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

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA81-001 lifitilir - ..-. Y- , _ ..„,,,,- , / fit . 4. .•, . Vilk. 411••/ r ," , imp 1 'Jr ---. / pt.4 I lib *i•-• / 7 .,,1 S.itio ,...... 4- --- I F.f 11110*111° 1110 . , _ AL , .! 4. al • y V - r ,1 Si. y R ; Lia.44 , I L ,, 4 it ,.r ' A '.- :.1. . I' _ 1 t . . F Y 3• ` Y t : \ I . 1 0 f . . i i . 0' . -- - r *. . :• tsi- L TI 11. . . i • ill ,. t 'h. • . 3 ' ,I''I 'i.,' • I: : '., r` ' •.. ' . ws.,... , A •/1. - • — r ::c . •. ..,- '•45... r • i .._. , . • , . , . • .„, 4 ,Ao 4 ' I 1 • 's, • . • • i• • • r. 1 1 • * ''''•. • ' : -'0 , co, e 1 a - , •t. , -;-- 1 4 , ... . t. 11., , ' •4, 440 , . ... k.• , , , • . . . . - . .0 • te 1! ''.:4. ,. , . . 1 ' . r• i I . . , 'it -I Abl - . • ;'4' i i' A ./... •,•%., „,„.N.,• • . . • 's at • -7 -. ' • , lif-iimp. i I. . ,t. ... . ,. iill , • MI • 1 I • - 3 .., ••• 1'f'' • i • ....i.,..;, tr. , . 41,;:th, tr. , iiiitillik i. A • ,...„ : ( ' et' '' r . I(t'I ' ..,.. , • , St .1 jef• , V.14'''''' 4. f, . " • 't . t t. , ... f t i,f 4.. i ' I"'. 4 _ 'r . ,• . III. ' . ' 4; I e. sr AL -- -•"' • i .'' "`'' ' #c"' • ?! r-' aP- r 1 , , , •1 - ' 1 ••• • ..... = ;" ' L ; 4'lit.. ., ..' 10.4 8; ' - ' ' ' ..:e • - ...;re' 4' —•P.—--Isfe' ' r .: , tr. • ,4.•..I .1.. •. ' 1 r • • „„,i ;I • • . • - ri. ..4......' 14*- --' °. • i at:.,,i, , ..:010:.7.....4".......1......%:., . V r.,,— - . al ., -if • .,:.7. lir..., -.• ., :..1.II V. • �i 1 4. - 4 . vr- I I ] 3L4flHOI3 ! ki 1 . /II RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON ; 1 c HEARING EXAMINER 0 1) 2 2 1981 j, ; a AM PM EXHIB .___..a, . , ,,_ T,R,9,10111112:1,2a3,415,6 \ _ ITEM NO. �- oo1 - $ 1 • • in••444.--74", ,:. . , , ..... ....„,...„, :4' _ - • - 'a* . • • ' a • M.' ...... %0 .-. .. ._ _. .... ......._._ . ...- ......--.. .........___ ' . _%',..It vey...‘qpriatil11741111irgliPP.11111L- .... Ile .e r... 'Ve.1.16'. --P:. ' • ' ''' 1111111th* —.... ,. .....i.1, ,. MO It\ • . ..... --,....444 Wit.4'''••• ft:4MM. :-...i rr. -4••• ' - .- „k..*Itr -, I _ . Ill 1 4 -_,... ' 'A• .,.. .. - ..t )'.4••.' ‘s ' J rt. / •• • 1101.114, 1,40104 10 ,.. ' h . le4,,•• . . 4 ','".. ... t . --.!•4!,-,....e41 ,1; ;. _ A , • C.; ',''0,..S.j,,:r \ i . .. ... alikklith• ., ."a L , - 4114 IA011 •.4416._ -- .4, INP4884114° •• ,.. ... -.- - .11..., r . , ••,. 1 lir• . • I• i -'- • , ,w . '4•• 17••- ., . • f '.- - - t<ill.-. . , 1; _ i '. .... %. ,11P:-. ..-i .I • •..14. It r.4 ,.. ,•1,-'`...0 7 -, ' 4. . . _ - - • ...- NA,.4..s..4'- .'•-•••• • • . . ... .... - .,..- ••••• '- -*"111froar' - tillit! .T ,..,4;t, • ‘". ' .4 a..• ••• - •• yr 0'.1 ,,, - ,.... , ,... •. , - „, . %A-•-- , .. • _ • .1- 'c -711, • r ,.....„444.41. ''.-*-,--5%. -,.-or.7. -- •JA-: ' - -- ".-- ad,i("„• '..,-_ 7:1Z,.. - .i. 4....: 14 ‹...„ - ,.. 2,,.., . , tie 4. - --al „I:..1.., 401'....ill,"401,,\. .44a•.......,.4• ':.',•..1. , li.•\ - .4. . • " . .• Zfii... • ;Yr° 1. .a..1''. . ' • - 441.0 1 "...... ' 4- _ ..-.. _. . N.i.„., . . lib . . •'..' ,e,...., --..... . . _ ....44-:- • • ' '''*'.-.1'''' '- , , - " `,IjsiAL. 'vill-l'ailirr,...f... 14,10. . 4,4,36PO I . L••=-'- N. 4.. 449 14.. r 1. . .1110 4'.• ...„ ...." ' % .a 4 -_----- . 1011r1J011 * .. -.'- -0,......-‘,,,, ,sir..., ........... --..„-:,.. --- - . -.. .- re -- - --%.,•--,„„A _ . , .. , ,. li 1 iiiiiiii -- • - •...i .......„44-:, ...:" -is, t,,,t,c• 42 ... 1I1P- - IOW If *111M1 "—la • ..IP's."..t, tCr • __„.• . . .• -. . ,,it, , It. ilk • 4 ra, ..4.0.41 ,4014, • ..,... .0 it t :,,„ ... • ,.. . i." ' -- ' 1 . .. - ,.' • !I:0 wiTT.74": • '1 - • ' ..- '• ' • *'!$-, ,„ , :* ', . I •: '.. . '- . 13 li . Wr. p* r� 4/1/ .t RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON Vv�"T[� JHEARING EXAMINER /'�111 L7 t^r � ? 5cp(221981 AM PM ITEM NO. '- oor _ g 7,8,9I10dl,I2I1,2,3,4,5,6 •1 i . . .t i . 1. 1, 4 . Fr 41411 iti:10:1111.1\ p i: , 1 r I , I, ttkii- 3t-tir - 0.4. • ; ) . 10 ire (. -0-i. # : Irk ' . ... 4 , I i IIi . Cr k , 11 : lir 't ,—T i .. • - ,- ,,. -f-, • iiiI / i • lib 4 ••, ( 11SIP1,10.4t, , . -. I • ' ./ 4 . . ,, , . • . II . — b '• . . ; , . , ',•'... At* ,. ., - . . r . a • 1 . .... . • tIA ,..• 4 III& -41F4 4, 4 I . .3 . P. . . • i . .... . . - -4 - .„-4,•_ • , • di'fr .. . . - ,-.... • e t •-•. • - •• d -- '' - / *•••. t I 4111 to. * . . ... .Ai 1 i • . , 4. r '. ' i'.'.• . " . ; . .. I ,.' • ' ,t. . , . ••• . Nio 1 .. . - ell • I. . . le . ,,•\ .. , Itillnrr ib ,id A. .,i .:: - - i, .11 I 46 2„ ......, k , , ... .?... 4 •,. 6, %. ' , • t. v.-- _ -. 4' '... , ••/- ,e, ; . .. * 1 • dir . ,„. . • .1. .. _ . •.-‘,' . - ,. •, . ,.,... •'A #.. , • i., #P. \ , • I 4.1 '• .". a >"( . . • , 4:1„.._ =N.. . .._........„• : LL1r._.-_ i -,,,, r 1 ''.... \.. ..4 .• a, 1 1p44 r ......4.. . . i . . — \. \• \\. , ,.„....,„.,. , .. N. ,N. • .. ., ..._...., .. ...._._ . . • '. i 1 4 A.. ...... .W1 .... A ., I p.- , 1 • • 1 .... ,. .... .. 1 N. .... ... .... ... • , - , Att., : .,. Art. .. .. . ., , N ..., . • mo. e t .2 • / 1. I • 1 • .., ..., • - 1 i 1 ' a i I t • ! ) . . . , .• . , • ,.:,.. ,,, . e.' • • . .2. ' el. . , I . _••,/ . z..., , •,w4i Ho a, ' I , . . I - • • ''V• . • r . 6, ... -•, .. v # , • i k.An I , ). ,) 3".ilk rispi,- t ..- f----- - • - . 4,-,, -0-- -. - -,: . . ......,__.. , • , ,, .(.4., iimr, . . . , • . . .. .. .. . - .-, , . , , 'i '4.0. • • -' A I ,1•14$11,; .'i''. fe311117L , i • r . • • ----•:'----,7--- VI.'.f-;i:, .r..,iri, 1%t SI, s ' : " ' 4I•°'' I i& ;,..Nit:14T‘. ',.. •t.,.f ;ft. i•4*. _ ..1.,... •.. . . 4,,, ; .,• . , • :* 4,,:..-,1 Q *40, . 7. k.! 4 , .- .. 7' i,; .4. ' :..lt.. ,-,,.t.14 .Y, '••••.' . '''S,.. 414.,r;4!, •• . .3,, e. - •'". a '*'' st A''' .- . • ; • :-• • r .I‘ V- - - •!.-..J • • . . '- s. '. • , . • ' 1. . ' ... . .. . ... ..... . . ... * .• .......---- . . V .o...- • -,-- sN, .. % . I . , .66, f , .01.. •., '.. • ..160, ..!...... . . • 'fi-1,.'.- 7.1116111P-. . . IPAik-, • - " • %, * .•As.., 40,-- :, . , '-•• -* - - . o' , -. ,iittb4 !:;t 1 4•-\t‘ -:•s;• • ,._, .,' '•• •- . .flp.. : i • 46 . . ... . A. 6 . • 1/14119/ Planning - 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application : REJI4 / '( 2u. 00,- ilereftieetipe2AAt.g ► prfAde ('1..' 1:Z-I 18 kola Ap puce eye con sereeilerl fompounito u a e.,d®, Location : .5, side ere iVenftAf reilr. iiestkorsideribtsam4 five.NE Applicant : &/,meal Dturesoa®eI E® TO: P r- ks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : 40 7!?,/ Police Department A. R. C. MEETING DATE : 1/..70, Public Works Department RC. . ' ' Engineering Division Traffic Engineering , Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire' Department (Ot4r) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITI G713HE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON AT 9 :00 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF UR PARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PL� �RQ FE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P .M. ON �`// REDWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : POLICE Approved XXX Approved with Conditions Not Approved 1)The roadway from the apartments to Edmonds Ave. N.E. . be improved to the full thirty feet width all the way from the applicants property to Edmonds N.E . The driveway now is badly defined and needs widening as well as upgrading to handle the extra traffic safely. 2) The driveway be designated a fire zone and no parking allowed so emergency access can be made to the apts . at all times. 3) Danger zone be placed on either side of driveway entrance on Edmonds NE to Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date allow good sight distance for person exiting the units . Iot rRsson 1/19/gl REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date a Applicant DURWOOD BLOOD File No. R-001-81 Project Name SAME Property Location South side of N.E. 14th S4treet approximately 130 feet west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. HEARING EXAMINER: Date ID . 2 • 84 Recommendation Da.u.C al Req./Rec. Date Received Date Response. Appeal - Date Received Council Approval - Date Ordinance/Resolution # ' Date Mylar to County for Recording Mylar Recording # Remarks: . See File No. ECF-001-81 regarding appeal of environmental determination 0° cjit() .' OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY • RENTON,WASHINGTON ' V POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING • RENTON. WASHINGTON 98055 255-8678 MIL LAWRENCE J.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 0• 9,0 t). DAVID M. DEAN, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 09gTFD SEP-c°° March 23, 1982 MARK E. BARBER, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TO: Dave Clemens FROM: Daniel Kellogg, Assistant City Attorney I received a call from Cam Cayce today who represents Durwood Blood. You will recall that Mr. Blood' s rezone request was denied by the City sometime ago for property near McKnight Middle School. Mr. Blood has sued the Chenaurs , his grantors , for misrepresentation of the zoning on the property. Trial is expected to come along in the near future. He was calling today to notify us that they may sue the City of Renton also for negligence in advice given by the City regarding- the zoning on the property. Apparently the zoning map had . incorrectly identified the property as being zoned R-2, and this fact was apparently relayed both to Mr. Chenaur and to Mr. Blood by our staff at the desk. Obviously this raises substantial liability questions under the Zillah case. - I would- appreciate a report from you regarding any recollection you or any other members of your staff have concerning this matter. Once again, this raises the issue of the City' s exposure for misrepresentations which are made 'negligently. We are at a loss to understand why this matter has not been remedied by use of .the disclaimer which Mr. Warren has advised the City of on several occasions in the past . Daniel Kellogg DK:nd cc: City Clerk Mayor / S OF R�� A. 4$ © z THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 n BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • DELORES A. MEAD 0'9,0 CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500 0,9gT�O SEPSMO�P April 7, 1982 CERTIFICATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The attached copies of all record documents, files, maps and other material relating to the zoning and rezone of that parcel of property owned by Durwood E. Blood are hereby provided pursuant to Superior Court of Washington Order No. 863212 Subpoena Duces Tecum. Hazel Chenaur Rezone 436-67 (2 files) Durwood Blood Special Permit 089-80 Concerned Citizens represented by James E. Eeckhoudt (Durwood Blood Rezone) ECF 001-81 Durwood Blood Rezone 001-81 STATE OF WASHINGTON) )SS. COUNTY OF KING ) I, DELORES A. MEAD, duly appointed, qualified and acting City Clerk of and for the City of Renton, King County, Washington do hereby Certify that the attached are true and correct copies as appearing in the public records on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Renton. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the official seal of the City of Renton, Washington, this 7th day of April 1982. Adebt-40 ? u&d Delores A. Mead, Cit Clerk • • KAMERON C. CA'ILI ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O.. BOX 798 311 MORRIS AVE.SOUTH RENTON,WASHINGTON 98055 12061 255-0603 : I Concerning the enclosed subpoena, our experience indicates that, there are often delays in a pending lawsuit. Rather than have a witness appear and wait for hours or perhaps days to testify, we believe that it is better for the witness to be kept "on call. " If you will fill out the information at the bottom of this letter ,and return it to us before the above noted trial date, we will contact you by telephone when we have reached the point in the trial for testimony. We will do our best to avoid any unnecessary appearances on your part and try to give you as much notice as possible as to when you will be called to the witness stand. • If you dolnot desire to remain on an "on call" basis, we will have no! alternative but to require that you appear on the morning 'set for trial and have you wait until called as a witness. 1 Very truly yours, KAMERON C. CAYCE KCC:ch I agree to remain "on call" and can be reached at the following telephones and addresses: Day Night (Telephone) (Telephone) • (Address) (Address) / DJC Civil C11 (7f2) Reps"-'tton Rights • 1 0 • win ' Reserved by Daily bourn Coiameree , K � , 19. ; 1 �cJ all L 1 • (Receipt of Copy) (Date Filed by Clerk) SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY DURWOOD BLOOD, et ux , Plaintiff, NO. 863212 vs. • ' HAZEL CHENAUR, j I SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Defendant. I / THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, TO: C.I.T.X...OF....REN.TQN_..ANII...DAu1D...CLEMENS.,...8cting Plan Director ' You are hereby commanded to be and appear at the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County, in the Courtroom of 34.K1 ..Prez .din.g...J.udge..., Dept. NoE942 , in the County Courthouse, in Seattle, at ..94.00 o'clock in the .am...clumm of the .2.t.h... day of _April , A. D. 19..& .then and there to give evidence in a certain cause wherein ..DIJRh?OOD...BLQOA , Plaintiff and HA Z E I, CHENAUR , Defendant and you are further directed and commanded to bring with.you the following papers and documents now in your possession or under your control: All records,. documents, files, maps and "other material relating .to the zoning and rezone of that parcel of property currently owned by Durwood E . Blood , legally described in the attached Quit Claim Deed . This request includes information relating to the rezone from R-1 to R-2 prior to June, 1970 , and the modification of the City maps following the decision of Stan- ley Soderland on June 23, 1970 in King County Cause No. 704684 , wherein said rezone was set aside .. Specifically, plaintiff seeks information as to when the maps available to the public were changed to reflect the zoning from R-2 to R-1 per said court order. and to remain in attendance upon said Court until discharged, and HEREIN FAIL NOT AT YOUR PERIL. Witness my hand this ...2.nd. day of .April , 19e.2 ‘14,..., KAMERON C. CAYCE ~` Attorney.... of Record for P 1 a i tiff CAYCE...&...F.LE.CZ P.O. Box 798, Rentpn, WA, 98057 ' 255-0603 • Phone I 73-c:1 OF R? • qv �� z THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR • DELORES A. MEAD amm 0,0 �o CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500 0,9-T6O SEP1�MO�P November 23, 1981 Mr. Durwood E. Blood 1202 North 37th Renton, WA 98055 RE: Rezone R-OOl81; R-1 to R-2 located on the south side of N.E. 14th Street, west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. Dear Mr. Blood: The Renton City Council at its regular meeting of November 23, 1981 has considered the above-referenced appeal and concurs with the Planning and Development Committee recommendation that. the Land Use Hearing Examiner's finding was not in error in fact or law in denying the requested reclassification. Enclosed is an excerpt of the council meeting minutes for your information. Very truly yours, CITY OF RENTON ddited Delores A. Mead, C.M.C. City Clerk DM:gh Enclosure cc: Hearing. Examiner RENTON CITY COUNCIL 1! . November 23, 1981 Regular Meeting Municipal Building Monday 8:00 P.M. Council Chambers MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF RICHARD STREDICKE, Council President, JOHN W. REED, CHARLES SHANE, COUNCIL MEMBERS THOMAS W. TRIMM, EARL H. CLYMER, ROBERT J. HUGHES and RANDALL ROCKHILL. CITY OFFICIALS BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, Mayor; DELORES MEAD, City Clerk; MICHAEL PARNESS, IN ATTENDANCE Administrative Assistant; LAWRENCE WARREN, City Attorney; RICHARD HOUGHTON, Public Works Director; DAVID CLEMENS, Acting Planning Director; LT. DON PERSSON, Police Department. PRESS GREG ANDERSON, Renton Record Chronicle MINUTE APPROVAL MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED CLYMER, APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 1981 AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT L.I.D. 325 Street Daryl Connell, 2691 168th S.E. , Bellevue, requested the matter of Improvements L.I.D. 325 be brought before the Council at this time. MOVED BY South of Valley STREDICKE, SECONDED BY REED, TO TAKE FROM THE TABLE THE SUBJECT OF General Hospital, L.I.D. 325. CARRIED. Upon request for review of the matter, Public Davis Avenue South Works Director Houghton displayed wall map and outlined project. (Tabled 11/16/81) Further discussion ensued regarding traffic signal installation. • MOVED BY SHANE, SECONDED BY ROCKHILL, L.I.D. 325 BE APPROVED. ROLL CALL: 5-AYES: SHANE, TRIMM, CLYMER, HUGHES, ROCKHILL. 2-NOS: STREDICKE, REED. MOTION CARRIED. III Durwood Blood Kathy Koelker, 532 Cedar Avenue South, requested appeal of Durwood Rezone-001-81 Blood, Rezone-001-81, be heard at this time. MOVED BY ROCKHILL, Planning and SECONDED BY SHANE, TO SUSPEND THE REGULAR ORDER OF BUSINESS AND Development ADVANCE TO THE MATTER OF BLOOD APPEAL AT THIS TIME. CARRIED. Committee Mayor Shinpoch relinquished the chair to Council President Stredicke due to possible conflict of interest having relative involvement. Planning and Development Committee Chairman Rockhill presented report on Durwood Blood appeal recommending Council affirm the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner to deny the requested reclassi- fication. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. At this time, Mayor Shinpoch resumed the chair. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are adopted in one motion which follows those business matters included: Emmett Eaton An appeal has been filed of the Land Use Hearing Examiner's decision Short Plat of 11/5/81 by Mary Seabrands, Engineer for Emmett Eaton, for Eaton 080-81 Appeal Short Plat-080-81, Variance 083-81 and 085-81; and Waiver 084-81; in the vicinity of 1324 Aberdeen Avenue N.E. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Solid Waste Finance Director Bennett and Public Works Director Houghton requests Agreement continuation of solid waste agreement with King Subregional Council. Refer to Utilities Committee for approval and to Ways and Means Committee for proper legislation. Sprinkler Fire Department Chief Geisler requested amendment to Sprinkler Ordinance Ordinance No. 3542. Refer to Public Safety Committee for recommendation. Amendment Completion Public Works Director Houghton requested appropriation of unanticipated of Water System/ revenue to complete construction projects of water system improvements Sewer Projects and sanitary sewer rehabilitation projects, transferring $146,425.78 from Latecomer's Fee account to Utility Fund account to complete South Talbot Hill Pump Station and Talbot Hill Pipe Lines ($39,100) and for several sewer rehabilitation projects ($50,000). Refer to Ways and Means Committee for preparation of proper legislation. ' 'i - J- r . • / _ . Page A2 Sunday, June 21, 1981 Record Chronicle , ____ . ' Ne ighborhood , opposes for new condo '. , , , ___ ,, Neighbors to the west of the pro- By LORALEE WENGER perty have had substantial problems Staff Reporter with surface water runoff already, , A 10-unit townhouse condominium he said. proposed for northeast Renton is Privacy concern drawing the ire of prospective neigh- Espinosa also said neighbors fear bors. their privacy will be threatened. ' The condominium is proposed by "It's a difficult one to argue,"he said. Durwood Blood for a 1.25-acre par- The two-story townhouses located on cel of land on the south side of a hill will look down into the single- Northeast 14th Street just west of , family residences."We don't believe Edmonds Avenue Northeast. they can be adequately screened Neighbors fear problems with sur- without creating a sunlight problem. - face water runoff will increase and "I'm certainly not anti-progress," that the development will compound Espinosa said."But there's certainly traffic problems for parents and a limit to what the neighborhood children attending McKnight Middle should bear." School,2600 N.E. 12th St. The two issues involved are the , Attorney for the.concerned citi- environmental significance of the ' zens, James E. Eeckhoudt, said 12 project and ,changing the zoning households will be directly affected . from single family to one that would , and another 12 will feel an indirect allow the development. impact if construction proceeds. , Dave Clemens, acting,city plan- Bouncing around - ning director, said the hearing ex- So far, the proposal has bounced aminer overruled the ERC "on a back and forth between the city's technicality." However, attorney environmental review committee Eeckhoudt said,the exaniner's reply and Renton's land use hearing ex- included more than six pages of ' aminer. justification. The ERC initially said the environ- I , - , ,mental impact of the project was not Separate issues .significant enought to warrant an Clemens said the issue of approp- environmental impact statement. riate zoning is separate and different The citizens group opposed that from the issue of environmental decision and the hearing examiner sigificance. He said even if the 'sided with them,overruling the ERC. conclusive decision is that the de- In restudying the question, the velopmerit's impact is environmen- ERC has.restated its initial position tally insignificant,the zoning matter and another hearing with hearing will be a separate decision. . examiner is scheduled for 10:30 a.m. Clemens said he thinks the en- 1` June 30. vironmental impact of the develop- Lbu Espinosa, one of the upset ment is not especially significant, . neighbors, said 75 to 80 percent of but he later added, "Based on the , . the 1.25-acre parcel"will be covered city's comprehensive plan, it would ; with either asphalt or roof. That's a probably make more sense not have , , lot of water to go somewhere." it zoned R-2." ',ITY OF RENTOP __ No. 20244 FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 / 0 - h o 19S_/ RECEIVED OF l V,C'".A, ' k Q r ,J itukcL e- 0 0 / - 0 TOTAL (� GWEN E. MARSH LLI,� F; NANCE DIRE TOR BY W 'Aa 1 �t� ANJ • DAVID CLEMENS E OF 1 z dz., dA-Sfil" THE CITY OF RENTON tb MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 sea BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • DELORES A. MEAD WIND 00 co' CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500 094, SEPSE��P October 16, 1981 APPEAL FILED BY DURWOOD E. BLOOD THROUGH K. CAYCE, ATTORNEY RE: Decision of the Land Use Hearing Examiner dated October 2, 1981, Durwood E. Blood Application for Rezone R-001-81, property located on the South side of NE 14th Street approximately 130 ft. West of Edmonds Ave. NE (R-1 to R-2) . Examiner recommended denial. 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 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 dditu-d- CZ• 444,d_ Delores A. Mead, C.M.C. City Clerk DM/m ;�� 'l7 7 19 a0 x C, � cry \' N to) %to"- �� ti NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM FINDINGS AND RECOMM 11DA \1,0)�L� ' OF HEARING EXAMINER '91>. �� File No. R-001-81 Following a public hearing on September 22, 1981, the Hearing Examiner made a report and recommendation to the Renton City Council dated October 2, 1981 . The applicant , Durwood E. Blood, respectfully appeals from the Findings and Conclusion of that report and recommendation and states that in addition to errors in the findings and inappropriate conclusions therefrom, that said report and recommendation is arbitrary and capricious and failed to correctly evaluate the testimony, including the preliminary report to the Hearing Examiner prepared by the Planning Department, dated September 22, 1981 Specifically, Appellant appeals from Finding #6 , which indicates that the proposed rezone site has a poorly defined right-of-way. At present the right-of-way may not be precisely fenced or surveyed , however, said right-of-way is clearly defined as a legal matter and there is no pending litigation or • anticipated litigation regarding this right-of-way. • . Appellant further takes issue with Finding of Fact, #10. It `is true that runoff is not contained by the existing vegetation on the site as stated . The balance of Finding #10, however, is merely a statement of neighbors' allegations of an increased problem with the proposed development. Beyond unsupported allegations there is absolutely no credible testimony to this effect. In fact, the engineering testimony indicated that a water retention system would be required of the proposed rezone • and that surface water currently allowed to flood lower-lying LAW OFFICES OF Page One CAYCE & FLECK miso IATES' P.O.BOX 798 410 BURNETT AVE.SO. RENTON,WA 98055 (206)255-0603 • neighbors would, through the proposed development, be diverted to a storm sewer system, and thereby minimize , if not eliminate , the current flooding problem. Finding #14 correctly states that residents indicated i. 'concern for loss of privacy as a result of uphill development but failed to recognize that such loss of privacy is going to result in any event, whether said property is developed as single family residences or as low-density multiple family dwellings. Finding #16 correctly states that the proposal would be capable of casting shadows in the early morning and during winter. However, there was no qualified testimony showing reliable tests or studies to indicate the extent of this problem. Further, there were no reliable studies or tests conducted to compare the relative impact of the proposed project with the impact of single family development. In fact, the proposed development is unlikely to create any more serious problems than would single family development. Finding #16 further- states that sun reflecting off windows may create severe reflections during the summer. This Finding , even though ,,- equivocal , fails to recognize the momentary nature of .any reflection and further fails to recognize that any development with glass will have the same effect. Said Finding also fails to take into consideration the applicant' s proposed screening and plantings, which would serve to minimize , if not eliminate , this problem. See preliminary report from Planning Department re: screening. Finding of Fact #20 fails to consider the comprehensive plan elements cited in paragraph 4 of the preliminary report to LAW OFFICES OF Page Two CAYCE & FLECK ASSOCIATES P.O.BOX 798 410 BURNETT AVE.SO. RENTON,WA 98055 (206)255.0603 the Hearing Examiner by the Planning Department. Specifically, said Finding fails to recognize the comprehensive plan' s desire for buffers between higher density multiple family uses and single family uses, such as exists at this site . Such •'a :buffer would be effectively provided by the proposed development. Said Finding also fails to recognize the general criteria favoring development of close-in sites, rather than urban fringe areas, thereby contributing to sprawl and its related traffic and service distribution problems. See Policy Element 3.A.1 , 3.A. 2, 3.A.3, 4.C. 4. As a result of the inappropriate Findings stated above , the following conclusions are erroneous . 1. Conclusion #1 incorrectly states that any one of the criteria listed in section 4-3014 have been met. The proposal in fact meets criteria B, which provides that the proposed site is potentially designated for the new classification per the comprehensive plan. As shown above, the proposed site in fact meets several criteria favoring buffer zones and close-in development. Although the effect is less obvious in the short run, the long run effect of ignoring these goals is one which will be felt by all citizens of the city, and not just the handful of neighbors who presently feel that the project is undesirable. Arguably, paragraph C has also been met, in that the increased population and forces of development in the Renton area dictate that areas previously zoned single family which are , otherwise appropriate for low-density multiple family should now be considered in order to meet the policy considerations of the plan cited above. 2. It should also be pointed out that Conclusion #2 fails LAW OFFICES OF Page Three CAYCE & FLECK ASSOCIATES P.O.BOX 798 . 410 BURNETT AVE.SO. RENTON,WA 98055 r' (206)255.0603 • to state that the last rezone , which was reversed by Court decree, was reversed on a question of procedural defects and not on the merits of the rezone itself. 3. Conclusion #3 erroneously states that the proposal is a deviation from the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan anticipates rezoning and , in fact, requires it to be an effective instrument. In a situation such as that presented here, the fact of higher density multiple family use dictates that the other policy considerations of the plan come into play to buffer surrounding areas, as well as to satisfy the goal of close-in development. If the comprehensive plan and related zoning categories required no exercise of discretion or judgment, there would be no need for rezones or their related administrative procedure . We would simply refer to a map, and a property would either qualify or not qualify for a proposed development. Such a system, of course , cannot exist in a society where change is taking place and must be managed appropriately. 4. Conclusion #5 erroneously states that the existing family homes are quite successfully buffered from more intense use . Any buffering which does exist is accomplished accidentally by existing growth, which will not necessarily remain on the property. The buffering which currently exists is also a major contributor to the flooding which the lower-lying neighbors have experienced . 5. Conclusions #7 and #8 inappropriately emphasize the allegations by some citizens that Durwood Blood is simply trying to accomplish this rezone for economic benefit or to salvage a LAW OFFICES OF Page Four CAYCE & FLECK ASSOCIATES P.O.BOX 798 410 BURNETT AVE.SO. RENTON.WA 98055 (206)255-0603 "bad deal" . Although Mr. Blood in fact relied upon the seller and the City ( through the Planning Department' s zoning maps) to his detriment when he believed he was buying R-2 zoning, he nonetheless ,has proposed a project which, in spite of this mistake, is one which is an appropriate use of the property :and would serve the best interests of the citizens of Renton as a whole. The proposed project would minimize or eliminate existing problems in the immediate area, would serve to forward ' the policy goals of the comprehensive plan, and also would serve to eliminate any liability the City may have as a result of incorrect advice provided regarding the zoning . 6. Conclusion #10 incorrectly applies the spot zoning principle to the proposed project. This project is an appropriate use of the property and , as stated above, will benefit the entire community and not just the owner. In any project of this nature, the handful of people who perceive themselves to be adversely impacted are typically well-organized and vocal . The benefits, are however, spread over the entire community and City, and therefore do not tend to be of particular interest to any one person or group. This results in a disproportionate amount of negative testimony, which must be ` balanced by the Council ' s knowledge that the hundreds, if not thousands, of citizens who will benefit in the long run by a policy favoring close-in development are extremely unlikely to appear at such a hearing to testify to the benefits of a project. For this reason, the Council must go beyond the affirmative testimony and rely on their own knowledge of overall policy considerations and make appropriate decisions. It is submitted that the Planning Department, applying such a LAW OFFICES OF Page Five CAYCE & FLECK ASSOCIATES F.O.BOX 798 410 BURNETT AVE.SO. RENTON.WA 98055 1206)255.0603 • criteria, has arrived at a compromise which , although not totally' acceptable to Mr. Blood , is in fact a proposal which could serve the best interests of all; specifically, a development allowing rezone to R-2 with limitations on building area, height, and screening which will minimize , if not eliminate the neighbors' concerns. See Planning Department . preliminary report to Hearing Examiner . 7. Conclusion #12 is unfounded , inasmuch as any proposed rezone must meet all of the criteria necessary and, the fact that one project may be appropriate does not lead to the conclusion that another site with different problems would also be appropriate. 8. . Conclusion #14 places undue emphasis on the Planning Department' s statement of failure to meet the criteria set forth in section 4-3014 (c) ( 1) . In the first place, the Planning Department, in its preliminary report, incorrectly implies that all three criteria must be met. In fact, the ordinance requires that one of the three criteria be met in order to justify rezone. The Planning Department also states that there are ,elements of the proposal which in fact qualify within the policy ,goals of the comprehensive plan, thereby meeting requirement: #2, :.that the project be generally consistent. In fact, it was the conclusion of the Planning Department that these policy considerations were of sufficient magnitude that the proposed project was consistent and did strike a balance between the problems presently existing and the potential problems of development. 