The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCED Planning File � '��. � , , � - i � � a��. --'� .► �- o� �� I�� ,�`;��' Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning K y Keolker-Wheeler, Nlayor Alex Pietsch,Administrator. May 23,2005 _ � State of Washington Boundary Review Board for King County Yesler Building,.Suite 608 . 400 Xesler.Way � Seattle.,WA 98_104 - Subject: NOTICE OF INTENTION. TO EXPAND THE CITY OF' RENTON CORPORATE LIMITS BY ANNEXATION . Dear:Board Members: - As required by Chapter 36.93 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the City of Renton hereby gives notice of intention to annex territory hereafter referr.ed to as the "Anthone � • Annexation". This annexation is proposed under the di.rect petition method in accoidance with - the:applicalile provisions of Chapter 35A.14 of the RCW._ The petition has been:certified by the King County Department.of Assessments. This annexation would,incorporate into the City of Renton approximately 4.84 acres of territory:for�tlie provision of urbari�services. To assist in your consideratiion of the .proposed action, the required_articles:and exhiliits are enclosed arid numbered in accordance with tlie Board's suggested format: The $50:00 filing fee is also ericlosed. � Should questions arise during the.review of the inforniation and.,�exhibits provided witli this - Notice of Inten.tiori to Annex,please contact,Don Erickson, Seriior Planner,at(425)430-6581. Please send notices and other communications regardirig.the proposed annexation to: Don Erickson,AICP; Senior Planner/Strategic Planning • � . Department of Economic,Development,Neighborkoods and Strategic Planning . '. City of Renton 1055 S.Grady Way � Renton,WA 98055 _ Tharik you for your consideration: ' Sincerely, . / �� , Kathy eolker-Wheeler _ � Mayor . 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Wash'ington 98055. � � � � � � �This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer A H E A D O F T H E C U R V E ,� "�~a � 'U.S.BANK OF WASHINGTON 19-10 _ REFIT.ON BRANCH 1250 ��Y:':. Cl�lf�F 9aEfVTON � vEr`�oa�#�1 p�T�� d ��c� �4 }� �cHEc�'�a�nou�nra-� , � � Q �� z�'� a .��e � ��..:: �,...r.3� 3 ��M�� ,� ,. .�r w .; � �'..;�' �J � ACCOUNTS P�►Y�4BLE ' 04'f 9�6 05/2(�/2005 ' 237824 **�*******5 �� '- 1055 S.GRAD1`1NAY ' 0 00 '. 4 � + RENTON,WA 98055 Rhone:(425)430-6918 ��j�j,'� Fax:(425)430-6855 ':VOID AFTER 6 MONTHS ;; ;; :; , ; , PAY: Fifty pollars and No Cents ` < , PAY z. ; > , STATE OF WASHINGTQiV BOUNDARY , � ��,e ��e,��-G�2�t - (itJ��: , - . . TOT"E � REVIEW�$OARD FOR K�ING COUIVTY ' MAYOR oRoeR ; 400 YESLER,WAY-STE 608 ---� ` ` < SE'ATT��, WA 98104 ` oF ' ; , ; �r,--�� y....R2.�-,:C?�J > ,: ��-`�� . ' ' . - ':: > � ;.. . ..: :::�. ' FISCAL SERVIGES DIRE�TbR: _.. ,. .,::;... ' ii�0 2 3�48 24ii■ i: � 2 5000 L0 5es � 5 3 500E.9� 3 L8n■ . . . _ --- _ --------_.... PLEASE DETACH BEFORE DEPOSITING CITY OF RENTON,WA 98055 ACCOUNTS PAYABIE CHECK N0.237824 .<::, INVOIGENUMBER�'. "�:;DA7E�.....��`�:,�` ,:% ,r �� - ... .#bE'SCR[PT10N �'� �,"�<�, k'd� 1�(�; '�FqB�R � �'� ' �� .�„�.. .� �,�f,� �iS�OUNT aaC�. .��y ,..�.A�uSQLNT ,� BRBfilingfee 05/17/2005 BRB filing fee for the Anthone 0.00 50.00 � � 50.00 /��e" ��"�T� t.'.. f;► ,,'.'r ,z ., � �� ' ��1 V -.. �. � � . � . . . . .. '� . . . , ' � : �. Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning . KatUy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor. Alex PietsCh;AdYnnnistrator' June 16,2005 State of Washington ' � -Boundary Reyiew Board.for King County Yesler:Building, Suite 402 400 Yesler Way Seattle,WA 981U4 . ,Subject: .. NOTICE OF INTENTiON TO EXPAND �HE CITY OF` RENTOleT � CORPORATE LIlVIITS BY ANNEXATION Dear Board 1Vlembers: . - . . ' As required by Cliapter 36..93 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCV�, the City of Reriton � , gave notice of intention to annex territory hereafter referred:to.as the "Anthone' Annexation"ori _ ,. May 23; 2005, That�annexation was�,p.'roposed�under the direct.-petition method iri accordance ° with the applicable provisions�:of Chapter 35A.14 of the RCW.' The City Admiriistratiori believes that it is in tlie ,best interest.of. the City to `expaiid the . boundaries of this annexation to iriclude properties to the:south and.east,that,with their inclusiori; � would result in more reasonable servic..e areas and effci.ericies forboth the City arid King County. � ..These properties, like the anriexation ifself, are lo:cated .within Renton's designated PotentiaT _ Annexatiori Ai�ea. By invbking the.Board's jurisdictton hopefully there will be ari oppo.rtunity to consider the inclusion of these properties at the sarrie time the Board.considers the annex�tion itself. A$200 fee for invoking the Board's jurisdiction is:enalosed:, _ : . " Should questions arise during'#he :xeview of the.inforniation and exhibits provided �vith this Notic.e of Intention to Anriex,please coritact.Don Erickson;Seriior Planner,at(425)430-6581. Also,please send notices and other communications�regarding the proposed annexation to:� Don Erickson,AICP; Senior Planner - , Departm�nt of Economic Development; � Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning " City of Renton . � 1U55 S. Grady Way . . Renton;WA 98055 � 1'hank you`for your consideration: � - Si.ncerely� . ., . ��e;�� W�,e.e�� ' . . � . Kathy Keolker-Wheeler - Mayor 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 9�055 � � �%% �`� � � � This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer ' A H E A D O F T H E C UR V E r. " ' ' U.S.BANK OF WASHINGTON 19=10:-- . ... _ ' " ' RENTON BRANCH: . :>:. 1250,`' ,. � ;`��Y Q ' �ITY OF REM�O:I�B ��y��DOR# > aa�r� � �,,.: ��,E��,... _, ` ;' c�Ecx��,ou�� ,�.: NU�u19ER � " ACC�l7NTS�'AYABL� 041'946 06/15/2005 238479 **�`******200 OQ ` � �� >'= ' 1055 S GRqpY_WAY ,. >: � `•�{ ., :' � RENTON;WA`98055 . ; , � -O�' Ptione:(425)430-6918 �'�jvT Faz:(425j 430-6855 VOID AFTER 6 NIONTHS PAY Two:Hundred Do(lars and`No Cents PAY ' STATE OF 1NASHINGTON.°BOUNDARY �j�, �C��-e�, '�� : 1��:. roTHe REVIEW BQARD'F..OR KIN,G_COUNTY ,. . MAYOR oRoeR 400 YE5LER WAY-STE 608 --�� , ;= oF S�ATTLE;V1IA 981`04 ��,� `:�'► ; �:y�...�'2.cs:+b��/ ; ' E .. :•' ... .;:: ...,. ,.: , ,, i _ , ; ,.::.,:, .;>. ::. ,. ; ,. ...,. ; ,; PISCALS RV.lCE5 DIREC7t7R: • n■0 2 384 79,u! �e �,2 5000 10 5�: L.5 3 500�698 3��8u' PLEASE DETACH BEFORE DEPOSITING CITY OF RENTON,WA 98055 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK N0.238479 a�,�1NVOIG��N,l3MBER��;:t C��..,�;�,�T�.�a.,, ':�d ., .. ;,. ,.__. _.; �,D�S,CR�P�tON;,,. .a_.�., �Yf. ,�.�zP O hIFY�i16ER�w".., >.: �,r,�l�ISGOUNT FM1¢Oi1NT_, x,��.�a Filing Fee 06/10/2005 BRB Filing Fee for invoking 0.00 200.00 200.00 f: ,• LJ � � a � � o q � ❑ � � a ° ° � � °� � Q 0� o fl o � � �O Q I � C' 4J � r� - .�,��c. - � ��4 �4,�". � ,t. . �,Mrw �' � *'�� }4 . � r t.. �r J `� � q � �rs O �, x 5 �..�.,� �. � i 4Y � � XT � � � �� C7 p � � , _ � , ° .IsV �\t _ 1 d� . ' ._ _.il� .� O � � ' 1Y t 7,^` , . � � ti F 1�� Z �fi �- . _ �T � �� t�,�: 5 �� l. `.� � � {�1�n,�.� 2 �.7� i. d ` S Q � _ �'° _ ❑ -t'.° f ` , - � � ❑ O � �� ` � \ /\� � p Proposed Anthone' Annexation o 300 600 Figure 3: Existing Structures N1ap {� st��t�re � 0,�, Economic Developmcn4 Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning � � — C11y LIf111IS � . 3600 ` +� Akx Piecuh,Administr�tor ' c.u�,Ros�o 0 Proposed Annex.Area �ANT� 28 December?IXkt � �' % -� TNashington State Boundary l�eview Board . For Kireg County Yesler Building,Room 402,400 Yesler Way,Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206)296-6800 •Fax: (206)296-6803 • http://www.metrokc.gov/annexations June 23, 2005 City of Renton Attn: Don Erickson, AICP Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: REQiJEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION TO LEGAL DESCRIPTION File No. 2199 - City of Renton- Anthone Annexation Dear Mr. Erickson: Enclosed please find a copy of the letter from King County engineering staff reviewing the legal description submitted with the above-referenced Notice of Intention. We are assuming that you will be in accord with the recommendations made by County engineering staff and are continuing to process this file. However, if you should disagree with the requested corrections, please notify our office immediately. Any questions regarding these recommendations should be directed to Nicole Keller, Road Services Division, at (206)296-3731 Please send a copy of the corrected legal description to our office as soon as possible. We need � to have the corrected legal description on file prior to issuing a letter of approval. Also, please be advised that the corrected legal description must be used on all future documents related to this proposed action. Sincerely, Lenora Blauman Executive Secretary Enclosure: Letter from King County Road.Services Division, dated June 23, 2005 cc: Lydia Reynolds-Jones, Manager, Project Support Services (w/o enclosures) Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council (w/o enclosures) FORM 7 a� � �. ,t� ': � g�z��. � ��".�rr �� `�l Y t'^}ro �''�"� . . .. i...f �a�3"� �Dlllr � i7 4la�l� �� OUB�� 1f�A State Bowndary Review Road Services Division ��8�� Department of Transportation KSGTR-0231 201 South]ackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-3856 June 23, 2005 Lenora Blauman Executive Secretary Boundary Review Board YES-BR-0220 RE: Citv of Renton—Anthone Annexation(File 2199� Dear Ms. Blauman: Thank you for the opportunity to review the legal description for the proposed Anthone Annexation to the City of Renton transmitted with your May 31, 2005 letter. Staff has reviewed the enclosed legal description and found it to be satisfactory, except for a few minor concerns listed below. Staff recommends adding "(also known as S 192nd Street, and John'Krumm Road)" after the reference to S SSth Street. Staff also recommends the adding"(also known as 96th Ave SW)" after the reference to Talbot Road. Staff found that the boundaries of the area described by the legal description vary slightly _ __ from the accompanying_highlighted assessor's map. The legal description_reads "TOGETHER WITH Tract"B"of said Talbot Estates plat", but the assessor's map shows the annexation boundary on the west side of said Tract"B". In the review of legal descriptions for annexations, staff attempts to identify islands of unincorporated County and/or marginal road rights-of-way that may have been overlooked by the City in developing the legal description. For this particular annexation there are no islands that were recommended for inclusion in the response to the BRB. This annexation does not include a portion of a County park nor conflict with any other municipal boundaries in the vicinity. �.�120tM ,.: , ; ' „ � Lenora Blauman June 23, 2005 Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact Nicole Keller, Vacations and Boundaries Engineer, at 206-296-3731, or via e-mail at Road.R/Wvacations@metrokc.gov. Sincerely, , � � �� ,,� ia Reyn s-Jones Manager Project Support"Services LRJ:NK:mr Enclosures � cc: Paulette Norman, P.E., County Road Engineer, Road Services Division � Anne Noris, Clerk of the I�ing County Council (w/enclosures) Nicole Keller, Engineer II, Engineering Services Section, Road Services Division . � -� Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County Yesler Building,Room 402,400 Yesler Way,Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206)296-6800 •Fax: (206)236-6803 � htEp://www.metrokc.gov/annexations May 31, 2005 RECEI�D JUN Q � 2005 K.C.Roas TE�neeTing TO: � Ms. Lydia Reynolds-Jones Department of Transportation Manager, Project Support Services KSC-TR-0231 FROM: Lenora Blauman, Executive Secretary SUBJECT: File No. 2199 - City of Renton-Anthone Annexation Enclosed please �nd the legal description and related Assessors map(s) submitted to our office as part of the above-referenced Notice of Intention. We would appreciate your reviewing the legal description and reporting your findings and recommendations back to our office. The copy of the enclosed legal description is for your use and. files. It would facilitate processing of revisions to the legal description, however, if you would return a copy of the legal, with any notations you choose to make, along with your report. We would appreciate your response within the 4S-day waiting period, which is expected to end July 11, 2005. The deadline for requesting that the Board invoke jurisdiction and hold a public hearing can only be changed by a revision to the legal description or modification of the original Notice of Tntention. The support and expert assistance which you and your staff provide on legal descriptions is essential to Board processing of proposed actions. Please let us know if we need to provide you with any further data. . Enclosures: Legal Description/Maps R.S.V.P. June 27, 2005 FORM 5 �- > - � E�hibit ll � �'t�C�l�t'�D � MAY 2:7 2005 AI�THCpNE�1�Nl0IE�.'�'I�N WA State Bounda�+�e�rlew LECAL I�E+��il]P7['IClI� Board Forwng Co, . _ ' That�artion of Tract l l,�pringbrvQk Acre Ttacts,accorc�ing to tt�e piat the�eof recorcled - .... . in Volu�� 12 0�Plats,�ag.e�C�,recotds af�g County,�Vashi��#on,l�ing not�t�r�y and weste�ly ct�t�ie p,�:�t o�Talbot��s�ates,accor��to the plat ther�c�f r�co�d�d iu Valame 172 of Plats,Pages 1 thr��gh 3,lnclusi�u�,r�cords of�ir�g'Gounty,Washirzgton; E�CE�'I"the vc�est 1Q fe�t t��reof lying within Talbox�oad S.right-c�f way;and EXC�P�'that portion of the noi`th 1Q feet thereof lying within the S S5�'St�eet right-of way; TUGET�iER WTTH Tract"B"of said Talbot Eseates plat. AIl sittaat�i:ct the z�ortheast quarter af Section 6,Township 22 North,Rai�ge 5 East,�.M., in King Counry,Was�ington. ,.. �. . , �: � � REC [y�p � , AY 7 2005 w -�7 eoene wrlGnp , � � . O � � � .� ~ � � � . S 55th St �� ::�._� `�.�_ � � � � �o 1,g th pf a� 9 Proposed Anthone' Annexation a Soo �000 =xhibit Ff: Proposed Annexation Baundary f Economio Development,Ncighlwrhoods Bc Strategia Plenning �� Clip l.IftlltS � � ��0� � Akz Pietsctr,Admaeisuswr [�] Proposed Annex.Area 0.pel(iaasrio !1 Msy 2Q05 �;�==. - . � - � =�= �;,� "� , ..��"��' •r- �� ECOloTOI��IIC DEVELOPIVIEI�TT9 Uti,, � 1�T�IGI�BORHOODS, Al�D S'I'RATEGIC .. � ' .� ° PI�Al�T1�1Il�TG l)EPAIZTMEl�T ��N�� M E M O lZ A l� D U ldi DATE: August 9, 2005 TO: Dave Christense FROM: Don Erickson SU�JECTe Annexation Legals Ad�inistrati�e Corrections Dave,I have recently received the attached requests for corrections from Lenora Blauman, Executive Secretary of the BRB, who gets them from Lydia Reynolds-Jones in the County Road Services Division who checks them for the County. Could you please have Sonja or Robert take a look at these and get their corrections (assuming they agree)back to me as soon as possible? Apparently, the BRB stops the process until these matters get resolved to their satisfaction. Thanks in advance for your assistance. document4 ��" . �{ i ��.:��`'�',�� :� -� Washington State Boundary Review Boa�d For King County Yesler Building,Room 402,400 Yesler Way,Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206)296-6800 •Fax: (206)296-6803 • http://www.metrokc.gov/annexations July 27, 2005 City of Renton Don Erickson, AICP Senior Planner 1055 South Gr.�dy V�ay Renton, WA 98055 RE: REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION TO LEGAL DESCRIPTION File No. 2199 - City of Renton Anthone Annexation Dear Mr. Erickson: Enclosed please find a copy of the letter from King.County engineering staff reviewing the legal description submitted with the above-referenced Notice of Intention. ' We are �assuming that you will be.-in accord with the recommendations made by Counry engineering staff and are continuing to process this file. However, if you should disagree with the requested corrections, please notify our of�ce immediately. Any questions regarding these recommendations should be directed to Nicole Keller, Road Services Division, at (206)296-3731 Please send a copy of the corrected legal description to our office as soon as possible. We need to have the corrected legal description on file prior to issuing a letter of approval. Also, please be advised that the,corrected legal description must be used on all future documents related to this proposed action. ' -Sincerely, Lenora Blaum n , Executive Secretary Enclosure: Letter from King County Road Services Division; dated July 26; 2005 � • cc: � Lydia�Reynolds-Jones, Manager, Project Support Services (w/o enclosures) Arine Noris, Clerk of the Couneil (w/o enclosures),� , FORM 7 �; , �� .�• � � -. ��$�� ' JUL 2 6 2005 ��.�� R��'��/ WAState Boundary Review Road Services Division Bo.ard For K�ng Co. Department of Transportation KSC-TR-0231 201 South Jackson Street Seattle,WA 98104-3856 July 26, 2005 Lenora Blauman Executive Secretary Boundary Review Board YES-BR-0220 RE: City of Renton—Anthone Annexation(File 2199� Dear Ms. Blauman: Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised and expanded legal description for the proposed Anthone Annexation to the City of Renton transmitted with your July 20, 2005 fax. Staff has reviewed the enclosed legal description and found it to be satisfactory, except for a minor change listed below. In the second line, where it reads "Section 5 East"please change that to read "Range 5 East" Staff found that the boundaries of the area described by the legal description are the same as the accompanying highlighted assessor's map. In the review of legal descriptior�s for anriexaiions, staff attempts to identi�isiands of unincorporated County and/or marginal road rights-of-way that may have been overlooked by the City in developing the legal description. For this particular annexation there are no islands that were recommended for inclusion in the response to the BRB. This annexation does not include a portion of a County park nor conflict with any other municipal boundaries in the vicinity. �,.�„o,� ,�• •;,_ ,'4 �. : Lenora Blauman , July 26, 2005 Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact Nicole Keller, Vacations and Boundaries Engineer, at 206-296-3731, or via e-mail at Road.R/Wvacations@metrokc.gov. Sincerely, w �L �� ydia Reynolds-Jones Manager Project Support Services LRJ:NK:mr Enclosures cc: Paulette Norman, P.E., County Road Engineer, Road Services Division Anne Noris, Clerk of the King County Council (w/enclosures) Nicole Keller, Engineer II, Engineering Services Section, Road Services Division tr '+ r` �'F d�. 07/20/2045 12;05 FAg 206 296 1654 K.C,�Hearins �xaininer [�p - ~'�JUN-��-20�5 13;H4�� C['fY taF RINTON 425 430 'T300 P.BZ/�2�� r � , - ,; � ; • , . t ' ' � R��1�1''�p � " . JUN 2��1 Z04r ANT�Ul�REZON�{]�C1.'AIVV�EU} wa sr�te ao,�da��eview L ,��L+��+,� goard far IGn9�, That partion crf the 5outhe�st quarter oF fhe Southeast quarter of Secuon 31.'�ownsEuip 23 North,Sectaon 5 East,W.1�9f.,and the Northeast quartcr of the Northeast qaarter vf Section�6,Town�p 22 North,Range 5 East,Vt�.lt�.,all in King Cauneyt Waslungton, tying wcst�rly of the ea�st line of said�+ta�theast quart�r crf ttte Nortbe�t qu�rter,aarth��rly of the existing�i,ty Linaits of Rentor�as annexeti by Cltdi�tance NQ•31 U9,ea�terly af che existing City S�s�tits of Renton as annexed by Qrdinance No.375 t,and sdutherly ofr the existi�tg City L.imi�s of�entan as annexed by q3rdiatan�N�. 325�. L�SS rublac roads. T07'AL P.02 �r�. /1�� .I Y Lr. 07/20/2005 12.:05 FA% 206 296 1654 A.C.�Hearin6 Examiner C�j009 . — ; • , .�- ----�- �4 . � i: : ' � � � � � � G d f'� f�} -� a o � .�,_�._ � � � � � � � fl � � � a ❑ ..nY��'' I � v ` �` - ',r; ' .�'` _. l+l.'!�.��,� h��1�'�'+M. � ; '»' F:'f � ��.�J jp, r.��i1 •�+�„� r, 'i�hi� ^ r • :' :'s.'.•. 'c{r;. ., .., , ,b�' ';.� �� r v�� r i��.�,��,i�; �,.. � ;).� '.i' � :�r, ��= //� .1 f�rlFj�' ��M1`7r4Q1y��.•7�n� •1�,�`�j.`�} yk,: ,•a^'Ji N'TI— � �QN 1 '�,�iH. e... .�tp 'i%. 4 �� Y 4 � , � � 'Y��•��•�,',�'�'�• I •��n{l�{�^,' .�� n �� ti�M1 ��`y� eJ u�f •�i�J •� ,� ' .,�., � �� J"} � ��:� .��;�� , �,� ' '� , L.� w J?,, ��`;°y 'A < 4 �;,- � ,.; .,�: . ' U��:'�, ;�', r �� ((��` r1'l�j �} �] � ,.,,;. .;� •r ,,�►: ,:;�� 4� ,� �: � �} :;.;:�; e;��.. ,; " . :..�:�, � i. Ct:,� ;i{c::';�,'��,�.�;':'�'::i'�,..�� ' , ' A:' � ,� ��y � � ,'k�f��S�n'+':;��'�7�r:J!�i�:tlni�'�`A'S. �a.!n{5�� •a �� "i w�t:•; �y h p '�'I,�'/°�La's• ��i.PH�� :� ,.�`..—'"�� .�'�� ' ~, .f�1 � — _ �,.� ._�:��,�.�',�'"y;`�� },�.�f ��T„.o -��!l� t •a" � ��.5�r ,�4i".iL,'iN��Tc' qlf,-!_'�,�.• ��r�i '+ �",,'�i�,.�� ''�" r h 74, .�:7�.•�'�,7C�t%tk�iy:�v;K�� ;��;;,r�;1tili� + .-4�s'•y'�r+,�j�•Y ;'��'",S,�T+'i:t'. �Yi%�}�,� ;��5 r'�1.�:f '��,�,_'�,.,: ,Y In%�R", i � :"�'j}; y;.t t�y� •r >95:c •P' .[` r f��:'�:��. „� •Jy�. � y ��,d.�i�j Y�. }'�ll:° :�'�iY�� :.Ft•,r� i: •� �q� !•;.�'rt y"ry�k,.�k' � ,Sdivj• � r..��w ' ~�:V�.�{, 1 � M1 rp "I�:�e� l"� {� � : r.l•4 Sli" �'y,��•'• a:'Y'�M.i;y Q• `��jyc �.��•�I.�. ��,,"f4`AIi.1MS'�,''�k r..��:' �V C�:� .V J� �L p ,'� t'� N��:i:'�'{"J Y��'r"1�'�;! i .y {. 5 . �•" '� , C I�;J�-7:� :1Y} �Y:n� f'l.ry��iw�'��,[.iF:��V r�f�. F,� �� (� � �1..1',i,��',•Si�'•iN�, . r,:�l;,y�•'�);�ipJ;V,':a.'i4.:.+ i�Ii,S.,SI, J,y?� .a,'rr`+�:7,a��'A.v: v. .;.r��.,a, .l��s�'��i;p t„� . , :v' � ��° 7:M!n i �.. �el; .._ ,V.��•s.:� 'M.Y�:. +!°•:�e3,1�.:�:{:��y,� �.�.,�.t"�1�I <<..:.;�� %' \..'��.�1��:.7C•4,qfi;;ij[�i7�i:�^� ti '`sr��' :y�.7ii ti�Y � p :. � � ♦ � ♦ ��N�� ANTHONE' ANNEXATION PUBLIC HEARING COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ANNEXATION AND CONCURRENT R-4 AND R-8 ZO1vING October 17, 2005 Couricil last considered this annexation in early 2005,when it accepted the 60%Direct Petition to Annex and authorized transmitting the Notice of Intent package to the Boundary Review Board. Because of BRB scheduling this annexation has taken somewhat longer than usual. The City is now in receipt of the Closing Letter from the Boundary Review Board for this annexation and must decide whether it wants to accept the expanded annexation area, and if it does,what future zoning should be applied to this area when it comes into the City. The Board felt that the original 4.84-acre annexation was to small to meet many of the relevant planning policies of GMA and the Countywide Planning Policies as well as specific Objectives that the Board is required to consider. They felt enlarging the annexation to 25.7 acres would result in more logical service areas,protection of existing neighborhoods, and more reasonable boundaries. Pursuant to state law(RCW 35A.14.340)the City is required to hold to public hearings at least 30-days apart on zoning for annexation areas. Whereas,the City held one hearing in January, it was for the origina14.84-acre annexation site. Since the site has now been enlarged to 25.7 acres, at least two public hearings must be held on the new area. Tonight's public hearing will be the first of these two hearings. . r The subject annexation site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of South 55�' Street and Talbot Road South in the southem portion of the City. It is within the City's adopted. Potential Annexation Area and is designated both Residential Low Density(RLD) and . Residential Single Family(RS) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map (see back of handout). The expanded site currently has King County's R-6 zoning and there are 55 existing single- family detached�dwellings on it. Proposed zoning is R-4 (four units per net acre) on its western half and R-8 (eight units per net acre) on its eastern half, consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Staff estimates that under Renton's zoning up to 15 additional single- family detached dwellings could be constructed on the original 4.84-acre site. If the Council decides to accept expanded annexation, it must decide on future zoning that would be applied at the time the site is brought into the City. Couneil is being asked to consider this, this evening, as well as whether it wishes to accept the enlarged annexation area as prescribed by the Boundary Review Board. Either,the Council must accept the new boundaries or reject the whole annexation. �, Council Hearing Handout 04-19-04.doc\ � J� Q. 't o,��_ '� � 45t � �\ 0 �... a � : , .� � 1 , � � w � ; � -� �� 0 � � -� `�i � �- � � � ��. � .s � th � � , � 't � S 55th St 4� ��, ��__. _ . ring ok Creek t } \ A.�; � ,'� x � �;,� � �; �E �� Cn r C-' u -,r . r l �� " � . � � jj ' �'��= ;�� a� �� .,�� .( } � � � `� - : r � ��k �,<'7"y� ; �. '' °, F�rk � � �0 0 „o so 19thp� � 0 S E t St n � 203rd St Proposed Anthone' Annexation o goo 1600 Figure 1: Vicinity Map _ ciry umits 1 : 9600 �S Y oA Economic Development,Ncighborhoods&Strategic Planning �O� p�ez Pietsch,Adminisvator � Proposed Annex Area G Del Rosario '�A To� za��n�zooa 0 Proposed Expanded Annex Area CITY OF RENTON PLAleTNI1�TG/BUILDING/PUBLIC VVORKS ME1dIO1ZA1�1DUM DATE: August 2, 2005 TO: Don Erickson FROM: Sonja J.Fesser q�� SUBJECT: Anthone Annexation(Expanded),Boundary Review Board(King Co.) Review Comments,Dated July 26,2005 -Legal Description Review Bob Mac Onie and I have reviewed the above referenced King County memo and have made the minor change as requested. See the attached annexation legal description. However, there is a greater problem with the legal description and map exhibit that was submitted to the Boundary Review Board for said annexation. Both submittals are for the"RE�ONE (EXPANDED)" request,fzot the annexation itself. It appears that the reviewing division of King County did not notice that error in their review. In addition, King County states in said memo that said legal description matches the accompanying highlighted assessor's map. If so, said assessor's map must also be for the rezone, not the annexation. We responded earlier this year(July 7, 2005) to comments made in a June 23, 2005 memo from King County Road Services Division to Lenora Blauman regarding review comments about the Anthone Annexation legal description. Said legal description was not for the expanded annexation area,but for the smaller original annexation area. \H;\File Sys\LND-l.and Subdivision&Sutveying RecordslL,NQ-2Q-Short PlatsWNTHONEI.doc ANTHONE ANNEXATION (EXPANDED) LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 31, Township 23 North, Section 5 East, W.M., and the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 6, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., all in King County, Washington, lying westerly of the east line of said Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter, northerly of the existing City Limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance No. 3109, easterly of the existing City Limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance No. 3751, and southerly of the existing City Limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance No. 3268. � ��y � ECONOMIC DE�ELOPMENT, C� ,, � NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC ,. � ' .� � ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT � � - �N�� M E M O R A. N D U M DATE: September 30,2005 TO: Dave Christensen FROM: Don Erickson SUBJECT: Anthone'Annexation—Expanded Zoning Ordinance Legals The first public hearing on the expanded Anthone' Annexation is now scheduled for October 24,2005. We anticipate the second, and most likely final public hearing where Council will accept the annexation and concurrent zoning ordinances on November 28, 2005. Attached are the respective zoning maps for each of the two zones for this annexation. These are the R-4 zone and the R-8 zone. We would be most appreciative if we could have the legals for these two rezones byNovember 14, 2005 so that we can get.the City Attorney's sign-off and get these circulated to Council members before fihe hearing. Thank you and your staff in advance for your assistance. Attachments cc: Sonja Fesser � document2 � , � I � I � �th �t o � aa � ��:::� x F °r-k � , �, 0 � �.� �'o� �� p� � 9 Anthone' Ann�xa�ion a �oo $aa Zoning Map —— — City Limits � --� ti/'�\ Economic Development,Neighborhoocis&Strategic Planning A[i!1@X8114i1 At@8 ! . `t(}O1J �ji}�i}� Alex Pietsch,Adrninistrator - '.. �� G.IJeI Rosario �� R-4 Zoning �N� 30 September 2005 i I � _ 1 � �5th St 0 00 � � NO� F °rk � � ' o � /�� J'o � 1g t . h P� . � 9 Anthone' Annexation o 40o goo Zoning Map � — — — City Limits ti�Y Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Annexation Area 1 . 4go0 �O♦ AlexPietsch,Administrator . _.. G.Del Rosario R-8 Zonin �NT� 30 September 2005 � 9 � . � ��'/ . � T ANTHONE'ANNEXATION FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET � Units Po ulation AV Existing dev. 1 3 $746,000 Full dev. 16 40 $8,000,000 Assumptions: 2.5 persons/household $500,000 AV/new unit ....................................... $250,000 AV/existing unit ....::.;:.;:.;;:.;»�:.;�.;:.;;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;: :.(��y��jps..;..::.:.:::.:...;;; Total revenues .::...::.....:..:..:......: : ... .;:.;:.;;:.;:.;;;:.;:.;.:;:.....::.::�::::::::: Existing Full Rate Existing:;;;;;;:;;.;;;;:;:;:::;�:;��.�:<��;: Regular lev $2,357 $25,280 3.16 Full:;;:;;`;:'::''�'''>�3'�:�6�:�;;4�(�; Excess lev $66 $709 0.08865 State shared revenues Rate( er ca Existing Full Liquor tax $3.52 $8.80 $140.80 Liquor Board rofits $5.04 $12.60 $201.60 Fuel tax-roads $14.46 $36.15 $578.40 Fuel tax-arterials $6.47 $16.18 $258.80 MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Camper excise $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal justice $0.36 $0.90 $14.40 Total $74.63 $1,194.00 Miscellaneous revenues Rate Existing Full Real estate excise* $40.86 $102.15 $1,634.40 Utilit tax** $133.20 $133.20 $2,131.20 Fines &forfeits* $18.33 $45.83 $733.20 Total $281.18 $4,498.80 * Per capita ** Per housing unit-based on $2,220 annual utility billing @ 6% tax rate :.::.:.::.:.:.;.�.;:.;:.:.;:.;:.:.;:.:;.;;:»::>::>::>: ;:i�c�s#5:�:::::;>::::>::::>::<::>::::::<::;::<:: Total ongoing costs.. :::..:.......... .. ... ... Per ca ita Existing Full Existing�::>:'>:>:::;;;;;:;;;$�:;�'i:�:<��:; . ..................:..................... Contracted Services Full=:;:;:;:;;::;;::;;$3t��$G��`;:��:; .. ...:.............. Alcohol $0.23 $0.57 $9.08 Public Defender $3.13 $7.84 $125.36 Jail $7.19 $17.98 $287.68 Subtotal $26.38 $422.12 Court/legal/admin. $57.08 $142.70 $2,283.20 Parks maintenance* $14.90 $37.25 $596.00 Police $270.00 $675.00 $10,800.00 Road maintenance** N/A $500.00 $6,706 Fire*** $1.25 $932.50 $10,000.00 Total $2,313.83 $30,807.32 *See Sheet Parks FIA **See Sheet Roads FIA `*" Rate per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact Existing::::''».:>::::>:::>>>:':'::>::�4��'v.�4�: F u l l�';:;:::::>:':::<::::>::::«<:�$��€`:�$; :::D�i�:=tErr�:�:;�s�s;>;Parks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA): :::::::::::.�:::::::::.....:........... Other one-time costs: $425.00 Total one-time costs:��:>::�>:>:;::;::;::;;`:;::$�4�5�E��#:: Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo �'' , � � �d��' ANTHONE'ANNEXATION FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET Units Population AV ��✓/ Existing dev. 1 3 $746,000 � Full dev. 16 40 $6,400,000 Assumptions: 2.5 persons/household $400,000 AV/new unit ...................................... $250,000 AV/existing unit ;;��;��;;;;€»«€>€<; Total revenues :::..:..:....:..:..:..:.......:......: Existing Full Rate Existing::�<>�::<<.;;.>:<`;.��.;��;;��:: Regular lev $2,357 $20,224 3.16 Full:;;::;:;:;;:;::;;��t�i��:�:'�:� Excesslev $66 $567 0.08865 State shared revenues Rate (per cap) Existing Full Li uor tax $3.52 $8.80 $140.80 Liquor Board profits $5.04 $12.60 $201.60 Fuel tax-roads $14.46 $36.15 $578.40 Fuel tax-arterials $6.47 $16.18 $258.80 MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cam er excise $0.00 ' $0.00 $0.00 Criminal justice $0.36 $0.90 $14.40 - Total $74.63 $1,194.00 Miscellaneous revenues Rate Existing Full Real estate excise* $40.86 $102.15 $1,634.40 Utilit tax*'' $133.20 $133.20 $2,131.20 Fines &forfeits* $18.33 $45.83 $733.20 Total $281.18 $4,498.80 * Per capita "" Per housing unit-based on $2,220 annual utility billing @ 6%tax rate :�a5#s::;:>:::;:::::;::::`:':;::::�::.:.>``:;': Total ongoing costs ...........................:.......:.:. ........................................ ...................................... Per capita Existing Full Existing:::::;;:;::;;::;:`;:;�`:��:f�1;�:t��::: Contracted Services Full:::;;;;:��::<:::��i�$�$€�`�:�� .::::::::::::::. ........... Alcohol $0.23 $0.57 $9.08 Public Defender $3.13 $7.84 $125.36 Jail $7.19 $17.98 $287.68 Subtotal $26.38 $422.12 Court/legal/admin. $57.08 $142.70 $2,283.20 Parks maintenance* $14.90 $37.25 $596.00 Police $270.00 $675.00 $10,800.00 Road maintenance** N/A $500.00 $6,706 Fire*"" $1.25 $932.50 $8,000.00 Total $2,313.83 $28,807.32 *See Sheet Parks FIA '"'See Sheet Roads FIA *** Rate per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact Existing::::::::>::::>::::>::>::»>:�''�4�.�.��.�.5�4E�: F u I I:'::::>:<:;:<[::'�:��s��:�.�i.: :;f3ri�:`�E�e'�cijs�;;:Parks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA): :::::::::::::....:........::......:.... Other one-time costs: $425.00 _..................... ....._..... Total one-time costs:::::;:;::�;;;::::;�:':.::>:::::::$:�25��; Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo � e� P� ,--� �� -- � �5t �� 0 0 - � a � � I ; s ; � � � � � � g� 0 3 � � � — � L � �. � � I th S 55th St ring ook Creek � `� � � �� p I � > I � � � No IFo�k � o I � �� so � �9 th PlI �; �j� > 9 I� ° St - E t St I � � 1 � � - � r = r 203rd St I � � ��. � ' Proposed Anthone' Annexation o goo 1600 Figure 1: Vicinity Map Economic Devclopmcnt,Ncighborhoods&Straregic Planning - - - Clty LII7111S ` • / "00 '� ' Akz Pictxh,Administrator c.a,R�>s,,;�, 0 Proposed Annex.Area �'NT� 'ylune?O(ki i , --�--�;T--� T� _ I I I i I —L � — —� / \ � � , � / -- � ___/ � �� i �- � i j i — �— ,— � �. � � - i � � \ i ,� � Proposed Anthone' Annexation o Zoo 400 Figure 5: Sensitive Areas Map - Wetland ti'� Economic Devclopmcnt,Ncighborhoods&Stratcgic Plxnning - - - CIIy LIRIItS l . 240� ''� Alex Helsr.h,Adminis[ra�ur ' c.o�,R�,S,,;,, 0 Proposed Annex.Area �N,TO 29 Junc 2W4 � � �"'' P, �� 45t�Pr 0 0 a _� I � � � I � � w � � �� o � � � � � � ~ ,� � -- th � S 55th St I ring ook Creek - L N 0 � � > ca � � No Fo�k � �.., 0 � h� �°G - lg th P� � I I I ° S �O E t St II � � 203rd St Proposed Anthone' Annexation o goo 1600 Figure 1: Vicinity Map — — — City�imits 1 : 9600 ti� Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning � Proposed Annex Area � Alex Fe[sch,Atlminis[ra[oc �, ' c.o�'R�,s��, � Proposed Expanded Annex Area L'N,TO 2R Decombec 2IXM M ...- � ' � -`��- I .. # ,�Y F . � '.:t . � ....( ��,,;{ � '�Y }-r'?'.d._� �� :.� • �..,.I -��'� i. . , ' - f —, , M , � � ,r�.. �.' ,�,� r�; I. , � . ', .. . �.� �y.. " b. {�yr� ,�, � t iI y .� �� `� �I ' f` <�g� �� y �':i1��V' . . 4 ��_..,t_ t Y .� �}fi , .. " �_—__ � Y»by+R #^ ...� �"I� , ��IT'�� ,'��.; . �� .. . .-.. ' .�i� ��.' Ifi�M L�b N r:i • �� *"� � ' .'�� p,. _-��.._. - � � �.�'j �a _ - --_ _... � � ., �� "" ��;s �'t � I t � "� , �' , r +a � i . � .' ,y, �a � �.� � ��'A �� i i �... ,��' � .. i , I II_ i_-.____i- . i�r�e :.a—""»'AT�-_ ~� i I , . �yy .� ��- ,�=..T"i.~- .R+ . . : i .� � i � -- g.�� T�" -'�•'+,:� a _ - - �R�� ' �`�`�'- . I - ,' � r` _.-- �m � �� - ,. � � �� ' - , _ +x9 �?� a Z 'c.(�� i� I � �- � '� y I � � � I I _ -�-,r---- -'`� rI .�_ , I_ �_____ ' _._�__ , L�-----` . � �„ I ..__ + re/ . � �� ''y ;� - �� :, ;`i,'�r � ,.,.`��''� � � � � �� h �,�� , � 1 i. +�Srr �' ,�� ~'� � .<:. '�� .a, . . � -•.:�. � - . ..e' - '�� ___ ' ._- .. . 'I , -. . ."� y✓ �? .� , � �. , . I _.�_ .,.. , . , _ .... . ,-��; ..� . ^ . ._-� . . �. ;' �g - . � - .. . .. ` , . �. , . -..__ :. i � �.y4.. ..� w� ... . - � � � � . ,-. . �,. . , i I +_.__ � __ �� . . -.._- i . �_ ..__� i �::.�:.. .—_—_ � I �� I __ ' � r-- �, C� �- ___�------- _ - � , �43_ �� - �---- - � � . � . .� ; I _ . �4 ,. , . . n �.'� K �'� \ � n. / /� � �"� ) . . -_..-__ , �\ � � _._ —_ - _ .. , '� � i �. �..-: , � . . � : / i � � � r . � � �� j �-F� ,.: � ,' ' � 1 =�I �� w �' - — ; ,, . , --� -- __ , � �, !'� � .�'�y;'�`: -- . � 4 �. �� , �. —� 'a . --- - �;��. . , � �, i .,.� � � , �� . � D ' � � E E � - - i , -' ,� �- . _ - , -�_. �„` , , ____ � . � � � -___._-- \ , �� " � r � ,,��; '�``� a` ; - � ��t„ '`\ � - •. � _ , � .. s.. ,, . , . �------ � �� ^ � �- � ..,: , � J , " {.� .,r � � . ' �, .. � � !y�GF.� �,' . �' �� y.. �� 'Y'� '"�^' �'�. t '` � " �n '" _ 'x -� ' ,,y� 11'" i 4 { {� � __Y__��i F � �+..•�� . A ��.,,� : � 1 ,1� � �r Y��. . , -- � '' � �I�'�': \��'` '�..� � �` 5�"' � - �� , d ,,r� y �� r j `t" �vt z. , '+`. ti, �,.� ��. . 4 y �. � r+��. . .�� \ . . �'�• •� �,�� '� ':i K' . ,- _ F � , � .� �� ,�, , . � :. � � � � a� . �Z;'� . .. �� . ' �i> +�� '� ,�•a.. w,�. , it'' ` i �, �.�r,' �'�te.` �r , , , �#� � a:� ,� �' ��.��•- �� -t. � ;�.,c�� ,a m .�t � ",&�. �<, �`e� 1sy�' '�t ,; �, .r �� `� .� �' _� ' � � � �� ^,. �` >°�€'� ..a,.. �i� �� j� ,�.� .� ��_ I`�� ,�'�' � �J� �, w.��-�f� .^.. � �t'r�' �� ' -��'�.�^ � �, �`"k��.' d �. ,�r �i*�'�. i�e W ;.n,r..;s , ��.+'z � � �. �,.. � � . �w..x . . `�� `3 �:�� r � i� 4�� '�� ' 37�,�� Ml'��.� ��,'� ��N,. � �`i-�w-�1 ,r�' %^`�.. � �..�e w••, e�� 4v ��r. � . .� ;e��%.s � � '�. � . . {, �t.� �^" �" �' � X, � �.'4'. `�.. , 3r =. . ��' '*'{� ,�� 7t ti "� ` " ' . k r :"' , - . . � �,�rv � �, f ��'_ ._ "_�� ` � �w+ y, . .._� . i �.1.��..� �� :� R�'C5 —__ ti . �✓i . � �, n � I .. /. . } , ,,{ti . .. , � - ' � _ . � -�y, �.. � .� , * .� � '�-i }. �� f � �� i�� ~��• ��.1�� # � .:� �'�� r.fA �� aa�*a �j*n�� • � �• _ !' •M" �P y� 1 y.a�' Y Proposed Anthone' Annexation o 300 600 Figure 2: Aerial Map 1� Economic Dc��clopmcnL Ncighborhoods&Svaicgic Pl�nning - - — Clty�II1111S � • �� Aks Pietsch,Admimsirutur ��y c.�,R�„a�„ � Proposed Annex.Area L+N.tO '-N U.cembec 2004 } \ . � � �� ` � - - - - � � �� 1�� `�� V �� ,�� ` �� / �� ' � �/ � , � ��I� �;� , , ,��/�� >, � ��, i � I I� �,� ,� �,: �� 1��,�� i � � , �� . 1 ,r - , I , � � ( am� �� ,, � �\�\11111� � � _ � , 1 � ,, � � _� ��` �� - � >,��1� � �� I � � ��\�� , ;,-, ,,,, „ � �� C�� -� - ��` �_ ��_ ,>�, ,, � ��\��\\� �, ,� � ,,�� , � � �. i� ,, � � � � � „ \� �� \\`�, " � � � I� ';�\\J� �� $ � � ' x �� '� ��\��\ ,, �� ..,�--�--- 7 '- -`--�- - — ` �� — � � � � �� E �,� 1�\\�,� �\�� 1 $� w. �_ ��-� , �p� �-��-i� � -�---}-�- � _ , �_ � �--- ��V'�� >>i i/ � � —� - � �� ' �i� ��I� � i , � � , � �� d ,� --,-- � i � � � � � , � � � �" � t� � �' � � � ,I � �.� �I , ,�; � � ' � - l�� li j,( I , � , r,� ��,'�; ,� � � � �� ;�, �— _�� L�� _ _ �� ,,�,�,�� ,rr � �; ,; �\ � �\�\ �,�� , � �< < �� , , � ��-�� - �� .n � ,� ��,�� , � � � � �, ,; i,, , , ) .,, � , � �,�� I � � � � I Ui� /�� ; . � ,�,�� ,�� I ��(C ��\\\y\1��I I.I� 1l i � � ( � � �� m�� i � i � �� I �, ' � , � i � i�''' i , �, � � '' � � r? '` �'� _. � , '� ; � � . '� . � � � , � � ; � � r�� ;�� t < ,,,, ` � „ --5—< -,,_:.�_i�.._ � !; ' �� ` � � ,m_- � `� 1 �� e � �� `',i � � ��\ �i �� i� � � � � � �� '�, v ` � ,�v1��\��t � � � l �/ l �� ; � ,,s � �� 9 � I � \ "k' -^M ' I I � � / � ;>=,� . , .` � -� � - � \ �` � <;� 3�.. ,= i � �� 1 � _� � � �� ;'�� L! � � � I � � �� i/��I ' � ,. � � --�� ,� _ x II ,1 1 —�� , , �� 111�� , � _ � _ � � � � � � y " — ` � - � � f I � L 1 � � ` , � �'I � �� « � i �— ��-^�, ; � , � �� — �� - �\ ; � � � ` 1 , � --_—____ , ( �, - _.,_—_ ; � � ,� � �� , . , , �� r � , ,' �� ",' , �_�-- � �{t � ,, _ M — � �.� - , e , � ,,, x . \ .� l��'' " \ � _>>� _.�� , i � � _ �,�) �� ,_ _ � �'`'� ��VA\\� �,��i' %� ' � o �� ', .», � , —,� �� i !� � ��• �:. a _ ' �— .��'� � � � � �� v . �� \�� \ � ��\\l< �#� � ' � , ' l �% ��\ ' �� , � � .� � �� . � � � L- - � � , � � -� �� . _ , , , - _— , 5 �� , � � , � ,� I , , � �--� �,,- � � . %/ ` -`�\ 1 \\\1�III�� / � �``�`'�``;_ \\�� ?I � I �� . � -� , , -� ,�._ � ,--1� �; � �n � � � ��:,�� ;��,�(,�;� �� _� >>_�, � �� -; � /%� � ,- ( �, � , �� ,�� , � � � � � - ��\ __ _--- - y (,��x-� � � ( , '�� I,,1��\ \ � , �� 95�% � �� ..- �, �\ ` ; _� �, ; ��.; \\� �, i�%/C � � � f� �� - __ �� I �'� �� \ .�,� � ,�,� � ✓ ,- , – ��: � _ _>� �'i��l � � '��-��'� : � '��`�' � , % -- � � �� 1 a-��\\�� ,�� ,�.r ,� �/ �, r___ --� � ---�//='� �/ ��_�;. �T \,� ��\` �C � I� ;; ---- ; \ � , � � ,_ I � �� ` ,= � � �� ,,, � ��,�,�,� �;A �� \� V� � , � �: �--��/ ,�--" �. \ \�� ,�� ,;;,�� \ � \ � ;`;(� \\` �� ,� � ( ;� , � :�—��; �\�\��\ � �� I ' � ; /i( %/� �' _-._ �= �� /� � ,, ° \ �, _ ,� ��,�1 \ �� 1 � �., -� _ �_ ..,,� � � -�.:» `� '� \ z�� :.J � j � � '�" V `�1-�.-.� �� , / ' ',� � -�--�."`�, '�� A - , Proposed Anthone' Annexation o 300 600 Figure 4: Topography Map 1 m Interval Contours ti'� Economic Development,Ncighborhoods&S[rxtegic Planning - - - CIIy LIf111tS 1 • ��oo '� ' Alex Retcch,Adminfsva[oe c.o��R�,s�� 0 Proposed Annex.Area �AN.�O� ?RDecember2004 . i � J I � — L —__—_L I � I I I — � I I I� I _._ --_.—._— _— � _ U-_ .�,,,.,,�. I '� -- i � , _ � —�-� -- i --- 1 _ i— _ I - �__-- I � �'\ NO1 t F°rk � � � � 0 � � �� o� ' � �� Proposed Anthone' Annexation o 300 600 Figure 5: Sensitive Areas Map - Wetland Economic Devclopmcnt,Neighborhoods&Stratcgic Planning - - - Clty LIfi11tS 1 : 3600 Alca%cluh,Admin3t�ntur ''� ' c.o�,R�,��„ 0 Proposed Annex.Area ��NT�� '-R 0.mmbcr'_q?1 • � �., ,i �� ' �/�-��E p • - � � { , � ��°,r � - _ � ,.. .... ' ' a :�� i = � i i Y s. - �•d'` °•• � r_ � 3 ""� ! 2 A � 1 ��` j � w ,L ��,�• .`M E F �� ! j � . �i ��t • f � i � f f • i ,�>� t� S �w♦ ' s . ' l 'i z ', "''� �� •f ¢� ! i # :� .� �,Q ...� _ Y i t��l �` r.... i y � v.�.0 vH..v � �..� � ..._ d;� " y,+ c s�e. ..... � . '"_ • � , IL ,,, �I „ ..�,.. . J , � • „ « a . � ��T � ,�.. .. '�' ..„ j �+ � r ,��.. _ �-=- � t i a . a � 1 :.� t - i _ . � ,. .�w - _�. :t � z 3 . :u ' . . .,,:.. c�7 � � � �c� �� j � j ' *..y��' �� . . ( � � f } t " i 1 �.. � � ' ��~Y�� I �� { j LA4II�CSIK[ " • �y i �P � 4 • sIn ti l'^ t y V z i �,.a, #-.�. � _�._ �'� f Yu �; �i E �...v _ `� . �"j: - _.. .,�' � 1 d ; � �} � �. 7 v � 7 L • .V+ _ I 7 3 ! Y 7 �� I � j � E ��,• ii " ! _ ° �va.Y �'• .._. v3 ! � � t � p j i �,• . : +y � . - " i A N t t � f SH I,ARI: 1 ! � f ' �j PAN� [R L F:[9•;L y 1 j i �.• f # �. 1 _ _ � ..._... �i R �o„ ! 1 1 1 f �} � } 6 , t d a - q ; LAKC YOUNGS ._..__ � f � F f �n�... d , Cr �- } � 3 3 I } } - i 3 � �4 "( ; � i i 4. z ,. 8 i , n i € n'v ' _ � 4 � iliis aocument I Grapnic y totbn.not quQanlwO .!n �/wra Il o anE em.a o�m.�o..7��w.oau�mue��aa oi m.raai.�no.�. m�.mav��.io,a�.viar v��vo...o�iy. CITY OF RENTON . Com rehens �ve P an �s�s��tNT,�� MF�.�»�,tN,,,��,»�1��.�,,,,�.s � � Rcudcntiel Luw Dcnsity � [mploym��nt Arcn-InJu..Viul � Rcaidcmial Singlc femily � [mpluymrn�Arcn-Vull<y � Rcsidcminl Ma1�um 0.nsi�y L a n d U s e M a � R��,��„a,M��,;_�am;�Y � CUMMtHCIAL UtSIGNATIONS - Cummcrdal Nclgh6urhuoJ CENTtR UflSIGNATIONS � Cwnmcrciul/Of6caRcsidcmiul - Urban Ccmcr Duwnwwo - Cummcrciul Cumdor � C'cn�cr Viliagc - U�ben Crnmr-Nonh ' '� Ciry Limiu � • � Urbnn[iruwth(iuunJary G�—�,�, Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning ��.�)� PB/PW Technical Services G.Del Rusario FNT� Adopted 01 Nuvember 2004 . . I }I It, ' � ,` u =- ' '�i . �\ ' � %� w) � x»„q /// . .., _ J i � �� a � ��— . ;, �..� s 1l Z '1 S�1e tt � — . �� - - )�- i I � � , ; �� , d a�� i� � a��i�� , — � � � � � � �� ,R� 1 � , M 1 �� i , a � ��I ' � � . e' t - ,_. �:„� . � � �� I�-' c a i 7' �� , . l __ � � i��\�� `�� .M... ,, t � ' II �L�L� `� il.i_�� ;� ,I'`�<<tca�,�+'1 � ��t�/ �, ,r�'�=F_,�,.. \ \\w � _� i i �� 9 1 i I _ _ eH J-� ' . '� e � � 1 � � �r�� •II �� +' `��t�� ` � i_ � /� ,�� I � „1S�r� �, . 'a , . ��a�� `_� � � � �' �I %� ilM�l i1� i l� r i i � � �� i�.u� � � � :�'S �� I � � . �I � �, �1 v� � � � i Ir�i i �, I ��1 �� I � A�`/. . � l� � p � , i� i �� a �,I �I '�- � ; 'M I _ %� �y� i �, w�� . ' . , {r � : � ( i � ` �I � 1�aL +.Ia _� � :. i�:� �l� �` � i��II I( I \�� I al� � �'"k fl'�.Id:.,.� . � �� } �� J� � � � � � �R N 4 � �� .II I I ��A7�['' � I . I- � �I I �I �.'�\ � \�fl `+'' � . . y� � I �� , 4 , yr �_ ( � I �� j � � \ � { i,. � - -- �, - r ,.mmw�, s � , �� °u �� i�� ,� FI�� ' ��I � ,i ��1! �"^� i �,_,` �y/,� � ..I I I �.U �� l , � , i .�� ¢ ,� � � I�-�i' � o� �Lr" �`Ifl� (� / �,..� I.i i I a��', li s' '� �� .�x rwes�� . R I � � .�•rs-.�.. � ' �q ��f��i,l �°-,r �/�� ,�� . �� . � ~ . ' i v�.o� i , a I' � � � il ,� a 1 I__ i� u � � �� ' � � I �� v u I i: _ �� = I ' --_.,� ' � 1 \ '� �� = �`�E� ��I i,�� i _ i f b.,..,,o _, , �_ l�� > � :.., � �� -�__. ... �1 � ,,-, ; � - � �_ � _, , ,,� r ' � ... � '� � _ � � �� , � � � , _� �� s�� I) � �� } � :.:�. � _ .,`�..�,� _ _... ar , � _I .. . a. �' i 1 �� i �m� '�a„ 1 �. � I � ,: r I � lf �� . ,�', ' �. � �' _ ll� '� -,, x�_ ) � ��_. � Y .Y� � �\ I U ,.... � ...., ,, ' % i; J �� a�'�,IL�y�_I�' 7R"` � / �a� �{ Wi �l 1 L � ( �\ �. ' \�i�. / t J ` ��;nw il r . ,.._ ..�� . ;: �:%s � _ _ _�.�. � �� - � I�32 �� . � � � . „ ' I \ 9 ^I G � ° s , � J 1�— i �� ;� ,� '� � �=- � . Y � e il I d �� I � y�� I�\� ( / g r '�� ..a I f .7 1. „ � I( . l ��` ' � � .J �r �� i r = , , � .. ,..:_� _ . . -r� .�.1 = �7 �i 1 � 7 Y��.s J �� li. I 1 � ` i � % �� , � �� I�—_ _ . s. � ...... ��a��N� r��a., i _ , r _ , , ��. .�. ' � : �� s�M.,s � �I� 1 �ea -( 1 S � � � � ��.0� � \ ,,. � - � � �- �� r l "' J -� _ :lt � �� '�i�x ��r�� !� 1. I �� J! I I �;x ylw( �� ' � -I . „' i !� , �� ; " �,�� l��l� :� q� �_ ___ =, h ; �� I " � � i � �! �, ` i � � � r� � II y , , _� 11�� I� ,� y�` � .. _ _ . ��- _- ij �� , ` ',•}�� C'� , ,. ; ' .,�, � � 1� � c� �`- � � - � �� . � . .. . ,.,,::�nn � . , . !i i� � � J 1 >� � i � � =\ ,,��ar j �, � i� . r��/'% � � . '� �� " �� 1� ��.��;.,�. , �. ti i s �j i . , � , .,� -... ... .. - � �� +I .:.. � �. . � � �'� t i. � If �s . ��/ � � .ri, PANTHER LAKE � � „�,� �'� G , -�� , " �r '�-� � �� i�� P �� I � . ,,- � � "' ,. .� i � t . �. '� d �� . t � � � .. /�x,� - - _ � ��v - , � r �i ; ,. � � �i / //� i � tl . ' i � '� � �� /� � �' �� ` , h��a ' __ I li .�n. �/'�j/�j ,' ' x �'� � j � //i, � � � i 4 ,/s,' ��, � -; � ; /, n,; _i . ; �/ �� - _ ; , .�: < �i � > /' /� , i ,� � - �� ;/ .k, _ f � ; � � !�%`i f � �l � ,; C., n r , .,, " "�� a i � �I s��i�'� �`;I �1`SX f/� /F ,.- ` ) �I •,_��;� �1�� G�,!� �' , I , � r ,_ y i� .0 Fl l, i �� — I I J � � 1 } - LAKE YOCJNGS � G� ' � m��s` .i .. ., .. � . .. . . �� -' � - "� " :...Y.,s:\ �� ' .l..� ... " i , �..^ � � , "' I �� .r i_ ' �� .\L: , � ,'. � _ __. _ ._ �... . . . I I } I 4 ♦ , i, - f I �� I I I, J � � � I i ;� � i l f � -� I 1',:' i � � li � ,,_�n` ��r., � ' _ _. � I � wi� ,I i' � � ,_, � , n � � ��, r a�i v�r' i i i � �;,�-Lll., �, �u J �� ( -�� l �� . 7`--_ � > > � _ ��<_it%3 7L-, �� \'F _5�J. .ir .� �.� i�� x �ns I � .. �� „I ,� \., I, i,. � � . � f . � �� . . , i � �i � �. � 1, „ � ao .� � -��' � _ - ' . .� � � .. Gti�Y o Technical Services �O� P�anning/Building/Public Works CITY OF RENTON Renton Municipal Code R.MacOnie,D.Visneslo �FNTO� Apri12005 Zone 1 0 3� � AQUIFER PROTECTION ZONES ��=��j Zone1 Modified .- Zone 2 City Limits ' ��1'U. r��tvioN -- - - - - - — — — —-- - --- ------- - —--�?; ��-��-� .�B�s{� " Annexation Review Form � � �� Bu��v,s,a� [X ] 10% Notice of Intent [ ] 60%Annexation Petition TO : �:,,�B��ng: � Surface Water Utility Fire Water Utility Parks Wastewater Utility , Police Transportation Public Works Maintenance Current Planning FROM : Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Sl1BJECT . Anthone' Annexation Location : The proposed 4.84-acre rectangular shaped Antone' Annexation is located at the corner of S 55 Street (SE 192�d St) and Talbot Road South. It borders Talbot Estates on its south and Springbrook Terrace on its east. It is just north of the City's Springbrook Springs Reservoir area in the south part of the City. It appears to be at the edge of Renton's sewer and water service areas. Date Circulated: June 30th 2004 Comments Due: Jul 9 2004 General Information Area : 4.84 acre Street length : N/A Assessed Value : $746,000 Estimated Population : 5 people Current Uses: Residential : 2 Dwelling Units Commercial : N/A Industrial : N/A Public : N/A Comp Plan Designation : Residential Low Density Future Uses: : Residential Future Po ulation � 16 Dwellin Units Reviewing Department/Division: ��`�`� 1. Does this annexation represent any unique or significant problems for your department/division? � 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the area? � lv � (Over) 3. Does this proposed annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your department/division? � � �� 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? �,/�-% 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? � �<<� 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) ��"��. General recommendation and comments: .- , /�:L% � Signature: ^f ' Date: 7��U5' � rr � - , � - , �..�.�,�.m..,,�,s a - - - - - - ------._ ---—_--- ------ _- ____– - � - � - -- ------ - +, -- - - ------ - ' Annexation Review Form JUL 1 _ 2004 ECONOMIC DEVELOPtv1ENT, RHOODS, [X] 10% Notice of Intent [ ] 60% Ann xati t��a�,�v�r�U TO : Building Surface Water Utility Fire Water Utility Parks Wastewater Utility Transportation Public Works Maintenance Current Planning FROM _' Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning SUBJECT . Anthone' Annexation Location : The proposed 4.84-acre rectangular shaped Antone' Annexation is located at the corner of S 55 Street (SE 192�d St) and Talbot Road South. It borders Talbot Estates on its south and Springbrook Terrace on its east. It is just north of the City's Springbrook Springs Reservoir area in the south part of the City. It appears to be at the edge of Renton's sewer and water service areas. Date Circulated: June 30th 2004 Comments Due: Julv 9, 2004 � Generallnformation Area : 4.84 acre Street length : N/A Assessed Value : $746,000 Estimated Population : 5 people Current Uses: Residential : 2 Dwelling Units Commercial : N/A Industrial : N/A Public : N/A Comp Plan Designatioh : Residential Low Density Future Uses: : Residential Future Po ulation • 16 Dwellin Units Reviewing Department/Division: 1. Does this annexation represent any unique or significant problems for your department/division? ��Gr �� l(J r`�--� /��--v��c �. �'-� 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the area? � �Yv (Over) � V :• 3. Does this proposed annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your department/division? �� S 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? � L/ / �(f�ci. �/ Gr.t.u-X�' /vy. j r� G J �� 1 !� ��'l � �-1 v` � G (r,. �� j'yt.c� i / , / ` , f��/-�i �� f.,.%1- �w��a.lz. �I . W�� G/v�y•!"'�� !�`� r Y°i�/�'�-� r � f��'Z-!� , 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) General recommendation and comments: � ^ � A,, � � !. '��' ,�� ... �i/�� C�' . /�-- Date: / Signature: ,/� , � ' ' `' �� _._, �,. b" r ,�' _ ' ' '__'—._' ' __"____".__ ''_"'___"_'___ 3 t __.__ __ __' "__' _._____—__ '_'_— — ��.y`. __ .__�_ � �.ua�� _ _ _ ��. �•�� a J An�exation Re�ievv Forrn F�oti��` � n. �� tio N�o,��c ,� [X] 10% Notice of Intent [ ] 60%Annexation Petition9�T°Ayo��A�o�� °,cA��s,�ti TO : Building Surface Water Utility ��',��r ��+��'-- = Water Utility Parks Wastewater Utility Police Transportation Public Works iVlaintenance Current Planning FROM : Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning SU�JECT . Anthone' Annexation Location : The proposed 4.84-acre rectangular shaped Antone' Annexation is located at the corner of S 55 Street (SE 192"d St) and Talbot Road South. It borders Talbot Estates on its south and Springbrook Terrace on its east. It is just north of the City's Springbrook Springs Reservoir area in the south part of the City. It appears to be at the edge of Renton's sewer and water service areas. Date Circulated: June 30t'' 2004 Comments Due: Jul 9 2004 General Information Area : 4.84 acre Street length � : N/A Assessed Value : $746,000 Estimated Population : 5 people Current Uses: Residential : 2 Dwelling Units Commercial : N/A Industrial : N/A Public : N/A Comp Plan Designation : Residential Low Density Future Uses: : Residential Future Po ulation � 16 Dwellin Units • P ��Reviewing DepartmenUDivisiorr. — /�'�� 1. Does this annexation represent any unique or significant problems for your department/division? . �� 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the area? ` � (Over) P . �.._'-'_"__-___ ___ . _"__ __' '.'__'____ ' ' ' ' _ ' __' __'__`__''-____--_- - _ ' __' ' _ ' '._....._ . - i� 3. Does this proposed annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your department/division? � � Y 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? � /� 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or ranchises be required as a result of this annexation? � 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services?' (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) _A� ��i General recommendation and comments: �� Signature: Date: �f� \ �y_.r , � . - ��- --- -— -------. - -- - --- --- ..---- -- ----- ---- - - �', f � : Annexation Re�iew Form [X] 10% Notice of Intent [ ] 60%Annexation Petition TO : Building Surface Water Utility Fire Water Utility Parks Wastewater Utility Police __._�`. . Transportation -��; Py�i�b�fi�l�V�rks M i7t� ar� �: Currenf Planning . FROM : Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning SUBJECT . Anthone' Annexation Location : The proposed 4.84-acre rectangular shaped Antone' Annexation is located at the corner of S 55 Street (SE 192"d St) and Talbot Road South. It borders Talbot Estates on its south and Springbrook Terrace on its east. It is just north of the City's Springbrook Springs Reservoir area in the south part of the City. It appears to be at the edge of Renton's sewer and water service areas. Date Circulated: June 30th 2004 Comments Due: Jul 9 2004 General Information Area . 4.84 acre Street length : N/A Assessed Value : $746,000 Estimated Population : 5 people Current Uses: Residential : 2 Dwelling Units Commercial : N/A Industrial : N/A Public : N/A Comp Plan Designation : Residential Low Density � Future Uses: : Residential Future Po ulation • 16 Dwellin Units Reviewing DepartmentlDivision: (�w�f i� �UYU�s ��er.��-c..c_. 1. Does this annexation represent any unique or significant problems for your department/division? � v 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the area? ., � (Over) .�. _^. -•. _,* _ ---- - -- - --- - - ---------- ----- - - --- -- � � 3. Does this proposed annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your department/division? �� 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? /�' �r /(1 U 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? ,c�o�- ��`-� 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) ��-� �� "`,�,P r- �'�� ' General recommendation and comments: Si nature: W��w V" Date: � � � � g i �9 i � .� i � P ./ , � _ /'i� � ' �� e �9 A/ � 9 // - �:. • �! �-� � / 1 /� ;i � ' I P � � �d, � � ,r � � II� ic � 'r � ` �° � �►' i ., � � �,n,��d�'�•��1, :�'��,� '�� .��.. � �;,,�� ,�y ��1� ,� �� _ "P{///��77 � '+� 1"';. " -J ,1�f��'°i�lsm��"��!�'� � . ln'. h , _�� Renton _ � �, , �. � . �„ . �. :�_ xn. �. - Renton City Limits � � < ,. _ .___ - - Parcels ' -- - *��""�*�� _ - - � Renton Aerial � y�+v;�� ' � r �,� 'iH� V��; �f ' ++� � w �� .. '.r ��vk.w `�� I � yfl ��' `k ��y�� ,H��a , '�,�:'. � '�'- ��' �g�p� y� ` •�� .. ��.. � i �� - 1 1�l��. , �J '� � ;�. _ � � r .��: i. � �W�� II �`- �� I Il, � z� P •! `! �� _ r 4 ^1 I �. 1 � � ' '� - ' ti , � - -' ' , � f ./' _ ' :t ` p ]� i �� 4�� _ ' �� . . , e ' �rv i r i �{ ;, '. � � � �� _ x ` , ��x �� rc � . • , ( � . :er `� r . . i � � � � .-' _ ^ i - �� .� 'r^ �r 1 .�� _r� r - , .'.r . �., I � ��r .. � � 1 ' ( �� '. �I 1: j � l u w g�. 1 1#� �_�: 1 , , � _ � �� I`�„ i'� � � i �I� � �. ��r�� <<� a � �' �� _ >' t `�. �+�: ��"' �. - - -,_ '�' ''- N SCALE 1 : 1,305 100 0 100 200 300 FEET http://rentonnet.org/MapGuide/maps/Parcel.mwf Tuesday, June 29, 2004 11:35 PM _ , O . � - _ _ ; x��f��o�r��s.:��,�� : King County b S�il1i�ER �1(AI��$`��1�'tY: - Department of Development 4 * ._ : ,. `�' and Environmental Services � '-� .. . ... ., .. .:. . . ,.,.... Building Services Division 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Alternative formats available Renton,Washington 98055-1219 206-296-6600 TTY 206-296-7217 upon request FCing County Certificate of Se�rver Availability This certificate provides the Seattle King County Department of Public Health and the Department of Development and Environmental Services with information necessary to evaluate development proposals. Do not write in this box number name � Building Rerrr�t ❑ Preliminary Plat or PUD - �Short Subdivision � Rezone or other � . Applicant'sname: __�� (,/ RA /V CF ��lTiP7�o�V� Proposed use: Location: 9�S� S /�� ,�L %V /l!F �t/ �C CT/O� � (-� ;o�.�s�f�P �� .Vo.�r�l .�..q�.cf cT•� ��=,4 s,— �_.T_�o 7�1a�-lGE�-DIS� (attach map nd legal description i(necessary) � - . .- . . 1. ❑ a. Sewer service will tie provided by side sewer connection only to an existing size sewer feet from the site and the sewer system has the capacity to serve the proposed use. OR / � b. Sewer service will reqQS' _ ` ement to the sewer system of: feet of sewer trunk or lateral to reach the site;and/or 2) The construction of a collection system on the site;and/or ❑(3) Other(describe) 2. � a. The sewer system improvement is in conformance with a County approved sewer comprehensive plan. OR ❑ b. The sewer system improvement will require a sewer comprehensive plan amendment. 3. � a. The proposed projecl is within the corporate Iimits of the iJistrict or has been granted Boundary Review Board . approval for extension of service outside the district or city. OR � �-- O b. Annnexation or Boundary Review Board(B j approval will be necessary to provide service. ` 4. Service is subject to the following: �� a. Connection charge: b. Easement(s): _ / � c. Other: ��S��G� ! � f� U j ',/ Comments: // �L��DGJ�l� Gl�iSlL��j�L�U��;�6��/�� I certify that the above sewer agency information is true. This certifi tion shall be val' or one year date of signature. . � � r : Agency name o ame _ GI�G�//�lr� � u� - - -- T@!e __' - e a Check out the DDES Web site at www.metrokc.qov/ddes � sewer availabi�ky form b-cert-sewer.pdf 05-19-2003 Page 1 oT 1 : . � . �,l�ITAL !:)�—+'��:��''1'��3�i�1 THAT FORTION OF TRACT I 1,SPRINGBROOK ACRE TRACTS,ACCORDING TO'I�IE PLAT THEREOF R�C�Ri?E3).�i VOL� 22 OF PI�'FS,P�l.(a�60,II�I{�N.�i CQI3NTY,WASHII�TGTON, DESCRIBED AS FO�LOWS�: BEGINI�IINS'i AT THE NOR�iW�ST CORI�R.(�F T!�EA5T l0 FEET OF SAID TRACT i l; �IENCE NORT.�T 88°27'45"�i1EST ALONG Tii�I�T�R'T.,H�.Il�]E THEREQF 179:01 FEET; . THEIVCE SOUTH UU°US'32"`A/E5T 905.65 FF.�T'PO Td�E SOU3'H LlIdE�F Tl�lE N�RTH 405.54 FEET QF S�lID T�2A.�'T 11; . TI�NCE SOU'Igi�88A2?'OS"'EAST ALOATG SAIA SQI7T'H I.�NE 178.4�FEET TO TFIE WEST LINE � OF T�JE EAST IU:W�FEET QF.SA1D TRACT l I; . THEI�ICE I�lORT!-1 UU°�0'23"EAST 4�5.63 FEET TO TNE TRUE FO1NT OF BEGILVNING; EX�'i'COIIN i'Y ROAD. t- Mio: � � . . .,;,yy.' • ' � . �y� N oti ce :,,�N� . DEV�LOPM�iV'i�PLAIV�IfVG ■ ■ ::�:�� -��F��n� of AppI � c at� o n , Department of Developmeut and Environmental Services p' ■ ■ L,and Use Services Division �Q'tl � � �0�� -t- 900 Oakesdale Avenue Soudtwest � I �/pe 2� Renton, Washington 98055-1219 �� , Applicant:.Laurance Anthone F.ile�#:L04S0032` , MA.Quil< Framing, Inc. '� � ' ` 6000 Southcenter Blvd #2"0 DDES Project Manager; Trishah Bull Tul�wila, WA 98.188 , Telephone No: 206-296-6758 (206.) 248-2700. . Date Application Fi_led: September 9, 20U4 � Date Determined Cozn�lete: Dece�:ber 2�, 20Q.4�., . , : , , ::.. ; , ; ,::.. , ,;; Project Location: The site is locate.d on the southern,sxde of So�th 192�'a St�eet, appara�mta��:�00 fe;�� i east of the South 192°�"Street and Talbot R�oad��aaut�i lnter��ctian,. Project Description: Subdivision of approxrma:te�y 1:62 acx:es into 9-�o:�s �flr the deve��.�mc��t of detached sirigle famxly r.eside�ces �n, the R 6-50 zone _The propos�d lots.:range in , . : ; > size from�ap.proximately 5,Z00:to 7;�9;�0 squar.e feet. � ' Perrnits requested.m tlus applicat�on�,:�hort:'�u�di�Ysio� ' ` Relevant environmentai documents are available af the above.%addre ss: Environmental che��Tist, Drainage s�ud�;::: Development regulations to be used for'project mitigation, lcnown at this time:.KCC 21A, including sensitive area regulations, road standards, and 1998 Surface Water Design 1VIanual.° ` Consistency with applicable;Gounty:plans.andregul.ations:: This:;pro.p_osal;will<:be re�iewed fo:r compliance-> with a11°a;pplicable King County Codes,including:thoseno.ted:abo:ve.. ' Other permifs not included:in this application, l{no:w�i'�f:tlus tune None at;;this time The Departinent of Development and Envirorimental Services(DDES)will issue a decision on this application following a 21-day.public comment period which ends oii Februarv 14,2005. �Written comments on this � application must be sub�nitted to DDES at the address below. A public hearing is not required for this application prior to the DDES decision.� �Iowever,the DDES decision may be appealed to the King County Hearing Examiner,who would conduct an appeal hearing prior to making a decision on the appeal. Details of the� appeal process will be included in the notice of decision. . � Any.person wishing additional'information on this proposed project should contact the Project Manager at the � phone number listed above. You may review the application and any environmental documents or studies in our Renton office. NOTE: If you require this material in braille, audio cassette, or large print,please cal l 206-296-6600 (voice)or 206-296-72 i 7 (T�'Y). . , Department of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division � 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest � , . ____ __..-- - - - - -_--- -- Rent�n, 4�ashin��n 98055-�219 - -- ----- Date of Mailin�: �January 20, 2005 --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- If you wish to receive a copy of the DDES report and decision of this application,complete and return this portiori of the notice to the Land Use Services Division at the address listed above. File No. L04S0032-Eden Estates Short Plat (Please��int) ` � Name: Address: Telephone No.: - � � . ._.. ... .. � � � � ��; �� .. J .. 0 �� _� . a ' . , r . :�C�'.��:it'. ' . ' ' :';3'��}vV ,.� . . ♦ \ . :.. �. '� . � . � ��..t.ret�.:.'� ' . ... ��::'"�:�'3."1 . . � r,71.l �1.J�� JU' ti7�� 0 SECTOfii�2rv� —_—S 88'27'05" E .(BASIS OF BEAR(NGS) 665.70--- - , z n �--573.87' (573.56'—RECQRD}-- W i � o p dRIGINAL NORTN LINE OF TRACT 11 TRUE pO1NT dF BEGINNING � 4 ; � S 88'27'05"E �179.00' io.op' � , o� i 60,490� 60,00' � l l� � �� , �.�f, �.:1 VY h � � � . � ". Z "�S 1' N _ ' ;�..:::;"t�4 x � . Q � �= SEP 0.9 00 � 0 3 � ' <,, w`..::��;:, � � i � n�.• *�;F��, . . . � Q i N , � � . .,s:.��:`�, I �,i�'.`kr,...v:j'�:` � i . .o' ; .i r...,z:PS'; •� �i ch I O) W i o' • �J� :t s,E�;,a;y . g ye�.�'��.a � � � ( � U1� i� . " a: :�5��;,•'-,.•n�- �� • Y I � � . � � � Vi i0 '� . . .,,, • ' 5 � � �n i a` a s � '... j � �0 � i x, ' , o i ' 70�.00�� . a 70'.OQ" � z � � ' o o ; • N88'27'05"W . r,-i N88'27'05"W , j i , j o o � '"� i � �i ro � � j� � � ' � . � ' 1 � i � m ' � v Q . • .9 10 � 1� 'p ^ .P O , . � i� � .`� � � � j � i� � p� N �� O }V,j J ' N� o �� . x� . t N °r � � . "' , . . I m � � ; �� ` • ! ; c.� , . . �3'rQ.23�� ,,.:�� _. ° � TO'.Ot�" � ' i �N88'27'OS'�W � na � N88'27'05"W ' ' � -N O� Vt . � . .� � � . .. - . �I �'. 'YJ/, .. • �t � y ! � N J ' � � N . .� . . ' . . � ' j i ' i �T' ._._..J,-...�- i ' . _._._._. � � � O+ � . . , I � I � �U I i o 74��$ ' . �, N 88'27' " ,. i � � � taw�j� w (S�? _._....._. ._._,_,y._..L . � _ I �_: •� � . r o . i ii � - � sc� i W � � N � � - : l Cp ' � � t ��'� O) CD �� . -"-�-.-" � . N UT �, � � } � .. �„ ,y s9. � ' . : , i r �W A �82�, ,>6} , � u �i�, o �S'yy � u' ? o � T ,��p ; N � � , � � . � N � � � � , ' o � i . , j • � � .� ' � . � � � .�. �3�'� ' � , O l �+! t0 . ��. �j,, ' � _ ' i p ' � �"'1, : Oo , . � `° �sk ia • i ' � i . � � $1.848' 3fi',9.23,• 7 61,068' � N 88'27 t3� W 178.43` ' � � 1 0 ' � . . � ' � , �I'a�QQ� L��a�� 1 Co)d��i t� il�� Oa� °.�I��¢.. :A :;;� � . � :;r ' . ' ;.i''� • ' ■ • : � :;r�� , N o t� c e � . ''� � DEVELQi'MENT PLAIVhlIP1G ■ ■ . . � ��°F��°� o f A. I � c�a t� o n D e p a r G n e n t o f Deve lopmen t a��d Environmen[a l Services p p I.and Use Services Division JAN 2 4 �0�� ' 900 Oakesdale Avenue Soudiwest � ' �Type 2� Renton, Washington 98055-1219 �� • �pplicant:,Lauxance Anthone ' . Eile�.#�: L0�4'5:003� � � . . . � MA,Q.ui�lc Framing, Inc.. , �� . : :� � �,� � ' 6000 Southcenter Blvd #20 DDES Project Manager: Trishah Bull � Tul�wila, WA 98.188 , Telephone No: 206-296-6758 `� (206) 248-27Q0 . . � � Date Application Filed: Septembe.r 9, 20U4 � : � .. � �` �pl;e �i;:.2 . . ., ., . . �;;;;,,;;;,,,, ate De rrn Co .�,. De ,. . ... . . . .. . . . .... :. � .;:, ��t e�, 4, . . : . :;:.,.... �,. � � 0 . .. ,. � :; . . . ,..: . . . .. . ; .. ...,... .. . ; � , �;;:. _. ,..� Proj ect Location: The site is�located on-the soitthern;std:e �f Sou#�x��l'�2�d,�t�eet, ��r�axattn�,�e1��440,feeC east of the S�outh�192°`�'�Str.e�et and��Talbv;t�'Ru�i��t��tli'��int'�r��eetxan'� � � �� ' ' � � . , , . ,. ..... .. :....: . . ... , . . ,:. ;; ,...: � � .... , , . , . :...,.,.. <.:..:�.,..,...,.,. Project Description: Subdivision of.:appr.oxiinate�y�1:'62,:��e�t�to'9'.l,o:t�s �`ur��e�d�'v��:p;�e�it 4�;�::'�-�� '��:.,�' .': . detached single �amily,resid��nces in �h,e R 6 SU,zone The �xoposed l�ts range in : s:ize from�ap.pr.b�i;nately�-5,2QO:tor:fi,9:0U�squar.e��£eet._' � � .. � � �. � � � : . ,, : : . ;� .,; .., „ ,, ,�i�. � �:;.;, � , �,,;�, :. :.,;;.�,..,.,. , �:: , .,":�;. �:�... .:,. .; :::. . . � . :�:: , �: . ;.. ;� . Perrnits�requestecl iri`f�iis ap�licatiori��har'f'�,��b�ir�' � ' ' �'` � ' ' " ' ' '�°'�"''' '' ' � � � �s�4ii � �. . . . . :. .. . . ... ..... .: ...- , . . . , , .. . . ..:,. � � . , . . .. � . . . : .: ..... . . . .,. : : ,. : :::::. .:. . . . .. .. Relevant enviroiunental documents ar.e ava'ilable at'the above�address:�:Environ�e�tal e�iec�:isti _ . .; � � �. � .. .,�. . . . � . . Drainage:::s�udy�:: _ � Development regulations to be used f.or�projeet mitigation, lcnown at this time:.KCC 21A, including sensitiv�. area regulations, road standards, and 1998 Surface Water Design 1VIanual.� ` � C.onsistency.with:applieable:Gounty:plans.and�r.egulatians;. This.:;pro:posal..will.be:�rexiew�ed:f�r compliance�� wit��l�a;p.plicabl.e King Courity:Co.des,>including;�those no.ted:�above::�. �. � � . . ..�,.: . .. Other permifs.not included in.this application;lcnown at:thi's.�ti�e l�T:on�at.;this tii�e. : :...:::..:.:::::. ..�; , . . . . . . . . . . .: _ ...,. .: . _..:.. ::..:;.:. . .. , _,_.::� ... , ...,. ,::,_ ,..:. ..:.::. _ ,., .,,..:... _ _ ._ .. ....._.;.: :,...:,.:_:.,_,... _ ,..�:..:,:.::..... . .... . . . , r. The Departinent�of Development and Envirorimental Services(DDES)will issue a decision on this application � following a 21-day.public cominent period whicli ends on Februarv 14,2005. Written comments on this � application must be submitted to DDES at the address below. A public hearing is not required for this . . application prior to the DDES decision.' �Iowever,the DDES decision may be appealed to the King County Hearing Examiner,who would conduct an appeal hearing prior to making a decision on the appeal. Details of tha� appeal process will be included in the notice of decision. . � , . Any.person wishing additional'information on this proposed project should contact the Project Manager at the � pl�one number listed above. You may review the application and any environmental documents or studies in our� Renton office. NOTE: If you require this material in braille, audio cassette, or lar.ge print,please call 206-296-6600 (voice)or 206-296-7217(T�'Y). � � Department of Development and Environmental Services � � Land Use Services Division 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest � � . 12enton, Washington 98055-1219 � _ _ Date of Mailing: •January 20, 2005 � --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- If you wish to rece'ive a copy of the DDES report and decision of this application,complete and return this portiori of the notice to the Land Use Services Division at the address listed above. File No. L04S0032—Eden Estates Short Plat � � (Please�rint) ' � Name: � � Address: Telephone No.: - � � • � . .. ..... ........ . ... • . , � ,, P ' . ' 'a��,� ' ,�,� ' � �� . '��, ::.•.. ; .,� F . • . . :.�`y�;` . . . � � . . . ''`'',��"i'!t,`�.� , • . .. " ' ' '-:?��3 � � � ti7� �LJ�� . 9�2N� � ��'�EET a SEC7�s�� —�--S 88'27'05" E .{BASIS OF BEARfNGS) 665,70'___ , �, � o �---573.87' (573.56'•-RECORD}-- � � o a ORIGiNAI NORTH I.INE OF TRACT t1 TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING o A � S 88'27'05"E •179.00� 10.00' � , a� i 60.490' 6p,00' � {{�, � �� D . z � i ' � �.�� U . � �' j • ' ` Q p �� , � �:�� ti�� SEP�0 9 200� � � � i W '4,;;::;,��;,'"' �� • . ro I � N,•� � . '. ''Rkrly��d�.a '� 4 . t-r- ¢ i N • i I i . �. . .'`i}�'4�Y�kY�Y,.J,�, '' �,� CO p , � �` o �'� • � 6:I' �'�'��m%jfr'h�Y��r�� s�• �+s'"'• n � ro • � � � �' . .� , `.t . � , �� a ¢ j ' . p, i p O ��... . .�1 N � �� ' � ° � . ,,,,t N . � . . �� . p�� cn z � 70'.00" . �o'.oa" � ; o o ; N86'27'05"W . m i N$8'2?'45"W � � 0 0 � -*i j � � � . � N N Z i Z � rn rn � (!) � .p IO � .�..' � � ip � � Q � � -�P Q � I O .� �i Ul �(i+ '��p � a i ' �� W • 'W ' �W .J �`?�. cr �� , �' � . i� � i � � � . . lIT1 . i i � ' . i � � � c.� ', 73'.0.2,3�� .�,,,,� . . I :}.�;;•,. t a 7'U'.t�D" � " �'�,p . � t �N$8'27'05° � N' I N88'27'05"W � i � ��;r c�n � ` 1 4�1 "./ ' z - ' t� • . ' j ra�� ; � y . • i I"7%�� '. • i ': . ' 1 � N .� 1. i � . .� , , • . ' . • � , N z x I i . ' . ' . j � � ._._...i._.... . . —....._._,_ � ! ; - � � . � . . . : � i � � � . � 74. ' ' � A ' N 88'27'p �/�' . i �51 Q� � J .UUCW.�"� `U^ G _._._._._ ._._._..y._.� ' ,� i ��: r o ' � di � _ . � I W � ' � j N � CO . .,! � �` � ... i W-. � Ui', O �� . "'�'"' N g . (J CT1 . l. , E � . t . • � Cti AJ .J�� y � ' . • � i V N � 88. � � . � � , r �'t,�i .c �?,�S" s�� -��J � � I �{ O � 0 � T °j'1" ! N. r�I � � � . � � in � . ' i b � . , o < i . . . i � s � � . 1 � �j , "� F,, � . O 1 J � �CP., 6',rt � _ . . . j fl � �t �-3. ' p0 . � a . � � • p`�� to . i • • i � ' i 61.068' 81,848' 36',923" . N 88'27 05 W �?8.43' ' - — ' � � o � � 1 . � ' � • . , , � ' . . , . :> U WI�Q�U 15��W�� IJ�V�� U !1 ,U� Q�• ..Cy�•A�g.. �"" �'�� Monday, June 07, 2004 To Mr. Donald Erickson, AICP Senior Planner RE: Conditiona.l Sewer Availability Mr. Erickson I am writing this as a request for annexation and rezoning as per our conversation. Enclosed at the end attach you will find the Annexation Papers Filled out. However, do to the use of the property that will be in the future after Annexation it will decrease the lot numbers on this plat. It would be greatly appreciated if the attach purposed plot plan would be a part of the annexation. Under the new revised Zoning it would reduces to where it would be fmancially undoable. However,to have it rezoned to R-8 with only the allowance of 9 lots to the 1.64 Acres. This would make that area very attractive with homes ranging from 3,800 to 4,400 Sqft. with values of 450,000 to 500,000 $. This has always been my plan for that area. I am more that willing to be Annex into the City of Renton as representing 33.64 % of the total assessed area purposed to be Annex in. With this request if it is possible to � receive a conditional sewer availability. For the purposed plat plan which would allow my permitting process to go through. Th ing You in Advance , �.�u��c.�-+ � ' Sincerely Laurance Anthone' Property Owner of 9651 192°a � .�:- :=�; LL—+'(.TAL LL—+'al;�ClY'1"1�1�I THAT PORTION OF TRACT 11,SPRINGBROOK ACRE TRACTS,ACCORDING TO�PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS,PAGE G0,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT'I�NORTHWEST COI�NER OF TF�EAST 10 FEET OF SAID TRACT 11; THENCE NORTH:88°27'OS"WEST AI:ONG.Tf�NORTH LINE'I�REOF 179.01 FEET; THEIVCE SOUTH W'US'32"WEST 4U5.65 FEET TO Tl�iE SUU�'H L1NE�F THE NORTH 4U5.54 FEET OF SAID TRACT i 1; Td�ENCE SOUTH$8°27'OS"EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 178.45 FEET TO T'HE WEST LINE OF THE EAST lU:W:FEET OF SAID TRACT 11; THENCE NORTH UU°lU'25"EAST 4U5.63 FEET TO THE TRUE PO1NT OF BEG1NNiNG; EXCEPT COUNi'Y ROAD. 1 `�Y O G� � � � � �u ' . ��N��'� ANNEXA7['ION SUBMITTAL MATERIALS �;'0'%,..Noti�e.of�Iiite�it to.�c�mmerice.Ann��atian `. Inclu€led,nn proponeiits are encouraged fo'meet wrth C�ty��staff pnor to sub�tt��g a 10'% S�brm�ttaY Pe�zY�on`to Comrnet�ce;Anne�catian��ro�ee"`cl�ngs:,, � m�terials . � , , ; - . _ .._: . ,, , ; ,,• . , :, . . , � .. , . . .- - ' , •: , 1. Legal Description of proposed annexation site if available or legal descriptions for all of the properties included. (City will provide legal � Yes description for annexation area prior to the first public meeting.) ❑No 2. A map of the proposed annexation site of a size that will allow it to fit on an � yes 81/z: by 11" sheet of paper. This map should identify all surrounding streets and clearly show where the annexation site abuts the City of Renton ❑No boundary. 3. A list of all properties in the proposed annexation area identified by street � yes address or County Assessor's ten digit Property Identification Number(PID). ❑No 4. A list of all known residents residing in the area and their addresses as well �yes as any businesses. ❑No 5. The total estimated acreage of the proposed annexation area. � yes l .(04. —� � AGPx-,5 ❑No 6. The proposed annexation area's current County Comprehensive Plan land � yes use and zoning designations. a._5- �� ,��,�.�. Nn�e�e,r a 1Ze�u@5� �or �e.z��n�ng Faw R-'g AS ❑NO o.�� c,.�- 7. The name and status of any known current major land use applications or � yes decisions affecting the property. , ❑No N�r1 L uJ i e �•E1�TC1 8. The name of the designated sewer service provider for the area. � yes ❑No. �en��1 9. The name of the designated water service provider for the area. � yes �� ❑No 10. The name of the designated fire service provider(fire district)for the area. � yes lZe.+•,k�o� ' ❑ No 11. The name of the school district or districts the proposed annexation area is � yes located in. �e.r►-�z�''1 ❑No :_ 1 - �� .�r. � r- '1 r: f�� [� � l� � `'`; "� '� ��. �� Annexation Review Form t�'Y� ��' 0 0 ��.�I�� .J U , 7 2005 �� .,� [ ] 10/o Notice of Intent [X ] 60/o �riexation�e�itfon TO : Finance Su ace Wate',r��(ify4'�7oN � ' . i�`� . .. � A TSA�'; . . _ W Fir��L,.!-,.�t,,r�tr•T Parks Wastewater Utility � Police Transportation - Public Works Maintenance Current Planning FROM : Economic Development, Neighborhoods &Strategic Planning (contact Don Erickson, x6581) �. � . , • . SUBJECT Anthone' _ Expanded Annexation Background/Location: The Boundary Review Board will tentatively hold public hearings on August 31St and September 1st, 2005 regarding the potential � expansion of the 4.84-acre Anthone'Annexation to approximately 25.7-acres, pursuanf to a request#rom the City: The expanded � ` .boundaries would include the Talbot Estates Subdivision to the south and the Springbrook Terrace and Hi-Park subdivisions to the east (see attached map). The proposed expanded annexation area . is a peninsula, bordered by the City on its northern, western; and � , - southern boundaries. , Date Circulated: Jutv 21, 2005 Comments Due: Julv 29, 2005 General Information Area .. + 25:7 acres . Street length : 3,400 I.f. (private roads) . _ Assessed Value : $17,875,000 (current); $25,750,000 (full develop) _ Esfimafed Population :. 138 Current Uses Residenfial 55 existing single=family detached dwel.lings Commercial : Industrial . , - . Public : Comp Plan Designation : 50% Res. Single Family; 50% Res. Low Density Future Uses: : 70 single-family dwellings at full development of , which 15 are expected to be new Future Po ulation • 175 � ' (�� /� Reviewing Department/Division: `�„� UT�jP� 1. Does this expanded annexation area represent any unique or significant additional problems for your department/division? (Over) - � -i `�;+ 2. 'Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing.infrastructure:or service provision_ to the enlarged area? ` � ,�- �C � � � � � lZ�� wa�z , WG� IQ /� �o ,—�c,'�C �fi�ot? 5 •�i�o� ��r 2�' i� rrc � 3. Does this proposed expanded annexation represent a logical extension of services provided bY Your department<division? �S / 4.. What additional facilities or staff would.be required to serve this enlarged area? Can you . . identify any other costs the City would incur as.a result of this annexation?