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 AboutLUA87-082 (2) BEGINNING OF FILE FILE TITLE S A . V If.i P / I • ,lcNc, O1 •. c% CITY �F RENT CF5z-b 7 Office of the City Attorney Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren January 25, 1993 Ms . Hillis Clark lly aMartin & Peterson 13EVEGrke RFNjGN 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue 1993 Seattle, Washington 98101-2925 181 Re: Lexington Ridge Q cek i -t) Dear Sally: n� A group of city officials met with you and your client on January 14, 1993 . As part of that meeting it was agreed that your client would submit, in writing, a proposal to the city to modify the site plan for Lexington Ridge so that the city would have something to review. In the meantime, I was going to schedule a meeting with city staff to try and get a process started to handle the proposed changes . The city staff has conducted that meeting but many of the answers are dependent upon the site plan submittal . To date nothing has been received by the city. There was one telephone call to Gregg Zimmerman from Mr. Dodds . Gregg is returning that telephone call and again requesting a written submittal . My meeting with the city did not point to any insurmountable problems, at least in the abstract, and not knowing what your client proposes . However, there are a number of procedural processes and other questions that must be answered. Since time is of the essence, I am somewhat concerned that time is passing and no proposal has been received. Ver truly yours, Lawrence J. arren LJW:as . cc : Mayor Earl Clymer Jay Covington Lynn Guttmann Jim Hanson Gregg Zimmerman pon Erickson ,/Lenora Blauman A8 . 93 : 21 . Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street - Renton. Washington 98057 - (2061255-R678 ‘-r414) (7 )X*- /51-/ CITY OF RENTONo • ; " RECEIVED GRAHAM S� pg�_ D UNN APR0 3 1991 ATTORNEYS AT LAW `}1 r^M e `ti�� C'�-� t 1 + _ ke1GOD1:\OFFICE PLEASE REPLY TII gam- r (p�� r 33RD FLOOR + ' i�_r V� II�1 ®'V Io-7IoI`Y 1420 FIFTH AVENI ,`1 y, q III45 BROAIJI��SUITE IFucw SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 981Q1-,23O0 2 1. 1�• 1 Y.O.Box 1215 TOLL FREE FROM )"ACOMA:272-604f5 4 FACSIMILE:(206)340-9509 (20(3) 624'8300 M" TACOMA.WAS III\(:TO\6f1401-12I5 ,,.. (206)572-9294 ry;y1 V.'"',fOLL FREE FROM SEATTLE:624-0289 FACSIMILE:(200)572-6542 IRVIN W. SANDMAN (206)340-964I March 20, 1991 DIC)L- v 0 111 BY FAX AND FIRST CLASS MAILe)e na Lawrence J. Warren Pl0A'�-t- Renton City Attorney //10 \i1C-2 6 C l P.O. Box Sec • 3 626 -� 100 South Second Street 20 y !" Renton, WA 98057 Re: In re Canada-America Associates, L.P. W.D. Wa. Bankr. Cause No. 90-03783; Lexington Ridge Building Permit Application Dear Mr. Warren: With this letter is a conformed copy of an order entered by the Bankruptcy Court today. It verifies that Grahame Ross is the court appointed chapter 11 Trustee in this case and that, as such, he has the exclusive power and authority to proceed with the above Application. As we discussed, this will provide the City of Renton the 1 direction it needs to al ow hP`City tq coati ue Tgork=wi h th_e_Mr, T7Ross toward the issuance of a bu iding__permi:t. I would appreciate our advising the City's staff of this. We regret any inconvenience that may have been caused by the ill-agvised let Pr t n ;7n;� frnm 4;, ; a�Ki�rme_Qf Centron Equities. Please let me know if you require anything further. Very truly yours, GRAHAM & DUNN /n'j't Gv Irvin W. Sandman IWS:kmm cc: Grahame Ross Ft i=rr -i:V is D . � �: U.S.' Iptcy Court •:Jec_er..D.,, _ cr 1^/.-3ci+,ira(o i MAR 2 0 1991 Samuel J. Steinor The Honorable Samuel J. Steiner (iarkrup cv.JA fra 1 2 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 AT SEATTLE 4 In Re ) NO. 90-03783 5 ) 6 CANADA - AMERICA ASSOCIATES L.P. ) EX PARTE ORDER a Washington limited partnership ) DEMONSTRATING TRUSTEE's 7 ) RIGHT TO PROCEED WITF ) BUILDING PERMIT 8 Debtors. ) APPLICATION PROCESS 9 This matter having come on for hearing before the Court on the 10 Trustee' s Ex Parte Motion for Order Demonstrating Right To Proceec 11 with Building Permit Application Process, this Court deems it 12 reasonable, necessary, and in the best interest of the Estate that 13 it grant the Trustee the relief he seeks on an ex parte basis. 14 Therefore, the Court finds and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 15 1) The 13 . 4 acre parcel of raw land in Renton known as 16 Lexington Ridge (the "Property") is property of this bankruptcy 17 Estate ("Estate") ; 18 2) _ Grahame Ross ("Trustee") is the Court-appointed chapter it 19 Trustee in this Case; as such, the Property is within his. exclusive 20 control as the Estate's fiduciary; 21 3) As the sole fiduciary of the entity owning the Property, 22 the Trustee has exclusive authority to proceed with the Property's 23 building permit application currently before the City of Renton; and -)4 4) The City of Renton .is immediately to resume 5 dealings with the Trustee as the owner of the Property, to proceed 26 GRAHAM &DuNN 33RD FLOOR 1420 FIFTH?AVENUE SEATTLE.��'ASHINGTON 98101-2390 (200) 824-8300 F.,r•canal nan-asap with the building permit application currently pursued by t1 Trustee before the City, and to cooperate fully with any and a1 1 other efforts of the Trustee to complete development of the Propert 2 in accordance state law and local ordinance. 3 Done in open court this X day of March, 1991. 4 5 J. STFINER 6 U. S. Bankruptcy Judge 7 Presented by: 8 GRAHAM & DUNN 9 10 BY I vin W. Sandman 11 Attorneys for the Trustee 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER SHORTENING TIME - 2 • 1:\bkc\anaco\9ener\p\shortime.ord GRAHAM &D LJ1VN 33RD FLOOR 1420 FIFTH AVENUE SEATTLE.WASHINGTON 98101-2390 (206)824-8300 e r t; ±-7f) CITY F RENTON NAL Hearing Examiner Earl Clymer, Mayor Fred J.Kaufman April 29 , 1991 SOWA" '�F �'8� V6�la Z, Sally H. Clarke 40 kj,t0 Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-2925 Re: Lexington Ridge Extension Request SA-082-87 Dear Ms. Clarke: I have reviewed your letter of April 17 , 1991 asking that this office reconsider its denial of a request for a two-year extension. First, this office would not characterize the original response as a denial of a request for extension, since it did not deny an extension. Instead, this office suggested that the request was premature since conditions change, or could change, over the next intervening six months. It was suggested, instead, that you apply closer to the expiration date. While you may be correct that nothing seems to have changed since the original approval, there may be factors that have changed, or could change, over the next couple of months that could render an extension at this time premature. Therefore, once again, this office would suggest you submit a request to extend the site approval closer to the expiration date. To counter any concerns about the permit expiring, this office, generally, although not in all cases, considers a request for an extension to toll the running of the original permit while the request is being considered. If this office can be of further assistance, please feel free to write. Sincerely, FRED J. 1 UFMAN HEARING EXAMINER cc: Lawrence Warren, City Attorey Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator City Council Members 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2593 I Offices • HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON A Paofcssional Scraice Corporation 5PO Gallas i Building, I22I Sccund Avenue Seattle,A\ddtingtou PSII)I-2925 (296)62 i-1-45 HI,simile(296)623-7789 CITY OF REN ON PUNNING DIVISION APR 1 81991 RECEIVED April 17, 1991 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Lexington Ridge; File No. SA-082-87 Dear Mr. Kaufman: I have reviewed your April 4, 1991 letter denying our request for a two-year extension of the Lexington Ridge site plan approval and suggesting that we resubmit our request approximately one or two months prior to the October 13 , 1991 expiration date. We requested an extension at this time at the specific direction of the City's Zoning Administration staff who had urged us to apply for an extension as soon as possible and not to wait until only a few months before the expiration date. After we received your letter we again consulted with the City's Zoning Administration staff and with the City Attorney and confirmed that our understanding about the need to apply for an extension now was correct. We strongly urge you to reconsider your decision to delay acting on this issue. Pursuant to Renton City Code Section 4-31-33I, a single two-year extension of the site plan approval may be granted for good cause. Although more than $250, 000 has been spent on the planning, design, engineering, and environmental studies required to obtain site plan approval, the filing of a petition in bankruptcy and the appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee for the Estate has made it impossible for a building permit application to be filed during the past 18 months. Since site plan approval was granted, however, the zoning and comprehensive plan designations for the property have not changed. Furthermore, the Environmental Review Committee's conditions, imposed on the project as mitigating measures at the time of site plan approval , are consistent with the requirements the City is currently imposing on similar projects, including in particular the traffic mitigation fees that have been required. 4 r_ Mr. Fred J. Kaufman April 17, 1991 Page 2 This two-year extension is necessary at this time to preserve the value of the project, which is the sole asset of the Bankruptcy Estate. It will take a number of months and involve an expense of tens of thousands of dollars for a building permit application to be completed and filed and a number of additional months for the City staff to review and process the application. At the City's specific suggestion, we requested an extension of the site plan approval at this time to ensure that both the City and a future buyer will have sufficient time to review and process the necessary permits and to obtain financing for construction. Although you mentioned in your April 4 letter that the passage of time and a change of circumstance may make a project that was acceptable at one time, unacceptable under current conditions, that situation does not exist in this case. This project is consistent with current City zoning and environmental policies. We strongly urge you, pursuant to Renton City Code Section 4-8-15, to reconsider your decision and grant the two-year extension we have requested. Thank you for reconsidering our request. Very tr ly you s, Sally H. Clarke SHC:kk cc: Mr. Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Mr. Donald Erickson, Zoning Administrator Mr. Grahame Ross, Trustee in Bankruptcy Mr. Iry Sandman, Attorney at Law, Graham & Dunn 2 0 7 9 9 2 .w. '� ENTON •-11 „ ,- = CITY' JF R 6/ , , Hearing Examiner Ea Fred J.Kaufman Earl Clymer, Mayor CITY OF RE'TO APR 0 5 1991 April 4, 1991 M CO/ED vITX CLERICS OFFICE Sally H. Clark Attorney at Law HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-2925 Re: Lexington Ridge - SA-082-87 Dear Ms. Clark: This office has reviewed your letter of April 1, 1991 regarding a two year extension of the site plan approved on October 13 , 1989 . For the reasons stated below the request is denied at this time. Two provisions of the Renton Municipal Code deal with the extension of land use permits. The section you cited, Section 4-31-33 (I) , directly addresses site plan approval. The second section is Section 4-8-14 (E) which deals generally with land use decisions and their termination by passage of time. The second provision provides guidance as to why decisions expire. The passage of- time and change of circumstances may make a project that was acceptable at one time, unacceptable under current conditions. Since it is still approximately six months before this permit is to expire, it would be inappropriate to make that determination now. It is premature to review this request more than six months prior to the natural termination provided by code. Please feel free to resubmit this request approximately one or two months prior to the expiration date. If you need further assistance, please feel free to write. Sincerely, FRED J. UFMAN HEARING EXAMINER FJK/dk cc: Lawrence Warren, City Attorney Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator City Council Members 'nn /am AvP1111P Smith - Rentnn_ Washington 98055 - (2061235-2593 • • Lair Offices • HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON A Professional Service Corporation 500 Galland Building,1221 Second Avenue Seattle,Washington 98101-2925 (206)623-1745 Facsimile(206)623-7789 PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON APR - 3 1991 April 1, 1991 RECEIVED Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue So. Renton, WA 98055 Re: Lexington Ridge; File No. SA-082-87 Dear Mr. Kaufman: This firm represents Grahame Ross, the court appointed Chapter 11 Trustee of the bankruptcy Estate that is the owner of the Lexington Ridge property. On October 13 , 1989, you issued a decision approving the site plan for a 360 unit multifamily residential complex on this 13.4 acre property. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Site Plan Review Ordinance, the site plan approval will expire on October 13, 1991, unless extended as provided by City Ordinance. We hereby request that you grant the two year extension permitted pursuant to Renton City Code Section 4-31-33I. This bankruptcy case was filed on May 31, 1990, seven months after the issuance of your site plan approval decision. It was not until January 4, 1991, however, that Grahame Ross was appointed by the Bankruptcy Court as the Chapter 11 Trustee for the Estate. More than $250, 000 has been spent on the planning, design, engineering, and environmental studies required to obtain site plan approval. The zoning and comprehensive plan designations for the property have not changed since site plan approval was granted. This two year extension is necessary to preserve the value of the project approved for the property, which is the sole asset of the estate. Because of the time and expense involved in the preparation of a building permit application, we are requesting this extension now to ensure that both the City and a future buyer will have sufficient time to review and process the necessary permits and to obtain financing for construction. Mr. Fred J. Kaufman April 1, 1991 Page 2 We would appreciate hearing from you at your earliest convenience so that the Trustee can advise the Bankruptcy Court of your decision and go forward with the necessary steps to preserve the asset of the estate. Thank you for your consideration of our request. ry tr y yous, Sally H. Clarke SHC:emc cc: Mr. Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Mr. Donald Erickson Zoning Administrator Mr. Grahame Ross, Trustee in Bankruptcy Ms. Sarah E. Mack 1 0 9 1 5 8 - •%/4 49u.c0,0 1111001111 GRAHAM UNN ATTORNEYS AT LAW {']('��1 r. 1�flatl ` 41 PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE 33RD FLOOR ) 1 `�"J ` 1� GOMA OF�'�GL SUITE 1300 1420 FIFTH AVENIji,' �,`-' SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 981i 'i;,,`,g390 1 r'� 1145 DHowoww2Y Pl.wzw TOLL FREE FROM TACOMA:272-0048 n �. 1�' P.O.Box I215 FACSIMILE:(200)340-0509 (200) 024-8300 TACOMA,WASHINGTON 9840 1-1 2 15 (200)572-0294 1.1r,tkGl Y IF ICI"-1 L f OLL FREE FROM SEATTLE:024-0200 FACSIMILE:(200)572-8542 IRVIN W. SANDMAN (200)340 17641 March 20, 1991 CITY OF RoN 'RECEIVED MAR 2 1 1991 BY FAX AND FIRST CLASS MAIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FDIVISlj,N Lawrence J. Warren Renton City Attorney P.O. Box 626 100 South Second Street Renton, WA 98057 Re: In re Canada-America Associates, L.P. W.D. Wa. Bankr. Cause No. 90-03783; Lexington Ridge Building Permit Application Dear Mr. Warren: With this letter is a conformed copy of an order entered by the Bankruptcy Court today. It verifies that Grahame Ross is the court appointed chapter 11 Trustee in this case and that, as such, he has the exclusive power and authority to proceed with the above Application. As we discussed, this will provide the City of Renton the direction it needs to allow the City to continue work with the Mr. Ross toward the issuance of a building permit. I would appreciate your advising the City's staff of this. We regret any inconvenience that may have been caused by the ill-advised letter to you from William Hurme of Centron Equities. Please let me know if you require anything further. Very truly yours, GRAHAM & DUNN _74 4,t‘ //1"41 /•ji4,‘,/,t Irvin W. Sandman IWS:kmm cc: Grahame Ross f-i ce 4 c ga-S T FL :I /ED U. E i< uptcy Cour, D!strict^f Wachiraton MAR N 9 1991 Samuel J. Steirior •The Honorable Samuel J. Steiner I3ankri_ptcv,,I;,1(of2 1 2 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 AT SEATTLE • 4 In Re 5 ) NO, 90-03783 6 CANADA - AMERICA ASSOCIATES L.P. , • ) ) EX PARTE ORDER a Washington limited partnershi p p ) DEMONSTRATING TRUSTEE's 7 RIGHT TO PROCEED WITF BUILDING PERMIT 8 • Debtors. ) APPLICATION PROCESS 9 This matter having come on for hearing before the Court on the 10 Trustee's Ex Parte Motion for Order Demonstrating Right To Proceed 11 with Building Permit Application Process, this Court deems it 12 reasonable, necessary, and in the best interest of the Estate that 13 it grant the Trustee the relief he seeks on an ex parte basis. 14 Therefore, the Court finds and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 15 1) The 13 . 4 acre parcel of raw land in Renton known as 16 Lexington Ridge (the "Property") is property of this bankruptcy 17 Estate ("Estate") ; 18 2) Grahame Ross ("Trustee") is the Court-appointed chapter 11 19 Trustee in this Case; as such, the Property is within his exclusive 20 control as the Estate 's fiduciary; 21 3) As the sole fiduciary of the entity owning the Property, 22 the Trustee has exclusive authority to proceed with the Property's 23 building permit application currently before the City of Renton; and 24 . 4) The City of Renton is 25 iiiiiiiiriinmediately to resume dealings with the Trustee as the owner of the Property, to proceed 26 GRAHAM &DUN 33RD FLOOR 1420 S EATTLE.WASHINGTON AVENUE 08101-2300 I Oncl1 Ll On_Gnnn with the building permit application currently pursued by th Trustee before the City, and to cooperate fu. 1y with any and al 1 other efforts of the Trustee to complete development of the Propert 2 in accordance state law and local ordinance. 3 Done in open court this aO day of March, 1991. 4 5 S :. =L J. STEINER 6 U. S. Bankruptcy Judge 7 Presented by: 8 GRAHAM & DUNN 9 10By R/,&‘(-4e./2tf.g.11, I vin W. Sandman 11 Attorneys for the Trustee 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER SHORTENING TIME - 2 • 1:\bkc\anaco\gener\p\shortime.ord 33RD FLOOR 1420 FIFTH AVENUE SEATTLE.WASHINGTON 98101-2390 c)„.fp' _ , qcv CITY OF RENTON f'vy+T HEARING EXAMINER Earl Clymer, Mayor Fred J. Kaufman CITY OF RENTO November 7, 1989 N Nov 81989 cir�.R�REIS Eb Seth Fulcher, Jr. OFF/CE Attorney At Law Suite 3200 - Smith Tower Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Site Plan Application of Centron (Lexington Ridge) SA-082-87 Dear Mr. Fulcher: I have reviewed you request for reconsideration in the above referenced matter. This office previously explained that traffic conditions will be affected by the development of this proposal and will not further explore traffic issues for this complex. You have raised some legitimate concerns regarding the applicant's legal status to do business and to enter into any kind of enforceable agreement with the city. Unfortunately, this office does not have the ability to enter into an exhaustive analysis of business licensing procedures and generally restricts itself to land use issues. At the same time, the public must be assured that the project and the conditions imposed to make it acceptable are completed in a satisfactory manner as proposed and conditioned. Therefore, this office will modify the decision to include an additional condition as follows: The City Attorney shall have to be satisfied that the applicant is: Still empowered and authorized by the State of Washington to conduct business in the City of Renton and the State of Washington, and Further, that the applicant has the legal authority to pursue this application and possesses the legal authority to enter into any contracts necessary to carry out either the voluntary aspects of the proposal (those aspects which were submitted as part of the application or modified application) or those aspects of the proposal imposed as conditions and that were either required by the ERC or the Hearing Examiner, and Further provided that the applicant is empowered to convey, transfer, sell to others, or in any other fashion transact any legal business relative to the subject site. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2593 If the City Attorney is not so satisfied then the approval shall be null and void and shall convey no rights, privileges or obligations and shall not be binding upon the City. If you or any other party are not satisfied with this determination you may appeal to the City Council by filing your appeal and the appropriate fee with the City Clerk not later than 5:00 PM, November 21, 1989. Sincerely, FRED J. KA FMAN HEARING EXAMINER FJK/dk cc: All Parties of Staff All Parties of Record 0 2 jib • CeLIFnokkI ( O CI\I P��1�)�?d)�)�)�)�)�� 11808 Northup Wa y-Suite W-310 J NV I-i1tCAVI mile(206)82 - 6'96 l Ted )822-2888 �`�� 7 CENTRON is a service mark s t1 licensed by Centron Corporation ''1� 4�'�4 t} rat` COPY SENT, To: 00A)'$'/Ci&X) . March 1, 1991 Date: q/• Mr. Lawrence, J. Warren Renton City Attorney P.O. Box 626 100 South Second Street Renton, WA 98057 Re: Lexington Ridge Apartment Project ,. Dear Mr. Warren: In my capacity as President of Centron Equities' Corporation along with Trustee under the CEC Trust which owns all of the stock of this corporation, I am writing this letter claiming title to all of the work product on the proposed Lexington Ridge apartment project now in the,possession of the City .of Renton., • Specifically, this includes the Environmental Impact Statement, architectural plans, engineering plans, soils reports, traffic studies, etc. ; Ina letter under date of January 8, 1990 Mr. Robert D. Johns" wrote to you concerning the fact that negotiations were underway to eliminate the role of Centron Equities Corporation on'the project. These negotiations were never satisfactorily concluded such that Centron Equities Corporation has, not entered, into, any agreement' with the limited partners of the Can-Am Partnership regarding compensation for the substantial sums expended 'by'r the corporation for processing this project through the City of Renton. We• respectfully the City of. Renton do nothing further on this project until advised that a settlement has been reached by Centron Equities Corporation. •. If you cannot comply. with this request, we L. J� "I, ;.V", :I. :4i ''!:.' .}..: - tip' .1',�..'I'•� ' • �I•� yiai'!�: .;d':' ..,.r.� a' • aih, �.7.' .i.•, .I !{ '' %dw ,,,. , ., t1, 1. qKq .fly' i.'r.jr','.. ai _ Ir• 1 tl•�i II. '.,(1 'I I • .4n'' : �,..}, _ .ill ..� .. • • ..•'. „ Ili" •7'l to I•' '".,.` I I4';' • - • ,would ask",';that;:you; please;;inform:.,;the 'undersigned 'of',this.;in writing • as soon. as";possible' :so• that ',we. ,can. take the appropriate legal . : measures necessary, to,,protect•,.the 'position of the,;'Corporation. . ' • '`• ` ' . • Thank you for';your'`I'cooperatio'n iIn this ,,!,11• • f'11::i matter' �II�' is .. _ ! .: • 'irr i�;` Sincerely • ' ' �.CENTRON EQUITIES, CORPORATION . ':WILLI 'iHURME' ",' - +''', ,,F'' ,. : ,•k'L �'. is - -: :PlRES;IDENT �• ,it .��' :iJf �° ;,1::'.;,;;` • • -, _ ;;•,: ,. - - pF.7„.:'-`' r•13`.?,. 7rf @; .,..l •I,.x ,.,,:v.00.11% 11.,:r:. k. • ::t"'• ! •r•1-,' '•n• ,,:' '•Y-11,4' 1', ,I.' .,• �•K7": ' 't� ",.. •,r h�" 7,�r J".1d*CA .t.-... .. • '»•, �yq,�^ iu`z:";;^T - a •, ..: •• �.��cc. Bank'ru tc Trustee,� >;�''�: •• ' ` .rGrahame ,,Ross;;'�'• � =�! ,.,.. I.^a;". ... .. _,. . •- ��f .l'1 ,u fL2y:.�'�•,:.1�••'tc•`.,'. ' __ ,5.,'••qq! � ('J6 r;' ...t'.•,Ili,wElM, •,�,1:is r".:N r{.i . • .. _• _ ��•. ' ' �u' , r • ' S� . '�'',. .1' Y!1.T 'i< ',' r� 'tn . rrrt i _�1 i,IVl • •t i• .' ; Sit.�: 'AL;�ki*' 'y�-Jkeigiii•o�, 'j„'ii• , :{o-i'a . •;,! r i 11r SS•• 0`,'. 1N.,1• { i• • • . . � , .t i. p;), . , . ,a j„a ` '. . . �' �Y t1:�'' 4fs', ', j`.l :V ': !: i:,I 11i,:,: .•. ; , d;:.:^4 i iil.,:L.4"•: _Ce': • y. Ir ,I„ .}r!'o y,ti .rI,':: , 7e?;;;, • • • ., i- _ I .l;:I L,.y.. Y'I "1' 1 VYa �fli?!,Rlv?i ' N ` .. • i, t•° '� '•'t 1,I Y,,•` a' ,L .. n; j Iy}t'r: ,r . - I• r .li•..Jr '•i::,i,� ,,i.:"!,:' :I4.• . i;•I. It',442�{E ,,i •• I.. - :'I 'I`rl'' '', 4•,:a" }b{}1!t,• ,..,TC1., . • :) I• • .Ij,. ,•P .I:::r .. ' ,• l i1.. _7'_" •11. • 4 ' .I .C' ..I, I<'r:,<b 41'j'T" {"�' i''.�y'.,'I'i, '.,- :4,• ,1. _ y y{ 'i .;ry�� • ,I - - - •�+^'m^•tL.i.•}:�.y� s"�•:.},1,! •q•Y:.,..'�:.wr!fr ::L• 1' ,'Y '`l: • .. • '}. _,i. .,4 - ,.`r,t Yc w:. - r;:,:W,A:KEkit•444`}Lr•{ R i,driao.aiu,�. .I: 1' ' ''(�:,%{,r�(�^g}..!;iAl:', _ S'y5' I ,{'!u ,I, :•pz,x;. '?1•f "MIi:111•:: :S5,'i7- 'L W •}Il..i; .. : ..._ . •,a, ,.4„,,. • +.�, It 4Ifty ,•::1I q';•-:-, } i:. tr Nj,I y s. 1l: -• ..,.IZ. u W7,1?J.. I.: :h ire'i,i,: 4 ':1 , :'Z'-' _ _ $ 'r•1 is ix!. .:{.,, µfil.u.,l.' .:1'_ - — _ "�t'•:1:,,.{t11 ,. � • ._ '-. .,li4 I'r -'.q•r Y r „h•'x .i r .1� _'l.. :+F ��'r'T' :J,' ..1•% ,bra" 1, 1''.' :w !t ,kg.1 J. - ' ..f,�"q Y)Ky --�• r��• :.1�.:,..:.k 4,�,�j �',I+ ..!SF{�r. •'1.:.....:�:^' .:'�,!'ii q'' 1 ..��C1i#Ikru,aii Y, .�F\•. '.'1.1. �.!•.:' .}"'I�..''''a.; ,�'1.'.,;: :{.j'' x, :�r"„ R,?"'N,',,/ "•{' it. '�y' �'� • .M ''`!. '�{;-f�, r!".{,. :i, .'a'1'i•^!' ..1";,7:M,P1 •+.i l,� t 1 ,1.''„� :}j.�r I:1' �4 .p,:, k�f:1r� '�•�!`,.:,•:.i, .�::M.Y.' xY' •.L, .,„', I�,; ,. J'•.t, .l. A.l, r :•,\''1•�,.. P.:�}.;:rc'yt_ti'!k.1.i " r4,le c. i'` -',,. ,.'r• { - :I v _ '�.: ♦,Q.t :� .><�.! I,:Q1{';r :!{a'•,.5�^�!'n'!'•�l�l. • trl..'.:A�'Y ti;��- �I� _ t r �y, ,,1, ^. '.�.q.' c,'tdry;;Q't'^'i.i' •'!" ,'S .'7. �'1 r. .a, .�§, y ri.,LF. __ ` ��t�.I_r. -t` ;.�u. ..c: .•3`"�•�..Y4�a' i3':�i`'•;,•;` c'a':� Lr��,,rr�k' d l�l ,J s-�;��:•I .•4 r •I. '!r(5, '1,•�:i':,' ti:' ,,,;i4.,'.an..,:f, ,,,e::1wN,isi,,,#!`.^n;qt„ 'f'wi,..•{.I, '' M1a_. !.'Yi ._ , f:. 1'.1 .:f..'t: C1 d,. +�'-� a'�. a 1:,�) 11'i. M ;iix}��,'Y rl:; .a.: .'a,.� '., 'I ,....,...r- -cs° '„' J". .GIs .t' }tnl',,.:1..,: :".S,N•••.ir;'1... ^L�!a:,''�r- Y*r "F:'i." - j:.r -';t.L - -Tr, ak:r11 1� v ,,..,t..,:.,,.J-n,. �ed- ,}.g.,. • 41q.'•1— _ _ �+t ,a. ;, : :=f;{. '':. Ia'sJ � .ik; i{,',¢'n• J�,.!Ih;t{,;,s� ,'�zt s aria' ., .-,_.. xt ��. f .Y•'1j '.I •` .. ,.'is '. .,.T.•i.c. r — - • t': =� . -• - i{}': , f: , ,Yfr- a: .'7y ;'I,r.'iri 'I .. :F` �'- S "i i tF 1' k .Si.a • :'*c r�L': I'1 a lc, l v ht. .,gs:'.lr, _ c . � •..- _ • 4. � x; , , ' � . i+ g ,: J,.i• Ca' i; a:S 1� ,I!'.l.i.;•,- `wl: !"LLytx'"E S/✓9::,-r'i"'tl" F ':41Y., :jrq,,.,^? ": .- 1. '. f'-'1,iy,V7t 4 • t • il. - - - - _ _ 1-tom'-_.'' '•l,' _ _ :1.�i1`. '' .. LAW OFFICES MALTMAN, WEBER, REED, NORTH & AHRENS 1415 NORTON BUILDING JOHN R. WEBER 801 SECOND AVENUE LAWRENCE R. HENNINGS FREDRIC D. REED RETIRED DOUGLASS A. NORTH SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104-1522 DOUGLAS W. AHRENS FACSIMILIE(206) 624-6672 WILLIAM L. MALTMAN MICHAEL C. MALNATI OF COUNSEL LINDA LAU TELEPHONE (206) 624-6271 May 16, 1990 PLANNING DIVISION Lenora Blauman, Senior Planner IIY Or RPNTON Community Development Department City of Renton MAY 1 7 1990 Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South dy !� � Renton, WA 98055 '� RE: Lexington Ridge Site Plan File No. SA-082-87 Dear Ms. Blauman: This letter confirms our conversation of May 14, 1990 regarding the status of the City's approval of the site plan of Lexington Ridge, File No. SA-082-87. The issue regarded the hearing examiner's November 7, 1989 addition of a new condition to his approval of the site plan, stating that the City Attorney must be satisfied that the applicant has the necessary legal authority under the laws of the State of Washington to comply with the terms and conditions of the site plan approval. As you and I both interpret this, the site plan approval is presently valid. However, when a new approval is sought from the city, such as a building permit, the staff will refer the matter to the City Attorney to determine whether the applicant meets the above-referenced condition. Time is crucial to my client. Unless I hear from you to the contrary by Friday, May 25, 1990, I will assume that you agree with the preceding paragraphs of this letter. Thank you very much for your help and understanding. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, MALTMAN, WEBER, REED, NORTH & AHRENS Lik, lS. ),(6 .. Si Paul Sikora PS/cr y; ViV3r CITY ,F RENTON Finance Department Earl Clymer, Mayor April 23, 1990 Mr. Seth Fulcher, Jr. Suite 3200, Smith Tower Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Appeal of Lexington Ridge Site Approval, File No. SA-082-87 Dear Mr.. Fulcher: We are returning a refund of the appeal fee in the amount of $75.00 for the appeal filed on April 19, 1990, regarding the referenced matter. The hearing examiner has confirmed this date that the appeal does not meet the criteria for an administrative appeal. As stated in correspondence sent from this office on April 20, 1990, the deadline for a timely appeal to the City Council on this matter was November 21, 1989. A copy of the ordinance governing appeals is enclosed for your information. Please call if further information is needed. Sincerely, ACtf,g_ Marilyn�en, CMC City Clerk 235-2502 cc: Hearing Examiner Enclosures (2) 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 • 81024 CITY OF RENTON CITY TREASURER'S ACCOUNT 10 635 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON,WASHINGTON 98055 19-3 April 24, 1990 1250 PAY ! ORDER TO THE SETH FULCHER, JR. ; $ 75.00 ORDER OF JR. �k***�c�c The odri ifloD30 DOLLARS SECURITY PACIFIC BANK WASHINGTON r, I° .12S Renton Office-P.O.Box 599 ®Renton,Washington 98057 VOID\AITER 9Q DAYS sv. ''1 FOR PO L063511' ®1 L 250000 3 71: 057006a 2511-,11' r:. CITY F RENTON / d Finance Department Earl Clymer, Mayor April 20, 1990 Mr. Seth Fulcher, Jr. Suite 3200, Smith Tower Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Appeal of James L. Colt of April 5, 1990; Determination of Hearing Examiner regarding File No. SA-082-87 (Lexington Ridge) Dear Mr. Fulcher: Your letter of April 20, 1990, received this date, reflects a misunderstanding in our telephone conversation of April 19th. The second sentence of your letter incorrectly quotes me as stating "...and that the appeal filed is sufficient to toll the 14 day deadline whether regarded as a Council appeal or an administrative appeal." That is incorrect. I stated that the appeal would be forwarded to the hearing examiner to determine whether or not the appeal is valid and timely, and that the hearing examiner would respond to your directly in writing. The deadline for a timely appeal to the City Council on this matter was November 21, 1989. In a letter addressed to you from the hearing examiner, dated April 5, 1990, he advised that since you did not appeal the applicable condition pertaining to review by the city attorney in a timely manner, the matter is considered final by the office of the hearing examiner. A copy of this letter will be forwarded to the hearing examiner. As I stated to you by telephone, your appeal fee will be returned should the examiner find that the appeal is not valid. Very truly yours, Marilyn J. P rsen, CMC City Clerk 235-2502 cc: Hearing Examiner 'Fred Kaufman 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 LAW OFFICES OF SETH (KELLY) FULCHER, JR. Suite 3200 Smith Tower Seattle, Washington 98104 CITY OF RENTON (206) 292-9333 April 19, 1990 Pt PR 2 �,i990 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Municipal Clerk City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Attn: Marilyn Peterson Re: Appeal of James L. Colt of April 5, 1990 determination of Hearing Examiner regarding file #SA-082-87 Centron (Lexington Ridge) Dear Ms . Peterson: This will confirm today's telephone conversation wherein you advised me that you will be sending our appeal in the above referenced matter to Hearing Examiner Kaufman, rather than following procedures for appeal to the City Council, because you regard this as an administrative appeal. You also advised that Hearing Examiner Kaufman is out of the office until next Monday, but that he will contact us at that time and that the appeal filed is sufficient to toll the 14 day deadline whether regarded as a council appeal or an administrative appeal. We would point out that parties of record have not been provided notice of our several requests for full disclosure of the city's evaluation of the application and clarification of its decisions or of the city's responses to the same and that all parties of record should be provided prompt notice of this appeal. Thank you for your courtesy. Very truly yours, S h F-u'lcher, Jr. SF/st cc: Client -_ CITY OF RENTON C:ITY TREASURER. REG/RC:F T : 02-06888 n4-19-1990 CASHIER ID : C 8:09 am 8000 I1.0 SCELLANEOUS RE $75•U0 HEARING E;AHINER 999.999.99.999.99.99.999999 --- TOTAL DUE. $75.00 RECEIVED FROM: SE.TH FUL.(:HER JR ATTORNEY . (HECK $75.00 TOTAL TENDERED $75.00 CHANGE DUE --- $0.00 M WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DEC 1 S I ON/RECOMMENDAT 1 ON TO Rl NTON C Ic T O9NC ENTON APPLICATION NAME: FILE NO. SA-082-87 'PR ' 9 9990 Centron (Lexington Ridge) RECEIVED . . .--.R.,-,41, CITY CLERK'S OFFICE • ,-. .A...�s.—,s..., W.Axr.M:6YM10en.N4MWMN•we�..0 l:,e_..q-e,. The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice. of Appeal from the Decision or Recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated April 5 19 90 I . IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (iF ANY) : Name: Mr. James L. Colt Name: Seth Fulcher, Jr. Address: P.O. Box 547 Address: 3200 Smith Tower Renton, Washington 98057 Seattle, Washington 98104 rams war Telephone No, 255-0323 Telephone No,_292-9333 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDINGS OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted -in the Examiner's Report) • No, Error : Correction: ..r..a..•..vvr..+am..wr�M+M••--.r.r..-J • CONCLUSIONS: No. Error See attachement. Correction: OTHER: No. ' Error: Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED,: The City Council IS requested to grant the following relief: ' (Attach explanation, if desired) X Reverse the Decision or Recommendation and grant the following relief : See attached. Modify the Decision or Recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: A p pe /n t R e:p r e s e n t a t i 'i g n a tiT r e.—. __-- .Date 1\,l '+NOTE : Please refer to Title IV, Chaptar 30 of the Renton Municipal Code; and Ser- ;o_ 5 -3C16 and i-3017, snecif ical ly tcnp rG,;pr« e E I 6 I.r 1 4100iif CITY OF RENTON mIL S; HEARING EXAMINER Earl Clymer, Mayor Fred J. Kaufman CITY OF RENTON APR 51990 April 5, 1990 CITVCLERK'S E K� �S®FFlCE Seth Fulcher, Jr. Attorney At Law Smith Tower, Suite 3200 Seattle, Washington 98104 Re: SA-082-87 Centron (Lexington Ridge) Dear Mr. Fulcher: The decision in the above matter was forwarded to the City Attorney for his review and determination as required by the decision. The attorney' s determination is a matter for that office and staff when it reviews any further application for permits. Like other conditions imposed by this office, staff will determine whether those conditions have been satisfied in due course. Since you did not appeal the applicable condition (review by the City Attorney) the matter is considered final by this office. This office does not track the progress of applications once they are final unless a subsequent permit, plat mylar, or other matter requires further review. Unless any of the above actions are initiated, this office now considers the matter closed. I hope this satisfies your concerns. • Sincere lQy, 1161-4.1 FRED J. KAUFMAN HEARING EXAMINER FJK/dk cc: Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence Warren, City Attorney Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator nnn 1.4:11 A - o2nct - (')nlcl ')1S-')cQ1 LAW OFFICES OF SETH (KELLY) FULCHER, JR. Suite 3200 �] Smith Tower R E C E Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 292-9333 OC1`j989 ®�,� October 27, 1989 CITY OF RENTO N Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Re: Site Plan Application of Centron (Lexington Ridge) , File No. SA-082-87 Dear Mr. Kaufman: I represent James L. Colt. This is to request reconsideration of your October 13, 1989 decision to approve the above-referenced site plan on each of the following bases : a) The site plan applicant is listed as Centron. In June, 1989 Centron Development Corp. and Centron Development Corporation' s authority to do business were revoked by the Washington State Department of Revenue. The city must positively determine the identity of the applicant and inquire as to the legality of Centron ' s continued prosecution of its application as well as carefully evaluating the likelihood that Centron will or can perform promises made and conditions imposed under this site plan application. b) ERC ' s April 5, 1989 staff report ( "ERC report" ) recommends site plan approval only if: in advance of site approval, the applicant agrees to comply with the conditions recommended by the Traffic Engineer . . . as follows: . • 2. Provision of a transit lane pull out on N.E. 3rd, or, alternately, the construction of an additional lane along the N.E. 3rd street property frontage. (page 8, emphasis in the original ) . Next, the Community Development Department ' s June 27, 1989 report to the Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the site plan only upon compliance with all conditions set forth in the ERC report. On July 17, 1989 the Hearing Examiner denied the site plan application in part because "Approval subject to a series of conditions would be too vague to be enforceable since the need for substantial alteration is also inevitable. " The Hearing ., • Fred J. Kaufman October 27, 1989 Page 2 Examiner concluded it was "obvious, the subject proposal requires further review. . . (Conclusion #12 ) . " The Hearing Examiner ' s October 13, 1989 decision retains the July 17 findings and was reached with no further evidentiary intake. In Conclusions 9 and 15 the Hearing Examiner addresses the N.E. 3rd traffic congestion and traffic safety issues. Conclusion 9 states: "The ERC has addressed these issues [i.e. N.E. 3rd congestion, transit access and safety] in separate conditions and they will not be readdressed. " Conclusion 15 finishes: "Traffic Engineering and the ERC both suggested that this development could be accommodated at this time. " The Decision goes on to approve the site plan subject to compliance "with the conditions imposed by the ERC, except as they may be modified by this decision. " We are unable to locate within the record any written agreement by Centron or anyone else to comply with the ERC report. The decision is ambiguous . Has the applicant already agreed to build another lane on N.E. 3rd or was this ERC condition in some way modified? Moreover, in light of Centron' s legal disability to do business in Washington State what is the value or enforceability of their agreement and should it not be required with specificity and formality. The October 13, 1989 decision (paragraph 2) also "suggests . that the city consider" alternatives to rectify congestion, safety and buffer problems with Vuemont Corridor, the very sort of condition "too vague to be enforceable" which the Hearing Examiner rejected in his July 17, 1989 decision. In fact the site plan does not adequately address traffic circulation, a fact conceded at Conclusion 15. The site plan application should be remanded to appropriate city departments for comprehensive resolution of traffic safety and congestion issues rather than be approved subject to performance of vague and unenforceable conditions by an entity legally disabled from performance. If the application is not remanded, the Hearing Examiner must document any agreement of the applicant to ERC conditions or clarify the ambiguity as to conditions to approval. Very truly yours, eth Fulcher, Jr. SF/md cc: James L. Colt 2. Specification of Errors: Conclusions Hearing Examiner Kaufman's April 5, 1990, determination that City Attorney's review and evaluation of conditions imposed by Examiner's October 13, 1989, decision and November 7, 1989, modification is "a matter for that office and staff when it reviews any further application for permits" (April 5, 1990, letter to appellant, copy attached) together with City Attorney Warren's position that the results of his review of such conditions will not be made public by the City Attorney, but are only disclosable by the Hearing Examiner (January 11, 1990, letter to appellant, copy attached) . Correction According to Hearing Examiner Kaufman's November 7, 1989 modification (copy attached) , "the public must be assured that the project and conditions imposed to make it acceptable are completed in a satisfactory manner as proposed and conditioned. " Mr. Kaufman should direct the City Attorney to make public the results of his inquiry and evaluation as to the additional conditions to approval of the referenced application imposed, to wit: 1) who is the applicant; 2) is that applicant the same entity which initiated this application; 3) is that applicant still empowered and authorized to do business in the City of Renton and State of Washington; 4) does the applicant have the authority and capacity to carry forth both the aspects of its proposal which were voluntarily undertaken as part of its application and each of the conditions imposed by Mr. Kaufman and the ERC, including the requirement to build another lane on N.E. 3rd; and 5) does that applicant possess a legal interest in the subject site which empowers it to convey, transfer, sell to others or act in any other fashion as may be required by the project as proposed and conditioned. Until the City Attorney's evaluation required by the November 7, 1989 modification is made public and provided to all parties of record there has been no final determination of site plan approval from which the public may appeal. 3 . Summary of Action Requested: Appellant requests: 1) reversal of Hearing Examiner's decision, 2) declaration that the public hearing process was flawed and invalid as a result of the failure to fully disclose the matters under consideration, and 3) requirement of a new application for site plan approval be initiated. ..-_.�.... •.a' •4 - ��'��•tin—�M1 • *'M^'°+�.�pyT•. 'w'4r.�..-��i+1..r�.eL ��ry___- A . • .:1,0N 1UF-iITY DsvELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PUES? .C(1 4,y CNG • • F; °-08 -87 ; ECF-O74- 87 • RetWeent 0.E. F•ouT,th Street an',1 N . E. `;hi ud St•nett west of Edmonds Ave. t . P, and e !%it of IJ onsun way lidE. plan approval to dQvn • . . ; -f:=�i-a � �'�'��.�axat lip a 1 . 4 9 �ac.r�� ;.ttt°• ` :i�a.7_ e:ornp1ex. C.2$ic da-nAme ica Associates g - 'ensity Multi--Family RofAcentiAl (G-^1 ) - power line .,. �. t_11 r-? Ar re tiS m Single-Family an G-1} nult.3.-Family tI itient..k m1 ( -•3 .and tR-4 ) . "re:a r t 9,�.qr:.�S_ , Gicra 4.. 4.1nd �F12r; i+ 'aft `i °e N . E. rl , Ugaeo3velop Iand a' 3 1^ ' zmtec,:;. epeclp Pudic: ig& t ( 9 r�a:,'�no fDy a t-�.;;y d. ,and EI . Fourth Stt.'e,Gt)) ; public. '. zfas (a C:iiuvci1 • • diCr I�4 H, m Public 1]0c'c (an clk2a,t 'ical transmission line) ; Brighton Ridge Apartment, Complex. South` Public right-of-wily (N. L. Third Street) ; residential ' develop►mcint; undeveloped .land. tr Public use (a water „.. supply ttink for the City of'`i ,-: Renton) ; tw'u multi-family • ` ,residential buildings; aparXilftp41, 1% 3:of . for croup Health Midici1 .� y �° emp1c)yees: tiF- 1 .} -°�+� WED1a : 3tir � 4 r � � ' y,( , •;+�:t _ � 2 9 ...`!_.• YJ SY��p� o o y ti 0 Quo Y. _,. : rra_i -,-4 �l o_c—'�17_4-.i O r,:, I.l1.l 17i1 n , r R dJ • .Jira , FT T•-Lr^r,_T^4 1�11i1.1.,� ._,� •.i. �. o o m ,.... . c . , . ".---• i i ) ..• \U ii / -gra • . •-, .. I , ' Iii t ..,,I. NE 4th St. ,-,/ • • . :-... ,_,,,• .i,. .. _ . . , c.-.!•,; I „ i, „,; ; .:::...\\ •‘.. • •,, , A,'i i `--,....:\N- i. . . # -•••!-(,!, 5,,,,,.. - -.....,,-.,.::"..\\,..\\S..„\\::\1/4 \0 •! c' ,!•')1 .c. . • i ,i iii '''., ( \''‘',NN.N:\\:\\•. '\,\ '''''' %„, • !'" i•..! ''''''',,,. %*!‘::\,\•,...\•_N•s':0' • \ .i-'/.,, ',‘,'''•\,,,,....!!---- ' . , . . .., -i'l MC-VAHON! ' -.I1 rE . . 1 • : --, • • . . .•. . . •: .1 . •\ , . I. \ 4,..,_ %, .....: -----.-.,- "1. NA \ks.,‘),40 --‘,:-'V -t_-;ERADCO \ \ •'.., . . \ ,„,,,,.', ,20„ --,,.:. \\\. . . . ... . *', ..,.,.... ., N \ . . . • I LEG 17-10 . . 1 FA sil/C1 . . . • ,--•---- --------.., , .. . . - I, NOT TO SCALE -,.._ ....... _ !f 1 11 . ' • i',,1 l'" ?'-' , • Vioinity Map Figure 2 1 , . • , -.. . •: • ... ..._ . __ . . ....__. ...._........,. ._, _ _____..,......_ ..1 . - . !(I'I CM! .!.I ma. —07_1,11-11.1 illi LAW OFFICES OF SETH (KELLY) FULCHER, JR. Suite 3200 Smith Tower Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 292-9333 e,, ,ENED la el 1990 March 26, 1990 B14EAR G ouk ��0; Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Site Plan Application of Centron (Lexington Ridge) , file # SA-082-87 Dear Mr. Kaufman: Having received no response to my correspondence of February 16, (copy attached for your convenience) my client, James Colt assumes and will rely on the assumption that the above-referenced site plan application is no longer active. For the reasons stated in my earlier correspondence it is our position that we have never received a final determination of application approval. Obviously this is moot point of the application has lapsed. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, th Fulcher, Jr. SF/jb Enclosure cc: client LAW OFFICES OF t SETH (KELLY) FULCHER, JR. Suite 3200 Smith Tower Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 292-9333 February 16, 1990 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner Municipal Building - 2 0 0 Mill Avenue- South Renton, Washington 98055 Re:. Site Plan Application of Centron (Lexington Ridge) , File Number SA-082-87 - Dear Mr. Kaufman: As you know I represent James L. Colt in a matter of his request for reconsideration of the above referenced matter. Your November 7, 1989 , modification together with our request for further information from City Attorney Warren and City Attorney Warren's January 11, 1990, response are all enclosed for your convenience. According to your. November 7, 1989 decision, in order that "the public be assured that the project and the conditions imposed to make it acceptable are completed in a satisfactory manner as proposed and conditioned, " the City Attorney was to inquire as to: 1. .. the identity of the applicant, or that the applicant was:: . ;"• :. the same entity which initiated this application, • 2... whether-. the applicant is still empowered and authorized. to do business in the City of..Renton and the -State: of Washington, 3. does the applicant have the authority and: capacity to carry forth both the aspects of its proposal which were voluntarily undertaken as part of its application and each- of. the ' conditions imposed by yourself and the ERC, including the. requirement to build another lane on Northeast. Third, and 4 . does the applicant possess_ a legal interest in the subject site which empowers it to convey-, transfer, sell to .. - others or act in any other fashion as may be required by the ' . - project as proposed and conditioned. City Attorney Warren's• letter- indicates he will render: a . legal opinion to you, but will not release it to. us. If Mr. Colt and:the public are to "be, assured that the project: and: conditions ,' 1 •Mr. Fred J. Kaufman February 16, 1990 . Page 2 imposed to make it acceptable are [to be] completed in a - satisfactory manner as proposed and conditioned, " Mr. Warren's opinion must become part of the public record. Moreover, until such time as you or the City Attorney are "satisfied" that the applicant meets the criteria listed and provide us notice of your assurance of the same we have no final determination of- your application approval and it is impossible to determine whether appeal is appropriate or to formulate such an appeal. Kindly advise us of the results of Mr. Warren's inquiry as to the above listed items and whether these conditions to approval have been met. Thank you. . Very truly yours, eth Fulcher, Jr. SF/th Enclosures cc: Client ,�� rf' „ CITY OF RENTON 0. �'� Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney NIL Daniel Kellogg - Mark E. Barber - David M. Dean - Zanetta L. Fontes - Terence Lynch - Robert L. Sewell, Assistant City Attorneys January 11, 1990 Seth Fulcher, Jr. Attorney at Law Suite 3200, Smith Tower 506 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Re: .S-i:te;---Plan Application of Centron (Lexington Ridge) ; SA- 082-87 ) r-- Dear Mr. Fulcher: I have received both your December 27th and January 8th letters . I acknowledge the fact that the Hearing Examiner has asked me to review certain documents and surrender a legal opinion as to the ability of Centron to do business . I have contacted Centron' s attorney concerning the documentary record that I need and have not received the requested documents to date. Once I am in receipt of those documents I will render a legal opinion to the Hearing Examiner. In this instance the Hearing Examiner is my client, and it is up to him to decide whether or not to utilize my opinion and whether or not to release it to the general public. Since he has requested the opinion as a matter of public record, I presume that he intends to make the response part of the public record and make it subject to being a public record and, per se, disclosable. However, that is his decision to make. Very truly yours, Lawrence Warren LJW:as . cc: Mayor Brent McFallb� A8 . 51 : 70 . Post Office Box'626 - 100 S 2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057 - (206) 255-8678 111 %o CITY OF RENTON ml HEARING EXAMINER Earl Clymer, Mayor Fred J. Kaufman November 22, 1989 Bob Johns Attorney At Law 3600 Columbia Center Building 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 RE: Centron (Lexington Ridge) File No. SA-082-87 Dear Mr. Johns: �I The Examiner's Report regarding the referenced application which was published October 13 , 1989 has not been appealed within the 14-day period established by ordinance. A request for reconsideration was received on October 27, 1989 and response to that reconsideration has not been appealed in a timely fashion. Therefore, this matter is considered final and is being transmitted to the City Clerk this date for filing. The determination as to the applicant's legal capacity to do business within the city will be determined by the City Attorney. Please feel free to contact this office if further assistance or information is required. Sincerely, 477--4- C()* FRED J. KAUFMAN HEARING EXAMINER FJK:dk cc: Earl Clymer, Mayor City Attorney City Clerk Building Division 11 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2593 LAW OFFICES OF SETH (KELLY) FULCHER, JR. Suite 3200 Smith Tower R C I V E Seattle, Washington 98104 1➢ �, (206) 292-9333 a 7 o OCT-2- 1989r vir October 27, 1989 CITY OF PENTO N HEARING EXAM5NtiR Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Re: Site Plan Application of Centron (Lexington Ridge) , File No. SA-082-87 Dear Mr. Kaufman: I represent James L. Colt. This is to request reconsideration of your October 13 , 1989 decision to approve the above-referenced site plan on each of the following bases : a) The site plan applicant is listed as Centron. In June, 1989 Centron Development Corp . and Centron Development Corporation ' s authority to do business were revoked by the Washington State Department of Revenue. The city must positively determine the identity of the applicant and inquire as to the legality of Centron ' s continued prosecution of its application as well as carefully evaluating the likelihood that Centron will or can perform promises made and conditions imposed under this site plan application. b) ERC ' s April 5 , 1989 staff report ( "ERC report" ) recommends site plan approval only if: in advance of site approval, the applicant agrees to comply with the conditions recommended by the Traffic Engineer . . . as follows: 2. Provision of a transit lane pull out on N.E. 3rd, or, alternately, the construction of an additional lane along the N.E. 3rd street property frontage. (page 8 , emphasis in the original ) . Next, the Community Development Department ' s June 27, 1989 report to the Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the site plan only upon compliance with all conditions set forth in the ERC report. On July 17, 1989 the Hearing Examiner denied the site plan application in part because "Approval subject to a series of conditions would be too vague to be enforceable since the need for substantial alteration is also inevitable. " The Hearing Fred J. Kaufman October 27, 1989 Page 2 Examiner concluded it was "obvious, the subject proposal requires further review. . . (Conclusion #12 ) . " The Hearing Examiner ' s October 13 , 1989 decision retains the July 17 findings and was reached with no further evidentiary intake. In Conclusions 9 and 15 the Hearing Examiner addresses the N.E. 3rd traffic congestion and traffic safety issues. Conclusion 9 states : "The ERC has addressed these issues [ i.e. N.E. 3rd congestion, transit access and safety] in separate conditions and they will not be readdressed. " Conclusion 15 finishes : "Traffic Engineering and the ERC both suggested that this development could be accommodated at this time. " The Decision goes on to approve the site plan subject to compliance "with the conditions imposed by the ERC, except as they may be modified by this decision. " We are unable to locate within the record any written agreement by Centron or anyone else to comply with the ERC report. The decision is ambiguous . Has the applicant already agreed to build another lane on N.E. 3rd or was this ERC condition in some way modified? Moreover, in light of Centron ' s legal disability to do business in Washington State what is the value or enforceability of their agreement and should it not be required with specificity and formality. The October 13, 1989 decision (paragraph 2 ) also "suggests that the city consider" alternatives to rectify congestion, safety and buffer problems with Vuemont Corridor, the very sort of condition "too vague to be enforceable" which the Hearing Examiner rejected in his July 17, 1989 decision. In fact the site plan does not adequately address traffic circulation, a fact conceded at Conclusion 15 . The site plan application should be remanded to appropriate city departments for comprehensive resolution of traffic safety and congestion issues rather than be approved subject to performance of vague and unenforceable conditions by an entity legally disabled from performance. If the application is not remanded, the Hearing Examiner must document any agreement of the applicant to ERC conditions or clarify the ambiguity as to conditions to approval. Very truly yours , /1— eth Fulcher, Jr. SF/md cc : James L. Colt J AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss. County of King ) DOTTY KLINGMAN , being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 13th day of October , 1989 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 to before me this /IS day of roc -s-LW , 1989 229-1 N yj Public in pnd for the State of Washington, residing at , therein. Application, Petition,. or Case #: CENTRON (Lexington Ridge - remand) SA-082-87 (The minutes contain a list of the parties of record.) • • - October 13, 1989 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: CENTRON (LEXINGTON RIDGE) File No: SA-082-87 LOCATION: Located between N.E. Fourth Street and N.E. Third Street, west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and east of,Bronson Way N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site approval to develop 13.4 acres with a 360 unit multifamily residential complex. INTRODUCTION: This matter was initially reviewed at a public hearing on June 27, 1989. A decision issued on July 17, 1989. The Findings included below resulted from that initial review and are merely included for the convenience of the reader. There have been no changes made to those Findings. The decision rejected the application and the matter was appealed to the City Council. The matter was remanded back to the Hearing Examiner who made the determination that no additional testimony would be necessary to reach a decision in this matter. The Conclusions found below were reached after a review of the Findings and a re-review of the complete record. The only issue that did not receive additional review was that of the parking on the Puget Power corridor. That issue was limited by the City Council which required that the use of the Puget Power corridor "be irrevocably secured for the life of this project." FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Centron, filed a request for approval of a site plan for a 360 unit multiple family residential complex on approximately 13.4 acres of property. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official, determined that an EIS was required for the proposal and one was prepared. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street, west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and east of Bronson Way N.E. 6. The subject site was annexed into the city with the adoption of Ordinance 1549 enacted in June, 1956. The site was reclassified from its initial R-1 (Single Family; Lot size - 7,200 sq ft) zoning to R-4 (High Density Multiple Family) by the City Council with the passage of Ordinance 2029, enacted in May, 1963. 7. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of high density multiple family development and greenbelt, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. The steep southerly slopes of the site as well as the power line corridor east of the site are designated for greenbelt. 8. The applicant proposes an apartment complex containing 360 units in 15 buildings. The complex will also contain a separate recreation building, a pool, two tot lots and a sports court. 9. The proposed complex is divided between two sites. The main site would contain the apartment complex proper. The subsidiary site located immediately east of the main site is a power line corridor owned by Puget Power. This subsidiary site would provide 105 parking stalls. The site is irregularly shaped with its east property line (approximately 627 feet long) and south property line (approximately 929 feet long) the most regular. The west property line generally runs at an angle to the northeast and contains a number of jogs. Similarly, the north property line also contains a number of jogs. The Puget Power parcel is generally a parallelogram approximately 370 feet long by approximately 170 feet wide. Centron (Lexington Itiage) • • SA-082-87 October 13, 1989 • Page 2 10. The site is bounded on the south by N.E. 3rd Street and by Bronson Way N.E. along part of its western and northern property lines. Vuemont Place N.E. intersects the site along its western property line. Again, the Puget Power corridor forms the eastern boundary line for about two- thirds of the site's depth. 11. The complex will contain both 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units. 12. The complex requires 630 parking stalls. Parking will be accommodated by both open parking (496 stalls) and covered carports (134 stalls). The applicant proposes providing a portion of the parking, 105 stalls, on the adjoining acreage which is under the Puget Power line. A formal agreement has not been executed, although Puget Power has indicated that it would probably allow the parking in this corridor. 13. The buildings will be two and a half to three stories high, with a maximum height of 35 feet. 14. The 15 buildings actually consist of a series of couplets. Each of the 15 buildings is comprised of mirror image couplets connected to each other along their length by covered walkways and stairways. The buildings will contain minor variations as the larger and smaller units are linked side by side in a variety of fashions. Again, mirror image symmetry will be used with the same size larger end units connected by two smaller center units. The buildings will be located at various angles around the site. The minimum separation between buildings will be approximately 25 feet. 15. The buildings will be finished with cedar siding and aluminum frame windows. The roofing materials will be asphalt/shake composition. 16. Modulated exterior walls will be used on the buildings, with terraces, the stairways and walkways providing additional architectural relief. Peaked roofs will provide visual breaks at the roof line where the couplets join the covered walkways. 17. Full occupancy of the proposed complex would add approximately 576 persons to the city's population. There would be approximately 90 school age children. 18. The estimated traffic generated by the subject proposal is approximately 2,374 vehicle trips per day. Traffic issues were reviewed by the ERC and conditions were imposed during the environmental review process. The applicant will be required to participate in a Traffic Management Plan. The applicant will also be required to participate in grade modifications to the Bronson/3rd intersection. The plans for grade modification are very speculative at this point and may be difficult to realize due to the topography at this location. 19. Since substantial portions of the property will be regraded, most of the existing natural second growth vegetation will be removed. Site plan review does not entail detailed review of the excavation, but approximately 290,000 cubic yards of material will be relocated either around the site or removed from it. This will entail a large volume of truck trips, but this information was not provided or analyzed in any detailed manner. 20. The steep slopes immediately above N.E. 3rd Street will be retained as greenbelt and will not be disturbed. In addition, landscape materials including a variety of trees, shrubs and lawn grasses will be planted in all areas not used for building pads, parking areas and roadways. The applicant proposes additional landscaping adjacent to the Vuemont apartments since those units were paved property line to property line. Approximately 49% of the site will be open space. Regrading of the site will create terraces or plateaus for building pads. These elevation differences will be approximately 4 to 8 feet as they drop across the site. 21. A number of apartment complexes are located in this area of the city. Apartment buildings are located immediately west of the site, on both sides of Vuemont where it intersects the subject site's western property line. Group Health's clinic is located west of the site across Bronson Way. N.E. 3rd Street runs along the south property line, and again, the power line is located east of the site. A church and associated day care center are located north of the site. 22. The Renton School District serves the site with Highlands Elementary School, a middle school and Renton High School. The site is just within the busing area limits for elementary school age children, although this could change. 23. Water, sewer and storm lines are provided by the city. Staff reported that these lines have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed development, although the sewer lines are at or near capacity. Capacity problems in the sewers have been noted in the general vicinity. Upgrading of some constricted sewer lines may be required. This would be accomplished by the applicant. • Centron (Lexington kluge) SA-082-87 October 13, 1989 Page 3 24. Metro has discontinued bus service along Bronson Way because of difficulties negotiating the grade and curve near the intersection of Bronson with N.E. 3rd. A bus pullout and possible "park and ride" might be created along the power line corridor. 25. Liberty Park and the Cedar River Trail are located approximately southwest of the site. 26. All vehicular access would be from the northwest, either from Vuemont or Bronson Way. An access drive along N.E. 3rd would be used for emergency access since the sight distance and grade difficulties preclude use in ordinary circumstances. 27. There has been a reduction in the permitted density based upon the existence of the steep slopes/greenbelt located along the south property line, but this has been merged with reductions for the power line greenbelt. Staff has calculated that the per unit density for the subject site is approximately 27 units per acre. There seems to be both an inclusion and exclusion for the power line corridor since note is made of the G-1 zoning's density standards. There seems to be no reason to include the power line for any density calculations as it is separately owned and already supports its permissible development - a power line. 28. Staff has requested that the applicant bond for any police services required over that normally expected of a complex of this size. The police department provided information that they were inadequately staffed to serve increased call levels. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Site Plan Ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; c. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. 2. In addition, proposed site plans must not adversely affect area-wide property values, must provide adequate air and light, and must not cause neighborhood deterioration or blight. The proposed site plan appears to successfully satisfy these additional criteria. 3. The proposed development, coupled with the retained greenbelt along the south property line, particularly the western half of the south property line, fulfill the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for this site. The plan recognized that the close-in nature of the site and the more gentle aspects of the site would be appropriate for multiple family housing. Similarly, the plan recognized that the additional multiple family housing would be compatible with adjoining multiple family uses immediately northwest of the site. 4. The steeper slopes, those above N.E. 3rd Street, will be retained as greenbelt pursuant to the designation found in the Comprehensive Plan. Also, while the applicant proposes using certain portions of the adjacent power line corridor for parking, the applicant will also be providing additional landscaping and a walking trail. The trail will serve as a link to the city's growing system of trails connecting different areas of the city. 5. The two and a half to three-story buildings with a maximum height of 35 feet fall within the limits of the Zoning Code which would permit buildings of 95 feet. The permitted coverage of approximately 4.68 acres is easily accommodated since the development will coverage approximately 2.5 acres. Presumably the provisions of the Building Code will be met, but that level of detail is not under review at this time. Deductions for the included greenbelt/steep • Centron (Lexington Riuge) . - SA-082-87 October 13, 1989 • Page 4 sloped areas have been calculated into the process and the 360 units fall within the permitted density. 6. Obviously the development of the subject site will create some impacts on the adjoining uses. Vuemont, which had been a modest dead-end street between two apartment buildings, will become the major access drive for the subject site (topographical and traffic constraints dictated this approach). What is unfortunate is that those existing apartment complexes were permitted so close to the street that little buffering is possible. It is quite possible that many of the approximately 2,000 daily vehicle trips generated by this proposal could use this driveway. This office would suggest that the city consider narrowing the Vuemont corridor to driveway proportions to permit additional landscaping to be placed on either side of the entry to serve as a buffer. In the alternative, the city could modify Vuemont as it enters the site to one-way, although this would intensify traffic at two separate driveways. 7. In most other respects this complex has been landscaped along all of its boundaries, and as discussed above, the steep slopes and power line easement have received special considerations. The steep slopes will be retained in natural vegetation and the power line parking area will be landscaped. 8. While the buildings do not present a widely varied architectural style, they do have some modulations to break up their potentially bulky appearance. One has to remember that the buildings which appear to be separate or detached couplets in the submitted graphics are actually connected, which creates a greater bulk. They also have the limited variety introduced by the minor variations resulting from the mix of larger and smaller units in certain buildings. The cedar siding and roofing elements should relieve some of the sameness. 9. Staff expressed some concerns regarding the circulation patterns which will result from developing this site. The elimination of transit service due to the topography of Bronson requires orientation of the site to N.E. 3rd for transit service. At the same time, driveway access will be precluded from this right-of-way due to traffic backups in this vicinity. Similarly, the queuing problems inherent in N.E. 3rd suggest that a bus turnout would not work to Metro's advantage since a bus may have trouble re-entering the traffic stream. Rather, the bus would momentarily delay traffic by stopping in a traffic lane. The ERC has addressed these issues in separate conditions and they will not be readdressed. 10. Staff recommended that the applicant provide a van for shuttling residents and students to and from the site. This would be quite a complicated condition for the city to monitor and should be incorporated into any transportation management plans (TM) negotiated between the applicant and Metro. 11. On-site circulation appears adequate with the inclusion of pedestrian pathways and some additional required links to exterior sidewalks. 12. The buildings are generally well separated from one another and should afford reasonable access to both light and air for residents of the complex. 13. The issue of a bond for extraordinary police services is an issue which must be addressed by the City Council. If, in fact, the police have found that apartments in general demand a level of service which cannot be accommodated by their current level of funding they should inform the City Council of this situation. The amounts suggested (they were not definitive) would be approximately $15,000 to $17,000 per year for this development of 360 units. As the number of apartment units increase in the city, the amount of money is not inconsequential. Therefore, rather than attempt to address whether these fees are appropriate in individual land use cases, the issue should be addressed more directly as a policy determination. Similar treatment has been accorded traffic mitigation fees. 14. Obviously, development of the subject site with 360 apartment units will increase the traffic, density and noise in this area of the city. It will particularly increase traffic at major intersections downstream of the site. That is a consequence of both the Comprehensive Plan which suggests this site is appropriate for apartment development and the Zoning Code which sets the scale. Both documents have been in place for a number of years and both documents support the type of development proposed. 15. Staff reported that the additional traffic can be appropriately channelled into the existing network of roads, although not without some modifications. Those modifications were contemplated, or should have been contemplated, when the zoning was applied and prior to that, with the adoption of a Comprehensive Plan which designated this area for more intense development. The road system will not be immediately brought up to a level where the development proposed can be accommodated without some loss in the level of service. The Centron (Lexington Riage) • SA-082-87 October 13, 1989 • Page 5 ERC did attach fees to the development which, when coupled with similar fees from other development, should eventually permit the attainment of an acceptable level of service. Until those fee accounts are sufficient to permit the modifications suggested, traffic congestion will naturally worsen. But again, Traffic Engineering and the ERC both suggested that this development could be accommodated at this time. 16. Finally, an issue otherwise not addressed in this decision is the status of the supplementary parking area located on the easement. As the remand by the City Council directed, the applicant will have to provide a mechanism to assure that "the right-of-way can be irrevocably secured for the life of this project." Since the project could not be constructed as conceived without this supplementary parking lot, this condition would have to be satisfied prior to the issuance of the building permit. DECISION The Site Plan is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant provide links between the various buildings, the recreational facilities and the exterior sidewalks, subject to approval of the Planning Division. 2. This office would suggest that the city consider narrowing the Vuemont Corridor to driveway proportions to permit the applicant to install additional landscaping on either side of the Vuemont entry. In the alternative, the city could modify Vuemont as it enters the site to one-way, again, to permit the applicant to install additional landscaping. 3. Any van provided for shuttling residents and students to and from the site should be incorporated into the transportation management plans (TM) negotiated between the applicant and Metro. 4. As agreed to at the public hearing, the applicant will provide an area conducive to socializing at the mail box area, a linkage for the Sunset Trail, storage facilities for the units, and basketball courts and tot-lots. 5. The applicant shall have to provide a mechanism to assure that "the [Puget Power] right- of-way can be irrevocably secured for the life of this project", and this shall occur prior to the issuance of any building permit. 6. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC, except as they may have been modified by this decision. ORDERED THIS 13th day of October, 1989. Yew.. FRED J. KA FMAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 13th day of October, 1989 to the parties of record: John Phillips 2001 Western Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121 Canada-American Associates c/o Centron 3025 - 112th Ave. NE, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98004 Millie Renfrow 310 Bronson Way NE Renton, WA 98056 Bob Johns 3600 Columbia Center Building 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 • Centron (Lexington RIage) . SA-082-87 October 13, 1989 Page 6 Dennis Riebe Centron Corporation 3025 - 112th NE Bellevue, WA 98004 Bob Minnott Centron Corporation 3025 - 112th NE Bellevue, WA 98004 Don Emmons 349 Bronson NE Renton, WA 98056 James Colt 100 Blaine NE Renton, WA 98057 James Goerg 4201 NE 5th Renton, WA 98056 First United Methodist Church 2201 N.E. Fourth St. Renton, WA 98056 Jim Platt 10800 N.E. 8th, Suite 1010 Bellevue, WA 98004 Pat Easter 18000 Pacific Highway So., Suite 1115 Seattle, WA 98188 Norm Hash 358 Bronson Way NE Renton, WA 98056 TRANSMITTED THIS 13th day of October, 1989 to the following: Mayor Earl Clymer Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Lynn A. Guttmann, Public Works Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Ken Nyberg, Community Development Director Glen Gordon, Fire Marshal Larry M. Springer, Planning Manager Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Ronald Nelson, Building Director Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer John Adamson, Developmental Program Coordinator Garth Cray, Senior Engineering Specialist Valley Daily News Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 P.M. October 27, 1989. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or 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 a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. r. Centron (Lexington Riage) - SA-082-87 October 13, 1989 Page 7 All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. • avy Industrial 1 N I .\ )..;' • . 4. i.1/41)..a.kk _ _____ nuTacturing Park -— - 11 r L'' � ° �-" - ' "''�� ` '•• Multi le i �r.r- P Option ',-- --- : :>' .t' . .;t =_ d April 1 9II5 %� + ::1::�� "' :` r ;'c..•' < • `;` •c •` `` • N - .�0000000004, • f'' I El '- • nnoonopnor LAKEtip, :s1. _ �_ : : �c l c:�Don "............:•:..:': ., •, �� lL( r �� . - — WnSI-IING ^rON % \ •P 17-- ii TIT .r• /:•. 'Y-K.}' noon( iii • f• .) cc:,:.; 1 _ � 1_ ' bI j ��I>,I� . ". ‘‘- I el ::::iii::ii :::••:•::',..-..'• ii .......-....... •.. 1 : , , ,........:0iiFko. 1 b ••!;i;iiiii:ii•:.! d ,n0., • • • • • • • • • • e .,' .... ora �', 'F� • a • • • e • • • •••• ` - , , -ow," \i'l . . . . . . . . . .-:-.-.• i., , iiiii;i:r -.:. .- .. ..:.:( IN - . • • --- -- f)°o°°°1);'0° • • • • • • • • • • l• • • �( - - • • • ,,,,;oi✓,u°•' ` 41•r1•,r •T • • • • • ••je r / J „ Lj M1 Ear�� 00000 --__ ';)^"• °n,)uuul'n�, '' •+ i/ .' �1 • • • • • w • • •••'•••' •.r _I c ` _ niiiiiioi °O°O°t°t10,' lk • • • • • • • • • e w • • C �- or •. --_ i ', • In ■■■PPP 04 ,° c3ln nn �, • • • • f••••1. . . h • . . . . :,i. ,n t,� • w•• • i • -- I 1 I 1 r;uouu9uo°ut:�.)'