Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA80-104BEGINNING
OF FILE
FILE TITLE
MICROFILME
ft*
1O48O
S
Fitt
CDN1 -3\
67RCIALINC. C IAT-S
4230 198th STREET LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 98036
May 24, 1982 4 coy
7/pitiPoRogerBlaylock414,
City
ZoningofARentontrator j4
i
are
j /•
198 D
R2enton,1WashingtonAvenue u98055 4//NG
Subject: SUNSET SQUARE PROJECT S i9 - / U '--/- g(
Dear Roger:
Application has recently been made to the City of Renton for a building
permit on Lot #1 in the Sunset Square project. The proposed structure will
contain 4960 square feet and will contain similar uses in it that the existing
building on Lot #2 now has.
In a February 5, 1982 letter addressed to you, Mr. Richard Kloppenburg requested
the City consider increasing the size of the building on this lot from that
originally proposed and reviewed by the City of Renton Environmental Review
Committee (ERC) . Due to recent developments , the developers no longer desire
this additional increase and request the City of Renton re-evaluate the total
allowable building area in this project. The developers are seeking prospective
tenants for Lot #3 and need to confirm the allowable building area.
v
Now that Lot #.Yis developed and Lot #,Yis being developed, it is possible to
determine the allowable building area for Lot #3, given setbacks and parking
requirements. Our analysis is as follows:
BUILDING AREA PARKING REQUIRED PARKING PROVIDED DIFFERENCE
Lot #1 4,960 sq ft 27 stalls 28 stalls 1 stall
Lot #2 16,980 sq ft 93 stalls 64 stalls 11 stalls
Lot #3 6,200 sq ft 34 stalls 23 stalls
proposed) 12 shared
35 stalls
Parking analysis is based on 5.5/1000 ratio as required for
this type of development.
The plan originally reviewed by the ERC in October 1980 proposed 25,325 square
feet. If Lot #3 develops with a 6,200 square foot building, the total project
building area will be 28,140 sq ft, or an increase of 2,815 sq ft.
S
Roger Blaylock, Ci ..,, of Renton
Sunset Square
May 24, 1982
Page Two
Please advise us if (1) the above analysis is correct and (2) the procedures we
need to follow to gain approval of a 6,200 sq ft building on Lot #3.
We apologize for the recent confusion regarding this issue. If you have any
questions, please call me at 771-2300.
Sincerely
Scott Shanks
Commercial Design Associates, Inc.
kl
cc: Richard Kloppenburg
George Barber
OF
40 rlo o THE CITY OF RENTON
c, i -r z
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055
n BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
co
FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235 -2593
gr Q SEPT00
February 23, 1981
Mr. Richard L. Kloppenburg
15404 N.E. 6th Place
Bellevue, WA 98007
RE : File No. Short Plat 116-80, E-117-80, SA-104-80, V-105-80;
Barber, Kloppenburg, Olds (Sunset Square) .
Dear Mr. Kloppenburg:
This is to notify you that the above referenced requests , for which a
decision was published on January 19, 1981 , are considered final , and
the application files will be submitted to the City Clerk effective
this date for permanent filing.
If you have not already done so, please contact the Planning Department
for information regarding preparation of the final short plat mylar
which will be filed with King County.
Sincerely,
A143)
01..
Fred J . Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
cc: Planning Department
City Clerk
OF RA,A
41 © o THE CITY OF RENTON
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055
o P.BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
9'O co
FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-25930,
91t .
0 SEP1°°
January 29, 1981
Mr. Richard L. Kloppenburg
Real Estate Development
15404 N.E. 6th Place
Bellevue, WA 98007
RE: File No. Short Plat 116-80, SA-104-80; Sunset Square.
Dear Mr. Kloppenburg:
I have reviewed your request for reconsideration in the above entitled matter
and find I cannot justify modifying the conditions imposed on the operation of
any drive-in window located in the immediate vicinity of the intersection of
Union Avenue N.E. and Sunset Boulevard N.E. A reconsideration is to be based
on any error in fact, law or judgment, and the information contained within
your letter narrowly complies with such a review.
I believe that unless you are willing to have the hearing reopened in order
to pursue your alternative site plans, the condition should apply whether
the drive-in window is located adjacent to either Union Avenue N.E. or Sunset
Boulevard N.E. An additional concern is that the proposed new bank location is
immediately abutting Lot 4, which is currently zoned for residential uses and
which itself abuts even lower intensity residential zoning and uses. Therefore,
traffic safety, when coupled with neighboring uses and zoning, justify
maintaining the conditions.
If the drive-in window were to cause no problem as you maintain, then there
would be no need to terminate its operation. On the other hand, if the
window were to cause problems then it would be in the best interests of both
the neighboring property owners and the general welfare to eliminate that
window. Under those circumstances, the conditions are reasonable and will
remain in effect.
You still retain your right to appeal this matter to the City Council , and
a new fourteen day appeal period to expire on February 13, 1981 , is hereby
established.
Very truly yours,
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
cc: Parties of Record
N 4
af, i RICHARD L. KLOPPENBURG
rjG' : REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT 1wC 1V
t p
4?,,4,...f0A,,
i,..„ Im.,:t.itkIv.z, 14-ka,
µ
zm.! :Aol-jm 15404N.E.6thPL VC REI VTyyBELLEVUE.WASHINGTON 98007 F(
Y G?(gM1N/EON5
206)747-2144
AM JAN;2 o 1931
718(91IO,. 1.4.i 1
i2i3i4
Pm
15 6
di
January 28,1981
Mr. Fred Kaufman
Zoning Examiner
City of Renton
Minicipal Building
Renton, Washington 98055
Dear Sir:
In reference to your report and decision concerning
Sunset Square, dated January 19, 1981 , I hereby request
your reconsideration on the site plan, #10. I find
that it would be impossible to find a bank that would
build a building with a drive in entrance and that at
some later date remove the same entrance . Therefore, I
propose that we move the bank to short plat #1 and the
restaurant to short plat #3. I believe that we would
effectively remove any traffic problem if the drive in
window were located on the Union Street side.
A new site plan has been presented to the following
personnel, with the following response, concerning
the drive-in lane to be situated on short plat #1 .
Don Persson, Police Department--OK
Paul Lumbert, Traffic--OK
Roger Blaylock, Planning Department--OK
Dave Clemens, Planning Department--OK
Please reconsider, and do not apply your site plan
10 to the drive-in lane on short plat #1 . Please note
that a new site plan configuration has been submitted
and is available thru Roger Blaylock at the planning
department. If you have any questions please call me
as soon as possible.
SinnZereljy,
4----- <L,p
Richard L. Kloppenbu
RICHARD L. KLOPPENBURG
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT RECEIVEp
15404 N E 6th PL CITY O RENTONBELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98007 HE4R
206)747-2144 NG EXAMINER
AM JAN 2 8 J981
I0 11 12,1i2 3 4 5 6
January 28,1981
Mr. Fred Kaufman
Zoning Examiner
City of Renton
Minicipal Building
Renton, Washington 98055
Dear Sir:
In reference to your report and decision concerning
Sunset Square, dated January 19, 1981 , I hereby request
your reconsideration on the site plan, #10. I find
that it would be impossible to find a bank that would
build a building with a drive in entrance , and that at
some later date remove the same entrance. ., Therefore, I
propose that we move the bank to short plat #1 and the
restaurant to short plat #3. I believe that we would
effectively remove any traffic problem if the drive in
window were located on the Union Street side.
A new site plan has been presented to the following
personnel, with the following response, concerning
the drive-in lane to be situated on short plat #1 .
Don Persson, Police Department--OK
Paul Lumbert, Traffic--OK
Roger Blaylock, Planning Department--OK
Dave Clemens, Planning Department--OK
Please reconsider, and do not apply your site plan
10 to the drive-in lane on short plat #1 . Please note
that a new site plan configuration has been submitted
and is available thru Roger Blaylock at the planning
department. If you have any questions please call me
as soon as possible.
A."OPe4:4,0,
4R1k.)
Si er,9y,
Richard L. Kloppenbu
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
State of Washington)
County of King
Marilyn J. Petersen being first duly sworn, upon oath
disposes and states:
That on the 19th day of January 19 81 , affiant
deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing
a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the
parties of record in the below entitled application or petition.
Subscribed and sworn this \1 day of ;(/n., z.c y 19 g\ •
63C kii5u,)
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing at v-N:ovN
Application, Petition or Case: Sunset Square; Sh. Pl . 116-80, SA-104-80
The mLnutea contain a tLo.t ofi .the paAtiea oi; necond. )
January 19, 1981
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND DECISION.
APPLICANT: Barber, Kloppenburg, Olds FILE NO. SH. PL. 116-80,
Sunset Square)E-117-80; SA-104-80,
V-105-80
LOCATION: Vicinity of 1320 Union Avenue N.E.
SUMMARY OF' REQUEST: The applicant requests site approval for a +25,325 square
foot neighborhood shopping center consisting of three
buildings and associated parking with a variance request
from the rear yard setback. Also sought is approval of a
four-lot short plat together with an exception to the
Subdivision Ordinance to provide access easement to
proposed Lot 2.
SUMMARY OF ACTION: Planning Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions.
Hearing Examieer Decisiun: Approval of short plat, site plan
and access variance; Denial of setback variance.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department preliminary report was received
REPORT: . by. the Examiner on December 24, 1980.
PUBLIC HEARING:After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining
available information on file with the application, and field
checking the property and surrounding area, . the, Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
The hearing was opened on December 30, 1980 at 9:18 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the
Renton Municipal Building.
Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed
the Planning Department preliminary report. . Roger Blaylock, Associate Planner, presented
the report, and entered the following exhibits into the record:
Exhibit #1 : Site Approval Application File containing
Planning Department report and other pertinent
documents
Exhibit #2: Site Approval Map with staff comments
Exhibit #3: Short Plat Application File containing
Planning Department report and other pertinent
documents
Exhibit #4: Short Plat Survey (2 sheets)
The Examiner, inquired if the applications apply to both the- B-1 and R-3 zones. Mr.
Blaylock advised that the short plat includes both zones, but the site approval
application is limited to the commercial phases on Lots 1 , 2 and 3. Mr. Blaylock
corrected Section L.4 of the report , deleting the word "required" from the line,
Parking required: 147 stalls, and adding the word "provided".
The 'Examiner noted that plans for Lot 4, zoned R-3, are still conceptual and since the
ultimate use' of that parcel , either professional or residential , is unknown, access into
Lot 4 from Lots 1 and 2 would not be preferable. He also inquired regarding the number
of parking spaces at the northeast corner of Building 2 and which lot they are proposed
to serve. ' Mr. Blaylock deferred the inquiries to the applicant for response during
subsequent testimony. The Examiner noted that the Traffic Engineering Division had not
specified' a traffic fee based upon anticipated vehicle trips. Mr. Blaylock clarified
that requirements in the SEPA document included the fee; however, determination of the
actual trip generation from the site has yet to be established by the Public Works
Department.
The Examiner requested' testimony by the applicant. Responding was:
Richard L. Kloppenburg
15404 N.E. 6th Place
Bellevue, WA 98007
Sh. Pl . 116-80; SA-104-80 Page Two
Mr. Kloppenburg advised that the requirement for trip generation fee had been appealed
to the Environmental Review Committee. The Examiner noted that if the matter were still
pending, the Declaration of Non-Significance (DNS) is not yet final and the hearing
should be continued. Mr. Blaylock stated that although Mr. Kloppenburg hap appealed
the amount of the fee as well as the question of sewer capacity raised during
environmental review, the decision was finalized through resolution of the sewer capacity
matter by the City Council and establishment of traffic fee amounts by the Public Works
Department at a future date. Mr. Kloppenburg indicated his preference to continue with
the public hearing and postpone resolution of the assessment of traffic fees to a later
date, although he noted that no precedent or ordinance exists in the City of Renton for
such requirements. The Examiner clarified that the Traffic Engineering Division had
determined the amount of the fee to be approximately $60,000 in calculating trip generation
from proposals on Lots 1 , 2 and 3, noting that the authority of the Examiner extends to
imposition of the fee during his review of the short plat.
The Examiner reviewed his concerns regarding the proposed bank drive-in window access
lane which intrudes into a 15-foot buffer previously required in restrictive covenants ;
he also stated concerns regarding the dual use of the window lane for access which could
cause traffic congestion onto Sunset Boulevard N.E. Mr. Kloppenburg indicated a desire
to respond to the Examiner's concerns with the exception of the traffic generation fee.
He advised that the proposed bank facility can be redesigned to accommodate access
solutions including shifting the building nine feet further west. However, he felt that
the entrance from Sunset is an appropriate location for the proposal . The 'Examiner
reiterated his previous inquiry regarding the number of proposed parking spaces at the
northeast corner of Building 2. Mr. Kloppenburg advised that four parking spaces proposed
in that location could be eliminated and the parking requirement for the site would still
be met. He discussed the applicant's intent to develop the entire property including
both B-1 and R-3 zones concurrently and provide landscape buffers on the eastern and
northern boundary. He indicated that the proposed easement between Buildings 1 and 2
would provide more efficient traffic flow to serve the occupants in the rear of Building 2.
The Examiner requested further testimony in support of the application. Responding was:
Scott Shanks, Architect
4215 198th Street S.W.
Lynnwood, WA 98036
Mr. Shanks discussed access limitations on the subject site and the rationale in providing
access to the bank building pad in its current location. He noted that although maximum
development has been shown on Lot 3, the probability exists that in lieu of a commercial
banking institution, a savings and loan bank would be placed on the site which would
reduce the requirement for stacking lanes. He indicated that the city's requirements
can be met and the required 15-foot landscape buffer provided on the eastern property
line. The Examiner inquired if construction of all three buildings would occur
concurrently. Mr. Shanks responded that the developer desires simultaneous development
or complete development within the same year; however, construction scheduling and
availability of financing may impact development timing.
The Examiner requested further testimony in support of the application. Responding was:
George Barber
626 N.W. Lofall Road
Poulsbo, WA 98370
Mr. Barber, developer of small shopping centers in the Northwest, advised that..much time
and effort had been expended over the past six months in completing various designs for
the Sunset Square Shopping. Center to provide a comingling of commercial and residential
uses which are complementary to each other. He indicated that although he is familiar
with all aspects of shopping center development, he is unfamiliar with the previously
discussed traffic generation fee, particularly when all improvements are already installed.
There was no response to the Examiner's request for further testimony in support or
opposition to the application. Due to the need for clarification of the finality of
the environmental determination, the Examiner continued the hearing for a period of one
week to allow receipt of written reports from city officials regarding the DNS. He
noted that the reports would be forwarded to the applicant upon receipt, and the
Examiner's Report issued within the following 14 days. Since there was no objection,
the hearing. regarding File No. SA-104-80, V-105-80, Short Plat 116-80 and E-117-80 was
closed by the Examiner at 10:05 a.m.
Sh. P1 . 116-80, SA-104-80 Page Three
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner
now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1 . The request is for approval of a +3.4 acre, four-lot plat, together with a variance
to provide access via an easement, and a site approval for proposed shopping center
on three of the proposed lots, together with a variance for the required rear yard
setbacks.
2. The application file containing the application, SEPA documentation, the Planning
Department report, and other pertinent documents was entered into the record as
Exhibit #1 .
3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental
Policy Act of 1971 , R.C.W. 43.21 .C. , as amended, a Declaration of Non-Significance
has been issued for the site approval by the Environmental Review Committee,
responsible official , and the short plat has been determined exempt from the
threshold determination by the Environmental Review Committee, responsible official .
The hearing was continued for one week to clarify the ERC determination.
4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the
impact of this development.
5. The Public Works Department has determined that sewer capacity is available for the
subject proposal .
6. The Gubiect site is located on the northeast corner of Sunset Boulevard N.E. and
Jnion Avenue N.E. The site was annexed into the city in 1969 by Ordinance No. 2472
at which time the property was zoned G (General ; Single Family Residential ; Minimum
lot size - 35,000 square feet) . The site was rezoned to B-1 (Business/Commercial )
and R-3 (Medium Density Multifamily) by Ordinance No. 3420 in May of 1980. Restrictive
Covenants were executed which required buffers along the north and east property
lines and preservation of Honey Creek.
7. Pursuant to Section 9-1105, the applicant proposes subdividing the subject property
into four lots. Proposed Lots 1 , 2 and 3 comprise that portion of the subject
property zoned B-1 . Lot 4 is zoned R-3. Proposed Lot 1 , approximately 24,820
square feet, would have frontage along Union Avenue N.E. and is located in the
westernmost portion of the subject property. Lot 2, 62,577.3 square feet, is located
in the east central portion of the parcel and would have about 87 feet of frontage
along Sunset Boulevard N.E. although the applicant proposes limited access via an
easement (See below) . Lot 3 would front on Sunset Boulevard N.E. and would be
26,895.7 square feet. Lot 4, the parcel zoned R-3, would front on Union Avenue N.E.
and is 34,021 .9 square feet.
8. The applicant has proposed to provide access to Lot 2 via an easement agreement over
proposed Lots 1 and 3. A variance from the provisions of Section 9-1102(4) and
9-1108(23) (A) (9) which require frontage on and access to a public right-of-way has
been applied for pursuant to Section 9-1109.
9. The applicant proposes developing a small , corner shopping center containing retail
sales establishments, a restaurant and a bank with drive-in window. The complex
would 'have a common traffic circulation pattern for the entire three lot complex and
parking areas would be shared.
10. Sections 4-2203(1 ) & 4-2204(3) (A) (4) require that parking be located on the same lot
as the principal use. The applicant has not applied for a special permit to permit
deviation from this provision pursuant to Section 4-2204(C) which provides for
auxilliary parking.
11 . The southern three lots, Lots 1 , 2, and 3, are zoned B-1 with restrictive covenants
requiring a 15-foot landscape buffer on the east side adjacent to the R-2 (Duplex
Residential ) zone. The covenants also require the preservation and incorporation
of Honey Creek in the development plan. The northern lot, Lot 4 , is zoned R-3.
