Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA97-028
;• yi,_ .. . _ CITE: ,1)F RENTON ;fT��n..nY• ..LLt Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman May 6, 1997 Mr. Howard Seelig Mr. Martin Seelig P.O. Box 1925 Bellevue, WA 98009 Re: Request for Reconsideration of Appeal of Administrative Conditional Use for Nextel Communications Facility File No. LUA-97-0a8,AAD Gentlemen: This office has reviewed your request for reconsideration. A re-examination of the existing record does not demonstrate that the decision should either be reversed or modified,nor does the existing record invite the submission of any additional evidence as suggested by the request for reconsideration. The opportunity to demonstrate error was provided at the original public hearing. As noted,the record did not reflect sufficient evidence which would permit a change to the decision given in the original Report and Decision dated April 8, 1997. If you are not satisfied with this determination,you may appeal to Superior Court as outlined in the original decision. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner FJK:mm cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Mayor's Executive Assistant Larry Warren, City Attorney Gregg Zimmermann,PB/PW Administrator Mark Pywell,Project Manager Parties of Record 200 Mill Avenue South- Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2593 0 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer • • 1110 Seelig Family Properties ISIOVED April 21, pri121, 1997 Mr.Fred Kaufman APR 2 2 1997 Hearing Examiner City of Renton MY Of RENTON 200 Mill Avenue, South HEARING EXAM NER Renton,WA 98005 Re: Reconsideration of Decision on Appeal of LUA-97-006 ACU Dear Mr.Kaufman, Please accept this letter as our written request for reconsideration of the above referenced appeal as afforded in the decision of April 8, 1997. Reconsideration is requested based upon the following: 1. Expert testimony of Mr.Martin Seelig,a licensed real estate broker in Washington State,was not adequately considered regarding devaluation of appellant's property adjacent to the proposed site. No consideration has been given to property devaluation stemming from"perceived radiation hazards"by the general public. Such perceptions have a distinct effect on property values regardless of the bipolar scientific opinions voiced in current ongoing national debates. The radiation debates rage on and so does the"perception"of danger,and thus the devaluation of our property continues. 2. Mitigation for the devaluation mentioned above can be achieved through the City of Renton adding special requirements to the Administrative Conditional Use Land Use Action of February 17, 1997. These special requirements are: • a. Require the applicant,at appellant's option and subject to appellant's prior approval,to place non-RF-conducting flags on the proposed whip antennas so as to give them the appearance of flag poles. b. The antennas shall be updated at such time as new technology is available which will reduce visual impacts. c. No modifications which increase visual impacts from existing antennas or antennas.under subject conditional use application be allowed. Further,no more antennas will be allowed on the subject Shurgard group of buildings or related land. d. Shurgard shall,to extent allowed under present easements for access applicable to said Shurgard site,allow appellant or their successors to use said easements for access to and from the appellant's adjacent property. At your earliest convenience we will attend a Reconsideration hearing and amplify upon the above. Consistent with this letter request in response to your April 8, 1997 Report and Decision letter,we assume we have not eroded the twenty day time period for any appeal to the Superior Court of Washington of King County. If in fact,the Superior Court"appeal clock"is running concurrent with the fourteen day"reconsideration clock",please notify us immediately. Respectfully submitted, /3"e--0 Howard L. Seelig Martin A. Seelig Phone: 206-454-0885„ Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1925 Street Address: 1309 114th SE,Suite 107 Fax: 206-451-8203 Bellevue,WA 98009 Bellevue,WA 98009 Eastside Journal EDITORIAL BOARD Peter A.Horvitz,Publisher Barbara Morgan,Editor Opinion Craig Groshart,Editorial Page Editor Mary Ballantine,Community Representative Do ris Schuler,Community Representative Published by King County Journal Newspapers Tuesday, April 22, 199 - Letters CELL TOWERS Time now to comment • on this growing concern There is currently an ordinance before the King County Council that is being pushed by the cellular indus- try concerning the construction of cellular towers.It is Communications Ordinance 96-938 and it would allow cellular towers to be built within 100 feet of any residence without asking for public comment. if approved, these towers could be built in our neighborhood regardless of public opposition.The Growth Management Committee is currently accepting public comment through tomorrow. Our Juanita neighborhood is being subjected to just such a tower. Sprint Spectrum has leased land to build a 100 foot cellular tower with up to 12- panel antennae and a 4-foot microwave dish. Located adjacent to the tower would be five-self con- tained cabinets, each 5 feet high by 2.5 feet square.The surrounding area is all residential except for an auto repair business that was there before the land was re-zoned. Sprint doesn't care if it our view, 1pwers our property e or even the health concerns on microwave emissions. Our elected officials don't seem to care either. Royce L.Timothy Bothell AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of King ) MARILYN MOSES ,being first duly sworn,upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 8th day of April ,1997, affiant deposited in the mail of the United States a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. C /J Signature: l C�' ✓` z SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 0 C L day of40,d_, 1997. of Publi d or the State of Washington, resi ing at ,therein. Application, Petition, or Case No.: Appeal of Admin. Conditional Use for Nextel Communication Facility LUA-97-028,AAD The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record • • HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT • April 8, 1997 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: Howard Seelig Martin Seelig File No.: LUA97-028,AAD LOCATION: 1755 NE 48th SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeal of Administrative Conditional Use for installation of communication antennas by Nextel Communications Facility PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the March 25, 1997 hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,March 25, 1997, at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal, Exhibit No.2: Letter to Hearing Examiner from proof of posting and publication,and other Tom Donnelly dated March 25, 1997 documentation pertinent to the appeal. Exhibit No.3: Series of photographs Exhibit No.4: Memorandum from Long Range Planning Parties are: Appellants,Howard Seelig and Martin Seelig P.O.Box 1925 Bellevue,Washington 98009 Representing the City of Renton Mark Pywell 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 