_, �� 5. Would the Ci.ty assume ownership or responsibility fo�facilities currently owned o� managed � by another jurisdiction? .Would .new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this - , annexation? " ^ �V� . 6. .Would altemate boundaries:create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) � ' � /V� General recommendation and comments: �� • � Signature: _ Date: i � � .. . ��f_ �-�,, 7 , � - . . / � , ,. ,.. ;: ._. , , , : ,.. ° ; O' �:-� . , _ . ,. . ; - . : - - . . . �d. - _. ,� . � `�G�' �,-� , , �; � �.. � �� •s� �` �. � . . _ .z . .. . . - . . .. - . " —_ � � � - � . . , . � .. � ' , ' _ ;� ' . . - , . ' - � . _;� 'i - . . . - ° � � . r 7�i - �. �� .. - .. . � , ' � I7 . � � �k' ._- . � r � _ � " �i �� , ' 3 �i ^j ' � " . ' � .. . ' .. . ( '7. I ,: . _ } � 1 �1 .a y� ��` 4 - , t y � 1 �. i . . ' . . �_� r�,a� .w �k i:t' 4 •'r.r, ti � . � - .. . � , . . . � ,� :. �� a � . - � � � . - � � � � �I� ltr:�5 r - , � ��k t� . _ . . - �,� t} � � �� f L S �j "� � . � �a . " J i � .: �, � 5_r" , � t t�� f w�+i� " �`��{� r ` 4 t 1 � � � - . . • t ti i'! i ; � t ( i ,+ _ , . ' � ' . ''i � .n� i v �jr a . r " E i � � � _ ;;.� ., r .,k- r� � �i �F #� � � . . F � � . .. t�,. I � �� _r,•1 �, ' . . . . , `'' J r 1 t � . �t ,`� t .. �� . .. � . . �. . ' ! � ��1 i �� ' ' � �. . .. h f - . . . 1 � ' t . . . . . ` . ,. � .�� -2 1 � " . . .... . :x t � �" � � � ' ' . �' . s . . �h � { � �" .. . . . . � } n }'r"� A_ � .. . . _ r , >Y � 7., Ab�y.)�� , � , �� ,� �"�/�// , _ . . � . _.iM?. �,r� . '/ ... � . ' _ . l�� i e��, - . . .. � � , � �+.1� � ,. r ., .... ..�. . . . ... , _ . . ' .- - � . . ..,.r a .... �_ . �'� " � � . . , : . ..� .,' .. �, ' � . . . � . .. . . . . . . .. � � ' . . ..;�,� � .. � ;�. �, �. . . � �� . : � � ,� � ��e � � � , , . . . __ .�; . ��. :, .:, ,.. . _- -, . - .. , � . �`.,� : : , .' , `,, � ANTHONE'ANNEXATION -EXPANDED FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET Units Po ulation AV Existin dev: 55 - 138 $17,875;000 . Full dev. . 70 175 $25,375,000 . Assumptions: 2.5 persons/household $500,000 AV/new unit $325,000 AV/existing unit .. :Rev�ri�tEs`�::::::::::::` Total revenues � Existin Full Rate Existing.:::.:.::::::�:�;�v:�4� :... Regular le $56,128 '$79,678 3.14 _ . . . Full::....$1€�$,�$�2,�J�: � Excess le $1,585 $2,249 0.08865 ` State shared revenues ' . . . " Rate (per cap Existing Full ` Li uor.tax $3.52 $485.76 $616.00 _ Li uor:Board rofits $5.04 . $695,52 - $882.00 Fuel tax-roads ,; $14.46 $1,995.48 $2,530.50 • Fuel tax-arte�ials ' "$6.47. $892.86 $1,132:25 MVET $0.00 " $0.00. . $0,00 ' Camper excise $0.00 . $0:00 $OA0 . ' . . _ . Griminal 'ustice $0.36 $49.68 • $63.00. Total $4;119.30 $5,223.75 Miscelfaneous revenues . - Rate Existing Full Real estate`excise* $40.86 " $5,638.68 $7,150.50 . Utili tax*'' $133.20 $7,326.00- � $9,324.00 ` Fines.&forfeits* $18.33 $2,529.54 $3,207.75 � _ Total $15;494:22 $19,682.25 * Per capita : . � "' Per housing unit-based on $2,220 annual utility billing @ 6%tax rate � �i�s#s��:: Total ongoing costs Per ca ita Existin . Fulf Existing...:.::::�:�:,��?;��;3E�': Gontracted Services Full;�: � `:Alcohol $0.23 $31.33 $39.73 � �� :�3�'E.�3�� Public Defender $3.13 $432.49. ,' . $548.45 Jail $7.19 $992.50 $1,258:60 ' Subtotal $1,456.31 $1,846:78 _ ° - Court/le al/admin. . $57.08 $7,877.04 $9,989.00. Parks maintenance". $14.90` `$2,056.20 ,$2,607:50 Police $270.00 $37,260:00 $47,250.00 . Road maintenance** N/A $0.00 $4,979 . Fire*** $1;25 $22,343.75 . $31,718.75 � Total $70,993.30 $98,391.03 *See Sheet Farks FIA **See Sheet Roads FIA ' "''*Rate.per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#2S contract) , Net fiscaF impact Existing::::�::::�:'::::$8;332:33 ` Fu.11::::.:.:.:.:.:.:$8;�:��:�� :bn�;tii'rie:��„:Parks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA): ... .............. . Other one-time costs: $425.00, � ' Total one-fime costs: �:::::::�;:; :6G��¢�:1:(#: . ...�:....... .... Re.vised 8-29 per Finance Memo. � . :!� Annexation Review Form �[ ] 10% Notice of Intent [X ] 60% Annexation Petition � TO : Finance SurFace Water Utility Fire Water UtiGty Parks Wastewater Utility _ Police Transportation F�ub`t'°'�r_►cs �it�, rac Current Planning FROM : Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Plan,ning � - (contact Don Erickson,_x6581) � - SUBJECT . Anthone' _ Expanded Annexation Background/Location: The Boundary Review Board will tentatively hold public hea�ings on - August 31St and September 1st, 2005 rega�ding the potential expansion of the 4:84-acre Anthone'Annexation to approximately 25.7=acres, pursuant to a requesfifrom the City. The expanded boundaries would include the 1'albot Estates Subdivision to the � south and the Springbrook Terrace and�Hi-Park subdivisions to the east (see.atfached map). The proposed expanded annexation area - is a peninsula, bordered by tfie City on its northern, western, and southern boundaries. . Date Circulated: . Julv 21, 2005. Comments Due: Julv 29, 2005 �General Information Area . • +.25.7 acres Street length. , � 3,400 I.f. (private roads) Assessed Value : $17,875,000 (current); $25,750,000 (full develop) Estimated PoPulation : 138 Current Uses Residential , : 55.existing single-family detached dwellings. . Gommercial : - Industrial : � Public : Comp Plan Designation : 50% Res. Single Family; 50% Res: Low Density Future Uses: : 70.single-family dwellings at futl development of which 15 are expected to be new . . � Fufure Po ulation 175 ' ReViewing Department/Division: . ��Q lJ� - iM�f 1�1� 1. Does this expanded annexation area represent any unique or significant,additional problerns for your department/division? Su� — �si'�� r�Q c��r b � Gc�-rT�t.`� �,o'� Ci� c�,�,r� �OJ`a► SYS�ie.u�. .��b _ �cQar�' (��w� `� �r�c�'. vJ��.-(�. (R��' P� �O� . . . S (Over) ,, ♦ 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision - to the enlarged area? • / ' �� , �aS �bo� c��r�►�na4e � ��t,�k-We++��i'. �1llS. �J�ea.PeeQ u�a,�' �i/br►". SSb _ U �r� : 3. Does this proposed expanded annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your department/division? l�g 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this enlarged area? Can�you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? , �dr- c-�: Yt�,r�J '�+rr�v►-'�°'r`� . '�. .' �e.r'u' �rc� � - . 5. Would the City assume owner.ship or responsibility for facilities currentty owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this : annexation? , ��S. ; : 6. Would alternate boundaries create a.more Iogical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) General recommendation and comments: A,r.c� i S v►.b}. c�-1�.� �a�,�arzQ Ca.u�s i� y�e-w i n vc;�wy '� ��• r � ' t'yvl�c.e` . �,�,fi Signature: Date: ��(o�� _., , . .,� � � . _, ��' . � `�` �'� �' � :�: .� :o - _ `�` - �:� _ - - � �' - �.:. ry � � � . , - . x . f . �� C /�,/y' av%'A ' � - - � . :} h �i�'!�!/�/ L �Y r x ' V � ry _ /4 � . . . . J l'Q � � , � � 4� " � }r + .,� � � J r �{ ?f � ; _ . . . _ . . . �� r� �e` � e � . � - � .��. f ' L' ` f - S��s�� . . . . /� } :{!— 4 ♦ �1� f � . �r L f � � 4 � 'i4 � 1 , r� �� ,, ,�>•� , �� .I � � ..r r _��4� i� �:9 �Di .. �:t . � . � d - �:. C ' s - - " �' :1 � � �. �' `` � :. ,._ , - . : -.- , - ; .: , , �, t:, �,. . .ti _ i_ �� . � � 'y . y, , � _ -.4 D�,' ajJ �_ � . _ " � f I' h..�} �:b. _ ;.��) '? �:� . . � . i � � r � �� _ �� . _ �� ' � s t t (�y +� e r"'~ � . ., �e� � .:r, i � ti ,f � � . �;. � ._ f r.� _ �� . . � . ' t = � '��t 5 i�� Y � �f �y y j . ,. - - . - .r� s,t - 1 � - - _ {I, . . V � • , . " . � � �. . . .. . . . 'f .. .. , � . . _ < _ `� '�` i � .�A c� Ci� �J�•7 aG, i � y �� - � . o . 4� , . . _ . � _ �. o �n1�1�� .� ~� . � , - � � , . •.�. ANTHONE'ANNEXATION -EXPANDED FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET Units Po ulation AV _ Existin dev. 55 � 138 $17,875,000 Full dev. 70 175 $25,375,000 Assumptions: 2.5 , persons/household $500,000 AV/.new unit $325,000 AV/existing unit :R�v�itii�Es':�;.:::.:::::: � Total revenues Existin Full Rate Existing�:::::::;::::�'�;3�2�::�4: . Regular le $56,128 . . $79,678 3.14 Full;:,::..$1€�$�$��9�` : Excess le $1,585 $2,249 0.08865 � State shared revenues - Rate(per ca ) Existing_ Full Li uor tax $3.52� $485.76 $616.00 - ' - Li, uor Board rofits. . $5.04. $695.52.� $882.00 - Fuel tax-roads ; $14.46 $1,995.48 " . .$2,530.50 Fuel tax.-arterials $6.47 � $892.86' ` $1,132.25 MVET $0.00 $0.00 - $0.00 � Camper excise $0,00 $0:00 $0:00. . Criminal 'ustice $0.36 $49.68 $63.00 Total $4,119.30 ' $5,223.75 -. Miscellaneous revenues . Rate . . Existing.` . Full ' . Real estate excise* $40.86 $5;638.fi8 $7,150.50 Utili tax"* . $133:20 . . $7,326.00 $9,324.00 _ Fines &forfeits" � $18.33 $2;529.54 . $3,207:75 Total $15,494.22 $19,68225 * Per capita . "" Per housing unit-based on$2,220 annual utility billing @ 6% tax rate. :�i�s#s::::`:��::::::::.°::�:;:� . Total ongoing costs` .......... ............. • . ` Per ca ita Existin Full Existing:�::��:::::;'�€3;��;;3f�: . Contracted Services , Full ;: � . Alcohol $0.23 . $31.33 $39.73 �� Public Defender $3.13 $432:49 $548.45 Jail . $7.19 $992.50 $1,258.6.0 Subtota( $1,456.31 $1,846.78. . Court/le al/admin. $57.08 $7,877.04 $9,989.00 � Parks maintenance" $14.90 ` $2,056.20 $2;607;50 - . ' Rolice $270:00 $37,260.00 . $47,250.00 Road maintenance`* N/A $0.00 $4,979 ` Fire***- $1.25 $22,343.75 $31,718.75 Total $70,993.30. $98,391.03 *See Sheet Parks FIA � , � "'See Sheet Roads FIA **'`Rate per$1,000 of,assessed.valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact Existing:'�:::�'�:::�':$�33�:3� Full �: .:$8�4��;��: :�n�=time:�A'Sis::Parks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA): Other one-time costs: $425.00 � Total one-time costs: :::::::::::'. :fiG,�R�;1:¢:: .. ...�......�.....�.... Revised 8=29 per Finance Memo � :,; v Annexation Review Form [. ] 10% Notice of Intent [X ] 60% Annexation Petition TO - : Finance Surface Water Utility . - Fire Water UtiGty Parks Wastewater Utility • i.� . Transportation Public Works Maintenance Current Planning FROM : Economie Development, Neighbochoods & Strategic Planning (contact Don Erickson, x6581) . SUBJECT, Anthone' — Expanded Annexation Background/Location: The Boundary Review Board will tentatively hold public.hearings on ; � . . August 315t and September 1st, 2005 regarding the potential - - ` ' � � : expansion of'the 4.84=acre Anthone'Arinexation fo approximately . 25:7-acres, pursuant to a request#rom fhe City. The expanded boundaries would include the Talbot.Estates Subdivision to the south and the Springbr.00k Te�race and Hi-Park subdivisions„to the. , east (see atfached map). The proposed expanded annexation area , is a peninsula, 6ordered by the City on its northern, western, and southem boundaries. Date Girculated: Julv 21, 2005. Comments Due: . Julv 29, 2005" General lnformation Area . • + 25.7.acres � Street length . 3,400 I.f: (private roads) - Assessed Value • $17,875;000 (current); $25,750,000 (full develop) ' � Estimated.Population : 138 . Current Uses Residential : 55 existing single-family detached dwellings Commercial : Indastr.ial . - Public . � . • Comp Plan Designation . 50% Res. Single Family; 50% Res: Low-Density Future.Uses: : 70 single-family dwellings at full development of which 15 are expected to be r�ew - Future Po ulation � 175 ' Reviewing Department/Diyision: 1. Does this expanded annexation area represent any unique or significant additional problems for your department/division? - T�o• , , , . . (Over) .r t � 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service:provision to the enlarged area? � • 1 a I�.,i- �J is S�ill �.i� �.v� /u,...�, . 3. Does this proposed expanded annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your depa�tment/division? - �G'. - 4. What aclditional facilities or staff would be required to .serve this enlarged area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? - O^�c, CZ� Call--��t- Scaric� �K: c��c.,. 4c1J�fzu.�+SZ: c.�Ze� ad�1eJ � � C��3 � 1_�n 14�t�M . 5. Would the City.assume:ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed. by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this � ' annexation? , 6. Would.alternate boundaries create a moce logical annexation for provision of City secvices? (If yes; please indieate on the.attached map.) . General recommendation and comments: - , /� � , Signature: ��`�cG��+�� . Date: S-/�v 5 ,r • �� °� . �— �,� ' .' � . . . .,., '�, — .. .� — �. Q. � o �; - _ � - _ -. _ � ., � _ � { �.; � .� :S � :, t ' �, � �I�� . . _ ; r, �; ,,; � � l rs � :, y •_�� A•� �.17 � 4�-" 'T,��. . . ' . ' ' . . . ' .. . �. ' - . . . ' _ . ; � � � . � . . . . � y j?S � �` t $t . . . , ... l �'� ] �'' �S. �� ` . . h . 1 4 1 � r . . . . . . . . C/ } � �Y ' T� I - � 3 f� � �} '1� r ; �y'� � ' ' �1 �� . L✓ , v� .�� .� r`�'� "�� ,I �` _ '=' . . . . . ' .I S, ..I . _ �II �J ' 5 ` � � y� �.�z,il � � ' •. • . . ' } , 1?�� . � /; . i } �� .5. �' � ,I" S � r � � � t� � . . Y .r. �_ ��1. .1� _ 1� �,., . � _ � �� - n . 4 4 E t � y . ' � �� t� r ` r :.. ' . , ' t� 'iF1 r r�,� � L��. r �('� -'( ' . . z � y I � �_ 1! ` ' �� _ i � ;''.`'a - - - � t , y `�' , Q ' �Y � - � � r ` . iti: `f�...` . . . - i�i. � � . . . .. G'�7� �5.7 QC. � (' � � � � � � `� y. _ � �� . o� � -- . - Q� _ � � _ � o . ��k1��1 �`� �� /. . � � � - � ANTHONE'ANNEXATION -EXPANDED FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET Units Po ulation AV Existin dev. 55 - - 138 $17,875,000 Full dev. 70 175 $25,375,000 . Assumptions: 2.5 persons/household $500,000 AV/new unit ' $325,000 AV/existing unit :Rev$iti�iEs`:.::::::::::s: - Totaf revenues Existin Full . Rate Existing:�::::::��::��;3�.�:��: ' Re ular le $56,128 $79,678 3.14 Full;:::::::::$1�$�8�:2:;33� , Excess le. $1,585 $2,249 0.08865 State shared revenues Rate ( er cap . Existing_ Full Li uor tax $3.52 $485.76 $616.00 Li uor Board rofits $5:04 $695.52 $882:00 Fuel tax-roads $14:46 $1,995.48 $2,530.50 _ - Fuel tax.-arterials $6.47 $892.86. $1;132.25 MVET $0.00 $0:00 $0.00 - Cam er excise $0.00 $0.00 ' $0.00 ' Criminal 'ustice. $0.3.6 $49.68 $63.0.0 Total $4,119.30 $5,223.75 Miscellaneous revenues - Rate Existing Full Real estate excise* $40.86 $5;638.68 $7,150.50 Utili tax*' $133.20 $7,326.00 $9,324.00 Fines&forteits* $18.33 . $2,529:54 $3;207.75 Total $15,494:22 $19;682.25 . '' Per capita � . ** Per housing unit-based on $2,220 annual utility 6illing @ 6%tax rate :.........._.::::::.:.:.: �i�s€s :: . . . Total ongoing:costs - Per ca ita Existing . Full , Existing:;�:':.:::::::��,��3�t# " Contracted Services. ' Full :: �9$��r�T�; Alcohol $0.23 $31.33 . $39.73 . � Public Defender $3.13 $432:49 $548.45 Jail $7.19 $992.50 .. $1,258.60 . Subtotal $1;456.31 $1,846..78 . Court/le al/admin. _ $57.08 $7,877.04 $9,989.00. . Parks maintenance" $14.90 ' $2,056.20 $2,607.50 , Police $270.00 $37,260.00' $47,250.00 . Road maintenance** ' N/A $0.00 $4,9.79 Fire""" $1.25 $22,343.75 $31,718:75 - Total $70,993.30 $98,391.03 ''See Sheet Parks.FlA **See Sheet Roads FIA � � .'`*'' Rate per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact Existing::::�::::;€:�::$�332:33 Full :: $$��?��<97 :�iie;time��::Farks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA):. . ............ ...... ..��Other one-time costs:. $425.00 Total.one-time costs: '��:€::��:;:: :66��4:�;1fl: ,..$................ Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo a ; Annexation Review Form [ ] 10% Notice of Intent [ X] 60% Rnnexatian Petition TO : Building Sur,face Water Lltilit� Fire Water Utility Parks Wastewater Utility Police Transportation Public Works Maintenance Current Planning FROM : Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning SUBJECT . Anthone' Annexation - Expanded Reviewing Department/Division: SURFACE WATER UTILITY/ PBPW 1. Does this annexation represent any unique or significant problems for your department/division? �, � The 25.7-acre expanded Anthone Annexation is upstream of a sensitive area in �the Springbrook Creek sub-basin. The proposed annexation area drains to Upper Springbrook Creek and is within the Black River Basin. Depending on the future storm water conveyance design, the annexation may drain into Upper Springbrook Creek upstream of the Gallagher Springbrook Trout Farm. The ponds and drainage systems of the trout farm are very sensitive to turbidity and sedimentation. The discharge of runoff with increased amounts of turbidity f�as previously resulted in damage to the trout farm and legal actions against the City. In additi�on, there are existing flooding problems located where Upper Springbrook Creek crosses South 55th Street and SR-167 downstream of the proposed annexation area. Therefore, at the time of development of this area, we will require more stringent storm water flow control requirements and water quality/sediment and erosion controls, per the 2005 King County SurFace Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) under Problem Specific Mitigation Requirements. 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the area? The grassed ditches along South 55th Street and Talbot Road South and are currently within the City limits. The ditch along South 55th Street requires improvement and maintenance. In the past, the Springbrook Trout Farm at Talbot Road South has impacted by the discharge if silt-laden water into upper Springbrook Creek due to increased runoff and erosion from construction sites. The additional development of annexation area could cause the same problem if water quality control and sediment/erosion control is not applied with a higher standard. 3. Does this proposed annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your department/division? � Yes, the annexation represents a logical extension of the services provided by the Surface Water Utility as the abutting portions of South 55th Street and Talbot Road are in the (Over) A� y City of Renton, and so is the downstream portion of So. 55th Street up to the Springbrook�Creek culvert under SR-167. 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? With the Anthone Annexation the City would have to take over maintenance for the bioswale and detention-vault that serves the existing Talbot Estates development, and for the detention pond and dispersion trench that serves the Springbrook Terrace development. Maintenance demands will again increase when the area develops further and additional storm system infrastructure is constructed. This will incrementally require additional resources for maintenance of infrastructure from this annexation, other annexations and new development within existing City limits. At some point the City will need additional personnel and equipment for maintenance due to new development and annexations. Based on the current annual operation and maintenance cost of$238 per acre for the whole city, the operation and maintenance for the 25.7-acre expanded Anthone annexation area will be approximately $6,100 per year. Based on the current annual Capital Improvement Project cost of $227 per acre for the whole city, CIP cost for the expanded Park Terrace Annexation is estimated to be approximately $5,800 per year. The total Surface Water Utility cost for O&M plus CIP is estimated to be $11,900 per year for the proposed annexation area. This assumes the same level of O&M and CIP service that is currently being provided in our current City limit will have to be provided in the proposed annexation area. Existing Surface Water Utility rate revenue for the 55 single-family residents is $3,557 per year. At full build out of the area, the total number of single-family residents that would exist in the proposed annexation area is estimated to be 70. The future Surface Water Utility rate revenue from the proposed annexation area upon full build out is estimated to be $4,528. The estimated revenue under full build out conditions is below the estimated O&M cost to serve the area. The proposed annexation financial analysis needs to include the costs associated with providing storm and surFace water management services in the proposed annexation area. 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? The Surface Water Utility will assume ownership and maintenance responsibility for a detention pond and its outflow system, a bioswale, and a detention vault, as mentioned above. This adds a significant demand on our maintenance crew. No new agreements or franchises will be required, as far as we know. 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) No, the proposed annexation boundaries are fine. : � General recommendation and comments: A thorough downstream analysis is required as part of the drainage report prepared for any future development. The future development runoff will need to be controlled and managed to avoid adversely impacting the Springbrook Trout Farm. Due to existing downstream flooding problems in the Talbot Hill area, we recommend that any future development provide flow control per the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual Standards for Problem Specific Mitigation Requirements, or the City adopted standard at the time of development, whichever is more restrictive. This requirement shall be a SEPA condition. If you have any questions please contact the Surface Water Utility. Signature: � Date: �- z.7-c�5" Cc: Gregg Zimmerman Lys Homsby Mike Stenhouse John Thompson � • ' � � . • � . . � :� �. . ... - � �. � ,�. , �� :�> >:,��;�� u -�� :� � � ,� ..� � � . � � �� . , `�' � � � �� x . � �� ; a, ��'`� �� °�'3 u� �� u � _ ,.� � � , � � , , _ � ��. w�',.: „� �v � - �,. � r,aa..,�� .. e'�- e : x{' . ",�� ,�.� � , Y g : � � �� . a,n 4 "�T,, �� x �n.� �� , . � ��., '� � , �.,�,, �'� �, ., . ��. � � ' ��:�, � . �� ..�+ g ,°"� ,.w� ., e�r' � � t. � � �. '�y.K�S. F -0 4i�g'h��9 �qg 3 �` � 3q�k �.w;'4 ak a �e��' Qn�al'�`� �+w. � �msmt.�'. ' fi , N '�5- ��„'i �� t � �� . ' � � � � .. w �`��<,' _ .; �� . ;��*� �" i"} � � . ,� °k � �r <r , .: . . • v�.. . , r:� 4 � �' . .�p �I� E� �-/F �' �� i • � � ' 4 ,� .�:6 �. � . . .., . ;! . x ,• ' .. ' ` � '� � �� i .� � ` y �d 1 . �' � , �' W * wE� � ,�� f," � 7. � ��._�- ��, _, ,. ,� .�. ,� � �r ,, � - �• „ z ' , ti , . � � , �� .�::,�� :. .�,,,;� ..,�. �+� �.� , ��,;.` �, � � �., � �, �. .'' µ,_ , . „ �� ,� , . � ,. �� , G , . `�� ,. `z � '�^ ; � �r v � ti � N�� ' . � .�' ,, � ... �.�. 1 '�`� �-�., �.�'�ai.s 4'� �� , 6.. .; ��.. • .. � . .. . � � �_�.� �' . � � r � �tx . , + '. '.- y; •' ti - � � `, . . . . `` .. i .,q�..� .tr - . � �: � .� �. ,* F' '�, ,;. 'y 1Td'�' Y ��..�.:�t. k�4Y , ;i".. �,. F+ � £ , ! w. . � e.� ,�. ^`di�ai�� ": y1 : µ�� ^ � Ir �� t � ' �;x � � , �V a, � 3" .�,� a,. , k � � ,�k : . �r� -. ' � '� �" t� � �s r `�k.M�. r _ , . . r +, ' ',7 n �, n .. M�': ' , a `Y+�. ,� , T. . . .:. � � ��d�� n' .i �e � � .. � �i . � � � } �5 :. , . ,. ¢ ' . :, .' ; � :�.�. �.'='". Ir d'�� . , ' �. . , ..T ., . � �.,.. � ��y � � ,: '. �^ � . ., :.. ��. � � . , .. .. � . ._. . ... _. � � .... % R � , .. ' � .. "Rr.. . . ` '�r e ' . �: <a sn h � .„ar � � F � , � �y . _ ?`�,'j� w �µ . r ' '4�. ��,� ! � . � .x'p �" � .,� v`� �d �`��,� .. xr, nF � 4 �, . ��, � � � �� "�� ,� , : �� ,. �.. �� s, �°� �°y'� . f �`�..,�,,,�� +�.�� Mx� � y��' � � '' ` �' � �,a. `'� r x W: � �'� �� * } �.t� �` � ` '� �L ', � � �,� � � _', ��y ��" �� °s ?.El�°.` "��,e �"r^�� ,��i'� . .. R � � - �y; { �:� � ,�,... $ < r k ^ ' .� •� y ,�a.� 4�+ � - �'� 1 .. .:�iy. � t'�`� »tlY' i A a ' � �� . � � ';. „ � . � . . � � .��.. .�, .. , < � � � � s,y � �*«,� . �-._ '��,� , � �� "a m,. � � �.. � �� a � ,�� .�� , • ,� �� .. � + =4,�. .. � �4�a '�t �:. �u�h� — �, ,,�- �i i ,�� r..,�z. �� . < ,, , .,, , � . ��• • � . . , . �a . . ... a�. • . . . r .. .. ;-..� .. . . _ 1 ,�.y . ., �, . . . 1.' f. �.� . . , ... .. . �`ni . f• .� -..� �>. � � rQ: } �p... �� rvr s '� . .� , ,. " ' ' _ �� ;y."'�!e. �' � ' ` . . ` , � r.'. 5.� .. �;' � ,i. � „ `� '� `, .... .. .. i : � �, � . � �x . � ,� �.;,r �� .. �,- .a... _.�...��, . •. • �� `.`=� �:.� � � � �= � �� II � .o :� � � - �.a ,. . . . . , � � E � , � C �� ` ; ' - ' � �f�� .. �,, ,�w �� t -;� ��' n`.�� . 4 I ,' ,, V/�V�`, „N ` " . �. Y ,` � � �:, r� `f �;r �.1. f �f i � . � f ' 1 f � 7 '� �.� �J� � 1 � `�." � • , ". ta 'r � ��=�.:' i • .s� r.r1. ' L�.I JC.� - F�i �1 I : :i� �� t �I I ' �� ' � � 1 i. � �1 _ �' { ��.}' � o t•' � { � � � .� . r _ al � � � ... ../ �� 'x '� t y Ii� ' � 4• .r . �.h.s r�� _ �� : - +t - .;,; c:. �� r;'. , .. � .�.��. �. ,. _ , h �r J � - - - .-. .. - � � /{ � j,r+J . _ . , . . . �r . _�._ _ .�. . . . . — - /4 . .�;' � .�. . �G'i7� �` .�J'r•7 ¢C, ? � `� , . - y -- - r� _ ��o'Qy O ' � � � �k�� - � � _ � ,_ � L _ . i � � '� � , � � i --------�, I .—�_— _,— -�_�--1---1---1—I---T i � �� \\, 30`G8-22 ---- - -,,\ ,`�� -- - -- i----- - � � � ' ; � �--�o � � � � � `� � � � � ; � ( � ��( � �(`_� � �� / � �� _ -- I ' � ` \'_ . ' ' . . � � `\ .. / �.. r v � , ' 197.7 . 1 �� . . . J�.(._ �/ :,� \ : '�.. -- �, , � �' / / �� - � � I � � , .,�� , f �,30 8-23 - � � / / � ` _ \ i \� � � ''° 30 G8-35 �_ I' � � � .�.r , � i � 30,H9-1 �, \ ~�� / I 30 G8-24 � � __ � �- `- I � / \ �-- . � � _ � y �� I � ; � � , . � 30, 8-z8 0 - 6 O,G8_34 J �,.��r '�Sa'_ /% � 1 / � � O.GS-25 - --- --- � �O.H 4 \ / �, _�- , � � ' �-/� /��NS-�� , 30,H9-3 � . .,,� � � . � I � � ' � �� —� �� ' � � � � � � . <g � � � � � _ '� � •; ,I ` �� . �li ; , , , . � , , — � a , � c� E rst y� '' � � ��,._ _ i � , � ,, - � , _ . � , I \ ; . i � , , Di .S�Ow � . �,3.0 1 ` - � � 1 - `, ' /°ER � ,. ,«�, j . .q` • , `�" , ., � , I . s ` , ._ � � _ , :' ; ��`, . .,_qe .. i ` i �I %� ~i , , , ��. �-}� — � --- � ��\. � ��.�� . � S � ' . \ .. � ' . : wtH.,S � --.- _._ , -- aae �.,,� , 's ,. . �A, ,�,�,, �/ _ '` . .F�� -.�u2t 1� .- � � _ \�'� \ � sue�.e � � � . . :_ �: O , N � p� � .� . � , f .sWI! r ti -�-� aa.a 1 , � � I' , , - , `,C5 I = li 1 -�� . : .-�..: ; ; : . - , Bl' ✓.R(� ,� `, +aes . s _ I-� \ ; /; `J', �,\ � /,. � — ,o,., .�: ,. -'�_ � � �- ' � Q � � .J ' � . _ ; _ � � � . _ r �. ( � � � � t�.A .. '�' . . .�� - . - . . . �06.3 , , .,.� ._ , , � .,, IOY _ . ,- / � ._ , J , .. . . � . ;� , i �� , , � . . . . C� . i : � �- . _ �, ^_� � , , . . . I � ; I ` �.. •.\ ,� , 1 !27 � '' ��. ; � . I ,�a� . n"' .I '- . \ .. � . � --J� I s , �, _ . 1 . ,I � �\ '`, �� .- _.: •.l12 . , �. . �'�., .y � � i � � , �� ',. i,.. ..i � . . , . . - �. . 1 S�' _.e � ��, . �� , � ' , � � .. �..� - --- � � ' � �' . .. � I �� . , . , , . �\ . ��: .d. _ ' - � _ ��, � � J � � . ; , � . ..� _ . . � . - � �� - ' - , � _ _ _ _ ' _ • _ 1 . . � . � K�_ , . �. I \�� .�'i.5�� , , � � � � �� t�, � � � �l � � j -- v� %'_ � _ � f � � � _- � �� _ -� — � \ � � � � � ;` g 1 , 1 \ � r� «�z s } .,z 6 , � "'-1-- � � ? � "� 11 '\ \ ` � / _ � ` , , . � . � , I _'--�� ` � _____` ' �� ; _ � - - � � ' _ : I '� � , / � ( �- � i . �� _ _ . / - " � , 1 ` . I , . , \ r�.a se� \ ,` �,_ ' j � � . ... , - ,.. ( _ - ' . ' ; � / _.-� .��, ,.. . �:.; `�..:,. �"_.":�.� . . � i 1 � � � � � / �. . . - . � _ _ � _ _ ' ��. , . � _ i" _ , . __ _ . . � . �� . . -_ � � . � . ��9 � � ,: . . �. � . �- -�`.��, � � �� i �. � f � � ' _ ; ' � . `� . . . . � - , � , � . � . - . . �� , � � , . , \ \ � . . , . . , . . ... r ,. . , , ,. . , , �_ '. ,,_ . : . ., ._� .�_- ; - i :. . . . , , � F . , I i �, . _ ,' � ,:, � . � � � � .. � I � � �� .. r-- --- � _,� .� , .� �. . 0 .� .- � _i - � • � , , I � � \ l � ,_ � } � � ,� _.. �._ -�/ _ — � � \ h'•:�'�V � � � �� g ^ �� . . . ; �_ — � � _ / � , � - i- ' -' . .°°" �; �'� 'r �' �r �_ — � _ _—__-- `_- � ,- � i ;.., � ,. o ',i � . � � o \ . : �� , _ __-- � ,;�_�_ — - -- � � . - '`, j ._. `� � �T r\�, _. , � �� , o , ; , � � � � 1 , _._ , , , , . — - � �� __:\ . �j \ � _� o i� -� � . _ .. ..._ .`., '.._ -, �.. \ � . . . ..a , , , � —�`-�-� ' ,----� ' ' ' i' _— -� _ � �� . - . --- - \\ �� . . O `� ��' . � -- _ ; _ , �� - , � ��,�,,� � � � �� F � � _ ,, ` , ; „ . , i - ; , , -._ - --- , -_ � � , � , � _ _ . i�� or � , � � �� _ .� k ,. , , � : _____ , _ , ; , � '� � ` �� `,��,4 ��_ _-- �.. . , E (� �;' -�,.�~ �� 1 - ` �1 _ _ _ �- , , _ - ,- _,�_ ,� , , � I � a ' ; , �: `�._ " � , , . \ . . � � __ _ '� I' , - , i � � `_, � � �: ,, , � , � j _____ _ � � � _ , . , __�-� � , � ��. � , �� : ' I _ �- , ,� � � �., 1 � ; � , �� o� , . ��. _ � , , � _ ,- , ,� , �, _ _ , , _'\ � � �� _ � , � - ._ . � .. . � ; . -.. ry� .. .�. . . ' .. � - � ., . ,\ ��.`�Y o� 0 200 400 ' � ' ANTHONE ANNEXATION - EXPANDED �,��T o,� 1 : 2400 . ._. . . ,..::..:,:,_.,--_,--...-�--�-- . ..., _.._.. ..__....__.�_...__._. ._.1:::�.�.�:.�...._.�:�.;::.:_: .. _, . 1ye�._...��Y_ -�'.ldfsa+ ' EV.e^l.iLs' ✓ :�C.ii.r�s_v.i.in�.�ly..�4:: ::-j:r�' _ �: _ _.._' .. - ...- <'s`�'.�tisf.S'iz,1��L:+^:'+ �..:,.sr�r::s�.,.s�"' - ;�_:; i�. ^'! , r r - ��v�I�ED � Annegation Review Form �� Transportation 10% Notice of Intent o SYstems D(�, ( ] [X ] 60/o Annexation Petition TO : Finance Surtace Water Utility � Fire Water UtiGty Parks Wastewater Utility Police ��ris�porta ion Public Works Maintenance Current Planning FROM : Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning (contact Don Erickson, x6581) SUBJECT . Anthone'. _�xpanded Annexation Background/Location: The..Boundary Review Board will tentatively hold public hearings on August 31�and September 1 st, 2005 regarding the potential expansion of the 4.84-acre Anthone'Annexation to approximately 25.7-acres, pursuant to a request from the City. The expanded � boundaries would include the.Talbot Estates Subdivision to the south and the Springbrook Terrace and Hi-Park subdivisions to the � east(see attached map): The proposed expanded annexation area . is a peninsula, bordered by the City on its northern, westem, and � southem boundaries. � � ' Date Circulated: Julv 21, 2U05 Comments Due: . Julv.29. 2005 General lnformation Area : + 25:7 acres Street length ; 3,400 I.f. (pri�ate.roads) � Assessed Value : $17,875,000 (curren#); $25,750,000.(full develop) . Estimated.Population : 138 .Current.Uses ' Residential : 55 existing single-family detached dwellings Commercial, . . Industrial � : - Public • : " Comp Plan Designation : 50% Res. Single Family; 50% Res. Low Density . Future Uses: : ` 70 single-family�dwellings at full development of which 15 ace expected to be new Future Po ulation • 175 ' Reviewing Departmen Divisio Ta so�,�-f-a_-�tou��-T�cn�cs 1. Does this expanded annexation area represent any unique or significant additional problems for your department/division? �o . �oweve�� de.c�.cc.a+�oh ��'r�9k�--n��ay a�oa�9 f�ne r,+a�sf'��a�-�'ef' -�-�e �K►�r a( �1-�n�`f�G►oa��A�n��caf�ak Pv�pos�I ��u�� k,e sd�� sr�l� o..� �� SS�,5��'��.y b�, w�u r�a� i h �c-��.✓t � rHa��:l�. �e ��.x�s-�� .��k�-vf �ar �a�' T� �S�'�(�O� '{'�i@ H�.-t'�t�+��- l4'tihC��2 't�'dk SG�'...7KG 'f'ta 6:okS��t�T � £�EGT `-�� ►11��tdtq �l'� D'C' /��'�n S'�a�G�e�ifiP.�,�i �� . (Over) � . •� � � �, " �. ^ ' 2.,Are you aware of'any prablems or deficienoies in existing infrastructure or servi�e provision -;':;::' fo the en(arged area? � �1 ��K de ��..�-f-p,� �a(�„�- yes: ��.vb..z�d �� stdew3(k.�,a�c � Y� � `� o .�f� �»�so��+ SSf�c 5�a-�-(s�'lt'Z�d s�iee�) �bu�{i�,,�, �• P�bpo.�d �' a� 5 �i�i�drH�ss o W 5kies�e t sc�laKcled ais►tetca�',+>k si-I-� �Isol a.adway wcdfh ,�rtl Pavewc<<,-�- S�veGfs do no�E'�ef"��r�1Qz�+�a" s�Hda�6s� Rc1��aj+rdi� �te �e�5 u��'ra�tC. 1`atbo=f-�s�xf-csj rSpr�npphPBiG. T�"I'Y�-LG�aCHLL PTr-P��'tc s�.b�G�,sr�+�r. G�rt:�d�u�j ___ �-ott ect c�+�s� S�dewd Iks� 5`{�"te.�' �(f�'�.+��,%'oadwa�. C2V8eba"M�.��" �1t GJGhGSS '��r do�s e,t,,s�l- do2s Na�YNGGl�- Lt O-�JQ�G+2��'t S�?4C�av�yS� u��V3r��K9 1 4 /� �1 /� de��c,era'�' i3.r1 foa- rus-��t�'a�'laat r��0207-Gx r59-au�' s^�r�tt.-�-.rn�as'�9�'��r-"1"'�r'�1 . d aK atcv s"��'s wrt7,ia �e �4afkacc�'�` o� a!l ex�sd-r�q s{�ce�'S'��" Y i �hkcxa�4-row s R=�-e� w oc,c!d'6 e af f'tee-�X�rekSt o� e x 4 s ft K� r ro�er�'y ' ai,,�w��s a�(!cr n�su d�v��opnt��t�': 3. Does this proposed expanded annexation represenf a logical extension of seroices provided by yaur deparfinenf/divisian? y�-s• 4. What additional faciCities or staff rivould,6e required to serve tFiis enlarged area? Can you „ identiFy any ather costs tlie Gity waufd incur as:a result of:this anne�tidn? � ` A,ddi�roual •Tkaxsp•rfa��k �ya�G.,�s s�� w��r��f�� qKtt�e..�. G�p�o,�/r,�rr� de�ic.�P�,�'�kdlor r�s�'a!!a'�ioa a�Ko��GK�s"�aw'�'s'�ef�n�ss`�huc-�kr Dn �t'xa5�`iK . '; . � � s:;:;: s�-vice�s a�►�cu> s-Fve�".s'f. w i-�l,�K �it,� expar+d�d. �.��t�,c�-�o��. s�e .t . t�1�u�d be. �"Fli�' eXP6 nS@ D'��X 15 T�N�' /!rD�G�� ow�.tvs �kr1 jerV Mun.,�GdGv�Ily�"Ate�,� �e�r'r�r cos�s assacr&�c'd w5#�t aky riec�+r s"�"��'-'(t,�&�r+�q a:,.ct emr�fs_�rSoer��ta Wt'�.�e mairt`�eaaar�.ce a��aYz�en,�'N+a�kan�f e�ct �S��d��¢ ��"1�s'�Y �� H�.uvaerl y; b� �u C,�r a��.�n�t,c�fior► sho�eld�v�'b�-a_�'etanc�a( buwden. ts 5: Would.lhe.City assume ownecship or responsibility for facilities currently owned ar,managed � by ano#her jurisdicfian? Wouid new agreements qr fi'ancfi�ses b�.required as a result�of,fFiis annexatian? . ': � No rG �rclr�c `C'��Ibo�'.Ro�d-Sou`{�s��d. Se�+�. S�'�'&5-h�c.`f=�j�l�e�i�,�&e cxp��,!c� �?N�Cx��lw^u� ��C �5 "�"j46�dve cuPhen'F� Wi�'liih "Nie I�wT�k C�y ��NR+�'S': �es�►e,�,{ardr..,y f�� R?��s�-f�,� s-I-r�e�Fs v��,+� -t't,c T=t+�►f-�s'f��t� 5��rw��C.T��r�te�; ��a�t t�F -Pa+-i� Sabt�wr5<ohs. tUn R�.w �°�*�+w3per'F�`�'to.•i>r�fa.-k�! ��r..t�n�s ar�aa.�G�try woa.le��e. Yt. teivCd a' 3 Fetu.l�-.e��e �'�•po,s�ed �a1.c(¢� aM nema _ ort. 6. Would alfem�fe baund�aries create a mor.e.IogEcal annexation for.provision�of City.services? . (!f yes,please(ndicate on:the attached map.) . ' {r{�,�. haVe . Yto G8�lGG�n.S i�►t7�t'�t�-fOYD�AS��10�t�o�(rte°',S,. . Genera(recomrriendation and comments: . . . � , �t.- �aKs�a1-�Tlvk .Jc-rSTe,,�.s .ptV�$'�oa .�aS.� Goaec�'(�ttis. .. �te��C�f- "�'�+:. Y� .Sed t.� � !r'�� w e� a� ��sk. xa�i��` � .1�°...._._.� �oes 6r-- cao�s f7D� o C�:uV', � ;y<<; ��-�� , �;}, Signature: , Date:_� �� . � . ' .. 'iii; , . , . . .:I;�'i� ,�� :?`: . " �{4(i��';�i. .t y�}•�7 " ... — � S � �� ' ' . �"1,��" ��t:. �� . ,��1t �> � •ir�i: ' . .�{�. it�'' . , •• .i��"'�a,",i.''i�:::�;- , � ' [. . t I F' ! . }4 i i'^ . . } ; . . { + ' ' i4 f - 2 k . �t 1 � t: . #t' �( i.� #�t �� #s � �' � �y �t, �k�rt �f �}t.i � > S i # .;F�<' .. . , . . ., � .f. , � �}� 1�� } t� . f�� i F > . � a�� y t: .4 �i � ' - ' � . . ,..., �..,4� {�. , ..'rit. . . . . ..... . ....,.. ... ' .�..•eft.:a . .. ., ,s.�..�, .. ... . . . . . � � . _ . ..;.. ' . , ' � � . . ' . ' .� . . ' � . � .. � ' . � - .. .. i �� . . . � ' . ' . . �, �� . . . .. � . ' ' . F .•� � � �`. ��a� �� _ _ - - -�� - _ `��' � � -- _ � - � �� •r� �� .� - . �' - . . . M � r . . . ' ' . . . r� 4 � � . . � . � { � 8'�. - - n �j D � .. . � `z`h ,t 7� �Jt's } —5 t — � � ' , . . . . `� � c I � � x � , � � .: . �:' ' . �' . . . �� 't { _ f.� ; - . . - . . .f- �.. �. . ,. . � +i,.-.... ' - .. � � � � � . . , �}'; i� � f � �.r��^ ti `� � _ ' �i, f't � . . . ... . . . , . I.J� • ,� 3 (rl _ , �. ti,� _ ,, �`r, r�f"__ _ ' y c .-,�- � � .a. .� . � f i r 'y Y - L s ;� � � Lr� - � � s �. i, t �I� „C . � � 4'�)IG ' � )� .. t. . �-� �� T , f`', .�'� :,['n � ') � 'y� .. . J�+'/�� . ' � . . . � .. - -1 li _ }Y . I� �� 7 1 , � " � (�''`7�' '�J . . ' r { � � �. " �1` 'f f 4� r� �'�.� _ + �� ' . . . . �.' ; r � .. �] . . � t'� �, f.� ■ �� . - � �� .. , . � J r�� t� - �. =x�: . ' � . / ' li, f<' I' � . ' . ' . �� f�' f / y�� - ' � �{� � � . � ' -� 4 . ,` � . s.• �,�i .4 .,r r w' .n'; � . � . � � 'z , y,.i �'/�Jb � , u � � � � . � :,.t� '� } i � . . . � :tt . ,V � V'! ��. .I q � . � � � '4 � ' "" � * �� .' , , .�. -_ fi .� - - .� o � �4^' .�:' 4 �• . . . �. .. � � ', .. ,. o � . . �� ei �. . - - - a D ... � � � . �� . . � - . � . . ' . , ' � ' -. . � ..I . � ' ... 1. . �.` 2+,' �:` `, ANTHONE'ANNEXATION -EXPANDED FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET Units Po ulation AV Existin dev: 55 � 138 . $17,875,000 Full dev. 70 175 $25,375,000 Assumptions: 2.5 persons/household $500,000 AV/new unit � $325,000 AV/existing unit :REv$C�[��;;.;�::�:�:;:�: Total revenues � Existin Full Rate Exis4ing'::::::::::;:$�7';�2.�;�4; Regular le $56,128 $79,678 3.14 Full::::;�:�::$1#3�3$�2:9�; Excess le $1,585 $2,249 0.08865 . � State shared revenues Rate ( er ca Existing Full Li uor tax $3.52 $485.76 $616.00 Li uor Board �ofits $5.04 $695.52 . $882.00 Fuel tax-roads $14.46 $1,995.48 $2,530.50 .. Fuel tax-arterials $6.47 $892.86 $1,132:25 MVET . $0.00 $0.00 $0,00 Cam er excise $0:00 $0.00 $0.00 . Criminal 'ustice $0.36 $49,68 $63.00 . Total $4,119.30 $5,223.75 Miscellaneous revenues Rate Existing . Full . Real estate.excise* $40:86 $5,638.68 $7,150.50` ` �. Utili tax** $133.20 . $7,326.00 $9,324.00. . . Fines &forfeits* $48:33 . $2,529.54 $3,207.75 . ; Total $15,494'.22 $19,682.25. .. * Per capita . "' Per housing un'it=based on$2,220 annual utility billing @ 6%o tax rate :�issfs:::::::;�:::;::::::s..?.. ; _ Total ongoing costs ........................ Per ca ita Existin Fulf Existing;:::::�:::;::$�€?;��3.�.3:?3f�: Cantracted Services Full;::;:;:;:;�::$9$;�1::0�� 'Alcohol $023 $31.33 $39.73 , . Public Defender $3.13. $432.49 $548.45' Jail $7.19 . $992.50 $1,258.60 Subtotal $1,456.31 $1,846J8. Court/le al/admin. $57.08 $7,877.04 $9;989.00 - Parks maintenance'` $94.90 $2,056.20 $2,607.50. � Police $270.00 . $37,260.00 $47;250.00 Road maintenance'`* N/A $0:00 $4;979 � Fire*** $1.25 $22,343.75 $31,718.75 Total $70,993.30 $98;391.03 . *See Sheet Parks FIA "''See Sheet Roads FIA ''"' Rate per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact Exisfing :::s::�::::::::$�332:�3 . Full�:�:::�::::::::�$��:5��: :�n�;tiri�;e:��::Parks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA): � Other one-tirrie costs: $425.00 ' Total one-time cosfs: ?�::�:�:�:�:; :66�5��7:Q: � ....�......�......... Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo ��Y � CITY OF 1�NTON O ;, � + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, � AND STRATEGIC PLANIVING DEPARTMENT �.�NTp� MEMORANDUM DATE: September 27, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President City Council�Members VIA: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator �� STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson, x6581 SUBJECT: Anthone' Annexation - 1�`Public Hearing on Zoning and Effectuation by Ordinance ISSUE: Now that the Boundary Review Board for King County has expanded the origina14.84-acre annexation site to 25.7 acres in response to the City having invoked its jurisdiction, does the Council wish to proceed with the annexation of this larger area, realizing that three-quarters of it is already developed? If the Council decides to proceed, does it wish to adopt R-4 zoning for the non-street portions of the westem half and R-8.zoning for the non-street portions of the eastern half of the 25.7- acre annexation site, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map's designations for this area? RECOMMENDATION: • Council adopt the attached ordinance, zoning the non-street portions of the western half of the subject site R-4, 4 du/net acre, consistent with the current Residential Low Density (RLD) land use designation currently shown for this area on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, • Council adopt the attached ordinance, zoning the non-street portions of the eastem half of the subject site consistent with the Residential Single Family (RS) land use designation currently shown for this area on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, • Council accept the enlarged 25.7-acre Anthone' Annexation by adopting the attached annexation ordinance for it, and Anthone' Annexation-Expanded September 27, 2005 Page B • Council set November 28, 2005 for the second public hearing to further consider zoning and effectuation of this annexation. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The City received the 10% Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation petition in June 2004, and held a public meeting with the applicants in July 2004. Council accepted the 10% petition and authorized the circulation of the 60% petition to annex. In October 2004, the City received the 60% petition to annex for the origina14.84-acre site . and it was certified by King County on October 11, 2004. Council accepted the 60% Direct Petition on January 24, 2005, and authorized staff to transmit the Notice of Intent package to the Boundary Review Board for King County, pursuant to RCW 36.93.090. The Board held public hearings on August 30 and 31, 2005, and approved expanding the origina14.84-acre site to 25.7 acres by including the Talbot Estates, Springbrook Tenace, and Hi Park subdivisions to the south and east of the original annexation site. The new expanded annexation site is within Renton's PAA.(see the map shown on Attachment 1). The area is designated Single Family Residential and Residential Low Density in the Renton Comprehensive Plan and borders the Springbrook Creek watershed. The Boundary Review Board,using its authority to expand annexation boundaries, did so to create better service areas,retain existing neighborhoods, and create more reasonable municipal boundaries. The annexation site is located within the Kent School District and is currently served by Fire District No. 37. Currently, the City does not have an interlocal agreement with the Kent School District to collect school impact mitigation fees. Upon annexation, Renton would assume fire services for this area. Reviewing staff raised no significant obstacles to annexation. Except for parks, no major service issues were identified. Parks indicated a . general deficiency of improved recreational facilities in the area, and staff estimates a one-time acquisition/improvement cost to the City of$69,905. This figure,however, does not reflect the fact that the City has akeady acquired the former Cleveland property along the west side of Talbot Road South for future park development. Prorated improvement costs are more likely to be$47,25.6. At full development,the proposed annexation is expected to have a slight positive financial impact of approximately$13,654 annually in today's dollars. In terms of future zoning, if Council decides to a�nex the enlarged area, staff is recommending R-4 zoning for the origina14.84-acre site and T'albot Estates, to its immediate south, consistent with this area's Residential Low Density (RLD) Comp Plan land use designation. The eastern two subdivisions, that were included as part of the expanded annexation, are designated Residential Single Family (RS) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Staff is recommending R-8 zoning, consistent with this land use designation, for these two subdivisions. Because the origina14.84-acre annexation had been submitted in the first half of 2004, it, and two otlier annexation sites with this land use designation were grand-fathered in under the provisions of the earlier R-5 zone, since the City's new R-4 zone did not take effect until November of 2004. Because Council is required to hold two public hearings on �'uture zoning staff are requesting that a second public hearing be held at least 30- H:�EDNSP�PAA�Annexations�Anthone'�Issue Paper for expanded area.doc __ Anthone' Annexation- Expanded September 27, 2005 Page 3 days after the first, at which Council would be asked to accept these recommendations and adopt the respective annexation and zoning ordinances. CONCLUSION: The Boundary Review Board notified the City on September 13, 2005, that it had completed its resolution and hearing decision for this annexation. In its Resolution and Hearing Decision, the Board found that the origina14.84 acres were inconsistent with a number of Board's objectives, whereas the expanded area appeared to comply with or advance relevant criterion. The.Board also noted that GMA policies and King County Countywide Planning Policies require logical and orderly growth and, in accord with these policies, RCW 36.93150 authorizes the Board to modify an annexation to do so. The Board found that the initially proposed boundaries were found to be unreasonable and would have split up an existing neighborhood. It found that the expanded boundaries resulted in more logical service areas while maintaining the integrity of the existing neighborhood. It also noted that Renton was committed to guiding development and providing a wide array of municipal services to the area. The Board concluded: "Annexation will enable the City. of Renton to provide a harmonious, efficient , plan for govemance of the built community, preservation of the natural environment, and protection of public welfare." Similarly, staff conclude that the proposed expanded annexation appears to further the City's business goals and be in the general welfare and interest of the City. Attachments H:�EDNSP�PAA�AnnexationsWnthone'Ussue Paper for expanded area.doc �� j � / CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL r�/! � �� /�� AI#: Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. EDNSP/Strategic Planning October 10, 2005 Staff Contact...... Don Erickson (x-6581) Agenda Status X Consent.........`..... X Subject: Public Hearing.. Anthone' Annexation - 2°d Zoning Public Hearing on Corresnondence.. Expanded Annexation Ordinauce............. Resolution............ Old Busuiess........ Exhibits: New Business....... Issue Paper Study Sessions...... BRB Closing Letter and Proceedings Information.:....... Ordinances Recommended Action: Approvals: • -Council concur in setting the second public Legal Dept......... hearing on zoning for October 24, 2005. Finance Dept...... Other.. .. ... . Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget N/A City Share Total Project.. 5iTMMARY OF ACTION: The Council accepted the 60% Direct Petition to annex on January 24, 2004, to annex approximately 4.84 acres and at that time, authorized the Administration to forward the Notice of Intent package to the Boundary Review Board. The Boundary Review Board held hearings on this annexation in August 2005, and adopted findings and a resolution expanding the original boundaries to 25.7-acres. Although Council previously held a public hearing on the original acreage, it has not yet considered zoning for the larger area. Under state law, the City is required to hold two public hearings on future zoning, assuming it wishes to proceed with this annexation. The site is currently designated Residential Low Density (RLD) and Residential Single Family (RS) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and.would normally be zoned R-4 and R-8 consistent with these designations, if it is annexed. However, because the origina14.84-acre site was grandfathered in under the former R-5 zoning provisions, it would qualify for R-5 densities and the remaining non-street portions of the site would qualify for either R-4 or R-8 zoning depending on their respective land use designations. The Administration is recommending that Council adopt R-4 zoning for the western half and R- 8 zoning for the eastern half of the non-street portions of the 25.7-acre site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council set October 24, 2005, for a public hearing to consider future zoning for the Anthone' Annexation site. Rentonnedagnbill/ bh w ' ' CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL ai�: Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. EDNSP/Strategic Planning October 17, 2005 Staff Contact...... Don Erickson (x-6581) Agenda Status X Consent.............. X Subject: Public Hearing.. Anthone' Annexation -_2"d Zoning Public Hearing on Correspondence.. Expanded Annexation Ordinance............. Resolution...:........ Old Business........ ° Exhibits: New Business....... Issue Paper Study Sessions...... BRB Closing Letter and Froceedings Information......... Ordinances Recommended Action: Approvals: . Council concuT in setting the second public Legal Dept......... � hearing on zoning for October 24, 2005. Finance l�ept...... Other. . .. . .. Fiscal Impact: � Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted......: Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget N/A City Share Total Project.. SLTMMARY OF ACTIOIV: The Council accepted the 60% Direct Petition to annex on January 24, 2004, to annex approximately 4.84 acres and at that time, authorized the Administration to forward the Notice of Intent package to the Boundary Review Board. The Boundary Review Board held hearings on this annexation in August 2005, and adopted findings and a resolution expanding the original boundaries to 25.7-acres, Although Council previously held a public hearing on the original acreage, it has not yet considered zoning for the larger area. Under state law, the City is required to hold two public hearings on future zoning, assuming it wishes to proceed with this annexation. The site is currently designated Residential Low Density (RLD) and Residential Single Family (RS) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and would normally be zoned R-4 and R-8 consistent with this designation, if it is annexed. However, because the origina14.84-acre site was grandfathered in under the former R-5 zoning provisions, it would qualify for R-5 densities and the remaining non-street portions of the site would qualify for either R-4 or R-8 zoning depending on their respective land use designations. The Administration is recommending that �ouncil adopt R-4 zoning for the western half and R- 8 zoning for the eastern half of the non-street portions of the 25.7-acre site. � STAFF RECOMME1�1I3ATION: Council set October 17, 2005, for a public hearing to consider future zoning for the � Annexation and, if it decides to accept the annexation, have first reading of both the annexation and zoning ordinances. RentonneUagnbill/ bh _ .` � g , � �Y CITY OF RENTON Gti�; �� ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, '� �* '� ♦ AND STRATEGIC PLAI�TNING DEPARTMENT .` �'�N.TO MEMORANDUM DATE: September 27, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President - City Council Members VIA: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler _ FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator �'`� - STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson, x6581 SUBJECT: Anthone' Annexation - 2nd Public Hearing on Zoning and Effectuation by Ordinance - ISSUE: Now that the Boundary Review Board for King County has expanded the origina14.84-acre annexation site to 25.7 acres in response to the City having invoked its jurisdiction, does the Council wish to proceed with the anriexation of this larger area, realizing that three-quarters of it is already developed? If the Council decides to proceed, does it wish to adopt R-4 zoning for the non-street portions of�the western half and R-8 zoning for the non-street portions of the eastern half of the 25.7- acre,annexation site, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map's designations for this area? � RECOMMENDATION: • Council adopt the attached ordinance, zoning the non-street portions of the western half of the subject site R-4, 4 du/net acre, consistent with the current Residential Low Density.. (RLD) land use designation currently shown for this area on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, • Council adopt the attached ordinance, zoning the non-street portions of the eastern half of the subject site consistent with the Residential Single Family (RS) land use designation cunently shown for this area on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map; and � • Council accept the enlarged 25.7-acre Anthone' Annexation by adopting the attached , annexation ordinance for it. , : Antone' Annexation-Expanded � � September 27,2005 Page 2 BACKGROUND SUMMARY: �� The City received the 10%Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation petition in June 2004, and held a public meeting with the applicants in July 2004. Council accepted the 10%petition and authorized the circulation of the 60%petition to annex. - In October 2004,the City received the 60%petition to annex for the origina14.84-acre site and it was certified by King County on October 11,2004. Council accepted the 60%Direct Petition on January 24, 2005, and authorized staff to transmit the Notice of Intent package to the Boundary Review Board for King County,pursuant to RCW 36.93..090. The Board held public hearings on August 30 and 31,2005, and approved expanding the origina14.84-acre site to 25.7 acres by including the Talbot Estates, Springbrook Terrace, and Hi Park subdivisions to the south and east of the original annexation site. The new expanded annexation site is within Renton's PAA(see the map shown on Attachment 1). The area is designated Single Family Residential and Residential Low Density in the . Renton Comprehensive Plan and borders the Springbrook Creek watershed. The Boundary Review Board, using its authority to expand annexation boundaries, did so to create better service areas,retain existing neighborhoods, and create more reasonable municipal boundaries. � Tlie annexation site is located within the Kent School District and is currently served by Fire District No. 37. Currently, the City does not have an interlocal agreement with the Kent School District to collect school impact mitigation fees. Upon annexation, Renton would assume fire services for this area. Reviewing staff raised no significant obstacles to annexation. Except for parks,no major service issues were identified. Parks indicated a general deficiency of improved recreational facilities in the area, and staff estimates a one-time acquisition/improvement cost to the City of$69,905. This figure,however, does not reflect the fact that the City has already acquired the former Cleveland property along the west side of Talbot Road South for.future park development. Prorated improvement costs are more likely to be $47,256. At full development,the proposed annexation is expected to have a slight positive financial impact of approximately$13,654 annually in today's dollars. In terms of future zoning, if Council decides to annex the enlarged area, staff is recommending R-4 zoning for the origina14.84-acre site and Talbot Estates,to its immediate south, consistent with this area's Residential Low Density(RLD) Comp Plan land use designation. The eastern two subdivisions, that were included as part.of the expanded annexation, are designated Residential Single Family(RS) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Staff is recommending R-8 zoning, corisistent with this land use designation, for these two subdivisions. Because the origina14.84-acre annexation had been submitted in the first half of 2004, it,and two other annexation sites with this land use designation were grand-fathered in under the provisions of the earlier R-5 zone, since the City's new R-4 zone did not take effect until November of 2004. . H:�EDNSP�PAAWnnexations�AnthonelIssue Paper for expanded area.doc Antone' Annexation-Expanded . September 27,2005 ' ' Page 3 � CONCLUSION: The Boundary Review Board notified the City on September 13, 2005, that it had completed its resolution and hearing decision for this annexation. In its Resolution and Hearing Decision,the Board found that the origina14.84 acres were inconsistent with a number of Board's objectives, whereas the expanded area appeared to comply with or advance relevant criterion. The Board also noted that GIVIA policies and King County Countywide Planning Policies require logical and orderly growth and, in accord with these policies,RCW 36.93150 authorizes the Board to modify an annexation to do so. The Board found that the initially proposed boundaries were found to be unreasonable and would have split up an existing neighborhood. It found that the expanded boundaries resulted in more logical service areas while maintaining the integrity of the existing neighborhood. It also noted that Renton was committed to guiding development and providing a wide array of munici�al services to the area. The Board concluded: "Annexation will enable the City of Renton to provide a harmonious, efficient plan for governance of the built community,preservation of the natural erivironment, and protection of public welfare." Similarly, staff conclude that the proposed expanded annexation appears to further the City's business goals and be in the general welfare and interest of the City. Attachments H:�EDNSP�PAA�Annexations�Anthone'�Issue Paper for expanded area.doc . 5 P�� ,�5 �� 45t 0 0 a � �. W � � � � "� � 0 � -� � � � � th S 55th St rin ook Creek �`' S 1�z� r _ r�'� ,��` t 3 O � �y ? � ^ i-4 M �'�} �._ #1 S .��_`` � \1 � � _ { Y.b,: v i � � � . L � i _ � � �� . ". ''�' '' :i �p N � ' �� s � �„ y � - 'x; -1�O' F °�k � 0 �o �� so 4 � S- 19 th P� � 0 S E t St n 203rd St Proposed Anthone' Annexation o �o0 1600 Figure 1: Vicinity Map — — — City Limits 1 : 9600 ti� �,{, Economic Development,Neighbofioods&Strategic Planning � Proposed Annex Area p� � Alex Pietsch,Administrawr ,$ G.Del Rosario % Pro osed Ex anded Annex Area ApTO 28 December 201k1 � p p � , . � � � 4� [� o Q � ❑ � � a ° ° d � °� � � O� � fl o � � d0 �T �.�:$ � � a a : � � � =�� ; � �. � �� '�s� - �� e: � � y_�. .: 5' 'a�.'�` �� g t7.�� - ;�}_ i : �, � � £ ] � ! .� �. .�,;, � �%� 4. �� y� � . . n. �}� �'.1.�� ^e 1 ,�� _ D F , �s � 7 .s'f�z � �� F S rc, � V � � � ' �"f E �'" � � i o � ` �' �� a � : 0 �, 1 �!'�� , � cs''�'"r T � R .:tk, t{'I ,5% �+ f � d �i ��.�,' � T�� S +�:a � .^� ..$�o" . � � � r�i {� 4. n � ti Y { �4 '' '� �3 ,e x �?� ., ; . � re,n � n � ar i yfi .m �, 11 �i � ' � f�` ��i�s'�,�� _A M '` ; .t� �'h 3 �: T 5 i � ?, � ."t. ��d 4 - � � � n x ��`�" �� ,� f J � ) �1�g:. �'� 7>� y�� e� ,�J x1 4 ,r9't s � �� ^Cf.S :,� � .J ;' �t. � � ,y �y''� �,� f:3 ( .}' �. dyl_ . £ � ( i Y k-;,.,A f `; *�f S� �� t Y A 4,� u Y u - '� , � .�S `: �� 'f.� E '..£ ya,`�- \ "`t' €n� ;., j��' � { � ��r r '�r , ' ❑ Lrn/ ' � 4 � x � } � > . r 3 .l,�i 4 't�- � � R h �� w � � w,� � i t 4� � t � ..r�.,,, 0 � � O 0 � �� <? p - Proposed Anthone' Annexation o 300 600 Figure 3: Existing Structures Map � Structure lT o Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning - - - City Limits � . 3600 � � Alez Retsch,Administrator G.Del Aosario 0 Proposed Annex.Area L•'N.TO 28IJecember2004 � � � �i� �' � ?�(� j� rr ' II � 111)',��, . , �� ,,.�� ,,� �� ' ��1 �I ��' � � i�l ��li ��I�i�� J., � �, � ,„�I�� 1� ,� �� \� � � `( ( ( � / � `� �I � � ( �� r�/ ��i�� ,� � (� � � � �l „�,) ; `��`\ � ��\ `'�\�''I`"� ��,��1�/fi,')''��I�I;I �II�� I�;��\�� \\�1 1 �) � ; � �� / � � 4 l �'�� I.1� '' � 'III .,�%/;� �� i'iJ�� '1� �i� �`��— '1 ( � . �r � � � � 1,��I , -�.� ��. ; ( � � �1�,� ,��,� �� 1� r / � t �,�� i j � \\�\1111�� a� ��,. � � ��, � ��, �11i,,1, ,,:� ,,� �i ►,� I�� ,� �� >� � � � � � � � � �� L � ,�\I � �,��'�,1��I' �';�'V�II '� I� � �,. '�� -��m� ✓l r J � ,,. ' � �t�} s � �� `I � �� (i '�, I �, � \�\\\�., �� —ti �� '�� .�,�� 1\\�� 1�1��i�,,�;j1��`�� i1i� ', , �, � v�� vv U , ��C ��<<,��' , � ��;,,,;�,�,�,, �.�,, ,1v, ;,I, � ��,',a�;�� 1��, � i�. � �,:� �� P, , ;��',� ��I � ,�, a., y�� a � � � � . � � �,I ��.� . �r,pP��'liil:�,�'�II �i ��'�" � VA�.�a`�. � , ,, ,, �. �, (( � \� �� 1 ,� f � � � �� , � �,1;'��,�� `� �'`IIl'I� �i �� 1��. \, \ � I I �I I'I; '\\ � ,; � I 1 ;��f'�i,17 � l � �� 1 �� r�� .�1 l� I , �I JJ � -� � � 1 � i 'l � i!il, �I Il��y��il/1��,� ��i ��,4�,�� I � ` li �, ��(��. � �� ` , � �� I';u'��1'�,a�V�� ' �� ' � � rI � ��\ ,��A�� I � I �,u � / ��I �� 1 � ��1 r�� / , '� �� (' �� `-' � �� I��i r� � ��( � �, �� i��/��,�;�:� / l��'`� i��, � � � , ! � , �I ,�l►.�I�.� �!�'��; � � � , �(, ,, 1 � ,�� ., ,� �� , �i � , f ,�� ;,��,��<<;<«!��,`!�,��` � � �� , i� � � < < � � � 1 � << t�� ; , � I, < < � �� < zz � 4r� � � � r c � 1'�; ' \1�',' � �' �� i '�� Q „ � �-, �, ., ... � ' � ir � • � � ll�� l � � � _ � . , _ , , � � I , � � I �I � - , �, � � , ,` >� . -� . �111`�� 1 � x� 1;_. . ; . . ,�, � ': �� ` . � � �" • � ; �� /� � x t `, � , o. � I � �� 1�1�` L � � ' � � 1 ,— �� , � — �`—��>> - �,; , . , � �N . ��, �— �--�� „`� �� ,�--� , x � I � ��" ``\ �� `��`��Y�r�� l �� ((��''— o �— � M „n.n � �\\�� i�� ' �` � \• lo o �� C��- � »�,�i� � , ��, II, � � � � �� ( .. � _�� -�--i \�A �� '�\��`� \\� ''�� \`�`��\ � �✓ ,��\\ ��`� ,� �\ \�\ � � l� l /� �\v �� l �L -� � �\ \ \� �� — � ` -�--�� \\��l i�i,�� , � _ � . ��, , � � 1 �- � 1��, /�xn �� I,�� i, � �� J�� ! � � �/�� - ( ' � ��) �`�� `��;��i/�� .,�\ �\ � �`� `� ` �1 i � �`'�� ---� �\� _� � 1 J % ��i�� ,�:�,� �� , ^ �,� .� � � J � J� \�\\ �;,s� � , � ---, � �� \�\\\\�\��l ��\\\�� == �--� � �� <<�;��`��, ��;\�� ,,a� �� ,. �-- >—� �� ,��j�� \� �'�� , �� i �.J) ,, � �� ✓� �./) ��\��„n �� \_�..� �` �/ ��,�j �j�� \��1�,�� \��\�..<<�'� —��\,� lJ � �� ,-� ��---��/ ��j� ,��'—�-��Y �� _=�//f��j��J ��,�� \ �,a �� \ I \ � � �.� `\ \\ � \ (I �� ✓ � �� 4,� a.�`�� \�\�\1� '\��, \\ � � I I I i ��, � �lJ 1 0 �- �,,,�� .�-.\,,��,,,�, �� - � �� , ��,�,��,''; �.:��`�� '� �� 1'�� ' I � � �� , � ,,I 1,,,��l,��; � ��:�� \�\ � ,� �� l C' � , r ��.�;,�:��_ ,�1� \�, L,.. , Proposed Anthone' Annexation o 300 600 Figure 4:Topography Map 1 m Interval Contours tiS Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning - - - CIIy LIff111S 1 : 3600 �O� A�ex Pictsch,Adminisvator 0 Proposed Annex.Area G.Dei Rosario AN•TO ZSDecember2004 , . I "` ,rt?. a �,- � � - `S^..rv, i.}L.. h: . � � � r �� u 'i � , � �+4. . � A' 3�l{ tq.. -"�' `�F ' �t r� 4 i7: 4 y:, F l' �. � +' $ x Y .� 5 � f a * � �� - � k� y { �� h � 2'i'. q ,� T 1 � � 'y. � � w � -1 ( r � „' , ,F�J t 5'.: �_ �' ' � � j.� �� ' '`k �,.; 3,f q 1�� t t"s✓ � x; � -� e r � � � � �s �' .v'" � � T Y ,� r � � ;.r c� y . v, � "'�:;� a � �� c. � .:i r , r �� im� �. � '' r ` 5�- '� i ? t 4 :�;, �, ,, � �, - a r *" � � t ,x � :�� h'. q[ . � ^1 ,u t d ) 1 S� } X L ,t� �'�� T k i � t � � \ u �; , x t�; L, k � �b 1 tp � y f1 s � ;� / ? J O .�pl'� � � O � �� Proposed Anthone� Annexation o 300 600 Figure 5: Sensitive Areas Map � Wetland t�,{, Economic Development,Neighborhoods&SVategic Planning — � — Clty LIf111tS � . ��oo ♦� p Alex Netsch,Administrator G.Del Rosario � Proposed Annex.Area �`�i.�0 28December2004 . � ANTHONE'ANNEXATION -EXPANDED FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET Units Po ulation AV Existing dev. 55 127 $17,875,000 Full dev. 73 168 $26,875,000 Assumptions: 2.3 persons/household $500,000 AV/new unit $325,000 AV/existing unit :R�variia�:s:`::::::::�:::: � Total revenues ................... ................... Existing Full Rate Existing :-�:::�::::::$�6;�6:;�f�: Regular le $56,128 $84,388 3.14 Full::::;::�:€$1:'f�'�i4�2::23� Excess le $1,585 $2,382 0.08865 �� State shared revenues Rate er ca ) Existing Full Liquor tax $3.52 $447.04 $591.36 Liquor Board rofits $5.04 $640.08 $846.72 Fuel tax-roads $14.46 $1,836.42 $2,429.28 Fuel tax-arterials $6.47 $821.69 $1,086.96 . MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cam er excise $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal 'ustice $0.36 $45.72 $60.48 Total $3,790.95 $5,014.80 Miscellaneous revenues Rate Existing Full Real estate excise* $40.86 $5,189.22 $6,864.48 Utili tax** $133.20 $7,326.00 $9,723.60 Fines&forfeits* $18.33 $2,327.91 $3,079.44 Total $14,843.13 $19,667.52 * Per capita ** Per housing unit-based on$2,220 annual utility billing @ 6%tax rate :ei3sf�:�:::��:�:::�:::��':::�:: Total ongoing costs Per ca ita Existin Full Existing:::::::::::::$6:�;1:1�:��:4: Contracted Services Full :�:::�::::�;:�9:��$:2�' Alcohol $0.23 $28.83 $38.14 Public Defender $3.13 $398.02 $526.51 Jail $7.19 $913.38 $1,208.26 � Subtotal $1,340.23 � $1,772.90 . Court/le al/admin. $57.08 $7,249.16 $9,589.44 � Parks maintenance* $14.90 $1,892.30 $2,503.20 Police $270.00 $34,290.00 $45,360.00 Road maintenance*" N/A $0.00 $4,979 � Fire*'"` $1.25 $22,343.75 $33,593.75 Total $67,115.44 $97,798.29 *See Sheet Parks FIA **See Sheet Roads FIA - ""* Rate per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact � Existing :::::::::::::::�9�23fl:7fi Full :�::::::�:�:��3;653<�� Jn�`:tiit�'�'s:°4�ts�:Parks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA): Other one-time costs: $425.00 Total one-time costs: :.:63;�(�5'�1*::;:;:::::':�: .�.....� ............... *Does not recognize City park land ownership in the area. Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo -� Wash�ngton �ta�e Boun�'a�y �eview Bna�d � For Kzng Coun�� Yesler Building,Room�02,4Q0 Yesler Way,SeatEle, WA�81Q4 Phone:(206)296-6800 •Fax: (206)296-6803 • http;//wurw.metrokc.gov/annexations September 13, 2005 City of Renton . Attn: Don Erickson; AICP � Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way . Rentan, WA 9$flS5 RE: CLC?SING LETTER FOR RESOLUTION AND H`EARING DECISICIN File No. 2199 - City of Renton -Anthone Annexation Dear Mr. Ericksan: We are writing ta advise you that the Washington State Boundary Review Board for I�uig County has now campleted the Resalution and Hearing Decisian, as specified in RCW 36.93, to apprave the above referenced proposed action fzied with the Board effective: September 32� 2005. The Resalution and Hearing Decision far this action is enciosed for filing as prescribed by RGW 36.93.2b0(4). An appeal period ta Superiar Court has been established, as mandated by RCW 36.93.260. The appeal periad ta Superior Court will close on October 12, 2005. In order ta finalize the propased action, the applicant must address the fallowing requirements, wheze applicable: . 1. Campliance with the statutory requirements an.d procedures specified in the Notice of Intention; 2. Sewer and Water district aetions and some other actzons are alsa subject to approval by tlie Metropalitan King County Cauncil. If the Council makes changes ta the proposai, the Board may then be required to hold a pubiic hearing. 3. Filing with I�ing Counry of franchise application(s), as required, accompanied by a copy ° of this Ietter. 4. Filing with King County of permit applicatian(s}, as required, accampanied by a copy of this letter. . t Page two continued, September 13, 2005 Form HE 8 5: Notification to King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning, in writing, of your intended effective date of this action. This notification should be provided as early as possible. Please send this information to Michael Thomas, Office of Management and Budget, 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, Washington 98104, and 6. Filing with King County Council of: (�.) one certified copy of your final resolution or ordinance accomplishing this action; and(2) a copy of this letter. This document should.be �led with the Clerk of the Council (Attn: Ms Anne Noris), King Counry Courthouse, Room . 1025, Seattle, Washington 98104 If you have questions or would like additional information, please contact our office at 206.296.6800. Sincerely, Lenora Blauman . Executive Secretary Attachment: Resolution and Hearing Decision dated September 12, 2005. cc: Ms. Anne Noris, Clerk of Council Ms. Debra Clark, King County Department of Assessments Ms. Lydia Reynolds-Jones, Manager, Project Support Services � Mr: Bill Huennekens, Records and Elections Division Mr: Paul Reitenbach, Department of Development &Environmental Services Mr. Michael Thomas, Office of Management and Budget King County E-911 Program District(s): King County Fire Protection District No. 25 and 37 Soos Creek Water and Sewer District Kent School District No. 415 . - PR{�C�EfiiiNGS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FQR KING CQUNTY RESOLU7lQN AND HEARlNG DEClSIQN 1N REc CiTY OF RENTON FiLE NO.: 2199_ Anthone'Area � Proposed Artnexation King County,Washington 1. PUBUC HEARING OVERVIEW In May of 2005 the Gity of Rentan subrnitted to the Washington S#ate Boundary Review Board a t�otice of Intention (�i1e i�io. 2199) to annex 4.84 acre territory (Anthone' Areaj based upon an annexafion petition by praperty owners, pucsuanf ta RCW 35A.14. The Renton Cit�Gouncii adopted � the petit(on far annexatiart in January 2005. , The Natice of Intention describes the proposal as follows: ■ 7he northern boundary ofthe site is formed by S 55�'�treet. ■ The western boundary af the site is generally formed by 96�'Avenue Soutn(if eactendec!). ■ The eastern boundary is located west of 98�'Avenue Sauth. ■ The southern boundary af the site is generally formed by Sauth 194�'Stre�t(if e�ctended}. On June 24, 2405, the Gity of Renton invoked jurisdidion pursuan#to RCW 38.93.100. tn ifs request for review, the City asked tfie Boundary Reuiew Board to consider modifica�ion of the proposal by adding an additional 21 acres. The propased Anthone'Area (Expanded) would then ta#al 26 acres. The request for review was based upon the fallowing: � • The C�ty afi Renton Comprehensive Pian establishes the jur�sdidion's comm�trnent ta annexation of the entire Anthone'Area (Expanded). ■ An action to consolidate the entire Anthone'Area (E.7cpanded) under a single jurisdiction at this time woutd enable unifomn local govemance and caordinated services. • Renton has plans and programs in place which ensure#hat the City can immediatety provide for the Anthone'Area (Expanded) accessible lo�al govemment and a fulM array of services. The City has estabiPshed standards to:support appropriate leveis af development, services, and protection forthe sensifive naturai emrironmerrt. + Ttte inctusian of Anthane' Area (Expanded} in the City of Ren#on woutd reportedly provide more practical baundaries and logical area for community govemance and services ta-fhe community. ■ The State Growth Mana�ement Act and the King County Camprehensive Plan bofh es#ablish local jurisdtdions as#he appropriate units to govem ueban areas. A pubtia heanng was conducted an August 30, 2005 before a quonam of the Boundary Review Board in order ta consider the original proposal by the Cify af Renton to incarparate the Anthone' Area Annexatian {4.84 acres). At tf�e conciusion ofi fhat pui�iic fi�earing, �e Boundary Review Board resoived (9 in favor; 1 in opposition)to continue the pubtic hearing ta August 31, 2005 to consider Renton's proposed addifian . of 21 acres to the original 4.84 acre annexation area. The Board determined that there is evidence in the record su�cient to support the conclusion that the origina! proposaf as submitted is inconsistent with one or more of the statutory objectives its decisions must advance (e.g,, 36.93 RCW, 36.70A RCWj. Legal natice having been duly given, a modifica#ion hearing was held on August 3'!, 2Q05 before a quorum af the Boundary Review Board. 1 e j ' include, but are not iimited to: �6.70A RCW, 35A.14 RCW, 1Gng Caunty Comprehensive Pian/Countywide Policies,the Ren#an Camprehensive.Plan and its enabling regulations (e.g., zoning code}. These Sta#e and lacal aufhorities are intended to ensure reasonable deveiopmenf regu(ations and adequate public services to local communities A brief review af key issues reiated ta each applicabie elemenf is presenfed below: _ RC�Ii 36.93.170(i�PaPuu�fitoni��i�'i€�oR�r The Board finds the following factors to be applicable: Populatian Density; Proximity to Other � Poputated Areas; Land Area/Land Uses; Comprehensive Land Use Plans; Topography, Natural Boundari�s and Drainage 8asins; Likeiihoad of Significant Grawth in the Area During the Next Ten Years; and Populatian Density/Pro�cimity#o Other Papulated Areas/Land Area/Land Uses. Fo(lowing is a brief review of key issues related to these factors. The entire Anthone'Area (E�cpandeci} lies within the Urban Growth Area deiineated by King Counfy: The community is unified with respecf#a its specific physical efements{e.g.,geographic features} and social elements. The King County Comprehensive Ptan contemplates transfer 6f the Anthone' Area (Expanded} ta a lacal jurisdiction. County Corrtprehensive PiaNCountywide Policies calt for cantiguous orderiy growth of loca! jurisdictians {e.g., U-304, U-208, U-3Q1, U-3Q4.}. .Pol9cies �Iso establish cities as the appropriate providers of local govemance and urban services {e,g., FV1/-13,CO-1, CO-3;LU-31 - LU- 34, LU-36). FGng County Policy LU-31 requires citi�s to designate patential annexation areas to inciude adjacent urban lands and to eliminate unincorporafed istands between cities. Policy LU-32 calls upan cities to incorporate tands wifhin annexation areas inta c'rty baundar+es. ` In addition, the Anthone' Area (F�cpanded) is included in the °Annexation Element" af the Cify of Renton Corrrprehens�ve Plan and is fiocated yu�ithin the City's Potential Annexatian Area. The proposed action is based upon Renton Gomprehensive Plan annexation paiicies, including fhe palicies supporting incleasion of urban areas within the City for local governance and pertaining to encouraging annexations in areas where urban infrastructure and services are available for development at urban densities and in areas contiguous to City boundaries (e.g., Land Use Policies LU-378; LU-386; LU- 388). Tfie evidence shows tfiat the Anthone' Area (F�cpandect� wili iikely experience coniinuing urban growth over the next ten years. The Anthone' Area (Expanded) comprises primarily residential development. However, there is vacanf land that is suitable and permitted for new residential development and there is(and that is appropriate for redeveiopment with residenfiai uses. The City af Ren#on Comprehensive Plan pravides for growth at urban levels of density which are � consisfenf wifh,fhe buiNr environmerrt and sappotf tine naturai environmenf surcaunding the Arrthone' Area (Expanded). City plans permit only residentiat development in the An#hone' Area (F�cpanded}: Future develbpment wauid be gener'atly similar to and campatib3e with e�cisting hbusing in tem�s af land designatian and zaning/density (ranging from five units to eight units per net acre in Rentan as compared to a range of four units to 12 units per gross acre in King County. The City would also provide for design standards -(e.g:, setback, permeable surfaces) fior new development in the Anthone' Area (Facpanded}. Under the City's Cornprehensive Plan, cifizens af the Anthane' Area {F�cpaaded)would also be pravided with ur�iforrn public services,facifities and infrastructure. 3he Antfione' ,�rea (F�cpandeci� iands contains variai�ie fopograpfiy (incfiuding iandsfiide and erosion F►azards}; and native vegetation acaurs in some areas. There are substantiatty sensitive natural feafures and built features near to, bu#not necessarily within,the Anthone'Area(Expanded} including. the Springbrook Watershed, aquifer,wetlands, and a trout fami. Upon annexation, #he Gity of Renton plans ta administer development and services to the Anthane' Area (E�anded) under regulatory controls designed to pratect environmentally sensitive areas. These regulatary controls include, but are not limited to, development standards, surface/starm wat�r management programs, and main#enanee of open space/vegetated areas. 3 � - acres would result in fragmented services as. bath Cpunty. providers and locat providers will.b� requiced to serve the community. Thus, services wi�l be more effective, more efficient, and less castly . to bath goverrtment and cifizens wi#h fhe annexation of the Anthone'Area (F.�cpanded�. RCiN 36.��.17�(�)��c-rs aF i�oposAt RCW 36.93.170(3) directs the Board to evalua#e issues related to effects upon the community from a proposed action. Far File Na. 2199, the Board considered rriutual economia and social interests, and iocai govemmerrt struch�re ef�ecfs to i�e appfiica�fe. 