A 20-foot buffer is required by covenants to protect the adjacent G (General ; Single
Family Residential ; Minimum lot size - 35,000 square feet) zone.
12. The applicant proposes constructing buildings on Lots 1 and 2 which would have rear
yards of three to four feet and 13 to 14 feet, respectively. The Zoning Code,
Sections 4-711 (D) and 4-709A(D) , requires that B-1 zoned properties provide a rear
yard equal to that of the abutting residential district. The abutting district is
R-3, and therefore a rear yard of 20 feet is required. The applicant has requested
a variance from the rear yard provisions pursuant to Section 4-722(G) .
Sh. P1 . 116-80, SA-104-80 Page Four
13. The R-3 zoning category in effect for Lot 4 permits multifamily dwellings and, with
a special permit subject to separate review, professional offices and clinics. The
applicant 's conceptual plans indicate office uses for Lot 4. These plans were not
submitted for review at this time.
14. Building 3 is proposed as a bank which would include a drive-in window. The proposed
access for the drive-in window intrudes into the easterly 15 foot buffer required by
covenant for a distance of 160 feet.
The Police and Traffic Engineering Departments have indicated that due to anticipated
demand, stacking of vehicles may interfere with travel on Sunset Boulevard N.E. which
is a major, heavily traveled arterial , and therefore, they recommended that provisions
be made for two stacking lanes which are each capable of stacking approximately nine
vehicles.
Section 4-2207 provides that drive-in facilities must be located such that traffic
ways are not congested by the operation, traffic circulation within the facility is
not obstructed, and that sufficient stacking space is provided.
15. Building 1 requires 20 parking spaces, Building 2 requires 97 parking spaces, and
Building 3 requires 22 parking spaces. These numbers are based on the standard of
5.5 stalls per 1 ,000 square feet of leasable space for these types of concerns
located within shopping centers (Section 4-2208) .
16. There are a number of new residential developments in the general vicinity including
Forest Brook Condominiums just to the west.
CONCLUSIONS: (Short Plat)
1 . The proposed short plat, as modified below to provide sufficient on-site parking to
accommodate the proposed uses and with restrictions providing guaranteed access,
appears to serve the public use and interest.. The applicant will be able to make
use of this well-located property at the corner of major arterials, Sunset Boulevard
N.E. and Union Avenue N.E.
The area i.s one in which expanding residential development must be met with increased
commercial .growth. The small shopping center proposed will help serve that residential
growth and at the same time expand the tax base of the city and allow the utilization
of the property for its highest and best use.
2. Each of the four lots has required frontage on a public right-of-way and each lot
provides suitable area to allow the construction of a commercial building and.
reasonable landscaping to help promote the best interest of the community and
contribute to the attractiveness and desirability of the community as a place to
work, live and shop.
3. The applicant has submitted a site plan for review in addition to the short plat.
That plan indicates the particular use proposed for Lots 1 , 2 and 3. The plan also
indicates the parking requirements of the various uses and the proposed traffic
circulation plan. The proposal merges the parking and circulation patterns into
a common shopping center and avoids "unnecessary" curb cuts. For this reason, the
applicant has proposed a "reciprocal cross easement" to serve the needs of the three
properties and tie them together as a functional shopping center.
4. Section 4-2204(3) (A) (4) requires that parking be provided on the same lot as the
principal use, which in turn requires that Lot 1 provide 20 parking spaces, Lot 2
provide 97 parking spaces, and Lot 3 provide 22 parking stalls. While the parking,
so required, may not have to be permanently allocated to a particular use or signed
and segregated, nevertheless, sufficient parking to serve the intended use must be
provided on site.
5. In order to provide the requisite number of stalls per lot the applicant may shift
the property lines as indicated in the attached map. As indicated, the lot lines
have been shifted to permit the appropriate number of stalls per lot and per the
proposed use. The applicant may adopt a similar plan.
Variance for Access)
6. The common circulation pattern was proposed to mitigate the impacts on the traffic
flow of entering and exiting vehicles on both Sunset Boulevard N.E. and Union Avenue
N.E. This would be accomplished by decreasing the number of curb cuts and driveways.
The applicant has requested a variance to the Subdivision Ordinance to permit access
to Lot 2 to be via driveways and common roadways located on Lots 1 and 3.
Sh. Pl . 116-80, SA-104-80 Page Five
3. The proposal would permit the three lots included in the joint access agreement,
Lots l ; 2 and 3, to provide for a reciprocal cross easement to accomplish the purpose.
Included within the easement would be joint use of the parking space required.
4. The variance should be granted to permit the joint access proposal . The public
welfare will not be harmed by the approval of the exception; as a matter of fact,
the public safety will be benefited by an approval . The joint access will decrease
the amount of frontage and landscaping sacrificed to curb cuts. It will also
decrease the actual number of curb cuts, therefore mitigating the impact of the
development generated traffic turning into and out of the subject property onto
both Union Avenue N.E. and Sunset Boulevard N.E.
5. The proposed arrangement is similar to joint access provided in other shopping centers
which also minimize the number of curb cuts. The approval of a variance involving
access via joint driveways should not interfere with or injure other properties in
the vicinity. The doubling of the stacking capacity of the drive in lanes should
minimize the possible impact on properties to the east along Sunset (see site plan
below) .
6. The location of the subject property at the major intersection of Union Avenue N.E.
and Sunset Boulevard N.E. provides justification to approve the requested variance
as being in the public welfare and substantially increasing the public welfare.
Similar relief was approved for property located at the intersection of Rainier
Avenue S. and S.E. Grady Way, also a major intersection.
7. The applicant has only the most rudimentary proposal for proposed Lot 4 which is
zoned R-3. The lot as proposed provides independent access onto Union Avenue N.E.
Since this lot is zoned for residential uses and is in an area designated for
multiple family development, it would be inappropriate at this time to permit joint
access with retail and other commercial ventures. The lot may serve solely
residential development, and joint access of residential and commercial should be
avoided.
In order to develop commercial uses, a special permit must be approved and the
appropriateness of such application is not now before the Hearing Examiner.
Site Plan)'„
8. As previously indicated, the applicant proposes a small shopping center located on
approximately 2.85 acres. The shopping center would consist of three buildings,
each on a separate parcel and each providing parking as required in Conclusions
No. 3, 4 and 5. Access would be via two driveways, one providing access via
Sunset Boulevard N.E. and the other access via Union Avenue N.E. A reciprocal
easement entered upon the face of the plat would permit such an arrangement and
a variance for such an arrangement has been approved above.
9. The shopping center would be erected on Lots 1 , 2 and 3. The tenants, as proposed,
would be a restaurant, a bank and certain currently unidentified retail shops. The
applicant proposes establishing a drive-in window adjacent to the bank with an
associated stacking lane. As proposed, the Police and Traffic Engineering Departments
indicate that the proposal would not provide sufficient stacking space and have
recommended that the stacking lanes be expanded to two such lanes, each capable of
stacking nine automobiles.
Because the stacking lanes enter via Sunset Boulevard N.E. , a major arterial , the
applicant will have to increase the stacking lanes to the two recommended by the
Traffic, Engineering and Police Departments. Further, Section 4-2207 requires that
driveways and traffic circulation generated by drive-in windows not impair the
circulation pattern of the shopping center as a whole. The current plan may cause
such impairment since the egress from the drive-in window crosses the entry lane
from Sunset and also uses the parking lot maneuvering area for, an exit lane.
The drive-in window should be designed so that the efficiency for which it is
intended, quick banking, is not diminished and so that interference with the
remaining traffic and business in the shopping center is minimized. Therefore,
the entire proposal as to the location, entry driveway, stacking lanes and
circulation patterns in the area surrounding the proposed bank must be reviewed
and approved in writing by the Traffic Engineer.
10. Further, that portion of the plan which includes a drive-in window should be
conditioned upon further review after the facility has been functioning in this
location in order to determine whether, in fact, that functioning impairs both
internal circulation and, most importantly, traffic flow adjacent to the subject
property.
I
Sh. Pl .'. lio-80, SA-104-80 Page Six
If, subject to determination by the Police and Traffic. Engineering Departments, the
drive-in facility impairs either traffic flow or interfers with internal circulation,
then the facility shall be terminated as incompatible with the public health, safety,
and welfare and in violation of Section 4-2207. Any changes required shall be
subject to a site review hearing before the Hearing Examiner.
11 . In addition to the above required changes , the applicant must preserve the buffer
along the eastern property line as required by the restrictive covenants. That
buffer is to be a 15-foot deep landscaped area and the landscaping for the buffer
and all further landscaping must be approved by the city.
The restrictions also apply to Honey Creek which flows along the southwest corner
of the site, and the applicant must both preserve and protect the creek from
development and incorporate it into landscaping plans subject to final approval of
the city.
Variance for Setback)
12. The applicant does not suffer undue hardship, and therefore, the imposition of the
normal requirements of the Zoning Code should not be varied. The B-1 zone in which
the applicant intends to develop the shopping center is located adjacent to an R-3
zone and it is therefore required to provide a rear yard of 20 feet on the B-1
properties. This yard would be located between Lot 4, which is zoned R-3, and the
northern property lines. of Lots 1 and 2, which, along with the remainder of the
shopping center, Lot 3, are zoned B-1 .
13. The execution of restrictive covenants required a northern buffer between the low
density uses north of the subject site and the higher intensity uses permissible
in the R-3 property. Similarly, the R-3 zoning was imposed as a buffer between
those northerly single family uses and the B-1 zoned property at the corner of
Union Avenue N.E. and Sunset Boulevard N.E. The Zoning Code, as well as the
Comprehensive Plan, generally recognizes the use of buffers between differing
intensities of zoning classifications. The Zoning Code specifically requires
setbacks and yards for development on B-1 parcels when adjacent to residential
zoning, whatever the proposed intensity.
14. Similarly, the applicant's proposed, conceptual and unapproved plan to construct
offices on the R-3 zone is just that, unconfirmed and subject to change and subject
to a separate special permit process. Also, the applicant's intended use is not a
unique condition associated with the subject property. Similarly situated B-1
zones have had to provide the necessary rear yard, and the applicant is not. denied
reasonable development rights by the general imposition of the standard setback
requirements.
DECISIONS:
The short plat and access variance are approved subject to:
1 . The provision of adequate space on each lot of the requisite number of parking stalls
pursuant to Section 4-2208. The attached map may serve as an example.
2. The inclusion on the face of the plat of the joint access, circulation and parking
easements between and among Lots 1 , 2 and 3.
3. A separate and distinct access for proposed Lot 4.
4. Site plan approval by the Hearing Examiner of proposed development on Lot 4.
5. The location of all driveways is subject to approval by the Traffic Engineering
Division.
The site plan is approved subject to:
1 . Approval by the city of all landscaping plans including but not limited 'to the buffer
adjacent to the eastern property line, all internal landscaping and the landscaping
and preservation of Honey Creek.
2. Approval of the driveway and drive-in window stacking arrangement by both the
Police Department and the Traffic Engineering Division; such stacking arrangement
shall include but not be limited to two entry lanes and such other improvements
as may be required by the Police Department and Traffic Engineering Division. If those
departments determine that such drive-in windows cannot comply with the provisions
of Section 4-2207, the drive-in window shall not be established.
3. Termination of the drive-in window if the Police Department and Traffic Engineering
Sh. P1 . 116-ou, SA-104-80 Page Seven
Division determine that the window interferes with the flow of traffic on the public
right-of-way or impairs the internal circulation of the shopping center pursuant to
Sections 4-2207.
4. Any change in plans shall be subject to review by the Hearing Examiner.
5. No occupancy permit shall issue for any portion of the complex until all parking areas,
access roadways and landscaping are installed and improved according to City of
Renton 'standards.
The variance is denied.
ORDERED THIS 19th day of January, 1981 .
7-3
Fred J . fman
Land Use 1aring Examiner
TRANSMITTED THIS 19th day of January, 1981 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties
of record:
Richard L. Kloppenburg, 15404 N. E. 6th Place, Bellevue, WA 98007
Scott Shanks, 4215 198th St. S.W. , Lynnwood, WA 98036
George Barber, 626 N.W. Lofall Road, Poulsbo, WA 98370
TRANSMITTED THIS 19th day of January, 1981 to the following:
Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch
Councilman Richard M. Stredicke
Richard Houghton, Acting Public Works Director
David Clemens, Acting Planning Director
Michael Porter, Planning Commission Chairman
Barbara Schellert, Planning Commissioner
Ron Nelson, Building Official
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must
be filed in writing on or before February 2, 1981 . Any aggrieved person feeling that the
decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in
judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the
prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) .
days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific
errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record,
take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that
such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting
other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in
the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall , or same may be .purchased at cost in
said department.
BARBLR, KLOPPLNBURG, & OLDS
I , t -
SA-104-80
f*
4 IT. ,' `S . • • •
SITE PLAN -. - . -, ; -
PROJECT DATA
LOCATION N E.CORNER SUNSET E3LV0
1 T I S. • B 132 NO AVE S E, Re ON WA
i t { I a 1 I I .
I , I
I,
1 BLOB L ot r ZONED B-1 114,277 SO FT.
j
i
R-3 34.040 SC F9Oi3 T.
PROPOSED USE NEIGNSORHo3O SHOPPING CTR
i
Li .
I RESTAURANT,G.:;K.RETAIL
I ;
1 i-i!CONSTRUCTION TYPE ul-N CCr:C a c GLFSS_. :.,:
t' ! I FRONT
t l BUILDING AREA ELCG 1 i_CC
I I 1
CLOG 3 40GCwj_I y
i { f I
2 2? SO FT
1, II-
1
1 1I i PARKING REQUIRED 55 STALLS PER IOOO SO FT.
i - .T 1 I 1 { { I ..i i I I , i I - •.-.. ' I 139 STALL S
1 _--- y- PARKING PROVIDED K7 STALLS 8-1 ZONE
1 1 ( I I {; i i r_-- I
I.
Q
GENERAL NOTES
Willi I
i I lil 3-1 DM
I
0..- :: ——il
11
eo
il
r 4-.- --- -- --j,.t._t.. -
y.-.-_
I
rr ; y..:+ :i.,._n.:,...,......r...,w.,n s•.:ea
wI : 1 A'S-4 L'..'::::....7"...f...._ ._ ________:,
i I I i 5'•
y-
Iq.,, L:..L..r..ups.- n.u 1 I ( r am_ 1 i : 1 1 1- , I l ; l/O. ..,
m._I. _
FsvOG 1
Li I f LEGAL DESCRIPTION
a :... r,. „
A;,,.'or°::
l,tiv:.
A.wc m nFOULL.GL
fal ut:+fF11 1:I.Ir mr..,a0 fm•`.•u•Vell CC q II-1 UML : 2t
r
0.tlLi u(li LIf ir slu[tt A tit 7'ut`'WOff`!
t I"T•
P CO
rJ .. MTS.•rErrUS Is nem LOf ule fa0cana • moot W at u.ua.In
v •.
WO ft ttlill•v YO.I, •'
i S• I. 16t011La,
vt
n n o1 f.a1i
132 NO AVE. E. M IOU
n, IPZ01 Ewa 1.70.1124.1O0.9a,u9 TM/le
SITE PLAN
Irl.1
f
r• e e\\\t\\\ U
OF 1
A,
o THE CITY OF RENTONvo ` 4 z
a, „xa MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
BARBARA'. Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR 0 LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
Po FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593
1?,.
0 SEP1°°
January 5, 1981
Mr. Richard Kloppenburg
15404 N.E. 6th Place
Bellevue, WA 98007
RE: File No. SA-104-80, Short Plat 116-80; Sunset Square.
Dear Mr. Kloppenburg:
Enclosed you will find a copy of the response to my inquiry at
the public hearing regarding the final Declaration of Non-
Significance on the reference matter. Since it appears that
the appeal period for the final DNS has officially expired, I
will proceed with my written decision to be issued within 14
days.
Sincerely,
Tr4,1E.
Fred J . Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
cc: Planning Department
City Clerk
C..)• e
THE CITYkWT'T®ITT
Vre•a MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENl011f,WASH. 98055
BARBARA Y. SI-IINPOCH, MAYOR o PLANNING DEPARTMENTo
9 ca' 235- 2550
094,
SEP1,,,
O,
RECEIVED
MEMORANDUM CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINcrr
DEC 311980
AM P14
December 31, 1980 Y€80110111,12J1121 3r 4 ,.,
A
TO: Fred J . Kaufman , Hearing Examiner
FROM: Environmental Review Committee
RE: ECF-614-80; File No. SA-104-80
Short Plat 116-80
Sunset Square (Barber, Kloppenburg, Olds)
The Environmental Review Committee issued the Final
Declaration of Non-Significance on October 29 , 1980.
It was officially published on November 5 , 1980 with
the appeal period expiring on November 19 , 1980.
The ERC considered tha applicant' s request for reconsider-
ation and rejected it based upon the facts that:
1) the question of sewer capacity was resolved by
the City Council and it was determined that
there was adequate sewer capacity for the
proposed project; and ,
2) that the specific amount of the traffic impact
fees were negotiable based upon the final
determination of trip generation by the Traffic
Engineering Division.
The applicant attend the meeting where this decision was
made and he did not object . If he did object, he should
have appealed the environmental decision through the
appropriate channels.
The ERC considers their determination final and not of
concern of the Hearing Examiner.
i
Memorandum to Fred J. Kaufman
From Environmental Review Committee
December 31, 1980
Page 2
Eventhough the Hearing Examiner does have the authority
under the Subdivision Ordinance to impose conditions for
off site improvements , the Environmental Review Committee
recommends that the application of traffic impact fee be
addressed solely by the Declaration of Non-Significance.
There exists the possibility that the applicant can
provide data that would suggest that the trip generation
figure presently being proposed by the City are inaccurate .
This is the primary reason that a specific amount was not
stated in the environmental declaration.
