-significance was recommended by
the Engineering and Traffic Divisions and the Fire Department.
•
A declaration of significance was recommended by the
Planning Department.
Both the Building and Police Departments requested more
information.
I \
• R-125-80 --
ECF-634-80
This Declaration of Non-Significance is provisioned on the
following mitigating measures :
1 ) The mitigation of off-site traffic impacts specifically
at the intersections of Talbot Road South and S.W. 43rd
Street and S.W. 43rd Street and SR 167 as outlined in •
the memorandum of May 21 , 1981 . Mitigation is to be
payment of $15 per vehicle trip generation at time of
building permit application. (If the cost of improve-
ments has increased the mitigation fee will be recomputed
at the time of building construction.. )
•
2) The mitigation of off-site recreational impacts is subject
• to the payment of $150 per unit park acquisition and
development fees at the time of building construction.
Signatures: 7
i49Yr-) . //d/(;;
Ronald G. Nelson David R. Clemens, Acting
Building Director • Planning Director
Ri hard C. Houghton Acting
' Public Works Director
DATE OF PUBLICATION: May 25, 1981 •
EXPIRATION OF APPEAL PERIOD June 7, 1981
•
•
•
• li
OF l'?4 ,1
.; , . 0 THE CITY OF RENTON
U 4� ,,' MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
oielL :I
BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR ® PLANNING DEPARTMENT
4 235- 2550
0•9g7-
fio SEP���' May 21 , 1981
TO : Files
FROM: Environmental Review Committee
•
RE : ERC POLICY STATEMENT/TRAFFIC IMPACTS RESULTING
FROM GENERAL GROWTH AROUND VALLEY GENERAL HOSPITAL
During the next ten-year period, the land in the vicinity of
Valley General Hospital will undergo substantial development .
At the present time , water and sewer services are under expan-
sion to service this anticipated growth . However , specific
traffic impacts can only be estimated through a comparison of
projected traffic volumes suggested in the Environmental Impact
Statement for the Southeast Renton Comprehensive Plan and recent
field work done by Christopher Brown, P .E. The specific traffic
improvements considered necessary include (1) signal and lane
modifications at S .W. 43rd Street and Talbot Road , estimated at
$50 , 000 ; (2) new signal installation at S .W. 43rd Street and
SR 167 , estimated at $110 , 000 ; and (3) widening of S .W. 43rd
Street adjacent to the hospital , estimated at $40 , 000 . Total
anticipated traffic improvements would cost approximately
$200 , 000 .
In determining an equitable pro rata cost for new development
to make these necessary improvements , the difference in anti-
cipated daily traffic volumes and the present traffic volumes
were considered on the segment of S .W. 43rd Street between
Talbot Road and SR 167 . The field studies of Mr . Brown showed
a present volume of 30, 040 on an average week day , while the
Comprehensive Plan E . I . S . anticipated a volume of 38, 825 trips
in 1990 . The increase is therefore anticipated at 8 , 785 trips
per day over this segment.
A cost figure of $22 . 77 per vehicle trip is generated, when
the estimated cost of $200 , 000 is divided by the anticipated
increase in traffic volume of 8 , 785 trips . However , this fee
is not realistic , when we consider that the intersections are
impacted by growth outside of the City of Renton' s control .
Therefore, the Environmental Review Committee has determined
not to burden the developer within the City of Renton with
the total cost of traffic improvements . It has taken the
Memorandum to _ es
May 21 , 1981
Page Two
i a
official position that on these specific improvements that the
cost should be $15 . 00 per vehicle trip, shared by this sub-area,
and the remaining one-third from other developments contributing
traffic to this intersection.
David R. Clemens, R. chard Houghton,
Acting Planning Director Acting Public Works erector
.4/W/40:2
Ronald Nelson •
Building Director
•
•
Files : List, then add to as necessary.
1. Best Rezone
2 . Bowser Rezone
3 . One Valley Place Rezone
4. Ive Clinic
OF JJ
THE CITY OF RENTON
V `� © z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055
N BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT
°94 co• 235- 2550
° January 23, 1981
'TE �
D SEP ,jk
Mr. Daryl Connell
P.O.Box 580
Bellevue, Washington 98009
RE: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
(1 ) DAVID BEST REZONE R-125-80
(2) FRED BOWSER REZONE R-135-80
Dear Mr. Connell:
The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the additional
information that was submitted and has found it insufficient
to make a final environmental determination. Their primary
areas of concern are (1 ) impacts to adjacent uses, (2) recreation,
(3) traffic, (4) access, and (5) drainage.
The traffic analysis being prepared by Chris Brown should
address both the access question and traffic impacts from
the proposals. The City is concerned about recreational
impacts including integration into on-site design and more
specific methods of mitigating those impacts which should .
be submitted by the applicants. In addition, the Public
Works Director has raised the question of adequate downstream
drainage capacities. An engineering analysis addressing
this drainage question is necessary prior to the final en-
vironmental determination.
Since the rezoning of the subject parcels is the first step
to construction, issuing a Declaration of Non-Significance
could suggest to the applicants that the proposed densities
would also be acceptable from an environmental impact point
of view. Therefore, the Committee wants their points of
concern adequately addressed. Disclosure of this information
will determine the ultimate positions of each of the Cities
departments .
The Committee is in a borderline position between requiring
an Environmental Impact Statement or issuing a Declaration
of Non-Significance. The responses to the points of concern
are critical. They must include specific methods of mitigation.
Preliminary responses should be submitted within 30 days.
Sincerely,
Roger J. Blaylock,
Associate Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
JANUARY 21, 1981
AGENDA
COMMENCING AT 10: 00 A.M. :
THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
PENDING BUSINESS:
JAMES BANKER (ECF-623-80, SP-111-80)
MT. OLIVET CEMETERY COMPANY (ECF-567-80, SP-047-80)
OLD BUSINESS:
SP-047-80 MT. OLIVET CEMETERY COMPANY
ECF-567-80 Application for special permit to fill and
grade 11-acre expansion area; property
located north and east of existing Mt.
Olivet Cemetery, east of N.E. 3rd Street,
in the vicinity of 100 Blaine Avenue N.E.
NEW BUSINESS:
R-125-80 DAVE BEST
ECF-634-80 Application for rezone from G to R-3 to
permit future construction of multiple
family dwellings; property located on the
west side of Talbot Road South approximately
1,000 feet south of S.W. 43rd Street
R-135-80 FRED BOWSER
ECF-642-80 Application for rezone from G to R-2 to
permit future construction of multiple
family dwellings; property located on the
west side of Talbot Road South approximately
1/4 mile south of S.W. 43rd Street
R-001-81 DURWOOD E. BLOOD
ECF-001-81 Application for rezone from R-1 to R-2 to
permit future construction of ten townhouse
condominium units; property located on the
south side of N. E. 14th Street approximately
130 feet west of Edmonds Avenue N.E.
R-137-80 RENTON VILLAGE VETERINARY SUPPLY COMPANY
V-007-81 Applications for rezone from GS-1 and R-4
ECF-646-80 to B-1 to allow parking for commercial
business and variance for reduction of
required setback from 20 feet to 10 feet,
relocation of required 5 foot landscaping
requirement to portion of right-of-way of
SR-515, and lease of 20-foot strip of SR-515
right-of-way for relocated 5-foot landscaping
strip; property located on the east side of
Talbot Road South, south of FAI-405 and
north of Puget Drive South
SME-110-80 CITY OF RENTON
ECF-002-81 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Application for exemption from the Shoreline
Management Substantial Development Permit
to allow maintenance dredging of sedimentary
deposits from the bed of the Cedar River
from the mouth of the Cedar River to the
Logan Street Bridge (approximately 1. 2 miles)
•
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
JANUARY 21, 1981
PAGE TWO
SP-451-7.9 BURLINGTON NORTHERN, INC.
ECF-523-70 Review of Declaration of Significance
regarding application for special permit
to fill approximately 24. 35 acres situated
between Lind Avenue S.W. and Springbrook
Creek and. .between S.W. 27th and S.W. 30th
Streets
SM-86-80 PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
ECF-630-80 Application for Shoreline Management
Substantial Development Permit to allow
installation of steel 18" OD casing pipe
within the Bronson Way Bridge that
crosses the Cedar River west of City Hall
SA-008-81 WM. S. TSAO & CO. (POITRAS)
ECF-005-81 Application for site approval for develop-
ment of small shopping center to be situ-
ated on three lots; property located on
the south side of N.E. 4th Street approxi-
mately 600 feet west of Union Avenue N.E.