• • • ` t:: :3'i• I. • e • • • • '...a.,, \ ..Ve io �pppp��...^..w , - , tiorflr0000i,°c ICl` •...•.• • t %�£t .` ••e •••♦ ill •.) �•1� `n:o'GNEMEES '+!j` l` 'L ,1°0° , ,°vor , M ,••^,••w 1 /' •7 00.norOili: _ �nuu ,44°o°ouu. 'n�o�;o", .� `� °. 000Ii __ °°°0,ofV v o' i"o° on �1/%/ ` )Door _ + 111 Er--- ° on$n° ° ' 1•• o°o 1 Vnn ° ° 1y J •• _� }i',,00vuu ° nto :.f'1poorI .. .. LiOt• ,on00000°nr1 °n°nu'nt'o°u°u° °• I : Nw :;:;yai t :` t":::: • on onoononnoo,o°on o' o 0or t' P'rI - . . . ��. noon rn00000°°n �� {{ 11nonnno0nna ,nn o onnnn • �-1 f nOn Oo on onr) o nnl-Pan o°n 0.11)\ •:.: �: t noonn nonno)onnnnnonnoov , ,, .VnnnoVon%nn0000n000 ;;;.,:0 0vn°v° ° ° v o\ ° ,00nnnnnnnnonon000nc o noowo...r ,n ,°O;onOOnO,Ono nn1 l n oonr�• Y _ U ♦• :. J7 ... .... ::: � n • oDo o nOnnr I �' •�. .. n�)�nn000n nnnnoonnn; � I{•:•:••'.•� onr • �Q ��' .. .�' S "- x,or� . roononnononnon. 4, � �•' i 0000nnnnnnonnuno oonr ,....::}} r}F\. sn-A r1 .If. ;oonr ,onoononnonnn0000nno r•' '. '` �` � J°'oV°uo : �.'<E ,non;; onnonoonn°nnonnoonnr I::v:? i}> i "'ir1.'' • • '`Ivan°°°o°0°n . �,r^ nonno( • ,oono°000000nonnnono . r:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:;•: •..'I' ° ° O :-1 •00°0 noonn • n o n �' n°n0°o 'j , •r 1'i ` 'o,o ,u°"°n il' .�r: { ,.,{..r' ( nor,° nn000noo. -.1�:'}:.:}}{: oon0on non y•1. i� `';°;°;°°°° � f',.^ • ),,•. J. • •.• .il non non non _ \ C ,,� .°Don n yl ii ••n ° o hi- ''t�• t' i0in '.!� 4•..Q �3�::• '' ' •ri„r. •00. .fl l' l— _ - ^ -�I' - __ _ •• w' ... �, ¢ r]'ter',ri)•(r;.� mil•; '.;: , o IP • i c. .....,..i„:„:,:t,f........i ,„„,„ •"„ ,f0rr ri i . . . . ri figii.!:;:::' i '>8' ", S,) '`.a v{Cr'c.,-(t II '`ri✓ .7dSi•;; 9)..1, i, -, ,,3.;•�y,,,:;%p(;:r''',`•.::'' i • \ '',.1::-.:.i....;.:(:"-”"7..e.1:•::,:.,•;1-'7.,.;.::.,.f 1 ri,;.'...,, ,,,11.-1.1:1 ..9-'.'1___51.:-;(‘1:4:;;It‘l' illiliP1*14614kbillikier4p1.71.'%?lt:;;.;CVCII:1...f;x::.15-.:14te`17;r:;1c:.4:....) .:'' \\r .'.;.,':''1-'....;:.••••(;1';'''''''.: //1� 1 ((( T l .'- 1111 'e,'r 1l 1: (t rct Il' ):U.. , b '•.':(•rr-. nR ,o 1 T 1 • 4 [9', �" \ ci• f.k�( 'I•A.. 'no' ir�ono \l.!(� .1,...,.,(')I,r.(N::'1,,•.ct ..,,,`r• •,TA. 'rc {` �. ,I LAND USE ELEMENT ;:R .�;,,.� ^� , - r' �rR••��( .l`!�l>'. :n) "I,n�ii, '':�'�)„,[qi:1\ 4. , •fti•rPYFtr rl••. :^cr?• 1..:ir)r•.�:, (,1/ .)'�.r,7 'r.iJ.� 1;✓ ..•.r Single Famil +(o o • 1 }'�( Y jfj Commercial `�; `•`` `- PP ‘ 4Op1p Low Density '°7r \ \ / ,.�lt);' ^, : � �� Office / O i f ice Park • • �-T1 �,,,re; • Multl-Family °°' � °°oonr „L ,( p.,,�: �:.jc ono \�//) •.C,• 4 .^ t•'. %-(1 i,� r non. r••{'r^(ilr• .. .fi^"• (.';. Medium Density ouoo ^i _ (•'�%;: o Ofn °' ."'t' ,',l', :):;;:; 'Nk44. noonn ,,lT�i1. ', .,.:;,'.;: Multi-Family °°°°°°� Public/ Quasi-Public 1 } �rr�'n '��n ii,.ti•;., ^�::;;nonno 0000000 °°n°° V` . 00onn "/ :_<' ' ' High Density _ • n• Light Industrial • \r�" nan000 amlly•Yt n oiioori .. nonno; .'Q, •1 -- noonn f 11 rjr• '`��,�r�• Recreation Fe.*.:1•••. Heavy Industrial ''! r • 000000 _ ono 00000 ••n 0o i,000 F.�fi! • 000 0000 Greenbelt Manufacturing Park 000° ----- �'•� ooq°cn°o°riOo / Multinle (lotion 'E)]':_ Pn°o°nr • -.-..... .. . ! _/ ,.r.e. . r. ' _ . �-�`` LEGEND .APPROXIMATE AREA / / ,� .J•, �, . 2"'ell:- '/'.:.' • • . / . _�„ ... . • / j l /SLY.''/ ./. _ /I...fr's::, ��_ r. BASJ5 OF•BEARINGS . .�,,, Jh / • ✓ . I • i,"\ �•• - ..,.••.Y. o � : •' j s • ,\ `, ; i I $ i VERTICAL DATUM:,- JI %. / L �•tt • I I / • • ..;, _ • ' Q $l BENCHMARK _:=-�•" /• / /..�� / / J - \ 'y �i , 'll -c SI\ \ _•�...• C • 'ti. . y r / .....-..„)..../' ! • I` I I • \ L' . •.... �GP� i / • `\fir' ' \� • m O c ._..... _: 2(7 'I' Syr '.� ', ; .1 /. �+� • • 1 _ • �� <c • • ''•� i!f�.S'-'. \ . 'c' � .. �..j j- • .^ 1 Ii •i \; .w t�.I: , r - a•sm 6 0 ic, . ..e. /,-. •-, . II ...,02://' .... �� 1V1 • _.„- •• / / / ••.•,:•.:_, ...,... ..../ ./4, ../.. 1......,N.N.,\:\:\ c....i. •/ --- • • z. i --• • . . • ... N. -•....1" ) . .... . ........ . , . — .:,. ... •• _, . • ••,. i•..... . c I•••4"/ •.. / • ..... ••,..:. . . .• . •.• ••• - \..,... . . . 1 . . . .,,, ....... . :s.,...,.....„....-_•,_....,:,. .: ,..... . • , . . •,,,.... • •....„.. . __„...• .• ••• .:. • , i . •/ ��'`..-----5----:----;\..---d �_ . .... . . .. ��- _ c.tea _ /__ - --•cam `'^+•,. _I l i •_. • .. •- , -• •+,� ry i L ''-'-'• ''....A'r:fug(N:Awt''‘.-,'' ''Crkssit-)2...rtw/Ye•:'''?..:-.4'...,',.'ir.f',141',4',.••rtt,•'13,74'..;.;.•?:.:',;(1,r,07•41:11.'4,r''''.4.•,.:;•.''*.i,i'V„-,,,;•'•'.',.','"•••.`',•7.5,I1043,:..'":4-7,,i'),7i...t..4.,,tt:‘,.,••,,,t,,,p'f,•••,'.417.1t.4.,(4.1..c.'•-t.'k4;,.0... 1-4,A,,;•,1,I,,, ,..:As-,'`,k,'4•„,,,;.17,,,,.4•,'.',,i,..,.`1:;.1.11?,,,•.',..,!: ;,• '''' • ' ''.; ..• *4-• ' " ' •',•':,,r-' •• ''• '..? ' t.' il : ' 4; :..,'..`.,.-..: . ,-t,':,:. P,i1,Ct-",:y,:,",,"t•.4r0,,,,,:',','• ,,- !-,.1: 1 ;,`,''t. -,-, •'-',,''%-.4,...'';',., ',',.• :', '' ."' , ' • • '' ''!..''''''. ": • ,: 'll..i,''',‘.‘'', ‘.! ',;•••IA:4'i.,:f...;:,,,,,:.:',.,.0 : , ,. , . . ,.„. . . . ,, - ' 1" 10143114 1 s : i it:. Ilitlitii, , i, r:iirxv... ,)1: ,,... ,. ,,..‘,.1i).,, i...,., . - i' • • Amstance"-1121.111iir- Normaniiii 1 -•-‘ • ‘• ' .,•Mi „ . , -. •• 4--.:'-';-- - i; •--;) '........----'5-1..›--......: t, -- . • •_-_ti.. -0,-• • ', I. -----i. ---•i " 1,11-vt 1 -71- 1- -1 I , \'• 'A') ,.. 1 •,., , ‘ i 1 1 ',...1 -,i1-11"11.- 1(.;!: • t .:•1 ti 1 ; : ,• ' II-Lisi'l : ,I•1.‘.1, ( 1)1.\.1,1 1 i , t II . 1 / I. ( •,,; , to , it- 1 ,--.(' , • - 1 ..,I „Ill II • t• 1 k, • , ' tt, , I ,.." .11 .)1 I ), •tt.( 1 If ' ' 1 . , ,....,_:,,,)_., .... ,./ (.., ' . IIP ' I "." 1 I I— II f" • t). 'Is 1 1 ' '' I III • I i il i II 1'1 / 1. li' ,-., —1:. PI\i I I, 1 \I ,, • . ' 1 MX\ •••.;'. 1 ,ii r.,11,;.• I, L.0 1, I.r. _ . 1')I :I 1 .. t i P . , I 11 ' I - II -1. '\I I \\ I \ \ • ' I ..:1\ . t ' /.-) • ',, /I I •• . \ ; . ' .'1...- 11- —. ..-... V1‘\\\'''\\:.).1i:lij I II. 11):1)2--1-. 7-5- I- " ' ,,,.. . . I• */ ..i.;;'----"-V---0 .,-\\\ , ' .. • - • I I f-I ii ) --1) \ _..2.-- 1 \.n.l.\ ./:, '•c,c,i/A-tt,- i if. ri . - A I t , , t• ,......." ' ''.,, ----,. .• ,- \ -:J,• : . i I I I • • c\A1\\\ \'t ' ' 1 i • • 'All./j-, • %i'' .„,,.. -r-i .1, • ,,,.--= - - , 1 1 ' I., I ! 1 i 111'A‘\A• . , : i: • / ' -• ,...---;4. •„ \c \\ • ••••;‘, 061 , i i • 'I.:.•. ., • -.s....,. I 1 I I- I-;is •-- , ..',/ „ :1',----- -;g. . , c :.,.,, . , .....,,.// , . V\\\\'\\ 'I\ ' 1-2t?:::, '' 1...' II:jfi'I I I 1"-L-4-111.4.1.1 1 ! I r 1 i I 11•1 \'.f\\'\ ,,. ; ,0 ! ;TA-, -.. ., -4,,_,-.-. .• , , s-•:, I.. ' . . ....t 1 , ___r 4. _,, c..), -,,t,•,... •1 1 ,--...___t , t1.-T 1,1( i .1 : 'Sr:/,,,•,,,,,, , - ,, 7---, % k•,: li t'.•:: ' , 1,, 1 , , ' $,(i., ,i,.. . 4, ,, . ,),. , i, 1, ' , '• _ 1 f i ..- ,...,111, 1 1 \ %.- • ., - . --1, , , , :1.-p.---, , •I- 1 li , %\ -, .‘ ' i •\--\, I I 1 I •-.) I, ,) ii.I if/ '.. %.:f\\ . • • : i; r\,: / .,,,) / ,: • ..,--. . , 1 , ),,,,, Ilf .. • • N,','t•;ek. •44, ‘ ‘.1,' ' ••'.•#, ,,,/ (• lAt•V• '''14:1 i ‘ \ I I.;- i'-',:•,. l. •).1! I .ki l;„ •1 .1 Ii I I i "if 1//:,..ili..',t,',' ''' ,.', • 's ‘, '‘e; •\ , gr ' , 1 • ‘ ',' s., \ ' 1. 1. 1 6 r%1 • . r) \'i•r( / '\".• ' i ' ''. s •• J . ., I . • • • 1.. __\ '\ • •1 1 I I It 1,,•• 1 •) .:Ci-k ,i 0 li,)11 1 •'-. ? I, .., 1 , ,,.1:1,1 '• ,I .• \ _. p,1 • ' %,•••-: It ss, ,. 1_ , . ' :s "/ ' • • • '" ''' 1)" di I. ,‘‘ \s le \``Z.\•• ," F. st9 t 1/ . ' • ; N'' ''• .::. ..... ..• , >,')'.. - • 't :.- ,.••_it .,•,,, . •A -- • I 1 . \* ' • 1 .1 I ),s.f)\..•,,, .1/?\,• . I• .'. -- •i. ‘..1.- 1 11 — .. I • 11 1 I K. . q hi\ fl.' -. --3,1,.,.:-_--- • .„ . . , I : '' k. ... ,• •,I) k I ,.. • ., . s.. I Id • 1 1 k./. %\\, . 4I' I . '' • s. ' 1,•, \\'\1 .k i • .1\ ii\LAI ! 4),‘ 11 ,.. . • ' ,, .i.).tt \ ‘..,'.,,I--I. . ', \ , 1 .' • ' e) k'' 'r' ' i. (-1,,,,),,,i,, .,:., ' 1 \ \ \ • SI' :“,/. 'I, 1 .' ' ' , • 1 1. 1 ! til ' \ c,r‘z• • t. 1, '‘ ,'. *1-.P ,i. . .. • ,- ..0 ' - , I 1 1 °.--'; Ikt'l)•11 \‘111 ' IC '‘'' \ t r- t•--,,\ - s .• .., . -4...1.`• , . : -:•- kt , , ' t, il \ r. 1 -.: 1 I._ i 0 ,-I'V, ,I , 1. I .. i .., 1 , 1 " • \ .I ,•I.31• . .. i••:\)! 1 \ S t il.,!,,11 t 'I , .,. ,..• • __... 4.). t(P t 1 1 . (.1 (...) ' . S• • ." ' 4:NNlglillillIllIllk .. • \ \ \.. ,.., . : • .itt. . ..i. V •, „, „ . • 4•i. , 1..: , 1 ' . ' • , %. I .' , I I • - • . '• 1. . l'i: , r, .4\\ .'e‘.••' • •, . , , LL • • • I I‘\ 1.•••\- • L ' • ' L . . • . , • . , ..._ , ,..,, ., . •, , . • . \li \ :', ,41 . . . • , . .. ' , , v. . " ,•— • - . ,,, • . . ..' . \; \ • . • • I, ' ' \i';', ' .. •••.-',. . ., r. . • .., • \‘„, l' . /, \1_,I • , .. I I . , . / , • , •.• i f ;1 •,. . I '2\. '.I. ' • 1 I , -I ,;:i. • ' I‘ '.. 1, • ' 1 ii \''' .1.) '''.'' . ' ' ' • . - • / , , P . ,1\./0/ A IINIDIA • .... ,..:* , • ,. • • • . . . . , ,_ • . a '1. I ' ,'' c: '. • . . . . . . • . .• : ,...,..._'.,,,. _.... • , .r. ' . . • . . ... ,, , • i • . ; , .1• ;/ ,•,. ----- . .• il;firi•:.F.,..• • ••. •• . .1 '•• ••-' • ' ....:: ' .. 2,t - . • ; :' .:" ;•.:• ''''' ••••;'••,7•••*, `Ig-1,'.4.:44.P;i-i'41).4-ir;itii14;40:01.'1•0•Fil,i*Iret•Plii.W.0,.410,41.;:' -,, .• .."'•'-'.; • : . :'..' '. ','I‘ • ',:,,'' -' .•,'••'••,P=10,••••.‘ :'.... : •': •.•,••'.A i,,,;••••,••• :••:.•&AI. ta',.11..- v;1'4•';I ),`1,.;;;;;;14.-.r.*'‘•-p4ii:',:`,i.01,4,4011.).%0•'?..1./•1:•VP.4.0tkvi4t•I'' • •• .• , , , .. ,,,. ,...L.,;,...., ,.; •,.,,,,, ,,,,,•,,,:,,•,,,,,,,,...p.•::,..,.-•••,':4,.,,,,,I:,..,,,;41.1,,,,,,tq..d.i,,<,,,..,,,.4,,,15.:41•,. .•,..' • ' • • •'I• ' • .. 1 , " ' ' , ,..'• • ," ...,••:.. .' '.' 1, .''',,:'''fel"' : ,,,,,,•,-..0.31. „.....,1,.,:„.•,-.T.v.,.1.,..,,,,,,,,,,c ,,,,..,-,-.,..,,,,...N•4.0 , • ,0 " • ' '": ' ' • : • .. I ...•••••• ••:t• • • •, :. 1,.,:, ,,•,,, •:,.,,,-,...:,,t,t •• "•:,,,t,', ,,t,'„i 1,,,,.,:-. i',-.,,...„..”..:•14„,....,,v..., .t.i. „,,,,,,..,„.1, ...... ,,,.,i,..,., .. . ... ; 0• s; ,, ..,,T.: , , ..:.t.;• ..r. . tt ..., 1'. . . --, ,',%..:•,:'',4,1,...,j,%.",,,I,',...-, :',,,7ity, 73:',':.:;:i.,',..St,. ...,'',0','',P.'',;,6;:.,;i1.e.-1•41';':.tIC ,:'•.:4'.'4‘jf , ••••411:+•`"?,),, ; ;•1..•ti;:,'-:;',1'.*:F`.'•'',',' 't vr',..-e it:A•-.%!.."',''..,..',1-;14...,.':, , , • • ) . . 1 ; L. . ,..'1,1. I"'11'*?M1"•-I•• .4 •,, 4'.,•%‘,1'1' •••''..,I41....%1", . ,'.. •..:.: ;,„,.....:X•71‘17,, ' . ,. ; •,..,• ,,,•,.1.•,,I,I,,,,;"1,1 .''..t.,y4.11.•,;'••.1',1,11,1„,V: . , , , 11,1,..1.‘ .,,,, . ',:, 1`. .,:. • , .• , ,1,1. • ,.,L 1., '1, .; „:, ,, 1 : , , .•.• '•' .. ;111. ,i1 4 1.},r.t.'•-:..r.t,,,,,.9:-..,1,11,,,-;„•,...„....qx.,'1.1.‘....,e,'',11 L",,, .:1•,,L.Lz...1.,„:„ L..,„• , ''i".• ' • . 1.' r".•,•i ,. ;),.•.ai.,:,,,,,,..%,,,...,..,.;s;,...,.,', ,,..,,,,.i1;...:1;..c,',!..s.,... ..11.',3r,-...;.,,f,:q...,..,,;,,,,... .,,, • , . . ,..,. - . , ..,.,:, ..„ . ., ... .' -..., , - . ,,.. • . .• . -...-.,,..,,, ..:...,:.,,::e-,„,.:,:,!t--,:,,'...4.,'..,...-v,,'•.,.t.-.::'',.',,,t,':'..vy;t,,z;::;:',tf. '' . . ,, ,h,.:;.-;,.. ;:.,..,r, •!, ,'''..- ,."‘.. .'.'7."‘„-:6'.`•i',',"':-/`,'''..-:',:":'.-;,:d......nLr • i'. ' .,. • ,• , :::::I.T,,:t....,,,,,,,,,y. ,..,,,...,,.:,s',,t, ',../.1.,',,,.4%, t,.,..;:'.,,,..",::!k,.:•,-;,.....g::,•,,......v.:4,;,, . , ,. . . .•• .. .• -..—.• • • . . . ".. .... • , . ' • i' ••,• ``,.:'.,':. . '-''s•'',,2';',';:•,' . .,..14 • . ....II--,,ep,,,".....i;,-.,•!/..,t4 • .•-• •• •• • . • .. ., .,-. • • .. , .., . ... .. ,,,,,,', ,:,• . ,..,,,,,,,,,,J::•:',..„`..,,. ,-..;',...:•,,,,.•..1:-.S.74,,.`,!;...-;)..":•`•;,'c,•,,,;''''; ''..-';.: • •• . , . • ._ • • .. , • • . ' i , • . , • . . . . . 'r k - , • • • ' - • I . , • . • • . • • -•• • • • ‘%' •• fl•q. • rk•c-i. .Am ,t• • .q• 6 • • • v ,,.0,te4 _, ... .1.40 kt-- - •.'' ..r 0 I .„\ti '1•:•71\ in e :1::— ,_ •.,i f'k• ''',,, p_ — •t_.... ! •• 'ti, :::;••• —7---- ,--1----7-T--IC ... , t../.. ....e.,-•;Ak...... -----r-- e.,,r>5.-•---____________ • ...,---•-•.• 10, - ..,„ • iik• i,,,, ....-,1• Ill rn 1 4 4 .... .. :. .-. i .44 , ., . , .. , ,‘• • .,9 el ...,:et J. !.1,4. • • ..• .. . • • .,A, • — :...i4, it P , '10 iFi• 4r*, 4 t-- • i •• ,•,..'* I : I i 1 :1••:...g.,r '''':•!'•t,J•:#T. r?' ,f• 9,10., ',I, ' ti • i;,• ".';',.:itli y . 1 < ' - 1 > I ':: - 1 ili!1 ... .. , ,. ._1.._.. 1.1 . ... ..,, ,14. ,i1,1 1 2_---.1 HS 1 I -iirmifiu . . TI ' 'Tr:. ''0111 '' -'-- *,Ie171•° ...vt. ' %VOA 1 • ..? • I i• • II 1 20 ; . • I •I 0 1 " ''WW1 I I 1 'Criffill I• I f'4• I:'•1 ,-•'-f.'-',• 0 -, •• • ',•"?.•:;.),,.:•'• • 1',...:t•'tr.ct. I j I 1 NVIII1,11. •,•..cli.c., ___ ._11.• ,,,si .....l_r!.4151.... .,..,,...,, Z ,„ in_i9in 1: 1 : mill$41 I I; • !, 1 . Z • • . i 1--,F-- -11.----- 1.11—. Till. !I!,i.17.1.71 •./-..."1,.34 —I . --i. ' '11!1, Ill ! ! .1;.! 1111 Illl' , • 0.1 ' ,...;:il'.;;..7:1.. ,±1i3 s."). , ' - i!!' 7,,.: , ::ti rn 1 II, 1, I i 1 il ii ! • r'•4.'''•t I. II Hi' ii —'• I 0..1 .. II , . •0 i. •• 1 ii , . .. . . •;, ..• 12,. • il•4 i lill, ".,-:" 4.e .' -.VA!.•piii% '.- :_. >< 1.. litiliiirogimi •,.....,,.. , ...,f,.-,.... ,, ),.,,• • _ .;• Irti.,. - .-4 i,.(4 .1 . ' •• . ... I' ......4•••••• I iv'•-•;••••• 1 0 I 0 ...1 ••••11 ;11 r 11 .' I I I• 'etida•irill. • tt• '. --• G.) I ..4 . 1)...t.t....1.,.__L__i....;,z._:_ II . L.,._..:_ , . 4.•V;.,,,‘tikp; 0 • --..._.,, 01.........,,. • -----F—T7 . Z • ----. • ., - , i• • E3 ?,.....tp ;..io' . .:,,,, ....... 1 1;• , • .,, I . 1 1:0'. '••• If ,' •"1,....' .4 ig j iv . , 1-------,---i---- --, -.: •.,.•• s.,,..,„„...,-• A*" • i !!. II Ill.111 ill111444"'""' -. ,..- - i-r .•prf--.! '1. ...;:s' '', !;I:t'::%14:ill';'''t . i ' ' !..:...c.,'.e'li 1 .:';',..,,,.ff ' 31.!.....:.14.:•• -,--. — ' 'I tor:,, ••!'.• r ..• ',,ketii r i, ‘ 0'1!' ?nr:;7•_72.14 1' • te 1:.• : prit I 7 1—-; 1:--d .r.f I — I • • . • 'I f.,.e. •:-.. \ r/r• , ' to, _. . .....:-..,.4.,--,-1,-:-,_1....:_-....:.• \'-e::1.'. it, — 0 • .._. • -•• i, :.'•:e.".- .:!,''.:.;' • • i (_...) '1.)•:•.f. ,r.h.q. ';..'11••,.....:.•• li • 1 :',4'-- • . , , I'....r1 , 143 'DPI i• 'sii;11 , I!i if'.4'6. i!n,\'..:\:•ii.ii .,,,.6•1 ..,1:...t,' -., ,'... Ri .411, ti ttt. I [12M 1 ligii 11. AI 1 r\4" . ; , „........_... 1 , • fr. ,4.,, . .. , ,I. - •t r,o,41.• 1 1"I IT i I •/...• •- •.'4'.' lir • e if•!•.,'.'.7.; 1 . 1. 1 . II I i .1".' . 1..!„,! ! ! I, !. •; 1 II 1 1 • 11 I li. ''• L.t).... • ff_'-i '',;;'', 4.".-r • 1..,,*,4-i; ;•• .: ....a.,4_ ..A A, . 1 ......., '• IIIIII 1.I,,‘!1•”•,t;', -,1%1:I . •i• •.Il ..1 III II • I f."„ .,. •- , I ,,.,. ... , NPIii.: '1. r5::_. •,1!4:;;;.'ig 1,/ t!,:f/A•' I MI • !I -: : . ' I .1BECO1P1—.. ".1 I ft.--i'il ..i.e.. I il•i ,t-, • ..••; ...t.'I;."....,,i.',•0',o; .4,-,.' • .. t•..1, ‘ 'i r:!.-::,/ . ilk' ' &tie!: , 'to:, .,••,4;i.::‘.,:..,,i.,,••• • zAli. 1. .•:- •"i-'-l,J,--w;••:,•-!-T-.••. t iIj"41.F i l.:'-"'k••y••i::i\1llll'_4_....•fz_•i d.L1i,'1...1"1 1-:_,-.._ '„i 1az-1 r 1J••1II1Q;eft;.i•c,,1t'',%.r.,.V.,.:;.i,,i,ct,cI:I'I:;.4Il,l'..,.I ,.• 0.,-c-•,/•,11. .4•,•t}v;-.L,1,Ls,:..1..4. ,' 1!1'm—.?i....7.5..•q-,.01-1t7-1177,t 1:,•11..l1r!i,-I.m1,, S I $a 11T1 "I.1'.1a.I.1i,1,'i Il 11•b•fi(•1,,•"'I,,.1l,-'7,.,-`.;.1-l)„ir•o.;..,pri./•:J,6,..)ei;./.i,./.:;-l...4.-)..1.i,',. , _-:1- ii•• • 5 ,' ••-• 'I W./ - I 1 •., _ wi.V.ci' • K • 't '. ..:• ::-, !.f--•1:4!:i• ...1 i '.4.%:,1:44.,: _stio,.. .,14.1.1. g4i,/tr,• til•;•• , ).. •04.4: ' 1_-:-."=1-2-r-11/ .: , ----2.-LT._ . ti. 1!".;-: •i,-.41 ' .... .--• • — ' i1 • ii i' '•1' • - • 1. 1 i ' j'i 'ii 1 -1E1111111f .• ' . '... '••• g ...•I it j f 1.• .11 ,:..,,,,,,,,.._.-....,.:-.-. _-.:-.... ...,___ ..i.r........ • I !I.-!I .:. 1:1 11I1.111!.iL•ITI•illii.II'l'I .' ... ;:•'''gre.• . . i r'• *:-.:, • I+. $4.-A..t. . j •,t' • ri. • I: .1,11.:TIF111-1171i.114111.1171. I 1111311- 1 'Fill li'4?I'' '4. • . .4e, i': • 11:1'All' ' I, ,. fni,„„1.;,, •,,ii 1 .J1.111 f:!114 1.I.,k. tH ,' !! • to.'1,yr • . .., . t,y '•• I ret: :1,' . t 1 ••'-'1ft ' . -' ....11 I A . — -- .. .• .,1 . 1 .,' t . .. . •, .--:: •• ; . ...11/...;,...L g r„,,,. i ..,..,,,,..,:. •A' ... • i . "-;.--' ' 1 : — . -- ' ,- •,•• • 1 ,K,... ....,....1--,,, (4 ta.... I. Ff.4-4: s A.• .1 1 40$" :,g4.: i Iti:;‘,..! " • .' . ..e' ..,0.1 1 ,qt., - .. — , 1 .12 1" it,V -; --,.... ,.. ,. _=-2___. 1 i.r, ,,i.. , ,. ,,,,,:,..-,. „:,-i ,;_,_. .1.--.22:, 11..,:_r____•...--_;-- 4 _,..4-!,,7„.. .4 5, , .•'1. , g• ".1%,':f - ' - - - - -----------• , -1 .14141,:cr ill I .il !, 1.1.1 . - ....''- - :.--- r •,' tif 4 4i. • "11 • I 11 Text'• ' Ye 4. I ... '..",i I r.-.• *telt Or kfit..Ail• — , _ ,,,,, i „...... I.,. y.„,.. . • .,... . • ,.. ' .'1. :I'..: . ---.-- ':..'‘4111S? • 1 (") I Ai , !IRE! ,', -; 11 114:/.Il li;' 1 h •." , • - ,,,-.1..13,-....:„...4.,_.,....7...,,-_,-_„:,_-7.._, .....:_:,..„_. _ . ;%) . ii I i , 1! ; I ..! ;11 l'1; 11• ;1;1 , . . . - ,.I, . • i • ' ."--nita—: i,l, .• !..:.,.-, -• .....; I --. . i! i • 11;1, • l' . .... ,: it,t, Ii ' ..4A4.,1 :, : 1/i'l.4.6. !I I I IA,s' il ----- - • .-- ---- I:' -- '..:t*.•:...•1,',:ir•-. 17.r ..- . 7 WPI::•.1, •' ' • drt.,,, . 1 ;1,•,, el:: -- '1 li I.-.1•11-.1. I 11•4:11,11, I • 1- . ,, ,I ••• . • 1_ . .,1 t t•,11:i,-4,,,, I i' 4,i-•,_L!,._-:----7 __I'' ..• j.1...,'.•,' - I.• ••••311,It'..) 1 I I 15111111E11111F11111-111111111Thlill I r , --i---T-Tei r 0.1{. i',R,•• . .. . ,. . 'TM 4;f2.: '4,6'. PRELI 0 2 5 MINARY/. . IN)I N) I 1 Et.E VAT IOSJ.•,' .. ,- . • lEXIIIGION RIDGE A 1.!..0 uria twal(t MAI CC-Wm t IITY III LIIIW,11 ....7,...11 I vr Lim trio%k i 03 1"-Ill.*1-)1J'IL'oil oil:4IE Boil ovo ' 001,90004 &iv I/7.. '.. _- .11,1 a.../MI CENTRON • DEVELOPMENT • . CORPORALION . , .. • - , II.4..V.:Vi.:,1":. :W•.'t":',' 1 .1;i 0...........,..k k ,,•• . • .v` ,+. a .-a _ — ,,k . , , . , ' '. I •,, ',,\ • .� 1 LI' ,.r •`o`er\" • . fi\.....„ `,.;.,,,„,.i.,..,. • ,,; 7 �0wi ;1 , \\ \kJ,i1 1 - - :. 12] rr . , • . zI I \ (:)111 11.1! .. Vti,U1-7:2,--- .--V_I-,Tj! .5 i ''.! ho --A.;.1 6.> ,11 f.1 , 1%k-r.s ' i i•.0' /Ili,! 5 ')' P -I)'f, t—"? ?In 'r 'l -1 r)A-'1* .. i I 1`I �'1/ 1 �e p - 111////11 1 / ff V\ c ---1 //ff..' -.. ' , lop O {.: .1 A l 1- I • ' NNI-.1 , ,,,,, • ‘.. ...--, . LC/\Q /.� \: • / - 1 i :y,\.t l•: r. 3., f 1 J ,r.l�,_S.L' JS 1 \ '�Jrli/ ./\\ sr ,, )``.f,Y..JIJ f 1.1.y,J.,r,,-, 7JI1I,1 '4 - 1`. IoRN ( 0 i, • i• , ....,..., ;.\'. ' ,_< ,<.,•,- -,,../..; ;..1 , /,.. : ,,, el 7 - .- , '" :' //',' li , ', \, ,e:f) ,.. 4.\''\,t',` . ',.. / - 't .-1'1„ i ;;t' .;_i 12 4,5,--J.,0 (i , -V./ 40 ,,i(_,1-<,, , ,.0.', -, ..‘,,;!ik<r' 4,',' /�/ ' i \, , II`',`, s7�-- C,_; WINDSOR IOUS •Li,i =tF / t; �...7,.:711 1 1,11.W.(,: //, :. ,,,. .,. n _1 :1 ' 3 ', - Lkii ' 15, [I( G- 1 i_il• 11' , .r rEir : . , ( -- In 1 lilt . .: , /4/01 /../. • ./, ' $ /..,. ';‘ ,---________i_.....-------_______________<? . bt)tO.ItCol %lit i. /// .: /, \ . ,cr) ,, ....z, / 4. / ,) . : //// / ',--,,_ :_i....1,7-, ,.,. 7 \_,... .._.,_,„__., . „, _(, ,, ,_ _. ..r •,,.,, - .., . . . , . , • .. � ..,,•, , , > 1 , •....... , ,,f),,„4, r . , 4, .,-, \\\<.\!! .... 1 " :.- "7" , 'C: .:r, (-•i .r n .. ,',.1 �� nlrOL'VE r ti \ 1 1 /' CEDAR RIVER \ �Jv • ' 1 /' a,, CE4/£r F!•?> 1 '1 • // J�,>'/ / ;. PARK \ � .1,11 �- . -- , 1 u/ 7 0l I -t-/ 1 1 //u// • � • 1 ! // / 1 1 / �/ /41,/ ( .l Il . C. `_ L-•/\ 1 f LEXIUGTON RIDGE APARTMENTS ' 9) 11 ) . SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-082-87 NI . .. . APPL 1 CANT CENTRON TOTAL AREA 13.4 ACRES PRINCIPAL ACCESS BRONSON WAY N.E. EXISTING ZONING R-4 (RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY) EXISTING USE UNDEVELOPED - PROPOSED USE CONSTRUCT 360 APARTMENTS IN APPROXIMATELY 15 BUILDINGS. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY. • • COMMENTS THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BETWEEN N.E. 3rd STREET AND N.E. 4th STREET. WEST OF EDMONDS AVENUE N.E. AND EAST OF BRONSON WAY/N.E. 3rd STREET INTERSECTION. • r; { 6. I I AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss. County of King ) DOTTY KLINGMAN , being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: 17th July That on the day of , 1989— 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 to before me this /7 . day of da.1.41 , 1989 otary P 1. and for the State of Washington, residing 4 , therein. Application, Petition, or Case #• CEPJTRON (Lexington Ridge) SA-082-87 (The minutes contain a list of the parties of record.) July 17, 1989 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: CENTRON (LEXINGTON RIDGE) Site Approval File No: SA-082-87 LOCATION: Located between N.E. Fourth Street and N.E. Third Street, west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and east of Bronson Way N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site Approval to develop 13.4 acres with a 360 unit multi- family residential complex. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Planning Division Recommendation: Approval, with conditions. PLANNING DIVISION REPORT: The Planning Division Report was received by the Examiner on June 20, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Division 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: MINUTES The hearing was opened on May 23, 1989 and continued to June 27, 1989 at 9:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit #1 - Yellow File containing application, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit #2 - Written testimony from Millie Renfrow. Exhibit #3 - Vicinity Map Exhibit #4 - Site Plan Exhibit #5 - Site Landscape Plan Exhibit #6 - Additional Landscape Plan Exhibit #7 - Lighting Plan Exhibit #8 - Elevation Plan • Exhibit #9 - Letter from Dodds Engineers, Inc. to Centron dated June 21, 1989. Exhibit #10 - Memo from Garth Cray, Utility Engineering, to Jeanette Samek-McKague. Exhibit #11 - Colored photo of rendering showing elevations. Exhibit #12 - Series of three tenant/landlord agreements. The first hearing on this proposal was held on May 23, 1989 at 9:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers. At that time Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator advised the Examiner it was staffs desire to have this matter continued because at this point the project is changing in terms of a design alternative. • - Gentron (Lexington Ridge) , SA-082-87 July 17, 1989 Page 2 Definitive drawings to fit the design alternative have not become available-to date and the Planning Department wishes to review the plans before preseiiiiag the entire proposal to the Healing iaAatniner and general public. Responding on behalf of the applicant was John Phillips. 2001 Western Avenue. Suite 500. Seattle 98121 who concurred in this request as it is believed a better site and landscaping plan can be presented for staffs review. He said in order to accomplish the necessary design work for the alternative plan more time will be necessary to enable staff to review the fully developed plans. The Hearing Examiner asked if there were members of the public that would be inconvenienced if the hearing was continued. Responding was Millie Renfrow, 310 Bronson NE #33. Renton 98056 who read her testimony into the record and entered same as Exhibit #2. Her testimony related to the concerns of possible impacts from this large proposal being placed into the community thereby affecting its liveability. At the conclusion of her testimony the Examiner assured Ms. Renfrow her testimony at this hearing will be noted and placed into the record and will be considered along with other testimony taken at the continued hearing. At this time the date of June 27, 1989, 9:00 A.M. was set as the date and time of the continued hearing. Not wishing to testify but wishing to become a party of record was Gerald Edgar. 351 Bronson Way NE. Renton 98056. JUNE 27, 1989 The hearing opened at 9:00 A.M. and those persons wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. Senior Planner Lenora Blauman presented an in-depth review of this proposal, and a summary of that review follows. The parcel involved is 13.4 acres in size and the applicant wishes to construct a 360 unit multi-family residential complex on the site, currently zoned R-4 (there is also G-1 zoning on the property due to a power line corridor on the site). A review was given of existing zoning in the surrounding areas. There is a greenbelt located on the eastern and southern portions of the site which contains power lines and steep slopes. Approximately 12.5 acres will be in the R-4 zone with the remaining .8 acres remaining in the G-1 classification. Access is provided to the site via Bronson Way, NE 4th and 3rd as well as Vuemont. Public services, transportation, schools, and parks are available to the site; the site is currently vacant; there will be an average of 27 units per acre and the buildings will be 2-1/2 to 3 stories in height (with a maximum height of 35 ft.); the buildings will contain cedar siding, aluminum windows and shake roofs. Seven and one-half acres of the total site will be open space with 54% of that acreage being used for active recreation and the remaining portion for parking, passive recreation, service areas and pedestrian linkages. Continuing, Ms. Blauman advised the ERC determination of significance was issued and the required Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) emphasized the areas of concern as set out by the ERC which included traffic circulation, soil, storm water run-off, aquifer protection, availability of community facilities to serve this development, power line impacts, public service impacts as well as public and safety impacts. The final EIS was presented in January, 1989 and the applicant has since presented staff with an agreed upon design alternative for the project. At this point Ms. Blauman read the nine (9) ERC conditions into the record (see attached copy of ERC report of April 5, 1989). In presenting a review of the Site Plan Blauman reviewed the ten criteria that need to be met for Site Plan approval stating the proposal is felt to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. There will be no development on the greenbelt, sloped areas to the south of the site will be retained with natural vegetation, the greenbelt to the east containing the power line will be reserved for parking; buildings have been set back away from the power lines; the site is being developed in a timely fashion with other surrounding properties making this the next logical development for the area; the proposal conforms to existing land use regulations for an R-4 zone; there will be approximately 630 parking spaces and if more parking is needed additional parking spaces could be utilized along the power line, with the trail system in that area remaining in tact. Landscape buffering will be used to buffer this site from its neighbors; possible impacts to surrounding uses have been mitigated by the ERC conditions; aesthetics have been scaled and designed to blend with existing surrounding properties; grading and filling requirements will be met to protect neighboring properties from possible erosion. Continuing, it was pointed out that potential impacts to the site have been identified and worked out with staff; recreation areas will be located in a central area so as not to impact but will be available to everyone; on-site lighting has been provided as well as pedestrian linkage between structures and around parking areas; vehicle traffic routes have been well identified; a van will be provided for use of the residents of the complex including possible transportation to school children; open parking as well as covered carports will be provided; service areas will be screened and lighted; environmental health issued were reviewed (namely the power line kV); there should be no decrease in local property values due to this development; there are expected to be 2,374 vehicle trips per day generated from this site with traffic impacts expected on Vuemont Place and down to the Sunset corridor (the city's Traffic Engineering Department and the applicant will develop a traffic mitigation plan); police and fire services are available with an agreement requested by the Police Department to have the applicant charged for any excessive amount of police responses to the site; on-site pole lighting will be provided for travel and pedestrian routes with adequate light and air being addressed by the developer with the • - Centron (Lexington Ridge) SA •082-87 July 17, 1989 Page 3 location of the structures to each other as well as their proximity to adjacent properties. Ms. Lauman also stated the common areas on the site will be open, construction activities will create some debris and dust and these concerns have been addressed with mitigating measures, the Sunset Trail linkage has been agreed to by the applicant. She also said the storm water system will be a critical issue for this site due to its slopes but added that a specific plan has been submitted by the applicant and is being considered by staff, with the final plan to be reviewed at the time of the building permit submittal. Ms. Blauman concluded her presentation by reading into the record the eleven (11) conditions recommended by staff as contained in the Report to the Hearing Examiner dated June 27, 1989. She also added two new conditions which state - (#12) additional exterior storage should be located immediately adjacent to the units and (#13) the parking plan will be subject to approval by the Planning Division as carports need to be moved or setback in a different way. Referring to the "Note" at the end of the printed conditions Ms. Blauman added the words ...."or access which is in excess of an 8% grade". Responding for the property owner was Dob Johns. 3600 Columbia Center Building, 701 Fifth Avenue, Seattle 98104 addressing points questioned during the presentation of the report. Grading quantities on the site will require the removal of about 245,000 cubic yards from the site to bring to a finished grade; sewers are available and there is sufficient capacity in the system (with a few places in the line that are only 6" in diameter that will need to be upgraded to provide capacity flow, which the applicant has agreed to take care of); it is his understanding that Puget Power owns, in fee, the easement rights in the adjacent powerline corridor and in discussing this project with them they are willing to work out an arrangement to permit parking and the trail on their property. Regarding the bond required by the Police Department Mr. Johns said this requirement is due to a problem with police responses to only one part of the city (which he feels is due to inadequate attention by the management of that particular facility to tenant selection and control) and he feels Centron's approach to tenant selection and control procedures should relieve them of this condition. He also stated Centron has not been able to locate a bonding company that will bond for this purpose and feels this type of bonding requirement for all developments due to the problems with only one development could be considered over-kill and does not feel this requirement is appropriate. Project Architect, Dennis Riebe, Centron. 3025 - 112th NE, Bellevue. 98004 complimented staff on their cooperation and extremely thorough presentation of this proposal today. Mr. Riebe acknowledged the slope on the site is from the southeast corner down to the northwest corner; noted the site will be terraced down the hillside into three or four plateaus which will be approximately 4' to 8' depending on their location; reviewed the recreational facilities proposed for the site; pedestrian linkages, trail linkage system, parking, landscaping plans that have been submitted to staff; buffering on the northern property line; storage areas for balconies have already been designed for each unit and are part of the plans submitted to staff. Also speaking to the project was Bob Minnott. Centron. 3025 - 112th NE, Bellevue. 98004 who reviewed the background of Centron and their development and management procedures. Expressing concern regarding additional traffic was property owner Zion Emmons. 349 Bronson NE, Renton 98056. Mr. Emmons said the intersection of NE 4th and Bronson NE is currently congested and dangerous due to sight distance and excess speed by most motorists in that corridor. He stated with all the other apartments that have been added to that general area in the last few years the additional traffic has impacted homeowners as well as noise, overflow parking on the street, and expressed concern regarding the steep slopes in the proposed project and possible water runoff on to Bronson NE. Emmons also said he would like to see a condition whereby Centron would be required to post some type of a bond that would aid property owners in the area should the value of their property go down. Gerald Edgar. 351 Bronson NE. Renton 98056 questioned traffic safety at Vuemont Place and the intersection of NE 4th and Bronson Way. He said the current configuration of buildings for the proposal will have 9 buildings sharing egress on NE 4th and Bronson and 6 buildings will have egress on Vuemont. He feels the residents in the area are going to be overburdened with traffic and the additional traffic will be coming out into one of the most dangerous intersections in the city. Mr. Edgar wants the traffic.issue to be dealt with now - and referring to the sewer improvements in the area he does not feel adjacent property owners should be assessed for services that will be used by a profit making venture. Comments regarding construction traffic with noise and dirt, buffering along Bronson Way, and support for the bond requested by the police department concluded his testimony. James Colt. 100 Blaine NE, Renton 98057 who questioned the number of truck trips that will be created, the size of the trucks; questioned the access for the construction trucks; stated on Bronson Way and NE 3rd Metro Transit discontinued their route in that area due to the very bad curve of the street and the turning restrictions for their busses; wanted assurances there would be sewer capacity prior to the hook-up of this site; asked for clarification on the location of the proposed transit pull-out lane; doesn't feel this proposal addresses the financial responsibility of the applicant with reference to truck trips to be generated from the site and asked that until parking agreements with Puget Power are signed , .. C.entron (Lexington Ridge) SA-082-87 • July 17, 1989 ' Page 4 and a determination made as to what public improvements will be necessary for this area that the site approval not be approved. A neighbor of this site, James Goerg. 4201 N.E. 5th, Renton 98056 referred to a newspaper article he read regarding development in the city and traffic impacts affecting the N.E. 4th Street corridor and said he felt in the NE 3rd, Sunset Blvd and 1-405 no more apartment complexes should be approved. Mr. Goerg stated with other projects in the area and over 2500 units created by this developer has created too much traffic and feels this application should be referred back to the ERC for analysis of the total developments in the area and all of the traffic impacts from those developments. He recommended rejection of this application. The Hearing Examiner suggested for those persons concerned about future development in this area they should take part in Planning Commission meetings and noted there are Environmental Impact Statements being prepared for those projects and they could become involved in commenting on those EIS's. Responding briefly for the Renton Police Department was Penny Bryant. Referring to the bond requested by the Police Department she referred to the draft EIS noting police services are not adequate due to current staffing, and said the area of the new proposal has been notorious for their high proportionate number of police calls. Also, should the proposed development be sold in the future the Police Department would not be able to ask for this type of bond at a later date from a new owner. Addressing sewer capacity for this area was Ron Olsen, Utility Engineer for the City of Renton stated that department has reviewed sewer plans for this development. The plans show the sewer being directed toward the northwest portion of the site, away from the aquifer protection area; there are some 6" mains that will have to be replaced with larger mains which should address any concerns regarding flow and capacity. He said there is adequate capacity and water is no problem. Garth Cray of the Storm Water Utility Department referred to his memo (Exhibit #10); spoke to erosion control stating the applicant will be required to prepare an Erosion Control Plan and design a detention system based upon the capacity of the system running in the streets and after discussions with the developer's engineers they are in agreement with this request. This will be an on-site retention system with the release rate controlled by the receiving system's capacity. If the system is deemed under capacity the applicant will have to provide capacity for a 25 year storm as opposed to a 10 year release with a 10 year retention. Discussing the Transportation Management Plan and representing the city was Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer. The Plan is being developed as part of all of the TBZ's (Traffic Benefit Zones) that are being formed in the city to identify mechanisms to reduce the overall traffic generation within the various areas that are being impacted. This project will generate approximately 2400 vehicle trips per day and Norris said the developers have participated with other developers on the NE 3rd and NE 4th corridors in formulating a traffic benefit zone to address the long term impacts of traffic in that corridor, and through that process the city has identified significant projects to address additional traffic through that corridor. These projects are costed out and as development occurs they are assessed a fee to pay for their fair share of the improvements. This development has been asked to bond for $288.00/trip or approximately $670,000. to pay for the necessary improvements. Some of the improvements that will directly impact this development is the widening of NE 3rd along the frontage of the property, through the intersection at 3rd and Sunset - there will be two lanes (one eastbound and one westbound) that will be allowed as soon as the modifications to I-405 (the underpass) which will be widened to accommodate additional traffic flow. Mr. Norris clarified his memo of March 31, 1989 on point #3 regarding the access from NE 3rd Street and stated they are not ready to accept a proposal to have access on NE 3rd - the use only as an emergency access would be acceptable. Continuing, Norris said based upon the analysis reviewed by his department the impact of traffic from this proposed development can be handled along Bronson Way and Vuemont. The grade at Bronson and 3rd presents concerns. He said transit service can no longer operate on that corridor as a result of the grade and when the widening occurs on 3rd the impact on the grade will be more dramatic and that will have to be negotiated out between the city and the developer. Referring to the TBZ's (Traffic Benefit Zones) he said they are directly associated with a specific capital improvement project - and the cost of those improvements are allocated to each developer based on the vehicle trips they generate from a specific development. Projects that are not identified within the TBZ will not be given credit for participation. It has been discussed whereby possibly a project could be given credit for the amount of traffic they reduce by offering other incentives such as vans - but they can not be credited for their project unless they are included in the TBZ. Referring to the widening of NE 3rd he said that is a TBZ project and can be given credit - a transit pull-out only can not be given credit. The policies and processes of the TBZ have not as yet been adopted by the City Council but they have adopted areas that are to be identified as TBZ's. Bronson and 3rd intersection is signalized and the real problem at that intersection is not generated from the intersection itself but is generated from the lines of traffic on Sunset and North 3rd which backup through that intersections and prevent traffic from accessing to NE 3rd from Bronson Way. He said the widening of the underpass at I-405 will give more Centron (Lexington Ridge) • SA-082-87 July 17, 1989 Page 5 :tr.,acity to NE 3rd to move traffic, although that may not be the sole solution to the traffic r rablems in that area. Responding further for city staff was the Zoning Administrator. Don Erickson. Mr. Erickson stated the Puget Power access would be used primarily for emergency ingress and egress as requested by the Fire Department. Referring to the bond requested by the police department for excess responses he said the city has been looking at larger projects and realizing they are usually sold after a few years and the city can be saddled with extraordinary police response calls. The city has developed a bonding formula in the police department and has applied that formula to another development. It is staffs recommendation that this bonding be requested for this development also. Responding again for Centron was Bob Johns who responded to some comments made by persons who testified previously noting there will be no assessment against surrounding property owners for the upgrade of the sewer system - the applicant will be absorbing the entire cost. Parking concerns and possible on-street parking should be alleviated as parking requirements have been changed to provide more parking in this project. Plantings will be provided along the existing apartment building at the Vuemont Place entrance as the two apartment houses along Vuemont Place have no landscaping at all (they are paved to their property lines for parking and this applicant must now be responsible for the landscaping on that side of the site). Referring to traffic and the absence of an impact study for this project and other projects proposed for the area he said in the EIS for this project the cumulative impact on traffic from those projects was discussed and the TBZ study which has been done has been designed to deal with the cumulative impacts of the projects in this area that have been proposed as well as other projects that could be developed under existing zoning. Addressing several conditions proposed he said the applicant has no problem with the landscaping bond requirement but requested that they be permitted to provide either a performance bond or some other similar type of security approved by the city; the applicant proposed to have a park and ride created in the area of the power line right-of-way area and with that in mind proposed the van condition and park and ride condition be addressed as part of the Transportation Systems Management Plan (TSMP) because Metro has mixed feelings about van proposals and possibly there could be an acceptable alternative worked out. Regarding the TBZ and no credit for transportations systems he does not understand the rationale for no credit stating if the concept is that the site will generate 2400 cars a day without any mitigation measures, one of the mitigation measures is the TSMP that reduces that count, and he feels credit should be given against the amount of the TBZ fee because the amount of traffic generated will be reduced. Regarding the Emergency Services Management Bond (police department bond requested) he said he feels if this bonding is really needed it may be an overreaction to one bad situation experienced by the police department - and the department should go before the city council and ask for the resources to deal with this problem or ask for an ordinance to permit them to assess property owners who do not take control of their tenants, rather than placing this bonding on only new developments. Referencing other conditions Mr. Johns said exterior storage is already incorporated in the plans and approval of the parking plan is acceptable; the landscaping plan has been submitted and approved by staff and feels the condition should be deleted; regarding the electromagnetic field intensity and the proximity of the buildings to this field he said all the buildings are at least 65 ft. from the property line (40 ft. is required) so the condition should be deleted as it has been met. Continuing, modifications to the project for aesthetics have been complied with and that condition should be deleted; linkage with the trail system has been agreed to; referenced to traffic trip fees; recreation facilities are being provided and the sewer plan has been approved by the city and the upgrade will be paid for by the applicant. Planner Blauman noted any improvements made by the developer to support this proposed development will be at the cost of the developer, the public will not be asked to participate in any way. Regarding traffic impacts she said the EIS for this project did look at the cumulative impacts and traffic mitigation measures for this site will address the concerns. Responding to comments from Mr. Johns on other conditions Blauman said conditions 8 and 9 could be integrated into the TSMP with the TSMP in place before building permits are issued; condition 10 should be fulfilled by the applicant; ERC recommendation 3(b) regarding landscaping should remain as the plan has only been approved in concept; 4(c) should be retained; 5(a) could be removed, 6(b) should remain; 7(a) could be removed and 7(b) should remain and condition #8 should also remain. The Examiner asked for an additional week to issue this decision and there were no objections. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 12:20 P.M. • Centron (Lexington Ridge) ' SA-082-87 • July 17, 1989 Page 6 . FINDINGS, rn^TCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Centron, filed a request for approval of a site plan for a 360 unit multiple family residential complex on approximately 13.4 acres of property. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official, determined that an EIS was required for the proposal and one was prepared. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street, west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and east of Bronson Way N.E. 6. The subject site was annexed into the city with the adoption of Ordinance 1549 enacted in June, 1956. The site was reclassified from its. initial R-1 (Single Family; Lot size - 7,200 sq ft) zoning to R-4 (High Density Multiple Family) by the City Council with the passage of Ordinance 2029, enacted in May, 1963. 7. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of high density multiple family development and greenbelt, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. The steep southerly slopes of the site as well as the power line corridor east of the site are designated for greenbelt. 8. The applicant proposes an apartment complex containing 360 units in 15 buildings. The complex will also contain a separate recreation building, a pool, two tot lots and a sports court. 9. The proposed complex is divided between two sites. The main site would contain the apartment complex proper. The subsidiary site located immediately east of the main site is a power line corridor owned by Puget Power. This subsidiary site would provide 105 parking stalls. The site is irregularly shaped with its east property line (approximately 627 feet long) and south property line (approximately 929 feet long) the most regular. The west property line generally runs at an angle to the northeast and contains a number of jogs. Similarly, the north property line also contains a number of jogs. The Puget Power parcel is generally a parallelogram approximately 370 feet long by approximately 170 feet wide. 10. The site is bounded on the south by N.E. 3rd Street and by Bronson Way N.E. along part of its western and northern property lines. Vuemont Place N.E. intersects the site along its western property line. Again, the Puget Power corridor forms the eastern boundary line for about two- thirds of the site's depth. 11. The complex will contain both 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units. 12. The complex requires 630 parking stalls. Parking will be accommodated by both open parking (496 stalls) and covered carports (134 stalls). The applicant proposes providing a portion of the parking, 105 stalls, on the adjoining acreage which is under the Puget Power line. A formal agreement has not been executed, although Puget Power has indicated that it would probably allow the parking in this corridor. 13. The buildings will be two and a half to three stories high, with a maximum height of 35 feet. 14. The 15 buildings actually consist of a series of couplets. Each of the 15 buildings is comprised of mirror image couplets connected to each other along their length by covered walkways and stairways. The buildings will contain minor variations as the larger and smaller units are linked side by side in a variety of fashions. Again, mirror image symmetry will be used with the same size larger end units connected by two smaller center units. The buildings will be located at various angles around the site. The minimum separation between buildings will be approximately 25 feet. 15. The buildings will be finished with cedar siding and aluminum frame windows. The roofing materials will be asphalt/shake composition. Centron (Lexington Ridge) ' SA-082-87 • July 17, 1989 Page 7 16. Modulated exterior walls will be used on the buildings, with terraces, the stairways and walkways providing additional architectural relief. Peaked roofs will provide visual breaks at the roof line where the couplets join the covered walkways. 17. Full occupancy of the proposed complex would add approximately 576 persons to the city's population. There would be approximately 90 school age children. 18. The estimated traffic generated by the subject proposal is approximately 2,374 vehicle trips per day. Traffic issues were reviewed by the ERC and conditions were imposed during the environmental review process. The applicant will be required to participate in a Traffic Management Plan. The applicant will also be required to participate in grade modifications to the Bronson/3rd intersection. The plans for grade modification are very speculative at this point and may be difficult to realize due to the topography at this location. 19. Since substantial portions of the property will be regraded, most of the existing natural second growth vegetation will be removed. Site plan review does not entail detailed review of the excavation, but approximately 290,000 cubic yards of material will be relocated either around the site or removed from it. This will entail a large volume of truck trips, but this information was not provided or analyzed in any detailed manner. 20. The steep slopes immediately above N.E. 3rd Street will be retained as greenbelt and will not be disturbed. In addition, landscape materials including a variety of trees, shrubs and lawn grasses will be planted in all areas not used for building pads, parking areas and roadways. The applicant proposes additional landscaping adjacent to the Vuemont apartments since those units were paved property line to property line. Approximately 49% of the site will be open space. Regrading of the site will create terraces or plateaus for building pads. These elevation differences will be approximately 4 to 8 feet as they drop across the site. 21. A number of apartment complexes are located in this area of the city. Apartment buildings are located immediately west of the site, on both sides of Vuemont where it intersects the subject site's western property line. Group Health's clinic is located west of the site across Bronson Way. N.E. 3rd Street runs along the south property line, and again, the power line is located east of the site. A church and associated day care center are located north of the site. 22. The Renton School District serves the site with Highlands Elementary School, a middle school and Renton High School. The site is just within the busing area limits for elementary school age children, although this could change. 23. Water, sewer and storm lines are provided by the city. Staff reported that these lines have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed development, although the sewer lines are at or near capacity. Capacity problems in the sewers have been noted in the general vicinity. Upgrading of some constricted sewer lines may be required. This would be accomplished by the applicant. 24. Metro has discontinued bus service along Bronson Way because of difficulties negotiating the grade and curve near the intersection of Bronson with N.E. 3rd. A bus pullout and possible "park and ride" might be created along the powerline corridor. 25. Liberty Park and the Cedar River Trail are located approximately southwest of the site. 26. All vehicular access would be from the northwest, either from Vuemont or Bronson Way. An access drive along N.E. 3rd would be used for emergency access since the sight distance and grade difficulties preclude use in ordinary circumstances. 27. There has been a reduction in the permitted density based upon the existence of the steep slopes/greenbelt located along the south property line, but this has been merged with reductions for the power line greenbelt. Staff has calculated that the per unit density for the subject site is approximately 27 units per acre. There seems to be both an inclusion and exclusion for the power line corridor since note is made of the G-1 zoning's density standards. There seems to be no reason to include the power line for any density calculations as it is separately owned and already supports its permissible development - a power line. 28. Staff has requested that the applicant bond for any police services required over that normally expected of a complex of this size. The police department provided information that they were inadequately staffed to serve increased call levels. . Centron (Lexington Ridge) - • SA-082-87 . July 17, 1989 Page 8 CONCLUSIONS 1. This office does not believe that appropriate methodology has been used to calculate the permitted density of the subject site. The basis for this decision is that the methods used by the applicant and staff in allowing the use of the adjacent Puget Power corridor for parking in effect permits more dwelling units on the subject site than might otherwise be physically possible. 2. Using the adjacent property under any method, be it long term easement, permanent agreement or simple lease, provides a development bonus not found, nor necessarily sanctioned by the city code. By using the power line corridor for parking the applicant appears to be increasing the dwelling unit density on the subject site. Even if the R-4 zoning conveys the ability to develop 35 units per acre, that is subject to physical limitations imposed by the steep slopes, greenbelt provisions, and the need to accommodate recreation, roads, aisleways and parking. The shifting of 105 parking stalls to a separate parcel permits the applicant to commit additional acreage of the primary parcel to buildings. The proposal, by providing parking on another site, also chews up additional acreage off-site for parking and asphalt, (sprawling if you will), across more acreage than is necessary. If the land physically necessary to provide those spaces were provided on the subject site there might have to be a reduction in the number of dwelling units. 3. What this office finds very interesting is that the property which is not part of the subject site and on which development has already occurred, a power line, is being used to boost density although it is stated as a reduction in density. It does not seem at all appropriate to factor in, in any fashion, this acreage since it is already dedicated to power transmission. In addition, without a PUD, this office is not aware that density allowances may be shifted between parcels, and that is the effect of the subject proposal. 4. While it may be permissible to use the power line for parking, it should not be used to modify the underlying density of this development. The power line property does modify density in a variety of direct and indirect ways. It is obvious that every parcel has a certain carrying capacity. The primary parcel of the subject site has topographic limitations. It also has a finite capacity to accommodate a mixture of housing, recreation and parking. So, while the Comprehensive Plan and zoning may permit 35 units per acre, that does not mean that it is possible, given the restraints or constraints of topography and the requirements of the Parking and Loading Ordinance. Again, the emphasis is placed on the physical limitations inherent in any parcel of property. These physical limitations play an important role in most land use decisions. Since the larger the building the more parking, a limited envelope can accommodate only a limited amount of one or the other, and a trade-off usually results. In permitting the power line to serve, the applicant is unnecessarily spared this trade-off boosting the dwelling unit density. 5. Of course, the applicant may be willing to develop the same 360 units on the primary parcel and accommodate the required parking on that same parcel by a combination of underground parking, ground level parking and a multi-level parking structure but costs might limit such choices. By paving over the adjacent acreage the applicant makes use of another's property to expand the density of this parcel. 6. Therefore, while it may be possible to accommodate those 105 parking stalls on the subject site, the modifications necessary would be fairly substantial. It appears inappropriate to approve the development of the subject site subject to any condition to accommodate all parking on the subject site or even to reduce by a pro rata share the number of dwelling units since too much latitude would be conveyed by such a condition. The accommodation of the parking on the site or the reduction of the number of dwelling units would require a major restructuring of the proposal and that requires additional review by staff and the public. 7. While leased parking on other than the primary lot is generally permitted in the city, use of a secondary parcel for parking diminishes the potential use of that secondary parcel for either office use, apartments, or some other use. The use of a property to support another parcel's parking demands ordinarily reduces that second parcel's potential for traffic, etc. In the current case, there is no such reduction since the secondary parcel, the power line, would not have accommodated increased growth, traffic, etc. The result in this case appears to suggest a transfer of development rights which is not sanctioned under Renton Code. It creates a potential development right which otherwise did not exist. This is an apparent attempt to merge the applicant's property with that of Puget Power for determining dwelling unit density. It is the absence of the physical trade-off discussed above which creates the inappropriate bonus in this case. Another parcel is not being removed from the development rolls. • Ceptron (Lexington Ridge) SA-082-87 • July 17, 1989 Page 9 8. While s me may think this is a worthy goal, it should not become policy without detailed scrutiny of its consequences. Since there is a considerable stock of acreage invested in power line corridors in this city, care should be used in transferring development potential from the power line corridors to adjacent property. And while the code permits power lines to be used for parking the code does not sanction its use to expand the dwelling unit count on other acreage. 9. Again, it's not necessarily the absolute calculation of dwelling unit density which is at issue. Instead, if a parcel such as the subject site could only accommodate 20 units per acre after meeting its parking, open space, roadway and setback requirements then it should not necessarily be entitled to spread out over adjoining property to boost its potential. 10. If parking cannot be accommodated on the primary parcel and should not be accommodated on the power line corridor, this might reduce the scale of the project - there might be a commensurate reduction in unit density, a commensurate reduction in traffic and a potentially commensurate increase in open space. 11. This office realizes that if all the requirements are necessarily accommodated on the primary parcel, that it may appear very dense, but that is, after all, one of the major implications of R- 4 densities. If they are inappropriate due to crowding, loss of light and air or other sacrifices, that should be addressed directly rather than shifting the burden to neighboring property. And while the neighboring property in this case is merely a power line corridor, the precedent is inappropriate. 12. Therefore, as may appear obvious, the subject proposal requires further review and cannot be approved in its present form. Approval subject to a series of conditions would be too vague to be enforceable since the need for substantial alteration is also inevitable. DECISION The Site Plan is denied. ORDERED THIS 17th day of July, 1989. FRED J. K FMAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 17th day of July, 1989 to the parties of record: John Phillips . 2001 Western Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121 Millie Renfrow 310 Bronson NE #33 Renton, WA 98056 Gerald Edgar 351 Bronson Way NE Renton, WA 98056 Bob Johns 3600 Columbia Center Building 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Dennis Riebe Centron Corporation 3025 - 112th NE Bellevue, WA 98004 Bob Minnott Centron Corporation 3025 - 112th NE Bellevue, WA 98004 Centron (Lexington Ridge) SA-082-87 July 17, 1989 • Page 10 Do:. .1-nons 349 Bronson NE Renton, WA 98056 James Colt 100 Blaine NE Renton, WA 98057 James Goerg 4201 NE 5th Renton, WA 98056 Penny Bryant Renton Police Department Ron Olsen, Utility Engineer City of Renton Garth Cray, Storm Water Utility Dept. City of Renton Gary Norris, Traffic Engineering Dept. City of Renton Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator City of Renton Lenora Blauman, Senior Planner City of Renton TRANSMITTED THIS 17th day of July, 1989 to the following: Mayor Earl Clymer Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Lynn A. Guttmann, Public Works Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Ken Nyberg, Community Development Director Glen Gordon, Fire Marshal Larry M. Springer, Planning Manager Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Ronald Nelson, Building Director Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer John Adamson, Developmental Program Coordinator Garth Cray, Senior Engineering Specialist Valley Daily News Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 P.M. July 31. 1989. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or 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 a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. f- � � Ei . '.\‘ 1 ( ‘:. -i.\i. °I .. • rtilr , . err •... : � trt ;\ ''. \ V-IA; *‘-';-77. f\ itzi.. �f J f� N I'J^I I • •f •I•� ` �1 ;tC_ri:r_Ttl-4)11.:.5I I \1� J tj , • . 11 2::'.I.t.\\ '1411 I til: ' . 9 i .:•) i . \ .I j i�l • 'e OO f' 0 0� •rJ7i `\ rl 4 1. 9 ° . -- 7 L 4 R f� t • I _r 1 • �tilI •f ./ . y!•{- ` I •�-Yam,/,;/; 2 j 'S ,• • /// .( `,. .\ v • s '<>csV •' • i r ,e. .-1,SF,75:•:r1 f ! ., WIUDSOR NIIIS �: • �� • ' `-I, I rl' r.1;•— ; •'.. \ _`\R—''''- 4 PAR 4� 7p1'•/jPi A,v,):•R T'IA: _.1i4��,j : % � �, _ - - B ' JB7 '/<4Y El. IRV •,• a —� i 1 / � / ///vl '' / • / fr Wail' �� . /'' L_1 yd, . , / ,.,/, - .,) /j u'kl-i-: /Thip4. /',1( . , R 1 ii .....„,/4°,,•0„,,' Itcf ibiTE ,. vlti ` • si-t, , / 12/ S s' . _o I°re .1 1 l'i F."1....\1"--1 - l'' // ' ,,`...Elie" 1 :: 1 1 71r ci' ,17. :;!0.':1-4' 7,1 111 r. • /, CEDAR RIVER •••\ • I•v I J3,�m CEM[TF�> t �i PARR •n-tr1- ,- f j /��i�/ 1 /i� ••/.• 1 (�'&f \ i ': \ \ LEXINGTON RIDGE APARTMENTS • SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-082-87 N , • ., APPLICANT CENTRON TOTAL AREA 13.4 ACRES PRINCIPAL ACCESS BRONSON WAY N.E. • • EXISTING ZONING R-4 (RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY) EXISTING USE UNDEVELOPED ' • • PROPOSED USE CONSTRUCT 360 APARTMENTS IN APPROXIMATELY -15 BUILDINGS. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY. COMMENTS 'THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BETWEEN N.E. 3rd STREET AND N.E. 4th STREET, • WEST OF EDMONDS AVENUE N.E. AND EAST OF BRONSON WAY/N.E. 3rd STREET INTERSECTION. • • II.' a r, ,...1,.' Heavy .Industrial ' ' 1_-_-___1--1 , • ' _ f Manufacturing Park �' E' �" =' �' �:= / Multiple Option 1� :'G- ' ;.!:;6 .r; ' .�<; ; ..„.. .,.. .„,.....„:„.,„,....„..,...._ ::. ;ed April 1985 '(!, ---- il , ..,1.- 1.•r...2 :'• a ; 4i::::; =,•L-' , rVe {� -. I.:: .. ` Vr''C M1 L�l • • °oo,000°o• •°0000°°°° FR ..l c,. \aVill i ,. .....,\'';'-:•::47:;.A Ell LAKE 1 ' t.o•:•°i:i0t.:::::: , „ 000��'•,_';• . •:... it;;; L:I::t:.:::l:i,ti.1.7,lig IiII WASHINGTON °° yr;: \„.„-......7. o' fl'I, Imo. :1 I.... i ail(pir •r 'i•,.' .�, i...\\• • _ 0000, ,^.' a:000000000. _ $$ • i :�;.: :1. • • • • •` ^ H **��jj 111117:1%!? i - • • • • • • • • •,.. .. • •::„,:„,.0„,‘,: ,_.:„:„.:,„„,: „:4,,,,,...„., —. te, .10. 1::;,:: :,....;.; .. .----...-..' : : : : : ' • :. • ...,,,. ....:...:::;:.:: 41., , !1 ::„„t.„4,4 pril ._::.••••,i::_::r.-i::W.:-__i•:‘::7,•::_::_ 000o. •••'•'•'••• •'•'•'•'•'•ii•'•'• :. '�tt — •::;::__r•:: :•l•'__:-_-:__•.:e-.::l.•::._i7..::.•:i•'d..::g*__i.•.::s.::..it•:%.:_`.:.,4-..•:....:l.P__._.:4.„'.--i 0•k_ri,,._r_\"'ii'o.I.,...tl. ..r.t.g1iag •.%tl ihgd:a•.- ?•,00000000 •• • •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• -� 0000:.:L..::.j•-.t,•,.,mo ,i• i Il.• i5••to i •c•l1k-1 i •--. ;••-•/•• "••••11, .,,/-•(,cu.V•1••(I, :'\ii„.:.,j:..e.ir..i":-"r,.•;"..'l("..I,ft.-.,4 la'1•,1 1 1u.e'.1i.:s•-,..•.:•.50i>i:i.;.:;:blj,."'i:.:„. •'i:.1,V:•i:,,.?:,1: 4 00°000000 o°000°o°o• ``e� •it • •• •• •• • • • • • • • „ m . 4# °0000 e94 1, 00%0°• t •• •• • .• • • • • �• •J•_!_•_ i o l. o 0 0 0$0 4.. •• •• •• •• •• • •• •• •• •• • • • ' '•I oo :, • 000°0 ,goo • • • • •• • • •• •• •• • • • • ,or 0 o d „C4y; • ,0000 0pp.:, • • • • • • • ` • , •,•I ri0000 apoo L i • • • • •e• • • • • /,••. ••.I�, '000 0 0°0 � •.o.• ••II_I_- n,;.•.)• 000 o%o°°• "�• • • • • • • • • ;'; -- , 1'••;oo °0000• • • • �' • •• • • ♦ • w". - I o 0 o O o T•'7 �' • • • • • ;L 1•••�• , 0000 v o •• '0000 °c°c°c :• ,•• •, / .•000. ■■r■7..I■■■■ ;000 00 0 0• 0000 � 1, _ -_ I , o o g o o 000' r'r — - -- - 1/■if■■II■i■i •oo°,0000°000, ° o � e. / : „ �.:: '::,... ... °• n■■.■ °000°o°O°°°°°• , ° � .. I . , o° `00000000°° 44ggil6rrb � I �{ � ' e'r�. �• . 000 0000°0000, l .I■■■■0 0 0V0� 0 0 0 �4• '' .°o°,°0000000,°•o°o°,°0000,°,°000°• -=`aw::: ii .0000co%°eococoo , if La y 4 .•°000°°°o°.°°°°°°°0°• •"!'� r ,,,0000 0000000 ,I � �f =�� •� a�'��.dF�' ', o00000000.000000000• ••0 0 0 0 0 0 `` +- o00000000•o000000000�• o o >ir 0 $_d"o o •rid 0I 0 000 ,0000• 0 0 0 0 00•0 o �00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0o0 00 000 0 ,0000 0 0 •oo o0 0000 0 o 0 r o 0 0 00 0 00 0•0 00 0 0 0 0 °°° ° r si .� 0000°,. � st am- .0000° 0000°° J O°, o000000000000000000• ••.#:•... ci Ad •• ! =' `1;;i'>\ & .0000i000r,+S' '� i ,1 '•' ' ' ' ,0000 000ao j, ,,0000 •i+ ' or,o- ;,! 0000000. d ... .A .� pli` ' . •}. 3r, .,,0000• fi'.° y'�- ■: ■■i � iE °000 ■■ 'Q '/ : •r,ZA •�• r ■ T I 'r• %C i is .iYr "" t ii ,''fb '` ,•%. :•�:S,;t. ,.yi).'.;n•••' ••,3j•"Ii.,do-Ar.r.ri ';.`�.1 °•• �./=Clt ■� I■ • �� t , )' Ya .i-F -�:Z�•.Jr'•r j r� • ' r �.7 '� °?. 0;r,• o.� ,v •i :.,:,.i:A. :' ■li�li /■■■ --!•9 "�•k!! 111 ' ,. :n•^ :(YCf�n-r a; ::•� ';t>'rj r'%. 'n n`•3 f ,j'�'..�',,'0�•'1°'J ri rn,F� . i/ ■/►'//==u■■�\■ / ?•c ^> +I•'lt CiC,•, n:n 1 iii,9 r{h+'�,r;`/. 7 "' /l:f3[jhF 11 ii■: e '0/:■ = ,`1 •:•. IIP r�;•..•)•.'�{•`: ..jJ I'•y i (`� �'. ter( ,.e,.'.:;'::.r::;...„:'.:.:.:;'c,'- • e :It .�`. s.. I •._,1 •,,,w ,.,,, .:•:�l•' '^ 1; -, .e. .„•:r :®_ hil;ii=I l C i i Te Cde`:=Pi ,:A /. i. 1,', .5;:;r, . >•r.. 4: 4 • • LAND USE ELEMENT �:s ^•r:...1,,;,i,,; f,,, ,1 a, Ifi ; ill,, II-P l'•.Z•.`' i•r •I"" •i3Jt,•:01.?ro�:(•'�`.1 iio°°•.000 ';4, \tl?�'`�4�i � °0000 , 'o,.-,c : 7 Single Family 1 Commercial o, :: ,.;��'�► Low Density \\ 1, `Ni‘• `l °• s•a.' . 18 301 Office / Office Park .. ;"'` Multi—Family °°o. . �;;•�;,,r, rt� �h. '.000• J).41 i}),mot`,, t•,I.1:.7:rVr Medium Density0000°°, �`r 0000°0 ; " 0000 •%000 000• Public/Quasi-Public `t�'� 1 0000°. ; ,:,•.• , °°°. > > 0000°. Multl—Family 000. 1 �1 �: ;�,� , ,1 ••• ' High Density .�`�'" ` �. - \�� - ` Multi—Family Light industrial I I . �00000' • . 1 . 0000°° �J 00000o0 ••)• �.,�\ . V-ir 6,, ? � Recreation l�•�•�•( Heavy Industrial - , 1 ' °°0000°. •000. .0000 °°°° :�s•,,, i - OOOOOOOC c f',`�!; Greenbelt - Manufacturing Park '•''•_ °°°°°°°°° •4EGsr,e ___ , %00000000° / Multiple Option °°°°°°, ill °ono Y,'• o°oor�.1'�'if \ �• 0000 --. -i -__-a--_1 r�,:1 t . - . .,, - , V '----• .. . / / •••••••••••••.T.I.....L.. .......... . •••••••••• //. . . '.. ... - -.. .^.‹... . ./••••.-eli .i,...., LEGEND •APPROXIMATE AREA. / ai••.•• . -'-...---J 1 .J• .. .1 ( -.• ., .. :11 • i •.01%0.SO(T. . 0 1•41..lit i . . ._ . i ••• ...Pull.•••. • 1• • . • ... . . . i • ;'.. •I 4 - / . .0.: :171•...2-"':..%t l L f 7 ,....• ,• 1.... %•• •ar •1 i .60...Pas•••• i . • i .• ... IP 0,..•— • ,..'••••".. '• ... . '.*•..,. •.4::Pr • i / • ••••••••••••••••••••-•. • A P : • . .. • , Afit• ••• ; . .41.• k . -..1 ., . • •. ,...r..e...a•ca., / . -- • • 2 1 .. re. • •: . - TA• / *'-•-•••/• . i /. • . • a ••••••D.1• •: • , ( • / -. OASIS OF DEAR INGS; , e ......... i / . . ..r.a. .. `:1 / / ! .. • • I -. • ' 11 • ......•-• ...........oc•..“ "•4 '' -;-. -s---- • l• 1 i I •,•••••••••••1 ,• •••••••.•••.:n•ir. igrii 1, • •. . 1 . i ., i , 1 e.4 , 1 ( A,/ ..-., 1. - 0••••.•••••.1••• ! • • •••........„.. • r I `,....4•• . . /•• -•••• ;•••• I 1 .. 4;/ 4. ,Z . ,.• • • • • : ,, .:-.• ••• a ••' -. VERTICAL DATUM:..-••• •• ...a..ma... 1 / .I ,‘"?. > .1 ..• : i i i • ,:, .. I ••I• . •`• - I 1 I =4.•••••••••••. / f . : I . I ! 419Y i I . • ". ••••". ,..I. N'.• • ..........„.„,, : • OENCHMARK:•••-. ---...v..*sa..... / / 'i • .. /-• • • i f ; , /i V ,- i ' I - ;!....:••••••,., a..•••....••••• 4 .:... /r ••••!•••••-, . ' --' ./. ' ' •• • I •':.••••1 1 * i• • . • ' i , • , i:....-,...... . -,_ . *:-- • ,'• + ! , . - / / i • -._ . . i . .... '.siK....',:2 - - • ,.. • NOTE - --.--,,,.. .. i . . . ,. 1•• . . , • . • .. ---..4.4.:„•,.. .--,.." ...!:.. • 1 '• I c ,i 1 • :r011gt - . ._.... . . , . •r -:-...- -,---.---., ., ,..t 1 . . 1 ..., ,-, II ... • -.. Li. .. .1. ,. . 4 • , • ' . ''./ •„„,... / t..... --- •••• , -..... , •-• .. . • / - •.. 5-.1" __._../ ' .- I-J*4; -• ..... jr. •• co° ?.E 't • 0 1 :`1, .'-.-..."-•*- .\ ,./-1.' ., 4,1•,.. i s • 1/ " • 1 . i -•••• •-. - .... ... r F,-, •-• t •1 % --• . . •...../ -•••• • .-••••.,. --...•-.•••••• ••••• ....... -....„............ .... . ..„.........,4,••• . . f•. .••••• illE.'•S;11- .f. •'. 4--. • • . •-•:.., ;•?_ •- . .. . Is• •,-- r -, - ....-- „....••••• &T.....?../ • I a _V....•1 A ft• CV.. I . . ••.• '':...j'.• ,., * s ... .- U:•31 2 g y \ •;/:-.. .s......—\ •-. , _ .• ..:,„ 0 , '\_. •• • . •••• -.0.7. ••••- • • •— i•--.. •-•• • ‘ • .„ •fil • , , ..- a •. ---: .,•/ ,./:1. s.)%:" _ • . v.,.. \ i /..../_•-•:-7%...- -. 1 1\ ; • •-. ...,_ 1..4- . •• . i / ,/ "• • .'ir. -. ..'. •#;11s. !..2 1.•rz ••:: 1 17,••, .Z.:._ ..' ....7 I ) \. .----".... "••1 7.:.••••• -.... •••• ..-4.%, ../.:14.., I ..• 0 ' i -.. ..,.4.•• Ib, 4• .. •. ..: .. •f • i • •••••••% •.„ 4 C,"•. '''' ., 4:.-• / **" // 1 \ ••• .... / 1 1 ...., \ ..,.*.7 .* •..::-............-"4-4...•• 1 • 1 - ! .'4. ' ‘ ! • . 7"/'.•.•/"../........7-7.-. . •i I l i s. . • • 4., . • ,A. • -.:K' \.c.--.., 1-::: . ,,,-7:-_,...., . ..z. . /i. I, ? ..... • .'9 s'''--_. • .1.....,,,o.,/,.•'':tz—'...... •,• s...... • OVI . .: "-:-.• ' . ••• • • ...1--4! . •I __ft - , ...:....0 , /. - •••. .. i.,. e t•• • , ; ' i,,...% , • / '.. •"*.• / ./ ,-- -----. .--.:7•1%.,. - /..i / / .,18 ^ • .._. i . .., .... •.. ' . _ 7 •... .14.., .• • I'E. '.. ' ;... 31- . . . Z •11 - - - • .." • .. ..- ,//.. :...:.i.•.: . ;....-•' . .t.'';‘...:.:?.!%-\_•• ,,...1.....'. ..;......-.---...,......;P:._-----...:.---.......-;e:.....: -./_.. "-.........ir.,-,.....!:::"... *--....'• '.%... I 7.• • V 0 •- _: i' . / . ..•.`'s • .. *.. . ... . (.51" Ego- . . . z / .---) -)\/.. /7.•;":..t.- . / . z tu, .-:-; • - ,•••• -. •. r • 11 . x 0 I 'Y'j . • ... u..,- " . . ... - . ... , •! JCC 4ii/Z ...•..*• i I • 1; ..,.... I: e• %A I •••:‘ • 7../.. .., .•.• .'... /.• s. . . . , . • . ••:. .- ..... ,. •1 . . • s.... . • /../ ..• . • / , . . • 1 • • 0 •-•• / / ..t.. : ---., /t4p,........, .... i .. • .. _ -C . , • 04 . .4' ..,, . ••. . ' . ' ..---‘,;•/ • C........... ""......N••••••••••J• 1 i . . •• • y"• ... •.4....• 7 ,._,.. ••••:-. -.2 ....:..... ... ,.... _ • . -. . . . --.-,-----. / .,...... • / . *"/ /- '-- ./, .. ..-PE :-..;:. ' , - s / .' • . • — 1— . 1_v N. i ......) ../7:47 -. . , . • • I • • ...S. i • rd 1 N• •••. / • ...••••••• ... .....,.r .?• . t .. •I...• / / ••• :2::1111.1 ' . 's. ...` ..:..7 • . . ,.. p.• _•••..-• . ,...•:.. . ••••-. ,, .:•• .r... .,' . •••., , ••------- .,• ... • ., . ..... • `....4. •• . ,... .. 11::. • . . 1.i • . ••••• ,f ' . I „......•‘-..*.. .. i• -..: . ... . • ••. .-,. ••••,. •... - •.. / / ' . .• N7, . '". •.:* .'t .•••••• i -4.;••• 2 . . •-...... -',.... s'`.........1. s ' / .9.1. . . . , . • .:`1.,.. ••••••• • . ' .!.. . . • . . •• .• .. s • .• %. N \ . / •. • .. /........ . . . Ian 1......., ••••.. .,„ ••• , I/ • '"?........ . 4.04 " •••••. . • 411 • .• . - --.7--•=a..,,•4,E.,,. -•••••••••:.. .a.:-: .. :• .;;.,....,j• • 1 - '---.-----_-.-.......i--...—.-- .•••,-\... . . . • •. • . .. .1 i . -•••S....----7.•—•-••—.1-•-• . .. ..--• l • • r..) • ' !•••••• i ••••••••• . ,1 : ./ • { . • 17 S.'•. ...,• t•. ••••••• . ° ; I ••• . r •i •• . I : . . . •,,,f , . 7---. 1'• '-. , . • ... -_._. • .._ w.., , '.... . . .. . . •-t . '• • • • -.- . . .., . . .. . ....-‘. 4._. .... $ , .Z..... ... - 1.. • 'i I i.' 1-;::. i • - ' .- 1(11.-,- .l : A I .- • . I -- VICINITY MAI .... - .•.t ' , ... I I,. • 1 1 i f •. i ‘j . : .4/: S.• ..I.. ‘''....r i , 41f4 . 1K..! . . • ..:1--.'" .. i I l-rj. •i .." 1 : // / '1 ..-• lb . ' .,,,••0° 1 . -141P , ... , • . '''''•,-fi'\. .. ,-,-,, `'.. .,. II t\' Vi i i 1 1 --J '' , ---\-2`f ?.-• , / • .: . '1 . 1 k 1 "I / • . 111 . 1 . Am. *. * .• . •:,-.1', ,,. 1 '..Fin '1 • . 1.. „ . 1111;> .....^ '• ! t",. \i'll ' .•'t . C • 1' ' , 1 4:k:r\-.::\ 1111111.111.1771 . I • I 4.. i'.. I .- \ ‘ .. I ' ii : 1 . I . -4 I ..0 (. \ , •\ t • , 1 i ... I ' s•.‘ 1 : . t -• '!.''' ---/ '1 .. 1 .,1 • ., • 1,...--•1 I‘ I.141 ti a...•'-'1,1 3t i • ••1 '16. .*7 tf oll \ - •j*:•11 I ••I . •, I • ..(Ois*.:. '01 1 1 1 \I' .v , •i:: • W% ./ \ : • .1 1 1 . ..19.9 , •! - I ,•,416;\ ' •0, / \ i.;::. •OL: I' i'', ' 'iv:..s .. •;I: • c\4" ' l'i, •• • • / I,‘ . ‘ 1.-ii ,,,.,...\\ . ,.., .,.. . ,„ . ....., :talf . 1 .. •\ 4i) v \ , • J ii---:r;)'llgi 1 ,4§4 I 1.- :** •-*-- i rr ,. ji:,\ . ,) ,10,•. N.'4,...,. , gog ••1 .4/ •.. „, • '. i . $ • . - \ ,' 7f f 1- Ili ' J ' , '7 • ;: •.. t \• Ir... , ---1., k .., • I ' .$\,e / 1k, • .,.•,- r 4 I- •• ..--..,k, .. 1. r i•::* .,- i . , .0 •1 0-\‘k.,•.\As. ,. , , , 1, , , 4,-..., Qp• 11 \.:,...; 4, ...... t j , . i • : ,," 4\. . , • > c.it.),„ /mAr , . •.1 I I i if I i..- ,, • t .... , .•\,, '41\.% '.r,-,:44\s; /1' '1 ' ',,--4,.- ..4..!- I ••1 s. , ,,, I . ‘A+''.. %; ... .1, N•iwe'• ,.!.. V* /... '.• :.i •••1 c I I... i .. .; t 'I 7. 1 . /, .. ,;,-,-;,. .• ! i . 4, • ,r. i . ',A .... M .;\? . ' •••'.• '' > ••-.**,..:',/.:\ -4. • ' 11 i' I ( , y 1-1 i isil i . I ill-- ,‘. :: C::_-.4 1 ‘ II: . 1 •. I 1,.. p / ... 4. ... ‘ ..‘‘.1. I I "c's : ;.i..: ,.'' ‘;41(r : 1:'. :-. 11 I I I . .1'1 I I ,, .,4,.,,,,, ,,, , _„, . , • , . . ,, , •„,.,... , ,.. ,• • ., , ,. /... . .(1) • ‘ I I' r* Yi:..1 1 t- ; r ' - •-• ‘ ..i\--'.-• ':,....i-A . ... 0. //,e. Y.•`• , \ . . , . . • , II ri ... ,.. s. ,...,:4 ,_ _, ,:.-,:: , .„....., . ,„!.. , .:15i' • i.tV! 1 A-V. .. ' 11. .:111t.t.1 j'i• i i):'-• •/, z/y/. • "." ---sv ' ... / 11c. 1 _._ .. „iiii- •-i zli 1 ''.•.*- -• ------ •-v,\\\\I I\"\ . - :'' .,. i • I i • ' - ••••f 1\, I I,-z::-.,_.--•• • 11 • • ' \rl___\ .0\All I :!I I I !,'I i • „ -...;. , , • %N 1' ' . ;•..)........---.5,. . . •' 1.i •;11 '•=-14. ;; • 1M\ '.I.1 - - • "1-. • . , , . • .(jj , , , , , ,„......! .. ,....,, .,,... , : .,..,•:;-;t•:\ ,. k k\1_, ,... . ..' -'/'fle ••• ' .1.. L'"Pii..; .(4 •i 1 ' \ •a I - -.111-1 1-1.1.V11111 1U(:\ri I \\I-1-1---1 l''''.- 3- -‘'-'-.. 1 ..'. . 'I:i;', , .1 , -r-- 1 f,. 1 \ tA •I , i 1 •...1, ,:rt ., _, ...... . ____ __F.,__,• 7 . ,.,. ... . ‘. _r_._:_.:, .\,....... . . ._ i, . ,.., , r.... i,. v. , ...-. • 11;; r. , .•t.•., , , , . 1 Q./-- LA.. , : ,., ,... t rsA.:- . ‘• . k , % ' i ,i. • . ' . --- ( 1 I - I --! i'• .---- 17K. • 1'31 I et '' :'''.1 • ii 1 • I 1• '. /1. ``-:•• , i .z. 4 I, 1 1_,I I fir , ..r.•04 l I 1 10. 11,,i i. ue..) • • .:.--- , iirl , , L . II ,,.. , i ,„11, )iii;..t i 1. 4 .1.01c-11 . loz.1-,','N ' ‘. ff..!•‘_ . ,A i •, ic ) . i 4;•:- r l't \ itii. 1 I 4, I / 1 1 1 _ i, i 1 .1 /I . 1 1 1 ii. _ 1 r..".. .1i.1 . '.i 14.1. ..1' 1 .1 .. ii-entl'11:kt1-1..11 -.. I i -4-7r' • ^ P • 1 1 ...., ;.\---- •. _al P. 6" i '1 --1 • / I . .... ...- & ' . -...---,1-. ---.-... . cr.. , ,.. . ,,•1 . 1 az -; t .0'. ...,,t. .e.cft/ .. r ....;_...',.';'--:,7' '''''-•'II?4if;• ; ., P•••••1 is,...). .---,4:-Z.7••,-......-.. ,..... •tt./' • ' .1.011111111111.1116111 A '• 51K 0 STREET .•• . , i , ..,. .,....„..:,,,. .„.,, ,... ... ..,...... ..:. .: . , a . ' f • - . . . , . . . . . . . . . . , .• . .... !•.1„. •_ . ,4 I • • • • • r••• :Alli .. ..-0. DE 4.'4_'140.ort 4.46...*1,„ f • ! 1 • • <-. 11.1444.,...-:-. (fl i 7= ,..1 ..01, • 1. .. .........