1
t
OF I
o
THE CITY OF RENTON
pwofpg MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055_
omum BARBARA'. Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
9,0 O
FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593
o94T D SE \
O
P
December 30, 1980
TO: Environmental Review Committee
FROM: Fred J . Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
RE : ECF-614-80; File No. SA-104-80, Short Plat 116-80;
Sunset Square. (Barber, Kloppenburg, Olds) .
There has been a question raised about the finality of the Declaration
of Non-Significance issued for the above referenced proposal . The
applicant indicated that he had "appealed" the traffic-related fee of
20 per vehicle trip generated, a fee which was imposed to mitigate
the proposal 's impacts on the surrounding trafficways. I would
understand the applicant 's "appeal" to be in actuality a "request for
reconsideration" by the Environmental Review Committee.
The question is, what was the final disposition of that request for
reconsideration? If the matter is unresolved then I cannot proceed
with the public hearing on the subject proposal as the DNS issued for
the project is not final . If the matter was resolved, I would
appreciate your prompt response to this matter as I have continued the
item for only one week pending receipt of your written communication
in this matter.
Fred J . Kauf a
cc: Planning Department
City Clerk
i
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE rimArIEG : .;.«I R
PUBLIC HEARING
DECEMBER 30, 1980
APPLICANT: BARBER, KLOPPENBURG, OLDS
FILE NUMBER: SA-104-80 & Short Plat 116-80 & E-117-80
A. SUMMARY PURPOS I:. OF o*UEST:
The applicant requests site approval for a +25 ,325 square
foot neighborhood shopping center consisting of 3 buildings
and associated parking. Also sought is approval of
a 4-lot short plat together with an exception to the
Subdivision Ordinanceto provide access easement to proposed
lot # 2.
B. . GENERAL INFORMATION:
1 . Owner of Record: DONNA R. NOLAN
2. Applicant : BARBER, KLOPPENBURG,
OLDS
3. 'Location:
Vicinity Map Attached) Vicinity of 1320
Union Avenue N.E.
4 . Legal Description: A detailed legal
description is available
on file in the Renton
Planning Department.
5. Size of Property: 3.4 acres
6. Access :Via Union Avenue N.E.
and Sunset Blvd. N.E.
7. Existing Zoning: B-1 , Business Use; R-3,
Residential Multiple Family;
Minimum lot size 5000
square feet.
8. Existing Zoning in the Area: G-7200, Residential Single
Family; R-2, Residential
Two Family; R-3, Residential
Multiple Family; B-1 ,
Business Use
9. Comprehensive Land 'Use Plan: Commercial, Medium Density
Multiple Family
10. Notification: The. applicant was
notified in writing of
the hearing date. Notice
was properly published in
the Seattle Times on
December 17 , 1980
and posted in three
places on or near the
site as required
by City ordinance on
December 19, 1980.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC. HEARING: SUNSET SQUARE, SA-104-80; Short Plat 116-80, E-117-80
DECEMBER 30, 1980
PAGE TWO
C. :r IS ORY/BA.tCKGR1 D:
The subject site was annexed into the City by Ordinance
2472 of March 28, 1969 at which time the present zoning
classification was applied. The property was rezoned
from "G" to B-1 and R-3 by Ordinance #3420 of May 7 ,
1980 with certain restrictive covenants. (See attached)
D. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND:
1. Topography: The subject site rises slightly from
south to north at approximately a 4 percent grade.
2. Soils: Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam (AgC) .
Permeability is moderately rapid in the surface
layer and subsoil and very slow in the substratum.
Runoff is slow to medium and the erosion hazard
is moderate. This soil is used for timber, pasture,
berries, row crops and for urban development.
Ragnar-Indianola association, sloping (RdC) .
Permeability is moderately rapid in the upper part
of th is soil and rapid in the substratum. Runoff
is slow to medium and the erosion hazard is slight
to moderate. These soils are used for timber.
3. Vegetation: Scrub brush is the dominant feature
with a few junipers and some scattered evergreens.
4. Wildlife: Existing vegetation on the site may
provide some habitat for birds and small mammals. .
5. Water: Honey Creek flows across the southerly
portion of the property in a southeasterly-northeasterly
direction.
6. Land Use: An older vacant single family residence
is located near the center .of the subject site
with the remainder undeveloped.
E. N Z ear:ru:;®r<JacO1 CHARACTERISTICS:
The surrounding properties consist of a mixture of single
family, multiple family and light commercial uses.
m is LIC SERVICE S:
1 . Water and Sewer: 12" water mains are located along
Union Avenue N.E. and Sunset Blvd, N.E. An 8"
sanitary sewer extends east-west on Sunset Blvd.
near the east end of the subject site and second
8" sewer runs north-south on Union Avenue on the
south side of Sunset Blvd. In addition, the Sunset
lift station is located adjacent to the subject
site on Sunset Blvd.
2. Fire Protection: Provided by the Renton Fire Department
as per Ordinance requirements.
3. Transit: Metro Transit Route #107 operates along
Union Avenue N.E. at:N.E. 12th Street within 500'
to the south of the subject site.
4 . Schools : The subject site is within 1/2 mile of
the Honeydew and Sierra Heights Elementary Schools
and within 1-1/2 miles of McKnight Junior High
School and within 1/2 mile of Hazen Senior High
School.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING: SUNSET SQUARE, SA-104-80; Short Plat 116-80; E-117-80
DECEMBER 30, 1980
PAGE THREE
5. Recreation: The subject site is within 1/2 mile
of Kiwanis Park to the south and within one mile
of the proposed King County Park west of Sierra
Heights Elementary School.
G. AppLI( AwIE SECTIONS O1 ' THE ZONING CODE:
1 . Section 4-709A, R-3; Residential Multiple Family
2. Section 4-711 , B-1 ; Business District
H. Al-PLICABLE SECTIONS EI F THE C „Imrtr:i SIv PLAN OR OTHER
OFFICIAL CITY
1 . Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, 1965, Objective
6, p. 18
2. Subdivision Ordinance, Section 9-1105, Short Sub-
divisions.
3. Subdivision Ordinance, Section 9-1109, Exceptions.
OF THE NATURAL ®I., si IJ M/'y iv ENVIRONMENT:
1 . Natural Systems : Development of the subject site
will disturb the soils, remove the vegetation,
increase storm water runoff and have an effect
on traffic and noise levels in the area. Through
proper development controls and procedures, however,
these impacts can be mitigated.
2. Population/Employment: The proposal should not
significantly affect population but increased employ-
ment opportunities may be expected.
3. Schools : Not Applicable
4 . Social: Increased opportunities for social interaction
may result from the additional employment generated
by the proposed project.
5. Traffic : The Traffic Engineering Division
estimates total trip generation to be 115. 8
trip end per 1,000 square feet of retain space
plus the impact from the drive-in bank.
J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASS1SS T/TTHRESI OLD DETERMINATION:
Pursuant to the City of Renton' s Environmental Ordinance
and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended,
RCW. 43-21C, a declaration of non-significance was issued
for the Site Approval subject to available sewer capacity
and .payment of fees for traffic impacts ($20/trip generated)
by the ERC on November 5, 1980.
K. "AGE C]tES/IIDEP.6\ e I NaI:o'i S CONTACTED:
1. City of Renton Building Division.
2. City of Renton Engineering Division.
3. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division.
4. City of Renton Utilities Division.
5. City of Renton Fire Department.
1
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBI4C HEARING: SUNSET SQUARE, SA-104-80; Short Plat 116-80, E-117-80
DECEMBER 30, 1980
PAGE FOUR
L. PLAUNING DEPARTMENT '\I ALYS;IS: Site Approval and Variance)
1. The proposed neighborhood shopping center use is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation
of commercial, B-1, zoning for the subject site.
The conceptual condominium or professional office.
use slated for the R-3 portion is also consistent
with the existing zoning and Comprehensive Plan
designation of medium density multiple family.
2. These proposed uses may also be considered compatible
with the existing land uses on adjacent and surrounding
properties.
3. As submitted, the applicant 's site plan proposes
a complex composed of 3 one-story buildings totalling
125,325 sq. ft. with a concrete block architectural
treatment accented by a tile and cedar canopy.
Likely occupancies include a bank, restaurant,
and assorted retail enterprises.
4 . Parking required and parking provided for the various
structures in the B-1 zone can be summarized as
follows based upon the Parking & Loading Ordinance
standard for shopping centers of 5. 5 stalls/1, 000
sq. ft. of gross floor area.
Building #1 3600 sq. ft. )
Building #2 17725 sq. ft. ) Parking required: 139 stalls
Building #3 4000 sq. ft. ) Parking required: 147 stalls
Total 25325 sq. ft.
5. There has been concern among various city departments
and area residents regarding drainage and storm
water runoff in this vicinity. As a result, the
City Council requested a study of the subject proposal
and related area developments to determine sewer
and water capacities. An attached memorandum from
the Public Works Director addresses this concern,.
6. Relative to the findings outlined in $5, the Utilities
Engineering Division advises that an approved water
plan may be required as per Fire Department requirements
for on-site hydrants . In addition, the applicant
will be subject to latecomer' s agreements for sewer
on Union Avenue and for water on Sunset Blvd.
Standard hookup fees for sewer and water and an '
area charge for the Honey Creek trunk line will
also apply.
7. A pre-construction conference with the Fire Marshall
will be required as per Fire Department comment.
8. Both the Police Department and the Traffic Engineering
Division have advised that the drive-in lane to
the proposed bank at the southeast corner of the
subject site be expanded to (2) 9-foot wide lanes.
This is recommended because both departments anticipate
that vehicles will stack up on Sunset Blvd. and
become a traffic hazard. At the same time, this
will reduce the required 15 ' landscape buffer on
the east property line to at least 7 ' . This is
true for the southerly 160' of the property. Therefore,
the applicant will have to either reduce the size
of the proposed structure or adjust the location
of the building. The 15 ' landscaping strip is
required by restrictive covenant.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING: SUNSET SQUARE, SA-104-80, Short Plat 116-80, E-117-80
DECEMBER 30, 1980
PAGE FIVE
9. The Police Department also requests that lighting
in the parking lot and on the buildings should
be placed such that it shines on buildings rather
than out into the street and parking areas. (See
additional comments) .
10. Assessments for City improvements will total $58,652
as reported by Traffic Engineering. This is for
the commercial portion only. The future professional
office uses or condominiums will have to be addressed
later. Consult this department for details.
11. A variance from the rear yard setback has been
requested by the applicant. The proposed Sunset
Square development is adjacent' to a parcel of property
zoned R-3. Under the Subdivision Code, Section
4-711 (d) a special setback requirement is required
on all yards when adjacent to residential zones.
Therefore, the setback requirements of the adjacent
R-3 zone would apply. This would require a minimum
of a 20-foot rear yard per Section 4-709A(d) . The
other front and side yard requirements have been
met.
The proposed Sunset Square shopping center fronts
upon Sunset Blvd. N.E. The applicant has recently
obtained a rezone subject to certain setback requirements
and specific landscape buffers. The Hearing Examiner
must determine that to grant a variance that certain
conditions must apply.
Condition A: That the applicant suffers undue
hardship and the variance is necessary because
of special circumstance applicable to subject property,
including size, shape, topography, location or
surrounding of the subject property, and the strict
application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive
the subject property owner rights and priviledges •
enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity
and under identical zone classifications.
The specific rezoning .of the property required
that a northern buffer of R-3 zoning be included
in the development. Therefore, the zoning itself
has met the intent of the required rear yard by
providing a buffer of lower use residential or
possible office uses to buffer the northern edge
of the commercial development. This buffer is
5 times that required by Section 4-709A. Therefore,
the specific application of the Zoning Code deprives
the applicant of his rights which were applied
to him as a conditional approval in said document.
The subject property has been more restricted by
the rezone than would normally be considered on
adjacent subject properties.
Condition B: . That the granting of the variance
will not be materially deprimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements
in the vicinity and zoning which subject property
is situated.
The applicant is proposing a shopping center contained
in itself with immediate buffering to the north
which shall result in a reduction of the impact
of the shopping center. upon the existing single
family residential to the north. The R-3 property
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING: SUNSET SQUARE, SA-104-80; Short Plat 116-80 , E-117-80
DECEMBER 30, 1980
PAGE SIX
which provides this buffer is designed as a working
part of the shopping center. It does not appear
that granting the variance will be materially detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to any of the
property or other improvements in the vicinity
and the zone in which the subject property is situated.
Condition C: That the approval shall not constitute
a grant of special privilege. inconsistent with
the limitation upon uses of other properties in
the vicinity and the zone in which the subject
property is situated.
The rezoning of the subject site put specific limitations
on the development above that normally considered
in the zone in an attempt to mitigate those impacts
upon adjacent properties and would, be considered
in any future applications in the area for a similar
rezone. , This has been fairly established practice
throughout the Highlands to create use or landscape
buffers between existing lower density uses and
proposed higher density uses.
Condition D: That the approval as determined by
the Examiner or Board of Adjustment is a minimum
variance that will accomplish the desired purpose.
Tne Exminer has previously considered in the rezone
request that the use buffer of 100 feet is adequate
to provide the minimum intent of the ordinance.
Therefore, the variance should be granted totally
because it has been replaced by specific conditions
approved by both the Examiner and the City Council.
12. The landscaping plans as submitted _generally conform
to the restrictive covenants of the rezone and
the standards of the Parking & Loading Ordinance
with the exceptions noted in #8 and #11. Further
details of size, spacing, numbers and types of
species will require approval at the building permit
stage.
M. DEPARTMENTAL'AL RECOMMENDATION: (Special Permit, Variance)
Based upon the above analysis , recommend approval of
the site plan subject to compliance with items L-6 through
L-10.
L. PLANNING DE4ARTMENT /ANALYSIS: (Short Plat)
1. The proposed short plat is consisent with the Compre-
hensive Plan and zoning designation for the subject
site and surrounding area.
2. The subject proposal consists of 4 lots ranging
in size from ±24 ,820 sq. ft. to ±62,577 sq. ft.
3. Each of the proposed lots meets or exceeds the
minimum standards of the Subdivision Ordinance
for size and frontage. However, the applicant
is requesting an exception for access to lot #2
by easement over Lots 1 and 3. This proposal includes.
parking, utilities , ingress and egress to cover
all of the paved parking areas. Termed "a reciprocal
cross easement" . This approach has been used previously
at the Redwood Plaza Center in Bremerton and the
Alderwood Retail Center in Lynnwood. The Hearing
Examiner approved a somewhat similar request in
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING: SUNSET SQUARE, SA-104-80; Short Plat 116-80, E-117-80
DECEMBER 30, 1980
PAGE SEVEN
the Doug Weston Short Plat (Short Plat 061-80) .
on August 1, 1980. A related exception was also
requested and recommended for approval by the Planning
Department in the Puget Power Short Plat (Short
Plat 100-80) . Therefore it would appear that there
is some precedent for this request and that justification
can be provided (Section 9-1109) . However, the
primary argument supporting the granting of the
exception is the specific language of the parking
and loading ordinance which considers the difference
between a normal retail facility and one designed
as a shopping center. This distinction of function
is the basis for granting the exception.
4 . The Engineering Division advises that all off-site
improvements are to be installed in conjunction
with the initial development on the property. See
other comments.
5. A utility plan to service the proposed properties
will be necessary as per Utliities Engineering
Division comment. This is to be provided in conjunction
with the pressure water plan required by the Fire
Deprtment for the site approval.
M. DEPARTMENTAL1TAL r-tr m*/ T]EO : (Short Plat)
Based upon the foregoing analysis , recommend approval
of the short p lat subject to meeting the requirements
noted in L-4 and L-5.
It is recommended that the exception be granted due
to the previous actions referenced in both the City
of Renton and other municipalities.
i [ uc•"Y6ilt a na.aI<aotc C :.aualwwm .n 'r
f t.,., I+m.
n
xW ,ir
v li,v
ns.<w,u<„
I,sivu1msvt ITRRI1--7/0 n5>
2.
VtIMA,rmr°tFi a[,v.ic o uwi<ife uru<to[sear T'
6'+;!
n N „`
f'
riii°1
e nr.[`'..i+iti ei or
N.:
4 eta 07 v Tin v Al..wu,tc olelsimPEWIT.r""o61 iff-rfa
Rlv lan<c IncRw.lm„ma.a wnI lvnton.
o'
RTIli t -W
a 4irY6n6a.AS t u.i I:wl ORT•Ruaa t.0 MIT N.a.ra u,. u.,.Roan bap taus u[a LOA m[ti
SRL
m
I, IE a t.W,il'ai. v[Ina nip[claRi< VIR Ca. v.6...s.•
31.1.70,LIR PC SAID la W.,rt[,V(r.l[.5.a f j e.*"i
m n fi61 aw m[n v.anlc mrwrtsr 6¢i in[rcm
lOran of Y
ra r]a .uu f iafi.r.n.IS
twu.nA,n>.fa v xU.R]I t n
3
3••
6
w,l.ip Al MAI rrs•r611
v[In v era,e[<lunl< C[IM1alslm
S COMMus.u,S.A.,[[i,®t.af wets.
n m°• Z-. I
Sip-Sn.<I v411 ,a awl nV.'fi'(ral ]Ta.[ a
V o ;TIe 6eeBARBER, KLOPPENBURG & OLDS
I. [,Isi<5.5,
1 a a.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
R
SA-104-80 o ':f
i- e.:'6. ......17K.*.,,."e, ..=ware..R6y„f<r.6.camni.6an,c.te.cc rs<—`__ ,
6'
t fr..-la \ 1I g G ,,_,dt:s I
fir
6
i+
r\\ t T] wTFOBGARovc..6 i1 ,'. :,«..,,.:,. .,. , .ro ...
trd1.
i=.-5— \ II II rk 1
e; .;ui,a 1 L ]-- '
j ./F',-
J-
f--ce- J /I
I ] :i G
K ,
r` r1 ;
I d , f
CC
I C.—.