I / •
/ • Date circulated : 11a/g/ Comments due : /43/9/
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIE19 SHEET
ECF - 6'/
APPLICATION No (s ) .2-f3- -Re)
PROPONENT : R,i4i e,- FI- Z .
PROJECT TITLE : P el.76 ,—
Brief Description of Project : (4a ctuesF p �pyl� SU jc'c7cSi�e
�� if il f ,,((
'Crpw� � 1 e g-oZ `Eor-Euellor- cOnSt.trc2�C�'e)h /I lPif, 1,�l asaa°'l� OCvf<rj
LOCATION : U Side To-lh0t a d.S. as09 r-o • /SSOD' 5 . 0fSW
SITE AREA : egfiggtei-e g BUILDING AREA (gross )
DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) :
IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE
INFO
1 ) Topographic changes :
2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality :
3 ) Water & water courses :
4 ) Plant life : v�
5 ) Animal life : 1�
6 ) Noise :
7) Light & glare :
8 ) Land Use ; north : Opletce(owed
east : cn e//ve •s/y!6' NCI-41 J y
south : Cca rl
west : erg 6t2/7LiiSA'//7
Land use conflicts :
View obstruction : /Jo1 fA e(� •
9) Natural resources : !
10 ) Risk of upset :
11 ) Population/Employment :
12 ) Number of Dwellings :
13 ) Trip ends ( I T E ) iin p s/4, �h s J-"s. �oro/ Joi ?.z
traffic impacts : ' .I%Oi�Hevc ;e in i�A1 U 'e pa�rOr�s ���'�@ set r3./6®79d.-
14 ) Public services :
15 ) Energy : •
16 ) Utilities :
17 ) Human health : p�
18 ) Aesthetics :
19 ) Recreation :
20 ) Archeology/history :
1t ezee���av� (4) r1t
COMMENTS :
rllf.5fore osc,i Q°tOl f'�lo�dS�c/ r
J= f®rma 6On (st d9r•cm-tQ,`✓s y r [ ..lam �.,.t / � Q�I 'G1 714
ild/e t i !rt^^'- jr4 '` k G eirLS'reu l a i�� ®r~+ r fit fl/a/e 5 4ti1'riarailu5 O (nvi1-(e Lc,° ���� frei 'a(pn j443tv(�c's /fee'0(,fra4�17I evi/l(h," CD-c�'-4 '-// jve,a g 15®� e u,•-zrGf m,11a-'t,-eca-�s'.ar -( Oafc,'/[7C'e5 �f4''[': /me 45 .
Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information
Reviewed b y : c71�ug GLILo rr Title : /T5 Si.41- t Zi,,,c<r-
Date : /fp/gl //
ALk,5u6.1. �- 7�o S.�V�'�t e �' f C Parsdiscusse
FORM: ERC-06 Oil1 (r(oo4n1evrl5
IF /7 NPR
/ CITY OF RENTON •
RE7ONE APPLICATION '
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
APPLICATION NO. A /3 S". 0 LAND USE HEARING
APPLICATION NO. EXAMINER 'S ACTION
APPLICATION FEE $ APPEAL FILED
RECEIPT NO . CITY COUNCIL ACTION
FILING DATE ORDINANCE NO. AND DATE
HEARING DATE .
APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 : .
1 . Name FRED BOWSER Phone 872-5398
Address 16044 - 16th Ave. S.W. Seattle, Wa. 98166
3. Property petitioned for rezoning is located on TALBOT ROAD SOUTH
.®
between 43rd and 55th Avenue South
4 . Square footage or acreage of property 8.48 Acres
5 . Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach a
separate sheet) •
T `The North half of the North half of the Northwest quarter
' -, • of the Southeast quarter, Section 31, Township 23 North,
;. •Range 5 Haat, W.M., in King County, Washington, lying West
•
'.r -' .-or Road; except the East 300 feet of the North -
L',. . • :half of. the- North haft-of the North half of the Northwest
44 -quarter of the Southeast quarter; and except that portion
thereof conveyed to the State of Washington for PSH No. 5..
N^`; ~� by Deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 5282262.
- a.. i ,
M^ . ! TOGETHER WITH an easement for ingress, egress and utilities
u7 c" over, through and across the following described'property:
'� -' '
`..! 1. The'N. 30' of the E. 300';of the.S. 1/2 of the N. 1/2 of
6 1 1
".�' .the N. 1/2' of the NW 1/4 of the SE1/4; Section .31, T. 23 N„
, C1-4 A s72 R. 5 E...W.M., in Ring County, Washington, EXCEPT that portion ..
•
; thereof -lying within Kent-Renton Road. AND the S. 30'r. ' of
'1:':;� s �; the E.:300' c!` 'ha N. 1/2 of the N. 1/2 0 the N. 1/2 of the. ' '
•.:c,, •: :NW 1/4 of the SE 1/v; of .said Section 31, T. 23 N., R• 5 E.,
y.• "ti;;.,'; W.A.,. in King-County, via• ;,�cf+trre...z}4<L=EPT that portion thereof
s 'lying within Rent-Renton Ro.;4 t. . ,.
6 . Existing Zoning G Zoning Requested R-2 ,
NOTE TO APPLICANT: The following factors are considered in reclassifying
property. Evidence or additional information to substantiate
your request may be attached to this sheet. (See Application
Procedure Sheet for specific requirements . ) Submit this form
in duplicate.
7. Proposed use of site MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
8. List the measures to be taken to reduce impact on the surrounding area.
The development will be constructed to all building ordinances of the City of Renton
including such ordinances as grading and filling, storm water run-off, utilities,
landscaping and site density as well as aesthetic standards to enhance the surrounding area.
9 . How soon after the rezone is granted do you intend to develop the site?
Within one year if financing is available.
10 . Two copies of plot plan and affidavit of ownership are required.
Planning Dept.
1-77
. •.-.7 .51 1 , 41W, -
6.17-i, 1 ,1 /I.':• 4 Iri( .,111 , ,:.,
# '' " . , j 4.`.'1' ,..,-e,... .,,, - ,,-."
; ' �A., i.,.... :,..,,,it,iti,,,F,4.ii."...„,,i::;:,..,40:11e.4. .roo>ic.-:
j //t 0 ..'-a,, A• - , e ,, . . .. -.- ...,-- _ .4 It '
1
•
P1' l !7
i , ,/` ,
j 1 I i jr �' i '.1 ��'
•
..„,...:
•
I It
I r `
t f
` J'
ei t f
I f t '�a '
•
.�;
.
ip.N 2,':' : / • •
4
x
CCC • 4 t± R
,4 .,,'4 j , °, -• !,, , . ..i, .
4 .4
a a• ' < I ! }
•1 j
.: . -,‘ , ,m_ ' -
�. y :f
3: t
t [ Ow
it - . _ +> _.
r
t
71,.. . Og. k.\ I ' $ •
DEC24 .11 -Atf§: 4 i
� G DE.PNp.�
/ , • • ,
i.- 60\1) PO.'"si...
6z
_._ ®Ev _ _
, . . .
, . • . . .
/al
.. . .. . . . . :
i.1
..
• .
: . 4.
. it/ .: . . .. - .. ....:.A . - i • :. . . . -
• VAL L E Y_� .N�ER.A L
• -Mort • _�F7LOS_P_• Y�.L -Stair .
m.I 1 I im 11.41 ilariJdOrr /it .LI I . • .
. :•• • maw . •4 3 rd Ave. .__ ���� —
7 _ 1
-11 ir7rif). trip,: .,•:, :.. .r.
. . jr_1::.. /.7. . . .. / r119"_____Ed
. •
:......: : ...:...i..-.:..... :.......:.:. . . ...„...: /4-.)?(-. .,-.c,i. .: '. / :..r_ 4
0� 1
• - ILI ii,!.,,i,1 ' . -.-: .
, ,
,_ . , . , .. .
. • ide.d)
• + ,,..-3, . .
4P,,, 7....:-......:- i�I J• ......• ...:.
. . 111 .. mirmir. .
��� ♦ :: ...., .;. "Lir
Fic,f2fili.) A i ! • n„,
:: : al,
Aff
_ Ar
/_.,:l
• ..: . . it..i, 1 . .. . „ ...
. •• .
. .
.. .. . .. . . •
. . .
. .
. . . .. . .. .
,, ..fii, A.,-,_
. . .. --. . . . , . ..-:..
_,B . ,:,, I AlEvammon.- .