9. Finding #15 is erroneous on much the same basis as Finding #7. The applicant was not aware and cannot be held LAW OFFICES OF Page Six CAYCE & FLECK ASSOCIATES P.O.BOX 798 410 BURNETT AVE.SO. RENTON.WA 98055 (206)255-0603 . '; • e to have been negligent when in fact he was misled by both the seller and the information provided by the Planning Department through its zoning map. Conclusion #15 also erroneously .states that surrounding property values will :be impaired by the proposed project. There was no testimony on : , which such conclusion could be based . It is respectfully submitted that the City Council should reject the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner for the reasons stated above, and further, for the reason that the Examiner has superimposed his judgment over the considered and appropriate recommendations of the entire Planning Department, including their favorable input from five separate agencies of the City, including an unrestricted approval from the Building Department and approvals with conditions from the Engineering , Traffic , Utilities, Fire and Police Departments. Based on these recommendations, the Council is requested , at the very least , to approve the rezone with appropriate conditions as set forth by the Planning Department. Respectfully submitted , • A ERON C. YCE Attorney for Applicant DURWOOD E. BLOOD 1202 North 37th Renton, Washington 98055 LAW OFFICES OF dti, Page Seven CAYCE & FLECK ASSOCIATES P.O.BOX 798 410 BURNETT AVE.SO. RENTON,WA 98055 (206)255.0603 4 .w Sri 2��' 2'� z.2 :}3; 24; :?5 [2a --_77�Ir. _Z r is IY I •._ _ .. M� • • ... . . • • . .w 7.4 - - Y a;— '200 I 297 ?N 272 2..� ['`G_ :a° 2.3-_ ?i :e a� •L•• 4: • • . . ..r..-....� if: a� • • _ 7. �— - - , ..ice • •.r . G. -�„ ' ..i s -� --. .. .i 1- . .. I ! I°i. a• �• • / �• , % • • '11. 7. f..t,i •�.. ,r..�..L=.--.1.'...Ii� R•lf ri n 1 � 'r`t.. .7.�•.. \ •° �'� / Ii QV ! ii. ass I Milli LT. L66 I L11 so Laa f' • Q rim i to. . •1••;.•••.•• - / ��, ,i • 4 l -. .Qv• li .1 _ .., •_ ' . t s� • per' . r. I MI. I till. LTC : 4E ,. ., •,„. .. . i , _,....,:,i.,_,::.s..i. • .,..,. . .„ .. • -f90�f�t'• _ t•>..rr•-" da0 ;f taa, :e. 29 ill, 'C I i •: �i x Lr '• ��.• '. II t , I�1 ~' •r• jam~ �•VV�� 3 •e a ,':a • • - 948 ,! ji • ate+_�� J a_ ♦ ...r •�• I I .} J. •o g �� , ' via LN `t41_ :47 •• Lat,•• 44' [DC •r J29 1 SA �w• '• .� 'o,- �/- LL .� e 3 • . •, as p • ` 'l; , A.` ti: 7200 is', .,..4" . . r ., -. ---1-- c-7; L •1 . ., • kvA 'as tip '.a--- 4—. - VOL - p•'� °I• �� J ` •. ti . , N t - ' a0 •,•44 •� T..1 ___, ..ti ....: la•'1. .":".\••> ' • R-3 -4:,,, - . i • \,.., -,,I 0\, „ • t�•F 4 •1:' •• , •ti JP 11(j )/: 7 . V� - • •ti n• - a ',1 ^ • s E - 1 ry• . 1 , f . ', . Y�r eal 41.'• •r1 ' :.i� •G� ° 1� w j n 55 ' !z la.• • %a.-'_ .\. • .ar....6.....a.11.-.1 i1-- .7... 14 % _ -- _ . . -. t.:_,. c if.., : '. -. z J ,.ul Ii Rl�. =P . • .'o I cl':-11:-." -zt<0.4.1'Li'. . . . . • 4. /•-'241 1 ,."1111 ' ,,i' 4,"41_14' ' • •. - -,r13 et,-'1 r • ',:a f ..;'. • • BLOOD , DURWOOD W. R-001-81 • APPLICANT BLOOD , DURWOOD TOTAL .AREA +43 ,049 sq . ft. PRINCIPAL ACCESS N . E. 14th ST. EXISTING ZONING R-1 EXISTING USE Undeveloped PROPOSED USE Ten Townhouse Condominiums COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN_ Single Family Residential COMMENTS t _ Renton City Council 10/26/81 Page 2 , 404 _, Public Hearing - Continued Federal Revenue already been anticipated. There being no public comment, it was Sharing -Cont. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND CLYMER, CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Linda Fellrath, 12659 SE 161st, requested return of traffic lights End of Flashing to sequence (green, yellow, red) from flashing, explaining accident Traffic Lights at South 2nd Street and Shattuck Ave. at Renton High School by her Requested son, William Woods. Mrs. Fellrath was referred by Municipal Court and supplied letters from Robert Hammond, Public Works Department and Officer Hajny, Police Department, supporting return of signals to sequence. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND REED, REFER CORRESPONDENCE AND REQUEST OF MRS. FELLRATH TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE FOR STUDY AND REPORT BACK. CARRIED. Water Rate M. L. Gibson, 1215 North 28th Place, expressed concern over higher Complaint water bills, questioning reasons for cost increase. Mr. Gibson calf attention to City's two meter readers, comparing number of meters read by Puget Power meter readers, noting private industry computer- ized. Councilman Stredicke recalled summer dry spell and need to water lawns, etc. Mayor Shinpoch advised the matter would be investigated. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are adopted by one motion which follows the business matters included: (See Correspondence for Item 6.a. removed by Administration request.) Appointment Letter from Mayor Shinpoch appointed William F. Anderson to Board of Position No. 5 on the Board of Adjustment, succeeding Gerald Holman Adjustment who did not wish to accept reappointment. Mr. Anderson's term will be four years, effective to 9/6/85 and is President of Renton Electric and a registered architect. Other Board Members are: Felix Campanella, David M. Young, Francis A. Holman, James Dalpay, Kenneth Swanigan and Barbara Lally. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. Utility Easement Letter from Public Works Director Richard Houghton requested near Sambo's authorization for the Mayor and City Clerk to sign an easement for sanitary sewer repairs in the vicinity of Sambo's Restaurant. The letter explained a 15 ft. permanent easement plus .10 ft. temporary construction easement will be required to realign the sanitary sewer. The Utility Easement Agreement from Samba's Restaurant, Inc. , lessee of the property, must be executed before the owner of the property will sign the easement. Council concur. SW 43rd St. City Clerk Mead reported nine bids were received at the 10/13/81 Bid Opening Bid Opening for widening and paving of SW 43rd St. from East Valley to West Valley Highway.. (See attached tabulation) Refer to the Transportation Committee. Fund Transfer Letter from Building Director Ronald Nelson requested ordinance to transfer $10,000 for professional services for balance of 1981. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. Appeal Appeal has been filed by Durwood Blood of Hearing Exam9ner's Durwood Blood decision of 10/2/81 Rezone R-001-81; R-1 to R-2 for purpose of Rezone condominium construction; property located on south side of NE 14th Street, west of Edmonds Ave. NE. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Proposed Vacation Petition was filed for Vacation of a portion of SE 18th Street SE 18th St. between Rolling Hills Village Subdivisions No. 1 and No. 2 by the Public Hearing Rolling Hills Village Homes Association. Refer to Public Works 12/7/81 Department for validation of petition; to Board of Public Works regarding retention of easements and to the Ways and Means Com- mittee for a resolution setting date of public hearing 12/7/81. Damages Claim Claim for Damages was filed by Tina Chapman, 422 Pelly St. , in unknown amount for damage to premises alleging main sewer line broke backing raw sewerage into basement. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Carrier. I For.Use By//City lerk's Office Only A. I . # ((' - AGENDA ITEM RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING LAgendaStatus: SUBMITTINGCit Clerk 10/26/81�- Dept./Div./Bd./Comm. y Of (Meeting Date)Staff Contact Del.Mead/Maxine (Name) tus:SUBJECT: Appeal of Durwood Blood Rezone R-001-8nt! c Hearingspondenceance/ResolutionusinessExhibits: (Legal Descr. , Maps, Etc.)Attachusiness SessionA, Clerk's notification B. Blood Appeal letter received 10/16/81 C. Hearing Examiner's Decision of 10/2/81 Approval : Legal Dept. Yes No_ N/A_ COUNCIL ACTION RECOMMENDED: Finance Dept. Yes_ No. N/A Refer to Planning and Development Other Clearance Committee for recommendation to Council. FISCAL IMPACT: . ! Amount Appropriation- Expenditure Required $ Budgeted $ Transfer Required $ SUMMARY (Background information, prior action and effect of implementation) (Attach additional pages if necessary.) Property located on the South side of NE .14th St. approximately 130 ft. West of Edmonds.Ave. NE (R-1 to R-2 for purpose of construction of 10 townhouse condominiums). Examiner recommended denial. PARTIES OF RECORD/INTERESTED CITIZENS TO BE CONTACTED: SUBMIT THIS COPY TO CITY CLERK BY NOON ON THURSDAY WITH DOCUMENTATION. 1 • For.U,se By ,City,.Clerk's Office Only A. I . # `¢ AGENDA ITEM ' ' RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING (•'i SUBMITTING ,Dept./Div./Bd./Comm. City Clerk. For Agenda Of , 1O,LEA/sl (Meeting Date) Staff Contact ' Del Mead/Maxine (Name) Agenda Status: SUBJECT: Appeal of Durwood Blood Rezone R-001--81 Consent • Public Hearing Correspondence Ordinance/Resolution Old Business Exhibits: (Legal Descr. , Maps, Etc. )Attach New Business Study Session A. Clerk's notification Other B. Blood Appeal letter received 10/16/8 C. Hearing Examiner's Decision of l0/2./81 Approval : Legal Dept. Yes No N/A COUNCIL ACTION RECOMMENDED: Finance Dept. Yes No. N/A Refer to Planning and Development Other Clearance Committee for recommendation to Council. FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditure Required $ Amount $ Appropriation- $ Budgeted Transfer Required SUMMARY (Background information, prior action and effect of implementation) (Attach additional pages' if necessary. ) Property located on the South side of RE 14th St. approxirnn ;cly 13t? ft. West of :3dmonds Ave, NE (R-1 to 1 for i..aat-posc of construction of 1D t:ow? it,ouLc condo minims) , EialRiner recommended denial. PARTIES OF RECORD/INTERESTED 'CITIZENS TO BE CONTACTED: THIS COPY FOR YOUR FILES. OF R4, 46% 0 THE CITY OF RENTON — �0 f). Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o '� a BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR • DELORES A. MEAD .0 co. CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500 O,QgT�D SEP�ce.e October 16, 1981 APPEAL FILED BY 'DURWOOD E. BLOOD. THROUGH K. CAYCE, ATTORNEY RE: Decision of the Land Use Hearing Examiner dated October 2, 1981, Durwood E. Blood Application for Rezone R-001-81, property located on the South side of NE 14th Street approximately 130 ft. West of Edmonds Ave. NE (R-1 to R-2) . Examiner recommended denial. 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 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 ocadetw 4ead. Delores A. Mead, C.M.C. City Clerk DM/m b,0.171819c'a CD 05) CE NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM FINDINGS AND RECOMM: 9 Sp�E- OF HEARING EXAMINER SjSCz ` Oct'�� File No. R-001-81 Following a public hearing on September 22, 1981, the Hearing Examiner made a report and recommendation to the Renton City Council dated October 2, 1981 . The applicant, Durwood E. Blood , respectfully appeals from the Findings and Conclusion of that report and recommendation and states that in addition to errors in the findings and inappropriate conclusions therefrom, that said report and, recommendation is arbitrary and capricious and failed to correctly evaluate the testimony, including the preliminary report to the Hearing Examiner prepared by the Planning Department, dated September 22, 1981 Specifically, Appellant appeals from Finding #6, which i . indicates that. the proposed rezone site has a poorly defined right-of-way. At present the right-of-way may not be precisely fenced or surveyed , however, said right-of-way is clearly defined as a legal matter and there is no pending .litigation or anticipated litigation regarding this right-of-way. Appellant !further takes issue with Finding of Fact #10. It is true that runoff is not contained by the existing vegetation on the site as stated . The balance of Finding #10, however, is merely a statement of neighbors' allegations of an increased problem wjth the proposed development. Beyond unsupported allegations there is absolutely no credible testimony to this effect. In fact, the engineering testimony indicated that a water retention system would be required of the proposed rezone and that surface water currently allowed to flood lower-lying LAW OFFICES OF Page One CAYCE & FLECK AmoCIA'I'ES` P.O.BOX 798 410 BURNETT AVE.SO. RENTON.WA 98055 (206)255-0603 _ I . . neighbors would,hhrough the proposed development, be diverted to a storm sewer1system, and thereby minimize , if not eliminate , the current flooding problem. Finding #14! correctly states that residents indicated concern for loss; of privacy as a result of uphill development but failed to recognize that such loss of privacy is. going to result in any event, whether said property is developed as single family residences or as low-density multiple family dwellings. Finding #16 correctly states that the proposal would be capable of casting shadows in the early morning and during winter. However , there was no qualified testimony showing reliable tests Or studies to indicate the extent of this problem. Furtheir, there were no reliable studies or tests conducted to compare the relative impact of the proposed project with the impact 'of single family development. In fact, the proposed development is unlikely to create any more serious problems than would single family development. Finding #16 further states that sun reflecting off windows may create severe reflections during the summer. This Finding , even though equivocal , fails to recognize the momentary nature of any reflection and further fails to recognize that any development with glass will have the same effect. Said Finding also fails to take into consideration the applicant' s proposed screening and plantings, which would serve to minimize ; if not eliminate , this problem. See preliminary report from Planning Department re: screening. Finding of Fact #20 fails to consider the comprehensive plan elements cited in paragraph 4 of the preliminary report to LAW OFFICES OF Page Two CAYCE & FLECK Assoc:m-I F S P.O.BOX 798 410 BURNETT AVE.SO. RENTON.WA 98055 1206)255-0603 the Hearing Examiner by the Planning Department. Specifically, said Finding fails to recognize the comprehensive plan' s desire for buffers between higher density multiple family uses and single family uses, such as exists at this site . Such: a buffer would be effectively provided by the proposed development. Said Finding also fails to recognize the general criteria favoring development of close-in sites, rather than urban fringe areas, thereby contributing to sprawl and its related traffic and service distribution problems. See Policy Element 3.A.1 , 3.A. 2, 3.A. 3, 4.C. 4. As a result of the inappropriate Findings stated above , the following conclusions are erroneous. 1. Conclusion #1 incorrectly states that any one of the criteria listed in section 4-3014 have been met. The proposal in fact meets criteria B, which provides that the proposed site is potentially designated for the new classification per the comprehensive plan. As shown above, the proposed site in fact meets several criteria favoring buffer zones and close-in development. Although the effect is less obvious in the short run, the long run effect of ignoring these goals is one, which will be felt by all citizens of the city, and not just the handful of neighbors who presently feel that the project is undesirable. Arguably, paragraph C has also been met, in that the increased population and forces of development in the Renton area dictate that areas previously zoned single family which are otherwise appropriate for low-density multiple family should now be considered in order to meet the policy considerations of the plan cited above. 2. It should also be pointed out that Conclusion #2 fails LAW OFFICES OF Page Three CAYCE & FLECK ASSOCIATES P.O.BOX 798 410 BURNETT AVE.SO. RENTON,WA 98055 (206)255.0603 .:;: to state that the last rezone , which was reversed by Court decree, was reversed on a question of procedural defects and not on the merits of the rezone itself. 3. Conclusion #3 erroneously states that the proposal is a deviation from the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan anticipates rezoning and , in fact, requires it to be an effective instrument. In a situation such as that presented here, the fact of higher density multiple family use dictates that the other policy considerations of the plan come into play to buffer surrounding areas, as well as to satisfy the goal of close-in development. If the comprehensive plan and related zoning categories required no exercise of discretion or judgment, there would be no need for rezones. or their related administrative procedure. We would simply refer to a map, and a property would either qualify or not qualify for a proposed development. Such a system, of course , cannot exist in a society where change is taking place and must be managed appropriately. 4. Conclusion #5 erroneously states that the existing family homes are quite successfully buffered from more intense , use .. Any buffering which does exist is accomplished accidentally by existing growth, which will not necessarily remain on the property. The buffering which currently exists is also a major contributor to the flooding which the lower-lying neighbors have experienced . 5. Conclusions #7 and #8 inappropriately emphasize the allegations by some citizens that Durwood Blood is simply trying to .accomplish this rezone for economic benefit or to salvage a LAW OFFICES OF Page Four CAYCE & FLECK ASSOCIATES P.O.BOX 798 410 BURNETT AVE.SO. RENTON.WA 98055 (206)255.0603 "bad deal" . Although Mr. Blood in fact relied upon the seller and the City ( through the Planning Department' s zoning maps) to his detriment when he believed he was buying R-2 zoning , he nonetheless has proposed a project which, in spite of this mistake, is one which is an appropriate use of the property and : would serve the best interests of the citizens of Renton as a whole . The proposed project would minimize or eliminate existing problems in the immediate area, would serve to forward the policy goals of the comprehensive plan, and also would serve to eliminate any liability the City may have as a result of incorrect advice provided regarding the zoning . 6. Conclusion #10 incorrectly applies the spot zoning principle to the proposed project. This project is an appropriate use of the property and , as stated above, will benefit the entire community and not just the owner. In any project of this nature, the handful of people who perceive themselves to be adversely impacted are typically well-organized and vocal . The benefits, are however, spread over the entire community and City, and therefore do not tend to be of particular interest to any one person or group. This results in a 'disproportionate amount of negative testimony, which must be . : balanced by the Council' s knowledge that the hundreds, if not ' thousands, of citizens who will benefit in the long run by a policy favoring close-in development are extremely unlikely to appear at such a hearing to testify to the benefits of a project. For this reason, the Council must go beyond the affirmative testimony and rely on their own knowledge of overall policy considerations and make appropriate decisions . It is submitted that the Planning Department, applying such a LAW OFFICES OF Page Five CAYCE & FLECK ASSOCIATES P.O.BOX 798 410 BURNETT AVE.SO. RENTON.WA 98055 1206)255.0603 criteria, has arrived at a compromise which, although not totally acceptable to Mr. Blood , is in fact a proposal which could serve the best interests of all; specifically, a development allowing rezone to R-2 with limitations on building. ' area, height, and screening which will minimize , if not eliminate the neighbors' concerns. See Planning Department preliminary report to Hearing Examiner. 7. Conclusion #12 is unfounded, inasmuch as any proposed rezone must meet all of the criteria necessary and the fact that one project may be appropriate does not lead to the conclusion that another site with different problems would also be appropriate . 8. Conclusion #14 places undue emphasis on the Planning Department' s statement of failure to meet the criteria set forth in section 4-3014 (c) ( 1) . In the first place, the Planning Department, in its preliminary report, incorrectly implies that all three criteria must be met. In fact, the ordinance requires that one of the three criteria be met in order to justify rezone. The Planning Department also states that there are elements of the proposal which in fact qualify within the policy goals of the comprehensive plan, thereby meeting requirement #2, that the project be generally consistent. In fact, it was the conclusion of the Planning Department that these policy considerations were of sufficient magnitude that the proposed project was consistent and did strike a balance between the problems presently existing and the potential problems of development. 9. Finding #15 is erroneous on much the same basis as Finding #7. The applicant was not aware and cannot be held LAW OFFICES OF Page Six CAYCE & FLECK ASSOC1A•fl S P.O.BOX 798 410 BURNETT AVE.SO. RENTON.WA 98055 (206)255.0603 to have been negligent when in fact he was misled by both the seller and the information provided by the Planning Department through its zoning map. Conclusion #15 also erroneously •states that surrounding property values will be . , :. impaired by the proposed project. There was no testimony on which such conclusion could be based. It is respectfully submitted that the City Council should reject the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner for the reasons stated above, and further, for the reason that the Examiner has superimposed his judgment over the considered and appropriate recommendations of the entire Planning Department, including their favorable input from five separate agencies of the City, including an unrestricted approval from the Building Department and approvals with conditions from the Engineering , Traffic , Utilities, Fire and Police Departments . Based on these recommendations, the Council is requested , at the very least , to approve the rezone with appropriate conditions as set forth by the Planning Department. Respectfully submitted ,. A1ERON C. YCE Attorney for Applicant DURWOOD E. BLOOD 1202 North 37th Renton, Washington 98055 • LAW OFFICES OF Page Seven CAYCE & FLECK ASSOCIATES P.O.BOX 798 410 BURNETT AVE.SO. RENTON,WA 98055 (206)255.0603 October 2, 1981 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL, APPLICANT: Durwood E. Blood FILE NO. R-001-81 LOCATION: • South side of N.E. 14th Street approximately 130 feet west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks a rezone of the subject site from R-1 to R-2 for the purpose of construction of ten (10) townhouse condominiums. • SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Approval with conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner: Denial . • PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department preliminary report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on September 15, 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 September 22, 1981 at 9:45 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. David Clemens, Acting Planning Director, 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: Appeal File of Environmental Determination containing two decisions, dated April 17, 1981 and August 3, 1981 Exhibit #3: King County Assessor's Map showing subject site and surrounding vicinity Exhibit #4: Photographs of Subject Site (2 sheets) Proper utilization of the site and its potential development was discussed by Mr. Clemens in his review of the staff report. He stated that uncertainty exists regarding the appropriate intensity of development in view of concerns of the adjacent neighbors; however, in comparing the proposal to the Comprehensive Plan, the property should be developed, and it is the opinion of staff that the proposal to allow six dwelling units as outlined in the Planning Department report would allow development of the site with the least impact to the surrounding residents. The Examiner inquired if three separate structures containing 50 feet in width would be located on the property, or if the department was recommending that the structure could be 150 feet in length. Mr. Clemens indicated that the applicant should be given maximum design flexibility to meet the criteria regarding maximum building area in a north-south direction and maximum height plane as described, and concerns regarding specific site design can be addressed and resolved during site review. • The Examiner noted an error in Section L.7, paragraph 3 of the staff report which refers to 30 percent and should reflect 30 degrees. The Examiner requested testimony by the applicant. Responding was: Kameron Cayce• P.O. Box 798 Renton, WA 98057 R-001-81 Page Two Mr. Cayce, legal counsel for the applicant, felt that the applicant has met the burden of proof required to justify the requested rezone, and the proposed development as requested • is in the interest of the community and the city as a whole. Mr. Cayce noted that storm water runoff problems currently exist on the site; however, development under the proposal would provide facilities to control and contain runoff and eliminate or improve the existing situation. He indicated that development of the site for purposes of single family use would not provide similar controls. Shading impacts from proposed structures to adjacent residences were discussed, and Mr. Cayce stated that single family construction would create a greater impact upon homes to the west and north than would the proposal because of minimum required setbacks in the R-1 zone, and the loss of privacy would be the same with either multifamily or single family use. It was Mr. Cayce's opinion that glare from the proposal would be no greater than from single family homes, and although he had not had the opportunity to review the Planning Department's proposal to allow maximum development of 150 feet in width at an angle of 30 degrees from the horizontal with the project engineers and architects, he objected to the restriction as an issue which exceeds the bounds of the Zoning Code. He noted that guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan should be given considerable weight, and existence of a medium density apartment building immediately east of the subject site establishes the need for a transition zone between that structure and the single family uses to the west and north which the requested R-2 zoning on the site would provide. Mr. Cayce also felt that the projected increase in traffic from the site would be minimal , and concluded by stating the applicant's willingness to review site development with concerned neighbors. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding whether the applicant objects to limitation to six dwelling units on the subject site, Mr. Cayce stated the applicant's objection due to required expenditures to eliminate the storm water runoff problem and difficulties in site development which would make the construction of only six dwelling units economically infeasible. The Examiner inquired if the applicant had reasonable use of the site for four units under existing zoning if replatting occurred, and if he would be deprived of all economic benefit if the rezone is denied. Mr. Cayce stated that it is the applicant's opinion that problems of site layout would create significant financial impact and the limitation of density would not be reasonable. The Examiner noted that a special permit would be required to allow development of more than six units if the rezone to R-2 were granted. The Examiner asked Mr. Clemens to explain rear yard setbacks for both the R-1 and R-2 zoning categories. Mr. Clemens advised that a 25-foot setback is required for both zones; however, the city has retained a utility easement of 30 feet of vacated right-of-way on the westerly boundary, thereby establishing a 30-foot setback for either single or multifamily development. The Examiner requested testimony in opposition to the proposal . Responding was: Adrian Reese Sheely 1312 Dayton Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Sheely indicated concurrence with the recommendations contained in the Planning Department report. He expressed objection to the previous environmental determination which had been appealed by residents and subsequently upheld by the Examiner through the hearing process since he felt that the proposal would create significant impact to adjacent residents. Concerns which had been addressed in the Planning Department report such as loss of privacy, glare, loss of sunlight, air quality, residential value, and noise impacts were discussed by Mr. Sheely, and he requested that previous testimony from environmental appeal hearings be incorporated into the record. The Examiner advised that Exhibit 12 contains the previous record. Mr. Sheely summarized by stating that the requested rezone is inconsistent with good zoning practice, constitutes a breach of . faith with existing homeowners, and further encroachment by multifamily development would be undesirable and detrimental . Responding in opposition was: Bob Jones 1308 Dayton Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Jones reviewed the history of the site, noting that R-1 zoning had existed on the site for 10 years until 1968 when a rezone to R-2 occurred without proper public notice or public hearing and was subsequently voided by Superior Court action in 1970. Upon development of the residential plat on Dayton Court N.E. , a 30-foot easement to the north and west of the subject site was vacated by the city at the request of the developer, and uncertainty remains regarding property lines. R-001-81 Page Three Responding to the background information provided in the staff report, Mr. Jones noted that although no evidence of standing water was found on the site on September 11 upon field inspection, it should be clarified that the summer had been unusually dry; he also corrected reference to existence of evergreen trees on the site, clarifying that alders are found on site which typically.