Representing the applicant David Hall 1920 E. Calhoun Seattle,WA 98112 Howard Seelig Martin Seelig Appeal of Nextel Communications Systems File No.: LUA97-028,AAD April 8, 1997 Page 2 The Examiner explained that the hearing was an administrative appeal held pursuant to Ordinances 3071 and 3809,and was the only administrative review to occur on the matter. The matter may be submitted back to the Examiner for reconsideration if the parties are not satisfied with the decision. The appeal by writ of review is to Superior Court. He stated that the appellant had the burden of demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous,and would have to show clear and convincing evidence that the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so. The applicant to this proceeding would also be given an opportunity to respond. Howard Seelig.,one of the appellants, stated that they had submitted written descriptions of the reason for their appeal, and added additional points. There are currently three sets of antennas from three different companies which could mechanically and electronically work for more than one company. There is a policy that states that the same structure should be used for more than one utility. He stated that there are radiation hazards associated with the antennas that have not been scientifically evaluated in total,but there is known hazard from radiation. Appellants have the adjacent property and do plan to use it so that radiation hazards would adversely affect them. There is considerable economic benefit to whoever allows his or her property to be used for these antennas, so there is no question that their neighbors are motivated. Appellants' outlook is that there is no question they are a detriment to their property and the policy of the City of Renton of equitably sharing in the burden of these things should be applied in this case. They are bearing the entire burden of antennas for their neighborhood,and the proposal here is to add yet further. Martin Seelig, an appellant herein, stated that regarding the use of a particular property involved in a neighborhood business,these antennas are definitely for more regional use. He also stated that the antenna themselves can be put inside buildings. It might require reconstruction of the building,but in terms of being electronically feasible, it can be done. It might be more costly,but certainly there is economic benefit to be derived by Shurgard from the antenna companies. Mark Pywell, on behalf of the City,stated that this facility is exempt from SEPA;therefore,the City's review rights are limited to existing ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan(CP). At the pre-application stage the long range planning section did review the project and declared it to be consistent with the CP and specific to policies in regards to the siting and location of telecommunication facilities, and the allocation of existing structures and towers. Staff reviewed the administrative conditional use permit and found it to be consistent with the CP and City zoning. It is considered a medium utility which means that as an administrative conditional use permit it is allowable within the area and the site where this is being located. Regarding possible radiation from this facility, at this time there is no quantifiable data on this in regards to the electromagnetic field. There have been a number of studies,but they have come out on both sides of the issue. The City has no policies nor any ordinance addressing that. The City in reviewing the administrative conditional permit did look at the aesthetic impacts and the protection of health and safety and found that this facility and the use of an existing site was consistent with its policies in spreading the towers out through the neighborhood. Staff supports the location of this facility within the existing site as a means of limiting their impact upon the entire neighborhood. The majority of this facility and the mechanical equipment that is associated with these antennas would be located inside the building and that only the antennas themselves are being attached to the roof of the structure. This again will limit to the extent possible the impact of this facility. Staff has in the past looked at sharing a structure between different utilities,but it is a sharing of the structure, not the antenna or signaling device itself. City has looked at requiring or encouraging the co-location on a Howard Seelig • • Martin Seelig jAppeal of Nextel Communications Systems File No.: LUA97-028,AAD April 8, 1997 Page 3 single tower of more than one antenna. With some of the utility providers there has been acceptance of that issue; others have resisted it and indicated that they need up to 50 foot vertical separation from their particular antennas to the next antenna. David Hall,attorney for the applicant, stated that the alternative for Nextel if it is not allowed to co-locate on this building,would be to construct a separate support tower to mount these same three omni-directional whip antennas. It would have to be in the same general area,probably still visible from the appellants' property. In the site selection process,the area is narrowed down to a fairly small area based on topography and other physical barriers so that the antennas can communicate with other facilities in the system by line of sight. That is an absolute physical constraint on these facilities. They have to be able to communicate with the user's handsets and with other towers or antennas on a line of sight basis,which is why it is not possible to locate the facility inside the building. The support equipment is located entirely within the building,with only the antennas and the small mounting structures on top of the building. For that same reason the ability to screen the actual antennas is fairly limited. These omni-directional whip antennas are three inches in diameter and 12 feet tall. Unlike some of the panels that are already on top of the building,these whip antennas will not be very visible. Regarding radiation hazards,Mr.Hall stated that that entire area has been preempted by federal law,the Telecommunications Act of 1996,vesting complete authority to regulate telecommunications facility based on alleged health or environmental effects with the FCC. The FCC has promulgated standards based on generally accepted standards,primarily the ANSI standards. Studies have shown that the power density created by this type of facility is just orders of magnitude below the.threshold that would allow even the FCC to regulate them. These facilities,unlike some other types of transmission facilities such as radio and TV towers,operate at extremely low power levels and in a range of the electromagnetic spectrum more or less between 800 and 900 megahertz. The appellants mention that this is really a regional use and it certainly is a regional system. Those regional benefits should be weighed in this process,but for our purposes this particular site is also a very local use. It would provide enhanced coverage to a very localized area. The reason that it is being placed here is to provide adequate coverage along the I-405 corridor and the Kennydale area. In fact it is a requirement of Nextel's FCC license