1k. ! VICINITY MAP W D nY 6.-
ins I.Lizco
z
r 1 I I \ 1. NOTE."...,...
a ....
o,.,.<....u...•.. =
a. ma'
d> +
f j f r' f ` ( ,f A I i r® I a —J 1=
71ZONEDZONED
R /
t
BI-
j f \ f 7,
0'
I/ I/ wry
Q
O , ,
t....V.,10,
Y
f
f.'/ /
5 y./e
f'' r t
f Z .L E.F c,"9 zi.o
00 . . i 1/
7 '..e.,,,77,..ni-........".7. ,
i' i 1,7
7,
394-- I
P ,
eP'93--='Z, I..
41
Z/ /// / ','
i I i ;'.
39z*fi" "/ - — /
3y/ i / /
3 ' k' ,
LEGENA a`,
i -I--- 7 C.' Li 7 i /5 I I 1 La....won:IA.rata/ru....s
5 fir' {'.1 i;I if 1 / / / Id 4 / /
I
p r'3so r'4 u m a a".
f .
ram J
i"j__— -3gg- =
V
F O,Tar.. i,.s6f a is
E 3
r
i6"' J.7 / a
Yter— I /' 4_,
e' / ° J Y 0 job mmiher:ryoar
W
ji i
6
b
I I / 8 "` JJJ / m Mt6n:rco o
e
1
m. -""_
a c•n __--- m/ -F— a --- rb L _— y date:es[ar lssa
11.1.7
i
7 fi'- \ -F•Tnuy
Jam_
i _
i
1a
Al
132ND AVE.SI E. r 1, fcaa<.s6• R<. .•
K
t
0 UNION AVE.NE) F _ _—J. I f — muae...a
7 /i
I
f
ar..,,,.t
7, :-.
TOTS 1,047
4-Tr•-..,•4•:141%,°..11;\
L•••...,..;•••••:-N...- -,BAR.BLR, KLOPPLNBURG, & OLDS
e4SA-104-80 Oit-, •••.•,•'-'. ,,7„;.,:•.,.1•.L....,---•
11Y 1,4,,.2.---•teir:.,:
SITE PLAN H
2_,Z_tr•-..-... ,..47 if U.Y.4 lik'Arm,
I
e...•J.-
14.0113104.
i 1 PROJECT DATA
4.3131• 14,300.33/33, I
eirerneen......i......e. LOCATION N.E.CORNER SUNSET BLVD.
roe..exterweine,
S a .3 (1 I.. [ .ht I
13g 132 ND.AVE. SE.,RENTON WA.1r---- --•
BLDG 2 ` '
4•'' it ..«,..• -4 1. ' Iii \ZONED e-1 114.277 SO.FT.
Hi I 1 '
i i Li 1 .R-3 3'1.040 SO•FT
1 1 ‘,...! 11 •\
s
ELDG 3 / -.1 i '-. .
I 1 I
1 ;.•;
PROPOSED USE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CTR.
1 1 -I 1 F I 0 RESTAURANT.BANK,RETAILi ' I I'I 1 0
I I 0 0 I I
i ......,_CONSTRUCTION TYPE I I I-N CONC.BLK.GLASS STOREI
t___*/
4=.«,..«
41---
1-1-11-\
I • ...."'
1 '
4,
1, -----
I
t.:
I:
1301 L DI NG A.REA BL DG 1 3600
BLDG 2 17725
1 BLDG 3 4000
1 I 1111110.111111111111 24325 SO.FT.
1
4 — '!" * PARKING RECUIRED 5.5 STALLS FER 1000 SO FT.1111111101111111111 139 STALLS
1N I i• PARKING PRIDED 147 STALLS B-I ZONE
I if
1 ,,,,.
1 .
f--t - L_ __ :..:...,.... ii1
11H I - 11
I .
4..°
a7t
1.I.Id GENERAL NOTES f.:',...--.
1 11 11 II II 1111 li 11 II 11 11 11 11 I II , _/'I.
0)1"S'... 1 _—_--.1 O.-
Z
1 1 I i... 1 03 WILD=1 e 1,1.1.L.,....vr,Lenguliergro=0.Nia4Linel pl...es.
I 1-----", 4 14
2
sarunse s-=r..1=1.r.r.zruumi.mu/1.1;to be sialtrod
I.
i f /..0321 4123-4.4.asy en, r.al...a to be wintsted..1.11/1
los..312 spolleitoe.
4-- 4 - — —t.,1*.z•z•I'Ll.
1 ;:/' Ior Lealecire 44=A 0•411.•eire 3..411ELOGI111
i
1
r1 i -,
1L..;
1 ) illlillil
0123 MI.=09 I.wormer 01.034 01'1333 SOM.=/311.2.11 09
MT.3.140E3.23 30.1.MO 5 42S.V.,SIG 0.311.
453114141.31342330/LS WM./
i.L.•
C...........* [ .....
j.
rotor or 11.1131.4 nurce corrnonro 93.2 01.10•11..42.3.ars.ls rorr.max
LLS3.10 01E 1011.13.102 LIM or P.a.3.3111100.,37013.1;nun=
Li I.1.6G 41.1 03110531.LIZ SO O.43131.LIU 09 112 1234.3 30.00
413 12 WU.OT IUD 4315143103: 1.56 31348 01333.12.3353 9/43.121.33
Err"'"P'
M%"'
SLIB'O't•LS'
NII"3''L110T'V.0:%"''r37ELTrt17:L:071.715"''"L".LT?''I307.3PnrC'170111/2779"0111,110".
5...L.2.,••
en,74.--..-1:-.--,
7.,-7.-------1--=;:-..,.....--) •
132 NO AVE. SE,
30112.41.Descurrros 0.9.3 33011 0110.T132 nrsourcr 034.1 632033 SD. rdge
2•54 07 00.0.01 31.149.noo•...
0
SITE PLAN 719-1-1. 1 en....„,_
71::';=•,`.-1.'"
z,......mstrl c".",,,L.
i I PI,Il. H in!El ,1.1 , ___._
1.: 0' ' 0 1 1' !
i . . . ..,,
1 BARBER, KLOPPENBURG, & OLDS
u ._ -1), •••' ,
1:', • ; il• 1 'I, 1' Ili,
411,)1111:11 j1111 1 ON l' 1 G RI SA-104-80 O.:., ". •,19:-",": -§;.•'' 1•Hlotlii! 1111 .I[ , 1 ••••••
FENCE DETAIL
LANDSCAPING PLAN
i
1 1i1 ....,,„.
r.z•••,- 4*-4_,_.,d .,..„,,..;.,„.._, _ . ...
L.,,,.)L.L,-,,,,,,.„ L •:..,
1tit'••.',. '' '',71:i7.'4I,F1:7- 71."-.1*nr.-IFfq":7•;e07- $11; -' .• :""-Itrf‘r)' .
i7Iv.'41` W -°&';''—..— ..---4-7 ' -'' - ''--s`• -- • -'' - ,"..,
T1,
11 ';
I1T1 ‘A1I-.X1Ii.7"
1"
I ----te-,'i,.
i ,• ,!.,
iI,.
LDS 2
i,
z> \
1\ 11 I
1 it.tr. '4,•;-,-A• Iil ,,,,:tt _ _ , : st •I,-,N.
L,-„••••'', , , 1 ',..i' „- ' NV
Ito, : 1 _ - „,,- =.„ _,,
fioI
I
I L.- -.‘ 11 I
I:lag I I I ,• 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '4 1 i i • 1
I .
r 7 :. .---j- ~-^') 14?!, .,
i L.._'.. ii._ , , i ,,, 111111. HI .f3', --II!: t
i
i
fp.s•• , 1
ft 4
i
1 1 ' i '•IH1111111111 I1 •••,o. • -44 1 . i i . 4,
t)
1-,••• -272-17-4. I11Ki
I it. '— ec r. . , I 1.- ' -; .
i
rt- •,..., I111 ! [1 1 1 1 t'.r „-•
e......- I,
f,i-i''''4'•:- '
Si
r.: i i et. • i ,
1 I , I : •I V/114111 [ 1 '
1 `-`,.-r '••-1 euco1, . •,,, -- —
1 4_15 . 1 ,..,
s_. Li....1_ :
44„.
i__:_ .,,
1--°/_,... At'i., 107.01 I' z
I 0s•
0 .---- ---\;51417.:_,t .i ert ' id
PLANTING SCHEDULE1 ' 1
14.-..:.=.-.4,--.,-...•
1.
1 I 7 1 1 IF '"'-:, .41-,,,, 44 1 OL°VANITY BOTANICAL NAIVE cammoN MAME
i i 1 I Mita 4, o--e•...r,-^r.c. l'-,t'a--
1,,,,),. -77..,,,,....••• 14., .1
1 , * I ,1 °) 1 I 1 1 1 IMIll .. ..istil,:sret-si"st.,..-s,.., J•Irran.,..-.3,..., ,V...,eu,1 i , 5, 1 f j‘V.:,' 4/
71°7 /VO: •;•,..1•*.A••••:4 1,I : •,z
fr ,P•t",f•-•,,,s. 414-'''.
4,
e"..'"=...=.... IA - PA
i:7
BLDG 1
44.4, f 1 i'- 1 - ----.'''..-'f
7," .
eVr-,,,,,,,,-.--
I r
Vi.' ''-tv-- Tie ' '... 0-
616111M1- iii,...,,,.,, __ . —N,
1 •
at., „.; ! .. • 1 ; ! -. ; I ; : ,,,."., ...., ..,,,,, ,•,,...1/4„,„;;„.--- ., ../
1 , . 1 ..... ., .._-:... :•-•4' 7,-. ii
I ?g. 1 • -, ....„1,-2Pv.:7.4-„, -Aw.,, 4--,:4"•—•-,17,1
7 - ''''';A :
L 4 C.::,, lle.,;-,:.''' -* 'A'.-..1'•••
V. --1 11-41•YfAr.".:/,' /7, ..ttifi-rAt,„ 1 ,`, -, -. 'A.,,, .„,,- • ''',-;,'„41`4.30`..../.'ifrIA6csailg,f,-...‘•371*.A0-,:','•v•-•„i,...`'.. NO''`! ,-;••!'.,, ,..•.... ,.32, ..;*
L L.q......x. . ••••,;•.44!.._...":./
n I ..,_.
ssGlLt,"T"S21..,
rYL-iSsClAi,•”I1 cV-FXcr"sum•.,„,„•.,...,t
7- •
t
132 ND AVE. SE.
I...,.,....-rro,,,......»w....xe./... ,,...r.-..,......1,-,,,,
SITE PLAN 71....7.7......m.,,m.1 &AM
BARBER, KLOPPENBURG, & OLDS
SHORT PLAT 116-80
Exception - E-117-80
iJ, c2 . CITY OF RENTON , KING COUNTY, WASH.
1F_J cam' HIlyH C`(G I IJE FEI.YJ: Ti=-`'o
I1 231 rl 1r rj o_o F3 3 Q h l s G
i!4J i 0I (S it
4. '( 0)fs _._
Io 1 ' I " 4s.I - c ' ,c.D 2.I
g :-. I I.'.38'- w. '-'
a r. ti y'
1,_ Or`ASIn GjU391VI
Io.I'
IC Ike 109,7 . 1
J 0
1
19-,cs7Iv'6 34-.x• Qv
god'o= ci'3tr' Se"
afJ% is 1-
Li.
3 , :- ST ICI \Ir2T-44 I^ r: ti i
I-i-.IoLS'IZ'y L.OT4- a, tiNu`LOT y LOT 3 if
Q 9 5Q•FT A=o2, 77 3 Sq.FT. A-ZG.89S•7 S,.i.
a
1 f 137.77'
r J !\
r1N M
1' ' 1:
7 UPOI ' !%I'CG r'..-.-
JQ
T 0 t
J.:.J.: _rah e
M ,rt I ,v:
n
W n
n v v N Pr
i _7IGi tT-4.
r
ki
G
4 TA=2 ,Oz0 Sq. .I°-
o
P 12
A <
oo.oz' Wit' -- •
cv
3CS.7lo' (H'
r..;
BCY"hIG
i[ Ft
I 'SS
P(1 1312.rl3'/!J}LG 1 i O o r
i`
I 9 tc'lJIG` 3D6.1, (FIB n
I'(NI 33.b31T1)
J-
t
y
CY_)`,-i8'Gi43, E 71ci' .3I'(C /ySl C.''L5.D7' (``r'//1G/A5.) IJ I" 23' 121"\-- DFFD)
c QC.
4 4 I3a iV &. . E- !c'
us.GoC SW ,Sw of -5 .3,
T.-LsN ,i.ie.,1V.H. - - - --- -- U 110 i Vr Lt' N° t,Tx1N0 ;E>7C EufuNa ,o r-IoN. , 1 s
e r or gam. 1,-I Ic--.
I 1 r
Mrs. Arthur Beale r•
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE-C 1::!.RESTRICTIVE-COVENANTS
WHEREAS, 'Arthur.•R:•.Beale and his wife Dorothy M. 'Beale, and Donna. R. Nolan, as
her separate estate, are the owners of. the•following:real property in the City of Renton,'
County, of King, 'State' of Washington;'.described. as• follows:
j That portion 'of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 3,
CD Township 23 North;', Range. East, W.M. ,' in King County, Wa, described as
j follows: '
Beginning at the northwest corner of said subdivision; thence north 89-24-22
CD east along the northerly line there of 372.37 feet; thence south 1-10-21 .
W,._. east 534.00 feet to the true•point of beginning; thence south 1-10-21 east
498..Tf..•feet,.;;''.i ;t`+; t.-??'
w %`
a N VIOA e '.* s *' '0 i aPi•r: " 4 iVit ' . P.
i, pW k;;j' #2;'hence es iii`f*-al`e5 : aid 'northerly line to the easterly line of the,
0 westerly 30 feet in width of said subdivision; thence north 1-23-12 west
s1 parallel with the westerly line of said subdivision to a line which is'
NI parallel with the northerly line of said subdivision and which intersects
the true point of beginning; thence north 89-24-22 east parallel with the _
w y:northerl line of said subdivision 340.37 feetj.more..or, less', to the true
point of gbeginnin ;' EXCEPT:'-road.
r i
n nWHEREAS, the owners' of said described property, hereinafter the property,KS
desire to impose the following restrictive covenants running with the land as .to
use, present and future, of the property;':",
NOW, THEREFORE, the aforesaid owners hereby establish, grant and impose..
restrictions and covenants running with the land as to 'the use of the land'
hereinabove described with' respect to the use by the undersigned, their successors, .
heirs and assigns, .as 'follows:
e;ll:t-4 ,p•!aNy >roo,.'L'kt.ti$.'tpiciiN-i'C"ARE?,t.-'.!
4kCt`•'a.?N.st 147+a9R11ca+goy7S ` Y attifi.tnwaP=:>'•ura.trrsrc.omav,wa-n:.t,swneaw+w,asy,4;swor.sraG n
It shall be the responsibility of the owners of. the property to install and maintain
a 20-foot landscape buffer and fence along the north-property line, and to install* .
and maintain a 15-foot landscape buffer and fence along the east property line.
Honeydew Creek shall be preserved and incorporated into any development plans for
the property.
DURATION
These covenants shall run with the land and expire on December 31, 2025. If at any
time improvements are installed pursuant to: these covenants, the portion of the
covenants pertaining to• the 'specific. instalied improvements as required by. the
Ordinances of the City of Renton .,shah.?:terminate without necessity of further
documentation. : . • -.
Proper legal procedures in the Superior Court Of King County may be instigated by.'' '•
ei'th'er: the C ty''of,lte4toi05t ta: >r 0,p 0" er' ''mod3?. . y;'.t;tii, :': .J.a ni:ri[y,°'s. 7ect.,,pz°opert, who,.,; .P..,7.;a''• .. i
i rtd t'i
are adversely affected by any violation or breach of these' restrictive covenants. .
Reasonable attorneys' .fees'.incurred during.,,An,enforcement ,proceeding will, be borne
by the parties whom' the court:determines .are,•in,error.andrshall be entered as a
judgment in,such action.
I L .L) I e`'°Fi,01 C if.si.'`,wl' i't,.'.N!4..2:ti;, •'`l' 1 Wa:A.4,1 JoV.SjotAZ C,
dh aa . , . ..
Arthur R. Beale,
d,,, :. .. a i•.i.L Si.,DG.
RE,s1'(:).T •
12' •S• !13Q G=2.c(Via,; >2 2 _ .-ed.-C c '
Dorothy M./Beale 1
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
COUNTY OF KING
Page One of Two
On this .\ - _day of 19 - , before me personally appeared
Arthur R. -Beale and his wife DorOthy M. Beale, the persons who executed the within
and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and
voluntary act and deed of said persons for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
WITNESS wilEtztor, I haVe hereunto set my.,hand and affixed my official sealerthedayandyear' first above written...-. .
f)
r-i
qt
Notary Public in and for theiState'
CD 9f . .,-31141,,09,11,e0,F,P4144F 454
4227/0fts.:1C)) 42,b,t,c_
n as/ her separate estate
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
On this day of leIL 19 , before me personally appeared
Donna R. Nolan, the person who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said
person ,for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my and and affixed my official Seal:-
the daY and year first above written.
and e "
of Washington, residing in
RECORDED THic; nAy
Apr; 7 11 10 P4 '"
RECORD:3 `LECTIONS
KING Uti;if.11 fV
Page Two of Two .
e ,
1
T.elar/
o'
A,
92, ,, }'"0 PUBUUC WORKS DEPARTMENT0evtee
WARREN C. GONNASON, RE. DIRECTORz
p ® a. MU CIPAL[RAIDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055
o co'
206 235-25691q),
0 SE PSE*
BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH
MAYOR
November 24, 1980
Honorable Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor
and Members of the Renton City Council
Municipal Building
Renton, WA 98055
Subject: Sunset Lift Station
Dear Mayor Shinpoch and Council Members:
Attached to this memorandum is reports, previous memorandums and data relative
to the Sunset Lift Station and the proposed Kennydale and Honey Creek sewer
interceptors. Based upon the attached analysis and the present circumstances,
it is recommended as follows:
1 . That connections to the systems served by the Sunset Lift Station be
prohibited by moratorium following the connection of the following
properties which are in permit application process:
a. 75-unit apartment complex on the east side of N.E. 12th Street
and Union Ave. N.E.
b. 16-unit duplex complex southerly of the shopping center at
Sunset and Duvall Ave. N.E.
c. Neighborhood shopping center at N.E. corner of Union and Sunset.
d. Small L. I .D. proposed by Shannon O'Neil to serve the northeast
corner of Sunset and Duvall Ave. N.E.