__ , ,,r_fpn „, i•• ., tyt.-,,v. • ••• . r 1!"..„-ifi,k. a 1 , I ,,• ,.I -4,,,, .• . rn 1 ... . , .. .r•. , I. .1 . r••• •• r , ii t, .,__.... Ill . ' -":":44t. • ./ IfiAls,'.. " . M I -7...-41,..)",ii 7.,...1V4 ii.:47.€ 1.4( • I-. • .--f7.-.•;; •1' i IT -1 f......‘4. 1 ?....• 1 : i; .ffilli . ,.\ ....7t..-. -0. i- 1.•;.:-.....v.:w. . tlei tt •'.1k , i . -. ...1 .: . li 1111„. .:)•• .1 1 • N •;, •••• t '7;. .f,).. ,t,.. .•-•• '.*•.1 > ' •._ ••._.... I I •,, ..c..ii. . ..b4. r . _--1 i E; .., , 1 . --ei . . • .i.,;-;„:, , •..:,....• -1, • . N,.4 411 :,!. ...,,. , i - . ,,,, • • i G.) •• I. 0 i Eiff I kill . • ... ../A-f. - 7.i... 70 ; Er' _ . -•'..' • I ill-ill LligRrifill 0 •-7 V . -' .'•• '..' Z (mum 1: 1 I ,I ,,,-7' , • Z I I ,r ,T7 1 . 111 I I. 11 • 1 i• - * .l'i " ' •II. !II•Il..il ' 1.1....!. 1 .' . '.•!,1 1 , i •4'• ••i7•• •''• .•. AO 11 .,•/ •IP". "di,' • ! 1 r. i il ! ., 1.01 oi 11,1 1 10 .. • .. __:. ;.......,.., i•_ fiE191. :-,•4/ •1...V• M i . 1 11' 11 I. III III I • 1 II I.' lq •tNI 7.'....;1.1:•:':•:.!. 1 1= .'',...••.;: II c'....1:::. • ....-4",.:. : ,., . . 1. . ,,, , " ? , ,,. , ,. ,•. i ., 2 :.:-.1/4. = ! , M 1 • - ' ' •:I•:! l•-•.I,1 !. . , II. !I . 10 •43 %, it. •. ,- • r - ,,,. .;.1,-: ' 1 d ',- : 11' •• -..fe•. • •< !•• • ..---I 1 ',. :-.4..--" 1,-... .... . i••.14 .-.• L., . .,..,..•--, , •:-.11;._if,: 1 ../ '.'...#. '. ,)„,...5ffl .• . , 0 - -4 • ' - , ... .. ' 0 •• i. , . C...) 11 -- . .4-" . • .., ce•.,...,‘ ..• e '..... 44. -.• • 1. !'. .. . . I I .1;I • I. .1';-' -/i1/"...*:,....%. Z . . ',..- 0. .0.. • .0 , •I* • 0-1 .1- 5 .">'; L- '.NS'''.!, " - ',I• I , . ..2. .:,-._1 ' ; ,•• 111.11111; li i: .,.... .,- . 01 8 -Aril Atf..4 4'„..,,,.. . 11.' • , , "XV, I .r• .`' r I . r •4N. I '- .: 1 rf..:.)...S.2i;.:-r e'.#e'F•:,; 1 ••';',4,1;#7‘ "...•• ' -,1,...,, . . 5..„,,,,,,,,..,, . •,,tii,•1 • 11-4- „tfr . • ..........c.4, -4'• ..____. ....• +.. 1 •P:1••,.. ..1",1. 1 •...t.;.• !i'i;f.i , - /it'P . -• I .,•. •;•,, ., ; •:-, - •••4 , • . 0 1 • 4%!r , i. •• :. .... - .I., •,,, 0 . r : . p if.,7. • • (....) , ..-:,-!,•.( ,,.• [01.... ...1 •'; s_•'.: 11: . : le(!*4 . • s. 1 , 1 •• 1 • 1••",? • •-:•.... il: ..,‘• ! 4 Elul I!: 1.N ''.,.' .•• I ,i.••• • • . sill •f E.:" I ' \• 7„; ti ;,$•!" 1%. EOM 11:i ,...'"'''• • l''.' - I , . . •.. ,\ . ..• - flr• • 1 . , I,Ii --- .:7•; I • ..1," ,; . • -.;...%INF ,^1.11r . , e.,...- 1 . • 11 . I' . 1 '1.• ' II I' III; • H •• 4,..23.....IIil 111.,1 •...i,i• iii•, . ,, 1 1111 :,11 fill. 1,,t,,,,,,..„-,. r-• •1 .• ,,,i2,d !.--- .,..- „,,., ,,.. • . • .. .. .. - ,pir •ii• -;••• • •: I .••I,• "fedi& ....I .I . ...i. ,11?.......t.L.!.‘...!•11.A 0 . .: • I . .I I • , ! I• I J'. •I p• .11 ; ..; - • • • '. I - •• •1 1r 1- • LL.. Ili ..., ... -. i-,-; -....,----...:!.%:•-:-. .i ,ifiiii i'.. Sill11,1,11 Mat lf. ..,-;,. iil,---- ,,,,.-,.,.. -.:...ia •,•,.,,,,,,.0..-: t •...- .0 , 1 ---- .•••V.Jai 1 f311111: 1 I I able I I F:4,, !till, , c-s,a• jj •,1_,-.,1:If` • '0.1 - • i I 11 : •• ' •f,.!•...1 _ :-.' _•; 'hi:?!5stir.e ..'`.., 501 • .4i 114i!:•1 . • I .:." '.: 11 1 IH'il ' ••' ',- , ••••gi i 'AP:, 4 • ; :'1 lei ' • - ,,_ •:. '41.1....,' t.' i : •-• .. ,. i ;•••to. " '. .._i ......s+Lul 5,MUI .aa. aa/• 75 • 1, •• ;'• , we 1.•• .".• -----: .9.... . .../)1 • • •• 7,-=. V, .s. • • i .•I., I ..4*-11°..-' •"' 'W'Zi. - ::'..•?:.;I iC•' t: I . cs-...4_ . :1 fr i:•"...,;,, r-g ART,! .:". -•:4.. ,. .-- .. ...: .. , , ,,- f .,;1f!1. i ! '7 .4‘. - . '..)'%• ./.. • , 1- ' - ./' •.." I j -...' • ..- ' - ,... ;;,... • •, . . ,..,,;,; •• ..1141;-$r ,i ,.. ,r,e. . • .1:.: ?;41:tif !!,) ,.4..'..,' ' 17:1, .*' .T.k.je...,co, . •::".-:!:•4:\ , . . •I. .i1111 11 I 111' itt•C;',;.:••••'i We!' ' . _L..:__J- ..se•i Pit'•t':). 1,, 1_1 , II 11' i111.1'1 1-- 71-1T-'1- 1. ! Ir. . 440 1;1 r 444 .. • ;•• • • Fie.';.1.•-ji% .'',I..!.. .1,, ,1,. .!!.. 11,1. .1 II ILI 1 •P3' . k,'i?... ..4 lit i •• ). i.4'•!•E'l '. •.:-1.sr k . , 1 i• i . li i.1. 11 .',1 ili1r141. . u1.; :111 1t •0,,'..,• , i•'Iri.4.zii;,-,. i .1,1111'11 hi 1,i1,.I'llj',' if, . . .._. .-•.; . "• 1...T: : ;. .:•..f.•.: g • ,:! I 1 .41, FM; 1.11.921; ..,• 10.,,,,fir,....7:,, -.-....-1*.P-, 4......1:,.i 1,14., :::,••• . ' 1 iffifiL4:4! : _T 110 lit • ,• :- -• ..4.,,, 1 .4. r. _-: , . .- in. :. ., -.. 1 ..'4% , ;,. • 14 ''.-.• - , ''" -'--- '.',/./% ,•,-......::4.. ;',17',.0,-.. • 1 .. i's .....----!---1 . , •----; .! ' !----. •••••!... - ., , - t.,il .,;,,,,,' , •ir • .6 .n .,•., .01 I • '" - • 1 II 1 It' ili I, I ., .e!‘ .-4 .• ., ? . A. r ..4,f 1 ....,, , , : . . .._. .f!....?' .i.:1 I i ' i '1,,:,,•••?.::-...; ',1 11. ,t....-,•, i . • • I ''' • .' 'ir•.14".'"''''l Iti r...-;:.--., 1, 5 g.,1."..•,•• - ,•D . •' ) s •,• ' -"' •;:-.: :'' , .44,-,•.,,.;i• , a • !;....i.:;),, .1. , ,,. „,;,-„:.•,.,.,'..2 il...11 ,It: • I I.7.4:.•. • . L...•71. :; ,I 1!.............7....1, ;II!, I ' :•• • '); I 1 , • I i I . I J.•••••.:41 I ...•• •:*1..1.1:ti TI ill lif I* ............. .. • :.I•1.1 ' '1".:r1 . I' I • 'III . I .:,„"„x.•.., 1,;. i; ',IC::: T. ....I.I l'. 1.1 i I --, . ,,,,,,,,. .111: • .....;,•-:. :1..1: i1.., I 1 I 1 1 . . '.... I .-111[ '-7111.11. 1111'1111'-11.• II e"•• .; s.....-',.] I ULL:;•..1 ...,*:,.. .. • I I •i f• 10.* ••• .I ',;:••••': I Ilmoninimuimimitniiimmnur •....2i. r.y.4 0. - -- -1'?k vi!,... ;• it. N. • s') .1 , ,.,41 ' •,, . • I Tni 13 -4, • I • e 4 .4 ....• .1.4,4. • . . PRELIMINARY .. -•- ELEVAT193,4§( IA__ ....,.. . . ..... SC A•• •-,r-n• 1 LEXII,IGTON C RIDGE A MO UNIT CIESCOITIAL cOMMAITY NI cFNION .•.•.A91 • EL111111140%\11 el 3611111'4%025 1121h le N/11E. CORPORATION Bellevue.Wos Jn 98004 • 17111.1 GNI 1557 i70.51 877 7880 CENTRON DEVELOPMENT . Fit 9•.••i•IN: '. .4. __a a :r i i 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY. REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINE PUBLIC HEARING I APPLICANT: I CENTRON FILE' NUMBER: SA-082-87 ; ECF-074-87 LOCATION: Between N.E. Fourth Street and N.E. Third Street, west of Edmonds Ave. N.E. , and east of Bronson Way N.E. A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks site plan approval to develop a 13 .4 acre site with a 360 unit multi-family residential complex. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: Canada-America Associates 2 . Applicant: CENTRON 3 . Existing Zoning: High-Density Multi-Family Residential (R-4) . 4 . Existing Zoning in the Area: Single-Family Residential (R-1 and G-1) ; Multi-Fmily Residential (R-3 nd R-4) . 5. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: High-Density Mult . -Family Residential ; Greebbelt. 6. Size of Property: 13 . 4 acres 7 . Access: Bronson Way N.E./N.E. Fourth Street and Vuemont Place N.E. i 8. Land Use: Undeveloped land 9. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Public ri6hts-of-way (Bronson Way N.E. I and N.E. Fourth Street) ; public u'ises (a church and associated day care - northeast corner) ; residential development. East: Public uses (an electrical transmission line) ; Brighton Ridge Apartment Complex. South: Public right-of-way (N.E. Third Street) ; residential development; undeveloped land. i' West: Public use (a water supply tank for the City of Renton) ; two multi-family residential buildings; a parking ' lot for Group Health Medical Center employees. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Lexington Ridge, (' :ron PUBLIC HEARING ' May 23 , 1989 =" Page 2 C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action File Ordinance Date Initial Annexation N/A 1549 June 12, 1956 Rezone from R-1/GS1 to R-4 R-127-63 2029 May 13 , 1963 D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities • a. Water: Sixteen inch water main along N.E. Third Street. b. Sewer: Eight inch sewer line enters site by way of Vuemont Place N.E. (Studies of sewer service capacity indicate that lines designated to serve this property are near to or at capacity -- staff is reviewing options for dglivering sewer services to this site -- the preferred optioki will be selected when a final site plan has been designed) ) . c. Storm Water Drainage: Twelve inch storm water line runs along Bronson Way' N.E. southwest from Vuemont Place N.E. 2 . Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton as per ordinance requirements. 3 . Transit: Metro route 106 runs on Bronson Way N.E. 4. Schools: 1 a. Elementary Schools: Highlands Elementary Scool is approximately one mile northeast of the site (Note: Presently busing service is provided to this area by the Renton School District) . b. Middle Schools: McKnight Middle School is approximately one and one-third miles northeast of the site. I c. High Schools: Renton High School is approximately one and one-quarter miles southwest of the site. 5. Recreation: Windsor Hills Park is approximately one-third mile northeast of the site; Cedar River Park and Liberty Park are approximately one-half mile southwest of the sit' . E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1. Section 4-709B, High Density Multi-Family Residential (R-4) . 2 . Section 4-745, Greenbelt Regulations. 3 . Section 4-220, Parking and Loading. 4 . Section 4-744 Landscaping 5. Section 4-738 Site Plan Approval 1 PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER , Lexington Ridge, CI ron , 'PUBLIC HEARING May 23 , 1989 Page 3 F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1. Northeast Renton Plan, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, 1986 (pgs. 55-60) . 2 . Urban Design Goal, Objectives and Policies, City lof Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, 1986 (pgs. 11-14) . 3 . Residential Goal, Objectives and Policies, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, 1986 (pgs. 14-16) . G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. The applicant, Centron, seeks site plan approval to allow the construction of a 360 unit multi-family apartment complex (Lexington Ridge) , including parking, on-site recreational and service amenities, on a 13 . 4 acre parcel of property zoned R-4, High Density Multi-Family Residential Use. The subject property was zoned R-4 in 1963 . This zoning designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site for high density multi-family development. A portion of the property is in a .designated greenbelt area on the Comprehensive Plan as a result of the presence of steep slopes, and electric power lines. The R-4 zoning classification, under the present Zoning Ordinance, allows development of a maximum of 354units per acre (on that portion of the property which is not greenbelt with either power lines or a sloped area in excess ofi25%) . The applicant is currently seeking site plan approval to develop a residential complex with 27 units (adjusted for the greenbelt) to the acre. Such approval is required by the Zoning Ordinance (Section 4-709B and 4-738) . The site is vacant; there are two existing apartment complexes on the northwest 'periphery of the site which will remain in place. The development is proposed to include 15 discree residential structures, exterior amenities (recreation cente , pedestrian linkage, parking, and service areas) . The residential structures are proposed to have a footprint of 111, 980 square feet (2 .5 acres) and to total approximately 289, 500 gross square feet. The residential structures are proposed to be 2 .5 to 3 stories in height, with a maximum scaled building height of 35 feet. The development (including structures, parking and open areas) has been designed, scaled and oriented in a way which addresses both general development standards established in the Zoning Ordinance as well as specific characteristics of the project site and the neighborhood. Building design is planned to include cedar siding, aluminum frame windows and asphalt/shake roofing materials. The proposed development would contain approximately 7 . 3 acres (54%) of open space, including approximately 3 . 5 acres (26%) of that portion of the site to be used for active recreational purposes, and approximately 3 . 8 acres (28%) to be considered passive open space. The greenbelt will be designated as open space; the area on the eastern periphery of the property will be retained with open space and parking, as power llines run along that periphery precluding the development of structures in that area. PRELIMINARY REPORT O THE HEARING EXAMINER Lexington Ridge, on 4110 PUBLIC HEARING May 23, 1989 Page 4 • The remaining 3. 6 acres would be used for parkin , travel routes and service areas. At the proposed density of 360 units, the development would be required to have 630 parking spaces. The project is expected to house approximately 90 school-aged children. An estimated 2374 daily vehicle trip ends would be generated at maximum density. The site could be developed with 442 units/773 parking spaces. This would add approximately 110 students and anlestimated 2917 daily vehicle trip ends. 2 . Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43 .21C, 1971, as amended) a Determination of Significance was issued for the project by the Environmental Review Committee on October 12 , 1987., calling for an Environmental Impact Statement, and recommending that particular emphasis be directed to the following areas: a) vehicular and pedestrian traffic circulation impacts (on-site and off-site) ; 2) soil/slope character and grading/filling impacts; 3) storm water run-off/drainage management; 4) aquifer protection - this . project is located in Zone II of the proposed Aquifer Protection Area; 5) availability and accessibility of community facilities; 6) electro-magnetic impacts from nearby power lines upon human health and safety; 7) public service impacts; and 8) aesthetic/safety impacts related to design of the development (e.g. structures, parking areas, open spaces/rockeries, on-site roadways, etc. ) . The proponent published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement , in November, 1988 and a Final Environmental Impact Statement in January of 1989 . These documents, together with comments from representatives of various City Departments upon the documents (See Attachment A) , were evaluated by the Environmental Review Committee on April. 5, 1989 and determined that tlie concerns identified in conjunction with the scoping for environmental analysis had been adequately evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement. The Committee proceeded then to study the two most feasible development alternatives presented in the Environmental Impact Statement, the applicant's Proposed Project Development (PPD) and the Design Alternative Development (DAD) . Based upon that analysis, the Environmental Review Committee made a recommendation in favor of the "Design Alternative" proposed by the proponent in the Environmental Impact Statement, with specific mitigation measures established to address likely environmental impacts. 3 . The Environmental Review Committee has issued' a Memorandum to the Hearing Examiner (See Attachment B) which includes the analysis of the Environmental Impact Statement, land recommendations for specific mitigation measures for the preferred "Design Alternative" relating to: 1) e1arth. (soil/slope stability) ; 2) storm water; 3) the natural environment; 4) environmental health; 5) land use; 6) noise, light and glare; 7) traffic circulation; 8) public services/utilities; 9) recreation; and 10) construction activities. 4 . Based upon the proponent's agreement to submit the Design Alternative for Site Plan Review (Attachment C) , staff has prepared a review of the Design Alternative Plan for approval, as required by the Site Plan Ordinance, Section 4-738 of the Renton Municipal Code. This Ordinance lists ten criteria that the Hearing Examiner is asked to consider, along with all other relevant, information, in making a decision on a Site Plan Approval application. These include the following: PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Lexington Ridge, ( :ron , PUBLIC HEARING - 1 May 23, 1989 Page 5 a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements and policies; The proposed multi-family proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designations of High Densit Multi-Family Residential Use and Greenbelt as shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The high density multiple family area is "an area intended for intensive multiple family residential development. " The site potentially could be developed with 442 units or 33 units per gross acre under current City policies and standards. The applicant, is proposing a density of 360 units '- approximately 27 units per gross acre. The 360 unit development proposed includes a uAit reduction due to the existence a "greenbelt" designation on a portion of the property. The greenbelt area includes: 1) a , 250foot wide section of property located along the south property line adjacent to the N.E. 3rd Street right-of-way, .and 2) an approximately 500 foot wide section on the eastern periphery of the property. Greenbelt designations are placed on properties or portions of properties " . . .characterized by severe topographic, ground water, slope instability, soil or other physical limitations that make the areas unsuitable' for intensive development " (Land Use Descriptions, Comprehensive .Plan Compendium, March 1986, p. 29) " . Such areas are to be reserved for open space, recreation, very low density residential development or other compatible low density use. The greenbelt area on the southern portion of the property is so designated due to the existence of steep slopes ranging from 25% to over 40%. The greenbelt area at the eastern periphery is so designated due to the existence of power lines. In addition to being compatible with the aboverdescribed land use designations for the site, the proposed development (as presented or with recommended land use/environmental mitigation measures) is generally compatible with several of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies established for multi-family development. For example, the proposed development is compatible with the following "Neighborhood Objectives" , "Housingj Quality Objectives" , "Housing Density Objectives" and "Impact on Area Objectives" : A. 1 Housing densities and types to suit a variety of family size, age groups, life styles and 'ncome levels should be encouraged. A. 6. A balance should be sought or maintained between housing and the available access, utilities and community facilities. Note: Concern over whether the project could be accommodated given the existing utilities:, roadways and community facilities led the Environmental Review Committee to issue a Determination of Significance, requiring the development of an Environmental Impact Statement. Upon review of the document it was determined that the project impacts could be mitigated (See No. 3 above) . . PRELIMINARY REPORT n THE HEARING EXAMINER ' Lexington Ridge, C n s. ' ' PUBLIC HEARING -May 23 , 1989 - Page 6 • B.3 . Dwellings should be designed to takeiadvantage of views, . site character and other amenities. C. 3 . Multi-family dwellings. . .should be located near arterial streets to assure adequate access. C. S. . . .High density multi-family dwellings should be a buffer between i . . residential and more intensive uses. ` I C.7. The designof multiple-family dwelling sites . . .should achieve the same basic amenities within the development as generally available to single family dwellings. C. 8 . Multi-family dwellings. . . should be located near employment and shopping centers. D.2 . Setbacks should be adequate to preserve views, allow maximum exposure to light, maintain air circulation, promote privacy and provide functional areas. D.3 . Architectural design and construction should be compatible with the site and adjacent areas. D.4 . The site plan should provide efficient and functional use of land with attractive design. D.5. To retain arterial streets for the primary purpose of traffic movement, access directly to arterial streets. should be minimized, while access from local streets should be encouraged. D.7. Significant natural features should Le preserved and incorporated into site development. 1I Additionally, the land development objective o the Urban Design Goal (III.A. ) states that growth and development should occur in a "timely and logical progression of the existing urban area. . . " . The policies under this objective state that priority is given to the development property TArhere "vacant land surrounded by developed land. . . " and " . . .where adequate public utilities are available. . . " . The subjegt parcel is itself undeveloped, but it is surrounded by developed property. Public services (fire, police, schools, recreation) and utilities are generally available to the site. Finally, the Northeast Renton Area Plan encour ges development to occur from west to east, stating. that it isinot appropriate to develop every parcel as shown on the Comprehensive Land Use Element Map. This project is actually an infill project located in the western portion -of the Northeast Quadrant area. Thus, development of the site with the proposed "Design Alternative" appears to satisfy the general Coiprehensive Plan policies related to multi-family development as well as those policies addressing development in the Northeast Quadrant of. the City. b. Conformance with existing land use regulations; . The proposed 360 unit multi-family developmentigenerally meets or exceeds development standards for the R-4 Zone, High Density Multi-Family Residential Use (4-709B) with respect to such characteristics as density, height, bulk, coverage, setbacks. (See attached Table 1) . i PRELIMINARY REPORT "ml THE HEARING EXAMINER Lexington Ridge, ( Aron 1 PUBLIC HEARING May 23, 1989 Page 7 The project is proposed to include approximately 640 parking spaces, which does not conform to the requirem nts of the Parking and Loading Ordinance for 1.75 parking stalls per unit. Staff will recommend the removal of spac s in excess of the required 630 from those proposed to be sitgd under the power line right-of-way. Retention of natural' vegetation and creation of landscaped areas as required in conjunction with environmental and land use review for this project (See Sections G.2/3 , G.4 .c and G.4.d) will ensure compliance with requirement set in the Landscaping Ordinance (Section 4-744) . As noted in Section G. 4 . a. , a portion of the project site (0. 8 acre) is designated as a "greenbelt" . As . such, Ithe development of the site must address the Zoning Ordinance 'Greenbelt Regulations (Section 4-745) " . The development plan submitted does satisfy these regulations in that the density has been adjusted according to the formula established In Section 4-745 which requires reduction in development levels for steep sloped areas and prohibits development in the power line corridor. c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding propertie and uses; Potential impacts to the surrounding environment and to neighboring land uses have been identified by staff in the areas of housing, aesthetics, traffic circulation, earth (soil/slope stability) , and public services/utilities. The Environmental Review Committee recominendedc onditions (See Attachment B) to address the above-defined environmental impacts upon surrounding properties. Similarly, conditions established in conjunction- with this site plan review are intended to mitigate land use impacts from the proposed development. (1) Housing City sponsored studies (Northeast Renton Area Plan) and privately conducted market analyses indicate that there is a need for additional multi-family housing in this sector of the City -- based upon increased employment opportunities, central location, quality of the local school system, etc. The proposed development will provide 360 new residential units to house approximately 700 persons. Also, no residential units will have to be demolished to accommodate the proposed projects. Therefore, this development will have a positive impact upon housing. (2) Aesthetics The applicant, working with staff, has endeavored to make the proposed residential structures compatible in scale and design with surrounding existing residential (multi-family and single-family) developments. For example, the complex is proposed to be 2.5 to 3 stories in height, with cedar siding and asphalt or shake roofing materials. Structures on this site are well-separated from nearby developments. This, separation has been achieved by: a) the slope of the natural terrain; b) the design, location and set back of structures; c) the fact that the property is contiguous onlly with two apartment buildings and a church -- other devellopments are separated by public rights-of-way (to the north, south and west) and by the power lines (to the east) . The development, as proposed, with conditions for environmental :mitigation, generally serves to protect view corridors, allowing maximum exposure to light and maintaining air circulati1on. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Lexington Ridge, n41111 , .PUBLIC HEARING ; May 23, 1989 Page 8 i Landscaping and screening has been planned (or will be mitigated) to provide visual relief and to buffer on-site lighting for neighboring properties and rights-of-way. Recreation areas and the majority of parking accommodations are located away from neighboring structures. Additionally, open areas have been retained with both natural vegetation and planted materials. (3) Traffic Circulation On-site and off-site; traffic impacts (vehicles and pedestrian) will be addressed in Section G. 4 . f below. • (4) Natural Environment As noted previously, the subject property incl9des an area on the southern perimeter which is a "greenbelt" 99onsisting of steeply sloped areas covered with natural vegetation. The remainder of the property -- which is slated for development of the proposed 360 unit residential complex - ' also includes sloped areas. Conditions have been established in conjunction with environmental review for the retention of the greenbelt (e.g. maintenance of slope and protection of vegetation to the greatest extent possible) , and for protection Of those portions of the site to be developed, both during the periods of construction and operation through grade aril fill plans, erosion control plans, storm water drainage plans, and landscaping plans. It is anticipated that these environmental conditions, together with land use plans/conditions (e.g. grading and filling, building location, construction of rockeries and retaining walls) will serve to protect the integrity of the . site. In turn, these measures should serve to ensure the integrity of surrounding sites -- by preserving the natural environment (in the greenbelt) , and view corridors and by preventing erosion and flooding. (5) Public Services/Utilities. Public services/utilities impacts will be addressed in Section G.4. i. below. d. Mitigation of Impacts to the Site; Potential impacts to the site have been identified by staff with respect to aesthetics, the natural environment, environmental health, traffic circulation, earth (soil/slope stability) , and public services/utilities. (1) Aesthetics . The site plan as .proposed by the applicant, an /or as modified by staff, has been designed to create an ambient environment for. residents. Residential units are constructed. with attractive, durable materials, and include a variety of amenities, such as fireplaces and individual balconies. The majority of the buildings are well-separated by location from one another, by the slope of the. terrain, and by landscaped areas. Where buildings are not separated by distances of a minimum 40 feet, staff will recommend such separation to provide privacy, visual buffering, adequate light and air, and safe, defensible space; staff will recommend that buildings be oriented so that there is adequate privacy and defensible space. . PRELIMINARY REPORT THE HEARING EXAMINER Lexington Ridge, C Fon PJhLIC HEARING May 23, 1989 Page 9 Recreation areas are located so that they are convenient to residential units but are not so close as to create impacts which interfere with daily activities in those !units. Staff recommend (via environmental and/or land use conditions, as appropriate) the following improvements:. a. Provision of, on-site recreational programs for children of alllages and additional recreational activity facilities for teenagers; b. The addition of passive congregate spaces (adjacent to mailbox areas or at other central locations) to increase neighborliness among residents. c. The addition of conveniently located, screened dumpsters , sited to minimize noise and odor impacts to nearby residents. d. The screening of individual patios where privacy may be a consideration. e. The provision of outdoor storage areasjadjacent to individual units. f. The provision of additional pedestrianjscaled pole lighting, and design/location of both poly lighting and ground mounted lighting to minimize glare while ensuring reasonable illumination. (Wall mounted lights are to be. eliminated except in carport areas. ) g. The provision of improved on-site pedestrian linkage, by the addition of raised, curbed sidewal]cs, to increase efficiency and safety of on-site pedestrian travel (e.g. from structures to common recreation and/Or service areas, to parking areas, to adjacent rights-of-way) . (Current drawings indicate that pathways are at the same grade as parking areas in some cases. ) h. The provision of conveniently located, visually screened, lighted service areas, as appropriate (e.g. , mail boxes, dumpsters) . i. The provision of on-site screening (fencing, etc. ) which is designed to be compatible with the underlying terrain, with structures and outdoor area (recreational areas, congregate areas, parking and travel routes) , and which is complementary to landscaping. Parking areas are convenient to buildings; exc4ss parking will need to be eliminated -- parking spaces shouldlbe reduced in the power line right-of-way, unless a park andiride facility is developed for residents in this right-of-way area. If carports are to be provided, they will need tolbe designed, located, and improved with lighting and signage which ensures safety for users and which does not interfere with view corridors or open areas between buildings. (2) Natural Environment The applicant has designed the development to acknowledge both the characteristics of the identified greenbelt and that portion of the property slated for development The project is designed to protect the natural site features and to provide an attractive, safe environment for residents. For example, although a majority of the developable portion of the site will need to be cleared to accommodate development, the applicant has planned (or will be required by staff to plan) to protect the site through judicious plans for grading and 9 PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER , Lexington Ridge, C ron , PUBLIC HEARING May 23 , 1989 Page 10 filling (finished grade plans will be required , through the creation of a storm drainage plan which addresses the slope of the terrain and the soil characteristics, and through the location of landscaping and rockeries/retaining walls in a way which both prevents erosion and provides a decorative vista. Similarly, design of structures, parking areas travel routes, recreation areas, and open spaces has been/wilt be accomplished in a manner which utilizes site features to positive advantage. ' (3) Environmental Health The eastern periphery of the subject property is developed with Puget Power lines. These lines currentlylgenerate 55-kV and 115 kV of power. Future plans may includeiconstruction of an additional 115 kV line or a 230 kV line along that corridor. The proponent has designed the project so thatlall residential units are at least 245 feet from the existing power lines. The power line right-of-way has been designed too be utilized exclusively for parking and for a pedestrian pathway linking the site to the Sunset Trail. Staff has made tecommendations in conjunction with environmental review and/or will make . recommendations in conjunction with site plan review requiring the applicant to locate all structures so thatlelectro- magnetic field intensity to those structures does not exceed. 110 milligaus. (4) Traffic Circulation On-site and off-site traffic impacts (vehicles and pedestrian) will be addressed in Section G. 4 . f below) . (6) Public Services/Utilities. Public services/utilities impacts will be addressed in Section G.4. i. below. e. Conservation of Area-wide Property Values; The proposed residential complex is not expected to have a negative impact on property values in the areasince the project will result in: 1) development of now Vacant parcels. leading to an inherent increase in property value; 2) the development of a project (structures, landscaping, amenities) which is designed to complement with specific features of the property (e.g. slope, vegetation) ; and 3) development of a project which is compatible with uses on neighboring properties. f. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation; 1) Off-site impacts Based upon ITE Reports, staff anticipates that the proposed project will generate approximately 2374 vehicle trips ends per day. These vehicle trips are anticipated jo have a significant impact upon: a) Vuemont Place N.E. jwhich will serve as the ingress/egress route for the site' b) the N.E. 3rd Street/Sunset Boulevard North intersection; which is the nearest major, signalized intersection (and which currently operates at Level of Service "F") ; and c) the Bronson Way N.E. intersections with N. E. 3rd Street and with N4E. 4th Street, which poses a potential risk of conflict for vghicles and pedestrians due to the geometrics (slope, angl' and sight distance) at this section of the right-of-way. - i PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Lexington Ridge, C n , PUB1IC HEARING ,May 23 , 1989 Page 11 Conditions established by the City for environilental (traffic) mitigation in response to the Environmental Impact Statement (Attachment B) require that the applicant participate in: (a), the development of a traffic management plan (TSM) in consultation with METRO - the public transit system previously serving this site was eliminated because roadway geometrics resulted in hazards to riders and damage to buses; (b) development of sufficient on-site parking (1.7E spaces X 360 units = 630) ; (c) improving existing traffic circulation systems and rights-of-way -- Bronson Way, N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street -- by providing such features as signalization, channelization, signage, brush clearance, installation of sidewalks, gutters and curbs) ; (d) development of pedestrian paths linking the site with neark9y rights-of- way, and e) clear signage at the entryway to the site. Staff will recommend that the applicant provide a van (and a licensed, insured driver) to transport children to elementary school (in the event that bus service is not provided by the Renton School District) , as well as to transport residents to public transit routes (in view of the fact that METRO does not offer service to the site) and to off-site public recreation facilities (Community Center, Liberty Park, etc. ) . These mitigation measures, together with future improvements as recommended in the pending N.E. 4th Street Transportation Benefit District, are anticipated to result in more efficient, safer passage for vehicles and pedestrians travelling off of the site. 2) On-site impacts Applicant proposals and City recommendations fo access and circulation routes on the site are also designedr to protect pedestrian safety and to enhance vehicle circulation. Proposals/recommendations are made for: a) provision of parking spaces on the site and on the abutting power line right-of-way (with redesign of the right-of-way parking area to reduce the number of spaces and to address environmental conditions for establishment and demarcation of the Sunset Trail linkage in that corridor) ; b) improvement of on-site pedestrian pathways (raised, curbed sidewalks) linking structures to other structures, to recreation and parking/service areas and to abutting rights-of-way; c) improvement of on-site exterior pedestrian-scaled pole lighting to illuminate structures, travel routes, parking, service and recreation areas; and d) . improvemerit of signage and roadway directional markings to clearly identify travel routes. g. Provision of Adequate Light and Air; The development has been generally designed anc sited so that structures are generally well-separated from o e another and from neighboring sites to reduce shadow impact . Similarly, design and location of structural doors and widows, outdoor private patios and common areas, parking facilities and landscaping/screening should serve to ensure t1at residents are provided an environment which offers sufficient light and air. Staff will recommend some modifications to building and design location as well as amenities (e.g. on-site lighting) and landscaping to increase spatial separationlbetween buildings (e.g. A and B, C & D, F & G, H & J, K & L, ' Q & P, N & P) . These modifications should create visual relief, improve privacy and secure areas of defensibleispace. ' I PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Amhim Lexington Ridge, nIIPIP .i PUBLIC HEARING May 23 , 1989 Page 12 h. Mitigation of Noise. Odors, and Other Harmful or Unhealthy Conditions; 1) Construction Construction of the proposed residential complex is expected to generate considerable noise, dust and debris. Mitigation measures related to construction impacts have been recommended by the Environmental; Review Committee (See Attachment B) , including limited hours of operation, periodic watering of the site, erosion control, and clean-up bonds. 2) Operation The multiple family development is not anticipated to generate any noise beyond that anticipated from a complex which is estimated to house approximately 700 persons. On-site noise is expected to be contained through mitigating measures as proposed by the proponent or recommended by staff, including separation between structures, . separation of living areas from recreation and service areas, and through adherence to standard requirements for interior insulation of dwelling units. Sounds from the adjacent right-of-way ate anticipated to be mitigated by the set backs of the structures and recreation areas from those right-of-way. Because the site is proposed for residential use, no noxious odors or other unhealthful conditions are anticpipated (except for smoke from fireplaces -- which will need to be constructed to ensure operation in conformance with local regulations) . i. Availability of Public Services and Facilities to Accommodate the Proposed Use; Development of the proposed "Design Alternative Development" Plan, with recommended environmental conditions (Section G. 3 ; Attachment B) and land use mitigation measuresl (Section G.4) , is not generally expected to create an undue burden on public services and facilities in the area. Additionally, future tax revenues which will be generated once the development is constructed should help to off-set adverse impacts to public. services and facilities utilized by Lexington ridge residents. For example, schools have adequate resources to accommodate the 90 anticipated students. Highlands Elementary School is approximately one mile northeast of the site. McKnight Middle School is. approximately 1-1/3 miles northeast ¶f the site. Renton High School is approximately 1-1/4 miles southwest of the site. Other nearby schools -- such as Honeydew Elementary School approximately 1-1/2 miles to the northeast -- are currently not operating due to an insufficiently large student population. Existing schools could be reopenedjand district lines reworked if necessary to serve an increased student population; busing service would be made available to elementary school aged children living more than one mile from the neighborhood school. Renton Vocational Intitute, which provides day care for young children and educa ional opportunities for high school aged children, i approximately one-half mile east of the site. Windsor Hills Park is approximately one-third mile northeast of the site.. The Cedar River/Liberty Park complex (including the Cedar River Trail and the new Community Center) is approximately one-half mile southwest of the site. Additionally, the proposed development includes both passive, and active on-site recreation areas for children and adults. Staff will recommend that the proponent provide transportation service to those facilities, as desirable to serve residents. PRELIMINARY REPORT m0 THE HEARING EXAMINER 40 Lexington Ridge, con PUBLIC HEARING May 23 , 1989 Page 13 Staff also recommend: 1) the addition of on-site recreation opportunities for teenagers; 2) the addition of formal on-site recreation programs for children of all ages; 3) extend Sunset Trail by providing linkage through the site. These amenities should be planned in consultation with the Parks and Recreation Department. The Fire Prevention Bureau reports that resources are adequate to serve the site, assuming the customarily expected number of emergency calls. Clear signage at the entry tojthe development and identification of residential structures, well-demarcated access and through-travel routes, and exteriorilighting are recommended and/or required (pursuant to City Code) to facilitate efficient service. I The police staff believe there may be a greatet demand placed on police services in the near future for residential developments in which there is inadequate attention to selection of tenants, inadequate management, apd/or inadequate security provisions. The City has recently required the owners and/or developers of new multi-family projectslto post a performance bond to fund police service calls above those routinely anticipated - approximately . 63 calls per unit each year. (Such a requirement has been placed on a project under consideration as a result of an increased incidence of calls to developments nearby that proposed new residential complex) . Staff recommend a similar bond for this project. Staff also recommend the installation of signage, lighting, building identification, and security systems to further reduce likelihood of damage to persons or property. Staff report that utilities and infrastructure are generally adequate or can be improved to be adequate to Serve the site. Water services are reported to be adequate to lerve the development. Sanitary sewer services, as noted previously in this report (Sections D. l.b, G. 3 and G. 4 .c) , may be near to or at capacity. The proponent and the City's Public Works Department staff will need to work together toLdevelop a plan for improvements to that public utility which re sufficient to serve the site with the proposed development. Due to the fact that there is currently a substantial existing slope on the property, and that the natural drainage system will be altered by both grading/filling and the increase in impervious surfaces resulting from development, there is the potential to significantly increase storm water run-off in the area. As a result, staff report that the development of an adequate storm water management plan for this property is particularly critical. Requirements for a system to mitigate impacts have been established in conjunction w .th environmental review (See Section G. 3) . `I j . Prevention of Neighborhood Deterioration and Blight; I Development of the site with a multi-family project is not expected to lead to the deterioration and blight of the neighborhood. The project, with mitigating measures established in conjunction with environmental nd land use review, should be generally compatible with other existing and anticipated developments in the area. It is hoped that residents will help contribute to the community identity, as well as help support existing/anticipated serviices and businesses in the vicinity. Therefore, staff believe the proposed residential complex will, in fact, adfi to the value of the property in the area (See Section G. 4 .e0) . PRELIMINARY REPORT THE HEARING EXAMINER Lexington Ridge, C 'on 4110 PUBLIC HEARING May 23, 1989 Page 14 H. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend that the Hearing Examiner take the followling actions with respect to the application from Centron (File SA 0821-87 ; ECF 074- 87) with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant comply with all conditions established by the Environmental Review Committee on April 5, 1989 (see Attachment B) the Environmental mitigation measures 2 . That the applicant provide a revised site plan, subject to the approval of the Planning Division, which delineates the following: a. A finished grading plan. b. Location of structures so that each structure is separated from its nearest neighboring structure by a minimum horizontal distance of at least forty (40) feet or by a terrain differential of at least ten (10) feet. c. Orientation of structures so that there is adequate distance between living areas to protect privacy and defensible space. d. Location of all structures so that the electro-magnetic field intensity adjacent to any structures does not exceed 110 milligaus. e. A parking plan which includes 630 parking spaces (a maximum of 30% compact size stalls) , and which designs those parking spaces located on the power' lline right-of- way so that a future Sunset Trail linkage can be accommodated along that right-of-way. Covered carports are to be located away from structures so as not to hinder view corridors. f. An on-site exterior lighting plan which provides sufficient pedestrian-scaled pole lighting fixtures and ground mounted fixtures to satisfactorily lilluminate the site in a way which protects persons and property and enables the efficient operation of 'emergency service providers. (wall mounted lights will be prohibited, except in carports) . g. Screening of private patios with landscaping and/or fencing to enhance their privacy and usability. h. The provision of sheltered congregate areas on site -- perhaps next to mail boxes -- including, but not limited to benches, a community bulletin board each, and landscaping of a suitable scale in order to enhance "neighborliness" in this sizeable developnjent. . i. On-site recreation amenities for teen-agei9s, including, but not limited to the basketball court recommended in conjunction with environmental review for this project. Note: Staff strongly encourages the developer to provide a van to shuttle residents to community residential facilities (see Condition 3 below) . j . The provision of pedestrian . pathways (raised sidewalks) which: 1) link structures with one anothe4; 2) connect structures with parking areas, recreation iareas and service areas; and 3) extend the proposedjSunset Trail by creation of an on-site linkage along the Puget Power right-of-way on the eastern periphery of the site) , at an approximate cost of $21, 974 . 00 PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER imo Lexington Ridge, PUBLIC HEARING 'May 23, 1989 Page 15 k. The demarcation of screened dumpsters and other service ' areas (mail boxes, etc. ) . 1. The delineation of proposed covered carports -- carports are to be designed, sited and improved in such a manner that they ensure user safety and do not i terfere with view corridors on the open spaces created between units. . m. A screening plan which delineates design 9f fencing, rockeries, retaining walls, and which locates such screening so that it is both attractive t the resident and protects the integrity of the terrain without interfering with view corridors. I Note: Typical sections of all fences shal]r be approved by the City's Landscape Planner prior to installation. n. A plan which clearly depicts the location of power line equipment. 3 . That the applicant provide a van (and licensed; insured driver) to be utilized to transport elementarylschool aged children to school (in the event that transportation is not available through the school system) , as well as to transport residents to public transit routes (in view of 'the fact that METRO does not offer service to the site) and to off-site public recreation facilities (Community Center, Liberty Park, etc. ) . 4 . That the applicant provide on-site signage to adequately define the development as a whole, and individual components, such as structures, recreation areas, and travel routes to the satisfaction of both the Police and Community Development departments. 1 5. That the applicant provide an emergency services management plan, in order to protect resident safety. This plan will include building identification, security systems in individual units, on-site security patrols andia three year performance bond for the purpose of reimbursement of police services for any costs incurred for levels of service required beyond that customarily expected for similar multi-family developments in the community; the bond will be extended for an additional three year period following eachlyear in which money is drawn from the bond. The emergency management system will be subject to approval by the Police Department. The performance bond must be approved by the City Attorney as to form. . 7. That the applicant have a sanitary sewer system designed to the approval of the Public Works Department prior to the granting of a building permit for the Lexington Ridge development. I I 0 �L ® CITY OF R' NTON • Earl Clymer, Mayor POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Ex , 4- 6 MEMORANDUM May 16, 1989 - I TO: Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner FROM: Donald K. Erickson, Zoning Administrator RE: Centron Lexington Ridge ECF; SA-082-87 On April 5, 1989 the Environmental Review Committee considered the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement for Lexington Ridge and made the following decision: "It was agreed that a report be prepared for the Hearing Examiner recommending the conditions as agreed based on the new information reviewed today.". Attached to the Lexington Ridge Preliminary Report is a copy of the ERC Staff Report and recommendations for mitigating conditions. DKE:mjp • 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2552 • • 1110 . ADDENDUM TO ERC REPORT . LEXINGTON RIDGE 1. That the applicant prepare a geotechnical study+ to determine soil stability of area of the site adjacent to the Mount Olivet tank site near the southwest portion of the site: 1 2 . That. the applicant tightline both the sanitary Isewer system and the storm ,drainage system. The applicant to work with the Utility Engineer to determine whether the catch basins and manholes should be fiberglass lor an equivalent material to prevent leakage. This shouldbe done prior. to a submittal for a building permit;. 02) That the applicant work with the Stormwater Utility Engineer in analyzing the downstream storm drai1nage system as part of the design activity of the storm drainage system. i (i) The detention design shall be designed such that the flows shall not increase up to and including a 100 year 24 hour storm (that is, the post development runoff flows shall not increase over the existing predevelopment runoff for the 2, 10, 25, and 100 year storms) . The design will be based on the SCS unit hydrograph method for computing runoff. BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT April 5, 1989 (Notes in Italics Added 5-16-89) A. BACKGROUND: APPLICANT: Centron PROJECT: Lexington Ridge ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF; SA 082-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Review of EIS submitted by applicant in conjunction with a request for site plan approval for the development of 360 unit multi-family residential complex This 13.4 acre parcel is zoned R-4, High Density Multi-Family Residential Use. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located between N.E. 3rd Street and 1.E. 4th Street, west of Edmonds Avenue N.E., and east of the Bronson/N.E. 3rd Street intersection. B. ANALYSIS: Background: The proponent initially submitted the application for site plan review in 1987. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Significance in October, 1987 calling for an Environmental Impact Statement, with particular emphasis upon the need for more information in the following areas: 1) vehicular and pedestrian traffic circulation impacts (on-site and off-site); 2) soil/slope character and stability, grading; 3) storm water run-off/drainage management; 4) aquifer protection - this project is in Zone I of the proposed APA; 5) availability and accessibility of off-site recreational(facilities; 6) electro- magnetic impacts from nearby power lines upon human health and safety; 7) public service impacts; and 8) aesthetic/safety impacts relating to design of the development (e.g. structures, parking areas, open spaces/rockeries, on-site roadways, etc.). The proponent published a DEIS in November of 1988, and a FEIS in January of 1989. These documents are to be reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee to determini whether the concerns defined in conjunction with the scoping for environmental review have been addressed. If those areas of concern are determined to have been adequately addressed, the ERC may establish mitigation conditions for the proposed residential development. Processing of the application will then resdlme. Note: Staff conducted an analysis of the EIS in order to facilitate ERC review. This analysis has been focussed on two alternatives -- the proponent's proposed development (PPD), and the design alternative development (DAD) suggested by the City. Staff views these options as the most viable alternatives for the proposed development. In addition to these two development altrnatives, the EIS addressed a third option with a higher density than the DAD.and the PAD alternatives. ISSUES 1. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed impacts to the earth (soil slope/stability) anticipated from excavation, grading, development (structures, amenities, infrastructure) and utilization of the subject property? The existing site was formerly used as a gravel pit. Small pits (3 to 6 feet in depth and 20 to 30 feet in diameter) exist in various locations on the site. The north central portion of ithe site has a steep cut slope. This cut slope is approximately 20 to 40 feet high with a slope of approximately 63%. The geotechnical analysis provided by Golder Associates indicates that the geologic conditions of the site are such that there is a low risk of landsliding or seismic induced liquefaction or consolidation on the site. Further they indicate that the proposed modifications to the topography of the site will further decrease the risk of such events. Finally, there is the potential for additional erosion on the site due to the clearing, grading, and cut and fill activity proposed in order to develop the proposed pro ject;tsuch anticipated erosion should be controlled through mitigation measures described below: ' Environmental Review ConSStaff Report ' Lexington Ridge EIS ' • April 5, 1989 Page 2 Both the proposed project development (PPD) and the Design Alternative (DAD) will require a substantial amount of excavation. The PPD alternative will require the excavation of approximately 245,000 cubic yards of material and the DAD alternative will require 290,000 cubic yards of material. While the DAD requires more excavation, it will provide more open space and, thus,'presumably better opportunities for controlling erosion on sensitive/steep slope portions of the site. In order to reduce erosion impacts of earthwork on the site during construction activities, staff will recommend the development of several specific mitigation measures described below l 2. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed storm water drainage impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development? Development on the site with the PPD option will result in covering approximately ately 51% of the site with impervious surfaces (roadways, buildings and parking area). Selection of the DAD option would result in the implementation of a design which would provide larger contiguous area of open space, however, impervious surfaces would remain essentially the same as those occurring in the PPD. The 0.8 of an acre site reserved as a greenbelt in the southern portion of the site would be retained with either option. Once the development is completed with either option, storm water runoff will contain higher concentrations of nitrates and phosphates due mainly to the use of fertilizers on the site, sediment, heavy metals, oil and grease as a result of motor vehicle traffic on the site. This type/level of run-off is customary for a residential development of the proposed density. However, special concerns exist with respect to the type and quantity of proposed run-off, as a result of the fact that the subject parcel is located in Zone II of the proposed APA, at a point on the boundary of the Zone II area. Specific 1 mitigation measures are being established in consultation with the staff of the Public Works Department. The DEIS noted that the use of biofiltration was not considered as part of th storm drainage system for the site due to the lack of sufficient area to adequately accommodate suc}i systems, and due to the fact that there are no open drainage courses to connect to such a system. Development of the site would result in a greater amount of storm water runoff with a reduction in the amount of groundwater recharge. The geotechnical study prepared by Golder Associates noted that the amount of groundwater displaced would be small relative to the entire Cedar River drainage basin. Small quantities of nitrates, phosphates, oil, heavy metals, grease and oil would be present��in the stormwater entering the soils. However, the amount actually entering the groundwater supply, following recommended improvements to the storm water management system, is expected to have an insignificant impact on groundwater quality. Mitigation measures for this project, and future developments, are intended to control cumulative impacts, as well as those impacts from individual activities. Conditions are recommended below for drainage systems proposed for the development (with either PPD or DAD), in order to address potential storm drainage impacts: 3. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed impacts to the natural environment anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s)? The majority of the site is covered with natural vegetation. There is a sizeab4e deciduous forest and a smaller number of conifers on the site. There is a dense layer of shrubs including such species as the vine maple and salmonberry, salal, swordferns and various types of blackberries. Stiff is concerned that development of the site, with either PPD or DAD, allow retention of that vegetation which is on the designated greenbelt. Staff will also recommend that those plantings which must be eliminated to enable development be replaced with ornamental vegetation, native trees, shrubs and lawn.4 The removal of existing vegetation together with the addition of human activity to the site will also result in the change in the composition of the mammal and bird communities on the site (e.g. passerines, towhee, thrush, mice, shrews, snakes and lizards and deer). If an adequate habitat is provided (by the additional of new, natural landscaping), it is expected that those species which are more human-tolerant (e.g. crows, sparrows) will continue to be present on the site once development is completed. • i 4. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed impacts to environmental health (proximity to electromagnetic power lines) anticipated to occur in conjunction with Ithe proposed development(s)? The EIS includes information concerning the presence of electromagnetic power lines, together with existing data concerning proposed expansion, and likely impacts from present/futurI levels of use. ',Environmental Review Com .Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS April 5, 1989 Page 3 The studies on electric and magnetic fields of transmission lines cited in the DEIS indicate that Puget Power lines existing in the 200 foot corridor to the east of the site contain 115 1kV and 55 kV power lines. Future plans may include construction of additional 115 kV line or a 230 kV line along that corridor. The proponent's report indicate that existing information is insufficient at this time to derive any definitive conclusions with respect to long-term impacts; independent studies conducted previously describe potential increases in leukemia in children living proximate to power lines. In the short-term, injury is possible to residents of the development due to such activities as kite flying and the climbing of the towers. Likely short-term impacts and possible long-term impacts are/can be mitigated in the PPD alternative by reserving the entire Puget Power right-of-way as an open space and by/ ensuring that abutting structures are so placed to comply with U.S. Department of Energy recommendations for siting developments in the vicinity of power lines (e.g. a minimum of 50 feet from 115 kV ines and a minimum of 100 feet from 230 kV lines). In the DAD alternative, the majority of the right-of-way is retained for open ispace, with a section of the southeast corner of that area reserved for approximately 108 parking spaces. These parking spaces are less convenient to residential units than are parking areas within the complex. However, these spaces are useful for guest parking and convenient to the arterial, as well as to pedestrian walkways and to adjacent public transit lines. Environmental health impacts can be mitigated by location of.all outside of the electromagnetic fields of the power lines. In order to minimize long-term and short-term environmental health impacts to the residents, staff will recommend specific mitigation measures. 5. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed land use impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s)? Both the PPD and DAD alternatives propose developments of 360 residential nits. As a result, impacts from both of the options are anticipated to be similar. A residential development at this site appears to be compatible with surrounding residential and commercial/service uses. 6. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed aesthetic impacts, noise impacts and light and glare impacts anticipated to occur in con junction with the proposed development(s)? DAD and PPD both include 360 units located in 15 buildings. Interior layout I are similar in both plans. However, in the DAD option the buildings are designed and sited in a way which more effectively addresses criteria identified in the Site Plan Review Ordinance. For example, the plan selected for the Design Alternative better enhances views and protects the privacy of the residents through the provision of greater visual variety, visual relief, and "staggered" structural placement. In this option, buildings are located in a manner which enables safer, more efficient vehicle and pedestrian travel(through the site. Also, more open space is available. Under both options noise impacts from adjacent roadways and developments dre anticipated to be similar, and to be mitigable through structural improvements, and through location of structures and amenities (e.g. open spaces, recreation areas). On-site noise impacts are not anticipated to be unusual; those impacts can also be mitigated through building design and location. Both the PPD option and the DAD option are planned to mitigate noise impacts. The design of the DAD option, which includes better separation and articulation of buildings, is preferred for noise control. Under both the DAD option and the PPD option, the proponent will be advised to provide and direct on-site lighting and landscaping in a manner which limits light and glare impacts to the residential units from on-site and off-site (vehicle headlight) sources. Here, again the DAD option is preferred because the greater open spaces, greater spaces between buildings, and other design features facilitate safe travel on-site, and enhance opportunities for providing on-site lighting which illuminates the site without negative impact upon the development. Staff recommendations for mitigation measures are described below in Section "C". These will include construction-related impacts (discussed in Section B-10) with respect to aesthetics, noise, light and glare. . 7. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed traffic (vehicular and pedestrian) impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s)? Development of the project whether under the PPD alternative or under the DAD alternative would result in the addition of 2,374 vehicle trips per day. Environmental Review Comfit_ Staff Report .Lexington Ridge EIS April 5, 1989 Page 4 The nearest major intersection serving the site is the signalized intersection of N.E. 3rd St and Sunset Blvd North. This intersection currently operates at a Level of Service F for both the A.M. and P.M. peak periods. This is an unacceptable operating level. The EIS notes that improvements need to be made to this intersection with or without the project. One mitigation measure offered involves signal phasing and additional left-turn lanes (northbound, eastbound and westbound approaches) which would change the P.M. peak period from LOS F to LOS D and the A.M. peak period from LOS E to LOS C. (Note: Desired improvements are described in a memo of March 31, 1989, and listed below in Section "C".) Another problem identified was the potential risk of conflict for pedestrians and vehicles on the segment of Bronson Way N.E. between N.E. 3rd St and N.E. 4th St due to the geomeirics (slope, angle, sight distance) of this portion of the roadway: In fact, these features and the resulting concerns about pedestrian and vehicle safety caused METRO to remove transit service along this portion of roadway. The EIS went further, stating substantial improvements, designed to provide 1 ng-term solutions to roadway impacts at the above-described intersection and along the adjacent roadway were needed in the vicinity of the project as a result of new development (in addition to the proposed evelopment) planned in the immediate area, and as a result of the substantial amount of proposed new resdential and commercial development in the northeast sector of the City which would be expectedto generate a level of traffic which is similarly substantial. Note: The City has asked a major developer in this area to undertake an area-wide traffic benefit improvement zone plan (TBZ Plan) in order to determine necessary improvements an1d assess AWDTE costs. A draft of the study has been completed and is being reviewed by Traffic Engineering. The Traffic Engineer, based upon the draft traffic study, submitted a list of conditions to mitigate the traffic impacts. These conditions are listed in a memo dated March 31, 1989 and available in the project application file. Staff determined that there are certain traffic mitigation measures which are inecessary to consider the development at the given location which are described below. Note: Construction related traffic impacts are reviewed in Section 10, below. 8. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed public service (fire, police, schools, utilities) impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s)? a. Police Services The EIS states that the proposed project, utilizing either alternative, is anticipated to generate only the customary number and type of police service emergency calls for a 360 }nit residential project - .63 annual calls per unit -- and that these calls can be addressed within acceptable time parameters using the services of existing staff members, plus 1.1 new officer (with concomitant levels of new supporting equipment). While it is estimated that the cost of new resources/services would be $57,200, there is presently no approved plan for resource improvement, which would enable the City to require that the applicant provide such funding directly. .ris a result, it will be necessary for the City to depend Upon increased tax revenues to generate a fair share of funds for such improvements. Additionally, at the time of land use review, the appli+t will be required to provide signage, lighting, building identification and other improvements to increase general safety on-site and to facilitate efficient emergency response times by police officers. b. Fire Services Either the PPD option or the DAD option is anticipated to increase requirements for service by the Fire Department, as would customarily be expected for a 360 unit residential development. Specifically, it is expected that there would be one call annually for each eleiven.(11) residents. The Fire Department has not developed a preferred officer/population ratio, however, the City is in the process of implementing'a 15 year plan for service improvement, including the employment of new staff and the purchase of new equipment. Tax revenues generated by the project will help to support the necessary service improvements. Staff do recommend that, if the development (with either option) is permitted, the applicant be required to provide signage, lighting, building identification and other improvements to increase general safety on-site and to facilitate efficient emergency response times by emergency personnel as noted above. c. Utility Services The applicant reported in the Environmental Impact Statement that existing public utility services would be available to the site in sufficient quantities and at suitable locatio s to serve the proposed development (either DAD or PPD). . Environmental Review Come"Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS April 5, 1989 Page 5 • Utility Engineering has not suggested that environmental mitigation measures are necessary to achieve suitable service levels on-site or to mitigate off-site impacts. Utility lines are available to serve anticipated future development in the immediate vicinity and along the N.E. 3rd Street/N.E. 4th Street corridor.(*) (*) On April 10, 1989, subsequent to the meeting of the April 5th meeting of Environmental Review Committee at which the Lexington Ridge EIS was reviewed, the Public Works Department made an informal determination (based upon preliminary findings of a sanitary sewer sstems study) that sewer lines in the vicinity of the proposed development are near to or at capacity. Public Works Department staff are working with the proponent to develop measures which would allow the provision of adequate sanitary sewer service to the site. d. Schools The project is anticipated to introduce approximately 90 new students into the local school system. The proponent reports that these students can be accommodated within the system, by enrollment in currently operating schools and/or reopening of schools presently closed for lack of enrollment. Currently, the Renton School System provides transportation to elementary school aged children living at least one mile from a school. 9. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed recreation impacts anticipated to occur on-site and off-site in conjunction with the proposed development(s)? The project site is expected to generate approximately 640 persons (including!approximately 100 children) who would require a combination of on-site and off-site recreational opportunities. The project will include a swimming pool; recreation center with indoor sauna, weight room, lounge with wet bar, sunbeds, spa-jacuzzi and racquetball court; barbecue/picnic area, and two tot lots toether with the creation of a linkage with the City's proposed trail system in the Puget Power right-of-way. Depending upon the project design used, there would be approximately 2.5 acres (PPD) to 3.5 ares (DAD) of useable area for recreational space. The space set aside for passive recreation/open space would range from 3.8 acres (DAD) to 4.1 acres (PPD). Finally, based upon the City's standards, the project would result in need for an additional 6.5 acres of general park area. The population proposed for the prp ject is not sufficiently large, however, to support a park on-site or the purchase of a park site in the area, r measures (such as transportation services) which improve access to existing recreational amenities. Some specific recreation measures to off-set the impacts from the proposed development to the community have been submitted by Parks Department staff; these are listed below. 10. Whether the applicant has adequately addressed the noise impacts which will result during the construction phase of the development? The applicant has acknowledged that there will be aesthetic impacts, light anI glare and noise impacts in the area which will occur particularly during construction. Since the project site is adjacent to existing residential uses to the west and east and a church and daycare center to the north, the applicant should mitigate the construction impacts in the manner recommended below: Note: See Section 1 of this document for additional construction-related conditions. C. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based upon the above analysis, staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated subject to the following conditions: 1. In order to reduce the erosion impacts of earthwork on the site, the following measures should be taken by the applicant: a. That the applicant shall schedule all earthwork activity, to the greateit extent possible, during the dry months of the year (May 1st through September 30th). Any such activity occurring during the wet months of the year, would require review by the City as to acceptable measures to be taken during this period to reduce or avoid the impacts of erosion and sedimentation. b. That the applicant install a wheel wash system together with the installation of a roadway at the entrances of the ingress and egress points to the site. c. That the applicant provide the City with a $4000.00 revolving cash bond for street clean-up. • ' , P;nv�itonmental Review Cor Staff Report 41011 i )Lexington Ridge EIS ' • April 5, 1989 Page 6 • d. That the applicant work with the City of Renton Public Works Department on acceptable erosion and sedimentation control methods including: the use of siltation fences, temporary ditches, the coverage of stockpiled soil, and retention ponds if.deemed necessary. These erosion control methods shall be maintained; e. That within 15 days of completion of clearing, grading, and filling activities, the exposed soils will be hydroseeded: Note: Hydroseeding must be completed within a timeframe which allows the hydroseeding to take effect before the winter weather arrives, f. That the applicant periodically water down the site to control product ion/migration of dust from the site to neighboring properties, g. Should earthwork and/or construction activity occur during the wet months of the year, a soils engineer shall be hired to monitor erosion and sedimentation control measures to ensure that such measures are working properly and are maintained as well as working with the Public Works Department on additional or revised measures should problems arise. 2. That the following mitigation measures need to be incorporated into the storm drainage system: a. That the applicant provide a storm drainage system including tightlinil g, aqua recharging, and biofiltration; b. That the applicant provide a plan for protection of the underlying terrain and aquifer through the installation of oil/grease traps and silt sumps in street catch basins and the installation of a standard riser in the detention system to control the discharge of oil, grease, and sediment. The plan should be subject to approval by the Public Works Department; c. That the applicant provide the City with an agreement describing a plan to ensure checking and maintenance of the storm drainage system for the development on a regular basis. This monitoring is to be accomplished by a certified professional soils engineer. Rgports shall be furnished to the Public Works Department every six (6) months. The plan shall be subject to approval by the Public Works Department and by the City Attorney. I 3. That in order to reduce impacts to the natural environment, the following measures be incorporated into the development plans: a. That the applicant, in order to protect the greenbelt area on the site, provide a covenant which defines that greenbelt area and which prohibits any/all temporary or permanent disruption to the greenbelt, during construction or operation of the proposed development. b. That the applicant design a landscaping plan (including retained natural vegetation and new plantings) in order to provide aesthetic and visual buffers, contain light and glare, and enhance the natural areas on the site. The applicant shall work with the City's landscape lanner to ensure that the landscaping plans include retention of a maximum feasible amount of natural plantings, as well as introducing new plantings of sufficient quality, quantity, size, diversity anlii location, to both enhance the natural environment on the site and, as well, provide sufficient buffers. c. That the applicant establish a plan for the capture and relocation of tile larger mammals on the site (deer, raccoons, etc.) found on the site to other locations within the City or elsewhere. Such a plan shall be developed with representatives of the State Department o Wildlife. 