• grow in poorly drained soil . He corrected reference to the land use in the area of a mixture of multifamily and single family uses and stated that 90% of the area is used for single family development. Mr. Jones felt that the point had been missed in assessment of traffic impact on Edmonds at a 1% increase, noting that the problem would be related to access to Edmonds, not increase in traffic, due to traffic congestion near the school and limited visibility. The calculations used to arrive at a proposed density of 5.9 was challenged by Mr. Jones, who noted that deduction of street area would reduce the density to four units. Mr. Jones submitted a chart to illustrate discussion of soils permeability on the site, which was entered into the record as follows by the Examiner: Exhibit #5: Permeability and Water Potential Chart Discussed was the existence of sand on the site which normally has a high resistance to erosion and creates very few storm runoff problems; however, depending upon the gradation of particles within the mass, sand can become impervious and susceptible to erosion. Mr. Jones advised that sand located on the site is coarse and mixed with clay, and two areas exist which are completely impervious resulting in runoff standing six inches deep in backyards of homes located to the west. Mr. Jones then submitted a chart which reflects results of a survey of multiple family complexes in the Highlands area: The chart was entered by the. Examiner as follows: Exhibit #6: Chart of Highlands Uses The survey, which encompassed areas in the Highlands along Edmonds Avenue and along Sunset Boulevard towards N.E. 4th Street documented the number of units in the complex, the number of adjacent single family residences which are impacted, and the amount of landscaping and screening provided to buffer developments from single family homes. Responding to the Examiner's request for clarification of the term, "disadvantaged homes," designated on the chart, Mr. Jones explained that homes located next to apartment units affected by noise, invasion of privacy, and traffic are considered disadvantaged or impacted. Typically, a large development would only impact one to two percent of homes; however, a smaller multifamily complex tends to create a greater impact to a larger number of homes. Due to the situation of the subject site, it borders single family homes for a long distance and causes greater impact to residents than any other multifamily development surveyed. Mr. Jones referred to the three criteria which must be met prior to granting approval of a rezone, noting that the requested rezone fails all three, and he objected to the recommendation by the Planning Department for approval based upon the fact that the site should provide a transitional buffer from the existing apartment building. Rather, he supported maintaining the subject site in its current R-1 zoning category to protect existing single family homes. Responding in opposition was: Doug Cobb 1216 Dayton Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Cobb, resident located directly west of the site, addressed problems he has incurred as a result of water runoff and erosion. The Examiner inquired of Mr. Clemens if installation of a storm drainage system would be required if the site were developed with single family residences and maintain the current flow. Mr. Clemens advised that since he did not deal with that, he didn't, know the answer. It was the Examiner's opinion that through common law remedies, a problem which currently exists cannot be exacerbated through development of property. Mr. Cobb anticipated that the runoff will be increased upon removal of vegetation from the site and increase of impervious surfaces, and cited instances when a river of runoff runs down the hillside through his backyard creating standing water a depth of six inches. He noted that the Engineering Division comments referred to a possible problem with storm water. The Examiner then inquired regarding the availability of sanitary sewer facilities to the site. Mr. Clemens stated his understanding that necessary easements have been obtained or can be obtained to provide required services. He also responded to the Examiner's earlier inquiry regarding requirements for storm water facilities on single family residential development, citing Chapter 29, Storm and Surface Water Drainage Ordinance, which states that single family residential lots of less than 6,000 square feet may be waived except in critical areas. R-001-81 Page Four He noted that the subject site would be considered a critical area and submission of drainage plans would be required. Responding in opposition was: Keith Brownfield 1211 Dayton Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Brownfield reviewed the conditions under which the property was purchased by the applicant, noting that apparently he was misled by the real estate listing prepared by the prior owner indicating that R-2 zoning exists on the property, city maps had erroneously designated the property zoning as R-2, and title problems had subsequently occurred. Then, two years later, it was discovered that the zoning on the property was actually R-1 , and litigation is currently pending regarding the sale of the property. Mr. Brownfield advised that he had contacted a real estate company regarding zoning on the subject site, was told that zoning was R-1 , and rezone was infeasible. Therefore, he felt that the applicant's recourse to recoup his losses is not through rezone of the property, but rather, pursuing legal options. Responding in opposition was: Wayne Wicks 1323 Dayton Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Wicks objected to the applicant's proposal to rezone the property to R-2 for financial benefit following purchase of R-i zoned property. He noted that he was aware of the R-1 zoning on the subject site when he purchased his own home. He corrected the statement made by Planning Department staff that the property to the south is vacant, advising that two homes currently exist there, and if the subject site is rezoned to R-2, it would be reasonable to assume that a subsequent rezone would occur on the property to the south which has to date remained R-1 . Responding in opposition was: Lewis Espinosa • 1408 Dayton Court N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Espinosa discussed the 30-foot easement earlier mentioned in testimony, noting that it was originally intended to become part of the plat on Dayton Court N.E. . Several property line disputes have occurred as a result of that action, all of which have not been resolved, and it is his belief that the property was incorporated into the subject site to create a developable lot size. Mr. Espinosa advised that until one year ago, a single family home had existed on the site which had been removed, presumably in preparation for the subject rezone, and its location would have precluded construction of any more than one additional residence on the site. He objected to Mr. Clemens' concern that single family homes constructed on the site would be impacted by the existing apartment building, and noted that the same impact would occur to existing residents by approval of a multifamily proposal . Mr. Espinosa agreed that the recommendation of the Planning Department was acceptable; however, the applicant has expressed his objections to that recommendation. Mr. Sheely requested that the request for rezone be denied on the basis that it violates the conditions required for rezone, causes undue hardship on the neighborhood, and is not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. He further requested that restrictions be placed on the property to assure that conditions recommended by the Planning Department such as height limitation, limited allowable coverage, and storm water runoff facilities • would be enforced if and when the property is developed. The Examiner clarified regulations of the city which allow placement of restrictions on land only if a change in zoning occurs or in the course of other action by the city. Mr. Sheely reiterated his request that the rezone be denied because it does not meet city requirements. Mr. Jones inquired whether restrictive covenants associated with a rezone to R-2 can be removed during the special permit process. The Examiner stated that the issue of modifying covenants is a legal process which requires separate handling by legal staff. Mr. Clemens clarified that if the Examiner and the City Council adopt recommendations of the staff, an ordinance would be enacted incorporating those conditions, and the only way those restrictions could be modified would be through another public hearing and adoption of a separate ordinance modifying the previously adopted ordinance. Responding to Mr. Sheely's inquiry regarding the appeal process to Superior Court, Mr. Clemens explained the process of request for reconsideration to the Examiner, appeal to the City Council , and finally, appeal to Superior Court. Mr. Sheely advised that the residents in the area are forming a homeowners' association to coordinate community support. • • R-001-81 Page Five Mr. Cayce reviewed the applicant's intent in requesting a rezone, reiterating the conditions of purchase in which he believed he owned R-2 zoned property following purchase, and the city map had not been altered following litigation in 1970. He noted that damages from the transaction will not'be known until the rezone process is finalized. Referencing earlier testimony regarding water runoff, Mr. Cayce stated that the applicant intends to solve that problem with an overall retention system which will be preferable to that provided if single family residential development occurs. He questioned the method of data collection for the chart submitted by parties in opposition, noting that the determination of adverse impact is very subjective. The Examiner advised that the relevant worth of the charts will be considered during review. Mr. Jones explained the process through which impacts from multifamily complexes were assessed. Mr.. Wicks again raised the issue of why the applicant purchased property zoned R-1 and then requested a rezone to R-2. The Examiner explained that Mr. Blood had purchased what was thought to be R-2 property, and confirmed that requests for rezones of this type are common in the city. Mr. Sheely advised his observation in looking at apartment sites that homes adjacent to such complexes are deteriorating, either from loss of pride or because they had been converted to rentals, and residents in the area of the subject site do not want a similar deleterious effect in their neighborhood. The Examiner requested final comments from the Planning Department. Mr. Clemens reiterated the departmental recommendation which he felt would protect the neighborhood and provide for use of the property by the applicant. The Examiner requested final comments. Since none were offered, the hearing regarding File No. R-001-81 was closed by the Examiner at 11 :15 a.m. FINDINGS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: ' FINDINGS: ' ' 1 . The request is for approval of a reclassification of approximately 43,049 square feet of property from R-1 (Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size - 7,200 square feet) to R-2 (Duplex Residential) . 2. The application file containing the application, SEPA documentation, the Planning Department report, and other pertinent documents was entered into the record as Exhibit #1 . 3. Pursuant to the City of' Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental . Policy Act of 1971 , RCW 43.21C, as amended, a Declaration of Non-Significance has been issued for the subject proposal by the Environmental Review Committee, responsible official . 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. The subject site was annexed into the city in October of 1956 by Ordinance No. 1567 and was initially zoned S-1 (Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size - 40,000 square feet) . The site was reclassified to R-1 (Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size - 7,200 square feet) in October of 1956 by Ordinance No. 1577. In March of 1968, the site was reclassified to R-2 by Ordinance No. 2387. The Superior Court reversed this latter classification because of lack of due process requirements and the site remained R-1 , its current classification. Two environmental appeals have preceded the request to reclassify the subject site to R-2, and these appeals have been resolved (File No. ECF-001-81) . (See Finding No. 3 above.) Some city zoning maps, which did not reflect the court decision, and the previous property owner involved in that decision represented the property as classified R-2, and a lawsuit has been filed by the current owner against his seller. That suit has been continued as 'the' level or measure of damages would depend on the outcome of the attempt to reclassify the subject site to R-2. • 6. The subject property is located on the south side of N.E. 14th Street about 130 feet • west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. Access to the site is via N.E. 14th Street, which, in this location, serves more as a driveway. N.E. 14th Street has a steep grade and is only a 30-foot wide, poorly defined right-of-way.' 7. The subject site slopes downward from east to west. The site is a' downward sloping plateau about 15 to 20 feet below Edmonds Avenue N.E. and about 15 to 20 feet above the developed lots located to the west on Dayton Avenue N.E. . R-001-81 Page Six 8. There are a number of developed uses in the vicinity of the subject site. McKnight Middle School is located on the east side of Edmonds Avenue N.E. A single family home is located just northeast of the site, an apartment complex and a single family home are located east, and single family homes are located southeast. Located along Dayton Avenue N.E. are seven single family homes. Northwest and north of the site are single family homes which are part of a single family residential subdivision. 9. Runoff from the hillside upon which the subject property is located creates flooding problems during moderate rainy periods. Three yards directly west of the subject site are subject to flooding and standing water. During periods of heavy rain, water flows through at least three properties located on Dayton Avenue N.E. One inch (1") of rain can produce approximately one foot (1 ') of standing water on the lots located west of the subject site if the subject site is built upon. 10. The runoff is not contained by the existing vegetation on the site. The appellants allege that loss of vegetation through development will exacerbate the erosion and flood potential of the hillside above their residences. The increased runoff would result from the location of paving, roofs and other impermeable surfaces on the subject site. 11 . The city has a Storm Drainage Ordinance which provides for the containment, retention and detention of storm waters. , Critical slope areas require remedial storm drainage control action even for single family construction. Other ordinances and regulations of the city affect the permitted grade for access roads. 12. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the area in which the subject property is located is suitable for single family residential development. The area so defined is bounded by Edmonds Avenue N.E. on the east, the May Creek drainage facility approximately 20 blocks to the north, lower Kennydale and 1-405 on the west, and N.E. Park Drive on the south and southwest. 13. The subject site is part of a multiblock R-1 zone extending from the east side of Edmonds Avenue N.E. on the north and east sides of McKnight Middle School to south of the subject site. Almost the entire area surrounding the site, which is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as single family residential , is zoned G-7200 (General ; Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size - 7.200 square feet) . McKnight Middle School and the playfield north of the school are included in this G-7200 zone. The apartment complex adjacent to the site to the east is located in an R-3 district consisting of the apartment parcel and the two lots immediately north, both of which are developed with single family homes. The R-3 parcel located on the southwest corner of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and N.E. 12th Street requires a 50-foot landscape buffer adjacent to N.E. 12th Street to screen the single family homes north of 12th (File No. R-234-78; Michael Turner for Banchero and Florer) . 14. The residents on Dayton Avenue N.E. at the bottom of the slope indicated concern for loss of privacy sustained as a result of the uphill location of the proposed apartments which will interfere with the use of their rear yard outdoor living area. 15. Traffic in the area is heavy due to the nearby location of the school which has night meetings quite frequently during the week. The sight distance from N.E. 14th Street is poor due to the steep grade and on-street parking in the vicinity of the intersection of N.E. 14th Street with Edmonds Avenue N.E. 16. The proposed building will be located from 15 to 20 feet above the grade of the homes on Dayton Avenue N.E. The complex as proposed would be approximately 35 feet in height and is capable of casting shadows in the early morning and during winter when the sun angle is low. Sun reflecting off the windows may create severe reflections during the summer. The data concerning the sun indicated that the property to the north would be deprived of sun at noon from October to February, inclusive, at a location relatively close to the house. At a point centrally located in the rear yard, the same shading condition would occur from August to April . . This would be the effect of a 25-foot high structure about 10 feet from the property line. Single family homes built upon the subject site could be located within six feet of the north property line and would be able to achieve similar bulk proportions as the proposed multifamily structures, although fewer actual units, therefore, containing less bulk in total , could be constructed on the property if it maintains its R-1 classification. , 17. The subject site consists of three separate legal lots and a total of three single family homes can be located on the subject site upon clarification of access methods. R-001-81 Page Seven If the subject site we're reclassified to R-2 without further authorization, three duplex structures containing a total of six units could be constructed on the subject site. If a special permit were approved to allow clustering or townhouses on the subject site, a total of 10 units could be constructed on the just over 43,000 square foot site. 18. The construction of 10 units would increase the population of the city by 25 persons (2.5 per unit) if the residents were all from outside of the area. The project would increase the number of daily vehicle trips by 56 (5.6 per unit) . The traffic increase would amount to about a one percent increase on Edmonds Avenue N.E. The increase in school age'population would be negligible. • 19. Nearby residents, especially those located immediately west and downslope and those located immediately north, indicated that they were aware of the zoning of the subject site, that is, that the court had resolved it to be R-1 and many of them relied on that knowledge in either purchasing or remaining in their present homes. Some of those neighbors brought the court suit which reversed the wrongly awarded R-2 designation for the subject site. These residents have continuously attempted to maintain a stable and suitable single family neighborhood in spite of the R-3 zone located along Edmonds Avenue N.E. 20. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that single family residential uses should not adjoin multifamily uses (Policy 4.C.4 and 4.C.5) • The plan also indicates that single family uses should be buffered from more intense uses by low density multi- family uses. 21 . The Planning Department in the analysis of the subject site indicated that the site is a problem site. That analysis indicates that the site is sandwiched in between the single family uses downslope, and construction would subject those properties to shadow and glare effects as well as substantial loss of privacy, and the multifamily apartment upslope which in turn causes similar problems on the subject site. 22. The Planning Department has recommended that the special limitations of the site should be considered and that any duplex development be limited in both bulk and setback. The limitation on bulk and height would present less of a wall at the top of the steep slope and provide for light and air and cut down on shading. The recommendation is that the building not exceed a height to be determined by the establishment of a plane which basis is the west property line and the inclination of which is 30 degrees from the horizontal . In addition, the building or buildings would not be permitted to exceed 50% of the north-south lot dimension, that is, the total length of the structure would be limited to 160 feet of the 320-foot lot length as viewed from the west. The Planning Department further recommended that landscape screening be incorporated into the plan. 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 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 the facts necessary to overcome the burden and the proposed reclassification should be denied. Nowhere does the Zoning Code say, permit or otherwise 'require approval of a reclassification which is in violation of the three criteria enumerated in Section 4-3014; nor does the code require a reclassification that is not otherwise in the public interest. 2. , The property was zoned twice since its annexation and a third attempt was blocked by court order. The site was considered previously, and in both actions the classification was some form of single family. The first designation was low density single family with a minimum lot size of just under an acre. The second rezone R-001-81 Page Eight resulted in the current status of higher density single family. Since the initial attempt, the ,area has continued towards development of almost exclusively single family dwellings. The last rezone attempt was reversed by court decree. 3. The Comprehensive Plan presents a .unified single family area north of N.E. 12th Street and the location of the apartment building is the deviation from the norm, is not representative of the norm, and should not be the justification for establishing further deviations from the Comprehensive Plan. While other elements of the Comprehensive Plan are of help in boundary areas for defining buffering, in such a generally exclusive single family area the need for buffering can be used to further advance the incursion which earlier unwise zoning permitted. The city recognized this fact when it downzoned the property for the proposed Lake View Towers complex on West Hill . While the apartment may be constructed, that fact did not justify either leaving that parcel zoned R-4 (High Density Multifamily) or zoning adjacent parcels to some intermediate buffering category. To permit an isolated and generally inconsistent and uncharacteristic use to influence current land use decisions is unwise. Rather than maintain the Lake View Towers site as R-4, the Council wisely downzoned the property. 4. In addition to the West Hill rezone which brought conformity to the zoning map if not the use of the property, further reference to consistency of zoning rather than consistency to an inappropriate use is presented in the Buckingham rezone attempt (R-022-77) wherein the attempt to provide a less intense buffer would again subject the neighboring property owners to a more intense use than now exists. The City Council denied the rezone request. 5. The existing single family homes are now quite successfully buffered from the more intense use. The subject site is undeveloped and future purchasers would be aware on visual inspection of the apartment use to the east. The further westward encroachment of multifamily uses, whether low or medium density, should be stopped without spreading the impacts to other property owners. The topography in this location only serves to accentuate the differences in density and potential scale and will not serve as an effective buffer even if the applicant could have demonstrated compliance with the required criteria. 6. The courts of Washington have also said the following about consistency in zoning and boundaries in zoning: "If zoning classifications are to be preserved with any degree of stability and avoid constant erosion, the line drawn must be reasonably maintained until neighborhood conditions and circumstances so change as to warrant legislative modification and alteration." (Carlson v City of Bellevue, 73 Wn.2d 41 (1968) ) The Washington Supreme Court held in Parkridge v Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454 that a demonstrated change in circumstances which is both marked and substantial must be demonstrated. That criteria is enunciated at Section ,4-3014(C) (1) (b) and (c) of the city's Zoning Code. There have been no material changes in the area since the last rezoning attempt except for the construction of additional single family homes immediately north of the subject site, and if these changes stand for anything, they demonstrate the continued vitality of the single family character of the area and of the neighbors' concerns that they relied on the zoning of the subject property when purchasing their properties. 7. Zoning serves to not only segregate incompatible uses, but it serves to provide stability. Zoning districts and the maps which demonstrate and effectuate zoning apprise property owners and future purchasers of their potential neighbors. They , indicate that an area is maintained for a specific use whether it is single family residential or commercial . A purchaser needs that information to wisely decide the stability of his/her potential neighborhood and to make decisions concerning the preservation of a property's value. As is indicated by the court decisions cited above, zoning should not be easily amended. The applicant must demonstrate fidelity of his proposal to ordinance , requirements. Amendments are not granted solely on the basis of a property owner's desire for economic gain. The welfare of the community and the off-setting loss of the property value of others must be considered. 8. It is not the purpose of the Zoning Code to salvage the lost economic benefits of a poor business deal by suggesting a compromise (which in this case the applicant still rejects) , and one which, in fact, compromises both the economic value and the R-001--81 Page Nine single family values which neighboring property owners knowingly purchased and have gone to court to maintain. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is no reasonable use of the subject property, and the U.S. Supreme Court found that the loss of additional economic incentive Llione does not justify increased zoning density. The court went on to say that the property owner must share both the benefits and burdens imposed by a zoning code and that limitation on density to prevent the "ill effects . of urbanization" was an appropriate exercise of the police power of zoning (Agins v City of'Tiburon, 447US255, 65LEd 2d106, 100 SCt 2138, 1980) . 9. The goals of the Comprehensive Plan are to extend compatible uses and phase out incompatible uses; and to preserve property'values and protect against blight (page 17, Land Use Report, Comprehensive Plan) . To further extend higher density zoning would weaken the values of the adjoining single family area and work against the goal of protecting property values. The Comprehensive Plan now in existence was adopted subsequent to the R-3 zoning of the apartment complex. It is the apartment complex which is inappropriate. That property does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan which designates all property north of N.E. 12th Street and as far east as Harrington Avenue N.E. for single family uses except for greenbelt and public uses at the school . There is no reason to expand the incompatible uses in this location. One spot zone does not justify the sanctioning of further incursions in,this single family area of incompatible uses. 10. The Washington Supreme Court has found reclassifications must have a relationship to the 'general welfare and should not impact innocent parties unless the public welfare is served. In Smith v Skagit County, 75 Wn.2d 715 (1969) at page 743, the court said about spot zoning: "Spot zoning has come to mean the arbitrary and unreasonable zoning action by which a smaller area is singled out of a larger area or district and specifically zoned for a use classification totally different from and inconsistent with the classification of surrounding land and not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan." "Spot zoning is a zoning for private gain designed to favor or benefit a particular individual or group and not the welfare of the community as a whole." "The vice of spot zoning is its inevitable effect of granting discriminatory benefit to one or a group of owners and to the detriment of their neighbors or community." 11 . The court has also indicated in past review of zoning actions that a previous deviation or incursion should not be used to justify further such intrusions when the first action was, in effect, a spot zone. The apartment complex in this quite small and isolated R-3 district is out of character with the neighborhood and should be treated as such and not used to justify further changes in character. 12. Again, there have been no material and substantial changes in the areas which justify approving the request. The approval of the current request, even if modified by the applicant to only six total units (the applicant has remained steadfast in the original proposal of ten units, and this may have some relation to the measure of damages in his court suit) , would set the precedent for further expansion of the undeveloped properties south of the subject site. Rather than creating a limited buffer, the rezone could and probably would, serve as the focal point for similar reclassification requests to the south attracting even greater density to an area designated for and almost entirely developed with single family uses. (See West Hill/Lake View Towers Rezone and Buckingham Rezone discussions above.) 13. The current R-1 zoning preserves reasonable development rights to the applicant as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. By a similar design strategy as that indicated in the Planning Department recommendation, single family homes could be built on the subject site with a westerly orientation and a large west yard to take advantage of the height differential and avoid the view and impact of the apartment complex to the east. • Rather than moving that visual impact from the subject site to the neighboring properties and rather than imposing the various impacts of greater density and its negative attributes on single family homes, the request should be denied. 14. The applicant has not demonstrated that the request is in conformance with the criteria enumerated in the Examiner's Ordinance; the Planning Department analysis indicated that the request specifically does not meet those criteria. It would also expand incompatible uses in the area violating the Comprehensive Plan, and it would injure neighboring properties. R-001-81 Page Ten 15. As indicated above, the applicant has reasonable use of the property. The applicant was aware or should have been aware of the limitations on the site. Carrying more • intense zoning and higher densities to the west will only impair the property values of the homes located downslope and will set a precedent for increasing the density of the vacant property to the south. The City Council should therefore deny the request. 16. A purchaser is also held to have had the knowledge, that is, constructive notice, of that information which the seller had. The limitations imposed by the Zoning Code, therefore, are part of the property and the applicant is held to be aware of the R-1 zoning which applies to the property. If the contract was otherwise tainted the action would be against the culpable party, but rezoning the subject site to restore to the applicant development rights never available would take property rights from innocent third parties, those single family residents located west and north of the subject site. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the recommendation by the Hearing Examiner to the City Council is to deny the requested reclassification. ORDERED THIS 2nd day of October, 1981 . Fred J. Kau n Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 2nd day of October, 1981 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Durwood •E. Blood, 1202 N. 37th, Renton, WA 98056 Kameron Cayce, P.O. Box 798, Renton, WA 98057 Adrian Reese Sheely, 1312 Dayton Avenue N.E. , Renton, WA 98056 Bob Jones, .1308 Dayton Avenue N.E., Renton, WA 98056 Doug Cobb, 1216 Dayton Avenue N.E. , Renton, WA 98056 Keith Brownfield, 1211 Dayton Avenue N.E. , Renton, WA 98056 Wayne Wicks, 1323 Dayton Avenue N.E. , Renton, WA 98056 Lewis Espinosa, 1408 Dayton Court N.E. , Renton, WA 98056 Kathy Keolker, 532 Cedar Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 James M. Eeckhoudt, 17836 108th Ave. S.E. , Renton, WA 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 2nd day of October, 1931 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 October 16, 1981 . Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the . record, take further action as he deems proper. , An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in the Finance Department, first floor of, City Hall , or same may be purchased at cost in said department. am " — ' T i _ — v — ..- 1�.,'•..'•i'• • ra- ihr• - •_ - r • tI".�ut ._� .••- - F-ryt-t zed � 2'3 2.2 •',?.: + •'�. .• Z + , . 1 i • , 7, WIII7 goo :. 11.,..h a...4v ..3.um Er. .-:.• . 1 4 k 7 zL;• ziz z,•� �"G ?4' 2 -- ?i h: .�I �•1Tr'—(. • , . . . ...... II R—I • i-• l -ii , • i, ----1 I , .. `=.' r-----:j I i-1 . s lial• . MID i � 1 1' • tft I zoo tT• 146 I t1, i z••t•• -ip • LIM WI !;• • • ♦ 'L /hi .Q i • • . , ` .. �' ,'1+ �, • I i WM 1 I t•4 LTC t49 • '•J� 71111'Ws L,• ^20•-_ :-: • \,.L •Il ILL •4 r -- g ,. . Lam_ ,� —..8. • .y.-tt.'. : "' . g . . , 3 1'l I _!'~=' .••J;� w+ �O• fir .• •_' • d -71p-"+44 A.W.r t•9 :r Zoo-, .9� .29 ii• ;p c I ,i,1• 10o • 1j.,3 `� .. .1, 1I '? 1-�—�a•-~. ,:!/•t�j�Q ��,t/ �M[ •e a . :a:•II MO it • I4a 3 L 11 I . •>i i1 •. ; ,:' B ... •r ii ' z.1 Zia !i.e... :•i7 • toe L•i.. T i 229 •l•'• . J• ry I. I li ; IP .• —4 .6. ..•1 G.7 00 -in . - . . n 4• •• V4 '45 .,ZR 3. - .. :.H N t i - ' . 40 •, 59 ,'• `L' t. , . (-::: •-....,,..... 4 ; • -.1 L/715......I ..s...........st‘... $ . .:4.1.•.44.1 . _ '.. Ilitimrs). ..3(\ .-, ... -:._•,I' .3 1>S r I • • : rp1.-1t _. a , ' tom—• , :..,. ,• �• � , IIIM .1 �T1. P.t 1...3.1"" 11 --c_..„_L. I .•-)!1..-r77artsill, ; I ' -4r, ss i \ ":.. ' • • .....t: .../ r.%,.5„.• , .......... -._.........i._.,...1,..„1 .......i.;;2;4,7. .i„,. ,. . �`' B I 1 •!1; ?'uuar..l,' .I t,. .-�f°• r� • . i�' -�' . .,V •• . J �L• ..,.�•.'• ! ,,. l'• -1 •A,C•�f11 I •. • ✓^3�/1] .1 ET ..�1:• •'. -I BLOOD , DURWOOD W. R-001-81 • ,...— , ' APPLICANT BLOOD, DURWOOD TOTAL .AREA +43 ,049 sq . ft. PRINCIPAL ACCESS N . E. 14th ST . EXISTING ZONING R-1 EXISTING USE Undeveloped PROPOSED USE Ten Townhouse Condominiums ' COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Single FamilyfResidentia1 COMMENTS U, nEA , , COUNCIL MEMBERS 0 AGENDA RI C ARD M. IL PRESIDICKE ET U 0 0 z EARL CLYMER ROBERT HUGHES Z ma rn JOHN W.REED n w� CITY ROCKHILL O9A CO' R E N T O N CITY COUNCIL CHARLES F.SHANE 0,9grD SEP1��Q THOMAS W.TRIMM, REGULAR MEETING PRESIDING OCTOBER 26 , 1981 CITY CLERK BARBARA Y SHINPOCH, Monday, 8 : 0 0 P .M. DELORES A.MEAD MAYOR 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 19, 1981 4. (A) PUBLIC MEETING: Green River Industrial Area and Notice of Disclaimer as concerns Construction Permits (B) PUBLIC HEARING; Federal Shared Revenue 5, AUDIENCE COMMENT At this time any member of the audience may address the City Council to discuss a topic of concern. Any citizen interested in a pending agenda item or Council Committee report may request that the Council advance to that item of interest. When you are recognized by the Presiding Officer, please walk to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Please limit your remarks to no more than five minutes. 6. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are distributed to Council Members in advance for study and review and will be adopted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for discussion or information if requested by a Council Member. a. Mayor Shinpoch appoints Richard C. Houghton to position of Director of Public Works Department effective 11/1/81. Council concur. b. Mayor Shinpoch appoints William F. Anderson to position #5 on Board of • Adjustment, four-year term effective to 9/6/85. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. c. Public Works Director requests authorization for Mayor and City Clerk to sign Utility Easements for sanitary sewer repair in vicinity of Sambo's Restaurant. Council concur. d. 10/13/81 Bid Opening for SW 43rd Street from East to West Valley Hwy. Nine bids received. Refer to Transportation Committee. e. Building Director requests ordinance to transfer $10,000 for professional . services for balance of 1981. Refer to Ways and Mans Committee. . f. Appeal filed by Durwood Blood of Hearing Examiner's decision of 10/2/81 re Rezone R-001-81; property located on South side of NE 14th St. West of Edmonds Ave, NE. (R-1 to R-2 for construction of condominiums) Refer to Planning and Development Committee. g. Petition filed for Vacation of portion of SE 18th St. between Rolling Hills Village Subdivision No. 1 and No. 2, Rolling Hills Village Homes Assoc. Refer to Public Works Dept. for validation of petition; to Board of Public Works re retention of easements and Ways and Means Committee for Resolution setting public hearing 12/7/81. h. Land Use Hearing Examiner decision for approval with restrictive covenants Julius and Stella Caraccioli Rezone R-069-81, G to L-1, warehouse and storage, West side of East Valley Rd. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. i. Claim for Damages filed by Tina Chapman alleging sewer hack up in basement at 422 Pelly, undetermined damage. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Carrier. 