The total connections of the above properties will be less than the
calculated 361 units which would still be allowed under the attached
analysis. This moratorium could be immediately effective subject to
the exemption of those properties.
2. That the City proceed and authorize a revenue bond issue In the amount of
2,000,000 for the purpose of providing the financing necessary to con-
struct the Honey Creek and Kennydale interceptors, A complete analysis
of the debt service requirements for this bond issue w ll' be coordinated
with the completion of our Water 6 Sewer Rate Study estimated to be com-
pleted on December 15th. We feel that there Is good probability that
this bond issue can be serviced without an Increase in the sewer rates
and if such an increase is required, it would be only a small increase
1't'1 u;".';:itSa;3 A'uwl'T.77-7y„;p:.`.r.:.;7tiu,isiz4Ss"u'.`:.i.'+Lua-d::il.c:i rSs:;eiu•.'<;•a•GiYiay.'Ya"'tw.:f«.nes:i4::)awLi,L.:1:Wei:.utLa6+1..f:lLiia..wsyu.A6a!I:.+:.r.v 4JE.v'a:dit,wwc'.iiiurn. i .. 5ti'• iii..li Yit+e+td.ZdiM:}.`,•:(f±riia.:»•::.;us:i:a+f,.;i
Mayor 6 City Council 2- November 2h, 1980
for a short period of time.
3. Based upon the bond issue in 2. above, request Metro to proceed with
the construction of the May Creek interceptor.
In our 1981 budget., we have requested funds for a complete analysis and
comprehensive plan of our sewer system. This will include an inflow
infiltration analysis along with a recommended cost-effective solution to
the inflow and infiltration problem.
Very truly yours,
Warren C. Gonnason, P.E.
Public Works Director
WCG:j t
cc: City Attorney
Engineering Supervisor
Hearing Examiner
Planning Director
e
t
Kr."', h yY"y;N 3 +
c ,,t'
F'tt5 P' , Er,1 1 ' s.r "w
t t
Y '31 et { , ,,,?
i '5,44,, ,r, "•;,`. 1 " + P° s
x x F4 7.:, ,, y : , t';'',,,.. cis- ! x .+•,y ,1W t lct 1't''•
i t;
y' n .+fY C m,
4, `
tr S«,, 1.
i } ' .
1 t
N
P "• y*A4n c t4 ,
Y "4s;a Y
P 1 "„y,P +f t 'kC ,,,'";'
c{' iY T"
K
d•° i 4h. ib` rsi,:V` ,' tsr ' }4.a?
p f' tE t,.:.. j
t'„
M.
4 'ir g' }, . skit . `F, -
4-, #Aa ,1,
P 4'.
a•,' 4. ,, .1Yr Y hi g ,>y„
l ^' rt M " ,1?' tr
n
tt emss..('-„
Y „!',tit
4'Y c' . ,. i ,fr
i., w r + ',IA,,,i;d>, ti si.i 1 ,#c ,,
Y.,`- ,+S•
4` `I,y1, '•—
Y
l" ,
yi i?tit. vita f .P h t e ,+.
i,. 7a,%!;.'q
t
it 1', 10
4:1 -
1 .,. 1,., ,'
f tn. + `1,
t ,
a + .i. t'±
r. '
F" ,. :4' „ {{,,'?4.V.^^kt ,{ .f t '
KZ,' t.4".si+ s,tr-•,
t , f '' •11,P` -',''
w . f • f.•,. 1 ;fir"x• ,+', fi 4 :i.4 ,;,/,
r' x 1 r ,:1 ,,,, `,
p
9
j';,x s '.-. 1 , • ti} ``f'u,,.r L3a;CR. 4»
y.
w5b«..Wi a* §d w !•
3: ,c!%'#'
7f"ttn t
i. `}} '
k 1V.1•'.aa 4+'t4i•4,, M. 10,t,,ry , 'tr Y
y 44:4' ,, ;.. 10''' i4x, tt ,'. t' rttc4 ate ` i. .,
1r W
l _§ -4., A.'
t;e l F' tf.y u 4, i..t" ,,, ti N.,,.,,, ,. 1 v r; .0,t,,Vi:„,' 1[•S t,e ,...„4,5"
t!"`-•{ •`
p*
J o;et;'vt #"w ,
c.+s
a tyyppe--,.:^i
N °'
i sti,+' AW r,,>_^, ' , +,tt.
c .
t ". ,t
t ,"'.
t'
3 ar.1k,.. y5.f,'a- :
r 4` i
r.
1 !1;, 4
w i'''I r. i,rg!e /1.1::` •"1t ; F4'11. ! `*.t. ,
Y t1`:#' •t P'.,r r t, : ii[,*
t ,
x, i •` •i ''''0V11`,
X y 4i:A'rl .1 tIN,,
reaT l ,"x 1 ati44 p,' • n`R V e'c-., k,,,»a
t ,,,y,. ,. Y. '
y .-4-- 5 ry yt•: +• i ' };
4 , 7 1, :>. ,,Iy a r" v,
yl . Fy 2n# 4'rP ""fi ;t f r, T + ,h " Yt. n xj sP` .
v+3 at f
Y+, r •,.,ys,1i 1.. 4,tt.i•'t .,,,:.y y
y t "I,1
Li n'" .P,r.1 {'k„, , "4"''.1i ' 't,,k`tr't••,t rp:•-'l,zaG i^4,,,A,`,, .r",,t. ,, .J "
h„,.,
K , ,;, s a r 'r'
f% ,{ 'iV 'yq "
t r''" !' `'14r4' y tw as f b.itix ;"'' tr,, y,i ;r c ,,
r4 f * in 1 ! :.>P ;, y
K' r 4. '4, 'x1' t:", ti,4?.., ri, + x'ra e .1".:V"
yt ',t . .g .}', '
1
e ,S" p , A, r.tri .t
i
1
w} " ." },,4 ( t . f ,
0 •. f+a
T• 1
r.
t;
yy Frs1y, + '^ , ',y
1 t A 1
Sri »"';i; b1 R f , r y{, 4• , _Y s! fl h Vs, ,»i ,r r e;..
t Yf,,,. r r}
4,, .. ,# 4
V r a }A(" • 5-1 !r J'
a :Y",
t A y :
T...
F
5 »
2M!Y {'••;''c" ,!h±,y+1 r;F.:;' C. r
d L's x.#1 ,^]tt.»i y k.y„ ,•''"a,„,,,1 ,^w ;[ ^
i jY"t' ,T» 'ti }'-7P tS!yizy ,;»k t t " pt.4;2 .y. t,,`.,,..tx :+,'
r, .- •,•,.,. 4'.r
C,- • s ;
yT ''" , 14 *' r:tZ't b.''•#' „ «
F ,P'}'?'4t1t,?;:',3 y, 4{•,t,,I_'n
r,
ly •,` } t c }'yt"t, +: , XtF",i?.+1 i 0,11t, dt7.F{a.4,1 ,h,., •. v., VR r; 't it a ':yyYx„.3!
9 9t 1,5• Y , 41, "4j,:; +w 4 .'Ntt k k f fY ,
h It ,l, C
x, t
Y 4'! µ
1. . ,d,' .`>,1A .,.` '",..7„11 k:'' "W( "itt,t4
v..(
yt
a•
fi"xit u-7°>} > ,
i''A'i" (... .,, *K }t,
x"A.«,,^.
r ' s,.»
Y,
i •,.`
t Pt Y { '
A
t`+, {' +.
r df .. .*t1R.,'';e }' t,. r* ',,.. t k ` •.., "3a +. i f ;r - 1.,
t
r }A.+ 4 rt 4 ,t{ 1 l 1
f, 'iS e,'Y''`
Y,,`
4' ,,.
Y t s r. !;
Y *
rP1.t `
t mh- ' F3' u
w
P.,
t + .
frn i 4 3a?''r
cr'. ,Tr 4,ri. $a t@.,M, 'Iti, t+"a. i ' t r`. i P, .,p k4r1,,t. 4, i ` ,,.ar dgr..r%Y'
l.,;+.,., r,r r N
t. ak " ,.. H 1;lygy, ,x,, ,0, `l.,. ",*4 w t. ,t.?C^0.' t, ,A,,.t. .x Y_, It`,'i-(4„A , .!•''E!•.
A.,. +' >row, y ;ya... ,, F'1Y, ,i
s", ,,
q>0 0;, t , ,, i rt ;c..4 d:4t: fi q -, a', . _.,s t,.-. .{,Gt',.430:,;rh,A,, i.y rMf'si((
rz: ,g. „, "
O
a E4,:k.4e'at- fY Na' .Y
s \`!,
S. .;,
rt r •13,;1,4Y^'Ytr:", :' /4 S:,. ;^ Y. 5, L.i 4,• C t.i.d, fi f "1'! i"ri j + ^
x . X > f 4 `,. `5,£ .Y1 1 Z9£;,17f,"?tl, ,•s •r.;., h'^zt;, .a ..r r:ur•' ,.r '+. ?3`S ,wa4+..,"
t?„
yr?St'.ti`,t,;k }y.35 b',x ,>rR- x v• •";
n i;,dwr,o1k*::rt h 9 ;'?;Fs }a. .P tLj„*.:'.F:.,:,. m i`,tT .;ry,..P, 'P. ..^''•t.i.l:mf_.S-%to,:;'r+t,,s.x!„ A '.,kq;,.ff,",a •" t,1 h„j 1.:r
1:e -: •,J.it;? .i.. w,NA?,, "
F ...
l..
g.•!:d., ,: `µF ,i 4 .v;.,y
Y ,, ',
4.ps. •+.,,d :tk:,. tr,:,i e,,S<.,..
4,, ,,,', ,,,...-.4.
4'1°4" a,?;;l Y':4-:.4.':t ',{ ,
t.,.ry ;, c A..", -?,y, I' f
y•,K ,:.r:.4:;uo'lw:.hY i,;G.„•}..u,!,SS.r,,-3`.t Y.,a-._,...tC...,.,.a{'.r_.b„aS„nkT...,_4-:G.{ni..,tS.A'rS,P',-,...,.E n,1x s,.:,A.4s,.<::3I>.w:a..m. :.hh ttn,"rf,i'-='_'lip,.@:r$tS` •... `wt sE•:Kk'1c,
f 77 .. 0 Rlanninc
Y 12-1979
RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT µk
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET CL® w'sa4"
9
Appl i cation : f "', O — 1 I / 0- Ff0 .M
ES#
e W re. 116-fleeA A0 oil fetp4i‘;'*. rett oriltaft t
Co' Irekt&w. yokneLocation • a
Applicant:00
TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : ///)S
Police Department A. R, C. MEETING DATE : ifhegift,
r
Public Works Department e. ,.'I oC 84 99 0/2 T iii 1
Engineering Division
Traffic Engineering
Building Division 0,,
t., ,`!
L fir'
4 ' Utilities Engineering t 4 .5'
1 Fire Department Z-7/
Other ) : C_fj
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED INWRITINGFOT.E APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ONr'r
AT 900 A.M IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOMIFYOIiDEARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE T ATTEND THE ARC,
PLEAS4Eif OVI THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P .M. ON
o
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : r7A1`7
Approved V/ Approved with Conditions Not Approved
Cv4),G'Laa/CC Z-c f/1 /'ice G" /-1 (S(f/ I!ie2E/o
r . / r /, ,_ r- 6/2 /ci
Signature of Director or Author zed Representative Date
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : uTiuT,"
Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
SL3JC-a •cb l_,rC- (Cfrtic125 DCD/2Cr`5"" 1W S„4 t 61' &A ng —w070.t.r
f 1 it 11 001,1 N Jct. "iG — $O`y4:51 t--
S 1 S't —` vx J. Cr1niz4 — SC-A-it (V- (,,07cL_ --
4 PP'- 6'i9,, wdTffa(- v9 Al s 0-14,-(4c a(Quo-6o 'Y I`'/16 d5Pl Fo-- SirG NYo-uv-tzS
21: ,(93 Area
7;314x)-
10---.11 34
Signatur of C : rector or Authorized Representative Date
6'1/',7 _I% P1annin
12-1979
RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
t,
pros
2co-
Appli cation : S — 6 of ' etYentg g
9 _ Q
Location • 4. a v-
e ept, '
Appli cant: r 60int glapp0Pi Agor s
S
Parks DepartmentTO: P SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : if r
M, `
Police Department A, R,C, MEETING DATE : /// /
Public Works Department s` i4 4042
Engineering Division
Traffic Engineering
Building Division
Utilities Engineering
Fire Department
Other) :
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN
WRITING FOB REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON
AT 9 :UU A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM,
IF YOti DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC,
PLEASE OVI THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M. ON
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: w F7 L/V61llEE /MG
Approved X Approved with Conditions Not Approved
ASS 01 C1l r ctv vc_ d }
7,, t+ E.LA.) `Ic i /ice 1:•E t r.
1. /
t.r l/11'E' 'Q G1r Y.-/' %[_.'- C (J ')rYr Q
1())
1/4J)i., _, G CP.°•KA • 3a) )( )15,8 _ °,65-2) '
1
t ?C , ` —7
P 7-0ff/16 71 GtiO - J' o':
r (
k le r t 13. eS
5 = ram` /O -! /
a-r
r/ . ` f- 127/ •/
V -
ii
r
ilk
f O^d p,..1 i ..5 o r G/rr..ic r c.J!///,7' t c_.1 rr.%.v y,r {'AC / p/r61.,/// /
Sn.ri't f-..,c.t Ti'/}I•c 'r`v,"u -.•t,... e rf..a.r<, ti:J;a'F. .Y u f 1.7._ 4 ( f"-
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative`' K."•, •
Date
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION :
G
Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
Signature of Director or uthorized . P esentative Date
Planninc
12-19 7 9
RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4tr pet
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET , C® `' -€
Application . e-
A;q9 e-
bh Ss** pAre?87 4 6-/redrA rAve I'r7Js' F . 4 e j ,
y
4i N4 /
t ® ,
Location
6" r a off© ° 0,
5' e
Applicant : ids
TO: Jarks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : #44614
Police Department A. R. C. MEETING DATE : )10 e
Public Works Department di 9, ,„ © 11 Al
Engineering Division
Traffic Engineering
I
Building Division
Utilities Engineering
Fire Department
Other) :
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN
WRITING FO TE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO. BE HELD ON
W • ` AT 9:00 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM.
IF YOGI DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE Tp A TEND THE ARC)
PLEASE OVI THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY :0u P .M. ON
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : POLICE DEPT.
Approved XXXX Approved with Conditions Not Approved
1) Should consider making drive-up lane to bank two lanes in width instead
of one lane to prevent any traffic back up onto Sunset Blvd. N.E.
2) LICHTINC in parking lot & on buildings should be a placed so that it sh
in on buildings rather than out on to the street & parking lot . This is
a safety measure for both the traffic on the adjoining streets as well
as a safety measure for police officers who have to respond to business
aft cl. ing--Lights directed outward will blind officer, on approach.
Lt , i 10/28/80
Signat re 4f Director or Authorized Representative Date
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION :
Approved Approved with Conditions )c Not Approved
S d'W J' Zoi'T bL 2
AV/4/-101:
Signature of Dir cto'r or Authorized Representative Date
I Site) •Planni
1.2-197
RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
Application : O T JT dip
11 ® ilf 5J 0-5e,frociala ;rF`I' 3 r , Seate,fir e
Location : c3> o . e D
Applicant:
TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : /la/3g
Police Department A, RQC, MEETING DATE :
Public Works Department
Engineering Division
Tra f i c Engineering
Building Division
Utilities Engineering
Fire Department
Other) :
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN
WRITING FO THE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON
AT 9:OU A.M0 IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM,
IF YOUR DE ARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC,
PLEASE PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 :OU P .M. ON
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : ?L D( \
Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
II
i
cin re of Director or uthorized Representative Date
REVIEWINGDEPARTMENT/DIVISION : POLICE
XXXXXXX Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
LT . D .R. PERSSON 12/9/80
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
314J%: P1 anni i
12-197
RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
Appli Cation : t ;,® r"
a. Cyr e g ' . e -
PAO.26;14 472)7-
Location : Qo e 11 g 4, Q ) A ti
Applicant:
TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE :
Police Department A. R. C. MEETING DATE : r/
r°
Public Works Department
Engineering Division
Traffic Engineering
Building Division
Utilities Engineering
Fire Department
Other) :
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN
WRITING FO HE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON
AT 9:00 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM.
IF R DE ARTMENT DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC)
PLEASE PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P .M. ON
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION :
Approved X Approved with Conditions Not Approved
11='5 >
e!!!f2e!',„2,; :
z) ,a a
z,/1-6-)
Signature of Director or Aut'nor ' zed ep;sentative Date
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION :
Approved Approved with Conditions y Not Approved
1 , 1.0 C)-T V'. —'!` C• t l L--C V P L._r_.,.1
1
l 7
t. lC• a.V b
JJdLI 7 !._C C_a_ 7-a.. ,/ `- .fir..i . 7./'r'.c L:
l72 y '' _J ,)! .•-
t • C..!r /`,2'L f i r. ,-.•', , 1J
cam a'.,:a / C`'6l'< -r% Vii'v
Signature of Director or Authorized epresentat e D to
Est P 1 a r n,i i
12-197!
RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
Application :_s
ov z)ds
0
Location : od Q v ` ttp, A/e-
APPIicant: d'e .
TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : 4, /3g
Police Department A. R. I.. MEETING DATE :
Public Works Department
Engineering Division
Traffic Engineering
Buildssng Division
tilities ' Engineering
ve,/,Fire Department
Other) :
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN
WRITING FO -HE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON
AT 9:00 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM.