'i'i�e foiiowing is a brief review of key issues. The Anthone' Ar�a (F�cpanded) is contiguous ta �- and shares mutual socia( and economic profiles wiffi -tfis Ci#y of Rer�fon. �oordinafed integrafiion of ci�izens of the Arrff�one' Area (Expanded) into Rentan wouid preserve soc'raf organization, support economic heaith, and protect pub(ic safety and weifare. New cifizens wau#d be able to participate in iocal govemance including tand use planni�g, service planning, fscal.planning and planning for pubtic amenities to serve the cammunity. Rentan o�cials testified that the City is prepared ta govem and to provide fulE senrices#o this communi#y. � King Couryty supports t�e �Tttt�a�e' �rea tf�cpanrieci} �nnexcation.as the action i-haf is in ifie #�est interests af al! parties, State law; the King Cou�zty Comprehensive Ptan, and the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan each encourage local gavernance of communitiss. Annexa�tion of the �4nthone' Area (E�cpandedj is alsv consfistent vil�tt� the �ng County Annezation lnitiative, which calls far annexa#ion of urlaan lands ta.loca!jurisdictions a#the ear3ie5E feasible date. Immediate annexation of the Anthone'Area (F�cpanded� better promates balanced gavernance tlian do�s ffie incrementai incorporafion proposed in f�e inifiai�nthone'Area Annexafion. incorparation of the Anthane'Area(F�cpanded)into tfie City of Renfan promotes strong and.unified lacal govemment. � CONSIST�NCY WITH TME GROINTH MANAGEMENT ACT RCW 36.93.157 provides that Boundary Review Board decisions must be consistent with three sections of the Growth Management Act: . ■ RCW 36.70A.Q20 Planning Gaals ■ RCW 36.70A 110 Urban Growth Areas ■ RGW 36.70A,210 Counfywide Pianning Po(icies With respecf to Fite No. 2199, the key Grawth Management issues involve the Countywide Planning Poticies pertaining to fand use and municipal services(RCW 36.70A.020 and RCW 36.70A.11D}. The Growfh Management Ad policies that guide the pro�isian af pablic setvices and that are relevanf to #he propased Annexation inc�ude: ■ FtCW 36.7pA024 (1) Urban Growth: Encourages development in urban areas where adequate publia facili#ies and services exist o�can be pravided efficiently. ■ RCW 36.70A.020(2)'Reduce Sprawl: Reduce inapprapriate conversion af undeveloped land into sprawling low density deveiopment ■ RCW 38.70A�20(10}Environment Pratec#and enhance the environment and quality of life. , ■ RCV1i 36.70A020 j11j Citizen i'articipation and coardination .in the planning pracess and ensure caardirtat'ran betweer�cammunitiesturisdictians to reconci(e conBicts. - � RCW 38.70A02d(12}Public Facitities and services: Ensures that adequa#e public services and faciiities are availabis to serve tand devetapmerrts. • RCW 36.70A190(1!6)calls for each county to designate an urban growth area. • RCW 36.7fl�,.190(3}directs urban grovvth to aTeas�e�cisting or avaitabie puf�iic setvic�s and#aciiifies. � f2CW 36.70A114{4} states#hat"tin) general, cities ere the units of lacal govemment most apprapriate to - prnvide urban...services." � • RCW 36.70A.214(1}ca11s for ci#ies to be primary providers of gavemmental services in urban growfh areas. lnco�porat�on af the Anthone' Area (E�cpanded} in#o the City of Rentan woutd effectively address � Growkh Management Act cri#eria for incorporation of urban areas and is consistent therewith. 5 under city pians and reguiations induding tfie Campreftensive Sewer and 1lUater Fians, Transportation Eiemenf of #he Camprehensive Ptan, Comprehensive SfaRn Water Management Plan}. Renton represerrfai:ives festified fhat fi�e �+r�ff�one' Ar.ea if�cpanded) creates and preserves iogicai service areas by inciuding a greafer number of properties in the City's service area. Annexation of the expanded area wiit enable design and imptementation af efficient, consistent, consotidated senrice programs tfirougt�aut ttte Anthone' Area (Expanded}. These services {e.g., upgrades to rights-oF way; provision of storm water and surface water management systems} will also hetp to p�otect the built environment and the natural environment. King Couryty tt�'iaa#s state#fiat incorpot�atian of the�►rrthotte'f�rea tExpandedj irtta�tiie City of ftertton wil! provide citizens with more effeckive, efficient govemance. A single, integrated annexation would permit coardinated development plans, unifamt service areas and-service�systems, and cohesive environmental protection standards. A more limited, incremental annexation plan will'fu�ther compiicate an already complex service system. The County supports.annexation of small isolated urban areas, such as the Anthane' Area (F�tpanded), because King Counfy does not have the � . resoarces ta efficiently manage and serve unincorporated istands. RCW 36.93,180(4)PREVENTION QF ABNORMALLY IRREGULAF2 BOUNDARIES Annexation of the Anthone' Area (E�cpanded} would provide a reasonable and regular boundary cansistent wifh the Renton Comprehensive Pian Anne�fion ElementlPoterttiat Annexation Area Map. Madi#icatiori of the ariginaf proposal ta include tfte expanded area is desirable to achieve the baundaries necessary to faci{itate coordina#ed land uses and o�Fer a more eifec#ive, e�cient solution to pravision of services. The originaf Anthoi►e' Aeea An�texa#ian would crea#e �a more d�scontinuous than regular baundary. This boundary would nat promote efFective governance, RCW 36.93.480(5)DtSCOURA�EMENT OF MULTIPLE fNCORPORATIONS . RCW 36.93.180{5}is naf applicabte to File No.2199. RCW 36.93.1$0(6)DISSOLUTIQN OF INACTNE 5PECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS RCW 36.93.180 (6) is not applicable to File No.2199. RCvt1 ss.93.1�8tt�T�Ao��srr��rrr o��,c�eic�t�ot�r��,��s Modification o€ #he origina! proposal ta add the aclditior�al 21 acres woufd create more practical boundaries with respect to preservation of Ehe cammunity, govemance, and planning activities (e.g.; establishment of coordinated land uses and development standards.) The Board finds that the Anthane' Area Annexation as submitted does not create a practical boundary. Rather, annexation of this territory fragments communi#y borders.Fragmeoted boundanes result in splintering.of community identity. E�cient provision of public facilities and public services is hindered bydiscontinuous boundaries. Modification and approvai of the Annexatiorr of fhe Attthone'Area(Expandedj wili enabie coordinafed govemance. Expansion of the ariginal baundaries wauld place the natural environment a�d built environment und�r Gity jurisdictian, thus crea#ing more practicai boundaries for lands'administratian and fortfi►e pravi�ion of puf��icfacififiss and services. RCW 36.93.180 i$} INCORPORATION AS CITIES OF2 ANNEXATION TO CITIES QF UNINCORPORATEp AREAS WHiCH ARE Ui2BAN iN GHARACTEFt " The enfire An#hone' Area (�cpanded} is tacated within fhe Urban Growth Area esfabtished by the King Coun#y Gomprehensive Pian. This definition addresses both e�asting iand characteristics and €uture desigr�aiion/use plans applicable to the Anthone'Area (Expanded). The"urban'desigr�atian of #he Anthone'Area (Expanded) is also supported by the State Growth Management Ad. 7 RCW 3$.93.'I$O ANTNONE' AREit {EXPANDED} ANTHONE'AREA t�.$4 (26 AGRES� ACREB� L3BJECTiVE 2 — USE C)F J4DVRNCES CRiTEF2iON 8Y 1NC01�1jSiSTENTWiT}# PHYSICAL BQUNDARIES ACHIEVIN� ESTABLfSHED OBJECTNE- COMPREHENSIVE PAA B�.7UNC1ARlES. OBJECTIVE 3 — CREATION ANQ ADVANCES BAS{C CRlTERlON BY INCON5ISTENT W(TH PRESERVATION OF LOGICAL ENABLING COORDINATED OBJECTNE SERVtCE AREAS SERVICES TO ADDRESS PUBLIC , . HEALTti&WEt�FARE. UBJECTiVE 4—PREVENTidN OF ACrVANCE3 CRtTER10N BY INCONSIS7ENT WITH ABN012tvWtE.Y 1RREGUl.AR CREATIN� REGUtAR SOUNDARY OBJECTNE BOUNDARIES LlNES OSJEC�{y� �3 — �OE8 fidC3�'Af`PL3( D4ES AIOT APPtY DISCOURAGEMENT OF MULTIPLE INCORPORATIONS C?BJECTIVE 6 — L7ISSOLU'fiON DOES tJQT APPl.Y QOES NOT APPLY OF INAC7NE SPECIAL PURPOSE DtSTRiGTS OBJECTIVE 7 — ADJUSTMENT ADVANCES CRITERION SY INCONSIS7EN1"Wfl`H (7F 1MPRACTICAL 80UNDARIES CREAl7NG PRAC7ICAL BOUNDARY OBJEC7IVE LINES OBJECT�VE 8 — ApVANCES CRITEf210N AS ENTIRE INCONSIStENT WfTH INCQRPORATtON ...Oi2 URBRN AREA tS iNCORPORATED OBJECTNE At�t�tFXA71f3fe! Tt7 t�iFlES _... DF 1NTD.9LC�A!_�JlJRtSDiCT20T1. UNINCOf2POE2ATED UF2BAN AREAS OBJECTIVE 9—F'RdTECTlON OF DOES NOT APPLY Does tvor aQ�iY AGRIGUL7URAL AND RURAL LANDS... � ■ State Growth Management Act poticies and King County Comprehensive Plan/Countywide Palieies require (agicat and arcier(y growth. In accbrd with.those gu'rdeiines, RCW 36.93.150 permits the Boarri to modify an annexation (e.g., increase the territary incarporated into a city}to promote lagical and orderly grow'th—e.g.,effec#ive govemance, efficient s�enrice pravision. The Board Fnds that annexation af fhe Azrthone' Area (E�cpandsd} achievesiadvances' the. provisians af the Growih Management Act{36.70A RClt1�. � The King Counfy Camprehensive PlaniCountywide Policies and the Renton Comprehensive Plan contemplate logica! and orderly growth of communities. These Gounty and Gity pfans suppart local govemance ta assure balanced,sound, eost-effective govemance far cammunity mec�bers. The Board fnds that the praposed Anthane'Area {Expanded}Annexation meets the provisions of the King Gounty Comprehensive PIanlCountywide Policies and the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Annexa#ion of the Anthone' Area {Expanded) would achieve that batance� that the Caunty and the City seek fmm incorporations 9 : ; . NOVV,TH�REFQ92E, BE IT RESOLVE[? BY 7HE WA5F�INGTt?N STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOA,RD �4?R KING COUNTY TNAT, for the above reasons, the actian proposed in #he tVotice of Intention contained in said File Na. 2199 be, and the same is, hereby approved with madifications as described in Exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. a4DOPTEl3 �Y SAID VIiA$HINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KtNG GOUNTY by a vote of q . in favor , � in oppasition, and t abstenfions, on this t a day of Sep#ember, 2005, and signed by me in aufhentication af its said adoption on saic!date. WASHtNGTON STATE Bt7UNDARY REVIEIlV BOARD Ft3R KING COUNTY' °•� `�-�:..,t�Gv�1��.�T�..+�., Judy T sandore, Chair F11.ED ihis ��day a "�o�_�.Q�-�..� , 2005 BY: Lenora Btauman; ecutive 5ecretary Nate:Under state law,the City of Renton musf adapf an Urdinance or ResaCution a,ffirrning the Anthone'Area Annexatian (Expanded) folloWing action by the Boundary Review Board. Under state law, fhe Gify must canfirm fhe actian as approved by fhe 8oundary Review Board. Alfernafively, fhe CounciJ may decide not to pursue the acfian. Nowever, the City cannat modify the boundaries fhaf have been approved by the Boundary Revieiv Board. Il EXt�111B1T 1 CITY OF RENTON ANTHONE' AREA (EXPANDED): LE6A!- DESCRIPT{1�N pF MODlFlED ' ` ' ANNEXA710N AREA BOUNDQRIES ANT�iONE ArINEXATION (EXPANDED} � L.EGAL DESCRIPTION That portion o�the 5outheast quarter of"the Southeast quarter vf Secdon 31,Townsb�ip�3 . �lbrth, Range 5 East, �t,M., and .the Northea�t quarter� of the No.rt�heast quarte� af Section 6,Tawnslup 22 North,Range 5 East,W.M.,aIl in King County>Washington, lying westerly af the east line of said Nartheast quarter of the Northeast quazter,noctherly of the existing City L.imits of[tentan as annexed by Ordinance No. 3109, easterly of tfie eacistirig'Ciiy Limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinancs No. 37Sl,an�sautherly af the existing City I.imits of Rentan as annexed by�rdinance No. 3268. . � s z EXHIBIT II CITY OF RENTON ANTHONE'AREA(EXPA�IDED):MAP OF MODIFIED ANNEXATION AREA � " � BOUNDARIES ` _.__...._.. `�' S 50TH ST SE 187TH 5T J W � W � Q SE 188TH ST ��S-�� SE 988`TH ST p _ z N O . � . SE'1901'H•ST Renton sE?90TH'ST SE 190TH PL , r.S'53RD.PL . - _ ; ;"S-i.92ND'ST_... . ... � _ - - _.... ; � -� � :� SE'192Ki[3 S� �, �� . ,... �t�� tn � � . .. , ; . . . ' .. � J �� . W . . . _ a — > _ � T .� q. . Q � � 0 Z. � � o� 0o r- �: � s4rH sr °� � . . _ . . i _ � ��R►ii�so � � : . �a��ur` — i � �►iia�,l� , . . . Kent � � � � w. , Q; �� - . . . > s - . ..�: . 8�j�P� Q = . f-; v rn � , o � , , ` �,.._. . . � - ` S 200Tf-t 5T S 200TH ST � . ' SE'20QTH:ST U3i: ... .,,. . :j..: . El:� . lsJ' � Proposed Anthone Annexation Area � � � : � Original Anthone Annexation � .u.n.� . .. . S;j . __ :�-. �.��.�� Proposed An#hnne/�nn�xa�ion Area � �Z02No:. � � w .w .� +- ?^_ .;__� i Renton -Kent City Limits a � `o o �. _ ►.� Parcels 0 500 1,000 �2��T o o � � Arterials � z � o cn N Feet r- Rt Local Streets � ,, a�„�,��„�,,,� s�2cu�TH sr ��,:�:•.�.,,�..�,e�,m ��,..�....�.o O King County .R...e.�"`�"""°",""^� e,m..�.d,�...,s,��m..�.� .�..,�,�.�.��4� "9G GIS Center �uly 26,zoo5 �;�,��x:w�d�a ;,.,,m.�.,m,�,�...�e,,,,�, 'F�, SE 205TH ST 1R1{avjensUxye`clent s�wios�8o�'i6vyRc+h+�U51�MllidieMiez d+TT�w. .a�''.��erMm.r� . . . j . ... ...:.. ._ ,...... .., .. .. � � . r _ ; THE WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARYREVIEW BOARD � FOR KING COUNTY � � SPECIAL MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING , - � 7.•00 PM Tuesday,August 30, 2005 , Renton Technical College, � , Auditorium, Building C, Room 101 3000 NE Fourth StYeet , Renton, WA , ' AGENDA I. WITNESS SIGN IN-6:30 PM . � It is frotn this list that witnesses are called to testify. IL CALL TO ORDER- 7:00 PM judy Tessandore, Chair , IIL ROLL CALL Charles Booth, Vice-Chair � Van Anderson Ethel Hanis , �Angela Brooks X Claudia Hirschey , Robert Cook � Roger Loschen A.J. Culver�_ ' Michael Marchand � - Lynn Guttmann , ' ' , , � - I r � AGENDA,August 30,2005 Page Two IV. FILE NO. 2199- CITY OF RENTON-ANTHONE A.NNEXATION 6:30 PM Introduction of Exhibits 7:00 PM Introductory Comments on Hearing Procedures and Swearing in of Witnesses 7:00 PM Proponent: Ciry of Renton(20 minutes) 7:20 PM Opponents: Any Government Entities (20 minutes) 7:40 PM General Testimony: Groups are limited to ten minutes and individuals have three minutes to speak Rebuttal: City of Renton(10 minutes) V. FILE NO. 2199 - City of Renton - Anthone Annexation, Board deliberation and direction to the Staff on Resolution anc�Hearing Decision VL ADj0URN1VIENT r . AGENDA,August 30,2005 Page Three ��1Cd�GROUIOVI) ,�TATE1d�ENT The Boundarv Review Board The Boundary Review Board was created in 1967 by the legislature in part to"...provide a method'of guiding and controlling the growth of municipalities..." (RCW 36.93.010). There are eighteen such boards in the State of Washington. _ Board members are residents of the County and serve for four-year terms. They are not allowed to hold other local government offices or jobs. Their compensation is $50.00 per day for work on Board business. Members may not properly discuss proposals under their consideration outside of the public hearing (ex parte communications). The Board is a quasi judicial, administrative body empowered to make decisions on such issues as incorporations, annexations, mergers, disincorporations, etc., by cities, towns, and sewer, water and fire districts. It can approve, deny, or modify a proposal. Board decisions are final unless appealed to the King County Superior Court. With an appeal the Court reviews the file, exhibits, transcript and the board decision, rather than conducting a new hearing. A��earance of Fairness Doctrine In general, decision-makers such as Board members must not only be fair in their actions (i.e., have no conflicts of interest), but must also, to the ordinary citizen, appear to be free of any position or influence which would impair their ability to decide a case fairly. However, the State Supreme Court has held that if a person is of the opinion that a decision-maker is so impaired, that opinion must be stated at the first available opportunity. SUMll�IARY OF I�EARING PROCEDURES Sign-in to Speak A roster will be found on the speaker's podium. Those who wish to testify must sign in before witnesses are sworn. All speakers will be called from this list. If you sign in once, it is not necessary to do so at any continuation of the hearing. � � 1�GENDA,Augicst 30,2005 Page Four E�ibits Please submit exhibits to staff for marking before the Call to Order. The Board must retain all exhibits until a decision is filed and the appeal period ends (thirry days). Speakers Please state your name and address prior to testifying for the benefit of the Court Reporter. When referring to an e�ibit, please state the exhibit letter. � Time Limits If necessary, the Chair may employ a time limit of 3 minutes for individuals and 10 minutes for organized groups. Testitnonv The Boundary Review Board Act requires the consideration of certain factors (see RCW 36.93.170) and specifies objectives the Board must seek to accomplish (see RCW 36.93.180). Testimony and evidence related to these factors and objectives will be the most effective. Cross-Examination Wimesses generally may not question other witnesses or the Board. The Chair may allow cross- examination of expert witnesses under limited circumstances as described in the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedures. Rebuttal The rebuttal shall be limited to 10 minutes. Rebuttal must be prefaced by a citation of the disputed testimony. Rebuttal may not include closing statements, a summary, or any additional information, unless such information is in answer to questions and issues raised in previous testimony. � . AGENDA, August 30, 2005 � , � Page Five � RCW 3b.93.170 �Factors to be. considered.by board-= , � ' Incorparation proceedings exempt from -state enviro.nmentai poiicy . - _, aict. In reaching a decision .on a proposal. ar an�a2ternat�.ve,. the board shall cansider the factors affectinq .such- proprisal; which � � . shall�iriclude, but not be limited to the follo.wingr . . _ � � t1.) Populatian and territory; population. density; land area � and 2.and uses, comprehensive pians at�d zoninq.; as adopted under � . -chapter 35.63, 35A.53, or 3fi.7Q RCW:. comprehensive .plans�and . _ development regulations adopted under �chapter :35.7QA RCW; . . applicable service agr.eements entered .into uncier chapter �36.115�.or� � 39,39 FtCW; applicable interlocal annexat�.an<;agr�ements tietwe�n a,� �: � �county ariii .its cities; gex.capita :assessed .naluation; top.ography; . natural boundaries anr3 cirainage basins, pxoximity ta. othez� . � � � . populated areas; the existe;�ice and preservatio�i ::of..pxime � . . �� . ' , . aqricultural soils and prod`i��ctive agricultuiral ;uses; the li.kelil�oad af 'significant graweh �in the area and"ian adjac;ent z.ncorporated and,.�` _ - �unincorporatecf areas during the� next �ten years% :'Iacation� anti most. . . � desirable future location of_community`fa�i�.ities; . . ' . � � . (2) Municipal services; need 'far. inunicipal services;� ef�'e�t� of � ordir�ances, governmeatal codes, regu2ations. and� resolutions on �:. � . existing uses;, present co�t' anci adequacy af :qove�nmental sern%ce�� and controls in area; prospecCs of govexn:aerital services from other :� sources; prabable future needs for �such.�service�. arid.controls;.:� � � ` � � probable effect .of.pr�oposal �or altern�ative on cost. apd adequacy:�of..� . . . services and contrc►is in area �nd ad�acent. area;. the effect� on� the� . � � , _ : firiances, det�t s��uature, ai�d contra tua2 obiiq�tions. arid,riqhts:of..�. � � all atfected.qi?v�rnmental units; and � . (3} The effect of the propasal •or. alternative on adjacent...: �: areas, on mutu,�l economic and saaial i�terests, and:on the �loc.atl�. governmen�al structure of the county. . , :. � . The Qrovisions of chapter 43.21C�RCt�', 3tate Environment�:�� . : � �. � Policy, shall not apply ta i.ncaiporation praceedinqs covered by-° .- � chapter 35.02 RCW: [1997 c 429 �i� 39: 1989 :a 84. �� 5: 1986� c� 234��.:> ��: �: .:. � � . ' 33.: I982 c .220 § 2; i979 ex.s. c lA2 �§ I�:�.:.i.967 c. 189 $ 17,� . . : � .'. ; . . . . , ; ; . .. �� . . . . ! , . -. . • . . . RCW 36�.93.184 Obj ectives �of �baun�lary �r�view boarct: T2iie . .. .`. �: �. : � . � decisions of� the boundary review board� :shal.l. attempt to .aChieve�the � : � . . 't,, following objectives: ' � � �� - {1) Pzeservati.on af natural. rieighbarhoods atsd commuriiti��s;' ., � . � t2} Ose of physieal. baundaries.: inciudinq bnt nat_li,mi�ed to. �, � bodies of water, highways, and land contours; ' � � � � � � (3) Creation and �preservation of logical se�vice areas; . {9i Prev.ention of abnormally irregular baunda�cies; . ... .� . � � (5) Discauragement of multiple incorporaCians of staall. cities � � and encouraqement of i�corporation of .cities �n.excess .of ten � ' ' thousand population in .heavily populated urban areas; . i6) Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts; ` (7). Adjustmen� of i.mpractical haundaries; , (8) Incorpora�ian as cities or tawns ox annexatian �to cities` . � oz towns �of unincarporated areas which are u=ban in charactez; az�ii` , . (9) Pratection af agricultural and rural lands which are - � designated far long term productive' agricultural and� resource use � by a comprehensive p2an adopted by the county ieqislative � � authority: (1989 c 84 §� 6; 1981 c 332 � 10: 1979 ex.s: c 24�2 � 2; 1957 c 189 § �.8. � � _ - � _ , f . �P � AGENDA, August 30, 2005 � S 50TH ST SE 187TH ST � Puge Si.r m � ►- w Q SE 188TH ST i � � S�515T CT SE 188TH ST p i „ N , ; o , t Q /� � � � � Q � Q SE 190TH ST `°` Renton ~ SE 190TH ST SE 19QTH Pl �: S 53RD PL �! . � r ej' F'(1 S 992ND ST i t T �� y� �� SE 192ND ST # �nri`y �n — � ��f, � � � a i w j = � d r Q rn � Z ' � _ � ! o 94TH ST °' � ! 1 "` ' �� 11 1 �.�. � 1 i ��,,� i ' �! �- :��.�� .e _ . �_::r, � m Kent � ,�� w �= s'98T��'C > Q Q � rn f � � f� o � � rn 1 S 200TH ST � � S 200TH ST SE 2�OTF!ST � a w Proposed Anthone Annexation Area � Original Anihone Annexation w � �e�aesa�t�x � Proposed Anthone Annexation Area 2o2N � w �aenirmt�"r � SE D S a cn = W � � � Renton - Kent City Limiis a w N o � _ `� Parcel5 0 500 1,OOQ S 203RD ST o 0 0 0 �- z � `- ---- Arterials � o u� Local Streets " Feet m � ^,.�� :�±Yyp�h.. SE 204TH ST � :,..,�.. � King Caunty -�---�,wy ,9 GIS Center �u�y 26.2005 •..-.�� L�,, fY�V<M'R�+�.'yeNwu.wrvo�.Vfc�rLLM�n�r�+W5�1 M� . ....,_.,...�...,.,.... ,� _ �, SE 205TH ST L i / r ��_�. I �� Q � � AGENDA, Augc�st 30, 2005 __ _ ___ __ � 1 ----,��.�--- i Page Seveia � � � �Q� —�—�-- -- - -- -�� I _i —� �---�— � � -- : - � � � ------ �' � _ �� `' _----i � t _L_1__I._1J__l1� � _� -- - ; d o �- �, o � t Q� �v � � � � , � �d ° -- � � � � � � i ' � " O� o � ��,��_ �� I _ � E _ ° � ---� � � � _i � ,� ► � ` '. .�_ --�-� �__ I 1�-- ___ ; i ;� � � ,— -- _ - o_ o � � _, � �� -� � � a � - - �� ' 1 I i -� � Q �4_� , ; - - � }� � � �' � ,-__ �� ► _�/ _ � a , — � � -- a---- � �_ -C�'J_ ,_;/ �r- - ` ' ----------- � �/ ,� (�-�\ . ;��—�� ;` � -- ! � D — �------ -- � _ ' --=-- _ . , ' c ; o , �� - I / �' -- �� -_-_- � ; - � � ❑ �--- - � k i � ' � I ► j `�. \ � � ��f ` \ ; - _._---� / r�, ---�.�__ _. -- -- ,� � I � o � � � o \ � � � \ � � � -- S ---� -I - ,, / -�--- _ } � \ , a , � � _�, p I �r Pro ased Anthone' Annexation o 300 �oo � e 3: Existing Structures Map � struc�u�e 1 ; 36Q0 � -- Gity timils Ewuom:�t�:�:cRapn::ns.Nci�Aha�{l�w).&Slrate;tic f'I�nniog � Proposed Annex.Area � � Al•a Pct4h.AJmina�tnnic G Dcl Rmann �oN,t ?lipetmUcr?tx11 _' _ t: �_�. � , PROCE�i3i1V�3 OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY RESOLUTION.AND HEARING DECISION 1N RE: C1TY OF RENTON F1tE NO.: 2199 Anthone'Area , Proposed Annexation King County,Washington I. PUBLIC HEARING OVERVIEW In May of 2005 the City of Renton submitted to the Washington State Boundary Review Board a i�iotice of inferrtion (fiie No. 2199j to annex 4.84 acre territory (Anthone' Areaj based upon an annexation petition by property owners, pursuant to RCVI/35A.14. The Renton Cit�r Council adopted the petition for annexation in January 2005. The Notice of Intention describes the proposal as follows: ■ The northern boundary of the site is formed by S 55�'Street. ■ The western boundary of the site is generally formed by 96�'Avenue South(if extended). ■ The eastern boundary is located west of 98th Avenue South. ■ The southern boundary of the site is generally formed by South 194"'Street(if extended).. On June 21, 2005, the City of Renton invoked jurisdiction pursuant to RCW 36.93.100. In its request for review, the City asked the Boundary Review Board to consider modifcation of the proposaf by adding an additional 21 acres. The proposed Anthone' Area (Expanded) would then total 26 acres. The request for review was based upon the following: ■ The City ofi Renton Comprehensive Plan establishes the junsdiction's commitment to annexation of the entire Anthone'Area (Expanded). ■ An action to consolidate the entire Anthone' Area (Expanded) under a single jurisdiction at this time would enable uniform local govemance and coordinated services. ■ Renton has plans and programs in place which ensure that the City can immediately provide for the Anthone'Area (Expanded) accessible local government and a full array of services. The City has established standards to support appropriate levels of development, services, and protection fiorthe sensitive naturat errvironment. ■ The inclusion of Anthone' Area (Expanded) in the City of Renton would reportedly provide more practical boundaries and logical area for community govemance and services to the community. ■ The State Growth Management Act and the King County Comprehensive Plan both establish local jurisdictions as the appropriate units to govern ur6an areas. A public hearing was conducted on August 30, 2005 before a quorum of the Boundary Review Board in order to consider the original proposal by the City of Renton to incorporate the Anthone' Area Annexation (4.84 acres). ' At the conciusion ofi tfiat pui�iic hearing, fhe $oundary Review Board resoived (9 in fiavor; 1 in opposition)to continue the public hearing to August 31, 2005 to consider Renton's proposed addition of 21 acres to the original 4.84 acre annexation area. The Board determined that there is evidence in the record sufficient to support the conclusion that the original proposal as submitted is inconsistent with one or more of the statutory objectives its decisions must advance (e.g., 36.93 RCW, 36.70A RCVIn. Legal notice having been duly given, a modification hearing was held on August 31, 2005 before a quorum of the Boundary Review Board. 1 s � At the public August 31, 2005 public hearing,the City of Renton, presented evidence in support of the request to add additional temtory to the annexation. The Anthone' Area (Expanded) includes the initially proposed Anthone' Area (4.84 acres), together with adjacent land of 21 acres. The Anthone' Area (Expanded) includes three established residential communities (i.e., Springbrook Terrace, Hi . Park, Talbot Estates) and residential properties slated for new development. The Anthone' Area (Expandec� is located on the southeast side of Renton. The Anthone' Area (F_xpanded) boundaries are more specificaiiy described as fofiows: ■ The northern boundary of the site is formed by South 55th Street/SE192nd Street; this boundary is contiguous with the existing Renton city limits. ■ Tf�e soutfiern boundary of t�he sife is generaiiy formed �y tfie Springbroo�C ifllatershed; fihis boundary is contiguous with the existing Renton city limits. ■ The western boundary is generally formed by Talbot Road South; this;�boundary is contiguous with the existing Renton city limits. g ■ The eastern boundary is generally formed by 100th Avenue SE. � Ti�e Board revie"wed �iie t�io:�1�9 in accord witi� 36.93 f2�iiV. (�oca1 �ovemments —8oundaries — Review Boards). 7'he Board directed particular attention to RCW 36.93.170 (Factors) and RCW 36.93.180 (Objectives). The Board also considered RCW 36.93.150, the statutory authority for modification of annexation proposals. The Board also considered RCW 36.70.A, the Growth Management Act, the King County Comprehensive Plan, the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable state, regional, and local regulations and guidelines. The Boundary Review Board considered two alternative plans for annexation as follows: ■ The City of Renton's initial Notice of tntention for the Anthone'Area Annexation (4.84 acres). ■ Tfle City of Renton's proposed modification of tfie Anthone'�rea �nnexation — identified as the Anthone'Area (Expanded)—at 26 acres. � On the basis of the festimony, evidence and exhibits presented at said fiearing, and fhe mafters on record in said File No. 2199, it is the decision of the Board that the action proposed in said Notice of Intention be, and the same is, hereby approved with modifications to include the Anthone' Area (Expandedj Annexation af approximafeiy �6 acres. Tfie iegai descripfion of the Ar�fhone' Area (Expanded)Annexation, as approved with modifications, is attached hereto and marked as°F�chibit I", together with a map showing the boundaries of the area herein marked as"Exhibit II.° II. FINDINGS The Boundary Review Board finds that Chapters 36.93 RCW, 3G.70A RCW, 35A.14 RCW, King _ County Comprehensive Plan/Coantywide Policies; the Renton Comprehensive Plan and its enabling regulations (e.g., zoning code) are applieable in its consideration of both the original annexation and the proposed modification. The Boundary Review Board finds that the record for File No. 2199 provides sufficient documentation (e.g., technical data, fiscal data), evidence of community information programs, and certification of petitions and/or legislative action to complete its review of the Anthone'Area Annexation (Expanded). RCW 3fi.93.170�'P►CTt3RS AFfECTiRi6 i'i-115 PROPOSAL The Boundary Review Board finds the following Factors(RCW 36.93.170)to be applicable to the City of Renton's initially proposed Anthone'Annexation (4.84 acres) and to the Anthone'Area (Expanded) Annexation (26 acres). Additional authorities applicable to the Anthone'/Anthone'Area (Expanded) 2 .+ include, but are not limited to: 36.70A RC1rV, 35A.14 RCW, }Gng County Comprehensive Plan/Countywide Policies, the Renton Comprehensive Plan and its enabling regulations (e.g., zoning code). These State and local authorities are intended to ensure reasonable development regulafions and adequate public services to local communities A brief review of key issues related to each applicable element is presented below: RCW 36.93.17fl(1�Po�u�.A�ion�f�n��€�r�roR�r The Board finds the following factors to be applicable: Population Density; Proximity to Other Populated Areas; Land Area/Land Uses; Comprehensive Land Use Plans; Topography, Natural Boundaries and Drainage 6asins; Likelihood of Significant Growth in the Area During the Next Ten Years; and Population Density/Proximity to Other Populated Areas/Land Area/Land Uses. Following is a brief review of key issues related to these factors. The entire Anthone'Area (Expanded) lies within the Urban Growth Area delineated by King County_ The community is unified with respect to its specific physical elements (e.g., geographic features) and social elements. The King County Comprehensive Plan contemplates transfer of the Anthone' Area (Expanded) to a local jurisdiction. County Comprehensive Plan/Countywide Policies call for contiguous orderly growth of local jurisdictions (e.g., U-304, U-208, U-301, U-304.). Policies also establish cities as the appropriate providers of local govemance and urban services (e.g., FW 13, CO-1, CO-3; LU-31 - LU- . 34, LU-36). King County Policy LU-31 requires cities to designate potential annexation areas to include adjacent urban lands and to eliminate unincorporated islands between cities. Policy LU-32 calls upon cities to incorporate lands within annexation areas into city boundaries. In addition, the Anthone' Area (Expanded) is included in the "Annexation Element" of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and is located within the City's Potential Annexation Area. The proposed action is based upon Renton Comprehensive Plan annexation policies, including the policies supporting inclusion of urban areas within the City for local govemance and pertaining to encouraging annexations in areas where urban infrastructure and services are available for development at urban densities and in areas contiguous to City boundaries (e.g., Land Use Policies LU-378; LU-386; LU- 388). Tfie evidence shows that the Anthone' Area (Expandedj wili iikely experience continuing urban growth over the next ten years. . The Anthone' Area (Expanded) comprises primarily residential development. However, there is vacant land that is suitable and perrnitted for new residential development and there is land that is appropriate for redevelopment with residential uses. The City of Renton Comprehensive Plan provides for growth at urban levels of density which are consisfenf with the f>uiif environmerrt and supporf the naturai environmenf surrounding the Anthone' Area (Expanded). City plans permit only residential development in the Anthone' Area (Expanded). Future develbpment would be generally similar to and compatible with existing housing in terms of land designation and zoning/density (ranging from fve units to eight units.per net acre in Renton as compared to a range of four units to 12 units per gross acre in King County. The City would also provide for design standards (e.g., setback, permeable surfaces) for new development in the Anthone' Area (Expanded). Under the City's Comprehensive Plan, citizens of the Anthone' Area (Expanded)would also be provided with uniform public services,facilities and infrastructure. The Anfhone' Area (Expandedj lands contains variaf�ie fopography (inciuding iandsiide and erosion hazards); and native vegetation occurs in some areas. There are substantially sensitive natural features and built features near to, but not necessarily within,the Anthone'Area (Expanded) including the Springbrook Watershed, aquifer, wetlands, and a trout farm. Upon annexation, the City of Renton plans to administer development and services to the Anthone' Area (Expanded) under regulatory controls designed to protect environmentally sensitive areas. These regulatory controls include, but are not limited to, development standards, surface/storm water management programs, and maintenance of open space/vegetated areas. 3 r, � The annexation of Anthone' Area (Expanded), would allow immediate, consistent, and coordinated development plans, environmental protection standards, and public services throughout the enfire Anthone'Area (Expanded) community. RCW 36.93.17t�tZ)fittt�t�iciPAi S��ttc�s RCW 36.93.170 (2) directs the Board to evaluate factors related to Municipal Services. The Board considered the following factors to be applicable; need for municipal services; effects of ordinances, governmental codes, regulations and resolutions on existing uses; present cost and adequacy of govemmental services and controls in area; probable future need for such services; costs; effect on the finance, debt structure and contractual obligations; and prospects of govemment services from other sources, and rights of other affected govemmental units. Following is a brief review of key issues related to these factors. The evidence shows that the Anthone' Area and Anthone' Area (Expanded), which are urban lands, require municipal services and facilities. Service goals and policies for urban areas are established by the State Growth Management Act and the King County Comprehensive Plan. For example, King Courity fiN-93 sfafes ti�at cifies are the appropriafe provider of iocai urban services to tfrban Areas. FW 29 and FW 30 address the need for jurisdictions to Plan for -and coordinate services. . Additionally, annexation is appropriate under Countywide Policy CO-1, when a jurisdiction has "identified and planned for(a)full range of urban services". Consistent with the State Growth Management Act and the King County Plan, the City of Renton has developed policies — through the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Comprehensive Service Plans, and other regulatory authorities—for provision of seroices to all properties within its corporate boundaries. Upon annexation, the City of Renton would include the newly incorporated area in the municipality's Service Area. Then, as is its custom, the City can provide—directly or by contract—a full array of specific service plans and programs for public services including: water service, surtace water management, sewer service, fire service, police service, emergency medical services, utilities, road maintenance, law and justice services, human services, libraries, and parks and recreation services. The School District would continue to administer school assignments and is unaffected by the proposed annexation. The City of Renton conducted fiscai anaiyses for the proposed Anthone� Area Annexation (Expanded) and determined that sufficient funds area available to serve the area. At present development levels, City expenditures are estimate� at $73,699 and revenues are estimated at $78,289. At full development, City expenditures are estimated at $104,424 and revenues are estimated at $108,241. In addition, there would be a one-time cost for Parks Acquisition and Development of$68,313 associated with this annexation. Renton's fiscal analysis repo�ts that costs for governance and service_are related to state revenues, local property assessments, and city costs. These costs are generally based upon an averaged estimate of per capita use (e.g., police, parks, sewers). Following annexation property owners wili no longer pay County taxes for services and wouid.assume their share of the City's regular and special levy rates for capital facilities and public services. Fiscal studies demonstrate that the City would be able to sustain levels of service to the entire community at reasonabie customer rates inciuding sewer service and water service to individuai properties. Further, the City has established a plan whereby building and maintenance of roadways will be funded in part by the developer of new homes and in part by the City of Renton. Thus,the addition of fi�e Arrti�one' ,4rea (�xpanded) properties is not expected to fiave a signiflcattt impact on revenue or upon cost and adequacy of services, finances, debt structure or rights of other govemmental units. Future capital needs and costs will be examined and funded through the Renton Capital Investment Program. King County supports annexation of the Anthone' Area (Expanded) (26 acres). This consolidated action creates a more logical municipal service area. T►�e City can provide more cohesive policies, standards, programs, cohesive operations, and efficient, economic control of services than would result from the more limited Anfhone' Area (4.84 acres). Annexation of the Anthone' Area at 4.84 4 .1 �� acres would resuit in fragmented senrices as t�oth County providers and locai providers witi b� required to serve the community. Thus, services will be more effective, more efficient, and less costly to both govemment and citizens with the annexation of the Anthone'Area (�cpanded). RCV1f�$.�3.17fl(3j EFFECTS OF f3ROPOSAt RCW 36.93.170(3) directs the Board to evaluate issues related to effects upon the community from a proposed action. For File No. 2199, the Board considered mutual economic and social interests, and focai govemme�structure effecfs to be appticabie. �e following is a brief review of key issues. � The Anthone' Area (Expanded) is contiguous to — and shares mutual social and economic profiles with —fi�e Cify of Renton. Coardina4ed ir�fegration of citizens of fi�e Anti�one' Area (Expanded) irrto Renton would preserve social organization, support economic health, and protect public safety and welfare. New citizens would be able to participate in local govemance including land use planning, service planning, fiscal planning and planning for public amenities to serve the community. Renton officials testified that the City is prepared to govem and to provide full services to this community. King Coumy supports fi�e Anthone' �rea (Expandedj �nnexafion as fhe acfion that is in ti�e best interests of all parties. State law, the King County Comprehensive Plan, and the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan each encourage local governance of communities. Annexation of the Anthone' Area (�xpandedj is also consistent with the King County Annexation Initiative, which calls for annexation of urban lands to local jurisdictions at the earliest feasible date. Immediate annexation of the Anthone' Area (Expanded) better promotes balanced govemance than does fhe incremenfai incorporation proposed in ifi�e inifial�nffione'�rea Annexafion. lncorporafion of the Anthone'Area (Expanded) into the City of.Renton promotes strong and unified local government. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT RCW 36.93.157 provides that Boundary Review Board decisions must be consistent with three sections of the Growth Management Act: ■ RCW 36.70A020 Planning Goals ■ RCW 36.70A110 Urban Growth Areas ■ RCW 36.70A210 Countywide Planning Policies With respect to File No. 2199, the key Growth Management issues involve the Countywide Planning Policies pertaining to land use and municipal services(RCW 36.70A.020 and RCW 36.70A.110). The Growth Management Act policies that guide the provision of public services and that are relevant to fhe proposed Annexation inciude: ■ RCW 36.70A.020 (1) Urban Growth: Encourages development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided efficiently. ■ RCW 36.70A.020 (2) Reduce Sprawl: Reduce inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling low-density development. ■ RCW 36.70A020(10}Environment: Protect and enhance the environment and quality of life. ■ RCW 36.70A020 (11j� Citizen" Participation and coordination in tfie �planning process and ensure coordination between communitiesfjurisdictions to reconcile conflicts. ■ RCW 36.70A.020(12)Public Facilities and services: Ensures that adequate public services and facilities are avaiiable to serve iand developments. � ■ RCW 36.70A.110(1/6)calls for each county to designate an urban growth area. ■ RCW 36.70A9'4fl(3j directs urban grawEh to areas with existing or avaiiat�ie pubiic services and fiaciiities. ■ RCW 36.70A.110 (4) states that "(in) general, cities are the units of local government most appropriate to provide urban ...services." ■ f2CW 36.7flA21fl(1j calls for cities to be primary providers ofi governmentai services in urban growth areas. Incorporation of the Anthone' Area (Expanded) into the City of Renton would effectively address Growth Management Act criteria for incorporation of urban areas and is consistent therewith. 5 t� r; RCW 36.93.180 OBJECTIVES The Boundary Review Board considered RCW 36.93.180 (Objectives), as follows: RCi�13fi.93.18fl(1)PResEizvA�ioN of�tA'rt�w4t t�iGFtso�oo�s i►i�fl cot��ttit�iTtEs � The evidence shows that the Anthone'Area (Expanded) is a neighborhood as that term is defined by case law, as "either geographically distinct areas or socially... distinct groups of residents". The Anthone' Area (Expanded�, in its entirety, exhibits many features that support its link with the City. Both the Anthone' Area (Expanded) and the adjacent City lands are residential, in character. Demographic profiles are similar. Residents of the City and the Anthone' Area (F�cpanded) use common cornmunity facilities—schools, roadways, libraries, shopping centers, parks, and recreation facilities. Further the entire Antfione' Area (Expandedj is linked by its proximity to signiflcant environmental features, including the Springbrook Creek Watershed and aquifer, wetlands, and trout farm. The "built community" both affects and is affected by these natural features. The City of Renton Comprehensive Plan includes annexation of the Anthone'Area (Expanded). The City has already included the Anthone'Area (Expanded) in community planning programs in order to guide its growth and to provide coordinated services. Annexation of the Anthone' Area (Expande� supports the preservation of the neighborhood because this action would provide stronger links within the greater community and would encourage a more effective connection to the City of Renton. Annexafion of tf�e Ar�ff�one' Area (E�cpandedj advances preservation of the neighborhood because this action would provide stronger tools by which the City of Renton can guide coordinated community development in a manner which considers both built lands and the critical natural areas. Renton officials testifed that the Antfione' Area (�xpandedj Annexation would pro�de a11 property owners/residents a voice and a vote in planning for the future preservation and development of their community. Community representatives demonstrate plans to effectively govern and serve this area as a part of a unified community. King County representative Michael Thomas stated that the County supports the annexation of the entire Anthone'Area (Expandedj because this incorporation would be consistent with state, regional and local guidelines. Further, annexation at this time will benefit the citizens by providing uniform governance of the Area. RC1N 36.93.1$fl (�)tisf of t�rsict►t sovt�DAtttEs,1�iCtUD1NG BtiT NOT t1M1TED TO BOti1E$ Of 1A1A1'ER, HIGHWAYS,AND LAND CONTOURS The physical boundaries of the annexation, as expanded, support modification of the original annexation and approval ofi the modified area. City representatives have shown evidence that the proposed Anthone' Area (Expanded) Annexation addresses reasonable physical boundaries (e.g., co-terminus borders, rights-of way), and individual property lines. "Social neighborhoods" may also be the basis for boundaries. The evidence shows that the City and the Anthone'Area (Expanded)form a single social neighborhood. Annexation of the Anthone' Area (Expanded) furthers the planning goals which support incorporation of the greater unincorporated area in King County. This comprehensive annexation will create a unified community with established physical and social boundaries. Approval of the original Anthone' Area Annexation without modification would create confusion with respect to community identification. RCW 36.93.180(3)CREATION AND PRESERVATION OF LOGICAL SERVICE AREAS , Annexation of Anthone' Area (Expanded) into the City of Renton will advance the creation and presenration of logical service areas. The King County Comprehensive Plan and Renton's Comprehensive Plan identify the City as the provider of services for the entire Anthone' Area (F�cpande�. Renton has autnority and responsibility to provide public services to al1 of its citizens 6 . .* under city pians and reguiations including the Comprehensive Sewer and Wa�er Fians, Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan). Rerrton represe�fafives testified tf�af-ffie A�fione' i�rea i�xpandedj creates and preserves iogicai service areas by including a greater number of properties in the City's service area. Annexation of the expanded area will enable design and implementation of efficient, �consistent, consolidated service programs tl�roughout tfie Anthone' Area (Expandec�. These services (e.g., upgrades to rights-of-way; provision of storm water and surtace water management systems) will also help to protect the built environment and the natural environment. King Courrfy afficiais sfafe thaf incorporation of the�nthone'�rea (facpandedj irrto ti�e Cify ofi Rerrton will provide citizens with more effective, efficient govemance. A single, integrated annexation would permit coordinated�development plans, uniform service areas and service systems, and cohesive environmental protection standards. A more limited, incremental annexation plan will further complicate an already complex service system. The County supports annexation of small isolated urban areas, such as,the Anthone' Area (Expanded),.because King County does not have the, : resources to efficiently manage and�serve anincorporated islands. � RCW 36.93.180(4)PREVENTION OF ABNORMALLY IRREGULAR BOUNDARIES Annexation of the Anthone' Area (Expanded) would provide a reasonable and regular boundary consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Pian Annexation ElemenUPotential Annexation Area Map. Modification of the original proposal to include the expanded area is desirable to achieve the boundaries necessary to facilitate coordinated land uses and offer a more effective, efficient solution ' to provision of services. The original Anthone' Area Annexation would create �a more discontinuous than regular boundary. ' This.boundary would not promote effective governance. RCW 36.93.180(5)DISCOURAGEMENT OF MULTIPLE INCORPORATIONS RCW 36.93.180 (5) is not applicable to File No.2199. RCW 36.93.180(6)DISSOLUTION OF INACTIVE SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS RCW 36.93.180 (6) is not applicable to File No.2199. RCV113S.93.1$0 i�j�►D.�USTMfNT OF 1MPRACT1CAt 80UNDA121fS Modification of the original proposal to add the additional 21 acres would create more practical boundaries with respect to preservation of the community, governance, and planning activities (e.g., establishmenf of coordinated land uses and development standards.) The Board finds that the Anthone' Area Annexation as submitted does not create a practical boundary. Rather, annexation of this territory fragments community borders. Fragmented boundaries result in splintering of community identity. Efficient._provision of public facilities and public services is hindered by discontinuous boundaries. Modificafion and approvai ofiffie Annexation ofitfie Arifhone'Area (Expandedj wiit enabie coordinated govemance. Expansion of the original boundaries would place the natural environment and built environment under City jurisdiction, thus creating more practical boundaries for lands' administration and forfhe provision of pubiicfaciiities and services. RCW 36.93.180 (8) INCORPORATION AS CITIES OR ANNEXATION TO CITIES OF UNIfVCORPORATED AREAS WHICH ARE URBAN IN CHARACTER The entire Anthone' Area (Expanded) is located within the Urban Growth Area .established by the King County Comprehensive Plan. This definition addresses both existing land characteristics and future designation/use plans applicable to the Anthone'Area (Expanded). The "urban"designation of the Anthone'Area (Expanded) is also supported by the State Growth Management Act. 7 ,.. .: The City of Renton Comprehensive Plan includes the entire Anthone'Area (Expanded) in its Potential Annexation Area. Immediate annexation of the Anthone.° Area (Expanded) into Renton will promote uniform govemance, development, and se�vices appropriate for this urban territory. RCW 3f.93.9$fl (9} P�o°P�c`rior� o� a�tct��.�r�at �� R�t �a��s ��R to�� 'r€tx�n �o�c�rt�t� AGRICULTURAURESOURCE USE RCW 36.93.180 (9)is not applicable to Fil� No. 2199. III. BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FINDINGS AND DECISIONS The Boundary Review Board conducted review and deliberation of File No. 2199 based upon the record of written documents and oral testimony, in keeping with applicable state, regional and local regulations. The Board considered Chapter 36.93 RCW (Boundary Review Board Enabling Act); Chapter 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act); King County Comprehensive Plan/Countywide Policies; City of Renton Comprehensive Plans, Chapter 35A.14 RCW (Annexation by Code Cities); and other relevant regulations and guidelines. The,role of the Boundary Review is to implement these existing laws;the Board does not have the authority to make law or policy. As prescribed by statutory mandate,the Boundary Review Board considered the following options: ■ The Anthone'Area Annexation (4.84 acres) could be accepted as initially proposed by the City of Renton if this action achieves the provisions of 36.93 RCW and other applicable regulations (e.g., 36:70A RCW, King County Comprehensive Plan, Renton Comprehensive Plan). ■ The Anthone' Area Annexation could be modified as proposed by the City of Renton to incorporate 26 acres (Anthone'Area—E�cpanded) if the proposed expansion achieves the basic requirements of 36.93 RCW and other applicable regulations (e.g., the State Growth Management Act, the King County Comprehensive Plan, and the Renton Comprehensive Plan). Such a modification can be accomplished pursuant to RCW 36.93.150, which establishes the standard by which the Board may revise annexation boundaries to cities. This altern�tive would require all properties within the Anthone'Area (Expanded) to immediately be incorporated into the City of Renton. � The record for File No. 2199 is deta7led and extensive. The parties provided considerable materials supporting their positions. The Board has deliberated upon the complete record in order to come to a decision for the proposed Anthone' Area Annexation and the proposed altemative Anthone' Area Annexation (Expanded). The Board finds that: ■ Annexation of the Anthone'Area (Expanded) achieves/advances the provisions of 36.93 RCW. For example, the Anthone'Area (Expanded) annexation addresses criteria established in RCW 36.93.170 with respect to population, territory, comprehensive planning, land uses, natural environment, service needs and service capacity, and mutual social and economic needs, et al. The initially proposed Anthone' Area is inconsistent with the preponderance of provisions of RCW 39.63.170. Additionally, the proposed Anthone' Area Annexation and the Anthone' Area (Expanded) were evaluated according to the criteria established in RCW 36.93.180 as follows: RCW 36.93.180 ANTHONE' AREA �EXPANDED� ANTHONE'AREA•(4.84 (26 ACRES� ACRES� OBJEC`TiVE 1 -PRfSERVA'f10N ADVANCES CFIi?£R1bT�i 8Y INCONSISTfNT'WffH OF NATURAL NEIGHBORHOODS ANNEXATION OF PROPERTIES OBJECTIVE AND COMMUNITIES INCLUDED IN A NATURAL COMMUNITY g ;:: , :� � RCW 36.93.180 ANTHONE' AREA ��XPANDED� QNTHONE'/�1REA(4.84 (26 ACRES� ACRES� C38JECTIVE 2 —. {.1SE Of ADVANCES CRITERION BY 1NCONSiSTENTINITH PHYSICAL BOUNDARIES ACHIEVING ESTABLISHED OBJECTNE COMPREHENSIVE PAA SO�.INDARIES. OBJECTIVE 3 — CREATION AND ADVANCES BASIC CRITERION BY INCONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION OF LOGICAL ENABLING COORDINATED OBJECTNE SERVICE AREAS SERVICES TO ADDRESS PUBLIC HEALTH&WELFARE. OBJECTIVE 4—PREVENTION OF ADVANCES CRITERION BY INCONSISTENT WITH ABNORMALLY IRREGULAR CREATING REGULAR BOUNDARY OBJECTIVE BOUNDARIES LINES Os,�c��v� 5 — Does rdo�r�t.�r poes�vo�A�+�t� - DISCOURAGEMENT OF MULTIPLE INCORPORATIONS OBJECTIVE 6 — DISSOLUTION DOES NOT APPLY DOES NOT APPLY , OF INACTIVE SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS OBJECTIVE 7 — AWUSTMENT ADVANCES CRITER�ON BY INCONSISTENT WITH OF IMPRACTICAL BOUNDARIES CREATING PRAC7ICAL BOUNDARY OBJECTIVE LINES OBJECTIVE 8 — ADVANCES CRITERION AS ENTIRE INCONSISTENT WITH IPICORPORATION ...OR URBAN AREA IS INCORPORATED OBJECTIVE ANNEXATIDN TD �lTIES .... OF lA1TD A LO�AL dlJRLSDJCTlON. UNINCORPORATED URBAN - AREAS OBJECTIVE 9—PROTECTION OF DOES NOT APPLY DDES NOT APPLY AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL LANDS... ■ State Growth Management Act policies and King County Comprehensive Plan/Countywide Policies require logical and orderly growth. In accord with those guidelines, RCW 36.93.150 permits,the Board to modify an annexation (e.g., increase the territory incorporated into a city)to promote logical and orderly growth—e.g., effective govemance, efficient service provision. The .Board finds that annexation of the Anthone' Area .(Expanded) achieves/advances the provisions of the Growth Management Act(36.70A RC1AQ. ■ The King County Comprehensive Plan/Countywide Policies and the Renton Comprehensive Plan contemplate logical and ordeiiy growth of communities. These County and City plans support local govemance to assure balanced, sound, cost-effective govemance for community members. The Board finds that the proposed Anthone'Area (Expanded)Annexation meets the provisions of the King County Comprehensive Plan/Countywide Policies and the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Annexation of the Anthone' Area (Expanded) would achieve that balance that the County and the City seek from incorporations 9 }. ' IV. CONCLUSIONS The Board finds that approval of the annexation as modified advances the goals established in the Boundary Review Board Act (36.93 RCW ), Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), King County � Comprehensive Plan, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, and other state and locai guidelines for incorporation of urban areas. The Boundary Review Board approvai of tfie City of Renton Notice of intention to annex the Anthone' Area with modifications to include the Anthone' Area (Expanded) is timely based upon the City of Renton's commitment — as established in the Renton Comprehensive Plan —to guide development and provide municipal services to this area. Annexation will enable the City of Renton to provide a harmonious, efficient plan for govemance of the built community, preservation of the natural environment, and protection of public welfare. , 10 � � R NOW,7HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY THAT, for the above reasons, the action proposed in the Notice of Intention contained in said File No. 2199 be, and the same is, hereby approved with modifications as described in Exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. �4DOPTED BY SAID WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY by a vote of �_ in favor , L in opposition, and l abstentions, on this I al day of September, 2005, and signed by me in authentication of its said adoption on said date. WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY �. �� Judy T sandore, Chair flLED this ��day o , 2005 BY: � Lenora Blauman; ecutive Secretary Note: Under state law, fhe City of Renton must adopt an Ordinance or Reso/ution affirming the Anthone'Area Annexation (Expanded) folloWing acfion by the Boundary Review Board. Under state law, the City musf confirm the action as approved by the Boundary Review Board. Alfernatively, the Counci!may decide not to - pursue the action. However, the. City cannot modify the boundaries that have been approved by the Boundary Review Board. 11 ,. �, j EXHIBITS EXHIBIT I CITY OF RENTON ANTHONE' AREA (EXPANDED�: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF MODIFIED ANNEXATION�►REA BOUNDARIES EXHIBIT II CITY OF RENTON ANTHONE'AREA(EXPANDED): MAP OF MODIFIED ANfVEXATION AREA BOUNDARIES 12 , EX�IlBIT( Cl7Y OF RENTON ANTHONE' AREA (EXPANDED): LEGAL DESCRIPT(ON OF MODIFIED � ANNEXA710N AREA BOUNDARIES ANTHUNE AhiNT+�'XATIUN tEXPANDEti) �.EGAL DESCRIPTxUN That portian of the Southeast quarter of che Soatheast quarter of Sect�on 31,Tawnship 23 . �Vor�h, Range 5 East, �i.M„ and the Northeas.t �uarters. of the No.rt�heast quar�er of �ectian 6,TownsEzip 22 F1orth,Fiange 5 East,W.M,,a�l in Kang Caunty,Washington, lying westerly of the east lin$ef said Northeast quarter of the 1�Iartheast quarter,nartherly of the existing City Limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance No.3l49,easterly of che exisdng'City Limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance No. 37S l,and sc�utherly of the existing City I.imits of Rentan as annexed by Ordinance No:3268. EXHIBIT f) CITY OF RENTON ANTHONE'AREA(EXPANDED):MAP OF MODIFIED ANNEXATION AREA � ; BOUNDARIES � S 50TH ST SE 187TH ST � w � � w � � SE 188TH ST S�;51 ST CT SE 188TH ST p I N � O Q � �^ SE 190TH ST `° Renton � SE 190TH ST �(; S 53RD PL SE 190TH PL S 192ND ST T T �fy, ,,�-w,�� w SE 192ND ST �fe� cn — tn a ! w '�� _ � ¢ � i ;�Ik;s,��ti Y.*�� Q rn � � � Z 1 i � i o � 94TH ST °' i� � � '��n��,�� : � u�i�� i� �u�er�� 0 m Kent � ,�4 � W a �l S'98THP� a = � � rn j` � �*o � � rn S 200TH ST � S 200TH ST SE 200TH 5T u� a w � Proposed Anthone Annexation Area L� Original Anthone Annexation � ��h�eoa�� p S� a � i Proposed Anthone Annexation Area � SE 202N � _ "Y�U�I►odC` LtJ u.l --� 1— O Renton - Kent City Limits _ Q w o p � S 203RD ST � Z � Parcels 0 500 1,000 o Z � � Arterials � � �' Feet � m Local Streets � N,�n� ��i ^ SE 204TH ST . Kng Courrty �"� ��.._� 9 GIS Center �uiy zs,2005 w�-'�"`M- � L� SE 205TH ST iHy n..x.w�vsv ., .�:a�.��wv�+......,ns�w n�un,Km�.�e �>....,�...,.,K„>.�„c>�., ' � t� - �� , �� i ��, ////'//(n �� j ' � ' . + • �G _ - ,�� / .� "'�� . � vl...�n - _ ' w.:� ._..__....._........_.....�.a.....� ..�. �.._.... ..._.. -_ ___. _,__ _.. _ _... ._�-.•..-e...-� -../��- � -..e__ _ r-.,._..�.�—.—e_� .-.��.-�-a...t. n �_'—' _ _"�' ( '"_...�_ `R�({�.`ww...._�......e..»��. ....-,...�-..a=. ' ��...�. C� C � �4V`. �/ '—�\{1 e..^ ' �--._ .,� _ -_ _C�.- _..�.,�� v�. �U' ,�� _, _.._...�,.�.�.-_. �-�-f �----- ��-''�"� . �,'�,��'�'�l<il�u� � _ _._ _.��. , _ (L�_.__ __� �,_� V - _ y 1 _.. � . ._^_��,.. .�'ffi ��, �� , � ��, - ��/='Wy-`�- ' �''� , /�,"�Mm�, �^ ___. � _ _ . � W_� "___`a'_�T``�� J� `,_.a,_.r '�'.___...;__ �`�'° i L��c� f T�_ - _ __ � _ °-�,�.'"—, - —��' - - - � .�� W�� ►_ -- `�.`�f' �. � � �.__� .� � ti�`�' .�� -..� i � �� ;�_�`g�'l U ----- �� --�;- � ` -~-�=�,�- G- -! - - --o---______.�_-�_�_______.___�_...., � � �� j �� , � ^ `V�!l�� ' ��,f�� . �V UU-'_ ----1:�. ��J� _ � .__�__�.... � �"'�'''��'(/ I - — - ......_.r... �� C��tc� _. _ ---__.. ___.---,-. � —_____- _ .�_ ._al�._.� - .�.� , i.�__�____�._ � �_�__.__ n��..� , .� =��r____.__.___��. �i ____`�_ .�i��' _�__._.��--- __� � _ _� �- . � ; �� ^ -- ) ��i�� - � (�/ �� _J�vt��d��v`"' �_.. �._._��.�.� �iU��"�x' �.,.____._._��/`� _ �._ '�.�. ' . ` , �� ____�� _ __._ _ _�� -__ _�___ _.� � ' Y,'W - --- '�'� -- --'_� _ __ ,� ��'�� —J---�–�- � ��---�– �,_ _..��_d� _.�� -- --__._�._.� � _ �n ._- � - ��-Cv+�-�.�-.-_ffi��!�—�.�____ _ _ `�_a�_ - �....._._._ .��'��._ ' _ __ � �._�_ . - -- '��L�.�'i`��5 �! _�..� �'�" �._ �✓� �(y�•�� __ �'v-�-"-�- _�--_ --��_ � '1�►� �w11;S I ! �, ��_ _ � � ��_1__ .�_ _ � ___�� _.��. __.. �..� �. � �._.._______._ .w._..�.,�.___ I _r _.�.._.�.� _______ w _.._ �_�W(J�1..-___._V`�"�._�_� .f �� ._._..��._y.� CJ��^�� — —� � �� }_� _.; � �_____ ____��_ _ _�_�...__.._.�_- � _ ______�..�n__._�.��_��___. ____.._.___.� A�. I j� -.-.-�. ---- ---�----- _____ .��..___ _ ._.�____._.�__�____.__.___�,_-.�_..�a.�...__.__��_ _�___..-------_��. ___._ - - _--.__.____ �_____.___�_�� _�_,._T�___ _ _____e.__w�.�_� ___..�.�� .,��_�.�_._�.�____ _�J �_,__.__�.__._��___.----_��_�._____..___._�___�.�...__�._____,___ __�._�.�.�_��,.___._._..____�,�._ �.�_._z��_v_-- ___ �, �_ ,�. . .. ,� ; + �.._.,�...__�...�..�._..,@_..=_a---�1- _. —__.......__�v------_�___—_w.__�..__�._._��-__--�-------�--------�-------.,.�,..__ __.v.--------.____�-- ------ I`i �_.__�,�_.��_---.�-__--___� . .._—��.�.__.�_�_� _r.___�_`__.—�__________.�---.--�_.—__.,..�.�_— �T __________..____.__.�.__.__.___.�.__::.��.___.----.. _ . :.. <. . .,.... , ,,, . . :::;. ,,..: . - �rl/l��. �'.� � �L1�7/.1.3`f 5� a�� --� � , . _ i � . : � i . ]fl eve o er arre ste :c �r e `nn � e ; p t. . � g � . . , Angry investors demand their'YYlOney baCl� The .43-year-old develope��t thon�on � - more than.a:dozen lawsuits a g them are nine investors in � ' liim for claims of breaches of contract a ,housing deve lopment.in Renton i , BY CECILIA KANG thone,the chief.executive of MA Quik and fraud.At least 40 investors—some called Eden Estates,whirhthey say has r-t reporter Framing Inc.,. Saturday on a 2004 of them small-business'owners in the been-at a standstill for one year. ' bench ivarrant to.answer to charges.of Central District—say.they stand'to lose According to investors at the meet- I Police recently arrested local de-, ogeratizig as an tiriiicensed,contractor . more thari$500;000 on more than a ing with Anthone on Saturday,the de- veloper Laurance.D. Aiathone as, he= :and at�empted third-degree theft. dozen projects: . veloper's brother called the nine inves- ! met with angry investors alerted by a, ' An�tione was released from.King' ; After ttie P-I�story.on the long.pat- tors in Eden Estates to meet at MA � Seattle Post-Intelligencer story' and County jail the next day after posting tem of unsucce�sful projects'by-MA Quik's'llikwilaofficeto�hearanupdate � _ who now wanf their money.back. b"ond of$15,825.Neither Anthone nor Quik Framing,several more investors o.n the project. : i Responding to a call by one of the his lawyer responded to requests for 4 have come forward saying they lost ` � investors,Ttilcwila police arrested An- . comment yesterday � money in property deals led by An- SEE DEVE�oPER,65` � . - ! � , � . :... .:,.....;, � ,,,, . �.,.: �., ,�uy...:,::.. .�,..,. . . . .. .. _. . .. . _. . ..... . ... . ., ..._ , . .. . . . .. . . . - . ,.O..._ � . ' � . . � -. . tJl . o�. " `° � �a �v � M�� .� � � � o��',,� o � �'�o� �'� , N� cu o�, . oo � g•��, �� o..fD � �� :¢` � � � a�'�.��5•� �'q•� ��•�� M'[''� . �C �c � o.� p,co �'�'r�o � . °'. �'�'''m . � o c� � � N ��,�c o�� y � �'. ,� v c� � � �`° � � a, �gy.., � �'-o�. ° ot�� '�� S�o ° �c�oH � S' �� a� y �� wS �.� �,� �� " m �' � °�� v��'� °.o�'�. O - . . �� :� � wza�°� fD ^`�'� a,'��"�o �o � o � � � � � y ��' �� y � �,�..� .� v ` �o �' � �� OQ � r* �`��' �� r'"' � � a.��° � o � o O �r• � � � �co� �'o �.� �oa �'�'° � � � tt��'`° �p'° �` C��`4 �, A c � �' �'�.x� �� o Q' fD n �c�Do o �� o��`� �..`d a� �,o��o�a �� , l J 1 - �* r o ° � ��, � o a.� �CD c �'•� ay �°,00:� �' �.a�o o.�.��n�. i _ - � � � . � rn �,Er� ?; m � �y a,��`< �y.. 'o �—• o. �+ �y . n vifD.� R' Q� N.:� .��. '�7'C'.v0� �p'b � rrpq - p N a"5�� P � � � � O `"'y�'�"(p�.O,p�'N � �- �' f�.q.a�'.r-�.- �� O.ry�o r.�-'O O�p'b p�.0 v�„� . .. ^. , � � � , � o� �� SrfD � �� o� �a.o $ co ,� �oo � � °�,�'� ` ��" � c� ro�° � oq ��p i4 rr n cD.� � fD c~i, 04 b �n O tn� �� I .f3.c� .�, � ° � = o� �°� wo o � �, � � . �•�ow � �.� � � c� � zr,x w w F"'� (� � � � co � C � � �, p2.i �p �.NG'C� � � \ � n 7 ' �p,� A1� "� C 'y � .[r� .N N�r� ►t P Vl. �..,. fD. �� . . . eD .Q fD b �`�� " � fD �n (p � �"t3'b3 M�'� C/]� � �n O (C�� ry �o a fD r7 ' � • _ �;�p � � ,-�rR.m �gp ��.�y.� �.0�.0 � �J�� „c�i �'�� `�� Q�� .7�.. � � . � � ��. r, � w � � � �d �, �.� �..oa ,b �� :� � �o� �.o�`�•�� '�_ �, a.�r�•� o � � �n ��' � cn��' g��' tr�o �? �c� o woq �•o �� p � �, a.�.e �. �+ � ��R �a��'�'o.c� ,Y �� o ra.� a:�''� �' �'y � c co o: �o /� oi � r. .Q'�� `� ,.i.`_. ��fD rn�. O 'f' � �� \ � ^„_ r* � F. � ��'�� t� to .�°"'t1 � o a' �.�+ �'`C .o `S G'" 'Y � ¢? C H� . a r., �• w� ro �' o. �'�_�,�� o 0 0 '�'� �.'°° `�° �, o0 0�'�'.c �.c� . . - �o s� p� ...Vt rr p� � o L� ny�. �.ri t�e.� �� y v' � .�.,�p �p � � ��• � �'. . 9 � OQp n �0,.fD�. �R',,,*"U �O Pn`, � •�,9 ,�,� vr � ry 7 O� � � C+ lD. ■ ■ � '^, �" a.� o�b ��`� � co � c�o �;.�:'� c�'o a� ° r'',o�� :5'°� .r*.�. � �+ 'f � 3 � oo ~..o� � ��+�ap��.�r�- y � ��o �� ao�y' a:�y: . '��a�� y�,°�' � _ * �(� �'i �r`C �+� r�''OlD � p� �(� . . � 'N � .�',(G � ��^1�p''�i'J,'`�R 0�•OQ,� f� '�7�.��L+•. � y..�� (C F.rt�' . . . _ . W l�/ I c� �� . � w-, .o �. . �..��, a�^..•� � � P � rf rt Vf L1.�0 i YI � . � . . � - � � ' .. ' . ' . .: ' � � . � . , .: , .. . ..... .. :�,.... :... . K „ . .. . . _ ,. ��. � 4 BACI�GROUND INFORMATION � FILE NO. 2199 � • CITY OF RENTON- ANTHONE ANNEXATION SPECIAL MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING 7:OOPM � �esday, August 30, 2005 � Renton Technical College 3000 NE'Fourth Street Building C; Auditorium Room 101 Renton, WA 1. This hearing is convened to receive the facts and evidence '-in connection with the Notice of Intention contained in File No. 21,99. 2. The Notice of Intenrion was �led by the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County effective: Ivlay 27, 2005, for the purpose of considering the proposed annexation to the City of Renton of an area known as "Anthone," all in King Counry, VJashington. 3. A request for review was filed by the City of Renton and received by the Boundary'Review Board: � . ° on June 16, 2005. It was established by Resolution of the Board that the reguired public hearing be conducted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 at the Renton Technical College, 3000 NE Fourfh � Street, Renton, WA 4. ' Notices of both said and continuation hearing were delivered by hand or sent by certified mail to the foIlowing: The Honorable Me�ropolitan King County Councilmember Dwight Pelz The Honorable Metropolitan King County Councilmember Steve Hammond Ms. Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council Ms. Lydia Reynolds, Road Services Divisions Ms, Diane Murdock, Department of Assessments Mr. Michael Thomas, Office of Management and Budget � ` Mr. Paul Reitenbach, Department of Development and Environmental Services Mr.Bill Huennekens, Records and Elections Division District: King County Fire Protection District No. 25 King County Fire Protection District No. 37 Soos Creek Water and Sewer District Kent School District No. 415 AND PUBLISHED:in the Seattle Times, the official newspaper of Metropolitan King County, once only on Friday, July 29, 2005 and in the King Counry Journal, a newspaper of general circulation in the area, for two consecutive weeks on Fridays, July 29 and August 5, 2005 � AND posted at Fifteen (15) locations at or in the vicinity of the site on August 22; 2005 1 ;j 1NILLIAMSQN LAW t?FFICE � August 12, 2005 Washington State Baunt�ary Review Board for King Caunty Attention; Board Members � Attention: Lenora Blauman � Executive Secretary , Yesler Building,Roam 442 � 400 Yesler Way . Seattle, WA 98144 City Clerk City af Renton lOSS South Grady Way Rentan,WA 98055 Don Erickson,.AICP - Seniar PlannerlStrategic Planning " City of Renton � � i05S South Grady Way Renton,WA 9$O55 Re: Anthone Annexation Proceedings-BRB Fi1e No. 2199; City of Renton File No. A- 04-003; King County Tax Parcel Nos. 7931000151, 7931000152, and 7931000154 M&T Development;Inc. Testimony R.e: Proposed R-4 Zoning Lad'zes &Gexitlemen; On behalf of M&T Develapment, Tne., the owner af the parcels which are the subject of these proceedings before the$oundary Review Board and City of Renton, and wha is a party herein as a petitioner in support af annexation into the City ofRenton,this letter serves as their written comment and testimony related to the pending annexation. 1. Correction on Number of Dwelling Units Intended for Subject Authone Praperty. The supporting declaration submitted by Alicia Mena of M&T Development, Inc, expresses tne intent of the Petitioners at the time they executed the that their property(King County Tax Parcel Nos, 79314Q0151, 7931Q40152, and 793140Q154) that their property receive an equivalent King Caunty R-b density designatian af R-& under the City's residential zaning,not R-4 as indicated by . �� ! Bank Qf America Tower � 701 Fiffh Avenue,Suite 5500 � P.O.Box 94821 � Seattle,Washington 98139-0821 Office: 20b.242.04]1 ♦ Fax:206.292,0313 � eFax:208.567.1998 williamsonb@msn.com � t � Anthone Annexation ' t M&T Develapment,LLC Letter August 12,Zoas Page 2 by the City,are 2.3 X 8 du's per acre or approximately 18 tatal dwellin�units. M&T intends to build 17 hames,which appears to be consistent with the 16 dwelling units as indicated in the"Summary (File No. 2199)" information filed with the Baard, Exhibit "B." .Hawever, the infarmation provided by the City appears ta appty ta the entire 4.84 acre parcel, and not just the 2.3 acre M&T . portion af the Anthane annexation proposal. 2. Prezoning to R 8 is Cansistent with the Connty's R-14 and R 6 Urban Deusities. The AnthonetM&T parcels are within a urban boundary area of unincorporated King County wkich contains higher urban densities not only for the M&T parcels,but as well for abutting parcels to the north{County R-14),and east and sauth(County R6-S0}. As is shown in the attached colored King County zMap,the M&T parcels are presently zoned R6-S4. See attached undated City"Anthone Annexation and Vicinity Prezone Project Narrative and Proposal Suxnznary." RCW 36.93.157 provides that BRB decisions are to be consistent with Growth'Management Act, See RCW 36.70A,Q40,RCW 36.70AA20, 3b.70A.110, and 36.70A.ZI0. RCW 36.93.1�0 requires that the Board cansider c�rtain factors,including:(1)papulatian an.d territory;(2)population density; (3}land area and Iand uses}(4}comprehensiveplan�and zaning and(5}the Iikelihood of significant growth in the area and in adj acent incorporated and unincorporated areas during the next ten years. __ The propased annexation is required to be consistent with RCW 36.7QA.Q20, 36.7QA.110, and 36.70A.210. See Stewart v.Washing,ton State BRB, 100 Wash.App.165, 171-173, 996 P.2d 1087 (2000). The information provided to the City Council for purposes af requesting annexatian af the 2.48 acre parcel owned by M&cT Development mistakenly refers to adjoining County parcels as being"R-4."As the attached report af Planner Jan Patter indicates,these surraunding lots,both east and south af the M&T parcels, are in fact"R-6," a much higher reszdential density. Accardingly, to be consistent with the substantive provisions of planning policies, the record before the Board should reflect the correct zoning on the adjoining unincorparated parcels as"R-6." Irnplementing Renton zoning to be consistent with this zoning district should be identified as"R-8." As noted in Stewart v. BRB, supra. at 174, "...the legislature intended to require the BRB to make its decisions consistent with the Caunty's Comprehensive Plan and the palicies." The R-6 zoning district,which implements the County's Comprehensive Plan,requires that an equivatent R-6 zoning (City R-8) continues the County's land-use densities for the M&T parcels, including surrounding parcels to the east and west which are also included in the annexatian. Any attempt by the City to change its mind and now designate the_.Anthone parcels as R-4 would create an inconsistent low density island of R-4 in the midst of much mare intense development to the north and east whzch wauld not be consistent with the County's R-6 densities and the County's Comprehensive Plan and Growth Management Act policies. As the Caunty's zoning maps show, abutting southerly R-b lots to the south and east of the M&T parcels, alsa immediateiy abut the City's Resource Conservation `, zone. It fallaws that thare would be no"sejaaratar"purpose served by down-zoning th�:M&T parcels V` . .0 f Anthone Annexatian M&T Develapment,LLC Letter � August 12,2005 Page 3 as R-4. While annexation is necessary for purposes af providing water and sewer services to these parcels,it would be a mistake to designate or downzone the M&T parcels as R-4 as they do not touch the conservatian area and would nat be needed for purpases of protecting the canservation area. 3. Iaclnsion of Adjacent R-6 Zoned Property Already Piatted for Construction of . Dwellings at R-6 Densities Warrants that the M&T Parcels Be Treated Equally. The City of Renton has recently filed its Notice af Intentian to expand the annexation area to include abutting easterly and southerly R-6 within the annexed areas. As discussed briefly above,any down- zoning.of the developed R-b lots ta the east and south of the M&T parcel, from R-b ta R-4 would cause these adjoining lots to become legally"non-conforming." As R-4,they couid na longer meet minimum Iat size requirements af Caunty R-b Iats. Nor wouid they meet the City's equivalent R-8 zonzng district. Because these R-6 zaned Iots should retain their County R-6 densities thraugh� equivalent R-8 zoning,it fallaws that the M&T parcels,which abut these parcels should also retain their existing R-6 densities through R-8 zoning. Sincerely, �, � _ 9 f f ��s-----�-----.� ��f��-.°'l.-� ��-�� Bill H. Williamson enclosures: cc: Pat White,M&T Alicia Mena,M&T � M&T.Boardl.etter,080805.wpd � r � , BEF�RE THE WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BQARD FOR KING COUNTY DECLARATION QF ALICIA MENA I, THE UNDERSIGNED, under the pains and penalties of the laws of perjury af the State of Washington, declare and state: 1. I am over the age af 18 and campetent to testify to the matters contained herein. 2. I maintain offices located at 11625 Rainier Avenue South,Renton, WA. I am a co- principal with M&T Development,Inc. IVI&T is a local a family-owned company that invests in _ local property for the development of mzddle income single-family residential plats in Kzng Caunty. Most of the parcels we buy and develop are constructed far the lacal hausing market. We purchased this property which is still zane�R-6 with the intent that it would be developed for middle-income families working in the Rentan area. 3. In deciding ta the purchase this 2 '/x acre praperty which was part of the Anthone Annexatian, we relied upon representatians by the City that aur property,which we were then in the process of closing, would continue the urban densities estabiished in King Caunty(R-6) through the City's adoption of R-8 zaning. There is essentially no difference in these zoning districts for the number of hames that can be built, because the City calculates density after pubiic streets, private access easements, and critical areas have been deducted. King County on the other hand uses a gross density calculation. After calculating the loss for density Mena BRB Declaration -1 WILLiAMSQN LAW C?FFICE 701 5�"Avenue-Suite 5500 P,d.Bax 99821 SEArr�.� WA 98199 (206}292-04111�AX f 206}292-0313 williamsonb a(7,msn.com �� r - . calculations,the City's R-8 yields virtually the same number of lots we would receive by the County, or appraximately 1'7 dwelling units(2.3 acres X 6 du's per acre). 4. In determining to buy this praperty, we relied upan representatians made by City Staff that this praperty wauld at least receive initial R-8 City Zoning which is the functional equivalent af the County's R-6 zoning district. Based upan this information, and the abiiity to build 17 homes,we ciased our saie with the Seller. The City confirmed these densities again in meetings with our consultant,Pat White, in the early Spring of 2005. 