. I:,:.I ''—',- • . —
7.. .7 - ". . . I rill
llr i
:.-.i... ... .i. ':• .. / 0 i:
.011/A3,1=C*4 — if •
, I • _
— - Toll e•
1/1*.11 'I) ...::: '.1:'..-'''---:•*.. . • 1 1 : 'If 0•e f
IP ioArti___JI ,:-, • .. .- ijo -•
. . .., 3. ,• ,„,../
tiro °raj ::11.....01!;...::::01111.56Pia. riki: . iihr:1 riP NrigNAILIW , . .• '..
.1 ' 1 111M4114.1 Iii:9"°111ti" ---11511141i. .r - Magl... i ':1'(** It' 'M1111. 11.rli
iig ':2:ji! I 1- “ .. ' ‘,.11 Ii).,
\';'.4.1-'c - i ,' O as -, t Aligii.74 1:::::::41 targirimgay 1 Ili
\Amu igr. . II- .4.1vi I,- "111 II i ,
N .
. .1\ re MIMI— !.,.*.r -'-'_.AC ,
t ___,!. , me p
l
r
` Y •Os Oe OeOxOh - I i1iiqi
6,.. ti. -\_ lit ,inareei 'El - rl. r'''' 'MilliAllrn tYt) In—Mlimmig •-• '• 03 LE
4--' 1. Ti . el .__--- ___-,
O o.•i_._ O�.p i 0 A :* tily�l k� . (
.. . . [ ...\1
iontoi '- iii •7- fp; , Millinnimmin I
INC: Tzg-. ,... 5 Paa 040 -11°
714 r L l!' _se. LE_ :50 1 11 4111111111
. \ (.' A ii tai l
IIJW. 1 L , _ ....4, %111041114 .b.,4'' ,. .____ • i r
Ili
0 / r(a' • ( .. . —71 -... ö1 *L
'fIII \ \\t
\ I ( '1 ( \ [ - — - Ii - ® I i j
f 7
J' c`
i
t.. , ( •
REZONE APPLICATION Nov. 16,1980 ''A
RE: REZONE 8.48 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF VALLEY GENERAL HOSPITAL TO R-2 CLASSIFICATION.
I. APPLICATION
The proposed rezone of this property is in compliance with both the plan and
the policies of the City of Renton as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
Existing conditions indicate that this application is appropriate and timely
and should be favorably received.
In December of 1979, the City of Renton amended its Comprehensive Plan for this
area. At that time Alternative C was adopted which called for R-2 .I,ow,..•
Density Multiple Family Residential for this property (See Exhibit A- Proposed
Site C Area attached) . The environmental impact of Alternative C was discussed
on Pages 111-3 through 111-12 in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement -
Southeast Renton Comprehensive Plan by the City of Renton Planning Department
dated July, 1979 which is attached. '
In particular, the selection of this site for multiple family sites was based
mainly on its location. First, the site is immediately adjacent to 43rd Avenue,
a major arterial connected to the Renton Valley Industrial Area and to the
freeway.S.R. 167. Second, the site is within walking distance of the rapidly
expanding Valley General Hospitalwith a present payroll of over 1100 employees.
Third, multiple family housing on this site will dramatically shorten the
driving time for those working in the immediate area and in the Renton Valley.
It is logical to put multiple family homes as close as is feasible to work centers.
Last, the selection of this site for multiple family homes is in keeping with
the City's policy of encouraging in-filling of central areas to slow down
urban sprawl and to minimize the environmental damage associated with urban
growth.
II. ENVITONMENTAL IMPACTS
As mentioned earlier, the environmental aspects of this application were
discussed in the Draft Statement. There are some items in that discussion,
however, that we would like to relate to this application in particular.
1--"---'17.-ii:A/7-0
-s, c0- . 4/ '\'‘,
oEo
7� 19 w-•
.e..-'''.--
�CyNINGpQF
r
i
4
-2-
A. Geology and Topography (Page 111-9) The existing slopes will be
modified slightly to accommodate..this .development. Only slight grading and
filling will be used to construct parking areas and landscaped berms along
Talbot Road. Except for the possible detention pond location at the bottom
of the greenbelt, no alteration of the steep westerly slope along the freeway
s
will occur.
B. Soils (Page 111-9) Slight alteration of soil will occur for berms,
1
leveling of parking areas and footings.
C. Erosion (Page 111-9) Most of the existing pasture will be removed which
will increase erosion slightly during construction but the finished development
- L
will be full landscaped. '
D. Water (Page 111-9) Storm water run-off from this pasturelani is presently
draining westerly to the State Highway 167 property. The run-off is then
culverted across the road to East Valley Highway and then flows to the
Green River which ultimately flows into the Puget Sound. The increased run-off
from this development will be retained to prevent flooding according to
City Ordinance in either a detention pond along our west property line or by
means of an underground storage system. The metered discharge will then
proceed as at present.
E. Air (Page 111-9) It is true that air quality within the vicinity of this
site will decrease since the site is presently in pasture. On the other hand,
the reduction of driving time due to housing made available closer to work
centers should increase the quality of air in the over-all area.
F. Noise (Page 111-10) Likewise, it is true that the noise level within the
area will increase due to its present usage. On the other hand, the reduction
of driving times and increased ability to walk or bicycle to work should
lower the over-all noise levels.
G. Economics (Page 111-11) There is a definite market demand for residential
unite in this area. The City of Renton has the lowest vacancy rate in King
County and all condominium projects in this area are selling well in spite of
, !9l interest rates. Quality housing is in short supply for hospital staff
. " \\_1V6 °4'- '
2,tk1 O
_ -3-
and for the adjacent industrial commercial areas. there is no doubt that
this development will be a market success.
Additionally, .this development should be beneficial to the retail area at
Benson and Petrovitsky. This development will also upgrade the surrounding
residential area which, compared to new developments, has not had any new
construction as of late. This should spur the neighborhood to improve its
streets and utilities. .
H. Transportation/Circulation (Page 111-11) It is true that this project
will increase traffic on Talbot Road and will also increase morning and
evening turning movements at the 43rd and Talbot intersection. On the other
hand, 43rd is slowly but surely being upgraded. It will be widened this
coming year across the Valley to the west. It is also inevitable that it
will be widened to five lanes going east from the intersection. Placing these
homes close to the work centers will help to reduce driving times all along
Petrovitsky and will encourage others to walk or bicycle to their work. The
over-all result will be beneficial in our opinion.
In accordance with the Planning Department, we believe it is necessary to
construct a public road across our property that will connect to Talbot Road
at one location. This road will serve to discharge the increased traffic
associated with this site and the adjacent sites in one controlled location
instead of many isolated points along Talbot Road. We have set aside a 60'
R.O.W. as shown on the site plan with a 34' road to be constructed at our
expense and according to the ordinances and plans of the City of Renton.
This road will significantly mitigate the impact of traffic associated
with this development.
III. SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN STANDARDS
Although the finished product is never identified till the plans receive final
approval from all involved parties, certain planning and design standards
have been determined already.
A. Site Planning. Numerous smaller buildings of two storey height
® ,; ••N south or west for maximum view and energy savings will predominate.
-� s �a ntation along Talbot Road will also keep the site visually open to•
aECFI�� \.,
� 4 198� "
DEG Z
"'A/A,�NGDEP P�
( - 4 - (.
vehicular and pedestrian traffic. In addition the setback along Talbot
Road has been increased by 10' to further remove and lower the buildings as
well as to provide more space for landscaping and berming. Parking areas
will be adjacent to the units and as many spaces covered as possible
subject to a 35% site coverage restriction. All buildings along the
greenbelt and steep Llopes on the western periphery have been set back to
preserve the area in its natural state.
B. Design Standards Wood frame construction over concrete footings or
covered concrete parking will be the basic structural system. All buildings
will be wood-sided. with sloped roofs covered with shingles or wood shakes.
All units will have private patios and separate walls for maximum sound
insulation. Insulation will consist of a minimum R-11 factor in the exterior
walls and a minimum R-19 factor for ceilings. All windows will be anodized
thermopanes for minimum heat loss.
IV. CONCLUSION
As shown by the preceeding discussion, we believe this rezoning application
is both timely and appropriate. Both the plan and policies of the Renton
Comprehensive Plan indicate that this site is intended for the R-2 classifi-
cation. In addition, the environmental impacts of this development have been
substantially mitigated to the extent that this project is a benefit to the
area and to the City of Renton. Last, the site planning and design standards
will assure the acceptance acceptance of this project by the inhabitants,
by the surrounding area and by the City of Renton.
c5 R Eivi.. )
,.-� �_ \1 ®1
C� 2,4 195)
• - .
, .