7. CORRESPONDENCE AND CURRENT BUSINESS a. Public Works requests authorization to expend utility funds for emergency sewer line repair in Rolling Hills. b. Planning Commission presents Northeast Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 12. AUDIENCE COMMENT 10. NEW BUSINESS BY COUNCIL 13. ADJOURNMENT 11 AT11/T1TT(Tmf AmTTTT Tl TlTrsTTm OF I? A THE CITY OF RENTON c- MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 rn BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • DELORES A. MEAD 09,0 `o. CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500 O'9!4TFC SEP1.°# October 19, 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 19th day of October, 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 DECISION FILED BY DURWOOD E. BLOOD THROUGH ATTORNEY KAMERON C. CAYCE RE BLOOD REZONE R-001-81. Delores A. Mead, C.M.C. , C ty Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this day of October 1981. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in King County R-001 _ Page Ten 15• As indicated above, the applicant has reasonable use of the property. The applicant was aware or should have been aware of the limitations on the site. Carrying more • intense zoning and higher densities to the west will only impair the property values of the homes located downslope and will set a' precedent for increasing the density of the vacant property to the south. The City Council should therefore deny the request. 16. A purchaser is also held to have had the knowledge, that is, constructive notice, of that information which the seller had. The limitations imposed by the Zoning Code, therefore, are part of the property and the applicant is held to be aware of the R-1 zoning which applies to the property. If the contract was otherwise tainted the action would be against the culpable party, but rezoning the subject site to restore to the applicant development rights never available would take property rights from innocent third parties, those single family residents located west and north of the subject site. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the recommendation by the Hearing Examiner to the City Council is to deny the requested reclassification. ORDERED THIS 2nd day of October, 1981 . Fred. J. Kau n Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 2nd day of October, 1981 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Durwood •E. Blood, 1202 N. 37th, Renton, WA 98056 Kameron Cayce, P.O. Box 798, Renton, WA 98057 Adrian Reese Sheely, 1312 Dayton Avenue N.E., Renton, WA 98056 Bob Jones, 1308 Dayton Avenue N.E., Renton, WA 98056 Doug Cobb, 1216 Dayton Avenue .N.E. , Renton, WA • 98056 Keith Brownfield, 1211 Dayton Avenue •N.E. , Renton, WA 98056 Wayne Wicks, 1323 Dayton Avenue N.E. , Renton, WA 98056 Lewis Espinosa, 1408 Dayton Court N.E. , Renton, WA 98056 Kathy Keolker, 532 Cedar Avenue'S. , Renton, WA 98055 James M. Eeckhoudt, 17836 108th Ave. S.E. , Renton, WA 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 2nd day of October, 1931 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 October 16, 1981 . Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record,, take further action as he deems. proper. An appeal to the City, Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying 'a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall , or same may be purchased, at cost in said department. I . . OF RA,A s IP 'Z. THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 0 amp BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • DELORES A. MEAD 0 90 co' CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500 0911-SD SEP1°# October 16, 1981 APPEAL FILED BY DURWOOD E. BLOOD. THROUGH K. CAYCE•, ATTORNEY RE: Decision of the Land Use Hearing Examiner dated October 2, 1981, Durwood E. Blood Application for Rezone R-001-81, property located on the South side of NE 14th Street approximately 130 ft. West of Edmonds Ave. NE (R-1 to R-2) . Examiner recommended denial. 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 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 Abu, pe.a.d. Delores A. Mead, C.M.C. City Clerk DM/m li . / csi s i9c70 14, NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM FINDINGS AND RECOMM FDA 0, 1T ,S OFY`�e,° OF HEARING EXAMINER E'a I. File No. R-001-81 Following a public hearing on September 22, 1981 , the Hearing Examiner made a report and recommendation to the Renton City Council dated October 2, 1981 . The applicant, Durwood E. Blood, respectfully appeals from the Findings and Conclusion of that report and recommendation and states that in addition to errors in the findings and inappropriate conclusions therefrom, that said report and recommendation is arbitrary and capricious and failed to correctly evaluate the testimony, including the preliminary report to the Hearing Examiner prepared by the Planning Department, dated September 22, 1981 Specifically, Appellant appeals from Finding #6 , which indicates that the proposed rezone site has a poorly defined right-of-way. At present the right-of-way may not be precisely fenced or surveyed , however, said right-of-way is clearly defined as a legal matter and there is no pending litigation or anticipated litigation regarding this right-of-way. Appellant further takes issue with Finding of Fact #10 . It is true that runoff is not contained by the existing vegetation on the site as stated. The balance of Finding #10, however, is merely a statement of neighbors' allegations of an increased problem with the proposed development. Beyond unsupported allegations there is absolutely no credible testimony to this effect. In fact, the engineering testimony indicated that a water retention system would be required of the proposed rezone and that surface water currently allowed to flood lower-lying LAW OFFICES OF Page One CAYCE & FLECK ASSOCIATES` P.O.BOX 798 410 BURNETT AVE.SO. RENTON,WA 98055 (206)255-0603 I ;2 / neighbors would, through the proposed development, be diverted to a storm sewer system, and thereby minimize , if not eliminate , the current flooding problem. Finding #14 correctly states that residents indicated concern for loss of privacy as a result of uphill development but failed to recognize that such loss of privacy is going to result in any event, whether said property is developed as single family residences or as low-density multiple family dwellings. Finding #16 correctly states that the proposal would be capable of casting shadows in the early morning and during winter. However, there was no qualified testimony showing reliable tests or studies to indicate the extent of this problem. Further, there were no reliable studies or tests conducted to compare the relative impact of the proposed project with the impact of single family development. In fact, the proposed development is unlikely to create any more serious problems than would single family development. Finding #16 further states that sun reflecting off windows may create severe reflections during the summer . This Finding , even though equivocal , fails to recognize the momentary nature of any reflection and further fails to recognize that any development with glass will have the same effect. Said Finding also fails to take into consideration the applicant' s proposed screening and plantings, which would serve to minimize, if not eliminate , this problem. See preliminary report from Planning Department re: screening. Finding of Fact #20 fails to consider the comprehensive plan elements cited in paragraph 4 of the preliminary report to LAW OFFICES OF Page Two CAYCE Sc FLECK ASSOCIATES P.O.BOX 798 410 BURNETT AVE.SO. RENTON,WA 98055 (206)255-0603 the Hearing Examiner by the Planning Department. Specifically, said Finding fails to recognize the comprehensive plan' s desire for buffers between higher density multiple family uses and single family uses , such as exists at this site . Such a buffer would be effectively provided by the proposed development. Said Finding also fails to recognize the general criteria favoring development of close-in sites, rather than urban fringe areas , thereby contributing to sprawl and its related traffic and service distribution problems. See Policy Element 3.A.1 , 3.A. 2, 3.A.3, 4.C. 4. As a result of the inappropriate Findings stated above , the following conclusions are erroneous . 1 . Conclusion #1 incorrectly states that any one of the criteria listed in section 4-3014 have been met. The proposal in fact meets criteria B, which provides that the proposed site is potentially designated for the new classification per the comprehensive plan . As shown above, the proposed site in fact meets several criteria favoring buffer zones and close-in development. Although the effect is less obvious in the short run, the long run effect of ignoring these goals is one which will be felt by all citizens of the city, and not just the handful of neighbors who presently feel that the project is undesirable. Arguably, paragraph C has also been met, in that the increased population and forces of development in the Renton area dictate that areas previously zoned single family which are otherwise appropriate for low-density multiple family should now be considered in order to meet the policy considerations of the plan cited above. 2. It should also be pointed out that Conclusion #2 fails LAW OFFICES OF Page Three CAYCE & FLECK ASSOCIATES P.O.BOX 798 410 BURNETT AVE.SO. RENTON,WA 98055 (206)255-0603 to state that the last rezone , which was reversed by Court decree, was reversed on a question of procedural defects and not on the merits of the rezone itself. 3. Conclusion #3 erroneously states that the proposal is a deviation from the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan anticipates rezoning and , in fact, requires it to be an effective instrument. In a situation such as that presented here, the fact of higher density multiple family use dictates that the other policy considerations of the plan come into play to buffer surrounding areas , as well as to satisfy the goal of close-in development. If the comprehensive plan and related zoning categories required no exercise of discretion or judgment, there would be no need for rezones or their related administrative procedure . We would simply refer to a map, and a property would either qualify or not qualify for a proposed development. Such a system, of course , cannot exist in a society where change is taking place and must be managed appropriately. 4. Conclusion #5 erroneously states that the existing family homes are quite successfully buffered from more intense use . Any buffering which does exist is accomplished accidentally by existing growth, which will not necessarily remain on the property. The buffering which currently exists is also a major contributor to the flooding which the lower-lying neighbors have experienced. 5. Conclusions #7 and #8 inappropriately emphasize the allegations by some citizens that Durwood Blood is simply trying to accomplish this rezone for economic benefit or to salvage a LAW OFFICES OF Page Four CAYCE & FLECK ASSOCIATES P.O.BOX 798 410 BURNETT AVE.SO. RENTON,WA 98055 (206)255-0603 "bad deal" . Although Mr. Blood in fact relied upon the seller and the City ( through the Planning Department' s zoning maps) to his detriment when he believed he was buying R-2 zoning, he nonetheless has proposed a project which, in spite of this mistake, is one which is an appropriate use of the property and would serve the best interests of the citizens of Renton as a whole . The proposed project would minimize or eliminate existing problems in the immediate area, would serve to forward the policy goals of the comprehensive plan, and also would serve to eliminate any liability the City may have as a result of incorrect advice provided regarding the zoning . 6. Conclusion #10 incorrectly applies the spot zoning principle to the proposed project. This project is an appropriate use of the property and , as stated above, will benefit the entire community and not just the owner. In any project of this nature, the handful of people who perceive themselves to be adversely impacted are typically well-organized and vocal . The benefits , are however, spread over the entire community and City, and therefore do not tend to be of particular interest to any one person or group. This results in a disproportionate amount of negative testimony, which must be balanced by the Council' s knowledge that the hundreds , if not thousands, of citizens who will benefit in the long run by a policy favoring close-in development are extremely unlikely to appear at such a hearing to testify to the benefits of a project. For this reason, the Council must go beyond the affirmative testimony and rely on their own knowledge of overall policy considerations and make appropriate decisions . It is submitted that the Planning Department, applying such a LAW OFFICES OF Page Five CAYCE & FLECK ASSOCIATES P.O.BOX 798 410 BURNETT AVE.SO. RENTON,WA 98055 (206)255-0603 criteria, has arrived at a compromise which, although not totally acceptable to Mr. Blood , is in fact a proposal which could serve the best interests of all; specifically, a development allowing rezone to R-2 with limitations on building area, height , and screening which will minimize , if not eliminate the neighbors' concerns . See Planning Department preliminary report to Hearing Examiner . 7. Conclusion #12 is unfounded , inasmuch as any proposed rezone must meet all of the criteria necessary and the fact that one project may be appropriate does not lead to the conclusion that another site with different problems would also be appropriate . 8. Conclusion #14 places undue emphasis on the Planning Department' s statement of failure to meet the criteria set forth in section 4-3014 (c) (1) . In the first place, the Planning Department, in its preliminary report, incorrectly implies that all three criteria must be met. In fact, the ordinance require-s that one of the three criteria be met in order to justify rezone. The Planning Department also states that there are elements of the proposal which in fact qualify within the policy goals of the comprehensive plan, thereby meeting requirement #2, that the project be generally consistent. In fact, it was the conclusion of the Planning Department that these policy considerations were of sufficient magnitude that the proposed project was consistent and did strike a balance between the problems presently existing and the potential problems of development. 9. Finding #15 is erroneous on much the same basis as Finding #7. The applicant was not aware and cannot be held LAW OFFICES OF Page Six CAYCE & FLECK ASSOCIATES P.O.BOX 798 410 BURNETT AVE.SO. RENTON,WA 98055 (206)255-0603 to have been negligent when in fact he was misled by both the seller and the information provided by the Planning Department through its zoning map. Conclusion #15 also erroneously states that surrounding property values will be impaired by the proposed project. There was no testimony on which such conclusion could be based . It is respectfully submitted that the City Council should reject the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner for the reasons stated above, and further, for the reason that the Examiner has superimposed his judgment over the considered and appropriate recommendations of the entire Planning Department, including their favorable input from five separate agencies of the City, including an unrestricted approval from the Building Department and approvals with conditions from the Engineering , Traffic , Utilities, Fire and Police Departments . Based on these recommendations, the Council is requested , at the very least , to approve the rezone with appropriate conditions as set forth by the Planning Department. Respectfully submitted , A ERON C. 32CE Attorney for Applicant DURWOOD E. BLOOD 1202 North 37th Renton, Washington 98055 LAW OFFICES OF Page Seven CAYCE 8c FLECK ASSOCIATES P.O.BOX 798 410 BURNETT AVE.SO. RENTON,WA 98055 (206)255-0603 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 2nd day of October , 1981 , 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 day of • 19 17' 7 _ „ )17 02LL cJ Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at /Fa-z,1,-- Application, Petition or Case: Durwood E. Blood; R-001-81 (The minute's contain a £Lst o6 the panti.ea 04 necond. ) • A October 2, 1981 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICANT: Durwood E. Blood FILE NO. R-001-81 LOCATION: South side of N.E. 14th Street approximately 130 feet west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks a rezone of the subject site from R-1 to R-2 for the purpose of construction of ten (10) townhouse condominiums. • SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Approval with conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner: Denial . PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department preliminary report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on September 15, 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 September 22, 1981 at 9:45 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. David Clemens, Acting Planning Director, 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: Appeal File of Environmental Determination containing two decisions, dated April 17, 1981 and August 3, 1981 Exhibit #3: King County Assessor's Map showing subject site and surrounding vicinity Exhibit #4: Photographs of Subject Site (2 sheets) Proper utilization of the site and its potential development was discussed by Mr. Clemens in his review of the staff report. He stated that uncertainty exists regarding the appropriate intensity of development in view of concerns of the adjacent neighbors; however, in comparing the proposal to the Comprehensive Plan, the property. should be developed, and it is the opinion of staff that the proposal to allow six dwelling units as outlined in the Planning Department report would allow development of the site with the least impact to the surrounding residents. The Examiner inquired if three separate structures containing 50 feet in width would be located on the property, or if the department was recommending that the structure could be 150 feet in length. Mr. Clemens indicated that the applicant should be given maximum design flexibility to meet the criteria regarding maximum building area in a north-south direction and maximum height plane as described, and concerns regarding specific site design can be addressed and resolved during site review. • The Examiner noted an error in Section L.7, paragraph 3 of the staff report which refers to 30 percent and should reflect 30 degrees. The Examiner requested testimony by the applicant. Responding was: Kameron Cayce P.O. Box 798 Renton, WA 98057 R-001-81 Page Two Mr. Cayce, legal counsel for the applicant, felt that the applicant has met the burden of proof required to justify the requested rezone, and the proposed development as requested • is in the interest of the community and the city as a whole. Mr. Cayce noted that storm water runoff problems currently exist on the site; however, development under the proposal would provide facilities to control and contain runoff and eliminate or improve the existing situation. He indicated that development of the site for purposes of single family use would not provide similar controls. Shading impacts from proposed structures to adjacent residences were discussed, and Mr. Cayce stated that single family construction would create a greater impact upon homes to the west and north than would the proposal because of minimum required setbacks in the R-1 zone, and the loss of privacy would be the same with either multifamily or single family use. It was Mr. Cayce's opinion that glare from the proposal would be no greater than from single family homes, and although he had not had the opportunity to review the Planning Department's proposal to allow maximum development of 150 feet in width at an angle of 30 degrees from the horizontal with the project engineers and architects, he objected to the restriction as an issue which exceeds the bounds of the Zoning Code. He noted that guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan should be given considerable weight, and existence of a medium density apartment building immediately east of the subject site establishes the need for a transition zone between that structure and the single family uses to the west and north which the requested R-2 zoning on the site would provide. Mr. Cayce also felt that the projected increase in traffic from the site would be minimal , and concluded by stating the applicant's willingness to review site development with concerned neighbors. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding whether the applicant objects to limitation to six dwelling units on the subject site, Mr. Cayce stated the applicant's objection due to required expenditures to eliminate the storm water runoff problem and difficulties in site development which would make the construction of only six dwelling units economically infeasible. The Examiner inquired if the applicant had reasonable use of the site for four units under existing zoning if replatting occurred, and if he would be deprived of all economic benefit if the rezone is denied. Mr. Cayce stated that it is the applicant's opinion that problems of site layout would create significant financial impact and the limitation of density would not be reasonable. The Examiner noted that a special permit would be required to allow development of more than six units if the rezone to R-2 were granted. The Examiner asked Mr. Clemens to explain rear yard setbacks for both the R-1 and R-2 zoning categories. Mr. Clemens advised that a 25-foot setback is required for both zones; however, the city has retained a utility easement of 30 feet of vacated right-of-way on the westerly boundary, thereby establishing a 30-foot setback for either single or multifamily development. The Examiner requested testimony in opposition to the proposal . Responding was: Adrian Reese Sheely 1312 Dayton Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Sheely indicated concurrence with the recommendations contained in the Planning Department report. He expressed objection to the previous environmental determination , which had been appealed by residents and subsequently upheld by the Examiner through the hearing process since he felt that the proposal would create significant impact to adjacent residents. Concerns which had been addressed in the Planning Department report such as loss of privacy, glare, loss of sunlight, air quality, residential value, and noise impacts were discussed by Mr. Sheely, and he requested that previous testimony from environmental appeal hearings be incorporated into the record. The Examiner advised that Exhibit #2 contains the previous record. Mr. Sheely summarized by stating that the requested rezone is inconsistent with good zoning practice, constitutes a breach of faith with existing homeowners, and further encroachment by multifamily development would be undesirable and detrimental . Responding in opposition was: Bob Jones 1308 Dayton Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Jones reviewed the history of the site, noting that R-1 zoning had existed on the site for 10 years until 1968 when a rezone to R-2 occurred without proper public notice or public hearing and was subsequently voided by Superior Court action in 1970. Upon development of the residential plat on Dayton Court N.E. , a 30-foot easement to the north and west of the subject site was vacated by the city at the request of the developer, and uncertainty remains regarding property lines. R-001-81 Page Three Responding to the background information provided in the staff report, Mr. Jones noted that although no evidence of standing water. was found on the site on September 11 upon field inspection, it should be clarified that the summer had been unusually dry; he also corrected reference to existence of evergreen trees on the site, clarifying that alders are found on site which typically grow in poorly drained soil . He corrected reference to the land use in the area of a mixture of multifamily and single family uses and stated that 90% of the area is used for single family development. Mr. Jones felt that the point had been missed in assessment of traffic impact on Edmonds at a 1% increase, noting that the problem would be related to access to Edmonds, not increase in traffic, due to traffic congestion near the school and limited visibility. The calculations used to arrive at a proposed density of 5.9 was challenged by Mr. Jones, who noted that deduction of street area would reduce the 'density to four units. Mr. Jones submitted a chart to illustrate discussion of soils permeability on the site, which was entered into the record as follows by the Examiner: Exhibit #5: Permeability and Water Potential Chart Discussed was the existence of sand on the site which normally has a high resistance to erosion and creates very few storm runoff problems; however, depending upon the gradation of particles within the mass, sand can become impervious and susceptible to erosion. Mr. Jones advised that sand located on the site is coarse and mixed with clay, and two areas exist which are completely impervious resulting in runoff standing six inches deep in backyards of homes located to the west. - Mr. Jones then submitted a chart which reflects results of a survey of multiple family complexes in the Highlands area. The chart was entered by the Examiner as follows: Exhibit #6: Chart of Highlands Uses The survey, which encompassed areas in the Highlands along Edmonds Avenue and along Sunset Boulevard towards N.E. 4th Street documented the number of units in the complex, the number of adjacent single family residences which are impacted, and the amount of landscaping and screening provided to buffer developments from single family homes. Responding to the Examiner's request for clarification of the term, "disadvantaged homes," designated on the chart, Mr. Jones explained that homes located next to apartment units affected by noise, invasion of privacy, and traffic are considered disadvantaged or impacted. Typically, a large development would only impact one to two percent of homes; however, a smaller multifamily complex tends to create a greater impact to a larger number of homes. Due to the situation of the subject site, it borders single family homes for a long distance and causes greater impact to residents than any other multifamily development surveyed. Mr. Jones referred to the three criteria which must be met prior to granting approval of a rezone, noting that the requested rezone fails all three, and he objected to the recommendation by the Planning Department for approval based upon the fact that the site should provide a transitional buffer from the existing apartment building. Rather, he supported maintaining the subject site in its current R-1 zoning category to protect existing single family homes. Responding in opposition was: Doug Cobb 1216 Dayton Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Cobb, resident located directly west of the site, addressed problems he has incurred as a result of water runoff and erosion. The Examiner inquired of Mr. Clemens if installation of a storm drainage system would be required if the site were developed with single family residences and maintain the current flow. Mr. Clemens advised that since he did not deal with that, he didn't know the answer. It was the Examiner's opinion that through common law remedies, a problem which currently exists cannot be exacerbated through development of property. Mr. Cobb anticipated that the runoff will be increased upon removal of vegetation from the site and increase of impervious surfaces, and cited instances when a river of runoff runs down the hillside through his backyard creating standing water a depth of six inches. He noted that the Engineering Division comments referred to a possible problem with storm water. The Examiner then inquired regarding the availability of sanitary sewer facilities to the site. Mr. Clemens stated his understanding that necessary easements have been obtained or can be obtained to provide required services. He also responded to the Examiner's earlier inquiry regarding requirements for storm water facilities on single family residential development, citing Chapter 29, Storm and Surface Water Drainage Ordinance, which states that single. family residential lots of less than 6,000 square feet may be waived except in critical areas. R-001-81 Page Four He noted that the subject site would be considered a critical area and submission of drainage plans would be required. • Responding in opposition was: Keith Brownfield 1211 Dayton Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Brownfield reviewed the conditions under which the property was purchased by the applicant, noting that apparently he was misled by the real estate listing prepared by the prior owner indicating that R-2 zoning exists on the property, city maps had erroneously designated the property zoning as R-2, and title problems had subsequently occurred. Then, two years later, it was discovered that the zoning on the property was actually R-1 , and litigation is currently pending regarding the sale of the property. Mr. Brownfield advised that he had contacted a real estate company regarding zoning on the subject site, was told that zoning was R-1 , and rezone was infeasible. Therefore, he felt that the applicant's recourse to recoup his losses is not through rezone of the property, but rather, pursuing legal options. Responding in opposition was: Wayne Wicks 1323 Dayton Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Wicks objected to the applicant's proposal to rezone the property to R-2 for financial benefit following purchase of R-1 zoned property. He noted that he was aware of the R-1 zoning on the subject site when he purchased his own home. He corrected the statement made by Planning Department staff that the property to the south is vacant, advising that • two homes currently exist there, and if the subject site is rezoned to R-2, it would be reasonable to assume that a subsequent rezone would occur on the property to the south which has to date remained R-1 . Responding in opposition was: Lewis Espinosa • 1408 Dayton Court N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Espinosa discussed the 30-foot easement earlier mentioned in testimony, noting that it was originally intended to become part of the plat on Dayton Court N_E. . Several property line disputes have occurred as a result of that action, all of which have not been resolved, and it is his belief that the property was incorporated into the subject site to create a developable lot size. Mr. Espinosa advised that until one year ago, a single family home had existed on the site which had been removed, presumably in preparation for the subject rezone, and its location would have precluded construction of any more than one additional residence on the site. He objected to Mr. 'Clemens' concern that single family homes constructed on the site would be impacted by the. existing apartment building, and noted that the same impact would occur to existing residents by approval of a multifamily proposal . Mr. Espinosa agreed that the recommendation of the Planning Department was acceptable; however, the applicant has expressed his objections to that recommendation. Mr. Sheely requested that the request for rezone be denied on the basis that it violates the conditions required for rezone, causes undue hardship on the neighborhood, and is not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. He further requested that restrictions be placed on the property to assure that conditions recommended by the Planning Department such as height limitation, limited allowable coverage, and storm water runoff facilities would be enforced if and when the property is developed. The Examiner clarified regulations of the city which allow placement of restrictions on land only if a change in zoning occurs or in the course of other action by the city. Mr. Sheely reiterated his request that the rezone be denied because it does not meet city requirements. Mr. Jones inquired whether restrictive covenants associated with a rezone to R-2 can be removed during the special permit process. The Examiner stated that the issue of modifying covenants is a legal process which requires separate handling by legal staff. Mr. Clemens clarified that if the Examiner and the City Council adopt recommendations of the staff, an ordinance would be enacted incorporating those conditions, and the only way those restrictions could be modified would be through another public hearing and adoption of a separate ordinance modifying the previously adopted ordinance. Responding to Mr. Sheely's inquiry regarding the appeal process to Superior Court, Mr. Clemens explained the process of request for reconsideration to the Examiner, appeal to the City Council , and finally, appeal to Superior Court. Mr. Sheely advised that the residents in the area are forming a homeowners' association to coordinate community support. R-001-81 Page Five Mr. Cayce reviewed the applicant's intent in requesting a rezone, reiterating the conditions of purchase in which he believed he owned R-2 zoned property following purchase, and the city map had not been altered following litigation in 1970. He noted that damages from the transaction will not be known until the rezone process is finalized. Referencing earlier testimony regarding water runoff, Mr. Cayce stated that the applicant intends to solve that problem with an overall retention system which will be preferable to that provided if single family residential development occurs. He questioned the method of data collection for the chart submitted by parties in opposition, noting that the determination of adverse impact is very subjective. The Examiner advised that the relevant worth of the charts will be considered during review. Mr. Jones explained the process through which impacts from multifamily complexes were assessed. Mr. Wicks again raised the issue of why the applicant purchased property zoned R-1 and then requested a rezone to R-2. The Examiner explained that Mr. Blood had purchased what was thought to be R-2 property, and confirmed that requests for rezones of this type are common in the city. Mr. Sheely advised his observation in looking at apartment sites that homes adjacent to such complexes are deteriorating, either from loss of pride or because they had been converted to rentals, and residents in the area of the subject site do not want a similar deleterious effect in their neighborhood. The Examiner requested final comments from the Planning Department. Mr. Clemens reiterated the departmental recommendation which he felt would protect the neighborhood and provide for use of the property by the applicant. The Examiner requested final comments. Since none were offered, the hearing regarding File No. R-001-81 was closed by the Examiner at 11 :15 a.m. FINDINGS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1 . The request is for approval of a reclassification of approximately 43,049 square feet of property from R-1 (Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size - 7,200 square feet) to R-2 (Duplex Residential) . 