that they do provide what is called seamless coverage and this site will go a long ways towards providing coverage on a very local level. Tom Donnelly,Matthews Land Company, 50 116th Avenue,#120,Bellevue,Washington 98004, spoke as a consultant to Nextel Communications in seeking the approval of this conditional use permit. Nextel Communications is a nation-wide telecommunications service provider and provides a communications service called an enhanced specialized mobile radio facility,ESMR for short. This facility is a mobile radio that you typically see cell phone users using on the highway and grocery stores or wherever. It goes far beyond that, however,and it also includes paging services. It also includes capability of the conventional two-way walkie- talkie system which would enable one user to communicate with 5, 10, 50 or more people at one time. In this sense it allows for the direct communications of multiple individuals in a variety of situations. It combines several uses into one. The method used to evaluate the locations for this service is based on several criteria. Not only is this a regional system, it is a nation-wide system. Each system is based on an integrated cell that has to be linked with others. The cells are mandated by the FCC to provide seamless coverage across a certain region. Several factors looked at are elevation to obtain good distribution of the signal,uninterrupted Howard Seelig Martin Seelig Appeal of Nextel Communications Systems File No.: LUA97-028,AAD April 8, 1997 Page 4 coverage,and also to check for obstructions so that even if the height is good,there must not be other buildings, trees or other features in the way to obstruct the signal. When examining the feasibility of the site,Mr Donnelly stated that they look for features which will minimize environmental impacts that may occur through construction and they look for features that will minimize impacts on the community through the aesthetic impacts of building the equipment. Where at all possible they have a priority to locate facilities on existing structures. In summary,Mr. Donnelly reiterated that this project is a benefit to the community through providing excellent expanded communication services to individuals,businesses and governmental agencies. This can be accomplished in a way which is beneficial to the community and their concerns by minimizing visual impact, and it is also a benefit in terms of minimizing environmental damage through the construction of other uses. James Gibson, 13310 79th Place NE,Kirkland,Washington 98034,testified as a realtor for the applicant. He stated that he had inspected the proposed site for the facility and did see the three existing antennas on the structure. After looking at the surrounding neighborhood and the proposed facility within that district,he stated that the proposed facility is compatible due to it being predominantly commercial in nature. The surrounding uses are basically commercial,retail centers;there are multi-family developments to the northeast and to the south of the proposed facility. Mr. Gibson stated that in general the highest impact upon the area is the proximity of the facility and the surrounding area to the I-405 corridor. The noise from the freeway has a greater impact upon property values than a cell tower facility which does not stick up and raise attention the way a freeway does. Over all there is no market evidence that would indicate that a cell tower would have an impact upon the surrounding property values, given the fact there are three antennas already there. It has become a part of the accepted surrounding community. Closing arguments were then presented by Howard Seelig and David Hall,and their comments reiterated their previous statements. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 10:19 a.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS&DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellants,Howard L. Seelig and.Martin A. Seelig,hereinafter appellants, filed an appeal of an administrative determination approving a conditional use permit for Nextel Communications, hereinafter Nextel,for a series of transceiving antennas(File No.ACU-097-006). 2. The administrative conditional use permit,if ultimately approved,would allow Nextel,the underlying applicant,to construct an array of three(3)antennas on the roof of a mini-storage complex located at 1755 NE 48th Street in the City of Renton. The site is at the extreme north end of the City just east of Lake Washington Boulevard and I-405. Howard Seelig Martin Seelig Appeal of Nextel Communications Systems File No.: LUA97-028,AAD April 8, 1997 Page 5 2. The appellants own property that is immediately east of where the antennas will be located. They allege that the proliferation of antennas on the roof of this adjacent structure is impairing their property value and may in some fashion jeopardize the health and safety of people who might be located on the appellants'property. 3. The challenged Conditional Use Permit would permit the installation of an antenna array on the roof of an existing building. The proposed antennas support cellular or digital communications systems including phone and pager services. The building on which they would be erected already supports a series of antennas from other cellular phone providers. The record reflects that there are three series of antennas on top of the building. 4. The appellants allege that the proliferation of antennas on the building is unsightly and will reduce their property value. They did not introduce any evidence of devaluation. 5. The appellants also allege that these antennas can produce adverse impacts on health through the generation of electromagnetic fields. They did not introduce any evidence of adverse health impacts. 6. The record reflects that the applicant will be meeting federal standards for any electromagnetic emissions and the ANSI standards. The threshold power is very low. Even the synergistic affects have been considered when the other antennas are coupled together with proposed antennas or the impacts of signals reflected off surrounding topography or structures. 7. A real estate agent reviewed the proposal,the site and surrounding area and the zoning. He concluded that the noise from I-405 would have the most impact on property values. There is no evidence that these antennas would lessen property values and the fact that there are already three sets would substantially diminish or dilute the economic consequences, if any,of this additional set. 8. Staff issued an approval of the Administrative Conditional Use. In general,they found the proposed complex compatible with the surrounding area since the only exterior evidence are three 12 foot tall,3 inch diameter antennas that look like poles. All supporting equipment will be contained within the building complex within storage lockers. 9. The appellants also argued that the co-locational criteria should require the use of the same antenna structure rather than merely locating all of these antennas on the same building creating a visual blight. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The appellants have the burden of demonstrating that the Administrative Conditional Use decision was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions,or was arbitrary and capricious(Section 4-3011(B)(1)(b). The appellants have.failed to demonstrate that the decision should be modified or reversed. The decision is affirmed. 2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision,when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious(Northern Pacific Transport Co.v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission,69 Wn.2d 472,478(1966)). Howard Seelig Martin Seelig Appeal of Nextel Communications Systems File No.: LUA97-028,AAD April 8, 1997 Page 6 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn.2d 255, 259(1969)). 4. The appellants have failed to demonstrate that the decision was founded upon anything but a fair review of the conditional use provisions as it pertains to the proposed use. The appellants have failed to demonstrate with cogent evidence that a mistake was made. 5. The appellants did not introduce any documentation or other hard evidence regarding the proposed use. Anecdotal evidence is insufficient to convince this office that a mistake has been committed. Nothing in the co-locational criteria requires antennas to share the same physical post or column or tower. While this office might agree that the proliferation of antennas is not very aesthetic,that is not enough to reverse the decision below. 6. Since the burden of demonstrating error is on the appellants,this office can reach no other conclusion but that staff made the correct determination. The decision below must be affirmed. DECISION: The appeal is denied. ORDERED THIS 8th day of April, 1997. \CCIL4, FRED J.KAU1N HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 8th day of April, 1997 to the parties of record: Howard Seelig Mark Pywell David Hall Martin Seelig 200 Mill Avenue South 1920 E. Calhoun P.O. Box 1925 Renton,WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98112 Bellevue, WA 98009 Tom Donnelly James Gibson Matthews Land Company 13310 79th Place NE 50 116th Avenue,#120 Kirkland, WA 98034 Bellevue, WA 98004 Howard Seelig Martin Seelig Appeal of Nextel Communications Systems File No.: LUA97-028,AAD April 8, 1997 Page 7 TRANSMI YI hD THIS 8th day of April, 1997 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Administrator Members,Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson,Development Services Director Art Larson,Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney James Chandler,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Mayor's Executive Assistant Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler South County Journal Pursuant to Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,April 22, 1997. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact,error in judgment,or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. Appeal of the Examiner's decision is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 11, which requires that such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within twenty (20) days from the date of the decision. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. • MATTHEWS, . Land Company March'25, 1'997 : i Mr. Fred J.'Kaufmari, Hearing'Examiner . City of Renton _ 200.Mill Avenue South . Renton,`.WA'98055,` 'Re Conditional Use Permit A eal Hearing <` - l?p Nextel Coinniunications Telecommunications Facility Kennydale/Surgard Storage Site (WA 0049-1) File No.'LUA-97-008,AAD: On behalf of Nextel'':Communications; "Matthews-;Land Company, 'Inc. .is 'requesting • approval a',Conditional.Use Permit for a proposed Enhanced Specialized Mobile''Radio '(ESMR)transceiving facility on'a.site known as Kennydale/Surgard Storage. 'The:ESMR facility.will .consist of construction of three (3).omni-directional antennas attached'-to;the ; rooftop of an existing storage facility at:1755 NE 48"':Street in the city,of:Renton: In'. : - "addition, the project _will'include associated electronic equipment to be enclosed, in existing storage space'on site. . : , Nextel's ESMR technology has,-been:designed;to'provide'the greatest efficiency and user ; friendliness in mobile communications'to date: Digital technology:allows up to,'six times , the;number of:users 'than' does the current analog-cellular telephone::.system, thereby. - • making the individual:.base' stations,•within a,system network'much more efficient and cost effective....•At the same'time, ESMR permits'a user to broadcast messages'.to.multiple handsets,such-as with taxi,police,•fire and transit services: Similar to.th&cellular'telephone system,Nextel's:ESMR network design is,a collection of ground sites,called base,stations,that form a cellular.grid pattern covering a geographical area.. This objective,,,is. :enhanced. by the"FCC requirement to..provide, continuous, ` uninterrupted,cellular'service to the public: : The.'following ,provides an outline .of the methodology.:and criteria, in selecting-the-proposed "project site, as.:well as' an assessment of the concerns expressed as a result of the proposed project ' Matthews Land.Company,Inc. '421 W: Riverside,Suite 665:.' Spokane,'Washington 0920.1,:•;'.509.838•"9500' Fax 50,9.838�'•9888: °!.: Nextel Communications Kennydale/Shurgard Storage Site March 25, 1997 Page 2 SITE SELECTION The need for a new ESMR site is dictated by capacity and coverage requirements for a particular geographic area. Once the need for a new site has been established, Nextel's system engineers identify a target area within which to locate a facility. Within the target area, a specific site will be selected based upon a variety of factors. These include local topography and geography, mitigation of the antenna-mounting structure's visual impact, compatibility of the facility with existing land uses, and the ability to negotiate a mutually beneficial lease with a landlord. Because ESMR signals must travel in an unobstructed path from one facility to another, the presence of any one or all of these physical elements can negatively influence the quality of transmissions and reception. The height and location of each Nextel site is, therefore, based upon the ability of the site to effectively function despite those obstacles. Using the above criteria, the proposed site at 1755 NE 48th Street has been selected for its ability to provide superior telecommunications service to users along the I-420 corridor in the north Renton area, while minimizing potential impacts to the community and the environment. The elevation of the Surgard Storage building above the I-405 corridor, in combination with the site's existing commercial character, allows Nextel to construct the proposed rooftop ESMR facilities with minimal visible support structure. The nature of the building as a storage facility further enables equipment to be located in a storage unit that will not be visible from the outside. As a result, this site will greatly improve Nextel's ability to provide the highest quality of uninterrupted service to its users, be sensitive to environemental and community concerns, and to comply with network buildout requirements specified by the FCC. CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL PLANS AND POLICIES As indicated in the Report and Decision issued by the City of Renton on February 17, 1997, the proposed project has