5. Following the meetings which Mr. White had with the City which confirmed that R-8 � zoning would be followed, we wexe completely shocked to see a later Staff Repart prepared by the City, in which the City is now attempting t� limit development ta low density residential at 4 dwelling units per acre. R-4 zoning would mean that we could only construct about 8 homes on �`, this property. This is not at all what we understoad the agreement was with the City in proceeding with the annexation. The R-8 zaning district we seek is cansistent witb surraunding County R-6 zoned parcels to the south and east, which abut our property. Property to the north is zaned at R-14, a much higher urban density that what we seek in the City's R-8. 6. This praperty cannat possibly be economically develaped at R-4 densities and we will lose our invested monies in this property. And there is no reason for this. Lots ta the south and eas#af aur parcel,which are also inciuded in the annexatian, have already been p�atted by King County as R-61ots. Surely,this Repart to the Baard about R-4 densities must szmply be a mistake. If this is not corrected, it will have devastating financial consequences in our attempts to build middie income homes so badly needed in the Renton housing market, 7. On behalf of M&T,I request that the Board show in its record that the only agreement on density for purposes of the annexation petition has always been R-8, not R-4. Mena BRB Declaration -2 WILLIAMSON LAW(aFFICE 701 5T"Avenue-Suite 5500 P.O.Box 99$21 ' SEATTLE WA 9$199 (206)292-04111�AX{2Q6}292-0313 williamsonb(a@msn.com �, Au�-11-2p05 11:48am From-Alicia �ena + T-077 P.004/004 F-852 ` p � �R4[ i a e..yv . �v• t s��t� f��s�.�..��....�.. . .. Datcd this , 11�day c�f1��u�un�+2005 a!Rsntvn.WA. < .t�-2. icaa Met�a �i+� M(kT.t�daza,bea#�tnoon.Qi1 DOS.due Men�ea6 Declar�tion .� WIll1A�80+�Ny� lAsW�H�OFFICE Tot 5 P,O.6 u�_d31 g� (20Gy Z8��411��i�r�8�29P-0�13 w arn5onb ni�n. m Recelved Au¢-11-2QQ5 1l:20am from- To-Alicia Mena Pase �Q3, �i 3 No�thwest Planning � Development S'e�vices au�st 12,2oos Mr.Reggie Holmes Boundary Review Board for King County Yesler Building,Room 402 400 Yesler Way Seattle, Washington 98104 Re: Anthone Annezation to the City of Renton—King County Boundary Review File 2199 Dear Mr. Holmes, I am a land use planner with neazly 30-years experience in the public and private sectors. I have reviewed the City of Renton's Acceptance of the 60%Petition,the Notice of Intention to Annex, Renton City Council Minutes,King County's Countywide Planning Policies,King County Zoning Code,the City of I�enton's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, and other annexations to the City of Renton. In summary,I believe that the City of Renton has proposed a down-zone of the property that is inconsistent with King Countywide Planning Policies, RCW 36.70A.100 and inconsistent with surrounding zoning. � , King County Countywide Planning Policies: LU-37: "All jurisdictions shall cooperate in developing comprehensive plans which are consistent with those adjacent jurisdictions and with the Countywide Planning Policies.", (See Exhibit A,"King County Countywide Planning Policies"). The following discussion shows a mazked discrepancy between the City of Renton and the County's planned residential densities for the annexation azea. King County Comprehensive Plan Map: The King County Comprehensive Plan Map shows the site designated"Urban Residential Medium,4-12du/ac. The designation is footnoted with the following: "Densities shown on this map do not include density lost from environmental controls nor additional density achievable through clustering and allowed bonuses."(See E�ibit B,"King County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map"). 'The attached King County Code analysis describes how the buildout under the County's zoning code allows up to 9 DUs per acre. King County Zoning Atlas: The site is currently zoned R-6—Residential, 6 DU per acre, (See E�ibit C, "King County Zoning Atlas"). King County Zoning Code: The County's R-6 zone allows 50%greater density than the City's R- 4 zone. King County Code 21A.12.030"Densities and d'unensions—residential zones"establishes development in the R-6 zone can qualify for density bonuses that reach 9 DUs per acre, (225%of the City's proposed 4-DUs/ac.); (See Exhibit D, Chapter 21A.34, "General Provisions—Residential �" "t Density Incentives"). ; � 3611 29`h Avenue West Seattle,Washington 98199 Phone: (206)579-0088 Eax: (206)284-6099 email:jpotter936@aol.com , ` 3 r �s Comment: Clearly,the City's annexation of the site represents a significant downzone of property inconsistent witli King Countywide Planning Policy LU-37 and RCW 36.70A.100 that requires f� consistency between jurisdictions comprehensive plans. In the case of the Anthone Annexation,the � allowable development potential under the City's R-4 zone is less than one-half the density allowed under the County's current R-6 zoning. City of Renton's Annegation Analysis: T'he City inadvertently created an error with their e�iibit in the January 24,2005 Public Meeting by noting the County's R-6 zone as allowing 4-residences per gross acre. As described above,the zone allows up to 9 residences per acre, (See Exhibit E, "King County Comp Plan Designation and Current Zoning"prepared by the City). T'he properiy owners purchased the property based on their understanding the property could be developed under ` a zoning density similar to the County's R-6 zone. Further,the City's May 5, 2005 annexation � analysis misstated development under the County's R-6 zone could achieve a density of up to 6 DUs/acre instead.of 9 DUs/acre, (See page 4,Policy U-206 analysis in Exhibit F, "Factors the Board Must Consider"). The record should show the City's R-8 zone is most similar or equivalent to the County's R-6 zone. Surrounding Densities: The MT Development property is saridwiched between R-14 zoned property to the north and more intensely developed property zoned R-6 to the south and east. The City's proposed R-4 zone would be inconsistent with the zoning in the immediate vicinity. (See Exhibit H,King County Zoning Map and City of Renton Zoning Map). January 5,2005 Renton City Council Minutes: Don Erickson,Renton Senior Planner acknowledged the County's R-6, (6-units per acre),zoning designation and stated they are reviewing the possible redesignation of the area to"Residential Single Family,allowing an R-8 zone, (8 units per acre), (See Exhibit G,Renton City Council Minutes). We encourage the Board to determine that the consistency requirements of the Growth Management Act,require that any annexation by the City redesignate the Anthone Annexation area as R-8 designation consistent with the County's R-6 zones to the south and east,and the City's R-14 zone to the north. incerely on Potter Attachments. . \ ; S � � EXHIBIT A KING COUNTY C{�►UNTYWIDE PLANNING PQLICIES RCW 36.70A.1Q0 COMPREHENSIVE PLANS MUST BE COORDINATED ---., . ► i ��, . . i - Kin Count g Y Count ide Plannin ' ' � y�w Policies , g . ,,,_ Updated June 2005 , This document includes all amendments approved and ratified through June 2005. If you have questions about the Countywide Planning Policies document,please contact Paul Reitenbach of the Departmeat.of Development and Environmental Services at 206.296.6705. � �, s � . b. The ability of the annexing jurisdiction to demonstrate a capability to provide . urtian services at standards equal to or better than the current service providers; and c. Arinexations in a manner which discourages unincorporated islands.of development. The Growth Management Act requires that city and County comprehensive plans be coordanated and consistent with one another Consistency is required"where there are common borders or related regional issues"(RCW 36.70A.100). Joint planning is fundamental to all the framework policies. LU 37 All j�uisdictions shall cooperate in developing comprehensive plans which are consistent with those of adjacent jurisdictions and with the Countywide Planning Policies. �� 4. Cities in the Rural Area The cities and unincorporated towns in the Rural Areas are a significant part of King County's- diversity and heritage. Cities in this category include: Black Diamond, Carnation,Duvall, Enumclaw,North Bend, Snoqualmie and Skykomish. They have an important role as local trade and community centers. These cities and towns are the appropriate providers of local nual services for the community. They also contribute to the variety of deyelopment patterns and � housing choices within the County. As municipalities,the cities are to provide urban services � and be located within designated Urban Growth Areas. The urban services,residential densities and mix of land uses may differ from those of the large,generally westem Urban Growth Area. LU 38 In recognition that cities in the Rural Area are generally not contiguous to the Countyw�ide Urbari Growth Area,and to protect and enhance the options cities in Rural Areas provide,these cities shall be located within Urban Growth Areas. These Urban Growth Areas generally will be islands segazate from the larger Urban Growth Area located in the western portion of the County. Each city in the Rural Area and King County and the Growth Management Planning Council shall work cooperatively � to establish an Urban Growth Area for that city. The Urban Growth Area for cities in the Rura1 Area shall:. a. Include all lands within e�cisting cities in the Rural Area; b. Be sufficiently free of environmental constraints to be able to support.rural city growth without major environmenta.l impacts; c. Be contiguous to city limits; d. Have boundaries based on natural boundaries, such as watersheds,t�pographical features,and the edge of areas akeady characterized by urban development; e. Be maintained in large lots at densities of one home per five acres or less with mandatory clustering provisions until such time as the city annexes the area; f. Be implemented through interlocal agreements among King County,the cities and special purpose districts,as appropriate,to ensure that annexation is phased, nearby open space is protected and development within the Urban Growth Area is compatible with sunounding Rural and Resource Areas;and 30 Page 1 of 1 , � About Us� Contact Us � E-mail Lists�Search � Hel _ , Legislature Home� Senate� House of Representative Inside the Legislature RCW TITLES»TITLE 36»CHAPTER 36.70A»SECTION 36.70A.1o0 36.70A.090 « 36.70A.100 » 36.70A.103 * Find Your Legislator ,�r Participating in the RCW 36,70A.100 � Process Comprehensive plans—Must be coordinated. * Legislative Calendars * Bill Information The comp�ehensive plan of eacti oounty or city that is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.04C coordinated wifh,and consistent with,the comprehensive plans adopted pursuant to RCW 3 * Laws and Age�cy Rules other counties or cities with which the coun or ty aty has,in pa�t,common borders or related � Legislative Agencies * Legislative E-mail Lists I19901stex.s,c 17§10.] ,k lGds'Pages Outside the Legislature ' * Washington State � History and Culture �Ir Congress-the Other ' Washington * N Washington � � , � � � * Washington Cou�ts '�� Access . Washin�n� OIRti�fBpa Carwnelal.'W�!6fl� Comments about this site�Privacy Notice�Accessibility Information�Disclaimer � http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=36.70A.100&fuseaction=section 8/12/2005 . ( �X�B s . � -� . -�s��'p �L��'� � � �� T� C�� _ �� C� ; • r , � EX1�TI' C KING COUNTY ZONII�TG ATLA� �, � " i G�� O./ ^Y �tY � 4 k t; Ga] �� i 4 g � � 1 ' . . I :. � ,: � : . :.. ' . J y. , . � - .. . � " �_' � . : .. '... L �i .k'F. yp \ �, ;- ,. . ' . � 4 iv"Sfr , . �� . �� V - .. � � . . . e r, .#�,.�, � ��...��'� _ �� `�'�� ' .v �� 3� � � �� , � a'r , � �� '� ;�.. rc F ' - �� .��. �.: . ... '. " . m . � . . � .- ��i.� _ .' .� ' �. .�� . ��. ' . ' � �,� �� ' { � � .. „�� a; �� ,� � � - ^ �. �, v a �r .. :.-. 7 s. r'�`�& ^i � k�� `"�,, x � � � - �;�� KG r 5.t ��.. "k"ds #5� ` t� � o ° � ° �;�� y j ti�,�� Fourrgs �` a n, � s � � I ._�, � � � a� nr r ,�� {* � �, ,� �� '` .� � �• � � �.,, I � �.,x�� ,,�� >. �E �, r � �� , � 5 f � ��,� �,�'y�'�°�`�� ,,, y . s . , — � .r �� ,,�;� _ s- , ,�k,�,.. q�� r� s t wr�s ^� C0.- �. , f. ` , r L,y ktru. y ��'�`� �{''f ii��- � �'�n'�� 'x° .;� �� ,t •w .id n� B�fS 15 KI N G C O U N l"Y •Densities shown on this map do not Inciude denslry lost trom envlronmeMal controls C O M P F�E H E N S 10/E Unincorporated Activity Center � Agriculture nor addltlonal density echleveable through dustering and allowed bonuses. (du=dwelling unit;ac=ecre) �� The ma s In the Kin Coun Com rehensive Plen and its tachnicel a ty ,�� k K� Mlni(lg endlces and thls etlas P LAN COfT1f11Uft1 Business Center t`k• ere produced with a Geographic Informetlon System.For addltlonel IMormetion about features depicted on this map or olher Comprehenslve Plan maps,please contacttha approprlate agency �� -.� Neighborhood Business Center �' ��,; GreenbelUUrhan Separator Ilsted on lhe IMormaUon sheet located In the Inslde front pocket otthe Comprehenslve Plan LAN D U S E MAP ��€ Blnder,or rall lhe Growth Management Hotllne et 206-296-8777.For parcel-specific land use King County Owned or zoning Inqulries,please call the Department o1 Development and Environmental Servlces at Commercial Outside of Centers � Open Space/Recreation 2os_296-ssoo 2 0 0/� This atlas can be viewed an the internet at: -� t Urban Pian Devetopment !; �'�b; Other Parks�lderness �P��'t+�+'•metrokagovlddesJglsAunotes.htm Townshi 23 Ran e 5 �;��'��'�'t �-��"�", � � � p g „�:;�� Urban Residential,high,>12du/ac• �_ _ � Incorporated City � Urban Residentiai,medium,4-12dulac' � Urban Growth Area Baundary Includes Comprehensive � Urban Residential,�ow,ldu/ac` Plan Land Use changes �'� �- R��ty ��``+�°� Urban Growth Area through Ordinance #15028 �.��a� RuralTown (October 2004) ��"'�'�`i Rural Neighborhood r.Y.r�-a� The Intormatlon Included on thls map has been complled by King County steH irom a verlely of sources and Is su6Ject to change � Rural Residential,1du/2.5-10ac ,{. wlthout notice. King County mekes no representetlons or � ■��9 C��l�� wartentles, express or Implled, as to eccuracy, completeness, �( timellness,or rlghts to the use of such Infottnatlon. King County ,��s '" shall not be Ileble tor eny generel,spedal,Indlrect,Inddentel,or � A .: .e' If1dUSt�21 N conaequentlal damages Including, hul not Ilmited to, loet � � revenues or lost proflts resuldng from the use or misuse of the �'t r�*` Map generated: Jan 3,2005 InformaUon contalned on thls map. Any sale of lhis map or �t '�''�?�, FOreStry 0 0.25 0.5 1 Informatlon on ihls map is prohiblted except by written pertnlssion ot AWC Uddes70 Is mMa 12005011awc_20050103 c 1u14.pdt King County. M��s nm:ltonylpr�oJects�atlas\cplu,mxd P s�s �ee C �-J:".rs. - Y i I�' `o�� :�� 8"� ; :":��:�:u..:E:e? '3 �w�.u�u., (y�n� �� -�,::a�� Z �,� [�,' ° •.n.r::. e �•u•• i il•.�a'vo%�� P��. I ' I � �� E� .. �� I��II�1 �� Illllli:-�.:q ,,� � F.0. � �� ;� � �: ��nnuP� :�� '��:s�'��,g �� •e�l' %�� y��5 i � ��, � el: ��--T- � f' �q��_ .�,,. , =7F �.� �� j...�,r'�� • � L�fi�i@% tii� „-""" 4 ��(,'fk �� F,' o..� � .A9 �unrlF�e!�145G�'31�'�e...�..e.��.;�,,,�;.r-"r' ��4#'�""�� sk�`• �� r�wc I � 4:' e 1 � r s �a: a—'----�1��l�f IU►� . ``�.:� $'ac x �} � - �-�--- A-..�., . ' �q�� F��.� �'�� • I' �°�r'�`,��1�� -�'r.. a, �� ,�k,;^�,��i--`- �� • �. � j �� _ �. t �� r�.��`� ��. v S. �_ ba: a �� L -� �'�} o �e � nu�Y i�! i �� aar••�d _„ z�>`�' � �F° �a_�:�. :•,'i Coc:�-s�e�'�� s�, o��ap�iYlIIIIf11fI ) �' �rv,=�u"ii:. ni!� � ..�..■ , � m SP' ■�n.t►�� ,,.,:,�._:.o.r•��.:��:: ��I.IIIIIII��;.,e.•�.�, �� '�� '�;;:,;.��:__�_=ie_-.--��I', ��S�i11�:...0�;a��i:::a:- !7 �:q�m�iou�w'�� ■�Y i��'� � ,'�J �'� - lumm�um�� o�i�� ,.�.,.�...�....�� , �a„��e:�f11t�� , �• •,�'�.�„�:�:� I C(� �.-�� ` �� I�� ,;��.:_;e�.uu: .. �s�z��: �.�[�s e�QO��.�'r �S .1�L .�� '�C� ..i��„��-�•'.�"'�.�'{-'i:::trr��w'1l.�Ili A1� �;�; �,�.':�:".'.:�:.'.: � °,o�''�;:�v�f�" f r P ��aa , .,�� n u•. ��■;��;l�s'�-nu1111o:V.i.. 01:� anum�;•�.-...�..,; ��euuon►.:7 /' �r,ii��a�,nn.� n:.�_nnwi.,n .�.��o��lY,:Oi � ._4:!'Y':= �"ep•�.. �.an,..u�muun�.•a - d� n i�:��nmr�io-eai� ��mn�� :• .. .�`..��e:?.•�•a '��Griuqm� � L�d�:,"� iiir:l:.i_'��_� aeee�0�s��j'r�i�l"'I�ri,�� ::;�,i:�;vuTi':'::",-0�'��...�m ��;�r ��y3 �i�:� � �'" � ��:�:j:,,�..... �.,:_' �� i. �2j' �''�■-�I� ,�:� I ,..:u.-:e�.,.��,��.�e ;;a�, � �:J � _ ��a __ ,� Cuynb■ni�r�� %'V•'i:e�.;,�.e:S:�:J;,es��'.e':..�., e �r,,u,A• � �e�e:��'�m"i{�i�i�e2 .;�D��as�i ■u L■ _ �i�:s'J'�!: s .�:°-_-�.^�D'�'.� 1�!l��i, .� IIL"__l =�"::.;.�r�;a;�-o.,.;..nu,e- � �niiic° � �• ��:�-r��o��F�� uxs ��. - m= -ni-rr s nuu.b F�'��:'.:.'��el ii�� :�-��..��L u�,. ' �ii �18_�;:;�.i. _ . ' I.. �;�nir.:s-.�nuo-. v.::.ir;�:�`e' � �wlri�6.t ci;'a°:T`�:5eFT�.��:�d s1�� s.. �! `, �ie- _�I��'�,. �%�'�•' _a-i�ie ic R ;:,n'�=5�:::a- i ��p i��i� + � Nj::mii� ��x°;� �.t'.�"�P.�%.�Jic'�I�t.��e�p i��. E :•�:�i�r,* ,3� ��sii * -��, �. -..��ee_.__:�__r�_ �:�,;,,�,;�..�e,.e��i�.�ot:.,�t�[l0► �'. � �� r�' �'� � ��..��,�t°� �r. �.. �� : �, ��■�•� - f� �L;•;;;;�"—��..,�,I ��ilil,llo"�'"';�•j.11=: "ii:� s� -i==�o�:=="'I�1,,',� °� � ,m;� �� •.■:� ,.:_ ,_-�_ ,,.,- ��; � .—.,� ='—��,,,�;��111, .II��III;S:!�= i�=�1�-,:� �-!.='�,�:_��_�.�� .,,,=• .� �Y: n�. . J� ." _—e..�..: �._ •..... n�:.;: - � s�� ...., _-r;^_'e�;s= . �:�; ,� � ( �P��, � I,� � s s�-- ` � :_�, i i�D'FC� L =nn:i::•.� • �r��•"'i.,�_ _:.�� =�`�= -7:�.�■ -:� ...Ji1l�'��' •` -,-�- ,�11•�.,�` / P r�:�:- � ��./r.�,, ' __.� ��1-(..-e�.,�u'�.5::�nnnnnll ... �_ ,�e ��ai�t.'-��I�+�.'• � �.uul1��.�.Ji��:�.�i�lll c=1t� °i2�-'�:�S�a ��.'-�e`' :,o��muin��'��, e 'i��. --� ___ _—��u�G;�_- _�� _i�1�=ci��l!t'.•i::1 �5 '��:"i�'^c�.� � � f 1 u� ':i=al5�uu� -�19�1 � �i�a �- ��0� ��!�?�.:nm 51i.:i:isn�,�:��jf �. :_,�;:_��, �,��-�■�;;�� L ��.nlr�� .L.;;_;::�;_.:��:s s t ��—v _ie '_�_ �� r��t•��4:;�� ...._�'�\%f;'i�-1,:.�iiiiiiinmi'It -t �� '2_'!�:�-•.I3e`�J�LE_�fe��-� _ �� lun�_� � �...1•i�.!_.._ we e1�t • 1 '• G:�.iq,�'J� ' �' � ' � •' 1 .h' �-``r�t��'� • � �' .�- �• � � i' � � '� .� r � '� •�. �c � ' a� �� •�� : � , � � �y"'"�'h�r�y!�"Fi' � � ' ��t� • , � �' • � �k 'FtL:' � � � I � � ' .: � • � �: _ 'tl$ e �$:� � � Y' � � � � � i � . � � • ' � �� . : � .: � .«- � '- . - ■ �- .. .. . -. _ � � .. � ' � �- _ :. — ". �. � . • - - � -� "�:.. �_ �. - " : .. .: �. , _ � .- - .: � 1� .F' �- : .: � , , , o- i 1 �' .F: �� - - }' � _ EXHIBIT D - � . I�NNG COUNTY CODE 21A.12.030 � DENSITY AND DIlVIENSIONS -RESIDENTIAI, Z010tES. KING COUNTY CODE 21A.34 � GENERAL PROVISIONS -RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCENTIVES 1 � DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS-DENSITY AND DIMENSIONS 21A.12.010-21A.12.030 . 21A.12.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish basic dimensional standards . l i � for development relative to residenfial density and as well as specific rules for general application. The --'` standards and rules are established to provide flexibility i� project design,a�d maintain privacy befween . � adjacent uses. (Ord. 10870§338, 1993). 21A.12.020 Interpretation of tabies. A. K.C.C. 21A.12.030 and 21A.12.040 contain general density and dimension standards for the � various zones and limitations specific to a particular zone(s). Additional rules, exceptions, and methodologies are set forth in K.C.C.21A.12.050 through 21A.12.210. � B. The density and dimension tables are arranged in a matrix forrnat on two separate tabies and are delineated into finro general land use categories: 1. Residential;and � 2. Resource and Commercial/lndustrial. � C. Development standa�ds are listed down the left side of both tables, and the zones are listed at � the top. The matrix cells contain the minimum dimensional requirements of the zone. The parenthetical numbers in the matrix identify specific requirements applicable either to a specific use or zone. A blank box indicates that there are no speafic requirements. If more than one d appears in a cell; each standa�d will be subject to any applicable parenthe6cal footnote follow' standard. (Ord. 10870 § 339, 1993). � 21A.12.030 Densities and dimensions-residential zones:� A. Densities and dimensions-residential zones. � � � RESIDENIIAL .. . Z RIlHAL URBMI .�qg�N . O RE pEMUL N �1IE ' E , . $ . •STNOAR08 Rl4 RNS W410 RI420 UR R-0�77) Rd 'R� � �R-0 R-12� R-1B R7A R� � 7.5 9m�DMsMY: 02 . 02 0.1 Q05 02 1 f 6 0 12 1! ?b � � �w�Q GIIiC QWiG OIfC dWiC d1Y�C dYIiC dYIiC JIJiC dWiC dWaC QWY AIYiC EItIiC -_� ��IIb/kA �� {� . w,amumwma� oa ow 6 9 tz ta n ss n `'°-�` D1Y�SIfIQ UMUACI� . .�2C dulmC AYIC dtYaC AIdC AIY�I.' ELL�BC QYIOC AW1C MIII�IIIIYII aItl{Il�: �� Q$� �$�' 6Q� 7$� TP/ 6� � 1'�1 . (u! (�) (te) (» Ibl (�! - i�e! l�el (�sl YNbnuml.otMa(13) 1d75 A75 7Sx 75ae . k x YtNmumlot 135ft 7SR 18R 1J6R 3511 75R �OR 30ft 70R �OR 30R �OR JO,R � m m NFMmumSlmot SOR ]OR 30R 30R 30R 20M1 70R tOR 701! tOR tOR 10R 101t � �� m tm « m m ��► c� �e� �� w cm i� Mu�imumMb'ior SR tOft 70R 70}I SR SR SR • SR SM1 SR SR 6R SR � ro� � � rn m m ro� c+o► ro� r% , Bs�HoipM {OR; �Ofl tOR 40R .75ft 95fl �Sft l5R 35R 60ft 60ft 60ft Wft W) (� �SR tSR 00R EOR EOR �� (� (�l (w� (M1 (�1 Ydnvmlapenious 7SX 10% 13K 12.+^1L 30% 3P% S4% � 70% 7576 AT/. E9X 8SX 90%� a� t„i mi r+► r+► r,� c„► r� c� as► t�► t�s► . � � ��cs► tc�si i� i�i i�i � � 6. Development conditions. 1. This maximum density may be achieved only through the application of residential density incentives in accordance with K.C.C. chapter 21A.34 or transfers of development rights in accordance with K.C.C.chapter 21A.37,or any combination of density incentive or density transfer: Maxirnum density may only be exceeded in accordance with K.C.C.21A.34.040.F.1:g.and�F.6. 2, Also see K.C.C.21A.12.060. 3. These standards may be modified under the provisions for zero-lot-line and townhouse developments. . 21A-105 ,; • GENERAL PROVISIONS-RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCENTIVES 21A.34 � Chapter 21�4.34 . (s'ENERAL PROVISIOPlS-RESIDENTIe�►L DENSITY iNCENTNES Sect6on: 21A.34.010 Purpose. 21A.34.020 Permitted locatio�s of residential density incentives. 29A.34.030 Maximum densities permitted through residential density incentiye review. 21A.34.040 Public benefits and density incentives. 21A.34.050 Rules for calculating total permitted dwelling units. 21A.34.060 Review process. 21A.34.070 Minor adjustments in final site plans. � 2'iA.34.080 Applicability of development standards. 21 A-285 s j ! � . �.„✓' t . GENERA�PROVISIONS-REStDENTlAL DENSITY INCENTl1JE5 21A.34.010�21A.3d�.04� 21A34.010 Purpose. The purpose of fhis chaptec is ta provide dsnsity incentives to developers of resideMial lands in urban areas and rural activity centers, in exchange far pubiic benefits to help achieve Comprehensi�e Plan gaals of affordabie housing, open space protection, historic preservation and energy conservation,by: . A. De�tning in quantified terms the pubtic,benefits fhat can be used to eam density incenfives; 8. P�oviding rules and forcnulas for cornputing density incentives eame@ by e,ach benefit; C. ProViding.a method ta realize the development potentia{of sites.containing unique features of size,topography,environmental features ar shape;and D. Providing a review process to ailow evaluation of proposed density increases and the pubiic efits afFered to eam them, and to give the pubtic+appartunities to review and cornment (Ord. 10870§ . 1993). . 21.A.34.020 Permitted lacations of residential density incentives.Residentia!density incentives � __ ' (RDI)shall be used anly on sites seroed by public sewers and only in the following zones: A, in R-4 through R-48 zones;and B. In NB,CB,RB and O zones when part of a moced use devetopment (4rd.10870§561�1993). 21A.34,030 Maximum densities �ecmitted thEough residerttial density incentive review. The ma�mum density permitted through RDt review sha!!be 154 percent of the base density af the unde�lying zone of ttre development site or 2p0 percent of the base density for FtDI propasals with 100 percent affordable units. (Ord. 10870§562, 1993). 29A34.040 Rubtic benefts and siens�ty inceMives. A. The public benefits eGgible to eam increased densities,and the maximum incen#ive to be eamed by each.benefit,are in subsecction F of this section. The density incentive.is expressed as additional bonus dwelling unit,ar fractions of dwe�ling units,eamed per amount of public benefi#pravided.. . B. Banus dweliing units may be eamed through any cambination af the tisted pubiic benefits. G. The guicielines for af�ordable f�ousing banuses inc�uding the esfabtishmenf o# ren#al tevels, housing priees and asset lirnita6ons,will be updated and adopted annuaity by the councii in the c�nsalidate�i housing and cammunity develapment plan. . D. Banus dwelling units may also be eamed and transferred to the project site through the transfer ofi dev�lopment rights. ('i'DR) program established in K.C.C. chapter 21A.37, by providing any of the open space, paric site ar histacic preservation publie benefi#s set forth in subsec6on F.2. or 3. of this section on . sites othe�than that of the RDI deveiopmer�t, . E. Residantial develaprnent in R-4 through R-48 zones with praperty specific development standards requiring any public benefit er�umerated in this chapter,.shall be eligible to eas�n banus dwe4ling units in accordance with subsection F of this sectian if the public benefits provided exceed the basic � development standards of this fitle. If a devetopment is located in a-special overlay district,bonus units may be eamed if the devetopment provides public benefits exceeding corcesponding standards of the speciat � clis#rict. � . ___ ` � 21 A-2$7 ! 1 (IGng County 3-2005) 21A.34.040 ZONING F. The following are the public benefits eligible to eam densiiy incentives through RDI review: BENEFIT DENSITY INCENTIVE 1. AFFORDABLE HOUSING a. Benefit units consisting of rental housing 1.5 bonus units per benefit unit,up to permanently pricecJ to serve nonsenior citizen low- a maxirnum of 30 low-income units per five income households (that is no greater than 30 acres of site area; projects on sites of less � percent of gross income for households at o�below than five acres shall be limifed to 30 low- - 50 percent of IGng County median income, adjusted income units. � • . for household size). A covenant on the site that � " speafies the income level being served, rent levels and requirements for reporting to fGng County shall _ be recorded at final approval. b. Benefit units consisting of rental housing 1.5 bonus units per benefit unit,up to . designed and permanentfy priced to serve low- a maximum of 60 low-income units per five income senior citizens (that is no greater than 30 acres of site area; projects on sites of less pe�cent of gross income for 1- or 2-pe�son than five acres shall be limited to 60 low- households, 1 member of which is 62 years of age income units. or older,with incomes at or below 50 percent of IGng County median income, adjusted for household size). A covenant on the site that specifies the � � income level being served, rent levels and requirements for reporting to IGng County shall be recorded at final approval. c. Benefit units consisting of senior citizen 1 bonus unit per benefit unit assisted housing units 600 square feet or less. � d. Benefit units consisting of moderate 0.75 bonus unit per benefit unit. � � income housing reserved for income- and asset . qualified home buyers(total household income at or below 80 percent of King County median, adjusted for household size). Benefit units shall be limited to . - owner-occupied housing with prices restricted based on typical underwriting ratios and other lending , standards, and with no restriction placed on resale. _ Final approval conditions shall specify requirements 21 A-288 . i ' . � for reporting to FGng County on both buyer eligibility . �. and housing prices. ;. __i. � �� (fGng County 3-2005) • GENERAL PROVISIONS-RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCENTNES 21A.34.040 , BENEFIT DENSITY INCENTNE e. Benefit units consisting of moderate 1 bonus unit per benefit unit. income housing reserved for income and asset � qual"fied home buyers (total household income at or below 80 percent of King County median, adjusted for household size). Benefit units shall be limited to owner-occupied housing with prices restricted based on typical underwriting ratios and other lending . standards, and with a 15 year restriction binding prices and eligibility on resale to.qualified moderate income purchasers. Final approval conditions shall ' specify requirements for reporting to IGng County on � � % both buyer eligibility and housing.prices. . � f. Benefit units consisting of moderate 1.5 bonus units per benefit unit income housing reserved for income- and asset- qualfied horne buyers(total household income at or below 80 percent of IGng County median, adjusted for househald size). Benefit units shall be limited to owner-occupied housing, with prices restricted to same income group, based on current undervuriting ratios and other lending standards for 30 years from date of first sale. A covenant on the site that specifies the income �level and other aspects of buyer eligibility, price levels and requirements for reporting to King County shall be recorcied at final approval. g. Projects in which 100 percent of the units 200 percent of the base density of � . are reserved for moderate income - and asset the underlying zone. Limited to parcels 5 � qualfied buyers (total household income.at or below acres or less in size and located in the R-4 � 80 perce�t of the King County median, adjusted for through R-8 zones. Housing types in the R-4 household size), All units shall be limited to owner- or R-6 zones shall be limited to structures occupied housing with.prices restricted based on containing four or less units, exoept for � current underwriGng ratios and other lending townhouses. Such RDI proposals shall not standards, and with prices restricted to same income be eligible to utilize other RDI bonus density g,roup, for 15 years.from date of first sale. Final incentives listed in this section. � approval conditions shall specify requirements for reporting to King County on both buyer eligibility and . - housing prices. � 21 A-289 .;, . � � ' h. Benefit units consisting of mobile home 1.0 t�nus unit per benefit unit. - park space or pad resecved fo�the relocation of an i�signia ar noninsignia mobile home, that has been � or will be displaced due to closure of a mobile horne park located in incarparated or unincorporated King Caunty. � � (King County 3-20d5) 21A.34.040 ZONING �. ■ , BENEFIT � OENSITY INCENTlVE . - �._.�� - 2. OPEN SPACE,TRAILS AND PARKS a. Dedication of park site a� trai! righf-o€ 0.5 bonus unit per acre of�park area way meeting King County location and size or quarter-mile of trai! exceeding the standards for neighborhoad, cornmunity or regional minirnum requirernent of K,C.C. 21A.14 for . park,o�traii,and accepted by the parks division. on-site recreation space ar trail carridors, - computed on fhe number af dweliing unifs � ' Permit#ed by the site's base densify. � b. lmprovement of dedicated park site to QJ5 bonus unit pec acre of pa�lc � IGng County standards for developed parks, improvement If the applicant is dedicating the site of the improvements,the banus units eamed by improvements�shali be added to fhe banus units eamed by the dedication. c. Improvement af dedicated trail segment 7.8 bonus units per quarter mile of to FGng Counly sfanda�ds. trail constructed to county standard for pedestrian trails;or 2.5 bonus units per quarter mite of cpnstructet! to county s#andaK# for multipurpose trails (pedestrian/ . bicycle%questrian). � Shorter segments shaii be awarcled bonus uni#s o� a pro rata basis. If the applicant is dedicating the site of the impravements, the bonus units eamed by improvemenfis sha11 be added to the bonus � units eamed by fhe dedication. d. Dedication o#open space, meeting lGng Q.5 bonus unit per acre of open County acquisition standards to the county or a space. quallfied public or private organization such as a nature canservancy. � - 21 A--290 . , . --\ (King County 3-2005) . ' GENERAL PROVISIONS-RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCENTNES 21A.34.040 BENEFIT DENSITY INCENTIVE , 3. HISTORIC PRESERVATION � a. Dedication of a site containing an historic 0.5 bonus unit per acre of historic . landma�lc in accordance with K.C.C. chapter 20.62, site. � to FGng CouMy o�a qual'dyi�g nonpr�t organization capable of restoring and/or maintaining the premises to standards set by the King County landrna�ics '- , commission.. b. Restoration of a site or strucfure . 0.5 bonus unit per acxe of site or one designated as an historic landmaric in accordance thousand square feet of floor area of building with K.C.C. chapter 20.62 to a speafic architectural restored. or site plan approved by the King County landmarks commission. � 4. ENERGY CONSERVATION a. Benefit units that incorporate 0.15 bonus unit per benefit unit that conservation features in the construction of all on- achieves the required savings. site dwelling units heated by electricity that save at least 20 percent of space heat energy use from the maximum pertnitted by the Northwest Energy Code, as amended. No more than 50 percent of the required savings may result from the installation of heat pumps. None of the required savings shall be � achieved by reduction of glazing area below 15 percent of floor area. Energy use shall be expressed as allowable energy load per square foot or as total transmittance(UA). b. Benefit units that incorporate 0.10 bonus unit per benefit unit that conservation features in the construction of all on- achieves the required savings. site dwelling units heated by natural gas, or other � nonelectric heat source,that save at least 25 percent of space heat energy use from the maximum ,_ - , permitted by the Northwest Energy Code, as ,' 21 A-291 ; amended. None of the required savings shali be . . achieved by reduction of glazing area below 15 � percent of floor area. Energy use shali be expressed . - , , as allowable energy load per square foot or as totai transrnittance(UA). � � c. Developments located within 114 mile of 10 percent increase above the base transit routes served on at least a half-hourly basis density of the zone. during the peak hours and hou�ly during the daytime nonpeak hours. (King County 3-2005) 21A.34.040-21A.34.050 , ZONING BENEFIT � DENSITY INCENTIVE 5. PUBLIC ART a. Devoting 1°/a of the project budget to � 5 percent increase above the base public art on site. , density of the zone. b. Contributing 1% of the project budget to 5 percent increase above the base --- � the Kng County public art fund for developmenf of density of the zone. a�t projects. The contribution shall be used for projects located within a one mile radius of the development project. _ 6. COTTAGE HOUSING � Provision of three to sixteen detached Two hundred percent of the base cottage units clustered around at least one common density of the unde�iying zone. Limited to open space. parcels in the R4-R8 zones. Such, RDI proposals shall not be eligible to util'¢e other � RDI bonus density incentives listed in this section. If proposed energy conservation bonus units of this secfion are reviewed in conjunction with a subdivision or a short subdivision,the applicant shall provide data and calculations for a typical house of the type to be built in the development that demonstrates to the department's satisfaction how the required � savings will be achieved. A condi6on of approval shall be recorded with the plat and shown on the title of � each lof specifying the required energy savings that must be achieved in the constn�ction of the dwelling unit. The plat notation shall also specify that the savings shall be based on the energy code in effect at the time of preliminary plat application. (15032§38,2004: Ord.14190§36,2001:Ord. 14045§56,2001:Ord. 10870§563, 1993): . 21A.34.050 Rules for calculating total pertnitted dwelling units. � A. The formula for calculating the total number of dwelling units peRnitted through RDI review is as follows: � DUs allowed by + Bonus'DUs + DUs allowed by = TOTAL RDI RDI site base sending site DUs , � . density densit�r(if any) 21 A-292 � F . B. The total dwelling units permitted through RDI review shall be calculated using the following � steps: � 1. Calculate the number of dwet{ings permitted by the base density of#he site in accordance with �� K.C,C.chaptar 21A.12; � ` ,� 2, Caicufate tha total nurnber of bonus dweiSing units eamed by providing the pubiic benefits listed in K.C.C.21A.34.04Q; . . . 3. Add the nurnber of bonus dwelling units earned to the number of dwelling units permitted by the base density; � 4, Add the number of dwe(ling units peRni#ted by fhe base density of the site sending TDRs,if arry; 5. Round fractionat dwetting units to fhe nearest whote number .49 ar less dwelling units are rounded dawt��and 6. 4n sites wi#h more tt�an one zone or zone density,the maximum density shal!be cala�lated for the site area of each zone. Bo�us units may be reallocated within the zones in the same rnanner set farth for base units in K.C.C.21A.12.180. (Ord. 14190§37,2001:Ord. 10870§564, 1993). {K'ing County 3-2005} - GENERAl.PROVISIONS-RESlQENTlAL DENSlTY INCENTlVES 21A34.060-21A.34.080 21A.3�4.060 Review proaess. . A. AIt RDt proposals shait be reviewed concurrentty with a primary propasat to consider the propased site ptan and rnethads used to eam extra rlensity as foitaws: 1. Far the purpose of this sec#ion, a p�imary propasai is defined as a propased subdivision, conditiona!use permif or cammeraat building permit. 2. When the primary proposal requires a pubiic hearing under this cade or Title 19A, the public hearing on the primary proposal shall serve as the,hearing on the RDi proposal. The reviewing aufhority shatt make a cansofidated decision an the propased development and use ofi RDi and consider.any appeals of the RDI prapasal uncier the same appeaE procedures set farth for fhe development proposa[; 3. When the deve(opr�ent proposal does not require a pub4ic hearing under this ti�e ar K.C.C,Title - 19A, the RD! proposal shall be considered.along with the development proposal, and any appeals of the RDI praposal shall be considered under the sarne�ppeal procedures set forth for the develapment propasal; �` and � 4, The notice for the RDI proposat also shati include the developme�`s propased density and a � genera!description of the pubiic benefits offened ta eam ex#ra densify. B. RD(applications which propose to eam bonus units by dedicating real properly ar public facili#ies � shall include a letter frpm the applicable�cpunty reoeiving agency cerfifying that the proposed dedication qualifies for the density incentive and will be accepted by the agency or other qualifying organization. (Ord. 14190§3$,2001.Ord.10$70§565,1993). 2'tA.34A7Q Minor adjustments in f�at site gtans. When issuing building permits in an approved RDI develcapment, the depa�tment may a41ow minor adjus#rnents tn the approved site plan involving the location or dimensions af buildings or landscaping,provided such adjustments shall no� A. Increase the number of dwelling units; 8. Decrease the arnounf of perimeter tandscaping('�f any); C. Qecrease residential parfcing fac'slifies{untess the number af dweQing,units is decreased); D. Locate stnictures doser to any site boundary line;or E. Change the loca6ons of any points af ingress and egress to the site. (Ord.1 Q870§566,1993). 21A.34.080 Appticability of develaprnent standards. � A. RDi developments shall cornply wifh dimensional standards of the zane witi� a base ciensity most cfasety comparable ta the total approved density af the RDf development, provided that an FtDt proposal in the R-4 through Ft-8 zone shall can#o�n to the height requirements o#the underlying zone in � which it is located. B. RDI developments in the R-4 thraugh R-8 zones shall be landscaped as follaws: 1. When 75 percent or more of the units in the RDI development consis#s of townhouses or apartmen#s, the deveiopmenf shaii provide perimeter landscaping and tree reEention in accordance with IC.C.C.21 A.16 far townhouse or apartment projects. � __ , 21A-293 .; � �2. When less than 75 percent of the units in the RDI consists of townhouses or apartmenfs,the . development shall provide landscaping and tree retention in accordance with K.C.C.21A.16 for townhouses � or apa�tments on the portion(s) of the development containing such units provided that, if buildings � � containing such units are more than 100 feet from the development's perimeter, the required landscaping may be reduced by 50 percent.� � . 3. All other portions of the RDI shall provide landscaping or retain trees in accordance with K.C.C. 21A.16. C. RDI developments in all other zones shall be landscaped or retain trees in accordance with K.C.C.21A.16. � (iGng County 3-2005) � 21A.34.080 ZONING D. RDI developments shall provide parking as follows: 1. Projects with 100 percent affordable housing shall provide one off-street parking space per unit The.director may require additional parlcing,up to the maximum standards for attached dwelling units,which may be provided in common parking areas. � 2. All other RDI proposals shall provide parking for. � a. maricet rate/bonus units at levels consistent with K.C.C.21A.18,and b. benefit units at 50 percent of the levels required for market rate/bonus units. E. RDI developments shall provide on-site recreation space as follovirs: � 1. Projects with 100 percent affordable housing shall provide recreation space at 50 percent of the ' � . � levels required in K.C.C.21A.14. . 2. All other RDI proposals shall provide recreation space for. a. market rate/bonus units at levels consistent with K.C.C.21A.14,and � b. benefit units at 50 percent of the levels required for market rate/bonus units. (Ord. 10870 § 567, 1993). . _ 21 A-294 . t E�:HIBIT E , ` . ANTHONE Al��'�TEXATIUN � K1NG COITNT3� CUMF PLAN DESIGNATION A►ND CI;�tRENT ZON�Il�TG , . � : � 4 . .. ._ . ._.... _ _. . . . _.. .: _ .... : � . . . ; . . � t T��•r S.`�. �k�,- i . . •. � I � -i'Q`s k;�•.. ,G� • . ��t� 5.�,.t��. I . . . � r��'. .�:t I � ��Y �� Anthone'�Annexation . � ! .t;�,� ''"'--s'�"�,; - i � � :� . ��, � " . , , �rF + �:'� ' � � 1 . >��:;:�::- ::=��'�:.: . � ; . Annexation Public Meeting • I y•,J r:. _�.� , January 24,2005 " � i � Y ; � . . �"�� z �'��.'�� ; d �`��k a...,. s��.y• ' � ' �� . "t'' �r. �Y �.�� _�-. - . ��.e.^.;.A s,�-:: ... '�� Z+,�i i�G_'._SC � ' I . . _ . " _.�ml�'�'' �,7, a�� ' 1 , • . . ' I -�t+� �-� - � Existing Conditions � .�� ' �_r�y. .: i -.a . "� „r � ` :�.�- �,s gy�. � . ... � � T �' �F�.�, � • I o P;�A-��'ithin Renton's Potential Annesatioo Area I ��a a.� s ��e�� ` =� ' e Locstion-East of Talbot Road S and south oPSouth i �'��`��1 �.' ,��,��z�S��-�� 55�"Street tt"lt��'� J�'� ��"4c"'�� y��;E a'��`�� o Size-�4.&3 acres,including abutting street ROdd' ';��A�,�iC'� y��'��,� `�*f ��'i � e Cses•Oneexistin sin le-famil•dNellings a5• �' ��"•�'�Ic�.fC' :��,� t�i S P> 5 ' � \�`�s^ •� IU��'�'.�'"�n,v� Q i � � ��„�i,� #: `�, Ctii a�t � -�,�7tv ,,(�%i; • �J e Boundaries-site abuts Renton on its northern and �g ^��, ��f � ' �. " ! Nestern boundaries. Its southern boundar}�is ��`s Q�x;�_: ��,=4�,� coterminous Nith Talbot Estates and its ezstern > --�+�a'�"..y � �'�s!�y: `�=� boundarp is coterminous�tiith 5prin�brook Terrace. s`�!o'`� LC��/�y�`^__'�,��'-i',� �� '`- `'�:�5 ;��s ��r,4. t �';: @.' .=.a V, ��5 =��__--.�...,,��'�r�'.. :� .;��'��:�:�'��c . _�.,.� . . � i ' i � Background Existing Conditions - Vicinity . - . . � . � -� 10%Notice of Intent public meeting held on ' , ` Au�ust 2,2004 � . � . •60%Direct Petition submitted on October 5,2004 i .�ocated south of ��e�'��j��'",'�'_� and certified on October 1 l,200� i City boundary at ' . � �' ,., . � ♦Tonight's public hearing is first of two required to � S.55'"Street �—ii�■==�..':,�. � consider future zoning,and ! �"s"-.�'."s�Y'� �� - o •Located east of � - �" '�-"�•' ' • [f Council accepts 6U/o Petition the e p�� '" �P� �4: City boundary at e Administration typically fonvards it ro the . Talbot Road 5 ' �'' �::� �� • Boundary Rzvie�a•Board for their re�•ie�v � =_ � tN�ni=� . ' ■ :I , • n � �• ' �'icinit��lap _ � � _'�- . � � ��C 9_-. � ` � � . ' . � . � � King�ounty�omp Plan �. Exisfiing Conditions-Public Services � Des�gnation and Current Zaning ` s Fire , . ' ° ___�---,_�-., '. ' -Distriet 31 .` .�'---.-., � � ( . ` , . ,e'"' �;.5,�`;;;� � ! K,C.i,and tJse Mau• �.��:� r�;� .. � .�. :; .. a UtiHties +:�,;_;::�:.e,= - - -LVithiaRentan 4�'ater �. t Urban Residentiat,412dulac Service Area ` ,..�, i -Within Renton Seu�er � , ; � Ser��ice Area � ��# . ; K.C.Zonin�- . ! R-6-Residentiat 4 dulgrass ac . ;,y� � e��: 0 5choois > {S� � S -14'�thin Keot Schooi ' a �'?, ` Llistrict � ,�" Site` .,+I i•.a. Caunti Zaning liap •�q Rentoz�Comp.Plan Designatic�n � � Issues � . � ° and Propased Zoning .. � � sn � . . � - m bisadvantaQes: � � � , Rentan Cam,p Pian Land �• � �� —5maller than norn�at a�exation{�.8�acres} � Use t�9at�-Res;dent;at ,��`�� —Futuse development tirnised to±16 lats Lav+�Densisy '`:.-:��j �' C � �� a AdvantaQes. Lik�lv Renton zonin�— � �_ --�,,: � ,.�-�->- —Potentiat eatal st for annesation of lar er uir R-4{4 du/net acre? •�.-Y; ,�, ,..... Y $ . � i �`ii�ii;:,;:�* � � iz�cacporat�d area Ea the souTh around E Cicycurrentiyinokingat �'" _;-��_� i Spring6rookSpringSwatet5he3 j possibleredzsi4nationta T��'"��. � Residential Singie Eamily ��'�' —L�%ould faciiitat�upQ�adina interseetiaa af TaIbot � x��h��h��uld aF�ou•in the t�il�»�-��l! Raad South aad South 3��°Str�et futc;r�R-3 aonin� j{e��pn Comprehensi+e Plaa � Fiscal Impact Analysis . � Fiscal im act Anal sis as Pra osed . � , . � p � ' � -. � � �� , , � � ♦General Fund cost and revenve im,}�iications � C��n� �u�� —Assurnes potential of±16 singte-family ' Developm2nt Develppment { . homes at fuES develapment based uFon city- Itevenues 52,779 �31,d82 ` «=ide R-4 Zone - . . . —Assumes existing dwelliag remains on site� ' Ct�sis 52,314 �3t},80� with an assessed value af 52Z 1,000 � • —Assumes i 5 new homes with an a��erage ' Surptus! 5465 �875 ' assessed vaius of 5440,OQ0 . Def tcit • � • � � Estimated oae•time Farks Acqni]itian and t3eveiopment Cost i - ; of 58.5?R attributablz ta this anne�at(an. , ? ; • _ -- EX�IT F ANTONE9S AloTNE7�ATION � � FACTOItS THE BOA�tD MUST COI�TCIDEI2 s i . i �• Washiugton State Boundary Review Board for King County . Prc�ase�Anihoae'Anuexatiosa QS111lO5 . . Page 2 ,�: 4) The boundaFies, includi,�g future service azea boundaries, af aII � cities or special servsce districts having jua�sdictiorx in dr near the proposal. . N4TE: The City and County library servir,� area boundaz'res are. . eotertac�inaus with the Ci�.jr's eorperrate hound�sy. S} King County Urban Gmwth A�ea and City of Rer�ton �'otential : Anuaexatian Area bou�ndaries established under the Growth Mana,�ement Ack � C. E�nibi#G: - A map of#he etu�rrent City of Kentoa corporate Iimits upon vvhich � the prop�sed Aa�thans' Annexa.tiaa� b�aundaries have been delineated. D. Exbflbit I�': City of Renton Compreh�nsive PDan Land Use Desiga�tians. IL FACTORS TH�B4�RD NdUST CONSIYI�R. � . 1. Overvfew A. o ula�t�on. The population crf the props�sed .Aimcxatian area i� estimated to be aboat 40 persons at full buildout based upon 2.5 persons per ha�usehold ant�a to#a1 � of 16 hausehotds. The City of Renton pogulatian as a�2404 was 5�5,360 � - �.�.,-.= , B. Teriitory: �Iie propaseci annexatiort area inc2�ndies r tely 26.14 acres. _ - . C. � �oP�,2a�on T�ensnty: The proposed pop�tlation demsity of the 1�nthotae' Annexatian � , aze�is cstimat�d to be about 8.26 persons ger gross acre. . . D. �ssessed V�luati,�;: The cur�eait assessed value af the properties prapased for � . anaexa��zon is apprqxirnately$745,400. Z, La��aaY Use . A,� �sting: Existing tases include one sing3e-family ho�e wit�t.an �stimated populatian of 3 perso�s. • � B. �sed: A partian of the subject anneatation has b�en loaked at as a preliminary application for a preliminary p1a� T'he ar�ne�tian is praposed�to facilitat� the developmxeut af these progertics for singlc-fa�ni�y residential uses at up to faar(4} � uuits ger uet acre. . 3. Coanprehens�we Plans/Franchise{s) A. Conforma,�ce with Coun Coiin,�yaride Planriing Paltc�es ad�pted�Ki}�g;County� The:.proposet3 acti�n is consis�en.t with the Ccyuntywide Planning Policies in generat, aad t}ts foltowing pelicies in pa�Eiaulaz: LU-3r Irt collabQration with ad,�acent couaties un�l cities and King Cc�unty, arrrl in , carrsultation with residentral groups in affected areas, each city shall designate a pvterttial ann�acation area. Each poterilial ann�eacation area shalt be specifrc ta ea4h city,... r �^ . Y �'. Washington State Boundary Review�oard for King County , . � Proposed An2hone'Annexatioa os�i iros Page 4 � � f� �� Chanter Two, Urban Land Use. Sect�on II.C, Urban Crrowth Area T�a.r ..e.ts � I�208 King County shall prmride adequate land capac�ty for resident�al, . � commercial and industrial growth in the urban unincorporated area. This land capacily shal! include both redevelopment . opportunities as wel! as opporturtities for development on vacant laruls. �� - .... ' ��6 ' Renfon's proposed R-4 zoning, o� the subject properties, would result in � {�,�us� �Q nearly 50 percent less capacity than that represented by the existing King -� q�/ct.cu-� County zoning,which is R-4, if the latter w�re bonused up to it's maximum of 6 du/gross acre. This b�causc tt�e density allowed under Rentan's R-4 zone is based upoa net acr.eage whereas the Co�nty's calculates density based ugon ss acreage. Also, the County's R-4 zone is easily bonused up to 6 du/gross acre. Att estianated 29 units could be gravided under the � County's R-4 zoning (without bon�isses) and only approximately 1'S units � could be provided uuder Renton's proposed.R-4 zo�ing. Cb�pter�vo, Urban Land Useo Section ffi.A. Plannine with Kin� County's Cities fgr Futur�tmexa.tion U-301 King Counry, should work with ctties to focus countywide growth ;r within tlaeir boundacrles wtd should su.�vporl unnexations within ihe- � - Urban Growth .4rea when corrsutent with �the King County, Corn�prehe.nsivePlan and CountywidePlanningPaldc�es. _ U-304 King County should supporl anrtexation proposals when: a. The proposal �s consistent wilh the K�ng County � Compreherasive Plan; � � b. The proposed area is wholdy witfain the Urban Growth Area and ivtthin the city's designated Potential Annexation�trea � , {for annexations); . � c. Tlte city is platrxing for urban densiti�s and��cient land ' use palterns consist�tt with the Cvuntyw�rde Planndng � Policies and King Cocuit}i land use plans;and, � d. Adopted Countywide goals and policies for urban services; � environmental .and cultraral res,ource protection will be supported.. The proposai is generally consistent,with t�e King Coun+ty Co�prehensive � PIaa and Land Use Iv�ap. Ttie area proposed for annexation is wholly within the Urban Growth Area and within Renton's designated Potent�al Anne�carion Area.The City's Comgrehensive Plan policies and development regulations support countyi�ride goals and policies for ucban de�ssi4ies,urban services and environmental and cultural resource protection. The proposed � ..^ � lt-4 zoning is urban, smaIl lot zoning, which will achieve urban d�nsities ancl efficiencies consistent with adopied countywide goals and policie.a for - ' urban services. P f � Washingtoz�State Boundary Keview Baard for King Cotanty � • � Peoposed,4nt�ona'Anuexation 105 . . �� 31 Adop�ed I�in��ountv C{�rmp Flan d�s,,,�nation: The adopted Ring Caunty t�o— f`� � C.omprehensive Plan tand use dasigna�ion fa�r the p�oposed ana�e�tion area is �''� Urban�Rgsidential - 4-12 du/ac. This desiguation is impleme�.ted w'sth the R-� . � Zane an the subject site. � 4) Comgarison of �aty a.nd County �eg,ulatians for sensitiv� ar�as� �tc: With annexatian,-King Counfip ordinances �nd re�atians v�rould 1� supplaxa�d with � � , those of the City of Renton. City of Renton ordinanaes ancI reg��tians ; ap�Iic�bie to the prc�gos�d actiaz�i�ciude th�fallowing: . . .� a. �sgulati+�ns fo�t��e��t�ctia� of serasitiv��eas: The City of Rettfon's � Critical Areas Ckdinance (RMC 4-3-050� d�scribcs pertnitted `and ' ' probibited activi�ties and tas�s,waivers,mc►dif:catians a�d var�ances,and additional oriteria� and pennrit pro+�esses for deveIop�ent in critical � areas. Critical areas regulaited b� the Qrd�nance in�lude �q�aifer rccharge areas, flAod and geologia haa�.�rd areas, native Iiabitat and wetlands, Al#Isaugh sgeeific regv2a�ions vary, t''hagater ZYA.24, , Environmental2��nsit�ve A�a�, of tlae I�ir�g Couuty Cade prt�vicies ' C4IIlj?AiB�?p81'e$'U�tt�t}►pT4#0Gb4A 4�S8TlS2�'iYC flF�S. The City c�f R�ntan Criti�al.a►reas Ordinance is awailable c�on request. b. R��,ulatigns fQr the p�ese�v�atian of a�.g�rioul�ral �r o,�her res�urce la,�ds: � Regu2atioaas pres�zving agricultural uses are not appiica'b1e to the subjec# area,�as t�e propose� aauiexation aze� is nat within a�y of the agricult�ral districts idcn�ifiea�for-fia�st, �econd or third priazity for#he purchase of d�velt�prner�.t rights, Fur#�r,th�prt�petty is n�t des.ignated for agcicultural productian.or ot�acr resuurcc lands i� the Kang Cous�ty ,� � Comprehensive P1au and is not curremtly und�r a�ricultun�l use. The _ � City of Rent�an daes not l�ve � program authori�ang transfex ar . gurcbase of d.evelopnnent rights. c. F�es�rvation of Lan€Imatks�r I�cim��£tistracts: 'I'�e�City of R�atan has t�o rcgulati�ons c4mparabl� to Chap�t�r 24.52, �o�e,�on ,� . Pre,��„ation o,�,Landma,�l�s. �dm€rrk�ites anq'I��£�icts, it� the Kang � Cauntj►Code. Hawev�r,no tandmark si�or districts are identif'i�d in the Newrcastle Co�nnunity Plan or are 3a�own E� eaist ita the sut�ject . arine�cation azea. d. Surface Water Contral: The City of Reaz#on has adopted the,�'99fJ in Csrunt�S�r�c� l3'a�er Design .t�fanua,�, �ay referen�e, in the City's Drainag� (Surf�ce Water) Staaa�a�arrds (R�viC 4-C-434} as th� design _ stanclard fa�s swf�re water control in devclo�ment projects. High�r standards�such as#hose af�he 19�8 Kf�eQ Corsn�Surface Water D,�s,�� Manuatt Lcvet 2 s�andard aa�e aften applied through �nvirorunental . review. C. C�ty of Renton CQmprehensive P'Ia�CFrtnc�i�, . 1) City�Planning Under the�trQ'�uth:�vi�.n�ger�e�it Ac� • Renton City Council adopted the ctuxxent Camprehensive Plan in 1 q95, cansistent with#he zeqtz�rem��s of th�Cnowth Maiiagemennt Act. The 1995 _ ` Cornprchensive P'Ian was updAted in th.� 2004 Manti�ttGd GrMA Comprehensivs Plan Review. Tha Ccat��r�hensiv� Plan Land �se Map , . . . . . ;• :, Washington State Bacmdary Review Board for King County • .� Proposed Anthone'Annexation " OS/l 1/05 � � Page 6 � � identifies Potential Anne�cation Areas,including the area currontly proposed for annexation, and shows land use desi$nahons for such areas. (See Ex}iibit H,City of Renton Land Use Designations) � . The proposal is consistent with the Land Use Element policies of the Renton Comprehensive Plan that support anreexation of lands: � that are w�thin Renton's Potential Annexation Area where the availabitity of infrastxucture and�services allow for the development � � � of urban d�nsities(Objective LU 1); � . . • tY�t are vacaat and subject to dcvelopmen#pressur�{I.U-37.3); . � � that are available fdr urbanization xu�der county comprehensive � planniag,zoniusg,and subdivision regulations(IU 37.5); � • for which the City of Renton should logically be the primary provider of urban in�frastructure and services(LU 3b); •. that would include those�who ala�eady uSe City secvic�s or whv . impact City infrastructure(LU-41);and • that includes enviroiunentally.sensitive a�eas and vacant land where . fitture d�velopment could adversely.influence the envir�unental , and land use charactcr of Renton(LU-42). 2) PAA status and PAA a€�eements_with other cities, if any: The City of - Renton has an adopted Potential Hnnexation Area. This area is identified � , on Renton's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and on the King Coianty Interirn Potential Anuexation Area Map. The City has also negodated a � PAA boundary �greement with the City of Ke�t. No PAA agreean�nt was. - � . � necessary for the area currently pmposed for annexation. � . 3) Required Comprehensive Plan amenslments. if any: No amendment to . Renton's Comprehensive Plan is necessary to process the eurrent proposed annexation. . � 4) f,,:Qmrnehensive Ptan approval datg: Renton's current Comprehensive PI�n was initially �doptod on Fcbruary 20, 1995, with annual amendmeuts in subsequent years.• The latest, 20Q�4 Growth Management Act Mandated. Camprehensive Plaa R.eview, is a comprehensive update of the 1995 Cornprehensive Plan. � 5) Reqnired franchises to s�rve�area: �No franchise will be required for the . City of Rentan to provide serviees to the subject area. .�. Pre-annexateon Zonin�A ee�� ,ts: The subject area has not been the subject of a pre-Annexation Zoning Agreement. . 7) Progosed land use designation: The subject atea is designatcd Residential Low Density in the City's Compreherisive Plan. R-4 zoning is proposed to � supplant the exisYing King Cotuaty R-4 zoning, consistent with the adopted Residential Low Density land ttse designatiou upon annexation. Under . Renton`s�annexation process, xoaung is.adopted concurrent to adoption of the annexation orclinance. � � 4 E�H:I�IT G R:El�TON CITY C�UNCIL MIl��U7CE� .� � 7anuary 24,2005 ' Renton City Council Minutes Page 23 _ Noting that the area is located within Renton's potential annexation azea(PAA), �; � Councilman Corman stated that despite the cost the PAA is part of the City's - responsibility. Councilman Clawson pointed out that the area will eventually have to annex to Renton or to another City. . Mr. Erickson reported that a community meeting will be held if the annexafion proposal proceeds to the 60%petition level. There being no further public comment,it was MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON,COUNCIL CLOSE TT�PUBLIC MEETING. CARRiF.D. MOVED BY BRIERE,SECONDED BY CORMAN,COUNCII..ACCEPT THE MAPLEWOOD ADDITION ANNEXATION 10%NOTICE OF IlVTENT ' TO ANNEX PETITION AND AIJTHORiZE CIRCULATION OF THE 60% ' DIRECT PETTTION TO ANNEX,WHICH REQUII2ES PROPERTY � OWNERS TO SUPPORT TI�ADOPTION OF FUTURE ZONING CONSISTENT WTI'H'THE C1TY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REQUIRES THAT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSUME A PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF TI�CITY'S EXISTING OUTSTANDING INDEBTEDNESS. CARRIED. RECESS MOVED BY CORMAN,SECONDED BY LAW,COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE NIINCTTES. CARRIED. Time: 8:51 p.m The meeting was reconvened at 8:57 p.m.;roll was called;all Councilmembers present. PUSLIC HEARINGS This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in , `` Annexation:Anthone',Talbot accordance with local and State laws,I�ayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the - Rd S&S 55th St public hearing to consider the 60%Notice of Intent to annex pefition for the propased Anthone'.e,rnzxatian c�nsisung of 4.84 acres,including the abuttang . street right of-way,located at the southeast corner of the intersection of S.SSth S�and Talbot Rd.S. ' Don Erickson,Senior Planner,stated that the site contains one single-family dwelling,and has a three percent upwazd slope from the southwesi corner to the northeast comer. Reviewing the public services,Mr.Erickson indicated that Fire Disirict#37,Renton water and sewer,and the Kent School District ser�e the site. He explained that existing King County zoning is R-6(six units per � gross acre). The land use designation under the City's Comprehensive Plan is Residential Low Density,for which R-4(four units per net acre)zoning is � �proposed. Mr.Erickson noted that the City is reviewing the possible � . � redesignation of the area to Residential Single Family,for wliich concurrent . zoning is R-8(eight units per net acre). Mr.Erickson indicated that despite the smaller than normal annexation azea and the limitation of future development to approximately 161ots,the annexation proposal provides a potential catalyst for annexing a lazger area to the south, � and facilitates upgrading the intersection of Talbot Rd.S.and S.55th St. He reForted that tu2 fiscal i�pact a�al�+sis r�vea�s a s�ius of$455 at c•ar�nt development,and a surplus of$875 at full development. The estimated one- time pazks acquisition and development cost is$8,528. � Mr.Fsickson concluded that the proposed annexation is consistent with City = annexation policies except for size,and is consistent with Boundary Review ; � � � . . E��IT H I�ING COUNTY ZONING 1VIAP CI�'Y OF REN'TON ZONIloTG MAP 6B �� r � � �� — , , - n�! � .�� 4� � �� ` I -, � �r� �. � ' -� : �� I s'�Y,:��g ��. .. � . r�5i F,z i � � strl��l�� 'Egr�� — .,�'. � � C.TP"� �II� t�d�y�."'� 'Li".. �CT�� _�n9 i��•� i$a iS�� -. , � .�R.C�.�� V j�j�j�!��,,,,,,'''ppp C � _ �:� ��L '� 3"" .xT..}:T41, i.m3,.F,a� _- � ' `� - /..+� �w��f��II`' . . 1. � r"°'s'" .E �'ikS.�r..�1�� .1�' ��jn �� -+�}� , � �('e �:t�'��i[',�`�i`�`�� e F�� !!� �� #n�6�Ji31 r�� 1� ��`o� �I ` '�•�i�'�r�"��u.irn '� ��y F u'^t�.i�tl ��i �I��i�� _!�. [� � ,{Ytt.��S'�''sul� {�g��' �`�. �"It��4`4! � : ��cS! s, � ' c r�,��u�.i�a�°� t=��., ��' �III�IIiII� �� ,E�� C��` ,a��.��`��.�,�`� /�.i � 1\.,, F 1 5��o �. �-�y� y„ � �''y�`,``��;�.... �'� �w��f��h�e1��('�/.ca-,z�`��.��s�� a �� " !:f�i�,\ ". �2 I'�h o!�'J ��.�_...��E��°a�-�9G.�"�3i's�I��I• �I ��- � � ��o�sY �M1 ��%`�3��'q• . ��'�iii��a� `"�� E�_"�J _ j � �aa �� _ I �.�a. g r � ' �C �E� ��y`�` � . �I '��me�� . �, ��'�`��6 �� `�[aEa.�$3��r^�nY�S�� cst � ,... ` w Yx x . ' 3 9 as�� 1 �m�� _. �ac.- sP'�Y'i d!�t —____ ` �F�I—m_ om��-�; �-P .��d°`�� gl�wn.zram��u� "�,f,a�.�i��'GS'� tl \ �� '�.� i'�!�F � � � C'd �., e a u ��• p F �0 . s � r; Y q ��E��u-o-�.m�o� , ' l��"`-..��Fs�:.."�v��U'C�L�IGN�g�� m�'� � . ��y��t �r5� Ts„BIIIIIJ�7� �h��f �'-i�� ' ��.-1 y�� - ��°v � 4.� � e3�.. .zc '�41 � '�'r��...s � F�I� E. � rF � s�� .�� ' � '_�� , ��iE�3 � E��`I`I�' ', � '��,P�� kf ��k'�rd '��.�;��' �y��E �� M `��`� �. ��[�a�tE� ��y%r �:�i �'�� ' ��' �� `t�.��7' �c�e'�l�,��l��s� ag i1��1�i��9� ^�r q7 � � s u;€E. °;� s r.� �sl� �I �� I�r- . . �- �� . ��,� ��w��g�f � ��.�� ,��? ,� L��s �' � �� _•�a. , '.� ��'a�� -w�.�, ��e�':ttC� tK�i�� -� .aa a� �l�.I��,_ �,�'"^ �z"� �" / u,�.:.,„,�G��f ��rud�l� �, �Ei,�.'�E� �" � - �`�am+�`��I�� '�' - - ''�('�� cv�,&55z,�e�'� ��i ��17u,�'°� bi�' a� . .-d 1 . �d�, ¢E��, �'�GF'�v �:..Y��- g 2�e`��. �'m ��f bw�� - �� \ �'E'Y.i.�7 � �t i -a '� i,6Ylr \\ �3.�' 3 4��f�I� ��,,^ �..V .� � �.� \$x�. � ��'��sx �r ��r_ �„•� �� "� � t �g @ WI t� . . . � �.� �a EISR�}�� L`��q1.��''uE li'r ��'"'4"q C,�� I �.�� tYl i� ,\ �' _ ��' .��. ��"`A �5e�f� � �x . ay �T 2 � ' �� . �g ��/�� x3 a� �. c a� n� -'i�i .�3p,".'� . -.� _� °°�� p�p � �i��" �� `�� . -�_ � 1 �� as�� z!7� �4 �f�-i..�''. ��, L�F�l;1�`� �.�.,,,y � � _,.r ��-. �'i'�y�u�jhlil.��y . f� < . .`, .f n��ia` _. � ��.� .�,�,+'_" ��i,�9�,�i"',��' e �9+,�j'��so ` I. �..-� F� 'z`��. .� ° � a �"� �2.a �e: .� _, , , ` }. �c�'�, .� - j £ °r ""' ,,�-. � � ,� a�i' ;. - _ t: .. ��; ', # _ _�.... ' � � ''��„!i"'� �'wE��F'"�'!� -�- �� - � , . .� � ^.� �� , �. ■L -- - �_ '� ', ��P�� e � � �,,�. e �.� �� .,�o. �►'�! -- � �, �� .�� .�� " a t��l�c � , � , �� '- . �� `� '�� , ��` � �� y�• � � F G � r`/ „ _ �� --� 1� � �. � �g� � . _ u%.��(i�� ll.—. ` � — ,1 � ��tltrs�l��' \ ► '� - � `., ,�":� " � • • �� w�a+.� � � • � g� .� [ :�� ,`�� ` � _ '��,.'�k �� "'�� f�..\, l� - — - �3� � � c�� — - � - �� '� �� ^aj °�� '�� _f► , 4� �, _� � ��/ _ _� � .�,-�-,�,. � ,,-�� I - ... � . � ... . . . . . : . . . ,,. - � + � .��ri : :- -: . , . �XHIBIT' I �� co�v��►�G �p �I'T'�' OF :�El�1�T{JN Z+t�I�ING �� . 9. 1 f . . .. . � �. �� \ ��i�,u�.a�y\ 0 � � � �C tA a � � �i�, tt°'1� a° � �. � ...r� - .. � . � — --' _ 8 W 4 rd r �� i , f � �� , . � ��4�Y�Y. � �1 r� �� , , ,; `< � : � �n,��. ,.. � _: . t ��x� � �- ., . ,;,� , Q �: , . ' o , � � - -� :,K..�. (��, s'{ �� rn � �. � . � - �--�: � � ° � � � � � � � �. � , ;. � n � � � -.:,._. . .r.:r:. 15 (�'�� 1 11\(��j s�#�fi�i A 10-Agricuitural, R-24-Residentiat, i� l.J 111 � one DU*per 1Q acres 24 QU`per acre ��a.J 1 d'1 Y!✓ � 1 �/�1� . . f�35-Agricuitural. R-48-Restdential, �4 . one DU"per 35 acres 48 DU'per acre -' F-Forest ��`��= NB-Neighborhood Business � Tavvnships 23 Range � :�� 5,_� �,_�,,��a, �B-�,�mU��B�� RA-2.5-Rurai Area, RB-Regional Business nne DU"per 5 acres - (ncludes zaning changes � �'�-RuralArea, : Q_��$ ane DU`per 5 acres through (Jrdinanc� #'�5028 i� ��: ,�_,�_�U,�,,,�, �� _�ndustriai ��,}h��, GO�,q` } r�..�.. one DU"per 10 acres 3�"� �'�, dJ �t� � UR-Urban Reserve, �' �ncorpQrated Gely one DU*per 5 acres I------,a � R 1-Residential, Urban Growth one DU*per acre Area Boundary R-4-Residantiai, 4 DU'per acre � R 6-Residen6al, The infamation inctuded on this map has been cumpiied 6Y 6 DU`per acre � King Courriy sfaff from a variety of saurces and is subject to chaage without notice. Kirtg CaurtY.makes no representatlons or � R-8-R8Std8f{fial, waRaMiss, express or implied, as to aocuracy, completeness, &DU'"p0C 3CfC � tirr�liness,or r�ghts to Ure use of�such ir�formation. KinO Gourty shall not be IiablQ(or any generel,speciat,indired,incidenta�,or �s �� R 12-Reside�tial, carsequeniial damagss inciudinp, but not tmited to, tost ��t.�;�a.�;i N revenues or lost profds resultlng trom the use or misuse of tlie - � j2 DU`per acre infamation cantained a� lhis map. Rny sale ot thfs maA or 4 Q25 0.5 infamadon an this ma is rohibdecf exc t 6 wrilten R 18-Residenfiat, P P ev r verm�g5ian or ��.5� 1 S DU•per acre �_�� King CountY• ,! Mles �_ , • �- � f.��t'F�r. .Iv. ,.. '�' ".: . .� .l .} '/ ' 't� 7� '.1,•" r � > . : �,�.� 1J ! . „' �t. U � I , , � C.�.. �'. i . A ��'_ ! J. �! 2 �i��.i � �1 l, 4� f ' ��il �� "�5��t � t�'5��.: f f ` 2 �il . � ` . ! . . � < ..: .... . �' . �. S 1� + ....1 ' 4«,, �� , '°Y i� E�ono,rr�i�De�e�opm�nt,N�ig�bo�hoo�s,-and�i�a�te�i,c�rar��g ,' � ,t , ,. ^ f �n /, �). . ,J�fil��Q�Kc�,��1��fi��-A�i��C�� + �..; � . .� .�y ,�,. , y A�A.�ej�Pietscti��+;��f�`[�l.(��,. 4j 1 �.:.. ,Y. ...: �. �:. . ��_� [. . .'.,t ..+.� :.: Y J�.,r. .�1,. ��. . \. 11...� ., .1 i �j �yY ! ,4 t r.' ` r . { I .f. . i, / . . ) f 2 . . . � ( . ' . � . ! 4 . �' � � .G, � i �l; ��`I � �i . . , 1 ( J = � . �lt r r S�� 7 • � � . �.c' � � S 7 r i . u � . �- � � '� 7 _ � � 3 � F 1 f � � ' �� , . ' _ �.�.��,�� : � � ,: ' . � ' � � ..t. �' � �� : �� y`r. ( ! ;.J Y F Cl��ur�'��7GV�/�� .�I . ..t l t 1 �J ` 1' �.. ` �� Q�Y �� 4�V��+ � ,' t r f t F . t , t i i t -�'6 .� ! .. , t � � . c 1�� i � \ . ' !.� ` ' ..,. ; � � � , , , t � , 'h , � „��te�ounda Re�lew , _ t ,- � $s��Yd For Kin��Q L � , f, 4 , , t � , u , ,� F , 4 !\\)• .f: t f . 1 � / . � .1.. ,.. ' � ` �t,a�e t��Wash��bn � , � ,:''r � ; ° '• ;, �` �`;�u�t�lar�y�t�t�ia�Board fo�``I�ir��qunt�� ' , , >�- `� , ,', ' �� 1 '�"esl��.Build�ngy ��it�40� � 2 4,. , �' ` i ` , '" r '4, ` f ) � / �k0��e�jer`�a� : � , � ''' ij 'S , xt�., J � i y. �� r' ,r � t,� { - t y� i �7��1e`r�-YY� 7��►l� ' : .' � �.� ` r �� r � i � y .� � .�: _ ` .�i � .>� ,r s 7 f ? .; :� � , 'l" d. ..• . : -�' �'.'. y�. .... ; . 4 ;�_. :.�, . _ �.. r� . . } �.. < . , - , � 'Subj eet�l �BRIIEF ,S�:TP��I�TING �N(��C��E O� YN�'L�T�UN �',t? E�AND� TH�- ' � 4 i : r ' `, , � � ` ' � G'IT�QF RENTO�CO�UIt�T�E LIlVIITS$�ANILT�XA'I`ZO�T , � ` + r � ti ti.r 5 � .' � ` � � , t.; ,.� ;�, :F � ti`�. + �. .i � �' '� ' r a '` � , s , : �#��ar Board IvTembers:� � � , , � � , ` ,x � ; ` � :, � ' - ' � , ' � ,3 , � � . , + : k : ' • . � r � , ,, � ° �s required by�C�apter 36 93 0�the R�`�ns�d Code of Washington•�R�W};:�he'City o�I�enton-. f < i` x g�ye �3ohce'of`.its 1�i�enhori to at�nex ter'ritory Yeferred'to �.s �he ``1�thone�" .Aiu�exafiori: �`hat ,�,� ' � anr�gxai�;or� i� proposet��und�r�`th�;direct-r�e�itioni.tnet�iod �n_aaco;r�ance,'.vvith tn� applicab�e " _ s �� zbv�siot�s,o� Cha�ter 35A�4 9f �`�� i2CW a�d}wou�d ix�corpora#e into 'the City of Rento��- F �+. : ap�ro�xtnat�l�4 84�eres of te�t�ry for tliE�r�oyv�s�o�of u�bar�'s�rvlce� � ' - _ ` .1`' .. ar {- � y ..� 4:.� �.% A .�' L K, '. ` , ' _ • 4} ` S f� , , r - r'; ,h ; .k ' Y T�assist��yoiir cdns�;t�erativn of#kt�prbposeci ac�ticin, `s�taff has;pfepare�tlie a`t�ached bne�r� � �' � " { . F , •.. . y �.' �' S 11 ls�� . .. � - . i • � ! _,j ..V ` . .: . ; -F ` .'1. . �.. Yi1 t _)l . : '?( � y, �. � � ' �_Z • : ��houlii q'ueS#ions anse durarig t�e review�f this,�ii#'o�-c�atron pl�as�c��tat�t Don Enckson, Semor� , : �;lanner;�t(42Sj�4�0�b�8�; � , �.� ` � '� 4 � , , ,Y .� 4 ,1 r u`. � E � ti.. _ r ,� � j ,j', .T# t _ ' ` � � � � �� -` , � : . . k , Also,ple�se s��id notices and�othex c�mmunicatlons re,ga�ding tf�e proposed;anne�a`tion to f` ( i '1+ n: 1 } � > . . ; ` ', � � � � 'r `:Don Ericicson,�,I�P, Semor P��hne�r }. ,, r, , Y :, �' 1 � �Departinent b�E,conorn�c i)e�elopment, - � ' - Netghborhooc�s-and Strate�ic-:Plaxuii'r.ig t'� - " �� ` - � City,o�Ren�ton ' y. } < � . . . - '� ' 1055`S Gxady Way � �� ' � �Ren�on,VVA,,9ff05'S� . . � ,; " ' .. ; .. .� , . - �� ,}, _ ?.� . . . r� ' . , . Thank You for yQur consrderafion -. `- ' : . , ,- ;+ ;. `, . . ' ' . ' �: , , , . .. . , , , . Sinc�rely, . � , , . , � � ` ��T � . . � � 1. � . � _ ; . ,. . � �.. � � �, . . , ( 1 ..1 ' ` ' .. ; 1 ' . • ' . . , .. . . , . . . . � � � � t �, � . � Ale�t Pi�etsch'• � . , • . � � Adiniriistrato�' , � . � , � . . . ` � • .' , � ' ` " �. � , . I' . .. ,� . ,.,, . ..., • . _ , � � � �. , _" . - � ., � � : ' � � ' . r. ;� . �� . . : , .. „ , ', , . ' . , �-+ �7 • � � � 105�5 South(�rady Way,�=R�nton,Wash'ingtc�n 9805� - .� �.� 1 � 1V � � . � . J: .. . - . _ • �This paper cbnta'ins 50%recyoiedmalena1,.30/post.C6rlSumei A H E A D O F-T H E CU RY B , , . . _ _ . ; , • _ , ., i . . . , � .. 4 ., ` ' , . �. ' �raxT Ta THE WASffiNGTUN STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BDARD - FQR KIN�COUNTY IN THE MATTER OF THE CITY OF RENTON'S ANTHQNE'ANNEXATION Boundary Review Board File No. 2199 August 31, 2005 Public Hearing I. BA+CKGROUND The Renton City Gouncil appraved a 60°lo Direct Petition to annex far this annexation an Januazy 24,2005 and authorized the City Administration to farward the No�ice of Intent Package to the Board. The Rentan City Cauncil, also at t11at time authorized the City Administratian to request that the Baundary Review Board invflke its jurisdiction in order to review and hear arguments in favar af expanding the subject annexation to the north ta include an additional 25.7-acres of uninoorporated King Caunty, surrounded by the City on three sides. II, CQMIVICJNITY BACKGROLTND ANI.)ANNEXATION PROFOSAL The Anthone'—Expanded Annexatian is lacated within Rentan's Potential Annexation Area and abuts Rentan on its western,northern, and soutliern boundaries. It is bordered by South 55'�' Street(5E 192�d Street)on the north,Talbot Road 5outh on the west, and the City af Renton's Springbrook Springs Watershed on its south. " �--�- Annexation in this and ather uninco:rpora�ed pockets of Renton's Patential Annexation Area is � primarily driven by development, In this case,#he rnajority af the enlargad annexation site is develaped with existing single-family de#ached homes. Unly the ariginal annexation site(4.84 acres}is proposed to be developed with new hames. Three existing subdivisions,Talbot Estates {17 du)accessed off Talbot Road South, Springbrook Terrace{22 du) accessed aff Sauth 55�' St�eet,and High Park{17 du)also accessed off South 55�'Street,comprise the expanded original annexation site. These subdivisions have their own private internal streets,which are currently maintained by their respective horneowners associations. The original annexation boundary, although regular resulted in an annexation area that was too srna11 to be efficiently served by the City. A1so,the existing abutting subdivisions`would benefit by coming into the City since their overall taxes(property taxes and City utility tax)wauld be less than wl�at they are paying now and their level of service of would increase, as th�County. continues to reduce services ta these areas that are internded to eventually"annex to acijacent cities. The Gounty has stated that it is � reluctant to invest in services ta areas that it will eventually cede over to cities. RI. CC)NSISTENCY WITI3 STATE GROWT�I MANAGEI4�ENT ACT AND COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES State law(RCW 36.93.157)stipulates that Boundary Review Board decisions must be consistent with three sections of the state's Growth Managernent Act(GMA)-planning goals,urban growth areas,and countywide planning palicies. The City believes that the originally configured Anthone' Annexation does not fully meet the intent of a number of these goals and policies. It's expansion,however,would. a. Piannins Goals: Both the City and the County have adopted comprehensive � : land use plans as required by GMA. Each of these plans has been determined to " Anthane'Annexation BR.B File No, 2199 i , � �. be consistent with the GMA by the state Deparirnent of Community,Trade,and Economic Development. 'These plans support the Act's various goals including ' ,' those related to planning for urban growth,reducing urban sprawl,meeting diverse housing needs, as well as addressing transportation, open space,and recreation. Renton's 2004 Mandated GMA Comprehensive Plan is also consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies of King County. b. Urban Growth Areas: The City of Renton adopted a Potential Annexation Area (PAA),which includes the subject area as well as large areas to the south and east. A portion of Renton's PAA on the south side of the Cedar River and east of 128�`Avenue SE is proposed for incorporation as the city of Fairwood. It is the City's intent to provide urban levels of services and development, through annexation,to those portions of its PAA that do not incorporate. c. Countvwide PIanning Poiicies:_King Caitrriy,through the ratificatior�of its cities, adopted its Countywide Planning Policies,Phase II(CPP), in 1994. The CPPs are part of a hierarchy of directive and substantive policy. As directive policy, the CPPs guide the comprehensive:plans of cities and counties,which in turn provide substantive direction regarding the content and exercise of local land use regulations. One of the primary aims of the CPPs is to `Y'acilitate the transformation of local governance in the urban gi-owth area so that urban Qovernmental services are provided by cities and rural and regional services are provided by counties."