4. That in order minimize the long term and short term impacts of the transmission lines, the following measures shall be required: a. That the applicant provide written information to residents on the dangers of electrical shocks from the transmission lines. b. That the applicant work with Puget Power to develop an acceptable proposal for signage and fencing of the transmission towers. c. That the applicant agree to locate all buildings's° that electro-magnetic field intensity in those structures is no greater than 110 milligaus. 5. That in order to reduce the aesthetic, noise and light and glare impacts, the following measures be incorporated into the project: r Environmental Review Core. Staff Report ,Lexington Ridge EIS ' April 5, 1989 / Page 7 a. That the applicant, in order to provide a a more aesthetically attractive, safer, more functional residential complex, select the design alternative (DAD) rather than the proposed project design (PPD) and work with the C'lty's Planning Division, in conjunction with site plan review, to make some modifications to that design to: 1) further improve the appearance of the development; 2) reduce on-site ,and off-site visual/functional impacts; 3) contain noise impacts through building design (e.g. exterior material, interior;insulation) and location (separation of structures from one another and from abutting uses -- rights-of-way and uses); and 4) contain light and glare impacts through location of on-site pedestrian scaled exterior lighting in a manner which fully illuminates the development without directing light or glare off-site, and through Location,of landscaping/fencing to screen light and glare adjacent to the site. I' 6. That in order to address the traffic impacts of the project, the following measures be incorporated into the project a. That the applicant work with METRO to develop an acceptable transportation systems management plan (TSM) which shall be approved prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project to reduce the level of vehicle/pedestrian impacts upon the neighborhood. b. That the applicant work with the Parks and Recreation Department to develop acceptable linkages with the City's trail system located near the site in order to provide or recreational amenities and a concomitant increased level of pedestrian safety. I c. That the applicant comply with the conditions recommended by the Traffic Engineer, described in a Memorandum dated March 31, 1989, and delineated as follows: 1. Standard curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lighting improvements to be installed around the periphery of the project. 2. Provision of a transit lane pull-out on. N.E. 3rd, or, alternately, the construction of an additional lane along the N.E. 3rd Street property frontage. Since Ian additional lane westbound is identified as a necessary improvement in the N.E. 3rd/N.E. 4th TBZ, the developer should be allowed credit for construction of the lane. Hov&ever, no credit should be allowed if the developer opts to construct the transit pull-out only (Note: The Bronson Way/N.E. 3rd Street intersection presents a sever grade problem. Recently, transit service was discontinued on Bronson Way as the buses experienced significant damage when negotiating the turn to N.E. 3rd. The result of this action eliminated transit service to the Group Health Clinic. Any widening of N.E. 3rd Street must address the grade problem on Bronson. The precise amount of inancial responsibility to be assumed by the developer is to be established by existing Public Forks Department/Traffic Engineering Division policies). 3. Participation in the N.E. 3rd/N.E. 4th TBZ, at $670,000 ($288 per trip). As the N.E.3rd St/N.E. 4th Street TBZ has not been adopted by City Council, the developer should be requested to provide a bond (or equivalent agreement) in the amot4nt of $670,000,in advance of the building permit, subject to the approval of the City Attorney. 7. That in order to reduce the recreation impacts of the development, the following measures shall be incorporated into the project: a. The development of an outdoor half-court basketball facility. b. The improvement of the Sunset Trail linkage utilizing the Puget Power line right-of-way which runs north and south along the east property line of the project in order to link the Cedar Trail System to the Lake Washington Boulevard trail system. This improvement will require some corollary redesign of the parking area now planned for that right-of-way, in1 order to clearly identify the trail area and maintain trail integrity. c. Pedestrian facilities should also be developed along NE 3rd Street, NE 4th Street, and Bronson Way, subject to approval by the Parks and Recreation Department. 8. That in order to protect public health and safety the developer shall ensure thf provision of adequate sanitary sewer service to the site through a system which is approved by the Public Works Department. (This condition established following May 12, 1989 identification of system capacity problems). Environmental Review Con( Staff Report ' ' Lexington Ridge EIS ' April 5, 1989 Page 8 • 9. That in order reduce the noise impacts of the construction activity, the following measures shall be adhered to: a. That construction equipment be operated within acceptable noise rang levels for such equipment. b. That the applicant limit the hours of on-site construction activity on Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. with no construction activity on Sunday. c. That the applicant limit the hauling operations off-site to the hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday to limit traffic impacts to the adjacent roadways. • • • 'TABLE " 1110 e ■ LEXINGTON RIDGE APARTMENTS DESIGN COMPARISON • Design Alternative R-4 Number of Units 360 480 Max. (Without Greenbelt) 442 (With Greenbelt) Number of Parking Spaces 640 Requested 819 (Without Greenbelt) 630 Permitted 773 (With Greenbelt) Amount of Open Space 7.3 Acres (Passive/Active Rec.) 8:69 Acres cannot be covered 3.6 Acres (Parking) by buildings Number of buildings 15 (2.5 Acres) 4.68 Acres4 can be covered by buildings Buildings' Footprint 111,980 Sq. Ft. As Above Buildings' Maximum Height 35 Feet 95 Feet Recreation Recreation Center Code does not specify Walkway System Swimming Pool Two Tot Lots Picnic Area Location of Parking Spaces 630 Private, oft-site parking is • (Approx. 108 in Power ROW) allowed if ivithin 500 Feet. (Approx. 530 on-site) LWB:Lex-Dsgn • / L o , • AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 4-t1 day of M , 1981, I deposited in the mails of the Unite4 States a sealed envelope containing 4.4. ey,atr ttos ortS documents. This information was sent to: NAME: JEPRESENTING: Cs‘ncitoka.-Shia, , cancan , saIic4 Cep, Kusu- Colin ( to hn fR 1\10 },h Ise.. Emmons -fmk Unite 114odtt CkUh - t, nee ) 6 • -Thornas dli 0.o `t vot-) u ate; P a4? c Wilms» Adorns. �� SIGNED BY: , Se„„noate — SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this /7 4 day of h , 19B2 _. Not Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at `.26-4r7.0 N , therein. Project Name and Number: Ljc►rw ,n �} v he JA-1062 -61 Eel' 074-el • CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION LIST OF EIS PROJECTS MAY 10, 1989 1. SABEY CORPORATION (ECF-034-87; R-051-87) Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change master plan designation from MP (Manufacturing) to B-1 (General Business), and application to rezone approximately 46 acres from MP to B-1. Revised from June 24, 1987 decision. Property bounded by SW 41st Street on the south, SW 34th on the north, East Valley Road on the east, and Lind Ave. SW on the west (but excludes two lots located in the SW corner of this area). Major issues to be addressed in this EIS include impacts on transportation, economic impacts on other retailing uses in the area, drainage and air quality impacts. 2. MCMAHON (R-073-87) The proposal is for development of approximately 1,400 units of multi-family housing on a site of about 100 acres, located on the south side of NE 3rd Street between Edmonds Ave. NE (extended) and Monroe Ave. NE (extended). The site has been used for some time as an open sand and gravel pit. The proposal would require a rezone from the site's current G-1 (General Use) designation to R-3 and R-2 (Multi-Family) zoning. Approval of a master plan for site development of 1,400 units is sought. The property is located south of NE Third Street and north of Maple Valley Highway and east of Edmonds Avenue (if extended). Major issues to be addressed in the EIS include traffic impacts, drainage impacts, impacts on community services, and aesthetics. 3. > CENTRON LEXINGTON RIDGE (ECF; SA-082-87) The applicant seeks site approval to construct 360 multi-family residential units in 15 buildings, a recreation center, and parking on 13.4 acres. The property is located between N.E. Fourth Street and N.E. Third Street, west of Edmonds Ave. N.E., and east of Bronson Way N.E. Major issues addressed in the EIS include traffic and impacts on community services. 4. KENWORTH PACCAR (ECF-047-88) Proposed development of an 84.2 acres industrially zoned site to accommodate a proposed new Kenworth truck manufacturing plant. Proposed project elements include approximately 400,000-600,000 square feet of "off-highway" truck production space; approximately 60,000 square feet of accessory office space; up to 70,000 additional square feet of regional headquarters office space is under consideration; and surface parking for not more than 1,500 cars. A Conditional Use Permit may be required for bulk petroleum storage in excess of 50,000 V X1 l 5n G..� sia v: •• • \7Pl1A\� • % U ilWI11 3SQ25ite 112th100 Ave. N.E.C-90001 May 15, 1989 B llevue,WA 98009 2 6-822-2888 • C NTRON is a service mark li ensod by Conlron Corporation. • • Ms. Lenora Blauman Senior Planner CITY OF RENTON 200 Mill Avenue South. Renton, WA 98055 • RE: Lexington Ridge Apartments Dear Lenora: . Based on further analysis and subsequent discussions with the City's Staff, Centron has elected to use the "Design Alternative" as presented in the final Environmental Impact Statement. Centron will now concentrate its efforts solely on the "Design Alternative] and dis- regard the "Proposed Action Site Plan" and the "High Density Alternative" as presented in the final E.I.S. • Attached, please find four sets of site and landscape plans as requested. The exterior lighting layout, as conceived, is shown on the site plan for your convenience. If I can answer any questions or be of any; assistance to you, please contact me ati822-2888. Thank you. I Sincerely, CENTRON • • Robert G. Minnott, Director Governmental Relations and Land Planning• - rgm: kk • cc: John Phillips, P.S. E. Dennis Riebe, A.I.A. • • • • • • • • • //2 . OD,... ............, r q fu::. r \-. , _ ,1 . 1_ . \. ">,..,.7:',......1.•' . ks„..----'i(*....,...iff.\ -'...' ',,,-- ' II ‘.1 ., \ . .A h:.,i.1 1.w.,....,....., Iri 1:7'3.`,,i'd E ; , ' . ..• I ‘'''S .-e ; ' 's... '' ti . I \ O.1111111! I CID I \ i //�'' w 1 4- i 1' '� j I i I f 19 I�� • 11.E 1 }• �;;��; ' ' :�I'Ibs� • ; • 1, ,,^ R 1. � � J , ---. CAR ‘ + t,+ �•;• • • :1 1:�� . 3,� -- ..�ra�,5�r , ,F» �Is _• ' '�' �. • ' ice • `�` tl .' �• .�1 . ,� l \ CRY ((� . .. •�,•' , ,„! V\,%... `` % i a: �,"'f6 .1,3 !. aT ,/' . eP .. 1 I 751.TzAR i ;4,;,:.‘' ,1 4, e sc,co I.. r \ >. \ , e� I T+ ) S� 6 / / `! 4 •' + - `. WINDSOR HILIS .. E �� ; *- s- 4 s, j II • r. �� a�z ,r. \,JL1. P11Rk 0 .1pIY"jPia,99 'FT.�77: _c174�3 7:•ls.; t • , „ • il. 1:111[7 ..7// Ie' 4 1y� /i (7,. F 7sI • Eli ION 51' / ih. • . 1 a. ck ,f,...... - G LITT/ /. /./". # ' . ..., .. .,4 Ab , • • .. . ,,,:,, � e s .% .. / •‘) ' lok7-1--- .----2 '-7.7` 50 ell SeArt %I Ira . i 3ti y, .,, 1 W „v../..„- . .._\. ' '"C ' 1___t. � MTOLIvEI II I /. ,! 4 s r: CEDAR RIVER \\ 91..,m CEn+ETFR> II / I i ,! PARK \ , t1-1. — I 1 / i • 11 ! 11 1 — r" ' 1 j T i(J�� '- •149.E . I. t:---Y\IA )B \ \ i\- • • LEXINGTON RIDGE APARTMENTS • SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-082-87 NI• . . . . . APPL I CANT CENTRON TOTAL AREA 13.4 ACRES . PRINCIPAL ACCESS BRONSON WAY N.E. EXISTING ZONING R-4 (RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY) • EXISTING USE UNDEVELOPED • PROPOSED USE CONSTRUCT 360 APARTMENTS IN APPROXIMATELY •15 BUILDINGS. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN • HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY. . . COMMENTS THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BETWEEN N.E. 3rd STREET AND (LE. 4th STREET, ' - WEST OF EDMONDS AVENUE N.E. AND EAST OF BRONSON WAY/N.E. 3rd STREET INTERSECTION. ' I •• I 1 _,---)--...z....;..5... :.,.-,-,„,..,?....- • <.."1. I ,,(:,'/ , • _ _t , _ . V...I Heavy Industrial .,. I — '4-.- --- ...,...,,,,, , • , • - -....- „ '-•-•.;:\-..,,,..,.. • ,/,,, • 41 !...-";;•.;',, .. ,.. L , ,,,,f-'::',-,. ..:;:':...='',E•;:...,-. c.:.,--, • j , • Manufacturing Park ! /' ,....,4-...• V".:"'r".•-•!-S....1.4"..`" •:1''• .S.,,:1•:.%.• '' •-'(:••':: k•r-••••.: ,-," / Multiple Option I/ /I • :, .;:5:::."1-:.:•:'''::•';'•:c.'1.--,-,...„...:r ,....;,....,7::, :,....7-:. ":::•:. ...... e,- ..L3.'n;4,'...:,•4c•." C:',..".c,;',- .-• •• c.,••',"'' ,Q, ;' 4.•.',2.,:: •V V *7r.. . •- __.4,,, -,,...,„ ,„. ;::.C':i o':•-•y‘.cf.;..'17-'7•;;::•,:'.''''.:.'•Iii• • , I': .: ".L.4.,e-^<,:,•...r!..4, q."..c• -: • •fr.,.r - I., wised April 1985 .,•( 1.— ,Milli 1 '.C.j.-1,;,L^,.:*....,;.,ce,i 54_._......7r.:•-•••••=3.•....1 I aSti.c .•,'-_, ......_;...,-•-y..-....rj\ ....`",• •r... '-e--.o'si..r7..c:: •tC,..A, .k.E.`.!:•:1„,..,-:-,;,..•'). ..:.5,,:',Lb i,.::..s,".;;„•.•,,:::.:,.•:', • -:-.I ‘• 1, 0 \ ••. ."...:6."1.-.1.-...bn,,':".•:"..::.J.<•,'.•cs•v°- ,tr.s.:.,-.:.cc/..,0..„,,,-,,,, NN-I I 1 . C....r......f.! e.•o,.•-..K:'S-•e'ZYJOII. ''• i.S. • '•, am g .„ . . --a*:':',-„,„ :,••.-„:1-•:1-,`•••,-.--a,..,, • - .,7p,.- - ; .-.-;.•_c:.-..- ..,,c1:,-::::.•:-:.•...;,..'I. 7 in Ai ., .04. %. 4410, 40"ID •.• -:... ,, -,:•_o_o_o_O 0_0 o go. ...1.CI.: ..:,'1:-;F.•c..- .'.% , .•-••::::::X. _.- 1.1.;'!&•••gf•?,',, ',,. %\ .10.1. ••''^-",,','.;Z,..:!' I 1k.-Wi4 •- .. `.."..",•e,. "r. :..`,•":1):::c; • ‘.t til ... 1 ,4 ,....1......::::..:1:. ,...';‘?..‘::-..'•11 "(,. LAKE 4 •,,,•::•• .•.• u Vt/ ••:• '-' 1 '' '0 ::::. ' I Otlit: .;:t.).1‘:,..1:,0.1- .1:•11ri J % . •:::.: 11 oZo:ot:•. ...;.,4,:.:: ,•,/ . . ;%lit 4.:.:.•i:.. • %. ; /..:•:::.: WASHINGTON , ,, .,,,,,,, ,.,. i ,.... -,:.:„.:. • z„.,,..•.i. 1 •4.04„. .,. ‘, %.,•.,.,.. . ---\ -- - ''''.-.'•••.2......NU:•.....r'..6r 1 (I:IC Ir. - ---'---.---.... ‘7 • --1±.- 6' • •;. ..--•—.I .. •I •0000 wogs imigri II.• 111111:1 \ "...r. .4,., - , ., ,. ---i Fejp0.0. j ,••_..);tee , I ,F,), "ii• . ,....*••-•: .;: ,-1 I- ‘ • ,,!., • pimp 4,1; il K. N . • • ..• _ .---— .::: : ••••—• \,• ,,-• • sr • le if-•.•- • ,, ......•.•,•. .......•••• El ; (••7.:. Mill / • •• •• •• • •I‘Ve'll?'' •:::.:. •.. • • • • • • • A :...i: 1 "V. •• i• • 1-- •:•:•:•:•.. : ,A iii OA II' ..,.,.,.,.IL5: sr mil ,IIII irt ............,- • • • „ • •. . ;- :::::::::•:::::-:•:.rilEtrili ...,: : : i dr arird' 1I, .-0.0 al • " • • • • • • • • e ;.i -.;:-,:-. :iiii:iii AAP, 4 I'M:: ‘1-.4P1g; f•-....:**'-• •• •• •• •• •• • • ••• •• .;6::.-..L:.:::-. ..:::::::::::::::::::r. ••• 1[ .:i:.Vrellrtfid t 111111111i • .. IL ,!,c,g0;z:,',;14. ••••••••••••••••••••••%•.•. .. :.,e .iii ,...:.::::::........: ..„... ,g4:. Iii •gggg.•,;41, • • • • • • • • • • •or • • ',. [ inif• li g00000i.: cm • • • • • • • • a • • e . :., .w. r 1 --- 11 • h'ill NUMMI • ;0g.: • ..go,g0g go..t. • • • • • • • • • • • • • . , .:::::::::, Ilk i 11111ATI ... .. .. •-°. ii•gnogogo000°.?' l'......... •••••••••••• *. .. '! - 'iil ro, penisit m, • • • • • • • • • • •;,, ..;., :!i: '• e0a,iggognggggg: V••••••••• ••••••• • • ..t..,•••,. 5- '. 1:44,1, :40,30ti0. It• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••t " MI ,':•Ct,- 0°0 fool ...;. 00 El --,, :.i?ogonc, ,„0 .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .,„,., %. l :r•-''' 0%. 1-..gog-60-gr, - • • • • • • • • • .• • • /....,, \ 4.. •... all •:,:000 0 '.E.'g: ••••••• ... ••• . • • • a • iF • • • •p\tglo gooz ii,i • • • 1 'is • ••••• ••• ,,.. rdi • % alt :11NIMPIIIIIi . 0, 1 .9-co:'• 4ii,,..?og g oog; 4,.• • • • I 1 r • • • • • 1't i‘ • • • • • ..-:. l' •'''.78ilii.i.Lgc.°20g oggi. . • 7, • ,-.•;::::;:7,T7:77- - • • • • • '•;. - illidgrg •0... :PIM! OM i , la oogato ogo-,,,,,i re-.• ,oiiligiiwi 1•• • • • • • , . ,Eilk •-;it:k .,GENZEM....... . a .:0" L;—.— ?opgcigogo.,1 „• '11Rani 0.,_......07,./P• rty ,•• 4.,g000gp000,. • • 400-.J-..--7„.„„....,_,...fl I .,..11 ?oogboogogo.. ti 11.::::::::::::::.. 1 •:••••14711114 .6.:10"ri 14 47.4 tatikt- _..... ...‘ I ego 0gogog. . .•.•.•. ..I I od:40.°"R t:::i i.:::•::;:•:I 1:::::::.:::1::::::.:::::.::i:•%:::: i 11 I le 11 II I I.I I 14 irl I 1 •••0 0°• ::::::•"%••:•:•:•*:::: . I IMMMNa•fil ---i Ilk 11 iiigcliMg°iig.1 14:1g eji-P---.-4:1.:::.21'.. :•*".. ''oie.:•• fli tprillk ..:1 ....x.:•:::•:•:•:•:::•:7•:*•:0.0.0: '-• ••• •-• Illailiiii --1 :•:.:iii 000go°0°00°0 o°o° :ill .: t.'`.'• ':i::::::•::::i*i:::N::::::•:••. •'°°• "III. Vo93°MoCioCa° II I II I r o o 000200.0.•4. .207 Ai 1 1....,:i giigi'AgnicW,N 4....-,Ini. ,..as. 40. 4 .,,,,,.,;.....„\::•.: :,iiiiiiii„1„„„:„......,:,:„„,:,:•.i,„i. .0.00.00.0.0.01000.0.00.0.00....00.000.00.a.0.0/00., •:.:.:::......,..,, '11'y '. - . .0:5' I :i:::: .:.:....join Writri • iii,".:. ..r:;;;,4.,:;.14:I."' 1: .:... ....:::::::ii.ag.:I.II.::.:I.: 0 0000000000000000.0000.00.00000000000.000000000. .::::::::::::*:*.„,.:. N'1% i•I °Ili?.E4g.ig.1601*ggg.°•;igil* \::::: 1 i PF'Or A 11(N,r•••• ,.. ... . ;'',...., •MNiMii::.:!::.i:. 00.00.00.00.00000 00 00_00 0 0 0 0...0000000.000.0.0000. .:::.:.: ..0%. •.: ..... .0,04 ° ,...... :..... emu.iadhalb, • 0 ..t.4.....w::t.tt.1 Mil 111 Al ,,:lisitis;74,/,Lc:o. •.,t04.0.00:000.00:00.004: ::0000:00.00000::::.... 1 : 00..„ VtitteTdadVilittlitt•i• —.1:: tilit ....: • • .'! 7 . ‘ IT . i. 0 0 0 . 0 0 11 4 1 r"..s.,A,S4/110:73,..,) fill:41 ,t i I:c 111 1 o°01?,:::::0140.i.•1,;:!:21:.0°.0°.0°.09.9.°01393°.0:02700:0:0:0:0:0,it,:.ii:,::::: .i::: .! 1 1 000....• „ . „ '''"14.1, ,:.5 rif 1 Ekgogogogogogo 1 1 1 'Ili& fo.cy •... t. :- IL 000000000 ... (S.,•.:::;:::.:.:: 'or., P.,11.4_ II • .00000000000,1 i.•no • 1 %...e., . ,•.•..1.05,..„ •,, . 0.,,-...:, maiiiIii ,,., ,.000000000000000., .4... ..:.....:....• I " •0000000 If'. :.....:::..:::::::: IV..?. '''‘ Rille.""" : ° ° ° ° °i'e Ili 011:11 larki.0: ".„, •- •••:er. •.,..'i",::-. ..:,,....t.'...nab iiiiii.:, .*::::::::i::::*i:i*: /on n •.00• •• n •.•••••••••••••••••• - :1141111.141114111INTininliiiiiiliriiiiiifirill210°0° - ' --'--aty,iii.47.,,--,J mg gNi !,. MiMi::i ,:a if.t'•:',"%tv...,, ., , :',44' i:i:i*:::i:::i*:::: . ,••••• •••••••••• • • . . •• 0 II 41t. ...11111-0.01!..!!!!eler lipti.1111111;,,...!,ti.io, ,.,•„"•;.,- •:.. --"11114 ;,..i., igAi ,.., ,. ,s c.)1,; : :1?r...:.'f," 4,,dalliiiimm--lErlii11111410111_ ..cr:::...:\,.,, ...: ..C.. •...a.7..v:(..•11 ,,.;mill.:41:.:,.r:).;.1:1:?4:z.,IF..1%;9,44.44)(C:..''.qe)v FP';''''''',":"::..::7it•I:::c:ricl....is.:1.::::::::.::.::..::::. . 'l•••.1,5? •':'r. ,.. , , . .1 4'.'•r..,'• .'f.1,, ,'..2.1.7•.A.0• 0%1,-0.•.,....?-.:..›...4.7;(4,4.,..,;,/..P;k;., :::::::::::::::::::.:. I WARM. monar•No• 'No • an% -;rniia se :'•';'i•.*'-`-• T`e• rcrLk 111 'Ili I.'•-• -.1''P••1.'").••''.',-).',..' •-'''''',-•r;•••••%i•"'`:•'!•1 ri r4:F. •'-'-::•:•:::::: .....attr011uimill:°°°°°°°° .0r0,11 P. pill:73.° \ ..-'.0-;. \...rk•trX' • 11%,.:V1); ..."•4.4' "•".?"''. ".:' 'fP.')'t`n:' .•'';'21,,, •" :::::::71.e•M 0•11•••••••■ft•••••, •:,i9iP'1•- „ 00 •••••,.........,... ...... ..„........ ,. • ..:.,,,,.... ,....1.--- - . .4„,milw •••••," ,,,,ci-A. % ::::,:,:,:„:::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::: .............•,...,... .... ..„.,::::„:., 1 EN g• • ....:i*:i*K..i:i:i:i:i:i:::.two Iwo immemi moor/ ,:,gigi?ii$':iii§i'ia: e jr :•.1e,s,'Veit., •9 •-• , 4' re- , 44.t./.;,,,, %h. 44110 "••r"?. 4-:;.(A•;. Ix i• ••••:::::)::::.mi L'•••••Mlitla.§kiNin 0 1 1.k,....i.,...•.,;,...!1)„ . rfe.••,... re. . '.....014 'fi'..,:".;'::,:i:.',•••,1:.,. - .... -...- ,.. . . , ....._ /:::fr.46,..._...,,,E,.p.i.ei5:t.: . =.--.7 -:J1111:11:01111:311PRONeall Alli ilk . ..;.:.,.;17,•,v;,;,..„;,..,:?...;4 .„ :„...:....?; i1,0,.,,,e,•:,..i4 ..4..... 41VIES.'rvr 9-c`I''`E. _-_- •. c. ,0,,,-.:•k•,..),. . \ ,*\ ••e`g• ••••• t.p,.. ..,.. . .1.me ow'a N .:::.: iiiiii:isi:iiiiioi,i,l,m,.;;Lin.. si 'Fv?oltr,1%.; '0'.;:d2.,rZli3511.'•;.(-'2'.•,,V- r- 4---7N- '''''Cirl.`c.,-g .: . °••1 CIA I rZT:aiii-'4::r \ ..00000 .1 YIP' ;!" '03.':•0•7•'.11...'• • '..e.. :nen.'44.44 •,,,t,,. V1%;ri ....C1•'‘. •e:;-••• f•• •q:•• ------- •.% e•EA.''3.0.11.1 . . . . •e. ..t°.0'•.0 e?).ri'.•(f• '.1,0'6 •...., '‘‘05 ...n . •0' . i•f•.(1(.1&•.3,!.(:•1:'?(Pil!°',11:'A i) 11qh,....:: ... . .4.'. '.,lire p LAND USE ELEMENT . '.e...k (1 „ t n I,. ' 1,•..] .CI,,I,.. i-. 'it ile• 1.6,(1:',n,,Y;P.".6 a.Zr.. 0,6.v-f.v:.J. •Y.P..9.:',':ti 71 0'^', ..''•..lccf-Vit iC);,,441.,13..`t+‘!ti'til:.,2),° ,.:(6. , op ,,„ ,,.. „,„.,-, .-,,..„..., ,,,,, .,„.; ,... ,,*...„; i 3%i., ,C.P.....1 1.*"".lii,......!e a 4?::::P(;1,.../Its. Or° • . 10./000 '..?1 %::::;11,1,,,..,...'...•ki. ') • . 1 00:00 , 'ai:::::::::iii:iiii:i:••••, .>C''i•',>..t..). ••1 le i• Commercial Single Family i F. ' ''... .....::::-....-ti:ii:-. 2).;• :.ii.7.,-->:P.:i; •••••••••':*-----1..t,•4-1.).„43.. ‘. 4 • • . u!AS,11; qa.tojte VI -"zi ,•:. .-:... I rT• , ---- •••:•:.:.:.:•::•:•:•: Low Density - •:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:. Multmily Office / Office Park 1,°01.34: L' .00% 0-,\2 4.,„ 000• 0. . ,,a.:,%.,..-:,. ,,,..,• t 00 .00.00• .1'...-*.i'•::::;,:,'"'epA'11:k. _ ..................... :_. . \ 000. P^.g),•:"...•,.Jim,,o,"•_•.; •o o o• .0000000 -- \be+ c c/ •o 0 0 •0000 • .Tvilt••"" '\- .:.:':':':':.:.:•:ii:9 Medium Density 00000.0. .0000.00 .00.000. Public (..i.,,blic/Quasi-Public ,) e.*:. . .,, .., •••••••••••••• Multi-Family .0.00000 .00.0.. 1'3•• •••••••••••••••••...•••••.• 0000000. ,....%A..;•.0 0.0.0000.: AI :€. Iti. 4'144•.:41.'i.. ._ -....7.......".\*. .. 7" NIIIMINIII High Density Light Industrial „....-11%••••=1••=mikm, . 000000 •00000. Multi-Family 0.001 .. „ • . J . '-- 300000 000000 st..,•4 1 0 • • . . . - ii.„, 1--- •1";,f i:3.,..1., I ltult I .._ Recreation 6.°••• Heavy Industrial ---... .......... --- -A-PAC • • • T 1 0 0 croo00000 nu 0.0.0.300 .•- .., )000 0000 Li ..--- 000 ...0 00.00.91,81,00.0%, Greenbelt .-------7-1----=-= Manufacturing Park :29, .00.0.0..0 ___ . -n! - .0. 000000 -e c.,Sr' • • . 00000 / Multiple Option )-j `. 10.00.. •:.: .1 ) ! -• , . 00-00.000, ....,5• 3:0.- CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF EIS FILE NUMBER(S) : ECF-074-87, SA-082-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Application for Site Approval of Lexington Ridge PROPONENT: CENTRON LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street, west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and east of Bronson /N.E. 3rd Street intersection. EIS REQUIRED: The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43 . 21C. 030(2) (c) and will be prepared. An environmental checklist or other materials indicating likely environmental 'impacts can be. reviewed at our offices. LEAD AGENCY: Environmental Review Committee, City of Renton The lead agency has identified the following preliminary areas for discussion in the EIS: Natural Environment: 1. Earth: including geology, soils, topography, and erosion; 2 . Water: including surface water movement, runoff - absorption, and public water supplies; Building Environment: 1. Land Use: including relationship to existing land use plans and estimated population, aesthetics, recreation, transportation, and public services; 2 . Transportation: vehicular traffic, pedestrian ' circulation, parking; SCOPING: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of; the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You ; may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before November 2, 1987. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee . % Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Building & Zoning Department 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 APPEAL: You may appeal this determination of significance in writing pursuant to RMC 4--3016 accompanied by a $75.00 appeal fee no later than 5:00 p.m. October 26, 1987, to: Renton Hearing Examiner % City Clerk 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 U1 X LLLUil • ,Determination ' siynififcance . ; and Request foments on Scope of EIS el/ Page 2 You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the above office to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. • PUBLICATION DATE: October 12, 1987 DATE OF DECISION: October 7, 1987 SIGNATURES: A40, Ro is G. Nelson . .pring- Building and Zoning Director Pc icy D: elopm- t Director • P R chard C. H ug n Public Works Di ctor • .. i { • .y) I'la+�Ls . . .. . 5 , Animals "Ilk .... . • 1 : , , 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) ' Environmental Health .• • 8) Land and Sho gline Use 9) Housing ',(c() \. `r\)1_1") 1 i 10) 'Aesthetics i • 11) Light and Glare • 12) Recreation • I 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14), Transportation i 1 \ 15) Public Services 2 16) Utilities I , COMMENTS: . z-c41 . A\IV-,n rRa(?-) -,(.(7:: I r‘")of-v / Mai fir), •wovL, i i ti. 1- Ary .., i S. (.1- ): : PIU:PARCr) QY TtC Akkr-N►`,(,4_i,v i iv-J c). • T/'1C HC 1ru6 U/` ,vim r L'��' 5 � �~��1 j \��=R� 1�f Z�«- • Ulm' AR ` tti =�(Z ��a� fir? �=b / (Z►�r�G<< r�-,c - , ii./6/// j-)66,A, , C_-3) -11-1 S iie'_ Hi's<:?. (1-.)c..01,-/ ._..c:y1.,)0,64 c J ''l J b1 l'li l'i l�t ��// I �� ) / 1��!1 CAI ' C, l V) • A 1`IC'LILI�� i� (. c� C ."{TC I R!.� il\i r� r Z.�-7:. �0 � 190 3IZGU c I � l.5-c.. or 14101 r..,O( ()Ntitti 1-1-11 .00Grioul S17. r We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 1 \k.i • T. uvv-A ' f Signature of Di4ctor or Authorized Representative Date I Form 4 y 1 ., 'P&G dre`"Ce 72-1 A- ycias) r r (J 7i`-0/'d', f- w• '/ hhUe /1-7G/.Gr^' • oh uti d ,,,�.�r,'/le roc l'c'Da //"o ti / /2a c/J . 14x GI efJI. ,,, ( al f:.-/e /'r,°c r u 71-/v A__ /// v(0.1 has e ' ha Gee/? a0-/e0cda./e06 a'a/de J'J , TA r/' e ,. . . hQ_I /;o s-1"r4,- <u / / y,�'- ��Pw f/J<tC e . The. fff` Q ' ate. /o �!`r/e A/ if Co/- uj 6/,1 'n.2 f 72 -'. ,00 7 %f .dma/er- .r �e,,,,Q a'deJ 747-a. Ct!/e//- 7za. r`Ae • /'eGre •/ow loa.i,/ *Qi 7-- Cl/, lu 71 /� -f fro 7L /��dC mh ��a�o f l./ .r We have reviewed this application. with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where • additional 'nf/ormation i needed to properly assess this proposal. • /� / ' i--7 tom l0 � j .,,::-. ` . . .Si hatieo , rector or Authorized Representative . Date :: 4,r1y d u erre ii /he /-r,,..,i•P /mil;-17-, - .6 / 2 O • .3'/ /�l p/i �(1 GAGZ . , .. ,c' roli-_ /-J /o 57oq -Cvt _ e f e G G • 'rC76=.4- S/Me e. ac/e// 7( the Tide /1 • /Jo/ c/iv,4 d er;6(' °1-- a7_ hf'4-i //a / C/e'<<il I//r dekk--i S • • Pc.c%✓/�`(.QA-- a(7clJ .ave d e ("de ePJ e tOc /- „IA.., the //1 l7e /87-4-1 f / f/0-i J aid/�- /�? 7/621-oz f o� �� Pau/` ) A (•k_r t 714,e aq /� db1. 1ir6 0w v . 7:1 • c1// J/7 ��i / J/• /Qc.�l C/PJ�r!0 6 (//%./ ii(1l/'O _ 1. The environment �'hecklist indicates the maximu in-site slopes are . : less than 35%. opo map indicates slopes of l% in areas. Our preliminary informa ion indicates that this slope ubject to is s o land slide. More information needs to be provided on the grading cif the site, slope stability, soils stability, and on the retaining walls. ) 2. This site lies within a critical drainage basin. More inform tion needs to be provided on drainage. The checklist indicates an on-si a field check was conducted in August and no wet areas were identifie . How- ever, August was a very dry month, and there are cottonwoods nd black- berries growing as natural vegetation on the site. Cottonwoo s and blackberries are indicative of wetter soils. 3. All vegetation will be removed except for the scrub vegetation along the steep slopes adjacent to N.E. 3rd. (CONTINUED ON ATTACHED SHEET) j We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional inform 'on is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature f • ector or Authorized Representative Date" r 4. More information should be provided.on the environmental health! factors regarding the high power transmission lines running along the eastern part of the site. i 5. The church will be completely engulfed by high density multi-family complexes upon completion of this project. 6. Are any of the units handicap accessible? 7. The building designs are identical - there is little innovation,' in terms of design or orientation on the site. 8. There is no significant open space. Very little of the site remains as passive open space. There are no tot lots or small play equipment on the site. 9. The levels of service indicated in the traffic study do not correspond to those indicated in the North Renton Study. A full-scale traffic study, including measures to mitigate the additional 2,535 trips/day, 'should be required. 10.& Can the public services and utilities handle the additional demands of 11. the 475 residents of this project? j 12. This project is located in Zone 1 of the Aquifer Protection Arla. Will the change in drainage on site development result in impacts td ground- water recharge or groundwater quality? , This department recommends that an EIS be required focussed on the issues of (slope/soil stability, grading) drainage, relandscaping and open spice, transportation, recreation, public utilities and services, environmental health, water and aesthetics. 8J11.D1 1 r3 1 ZONING DELFT. � •;JukticAt. ..1 • 1 i /%1 1 iwv Li) :ill I II /LODI I 1UNSib Li NOT' APPROVED . • ,.>. .. -, CD 04-1D63 • 4-0 --- ,. .....00/1-- g.4. 5--76ri e Itcdet f(R 0.- 0: .t.-1 I e/d ( I i /84- U AI(.....(1.0722 -. ) ci .--r-&.,e.,--,7/41 A---- vd -,,4./4-e..- ./-(5,C.6.401-4-o r-< • 6- 0v iQ: Avic"oxigz-LS lc . i • , IAJ/i_L tii 4 c,(-I &4./6. • g 6ro''- if ! Doivo&-zetly I 4./ .4c- Q) .ia , 0 - - ,c) ci .,e___ ix! r°#C-7.2 is.. • • eiAirti4/UC-C 4 -I 67 0-ci wile- DATE' . • SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ' REVISION 5/1982 • • Form 182 . • • • ' .- • . , , - • — , „ • , . , !I . ,• • • , REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : n APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS El NOT APPROVED . 7,/Cja--ce eciy-e-,--cf,2-7 .„- -ze..--7"---ez_,,: -. .-z...W:,: •r_z---c____ __5e.,-4-_, . . g- -,-/-4:- .e 1 . - • . • , rfl-2- -'7", - ‘--C----Z G-1-7 1::7--- -Ze---Ce7y-zer--- , " • -c; 4i::: 5,e7---,---j / c • I ' .. , , • .•. . . .. . C.----- ----teor" e,", c---,---"--7-.7 DATE : /17---49.---3-c .:7 ' . . SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE . .• ... . . . ., . • • REVISION 5/1982 ..;, .. • ;i: • Form 182 . _ .. ,- REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 0 APPROVED EI APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS El OT APPROVED i) 0',..a.,:;:ez•_.- c,,..,....-. ---p._---t,v-e-,--,...e.... -- e-A31,-,__ 0.,..„.. N ri... He- 71. ),./(i...r . e•-ac- AN---(___ q N E. 3 L.7;7_ ir..- . 4 2,--) r vi6,...,.e..,, -. c„,....—...,_ (..I 02,--ig, .z.) No sili.,) 4.,),,76_,.....„ ,, • 3) 7:2..71:.;:;.21.,,/ 06. 7.-e e. -fi „4.--- 0..•- e--7D .6-2-11.(-2-0-7] 0)--Q___ c"....-9-4_ 0.-,--/-4..C-Cc„,..-4„-..1 4--,---- Vs---12..._ 4.14_, ...„.i•t ,,y,,c,..:..._ ...?,,,, t.,....-4,:. -/,,,..„--,e. --m-.7,,-..4----,---C 9 .p,;/„..,..6..,( i,,,/, c,.. -1 2/3%1 ..4--j..4.,__ ,...,;tVii-, 3.---,te-;1) rurk 7-E C eeveZ::: C...,--eC ,,,t_e-a,IAA V-C-.11• ) 7 E-- C . a...14.,... . 1 oe . e-Lc .14 : • . ?) Drw-f-L-- s-4.24,...... ,c-y-e-C/0.;.., •(..y s-7--q-,-,- (12-.,,,,,07,..., : , SIGNATURE, OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED1 REPRESENTATIVE • c- , ?, .., i ,-• . . ./.. /I. . r, ,? • 7-, . ./. ..! - r ll_IilIVU ULI'/\ < II°1LIVI /D1V1S1ON ; 0-eki-e./A \APRRUVED I ,;OVED WITH CONDITIONS , - � NOT I PPROVED m-e-eL4szca,scc�.e .moo s -e-et:'r/ .cvL� 4 � tc� • • • c��.�1?� emu. �' IGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVEATE; REVISION 8/1982 Form 182 . 71.-0-e-c.va.4..., --241 . 4) aZe 1 A REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ; 7--af-�;,' E/,, «ecr "iv n APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS • 'NOT APPROVED hae--C7-271 BilA/N • • DATE : IJC J 7 2 . SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 1 ' REVISION 5/1982 ' • Form 182 11 • CENTRON: LEXINGTON RIDGE 1 . Provide street lighting plans for the following: a) Bronson Way from Vermont Place NE to north property line on NE 4th Street. b) NE 3rd Street from westerly property corner to easterly property corner. 2. Development traffic will have major impact at the intersection of NE 3rd Street and Bronson Way NE. Grade approach to irtersection is excessive. Provide engineering analysis for possible grade improvement to the north leg of the intersection. Buses are having trouble at the intersection now and the cevelopment will increase bus rider demand. 3. This phase of Centron' s development would increase Centron's cost share in the traffic signal at Edmonds Ave. NE and NE 3rd Street if a latecomer ' s fee is developed. Estimated cost: 2,535 trip ends x $2. 16 per trip = $5,476.00 • i 4. Provide for central information center for ridesharing, carpooling, vanpooling and Metro ridership. 5. Mitigation fee for signal coordination in the NE 3rd/NE 4th Streets traffic corridor. trip rate cost x trip rate x No. of units = total mitigation fee $2.37 x 6. 1 x 360 = $5,204.52 Centron i 3025 112th Ave. NE Bellevue, WA 98004 (phone 624-1557) • • a (16,1 ';,-) UUILDING & ZONING DE" ; mENT ' c> M DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET EC F - 074 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SA-082-87 PROPONENT : CENTRON ` PROJECT TITLE : LEXINGTON RIDGE_ BRIEFDESCRIPTION 'OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT 360 MULTI- FAMILY RENTAL UNITS IN APPROX. 15 BUILDINGS ON A 13.4 ACRES PARCEL, TOGETHER WITH RECREATION BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING. LOCATION : LOCATED BETWWEN N.E. 3rd ST AND N.E. 4th ST, WEST OF EDMONDS AVE. N.E. AND EAST OF BRONSON/N.E. 3rd ST. INTERSECTION IN RENTON - i TO : n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 0 SCHEDULED ERC DATE : El ENGINEERING DIVISION n TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : n_UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION n FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU i n PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT n BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT n POLICE DEPARTMENT ,t ' n POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LIOTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE. BUILDING & ZONIO DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M. ON OCTOBER 2, 1987 i 1 . REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ; S I , APPROVED APPR n n OVED WITH CONDI IONS EAT APPROVED P3 tUTILITY APPROVAL SUBJECT TO I C17 y,I7 LD T 511M1SAGREEMENT-WATER 1 y,E,s1 W /03 05?s/ •7CA on nI.,E.3 is x /,p.38. Z G 'PSgs-D LATE MN MUM-SEWER No SYSTEM IEYKIPMEIIT CHARGE-WATER �/,ES /7 S °° / t4-m-e-i4' X ,3(DD U--L-+- ^ 0'6 3, DOD. 00 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-SEWER; yEs ..7s °O%-u..,•t- // // •cs103,DOD . e° SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE-WATER 01.(,e1 000 !a SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE-SEW{ A]p APPROVED WATER PLAN y S - Tr-- iK AQu . P�Zc 7'c� . '�APPROVED SEWER PLAN y ID APPROVED FIRE HYDRAJIT L'1;%i';;;S:i r Q� BY FIRE C T.•.., YES `'r` . • y A U ie I 0 .a________ yss I "0"--- �LA ' DATE: /' g" -- c? SIGNATURE IF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 1 REVISION 5/1982 i r.,,_,,, 1 n-+ . . . - I ----........... • , 7- .'. -''. .._ . • .. . • ...../ ----• / LEGEND •APPROXIMAT E AREA / ••-•.P _ •"'•'" . • -:// I\ •_, t • P •I I • J.,'I'• • e• !.I ,r • 1, •/ e /. •1.4. .,...•so/•aor Sla rr. e• 5 5•I•..,•••• . W4mtVP I •• •....•••.6.MI. i ,'.",1.' '6'S.....;'''..'..?)'. . '...'''......./............I . . I i i ; • Lat•rr,./. / / •?„.• / I'' . . . • .; . li . ... 4-"s - --! " --' - \ i • ILI • • . . I . .."Alb'''.-.04•.i. r''. - -- --- ...."- -.- • I °X, ....,.....000 r..0. . .' / i ' ..‘>e;; ::'.?,' ' 1 _ ,,:ti....• i A...______ • . . ,r! ' ,. \ , . • „ . - ."." '.............- ......'......... ....... .. e . _, .! I ...0,......1.....•'MCC . .i •••• / 1 h'i .• \.............. / „ • I. • . Al.• i --"--nt.r...t.Vv...oe 4,..,.. / - / • / " .•/ • T\N I - • , ::...... ,•,0 / 1 i , .. / C ...,...W.., • ''.1-. :• 5Asis OF BEARINGS, i . a•••••r-5,.• 1 .IV. ; •••• ' , 4 v 1 , .-........., ./ - . .i. • , •. . / . ,,-..-.. , - ----..._ • / / . , • —___!....... -\•/ . . ,....—...NO.,......0 / , iiaT 2 ). :././..- ' . • ' i ... \ 1 ". ..:.0......1....., •• Lb....,.....r.7.,..5. 0..,,,,,,...././• • ' I :.:„.c...7 •.--. k „ z •••._. ....._.. •, ,• - , --• -... . I 1 i ,. ,„..,...,.........4 ! - / -: 4 ..77/ . ; p , ! : .. • , VERTICAL DATLIN• ,... _,..,.,-,. .... / ! : .• • . . 1 . ! - 1. .. •.....q.., • I • i • i : "l. , -\I\ \ ....:/ • BENC)-IMARK, •••,. -, : --...•,......,-.c....,...-„, . .•• ..>-''1 / ' I • k• •. / / -. 7, ....... . , ' ,i NoTE:- •- •••••—• -• • / • i , ••••• ' ' , ' --/-4- • I V •IN z a e• ; 0.A = - - -.... . ---- ,.....•'-:::-/,„-":" I.,•• .- -r e-z.' -:--,-.N\••• - ;•••[ 1 •^ •• - • \ k ', •-, I (? E A I 5.-- . ,.... . , • .. , .,. . • . i 1 • • --,/ ';'('`'4,,:,' ••• i s- it" ' • ; / ---,•- \... _. . . ..•...• ,l‘ .?•,,,0:'..•f'?,. ./•,-/•. ..-.V,-..•4.1.../,'.,11,.,,:,...!..:..t.,./ ,‘.-:..j...,\,:,:.7,.:..,. ,\\:,''.-k.. e,.,..••, •,.:,.' .....,,,',••\..\••• •,0,2,.,-a ,,•t.,"(...•..„....7- .-.•-•• :.•1P'4. • /z --4-•-•-...-.-..7..-:--.-:.-...-"-:-7".71.7..."4.....l . i _.•,"' ,."..,• .:•,...':.A;...'5\,.'. .:••::.,., .•,. •-.:,. -7• '.;. CT,,•,oi Z/ r . \ / . 7 ,•_-.-I--„-,-__1. \•i. . ) "•i-• • ----•,:-t (IpANLCUm)N""Zar4-1- 1q;V?ita%. . - •--- •-• • ..,•!/ 1 ,..... • • .!:.-. .:.•.. il f /.. ,.,•• , .___,) -..,- __________ - 0 i ," ••" -.., J.1 t.:,• -- __ . ..,--,_ • •• . i, ; ),..)•.'S ^ '• /. .,•••/•••...-- ,;........_•••• .,-... - - •-.-.•• 1 \)::- __ •-... ..t.../..:,/ ,./,,4 . ..... .:..... /3-, _ . . ,:: i,74.." i ,' -'-''-'•:'•.: i ...' ' .. '. - '-'" ..... Z.' ' . .„' • . Z .. •\i . '::,. ... ...-- ,...' .. ' — -%:........... :If..., .-. . ! P 0 ._,-• .• __ / • . ,/ - .- , -• .......: 0 c-5 - • -„, 1 . : •>'• - ,.. 'j. . C.I.... .• .I•• /.' . i • ;..'''''••-•:._1 . •.< ...,,f,' -7'• .-• .,,,.... ..... 'IN, • x 0 „ / / \• • ,: -- . 1.. . r:, • ..".,. -.. 0,1'- ...,, • •I UJ CC .„, • ,..._ - i . ..,./., i I • • . . -.. ..... / •‘,.,../' s '(/ '-. .',...... ;t: 4 ) • • •.'./ / •.. I . , ‘.. /7...7--. ::.' • ../. ". .'.. 21 • , i -:/;',i..., I.,::", :...4,1. :.,... , , c.......... • ... .„,././ .. '..... -•. •,/ ..'•-• .. .--- / . • _ • .r...... ,i - .•..ff -.:-.'-• .. / : /..1. ...• "-. --.-. •'• . ." -'`., :')'. . --....... . ' ' ' .% .-• . • : ‘ . • • . , • • - ' •• ./ . \ • 11 1- .... •. \•:•.•, '., •" . ..........:. ....:.:7 . . ,• . . .1 • \ .. / ..'''','/•.. •-- : u• . -' '' • *.' ‘,.. 1 ... ...-..- ' .. \ • . •.. • • i I ..:1:;..::•,.0: / ' C. .• 2 . r3 .,,,• .. -.-....- 1 .... . .-----... ....: . ••.. , •-,.. . -.... ., , . . •.... , . -. ,/ , . ••., • ..,.„... , • • ..., , .4..,. .. ...,_,,.... „,..... .. , ( , ....., . •• ... • -., ...,. .. • -..... ---, / ,, --• ••• - ; • N • '7.'7..• • • . -.. ......... ,..••• '•-•, ,. /. . •fr ....- • • - e 1--.• . . • •••• • ..........'.....••••"•••k.........„,s .... /1.-- --7 ...... "---- -.'-.7-•-:.•t“-;;;.._ i•••'7.-•j:--.•1:.-_-. •-L-- -_ .__... 16, • •• , "t•••„, . •. :: ...6:.;j . . .• • ',- - •••?".'....,,, .... °•,,,,rti / . ..... • . 16 ...t 6• ‘ i . " .."".2. / ---•---------•-.--.---/—•-7."" - • - "7/-•".•:,•ti..e.__ .' --:*---;-----t'.-.'-Z--....."I'''\,.... ----------- -_.,,, .,„, *.....---'S&,„------. , „7,...‘c-.1, , "„ \ I ..‘•,•,.!`)• I 7t_a____ .4-",:•---,-; ,..„. i . 1 ..... , ;•-:f.._.,,...... — ^-•',.. • • ----... •I . • a, ,,, 1 .... .r- 71 .5-.. . . ., . -. . . . . - • • • 111 • 4 / . . • • ill liPlilii!lIllilili!illililliaiiilll 14!liiiiillMilTliiiirilii:In lififlilli:iiiii,e1 Ifill!! 4 Iiiiillil 1 • - ', c-) :I,oil,ifilill-q,14ill 1 v. qpill_i! ip '1111114 ii;i111 poll! ,iiO4.11 iiili,11:riil :11;11 - x- :I,will' ilillis!!1:114!!:14,40iii C,:. I:,:11-,.;,'!.; i '!„, .! ;;!;, i ii.i:11414:,10iii; 11‘, "1 iiiiill - 5 r- III Ili lipi 1,1111iiii4-11:100t!/!i pi 14 ill!iii!]0!/1 !i.!il:i!Til, li;Iirj!!ipir!1:1.1 il"p 2 gyli- II 1.$ir I,0 iji,i,i$1,,..lii,:iwii$1, ,.! $$i, ,i$:i 07,1::$1!;;- iiii,1 01 qi Ili l"1!Illildii Iiiiiri'liYil::1 if; JI;ii I 1:!IIPil 1 JI iri1 ll 1:11 Iiiii!'111Pil 1'01 9, N114-174 1 • ,/ r) l!t 1 IP.. i :.:ii iii91 I 1.,,eilit i:r.. .;;;;. !!!! 'pi ; !..; i.:1! iii !I ii-, riloi!..";::11 4,1,, .?2 0,! PI .0:1 11,11.il ::i', 11'0,II;11$ I ici ill ' 111 ' ,, Ili 4 ,01 '0'!iiill'r a Ifj:1 3: RkIR R r . '3 .:i 111 la il VA l'i Ilia! '1';74:'11 111: 07 I ' • !II ;: la' i OF;15!;1;114111 ii I. 11 ill ; • -I it. 3. .1:1"1 si: It Ili lili it!!,, 7. nu.; I.,.1 . It ! ix! I.; .1 . It 0::Fili 311;t ' P..1.. Z3 11 il!,li 141:[0, illt, , , I i!,1 A in:, :!•;. :: i !! .T pi!' o N Z , .1!:$ 11ifi, l'E, ;It; 0i, I! Z1:1! ill;i:1:1 tql ? ! 1 ,, i :I 1 cl , 1 ! : li• '1 1 i!iI f E;81 Ili /. • / ii if 41 i, .i,f .1 1.0-III! .1.- • 1 il t) LI 1 1 11 lit; I! ! 0 i 1:1; I 0:7 i F il 2 :7.1 ! 1 l' 1 1.1 g ; ! i• ; 1 1 I i it iIP 1"i 4 i 1 • "F'. i i a / Pililn Pgil 56 ( //4, I i • •• ' - • ••' (A 11 I A :4 • Th.,:a1.1 ,, ' • ''''!-;-.i• k k, . •,.\,-- ?1,. E5 i".2 1 ---- .• 4: ' / Alp ' , ) .. , • -A --4:il ---'•••-•• ..../ • . :\ . -' '- ' vr!-- . '.4 • : '•-4-. i , , +.4*41. , • \, - <i.•.., ., , ill 14 k , • , / / . • '1"Y \ 2 • .-- -/:',<, 5 5a.vi 5F Ba. 1 1 WA Ki T7-I4/ / ... ,.-41 s'''/'yfe c.. . •. .-, • ., ; si, i / // • ......,„.. ....._- i - • at'... • 0.. , \•,•,. . '..., • .\.• \., 4%.„e, .:,:, .\ • .) ..,„' :. Di . i ff 71 i , :,----.. ,41frgratPr •.N., , '0..., . \ ;`,1 .-.•\ , z M 7 ... ' 1.-7.---i :. •-' • . '',. :*-.\ •,,.\.... ‘..'.g.. -><•:•.•\\ ii 41Y '`, I...(..1-1.-, =,- • 1 i', .1 _ .. A* . •''' -.." ' . • ••"/ N:\ `,.`.. • • ._ ,, i< s,-- - (4 .. , ,/, %."rd, • Ni-,, -!:' 41411IPP . ...., \. \• .1. • I- ; IjnG. • 'l'. I: •-•i.) 1,1 •,,l; ,............."'n, . .••••(/`,•,4 Ally ,.,, • / ' , - • \.• -'.,, • - 4 1 • - ..?"-"':-..... ' -: /4,••••'..-. ,e'N - . ' 1 f , • .- \ : • .----\ i .' • 6,.. , Illiii, .. . // ..• ,, rof t, ., . \ -\ , v;• . .. .....c.. ,_ .!. 4 • ... . . . ' ' • > ,,.. ; ? d . ,. 4 ETK: —1 • r ---1 tirPW 1---- i 'Allar , 1 I 111. I ! ''/ .' ,- , . •,., .,,, , , ti- ''' • ' .....,..: . 4 f t 111.4114 . tail . . • •.)1.• ' ., . ,1 •• ' I • : \4• • . '.j i 4 1 - N... "I•g73$...-7-',• 11'^k4...44.i' . ' ...... I : I' /I .. • mil—Irk. .I" viik , y _ .. -. .7-\.• 1 _._,...i.: , . ,/ ,„„ „. : ..• __.. .,, ..:,,. .,...... , ,.. _ . • ,......_ ..„,.. , 1 •• .,_....„..,., .., .,.. ,., .• :\,,, , ,‘ , , , \., , ,,„.. ..,;,.. • ,.. , ,-, 0 , , . ..•o ...... .___\..,!',- %,,,,,tt '\ '1. i.7.---. ,fr ,',1. :' '..- - - /-::_441"'-4i-:i -; • :: , • 16.. • . - \-,D-• • ., - .3 ‘0% . ,. ,/ • " / . .... .: • \. •. 6 ,,..,--*--- \ ',„, •Ifill• ... g ...:'• \; OE; .._:...---•,,•-- , ..: - •• v • DR .\ . . • , 4 , • i 4, , • y . • ' '* • ''\•,-'-'l't.- •_...-- . __J 1 ( , „, - ‘---• •- Ve ' • ' tri /: \ ' • /• ' : 1 1 i 1.. • 8•'• • `.,... 4 , 0, , , , 1 a 11.----7----- . ,, . • i • , ' ...T" • ./ f:: l] fi, illdi' 1 ..,. . -.. -- !:,_____CI ',:: le ; , . , •-- 1 I -.4.-- . . ... 4 %\•'..i.,•-•••. • ;., ,:! •s..A. %.. • . ..1E. 9 ( ;,, ---- 1,.,.....-.1 . ...wr ,', : ,i 5,;,,,,,, .- •q __...-•"- ,-,J,../W.•' •• • . \IA t ./ . _ 11111411,• . 117 ,„•/..„1 1 16 \.: 6. . 4i .:74,,,e,0,10 - . •.„. -----vT., i---: , ; : oi ' . ; 7.'• ......_ •,,.._.'.. ,•\,..,` mom* \,...„,,1 It 1 fely - •••:.: 3.-4 • , 1,, - _. i. : ,- 1•• i I 1 - isi,..„11 NIL; i i •- -••• • ' • :'--. ..,_. , ...,.. •,,....1,,--. .-0 , . : • f -. \ /VW j • _• -'.--. ••..• . . ' % '. l•ii.. ... . , ,,...L.,..._•-.---1 t ) • w„,\. ( .. '- . it • ' ,:it.f . • ! , ,' ':' ) . '-- .,-. ,..,..„..,,i-4.--• tt .p: • •--4 ...?..,,,, 1 I •I 'i : • 0,-;.:,---7: • 1 '.. - ---..- ;li.• _. -••• • \'' -T.:. 1 •1 '''..- — 11*-- \\ : - • I '' 4. , I, ., ".. . •,, ..\ i, .. . ,,, :\ , ,,•\ .1 •. \ r • •••• ! . I -.I:. '7. r;,-3\ ------ • : a • • , ‘.., 1/,........:,-'/,7 •-•13 • , ./., ..."\C. ; • • \' . ,,-7---- % -,- Ilk -) ,.•-).le % „ - .. -----. .. 1. h L 2 . ii. ' -i .............‘ .....• --• .. -4,\:..2,.. •50..,2' ..i,..,. . \s, , .4 N\I N • t iS' • ''''• . / _.t..- -- _-- fl "-^:'-"'..- i `; .:. •.• • 1.•:-• el":'1---- )..-- --"7----'7-7--..--------. . . . • :.• _....: , .,, , , .. . •. • . • , :. 1 . • ; .. flag- bi . ....‘...... •. . • , .."3.4tiliwit'r--,, •-• - • -: . \ •.---‘,.. , . . , •. r • I . I---N, . .'' Ilv•7. ' ' • • iiii 11111014 : •• : . \ -/•.N.-.--. . -. . . / . \ / ''',.I •-:_ . .' .) •1---.1.3tI:7--.- 's"' ' •://". . • . O. ' •-•• ,• .•, .• \ . . . 44')- :0, • / . , ' 1..;' -).>-;, : ‘: • . .,..) 1'),". ..,1,..4 ... ,,:h, • • _.„' \ - .2. 00 . i . . ......- . \ V • : ... ., ..../. .0-ty6 .4' ,, . ....., .03 , •'rArd . • • „. --1;••\ -------- / • . . ••- ., • . . I' .. • .. • .. i3;0. --- . , • 1 i--7. c'i' ' . •.. . .. 14 i - - . , .. • •-. .. — . ...__,/ - ----.-“: . , . ,,,,,,,,g .,..,7 , ....:q. ..,_ . .. 4..L.,_ :....----t-- ----, . •..,.1 . • ,,,‘, • .,,,,e i .... . .. F. l•.4 -.. •.. -•.. • . 1 • ! ' • ... CO • M•94r, 9•i•. r le eri akismot.km -,, ,.. .... PRELIMINARY LEXINGTON 0 SITE RIDGE CP 302519 2111 Aill:101•ue 11:11E lig PLAN A 360 UNIT Rtsofr IT1/.1.CC1W/LINITY IN IIIIIION,WASN. BillIOVUO,WO5h11 Von 98004 PM 624 15.57 (2%)61 622 26/10 1 I.D•nnit AWL ARCIMEC1 ..,_ •,... • 1 . • #1, • , „. , : ,' •• '' 1 • • , • / / / / • •, , / „ .• • \ i. •/• I \ ,1,1 PI... 1 t 1 • .* '. 1 iikiii,V. • .• . ? .\ . .1 • 61 11. . . ' !....). I.__ ILLI, ..., 'V". 4 • ‘\ 3., • -ik i .. 1 .1 in;:i.Yti, pir• .R. : . . , • ---,%.- ..,„;' • •• tt-'-'„ • . ..1 .t , . , •• .> ..- - - -.411/17''y* ' i , ii*,,,,, itit it,: ., .. • 0, ., .......,„...-- i i is A• \ • ,,. ..ril•s•-.8i,;.• ••`.••,..4\xix , so . . ,• ; 1 I.r..... s... G )..:. • ,..xf _ - . ... /; t. ,• i ; 'k I ::,:,f••••••... •'•i 2\ • • ' : ,,//.------ . ....,, ,, 1k.,?, * I ! •••• •/ • 0., Z.,•••% ,• 4\,17 14),*41$1 • • • . .•.... . 1•<.r.•"4 • • :' :1.,:r. --- •:.....* . " 415.4 ,• I'. .. / \gl ‘•*..,.,- c 5.'' . 4' '.., /kJ& gOtk•. , re"' 1.• . : is -- •-- ': i• ..,‘,# r;';. •# SWAII4 /, 3% ., . 7.• \ iii 1,)st ,P.Itr I •,,Ss., •i.. '• -s\qViip.‘17 ,..,v , .. . . la I.! !, i . ..• . E. 411-.:4 .1 ''..,..,.....••""'e- . ';: / •\ ' \. • $3: f .I: • ' •\ N D, < ' . A "...,e/ 4. ', . .•" - -.0:: ! • i g 1S iik. * \ •\ ..." ..:' .4 t I'• i 11 .„-.1/.1. ,iiiiit,i i irk i , // • • • • • N ' .44,'a :Aris"....•. 44.1, ' ' - p -: - • iii ,11116,Liw , Tait nett, ',,' ,'/, !....);,,,\ \ .,,,s, ;NJ'• 2b . •tirbroo_r_e_w.. • - Aii,lW i.atr-t-Jso. $t .,::„,`•.;,-.7.%.42 ,r „ • 4, ,\ ,,',jii• 2 X 1i4 1. 61100111; 1111110. ''.,i1 7,',•,‘ , \ '' Vi'l• ..',,-- \111:15. 1 ';:, 1,P f 0- • .1 . :.:.• 4". . ! 8Q0,v50,0 t., Ok• -•*--- ._,_,..........b.i.••••At.,... .. \ " -'ih .., 4: '‘ Pil A'S t''t . 'Ai...T. t ^ )11 .... .. ... _, 1 ,e7 1 gl,j• I. /-- .". c . # *11 0 r 1 ....•-.. • IVAN,. • \ 10# • -,..'.. s 1• ,,,,e„ , 0 i # I, ' t ,al)r, -• . 4:1111°115g: \tak '''t....0•••'''''''.. •t;k4 . Nc • ‘ ••••• • • 41- ;•' ' .• 'CIA ' . . ,,,,A„At .. •----•1• s • •. ' t • . 1 . 1.....‘V..#14•54."1): 1/4 414 's "It 1PP) \I "' 1 i 'ow .•- ,.., • , ',ill. ,. • Al -------" • --.--.7'''?,‘'Ati)• ^- -414 •• •••., .k. ---) .„,,.-` 1.%•• .....- . • I: '1'..----. ....-7-'' '-.(1.1 3 • '" '%' -- t 1' •',• \ \ 4.1. '"1:1-'7( - ., . .- •, ....It • ••••••1,-rlo I .it, • • .1- ..ft ''' ••C t,i1-,t. d 1.) j I/. . r2 ...r#0.42 ,------ ,... • ,,. , 61\ 1 •fie / • , ..,,.3 :so TY,t' • !•'' l'..- .;•:;.• 1'4+,-,........r.---- '•••,...c., ". .- . •..., i,' • •• a, . N. ...././ , 0' a 17 -.46-4 , ..,..:-.....r," ,,,, .t.s., 1 - •',Af 1# It' \ ....-"'""r''....,••••••,..----'" - 1 ;Ilk . I..?.i•Z-.•4!,•-'1?.''.....A2:i iN7+. 11• VI i.J.,* . -.i.‘ 't• 1 '..., ' .Ol; :1, ,‘, . .1:r ---- i\ i 4).‘' - . •• .1 ...... .1 111. . ' • . I t .1 • . iC ' -... \.e. . IF,* 411/4.., I . . -.... „ , _, . ,........._ .‘, ,,2E 9'4 ..• 8 t • 1 ) iffifile i .,,, WAAL, Arm t.\ / ....- • . , • 4, ,',:. 17.. . ,...„_.4,,,,4,,, 4,;40.64* :. \ •/ i f t ..zritiii. + L., `r.-rw, Wow : ••-e •• „, v ' lwas...._„, Iran-. is,7 00 1 ,.• .. .41 .0.0 . - .,\ , .1 Ailtrsi sat*. OW' -- • ' , _ -- be. - , ..,,, v.:..: .0. • I.t ', , , $g --il, \ ,. .... ‘• g . i ,. \ \ ""•-''' '-.-.- -4.... t,it IX, . „i:, 41ii -1 % \ f F i..t \.:., 8?.? • 4.5 . v• , -. •0.11 1 ,, .t.: . ..&40'•, , i . v .... •, i 1 49.1 . 1 -- g t.'' .-•••••••- ... , ---...,\a . i• ,,, __.-7..-: _- , ' \ ' g 1 ' -'•, i_ 1 k t;P• •':•At"\ c---I ' i • . 1 i . -.." .:,;.,- ,.....-- - ii) i I .91,r .!'t't N • ..•: 1 ;.„ ... I •si•?.!, .., ,;•'tZ,...........------- -- -• . 1.,' RL- ..- . 1.0-___%C.‘ 4 , > ''1 . . • 4 , ,.,. ,. ,,,, . i„„,,iitig70.,.. 3,.,,.,_ . , . ,,,.0 h .,,,... „a_ I it P t" . • --. ? 1 & ...1... . \Ili , •t. ‘, ----, _,R_ i •"--=ri iiiis al 1 )'••0\ 4r4„..iiir,.•-•-)---.-i•ii„- ;Ir- , .. -., ,• , . .:• /;,;,/, ,.• 1 'j• 1 iiitH1114141111'• •Irjr---'" .' `. --;,./2/.....,%./";,•/%2 / '• •t ; p• . . , ,...,-/ - ; ' ////,, / /,//,/ //, •. I • , , 1 - •••..•. r'4°.-----/-7/7,/ • 7,/// 7,/,'!./,//7//i" ,///•,'/ 1 i Ti 1 . , . „•,.. ,/,/ •'• / , • ./ , / / /, I - ••.."7-----7----:---.: ..:_._____,-•/''//.•_:, •,/. ;',/,,/ /,/ ,'//. ',,,':. .. 1 , . * F, 1 . • . • • • 1 ..,== • I ., - • _____ . '•-r 5 ; ) ,,,Y ,....." i i••t t r 6 -,, t , 0,t ..k . ,• •...,11:1"''''-'1, 1‘. .. , s< ''.!? '' I .% i•. € 1- 1 . I i Kit" i 6 „...., ,, ,1 ..... ,:s1 i•W 4 ti. . Or.'" 141; ;F., 1 - ., •- •. . , ii . 1 . . 0 ilq 2,‘•/ .g111. g itilt VO 4 itiil.X IP fl Ett d-tt, ' ,,9 4.4 r..• !' bi S. , r •• 1 e , ,i• ../,..• ; 0 i r .. ., . ' 0 •t-e. , -. .. ,..E. 2 • 2 8 1 ? 0 & ,v.? 115 ...(1 ° %.. 0 1 • t S f _1 ill : ..z• L1 '..- ' -•• / 1, • . f-'• ' ' ; r . J LE =..• ....41/ ,:; 1_ c=•-• . • I ' . ., . • • i . , • .• . 11 4_L., 0 • , ' to&IM warn% Cwi! ...Era irov a ‘ 3025 112Ih Avenue N.E. Liu • Bellevue.WashInoton 98004 . i I2081 624 1557 aE o6)122 2668 I Demi,LA. ,•.• a ./Ills•unkt ow,Ix;kW:0111(04RO.C.I0.1. A.10111K14 4. 1 " - 1 as •. " i r 4: 1 . • Oki' • I , ' • • • . . . • . .' . • • .. . . • • • • • . .. 4 vs 7'; •-•!'',• 9:( , • i ..; .'....".•/!./.,, ;t„ss.;:v. .; •',. :,-. • . . .. •. . • , ..,' 1..3• . • ' •Z•: " . , . . • - ;•.,..;-;:k/4.k • .. A . ;.1:::‘./ ''!' 4w, • (.,,, • ..•-U-'..%''''.•:•• ,,a, ' •4•' ..,•,E7.,rX f• i. '406 a. *)":.4 ,,. ••••• • •X....X.fi.'.ii,c ". '• it, ,..,,,,:i.„....; . :. .:. . • ..., , • •••,......v • ..... .„....,,,,. .... k.....„.:.....j,.- i ,• • . q,„„ ; .,,,,,,,...: ..., , „•,.,. •,. ,It•isfA.%111..' :4;03 •I a .t C l' 83 . ....";: 1._,./.*Y4 .*‘:1''•••4'')''''' ) IPi •1.11 73-1 11 WI; IT‘•-•• ' . r- -7-- -r- co i, ,0 Ilk 1 .1 II 111111 . AA • .. 7Z ":,ifi.....-.••1- A.1 _ •r"'•-----• ' I , , ,..-:,:-.;Z::-.:•.•': ,G, _„. .. 'T' <,0 I • --, _ :.4.,:nu 1,11 ; • i i • i 'A (4-7 •13 ,... •...i''.,:.- NI • _ . . • } . _.— r-• l'..-4 ':;':, ; .. it.•1 1 ,tikU a i IL Al . . - l'- ' • > • • •• .,... . .00,•st. -: • NM I wilts il _ 4-' .7 dia. III -..1. . a . — • , ! "1-e' I . ' .-1 •;',\.'i...:St 1 1 I 'I . •• 111111: 1 :111111 • • ';I:' .1t • • 4n- r....6m25 ; ; • '''ti .;. ...• . „, .,-.- . .4-1. ..:;."...I, . 1 ' I .. :.„, . 0 , .11 r- • .. ORM . pr. 1..,.....1...;:r./.1...ir •.. ...... II .. . . .• 10 .g4_ , .r....): 21 1,)c...14 irD. ill 1 1:i...,,,,..ect.,..,'::.if.;.‘,.. . • I . N xith . 1 C...) III • CT p3 _ ..1. , ir, fill i , • 1 I:sli./. Vt If' I _ :: . al .0 i:TE.I. flo 111! , ! 1 i..,..1,...4. ,':;•,./.4. 4____I .. . li 1 ,_.1. . ' El 7303 [ . . rn 03 ..rt, I . ID 4 .. . <co ygior../--, ,... -- --5 3 • v li ,i,:•.,.I :...oi !•-'••it il...t [. il.g ..4'... . . 7 i 7., ... • "C'.4 '''• . 1 .1 *51'.).4‘:•i v,'' ( 4:1,t • •'-(4.:a. •-., A .t.,..... 4:. .. . , ..-..*...- ,,... .:..3, . -.. ,.. .....L., , .... ..ty 1. ....., ,.. ...„ ,• . )„,........,.,,,,,Ar (,,,...; ;Yi,' 4..i,[d; .4'. 4•;-1 --vi' .:::.... '..:•T 44,i ''-‘• I••••'' ':,::..1.;...,.;• •-•••1:AliGAV:" ' .:• filurhia,I.• , . '1"- -.: ... ........ '-:'.2;;;,. . • •..:•44A;11-',..a.-"• .....'... ' .. , Z?..-':.! ..`)•r41 .,., .,:,,•••• • • '••••••••,15'. ..el`g, .•h•-• :•.) , .7 , .• .f., ... '( . . • '.10:,li‘11177- • 1,......., .t.. • •/\ ;•\ J.:). . ••••'1‹. 7 . ..., . .•,. ''' I . • i • . . . , . .• . • . . • /.. •• . ' ‘,. • . ..., , • . ' • . • • I'd "" 9- I•01 DAlv .03 010.64 TYPICAL LEXINGTON poirrsoomb.u CENTRON BUILDING ‘hrIGINII IILWINI DEVELOPMENT o RIDGE PLAN 3025 112Ih Avonuo N.E. CORPORATION /C-j) . A 360 UNIT af SIC MAT COMMUNITY N RENTON.WASH. Bullovuo.WathInalon98004 .. POO 624 1M2 (2661.22 2686 0.1g-iliNilag fist' E.DeAnis Iti.b• ARCI 1111a .........................A. t etAtota is A st IAM 1 Atm I•111(111 I((11110(1/4(10/1(04.41101.1 4.44.1.4...••••••..............................b...... , . . al • • • •• I • • • • • • li f ),• l II '.,' 1t. i► •:l• rn I '• i�, ,. p' d� v" I II i \• i -W. ' , Z rl• Z I' I..— - ?! 1 1,1. , ,:II II!I.H, 1,I. I' , "i r: •' r 'II1 i I ;I II 1' ! ;air)* �I!T • ;ii II I, I 'I I 'I 1 I III. III I I c . I A"."•;;';'.:•'r 1 w '•l;'1•:• ram Mgr./, '1, '„�i�., : I-n i In I1 VI II • III II II,I !I 1! .- I • ,(.;;'•:`'al m=.. :%•.....t. = '. e.., r ,�b• ,. ' III1. I I I .. • • Q • ;`� � 4• Ow �' ;Ii'}•I-I- I • I ;• I • , "fir '.11 •` � , `:` a`�5=ro, ,' ,f•A. , ,Til, i.. .. ,'.<,17). Z1,i I•i II ` .1 14410i4..4e ,,�rrs9T 14i" t. : [71 1 I I �` ';,' i. L.. i' NM p�� IIi 1.5,I•;rf I t ;,tea. -'---------------'-- ' �' 1.f,•1• 1111,_ I I IIi -•i i 1.11f111 \'. '1.'- .l•' • ! •.p..I IV, 4. ' I II . I I I I I' 1 I 1 1 1 1 I V"? r.. • _. `r • e '3' K I I I f•_T-1 ��_r'. T%93♦!I c'!'rj' • '�"+? !I !II I -II I; 'll '.I I 1I I I • I'i'� • II 'CA,. I, '�' ' r i ?/y I,I { Ir * .}�0fl . IP � ''t' I'I I I•• ,f:G'-: I r;��, 1 • " i • 1-4 • - • - ig: i I :4 I I J1. L} °r,: .',TV llr. Ir'> .1... t' 4 • -•` ;,f:1'r',,...2 •Icy !{r 1 ., • ; 1 I �: ° lid , ;i ! I IIi I ,I t•yT. lVr +- ..P { I I^ ._'/ •I .1_. --'—•• -!I ' I: I' I ',. .r Z. 4 F''r•'1. I I 111 i • ;1 l,i 1'' ir- -�T '��; ti"IF.5 E I `• ! ''�1� I 'I' 1 I 'I I • ';1"I�I�II'!II Ill �; `yw . `„ • X+r"ri.- 11III'.I!.I!.1 1.1 ij 1il�},. • i' ! ' I! �' ,i°�':' y. i, r • I,. I I_R• ' ....• I!r( •.4ti,,,t. I, ' --.r., .L1.. 71-*'1 {. ,� I .. rt.• (:'_. I •....A-Y III I i .!I I. I II 1 .lF.r..•/'• . .r t'�°•-""•"'�,,:,� 0•,,etc 1 �T .r.:,,:, ;ti!; t ` K" ,• :..' • 1 r :i.+.. fI i• , v: ! _ __l1 I I I I i �.4: ;I' i'''' '__J.? ' • • Hi'IT":' . ' All ' 1 f.. r' .,.- ►. --- ,a.. .:r:r• I 1 •- 1.II.1 1I I I l 1 ��IHII I' i- •r 1 i' .>,.1' '' I •• I%1 PRELIMINARY HI �'M LEXINGTON �. ^Clk7rlihILll CENTRON ELEVATI9,14t RIDGE ' G 1l11VDEVELOPMENT A 360 UNIT 3025 112111 Avonuo N.E. CORPORATION BoIlovuo.Woshington98004 >_�n n or.vI ne. SCA'• •••04•-p• RE)II:ENTIAI CCoMUNITY . i!et o,'•!ei l4,1 N woo, Iti RENtON,WASII •' (?051 6^J 155> 1-051 822 2888 I 1 '� uaelerL uv E471'1'171 BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT April 5, 1989 (Materials in Italics added 5-16-89/6-15-89, based upon modified/new information, with the advice and consent of the Environmental Review Committee) A. BACKGROUND: APPLICANT: Centron PROJECT: Lexington Ridge ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF; SA 082-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Review of EIS submitted by applicant in conjunction with a request for site plan approval for the development of 360 unit multi-family residential complex. This 13.4 acre parcel is zoned R-4, High Density Multi-Family Residential Use. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street, west of Edmonds Avenue N.E., and east of the Bronson/N.E. 3rd Street intersection. B. ANALYSIS: Background: • The proponent initially submitted the application for site plan review in 1987. The Environmental Review Committee issued a.Determination of Significance in October, 1987 calling for an Environmental Impact Statement, with particular emphasis upon the need for more information in the following areas: 1) vehicular and pedestrian traffic circulation impacts (on-site and off-site); 2) soil/slope character and stability, grading; 3) storm water run- off/drainage management; 4) aquifer protection - this project is in Zone I of the proposed APA; 5) availability and accessibility of off-site recreational facilities; 6) electro-magnetic impacts from nearby power lines upon human health and safety; 7) public service impacts; and 8) aesthetic/safety impacts relating to design of the development (e.g. structures, parking areas, open spaces/rockeries, on-site roadways, etc.). The proponent published a DEIS in November of 1988, and a FEIS in January of 1989. These documents are to be reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee to determine whether the concerns defined in conjunction with the scoping'for environmental review have been addressed. If those areas of concern are determined to have been adequately addressed, the ERC may establish mitigation conditions for the proposed residential development. Processing of the application will then resume. Note: Staff conducted an analysis of the EIS in order to facilitate ERC review. This analysis has been focussed on two alternatives -- the proponent's proposed development (PPD), and the design alternative development (DAD) suggested by the City. Staff views these options as the most viable alternatives for the proposed development. In addition to these two development alternatives, the EIS addressed a third option with a higher density than the DAD and the PAD alternatives. ISSUES 1. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed impacts to the earth (soil slope/stability) anticipated from excavation, grading. development (structures. amenities, infrastructure) and utilization of the subject property? The existing site was formerly used as a gravel pit. Small pits (3 to 6 feet in depth and 20 to 30 feet in diameter) exist in various locations on the site. The north central portion of the site has a steep cut slope. This cut slope is approximately 20 to 40 feet high with a slope of Ij Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS April 5, 1989 Page 2 • approximately 63%. The geotechnical analysis provided by Golder Associates indicates that the geologic conditions of the site are such that there is a low risk of landsliding or seismic induced liquefaction or consolidation on the site. Further they indicate that the proposed modifications to the topography of the site will further decrease the risk of such events. Finally, there is the potential for additional erosion on the site due to the clearing, grading, and cut and fill activity proposed in order to develop the proposed project; such anticipated erosion should be controlled through mitigation measures described below. Both the proposed project development (PPD) and the Design Alternative (DAD) will require a substantial amount of excavation. The PPD alternative will require the excavation of approximately 245,000 cubic yards of material and the DAD alternative will require 290,000 cubic yards of material. While the DAD requires more excavation, it will provide more open space and, thus, presumably better opportunities for controlling erosion on sensitive/steep slope portions of the site. In order to reduce erosion impacts of earthwork on the site during construction activities, staff will recommend the development of several specific mitigation measures described below. 2. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed storm water drainage impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development? Development on the site with the PPD option will result in covering approximately 51% of the site with impervious surfaces (roadways, buildings and parking area). Selection of the DAD option would result in the implementation of a design which would provide larger contiguous areas of open space, however, impervious surfaces would remain essentially the same as those occurring in the PPD. The 0.8 of an acre site reserved as a greenbelt in the southern portion of the site would be retained with either option. Once the development is completed with either option, storm water runoff will contain higher concentrations of nitrates and phosphates due mainly to the use of fertilizers on the site, sediment, heavy metals, oil and grease as a result of motor vehicle traffic on the site. This type/level of run-off is customary for a residential development of the proposed density. However, special concerns exist with respect to the type and quantity of proposed run-off, as a result of the fact that the subject parcel is located in Zone II of the proposed''APA, at a point on the boundary of the Zone II area. Specific mitigation measures are being established in consultation with the staff of the Public Works Department. The DEIS noted that the use of biofiltration was not considered as part of the storm drainage system for the site due to the lack of sufficient area to adequately accommodate such systems, and due to the fact that there are no open drainage courses to connect to such a system. - Development of the site would result in a greater amount of storm water runoff with a reduction in the amount of groundwater recharge. The geotechnical study prepared by Golder Associates noted that the amount of groundwater displaced would be small relative to the entire Cedar River drainage basin. Small quantities of nitrates, phosphates, oil, heavy metals, grease and oil would be present in the stormwater entering the soils. However, the amount actually entering the groundwater supply, following recommended improvements to the storm water management system, is expected to have an insignificant impact on groundwater quality. Mitigation measures for this project, and future developments, are intended to control cumulative impacts, as well as those impacts from individual activities. Conditions are recommended below for drainage systems proposed for the development (with either PPD or DAD), in order to address potential storm drainage impacts: 3. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed impacts to the natural environment anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s)? The majority of the site is covered with natural vegetation. There is a sizeable deciduous forest and a smaller number of conifers on the site. There is a dense layer of shrubs including such species as the vine maple and salmonberry, salal, swordferns and various types of blackberries. Staff is concerned that development of the site, with either PPD or DAD, allow retention of that vegetation which is on the designated greenbelt. Staff will also recommend that those plantings which must be eliminated to enable development be replaced with ornamental vegetation, native trees, shrubs and lawn. Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS April 5, 1989 Page 3 The removal of existing vegetation together with the addition of human activity to the site will also result in the change in the composition of the mammal and bird communities on the site (e.g. passerines, towhee, thrush, mice, shrews, snakes and lizards and deer). If an adequate habitat is provided (by the additional of new, natural landscaping), it is expected that those species which are more human-tolerant (e.g. crows, sparrows) will continue to be present on the site once development is completed. 4. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed impacts to environmental health (proximity to electromagnetic power lines) anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s)? The EIS includes information concerning the presence of electromagnetic power lines, together with existing data concerning proposed expansion, and likely impacts from present/future levels of use. The studies on electric and magnetic fields of transmission lines cited in the DEIS indicate that Puget Power lines existing in the 200 foot corridor to the east of the site contain 115-kV and 55 kV power lines. Future plans may include construction of additional 115 kV line or a 230 kV line along that corridor. The proponent's report indicates that existing information is insufficient at this time to derive any definitive conclusions with respect to long- term impacts; independent studies conducted previously describe potential increases in leukemia in children living proximate to power lines. In the short-term, injury is possible to residents of the development due to such activities as kite flying and the climbing of the towers. Likely short-term impacts and possible long-term impacts are/can be mitigated in the PPD alternative by reserving the entire Puget Power right-of-way as an open space and by ensuring that abutting structures are so placed to comply with U.S. Department of Energy recommendations for siting developments in the vicinity of power lines (e.g. a minimum of 50 feet from 115 kV lines and a minimum of 100 feet from 230 kV lines). In the DAD alternative, the majority of the right-of-way is retained for open space, with a section of the southeast corner of that area reserved for approximately 108 parking spaces. These parking spaces are less convenient to residential units than are parking areas within the complex. However, these spaces are useful for guest parking and convenient to the arterial, as well as to pedestrian walkways and to adjacent public transit lines. Environmental health impacts can be mitigated by location of all structures outside of the electromagnetic fields of the power lines. In order to minimize long-term and short-term environmental health impacts to the residents, staff will recommend specific mitigation measures in Section C of this report. 5. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed land use impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s)? Both the PPD and DAD alternatives propose developments of 360 residential units. As a result, impacts from both of the options are anticipated to be similar. A residential development at this site appears to be compatible with surrounding residential and commercial/service uses. 6. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed aesthetic impacts, noise impacts and light and glare impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s)? DAD and PPD both include 360 units located in 15 buildings. Interior layouts are similar in both plans. However, in the DAD option the buildings are designed and sited in a way which more effectively addresses criteria identified in the Site Plan Review Ordinance. For example, the plan selected for the Design Alternative better enhances views and protects the privacy of the residents through the provision of greater visual variety, visual relief, and "staggered" structural placement. In this option, buildings are located in a manner which enables safer, more efficient vehicle and pedestrian travel through the site. Also, more open space is available. Under both options noise impacts from adjacent roadways and developments are anticipated to be similar, and to be mitigable through structural improvements, and through location of structures and amenities (e.g. open spaces, recreation areas). On-site noise impacts • . Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS April 5, 1989 Page 4 are not anticipated to be unusual; those impacts can also be mitigated through building design and location. Both the PPD option and the DAD option are planned to mitigate noise impacts through separation of buildings, insulation, and similar means. The design of the DAD option, which includes better separation and articulation of buildings, is preferred for noise control. Under both the DAD option and the PPD option, the proponent will be advised to provide and direct on-site lighting and landscaping in a manner which limits light and glare impacts to the residential units from on-site and off-site (vehicle headlight) sources. Here, again the DAD option is preferred because the greater open spaces, greater spaces between buildings, and other design features facilitate safe travel on-site, and enhance opportunities for providing on-site lighting which illuminates the site without negative impact upon the development. Staff recommendations for mitigation measures are described below in Section "C". These will include construction-related impacts (discussed in Section B-10) with respect to aesthetics, noise, light and glare. 7. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed traffic (vehicular and pedestrian) impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s)? Development of the project whether under the PPD alternative or under the DAD alternative would result in the addition of approximately 2,374 vehicle trip ends per day. The nearest major intersection serving the site is the signalized intersection of N.E. 3rd St and Sunset Blvd North. This intersection currently operates at a Level of Service F for both the A.M. and P.M. peak periods. This is an unacceptable operating level. The EIS notes that improvements need to be made to this intersection with or without the project. One mitigation measure offered involves signal phasing and additional left-turn lanes (northbound, eastbound and westbound approaches) which would change the P.M. peak period from LOS F to LOS D and the A.M. peak period from LOS E to LOS C. (Note: Improvements desired by the Traffic Engineering Division are described in a memo of March 31, 1989, to the Planning Division and listed below in Section "C".) Another problem identified was the potential risk of conflict for pedestrians and vehicles both on: 1) the segment of Bronson Way N.E. between N.E. 3rd St and N.E. 4th St; and 2) the segment of N.E. 3rd Street between Bronson and Sunset Boulevard. Concerns are based upon the geometrics (slope, angle, sight distance) of this portion of the roadway. In fact, these features and the resulting concerns about pedestrian and vehicle safety caused METRO to remove transit service along Bronson Avenue. The EIS went further, stating substantial improvements, designed to provide long-term solutions to roadway impacts at the above-described intersection and along the adjacent roadway were needed in the vicinity of the project as a result of new development (in addition to the proposed development) planned in the immediate area, and as a result of the substantial amount of proposed new residential and commercial development in the northeast sector of the City which would be expected to generate a substantial level of traffic as well. Note: The City has asked a major developer in this area to undertake an area-wide traffic benefit improvement zone plan (TBZ Plan) in order to determine necessary improvements and assess AWDTE costs. A draft of the study has been completed and is being reviewed by Traffic Engineering. The Traffic Engineer, based upon the draft traffic study, submitted a list of conditions to mitigate the traffic impacts. These conditions are listed in a memo dated March 31, 1989 and available in the project application file. Staff determined that there are certain traffic mitigation measures (described below) which are necessary to accommodate the development at the given location. While a traffic mitigation mitigation plan has been approved in concept, specific details of the plan are to be determined by the Traffic Engineering Department prior to the public hearing scheduled for June 27, 1989. Note: Construction related traffic impacts are reviewed in Section 10, below. 8. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed public service (fire, police, schools, utilities) impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s)? Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS April 5, 1989 Page 5 a. Police Services The EIS states that the proposed project, utilizing either alternative, is anticipated to generate only the customary number and type of police service emergency calls for a 360 unit residential project - .63 annual calls per unit -- and that these calls can be addressed within acceptable time parameters using the services of existing staff members, plus 1.1 new officers (with concomitant levels of new supporting equipment). While it is estimated that the cost of new resources/services would be $57,200, there is presently no approved plan for resource improvement, which would enable the City to require that the applicant provide such funding directly. As a result, it will be necessary for the City to depend upon increased tax revenues to generate a fair share of funds for such improvements. Additionally, at the time of land use review, the applicant will be required'to provide signage, lighting, building identification and other improvements to increase general safety on-site and to facilitate efficient emergency response times by police officers. b. Fire Services Either the PPD option or the DAD option is anticipated to increase requirements for service by the Fire Department, as would customarily be expected for a 360 unit residential development. Specifically, it is expected that there would be one call annually for each eleven (11) residents. The. Fire Department has not developed a preferred officer/population ratio, however, the City is in the process of implementing a 15 year plan for service improvement, including the employment of new staff and the purchase of new equipment. Tax revenues generated by the project will help to support the necessary service improvements. Staff do recommend that, if the development (with either option) is permitted, the applicant be required to provide signage, lighting, building identification and other improvements to increase general safety on-site and to facilitate efficient emergency response times by emergency personnel as noted above. c. Utility Services The applicant reported in the Environmental Impact Statement that existing public utility services would be available to the site in sufficient quantities and at suitable locations to serve the proposed development (either DAD or PPD). Utility Engineering has not suggested that environmental mitigation measures are necessary to achieve suitable service levels on-site or to mitigate off-site impacts. Utility lines are available to serve anticipated future development in the immediate vicinity and along the N.E. 3rd Street/N.E. 4th Street corridor.(*) (*) On April 10, 1989, subsequent to the meeting of the April 5th meeting of Environmental Review Committee at which the Lexington Ridge EIS was reviewed, the Public Works Department made an informal determination (based upon preliminary findings of a sanitary sewer systems study) that sewer lines in the vicinity of the proposed development are near to or at capacity. Public Works Department staff and the proponent have developed a satisfactory conceptual sewer service plan and are now working to develop measures which would allow the provision of adequate sanitary sewer service to the site. Specific plans are slated to be in place prior to public hearing on June 27, 1989. d. Schools The project is anticipated to introduce approximately 90 new students into the local school system. The proponent reports that these students can be accommodated within the system, by enrollment in currently operating schools and/or reopening of schools presently closed for lack of enrollment. Currently, the Renton School System provides transportation to elementary school aged children living at least one mile from a school. 9. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed recreation impacts anticipated to occur on-site and off-site in conjunction with the proposed development(s)? . . Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS April 5, 1989 Page 6 The project site is expected to generate approximately 640 persons (including approximately 100 children) who would require a combination of on-site and off-site recreational opportunities. The project will include a swimming pool; recreation center with indoor sauna, weight room, lounge with wet bar, sunbeds, spa-jacuzzi and racquetball court; barbecue/picnic area, and two tot lots together with the creation of a linkage with the City's proposed trail system in the Puget Power right-of-way. Depending upon the project design used, there would be approximately 2.5 acres (PPD) to 3.5 acres (DAD) of useable area for recreational space. The space set aside for passive recreation/open space would range from 3.8 acres (DAD) to 4.1 acres (PPD). Finally, based upon the City's standards, the project would result in need for an additional 6.5 acres of general park area. The population proposed for the project is not sufficiently large, however, to support a park on-site or the purchase of a park site in the area, or measures (such as transportation services) which improve access to existing recreational amenities. Some specific recreation measures to off-set the impacts from the proposed development to the community have been submitted by.Parks Department staff; these are listed below. 10. Whether the applicant has adecauately addressed the noise impacts which will result during the construction phase of the development? The applicant has acknowledged that there will be aesthetic impacts, light and glare and noise impacts in the area which will occur particularly during construction. Since the project site is adjacent to existing residential uses to the west and east and a church and daycare center to the north, the applicant should mitigate the construction impacts in the manner recommended below: Note: See Section 1 of this document for additional construction-related conditions. C. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based upon the above analysis, staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated subject to the following conditions: 1. In order to reduce the erosion impacts of earthwork on the site, the following measures should be taken by the applicant, subject to approval of the Building Division and the Public Works Department, in advance of issuance of the Site Preparation/Building Permits: a. That the applicant shall schedule all earthwork activity, to the greatest extent possible, during the dry months of the year (May 1st through September 30th). Any such activity occurring during the wet months of the-year, would require review by the City as to acceptable measures to be taken during this period to reduce or avoid the impacts of erosion and sedimentation; these measures may include a requirement that a certified engineer be on-site during all activity. b. That the applicant install a wheel wash system together with the installation of a roadway at the entrances of the ingress and egress points to the site. c. That the applicant provide the City with a $4000.00 revolving cash bond for street clean-up. d. That the applicant work with the City of Renton Public Works Department on acceptable erosion and sedimentation control methods including: the use of siltation fences, temporary ditches, the coverage of stockpiled soil, and retention ponds if deemed necessary. These erosion control methods shall be maintained; e. That within 15 days of any action to clear, grade, and/or fill, the exposed soils will be hydroseeded: Note: Hydroseeding must be completed within a timeframe which allows the hydroseeding to take effect before the winter weather arrives, f. That the applicant periodically water down the site to control production/migration of dust from the site to neighboring properties, Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS April 5, 1989 Page 7 • g. Should earthwork and/or construction activity occur during the wet months of the year, a soils engineer shall be hired to monitor erosion and sedimentation control measures to ensure that such measures are working properly and are maintained as well as working with the Public Works Department on additional or revised measures should problems arise. 2. That the following mitigation measures need to be incorporated into the storm drainage system, with specific plans subject to the approval of the Public Works Department in advance of the issuance of Building Permits: a. That the applicant provide a tightline storm drainage system; (See 6/15/89 Memo from Garth Cray, Public Works Department). b. That the applicant provide a plan for protection of the underlying terrain and aquifer through the installation a system (e.g. oil/grease traps and silt sumps in street catch basins and the installation of a standard riser in the detention system) to control the discharge of oil, grease, and sediment. The plan should be subject to approval by the Public Works Department; c. That the applicant provide the City with an agreement describing a plan to ensure checking and maintenance of the storm drainage system for the development on a regular basis. This monitoring is to be accomplished by a certified professional engineer. Reports shall be furnished to the Public Works Department every six (6) months. The plan shall be subject to approval by the Public Works Department and by the City Attorney; d. That the applicant prepare a geotechnical study, under the direction of a certified engineer, to determine soil stability on the Mt. Olivet water tank site at the southwest boundary of the subject property. (This information is to be utilized in the design of the on-site storm water drainage management system in order to ensure that the selected system does not impact the stability of the site on which the water tank is located). (Note: this condition is incorporated from the 4/5/89 Addendum) ; e. That the applicant provide a detention system, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. (Note: This system is to be coordinated with downstream system capacity, sufficient to carry a 25 year storm and incorporating a two year storm with no increase in flows from the site for that two year storm as a result of development. The detention system capacity/design should be provided based upon data provided in studies conducted in conjunction with the EIS and in conjunction with Condition 2.b. above, using the SCS unit hydrograph/approved method. - See 6/15/89 Memo from Garth Cray, Public Works Department.) 3. That in order to reduce impacts to the natural environment, the following measures be incorporated into the development plans, in advance of the issuance of Site Preparation/Building Permits: a. That the applicant, in order to protect the greenbelt area on the site, provide a covenant which defines that greenbelt area and which prohibits any/all temporary or permanent disruption to the greenbelt, during construction or operation of the proposed development. b. That the applicant design a landscaping plan (including retained natural vegetation and new plantings) in order to provide aesthetic and visual buffers, contain light and glare, and enhance the natural areas on the site. The applicant shall work with the City's landscape planner to ensure that the landscaping plans include introduction of new plantings of sufficient quality, quantity, size, diversity and location, to both enhance the natural environment on the site and, as well, provide sufficient buffers. c. That the applicant establish a plan for the humane capture and relocation of the larger mammals on the site (deer, raccoons, etc.) found on the site to other locations within the City or elsewhere. Such a plan shall be developed with representatives of the State Department of Wildlife. 4. That in order minimize the long term and short term impacts of the transmission lines, the following measures shall be required: Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS April 5, 1989 Page 8 a. That the applicant provide written information to residents on the dangers of electrical shocks from the transmission lines. b. That the applicant work with Puget Power to develop an acceptable proposal for signage and fencing of the transmission towers (in advance of issuance of Building Permits). c. That the applicant agree, in advance of site plan approval, to locate all buildings so that electro-magnetic field intensity at the nearest edges of those structures is no greater than 100 milligaus. 5. That in order to reduce the aesthetic, noise and light and glare impacts, the following measures be incorporated into the project: a. That the applicant, in order to provide a a more aesthetically attractive, safer, more functional residential complex, work with the City's Planning Division, in conjunction with site plan review, to make some modifications to that design to: 1) further improve the appearance of the development; 2) reduce on-site and off-site visual/functional impacts; 3) contain noise impacts through building design (e.g. exterior material, interior insulation) and location (separation of structures from one another and from abutting uses -- rights-of-way and uses); and 4) contain light and glare impacts through location of on-site pedestrian scaled exterior lighting in a manner which fully illuminates the development without directing light or glare off-site, and through location of landscaping/fencing to screen light and glare adjacent to the site. 6. That in order to address the traffic impacts of the project, the following measures be incorporated into the project: a. That the applicant develop, with METRO and Planning Division staff, an acceptable transportation systems management plan (TSM) prior to the issuance of a (temporary or full) certificate of occupancy for the project in order to reduce the level of vehicle/pedestrian impacts upon the neighborhood. b. That the applicant work with the Parks and Recreation Department, in advance of site plan approval, to develop an acceptable plan for development of linkages with the City's trail system located near the site in order to provide for recreational amenities and a concomitant increased level of pedestrian safety. c. That, in advance of site plan approval, the applicant agree to comply with the conditions recommended by the Traffic Engineer, described in a Memorandum dated March 31, 1989, and delineated as follows: 1. Standard curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lighting improvements to be installed around the periphery of the project. 2. Provision of a transit lane pull-out on N.E. 3rd, or alternately, the construction of an additional lane along the N.E. 3rd Street property frontage. Since an additional lane westbound is identified as a necessary improvement in the N.E. 3rd/N.E. 4th TBZ, the developer should be allowed credit for construction of the lane. However, no credit should be allowed if the developer opts to construct the transit pull-out only. (Note: The Bronson Way/N.E. 3rd Street intersection presents a severe grade problem. Recently, transit service was discontinued on Bronson Way as the buses experienced significant damage when negotiating the turn to N.E. 3rd. The result of this action eliminated transit service to the Group Health Clinic. Any widening of N.E. 3rd Street must address the grade problem on Bronson. The precise amount of financial responsibility to be assumed by the developer is to be established by existing Public Works Department/Traffic Engineering Division policies). 3. Participation in the N.E. 3rd/N.E. 4th TBZ, at $670,000 ($288 per trip). As the N.E.3rd St/N.E. 4th Street TBZ has not been adopted by City Council, the developer should be requested to provide a bond (or equivalent agreement) in the amount of $670,000,in advance of the building permit, subject to the approval of the City Attorney. (Note: Staff recommends that in the event that the City Council recommends a fee other than $288, the trip fee for the project under consideration herein be adjusted to reflect the adopted fee.) Y a • Environmental Review Committee Staff Report y Lexington Ridge EIS April-5, 1989 Page 9 d. That the applicant provide an off-site pedestrian linkage system along N.E. 3rd Street from Bronson Avenue to Sunset Boulevard, in order to ensure pedestrian safety along that route. (Staff recommend that the costs incurred for the development of the pedestrian linkage be credited against the TBZ fee of $670,000 recommended in Condition 6.c.3 above). 7. That in order to reduce the recreation impacts of the development, the following measures shall be incorporated into the project, in advance of site plan approval: a. The development of an outdoor half-court basketball facility. b. The improvement of the Sunset Trail linkage utilizing the Puget Power line right-of-way which runs north and south along the east property line of the project in order to link the Cedar Trail System to the Lake Washington Boulevard trail system. 8. That in order to protect public health and safety the developer shall ensure the provision of adequate sanitary sewer service to the site through a system which is approved by the Public Works Department in advance of site plan approval. (This condition was established following May 12, 1989 identification of system capacity problems). 9. That in order reduce the noise impacts of the construction activity, the following measures shall be adhered to: a. That construction equipment be operated within acceptable noise range levels for such equipment. b. That the applicant limit the hours of on-site construction activity on Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. with no construction activity on Sunday. c. That the applicant limit the hauling operations off-site to the hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday to limit traffic impacts to the adjacent roadways. t C:...61 --r) • • CCI\1 1%V1111 3025 112111 Ave.N.E.C-90001 May 15, 1989 sidle too nellevue,WA 98009 206-822-2660 • CENT110N Is a servico mark • licensed by Centro')Corporation. • Ms. Lenora Blauman Senior Planner CITY OF RENTON 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Lexington Ridge Apartments Dear Lenora: • • Based on further analysis and subsequent discussions with the City's Staff, Ccntron has elected to use the "Design Alternative" as presented in the final Environmental Impact Statement. Ccntron will now concentrate its efforts solely on the "Design Alternative" and dis- regard the "Proposed Action Site flan" and the "High Density Alternative"as presented in the final E.I.S. Attached, please find four sets of sitc.and landscape plans as requested. The exterior lighting layout, as conceived, is shown on the site plan for your convenience. If I can answer any questions or be of any, assistance to you,'pleasc contact me at 822-2888. •Thank, you. Sincerely, CENTRON Robert G. Minnott, Director Governmental Relations and Land Planning rgm: kk cc: John Phillips, P.S. E. Dennis Riebe, A.I.A. - TAsLE LEXINGTON RIDGE APARTMENTS DESIGN COMPARISON Design Alternative R-4 Number of Units 360 480 Max. (Without Greenbelt) • 442 (With Greenbelt) Number of Parking Spaces 640 Requested 819 (Without Greenbelt) 630 Permitted 773 (With Greenbelt) Amount of Open Space 7.3 Acres (Passive/Active Rec.) 8.69 Acres cannot be covered 3.6 Acres (Parking) by buildings Number of buildings 15 (2.5 Acres) 4.68 Acres can be covered by buildings Buildings' Footprint 111,980 Sq. Ft. As Above Buildings' Maximum Height 35 Feet i 95 Feet Recreation Recreation Center Code does not specify Walkway System Swimming Pool Two Tot Lots Picnic Area Location of Parking Spaces 630 Private, off-site parking is • (Approx. 108 in Power ROW) allowed if within 500 Feet. (Approx. 530 on-site) LWD:Lex-Dsgn AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the ICJ day ofcrUe , 19,88, I eposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing f 6 , W6--- `% /n1,RS R,i documents. This information was sent to: NAME: REPRESENTING: COLT/t} Q ( A)nJ- (1 / D nl GEIV 7"Rb /RS 1- t?N iTED C-Ht4 .Tfi"1�ES PL,4-T - /.1->1) ,-Coe , I-i7 j Plf tt�t P S �1-41L`1 PS 4-7t 7 . 17 j45 C. (,v1LL! /try! AMRii 7 / 6414)-1- Campy SIGNED BY: � SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me his T..(r -rR day of /./. , 1988 . ,77 Witary Public in and for the State of Washington, �'.vi K.7"-� , therein. reiding at 2 Project Name and Number: C/v7O t_CX(ivC7-oAJ Pi /DCLL (,-- • ••. . J CITY OF RENTON 17- JUN 1 6 1989 ►�� rl; `I MEMORANDUM DATE: June 15,1989 TO: Jeanette Mckague,Senior Planner FROM: Garth D.Cray,Senior Engineering Specialist pp G SUBJECT: Storm requirements on Lexington Ridge It has come to our attention that because of changing policies in storm water utility in recent months that there is some confusion in the requirements to be placed on Lexington Ridge with regards to stormwater. The requirements in this memorandum are to clarify requirements as placed previously on the project. Due to concerns of the slope of the property and project location,biofiltration will not be required. In order to control oil spills and dumping on the site,three chamber baffled oil/water separators should be placed on all flows leaving the site. The project will require a detention system which will meet the following two scenarios:i)if conveyance capacity of the existing City storm system is determined to be sufficient in capacity to address a 25 year storm,then the requirement will be ten year detention with a ten year existing conditions release rate,or ii)if the capacity of the existing system is determined to be less than that necessary to address a 25 year storm,the requirements would be for a 25 year detention system with a release rate being computed under predeveloped conditions for the year storm matching the capacity of the existing system(i.e.if the capacity of the existing system is 10 years,then the release rate will be computed on the 10 year storm). The method utilized to compute the detention should be a SCS unit hydrograph method or other approved method(Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph,SWMM,etc). In addition,the detention design should incorporate the 2 year storm,showing no increase in flows from site for the 2 year storm as a result of development. s/g/001/GC/bh 7 Coa CENTRON' 3025 112th Ave. N.E.C-90001 Suite 100 June 2, 1989 Bellevue,WA 98009 206-822-2888 CENTRON is a service mark licensed by Centron Corporation. Lenora W. Blauman, Senior Planner CITY OF RENTON Department of Community Development Planning Division 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Lexington Ridge Dear Lenora, Please find enclosed a copy of the revised site plan (design alternative) and building plans. This plan shows 630 standard parking stalls. 105 stalls are in the Right of Way and 134 on site are covered (88 carports with 46 garages). All of the buildings have been adjusted to increase building separation. Sidewalks and cross walks have been added along with recreation amenities and trash enclosure locations. Upon completion of grading plans, we will proceed with landscape and lighting plans. Pleas review this plan for building and parking layout. We will supply your office with the other items requested in the preliminary report to the Hearing Examiner and your letter to Bob Minnott as the work progresses. We would like to meet with you at your earliest convenience to go over the revisions to date and answer any questions you might have. Thank you. CENTR a Gregory C. Seiler, A.I.A. Project Architect DE (For E. Dennis Riebe, A.I.A., Architect) C OrNG DIVISION JUN /989 .. � EMORANDUM •'L'_ ' To Lenora Blauman Date May 16, 1989 From John Morris, Housing & Human Resources / Subject Lexington Ridge --estimated trail dev`opment costs along powerline R.O.W. 1100 lineal feet of trail @ $14/lineal foot $15,400 plus design, surveys, fees, contingency, tax $21,974 this equates to $20/lineal foot • %� CITY OF RENTON Earl Clymer, Mayor POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT EXklsA3414.° MEMORANDUM • May 16, 1989 TO: Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner . FROM: Donald K. Erickson, Zoning Administrator RE: Centron Lexington Ridge ECF; SA-082-87 On April 5, 1989 the Environmental Review Committee considered the adequacy of the • Environmental Impact Statement for Lexington Ridge and made the following decision: "It was agreed that a report be prepared for the Hearing Examiner recommending the conditions as agreed based on the new information reviewed today.". Attached to the Lexington Ridge Preliminary Report is a copy of the ERC Staff Report and recommendations for mitigating conditions. DKE:mjp 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2552 111 • TABLE LEXINGTON RIDGE APARTMENTS DESIGN COMPARISON Design Alternative R-4 Number of Units 360 480 Max. (Without Greenbelt) • 442 (With Greenbelt) Number of Parking Spaces 640 Requested 819 (Without Greenbelt) 630 Permitted 773 (With Greenbelt) Amount of Open Space 7.3 Acres (Passive/Active Rec.) 8.69 Acres cannot be covered 3.6 Acres (Parking) by buildings Number of buildings 15 (2.5 Acres) • 4.68 Acres can be covered by buildings Buildings' Footprint 111,980 Sq. Ft. As Above • Buildings' Maximum Height 35 Feet 95 Feet Recreation Recreation Center Code does not specify Walkway System Swimming Pool Two Tot Lots Picnic Area Location of Parking Spaces 630 Private, off-site parking is • (Approx. 108 in Power ROW) allowed if within 500 Feet. (Approx. 530 on-site) LWB:Lex-Dsgn • c %u5vrc • • C Mr Irk k I CI\IItV1\ 3025 112th Ave.N.E.C-90001 • Suite 100 May 15, 1989 Bellevue,WA 98009 206-822-2888 • CENTRON is a service mark licensed by Centron Corporation. • Ms. Lenora Blauman Senior Planner CITY OF RENTON 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Lexington Ridge Apartments Dear Lenora: Based on further analysis and subsequent discussions with the City's Staff, Centron has elected to use the "Design Alternative" as presented in the final Environmental Impact Statement. Centron will now concentrate its efforts solely on the "Design Alternative" and dis- regard the "Proposed Action Site Plan" and the "High Density Alternative"as presented in the final E.I.S. Attached, please find four sets of site and landscape plans as requested. The exterior lighting layout, as conceived, is shown on the site plan for your convenience. If I • can answer any questions or be of any, assistance to you, please contact me at 822-2888. Thank you. Sincerely, • CENTRON Robert G. Minnott, Director • Governmental Relations and Land Planning rgm: kk cc: John Phillips, P.S. E. Dennis Riebe, A.I.A. el. ��..,,, , _. \\.•\• L'.- - ., " isp r .-, '':j '.,,,N,,S)i 1....1 t ,, •:- ,.: 1- , i -1.: , !1 �1 Ll I , i ,..- c1 •(• •1 N I• I. , e� ` a,Y ,• /` ^�11 t. id 0 WI II I III \ • - •---i.• - , (' \ 6,/,..., [... . I slur ,.., 1);11 :! cu • . t, a.V.R.TI.:JI .5-I it* IttiN:-, -,..42.1 ••1Voi ,,, \\ POI % I . C.f. P 4 ' I ) i . , 1 !..: 11 . , 1 \\, Viji - , ,/b;i,/, .,, ,4-, .e ..,:,,p '....„4—Z is.. clh, ti E. : _......, ,..._ _ -r- "Iriin \ / r/r t,?'} ! �' .,., a.„ ' ,,. . • zs ,two —___._. J6 z, 1 • s` T '.e ` ! t ` . \itayi+ N �1is; 1 SJ IS �_ if : ..)? .) i:-JAE- jp !. 7 l_:L.,, , . , so. . 1 ` ,A,9 5 c _ • q 1q7,-71. 71t N, J + ,, ` WINDSOR NIIIS z !jr f�., i t 1 ! ' P/...1I i . /o "T . .. \/ PARk ap,r"IP,q.'1e9 F p c 4 s - ' ---- . _ --.'L;z7_ .---- ' Ei . ! ?B ,f / V ��r• ,!- 11 G 1 . ,„„,i v /�, • //,� /� ate J mmmw ' L-1 / �i'.. N i I / j// , • �P a \ �I, 9u 14JOCI %fora , • _ei rt q - ii;,.F. .1. 3ti ., • • , . \ ../ G- 1 '': 1 i. 1 // '.7 \ I ! 0 • `c. .•- , 4 I ' .\A/,.. i- I__ , n �; - •t AR-OLIVE 11 I ,• \ I• » :\ji-' / s11 " CEME�F.RY 1 I // CEDAR RIVER \ 1 / 1 ,', PARK \\ . .tzi trr- ",,/ '— 1 1 /4// 1 I / �// /0/ I. Li-Y\\IA 7-6 \----\ f\-- • LEXINGTON RIDGE APARTMENTS • • ' 4:::"; . SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-082-87 • APPL I CANT CENTRON TOTAL AREA 13.4 ACRES PRINCIPAL ACCESS BRONSON WAY N.E. • • EXISTING ZONING R-4 (RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY) • EXISTING USE UNDEVELOPED • PROPOSED USE CONSTRUCT 360 APARTMENTS IN APPROXIMATELY •15 BUILDINGS. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY. ' COMMENTS THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BETWEEN_ N.E. 3rd STREET AND N.E. 4th STREET, WEST OF EDMONDS AVENUE N.E. AND EAST OF BRONSON WAY/N.E. 3rd STREET INTERSECTION. • 111, CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF EIS FILE NUMBER(S) : ECF-074-87, SA-082-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Application for Site Approval of Lexington Ridge PROPONENT: CENTRON LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4t . Street, west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and east of Bronson /N.E. 3rd Street intersection. EIS REQUIRED: The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the env-ironment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43 .21C. 030 (2) (c) and will be prepared. An environmental checklist or other materials indicating likely environmental impacts can be' reviewed at our offices. LEAD AGENCY: Environmental Review Committee, City of Renton The lead agency has identified the following preliminary areas for discussion in the EIS: Natural Environment: 1. Earth: including geology, soils, topography, and erosion; 2 . Water: including surface water movement, runoff - absorption, and public water supplies; Building Environment: 1. Land Use: including relationship to existing land use plans and estimated population aesthetics, recreation, transportation, and public services; 2 . Transportation: vehicular traffic, pedestrian circulation, parking; SCOPING: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse " impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before November 2, 1987. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee % Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Building & Zoning Department 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 APPEAL: You may appeal this determination of significance in writing pursuant to RMC 4-3016 accompanied by a $75.00 appeal fee no later than 5: 00 p.m. October 26, 1987, to: Renton Hearing Examiner % City Clerk 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 ' City of Renton 41O • ,,Determination of nififcance and Request for Comments on Scope of EIS Page 2 You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the above office to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. PUBLICATION DATE: October 12, 1987 DATE OF DECISION: October 7, 1987 SIGNATURES: Al/A Ro ld G. Nelson pring- Building and Zoning Director P. icy D= elopm- t Director • R chard C. H ug n Public Works Di ctor 4) ' Plans OP ._._• _ ... .. .. ... 5) " Animals 6) • Energy and Natural Resources • 7) " Environmental Health 8) Land and Sho Aline Use • 9) Housing =,(c('' 1_',l't))1 >) 4 Y - 10) ' Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation - `,><: /, 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation `/ 15) Public Services . X 16) Utilities _ COI4IENTS: , _ ?-c l i � 1"�.i./RUC_. U. .1.. (A": 1-1-1< (..y)l.-- , fk lv(:) ` .Of) / Cif Tit pRo L c Ai k.(=.; 1 r‘ 1(.)/Aelt5 rnoi.60, ;woQuo ZC..orLr►ticAlrj AKk rArvC; avi iv.-1 c-1=. ' T1'Jc 1-jGs/ru i ) tti1 / 1 R IrU��l,� cii ) TIT `5t7 C IZ ( •_S.1/\( ,( �. h IfRZ.(t1- /v6tc r1')ct./U ( ,,A , i C:_i) 17.1-1(J `� 1 � I�/7� I�G 1 7 Lt,6 c,/ ik-/v 1 .�>�•v�0 p�►vU . )weal Jon/3 ch ICU I* I 'iiiul'_)rw� -�i7L; 1 y 'R1 (, IZcov112"k.10 19101ZGUI Lk.`)'(_ :r IllC+i 1.. 0( I AA.lz '-I' I'QUG(/oo- r We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas e have expertise in and have identified areas of w additional information is needed to properly assess this p oposal,r areas where Signature of Di?ctor or Authorized Representative Date . ., Form ��C'c;:: 7L / & (P \ ) !�I TG,/, %'co/ia` 76:- 64-,, '/( h4 'e /17a/(%/- 017 A,-r d �/'i�r.'/_e • r°C,k(_aa 7 /.O 1-, //4-77Ja,711' . 141 def( �/7 ( ew .T:-•/e pe,cr?u747ow ///ve1 hatiC 124 f 64! /1 ao/e' ittol aa/d e rf j TAe .r?Xe •. • I7 j /;o .s--/-r/7v -i u y „„P� J do e �e /,--ex`e'e ?"00 /o frivy/e /f C/-o ,..) c/41 n•vG/ 71, ,00/ %f &.")/e/- ✓72eO1 fi1'd ei //'c 4 A. Q//P ff i A Me. /'��re�}�/dw low.-L�J�� ham,/ 1- .e Gl/),/Yee. -1 71 /74i /o TL- ,,,,de ena, p-afie.i-et/ c;i-- / -2' //y 4r the oa re'/e reoGr- %o_• / .-r_,a��_7'; We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those ar have expertise in and have identified areas of ews re o • . additional 'of'rmation i needed to properly assess this proposals areas where �C / Signat o 1 rector or Authorized Representative /U/ / / Date • /--s^,e//7r ",/del 61//e"e'// /`,e i-Ae i'CP fJ-7/.?„•77r Ai, 2 'r9 plc . orm a r/ { •! t . . '-NO,i W -,,a-il eW 0/ An./01-? 2/ 4 1/Ioq ' in y 11/.,)//_, 3.01 ;,e r 7 f,2PJ/ W`/r,p G'/p,_ °9 DG/L --4///, r2.71,2// / .! _,-•p'a,17/10 /,/ _ .!yl, 1.4.9 ••X-1"1c2/..1- ,f- I ---V027Z b/)2 2_,/./.) .,i q P y h tirJ -y�1'�(fog �d d 1, hQ / �/ _/GI / iv. n�i --)p a y y�/0PJ. �`9, 4"/P1/ > r ., / d�� r� l//> i1d ilo2 x �e I 7"./a/ 1 / -i//ONv S do// P/ 2/-2 ./*/d,L 41/ 0//5 09/ '7vP --Nip./;Z:21,19 62.,,,,,,,7 -)0,1 d bp ra vy9 27 `/ r ' �_,/v�'/I L,o,> . P / p y /2/17 py-r 0np / JE ,p ,--- 2/ l./ v " d7Ji?� i/71(12I/ ,s ,_„>,7_,,,,, •,v ,,,, 2,p-,p y 1 -9)--4/2 710// T p Map �Pa70 I o(/ 1/ •1w/f OW 7./a», vP.i-l? r�� 07 9D a/)?fir iris`/ 0�'oS (7/ 4)"00 1-p.•-y' gl�l l 1, NFU • 1.• The environmental klist indicates the maximum Alike slopes are less than 35%. The topo map indicates slopes of 50-60% in areas. Our preliminary information indicates that this slope is subject to land slide. More information needs to be provided on the grading of the site, slope stability, soils stability, and on the retaining walls. 2. This site lies within a critical drainage basin. More information needs to be provided on drainage. The checklist indicates an on-site field check was conducted in August and no wet areas were identified. How- ever, August was a very dry month, and there are cottonwoods and black- berries growing as natural vegetation on the site. Cottonwoods and blackberries are indicative of wetter soils. 3. All vegetation will be removed except for the scrub vegetation along the steep slopes adjacent to N.E. 3rd. (CONTINUED ON ATTACHED SHEET) We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional inform t'on is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature f ector or Authorized Representative Date" 4. More information should be provided on the environmental health factors regarding the high power transmission lines running along the eastern part of the site. 5. The church will be completely engulfed by high density multi-family complexes upon completion of this project. 6. Are any of the units handicap accessible? 7. The building designs are identical - there is little innovation in terms of design or orientation on the site. 8. There is no significant open space. Very little of the site remains as passive open space. There are no tot lots or small play equipment on the site. 9. The levels of service indicated in the traffic study do not correspond to those indicated in the North Renton Study. A full-scale traffic study, including measures to mitigate the additional 2,535 trips/day, should be required. 10.& Can the public services and utilities handle the additional demands of 11. the 475 residents of this project? 12. This project is located in Zone 1 of the Aquifer Protection Area. Will the change in drainage on site development result in impacts to ground- water recharge or groundwater quality? This department recommends that an EIS be required focussed on the issues of (slope/soil stability, grading) drainage, relandscaping and open space, transportation, recreation, public utilities and services, environmental health, water and aesthetics. • \ nit.In 1700G DEFT. 'Jut+-ti�� _ A U I hu: LU •►+1 i ii ILuNDI I IONS 11, U NOT APPROVED ei s S.--(e4--,2 SG av- Z'. c..50/6- g 5-��k c de(x..,L.L vZ E_� •t.I i GCJ ( I I /84-- ei,4 c t:6 -o 0 �O.c.`G�&-/a"� • o`14. ice /�•4'�'�d J� �.9" U`�/191.ui.c 6 63 4 G Cr-( &4./6 . Q.�Ore)�t-(1 + "/1-` 6?'� J a) © (SLo.of d u r�2- , 7'0.� ` D gi o&-7 /' et/ r ti a R wi-tG war SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATE; . 1-724SSP7 REVISION 6/1982 Form 182 • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ; 11 ' APPROVED �� APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS � NOT APPROVED , i2:, ..--,52-z-.:ta 4...e.2-4-)z-,-ze.7--7 ---7 ---Le....--4"."'_ez...".„42- ..Z,,,,c,•-z... ..._ ..,_,-e.:.e:V , ,/d,--E--z ...- -.6: _---6-:_,------%_,/,--' ' ' • /7....,-,7-7 .�`�� 7 -Q.-Zee- mac_-- ,d � /- ----/-T-- --C__-,/Z:-; ._- 2'"- /- °-..- -(--1‘---7.>-16-- �� -- ' ��V • C"---- ..-----ze,e-, :c-----,--7 ., SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVEATE; --`��. . REVISION 6/1982 ----.. ... ._..---• ... Form 182 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : ,C -:, L„ .:,..;.-,: APPROVED ' J APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ® NOT APPROVED > V.3..;ti-- (i,,.•la 'z . -,-.f.. -Ara,— Q„`, 41.(7.,,.....•,. v.J t_ I L/c d v • A J J /� • Z-) I`I 0 S 14,-..,-J !^)/L•�e•'L..2 l, 5�,--- (�e,J� (-f-v*i� pe-- Dee,• . 3) -1?e7t',Tele-,1 oe.„ 1.4;, -err-- 0„,,-e..e.- 1.--- "6:1c.e•-a-o-en‘ 0/.._tz_ GA-,3-4_. 5' le...,-/..:Zir... -4,—` . y). i .L.e( 1.)�`;//eL_ = ( ,....rx e.',„%_- .ae.t:":J,• t 4-4. Xi.-vL•/E! /L.e. 1 / s/ Pe:111-c,4..,( !e,...,/ e N, 2 2.y J[f: )-T y. �.._ � e i-) r,e--4-.:1/ ,rvnk/ 'TE c l� (W!0 ple,'tea 2- 0 s c.�-- _ _,J.e_e- - re•.t. • 6) 77E-. c: ci.).-6.,... . lera. LL! I 4.,7 1>r,•.r,L s.-4 744...... et-, e---C. 0�: ',S•->lr,..-„•.. (-6-..,•..,�•.,y S ATE,�� Ha c,r�� SIGNATURE. OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE , •_ . AL.. i1IJh JL- ANIMENI/ll1V151U Er 0 El APPROVED ® APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [MOT y APPROVED Q_ -.T2C L= / , ..� ai .d G-s*," cil-Lc0 • �. `C1/ . ,4� ',`^`L``� Gam- /a, 4.ep .�� :2:,:Z 04/e 2/ azez4242/ _Vc,(_e_4 --)14.G"' _/at.:4 742.4,4-tVA- ---74_,c_. , e1,4.LA., g7-"fr i .a./4e_p - , �lN c-tea ,, �� ' eci Pix� -,`� -- /Sd IGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVEATE;_4=e4.,,z4z22..:7 de- G- d. .. REVISION 6/1982 Form 182 .C;) aee - ck- 7z..ete.,....,.., :_."2,0-,2_,L, --a._:?,:-. --4 --Ze, 74-taite, 4) ael4./..... .,,,,,z 4 a,e REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ; APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 'NOT APPROVED . • S �� hcG l�1 L'1� ' 10; , , , ..,,„ . , ---, ,---),,,,,-7,_-_,__- buik.,N SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATE. / �� J ' REVISION 6/1982 Form 182 CENTRON: LEXINGTON RIDGE 1 . Provide street lighting plans for the following: a) Bronson Way from Vermont Place NE to north property line on NE 4th Street. b) NE 3rd Street from westerly property corner to easterly property corner. 2. Development traffic will have major impact at the intersection of NE 3rd Street and Bronson Way NE. Grade approach to intersection is excessive. Provide engineering analysis for possible grade improvement to the north leg of the intersection. Buses are having trouble at the intersection now and the development will increase bus rider demand. 3. This phase of Centron's development would increase Centron's cost share in the traffic signal at Edmonds Ave. NE and NE 3rd Street if a latecomer 's fee is developed. Estimated cost : 2,535 trip ends x $2. 16 per trip = $5,476.00 _ 4. Provide for central information center for ridesharing, carpooling, vanpooling and Metro ridership. 5. Mitigation fee for signal coordination in the NE 3rd/NE 4th Streets traffic corridor. trip rate cost x trip rate x No. of units = total mitigation fee $2.37 x 6. 1 x 360 = $5,204.52 Centron 3025 112th Ave. NE Bellevue, WA 98004 (phone 624-1557) • , , IC64 I F BUILDING & ZONING DEP MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 074 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SA-082-87 PROPONENT : CENTRON ` PROJECT TITLE : LEXINGTON RIDGE_ BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT 360 MULTI- FAMILY RENTAL UNITS IN APPROX. 15 BUILDINGS ON A 13.4 ACRES PARCEL, TOGETHER WITH RECREATION BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING. LOCATION : LOCATED BETWWEN N.E. 3rd ST AND N.E. 4th ST, WEST OF EDMONDS AVE. N.E. AND EAST OF BRONSON/N.E. 3rd ST. INTERSECTION IN RENTON TO : n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : n ENGINEERING DIVISION n TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : ,UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION F-1 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU r-] PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT n BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT n POLICE DEPARTMENT n POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT n OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P ,M, ON OCTOBER 2, 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : • ' ' flAPPROVED qp � fl PROVED WITH CONDI IONS HAT APPROVED �; o e3 unun APPROVAL SUBJECT TO I G./7V A/ELD IATE A REEMENT-WATER T y, s, W- /9 3 05 2-s�� .7e7f. On/lLE'.3'='S7.•X /,03g z . $4,-,<S-o LATR REEIIENT-SEWER /Q0 SYSTEM DEVELOMENT CHARGE-WATER /,, $/7 ;o D� „G`, X ,3(DO�-J 016 3, DDe. 00 / o SYSTEM @EYEImlaT CHARGE-SEWER. y.Es $/7S.pO/ 1,_� - "i // s 3,DOD ... ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE-WATER ! /� ° + SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA mum E-SEVIEFI AEQ APPROVED WATER PLAN yEs _ pro- IN. Agin. p (:7<oe.e �c3�� APPROVED SEWER PLAN �/�S • APPROVED FIRE NYDRAPIT C�J`:5i :;::i I' 5,siSIZC/ �®Y FIRE C"7T,• Y,&5 , or ( , (I ,)°_ 44___ DATE: /a- g - eli SIGNATURE IF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1 982 Renton Police Department MEMORANDUM May 19, 1989 To ▪ Lenora Blauman, Senior Planner From : Penny Bryant, Crime Prevention Coordinator Re ▪ LEXINGTON RIDGE HEARING As we have discussed, the Lexington Ridge project is scheduled to go before the hearing examiner on Tuesday, May 23,. 1989. Previously scheduled commitments will prohibit me from attending this hearing and unfortunately the police department does not have any other representative that is prepared to attend this hearing. It is for these reasons, that I would support the request for granting of a continuance of this hearing until June 20, 1989. cc: Fred Kaufman MAY 191989 CITY O FEN ON CONTRACT FOR SERVICES EXHIBIT C SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS First Payment: 50% of Contract Amount upon acceptance of Preliminary Draft EIS by City of Renton (06/15/88 on Project Schedule). Second Payment: 30% of Contract Amount upon acceptance of Draft EIS by City of Renton (07-08-88 on Project Schedule). Third Payment: 20% of Contract Amount upon acceptance of Final EIS by City of Renton (09-27-88 on Project Schedule). CITY OF RENTON THE FERRIS COMPANY By By Its: Mayor Its: President ATTEST: By Its: City Clerk • OF R� I a1, O U 0 z z oat. o o94iD SEPI ''' I City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner will hold a :'' 1,101. 11C HEAR11110 ' in CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS , CITY HALL ON MAY 23, 1989 BEGINNING AT 9, 00 A.M. P.M. C ®��E��I��i CENTRON LEXINGTONSA-08ZRIDGE —87 THE APPLICANT SEEKS SITE: APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT 360 MULTI—FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN 15 BUILDINGS, A RECREATION CENTER, AND PARKING ON 13 .4 ACRES. 4 mot,,., .,.. ‘,3,...zioj I___ li • I \ 0 ifl 1 : \ ik:1..1*I' `.11 _t'll.1:L1 ,-.1C‘ Wiv,47,••": 4::1 0 Di y ' ICILL • • . .^Kl• ,J,.5 ' . 1..6 ,-.,_, (px_i _ • "zt pig, i , , \ , f...., .3 . ., r., ,ir r- ih, .. „ ,ift _r,t I \k F;. , /A it ,..,,, • _-: 0.... .•.. n9:-- -1- 1,,,i;;;;,, - , . .: L. CAR /// �,�f\V,.', -; ,`°``]):Z'�`,".. r. i,._-Vl. ^ ^fi; ,t/`i P. rf ' •_..• 4'RY co 1 .ff 0..• " �, ,x,s-lrtS••.. j v H ,• •1,✓7 • , s it /. I *: ''./Z ''' ''t •5-7 ., f , /, i t :, , N,i k,:tz ;.,. .,.,..,.(z.\,,' 2,I,. ' V I S .(" f; .14 - - • ; --/ I/ "(<121,\,, \V. :qi.t''' .X. • .. ' 1 " 4 S e c 0 ' ! ` \�'?�•J ` WINDSOR HILLS •°1'}r• =rS�S Sr S: 1 ,'i •:T ,.. ,.' ,r. �' PARK 'L'r 11.f'K�:Ir. .NL 7 .: Pil flLL,ffi' ,P ? 'o ��j i ��/ti7 `/ 4 / / /0-.A / •is -2----;____ ', �� bUe0AC� lbI'r 1 /.1 ) .�1 W n . IA _ G_1 ',,: 1 • ' c • 44-' 1 A1T OL/VEI_ ," ° CEM£:ERti I I i , / Y CEDAR RIVFRL 'Tizr / _ 11 ' , / GENE• AL : � , N /IOC ADiIRESS•• THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BETWEEN N.E. FOURTH STREET AND N.E. THIRD STREET, WEST OF EDMONDS AVE. N.E. , AND EAST OF BRONSON WAY N.E. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION • OF k.6.,� • . : !,. ••-i •• ha. • R r All I I R'' ';'' ' • I . .' .A"' 'I=' . Oggt�O SEPSEMO(cP 1 Y Ij: > j 1 .':.," , 1ti fi City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examine • will hold a • • ,' .':, PUBLIC HEARING „ - in CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL ON MAY 23, 1989 BEGINNING AT 9.00 A.M. P.M. • • • • CONCERNING: CENTRON LEXINGTON2RIDGE THE APPLICANT SEEKS SITEIAPPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT 360 MULTI-FAMILY ' RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN 15 BUILDINGS, A RECREATION CENTER, AND PARKING ON 13.4 ACRES. I '' i l' \-0T412"::FI.T.iqkz2mdi ' I. \\ ici obl y 1�1 `> • A• 1 •r,—_'+7' &:7:..1!.l to CAR \i ../ y. • ' ;'gy ')..`'.,�. ;:.--'I; I •,,ll ,T,. , • J WIRDSOR„„is f . �,..i`: •. _Ja' ; :J; furl : , — �1 �• PARR 1`.r p1 a 9 t In.:IJ:f:.—s 1 :1 .1 111111111117.' Sy PIO . J • • . • Z---_,-;--".- . ' WiYitir? ',' = 7:y ' • ' A'ti p -4 G-1 �'67 OR., " _ 'CEDnp gFVrq J , CEhrfrER+ 1 1 GENE — AL L x ,• / _ ll1 , ;14)2 ; �N /FOR ADDRESS: • THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BETWEEN N.E. FOURTH STREET AND N.E. THIRD STREET, WEST OF EDMONDS AVE. N.E. , AND EAST OF BRONSON WAY N.E. • • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING&ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 , • THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE .REMOVED WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION n CERTIFICATION • • 1 , ' r • Lik � , HEREBY 'CERTIFY THAT st (p ?; ` IE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN 5 X ( S OF CONSPICUOUS )• 1• .ACES ON OR NEARBY THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY ON ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a ' '. Notary Public to end for the State of Washington • t1 residing to i>� y?: • on the �(� �' day of algj gas 1 •SIGNED : M O , :; • $ . CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor PLANNING DIVISION • May 9, 1989 Colin Quinn 3025 112th Ave. N.E., Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: • Application for Site Plan Approval of Lexington Ridge, 360 multi-family rental units Files ECF-074-87, SA-082-87. Dear Mr. Quinn: A public hearing before the City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner has been scheduled for May 23, 1989. The public hearing commences at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you before the hearing. If you have any questions, please call 235-2550. Sincerely, • • Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:mjp cc: Interested Parties Listed on Page 2 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2550 Centron Lexington Ridg' Colin Quinn May 8, 1989 Page 2 Canada-American Associates First United Methodist Church c/o Centron 2201 NE Fourth Street 3025 112th Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98004 Phillip & Wilson Attorneys Gerald & Cheryl B. Edgar John Phillips, P.S. 351 Bronson Way Waterfront Place, Suite 920 Renton, WA 98056 - - Seattle, WA 98104 Thomas C. Williams Irene Emmons 357 Bronson Way NE 349 Bronson Way NE Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98056 Kusumi Shogo Norman Hash 4643 138th SE 358 Bronson Way NE Bellevue, WA 98006 Renton, WA 98055 Canada-America Associates James R. Fay c/o James Platt 3823 E. Lk. Sammamish Rd. 10800 NE 8th, Suite 100 Redmond, WA 98052 Bellevue, WA 98004 • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON MAY 23, 1989, AT 9: 00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITION: CENTRON LEXINGTON RIDGE ECF-074-87 ; SA-082-87 The applicant seeks site approval to construct 360 multi-family residential units in 15 buildings, a recreation center, and parking on 13. 4 acres. The property is located between N.E. Fourth Street and N.E. Third Street, west of Edmonds Ave. N.E. , and east of Bronson Way N.E. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Renton Community Development Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 23 , 1989, AT 9: 00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. Published: May 12, 1989 _ a V-P.7 TO CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Traffic Engineering Division MEMORANDUM DATE: March 31, 1989 TO: Jeanette Samek-McKague . .. FROM: . .Gary A. Norris, raffic Engineer .. _. _ _ SUBJECT: Lexington Ridge As you requested, the following is a list of the improvements required for mitigation of the Lexington Ridge apartment complex: 1. Standard curb, gutter., sidewalk and street lighting improvements around the periphery of the project. 2. ._Provision of a transit lane pull-out on---NE 3rd, or, alternately, the . developer can construct an additional lane along their. NE 3rd frontage. Since an additional lane westbound is identified as a necessary improvement in the NE 3rd/NE 4th TBZ, the developer should be allowed credit for construction of the lane. However, no credit should be allowed if the developer opts to construct the transit pull • - out only. Note: The Bronson Way/NE 3rd intersection presents a severe grade problem. Recently, transit service was discontinued on Bronson Way as the buses experienced significant damage when negotiating the turn to NE 3rd. The result of this action eliminated transit service to Group Health Clinic. Any widening of NE 3rd must address the grade problem on Bronson. To the extent the Lexington Ridge developer pays should be determined by ERC policy. In our meeting with John Phillips, we did not identify this work as a cost for which he would be responsible. 3. The preferred alternative identified access to the site from NE 3rd. As a result of sight distance, extreme grades and a history of runaway truck accidents on NE 3rd, we reserve judgement at this time on whether or not the identified access should be. allowed. Our concerns were so stated to John Phillips. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2620 , Jeanette Samek-McKague Page 2 March 31, 1989 • 4. Lexington Ridge participation in the NE 3rd/NE 4th TBZ was identified at this time to be $670,000 based upon $288 per trip under the preferred alternative. The NE 3rd/NE 4th TBZ has not been adopted by City Council . Hence, the developer was requested to bond the $670,000. The $670,000 was presented as a "worse case" scenario; however, further study of the draft TBZ document indicated that may not be the case. John Phillips was not told this. 5. It is assumed that the incremental impact of this project on other necessary improvements in this corridor will be addressed through the traffic mitigation fee. If you have any questions, please let me. know. . • GAN:ad cc: Lynn Guttmann . John Adamson Clint Morgan GAN051 • • • • • • MEMORANDUM HOUSING AND HUMAN RESOURCES DATE: March 7, 1989 TO: Jeanette Samek- ague FROM: John Morris SUBJECT: Lexington Ri e Apartments Both the Proposed Alternative and the Design Alternative have adequate onsite recreation facilities. The developer should consider an outdoor half court basketball facility because this recreational amenity has proven to be popular both in residential and commercial settings. The preferred offsite mitigation is the development of the Sunset Trail utilizing the Puget Power line right-of-way which runs north and south along the east property line of the project. The Sunset Trail is the only north/south pedestrian separated right-of-way trail that will link the Cedar Trail System to the Lake Washington Blvd. trail system. The main problem with the design alternative in this regard is that a parking lot is proposed to occupy a major section of the trail. This is unacceptable to the Park's Department. Redesign needs to be undertaken so that the trails integrity is maintained i.e. that it reads like a trail and not like a parking lot. Pedestrian facilities should also be developed along NE 3rd Street, NE 4th Street and Bronson. ORDINANCE NO. 1549 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ANNEXING CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF RENTON. WHEREAS, under the provisions of Chapter 128 of the 1945 Session Laws of the State of Washington, a petition in writing requesting that certain territory contiguous to the city limits of the City of Renton, hereinafter more particularly described, be annexed to the City of Renton, was presented and filed with the City Council on or about January 17, 1956, which petition was subsequently amended, bearing the signatures of the owners of more than seventy-five per cent (75%) in value, to-wit: 98.6 per cent, according to the assessed valuation for, general taxation of the territory for which annexation is petitioned herein, which petition sets forth a legal description of the property according to government legal sub- division or plats, and was accompanied by a plat or drawing outlining the boundaries of the territory petitioned to be annexed; and the Planning Commission of the City of Renton having heretofore considered and recommended the annexing of said property to the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Renton by resolution adopted at its regular meeting on April 10; 1956, fixed Tuesday, May 15, 1956, at 8 o'clock ppm. at the City Council Chambers in the City Hall of the City of Renton, Washington, as the time and place for public hearing upon said petition, and a notice of said hearing specifying the time and place thereof, inviting all interested persons to appear thereat and voice approval or disapproval of or objections to the proposed annexation, has been duly published as provided by law, and true copies of said notice having been duly posted in three public places within the territory proposed for annexation more than one week prior to said date of hearing; and WHEREAS, pursuant to such resolution and notice a public hearing on said petition has been held by the City Council of the City of Renton at the time and place specified in aforesaid notice, and no objections, written or oral, to the proposed annexation has been filed or made at such hearing, and the granting of such petition being deemed proper and advisable; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I: Pursuant to provisions of Chapter 128 of the 1945 Session Laws of the State of Washington, it is determined that the above-mentioned petition for annexation to the City of Renton of the property and territory hereinbelow described be and it is hereby approved and granted, and the following described property, being contiguous to the city limits of the City of Renton situated in King County, State of Washington, be and the same is hereby annexed to the City of Renton, effective on and after the passage, approval and legal publication of this Ordinance, and on and after that date said territory shall constitute a part of the City of Renton and shall be subject to all the laws and ordinances then thereafter enforced; said property being described as follows: That portion of sections 16 and 17, township 23 north, range 5 E.W.M., more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the southerly line of Mount Olivet road with the west line of the southeast * of the northeast 1 of Section 17; thence northerly along the west line of southeast of the northeast 1 of Section 17 to the west line of the northeast 4 of the northeast 4 of Section 17; thence north along the west line of the northeast -4 of the northeast 4 of Section 17 to the easterly line of Bronson Way North in Renton; thence northerly along the easterly line of Bronson Way North to the southerly line of Fourth Avenue North in Renton; thence easterly along the southerly line of Fourth Avenue North to the north line of "Section 17; thence east along the north line of Section 17 to the southerly line of Fourth Avenue North; thence easterly along the southerly line of Fourth Avenue North to the east line of Section 17; thence north along the east line of Section 17 to the south line of S.E. 128th Street; thence east along the south line of S. E. 128th Street to the east line of the northwest * of the northwest 4 of Section 16; thence south along the east line of the northwest 4 of the northwest 4 of Section 16 l . to the south line of the northwest 4 of the northwest I of Section 16; thence west along the south line of the northwest 4 of the northwest 4 of Section 16 to the east line of Section 17; thence south along the east line of Section 17 to the southeast corner of the northeast 1 of Section 17; thence west along the south line of the northeast 4 of Section 17, to the west line of the southeast 4 of the northeast * of Section .7; thence north along the west line of the southeast 4 of the northeast * a distance of 252.22 feet; thence South 89°45117" west to the west line of the Stoneway dock 'road; thence northerly along the Stoneway Dock road to the west line of the Mount Olivet Cemetery road; thence northerly- along the westerly line of the Mount Olivet road and continuing westerly along the southerly line of said hount Olivet road to the west line of the southeast * of the northeast 4 of Section 17; being the point of beginning, lying adjacent to the present city limits of the City of Renton, Washington. SECTION II: The above-described annexed property contiguous to Precinct No. 20 of Ward No.. 1 of the City of Renton shall be and constitute a part of Precinct No.' 20 of Ward 1 of said City of Renton. SECTION III: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and legal publication as provided by law. A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed with the Board of County Commissioners of King County, State of Washington, and such other governmental agencies as provided by law. PASSED BY TIIE CITY COUNCIL this 12th day of June, 1956. ELTON L. ALEXANDER Elton L. Alexander, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 12th. day of June, 19566 JOE R. BAXTER Joe R. Baxter, Mayor APPROVED BY: • GERARD M. SHELLAN Gerard M. Shellan City Attorney Date of publication: June 14, 1956. • -2- ADDENDUM TO ERC REPORT LEXINGTON RIDGE 1. That the applicant prepare a geotechnical study to determine soil stability of area of the site adjacent to the Mount Olivet tank site near the southwest portion of the site. 2 . That the applicant tightline both the sanitary sewer system and the storm drainage system. The applicant to work with the Utility Engineer to determine whether the catch basins and manholes should be fiberglass or an equivalent material to prevent leakage. This should be done prior to a submittal for a building permit. 3 . That the applicant work with the Stormwater Utility Engineer in analyzing the downstream storm drainage system as part of the design activity of the storm drainage system. 4 . The detention design shall be designed such that the flows shall not increase up to and including a 100 year 24 hour storm (that is, the post development runoff flows shall not increase over the existing predevelopment runoff for the 2 , 10, 25, and 100 year storms) . The design will be based on the SCS unit hydrograph method for computing runoff. asCs��.z{�. ,',t"t`'` ir's'r �,t,.. 4.r a r • ■ •Lii ' n Z , 7°'. •`' x -1>,"��, .t 3,^z 1 rfi„ i 1'f *s ,,;t. - k, »,•- ,t ir�'1'` �;,'� �:• ��_ �; s ,,, ..- j t f ,�, y<y�y. ,,y: „ •fir , •,.r •.' '`y "./ • `jti, •• sue„ '• ,sf.i.,.a"rt ` • q,'l/ l L. sad ,, `'�7,41; f f # r ' T' �`•l��a a✓/,�sC� f • �lj� /Y� , >'. § { a x is t rt" ,-. ;i zsr r ' y Ji ' . r i �Jr,- �a .b k r R s s�`• �_-��• d r �..x i n /�� 'a,jy7i :?.z. ss jax,. � / s � 7,/,, , ` n � .�',< 4. av�r r WINDSOR r of iS `�v'.„ y,S:r.i f 7 ,�. i0s f q'rz'r ' ,'. 0 ,, •a,3 .y ;. I , ? �: �r? ' tri ci,SINGLE FA-RasQ <. ' PARK _ �,. E y. t, f y t ��y �. .y.. 3>s ,r 6 t� .,, z iyy ' t .'Y ;,!.." '• , .sa Y 'f S_ ` ,4 � s j�f" r �G`'+ #fHs Y r e f tWf t z' yr f (1/ s• Nf7' t • •iiii sir i ' � 4'€s ' ( , ' i }jI fi ''..,",:till, } ? r� r >Y'>k ri .{ jr' ,"�y e¢ y s'(a� 3 / § ., i §.,r / n q y tied (d s l{ : q ;»twv". s a ,tanst e.s -/�' 'ir`',A ; ``-Q',�x �`, ��"i . '` .a ? •e { 7` yE „3 , ,�tY, 1 • ! I / e,, r ,d >� _- .. �,,,,,�, .H/'.„ .... k#' �` ,' ,3' v a�,,ri'?' ,3" �F" y�'r4 ,) F / a y .', 2<,..,. y* ' fsv A "x,Z,,x v1xA 'ffJ( 1 w '.- a V i i° t fi/'r i �IIIli •2,� .. S #l, /. ,I'd Fr 7' ;. CHURL 3�-1 a ` -o ¢ �y. r4, -_ € t`P Y�,3 44 �G3r3�I C ia zz` ' '-, . ��s r Y t'�. ,� ��f .� s y+ t' .'s��d��y` rg� 3' > t �yrB:Az ,,.1 . f^,r,<, a , '.*- �. • : 1.-,/ y .i �. ��iie X^. �1J �fi'i�n. t Wt t r,. € i�} ;�' $'f x h g}"", � —i T si, § 2X t S }>. i t �1�k. sr/ r• (i �� BRIGHTON RIDGE F 7s r tY # 'wail6 �� _* ' >� ' , A€ sir PARTMENTS ' APARTMENTS • ; �., ' ^I s-.". la" ; «ti 3 '. $. y £�e1 4S'Y asf'�* ' z r,!/ ,t" rs 5' ' t. r' r>il F F— >r x a '. •p � ;�tit '. fir'+'4.5 ,w. -741 'o f s {fi 5 s j � s ((d'6J is �4' b56 � � r 'L 2 �sryr/.�s � r' iF".��v; /o a $ *jz,,.,. a, t '"2 O u rx ti.3:'r d r 'r?k y.Y M r t. 4Y,, ',t' f L e` I 4i � v 3 si SYS b �`f a r,- � � �i "f' ,� figs �4, S f „Ill'. y r , r s 4 44 r r r $^v r. ‘✓Z x. / ',A '' .4dt \t 1, S' .}'' h't`�..y -s 4,. s frb .fT' s ,.� , ''',A.'‘'('''l s.`+.. „•, +. .v •i 3'}� ,s. r " x� 9 ti' tt`' �.;y x, 3. t,:, za<t ♦t O e', s yk" r " I+t� -: >s',3„ i ..t,i: t ,�� > a,',,,t'i ft b,,.t,, • l>-,o', a 1�'`' ,y' %'r^, ' �d V .c 3€ }i . GROUP. HEALTH . O ,,, .� f, 0 z a!2' �z MEDICAL FACILITY 0 + ;,• �x t y� y , � ,/yM1 ' ) !4€ 'rn;r.. •K / <.! :t� d ar'a,.> r' i %'o.r¢d �/ ,,,' Y �i 2 ;. s t, re d � s)*s v, 3t� 2 3 i `{ '' �'"'�- :u/d�°J / � 2 ,,,"�, 405 �» • ;7 'z 't ' H� tw ".R,.�`.Nt 4'" a ; "A ,,,... ,,,O ;, ,,,A ', i t7y", ' 9 v'^': ":..r � `t ,•f,' # 2a ■Yry, ,7�._ r.04. ,P'6 �/3 s" /� s' � ��µ y e p�srs+^ // , t r t' S s � � •xe` ,,, 9?y"'3 '. .. '''' a r Alf: � v y� . ",n- �, fv:.,, 1- " ' .� ` k:r l »r 1' 0,t, x`••"� :�i:/s r/i 0�. r , ,,:, r ,� `�, »'}iyx. t•�,. �f w'%�F �� ''4' tfi ia;.✓i ,Sly s �,> � .'�r J�yY�j�X�, .t7 �% �,.,„� i • 3 ,- s r • '. j '','.�"V APARTMENTS.A, . •. �1y s •� .. ;N,§',r!� r .2> 5SPZ".�'': ', : :-,-..' �. ,••• :, / t ,''! r/ v ,`}t a�,S s Xiii- ;t At Q t.'r ,/i � '��` r. 41 x,.k„ytr)zf t{ .,f'��,,.. >. '� ,3�hr:�'M . >• 1 if V.r „r fi£fN z '." ,,, ! /-�/y f / r �,3'' r < 'd. .', WA ER TAN. '}'" t . px ^€ y' aa rt,447, i ,4). YY r» N 's� a*. Yee ,, , f. ) ,zr s u cotr' ,i 1 , s•s ;3,s} .t s ;-',, x.` r K^� �- » n rx,-t ' -- -1 . Yf r.*r' r sr i. 'r D.. .y. 6 3 ,, 1--- sr z S is .l,,- ,i px,� s^-. sew u s ff% '��'� > ,y' '" ,d' � � r x 3 �' fv4R.;``.`f A� a :r y.k�j L�t1,y >.� d j f i-,�' ) "0" d .7 -...,;`M"° ,, 4 i•i a .. k '1.,14., `—, " ;-...-.\_`3 ,`'*li a'�' --,.' '`52z y`ao // ,v. z,✓.>%', ` £f,f:•,�;;.,'�,'''�' .. .�, ��f' , e t, .l'3 ? �1 Y'r� � 0.��^^ yam,.-. �� ,te� �s � frs 'y !' . ar'%.:3e';y " » �7 1y x r� t . i - , ., ,. ssy 4 '; f ; ao. �' /, a +�� tt" i r i� t �I:' r.... �'" "'. t' �' � a ��a;» �� 1 -s €""'�� `� ��; u :'� xl • 'j rr : # ,dent .:L r 7 tt. ,,-„„ . „., /: ;,,.,4--.,,,.. .,r �,Gr'sc �� 'yam kfr ✓� � �, �� a}�rix'F .� ,i�r ,Y4'.x yb 1 f�� r � •� s � �,..{ � 3 J - s4 /j c > 3y rs,-., ✓6 a wr t r0 sot . . 2,�„ •j 1,.t' �` 1 � ar tizp ri {� ,,. � , ., • r' /r :v fi 4 4. Lx 1,..� • gigZ %,r,,x :•r: .; `•s if a' ` �r s .-a . , ,+,.:- �{/.i f "+a "'s e _...'tort• gy '', 4` i d ,, ss �,. ,,d ,,., ' y u� SSS' ,,,.0 1 .': ' ,'q t WL^'.s" - r I �>?. �! i 3 .5 '. / F l ;5�`, r ._ 1...; fir-. i. kt. r€: r. y�' 4 a w rt g �` � # z h '� r • � � ' � S �€+s � r §. k : - a/'yyi�s/. E _. €, ,..- ....4.e.. r r ..: ��'6. ' z!aL' r,. . ; /„,, '6€', r, , 7- ,r'`,,, x3.. "(.✓'..r '` , �,, 4's `�:K„5 ' f J�„v � (filr` err.. 3<0„� ',+# .`. t,. :: '.a /./s„, ., d , i hx 3SINGLE FAMILY �`� x ' ,:/ . . � Ott�r r, ;' " t fn °'a'`'c 3' ,5- ova* v r+,., :/t xt } % "",Y $,>"�,y, �' `d "�" ; '. , '"�•: ,. 4'.j ? ,... . „ .. '`1st"c, ,, ,,,;u„ "�y�`ttow�v� ,`o( _,(. a.„ 4 North! NOT TO SCALE I Lexington Ridge __.___________ Existing Land Use APARTMENTS Figure 13 I see rc��; } / �. .. • r: ( Qct- 7 ` - `• i lr 1�f �^ L �f c , rf‘12 )} I / ,• e'V ,/ I ��/�, � �•�"%sue' � �r /�•l !�' •r F /. r 1 '; I r I ,c,..k/ 7:,07.' `'`,. '‘..• . 7.. ''' ''-`*.14," .:',//...7--- " k.... ' ." ..'1' '''' Air` • /� Z.. i• • / * kt, 1; ' ' i / � •/ / • 1 I y / • jf aai;j/%�.., _{? , `�O i'J ,7 ...,--„, , 6 • , /4 • ," 'v/ / #1.-<.; —,—* * 7 i . . .. s ' GI = I\' (j • ''A‘_"4/ • 1\..... , L,_ 1 Ole '":.: .:':•.. ___ W \•. ' \k•/ 7 .'. ' :-.../.49:74 / , ,ii_ '....—_ 067.--,--.,---- ,t,.),'?.. .,.,•,—> i,,/,...1 ,,,,,. ., , ' 4.4 -77#, ,' .. 11. . \ • - :.--,1•. ...—..,.:----_,,e,ff ,_ .---. - - i / -.4,e„---_,, .,N,..,,\\ ii_ ff,i1..,-',I- .4 / ——' \ ' .1' -4 �� ! lr � / y LEGEND iR /,� I // 'i i7 , \ r srreoc rw:/ p�cFEs/ ale W is / �� , #x i� f 106 1 .,A's,,:.,.�<�:�:'=?: 1 : V 4.tt* , ••.,: . . 7 , .•-I ... , ."Z '''' f i ' ' \ - ) •i ‘• ' 4!!-..1!;'1i 'ry a:..:,,,,RFFN ~ ive, / ..... . -y..•'' !;- \' l routs il.J7 /L1�.o _ _i _ gym== --, North Source: Dodds Engineering, Inc., 1988 -- , — -- 0' NE 3rd ST i - Lexington Ridge Slope Analysis Figure 10 APARTMENTS la _ y 1 i I f I' 1 . I _ J i I I 1' I :�1! ,� r • .. - in i • I. • �: �� • ,' E EXISTING • �. r ••. /- \; • L APARTMENTS .. F.a -• ;+ i, , ,I I, 1 ' _ ,. • _ '/; •' EXISTING�i0.1,� �;4"° i - - : CHURCH6 • - _ — . c . •! i.,. . * /......: 6...--- :,..-!•-• ..' • 0- ., i ''.1 -400010,---i.: _ •:.. .......:::., _ -• %.• . .. -1- I ' .--i rrt "i•-•; • y O ! •• • -1 .../ - '.. -' .‘'...V..‘' \* 0140...1i/*' I 4'.. \' SO . • ---7. ------ * i •'-r k. .\••s• '0\r0• •%/ ` .0. 0 TOT•LOf , i .1 {v t.. ,..-. -, 9 ' ,••.,..,•. 3\I --.,• tr•. . jr;,.-... .. • (0 . ....„ ( .4)1;7. , - - , r- .'• REC \:." i POOL 1 O BLDG EXISTING/ ,�,.�a V/ .%,r • '14r 7. . lM 41 - L ivi , - ; - APARTMENTS '�N `�'. �P • ` �' � :.�111.3., I - 77 !i:ill': Iiii. 1,141' .6 :'--.1 ' 7 • — 11 .; i TIC . 1 I !Li.j.1) Mill . •. • 0' i. • 1..r.:7 ...-.;_ani. . (•-.J.7•Er-.-,..f.,.....*.a.097 .1:_..4" 22.!... iritZsifiip - . lb t, •• "MINIM al; \-- . • -\ : , !I a lik.11 It, i i • . ...., ... -, . le--, '` .....„.....,... .2.4... ,64114114 4) s I ..i#3, .0,. .r..y„ / - - ,^::_i. - t--, QQc_L • ' �`'r_- ~ -NE 3rd ST / • • . . . . . __ DWELLING UNITS:360 • Lexington !Ridge • Design Alternative Figure 8 APARTMENTS . • a AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Cell 7cp RENTON NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY, Notice is hereby given ntthatthe beingFinal- first dulysworn on oath states °Environmental Impact Statement for the fol- A ud r c-y Banner lowing project was issued on January 20, ' that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the '1989,and is available for public`review and comment: LEXINGTON RIDGE APARTMENTS (ECF-074-87, SA-082-87) VALLEY DAILY NEWS Application for a multi-family.residential • Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition i City,o development on a 13.4 acre site within the City_of Renton between N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th Streets. The subject proposal is to. Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week.That said newspapers allow the construction of 15 apartment are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six buildings with a total of 3601 residential monthsprior to the date ofpublication referred to,printed andpublished units,0 a o recreation cu center and parking for 620 cars on the currently undeveloped site. in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King !The proposal would have a population of County,Washington.The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal approximately 615 ltilele. , r " Copies are available for review at the • newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for -- King County. Renton Library—El l EB it —SEPA Information Center in flit) Community Development Department, Planning Divi- The notice in the exact form attached,was published in the Kent Edition sion, Renton City Hall. Copies may be pur- , Renton Edition x , Auburn Edition , (and not in chased at the SEPA Information"Center on supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers the the3rn 1st floorfloo andof the Finance Department PP g Y on City Hall for$2.80.. during the below stated period.The annexed notice a Published January 27,•1989 Valley,Daily News R5183 Notice of Availability was published on January 27, 1989 R5 18 3 • The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $ 15 .20 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31 s L day of c1;1 u u r y 19 Notary Public for the State of Washington, residing at Federal Way, King County;+Wa.shington. VDN#87 Revised 11/86 .1�\ 14 6 •$ 0 CITY OF RENTON ea DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM December 28, 1988 TO: Reviewing Departments Building Department, Jim Hanson Long Range Planning, Nancy Laswell Morris Design Engineering, Don Monoghan Fire Prevention, Steve Baima Housing and Community Development, John Morris Traffic Engineering, Gary Norris Police Department, Richard Stoddard FROM: Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Lexington Ridge Draft of Final EIS Attached please find a draft of the final EIS for Lexington Ridge. This document addresses issues revised by those responding to the draft EIS for this project including those possibly from your department. Any comments on this draft should be returned to Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator, no later than Thursday, January 5, 1989 at 5: 00 PM since these comments will be going back to the consultant, The Ferris Company, the following day. S- . ld you hay ny 'ons please contact my office. . Donald K. Erickson DKE:mjp 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2550 I \ .r / 1 PLANNINGDIVISION OF RENTON 1 DEC 1 1988 D EN N ECEIVE ra ECEIviz a E3DEC1 1988 UIL®li�G DIVISION November 29 , 1988 City of Renton Building & Zoning Dept. Attn: Environmental Review Committee 200 Mill Ave So . Renton, Wa 98055 Re: Lexington Ridge - Proposed Apartments 360 unit Multi-family Development Gentlemen: After reviewing the draft environmental impact statement of the above proposed project, Puget Power has the following comments : 1) Negotiations between Puget Power's Right of Way Department and the developer must ensue prior to permitting any construction within the Puget Power right of way adjacent to the project. 2) Mitigating measures as mentioned on pages 3-19 will have to be addressed and steps taken to resolve these issues . S cerely,i , 6-7-7- 31/e------------ Doug G6rbin Supervisor Customer Service Engineering The Energy Starts Here Puget Sound Power&Light Company 620 South Grady Way P.O. Box 329 Renton,WA 98057-0329 (206)255-2464 ri CONFERENCE REPORT / NAME OF PROJECT DATE OF CONFERENCE: .7 / PROJECT NUMBER: TIME: V.`/. (START) (END) NAME AND TITLE OF ORGANIZATION PHONE PEOPLE_.ATTENDING Vat) al IY 6 :iktra0 z5s -isse ---Cd i IAn ► v\ao- ( c c �-GYM g z Z-ZA t S- Wt t [_e b I -�-�-tom, cO. ca, z - 76 s-o aeizei, aae7s I, li , , , carter . ,7 / - 0171-`4 ain/en1/44 /mg/ ) 4( "ki 1215 , /Om -,-a/// / //i,i0 .,i. %/ /� .� ' f 2, -, /1 G /is '� A, < z/. .../ ' h / 4 Ii i :n ii i '4 * //.ZAP' Y xe z),n)6 -Amy/ ,y a 1 4,0^,,,i- it/4W frtii • z . , „,/,,a,„zpial 44411; i ./i. Hn� ��.; #, ! ., , / / L/' 1 //4 LAO r ' / dd,/ / 14 ,f' / ciiiimm ..„, ' ,!/ ,2,// /Li. c/ ) a4 4 l, , Li / / 9 /./1 Aillri /- Oh 7 of ,(y-e121/74 /a ( , .1/1 ti 1 , i frill ^.1 /� , /(-°-44P67 W 4 N(11044-,1 a� 4. a .� PLANNING DIVISION Vie , CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON sell PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT D E C 5 1988 I) Earl Clymer, Mayor _ E CEO V E Design/Utility Engineering MEMOR,ANDU pig-qmg D DATE: December 1, 1988 DEC 0 2 1988 TO: Larry Springer WiArCKeiv tle ikra ,..� FROM: Don Monaghan -- By SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement LEXINGTON RIDGE APARTMENTS Dear Larry: I have reviewed the above referenced draft E.I.S. , and have the following comments: 1. The E.I.S. acknowledges that they are in Zone 2 of the aquifer protection area. It does not however, mention that it is directly adjacent to Zone 1. As a result of its location, the staff will be critical on its evaluation of the project and its required infrastructure. 2. It will be required that the project analyze the downstream sanitary n sewer system to ensure that the lines are adequate to serve this project. '( It appears we have some substandard lines immediately downstream, and these lines will need to be brought up to minimum standards in order to provide service to the project. 3. A fire flow determination will need to be made by the department and an analysis prepared to document the evaluation of the required fire protection for the project. Further, it will be required, as was acknowledged in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, that the project will need to upgrade the City's water system in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, to provide service and the necessary fire flow. 4. The Draft E. I.S. does not do an adequate job of detailing what elements of work will be accomplished in conjunction with the project to connect various trail systems. For example, there are sidewalks missing on Bronson Way N.E. between the most northerly entrance to the project and N.E. 3rd St. Also, there are no sidewalks on N.E. 3rd Street adjacent to the project and west of Bronson Way N.E. to Sunset Blvd. N.E. Therefore, it is suggested that as part of their requirements, sidewalks be 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2631 Larry Springer December 1, 1988 Page Two installed from the westerly terminus of the Brighton Ridge sidewalk improvements to Sunset Blvd. N.E. on N.E. 3rd St. , and on Bronson Way N.E. from N.E. 3rd St. to the most northerly property line of the project. 5. The Draft E. I.S. does not adequately address the transportation issues. Particularly, Bronson Way N.E. southbound and the intersection of Bronson Way N.E. and N.E. 3rd St. Besides issues of capacity, this roadway and intersection also raise concerns regarding pedestrian and vehicle safety. In order to mitigate these issues, it is anticipated that Bronson Way N.E. will need to be re-constructed from N.E. 3rd St. to the east. This re-construction will attempt to bring the roadway into compliance with current design standards. Although the Draft E.I.S. considers three alternatives, it does not consider an alternative of lower density than the preferred alternate except for the "do nothing" alternate. This site and the associated impacts of the transportation issues, mandate that an alternative of lower density be considered. It would be my recommendation therefore, that this project be put on hold until an adequate mitigation program for the transportation issues is presented and evaluated and approved by staff. . Further, the evaluation of a lower density alternative is a reasonable request for a project requiring mitigation of major issues. If you require additional information or wish to discuss the matter further, please advise. LEXEIS.DGM:mf 40' ® CITY OF RENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Alan L. Wallis, Chief MEMORANDUM PLANNING DMSION CITY OF RENTON December 1, 1988 D DEC 2 1988 ID To • Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator From : Sergeant Rick Stoddard, Police Department Re • Lexington Ridge Apartments, Environmental Impact Statement The following are concerns and recommendations of the police department. 1. Pedestrian Safety. Because of the added population to the immediate area resulting from the proposed development, we recommend hard surfaced walkways on the north side of N.E. 3rd between Edmonds Ave. N.E. and Sunset Blvd No., also on the So. side of N.E. 4th from Edmonds Ave. N.E. to Bronson N.E., and Bronson N.E. to N.E. 3rd. We also recommend that the interior of the complex have pedestrian walkways. 2. Construction Noise Complaints. Due to the close proximity of existing apartment complexes, Church and day care center, we would recommend that construction hours on Saturdays be restricted to 8:00 AM to 6:00PM and that no construction be allowed on Sundays. 3. Emergency Response. Because of the difficulty in locating specific buildings and apartments, we recommend that large maps of the complex be posted at all entrances. Further that each building identifier be at least 12 inches in height, be of reflective and contrasting color and be conspicuously placed on the building to be seen from all angles of approach. Individual . apartment numbers be placed on the exterior, to be seen when approaching the building. 4. Tracking of debris on the roadway That a wheel washing system be utilized to eliminate tracking of mud and debris onto surfaced roadways during construction. 5. Individual apartment security We recommend that all exterior entrances be well lighted and doors equipped with a dead bolt locking system. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 . TIlroq Unn2Qd Hsgl©dIloq Clc��c�nn 4,4:i"-k . III 2201 N.E. FOURTH STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON 98056 _. • (206) 255-5403 . ,. . . : . . November 30, 1988 ' • • . City of Renton. • Dept. of Community Development . . • 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 • . Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Lexington Ridge ` Apartments . . • - The Board. of Trustees of the First United Methodist Church of Renton, 2201 N.E. Fourth_Street, has studied the draft environ- . mental impact. statemennt for the above mentioned apartment complex. -The-proposed development abut's our church site, .of .. over 30 years, •on two sides. We trust that our comments will . - assist you in making decisions that will lessen the impact •of ... ' - Lexington Ridge on the environment and on the city as a whole. : - • . EARTH; Although we would like the "No-Action Alternative", . . we favor the proposed action statement. We question -the need to- remove 245,000 cubic yards of soil and would request that the - • • developer be carefully monitored for erosion control, water , - I runoff, traffic control, .and street and off-site cleanliness dur- - . • ing the excavation period. The' Trustees •are not impressed with the reference to the 0.8 acree greenbelt and suggest that the City should require a -greenbelt that will be of some value to the apartment occupants and to the community. We also question the placement of a driveway within a portion of the greenbelt. The. • Methodist Church wants assurance that no clearing of trees or • grading of soil will take place on our property. We would -• request that the City work with the developer to grade' the pro- perty in such a way that the visual impact of land and buildings is a credit to the neighborhood. • page 2 of 3 - WATER: Again (as we will throughout this testimony) we support the "Proposed Action" as the best of the alternatives. We request that all surface water retainage systems be located be- low ground and that they meet or exceed the requirements for controlling water runoff and the separation of oil and other con- taminates. Particular concern should be given to the cumulative effect this development and the McMahon and ERADCO sites will have on the Cedar River basin, Cleaning up the basin is more ex- pensive than protecting it. LAND USE: The Trustees assume that the proposed 360 units meet the code requirements for this property as zoned. Again, we do not feel that the developer has left a significant greenbelt to enhance the quality of life. We. question on-site parking for only 1.75 care per apartment. This encourages parking In the street as can be witnessed at the apartments to the north. The Trustees strongly oppose any attempt by the developer to use any portion of the City' s trail system (under power lines) for parking. This proposed trail link is for walkers and hikers and must not be given away to developers. TRANSPORTATION; Clogged city streets is probably the single most important reason to place a moratorium on all construction until arterials can be improved. We feel that the impact state- ment under estimates the peak and total flow from their development. The intersectin of Bronson Way and N.E. 3rd Street will require a left turn light for eastbound traffic. Consideration should also be given to a left turn light for cars westbokund on, N.E. 3rd Street into Monterey Terrace. The traffic study shown on Fig. 19 cannot be correct for the intersection of N.E. 4th Street and Jefferson Ave. N.E. . Most traffic from the Lexington Apartments will travel this direction to Safeway, Ernst, Pay'n Save and other stores in the greater Hilands area. Careful planning must take place for safe traffic flow at this intersection. We would also hope that the city plans for the safe use of bicycles on these same streets. INGRESS/EGREES: First, the Trustees feel that foot traffic in this area should be provided continuous sidewalk access from all pre- sent sidewalks along N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th. We would feel that the developer should install a signal light at the intersectin of Bronson Way and Vuemont Place and that this should be the primary place on ingress/egress. We also suggest that the parking lot exit onto N.E. 4th Street, as it is shown on Fig. 3, should be a right turn only. This would facilitate traffic flowing northeast to the businesses in the Hilands. It would also eliminate cross-traffic in an area where driver line-of-sight is impaired. At the southeast corner of the proposed site we would strongly suggest that a deceleration lane be constructed on N.E. 3rd Street so that westbound traffic could turn right into the southeast parking lot of Lexington Ridge. . ; , , , Page 3 of 3 LANDSCAPING: The Trustees request that the City require the maximum setbacks for structure of this magnitude. These setbacks should be enforce on all sides of the development, regardless of the facing of a building. The developer should be required to erect a six foot chainlink fence along the property lines. They should also be requir- ed to landscape a minimum twenty (20) foot buffer between themselves and adjoining property owners. This lanscaping should be planted with conifers of such size and placement as to obtain complete closure within three years. This landscaping should also 'be requied adjacent to the power right of way (trail) . - We appreciate this oopportunity to respond to the propoosed impact statement for Lexington Ridge. The Trustees request that we be noti- fied of any hearings regarding this project. If you have any question concerning the proposals we have presented to you may reach me at 255-3827, or our vice chairman, Richard K. Clarke, Jr.. at 859-7277. . Sincerely, _4444„,,Le( 6'0,,e_etor Gerald Bartlett, Chairman . Board of Trustees • . , GB/ds jj . �� t.NT OF � United States Department of the Interior lr O F 'soak FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 41..d,3 09 2625 Parkmont Lane SW Bldg B Olympia, Washington 98502 206/753-9440 FTS 434-9440 PLANNING DIVISION November 30, 1988 CITY OF RENTON DEC 1 1988 City of Renton _ ECEOVED Department of Community Development 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Lexington Ridge Apartments Dear Mr. Springer: We have received and reviewed the referenced Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Based on information available to us at this time, it appears that the proposed project would have little impact on fish and wildlife resources of primary concern to the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) . However, we offer the following comments. There is long-term evidence that flood frequency and intensity has increased in most drainage basins and subbasins within the Puget Sound area (King County Flood Awareness 88' Symposium, November 1, 1988, Bellevue, Washington). A contributing factor has been development in these basins, particularly the lower portion of these watersheds where encroachment has occurred onto the floodplain. • The Cedar River supports important anadromous fish runs (i.e. , the largest sockeye run in the 48 contiguous United States) . Storm events which cause flooding adversely effect some of the runs by scouring spawning areas. Because the proposed development will produce additonal runoff that will ultimately enter the lower Cedar River, we recommend the sponsor consider and implement state-of-the-art means to attentuate stormwater discharge and to maintain water quality of this stormwater (i.e. , filter out concentrations of oil, grease, nitrates, phosphates, heavy metals, sediment, etc. prior to discharge). We recognize that this concern has been addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, but want to emphasize that whatever the system(s) used, that it is the best design available. This would ensure that the sponsor, to the fullest extent possible, has minimized the cumulative impacts from flooding on anadromous fish in the lower Cedar River. It should be noted that the proposed project may be subject to permits for which we have review responsibilities. Accordingly, our comments do not preclude an additional and separate evaluation by the Service, pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661, et seq.) or other relevant ,. r,, • I. • 4 4. s J'a • .. (. • S . . . . . ,,, . 