• .• , •
• _ .._
-717..e. ";" :•::;.••::::::
'''•Alriv'•••••..•.:........•;•;•••:•:''''.1•C''' .:':':•%11.•;.:!'"':W.•*":::s..". 1,:10::••••••:.• *::',..:.;::::!:”.•:•::'•:•.....:•:•x::',. •:,.:.•••....:-..:: .:.•:••.•:.....:•..................:i.. ..
''''Vial NM VIP WI tow •.•::eir 4i-A. .:.::::,::::::::::::::::::::::. ,$),.;• ::::::::.:•:•: .•:,•••••••.•:•:••••:•.- ••••••••••••• ••". • •
1---6 41....1:•:;.:8iiiiiiiINNAtirapill. .), ._ ':.':. „irsi,,-. 7.4F:,:it4-0.:.:,..- „, „
.................
.I .. '..:;::::....:k.i.,..........-..-.....;:::::;:, \,,..,,,,,.. . :.........: :9 ie4.- .4....:•.• •,v•i',.,,
.. •qtg,4::,:..:.:::::.. . .c.•44I, .: - ...:.: .4.f_K-.)., ilif"to •_:.i:::: ::1:
. ..,...4-:-.:•.::••:•: :: ...•,•::::•:„.„, -:-. -44444:: :
•i„:,.iti:1::::;•::..i:::::::,,i::::,:::::•:•:„.:•:.:•:•.. :•:.:. .
,, .::ii,.i,.:•i:;•/41•.•,-v: i-•-'::!. •• _: ,••,.... :•:.:•••:. :.:i:,.:i
. .„.......„.:..s.:...:•::*:•:::::::im,:•;:i::.::::: . t •::::::
?mg.•:?. .4::;._.:*::::::i:::::::::::........izi:::::,:ti:::::: , •::::!!: ., -:).:ii,..pii. i.41,01/2:A,,,::iii:•:%: •.‘, ..:.:::::::: :::.. ,..,„. .
ielg 1::•!.:::NiniiiiirNi-ii.:-: \ ii: Ap•••:,,,-,,,A., ...._,2,..:i:i:4::: .:•:::.:*::::.:, i ..,.-• cot.4putte. Ive. ft••••. .-1:p....4wr-.. ,,,T.,,,'.i,4.....:zi:K: . - ...
ii!;:i!'..':":::-:x•''':•:-.:::'.--ii4, c'• -'...- .-:0 ,01,4•., :.•:f:T. P'%-i:?•,..;.':••-4.,:.:s.,' : .;. ••
tI.::..P.010.-11.41:11 1 40•s 't:•••••.....s. •--''.,-.:.:::.::.,r:: ...f•T? ...,0,,,:i,:iii,::,,.•,•, ... •-.. , .- • .... • • . ..., ....._-.0„,,...rw , •••cs ...r.;‘,.......:,,,--- --,N,-.44 Alternoctive -Iv •tte 1:::.i....,
.k.,,,:,:.•1:.„...EN a :::,.i:,i::::• .i ::..f:lir A. -p: 1 e ,:•1•• .,,,,,„,,,.. ::.,:.,....4.. .:„.1 „ .:4•.v.r
:-,••:-.. ,•*. . ......,..:.....a:i:;•!. *i::. •;i:i:i:-,, . aggig 41..?,!, • . -9' • -:'. :,%;•..ri. -:.:•,:::..•,.,,,,,,w, Parade1 Plan• :::.::::::.•
ifs.0
..,k, •-•.•:,..1,.::s..,...::::: :::.::1, - ..:,... ..,........4--, 4.7
4:...,,ot:i4R,-,;:i.*•::::::::.-. ,., 1 ,';•,,,? a. ••••N. ••41..r.ALL...7._ :::::•,::::...'.I
... ,
:!.:i:•:.i:U:!,.‘......• .::1:;;;:::::::*ii 1 p•Ir..„:::::; II ,, .......„.../N,._, ?... ..::::,:,..„:,:
'*E:5;:::::::Wiii.•"::V:::•'; _.:,.- .:;:ii•ii:,:. .,- :'. '1 ',,. ...11-5.1F INCKF.AVD MULTifta
-r.,...„
,:timip:::•.:,:-::::, •:•:. ::•••• . .,
*,L.::::K4.0::::". .-....::•::i.*::::,:::f.:i . •?,,' . FAMILY ALTEKNATIv
_
r.,
1,,,:y:• ....:•:. •:...... :•:•:.: .•:.:•, 1-, p- ,..:„. . .
: .„..,, c_.....
,..,....
. ..
,... ....:...:::„.1:41.. ttl'.7,--; ,: • . • • , • •• - •:.i.:::;
v•::::•t::•:.,:f•::::::::::*,iiiii§iv..:i. •:.....::::::::::::;:::,qrz, I ;.:;-....r. 1, ..
" ..o..
• Rtreit. 1b THE. I.ANIDVec:Z AND
. .ii;:::i:•iiii:::. .:::•%•::i i::1:ir:::::*:.:::::::::::::::::::: .:.• ..„::::,::::::::::v....i,rr, .. • -,- 17..
kfft:,.x..;tialiPiiiii'...:.::.............:::i ..,iii'...::iiii:......,:-ilz- • k-I.d,...,?,• . . •
-,• GOMP-tUNITY PAGit..rrlaea MAP Feole.
.„....,....
„,,,,„,„,„,::....:......... •• .. ..:.:::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:.:.:.: :.:.:.: ..:. ._,„,,, i:.,,. •.,,,,,,.,,,,..,..„.... as LANIPPbZ l&P•013•01,
;:...• • ...• ...:.:.:.:. ;*:,:•0:::::;x::::::::::::::: :::::••.::. -.,41,
• • ,.......:•:.:.:. .:.:.:,......:•3:4:.:k.,>%•:.:-:•:•:.: ...."• ,..,,,t• ••••••••••••••4;li ''• . •
: :••:-:•::'-Mi:i:::;.,SX:ge*M•54::::::::::::::- • ya-;',.Z."'',:..• •/ . • 0 'ter •
•0:::::•'•• :'::X:if::it:::0•:::i*i:X:4:iiiii:;:iiiii':iii:•::::f.cr..W-./,- ; k pr ,. . •• . ..
.......:::::::::: •y:::::.i,..:iigeif:i,.:i!..::::,;::i.:..... .:.•,,L,A-2•.:,..*:..-.':/ /7 •• it... --- .....1
. .* .
:a::•.;.;e4 la•:•"*::i.:::..e•' '.•::•••:?-67-••:: r el:,'' / / / . • tS. .. 0 4. 4. I f.-11Le
.'At MIK..!.'• ,..4 •:'.. .
• s'., ...-e 2,4,,,,,,5*.r,,,--%-,--- -.. i
'4::.,7:,.:.$4,:5',.•.• -
.... •
14tiOtt•':.• f • 7....""•••••••to.._.1Z-r;/,. 'i ' r 1 .• Nq:'%4....----*r,
:::::::..s.4 i.-.1,. • ,;. :-.....',; , --..;f;...4...4; : • . .
7r. . ..,... , .0 le... • PPP .ti 'FA-MI.4°1P Pe..:. h6f• .:}°"-ii ''.. '-'''' '.-:la' flP1' ..i .,-....,.....0 •
f. ::::;:i:i11-"-Fz".• . " - • 4--,4, •' . .'::4::,...: -,- •
... • CID. •
•... ...,.
iiii::!:;:::N:. • . 1044;Sf, ,.
•:•••.:,%::::.„,..". • . - r ‘ -.it, „
• wie.,:.'. " / :,- n,f44, k. .,; . - -;;;:. •••, S' . '..
' ' 4 ..i.•!•• . . L. ..%44s- .
r:;?.::i::::-A.' • ....t• • ........
. .-- ....
• •••.,
A ‘,..t- /...;',./y/k, ;};;.! •.. •.4e, • Clit,Sti ''. ix • . ..: • " •• .,•"-z&--___11...., .. • -.. '..--P_.
::*.g::•:-,.. .-:. •• •
ti 44 v:.,:v.,•••4, •dr•r!'%•: 4. '‘.."...,so• .. "Virlog2 . : .;" '`.: , ' . ; 716,-10.41...._ .
-....;,....
-: ::::).:::::: ,... . . t. t'i ' k Af•••i"::ltri../4.64.a..;,,t.t;Iji. : ' '•'AS ' ',- . .. ,.r., .., • .7--,-.... 44.....4. ...,
:iig:?i1:-;f•.-: • ' 1 g..--.• i , •i, ". . - ' . , 4 • • - •1"- A. I .4... ."..• . •••
-:.::::,::::::i::::',. • . Sa!I
'4..\..,.. .... . .. ,
" ::;:::i::.:::i: 41., \ • ! V, . ' •
1 . • . ASf. . 1:, .' .