[Central Puget Sound Hearings Board, Snoqualmie, 2304c,FDO]. Besides defining service provision responsibility,the CPPs also stipulate that development must be directed to urban areas,thereby reducing the - opportunity for sprawl to occur. Some of the more relevant CPPs include: � Policv LU-29,which states that all jurisdictions shall develop growth phasing plans consistent with applicable capital facilities plans to maintain an Urban Area served with adequate public facilities and services to meet at least the six-year intermediate household and ' employment target ranges,consistent with LU-67 and LU-68. Policv FW-13,which states that cities are the appropriate provider of local urban services to Urban Areas,either directly or by contract. Counties are the appropriate provider of most countywide services. Policv L U-32,which states that a city may annex territory only within its designated PAA. All cities are required to phase annexations to coincide with the ability of the city to coordinate the provision of a full range of urban services. Policv LU-33,which states that land within a city's PAA shall be developed according to that city's and King County's growth phasing plans. Undeveloped lands adjacent to that city should be annexed at the time development is proposed to receive a full range of urban services. . Renton notes that both the annexation area,as well as the unincorporated areas to the north, east, and south, are located within its PAA. Renton is the designated sewer service provider for the original annexation area and Soos Creek Water and Sewer District is the designated sewer and y`,i water service provider for the expanded area. Fire service is currently provided by Fire District Anthone'Annexation BRB File No.2199 2 , 1 ` . ` `� . . , . _ #37,which Renton would take over service from upon annexation. Renton is prepared to provide '�,, a full array of urban services including local governance, library and police services, courts,jails, � detective services, street maintenance, human services,parks and recreation services, and land use planning and transportation services. Renton is already providing these urban services to city residents on the north side of South 55�'Street,and can,unlike King County, easily extend these services to the expanded annexation area. Under Renton's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation this area is classified as both Residential Single Family(RS) and Residential Low Density(RLD). The original 4.84 acre annexation site is designated RLD,which would support R-4 zoning at a maximum of four units per net acre, and the expanded portion, which includes the three existing subdivisions, is designated RS,which would support R-8 zoning at a maximum of eight units per net acre. Current King County zoning is R-4,which allows up to six units per gross acre. The latter density is comparable to Renton's R-8 zone, in terms of maximum allowed density. Housing in the three existing sulidivisions is at approximately 3.3 units per net acre. Although annexation is anticipated to continue incrementally in this portion of Renton's PAA, the expanded Anthone' t-lnnexation would result in a more efficient area for the City to serve while allowing existing adjacent residents to benefit from increased urban services and a cost equal to less than what they are now paying in unincorporated King County. The current 4.84-acre annexation proposal fails to address the needs of the larger community and would place an unfair burden on other residents since the costs of servicing such a small area are typically greater than servicing a larger area. IV. CONSISTENCY WITH BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FACTORS AND OBJECTIVES The Boundary Review Board must also evaluate annexations based upon the set of nine objectives set forth in RCW 36.93.180. In doing so,the BRB is allowed to consider a host of factors(RCW 36.93.170)including,but not limited,to land use,population, availability of municipal services,cost of local services, economics, and development regulations. These nine objectives are listed below along with along with findings to help the Board determine whether an objective is met, or,in some cases,relevant. Staffls analysis includes conclusions based upon the current annexation,as well as an expanded annexation,including the unincorporated peninsula to its west,north, and east. Objectives: 1. Preservation ofnatural neighborhoods and communities. The proposed 4.84-acre annexation,by itself,would exacerbate the existing situation in the immediate area since it does little to address service levels for the existing three subdivisions,to the south and east, or facilitate their annexation into the city. By not . coming into the City now it may be more difficult for these adjacent areas to annex into the City in the future since the City typically only considers annexations that are ten or more acres in size and may impose fees for annexations in the future. Currently, the City does not charge a fee for processing annexations. Without annexation at this time the three remaining subdivisions would remain as isolated neighborhoods surrounded by the City on the west, south, and north. , - , By expanding this annexation to include these three existing subdivisions more consistency, in terms of land,use would result. Renton's Comprehensive Plan shows this Anthone'Annexarion BRB File No. 2199 3 ' � • , area as both Residential Single Family(RS)with subsequent R-8 zoning and Resideritial Low Density(RLD)with subsequent R-4 zoning, at the time of annexation. King County's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows this peninsula as Urban Residential, Medium,4-12 du/acre with current R-4 zoning, at four units per gross acre,bonusable up 6 units per gross area,or comparable to Renton's R-8 zoning. Renton is currently considering a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment that would change the land use designation for this area from RS to RLD. Such a designation and subsequent R-4 zoning would be more compatible with the area's existing average residential density of 3,3 units per net acre. 2. Use ofnhvsical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, hiQhwavs and land contours. The origina14.84-acre annexation relied on street right-of-ways and abutting parcels for its boundaries. The inclusion of the unincorporated three subdivisions to the south and east would result in both a more reasonable municipal boundary since the area would then be bordered by the City on its west,north and southern boundaries. As a result these existing neigliborhoods would not be left as unincorporated pockets surrounded by the City. 3. Creation and nreservation of lo�ical service areas. The originally proposed annexation does little to create or preserve logical service districts in the area. Other than for water, sewer and schools there currently are no logical service areas here. King County notes that the cosfs of servicing urban � unincorporated areas is not necessarily going down with annexation because of the -_ increased inefficiencies of serving these remaining unincorporated pockets. They also point out that because of voter approved initiatives,their ability to raise taxes to provide the same level of seivice previously provided has been seriously jeopardized. Cities,unlike the county,have been afforded by the state,legislative taxing authority for business and occupations taxes; as well as utility taxes,to support the provision of local urban services. As a consequence,cities are better able to provide a broad array of services such as local government,senior housing,parks and recreation, libraries, land use and transportation planning,police and fire, street and utility maintenance, garbage collection, and other services synonymous with urban living. This is one of the main reasons both the Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies designate cites as the logical•provider of these urban services. The 4.84-acre annexation site and the surrounding areas, as noted above, are within Renton's designated PAA,and are anticipated to be eventually annexed into the City. If the surrounding 20.9-acres of unincorporated area to the south and east is not annexed into Renton at this time,the existing inefficiencies of servicing these three"urban" subdivisions will continue,exacerbating the County's ability to efficiently provide services elsewhere in unincorporated King County. Anthone' Annexation BRB File No.2199 � 4 ,� � � , `� 4. Preventio�of abnormallv irreFular boundaries. This annexation, as initially proposed, does not prevent abnormal or irregular boundaries. Because most annexations are incremental within a city's PAA, and are driven by development pressures including willing sellers,the availability of urban services such as sewer and expeditious plan review,the resulting municipal boundaries often are going to be irregular. This,however, is typically an interim situation. In rare instances, unincorporated peninsulas can remain for a number of years,resulting in inefficient service areas and increased servicing costs. The proposed expanded annexation area would create a more coherent city boundary since it would be surrounded by the City on three of its four sides and therefore upon annexation become an integral part of the City. S. Discoura�ement ofmulfiple incorvoratio�is. This objective is not relevant in this case. The annexation proponents are not considering incorporation nor is there a proposed or likely incorporation in the immediate area that they could join. 6 Dissolution of ir�active snecial purpose districts. This objective is not relevant in this case. There are no inactive special districts in either, the proposed annexation area or the unincorporated peninsula to its north and east. , 7. Adiustme�t of imnractical boundaries. The annexation as initially proposed does not adjust or normalize impractical boundaries. - If anything,it could further isolate the three surrounding subdivisions within this unincorporated corner of King County. This includes Talbot Estates, Springbrook � Terrace and High Park subdivisions. The requested expanded boundaries result in a more logical service area for the City of Renton and should facilitate eventual annexations to the west across Talbot Road South. 8. Incornoration of cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorvorated areas, which are urban in character. The proposed 4:84-acre annexation area, as well as the 20.9-acre unincorporated surrounding area to the south and east, is also urban and located within the County's designated urban growth area,as well as Renton's designated PAA. The City is requesting that the Boundary Review Board expand the proposed 4.84-acre Anthone' Annexation to include the surrounding three"urban"subdivisions, which would otherwise remain as an unincorporated pocket of nearly 21 acres, surrounded by the City of Renton on three of its four sides. 9. Protection of a�ricultural and urban lands. This objective is not applicable in this case. The subject annexation site and the surrounding peninsula of unincorporated land are designated"urban" on the County and ,- � City's comprehensive plan land use maps. There are no designated agricultural lands within the subject area. Anthone'Annexation BRB File No.2199 5 � ' , ,. In summary,the proposed Anthone' Annexation does not appear to meet objectives 1, 3,4 or 8. ` ' However,with the inclusion of the three adjacent unincorporated subdivisions to the south and east,the resulting enlarged 25.7-acre annexation would better meet the Boundary Review Board's objectives that are relevant in this case. V. CONCLUSION The City of Renton is ready to assume this area and can provide a high level of urban services to its residents. The initially proposed 4.84-acre annexation area,however, will do little to expedite the annexation of residual unincorporated pockets,including three smaller existing subdivisions to the south and east. These latter areas are not adequately serviced now, according to King County, and service is likely to decline even further in the future. T'hese left over pockets of unincorporated land are also likely to become more difficult for the public and emergency responders to find. Street numbering will be confusing as motorists pass in and out through the City with its own numerical and grid numbering system and then back into unincorporated King County with its five digit house numbers and different street designations. ' The cost of servicing the remaining 56 residential lots will obviously be higher for the county than if they were served by an adjacent city. Also,both the('rrowth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies designate cites as the logical providers of urban services to these "urban"areas. Expanding the Anthone' Annexation to include the three unincorporated subdivisions to the south and east, should result in more efficient service areas for both the County and the City.The result should be reduced costs to both. It also appears that annexation --- to Renton would reduce taxes and service fees paid by residents of the three existing subdivisions. Residents would appear to save$1.44 per assessed$1,000 value, or approximately$372 on a - home with a$250,000 appraised value. _ Arguments supporting an enlarged annexation include: 1. The City's Potential Annexation Area designation represents the future intention of the city,which includes this area as well as areas east to the Urban Growth Boundary and areas south to Renton's boundary with Kent and/or its PAA. Unless incorporation occurs,this whole area will eventually come into the City of Renton. 2. Expanding the current annexation boundaries to include the remnant pockets to the south and east wou.ld result in a more reasonable municipal boundary for the City while reducing confusion regarding service responsibilities,public notifications, calls for emergency response and the like,for residents and adjoining jurisdictions. . 3. Whereas subsequent annexations are anticipated in the area,particularly in response to increased development pressures and the reduction in County services, such annexations are typically citizen initiated, incremental, and often do not represent the most logical service areas or municipal boundaries. Such an incremental approach is often time consuming and costly to both the City and King County. Using the Board's authority,in special situations such as this,to expedite the transference of urban unincorporated areas to urban incorporated areas, appears to provide a more efficient way to realize adopted regional planning goals, while remaining in compliance with state law. Anthone' Annexation BRB File No.2199 6 4. The City of Renton has planned for and is able, at this time,to provide a full complement �, of urban services for both the current 4.84-acre annexation proposal as well as the proposed expansion of it to include the three existing"urban"subdivisions that abut it. 5. Consistent with GMA and CPP policy, cities are the logical provider of urban services and counties are the logical provider of regional and local services within rural areas. 6. Incremental annexation,with large delays between annexations, can set the stage for different development standards being applied within the same community,leading to " very different development patterns and infrastructure such as streets and utility fixtures. As noted above, the City of Renton is considering a change to its Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation,which if adopted would allow future zoning on the enlarged annexation site more consistent with its existing development pattern and density. VI REQUEST State law authorizes the BRB to approve the annexation proposal as submitted, deny the annexation proposal as submitted, or modify the annexation proposal by adding or deleting territory, and approving as modified. RCW 36.93.160 also requires the Board to issue a written decision, setting forth the reasons for their decision, and indicating whether proposed changes are approved,rejected, or modified and, if modified,the terms of the modification. The City of Renton respectfully puts forth the following request to the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County, far its consideration: . The City of Renton requests that the Boundary Review Board modify the Anthone' Annexation,as submitted,to include the Talbot Estates, Springbrook Terrace, and High- Park subdivisions to its south and east as depicted in Exhibit 1 and described in Exhibit 2, attached. Anthone'Annexation BRB File No, 2199 7 „i., ' '`� �-. � �, t R . ' �,r�ll�^/.ti��luou� ' WILLIAMSQN LAW C?FFICE �u� � "�� 2005 ��sd Fos King Co. —,s July 22,200� �enora Blauman Executive Secretary Washington State Boundary.Review Board for King County Yesler Building,Room 402 400 Yesler Way ' Seattle,WA 98104 City Clerk City of 1Zez�tan 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Don Erickson, AICP Senior PlanneriStrategic Planning City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Re: Notif cation of Anriexation�Proce�dings &initial Zoning Hearings - Anthone'A�inexation ;.BRB Fi1e Na 2199; City of Renton File No. A-04-003 King County Tax Parcel Nos. 7931000151, 7931000152, and 7931000154 Ladies &Gentlemen: On behalf af M&T Developrnent,LLC, the owner of the parcels which are the subject of these proceedings before the Baundary Review Board and City of Renton, and who is a party herein, tlus Ietter requests that in addition to riotice already being provided,that official notice of alI future proceedings before the Bou��dary Review Baard atid�hearirigs befor.e,th.e City Council of Rentan also be provided to: Bill H. Williamson Williamson Law Office Bank af America Tower 701 5”'Avenue - Suite 5500 P.O. Box 99821 SeatLle, WA 98139-0821 . . {2Q6) �92=Q411�/(2Q6)292-Q313 FAX and to: � � � � _ .. �'� Bank of America Tower ♦ 7Q1 Fifth Avenue, 5uite 550Q � P.O. Bax 94821 � Seattle, Washington 9$139-0821 Office: 206.292.0411 � Fax: 20b.292.0313 � eFax:20$.567.]998 williamsonb@msn.com r � { Notice Reguest-Anthone'Annexation BRB No.2199;Renton No.A-04-003 Ju1y 22,2005 Page 2 M&T DeveZapment, LLC Attention: Pat White 9016 35bth Avenue S.E. Snoqualmie, WA 98065 (425) 802-2293; (425) 888-2998 FAX Sincerely, � � � � �''�---� Bill H. Williamson cc: Pat White, M&T M&T.Notice.Letter.072205.wpd � sF� < �� j� '�Y _i�- _ .` � . f. r� 1 �.! -.� a{ .:Y� .i t ��' � ; i, ,, , � x ,z 6. , � ,, .}9 f, ,`�''*�, ` ��' °��N�'�J` , ; '' n +ta ��'' 'y �� 1 v : � �' ,�-f�� rJ� �. -.'1 1� 1 ♦r s �"' ? � � i ,1 �...J �r.t �t �� .: ..�t ��5 . r< y k�� .��t .S cD ,y.ii y� J :� a.. 1 c ' �t � �.4 f ° � .�^t .�.,. ..t .�',T " 5tt �s +t. _Y o-.+• ,��. a�, � .r�S � -.a ;,.. ( r � �,- r ��co�d�uc.p�u,�lo,p�ner�t,�V�,g��x�V6t1D�nd S�tt�'t��c��G��l+ �� ti� �;t t . �` �; .cr ' 1 � � s � £'f�' a ' � r� ^ � sQ��2�cPis�sc+&,�d�p�n�strat r � r'r r, L � r;rCa b,��lker Wh0`e�OC; �S'y4C �`L S � ' 4 i^ i i� + �. s � � �` � � .�I .\s :; 1 f �.��`61 4 R p "J\ ..J 5 f� .l S,� �+, af � �-� . �. ,y A 1 � y 1.,� � f. I� p.� '"1� k . ; , .� r � S� l 1 �'�� j 5.� .E f f r t.` ' �' t ''. :i Y �, � � .... N ',f +�� .`��j r a � i �,� . .� �)+J 1 ,5 -.i�.Y 1 - �� .{ .( " e } �h� �x 1 .� t� .��r �+r�,� i { 4 ' �! , ,. 3 � i, -`f . t � \ k �� t . . .f �r . �l�f.�:a."�L:r 1�-Xe��j�' �� ;�s. a f i �. . .h Z jy . ` .' ' ..,.L � s ' ! �.` . L � '- � • 1( . i . � { • n � . . r� � t • ! � - i.J{��. � �1/�r �t � �, y . �. t,� ! eJ��n�i ��QJl u `� h �� ` � °" 'f { f.r ' �, ; j 'j , ��- % �L]� � • �t. �� ( . ' �• � � �5� � r M �> "t� �'+ 1 �.) �. � . y� t l . `J 't�� <<�. � � , ,3 r.+-. . .J � } � �� ..� t . -� � 9 �� x� r . � .y . . ti T . � 5/ :�.� ; . y � . . v F� .._ � ; ' �_ � -. s , � i�'i � �t ` �..�-L -�Y ��r�1��OU�`l�f��p�V��1A�. � d �; � .� � d % 1` �. cr � �. y C �' � r. f . i r� t C ` �k &�fd.�r�K�n9�01 r,( I"t t. l �.L. f �i �! J' ` .' ` 4 .. J . � T i.. � l y : � � ' L �` �� t :� aK y � f �� ' i. .t. f . .. . . 1 .. � Pr l-� ,�.i 1 . ��. ; ` :� ��.te o�,��s�,i��o�' � , � ; � fi ' , : � � , � { y : e � " ;'. 1 { / y f < { � � ^r � ` 4 a . Y 1 ��` l' J .' �� .: , �dundafy�R.�vzeW�z��a�c��br:�i�g Goun#Y � ° '• ' � ,�.� � , , , �, �� ; , , l: �r. 'l , < ra � �� .i Y�s�erh�U��li��.-S.� A N�� /t A� / 1 1 �j� ' f' .1� .( S..- [ E .+- A . n:r i r�1.� t . 1 N .'i S� � a Y ,,� � . y i z ry�.. �. � - �. � � �Jt� �' 1 ��: ! . . +L " ;��(��5��.��.�� + s tr � , > i , � r 'k ` i` { ` { �� h i �y .y�p�( t� ��.i�� y .� �i i s, r ,1 � .��. 4 �� cl��P,'-�VV�,Y7D10� _ 1 ' � r t:{ s �' i �V . , �' .� �.� '"( 'fr t ; .t( �:� M .S� sir F `ST r !. L ,� ��i r ' /r � � } `l l �t�' ti. . � �� }��.i � ° ' . �'P{> 1�-1.� J ,� :C' .. .t � . ! �. � �t . . . i �Y e - F.. 4 �� ' . Sixb��c� ; ; l�i�`�Y�E. tYF'°Il�'tEl�T�QI� �'O"�;�R�D� �� F t } � 4)`, ,BFE�fJN' � � , , � ■/�■ Tr s �{ ` /��iT ,�, � < < t , F , 3 1 : � 1�Y��+u��-L��L��IJl l ' � �` f 4,,�. ,f�-..�� r �. _ 'i .� �' . )�' '.4•� .. � _1 C , n �,: "j � ` " i y �� ' i R '. 1 .�� (3/ . J� i �; �� .ry � � , S. t� �. ti i . ! � r � ( .r `� � ° D�ar$dai`d YVle�rnl�ez'� � :� F .� t; � � � �` � �' ` �. , . ' ° ... �� . ��.'' � .. Q f � �}� � 3�, �. F. .�,,i �i's . . -f� i � t � f �: y . <�..y . .� . -. ,: � .� J . . Ga . . y!� {-�Y F !-� `th' ::' 1 - y. � F Y . ,\ , �� s requ�red b�:Ghapt��-3 C'�33 �of th� }Re'visecl�'�b"'�1� ��'"��fs�zrigtoi� (T�G�j�t�� Ci�`of'�e�tpz� ` , ` , � f gave not�c�o�infe�ttnu�o anne�terr`1to��he��a�er rafei��d tp,�.�s the " thon '� ' � t10I1°�OII�'� � r ,, ;. �, � A�u xa " _ ', �", , �V.I`ay 23,:.�� 'Tha'E arixt�xat�ta�q!as�j prbpQsed unde� fh� duee�pet��tion`me'�hbd xn,acc6rd�nce � � ' ',:: � �t S i ' { � 7 n�: ! x iS � • y� �� t A} ' I ; i ' wit'��tl�e applicable p�{�,��sxbn�Qf�hapt�r�5A`l�:d,�t�e`RC'��v:t� ;?}` . , 4. � ,;� , , , � , � {� ' r � a, �� , _ � � _ , . � �� ,� , � � ,,, _, , .i„ � � �. � ,�i�k f � �}yM1� f �fr 1 s .'t •r r ��;�, ` f T�i� City Ad�ir�isl��fiio�r��lie��v�s r'k�art'�t��S ati4,th��b.est �ttrest;;��f #he •.Ci ' to e� a�zd fki�� `:tf ;} t s �� 7 0. - is. �1:: • Ci Z,.f ,�� a <. �., .e . ;.'� � t F,� ' 4 b4undanes of fhzs ann��C�l�i�n-tQ ui"�lude'�r4perlx�sto x��sot�tli�nd��as�tha� ity,t i Pa ' _ . � . , '� wt�uld7estilt]nmore � i�t�a�i ej �� "" '��'�"'� �f, 5 �a�' � ��r in ��isiot�} , :�� "' , �e�s� .� ��rvi�e 5a��an��,�ficx�`��ie��b�bQ'th$h�G1ty�n'd IC�ng Coun�q -� �� " ' ' j" 3°hese prqpertie5��1`ike.,th;��a'��ex�t�o,nn�i�sel�;�ax�;located v�r�� 2eii;tpn',�.:des� at�d,� otent�a1.: ,. ��+ ,'_ E 1. �f. N � , �.. . � .. T n , �iuiexatid'h A�'��7$�`�nv�lc�n�tl�e;r$bairc�'S��sdict��r��io�efully.ther�'�V111 be',a�h opportunrty tia� f.,� ' 'consi�er�the,�clusio�:'o£�i��e°�zbpert'i�s�Fa�'t`Yie s�zn��atime t�ie�`Board�'� h�id�rs�tli� � f ex� o�: �' '�� , ' its�if ��.'$�0�f�e far�nv�olc'' �h"e Bd�`rd's•''p/�. n ��ena�ec� r - ,� , �n �i �-� t.. �� .J�F4l�Ci�1� �is� �tt .! k � ! ! > i �_ �f } � Y}�' . � '��. •'.f � �d Rr .. � .f S�iipuld q�testions anse duntig��e� re ew:of�� ormatio � �� bits r � �� > y u ,�}: , :kux� �yatic� �l�.t 'pz��c�ed with th�.s � ; I*�otioe of Intentio�to,Anriexa�,�1eas�;e,p�`ta�t�on'�nckson, Sefiipr�'�annett,�t{�4�5)4�0�6�8� ;z � ,��, w � : ,, r �� , �� ' ; • , �..� � �. ; , F; 4 • �.• . • . �1 k � ' . C � `` Also,pleas�sehd nQhc;es�d ott�er�omiritu�i�at�oii�s.zeg�rd�ng#he prbpo��d ani�exah,on to� ' . , � � .. . � ,- - � . ,-i.. � c � �� . .x I /�� . . ' . Y' ' ' ' �oh'�ric�sdn,AiC�, Senior�'�a�ner ` ` :, � - y ;��p�ftrc�ent o��c�x��a�c DevelapmenC, } ` '_s , , , ' � � - t I�Teighbo�hoads ahd Sirategx��Yamm�g , ' � ` - . �:Citj%o#'�en��i� � �� 4 ; � � , ` , � � .1055 S �C�rr�dy Wa�� , , :� � ",. , ' i� ` :�Rer�tori;�'A"'980�5 , ;� ,.� _ ' ;,. ,. ' ,� ,. � , � ; t �< < T'l,iank�ou for your con�si'deratinn � � , � �; � - . '`�. � , , � , ; .; � � =Since.rel` .,�;:. -'•a. ; ` , �' , Y„ ;; :, . . ;�� , .. . � . . . . • ., . . , .. � .. ., � 4 Y �' ' , 1 ,� �� :�� -� 1�:�-�'�:�-. . , . � . z � ' . . h Kathy i�eollcef=Wheel�r , � . ' ' ` ,F . . . , ' ' 1Vlayor ..� •. . ' � � � _ , � .. , ; a . .. . _ . •' � ' . ''., � ' : :. : ' � � �" • V� � � � . , ', � I OS:S SoutH Grady Way ;Renton,`'Wash�ngion 98Q55' R E 1�1 ��P N � ', . � . . • � � �fi��pe�concamssolrecycjedma�edai,3b°/appstconsu�ner � } ' .�.A1^IEAD OF T�;& CUFEVE � .. , j �_�� :-�� SUMMARY _ F.ILE N0. 2199 Thomas Guide Map No. 686 Date Received: 05/27/05 Date Distributed: 05/31/05 ENTITY City of Renton Date Filed: ACTION Petition for Land Annexation � Expiration.45 Days: 07/11/05 TITLE Anthone Annexation Board Meeting: 06/09/05 Location The Anthone Annexation is located on the southeast side of the City of Renton. The annexation site is surrounded to the north and to the west by the existing City of Renton. The site is bounded on the east and the south by unincorporated King County. The northern boundary of the Anthone Annexation is formed by S 55th Street. The western boundary of the site is generally formed by 96th Avenue South (if extended). The eastern boundary is located . west of 98th Avenue South. The southern boundary of the site is generally formed by South 194th Street(if extended). Land Area Approximately 4.84 acres - Land Use Existinq: One single-family home; Vacant land. :' Estimated Future: Approximately 16 total residences Population Existina:Approximately 3 persons Estimated Future: Approximately 40 total persons t4ssessed Valuation Existinp: $746,000. Estimated Future: $8,000,000 � County Comprehensive Plan Designation Urban Residential Use (4-12 dwelling units per gross acre) County Zoning Residential (R-4-4 dwelling units per gross acre) � City Comprehensive Plan Proposed: Residential Use-Low-Density City Zoning Proposed: Residential (R-4 Zone: maximum 4 dwelling units per net acre) District Comprehensive Plan City of Renton Comprehensive Water& Sewer District Plan District Franchise No franchise.is required. Urban Growth Area (UGA) The site is located within the Urban Growth Area as identified under the State Growth Management Act, King County Comprehensive Plan and City of Renton Comprehensive Plan y 5 � 1 � i I SEPA Declaration The proposed annexation is exempt from SEPA pursuant to RCW . 43.21 C.222 ENTITIESIAGENCIES NOTIFIED: King County Council Member(s) Steve Hammond King County: Clerk of Council, Department of Assessments, Fire Marshal, Health Division, State Department of Ecology,.Puget Sound Regional Council, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) Cities: Not Applicable Fire Districts: City of Renton Fire Department; King County Fire Protection District No. 37; King County Fire Protection District No. 25 Water Districts: City of Renton Water Utilities; Soos Creek Water&Sewer District � Sewer Districts: City of Renton Sewer Utilities; Soos Creek Water &Sewer District School Districts: Kent School District No. 415 . � �' �� y) � " � '. SUMMARY (File No. 2199) +� �� The City of Renton proposes the annexation of 4.84 acres, known as the Anthone Annexation. This ` annexation was proposed under the 60% petition method), pursuant to RCW 35A.14. Renton City Council adopted the petition for annexation in January of 2005. The Anthone Annexation is located on the southeast side of the City of Renton. The Anthone Annexation is located on the southeast side of the City of Renton. The annexation site is surrounded to the north and to the west by the existing City of Renton. The site is bounded on the east and the south by unincorporated King County. The northern boundary of the Anthone Annexation is formed by S 55`h Street. The western boundary of the site is �enerally formed by 96`h Avenue South (if extended). The eastern boundary is located west of 98 Avenue South. The southern boundary of the site is generally formed by South 194th Street(if extended). The Anthone Annexation Area is included in the "Annexation Element" of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and is located within the Renton Potential Annexation Area. The proposed action is consistent with City of Renton Comprehensive Plan policies addressing annexation, including those provisions which call for inclusion of urban areas within the City and provision of services to incorporated areas (e.g., LU-1; LU-36; LU-37; LU-41; LU-42). The Anthone Annexation Area property owners are seeking annexation in order to develop properties under City of Renton regulations and to receive public services (e.g., sewer services) from Renton. Presently the area includes one single-family residence. At full development, Anthone would include a total of approximately 16 homes. The City of Renton has planned for growth at the level of urban density proposed for the Anthone Annexation Area. Further, the City has established standards to guide ongoing uses and new development on the Anthone properties following annexation. Annexation would also permit protection for environmentafly sensitive areas (e.g., storm water/flood management). More specifically, the City of Renton is prepared to provide development review and environmental review to the annexation area based upon local, regional and state regulations for protection of environmentally sensitive areas. The City of Renton can directly provide (or contract for) urban services to the area. For example, the City of Renton will provide water service, sewer service; storm water management. The City will provide police services. The City will continue to provide fire service and emergency service through a contract with Fire Protection District No. 37 and Fire Protection No. 25. Library facilities and recreation facilities would be available to the community. Children would attend schools in the Kent School District No. 415. The City of Renton reports that the proposed annexation conforms to the State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.) For example, the annexation is supported by RCW 36.70.20, which requires community planning goals, for urban growth, services and infrastructure, and environmental preservation. Additionally, the application reportedly is consistent with RCW 36.70A.020 (1), encouraging development in urban areas where there are adequate public services. It is also consistent with RCW 36.70A.020 (12), which calls for public services to support permitted development. Annexation would also permit development of primary land uses and corollary public services (e.g., roadways) envisioned in the Act. Environmentally sensitive areas would also be preserved under the provisions of this annexation. - � � , . , .;,�- Further, the Anthone Annexation is reported to be consistent with the King County . Comprehensive Plan. Following are examples of King County Comprehensive Plan/Countywide Planning Policies that are addressed by the proposed Anthone Annexation: FW-13: Cities are the appropriate providers of local urban services to Urban Areas. LU-31: The County should identify urban development areas within the Urban Growth.Area LU-32: The County should encourage cities to annex territory within their designated potential annexation area LU-33: Land within a city's potential annexation area shall be developed according to local and regional growth phasing plans U-203: Population growth should be encouraged in Urban Growth Areas U-208: Land capacity shall be provided for residential, commercial and industrial growth U-304: Growth should be focused within city boundaries. The proposed Anthone Annexation is reportedly consistent with the provisions of RCW 36.93 (Boundary Review Board Regulations). City of Renton officials note that, following the Anthone Annexation, there would be some remaining adjacent unincorporated urban areas that are within Renton's Potential Annexation Area. The City anticipates that, in the near term, these areas will be proposed for annexation to Renton. City officials report, however, that the currently proposed Anthone Annexation would be consistent with Objective 1, which calls for the preservation of neighborhoods. This area is linked to Renton by social fabric (e.g., similar land uses and open spaces, shared sense of community) and by natural/built geographic features (e.g., relatively flat to gentle sloping terrain). This annexation would also be consistent with Objective 3, which calls for creation of logical service areas, and Objectives 4- 7, which call for the achievement of reasonable boundaries for a jurisdiction. Local residents have petitioned for annexation in order that all services and land use regulations affecting their area may be efficiently coordinated by a single local government unit. This annexation would also be consistent ` � with Objective 8, which calls for inclusion of urban areas within municipalities. � The City of Renton has conducted fiscal analyses for the proposed Anthone Annexation and determined that sufficient funds area available to serve the area. More specifically, at present development, City expenditures are estimated at $2,314 and revenues are estimated at $2,779. At full development, City expenditures are estimated at $30,807.00 and revenues are estimated at $31,682. Upon annexation, property owners will assume their share of the regular and special levy rate of the City for capital facilities and public services. Thus, the addition of Anthone properties is not expected to have a significant impact on revenue or upon cost and adequacy of services, finances, debt structure or rights of other governmental units. Future capital needs and costs will be examined and funded through the Renton Capital Investment Program. The City of Renton supports the Anthone Annexation in order to serve citizens of the area. New residential development and coordinated services would reportedly be consistent with goals and objectives.established for the benefit of the greater Renton community. � � • - �2�. ,-.. •c ., � � �- .. � • r � - 1 ~ . ,�`� '�^� l � �� . ��J .� 2 '( � 3 , r �� .t./�1�i- �µ��.�R`��.'V/��'f . �J; � c ' � �� .. � . . t - " , ` -Econo�ic De�+el�pment,�eighl�orhoods ani��St�ateg�cPlann�g' ; , 1 � -. . �,� 6' � � r � t w 1 `i ti t� t �. . L < z �. ,' . �• ' *",� < ` Ale�'�'iets��,At��uini�trato� � , ' :.Kat$y 3�eolk0r�1V�eeleSf i`jayOC � r. ` '-7 � t, 'V " � '` .�...` r 1 r •:y ''; i.4 1,r 7 _ i Ks c. � s. �\ i' �'�, \ 1 "r:' s . I, f ,. . j �'. : + a. `� ._1 , , ' . L} c , s y .J� ZV " 1� . ! : L ` . ..j . 4• � �? �J ; ' �� ',r !, �� r `�� ! � o . 4.�i�� B .. . . .: '. .. � .c C � t. '� V., . , N�a�23;, Z��JI Y 'f,� � r � � �` x ''� �t } l: . � ` � ' �:f�EC�1`l�D,, � , t , ;' ; � � ,' ,'ti� - 4 - ,.� ' + ',5 �, t;' �� F � � '� �' Itlf'11',`� 7..LVU� � _ k .�i, St�tie o�Washington , : `: ; " � , { � �; ` INA State`Bound,a•ry�3e�li� , , . 7 Bourid�ry,�evi`evy$s�a�d for�King Cbunty� � gp�f�oI"ic,ng�o `� , y ti- f S � •l, •` I'eS�ex BuYldx'ng,�Sai�,e�(�$ � ` � , � �. , -� 400 YeSle��ay , A - ,- � , , ' �;�� ' " ,' •, :, � �S�attYe,�,,`�?�A��9"$�Q4 : �t ` � `,�i '� ,- : ; �. � ' + k _ . ' .� l! .� .� � �� . . . ,• . . ,: �1: � . , r .` k . .. t. � . . \ Sub,Ject: N��OTIC�, OF JNTENTYON -,�'O EXPANA TH� CTTY OF I�E.�IT�ON: � � _ .,- CORP�ORATE LIlVYITS'.BY ANNEXA"I'.�ON � < _ �� ,., „ ti � �� ' ' ,' . - ' _ 'i r -' ' .'; �,, _ - - - D�az Bpard�VI'exnbe�s ' � . _ '+ �� `' '� , x ' " , > r� �;.. ..� :k r ; s ' � . .� a u�-�` i x �. -' � 'S . '.,, . S -'` . 3 - �1 ' � : i .., . . . . .f 5 1 ..;,r.A � As recju�'u�ec� by Cl�a�ter 36,.93 of,the �eu�sed �ode of:�V�ashtngton (�C�); tKe C�ty pf Rentori� ��. � .A. � { � S . 1 I � . . � 1�ereby -gi�es�nat�ce�;of;intez�t�on`to annex teir�tory;.t�ereafter .refed'e� :to as �tT�� "Anthone` � , Annexatio,�" ,This anne�ation rs proposed tandei tY�e direc'�,pei�t�o�i method tr�apcordaxice vvith ` the �ppiicattle prb�nsio�s of Chaptex;3�A`14 bf th�e RC�V Tlie�etlt�ori has'be�n ce�ti�ied hy t�e� ' �' ' +� t �'IJ 1 .. � . �j : l - � . .. � y ,. .�,�. 1 {. -.�: F , F � Ku�� C:out�'ty ��par1inent o'f Assessments. This annexation w��l'd t�r�e,or�iorate zntp the City o�' , : ' : , , r , r gents�n a�proXirr�ately�4 84,�acr�s of ter�toryfor the pro,�siok�of u�ba�i se,rvice� , `k ' '' � � F. ! 4 ,. i_ - 1 � --�f �✓.� ,� i, . t: �� ' � p `` .�rt. . � �� . -:' k .:: . � �� ' � f y .: lf '�..: . ' - .. _.. . . .4_ . ..0 . . 1 L � L. ' , To assist 7n your cons�deratibn of th� .pro osed ac�z�n, the iequi�ed�arhbles��and �achili�ts are l •�> ' .� �� i . i �t > I en�lq�ed �nd�nutnbered ir�accord'ance �yitfi the Bo�rci's_sugges.ted format The �50,60 filing f�e' , ' � , . , , - � � ,, , , is also en'c�bsed ��' `r "` � �` �F u ` � ' i; n , . S:�' �I . ' S J - s - .. , _; .. , ' . . . .. ' . . ;. . . J . ... : . � , +. . . �. . - . .. ,� � t .. .... ." , .. j �.,. " �. .; . , ; .:.5 L e . ' ` , ,:5hou�d',qu�stions anse,during the;'retnew t�f the mform�tibn and ,�xhibzts pXovid�d wi'th �his� � � ` - i. 3 . � Notice�of�'ntention to•AriX►ex,pl�ase�ontact Doii Er�cicsqn,Se�iior,Pl�anner, at(425j�430 6S$1 � , , _, ;, -� ; � �.� .: ;, -; : , . ; _ , PleaseTsend i�otices and othe."r cominu�ications re�axding the�propo�ed..a�exatic�n to � , , ' : ; .. � • •� . ° , . - . � ,. . , ;, , ;-•. � �, • ,:-� `:.' �� ;'• .: . .. � '. :�°. IDon'Enckson,AICP,-Senior Planner/Sfrategic��'lanriing _ : � � '� � ' � � � . " ' :��epartzriefit:of Economic,De�elopment,Neighborhoods arid.Strategic Plann�g �'., , � � � � • . ,;� City;of Renton ' - ' . � , .. - , �� '��. � ,� 10SS S Grady Way , , �.. "' �� • ~� _ " . '. ' - - - �. Renton,WA 98055 . . . , � . - . � �� - , • , - -� , � . , . " . - ,. . �, , ', - _ . ;� ;Thari��you fqr�yourrcorisideration: � . , . • � . � ' .; . - , `.r • � . . � , Sincerely, . ` ', - . - � � ' � '; ,, - . . : , ' . � �iI • � ,� � . , � . ' " r ' ;� , i� .. : � ' , /; '/� ; . ` . . ' , , � , . Katihy �eolker;Wlieeler � �. , . . ,� , . . � � , .. . . . , lytayor . ,� . . - , ' , ' - . .' ` , . ,' , �. � • . ; , �. � ,. ' _ � . , ; , ,. � , , . , , . � . . . , , . ; , ' : '�� . _ •. � � ; .� . . . . :.,- ; . . • 1655 South Grady Way��&enton,Washington 9805$. , ' . � .R E N-T O�� • ' : • , � �This paper contains 50%recyclediriateiial;30%post consumer � � _ � •A H'E A D O F' T f-T E C U IY V E � 1�0'I'ICE OF IIIeTTTENTIOleT ; PROPOSED ANTHONE' ANNEXATION TO TI�E CITY OF RENTOl� I. BACKGROUND/MAPS 1. The description of and reason for seeking the p�oposed action: The proposed action is to annex approximately 4.84 acres to the City of Renton. Annexation is sought by the proponents to develop under City of Renton regulations and processes and to receive Renton public services. The annexation was initiated through the 60% Direct Petition method under RCW 35A.14.120, 130, 140, and 150. The proposed annexation area is located in the NE 1/4 of Section 6, Township 22 North, Range S East. 2. Copies of the Itenton City Council minutes for actions taken relative to the proposed annexation: A. Exhibit A: Certified minutes of the August 2, 2004 public meeting of the Renton City Council accepting the Anthon'10%Notice of Intent to annex petition and authorizing the circulation of the 60%Petition to Annex. B. Exhibit B: Certified minutes of the January 24, 2005, public hearing of the Renton City Council accepting the 60% Direct Petition to Annex and declaring the City's intent to annex the area, subject to the actions of the Boundary Review Board. 3. Exhibit C: Certification of Sufficiency for the 60% Petition to Annex made by the King County Department of Assessments dated October 11, 2004. 4. Exhibit D: Legal description of the proposed annexation boundaries. 5. Pursuant to RCW 43.21 C.222, annexations are exempt from SEPA. 6. The following maps are enclosed: A. Exhibit E: King County Assessor's maps (two sets) displaying the proposed Maplewood East Annexation boundary. B. Exhibit F: Vicinity maps displaying: 1) The proposed Anthone'Annexation boundary. 2) The City of Renton existing corporate limits relative to the proposed annexation area. 3) All major streets and other major physical features. •� ' Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Anthone' Annexation OS/11/OS Page 2 �'��` 4) The boundaries, including future service area boundaries, of all � cities or special service districts having jurisdiction in or near the proposal. NOTE: The City and County library service area boundaries are coterminous with the City's corporate boundary. 5) King County Urban Growth Area and City of Renton Potential Annexation Area boundaries established under the Growth Management Act. C. Exhibit G: A map of the current City of Renton corporate limits upon which the proposed Anthone' Annexation boundaries have been delineated. D. Exhibit H: City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations. II. FACTORS THE BOARD MUST CONSIDER 1. Overview A. Population: The population of the proposed Annexation area is estimated to be about 40 persons at full buildout based upon 2.5 persons per household and a total of 16 households. The City of Renton population as of Apri12004 was 55,360. ,� , B. Territorv: The proposed annexation area includes approximately 26.14 acres. C. Population Densitv: The proposed population density of the Anthone' Annexation area is estimated to be about 8.26 persons per gross acre. D. Assessed Valuation: The current assessed value of the properties proposed for annexation is approximately$746,000. 2. Land Use A. Existin�: Existing uses include one single-family home with an estimated population of 3 persons. B. Proposed: A portion of the subject annexation has been looked at as a preliminary application for a preliminary plat. The annexation is proposed to facilitate the development of these properties for single-family residential uses at up to four (4.) units per net acre. 3. Comprehensive Plans/Franchise(s) A. Conformance with County Countvwide Plannin�Policies adopted by Kin�Countv: The proposed action is consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies in general, and the following policies in particular: LU-31 In collaboration with adjacent counties and cities and King County, and in , � �'� consultation with residential groups in affected areas, each city shall designate a potential annexation area. Each potential annexation area shall be specific to each city.... Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County , Proposed Anthone'Annexation OS/11/OS Page 3 LU-32 A city may annex territory only within its designated potential annexation �. area. All cities shall phase annexations to coincide wit7a the ability for the � city to coordinate the provisiora of a full range of urban services to areas to be annexed. The City of Renton has designated a Potential Annexation Area in the City's Comprehensive Plan. (Exhibit H) Renton has the ability to provide a full range of urban seroices to the area proposed for annexation and is the designated sewer service provider for the East Renton Plateau. LU-33 Undeveloped lands adjacent to that city should be annexed at the time development is proposed to receive a full range of urban services. New development is likely to proceed upon annexation into the City of Renton and the availability of sewers. Sewer certificates have already been issued for new housing developments to the west and south of the site and can easily be extended to . serve the subject annexation site when it develops. FW-13.Cities are the appropriale providers of local urban services to urban areas either directly or by contract. With the exception of water, Renton is prepared to provide a full array of local urban services to the area including police, fire, local government and an array of other community services. Renton's Water Utility is the designated purveyor of water under agreement with King County, for this area. B. Kin County Comprehensive Plan/Ordinances -- = 1) King County Planning under the Growth Management Act. The subject area is designated Urban - 4-12 du/ac in the King County Comprehensive Plan and is identified as being within Renton's Potential Annexation Area on the County's Potential Annexation Areas Map. King County planning efforts under the Growth Management Act have included ensuring that development in the Urban Crrowth Area occurs at urban densities and with urban level services available. The City of Renton has planned for urban densities for this area and can provide urban services within its negotiated service areas should annexation occur. 2) The following adopted King County Comprehensive Plan policies specifically support the proposed annexation: Chapter T�vo, Urban Land Use, Section II.B, Directin� Growth to Cities and Urban Areas U-203 King County should encourage most population and employment growth to locate in the contiguous Urban Growth Area in western King County, especially in cities and their potential annexation areas. Annexation would allow development of the subject properties to occur within the City of Renton with urban services such as wastewater, police, libraries, local government, and parks. - , ' ` Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Anthone' Annexation OS/11/OS Page 4 Chapter Two, LTrban Land Use, Section II.C, Urban Growth Area Ta� U-208 King County shall provide adequate land capacity for residential, commercial and industrial growth in the urban unincorporated area. This land capacity shall include both redevelopment opportunities as well as opportunities for develop�nent on vacant lands. Renton's proposed R-4 zoning, on the subject properties, would result in nearly 50 percent less capacity than that represented by the existing King County.zoning, which is R-4, if the latter were bonused up to it's maximum of 6 du/gross acre. This because the density allowed under Renton's R-4 zone is based upon net acreage whereas the County's calculates density based upon gross acreage. Also, the County's R-4 zone is easily bonused up to 6 du/gross acre. An estimated 29 units could be provided under the County's R-4 zoning (without bonuses) and only approximately 15 units could be provided under Renton's proposed R-4 zoning. Chapter Two, Urban Land Use, Section III.A, Planning with Kin� Countv's Cities for Future Annexation U-301 King County should work with cities to focus countywide growth within their boundaries and should support annexations within the Urban Growth Area when consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan and Countywide Planning Policies. U-304 King County should support annexation proposals when: a. The proposal is consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan; b. The proposed area is wholly within the Urban Growth Area and within the city's designated Potential Annexation Area (for annexations); c. The city is planning for urban densities and efftcient land use patterns consistent with the Countywide Plan�aing Policies and King County land use plans; and, d. Adopted Countywide goals and policies for urban services, environmental and cultural resource protection will be supported. The proposal is generally consistent,with the King County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map. The area proposed for annexation is wholly within the Urban Growth Area and within Renton's designated Potential Annexation Area. The City's Comprehensive Plan policies and development regulations support countywide goals and policies for urban densities,urban services and environmental and cultural resource protection. The proposed R-4 zoning is urban, small lot zoning, which will achieve urban densities and efficiencies consistent with adopted countywide goals and policies for urban services. � � d i Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Anthone' Annexation OS/11/OS Page 5 3) Adopted Kin�County Comp Plan designation: The adopted King County Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the proposed annexation area is Urban Residential - 4-12 dulac. This designation is implemented with the R-4 Zone on the subject site. 4) Comparison of Citv and Countv re�ulations for sensitive areas, etc: With annexation, King County ordinances and regulations would be supplanted with those of the City of Renton. City of Renton ordinances and regulations applicable to the proposed action include the following: a. Reg;ulations for the protection of sensitive areas: The City of Renton's Critical Areas Ordinance (RMC 4-3-050) describes permitted and prohibited activities and uses, waivers,modifications and variances, and additional criteria and permit processes for development in critical areas. Critical areas regulated by the Ordinance include aquifer recharge areas, flood and geologic hazard areas, native habitat and wetlands. Although specific regulations vary, Chapter 21A.24, Environmentallv Sensitive Areas, of the King County Code provides comparable regulatory protection of sensitive areas. The City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance is available upon request. b. Regulations for the preservation of agricultural or other resource lands: Regulations preserving agricultural uses are not applicable to the subject area, as the proposed annexation area is not within any of the agricultural districts identified for first, second or third priority for the purchase of development rights. Further, the property is not designated for agricultural production or other resource lands in the King Couniy Comprehensive Plan and is not currently under agricultural use. The City of Renton does not have a program authorizing transfer or purchase of development rights. c. Preservation of Landmarks or Landmark Districts: The City of Renton has no regulations comparable to Chapter 20.62, Protection and Preservation of Landmarks. Landmark Sites and Districts, in the King County Code. However, no landmark sites or districts are identified in the Newcastle Community Plan or are lrnown to exist in the subject annexation area. d. Surface Water Control: The City of Renton has adopted the 1990 Kin� Countv Surface Water Design Manual, by reference, in the City's Drainage�(Surface Water) Standards (RMC 4-6-030) as the design standard for surface water control in development projects. Higher standards such as those of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Level 2 standard are often applied through environmental review. C. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan/Franchise 1) City Plannin�Under the Growth Management Act Renton City Council adopted the current Comprehensive Plan in 1995, consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act. The 1995 Comprehensive Plan was updated in the 2004 Mandated GMA � Comprehensive Plan Review. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map ,z �' Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Anthone'Annexation OS/11/OS Page 6 � identi�es Potential Annexation Areas, including the area currently proposed for annexation, and shows land use designations for such areas. (See Exhibit H, City of Renton Land Use Designations) The proposal is consistent with the Land Use Element policies of the Renton Comprehensive Plan that support annexation of lands: • that are within Renton's Potential Annexation Area where the availability of infrastructure and services allow for the development of urban densities (Objective LU-1); • that are vacant and subject to development pressure(LU-37.3); • that are available for urbanization under county comprehensive planning,zoning, and subdivision regulations (LU-37.5); • for which the City of Renton should logically be the primary provider of urban infrastructure and services (LU-36); • that would include those who already use City services or who impact City infrastructure(LU-41); and • that includes environmentally sensitive areas and vacant land where future development could adversely influence the environmental and land use character of Renton(LU-42). 2) PAA status and PAA a�reements with other cities. if anv: The City of Renton has an adopted Potential Annexation Area. This area is identified , on Renton's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and on the King Couniy Interim Potential Annexation Area Map. The City has also negotiated a PAA boundary agreement with the City of Kent. No PAA agreement was necessary for the area currently proposed for annexation. 3) Required Comprehensive Plan amendments if anv: No amendment to Renton's Comprehensive Plan is necessary to process the current proposed annexation. 4) Comprehensive Plan approval date: Renton's current Comprehensive Plan was initially adopted on February 20, 1995, with annual amendments in subsequent years. The latest, 2004 Growth Management Act Mandated Comprehensive Plan Review, is a comprehensive update of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. 5) Required franchises to serve area: No franchise will be required for the City of Renton to provide services to the subject area. 6) Pre-annexation Zoning A�reements: The subject area has not been the subject of a pre-Annexation Zoning Agreement. 7) Proposed land use desi�na�ion: The subject area is designated Residential Low Density in the City's Comprehensive Plan. R-4 zoning is proposed to supplant the existing King County R-4 zoning, consistent with the adopted Residential Low Density land use designation upon annexation. Under Renton's annexation process, zoning is adopted concurrent to adoption of the annexation ordinance. • � , � Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Anthone' Annexation OS/11/OS Page 7 4. Planning data A. Revenues/Expenditures This analysis identifies the General Fund revenues and costs associated with annexing the subj ect properties as they are currently developed, as well as estimating the annual fiscal impact of their full development at some undeternuned point in the future. "Full development" does not equate to the absolute zoned capacity. Rather, it includes an assumption that a portion of the subject properties will not develop within the foreseeable future due to market forces and the choices of individual property owners. All assumptions regarding revenues and costs are based on existing standards or other comparable data, but actual results are likely to vary from these estimates. In general, costs associated with utilities have been assumed to be supported by the rates charged for those services. Assessed Valuations Units Population(est.) Assessed Valuation Existin conditions 1 3 $746,000 Full develo ment est. 16* 40 $8,000,000 *Assumes new home value of$500,000 per unit. 1) Estimated City Expenditures City Services Curxent Full Development Development Contracted services $26 $422 Road Maintenance $500 $6 706 Fire Protection $933 $10 000 Police Protection $675 $10 800 Parks Maintenance $3'7 $596 � Court,Legal and Other $143 $2 283 � Total ongoing costs $2,314 $30,807 2) Estimated Citv Revenues to be a� i� Current Full Revenue Source Development Development Regular Property Tax Levy $2 357 $25 280 State-Shared Revenues $'75 $1 194 Miscellaneous Revenues $2g1 $4 499 Excess Le $66 $709 Total revenues $2��9 $31,682 3) Estimated Net Fiscal Impact Net fscal impact Existing $465 � Full $875 ' � Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Anthone' Annexation OS/11/OS Page 8 3) Estimated County revenues lost: The estimated reduction in County revenues would be$1,763 at cunent development(road and library levies, excluding library bonds). 4) Estimated reduction in Countv expenditures: The estimated reduction in County expenditures is anticipated to be minimal, as only a minor amount of improved King County roadway exists in the proposed annexation area. 5) Estimated fire district revenue lost: The area proposed for annexation lies within Fire District No. 37. The estimated loss of revenue for this district is $1,119. , B. Services 1) Water Service The proposed annexation is within Renton's water service area. The service area would not change as a result of the proposed annexation. a) Direct/Contract: The 4.84-acre area will continue to be served directly by the City of Renton. The Soos Creek Water and Sewer District serve the surrounding properties to the south and east. b) Stora�e locations/Capacitv: The zoned residential capacity under the existing King County zoning is slightly higher than the capacity under the proposed City of Renton zoning. Since population growth under the City of Renton's proposed R-4 zoning is about 20% less than the County's current R-4 zoning, the City's capacity should be adequate for the water demand generated by post- annexation development of the subject area. If anything,the change in zoning that would occur upon annexation would theoretically increase storage capacity. c) Mains to serve the area: The City's Water Utility will require developers to extend mains into the annexation area as part of their development proposals. d) Financin�proposed service: This will be financed by developers and normal user fees for existing and new residents. 2) Sanitarv Sewer Service a) Direct/Contract: Sewer service would be provided directly to the proposed annexation area by the City of Renton, the designated provider. b) Mains to serve area: None of the annexation site is currently being served by the City of Renton. However, the City serves the Geneva Court and Summit Park subdivisions to the north across South 55�' Street from the proposed annexation. ' � . Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Anthone'Annexation OS/11/OS Page 9 c) Disposal: Sewage disposal will be through METRO's treatrnent facilities. d) Capacitv Available: Renton's sanitary sewer system has sufficient capacity to accommodate 16 dwellings at buildout of the proposed annexation area. e) Financing of proposed service: Improvements within this annexation area would be anticipated to be made through developer extensions since the annexation area is primarily undeveloped at this time. 3) Fire Service �� r r�Nearest stations: The annexation area is located between fire station#14 in the Ci t y, Fire Station#77 in Distri c t N o. 3 7, a n d F i r e Station#13 in District#25 on SE 176�'Street and 108�`Avenue SE. Renton provides fire service currently to District #25 under contract. b� � ` `�Response time: Response time to any point within the proposed �.� . � N��annexation area could range from four to eight minutes. Since Fire Station #13 appears to be the closest station at about 2 miles, response time is estimated at five to eight minutes, depending on the time of day and traffic. The addition of sixteen new dwellings should be no change this response time. c� �' ��Sta' ffin�: Station#13 is fully manned, with five firefighters on duty per shift. dJ �� Major equipment: Major equipment located at Station#13 includes �two 1,500 gallon per minute pumpers and one aid car. e) Certified EMT/D-Fib personnel: All shift personnel at Station#13 are certified EMT/D-Fib. � Fire Ratine: Renton's fire rating is three, as determined by the Washington State Survey and Rating Bureau. g) Source of dispatch: Valley Communication 911 service is the source of emergency vehicle/aid dispatch. 5. General A) Annexation agreements for extensions of service: No applicable annexation agreements are in effect for the subject area. � Topo�ra�hy and natural boundaries: The site slopes upward to the northeast from its lowest point at its southwest corner. The average slope is 14% or approximately a 78-foot change in elevation between the northeast and southwest corners of the site. B) Projected 10-year r�owth: The area is too small to make reasonable inferences from large-area growth forecasts. The City projects about 15 new single-family units in ." �' Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Anthone'Annexation OS/11/OS Page 10 addition to the existing unit on the site. This is based on existing citywide R-4 densities and assumptions regarding identi�ed physical and regulatory constraints to development of the site and the probable market availability of land. for new development. D) Municipal or community services: With annexation, the property owners and residents would have access to a full range of urban services including police, fire, parks, libraries, community services, the City's neighborhoods program, annual community events, and local,readily accessible,government. E) Potential delays in implementing service deliverv: The area is currently ' underserved in regards to developed park facilities according to the City's adopted level of service standards. This shortfall is identified in the City's Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan update. Staff estimates a one-time cost in excess of parks/recreation mitigation fees of$8,527 ,as well as on-going maintenance costs of $596 for parks development associated with this annexation. Less than a quarter � mile to the south on Talbot Road South,the City has acquired land for a future park. The current waste hauler would continue to provide solid waste removal for seven years after annexation, according to State law. At that time area would then be included in the contract with the City's wastar hauler. With the exception of parks and solid waste removal,no delays are expected in implementing service delivery to the area. City departments reviewing the annexation proposal indicated that they would be able to adequately serve future development. The Renton Water and Sewer utilities are expected to continue to provide water and sewer service to the area. F) Evaluation of adequacy, costs, or rates of service to area: Existing services to the area appear to be generally adequate. As development occurs in the proposed annexation area, demand for services will increase. It is assumed that the cost of such services will be largely offset by increases in properly taxes, services charges and other revenues based on population. If the City were to assume this annexation at its current level of development it would realize a surplus of$465 per year. At full development, in an estimated 10 years, the City would realize an annual surplus of an estimated$875 per year. King County is the only alternative service provider for services that would be assumed by the City of Renton upon annexation. Fire suppression services will change as a result of the proposed annexation with the City taking this service over from District#37. And, school district boundaries are not affected by annexations. As a result the subject area will remain within the Renton School District. III. OBJECTIVES The proposed Anthone' Annexation generally complies with all of the objectives of the Boundary Review Board. These include the following: 1) Preservatio.n of natural neighborhoods and communities. No detrimental impacts to existing neighborhoods or communities are anticipated to result from the proposed action. . � . y Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Anthone' Annexation OS/11/OS Page 11 2) Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways and land contours. " The proposed annexation follows the existing city limits on its west and northern boundary. The western boundary of the annexation is defined by Talbot Road South, and its northern boundary is South 55�'Street/SE,192nd Street,an east/west collector street. The eastern and southern boundaries of the annexation includes two existing subdivision,Talbot Estates and Springbrook Terrace. 3) Creation and preservation of logical service areas. City staff that have reviewed the proposed annexation have stated that the proposed boundaries represent logical extensions of City of Renton services. Also,the Countywide Planning Policies state that cities are the appropriate providers of local urban services to Urban Areas. The proposal would therefore further both the intent of the City annexation objectives and Countywide Planning Policies. 4) Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries. The boundaries do not create abnormally irregular boundaries. The area is within Renton's Potential Annexation Area, which, eventually all of which, is anticipated to be annexed into the City. Therefore, any irregularities are considered to be only interim. 5) Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas. - Not applicable. . �.�.i 6) Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts. Not applicable. 7) Adjustment of impractical boundaries. This annexation is not being undertaken to adjust impractical city boundaries. 8) Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas,which are urban in character King County has designated this area for urban development. It is not included in the proposed Fairwood incorporation a number of miles to the east. 9) Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority. ' Not applicable. No portions of the proposed annexation area are designated Rural or designated for long term productive agricultural or resource use in the King County Comprehensive Plan. finis �� "" i u1�ul�/ll ti •�'�• i [, the undersigned City �lerk o�'frie � City of Renton, Washington, certify • � tliat tk�s is a true and c�rrect copy of � � RENTON CITY COTJNCII, 8�2j2004 Minutes , �ubscribed , Regular Ivleetirig ' -an�i seale�this.�d�of Ma� ,2(lQ� .' City i,� k— Bonnie I. Walton � August 2,,Z004 - �ouncil Chambers � Monday,7:30 p.m. IVI I N U T E S ' - � . Renton City Hall � i CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler:called the meeting of the Renton City Council � to order and led the Piedge of Allegiance�to the flag. ROLL CALL OF DON PERSSON,.Council President; MARCIE PALMER;DENIS LAW;TOIVI . ' COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON; RANDY CORMAN. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY , CORMAN, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS TERRI � BRIERE AIVD DAN CLAWSON. .CARRIED. CITY STAFF IN KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER;Mayo'r; JAY COVINGTON, Chief ATTENDANCE Administrative Officer;LAWRENCE J.WARREN, City Attomey;BONN� WALTON, City Clerk;GREGG ZIlV1MEItMAN,PlanningBuilding/Public � Works Administrator; ALEX PIETSCH,Economic Development Administrator; IDON ERICKSON, Senior Planner;DEREK TODD,Assistant to the CAO; COMMANDER KATHLEEN MCCLINCY,Police Department. PUBLIC MEETING This being the date set,and proper notices having been posted and publishecl in Annexation: Anthone',Talbot accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the Rd S &S SSth St public meeting to consider the 10%Notice of Intent petition for the proposed Anthone'Annexation for 4.84 acres located east of Talbot Rd. S. and south of S. SSth St. ' Senior Planner pon Erickson reported that the subject site is within the City.'s � Potential Annexation Area and contains two existing single-family dwellings, one of which appears to be vacant. The public services are provided by Fire District#37,Renton water and sewer, and Kent School District. He noted that . � existing King County.zoning is R-4; and Renton's Comprehensive Plan � designates this area as Resideritial Low Density,for which R-4(four dwelling units per net acre)zoning is likely. . Mr.Erickson stated that this is a smaller than normal annexation, and future development is limited to 161ots. However, the proposed annexation is a � potential catalyst for the annexation of a,larger unincorporated area to the south around the Springbrook Springs watershed. Additionally,the annexation would facilitate upgrading the intersection of Talbot Rd. S. and S. SSth St. He indicated that the fiscal impact analysis reveals a surplus of$875 at full development,and there is an estimated one-time parks acquisition and development cost of$425. Continuing,Mr.Erickson said the proposed annexation is consistent with Renton annexation policies,except for size,and it is consistent with Boundary Review Board criteria. He pointed out the potential of flooding and suggested � Leve12 flow control for new development. Tn conclusion,Mr.Erickson stated that the annexation serves the best interests and general welfare of the City, � particularly if it facilitates the annexation of a larger area to the south: Public comment was invited. Jim Biteman, 19203 98th Ave. S.,Renton, 98055,expressed his support for the annexation. He confirmed that one of the existing dwellings on the site has been unoccupied for a long time, and.noted that it is an eyesore. • h, � 1 ' August 2,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 256 , Bruce Taggart, 9621 S. 194th St.,Renton,98055,introduced himself as the � > 'ta =�;pr�sident of the Talbot Estates Homeowners Association, and asked what the impact of the proportional share of the City's existing indebtedness is to homeowners,and what the.advantages and disadvantages are of being part of the City of Renton. � , Mr.Erickson pointed out a number of advantages that Renton residents have, including well-maintained parks, excellent utility services, and ready access to local government. In regards to the bonded indebtedness,he explained that the annexed-homeowners will assume whatever the other taxpayers in the City are PaYing• Dave Gallagher, 19225 Talbot Rd. S.,Renton;98055, stated that his family owns Springbrook Trout Farm, and he expressed concern about the runoff water from the annexatiori area, and where it will enter Springbrook Creek. Mr.Erickson said water drainage issues will be addressed during the developmerit process, and he assured that the public will have opportunity to comment on that process. , Harry Trapp, 19223 98th Pl.S.,Renton, 98055, identified himself as tlie ciirrent president of Springbrook Terrace Homeowners Association, and verified that the aforementioned vacant dwelling has been unoccupied for approximately two years. Mr. Trapp expressed his support for fhe annexation,noting that the zoning is:appropriate and the quality of the homes will be an asset to the area. P;leksandr Kozhenevsky, 9533 S. 192nd St.,Renton, 98055,voiced his opposition to ttie proposed annexation. He pointed out that the area 'is historical,having,been established 100 years ago, and expressed his concern that any changes to the site would affect its.historical value. There bei�g no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCII.CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. CARRIED. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COLTNCIL: ACCEPT THE ANTHONE'ANNEXATION 10%NOTICE OF INTENT TO ANNEX PETITION;AUTHORIZE CIRCULATION OF THE 60%DIRECT PETTTION TO ANNEX; STII'ULATE THAT THE STI'E BE REZONED R-4 UPON ANNEXATION CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION; AND REQLTIItE THAT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSUME A PROPORTIONAL SHA.RE OF THE CITY'S BONDED INDEBTEDNESS. CARRIED. ADMIIVISTRATIVE Chief Adrriinistrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report suinu�arizing the Gity's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2004 and beyond. Items noted � included: � Renton's Nishiwaki Sister City Advisory Committee is seeking Japanese- speaking volunteers to serve as translators for the visiting Sister City delegation from Nishiwaki,Japan, for events scheduled from August 29th to September lst. . ; " � August 2,2004 Reriton Ci,ty Council Minutes Page 257. � During the week of July 26th,the Renton Police Department Traffic Unit continued to work the Highlands Emphasis Patrol. Officers wrote twelve criminal citations,issued twenty-two parking tickets,and impounded seven � abandoned.vehicles. Tlie_animal control officer also issued two citations. EDNSP: Ahead of the Curve Alex Pietsch,Economic Development Administrator,reported that 125 new Banners "Ahead of the Curve" street pole banners are being installed at 6Q intersectioris throughout the City of Renton. He ezplained that the Renton Community Marketing Campaign initiated this effort, and the$15,300 cost of the banners . was funded by the marketing campaign and hotellmotel tax revenues. AUDIENCE COMMENT Sue Larson-Kinzer, 1733 NE 20th St.,Renton, 98056,commented on the Citizen Comment: Larson- proposed changes to Renton's Comprehensive Plan. Pointing out that she owns Kinzer-Comprehensive Plan the Kennydale Blueberry Farm, she detailed the history of the farm and Revision,Open Space indicated that development of neighboring areas threaten the farm's Retention microclimate. Ms.Larson-Kinzer stated ttiat a development behind.her.farm will result in the loss of trees that serve as a wind buffer, and the farm is '- experiencing de-watering dae to a development project across the stre�t. She noted that Kennydale Creek is drying up, as well as many ponds. Stating that: the long-term effecf of the lack of groundwater is unknown,Ms.Larson-Kinzer expressed concem regarding the futuie of her farm. ' ' . Continuing,Ms.Larson-Kinzer said there are discrepancies between tlie City's policies and zoning code,and although some of the issues are being�addressed � in the new Comprehensive Plan,she noted the importance of retairiing larger pieces of land and open spaces. � � Councilman Corman commented that if water availability from Kennydale � Creek is diminishing due to temporary construction reasons,perhaps the City can supplement the water loss in some way. He requested that the Administration investigate the matter. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of July 26,2004. Council concur. July 26,2004 ' - Community Services: City Clerk reported bid opening on 7/22/2004 for CAG-04-097,Renton .. : Community Center Roof Community Center Roof Replacement;six bids; engineer's estimate$60,000- Replacement,Lloyd A Lynch $80,000; and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder,.Lloyd A.Lynch,Inc.,in the amount of$81,02�.89. Council concur. � Community Services: Comtnunity Services Department recommended approval of a contract in the Landscape Maintenance amount of$77,732.43 with Canber Corps to provide landscape maintenance, Services, Canber Corps services for 24 sites including rights-of way, one park,fire stations,librazies, and trails. Refer to Community Services Committee. Planning: R-4 Zone, Citywide Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department � Landscape Requirements submitted proposed new R-4 zone and zoning text amendments to Citywide landscape requirements. Refer to Plannin�and Development Committee. Fina�ce: Institutional Network Finance and Information Services Department recommended approval of a Services,King County contract with King County for Institutional Network Services (I-Net)at an . annual cost of$9,000. Refer to Finance Co�unittee. , � .. � August 2,2004 Renton City Council Minutes. Page 258 • Fire: Emergency 1Vlanagement Fire Department recomrriended adoption of the updated City of Renton � Plan Emergency Management Plan which gives direction and outlines responsibilities in the event of a local or regional disaster. Council concur. (See later this page for resolution.) Human Services: 2005 CDBG Human Services Division recommended acceptance of an estimated$507,905 Funds,King County in Community Development Block Grant funds from King County for 2005. Refer to Community Services.Committee. Human Services: CDBG& Human Services Division recommended approval of the amendments to the HOME Investment Community Development Block Grant(CAG-02-105) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program Partnerships Program(CAG-99-106)interlocal agreements,which reflect the Agreements Amendments increase of city representation and the decrease of King County representiation on the Joint Recommendations Committee. Refer.to Communi�Services � Committee. Human Services: 2005 CDBG Human Services Division recommended approval to continue participating in� Consortium Housing Stability the Community Development Block Grant Consortium Housing Stability Program Participation Program in 2005,which assists low-to-moderate income families with.rent or mortgage payments due to a temporary crisis in their lives. Refer to � Cominunity Services Committee. Developme�nt Services: Legal Division recommended adoption of an ordinance allowing the use of Portable Generators,Noise portable generators during periods when there is no electrical service available Ordinance Revision from the primary supplier due to natural disaster or power outage. Council concur. (See page 259 for ordinance.) Municipal Court: State Municipal:Court recommended approval of an agreement with the State Reimbursement for Computer Administrative Office of the Courts to accept$1,259.67 iri reimbursement for a for Municipal Court Judge personal computer for Renton's Municipal Court 7udge. Council concur. (See later this page for resolution.) CAG: 03-126,Wetland Utility Systems Division submitted CAG-03-126,Wetland IVlitigation Bank Site Mitigation Bank Site Fence, Fence Project; and requested approval of the project, authorization for final pay Construct Co estimate in the amount of$3,623.85, commencement of 60-day lien period,and release of retained amount of$2,697.04 to Construct Co.,LLC,contractor,if all.required releases are obtained. .Council concur. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS A1VD The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution#3704 A resolution was read adopting the City of Renton Emergency Management Fire: Emergency Management Plan. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON, COIJNCIL ADOPT Plan . THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3705 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an. Municipal Court: State interlocal cooperative agreement with the State Administrative Office of the Reimbursement for Computer Courts regarding a limited reimbursement for expenses incurred in purchasing a for Municipal Court Judge personal computer for use by the Cify of Renton Municipal Court Judge. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLLJTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for first reading and referred to the � Council meeting of 8/09/2004 for second and final reading: . � , . ., � � . ' August 2,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 259 • Development Services: An ordinance was read amending Section 8-Z-3.0 of Chapter 7,Noise Level Portable Generators,Noise . Regulations,of Title VIII(Health and Sanitation)of City Code by allowing the Ordinance Revision use of portable generators when electrical service is not available due to a. � power outage or natural disaster. MOVED BY LAW,SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECQND AND � FINAL READING ON 8/09/2004. CARR�D. � NEW BUSINESS Council President Persson reported receipt of an informal petition from Sue Citizen Comment:Brown- Brown, 1203 N. 2nd St.,Renton, 98055,containing seven signatures, and Drug Dealing&Value Village expressing concern regarding drug dealing in the 1200 block area of NE 2nd Nori-Compliance, 1200 Block St:, and regazding City Code non-compliance issues pertaining to the illegal use of N 2nd St of outside storage by Value Village,located at 1222 Bronson Way N. MOVED BY PALMLR, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THIS� , CORRESPONDENCE TO THE ADMIl�ISTRATION. CARRIED. Development Services: � Referencing a(Longview)Daily News article regarding the City of Kelso s . Nuisance Abatement nuisance abatement ordinance that allows the prosecution of people in criminal court for nuisances on their property, Councilman Corman requested that the � Administration investigate the possibility of emulating Kelso's nu'isance � abatement program. � ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY LAW,COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRILD. Time: 8:21 p.m. �a�,�.��1. (,�� Bonnie Walton, CMC, City Clerk - Recorder: Michele Neumann , , August 2,2004 RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMIVII�TEE MEETING CALENDAR j � Office of the City Clerk ` � COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDLT.�ED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING � , August 2, 2004 COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME . AGENDA � COMIVV�TTEE OF THE WHOL-E � MON., 8/09 Emerging Issues . (Persson) , 5:30 p.m. *Council Conference Room* _ Approximately Comprehensive PYan Amendments Update 6:00 p.m. *Council Chambers* COI�'IlVIUNITY SERVICES MON., 8/09 Ken Raglarid Appointment to Library (Nelson) 3:30 p.m. Board; • Landscape Mairitenance Services Contract ' with Canber Corps; ° Acceptance of 2005 CDBG Funds; CDBG&HOME Investment Partnerships ' Prograin Agreements Arnendments; • 2005 Participation in CDBG Consortium Housing Stability Program FINANCE MQN., 8/09 Vouchers; (Corman) 4:30 p.m. Lease with King County to House � Paramedic Unit at Fire Statiori#14; Institutional Network Services Contract with King County PLANNIl�TG&DEVELOPMENT THURS,, 8/OS Abandoned Grocery Carts; (Briere) 3:30 p.m. Temporary Signage and Temporary � Businesses; View Protection Ordinance; R-4 Zoning Text Amendments; Critical Areas Ordinance (briefing only); Comprehensive Plan Amendments Update PUBLIC SAFETY (Lav�') TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) THURS., 8/05 Renaming of SW 41st St. to IKEA Way;' (Palmer) 2:30 p.m. Renton Airport Development Study (briefing only) UTILITIES THiJRS., 8/OS SW 7th St. Storm System Improvement . (Clawsori) 2:00 p.m. Project& Small Drainage Projects Program Fund Transfer � NOTE: Committee of the Whole meetings aze held in the Council Chambers. All other committee meetings are held in the Council Conference Room unless otherwise noted. ' ; � I;the u�dersigned City Clerk of the � • City of Renton; Washington, certify that this is a true and correct copy of RENTON CITY COUNC]�; � /2�,(?��5 Minutes . Subscribed Regular Meeting and.sealed th1s17 day of M�_,20 05 �� ,/ �,�)��'-� January 24, 2005 ' , . City�ourk�i��onr�ie I o Walton am ers Monday, 7:30 p.m. M I N U T E S � Renton City Hall CAI,L TO ORDER Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF TERRI BRIERE, Council President; MARCIE PALMER;DON PERSSON; COUNCILMEMBERS RANDY CORMAN; TONI NELSON; DAN CLAWSOIV; DENIS LAW. CITY STAFF TN KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER,Mayor; JAY COVINGTON;Chief ATTEIVI)ANCE Administrative Officer;LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; ABDOUL GAFOUR,Water Utility Supervisor; KAREN � MCFARLAND, Engineering Specialist; ALEX PIETSCH,Economic Development Administrator; BEN WOLTERS,Economic Development Director; DON ERICKSON, Senior Planner; DEREK TODD, Assistant to the CAO; COMMANDER TIM TROXEL, Police Department. PUBLIC MEETING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Annexation: Maplewood accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the Addition,Maple Valley Hwy public meeting to consider the 10%Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed 60.5-acre Maplewood Addition Annexation, which is bounded on the north by Maple Valley Hwy. (SR-169), and on the west, south, and east by the - north shore of the Cedar River. Don Erickson, Senior Planner, stated that the.subject site is within Renton's potential annexation area, and contains 161 single-family dwellings. He explained that the site is also included in the proposed Fairwood incorporation area. Once Fairwood proponents file their 10%petition, there is a 90-day window to file the notice of intent package to annex with the Boundary Review Board. For example, to allow processing time, the annexation proponents must file their 60%petition by the�rst week of March if Fairwood proponents file their 10% petition in January. He noted that failure to meet the 90-day window precludes the area's future annexation to Renton if the Fairwood incorporation is successful. Mr. Erickson reported that the topography of the site is essentially flat above the Cedar River bank and the entire site, with the exception of the lots north of SE 149th St., is located within the flood hazard boundary. He reviewed the existing public services as follows: • Fire service is provided by Fire District#25. This stays the same if annexed; however, adequate water pressure is an issue. • Water service is provided by the Maplewood Water Cooperative. If annexed, the water cooperative can continue to operate within the City. e The site is not currently served by sewei-but is located within Renton's sewer service area. There are no known septic issues at this time, and residents are not required to convert from septic to sewer if annexed. Septic systems are under the purview of the King County Health Department. • The site is within the Renton School District. , � � a January 24,2005 Reriton City Council Minutes Page 21 • • If,ani�.exed, and residents choose to convert to City utilities, the City can . ,,;: � assist them in the formation of Local Improvement Districts (LIDs). Continuing, Mr. Erickson stated that existing King County zoning for the site is R-6 (six u:nits per gross acre). Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Residential Single Family, and concurrent zoning is R-8 (eight units per net acre). He noted that the City is reviewing a possible change in designation to Residential Low Density, for which concurrent zoning is R-4 (four units per net acre). Reviewing the fiscal impact analysis, Mr. Erickson indicated that the annual estimated cost to the City for the annexation is $40,304. If property owners decide to upgrade to sewer, the annual estimated City cost would be $35,386 due to the likely increase of property values. In conclusion, Mr. Erickson stated that the annexation proposal is generally consistent with City policies for annexation and relevant Boundary Review � Board criteria. He noted the adequate level of parks in the area, the likely ongoing and costly flood control challenge, the aging infrastructure, and the larger than normal annual subsidy required to serve the area. Public comment was invited. Eric Anders, 13133 SE 149th St., Renton, 98058, stated that he is a proponent of the annexation, and noted that a community meeting was recently held at which City of Renton staff provided information. Mr. Anders pointed out that the Maplewood Water Cooperative cannot support R-8 zoning, and he stated . his preference for R-4 zoning. Despite the costs associated with upgrading the water and sewer systems if necessary or desired,Mr. Anders indicated his support for annexation to Renton rather than incorporation by Fairwood. In response to questions posed by Richard Hall, 13111 SE Maple Valley Hwy., Renton, 98058,Economic Development Administrator Alex Pietsch stated that � grant monies may be available for flood protection. PlanningBuilding/Public Works Administrator Gregg Zimmerman stated that the assessment for installing the water and sewer is estimated at$15,000 per household per utility. He noted that if residents formed an LID for these improvements, the assessment would be paid over a period of time. Bev Spears, 13111 SE 151st St.,Renton, 98058, stated that many residents feel they do not have enough information about the costs to the community and individual homeowners for both the Fairwood incorporation and the proposed annexation. Noting the aging infrastructure, she expressed concern that the site � will never meet City standards. Ivls. Spears indicated that a resident questionnaire has been submitted to Mr. Erickson for more information. Mr. Pietsch noted that the recently received resident questionnaire will be responded to by the end of the week. Discussion ensued regarding the gathering of information and approximating costs; Council policy regarding annexation areas meeting City standards; current practice of annexing areas as they are; upgrading areas only as they are requested, systems fail, or redevelopment occurs; existing substandard areas in the City; the timeline for the annexation and for the Fairwood incorporation; consequences if annexation proponents fail to meet the deadline or obtain the 60% petition; the City's option of requesting the Boundary Review Board to amend the boundaries of the incorporated area if annexation fails; and King County's decision not to serve pockets of unincorporated areas. f / � January 24,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 22 City Attorney Larry Wanen stated that there is no legal authority for the City to condition the annexation upon the signing of an LID or a commitment to ' improve water or sewer systems. Outside of the bonded indebtedness and the zoning requirement, the City cannot add additional conditions to annexation petitions. Stephanie Lorenz, 13515 SE Maple Valley Rd., Renton, 98058, stated that the proponents of the Fairwood incorporation effort are unable to provide affected residents with much information, which results in the inability of the residents to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the two efforts. If the 10% petition is accepted this evening,Ms. Lorenze asked if the 60%petition deadline can be extended. Mr. Pietsch explained that the time cannot be extended as long as the Fairwood incorporation proponents file their petition to incorporate within the assumed . timeframe. The longer the filing of the petition for the Fairwood incorporation is delayed, the more time the subject annexation will have. Mayor Keolker- Wheeler stressed that the City strives to provide accurate and timely information, and a number of concerns will be addressed when the City responds to the resident questionnaire. Linda Gibson, 15031 135th Ave. SE,Renton, 98058, expressed concern .. regarding all of the misinformation being circulated about the annexation. She also pointed out that with an LID, a lien is placed on the property. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler noted that residents must ask for the formation of an LID; the City will not impose an LID on the community. Further discussion commenced regarding septic system failure,costs related to utility systems, misinformation, and.the benefit of more representation by elected officials if the area is annexed or incorporated. Ray Griffen, 14405 SE 143rd Pl.,Renton, 98055, reported that Renton's Aquifer Protection Ordinance states that any homes in Aquifer Protection Zones 1 and 2 must connect to the sewer. Mr. Zimmerman explained that the ordinance only requires mandatory sewer connection in Zone 1. .The annexation area is located in Zone 2; therefore, mandatory hook-up is not required. Dennis Wood,.14934 134th Ave. SE,Renton, 98058, opposed the annexation proposal,pointing out that new road and house numbers will be assigned if the area is annexed. Mr. Wood expressed his disapproval with the City's addressing system, and stated that the address scheme makes it difficult to find places. Additionally, Mr. Wood acknowledged the area's aging water system, and noted Maplewood Water Cooperative's policy to keep the water system within local control. He also noted the need for a pamphlet, similar to the voters pamphlet, which states the for and against positions of the various. interests. Brian Lowrey, 13112 SE 150th St., Renton, 98058, inquired about the bonded indebtedness and the loss to the City if the area is annexed. Mr. Pietsch explained that the bonded indebtedness refers to the park and senior housing Renton voted debt, which equates to$8 a year for a$100,000 valued property. He pointed out that the overall tax burden of property owners will be reduced if the area is annexed to Renton. . . i .. . , y` r January 24;2005 Renton City Council Minufes Page 23 - Noting that the area is located within Renton's potential annexation area(PAA), Councilman Corman stated that despite the cost the PAA is part of the City's responsibility. Councilman Clawson pointed out that the area will eventually have to annex to Renton or to another City. Mr. Erickson reported that a community meeting will be held if the annexation proposal proceeds to the 60%petition level. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY BRIERE, _ SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. CARRIED. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE MAPLEWOOD ADDI`I'ION ANNEXATION 10% NOTICE OF INTENT TO ANNEX PETTI'ION AND AUTHORIZE CIRCULATION OF THE 60% � DIRECT PETITION TO ANNEX,WHICH REQUIRES PROPERTY OWNERS�TO SUPPORT THE ADOPTION OF FUTURE ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REQUIRES THAT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSUME A PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF THE CITY'S EXISTING OUTSTANDING IlVDEBTEDNESS. CARRIED. RECESS MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL RECESS FOR FNE MINUTES. CARRIED. Time: 8:51 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:57 p.m.;roll was cal�ed; all Councilmembers present. PUBLIC HEARINGS This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Annexation: Anthone',:Talbot accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the Rd S &S SSth St public hearing to consider the 60°Io Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Anthone'Annexation consisting of 4.84 acres, including the abutting street right-of-way, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of S. SSth St. and Talbot.Rcl. S. Don Erickson, Senior Planner, stated that the site contains one single-family dwelling, and has a three percent upward slope from the southwest corner to the northeast corner. Reviewing the public services, Mr, Erickson indicated that �Fire District#37,Renton water and sewer, and the Kent School District serve the site. He explained that existing King County zoning is R-6 (six units per gross acre). The land use designation under the City's Comprehensive Plan is Residential Low Density,for which R-4(four units per net acre)zoning is proposed. Mr.Erickson noted that the City is xeviewing the possible redesignation of the area to Resiiiential Single Family, for which concurrent zoning is R-8 (eight units per net acre). Mr.Erickson indicated that despite the smaller than normal annexation area and the limitation of future development to approximately 16 lots, the annexation proposal provides a potential catalyst for annexing a larger area to the south, • and facilitates upgrading the intersection of Talbot Rd. S. and S. SSth St. He reported that the fiscal impact analysis reveals a surplus of$465 at current development, and a surplus of$875 at full development. The estimated one- time parks acquisition and development cost is $8,528. Mr. Erickson concluded that the proposed annexation is consistent with City annexation policies except for size, and is consistent with Boundary Review , , � January 24,2005 Renton City CouncillVlinutes Page 24 Board criteria. He noted the potential of flooding in the area, and suggested Leve12 flow control for new development. Public comment was invited. Jim Biteman, 19203 98th Ave. S., Renton, 98055, reported the presence of King County land use action signs in the annexation area for a nine-home _ development on 1.6 acres, and expressed concern about the conflicting zoning of the two jurisdictions. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler stated that the City will investigate the development proposal. In response to Mr.Biteman's comment about the site's proposed boundary expansion by the City,Mr. Pietsch explained that if the 60% petition is accepted, the City submits a notice of intent package to the Boundary Review Board. At that time,jurisdictions can invoke jurisdiction for boundary modifications. The Boundary Review Board holds two public hearings on the matter, makes a recommendation, and then the City Council has final approval to accept the annexation as modified or not. In response to inquiries by Dan Gallagher, 19225 Talbot Rd. S.,Renton; 98055, regarding the City's Cleveland Park property located in unincorporated King County,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler explained that a timeline has not been set for its annexation to the City, as the City has not received any annexation requests. She further explained that there are no pending plans for development of the park property. Harry Trapp, 19223 98th Pl. S., Renton, 98055, also expressed concern about the proposed housing development and the conflicting zoning. Additionally,he noted the problems he had with the developer of Talbot Estates, and hoped that his property would be properly protected when future development occurs. Mr. Wood displayed a photograph of a property containing a demolished house, and expressed his hope that Renton will address the unsightly problem if the area is annexed. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE ANTHONE"ANNEXATION 60%DIRECT PETITION TO ANNEX, SUPPORT R-4 ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT COMPREHENSNE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY,AND AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO SUBMIT THE NOTICE OF INTENT PACKAGE TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD. CARRIED. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL SUSPEND THE RULES AND ADVANCE TO UNFINISHED BUSINESS,PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT ON THIS SUBJECT. CARRIED. Plannin� & Development Planning and Development Cominittee Chair Clawson presented a report Committee regarding the boundary expansion for the proposed Anthone'Annexation. The Annexation: Anthone',Talbot Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation that Rd S &S SSth St, Boundary Council authorize the Administration to invoke jurisdiction and request the Expansion Boundary Review Board to expand the proposed Anthone'Annexation to the City boundary on the south and 100th Ave. SE, if extended, on the east. � ( , i January 24,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 25 - � The Committee further recommended that staff be directed to explore expanding the boundaries of future annexations whenever it would result in more efficient service areas and City boundaries, and be consistent with the Boundary Review Board objectives and City annexation policies. It is understood that Council might, in this regard, find it necessary to amend the proposed boundaries either at the Council petition level or by invoking jurisdiction at the Boundary Review Board. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Vacation:Park Ave N, City of This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Renton, VAC-04-005 accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the public hearing to consider the City-initiated request for vacation of four portions of right-of-way, a total of approximately 21,795 square feet, along Park Ave. N., between Garden Ave. N. and N. 8th St. The requested vacation areas are associated with the planned development of Lakeshore Landing, which consists of approximately 55 acres bounded by Logan Ave. N., Garden Ave. N., and N. 8th St. Karen McFarland,Engineering Specialist,explained that the City agreed to construct a new arterial street system to support the development of the property in the 2003 development agreement with Boeing. Additionally, Boeing agreed to dedicate certain properties for right-of-way, and the City agreed to vacate unused portions of existing right-of-way. In 2004, the Lakeshore Landing Binding Site Plan was approved that identifies specific tracts needed as right-of-way for construction of the Logan Ave. N. extension, a relocated Park Ave. N., and new sections of street for N. lOth St. and N. 8th St. Ms. McFarland stated that three portions of the right-of-way to be vacated are owned by the City (Tracts I,K, and N), and one is owned by the Washington State Department of Transportation (Tract H). Ms. McFarland noted the existence of two stormwater systems in two of the portions (Tracts H and I). Continuing,Ms. McFarland reported that the vacation request received no objections from City departments and outside agencies. The Utility Systems Division requested a temporary easement be retained to protect the existing stormwater systems, and the Transportation Systems Division pointed out that turnback approval is needed from WSDOT for Tract H. Ms. McFarland indicated that since this is a City-initiated request,no compensation is due. She concluded that staff recommends approval of the vacation request conditioned upon retaining the temporary easement and obtaining turnback approval. Public comment was invited. There being none, it was MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL APPROVE THE REQUEST TO VACATE PORTIONS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG PARK AVE. N. SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: RETAINING A TEMPORARY EASEMENT FOR STORMWATER UTILITIES ACROSS TRACTS H AND I THAT WILL EXPIRE UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE - � �• � � January 24,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 26 IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAKESHORE LANDING DEVELOPMENT,AND APPROVAL AND EXECUTION OF A TURNBACK � AGREEMENT BY WSDOT. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2005 and beyond. Items noted included: � The Renton Community Center will host a Preschool Information Night on February 2nd, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. � Free tax assistance will be provided for low and moderate-income taxpayers (income less that$50,000) by AARP in cooperation with the IRS. Appointments at the Renton Community Center are available beginning February 2nd and ending April 13th. � The Neighborhood Program will host a "Neighbor to Neighbor" Leadership meeting on February Sth. � AUDIENCE COIVIMENT Keith Joslin, 14048 SE 158th St., Renton, 98058, inquired as to the City's intent Citizen Comment: Joslin- or vision on annexations in relation to the Fairwood incorporation effort. Annexations Mayor Keolker-Wheeler explained that the Fairwood area has been in Renton's potential annexation area for a long time, and if it were to annex to Renton, the size of the City would double. She expressed her concerns regarding the maintenance of a certain level of service for City residents, and the generation of revenues by the annexation area. The Mayor further explained that the City is accepting of those interested in annexing to Renton; however, the City generally does not initiate annexation. . Councilman Corman stated his belief that if Fairwood residents were to inquire as to what it would be like to annex to Renton,perhaps as a comparison to the Fairwood incorporation, the City would respond. Citizen Comment: Smith- Hilton Smith, 809 Fairview Pl. N., Seattle, 98109, spoke on behalf of Waterways Cruises, Moorage Waterways Cruises, which operates dinner vessels and offers catering services. at Southport He relayed that his company has been in discussion with Southport(SECO Development)regarding locating one or more vessels and an event center in the Renton area that would involve permanent moorage. Mr. Smith noted that a 300 to 400 passeriger vessel could draw numerous visitors to Renton. He explained that Waterways Cruises needs a five-year cominitment,including parking,fronn Southport for permanent moorage, and he pointed out that currently only a two-year parking comrnitment is allowed. Responding to Councilman Corman's and the Mayor's inquiries, Mr. Pietsch noted that the City received a multi-faceted proposal from SECO Development late last week in regards to some outstanding issues between SECO and the City pertaining to the Southport project. He explained that the Southport project was permitted under an adopted planned action, and current zoning does not allow surface parking as a stand-alone use. Mr. Pietsch stated that parking is possible via a temporary use pernut, which is valid for two years with possibly a one-year extension. He noted that the City will meet with the concerned parties to discuss accommodating SECO's short-term needs and other outstanding issues. , f � r January 24,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 27 ' MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT CONCERNS TO COMMITTEE OF THE , WHOLE.* Mayor Keolker-Wheeler pointed out that the matter is already being reviewed by the Administration, and stressed that unresolved outstanding issues exist with the current development. Councilman Corman noted that with this development, a commitment has been shown for revitalization of this waterfront area, and he expressed his support . for Council review of the matter. Councilman Persson stated that the referral allows Council a forum for further discussion. Councilman Clawson said he will not support suspending any previous commitments by SECO Development unless it is beneficial for the City of Renton. *MOTION CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Christ- Michael Christ, 1083 Lake Washington Blvd. N., Renton, 98056, stated that he Southport Development represents the interests of the Southport community. Mr. Christ commented on the following issues: the allowance of parking on a vacant lot(over 550 stalls) for festivities and corporate events while the hotel and office development progresses; the use of the parking lot by the City for events; revitalization of the area; expansion of the tax exemption proposed for adjacent properties; the need for direction regarding additional offsite improvements; outstanding issues with the City, and the economic environment. Citizen Comment: O'Neill- Victoria O'Neill, SECO Development Marketing Director, 1083 Lake Southport Development Washington Blvd. N., Renton, 98056,pointed out that SECO has actively marketed Renton to attract people to the Southport community, and supports Renton's tourism goals. She requested the City's assistance on pernutting events and parking at Southport, as SECO is unable to make commitments without the City's pernussion. Councilman Corman expressed his hope that the City views events on the waterfront such as a boat show differently than a long-term commitment for vessel moorage. He commented on the improvements that have been made to the Southport area, and stated that he looks forward to reviewing the matter in Committee of the Whole. Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer, pointed out that one of the outstanding issues with SECO Development involves an easement for public access to the waterfront. Citizen Comment: Peckham- Julia Peckham, 1083 Lake Washington Blvd: N., Renton, 98056, stated that she Southport Development is the manager of the Bristol at Southport apartment community and expressed her desire to proceed with the next mixed-use phase at Southport. Ms. Peckham requested the City's consideration of a tax exemption for this phase to make it economically feasible, noting that the tax exemption is being offered to adjacent property owners. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of January 10, 2005. Council concur. - January 10, 2005 a � e � January.24,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 28 Appeal: Sunset Bluff City Clerk reported agpeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Sunset Preliminary Plat, SR 900 LLC Bluff Preliminary Plat(PP-04-002); two appeals filed -one by David S. Mann, &Herons Forever, PP-04-002 1424 4th Ave., Suite 1015, Seattle, 98101, representing Herons Forever; and the other by David L. Halinen, 10500 NE 8th St., Suite 1900, Bellevue, 98004, representing SR 900 LLC, both accompanied by the required fee. The appeal packet included four additional letters as allowed by City Code. Refer to Planning and Development Comrnittee. Vacation: Bremerton Ave NE, City Clerk submitted petition for street vacation•for portions of Bremerton Ave. Liberty Ridge, VAC-04-007 NE between NE 2nd St. and NE 3rd St. and requested a public hearing be set on 2/28/2005 to consider the petition from Liberty Ridge LLC, 9125 lOth Ave. S., • Seattle, 98108 (VAC-04-007). Council concur. (See page 30 for resolution.) Lease: Iron Mountain Community Services Department recommended approval of an amendment to Information Management, City the lease with Iron Mountain Information Management, Inc. for the fourth floor Ha114th Floor,LAG-00-003 of City Hall, extending the lease term to 12/31/2009. Revenue generated is $1,456,685.47 over the five=year term. Refer to Finance Committee. Development Services: Development Services Division recommended acceptance of right-of-way Lakeshore Landing ROW dedications for N. lOth St.,N. 8th St.,Park Ave. N., and Logan Ave. N.for the Dedications,BSP-04-081 Lakeshore Landing site development project(BSP-04-081). Council concur. Annexation: Mosier II, SE Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department 136th St& 142nd Ave SE submitted 60% Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Mosier II Annexation, and recommended a public hearing be set on 2/7/2005 to consider _,. the petition and future zoning; 31 acres located in the vicinity of NE 2nd St. (SE 132nd St.), Jericho Ave. NE(144th Ave. SE), 142nd Ave. SE, and SE 136th St. Refer issue of boundary expansion to Plannin�and Development Comrnittee; set public hearing on 2/7/2005. Finance: Issaquah School Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department District Impact Fees &Capital reported Issaquah School District request that Renton adopt its 2004 Capital Facilities Plan Facilities Plan and school impact fees for new development. Refer to Finance Committee, EDNSP: Renton Lodging Tax Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Advisory Corrunittee recommended reaffirmation of the continuing membership of the Renton Membership Lodging Tax Advisory Corrunittee as follows: Bill Taylor, newly-named . Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce President and CEO; Rick Meinig, Silver Cloud Inn General Manager; Terry Godat,Travelers Inn General Manager; Julie Brewer, City of Renton Community Relations Manager; and Denis Law, Renton Councilmember. Council concur. EDNSP: Hotel/Motel Tax Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Revenue Allocation to recommended approval of a contract with Hamilton/Saunderson Marketing Community Stakeholders, Partnership for a seventh year of the Renton Community Marketing Campaign. Hamilton/Saunderson Contract Approval was also saught to allocate hoteUmotel tax revenues in the amount of $50,000 to the key community stakeholders for a seventh year of the marketing campaign. Refer to Finance Committee. Human Resources: 2005/2006 Human Resources and Risk Management Department recommended approval Claims Processing Fee of the 2005/2006 fee schedule for employee medical, dental, and prescription Schedule,Healthcare claims processing by Healthcare Management Administrators and Management Administrators Pharmaceutical Card Service/Caremark. Refer to Finance Committee. 1 ' e � y January 24,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 29 � CAG: 03-158,Lind Ave Transportation Systems Division submitted CAG-03-158,Lind Ave. SW and SW/SW 7th St Signalization, SW 7th St. Signalization; and re.quested approval of the project, authorization Totem Electric for final pay estimate in the amount of$160, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of$9,596.62 to Totem Electric, contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. CAG: 03-160, 2005 Local Utility Systems Division recommended approval of Amendment No. 2 to CAG- Hazardous Waste Management 03-160,King County-Suburban City contract, accepting$22,903.46 for Program,King County Grant Renton's 2005 Local Hazardous Waste Management Program. Council concur. (See page 31 for resolution.) Utility: Water System Plan, Utility Systems Division recommended approval of the 2005 update to the 2005 Update City's Water System Plan. Refer to Utilities Committee. Utility: Annual Consultant Utility Systems Division recommended approval of the annual consultant roster Roster for Telemetry & for telemetry and supervisory control and data acqu'isition (SCADA) consultant SCADA Services services. The roster contains the following consultants: Casne Engineering, Inc.,Reid Instruments;RH2 Engineering, Inc., and Summit Engineering and Consulting, PS. Council concur. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE A letter was read from Ramon Lucio, 2020 Grant Ave. S.,#L-301,Renton, Citizen Comment: Lucio - 98055, suggesting that the Pavilion Building be used for a public market Pavilion Building, Public consisting of small stalls for different businesses such as fast.food, services, Market and dry good retailing. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Various - At the request of Councilmember Clawson, City Attorney Warren commented Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat on the timing of letters received (from Daniel G. Rosefeld; Diane Johnson; Appeal, SR 900 LLC& Tricia Allen; and David S. Mann, Gendler&Mann,LLP)regarding the Sunset Herons Forever,PP-04-002 Bluff Preliminary Plat appeal. He indicated that the submission deadline of 1/17/2005 for these letters was not met; however, mail was not delivered that day due to the holiday. Mr. Warren suggested referral of the letters to the Planning and Development Cominittee, pointing out that a determination on their admissibility can be made in the future following further review by the City Attorney's Office and arguments by the appellants. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER . THESE LETTERS TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. �CTNFINIS�IED BUSINESS Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval Finance Committee of Claim Vouchers 234009 -234346 and three wire transfers totaling Finance: Vouchers $3,126,472.97; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 55314 -55667, one wire transfer, and 566 direct deposits totaling $2,114,237.24. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. . �, � � January 24,2005 Renton City Council lvlinutes, Page 30 Utilities Committee Utilities Comrnittee Chair Corman presented a report concurring in the CAG: 03-168, Maplewood recommendation of the PlanningBuilding/Public Works Department that Water Treatment Facility Council approve Addendum No. 2 to the consultant agreement CAG-03-168 Improvements, Economic and with Economic and Engineering Services,Inc. in the amount of$116,510 for Engineering Services additional engineering services assistance for the construction of the Maplewood Water Treatment Improvements project. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Plannin� & Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report Committee regarding the big-box retail uses design guidelines and the Urban Center Design Planning: Big-Box Retail Uses Overlay Regulations. The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff Design Guidelines &Urban recommendation to approve the proposed revisions to the Urban Center Design Center Design Overlay Overlay Regulations incorporating revised standards for new development in Regulations the Urban Center and big-box retail in all locations except the Valley. The Comrnittee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMTTTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 31 for ordinance.) Planning: Medical Institution Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report Definition, City Code regarding the exception to the City Code Title N (Development Regulations) Amendment docket review process for a zoning code amendment of the "Medical Institution" definition. The Coinrnittee recommended setting a public hearing for this issue on 2/7/2005. The Cominittee further recommended that the draft ordinance regarding this matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the final ordinance. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Release of Easement: Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report Lakeshore Landing Site, regarding the release of easements to be granted by Boeing for the Lakeshore Boeing,RE-04-001 Landing site development project(RE-04-001). The Committee recommended concurrence in the PlanningBuilding/Public Works Department recommendation that Council approve a release for each of the easements with the following King County recording numbers: 8811300191; 9607220167; 200011205003127; 200011205003128; 200011205003129; and 200011205003130. The Committee further recommended concurrence in the recommendation of the Planning/Building/Public Work Department that Council retain a portion of the easement recorded under King County recording number 8805190541 and approve the partial release of the remaining portion of this easement. The documents recorded under King County recording numbers 9105231158 and 9106060988 (which replaced 9105231158) are not easements but agreements and will be handled by staff in a separate action to Council. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED, RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution#3732 A resolution was read setting a public hearing date on 2/28/2005 to vacate � Vacation: Bremerton Ave NE, portions of Bremerton Ave. NE between NE 2nd St. and NE 3rd St. (Petitioner: Liberty Ridge, VAC-04-007 Liberty Ridge LLC; VAC-04-007). MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. � � � � t/ y January 24,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 31 - I2esolution#3733 A resolution was read authorizing the Mavor and Cit�Clerk to execute CAG: 03-160, 2005 Local Amendment No. 2 to the Suburban City contract between King County and the Hazardous Waste Management City of Renton for the 2005 Local Hazardous Waste Management Program. Program, King County Grant MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COLTNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 2/7/2005 for second and final reading: Planning: Big-B.ox Retail Uses An ordinance was read amending Sections 4-2-060,4-2-070,and 4-2-080, of Design Guidelines &Urban Chapter 2, Zoning Districts -Uses and Standards, and Section 4-3-100 of Center Design Overlay Chapter 3,Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, and Chapter 11, Regulations Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations)of City Code by revising the Urban Center Design Overlay Regulations for development in the Urban Center. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COLTNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 2/7/2005. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE Solid Waste: Waste ISSUES OF COMPUTER RECYCLING AND RECYCLABLE SORTING TO Management-Rainier, THE UTILITIES COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Recycling Services School District: Activities Councilwoman Nelson reviewed Renton School District announcements and activities. Items included: the participation of Tiffany Parks Elementary School fifth grade students in the Opera in Schools program; the donation of profits from Lindbergh High School's Club Aery beach party dance to World Vision to help the Indian Ocean tsunami victims; and the Renton Rotary Club selections for Teachers of the Month. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 10:35 p.m. �C3��l. L�Ja.�-� Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann January 24, 2005 � �� RENTON CIT3� COUNCIL COMMI'I'TEE 1VIEETING CALENDAR " Office of the City Clerk COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 24, 2005 , �OMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MON., 1/31 No Meeting (Sth Monday) (Briere) . MON., 2/07 Emerging Issues 6:30 p.m. *Councal Conference Room�` Approximately Aquatic Center Policies 7:00 p.m. *Council Chambers* COMMUNITY SERVICES (Nelson) FINANCE MON., 2/07 Lease with Iron Mountain Information (Persson) 5:45 p.m. Management for City Ha114th Floor; Renton Community Marketing Campaign Funding & Hamilton/Saunderson Contract PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT TIILTRS., 2/03 City Code Title IV Docket (Clawson) 2:00 p.m. PUBLIC SAFETY (Law) TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) THURS., 2/03 Liberty Ridge Traffic Concerns (Edmonds (Palmer) 3:00 p.m. Ave SE); IKEA Commercial District Signage (briefing only); Airport Development Study (briefing only) UTILITIES THLTRS., 2/03 2005 Water System Plan (Corman) 4:00 p.rn. NOTE: Committee of the Whole meetings are held in the Council Chambers. All other committee meetings are held in the Council Conference Room unless otherwise noted. � , Exhibit C � o� �: King County Department of Assessments Scott Noble King County Administration Bldg. f�S,seSSO/' 500 Fou�1h Avenue,Room 708 Seattle,WA 98104-2384 (20�296-5195 FAX(20�296-0595 Email:asseSsor.info@metrokc.gov wtivw.metrokc.gov/assesso r/ ANNEXATION PETITION CERTIFICA'�'ION TI-�I,:S IS TO CERTIFY that the petition submitted October 8, 2004 to the King,County Department of Assessments by Don Erickson, Seni�I'.�anner for the City of Renton, supporting the annexation to Re�ton of the properties described as the Anthone' Annexation, has been examined, the property taxpayers, tax parcel numbers, and assessed value of properties listed thereon carefully compared with the King County tax roll records, and as a result of such examination, found to be sufficient under the provisions of the New Section of Revised Code of Washington, Section 35.13.002. The Department of Assessments has not verified that the signature on the petition is valid through comparison with any record of actual signatures, nor that the signature was obtained or submitted in an appropriate time frame, and this document does not certify such to be the case. Dated this 11� day of October, 2004 ��7� ._, Scott Noble, Kin County Assessor . TF:t1 s�1202M ' �op . � �xm�it .0 . . �.,� � A1�1'I'I-�Ol�'A1�1�1E�TIOI� �,EGAL DE��IPT�ON That portion of Tract 11, Springbrook Acre Tracts, according to the plat thereof recorded ,.. , in Volum� 12 of Plats, page 6a,recorcls of Kir�g County,Washington,lying northerly and weste�ly of tlie plat of Talbati�states, a�cord�ng to the plat thex�Qf recorded in Volume 172 of Plats,Pages 1 througli 3,inclusive,r��ards of King County,Washington; EXCEP'T the west 10 feet th�reof lying within Talbo.t Raad S.right-of-way; and EXC��that portion of the north 10 feet thereof lying within the S 55�'Street right-of way; TOGETI�R VVFTH Tract"B" of said Talbot Estates plat. All situa�e iri the northeast quarter of Sectiori 6,Towriship 22 North,Raiige 5 East,W.1VI., in King County,Washington. ;.. �. I� 3 W � , � � � O � � � � � � � � � a S 55th St � . � 0 � �o 1 g th p� � � 9 Proposed Anthone' Annexation o Soo l000 Exhibit F1: Proposed Annexation Boundary Economic Bevelopment,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning ��— City Limits 1 : 6000 �O� A�ex Pietsch,Adminisaalor 0 Proposed Annex.Area G.Del Rosario �d ,i0 I I May 2005 � t.� � =-=---- --- ---- -- __-_-_-_-___--- _--�_-'--'--�__--_ _—_- -_-- --_----" -- � _�---- -- --- =--=- - ------ ==--- � ❑ ❑ 0 :l � F _ �pOSGd Anthone' Annex�ti0n o s000 l0000 Exhibit F2: Existing Corporate Limits ♦OEconomic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning - - - Clty LIf111fS � . LO000 � A�ex Pictsch,Administrator 0 Proposed Annex.Area V G.Del Rosario � .TO I I May 2005 � ___________________________ =--=_-=-=____=_ �; .,- .z -=--== =:-=_---= --=`=- --=---- _-==-__=---= _ -__ ________________'-_-�==--====-=-- -____=_�-=�-_==�= � D _=�==-------- =-==`_-=__`___=_�=_-_-- - _ __ _ ___::_:y-_=_-_-_ ____ _________ . �ri1r:r_�'_ti:i;_:�{':_}'}}- " _" ' ' ' """' "' " � __________________________________`______=-===-==_`===__-_-_-=_=_=_== STATION ___ ___________________:__=________=-____=____===_=___===_________=_:-= 12 S ATION 0 11 ❑ 0 STATION �' 16 STATION 13 ' STAT ON 4 - �ire District 40 - - CQ �ir_.e District 37 - - -- - �� posed Anthone' Annexation o S000 l0000 Exhibit F4a: Fire Service Area Boundaries �� Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning - - - City Limits � . �0000 � A1°xP�ctsch,Administrator 0 Proposed Annex.Area G.Del Rosario .TO 11 May 2005 ------------------------- ------------- --------�---------------- ------------- - -- -------------=--== - - -- --- --=-------------- -=--==-= -__- =-===-==_-= �, �� ==-=====--------=====-=-=--=------- ___=____=_-____-== D ---- ------ - -- - - - ---- - ----- - COAL CREEK -==-==---==----------=-=_=�__==--- -_=-___-___-_-==-=-- WATER&SEWER DIST. =-__;---=--------=-=-=-=-==`-:_-='__ ______-_________-_________ wsasa�� -- - --�-==`-----_= -'- -'---- ❑ SKYWAY WATER 8� SEWER DIST. Rasm-�e�o) 0 � 0 WATER DISTRICT 90 �� B�EG � AKA I4RENOODFOOfIION WQHiCO0P9NTNE ' (�3933� cirY OF CEDAR RIVER �� WATER AND SEWER DIST. „°o� � . ' SOOS CREEK WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT �� CITY OF KENT �i Q Proposed Anthone' Annexation o S000 l0000 Exhibit F4b: Sewer Service Area Boundaries ♦OEconomic Development,Neighborhoods&Shategic Planning - - - City Limits � . �0000 � A�exPietsch,AdminishaWr � Proposed Annex.Area G.Del Rosario A .r0 I 1 May 2005 � -'--'i�=-==-__=_'=--="=- ------- '_'T__'r"=_=_=s==_ ______________ r""__ __'r'_"�t'-'- -r==_rr_r="__ r{{rr"_'" ' ___"' "_r_"_"__ �_ ( 6 ��. ""''-_" " "' ' _ '_ '_'__ ' D _' ""r= " "_ "'' "" "'""_____ _ __ � , " '_____"'____'_' ________ _'_"______'_ � "_'-'_-'-"_"-_ ' "'" ' "" ' ""__" ' "' � --__---___=>=--=-=-=-=-=---=->-_-=____==__=_____-_=-_.= f , __________________________________________ [� � � ______________________________________ _ ' � -- K -��-�_�_��_= I 0 , ❑ � 0 � . � �== � � `=_' � � --:-.-�� .. I Q . Proposed Anthone' Annexation o S000 l0000 Exhibit F5: K.C. UGA and Renton PAA �OEconomic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning - - - Clty LIR11tS � . �00�� Alex Pie�sch,Administra�or 0 Proposed Annex.Area C.Dcl Rosario A .r 0 I 1 M a y 2 0 0 5 it s i �:-_-__-=--'�-_-=--'_-"--=-_--==-` ______________'-___-_ --'-"----- ---_�=_-'-'---"----=-=- ==--_- `- -- � _______________________________________________ a 0 ❑ :, . . F . _�pOs�d �nt�1one' �nneXatlon o s000 l0000 Exhibit G: Proposed Corporate Limits Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning - - - Clfy LIf111tS 1 . �0000 �� Alcx Pietsch,Administrawr O G.Del Rosario Proposed Annex.Area 8 O 11 May 2005 � �" ";:.�� 1 � �'� � � ' � � - '.�'� „� ,I � '�"1� � � ,�' �� •'�.;`�� 7 � � ��' � � � /[��ill` _ :::::: � • , _�:�:�:� �. • ''`'`''"''?:�i:L�':�?��-�_�::_�_ - �'�:;: ■ � 1 - �::��i � ��„ ��„�„ �i:y;i;i;:;:�� ,,,,��„� �':'i:':'•• �-' . - . . - ;:� . - / '- _ _ , . _ _ � � i{:�:•� �i��'. �, �, :!� , � • � �' � _ � _ ■ ,1 � � � , , �' . � ■ . - •!� I � � ■ �}: - - �': ��'� :•!� � � - ' - . - _ :�.. • � ' •:� �•.' ' _ {!�^� • ..� .J ' � .��i ;:::::::::::�::i:::;:;::�:�:�:::�:_::::::::�:�i;i;:;i::�:�i��:�;�:�:�:�:�:�:�:��:•`•�i�:i�::�:�:�i�i'�i?:=i'�::;::;i�i;:i�::�:�::::�::':�::::-;�:':?i�::=:�:�:::::�:s•i::�:::i�:�i�.: ;:: _ .,, . ;�: ;:;;.''��'� - i�::� ._, r � _.� ..� :�:... :::.:: •:J.': YJ:' :;°r;: :�'•i¢ _ - - - ':•i :w�;:::,•:��.�:�.;��5��}$�{:��;'�}�.��.�:%��3:��:�:�.�Y,.��.��:��:�:;%:�:��ti�:{,��•�}�.��Ctir•:��:{r:; ;�•: .;;�r,. ••�.•• ••� �� I � I� � �I ♦ . - : . � � . . � _ . ; ■ r'� , . � :,:_ti..: � :::::f::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::......:::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::, 1�`� �� _ �� ' � � � �- � ' � - ' - . � � - � � : � � r � � � ' � �- � . .>:�:�::.:::.:.�::s:::::;::::::::::::::;::::::::::::.s::: _ ��::: • . . „ ,. �.. ;.:, : � � � ,Q- ' ''�� .�. •� i -�d'�' �:� �,�Y O� � " � s � � '��,N�p - Boundary Review Board for I�in� County Public Hearing Handout Issues Related to Anthone' Annexatfon � Public Notification: Pursuant to state law(RCW 35A.14.330-340),the City is required to hold two or more public hearings, at least 30-days apart,when considering future zoning for an annexation area. Since Renton's initial hearing was for the smaller 4.84-acre annexation area,if it is expanded, at least two additional hearings will be required. Unlike the Boundary Review Board,the City notifies all property owners within the proposed annexation area as well as 300-feet around it at least 10- days before any scheduled public hearing. �oning: Under state law, the City is required to rezone annexation areas consistent with its Comprehensive Plan(RCW 36.70A.040(5). This section of the RCW states that all cities and counties required to plan under the Growth Management Act"must develop comprehensive plan land use and development regulations that are consistent." In this case,Renton's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows the expanded annexation site as having two land use designations. The western half of the expanded annexation site has the City's Residential Low Density land use designation on it and the eastern half has the City's Residential Single Family land use designation on it. These designations have not changed since at least 2001. In November 2004,the City changed one of the zones allowed under the RLD land use designation. The R-5 Zone was at that time replaced with the R-4 Zone. The former R-5 zone allowed a maximum of five units per net acre and the new R-4 zone allows a maximum of four units per net acre. Three annexations were grandfathered in under the R-5 zone densities and lot sizes. The Anthone' Annexation was one of the three, allowing it to develop at a maximum density of up to five units per net acre. This could allow up to 19 units on the origina14.84-acre ° annexation site. The Talbot Estates subdivision to the south of the origina14.84-acre site would also be zoned R-4 but would not qualify for the 5-unit per net acre density provisions of the three grandfathered annexations mentioned above. The eastern half of the expanded site has a Residential Single Family land use designation which would most like result in R-8 zoning,with a maximum density of 8 units per net acre on this portion of the annexation site. Both the Springbrook Terrace and Hi Park Subdivisions would most likely be zoned R-8 upon coming into the City,based upon the current RS land use designation. Current net densities within these two subdivisions are estimated to be less than four units per net acre. Public Services: Whereas the origina14.84 acre annexation is located within both Renton's Water Service and Sewer Service areas,the expanded portion of the Anthone' Annexation would remain in the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District which currently provides both sewer and water service to E" :�:-r� Anthone' Annexation Expansion Boundary Review Board Public Hearing 2 08/31/2005 , residents within all three existing subdivisions(Talbot Estates, Springbrook Terrace, and Hi Park). Fire District No. 37 currently provides fire prevention services. Upon annexation,Renton would take over this service. The original and expanded annexation site is also located in the Kent School District. The City anticipates entering into an agreement with the Kent School District to collect a school impact fee from developers for them just as we now do for the Issaquah School District. Surface Water Runoff: The City currently obtains 10%-15% of its water from Springbrook Springs (an artesian water source)located in the City owned watershed south of the proposed expanded annexation area. The City of Renton has established an aquifer protection area around this water source. It is primarily to the south and east. Whereas development to the north of the City's Springbrook Watershed primarily drains to the northwest away from the watershed,the southern portion of the proposed expanded annexation area(abutting the watershed on its north side)appears to potentially drain into the ravine through which Springbrook Creek flows to the northwest and eventually into the ponds of the adjacent trout farm, across Talbot Road South to the west. The majority of the surface runoff from the expanded annexation site eventually ends up in the large wetlands north of South 55`�'Street and west of Talbot Road South. r r r I � I � � I � I I I � _ � — � � I I � ' /— �� . �� N ; or� ,,\ Fo � i Proposed Anthone' Annexation o 200 400 Neighborhood Detail Map — — — City Limits 1 : 2,4QQ ti� Economic Dcvelopment,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning 0 Proposed Annex Area � Alcx Netsch,Adminisvator �, � c.o��R�,sa�<, 0 Proposed Expanded Annex Area L'�,TO 2RDecember2IXW . . .. A� . .. . . ._. . .. - � _.::��;. ��y � ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, U ;; � � NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC ' � ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT . ��,N�o� - . M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 24, 2005 TO: Larry Warren , FROM: Don Erickson . SUEJECT: Williamson Law Office Testimony to the BRB regarding Anthone' Annexation Larry,this is just a heads up if Bonnie circulates this to Council. I have talked with Lenora Blauman of the BRB and she says there is no way the BRB is going to get into the zoning issue, which they see,rightly, as a local municipal issue. We have been consistent in telling Mr. Williamson's clients that future zoning would have to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan,which currently has a Residential Low Density(RLD) land use designation and most likely would have R-4 zoning at the time of annexation. This was our recommendation to City Council at the first public hearing on zoning last January. I also noted at that hearing that.this year we were looking at the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this and the area to the east and that, for this site,there might be the potential for a more dense land use designation, such as RS (Residential Single Family) ' . because immediately to the north across South SSth Street(SE 192°a St.), the City land use designation is RO (Residential Options), and the zoning is R-14. We have also been very clear with Mr. Anthone' that upon annexation he could apply for a, Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the RLD to RS in order to pursue a rezone to R-8. Because of the R-14 zoning across the street to tfie north and the existing County R-6 zoning to the south, one might argue that there may be some justification for a more denser zoning classification that R-4 on the site in between. My understanding now, is that Rebecca Lind has backed away from recommending to the � - Planning Commission that they support a change in the land use designation for the origina14.84-acre Anthone' Annexation site, since the abutting subdivisions to the south and east that currently have the County's R-6 zoning, actually have built out densities that are closer to the densities allowed in the City's R-4 zone. It would appear that Mr. Williamson is confused about the process and GMA concurrency requirements for zoning consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Incidentally,the� County has accepted our Comp Plan as being consistent with both the Countywide Planning Policies and their Comprehensive Plan, so his other issue about consistency with the County's comprehensive plan and policies also does not appear to carry much wait. h:\ednsp\paa�annexarions\anthone'�nemo to larry warren re williamson ltr to brb.doc - Washington State Bou�dary Review Board For King County Yesler Building,Room 402,400 Yesler Way, Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206)296-6800 •Fax: (206)296-6803 • http://www.metrokc.gov/annexations June 21, 2005 City of Renton Attn: Don Erickson, AICP . Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: REQUEST FOR REVIEW File No. 2199 - City of Renton- Anthone Annexation Dear Mr. Erickson: Enclosed is a copy of a request received by the Boundary Review Board for a public hearing on the above=referericed file. -' • The Board is expecfed to cl'iscuss the date for the Jul_y 14, 2005. If you have any comments to make regarding scheduling of the hearing, please transmit them to this office prior to the meeting. You will be notified of the date and time of the public hearing. Sincerely, - - �Lenora�lauman - - - Executive Secretary Enclosure: Request for Review cc: Anne Noris, Clerk of the Metropolitan King County Council Bill Huennekens, Records and Elections Division Debra Clark, King County Department of Assessment_ Lydia Reynolds-Jones, Manager, Project Suppbrt Services Paul Reitenbach, Department of Development and Environmental Services 1Vlichael Thomas; King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning FORM HEl �� ► _. -� Washington State Boundary I�eview Board For King County Yesler Building,Room 402,400 Yesler Way, Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206)296-6800 • Fax: (206)296-6803 • http://www.metrokc.gov/annexations July 25, 2005 City of Renton Attn: Don Erickson, AICP Senior Planner -1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 IN RE: NOTICE OF HEARING File No. 2199 - City of Renton- Anthone Annexation Please see attached Notice concerning new dates for a public hearing to consider a modification to the boundaries of the above-referenced file. Sincerely Lenora Blauman Executive Secretary Enclosure: Notice of Hearing - C�C: Address on file label(s) CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Form HE2 � ; NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF RENTON— ANTHONE ANNEXATION FILE NO. 2199 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY will hold a public hearing at the hour of 7:00 PM on Tuesday, August 30, 2005. The hearing will take place at the Renton Technical College, 3000 NE Fourth Street, Renton WA, Building C, and Auditorium Room 101. The purpose of the Public Hearing is to consider the annexation of 4.84 acres (Anthone) to the City of Renton. At the conclusion of that hearing, the Boundary Review Board will determine whether to also conduct a Public Hearing to consider a request by the City of Renton to modify (to add territory of approximately 26 acres to) the Anthone Annexation, plirsuant to RCW 36.93; et seq. If the Board agrees to consider Renton's Request for Modification of the Anthone Annexation then the Board will conduct a Modification Hearing on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 at 7:00 PM at the above location. To reclassify certain Real Property within Unincorporated King County, described as a portion of Section 31, Township 23 North, Range 5, East, and Section 6, Township 22 North and Range 5 East all in Willamette Meridian in King County, Washington, bounded to the north by the City of Renton's current border (S 192nd Street); to the west by city border (96�' Ave S/Talbot Rd); to the east by the section line (approx. 120 feet east of 99�' Place S); and to the south by the city border within the plat of Springbrook Acres Tracts. A COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIP'TION IS ON FILE AND AVAILABLE AT THE OFFICE OF THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD. The Boundary Review Board conducts all meetings and hearings in locations that are wheelchair accessible. Any person requiring other disability accommodations or special assistance should contact the Boundary Review Board staff at least two business days prior to the meeting. The Boundary Review Board telephone is 206-296-6800. For TTY telephone services, please call 206- 296-1024 Each request for accommodations or assistance will be considered individually according to the type of request, the availability of resources and the financial ability of the Board to provide the requested services or equipment. DATED at Seattle, Washington, this 25�'day of July, 2005 WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY Lenora Blauman Executive Secretary F'LtASt Ut IAGH I3tFVFtt UtF'USI I ING - CITY OF RENTON,WA 98055 � ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK IVO.23TSZ4 ' I�INVOIC�N,I3Aa�ER ;;,,-' .-qATE�- ,_ ,v,� „ ,a, ,�;.DESCt�lp710t�'�. , ,a;��P:O:iNUMBER� � DISGOUNT AMOi1�,VT , . . ,,.s_ . �, . �,�as BRE�`ingfee 05/17/2005 BRB filing fee for the Anthone 0.00 50.00 �-� dS RECEIPT N° 5 6 4� 2 � � Date � `� C � T o � �2�-�� = � �^ Received From � � ,k-'``°in � y ��Q y� � Address /�_� � 2G �C7�L'� l�/ � /r� -� ��,�� Jc� S •,ti � .��z�� C Q �c 5�_�..s-��,,,"' ;.. - Amoun ' 7 � � �`F' ��Ta'v.�t �.. /� //�� --r ��+ � U L � �� Cd.sh � Fo✓��L /V V— �/'� i �� , Y� z� � Check � � ef r ce O �� , o N� � � Other Bv: Q si �e , ' � 50.00 --. . -� Washington State Boundary 1Zeview Board For King County Yesler Building,Room 402,400 Yesler Way, Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206)296-6800 • Fax: (206)296-6803 • http://�vw.�, okc.gov/annexations fi �� . . June 1, 2005 �; ��j� �� ; k'.:.;�:u��ric . N- c.. ;:,:.,,��dD STRA7Ey�� . Ciry of Renton Attn: Don Erickson, AICP Senior Planner �053 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: SUMMARY File No. 2199 - City of Renton - Anthone Annexation Dear Mr. Erickson: _Enclosed is the Summary prepared by Boundary Review Board staff for the above-referenced Nbtice of Intention. The Summary will be sent to the Boundary Review Board members, along with the Notice of Intention, as part of the agenda packet for the next regular monthly Board meeting. - If you see any corrections or clarifications which should be made in the Summary, I would appreciate hearing from you at (206) 296-6801. Sincerely, Lenora Blauman Executive Secretary Enclosure: Summary FORM 11 _ �i( �� D� a� o� ' C�� _ - � , ; i SUIVIMARY F,ILE N0. 2199 Thomas Guide Map No. 686 Date Received: 05/27/05 Date Distributed: 05/31/05 ENTITY City of Renton Date Filed: ACTION Petition for Land Annexation Expiration 45 Days: 07/11/05 TITLE Anthone Annexation Board Meeting: 06/09/05 Location The Anthone Annexation is located on the southeast side of the City oi Renton. The annexation site is surrounded to the north and to the west by the existing City of Renton. The site is bounded on the east and the south by unincorporated King County. The northern boundary of the Anthone Annexation is formed by S 55`h Street. The western boundary of the site is generally formed by 96t'' Avenue South (if extended). The eastern boundary is located west of 98th Avenue South. The southern boundary of the site is generally formed by South 194th Street(if extended). Land Area Approximately 4.84 acres Land Use Existina: One single-family home; Vacant land. Estimated Future: Approximately 16 total residences Population Existinq: Approximately 3 persons Estimated Future: Approximately 40 total persons Assessed Valuation Existinq: $746,000. Estimated Future: $8,000,000 � County Comprehensive Plan Designation Urban Residential Use (4— 12 dwelling units per gross acre) County Zoning Residential (R-4—4 dwelling units per gross acre) City Comprehensive Plan Proposed: Residential Use—Low-Density City Zoning Proposed: Residential (R-4 Zone: maximum 4 dwelling units per net acre) District Comprehensive Plan City of Renton Comprehensive Water&Sewer District Plan District Franchise No franchise is required. Urban Growth Area(UGA) The site is located within the Urban Growth Area as identified under the State Growth Management Act, King County Comprehensive Plan and City of Renton Comprehensive Plan � , ,. � , � , -. ! 1 SEPA Declaration The proposed annexation is exempt from SEPA pursuant to RCW 43.21 C.222 � ENTITIES/AGENCIES NOTIFIED: � King County Council Member(s) Steve Hammon King County: Clerk of Council, Department of Assessments, Fire Marshal, Health Division, State Department of Ecology, Puget Sound Regional Council, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) Cities: Not Applicable Fire Districts: City of Renton Fire Department; King County Fire Protection District No. 37; King County Fire Protection District No. 25 Water Districts: City of Renton Water Utilities; Soos Creek Water& Sewer District Sewer Districts:� City of Renton Sewer Utilities; Soos Creek Water&Sewer District School Districts: Kent School District No. 415 . �_ , • � � ` � SUMMARY(File No. 2199) The City of Renton proposes the annexation of 4.84 acres known as the Anthone Annexation. This annexation was proposed under the 60% petition metho pursuant to RCW 35A.14. Renton City Council adopted the petition for annexation in January of 2 05. ,The Anthone Annexation is located on the southeast side of the City of Renton. T��,F�;arr� . The annexation site is surrounded to the north and to the west by the existing City of Renton. The site is bounded on the east and the south by unincorporated King County. The northern boundary of the Anthone Annexation is formed by S 55th Street. The western boundary of the site is �qenerally formed by 96th Avenue South (if extended). The eastern boundary is located west of 98 Avenue South. The southern boundary of the site is generally formed by South 194th Street(if extended). The Anthone Annexation Area is included in the "Annexation Element" of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and is located within the Renton Potential Annexation Area. The proposed action is consistent with City of Renton Comprehensive Plan policies addressing annexation, including those provisions which call for inclusion of urban areas within the City and provision of services to incorporated areas (e.g., LU-1; LU-36; LU-37; LU-41; LU-42). The Anthone Annexation Area property owners are seeking annexation in order to develop properties under City of Renton regulations and to receive public services (e.g., sewer services) from Renton. Presently the area includes one single-family residence. At full development, Anthone would include a total of approximately 16 homes. The City of Renton has planned for growth at the level of urban density proposed for the Anthone Annexation Area. Further, the City has established standards to guide ongoing uses and new development on the Anthone properties following annexation. Annexation would also permit protection for environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., storm water/flood management). More specifically, the City of Renton is prepared to provide development review and environmental review to the annexation area based upon local, regional and state regulations for protection of environmentally sensitive areas. The City of Renton can directly provide (or contract for) urban services to the area. For example, the City of Renton will provide water service, sewer service, storm water management. The City will provide police services. The City will continue to provide fire service and emergency service through a contract with Fire Protection District No. 37 and Fire Protection No. 25. Library facilities and recreation facilities would be available to the community. Children would attend schools in the Kent School District No. 415. The City of Renton reports that the proposed annexation conforms to the State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.) For example, the annexation is supported by RCW 36.70.20, � which requires community planning goals, for urban growth, services and infrastructure, and environmental preservation. Additionally, the application reportedly is consistent with RCW 36.70A.020 (1), encouraging development in urban areas where there are adequate public services. It is also consistent with RCW 36.70A.020 (12), which calls for public services to support permitted development. Annexation would also permit development of primary land uses and corollary public services (e.g., roadways) envisioned in the Act. Environmentally sensitive areas would also be preserved under the provisions of this annexation. ` ... . ' � Y� �� p Further, the Anthone Annexation is reported to be consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan. Following are examples of King County Comprehensive Plan/Countywide Planning Policies that are addressed by the proposed Anthone Annexation: FW-13: Cities are the appropriate providers of local urban services to Urban Areas. LU-31: The County should identify urban development areas within the Urban Growth Area LU-32: The County should encourage cities to annex territory within their designated potential annexation area LU-33: Land within a city's potential annexation area shall be developed according to local and regional growth phasing plans U-203: Population growth should be encouraged in Urban Growth Areas U-208: Land capacity shall be provided for residential, commercial and industrial growth U-304: Growth should be focused within city boundaries. The proposed Anthone Annexation is reportedly consistent with the provisions of RCW 36.93 (Boundary Review Board Regulations). City of Renton officials note that, following the Anthcne Annexation, there would be some remaining adjacent unincorporated urban areas that are within Renton's Potential Annexation Area. The City anticipates that, in the near term, these areas will be proposed for annexation to Renton. City officials report, however, that the currently proposed Anthone Annexation would be consistent with Objective 1, which calls for the preservation of neighborhoods. This area is linked to Renton by social fabric (e.g., similar land uses and open spaces, shared sense of community) and by natural/built geographic features (e.g., relatively flat to gentle sloping terrain). This annexation would also be consistent with Objective 3, which calls for creation of logical service areas, and Objectives 4- 7, which call for the achievement of reasonable boundaries for a jurisdiction. Local residents have petitioned for annexation in order that all services and land use regulations affecting their area may be efficiently coordinated by a single local government unit. This annexation would also be consistent with Objective 8, which calls for inclusion of urban areas within municipalities. The City of Renton has conducted fiscal analyses for the proposed Anthone Annexation and determined that sufficient funds area available to serve the area. More specifically, at present development, City expenditures are estimated at $2,314 and revenues are estimated at $2,779. At full development, City expenditures are estimated at $30,807.00 and revenues are estimated at $31,682. Upon annexation, property owners will assume their share of the regular and special levy rate of the City for capital facilities and public services. Thus, the addition of Anthone properties is not expected to have a significant impact on revenue or upon cost and adequacy of services, finances, debt structure or rights of other governmental units. Future capital needs and costs will be examined and funded through the Renton Capital Investment Program. The City of Renton supports the Anthone Annexation in order to serve citizens of the area. New residential development and coordinated services would reportedl_y be consistent with goals and objzctives esiablished for the benefit of the greater Renton community. ^ /"tq�%�%�f�..'lwF/��/� J �► �� CI7�'� OF l�El�T�'O�T ms �y� e�`,' . „u ` Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Flanning Katl�y Keolker-wheeler, Mayor Alex Pietsch,Administrator August.4,2005 � State of Washington , . Boundary Review Boaid for King.County. ' Yesler Building, Suite 40� 400 Yesler Way ' - Seattle,WA 9$104 • . Subject: BRIEF` SIJPPORTING NOTICE OF.. INTENTION TO EXRAND THE � � . CITY OF RENTON CORPORATE LIlVIITS BY ANNEXATION . . . :. ` Dear-Board 1Vlembers: � - ' As 'required.by. Chaptei.36.93_of the Revised-Code of Washington (RGW),'the:City of Renton . gave riotice of ifs intention to annex territory_;referred to as the ."Anthone'".Annexation: That annexation is proposed.:under :the direct petitior�.method in accordance.witli�the` applicable � provisions of Chapter 35A 1�4, of the,RGW and would incorporate into, the City of Reriton. � approximately 4.$4 acres o.f territory.for the provision of urban�services.. To assist in your consideration of the proposed action, staff lias,prepared tlie attached.brie£ � . Should quesfions arise during the review of this.in�ormation please contact Don Erickson,:Senior, . � ,. ' .. Planner, at(425)430=.6�8�:.: . • ' Also;please send.notices and other communications regarding the.proposed.annexation to: � Don Erickson,AICP;.Senior Elariner .. . � � Department of Economic Development, � - ' Neighborlioods and Strategic Planriing City of Reriton � : _ 1.055 S. Crrad�Way Renton;WA 9.8055 . : � ' . Thank.you far your consideratiori., � - ' _ Sincerely, . �`. , - � ' Alex Pietscfi - ` � Administrator 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 � � l� � � � �This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post eonsumer A H E A D O F T H E C U R V E � REPORT TO THE WASffiNGTOIV STATE BOUNDARY ItEV��V BOARD FOR KING COUNTY IN THE 1lIATTER OF THE CITY OF RENTON'S ANTHONE' ANNEXATION Boundary Review Board File No.2199 August 31,2005 Public Hearing I. BACKGROUND The Renton City Council approved a 60%Direet Petition to annex for this annexation on January 24, 2005 and authorized the City Administration to forward the Notice of Intent Package to the Board. The Renton City Council, also at that time authorized the City Administration to request that the Boundary Review Board invoke its jurisdiction in order to review and hear arguments in favor of expanding the subject annexation to the north to include an additiona125.7-acres of unincorporated King County, surrounded by the City on three sides. IY. COMMUI�IITY BACKGROiTND AND A1�TNEXATION PROPOSAL The Anthone'—Expanded Annexation is located within Renton's Potential Annexation Area and abuts Renton on its western,northern, and southern boundaries. It is bordered by South 55"' Street(SE 192nd Street)on the north,Talbot Road South on the west,and the City of Renton's Springbrook Springs Watershed on its south. Annexation in this and other unincorporated pockets of Renton's Potential Annexation Area is primarily driven by development. In this case,the majority of the enlarged annexation site is developed with existing single-family detached homes. Only the original annexation site(4.84 acres)is proposed to be developed with new homes. Three existing subdivisions,Talbot Estates (17 du)accessed off Talbot Road South, Springbrook Terrace(22 du)accessed off South 55�' Street, and High Park(17 du)also accessed off South 55"'Street, comprise the expanded original annexation site: These subdivisions have their own private internal streets,which are currently maintained by their respective homeowners associations. The original annexation boundary, although regular resulted in an annexation area that was too small to be efficiently served by the City. Also,the existing abutting subdivisions would benefit by coming into the Gity since their overall taxes (property taxes and City utility tax)would be less than wliat they are paying now and their level of service of would increase,as the County continues to reduce services to these areas that are intended to eventually annex to adjacent cities. The County has stated that it is reluctant to invest in services to areas that it will eventually cede over to cities. III. CONSISTENCY WITH STATE GROWTH MANAGEIO'I�N'T ACT AND COiTNTYWIDE PLANNIlVG POLICIES State law(RCW 36.93.157) stipulates that Boundary Review Board decisions must be consistent with three sections of the state's Growth Management Act(GMA)-planning goals,urban growth areas,and countywide planning policies. The City believes that the originally configured Anthone' Annexation does not fully meet the intent of a number of these goals and policies. It's expansion,however,would. a. Planning Goals: Both the City and the County have adopted comprehensive land use plans as required by GMA. Each of these plans has been determined to Anthone'Annexation BRB File No.2199 1 be consistent with the GMA by the state Department of Community,Trade,and Economic Development. These plans support the Act's various goals including those related to planning for urban growth,reducing urban sprawl,meeting diverse housing needs,as well as addressing transportation, open space,and recreation. Renton's 2004 Mandated GMA Comprehensive Plan is also consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies of King County. b. Urban Growth Areas: The City of Renton adopted a Potential Annexation Area (PAA),which includes the subject area as well as large areas to the south and east. A portion of Renton's PAA on the south side of the Cedar River and east of 128`�Avenue SE is proposed for incorporation as the city of Fairwood. It is the City's intent to provide urban levels of services and development,through annexation,to those portions of its PAA that do not incorporate. c. Countvwide Plannin�Policies: King County,through the ratification of its cities,adopted its Countywide Planning Policies,Phase II(CPP),in 1994. The CPPs are part of a hierarchy of directive and substantive policy. As directive policy,the CPPs guide the comprehensive plans of cities and counties,which in turn provide substantive direction regarding the content and exercise of local land use regulations. One of the primary aims of the CPPs is to `�acilitate the transformation of local governance in the urban g,rowth area so that urban governmental services are provided bv cities and rural and re�ional services are provided bv counties."