been reviewed and found to be consistent with the following components of the city's plans and ordinances: Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code & Other Ordinances Comprehensive Plan: The proposed project has been found to be consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies U-1, U-4, and U-5, which relate to consistency with existing and proposed development, Nextel Communications Kennydale/Shurgard Storage Site March 25, 1997 Page 3 regulation of potential environmental hazards, and the appropriate locations for siting, construction, and operation of utility systems. Zoning Code: The proposed project would result in antennas that reach a height of 55 feet above ground elevation. The proposed project would be consistent with the Arterial Commercial (CA) code that allows structures to exceed the 50-foot height limit with a conditional use permit. • Community Need Detrimental Concentration of Uses: The proposed project has been found by staff to be "an excellent site" for antenna installation along the I-405 corridor, and not to result in a detrimental concentration of uses in the immediate area. Effect on Adjacent Properties Affects on Adjacent Properties: The city staff has determined that the proposed project will not constitute a detrimental over concentration of a particular use. Suitability of Proposed Location for the Proposed Use: The city staff has determined that the proposed project would not be highly visible as you travel this area. Lot Coverage: The city staff has recognized in its evaluation that there will be no additional lot coverage beyond that approved as part of the original site plan for Shurgard Storage. Setbacks: The staff report indicates that the existing buildings meet the required setbacks. Height Requirements: The height of the proposed antennas will be approximately 55 feet from ground level. City staff recognizes that this height can be approved as part of a conditional use permit in order to allow a clear line of sight between the antennas and handsets in the target transceiving area. • Nextel Communications Kennydale/Shurgard Storage Site March 25, 1997 Page 4 Compatibility With Residential Scale and Neighborhood Character: City staff has indicated in their review and findings that properties directly adjacent to the subject site also are zoned for commercial land uses, and that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area. PUBLIC BENEFIT Nextel's facility will provide significant benefits to the public at large. The public has come to expect and depend upon effective, advanced wireless services to meet its communications needs. It is important to have a wireless technology that can meet service demands and emergency reporting and response requirements if phone lines are down after a storm, or in case of a power failure. This site will greatly improve Nextel's ability to provide the highest quality of uninterrupted service to its users and comply with network buildout requirements as specified by the Federal Communications Commission. Construction of Nextel's ESMR facilities at the proposed site also would benefit the community and surrounding environment by locating antennas in an area where similar equipment already exists, thereby precluding the need to construct individual towers at various sites throughout the community. CONCERNS OF APPEALLANT Equitable Distribution of Costs Costs associated with construction of the proposed project will be born exclusively by Nextel Communications. No public funds will used for the project. Collocation of telecommunications facilities is a key concern used in selecting a possible site for ESMR facilities. The subject site is commercial in nature and contains other antennas comparable to those proposed by Nextel Communications. The construction of three omni antennas as part of the proposed project will not result in a substantial increase in the number of antennas at this site, and will not result in a devaluation of costs of adjacent properties. Visual Impact The proposed project is located in an area zoned for arterial commercial uses. Views of site as well as distant views from adjacent properties are of existing commercial uses. The construction of three omni antennas,which are approximately three inches in • Nextel Communications Kennydale/Shurgard Storage Site March 25, 1997 Page 5 diameter and 12' 6" in height, will not substantially impact view of the project site, nor have a significant impact on distant views of areas beyond the project site. Location of the proposed project at the subject site also will result in a positive benefit by eliminating the need to construct a separate tower in another portion of the community. In summary, businesses, local governments, emergency service agencies and citizens in the Renton area will benefit from a reliable and effective ESMR communications system to support economic growth and emergency preparedness. The proposed facility is essential to providing wireless communications coverage within the Renton area, primarily along the I-405 corridor. I believe this information will be helpful in your review of this application. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please feel free to contact me at (206) 818-1104. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Thomas J. Donnelly Land Use Consultant cc: Mary Murdoch, Systems Development Manager, Nextel Communications, Inc. CITY OF RENTON MAR 3.1 1997 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE MATTHEWS Land Company TRANSMITTAL TO: Mr. Fred Kaufman - Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Ave. South Renton, WA 98055 FROM: Tom Donnelly Matthews Land Company 50 116th Avenue, Suite 120 Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: File No. LUA-97-008,AAD DATE: 3/31/97 Enclosed please find four photo reproductions of the project site proposed by Nextel Communications at the Shurgard Storage facility, 1755 NE 48th Street, Renton. These photographs were referenced in my presentation at the public hearing held on March 25, • 1997, and were entered into the record as an Exhibit. The intent of these photos is to depict the location of the proposed antennas atop the Shurgard Storage facility,the location and spatial relationship of similar antennas currently located at that site, as well as show existing views of the proposed project from off-site locations. As'I indicated in my testimony, I believe the proposed project will have negligible impact on the view of the project site,will not result in a detrimental impact on the aesthetics of the existing site,and it will not adversely affect the economic viability of surrounding properties. For your files,please note that as of April 1, 1997 Matthews Land Company has relocated its offices to Bellevue. Our new address and phone number are as follows: Matthews Land Company 50 116th Avenue, Suite 120 Bellevue, WA 98004 (206) 453-9500 Please address any questions or correspondence regarding this project to me at this new address. Thank you for your consideration. • S WA0049-1/KENNYDALE/SHURGARD STORAGE Travelers INN ; .ft 4.0,. -a F'. - , 1 II 1/1 0 1111 WOW 11111111 h !r i i i I 1 I 1 rt. 4' ali�'r ♦ 11 . . ..i., L: . I.. urn., • 3 - +►a 4•-• r .... •.ice►- .... lik `; thdli MATTHEWS VfIEW OF PROJECT SITE LOOKING NOR11111EAST Land Company \l, , 3 WA0049-1/KENNYDALE/SHURGARD STORAGE F -- .