2. The application file containing the application, SEPA documentation, the Planning Department report, and other pertinent documents was entered into the record as Exhibit #1 . 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental . Policy Act of 1971 , RCW 43.21C, as amended, a Declaration of Non-Significance has been issued for the subject proposal by the Environmental Review Committee, responsible official . 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. The subject site was annexed into the city in October of 1956 by Ordinance No. 1567 and was initially zoned S-1 (Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size - 40,000 square feet) . The site was reclassified to R-1 (Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size - 7,200 square feet) in October of 1956 by Ordinance No. 1577. In March of 1968, the site was reclassified to R-2 by Ordinance No. 2387. The Superior Court reversed this latter classification because of lack of due process requirements and the site remained R-1 , its current classification. Two environmental appeals have preceded the request to reclassify the subject site to R-2, and these appeals have been resolved (File No. ECF-001-81) . (See Finding No. 3 above.) Some city zoning maps, which did not reflect the court decision, and the previous property owner involved in that decision represented the property as classified R-2, and a lawsuit has been filed by the current owner against his seller. That suit has been continued as the level or measure of damages would depend on the outcome of the attempt to reclassify the subject site to R-2. • 6. The subject property is located on the south side of N.E. 14th Street about 130 feet west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. Access to the site is via N.E. 14th Street, which, in this location, serves more as a driveway. N.E. 14th Street has a steep grade and is only a 30-foot wide, poorly defined right-of-way. 7. The subject site slopes downward from east to west. The site is a downward sloping plateau about 15 to 20 feet below Edmonds Avenue N.E. and about 15 to 20 feet above the developed lots located to the west on Dayton Avenue N.E. R-001-81 Page Six 8. There are a number of developed uses in the vicinity of the subject site. McKnight Middle School is located on the east side of Edmonds Avenue N.E. A single family home is located just northeast of the site, an apartment complex and a single family home are located east, and single family homes are locate° southeast. Located along Dayton Avenue N.E. are seven single family homes. Northwest and north of the site are single family homes which are part of a single family residential subdivision. 9. Runoff from the hillside upon which the subject property is located creates flooding problems during moderate rainy periods. Three yards directly west of the subject site are subject to flooding and standing water. During periods of heavy rain, water flows through at least three properties located on Dayton Avenue N.E. One inch (1") of rain can produce approximately one foot (1 ') of standing water on the lots located west of the subject site if the subject site is built upon. 10. The runoff is not contained by the existing vegetation on the site. The appellants allege that loss of vegetation through development will exacerbate the erosion and flood potential of the hillside above their residences. The increased runoff would result from the location of paving, roofs and other impermeable surfaces on the subject site. 11 . The city has a Storm Drainage Ordinance which provides for the containment, retention and detention of storm waters. Critical slope areas require remedial storm drainage control action even for single family construction. Other ordinances and regulations of the city affect the permitted grade for access roads. 12. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the area in which the subject property is located is suitable for single family residential development. The area so defined is bounded by Edmonds Avenue N.E. on the east, the May Creek drainage facility approximately 20 blocks to the north, lower Kennydale and 1-405 on the west, and N.E. Park Drive on the south and southwest. 13. The subject site is part of a multiblock R-1 zone extending from the east side of Edmonds Avenue N.E. on the north and east sides of McKnight Middle School to south of the subject site. Almost the entire area surrounding the site, which is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as single family residential , is zoned G-7200 (General ; Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size - 7.200 square feet) . McKnight Middle School and the playfield north of the school are included in this G-7200 zone. The apartment complex adjacent to the site to the east is located in an R-3 district consisting of the apartment parcel and the two lots immediately north, both of which are developed with single family homes. The R-3 parcel located on the southwest corner of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and N.E. 12th Street requires a 50-foot landscape buffer adjacent to N.E. 12th Street to screen the single family homes north of 12th (File • No. R-234-78; Michael Turner for Banchero and Florer) . 14. The residents on Dayton Avenue N.E. at the bottom of the slope indicated concern for loss of privacy sustained as a result of the uphill location of the proposed apartments which will interfere with the use of their rear yard outdoor living area. 1'5. Traffic in the area is heavy due to the nearby location of the school which has night meetings quite frequently during the week. The sight distance from N.E. 14th Street is poor due to the steep grade and on-street parking in the vicinity of the intersection of N.E. 14th Street with Edmonds Avenue N.E. 16. The proposed building will be located from 15 to 20 feet above the grade of the homes on Dayton Avenue N.E. The complex as proposed would be approximately 35 feet in height and is capable of casting shadows in the early morning and during winter when the sun angle is low. Sun reflecting off the windows may create severe reflections during the summer. • The data concerning the sun indicated that the property to the north would be deprived of sun at noon from October to February, inclusive, at a location relatively close to the house. At a point centrally located in the rear yard, the same shading condition would occur from August to April . This would be the effect of a 25-foot high structure about 10 feet from the property line. Single family homes built upon the subject site could be located within six feet of the north property line and would be able to achieve similar bulk proportions as the proposed multifamily structures, although fewer actual units, therefore, containing less bulk in total , could be constructed on the property if it maintains its R-1 classification. 17. The subject site consists of three separate legal lots and a total of three single family homes can be located on the subject site upon clarification of access methods. • R-001-8I Page Seven If the subject site were reclassified to R-2 without further authorization, three duplex structures containing a total of six units could be constructed on the subject site. If a special permit were approved to allow clustering or townhouses on the subject site, a total of 10 units could be constructed on the just over 43,000 square foot site. 18. The construction of 10 units would increase the population of the city by 25 persons (2.5 per unit) if the residents were all from outside of the area. . The project would increase the number of daily vehicle 'trips by 56 (5.6,per unit) . The traffic increase would amount to about a one percent increase on Edmonds Avenue N.E. The increase in school age population would be negligible. 19. Nearby residents, especially those located immediately west and downslope and those located immediately north, indicated that they were aware of the zoning of the subject site, that is, that the court had resolved it to be R-1 and many of them relied on that knowledge in either purchasing or remaining in their present homes. Some of those neighbors brought the court suit which reversed the wrongly awarded R-2 designation for the subject site. These residents have continuously attempted to maintain a stable and suitable single family neighborhood in spite of the R-3 zone located along Edmonds Avenue N.E. 20. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that single family residential uses should not adjoin multifamily uses (Policy 4.C.4 and 4.C.5) . The plan also indicates that single family uses should be buffered from more intense uses by low density multi- family uses. 21 . The Planning Department in the analysis of the subject site indicated that the site is a problem site. That analysis indicates that the site is sandwiched in between the single family uses downslope, and construction would subject those properties to shadow and glare effects as well as substantial loss of privacy, and the multifamily apartment upslope which in turn causes similar problems on the subject site. 22. The Planning Department has recommended that the special limitations of the site should be considered and that any duplex development be limited in both bulk and setback. The limitation on bulk and height would present less of a wall at the top of the steep slope and provide for light and air and cut down on shading. The recommendation is that the building not exceed a height to be determined by the establishment of a plane which basis is the west property line and the inclination of which is 30 degrees from the horizontal . In addition, the building or buildings would not be permitted to exceed 50% of the north-south lot dimension, that is, the total length of the structure would be limited to 160 feet of the 320-foot lot length as viewed from the west. The Planning Department further recommended that landscape screening be incorporated into the plan. 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 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 the facts necessary to overcome the burden and the proposed reclassification should be denied. Nowhere does the Zoning Code say, permit or otherwise require approval of a reclassification which is in violation of the three criteria enumerated in Section 4-3014; nor does the code require a reclassification that is not otherwise in the public interest. 2. The property was zoned twice since its annexation and a ,third attempt was blocked by court order. The site was considered previously, and in both actions the classification was some form of single family. The first designation was low density single family with a minimum lot size of just under an acre. The second rezone R-001-81 Page Eight resulted in the current status of higher density single family. Since the initial attempt, the area has.continued towards development of almost exclusively single family dwellings. The last rezone attempt was reversed by court decree. 3. The Comprehensive Plan presents a .unified single family area north of N.E. 12th Street and the location of the apartment building is the deviation from the norm, is not representative of the norm, and should not be the justification for establishing further deviations from the Comprehensive Plan. While other elements of the Comprehensive Plan are of help in boundary areas for defining buffering, in such a generally exclusive single family area the need for buffering can be used to further advance the incursion which earlier unwise zoning permitted. The city recognized this fact when it downzoned the property for the proposed Lake View Towers complex on West Hill . While the apartment may be constructed, that fact did not justify either leaving that parcel zoned R-4 (High Density Multifamily) or zoning adjacent parcels to some intermediate buffering category. To permit an isolated and generally inconsistent and uncharacteristic use to influence current land use decisions is unwise. Rather than maintain the Lake View Towers site as R-4, the Council wisely downzoned the property. 4. In addition to the West Hill rezone which brought conformity to the zoning map if not the use of the property, further reference to consistency of zoning rather than consistency to an inappropriate use is presented in the Buckingham rezone attempt (R-022-77) wherein the attempt to provide a less intense buffer would again subject the neighboring property owners to a more intense use than now exists. The City Council denied the rezone request. 5. The existing single family homes are now quite successfully buffered from the more intense use. The subject site is undeveloped and future purchasers would be aware on visual inspection of the apartment use to the east. The further westward encroachment of multifamily uses, whether low or medium density, should be stopped without spreading the impacts to other property owners. The topography in this location only serves to accentuate the differences in density and potential scale and will not serve as an effective buffer even if the applicant could have demonstrated compliance with the required criteria. 6. The courts of Washington have also said the following about consistency in zoning and boundaries in zoning: "If zoning classifications are to be preserved with any degree of stability and avoid constant erosion, the line drawn must be reasonably maintained until neighborhood conditions and circumstances so change as to warrant legislative modification and alteration." (Carlson v City of Bellevue, 73 Wn.2d 41 (1968) ) The Washington Supreme Court held in Parkridge v Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454 that a demonstrated change in circumstances which is both marked and substantial must be demonstrated. That criteria is enunciated at Section .4-3014(C) (1) (b) and (c) of the city's Zoning Code. There have been no material changes in the area since the last rezoning attempt except for the construction of additional single family homes immediately north of the subject site, and if these changes stand for anything, they demonstrate the continued vitality of the single family character of the area and of the neighbors' concerns that they relied on the zoning of the subject property when purchasing their properties. 7. Zoning serves to not only segregate incompatible uses, but it serves to provide stability. Zoning districts and the maps which demonstrate and effectuate zoning apprise property owners and future purchasers of their potential neighbors. They indicate that an area is maintained fora specific use whether it is single family residential or commercial . A purchaser needs that information to wisely decide the stability of his/her potential neighborhood and to make decisions concerning the preservation of a property's value. As is indicated by the court decisions cited above, zoning should not be easily amended. The applicant must demonstrate fidelity of his proposal to ordinance requirements. Amendments are not granted solely on the basis of a property owner's desire for economic gain. The welfare of the community and the off-setting loss of the property value of others must be considered. 8. It is not the purpose of the Zoning Code to salvage the lost economic benefits of a poor business deal by suggesting a compromise (which in this case the applicant still rejects) , and one which, in fact, compromises both the economic value and the R-001-81 Page Nine single family values which neighboring property owners knowingly purchased and have gone to court to maintain. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is no reasonable use of the subject property, and the U.S. Supreme Court found that the loss of additional economic incentive 6:one does not ;:istify increased zoning density. The court went on to say that the property owner must share both the benefits and burdens imposed by a zoning code and that limitation on density to prevent the "ill effects of urbanization" was an appropriate exercise of the police power of zoning (Agins v City of'Tiburon, 447US255, 65LEd 2d106, 100 SCt 2138, 1980) . 9. The goals of the Comprehensive Plan are to extend compatible uses and phase out incompatible uses; and to preserve property'values and protect against blight (page 17, Land Use Report, Comprehensive Plan) . To further extend higher density zoning would weaken the values of the adjoining single family area and work against the goal of protecting property values. The Comprehensive Plan now in existence was adopted subsequent to the R-3 zoning of the apartment complex. It is the apartment complex which is inappropriate. That property does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan which designates all property north of N.E. 12th Street and as far east as Harrington Avenue N.E. for single family uses except for greenbelt and public uses at the school . There is no reason to expand the incompatible uses in this location. One spot zone does not justify the sanctioning of further incursions in,this single family area of/ incompatible uses. 10. The Washington Supreme Court has found reclassifications must have a relationship to the general welfare and should not impact innocent parties unless the public welfare is served. In Smith v Skagit County, 75 Wn.2d 715 (1969) at page 743, the court said about spot zoning: "Spot zoning has come to mean the arbitrary and unreasonable zoning action by which a smaller area is singled out of a larger area or district and specifically zoned for a use classification totally different from and inconsistent with the classification of surrounding land and not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan." "Spot zoning is a zoning for private gain designed to favor or benefit a particular individual or group and not the welfare of the community as a whole." "The vice of spot zoning is its inevitable effect of granting discriminatory benefit to one or a group of owners and to the detriment of their neighbors or community." 11 . The court has also indicated in past review of zoning actions that a previous deviation or incursion should not be used to justify further such intrusions when the first action was, in -effect, a spot zone. The apartment complex in this quite small and isolated R-3 district is out of character with the neighborhood and should be treated as such and not used to justify further changes in character. 12. Again, there have been no material and substantial changes in the areas which - justify approving the request. The approval of the- current request, even if modified by the applicant to only six total units (the applicant has remained steadfast in the original proposal of ten units, and this may have some relation to the measure of damages in his court suit) , would set the precedent for further expansion of the undeveloped properties south of the subject site. Rather than creating a limited buffer, the rezone could and probably would, serve as the focal point for similar reclassification requests to the south attracting even greater density to an area designated for and almost entirely developed with single family uses. (See West Hill/Lake View Towers Rezone and Buckingham Rezone discussions above.) 13. The current R-1 zoning preserves reasonable development rights to the applicant as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. By a similar design strategy as that indicated in the Planning Department recommendation, single family homes could be built on the subject site with a westerly orientation and a large west yard to take advantage of the height differential and avoid the view and impact of the apartment complex to the east. Rather than moving that visual impact from the subject site to the neighboring properties and rather than imposing the various impacts of greater density and its negative attributes on single family homes, the request should be denied. 14. The applicant has not demonstrated that the request is in conformance with the criteria enumerated in the Examiner's Ordinance; the Planning Department analysis indicated that the request specifically does not meet those criteria. It would also expand incompatible uses in the area violating the Comprehensive Plan, and it would injure neighboring properties. R-001-81 Page Ten 15. As indicated above, the applicant has reasonable use of the property. The applicant. was aware or should have been aware of the limitations on the site. Carrying more intense zoning and higher densities to the west will only impair the property values of the homes located downslope and will set precedent for increasing the density of the vacant property to the south. The City Council should therefore deny the request. 16. A purchaser is also held to have had the knowledge, that is, constructive notice, of that information which the seller had. The limitations imposed by the Zoning Code, therefore, are part of the property and the applicant is held to be aware of the R-1 zoning which applies to the property. If the contract was otherwise tainted the action would be against the culpable party, but rezoning the subject site to restore to the applicant development rights never available would take property rights from innocent third parties, those single family residents located west and north of the subject site. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the recommendation by the Hearing Examiner to the City Council is to deny the requested reclassification. ORDERED THIS 2nd day of October, 1981 . 'ice-•+� �.. Fred J. Kau n Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 2nd day of October, 1981 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Durwood E. Blood, 1202 N. 37th, Renton, WA 98056 Kameron Cayce, P.O. Box 798, Renton, WA 98057 Adrian Reese Sheely, 1312 Dayton Avenue N.E. , Renton, WA 98056 Bob Jones, 1308 Dayton Avenue N.E. , Renton, WA 98056 Doug Cobb, 1216 Dayton Avenue N.E. , Renton, WA 98056 Keith Brownfield, 1211 Dayton Avenue .N.E. , Renton, WA 98056 Wayne Wicks, 1323 Dayton Avenue N.E. , Renton, WA 98056 Lewis Espinosa, 1408 Dayton Court N.E. , Renton, WA 98056 Kathy Keolker, 532 Cedar Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 James M. Eeckhoudt, 17836 108th Ave. S.E. , Renton, WA 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 2nd day of October, 1931 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 October 16, 1981 . Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact,. error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a 'written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall , or same may be purchased at cost in said department. ' • I. - s. — - . t A —� , �wr l�.�.'W ..• II F-' -i Zsj 2�'3 242 :5j; i za; '?7 124 -\1 - I V - -.' - ' G41.44111200 �_ .44 .--�. R_ z97 zN z/z ZI.3_ V.L. 24, = - .'2 ,; �,.? . . . . . ._....7 .1 ,•7 )10., n 7\ J , G • '1i. 1 ,. i..••. .. .-+_-. �' f L. Wl I ',;.,I, \• • •ice Al 1 '' i. L. . �� in in en e.• I is' r..2•• 'r` to Loy "" 1.1• ti• . . �� y . < 'v),• 4 —1 ——1 5 t______,r . --id , i... .3o... 4 r I r i. I. . , i,6„_.,_.,„ . .s.:,,,..,:,:, :. , : ..4..4_ _ .. „ IL ., ..,:ti, I ; ,>�: - _ ,�:•.,,.,_ :.�. .3 C • 1 hf• �16�.�R'• •� Z49 :• 24fr, 2?� 29 71' ��. I � 1 ,1,• F. i ri . • ,` zNy 2M L.p :�' L4E- [4�._ LDC Z2� $•• .•� �� "u •'� I. tlik k.,.\ 6---2 • II ' ' . -0-7;00 '4' '''. ri - -. ,,'--- ,- -, ---, . •- - i . • .• . . 7Aki ; . . ii ; 1_, t • ‘ :.\: ... . ti 55 •',. /,ZB•ms I --: '• - .1-1p-1 --\:-. an I .. ' 44 1. VI, r j I • . 7 1 ••�-r.- — rb42 :;P; •_ I,. :1 ram- . _._-. 1Y •r \`I•+ i.' _`•� • ; I , .7,W I r� �� , 32 I•n ' -'• 1--:_-.., _. • ▪ ...r. d., .ri.':t.,,,.,...1:17. 7....,.,..1 . ., , imii4metL.644-41$1,— c, ,,,..7.--7: n n, : .▪ -10,• .... -•.0 ‘ -.' \. •• a. '1 a J -.7.1()..444!.•_LI. ' ' .e.D- . 41i • _, , • BLOOD, DURWOOD W. R-001-81 APPLICANT BLOOD , DURWOOD TOTAL AREA +43 ,049 sq . ft. PRINCIPAL ACCESS N . E. 14th ST. EXISTING ZONING R-1 EXISTING USE ' Undeveloped PROPOSED USE Ten Townhouse Condominiums COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Single Family Residential COMMENTS SING mEPARTMENT PRELEPR I P "y is pDRT TO THE HEARING EXAMINE' PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 22 , 1981 APPLICANT: BLOOD, DURWOOD E. FILE NUMBER: R-001-81 A. SUMMAW & .PU1BPOSE OF r,:+mTVEST: The applicant seeks a rezone of the subject site from R-1 to R-2 for the purpose of construction of ten (10) townhouse condominiums. B. GENES INFORMATION: 1 . Owner of Record: BLOOD, DURWOOD E. 2. Applicant: BLOOD, DURWOOD E. 3. Location: (Vicinity Map Attached) South side of N.E. 14th Street approximately 130 ' west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. 4 . Legal Description: A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department. • 5. Size of Property: +43 ,049 square feet. 6. Access : Via N.E. 14th Street. 7. Existing Zoning : R-1 , Residence Single Family; Minimum lot size 72000 square feet. 8. Existing Zoning in the Area: G-7200, General Classification District; Minimum lot size 7200 square feet: R-1 , R-3, Residence Multiple Family; Minimum lot size 5000 square feet. 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Single Family Residential 10. Notification: The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly published in the Daily Record Chronicle on September 7, 1981 and posted in three • places on or near the site as required by City Ordinance on September 11 , 1981 . PRELIMINARY TO THE HEARING EXAMINER '—' BLOOD, DURWOOD SEPTEMBER 22, 1981 PAGE TWO C. ;:,ICS ORY/B GROUND : The subject site was annexed into the City by Ordinance 1567 of October 4 , 1956 at which time it was zoned S-1 . Ordinance 1577 rezoned the property to R-1 on October 23, 1956. The site was rezoned from R-1 to R-2 on March 20, 1968 by Ordinance 2387. This was voided by court action on July 13, 1970. D. PHYSICAL +:, KGoD: . 1 . Topography: The subject site slopes down from east to west at an average grade of 15%. 2. Soils : Indianola Loamy Fine Sand (InC) . Permeability is rapid, available water capacity is moderate, runoff is slow to medium and the erosion hazard is slight to moderate. This soil is used for timber and for urban development. 3 . Vegetation: Sctub grass is the main feature with some evergreen trees along the east, south and west perimeters. 4 . Wildlife: The existing vegetation provides suitable • habitat far birds and small mammals . • 5. Water: No surface water was observed on the subject site (September 11 , 1981 ) . 6. Land Use: The subject site is undeveloped. The Sunset Addition subdivision _is adjacent to the north and west with scattered single family residences to the south, and an apartment complex to the east. . E. 1{ .n,:of NwooD CHARACTERISTICS:: The surrounding properties are a mixture of single and multiple family residential. F. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1 . Water and Sewer: An existing six-inch water main is located along Dayton Avenue N.E. to the west of the site with a sixteen-inch main running north-south on Edmonds Avenue. An eight-inch sanitary sewer is also located on Edmonds. 2. Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton as per Ordinance requirements. • 3 . Transit : Metro Transit Route #107 operates along Kirkland Avenue N.E. and N.E. 12th Street within one-half mile to the southeast of the subject site , while Route #142 operates along Edmonds Avenue N.E. 4 . Schools : The subject site is located approximately one-quarter mile southwest of Hillcrest Elementary School just west across Edmonds Avenue from McKnight Middle School, and within one and one-half miles to the west of Hazen High School. PRELIMINARY RE---T TO THE HEARING EXAMINEE '-' BLOOD, DURWOOD SEPTEMBER 22, 1981 PAGE THREE 5. Recreation: North Highlands Park is within one-fourth . mile to the northeast of the subject site while Kennydale Lions Park is one-half mile to the north and Lake Washington Beach Park is three-fourth of a mile to the west. G. APPLIC ;:'LE SECTIONS OF TEE ZONING CODE: 1 . Section 4-706, R-1 , Residence Single Family. 2. Section 4-708, R-2, Residence Two Family. H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE Ctiv i' m:ii i'i SI VE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1 . Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, 1965, Objective #6, p. 18. I. IMPACT ON THE NATURAL OR :II ul rvi'\iv ENVIRONMENT: 1 . Natural Systems : Rezoning the subject site will not directly impact the property. However, subsequent development of the property will, and this will require further review under the Special Permit provision of the R-2 zone. 2. Population/Employment: Approval for and construction • of ten (10) units would increase the area population by approximately 25 persons (2. 5 persons/unit x 10 units) . . 3. Schools : Minor. 4. Social: Minor. • 5. Traffic : The proposed development would generate an additional 56 vehicle trips per day (5. 6 trips/unit x 10 units) or approximately a 1 % increase over the present levels on Edwards Avenue N.E.. J. . ENVIO. 01010TAL ASS S ,ill ls,"T/TE1 ESI:OLD DETEi.mltEATION: • 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 nonsigi ificance.�. was issued for the subject proposal by the ERC on May 25, 1981 . The declaration was appealed and subsequently affirmed by the Examiner on August 3, 1981 . No further appeal has been filed. 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. L. PING DEPART ANALYSIS: 1 . The applicant proposes rezoning approximately one acre from Single Family to R-2, Two Family Residential, located west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. between N.E. 12th and N.E. 16th. The land uses in the immediate vicinity include single family residences to the PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER BLOOD, DURWOOD '' SEPTEMBER 22, 1 PAGE FOUR north and west, undeveloped single family zoned property to the south, and developed medium density multiple family uses to the east. 2. The applicant in his application, provided a letter of justification for the rezone which is attached and is incorporated into this report. 3 . Section 4-3014 (C) (1 ) sets forth three criteria which any rezone application must meet. First, the application must not have been specifically considered previously in any land use analysis or area zoning. Subject site was rezoned from S-1 to R-1 in the mid 1960 ' s, and from R-1 to R-2 in March of 1968. This action was subsequently overruled by court action in 1970, the property ; was returned to an R-1 zoning. Thus the application does not' meet the first criteria. Secondly, the application must be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan for the immediate vicinity indicates that public and quasi-public uses along with recreation should be allowed to the east of the subject site (McKnight Middle School) . South of N.E. 12th, the plan shows an area of medium density multiple family, and all other. areas to the north and west of the subject site indicate areas of single family • use. Although the Comprehensive Plan is not a blue print, the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan appears to consistently designate uses west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and north of N.E. 12th for single family uses. This determination was affirmed by the Examiner on April - 17, 1981 , in reversing the ERC ' s original determination on the subject property. Thus the proposed rezone is not consistent with the second criteria. Finally, the application must show significant and material change in the vicinity of the subject site. The multiple family uses to the east and the single family uses to the west have been in place for a number of years. The property to the south remains undeveloped. The property to the immediate north was developed as a single family residential plat during 1979 and 1980. This con- struction may 'be., considered a significant change, however, it is questionable whether it would favorably address this rezone application. 4 . Although the subject rezone generally does not meet the three specific requirements applicable for a rezone application, there are aspects of the Comprehensive Plan which must be taken into consideration in evaluating the proposal. As noted above, the site is situated between existing medium density multiple family uses to the east, and single family residencial uses to the west and north. As a result, the development potential of the site is impinged upon by existing uses. Generally speaking, the policies element of the Comprehensive. Plan would not recommend single family residential uses adjoining multiple family uses. (Policy Element 4 .C.4 and 4.C. 5) . Further, the subject site meets the general criteria of developing close-in, rather than urban fringe properties (Policies Element 3.A. 1 , 3.A. 2, and 3.A. 3) . Further, Policy 4.C.4 • f PRELIMINARY RF--ZT TO THE HEARING EXAMINE BLOOD, DURWOOI SETPEMBER 22, 1981 PAGE FIVE states, "Single family dwellings should be buffered by low density multiple family uses from more intense uses" . The medium density multiple family uses to the east constitute a more intensive use. Thus a dilemma arises as to the appropriate zoning for this particular parcel. 