. Sect...fly
i.
:::::::*:*1.,.`I`z ' .1 • i;
.:!•:•:•::::..,,. r.P,X t• ,
;•::::::•:::::::4 .3.,...ft ..C.,....:,..--.- : .r .1 i. rar4jeel til Main Derr4hi .
:::i:Xii:K 11•I't - I e„" .41 fil.::;.4 1 • A Ll' .; ., . • ,.. N.
. V• - /i
'tiWili -if.:4L • " A •.''..**."'11 I..' - .. -; it70:1:"! H VI h '. 6111/1 •..-....‹. ''', t c)..-• r*.i--.._21.-•''.:: ..r.
-.v../ ....._,_........ ..:\ //
Ik'iii:*: ii;, i .1. .`••••"••P`'"--."\ Ft .: i _,
;; I • "i i
5::::::::::::: ::',,..,.- t Lg.t • \ t''• . •-•
i '...."4----.....,..
:•:•:.:.:.:-:. :.:;-.., • • • , \ '''''• , 4 • . ..,
........ . .... , ,..
4 •
• • • .,•
• '.•: :,.:.X g IA,. ,• \ ,, ..... .,.. .........,
.-. ... .4 • 1. t..-7,..!...r.., :
N:ii. e:::,•..-..„., . ; •
.. • . \ !4 . • .-.• •:.:::::i:.::i:i:.:::*iii:::::.::ii-:::"i:'::.:•..::=::.U":)::..:;4:::e::.:--:.,::;:::':!:..:•::;:i:-::Ki::-:i::.::_:,::,:..:,:•-..'4•:'-w,.';.z-•s,„; :.1i•1_\-,.N'-1••••••
• . •a 1 •••4.'t1 , -:),7....•; e r•
‘r.•... . . \.-11.4•i:rt-;'1-.).4•.•.7310;:\ . . . ,
- • 1' ••..•'
t 1, 1x: 23Cr;; t ..it _,.3'i..4...,.......,..",..e:t,,.•x
,:i ' i .
•-•.- „
•-..__'
•
•
• . ; %. i• I •,'.,,y,„•,..\:.:.m.-::-*:..':::.;,:::•::::.i::::.:.i:::•::::iiii,::i:il:1:i::•.;:i444l.:•:::i.i-a1:.:i•:i:1;:;•:::,:...;:....•:i.:*:.::i-t:,.:1.1:i:;•'.:i,-•.x:.:l
",-.."..1.,''...,4..L,.•.?:1,4.1.,.,:.2;::.!•,':,,•':.•:/'.i
,I b.,•• a.../ic.•x,.
J-46. . •
.' ep.‘..i,.//•/7•/:,.-.';'.'.".N,.,t....•:..7 a.j-.l7'..',..::.17-....;.•'•„.:*:•.9:.-:4.:..-r 1&..-:;•.•1.•;*.:.'•.1:,,•'4.1
,A..‘..,I•.....\..,e\
..i.r.-•..1,I•-,•z•-&,i•.••I,,y_.._.0•\\,\..,...
\v,c v.z•y\rc\r--ss -.4:r:.:ie\a c-. riS°.
•..-.•...P....:,..-
. : : -'
0 1 - Irr : \ \
t 4- rop1 / /"'f " Vl Ns\
Ha wn r19 - - "...,1,:•;
To.r.-..._.•i,
•
•. ..,\N
• .. ..... .,....„
,;,•:,..,-.., .
".".• -••••!•:•::!•:•:tric.
' • ,...‘ ( "....\'\
•:::•;ii;ii:i . ii.:,1 AN
Ftni 1 I,
Mufti - • ...-...,:ji; . .i ',..?4 12/ -, .,... .I .!: •...,
. .. •.... ' .. .:.
..•••. r., i t .
. Cr3—k \ •o... •xf a\raiii ,Pr: 5", ' \ ..... . - \\
':'... -St' ..• " ' t . `- \ ... . • ....-
...•-•
i re; • . • . • •
••••••• ...... . ......,, -,,
•
,...(: •:0 I ,,,.. ,, . , . I e ...2.) I
" ;Y
ia r 41"17 t,___ArPi- • kr" \ 41 . • • ips -11,
_ 1 r—-- '-- \ \ cl' • /1/ ..,
. . 1 areallit ,
' •///- .4•• • ...... .
‘.`‘ ,, •
. 1 ......-ne.
0
..,,:,..- ._ . . 0 /000 2_cco 'con 4oco c00 Peer
::I:,
Frvivetl 1-0c0. -renr-415/ g r----7----
..:.:.::,
.,...3.:„., multi - Family •.
...,e., .
.:.:.,::,?i , .
0 -----il
I
-1';',,''
Z'' . ' I g. .
.::.,,,ti. .
•
III - 5 •
, . .. .
PROPOSED (-'
RESIDENTIAL USE ACRES @ UNITS/ACRE HOMES @ PERSONS/HOME PERSONS
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
(WEST OF TALBOT) 71 4 units/Ac 285 ,'3.5 persons/home 1000
(EAST OF TALBOT) 55� 4 units/Ac 220 3.5 persons/home 770
MEDIUM DENSITY 81 30 units/Ac. 260 2.5 personslhome 650�
MULTIPLE
LOW DENSITY
MULTIPLE
.(WEST OF TALBOT) 81 11 units/Ac 90 2,5 persons/home 225
(EAST OF TALBOT) 61 11 units/Ac 70 2.5 persons/home 175
TOTAL PERSONS: 2820
The population projected by 'this amendment represents a 35% increase over
current projected population.
Schools: The following table compares the current Comprehensive Plan
to the proposal of this report: .
CURRENT .. .
RESIDENTIAL USE HOMES @ STUDENTS/HOME STUDENTS
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
(WEST OF TALBOT) 350 0.5 students 175
(EAST OF TALBOT) 245 0.5 students 120
TOTAL STUDENTS: 295
PROPOSED
RESIDENTIAL USE HOMES @ STUDENTS/HOME STUDENTS
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
(WEST OF TALBOT) 285 0.5 students 140
(EAST OF TALBOT 220 0.5 students 110
MEDIUM DENSITY 260 0.25 students 65
MULTIPLE .
LOW DENSITY
MULTIPLE
(WEST OF TALBOT) 90 0.25-students 25
(EAST OF TALBOT) 70 0.25 students 15
TOTAL STUDENTS: 355
The student population projected is a 20% increase over the current
Comprehensive Plan.
1II-7
CURRENT
RESIDENTIAL USE HOMES @ TRIPS/HOML TRIPS
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
(WEST OF TALBOT) 350 10 trips/home 3500
(EAST OF TALBOT) 245 10 trips/home 2450
TOTAL TRIPS: 5920 :
PROPOSED
RESIDENTIAL. USE HOMES @ TRIPS/HOME • TRIPS
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
•
(WEST OF TALBOT) 285 10 trips/home 2850
(EAST OF TALBOT) . 220 10 trips/home 2200
MEDIUM DENSITY 260 6.Ti tri ps/home ]5q0
MULTIPLE _
LOW DENSITY
MULTIPLE .
(WEST OF TALBOT) 90 6. 1 trips/home ccn
(EAST OF TALBOT) .7U 6.1 trips/home 430
TOTAL TRIPS: 7620
Assuming that traffic generated in the north half of the subject area will
go north to 43rd, and the traffic generated at the south will go southerly to
' 55th, the current Comprehensive Plan will add 1920 trips northerly (31% over
the current 6,000 trips at Talbot and 43rd). The proposed Comprehensive Plan
under the same assumption will add 4240 trips northerly or 70% over the
current traffic, due primarily to the concentration of multiple family at the
north.
Due to the fact that S.W. 43rd provides both freeway access and a direct
route to both shopping and employment centers to the. west, the traffic in-
crease at Talbot and 43rd will almost certainly be greater than in the pre-
ceding '.
paragraph. In either case, the traffic demand will be greater for
the proposed Plan amendment than under the current plan.
COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS BY ALTERNATE PLAN
The following table briefly compares the environmental impacts of.
the three alternatives as they relate to the Southeast Quadrant Study Area -
Proposed Plan, Increased Multiple Family, and No Action (Maintain Current
Plan).