1 • , , . , V 1 i . I ,. Alm statutes. In review of permit applications, the Service may concur, with or without stipulations, or object to the proposed work, depending on specific construction practices which may impact fish and wildlife resources. In the event that such permits do become necessary, we would encourage the project sponsor to contact Tim Bodurtha at the above phone/adddress prior to permitapplication. We may be able to give guidance on design criteria which will facilitate the permit-review process. We appreciate notification of this proposed project and the opportunity to comment on its potential impact on fish and wildlife resources. Sincerely. (41-:13E-5-Vt Gwill Ging Acting Field Supervisor cc: BIA EPA NMFS WDE WDF WDW fe(67 KeTA! Christine Gregoire o.:::a. _•,_ .N • Director ;eee a°y STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 • (206) 459-6000 November 29, 1988 PLANNING DMSION CITY OF RENTON Mr. Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator DEC 1 1988 1) City of Renton nn 200 Mill Avenue South ECEI1VE _i Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Erickson: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft envi- ronmental impact statement (DEIS) for the construction of the Lexington Ridge Apartments for Centron. From the information supplied in the DEIS it appears that no permits/approvals are required from the Department of Ecology for this proposal and, therefore, we have no jurisdiction. If you have any questions, please call me at (206) 459-6020. Sincerely, __:? Aree 07; 02-eito • Donald J. Bales Environmental Review Section DJB: ` . 3 ...• ,• . • .•• . . ••• . II . •- 1 e$ 0 CITY OF RENTON maL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM November 28, 1988 TO: Mike Parness, Mayor's Administrative Assistant Ken Nyberg, Acting Deputy Director of Public Works John Webley, Director, Parks Department Larry Warren, City Attorney Alan Wallis, Chief, Police Department FROM: Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lexington Ridge Apartments Please be advised that the deadline for submitting comments on the above noted Draft Environmental Impact Statement is Friday, December 2, 1988 at. 5: 00 PM. For further information please contact the Planning Division, 235-2550. Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:mjp 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2550 . JmETRD- Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle,WA 98104-1598 November 21, 1988 PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON D NOV 2 3, 1988 MOVIE -J Environmental Review Committee c/o Donald Erickson, Zoning Administrator City of Renton Community Development Department 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, Washington 98055 Determination of Non-Significance File Name: Lexington Ridge Apartments Dear Environmental Review Committee: h. Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and anticipates no significant impacts to its wastewater facilities. Public Transportation Metro recommends that several Transportation System Management (TSM) actions be made conditions of development approval for this project, particularly in light of the extreme congestion currently existing at key intersections that serve the area and would serve the project. These actions would include the following: o Disseminate public transportation information to all new tenants and, after the project is occupied, to all tenants annually. o Provide a free one month bus pass to new tenants desiring one (with a maximum requirement of two passes, per household) . This pass could also be applied toward a vanpool fare. o Appointment a Transportation Coordinator to distribute information, answer question regarding public transportation, and conduct monitoring and reporting. (These duties could be assumed by onsite management) . o Provide secure bicycle storage. • Don Erickson November 21, 1988 Page Two o Conduct monitoring. Contact carol Thompson, Metro Market Development, at 684-1610 for further information. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, Gregory M. Bush, Manager Environmental Planning Division GMB:wsg 6 0 City of Beattie King County Charles Royer,Mayor Tim Hill,Executive Seattle-King County Department of Public Health Bud Nicola, M.D.,M.H.S.A.,Director PLANNING DIVISION November 17 , 1988 CITY OFRENTON G-1i NOV 1 8 1988 ECEIIVE Larry M. Springer Planning Manager / City of Renton Department of Community Development Planning Division 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re : Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Lexington Ridge Apartments Dear Mr. Springer: We have reviewed the above subject proposal and have no concerns related to environmental health at this time. Thank you. Sincerely, i Chuck Kleeberg, Director Environmental Health Division CK:gim cc : Larry Kirchner Environmental Health Division Room 201 Smith Tower Seattle,Washington 98104 (206)296-4722 CITY-OFARENTLON NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION f Notice is hereby given that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the fol-. 1r lowing jprbject was iss C>a`November 2, 1988,andl"iss avian"ble'ued Q71• • review and Audrey Benner .': :' . being first duly sworn on oath states commenta that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the • LE<INGTLON RIDE APART 1MENTS ECF-074-87,SA-082-87 I lAppiication for a multi-family residential development on a 13.4 acre site within the VALLEY DAILY NEWS City of Renton between N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th Streets. The subject proposal is to • Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition allow the construction of 15 apartment buildings with a total of 360 residential Daily newspapers published six (6)times a week.That said newspapers units, a recreation center and parking for 620 e. are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six The Caro proposal would rs on the haveundeveloped u onitof months prior to the date of publication referred to,printed and published approximately 615 people. population p in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King Copies are available for review at the Count Washington.The ValleyDailyNews has been approved as a legal Rentonr inP the Librarym and at the SEPA y, g Pp g Center in the Community Development newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Department, Planning Division,Renton City -1 Hall. King County. Finance Department on the 1st floor of City ' Hall for$8.97. The notice in the exact form attached,was published in the Kent Edition sub mitted tosthe the Draft ty Deve opmen , Renton Edition X , Auburn Edition , (and not in Department, Planning Division, by 5:00 PM supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers on Friday, December 2, 1988. Comments postmarked December 2, 1988 but during the below stated period.The annexed notice a received after 5:00 PM-on December 2nd will also be accepted. For further informa- Notice of Availability tion contact please contact the Planning November 4 , 19 8 8 R513 4 was published on Division a 235-2550. ;November 4;1111988 Valley Daily • News R513,4TAccountlt5,067-, _ The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the • sum of $ 24 . 32 • Subscribed and sworn to before me his 14 thday of Nov 1988 Not ublic for the State of Washington, residing at Federal Way, King County, Washington. VDN#87 Revised 11/86 CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY Notice is hereby given that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the following project was issued on November 2, 1988, and is available for public review and comment: LEXINGTON RIDGE APARTMENTS ECF-074-87, SA-082-87 Application for a multi-family residential development on a 13 .4 acre site within the City of Renton between N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th Streets. The subject proposal is to allow the construction of 15 apartment buildings with a total of 360 residential units, a recreation center and parking for 620 cars on the currently undeveloped site. The proposal would have a population of approximately 615 people. Copies are available for review at the Renton Public Library and at the SEPA Center in the Community Development Department, Planning Division, Renton City Hall. Copies may be purchased at the Finance Department on the 1st floor of City Hall for $8.97. Comments on the Draft EIS must be submitted to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, by 5:00 PM on Friday, December 2, 1988. Comments postmarked December 2, 1988 but received after 5: 00 PM on December 2nd will also be accepted. For further information contact please contact the Planning Division a 235-2550. Published: November 4, 1988 KING COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT 935 Powell Ave. S.W. • Renton, WA 98055 Phone (206) 226-4867 November 8, 1988 Donald K. Erickson , A I C P PLANNING DIVISION Zoning Administrator CITY OFRENTON Building & Zoning Department —, City of Renton D NOV 1 0 1988 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton , Wa. 98055 _ ECEDVE 11 Re : Review comments regarding the DEIS for the Lexington Ridge Apartments Dear Mr. Erickson : We appreciate the opportunity to review this DEIS, and we are offering the following comments and recommendations for your careful consideration . 1) On page 3-7, under Geology/Soils , you neglect to give the soil series and phases as per the Soil Conservation Service King County Soil Survey of 1973. According to this document, the site has been predominantly underlaid with soils of Everett (EvD) , but also with Urban (Ur) and Alderwood—Kitsap (AkF) series . Everett (EvD) is a somewhat excessively drained gravelly sandy loam formed in very gravelly glacial outwash deposits and underlain by very gravelly sand at a depth of 18-36 inches . Slopes are 15-30 percent. Permeability is rapid , but runoff is medium to rapid and erosion is severe due to steepness of slope . Soil limitations are severe for low building foundations and shallow excavations due to the gravelly nature of the soil and steepness of slope . Limitations for septic tank filter fields are severe due to slope and possible groundwater pollution hazard . This soil is poor for topsoil , good for roadfill and exhibits low compressibility for embankments — it is pervious when compacted , and a piping hazard exists . This soil is best used for timber production . Urban land (Ur) is soil that has been modified by disturbance of the natural layers with additions of fill material several feet thick to accommodate large industrial /commercial or housing developments . The erosion hazard is slight to moderate , dependent upon slope . Degree of limitations for low building foundations , shallow excavations , and septic tank filter fields are variable depending on nature , characteristics , depth and compaction of fill material . CONSERVATION •DEVELOPMENT•SELF-GOVERNMENT -2- Alderwood—Kitsap (AkF) is made up of about 50 percent Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 25 percent Kitsap silt loam, and about 15 percent of unnamed , very deep , moderately coarse textured soil and about 10 percent of a very deep, moderately coarse textured Indianola soil . Slopes are very steep , ranging from 25-70 percent. Drainage and permeability vary . Runoff is rapid to very rapid and the erosion hazard is severe to very severe . Soil limitations are severe for building foundations and shallow excavations due to steep slopes and moderate to severe slippage potential . There is low to moderate corrosivity for uncoated steel and concrete . This soil is poor for topsoil , fair for roadf i I l and has low compressibility for embankments . This soil is best used for timber. As these descriptions reveal , the range of the hazard potential of these on—site soils is not " low to moderate" as your text claims . They actually range from Low (for the Ur soils) to Very Severe ( in the AkF soils) . This discrepancy is critical for obvious reasons . 2) On page 3-4, under Landslide and Seismic Hazards , the reason this site was not mapped for these hazards is because the source , the King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio , does not cover incorporated areas like Renton , Seattle , Auburn , Issaquah & Bellevue . So , your statement regarding this information is inaccurate . However, when one compares the SCS King County Soil Survey to the King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio , there is a close correlation between the AkF and EvD soils and Class III Landslide Hazards . EvD soils sometimes contain these same Landslide Hazards , but this correlation is not as strong . We suggest that you supply the accurate information regarding these facts . 3) Slopes in the eastern central portion of the site, according to your Figure 10, are all between 25-40+%, and still this area will be regraded . extensively to allow for the development of Buildings `L ' , \Q ' and some parking areas . Since these slopes present potential stability problems , we recommend that all slopes of 40% or greater be set aside and protected with a Native Growth Protection Easement. (See King County Building and Land Development department regulations regarding the use of this easement . ) 4) On page 3-12, under Mitigating Measures , we want to be assured of regular monitoring and maintenance of the erosion—sedimentation control methods . The fourth point listed says they will be . But, by whom? Does the City of Renton employ people with such expertise? From observing actual on—going construction sites within Renton city limits , we are not convinced that the City has a good handle on erosion and sedimentation control . Therefore , we recommend that the City, contact our Conservation District office to discuss the possibilities of annexing itself into • • • • • c ' • r . , c -3- the District ' s boundaries ; and thereby hiring the District for consultation in the area of urban erosion—sedimentation control . We can provide expertise for plan reviewing and field monitoring . Presently , we are under a contract with King County B.A.L.D. to perform such a service . We hope that our comments , questions and recommendations are helpful to you in ,formulating the final EIS for Lexington Ridge Apartments . Should you have any questions , or desire further information regarding our comments , please contact our office . Respectfully , 4'.)!TV ill K. Reymore Water Quality Planner a 0 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor PLANNING DIVISION November 1, 1988 RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE LEXINGTON RIDGE APARTMENTS Dear Recipient: Attached please find the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a multi-family residential development on a 13 . 4 acre site within the City of Renton between N.E. 3rd and N.E. 4th Streets. The subject proposal is to allow the construction of 15 apartment buildings with a total of 360 residential units, a recreation center and parking for 620 cars on the currently undeveloped site. The proposal would have a population of approximately 615 people. To be considered, comments on the draft EIS must be submitted to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, by 5: 00 PM on Friday, December 2, 1988. Comments postmarked December 2, 1988 but received after 5: 00 PM on December 2nd will also be accepted. Additional copies of this document are available for $8.97 each through our SEPA Information Center (206-235-2550) . Since y, L ry M. pringer Planning Manager LMS:mjp 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2550 cP--• O� - �S1 f ®i ® . HE FERRIS COMPANY October 28, 1988 I. ` I Mr. Donald Erickson �' �,� ;nfrr. �-w Zoning Administrator Building and Zoning Department City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re: Lexington Ridge EIS �. Dear Don: Enclosed please find 80 copies of the Lexington Ridge Draft EIS to be issued on November 2nd. We trust that this document adequately addresses the comments outlined in your letters dated 7/21/88 and 9/27/88. Also enclosed is an invoice which details the labor and materials expended since submittal of the first invoice to you on 6/22/88. Pursuant to Exhibit C, schedule of payments , the second payment which is now due represents 30 percent of the total contract amount . We would like to receive this payment by November 1st. We trust that you will find the enclosed documents acceptable and that you will authorize payment within the next few days . Based upon the one month comment period on the Draft EIS, we expect to receive all comments on the document by December 2nd. Should we receive an average number of comment letters (ie. 10-12) which are limited to corrections , clarifications and editing, we expect to be able to submit the preliminary Final EIS to the- City by December 16th. Please call if you have any questions . Sincerely, AtaLk—,- Michael Blumen Program Manager cc: Greg Siler John Phillips Encl . Seattle Trust Building,Suite 300 10655 NE 4th Street Bellevue,WA 98004 206/462-7650 1 Co 0 CITY OF RENTON • l DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM DATE: October 14, 1988 TO: Dan Clements, Finance Director FROM: Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Number of DUs in the NE Quadrant for Lexington Ridge EIS Consultant Gretchen Brunner of The Ferris Company, the firm doing the Lexington Ridge EIS for the City, has asked us to ask you to provide her with the information you apparently offered some time ago on numbers of multi-family units in the northeast quadrant of the City (north of the Cedar River and east of I-405) between 1978 and the present. Please provide this information to Ms. Brunner at your discretion. If you have any questions please give me a call. Thanks, DE:mjp Enclosure NOTE: Gretchen says she needs this information right away. Apparently it is keeping them from being able to publish the DEIS on schedule. Any help would be appreciated! 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2550 n 'i f t 9 ' 'II, Li L.v 11)--e -yam — — ----r.:,<<,,;,-.I ,;0-1, {tia -- -- —F�- 7 ' _5 coat) O 02. 4,<9-`(1 X _, 1. 1, n,7-1,—,-�� "vnyt4-67- ----------------n:��t i-67-0.=air-t-ritirnF1-__ 21__+rod...::-D-y '� ) i , Lii ' ' .l O U• .. - _. - 7,r i D;•2y7i3 0 L` 7c• '0--T[-C3 �.- .--1 /_,kCyr -t[LG� . ,r 114— 78 :r( '(,,..,..);t•T)-0 mot- }' . .• Q O)gf - ...3 7,2-. y ..__. .. -------- LP ._._........ �Y . I u d (,(.2'r 5','1% 1_, - ,•r ,.i�"-7Z•B --,-r'77i;5_0 r._.. 4. ---- c- r. 7.-3.r1 7,-N40--- -9--___gip._..._. li -.._. :. . . f► en gm-2 rye._ .-9.,-c,a,•rr-_ 2&-i L 0- �_ r, 1.1.[1 ..�� 'L. 'l� iv a l C r�yr . 117,-- ' �,tr {1-1-17 f rV '1 1-i.0(,e.t-r 2 .1 -- ------ ,-! -fir ,3 'U 1�'T -- — ---- -,-------- �' --f714rTZT-:-W1-72rTA- 77—fg71777—T1747v1"77TIrehl 2I.S.T=":-...Cc:r-F.frcr -R.--1-01-213-113 • n r (1e-int.,'--Gra-V-.,T-Urr 1,-.""rfa•.c 327-V-T-C".y71:4i-62-------"--.".------.--Fir-71-ricf--"---3--o-i.:-wv6 1 fc_7E-0-I.7..7.7-- c 11 - — 0L4,r--t.-1,c. 1.") L t-f, i --h5-h 4 C N f E` Lr E. f C ...- a p ----76---i.1771.S-e -- -c - -cr n''i-,f-c�7f[7----------S------ -1 ti f V 7 ,2_.-7----) >�Jo --ate. _ ..._._ . -G oy -:�[ -- �8 C� I 1 (6)., 1 zs�_ ,d1 ,,! r `,? .1 Uy� 0-:.) 3�,t-1,) 1i.. -- ri 0 fi I ./'r� ., r .�-.ti Y•' Q?)-)7 U 2 2 1,Rr,•, ,,��•,. In j;1 10 lerbM O/- 'S-'-3 SOCA d.gr.rr' 's..i••e:;,i1-;(- ,:-')i-arr)(1/• i';'?1,Rn--4 rr".1.f[I/- • d' 111-;• ••• (" (,)• -'1J . ('`.." e-Let/z, 1 51 (' :2 • 1.1 ,i21- alif 1 I___ _,Ad_LL21.1212:417 _C ct_LiOLPi:14.a eh L.:v.1.(1.(ice' L ED (kW,retSe2Lto /1A:9/DLL Lt2.1: 44_0_61.11) 4) (1.1.2_5L p-eetv-t,08.14,/..t ta-C Jai) o 05- e) q pri 14-3 7c) CjIzitp-erd. Oiu 5 fCf-the.o , ,-,.t _K_e_sibui_Kt.c1.1.e-A . (11:3 ate-i2 -1 ace • __1. •-• — --• — _ MEMORANDUM DATE: September 20, 1988 TO: Don Erickson FROM: Gary Norris SUBJECT: Transportation Section -- Lexington Ridge E.I.S. I reviewed the subject document and offer the following comments: 1. Figure 17 Existing traffic volumes shown on North 3rd west of Sunset Blvd. are in error. Actual two-way volume is 23,000 vehicles per day. 2. Table 2 Existing L.O.S. at NE 3rd and Bronson Ave. NE during the AM cannot be realized because of the extreme queues of vehicles from North 3rd & Sunset. This should be discussed. L.O.S. analysis should be presented and carried through the document for NE 3rd & Edmonds Ave. NE. 3. Transit System There was no discussion of the problems transit presently experiences operating in the Bronson Way Corridor. This should be documented in the text and solutions proposed. 4. Figure 18 Extrapolated volumes for North 3rd are in error. See note 1. 5. Table 4 L.O.S.. for NE 3rd/Edmonds should be presented. 6. Figure 19 See Note 4 and Note 1. • - = 5 {- 7. Table 7 - a) See Note 5 V f / Don Erickson Page 2 September 20, 1988 b) L.O.S. analysis should be provided for the 3 alternative scenarios. 8. How does the project propose creating additional accident experience at the intersection of North 3rd & Sunset Blvd. North? 9. How does the project anticipate mitigating the unacceptable L.O.S. at North 3rd/Sunset and NE 3rd/Jefferson? The existing signal at NE 3rd/Jefferson operates on demand; therefore, retiming is not the solution. Proposed solutions should be discussed in the main text. We need more specificity in the description of the mitigating measures. Is it feasible to accomplish these measures? Overall , proposed mitigation needs to be discussed in much greater depth. All in alll , the report needs to present accurate facts and suggest specific workable mitigating measures. GAN:ad GAN134 i ;dam. _„ " `-' .� i-�10 o 1 . . • . Lr�_THE FERRIS COMPANY Lay\ P- t b6 October 10, 1988 Ms. Lenora Blauman Dept. of Community Development Planning Division City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Lexington Ridge Apartments Job No . 2902 Dear Lenora: As we discussed this afternoon, I will need some information from the City ' s data bank in order to assess the relation- ship between the multi-family development projected in the City ' s Comprehensive Plan and the multi-family development proposed with the Lexington Ridge , McMahon and Eradco projects . For this assessment, I will need to know the number of multi-family units constructed in the northeast quadrant of the City of Renton (north of the Cedar River and east of I-405) between 1978 and the present . Dan Clements of your Accounting Department indicated that he could provide this information to a certain level of accuracy . Also, if there are any other multi-family developments proposed in , this area, please let me know their proposed number of units and estimated date of completion. Please forward this request to Dan Clements with your authorization to proceed as soon as possible . I would also appreciate knowing when this information will be available. Sincerely , Gr=tchen Brunner Project Manager GEB: slw Seattle Trust Building,Suite 300 10655 NE 4th Street Bellevue,WA 98004 206/462-7650 HE FERRIS COMPANY September 6 , 1988 Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator Building and Zoning Department City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Lexington Ridge Apartments DEIS Job No. 2902 Dear Don: Attached please find ten (10) copies of the second preliminary Draft EIS for Lexington Ridge Apartments . Revisions in this draft are intended to respond to the comments outlined in your letter dated July 21 , 1988. We look forward to receiving any further comments you might have in approximately two weeks (or by September 20th) . If these further comments are limited to minor editing, clarifications and corrections , we anticipate being able to issue the document by September 26th. If you have any questions or require further information, don' t hesitate to call. Sincerely, ri4"44-ile.61441 Gretchen Brunner CtTti" f.„NT;'pN Project Manager L Lir) G E B:g l 1. -( �b �° �JI :_E' � 9 Attachments Seattle Trust Building,Suite 300 10655 NE 4th Street Bellevue,WA 98004 206/462-7650 CITY OF RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 f ip7* ! -. ,, ,, ,!, . . t. 1. 4 www_. . .‘ AC 1 I • 4 i " 4 . i _ JSbZS JLMhUID4 \ I • , i I • \ II.71"- 711114S:'..i''' .' • r14l 4 1 1111 SE' r . iI IL Ilk ,...„. 01u4,4 11414 1 x Do 4 r I J. i eceEll'II`t I I. lit ill! �i .. ,it 4. .� ..�' i' 5625 PULHkJIU- 4 1 � 1 _ / e■ I •' s1 ' *-1q. 04.11111 - • • it L h I D. 4 Ct . . . ;• . Iflaw:' "S ,41‘i , . .,,k," /ft /ijfihj r 1 > . .46, 7i0962t) PULAROIUs4 .-T T . rr t 0R .4bui1U9625 PULAROID•4 _--- -. . , .•.• III IlI1Ill!Ii 11 I . 1 ; Rke atA -t• r.'' +►', - � • c.o � r i09625 POLARUID®4 • BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT • April 5, 1989 (Materials in Italics added 5-16-89/6-15-89, based upon modified/new information, with the advice and consent of the Environmental Review Committee) A. BACKGROUND: APPLICANT: Centron PROJECT: ' Lexington Ridge ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF; SA 082-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Review of EIS submitted by applicant in conjunction with a request for site plan approval for the development of 360 unit multi-family residential complex. This 13.4 acre parcel is zoned R-4, High Density Multi-Family Residential Use. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street, west of Edmonds Avenue N.E., and east of the Bronson/N.E. 3rd Street intersection. B. ANALYSIS: Background: The proponent initially submitted the application for site plan review in 1987. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Significance in October, 1987 calling for an Environmental Impact Statement, with particular emphasis upon the need for more information in the following areas: 1) vehicular and pedestrian traffic circulation impacts (on-site and off-site); 2) soil/slope character and stability, grading; 3) storm water run- off/drainage management; 4) aquifer protection - this project is in Zone I of the proposed APA; 5) availability and accessibility of off-site recreational facilities; 6) electro-magnetic impacts from nearby power lines upon human health and safety; 7) public service impacts; and 8) aesthetic/safety impacts relating to design of the development (e.g. structures, parking areas, open spaces/rockeries, on-site roadways, etc.). The proponent published a DEIS in November of 1988, and a FEIS in January of 1989. These documents are to be reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee to determine whether the concerns defined in conjunction with the scoping for environmental review have been addressed. If those areas of concern are determined to have been adequately addressed, the ERC may establish mitigation conditions for the proposed residential development. Processing of the application will then resume. Note: Staff conducted an analysis of the EIS in order to facilitate ERC review. This analysis has been focussed on two alternatives -- the proponent's proposed development (PPD), and the design alternative development (DAD) suggested by the City. Staff views these options as the most viable alternatives for the proposed development. In addition to these two development alternatives, the EIS addressed a third option with a higher density than the DAD and the PAD alternatives. ISSUES 1. Whether the applicant has adeauately identified and addressed impacts to the earth (soil Elope/stability) anticipated from excavation. grading. development (structures. amenities, infrastructure) and utilization of the subject property? The existing site was formerly used as a gravel pit. Small pits (3 to 6 feet in depth and 20 to 30 feet in diameter) exist in various locations on the site. The north central portion of the site has a steep cut slope. This cut slope is approximately 20 to 40 feet high with a slope of • Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS April 5, 1989 Page 2 approximately 63%. The geotechnical analysis provided by Golder Associates indicates that the geologic conditions of the site are such that there is a low risk of landsliding or seismic induced liquefaction or consolidation on the site. Further they indicate that the proposed modifications to the topography of the site will further decrease the risk of such events. Finally, there is the potential for additional erosion on the site due to the clearing, grading, and cut and fill activity proposed in order to develop the proposed project; such anticipated erosion should be controlled through mitigation measures described below. Both the proposed project development (PPD) and the Design Alternative (DAD) will require a substantial amount of excavation. The PPD alternative will require the excavation of approximately 245,000 cubic yards of material and the DAD alternative will require 290,000 cubic yards of material. While the DAD requires more excavation, it will provide more open space and, thus, presumably better opportunities for controlling erosion on sensitive/steep slope portions of the site. In order to reduce erosion impacts of earthwork on the site during construction activities, staff will recommend the development of several specific mitigation measures described below. 2. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed storm water drainage impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development? Development on the site with the PPD option will result in covering approximately 51% of the site with impervious surfaces (roadways, buildings and parking area). Selection of the DAD option would result in the implementation of a design which would provide larger contiguous areas of open space, however, impervious surfaces would remain essentially the same as those occurring in the PPD. The 0.8 of an acre site reserved as a greenbelt in the southern portion of the site would be retained with either option. Once the development is completed with either option, storm water runoff will contain higher concentrations of nitrates and phosphates due mainly to the use of fertilizers on the site, sediment, heavy metals, oil and grease as a result of motor vehicle traffic on the site. This type/level of run-off is customary for a residential development of the proposed density. However, special concerns exist with respect to the type and quantity of proposed run-off, as a result of the fact that the subject parcel is located in Zone II of the proposed APA, at a point on the boundary of the Zone I1 area. Specific mitigation measures are being established in consultation with the staff of the Public Works Department. The DEIS noted that the use of biofiltration was not considered as part of the storm drainage system for the site due to the lack of sufficient area to adequately accommodate such systems, and due to the fact that there are no open drainage courses to connect to such a system. Development of the site would result in a greater amount of storm water runoff with a reduction in the amount of groundwater recharge. The geotechnical study prepared by Golder Associates noted that the amount of groundwater displaced would be small relative to the entire Cedar River drainage basin. Small quantities of nitrates, phosphates, oil, heavy metals, grease and oil would be present in the stormwater entering the soils. However, the amount actually entering the groundwater supply, following recommended improvements to the storm water management system, is expected to have an insignificant impact on groundwater quality. Mitigation measures for this project, and future developments, are intended to control cumulative impacts, as well as those impacts from individual activities. Conditions are recommended below for drainage systems proposed for the development (with either PPD or DAD), in order to address potential storm drainage impacts: 3. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed impacts to the natural environment anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s)? The majority of the site is covered with,natural vegetation. There is a sizeable deciduous forest and a smaller number of conifers on the site. There is a dense layer of shrubs including such species as the vine maple and salmonberry, salal, swordferns and various types of blackberries. Staff is concerned that development of the site, with either PPD or DAD, allow retention of that vegetation which is on the designated greenbelt. Staff will also recommend that those plantings which must be eliminated to enable development be replaced with ornamental vegetation, native trees, shrubs and lawn. • Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS April 5, 1989 Page 3 The removal of existing vegetation together with the addition of human activity to the site will also result in the change in the composition of the mammal and bird communities on the site (e.g. passerines, towhee, thrush, mice, shrews, snakes and lizards and deer). If an adequate habitat is provided (by the additional of new, natural landscaping), it is expected that those species which are more human-tolerant (e.g. crows, sparrows) will continue to be present on the site once development is completed. 4. Whether the applicant has adeauately identified and addressed impacts to environmental health (proximity to electromagnetic power lines) anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s)? The EIS includes information concerning the presence of electromagnetic power lines, together with existing data concerning proposed expansion, and likely impacts from present/future levels of use. The studies on electric and magnetic fields of transmission lines cited in the DEIS indicate that Puget Power lines existing in the 200 foot corridor to the east of the site contain 115-kV and 55 kV power lines. Future plans may include construction of additional 115 kV line or a 230 kV line along that corridor. The proponent's report indicates that existing information is insufficient at this time to derive any definitive conclusions with respect to long- term impacts; independent studies conducted previously describe potential increases in leukemia in children living proximate to power lines. In the short-term, injury is possible to residents of the development due to such activities as kite flying and the climbing of the towers. Likely short-term impacts and possible long-term impacts are/can be mitigated in the PPD alternative by reserving the entire Puget Power right-of-way as an open space and by ensuring that abutting structures are so placed to comply with U.S. Department of Energy recommendations for siting developments in the vicinity of power lines (e.g. a minimum of 50 feet from 115 kV lines and a minimum of 100 feet from 230 kV lines). In the DAD alternative, the majority of the right-of-way is retained for open space, with a section of the southeast corner of that area reserved for approximately 108 parking spaces. These parking spaces are less convenient to residential units than are parking areas within the complex. However, these spaces are useful for guest parking and convenient to the arterial, as well as to pedestrian walkways and to adjacent public transit lines. Environmental health impacts can be mitigated by location of all structures outside of the electromagnetic fields of the power lines. In order to minimize long-term and short-term environmental health impacts to the residents, staff will recommend specific mitigation measures in Section C of this report. 5. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed land use impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s)? Both the PPD and DAD alternatives propose developments of 360 residential units. As a result, impacts from both of the options are anticipated to be similar. A residential development at this site appears to be compatible with surrounding residential and commercial/service uses. 6. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed aesthetic impacts. noise impacts and light and glare impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s)? DAD and PPD both include 360 units located in 15 buildings. Interior layouts are similar in both plans. However, in the DAD option the buildings are designed and sited in a way which more effectively addresses criteria identified in the Site Plan Review Ordinance. For example, the plan selected for the Design Alternative better enhances views sand protects the privacy of the residents through the provision of greater visual variety, visual relief, and "staggered" structural placement. In this option, buildings are located in a manner which enables safer, more efficient vehicle and pedestrian travel through the site. Also, more open space is available. Under both options noise impacts from adjacent roadways and developments are anticipated to be similar, and to be mitigable through structural improvements, and through location of structures and amenities (e.g. open spaces, recreation areas). On-site noise impacts • Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS April 5, 1989 Page 4 are not anticipated to be unusual; those impacts can also be mitigated through building design and location. Both the PPD option and the DAD option are planned to mitigate noise impacts through separation of buildings, insulation, and similar means. The design of the DAD option, which includes better separation and articulation of buildings, is preferred for noise control. Under both the DAD option and the PPD option, the proponent will be advised to provide and direct on-site lighting and landscaping in a manner which limits light and glare impacts to the residential units from on-site and off-site (vehicle headlight) sources. Here, again the DAD option is preferred because the greater open spaces, greater spaces between buildings, and other design features facilitate safe travel on-site, and enhance opportunities for providing on-site lighting which illuminates the site without negative impact upon the development. Staff recommendations for mitigation measures are described below in Section "C". These will include construction-related impacts (discussed in Section B-10) with respect to • aesthetics, noise, light and glare. 7. Whether the applicant has adeauatelv identified and addressed traffic (vehicular and pedestrian) impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s)? Development of the project whether under the PPD alternative or under the DAD alternative would result in the addition of approximately 2,374 vehicle trip ends per day. The nearest major intersection serving the site is the signalized intersection of N.E. 3rd St and Sunset Blvd North. This intersection currently operates at a Level of Service F for both the A.M. and P.M. peak periods. This is an unacceptable operating level. The EIS notes that improvements need to be made to this intersection with or without the project. One mitigation measure offered involves signal phasing and additional left-turn lanes (northbound, eastbound and westbound approaches) which would change the P.M. peak period from LOS F to LOS D and the A.M. peak period from LOS E to LOS C. (Note: Improvements desired by the Traffic Engineering Division are described in a memo of March 31, 1989, to the Planning Division and listed below in Section "C".) Another problem identified was the potential risk of conflict for pedestrians and vehicles both on: 1) the segment of Bronson Way N.E. between N.E. 3rd St and N.E. 4th St; and 2) the segment of N.E. 3rd Street between Bronson and Sunset Boulevard. Concerns are based upon the geometrics (slope, angle, sight distance) of this portion of the roadway. In fact, these features and the resulting concerns about pedestrian and vehicle safety caused METRO to remove transit service along Bronson Avenue. The EIS went further, stating substantial improvements, designed to provide long-term solutions to roadway impacts at the above-described intersection and along the adjacent roadway were needed in the vicinity of the project as a result of new development (in addition to the proposed development) planned in the immediate area, and as a result of the substantial amount of proposed new residential and commercial development in the northeast sector of the City which would be expected to generate a substantial level of traffic as well. Note: The City has asked a major developer in this area to undertake an area-wide traffic benefit improvement zone plan (TBZ Plan) in order to determine necessary improvements and assess AWDTE costs. A draft of the study has been completed and is being reviewed by Traffic Engineering. The Traffic Engineer, based upon the draft traffic study, submitted a list of conditions to mitigate the traffic impacts. These conditions are listed in a memo dated March 31, 1989 and available in the project application file. Staff determined that there are certain traffic mitigation measures (described below) which are necessary to accommodate the development at the given location. While a traffic mitigation mitigation plan has been approved in concept, specific details of the plan are to be determined by the Traffic Engineering Department prior to the public hearing scheduled for June 27, 1989. Note: Construction related traffic impacts are reviewed in Section 10, below. 8. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed public service (fire. police, schools, utilities) impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s)? • ' Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS April 5, 1989 Page 5 a. Police Services The EIS states that the proposed project, utilizing either alternative, is anticipated to generate only the customary number and type of police service emergency calls for a 360 unit residential project - .63 annual calls per unit -- and that these calls can be addressed within acceptable time parameters using the services of existing staff members, plus 1.1 new officers (with concomitant levels of new supporting equipment). While it is estimated that the cost of new resources/services would be $57,200, there is presently no approved plan for resource improvement, which would enable the City to require that the applicant provide such funding directly. As a result, it will be necessary for the City to depend upon increased tax revenues to generate a fair share of funds for such improvements. Additionally, at the time of land use review, the applicant will be required to provide signage, lighting, building identification and other improvements to increase general safety on-site and to facilitate efficient emergency response times by police officers. b. Fire Services Either the PPD option or the DAD option is anticipated to increase requirements for service by the Fire Department, as would customarily be expected for a 360 unit residential development. Specifically, it is expected that there would be one call annually for each eleven (11) residents. The Fire Department has not developed a preferred officer/population ratio, however, the City is in the process of implementing a 15 year plan for service improvement, including the employment of new staff and the purchase of new equipment. Tax revenues generated by the project will help to support the necessary service improvements. Staff do recommend that, if the development (with either option) is permitted, the applicant be required to provide signage, lighting, building identification and other improvements to increase general safety on-site and to facilitate efficient emergency response times by emergency personnel as noted above. c. Utility Services The applicant reported in the Environmental Impact Statement that existing public utility services would be available to the site in sufficient quantities and at suitable locations to serve the proposed development (either DAD or PPD). Utility Engineering has not suggested that environmental mitigation measures are necessary to achieve suitable service levels on-site or to mitigate off-site impacts. Utility lines are available to serve anticipated future development in the immediate vicinity and along the N.E. 3rd Street/N.E. 4th Street corridor.(*) (*) On April 10, 1989, subsequent to the meeting of the April 5th meeting of Environmental Review Committee at which the Lexington Ridge EIS was reviewed, the Public Works Department ritade an informal determination (based upon preliminary findings of a sanitary sewer systems study) that sewer lines in the vicinity of the . .proposed development are near to or at capacity. Public Works Department staff and the proponent have developed a satisfactory conceptual sewer service plait and are now working to develop measures which would allow the provision of adequate sanitary sewer service to the site. Specific plans are slated to be in place prior to public hearing on June 27, 1989. d. Schools The project is anticipated to introduce approximately 90 new students into the local school system. The proponent reports that these students can be accommodated within the system, by enrollment in currently operating schools and/or reopening of schools presently closed for lack of enrollment. Currently, the Renton School System provides transportation to elementary school aged children living at least one mile from a school. 9. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed recreation impacts anticipated to occur on-site and off-site in coniunction with the proposed development(s)? 1 . Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS April 5, 1989 Page 6 The project site is expected to generate approximately 640 persons (including approximately 100 children) who would require a combination of on-site and off-site recreational opportunities. The project will include a swimming pool; recreation center with indoor sauna, weight room, lounge with wet bar, sunbeds, spa-jacuzzi and racquetball court; barbecue/picnic area, and two tot lots together with the creation of a linkage with the City's proposed trail system in the Puget Power right-of-way. Depending upon the project design used, there would be approximately 2.5 acres (PPD) to 3.5 acres (DAD) of useable area for recreational space. The space set aside for passive recreation/open space would range from 3.8 acres (DAD) to 4.1 acres (PPD). Finally, based upon the City's standards, the project would result in need for an additional 6.5 acres of general park area. The population proposed for the project is not sufficiently large, however, to support a park on-site or the purchase of a park site in the area, or measures (such as transportation services) which improve access to existing recreational amenities. Some specific recreation measures to off-set the impacts from the proposed development to the community have been submitted by Parks Department staff; these are listed below. 10. Whether the applicant has adeauatelv addressed the noise impacts which will result during the construction phase of the development? The applicant has acknowledged that there will be aesthetic impacts, light and glare and noise impacts in the area which will occur particularly during construction. Since the project site is adjacent to existing residential uses to the west and east and a church and daycare center to the north, the applicant should mitigate the construction impacts in the manner recommended below: Note: See Section 1 of this document for additional construction-related conditions. C. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based upon the above analysis, staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated subject to the following conditions: 1. In order to reduce the erosion impacts of earthwork on the site, the following measures should be taken by the applicant, subject to approval of the Building Division and the Public Works Department, in advance of issuance of the Site Preparation/Building Permits: a. That the applicant shall schedule all earthwork activity, to the greatest extent possible, during the dry months of the year (May 1st through September 30th). Any such activity occurring during the wet months of the year, would require review by the City as to acceptable measures to be taken during this period to - reduce or avoid the impacts of erosion and sedimentation; these measures may include a requirement that a certified engineer be on-site during all activity. cbti That the applicant install a wheel wash system together with the installation of a roadway at the entrances of the ingress and egress points to the site. c. That the applicant provide the City with a $4000.00 revolving cash bond for street clean-up. d. That the applicant work with the City of Renton Public Works Department on acceptable erosion and sedimentation control methods including: the use of siltation fences, temporary ditches, the coverage of stockpiled soil, and retention ponds if deemed ecessar . These erosion control methods shall be maintained; �o•� �1w. �arr+. .�... - ,,,, t c . expo , e. That within 15 days of any action to clear, grade, and/or fill, the exposed soils will be hydroseeded: Note: Hydroseeding must be completed within a timeframe which allows the hydroseeding to take effect before the winter weather arrives, f. That the applicant periodically water down the site to control production/migration of dust from the site to neighboring properties, % • • Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS April 5, 1989 Page 7 ' g. Should earthwork and/or construction activity occur during the wet months of the year, a soils engineer shall be hired to monitor erosion and sedimentation control measures to ensure that such measures are working properly and are maintained as well as working with the Public Works Department on additional or revised measures should problems arise. 2. That the following mitigation measures need to be incorporated into the storm drainage system, with specific plans subject to the approval of the Public Works Department in advance of the issuance of Building Permits: a. That the applicant provide a tightline storm drainage system; (See 6/15/89 Memo from Garth Cray, Public Works Department). . b. That the applicant provide a plan for protection of the underlying terrain and aquifer through the installation a system (e.g. oil/grease traps and silt sumps in street catch basins and the installation of a standard riser in the detention system) to control the discharge of oil, grease, and sediment. The plan should be subject to approval by the Public Works Department; c. That the applicant provide the City with an agreement describing a plan to ensure checking and maintenance of the storm drainage system for the development on a regular basis. This monitoring is to be accomplished by a certified professional engineer. Reports shall be furnished to the Public Works Department every six (6) months. The plan shall be subject to approval by the Public Works Department and by the City Attorney; d. That the applicant prepare a geotechnical study, under the direction of a certified engineer, to determine soil stability on the Mt. Olivet water tank site at the southwest boundary of the subject property. (This information is to be utilized in the design of the on-site storm water drainage management system in order to ensure that the selected system does not impact the stability of the site on which the water tank is located). (Note: this condition is incorporated from the 4/5/89 Addendum) ; e. That the applicant provide a detention system, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. (Note: This system is to be coordinated with downstream system capacity, sufficient to carry a 25 year storm and incorporating a two year storm with no increase in flows from the site for that two year storm as a result of development. The detention system capacity/design should be provided based upon data provided in studies conducted in conjunction with the EIS and in conjunction with Condition 2.b. above, using the SCS unit hydrograph/approved method. - See 6/15/89 Memo from Garth Cray, Public Works Department.) 3. That in order to reduce impacts to the natural environment, the following measures be incorporated into the development plans, in advance of the issuance of Site Preparation/Building Permits: a. That the applicant, in order to protect the greenbelt area on the site, provide a covenant which defines that greenbelt area and which prohibits any/all temporary or permanent disruption to the greenbelt, during construction or operation of the proposed development. 0b. That the applicant design a landscaping plan (including retained natural -vegetation and new plantings) in order to provide aesthetic and visual buffers, contain light and glare, and enhance the natural areas on the site. The applicant shall work with the City's landscape planner to ensure that the landscaping plans include introduction of new plantings of sufficient quality, quantity, size, diversity and location, to both enhance the natural environment on the site and, as well, provide sufficient buffers. c. • That the applicant establish a plan for the humane capture and relocation of the larger mammals on the site (deer, raccoons, etc.) found on the site to other locations within the City or elsewhere. Such a plan shall be developed with representatives of the State Department of Wildlife. 4. That in order minimize the long term and short term impacts of the transmission lines, the following measures shall be required: • Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS __ April 5, 1989 Page 8 a. That the applicant provide written information to residents on the dangers of electrical shocks from the transmission lines. b. That the applicant work with Puget Power to develop an acceptable proposal for signage and fencing of the transmission towers (in advance of issuance of Building Permits). c. That the applicant agree, in advance of site plan approval, to locate all buildings so that electro-magnetic field intensity at the nearest edges of those structures is no greater than 100 milligaus. Al 5. That in order to reduce the aesthetic, noise and light and glare impacts, the following measures be incorporated into the project: That the applicant, in order to provide a a more aesthetically attractive, safer,morefunctionalresidentialcomplexworkwiththeCity'sPlanningDivisioninca...) n k.F conjunction with site plan review, to make some modifications to that design to: 1) further improve the appearance of the development; 2) reduce on-site and 'kJ off-site visual/functional impacts; 3) contain noise impacts through building Q. �\\ • design (e.g. exterior material, interior insulation) and location (separation of structures from one another and from abutting uses -- rights-of-way and uses); 'q f1, ' and 4) contain light and glare impacts through location of on-site pedestrian scaled exterior lighting in a manner which fully illuminates the development without directing light or glare off-site, and through location of landscaping/fencing to screen light and glare adjacent to the site. 6. That in order to address the traffic impacts of the project, the following measures be incorporated into the project: a. That the applicant develop, with METRO and Planning Division staff, an acceptable transportation systems management plan (TSM) prior to the issuance of a (temporary or full) certificate of occupancy for the project in order to reduce the level of vehicle/pedestrian impacts upon the neighborhood. b. That the applicant work with the Parks and Recreation Department, in advance of site plan approval, to develop an acceptable plan for development of linkages with the City's trail system located near the site in order to provide for recreational amenities and a concomitant increased level of pedestrian safety. c. That, in advance of site plan approval, the applicant agree to comply with the conditions recommended by the Traffic Engineer, described in a Memorandum dated March 31, 1989, and delineated as follows: 1. Standard curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lighting improvements to be installed around the periphery of the project. 2. Provision of a transit lane pull-out on N.E. 3rd, or, alternately, the construction of an additional lane along the N.E. 3rd Street property frontage. Since an additional lane westbound is identified as a necessary improvement in the N.E. 3rd/N.E. 4th TBZ, the developer should be allowed credit for construction of the lane. However, no credit should be allowed if the developer opts to construct the transit pull-out only. (Note: The Bronson Way/N.E. 3rd Street intersection presents a severe grade problem. Recently, transit service was discontinued on Bronson Way as the buses experienced significant damage when negotiating the turn to N.E. 3rd. The result of this action eliminated transit service to the Group Health Clinic. Any widening of N.E. 3rd Street must address the grade problem on Bronson. The precise amount of financial responsibility to be assumed by the developer is to be established by existing Public Works Department/Traffic Engineering Division policies). 3. Participation in the N.E. 3rd/N.E. 4th TBZ, at $670,000 ($288 per trip). As the N.E.3rd St/N.E. 4th Street TBZ has not been adopted by City Council, the developer should be requested to provide a bond (or equivalent agreement) in the amount of $670,000,in advance of the building permit, subject to the approval of the City Attorney. (Note: Staff recommends that in the event that the City Council recommends a fee other than $288, the trip fee for the project under consideration herein be adjusted to reflect the adopted fee.) Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS ApriI.5, 1989 Page 9 d. That the applicant provide an off-site pedestrian linkage system along N.E. 3rd Street from Bronson Avenue to Sunset Boulevard, in order to ensure pedestrian safety along that route. (Staff recommend that the costs incurred for the development of the pedestrian linkage be credited against the TBZ fee of $670,000 recommended in Condition 6.c.3 above). 7. That in order to reduce the recreation impacts of the development, the following measures shall be incorporated into the project, in advance of site plan approval: a. The development of an outdoor half-court basketball facility. b. The improvement of the Sunset Trail linkage utilizing the Puget Power line right-of-way which runs north and south along the east property line of the project in order to link the Cedar Trail System to the Lake Washington Boulevard trail system. 8. That in order to protect public health and safety the developer shall ensure the provision of adequate sanitary sewer service to the site through a system which is c,,, approved by the Public Works Department in advance of site plan approval. (This condition was established following May 12, 1989 identification of system capacity problems). 9. That in order reduce the noise impacts of the construction activity, the following measures shall be adhered to: a. That construction equipment be operated within acceptable noise range levels for such equipment. b. That the applicant limit the hours of on-site construction activity on Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. with no construction activity on Sunday. c. That the applicant limit the hauling operations off-site to the hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday to limit traffic impacts to the adjacent roadways. 4$ CITY of RENTON ..LL Hearing Examiner Earl Clymer, Mayor Fred J. Kaufman September 27 , 1991 Sally H. Clarke HILLIS CLARK MARTIN AND PETERSON 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-2925 Re: Lexington Ridge - SA-082-87 Extension Request Dear Ms. Clarke: I have reviewed your letter of September 23 , 1991 and find that this office does not need to take any action. Your understanding is correct. As long as you have a valid building permit, the site plan approval will remain in effect. If you have any further questions please feel free to write. Sincerely, FRED J. UFMAN HEARING EXAMINER FJK/dk cc: Lawrence Warren, City Attorney Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Law Offices HILLIS• CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON ■ A Professional Service Corporation 500 Galland Building,1221 Second Avenue f Seattle,Washington 98101-2925 ' (206)623-1745 Facsimile(206)623-7789 Q Viet) SEP25 1991 HEARrnrQ EyA d1®AI, September 23, 1991 R, Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Lexington Ridge; SA-082-87 Dear Mr. Kaufman: We previously wrote to you in April, requesting that you grant a two-year extension of the Lexington Ridge site plan approval. In response to our letter and our later request for reconsideration, you advised us that our extension request was premature and that we should reapply closer to the October 13, 1991, expiration date. As a result of your response, and after consultation with City staff, we determined that the prudent course of action was to prepare a complete building permit application in conformance with the existing site plan approval. I am writing to let you know that a complete building permit application was submitted and accepted by the City for this project on September 17, 1991. It is our understanding from City staff that the site plan approval will remain in effect while the building permit application is processed. As you know, we represent the trustee of the bankruptcy estate of Canada America Associates, L.P. , the owner of the Lexington Ridge property. The estate has incurred substantial additional expenses to prepare and file a complete building permit application for this project. I hope that you understand the trustee's need to confirm what will be required by the City in order to preserve the value of the estate. If our understanding regarding the site plan approval is incorrect, please consider this letter to • Mr. Fred J. Kaufman September 23 , 1991 Page 2 be our request for an extension. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Very truly yours, / V ` Sally H. larke SHC:kkh cc: Larry J. Warren, City Attorney Donald Erickson, Zoning Administrator Grahame Ross, Trustee 2 0 9 5 3 2 lc) r BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT MARCH 1, 1989 A. BACKGROUND: APPLICANT: Centron PROJECT: Lexington Ridge ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF; SA 082-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Review of EIS submitted by applicant in conjunction with a request for site plan approval for the development of 360 unit multi-family residential complex. This 13 .4 acre parcel is zoned R-4, High Density Multi-Family Residential Use. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street, west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. , and east of the Bronson/N.E. 3rd Street intersection. i �' { F , EXISTING Q:'I /d ' 4 APARTMENTS �4 ,� / (:. .1,I G O e l. r. i! II � 04j •• 21i• / 2_ / .'i EXISTING / 6 Oyl• - . ',.�� • I %alga ! - • I) CHURCH f'' c Astir. r • / M - � .11 - • J.... t G _ :. /r Irr 12 • i , a ._ / _ •! � � l O l p Al If • I " a_ '• / lv I 0%.' t TOT•LOT -• i /y, •,. i, ,r' `• 310111\ � r, P. _ -. ? :1 9` • /POOLS REG 6LDG • ` -• '•_Z: � .:I -- , 11 taw ,>:O..TOTLOT , •'. EXISTING • � i� `.: / ra' �` *j' iod iZen-2 1� .1 �e APARTMENTS v i i. 'S'LOr :,� .. -. _ _ =•''� IQ :'v° Aft .t --.- INA trep4 •, - , _ , • . : •_. ` ` ciRF • 0 200' � - --_ --::,;.�_. � "^ �- --- --- _.-,-/.ram l �i ... NE 3rd ST / 1 _ . DWELLING UNITS:360 Lexington Ridge Design Alternative Figure 8 APARTMENTS Environmental Review ammittee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 2 February 22 1989 B. ANALYSIS: Background: The proponent initially submitted the application for site plan review in 1987. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Significance in October, 1987 calling for an Environmental Impact Statement, with particular emphasis upon the need for more information in the following areas: 1) vehicular and pedestrian traffic circulation impacts (on-site and off-site) ; 2) soil/slope character and stability, grading; 3) storm water run- off/drainage management; 4) aquifer protection - this project is in Zone I of the proposed APA; 5) availability and accessibility of off-site recreational facilities; 6) electro-magnetic impacts from nearby power lines upon human health and safety; 7) public service impacts; and 8) aesthetic/safety impacts relating to design of the development (e.g. structures, parking areas, open spaces/rockeries, on-site roadways, etc. ) . The proponent published a DEIS in November of 1988, and a FEIS in January of 1989. These documents are to be reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee to determine whether the concerns defined in conjunction with the scoping for environmental review have been addressed. If those areas of concern are determined to have been adequately addressed, the ERC may establish mitigation conditions for the proposed residential development. Processing of the application will then resume. Note: Staff conducted an analysis of the EIS in order to facilitate ERC review. This analysis has been focussed on two alternatives -- the proponent' s proposed development (PPD) , and the design alternative development (DAD) suggested by the City. Staff views these options as the most viable alternatives for the proposed development if development is to be permitted at this time. In addition to these two development alternatives, the EIS addressed a third option with a higher density than the DAD and the PAD alternatives. ISSUES 1. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed impacts to the earth (soil slope/stability) anticipated from excavation, grading, development (structures, amenities, infrastructure) and utilization of the subject property? Environmental Review mmittee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 3 February 22 1989 The existing site was used as a gravel pit. Small pits (3 to 6 feet in depth and 20 to 30 feet in diameter) exist in various locations on the site. The north central portion of the site has a steep cut slope. This cut slope is approximately 20 to 40 feet high with a slope of approximately 63%. The geotechnical analysis provided by Golder Associates indicates that the geologic conditions of the site are such that there is a low risk of landsliding or seismic, induced liquefaction or consolidation on the site. Further they indicate that the proposed modifications to the topography of the site will further decrease the risk of such events. Finally, there is the potential for erosion on the site due to the clearing, grading, and cut and fill activity proposed in order to develop the proposed project; the anticipated erosion should be controlled through mitigation measures described below in this section. Both PPD and DAD will require a substantial amount of excavation. The PPD alternative will require the excavation of approximately 245, 000 cubic yards of material and the DAD alternative will require 290, 000 cubic yards of material. While the DAD requires more excavation, it will provide more open space and, thus, presumably better opportunities for controlling erosion on sensitive/steep slope portions of the site. In order to reduce the erosion impacts of earthwork on the site, the following measures should be taken by the applicant: a. That the applicant shall schedule all earthwork activity, to the greatest extent possible, during the dry months of the year (May 1st through September 30th) . Any such activity occurring during the wet months of the year, would require review by the City as to acceptable measures to be taken during this period to reduce or avoid the impacts of erosion and sedimentation. b. That the applicant install a wheel wash system together with the installation of a roadway at the entrances of the ingress and egress points to the site. c. That the applicant provide the City with a $4000. 00 revolving cash bond for street clean-up. d. That the applicant work with the City of Renton Public Works Department on acceptable erosion and sedimentation control methods including: the use of Environmental Review mmittee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 4 February 22 1989 siltation fences, temporary ditches, the coverage of stockpiled soil, and retention ponds if deemed necessary. These erosion control methods shall be maintained. e. Within 15 days of completion of clearing, grading, and filling activities the exposed soils will be hydroseeded. Note: Hydroseeding must be completed within a timeframe which allows the hydroseeding to take effect before the winter weather arrives. f. That the applicant periodically water down the site to control production/migration of dust from the site to neighboring properties. g. That the applicant take appropriate measures to cover stockpiled topsoil to prevent erosion or blowing of topsoil. h. Should earthwork and/or construction activity occur during the wet months of the year, a soils engineer shall be hired to monitor erosion and sedimentation control measures to ensure that such measures are working properly and are maintained as well as working with the Public Works Department on additional or revised measures should problems arise. 2 . Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed storm water drainage impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development? Development on the site with the PPD option will result in covering approximately 51% of the site with impervious surfaces (roadways, buildings and parking area) . Selection of the DAD option would result in the implementation of a design which would provide larger continguous areas of open space, however, impervious surfaces would remain essentially the same as those occurring in the PPD. The 0. 8 of an acre site reserved as a greenbelt in the southern portion of the site would be retained with either option. Once the development is completed with either option, storm water runoff will contain higher concentrations of nitrates and phosphates due mainly to the use of fertilizers on the site, sediment, heavy metals, oil and grease as a result of motor vehicle traffic on the site. This type/level of run-off is customary for a residential development of the proposed density. However, special concerns may exist with respect to the type and quantity of proposed run-off, as a result of the fact that • Environmental Review mmittee Staff Report • Lexington Ridge EIS Page 5 February 22 1989 the subject parcel is located in Zone II of the proposed APA, at a point on the boundary of the Zone I area. No special mitigation measures have been suggested to date by the Public Works Department. The DEIS noted that the use of biofiltration was not considered as part of the storm drainage system for the site due to the lack of sufficient area to adequately accommodate such systems, and due to the fact that there are no open drainage courses to connect to such a system. Development of the site would result in a greater amount of storniwater runoff with a reduction in the amount of groundwater recharge. The geotechnical study prepared by Golder Associates noted that the amount of groundwater displaced would be small relative to the entire Cedar River drainage basin. Small quantities of nitrates, phosphates, oil, heavy metals, grease and oil would be present in the stormwater entering the soils. However, the amount actually entering the groundwater supply is expected to have an insignificant impact on groundwater quality. In addition to the closed storm drainage system proposed for the development (with either PPD or DAD) , the following mitigation measures are recommended: a. That the applicant provide a plan for protection of the underlying terrain and aquifer through the installation of oil/grease traps and silt sumps in street catch basins and the installation of a standard riser in the detention system to control the discharge of oil, grease, and sediment. The plan should be subject to approval by the Public Works Department. b. That the applicant provide the City with a plan to ensure checking and maintenance of the storm drainage system for the development on a regular basis. Reports shall be furnished to the Public Works Department every six (6) months. Note: This monitoring could be accomplished by a licensed engineer or might be accomplished by the complex management staff. If the apartment manager is assigned to this task, the specific responsibilities need to be included in a statement of duties for that position. 3 . Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed impacts to the natural environment anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s) ? 4 Environmental Review mmittee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 6 February 22 1989 The majority of the site is covered with natural vegetation. There is a sizeable deciduous forest and a smaller number of conifers on the site. There is a dense layer of shrubs including such species as the vine maple and salmonberry, salal, swordferns and various types of blackberries. Development of the site, with either PPD or DAD, will result in the elimination of the majority of the above-described vegetation. These plantings will be replaced with ornamental vegetation, native trees, shrubs and lawn. The removal of this vegetation together with the addition of human activity to the site will also result in the change in the composition of the mammal and bird communities on the site (e.g. passerines, towhee, thrush, mice, shrews, snakes and lizards and deer) . It is expected that those species which are more human-tolerant (e.g. crows, sparrows) will dominate the site once development is completed. Other species less tolerant toward human activity (e.g. deer, raccoons, skunk) will be forced to migrate to other sites. Staff recommend that the following conditions be established: a. That the applicant, in order to protect the greenbelt area on the site, provide a covenant which defines that greenbelt area and which prohibits any/all temporary or permanent disruption to the greenbelt, during construction or operation of the proposed development. b. That the applicant pp nt provide aesthetic and visual buffers, contain light and glare, and enhance the natural areas on the site. The applicant shall work with the City's landscape planner to ensure that the landscaping plans include plantings of sufficient quality, quantity, size, diversity and location, which will both enhance the natural environment on the site and as well provide sufficient buffers. c. That the applicant establish a plan for the capture and relocation of the larger mammals on the site (deer, raccons, etc. ) found on the site to other locations within the City or elsewhere. Such a plan shall be developed with representatives of the State Department of Wildlife. 4. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed impacts to environmental health (proximity to electromagnetic power lines) anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s) ? Environmental Review nmittee Staff Report • Lexington Ridge EIS Page 7 February 22 1989 The EIS includes information concerning the presence of electromagnetic power lines, together with existing data concerning proposed expansion, and likely impacts from present/future levels of use. Those impacts are mitigated in PPD by reserving the entire Puget Power right-of-way as an open space. In the DAD alternative, the majority of the right-of-way is retained for open space, with a section of the southeast corner of that area reserved for approximately 108 parking spaces. These parking spaces are less convenient to residential units than are parking areas within the complex. However, these spaces are useful for guest parking and convenient to the arterial, as well as to pedestrian walkways and to public transit lines along N.E. 4th Street. While the studies on electric and magnetic fields of transmission lines cited in the DEIS do not indicate any health risk, the information is insufficient at this time to derive any definitive conclusions on these relationships. In the short-term, injury is possible to residents of the development due to such activities as kite flying and the climbing of the towers. In order to minimize long term and short term impacts to the residents, the following measures should be taken: a. That the applicant provide written information to residents on the dangers of electrical shocks from the transmission lines. b. That the applicant work with Puget Power to develop an acceptable proposal for signage and fencing of the transmission towers. c. That the applicant keep all buildings a minimum of 250 feet from the transmission lines. 