5. The property is currently divided into three platted lots. Under the single family zoning, a PUD (if allowed) could have a maximum of four dwelling units. The current zoning would have a maximum density, capacity of 5. 9 plus dwelling units (43, 049 square feet divided by 7200 square foot lot size) . Under the R-2 zoning classification, the proponent would be allowed six dwelling units (three duplexes on three platted lots) , or ten dwelling units if a special permit for a cluster were allowed. 6. It is apparent from the testimony provided in the two environmental appeal hearings that a number of substantial problems could be created by intensive development of the subject site. However, reasonable use of the subject site should be assured by the planning process (Policy 3.A. 5 , 3,A. 6, 3.B.4 , and 3.B.8) . As noted in the environmental appeal public hearings, single family use of the subject property is unlikely to achieve a long term stability on • the subject site. Therefore, R-2 zoning of the subject property subject to appropriate restrictions appears to be warranted. 7. The most critical question is density. Based upon the analysis in No. 5 above, a range of three to ten dwelling units on the subject site appears possible. Under single family zoning, the maximum density would be 6 dwelling units. However, there is no current City mechanism which would allow 6 dwelling units to be constructed under the R-1 zoning , classification. Therefore, the rezone to R-2 should be approved with the maximum density of 6 dwelling units . To protect the adjoining single family neighborhood' s access to light, air, and privacy, there should be restrictions on the bulk and height standards within this site. The architectural design contained in the environmental determination indicates that approximately two-thirds of the width of the subject site would be developed into residential structures. By reducing the dwelling unit density, the developed width of the property should easily be reduced to not exceed 50%. To minimize the impact of the structure height, glare, and privacy concerns, a plane of maximum height should be established commencing at the west property line and extending easterly at an angle of 30% from the horizontal. No portion of the structures to be developed on the property should pass above this plane. This. will minimize the possible impact of shading on the adjoining properties, while providing for reasonable use of the subject property. PRELIMINARY REPO- -. TO THE HEARING EXAMINER ; BLOOD, DURWOOD 1. SEPTEMBER 22, 1981 PAGE SIX Landscape screening which would separate the subject property from the adjoining family uses to the west, should be incorporated into the final plan which meets generally a single family character. These design plans should be approved in final form as part of the special permit approval for the dwelling unit design in conformance with the standards illustrated above. M. H'EPARTMEN "A, JI EC �•vmu\ wATIO IS Based upon the foregoing analysis, the Planning Department concludes that the subject application reasonably meets the requirements of Section 4-3014 (C) and that a rezone to R-2 should be approved subject to appropriate design limitations. The following design criteria should be applied: 1 . That the structures to be located on the subject site shall not exceed 50% of the north-south buildable site area. 2. A plane of maximum height commencing at the west property line and extending easterly at a 30% angle above the horizontal shall be established for the subject site. 3. Final landscaping design creating generally a single family character on the subject site shall be approved as a part of the special permit application evaluating the specific architectural proposals in conformance with conditions 1 and 2 above. gi afit1 Pl anni 12-197 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET A p p l i cation : a�► . 44.ewlif(..- (Pn®� %�1" 1 J) "-e eltulge.02.43iketwilifa, ,i e Col " 'Pl a 12.-a 4 'elepose de COX < ,rePeii0VA tirt ( ) ouc ' e4ora Location : , , t ° , . /3o 'per Appl i cant : ADAJn uEw_ep % TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : fir 7[ i Police Department A, R. C. MEETING DATE : 1l�f'/ Public Works Department . R C. „ as ' I , Engineering Division Traffic Engineering 1 Building Division „____ ilities Engineering 1007/' Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITIREVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELL) ON f AT 9 : UU A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR EPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PLEA PR DE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:OO P .M. ON / 7�� j REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 7 Approved v/_ Approved with Conditions Not Approved ( __---- ( IL___J z I ;:: - 0,----.,_ , // 5;/P- Signature of DirectC c_ I_____LL_ or or Authori ed Representative f Date t ` REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 011( wj Approved 1 ,.. Approved with Conditions Not Approved ty ,'( i/ . I c i L1 ( �- itm / i 1 Signature of Direcortor Authorized Representative Date ��e J ' +ra rn ��^ ' � "~^ ^ . III tag ?08 z 41 To U 10 WI dp tier fT 61 367 35 TJ IL n- 0. ` BLOOD , DURWOOD W. R-00I-81 ! | � � � . � ` | . ' APPLICANT BLOOD , DURW0OD TOTAL AREA +43 O49 sq . ft � ---- ^-- " , � , ' PRINCIPAL ACCESS N . E . 14th ST . � ' ' . � ' EXISTING ZONING R- 1 ' ! ` f EXISTING USE/ Undeveloped '--- , ' ' ` PROPOSED USE Ten Townhouse Condominiums � . ! | � , COMPREHENSIVE. LAND USE PLAN— Single Family Residential � � / ' l , COMMENTS } / , } � / v , ( | 81IN( 1 Plannir • _ . 12-197� RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application : 1' � �' �, / �� . ' c � ¢; , ,t e,7 eftliS fel'ey e car' Rq °AD iec-a 474r cANsto af-gurase eipf CO#1 dr coci knA (G- - Obcovolioustr, Co al4 Location : ® side d mif.. afert£v• / ) ,°, ` zf ; Aw.ifw Applicant : r ®? c d000 TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : 42 /0/CS , .,...._.._-,.. .-,. _•,..., ..�Pol i ce Department p - A, R, C', MEETING DATE : /JQePi . Public Works Department e e e >, , En,Weering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Y•v Utilities Engineering '. Fire Departmen'",> ._ (Other) ' COMMENTS, OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION, SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRIT! G F '� HE APPLICATION"�.REVIEW CONFERENCEpp ( (ARC) TO BE CONFERENCE ON ��y I..q,� ' a,s...:�i..•,'4.'. • ' ' _ - AT 9:U0 A.M B • IN THE THIRD FLOOR ' ROOM. .:: I'IV, .UR IEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE' BYTC� A TENDD/{ THE .ARC, u� A• rANEW- . .. e 5:0 P/1•At OI'i @Ee -. PR . <, • ran �RE TO DEPARTMENT COMMENTS THE REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : a,__ ..,..:. � : ; is R Approved y'` Approved with Conditions \ Not Approved '� J ...f ,, f e-e._,',L.ir.--,-(4- L'/ i / i. I , ,t5 r^: f ' I1 t �` � � I 1 1:.._-. C d�l- t - /,..'� r: y-- ;l i•..::a�'i c',l 'E- 1,L1- 1 I r v, , ,-J-T j i-, -' ti;c 4., f ,• / f./ ` f ' k C 4:.>I L, _5 . f/_-, 3._, z: r /,. ,s </<-,,..t� < f_N• ' CY"-,` <.,/- 'r...' ,y / r ///C;. L;•eY /!'L'i 'l�- t�•.i ( /. r 7, „,/,,-.. -/C, L -! k. ,' // / l 'i A 1 o! ,.! L, , - , . , j c• ( f" / , Signature of Director rector or Authorized Representative •Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : I ___ . Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved , I i ';, :, ;,, ,- .".'ram.' � '. ,� •• ; . Signature ture''. . ; Oioctor or Authorized Representat�ivo �: �_�w— Date P'lanoi 12-.19-i RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION! REVIEW SHEET Application : _C_CV__4:1AP .0- o f1 iJF s.Y"�yil� �.'t� 76 Location : /� (] /* i ,=r+� t Y� 'jk' Applicant : ,, tabor# �A�r'dtt:� S , • :�� 0 TO: Parks Department �// SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : �0/6 Police Department A, RIC, MEETING DATE : J 124Za Public 1,9yAs Department R,.' e i o o , / e // Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING "F HE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON AT 9:uU A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, IF UR . EPARTMENT DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PLEA , PRE DE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:Ou P .M. ON itcr4 I 11 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 7 Approved VApproved with Conditions Not Approved j/ / / 1/ d, J c (r> c�"%!J!11 s y/��1�_ 24,c, /Ai/ 774, a//S G A�°-L G 7ZD •J. 724 z J 71/ Se-ct}el..." P) as"6/e. Grro ipy kf 41 des 4",,c2e, cry a c e{)/ Signature of Director or Authorized Representative /^z` Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Ap proved Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date .- .. J ^ um(= � 1 , RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET A p p l i cation : 1 261,fi%.4.`.- Af.s..r� I �-: � , (5,s. .. c. • de_c_eisifyLskil e0 0 44 ()AarrAleysse cowl Location : 4" 4 to o f Applicant : fit;M +i8 ;)3 to Pam'0 0 4 e TO: P ks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : / 749 1 Police Department A. R. C. MEETING DATE : 1/407i/a _ Public Works Department . RC / e " ' so Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department (Othr) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITI G F HE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON AT 9 :OU A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF UR EPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE Tp A TEND THE ARC, PLEA PR DE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:0 P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : POLICE Approved XXX Approved with Conditions Not Approved 1)The roadway from the apartments to Edmonds Ave. N.E. be improved to the ful thirty feet width all the way from the applicants property to Edmonds N.E . The driveway now is badly defined and needs widening as well as upgrading t handle the extra traffic safely. 2) The driveway be designated a fire zone and no parking allowed so emergenc access can be made to the apts . at all times. 3) Danger zone be placed on either side of driveway entrance on Edmonds NE to Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date allow good sight distance for person exiting the units . Ltnk ,R,�-: sson 1/19 /p 1 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved Signature- of: Dirac.tor• or Authorized Renracantativn n� + ng1 ; / Plawnjng 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application : a q e rpF t ; ° (P 0120A wi. qt. e , ,dvtase de COO derve4e0fA 64 Al'11't 0,740 0111' code! Location : om® ae 541m ,cyr ra /T RD61 `f CIRIN e ?six . if- .- Appl i cant . I-1a p , airrid'oe 4 a _, — — TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : /ni'c9,/ Police Department AoR, C, MEETING DATE : /422 .11 Public Works Department . R C.e ° e e Engineering Division T fic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS 'OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITI G F QJHE APPLICATION REV NW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON IF ‘ A AT 9:UU A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. UR EPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TRI ATTEND THE ARC, PLE ., :_ PR : E THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 :00 P ,MG ON '' I REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : '.,2 X Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved - It r l� 1 -- " Signature of Director dr Authorized Representative Date //' Y_ REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved _ -_ n ..i L_ .__ ..,..l �l....v. .- o r� a i'l 1/[� Date IlirFINAL k_,2LARATION OF NON-SIGNI1'Tc'A�. E Application No (s) : SP-089-80 R-001-81 . Environmental Checklist No (s) : ECF-601--80 ECF-001-81 Description of Proposal: Application for Rezone from R-1 to R-2 to • permit future construction of 10 townhouse condo- ' minium units under Special Permit approval, Proponent: Blood, Durwood ,q Location of Proposal: South side of N.E. 14th Street approximately 130' west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. Lead Agency: Planning Department This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on September 10, 1980, January 21 , 1981 , and after being remanded by the Hearing Examiner on May 20, 1981 , following a presentation by Steve Munson of the Planning Department. Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on applications ECF-601-80 and ECF-001-81 are the following: 1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheets, prepared by: Steve Munson, Assistant Planner DATED: September 3, 1980 January 19, 1981 2) Applications: SP-089-80 and R-001-81 -- 3) Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance were received from Fire, Building, Planning, and Police Departments and from the Engineering, Traffic and Utilities Divisions of the Public Works Department. Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has .determined this developmen does not have significant adverse impact on the environment. An EIS is not required under RCW 43. 21C. 030 (2) (c) . This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a complete environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Reasons for declaration of environmental non-significance: 1 . The proposal will not adversely affect adjacent properties or signi- ficantly impact public services. 2. All of the environmental concerns including (1 ) storm water, (2) sewe availability, (3) traffic, (4) adjacent land uses, and (5) glare expressed in the public hearing held before the Hearing Examiner on April 7, 1981 , were considered by the ERC in their deliberation. Signatures : 1 /10-144-3 -) - & ' Rot,==i Ronald G. Nelson Da i R. Clemens, Acting Building Director Planning Director -J Richard C. Houghton,TActing Public Works Director DATE OF PUBLICATION: May 25, 1981 EXPIRATION OF APPEAL PERIOD: June 8 , 1981 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1981 , AT 9 : 00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: 1 . BLOOD, DURWOOD E. Application for rezone from R-1 to R-2 to permit future construction of ten townhouse condominium units, file R-001-81 ; property located on the south side of N. E. 14th Street approximately 130 feet west of Edmonds Avenue N. E. 2. CARACCIOLI , JULIUS AND STELLA Application for rezone from G to L-1 for future office, warehouse, and material storage uses, file R-069-81 ; property located on the west side of East Valley Road approximately 320 feet south of S.W. 16th Street. 3. CHURCH OF CHRIST Application for special permit to allow a 1200 square feet addition to existing church and landscaping, paving, and parking improvements in an R-3 zone, file SP-071-81 ; property located in the vicinity of 2527 N. E. 12th Street between Edmonds Avenue N.E. and Harrington Avenue N. E. 4 . BITNEY, DEAN W. Applications for 4-lot single family residential short plat in G zone, file 074-81 , and waiver of off-site improvements, file W-075-81 ; property located west side of Union Avenue S.E. adjacent to south annex of Leisure Estates Mobile Home Park. 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 SEPTEMBER 22, 1981 , AT 9 :00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLISHED: September 7, 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 4 day of September, 1981 . l/`� C�z E� SIGNED: 42:Leasbtii4640" OF A a r,z THE CITY OF RENTON Al z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 chi +Jk'" BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT A 235- 2550 0 94�FD SEP1°* September 3, 1981 Durwood E. Blood 1202 North 37th Street Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Application for rezone, file no. R-001-81 , 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. Gentlemen: The Renton Planning Department has formally accepted the above mentioned application. A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for September 22, 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, (911"te:CF-861 6rek. Roger J. Blaylock Associate Planner RJB:cl cc: James M. Eeckhoudt 17836 108th Avenue S.E. Renton, WA 98055 F1117 •it , • ri. ". .' , .., '"" ., ., ' : • e 4 , '''t• , . ' , • „ „ - s ' . v,' -2. f , '':• ;.... '' . -.': t ,'"'', ..,- . •,7, ,,,, , - GE 'MAL LOCATION: AND, OP ADDRESS'. PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH (.:;IDE OF N.E. 1' TH STREET APPROXIMATELY 130 FEET WEST OF EDMONDS AVENUE N, E. LiGAL DEEiCilrioN.• DETAILED LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT i S POSTED TO NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS OF k W. ,, '' ' ,,,, " '• 1` :: '1" ' .4,'' .'' ,, ,' `r• '', ' TO BE hELD IN CITY COWICL CHAMBERS, MUNICIPAL 89 110111-D11',4t7ii. ON 1981 ,,.'''rer'' NNW r" AT St-PI-EMBER 22, 2...„„fit,4., i „...,p,,,,,,, ..,...p.,,,,..., 1" ,,,4 ,,,:i i.-....x, k,,,,,;); ',Z---tt... nig it.ix(;),1 f i'.,...,an Lk's', s' AvPLIL,ATION REZONE FILL NO. R-001-81; .FROM R-1. TO R-2 TO F E ) ,,, i4 L . sa%, - s7,EP PERM- FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF TEN TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIU0 UNIiS t:._.... c, ,7;,.,.-.2,,,,-A 41 4,,,t, 1:::.r r4L.--,iii •ph-ir 1.........i kl.;) ' La%--*, tie-,a,),.. a- 6,4.3 kVkiL tr,i ':' ..1 r- ,nt IT A p p ill-3, 4,, ";',4" :,,,s L Li T.:,,,,,P ell la Ltss WAIVER , •,-,• ii sHoRELINE AN 4 GEmENT pERmry .. , ., __ Ei -____ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL 236 2550 II-A(4 NO'iii..1Z- NO TO EE REfetha) WITHOUT PROPER NOTHCiatZATION T/ S` m . August 3, 1981 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION , APPLICANT: Concerned Citizens, Represented by FILE NO. ECF-001-81 James E. Eeckhoudt, Attorney (R-001.-81 ) LOCATION: South side of N.E. 14th Street approximately 130 feet west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. PURPOSE OF APPEAL: The appellants, residents and neighbors adjacent to the subject .site, have appealed a second Declaration of Non-Significance issued by the Environmental Review Committee following a remand of the matter by the Hearing Examiner on April 17, 1981 . A reclassification of the subject property is proposed from R-1 (Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size - 7,200 square feet) to R-2 (Duplex Residential ) , Durwood Blood, applicant The appellants exercised their right to appeal the determination pursuant to Section 4-2806(D) of the Renton Environmental Ordinance, as amended SUMMARY OF DECISION: The decision of the Environmental Review Committee is upheld. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the letter of appeal , examining available informationinformation 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 30, 1981 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. In response to a request from the appellants' attorney, the matter was continued to July 23, 1981 . CONTINUANCE: The hearing was opened on July 23, 1981 at 9:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. The Examiner explained the public hearing process for appeals of environmental determinations made by the Environmental Review Committee, noting that the issue is not whether a rezone should or should not be granted but rather whether the city has carried out its responsibility under the State Environmental Policy Act in determining whether the proposal will have more than a moderate effect on the environment, and if so, whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared for the project. Representing the appellants was: James E. Eeckhoudt 17836 108th Avenue S.E. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Eeckhoudt, attorney representing concerned citizens residing adjacent to the proposal , discussed various concerns relating to water runoff, erosion, soils permeability, grades and slopes of the property, and economic feasibility of connection to existing sewers. He also reviewed another primary area of concern which. relates to protection of privacy and quality of life for existing residents. Mr. Eeckhoudt noted that the new determination of non-significance issued by the E.R.C. following the remand of the item by the Hearing Examiner sheds no light on whether existing issues and concerns of the residents were addressed through environmental review. Mr. Eeckhoudt submitted a newspaper article from the Seattle Post-Intelligencier which reports damage from storm water runoff in a north King County area. The article was entered as follows by the Examiner: Exhibit#1 : Newspaper Article, Seattle P-I , 6-14-81 , "Water Runoff, a Raging Problem," by Dan Coughlin, P-I Reporter The Examiner also entered by reference the previous appeal file of the same subject as follows: Eir1;-O0l-81 Page Two Exhibit #2: Hearing Examiner Report and Decision, 4-17-81 , ECF-001-81 ; James Eeckhoudt )V for Concerned Citizens on the Durwood Blood Rezone, File No. R-O0l-81 Mr. Eeckhoudt referenced Conclusion No. 7 of the Examiner's Report, Exhibit #2, which addresses requirements of the Washington Administrative Code, Section 197-10-060, for review of the total proposal including its direct and indirect impacts as well as proposed future activities when making an environmental determination.. He also discussed the Acting Planning Director's comments in the previous appeal hearing on the same matter pertaining to the likelihood that subsequent multifamily rezones would occur to the south of the subject site if approval of the rezone request occurs, which the Examiner had addressed in Conclusion No. 8 of the previous report. Mr. Eeckhoudt indicated his opinion that the new declaration does not appear to address the issues raised in the previous report, and designation of the site as suitable for single family residential development on the Comprehensive Plan further supports the citizens ' appeal of the Declaration of Non-Significance. Prior to commencement of further testimony, the Examiner administered the oath of affirmation to parties wishing to testify. Responding in opposition was: Lewis Espinosa ' 1408 Dayton Court N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Espinosa, property owner located immediately north of the subject site, advised concern regarding potential shading of his yard by proposed structures. He also discussed the land use designation of single family residential on the Comprehensive Plan for both his property and the subject site, which had been an influential consideration prior to purchase of his residence. Mr. Espinosa questioned why the property owner would wish to pursue the rezone in view of strong neighborhood opposition, and felt that other means were available to recoup losses without continuing the project. He also noted his belief that at least three neighbors were willing to purchase a pro rata share of the property to prevent multifamily development from occurring which would create a negative economic impact to surrounding residents. Responding in opposition was: Adrian Reese Sheely 1312 Dayton Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Sheely, property owner located immediately west of the most northerly proposed triplex, indicated that in addition to concerns about water runoff and loss of economic value of his residence, he is concerned about impacts from noise, loss of privacy, loss of sunlight, and glare'from windows which will reduce the quality of life for himself and his family. Mr. Eeckhoudt pointed out that due to the significant slope between the subject site and adjacent residential lots, residents of the new development would have a very clear view into yards and windows of existing homes which will result in loss of privacy. Responding in opposition was : Bob Jones 1308 Dayton Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Jones felt that errors had been made in existing data; the first in the statement that the site had previously been utilized for urban development, since only one residence had previously existed, and the second contained in submitted plans by the applicant which erroneously designate an existing rockery on the embankment on the western portion of the subject site. He noted that a concrete wall had been constructed by one of the adjacent neighbors which had been proven ineffective in preventing storm water from flooding his yard and had resulted in deflecting runoff into the yard next door. Mr. Jones referenced the site map attached to the Examiner's report of April 17, 1981 , and for purposes of illustration, sketched a larger configuration on the blackboard. He discussed site development potential for either single family residences for which sales would be jeopardized because of the proximity of an existing apartment building located east of the subject site, as well as difficult access, or multifamily development which would jeopardize the quality of life for existing homeowners adjacent to the site because they would be confronted with a continuous row of apartment buildings extending to N.E. 12th Street at a grade 15 feet higher than their existing properties. Other multifamily residential developments located in the Renton Highlands area were discussed by Mr. Jones, ECF=;,u1-81 Page Three ,i) and he found when visiting the sites that in all cases they were accessed by wide driveways directly adjacent to major streets, located adjacent to commercial zoning, and accessible to business areas, and, in most cases, the nearest single family neighborhoods were located across the street. In no instance, Mr. Jones noted, a fishbowl effect existed such as would be created by development of the subject site with its topographical constraints. He stressed that the neighbors had purchased their homes on the premise that the entire area was zoned R-1 , and the subject development would markedly decrease the quality of life for residents. To illustrate deleterious effects from shading, Mr. Jones reviewed summer and winter solstices and the, impact of the proposed buildings to existing residences to the west and north of the site. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding his credentials, he advised that he is a registered civil engineer in the State of Washington, and currently employed as an engineer. Responding in opposition was: Terre Scappini 2400 N.E. 12th Street Renton, WA 98056 Mrs. Scappini inquired regarding the proposed configuration of the access roadway into the site and provision for emergency access. David Clemens, Acting Planning Director, advised that the probable width of the access road would be 20 feet, and requirements for emergency vehicle turnaround begin 150 feet from the nearest street right-of-way. Since the depth of the property from north to south is slightly over 300 feet, a turnaround consisting of a 45-foot radius will be required as part of site design to allow emergency vehicles to drive into the site, make a U-turn, and drive out. The Examiner requested testimony by Mr. Clemens regarding the action of the Environmental Review Committee. Mr. Clemens addressed concerns of the neighbors regarding shading, interface between developments, glare potential , and access. He advised that the proposed structures are one-third larger than a typical single family home of the same general • character, and noted that a single family home could be located within six feet of the northern property line and have equal dimensions in height, breadth and bulk as the units in question. Speaking to the issue of the long interface between the proposed uses and residences to the west, Mr. Clemens stated that 220 feet of the 326 foot length property from the northern to southern boundary could be utilized for multifamily structures; however, single family homes could have less than 30 feet of total separation between structures if of large dimension, and the amount of window glass area would be similar. Responding to concerns regarding driveway access, he agreed that the point is well taken that there are few circumstances where individual properties can only access at a point away from the street; however, discussion of this matter had occurred at the meeting of the Environmental Review Committee as well as all other concerns expressed by concerned citizens. He emphasized that all potential impacts had been thoroughly evaluated and the committee had concluded that the use of the property for the purpose of a small cluster of townhouses would not create significant adverse impact. If extended south in the same density, it was the opinion of the committee that the development would continue to be non-significant. Mr. Clemens did note for the record, however, that the recommendation of the committee is a far different case from whether the same staff members sitting as the technical review committee would recommend approval of the rezone, but the committee felt that this project and any possible extension of similar development would not be significant and that had been the basis of the determination. Responding for the applicant, Durwood Blood, was: Kameron Casey P.O. Box 798 Renton, WA 98057 Mr. Casey concurred with the determination of the Environmental Review Committee. He also pointed out that the article submitted as Exhibit #1 does not relate to the subject property but denotes a similar concern for damage from water runoff. Responding to earlier comments regarding feasibility of sewer hookup, Mr. Casey indicated that easements have been acquired and the owner is satisfied that extension is economically feasible. He also advised that facilities provided on site for storm water runoff would probably decrease rather than increase an existing problem. He felt that it was not fair or appropriate to compare any proposed project with a wooded site, such as the subject property exists today, and review should be limited to differences between Mr. Blood's proposal and the development potential under the current zoning classification. Regarding discussion of light and sun, Mr. Casey indicated his opinion that it is not proper for the Environmental Review Committee or the Hearing Examiner to delve into new fields which will be addressed and resolved in the next few years, particularly when the use of solar energy is expanded. dte advised that the proposal will not affect the property any more than single family :residences, and many mitigation measures will be incorporated into site design to alleviate citizens' concerns. ECF-001-81 Page Four He concluded by stating the applicant's willingness to meet with Mr. Eeckhoudt and concerned citizens to resolve some of their concerns through coordinated site planning. Mr. Clemens submitted two aerial photographs of the Highlands area which reflect three projects which are similar to the proposal in proximity to single family residential uses, Forestbrook Condominiums , Springbrook Condominiums, and Honeydew Estates Apartments. The photographs were entered by reference into the record by the Examiner for illustrative purposes only: Exhibit #3: Aerial Photograph No. 16-147 Exhibit #4: Aerial Photograph No. 16-149 Mr. Jones advised that his field check revealed that these developments were not comparable to the proposal on the subject site, particularly in view of topographical elements. He also clarified that in his testimony regarding interface of the proposal to the existing residences, he was speaking about the interface between the future residents and existing residents, not interface between the buildings themselves. He stated that he does not object to a line of single family homes, but does object to having a continuing interface of significantly higher density development containing 10 families. Mr. Sheely objected to Mr. Clemens' comparison of large single family homes to multifamily structures since economics may dictate that smaller homes be constructed. Mr. Eeckhoudt summarized concerns expressed in prior testimony, again referencing WAC 197-10-060 which requires that total future development potential be considered in evaluating environmental impact. He also stated his opinion that a considerable impact by density would occur in creating an invasion of privacy, and it is doubtful that adequate screening of the site could be provided unless it was in the form of fully grown timber since the parking lot extends to property lines. Mr. Eeckhoudt restated his request that an Environmental Impact Statement be required to address concerns regarding rezone precedent, the existing slope west of the site, and other concerns expressed at the hearing. Responding in opposition was: Peter Le 1402 Dayton Court N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Le, resident located to the northwest of the site, cited heavy rainstorms which have resulted in damage- to the contents of his home, and he objected to the proposal due to significant runoff problems as well as potential obstruction of sunlight. The Examiner requested additional time of 21 days in which to publish a decision on the matter. There was no objection. He then reiterated previous comments regarding the purpose of the hearing and subsequent review to determine whether an EIS should be required or not, and advised that all testimony heard during this matter would be relevant during discussion of the rezone at a later date. Since there were no further comments, the hearing regarding the appeal of Durwood Blood environmental determination was closed by the Examiner at 10:45 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1 . The applicant, Durwood Blood, filed a request to reclassify approximately 42,200 square feet of property from R-1 (Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size - 7,200 square feet) to R-2 (Duplex Residential ) . An environmental checklist was filed pursuant to Section 4-2811 (A) of the Renton Environmental Ordinance. The Environmental Review Committee initially issued a Declaration of Non-Significance on January 25, 1981 , and stated as reasons that the proposed reclassification was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and was limited to the rezone. The appellants, concerned citizens, filed an appeal of that determination. On April 17, 1981 , the Hearing Examiner, subsequent to a public hearing on the appeal , determined that the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) erred in that the Comprehensive Plan designated the site for single family, not multifamily dwellings. The item was remanded to the ERC for further determination. The ERC again issued a Declaration of Non-Significance based on lack of adverse effect of the proposal on adjacent property and consideration of the issues of storm water, sewer, traffic, adjacent land uses and glare. Findings 2 through 14 below are adopted from the decision of the Hearing Examiner., dated Ppril 17, 1981 . 