•
III — 8
4
EMENTS OF THE PROPOSED PLAN INCREASED MULTIPLE FAMILY "NO ACTION" - MAINTAIN
NVIRONMENT (PP) (IMF) CURRENT PLAN (MCP)
OLOGY & Modified slopes and geologic Some increase in grading or filling Some areas designated
POGRAPHY structure will occur due to will occur in the specific site Greenbelt in the PP
grading and filling of individual proposals. could be adversely
development. activities. • altered under the MCP.
ILS Individual developments will alter Same as PP Same as PP except those
or remove soils, although areas areas designated Green-
where the adverse effects of such belt in the PP, if
action 'are most critical have been developed under the MCP,
designated Greenbelt (no develop- could experience adverse
ment). soil modifications.
OSION Some increases in erosion because Same as.PP Same as PP
of construction activity, � . 1
removal of vegetation and increases
in total runoff volumes, however,
City ordinances affecting -
drainage, grading and filling,
provide for erosion reduction '
measures.
TER Storm water runoff from develop- Same as PP Same as PP
ments will be controlled in
accordance with City ordinances.
However, surface water and ground-
water may be modified due to place- •
ment of impervious surfaces and
soil and vegetation modifications.
Surface water quality may be affected
by increased sedimentation and urban
pollutants, but the requirement for
connections of developments to sewers
should protect groundwater quality. '
I i
J
R Some adverse air quality impacts The IMF will have greater The MCP will have the •
will be attributable to increased air quality impacts then the PP least added impact, al-
vehicle trips and dust during • within the vicinity of the though some air quality
development. •This alternative will three specific sites because of degredation will still
have some increase in air quality increased traffic movement. occur 'as a result of
impacts over the MCP. ,development allowed by
the MCP.
)RA/FIUNA Development under the PP will 'alter Same as PP. Only minor Greenbelt •
floral and faunal patterns mitigation is proposed
(e.g. vegetation and habitat • in the MCP, thus
displacement) although maintenance some species may be
of the Greenbelt areas will serve adversely affected. _
to lessen the impact.
_ ._.._ . ,
• THREE ALTERNATE SOUTHEAST RENTON COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
ELEMENTNS OF MENTT PROPOSED I�D PLAN INCREASEIMU(PP) TIPLE FAMILY "NOCACTION"URRENT - MAINTAIN
N INTAIN
ENVIRO
NOISE Noise increases are directly The IMF will have greater noise The MCP will have the
related to traffic and popu- impacts than the PP within the least added noise impact
' lation density. The PP will vicinity of the specific sites although some noise
. generate increased noise because of increased traffic increase will still
(above that generated by MCP) and population density. occur as a result of
' due to both. factors. . development allowed by
the MCP.
LIGHT & GLARE Light and glare impacts are The IMF will have greater light The MCP will have the
related primarily to develop- and glare impacts than the PP least added light and
meat intensity: 'The PP will in the vicinity of the glare impact, alto h
increase light and glare more three specific sites as a result some increase will , 'cm
than the MCP. of increased development intensity. as a result of develop-
• meat allowed by the MCP.
NATURAL RESOURCES • Natural• resources include those Because of its greater development The PP will have the
that can be derived from an area, intensity, the IMF will consume least impact upon .
those resources (land, soils) more of these resources. resource consumption,
• used within an area, as well as although some resource
. , those resources consumed by locations may be lost a:
1-4 construction and by consumers. a result of continuous
H development allowed by
~ . Natural resources are affected - the MCP. •
both by development intensity and
location. The PP will be somewhat
N - more intense in development and
consume more resources than. the
- . MCP, but will preserve some crucial •
• • resource areas as Greenbelt.
• LAND USE I.1 The PP identifies a diversified About 50 additional acres are Same as PP with tl• j
mix of land uses. Much of Planning designated for multi-family exception that so_-.- f
Area is designated for single- use rather than lower density • those areas identified
family- residential use, with smaller, uses. as Greenbelt in the PP
more accessible areas designated for are designated for
multiple-family and commercial use. possible•development
Extensive greenbelt areas are indicated. which could have advers
Conversion of land from vacant or land use impacts. ,
rural uses to urban uses is the primary
impact. .
POPULATION & HOUSING By 1990 population- is projected to Same as PP with a greater multiple The MCP has the lowest
increase from 22% to 44% above 1978 'familyhousing supply available, and projlytho multiple
family housing areas
levels. The PP provides for a a somewhat increased total population available, yet this is
variety of housing types which, at capacity. still larger than the
full development, could accomodate expected population
at least four times the single • growth by 1990 +.
' family growth expected and almost
two times the multi-family •
• growth, thus assuring an adequate
.. —a.a..m-..�e_. _,�•,.....--_,�._d• r.,tir....Var...sx 1.+. ...cvMr • . ,... _ - —. .._.." . .-..
-
.EMENTSMOFTTHE PROPOSED(PP)
PLAN INCREASE!)(IMF)MULTIPLE FAMILY "NO
CACTION"PLAN INTAIN ,
OF
ECONOMICS The PP envisions a broader variety Same as PP with slightly increased The MCP has the smallest
of economic opportunities and larger economic opportunities from variety of uses--most of _
population capacity than the increased multiple family develop- Area is single family . ,
MCP due to greater land use ment. with very little
diversity. Variety should in- commercial or multi-
crease economic growth. family designations. So
the variety of economic
opportunities is smaller
than PP, although
significant economic
growth will still occur.
TRANSPORTATION/ The PP will create a greater The IMF will create areas of The MCP has the smalls
CIRCULATION number of vehicle trips than increased traffic in the vicinity expected traffic incr
the MCP because more higher of the specific sites, each of which and therefore has the
density land uses are allowed. may add to adverse impacts of the PP. smallest adverse impact
Increased traffic in key corridors Such impact will vary with each upon traffic, although
such as Petrovitsky Road, SR 515 specific area, - some adverse effects will
and SE 140th may create adverse occur because of
impacts. extensive single-family
development allowed by
the MCP.
PUBLIC SERVICES/ Services, utilities and energy Expanded delivery of public The MCP has the least
UTILITIES/ENERGY impacts are closely related to services and utilities will be intensive development and
population growth. The PP has required to serve development can be expected to have
a greater population capacity at the three specific sites. the least adverse impact
and allows more intensive Energy consumption will also be although significant
development and thus can be slightly increased, impacts will still occur
expected to hive a greater as a result of the MCP.
impact on services and utilities
and energy than the MCP.
HUMAN HEALTH Sanitary sewers would be required, Same as PP. Same as PP.
thus no adverse impact on health
is expected.
AESTHETICS Aesthetic (visual and sensual) Same as PP except more Aesthetic impacts will
impacts associated with vege- adverse aesthetic impacts in be greater than under PP
tation removal, modification of the vicinity of the three because fewer greenbelts
natural landscape and conversion specific sites. and park areas are
of rural land to urban uses will designated to preserve
be experienced, However, Green- steep hillsides and
belt designations and development natural drainage.
standards of appropriate City
ordinances and policies will
mitigate impacts.
UNAVOIDABLE ADVER:,.r IMPACTS
If the proposed Plan is implemented, a number of the adverse
impacts discussed above in the Environmental Impacts section will be
unavoidable. Generally, these are the adverse impacts associated with
development and population growth, wherever this process occurs.
Unavoidable adverse impacts include all of the following, to some degree:
additional filling and grading; soil modification with ensuing erosion;
alteration of runoff ;and other natural drainage characteristics; water quality
deterioration because of erosion, sedimentation and urban pollution; increased
air pollution resulting from traffic growth; removal of natural vegetation
and reduction of wildlife habitat; increased noise, light and glare; conversion
of open space and vacant landito urban uses; reduced potential for natural
resource extraction; and greater traffic congestion hazards.
Population growth -under the proposed Plan also will produce some
unavoidable impacts. Population growth will require the construction of new
housing and neighborhood commercial services and the expansion of fire
protection, police protection, schools, parks, social and health services.
Energy consumption for residential and transportation needs will increase and
sewer, water, natural gas and electricity extensions will be necessary.
These impacts will require greater public expenditures.
Higher land values throughout most of the Planning Area will likely
result from continued urbanization. Likewise, under the proposed Plan, most
of the Planning Area will be committed to urbanization--mainly residential
growth.
All of the effects mentioned in the above paragraphs will have the adverse
impact of reducing the natural aesthetic qualities of the Area, especially
the qualities associated with a rural and natural landscape. To some degree
this impact is unavoidable, however, each of the above effects is indirect
and their intensity is unknown. To the extent that mitigating aspects of
Renton development guidelines and ordinances and proposed policies are
effective, the unavoidable adverse impacts of urbanization can be moderated.