� r,r_.. .- 4. v' J 4 • • ` , � , -•analrgii:: "'••••......LIIIIIIIII .... .:"~.. "''' NW . . . .3 ;c: • - ' ` .•ic.: `,+fairy , . .. - -...-..x.so ali MATTHEWS VIEW OF PROJECT SITE LOOKING SOUTHWEST Land Company w Xk. 3 • 0 WA0049-1/KENNYDALE/SHURGARD STORAGE `,.. , ., ,. . . M ! . I... . , J , ri : 1 t, • I �. ` �i ---.. .•iceIll- • .M 4, '++4's•.,y,. ,may-: �� ..l • ♦`A - '" R, - &Ai' MATTHEWS VIEW OF PROJECT SITE LOOKING SOUTHEAST Land Company L-kh3 WA0049-1/KENNYDALE/SHURGARD STORAGE 1 i 1 ' ..�,..�- N .,. _ Fr ' K M • kelli MATTHEWS VIEW OF PROJECT SITE LOOKING SOUTHWEST LandCompany ekIi3 MOIL • • CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS • MEMORANDUM • DATE: December 31, 1996 TO: Mark Pywell FROM: Rebecca Lind �4. STAFF CONTACT: Owen Dennison(277-2475) SUBJECT: NEXTEL Mobile Radio Facility Preapplication (96-88) - Long Range Planning Comments The site is designated Employment Area - Commercial (EAC) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The proposal does not appear to conflict with the EAC policies. • Wireless communication relay stations must be sited with regard to topographic and geographic factors more than mapped land use designations. As with other utility uses, no areas of the City are specified for this use in the Comprehensive Plan. The following Utility Element policies address cellular facilities: Policy U-100. Require that the siting and location of telecommunications facilities be accomplished in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on the environment and adjacent land uses. Policy U-101. Require that cellular communication structures and towers be sensitively sited and • designed to.diminish aesthetic impacts, and be collocated on existing structures and towers wherever possible and practical. The proposal appears to be consistent with both policies. H:\DIVISION.S\P&TS\PLANNING\PREAPP\NF.XTELDOC F_x/A 4 0 A :. •....:.:::::::: > PUBLIC>H E :``` 1 N G`<<<< ><<<< `' <« < < > • >< << ................................................................................................................................................................................. . ....... ....... ................................. .............................. ............................................................................................................................................... ................ ........................................... ........ ............................... .::.::.::.:: ::.:;:.::.::.::.>::::.. ...........:.;:.;:.:..::::::. ..:.: .....:::::::. o.U.;.;.0 CHAMBERS, SEGO D LOOR, R>ENT'ON MU I ;PAL 13... .... h.e appl�c n(s) stgd a g in �r erapG anon n m er on..Y.and not n s.:a !<Y:. h, o d t n wh ch. • H:.:• a.:::ng.:�xarn PROJECT NAME: APPEAL OF ISSUANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONAL USE (ACU) PERMIT FOR NEXTEL COMMUNICATION FACILITY PROJECT NUMBER: AAD-97-028 (LUA-97-006) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Appellant appeals the issuance of a conditional use permit by the City of Renton for the Nextel Communication Facility project (File No. LUA-97-006,ACU). Nextel proposes installation of three (3) omni-directional antennas. The appellant alleges that the ACU permit was issued without due consideration of all comprehensive plan policies. Project Location: 1755 NE 48th Street. HEXAGNDA.DOC NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING.EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON An Appeal Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall,Renton, Washington,on March 25,1997 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petitions: APPEAL OF ISSUANCE OF ADMIN. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR NEXTEL COMMUNICATION FACILITY/AAD-97-028 Appellant appeals the issuance of a conditional use permit by the City of Renton for the Nextel Communication Facility project (File No. LUA-97-006,ACU). Nextel proposes installation of three omni-directional antennas. The appellant alleges that the ACU permit was issued without due consideration of all comprehensive plan policies. Location: 1755 NE 48th Street. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division,Third Floor, Municipal Building,Renton. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing. Publication Date: MARCH 14, 1997 Account No. 51067 AADPUB.DOC % .; CITYF RENTON ' Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman March 11, 1997 Mr. Howard Seelig Mr. Martin Seelig P.O. Box 1925 Bellevue, WA 98009 Re: Appeal of Administrative Conditional Use for Nextel Communications Facility File No. LUA-97 608,AAD . vzF Gentlemen: Your letter of appeal in the above matter has been received and a date and time for said hearing have now been established. The appeal hearing has been set for Tuesday,March 25, 1997,at 9:00 a.m.in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall,Renton. Should you be unable to attend,would you please appoint a representative to act on your behalf. We appreciate your cooperation, and if you have any questions,please contact my secretary. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner FJK:mm cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington,Mayor's Executive Assistant . Larry Warren, City Attorney Gregg Zimmermann,.PB/PW Administrator Mark Pywell,Project Manager Matthews Land Company,Applicant 200 Mill Avenue South-Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2593 64)This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER MEMORANDUM Date: March 10, 1997 To: Tom Donnelly, Matthews Land Co. From: Marilyn Moses, Hearing Examiner's Secretary Re: Appeal of Administrative Conditional Use for Cellular Tower Per your request, enclosed is a copy of the appeal letter we received on March 6, 1997. Seelig Family Properties March 6, 1997 Fred Kaufman CITY OF RENTON Hearing Examiner City of Renton MAR 0 61997 200 Mill Ave. South Renton, WA 98055 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Re: Appeal of LUA-97-006 ACU Dear Mr. Kaufman: We own the adjacent property to the east of the subject property, and we wish to file an appeal to the above referenced application. Specific areas of objection are identified in the following letter. The record should show that our property is not intended to be permanently undeveloped and we request that this fact be taken into consideration. Especially considering pending highly desirable development on the opposite side of I-405, our property has considerable potential for us as well as the City of Renton. If the adjacent owners had been less hasty they probably would be thinking of development different from warehouses at this time. We have expended substantial money for architectural and engineering studies in anticipation of development of our property and recently had preconstruction conferences with Renton Officials. We submit a photo to show the existing antennas, as this information may have been omitted earlier. The photo shows that there are 15 separate antennas now installed. The proposal is, as well as we can read the tiny writing, to install 3 more antennas, each one 12-1/2 feet tall. This appears to be as tall as any existing