2. The subject property is located on the south side of N.E. 14th Street about 130 feet r/ ECF-001-81 Page Five west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. Access to the site is via N.E. 14th Street, which, in this location, serves more as a driveway. N.E. 14th Street has a steep grade and is only a 30-foot wide, poorly defined right-of-way. 3. The subject site slopes downward from east to west. The site is a downward sloping plateau about 15 to 20 feet below Edmonds Avenue N.E. and about 15 to 20 feet above the developed lots located on Dayton Avenue N.E. 4. Answer to Question No. 6 indicates that the applicant proposes establishing ten (10) multifamily units on the subject site upon approval of a reclassification of the site. Approval of a special permit is necessary to allow up to 11 units per acre on R-2 zoned property. The special permit would be issued pursuant to Section 4-708(3) . The City Council would have to approve both a reclassification of the property and the special permit. 5. There are a number of developed uses in the vicinity of the subject site. McKnight Middle School is located on the east side of Edmonds Avenue N.E. A single family home is located just northeast of the site, an apartment complex and a single family home are located east, and §ingle family homes are located southeast. Located along Dayton Avenue N.E. are seven single family homes. Northwest and north of the site are two single family homes which are part of a single family residential subdivision. 6. The appellants live in homes located immediately west on Dayton Avenue N.E. as well as on Edmonds Avenue N.E. , and have sufficient interest to entertain this appeal . 7. The appellants alleged that current runoff from the hillside upon which the subject property is located already creates flooding problems during moderate rainy periods. Three yards directly west of the subject site are periodically subject to flooding and standing water. During periods of heavy rain, water flows through at least three properties located on Dayton Avenue N.E. One inch (1") of rain can produce approximately one foot (1 ' ) of standing water on the lots located west of the subject site if the subject site is built upon. 8. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the area in which the subject property is located is suitable for single family residential development. The area so defined is bounded by Edmonds Avenue N.E. on the east, the May Creek drainage facility approximately 20 blocks to the north, lower Kennydale and 1-405 on the west, and N.E. Park Drive on the south and southwest. 9. The subject site is part of a multiblock R-1 zone extending from the east side of Edmonds Avenue N.E. on the north and east sides of McKnight School to south of the subject site. The site and almost the entire area surrounding the site, which is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as single family residential , is zoned G-7200 (General ; Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size - 7,200 square feet) , including McKnight Middle School and the playfield north of the school . The apartment complex adjacent to the site to the east is located in an R-3 district consisting of the apartment parcel and the two lots immediately north, two of which are developed with single family homes. There is an R-3 parcel located on the southwest corner of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and N.E. 12th Street which requires a 50-foot landscape buffer adjacent to N.E. 12th Street to screen the single family homes north of 12th (File No. R-234-78; Michael Turner for Banchero and Florer) . 10. The appellants indicated that the loss of privacy sustained as a result of the uphill location of approximately 40 windows, 20 per floor, will interfere with the use of their rear yard outdoor living area. 11 . The runoff is currently not contained by the existing vegetation on the site. The appellants allege that loss of vegetation through development will exacerbate the erosion and flood potential of the hillside above their residences. The increased runoff would result from the location of paving, roofs and other impermeable surfaces on the subject site. 12. The city has a Storm Drainage Ordinance which provides for the containment, retention and detention of storm waters. Other ordinances and regulations of the city affect the permitted grade for access roads and require buffering of incompatible areas. 13. Traffic in the area is heavy due to the nearby location of the school which has night meetings quite frequently during the week. The sight distance from N.E. 14th Street is poor due to the steep grade and on-street parking in the vicinity of the intersection of N.E. 14th Street with Edmonds Avenue N.E. 14. The proposed building will be located from 15 to 20 feet above the grade of the homes on Dayton Avenue N.E. The building itself will be approximately 35 feet in height 1 ECF-O01-81 Page Six and is capable of casting shadows in the early morning and during winter when the it sun angle is low. Sun reflecting off the 40 windows may create severe reflections during the summer. 15. The ERC' s representative indicated that single family homes built upon the subject site could be located within six feet of the north property line and would be able to achieve similar bulk proportions as the proposed multifamily structures. Under such circumstances, the effects of shadows and shading would be similar if not actually equivalent or worse due to the smaller side yards required of single family dwellings. 16. The ERC considered the potential secondary effects of the proposed rezone which would include actual construction of the units and the potential for further similar reclassifications of property south of the subject site. The DNS was predicated upon all such consequences. . 17. The data concerning the sun indicated that the property to the north would be deprived of sun at noon from October to February, inclusive, at a location relatively close to the house. At a point centrally located in the rear yard the sun would not show from August to April . This would be the effect of a 25-foot high structure about 10 feet from the property line. CONCLUSIONS: 1 . The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to "substantial weight" (RCW 43.21 .C.090) . Therefore, the determination of the Environmental Review Committee, the city' s responsible official , is entitled to substantial weight, and the appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the determination was in error. 2. The determination of non-significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn.2d 870, 880; 1980) . The Hayden court, in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council , 87 Wn.2d 267, 274; 1976, stated, "A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore, the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the test. For reasons stated below the decision of the ERC is affirmed. 3. As in the original determination there was no contention that the proposal was not a major action which could significantly affect the quality of the environment. Therefore, the ERC was required to determine whether, in fact, the subject proposal and its direct and indirect impacts would have a significant adverse effect on the quality of the environment. A major action is determined to have a significant adverse effect on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability (Norway, at 278) . The SEPA guidelines of the Washington Administrative Code offer some guidance in defining "more than moderate effect" and how it is arrived at. "The absolute quantitative effects of the proposal are (also) important. . ." (WAC 197-10-360(2)) . But it is not necessarily the size or scale of the proposal because. . ."The nature of the existing environment is an important factor. The same project may have a significant adverse impact in one location, but not in another location." (WAC 197-10-360(2) ) . 4. Reviewed under these criteria the decision of the ERC must be affirmed. The. ERC reviewed the subject proposal with an eye toward a comparative analysis with potential single family housing. The differences were found to be generally only those of density; the bulk, setback and resulting shading, shadow and glare effects were found to be similar for either the subject proposal or permitted single family uses. Any project constructed on the site would have to comply with the city's construction codes which includes a storm drainage ordinance. The project, assuming compliance with the mandatory ordinance, would not generally exacerbate the flooding problems and could conceivably diminish some of the problems. 5. An apartment complex already stands immediately east of the subject site on land classified R-3 (Medium Density Multifamily) east of the subject site. North of the apartment complex the two single family homes are also located on land classified R-3. The McKnight Middle School , a relatively intense use, is situated east of the subject site. ECF-001-81 Page Seven •�� Given these factors of the surrounding environment and the analysis of sewer, storm water, traffic, adjacent land uses, glare, and the comparative analysis of permitted uses by the ERC, it cannot be 'firmly concluded that the ERC committed a mistake. 6. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made, and based upon the record of both the earlier proceeding and the current proceeding, the decision of the ERC must be upheld. DECISION: The decision of the Environmental Review Committee is upheld. ORDERED THIS 3rd day of August, 1981 . #VI --SVStAA Fred J. Ka fan Land Use He ing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 3rd day of August, 1981 , by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: James E. Eeckhoudt, 17836 108th Avenue S.E. , Renton, WA 98055 Lewis Espinosa, 1408 Dayton Court N.E. , Renton, WA 98056 Adrian Reese Sheely, 1312 Dayton Avenue N.E. , Renton, WA 98056 Bob Jones, 1308 Dayton Avenue N.E. , Renton, WA 98056 Terre Scappini , 2400 N.E. 12th Street, Renton, WA 98056 Kameron Casey, P.O. Box 798, Renton, WA 98057 Peter Le, 1402 Dayton Court N.E. , Renton, WA 98056 TRANSMITTED THIS 3rd day of August, 198] 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 August 17, 1981 . Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such. appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal is governed by Title IV, Section 3011 , which requires that such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within 20 days from the date of the Examiner's decision. - l I Public Notice : Public Notice h"'' RO'S CORPORATION) ' plat approval for 12-lot ' Application for building commercial plat;proper- permit to construct an ty located south of Valley • approximate 4300 sq.ft. General Hospital,south- wood frame,single story west of the intersection building to house a family of Talbot Road South restaurant; property lo- and S.W.43rd Street. NOTICE OF cated on tftb south side Further information re- NOTICE OF AL o f N.E: ,,Sunset garding this action is avail- DETERMINATION Boulevard, Co rt N ast of Whit- able ment, the Munic pain Planning Building, Environmental Review DAVE BEST (ECF-634- Renton, Washington, 234- Committee 80) 2550. Any appeal of ERC Renton, Washington Application for rezone action must be filed with the The Environmental Ro- from G to R-3 to permit Hearing Examiner by June view Committee (ERC) has future construction of 8, 1981. issued a final declaration of multiple family dwellings; Published in the Daily Re- non-significance fcr the fol- property located on the cord Chronicle May 25, lowing projects: west side of Talbot Road 1981. R6558 , DURWOOD BLOOD South approximately (ECF-601-80 and ECF= 1,000 feet south of S.W. 001-81) 43rd Street. Application for a rezone FRED BOWSER (ECF- from R-1 to R-2 along 033-81)• with a special permit to Application for rezone construct ten townhouse condominium uni ts;pro- future construction of party lying west of Ed- multiple family dwellings; monds Avenue ted on the wenN.E. 13th Street we t side lof Talbot Road and N.E. 14th Street. South approximately 1/4 The Environmental Re- mile south of S.W.43rd view Committee (ERC) has Street. further issued a final decla- ONE VALLEY PLACE • ration of non-significance PROPERTIES (ECF- I with conditions for the fol- 033-81) lowing projects: Applications for rezone P I E T R O'S GOLD from G to P-1 to allow COAST PIZZA PARLOR development of office (ECF-048-81) (PIET- complex and preliminary Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ss. Michele Roe being first duly sworn on oath,deposes and says that she is the C`+3 of Clerk of THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Daily Record Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County, J Washington.That the annexed is a....Notiae...R6,S58 y/t R6.558 J as it was published in regular issues(and not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period of 1 consecutive issues,commencing on the 2� day of May ,19 81 ,and ending the day of ,19 ,both dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of •O� Sn which has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the first insertion and per folio of one hundred words f r each subsequent insertion. ke,,-- Clef Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this 29 day of .May , 19.8l. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at4404t,-K tng County. Auburn - —Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June 9th, 1955. —Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. V.P.C.Form No.Si Rev.7-79 FINAL 6ARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICI r Application No (s) : SP-089-80 R-001-81 Environmental Checklist No (s) : ECF-601-80 ECF-001-81 Description of Proposal: Application for Rezone from R-1 to R-2 to permit future construction of 10 townhouse condo- minium units under Special Permit approval. Proponent: Blood, Durwood Location of Proposal: 1 South side. of N.E. 14th Street approximately 130 ' west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. Lead Agency: Planning Department This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on September 10, 1980, January 21 , 1981 , and after being remanded by the Hearing Examiner on May 20, 1981 , following a presentation by Steve Munson of the Planning Department. Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on applications ECF-601-80 and ECF-001-81 are the following: 1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheets, prepared by: Steve Munson, Assistant Planner DATED: September 3, 1980 January 19, 1981 2) Applications: SP-089-80 and R-001-81 3) Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance were received from Fire, Building, Planning, and Police Departments and from the Engineering, Traffic and ,Utilities Divisions of the Public Works Department. Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined this development does not have significant adverse impact on the environment. An EIS is not required under RCW 43. 21C. 030 (2) (c) . This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a complete environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Reasons for declaration of environmental non-significance: 1 . The proposal will not adversely affect adjacent properties or signi- ficantly impact public services. 2. All of the environmental concerns including (1 ) storm water, (2) sewer availability, (3) traffic, (4) adjacent land uses, and (5) glare expressed in the public hearing held before the Hearing Examiner on April 7, 1981 , were considered by the ERC in their deliberation. Signatures : Ronald G. Nelson Da i R. Clemens A Act ing ing Building Director I Planning Director Ri hard C. Houghton/ Acting g Public Works Director DATE OF PUBLICATION: May 25, 1981 EXPIRATION OF APPEAL PERIOD: June 8 , 1981 OF R ;O 0 THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 m BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT °90 co- 235- 2550 047'e0 SEPle° February 2, 1981 Durwood E . Blood 1202 North 37th Street Renton, Washington 98055 Re : Application for rezone , file no . R-001-81, 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 . Gentlemen : The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on January 6 , 1981 . A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for February 17, 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 , --Veia,de•-,CTLA4t4K- Rogell J . Blaylock, Associate Planner RJB :yb , • Io Tea r L , t GENERAL LOCATION: AND ADDRESS: ', PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF N .E. 14•TH STREET APPROXIMAAELY 130 FEET WEST OF EDMONDS AVENUE N .E . LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE IN THE RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT S POSTED TO NOTIFY P •t !PE,- TY OWNERS OF TO BE HELD IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MUNICIPAL `BUILDING ON FEBRUARY 17, 1981 BEGINNING AT 9 :00 . _ A.M. P.M. • •ANC RNI :Y. 4 4" - FROM R-1 TO R-2 TO PERMIT FUTURE CONSTRUCTION r OF TEN TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUM UNITS FILE NO . R-001-81 ,„„ E A P R L • • SHS ' EUN? F . 3, x:�I GE PERMIT r"' FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE WAS ISSUED EXPIRATION OF APPEAL PERIOD ; FEBRUARY 8, 1981 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL 23$ 2550 T1-IIS NOTICE 6 OT Tip BE REMOVE) WITHOUT. PROPER AUTHORIZATION r 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 FEBRUARY 17 , 1981 , AT 9 :00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: 1 . RAINIER SAND AND GRAVEL COMPANY Continued from December 23 , 1980 : application for special permit to fill and grade 1 . 6 million cubic yards over life of project , file SP-099-80; property located approximately 370 feet south of N.E. 3rd Street on hill east of Mt. Olivet Cemetery. 2. HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. Reopening of the public hearing by the Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner for consideration of the recreational element of the proposal: application for three lot short plat approval in R-4 zone, file Short Plat 095-80, and waiver of off-site improvements, W-096-80; property located on the west side of Edmonds Avenue N.E. (extended) between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street. 3 . RENTON VILLAGE VETERINARY SUPPLY COMPANY Applications for rezone, file R-137-80, from GS-1 and R-4 to B-1 to allow parking for commercial business and variance, file V-007-81 , 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. 4 . DURWOOD E. BLOOD Application for rezone, file R-001-81 , 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. Legal descriptions of files noted above are on file in the Renton Planning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 17 , 1981 , AT 9 :00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLISHED: February 1 , 1981 DAVID R. CLEMENS ACTING PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I, ROGER BLAYLOCK, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public , in and for the State of Washington residing in King County, on the 30th ;day of January, 1981 . SIGNED: 4 „ ' FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No (s) : R-001-81 Environmental Checklist No: ECF-001-81 Description of Proposal: Application for Rezone from R-1 to R-2 to permit future construction of 10 townhouse condo- minium units Proponent : Blood, Durwood Location of Proposal: South side of N.E. 14th Street approximately 130 ' west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. Lead Agency: Planning Department This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on January 21 , 1981 , following a presentation by Steve Munson of the Planning Department. Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-001-81 are the following: 1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheet, prepared by: Steve Munson, Assistant Planner DATED: January 19 , 1981 2) Applications : R-001-81 3) Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance: Planning and Police Departments Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined this development does not have significant adverse impact on the environment. An EIS is not required under RCW 43. 21C. 030 (2) (c) . This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a complete environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Reasons for declaration of environmental non-significance: 1 . Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Is limited to rezone only. Signatures : ,ZT-,e;- zi,r,c------ 7-e-ile--1 "4/ - , /" . 2( (it /// r '6W c' 6-(7( - on Nelson, Building Director cilavid R. Clemens , Acting Planning Director At41.,/a R ' hard C. Houghton, cting Public Works Director DATE OF PUBLICATION: January 25 , 1981 EXPIRATION OF APPEAL PERIOD: February 8 , 1981 OD/— ,t;•% 4.. rw- rid vt, n fk5 • A rt. %.44 1., .44 1.4 " _ - pR ef*p*BED ACTKAttli REZONE FROM R-1 TO R-2 TO PERMIT FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF TEN TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUM UNITS ••••=011. FILE R-001-81 GENERAL LOCA7ION AND OR ADDRESS PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF N.E. 14TH ST. APPROXIMATELY 130 FEET WEST OF EDMONDS AVE. N.E. POSTE * 1112 INA DT IFY ONTERESTEr3 PERCi"E EINIVIRONIVIENTAL ACTION. THE CITY OF RENT1 ENVIRONIVIENTAL REVIEW COIVIIVIITTEE E _:aA.C. HAS DETE.r IVIINIED THAT THE PR,O)POSS• ACTI iurN, EDDOES "1.74.-r SDES NCS11 HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE INIPACT ON THE ENVIRDN— ;',, ENT. A v,4 ENVIRONLIVIENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, ElWILL ILL FYI DT, BE REQUIRED. AN APPEAL 1.11F THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED. liVITFI THE ENTON HEARING EXAMINER BY 501w P.m, FEBRUARY 8, 1981 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION _ _ CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPARTWIENT 235-2550 DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION 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 : 1 . MT. OLIVET CEMETERY CO. (ECF-567-80) Application for special permit to fill and grade 11 -acre expansion area , file SP-047-80 ; property located north and east of existing Mt. Olivet Cemetery, east of N.E. 3rd St. in the vicinity of 100 Blaine Ave. N.E. 2 . PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL (ECF-630-80) Application for Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit, file SM-86-80 , to install 18 inch steel OD casing pipe within the Bronson Way Bridge; property located on the Cedar River immediately west of City of Renton Municipal Building. 3 . RENTON VILLAGE VETERINARY SUPPLY COMPANY (ECF-646-80) Application for rezone from GS-1 and R-4 to B-1 to permit parking for commercial uses , file R-137-80 ; property located on east side of Talbot Road South , south of FAI-405 and north of Puget Drive South. 4 . DURWOOD BLOOD (ECF-001 -81 ) Application for rezone from R-1 to R-2 to permit future construction of ten townhouse condominium units , file R-001 -81 ; property located on the south side of N.E. 14th St. approximately 130 feet west of Edmonds Ave. N. E. 5 . CITY OF RENTON (ECF-002-81 ) Application for exemption from the Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit , file SME-002-81 , to allow maintenance dredging of 1 . 2 miles of the Cedar River (75 ,000 cubic yards) ; property located from the mouth of the River to the Logan Street bridge. 6 . WILLIAM TSAO AND CO. (POITRAS) (ECF-005-81 ) Application for site approval to allow construction of a 12 ,000 square foot shopping center including three stores , file SA-008-81 ; property located on the south side of N. E. 4th St. approximately 600 feet west of Union Avenue N.E. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has further issued a proposed declaration of significance for the following project : 1 . NORTHWEST COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE COMPANY (AUSTIN COMPANY (ECF-602-80) Application for site approval for four two-story office building complexes , file SA-092-80; property located on the southwest corner of S.W. Lind Ave. and S.W. 16th St. Subject to the following conditions for proposed declaration of non-significance : a) Traffic impacts at S.W. 16th St . and Lind Ave. S.W. signal. b) Traffic capacity improvements on S.W. Grady Way and Lind Ave. S.W. c) Pedestrian access from S.W. Grady Way and Lind Ave. S.W. d�- - 2 - d) Contribution to 1-405 bridge improvement. e) Appropriate open drainage and wetland preservation. f) Perimeter off-site improvements. g) Plans to mitigate recreational impacts. Further information regarding this action is available in the Planning Department , Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the Hearing Examiner by February 8, 1981 . Published: January 25 , 1981 10 7 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-RO) 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) -, . �blic Notice Public Notice , NOTICE OF for the follt7tMn,proieci. ENVIRONMENTAL 1. NORTHWEST COM r_. 1-` DETERMINATION MERCIAL REAL ESTATE Affidavit of Publication • '�5'� • REVENVIRONMENTAL E PAN' COMPANY(ECF-602(AUSTIEO)N COM r'' W COMTTEY - �� RENTON,WASHINGTON Application fcr s;te ap STATE OF WASHINGTON The E►wironmentaI two-story Re proval for foe;two-sto of COUNTY OF KING ss view Committee (ERC) Ira: lice building complexes,file . issued a final declaration o SA-092-80;property locatec non-significance for the fot• on the southwest corner o liming projects: S.W. Und Ave. and S.W 1.MT.OLIVET CEME CM, 16th St. CO. (E�F ) Subs to the Mrlowin:tiCl813• + 06 being first duly sworn on Application specie conditions for proposed de permit to MI and grade 11• ciaratlon of non-sigrifi oath,deposes and says tha8}ae...is the .... ii.pr.-Cl ark of acre expansion area, fik Canoe: THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a SP-047-80;property Iccatec a)Traflc impacts at S`N week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been °Wenorth and metery,east of existing Mt si1gn St.and Lind Ave.S.Vd for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, Olivet Cemetery, east a signal• printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper N.E.3rd St in the vicinity o b) Traffic capacity im published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,and it is 100 Btalrs Ave.N.E. provements on S.W. Cra:t now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the 2 PACIFIC NORTHWEST Way and Lind y'.vo.S.W. aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Daily Record BELL(ECF•830•80) c)Pedestrian access fron Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Application for Shoreline S.W. Grady Way and Lint Court of the County in which it is published, to-wit, King County, Management Substantia• Are.S.W. Development Permit,. file d) Contribution to I-401 Washington.That the annexed is a Notice S86-UM 8D0 Install 18 inch bridge improvement. casing pipe within e)Appropriate open drain the Bronson Way Bridge. age and wetland preserva- R6e8 property located on the tion. Cedar River Immediately t) Perimeter off-site im- west of City of Renton provements. Municipal Building. g)Plans to mitigate rene- as it was published in regular issues(and 3. RENtON VILLAGE atonal impacts. not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue fur a period VETERINARY SUPPLY Further information re- COMPANY(ECF-846-80) garding this action is avai- Application for rezone able in the Plannir.g Depart- of consecutive issues,commencing on the from GS-1 and R-4 to 8-1 to anent, Municipal Building, permit parking for.commer- Renton, Washington, 235- edal uses,file R-137-60;pro• 2550. Any appeal of ERG 25 da of -•�. ....• located on east side of action must be fllad with the Y J&c'1U.$.�•� t 19....8�,.,and ending the Talbot Road South,sou i of Hearing Examine, by Feb- FAI-405 and north of Puget ruary 8, 1921. Drive South. Published in the Daily Re- day of ,19 both dates 4. DURWOOD BLOOD turd Chronicle on Jannar' inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- (ECF-001-81) 25, 1£31. R6343 scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee Application for:rezone — from R-1 to R-2 to permit (15 charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of °'49' I which townhouse• futureconstruction condominium has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the units,file R-001-81;property first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent located on the south side of insertion. , ^ N.E. 14dt St.approximately /� 130 feet west of Edmonds ..,..t. 64;.i.:2.. .L...../',.G: Ave.N.E. 5.CITY OGRENTON(ECF- Cbi©P Clerk oo1-e1)a ,` tion fromhhooreune Manage- 28 ment Substantial Develop- Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of merit Permit,file SME-002- 82. to allow maintenance JignUary Ig 31 dredging cf 12 miles of the Cedar River to cubated : l - yards); property located from the mouth of the River °, .C to the 1 ogsn Street bridge. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, 8.WIWAMTSAOANDCO. residing at Kent KingCounty. (�n•�)(ECF-005-81 A Application for site ap- preval to allow construction —Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June of a 12,000 square•foot 9th, 1955. shopping Center including three stores,file SA-008-81; —Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, properly located on the adopted by the newspapers of the State. south side of N.E. 4th St. • approxmately 800 feet west of Union Avenue N.E. The Environmental Re- view Committee(ERC)has /ureter,issued a proposed declaration of sigriificanco V.P.C.Form No.87 Rev.7-71 Date circulated : Comments due : 0442/ EINV/IRONMEINTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 00f - g APPLICATION No (s) . 4_o®t• go PROPONENT : 844, 2,)v1,-44/oevi , PROJECT TITLE : $6'67044( Brief Description of Project : ifei ties re,269,7e S��Cj/��e9',5s%7(e' j�0'�wtA R 4 fUrpdsa 0f 3.sAiet40") of (p) 7fm,itiovseCerjdmiwom$ LOCATION : S S49`4e �•te E`% �7. e fgoox. /3 !,genes%-10,4,►tr1'S lire,4' SITE AREA : r � a 'T BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO '1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : r/ 3 ) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6) Noise : t� 7) Light & glare :_ 8) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : t/ 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : ,yo, L IL),/ p Uk if- G {b� o,„ts ^ivTal ,-,,9sG traffic impacts : /V/i �a?'`-- 14 ) Public services : f v 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : 19) Recreation : G 20 ) Archeology/history : U� COMMENTS : Recommendation : DNSI DOS1 More Information Reviewed by :/� i— / �2 i-' ',Title : /✓c2 f77 47 / Est Date : /� 1b -7/ FORM: ERC-06 Date circulated : ?PO/ Comments due : �®/P ENVIRO\,ry'ENITAL CHECgKLIST RE@9IEY SHEET ECF - col - gt APPLICATION No (s ) . ~400/' 90 PROPONENT : 5fD 1 /Dvr�®ev, PROJECT TITLE : ifg ��D/(��" Brief Description of Project : lotteepe5i4Ve/'P.7arie Z.-coked5,K' 7�res,i 44 4 ,R-i i %p8.p 65 c of coxes&e'L of f) ?vntihv,se<<n+,4,0,,..,s LOCATION ; 5 /e hE/ 4I4 pox. Me) es 410,41`a,mat. SITE AREA : r (30 b q9 d BUILDING AREA (gross) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : �- IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : ✓ 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : ✓/ 3) Water & water courses : ,/ 4) Plant life : ,✓ 5 ) Animal life : V/ 6) Noise : 7) Light & glare : vi 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : i / 9 ) Natural resources : /- 10 ) Risk of upset : ✓ 11 ) Population/Employment : ,// 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE) : traffic impacts : 14) Public services : I ✓ 15 ) Energy : /7 16) Utilities : ✓ 17 ) Human health : ,/ 18 ) Aesthetics : - v/ 19 ) Recreation : ✓ o 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : I�� Recommendation . Dop_ oOS A More Information Reviewed by : ,� ,,` .� _ Title : Date : ' FORM: ERC-06 / Date circulated : 1imA/ Comments due : 040/S/ ENVIIR®IbMENITAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - - g# APPLICATION No (s ) . 14)-OOI` ,90 PROPONENT : 5lo0-60j iptirktipeu C, PROJECT TITLE : R6.204/6— Br ie f Description of Project : /fe.pve50' v /'•eZdsnE ScdoeleeVSi Ke, ere sM "( Fv =pZ fekr ONe�Q�ale O 6 COGS/7i e.P�ehi D 6) 7il�tisAdvse CaxJmi�Iioms LOCATION : S. Sie e ple /Vl ENO rY: 50,prox. /�30 iGv e.SYo1F'r4.:1101 S I' /V( SITE AREA : r 4(3, p y9 0 BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : ✓ 3) Water & water courses : `r 4) Plant life : ✓/ 5 ) Animal life : ✓ 6) Noise : +� 7) Light & glare :_ ` 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9) Natural resources : `f 10 ) Risk of upset : c� 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE) : traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : - 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : I COMMENTS : Recommendation : SI ✓ DOS More Information Reviewed by : -n l ` Title : ` Date : V23/6 FORM: ERC-06 , Date circulated : /1/M4 i Comments due : /IP0/40°, ENIVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - (9/ - �1 APPLICATION No (s ) . 