On the other hand, these development standards, guidelines and policies may
increase the costs of development.
III - 12
^te a a NN.6�aa
- -\
... ?,?„,\
y
•.�,'-ism•* i , 1 .>4 k _ t- x. .4 ♦t,% 4,.4 4 + �` ' :1 • •,.,. b .. 1♦3f■ '�O
«, t7 „� .+ • •a• s.. ,..'., t !,�''.3 F T 1 f , +4i„ y *J1{ '2
G.r . - 1. J, a r- i. w.r, H i. .4. %.,A; 7 L1^�C. r''.
d _ �'. `r * {. r �: '�l • —, -.. r' a ale a e.
{ t +� � w / I 1. •qi'''. is f s` -'1 + 1 4
•. i LB mot. a r y j �'` . `
s w+:a `d` , y'•a . .' tom
i ^�
'T y } ,' '}, 7 , # Y $ r
• M 1 t s x f w_ ,Y '1
:. S 9`'r x'.. ilia'•_ . - , t ' s` 1'N :: .Lar ` S.
•4.r .Y,
, , 't to./I ..f,
f err
0'.."-11•11111".` . ,., - i ,-, c- 0 .. . ., , , zi , , . , ., :
4, .„,,,s. . .
cg I
' r? 'tilt ,..f. , - -4 -3 _ t
p , ,
. .
,,,,,, is ..-,..• . ...
. , ,,,,,
).,. _A
ir
4, ..1 A '� e ilk,.,. ��pf�.
�`. ..,,r''X - ` f,1 .i •I/S, '���•
g..r: .t 1 Yi 1 j +i J,h ,; ��
•
,, , A {� Y 1 • I l t ram.
I,ii.1 il .
\..1 .:.7 ., cti; -- .A. - : ..-, . , . 0 - .,,,, .4, Al
.._,..4-. . „:s. .F. .;4.'1 a'''......, . -' . ' i'l. '• '' )- ' 11 i . _, . . gip,.1, zi ! ,4
• —.4• ,,,.1V• ::- trl,.. lr. dre ep... --...,, ,,,. .7 :.- ,I.,, ... . Hi . , .,I rt.' -, • , ,,„i, . ,
,,. ,,,1 / li'�.•r. C}iI • t !,:::r,' — "/ , ,/ _, t i 1 NY•,• } � off• L ti..
..-,....��•, s, ,.4i. , ,H - _,f , , r . - .E.: ('� '_,✓•.1 1.
•
L •=:TY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
•
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Application No. A36--SC3
Environmental Checklist No. V/2---- C��� �
• PROPOSED, date:' . FINAL , date:
EiDeclaration of Significance . . .- 0 Declaration of Significance
0 Declaration of Non-Significance 0 Declaration of Non-Significance
. COMMENTS: .
,:,; ' t ( : - • - .. .
•
Introduction The State Environmental Policy.Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW, •requires
all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their
own actions and when licensing private proposals . The Act also requires that an EIS be
prepared for all major actions significantly• affecting the '.quality of the environment.
The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a
proposal is such a major action. - - •
.
Please answer the following questions as completely as you .can with the information
presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where.
you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your
explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. . You should
include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele-
-. vant to the answers you provide: Complete answers to these questions now will help all
agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review with-
out unnecessary delays -. - _... . . .. -
The following questions apply to your total 'proposal , not just to 'the license for-which
,you are .currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers
' should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it. .is• completed,
even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all
of the agencies which- will be involved. to complete-their. environmental review now, with-
. out duplicating paperwork in the future. .
• NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State
of Washington for- various types of proposals. Many of the questions may not apply to
your proposal . If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the
next question. . .
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM. . . . . .
I. BACKGROUND .. . _ -
1.. Name of Proponent FRED BOWSER
•
2. - Address and phone number of Proponent:
16044 - 16th Ave. S.W .
• • Seattle, Wa. 98166
• - 3. Date Checklist submitted 12/12/80
4. Agency requiring Checklist City of Renton Pinning Depa.rtmpnt •
• 5. Name of proposal , if applicable:
NONE _ '
. 6. Nature and brief description of the proposal (including but not limited to its
size, general design elements , and other factors that will give an accurate .
understanding of its scope and nature) : .
_ ,&._low density multiple family residential project limited to a maximum of
CR ` CLt.1 <�'�
(/j1Y/� ,units on 8.48 acres. Present plans consist �f^tom-s}nr�y units with
v6 c�f ed or enclosed parking surrounded by open space.
-A'1���/
-2-
I.
7. Location of proposal (describe the ,physical setting of the proposal , as well
as the extent of the land area affected by' any :e;n•.vironmental ,impacts , including
any other information needed to give an accurateunderstanding of the environ-
mental setting of the proposal) : .,, .,
Located along Talbot Road South in the vicinity of Valley General Hospital .
The site is primarily open pastureland sloping down to the west with a dense
greenbelt along the west property line. •
8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : ' .
Estimated completion date in 1982 subject to financing ava:ili.bii,ity.
9. List of all permits , licenses or government approvals required for the proposal
(federal , state and local --including rezones) :
All applicable building and zoning ordinances of the City of Renton
10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal ? If yes , explain: •
No
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal ? If yes , explain:
No .
12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro-
. posal ; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future
date, describe the nature of such application form:
None
II . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required)
(1) Earth. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures? TES MAMAAY NO
(b) Disruptions, displacements , compaction or over- • X
covering of the .soil? YES MAYBE NO ti
(c). Change in topography or ground surface relief X
features? YES MAYBE N—
(d) The destruction , covering or mddification of any
unique geologic or physical features? VET— MAYBE NO
•
(e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils ,either on or off the site? X
YES MAYBE N
•
(f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands , or
changes in siltation , deposition or erosion. which
��� may' modify the channel -of a river or stream'or -the .
7' bed. of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? YES , M YBE NO
o \��D E�tp l.an a t i o n: No major changes in the existing topograNhy or soils will occur
4 Q��' they\than the norm 1
tc,,
`� lg0 landaping to recover exposed areas. No constructionwork will occur in the
CO) -•' stezp western portion that will be retained as greenbelt.
.�+ ''` Q om: •.
`A .!hI,'{„.G ��%
.
•
-3-
(2) Air. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality? X
YES MAYBE NO
(b) The creation of objectionable odors? X
YES MITE NO
(c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature,
or any change in climate , either locally or X
regionally? YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: Since this site is pastureland at present, the air quality 'at the
site will be lower. The•overall air emissions of the area should decrease
if driving time to and from work is redfl ed_
(3) Water. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes -in currents, or the course of direction of
water movements , in Other marine or fresh waters?
YES MAYBE. NO
(b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X
YES MAYBE NO
(c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
YES MAYBE NO
(d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water X '
body?
YES MAYBE NO
• (e) Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration
surface water quality, including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X
YES MAYBE NO
(f) Alteration of the direction ,or rate of flow of X
ground waters?
YES MAYBE NO
(g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals , or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X
YES MAYBE NO
(h) Deterioration in ground' water quality, either through
direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate,
phosphates, detergents , waterborne virus or bacteria,
or other substances into the ground waters? 1C
YES MAYBE A
(i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available
for public water supplies? 7�
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: The absorption rate and on-site drainage Ilatterns will r,han&p
but the rate of run-off will be the same due to City stnrm. water retention
standards.
(4) Flora. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any
species of flora (including trees, shrubs , grass , crops ,
microflora and aquatic plants)? X
YES MIT NO
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of flora?
YES MAYBE NO
Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or •
R E N 7' . in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing
p �
O ��`\s O s ecies. X_
�/ .YES MT NO
0) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
71:4 YES FAITE N0
At!Ng i •
- -4-
(5) Fauna. Will the proposal r.esultiin: , r .,
(a) Changes in the,•diversi'ty of species ; or`numbers of
any species of •fauna (birds . land ' animal,s,' includ1ng
•
reptiles , fish and shellfish, benthtic organisms , •
insects or mi.crofaunal? YES MAYBE NO
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique , 4rare or X
endangered species of fauna? •
YES MAYBE NO
(c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area ,
or result in a barrier to the migration or movement
•
of fauna? YES MAYBE NO
X
(d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? YES MAYBE X
O
Explanation:
•
• (6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X
YES MAYBE NO
• Explanation: Since this site is pastureland at present, the noise level will
increase on the site. The area in cp.inPral ,.will here ne neticoablo change however.
•
(7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or X
glare? YES MATTE NO .
