Loading...
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