IF YOUR DE ARTMENT DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO A TEND THE ARC,
PLEASE PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 500 P .M. ON
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION :77f
z Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
Sig at re of Director or A horized Representative ate
REVIEWING. DEPARTMENT/DIVISION :
I Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
Liot Y ()time To 9i t4ee- (k014a:t3o Pere-ri
inotO tz/g40
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
Application No(.al: SA-104-80
Environmental Checklist No.': ECF-614-80
Description of Proposal : Small neighborhood
shopping center (to
include bank and/or
restaurant)
Proponent : BARBER, KLOPPENBURG,
OLDS
Location of Proposal :NE corner of Sunset
Blvd. NE and Union
Avenue NE
Lead Agenci: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on October 29, 1980,
following a presentation by Steve Munson of the Planning
Department . Oral comments were accepted from:
Warren Gonnason; Director of Public Works, commented there .
may be some overflows of storm water runoff.
Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings
Of the ERC on application ECF-614-80 are the following :
1) Environmental Checklist Review Sheet , prepared by :
Steve Munson , Assistant Planner , dated October 27 , 1980
2) Applications : SA-104-80
3) Recommendations for a declaration of non- significance:
Police, Planning and Building Departments.
Acting as the Responsible Official , the ERC has determined
this development does not have significant adverse impact
on the environment . An EIS is not required under RCW 43 ,21C .030( 2) (c)
This decision was made after review by the lead agency of
a complete environmental checklist and other information
on file with the lead agency .
Reasons for declaration of environmental non-significance:
Subject to available sewer capacity ; additional trip generation
and payment of $20/vehicle trip for traffic impact fees .
Signatures :
Ai c (., 11
Q
on E . lJebley , Pa . ks and Gordo . ie en
creation
4D ,'
e9t/ : panning Xrector
l/
Ve,..•x._/-. Si----I---,-z--ef--a.-IP-21•1--.---
Warren C . Gonnason
Public Works Director
DATE OF PUBLICATION : Nov. 5, 1980
EXPIRATION OF APPEAL PERIOD : November 19 , 1980
1
THE CITY OF RENTON04RAUNICIPALBIMLDING200MILLAVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055
o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR ® PLANNING DEPARTMENT
235- 2550
91TED
December 12, 1980
Mr. Richard L. Kloppenburg
Real Estate Development
15404 NE 6th Pl.
Bellevue, Washington 98007
Re: Application for 4-lot short plat for the future development
of the neighborhood shopping center of Sunset Square,
file no. short plat 116-80; and exception to the Subdivision
Ordinance for access by easement to proposed lot #2,
file E-117-80; property located on the northeast corner
of Sunset Blird. N.E. and. Union Ave. N.E.
Gentlemen:
The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above
mentioned application on December 4 , 1980. A. public hearing
before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for
December 30, 1980 at 9: 00 a.m.
Representatives of the applicant are asked to be present.
All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing.
If you have any further questions, please call the Renton
Planning Department, 235-2550.
Very truly yours,
Gordon Y. Ericksen,
Planning Director
By: 1
Roger ..J. Blaylock UAssociatePlanner
RJB:.wr - -
t t
f w'
4
r,, k aiyhA3'11]
r
I X J it
t, a4 ! 4 i +h S b fir v t :f , a .
of. ar } tx+
o \
4 lr.
x r
L 6 ;7„
l * h`: >+
4
a
r
rC f
v
R , t.iv.c.Ct
h C c rtCt y;.r
r•
S•\ti
r .,
r"'
p`nr
y
r. +-• _
1,7
GENERAL LOCATION: AND, OR ADDRESS:
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE .NORTHEAST CORNER - OF SUNSET BOULEVARD
N .E. - AND UNION AVENUE . N ,E
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION ,ON FILE IN THE RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I S POSTED TO NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS OF
1
L.
a
Ss f ... s
T ii• BE HELD
IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MUNICIPAL BUILDING
ON DECEMBER 31 19So BEGINNING AT 9:00 A.M.
P.M.
NCERNING TE
ZONE
J yti! C,"tS. '
Ai*
t•• E!•4
A•,
ti I
SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING
SITE. t
CENTER OF SUNSET SQUARE
WAIVER '
SHsRELF tAa 3EMENT PERMI'
rip;' VARIANCE FOR 10-12 FOOT REAR-YARD SETBACK; FOUR-LOT SHORT
PLAT APPROVAL; EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE RE , -ACCESS
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL 235 2550
THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE RE'`•VED WITHOUT- PROPER AUTHORIZATION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
RENTON, WASHINGTON
A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING
EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON DECEMBER 30, 1980, AT
9: 00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS:
1 . BARBER, KLOPPENBURG, OLDS (SUNSET SQUARE)
Application for site approval of small neighborhood
shopping center (to include bank and/or restaurant)
and condominiums or professional offices; File
No. SA-104-80; Variance for 10-12 foot rear-yard
setback instead of the required 20 feet is also
requested; File No. V-105-80; property located
on the Northeast corner of Sunset Blvd. N.E. and
Union Avenue N.E.
2. RICHARD L. KLOPPENBURG (SUNSET SQUARE SHORT PLAT)
Application for 4-lot short plat for the future
development of the neighborhood shopping center
of Sunset Square; File No. Short Plat 116-80; and
Exception to the Subdivision Ordinance for access
by easement to proposed Lot #2; File No. E-117-80;
property located on the Northeast corner of Sunset
Blvd. N.E. and Union Avenue N.E.
3. BRAD CUNNINGHAM (MERCURY MARING EXPANSION)
Application for site approval and variance to construct
a t59,800 sq. ft. addition to an existing warehouse;
File No. SA-113-80; and Variance to eliminate 5% •
interior landscaping requirement; File No. V-114-80;
property located vicinity of 4060 Lind Avenue S.W.
4. GERALD E. SCHNEIDER
Application for rezone from R-2 to R-3 to allow
tenant parking and circulation for the proposed
Hilltop Apartments; File No. R-124-80; property
located east side of Monroe Avenue N.E. approximately
600 feet north of N.E. 4th Street.
5. GERALD E. SCHNEIDER
Application for special permit to allow construction
of apartment buildings in the R-2 zone (proposed
Hilltop Apartments) , total project to be 158 units;
File No. SP-123-80; property located east side
of Monroe Avenue N.E. approximately 600 feet north
of N.E. 4th Street.
Legal descriptions of files noted above are on file in the
Renton Planning Department.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE
PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON DECEMBER 30, 1980, AT 9:00
A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS.
PUBLISHED: December 17, 1980 GORDON Y. ERICKSEN,
RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR
CERTIFICATION
I , STEVE MUNSON, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE
ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES
ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW.
ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to
before me, a Notary Public , in
and for the State of Washington
residing in King County, on the
llth day of December, 1980.
SIGNED: t7A.614-4e:7
ENVIROMMMWAL REVIEW ComrrrEE
November 19, 1980
AGENDA
COMMENCING AT 10: 00 A.M. :
THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
OLD BUSINESS:
SA-092-80 VALLEY OFFICE PARK, PARK II
ECF-602-80 ication or site approval for four
2-story office building complexes;
property located on the southwest
corner of S.W. Lind Avenue and S.W.
16th Street
SP-047-80 MT. OLIVET CEMETERY CO.
ECF-567-80 Application tor special permit to
fill and grade 11-acre expansion
area; property located north and
east of existing Mt. Olivet Cemetery,
east of NE 3rd Street, in the vicinity
of 100 Blaine Avenue NE
SP-099-80 RAINIER SAND & GRAVEL--CO. -
ECF-608-80 App ication or specia permit to
fill and grade approx. 1. 6 million
cubic yards over life of project;
property located 370' south of N.E.
3rd Street on hill east of Mt. Olivet
Cemetery
V-105-80 BARBER, KLOPPENBURG, OLDS (SUNSET
ECF-614-80 SQUARE)
Application for site approval of
small neighborhood shopping center
to include bank and/or restaurant)
and condominiums or professional
offices; variance for 10-12 ° rear
yard setback instead of required
20' ; property located on NE corner
of Sunset Blvd. NE and Union Avenue
C' NE
NEW BUSINESS:
NONE
OF RFC
y •=THE CITY OF RENTON
0 0•; Z
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
rn BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT
90 0- 235- 2550
O,;,
gTFO SEP„,
06
November 17 , 1980
MEMORANDUM
TO: Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
FROM: Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director
by Roger J. Blaylock, Associate Planner
RE: 0000 SUNSET SQUARE/SITE APPROVAL/SA-104-80
The Environmental Review Committee has received a
reconsideration request of their Declaration of Non-
Significance on the above project from the applicant.
The Committee has taken the item under advisement
pending a technical report from the Public Works
Department concerning the current sewer situation in
that general area. The Public Works Department report
is to be completed by November 27th.
The Planning Department requests continuance of the
above item until Tuesday, December 30, 1980. New
public notices will be published in the official
newspaper and posted on or near the subject site.
6/e.
OF RA,
o •- 4- t O THE CITY OF RENTON
go
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
ecommo BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT
co- 235- 2550
94),
E0
P
SErr°*)
November 14, 1980
Mr. Richard L. Kloppenburg
Real Estate Development
15404 N.E. 6th Place
Bellevue, Washington 98007
RE: SUNSET SQUARE/SITE APPROVAL/SA-104-80
Dear Mr. Kloppenburg:
The Environmental Review Committee has taken your request
for reconsideration under advisement . The City Council
has requested a formal study from the Public Works
Department to be considered by the Council on December 1 ,
1980 . The study will be completed by November 27th based
on information from the Public Works Department .
The Environmental Review Committee will consider your
request after the sewer capacity study is available. A
public hearing was scheduled before the Hearing Examiner
on Tuesday, November 25, 1980; however, that will now
have to be continued. The Planning Department will have
to readvertise and post the property prior to the new
public hearing.
If you have any further questions please contact this
office at 235-2550.
Very truly yours,
I
Gordon Y. Ericksen,
Planning Director
k7 )
Roger J . Blaylock
Associate Planner
RJB: rjb
r ,
f
RICHARD L. KLOPPENBURG
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
L;..7R `>.,\ fir.
15404 N.E.6th PL
BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98007
206)747-2144
November 7, 1980 0///:
4ThNTD
Environmental Review Committee
City of Renton NOV 1980
Municipal Building 2i
Renton, Washington 98055 ot
71/'Nr prpP
RE: Reconsideration of EDC Decision; SA-104-80/ECF-614-80
Dear Sirs:
I am in receipt of your final declaration of non-significance.
I am appealing the " subject to available sewer capacity" ,
portion of the declaration.
My original declaration of non-significance for the project
was dated February 21, 1980. You will note that a site
plan accompanied the rezone application and the site plan,
approval site plan has varied only slightly. PLEASE note
that the project has always been under way since the original
rezone application.
Enclosed you will find my letter to the City of Renton Plan-
ning Department dated January 31, 1980 . Please refer to
paragraph #3----#l. Enclosed please find Exhibit #1 which is
a letter to me from the Public Works Department, indicating
that all services are available with the payment of the
referenced fees.
Please note an enclosed letter from my engineer to me indi-
cating the small amount of sewer capacity needed for this
particular commercial development. I would like to also
note that if the entire 148,315 square foot site were medium
density apartments, it would represent 102 apartment units.
My site plan consists of 10 - 15 commercial businesses, such
as a real estate company and a bank which use very little
capacity.
I hereby request that you withdraw the declaration of non-
significance and issue a new declaration of non-significance
without the sewer capacity question.
1- RICHARD L. KLOPPENBURG
E
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT f/ et)
W *.=7; 15404 N.E.6th PL U
esL.L- _`=7' BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98007 i OV7
i•—))206)747-2144 4 NpV
44N,NG
Environmental Review Committee
Page 2
As I have been completely committed to the development of
the project since the approval of the rezone, I will be
seriously damaged by any delay caused by non-availability
of the sanitary sewer system.
Please reconsider your decision. I am available at any time
for a meeting concerning the subject. I anxiously await
your reply.
Sincerely,
4045412
Richard L. Kloppenburg
RLK: 11
Wl. SiDEVELOPMENTCORPORATION
R
18000PACIFIC HWY.SO.,-SUITE 1117 O
r r
SEATTLE,WA 98188 (206)246-5153 L ^C
KC lC`,I CD O/
J
January 31, 1980
N
7 1980
Mr. Steve Munson G DFp
Assistant Planner
City of Renton
Municipal Building
Renton, Washington 98055
Re: Proposed rezone of Sunset Square from G to B-1 & R-3
Dear Mr. Munson:
As the agent for the rezoning of the northeast corner of the intersection
of Union and Sunset Blvd. , I would like to indicate why this rezone is
appropriate and timely. You will note that we are asking for the B-1
classification for the first 300 feet from Sunset Blvd. , and R-3 for the
rear 100 feet of the property. The proposed B-1 will accommodate retail
shops, food service businesses, savings and loan institutions, and banks.
We intend to use the R-3 portion for professional medical-dental . We feel
that the R-3 portion will serve as an excellent buffer for the B-1 portion.
The 300 feet may be referenced to the comprehensive plan use map in the
Renton planning office. Please also refer to the enclosed site plan which
also incorporates the 300 foot provision.
Please be advised that the subject property has always been considered
commercial , but no one until now has ever formally asked for a rezone of
the property.
Please note that since the last previous comprehensive plan analysis of the
rezoning application of the subject property, authorized public improvements ,
permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the- subject
property have undergone the following changes:
1. Please note that all public services are available to the site
as per Exhibit #1. We are expressly willing to pay all referenced
charges. Please also note that the sanitary sewer line recently installed
by the Forestbrook Condominiums runs along the western boundary of
the subject property. This sanitary sewer line will enable all of
the subject property to be served by this line.
2. Referring to Exhibit #2 and Exhibit #3, which are aerial photos
of the subject site, please note the recent new construction at the
corner of Duval and the Sunset highway. This development is located
at the next major intersection to the east of the subject property.
Munson, 1/31/80, Page t . .
The new construction consists of the following: Albertsons, Pay-n-Save,
Taco Store, and McDonalds. Air photo, Exhibit #3, is a view toward
the west and Lake Washington. Please note the commercial activity
which includes Sunset Plaza, Skaggs Drug Store, Lucky Super Market,
and etc. This commercial area is the next commercial core to the
west of the subject property. It may be noted that there has been
many new commercial activities located in the Sunset Plaza area, but
vacant commercial property seems to be unavailable.
The demographic figures indicate a three-mile population to be in
excess of 60,000 and a five-mile population to be in excess of 110,000
from the subject site. The population base will be growing substantially
because the last commercial area to the east is the intersection of
Duval and Sunset and to the east• of this intersection is considered
to be all single family residential . Sunset Highway is a primary state
highway with a traffic volume of 20,000+ vehicles per day, thus the
subject site and intersection is a natural commercial area as opposed
to single family residential .
3. The property is potentially zoned for the reclassification being
requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan
and conditions have been met which would indicate the change is
appropriate. Please refer to Exhibit #4 and Exhibit #5 from the rezone
file No. R-272-79. Note that the comprehensive plan as adopted by
ordinance 3112 as of February 28, 1978, indicates the subject property
as B-1 and R-3.
Exhibit #5 and Exhibit #6 are part of file number R-272-79. Please note
that the Comprehensive Plan identifies "minor retail centers or
neighborhood shopping districts will be located near the perimeters of
several neighborhoods and at the intersection of major roads and arterials. "
An existing commercial node exists at both of the intersections of Duval
and Sunset and Union and Sunset. Please note that the report also
considered R-3 as an adequate buffer in the subject area.
Please note that the demand in the area exists for commercial property that
is available for development. Services are all available to the site (Exhibit #1)
and the site is level and treeless, requiring no change in the ecology.
Considering that the subject site has never been proposed to be rezoned, and
the comprehensive plan indicates that the subject site and intersection is
indeed commercial in nature, please allow your consideration for rezoning of
the subject property. Please do not hesitate to call or correspond with me if
any questions arise, therefore I remain,
Sincerely ours,
of RENT
A C,IIE
Richard L. Kloppenburg U
President NOV 7 °13
RL K/d
Enclosures 4'
tN oFQP4
OF RA,
0
o PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
0 ENGINEERING DIVISION • 235-2631
A
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055
O
P
09gTCO SEP-C-11 October 12, 1979
CHARLES J. DELAURENTI
MAYOR
Key West Development Corporation
18000 Pacific Highway S.
Suite 1117
Seattle, WA 98188
Dear Mr. Kloppenburg:
In reference to our conversation on October 9, 1979, the information
you requested is as follows:
1. Water latecomer on Sunset Blvd. NE = $7.2793 per front foot
2. Sunset Lift Station = .01C per sq. ft.
3. Water System Development Charge = .01C per sq. ft.
4. Sewer System Development Charge = .01C per sq. ft.
5. May Creek Interceptor = .03c per sq. ft.
6. Latecomer for sanitary sewer to Forestbrook Condos, estimated
cost unavailable at this time. Sanitary sewer line under construc-
tion October 1979.
7. Inspection fee of 2% of all offsite improvements and public
utilities
8. The developer will be required to improve Union Ave. NE in accor-
dance with the six year street plan. Said improvement will
consist of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, storm drainage, paving and
street lighting. The street is to be 44 ft. wide curb to curb
including a left turn lane at Sunset Blvd. NE.
If I can be of any further assistance, please advise.
Very truly yours,
1 •
Donald G. Monaghan, P.E.
Office Engineer
PC:pmp
7/aEGJb
NOV 7 ]
ems ..........,. ...
EXHIBIT #1 7
44/7
N/NG DES/
VENT
r,t`, ` fir/
RICNARD L. KLOPPENBURG 0 1,
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT tI V 1d z
r , ly, ' 15404 N.E.6th PL t, O
BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 96007
4I N I N G
Q ,:.
November 7, 1980
Environmental Review Committee
City of Renton
Municipal Building
Renton, Washington 98055
RE: Reconsideration of EDC Decision; Sa-104-80/ECF-614-80
Dear Sirs:
I am in receipt of your final declaration of non-significance.