and maybe taller. The 55 foot dimension proposed appears to be measured from the highest point on the steeply sloped adjacent ground, which seems inconsistent with Building Codes. We wish to refer to Planning Policies of Renton which recognize the unsightly nature of utilities such as the subject antennas. These Policies contain intelligent measures to accomplish a reasonable and equitable balance between the aesthetic detriments associated with achieving a functional utility and the adverse effects on adjacent properties. From the"City of Renton Utilities Element" (attached) "The Utilities Element defines how to minimize the detrimental impacts of utility improvements on surrounding development." The policies of the Utilities Element should apply to the subject situation, and to our property as surrounding development, since our development is pending. "It (the Utilities Element) asks that the costs of improvement should be distributed in an equitable manner." Our property is already bearing at least its fair share of the cost burden because of existing antennas(as shown in the photo) and their devaluing effect on our Phone: 206-454-0885. Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1925 Street Address: 1309 114th SE, Suite 107 Fax: 206-451-8203 Bellevue, WA Bellevue, WA 98009 98009 property. Adding still more unsightly antennas would go far beyond an equitable distribution of costs. The Phone Company can surely find alternative sites, although their costs may increase. But it is not equitable for us to bear the cost of devaluing our property again and again every time some phone company wants a,cheap antenna site, in disregard of Renton policy. • Objective U-A "Provide an adequate level of utilities consistent with land use." There are already enough antennas on the roof to meet the standard of adequacy. More are hot needed to meet the standard of adequacy. Policy U-5 "Encourage the appropriate siting of all utility systems in a manner that reasonably minimizes impacts on adjacent land use." A few antennas here and there are"lost in the shuffle." Concentrations of antennas, such as on the subject roof, change the character of the appearance of the building. As can be seen in the photo, no other nearby building has a concentration of antennas like the subject warehouse at the present time, and the pending proposal would substantially add to the number of antennas. Approval for installation of more antennas as proposed would not reasonably minimize the impacts, consistent with Renton policy, except if the sole reason is to minimize costs for the Phone Company. Creating a building roofline profile that looks like an antenna utility station does not minimize the impact of antennas. "Discussion" (at the end of Utilities Element) "Policies are designed to insure that utility services are constructed in a manner which reasonably mitigates the impacts on adjacent land uses." This places additional emphasis on U-5 (please see preceding). Policy 101 "Require that cellular communication structures and towers be sensitively sited and designed to diminish impacts and collocated on existing towers and structures wherever possible and practical." As the photo shows, the existing number'of antennas has already changed the character of the warehouses. Conventional warehouses do not have the number of antennas that exist at this time, nor do conventional buildings in the photo or elsewhere. More antennas would only make the warehouses look very much more strange. There is no way that making the warehouses look like antenna bases, as they do, could be consistent with the requirement for sensitive siting. It is unlikely that collocating of different Phone Companies on existing antennas is possible and practical. We hereby request that the proposal to install more antennas(LUA-97-006 ACU)be denied. Respectfully Submitted, HOWARD L. SE LIG MARTIN A. SEELIG &, CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES ELcivirNT Summary: The Utilities Element guides future utility service within the greater Renton area. It helps ensure that adequate utilities will be available to both existing and new development. It also ensures that utility improvements will be used to help implement the Comprehensive Plan and will be phased according to community priorities. The Utilities Element indicates how utility improvements can be used to maintain equitable levels of service, guarantee_public health and safety and serve new development in a timely manner. In addition, the Utilities Element ti�efin4how minimize the detrimental impacts of utility improvements on ' surrounding devel__e nt as well as the community as a whole. The tiliries Elements looks to promote ' efficienctin-the provision or improvement oservice wherever appropriate and feasible. In addition, it asks that thecosts of improvements should be distribut IEi n.equitable mantterjBeyond the city's existing boundaries, the Utilities Element fosters aiordiii tion with-reglonaf and adjacent utility systems. It also ' guides the provision of services to areas outside of the City but within the City's planning area especially in cases of annexation. - The City of Renton provides water, wastewater and stormwater utility services for citizens residing within the city limits and by agreement with other purveyors for some areas located outside of the City's boundaries. Renton contracts with a private hauler for collection of solid waste and residential recycling. Other utility services which affect the City and are discussed within this Draft Background Report include: r cable television, conventional telephone, fiber optic cable systems, cellular telephone service, natural gas, petroleum products, and electricity. (See the Annexation Section of the Land Use Element, the Stormwater Section of the Environmental Element and the Capital Facilities plan Element for policies related to the ' Utilities Element.) General Policies Objective U-A: Provide an(adequate 1evebf public utilities in response to and�onsisten land use, • ' protection of the environment and annexation goals and policies. Policy U-I. Utility facilities and services should all utility systems in a manner that"i sonabl be consistent with thegrowth and development `ICi�� p �rtiinimizes impacts on ad ascent land uses concepts directed by the Comprehensive Plan. Policy U-6. Where appropriate, encourage Policy U-2. Promote the collocation of new conservation in coordination with other utilities public and private utility distribution lines with and jurisdictions. planned or pre-existing systems (both above and below ground) in joint trenches and/or right-of- Policy U-7. Continue to encourage the ways where environmentally, technically, coordination of non-emergency utility trenching economically and legally feasible. activities and street repair to reduce impacts on • mobility, aesthetics, poise and other disruptions. Policy U-3. Process permits and approvals for utilities and facilities in a fair and timely manner Policy U-8. Continue to coordinate the and in accord with development regulations that construction and replacement of City-managed encourage predictability. utilities with other public and private infrastructure In order to minimize construction Policy U-4. Strive to protect the health and safety related disruptions and contain costs. of Renton citizens from recognized harmful effects •of utility generated environmental hazards. Policy U-4. Where appropriate work cooperatively with other jurisdictions to ensure Policy U-S. Encourage thE;appropriate siting that reliable and cost-effective utilities are • (onstruction opei tti and decommissioning of available to meet increasing demands resulting from local and regional growth. v-3 MAR—©3-1997 14:59 206 277 4455 93% P.01 CITY OF RENTON Vi1LITIL CEMENT Policy U-10. Where appropriate require Discussion: The above general policies are reasonable landscape screening of site-specific ) designed to insure that utility services are safely above-ground_utiljly facilities in order to diminish and efficiently provided, and are,constructed in a) visual impacts. environmentally sound main--?