4_00/• 490 PROPONENT : 844/ Dl1rl i®od PROJECT TITLE : 6-041(6— Brief Description of Project : /egetoeSe"OtOrea®nye �ede/eSSi?Pr turps si ei4bn Ols 6) 76la,,dovieeernio mots LOCATION : 5 55de Gle E Af6Olie. ev,r®X. /34I/4,es4 f:cratros,,sI /VC SITE AREA : L (3, 0100 BUILDING AREA (gross) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : ^— IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes :_ ✓ 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3) Water & water courses : k 4) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : ✓ 6) Noise : ✓ 7) Light & glare : +� 8 ) Land Use ; north: east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : ✓ 9) Natural resources : 10) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : 14) Public services : 15 )- Energy : ✓ 16 ) Utilities : 0 k . 17 ) Human health : 18) Aesthetics : - k 19 ) Recreation : f/ 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : Recommendation : DNSI ) DOS More Information_ Reviewed by : /?/J0qiw-0,--- Title : jj „gut Date : FORM: ERC-06 y • , Date circulated : 00/ Comments due : 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW' SWEET ECF - 00i - g, APPLICATION No (s ) . 4e41.90(• PROPONENT : 5f,0-4 DUridieedir PROJECT TITLE : RCZO/V6--- Br ie Description of Project : ip p41pre.aorr`o red /��'eYSeKe. f `tt"I ' 8 V` pulp Ole ® SAeR Qe ((®) ('vst/lovse ecru/mir'omj LOCATION : . a�'e'4 e t, I?�E/ a,0 p x• /3O ld�/�`es4104;4rods Ore.i f'0 SITE AREA : 22q3, 000 BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : ^— IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : 4) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6) Noise 7 ) Light & glare :_. . 8) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : f 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : xxx 14 ) Public services : xxx 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : • 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : see comments on rezone application Recommendation : SI xx DOS More Information Reviewed by : L ,s,:, ! . Persson Title : Date : 1/19/80 FORM: ERC-06 % . Date circulated : 04/511 Comments due : 1i�01121 EMI iIR®Ibli°'EIIThtL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - OD/ - 91 APPLICATION No (s ) . R- bo - gi PROPONENT : areedi burwood G. Blood PROJECT TITLE : pc)F..c70We— Brief Description of Project : 19,rgesis 74 tc2ovie S044.3'r'ell Fowt R-11bJ4-r� 6r +rpose o CortSfrucTfon &;°)71oh.H houte cornks ueiwms LOCATION :$ side 4of'1YFt4/ "r''S' aeey. t(it,es / O` �e��or,�s c• (V� SITE AREA : q .3 0yip ' t. BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : — IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6 ) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : A A , ! /- 1, 8 ) Land Use ; north :,S(„vSrr Ariet1'9,4/Omit r-a�rpp+;/p /9 J east : Am. e&t+s I5;4 to GI. yb Cue thrtgS �� t I �• south : tiered west : IKite hum;l/ (Ayeilin,fs �A Land use conflicts :A 4theitCsuch ‘4, 'Roller (dosa.44eemfp r4s View obstruction : G/9) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : !• -• 12 ) Number of Dwellings : � ` 13 ) Trip ends ( I T E ) : eeCtde/t'ri'en4/74-i jo /Set y p Lep ,w7 opon cn,,oaefly of /9 IclECfsci71;, ould64a6 6 f a.c traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18) Aesthetics : 19 ). Recreation : VrIL 20 ) Archeology/history : t/ COMMENTS : 7 'I 6-&L eicievi 1.! ''r' 'f'S u'ii1ctt4A4 Cre4A Qa c e i s pro Sri c Ad a S't•7�e. TOMt4tgaltts 44aJl penal £5,X4it-4d � k • > � / , MAPIeUveril aveaS,Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information Reviewed by : eve fflusor Title : )61S7 I //aviner- Date : ffff/ i FORM: ERC-06 Date circulated : //RIO Comments due : p e/s/ ENVIRONMENTAL (CHECKLIST REVIEU SHEET ECF - CA91 - g APPLICATION No (s ) . 4d4004,• go PROPONENT : 8f i-4 Dul- c,d C, PROJECT TITLE : f I QCZ®,/6- Brief Description of Project : /i tde'5 rezep,e ..cc i'eeY-si�t*' ►' ~1 4 fl-4; •a1; r ir' e p rp dJ e Of cerpc..5 fro e4?I Of 0 76stmfiorise Car+ZAriol'oRt j LOCATION : S. ..s/Q ® /VC-itfl VeV/Draw. /93 0'iv e.5 cialr h ASt r. SITE AREA : r f3, 0 ye/ cA BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : '— IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : V. 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6 ) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : -„/7-7 6,- � View obstruction : f 9) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : X. 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : "( 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : _ X.--. COMMENTS : Recommendation : DNSI DOS More In or an on , Reviewed by : title : � d°� Date : a-2-1-6f/ FORM: ERC-06 ' Public Notice Public Notice NOTICE OF for the following project: ENVIRONMENTAL 1. NORTHWEST COM- • DETERMINATION MERCIAL REAL ESTATE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY(AUSTIN COM- REVIEW COMMITTEE PANY(ECF-602-80) RENTON,WASHINGTON Application for site ap- The Environmental Re prove'for four two-story of- view Committee (ERC) has fice building wmplexess file issued a final declaration a SA-092-60:property located non-significance for the fol on the southwest corner of lowing projects: S.W. Unci Ave. and S.W. 1.MT.OLIVET CEMETERY 16th St. CO. (ECF-567-80) Subject to the following Application for specie conditions for proposed de- permit to fill and grade 11 aeration of non-signifi- acre expansion area, file canoe: SP-047.3e;property locate( a)Ti$ffic impacts at S.W. north and east of existing Mt 16th St. and Lind Ave.S.W. Olivet Cemetery, east re signal. N.E.3rd St.in the vicinity o b) Traffic capacity lm. 100 Blaine Ave. N.E. provements on S.W. Grady 2. PACIFIC NORTHWEST Way and Lind Ave. S.W. BELL(ECF-630-80) c)Pedestrian access from Application for Shoreline S.W. Grady Way and Lind Management Substantia Ave. S.W. Development Permit, file d) Contribution to 1-405 SM-86-80,to install 18 inch bridge improvement. steel OD casing pipe withir e►Appropriate open drain- the Bronson Way Bridge; age and wetland preserve- property located on the Lion. Cedar River immediately 1) Perimeter off-site im- west of City of Renton provements. Municipal Building. g)Plans to mitigate recre- 3. RENTON VILLAGE atiibnal impacts. VETERINARY SUPPLY Further information re- COMPANY(ECF-6446-80) garding this action is avail- Application for rezone able in the Planning Depart- from GS-1 and R-4 to B-1 to ment, Municipal Building, patine parking for commer- Renton, Washington, 235- cial uses,file R-137-80;pro- 2550. Any appeal of ERC perty located on east side of action must be filed with the Talbot Road South,south of Hearing Examiner by Feb- FAI-405 and north of Puget niary 8, 1981. Drive South. Published in the Daily Re- 4. DURWOQD BLOOD cord Chronicle on January • (ECF-001-81) 25, 1981. R6348 Application for rezone from R-1 to R-2 to permit future construction of ten townhouse condominium units,file R-001-81;property located on the south side cf N.E. 14th St.approximately 130 feet west of Edmonds Ave. N.E. 5.CITY OF RENTON(ECF- 001-81) Application for exemption from the Shoreline Manage- ment Substantial Develop- ment Permit, file SME-002- 82, to allow maintenance dredging of 1.2 miles of the Cedar River (75,000 cubic yards); property located from the mouth of the River to the Logan Street bridge. 6.WILLIAM TSAO AND CO. (POITRAS)(ECF-005-81) Application for site ap- proval to allow construction of a 12,000 square foot shopping center including three stores,file SA-008-01; property located on the south side of N.E. 4th St. approximately 600 feet west of Union Avenue N.E. The Environmental Re- view Committee (ERC)has further issued a proposed declaration of significance 12 '` i/491 Planning RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application . ?i ,F'•4 .;' y 4'. I':•. , .. ;:f" ,,,:: t -! @- . ,. , I- `'/' s s Pq la A-2 crefr leltio porpoise deCO " u e b w 6.eOhibeustio USe Algae ® Location : 5, sae,etAfelfeatSiairoY. /30°e F ie J iJc Ave.NE Applicant : ,:1e®al I)44 rui604 E, TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : c2 /1 749/ Police Department A. R. C. MEETING DATE : IWOi Public Works Department E R C ° ` I % ' ' 1 En ' eering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING F THE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON 112/ ® AT 9 :00 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR EPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PLEA PRs ,M DE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 :00 P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 7-21 e /c ,� 7, �7// Approved // Approved with Conditions Not Approved p,,, i ( 61 e-EJ'74 / ltir p 9-z-,I C, [�Cr7 /,f ob., 5;/1 z-4 S/c (C.ih, L, I k G /CJQ as 6[) 6 5 3 u l f,-)—s J i CJ P_a}c1 CG( 5 r'c3" pit/!7 J ry- a./A: Ccii 4,0/ -L.0 !,-74--)-Se /i-co �i z)I: N //��'f/ e ,r�4,J i472e 1UE. /.�G,Lt, �*,-, s ,s f v a 547, ter-- 4), v6,4=n�c4,_s p i -Z� S./oP S, .7 kLN� 5/ -e('c "e -/r y �PAo .. a, C ' ltiia-?'-'fQ•_,__,\ /-(o'_.6)1 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative / Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date I/!Q/9j Planning 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Appl i cation : 24/Ae Oa'06/•5/ 4 'ifItereitlfe,pe2anesoivet S'ie ('eo FL'i de.a. tar -FM pale de con dr' WIMP% 44(ohibav+liausi (.albs Location : � �, af°�. , f,, y i °, t 1' ,f ` . 1 Appl i cant: B/ a J, f urwaess4 E. TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : 0-//7/9/ Police Department A. R. C. MEETING DATE : Jif/e9/ Public Wo s Department C o ` " • 1 , Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITI G F THE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON IF ( 4, 'I AT 9 :UU A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. UR EPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE Tp ATTEND THE ARC, PLE PR E THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:OU P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : rr .:. �ineeri�J Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved .(4) f rd.4/ by/ 714, ��s cLi� G d -571- 41 Gva/ �z) 5 ,/ St.t.f.iL'v i5 no" read, /7 a.vet i/ IL (3) P055,6 error- i.a kfr/deaf tip/Ape.... CSe Cry •1 9wif C/ti.w 7)44.4, 4 Z/Z3Z4-1 ) Le2 /-23-1/ Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date C, REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date I/11(9 j Planning , 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application : RE211VEtieil.®af-s® 94tjiest"/o,e,ekesp eefsift, 6.s � p., 10 4Q 41r e pbvase al C,Mdrodi0W 44(0)4#ii4. ,je e.r4 La c a t i on : S. Side ete AlElfategf. a/ rO3e lioitt,eliktfribitestil Ave.Afr Applicant: Bktial 0u rev604 Co TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED NEARING DATE : 01O0l(9> Police Department A, R, C, MEETING DATE : I/J®/92, Public Works Department ..RC. it " • I f Engineering Division Tr fic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITI ® �HE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON AT 9:00 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, IF UR EPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TQ ATTEND THE ARC, PLE DE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P .M. ON f�I�PR� � . REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : (6 LZ Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved L.L. 6 62---,e-e.--- /-7_ i-.)9/ Signs re of Director r Authorized Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date 11 lq/Bj Planning 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Appl i cation : AZIA,4941-00/4.0 / e bei ie_,c2e*PSy4fArT,Si a (I°rs*' Ri 145 R-a 4'br 4-he pbrpese e1 Fort{frve4i01" 0'+(o)4 u4. a CoritiOS Location : _, Si ep C/ t aleproX. /ae)fct,effech„pn/S l'ivr•HE Applicant.: Bleed► Durwood' E. TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : Q-/t i/2/ Police Department A, R, C, MEETING DATE : 1/3//,/ Public Works Department C. ' t - " ' ' ' Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division tilities Engineering Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITI G FREVI EW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON l Z/ X/ AT 9 :00 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, IF YOUR EPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PLEA a�R DE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : --Jk6 Approved t/ Approved with Conditions Not Approved - CUti S-z2z-ec77d k) ed - - , 2ur.t � Av/71// ,4-r: /1/i- S/gL/ S & i le-Z- /A'Z-// Signature o Director or Auth;--" --74:1 Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : UMur`r Approved ✓ Approved with Conditions Not Approved 5,46•NC,"`f To L,,,J -41/2-✓ id ex-erA6si01,4 4 rit,!IY I e f ^yam i 25b Signatu a of Director or Authorized ' Representativ I /J e Date CITY OF RENTON V RECF1 frt �1\ RE7ONE APPLICATION! BAN 6 19 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY -d 81 Q LAND USE HEARI N' .� "`"�-..., �. APPLICATION NO. I"- C)01 C,�1 EXAMINER 'S ACTI 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 Durwood E. Blood Phone 255-9540 Address 1202 North 37th, Renton, Washington 98055 3. Property petitioned for rezoning is located on N.E. 14th St. West of Edmonds N.E. between and 4 . Square footage or acreage of property 43,049.3 square feet, 5 . Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach a separate sheet) See attached 6 . Existing Zoning R-1 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. town- 7. Proposed use of site to construct 10 house condominium units under special permit 8. List the measures to be taken to reduce impact on the surrounding area. landscaping, planting and screening as required 9 . How soon after the rezone is granted do you intend to develop the site? immediately \10. Two copies of plot plan and affidavit of ownership are required. Planning Dept. 1 \ 1-77 AFFIDAVIT I, Durwood E. Blood , 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 /CPZ-day of October , 1980 , Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at /; 07 v .4_./..4,.-_,..--e-f_/...-e.--e.k -'07el e-It-a 9 Name of Notary Public) (Signature of Owner) 9i, Lr__&'� i,, ,- e-- 1201 North 37th (Address) (Address) • Renton, Washington (City) (State) - 255-9540 (Telephone) (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found to be thorough and complete in every particular and to conform to the rules and regulation's of the Renton Planning Department governing the filing of such application . 1 Date Received , 19 By: Renton Planning Dept . 2-73 -.. . . . __ - Zj -J - Transamèruca Transamerica• (� I��• Title Insurance Company THIS SPACE P `DID F9RtRECr1RDER'S USE: Title Insurance Services V9ir . • KING COUNTY FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF ' EXCISE TAX PAID `� r 17,,._�A!. 6 n c -. ram,••,,, r�:. ` / • 4 q •FEa2Q1980 Aii ' .,, c E05'7992'7 • C; G+,BEPA __ WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO WESTERN COMMUNITY BANK `' Ci • 'O'7 : :: f% ti; f-••-,.k • • • • cc • Addresscc .P.O. BOX 7127 — . ct Li• 7'W • o • TACOMA, WA 98407 Qu(A) d, City,State,Zip L n O S55- 00• Quit Claim Deed (-1 ala3a�- 9 THE GRANTOR WESTERN COMMUNITY BANK, A Washington Corporation • for and in consideration of FIFTY FOUR THOUSAND •EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN and 89/100****** 1 • conveys and quit claims to DURWOOD E. BLOOD the following described real estate, situated in the County of KING State of Washington, together with all after acquired title of the grantor(s) therein: , PARCEL A: THE WEST 130 rEra' OF THE NORTH HALF OF TRACT 211, C.D. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON, GARDEN OF EDEN DIVISION NO. 4, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF • PLATS, PAGE 82, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, EXCEPT THE SOUTH 160 YE E!' THEREOF, • AND EXCEPT THE NORTH 30 1,1E2 AND THE WEST 40 .F.ElEr OF SAID TRACT 211 CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON BY, DEED RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 5306226. • • TOGETHER WITH VACA'1'rD N.E. 14TH STREET ADJOINING, VACATED BY ORDINANCE NO. 3261 • TOGETHER WITH THE PORTION OF THE WEST 30 rr:r;i' OF THE NORTH HALF OF LOT 211, PARCEL B: THE SOUTH 160 Pi n.' OF THE WEST 130 r•rsra' OF THE NORTH HALF OF TRACT. 211, C.D. HILLNIAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON' GARDEN OF EDEN DIVISION NO. 4, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT • RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 82, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, EXCEPT THE WEST 40 ij r THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 5306226. Dated rrbt3RUARY 14, , 19 80 . WESTERN COMMUZ_,t,." • o.n. \f ~- /- .., /��//// CE (Pr ,<,) - 0 (Secretary) • )` 40' STATE OF W CJ I h STATE OF WASHINGTON • ' . . :v of,.. "„'.�/� ss. PIERCE ss. COUNTY OT:,..., ._��: o ..) COUNTY OF On this - , before me On this 14th.day of FEBRJ ' , 19 80 )b3f 3H�� m before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Wash- ;'," ¢ ington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared to me k m described in and STEPHEN..T..---HEXER who e• 0ti egoing instrument, and 4� Y f and.: 0� signed the same , to me known to be theASSt Vice President and • • Secretary, ' as ,`2.9 ,luntary act and deed, respectively,of WESTERN..COM IT .B,.NK � `•' f c -�,2•4�' Wherein mentioned. • the corporation that executed the foregoing. instrument, and acknowledged • y the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corpor- // 9 A ation, for the uses and purposes.therein mentioned;?and on oath stated that ///// / ..Ile ig authorized to execute-the sajd iiistrtiment and that thg seal ' ///// • g hand and official seal this affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. '. ' • 0'-/// , 19 Witness - I•and official seal hereto affixed the:.day and year first above writte / Ali.. �_ • Notary Public in and for the State of Wash- .1. ary P blic in d for the St :o ashington, ington, residing at •siding a Z-... .. .... Form No. W-748 ' ,r 1•� •o JIISTIFICATION FOR RE-ZONE FA `'•s EN1 The applicant seeks a change of zone from R-1 to R-2. Applicant originally believed that the property was zoned R-2 and, in the process of applying for a special permit to construct townhouse units on the property discover that the property was actually zoned R-1. Substantially all of the materials required for the permit application are also required in the rezone application and this justification form is written with the assumption that the reader will have available all of the documents that had been submitted both for the permit application and now for this rezone. The applicant believes that a brief review of events that have occurred during his acquisition of this property would be helpful. Applicant first signed an Earnest Money Agreement to purchase this property in March, 1979. The agreed price was $52,500.00 which was an appropriate price considering that time and assuming an R-2 zone. The former owner had listed the property under a written listing declaration that stated that the property was R-2. In investigating the development possibilities of this property, applicant viewed at least one city map that also marked this property as being R-2. Because of the representations of the seller, the applicant did not check on the zone matter more closely. The applicant and the original owner fell into dispute as to contract terms and that dispute delayed applicant's acquistion of title until February, 1980 when he finally acquired title by a deed from a bank that had obtained the property in satisfaction of a mortgage debt. Applicant then applied to the City for a permit to build the ten townhouse units. During that application process additional title problems with reference to his ownership of the vacated portions of adjacent 14th Street were developed and resolution of those problems took several more months. Then and only then did both he and the City officials with whom he was working on the permit application take a more careful look at the zoning and discovered that the property was R-1. The upshot of all this is that the applicant has been stalled on development plans for almost two years. None of the delay is attributible to the City but the -1- applicant feels it is fair to point this out as part of this presentation. Looking at the Assessor's map which has been supplemented to show all property within 500 feet, you will see that the property is bordered on the East by property zoned R-3. There is also R-3 at the Southeast and Southwest corners of the Northeast 12th - Edmonds N.E. intersection. All other immediately adjacent property is R-1 or G7200. The applicant would urge that a rezone of this property to R-2 is appropriate and would act as a buffer between the R-3 and adjacent R-1 properties. Attached is a sequence of photographs taken on the site and arranged in panoramic groupings of three photos each with each of the "pans" taken from a single position. The silver colored subcompact auto remains in the same position in all of the three groups to help orient the viewer. In group I the photographer is standing on the Northeast corner of the property and pans from the Northeast corner to the Southwest corner (which is obscured in brush and cannot be effectively photographed). In group II the photographer is standing on the Northeast corner looking to the South and West. In group III he is standing on the East line half way between the Northeast and the Southeast corners and looking North. In group I and group II one can see the hillside nature of the property and in group III you can see that a substantial number of the adjacent single residence houses are lower than the level of this property. In group I the dominating presence of the apartment building on the R-3 property is very apparent. McKnight Middle School can been seen across Edmonds N.E. and note that the owners of the adjacent single residences have already erected a 5 foot chainlink fence to buffer themselves from the R-3 and the subject property. In group III another small apartment house fronting on Edmonds N.E. can been seen to the North. The last and single photograph shows the adjacent street, Edmonds N.E. and access to the subject site is marked by a red arrow. The large apartment building is going downhill somewhat. Careful study of the -2- I j eab back parking lot/shows the need for some garbage pickup, some deterioration of the roof and in group III note the auto fender leaning against the West wall of that building. The applicant plans to develop by construction of the ten townhouse units referred to in his permit application. Applicant is cognizant of the single residence development but would urge that topographically and actually his parcel is a transitional parcel between the R-3 and the surrounding R-1. Applicant would agree, as a condition precedent to any approval of R-2 that the subject property be encumbered with restrictive covenants limiting development to the proposed townhouse form and that screening or planting be achieved along the North, South and West boundary lines. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DURWOOD E. BLOOD 1202 North 37th Renton, Washington 98055 255-9540 1 -3- , fY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON O FE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM iC> '�� r lfreh 4/•)` -° 19 .,., 81 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ' 2 • • , 2 �•C Application No• 12 Environmental Checklist No. C")'F-a4/ -e.P ' PROPOSED, date: FINAL , date: Declaration of Significance Declaration of Significance 0 Declaration of Non-Significance 0 Declaration of Non-Significance \ COMMENTS: Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals . The Act also requires that an EIS be prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The .purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you can, with the information presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele- vant to the answers you 'provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all agencies involved with yourproposal to undertake the required environmental review with- out unnecessary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal , not just to the license for which you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed, even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, with- out duplicating paperwork in the future. NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State of Washington for various types of proposals . Many of the questions may not apply to your proposal . If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question. - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I . BACKGROUND 1. Name. of Proponent Durwood E. Blood 2. Address and phone number, of Proponent: 1202 No. 37th Renton, Washington 255-9540 3. Date- Checklist submitted December. 30, 1980 4. Agency requiring Checklist City of Renton - Planning rkzpartne it 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: Application for-R-2 zoning, .West .130 ft. north half Tract 211, C.D. Hillman Lk. Wash. Garden Durwood P. Rlnnd -- of Edeii No. 4. 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) : To construct ten (10) townhouse c'ondomi n i,yn units in the manner proposed ]n perms a 7 i nc; i =T'P 1 n„c13�-.sL1�1R17.t @d. _ J . w-1 - �1 -2- A 7. Location of proposal •(describe the physical setting of the. proposal , as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts , including any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environ- mental setting of the proposal) : . . . 326 foot by .130 foot ]o-t- lying 122 feet west of Edmonds Avenue N.P. • and adjacent to apartment buildings fronting Edmonds N.F. Moderate hillside lot with all utility services available, only minimal. clearing 8 grading req i red_ 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : 12/15/81 9. List of all permits , licenses or government approvals required for the proposal (federal , state and local --including rezones) : City building p rrpi-t 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: None 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: See permit to construct ten (10) townhouses pursuant to then assumed, R-2 zone previously s;,lmitted_ • 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 • X substructures? • YES, MAYBE NO (b) Disruptions, displacements , compaction or over- covering of the soil? X YES MAYBE NO (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief X features? • ES MAYBE (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any - unique g.eolog.ic, or. physical. features? X YES MAYBE NO (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , X either on or off the site? • YES MAYBE NO (f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands , or changes in• siltation,, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the ' X bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet .,or lake? YES 'MAYBE NO Explanation: -3- (2) Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? YES MAYBE NO (b) The creation of objectionable odors? X YES MAYBE NO (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature , or any change in climate , either locally or X regionally? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (3) Water. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents , or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X YES MAYBE NO (b) Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? YES MAYBE NO (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? YES MAYBE NO (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? YES MAYBE NO (e) Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X YES MAYBE NO (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of 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? X YES MAYBE NO (i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees , shrubs , grass , crops , X microflora and aquatic plants)? YES MBE NO (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or X endangered species of flora? YES- MAYBE NO (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing X species? YES MAYBE IO (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: , r r -4- - A " (5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the diversity of species , or numbers of ' any species of fauna (birds , land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms , X insects or'micrbfauna)? YES MAYBE NO (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? X YES MAYBE NO (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? X YES MAYBE NO (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or X glare? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X YES MAYBE NO (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) X in the event of an accident or upset conditions? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population X of an area? YET- MAYBE TO-- Explanation: r//// -5- (12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or X 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: Assume 10 to 15 vehicles of occupants of units, but all parkingjt ould be off the su 11 ect property. (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? 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? YES MAYBE NO (f) Other governmental services? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: There would be virtually no difference in the increase of these governmental services whether the property was developed as R-1 (appro inRtely five (5) lots)or R-2 with the ten townhouse units assumed in petitioner's accompanying permit application. (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? YES MAC NO Explanation: , • (16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems,- or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? X YES MAYBE NO (b) Communications systems? X YES MAYBE NO (c) Water? X _ YES MAYBE NO -6- .. • (d) Sewer or septic tanks? X YES MAYBE NO (e) Storm water drainage? X YES MAYBE NO (f) Solid waste and disposal? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: Services will be needed for ten singe family residence' units. (17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: • (19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality_or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X YES MAYBE NO _Explanation: (20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? X M YESMAYBE NO Explanation: • III. SIGNATURE - I , the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that-the lead agency may withdraw any decla- ration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: (signed) Durwood E. Blood (name printed) City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 • Affidavit of Publication ¢.:fir, `NPub`IicNotice V-00781for reduction of STATE OF WASHINGTON reguueit 5 foot landscaping COUNTY OF KING ss. ; i i rnent to portion of right-of-way.,of SR 515,and lease of 20 foot strip of SR- 515 right-of-way for relo- cated 5 foot landscaping being first duly sworn on strip;property located on the • east side of. Talbot Road she Chi of Clerk South,south of FAI-405and oath,deposes and says that is the of I north of Puget Drive South. THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a 1 4.DUR WOOD-E.BLOOD week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been Apc;ication for rezone;filer for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, R-00'-81,from R-1 to R-2 to' printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper permit future construction of published four(4)times a week in Kent.King County,Washington,and it is I'ten townhouse con- now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Daily Record catedr ;nionm units; uth side tof Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior on the,south side approxi- Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County, N.E 14th Street esto mateiy 130 feet west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. Washington.That the annexed is a..NQ.tic.e...of..He,aring Legal descriptions of files noted above are on file in the NOTICE OF Renton Planning Depart- " R6.356 ` PUBLIC HEARING ment. All interested r@o EARING LAND USE said petitions are invited,to publishedc o g HEARING EXAMINER be present at the Public as it was in regular issues(and RENTON, WAHSINGTON not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period J A ublie hearin will be Hearing on February 17, I held by the Renton Land 1981, at 9:00 a.m. to ex- I Use Hearing Examinerat his press their opinions. „ 1 regular meeting in the Coun- David R.Clemens ofconsecutive issues,commencing on the re Chambers,City Hall,Re- Acting Planning D rector nton, Washington, on Feb- Published in the Daity23' cord Chro de 1 day of February 19 81 ,and ending the i ruary 17, 1981,at 9:00 a.m. R6358 1;• t, ..P 1981° - to consider the following ,a2,r,?,*s:- :,y'Ar•-->;. petitions: 1.-RAINIER SAND AND -` -, day of ,19 both •dates GRAVEL COMPANY = inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- Continued from December • scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee 23, 1980: application !for ' special permit'to fill arid 6 grade 1.6 million cubic yards charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $. !9, which over life of project,Jae SP- has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the 099-80;property located ap- first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent proximately 370 feet-south _ insertion. of N.E.3rd Street on hill east ,littpit&fej612...., of Mt.Olivet Cemetery. 2. HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. — Reopening of the public•I Chi.of Clerk , hearing by the Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner for consideration of the recrea- Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6 day of I tional element of the propos- al: application for three lot short plat approval in R-4 ..F.ehrua} , 19..81. zone,file Short Plat 095-80, e and waiver of off-site'im- provements,W-096-80;pro- ' ---. ....e party located on the west - Notary ublic in and for the State of Washington, side of Edmonds Avenue residing at iteet King County. N.E. (extended)' between Auburn N.E.3rd Street and N.E.4ih Street. —Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June 3. RENTON VILLAGE 9th, 1955. I VETERINARY SUPPLY • COMPANY —Applications —Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, for rezone, file R-137-80, adopted by the newspapers of the State. from GS-1 and R-4 to B-1 to _ allow parking for commercial busiriewarifyariance;•fili - V.P.C.Form No.87 Rev.7-79 \ - ENDING OF FILE FILE TITLE I � I