I am appealing the impact fees for additional trip generation
for vehicles.
here is the origin of this particular fee and why was I not
allerted to its existence? Have these fees been charged before
and are they part of the Code or an Ordinance of the City of
Renton?
I hereby requsst that you withdraw the declaration of non-
significance and issue a new declaration of non-significance
without the trip generation fees.
Please reconsider your decision. I am available at any time
for a meeting concerning the subject. I anxiously await
your reply.
S' cerely
PP
Richard L. Kloppenb
I =RC IAA
j\
4: INC. OCIATES
4215 198th. STREET LYNNWOOD, WASH. 98036 771-2300
ARE
November 6 , 1980 T,d,,
Dick Kloppenburg 3 1
10)
I,15404 N .E . 6th P1 .N0
Bellevue , Wash . , 98007 4'
i
SUBJECT : SUNSET SQUARE Aeq' G2FfirllGp . .
RE : Load Factors on Sanitary Sewer
Dear Dick;
Please find below our estimated load demand on the Sanitary Sewer
system:
No . of Fixtures Fixture Units per Fixture Total Fixture Units
BLDG 1*
1 Service Sink 3 3
5 Lavatories 1 5
1 Urinal 4 4
3 Water Closets 8 24
Valve Type)
1 Floor Drain 1 1
1 Kitchen Sink 2 2
1 Dish Washer 3 3
BLDG 2**
12 Lavatories 1 12
12 Water Closets 4 48
Tank Tyre )
BLDG 3***
1 Service Sink 3 3
2 Lavatories 1 2
3 Water Closets 4 12
Tank Type)
1 Urinal 4 4
BLDG 4 & 5****
4 Lavatories 1 4
4 Water Closets 4 16
Dick Kloppenburg
L''
November 6 , 1980
Page 2
1©
F`
ti•
Grand Total - 143 Fixture Units or 1072 .5 gpm
A^
Q :.
One Fixture Unit equal approx 7 .5 gallons per minute .
Based on Restaurant use
Based on similar uses in neighborhood shopping centers .
Based on Bank use
Based on Office use
Analysis for 102 Apartment Units
No . of Fixtures Fixture Units per Fixture Total Fixture Unit
102 1 bathroom group 6 612
w. c. ,Lay. ,& Bathtub
or shower stall
102 Kitchen Sink 2 204
Grand Total - 816 Fixture Units or 6120 gpm
In reguards to the impact upon the existing utility one must consider
the fact that commercial development places a considerably smaller
demand on the system due to a alternate hour of operation from residen
tial uses .
If I can be of further assistance please call me .
Sincere y-
Comme c al sign Associates
Scott Shanks
SS/ss
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 12, 1980
AGENDA
COMMENCING AT 10 :00 A.M . :
THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
1 . OLD BUSINESS :
SA-092-80 VALLEY OFFICE PARK , PARK II
ECF-602-80 Application for site approval for
four 2-story office building complexes ;
property located on the southwest
corner of S .W. Lind Avenue and S .W .
16th Street
SP-047-80 MT . OLIVET CEMETERY CO .
ECF-567-80 Application for special permit to
fill and grade 11-acre expansion
area ; property located north and
east of existing Mt . Olivet Cemetery,
east of NE 3rd Street , in the vicinity
of 100 Blaine Avenue N .E .
SP-099-80 RAINIER SAND & GRAVEL CO .
ECF-608-80 Application for special permit to
fill and grade of approx . 450 ,000-500 ,000
cubic yards over life of project ;
property located 370 ' south of N .E .
3rd Street on hill east of Mt . Olivet
Cemetery
SA-104-80 BARBER , KLOPPENBURG, OLDS ( SUNSET SQUARE)
V-105-80 Application for site approval of small
ECF-614-80 neighborhood shopping center (to include
Reconsideration ) bank and/or restaurant ) and condominiums
or professional offices ; variance
for 10-12 ' rear yard setback instead
of required 20 ' ; property located
on NE corner of Sunset Blvd . NE
and Union Avenue NE
B-240 RUSSELL D . BIRD, ACKERELY COMMUNICATIONS
ECF-620-80 Application for permit to erect
free standing, two sided billboard
sign for Ackerely Communications ;
property located 4224 E . Valley Road
2 . NEW BUSINESS :
R-106-80 DOMINIC COLASURDO
ECF-617-80 Application for rezone from R-3
to B-1 to prepare site for future
fill and grade and construction
of commercial building ; property
located esat side of Union Avenue
NE approx . 350 ' south of N. E . 4th
Street
Date circulated : 0yfB 2 Comments due : /0 /80
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET
ECF - 6/7 - 'gO
APPLICATION No (s ) . 1(E2.4c4ivb.6R/06-801 R'31-o
PROPONENT : CO/4 Sur41O, DDm/rl/[
PROJECT TITLE : AE,7Q/fie
Brief Description of Project : 7/ 1perate.e SC',vlrt/r.S/7e ?r-
4ut'uveTi_« 5 /1'A.ae. C II et i>, U€a- ConrnjerCia 1 l Vi iK
LOCATION :E.siehr f ali It 3301 S. de- Lh
SITE AREA : t rao1 /15- T BUILDING AREA (gross ) —
DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) :
IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE
INFO
1 ) Topographic changes :
2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality :
3 ) Water & water courses :v
4) Plant life :
5 ) Animal life :
6) Noise :
7 ) Light & glare :
8 ) Land Use ; north :
east : V je Mere ecilfro44 erollagel ysouth : ea (E ir 607116f- C6f.Mereese.1 S'Ir'UC$e+rP5
west :L rocc.ry o --e.
Land use conflicts : Npne.
View obstruction :
9 ) Natural resources :
10 ) Risk of upset :
11 ) Population/Employment :
12 ) Number of Dwellings :
13 ) Trip ends ( I T E ) :
traffic impacts :
14 ) Public services :
15 ) Energy :
16 ) Utilities :
17 ) Human health :
18 ) Aesthetics :
19 ) Recreation :
20 ) Archeology/history :
COMMENTS :
ti• 1--e2 aterefe/esiifvif/Cof's.ar`.'ea.,e7"y /AmpA"C2--
sl rroUr+d i l.' pr-oid - (e . p-v4... fp' « irsQreale aia..Or-
dev elopstQi*, ma , Aocveirer
J
y
Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information
Reviewed by :S ,re /4045on 1 itle : ASS iSt0.AtPICLn
Date : I/Y/to
FORM: ERC-06
Date circulated : Comments due : /0//g0
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEY SHEET
ECF - 4/7 - gO
APPLICATION No (s ) . RE,24,41E- M-74.4-(54 "9- 3fbie
PROPONENT :.p/dSI/rIa/LLDOntih(
PROJECT TITLE : RE-20I/E-
Brief Description of Project rope/Ate Se ed511e_ icy-Pt/4
I s rode ftorts i've 1Qn ofa com/rleretal vil'rrq.
LOCATION :A.side cfO,/ iAve./Ye ameX . 330 •5•or4/Cy 1:45.7!.
SITE AREA : t/ ,//50 BUILDING AREA (gross ) —
DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) :
IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE
INFO
1 ) Topographic changes :
2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality :
3 ) Water & water courses :
4 ) Plant life :
5 ) Animal life :
6 ) Noise :
7 ) Light & glare :
8 ) Land Use ; north :
east :
south :
west :
Land use conflicts :
View obstruction :
9) Natural resources : X
10 ) Risk of upset :x
11 ) Population/Employment :
12 ) Number of Dwellings :
13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) :
traffic impacts :
14 ) Public services :
15 ) Energy : Xc
16 ) Utilities : X
17 ) Human health :
18 ) Aesthetics :
19 ) Recreation : N
20 ) Archeology/history : k/
COMMENTS :
r fl \.\^
Recommendation : 7NSI DOS More Informationl__
Reviewed by : 1,0/0 1 itle :
Date :7L)
FORM: ERC-06
OF
0 THE CITY OF RENTONt
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055
ogicZiBARBARAY. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT
0.
o 235- 2550
09gTeD SEPSG
O4P
November 6, 1980
Barber., Kloppenburg, Olds
P .O ., Box 5171
Lynnwood, Washington 98036
Re: Application for site approval of small neighborhood
shopping center (to include bank and/or restaurant)
land condominiums or professional offices ; File No .
SA- 104-80 ; Variance for 10-12 foot rear-yard setback
linstead of the required 20 feet is also requested; File
No . V-105-80 ; property located on the Northeast corner
of Sunset Blvd. N . E . and Union Ave . N.E.
Gentlemen:
The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above
mentioned application on November 6, 1980 . A public hearing
before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for
November 25 , 1980 at 9 :00 a .m .
Representatives of the applicant are asked to be present.
All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing .
If you have any further questions , please call the Renton
Planning Department, 235-2550 .
Very 'truly yours ,
Gordon Y . Ericksen ,
Planning Director
Rog -r I . Blaylock,
Associate Planner
RJB : yb
FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
Application No(s ) : Az1 -= D0
Environmental Checklist No. : ECF-614-80
Description of Proposal : Small neighborhood
shopping center (to
include bank and/or
restaurant)
Proponent : B LE BiK LOP i'EN =U kZ G-,
OLDS ,
Location of Proposal :NE corner of Sunset
Blvd. NE and Union
Avenue NE
Lead Agency : PLANNING DEPARTMENT
This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on October 29, 1980,
following a presentation by Steve Munson of the Planning
Departmen`>. Oral comments were accepted from:
Warren Gonnason , 'Director of Public Works, commented there
may; be some overflows of storm water runoff.
Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings
of the ERC on application ECF-614-80 are the following :
1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheet , prepared by:
Steve Munson , Assistant Planner , dated October 27, 1980
2 ) Applications : SA-104-80
3) Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance:
Police, Planning and Building Departments.
Acting as the Responsible Official , the ERC has determined
this development does not have significant adverse impact
on the environment . An EIS is not required under RCW 43 .21C .030( 2) (c) .
This decision was made after review by the lead agency of
a complete environmental checklist and other information
on file with the lead agency .
Reasons for declaration of environmental non-significance:
Subject to available sewer capacity ; additional trip generation
and payment of $20/vehicle trip for traffic impact fees .
Signatures :
n
1)vet 4rdo . ksenand
Jecreation D ' egt-o Planning rector
L/I! /
7
Warren C. Gonnason
Public Works Director
DATE OF PUBLICATION : Nov. 5, 1980
EXPIRATION OF APPEAL PERIOD : November 19, 1980
I
i
F+
y .
N Y •• !
a .
iya .
i
q
f A. terry M ., J !.
yT.HI . - A
GENERAL LOCATION: AND, OR ADDRESS:
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SUNSET BLVD.
N .E . AND UNION AVENUE N .E.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE IN THE RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I S
PUBLIC!
POSTED TO NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS OF
Ai G
TO BE HELD
IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MUNICIPAL BUILDING
ON NOVEMBER 25, 1980 BEGINNING AT 9 :00 A.M.
P.M.
CONCERNING ITEM
REZ . NE
SPEC I Ant_ ;},+. E t IT
1
rt S "" SITE APPROVAL FOR SMALLI ''iii0t4ArrIi, 1... ` '.- A,
NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING
CENTER : FILE #SA-104-80
U. WAIVE ?'
1
II SR* R LAVE ; .
4,, E T PE &:MIT ANA :_.:IF:
ARI/ NCE FOR 10-12 FOOT. REAR-YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF 20
1r ' FOOT :i FILE # V-105-80
l %
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL 235 2550
THIS NOTICE NOT TO 'SE REMOVED WITHOUT. PROPER AUTHORIZATION
1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
RENTON , WASHINGTON
A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING
EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
CITY HALL , RENTON , WASHINGTON, ON NOVEMBER 25, 1980 , AT
9 :00 A .M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS :
1 . BARBER , KLOPPENBURG, OLDS (SUNSET SQUARE )
Application for site approval of small neighborhood
shopping center ( to include bank and/or restaurant )
and condominiums or professional offices ; File
No . SA-104-80 ; Variance for 10-12 foot rear-yard
setback instead of the required 20 feet is also
requested; File No . V-105-80 ; property located
on the Northeast corner of Sunset Blvd . N .E .
and Union Avenue N . E .
2 . RAY BROWN
Application for approval of two-lot short plat ;
File No . Short Plat 107-80 ; and Exception to
the Subdivision Ordinance for a pipestem lot ;
File No . E-108-80 ; and Waiver of the required
off-site improvements ; File No . W-109-80 ; property
located at 1401 North 34th Street .
Legal descriptions of files noted above are on file in the
Renton Planning Department .
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE
PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON NOVEMBER 25, 1980 , AT 9 :00
AM. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS .
PUBLISHED : November 12, 1980 GORDON Y . ERICKSEN,
RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR
CERTIFICATION
I , STEVE MUNSON , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE
ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES
ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW.
ATTEST : Subscribed and sworn to
before me , a Notary Public , in
and for tl3 State of Washington
residing in King County , on the
6th day of November , 1980 . v y
SIGNED :
yW'W
NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
RENTON , WASHINGTON
The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a final
declaration of non-significance for the following projects :
1 . BARBER, KLOPPENBURG , OLDS ( SUNSET SQUARE) (ECF-614-80 )
Application for site approval of small neighborhood
shopping center (to include bank and/or restaurant)
and condominiums or professional offices , File
No . SA-104-80 ; Variance for 10-12 foot rear-yard
setback instead of the required 20 feet is also
requested, File No . V-105-80 ; property located
on the Northeast corner of Sunset Blvd . N .E . and
Union Avenue N .E .
2 . RAINIER ANNEXATION (REVISED) . (ECF-615-80 )
Petition for annexation of 2 .5 acres along the
west side of Rainier Avenue North between S .E .
122nd and S .E . 121st , if extended easterly .
3 . ED LIDZBARSKI (ECF-616-80) • Application for building
permit approval to construct 7200 square foot 2-story
office building ; "Building A" ; property located
at 313 S.W. Grady Way .
Further information regarding this action is available in
the Planning Department , Municipal Building, Renton , Washington ,
235-2550 . Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the
Hearing Examiner by November 19 , 1980 .
Published : November 5 , 1980
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 29, 1980
AGENDA
COMMENCING AT 10 :00 A .M. :
THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
1. OLD BUSINESS:
SP-047-80 MT. OLIVET CEMETERY CO.
ECF-567-80 Application for special permit to fill and
grade 11-acre expansion area; property located
north and east of existing Mt . Olivet
Cemetery, east of NE 3rd Street, in the
vicinity of 100 Blaine Avenue N.E .
Applicant has not provided new
information.
2. NEW BUSINESS :
SP-099-80 RAINIER SAND & GRAVEL INC.
ECF-608-80 Application for special permit for fill and
grade of approx. 450, 000-500, 000 cubic yards
over life of project; property located approx.
370' south of N.E. 3rd Street on hill east of
Mt . Olivet Cemetery.
SA-104-80 BARBER, KLOPPENBURG, OLDS (SUNSET SQUARE)
V-105-80 Application for site approval of small
ECF-614-80 neighborhood shopping center (to include
bank and/or restaurant) and condominiums or
professional offices ; Variance for
10-12 ' rear-yard setback instead of the
required 20' is also requested; property
located on NE corner of Sunset Blvd . NE and
Union Avenue NE .
ECF-615-80 RAINIER ANNEXATION (REVISED)
Petition for annexation of ±22 acres along
west side of Rainier Avenue North between
S .E. 121st and 122nd, if extended easterly.
B-228 ED LIDZBARDSKI
ECF-616-80 Application for building permit to construct
7200 sq. ft. 2-story office building; Building
A" ; property located at 313 S .W. Grady Way.
1
ANL
lle o`Date Circulated : /6 e'Z7/g® Comments due : /q/1Q
I
ENVIROINIIPIEMITAL CHECHKLIST REVIEW SHEET
1
ECF -1j -
as astee a• r!r to•s 4.e..19 1
APPLICATION No (s ) . S ® l®cew 80 4://,../OPPOK. t.spette Y„Qte . c k
at.
PROPONENT : vh.r, gAane upr K/ O00A` proposed!
PROJECT TITLE : Sgo„pigQ- - Sipa tote
Brief, Description of' Project : . 4406/1A,e,,,,hiisp. 06.1i 40, 6;
Lie A e w , i
LOCA III ON : AW er f/10r dtSc nsef 13.10. 4' if A/C
SITE AREA : et.. 3„ V ere.w BUILDING AREA (gross 8660 00
DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) :
1
I
IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE
INF0
I
1 ) jTopographic changes : i '''
2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality :
3 ) Water & water courses : I r
4) Plant life :
5 ) 'Animal life :
6) Noise :
7) Light & glare :
8)SX
I
Land Use ; north : tCerc-q 1,4,t1ie vi.i(y4-$4'aacc.A.
east : C4,ra°mini°KA .
south : r va'c e ,:fe A.vt
c4er7fiiicwest : Seroc e (54Tsot
Land use conflicts : MiztA.404.((yrevQ ig, no elk. eeks' hAwr 'er/Qnia.,,,,Pi
View obstruction :
ref0(0`(464re.aotae. $Iotder"kg'f l4 ` '®Se
h,
9) Natural resources :
1
10 ) Risk of upset :
11 ) !Population/Employment : 40, ^4
12 ) :Number of Dwellings : 1-'''''
13 ) ! Trip ends ( I TE ) : ‘00f1 (cl(76,11 4000 qf x gel 6461 ' fieffok,/nZ9diitc"
traffic impacts : 1/4
14 ) ' Public services : I 4.