Explanation:
(8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the X
present or planned land use of an area? YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
(9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in :
(a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? YES MAYBE NO
(b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
(10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including ,
• but not limited to , oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation)
in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X
— M—ATgE N •
Explanation:
r
�',..opu '..ation. Will the proposal alter the location, distri-
•
u , dens'ity, or growth rate of the human populationX.f4a area? • Y MAYBElanation: Hopefully some people will now live closer to #.heirb
qN-/NG DE4P location.
l
y l _ -5- C'
( 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or
create a demand for additional housing?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
(13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Generation of additional vehicular .movement? X
YES MAYBE NO
(b) Effects on existing parking facilities , or demand
for new parking? - X
YES MAYBE NO
(c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? X
YES MAYBE NO
(d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods? X
YES MAYBE NO
(e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X
. YES MAYBE NO
(f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles ,
bicyclists or pedestrians? X
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: The project will increase traffic on Talbot Road but it will
lower the future `increase in traffic movements up Carr Road.
(14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or —
result in a need for new or altered governmental services
in any of the following areas :
(a) Fire protection? X
YES MAYBE NO
(b) Police protection?... . :_ , . X
YES . MAYBE NO .
(c) Schools? X
YES MAYBE NO
(d) Parks or other recreational facilities? X
YES MAYBE NO
(e) Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? X
YES MAYBE NO
(f) Other governmental services? .
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
•
•
(15) Energy. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X
YES MAYBE NO
(b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy? X
YES MAYBE
Explanation:
R N.
cf ('1$ 1� lities. Will the proposal result in a need for new •
� A� ``�GD s s, or alterations to the following utilities :
��' 1� m a) Power or natural gas? X
01°14 F'
� YES MAYBE NO
�C ( -). ,communications systems? YES MAYBE NO
9� ���9. Water?
HANG YES MAYBE NO
3.
(d) Sewer or septic tanks? YES MAYBE NO
(e) Storm water drainage? YES MAYBE NO
•
(f) Solid waste and disposal?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
•
(17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of
any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)? YES MAYBE N
Explanation:
•
(18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of
any scenic vista or view open to the public , or will the
proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view? YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: .
(19) Recreation. Will the 'proposal result in an 'impact upon the
quality .or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: This project should increase demand for a park. in this area in
spite of the open space available on the site.
•
(20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an
alteration of a significant archeological or historical X
site, structure, object or building? YES MAYEIE tX
Explanation:
III. SIGNATURE
I , the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information
is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any decla-
ration of non-significance, that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should
there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
Proponent:. '' � '- ecy
signs
F D R. -e,
(name printed •
;171 -6'("N . .
O I.D O4, City of Renton
•
(i..
(1�Ck. ) Planning Department
1C�� �� �Q �1 5-76
t 0- ) . •
V Iyy�
INNING /�
. . , ,
ro, ,,
,,rEIVED ,,C 24 1980 '
•
`-- —
ar} • • • •• /N� �FPA
I
•
— -- -- t
. --Vi4.LLEY_ N, RAL
- -,IiO S_P �` i ,. -
--Nort - ' •
\ 7g- � I
4 3_rd_Ave,--
4
. ifr.-
•
. •
:._. ,
. •
,.... , „,i.... __
/1 . 1 - ....a
/20.,,,,.......,=:__ , ,,i.ccp
i. •
1;) -..,.( i -0-0 I Cr' CC.14 ---:-.7=-
�. • �• 1 0 . ile IP' • .
i ir,/ ‘• /if. .
11 ( _
� I , yy
! „,,,,,..__,-.
ig., i Ai II ,
. /47 1 :, . .,.. .,... .:: . .. •
. , , , . r 9i .jt
'a1 _ . - -- -
toS
.1 I 4
Ii�, �f►tom ••, ,k. . -. .
er ff',.. .
" ,,, mr i ii
0
if)I C4,,!, Lr--7 ,m) i jr Lric,, ;:::::‘,__iilt Aar ,A. _.
:;::,,-e"viA. it:i h . -----ICL:1
/ I I I IS �- I 1 irg, T�
•
'', _; w. L------__ of I1,,
a.
•
) off ; • • r- III '-.7 k• w M'' - — ' 4,71. ' Ir ow
} , r______ id 1� ____ ___ ____,k r :1.442— (I hT __ ��
i `1........ .•.•GV/,.,7i.�•.a•rgip i , Tb.Sr..r( �M- T ...r hp I' I 1 •�
•E. li k.\ • )41c ••• 44...........4....
j 1 I` tii�n�+- -i {'I .r.. 'r Q3 I
' '' CI
I1 ..1. r < J
1 I4' s LT+- r(L V iTI
boJ I I .T 5 `J L_�_� o obO0000 �` i
sl I _ J
� I� 1l1''.�•—II��I IIII43 P..w� �•�I II� .� �
1 0 • o __`.- O p O O rikr
n O 00010 g --C Z 6 0 O s O•U n O d 11
++ 1111 -% \ --' : �1 •a Op t
Sil i F- LAM.M. _6C' LE_. .� ;50. -w� �� -' 1� m.J ,� It'�4.1 1 11 1
63 V ..
)�
p I1/ 0 ).y- -- . i
11 \� \ \ ( \ ( , Ii___ _ 11'H
\ �g2
•
December 12, 1980
To Whom It May Concern:
On December 5, 1980, the attached questionnaire was distributed
to all employees of Valley General Hospital by inserting the
questionnaire in the. pay envelopes. We had 60 responses out
of approximately 1100 which. is quite good for the method
employed for this sampling.
The results of this questionnaire are as follows:
1) 82% preferred numerous smaller structures for living units
versus a few larger structures. .
2) 69% preferred ownership versus renting
• -3) 62% could afford:to pay less .than $60,000. per unit. •
4) 76% could afforda: rent o00./mos.
5) 63% thought a bank would be beneficial
6) 84% thought a motel and restaurant would be beneficial.
7) 82% thought a pedestrian overpass would be beneficial. •
8) In rating the amenities they thought very important, security
and a day-care center were most preferable.
•
DARYL CONNELL
DO/mc
/ -
_ :ember 1, 1980
QUESTIONNAIRE
Plans are being made to develop some commercial and multiple residential land within
two blocks south of Valley General Hospital . We have been given this opportunity to
make this inquiry by the Administration of the Hospital , so as to do a better job of
constructing what is most desirable in this area.
Would you please fill out this questionnaire and return it to the suggestion boxes
located outside the cafeteria or located outside the communication center at your
earliest convenience.
Thank you,
Daryl Connell
1. Would .you prefer the living units to be in:
( ) Numerous smaller structures with private walk-up entry and attached parking
for each unit, or:
( ) A few larger structures with internal hallways, elevator and underground parking?
2. Would you prefer to:
( ) Own
( ) Rent
. 3. If you owned a unit, could you afford to pay:
( ) $50,000 - $60,000 per unit
( ) $60,000 - $70,000 per unit
( ) $70,000 or more per unit
4. If you rented a unit, could you afford to pay:
( ) $400"per month
( ) $500 per month
( ) $600 or more per month
5. Do you think that a bank in this area would be beneficial?
( ) Yes
( ) No
( ) Maybe
6. Do you think a Motel and Restaurant in this area would be beneficial?
( ) Yes
( ) No
( ) Maybe
7. Do you think that a pedestrian overpass to avoid traffic on 43rd would be beneficial
in this area?
( ) Yes
( ) No
( ) Maybe
8. Please rate the following amenities as you value them:
(1) Very important (2) Important (3) Not necessary
( ) Security ( ) Open-Space w/extra Landscaping
f ) Enclosed Parking ( ) Recreation Building with Pool
( ) Fireplaces ( ) Day-Care Center
( ) Smaller units of 800 sq.ft. ( )
( ) Larger unit,$ of 1,000 sq.ft.
9. Please give us your comments :
•
cms
i
AFFIDAVIT
I , „ �i..i Gk V' 'SE:e .) < , being duly sworn, declare that I
am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the
foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information
herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct, to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
Subscribed and sworn before me
this o2�aday of �,,,t,�f J , 19 10 ,
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing at/� t�-cc_... .4
(Name of Notary Public) Signature of Owner
ova 771_- -ei a.-..„e aJ. /.v YF' r -o 4 4 1 6 , ek e &/;
(Address) (Address)
&r3
(City) (State)
(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 • l:ations of the Renton Planning Department
governing the fili ' f ��vyplication .
/ ç \M VV4#
Date Received _ , '9 By :
fe
O
4A, FQQ Renton Planning Dept .
�C' 2-73
ENDING •
OF FILE
FILE TITLfia-/55 --w ;•• •