[Central Puget Sound Hearings Board, Snoqualmie, 2304c,FDO]. Besides defining service provision responsibility,the CPPs also stipulate that development must be directed to urban areas,thereby reducing the ' opportunity for sprawl to occur. Some of the more relevant CPPs include: PolicvLU-29,which states that all jurisdictions shall develop growth phasing plans consistent with applicable capital facilities plans to maintain an Urban Area served with adequate public facilities and services to meet at least the six-year intermediate household and employment target ranges,consistent with LU-67 and LU-68. Policv FW-13,which states that cities are the appropriate provider of local urban services to Urban Areas, either directly or by contract. Counties are the appropriate provider of most countywide services. Policv LU-32,which states that a city may annex territory only within its designated PAA. All cities are required to phase annexations to coincide _ .. , . with the ability of the city to coordinate the provision.of a.full range of urban services. PolicvLl7-33,which states that land within a city's PAA shall be developed according to that city's and King County's growth phasing plans. Undeveloped lands adjacent to that city should be annexed at the time development is proposed to receive a full range of urban services. Renton notes that both the annexation area, as well as the unincorporated areas to the north,east, and south,are located within its PAA. Renton is the designated sewer service provider for the original annexation area and Soos Creek Water and Sewer District is the designated sewer and water service provider for the expanded area. Fire service is currently provided by Fire District Anthone'Annexation BRB File No.2199 2 #37,which Renton would take over service from upon annexation. Renton is prepared to provide a full array of urban services including local governance,library and police services, courts,jails, detective services, street maintenance,human services,parks and recreation services, and land use planning and transportation services. Renton is already providing these urban services to city residents on the north side of South 55�'Street, and can,unlike King County, easily extend these services to the expanded annexation area. Under Renton's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation this area is classified as both Residential Single Family(RS) and Residential Low Density(RLD). The origina14.84 acre annexation site is designated RLD,which would support R-4 zoning at a maximum of four units per net acre, and the expanded portion,which includes the three existing subdivisions,is designated RS,which would support R-8 zoning at a maximum of eight units per net acre. Current King County zoning is R-4,which allows up to six units per gross acre. The latter density is comparable to Renton's R-8 zone, in terms of maximum allowed density. Housing in the three existing subdivisions is at approximately 3.3 units per net acre. Although annexation is anticipated to continue incrementally in this portion of Renton's PAA,the expanded Anthone' Annexation would result in a more efficient area for the City to serve while- allowing existing adjacent residents to benefit from increased urban services and a cost equal to less than what they are now paying in unincorporated King County: T'he current 4.84-acre annexation proposal fails to address the needs of the larger community and would place an unfair burden on other residents since the costs of servicing such a small area are typically greater than servicing a larger area. IV. CONSISTENCY WITH BOUNDARY REVIEW�OARD FACTORS AND OBJECTIVES The Boundary Review Board must also evaluate annexations based upon the set of nine objectives set forth in RCW 36.93.180. In doing so,the BRB is allowed to consider a host of factors(RCW 36.93.170)including,but not limited,to land use,population, availability of municipal services, cost of local services,economics, and development regulations. These nine objectives are listed below along with along with findings to help the Board deternune whether an objective is met, or,in some cases,relevant. Staff's analysis includes conclusions based upon the current annexation,as well as an expanded annexation,including the unincorporated peninsula to its west,north,and east. Objectives: � 1. Preservation ofnatural t:eiQhborhoods and communities. � The proposed 4.84-acre annexation,by itself,would exacerbate the existing situation in the immediate area since it does little to address service levels for the existing three subdivisions,to the south and east,or facilitate their arinexation into the city. By not coming into the City now it may be more difficult for these adjacent areas to annex into the.City in the future since the City typically only considers annexations that are ten or more acres in size and may impose fees for annexations in the future. Currently,the City does not charge a fee for processing annexations. Without annexation at this time the three remaining subdivisions would remain as isolated neighborhoods surrounded by the City on the west, south,and north. By expanding this annexation to include these three existing subdivisions more consistency, in terms of land,use would result. Renton's Comprehensive Plan sfiows this Anthone'Annexation BRB File No.2199 3 � ' area as both Residential Single Family(RS)with subsequent R-8 zoning and Residenrial Low Density(RLD)with subsequent R-4 zoning,at the time of annexation. King County's Comprehensive Plan Land Use IVIap shows this peninsula as Urban Resiclential, Medium,4-12 du/acre with current R-4 zoning,at four units per gross acre,bonusable up 6.units per gross area, or comparable to Renton's R-8 zoning. Renton is currently considering a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment that woulcl change the land use designation for this area from RS to RLD. Such a designation and subsequent R-4 zoning would be more compatible with the area's existing average residential density of 3.3 units per net acre. 2. Use ofnhvsical boundaries, includinQ but not limited to bodies of water hi�hwavs, and land contours. The origina14.84-acre annexation relied on street right-of-ways and abutting parcels for - ` its boundaries. The inclusion of the uniricorporated three subdivisions to the south and , east would result in both a more reasonable municipal boundary since the area would then be bordered by the City on its west,north and southern boundaries. As a result these existing neighborhoods would not be left as unincorporated pockets surrounded by the City. . 3. Creation and preservation oflo.�ical'service areas. The originally proposed annexation does little to.create or preserve logical service districts in the area. Other than for water,sewer and schools there currently are no logical service areas here. King County notes that the costs of servicing urban unincorporated areas is not necessarily going down with annexation because of the increased inefficiencies of serving these remaining unincorporated pockets. They also point out that because of voter approved initiatives,their ability to raise taxes to provide the same level of service previously provided has been seriously jeopardized. . Cities,unlike the county,have.been afforded by the state,legislative taxing authority for business and occupations taxes,as well as utility taxes,to support the provisiori of local .urban services. As a consequence,cities are better able to provide a broad array of - services such as local government, senior housing,parks and recreation,libraries,land �use and transportation planriing,police and fire, street and utility maintenance, garbage collection; and other services synonymous with urban living. This is one of the main reasons both the Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies designate cites as the logical provider of these urban services. _- _ � "The 4.84-acre annexation site and the surrounding areas, as noted above, are�within`� "' Renton's designated'PAA,and are anticipated to be eventually annexed into the City. If the surrounding 20.9-acres of unincorporated area to the south and east is not annexed into Renton at this time,the existing inefficiencies of servicing these three"urban" _ subdivisions will continue,exacerbating the County's.ability to efficiently provide services elsewhere in unincorporated King County. Anthone'Annexation BRB File No.2199 4 4. Prevention of abnormallv irre�ular boundaries. ` This annexation; as initially proposed,does not prevent abnormal or inegular boundaries. Because most annexations are incremental within a city's PAf1, and are driven by development pressures including willing sellers,the availability of urban services such as sewer and expeditious plan review,the resulting municipal boundaries often are going to be irregular. This,however,is typically an interim situation. In rare instances, unincorporated peninsulas can remain for a number.of years,resulting in iriefficient service areas and increased servicing costs. The proposed expanded annexation area would create a more coherent city boundary since it would be surrounded by the.City on three of its four sides and therefore upon annexation become an integral part of the City. S. Discoura�ement ofmuldple incornorations. This objective is not relevant in this case. The annexation proponents are not considering incorporation nor is there a proposed or likely incorporation in the immediate area that they could j oin. 6. Dissolution of inactive snecial nurnose districts. This objective is not relevant in this case. 'There are no inactive special districts in either the proposed annexation.area or the unincorporated peninsula to its north and.east. � 7. Adiustment of imnractical boundaries. The anriexation as initially proposed does not adjust or normalize impraetical boundaries. If anything,it.could further isolate the three surrounding subdivisions within,this unincorporated corner of King County. This includes Talbot Estates, Springbrook � Terrace and High Park subdivisions. The requested expanded boundaries result in a more logical service area for the City of Renton and should facilitate eventual annexations to . the west across Talbot Road South. ' 8. Incorporation of cities or towns or anne�ation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas, which are urban in character. The proposed 4.84-acre annexation area,as well as the 20.9-acre unincorporated surrounding area to the soutli and easf,is also urban and located within the County's �� --ci-esigriated urban owth area as well as Renton's desi ty - -- gr , gnated PAA. The Ci - is ;--. requesting that the Boundary Review Board expand the proposed 4.84-acre Anthone' Annexation to include the surrounding three"urban"subdivisions,which would ` otherwise remain as an unincorporated pocket of nearly 21 acres, surrounded by the City of Rentori on three of its four sides. 9. Protection of agriculturaP and urban lands. This objective is not applicable in this case. The subject annexation site and the surrounding peninsula of unincorporated land are designated"urban"on the County and City's comprehensive plan land use maps. There are no designated agricultural lands � within the subject area. Anthone'Annexation BRB FileNo.2199 5 �. In summary, the proposed Arithone' Annexation does not appear to meet objectives 1, 3,4 or 8. However,with the inclusion of the three adjacent unincorporated subdivisions to tlie south and east,the resulting enlarged 25.7-acre annexation would better meet the Boundary Review Board's objectives that are relevant in this case. V. CONCLUSION The City of Renton is ready to assume this area and can.provide a high level of urban services to its residents. The initially proposed 4.84-acre annexation area,however,will do little to expedite the annexation of residual unincorporated pockets,including three smaller existing subdivisions to the south and east. These latter areas are not adequately serviced now, according to King County, and service is likely to decline even further in the future. These left over pockets of unincorporated land are also likely to become more difficult for the public and emergency responders to find. Street numbering will be confusing as motorists pass in and out through the City with its own numerical and grid numbering system and then back into unincorporated King County with its five digit house numbers and different street designations. The cost of servicing the remaining 56 residential lots will obviously be higher for the county than if they were served by an adjacent city. Also,both the Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies designate cites as the logical providers of urban services to these "urban"areas. Expanding the Anthone' Annexation to include the three unincorporated subdivisions to the south and east, should result in more efficient service areas for both the County and the City..The result should be reduced costs to both. It also appears that annexation to Renton would reduce taxes and service fees paid by residents of the three existing subdivisions. Residents would appear to save$1.44 per assessed$1,000 value,or approximately$372 on a home with a$250,000 appraised value. Arguments supporting an enlarged annexation include: 1. The City's Potential Annexation Area designation represents the future intention of the city,which includes this area as well as areas east to the Urban Growth Boundary and areas south to Renton's boundary with Kent and/or its PAA. Unless incorporation occurs,this whole area will eventually come into the City of Renton. 2. Expanding the current annexation boundaries to include the remnant pockets to the south and east would result in a more reasonable municipal boundary for the City while reducing confusion regarding service responsibilities,public notifications, calls for :-,_ -_ emergency response and the like,for residents.and�djoining jurisdictions. 3. Whereas subsequent annexations are anticipated in the area,particularly in response to increased development pressures and the reduction in County services, such annexations are typically citizen initiated,incremental, and often do not represent the most logical service areas or municipal boundaries. Such an incremental approach is often time. consuming and costly to both the City and King County. Using the Board's authority,in special situations such as this,to expedite the transference of urban unincorporated areas to urban incorporated areas,appears to provide a more efficient way to realize adopted regional planning goals,while remaining in compliance with state law. Anthone'Annexation BRB File No.2199 6 i 4. The City of Renton has planned for and is able, at this time,to provide a full complement of urban services for both the current 4.84-acre annexation proposal as well as the proposed expansion of it to include the three existing"urban" subdivisions that abut it. 5. Consistent with GMA and CPP policy, cities are the logical provider of urban services and counties are the logical provider of regional and local services within rural areas. 6. Incremental annexation,with large delays between annexations,can set the stage for different development standards being applied within the same community, leading to very different development patterns and infrastructure such as streefs and utility fuctures. As noted above, the City of Renton is considering a change to its Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation,which if adopted would allow future zoning on the enlarged annexation site more consistent with its existing development pattern and density. VI REQUEST State law authorizes the BRB to approve the annexation proposal as submitted, deny the annexation proposal as submitted, or modify the annexation proposal by adding or deleting territory,and approving as modified. RCW 36.93.160 also requires the Board to issue a written decision,setting forth the reasons for their decision,and indicating whether proposed changes are approved;rejected,or modified and,if modified,the terms of the modification. The City of Renton respectfully puts forth the following request to the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County, for its consideration: The City of Renton requests that the Boundary Review Board modify the Anthone' Annexation,as submitted,to include the Talbot Estates, Springbrook Terrace, and High- Park subdivisions to its south and east as depicted in Exhibit 1 and described in Exhibit 2, attached. Anthone'Annexation BRB File No.2199 7 .,w� :. � :s� . NOTICE OF INTENTION PROPOSED ANTHONE' ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF RENTON I. BACKGROUND/MAPS 1. The description of and reason for seeking the proposed action: The proposed action is to annex approximately 4.84 acres to the City of Renton. Annexation is sought by the proponents to develop under City of Renton regulations and processes and to receive Renton public services. The annexation was initiated through the 60% Direct Petition method under RCW 35A.14.120, 130, 140,and 150. The proposed annexation area is located in the NE 1/4 of Section 6, Township 22 North, Range S East. 2. Copies of the Renton City Council minutes for actions taken relative to the proposed annexation: A. Exhibit A: Certified minutes of the August 2, 2004 public meeting of the Renton City Council accepting the Anthon'10%Notice of Intent to annex petition and authorizing the circulation of the 60%Petition to Annex. B. Eghibit B: Certified minutes of the January 24, 2005, public hearing of the Renton�j City Council accepting the 60% Direct Petition to Annex and declaring the City's intent to annex the area, subject to the actions;of the Boundary Review Board. 3. Eghibit C: Certification of Sufficiency for the 60% Petition to Annex made by the King County Department of Assessments dated October 11,2004. 4. Exhibit D: Legal description of the proposed annexation boundaries. 5. Pursuant to RCW 43.21C.222,annexations are exempt from SEPA. 6. The following maps are enclosed: A. Exhibit E: King County Assessor's maps (two sets) displaying the proposed Maplewood East Annexation boundary. B. Ezhibit F: Vicinity maps displaying: 1) The proposed Anthone'Annexation boundary. 2) The City of Renton existing corporate limits relative to the proposed annexation area. 3) All major streets and other major physical features. � �, . Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County � � Proposed Anthone'Annexation OS/11/OS Page 2 4) The boundaries, including future service area boundaries, of all cities or special service districts having jurisdiction in or near the proposal. NOTE: The City and County library service area boundaries are coterminous with the City's corporate boundary. 5) King County Urban Growth Area and City of Renton Potential Annexation Area boundaries established under the Growth Management Act. C. Exhibit G: A map of the current City of Renton corporate limits upon which the proposed Anthone' Annexation boundaries have been delineated. D. Exhibit H: City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations. II. FACTORS THE BOARD MUST CONSIDE�t 1. Overview A. Population: The population of the proposed Annexation area is estimated to be about 40 persons at full buildout based upon 2.5 persons per household and a total of 16 households. The City of Renton population as of Apri12004 was 55,360. B. Territorv: The proposed annexation area includes appro�cimately 26.14 acres. C. Population Densitv: The proposed population density of the Anthone' Annexation area is estimated to be about 8.26 persons per gross acre. D. Assessed Valuation: T'he current assessed value of the properties proposed for annexation is approximately$746,000. 2. Land Use A. Existing: Existing uses include one single-family home with an estimated population of 3 persons. B. Proposed: A portion of the subject annexation has been looked at as a preliminary application for a preliminary plat. The annexation is proposed to facilitate the development of these properties for single-family residential uses at up to four (4) units per net acre. 3. Comprehensive Plans/Fa�anchise(s) A. Conformance with Countv Countvwide Planning Policies ad�ted by King County. The proposed action is consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies in general, and the following policies in particular: �U-31 In collaboration with adjacent counties and cities and King County, and in consultation with residential groups in affected areas, each city shall designate a potential annexation area. Each potential annexation area shall be specific to each city.... ;�; �;, + Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Anthone'Annexation OS/11/OS Page 3 LZI-32 A city may annex territory only within its designated potential annexation area. All cities shall phase annexations to coincide with the ability for the city to coordinate the provision of a full range of urban services to areas to be annexed. The City of Renton has designated a Potential Annexation Area in the City's Comprehensive Plan. (Exhibit H) Renton has the ability to provide a full range of urban services to the area proposed for annexation and is the designated sewer service provider for the East Renton Plateau. ,_.... .... LU-33 Undeveloped lands adjacent to that city should be annexed at the time development is proposed to receive a full range of urban services. New development is likely to proceed upon annexation into the City of Renton and the availability of sewers. Sewer certificates have already been issued for new housing developments to the west and south of the site and can easily be extended to serve the subject annexation site when it develops. FW-13.Cities are the appropriate providers of local urban services to urban areas either directly or by contract. With the exception of,water, Renton is prepared to provide a full array of local urban services to the area including police, fire, local government and an array of other community services. Renton's Water Utility is the designated purveyor of water under agreement with King County, for this area. B. KingCounty Comprehensive Plan/Ordinances 1) King County Planning under the Growth Management Act. The subject area is designated Urban - 4-12 du/ac in the King County Comprehensive Plan and is identified as being within Renton's Potential Annexation Area on the County's Potential Annexation Areas Map. King County planning efforts under the Growth Management Act have included ensuring that development in the Urban Growth Area occurs at urban densities and with urban level services available. The City of Renton has planned for urban densities for this area and can provide urban services within its negotiated service areas should annexation occur. 2) The following adopted King County Comprehensive Plan policies specifically support the proposed annexation: Chapter Two, Urban Land Use, Section II.B, Directin� Growth to Cities and Urban Areas U-203 King County should encourage most population and employment growth to locate in the contiguous Urban Growth Area in western King County, especially in cities and their potential annexation areas. , Annexation would allow development of the subject properties to occur within the City of Renton with urban services such as wastewater, police, libraries,local government, and parks. r, r, � , Washington State Boundary Review Baard far King County Proposed Anthone'Annexation 45J11/45 Page 4 Chapter Two, Urbau Land Use, Section II.C, Urban Growth _Area T� U-208 King County shall pravide adequate land capacity,for reszdential, commercial and industrial grawth in the urban unincorporated area. This land capacity shall include both redevelopment apportunities as well as opportunities for develapment on vacant tands. Renton's proposed R-4 zoning, on the subject properties, would result in nearly 50 percent less capacity than that represented by the existing King County zaning,which is R-4,if the latter were bonused up to it's ma�cirnum of 6 du/gross acre. This because the density allowed under Renton's R-4 zone is based upon net acreage whereas the County's calculates density based upon �ross acreage. Also, the County's R-4 zone is easily bonused up to 6 du/gross acre. An estimated 29 units cauld be provided under the Caunty's R-4 zaning {without banuses) and anly approximately 15 units could be provided under Renton's proposed R-4 zaning. Chauter Two Urban Land Use, Section III.A Plannin� with Kin� � Count,��'s Cities for Future Annexation U-30X King �'ounty should work with cities to facus countywzde growlh within thezr Boundaries and should support annexatzons within the UrBan Growth Area when consistent with the �ing County Comprehensive Ptan and Countywide Ptanning Policies. U-304 King County should support annexation praposuls when: a. The proposttl is consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan; b. The proposed area is wholly within the tlrban Growth Area and within the city`s designated Patential Ann�ation�Irea , �f'or anne�ations); c. The city is planning for urban densities and efficient land use patterns consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies und King County land use pXuns;and, d. Adopted Countywzde goats and policies for urban services, environmentat and cultural resource protection will be supported. The proposal is generally consistent,with the King County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map. The area proposed for annexation is wholly within the Urban Growth .Area and within Renton's designated Potential Annexation Area. The City's Comprehensive Plan policies and developrnent regulations support cauntywide gaals and policies far urban densities,urban services and environmental and cuitural resource protection. The proposed R-4 zoning is urban, small lot zaning, which will achieve urban densities and efficiencies cansistent with adopted countywide goals and palicies for urban services. Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County � Proposed Anthone'Annexation , OS/11/OS Page 5 3) Adopted King Countv Comp Plan desi n�: The adopted King County Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the proposed annexation area is Urban Residential - 4-12 du/ac. This designation is implemented with the R-4 Zone on the subject site. 4) Comparison of Citv and Countv regulations for sensitive areas, etc: With annexation, King County ordinances and regulations would be supplanted with those of the City of Renton. City of Renton ordinances and regulations applicable to the proposed action include the following: a. Reeulations for the protection of sensitive areas: The City of Renton's Critical Areas Ordinance (RMC 4-3-050) describes permitted and prohibited activities and uses,waivers,modifications and variances, and additional criteria and permit processes for development in critical areas. Critical areas regulated by the Ordinance include aquifer recharge areas, flood and geologic hazard areas, native habitat and wetlands. Although specific regulations vary, Chapter 21A.24, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, of the King County Code provides comparable regulatory protection of sensitive areas. The City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance is available upon request. b. Regulations for the�preservation of agTicultural or other resource lands: Regulations preserving agricultural uses are not applicable to the subject area, as the proposed annexation area is not within any of the agricultural districts identified for first, second or third priority for the purchase of development rights. Further, the property is not designated for agricultural production or other resource lands in the King County Comprehensive Plan and is not currently under agricultural use. The City of Renton does not have a program authorizing transfer or purchase of development rights. c. Preservation of Landmarks or Landmark Districts: T'he City of Renton has no regulations comparable to Chapter 20.62, Protection and Preservation of Landmarks, Landmark Sites and Districts, in the King Couniy Code. However, no landmark sites or districts are identified in the Newcastle Community Plan or are known to exist in the subject annexation area. d. Surface Water Control: The City of Renton has adopted the 1990 Kin� Countv Surface Water Design Manual, by reference, in the City's Drainage (Surface Water) Standards (RMC 4-6-030) as the design standard for surface water control in development projects. Higher standards such as those of the 1998 King Countv Surface Water Design Manual, Level 2 standard are often applied through environmental review. C. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan/Franchise 1) City Planning Under the Growth Management Act Renton City Council adopted the current Comprehensive Plan in 1995, consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act. The 1995 Comprehensive Plan was updated in the 2004 Mandated GMA Comprehensive Plan Review. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map ,;, ; K � Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Anthone'Annexation OS/11/OS Page 6 identifies Potential Annexation Areas, including the area currently proposed for annexation, and shows land use designations for such areas. (See Exhibit H, City of Renton Land Use Designations) The proposal is consistent with the Land Use Element policies of the Renton Comprehensive Plan that support annexation of lands: ' � that are within Renton's Potential Annexation Area where the availability of infrastructure and services allow for the development of urban densities(Objective LU-1); • that are vacant and subject to development pressure(LU-37.3); • that are available for urbanization under county comprehensive planning,zoning, and subdivision regulations(LU-37.5); • for which the City of Renton should logically be the primary provider of urban infrastructure and services(LU-36); • that would include those who already use City services or who impact City infrastructure(LU-4i); and • that includes environmentally sensitive areas and vacant land where future development could adversely influence the environmental and land use character of Renton(LU-42). 2) PAA status and PAA a�reements with other cities if anX: The City of Renton has an adopted Potential Annexation Area. This area is identified , on Renton's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and on the King County Interim Potential Annexation Area Map. The City has also negotiated a PAA boundary agreement with the City of Kent. No PAA agreement was necessary for the area currently proposed for annexation. 3) Required Comprehensive Plan amendments if anv: No amendment to Renton's Comprehensive Plan is necessary to process the current proposed annexation. 4) Comprehensive Plan approval date: Renton's current Comprehensive Plan was initially adopted on February 20, 1995, with annual amendments in subsequent years. The latest, 2004 Growth Management Act Mandated Comprehensive Plan Review, is a comprehensive update of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. 5) Required franchises to serve area: No franchise will be required for the City of Renton to provide services to the subject area. 6) Pre-annexation Zoning AQreements: The subject area has not been the subject of a pre-Annexation Zoning Agreement. 7) Proposed land use desi ation: The subject area is designated Residential Low Density in the City's Comprehensive Plan. R-4 zoning is proposed to supplant the existing King County R-4 zoning, consistent with the adopted Residential Low Density land use designation upon annexation. Under Renton's annexation process, zoning is adopted concurrent to adoption of the annexation ordinance. j � Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Anthone'Annexation OS/11/OS Page 7 4. Planning data A. Revenues/Expenditures This analysis identifies the General Fund revenues and costs associated with annexing the subject properties as they are currently developed, as well as estimating the annual fiscal impact of their full development at some undetermined point in the future. "Full development" does not equate to the absolute zoned capacity. Rather, it includes an assumption that a portion of the subject properties will not develop within the foreseeable future due to market forces and the choices of individual property owners. All assumptions regarding revenues and costs are based on existing standards or other comparable data,but actual results are likely to vary from these estimates. In general, costs associated with utilities have been assumed to be supported by the rates charged for those services. Assessed Valuations Units Population(est.) Assessed Valuation Existin conditions 1 3 $746,000 Full develo ment est. 16* 40 $8,000,000 *Assumes new home value of$500,000 per unit. 1) Estimated City Expenditures City Sea-vices Current Full Development Development Contracted services $26 $422 Road Maintenance $500 $6 706 Fire Protection $933 $10 000 Police Protection $675 $10,800 Parks Maintenance $37 $596 • Court,Legal and Other $143 $2 283 - Total ongoing costs $2,314 530,807 2) Estimated City Revenues to be ained Current I+'ull Revenue Source Development Developffient Regular Property Tax Levy $2 357 $25 280 State-Shared Revenues $'75 $1 194 Miscellaneous Revenues $2g1 $4 499 Excess Le $66 $709 Total revenues $�,7�9 $31,682 3) Estimated Net Fiscal Impact l�et fiscal iffipact Eacisting $465 Full $875 j� i 1 Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Anthone'Annexation OS/11/OS Page 8 3) Estimated County revenues lost: The estimated reduction in County revenues would be$1,763 at cunent development(road and library levies, excluding library bonds). 4) Estimated reduction in Countv expenditures: The estimated reduction in County expenditures is anticipated to be minimal, as only a minor amount of improved King County roadway exists in the proposed annexation area. 5) Estimated fire district revenue lost: The area proposed for annexation lies within Fire District No. 37. The estimated loss of revenue for this district is $1,119. B. Services 1) Water Service The proposed annexation is within Renton's water service area. The service area would not change as a result of the proposed annexation. a) Direct/Contract: The 4.84-acre area will continue to be served directly by the City of Renton. The Soos Creek Water and Sewer District serve the surrounding properties to the south and east. b) Storage locations/Capacitv: The zoned residential capacity under the existing King County zoning is slightly higher than the capacity under the proposed City of Renton zoning. Since population growth under the City of Renton's proposed R-4 zoning is about 20% less than the County's current R-4 zoning, the City's capacity should be adequate for the water demand generated by post- annexation development of the subject area. If anything,the change in zoning that would occur upon annexation would theoretically increase storage capacity. c) Mains to serve the area: The City's Water Utility will require developers to extend mains into the annexation area as part of their development proposals. d) Financin�of proposed service: This will be financed by developers and normal user fees for existing and new residents. 2) Sanitary Sewer Service a) DirectlContract: Sewer service would be provided directly to the proposed annexation area by the City of Renton, the designated provider. b) Mains to serve area: None of the annexation site is currently being served by the City of Renton. However,the City serves the Geneva Court and Summit Park subdivisions to the north across South 55"' Street from the proposed annexation. ; �� Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Anthone' Annexation OS/11/OS Page 9 c) Disposal: Sewage disposal will be through METRO's treatment facilities. d) Capacitv Available: Renton's sanitary sewer system has sufficient capacity to accommodate 16 dwellings at buildout of the proposed annexation area. e) Financing of proposed service: Improvements within this annexation area would be anticipated to be made through developer extensions since the annexation area is primarily undeveloped at this time. 3) Fire Service a ��,�Nearest stations: The annexation area is located between fire .�.�..,�.�.� station#14 in the City, Fire Station#77 in District No. 37, and Fire Station#13 in District#25 on SE 176�'Street and 108�`Avenue SE. Renton provides fire service currently to District #25 under contract. �� =,Response time: Response time to any point within the proposed �annexation area could range from four to eight minutes. Since Fire Station #13 appears to be the closest station at about 2 miles, response time is estimated at five to eight minutes, depending on the time of day and traffic. The addition of sixteen new dwellings should be no change this response time. � �'�"';Staffin : Station#13 is fully manned, with five firefighters on duty �� .'� per shift. ,�- -- , ,d�,, ,,.x;�;,�:uMajor ec�uipment: Major equipment located at Station#13 includes two 1,500 gallon per minute pumpers and one aid car. e) Certified EMT/D-Fib personnel: All shift personnel at Station#13 are certified EMT/D-Fib. fl Fire Ratin�: Renton's fire rating is three, as deternuned by the Washington State Survey and Rating Bureau. g) Source of dispatch: Valley Communication 911 service is the source of emergency vehicle/aid dispatch. 5. General A) Annexation agreements for extensions of service: No applicable annexation agreements are in effect for the subject area. � TopoQranhv and natural boundaries: The site slopes upward to the northeast from its lowest point at its southwest corner. The average slope is 14% or approximately a 78-foot change in elevation between the northeast and southwest corners of the site. B) Projected 10-,��ear,�rowth: T'he area is too small to make reasonable inferences from large-area growth forecasts. 'The City projects about 15 new single-family units in , , Washingtan State Bauudary Review Board for King County Proposed Anthone'Annexation OS111lfl5 Page 10 addition to the existing unit on the site. This is based on existing citywide R-4 densities and assumptions regarding identified physical and regulatory constraints to develop�nent of the site and the probable market availability of land-for new development. D) Municipal or community services: With annexation, the property owners and residents would have access to a full range of urban services including police, fire, parks, libraries, community services, the City's neighborhoods program, annual comrnunity events,and Ioca1,readily accessibie, government. - -- . � 1- E} Patential dela�s in irn�lementing service deliverv: 'I'he area is currently underserved in regards to devetoped park facilities according to the City's adapted level af service standards. This shortfall is identified in the City`s Parks,Trails and Open Space Plan update. Staff estimates a one-time cost in excess af parks/recreation mitigation fees of$8,527 ,as we11 as on-going maintenance costs of $596 far parks developmerit associated with this anne�tion. Less than a quarter mile to the sauth on Talbot Road South,the City has acquired land for a ft�ture park. The current waste hauler would continue to provide solid waste removal far seven years after annexation, according to State ]aw. At that tirne area would then be included in the contract with the City's waster hauler. With the exceptzan of parks and solid waste removal,no delays are expected in implernenting service delivery to the area. City departments reviewing the annexation proposal indicated that they would be able ta adequately serve future development. The Renton Water and Sewer utilities are expected to continue to provide water and sewer service to the area. F) Evaluation of adeauacy costs or rates of service to area: Existing services to the area appear to be generally adequate. As development occurs in the proposed annexation area, dernand for services will increase. It is assumed that the cast af such services will be largely offset by increases in properly taxes, services charges and ather revenues based an population. If the City were to assume this annexatian at its current level of development it would realize a surplus of$465 per year. At full development,in an estimated 10 years,the City would realize an annual surplus of an estimated$875 per year. Krng Caunty is the only alternative service provider for services that w4uld be assumed by the City of Renton upon annexation. Fire suppression services will change as a result of the proposed annexation with the City taking this service over from District#3'7. And, school district boundaries are not affected by annexations, As a result the subject area will remain within the Renton School District. III. OSJECTIVES The praposed Anthone' Annexation generally complies with all of the objectives of the Baundary Review Board. These include the following: 1) Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities. No detrimental impacts ta existing neighbarhoods or communities are anticipated to result from the proposed actian. f} c Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Anthone'Annexation OS/11/OS Page 11 2) Use of physical boundaries,including but not limited to bodies of water, highways and land contours. The proposed annexation follows the existing city limits on its west and northern boundary. The western boundary of the annexation is defined by Talbot Road South,and its northern boundary is South 55`�'StreebSE 192°d Street,an east/west collector street. The eastern and southern boundaries of the annexation includes two existing subdivision,Talbot Estates and Springbrook Terrace. 3) Creation and preservation of logical service areas. �� City staff that have reviewed the proposed annexation have stated that the proposed boundaries represent logical extensions of City of Renton services. Also,the Countywide Planning Policies state that cities are the appropriate providers of local urban services to Urban Areas. The proposal would therefore further both the intent of the City annexation objectives and Countywide Planning Policies. 4) Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries. The boundaries do not create abnormally irregular boundaries. The area is within Renton's Potential Annexation Area,which, eventually all of which, is anticipated to be annexed into the Ciiy. Therefore, any irregularities are considered to be only interim. 5) Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas. Not applicable. , � Dissolution of inactive 'special purpose districts. Not applicable. '� Adjustment of impractical boundaries. This annexation is not being undertaken to adjust impractical city boundaries. 8) Incorporation as cities or towns or annegation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas,which are urban in character King County has designated this area for urban development. It is not included in the proposed Fairwood incorporation a number of miles to the east. 9) Protection of agricultural and rural lands.which are designated for long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority. Not applicable. No portions of the proposed annexation area are designated Rural or designated for long term productive agricultural or resource use in the King County Comprehensive Plan. finis . . C�RT�FI��'t'� ,, �xhibit� l,the c�dersigned Ci�y�ler4c'ofthe ' City of Rentor�,Washangton, certify � that this is a true a�d correct copy of RENTON CITY COiJNCIL $�2�2004 Minutes . S��scribed Regular 1VIeeting �nd seaied this,1yday of�,20Q,�, u3�,e,y,,�,�'�. l,va�. August 2,2004 City C1� k— Bonnie I. Waltor C�ouncil Chambers Monday,7:30 p.m . M I N U T E S Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler called the meeting of the Renton City Council . to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF DON PERSSON,Council President;MARCIE PALMER;DENIS LAW;TOTTI ' COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON;RANDY CORMAN. MOVED BI'PERSSON,SECONDED BY -- - � _- � - CORMAN,COIJNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILN�[EMBERS TERRI BRIERE AND DAN CLAWSON. CARR�D. , CITY STAFF IN KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER,Mayor;JAY COVINGTON, Chief ATTENDANCE Administrative Officer;LAWRENCE J.WARREN,City Attomey;BONNIE WALTON,City Clerk; GREGG ZIlVIlV�RMAN,Planniug/Building/Public Works Administrator;AI.EX PIETSCH,Economic Development Administrator;DON ERICKSON,Senior Planner;DEREK TODD,Assistant to the CAO; COMMANDER KATHLEEN MCCLINCY,Police Department. PUBLIC MEETING This being the date set.and proper notices having been posted and published in Annexation:Anthone',Talbot accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the Rd S &S SSth St public meedng to consider the 10%Notice of Intent petition for the proposed Anthone'Annexation for 4.84 acres located east of Talbot Rd. S.and south of S. SSth St. Senior Planner pon Erickson reported that the subject site is within the City.'s � . Potential Annexation Area and contains two existing single-family dwellings, � one of which appears to be vacant. The public services are provided by Fire District#37,Renton water and sewer,and Kent School District. He noted that � existing King County zoning is R-4;and Renton's Comprehensive Plan � designates this area as Residential Low Density,for which R-4(four dwelling units per net acre)zoning is likely. Mr.Erickson stated that this is a smaller than normal annexation,and future development is limited to 161ots. However,the proposed annexation is a � potential catalyst for the annexation of a larger unincorporated area to the south around the Springbrook Springs watershed. Additionally,the annexation would facilitate upgrading the intersection of Talbot Rd. S. and S.SSth St. He indicated that the fiscal impact analysis reveals a surplus of$875 at full � ' development,and there is an estimated one-time pazks acquisition and development cost of$425. Continuing,Mr.Erickson said the proposed annexation is consistent with Renton annexation policies,except for size,and it is consistent with Boundary . Review Board criteria. He pointed out the potential of flooding and suggested Leve12 flow control for new development. In conclusion,Mr.Erickson stated that the annexation serves the best interests and general welfare of the City, particularly if it facilitates the annexation of a larger area to t:he south: Public comment was invited. 7im Biteman, 19203 98th Ave.S.,Renton, 98055,expressed his support for the _ annexation. He confirmed that one of the existing dwellings on the site has . been unoccupied for a long time,and.noted that it is an eyesore. August 2,2004 � Renton City Council Minutes Page 256 , Bruce Taggart, 9621 S. 194th St.,Renton, 98055,introduced himself as the � . : � presidenf of the Talbot Estates Homeowners Association,and asked what the impact of the proportional share of the City's existing indebtedness is to . homeowners,and what the advantages and disadvantages are of being part of the City of Renton. � . Mr.Erickson pointed out a number of advantages that Renton residents have, including well-maintained parks,excellent utility services,and ready access to local govemment. In regards to the bonded indebtedness,he explained that the � annexed-homeowners will assume whatever the other taxpayers in the City are Pa3'ing- ._. .. __... :.. ..., . � Dave Gallagher, 19225 Talbot Rd. S.,Renton, 98055, stated that his fanuly . owns Springbrook Trout Farm,and he expressed concern about the runoff water from the annexation area,and where it will enter Springbrook Creek. . Mr.Erickson said water drainage issues will be addressed during the � development process,and he assured that the public will have opportunity to comment on that process. . Harry Trapp, 19223 98th Pl. S.,Renton,98055,identified himself as the curient president of Springbrook Terrace Homeowners Association,and verified that the aforementioned vacant dwelling has been unoccupied for approximately'� � � two years. Mr.Trapp expressed his support for fhe annexation,noting that the zoning is appropriate and the quality of the homes will be an asset to the area. Aleksandr Kozhenevsky,9533 S. 192nd St.,Renton,98055,voiced his � opposition to the proposed annexarion. He pointed out that the area is' � � historical,having,been established 100 yeazs ago, and expressed his concern that any changes to the site would affect its historical value. There bei�►g no fiuther public comment,it was MOVED BY PER5SON, SECONDED BY NELSON,COLTNCII..CLOSE TI-�PUBLIC MEE'TIlVG. CARRIED. � MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL: ACCEPT THE ANTHONE'ANNEXATION 10%NOTICE OF INTENT TO ANNEX PBTITION;AUTHORIZE CIRCULATION OF THE 60%DIRBCT PETTTION TO ANNEX;STIl'iJLATE THAT THE S1TE BE REZONED R-4 UPON . � � ANNEXATION CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION;A�iD REQUIlZE THAT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSUME A PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF TI�CITY'S BONDED INDEBTEDNESS. CARRIED. ADNIINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the Gity's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2004 and beyond. Items noted included: � � Renton's Nishiwaki Sister City Advisory Committee is seeking 7apanese- speaking volunteers to serve as translators for the visiting Sister City �delegation from Nishiwaki,7apan,for events scheduled from August 29th to September lst. " i�� , � ; August 2,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 257 � During the week of July 26th,the Renton Police Department Traffic Unit continued to work the Highlands Emphasis Patrol. Officers wrote twelve criminal citations, issued twenty-two pazking tickets, and impounded seven . abandoned vehicles. The.animal control officer also issued two citations. EDNSP:Ahead of the Curve Alex Pietsch,Economic Development Administrator,reported that 125 new Banners "Ahead of the Curve"street pole banners are being installed at 60 intersectioris throughout the City of Renton. He explained that the Renton Community Marketing Campaign initiated this effort, and the$15,300 cost of the banners was funded by the marketing campaign and hoteUmotel tax revenues. AUDIENCE COMIVV�NT Sue Larson-Kinzer, 1733 NE 20th St.,Renton, 98056,commented on the Citizen•Comment: Larson-�- proposed changes to Renton's Comprehensive Plan. Pointing out that she owns Kinzer-Comprehensive Plan the Kennydale Blueberry Farm, she detailed the history of the farm and � Revision,Open Space indicated that development of neighboring areas threaten the farm's Retention microclimate. Ms.Larson-Kinzer stated that a development behind her.farm will result in the loss of trees that serve as a wind buffer,and the farm is � experiencing de-watering due to a development project across the street. She noted that Kennydale Creek is drying up,as well as many ponds. Stating that . . the long-term effect of the lack of groundwater is unl�own,Ms.Larson-Kinzer expressed concern regazding the future of her farm. � � • Continuing,Ms.Larson-Kinzer said there are discrepancies between the City's �� policies amd zoning code,and although some of the issues are being addressed in the new Comprehensive Plan, she noted the importance of retauiing larger . pieces of land and open spaces. Councilman Corman commented that if water availability from Kennydale � Creek is diminishing due to temporary construction reasons,perhaps the City can supplement the water loss in some way. He requested that the Administration investigate the matter. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda aze adopted by one motion which follows the listing. � Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of July 26,2004. Council concur. July 26,2004 Community Services: City Clerk reported bid opening on 7/22/2004 for CAG-04-097,Renton � Community Center Roof Community Center Roof Replacement;six bids;engineer's estimate$60,000- Replacement,Lloyd A Lynch $80,000;and submitted staff recommendation�to award the contract to the low bidder,Lloyd A.Lynch,Inc.,in the amount of$81,029.89. Council concur. . � Community Services: Community Services Department recommended approval of a contract in the Landscape Maintenance amount of$77,732.43 with Canber Corps to provide landscape maintenance Services,Canber Corps services for 24 sites including rights-of-way, one park,fire stations,libraries, and trails. Refer to Community Services Committee. Planning:R-4 Zone,Citywide Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department . � Landscape Requirements submitted proposed new R-4 zone and zoning text amendments to Citywide landscape requirements. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Finance:Institutional Network Finance and Information Services Department recommended approval of a Services,King County contract with King County for Institutional Network Services(I-Net)at an annual cost of$9,000. Refer to Finance Committee. August 2,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 258 Fire:Emergency Management Fire Department recommended adoption of the updated City of Renton Plan Emergency Management Plan which gives direction and outlines I � responsibilities in the event of a local or regional disaster. Council concur. (See later this page for resolution.) Humau Services: 2005 CDBG Human Services Division recommended acceptance of an estimated$507,905 Funds,King County in Community Development Block Grant funds from King County for 20(?5. Refer to Community Services.Committee. Human Services: CDBG& Human Services Division recommended approval of the amendments to the HOME Investment Community Development Block Grrant(CAG-02-105)and HOME Investment Partnerships Program Partnerships Program(CAG-99-106)interlocal agreements,which reflect the Agreements Amendments increase of city representation and the decrease of King County representation on the Joint Recommendations Committee. Refer.to Community Services Committee. Human Services: 2005 CDBG Human Services Division recommended approval to continue participating'iri Consortium Housing Stability the Community Development Block Grant Consortium Housing Stability Program Participarion Program in 2005,which assists low-to-moderate income families with.rent or mortgage payments due to a temporary crisis in their lives. Refer to � � Commnnity Services Committee. Developme�nt Services: Legal Division recommended adoption of an ordinance allowing the use of Portable Generators,Noise portable generators during periods when there is no electrical service available Ordinance IZevision from the primary supplier due to natural disaster or power outage. Council concur. (See page 259 for ordinance.) Municipal Court:State Municipal Court recornmended approval of an agreement with the State Reimbursement for Computer Administrative Office of the Courts to accept$1,259.67 in reimbursement for a for Municipal Court Judge personal computer for Renton's Municipal Court Judge. Council concur. (See later this page for resolution.) CAG: 03-126,Wetland Utility Systems Division submitted CAG-03-126,Wetland Mitigation Bank Site Mitigation Bank Site Fence, Fence Project;and requested approval of the project,authorization for fmal pay Construct Co estimate in the amount of$3,623.85,commencement of 60-day lien period,and release of retained amount of$2,697.04 to Construct Co.,LLC,contractor,if all required releases aze obtained. Council concur. MOVED BY PERS��ON,SECONDED BY LAW,COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. " RESOLUTION5 AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution#3704 A resolution was read adopting the City of Renton Emergency Management Fire:Emergency Management Plan. MOVED BY LAW,SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL ADOPT Plan . TI�RESOLiITION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolntion#3705 . . A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and Ci, Clerk to enter into an. Municipal Court:State interlocal cooperative agreement with the State Administrative O�ce of the Reimbursement for Computer Courts regarding a limited reimbursement for expenses incurred in purchasing a for Municipal Court Judge personal computer for use by the City of Renton Municipal Court Judge. MOVED BY LAW,SECONDED BY NELSON,�COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARR�D. The following ordinance was presented for first reading and referred to the . Council meeting of 8109/2004 for second and final reading: : August 2,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 259 Development Services: An ordinance was read amending Section 8-7-3.0 of Chapter 7,.Noise Level Portable Generators,Noise Regulations,of Title VIII(Health and Sanitation)of City Code by allowing the Ordinance Revision use of portable generators when electrical service is not available due to a power outage or natural disaster. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND F1NAL READING ON 8/09/2004. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Council President Persson reported receipt of an informal petition from Sue Citizen Comtnent:Brown- Brown, 1203 N.2nd St.,Renton,98055,containing seven signatures,and Drug Dealing&Value Village expressing concern regarding drug dealing in the 1200 block area of NE 2nd Non-Compliance, 1200 Block St.,and regarding City Code non-compliance issues pertaining to the illegal use of N 2nd St of outside storage by Value Village,located at 1222 Bronson Way N. MOVED BY PALMER,SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO TI-iE AD1vIIIVISTRATION. CARR�D. � Development Services: Referencing a(Longview)Daily News article regarding the City of Kelso's . Nuisance Abatement nuisance abatement ordinance that allows the prosecution of people in criminal court for nuisances on their property,Councilman Corman requested that the Administration investigate the possibility of emulating Kelso's nuisance " . . . abatement program ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY NELSON,SECONDED BY LAW,COUNCII.,ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 8:21 p.m , � ��t�u.��. L�a��.eyv Bonnie Walton,CMC,City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann August 2,2004 . RENTON CITY COUNCIL COD�IlVIITTEE MEETING CALENDAR , Office of the City Clerk COUNCIL COMNIITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDiJ�ED AT CITY CO�JNCIL MEETING August 2,2004 COMiVIITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME. AGENDA COIVIlVITITEE OF'THE WHOLE MON., 8/09 Emerging Issues (Persson) 5:30 p.m. *Council Conference Room* Approximately Comprehensive Plan Amendments Update 6:00 p.m. *Council Chambers* ..._._...•.:, .._;. .�,___.. �.� _ COMMUNTTY SERVICES MON., 8/09 Ken Ragland Appointment to Library (Nelson) 3:30 p.m. Board; � Landscape Maintenance Services Contract with Canber Corps; Acceptance of 2005 CDBG Funds; � CDBG&HOME Investment Partnerships Program Agreements Amendments; � 2005 Participation in CDBG Consortium � Housing Stability Program FINANCE MON., 8/09 Vouchers; (Corman) 4:30 p.m. Lease with.King County to House . � � Paramedic Unit at Fire Station#14; . � Institutional Network Services Contract with King County PLANNIlVG&DEVELOPMENT TH[TRS., 8/05 Abandoned Grocery Carts; (Briere) 3:30 p.m. Temporary Signage and Temporary � Businesses; View Protection Ordinance; . R-4 Zoning Text Arnendments; � ' Critical Areas Ordinance(briefing only); � Comprehensive Plan Amendments Update PUBLIC SAFETY (��') TRANSPORTATION(AVIATIOl� THURS., 8/05 Renaming of SW 41st St. to II�A Way; (Palmer) 2:30 p.m. Renton Airport Development Study (briefing only) UTII.ITIES THURS., 8105 SW 7th St. Storm System Improvement . (Clawson) 2:00 p.m. Project&Small Drainage Projects Program Fund Transfer � NO'TE: Committee of the Whole meetings aze held in the Council Chambers. All other committee meetings are held in the Council Conference Room unless othenvise noted. • �ERT1Ft�t�"I'� •, ��abat� l,th�u�dersigized�pty �1erk�f th� , Gity of Renton,VVashington,certify tha�this is a true and correct copy vf RENTON CITY COUNCiL. 1/?4/ p05 Minu es . Subs�ribed Regular Meeti�g a�d seale�l tlhisl� day c�f Ma�.,20�5 �� y� � January 24,2Q4S C1�Co�n i] C�iambee I. Walto: Monday,734 p.zn. M I N I.3 T E S Renton City Hall CA�,L TO�RDER , Mayar Kathy Keolker-Wheeler caIIed the meeting of the Renton City CounciI to order and Ied the Piedge of Aliegiance ta the flag. ROLL CALL OF TERRI BRIERE, Cauncil President;MARCIE PALMER;DON PERSSON; GOUNCILMEMB�RS RANDY CORMAN; TONI NELSON;LIAN CLAWSON;DENIS LAW. CITY STAFF IN KATHY K:EOLKER-WHEELER,Mayor;JAY COVINGTON, Chief ATTENDANCE Admznistrative Qfficer;LAWRENCE J.WAR.REN,City Attorney;BONNIE WALTQN,City Clerk,GREGG 2IMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Pizblic Works Adminzstrator;ABDQUL GAFOUR,Water Utility Supervisoc; KAREN MCFARLII.ND,Engineering Sgecialist; ALEX PIETSCH,Economic Development Adrninistrator;BEN WOLTERS,EconQmic Develogment Director;DON ERICKSON,Senior Planner;DEREK TODD,Assistant to the CAO; COMMANDER T1N1 TROXEL,Police Department. PUBLIC MEETING This being the date set and praper notices havzng been pasted and p�ubi3shed in Annexation: Maplewoad accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeier opened the Addition,Maple Valley Hwy public meeting to cansider the 14%Notice of Intent to annex petitian for the _ progosed 64.5-acre Maplewood Addition Annexation,which is bounded on the narth by Magle Valley Hwy. (SR-169},and on the west, south, and east by the . north share of the Cedar River. Don Erickson,Senior Planner,stated that the subject site is within Renton's gotential annexation area,and contains 161 single-family dweliings. He explained that the site is alsa included in the progosed Fairwood incorgoration area. Qnce�airwood proponents file their 10%petition,there is a 90-day window to file the notice of intent gackage to annex with the Boundary Review Baard. For example,to allow pracessing tinne,the annexatiorz grogonents must file their 60%petition by the�xst week of March if Fairwaod praponents file their 10%petition in January. He noted that failure to meet the 90-day window precludes the area's future annexation to Rentan if the Fairwoad incorporation is successful. M�.Erickson reported that the topography of the site is essentially flat abave � the Cedar River bank and the entire site, with the exception of the lats north of SE 149th St.,is located within the flood hazard boundary. He reviewed the existing public services as follows: � * Fire service is provided by Fire District#25. This stays the same if annexed;however,adequate water pressure is an issue, • Water service is pravided by the Maplewood Water Cooperative. If annexed, the water coapexative can continue to operate within the City. t The site is not currentiy served by sewer but is located within R.enton's sewer service area. There are no knowi� septic issues at this time,and residents are not required to convert fram septic to sewer if annexed. Septic systems aze under the purview af the King County Health I7epartment. • The site is within the Renton Schaol District. January 24,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 21 . � If annexed, and residents choose to convert to City utilities, the City can � � assist them in the formation of Local Improvement Districts (LIDs). (��ntinuing, Mr.Erickson stated that existing King County zoning for the site is R-6 (six �nits per gross acre). Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Residential Single Family, and concurrent zoning is R-8 (eight units per net acre). He noted that the City is reviewing a possible change in designation to Residential Low Density, for which concurrent zoning is R-4 (four units per net acre). Reviewing the fiscal impact analysis,Mr.Erickson indicated that the annual estimated cost to the City for the annexation is $40,304. If property owners decide to upgrade to sewer, the annual estimated City cost would be $35,386 due to the likely increase of property.values._, ._.._ .__ In conclusion, Mr. Erickson stated that the annexation proposal is generally consistent with City policies for annexation and relevant Boundary Review Board criteria. He noted the adequate level of parks in the area,the likely ongoing and costly flood control challenge, the aging infrastructure, and the larger than normal annual subsidy required to serve the area. Public comment was invited. Eric Anders, 13133 SE 149th St.,Renton, 98058, stated that he is a proponent of the annexation, and noted that a community meeting was recently held at which City of Renton staff provided information. Mr. Anders pointed out that the Maplewood Water Cooperative cannot support R-8 zoning, and he stated his preference for R-4 zoning. Despite the costs associated with upgrading the water and sewer systems if necessary or desired,Mr. Anders indicated his support for annexation to Renton rather than incorporation by Fairwood. In response to questions posed by Richard Hall, 13111 SE Maple Valley Hwy., � Renton, 98058,Economic Development Administrator Alex Pietsch stated that � grant monies may be available for flood protection. Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Gregg Zimmerman stated that the assessment for installing the water and sewer is estimated at$15,000 per household per utility. He noted that if residents formed an LID for these improvements,the assessment would be paid over a period of time. Bev Spears, 131�1 SE 151st St.,Renton, 98058, stated that many residents feel they do not have enough information about the costs to the community and individual homeowners for both the Fairwood incorporation and the proposed annexation. Noting the aging infrastructure,she expressed concern that the site will never meet City standards. IVIs. Spears indicated that a resident � questionnaire has been submitted to 1VIr.Erickson for more information. Mr.Pietsch noted that the recently received resident questionnaire will be responded to by the end of the week. Discussion ensued regarding the gathering of information and approximating costs; Council policy regarding annexation areas meeting City standards; cunent practice of annexing areas as they are; upgrading areas only as they are requested, systems fail,or redevelopment occurs; existing substandard areas in the City;the timeline for the annexation and for the Fairwood incorporation; consequences if annexation proponents fail to meet the deadline or obtain the 60%petiiion; the City's option of requesting the Boundary Review Board to amend the boundaries of the incorporated area if annexation fails; and King County's decision not to serve pockets of unincorporated areas. January 24,2005 Renton City Council Minutes paQe 2� b City Attorney Larry Warren stated that there is no legal authority for the City to condition the annexation upon the signing of an LID or a commitment to improve water or sewer systems. Outside of the bonded indebtedness and the zoning requirement, the City cannot add additional conditions to annexation petitions. Stephanie Lorenz, 13515 SE Maple Valley Rd.,Renton, 98058, stated that the proponents of the Fairwood incorporation effort are unable to provide affected residents with much information, which results in the inability of the residents to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the two efforts. If the 10% petition is accepted this evening,Ms.Lorenze asked if the 60%petition _ _ deadline can be extended. __ .____. _ __ . Mr.Pietsch explained that the time cannot be extended as long as the Fairwood incorporation proponents file their petition to incorporate within the assumed . timeframe. The longer the filing of the petition for the Fairwood incorporation is delayed, the more time the subject annexation will have. Mayor Keolker- Wheeler stressed that the City strives to provide accurate and timely information, and a number of concerns will be addressed when the City responds to the resident questionnaire. Linda Gibson, 15031 135th Ave. SE,Renton, 98058, expressed concern regarding all of the misinformation being circulated about the annexation. She also pointed out that with an LID,a lien is placed on the property. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler noted that residents must ask for the formation of an LID; the City will not impose an LID on the community. Further discussion commenced regarding septic system failure,costs related to utility systems,misinformation, and the benefit of more representation by elected officials if the area is annexed or incorporated. Ray Griffen, 14405 SE 143rd PI.,Renton,98055,reported that Renton's Aquifer Protection Ordinance states that any homes in Aquifer Protection Zones 1 and 2 must connect to the sewer. Mr. Zimmerman explained that the ordinance only requires mandatory sewer connection in Zone 1. The annexation area is located in Zone 2;therefore, mandatory hook-up is not required. Dennis Wood,.14934 134th Ave.SE,Renton, 98058, opposed the annexation proposal,pointing out that new road and house numbers will be assigned if the area is annexed. Mr. Wood expressed his disapproval with the City's addressing system, and stated that the address scheme makes it diffieult to find places. Additionally,Mr.Wood acknowledged the area's aging water system, and noted Maplewood Water Cooperative's policy to keep the water system within local control. He also noted the need for a pamphlet,similar to the voters pamphlet,which states the for and against positions of the various � interests. Brian Lowrey, 13112 SE 150th St.,Renton,98058,inquired about the bonded indebtedness and the loss to the City if the area is annexed. Mr. Pietsch explained that the bonded indebtedness refers to the park and senior housing Renton voted debt,which equates to$8 a year for a$100,000 valued property. He pointed out that the overall tax burden of property owners will be reduced if the area is annexed to Renton. January 24,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 23 Noting that the area is located within Renton's potential annexation area (PAA), Councilman Corman stated that despite the cost the PAA is part of the City's responsibility. Councilman Clawson pointed out that the area will eventually have to annex to Renton or to another City. Mr.Erickson reported that a community meeting will be held if the annexation proposal proceeds to the 60%petition level. There being no furthei-public comment, it was MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. CARRIED. __....._,_ _ .. -___ _.. MOVED BY BRIERE,SECONDED BY GORMAN, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE MAPLEWOOD ADDTTION ANNEXATION 10%NOTICE OF INTENT TO ANNEX PETITION AND ALTTHORIZE CIRCULATION OF THE 60% DIIZECT PETITION TO ANNEX,WHICH REQUIRES PROPERTY OWNERS�TO SUPPORT THE ADOPTION OF FUTURE ZONIlVG CONSISTENT WTI'H THE CTI'Y'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REQUIIZES THAT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSUME A PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF THE CITY'S EXISTING OUTSTAND]NG INDEBTEDNESS. CARRIED. RECESS MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY LAW,COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. Time: 8:51 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:57 p.m.;roll was called; all Councilmembers present. PUBY,IC IIEARINGS This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Annexation: Anthone',Talbot accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the Rd S &S SSth St public hearing to consider the 60%Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Anthone'Annexation consisting of 4.84 acres, including the abutting street right-of-way, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of S.SSth St. and Talbot Rd. S. Don Erickson,Senior Planner, stated that the site contains one single-family dwelling, and has a three percent upward slope from the southwest corner to the northeast corner. Reviewing the public services,Mr.Erickson indicated that Fire District#37,'Renton water and sewer, and the Kent School District serve the site. He explained that existing King County zoning is R-6(six units per gross acre). The land use designation under the City's Comprehensive Plan is Residential Low Density,for which R-4(four units per net acre)zoning is proposed. Mr.Erickson noted that the City is reviewing the possible redesignation of the area to Residential Single Family,for which concurrent zoning is R-8 (eight units per net acre). Mr.Erickson indicated that despite the smaller than normal annexation area and the limitation of future development to approximately 161ots,the annexation proposal provides a potential catalyst for annexing a larger area to the south, and facilitates upgrading the intersection of Talbot Rd. S. and S. SSth St. He reported that the fiscal impact analysis reveals a surplus of$465 at current development, and a surplus of$875 at full development. The estimated one- time parks acquisition and development cost is$8,528. Mr.Erickson concluded that the proposed annexation is consistent with City annexation policies except for size,and is consistent with Boundary Review January 24,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 24 Board criteria. He noted the potential of flooding in ehe area, and suggested Leve12 flow controI for new devetopment. Public comment was invited. Jim Biteman, 19243 98th Ave. S.,Renton,9$055,reported the presence of King County land use action signs in the annexatian area for a nine-home development o�r 1.6 acres,and expressed concern abaut the conflicting zoning of the two jurisdictions. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler stated that the City will investigate the development proposal. In respanse to Mr.Biteman's comtnent abaut the site`s prapased bo�ndary M __ _ __ ,_ _. _ _ expansian by the City,Mr. Pietsch exptained that if the.60%petitzon is accepted,the City submits a notice of intent package to the Boundary Review Board. At that time,jurisdictions can invoke jurisdiccian far boundary modifications. The Boundary Review Board holds two public hearings on the matter>makes a recommendation,and then the City Council has final approval to accegt the annexation as�nodified or not. In response Co inquiries by Dan Gatlaghar, 19225 Talbot Rd. S.,Rentan,980�5, � regarding the City's Cieveland Park praperty Iocated in unincorporated King County,Mayar Keolker-Wheeler expiained that a timeline has not been seT for its annexation to tk�e City,as the City has nat received any annexatic�n requests. She f�rther explained that Ehere are no pending plans for development of the park groperty. Harry Trapp, 19223 98th PI. S.,Rentan, 98055, also expressed concern about the proposed housing develapment and the conflicting zoning. AdditionaIly,he noted the prablems he had with the developer af Talbat Estates, and hoped that his property would be properiy protected when future development occurs. Mr. Wood displayed a photograph of a property containing a demolished house,and expressed his hoge that Renton will address the unsightly problem if the area is annexed. There being no further public comrnent,it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDELI BY LAW,CflUNCIL CLC3SE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE ANTHONE'ANfNEXATION 6Q%DIRECT PETITICIN TO ANNEX, SUPPORT R-4 ZONTNG CCtNSISTENT WITH THE C[TRRENT COMI'REHENSIVE PLAN LANT.)USE DESIGNATION UF RESIDENTTAL . LOW DENSTTY, AND AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TC►SUBMIT THE NOTICE OF IN'I'ENT PACKAGE TO THE BCIUNDARY REVIEW BOARD. CARIZIED. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN,CQUNCIL SUSPEND THE RULES AND ADVANCE TO UNrINISHED BUSINESS,PLANNING AND DEVELOPMEPJT COMMITTEE REPORT ON THIS SUB7ECT• CARRIED. Planniu� �c Development Planning and DevelQpment Committae Chair Clawson presented a repflrt Cc�mmittee regarding the boundary expansion for the prapased Anthone'Annexatian. The Annexation: Anthone',Talbot Carmnittee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendatian that Rd S &S 55th St,Boundary Council authorize the Administration to invoke jurisdiction and request Che Expansian Boundary Review}3oard to expand the proposed Anthone'Annexation to the City boundary an tlie south and 100th Ave.SE, if extended, on the east. January 24,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 25 , The Committee further recommended that staff be directed to explore expanding the boundaries of future annexations whenever it would result in more efficient service areas and City boundaries, and be consistent with the Boundary Review Board objectives and City annexation policies. It is understood that Council might, in this regard,find it necessary to amend the proposed boundaries either at the Council petition level or by invoking jurisdiction at the Boundary Review Board. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW,COUNCIL CONCUR IlV THE COMMTTTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Vacation: Park Ave N, City of This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Renton,VAC-04-005 accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the public hearing to consider the City-initiated request for vacation of four portions of right-of-way, a total of approximately 21,795 square feet, along Park Ave. N.,between Garden Ave.N. and N. 8th St. The requested vacation areas are associated with the planned development of Lakeshore Landing, which consists of approximately 55 acres bounded by Logan Ave.N., Garden Ave.N.,and N. 8th St. Karen McFarland,Engineering Specialist, explained that the City agreed to construct a new arterial street system to support the development of the property in the 2003 development agreement with Boeing. Additionally, . Boeing agreed to dedicate certain properties for right-of-way, and the City agreed to vacate unused portions of existing right-of-way. In 2004,the Lakeshore Landing Binding Site Plan was approved that identifies specific tracts needed as right-of-way for construction of the Logan Ave.N. extension, a relocated Park Ave.N., and new sections of street for N. lOth St. and N. 8th St. Ms.McFarland stated that three portions of the right-of-way to be vacated are owned by the City(Tracts I,K,and N), and one is owned by the Washington State Department of Transportation (Tract H). Ms.McFarland noted the existence of two stormwater systems in two of the portions (Tracts H and n. Continuing,Ms.McFarland reported that the vacation request received no objections from City departments and outside agencies. The Utility Systems Division requested a temporary easement be retained to protect the existing stormwater systems, and the Transportation Systems Division pointed out that turnback approval is needed from WSDOT for Tract H. Ms. McFarland indicated that since this is a City-initiated request,no compensation is due. She concluded that staff recommends approval of the vacation request conditioned upon retaining the temporary easement and obtaining turnback approval. Public comment was invited. There being none, it was MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCII,CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW,COUNCIL APPROVE THE REQUEST TO VACATE PORTIONS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG PARK AVE. N. SUB7ECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDTTIONS: RETAINING A TEMPORARY EASEMENT FOR STORMWATER UTILITIES ACROSS TRACTS H AND I THAT WII,L EXPIRE UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE January 24,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 26 IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAKESHORE LANDING DEVELOPMENT,AND APPROVAL AND EXECUTION OF A TURNBACK AGREEMENT BY WSDOT. CARRIED. ADMIIVISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPOI2T report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2005 and beyond. Items noted included: � The Renton Community Center will host a Preschool Information Night on Febroary 2nd,from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. � Free tax assistance will be provided for low and moderate-income - - taxpayers (income less that$50,000)by AARP in cooperation with the IRS. Appointments at the Renton Community Center are available beginning February 2nd and ending April 13th. , � The Neighborhood Program will host a "Neighbor to Neighbor"Leadership meeting on February Sth. AUDIEIVCE COMM]ENT Keith 7oslin, 14048 SE 158th St.,Renton, 98058,inquired as to the City's intent Citizen Comment: Joslin- or vision on annexations in relation to the Fairwood incorporation effort. Annexations Mayor Keolker-Wheeler explained that the Fairwood area has been in Renton's potential annexation area for a long time, and if it were to annex to Renton, the size of the City would double. She expressed her concerns regarding the maintenance of a certain level of service for City residents, and the generation of revenues by the annexation area. The Mayor further explained that the City is accepting of those interested in annexing to Renton; however, the City generally does not initiate annexation. Councilman Corman stated his belief that if Fairwood residents were to inquire as to what it would be like to annex to Renton,perhaps as a comparison to the Fairwood incorporation, the City would respond. Citizen Comment: Smith- Hilton Smith, 809 Fairview Pl.N.,Seattle, 98109, spoke on behalf of Waterways Cruises,Moorage Waterways Cruises,which operates dinner vessels and offers catering services. . at Southport He relayed that his company has been in discussion with Southport(SECO Development)regarding locating one or more vessels and an event center in the Renton area that would involve permanent moorage. Mr. Smith noted that a 300 to 400 passenger vessel could draw numerous visitors to Renton. He explained that Waterways Cruises needs a five-year cominitment,including parking, from Southport for permanent moorage, and he pointed out that currently only a two-year parking commitment is allowed. Responding to Councilman Corman's and the Mayor's inquiries,Mr.Pietsch noted that the City received a multi-faceted proposal from SECO Development late last week in regards to some outstanding issues between SECO and the City pertaining to the Southport project. He explained that the Southport project was permitted under an adopted planned action, and current zoning does not allow surface parking as a stand-alone use. Mr.Pietsch stated that parking is possible via a temporary use permit, which is valid for two years with possibly a one-year extension. He noted that the City will meet with the concerned parties to discuss accommodating SECO's short-term needs and other outstanding issues. , ,` January 24,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 27 MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCII..REFER THE SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT CONCERNS TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.* � Mayor Keolker-Wheeler pointed out that the matter is already being reviewed by the Administration, and stressed that unresolved outstanding�issues exist with the cunent development. Councilman Corman noted that with this development, a comrnitment has been shown for revitalization of this waterfront area,and he expressed his support • for Council review of the matter. Councilman Persson stated that the referral allows Council a forum for further discussion. Councilman Clawson said he_ ___._ __ will not support suspending any previous commitments by SECO Development unless it is beneficial for the City of Renton. *MOTION CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Christ- Michael Christ, 1083 Lake Washington Blvd. N.,Renton, 98056,stated that he Southport Development represents the interests of the Southport community. Mr. Christ commented on the following issues: the allowance of parking on a vacant lot(over 550 stalls) for festivities and corporate events while the hotel and office development progresses;the use of the parking lot by the City for events;revitalization of the area;expansion of the tax exemption proposed for adjacent properties; the need for directibn regarding additional offsite improvements; outstanding issues with the City,and the economic environment. Citizen Comment: ONeill- Victoria ONeill, SECO Development Marketing Director, 1083 Lake Southport Development Washington Blvd.N.,Renton, 98056,pointed out that SECO has actively marketed Renton to attract people to the Southport community, and supports Renton's tourism goals. She requested the City's assistance on pemutting events and parking at Southport,as SECO is unable to make commitments without the City's pernussion. Councilman Corman expressed his hope that the City views events on the waterfront such as a boat show differently than a long-term cominitment for vessel moorage. He commented on the improvernents that have been made to the Southport area, and stated that he looks forward to reviewing the matter in Cominittee of the Whole. Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer,pointed out that one of the outstanding issues with SECO Development involves an easement for public access to the waterfront. Citizen Comment:Peckham- Julia Peckham, 1083 Lake Washington Blvd:N.,Renton,98056,stated that she Southport Development is the manager of the Bristol at Southport apartment community and expressed her desire to proceed with the next mixed-use phase at Southport. Ms. Peckham requested the City's consideration of a tax exemption for this phase to make it economically feasible,noting that the tax exemption is being offered to adjacent property owners. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of January 10, 2005. Council concur. January 10,2005 !� January 24,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 28 Appeal: Sunset Bluff City Clerk reported appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Sunset Preliminary Plat, SR 900 LLC Bluff Preliminary Plat(PP-04-002); two appeals filed - one by David S. Mann, &Herons Forever, PP-04-002 1424 4th Ave.,Suite 1015, Seattle, 98101, representing Herons Forever; and the other by David L. Halinen, 10500 NE 8th St., Suite 1900,Bellevue, 98004, representing SR 900 LLC, both accompanied by the required fee. The appea] packet included four additional letters as allowed by City Code. Refer to Plannin�and Develo�ment Comiriittee. Vacation: Bremerton Ave NE, City Clerk submitted petition for street vacation for portions of Bremerton Ave. Liberty Ridge,VAC-04-007 NE between NE 2nd St. and NE 3rd St. and requested a public hearing be set on 2/28/2005 to consider the petition from Liberty Ridge LLC, 9125 l Oth Ave. S., � Seattle, 98108 (VAC-04-007). Council concur. (See page 30 for resolution:) Lease: Iron Mountain Community Services Department recommended approval of an amendment to Information Management, City the lease with Iron Mountain Information Management,Inc. for the fourth floor Hall 4th Floor,LAG-00-003 of City Hall, extending the lease term to 12/31/2009. Revenue generated is $1,456,685.47 over the five-year term. Refer to Finance Committee. Development Services: Development Services Division recommended acceptance of right-of-way Lakeshore Landing ROW dedications for N. lOth St.,N. 8th St.,Park Ave. N.,and Logan Ave.N.for the Dedications,BSP-04-081 Lakeshore Landing site development project(BSP-04-081). Council concur. Annexation:Mosier II, SE Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department 136th St& 142nd Ave SE submitted 60%Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Mosier II Annexation, and recommended a public hearing be set on 2/7/2005 to consider the petition and future zoning; 31 acres located in the vicinity of NE 2nd St. (SE 132nd St.),Jericho Ave. NE(144th Ave. SE), 142nd Ave. SE, and SE 136th St. Refer issue of boundary expansion to Planning and Development Committee; set public hearing on 2/7/2005. Finance:Issaquah School Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department District Impact Fees&Capital reported Issaquah School District request that Renton adopt its 2004 Capital Facilities Plan Facilities Plan and school impact fees for new development. Refer to Finance Corrunittee. EDNSP:Renton Lodging Tax Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Advisory Committee recommended reaffirmation of the continuing membership of the Renton Membership Lodging Tax Advi�ory Committee as follows: Bill Taylor,newly-named . Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce President and CEO;Rick Meinig,Silver Cloud Inn General Manager;Terry Godat,Travelers Inn General Manager; Julie Brewer, City of Renton Community Relations Manager; and Denis Law, Renton Councilmember. Council concur. EDNSP:HoteUMotel Tax Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Revenue Allocation to recommended approval of a contract with Hamilton/Saunderson Marketing Community Stakeholders, Partnership for a seventh year of the Renton Community Marketing Campaign. Hamilton/Saunderson Contract Approval was also sought to allocate hoteUmotel tax revenues in the amount of $50,000 to the key community stakeholders for a seventh year of the marketing campaign. Refer to Finance Committee. Human Resources: 2005/2006 Human Resources and Risk Management Department recommended approval Claims Processing Fee of the 2005/2006 fee schedule for employee medical,dental,and prescription Schedule,Healthcare claims processing by Healthcare Management Administrators and Management Administrators Pharmaceutical Card Service/Caremark. Refer to Finance Committee. �4 January 24,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 29 CAG: 03-158,Lind Ave Transportation Systems Division submitted CAG-03-158,Lind Ave. SW and SW/SW 7th St Signalization, SW 7th St. Signalization; and requested approval of the project,authorization Totem Electric for final pay estimate in the amount of$160, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of$9,596.62 to Totem Electric, contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. CAG: 03-160, 2005 Local Utility Systems Division recommended approval of Amendment No. 2 to CAG- Hazardous Waste Management 03-160, King County-Suburban City contract, accepting$22,903.46 for Program,King County Grant Renton's 2005 Local Hazardous Waste Management Program. Council concur. (See page 31 for resolution.) _ . -_.�_. ,_ Utility:Water System Plan, Utility Systems Division recommended approval�of the 2005 update to the 2005 Update City's Water System Plan. Refer to Utilities Committee. Utility:Annual Consultant Utility Systems Division recommended approval of the annual consultant roster Roster for Telemetry& for telemetry and supervisory control and data acquisition(SCADA)consultant SCADA Services services. The roster contains the following consultants: Casne Engineering, Inc.,Reid Instruments,RH2 Engineering,Inc., and Summit Engineering and Consulting,PS. Council concur. MOVED BY BRIERE,SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE A letter was read from Ramon Lucio,2020 Grant Ave. S.,#L-301,Renton, Citizen Comment:Lucio- 98055,suggesting that the Pavilion Building be used for a public market Pavilion Building,Public consisting of small stalls for different businesses such as fast food, services, Market and dry good retailing. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO COMMTTTEE OF THE WHOLE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Various- At the request of Councilmember Clawson, City Attorney Warren commented Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat on the timing of letters received(from Daniel G.Rosefeld;Diane 7ohnson; Appeal,SR 900 LLC& Tricia Alten; and David S.Mann,Gendler&Mann,LLP)regarding the Sunset Herons Forever,PP-04-002 Bluff Preliminary Plat appeal. He indicated that the submission deadline of 1/17/2005 for these letters was not met; however,mail was not delivered that day due to the holiday. � Mr.Warren suggested referral of the letters to the Planning and Development Committee,pointing out that a deternunation on their admissibility can be made in the future following further review by the City Attorney's Office and � arguments by the appellants. MOVED BY CLAWSON,SECONDED BY PALMER,COUNCIL REFER . THESE LETTERS TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. LTNFIIVISHED BUSINES5 Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval Finance Committee of Claim Vouchers 234009-234346 and three wire transfers totaling . Finance: Vouchers $3,126,472.97; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 55314-55667,one wire transfer, and 566 direcf deposits totaling$2,114,237.24. MOVED BY , PERSSON,SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCII..CONCUR IN THE COMMTTTEE REPORT. CARRIED. r, January 24,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 30 Utilities Committee Utilities Comrnittee Chair Corman presented a repoxt concurring in the CAG: 03-168, Maplewood recommendation of the PlanningBuilding/Public Works Department that Water Treatment Facility Council approve Addendum No. 2 to the consultant agreement CAG-03-168 Improvements,Economic and with Economic and Engineering Services,Inc. in the amount of$116,510 for Engineering Services additional engineering services assistance for the construction of the Maplewood Water Treatment Improvements project_ MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Plan�ain�&Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report Committee regarding the big-box retail uses design guidelines and the Urban Center Design --` -�- ------Planning: Big-Box Retail Uses Overlay Regulations. The Committee=recommended concurrence in the staff Design Guidelines &Urban recommendation to approve the proposed revisions to the Urban Center Design Center Design Overlay Overlay Regulations incorporating revised standards for new development in Regulations the Urban Center and big-box retail in all locations except the Valley. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNC]L CONCUR IN THE COMMTTTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 31 for ordinance.) Planning: Medical Institution Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report Definition, City Code regarding the exception to the City Code Title N (Development Regulations) Amet�dment docket review process for a zoning code amendment of the "Medical Institution" definition. The Committee recommended setting a public hearing for this issue on 2/7/2005. The Committee further recommended that the draft ordinance regarding this matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the final ordinance. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMTTTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Release of Easement: Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report Lakeshore Landing Site, regarding the release of easements to be granted by Boeing for the Lakeshore Boeing,RE-04-001 Landing site development project(RE-04-001). The Committee recommended concurrence in the Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommendation that Council approve a release for each of the easements with the following King County recording numbers: 8811300191; 9607220167; 200011205003127;200011205003128; 200011205003129; and 200011205003130. The Committee further recommended concurrence in the recommendation of the Planning/Building/Public Work Department that Council retain a portion of the easeinent recorded under King County recording number 8805190541 and approve the partial release of the remaining portion of this easement. The documents recorded under King County recording numbers 9105231158 and 9106060988(which replaced 9105231158)are not easements but agreements and will be handled by staff in a separate action to Council. MOVED BY CLAWSON,SECONDED BY LAW,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: Og2DINANCES Resolution#3732 A resolution was read setting a public hearing date on 2/28/2005 to vacate Va�ation:Bremerton Ave NE, portions of Bremerton Ave.NE between NE 2nd St. and NE 3rd St. (Petitioner: Liberty Ridge,VAC-04-007 Liberty Ridge LLC;VAC-04-007). MOVED BY CLAWSON,SECONDED � BY LAW, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED_ January 24,2005 Ren[on City Council Minutes Page 31 • Itesolution#3733 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and Citv Clerk to execute CAG: 03-160,2005 Local Amendment No. 2 to the Suburban City contract between King County and the Hazardous Waste Management City of Renton for the 2005 Local Hazardous Waste Management Program. Program,King County Grant MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 2/7/2005 for second and final reading: Planning: Big-Box Retail Uses An ordinance was read amending Sections 4-2-060,4-2-070, and 4-2-080, of Design Guidelines &Urban Chapter 2,Zoning Districts -Uses and Standards, and Section 4-3-100 of . __._._____= Center Design Overlay Ghapter 3,Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts,and Chapter 11, Regulations Definitions, of Title N (Development Regulations)of City Code by revising the Urban Center Design Overlay Regulations for development in the Urban Center. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 2/7/2005. CARRIED. 1VV�i�i"�USINESS MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE Solid Waste: Waste ISSLTES OF COMPUTER RECYCLING AND RECYCLABLE SORTING TO Management-Rainier, THE UTILITIES COMMTTTEE. CARRIED. Recycling Services School District: Activities Councilwoman Nelson reviewed Renton School District announcements and activities. Items included: the participation of Tiffany Parks Elementary School fifth grade students in the Opera in Schools program;the donation of profits from Lindbergh High School's Club Aery beach party dance to World Vision to help the Indian Ocean tsunami victims; and the Renton Rotary Club selections for Teachers of the Month. ADJOUI2NMENT MOVED BY NELSON,SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL AD70URN. CARRIED. Time: 10:35 p.m. �C3�.v�1. L��-� Bonnie I.Walton, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann January 2�,2005 - ItEIV�I'OI>1 CITY COLTl�CIL COli�INIITTEE 1VIEETYNG CAI.ENDAR � Office of the City Clea-k COUNCIL COMIVIITTEE 1VIEETINGS SC�-IEI)ULED AT CITY COUNCII,MEET'ING January 24, 2005 COMMI�'TEE/CTiAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MON., 1/31 No Meeting (Sth Monday) (Briere) . MON., 2/07 Emerging Issues 6:30 p.m. �Council Conference Room* _. Approximately Aquatic Center Policies 7:00 p.m. *Council Charnbers* CONIMUNITY SERVICES (Nelson) FINANCE MON., 2/07 Lease with Iron Mountain Information (Persstin) 5:45 p.rn. Management for City Ha114th Floor; Renton Community Marketing Campaign Funding &Hamilton/Saunderson Contract PLANNIlVG&DEVELOPMENT TI-NRS., 2/03 City Code Title IV Docket (Clawson) 2:00 p.m. PUBLIC SAFETY (Law) TRANSPORTATION(AVIATIOIV) THURS., 2/03 Liberty Ridge Traffic Concerns (Edmonds (Palmer) 3:00 p.m. Ave SE); . IKEA Commercial District Signage � (briefing only); Airport Development Study(briefing only) U'TILITIES THURS., 2/03 2005 Water System Plan (Corman) 4:00 p.m. NOTE: Committee of the Whole meetings are held in the Council Chambers. All other committee meetings are held in the Council Conference Room unless otherwise noted. �,.Exh�bit C �°�� Scott Nable Department of Assessments King County Administration Bidg. f�,SSeSS`O/" 540 FautEh Avenoe,Room 7Q8 Seattle,WA 981042384 (20b'�296-5195 FAX(20�296-0595 Email:assessor.inl'o@metrokc.gov w»�vv.metrakc.govtasses.aor! ANNEXATI(JN PETITI�N CERTIFICA'�'IO►N Z'�S IS Tt� CERT`iFY that the petition submitted �ctober 8, 2n04 to the I�.ing,Counfy Department of Assessments by Don Erickson, Senic-�r�':�anner for the City of Renton, suppo�ting the annexatian ta Rer��on of the properties described as the .Anthone' p�nnexation, has been exarr.t�ned, the proper�y taxpayers, tax parcel numbers, and assessed value of properties Iisted �hereon carefully compared with the King County ta�c xoll records, and as a result of such examination, found to be sufficient under the provisians of the New Sectian of I�evised Code of Wasl�sngton, Section 35.13.OQ2. The Department of Assessments has not verified that the signature on �khe petitican is valid through comparison with any record af actual signatures,nox that the signature was obtained or submitted in an appropriate time frame, and this document does not certify such to be the case. � Dated this 11+� day of Octaber, 2004 _ ��/ �� .._ _ Scott Noble; Kin Coun�y Assessor ]F31 s�720[M `PP � � �` Exhibit D A1��OI�'AI�I�E�'�IO� I.EGA�,D�S��N . That portion of Tract 11,Springbrook Acre Tracts, according to the plat thereof recorde:d � , in Volu�e 12 o€Plats,�'age ffl,records of Kir�g County,Washington,lying northerly and weste�ly of t�ie p1a��of Talbot�states, according to the plat th�xeof recorded in Volume 172 of Plats,Pages 1 througli�,iiiclusive,recards of KiIIg County,Washington; EX�CEPT tlie virest 10 feat th�reof ly:uig within Talbot Road S.right-of-way;and� EXG'�P`I'that porkion of the north 10 feet thereof lying within the S 55�'5treet right-nf- way; , TOGETI��R�ViTH Tract`B"of said Talbot Estates plat. All situat.�in the north�ast quarter of Sectiori 6,Township 22 North,Raiige 5 East,'�V.M., in King Counry,Washington. E� a, w � � � � 0 � -� � � � � � � S 55th St � � 0 � �a lgthp� � 9 Proposed Anthone° Annexation o 500 �000 Exhibit F1: Proposed Annexation Boundary �Y 1 : 6000 � Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning m�� City Limits �O+ Alex Pietsch�Administrator G.Del Rosario 0 Proposed Annex.Area �ANTO} I 1 May 2005 _____________ _____ _ " _ _____ ___ _ 1, , I ________________ _____________ -_-____ __-__-___ •t _ _ __'---- ----- -- - -�--- _"___-_-- _ ,Z _ -_ ___-_"______ ______ __�-"=- _"_____-__ _ _ .� - ____ O __"__________________ ________ _ ___ "_______ ____ � _ ___ _ __ _____ ______" __"_ __ ______________ __ � . I __ _________ ______ _____ _____ _____________ I - _ '_ _______ ___ _ _ _______ _____ __ ___ _ --�_ _ ____ _ _____ _ _ __ � __________________ _ ____ ___ �aD -_--_- __ 9m 9pp �� 2 A o � � - � v � � E 2 ❑ 'Qcs�� NE 4lh SL �128 St A �cd Mq� �S ' t Wa NE ❑ (4�¢ky W0 5 2nd St �� Oc L� HA 'pa o � :� SW 7ih Sl yo � p SN CtodY Wa'1 �5 y � Renton Yliag� " N Y ��C�'� �� mk.aa vk�y N e'4 e 181 167 a stra�aer eiva 3 ; � � sis e��' � a 6 3 � °" � R SW 34 n 51 N Y Q $ — SE Pelrovitsky Rd SW 41st SL S 180th 5 I7gf SW 4Jrd Sl. S 4 d QD �a �°y 6 3 ___ � ___ _____ __ _ ____ -_ W09 _ ______ __ �.e,�°'n9 --------�--_ __--_- ___________________.. PrOposed �1nthOn�' �nn�xation o s000 i0000 Exhibit F3: Major Streets and Major Physical Features Y � Economic Develo men Nei borhoods&Strate ic Plannin � . �oo�o a �, e,� g g - - - City Limits y� � Alex Pietsch,Administrator � =-�� C.Del Rosario Proposed Annex.Area �NTO$ 11 May 2005 ______________________�.:_-_ =--=`-_=`__;=-_ _"l""""""""__ " - -_ ' '-__"_-' ___ _ _ __ � ______________________:_==_==-___-____-__=_=_==_=_==-_-_-_=_-__=_-__- STATION -- ----_________________________________________________________ 12 S ATION 0 11 ❑ STATION �' 16 STATION 13 ' STAT ON 4 � - �ire District 40 -_-_- - ==- Q �ire District 37 --==----=--=-=--== Proposed Anthone' Annexation o S000 �0000 Exhibit F4a: Fire Service Area Boundaries 1 o Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning - - - City Limits 1 • v0000 �� Alez Pietsch,Administrator . O G.Dcl Rosario Proposed Annex.Area pT0 11 May 2005 ' _' _ __ __--_- - _-__ ______ _ l�: . �� 1-�-.�-�-.�._-_��.�.--_.��--..--�-�-_" _______________'--' �F_"_"-'-_'__"'""_--""- __ __________" l�--��.�� ''=-'�''.'..'._ F_=-r__:____ _-{'}?}?}}- ___--� -- - - �_.-: .:::.......:.:::.:::. _---____ __- D t --- --------------= COAL CREEK t_-_--:=->:-'_-::-_:__"__:_:-�__-__---_ _-_-_- = -=- WATERB�SEWERDIST. �_=`__----__-_�-----=-----=------=-- _-=--=`---=___-__--- ��i .:::.:.:::::.:.::"_:__=:-__`:":===":==`-=_<-"-_-_=::-- =-_=-�__=-___:----=_ �=_"--------=-----==-'�--=_=:.-==--_'-____=__-_-:-__-:-__-=__-__===?�_:__-__-��-_-_::�_:=�_::_:� , -_ =_-_ "_-__--_=>-__-__--=---=:--_ ❑ SKYWAY WATER& SEWER DIST. Ra67n-�sao) O � o WATER DISTRICT 90 �aa�� tiver�v m �xw r�xFv,000�oonw w��ooa�s+envE � � cirY OF CEDAR RIVER TUKYV1LA WATER AND ,� SEWER DIST. . �� . SOOS CREEK --=-= WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT --- CIN �' _ __ OF I�NT � -- � __ __"- � Proposed Anthone' Annexation o S000 �0000 Exhibit F4b: Sewer Service Area Boundaries ti�Y � Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning - - - City Limits 1 . 6000� *O' A�cz Pietsch,Administrawr 0 Proposed Annex.Area G.Del Rosazio A TO 11 Ma y 2005 ------------ ------ --- -------- --=---=----------=-----=---- ------_-_-__` -�. , , �________________`_===-=_ -_=--__-_-________ ,_______ ____________`__ =_-- -=-----===_-_-___�_-= O �===_==--�=-------===-------'::=___:_=___:_-=:__:=_=_:=_-:=====-="=��==-:=�>==�=_-_:=�-=-=--'_ �____________________<___:__:::_=_===-�_==-_=-=�==_=__-:'_--':-_-_______=_::-::_>. -----------------�----- ---------- ---------------- ----- ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------- ---� -----------�- --------------------------------- ---===---------<=_____-=-=_-=-_-__===-=__=_====_--- =�-==_=_-- � -_=-,___-�------------===-===---=----=-=-=-- � � . _-_ _"_ ________________ _ � - � -=--=--=--=-=- I ❑ . ❑ � � � , � ___-_= i � �----_g � I �� -_ � ______________________ Q . PrOpOs�d �n�hone' �nn�X�tion o s000 l0000 Exhibit F5: K.C. UGA and Renton PAA ti�O��!!!��,�, Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning - - - Clfy LIfI11fS � . 60000 �� Alex Pietsch,Adminishator 0 Proposed Annex.Area G.Del Rosario AT,qo 11 May 2005 � — !.�L�:._.''.�'_:�� ••''�•� � � � � � _ -'-----'�J� • 1"'1' �:�': ��:;., � .;. ..•;;•;•}.•;•;•:�•�.•�;•Y;�� :' ._�:'�:'��''�_::;:_��;�_:: 7� ` •` `'•', N' ` •':R`:;�j:•:i•::�^-•v#;�;;!.�ai:�'• �1 •Z,.;.:•::�:•: -�-�� 11l�111�1�� ':;:;:;;'::�.;;;Rv:::::::::::::• _ `. - - 1'r �. ` •' j . '+ °t �'�1�::�:%�. ' � `::;:':;::;:�;;';:':'''''''''''' � �� - � _ - , ...�:: A � ��::� �,,, � �� `::��:;::° �=1 .a.,.::�°:::.:�:�. ��I��::::'':' � � - - ,� .. � � � :�� ' i / ;:;;. � � - , _ � �► �;: :.;j.:: _ ::� ! �::��' . - 1 � •�i.� ` � / � i��.•�' � "" e � :..��:�' '-_ � i��0� ■ . /1 � �� , , � . � ■ . - ' I •<� " ' � � ■ - - � ;:� � :��,: � - .�: - " • - ' " i'�. :P: � � '' ' :5� .i`% }.\ i�.v'� ��J.� �' " �='^� • ... .J ' � .�2i - -- - " �.l•� :�y.;. V i•. . . :_;::� ::r :. . �. �.J .4•.�'• - .'.L-:'.':.��:1�•��•�!=•'':'��•�t '>� �:: ..::: •:i. :?'�:•i��.•:.!:�:::::::::.•.'.:...."'I 1 r �:.: .:.�. ..� ,.. ::.:: ...:...::::.:.:::::.:::: _ _� ,.:. __ :_;::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :..:: :.:: , � :a.: :�..::: :,,. ,, .�.. ,r:::.. •,y,t 't�: - �•. �-`:� " �:i:• '•:��'• ':%t:�'.•:�::•: •}i:":=r:•::•�� :��;�:;:i;::}:::•:}}::•:•}}}::•}}O:'::::}:•:':::;'};:. :�:ry: - �:d - -- °:s}:>: �:•,''{•:•'r::;I}:�:::•}r%:•:•`.;�:�;:•::;:;r;::::•,';:;::;:;::::�f:�$}:�:•:'�.�.�'� vr:� �:��: ::7:�. :;�:;5 v:':i}:•::�:•::�3k{�::�}'r:•:v:::�.�:�:�:%�.�:�.�'•::;:;:;7•: •r:��: .,�:� :{�•=� _ ':�,�: - - --- - �?,�.�: .::': .�{• :�:• _ •��:?: .•;{•.� :�}{ ;:•'�'-:•c. ,r:•.ti SS:�:':•.{�:�:•:�}::�ir:r:�'•:•}::�:•::•:•:•:�::�:.:;�}::�.':;'r,{�;:I':;:;:;'•,:•,•s�:::ti{:�'� �:�7>� •:6L•'r:•3:•:•::•'• - - -- - - - - - - - - -- �:�1 - - — -- - - - - - - - - �:% 3:v::;::j::�::�}'r:�'r:{�::�:•:•:�'•:v:•%�{{�ti}'�:•:a:;:•,:;:;:}:•,:�:;:;:;::°};'r;;:�;:;:;:;:};:'rC:�:�C�: :;: },'r�•� :c�•. r:��'•:;��;'�:•��::•:•:;:;:��}��;:�I��:;:�:�:;'�;��:•��.;:•:�:;::;.��:�;'%;:;:';::;�{'�:;�:;:;i:;}:;L;.� •`.• ••� �.•• :;� - • � ,, � � � • � . � � .� � � .:�:�:�:�::�'�:.:�:•��':.:�:53��'�� . 1 - °= __ --= ' r'� � � � . J � :.:, ..`.� � � _ r� � �.� � . , �� .- �� _ _ �� -� � . ..:.�� , - � � : � �� r � � � - - • . � - �- � . • •::: ::� �::: • . . .- � „ _ ..� . � ::•:� i � � � .� ' '',� .�� -� %�� CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDU.M DATE: December 22, 2004 TO: Terri Briere, Council President City Council Members VIA: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler FROM: Alex Pietsch,Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson, x6581 SUBJECT: Anthone' Annexation-Acceptance of 60% Direct Petition to Annex ISSUE: Given that the King County has certified that at least 60% of the annexation area's assessed value is represented by petition signers does Council now want to now accept this petition to annex? If the Council does wish to accept the 60%Direct Petition to Annex should it authorize the Administration to forward the Notice of Intent package to the Boundary Review Board for their 45-day review and evaluation? RECOMMENDATION: • That Council support R-4 zoning on the subject site noting that it is consistent the Residential Low Density land use designation shown on the Comprehensive Plan for this site. • Council accept the 60%Direct Petition to Annex for the 4.84-acre Anthone' Annexation and authorize the administration to forward the Notice of Intent package for it to the Boundary Review Board. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The City received the 10%Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation petition on June 8, 2004 and after having the signatures certified by the King County Deparhnent of Assessments held a public meeting with the applicants on July 19, 2004. Council at that time accepted the 10% Notice of Intent petition and authorized the circulation of a 60%Direct Petition to Annex. That petition was subject to petition signers supporting future zoning consistent with the City's ^ � -�ntone' Annexation—Acceptance of 60%Direct Petition December 22, 2004 Page 2 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the annexation area and assuming their proportionate share of the City's outstanding indebtedness. On October 5, 2004 the City received a 60%Direct Petit'ion to Annex for this 4.84-acre site and forwarded it to King County to verify the signatures and the assessed value they represent. On October 11, 2004 the King County Department of Assessments notified the City that based ' upon the listed taxpayers, parcel numbers, and assessed value the signatures listed are sufficient under the provisions of RCW 35.13.002 equaling or exceeding 60% of the area's assessed value. If Council accepts the 60%Direct Petition to Annex the next step would be to recommend preferred zoning to take effect upon annexation at a later date and whether to then direct the Administration to forward the Notice of Intent package for it to the Boundary Review Board for King County pursuant to RCW 36.93.090. Staff are recommending R-4 zoning since it is consistent with the site's RLD land use designation as shown on the City's Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the County's R-4 zoning in the surrounding unincorporated area to the east. The annexation site is located within the Kent School District and is currently served by Fire District No. 37. Currently the City does not have an interlocal agreement with the Kent School District to collect school impact mitigation fees. Upon annexation Renton would assume fire services for this area. Reviewing staff raised no significant obstacles to annexation. Except for parks no major service issues were identified. Parks indicated a general deficiency in the area of improved recreational facilities and staff estimates a one-time acquisition/improvement cost to the City of$8,528. This is an amount above what the City would receive from collecting Parks Mitigation fees. At full development the proposed annexation is expected to have a slight positive financial impact of approximately $875 annually in today's dollars. CONCLUSION: � The 60% Direct Petition to Annex for the Anthone' Annexation has been certified by King County as having sufficient signatures representing at least 60% of the annexation area's assessed valuation. It also has reasonable boundaries, is located with both Renton's water and wastewater utility service areas and appears to comply with relevant Boundary Review Board objectives. The proposed annexation also appears to further the City's business goals and be in the general welfare and interest of the City. Anthone'Annexation—60%Direct Petition January 11, 2005 Mr.Bruce Taggert,President Talbot Estates Homeowners Association 9621 South 194�'Street Renton,WA 98055 SUBJECT: PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING REGARDING POSSIBLE EXPANSION OF THE ANTHONE' ANNEXATION Dear Mr.Taggert: Staff is seeking direction from the Renton City Council's Planning and Development Committee on the idea of expanding the Anthone' Annexation to include both the Talbot Estates and the Springbrook Terrace Subdivisions. Last August, following the public meeting on this proposed annexation,I sent you a copy of the Renton Annexation Report, which showed the various services the City provides and the likely reduction in property taxes residents would enjoy if they became Renton residents. Besides improved police and emergency response services, other benefits included access to local municipal government as well as cornmunity facilities,the latter often at rates considerably less than what non-residents pay. Consistent with its planned reduction of urban services in the urban portion of unincorporated King County,the County has asked cities to expedite annexations within their respective Potential Annexation Areas(PAAs). And,because your neighborhood is located within Renton's designated PAA,the Planning and Development Committee needs to decide whether the City should request expanding the boundaries of the Anthone' Annexation when it gets to the Boundary Review Board, a state agency set up to review annexation requests and ensure that they meet state objectives. The Boundary Review Board will hold a public hearing where residents could comment on the proposed expansion,however,the Board has the authority to approve an expanded annexation without further annexation petitions being signed by residents or property owners. It is for this reason that the Planning and Development Committee is most interested in getting your and your neighbors input at next week's meeting. The Committee is scheduled to meet on Thursday, January 20`�', at 2:00 PM in the Council Conference Room on the 7`�'floor of Renton City Hall. � If you have any questions please contact me at 425-430-6581. Sincerely, Don Erickson,AICP Senior Planner/Strategic Planning Division cc: Alex Pietsch Rebecca Lind H:�EDNSP�PAA�AnnexationsWnthone'�P&D Comm ltr re invoking juris#2.doc\cor J v 9 .._. ' : . -'�^�_'.-.;._._ -_ _ . ' ' _ _-_.____ '_ ._'_-_'___ _'_ ' __ ' _ . _ ' _ ' ' ' ' ' -'_ yi �. <y. - - - -��- -- ----- � y �� . - . Anne�a�ion lZevie�v Forrn ��1�,�Q � ciTy ?00� [X] 10% Notice of Intent [ ] 60% Annexation Petitior�T�[i�SR TF�� TO : Building Surface Water Utility � Fire ater Utilit �I��qp Parks � . �as#�teri�i�irty�., ?r/�'I 64 Police Transportation Public Works Maintenance Current Planning � FROM : Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Plannin ��rr� .�A 3 ; , S4JBJECT : Anthone' Annexa#ion � JUL 1 � 2004 ' ; Location . The proposed 4.84-acre rectangular shaped Anton ' A�rm:��a�t��v�o��, � located at the corner of S 55 Street (SE 192�d St) a_d T�ll�ar�a�°nrv�;,,.,: � South. It borders Talbot Estates on its south and Springbrook Terrace on its east. It is just north of the City's Springbrook Springs Reservoir area in the south part of the City. It appears to be at the edge of Renton's sewer and water service areas. Date Circulated: June 30th 2004 Comments Due: Jul 9 2004 General Information Area : 4.84 acre Street length : N/A Assessed Value : $746,000 Estimated Population : 5 people Current Uses: Residential : 2 Dwelling Units Commercial : N/A Industrial : N/A Public : N/A Comp Plan Designation : Residential Low Density Future Uses: : Residential Future Po ulation • 16 Dwellin Units Reviewing Department/Division: �� n' ' 1. Does this annexation represent any unique or significant problems for your department/division? t�o _ '�11E i�Cl.¢�QoSC^D RN�.I�x m1�tJ 4�tlG^� r5 u1'�-11ta� �Ch� G�'Qf � �znJ�s US�A�� Sv�,J1(.� ��. 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the area? ��_ � ��w4�S►,'s �x T�N��.1 c� c.Tt`t S �,-�1-a... u�6 �n.aa.i� S. SS� s� �i�- g� QC-�ui(L� Pt�6n. -� n�M Or�v�.a�� o� � e�,�c� a�N�x�S o� a�k . � (Over) . � � � . . - -- - - -- - - .. ---------- -- - : . ;. ---- - - - -- ---- -� ' 3. Does this proposed annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your � department/division? `�'� - '�iX1'�0.1Ssi er1 � Dt h� tuPc�i(l. Ll1•t� A'�J G S. S�� S�1' l,sft,V (�L 'Cl,�fstu,(d,G'� . 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? � �pc"(�91. Ul % �1C'C�i 1SFS Q a.l � �0�� S G � w�v` 6� �Gtw�,G�D Al�� S • SS�'' � �► —�D,�6ot �a+�o 'ro �x� �sr �nEn.^9 uuE a� ,�r,� p�},1 Eu�C dd.l A"(I,(�+. 6x'��s�'i�.1 SKOru- 4� i t�u.fs � Pl�i D �e� Q�K 'f� ��tl�-�� 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? 1�� P�suHqfi o-tiJ 6-� a'�a,t-� Sur�+o;s�1oW's �Uu��S � Ts �ua�D � �z ��b��at,1 � l No &Gt'I�Eo�t�aTS af �2ANc�a3C� � (1�w�� • 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) �,0• General recommendation and comments: � '(� �QUI C.tt3��'� �'lKll. nE�'�Pnla Pr �.E(c�n/ t� �!1 FCI� Dn,��LA 1��G'�I -h�,�1t '(�'1� C�"1 a� (ls��c�G1-I P �iavt, �(b �� '�t1�W 0 k� cui�i�.il.� � Qneao� �I f��sfi�► Pc�'Ik . ��C�,t.4 �oU�t, �►('(�t�N A-r 42�- ¢30-�'L.1�; lfS� �rJC�1a.1�,,�►G Stit6��1t.c6�� Signature: �� u� Date: -�� a`F � � - � ' ------------ - — - � � _ '__'_'__""'-_ —'.__"—'____"__—_'. __. ' _' _'' . _ x. :.K __'_—____' . ;� C Yt�� : � J � ' �„t,� Annex�tion l�evi��v Forrn U��pp c�,y 4 �F E [ X] 10% Notice of Intent [ ] 60% Annexation Petition �/��s��SN TO : Building Surface Water Utility Fire �°VII_af��r�,U�t�il ty� Parks astewater Utility _ Police =spc�r-�a#�� Public Works Maintenance Current Planning M'�^�Z ..�'9�C � Y: .i§ FROM : Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Plan in� �� ` , ` ' �'�� - J��_ 1 ? 2004 SU�JEC'T . Arathone' Annexation E�,�,,., -:�,:;� , -,iT . �'il' AI JU u i FiN l,.. i'i. .- n^ . Location : The proposed 4.84-acre rectangular shaped Antone' Annexa io �� - ' located at the corner of S 55 Street (SE 192�d St) and Talbot Road South. It borders Talbot Estates on its south and Springbrook Terrace on its east. It is just north of the City's Springbrook Springs Reservoir area in the south part of the City. It appears to be at the edge of Renton's sewer and water service areas. Date Circulated: June 30th 2004 Comments Due: Jul 9 2004 General Information � Area : 4.84 acre Street length : N/A Assessed Value : $746,000 Estimated Population : 5 people Current Uses: Residential : 2 Dwelling Units Commercial : N/A Industrial : N/A Public : N/A � Comp Plan Designation : Residential Low Density Future Uses: : Residential Future Po ulation � 16 Dwellin Units / Reviewing Department/Division: /��.r�/i� ��-��'� 1. Does this annex tion represent any unique or significant problems for your � department/division? f�i�� -�%�'� �� , ��1G�-�1ri� ��%c�- ; � ��,�'�-� , � �'�r`��'�� ' ��=��i 2. Are you aware�of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the area? �� (Over) � - � -- -- - --- - - - -- --- - -- � -� � 3. Does this proposed annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your departmenddivision? . . �`��y��'�.� �� 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this area? Can ou identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? , �� G�� 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? �� 0� 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) Q��s � General recommendation and comments: �� i /�� Signatu e: ./� Date: /� � * . _� :�, �� CI'�[['Y OF REI�T'I'ON � Planning/Building/PublicWorks pepartment I�athy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator February 7, 2005 �� ,� �Q�� Attn: Dan Gallagher � " _ 19225 Talbot Rd S � � - -- - Renton, WA 98055 SUBJECT: PROPOSED ANTHONE SHORT PLAT - KING COUNTY FILE NUMBER L04S0032 Dear Mr. Gallagher: . The City of Renton is in receipt of the riotice of application for the subject project. We ' ' would like to establish for the record that the City issued sewer availability for this proposed action with specific conditions of service, The first condition is that the � -property must annex prior to receiving sewer service from the City. The second condition is that the development must meet the City's Land Use and Zoning requirements in order to receive service: ' Given•the two conditions listed above,the City is notifying the County that the ' � application as submitted.to the County does not meet the conditions listed in our ' availability. As such, we are requesting that the applicant coordinate a revised proposal with the City and resubmit to the County once all City conditions have been met_ Siricerely, . � . , _ ,. , � �� 'r�-' : . . . . � , Gregg Zimmerman _ PB/PW Admiriistrator . ,. , cc: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,.Mayor . , � ` City Couricil Members. ' , Ja Cy ovington,CAO ' , ', . .. ��: : � s �,d �nis ator .+DNSP,'' . ys s y, ri ity Systems irector , :. Dave Christensen,Wastewater Engineering Supervisor -� 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 R E N T O N �This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer A H E A D O F T H�E C U R V E r :: ,,� CITY OF REll�TT7CON � .:�, � Planning/Building/PublicWorks pepartment lCathy Keolker-Wheeler,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator January 26, 2005 Attn: Jirri Biteman ' 19203 98�'Ave S Renton,WA 98055 SUBJECT: PROPOSED ANTHONE SHORT PLAT KING COUNTY FILE NUMBER L04S0032 Dear Mr. Biteman: = The City of Renton is in receipt of the notice of application for the subject project. We � would like to establish for the record that the City issued sewer availability for this - proposed action with specific conditions of service. The first condition is that the property must annex prior to receiving sewer service from the City. The second conditiori is that the development must.meet the City's Land L1se and Zoning. ' requirements in order to receive�service. , ` Giveri the two conditions listed above,the City is notifying the County that'the _ application as submitted to the County do.es not meet the conditions listed iri our availability. As such,we are requesting that the applicant coordinate a revised proposal with the City and resubmit to the County once all City conditions have been met. . Sincerely, �� - ,. _ - �� Gregg Zimmerman - - PB/PW Administrafor - . , _ cc: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Mayoi : City Council Members. - , , Jay Covington,CAO , Alex Pietsch,Administrator EDNSP . ` Lys Homsby,.Utility Systems Director - - Dave.Christensen, Wastewater Erigineering Supeivisor 1055 South Giady Way-Renton,Washington ggoss � R E N �T O N _ : �This paper contains 50:/o recyded material,30%post consumer A H E A D O F T H E C U R V E A � � :: � �~� C�'Y'Y OF REl�TTTOliT � Planning/Building/PublicWorks pepaitment Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator - February 7, 2005 Attn: Harry Trapp 19223 98"' PL S Renton; WA 98055 SUBJECT: PROPOSED ANTHONE SHORT PLAT KING COUNTY FI�.E NUMBER L04S0032 Dear Mr. Trapp: The City of Reriton is in receipt of the notice of application for the subject project. We - would like to establish for the record that the City issued sewer availability for this proposed action with specific conditions of service: The first coridition is that the ' - property must annex prior to receivirig sewer service from the City. The.second � condition is that the development must meet the City's Land Use and Zonirig- requirements.in order to receive service. °Given the two conditions listed above,the City is notifying the County that the - application as submitted to the County does not meet the conditions listed in our � � ' availability:. As such, we are requesting that:the applicant coordinate a re�ised proposal ' witli the City arid resubmit to fhe County once alI City conditions have been met. Sincerely, . ^ - ��C' . , �� .� ., .Gregg Zimmerman. PB/P.W Administrator. . ' -. ccs Kathy Keolker=Wheeler,1Vlayor . ' City Council Members . 7ay Covington,CAO � � Alex Pietsch,'Administrator EDNSP ° . Lys Hornsliy,Utility Systems Director - , , ' Dave Christensen,Wastewater Engineering Supervisor . � ' ' 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 l� E jr � 1 � lr . �This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer A H E A D O F T H E C U R V E ��-° A; . !:� !- �� q �: y� . . �^�.)�F7..A�`"�,:.`n+'y,:x v i.. ' �� x � ��,.; - �� COUNCIL REFERRAI, TO ADMIIV'ISTRATION ��rQ.��`Gj{��EVE ",,,,�.;��r O,qy COF:,.. e� '',,a.. �nrCOCr1;.�c:FyT; @ - ., � TO: ✓Alex Pietsch,EDNSP Administrator DATE: 1/27/2005 FROM: � Bonnie Walton, City Clerk LOG#: N/A On 1/24/2005, Council/Mayor requested the following: Investigate and inform public hearing speakers regarding development reportedly in progress at the Anthone' annexation site. Pietsch Please respond as follows: Prepare memo to Councilmembers via Mayor. (After Mayor's approval, Mayor's secretary will copy for Council and Clerk and return copy to you.) Prepare memo to Councilmembers via Mayor and include attached letter with memo. (After Mayor's approval, Mayor's secretary will copy for Council and Clerk and return copy to you.) Prepare letter(s) to citizen/agency with department head's signature and submit to � Mayor for approval. (After Mayor approves the letter, the Mayor's secretary will mail it out after making a copy for Council and Clerk and returning a copy to you.) Schedule matter on Council committee agenda. Arrange with Council Liaison ASAP. (Copy of response to City Clerk not required.) XX Other: As noted. �PLEASE REFERENCE LOG NUMBER ON ALL LETTERS. Please complete request by (as determined). Thank you. ` cc: Derek Todd � � .... , Margaret Pullar �� , � � P �� .� �� .� � �� .�� _ � � :� _Crystal McMeans-Re:Anthone Annexation Page 1 From: Bonnie Walton To: Alexander Pietsch; Gregg Zimmerman Date: 02/07/2005 9:24:05 AM Subject: Re:Anthone Annexation Addresses are: Jim Biteman, 19203 98th Ave. S., Renton, 98055 Dan Gallagher, 19225 Talbot Rd. S., Renton 98055 , Harry Trapp, 19223 98th PI. S.,Renton 98055 bw »> Gregg Zimmerman 2/7/2005 8:53:29 AM »> We issued a sewer availability certificate conditioned on the development meeting the City of Renton's zoning eodes including density. If the development does not meet this, sewer will not be available. I'm not sure what King County is reviewing/approving. Neil (or Dave), please write a brief one paragraph letter for my signature to these citizens. Bonnie, please provide mailing addresses. Thanks. Gregg »>Alexander Pietsch 2/7/2005 8:38:23 AM »> OK... but the actions of PBPW are what led to the King County land use action signs (provision of sewer availability). I could write a letter, but I would have to have Dave C. provide the information. Seems cleaner if PBPW writes something up. Alex Pietsch Administrator Dept. of Economic Development, ' Neighborhoods &Strategic Planning City of Renton 425:430.6592 voice 425.430.7300 fax www.renton ma rket.co m www.ci.renton.wa.us »> Bonnie Walton 2/7/2005 8:29:18 ANi »> This was for the Anthone'annexation public hearing. Citizens who spoke, Jim Biteman, Dan Gallagher and Harry Trapp, (see minutes for addresses) commented on the presence of King County land use action signs in the annexation area, and expressed concern about the conflicting zoning of the finro jurisdictions. The Mayor noted that City staff will investigate and inform those public hearing speakers (and Council, I assume) regarding the KC development apparently in progress at the Anthone' annexation site. I sent the referral to Alex, but should have x'd the third box instead of the last, so that a letter to the 3 citizens with dept. head's signature goes to the Mayor for approval. Socry about the error. Bonnie, x6502 »> Gregg Zimmerman 2/4/2005 3:54:03 PM »> Alex, can you get this to us? I don't think I have it. Gregg . >»Alexander Pietsch 2/4/2005 2:25:08 PM»> � .,..,, , ., .._ ... .. .. .� .,v _..., .� ..,,. . Debra Mikolaizik Re Anthone Annexation ��.. �.. . .� � ,,a . ,.F .e.�. „ ,u.m.,,.� �.�a._... ...., . ��. �� Pag�; 1 ; V From: Alexander Pietsch To: Bonnie Walton; Gregg Zimmerman Date: 2/4/2005 3:56:31 PM Subject: Re:Anthone Annexation yep Alex Pietsch Administrator Dept. of Economic Development; Neighborhoods &Strategic Planning City of Renton 425.430.6592 voice 425.430.7300 fax www.renton m arket.com www.ci.renton.wa.us »>Gregg Zimmerman 2/4/2005 3:54:03 PM »> Alex, can you get this to us? I don't think I have it. Gregg »>Alexander Pietsch 2/4/2005 2:25:08 PM »> I think that PBPW should respond to this. Alex Pietsch Administrator Dept. of Economic Development, Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning City of Renton 425.430.6592 voice 425.430.7300 fax www.renton m arket.com www.ci.renton.wa.us »> Bonnie Walton 2/2/200512:31:11 PM»> I sent you a Council Referr�l to Administration form regarding some citizen's Public Hearing comments about proposed KC development in the annexation area. Even though I didn't indicate on the referral that a memo be sent to Council,and I didn't assign a referral number, I think a memo back to Council on your findings would be appropriate. If you agree, please cc me on your memo so it completes the file. Thanks. Bonnie,x6502 CC: David Christensen; Mikolaizik, Debra; Rebecca Lind . �. �. y CI�'Y OF REl�TOI�T - �� - Economic Development,Neighborhoods_and StrategioPlanning Katliy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Alex Pietsch9 Administrator August 24, 2004 Mr. Harry Trapp 19223 98"'Place South Renton,WA 98055 � � SUBJECT: RECENT TESTIMONY ON THE PROPOSED ANTHONE' ANNEXATTON Dear Harry:" ' Thank you and members of your homeowners' association for showing the interest and taking.the time to come and testify before the Renton City Council arid this annexation request in your neighborhood. I am enclosing a copy of the Renton Ann�xation Report for you,which includes a lot of useful information on the anriexation:pro.cess, and how.annexation,into;the City would affect public services and taxes homeowners:would pay. Although the individual tax savings per household - even with the City's 6% utility tax is not all that great,the.increase in level of service and access to local government is substantial. Feel free to make copies of the Annexation Report,and if.your group has questions about `annexation in the future I would be more,than happy to iry and assist you. Sin erely, `t/ Donald K.Erickson, AICP/Senior Planner : � Strategic Planning Division;.Economlc Develo,pxnent; Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department u.«n,.ren�np,p�� «• �e Elaene,�A�ne�ltr#3 des\ser � � 1\T T � � 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 l� � �This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer A H E A D O F T H E C U R V E � �, .....q�-. . . - �� 1 Y �B }� +� °� � - Economic Development,I�Ieighborlioods and Strategic Planning Kathy Keolkeo-Wheeler, Mayor l�le�Pietsch,Administr�tor August 24, 2004 1VIr.Bruce Taggart,President Talbot Estates_Homeowners Association 9621 South 194"'Street Renton,WA 98055 SUBJECT: I�CENT TESTIMONY ON TH�PROPOSED EINTHONE' ANN�XATION . Dear Bruce: Thank you and members of your homeowners' association for showing the interest and taking the time to come and testify before the Reriton City Council and this annexation request in your neighborhood. I am enclosing a copy of the Renton Anriexation Report for you, which includes a lot of.useful information on the annexation process, and how annexation into:the City would affect public services and taxes homeowners would pay. Although the individual tax savings.per household even with the City's 6%utility tax is not all that great,the increase in level of service and access to local government is substantial. . Feel free to malce copies of the Annexation.Report and if your group has,questions about annexation in the future I would be more than'happy to.try and assist you. � � ` . Donald K. Ericicson,AICP/Senior Planner Strategic Planning Division; Economic Development; . Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department ��.,��e� R � 1� � o � 1055 South C'irady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 This paper contains 50%recycted materiat,30%post consumer A H E A D O F T H E C U R V E ANTHONE'ANNEXATION FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET Units Po ulation AV Existin dev. 1 3 $746,000 Full dev. 16 40 $8,000,000 Assumptions: 2.5 persons/household � $500,000 AV/new unit ................... $250,000 AV/existing unit ......................:.:...:.....:. F��u�t��s:::::::::::::: Total revenues Existin Full Rate Existing:€:':::::;:'::::$�;�7�;29: Re ular lev . $2,357 $25,280 3.16 F,ull:::::�:::��::$�1:;6��:�Q: Excess lev $66 $709 0.08865 State shared revenues Rate er ca Existin Full Li uor tax $3.52 $8.80 $140.80 Li uor Board rofits $5.04 $12.60 $201.60 Fuel tax- roads $14.46 $36.15 $578.40 Fuel tax-arterials $6.47 $16.18 $258.80 MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cam er excise $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal 'ustice $0.36 $0.90 $14.40 Total $74.63 $1,194.00 Miscellaneous revenues Rate Existin Full Real estate excise' $40.86 $102.15 $1,634.40 Utili tax"* $133.20 $133.20 $2,131.20 Fines &forteits* $18.33 $45.83 $733.20 Total $281.18 $4,498.80 * Per capita *` Per housing unit- based on $2,220 annual utility billing @ 6%tax rate :�Qs}�::::`::::::::::::::::::: Total ongoing costs � Per ca ita Existin Full Existing:?:;:;:::::::�:��Z;�'1:�;�3; Contracted Services Fu11::�:�::::::::�3D;8Q7:3�: Alcohol $0.23 $0.57 $9.08 Public Defende� $3.13 $7.84 $125.36 Jail $7.19 $17.98 $287.68 Subtotal $26.38 $422.12 Court/le al/admin. $57.08 $142.70 $2,283.20 Parks maintenance* $14.90 $37.25 $596.00 Police $270.00 $675.00 $10,800.00 � Road maintenance** N/A $500.00 $6,706 Fire*** $1.25 $932.50 $10,000.00 , Total $2,313.83 $30,807.32 "See Sheet Parks FIA **See Sheet Roads FIA "**Rate per$,1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact � Existing`:::�:::::::::::::::��5:�4G Fu I I::�:::::s:::::::::::$874:68 ;:�3iie=tiii:i�:ciists':Parks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA): Other one-time costs: $425.00 Total one-time costs::::;':::::::::::�$;527��3�: Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo � -- ------------ - -- -- ---- ------�E�� -----.- --- -- ---- -------- n�,+t . .__ .re I Annexation Review Form �u� , 4 2004 ECONOMIC DEV��ppp�F � NElGH9pR�tt3L3L� �� [X] 10% Notice of Intent [ ] 60%Annexation �'��P�an,rv,N� TO : Building Surface Water Utility Fire Water Utility Parks Wastewater Utility Police Transportation Public Works Maintenance C.i��Pl�nni�,�,r, FROM : Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning . SUBJECT . Anthone' Annexation Location : The proposed 4.84-acre rectangular shaped Antone' Annexation is located at the corner of S 55 Street (SE 192�d St) and Talbot Road South. It borders Talbot Estates on its south and Springbrook Terrace on its east. It is just north of the City's Springbrook Springs Reservoir area in the south part of the City. It appears to be at the edge of Renton's sewer and water service areas: Date Circulated: June 30'h 2004 Comments Due: Jul 9 2004 General Information Area : 4.84 acre - Street length : N/A Assessed Value : $746,000 Estimated Population : 5 people Current Uses: Residential : 2 Dwelling Units Commercial : N/A Industrial : N/A Public : N/A � . Comp Plan Designation : Residential Low Density Future Uses: : Residential Future Po ulation • 16 Dwellin Units Reviewing DepartmentlDivision: �� a�� `O u�s" 1. Does this annexation represent any unique or significant problems for your � department/division? � d 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the area? .._ _ � � - (Over) �x • �, - --------------- - - - � �� 3. Does this proposed annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your departmenUdivision? �� 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? N�-� 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) V`�� General recommendation and comments: �g-�/b� � � �� Signature. �`p"`�' �� Date: � � � � � �;�� Annexation Review Form �U� 1 2 2004 ECONi�r.,.,;,uEVc:�.u�b;ENT, PJ i=.�t=�-1 A n n i-i O(i v r [X] 10% Notice of Intent [ ] 60% Annexat '•� -u��,p��uN�NG TO : Building � Surface Water-Utility Fire Water Utility ��! Parks Wastewater Utility Police Transportation Public Works Maintenance Current Planning FROM : Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning SUBJECT . Anthone Annexation Location : The proposed 4.84-acre rectangular shaped Anthone Annexation is located at the corner of So. 55th Street (SE 192"d St.) and Talbot Road South. It borders Talbot Estates on its south and Springbrook Terrace on its east. It is just north of the City's Springbrook Springs Reservoir area in the south part of the City. It appears to be at the edge of Renton's sewer and water service areas. Date Circulated: June 30th. 2004 Comments Due: July 9, 2004 General Information Area : 4.84 acre Street length : N/A Assessed Value : $746,000 Estimated Population : 5 people Current Uses: Residential : 2 Dwelling Units Commercial : N/A Industrial : N/A Public : N/A . Comp Plan Designation : Residential Low Density Future Uses: � : Residential Future Po ulation � 16 Dwellin Units Reviewing Department/Division: SURFACE WATER UTILITY/ PBPW 1. Does this annexation represent any unique or significant problems for your department/division? The Anthone Annexation is upstream of a sensitive area in the Springbrook Creek basin. The proposed annexation area drains to Upper Springbrook Creek and is within the Black River Basin. Depending on the future storm water conveyance design, the annexation may drain into Upper Springbrook Creek upstream of the Gallagher Springbrook Trout Farm. The ponds and drainage systems of the trout farm are very sensitive to turbidity and sedimentation. The discharge of runoff with increased amounts of turbidity has previously resulted in damage to the trout farm and legal actions against the City. In addition, there are (Over) 4 ,y existing flooding problems located where Upper Springbrook Creek crosses So. 55th Street and SR-167 downstream of the proposed annexation area. For the preceding reasons, more stringent storm water flow control requirements and water quality/sediment and erosion controls would be warranted when the area is developed. 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the area? The existing storm drain facilities, for the proposed annexation area, consist of grassed ditches along So. 55th Street and Talbot Road South and are currently within the City limits. The ditch along So. 55th Street needs improvement. The ditch at Talbot Road South ends at a 24" diameter culvert, which drains to a manhole structure under Talbot Road. The annexation property itself drains storm water by means of over-land sheet flow and has no existing drainage features. 3. Does this proposed annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your department/division? Yes, the annexation represents a logical extension of the services provided by the Surface Water Utility as the abutting portions of So. 55th Street and Talbot Road are in the City of Renton, and so is the downstream portion of So. 55th Street up to the Springbrook Creek culvert under SR-167. 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? No additional maintenance cost would result since the existing roadside ditches within So. 55th Street and Talbot Road South are within the City limits. Increased staff time may be required for downstream drainage complaints, especially after the area is developed. No Surface Water Utility Capital Improvement needs are identified. It is anticipated that storm system improvements will be installed as part of any future development of the area. Increased maintenance costs will occur when the area develops and additional storm system infrastructure is constructed with new streets or along existing streets. 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? The Surface Water Utility will not assume ownership and maintenance responsibility for any existing storm systems within the proposed annexation area. No new agreements or franchises will be required. 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) No, the proposed annexation boundaries are fine. H:\File Sys\SWA-Surface Water Section Administration\SWA 26-Annexations�rthoneWnthonel0°/aRevw.doc�RJS\tb Page 2 . - General recommendation and comments: r A thorough downstream analysis is required as part of the drainage report prepared for any future development. The future development runoff will need to be controlled and managed to avoid adversely impacting the Gallagher Springbrook Trout Farm. We recommend as a condition of SEPA that any future development provide flow control per the 1990 King County SurFace Water Design Manual Standards up to the 100-yr design storm plus the 30% factor of safety, or the City adopted standard at the time of development, whichever is more restrictive. This is the standard we are currently applying to projects in the Talbot Hill area due to existing downstream flooding problems in the Talbot Hill area. If you have any questions please contact the Surface Water Utility. Signature: ` �E Date: ��/�� H:�File Sys1SWA-Surface Water Section Administration\SWA 26-Annexations�Anthone�Antl�onel0%Revw.doc�R.iS\tb Page 3 -=� t:--_,-Z---- - --- --- - ---. _ _ --- - - _--- � ------ - - - ------- - --��------ , , ,, JUN 3 0 2p04 Annexation Review Form Transportation Systems Div. [X] 10% Notice of Intent [ ] 60%Annexation Petition TO : Building Surface Water Utility Fire Water Utility Parks Wastewater Utility , Police �°Transp�Vrtata�., Public Works Maintenance Cu�rrent Planning FROM : Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning � SUBJECT . Anthone' Annexation Location : The proposed 4.84-acre rectangular shaped Antone' Annexation is located at the corner of S 55 Street (SE 192"d St) and Talbot Road South. It borders Talbot Estates on its south and Springbrook Terrace on its east. It is just north of the City's Springbrook Springs Reservoir area in the south part of the City. It appears to be at the edge of Renton's sewer and water service areas. Date Circulated: June 30th 2004 Comments Due: Jul 9 2004 General Information Area : 4.84 acre Street length : N/A Assessed Value : $746,000 Estimated Population : 5 people Current Uses: Residential : 2 Dwelling Units Commercial : N/A Industrial : N/A Public : N/A Comp Plan Designation : Residential Low Density Future Uses: ' : Residential Future Po ulation � 16 Dwellin Units Reviewing Departmen Divisio : Tra h��"a�ta h Sv s'�'c►qas 1. Does this annexation represent any unique or significant problems for your departmenddivision? ' � I�Ioo l�o„�eve� ��r�b aNd 9u�e�� sl�,ewalks� akd sfv�ee� �r�l�fk,� �10 ti°f'' exrs� . , �. D� 1'"�Ibo�' Roc� Sou� �.ad 5o�cf�n5Sf� Sfire�f�SE l9zci.e�,Sfr�ecf} $bu�1�i� �e ��ojoosed ar��a��cat�oK st-f'e. Also� dedt�a�tok o-F �9tif bf'-w�y alc�r,y �ie w�s� kal�o� '�e p�p�s@d a��exa�roH �c�he ��e��K ��rF�S�5�##G..Sfy� � Y 1r v�9urHed[k�� u�,e � ��+Gk�►P ex�st� ►�c�rl-..,,�'-w2�a�uTt��#f�e,.e�sy��o'�F�e��0�s�d �He�a�r•k srfe. 2. Are you aware of any p�obl s or defici ncies in xisting infrastruc ure or s rvi e provision to the area? ��5. �u►�°!o atid9ut�e� si�1 ew��llcs�.a�,d s��.�' /�9�i�'e�9 do �,c�'ex.ts�"at� Ta(do�'Ro�S.Bw�, �wd Sou-(� sstkV s�heet�sE 19�►d sfh�-J �o�� f�ePro�,cse� aHnexa�l-so� .sy��, .�lso,t�b.adw�Y ._ Gu�d� �.hd p�ve�►e��'�G►«kk�ss o� -�ese�1"r�� do no� t�►e�� 4 f�y o�F��Z �e cunveK� "s�z►�da►,d; � . vidrK de�`ccrc�►�- a� or �H�'al�afas�o�"r��ok-��x�sfa�,�"�"f"v��F l��as��4Cfzc+��►"�.d l � �Y`�cw s�� w6f6►« -�lac akne.tafre� s��'e would ,6e �'f"�Ce. e��e•�se �t�V�4u�1 p r�opcYty d�v� �a�t fo�• �t� d cvelop�,e��t �' '�.' - - -- - ;-",. ---=—- -- --- ---- 3. Does this proposed annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your department/division? ye s. 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? e�ddd��oxal -E'ra�,spovtzfiQw s�-s-�� vo�lQ�ao'f'b1e �►u�drd. u/r,yaad�n� c%�'��a'�'ak� ��s�6(a-�to� o� h�-eXCS�'=A'� S'�c'f'/k�BS�'k�7'W�'d!akS�ef"s �[t .!. �t/os�a3� 8M�1CX8'�7aK, Sl��,akda�Y n�w 5��+�0�a+�u fi�e s�fcJ cvduld6e 2�'�e e}�e�� a��ldu�I pv�oPer�(yF �wk,erS s6� YI�J de��'p ew. . ��e�y c.bs!-s asso«�.-I�d �,u�fk awy ,�tw s�e�' �r k�ia� a,�d cbs�' �sSbcta��v�� ffie,��,f-cKa�.ce e�paa��w��arki��.�•�ds�aa��e��'�arLe dKcur,t►�;byfi� G�fy� a�F��a�� 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed sk°`��6t by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this �'�d'�uZl annexation? b4�x:- 'J'�o. T�lbof' �oa.� �.�� au,� So'��c SSfk S�ee� ab.�ffi�► �e a�t�exa�t�t S'��'� � urd �� fic I�e��h Ci�r ��s o . � t � c.�n y � ;�'lo �ecv �.�.s�raaf�.taon-.�.(�f��l a��e�cKf-s av-�'v�akc.�irs�es wa.u. l��-e v��trc�ed as a �esu l¢ �-F�+� p�/�es�d a.�chcxa��a�t. 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) I.ve. k�v. � h o Lokce�n5 wc� -¢li� �Ov�oPos�d bou��res� General recommendation and comments: �e T�ahspo�fa�i'a� Sys-��.�.s .�c v�s«� ��S' h0 �oH�ce��rs V'��:�� i.tl�ie.�'l%�er -�,te� �o�pose� a��e�!ca�"�o�� :c�oes� �� l�oes Ko o�c ce 1�', Signature: �d'U''G��l.x Date: �/�/4� Drvcs�ew Revaew l�o+d�nafev ..��.._. M.__....,. �.�._... ..,.�...�,. �..��.... _ .�.� £Donald Erickson -Anthone Annexation/LUA 05-025 A PZ ECF Pa�e 1 , ., . _M�,,,,�. �..�,.�,.,�.M..__,._,_...__._..�,,_ __..��_.,�..��.�.,_„�..,�,_m,�r_w...w, ��m..,�,_. ._._..��,� ...._ ,.�._....w. _ ` a, From: Willa Link<linkmw@yahoo.com> To: <derickson@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 03/24/2005 2:11:19 PM Subject: Anthone Annexation/LUA-05-025, A, PZ, ECF Don, I contacted you on 3/17/05, regarding the prezone � notice for the subject expanded annexation: My name is Michael Link and I am the current President of the Springbrook Terrace Homeowners Association. I appreciate your taking the time to talk with me on the 17th and send me additional information. Our Homeowners Board has further questions on the subject of our Association being annexed by the City of Renton. We are not sure of what or how to inform our membership and who to contact on specific topics after annexation. Do you have any further informatiorr on the annexation schedule? I would appreciate any assistance or information on ��following questions: Does Renton se�nd out information to newly annexed ��'J. areas, beyond the Renton Annexation Report you U ready sent me? , �How is the house number/street identification p cess coordinated? �'� ��iow are changes to services such as electricity, gas, phone, cable and water coordinated. What are �� i eowner responsibilities?Who do they contact? 4.� ho would the Association contact about Fire Lane marking determination, parking on a 1/2 width road and � ffic Enforcement? � 5��ho do we contact about maintenance responsibility � � r�our roads and sidewalks? � �%�ho would decide about City of Renton vs � /`f�sociation responsibilities for the"strip of land designated as Open Space and "Tract C" in our governing documents? (This area is also designated as Greenbelt on City of Renton maps.)We currently pay to have part of that area maintained, but the majority of the area is steep slope, covered in blackberries. We have considered trying to remove more of the blackberries and replacing them with other vegetation, but we have a concern over erosion. / 7. Who would be a good contact for info on the ��(�1 eigfiborhood Program? � Thanks for any information you can provide. Our next Board meeting�is Monday, March 28, at 7:OOpm. If you have an opportunity'to email'me any response prior to then,�we will discuss the info at the meeting. Mike Link� ` ' President;Springbrook Terrace Homeowners Association (STHA) � . _ - __,_ �N_.�.�� ___.... _.�. _�.�..__.. __ �� 9 Donald Erickson-Anthone AnnexatioNLUA-05-025, A, PZ, ECF Pa�e 2�' _ .,. _ .�.�_..._.. . _ ,_...r. _ �s /.� 19249 98th PI S Renton, WA. 98055-6348 (253) 854-5083 CG: Gary F Bergan <gary.f.bergan@f22.boeing.com>, ken hayashi <hkenhayashi@msn.com>, MichaelNVilla Link <linkmw@yahoo.com>, Pam Trautman <ptrautman@foxinternet.com>, Rachel Tyndall <dee_lite_98001 @yahoo.com> , Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Don Erickson,Project Manager,Strategic Planning Division,EDNSP Department,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on March 28,2005. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail,contact the . Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automaticaliy become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. , CONTACT PERSON: DON ERICKSON(425)430-6581 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION : 5. 3 a -�_ . �ao 5 �� I S 55*+� � � �"�"�x��{kp,-��;,�T�, sc�+�i�rc � ��r�x�� . In �� S '�,.°a q.��ry-yY}�,,,,� 7 ��. ,��' � �� I uV ��v�� { I �c�ti�'s6�i�'Y� ��'�� C.� I , , � �� . Lll,t"1^! � 4 b �� . � ��C� i �r .. § X � �;� � �Y.. . P. �` :Y''��L � .yY"� � L W. � �' . � � ,. ,_ ,...... . . .. � � . � �� . � ��i� Fa s. . � � P�oposed Anthone`:Ann.exation o zoo 400 ; Neighborf�ood Detail Map - + Ecocwmc Dnx�opoco�NtlyhbahooEs R Suamgle PWmm� — �m�^� 1 :2400 . .� � . �.wrd.aw�.o � PmPosedAme:Area . �no°r1.a.�'man � PmposCQE�aiMed'AnnexArea , . . . ..1 . . ... j If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project,complete - � this form and return to:City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055. i File No.Mame: LUA-05-025,A,PZ,ECF/Anthone A�nexation&Vicinity Prezone '� NAME: ��' V C/ � ADDRESS: �-1.�� Fx L u)�1� �� fl��Yv1 V��G �i G`� TELEPHONE NO.: .� �' d�, '�� NOA 05-025.doc � King County Department ot Assessments Scott Noble King County Administration Bldg. ASSeSSO�• 500 Fourth Avenue,Room 708 Seattle,WA 98104-2384 (20�296-5195 FAX(20�296-0595 Eenail:assessor.Info@metrokc.gov ww�sv.metrokc.gov/assessor/ ANNEXATION PETITION CERTIFICATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the petition submitted July 6, 2004 to the , King County Department of Assessments by Don Erickson, Senior Planner for the City of Renton, supporting the annexation to Renton , of the properties described as the Anthone' Annexation, has been examined, the property taxpayers, tax parcel numbers, and assessed value of properties listed thereon carefully compared with the King County tax roll records, and as a result of such examination, found to be sufficient under the provisions of the New Section of Revised Code of Washington, Section 35..13.002: . - . � � The Department of Assessments has not verified that the signature � , on the petiti.on is valid through comparison with any record of actual sig�aa�ures, nor that the signature was obtained or submitted in an a,��x�priate time frame, and this document does not certify such to b� ��e case. f j ' � Dated this 12� day of July, 2004 _ � � - Scott Noble, King ounty Assessor .. . , . � _, - , �, ; ��1202M ' ' ��`'�'`�'}. r'� �%�.:�'}.'�'x`'*, �'� � �'�"s�j�``�.�`>� ;�' Q� �3�3 p�.�d- - �� '' P y b� , �`'x,.° �=s, Oq Ji�,`�i�s'O �:,�"�� ! a.y�' 'Yy ��s� �� o�� .,� �� ,