4
15 ) ' Energy :
16 ) ; Utilities :
1
17) , Human health :
18) lAesthetics :
19) ; Recreation :
20) Archeology/history :
COMMENTS : kid Ile K 0,0)., S hefdel li.emoo $ 6)
d WI( Alptia Creffek %,, seLitAcwesit 11 ev4.'dIA Or prepe rf V.
q4 45ir„ipc44.1fi Ave sernc /or em+ta..e.7 f esoff e, . -7 tiu
Po m x
ct g Fie , ov/®*s le ors ;'
I .
i.'.-
7 +iv a
Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information
Reviewed by :01.sOrt Title : Si,S 1etg4P.er--
Da te': o r Vgef2
FORM:, ERC=06
i
0 VARIANCE APPLICATION
0
CITY OF RENTON
9"O
O P PLANNING DEPARTMENT4:17. SEPTE
O
206) 235-2550 .
NOTE:, TO APPLICANT: Please OFFICE USE ONLY
read instructions on
back of this form
Application No. : 06- go
carefully before
Associated File(s) : • ._ —/0V-tf•D
preparing your appli-
cation for VARIANCE.
Date Received: /0 5/(6
Date Accepted: /0 d,,2 y/s,
Approved: ® / )
Denied:
DATE:
Publication Date: Affidavit:
Comprehensive Plan
Zoning:
f
In addition to the information below, the applicant should include a site map and any
other pertinent information which will assist in the review of this application. The
Planning Department reserves the right to require additional information needed to
evaluate the application (note Variance Application Procedure on the last page) .
1. N Of Applicant: George Barber , Dick Kloppenburg, Howard Olds
2. Mailing Addreess: P .O . Box 1043 , Lynnwood, Wash„ 98036
Telephone No. : 7 7 5-4611
3. APPLICANT IS: El Owner D Lessee
r Contract Purchaser Other (Specify)
4. Name and address of owner, if other than applicant:
Telephone No. :
5. General location of proposed project (give street address if any or nearest street
and intersection) :N .E . corner of Sunset Blvd. and 13 2nd. Ave S .E .
Renton , Wash . ,
6. Legal Description (if lengthy, attach as separate sheet) :
See Attached Sheet
7. State EXACT VARIANCE RI,QUES'UL): Request variance on rear yard setback
Front yard faces Sunset Blvd. , required rear yard per sec .4-711 calls
increasing to 12' 0".
1-
i
8. Why can't the property be developed within the requirements of the ordinance?
Due tn- regtri rt-Pri access points on both Sunset Blvd. and 132nd.
we have had to layout the site plan with response to circulation
and parking TQ gain a minimum utilization of land our depth of
building needs to be at least 60 '-0" as shown. Because the Developers
own the R-Uzoned land to north and at present it is undeveloped
there is greater control as to the kind of developement that- will occur the
As shown on the site plan a 6 '-0" high sight screen fence and a 20 '-0"
landscape buffer will be installed between adjacent R-3 zone and the
R-3 zone in question.
AFFIDAVIT
George Barber
being duly sworn, declare
that I am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the
foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith
submitted are,in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge andbelief.
Signature'cof) Owner
E i1 I
P .0 . Box.;1-Q43: Lynnwood, Wash . , 9 80 36'.
Address
City, State, and Zip Code Number)
Telephone No.
7 7 5-4 611
Subscribed and sworn before me this
day of 19
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing at
dame of Notary Pub1 c
Address
2-
VARIANCE APPLICATION PROCEDURE
I. REQUIREMENTS FOR FILLING VARIANCE APPLICATION:
a) Two (2) copies of completed Application Form;
b) Two (2) copies Plot Plan, Scale 1" - 10'
c) ¶I\o (2) Vicinity Maps, Scale 1" - 200'
d) Justification
e) Photographs (optional)
f) Filing Fee of $50.00
II. PREPARATION OF APPLICATION: Print legibly or type answer to each question.If the question does not apply, please so state. THIS IS 'AN OFFICIAL DOCU -
MENT. PLEASE KEEP IN GOOD ORDER. The affidavits must be signed before a
Notary Public by the OWNER or OWNERS or the CONTRACT PURCHASER of the
property. If signatures of persons other than the owners of property makingtheapplicationareofferedinsupportoforinoppositiontotheapplication,
they may be received as evidence of their opinion on the pending issue, but
they shall in no case infringe upon the free exercise of the powers vested intheCityofRenton.
III. PLOT PLANS: Show the exact dimensions of the property at an approximate
engineer's scale (1" - 10') , indicating all existing and proposed buildings,
access points, off-street parking areas with each individual stall shown,
fencing and any other information that will illustrate your proposal. The
plot plans must be in ink or blue line prints on a good grade of paper.
IV. VICINITY MAPS: Show your property in relation to other property and streetsintheareatoascaleof1" - 200' .
V. PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY: Photographs may be submitted to illustrate the
subjects under discussion and are suggested as exhibits with the application.
VI. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY: A correct legal description shall be the
responsibility of the applicant. The Planning Department will not be held
accountable for any errors in the legal description submitted.
VII. JUSTIFICATION: The Hearing a.-. ' er must find after conducting the public •
hearing that the following conditions specified below have been found to
exist:
a) . That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessarybecauseofspecialcircumstancesapplicabletosubjectproperty, including
size, shape, topography, locations or surroundings of the subject property,
and the 'strict application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject
property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners
in the vicinity and under identical zone classification.
b) : That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the
vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated.
c) That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone
in which the subject property is situated.
d) That the approval as determined by the Hearing Examiner is a minimum
variance that will accomplish the desired purpose.
The applicant must submit a written statement addressing and justifying the
abovementioned four conditions.
3-
Location may vary. Final location to ' submitted with build-ing permit plication .
R-3 ZONE
Layout shown is schematic . Location of buildings may vary with use . Finalsiteplantobesubmittedwithbuildingpermitapplication .
GENERAL
For utilitites , Signal location , Tree location, etc . see site plan bySeifert & Forbes .
For Landscape Plan and Details see Sheet L-1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OFSECTION3 , TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH , RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. , KING COUNTY ,WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS :
iBEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 89°24 '22 "EAST ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE THEREOF, 372 . 37 FEET ; THENCE SOUTH Ol01O '21"EAST, PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISIONPOINTOFBEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 01°10 ' 21 "SEAST ,14. .00 498 . 1
TOTTHETRUE
OR LESS , TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NEMER 2 lFEET ,
r: , TORE
T • T`f r-...WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE TO THE EASTERLY LINEE WESTERLY
i ( .
3rFEETINWIDTHOFSAIDSUBDIViSIO:I : THENCE L o
OF
WEST RALE ,
W .
THTHEWESTERLYLINEOFSAIDSUBDIVISIONTOALINEIWHICH3IS2PARALLEI 1WITH .. :HE r rI{
NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION AND WHICH INTERSECTS THE TRUE. POINT OFBEGINNING: THENCE NORTH 89024 ' 12" EAST, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OFSAIDSUBDIVISION340 . 37 FEET , MORE OR LESS , TO TEE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
CEPT ROAD
BOVE LEGAL DESCRIPTION BASED UPON CilI('A(;0 T4595OF' DECEMBER 31 , 1979 AT ;R : 90
L'LI.F, INSURANCECO;?PA`IY REPO NO
CITY OF RENTON
APPLICATION47,0
SITE APPROVAL
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
File No . SA- /CV — FilingDate /44e/fd"i"
Application Fee $ Receipt No .
Environmental Review Fee $
APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 6 :
1 . Name
George Barber, Dick Kloppenburg, Howard Olds
Phone
775-4611
Address, P .O . Box 5171, Lynnwood, Wash. , 9g036
2 . Property location N.E . Corner of Sunset Blvd. and 132nd. Ave . S .E .
3 . Legal description (attach additional sheet if necessary)
See Attached
4 . Number 'of •acres or square feet 148 .317 SQ.FT. Present zoningB-1 & R-3
5 . What do you propose to develop on this property? Neighborhood shopping ctr .
to include Bank and/or Restaurant . Condominiums on R-3 portion of site .
6 . The following information shall be submitted with this application :
A. Site and access plan (include setbacks ,
Scale
existing structures , easements , and other
factors limiting development) 1" = 1.0 ' or 20'
B. Parking, landscaping and screening plan 1" = 10 '
C. Vicinity map (include land use and zoning
on adjacent parcels) 1" = 200 ' to 800 '
D. Building height and area (existing and proposed)
7 . LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER ACTION :
Date Approved
Date Denied
Date Appealed
Appeal Action
Remarks
Planning Dept.
Rev, 1-77
r/
o AFFIDAVIT
I oN fpt-.being duly sworn, declare that I .
am ` a owner of the property involved in this application and that the
foregoing' statements and answers herein contained and the information
herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief .
Subscribed and sworn before me
this 36 'day of 19 7 7 ,
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing at /gam_
151/"/
22//a4--cA a- .)/Lez,<)-- ----
Owner)Name. oVNotary Public)ignature of O erg
73/- N. /y8 = St-, 3 53
Address)': - Address
r)d-66tie- a!Zi/C-- 911D-5-
City) State)
1
45: 2-- Kifg/Telephone
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify,:t.hat-".._the foregoing application has ,been inspected by me
and has been found to' be;:-:thorough and complete in every particular and to
conform to the 'rules.._andr `r'egulations of the Renton Planning Department
governing the,.,fi=ling. ,of..`such_ ':application .
i:
Date Received) 1 I'
IY
Renton Planning Dept . -
2-73
AFFIDAVIT
Ac'-k-'\ ur 1 l being duly sworn, declare that I
am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the
foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information
herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
Subscribed And sworn .before me
this 30th day of November 19 79 ,
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing .at King County
4,,eo A
Name of Notary Public) Signature o Owner)
200 Mi11 Ave. S. ; Renton 0ja ?).
Address) Address)
City) State)
Telephone)
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
CERTIFICATION
This is ,to certify ,th .t he-, foregoing application has been inspected by me
iandhasbeenfoup.do 4ie thprough and complete in every particular and to
conform to the rul'Vs an'a'.%ieguiations of the Renton Planning Department
governing the f.Ifing bf:1414h application .rl
rrn-
Date Received - .r- TM+ , By:
ors
J^
Y
Renton Planning Dept.
2-73
AFFIDAVIT
1 , c1Qf3c - being duly sworn, declare that ALI_
am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the
foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information
herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
Subscribed and sworn before me
this t' day of czc 19 3t=
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing at Alderwood Manor .
1 \
a of Notary Publ c)Sign e of Owner
3209 1ast Pl. S.W. Alderwood Manor, P.a
Address) WA 98036 Address)
City) State)
Ltbil
Telephone)
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me
and has been found to be _thorough and complete in every particular and to
conform too the, rules":a'r d ;regulations of the Renton Planning Department
governing' the L'filiof 1s-ucb ` application .
Date Received ,
f
A,' •>
Renton Planning Dept .
2-73
Y OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 1'
Application No. 64-it'V #D
Environmental Checklist No. k11 1/-420
PROPOSED, date:FINAL, date:
EiDeclaration of Significance Declaration of Significance
ElDeclaration of Non-Significance El Declaration of Non-Significance
COMMENTS:
Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires
all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their
own actions and when licensing private proposals . The Act also requires that an EIS be
prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment.
The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a
proposal is such a major action.
Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information
presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where
you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your
explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should
include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele-
vant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all
agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review with-
out unnecessary delay.
The following questions apply to your total proposal , not just to the license for which
you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers
should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed,
even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all
of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, with-
out duplicating paperwork in the future.
NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State
of Washington for various types of proposals. Many of the questions may not apply to
your proposal . If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the
next question.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I . BACKGROUND
Dick Kloppenburg, George Barber, Howard Olds
1. Name- el Proponent
2. Address and phone number of Proponent:
P .O. Box 5171 Lynnwood, Wash. , 98036 775-4611
3. Date Checklist submitted _ Aug 8 , 1980
4. Agency requiring Checklist City of Renton
5. Name of proposal , if applicable:
Sunset Square
6. Nature and brief description of the proposal (including but not limited.to its
size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate
understanding of its scope and nature) :
Construct a small neighborhood shopping c•omp1PX Ln a 3./: ac
site. The complex will consist of 4 one story buildings in
phase 1 for a total of 24600 sq. ft, and 2 one story buildingsof2700sq. ft. each in phase 2 . Building will be conc. Block
a aeancearcanopy. A existing house now unoccupied
will bc r—suck]..
2-
7. Location of proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal , as well
as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts, including
any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environ-
mental setting of the proposal ) :
T.ocated on the N.R. corner of Sunset and Union in Renton _ The
site slopes to the north and east at 1 to 2 The finished floor
elevations will be approx.. 4 ' Lu 5 ' above SLLeeL level . A bmall
creek runs a.erossithe N.W. corner of the site . This creek will be
cleaned out and planted to a attractive landscaped area. There are
no specimen trees now on the site . Exi t . landscape is mainly rye
8. Egf-Ai e Ctarf F vmpletion of the proposal :
Spring 1981)
9. List of all permits , licenses or government approvals required for the proposal
federal , state and local--including rezones) :
Building Permit
Elec Permit
Mechanical Permit
10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes , explain :
Phase Two as shown on the site plan
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal? If yes , explain:
No .
12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro-
posal ; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future
date, describe the nature of such application form:
Building Permit application form.
hlectrical and Mechanical Permit Forms
II . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required)
1) Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic X
substructures?
YES MAYBE NO
b) Disruptions, displacements , compaction or over
covering of the soil?
YES MAYBE NO
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
YES MAYBE NO
d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features? X
YES MAYBE NO
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils ,
either on or off the site?
YES MAYBE N
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands , or
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
YES MAYBE N
Explanation:
410 A ha1 armor mit and fill grading plat will be submitted for
approval . Approx 500 to 800 cu. yrds . of sirt will be' graded.
e) See (b) above.
3-
2) Air. Will the proposal result in:
a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air X
quality?•
YES MAYBE NO
b) The creation of objectionable odors? XX
YES MAYBE `6
c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature,
or any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: (
a) Due to emissions from increased automobile traffic.
3) Water. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of
water movements , in either marine or fresh waters?
YES MAYBE NO
b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X
YES MAYBE NO
c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X
YES 'MAYBE NO
d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
S MAYBE NO
e) Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration
surface water quality, including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
YES MAYBE
f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters? X__-
YES MAYBE NO
g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals , or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? R—
YES MAYBE NO
h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through
direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate,
phosphates, detergents , waterborne virus or bacteria,
or other substances into the ground waters?
YES MAYBE `N0
i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available
for public water supplies?YES MAYBE 0
Explanation:h) YPc , dup to the incraa.cc .areas of impeLweable
surfaces . '
d) Water run-off from parki.g areas wi11 be drained in the creek
on the N.W. corner. s.torm water plan will be submitted for
4) Flora. Will the proposal' result in:
approval .
a) Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any
species of flora (including trees , shrubs, grass , crops ,
microflora and aquatic plants)?YFS MAYBE NO
b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
XXendangeredspeciesofflora?
YES MAYBE YO
c) - Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or
in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing
species? MNYESMAYBE NO
d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: (
a) More trees and bushes will be introduced. A l andscap
plan will be submitted for approval .
0 A Liew species may be introduced in the landscaped areas .
4-
5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in the diversity of species , or numbers of
any species of fauna (birds , land animals including
reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms ,
insects or microfauna)? X
YES MAYBE NO
b) Reduction ,of the numbers of any unique, rare or
Xendangeredspeciesoffauna?
YES MAYBE NO
c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area ,
or result in a barrier to the migration or movement
X
of fauna?
YES MAYBE NO
X
d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:Due to the increase auto traffic on the site .
7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or
glare? _XX
YES M- BE NO
Explanation: Non-glare building and parking_ lot lighting will be
designed and installed.
8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the
present or planned land use of an area? X,
YES MAYBE NO•
Explanation: Land is moving form undpvploped to 'd vpl npprl
9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
YES MAYBE NO
b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:anati on: (
b) those resources used in the construction of the
buildings
10) Risk .of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including ,
but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation)
in the event of an accident or upset conditions?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri-
bution, density, or growth rate of the human population
of- an area?
YES M BE NO
Explanation: Possible due to the increase services in the area.
5-
12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing , or
create a demand for additional housing? y
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: Possible due tor,the increased services in the area.
13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in :
a) Generation of additional vehicular movement?
AS MAYBE NO
b) Effects on existing parking facilities , or demand
for new parking? X
YES MAYBE NO
c) Impact upon existing transportation systems?
YES MATE NO
d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods? X
YES MAYBE NO
e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
YES MAYBE N
f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles ,
bicyclists or pedestrians?X
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: (a) On ncl off fiha si tP due to the nature of the develop-
ment. (b) On-Site parking in excess of code requirements will be
provided. (d) Yes due to the retail sales nature of the development
f) Yes due to the increased traffic on and off the site, carp will
be taken during the design to minimize this impact .
14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon , or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services
in any of the following areas :
a) Fire protection? X
YES MAYBE NO
b) Police protection? X
YES MAYBE NO
c) Schools? X
YES MAYBE NO
d) Parks or other recreational facilities? X
YES MAYBE NO
e) Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? X
YES MAYBE NO
f) Other governmental services?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: (a&b) These services will need to be provided to the
the development .
15) Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
YES MAYBE N
b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new
systems, or alterations to the following utilities :
a) Power or natural gas?
Y'S MAYBE NO
b) Communications systems?
YES MAYBE NO
c) Water?
X
YES MAYBE NO
6-
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
YES MAYBE NO
e) Storm water drainage? X
YES MAYBE NO
f) Solid waste and disposal?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: (a thru f) All these services will be provided by
the developers to the site .
17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of
any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)? X
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of
any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the
quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an
alteration of a significant archeological or historical
s-ite, structure, object or building?
YES MAYBE 1(
Explanation:
III. SIGNATURE
I , the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information
is true and complete. It is understood that -the lead agency may withdraw any decla-
ration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should
there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
Proponent:
signed)
George Barber
name pri ted)
9Itt41.
S c "t t -S arks" DA he'
Agent for Owner
City of Renton
Planning Department
5-76
I o .
I
I
I
I OF FILE
FILE TITLE
t a m k
gi
4
4' 4 ell" 1 '
i ,
y
J
1
Ii48O80
I
III
I
d
PAIN
I
1