5 . Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed land use impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s) ? Both the PPD and DAD alternatives propose developments of 360 residential units. As a result, impacts from both of the options are anticipated to be similar. A residential development at this site is compatible with surrounding residential and commercial/service uses. However, there is concern as to whether off-site impacts (e.g. APA, traffic) Environmental Review umittee Staff Report • Lexington Ridge EIS Page 8 February 22 1989 from either the PPD or DAD options can be mitigated sufficiently, given current information/technology, to meet acceptable standards for the mitigation of such impacts. 6. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed aesthetic impacts, noise impacts and light and glare impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s) ? DAD and PPD both include 360 units located in 15 buildings. Interior layouts are similar in both plans. However, in the DAD option the buildings are designed and sited to better enhance views and to protect the privacy of the residents through the provision of greater visual variety, visual relief, and "staggered" structural placement. In this option, buildings are located in such a manner that enables safer, more efficient vehicle and pedestrian travel through the site. Also, more open space is available. Under both options noise impacts from adjacent roadways and developments are anticipated to be similar, and to be mitigatle through structural improvements, and through location of structures and amenities (e.g. open spaces, recreation areas) . On-site noise impacts are not anticipated to be unusual; those impacts can also be mitigated through building design and location. Both the PPD option and the DAD option are planned to mitigate noise impacts. The design of the DAD option, which includes better separation and articulation of buildings, is preferred for noise control. Under both the DAD option and the PPD option, the proponent will be advised to provide and direct on-site lighting and landscaping in a manner which limits light and glare impacts to the residential units from on-site and off- site (vehicle headlight) sources. Here, again the DAD option is preferred because the greater open spaces, greater spaces between buildings, and other design features facilitate safe travel on-site (free of light and glare) , and enhance opportunities for providing on- site lighting which illuminates the site without negative impact upon the development. Staff recommend that the following measures be taken: a. That the applicant, in order to provide a a more aesthetically attractive, safer, more functional residential complex, select the design alternative (DAD) rather than the Environmental Review nmittee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 9 February 22 1989 proposed project design (PPD) , and work with the City's Planning Division to make some modifications to that design to: 1) further improve the appearance of the development; 2) reduce on-site and off-site visual/functional impacts; 3) contain noise impacts; and 4) contain light and glare impacts. Note: Construction-related impacts with respect to aesthetics, noise, light and glare are reviewed in Section 10 of this document. 7. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed traffic (vehicular and pedestrian) impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s) ? Development of the project whether under the PPD alternative or under the DAD alternative would result in the addition of 2, 374 vehicle trips per day. The nearest major intersection serving the site is the signalized intersection of N.E. 3rd St and Sunset Blvd North. This intersection currently operates at a Level of Service F for both the A.M. and P.M. peak periods. This is an unacceptable operating level. The addition of the project at this time would contribute additional impact to an already unacceptable situation. The EIS notes that improvements need to be made to this intersection with or without the project. One mitigation measure offered involves signal phasing and additional left-turn lanes (northbound, eastbound and westbound approaches) which would change the P.M. peak period from LOS E to LOS D and the A.M. peak period from LOS E to LOS C. Another problem identified was the potential risk of conflict for pedestrians and vehicles on the segment of Bronson Way N.E. between N.E. 3rd St and N.E. 4th St due to the geometrics (slope, angle, sight distance) of this portion of the roadway. In fact, these features and the resulting concerns about pedestrian and vehicle safety caused METRO to remove transit service along this portion of roadway. The EIS went further, stating substantial improvements, designed to provide long-term solutions to roadway impacts at the above-described intersection and along the adjacent roadway were needed in the vicinity of the project as a result of new development (in addition to the proposed development) planned in the immediate area, and as a result of the substantial amount of proposed new residential and commercial development in the northeast sector of the City which would be Environmental Review mmittee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 10 February 22 1989 expected to generate a level of traffic which is similarly substantial. The City has asked a major developer in this area to undertake an areawide traffic improvement plan (TBID Plan) in order to determine necessary improvments and assess AWDTE costs. This study is expected to be completed in the next few weeks. Until this study is completed the analysis of both existing and future traffic conditions in the area of the project site, the appropriate mitigation measures for the project cannot be precisely determined. Based upon the: a) poor level of existing service in the area of the project; b) potential significance of anticipated traffic/pedestrian impacts: and c) the limited adequacy of mitigation measures which could reasonably be required of/provided by the applicant to address those impacts in advance of the pending traffic improvement plan for this area, it appears that approval of the project would be premature at this time. Note: Staff believe the applicant could begin working on these impacts by taking the following measures: a. That the applicant work with METRO to develop an acceptable transportation management plan which shall be approved prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project to reduce the level of vehicle/pedestrian impacts upon the neighborhood. b. That the applicant work with the Parks Department to develop acceptable linkages with the City' s trail system , located near the site in order to provide for an increased level of pedestrian safety. Note: Construction related traffic impacts are reviewed in Section 10, below. 8 . Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed public service (fire, police, schools, utilities) impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s) ? a. Police Services The EIS states that the proposed project, utilizing either alternative, is anticipated to generate only the customary number and type of police service emergency calls for a 360 unit residential project - one call annually per 1. 96 persons -- and that these calls can be addressed within acceptable time parameters using the services of existing staff members, plus 1. 1 new . G Environmental Review nmittee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 11 February 22 1989 officers (with concomitant levels of new supporting equipment) . While it is estimated that the cost of new resources/services would be $57,200, there is presently no approved plan for resource improvement, which would enable . the City to require that the applicant provide such funding directly. As a result, it will be necessary for the City to depend upon tax revenues to generate a fair share of funds for such improvements. Additionally, at the time of land use review, if the project is permitted, the applicant will be required to provide signage, lighting, building identification and other improvements to increase general safety on-site and to facilitate efficient emergency response times by police officers. b. Fire Services Either the PPD option or the DAD option is anticipated to increase requirements for service by the Fire Department, as would customarily be expected for a 360 unit residential development. Specifically, it is expected that there would be one call annually for each eleven (11) residents. The Fire Department has not developed a preferred officer/population ratio, however, the City is in the process of implementing a 15 year plan for service improvement, including the employment of new staff and the purchase of new equipment. Tax revenues generated by the project will help to support the described improvement project. Staff do recommend that, if the project is permitted, the applicant be required to provide signage, lighting, building identification and other improvements to increase general safety on-site and to facilitate efficient emergency response times by emergency personnel as noted above. c. Utility Services The applicant reports that existing public utility services are available to the site in sufficient quantities and at suitable locations to serve the proposed development (either DAD or PPD) . Utility Engineering has not suggested that environmental mitigation measures are necessary to achieve suitable service levels on-site or to mitigate off-site impacts. . Utility lines are available to serve anticipated future development in the immediate vicinity and along the N.e. 3rd Street/N.E. 4th Street corridor. ,Environmental Review mmittee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 12 February 22 1989 d. Schools The project is anticipated to introduce approximately 90 new students into the local school system. The proponent reports that these students can be accommodated within the system, by enrollment in currently operating schools and/or reopening of schools presently closed for lack of enrollment. Independent confirmation from the School District #403 Administrative Offices is pending. Tax revenue generated by the development is proposed to provide the major source of support from Lexington Ridge to local improvement programs. 9. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed recreation impacts anticipated to occur on-site and off-site in conjunction with the proposed development(s) ? The project site is expected to generate approximately 640 persons who would require a combination of on-site and off-site recreational opportunities. The project will include a swimming pool; recreation center with indoor sauna, weight room, lounge with wet bar, sunbeds, spa-jacuzzi and racquetball court; barbecue/picnic area, and two tot lots together with the creation of a linkage with the City's proposed trail system in the Puget Power right of way. Depending upon the project design used, there would be approximately 2 .5 acres (PPD) to 3 .5 acres (DAD) of useable area for recreational space. The space set aside for passive recreation/open space would range from 3 . 8 acres (DAD) to 4 . 1 acres (PPD) . Finally, based upon the City's standards, the project would result in need for an additional 6. 5 acres of general park area. The population proposed for the project is not sufficiently large, however, to support a park on-site or the purchase of a park site in the area. Some specific recreation measures to off-set the impacts from the proposed development to the community are to be submitted by Parks Department staff. 10.Whether the applicant has adequately addressed the noise impacts which will result during the construction phase of the development? The applicant has acknowledged that there will be aesthetic impacts, light and glare and noise impacts in the area which will occur particularly during construction. Since the project site is adjacent to existing residential uses to Environmental Review nmittee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 13 February 22 1989 the west and east and a church and daycare center to the north, the applicant should mitigate the construction impacts in the following manner: a. That construction equipment be operated within acceptable noise range levels for such equipment. b. That the applicant limit the hours of on-site construction activity on Saturdays between the hours of 8 : 00 a.m. and 6: 00 p.m. with no construction activity on Sunday. c. That the applicant limit the hauling operations off-site to the hours between 9: 00 a.m. and 3 : 00 p.m. on Monday through Friday to limit traffic impacts to the adjacent roadways. Note: See Section 1 of this document for additional construction-related conditions. C. RECOMMENDATIONS: See Sections 1 - 10 above for specific recommendations. I I I I I I II I 1 d .imp: CIT L OF RENTON eahiy'e. r=. Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator August 23, 1991 • Ms. Sally H. Clarke, Attorney Hillis Clark Martin&Peterson 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle,Washington 98101-2925 Reference: Lexington Ridge SA-082-87 Dear Sally: I am writing this letter in response to your letter of August 12, 1991 concerning the status of the Lexington Ridge site plan approval. Your understanding is correct that the site plan is approved for a two year period, or until October 13, 1991, provided that a complete application is submitted for a building permit before that date. Therefore, we agree with you that the prudent course of action is to prepare and submit a complete building permit application which responds to all of the Hearing Examiner and ERC conditions contained in the site plan approval. Confirmation of the compliance with Hearing Examiner and ERC conditions is part of the building permit review process. Under the building.permit process, it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide evidence through the project plans, specifications, fees and other instruments that all conditions of the site plan approval are satisfied. Regarding your specific questions: 1. An appeal was filed by a third party, but not within the required time limits, thus the approval was considered final by the Office of the Hearing Examiner; 2. It does not appear that Hearing Examiner conditions 1 and 2 have been satisfied. As stated above, the. City's review of compliance with all conditions occurs as part of the building permit review. 3. Again, compliance with all ERC conditions will be part of the building permit review. Therefore,the Trustee should not proceed on the basis that all ERC conditions have been satisfied as part of the site plan approval, until this can be verified at the time of building permit review. 4. At the time of application for building permit the applicant will be required to pay all fees including TBZ (transportation benefit zone), as well as, provide evidence in the plans, specifications and other instruments that all Hearing Examiner and ERC conditions have been met. CLARKE DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 • y ,• � 1 Ms.Sally H. Clarke SA-082-87 August 23, 1991 Page 2 It is important that the Trustee and his project architect understand that all of the conditions contained in the site plan approval have been clearly documented by the Hearing Examiner and ERC in their respective' reports (See Attachment). Compliance with these conditions will be part of the building permit review. Please let us know if the Trustee intends to submit for a building permit prior to October 13, 1991. We will be happy to review the building permit submittal drawings in advance of your formal submittal, if you have particular issues that need to be resolved before the project is finalized. If we can provide an further assistance to the Trustee and/or his project architect, please let us know. We look forward to reviewing the buil.• g permit application for Lexington Ridge. e my Yours, • Donald K. Erickso , AICP Zoning Administrator cc: Larry Warren Scott Bethan, Cushman&Wakefield CLARKE DCC • LAW OFFICES .MALT-MAN, WEBER, HEED, NORTH & AHRENS 1415 NORTON BUILDING JOHN R. WEBER 801 SECOND AVENUE FREDRIC D. REED _ LAWRENCE R. HENNINGS D OUGLASS A. NORTH Si?A1"I-i-I-., W,ASHINGTON 98104-1522 RETIRED MICHAEDOUGLAS W.AHRENS FACSIMILIE(206) 624-6672 MICHAEL C. MALNATIWILLIAM L. MALTMAN LINDA LAU TEI EPHONE (200) 024-0271 OF COUNSEL May 16, 1990 Lenora $lauman, Senior Planner P(/lIIrp'iING DIVISION Community development Department ( '� ' `'` RF NTOA, City of Renton MunicipalBuilding �`�1ii� 1990 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 -; ' L' -� ff .rY SI Vg� RE: Lexington Ridge Site Plan File No. SA-082-87 Dear Ms. Blauman: This letter confirms our conversation of May 14, 1990 regarding the status of the City's approval of the site plan of Lexington Ridge, File No. SA-082-87. issue regared hearing examiner's November 7, 1989 addition eof a new c nd itiontto his approval of the site plan, stating that the City Attorney must be satisfied that the applicant has the necessary legal authority under the laws of thn State of Washington to comply with the terms and conditions of the site plan approval. As you and I both interpret this, the site plan approval is presently` valid. However, when a new approval is sought from the city, :suoh `as a building permit, the staff will refer the matter to the City Attorney to determine whether the applicant meets the above-referenced condition. Time is crucial to my client. Unless I hear from you to the contrary by Friday, May 25, 1990, I will assume that you agree with the preceding paragraphs' of this letter. Thank you very much for your help and understanding. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, MALTMAN, WEBER, REED, NORTH & AHRENS 17CA S ),(6 � Paul Sikora PS/cr 27 I Of• ■ HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON ■ A Professional Service Corporation 500 Galland Building,1221 Second Avenue PLANNING DI VtSI°N Seattle,Washington 98101-2925 �04'y ON (206)623-1745 Facsimile(206)623-7789 AUG 131991 August 12, 1091 Mr. Donald K. Erickson Zoning Administrator Department of Planning/Building/Public Works City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Lexington Ridge Dear Don: As you know, we represent the Trustee of the bankruptcy estate of Canada America Associates, L.P. , the owner of the Lexington Ridge property. On October 13 , 1989, the Hearing Examiner approved the site plan for this 360-unit project subject to the six conditions set forth on page 5 of the enclosed Hearing Examiner's report. Pursuant to RMC 4-31-33 (I) , the site plan approval is valid for a two-year period from the date of the Hearing Examiner's decision. Although the site plan review ordinance does not specify what must occur at the end of that two-year period, it is our understanding, based upon discussions with you and other city staff, that the site plan approval will remain in effect provided a complete building permit application is submitted prior to the expiration of the two-year period or any extension granted by the Hearing Examiner. As you are aware, in April 1991, we requested an extension of the site plan approval for this project at city staff's suggestion. Because the Hearing Examiner twice has directed us to wait until "closer to the expiration date" before requesting an extension, the only prudent course available to the Trustee is to direct the project engineer and the project architect to proceed with the preparation of a complete building permit application. The Trustee has asked us to assist in this process by confirming the status of the conditions and of the existing site plan approval so that he can be assured of what will be required to file a complete building permit application and obtain a building permit. Therefore, we wish to confirm the following: IIIPIP. ,___ Mr. Donald K. Erickson August 12, 1991 Page 2 (1) that no appeals were filed of the Hearing Examiner's October 13, 1989 decision; (2) that Hearing Examiner conditions 1 and 4 have been satisfied; (3) that all of the ERC conditions that the applicant was required to fulfill prior to site plan approval, including in particular conditions 4 (c) , 5, 6 (b) , 6 (c) , 7, and 8, have been fulfilled; and (4) that at the time of issuance of the building permit, the applicant must pay traffic mitigation fees of $288 per trip and fulfill Hearing Examiner conditions 2 and 5 and ERC conditions 2 , 3, and 4 (b) . I hope that you understand the Trustee's need to confirm what would be required by the City in order to obtain a building permit, subject, of course, to the applicability and effect of the Bankruptcy Code. If our understanding about any of these issues is incorrect, or if you believe that some clarification of the City's requirements is necessary, please let me know by return mail. If we do not hear from you to the contrary, we shall assume that our understanding regarding these matters is correct, and the Trustee will proceed on that basis with preparation and filing of a complete building permit application. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, b AlatA. G4,f44 Sally H. Clarke SHC:kh Enclosure cc(w/o encl) : Mr. Bruce Dodds Mr. Dennis Reibe Mr. Grahame R. Ross, Trustee in Bankruptcy cc(w/encl) : Mr. Larry J. Warren, Renton City Attorney 209128 i October 13, 1989 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: CENTRON (LEXINGTON RIDGE) File No: SA-082-87 LOCATION: Located between N.E. Fourth Street and N.E. Third Street, west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and east of Bronson Way N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site approval to develop 13.4 acres with a 360 unit multifamily residential complex. INTRODUCTION: This matter was initially reviewed at a public hearing on June 27, 1989. A decision issued on July 17, 1989. The Findings included below resulted from that initial review and are merely included for the convenience of the reader. There have been no changes made to those Findings. The decision rejected the application and the matter was appealed to the City Council. The matter was remanded back to the Hearing Examiner who made the determination that no additional testimony would be necessary to reach a decision in this matter. The Conclusions found below were reached after a review of the Findings and a re-review of the complete record. The only issue that did not receive additional review was that of the parking on the Puget Power corridor. That issue was limited by the City Council which required that the use of the Puget Power corridor "be irrevocably secured for the life of this project.' FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Centron, filed a request for approval of a site plan for a 360 unit multiple family residential complex on approximately 13.4 acres of property. • 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit *I. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official, determined that an EIS was required for the proposal and one was prepared. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street, west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and east of Bronson Way N.E. 6. The subject site was annexed into the city with the adoption of Ordinance 1549 enacted in June, 1956. The site was reclassified from its initial R-I (Singh Family; Lot size - 7,200 sq ft) zoning to R-4 (High Density Multiple Family) by the City Council with the passage of Ordinance 2029, enacted in May, 1963. 7. The map element of the Comprehensive: Plan dcsigimtes the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of tiigh density multiple ►"roily dev'lopment and greenbelt, but d)es not mandate such.development without cc.:.sider,:tiun c: other policies of the Plan. The steep southerly slopes of the site as well as the power line corridor east of the site are designated for greenbelt.. 8. The applicant proposes an apartment complex containing 360 units in 15 buildings. The complex will also contain a separate recreation building, a pool, two tot lots and a sports court. 9. The proposed complex is divided between two sites. The main site would contain the apartment complex proper. The subsidiary site located immediately east of the main site is a power line corridor owned by Puget Power. phis subsidiary site would provide 105 parking stalls. The site is irregularly shaped with its east property line (approximately 627 feet long) and south property line (approximately 929 feet long) the most regular. The west property line generally runs at an angle to the northeast and contains a number of jogs. Similarly, the north property line also contains a number of jogs. The Puget Power parcel is generally a parallelogram approximately 370 feet long by approximately 170 feet wide. Centron (Lexingf ,e) ' SA-082-87 October 13, 1989 Page 2 10. The site is bounded on the south by N.E. 3rd Street and by Bronson Way N.E. along part of its western and northern property lines. Vuemont Place N.E. intersects the site along its western property line. Again, the Puget Power corridor forms the eastern boundary line for about two- thirds of the site's depth. 11. The complex will contain both 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units. 12. The complex requires 630 parking stalls. Parking will be accommodated by both open parking (496 stalls) and covered carports (134 stalls). The applicant proposes providing a portion of the parking, 105 stalls, on the adjoining acreage which is under the Puget Power line. A formal agreement has not been executed, although Puget Power has indicated that it would probably allow the parking in this corridor. 13. The buildings will be two and a half to three stories high, with a maximum height of 35 feet. 14. The 15 buildings actually consist of a series of couplets. Each of the 15 buildings is comprised of mirror image couplets connected to each other along their length by covered walkways and stairways. The buildings will contain minor variations as the larger and smaller units are linked side by side in a variety of fashions. Again, mirror image symmetry will be used with the same size larger end units connected by two smaller center units. The buildings will be located at various angles around the site. The minimum separation between buildings will be approximately 25 feet. 15. The buildings will be finished with cedar siding and aluminum frame windows. The roofing materials will be asphalt/shake composition. 16. Modulated exterior walls will be used on the buildings, with terraces, the stairways and walkways providing additional architectural relief. Peaked roofs will provide visual breaks at the roof line where the couplets join the covered walkways. 17. Full occupancy of the proposed complex would add approximately 576 persons to the city's population. There would be approximately 90 school age children. 18. The estimated traffic generated by the subject proposal is approximately 2,374 vehicle trips per day. Traffic issues were reviewed by the ERC and conditions were imposed during the environmental review process. The applicant will be required to participate in a Traffic Management Plan. The applicant will also be required to participate in grade modifications to the Bronson/3rd intersection. The plans for grade modification are very speculative at this point and may be difficult to realize due to the topography at this location. 19. Since substantial portions of the property will be regraded, most of the existing natural second growth vegetation will be removed. Site plan review does not entail detailed review of the excavation, but approximately 290,000 cubic yards of material will be relocated either around the site or removed from it. This will entail a large volume of truck trips, but this information was not provided or analyzed in any detailed manner. 20. The steep slopes immediately above N.E. 3rd Street will be retained as greenbelt and will not be disturbed. In addition, landscape materials including a variety of trees, shrubs and lawn grasses will be planted in all areas not used for building pads, parking areas and roadways. The applicant proposes additional landscaping adjacent to the Vuemont apartments since those units were paved property line to property line. Approximately 49% of the site will be open space. Regrading of the site will create terraces or plateaus for building pads. These elevation differences will be approximately 4 to 8 feet as they drop across the site. 21. A number of apartment complexes'it re located in this area of the city. Apartment buildings are located immediately west of the site, on both sides of Vuemont where it intersects the subject site's western property line. Group Health's clinic is located west of the site across Bronson Way. N.E. 3rd Street runs along the south property line, and again, the power line is located east of the site. A church and associated day care center are located north of the site. 22. The Renton School District serves the site with Highlands Elementary School, a middle school and Renton High School. The site is just within the busing area limits for elementary school age children, although this could change. 23. Water, sewer and storm lines are provided by the city. Staff reported that these lines have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed development, although the sewer lines are at or near capacity. Capacity problems in the sewers have been noted in the general vicinity. Upgrading of some constricted sewer lines may be required. This would be accomplished by the applicant. • • Centron (Lezingt `e) • SA-082-87 October 13, 1989 Page 3 24. Metro has discontinued bus service along Bronson Way because of difficulties negotiating the grade and curve near the intersection of Bronson with N.E. 3rd. A bus pullout and possible "park and ride" might be created along the power line corridor. 25. Liberty Park and the Cedar River Trail are located approximately southwest of the site. 26. All vehicular access would be from the northwest, either from Vuemont or Bronson Way. An access drive along N.E. 3rd would be used for emergency access since the sight distance and grade difficulties preclude use in ordinary circumstances. _ 27. There has been a reduction in the permitted density based upon the existence of the steep slopes/greenbelt located along the south property line, but this has been merged with reductions for the power line greenbelt. Staff has calculated that the per unit density for the subject site is approximately 27 units per acre. There seems to be both an inclusion and exclusion for the power line corridor since note is made of the G-I zoning's density standards. There seems to be no reason to include the power line for any density calculations as it is separately owned and already supports its permissible development - a power line. 28. Staff has requested that the applicant bond for any police services required over that normally expected of a complex of this size. The police department provided information that they were inadequately staffed to serve increased call levels. CONCLUSIONS The Site Plan Ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; c. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. 2. In addition, proposed site plans must not adversely affect area-wide property values, must provide adequate air and light, and must not cause neighborhood deterioration or blight. The proposed site plan appears to successfui4 satisfy these additional criteria. 3. The proposed development, coupled with the retained greenbelt along the south property line, particularly the western half of the south property line, fulfill the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for this site. The plan recognized that the close-in nature of the site and the more gentle aspects of the site would be appropriate for multiple family housing. Similarly, the plan recognized that the additional multiple family housing would be compatible with adjoining multiple family uses immediately northwest of the site. 4. The steeper slopes, those above N.E. 3rd Street, will be retained as greenbelt pursuant to the designation found in the Comprehensive Plan. Also, while the applicant proposes using certain portions of the adjacent power line corridor for parking, the applicant will also be providing additional landscaping and a walking trail. The trail will serve as a link to the city's growing system of trails connecting different areas of the city. 5. The two and a half to three-story buildings with a maximum height of 35 feet fall within the limits of the Zoning Code which would permit buildings of 95 feet. The permitted coverage of approximately 4.68 acres is easily accommodated since the development will coverage approximately 2.5 acres. Presumably the provisions of the Building Code will be met, but that level of detail is not under review at this time. Deductions for the included greenbelt/steep • Centron (Lexin' - SA-082-87 ; October 13, 1989 Page 4 sloped areas have been calculated into the process and the 360 units fall within the permitted density. 6. Obviously the development of the subject site will create some impacts on the adjoining uses. Vuemont, which had been a modest dead-end street between two apartment buildings, will become the major access drive for the subject site (topographical and traffic constraints dictated this approach). What is unfortunate is that those existing apartment complexes were permitted so close to the street that little buffering is possible. It is quite possible that many of the approximately 2,000 daily vehicle trips generated by this proposal could use this driveway. This office would suggest that the city consider narrowing the Vuemont corridor to driveway proportions to permit additional landscaping to be placed on either side of the entry to serve as a buffer. In the alternative, the city could modify Vuemont as it enters the site to one-way, although this would intensify traffic at two separate driveways. 7. In most other respects this complex has been landscaped along all of its boundaries, and as discussed above, the steep slopes and power line easement have received special considerations. The steep slopes will be retained in natural vegetation and the power line parking area will be landscaped. 8. While the buildings do not present a widely varied architectural style, they do have some modulations to break up their potentially bulky appearance. One has to remember that the buildings which appear to be separate or detached couplets in the submitted graphics are actually connected, which creates a greater bulk. They also have the limited variety introduced by the minor variations resulting from the mix of larger and smaller units in certain buildings. The cedar siding and roofing elements should relieve some of the sameness. 9. Staff expressed some concerns regarding the circulation patterns which will result from developing this site. The elimination of transit service due to the topography of Bronson requires orientation of the site to N.E. 3rd for transit service. At the same time, driveway access will be precluded from this right-of-way due to traffic backups in this vicinity. Similarly, the queuing problems inherent in N.E. 3rd suggest that a bus turnout would not work to Metro's advantage since a bus may have trouble re-entering the traffic stream. Rather, the bus would momentarily delay traffic by stopping in a traffic lane. The ERC has addressed these issues in separate conditions and they will not be readdressed. 10. Staff recommended that the applicant provide a van for shuttling residents and students to and from the site. This would be quite a complicated condition for the city to monitor and should be incorporated into any transportation management plans (TM) negotiated between the applicant and Metro. 11. On-site circulation appears adequate with the inclusion of pedestrian pathways and some additional required links to exterior sidewalks. 12. The buildings are generally well separated from one another and should afford reasonable access to both light and air for residents of the complex. 13. The issue of a bond for extraordinary police services is an issue which must be addressed by the City Council. If, in fact, the police have found that apartments in general demand a level of service which cannot be accommodated by their current level of funding they should inform the City Council of this situation. The amounts suggested (they were not definitive) would be approximately S15,000 to S17,000 per year for this development of 360 units. As the number of apartment units increase in the city, the amount of money is not inconsequential. Therefore, rather than attempt to address whether these fees are appropriate in individual land use cases, the issue should be addressed more directly as a policy determination. Similar treatment has been accorded traffic mitigation felts.' 14. Obviously, development of the subject site with 36C'•apartment units will increase the traffic, density and noise in this area of the city. ,It will particularly increase traffic at major intersections downstream of the site. That is a consequence of both the Comprehensive Plan which suggests this site is appropriate for apartment development and the Zoning Code which sets the scale. Both documents have been in place for a number of years and both documents support the type of development proposed. 15. Staff reported that the additional traffic can be appropriately channelled into the existing network of roads, although not without some modifications. Those modifications were contemplated, or should have been contemplated, when the zoning was applied and prior to that, with the adoption of a Comprehensive Plan which designated this area for more intense development. The road system will not be immediately brought up to a level where the development proposed can be accommodated without some loss in the level of service. The • Centron (Lazing— 'Be) • SA-082-87 October 13, 1989 Page 5 ERC did attach fees to the development which, when coupled with similar fees from other development, should eventually permit the attainment of an acceptable level of service. Until those fee accounts are sufficient to permit the modifications suggested, traffic congestion will naturally worsen. But again, Traffic Engineering and the ERC both suggested that this development could be accommodated at this time. 16. Finally, an issue otherwise not addressed in this decision is the status of the supplementary parking area located on the easement. As the remand by the City Council directed, the applicant will have to provide a mechanism to assure that "the right-of-way can be irrevocably secured for the life of this project." Since the project could not be constructed as conceived without this supplementary parking lot, this condition would have to be satisfied prior to the issuance of the building permit. DECISION The Site Plan is approved subject to the following conditions: I. The applicant provide links between the various buildings, the recreational facilities and the exterior sidewalks, subject to approval of the Planning Division. 2. This office would suggest that the city consider narrowing the Vuemont Corridor to driveway proportions to permit the applicant to install additional landscaping on either side of the Vuemont entry. In the alternative, the city could modify Vuemont as it enters the site to one-way, again, to permit the applicant to install additional landscaping. 3. Any van provided for shuttling residents and students to and from the site should be incorporated into the transportation management plans (TM) negotiated between the applicant and Metro. 4. As agreed to at the public hearing, the applicant will provide an area conducive to socializing at the mail box area, a linkage for the Sunset Trail, storage facilities for the units, and basketball courts and tot-lots. 5. The applicant shall have to provide a mechanism to assure that "the [Puget Power) right- of-way can be irrevocably secured for the life of this project", and this shall occur prior to the issuance of any building permit. 6. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC, except as they may have been modified by this decision. ORDERED THIS 13th day of October, 1989. FRED J. KAUFMAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 13th day of October, 1989 to the parties of record: John Phillips 2001 Western Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121 Canada-American Associates c/o Centron 3025 - 112th,Ave. NE, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98004 Millie Renfrow 310 Bronson Way NE Renton, WA 98056 Bob Johns 3600 Columbia Center Building 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Centron (Lexing'• le) SA-082-87 Wisp October 13;19899 Page 6 • Dennis Riebe Centron Corporation • 3025 - 112th NE Bellevue, WA 98004 • Bob Minnott Centron Corporation 3025 - 112th NE Bellevue, WA 98004 Don Emmons 349 Bronson NE Renton, WA 98056 James Colt 100 Blaine NE Renton, WA 98057 James Goerg 4201 NE 5th Renton, WA 98056 First United Methodist Church 2201 N.E. Fourth St. Renton, WA 98056 Jim Platt 10800 N.E. 8th, Suite 1010 Bellevue, WA 98004 Pat Easter 18000 Pacific Highway So., Suite 1115 Seattle, WA 98188 Norm Hash 358 Bronson Way NE Renton, WA 98056 TRANSMITTED THIS 13th day of October, 1989 to the following: Mayor Earl Clymer Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Lynn A. Guttmann, Public Works Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Ken Nyberg, Community Development Director Glen Gordon, Fire Marshal Larry M. Springer, Planning Manager Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Ronald Nelson, Building Director Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer John Adamson, Developmental Program Coordinator Garth Cray, Senior Engineering Specialist Valley Daily News Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City'; Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 P.M. October 27. 1989. Any aggrieved per4on feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or 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 a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. Centron (Lezingt', •le) SA-082-87 vel October 13. 1989 Page 7 All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence.' Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. • • • • • • 1. • Law Offices ■ HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON A Professional Service Corporation 500 Galland Building,1221 Second Avenue P/,, Seattle,Washington 98101-2925 �NJ�/� (206)623-1745 Facsimile(206)623-7789 c'r'°�RFNr/s�oiv RFC 997 kit/z August 28, 1991 Mr. Donald K. Erickson Zoning Administrator Department of Planning/Building/Public Works City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Lexington Ridge, SA-082-87 Dear Don: I received your August 23 letter yesterday regarding the status of the Lexington Ridge site plan approval. The ERC Report you enclosed with your letter is not the final version. I have enclosed the final June 15, 1989 Report for your file. It is our understanding that the conditions contained in the enclosed ERC Report, together with the Hearing Examiner's conditions, are the conditions applicable to this project. In addition, we have confirmed with the Building Department the fees that will be required at the time the building permit application is filed. As you and I discussed today, some fees, including the TBZ fees will not be payable until the building permit is issued. Finally, we are very concerned to see that a copy of your letter was sent to an individual unknown to the Trustee. We do not understand why the City would be copying this individual or what connection he may have to the property. As we discussed today, we plan to file a building permit application within the next ten days. As you have suggested in your letter, it would be helpful if we could meet with you soon Mr. Donald K. Erickson August 28, 1991 Page 2 thereafter to discuss the building permit review process. Thank you for your help. Very truly yours, Sally H. larke SHC:kkh Encl: cc: Mr. Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Mr. Grahame R. Ross, Trustee Mr. Irvin W. Sandman 2 0 9 3 0 3 • BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT April 5, 1989 A. BACKGROUND: APPLICANT: Centron PROJECT: Lexington Ridge ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF; SA 082-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Review of EIS submitted by applicant in conjunction with a request for site plan approval for the development of 360 unit multi-family residential complex. This 13 . 4 acre parcel is zoned R-4, High Density Multi-Family Residential Use. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street, west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. , and east of the Bronson/N.E. 3rd Street intersection. Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 2 April 5, 1989 B. ANALYSIS: Background: The proponent initially submitted the application for site plan review in 1987. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Significance in October, 1987 calling for an Environmental Impact Statement, with particular emphasis upon the need for more information in the following areas: 1) vehicular and pedestrian traffic circulation impacts (on-site and off-site) ; 2) soil/slope character and stability, grading; 3) storm water run- off/drainage management; 4) aquifer protection - this project is in Zone I of the proposed APA; 5) availability and accessibility of off-site recreational facilities; 6) electro-magnetic impacts from nearby power lines upon human health and safety; 7) public service impacts; and 8) aesthetic/safety impacts relating to design of the development (e.g. structures, parking areas, open spaces/rockeries, on-site roadways, etc. ) . The proponent published a DEIS in November of 1988, and a FEIS_ in January of 1989. These documents are to be reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee to determine whether the concerns defined in conjunction with the scoping for environmental review have been addressed. If those areas of concern are determined to have been adequately addressed, the ERC may establish mitigation conditions for the proposed residential development. Processing of the application will then resume. Note: Staff conducted an analysis of the EIS in order to facilitate ERC review. This analysis has been focussed on two alternatives -- the proponent's proposed development (PPD) , and the design alternative development (DAD) suggested by the City. Staff views these options as the most viable alternatives for the proposed development if development is to be permitted at this time. In addition to these two development alternatives, the EIS addressed a third option with a higher density than the DAD and the PAD alternatives. ISSUES 1. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed impacts to the earth (soil slope/stability) anticipated from excavation, grading, development (structures, amenities, infrastructure) and utilization of the subject property? Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 3 April 5, 1989 The existing site was used as a gravel pit. Small pits (3 to 6 feet in depth and 20 to 30 feet in diameter) exist in various locations on the site. The north central portion of the site has a steep cut slope. This cut slope is approximately 20 to 40 feet high with a slope of approximately 63%. The geotechnical analysis provided by Golder Associates indicates that the geologic conditions of the site are such that there is a low risk of landsliding or seismic induced liquefaction or consolidation on the site. Further they indicate that the proposed modifications to the topography of the site will further decrease the risk of such events. Finally, there is the potential for erosion on the site due to the clearing, grading, and cut and fill activity proposed in order to develop the proposed project; the anticipated erosion should be controlled through mitigation measures described below in this section. Both PPD and DAD will require a substantial amount of excavation. The PPD alternative will require the excavation of approximately 245, 000 cubic yards of material and the DAD alternative will require 290, 000 cubic yards of material. While the DAD requires more excavation, it will provide more open space and, thus, presumably better opportunities for controlling erosion on sensitive/steep slope portions of the site. In order to reduce the erosion impacts of earthwork on the site, the following measures should be taken by the applicant: a. That the applicant shall schedule all earthwork activity, to the greatest extent possible, during the dry months of the year (May 1st through September 30th) . Any such activity occurring during the wet months of the year, would require review by the City as to acceptable measures to be taken during this period to reduce or avoid the impacts of erosion and sedimentation. b. That the applicant install a wheel wash system together with the installation of a roadway at the entrances of the ingress and egress points to the site. c. That the applicant provide the City with a $4000. 00 revolving cash bond for street clean-up. d. That the applicant work with the City of Renton Public Works Department on acceptable erosion and sedimentation control methods including: the use of Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 4. April 5, 1989 siltation fences, temporary ditches, the coverage of. stockpiled soil, and retention ponds if deemed necessary. These erosion control methods shall be maintained. e. Within 15 days of completion of clearing, grading, and filling activities the exposed soils will be hydroseeded. Note: Hydroseeding must be completed within a timeframe which allows the hydroseeding to take effect before the winter weather arrives. f. That the applicant periodically water down the site to control production/migration of dust from the site to neighboring properties. g. Should earthwork and/or construction activity occur during the wet months of the year, a soils engineer shall be hired to monitor erosion and sedimentation control measures to ensure that such measures are working properly and are maintained as well as working with the Public Works Department on additional or revised measures should problems arise. 2 . Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed storm water drainage impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development? Development on the site with the PPD option will result in covering approximately 51% of the site with impervious surfaces (roadways, buildings and parking area) . Selection of the DAD option would result in the implementation of a design which would provide larger contiguous areas of open space, however, impervious surfaces would remain essentially the same as those occurring in the PPD. The 0.8 of an acre site reserved as a greenbelt in the southern portion of the site would be retained with either option. Once the development is completed with either option, storm water runoff will contain higher concentrations of nitrates and phosphates due mainly to the use of fertilizers on the site, sediment, heavy metals, oil and grease as a result of motor vehicle traffic on the site. This type/level of, run-off is customary for a residential development of the proposed density. However, special concerns may exist with respect to the type and quantity of proposed run-off, as a result of the fact that . Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 5 April 5, 1989 the subject parcel is located in Zone II of the proposed APA, at a point on the boundary of the Zone I area. No special mitigation measures have been suggested to date by the Public Works Department. The DEIS noted that the use of biofiltration was not considered as part of the storm drainage system for the site due to the lack of sufficient area to adequately accommodate such systems, and due to the fact that there are no open drainage courses to connect to such a system. Development of the site would result in a greater amount of stormwater runoff with a reduction in the amount of groundwater recharge. The geotechnical study prepared by Golder Associates noted that the amount of groundwater displaced would be small relative to the entire Cedar River drainage basin. Small quantities of nitrates, phosphates, oil, heavy metals, grease and oil would be present in the stormwater entering the soils. However, the amount actually entering the groundwater supply is expected to have an insignificant impact on groundwater quality. In addition to the closed storm drainage system proposed for the development (with either PPD or DAD) , that the applicant, in order to address potential storm drainage impacts, incorporate the following mitigation measures: a. That the applicant provide a closed storm drainage system; b. That the applicant provide a plan for protection of the underlying terrain and aquifer through the installation of oil/grease traps and silt sumps in street catch basins and the installation of a standard riser in the detention system to control the discharge of oil, grease, and sediment. The plan should be subject to approval by the Public Works Department; c. That the applicant provide the City with a plan to ensure checking and maintenance of the storm drainage system for the development on a regular basis. Reports shall be furnished to the Public Works Department every six (6) months. Note: This monitoring could be accomplished by a licensed engineer or might be accomplished by the- complex management staff. If the apartment manager is assigned to this task, the specific responsibilities need to be included in a statement of duties for that position. ' J Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 6 April 5, 1989 3 . Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed impacts to the natural environment anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s) ? The majority of the site is covered with natural vegetation. There is a sizeable deciduous forest and a smaller number of conifers on the site. There is a dense layer of shrubs including such species as the vine maple and salmonberry, salal, swordferns and various types of blackberries. Development of the site, with either PPD or DAD, will result in the elimination of the majority of the above-described vegetation. These plantings will be replaced with ornamental vegetation, native trees, shrubs and lawn. The removal of this vegetation together with the addition of human activity to the site will also result in the change in the composition of the mammal and bird communities on the site (e.g. passerines, towhee, thrush, mice, shrews, snakes and lizards and deer) . It is expected that those species which are more human-tolerant (e.g. crows, sparrows) will dominate the site once development is completed. Other species less tolerant toward human activity (e.g. deer, raccoons, skunk) will be forced to migrate to other sites. Staff recommend that the following conditions be established: a. That the applicant, in order to protect the greenbelt area on the site, provide a covenant which defines that greenbelt area and which prohibits any/all temporary or permanent disruption to the greenbelt, during construction or operation of the proposed development. b. That the applicant provide aesthetic and visual buffers, contain light and glare, and enhance the natural areas on the site. The applicant shall work with the City's landscape planner to ensure that the landscaping plans include plantings of sufficient quality, quantity, size, diversity and location, which will both enhance the natural environment on the site and as well provide sufficient buffers. c. That the applicant establish a plan for the capture and relocation of the larger mammals on the site (deer, raccoons, etc. ) found on the site to other locations within the City or elsewhere. Such a plan shall be developed with representatives of the State Department of Wildlife. Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 7 April 5, 1989 4. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed impacts to environmental health (proximity to electromagnetic power lines) anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s) ? The EIS includes information concerning the presence of electromagnetic power lines, together with existing data concerning proposed expansion, and likely impacts from present/future levels of use. Those impacts are mitigated in PPD by reserving the entire Puget Power right-of-way as an open space. In the DAD alternative, the majority of the right-of-way is retained for open space, with a section of the southeast corner of that area reserved for approximately 108 parking spaces. These parking spaces are less convenient to residential units than are parking areas within the complex. Howevet, these spaces are useful for guest parking and convenient to the arterial, as well as to pedestrian walkways and to public transit lines along N.E. 4th Street. While the studies on electric and magnetic fields of transmission lines cited in the DEIS do not indicate any health risk, the information is insufficient at this time to derive any definitive conclusions on these relationships. In the short-term, injury is possible to residents of the development due to such activities as kite flying and the climbing of the towers. In order to minimize long term and short term impacts to the residents, the following measures should be taken: a. That the applicant provide written information to residents on the dangers of electrical shocks from the transmission lines. b. That the applicant work with Puget Power to develop an acceptable proposal for signage and fencing of the transmission towers. c. That the applicant keep all buildings a minimum of 100 feet from all potential 230 KV transmission lines. 5. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed land use impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed. development(s) ? Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 8 April 5, 1989 Both the PPD and DAD alternatives propose developments of 360 residential units. As a result, impacts from both of the options are anticipated to be • similar. A residential development at this site is compatible with surrounding residential and commercial/service uses. 6. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed aesthetic impacts, noise impacts and light and glare impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s) ? DAD and PPD both include 360 units located in 15 buildings. Interior layouts are similar in both plans. However," in the DAD option the buildings are designed and sited to better enhance views and to protect the privacy of the residents through the provision of greater visual variety, visual" relief, and "staggered" structural placement. In this option, buildings are located in such a manner that enables safer, more efficient vehicle and pedestrian travel through the site. Also, more open space is available. Under both options noise impacts from adjacent roadways and developments are anticipated to be similar, and to be mitigable through structural - improvements, and through location of structures and amenities (e.g. open spaces, recreation areas) . On-site noise impacts are not anticipated to be unusual; those impacts can also be mitigated through building design and location. Both the PPD option and the DAD option are planned to mitigate noise impacts. The design of the DAD option, which includes better separation and articulation 'of buildings, is preferred for noise control. Under both the DAD option and the PPD 'option, the proponent will be advised to provide and direct on-site lighting and landscaping in a manner which limits light and glare impacts to the residential units from on-site and off- site (vehicle headlight) sources. Here, again the DAD option is preferred because the greater open spaces, greater spaces between buildings, and other design features facilitate safe travel on-site (free of light and glare) , and enhance opportunities for providing on- site lighting which illuminates the site without negative impact upon the development. Staff recommend that the following measures be taken: Environmental Review Committee Staff Report, Lexington Ridge EIS Page 9 April 5, 1989 a. That the applicant, in order to provide a a more aesthetically attractive, safer, more functional residential complex, select the design • alternative (DAD) rather than the proposed project design (PPD) , and work with the City's Planning Division to make some modifications to that design to: 1) further improve the appearance of the development; 2) reduce on-site and off-site visual/functional impacts; 3) contain noise impacts; and 4) contain light and glare impacts. Note: Construction-related impacts with respect to aesthetics, noise, light and glare are reviewed in Section 10 of this document. 7. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed traffic (vehicular and pedestrian) impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s) ? Development of the project whether under the PPD alternative or under the DAD alternative would result in the addition of 2, 374 vehicle trips per day. The nearest major intersection serving the site is the signalized intersection of N.E. 3rd St and Sunset Blvd North. This intersection currently operates at a Level of Service F for both the A.M. and P.M. peak periods. This is an unacceptable operating level. The EIS notes that improvements need to be made to this intersection with or without the project. One mitigation measure offered involves signal phasing and additional left-turn lanes (northbound, eastbound and westbound approaches) which would change the P.M. peak period from LOS F to LOS D and the A.M. peak period from LOS E to LOS C. Another problem identified was the potential risk of conflict for pedestrians and vehicles on the segment of Bronson Way N.E. between N.E. 3rd St and N.E. 4th St due to the geometrics (slope, angle, sight distance) of this portion of the roadway. In fact, these features and the resulting concerns about pedestrian and vehicle safety caused METRO to remove transit service along this portion of roadway. The EIS went further, stating substantial improvements, designed to provide long-term solutions to roadway impacts at the above-described intersection and along the adjacent roadway were needed in the vicinity of the project as a result of new development (in addition to the proposed development) planned in the immediate area, and as a result of the substantial Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 10 April 5, 1989 amount of proposed new residential and commercial development in the northeast sector of the City which would be expected to generate a level of traffic which is similarly substantial. The City has asked a major developer in this area to undertake an areawide traffic improvement plan (TBID Plan) in order to determine necessary improvements and assess AWDTE costs. This study is expected to be completed in the next few weeks. A draft of the study has been completed and being reviewed by Traffic Engineering. The Traffic Engineer, based upon the draft traffic study submitted a list of conditions to mitigate the traffic impacts. These conditions are listed in a memo dated March 31, 1989 and attached to this report. Staff determined that there are certain traffic mitigation measures which are necessary to consider the development at the given location which are as follows: a. That the applicant work with METRO to develop an acceptable transportation management plan which shall be approved prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project to reduce the level of vehicle/pedestrian impacts upon the neighborhood. b. That the applicant work with the Parks Department to develop acceptable linkages with the City's trail system located near the site in order to provide for an increased level of pedestrian safety. Note: Construction related traffic impacts are reviewed in Section 10, below. c. That the applicant comply with the conditions recommended by the Traffic Engineer in a memo dated March 31, 1989. 8. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed public service (fire, police, schools, utilities) impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s) ? a. Police Services The EIS states that the proposed project, utilizing either alternative, is anticipated to generate only the customary number and type of police service emergency calls for a 360 unit residential project - one call annually per 1.96 persons -- and that these calls can be addressed within acceptable time parameters using the services of existing staff members, plus 1. 1 new officers (with concomitant levels of new , I I i 1 1 1 Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 11 April 5, 1989 supporting equipment) . While it is estimated that the cost of new resources/services would be, $57, 200, there is presently no approved plan for resource improvement, which would enable the City to require that the applicant provide such funding directly. As a result, it will be necessary for the City to depend upon tax revenues to generate a fair share of funds for such improvements. Additionally, at the time of land use review, if the project is permitted, the applicant will be required to provide signage, lighting, building identification and other improvements to increase general safety on-site and to facilitate efficient emergency response times by police officers. b. Fire Services Either the PPD option or the DAD option is anticipated to increase requirements for service by the Fire Department, as would customarily be expected for a 360 unit residential development. Specifically, it is expected that there would be one call annually for each eleven (11) residents. The Fire Department has not developed a preferred officer/population ratio, however, the City is in the process of implementing a 15 year plan for service improvement, including the employment of new staff 'and the purchase of new equipment. Tax revenues generated by the project will help to support the described improvement project. Staff do recommend that, if the project is permitted, the applicant be required to provide signage, lighting, building identification and other improvements to increase general safety on-site and to facilitate efficient emergency response times by emergency personnel as noted above. c. Utility Services The applicant reports that existing public utility services are available to the site in sufficient quantities and at suitable locations to serve the proposed development (either DAD or PPD) . Utility Engineering has not suggested that environmental mitigation measures are necessary to achieve suitable service levels on-site or to mitigate off-site impacts. Utility lines are available to serve anticipated future development in the immediate vicinity and along the N.e. 3rd Street/N.E. 4th Street corridor. Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 12 April 5, 1989 d. Schools The project is anticipated to introduce approximately 90 new students into the local school system. The proponent reports that these students can be accommodated within the system, by enrollment in currently operating schools and/or reopening of schools presently closed for lack of enrollment. Tax revenue generated by the -development is proposed to provide the major source of support from Lexington Ridge to local improvement programs. 9. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed recreation impacts anticipated to occur on-site and off-site in conjunction with the proposed development(s) ? The. project site is expected to generate approximately .640 persons who would require a combination of on-site and off-site recreational opportunities. The project will include a swimming pool; recreation center with indoor sauna, weight room, lounge with wet bar, sunbeds, spa-jacuzzi and racquetball court; barbecue/picnic area, and two tot lots together with the creation of a linkage with the City's proposed trail system in the Puget Power right of way. Depending upon the project design used, there would be approximately 2 .5 acres (PPD) to 3 .5 acres (DAD) of useable area for recreational space. The space set aside for passive recreation/open space would range from 3 .8 acres (DAD) to 4. 1 acres (PPD) . Finally, based upon the City's standards, the project would result in need for an additional 6.5 acres of general park area. The population proposed for the project is not sufficiently large, however, to support a park on-site or the purchase of a park site in the area. Some specific recreation measures to off-set the impacts from the proposed development to the community have been submitted by Parks Department staff. (See attached. ) 10.Whether the applicant has adequately addressed the noise impacts which will result during the construction phase of the development? The applicant has acknowledged that there will be aesthetic impacts, light and glare and noise impacts in the area which will occur particularly during construction. Since the project site is adjacent to existing residential uses to Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 13 April 5, 1989 the west and east and a church and daycare center to the north, the applicant should mitigate the construction impacts in the following manner: a. That construction equipment be operated within acceptable noise range levels for such equipment. b. That the applicant limit the hours of on-site construction activity on Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. with no construction activity on Sunday. c. That the applicant limit the hauling operations off-site to the hours between 9: 00 a.m. and 3 : 00 p.m. on Monday through Friday to limit traffic impacts to the adjacent roadways. Note: See Section 1 of this document for additional construction-related conditions. C. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based upon the above analysis, staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated subject to the following conditions: 1. In order to reduce the erosion impacts of earthwork on the site., the following measures should be taken by the applicant: a. That the applicant shall schedule all earthwork activity, to the greatest extent possible, during the dry months of the year (May 1st through September 30th) . Any such activity occurring during the wet months of the year, would require review by the City as to acceptable measures to be taken during this period to reduce or avoid the impacts of erosion and sedimentation. b. That the applicant install a wheel wash system together with the installation of a roadway at the entrances of the ingress and egress points to the site. c. That the applicant provide the City with a $4000.00 revolving cash bond for street clean-up. d. That the applicant work with the City of Renton Public Works Department on acceptable erosion and sedimentation control methods including: the use of siltation fences, temporary Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 14 April 5, 1989 ditches, the coverage of stockpiled soil, and retention ponds if deemed necessary. These erosion control methods shall be maintained; e. That within 15 days of completion of clearing, grading, and filling activities, the exposed soils will be hydroseeded: Note: Hydroseeding must be completed within a timeframe which allows the hydroseeding to take effect before the winter weather arrives, f. That the applicant periodically water down the site to control production/migration of dust from the site to neighboring properties, g. Should earthwork and/or construction activity occur during the wet months of the year, a soils engineer shall be hired to monitor erosion and sedimentation control measures to ensure that such measures are working properly and _are maintained as well as working with the Public Works Department on additional or revised measures should problems arise. 2 . That the following mitigation measures need to be incorporated into the storm. drainage system: a. That the applicant provide a closed storm drainage system; b. That the applicant provide a plan for protection of the underlying terrain and aquifer through the installation of oil/grease traps and silt sumps in street catch basins and the installation of a standard riser in the detention system to control the discharge of oil, grease, and sediment. The plan should be subject to approval by the Public Works Department; c. That the applicant provide the City with a plan to ensure checking and maintenance of the storm drainage system for the development on a regular basis. Reports shall be furnished to the Public Works Department every six (6) months. Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 15 April 5, 1989 Note: This monitoring could be accomplished by a licensed engineer or might be accomplished by the complex management staff. If the • apartment manager is assigned to this task, the specific responsibilities need to be included in a statement of duties for that position. 3 . That in order to reduce impacts to the natural environment, the following measures be incorporated into the development plans: a. That the applicant, in order to protect the greenbelt area on the site, provide a covenant which defines that greenbelt area and which prohibits any/all temporary or permanent disruption to the greenbelt, during construction or operation of the proposed development. b. That the applicant shall work with the City's landscape planner to ensure that the landscaping plans include plantings of sufficient quality, quantity, size, diversity and location, which will both enhance the natural environment on the site and as well provide sufficient buffers. c. That the applicant establish a plan for the capture and relocation of the larger mammals on the site (deer, raccoons, etc. ) found on the site to other locations within the City or elsewhere. Such a plan shall be developed with representatives of the State Department of Wildlife. 4 . That in order minimize the log term and short term impacts of the transmission lines, the following measures shall be required: a. That the applicant provide written information to residents on the dangers of electrical shocks from the transmission lines. b. That the applicant work with Puget Power to develop an acceptable proposal for signage and fencing of the transmission towers. c. That the applicant keep all buildings a minimum of 250 feet from the transmission lines. Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 16 April 5, 1989 5. That in order to reduce the aesthetic, noise and light and glare impacts, the following measures be incorporated into the project: a. That in order to provide a a more aesthetically attractive, safer, more functional residential complex, the applicant shall use the design alternative (DAD) rather than the proposed project design (PPD) . Further, the applicant shall work with the City's Planning Division to make some modifications to that design to: 1) further improve the appearance of the development; 2) reduce on-site and off-site visual/functional impacts; 3) contain noise impacts; and 4) contain light and glare impacts. 6. That in order to address the traffic impacts of the project, the following measures be incorporated into the project: a. That the applicant work with METRO to develop an acceptable transportation management plan which shall be approved prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project to reduce the level of vehicle/pedestrian impacts upon the neighborhood. b. That the applicant work with the Parks Department to develop acceptable linkages with the City's trail system located near the site in order to provide for an increased level of pedestrian safety. c. That the applicant install standard curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street lighting improvements around the periphery of the project. d. That the applicant provide a transit lane pull-out on-NE 3rd, or, alternately, the developer can construct an additional lane along their NE 3rd frontage. Since an additional lane westbound is identified as a necessary improvement in the NE 3rd/NE 4th TBZ, the developer should be allowed credit for construction of the lane. However, no credit should be allowed if the developer opts to construct the transit pull-out only. Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 17 April 5, 1989 e. The preferred alternative identified access to the site from NE 3rd. As a result of sight distance, extreme grades and a history of runaway truck accidents on NE 3rd, we reserve judgement at this time on whether or not the identified access should be allowed. f. Lexington Ridge participation in the NE 3rd/NE 4th TBZ was identified at this time to be $670, 000 based upon $288 per trip under the preferred alternative. The NE 3rd/NE 4th TBZ has not been adopted by City Council. Hence, the developer was requested to bond the $670, 000. The $670, 000 was presented as a "worse case" scenario; however, further study of the draft TBZ document indicated that may not be the case. g. It is assumed that the incremental impact of this project on other necessary improvements in this corridor will be addressed through the traffic mitigation fee. 7. That in order to reduce the recreation impacts of the development, the following measures shall be incorporated into the project: a. Install an outdoor half court basketball facility. b. Develop the Sunset Trail utilizing the Puget Power line right-of-way which runs north and south along the east property line of the project. The Sunset Trail is the only north/south pedestrian separated right-of-way trail that will link the Cedar Trail System to the Lake Washington Blvd. trail system. c. Redesign needs to be undertaken to that the trails integrity is maintained, i.e. that it reads like a trail and not like a parking lot. Shift the portion of the parking lot located within the alignment, of the Sunset trail away from the trail in order to preserve the integrity of the trail. Y r S Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS Page 18 April 5, 1989 d. Pedestrian facilities should also be developed along NE 3rd Street, NE 4th Street, and Bronson. 8 . That in order reduce the noise impacts of the construction activity, the following measures shall be adhered to: a. That construction equipment be operated within acceptable noise range levels for such equipment. b. That the applicant limit the hours of on-site construction activity on Saturdays between the hours of 8: 00 a.m. and 6: 00 p.m. with no construction activity on Sunday. c. That the applicant limit the hauling operations off-site to the hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3 : 00 p.m. on Monday through Friday to limit traffic impacts to the adjacent roadways. • BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT April 5, 1989 A. BACKGROUND: APPLICANT: Centron PROJECT: Lexington Ridge ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF; SA 082-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Review of EIS submitted by applicant in conjunction with a request for site plan approval for the development of 360 unit multi-family residential complex. This 13.4 acre parcel is zoned R-4, High Density Multi-Family Residential Use. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located between N.E. 3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street, west of Edmonds Avenue N.E., and east of the Bronson/N.E. 3rd Street intersection. Environmental Review Committ„„.staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS April 5, 1989 Page 2 • • B. ANALYSIS: Background: The proponent initially submitted the application for site plan review in 1987. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Significance in October, 1987 calling for an Environmental Impact Statement, with particular emphasis upon the need for more information in the following areas: I) vehicular and pedestrian traffic circulation impacts (on-site and off-site); 2) soil/slope character and stability, grading; 3) storm water run-off/drainage management; 4) aquifer protection - this project is in Zone I of the proposed APA; 5) availability and accessibility of off- site recreational facilities; 6) electro-magnetic impacts from nearby power lines upon human health and safety; 7) public service impacts; and 8) aesthetic/safety impacts relating to design of the development (e.g. structures, parking areas, open spaces/rockeries, on-site roadways, etc.). The proponent published a DEIS in November of 1988, and a FEIS in January of 1989. These documents are to be reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee to determine whether the concerns defined in conjunction with the scoping for environmental review have been addressed. If those areas of concern are determined to have been adequately addressed, the ERC may establish mitigation conditions for the proposed residential development. Processing of the application will then resume. Note: Staff conducted an analysis of the EIS in order to facilitate ERC review. This analysis has been focussed on two alternatives -- the proponent's proposed development (PPD), and the design alternative development (DAD) suggested by the City. Staff views these options as the most viable alternatives for the proposed development. In addition to these two development alternatives, the EIS addressed a third option with a higher density than the DAD and the PAD alternatives. ISSUES 1. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed impacts to the earth (soil slope/stability) anticipated from excavation, grading, development (structures, amenities, infrastructure) and utilization of the subject property? The existing site was formerly used as a gravel pit. Small pits (3 to 6 feet in depth and 20 to 30 feet in diameter) exist in various locations on the site. The north central portion of the site has a steep cut slope. This cut slope is approximately 20 to 40 feet high with a slope of approximately 63%. The geotechnical analysis provided by Golder Associates indicates that the geologic conditions of the site are such that there is a low risk of landsliding or seismic induced liquefaction or consolidation on the site. Further they indicate that the proposed modifications to the topography of the site will further decrease the risk of such events. Finally, there is the potential for additional erosion on the site due to the clearing, grading, and cut and fill activity proposed in order to develop the proposed project; such anticipated erosion should be controlled through mitigation measures described below. Both the proposed project development (PPD) and the Design Alternative (DAD) will require a substantial amount of excavation. The PPD alternative will require the excavation of approximately 245,000 cubic yards of material and the DAD alternative will require 290,000 cubic yards of material. While the DAD requires more excavation, it will provide more open space and, thus, presumably better opportunities for controlling erosion on sensitive/steep slope portions of the site. In order to reduce erosion impacts of earthwork on the site during construction activities, staff will recommend the development of several specific mitigation measures described below. 2. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed storm water drainage impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development? Development on the site with the PPD option will result in covering approximately 51% of the site with impervious surfaces (roadways, buildings and parking area). Selection of the DAD option would result in the implementation of a design which would provide larger contiguous areas of open space, however, impervious surfaces would remain essentially the same as those occurring in the PPD. The 0.8 of an acre site reserved as a greenbelt in the southern portion of the site would be retained with either option. • Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS April 5, .1989 Page 3 Once the development is completed with either option, storm water runoff will contain higher concentrations of nitrates and phosphates due mainly to the use of fertilizers on the site, sediment, heavy metals, oil and grease as a result of motor vehicle traffic on the site. This type/level of run-off is customary for a residential development of the proposed density. However, special concerns exist with respect to the type and quantity of proposed run-off, as a result of the fact that the subject parcel is located in Zone II of the proposed APA, at a point on the boundary of the Zone II area. Specific 1 mitigation measures are being established in consultation with the staff of the Public Works Department. The DEIS noted that the use of biofiltration was not considered as part of the storm drainage system for the site due to the lack of sufficient area to adequately accommodate such systems, and due to the fact that there are no open drainage courses to connect to such a system. Development of the site would result in a greater amount of storm water runoff with a reduction in the amount of groundwater recharge. The geotechnical study prepared by Golder Associates noted that the amount of groundwater displaced would be small relative to the entire Cedar River drainage basin. Small quantities of nitrates, phosphates, oil, heavy metals, grease and oil would be present in the stormwater entering the soils. However, the amount actually entering the groundwater supply, following recommended improvements to the storm water management system, is expected to have an insignificant impact on groundwater quality. Mitigation measures for this project, and future developments, are intended to control cumulative impacts, as well as those impacts from individual activities. Conditions are recommended below for drainage systems proposed for the development (with either PPD or DAD), in order to address potential storm drainage impacts: 3. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed impacts to the natural environment anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s)? The majority of the site is covered with natural vegetation. There is a sizeable deciduous forest and a smaller number of conifers on the site. There is a dense layer of shrubs including such species as the vine maple and salmonberry, salal, swordferns and various types of blackberries. Staff is concerned that development of the site, with either PPD or DAD, allow retention of that vegetation which is on the designated greenbelt. Staff will also recommend that those plantings which must be eliminated to enable development be replaced with ornamental vegetation, native trees, shrubs and lawn. The removal of existing vegetation together with the addition of human activity to the site will also result in the change in the composition of the mammal and bird communities on the site (e.g. passerines, towhee, thrush, mice, shrews, snakes and lizards and deer). If an adequate habitat is provided (by the additional of new, natural landscaping), it is expected that those species which are more human-tolerant (e.g. crows, sparrows) will continue to be present on the site once development is completed. 4. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed impacts to environmental health (proximity to electromagnetic power lines) anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s)? The EIS includes information concerning the presence of electromagnetic power lines, together with existing data concerning proposed expansion, and likely impacts from present/future levels of use. The studies on electric and magnetic fields of transmission lines cited in the DEIS indicate that Puget Power lines existing in the 200 foot corridor to the east of the site contain 115- kV and 55 kV power lines. Future plans may include construction of additional 115 kV line or a 230 kV line along that corridor. The proponent's report indicate that existing information is insufficient at this time to derive any definitive conclusions with respect to long-term impacts; independent studies conducted previously describe potential increases in leukemia in children living proximate,to power lines. In the short-term, injury is possible to residents of the development due to such activities as kite flying and the climbing of the towers. Likely short-term impacts and possible long-term impacts are/can be mitigated in the PPD alternative by reserving the entire Puget Power right-of-way as an open space and by ensuring that abutting structures are so placed to comply with U.S. Department of Energy • Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS April 5, 1989 Page 4 recommendations for siting developments in the vicinity of power lines (e.g. a minimum of 50 feet from 115 kV lines and a minimum of 100 feet from 230 kV lines). In the DAD alternative, the majority of the right-of-way is retained for open space, with a section of the southeast corner of that area reserved for approximately 108 parking spaces. These parking spaces are less convenient to residential units than are parking areas within the complex. However, these spaces are useful for guest parking and convenient to the arterial, as well as to pedestrian walkways and to adjacent public transit lines. Environmental health impacts can be mitigated by location of all outside of the electromagnetic fields of the power lines. In order to minimize long-term and short-term environmental health impacts to the residents, staff will recommend specific mitigation measures. 5. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed land use impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s)? Both the PPD and DAD alternatives propose developments of 360 residential units. As a result, impacts from both of the options are anticipated to be similar. A residential development at this site appears to be compatible with surrounding residential and commercial/service uses. 6. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed aesthetic impacts, noise impacts and light and glare impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s)? . DAD and PPD both include 360 units located in 15 buildings. Interior layouts are similar in both plans. However, in the DAD option the buildings are designed and sited in a way which more effectively addresses criteria identified in the Site Plan Review Ordinance. For example, the plan selected for the Design Alternative better enhances views and protects the privacy of the residents through the provision of greater visual variety, visual relief, and "staggered" structural placement. In this option, buildings are located in a manner which enables safer, more efficient vehicle and pedestrian travel through the site. Also, more open space is available. Under both options noise impacts from adjacent roadways and developments are anticipated to be similar, and to be mitigable through structural improvements, and through location of structures and amenities (e.g. open spaces, recreation areas). On-site noise impacts are not anticipated to be unusual; those impacts can also be mitigated through building design and location. Both the PPD option and the DAD option are planned to mitigate noise impacts. The design of the DAD option, which includes better separation and articulation of buildings, is preferred for noise control. Under both the DAD option and the PPD option, the proponent will be advised to provide and direct on-site lighting and landscaping in a manner which limits light and glare impacts to the residential units from on-site and off-site (vehicle headlight) sources. Here, again the ' DAD option is preferred because the greater open spaces, greater spaces between buildings, and other design features facilitate safe travel on-site, and enhance opportunities for providing on-site lighting which illuminates the site without negative impact upon the development. Staff recommendations for mitigation measures are described below in Section "C". These will include construction-related impacts (discussed in Section B-10) with respect to aesthetics, noise, light and glare. 7. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed traffic (vehicular and pedestrian) impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development(s)? Development of the project whether under the PPD alternative or under the DAD alternative would result in the addition of 2,374 vehicle trips per day. • 0. Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS April 5, 1989 Page 5 The nearest major intersection serving the site is the signalized intersection of N.E. 3rd St and Sunset Blvd North. This intersection currently operates at a Level of Service F for both the A.M. and P.M. peak periods. This is an unacceptable operating level. The EIS notes that improvements need to be made to this intersection with or without the project. One mitigation measure offered involves signal phasing and additional left-turn lanes (northbound, eastbound and westbound approaches) which would change the P.M. peak period from LOS F to LOS D and the A.M. peak period from LOS E to LOS C. (Note: Desired improvements are described in a memo of March 31, 1989, and listed below in Section "C".) • Another problem identified was the potential risk of conflict for pedestrians and vehicles on the segment of Bronson Way N.E. between N.E. 3rd St and N.E. 4th St due to the geometrics (slope, angle, sight distance) of this portion of the roadway. In fact, these features and the resulting concerns about pedestrian and vehicle safety caused METRO to remove transit service along this portion of roadway. The EIS went further, stating substantial improvements, designed to provide long-term solutions to roadway impacts at the above-described intersection and along the adjacent roadway were needed in the vicinity of the project as a result of new development (in addition to the proposed development) planned in the immediate area, and as a result of the substantial amount of proposed new residential and commercial development in the northeast sector of the City which would be expected to generate a level of traffic which is similarly substantial. Note: The City has asked a major developer in this area to undertake an area-wide traffic benefit improvement zone plan (TBZ Plan) in order to determine necessary improvements and assess AWDTE costs. A draft of the study has been completed and is being reviewed by Traffic Engineering. The Traffic Engineer, based upon the draft traffic study, submitted a list of conditions to mitigate the traffic impacts. These conditions are listed in a memo dated March 31, 1989 and available in the project application file. Staff determined that there are certain traffic mitigation measures which are necessary to consider the development at the given location which are described below. Note: Construction related traffic impacts are reviewed in Section 10, below. 8. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed public service (fire. police, schools, utilities) impacts anticipated to occur in con junction with the proposed development(s)? a. Police Services The EIS states that the proposed project, utilizing either alternative, is anticipated to generate only the customary number and type of police service emergency calls for a 360 unit residential project - .63 annual calls per unit -- and that these calls can be addressed within acceptable time parameters using the services of existing staff members, plus 1.1 new officers (with concomitant levels of new supporting equipment). While it is estimated that the cost of new resources/services would be $57,200, there is presently no approved plan for resource improvement, which would enable the City to require that the applicant provide such funding directly. As a result, it will be necessary for the City to depend upon increased tax revenues to generate a fair share of funds for such improvements. Additionally, at the time of land use review, the applicant will be required to provide signage, lighting, building identification and other improvements to increase general safety on-site and to facilitate efficient emergency response times by police officers. b. Fire Services • Either the PPD option or the DAD option is anticipated to increase requirements for service by the Fire Department, as would customarily be expected for a 360 unit residential development. Specifically, it is expected that there would be one call annually for each eleven (11) residents. The Fire Department has not developed a preferred officer/population ratio, however, the City is in the process of implementing a 15 year plan for service improvement, including the employment of new staff and the purchase of new equipment. Tax revenues generated by the project will help to support the necessary service improvements. • Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS April 5, 1989 Page 6 • Staff do recommend that, if the development (with either option) is permitted, the applicant be required to provide signage, lighting, building identification and other improvements to increase general safety on-site and to facilitate efficient emergency response times by emergency personnel as noted above. c. Utility Services The applicant reported in the Environmental Impact Statement that existing public utility services would be available to the site in sufficient quantities and at suitable locations to serve the proposed development (either DAD or PPD). Utility Engineering has not suggested that environmental mitigation measures are necessary to achieve suitable service levels on-site or to mitigate off-site impacts. Utility lines are available to serve anticipated future development in the immediate vicinity and along the N.E. 3rd Street/N.E. 4th Street corridor.(*) (*) On April 10, 1989, subsequent to the meeting of the April 5th meeting of Environmental Review Committee at which the Lexington Ridge EIS was reviewed, the Public Works Department made an informal determination (based upon preliminary findings of a sanitary sewer systems study) that sewer lines in the vicinity of the proposed development are near to or at capacity. Public Works Department staff are working with the proponent to develop measures which would allow the provision of adequate sanitary sewer service to the site. d. Schools The project is anticipated to introduce approximately p J p pproximately 90 new students into the local school system. The proponent reports that these students can be accommodated within the system, by enrollment in currently operating schools and/or reopening of schools presently closed for lack of enrollment. Currently, the Renton School System provides transportation to elementary school aged children living at least one mile from a school. 9. Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed recreation impacts anticipated to occur on-site and off-site in conjunction with the proposed development(s)? The project site is expected to generate approximately640 persons (including approximately 100 children) who would require a combination of on-site and off-site recreational opportunities. The project will include a swimming pool; recreation center with indoor sauna, weight room, lounge with wet bar, sunbeds, spa-jacuzzi and racquetball court; barbecue/picnic area, and two tot lots together with the creation of a linkage with the City's proposed trail system in the Puget Power right-of-way. Depending upon the project design used, there would be approximately 2.5 acres (PPD) to 3.5 acres (DAD) of useable area for recreational space. The space set aside for passive recreation/open space would range from 3.8 acres (DAD) to 4.1 acres (PPD). Finally, based upon the City's standards, the project would result in need for an additional 6.5 acres of general park area. The population proposed for the project is not sufficiently large, however, to support a park on-site or the purchase of a park site in the area, or measures (such as transportation services) which improve access to existing recreational amenities. Some specific recreation measures to off-set the impacts from the proposed development to the community have been submitted by Parks Department staff; these are listed below. 10. Whether the applicant has adequately addressed the noise impacts which will result during the construction phase of the development? • The applicant has acknowledged that there will be aesthetic impacts, light and glare and noise impacts in the area which will occur particularly during construction. Since the project site is adjacent to existing residential uses to the west and east and a church and daycare center to the north, the applicant should mitigate the construction impacts in the manner recommended below: Note: See Section 1 of this document for additional construction-related conditions. Environmental Review Commiti staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS April 5, 1989 Page 7 C. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based upon the above analysis, staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated subject to the following conditions: 1. In order to reduce the erosion impacts of earthwork on the site, the following measures should be taken by the applicant: a. That the applicant shall schedule all earthwork activity, to the greatest extent possible, during the dry months of the year (May 1st through September 30th). Any such activity occurring during the wet months of the year, would require review by the City as to acceptable measures to be taken during this period to reduce or avoid the impacts of erosion and sedimentation. b. That the applicant install a wheel wash system together with the installation of a roadway at the entrances of the ingress and egress points to the site. c. That the applicant provide the City with a $4000.00 revolving cash bond for street clean-up. d. That the applicant work with the City of Renton Public Works Department on acceptable erosion and sedimentation control methods including: the use of siltation fences, temporary ditches, the coverage of stockpiled soil, and retention ponds if deemed necessary. These erosion control methods shall be maintained; e. That within 15 days of completion of clearing, grading, and filling activities, the exposed soils will be hydroseeded: Note: Hydroseeding must be completed within a timeframe which allows the hydroseeding to take effect before the winter weather arrives, f. That the applicant periodically water down the site to control production/migration of dust from the site to neighboring properties, g. Should earthwork and/or construction activity occur during the wet months of the year, a soils engineer shall be hired to monitor erosion and sedimentation control measures to ensure that such measures are working properly and are maintained as well as working with the Public Works Department on additional or revised measures should problems arise. 2. That the following mitigation measures need to be incorporated into the storm drainage system: a. That the applicant provide a tightline storm drainage system; b. That the applicant provide a plan for protection of the underlying terrain and aquifer through the installation of oil/grease traps and silt sumps in street catch basins and the installation of a standard riser in the detention system to control the discharge of oil, grease, and sediment. The plan should be subject to approval by the Public Works Department; c. That the applicant provide the City with an agreement describing a plan to ensure checking and maintenance of the storm drainage system for the development on a regular basis. This monitoring is to be accomplished by a certified professional soils engineer. Reports shall be furnished to the Public Works Department every six (6) months. The plan shall be subject to approval by the Public Works Department and by the City Attorney. 3. That in order to reduce impacts to the natural environment, the following measures be incorporated into the development plans: a. That the applicant, in order to protect the greenbelt area on the site, provide a covenant which defines that greenbelt area and which prohibits any/all temporary or permanent disruption to the greenbelt, during construction or operation of the proposed development. Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Lexington Ridge EIS April 5, 1989 Page 8 b. That the applicant design a landscaping plan (including retained natural vegetation and new plantings) in order to provide aesthetic and visual buffers, contain light and glare, and enhance the natural areas on the site. The applicant shall work with the City's landscape planner to ensure that the landscaping plans include retention of a maximum feasible amount of natural plantings, as well as introducing new plantings of sufficient quality, quantity, size, diversity and location, to both enhance the natural environment on the site and as well provide sufficient buffers. c. That the applicant establish a plan for the capture and relocation of the larger mammals on the site (deer, raccoons, etc.) found on the site to other locations within the City or elsewhere. Such a plan shall be developed with representatives of the State Department of Wildlife. 4. That in order minimize the log term and short term impacts of the transmission lines, the following measures shall be required: a. That the applicant provide written information to residents on the dangers of electrical shocks from the transmission lines. b. That the applicant work with Puget Power to develop an acceptable proposal for signage and fencing of the transmission towers. c. That the applicant agree to locate all buildings so that electro-magnetic field intensity in those structures is no greater than 110 milligaus. 5. That in order to reduce the aesthetic, noise and light and glare impacts, the following measures be incorporated into the project: a. That the applicant, in order to provide a a more aesthetically attractive, safer, more functional residential complex, select the design alternative (DAD) rather than the proposed project design (PPD), and work with the City's Planning Division, in conjunction with site plan review, to make some modifications to that design to: 1) further improve the appearance of the development; 2) reduce on-site and off-site visual/functional impacts; 3) contain noise impacts through building design (e.g. exterior material, interior insulation) and location (separation of structures from one another and from abutting uses -- rights-of-way and uses); and 4) contain light and glare impacts through location of on-site pedestrian scaled exterior lighting in a manner which fully illuminates the development without directing light or glare off- site, and through location of landscaping/fencing to screen light and glare adjacent to the site. 6. That in order to address the traffic impacts of the project, the following measures be incorporated into the project: a. That the applicant work with METRO to develop an acceptable transportation systems management plan (TSM) which shall be approved prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project to reduce the level of vehicle/pedestrian impacts upon the neighborhood. b. That the applicant work with the Parks and Recreation Department to develop acceptable linkages with the City's trail system located near the site in order to provide for recreational amenities and a concomitant increased level of pedestrian safety. c. That the applicant comply with the conditions recommended by, the Traffic Engineer, described in a Memorandum dated March 31, 1989, and delineated as follows: 1. Standard curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lighting improvements to be installed around the periphery of the project. Environmental Review Committer.,taff Report Lexington Ridge EIS April 5, 1989 Page 9 2. Provision of a transit lane pull-out on N.E. 3rd, or, alternately, the 4/ construction of an additional lane along the N.E. 3rd Street property frontage. Since an additional lane westbound is.identified as a necessary improvement in the N .. 3rd/N.E. 4th'TBZ, the developer should be allowed credit for .* construction of the lane. However, no credit should bellowed if the i00developer oppto construct the transit pull-out only: of * (Note: The4Bronson Way/N.E. 3rd Street intersection presents a severe grade problem. Recently, transit service was discontinued on Bronson Way as the buses experienced significant damage when negotiating the turn to N.E. 3rd. I''. The result of this action eliminated transit service to the Group Health Clinic. Any widening of N.E. 3rd Street must address the grade pi-oblem on Bronson. the precise amount of financial responsibility to be assumed by the developer is to be established by existing Public Works Departmeht/Traffic Engineering Division policies).lir �i` T1. . 3. Participation in the N.E. 3rd/N.E. 4th TBZ, at $670,000 ($288 per trip). As `the N.E.3rd St/N.E. 4th Street TBZ has not been adopted by City Cou,pcil, ' the develop'6r should be requested, to'provide a bond'(or equivalent agreement) in the amount of $670,000,, subject to the approval cif the*City Attorney. s. I. 7. That in order to reduce the recreation impacts of the development, the following measures shall be incorporated into the project: 0 V SP a. The'llevelopment of an outdoor half-court basketball facility. �. .1 40 b. fa Ths improvement of the Sunset Trail l�kage uujilizing the Puget Power line right-of- way which runs north and south along the easrproperty line of the project in order to link the Cedl,Trail System to the Lake Washington Boulevard trail system. This } improvement will require some corollary redesign of the parking area nod/ planned for that right-of-way, in order tq,,clearly identify the trail area and Maintain trail integrity. 0 i 0 4• c. Pedestrian facilities should also be developed along.NE 3rd Street, NE 4th Street, and„Bronson Way, subject to appval by the Parks and Recreation Department. R 8. That in order to protect public health and safety the developer shall ensure the provision of adequate sanitary sewer service to the site through a system which is'approved by the Public`Works Department. (This condition established following May 12, 1989 identification of system capacity''problems): • t 9. That in order reduce the noise impacts of the construction activity, the following measures shall 15'6 adhered to: a t... t+ . a. That construction equipment be operated within acceptable noise range levels for ' such equipment. 4 a :. b. That the applicant limit the hours onsite construction activity on Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and,600 p.m. with no construction activity on Sunday. 4 of c. That the applicant limit the hauling orations off-site to the hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday to limit traffic impacts to the adjacent roadways. • d. That the applicant provide a street clean-up bond in the amount of $4,000.00. i' f g IC,RE - . 11 .ffrini • O C i 13 1989 October 13, 1989 CITY OF RENTON WEARING EXAMINER Ms . Lenora Blauman Senior Planner City of Renton 200 mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Lexington Ridge Apartments- Metro Bus Route and Puget Power Easement Dear Lenora : I have enclosed for your review and as a clarification for Mr . Fred Kaufman a copy of a letter I received from Mr . Doug Johnson of Metro in reference to the Environmental Review Committee Staff Report (dated April 5, 1989 ) Recommendation # 6 c . 2 . where it says " Provision of a transit lane pull-out on N.E. 3rd, or, alternately, the construction of an additional lane along the N .E . 3rd Street property frontage . " Mr . Johnson did not feel that a bus pull-out lane was a workable solution but that a pedestrian access to the current bus route stops on Edmonds Ave . N.E. would make more sense . An improved City sidewalk exists to the southeast part of the development and we would provide a direct access off our parking lot . We will also provide for an additional access on N.E. 4th for the residents that live on the north and west portion of the development. Also, we have verbally got an agreement with Puget Power (Wayne Bressler- Right of Way Dept . ) to purchase their property from them and then give them an easement for their power lines . Having an independent appraiser determine the value of the property is the last step in this process . I hope that this information clarifies the previous information that Mr . Kaufman had received . If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 882-4537 . Respectfully yours, Steven J . Malsam Project Manager cc: Mr . Fred Kaufman, Hearings Examiner Mr . Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer Mr . Bob Johns Mr . Jim Summers mETRo- Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle,WA 98104-1598 October 12, 1989 OCT 1 3 1989 Mr. Steve Malsam, Project Manager Centron Development 3025 112th Avenue N.E. , Suite 100 Bellevue, Washington 98004 RE; Access to Transit for New Apartment Project on N.E. 3rd Street Near Edmonds Avenue N.E. Dear Steve: As we discussed over the phone, I'm reluctant to see a pair of Metro bus zones added on N.E. 3rd Street between Blaine Avenue N.E. and Edmonds Avenue N.E. because of the potential traffic safety problems. Buses going eastbound, up the hill on 3rd, will have a particularly difficult time making a stop and then shifting over into the left turn lane to go north on Edmonds. I believe that a more reasonable alternative would be to improve pedestrian access tothe existing Metro bus zones on Edmonds. This should be done through two different improvements: (1) a pedestrian connection down to the sidewalk on N.E. 3rd Street at the S.E. corner of theproject and (2) a new access in the N.E. corner of theproject over to the existing adjacent apartment complex which is on Edmonds. rd These improvements should reduce the need for new bus zones on N.E. 3—' Street. Please contact me ,if you need any additional information. Thank you. Sincerely, Doug Johnson Transit Planner DJ:das ICI ur� *fr *f0 CITY OF RENTON • HEARING EXAMINER Earl Clymer, Mayor Fred J. Kaufman September 25, 1989 To All Parties Of Record Re: Appeal of Centron (Lexington Ridge) SA-082-87 Ladies and Gentlemen: The above referenced appeal was remanded back to this office by the City Council. It is the position of this office that we will proceed in reviewing information previously submitted and will not re-open the hearing unless a party can show good cause for new information to be submitted for review. Sincerely, FRED J. KYUFMAN HEARING EXAMINER FJK/dk CITY OF RENTON cc: All Parties of Staff SEP 2 5 1989 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2593 `;,:`pia qi CITY OF RENTON FINANCE DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Maxine E. Motor, City Clerk September 14, 1989 Robert D. Johns, Esq. 3600 Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104-7081 Subject: Appeal of Centron (Lexington Ridge) SA-082-87 Dear Mr. Johns: The Renton City Council at its abbreviated council meeting of September 11, 1989, approved the attached Planning and Development Committe report (as corrected: bottom of Page 1) concerning your appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision of July 17, 1989. The City Council remanded your application to the Hearing Examiner to reconsider the density and parking, and to complete the remainder of the site plan approval process and enter complete findings of fact and conclusions on the remaining issues. Yours truly, CITY OF RENTON Maxine E. Motor, CMC City Clerk Enclosure cc: Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner Parties of Record 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2501 Facsimile (206) 235-2513 , t d PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT TO: Renton City Council FROM: Planning and Development Committee RE: Centron (Lexington Ridge) - File No. SA-082-87 The committee convened an appeal hearing on August 31, 1989 . After approximately forty-five minutes into the meeting staff realized that the taping equipment had ceased functioning. Therefore, the meeting was recessed and continued until September 7, 1989 . At that time the committee convened to consider the appeal of Centron. The subject property is located between N.E. 4th Street and N.E. 3rd Street, west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. and east of Bronson. Way N.E. The applicant seeks site plan approval to develop 13 .4 acres with a 360 unit multi-family residential complex. The applicant appeals from the decision of the hearing examiner dated July 17, 1989, insofar as the hearing examiner found (finding No. 27) that the power line greenbelt adjacent to the property owned by Puget Power was used for the purposes of calculating density. Additionally, applicant appeals the conclusions drawn by the hearing examiner Nos. 1 through 12 that parking is not permitted on the Puget Power right-of-way. . Further, applicant appeals the hearing examiner's conclusion that the use of the Puget Power right-of-way was used improperly by the applicant to calculate the permitted density of the subject site. After review by the committee of the file and the presentations of staff and the applicant, the . Planning and Development Committee found that the applicant and staff did not improperly calculate density on the subject site. Furthermore, it is not improper to allow parking on a power line corridor to serve an adjacent property. There is precedent for that kind of use by residential as well as commercial projects. It is not the intent of this committee, by way of the recommendation in this report, to render an opinion regarding the merits of this project. The committee did find a substantial error of fact in the hearing examiner's finding No. 27 . The provision for parking under the Puget Power lines would not be used to 'U'crease density. Further, the committee finds that there were substantial errors in the hearing examiner's conclusions Nos . 1 through 12 concerning the use of the Puget Power corridor. This project does not set a precedent. There has been similar use in the past. The use of the Puget Power corridor in this project would allow for open spaces, extended use F Planning and Development Committee Report Centron (Lexington Ridge) Appeal September 11, 1989 Page -2- of trail amenities and improved transportation; therefore, should be used if the right-of-way can be irrevocably secured for the life of this project. The Planning and Development Committee recommends that this application be remanded to the hearing examiner to reconsider the density and parking. Further, after considering the density and parking in accordance with the findings of the Planning and Development Committee, the hearing examiner should then complete the remainder 'of the site plan approval process and enter complete findings of fact and conclusions on the remaining issues . The Planning and Development Committee did not consider any additional findings of fact for the site plan. Those need• to be considered in a further hearing by the hearing examiner. If the hearing examiner feels that any additional -information is necessary for the purposes of the complete site plan approval, he may use his discretion to reopen the testimony. DATED: September 11, 1989 . • n Reed, Chairman (-4a/gai Nancy Mrhews Kathy Keolker-Wheeler ZLF:as. cc: Don Erickson City7 :43 . September 11. 1989 Renton City Council Minute:: Page 256 MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH DELETION OF ITEM S.E.. CARRIED. Item 5.e. Mayor Clymer reappointed the following individuals to the Planning Appointment: Planning Commission for .three year terms to expire on 6/30/92: Kathleen Crow, 408 Commission Chelan Avenue S., Renton; Gene Ledbury, 511 Stevens Court NW, Renton; and Joan Walker, 1433 Monterey Avenue NE, Renton. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE MAYOR'S REAPPOINTMENTS. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS Planning and Development Committee Chairman Reed presented a report Planning and concerning the appeal filed on the Examiner's decision regarding the Centron Development Committee r (Lexington Ridge) site plan for development of 360 multifamily units on 13.4 Appeal: Centron acres located between NE 4th Street and NE 3rd Street, west of Edmonds (Lexington Ridge) Site Avenue NE, and east of Bronson Way NE. Approval, SA-082-87 The applicant appealed finding #27 of the hearing examiner's report that the power line greenbelt adjacent to the property owned by Puget Power was used for the purposes of calculating density. Additionally, the applicant appealed the conclusions drawn by the hearing examiner (conclusions #1-12) that parking is not permitted on the Puget Power right-of-way. Further, the applicant appealed the hearing examiner's conclusion that the use of the Puget Power right-of-way was used improperly by the applicant to calculate the permitted density of the subject site. The Committee found that the applicant and staff did not improperly calculate density on the subject site. Furthermore, it is not improper to allow parking on a power line corridor to serve an adjacent property. There is precedent for that kind of use by residential as well as commercial projects. It was not the intent of this committee, by way of the recommendation in this report, to render an opinion regarding the merits of this project. The Committee did find a substantial error of fact in the hearing examiner's finding #27. The provision for parking under the Puget Power lines would not be used to increase density. Further, the Committee found that there were substantial errors in the hearing examiner's conclusions #1-12 concerning the use of the Puget Power corridor. This project does not set a precedent. There has been similar use in the past. The use of the Puget Power corridor in this project would allow for open spaces, extended use of trail amenities and improved transportation; therefore, should be used if the right-of-way can be irrevocably secured for the life of this project. The Planning and Development Committee recommended that this application be remanded to the hearing examiner to reconsider the density and parking. Further, after considering the density and parking in accordance with the findings of the Committee, the hearing examiner should then complete the remainder of the site plan approval process and enter complete findings of fact and conclusions on the remaining issues. The Committee did not consider any additional findings of fact for the site plan. Those need to be considered in a further hearing by the hearing examiner. If the hearing examiner feels that any additional information is necessary for the purposes of the complete site plan approval, he may use his discretion to reopen the testimony. MOVED BY REED, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. Chairman Reed clarified the intent of the committee report that the parking area in the right-of-way under the powerlines be provided for the life of the apartment complex. MOTION CARRIED. Committee of the Whole Council President Pro Tempore Mathews presented a Committee of the Whole Budget: 1989 Mid-Year report regarding the 1989 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment. Action taken on Adjustment each request is as follows: (Page references refer to Mid-Year Financial and Budget Adjustment Report, dated August 4, 1989.) Executive/Management Analyst, Page 11: Council members discussed staffing for the Mayor/Council. It was Council's consensus that more time should be spent clarifying proposed duties and responsibilities of the position before Council takes any action on this request. North Soos Creek Annexation Study, Phase II, Page 14: It was Council's consensus to hold this position until after their September review of the proposed annexation. As part of the motion accepting the report, the Council will decide whether or not to continue with Phase II of the annexation. ' i �� -`J l i .` �__ `\ � \ �'� ` PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT TO: Renton City Council FROM: Planning and Development Committee RE: Centron (Lexington Ridge) - File No. SA-082-87 The committee convened an appeal hearing on August 31, 1989 . After approximately forty-five minutes into the meeting staff realized that the taping equipment had ceased functioning. Therefore, the meeting was recessed and continued until September 7, 1989 . At that time the committee convened to consider the appeal of Centron. The subject property is located between N.E. 4th Street and N.E. 3rd Street, west of Edmonds Avenue, N.E. and east of Bronson Way N.E. The applicant seeks site plan approval to develop 13 .4 acres with a 360 unit multi-family residential complex. The applicant appeals from the decision of the hearing examiner dated July 17, 1989, insofar as the hearing examiner found (finding No. 27 ) that the power line greenbelt adjacent to the property owned by Puget Power was used for the purposes of calculating density. Additionally, applicant appeals the conclusions drawn by the hearing examiner Nos. 1 through 12 that parking is not permitted on the Puget Power right-of-way. Further, applicant appeals the hearing examiner's conclusion that the use of the Puget Power right-of-way was used improperly by the applicant to calculate the permitted density of the subject site. After review by the committee of the file and the presentations of staff and the applicant, the Planning and Development Committee found that the applicant and staff did not improperly calculate density on the subject site. Furthermore, it is not improper to allow parking on a power line corridor to serve an adjacent property. There is precedent for that kind of use by residential as well as commercial projects . It is not the intent of this committee, by way of the recommendation QN in this report, to render an opinion regarding the merits of this t project. The committee did find a substantial error of fact in the hearing examiner's finding No. 27 . The provision for parking under the Puget Power lines would not be used to 'crease density. Further, the committee finds that there were substantial errors in the hearing examiner's conclusions Nos. 1 through 12 concerning the use of the Puget Power corridor. This project does not set a precedent. There has been similar use in the past. The use of the Puget Power corridor in this project would allow for open spaces, extended use 9-ice- (1% '�tG'�yGCGI-n <.,�vC`-C: 7.(: / Lf.'t-L,li n Planning and Developm_:_:: Committee Report _ Centron (Lexington Ridge) Appeal September 11, 1989 Page -2- of trail amenities and improved transportation; therefore, should be used if the right-of-way can be irrevocably secured for the life of this project. The Planning and Development Committee recommends that this application be remanded to the hearing examiner to reconsider the density and parking. Further, after considering the density and parking in accordance with the findings of the Planning and Development Committee, the hearing examiner should then complete the remainder of the site plan approval process and enter complete findings of fact and conclusions on the remaining issues . The Planning and Development Committee did not consider any additional findings of fact for the site plan. Those need to be considered in a further hearing by the hearing examiner. If the hearing examiner feels that any additional information is necessary for the purposes of the complete site plan approval, he may use his discretion to reopen the testimony. DATED: September 11, 1989 . n Reed, Chairman vivit siduLA),,d,„/ Nancy M hews Kathy Keolker-Wheeler ZLF:as . cc: Don Erickson City7 : 43 . August 21, 1989 Renton City Council Minutes Page 246 NEW BUSINESS Upon Council inquiry regarding the claim filed by Councilman Robert J. Claim: Hughes, CL-44-89 Hughes, City Attorney Warren advised that the claim was filed to preserve the claimant's legal rights before expiration of the statute of limitations. PSCOG: King County Councilwoman Mathews noted receipt of letter from the Puget Sound Council 1990 Membership.Dues of Governments (PSCOG) regarding 1990 membership dues assessments, and Assessments recommended the letter be discussed at the budget session hearing scheduled on August 28, 1989. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY REED, CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FROM PSCOG BE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE BUDGET SESSION OF AUGUST 28, 1989. CARRIED. Appeal: MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL REFER Centron/Lexington Ride LETTER RECEIVED FROM JIM GEORGE, DATED AUGUST 11, 1989, Site Approval, SA-08 REGARDING CENTRON/LEXINGTON RIDGE APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON SITE APPROVAL REQUEST TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE Council referral of 8/17/89 regarding Lake Washington Boulevard NE REPORT ongoing street improvements by developers/sanitary sewer installation by Streets: Replacement of Water District 107: After staff reviewed the required improvements with Paving (Clarke) representatives from Water District 107, Mr. William Clarke, and Ted Scott from Roger Scott Construction Company, it was noted the contractor for Water District 107 would work with Mr. Clarke's contractor to return Lake Washington Blvd. NE to sufficient and standard condition using a complete overlay as opposed to patching. The report noted Mr. Clarke's perception of procedures required by the City to be clearly understood. Plat: Preliminary, Mayor Clymer referred to an issue paper responding to questions raised by Henderson Homes, Inc., adjacent property owners of the Summerwind Developments 4 & 5. The first Summerwind 4 and 5 issue addressed closure of secondary access to Sunset Blvd (SR 900) for existing easement along the easterly property line. The report included staffs and WSDOT's recommendation that this access be closed due to inability of entering and exiting vehicles to see approaching traffic, and recommended that an emergency gate be installed. Regarding concerns about the impact of construction'on surrounding properties, staff visited the site with construction superintendent Dick Shaffer, who assured staff that Henderson Homes would comply with adjacent landowners' concerns. The remaining issue pertained to storm drainage, which has been resolved by city requirements for installation of the detention pond, so as not to flood adjacent property owners' land. It was noted that staff and Henderson Homes will continue to work with all parties to insure that all City mandated requirements are achieved, and the impacts of construction are minimized on adjacent property owners. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER MATTER TO ADMINISTRATION TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO COUNCIL IF NECESSARY. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Joan Walker, 1433 Monterey Avenue North, Renton, supported the proposed Citizen Comment: Walker concept of applications for private comprehensive plan amendments. - Private Comprehensive Plan Amendments On a second matter, Ms. Walker discussed concerns with newspapers in open recycling bins blowing and becoming sodden in rainy weather. She was informed that bins may be stacked on their sides to protect contents from the weather, and there is no concern by recycler if papers are wet. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL ADJOURN THE MEETING. CARRIED. Time: '8:47 p.m. 7),-) MARILYN . RSEN, CMC, Deputy City Clerk Recorder: Pat Briggs 08/21/89 A�a< 1 Subject: Centron/Lexington Ridge Appeal , SA-082-87, filed 7/25/89 14104 150th Place S.E. Renton, Washington 98056 August 17, 1989 Mr. Fred Kaufmann Hearing Examiner CITY ®F RENTON City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South AUG 2 1989 Renton, Washington 98055 RECEIVED Dear Mr. Kaufmann, CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I note in the Valley Daily News of a day or so ago a brewing controversy between your office and Centron Corporation in regard to parking under transmission lines in their proposed, 300+ apartment project north of NE 4th and east of the Group Health complex. The fact that the controversy exists indicates that the project is still alive, at least to some degree. It boggles my mind that a project of that magnitude could even be contemplated given the very tenuous financial condition of Centron Corporation and its primary operator, Jim Summers . As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Summers has an apparent tax liability to the State in excess of $1 million and one or more of his various development companies have had their licenses revoked or suspended as a result thereof . It would be a major fiasco were this project to be given the green light and thereafter at some point in midstream be shut down due to financing difficulties, leaving the city with a flock of half built apartments like the West Hill situation of a few years ago. (Or WPPSS) I do not know if your office has the authority to require it,, but I would certainly not like to see the project approved without an iron clad bond ensuring that the project would, in fact, be completed to the point of issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Very truly yours, VC Lynn V. Fritchman ec gi.e444,f,141 — -"ire K /oj4etAA., /kvrn 1 vt�it- �(J el August 11, 1989 CITY OF RENTON City of Renton AUG 1 4 1989 City Council Clerk' s Office RECEIVED 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98056 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ' RE: Centron/Lexington Ridge SA-082-87 Appeal of Hearing Examiners Decision, dated July 17, 1989. Dear Council: As a party of record, I have reviewed the above mentioned appeal and the attached addendum to appeal the Hearing Examiners decision. I have found that Centron/ Lexington Ridge feels the Hearing Examiner is in error. It would be my suggestion that you review not only the Report and Decision but also a tape of the entire testimony from June 27th, 1989. You will find that there were many reasons that the Hearing Examiner was lead to deny further consideration for application on the SA-082-87 project. Some of those points are as follows: *Additional traffic flow (NE 3rd, entery & exits) *Traffic safety (entery & exits) *Sewer inforcements *Truck trips during construction *Public improvements *Overall Centron projects ( past and future - 2500 units) -Traffic impact -Environmental impacts *Adequate Police Department staffing *Testimony by Gary Norris from Renton Traffic Engineering that "they are not ready to accept a proposal to have access on NE 3rd". In addition to the above, I would request that you direct some attention to the Valley Daily News, Friday, July 7, 1989 article entitled "STATE MAY FORECLOSE ON CENTRON COMPANIES". This article referred to $7.37 million in back taxes, penalties and interest. The deputy director of the revenue department, Matthew Cyle, says this represents the largest single amount in his agency' s history. The department has tax warrants against Centron corporation and 13 _related limited partnerships giving it authority to attach liens to Centron property and assets. It has also garnished Centron bank accounts. The state also said it will revoke their business licenses. Two of Centron's limited partnerships have filed for Federal Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection to block against foreclosure. Also you will find that Centron is in the business of "building and selling apartment complexes" according to James W. Summers. I ask you, do you feel these people would be good neighbors and/or business associates? I applaud the Hearing Examiners decision to deny them progression on the Lexington Ridge application and I trust you will also deny the appeal. 4er e 1 y, ,o dames A. Goerg Renton Resident d Business Owner , 4201 NE 5th, Renton, WA, 98056 'C � �/ iG �. i LG,-i /�C ,_,,,, , / , _A.17 For.Use .By City Clerk's Office Only A. I . # �� AGENDA ITEM RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING SUBMITTING Dept./Div./Bd./Comm. City Clerk For Agenda Of August 7, 1989 (Meeting Date) Staff Contact Maxine E. Motor (Name) Agenda Status: SUBJECT: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Consent XX Decision: Centron/Lexington Ridge; Public Hearing Correspondence SA-082-87 Ordinance/Resolution Old Business Exhibits: (Legal Descr. , Maps, Etc.)Attach• New Business Study Session A. City Clerk's Letter Other B. Letter of Appeal C. Hearing Examiner's Report. 7-17-89 Approval : Legal Dept. Yes No N/A COUNCIL ACTION RECOMMENDED: Refer to. Finance Dept. Yes No. N/A Planning and Development Committee Other Clearance FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditure Required $ Amount $ Appropriation- Budgeted Transfer Required $ SUMMARY (Background information, prior action and effect of implementation) (Attach additional pages if necessary.) Appeal filed by ROBERT D. JOHNS, ESQ. OF.REED, McCLURE, MOCERI, THONN & MORIARTY, ATTORNEY FOR CENTRON•AND.CANADA/AMERICA ASSOCIATES accompanied by required fee received on July 25, 1989. PARTIES OF RECORD/INTERESTED CITIZENS TO BE CONTACTED: See last pages of Hearing Examiner's report. SUBMIT THIS COPY TO CITY CLERK BY NOON ON THURSDAY WITH DOCUMENTATION. August 7. 1989 Renton City Council Minutes Page 228 Claim: Mason, CL-38-89 Claim for damages filed by Marjorie Tedrick, Attorney, 3204 Auburn Way N, Auburn, on behalf of James D. Mason, in amount of $100,482.75 for general and special damages alleging Renton police officers used unnecessary and unreasonable force during arrest. Refer to City Attorney and insurance service. Airport: Rules, Public Works/Airport presents the Municipal Airport, Rules and Regulations, Regulations and Minimum Standards, requesting review and adoption. Refer to Minimum Standards Transportation/Aviation Committee. Utility: Flood Hazard Public Works/Utilities requests adoption of new flood hazard ordinance in Ordinance order to maintain eligibility for National Flood Insurance Program. Refer to Ways and Means Committee for review. Appeal: Centron, Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision filed by attorney for Centron and Canada/American Canada/America Associates regarding site approval SA-082-87 for Centron Associates, SA-082-87 (Lexington Ridge) 13.4 acres with 360 unit multi-family residential complex located between NE 4th Street and NE 3rd Street, west of Edmonds Avenue NE and east of Bronson Way NE. Hearing Examiner denied site plan. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Letter was read from Maxine Motor, City Clerk, provided further General Elections information received from the King County Elections Department for 1989 City elections of the four positions open; three positions are full term plus one position for the unexpired term terminated by Robert Hughes. Position No. 2 filled by Thomas Trimm would encompass a short-term as well as full- term, and the elected person will be appointed upon certification of the November 7, 1989 general election. Therefore, two of the positions will be filled upon certification of the election and two positions will be filled January, 1990. Plat: Final, Sea Van Letter was read from Rene and Carol Manning, 2065 8th Place S.E., Renton, Properties, FP-082-84 outlining discrepancies in the original plat for Falcon Ridge Lots #102, 103, Falcon Ridge 104, and 105, alleging negligence on the part of the City in ensuring the Improvements development be completed according to the intent of the plat. Community Services Community Services Committee Chairman Nelson presented a report outlining Committee the request from Mr. & Mrs. Manning, and members of the Falcon Ridge Plat: Final, Sea Van Homeowners Association, for relief of sidewalk/street crossing condition that Properties, FP-082-84 was part of Falcon Ridge PUD, whereupon, Council requested staff to Falcon Ridge investigate the following questions through the Board of Public Works and Improvements report answers back to Committee: 1. Why are any sidewalks installed so as to be canted with inconsistent setbacks? 2. Would an alternative street crossing location to the one in front of the Mannings be more favorable from a sight distance/visibility standpoint? 3. Is the drainage system functioning as designed in the PUD? 4. Confirm the amount of the bond still outstanding on the project. The Community Services Committee finding that such matters were appropriated to the City of Renton's Board of Public Works, so remanded the questions to that body. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE. CARRIED. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY REED, THAT RENE AND CAROL MANNINGS LETTER RECEIVED AUGUST 7, 1989, BE REFERRED TO THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS FOR CONSIDERATION, AND THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS Council President Stredicke addressed previous request to City Attorney to Employees Residency provide case law regarding mandatory residency for City employees and the Requirements Administration to provide a report listing current residence of each City employee. The report provided by Administration notes that 79% of city employees live outside Renton city limits, while 21% live within city limits. Stredicke expressed the belief that residency is not out of the question for policy making people on staff, and felt the requirement for residency should be considered at the time of employment. :: p CITY OF RF"TTON FINANCE DEPARTME1.. 5'9 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 • John Phillips 2001 Western Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121 % p CITY OF RENTON =LL FINANCE DEPARTMENT 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 Millie Renfrow 310 Bronson N.E. #33 Renton, WA 98056 • a p CITY OF RENTON .m FINANCE DEPARTMENT Z00 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 Gerald Edgar 351 Bronson Way N.E. Renton, WA 98056 0 CITY OF RE'TTON LI FINANCE DEPARTMEN. • OW Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 Bob Minnott Centron Corporation 3025 - 112th N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 0 CITY OF RENTON FINANCE DEPARTMENT 0 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 Dennis Riebe Centron Corporation 3025 - 112th N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 0 CITY OF RENTON FINANCE DEPARTMENT Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 Bob Johns 3600 Columbia Center Building 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 - • 7.7-r-rrzm • - . •; • %4 p CITY OF RE'TTON FINANCE DEPARTMEN 5� OffMill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 91 , v-- James Goergfi 4201 N.E. 5th Renton, WA 98056 p CITY OF RENTON FINANCE DEPARTMENT D Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 James Colt 100 Blaine N.E. Renton, WA 98057 p CITY OF RENTON FINANCE DEPARTMENT )0 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 Don Emmons 349 Bronson N.E. Renton, WA 98056 RCITY OF RENTON FINANCE DEPARTMENT Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 a 0 CITY OF RENTON ml FINANCE DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Maxine E. Motor, City Clerk August 3 , 1989 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) MAXINE E. MOTOR, 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 3rd day of August, 1989, 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 ROBERT D. JOHNS, ESQ. OF REED, McCLURE, MOCERI, THONN & MORIARTY, ATTORNEY FOR CENTRON AND CANADA/AMERICA ASSOCIATES. SITE APPROVAL SA-082-87. Maxine E. Motor, CMC City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 3rd day of August, 1989. m. ?r7L Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in King County 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2501 Facsimile (2061 235-2c 13 0 CITY OF RENTON FINANCE DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Maxine E. Motor, City Clerk August 1, 1989 APPEAL FILED BY ROBERT D. JOHNS, ESQ. OF REED, McCLURE, MOCERI, THONN & MORIARTY, ATTORNEY FOR CENTRON AND CANADA/AMERICA ASSOCIATES. RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, dated July 17, 1989, regarding rezone request for Centron/Lexington Ridge SA-082-87 To parties of record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 30, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the referenced matter has been filed with the city clerk, along with the proper fee of $75.00. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee, and the recommendation of the Committee will be considered by the City Council at a subsequent Council meeting. The council secretary will notify all parties of record either by mail or telephone of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to be notified of the meeting, please call the council secretary at 235-2586 any weekday after 1:00 p.m. for information. Sincerely, Maxine E. Motor, CMC City Clerk 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2501 Facsimile (206) 235-2513 CITY OF RENTON Ill° 34065 FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHINGG�TO��N.. 98055 /as 19 RECEIVED OF ��` eee �gLea.� e/`uu. �J des- �� • • Received by TOTALS of r.' J i,' i ,•, . ,}?••,,'• • yr: • • li Ip 1,•':,•. .4 t. • • • • :lf: 1. 1 ,ite, 1 REED MCCLURE MOCERI THONN 8c MORIARTY SEATTLE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION CABLE RMMT SEATTLE (206)292-4900 ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELECOPIER(206)223.0152 TACOMA TELEX 321163 (206)927-5888 3600 COLUMBIA CENTER 701 FIFTH AVENUE SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104-7007 IN REPLY REFER TO OUR FILE NO. 11343/52411 VIA EXPRESS MAIL TO: CITY OF RENTON DATE: 7-24-89 City Council Clerk 's Office RE: Centron/Lexington Ridge 200 Mill Avenue S. CITY OF RENTON SA-082-87 Renton, WA 98056 JUL 2 5 198w9�q ENCLOSED: RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE WRITTEN NOTICE OF APPEAL OF JULY 17, 1989 Council decision. $75.00 Filing fee. Please take the following action: Acknowledge receipt or approve for entry and return original. For your information. Per our conversation. xx File. Please sign and return. Please sign and return original. Retain copy for your file. Please review and if changes desired, please advise. Please sign, file original and return conformed copy. Please have judge sign, file original and return conformed copy. xx Please return conformed copy in self-addressed stamped envelope provided. Thank you. REED, McCLURE, MOCERI, THONN & MORIARTY r L-4 Ae_ 4,4_2 Evanna Christopher Administrative Assistant for Robert D. Johns, Esq. Enclosures J ` WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICATION NAME: FILE NO. SA-082-87 CENTRON (Lexington Ridge) Site Approval The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the Decision or Recommendation of the Land Use Hearing. Examiner, dated July 17, 1989 . 1 . IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: ) REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY) : / Centron, and Name:( Canada/America Associates Name: Robert D. Johns, Esq. c/o Robert Minnott Addres Address: 3600 Columbia Center 3025 — 112th N.E. , C-90001 701 — 5th Avenue Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98104-7081 Bellevue, WA 98009 Telephone No. 822-2888 Telephone No. 386-7016 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDINGS OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted . in the Examiner' s Report) - No. Error: See attached. Correction: See attached. • CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 5 1989 CONCLUS IONS: RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE No. Error:. See attached. Correction: See attached. OTHER: . No. • Error: Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the Decision or Recommendation and grant the following relief: X * Modify the Decision or Recommendation as follows: *See attached. Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: 7 .2y _ Appellant/Repr sentative Signature Date �- NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 30 of the Renton Municipal Code, and Sections 4-3016 and 4-3017, specifically (see reverse side of page) for specific appeal procedures . ORIGINAL 4-3016: APPEAL: Unless an ordinLrwa providing for review of decision of the Exam ner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved bi ; Examiner's written decision or recomr cation may submit a notice of appeal to me City Clerk upon a form furnished b, ...e City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with the Fee Schedule of the City. • (A) The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. (B) Within five(5)days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. (C) Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (D) No public hearing shall be held by the,City Council. -No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council may remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and • that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (E) The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, • the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. (F)"_° if; upon-'appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section 4-3010(A) and after examination of the record, :,; r • the' 'Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. (G) If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section 4-3010(B) or (C), and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application pursuant to Section 4-3010(B) or (C). (H) In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-3017: COUNCIL ACTION: Any application requiring action by the City Council shall be evidenced by minute entry unless otherwise required by law. When taking any such final action, the Council shall make and enter findings of fact from the record and conclusions therefrom which support its action. Unless otherwise specified, the City Council shall be presumed to have adopted the Examiner's findings and conclusions. (A) In the case of a chance of the zone classification of N�Gpeiiy (rezone), the City ty I Clerk shall place the ordinance on the Council's agenda for first reading. Final reading of the ordinance shall not occur until all conditions, restrictions or modifications which may have been required by the Council have been accomplished or provisions for compliance made to the satisfaction of the Legal Department. (B) All other applications requiring Council action shall be placed on the Council's agenda for consideration. (Ord. 3454, 7-28-80) (C) The action of the Council approving, modifying'or rejecting a decision of the Examiner, shall be final and conclusive, unless within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the action an aggrieved party or person obtains a writ of review from the Superior Court of Washington for King County, for purposes of review of the action taken. (Ord. 3725, 5-9-831 ADDENDUM TO APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL APPLICATION NAME: Centron Lexington Ridge Site Plan CITY OF RENTON FILE NUMBER: SA - 082 - 87 JUL 2 5 1989 2 . SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE FINDINGS OF FACT: No. 27 ERROR: The Hearing Examiner states : Staff has calculated that the per unit density for the subject site is approximately 27 units per acre . There seems to be both an inclusion and exclusion for the power line corridor since note is made of the G-1 zoning' s density standards . There seems to be no reason to include the power line for any density calculations as it is separately owned and already supports its permissible development - a power line . " CORRECTION: The proposed density of the site, excluding the power line area, is 360 units on 13 . 4 acres, or 27 units per acre, which is well within the limits of the R-4 zone . While it is true that the Puget Power corridor is developed with a power line, there is no prohibition on additional use of the corridor and, in fact, throughout the City of Renton, power line corridors are used for additional purposes, including parking for adjacent developments . CONCLUSIONS : Nos . 1-12 ERROR: The Hearing Examiner' s Conclusions 1 through 12 all discuss the single point on which the Examiner' s decision is based. The Examiner concluded that parking could not be permitted on the adjacent Puget Power right of way and that since the site plan included parking on the power right of way, the application should be denied. CORRECTION: The Zoning Code allows offsite parking, if approved by the Building Official. The Code does not grant the Examiner the authority to overturn the Building Official ' s decision on this point . In this case, the Building Official has approved the use of the Puget Power right-of-way for accessory parking. As such, the Examiner lacked the jurisdiction to disapprove this aspect of the project . The Examiner acknowledges (Conclusion 4) that it may be permissible to use the right of way for parking, that parking on other than the primary lot is generally permitted in the City (Conclusion 7) , and that the Code permits power lines to be used for parking Conclusion 8) . The Examiner also acknowledges that Puget Power has indicated it is agreeable to use of its corridor for parking. (Finding 12) No explanation is provided as to why, under these circumstances, the City should abandon its long standing policy of allowing parking to be located on properties other than the primary lot when the property owners involved are agreeable to such an arrangement . The central premise of the Examiner' s decision is that, by placing parking on the right of way, the density of the project is increased. This conclusion is not supported by the Examiner' s own decision, which acknowledges that the property could be developed with the same number of units and with all parking on the primary site, although such a plan would reduce open space on the site and perhaps adversely affect views from adjoining properties . (Conclusion 5) Thus, the Examiner' s decision acknowledges the rationale for parking on the Puget Power right of Way: It reduces the adverse impacts of the project and creates more usable open space . 3 . SUMMARY OF ACTION REOUESTED : The Hearing Examiner' s decision did not address any aspect of the proposed site plan other than parking. As a consequence, it is necessary that the Council remand this matter to the Examiner with instructions that parking on the adjacent Puget Power corridor is approved as part of the site plan and with instructions to issue a decision on any other issues and proposed conditions for the project . No new hearing or reopened hearing is required as all other issues have been fully addresses in the hearing held by the Examiner.