}wlitch reasonablj) mitigates impacts on ctdfactttt 14j4 u3-'et, The Policy U-11. Identify utility apathy needed to pow also emphasize cooperation and accommodate growth prior to annexation. Do not coordination with other agenciesrjurisdictions, annex areas where adequate utility capacity cannot and purveyors to create and maintain utilities. be provided. City-Managed Utilities Objective U-B: Provide and maintain safe, reliable and adequate utility facilities and services for the City's current and future service area to meet peak anticipated demands of the City in an efficient,economic and environmentally responsible manner. • Policy U-12. Approval of development should be conditioned on utility systems ,:i ` IA • + , ', with capacity to serve the • : + a $; PP• `{`� ` � i� development, without :,�►`""ae."`:• • +, �,,� r• t t, air� ; C �i ad , • 1i' e• •v � .1':. '� ! 7+�:4i.. !.� i is �. •�. .� t_- . decreasing locally established , Y{ { �- .•, levels of service,being in place �,., .. r '_. . +�( , - • t ,,s .•. i,; i tv ``.; F; .'N or with a finlancial conuttitMe nt i r ya to provide service within a 'yi { , • ' 1 ,•wr,. : �` specified time frame. • '"'T` ° `• , r Policy U-13. Coordinate the Y :' extension of utility services. • "' -' `', ;' . „ ,� �.•r't a0-..�• with expected growth and ,r i w.� k �► _-y+/�,� +. development. Y -r,+ �v .. T .i4t A.,,ma�yy,-i� `G'. . .� Policy U-14. Apply level of service standards consistently throughout the service area for city-owned or Policy U-17. Timely and orderly extension of managed utilities. If necessary, this level-of- City provided utility services (water, sanitary service standard may be phased-in over time. sewer,surface water,solid waste)should be provided within the City's existing and future Policy U-1S. Preference should be given to service areas to meet public health and safety capital facility improvements which will support requirements. the development and redevelopment of the - Downtown, mixed use centers, the Urban Center Policy U-18. Water, sewer and stormwater and other high growth areas concurrent with facilities and services should be in place prior to anticipated growth. occupancy of development projects. Policy U-16. Encourage the use of water and Policy U-19. Implementation and coordination energy conservation technologies throughout the programs for the improvement, phasing and City. financing of water, sewer and stormwater V-4 MAR-03-1997 15.00 206 277 4455 93e P.02 CITY OF RENTON UTILITI £EMENT Utility Service Area-Cable Television Telecommunications of Washington, Incorporated (TCI)holds a cable television franchise to serve the City of Renton. The service area includes the entire incorporated area of the City, expanding with annexations. All residential neighborhoods within the City are currently served. Service is still unavailable in some commercial areas due to market conditions which presently preclude line extension. General Description and Location of Cable Television Facilities The TCI facilities supplying Renton with cable television service are composed of a receiver, a headend, a trunk system and a feeder system. The receiver and the headend, which amplifies, processes and combines signals for distribution by the cable network, are located north of Buries, Washington. The signal is then transmitted via low-power microwave to a site in Kent, Washington, where it enters the trunk system. Signal strength is maintained by amplifiers placed at intervals along the cables. The amplifiers also serve as junction points where the feeder system taps into the trunk cables. Service drops then provide the final connection from the feeder line to the subscriber. Generally following street right-of-ways, the present network encompasses residential neighborhoods to the east, north and south. The unserved portion of Renton generally includes the commercial and industrial areas located in the Green River Valley. Capacity of Cable Television Facilities A cable system is not subject to the same capacity constraints as other utilities. Providing and maintaining the capacity to serve is the contractual responsibility of the utility. According to the City's franchise agreement with the purveyor, TCI must make service available to all portions of the franchise area. In some circumstances, costs associated with a line extension may be borne by the service recipient. TCI currently offers 38 active television channels,the maximum number possible with existing equipment. In addition, seven FM radio stations and 30 channels of digital music are available by subscription. Forecasted Conditions -Cable Television According to the provisions of TCI's franchise agreement with the CIty,the company must continue to make cable service available upon request when reasonable for any property within the current or future city limits. Therefore, under the current terms of this franchise,TCI would be required to provide cable service to projected growth within the City and the remainder of the Planning Area. Policy U-100. Require that the siting and location Policy U-102. Encourage healthy competition of telecommunications facilities be accomplished among telecommunication systems for provision of in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on the current and future telecommunication services. environment and adjacent land uses. Policy U-101. Re uire that ceUula.T'/ communication structures d towers be sensitively sited and designed to diminish aesthetic ,impacts, and be collocated on existing structures and towers wherever possible and practical. V.46 MAR-03-1997 15:01 206 277 4455 92% P.03 J • • • ,.S 1 HAS a Y�NN�►S 4'.�NT�� 3- AN t NNI$% �,,�,,L _ ' ., t . 6 i' -),, tip t 7.V < 8 t. i • 3 li.-t\- "'milli , .A. • ,4 tar Ezra y ) • � k` , --op tn. styli �(yy .(IiYLlL$ x !' • .... , G•., i MOE;,11111 I • \i '- 417.4 a 1,, . , . . ,. r.• ... lic...41114.1: ..,.• ro4k tt, = ,,,. 4,,, —14'21 • 4i.W..,rfPr7-7741.74'ipi gypk " le'. �,fe.:44-- "'._x. .-v.. 4.j':'4,a v N AM'rJ�. r 1110 1 DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT CITY OF RENTON CITY TREASURER REG/RCPT : 02-12594 C:03-06-1997 CASHIER ID : N 13:33:00 A:03-06-1997 5007 APPEALS & WAIVERS $75.00 000.000.00.345.81.00.000003 TOTAL DUE $75.00 RECEIVED FROM: HOWARD & MARTIN SEELIG CKH2888 CHECK $75.00 TOTAL TENDERED $75.00 CHANGE DUE $0.00 DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT