Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA98-042
o CITY OF RENTON Lu -q8'd}2-" Office of the City Clerk Ell 0,... 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 E ,_ NOV 0 5'5 9 0 .3 Q 5 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED i f°' 16 i i F • a I. ' fir, e e r it % ; 14260 S• PosTaGE x CITY OF RENTON 512690032705 NOV 1CALLAWAYDANIEL0 1 g 1633 BOYLSTON AVE. #108 I__JE'VEDSEATTLE,WA 98122 CI i,Y Cl.. .. K'S OFFICETUNN ,. ..,ram T® WRITER ..--.,._. 66ial IADD d y 1 t t t. ro "••,•.-lltl:tl:tl:,f:t::,il::iti„,11:„I,!„ll,,,i,I,I,!„l,l,,,II,LC. This paper contains 50%recycled paper,20%post-consumer 6 © CITY OF RENTON z.. . . ,t....;'= ma Planning/Building/Public Works Q ol'" 4°S 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 u) aPF t 0'9 8 %:, ?a w 0 ,Z 9 5 cc cr ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 0' 11 . 98 - F. ' O#1tO A If* PV TAQE 512690045004 WESCOTT JEANEI-lh M 5246 123RD AVENUE SE BELLEVUE WA WESC246 980062009 IN 16 04/15/96 RETURN TO SENDER t j1 i!'r • t-.C.-:-77:------„,,_4---4'' c NO FORWARD ORDER ON FILE i9 UNABLE TO FORWARDillSf,L.J1-1-' 'J C r A ' Ic! .. , rf S q 1 ff {` 11 titt 1l ` y 1 FF tt 9b4C16-It@RA iG%'e2.3 Ildululdl[ttt luhl a l itslt.131.111.1,1 i t11.1l il11.1 mr---.. 0 © CITY OF RENTON 4.40i . :...,_._....... Planning/Building/Public Works W 0. ow*, H 1 u 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton,Washington 98055 o ° APR 10'9 8 0 48 E 0 .2 9 5 W u t Q cc t ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED j14 t -98 - ' , : Sant' &EA PdI*AQE bL 512690038009 CLINKENBEARD JAB CELESTINE 554 PIERCE AVE SE NO DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABL T FORWARD RENTON WA 98058 NO SUCH# ATTEMPTED,NOT KNOWN REFUSED INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS MOVED,LEFT NO ADDRESS DECEASED UNCLAIMED_ BOX CLOSEJ94O FWD RETURN 1 may VAC_ANT NO RECEPTACLE INITIALS -RTE#C TO WRITER `__._J I i- F-v6dt cos 0 -2ESS 1_1° t !. ; i .1,`aUaB"7•. + l2 :.1 ii!t!! !tli! !!i! tl!1 !!Il! !1!lt!It1tt!I! ! ! itflisit111tt!Iiff!!!III o © CITY OF RENTON u. Planning/Building/Public Works t, 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 APA 1 Ot9 d!'1 o .2 9 5 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 0 1 1 •9 B • F irikE,C41 E A. P TAc kJC ,ci,G- 5 12690037506 NARKIE WICZ ALINA J 11l 550 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 no'R1: URN 'l5_ >TO VRITeRy — ADDR SSF ; ki_OT,`)tfi8?ri "a1ENS t{ { {t{{, { t {t ltfid iain/t)liHejihini(utiltiinin1 tr.]v inArtr f I CITY OF RENTON F1; w,, 4a-:i ,..,.r A Planning/Building/Public Works s ;14 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton,Washington 98055 W I- 15 APR , iE'. 1 2 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED a 1'n5 3MEr 0 • 1 1 - a; • 5 OMES4 ISAPcibitaoE 4. Fwd.Order Expired Attempted Not Known r Rer Insufficient Address 4as"sa""o Such Street 0 Number p2690033000JDieMovedNoOrder0notAPLANTLILAA tI ! Y Cfra* Zil RDU`e N0'Unclzimed 0 Relused 0 LAPLANT JACK K 1 fCarrllnitials fi 7521 72ND DR NE MARYSVILLE WA 98270 CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS within 300 feet of subject site PROJECT NAME: Maple Valley Highway Taco Time Site CPA/Rezone/CA Zone Amendments/Development Ageement APPLICATION NO: Name Address Assessor's Parcel Number Refer to Attached List. The list also includes parties of record known to date. 0 OWNLIST.DOC\ Applicant Certification I, i.- G 1 iJ -i ,hereby certify that the above list(s)of adjacent property owners Print Name)and their addresses were obtained from: City of Renton Technical Services Records Title Company Records r,,_ El King County Assessors Records Signed Date Applicant) Notary Seal must be within box STATE OF WASHINGTON )ss COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary(Print) My appointment expires: Dated: y:_>:.>::<:•}::::;?:?.}:.y;:.y:.;:<•}:.}:.}:.}:.}:::{:;.:,;::::::.;}•::.:•.}:;•y::,}:.:}:.;:.}:.}:.}:.: R•}:YYt;Yz2•:ti.:;;;;;;;;;:;;;::;;•;:tt::;o:;;?•>:?YYY;•:?{+>Y;t2Y;;t•:;;:}: yvy:::.:}}:•}:•}:.y;:;t;???.y::::y:y::.y:{.}y:;. i..t#1C:;1' .>:, 1,<. t•.y::.y z;•:v.... 2Y•t•. :Y. ktz•"22,`vt.. ..t .2: r•.t: .Y.. y 1y, • y'!k. + Y+y EY2 '#2 22k#t,#t2t t t y.,r>::»::>::>::»::»;:Y::>:::::::>::»»:::>>::>:YYYYYYY222 :?;::::<:?<:»::::»::>::»::><:. ::: ..;:;•::.::. Er.+ :..'i}•.•+#.5.........yf..r n}}}:;;;;•:•:::•:•..... .........:... i*..•..t\t,•„•.,,,:,, •:•.•.:::•::::.t:.::.::.:,,.,,;.;.}:::.:}}}}}}:yr:Y:;.r•.y;.}t............... ...................Y.ttttt•:tt•.t?;•:?t•:tt::::.:::::::::::::.:.,........:..;:.}:.>:>:>:>::_:y::a::;;a:;;;;c.::.:::..:.::::::.::.tt•.:•..:•.. tt•.t.} ., o...6.p...•:.:.:,.Y;Y:Y:}>iS:2Y}}Y}}:•}::y::YY?:{Y{Y222Y2::YYYL,: t tt.,.,., t....... .........: ...,,: y:>:as»:o}}}:•:;•:}::::;;;:}::c}:}::ta:r:::t:;:;::c:cyy}:;;•::c;::::..::.::::::::::::::::::::.: ...,+2 2C}}}: t}.,:•:::::::::.......... ;;.}rt}tyyt:.ryy;•.yy;.;;.}y;.;,..},,,y,}.,yy,;.tt,+}:•+ : 2 #.} r:::::: .,;}}}:}•yy::y::}ry.:.}}..}yy:.}::::•}:}:;•}}}:•}}}}:•}>:.>:::»::;::o::>:>}:»:>}:::::;:::oy:a:::y:.:;;}:•>:•}:•}••}:::•:••}Y'tY:YYY+Y'.;;?Y22,,.2 i..t.: : >M'k; i..` ::,.•:Q:}.,•,..::_:::w::: vY :v v.v: .:,?»,KY? »v•.»,}v V:2,..v.,»;:ry;.y2y.T"r.,'•.,•:.,2,'.,.::. liil iiliii:a.(:aii iiii'i^ii ifi i+p• 1 y.+ f... t tt''E't'•''••:':Y;::>is i:2 ii::t::::YYYYYYY:t::YYYYYYYYYYYYY;'?:>::ii:i:::::. •.tt;.,t..t•.}•.;t•+;;Y•:;;;`;•}:•:.;;•:.}•.},::y;::.t•.};:•:}::::.}:}:<•y:}:}:>::::y:.;;.;..::.:.:::...t•..t•YY"`:Y:Y2YY`2Y:}+Y"•Y,tYt:.Y•.t:t22 ».2Y...ttY;tY:::#::Yt•2. t kt,t.t.c}},ty.}.,YYt.ttt•.}Y;•:.,t}..»,:,.. t tyt t „.Y„<,,k t t »k2k",,,••.,NY»YYYY;?Y•:;•:t?.;:;.ro:}:a:n}}::.;:.:;:::::<:Y::::: r ,} ++yy}:2.,..,A YY•:YR.YY?Yc3;:?:?.:".>:;.:;;;;;.::if;:yyyy»arsy}:::yr:y:y,try, , r ..r•.;...t, .,2t2}?:YY»....t.,.2,•.2Y•:::•.YYYYYY2LY::YS:„ , ''::;>`EEE ti?:?,?t?`;:?kEr•..,t:t.,::::::::::::.,:::::::::.>:::::::::::.:::•::Y:t t,2;tk.::• 2»2k SiSf:fi:;;:;cY2•`.L;.•';Y:•y.}::.. YY+'•YYY#t•.t.:....,.•:.::.tt•.y>• },•,s»>:Y::Y::::}:E::EEEEEEL:Y•:;?;;•:t•:?• tt•.:_.::• Y,•. q, }Y\y'2,L. t k.ttt.. ttt:::•.t++Y:YLYy2tYY;:Y:YYfiS:::::::Y:>:F:i:.;.. t Y #„•.2 tt•.Y•;:Y:c::YY:::Yryr>}>:;.}:;}:?;`:YYt>.•:;>.;YtLt•`.;r;R2•.,2.:t,•.:.t:,•.t•.t.:.t•::::.:._::...Y}2 +2Y`'Yyyyy „} sry>r+}r:•^..}:,•}t;. t:•:.»nvtt.,v:.:..ttttt tt,:v::::r..... k2,Y},.2t Yt ...tj .k?22Yyit2}y •.i.y.u.•:}::::::} t•.t•::.t,t•::.:._.:.:::•.{Y,...:v.::.:•:..:.:.::.. 2}Y•.t•.tt•.ttn:,,.::t}.t• :,;;• t,,, tn n t»w:::.:::::.::.:.:......,•::::::::::.:.::: »:.:.:}v.:vv.::.tw:nv.S•::»?v:v::.t•.•.:.}}tyyt:::i}:•:::i}:•'in i:^::::...............}...kn.,}...........}....:}}.:':•.;.}}}.::}•.,•.}n....n......... v...:vv:v...v.v....»..,.nn..:v....t....::...,.t..,....t..........»,.t........:nn....t.:::: v:::::::::.:::::.., ;'.}..'h::.. ..;;.;CY;:}}}}}}}:^}}}}}?Y}nt[+i:•':}'•}:v:::t}: Y•t»:tt. : ::. YtY2YYEY:YY22EY:Y...:.r.., ,tt .;.:• . ..::. .,•::.tttt•::.:,t.._::.;-=:-ry:r}•-yr}..ttt•.::. t.: •.,, ,, wulll 171111 i uuuullll............ .................n n 1 ry}»<}}:•x:;}t};yi}'•:.:ry:o-x.}}}y:•:};;:}.•:,;.y;.:;:•o-rry:-:y}:i:;Yii'•::::}:• ry::: t,.:•...: , t•:.t.:::.,771t..........t .....Z......t..........................................:::......:•:::::::.t..i...:•:::::t..;..:.:;.:..:;.....;....tt...t........................t}+:: .. ..... ...... ...::.: •:;}•.Yt:; •3••r••:}}S „• :. t:•;::::.:t•::,; .:.::.t....t:.:;•.:•.:t•:....:•.::•.::.....:-.„ :. } :.......................Y?YxY2YYYYYYL`Y{2L•:2•:YYt;;t{YtyYY:YYYY2:Y:YY::Y?Y2tY•:{2;>2•}:: Yr:::;:Y:::: .: y 2L YYk::22}2Y?:Y?Y?•'.Y:•::.t:.:..:......................:.. yy}`3:} :}. a„r:;.,..:•.,,t::>..yy.:...t,t•.:•..,..::.yr:-r}•,:}:::::::.......................:•::.,}}.::t•.:.t•.:::.:..::..:....:t•:.{•:;•}}y:•}:t;•}:t2 tY•: royr::{..},ttt ,t•2`•y2.::}y+`:rr,,;:{,;;2;;;;}.:;:;;;}:;;;};jcc;;c;;Y:y?:;>.E•`.#######E#EY:#'t#: :; ... ;: : :.... k,2..nt.,..tttYi>,Y}k2:::: n.,}:.,.,,•..;,}}}},. 2yYkY•:}?r,?,:,::.,...::.:Y: :;;a•;?;;t.:2}:;t::;};.:?.: tttt..»;,,.}.::n.y.:n...y...,:;.,}}:}},tt»}tttt t;.t»t•.:;:;•.::,•:::.t•.tt•::.+' . tt Y ':::......., +,.,::.,.,. t,;.t:,•:,,ttk}.,»+.}:•yx:.}y,},..t.,;}r}ry,r:;..:. }2»,,,.::.:,#,,...,::,:.,t.,tt,tvc:;:?Y.}::y:?Y::t?::y;2Yt+Y ?Y2Y"•:YY`tYYY;a;:yyr.}{urt;`??;?:Y.}?;YYYY+attt,,, t t t.tt:, YYYY++.• t:::::.}..:,•... EY»Y.•.k.,.2 n,..t..»,:.?:t,t•...•.k»,•;.,,y»t»:,..,}.:.y.:..yk;;:r:;;h:<ttk`kYttt t•:ktxt;}c Y»..y.<..;,},}....;;. :niYi:• 2,:}r}rY22?2>y't}Y`•Y:Y}::i}:: Y:2't Y:,•.:,:.•n::•::::..:.•:YY;:Y2+,•:`??.:22+.Y;•'.{YYY2YYYYtv...,„»„2Y22+t2+2+.Y2`2222r,•t`,':.•;2a}:"'Y'?YYYYY't2Y::i2`vY::YYt:::%:i??::?:::::;;:":::`:«.:::::;:?::r:;y::::;:ii:;;;:;:Y::}.a:YYYYY::.Y `.2Y#'t'tY, ttt?t•.,ttttt•.t•:.::;.,•: :nkt,t ,? •». .}>'. iy;.t ,.,. tt,. w..tt+:+y ....... .. ..... .;• ::.:rv.E•., : r t. gin+, vy:.:• YYYtiYY}tY;}}}.}::i:`•:Yi?s'.}:: :a£'`• #`k? .kk2?'<?<2t ;?M t}yy>FYy2Y}Y<y;yyy;??};;Y}:YYY;YYYYYYYYYYYti?Y?•.:• y.. kt,t2t<;.;<;y;rs:r:••:}..;}t.Y?Y,:„2„•,.. , :tt:.:..+,?<:>::>:E2E.....:...: t.t. .t# t:: Qt:ttt:::t ve:atis€zetat I:e . :c-tI3 tY,t2ttYY:YY YY.ktt,.YYhh\,,:.:..t:.::..:.,:.:x:.2:2?'t'ti't't't'tYiY'tYY'tYYYYY Y2YY'tYYb_,..»•., t,•-,< t.:',.,:, : T...........................}:,L2 , YYYY}?•Y;+YY,};t:: c•}:a:>:>:;;;h>: ::>: o::..:.:..::::::::::.:.::: :..:..::.y:;?;.}1M1+}:•}:::}}.:yy:.yy:yy:•'t;• •r » :.,}trk,y>y:+yo-y,••rtt••o-+y syy>y:•:}»yy{ •• r rr k`:•. y:,Y •tit•.:??•:.t:::::_::: :.:::::::.::.._.. iy EY Y2kY'Yt.:ktk,iYttY?Y:Y.t.:t.Y.n:...,., .}.2;.;;.:tt.;..; tt k ?2 tt,2't„t•:.t•.:::::r:,.::_:•::::.:.:c:;;:<::Y:Y::;:;5:::;;i:;:;";:Y:':•:tr:}}>:s}»>}:y::c•;::Y:::i.}}:;•>:•: Y:;c;. L.;,.;}; 2}}Et,,,,»,..,,}}2Y2,,}2;•.}ty:y}}}t}};}}t}yy}2,;2Y:,..,,.:}:.}t}}}.yt•}::.::} .:}:t,•,, . y}n.k.,.;.,,.:{k }.;2tt y.}:. :2 YYtt•:..:::::::::.::::::...:::::.:::.._.:::::::.::._::.:::....: :...k.,t tt...t Y+..Ytt 2.:.t2at•}x•`.t`:2•:;•r:Y tt.;;c}•}:?:Y;2::txt•}:L;::.,,, t:CY2 ttY,Y»,Y,„t•.:,•,•:.,,t,,,•:::.,,.t,,,,t,,:,tt,•.::•.»,•.,•:2;Y';2Y22;t•2t2kY2tyry......... ..}.. #.» r:•}::•yy:;;:;yy:y:•:}•}:•>:?ayyryy;y:o->:yn:•>:}•}}:j:}yyy}:»yy;;: 5..:..o: ..::..:ayo-x tktt.t ttY,.:22t. ,:::.,.w.,vn•.t ,?tA•:::.az:•n:•}.::•:.a........;,...}.?:-+}}}y„+..:::}}.}...:,+y 2.......,,,+» ttt:»t:t:EY:,, :c»,,;:n„•`•rp}„t}}}1:11}y:}•.:y.»:•ntn,,.y}, Y;. nod........ tt.tt:•,•.t:,,, , t t .ttt ,t....,..,t...,n,.::tt,t:t»:..,z,<:::•n:,,»•n:Yt..l.......11... 1 i;.....;.;:,t...:':•:;;;::}:::::::::.:::::::r::•:::::::::::y:::..... t t t•:.t•::.,,,,,,., ttk:tY2tttttt t,,::::•?<.y.:.:•::.y;:.}:.:t•.tYt•.::::::.:::.::,:.::{.;.:.};r;:.::•;•::.;:;y,•::t;.ytyty•?:.:...::..:..:. :.}..,...:.,•::.:..,.. .«:: :..:. 22++YYYYYY r2Y'Y22<}#.`2 .kr,,Y`Y22`Y:"•2..{;2?2 Lei•;Y.;YY:YY::.;.'tY YYYYYYYYY;``::•x YYk+t YY,t:»tt:.Y».»,.2»,»:`.2»}'t»2kt,.2}.;;.}}t};.;y2;.}::yt;:.}•;{.:y:.::}:;.}.:.::.:.:.....•:.i:: CE.YQ I,1,11 - E ..f c>.}2#.:to::.,•.:.::n»:::.P:::.v::.:.#k? .YY2?c}:Yy'.`6:Y}LYY:ii:r:Y:Y<:::»:; :::G:o::::::::7iYQ:+t222}`<;Y }}; ,:k tik 2+?k,.;,;}.tt}Y;.yt;?;:yy,:{::.};;.;:.:.:;:::.;,:{:.;;•:.;:.:;. .Ykk 22•.t,::.Y.tt•..2t k.:::. ,.-.2,.t2, i;,..k:;Y;;•}:•:tt;Y•:a;2•:;L;}:;:i}:•}:•:::d:Y•:;}i>::::::i,:•.t:.,•.:,:c.}::;»}ttt+}}t,,,2,,,,•.;<,y2r.•. .. it14Fe t .arrEtzzt: y:.tt'• Y.t••2t<2L."E2"%2#E#2E•``. : EE•.:,,•:t22y?'+.:EEEE>Y?Y?3 ; 2•.2 ,t2222222Y'22EEEE2?>•+ ` x•..:::>Yf:;,,,Y.Yttt i•.a,. tL2EEE2E;t`YY;t•};}o}:`Yy:,k,a „2t.Y,...,. ttY. t 22YY2Y:YYYYYY•Y YYYYYY:`2Y`YY+YY+YS}: , t,t•.yt yt:t , S +kk`#2}Y 22a:;t•`.aY?Y2`Y{ k•:E222YkYY}}:YY}2Y2+ tk Y,+ :YY-:k2.tt +., 2..2,;.}i}:k,..yy •`.Yt Y:.:Y;t,:YY;3 +2.to ky.2;.>2i22?::2 tt..Y, .: •:.t•:.YE•x, >22?.}YYYY2YY: t+YE, z•# 22...2:Y: Y:Y2Y 2Y,: Y?t. z m. ?2,.z22.•. 2+ Y 2222 2} ..}t YY;Y2Y:2tt• j•• 2%2t{.z•. }•: ..22k::» Y:},y. tt\Y Yt.Y{,• YYY ,•E#n,cYY2Y+YYE2t»24ntYYYQYi•:Y:<'YYYYYY<`:•:. ::Y i:YYY22c2k2;,tt,,:::,YYYY22'.2 }2r}YY222».:.t 2 2"» t:,Ml:,,,,..,:•:..:,, , E2YE2EE2Ek:22:E':E} YY t,, y•} YE.,t,y ,?t 2,t+,.},•.:,Y}Y:Y:YY2Y22YY2>:22?y.?Y'ckY2YY+YYYY:2Y:2E#2EE,,,,•:.,.i,.t:t:,:t:t,t •:.:Y•.,,, 2, h ;,?? i ?k cY k:Y21tY}:vt ki .Y.;'.,}ttyy}»;22.. ..y......... t.{.....: tit•: y:r. tYtt YkiEYY t•+}•• +•}••;;:::..y;.y„•:.::,,}::.tt,x•.»}}ytttt•.t•.t:•::.::,,,,.:.t2,;}.t...n ti.\ t.,..:•.w:: ..............:.:.........,..y. }• , .k2 tYY,t.. „}}>:.»y:,:,:•:r++r}}}:t:;.:y:,,,t , .y,y »\ytt„•.;s 1 1 i• 1 1• ,..,y,l:. . t`. ti, t+Yy...::!:::':•:•y. t 1`1.,. l,•:.,I.. t.` 4 1 :2 r t,2:»Y•;YYYYY?;;Y22,,.....Yx.v»»:.Y.tt.. »,?t M:kY'a,:..Fz,Y2zttr Y.yrYnr:,}..;..:;:,;n»y•.yy}}:. r:.r.,:YYYt„••::•:.t•.t,•.t•.t•.>•:.... r t.••.: .;}.;:.. Y t{YYt:YY Y•:.'tk2,•:;:::Y2Y:Y:j:yty:.t:::•:.:}:;:. ..}Y. ttYE2YY:2YYf'•:EY't•';2Y•^`i YYt_:>:t•Y;;Yyr.L2::}:,•..}?};.}}}t}}}}}t}YEY}}>EEEE}%E. y.} S<;:EEk222'tt?by?y2ty2y{y;yy;Ytd>:t;2`2't:2tt„n:,,:•:.t,tt....t....nt.n.....t L,Lt},,,,,, w {;iiii{ f, ti;•.t•;}•t ttv:,. •. tif'1:' ': :G;'1Ai1y;•;.: 4 Sst7: 2'2f::S; ,t::tk•:.:,,•:::.:r•:::.:::.}y::::.}.:t: tt:},}t•.,y.::.}:.};.:..: y} t:G.:\...k„:.t2YtYyt-ktt2Y:jkf•:Y}}. Y}}};:.}.. t: ,.t..::,?ktt•.:tt.::...,,Y,•: t:,i,»:,t,Y•.:::.,E2 tttt...::•.tt :•.::::.ttttt•.t;ttt;t;t•.,•::{:{•>:•::.,,,:{•...,..........:::::•:.::..::::.::::.;:::;. .t.tt}k •.'t::;;;::•>}:::::y:}:.. tttt}•Et•.tt•:. ...',t„2}:,,:.tt n„ :,.2y}•.2}}YYY::ttt•:.y}•.t,;:.:y::::,:::::.,•.:nt,}}}}}}}}o-ky't't'tt+'t'tYY't'tY:2iYii<:Y:YYY:}YY2`Yk•.tt}tt»y't}.YY:Y:Y:...::":::::: .2Y2' t Y ,Y>tt,y..t t.y:.:tt::•.}:.;;.}•.»,: 2,k2?Yt•.:t•::::::.:::.::.»t:::t•::.,.YY2Y 2::•.,,,..t:,tkY 2 ^,t2,.Yt#Y;`.,;t2}:}•}':i}t,.yy,tyt:>,::::.,y..;2t.}t;:,t:.;:};t:t}Y»tyytyry}r.yy»„}:;•}}}}y;y;kt}}??2?:•y:•y:•yyy>y. t•?»tYt„L:2 Y2222'R.nt..t tn»..k,{.:.Y#ci22 2222Y t.t...,. ,.....:t...:..: t.,..tt..t.tttt:tt.....k.......,..,,:.:.::::_::.:.t:•.:::tsEY:;: tt•.:Y,Y•.:ttt•:.. •.:,::•::•::::.t:}tt:tttttt•::.:::.:...... ,::,,,,:::._:.:::.:: :•:.t.....t.. ; .• .{t:.}.t.:...::.;,::.:... ......:..............:. .;..:,,. :, :k,k+t,•.::,,k•.,Yt• t„}t}y,,,,,,}:.y3ky,z,•.,2.y.},+}}?,<•.,t:tt,,,:::yyyt•:«:.:;r>;„}„ }y:•};.,.;,,, r}:.., t 22 2 •::.:t•:.:::::k,.. r•+2.2}•}:Y+?•:?`{tY>.YYYY;•;;?Y,:•.:::.:•.::.k...,..t,:•.:.::t,•.t•.,•:.:t•.:::::.t:::.:.:::.:. :: t•.:;{<•}:tt::a:y:y:o;.y:::.:.:::..... t,.....2,:,:tY„t•:,tt,:: t„•:., t•.,:•.:•:.,•.,•.t•.t,•::.::.::.:..,:n•:.:..:.... y:a}:y:y:y:::.;.;.;S:Y.y::._::::::.::. ,,....:::: r..,:},,,:},. ,:tyit Y•..: „:.rn, t :, t»yy}•:•yasyyy:a•}:-y:••>o-::.......:..... Y::::::.,.:.....,2?,Y.,,,:Y.tttt,L:MY,:,..t2,Y,,,k2„k,,.,t}tYk,k.2Y :Y tY2t,....:......:::........,.... y:3.:•},.}{YY:Y;?i:i::Y2YYYY;;:..:•}}}}:x2}•}•,:_.}}};.}}y:•:.,::;•}}::::::;:>::c::t::o:y::o::>::;:c{;;:c}::;:;:»>}.::.;...•;• rin•:.:,•:::::.:.w•, y;.}:.t•;;;;.,,•:;..;...:y}r;•}:>:a}:.:::::;;:;>:>:}:}:y:a:Yy:y:>:Y::y:.}:;;o:}:}:y:a}:n:;.;:.;y::,•:::n•::.::::...YYYYYYYYt"Y:....Y...ckttk2Y22Y?YYY22'2;~Kt2„•`.,:,. kt,.. r.;k:•::::::.n•::::::<..:.•..,»..t.Y:t,:::,:2,,,,.,,,tt„tt:t»t:,yt,::,•.Y,:,,,•.zY,zt„ta2z,:,,,,:.:;:;:,:}}>.;: -'.EE}}:..::::.::.,,,:t,;?Y?::;«•:;Y?;;:tr:;;•:;:;•;:;•::;;:<:<;<.«:.y:{:.:t;:;;;t.:;.:::::t:::::: H:\FORMS\300FI'.DOC 2 IN 512640024505 147140007500 512690021005 ALBERTS TODD MICHAEL BARTZ JENNY AUGUSTA+SCHULTZ BOZELL ROGER J+PATRICIA 3125 SE 6TH ST 3427 SE 7TH ST 3217 6TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 512640014001 512640013003 512690017508 BREWER ORLIE T JR+ROBIN S BRUNE Im SHERRY P BRUNE I-1h VERNON G 3217 SE 5TH ST 3205 SE 5TH ST 3301 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 512690030501 162305902304 512690013507 BUNDER ROBERT J BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE BURSKEY W 567 PIERLE AVE SE TAX DEPT 3320 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98058 1700E GOLF RD#400 RENTON WA 98058 SCHAUMBURG IL 60173 512690032705 512690038504 512690029008 CALLAWAY DANIEL 0&ABIGAIL CAMERON JEFFREY R CHARBONNEAU D K ROSE M 24842 96TH AVE S#B 3600 SE 6TH STREET 3525 SE 5TH ST KENT WA 98031 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98055 147140002501 162305906602 512690038009 CHARLTON CAROLYN J CITY OF RENTON CLINKENBEARD JANE CELESTINE 11983 AVELLANA CIRCLE NW BENNETT W E 554 PIERCE AVE SE SILVERDALE WA 98383 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 512690032408 512690015007 512690045509 CONRAD JOSEPH H&PATRICIA CRATER MICHAEL H DAWSON LARRY A+VALERIE PO BOX 6382 3308 SE 6TH ST 3525 SE 6TH ST KENT WA 98064 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 512640025007 512690022003 512690018506 DENNY LARRY K+MARGRIET WOLT DOBSON JOHN W DOWNEN CHRIS M 3205 SE 6TH ST 6611 114TH AVE SE 3317 SE 6TH STREET RENTON WA 98058 BELLEVUE WA 98006 RENTON WA 98058 147140003509 147140005009 512640016501 EBERTZ MARK R FILLIPS JUDITH A+BAKER DALE GAFFIN JEFFREY 3321 SE 7TH ST 3405 SE 7TH ST 27320 SE 162ND PL RENTON WA -- 98058 RENTON WA 98058 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 147140005504 147140003004 512690046002 GAFFNEY ROBERT J+LOUISE B GRANDE CORINNE M GUY JAMES E+ELAINE L 7560 SO 120TH 7001 OLD REDMOND RD#G 207 8226 S 114TH ST SEATTLE WA 98178 REDMOND WA 98052 SEATTLE WA 98178 512690044007 512690016005 512640024000 HAN YON OK HART R E L HAWES CHESTER E 3503 SE 6TH ST 3232 SE 6TH ST 3121 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 512690014505 512690050509 512690022508 HULBURT DAVID W&CECILIA S HUMBLE ROBERT HUSOM VIRGINIA 25328 SE 200TH 15003 134TH SE 532 NEWPORT AVE SE MAPLE VALLEY WA 98038 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98058 512690031004 147140004002 162305902700 JOHNSON KEITH L KINGERY CHERI L LA PIANTA LP 575 PIERCE AVE SE 3401 SE 7TH ST PO BOX 88050 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 TUKWILA WA 98138 512690018001 512690029503 512690037506 LIND ARISTELLA A MEHL RANDY L NARKIEWICZ ALINA 3309 SE 6TH ST 3533 SE 5TH ST 550 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 512640025502 512640013508 512690031509 NIELSEN ROBERT M ODEN JACK E OHARE JOHN D 3209 SE 6TH ST 3209 SE 5TH ST 583 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 512640026005 512690012509 512690014000 PARKER DAVID B PERROTTI ANTHONY P PETERSEN TRAVIS S+WALIMAKI 3213 SE 6TH 505 NEWPORT AVE SE 3316 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 147140000505 512690028505 512690008002 PUGLISI PHILIP&RUTH RAMSEY JOHN C REESER HAROLD 3225 SE 7TH ST 3517 SE 5TH ST 3225 SE 5TH RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 512640017509 512690013002 147140006502 ROTH GLADYS SAGE KENNETH R&JEANNIE M SAUVE DAVID J 3208 SE 6TH ST 3328 SE 6TH ST 3413 SE 7TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 512690023001 512690032606 512690023506 SCHAUT LARRY A SIEMION MICHAEL B+MARGARET SMITH MICHAEL L 12101 SE 96TH PL 111 154TH PL NE 4207 SE 3RD RENTON WA "- 98056 BELLEVUE WA 98007 RENTON WA 98056 512640017004 512690044502 147140008607 SPETEN 0 H STACHOWIAK VINCENT L TABOR LESLIE D 3204 SE 6TH ST 3511 SE 6TH ST 11226 26TH PL SE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 EVERETT WA 98205 512690024504 512690024009 512640018002 THEODORSEN WILLIAM G+KAREN VAN HOFF NEIL D+PERISICH,PA VAN TUYL GREGGORY L+NANCY J 3429 SE 5TH ST 3425 SE 5TH ST 3216 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 512690045004 512690030006 512690032002 WESCOTT]SANE ITE M WILSON TIMOTHY C+CAROLYN SA WONG KAHSOON+ANN KIM WEI 5246 123RD AVENUE SE 559 PIERCE AVE SE 3512 SE 6TH ST BELLEVUE WA 98006 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 MATT TONKIN,PRESIDENT DEBBIE SHERIDAN NICOLE ROBINSON TACO TIME, CORPORATE OFFICE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING&DESIGN 3110 SE 5TH STREET 3300 MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY TACO TIME, CORPORATE OFFICE RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 3300 MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY RENTON,WA 98058 ROBERT HUMBLE 13112 195TH PLACE SE ISSAQUAH,WA 98027-6408 Taco I%W ski_, 512640024505 147140001 ^^ 512690021005 ALBERTS TODD MICHAEL BOZELL ROGER J+PATRICIA 3125 SE 6TH ST 3217 6TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 e\c1/41A yi- 1 512640014001 kS512690017508 BREWER ORLIE T JR+ROBIN S BRUNE ITE VERNON G 3217 SE 5TH ST 3301 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98058 IENTON WA 98055 I! ? 512690030501 2690013507 BUNDER ROBERT J JRSKEY W 567 PIERLE AVE SE 6(,2. 20 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98058 NTON WA 98058 512690032705 512690029008 eattEGOMML, CAMERON JEFFREY R CHARBONNEAU D K ROSE M 42 96T A E S-tB 3600 SE 6TH STREET 3525 SE 5TH• lifeiTAVA AS9;1 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98055 147140002501 162305906602 512690038009 CHARLTON CAROLYN J CITY OF RENTON CLINKENBEARD JANE CELESTINE 11983 AVELLANA CIRCLE NW BENNETT W E 554 PIERCE AVE SE SILVERDALE WA 98383 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 512690032408 512690015007 512690045509 CONRAD JOSEPH H&PATRICIA CRATER MICHAEL H DAWSON LARRY A+VALERIE PO BOX 6382 3308 SE 6TH ST 3525 SE 6TH ST KENT WA 98064 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 512640025007 512690022003 512690018506 DENNY LARRY K+MARGRIET WOLT DOBSON JOHN W DOWNEN CHRIS M 3205 SE 6TH ST 6611 114TH AVE SE 3317 SE 6TH STREET RENTON WA 98058 BELLEVUE WA 98006 RENTON WA 98058 147140003509 147140005009 512640016501 EBERTZ MARK R FILLIPS JUDITH A+BAKER DALE GAFFIN JEFFREY 3321 SE 7TH ST 3405 SE 7TH ST 27320 SE 162ND PL RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 147140005504 147140003004 512690046002 GAFFNEY ROBERT J GRANDE CORINNE M GUY JAMES E+ELAINE L 7560 SO 120TH 7001 OLD REDMOND RD#G 207 8226 S 114TH ST SEATTLE WA 98178 REDMOND WA 98052 SEATTLE WA 98178 512690044007 512690016005 512640024000 HAN YON OK HART R E L HAWES CHESTER E 3503 SE 6TH ST 3232 SE 6TH ST 3121 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 512690014505 512690050509 512690022508 HULBURT DAVID W&CECILIA S HUMBLE ROBERT HUSOM VIRGINIA 25328 SE 200TH 15003 134TH SE 532 NEWPORT AVE SE MAPLE VALLEY WA 98038 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98058 512690031004 147140004002 162305902700 JOHNSON KEITH L KINGERY CHERI L LA PIANTA LP 575 PIERCE AVE SE 3401 SE 7TH ST PO BOX 88050 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 TUKWILA WA 98138 512690018001 512690029503 512690037506 LIND ARISTELLA A MEHL RANDY L NARKIEWICZ AL1NA 3309 SE 6TH ST 3533 SE 5TH ST 550 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 512640025502 512640013508 512690031509 NIELSEN ROBERT M ODEN JACK E OHARE JOHN D 3209 SE 6TH ST 3209 SE 5TH ST 583 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 512640026005 512690012509 512690014000 PARKER DAVID B PERROTTI ANTHONY P PETERSEN TRAVIS S+WALIMAKI 3213 SE 6TH 505 NEWPORT AVE SE 3316 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 147140000505 512690028505 512690008002 PUGLISI PHILIP&RUTH RAMSEY JOHN C REESER HAROLD 3225 SE 7TH ST 3517 SE 5TH ST 3225 SE 5TH RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 512640017509 512690013002 147140006502 ROTH GLADYS SAGE KENNETH R&JEANNIE M SAUVE DAVID J 3208 SE 6TH ST 3328 SE 6TH ST 3413 SE 7TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 512690023001 512690032606 512690023506 SCHAUT LARRY A SIEMION MICHAEL B+MARGARET StittatisitethicEL L 12101 SE 96TH PL 111 154TH PL NE RENTON WA 98056 BELLEVUE WA 98007 P N FeN-wA 98056 512640017004 512690044502 147140008607 SPETEN 0 H STACHOWIAK VINCENT L TABOR LESLIE D 3204 SE 6TH ST 3511 SE 6TH ST 11226 26TH PL SE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 EVERETT WA 98205 512690024504 512690024009 512640018002 THEODORSEN WILLIAM G+KAREN VAN HOFF NEIL D+PERISICH,PA VAN TUYL GREGGORY L+NANCY J 3429 SE 5TH ST 3425 SE 5TH ST 3216 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 512690045004 512690030006 512690032002 OTTJEANE1"11;3M WILSON TIMOTHY C+CAROLYN SA WONG KAHSOON+ANN KIM WEI 246 123R eVE UE SE 559 PIERCE AVE SE 3512 SE 6TH ST 98006 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 MATT TONKIN,PRESIDENT DEBBIE SHERIDAN NICOLE ROBINSON TACO TIME, CORPORATE OFFICE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING&DESIGN 3110 SE 5TH STREET 3300 MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY TACO TIME, CORPORATE OFFICE RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 3300 MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY RENTON, WA 98058 ROBERT HUMBLE Z)(IA\Gl Catiew j13112195THPLACESE 1M c 1 i t t L. c w% ISSAQUAH,WA 98027-6408 t(o33 ylstm Ave '` 108 5 4 ykwpov-r Aue s Se*t+1e,wIF} 9612_1 RGK.loN,wW 98058 - 2848 Jearcttt M. tt maven 10(o2AS ' k St Rca Ctov% u)44 98o55 512690041508 512690033505 512690034008 BLUHM CHRISTOPHER P+WENDY L DOAN E C BRANDEL KURTIS P&BILLIE D 3609 SE 5TH PL 524 PIERCE AVE SE 1602 INDEX AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 512690033000 512690036003 512690026509 LAPLANT LILA A COBLENTZ BETTY&MIKE FEYEREISEN PATTY A LAPLANT JACK K 22320 88TH AVE S 3612 SE 5TH 7521 72ND DR NE KENT WA 98031 RENTON WA 98058 MARYSVILLE WA 98270 512690026004 512690025501 512690025006 GONZALES STEPHANIE A BATEMAN JILL V ROSS WENDY J 3604 SE 5TH ST 3536 SE 5TH ST 3532 SE 5TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98058 512690007509 CONE MATHEW S 3508 SE 5TH RENTON WA 98058 MIL CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/NEIGHBORHOODS & STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: October 26, 1998 TO: Kathy Keo er-Wheeler,Chair Plannin: :nd Development Committee VIA: er,Mayor FROM: ike Kattermanrl, ighborhoods and Strategic Planning Director STAFF CONTACT: Lisa Grueter(430-6578) SUBJECT: Maple Valley Highway Taco Time Site (98-M-4; LUA 98-042 CPA,R,ECF) On July 27, 1998, the City Council approved a Planning and Development Committee report recommending approval of various 1998 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. It was noted in the report that the Taco Time amendment proposal was being held on appeal to the Hearing Examiner and would be continued to the 1999 review cycle; in the report matrix, it was also noted that the Taco Time application would be forwarded to the City Council in the Fall of 1998. The Hearing Examiner resolved the SEPA appeal in favor of the City finding that the environmental determination and mitigation measures were adequate for the proposal. With the appeal resolved, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 16, 1998 and completed its deliberations on October 7, 1998. A copy of Planning Commission minutes and correspondence received will be provided under separate cover to the Planning and Development Committee. A staff report, analyzing the subject area and presenting staff and Planning Commission recommendations, is attached for your review. It supersedes previous reports sent to the Committee last April 1998. The staff recommends that the Committee prepare its recommendation for the site for the full Council this year to provide direction for the staff and the interested property owners and citizens. However, any formal amendment to the Comprehensive Plan by ordinance would need to be coordinated with 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendment review cycle since the City may only amend its Comprehensive Plan once a year for non-emergency proposals. cc: City Council Jay Covington Sue Carlson City Clerk P&DMEM.DOC t 10/26/98 AMENDMENT 98-M-4 - MAPLE VALLEY HWY TACO TIME SITE LOCATION: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial CC) around the 3300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single- Family (RS)/R-8; and the Cedar River Market, Cedar River Barbershop, and Conrad properties currently designated RS/R-8. Figures 1 through 3 show existing zoning and study area boundaries. ISSUE SUMMARY: 1. Should the proposed area be redesignated from a less intense commercial designation/zone and residential designation/zone to a more intense commercial designation/zone? 2. Will the development agreement accommodate existing commercial businesses as well as the future expansion goals of Taco Time, and also protect the neighborhood from potentially intensive commercial uses of the Arterial Commercial(CA)zone? 3. Should changes be made in general to the CA zone to allow for offices, shoe repair, and accessory storage for service/office uses? 4. Should the study area parcels on SE 6th Street adjacent to the market be designated commercial or residential? RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff Recommendation The Staff recommendations are to: For all properties in the proposed amendment area except for the Conrad properties, change the designation of the subject property from Convenience Commercial (CC) and Residential Single Family (RS) to Employment Area - Commercial (EA-C). Concurrently, the Zoning Map would be amended from Convenience Commercial (CC) and Residential-8 (R-8) to Arterial Commercial (CA). The redesignation would better match current conditions of the area which are a mix of neighborhood serving commercial and community/region-wide business offices. For the Conrad properties east of the Cedar River Market, staff analyzed various alternative commercial and residential designations. After initially reviewing the CC/CC, EAC/CA, Employment Area - Office (EA-O)/Commercial Office (CO) and RS/R-8 designations, staff analyzed the RO/R-10 designation at the Planning Commission's request. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation to apply the Residential Options(RO)/R-10 designation. Approve a development agreement to apply to the amendment area redesignated to EA- C/CA. The development agreement would restore some of the previous flexibility of the zoning applied to much of the area prior to 1993 (the old B-1 zone) by not capping the square footages of allowed office or retail uses, and allowing for more variety in uses in comparison to the existing CC zone. However, the agreement would exclude many of the 98M4REV2.DOC\ 1 10/26/98 intensive uses of the CA zone in order to protect the neighborhood from some potentially incompatible uses. Some text amendments would be needed generally to the CA zone to allow for offices, clarify minor repair activities (i.e. shoe repair allowed in addition to TV, electrical, upholstery, and watch/jewelry repair), and allow for accessory storage for service and office uses. Planning Commission Recommendations The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 16, 1998, and deliberated on October 7, 1998. A copy of public hearing minutes, correspondence, and the Commission report are provided under separate cover. Their recommendations are to: Apply the CC designation and zone to the Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop properties. Deny the staff recommendation for the Taco Time lease/option and option properties to redesignate the properties to Employment Area-Commercial/Commercial Arterial designations. Maintain the current CC designations for the Taco Time office building, easement and espresso stand properties. Maintain the current RS/R-8 zoning for the three residential lots. Maintain the CC designation for the radiator repair and insurance office properties. Deny the proposed development agreement. Designate the four Conrad parcels with the RO land use designation, with a concurrent rezone to R-10. Approve the code amendments to allow offices, accessory storage for office/service uses, and shoe repair in the CA zone. ANALYSIS: Background Uses and Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Designations-Vicinity The existing zoning is shown on Figure 1 which shows much of the vicinity on the north and south side of Maple Valley Highway as Residential-8 (R-8) with some property shown as Convenience Commercial (CC), including the an automotive repair operation, Taco Time administrative headquarters, espresso stand, and an insurance office recently constructed. The corresponding Comprehensive Plan designations are Residential Single Family (RS) and Convenience Commercial CC). Prior to 1993, some of the CC zoned property was designated with a more intense commercial designation,B-1. Refer to Figure 1-a. 98M4REV2.DOC\ 2 10/26/98 Proposed Amendment Area The primary amendment area is identified on Figures 2 and 3, and equals approximately 3.05 acres excluding Conrad parcels under study east of the Cedar River Market, discussed below). The amendment area includes all of the existing CC- zoned property,plus some R-8 zoned property which applies to the existing Cedar River Market, Cedar River Barbershop, and three residences located on property contiguous to the Taco Time office for which Taco Time has a purchase option (for the southernmost residential lot, Taco Time also has a lease). The vacant Conrad parcels under study east of the Cedar River Market total an additional 0.855 acres. Easement There is a 200 foot(+/-) easement for overhead power lines and for fuel pipelines (gas, diesel, and jet fuel). Regarding the gas lines, there would be restrictions against building permanent structures. Regarding the powerline easement, no one may build anything on the area covered by the easement without the express permission of the holder of the easement. Parking and landscaping could occur on the easement according to specifications by the easement holders. Regarding the location of the gas/diesel/jet fuel lines within the 200 foot wide easement area, the lines do not necessarily lie within the middle of the easement according to Mark Krueger with Olympic Pipeline. The pipelines are marked in the field. There are two pipelines with the following easement widths within the larger 200 foot easement: 16"line with a 20 foot easement 20"line with an open easement Olympic Pipeline could theoretically claim the whole easement area for the pipeline with the open easement,but is more likely to negotiate for a 30 to 50 foot area according to Mark Krueger. Olympic Pipeline would review any development plans to ensure adequate buffer areas from the pipelines. Taco Time Office Taco Time corporate offices are located on Maple Valley Highway near Monroe Avenue SE. The existing office on the site totals 7,792 square feet, and an accessory storage building totals 1,920 square feet. Currently, 30 parking spaces are located on site. When the building was constructed in 1990,the zoning designation was Business Use(B-1). With the Comprehensive Plan update and associated area-wide zoning, the property was redesignated and rezoned Convenience Commercial(CC)in 1993. The purpose of the CC zone is: "...to provide for small-scale convenience retail/commercial centers intended to provide for basic retail and service needs of the adjacent area. Uses serving a larger area may be appropriate if they also serve the residents of the immediate area and are compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood in which they are located." Commercial uses in general are restricted to 5,000 square feet per commercial use, with a maximum increase possible of 1,000 square feet if approved by the Hearing Examiner as a Conditional Use Permit. Professional and personal offices are allowed as Administrative Conditional Uses, subject to: 1) The total gross floor area of each use in any one site shall not exceed three thousand 3,000) square feet. 98M4REV2.DOC\ 3 10/26/98 2) The following criteria: A) Activities with a limited need for walk-in clientele; and B) Activities for which a reduction in parking standards to one space per five hundred(500)square feet of gross floor space could be justified. The Taco Time building is nonconforming since it exceeds the 3,000 square foot parameter, and has a parking ratio of 1 space per 260 square feet,assuming the office space only. Assuming both the office and storage space, there is a parking ratio of 1 space per 324 square feet which still does not meet the criteria. Expansion of the current use would be difficult due to the criteria. The office has no need for walk-in clientele. In the future, Taco Time also anticipates expanding their offices due to increasing corporate staff needs. Since the use does not provide for basic retail and service needs of the adjacent area and provides more parking than required (described below), the expansion of the use would be difficult to approve since it would not meet the intent of the zone, or the specific Conditional Use criteria listed above. Taco Time Parking and Expansion Goals Taco Time has 30 parking spaces,but would like to add 24 spaces. Three to four times a month, there is a need for additional parking when meetings occur with franchise owners, restaurant managers, or when employee training occurs. Currently when these meetings occur, the business owners have said that parking overflows into the surrounding residential neighborhood. There is also an adjacent undeveloped lot to the east which is used for overflow parking as well. The Parking Code requirement for office uses is a minimum of 3 and maximum of 4.5 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (1 space per 333 square feet to 1 space per 222 s.f.). This standard allows for more parking than what is allowed under the CC zone parameters for office uses (1 per 500 s.f. which equals 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet). The existing office building would meet the Parking Code requirement for its current building because the Parking Code would result in a range allowing between 23 and 35 parking spaces. To exceed the maximum spaces of the Parking Code, application for a modification would need to be made. Taco Time Property Ownership There is one underlying property owner, John Dobson, who owns the Taco Time office property, espresso property, plus several residential lots. Taco Time leases the property and has an option to purchase the land where the office is situated as well as property to the east including land with a single family residence,power line easement, and portable espresso stand. Taco Time has a purchase option for additional residential lots. The proposed redesignation includes the property leased by Taco Time as well as two lots which Taco Time has an option to purchase. Since Taco Time anticipates expanding its corporate offices in the future which would be in conflict with the current CC zone regulations regarding size, an amendment to the CC zone regulations or a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/concurrent rezone to a different designation would be needed. Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop The Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop are located on two separate adjoining parcels, and are under separate ownership. The properties were zoned B-1, but were redesignated in 1993 to RS/R-8 which staff has determined was a map error. Staff believes the intention of the CC zone 98M4REV2.DOC\ 4 10/26/98 applied in the area was to include the market and barbershop which are clearly neighborhood serving. The market and barber shop are grandfathered uses, and may continue, but the residential zoning would restrict their ability to expand,or potentially to rebuild without a conditional approval permit. Vacant Parcels Under Study-Conrad Properties There are four vacant parcels east of the Cedar River Market located on SE 6th Street. Prior to 1993, the zoning applied to the properties was B-1, a commercial zone. In 1993, the property was redesignated to residential. The property owners have indicated to staff that they were unaware of the designation change in 1993, and would like to develop an office or condominiums. At the Planning Commission hearing the Center Neighborhood(CN)designation was requested. Although staff believes the residential zoning for the adjacent market and barbershop was in error,the staff does not believe that the residential designation for the vacant properties was a map error. In 1993, the property did not have a commercial use or a pending commercial use. This report analyzes the potential application of commercial or residential designations. Aquifer Protection Regulations The subject area is located in Aquifer Protection Area Zone 2. However, it was determined during review of a preliminary mini-mart/gas station and shared parking plan (submitted by Taco Time for adjacent property) that facilities with hazardous materials or underground storage tanks have the potential to affect ground water quality equal to or exceeding a Zone 1 facility. Based on this, the Water Utility can require such facilities to meet Zone 1 requirements(RMC 8-8-7G1). Zone 1 requirements prohibit facilities with certain amounts of hazardous materials or underground storage tanks. Although the CC zone allows gas stations as an administrative conditional use, the aquifer protection regulations would prevent their location in the area. Limitations on the use of hazardous substances in Zone 1 could also affect the ability to have a dry cleaning business which is a typical neighborhood-serving use. These limitations would also affect the allowable uses of any other zone allowing commercial uses. City Council Direction Based upon a letter from Taco Time (see Attachment A), and review of options by the Administration and Planning and Development Committee in September 1997, the City Council directed staff as follows: The City should sponsor a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA)/concurrent rezone application with an associated development agreement. The preferred Comprehensive Plan designation would be Employment Area-Commercial. The matching zoning district would be Arterial Commercial. The CPA/rezone should consider the inclusion of the nearby nonconforming food market currently zoned R-8, and potentially other properties next to the CC zone which are under common ownership. The City should allow continued informal use of the unimproved parking area east of Taco Time offices if there is active pursuit of the necessary approvals and development agreement to allow the expanded use and parking area by the property owner or their designee. 98M4REV2.DOC\ 5 10/26/98 A discussion of other options studied by the City Council in Fall 1997 are described later in this report. Proposed EA-C/CA Designation and Zone with Development Agreement The Employment Area - Commercial Comprehensive Plan designation is intended to "provide for commercial and residential uses requiring large amounts of land and/or high visibility and access to large volumes of automobile traffic."The matching zoning designation would be Arterial Commercial CA). The primary purpose of the zone is to provide "suitable environments for `strip' commercial development." The CA zoning regulations are more permissive than the CC regulations, and would allow a much larger range of uses on the properties. The maximum height of buildings is 50 feet which may be increased through a conditional use permit. A landscape buffer of 15 feet is required abutting residentially-zoned lots. To avoid promoting strip development which could set a precedent for other areas along Maple Valley Highway, and to avoid some commercial and service uses which may be attracted by the area's traffic flow and visibility, but which may not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, the City Council directed that a development agreement be prepared. In RCW 36.70B.170, a local government can enter into development agreement with a person having ownership or control of real property. The agreement can address the permitted uses, densities, intensities, building sizes, design standards such as heights, setbacks, landscaping, and other features. The development agreement must be consistent with the jurisdiction's development regulations adopted in compliance with the Growth Management Act. Refer to Attachment B. A proposed development agreement has been drafted and sent to property owners in the proposed . amendment area (refer to Attachment C). It describes the allowed uses, and generally summarizes development standards. A comparison of use allowances is shown on Attachment D. As proposed, the agreement does not have a specific expiration date, but would be reviewed periodically around the time the City would have a thorough review of the Comprehensive Plan(every 10 years). If the approach is accepted by the City Council, a formal development agreement would be prepared by the City Attorney's office. Further changes in the agreement may result upon Council, or City Attorney review. The Development Agreement would allow more uses than the CC zone, but not include the full range of CA uses. Key features of the draft agreement are: In comparison to the CC zone, the Development Agreement would allow retail sales of books, music, stationary, art supplies, building/hardware/garden materials, pharmacies, pet shops,photography services,retail printing and xerography,and other similar uses. The CC zone allows auto repair as an Administrative Conditional Use permit when associated with a gas station. The existing radiator repair shop is not associated with a gas station which likely wouldn't be allowed with the Aquifer Protection regulations. In the draft Development Agreement, existing vehicle service and repair uses would be allowed. This means that the existing radiator repair shop could continue indefinitely, and could rebuild to its current size if there was a fire or act of God without a conditional approval permit and without a need to be associated with a gas station. 98M4REV2.DOC\ 6 10/26/98 In comparison to the CA zone, the agreement would exclude residential uses, intensive retail activities (e.g. appliance, furniture, auto supply, liquor stores, sporting goods, etc.), light manufacturing,and auto sales. The CC zone maximum height is 35 feet. The maximum height of the CA zone is 50 feet. It would be specified in the Development Agreement that 35 feet is the maximum height, and a conditional use process to exceed 35 feet would not be allowed through the Development Agreement even though the process is available generally in the CA zones. The Development Agreement would require site plan review for any size development on the Taco Time properties. In addition,access would not be allowed from SE 6th Street. The advantages of the CA zoning with a development agreement are: Accommodates office use without size restrictions. Accommodates future commercial uses of vacant or redevelopable properties, and, Cedar • River Market and Cedar River Barbershop. The CA zone would better address the Taco Time corporate offices, and would accommodate the other property owners. Other commercial uses could be accommodated on vacant or redevelopable properties,yet the full range of CA uses would not be available. There would be less potential compatibility impacts than a CPA/rezone without a development agreement. There would be greater certainty for the property owners, nearby residents, and the City regarding the future development in the area. There would be less concern about setting a precedent for strip commercial development on the Maple Valley Highway. Another alternative to the development agreement- which would shorten the list of uses and allow for different development standards - would be the creation of an overlay zone similar to the Automall Overlay in the CA zone. Staff has not proposed this because of the existing complexity of the zoning code and due to concerns about future expansion of the boundaries. Another overlay zone would further add to the complexity of the Renton zoning code which has twenty-two zoning classifications, plus the Automall Overlay and a series of overlay-type regulations such as Adult Entertainment, Airport, and Shoreline regulations among others. The development agreement would create less possibility of future commercial expansion along Maple Valley Highway on other properties because it would be more difficult to amend than an overlay zone; development agreements require coordination between the City and property owners under the agreement, and any amendments require a public hearing prior to adoption. The development agreement would provide greater certainty for the property owners and nearby residents for a longer period of time. Nearly all property owners in the amendment area have responded with an interest in participation with the redesignation and development agreement including the owner of the radiator repair property, insurance office property, and Taco Time corporate owners as well as the underlying property owner John Dobson. The owner of the Cedar River Market is interested in a commercial designation to 98M4REV2.DOC\ 7 r 10/26/98 correct the map error. The Cedar River Barbershop property owner has not contacted Staff in response to letters and calls to the barber shop operator. Aside from Taco Time's desire for more flexibility for office and commercial uses, it should be noted that the radiator repair and insurance office property owners have indicated an interest in participating in the redesignation to EA-C/CA and the development agreement because it provides additional flexibility for the future in comparison to the existing CC zone. Further analysis of the staff recommended approach is provided below along with other options. Proposed Arterial Commercial Code Amendments Because the Development Agreement must be consistent with the underlying zone, Staff is proposing three amendments to the CA zone in general (applicable on any CA zoned property). The development agreement assumes that the proposed general CA amendments will be made. The amendments are: Add offices of any type as a permitted primary use. A 1996 Administrative Determination See Attachment E) indicates that the CA zone allows for office uses and office buildings that comply with the development standards and list of permitted uses for the zone. The proposed amendments would formalize the Administrative Determination, and clarify that any type of office building is allowed including administrative headquarters (defined as a use containing the day-to-day functions,e.g. management,payroll, information systems, inventory control, of a company or affiliated corporate group), business, medical and dental, personal and professional offices. See Attachment F which shows all general CA zone amendments. The development standards of the zone, particularly height limits of 50 feet (35 feet in the development agreement area), would restrict the intensity of office in the CA. Any additional height would require a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit (in the development agreement this process would not be offered). Office structures are such that the type of tenant (retail, service, or administrative) could change without much change in the visual appearance. Add shoe repair as an allowed use. The CA zone already allows electrical repair, TV repair, watch/jewelry repair, and upholstery repair. Shoe repair is a use currently allowed in the less intensive CC zone. Clarify that the accessory use of storage in conjunction with retail sales also allows for accessory storage associated with permitted service and office uses. Accessory storage is limited to 33%of the gross floor area. Other Amendment Options- Staff Proposed Amendment Area Five options are presented below for consideration for the Staff Proposed Amendment Area. A discussion of the parcels under study east of the Cedar River Market is provided separately below. For the Taco Time area, Options 1 through 3 were reviewed by the Planning and Development Committee in the Fall of 1997. The City Council agreed with the Committee that the City should sponsor a Comprehensive Plan Amendment,with the preferred designation being EA-C/CA, subject to a development agreement. Attachment G provides a list of relevant Comprehensive Plan policies addressed in the chart. 98M4REV2.DOC\ 8 10/26/98 PROPOSAL ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES COMP.PLAN COMPLIANCE I. Staff Recommended • Accommodates office • Could set a precedent •Meets general policies to Proposal-For use without size restrictions. for other areas along Maple keep the City's present amendment area, Size will be limited based Valley Hwy;this is less economic base including redesignate from CC upon development standards likely with a development office uses(LU-144),and and RS to EA-C. of the zone and site agreement. allow a mix of uses(LU- Amend the Zoning Map characteristics(e.g. 148). concurrently from CC easement). Commercial and and R-8 to CA.Prepare service uses may be Meets Policy 146-a to general CA zone Accommodates future attracted to the sites because expand the City's percentage amendments.Authorize commercial uses of vacant of traffic flow and visibility; of land base utilized for a development or redevelopable properties, however,the development commercial uses. agreement. yet the full range of CA uses agreement will limit list of would not be available. uses to achieve more The EA-C designation compatibility with the requires location on streets Recognizes commercial surrounding neighborhood. designated as major arterial use of Cedar River Market or above(LU-168). Maple and Barbershop. Valley Highway is designated as a Principal Provides flexibility for Arterial. other commercial uses for existing businesses over Policy LU-176 discourages time as market needs new EA-C designations change. where the commercial demand can be accommodated through intensification and redevelopment of existing EA-C areas. While relocation is possible for Taco Time,the headquarters has already relocated once to a zone(B-1)which at the time allowed for office uses with no size or type restriction. Taco Time invested in their headquarters at that location, and in options on surrounding properties. Relocation is not desirable. While redesignation to EA- C would expand its designation area in the City, in terms of all commercial designations,much of the land under review is already designated commercial as CC. LU-178 suggests that primary uses of the EA-C 98M4REV2.DOC\ 9 10/26/98 PR()POSAL ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES COMP.PLAN COMPLIANCE retail,residential,or service)should be about 50%of the total building area of the EA-C designations. Staff has determined that this is a designation-wide policy. It should be noted that retail, service and office uses can locate interchangeably in structures appearing like a retail center or in office buildings. Also Policy LU- 148 promotes a mix of uses in Employment Area designations. 2. CC Zone Text The CC zone list of • The Taco Time Non-applicable. Amendment Increasing uses is not as broad as corporate offices are Size Allowances for other commercial not and will not be a Offices. No zones,and would neighborhood-serving Comprehensive continue to promote business which is the Plan/Zoning Map neighborhood serving intent of the zone. Amendment. uses overall. Beyond expansion of A CPA/concurrent offices,the corporation rezone would not be may want to add over required.time other activities which would restricted by the intent and regulations of the CC zone(e.g.on lot with espresso stand). The aquifer recharge regulations reduce the allowable uses of the zone in this area,and the list of allowable uses is relatively smaller than other commercial zones. Another disadvantage is that the CC text amendments would apply to all CC-zoned property in the City and would need to be analyzed for effects on other CC-zoned 98M4REV2.DOC\ 10 10/26/98 PROPOSAL ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES COMP.PLAN COMPLIANCE property. 3. For proposed The Taco Time Substantial height The designation would amendment area, corporate offices would allowances(up to 250') occur next to an redesignate from CC be accommodated and which could impact the existing transit route and RS to EA-O. encouraged in this zone.adjacent residential LU-188). Amend the Zoning Map areas. A development concurrently from CC • Some commercial uses agreement could limit • Parking most likely will and R-8 to CO. Option are allowed in the CO the maximum height to not occur in structures authorize a zone as secondary uses.;be less than the zone. LU-190)because the development there are restrictions easements are likely to agreement. against freestanding Other underdeveloped be utilized for surface commercial uses,drive or vacant CC properties parking since other uses through service and in the area may be more appear to be restricted signage.difficult to convert to •by easement owners. commercial uses which are not considered Site and building primary uses of the CO design is not likely to zone and which are be pedestrian oriented discouraged from being or transit oriented in separate freestanding because of the existing buildings.A development pattern, development agreement location of easement, could not change these and traffic volumes on restrictions because the Maple Valley Highway. zone is more restrictive, unless restrictions would be removed City-wide for a development agreement. This is not likely because the CO zone is intended to be an intensive office zone with pedestrian-oriented commercial activities in the ground floors. The zone would allow potentially for light industrial uses,unless restricted through the development agreement. There are not many commercial activities allowed in the CO zone which does not allow for much variety for 1 future uses. 4. Redesignate Taco Time • The Taco Time Does not treat land Regarding EA-C,see office property and corporate offices would under contiguous 98M4REV2.DOC\ 11 10/26/98 PROPOSAL ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES COMP.PLAN COMPLIANCE adjacent residential be accommodated. ownership with existing option 1. parcels under option and planned office and from CC and RS to • Smaller commercial commercial uses Regarding new CC EA-C. Retain CC for opportunities in the CC similarly. designation for Cedar River auto repair shop,zone may be more Market and Barbershop,the insurance office,compatible with the • Less flexibility for uses meet the intent of LU- espresso stand,and surrounding other commercial uses 213 to have small-scale uses redesignate to CC the neighborhood. for vacant/ in proximity which do not Cedar River Market redevelopable land, change the predominant and Cedar River radiator shop property, character of the area. Barbershop to correct insurance office under map error. Implement construction,Cedar Regarding location,the matching zoning.River Market,or Cedar River Market and Development Barbershop,over time. Barbershop are within agreement for Taco pedestrian range of existing Time property only.Potential spot zone residential areas,but are not Make adjustments to issues distinguishing contiguous to a street CA zone generally. the Taco Time office classified at the collector area only. level. Trade area is unknown. 5. Redesignate Taco Time • The Taco Time Does not treat land Regarding EA-O,see office property and corporate offices would under contiguous Option 3. adjacent residential be accommodated. ownership with existing parcels under option and planned office and • Regarding CC,sec Option from CC and RS to • The development commercial uses 4. EA-O. Retain CC for agreement would be similarly. auto repair shop,simpler because height insurance office,would be the primary • Less flexibility for espresso stand,and issue to be addressed. other commercial uses redesignate to CC the for vacant/ Cedar River Market • Smaller commercial redevelopable land, and Cedar River opportunities in the CC radiator shop property, Barbershop to correct zone may be more insurance office under map error. Implement compatible with the construction,Cedar matching zoning. surrounding River Market,or Development neighborhood. Barbershop,over time. agreement for Taco Time property only.Potential spot zone issues distinguishing the Taco Time office area only. Parcels Under Study- Conrad Properties East of Cedar River Market The RS/R-8 designation of the subject site is consistent with the zoning of parcels to the north, east, and west of the property. This section analyzes the potential application of other commercial or residential designations. 98M4REV2.DOC\ 12 10/26/98 Redesignation to the EA-C/CA designation would meet some policies, and would not meet other policies: Redesignation of the parcels under study east of the Cedar River Market to the EA-C/CA designation would meet Policy 146-a to expand the City's percentage of land base utilized for commercial uses. It would not meet policy LU-168 requiring location on streets designated as major arterial or above as the vacant parcels are located on SE 6th Street. Although staff proposes inclusion of the adjacent market and barbershop (which are also located on SE 6th Street) in the EA-C/CA designation,this would recognize the current commercial use of the property. The single family lots adjacent to Taco Time are included in the Staff proposed amendment area because the Taco Time corporation has plans to expand their existing office use, the property is under common ownership, and the property could be integrated into the Taco Time campus and reoriented to Maple Valley Highway. Policy LU-176 discourages new EA-C designations where the commercial demand can be accommodated through intensification and redevelopment of existing EA-C areas. It is possible that commercial uses attracted to the vacant parcels would not have long-term viability with reduced visibility from Maple Valley Highway. Redesignation to EA-0/CO likewise would not meet several policies: The designation would not occur next to an existing transit route (LU-188). It would be in the vicinity of Maple Valley Highway. Parking most likely will not occur in structures (LU-190) due to the suburban nature of the area, size of properties, and uses likely attracted there. Site and building design is not likely to be pedestrian oriented or transit oriented. Regarding a CC designation: If a use were to be established it would need to meet the intent of LU-213 to have small-scale uses in proximity which do not change the predominant character of the area. Regarding location, the property is within pedestrian range of existing residential areas, but is not contiguous to a street classified at the collector level. Trade area would be unknown at this stage. The CN designation whether applied to the Conrad property or the entire proposed amendment area would not meet key policies: Application of the CN designation does not appear workable based upon the analysis of relevant policies and objectives shown in Attachment H. The CN designation promotes creation of mixed use urban districts, significant concentrations of development, and focal points (LU-92, LU-Q, LU-97, LU-105, LU-106) that would be difficult to provide in a 4 acre area which has a suburban development pattern. There is not enough vacant/redevelopable land to allow for transitional land uses(LU-93). The golf course would more likely provide a gateway to the City in this area. Regarding the RO designation: 98M4REV2.DOC\ 13 10/26/98 The designation of the Conrad Property with the RO/R-10 designation is workable based upon analysis of LU-50, the primary policy guiding the RO designation, since development patterns are established, and there are four existing vacant lots accessing SE 6th Street which has utility services. Future development could be compatible with Policies LU-48 and LU-55 depending upon the design of the dwelling units. There could be a concern about spot zoning. Refer to Attachment H. CAPACITY ANALYSIS: Housing-Original Amendment Area Five residentially designated lots could potentially be redesignated to another commercial or office classification. Three of the lots contain existing single family residences under common ownership which are currently rentals. The other two lots contain commercial uses which are currently nonconforming under the residential designation. No change is anticipated to the Comprehensive Plan residential capacity model because the capacity model did not address parcels under one acre. A theoretical capacity analysis is presented below. The total area designated RS (R-8 zone)equals 0.81 acres(35,303 s.f.). If these sites were vacant and lot lines adjusted, this could potentially result in 7 total units (assuming a minimum lot size of 4,500 s.f.), a net increase of 4 units. However,no lots are vacant. Based upon current lot patterns, only one existing lot has enough area to potentially subdivide into two lots. This would mean a potential net increase of 1 housing unit. Employment- Original Amendment Area No change is anticipated to the Comprehensive Plan employment capacity analysis because the capacity analysis assumed the property in this area was developed. No redevelopment figures were assumed for the EA-C or EA-0 designations in the City generally. A theoretical capacity analysis is presented below assuming the capacity model's partially developed parameters for all the land except the easement. If all the subject property designated CC and RS is changed to another classification,the following potential gross employment figures could occur: Option 1 EA-C- 39 employees Option 3 EA-0-73 employees If the main redesignation is restricted to the Taco Time office and expansion area only, the gross employment estimates would be: Option 4 EA-C/CC-27 employees Option 5 EA-0- 50 employees To determine net employment, existing employment should be subtracted. Taco Time corporate offices currently have 36 employees, ten of which do not have office space because they work on maintenance and construction crews in the field, and five of which are District Managers who have office space, but who are generally in the field most of the time. Future employee estimates for the Taco Time corporate offices are unknown. For the remaining businesses in the area including the insurance office under construction, Staff guesstimates there are about 7 to 9 employees total. Not all employees would be onsite at the same time if there are shifts. 98M4REV2.DOC\ 14 10/26/98 The results show that the Comprehensive Plan capacity model formula is close to the existing employment assuming the EA-C designation,particularly considering the number of employees onsite at any one time. The model shows greater employment potential considering the EA-0 designation. Capacity-Conrad Parcels Under Study The property totals 0.855 acres. It was not included in the City's capacity model. Analysis below is theoretical and based upon the model's vacant land assumptions. Square footage wise, the property could have about 8 lots with 4,500 s.f. each,but density maximums would allow a maximum of 6.8 units. However, its configuration and plat pattern would more likely support 4 single family homes. RO/R-10 designations would allow for duplex, triplex or fourplex structures in addition to detached single family. One structure is allowed per lot. Based upon current R-10 standards and the current plat pattern, the maximum number of units that could be accommodated on each existing lot is two duplex),allowing a total of eight units. If the parcels were redesignated to a commercial designation, the resulting employment capacity would be: EA-C: 14 employees EA-O: 25 employees CC: 7 employees COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: See discussion on preceding pages. ZONING CONCURRENCY: Depending on the designation selected, the zoning map would need to be modified to match the Comprehensive Plan. Depending on the designation and whether a development agreement is pursued, some changes to the CA zone or CO zone would be needed generally in order for a consistent development agreement. 98M4REV2.DOC\ 15 8 f SE 5th S itt I MI II/ I Pt e SE o e)10 OESIMMIIM 81Qo0r,, 99 \ 4 if,3,,,,*tw441\‘ rAff 69 o 0 0 ,A111* t-%/4* Figure 1 : Existing Zoning 0 150' 300' T • , Neighborhoods ScStrategic Planning 1 ' 1 '8°° t ED/N/SP T. Schlepp R. MacOnie M O 8 April 1998 Zoning Boundaries is}:i:i:!.S 1•ii:!:I:: ?:yi:f: i:is:i:i:i:E t.l.:•!,i'!'i::l::i?:Ia,:,:il•i' 3::: i.::,,,..... ... ... pi,.i.i..l.:..l. l.I.I.!::i:i.:.i.;.3.t.t.i.i.....,,.:.i.;i: i:::::F. t•.,. t•..i.i•,••,•!•:i:l:•,:•,.t::.• t.:..i:3::;1i::.;.1.•,. :.:::.:.,.: .. til:; ... t:: . Sii:lI :i::;:iil a.I.i.i.I.(:,.I:;.:;.:.:,.3•{l.1.I'li.i.::.....1...,•Is•i•......... 3.:.... ..i.i.:.:..T. . I••.- k fi Y l fr L dj V~ r°try x ?$I A i4:, ..„.1,...,4...,,,i4.,:fili t. , . t4„ k, rT • ` y;} 4i, R 4. hG p(. Yvfwl • 3 ' "2 i •' i y:, qf 41440111111'.1 , 7 /k. , y ' 4S "u ' 4:,:Nisti-4-- ri v; :atoll fi 1 F a „ 4yam ;:*^-z1• GH1 I r i . 4 .: 4?a ' s N I srf.' 1 .1-°,:,,f',..,1,.< 4', ;, 40,,,t, 4,,,.. ..... , 7 ,,,,, t ,M 1 • re.?adz r'0,-4,;g M.. ' Sad. , C` j`t, 4C"" W yY.ii 4.:1'44L114..., 1",41.4,Li.17•4:-:' :44C: yam==:«*' • ,-.'` 1.ere.... 0 . 41,4 VA VO A.\ " VOI if',470",,,try-//,- .. .. .0,00 I A. vill oe '..N.2.-...,o;i:!..ilir,: :.,.1::.,i.1,.:::.:41:,:,: ...f,!:,;.i:::,:::.E',::;.1::::::::,?..:,..:•.i : „, 4/\,...„....,....... 7 R,,,,:s,:i:F,!:,,,y::::,,o,:::,,,,N: :,,,r::.-.,' .- ..'..-: ...,,,,,,,, r1.1/ 1::.;..::::::::::: ::::::::. r. 1::. . 4 . .. ._. I W4 I1 Ott ' l -.4, 0 O., 114,,,,. th Alin iikgatit L 4,4 IFFANY j IIIP vs.w IMO OA 4rav.arif4flrA„,17,10111"11111 41711 Oil CAI ° AA 111111411r(b iii . Os lib, -4Owallaim I,A__40 ti1111,1'.w VIM IS g 6-1. allt -** dr A I IP:, 4 0, *it ww Ill.",gig t‘< /5) 41)0. 1 . 0 11ADI! ha rrniInr 1 litt/S* SE 5th St It All#440440 e0 0eSE P 4aJ 0 4„i1( o 0* 6, 469 s 0 oit*Q 4 ts01101 0 .4150 301 ' IIMII 1 : 1 , : 0 0 W Figure 2 : Study Area ( 98 — M - 4) CC zone - commercial use A cti 0 Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning R-8 zone - commercial use ED/N/SP I. \ \ \ 1 R-8 zone - residential use T. Schlepp R. MacOnie Parcels considered for redesignation Arc 8 April 1998 r- .'''' - ' .---j'' . "'"t•'1.',.-••,, 1,.,`,41.t:::W,A,-,-.,•.,-,..44,,Tots,,.4„.,,;..,.:i- .-,,.•' i#.4'.'s-'71;;*'-;:tiit:410''''k'11:A.'?.,.-•,,,t -,,,,..A. : ,,.-0,,!.404-iii,Irt::,,X.::IF..Zei,i.;a ,-.-,.,;.., r„,..::*'-i,'144,'-',AV, ,,..•',',4„.:10fir,,,,A1'..,-*"4,.';'•4.-.''..g,..*,-;11:4%''-':,p'•:%';r'' e:'';'),:`,: l....t. '',;1-•%.• '-'' fts;''' 4,•-•;.•'-'":.---', -;-%',.. 4.r., ',-74'.'" ''.'"('"`,.-,'. .„,,,,,,,_,,.7.''..!tjYlicr -„?..,ir,,,: r.,,,,,„....4.,..p7,154.:4177,.;''....1.*.f.'`.!:•:r."''';‘,... 4, r,-f,';tii., '' '," - ', 40,._,,i,1,,,, c ;".1•••,t:,k1:•••.:ifti:4.,-.-- -,.."4.-,... .."c,!'`AAA 1*-%C.1 ,.'„t,.X:,-',..;•-",,',-,-,1. . *‘,•% .‘,.s'27; ' • !' _:..7.."'"..1- - 1. 77,•:.. 12,11),*!-•.1.,,.. a.'.'---,4,-, -,...;: —.,...-.-- >,.... , :-M , --- .- ,,i---..---,v9*64;;;..',', , :' '''"::-., :,:4,,,,,,,i,'..:,...,-'.,,,,,,,,Y.f.,,:-,.•740‘ , - -..,:,..1 ......-: f4,,,-3,t-*A,tki,..,i.. . **4 -4;:.* 14:4A"afr".-,,'..,„,,,. Sti...;?-•••!';',,....-......2.,,:.4,- .,m.iii,':;iirAdr,„,ir.z-r.2,...et,1,, ,m,...,.,,,,,,,,,,,tizqr.,,,,,,,...i,;,--..„,-,,,,,...,114::*,.., -: . ." .., ,,,,,. ,7:;,,-,e.v -. wr.-,-':? '1"."'`,.' " -;',,,,- " 4'4,-,:.-',''= 1".1.1.:- f ''. 75'`e'- ...„ -" t'''.. - ..-, iti...fi-,,*1---A' X.X.tv,ftfi .;44'"*.'ip,„•;1•..,.";--i- a.1?.'.;•- c • ‘i -7',:-', -•':-• vil; ke c, .1•A , -- - '-•'-' I-' • • -`'..1'1y,:'", ",,,e7,', ;., , ' '. : f,'-,.., 1.A. - $",%'-',1"....,,44';»,. . 4., ?'',11.' ',,,.. ',.'-- 1-7.1.,• 4. ..-..-.,r.,if,4,4.; i,,,i.'"',.,%,' ......',4 ' remit!.-. 1r. a 4,, i 4„,,„ . A. . • 4,- - A . -,;,.. . r -,,-, -•-q..•-•!:,,,,.. -.i. -.Pt^.,,.:k..,-.44:15,4,„1-;,. .-,..--,.,„ .. - • , . 41, 4 •14 4, iita ‘,.,5*-e.tv.., ... Asi:, , ‘- ,.- , '...,-1 , ./,', ,' . .-:-.'-,-,,,4%=:.., --,,,mtt'.',.1.1-''-,4.,,,t,','-lt? .'-.,; -, 1,.,, 5 r,' : • .•,"- , " '`‘''', '.' - r''''''''•'. ;'.:‘'•'....• -,',,•- . ` r 1,s1rt---",,'''' 11 r''' r- - . '.':. ' k T,.-4,X .,: t.4.. 4,,..: 7-7,-;•,7:4,--.,*: '''.,.' ,,..-,',,.:,,,:',. :'....f--.'"::;~,"7:-;:e'*‘,,..;-•.4-,.,,,l':,:')I ,i er. '.'--•k,,, i,;,.,,,v,,,„ s`,•' ,', ‘,.;..- 4'$,'• , i.;14,f,:5' 4,_...!':1- 1.4-,'.....,,,..-;, ,,,..:..„, - „ -,i, v- 4- J,A-letAr",.,'', ::4 • . tte..;_,; ''',•,''','-',.,-,*„ ,...-";47!%i'.'": ,'',,. ,.., ,',2,4' *)-:„.'',.;4',.. .:. ',...:14 .,:, ..:-.:.::::f4ii.:-.,4*;4.'„.2:1-. :4;-i , 1. -.- - '4.". '-' -' '''''"' '''''''*' metoor,„,' '-'''''''l '''''.. 1•2 ';`''",.--if,r4-''`;•:;,,'-;- ";4,1i z. ' l'I:1',,=-;'''''. '....,'A•7-'-,'.:. r, „te.i "",‘,..'-1;4•.'l.,•-.t;'';:,'4-,-V4'.;i'..-kkiz•i,'..!4:-.-.--••-.is 4---.7.!—y-, ., ‘,....;`,, ,rpc-41 '•*„• -Nr-.ir 0- ''J.**. -.. '1,.-:,:•,'z-..',--,,AF '9- -7:44.14.,1,.0.'-'4,-,,v44,,F.,;.',,,,..,„..1„,:,....ktz v. ... -.,.,31,1, 1 . • -, i' ;, .. ....''. , '''•i'. r. .,,, ii; •04'.6. •-' '''•;-,Te-,.‘',.i....'''-F,F," -* -i',",'':,*-...',z4leti'-• ,i,*,._;:-*: •..,,,-,i!",•:f* 0:::'''',-.4,-::::4:17i ., , --71 -. , „,z .„. .-_,, , -.:' ....' ,, •;* ..,', •`t,' , . .:,. 1,--- ,it-,--,-. ".4,.,;.« ' -,A....,."1.:-- „.4)-.,-, ,t,-..,,,, • 4 14-,f". '' - ' %.'• ,-;:,•-` 2,;,.‘-,. ,. k. -' -,....'7„,e,'"-.,;', ‘`•.,. ,*'?'-':t,•. t.- ' -1,,w,g...•24_,,,,,,,.,1.., ' -...*441-3;*•,, • ' ' •tt, 4---'.t14 :`,1.4-;,,'_, ".. --;,, ,,e-,.1,:'4,,,,,. ,.'..-' 4*,, '0,---'4.i•.e . 'i/ '•.*''-'11--; ::-- -*."-,1-.-'-a.i...," 4,",.:-' - ,,*-`, 4-,,. .-T f ..%----Aor,,,f, ,,„ ,,,„,,4,,t •._ ,,,...,N,.,-,r, ^,,, . ,,,,, t,..,,, .,t.': '''. ..; '. "• ''' . . 4% ' '''4 '''1.. • , '.41t•:'' ''7'''.'''' %:'r"'t,"..•,-;40 ', ,V•',A l',' ' '`‘'.•:.`,Z'F.',..' ,, '..., <• ' lh% '..r. .- +,:te .,,',.: ,, ••-t-1",`'"..-.:-..3',..-2- ir, , •••:,,,',',,_'''''''..„;;;; 2444,,,''` g ,.,:dtk,,,,,....,,,, „,,,,/,..4 -.1,1: ...,t 4,''.'41-:;•,.-4,4:;:e',„- . ‘ t:.1. 1 ' Y.4 ... .4_is. , . z.„. $ -,-- . ,,,,„,..4..,,....„..,..,.-v,,,s-,,,, ,., .....„, ;,., A.,::::,.:.0,,, .,• ',...F.4-, ,,, --,,, ,-.”. /ti' iii..•''''* ' '-,C• r'tr NW. 461"114. itr"" ft, -,..r1,1" c'„1,4,,,••-•.,,, •''',';,*,:14.- ''''• '.' 'i.,,. •-•`? t.'. ''' ' '••-- N, •, -'' t -f. ; ,*A % A igv. ,,,, *z+ 1./.,": ',.\ \;,, , • :.,‘, ',,'„,.':- 41,-- '„1/44.7.4.6,.sisOV '-------A - v., .•&t,PQ ,:k..--2,, -,,, . .:„t, t" ,f..',,,.. ...', 1, -1,.•,,- ,,_•7„,••`:.,_,,,••;,,'.2.„12z', r'•.., ••41,,,,-, 444 ',A.,' -iitc„,- •' '4,Ag:-:-'' i,-... ,..(-: ,•.- 'q,,,,,: - If -, it,..,.- ..--, ',- '. : -... 4.; .t.'. ,,,44,. 42 ' th ' Ni"''..mr,s,, y•'•-•_ - :,..; '•• •-• .\* At '',•.' •'*.i. ' "'iii, 4_ :,...!..',•-•" ,,• ,,,,-, ^;" F• a. 460 ,• r,..„,,, ,",,,•,,•," (', f^",,',1•4,,,,,N '',, 4 r -„. ' z-,a, ' ., '4, • A,' . -.-,--.:,.,- tAir•IP rof ...,1„, k. . 0"-V. 41,,_... Vz0 / 1. •,-'.'• ‘• if? • 4-,..,,,',."-"..„•",..k'.„4,,',-./.,,. k, , 4,,--.,4'...,•„-."..-Y,,-,1,A,,,,,,,,,,--.,1, s-,;,t•,-„-.'„- e.--v V '. c,-...-„,„ ,ttfl,,.- -•,,,, ••;•.•. - ,.„: ,.- A ,,,,,,4„%.4..„.0e, ,,,,„„:5,1.••.-1.1%,..t..• ":k,.- '-',,'1.4,..X-4....,• - • P,...., b..0.- f.,, 1. i :• /..t ,. i"'-- kto... 0-- ,-• ' '\-;.`" ' ' •.,310.. - ' *°-14'..-:,,OC,•.?' ....„A. 7-- , „ -. 414.,-.4k •,-•.,,..,,,%z..--.-•,....-:";, ' - •, -, ',- --... 0,`< • , ',i.. 14,, •,`„••%t-- . 4,14-, ',5•2,,,,---,•I'' ,,,, 4., _.• ker.12"i'i . ',,i..--A10..-,;17,--'-' •-- .,•'/I- 1 '''W"' kir:. „ ',.'„,-,.."- "..,'; ..•• '''•••,, ,,_ ..":,,,•:,•i1-':r '''''' -.'•:;:,•.,-„,,.:-.-: '' 4-•" 'v-•''''• r..'', „ r.;*-',':•`-:- : -.. i..;. ' *-Y--,'''ir Vi6-c) -.: ,,''4';',,,2, '''--""-- i, t,',,....''F--,. -•• x.,.• -444, . ,,... 4„. ......„ A...„.., . ..- .,, ,,".. „,..„,. .. 3,,„,, i'''-.•'...."„---:--',.,:/)''..'.::::''"'''•,• 2,•',,•;,.--;.,. r'-;,1'1,.,,1& 4•1',,-;!' . --''''',.'.. 4'4,,, , ' -''.''„`",._. .r4,t'_•[;A:f. ,.-. ---‘, 0-. ,,,,,....„... P Ilk" 4.7'• ,;,.,,,,,,;,...... i t '. -1, 'S•11V- , ''"•,144144 •`"IT.2,W,.s.',.., ''''''14s-1.,„..7.‘•-•'' t ti":• ,:-'-'" .r!' 4-''''/..;-,',„,,'', . A 4",-.... 17, 0' .-i. .'4'''. 1.---...'rl 14' r' r 1". ` r ' Y : 'r''.., 7 - 7 c -- l'''' •-•.- '-'• f., -It'-;',,'"'•""' - '' 1•••' .' - .''-, . '-‘--"-.. i' E'' 3•' "i..-; '. 1 „ ' •"...-'- „...• `.. 150 3004) o S Figure 3. Aerial Photo (98—M Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning 1 : 1 ,800 m • Emma.0. ED/N/SP T. Schlepp, R. MacOnie i... ......i. Parcels considered for reclesignation o- 8 April 1998 Additional parcels under study C 39 MJ94 c l `\ J r\\_ ^ -1 1 4 V3' t h St- ,,,, 2'OS e 1 t 1 / 1 / 1 1 ;;;;;;-,0 1 \ 1 ri X20. 3"..%.,4 1 1 / 1 % p i%/j I) \I\ I / 44"/ \ \ , , rik *?P111111W iiiii"ilrillrAL lar* ,„i,.. .\'%;,;::\;,'! i-, , y y 3 a 4 U W'. 0. 6. 5.1,.... 4•) 4:::: OW X7n.iG X 1g.f.-..,-) 41.,."6...--,.' iii lk 0\3.,,, k::,,,, 1.9.S2 0.2 19.;: Fitr. liirJ,I1P111\ 1 h A J.ha _ ` 1i.7J 41 2n zo 79. O 9.5 f9.41 79.3B Q ,/ „20. tc y I<.3."8 y 1.;,...;,.: 1 t .., nit t20 1 9 a..,_ Y2335 J1 Q, 20.4n J NIIIIIIImmor 23.:.y 23 G,t 0 n 2ti 52 20'. R.7G V 9 a 20,54 J_1.40 19 F ztso iiiit -,.. A,sr o: 70 1 O7 k 20.97 20.31'Allillirl19.47''''..4144444112.;.7 4 Y y "1.75 2G. ".X 3.-3' Figure 4: lm Contours (98—M-4) 0 15 0, 300, j O , Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning 1 : 1 8 0 0 18 hhlepp98R. MacOnie ales • Parcels considered for redesignation May 1998 Additional parcels under-- study a1jso:1,u'r.'.a,':.+t}T.!"iJ. '.24'': :: :Cl.;; h,'`.. 'i:¢}.:1341,:''t+:3.i,i:t. rl., `YTr- .•: ;.XCiw!tr ,,W41-yt:.«_';..y h^D' t;:r-7i7: tti-6T- -iems `«, S h Y ti R J-••. .Kv.i,w °- n„ ,.. 2.. w..ti 't r 7' yif >:'i: S:i=': e`'1 + .,.••r.. p a, r,. . Ira, t 4'jsr - . .••••14 5" 4,447, '3. A ', t'i: ...s.:. .{, s:; r!f!J k. r:,Lc i"t. kip. •5'`^)• L ty^+7114t• rt'fti tiVi. S ..,,,!-- Ith.: .• t s' i .'. 4: 7.(4vt :i4;uC.SC,-'•s #.. .fix ` ge 6 . TD P ci—37 az,u,cat ' AI ilfacol 'e '-4/ CITY OF 3300 Maple v lk) RENTON Rcncon.\.A 0S05 August 4, 1997 AUG 0 8 Phone(425)2-'C-(• 1997 • Fax(4251 22S-822. Municipal Building RECEIVED 200 Mill Avenue S. iTY CLERK'S OFFICE Renton,WA. 98055 Attn: Renton City Council Dear Council Members: Recently,while attempting to add additional parking at our corporate office complex on Maple Valley Hwy., we discovered that the zoning designation for our property had been changed to Convenience Commercial (CC)thus restricting us from any expansion of our existing complex. The corporate office was structured in 1990 and at that time the zoning was B-1 that outright permitted the office complex and associated parking. Under the present zoning, offices are listed as conditional uses with predetermined restrictions that render our existing office building as a non-conforming use/structure. The current code restricts the size of offices to 3,000 gross square feet. The Taco Time office building is 7,792 square feet, with an accessory storage building of 1,920 square feet. Parking is also significantly restricted (one space for every 500 square foot of gross floor area). Presently Taco Time has 30 spaces but is seeking approval to add 24 spaces in order to accommodate the additional need that occurs three to four times a month, when meetings involving franchise owners, restaurant managers or employee training sessions are held. Presently, when these meetings/seminars occur, parking overflows onto the surrounding residential neighborhood, which is an impact we had hoped to mitigate. Presently the Tonkin family, under the Accord Inc., leases the property along Maple Valley I-Iwy, between Monroe Ave. SE, and Maplewood Street. We are considering developing the lot furthest east, and had hoped to use the property between this lot and the existing Taco Time office for parking. The proposed development would have a landscaped buffer between our property and the residential area, which would not only buffer the residences from the pzirking area but also from Maple Valley Highway. During the seven years since we have relocated our corporate offices to its present location, our restaurant growth has been steady. We are already feeling the pinch for the office space necessary to accommodate the growing corporate staff needed to,support our restaurants. We are discussing plans to expand our office in order to accommodate our growing needs, but unfortunately due to the present zoning restrictions, such an expansion would be prohibited. This restriction is presenting severe consequences for our business. Ve believe that the location of our corporate office is an improvement and a benefit to Renton and the surrounding neighborhood. We have never received complaints regarding our business operation from the neighborhood, and in fact we are considered to be a good neighbor. The Tonkin family are long time residents of Renton and take pride in maintaining an attractive, successfully managed office complex. It is discouraging to know that the restrictions that are II ATTACHMENT A ._. J now imposed on our property limits the Taco Time Corporation from expanding and in essence, make the existing development a non-conforming use and structure. We are requesting that Section 4-31-10.5 of the Zoning Code be re-evaluated for its actual impact on existing business. We strongly believe that the present zoning places unreasonable restrictions on our business and potential redevelopment of properties zoned CC that exist along'Maple Valley Hwy. Sincerely, Mathew E.Tonkin President cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Mr. Mike Katterman Local Project Review 36.70B.160 project permit issued by a local government. [1995 c 347 § that upon government approval the project may proceed in accordance with 4201 existing policies and regulations,and subject to conditions of approval,all a.s set forth in a development agreement,will strengthen the public planning process,encourage private participation and comprehensive planning, and36.70B.170 Development agreements—Authorized, reduce the economic costs of development. Further,the lack of public 1) A local government may enter into a development facilities and services is a serious impediment to development of new housing and commercial uses. Project applicants and local governmentsagreementwithapersonhavingownershiporcontrolofreal may include provisions and agreements whereby applicants arc reimbursedpropertywithinitsjurisdiction. A city may enter into a over time for financing public facilities. It is the intent of the legislature bydevelopmentagreementforrealpropertyoutsideitsbound- RCW 36.708.170 through 36.70B.210 to allow local governments and aries as part of a proposed annexation or a service owners and developers of real property to enter into development agree- agreement. A development agreement must set forth the menu." [1995 c 347 § 501.) development standards and other provisions that shall apply to and govern and vest the development, use, and mitigation 36.70B.180 Development agreements—Effect. of the development of the real property for the duration Unless amended or terminated, a development agreement is specified in the agreement. A development agreement shall enforceable during its term by a party to the agreement. A be consistent with applicable development regulations development agreement and the development standards in the adopted by a local government planning under chapter agreement govern during the term of the agreement, or for 36.70A RCW. all or that part of the build-out period specified in the 2) RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.190 and section agreement, and may not be subject to art amendment to a 501,chapter 347, Laws of 1995 do not affect the validity of zoning ordinance or development standard or regulation or a contract rezone, concomitant agreement, annexation a new zoning ordinance or development standard or regula- agreement, or other agreement in existence on July 23, 1995, tion adopted after the effective date of the agreement. A or adopted under separate authority, that includes some or all permit or approval issued by the county or city after the of the development standards provided in subsection (3) of execution of the development agreement must be consistent this section. with the development agreement. [1995 c 347 § 503.] 3) For the purposes of this section, "development Findings—Intent-1995 c 347§§502-506: See note following RCW standards" includes, but is not limited to: 36.708.170. li a) Project elements such as permitted uses, residential densities, and nonresidential densities and intensities or 36.70B.190 Development agreements—Recording— building sizes; Parties and successors bound. A development agreement b)The amount and payment of impact fees imposed or shall be recorded with the real property records of the county agreed to in accordance with any applicable provisions of in which the property is located. During the term of the state law, any reimbursement provisions, other financial development agreement, the agreement is binding on the contributions by the property owner, inspection fees, or parties and their successors, including a city that assumes dedications; jurisdiction through incorporation or annexation of the area c) Mitigation measures, development conditions, and covering the property covered by the development agree- other requirements under chapter 43.21C RCW; ment. [1995 c 347 § 504.] d) Design standards such as maximum heights, set- Findings—Intent-1995 c 347§§502-506: See note following RCW backs,drainage and water quality requirements, landscaping, 36.70B.170. and other development features; e) Affordable housing; 36.70B.200 Development agreements—Public f) Parks and open space preservation; hearing. A county or city shall only approve a development g) Phasing; agreement by ordinance or resolution after a public hearing. h)Review procedures and standards for implementing The county or city legislative body or a planning commis- decisions;sion, hearing examiner, or other body designated by the i) A build-out or vesting period for applicable Stan- legislative body to conduct the public hearing may conduct dards; and the hearing. If the development agreement relates to a pro- j) Any other appropriate development requirement or ject permit application, the provisions of chapter 36.70C procedure.RCW shall apply to the appeal of the decision on the 4) The execution of a development agreement is a development agreement. [1995 c 347 § 505.] proper exercise of county and city police power and contract Findings—Intent-1995 c 347§§502-506: See note following RCW authority. A development agreement may obligate a party 36.70B.170. to fund or provide services, infrastructure, or other facilities. A development agreement shall reserve authority to impose 36.70B.210 Development agreements—Authority to new or different regulations to the extent required by a impose fees not extended. Nothing in RCW 36.70B.170 serious threat to public health and safety. [1995 c 347 § through 36.70B.200 and section 501, chapter 347, Laws of 502.] 1995 is intended to authorize local governments to impose Findings—Intent-1995 c 347 §§ 502-506: "The legislature finds impact fees, inspection fees, or dedications or to require any that the lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result other financial contributions or mitigation measures except in a waste of public and private resources, escalate housing costs for as expressly authorized by other applicable provisions•ofconsumersanddiscouragethecommitmenttocomprehensiveplanning state law. [1995 c 347 § 506.]which would make maximum efficient use of resources at the least economic cost to the public. Assurance to a development project applicant Findings—Intent-1995 c 347§§502-506: See note following RCW 36.708.170. 1996 Ed.) Title 36 RCW—page 185] ATTAf'NMFNT It- Let ATTACHMENT C DRAFT#3- 9/1/98 PROPOSED CONTENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL(CA)ZONE-MAPLE VALLEY HWY PARTIES This agreement made and entered into this day of 1999, by and between the City of Renton, a municipal corporation of the state of Washington, and and and and owners of parcels of property within the area covered by this development agreement. RECITALS WHEREAS, there are existing commercial uses generally in the area north of Maple Valley Highway at the intersections of Monroe Avenue S.E. and Maplewood Place S.E.; and WHEREAS, those commercial uses and related property are presently zoned Convenience Commercial(CC) or Residential- 8 Dwelling Units Per Acre (R-8); and WHEREAS, the owner of the building presently housing the Taco Time corporate offices has indicated a desire to expand those headquarters; and WHEREAS,the Convenience Commercial zone will not accommodate such expansion; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Renton, Washington believes that such expansion can be accommodated pursuant to a development agreement as authorized in RCW Chapter 36.70B.170 through 210; and WHEREAS,the parties have negotiated the proposed development agreement; and WHEREAS, that development agreement has been presented at a public hearing before the Planning Commission held on the day of 1998; and WHEREAS, the City Council has taken into account the public comment presented at that public hearing and the Planning Commission recommendations; and WHEREAS,the development agreement has been reviewed and approved by the City Council of the City of Renton,Washington; and WHEREAS, the draft development agreement appears to be in the best interests of the citizens of the City of Renton,Washington-, NOW,THEREFORE,the parties do agree as follows: SECTION 1. AUTHORITY Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170(1), the City and persons with ownership or control of real property are authorized to enter into a development agreement setting forth development standards and any other provisions that shall apply to, govern, and vest the development, use, and mitigation of the development of the real property for the duration of such development agreement. ATTACHMENT C DRAFT#3 - 9/1/98 SECTION 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY Legal description to be provided] SECTION 3. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Permitted Uses The following uses are permitted within the subject property p :ded n development mith obtained. See Section 5 regarding development permit requirements. 1.Primary Uses: a.Retail: 1) Books,music, stationery and art supplies. 2) Building, hardware and garden materials (including small trees, shrubs, flowers, supplies and tools within an enclosed area). 3) Eating and drinking establishments. 4) Flowers,plants and floral supplies. 5) Food and groceries. 6) Mini-marts. 7) Newsstands. 8) Office and business supplies. 9) Pharmacies and drug stores. 10) Video sales and rentals. b.Services: 1) Small vehicle service and repair, existing, legal. 2) Business services, including retail computer services, retail printing and xerography. 3) Family day care, day care centers,and adult day care/health programs. 4) Financial and real estate. 5) Laundromats. 6) Parks, new and existing neighborhood, community and regional; new and existing trails and open spaces. 7) Personal services such as barber shop,beauty parlor. 8) Pet shop and grooming. 9) Photography and photographic reproduction. 10) Professional and business schools. 11) Veterinary clinics without outside kennels,runs or stables. 12) Shoe repair. 13) Offices: Offices including administrative headquarters, business, medical and dental,personal and professional. c.Utilities, small. 2 ATTACHMENT C DRAFT#3-9/1/98 2.Secondary Uses Permitted Subject To Conditions: a.Professional And Business Services: 1) Size and location will be reviewed as part of site plan approval. b.Art, Dance, Music: Schools and studios for art, crafts, photography, dance and music: 1) No outdoor facilities or storage. 2) Retail sales of products or merchandise produced on the premises providing the sales area does not exceed thirty three percent(33%) of the gross floor area of the use. c.Temporary Uses: Temporary use, as defined and regulated in RMC Section 1 31 19e Title IV. 3.Accessory Uses: In the Arterial Commercial Zonc, tThe following uses are allowed where incidental to a permitted primary or secondary use and shall not exceed thirty three percent(33%)of the gross floor area: a.Food Preparation: Food preparation, for on-site sales purposes only. b.Hand-Crafted Items: Hand crafting of products, for on-site sales purposes only. c.Warehousing: Warehousing and storage of products in conjunction with retail sales; storage of supplies in conjunction with service and office uses. d.Recycling/Collection Stations: Recycling collection stations; provided, the structure is not located within any required setback and/or landscaped area. 4.Administrative Conditional Uses: a.Hobby Kennels b.Veterinary Clinics,with outside kennels,runs or stables. c.Utilities,medium. 5.Hearing Examiner Conditional Uses: a.Community Facilities b.Convalescent centers and nursing homes. c.Wholesale and retail horticultural nurseries. d.Utilities,large. e.Feed stores. f.Churches, synagogues and temples. g.Service clubs and organizations. 6.Wireless Communication Facilities. Wireless communication facilities may be allowed pursuant to RMC Chapter 4 38, Ordinance3 1666 and 4689 Title IV, in effect at the time of this aareement or as thereafter amended. B. Prohibited Uses Any use not specifically listed as primary, secondary, accessory or conditional use shall be prohibited; except those uses determined by the Zoning Administrator to be: 1) in keeping with the purpose and 3 ATTACHMENT C DRAFT#3 -9/1/98 intent of the Zone this Agreement; and 2) similar in nature to a specifically listed primary, secondary accessory or conditional use. C. Site Development Standards The following development standards apply to all the subiect properties, except where provisions indicate applicability to only certain identified parcels. Development shall be subject to any other applicable development standards or requirements of the Renton Municipal Code not otherwise specified.= 1.Setbacks: Setbacks in the CA Zone shall be required as follows: a.Front — Street Setback: A minimum setback of ten feet (10') is required. The minimum setback may be reduced down to zero feet (0') through the site plan review process provided that blank walls are not located within the reduced setback. b.Rear And Side — Interior Setbacks: None shall be required except as listed in special requirements provisions below in'subsection lc, Special Requirements. c.Special Requirements: If a CA lot abuts or is adjacent to a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-14 or RM-I, then there shall be a fifteen foot (15') setback subject to the landscaping provisions in subsection 4c(1) or c(2), Landscaping/ Improvements,of this Section. 2.Height: a.Limits: In no case shall building height exceed the limits specified in Title IV, Section 4 31 17, Airport-ding Height Restrictions, of the Renton Municipal Code,in effect at the time of this agreement,or as thereafter amended.. b.General: A maximum of fifty feet(50'). thirty-five feet(35'). c.Special Height Allowances: A conditional use permit or other land use permit may not authorize an exceedance of the maximum height standard. 3.Lot Coverage: Lot coverage for buildings are listed below: a.Lot coverage for buildings shall not exceed sixty five percent (65%) of the total lot area. b.Lot coverage may be increased up to seventy five percent (75%) of the total lot area if parking is provided within the building or within a parking garage. 4.Landscaping/Improvements: a.Street Frontage: Lots abutting public streets shall have a minimum landscaping strip of ten feet(10'),except where reduced through the site plan review process. b.Pedestrian Connection: A pedestrian connection shall be provided from a public entrance to the street unless the reviewing official determines that the requirement would unduly endanger the pedestrian. 4 ATTACHMENT C DRAFT#3-9/1/98 c.Special Requirements: 1) CA Lot is Adjacent to Residentially Zoned Lot: If the CA lot is adjacent to a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-14 or RM-I, then there shall be a minimum fifteen foot (15') sight-obscuring landscaped strip. The Hearing Examiner may modify the sight-obscuring provision through the site plan review process in order to provide reasonable access to the property. If the CA lot is adjacent to Maplewood Park, modifications to sight obscuring landscaping shall be allowed where appropriate to ensure adequate visibility for purposes of public safety. If the Street is designated arterial in the Transportation Element of the City Comprehensive Plan, nonsight-obscuring landscaping shall be provided unless otherwise determined by the Hearing Examiner through the site plan review process. These provisions may be modified by the Hearing Examiner through the site plan review process where the applicant can show that the same or better results will occur because of creative design solutions, unique aspects or use,etc.,that cannot be fully anticipated at this time. 2) CA Lot Abuts Residentially Zoned Lot: If the CA lot abuts a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-14 or RM-I, then there shall be a fifteen foot(15')landscaped visual barrier consistent with the definition in RMC Section 4 31 2 in effect at the time of this agreement or as thereafter amended. A ten foot (10') sight-obscuring landscaping strip may-be shall be provided. Ass solid six foot(6') high barrier wall isisfevitied-shall also be provided and located within the landscaped strip_Aand a maintenance agreement or easement for the landscape strip is shall be secured. A solid barrier wall shall not be located closer than five feet(5') to an abutting lot zoned R-1,R-5,R-8,R-10,R-14 or RM-I. These provisions may be modified by the Hearing Examiner through the site plan review process where the applicant can show that the same or better results will occur because of creative design solutions, unique aspects or use, etc.,that cannot be fully anticipated at this time. 3) Screening of Outdoor Activities: If the CA lot abuts or is adjacent to a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-14 or RM-I, then all outdoor storage, loading, repair, maintenance or work areas shall be screened by a fence, or landscaping, or a lanscaped berm, or some combination thereof as determined by the reviewing official to achieve adequate visual or acoustical screening. Loading docks shall not be located adjacent to or abutting a lot zoned R-1,R-5,R-8,R-10,R-14 or RM-I. These provisions may be modified by the Hearing Examiner through the site plan review process where the applicant can show that the same or better results will occur because of creative design solutions, unique aspects or use,etc.,that cannot be fully anticipated at this time. 4) Location of Refuse Containers: Garbage, refuse or dumpster areas shall not be located within fifty feet(50') of a lot zoned R-1, R-5,R-8,R- 5 ATTACHMENT C DRAFT#3-9/1/98 10, R-14 or RM-I except by approval of the Hearing Examiner through the site plan review process. In no case shall the garbage, refuse or dumpster area be located within the required setback. d.Timing of Landscape Improvements: 1) For the Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop properties, King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900326 and 5126900327, proposed developments which meets or exceeds current State Environmental Policy Act threshold requirements are to trigger imposition of landscape requirements of subsection 4c(1) and (2) above. Imposition of the requirements of subsections 4c(3) and (4) will be determined during consideration of building, site plan or environmental review applications by the reviewing official, where appropriate to address the potential visual and compatibility effects of the specific development request. 2) For the Taco Time properties and adjacent three lots, King County • Property Identification Numbers 5126900195, 5126900200, 5126900205, 5126900211, 5126900215, and 1623059017, the landscape requirements of subsection c(1)and(2) shall be applied at the time of: a) Any building demolition requiring a building permit; and/or b) Building construction which expands the footprint of current buildings or adds additional buildings on site; and/or c) Parking stall additions/reconfigurations which add parking/access areas to portions of properties which, at the time of this agreement, do not have improved parking/access surfaces. For any other development applications, landscape requirements of subsection 4c above shall be applied during consideration of building, site plan or environmental review applications by the reviewing official, where appropriate to address the potential visual and compatibility effects of the specific development request. 3) The landscaping provisions of subsection 4c above for the remaining properties subject to the agreement shall be required, during consideration of building, site plan or environmental review applications by the reviewing official, where appropriate, to address the potential visual and compatibility effects of the specific development request. 5.Surface Mounted Equipment: All on-site surface mounted utility equipment shall be screened from public view. 6.Roof-Top Equipment: All operating equipment located on the roof of any building shall be enclosed so as to be shielded from view, except for telecommunication equipment. 6 ATTACHMENT C DRAFT#3-9/1/98 7.Outdoor storage: a.Permitted outdoor storage must be screened from adjacent or abutting properties and public rights-of-way. Outdoor storage uses shall provide fencing, berming, and/or landscaping as determined by the reviewing official to achieve adequate visual or acoustical screening. b.Products or bulk materials covered by buildings with roofs but without sides shall be considered outside storage and subject to the screening provisions of this Section. 8.Refuse And Recyclables Collection and Storage: All recyclables collection and storage, garbage, refuse or dumpsters contained within specified areas shall be screened, except for access points,by a fence or landscaping or some combination thereof. 9.Access for Taco Time Corporate Properties: Access for the three parcels east of Taco Time's existing corporate offices, King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900195, 5126900200, 5126900205, shall be through the existing or future Taco Time development, and not from Newport Ave SE.(SE 6th St.) I). Site Plan Review. 1.For the Taco Time properties and adiacent three lots, King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900195, 5126900200, 5126900205, 5126900211, 5126900215, and 1623059017, site plan review is required for any size development or redevelopment. a.Development proposals which are categorically exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act shall be subject to the administrative site plan review process. b.Development proposals which are not categorically exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act shall be subject to the Hearing Examiner site plan review process. Site plan review may be required for other properties subject to this agreement which are not listed in subsection 1 above, according to standard Renton Municipal Code thresholds. 4.EFFECT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Unless amended or terminated, the development agreement is enforceable during its term by a party to the agreement. The development agreement and development standards in the agreement shall govern during the term of the agreement. The agreement may not be subject to a new zoning ordinance or an amendment to a zoning ordinance or development standard adopted after the effective date of the agreement, unless otherwise provided in the agreement. Any permit or approval issued by the City after the execution of the agreement must be consistent with the development agreement. ATTACHMENT C DRAFT#3 -9/1/98 5.EFFECT OF OTHER CITY REGULATIONS A. Definitions The definitions of RMC 1 31 2 Title IV in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended, shall apply to interpretation of permitted uses and site development standards provided in this development agreement. B. Parking The Parking and Loading regulations of RMC 4-1-4-Title IV in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended, shall apply to this development agreement. C. Environmental Review/Sensitive Areas Where applicable, all development shall comply with all environmental review and sensitive area regulations, including, but not limited to, Greenbelt Regulations, Wetlands Management, Aquifer Protection, Landscaping, Shoreline Master Program, Flood Hazards, and Environmental Ordinance SEPA), pter 1 32, Chapter 8 8; Section 1 31 35; Chapter 1 19, Section 4 31 31; and Chapter 1 6 addressed in Title IV and Title VIII of the Renton Municipal Code which are in effect at the time of this agreement,or as thereafter amended. D. Signs The Sign Code, RMC-meter-4 20 Title IV, in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended, shall apply to this development agreement. E. Other Development Regulations and Permits Development shall be subject to any other applicable development standards or requirements not otherwise specified in this agreement including, but not limited to, permit process requirements, impact fees, mitigation measures, development conditions, street and utility regulations and specifications, subdivision regulations, and health and sanitation regulations, which are in effect at the time of this agreement,or as thereafter amended. SECTION 6. AUTHORITY RESERVED Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170(4) the City reserves its authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to public health and safety. SECTION 7. RECORDING Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.190, this development agreement shall be recorded with the real property records of King County. During the term of the development agreement, the agreement is binding on the parties and their successors. SECTION 8. TERM This development agreement runs in perpetuity with the subject properties, unless amended or rescinded by the City Council in accordance with the procedures of Section 9 below. The parties of this development agreement agree to evaluate the agreement periodically, but not less than every ten years. Where appropriate, periodic review of the development agreement shall generally coincide with the 8 ATTACHMENT C DRAFT#3 - 9/1/98 City's evaluation of its entire Comprehensive Plan every ten years,pursuant to RMC Section 4 3 2F Title W in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended. SECTION 9. AMENDMENT The provisions of this agreement may only be amended with the mutual consent of the parties. No additions or alterations of the terms of this agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and formally approved and executed by the duly authorized agents of all parties. The City shall consider amendments to the development agreement after a public hearing by the designated hearing body, and any amendments shall be adopted by ordinance or resolution of the City Council. DEVAG998.DOC 9 ZONE COMPARISON SUMMARY ATTACHMENT D ZONE u ZONING dc i i a1 a) ai — USE TABLE #1 0 E E . Q V U U < U < USES: CC CA Development Agreement Notes AGRICULTURE,.RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND ANIMAL KEEPING'' Kennels, Hobby AD AD Veterinary offices/clinics no ext. kennels, runs or stables P P Veterinary offices w/kennels, runs or stables AD AD Horticultural nurseries (wholesale/retail)H H Nursery or greenhouse H H Mineral/natural resource recovery H H RESIDENTIAL Single family (existing legal) Multi-family 5 du/ac maximum s Multi-family 20 du/ac maximum s Group homes I P/H Group homes II, for 7 or more• H Hotels and motels P RETAIL SALES Apparel and accessories P Appliances Auto supplies P Books, music, stationery, art supply P P Building, hardware, garden materials P P Department and variety- Drug store P P Eating & drinking establishments P P P Fabrics and related supplies P Feed stores H H Flowers, plants, and floral supplies s P P Food P P Furniture s Groceries— P P Hobbies, toys, games Home furnishings s Jewelry P Liquor stores P Mini-marts P P P Monuments, tombstones, & gravestones AD News-stands s P P Office & business supplies, computers P P (except for computers) Personal medical supplies P P=Primary Use S=Secondary Use AD=Administrative Cond.Use H=Hearing Examiner Cond.Use X=Specifically Prohibited Blank=Not Allowed Page 1 3/26/98 ZONE COMPARISON SUMMARY ATTACHMENT D u ro ZONING tv E E 3 +: USE TABLE #1 0 0 0 Q O Q Q < U Q USES: CC CA Development Agreement Notes Pharmacies P P Photographic and electronic supplies P Sporting goo Js P Taverns P Used goods .and antiques P CULTURAL, ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATIO NAL Open space (new) H P P Open space (existing) P P P Park, playground or rec./comm. center H H Parks, Renal (new) H P P Parks, Retinal (existing) P P P Parks, Corn nunity (new) H P P Parks, Corn nunity (existing) P P P Parks, Neig iborhood (new) s P P Parks, Neig tborhood (existing) P P P Trails (new) H P P Trails (existinlc) P P P Adult entertainment business s Adult motionyicture studios s Adult motiolpicture theaters s Amusement arcades P Amusement arks H Bowling alleys (centers) P Card Room:; s Dance halls and cabarets p Gambling casinos/games of chance/bingo (not for profit)H Outdoor cc mmercial rec. or entertainm€nt uses H Peep show Lpanoramas s Sports are tas, auditoriums, exhibit. halls P Theaters - P Theaters, drive-in P Library or nuseum, public or non-profit H H OFFICE AND CONFERENCE Personal— AD P P (For CA zone administrative determinations allow Professior al AD P P offices as similar to professional/business services Administrative ea quarters P P and other permitted uses. A formal CA zone Business P P amendment will clarify this.) Medical an enta P P P=Primary Use =Secondary Use AD=Administrative Cond.Use H=Hearing Examiner Cond.Use X=Specifically Prohibited Blank=Not Allowed Page 2 3/26/98 ZONE COMPARISON SUMMARY ATTACHMENT D u To To ZONING a) E E USE TABLE #1 00 0 a cn 0 < 04 USES: CC CA Development Agreement Notes SERVICES Auction houses P Barber shops P P P Beauty shops P P P Business services, general P/S P/S Cemetery, crematory, columbarium, mausoleum H H Computer services (retail) P P Financial and real estate P P Funeral homes P Health clubs/fitness centers/sports clubs P Laundromats s P P Personal service P P Pers. svcs. barber shops/beauty parlors P P Pet shop and grooming P P Photography & photo reprod. P P Printing, xerography (retail)P P Professional services s s Professional sports teams/promoters Rental services, with outside storage s Rental services, no outside storage P Video rentals and sales S P P Electrical repair P Shoe repair P P P (to be added to CA zone generally) Television repair P Upholstery repair Watches/jewelry repair P Family day care P P P Day care centers P P P Adult day care I, maximum 4 on residential property P P P Adult day care I, maximum 12 on non-residential property P P P Adult day care II, 5+ on residential property P P P Adult day care II, 13+ on non-residential property P P P Convalescent centers & nursing homes H H Hospitals H Hospitals, sanitarium or similar uses H H P=Primary Use S=Secondary Use AD=Administrative Cond.Use H=Hearing Examiner Cond.Use X=Specifically Prohibited Blank=Not Allowed Page 3 3/26/98 ZONE COMPARISON SUMMARY ATTACHMENT D d R Tn c 5 ZONINGU d _ E C USE TABLE #1 U 4 UQ USES:CC CA Development Agreement Notes TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AND MANUFACTIJ RED HOME SALES Automobile, boat, motorcycle leasing P Automobile, boat, motorcycle rental P Automobile, boat, motorcycle sales P Automobile, motorcycle, passenger truck sales P Automobile h asing P Automobile r mtal P Small vehicle service and repair P P (existing legal only) Body shops H Bus terminal s, taxi headquarters AD Car washes P Gasoline ser ice stations s Gas station w/associated small vehicle service and repair AD Gas stations w/mini-marts AD s Gas station t/one self-service drive-thru car wash AD Parking garz9e, commercial s Parking lots, commercial s Public parkii s RV sales, leasing, rental P Transit centers H Truck/RV/bus sales s Large vehicle service and repair AC Uses determined by the Zoning Administrate-that directly support dealerships S Helipads, al.cessory to primary use H STORAGE Self-storaT , 1 story, 1 building H MANUFAC1URING AND INDUSTRIAL !< Labs: griming & assembly of optical lens eyeglasses s Labs: medi :al, dental s Research, development &testing s Assembi nd packaging of: Computer AC Electronics AC P=Pnmary Use S Secondary Use AD=Administrative Cond.Use H=Hearing Examiner Cond.Use X=Specifically Prohibited Blank=Not Allowed Page 4 3/26/98 ZONE COMPARISON SUMMARY ATTACHMENT D ZONE w ZONING U o USE TABLE #1 0 0 0 Q a, U U U 4 U Q USES: CC CA Development Agreement Notes Lt mfg., assembly, finishing & warehousing of: Prefabricated parts &finished parts H Solid Waste/Recycling Recycling center H Recycling collection station AD AC AC Recycling drop or collection centers H COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ACCESSORY USES Apparel, fabric& leather goods fabrication AC AC Computer& electron. assemb. & packaging AC Food preparation AC AC AC Handcrafting of items/products AC AC AC clarification that storage is allowed with permitted Storage of products in conjunction service and office uses to be added generally to w/retail sales, service or office uses AC ec AC CA zone) PUBLIC FA.CIL:ITIESAND SERVICES:, Government offices and facilities H H Churches, synagogues, temples H H H Service clubs and organizations H H H Community facilities S S/H H Community meeting hall Philanthropic institution H H Private club, fraternal or non-profit organization H H Public utility use or structure H H Utilities, small P P P Utilities, medium AD AD AD Utilities, large H H H Comm. broadcast & relay towers H H Radio or television transmitter H H Telegraph & other communication H Wireless communication facilities: Micro facility antennas P P P Mini facility antennas P/AD P/AD P/AD Macro facility antennas P/AD P/AD P/AD Monopole I support structures AD/H P/AD P/AD Monopole II support structures IN X/AD X/AD Lattice towers support structures X/H X/AD X/AD P=Primary Use S=Secondary Use AD=Administrative Cond.Use H=Hearing Examiner Cond.Use X=Specifically Prohibited Blank=Not Allowed Page 5 3/26/98 ZONE COMPARISON SUMMARY ATTACHMENT D a) u To BONING c o E E L 3 ' USE; TABLE #1 0 0 0 a CJU Q4 Q4 USES: CC CA Development Agreement Notes Minor modif cations to existing wireless communication facilities P P P M. SCHOOLS—PUBLIC AND PRIVATE Educational institution (public or private) H H School, elem 3ntary (existing) P School, elementary (new) H School, secondary (existing) P School, secondary (new) H Portables sting) P Portables (new, up to four) s Change in use for existing school H School expansion up to 10% P School expansion more than 10% H Schools & studios for art, crafts, photography, dance, music s s Business anc professional schools P P Special schools: tech./indust. processes H MISC.USES AND MODIFICATIONS TO DEVELOPME•NT.STDS. Heights exce eding the maximum height of 50' H Increases (rr inor) over the max. area per use of 5,000 jsf. AD Increases (rr ajor) over the max. area per use of 5,000 )sf. H Temporary L ses s s s P=Primary Use S=Secondary Use AD=Administrative Cond.Use H=Hearing Examiner Cond.Use X=Specifically Prohibited Blank=Not Allowed Page 6 3/26/98 CITY OF;RENTON. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION INTERPRETATION/POLICY DECISION MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION: 4-31-10.4B2(c), Commercial Arterial Zone REFERENCE: NA SUBJECT: Permissibility of office uses and office buildings in the Commercial Arterial CA) Zone BACKGROUND: We have received an inquiry regarding the permissibility of construction of a new office building In the Commercial Arterial Zone. The Commercial Arterial Zone permits 'Professional and Business Services" as secondary uses but does not define these terms. Office uses are not specifically listed. Section 4-31-10.4(C1) of the Zoning Code allows the Zoning Administrator to make determinations regarding the permissibility of uses not specifically listed in the new zoning code--provided the use is "in keeping with the purpose and intent of-the zone and similar in nature to a specifically listed Permitted, Secondary, Accessory or Conditional Use. JUSTIFICATION: The purpose of the CA Zone is to "provide suitable environments for strip commercial development. The CA Zone provides for a wide variety of retail sales and personal/professional services primarily oriented to automobile traffic along designated major arterial streets". Objective EA- 9.2 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan states: Secondary uses in the Employment Area Commercial designation should allow a mix of uses, including office, multi-family, and light industrial, with the primary use being retail". One purpose of the zoning code is to regulate the type and intensity of uses to ensure compatibility with uses on surrounding properties. 1 he question of whether office buildings are allowed in the CA Zone is not a matter of use, but rather of development standards. A "retail building" could be converted to an "office building" and vice versa without changing the external structure or appearance. However, the type of use allowed in a particular buildin Is governed by the list of allowed uses in a zone. In the case of the CA Zone, personal services financial and real estate services are listed as primary uses and professional and business services are listed as secondary. The examples cited here are often located in an office building of one style or another. DECISION}: The Commercial Arterial (CA) Zone allows for office uses and office buildings that comply with the development standards and list of permitted uses for that zone. DIVISION HEAD 44APPROVAL: G L_— DATE: 1/ I DIVISION HEAD / 1/ I .' ,+ APPROVAL: I/l61, DATE: C ` ATTArINMFNT F ATTACHMENT F 4-31-10.4 ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL (CA)ZONE B. Permitted Uses: 1.Primary Uses: b.Services: 14) Miscellaneous minor repairs (TV, electrical appliances, upholstery, shoe repair, etc.). d.Offices: Offices including administrative headquarters, business, medical and dental,personal and professional. j.Accessory Uses: In the Arterial Commercial Zone, the following uses are allowed where incidental to a permitted primary or secondary use and shall not exceed thirty three percent(33%)of the gross floor area: e.Warehousing: Warehousing and storage of products in conjunction with retail sales;storage of supplies in conjunction with service and office uses. CAGLOBL2.DOC\ ATTACHMENT G EMPLOYMENT AREA Summary: These policies are designed to ensure that Renton will have adequate reserves of land as one tool in its economic development efforts. Adequate land is necessary to attract new businesses in an effort to expand and diversify the employment base. Diversity and Stability Objective LU-W:. Promote diversity and stability in the employment base. Policy LU-144. The City should endeavor to keep its present economic base, including the heavy industrial development, light and medium industrial users, supporting commercial and office land uses. Policy LU-145. The City should provide incentives including adequate land supply and land use guidance for new businesses and for existing businesses relocating within the City. Policy LU-146. Adequate amounts of land suitable for all types of industrial, light industrial, office and commercial uses should be available for present and future development. Using the growth assumptions, criteria for determining "adequate amounts of land" for the employment area should be based on the following. a. Commercial: Provide for local and regional shopping needs of the residential and employment sectors of the community. Currently, Renton has provided 8.7% of its land base for commercial retail uses. Because of Renton's unique location as the interstice between a number of state transportation routes and a regional freeway this percentage should be expanded to capture a larger share of the commercial market. b. Industrial: Sustain the land use base for existing industrial users. Renton has provided 14.6%of its land base for industrial uses, a higher percentage than many other of the area's cities. This percentage is expected to decline as Renton grows in land area. Discussion: The mixed use concept is intended to create flexibility in the development code. With changing technology and combinations of uses within one business campus, traditional land use classifications may be too restrictive. A flexible approach can facilitate business development and stimulate creation of nodes of employment activity supported by commercial and service uses. Renton's commercial retail land base has increased from 6.7% to 8.7% over the last few years whereas its industrial land base has declined from around 20%in the early 1990's to around 14.6% in 1996. c. Office: Provide for stand alone office uses, and offices that support industrial uses in order to reach future employment levels. Renton currently provides 6.0%of its land base for office uses. d. Light industrial: Sustain the amount of existing uses and provide for a modest future expansion of light industrial development. e. Residential: Locate residential uses only in Commercial Arterial Zoned Areas, and limit residential 1 development to multi-family uses which support Commercial Employment Areas and are clearly secondary to commercial uses. Policy LU-147. Renton should play a leadership role in the state and regional economic and industrial development forums. EAPOL.DOC\ 1 ATTACHMENT G Policy LU-148. In each employment designation, an appropriate mix of commercial, office, light industrial and industrial uses should be encouraged. The mix will vary depending on the employment area emphasis. Policy LU-149. Employment Area designations should each have a primary emphasis but allow a range of allowable secondary uses. Policy LU-150. Small-scale uses should be encouraged to cluster to maximize their contributions to the community and their use of infrastructure and amenities. Policy LU-151. Sites and structures should be designed (e.g. signage and facades; building height, bulk and setback; landscaping; parking; storage and delivery areas) to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent less intensive land uses. Policy LU-152. RESERVED Discussion: The mixed use concept is intended to create flexibility in the development code. With changing technology and combinations of uses within one business campus, traditional land use classifications may be too restrictive. A flexible approach can facilitate business development and stimulate creation of nodes of employment activity supported by commercial and service uses. Infrastructure Objective LU-X: Make efficient use of infrastructure. Policy LU-153. Adequate infrastructure (e.g. roads, utilities, public services) should be in place prior to occupancy. Policy LU-154. As a priority, railroad transport should be encouraged as an alternative to heavy truck transport. Railroad facilities in industrial areas should be protected from adverse development. Policy LU-155. Developments should be encouraged to make greater use of the municipal airport, but only for aviation purposes (e.g. light weight express freight,business jet and charter services). Policy LU-156. Convenient transit stops, both along public streets and within employment areas, should be coordinated between major employers and public transit authorities. Policy LU-157. Lands with adequate existing infrastructure should be given priority for development. Environmental Quality Objective LU-Y: Maintain environmental quality at a level desired by the community. Policy LU-158. Local policies and regulations for hazardous materials and wastes should comply and be coordinated with federal, state, and regional policies and regulations. Policy Lt-159. Land uses which have been determined to be hazardous to the aquifer should be phased out in Aquifer Protection Zone 1. New uses which could be hazardous to the aquifer should locate outside Aquifer Protection Zone 1. EAPOL.DOC", 2 ATTACHMENT G Site Design Policy LU-160. Developments should provide appropriate treatment (e.g. landscaping, improved building facade)along major arterials to mitigate adverse visual impacts. Policy LU-161. RESERVED Policy LU-162. On-site open space and recreational facilities in developments should be required. Policy LU-163. Site design of developments should be encouraged to maximize public access to and use of public areas as well as shoreline areas in locations contiguous to a river, lake wetland or stream, where such access will not jeopardize the environmental attributes of the area. Light Industry Objective LU-Z: Promote the development of light industries in suitable locations. Policy LU-164. Light industrial uses which are allowed should be less intensive in order to maintain compatibility with adjacent uses. Policy LU-165. Light industrial uses should not create noxious conditions such as noise, odors, or traffic which could detract from the office uses allowed in this category. Policy LU-166. Light industry should be an allowed secondary use in Employment Area designations. Policy LU-167. Light industrial uses should be allowed as secondary uses in Neighborhood, Suburban, Downtown, and Office/Residential centers. Discussion: Specific policies for light industrial uses are incorporated into the policies for Employment Area and Centers. These policies provide general direction on the location and compatibility of light industrial uses with other mixed uses. EMPLOYMENT AREA- COMMERCIAL Objective LU-AA: Provide for commercial and residential uses requiring large amounts of land and/or high visibility and access to large volumes of automobile traffic in areas outside of Centers and the Center Downtown designations. Policy LU-168. Employment Area - Commercial designations should only be located on, and have access to, streets classified as major arterials or above. Policy LU-169. Individual parcels should be encouraged to consolidate to maximize flexibility of site design and reduce access points. Policy LU-170. Individual development projects should be encouraged to: a. minimize curb cuts and share access points, b. provide for internal circulation among adjacent parcels, c. share parking facilities, EAPOLDOC\ 3 ATTACHMENT G d. centralize signing, e. create a unified style of development, and f. provide landscaping and streetscaping to soften visual impacts. Policy LU-171. Residential uses in the Employment Area - Commercial designation may be a single use development and should be limited to a maximum density of 20 du/acre. Policy LU-172. Create a 24 hour population and a source of affordable housing by promoting residential and commercial development in the Employment Area-Commercial designation. Policy LU-173. Single family development should not be allowed in this designation. Objective LU-BB: Ensure quality development in Employment Areas -Commercial. Policy LU-174. Parking areas should be landscaped (including street trees, buffers, berms), especially along the roadways,to reduce the visual impacts. Policy LU-175. Landscape buffers, additional setbacks, reduced height, and other screening devices should be employed to reduce the impacts (e.g. visual,noise,odor,light)on adjacent, less intensive uses. Policy LU-176. Increased demand for commercial uses should be accommodated through redevelopment and intensification of Employment Area-Commercial designations rather than expansion of those areas. Policy LU-177. Special design considerations (e.g. landscape, streetscape, signage, building design) should be encouraged for areas which are designated as gateways for the city. Policy LU-178. The primary uses (retail, residential or service) should account for a minimum of fifty percent(50%)of the total building area within Employment Area- Commercial designations. Policy LU-179. A unified style of commercial or residential development should be encouraged through site standards, including: a. minimum lot depth of 200 feet, b. maximum height of 4-6 stories, c. parking to the side or rear of the building, d. maximum setbacks which will allow incorporating a landscape buffer, and e. common signage and lighting requirements. Policy LU-180. Public amenity features (e.g. parks, plazas, recreation areas), beyond those required for the mitigation of adverse environmental impacts, should be encouraged as part of every development. Policy LU-181. Development should be designed to be compatible with adjacent, less intensive uses, e.g. lighting, fences, landscaping, setbacks should all be considered during site design. EAPOLDOC\ 4 ATTACHMENT G Policy LU-182. Employment areas located between East Valley Highway and SR 167 should buffer their uses from SR 167 through a sight obscuring 15'wide native vegetation strip along SR 167. EMPLOYMENT AREA- OFFICE Objective LU-CC: Promote intensive office activity including a wide range of business, financial and professional services to local, regional, national, and global markets, supported by service and commercial activities. Policy LU-183. Low, medium and high intensity office should be encouraged as the primary use in the Employment Area-Office designation. Policy LU-184. Secondary uses in the category should include a mix of commercial and light industrial activities. Policy LU-185. Retail and services should support the primary office designation in this category and should be encouraged to locate on the ground floor of office and parking structures. Policy LU-186. High-rise office development should be limited to up to 25 stories in height. Thirty stories may be obtained through a height bonus system. Policy LU-187. Height bonuses of 5 stories may be allowed in designated areas under appropriate conditions where sites provide additional public benefits such as plazas, parks, exceptional landscaping and/or public art. Policy LU-188. Intensive office uses should be located contiguous to an existing or planned transit route. Objective LU-DD: Ensure quality development in Employment Area-Office areas. Policy LU-189. Intensive office sites and structures should be designed (e.g. signage; building height, bulk and setback; landscaping;parking)to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. Policy LU-190. Parking should be provided on-site, in parking structures, and buffered from adjacent uses. Policy LU-191. Internal site circulation should be primarily pedestrian oriented. Policy LU-192. Vehicular access to the site should be from the major street with the access points minimized but designed to ease entrance and exit. Policy LU-193. Public amenity features (e.g. parks, plazas, recreation areas), beyond those required for the mitigation of adverse environmental impacts, should be encouraged (i.e. through incentives or similar rdeans) as part of every development. Policy LU-194. Site and building design should be transit and pedestrian/people oriented. Ground floor uses and design should be pedestrian oriented. EAPOL.DOC1 5 ATTACHMENT G CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL Objective LU-FF: Permit small-scale commercial uses which serve the personal needs of the immediate population in residential areas and reduce automobile travel. Policy LU-213. Small-scale commercial uses may locate in close proximity to one another but should not concentrate to the point of changing the predominant character of an area from residential to commercial. Policy LU-214. Commercial structures in adjacent convenience commercial designations or in planned developments within a Residential Options designations or Residential Planned Neighborhood designations should be compatible with the single family character of the residential area. Standards should be developed to govern the design and operation of such areas to ensure their functional and visual compatibility with residential neighborhoods. Policy LU-215. Small-scale home occupations that provide opportunities for people to work in their homes should be allowed in residential areas. Standards should govern the design, size, intensity, and operation of such uses to ensure their compatibility with residential uses. Policy LU-216. A mix of uses (e.g. convenience retail, consumer services, offices, residential) should be encouraged in small-scale commercial developments. Policy LU-217. Products and services related to large scale motorized machinery, vehicles, or equipment should not be allowed as small-scale convenience commercial uses. Policy LU-218. Residential densities within Convenience Commercial designations should be 5 dwelling units per acre. Residential uses should be secondary to commercial uses and be included within commercial structures. Policy LU-219. Commercial structures in adjacent Convenience Commercial designations should be compatible with the single family character of the residential area in height, frontyard setbacks, lot coverage, and building design. Objective LU-GG: Maximize the convenience and minimize the impacts of small-scale commercial uses through appropriate siting. Policy LU-220. Small-scale commercial uses should be located: a. within pedestrian range of existing and planned residential areas. b. _outside of the trade area of other small-scale commercial uses offering comparable goods and services. c. contiguous to a street classified at the collector level. EAPOL.DOC' 6 ATTACHMENT H RO AND CN POLICY ANALYSES POLICY ANALYSIS RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS-CONRAD PROPERTIES Policy LU-48. Buildings should front the street The existing lot pattern on the Conrad property rather than be organized around interior shows a road easement to access the two rear lots. courtyards or parking areas. The other two lots front SE 6th Street. The rear lots would support buildings organized around the private road easement. Policy LU-50. Residential neighborhoods may The designation of Residential Options with the be considered for the Residential Options corresponding zoning of R-10 would meet criteria Designation if they meet three of the following b, c, and d since development patterns are criteria: established, and there are four existing vacant lots accessing SE 6th Street which has utility services.a. The area already has a mix of small scale There could be a.concern about spot-zoning fourmulti-family units or had long standing duplex or low density multi-family zoning; adjacent parcels under common ownership. b. Development patterns are established. c. Vacant lots exist or parcels have redevelopment potential. d. Few new roads or major utility upgrades will be needed with future development. e. The site is located adjacent to a Center designation. Policy LU-55. Development in Residential Except for commercial uses nearby, the Options should be compatible with existing residential development in the neighborhood development patterns and be sensitive to unique consists of single family detached housing.features and differences among established RO/R-10 designations would allow for duplex, neighborhoods. Development standards should triplex or fourplex structures in addition to reflect single family neighborhood characteristics detached single family. One structure is allowed such as ground related orientation, coordinated per lot. Based upon R-10 standards, the structural design, and private yards. maximum number of units that could be accommodated on each existing lot is two duplex),allowing a total of eight units. CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD-AMENDMENT AREA WITH CONRAD Policy LU-91. Center boundaries should be If utilizing the proposed amendment area designated according to the following criteria:including the Conrad property, the boundaries a. The boundary should coincide with a would be drawn at major changes in land use type major change in land use type or intensity. since the boundaries would be placed next to single family zoned property. The area is flat, b. Boundaries should consider topography and boundaries would occur along rights-of-wayandnaturalfeaturessuchasravines, hills, or rear property lines. There are no prominentandsignificantstandsoftrees. focal points in the amendment area. The potential amendment area would be less than 1,200 feetc. Boundaries should occur along public from the intersection of Maplewood Place andrights-of-way including streets or utility easements, or at rear property lines where Maple Valley Highway. justified by the existing land use pattern. CNPOLM4.DOC\1 1 ATTACHMENT H POLICY ANALYSIS Boundary lines should not be drawn through the interior of parcels. d. As a maximum distance, the boundary should be drawn within 1,200-1,500 feet from one or two focal points which may be defined by intersections, transit stops or shopping centers. When a Center contains more than one focal point, the boundary may be drawn within 1,200- 1,500 feet as a maximum from a line connecting the focal points. Policy LU-92. Centers should be designated There are existing office and retail commercial where there are the following characteristics: activities on separate properties with no shared a. a nucleus of existing multi-use parking or access or common design which development, would not be characterized as multi-use. b. potential for redevelopment,or vacant The Conrad properties,the easement and espresso land to encourage significant stand sites are vacant or partially vacant and concentration of development. could support some development. However, the amendment area would not result in a significant c. principal gateways to the City as defined concentration of development. For comparison, in the Community Design Section of the the sizes of the existing Center Neighborhood Land Use Element. districts in the City are: d. Center locations should be located on Proposed Amendment Area: 4 acres major transit and transportation routes. NE Sunset Boulevard: 115 acres e. Center locations should be served by the City's arterial street system. S.Puget Drive: 33 acres The area would not be a principal gateway to the City, since the golf course area further east would be the more likely gateway to the City. A portion of the amendment area would be located along Maple Valley Highway, a principal arterial. Policy LU-93. Transitional land uses which There would not be much opportunity to provide surround the Center are designated to provide for transitional land uses near the single family buffers to the less intensive uses. zones such as moderate density residential (e.g. RO/R-10) given the size of the potential amendment area, the amount of vacant land, and existing commercial uses on much of the properties. Objective LU-Q: Encourage a wide range and The existing uses are suburban in character and combination of uses, developed at sufficient future development on the limited vacant land intensity to maximize efficient use of land, would not likely result in the creation of an urban support transit use and create an urban district. district. Policy LU-97. Encourage multi-story office, commercial, and multi-family uses. CNPOLM4.DOC\ 2 ATTACHMENT H POLICY ANALYSIS Policy LU-98. Discourage single story suburban style development. Policy LU-105. Develop at least one major focal The available vacant land is not necessarily point within each Center which defines the core located in the core of the potential amendment of the Center and is visually distinctive.area. Maplewood Park would abut the proposed Policy LU-106. Focal points should include a amendment area, and would not be central. combination of public areas such as parks or plazas, architectural features such as towers, outstanding building design, transit stops or outdoor eating area. These features should be connected to pedestrian pathways if possible. Policy LU-114. Promote the clustering of The existing commercial uses are auto oriented, Neighborhood Commercial uses and discourage and future development is not likely to change the development of strip commercial areas. this orientation given the location and size of the available vacant/partially vacant land. Policy LU-115. Adequate retail goods and The vacant property would likely be developed services should be provided at neighborhood for office uses (Taco Time/Conrad) or residential centers to encourage residents to shop locally for (Conrad), and would not result in provision of daily goods rather than drive to regional centers. retail goods. The market allows for some local shopping. Additional development is not likely to provide enough of a nucleus of additional retail/service activities allowing residents to shop locally rather than regionally. Policy LU-117. New garden style multifamily The CN designation is affected by the development should be discouraged. [Density - moratorium, and would affect the Conrad Reserved pending development of code property if applied. Density has not been language] established. Multi-family uses may not be compatible with the surrounding lesser intense uses. This could be addressed in a development agreement. Policy LU-118. Office uses should be limited to To accommodate the Taco Time office, a service office development and should be 1-2 Comprehensive Plan text amendment would be stories in height. needed to generalize office types that could be allowed including administrative headquarters, personal,professional, etc. CNPOLM4.DOC\ 3 ATTACHMENT H POLICIES FOR RO AND CN DESIGNATIONS RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS AND RESIDENTIAL PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD General Policies Objective LU-K: Create new planned residential neighborhoods in areas mapped as Residential Options RO) and Residential Planned Neighborhood (RPN) which include a variety of unit types designed to incorporate features from both single family and multi-family developments, and to support cost efficient housing, infill development,transit service,and the efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. Policy LU-41. Provision of small lot single family detached unit types, townhouses and multi-family structures compatible with a single family character should be encouraged provided that densitystandardscanbemet. Policy LU-42. A range and variety of lot sizes should be encouraged. Policy LU-43. Central place public amenities should function as a focal point within the development and should include features such as a public square, open space, park, civic or commercial uses. The central place should include passive amenities such as benches and fountains, and be unified by adesignmotiforcommontheme. Policy LU-44. The dwelling types, including detached and attached units, should be clustered and connected within the overall development through the organization of roads, blocks, yards, central places and amenity features to create a neighborhood with diverse housing types. Policy LU-45. Development should occur on a flexible grid street and pathway system to the extent feasible given environmental constraints,traffic flow, and the pattern of existing development. Policy LU-46. Condominium ownership may occur in any unit type. Policy LU-47. Townhouse development should provide either condominium or fee simple homeownership opportunities. Policy LU-48. Buildings should front the street rather than be organized around interior courtyards or parking areas. Policy LU-49. Non-residential structures may have dimensions larger than residential structures but should be compatible in design and dimensions with surrounding residential development. Residential Options Policy LU-50. Residential neighborhoods may be considered for the Residential Options Designation if they meet three of the following criteria: a. The area already has a mix of small scale multi-family units or had long standing duplex or low density multi-family zoning; b. Development patterns are established. c. Vacant lots exist or parcels have redevelopment potential. d. Few new roads or major utility upgrades will be needed with future development. e. The site is located adjacent to a Center designation. Policy LU-51. The net development densities should be 10 dwelling units per acre. If 100% of the dwelling units are detached, a density bonus may be allowed to a maximum of 13 dwelling units per acre. CNPOLM4.DOC\ 4 ATTACHMENT H Policy LU-52. Minimum net development densities should be 7 dwelling units per acre. Policy LU-53. Detached single family housing, townhouses, and small scale multi-family units should be allowed in Residential Options. Policy LU-54. A maximum of 50% of units allowed within an individual RO development may consist of attached units which includes townhouses, and small scale multi-family units. Policy LU-55. Development in Residential Options should be compatible with existing development patterns and be sensitive to unique features and differences among established neighborhoods. Development standards should reflect single family neighborhood characteristics such as ground related orientation,coordinated structural design, and private yards. Policy LU-56. Non-residential structures, should be clustered and connected within the overall development through the organization of roads, blocks, yards, other central features and amenity features to create a neighborhood. CENTERS Summary: The concept of the Center relies on creating a boundary to contain more intensive uses and prevent them from encroaching on adjacent neighborhoods. However, within the boundary, greater freedom and flexibility of land use is intended compared to traditional zoning classifications. The Center is intended to be an intense urban mixed use place which is pedestrian oriented that provides a visual and physical focal point for the surrounding residential area. Centers should provide community focus for their surrounding neighborhoods. General Policies Policy LU-82. Promote the clustering of Center uses and discourage the development of strip commercial areas. Policy LU-83. General policies of the Center Section also apply to the Downtown Element. Policy LU-84. Different types of Centers should have different ranges, mix and characters of development. Policy LU-85. Centers should have high priority for infrastructure improvements. Policy LU-86. Centers should function as gateways into the City or neighborhoods. Policy LU-87. Centers should provide community focus for their surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU-88. The boundary should encourage maintenance of unique and independent centers. Policy LU-89. Create Centers which support a citywide transit system and encourage pedestrian access. Policy LU-90. Centers should incorporate transit stops within them. Locational Criteria Policy LU-91. Center boundaries should be designated according to the following criteria: a. The boundary should coincide with a major change in land use type or intensity. b. Boundaries should consider topography and natural features such as ravines, hills, and significant stands of trees. c. Boundaries should occur along public rights-of-way including streets or utility easements, or at rear property lines where justified by the existing land use pattern. Boundary lines should not be drawn through the interior of parcels. CNPOLM4.DOC\ 5 ATTACHMENT H d. As a maximum distance, the boundary should be drawn within 1,200-1,500 feet from one or two focal points which may be defined by intersections, transit stops or shopping centers. When a Center contains more than one focal point, the boundary may be drawn within 1,200-1,500feetasamaximumfromalineconnectingthefocalpoints. Policy LU-92. Centers should be designated where there are the following characteristics: a. a nucleus of existing multi-use development, b. potential for redevelopment, or vacant land to encourage significant concentration of development. c. principal gateways to the City as defined in the Community Design Section of the Land UseElement. d. Center locations should be located on major transit and transportation routes. e. Center locations should be served by the City's arterial street system. Policy LU-93. Transitional land uses which surround the Center are designated to provide buffers tothelessintensiveuses. Policy LU-94. Changes to adopted boundaries should only be made in the following circumstances: a. The original mapping failed to consider a major natural feature or significant land use which would make implementation of the boundary illogical. b. The amount of land within a Center is inadequate to allow development of the range and intensity of uses envisioned for the Center. Policy LU-95. Maximize the use of existing urban services and facilities and revitalize commercial areas outside of Renton's downtown by permitting residential development mixed with commercial areas designated as Suburban,Neighborhood,and Office/Residential centers. Policy LU-96. Incentives should be developed to encourage future development or redevelopment pro-jects that incorporate residential uses. Mix and Intensity of Uses Objective LU-Q: Encourage a wide range and combination of uses, developed at sufficient intensitytomaximizeefficientuseofland, support transit use and create an urban district. Policy LU-97. Encourage multi-story office, commercial, and multi-family uses. Policy LU-98. Discourage single story suburban style development. Policy LU-99. Allow for limited light industrial development if conditions can mitigate the impacts of these uses on adjacent development, the Neighborhood, Suburban, and Downtown centers. Policy LU-100. Mixed development within the same structure should include uses which are compatible with each other, i.e. office and certain retail uses with residential; office and retail; light industrial; and heavy commercial. Policy LU-101. Commercial uses within a residential mixed use development, should be located and designed to preserve privacy and quiet for residents. Site and Building Design Policy LU-102. Site and building design and use should be oriented primarily toward pedestrian/people to maximize pedestrian activity and minimize automobile use for circulation withinthecenter. CNPOLM4.DOC\ 6 i I ATTACHMENT H Policy LU-103. Existing residential and commercial development should be integrated as much as possible through alterations in parking lot design, landscapes, signage, and site plan alterations as redevelopment opportunities occur. Policy LU-104. Signage for mixed use development should be consolidated on one structure and located in the manner that will reduce light and glare impacts to the residential users. Focal Points Policy LU-105. Develop at least one major focal point within each Center which defines the core of the Center and is visually distinctive. Policy LU-106. Focal points should include a combination of public areas such as parks or plazas, architectural features such as towers, outstanding building design, transit stops or outdoor eating area. These features should be connected to pedestrian pathways if possible. Policy LU-107. Existing intersections of arterial roadways should be evaluated for opportunities to create focal points. Circulation and Parking Policy LU-108. Vehicular circulation should be internal and access to adjacent streets should be consolidated. Policy LU-109. Vehicular access to the site should be from a principal arterial street with the number of access points minimized. Policy LU-110. Parking for residential uses in the mixed use developments should not disrupt the pedestrian or auto access to the retail component of the project. Parking should be accommodated as part of the structure, in back of, or in the side yards for the residential users. Policy LU-111. Site plan designs which locate parking lots associated with commercial uses, apartments or other uses behind or adjacent to structures are encouraged. Discourage parking lots from locating between structures and street rights-of-way. Policy LU-112. Minimize the percentage of land devoted to surface parking by encouraging shared parking and development of parking structures. Buffers Objective LU-R: Create a buffer at the boundary of Centers to protect adjacent less intensive land uses from the impacts of urban activities within the Center. Policy LU-113. Buffers may be a combination of: a. less intensive land uses, b. open space (not parking lots), c. structural elements, d. landscape features, e. fencing, and f. other features which meet the spirit and intent of these policies. Center Neighborhood Objective LU-S: Create neighborhood centers which include commercial, light industrial, and residential uses and serve the basic, ongoing needs of the population in adjacent and surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU-114. Promote the clustering of Neighborhood Commercial uses and discourage the development of strip commercial areas. CNPOLM4.DOC\ 7 ATTACHMENT H Policy LU-115. Adequate retail goods and services should be provided at neighborhood centers to encourage residents to shop locally for daily goods rather than drive to regional centers. Policy LU-116. Residential uses should not exceed 50% of the overall mix within a center, with the remaining 50% commercial/light industrial uses in order to implement the growth policies in theComprehensivePlan. Policy LU-117. New garden style multifamily development should be discouraged. [Density -Reserved pending development of code language] Policy LU-118. Office uses should be limited to service office development and should be 1-2 stories in height. CNPOLM4.DOC\ 8 I A)O Se- GER August 6, 1998 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION AUG 0 7 1998 APPELLANT: Nicola Robinson RECEIVED Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated of Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone File No.: LUA-98-092,AAD LOCATION: Maplewood area east end of City SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeal of ERC's determination on Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone of certain lots in Maplewood from Residential Single Family to Commercial Arterial PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the July 21, 1998 hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,July 21, 1998,at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal,Exhibit No.2: Land Use File No: e-,98-042,CPA, proof of posting and publication, and other R(by reference) documentation pertinent to the appeal. Exhibit No.3: Vicinity map Exhibit No.4: Ten photographs Exhibit No. 5: Vicinity map w/red sections Parties present: Appellant,Nicola Robinson 3110 SE 5th Street Renton, WA 98058 Representing City of Renton Zanetta Fontes 1044 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Nicola Robinson Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated of Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone File No.: LUA-98-092,AAD August 6, 1998 Page 2 The Examiner explained that the appeal was an administrative appeal held pursuant to Ordinance 3071 and was the only administrative review to occur on the matter. The matter may be submitted back to the Examiner for reconsideration if the parties are not satisfied with the decision. He stated that the appellant had the burden of demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous, and would have to show clear and convincing evidence that the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so. Ms. Robinson,the appellant herein, stated that it was her understanding that the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)statement that was issued of non-significance for the proposal of Commercial Arterial(CA) is not associated with any particular proposal for a development-- it is purely a proposal for a rezoning. So, in terms of the environmental statement,that makes it easy to designate a non-significance because there is no building to look at, although it does indicate limits of height,etc. There are issues that are of concern and some of them grew out of what this proposal may allow,and the repercussions that will result from the CA zoning, if allowed. The concern specifically is for the three small residential lots on SE 6th Street adjacent to the existing Taco Time building on the northeast side. There are three rental homes on these lots which provide housing. Additionally,the CA zoning is non-conforming to the community. Ms. Robinson introduced photographs to show the current neighborhood. Future expansion could result from the CA zoning and it could affect the environment aesthetically and be an intrusion into the residential community in that sense. The current Taco Time building is intrusive and there has been no consideration of buffering upon the residential lots that border it. There is some concern about the appropriateness of the CA zone on a street that is not a main arterial, even though Taco Time suggests that in any future development they would use their current entrance which is off of Monroe Avenue. Margaret Siemion, 3418 SE 6th,Renton, Washington 98058,an interested party, stated thatmily owned the grocery store which is in the area of the proposed rezone. She stated her concern and confusion about the rezone as her property was improperly rezoned to residential in 1993. The Examiner explained that that issue was not within the scope of this particular hearing and she would need to take it up with the City. Ms. Siemion stated that at one time the City was behind residential, keeping the growth down. The CA zone is going to be good for business, but she did not think it is good for the neighborhood because of possibilities in the future. The current CC zoned is designed for the neighborhood and gives a good respect for the neighborhood. She was also concerned about the public nuisance that commercial buildings might bring to their neighborhood. Kathleen Coulter, 3325 SE 6th, Renton, Washington 98058, , an interested party herein, stated that she lives in the home located in the northeast corner of the proposed rezone. As far as having no environmental impact, she stated she would be out of a home because of it. It is a small community, full of affordable housing. By destroying three houses you are putting three families out of a home. She had just learned that Taco Time had an option to purchase her particular property. At this point Ms. Lisa Grueter pointed out on the exhibits the properties which were proposed for rezone,the current zoning, and the ownership of each. Nicola Robinson Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated of Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone File No.: LUA-98-092,AAD August 6, 1998 Page 3 Julie Downen,3317 SE 6th, Renton, Washington 98058,an interested party herein, stated that her home is on one of the proposed lots for rezone,and her backyard will be facing whatever is decided to be built on the Taco Time property. She was concerned about the safety issue for her child, and felt they would be forced to move for their child's welfare. In response to Ms.Fontes' questions regarding security, she did not feel that any fences or barriers would be sufficient. David Lersten, 3114 SE 5th,Renton, Washington 98058, interested party herein, stated that he has lived in this neighborhood for 20 years and considers it a very environmentally sensitive area. He stated that the neighbors are concerned about companies coming in and taking over. The aesthetic affect on the neighborhood would also tend to bring the value of the existing homes down. The Examiner explained to the various parties that this hearing was not the final review of the matter. The rezone still must go to the Planning Commission before proceeding to the City Council, and that public input is welcome before the Planning Commission. Ms. Fontes questioned Ms. Robinson about the concerns for the residential lots adjacent to Taco Time,to which Ms. Robinson responded one of her concerns was the traffic which might use the residential streets. A further concern is the aesthetics of large commercial buildings in a small residential community. She stated that also at this time the neighbors have not observed a parking problem for Taco Time, so the argument for additional parking is difficult to judge. Jana Huerter,Plan Review Supervisor, Development Services Division,City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton,Washington 98055, reviewed the procedures for the City regarding the SEPA process, including the various City departments contacted for comments and area concerns. The issues that have been brought up from the appeal were all issues that were looked at through the environmental review and the ERC met twice before the threshold determination was made and once again for the reconsideration. Because of the recommendation from Police regarding security,there is a requirement that th e be no sight- obscuring landscaping from the parking lot across the street from the park. Also, if the three rers`'idential lots were developed,access would be limited to what currently exists for Taco Time property,which is off the streets of Monroe and Maplewood Park. Regarding the need for additional parking,Taco Time has requested this because they typically conduct training workshops on weekends. They have been using the adjacent vacant property which is covered with gravel, but that is not permitted under the code at this point. Lisa Grueter,Neighborhoods& Strategic Planning Division,City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055,explained that the application for the zoning change included the Comprehensive Plan amendment from Convenience Commercial (CC)and Residential-Single Family(R-8)to Employment Area Commercial. The second item would be to concurrently amend the zoning map from CC and R-8 zoning to Commercial Arterial (CA)zoning. The City is also proposing to amend the CA zone in general to clarify that a few certain uses are allowed in terms of repair activities, accessory storage and offices. The final intent would be to authorize a development agreement with all the property owners in the amendment area to accommodate their existing uses and future expansions, allow a little more variety in use than CC, but significantly limit the Nicola Robinson Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated of Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone File No.: LUA-98-092,AAD August 6, 1998 Page 4 full range of CA uses that are normally allowed elsewhere in the City. She further detailed the specific properties involved in this rezone and the process of notification. She explained the mitigation measures for this proposal, including limiting the height of any proposed development to 35 feet,traffic access,requirement for site plan review regardless of size, landscaping and separation requirements between residential and commercial. The development agreement between Taco Time and the City was discussed. Rebecca Lind,Neighborhoods& Strategic Planning Division,City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055, explained that she was present at an ERC meeting when they took up the issue of the appeal letter. The letter was read and the file reviewed. Staff was asked questions of clarification, and possible mitigation measures were discussed. Closing arguments were given by the parties and their comments reiterated their previous statements. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 12:20 p.m. FINDINGS.CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1.The appellant,Nicola Robinson, filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated DNS-M) issued for a proposed concurrent Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone for a series of parcels located north of the Maple Valley Highway in the vicinity of Maplewood Place SE. The appeal was filed on June 1, 1998 and was filed in a timely manner. The appellant, a neighbOnt property owner,alleged that the ERC's SEPA review ignored major impacts of the proposal and the consequences of development permitted by the proposed changes in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning. In processing the two related applications,the City subjected the application to its ordinary SEPA review process. 2 ° The ERC (Environmental Review Committee),the City's responsible official, in the course of, and as a result of its SEPA review, issued a Declaration or Determination of Non-Significance for the project. It originally issued a straight DNS and no conditions were attached to it. Numerous comments were received from people living in the neighborhood around the proposed complex. The issuance of a DNS triggered comments and a Request for Reconsideration from concerned neighbors including the appellant. The ERC reviewed those comments and issued the DNS with attached mitigation measures. The Declaration of Non-Significance(DNS)was conditioned by the City in what is known as a mitigation process, and became a DNS-M,the "M" alerting readers to the fact that mitigating measures were attached to the project. 3.The appellant objected to the determination and raised a number of issues concerning the loss of affordable property,the impacts of additional traffic and the incompatible nature of the uses permitted by the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and the proposed CA zoning. The appellant did not Nicola Robinson Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated of Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone File No.: LUA-98-092,AAD August 6, 1998 Page 5 believe that the mitigation measures adequately offset the potential consequences and that the DNS-M was not correct. 4.The proposal consists of two actions. The first action would amend the Comprehensive Plan for the area in question from a combination of Convenience Commercial and Single Family to Employment Area Commercial. The second action would rezone the property to conform to this new Comprehensive Plan designation. The property would be reclassified from CC(Convenience Commercial)and R-8 (Single Family Residential)to CA(Commercial Arterial). 5.The neighborhood in which the study area is located is an isolated node of developed property located on the north side of the Maple Valley Highway(SR-169). West of this area the hillside hugs the highway. East is the City's Maplewood Golf Course. The area is developed primarily with single family uses,approximately 130 homes. There are a few commercial uses including the Taco Time office building,a car repair shop, barbershop and market, and an insurance office. 6 The ERC imposed the following mitigation measures: a.Limit the height of future development on all parcels redesignated EAC/CA to 35 feet. b.Access for the three lots proposed for redesignation from single Family/R-8 to EAC/CA, King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900195, 5125900200, 5125900205,to be through the existing or future Taco Time development, not from Newport Ave SE(SE 6th Street). c.For the Taco Time properties and adjacent three lots,and the four vacant properties east of the market and barbershop, King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900195, 5126900200, 5126900205, 5126900211, 5126900215, 5126900324, 5126900325, 512690328, 5126900329,and 1623059017,require site plan review for any size development or redevelopment of properties designated EAC/CA. Site plan review will be required for other properties redesignated EAC/CA according to Renton Municipal Code thresho . d.Require a 6 foot wall in addition to required 10 foot landscaped setbacks wherldsproperties redesignated EAC/CA abut residential zoned properties. e.Require site obscuring landscaping where properties redesignated EAC/CA are adjacent to residentially zoned properties,except adjacent to Maplewood Park where modifications to sight obscuring landscaping should be allowed to ensure adequate visibility for purposes of public safety. f.For the Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop properties,King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900326 and 5126900327, proposed developments which meet current SEPA threshold requirements are to trigger imposition of mitigation measures 4 and 5. 7.The appellant's main objection is the precedent reclassifying the site will have and what it will do to the integrity of this neighborhood and the unknown consequences of allowing such a change in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning. Nicola Robinson Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated of Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone File No.: LUA-98-092,AAD August 6, 1998 Page 6 8.The proposal could result in the conversion from R-8 to CA Zoning of three parcels containing three 3)single family homes. Those homes could remain as non-conforming uses but could be replaced. An option for their purchase does exist by the Taco Time commercial ownership. In addition,vacant parcels north of SE 6th Street could be converted to CA zoning,allowing the expansion of the commercial uses represented currently by the barbershop and market. Both the market and barbershop are currently zoned R-8, supposedly through a mapping error. 9.The CA zoning allows more intense commercial uses and would permit Taco Time to expand their office building and use the current parcel and adjoining parcels for parking and commercial storage associated with the commercial operation. 10. As noted above,the ERC imposed conditions and recommended an agreement that would narrow the CA uses permitted to approach the CC uses now permitted but which would permit the Taco Time expansion plans to be realized. 11. Administration has recommended that the parcels north of SE 6th,the Conrad properties adjacent to the market, not be included in the rezone effort. CONCLUSIONS: 1.There are a number of interrelated issues on this appeal which make it more complex although they don't deal a fatal blow to resolution. It appears that due to the nature of the Growth Management Act and acts related to streamlining land use and environmental review,the appeal could have been directed to the Planning Commission or this office. It was decided to direct the appeal to the Hearing Examiner's office. The reason this is relevant is that the Planning Commission would be expected to review the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment in full detail, including holding public hearings to determine community and landowner need and make a"policy" decision. Attempting to review the environmental consequences prior to this thorough review seems somewhat mis-timed, if not inappropriate. In the past in the City the SEPA documents have actually served as the Comprehensive Planning documents. The environmental analysis and planning was almost one and the same. 2.Then the appellant has indirectly raised an issue that is confronted in many appeals of Determinations of Non-Significance. That is whether imposing conditions on a project while mitigating impacts really appropriately displaces the full review an environmental impact statement(EIS)would provide. In other words, while the ERC has probably reviewed and tossed back and forth a lot of information regarding this or any proposal, much of this dialog is not heard or seen by the general public. So while the ERC may in good faith believe they have mitigated the adverse or unavoidable consequences of a proposal,the public is not necessarily convinced. The public rather wants a full EIS which openly discusses all of this information and more that was discovered during review of the proposal and alternatives to the proposal. This would include potentially more adverse as well as less adverse variations on the proposals and possibly no action whatsoever. This EIS provides much more information to the public and ultimate decision-maker. Such an environmental analysis is not merely a listing of conditions which the ERC imposed to make the proposal environmentally acceptable. 3.Now, while the public may want such information on many if not all proposals,that is not what the law generally requires. That brings up the next issue. We finally have the issue of what types of impacts are required to trigger the preparation of an EIS. Every proposal has some impacts. To require an EIS, the responsible official (ERC)must decide that the proposal will have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. The impacts have to be more probable than merely possible or Nicola Robinson Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated of Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone File No.: LUA-98-092,AAD August 6, 1998 Page 7 conjectural. It is also an issue of context; that is,certain proposals would be expected to have more impacts in one location as opposed to another location. Another skyscraper in downtown Seattle would not be as "different" or"impact producing" as the first or even the second much taller building in downtown Renton. One might expect more impacts and more substantial impacts in Renton than Seattle. Size and scale though are not the sole determinants. Similarly, implementing a commercial node in an entirely single family area on a local street or even an arterial might be different than locating such a node where there is already some commercial uses and the arterial is a state highway. It is the entire proposal and its circumstances which need analysis in order to make a proper threshold determination about environmental impact. In addition,the appellant has the burden of demonstrating such impacts will likely occur since the ERC's determination is entitled to substantial weight. 4.The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore,the determination of the Environmental Review Committee,the City's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. 5.The Determination of Non-Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267,274; 1976,stated: "A finding is'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore,the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is affirmed. 6.The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have,therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test,the "arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a determination of significance(DS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that-tlecision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement. 7.An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway,at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as follows: Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. 1) Significance involves context and intensity. Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact.... The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. 8.Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable." Nicola Robinson Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated of Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone File No.: LUA-98-092,AAD August 6, 1998 Page 8 Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782). Impacts also include reasonably related and foreseeable direct and indirect impacts including short- term and long-term effects. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(c)). Impacts include those effects resulting from growth caused by a proposal, as well as the likelihood that the present proposal will serve as precedent for future actions. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(d)). 10. The area under study is unique. It is characterized by its single family housing and small commercial enclave located along the Maple Valley Highway, SR 169. 11. The proposal could result in the development of additional commercial uses in the study area. That area includes property both along Maple Valley Highway as well as property north of that, north of SE 6th. Part of the study site is already developed with commercial uses. This would result in an approximate doubling of the area although a portion of the site is a powerline easement which could only be developed with parking and not any substantial structure. 11. The appellant asks that the City do a thorough analysis of the impacts from this proposal by preparing an Environmental Impact Statement. It is clear that the appellant and neighbors were earnest in this appeal. But it does not appear that they carried the necessary burden to overcome the presumption that the ERC decision was clearly erroneous. Not only did the ERC impose a series of conditions to scale back any development but they also conditioned the project to substantially screen the proposal. In addition,there is still a public hearing by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. These hearings could result in the proposal being rejected or further substantially conditioned. Also,the Administration has already recommended that the parcels north of SE 6th,the Conrad properties adjacent to the market, not be included in the rezone effort. 12. Clearly,there will be impacts if the proposal goes forward. But the presumption is t4.1S the ERC appropriately did their review unless clear evidence demonstrated error. The reviews g ody should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter unless the evidence is clear and convincing. While the decision of the ERC leaves this office somewhat uneasy, it cannot be said that there is a "firm conviction that a mistake has been committed" by the ERC. 13. The determination of the Environmental Review Committee is affirmed. 14. This office, as it did during the hearing, urges the appellant and all other neighbors to attend the Planning Commission sessions and the City Council meetings and present their testimony to influence the decisions of those bodies. Just because a proposal does not have major impacts in terms of a SEPA decision does not mean that the impacts that will occur should occur. A SEPA determination that an EIS is not required does not necessarily mean the proposed action is appropriate. The appropriateness of these proposed actions will be determined after a thorough review process. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. Nicola Robinson Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated of Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone File No.: LUA-98-092,AAD August 6, 1998 Page 9 ORDERED THIS 6th day of August, 1998. I1 Y-CLA:JY FRED J. KA MAN HEARING E MINER TRANSMITTED THIS 6th day of August, 1998 to the parties of record: Nicola Robinson Zanetta Fontes Margaret Siemion 3110 SE 5th 1055 S Grady Way 3418 SE 6th Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98058 Kathleen Coulter Julie Downen David Lersten 3325 SE 6th 3317 SE 6th 3114 SE 5th Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98058 Renton,WA 98058 Jana Huerter Lisa Grueter Rebecca Lind 1055 S Grady Way 1055 S Grady Way 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Jeannie Sage Neal Whitney John C. Ramsey 3328 SE 6th 3532 SE 5th 3517 SE 5th Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98058 Troy Z. Deady Anna Marie Brunette DWJ Leist 3436 SE 5th 3301 SE 6th 3114 SE 5th Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 980058 Joe& Pat Conrad Robert Humble Roger&Patricia Bozell P.O. Box 6382 13112 195th Place SE 3217 6th Avenue SE Kent, WA 98064 Issaquah, WA 98027-6408 Renton, WA 98055 Daniel Callaway John W. Dobson Debbie Sheridan,Taco Time 1633 Boylston Ave#108 6611 114th Avenue SE 3300 Maple Valley Hwy Seattle, WA 98122 Bellevue, WA 98006 Renton, WA 98058 Wanda Burnskey 3320 SE 6th Renton, WA 98058 Nicola Robinson Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated of Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone File No.: LUA-98-092,AAD August 6, 1998 Page 10 TRANSMITTED THIS 6th day of August, 1998 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Administrator Members, Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson, Development Services Director Art Larson, Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney James Chandler, Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington, Mayor's Executive Assistant Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler South County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,August 20. 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 16, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk,accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision my not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. SE 5th St It Ss 111* i Ili 011SEki' a)11 6, A 6 ifr-sX A .41, 466 i( 2' A 00 zo, Atv 4,. 44:00p0 ,' 50' 3 0'qr 1 : 1 , 190 Amendment 98 - M -4 v 0 Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning T. July epp,0R. Mac°nie Under study 0 20 1998 EAC Land Use and CA Zoning 7_17-. CITI JF RENTON A Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Planning Jesse Tanner,Mayor Susan Carlson,Administrator July 16, 1998. SUBJECT: MAPLE VALLEY HWY TACO TIME COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT,REZONE, CA ZONE AMENDMENTS,DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT,LUA 98-042 (98-M-4); LUA 98-092 AAD Dear Party of Record: As mentioned in a previous letter dated May 28, 1998, the City received an appeal of the Renton Environmental Review Committee's Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance for the above proposal. The Hearing Examiner has set a hearing date of Tuesday, July 21, 1998, 10:00 a.m.in the Council Chambers at the old Renton City Hall,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton. The Hearing Examiner has notified the appellant of the hearing. This notice is being sent as a courtesy to other parties of record. At the meeting to be held July 21, 1998, the adequacy of the environmental review and mitigation measures will be discussed. The Examiner will not decide the merits of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment itself. After the environmental appeal is resolved, at a later date, the Planning Commission and City Council will deliberate the merits of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposal. If you have any questions, please contact me at(425) 430-6578 or Mike Kattermann at(425) 430- 6590,and reference the project name and number. Thank you. Sincerely, Lisa Greeter, Senior Planner cc: Mike Kattermann, Director,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning HEPORLET.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 L? This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer Nicola Robinson Joe&Pat Conrad 3110 SE 5th Street PO Box 6382 MR. AND MRS. DOWNEN Renton,Wa 98058 Kent,WA 98064 3317 SE 6TH STREET RENTON,WA 98058 Jeannie M. Sage Neal Whitney ROBERT HUMBLE 3328 SE 6th Street 3532 SE 5th Street 13112 195TH PLACE SE Renton,WA 98058 Renton,WA 98058 ISSAQUAH,WA 98027-6408 John C.Ramsey Troy Deady Margaret Siemion 3517 SE 5th Street 3436 SE 5th Street 3416 SE 6th Street Renton,Wa 98058 Renton,WA 98058 Renton,WA 98058 Anna Marie Brunette DWJ Leist Roger and Patricia Bozell 3301 SE 6th Street 3114 SE 5th Street 3217 6th Avenue SE Renton,WA 98058 Renton,WA 98058 Renton,WA 98055 Daniel Callaway John W. Dobson Debbie Sheridan 1633 Boyston Avenue#108 6611 114th Avenue SE Director of Planning&Design Seattle,WA 98122 Bellevue,WA 98006 Taco Time, Corporate Office 3300 Maple Valley Highway Renton,WA 98058 Wanda Burnskey 3320 SE 6th Street Renton,WA 98058 Cl • 0 4L 41 CITX JF RENTON.c. .42;, aril Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman June 18, 1998 Ms. Nicola Robinson 3110 SE 5th Renton, WA 98058 Re: Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated of Taco Time Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone Appeal File No. LUA98-092,AAD Dear Ms. Robinson: The City of Renton is in the process of moving to another location. Due to this move,the above- referenced appeal will be held on Tuesday,July 21, 1998, at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers in the old Renton City Hall located at 200 Mill Avenue South in Renton. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, 11 Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner FJK:mm cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City Attorney Lisa Grueter, Project Manager 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)235-2593 Q lGtrs v CITX 3F RENTON NOLL I Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Planning Jesse Tanner,Mayor Susan Carlson,Administrator June 8, 1998 Nicola Robinson 3110 SE 5th Street Renton,WA 98058 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR LUA 98-042 CPA,R,ECF Dear Ms. Robinson: The Environmental Review Committee reviewed your request for reconsideration on June 2, 1998, and the Committee denied your request. No change has been made to the final threshold determination, a determination of non-significance-mitigated,for the Maple Valley Highway Taco Time Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Concurrent Rezone/CA Zone Amendments/Development Agreement(LUA 98-042; 98-M-4). No additional comment period applies. Your appeal filed with the Hearing Examiner will proceed, and you will be notified of the schedule for the appeal. If you have any further questions,please contact me at(425)277-5578. Thank you. Sincerely, CY61a. Lisa Grueter,Project Manager cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City Attorney Fred Kaufman,Hearing Examiner Anne Marie Brunette, 3301 SE 6th Street,Renton,WA 98058 Wanda D. Burskey, 3320 SE 6th Street,Renton,WA 98058 Margaret Siemion, 3416 SE 6th Street,Renton,WA 98058 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer F RENTOM14-i wr Ci j 4{ J'Y "1i.j t . LL ` Hearing Examiner: Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman RECEWED JUN 4 1998 June 4, 1998 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING Ms.Nicola Robinson 3110 SE 5th Renton, WA 98058 Re: Appeal of ERC's Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated of Taco Time Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone Appeal File No. LUA98-092,AAD Dear Ms. Robinson: Your letter of appeal in the above matter has been received and a date and time for said hearing have now been established. The appeal hearing has been set for Tuesday,July 21, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 S. Grady Way. Should you be unable to attend, would you please appoint a representative to act on your behalf. We appreciate your cooperation, and if you have any questions,please contact this office. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner FJK:mm cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City Attorney Lisa Grueter, Project Manager 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)235-2593 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer 3110SE5thSt, ztnton,WA 98058 Mr F Kaufmann,Hearing Examiner for the City of Rento Q 111 Y OF RENTON City Hall, 200 Mill Ave South,JUN 11998 AY 2 6 1998 Renton,WA 98055 CITY Of RENTON RECEIVED Ref: Project No. LUA-98-042, CPA,R, ECF. Map V CLERK'S OFFICE Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Concurrent Rezone/CA Zone Amendments/Development Agreement (98-M-4) Dear Mr Kaufmann, This letter is to appeal the environmental determination of non-significance,of the above mentioned project,and the mitigation measures recommended by the Environmental review committee. If the above mentioned proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan is approved,there will be commercial development of three properties which are currently designated Residential Single Family' (RS), and which are also classified as, `Affordable Housing.'units. The Maplewood community is outraged by this proposal. There will be adverse environmental impacts resulting from the above development in the following areas: Land use,housing, aesthetics, and light. Land use impacts will result from the demolision of three residential buildings,by: removing affordable housing units from the market, displacing the current tenants, and by placing non-conforming,(CA)commercial arterial zoning, in a neighborhood which is 99%residential,this will adversely impact the quality of our environment. The property lines of four homes on SE 6t St, border the area of proposed zoning change. These said homes will have their view significantly obstructed, experience decreased light entering their residences, and suffer a loss of property values. Other residences,which have full or partial view of these three lots, will also experience overwhelming negative impacts upon the aesthetics of their environment. The(CA)Zone allows for buildings up to 50 ft high. . The current Taco Time Office building is 28 ft high,this building is already an obstruction to ones view, and decreases the amount of light entering adjacent residences. The Maplewood Community finds the above proposal will result in significant adverse impacts to the quality of our environment,this would be the beginning of a slow process of decay of our unique residential community. We respectfully request the Environmental Review Committee reconsider their environmental determination, and find the adverse environmental impacts to the quality of our environment of significance. We request an EIS be initiated on this project, and also appeal for changes to the mitigation measures. We are asking for any building,to be no greater in height than the single story residences that are already existence on the three residential lots in question. Our expectation is that the residential lots will not be changed to a commercial zoning. Sincerely 1 ' 1 eszi) Nicola Robinson. 311 0 Scj Stk., Skl .p , 07'6 Representatives of the Maplewood Community: fit %a.!_ Z.' 'ST-) 9.r s8 t C v s". r . ice' S—dam CITE OF RENTON t ' Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Planning Jesse Tanner,Mayor Susan Carlson,Administrator May 28, 1998 SUBJECT: POSTPONED PUBLIC HEARING-MAPLE VALLEY HWY TACO TIME COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT,REZONE, CA ZONE AMENDMENTS,DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT,LUA 98-042 (98-M-4) Dear Interested Citizen: The City has received a request for reconsideration and appeal of the Renton Environmental Review Committee's Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance for the above proposal. Because of this, a public hearing before the Planning Commission which had been scheduled for June 10, 1998 will be continued for this item. Public testimony about the merits of the proposal will not be taken on June 10th. A new Planning Commission public hearing date for the item has not been scheduled since the request for reconsideration and appeal will need to be resolved first. Once a new hearing date before the Planning Commission has been set,you will be notified. Persons who responded to the Notice of Application or who have sent in letters are parties of record, and will be notified of the appeal process. If you would like to be considered a party of record, and be notified of the appeal process, please contact me at (425) 277-5578, and rerefence the project name and number. Thank you. Sincerely, C)i7146L Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner PHDELAY.DOC 200 Mill!!Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Cam)This naner contains 50%recycled material.20%cost consumer Al-5/ 512640024505 147140007500 512690021005 ALBERTS TODD MICHAEL BARTZ JENNY AUGUSTA+SCHULTZ BOZELL ROGER J+PATRICIA 3125 SE 6TH ST 3427 SE 7TH ST 3217 6TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 512640014001 512640013003 512690017508 BREWER ORLIE T JR+ROBIN S BRUNETTE SHERRY P BRUNETTE VERNON G 3217 SE 5TH ST 3205 SE 5TH ST 3301 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 512690030501 162305902304 512690013507 BUNDER ROBERT J BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE BURSKEY W 567 PIERLE AVE SE TAX DEPT 3320 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98058 1700 E GOLF RD#400 RENTON WA 98058 SCHAUMBURG IL 60173 512690032705 512690038504 512690029008 CALLAWAY DANIEL 0&ABIGAIL CAMERON JEFFREY R CHARBONNEAU D K ROSE M 24842 96TH AVE S#B 3600 SE 6TH STREET 3525 SE 5TH ST KENT WA 98031 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98055 147140002501 162305906602 512690038009 CHARLTON CAROLYN J CITY OF RENTON CLINKENBEARD JANE CELESTINE 11983 AVELLANA CIRCLE NW BENNETT W E 554 PIERCE AVE SE SILVERDALE WA 98383 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 512690032408 512690015007 512690045509 CONRAD JOSEPH H&PATRICIA CRATER MICHAEL H DAWSON LARRY A+VALERIE PO BOX 6382 3308 SE 6TH ST 3525 SE 6TH ST KENT WA 98064 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 512640025007 512690022003 512690018506 DENNY LARRY K+MARGRIET WOLT DOBSON JOHN W DOWNEN CHRIS M 3205 SE 6TH ST 6611 114TH AVE SE 3317 SE 6TH STREET RENTON WA 98058 BELLEVUE WA 98006 RENTON WA 98058 147140003509 147140005009 512640016501 EBERTZ MARK R FILLIPS JUDITH A+BAKER DALE GAFFIN JEFFREY 3321 SE 7TH ST 3405 SE 7TH ST 27320 SE 162ND PL RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 147140005504 147140003004 512690046002 GAFFNEY ROBERT J+LOUISE B GRANDE CORINNE M GUY JAMES E+ELAINE L 7560 SO 120TH 7001 OLD REDMOND RD#G 207 8226 S 114TH ST SEATTLE WA 98178 REDMOND WA 98052 SEATTLE WA 98178 512690044007 512690016005 512640024000 HAN YON OK HART R E L HAWES CHESTER E 3503 SE 6TH ST 3232 SE 6TH ST 3121 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 l_ y 512690014505 512690050509 512690022508 HULBURT DAVID W&CECILIA S HUMBLE ROBERT HUSOM VIRGINIA 25328 SE 200TH 15003 134TH SE 532 NEWPORT AVE SE MAPLE VALLEY WA 98038 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98058 512690031004 147140004002 162305902700 JOHNSON KEITH L KINGERY CHERI L LA PIANTA LP 575 PIERCE AVE SE 3401 SE 7TH ST PO BOX 88050 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 TUKWILA WA 98138 512690018001 512690029503 512690037506 LIND ARISTELLA A MEHL RANDY L NARKIEWICZ ALINA 3309 SE 6TH ST 3533 SE 5TH ST 550 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 512640025502 512640013508 512690031509 NIELSEN ROBERT M ODEN JACK E OHARE JOHN D 3209 SE 6TH ST 3209 SE 5TH ST 583 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 512640026005 512690012509 512690014000 PARKER DAVID B PERROTTI ANTHONY P PETERSEN TRAVIS S+WALIMAKI 3213 SE 6TH 505 NEWPORT AVE SE 3316 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 147140000505 512690028505 512690008002 PUGLISI PHILIP&RUTH RAMSEY JOHN C REESER HAROLD 3225 SE 7TH ST 3517 SE 5TH ST 3225 SE 5TH RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 512640017509 512690013002 147140006502 ROTH GLADYS SAGE KENNETH R&JEANNIE M SAUVE DAVID J 3208 SE 6TH ST 3328 SE 6TH ST 3413 SE 7TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 512690023001 512690032606 512690023506 SCHAUT LARRY A SIEMION MICHAEL B+MARGARET SMITH MICHAEL L 12101 SE 96TH PL 111 154TH PL NE 4207 SE 3RD RENTON WA 98056 BELLEVUE WA 98007 RENTON WA 98056 512640017004 512690044502 147140008607 SPETEN 0 H STACHOWIAK VINCENT L TABOR LESLIE D 3204 SE 6TH ST 3511 SE 6TH ST 11226 26TH PL SE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 EVERETT WA 98205 512690024504 512690024009 512640018002 THEODORSEN WILLIAM G+KAREN VAN HOFF NEIL D+PERISICH,PA VAN TUYL GREGGORY L+NANCY J 3429 SE 5TH ST 3425 SE 5TH ST 3216 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 512690045004 512690030006 512690032002 WESCOTT JEANETTE M WILSON TIMOTHY C+CAROLYN SA WONG KAHSOON+ANN KIM WEI 5246 123RD AVENUE SE 559 PIERCE AVE SE 3512 SE 6TH ST BELLEVUE WA 98006 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 MATT TONKIN,PRESIDENT DEBBIE SHERIDAN TACO TIME, CORPORATE OFFICE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING&DESIGN NICOLA ROBINSON 3300 MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY TACO TIME, CORPORATE OFFICE 3110 SE 5TH STREET RENTON, WA 98058 3300 MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 ROBERT HUMBLE 13112 195TH PLACE SE ISSAQUAH, WA 98027-6408 0.1r1 JPACtf SO?b w' ' vorkraZ so 3s ong 0 loa-ltiiq svur Sbrq / 8 7t,c) _,, ,or) _g 0 ?g) usb VC)1 1L4002i c_____,I2(20AA nig ----0-0: ---ruuvi 11 o og d cr) vill I WPArrj g cod b gniT-L , PrA9k110 -Ac2_ 77,/i.i 43 ()-i) 61) C NhC moo,, a:,of U of ur x: c --Y Poloini / 9J-gb I. °I g0,8b -Vol ' 'd.wd 4,fi11 W °) g35 °) h Uogoho i\A v _Lt oa r I co-8 b -vm I-}-171 gcog -v0314)1Aird 9 g it 'S -7r-o-V-4)7b - hAS hr vv,g - s-' bigss' limit /' i--00-) 9))--12d Raw pro -p-) vroq / S go$b del ruVAIrd Scvg Wi ' ua. c S 9s ic5 yr---- .9g --9,0,[4--9 pvvyd -ygo&A zgo-8,1, i2/21 itA34-tivo So Leq.gb d 0 ?,,,UU 7 rivid .,,,,g b 1 c ( 21 9SOY3b blcr ' v,o4v,a 1, J tmn P q Qar g..4 m ,c) as L' 4. .. /` u-avicnov •siw p`"'v •."u n.s X0 •o ' 8S Q8b vkcn ` v+oa. tl_ 4 ciRS BQ al%E J yap 71:12d 4, m osUieoa, -010,1 U / 512690041508 512690033505 512690034008 BLUHM CHRISTOPHER P+WENDY L DOAN E C BRANDEL KURTIS P&BILLIE D 3609 SE 5TH PL 524 PIERCE AVE SE 1602 INDEX AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 512690033000 512690036003 512690026509 LAPLANT LILA A COBLENTZ BETTY &MIKE FEYEREISEN PATTY A LAPLANT JACK K 22320 88TH AVE S 3612 SE 5TH 7521 72ND DR NE KENT WA 98031 RENTON WA 98058 MARYSVILLE WA 98270 512690026004 512690025501 512690025006 GONZALES STEPHANIE A BATEMAN JILL V ROSS WENDY J 3604 SE 5TH ST 3536 SE 5TH ST 3532 SE 5TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98058 512690007509 MR. AND MRS.DOWNEN NEAL WHITNEY CONE MATHEW S 3317 SE 6TH STREET 3532 SE 5TH STREET 3508 SE 5TH RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 TROY DEADY MARGARET SIEMION DWJ LEIST 3436 SE 5TH STREET 3416 SE 6TH STREET 3114 SE 5TH STREET RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 ROBERT HUMBLE 13112 195TH PLACE SE ISSAQUAH, WA 98027-6408 512690041508 512690033505 512690034008 BLUHM CHRISTOPHER P+WENDY L DOAN E C BRANDEL KURTIS P&BILLIE D 3609 SE 5TH PL 524 PIERCE AVE SE 1602 INDEX AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 512690033000 512690036003 512690026509 LAPLANT LILA A COBLENTZ BETTY&MIKE FEYEREISEN PATTY A LAPLANT JACK K 22320 88TH AVE S 3612 SE 5TH 752172ND DR NE KENT WA 98031 RENTON WA 98058 MARYSVILLE WA 98270 512690026004 512690025501 512690025006 GONZALES STEPHANIE A BATEMAN JILL V ROSS WENDY J 3604 SE 5TH ST 3536 SE 5TH ST 3532 SE 5TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98058 512690007509 MR AND .DOWNEN CONE MATHEW S 3317 S STREET 3508 SE 5TH RE ON,WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 I' CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: May 28, 1998 TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Lisa Grueter(ext. 5578) de SUBJECT:Request for Reconsideration of Environmental Determination-Taco Time Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone, etc.,LUA 98-042, CPA,R,ECF On May 26, 1998, the City received a request for reconsideration from Nicola Robinson and three other neighbors. The original filing date was May 25, 1998, but because of the Memorial Day holiday, the comment/appeal period was extended one day. The request was timely filed. The neighbors filing the request feel that there will be adverse environmental impacts in the areas of land use, housing, aesthetics, and light. They request an EIS, and a change to the mitigation measures asking that any building be no greater in height than the nearby single story residences. However, they are opposed to the inclusion of the three residential lots in the proposal. Staff recommends that the ERC threshold determination of M-DNS stand as issued on May 5, 1998. The mitigation measures address the issues of land use, aesthetics and light by requiring specific height reductions, access restrictions, site plan review thresholds, and landscape buffers. The proposed maximum height of 35 feet is comparable to the maximum 30 foot height limit of the R-8 zone and is consistent with the existing Convenience Commercial Zone. Although many homes in the vicinity are single story,the R-8 zoning would allow for second story additions to 30 feet. In terms of housing impacts, as was indicated in the ERC report and environmental checklist, the proposal would apply commercial land use designations to three residential lots with existing residential units rentals), and the units would become nonconforming. Although the request suggests that the units are classified as "affordable," the rental homes are privately owned, and not owned by the Renton Housing Authority or other public or private agency. The affordability of the rents in comparison to the residents' incomes has not been determined. The checklist and ERC report identified measures in response to the potential household displacement. Within the City limits, there are a variety of housing types which may be suitable and available for displaced residents. The Renton Housing Authority oversees lower income units, and the Renton Human Services division provides a variety of assistance programs for those who may have low incomes. It was noted in the ERC report that if a site specific application were made to demolish the units, under the State Environmental Policy Act Rules in the Washington Administrative Code, the demolition of four or fewer residential units is categorically exempt(WAC 197-11-800). Staff does not believe that the letter indicates erroneous procedures, errors of law or fact, errors of judgment, or the existence of new evidence. The proposal as mitigated responds to the concerns raised. The issue of the inclusion or exclusion of the three residential lots is a policy/legislative issue to be reviewed and determined by the Planning Commission and City Council. 3110SE5thSt, Edenton, WA 98058 May 23, 1998 Development Services Division. Attn: Jan Huerter, Land use review supervisor. CITY OF RENTON City Hall, MAY 2 6 1998200MillAveSouth, Renton, WA 98055 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Ref: 98-042, CPA, R,ECF. Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time Site Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Concurrent Rezone/CA Zone Amendments/Development Agreement(98-M-4) Dear Ms Huerter, This letter is to request reconsideration of the mitigation measures recommended by the Environmental review committee, ref the above. And to advise you of an appeal which is being filed with the hearing examiners office. If the above mentioned proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan is approved, there will be commercial development of three properties which are currently designated Residential Single Family' (RS), and which are also classified as, `Affordable Housing.'units. The Maplewood community is outraged by this proposal. There will be adverse environmental impacts resulting from the above development in the following areas: Land use, housing, aesthetics,and light. Land use impacts will result from the demolision of three residential buildings,by: removing affordable housing units from the market, displacing the current tenants, and by placing non-conforming,(CA)commercial arterial zoning, in a neighborhood which is 99%residential,this will adversely impact the quality of our environment. The property lines of four homes on SE 6th St, border the area of proposed zoning change. These said homes will have their view significantly obstructed, experience decreased light entering their residences, and suffer a loss of property values. Other residences, which have full or partial view of these three lots, will also experience overwhelming negative impacts upon the aesthetics of their environment. The (CA)Zone allows for buildings up to 50 ft high. The current Taco Time Office building is 28 ft high, this building is already an obstruction to ones view, and decreases the amount of light entering adjacent residences. The Maplewood Community finds the above proposal will result in significant adverse impacts to the quality of our environment, this would be the beginning of a slow process of decay of our unique residential community. We respectfully request the Environmental Review Committee reconsider their environmental determination, and find the adverse environmental impacts to the quality of our environment of significance. An appeal is being filed with the hearing examiner requesting an EIS be completed, and appealing the mitigation measures. We are asking for any building, to be no greater in height than the single story residences that are already existence on the three residential lots in question. Our expectation is that the residential lots will not be changed to a commercial zoning. Sincerely t,c.S)kck 2A-k^ \,\ Nicola Robinson. 3 I I CD VA, S A R presentatives of the Maplewood Community: lam(/ 7 302o fe4c"`2,Y l Vokt CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: May 27, 1998 TO: File 98-042, CPA, R, ECF FROM: Lisa Grueter SUBJECT: Hearings Regarding Reconsideration/Appeal and Merits of Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezone, Etc. The Renton Regulatory Reform Ordinance exempts Comprehensive Plan Amendments from the standard review process, because they typically require more than 120 days to process (RMC 4-36-3; and Table 15, footnote 4). Also, the ordinance promotes a consolidated review process to have one open record hearing and one closed record appeal(RMC 4-36-7). In the case of Comprehensive Plan Amendments and associated rezones, the Type X permit chart Table 1`i) shows a Planning Commission open record hearing. Appeal of the environmental threshold determination is to be heard by the Hearing Examiner (footnote 2). The Hearing Examiner allows for an open ecord public hearing on appeals (RMC 4-8-11B). The dutie s of the Hearing Examiner do not include review of Comprehensive Plan Amendments (RMC 4-8-10 and 4-36-6E). The duties of the Planning Commission do not include hearing appeals of ERC decisions (RMC 2-10-6 and RMC 4-3-1). Based upon discussions with Jana Huerter,there have been determinations in relation to a similar case appeals of an ERC decision to Hearing Examiner, and a related variance application to the Board of Adjustment)that a combined hearing was not possible due to the fact that the duties of the authorities did not address both items. Given the above, a combined hearing for both the ERC appeal and the merits of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone/CA Amendments/Development Agreement application are not feasible or desirable. The Hearing Examiner will hold a hearing regarding the appeal of the Environmental Review Committee SEPA determination. The Planning Commission will hold a hearing regarding the merits of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, etc. land use application. TS SERVIR\SYS2:\COMMON\-H:\DIVISION.SW-TS\PLANNING\LGRUETER\TACOWILEHEAR.DOC\Ig OWashington State Northwest Region Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Sid Morrison Seattle,WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation 206)440-4000 RECEIVED DATE: May 27, 1998 JUN 1 1998 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO: Lisa Grueter NEIGN808HOODc, City of Renton, Project Manager 200 Mill Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Subject: SR 169 MP 1734 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance-Comprehensive Plan Amendment 98-M-4 File No.LUA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF FROM: Robert A. Josep on, PE, Manager of Planning & Local Coordination Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North, MS 122 P. O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review this Comp Plan Amendment 98-M-4 which, is located around the 3300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway. Our response is below: We have reviewed the subject document and have no further comments. The project will have no significant impact on the state highway system. If you have any questions, please contact Don Hurter at 440-4664 or Vickie Erickson at 440-4915 of my Developer Services section VEE:vee File Name 3110 SE 5th St, enton, WA 98058 May 23, 1998 Development Services Division. CITY OF RENTONAttn: Jan Huerter, Land use review supervisor. City Hall, MAY 2 6 1998200MillAveSouth, Renton, WA 98055 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Ref: 98-042, CPA, R,ECF. Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time Site Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Concurrent Rezone/CA Zone Amendments/Development Agreement(98-M-4) Dear Ms Huerter, This letter is to request reconsideration of the mitigation measures recommended by the Environmental review committee, ref the above. And to advise you of an appeal which is being filed with the hearing examiners office. If the above mentioned proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan is approved, there will be commercial development of three properties which are currently designated Residential Single Family' (RS), and which are also classified as, `Affordable Housing.'units. The Maplewood community is outraged by this proposal. There will be adverse environmental impacts resulting from the above development in the following areas: Land use, housing, aesthetics,and light. Land use impacts will result from the demolision of three residential buildings, by: removing affordable housing units from the market, displacing the current tenants, and by placing non-conforming ,(CA) commercial arterial zoning, in a neighborhood which is 99%residential,this will adversely impact the quality of our environment. The property lines of four homes on SE 6th St,border the area of proposed zoning change. These said homes will have their view significantly obstructed, experience decreased light entering their residences, and suffer a loss of property values. Other residences, which have full or partial view of these three lots, will also experience overwhelming negative impacts upon the aesthetics of their environment. The (CA)Zone allows for buildings up to 50 ft high. The current Taco Time Office building is 28 ft high,this building is already an obstruction to ones view, and decreases the amount of light entering adjacent residences. The Maplewood Community finds the above proposal will result in significant adverse impacts to the quality of our environment,this would be the beginning of a slow process of decay of our unique residential community. We respectfully request the Environmental Review Committee reconsider their environmental determination, and find the adverse environmental impacts to the quality of our environment of significance. An appeal is being filed with the hearing examiner requesting an EIS be completed, and appealing the mitigation measures. We are asking for any building, to be no greater in height than the single story residences that are already existence on the three residential lots in question. Our expectation is that the residential lots will not be changed to a commercial zoning. Sincerely Nicola Robinson. 3 I \ b SC.Sb1, R presentatives of the Maplewood Community: OS$- Gv iyoza 441 ?° ' ` tea g-- CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the (e day of Vl+la,.., 1998, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope contain'ng elec died€ VM tool OWS documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Department c,f Ecology Don Hurter WSDOT KC Wastewat er Treatment Division Larry Fisher Washington Department of Fisheries David F. Diet:man Department of Natural Resources Shirley Lukh rng Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Irdian Tribe Rod Malcom Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Joe Jainga Puget Sound Energy Signature of Sender) w STATE OF 'NASHINGTON SS COUNTY O'= KING I certify tha. I know or have satisfactory evidence that .4A-ru czt--signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. ter/ 1 , Dated: TYI y /C1 V No Pu in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print) My appointment COMMISSION EXPIRES G'29/99 Project Name: ' Tito:, T1V1ne. GY'14 Project Number: Lk)Pt 98 .01'2. ' tR. ELP NOTARY.DOC CITX 3F RENTON i 1 14114 Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,t'layor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator May 06, 1998 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia,WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination and Environmental Checklist for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)on May 05,1998: DETERM NATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 98-M-4 LUA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF The propc sed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial(CC)around the 3300 and 3400 block of lv aple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designate f Residential Single-Family(RS);and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residenth I Single-Family(RS). The proposal would 1)amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map from CC and RS to Employment Area- Commerc al(EA-C); 2)amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8(R-8)to Arterial Commercial(CA); 3)amend the CA zone i i general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for accessory storage for permitted service and office uses,and allow for offices; and 4)authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area which accommodates existing uses and future expansions,and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA zone which are too intensive for the area. Under study for potential commercial designation are four parcels adjacent to the Cedar River Market on SE 6th Street which, prior to 1993, had a commercial zoning(B-1), but which were redesignated in 1993 to Residential Single-Family(RS)/R-8. Staff does not support a commercial designation at this time, pending additional analysis and public input. Comments regard'ng the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM May 25, 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the envit onmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment,or the dis:;overy of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination,then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. 'Nritten comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,WA 98055. If an appeal of the environmental determination is also filed with the Hearing Examiner during the same 15-day comment period,then the Environmental Review Committee will first take action on the request for reconsideration and the appellant will be notfied that the appeal is on hold pending the Committee's decision on the reconsideration request. The City will notify the appellant/person requesting reconsideration and parties of record and the Hearing Examiner of the Environmental Review Committee's final determination. The appeal process will then be continued unless the appellant notifies the Hearing Examiner in writing that he wishes to withdraw the appeal. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM May 25, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Exar liner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from th, Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-235-2501. If you have questior s,please call me at(425)277-5578. For the Environmen al Review Committee, Lis rueter Project Manager cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fist er, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources Don Hurter, Department of Transportation Shirley Lukhang, Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe(Ordinance) Joe Jainga,Puget Sound Energy AGNcYLTR.DOC\ 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 alThis naner contains 50%recycled material 20%nost consumer 4• CIT1 DF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator May 6, 1998 TO:Parties of Record SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 98-M-4 (TACO TIME CPA/REZONE) Project No. LUA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF Dear Resident: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project. The ERC, on May 05, 1998, issued a threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mi igated with Mitigation Measures. See the enclosed Mitigation Measures document. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM May 25, 1998. Any agc rieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee 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 time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. If an appeal of the environmental determination is also filed with the Hearing Examiner during the same 15-day comment period, then the Environmental Review Committee will first take action on the request for reconsideration and the appellant will be notified that the appeal is on hold pending the Committee's decision on the reconsideration request. The City will notify the appellant/pl arson requesting reconsideration and parties of record and the Hearing Examiner of the Environmental Review Committee's final determination. The appeal process will then be continued unless the appellant notifies the Hearing Examir per in writing that he wishes to withdraw the appeal. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in wri ing on or before 5:00 PM May 25, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required 75.00 applicat on fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner E re governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-235-2501. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (206) 277-5578. For the Environmental Review Committee, CY64CL Lisa Grueter Project Manage r Enclosure: Mitigation Measures DNSMLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Cam)This nannr cnntainc 5f1%rarvrlarl material 211.nnct rnncumwr CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF APPLIC ANT: City of Renton PROJECT NAME: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 98-M-4 TACO TIME CPA/REZONE) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial (CC) around the 3300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single-Family (RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residential Single-Family (RS). The proposal would 1) amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map from CC and RS to Employment Area-Commercial (EA-C); 2) amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8 (R-8) to Arterial Commercial (CA); 3) amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for accesory storage for permitted service and office uses, and allow for offices; and 4) authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area which accommodates existing uses and future expansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA zone which are too intensive for the area. Under study for potential commercial designation are four parcels adjacent to the Cedar River Market on SE 6th Street which, prior to 1993, had a commercial zoning (B-1), but which were redesignated in 1993 to Residential Single-Family (RS)/R-8. Staff does not support a commercial designation at this time, pending additional analysis and public input. LOCAT ON OF PROPOSAL: North side of Maple Valley Highway (3300 and 3400 block) MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Lim t the height of future development on all parcels re-designated EAC/CA to 35 feet. 2. Access for the three lots proposed for re-designation from Single Family/R-8 to EAC/CA , King Cot my Property Identification Numbers 5126900195, 5126900200, 5126900205, to be through the exi:ting or future Taco Time development, not from Newport Ave SE.(SE 6th St.) 3. For the Taco Time properties and adjacent three lots, and the four vacant properties east of the maiket and barbershop, King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900195, 5126900200, 5126900205, 5126900211 5126900215, 5126900324, 5126900325, 512690328, 5126900329, and 1623059017, require site plan review for any size development or redevelopment of properties re- designated EAC/CA. Site plan review will be required for other properties redesignated EAC/CA acc)rding to Renton Municipal Code thresholds. 4. Rec uire a 6 foot wall in addition to required 10 foot landscaped setbacks where properties re- des,gnated EAC/CA abut residential zoned properties. 5. Require site obscuring landscaping where properties re-designated EAC/CA are adjacent to residentially zoned properties, except adjacent to Maplewood Park where modifications to sight obscuring landscaping should be allowed to ensure adequate visibility for purposes of public safety. 6. For the Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop properties, King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900326 and 5126900327, proposed developments which meet current SEf'A threshold requirements are to trigger imposition of mitigation measures 4 and 5. tpQ471Q, tpC111111 F` z)). a 7/4 g2vQ?Q•°iFa 4 "c:7 Q`°`yam(.1) 1/4$441 0V i- 2 Q tmcaCONe ,go ao2Oaro .)' b Q4Q y , io F AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ez-° ` y a Kristina Thompson, being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of o c Qo(T. o `°; y F,0 the 0 4,, V Ci0• SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL a y ybQQoy 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 T ) y, a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal m newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County Journal (and not in supplemental form) which was regularly distributed to the subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Comp. Plan Amend. 98-M-4 as published on: 5/11/98 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $82.28 Legal Number 4611 Legal , South !1.unty Journal Subscribed and sworn before m this 81 day of 19 qv kp r o gS oN /0' Nota Public of the State of Washington N07ARy F`r' residing in Renton King County, Washington 0— ust'' N. 9 9' if1 0 v4`1'•• al eWranrerk sV o cures ahhon';,.in9' 25, Pubis ea ate. 9 Office Firs F/o0) rI 199 461 eSOU r r99erth oUnty o NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL Urna' A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEi RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. COMP PLAN AMENDMENT 98-M-4 LU A-98-042,C PA,R,EC F The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial (CC) around the 3300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single-Family (RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residential Single-Family (RS). The proposal would 1) amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map from CC and RS to Employment Area-Commercial (EA-C); 2) amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8 (R-8) to Arterial Commercial CA); 3) amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for accessory storage for permitted service and office uses, and allow for offices; and 4) authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area which accommodates existing uses and future expansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA zone which are too intensive for the area. Under study for potential commercial designation are four parcels adjacent to the Cedar River Market on SE 6th Street which, prior to 1993, had a commercial zoning (B-1), but which were redesignated in 1993 to Residential Single-Family (RS)/R-8. Staff does not support a commercial designation at this time, pending additional analysis and public input. Location: North side of Maple Valley Highway (3300 and 3400 block). The 15 d;ry comment and appeal period for this project will run concurrently and end at 5:00 PM on May 25, 1998 Following this, the City will finalize its Determination unless comments received require a reconsideration. Written comments and requests for reconsideration shall be forwarded to the Development Services Division Land Use Review Supervisor. Information on the project file is available at the DE velopment Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: (425) 235-2550. Appeal procedures are available in the City Clerk's office, First Floor, Municipal Building. Publicati )n Date: May 11, 1998 Account N o. 51067 dnspub CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT NAME: TACO TIME CPA/REZONE DESCRIPTION OF P ROPOSAL: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial CC)around the 330C and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS);and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residential Single- Family(RS). The proposal would 1)amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map from CC and RS to Employment Area-Commercial (EA-C); 2)amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8 (R-8)to Arterial Commercial (CA); 3)amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for permitted service and office uses, and allow for offices; and 4) authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area which accommodates existing uses and future expansions,and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA zone which are too intensive for the area. Under study for potential commercial designation are four parcels adjacent to the Cedar River Market on SE 6th Street which, prior to 1993, had a commercial zoning (B-1), but which were redesignated in 1993 to Residential Single-Family (RS)/R-8. Staff does not support a commercial designation at this time,pending additional analysis and public input. LOCATION OF PROF OSAL: North side of Maple Valley Highway(3300 and 3400 block) LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton En'ironmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee uncer their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM May 25, 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee 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 time of the determination may submit written comments.After review of the comments,if Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination,then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. A iy person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jan i Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,WA 98055. If an appeal of the enviror mental determination is also filed with the Hearing Examiner during the same 15-day comment period,then the Environmental Review Committee will first takE action on the request for reconsideration and the appellant will be notified that the appeal is on hold pending the Committee's decision on the reconsideration request. The City will notify the appellant/person requesting reconsideration and parties of record and the Hearing Examiner of the Environmental Review Committee's final determination. The appeal process will then be continued unless the appellant notifies the Hearing Examiner in writing that he wishes to withdraw the appeal. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM May 25, 1998. Appeals must bE filed in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)-235-2501. PUBLICATION DATE: May 11, 1998 DATE OF DECISION: May 05, 1998 SIGNATURES: iP#(a-/.7,K Gregg immerman,Administrator DAT Department of Planning!3uilding/Public Works S m Chastain,Administrator DAT Community Services Department 7? Lee h ler, Fir hlef DATE Renton Fire Department DNSSIG.DOC i CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJEC•" NAME: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 98-M-4 TACO TIME CPA/REZONE) DESCRIF TION OF PROPOSAL: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial (CC) around the 3300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single-Family (RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residential Single-Family (RS). The proposal would 1) amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map from CC and RS to Employment Area-Commercial (EA-C); 2) amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8 (R-8) to Arterial Commercial (CA); 3) amend the CA zone n general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for accesory storage for permitted service and office uses, and allow for offices; and 4) authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amen iment area which accommodates existing uses and future expansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA zone which are too intensive for the area. Under study for potential commercial designation are four parcels adjacent to the Cedar River Market o i SE 6th Street which, prior to 1993, had a commercial zoning (B-1), but which were redesignated in 1993 to Residential Single-Family (RS)/R-8. • Staff does not support a commercial designation at this time, pending additional analysis and public input. LOCATICN OF PROPOSAL: North side of Maple Valley Highway (3300 and 3400 block) MITIGAT ON MEASURES: 1. Limit he height of future development on all parcels re-designated EAC/CA to 35 feet. 2. Access for the three lots proposed for re-designation from Single Family/R-8 to EAC/CA , King Coun'l y Property Identification Numbers 5126900195, 5126900200, 5126900205, to be through the existii ig or future Taco Time development, not from Newport Ave SE.(SE 6th St.) 3. For the Taco Time properties and adjacent three lots, and the four vacant properties east of the market and barbershop, King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900195, 5126900200, 5126C.)00205, 5126900211 5126900215, 5126900324, 5126900325, 512690328, 5126900329, and 1623(059017, require site plan review for any size development or redevelopment of properties re- designated EAC/CA. Site plan review will be required for other properties redesignated EAC/CA accor ling to Renton Municipal Code thresholds. 4. Requi-e a 6 foot wall in addition to required 10 foot landscaped setbacks where properties re- desigi sated EAC/CA abut residential zoned properties. 5. Requi-e site obscuring landscaping where properties re-designated EAC/CA are adjacent to residentially zoned properties, except adjacent to Maplewood Park where modifications to sight obscu-ing landscaping should be allowed to ensure adequate visibility for purposes of public safety. 6. For th s Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop properties, King County Property Identi ication Numbers 5126900326 and 5126900327, proposed developments which meet current SERA threshold requirements are to trigger imposition of mitigation measures 4 and 5. NoncE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 98-M-4(TACO TIME CPAIREZONE) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience CommercialCC)around the 3300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway:properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single-Family RS);and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS). The proposal would 1)amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map from CC and RS to Employment Area-Commercial (EA-C); 2) amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8(R-8)to Arterial Commercial(CA);3)amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities,allow for accessory storage for permitted service and office uses,and allow for offices;and 4) authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area which accommodates existing uses and future expansions,and allows for more variety In uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA zone which are too intensive for the area. Under study for potential commercial designation are four parcels adjacent to the Cedar River Market on SE 61h Street which,prior to 1993,had a commercial zoning(13-1).but which were redesignated in 1993 to Residential Single-Family(RS))R-8.Staff does not support a commercial designation at this time.pending additional analysis and public input.Location:North side of Maple Valley Highway(3300(and 3400 dock). THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW THE COMMITTEE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE E ) IMPACT ONASTHE NED THAT THE ENVIRONMENT. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 PM May 25, 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee 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 time of the determination may submit written comments.After review of the comments,If Environmental Review Committee finds them Is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination,then there will be no fuller extension of the appeal period.My person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the origlnal 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huener,Land Use Review Supervisor,City of Renton Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055. If an appeal of the environmental determination is also filed with the Hearing Examiner during the same 15-day comment period,then the Environmental Review Committee will first take action on the request for reconsideration and the appellant will be notified that the appeal Is on hold pending the Committee's decision on the reconsideration request.The City will notify the appellant/person requesting reconsideration and parties of record and the Hearing Examiner of the Environmental Review Committee's final determination. The appeal process will then be continued unless the appellant notifies the Hearing Examiner in writing that he wishes to withdraw the appeal.Appeals of the environmental determination must be fled in writing on or before 5:00 PM May 25,1998. Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required 575.00 application fee with:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office.(425)-235.2501. SE 5th 1 411:14 44.: • 4‘,4411 0",‘,is or 440. dit 194441-` r FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(425)235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. CERTIFICATION I, ` rcb C '] P hereby certify that copies of the abovedocument'were Y me inposted conspicuous places on or nearbyPZ the described property on c6 - Signed: ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me, a Nortary Public,in an r the State o Washington residing in on the day of STAFF City of Renton Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods, Strategic Planning REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE May 5, 1998 Project Name Maple Valley Highway Taco Time Site Comprehensive Plan Amendment/ Rezone/Development Agreement/Arterial Commercial Zone Amendments Applicant City of Renton,Economic Development,Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning File Number LUA-098-042, CPA,R,Project Manager Lisa Grueter ECF (98-M-4) Project Description The proposal would: Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Convenience Commercial (CC) and Residential Single-Family (RS) to Employment Area-Commercial(EA-C). Amend the Zoning Map concurrently from Convenience Commercial (CC) and Residential-8 (R-8)to Arterial Commercial(CA). Amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for accessory storage for permitted service and office uses, and allow for offices. Authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area which accommodates existing uses and future expansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA zone which are too intensive for the area. Under study for potential commercial designation are four parcels adjacent to the Cedar River Market on SE 6th Street which prior to 1993 had a commercial zoning (B- 1), but which were redesignated in 1993 to Residential Single-Family(RS)/R-8. Staff does not support a commercial designation at this time, pending additional analysis and public input. However, this study area has been analyzed in the environmental checklist. ERC98M4.DOC City of Rentan P/B/PW Department i onmental Review Committee Staff Report Mae Valley Highway Taco Time Site LUA-98-042 CPA R,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF May 5,1998 Page 2 of8 Project Location The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial (CC) around the 3300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single-Family (RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS). Under study for potential commercial designation are four parcels adjacent to the Cedar River Market on SE 6th Street which are designated RS/R-8. Exist. Bldg. Area gsf n/a Proposed New Bldg. Area gsf n/a Site Area n/a Total Building Area gsf n/a RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommend that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. X Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 da A eal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period with Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period Concurrent 14 da A al Period. followed b a 14 da A eal Period. Please publish on May 11, 1998. C. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Limit the height of future development on all parcels re-designated EAC/CA to 35 feet. 2. Access for the three lots proposed for re-designation from Single Family/R-8 to EAC/CA , King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900195, 5126900200, 5126900205, to be through the existing or future Taco Time development, not from Newport Ave SE.(SE 6th St.) 3. For the Taco Time properties and adjacent three lots, and the four vacant properties east of the market and barbershop, King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900195, 5126900200, 5126900205, 5126900211 5126900215, 5126900324, 5126900325, 512690328, 5126900329, and 1623059017, require site plan review for any size development or redevelopment of properties re-designated EAC/CA. Site plan review will be required for other properties redesignated EAC/CA according to Renton Municipal Code thresholds. 4. Require a 6 foot wall in addition to required 10 foot landscaped setbacks where properties re-designated EAC/CA abut residential zoned properties. 5. Require site obscuring landscaping where properties re-designated EAC/CA are adjacent to residentially zoned properties, except adjacent to Maplewood Park where modifications to sight obscuring landscaping should be allowed to ensure adequate visibility for purposes of public safety. ERC98M4.DOC City of Renton P/B/PWDepartment onmental Review Committee Staff Report ie Valley Highway Taco Time Site LUA-98-042, CPA,R,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF May 5,1998 Page 3 of 8 6. For the Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop properties, King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900326 and 5126900327, proposed developments which meet current SEPA threshold requirements are to trigger imposition of mitigation measures 4 and 5. Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only,they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development? 1.Earth Impacts: The site is generally flat, and may be subject to seismic hazards as a result of liquefaction, as is the case with much of the valley areas in Renton. Future development, allowed as a result of the non-project plan/zoning amendment, could result in grading, erosion, and additional impervious surfaces. Future, site-specific proposals will be subject to environmental review as applicable, and subject to RMC requirements for land clearing and tree cutting, storm and surface water drainage,mining and grading regulations,Uniform Building Code requirements, and others. Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation measures are proposed for the non-project action. Nexus: Non-applicable. 2.Air Impacts: Future site-specific proposals, allowed as a result of the non-project plan/zoning amendment may cause air emissions during construction and after operation due to automobiles. Future site-specific proposals would be subject to the Environmental (SEPA) Ordinance, Commute Trip Reduction Ordinance, and any Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority regulations, as applicable. Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation measures are proposed for the non-project action. Nexus: Non-applicable. 3.Water Impacts: The site is located in the vicinity of the Cedar River, but lies 300 feet north across Maple Valley Highway. The area is not located in the floodplain according to Flood Insurance Rate maps. Future site specific proposals, allowed as a result of the non-project plan/zoning amendment may result in additional water runoff. Future site-specific proposals would be subject to the Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance, Storm and Surface Water Ordinance, Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance, Aquifer Protection Ordinance, and Environmental (SEPA) Ordinance, as applicable. Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation measures are proposed for the non-project action. Nexus: Non-applicable. ERC98M4.DOC City ofRenton P/B/PWDepartment onmental Review Committee Staff Report Maple Valley Highway Taco Time Site LUA-98-042, CPA,R,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF May 5,1998 Page 4 of 8 6.Energy and Natural Resources Impacts: Future development in the subject area would need to use energy sources. The proposal would apply a commercial land use designation, Arterial Commercial (CA) which allows for a greater height than the Convenience Commercial (CC)but the proposed development agreement as mitigated would limit future heights to 35 feet. Given setbacks and height limits of the proposed zone, and the required setbacks of the adjacent R-8 zone, future development in the subject area, with proposed mitigation, is not anticipated to have a significant effect towards potential solar energy use by adjacent properties. However, future site-specific proposals would be subject to the Environmental (SEPA) Ordinance, Uniform Building Code and Energy Codes, and Site Plan review, as applicable. Mitigation Measures: 1. Reduce height to 35 feet to mitigate potential solar energy use impacts on adjacent single family uses Nexus: Environmental Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan LU-175 (Employment Area-Commercial Policies) 7.Environmental Health/Noise Impacts: In the mid- 1980's, hydrocarbon contamination affected some of the proposal area, due to a leak from the Olympic Pipeline Company's lines which traverse the area in an easement. It was determined in 1989 at the time of Taco Time's corporate office application that much of the contamination had been removed, and that any remaining contamination would continue to degrade through natural processes at a level which would not impact the office development. Since the environmental checklist was prepared, additional information has been discussed in the South County Journal (April 21, 1998), indicating that some contamination may still exist in the general vicinity;this is being investigated to determine if it is residual contamination related to the earlier contamination in the mid-1980's or if it is due to another source. In terms of noise, future site-specific development may result in short-term construction noise, and increased traffic noise over the long-term. Future, site-specific proposals will be subject to environmental review if review thresholds are triggered, Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Site Plan Review Ordinance, Noise Level Regulations, as applicable, as well as State legislation and rules regarding hazardous materials. Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation measures are proposed for the non-project action. Nexus: Non-applicable. 8.Land Use Impacts: The checklist addresses planning issues for both the amendment area, and the study area to the east of the barbershop and market. Also, the checklist analyzes the proposed general changes to the Arterial Commercial (CA) zone to allow for offices, shoe repair, and accessory storage. The checklist and supplemental sheets may be consulted for additional analysis. Current uses in the subject Comprehensive Plan/Zoning amendment study area include office, commercial, service, residential, and vacant. The subject area is designated in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning as Convenience Commercial and Residential Single Family/R-8. The subject area is in the vicinity of, but is not adjacent to properties designated Resource Conservation. The subject area is not identified on the Greenbelt Map, Wetland Inventory, 100-year floodway, and is not located within the Shoreline jurisdiction. ERC98M4.DOC City of Renton P/B/PWDepartment E nmental Review Committee Staff Report jte Valley Highway Taco Time Site LUA-98-042, CPA,R,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF May 5,I998 Page 5 of 8 In terms of Comprehensive Plan compliance the proposed amendment area is generally compatible with the Comprehensive Plan,particularly in its expansion of the City's commercial base and maintenance of the City's economic base. A majority of the area lies adjacent to Maple Valley Highway, a principal arterial, except for the existing and long standing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop. The three residential lots adjacent to the Taco Time office could be integrated into the Taco Time campus and reoriented to Maple Valley Highway. Inclusion of the study area to the east of the barbershop and market would be consistent with some Comprehensive Plan policies and inconsistent with others. A letter addressed to the Planning Commission has been forwarded to ERC at the request of a concerned resident,Nicola Robinson. In the letter dated, March 31, 1998, there are concerns about the compatibility of future commercial development with the neighborhood, as well as concerns about aesthetics, traffic, and access. In terms of allowing additional commercial and office uses in the subject area,the proposed development agreement would limit the range of uses of the proposed zoning (CA)in order to reduce potential compatibility impacts. Future development will be subject to site plan review regulations and environmental review, where applicable, to help ensure compatibility with neighboring properties and uses. The Site Plan Review Ordinance includes review criteria which address a variety of concerns including size, bulk, height, intensity, site layout, transitions/linkage between uses to the street, design and screening of parking and service areas, consolidation of access points with adjacent properties, and several other issues. Also, buffering is required in the CA zone and development agreement where commercial uses abut residentially zoned properties. The development agreement will be subject to a public hearing, and will require review and adoption by the City Council. The development agreement could be amended through this process. Any change must be consistent with the CA zone,but may be more restrictive. Mitigation Measures: . 1. Access for the three lots proposed for re-designation from Single Family/R-8 to EAC/CA , King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900195, 5126900200, 5126900205, to be through the existing or future Taco Time development,not from Newport Ave SE.( SE 6th St.) 2. For the Taco Time properties and adjacent three lots, and the four vacant properties east of the market and barbershop, King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900195, 5126900200, 5126900205, 5126900211 5126900215, 5126900324, 5126900325, 512690328, 5126900329, and 1623059017, require site plan review for any size development or redevelopment of properties re-designated EAC/CA. Site plan review will be required for other properties redesignated EAC/CA according to Renton Municipal Code thresholds. 3. Require a 6 foot wall in addition to required 10 foot landscaped setbacks where properties re-designated EAC/CA abut residential zoned properties. 4. Require site obscuring landscaping where properties re-designated EAC/CA are adjacent to residentially zoned properties, except adjacent to Maplewood Park where modifications to sight obscuring landscaping should be allowed to ensure adequate visibility for purposes of public safety. 5. For the Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop properties, King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900326 and 5126900327, proposed developments which meet current SEPA threshold requirements are to trigger imposition of mitigation measures 3 and 4. Nexus: Environmental Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-37, LU-38, LU-39 (Residential Policies) Policy LU- 174 and LU-175 (Employment Area Commercial Policies). ERC98M4.DOC City ofRenton PB/PW Department I mmental Review Committee Staff Report Maple Valley Highway Taco Timea Site LUA-98-042, CPA,R,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF May 5,1998 Page 6 of 8 9.Housing Impacts: The proposal would apply commercial land use designations to three residential lots containing residences. The residences would become nonconforming with the new commercial designation (CA). Over time, new development could displace the three residential units. Based upon the letter from Nicola Robinson,there is a concern about the conversion of existing residential uses. Within the City limits, there are a variety of housing types which may be suitable and available for displaced residents. The Renton Housing Authority oversees lower income units, and the Renton Human Services division provides a variety of assistance programs for those who may have low incomes. It should be noted that if a site specific application were made to demolish the units, under the State Environmental Policy Act Rules in the Washington Administrative Code, the demolition of four or fewer residential units is categorically exempt(WAC 197-11-800). Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation measures are proposed for the non-project action. Nexus: Non-applicable. 10, 11 Aesthetics and Light and Glare Impacts: The proposal would apply a commercial land use designation, Arterial Commercial (CA) which allows for a greater height than the Convenience Commercial (CC) - 50 feet versus 35 feet. The maximum height of the R-8 zone is two (2) stories/thirty feet(30')in height. Future development in the proposal area could result in light and glare or view impacts depending on the design and materials of the buildings. Unlike the general CA zone, the proposed development agreement as mitigated would not allow the possibility to increase heights by conditional use permit. Future development proposals will be subject to Site Plan, and environmental review requirements, as applicable. As described above, the Site Plan Review Ordinance includes review criteria address a variety of concerns including size, bulk, height, and intensity, or site layout, transitions and linkage between uses, screening, and several other issues. Also, buffering is required in the CA zone and development agreement where commercial uses abut residentially zoned properties. The development agreement will be subject to a public hearing, and will require review and adoption by the City Council. The development agreement could be amended through this process. Any change must be consistent with the CA zone, but may be more restrictive. Mitigation Measures: 1. Reduce height to 35 feet to mitigate potential light/glare or view impacts on adjacent single family uses. 2. For the Taco Time properties and adjacent three lots, and the four vacant properties east of the market and barbershop, King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900195, 5126900200, 5126900205, 5126900211 5126900215, 5126900324, 5126900325, 512690328, 5126900329, and 1623059017, require site plan review for any size development or redevelopment of properties re-designated EAC/CA. Site plan review will be required for other properties redesignated EAC/CA according to Renton Municipal Code thresholds. 3. Require a 6 foot wall in addition to required 10 foot landscaped setbacks where properties re-designated EAC/CA abut residential zoned properties. ERC98M4.DOC City of Rentori PB/PWDepartment E mental Review Committee StaffReport ale Valley Highway Taco Time Site LUA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF May 5,1998 Page 7 of 8 4. Require site obscuring landscaping where properties re-designated EAC/CA are adjacent to residentially zoned properties, except adjacent to Maplewood Park where modifications to sight obscuring landscaping should be allowed to ensure adequate visibility for purposes of public safety. 5. For the Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop properties, King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900326 and 5126900327, proposed developments which meet current SEPA threshold requirements are to trigger imposition of mitigation measures 3 and 4. Nexus: Environmental Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-37,LU-38,LU-39 (Residential Policies)Policy LU- 174 and LU-175 (Employment Area Commercial Policies). 14. Transportation Impacts: The subject area is served primarily by Maple Valley Highway. Local access streets include Monroe Avenue SE, Maplewood Place SE, and SE 6th Street. Bus service is available on Maple Valley Highway generally. As the proposal is a non-project action, the future number of parking spaces or required street improvements is unknown. Analysis of potential transportation impacts would occur at a project-specific level. No comments have been received from the Plan Review or Transportation Systems Divisions. Future site-specific developments will be subject to the Environmental (SEPA) Ordinance, Commute Trip Reduction Ordinance, Street Improvements Ordinance, Transportation Concurrency regulations, Parking and Loading Code and others, as applicable. As noted above, the Site Plan Review Ordinance also address site access and parking issues. To address concerns about access to Newport Ave. SE./SE 6th if the three residential lots are redesiganted to EAC/CA, a mitigation measure is proposed to limit access on those lots. Mitigation Measures: 1. Access for the three lots proposed for re-designation from Single Family/R-8 to EAC/CA , King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900195, 5126900200, 5126900205, to be through the existing or future Taco Time development,not from Newport Ave SE.( SE 6th St.). Nexus: Environmental Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-170, LU-181 (Employment Area Commercial Policies). 15, 16 Public Services/Utilities Impacts: At a plan level, no impacts are anticipated as a result of the non-project action. Future site specific proposals may require increased services. Utilities are available in the subject area. The Plan Review Division, Fire Department, Parks Department,Water and Sewer Divisions, Construction Services. The Airport Manager indicates the area is within 14,000 feet of the Airport, but did not identify a concern. The Police Department indicates there would be minimal impacts to police services. Future site-specific proposals would be subject to Environmental (SEPA) Ordinance, Uniform Fire Code, as well as any requirements for mitigation fees,utility requirements, and others, as applicable. Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation measures are proposed for the non-project action. Nexus: Non-applicable. ERC98M4.DOC City of Renton PB/PWDepartment F Inmental Review Committee Staff Report Maple Valley Highway Taco Time Site LUA-98-042, CPA,R,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF May 5,1998 Page 8 of 8 E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable,these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report Environmental Determination Comment Process Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM May 25, 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee 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 time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination,then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. If an appeal of the environmental determination is also filed with the Hearing Examiner during the same 15-day comment period, then the Environmental Review Committee will first take action on the request for reconsideration and the appellant will be notified that the appeal is on hold pending the Committee's decision on the reconsideration request. The City will notify the appellant/person requesting reconsideration and parties of record and the Hearing Examiner of the Environmental Review Committee's final determination. The appeal process will then be continued unless the appellant notifies the Hearing Examiner in writing that he wishes to withdraw the appeal. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM May 25, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-235-2501. ERC98M4.DOC r Tr J SE 5th St tit** INit/ 1,11 e SE 04 ilp 4 0,.. Q o.. O H8j lo. NANW r` 7 unde study 411PPP: 'L../ 0 •o N. 111411P ***/ 0 ,150 30 e ' v.,,,,,,::•:-. Study Area ( 98 —M -- 4) f CC zone - commercial use I / /Gt 0 Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning R-8 zone - commercial use ED/N/SP I R-8 zone - residential use o T. A chile19pp98 R. MacOnie ammo* 8 Parcels considered for redesignation Additional parcels under study (R-8) L q8-o4z Maplewood Community - Preservation Group. 3110 SE 5th St, Renton, Wa 98058 RECEI V March 31st 1998 APR 9 1998 City of Renton Planning Commission ECONOMIC DEVE- Commission Member Mr Brosman.NEIGH9ORu;,_ Renton City Hall ANC)STRATEG+: 200 Mill Ave South Renton WA 98055 Ref: Taco Time's Corporate Office, parking and office expansion. Oct 6/97 council meeting. Ref: City sponsored CPA rezone application. Neighborhoods & strategic planning department: City initiated CPA. 3/23/9 Dear Mr Brosman, It has come to the attention of this community, that the Corporation Known as Taco Time, has submitted a petition to the Renton Planning and Development Commission. This petition is asking for approval to rezone three residential lots to 'Commercial Arterial.' This community is outraged by this proposal. Taco Time Corporate Offices: located at 3300 Maple Valley Hwy, Renton, is built on property that was previously owned by John Dobson. Taco Time have a lease option to buy, many residential properties in this community, all of them owned by John Dobson. The three lots mentioned above, are included in this lease option. Maplewood residential community is unique. Because of its geographical location it has remained essentially unchanged in the last 53 years. Also, Renton City Council recognized the surrounding areas as environmentally sensitive, and designated them, RC (resource conservation zone). Please see Comprehensive Plan Map, #F5 attached. Maplewood community is not going to benefit in any way from this commercialization; we will however suffer adverse impacts. The residential properties which Taco Time wishes to commercialize, face onto the residential neighborhood. This is an unwanted intrusion esthetically, and will devalue property. These proposals, If they are allowed to proceed, will be the beginning of a slow process of decay of this community. In reference to the proposed zoning- CA, this is primarily oriented to automobile traffic along designated MAJOR arterial streets. The streets onto which the commercial property would exit are 'no-through streets', and are therefore in use solely by neighborhood traffic. Maplewood Community wishes to make known its objection to the above proposal to commercialize residential property in a neighborhood which is 99.9% residential. This area is also surrounded by 'Resource Conservation zones, and much of the adjacent acreage has been purchased by the City for preservation as 'Open Space.' We appreciate your careful consideration of the above. Residents of the Maplewood Community will be following this issue very closely, and we will be represented at every opportunity to voice our objections. Future communications will include a petition, which will be presented at the appropriate time. Sincerely SA332 r A I 57- r_ 3s/ Cam"7)7 j.SLc Repre entatives of the Maplewood p, — Community Phone: Nicola Robinson, 255-5160 Request 4/13/98 from Ms. Robinson to provide copies to the Environmental Review Committee. 6 r Ilit J SE 5th St ft" IIti"tip :0PrAilli S. E. ttei a. 0 L. lip 0 411P\4. of/ A// 1/J/ * *--: .* :.. \\ 4/ * 4./ . . 44111111\9 a 1 itAp0Lov.416..06 150' 30I 1 : .ate .... Stud Area ( 98 —M - 4)y l I CC zone - commercial use qS o Nei hborhoods & Strategic Planningg I / / A R-8 zone - commercial use D/N/SP s, T. Schhlepp, R. IfacOnie 1 R-8 zone - residential use March 16, 1998 Page 2 development in Area A and to reconcile the existing development outside Area A with potential zoning consistent with the land use designation. . Rather than a concurrent rezone, as occurs with Land Use Map amendments within the city limits, a prezone of the same area will be processed concurrent to this amendment. COR zoning is proposed, consistent with the proposed land use designation. The prezone process allows the City Council to adopt City zoning for areas outside the city limits. Renton zoning designations would not be implemented until the area annexes. AMENDMENT 98-M-3 - Rainier Avenue North The City has requested an amendment to the Land Use Map with a concurrent rezone for an area along Rainier Avenue N. The proposal would change the Residential Single Family (RS) land use and R-8 zoning designations to Employment Area-Commercial (EAC) and Commercial Arterial (CA). The site is comprised of three parcels which total about three acres in size. The parcels are surrounded by single family uses to the north and west, and CA zoning to the south. AMENDMENT 98-M-4 -Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time Site The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial (CC)around the 3300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway, properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single Family (RS), and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residential Single Family (RS). The proposal would: Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Convenience Commercial (CC) and Residential Single Family (RS) to Employment Area- Commercial (EA-C). Amend the Zoning Map concurrently from Convenience Commercial (CC) and Residential-8 R-8)to Arterial Commercial (CA). Amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for accessory storage for permitted service and office uses, and allow for offices. Authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area which accommodates existing uses and future expansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA zone which are too intensive for the area. AMENDMENT 98-M-6 - "Ruth 4 To 1" Urban Growth Boundary Amendment This proposal involves two components. First, amending the Urban Growth Boundary to include an irregularly shaped 4 acre site located on the south side of SE Lake Youngs Way between 137th AvenueSE,if extended,and 139th Avenue SE, if extended, in the area between Soos Creek and the Lake Youngswatershed. Since the site is on the east side of Soos Creek it would remain in Renton's Potential Annexation Area. Second, amending Renton's Comprehensive Plan to .reflect this new addition to Renton's PAA and designating it under Renton's Comprehensive Plan as Residential Single Family. The County has proposed designating the site Urban on their Comprehensive Plan and rezoning it to R-6-P. Tidi t ar R., t C , 1,4_ --R_- I.- j NE 4th St. \-1 R-8 / / FARM—I MCA cA 3cas Q R—1 0 R-10 0 RM—I NE IL(P) 8 RMH r ch RM':-1 c, R-8 E C RC 69 t 80R a.4,s. i R._ RCCP) a 8 dklip •/6-; 7 RC Q c ' ,.... J; R •- •8 8 G5 - 21 T23N R5E W 1/2 2_2 4 0 T 5iYO 1:4000 r ZONING R 4 p CAL SERVICE'S 16 T23N R5E W 1/2 r 4'NT° Z oui6/ss October 6 1997 Renton City Council Minutes Page 322 believed that Renton taxpayers will ultimately benefit by it, she remained concerned with how this change was brought forth outside the budget cycle. She felt that a transcript would aid in recounting the department's objectives and revenue projections. Mayor Tanner accepted responsibility for proposing the reorganization outside of the budget cycle. Saying that he, too, will hold the new department to a high level of accountability, he added that he would not have brought this proposal to Council if he thought it would not be successful. Councilman Parker said while he appreciated Mrs. Keolker-Wheeler's comments, he believed the cost of creating the new department was small compared to the benefits citizens will receive when Renton's economic base is strengthened. Community Services Community Services Committee Chair Nelson presented a report Committee recommending concurrence in the Mayor's appointment of James Jolly and Appointment: Board of Ralph Evans, each to the Board of Adjustment for a four-year term expiring Adjustment September 6, 2001 (position numbers 5 and 6, respectively). MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Transportation (Aviation) Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chair Corman presented a report Com____ mitteee recommending that the Council approve the Renton Municipal Airport Master Airport: Master Plan Plan Update, dated August 1997. The Committee further recommended that a Update resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 323 for resolution.) Planning & Development Planning & Development Committee Chair Schlitzer presented a report Committees regarding Taco Time's Corporate Office parking and office expansion. The Rezone: Taco Time Convenience Commercial (CC) zone would not accommodate future expansion Headquarters to CC of Taco Time Headquarters. A regional use of this size is not anticipated in Maple Valley Hwy) the zone since its primary purpose is to provide small scale neighborhood serving uses. Taco Time's office and parking expansion would require a code amendment to the CC zone regulations or a Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA)/concurrent rezone to a different designation such as the Commercial Arterial (CA) or Commercial Office (CO) district. To avoid concerns with setting a precedent, and potentially allowing strip commercial development with a wide variety of possible uses, the Committee concurred with the.: Administration's recommendation that: The City should sponsor a CPA/rezone application with an associated development agreement. The preferred Comprehensive Plan designation would be Employment Area-Commercial (EAC). The matching zoning district would be CA. The CPA/rezone should consider the inclusion of the nearby nonconforming food market currently zoned Residential-8 DU/AC (R- 8), and potentially other properties next to the CC zone which are under common ownership. The City should allow continued informal use of the unimproved parking area east of Taco Time offices if there is active pursuit of thenecessaryapprovalsanddevelopmentagreementtoallowtheexpanded use and parking area by the property owner or their designee. October 6. 1997 Renton City Council Minutes Page 323 MOVED BY SCHL1TZER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* Responding to Councilman Corman, Planning & Technical Services Director Mike Kattermann said that the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, initiated during the first quarter of the year, come before Council during the second or third quarter. He stated that surrounding property owners would be notified of the proposed changes, and the Planning Commission will hold the necessary public hearings. MOTION CARRIED. Utilities Committee Utilities Committee Chair Clawson presented a report recommending Utilities: Soos Creek Water concurrence in staff's recommendation that Council approve the interlocal Sewer District agreement with Soos Creek Water and Sewer District for revision of our Agreement re Service mutual sewer and water boundaries. The Committee further recommended Boundaries, CAG-97- that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See below for resolution.) CAG: 97-137, 1997 Utilities Committee Chair Clawson presented a report recommending Sanitary Sewer Main concurrence in the staff's recommendation to award the 1997 Sewer Main Rehab, Insituform West,Rehabilitation construction contract to Insituform West, Inc. The Committee Inc. further recommended that Council authorize the transfer of $50,000 from the Miscellaneous Sewer Projects account to the Sewer Main Rehabilitation Project. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. ORDINANCES AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: RESOLUTIONS Resolution #3285 A resolution was read approving and adopting the Renton Municipal.Airport Airport: Master Plan Master COUNCILnADOPT THEOVED BY SCHLITZER, RESORESOLUTION AS PRESENTNDD BYTEDE CORMAN, CARRIEED Update Resolution #3286 A resolution was read setting a hearing date on October 27, 1997, for vacating Vacation: SW 16th St, a portion of SW 16th St. and Monster Rd. SW between SW Grady Way and SW Schober/VAC-97-003) Jackson St. SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL MOVED ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Resolution #3287 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Utilities: Soos Creek Water interlocal agreement with the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District to modify Sewer District the interlocal agreement between the City and the district related to Agreement re Service establishment of service boundaries. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED Boundaries, CAG-97- BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 10/13/97 for second and final reading: Vacation: SE 5th St An ordinance was read vacating a portion of SE 5th St., north of Maple Orff/VAC-97-004) Valley Hwy. (Bruce Orff/VAC-97-004). MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10/13/97. CARRIED. K Cif] ?enton Department of Planning/Building/I : Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: AtrpolA" COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 20, 1998 APPLICATION NC : LUA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 07, 1998 APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: LISA GRUETER PROJECT TITLE: Taco Time CPA/Rezone WORK ORDER NO: 78357 LOCATION: Norte side of Maple Valley Highway(3300 and 3400 block) SITE AREA: Appr)x. 3.05 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PF OPOSAL: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial CC) around the 3 i00 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ov\nership and currently designated Residential Single-Family (RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS). The proposal would 1) amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map from CC and RS to Employment Area-Commercial (EA-C); 2) amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8 R-8)to Arterial Cc mmercial (CA); 3) amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for permitted service and office uses, ar d allow for offices; and 4) authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area which accommodz tes existing uses and future expansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA: one which are too intensive for the area. Under study for potential commercial designation are four parcels adjacent to the Ce ear River Market on SE 6th Street which, prior to 1993, had a commercial zoning (B-1), but which were redesignated in 19 33 to Residential Single-Family(RS)/R-8. Staff does not support a commercial designation at this time, pending additional analysis and public input. A. ENVIRONME NTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA I-ED COMMENTS We have reviewed thi application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional inforr iatio.is needed to properly assess this proposal. 1 0 W• , .0 Signature o erector cr Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DO'Rev.10/93 City or rcenton Department of Planning/Building/Pam_,, Works ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPf.RTMENT: >1 COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 20, 1998 APPLICATION NO LUA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 07, 1998 APPLICANT: City )f Renton PROJECT MANAGER: LISA GRUETER PROJECT TITLE: Taco Time CPA/Rezone WORK ORDER NO: 78357 LOCATION: North side of Maple Valley Highway(3300 and 3400 block) SITE AREA: Apprix. 3.05 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PR DPOSAL: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial CC)around the 3300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS). The proposal would 1) amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map from CC and RS to Employment Area-Commercial (EA-C); 2)amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8 R-8)to Arterial Cc mmercial (CA); 3) amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for permitted service and office uses, ar d allow for offices; and 4) authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area which accommodates existing uses and future expansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA;:one which are too intensive for the area. Under study for potential commercial designation are four parcels adjacent to the Cedar River Market on SE 6th Street which, prior to 1993, had a commercial zoning (B-1), but which were redesignated in 1993 to Residential Single-Family(RS)/R-8. Staff does not support a commercial designation at this time, pending additional analysis and public input. A. ENVIRONME NTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/Historic./Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet ju/Lie 67../it /2.0 1- Z) 1C1):/i/ B. POLICY-RE,11 TED COMMENTS Int/be- CVa //q) 44-- C. CODE-RELITED COMMENTS\-- DZLJ 40 We have reviewed Geis application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas o probable impact or areas where d itional info°rnation is n ed to properly assess this proposal t. Slgna ure o-Duector o onzed Representative Da DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 ii.E g City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works NpRO N F/ ENVIROI 'MENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW'S,* #4p7-1 '4 Li REVIEWING DERkRTMENT: B , U4 -tlIT,/1_ COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 20, 1998 1 0 1998 APPLICATION NC LUA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 07, 1998 4 APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: LISA GRUETER PROJECT TITLE: Taco Time CPA/Rezone WORK ORDER NO: 78357 LOCATION: North side of Maple Valley Highway(3300 and 3400 block) SITE AREA: Approx. 3.05 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial CC)around the 3300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS). The proposal would 1) amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map from CC and RS to Employment Area-Commercial (EA-C); 2) amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8 R-8)to Arterial Cc mmercial (CA); 3)amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for permitted service and office uses, ar d allow for offices; and 4)authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area which accommodates existing uses and future expansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA zone which are too intensive for the area. Under study for potential commercial designation are four parcels adjacent to the Cedar River Market on SE 6th Street which, prior to 1993, had a commercial zoning (B-1), but which were I redesignated in 19.)3 to Residential Single-Family(RS)/R-8. Staff does not support a commercial designation at this time, pending additional analysis and public input. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Wafer Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet A B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS / ' 4 C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have revieed thl 3 application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where ad itiontal infoniation is needed to pro.=fly assess this proposal, Y/i 0 f' Signature of Director or Authorized Representati, Date DEVAPP.DdE Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEP,\RTMENT: 1::%\r‘t -w ear COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 20, 1998 APPLICATION NC: LUA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 07, 1998 APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: LISA GRUETER PROJECT TITLE: Taco Time CPA/Rezone WORK ORDER NO: 78357 LOCATION: Nord side of Maple Valley Highway(3300 and 3400 block) SITE AREA: Approx. 3.05 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A APR 1 4 1998 SUMMARY OF PF OPOSAL: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated,QeY pierce Commercial r CC)around the 3 00 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate o s J4ftiiciH46 .. under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop ::urrently designated Residential Single-Family(RS). The proposal would 1) amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map from CC and RS to Employment Area-Commercial (EA-C); 2)amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8 R-8)to Arterial Cr:immercial (CA); 3)amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for permitted service and office uses, al d allow for offices; and 4)authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area which accommodates existing uses and future expansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA zone which are too intensive for the area. Under study for potential commercial designation are four parcels adjacent to the Cedar River Market on SE 6th Street which, prior to 1993, had a commercial zoning (B-1), but which were redesignated in 1E 93 to Residential Single-Family(RS)/R-8. Staff does not support a commercial designation at this time, pending additional analysis and public input. A. ENVIRONMI`'NTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts impacts Necessary impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS CITY OP RENTON APR 14 1998 buiLyilvo DIVISION C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS 144 1vl>°GI/ We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional info oration is needed to property assess this proposal. cip 11.14 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 g City or Kenton Department of Planning/Building/Puy'', Works ENVIROA MENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEP1 RTMENT: —jvbytsfo'' COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 20, 1t98 APPLICATION NO LUA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 07, 1998/ 1,e. APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: LISA GRUETERC PROJECT TITLE: Taco Time CPA/Rezone WORK ORDER NO: 78357 4p, LOCATION: North side of Maple Valley Highway(3300 and 3400 block) it 4 SITE AREA: Apprpx. 3.05 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A C4. SUMMARY OF PR OPOSAL: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial CC)around the 3300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS). The proposal would 1) amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map from CC and RS to Employment Area-Commercial (EA-C); 2)amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8 R-8)to Arterial Commercial (CA); 3)amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for permitted service and office uses, ar d allow for offices; and 4) authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area which accommodz tes existing uses and future expansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA;:one which are too intensive for the area. Under study for potential commercial des' ation are four parcels adjacent to the Cellar River Market on SE 6th Street which, prior to 1993, had a commercial zoning (B hich were redesignated in 19 3 to Residential Single-Family(RS)/R-8. Staff does not support a commercial designa io c time, pending additional analysis and public input. t' F,4 0, i. n. A. ENVIRONME NTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS APR 0 J roN ' v`' Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probabiel able 1` Wbre Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor ./ ` Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts RRIIrrpa frj Llecessary Earth Housing L/mil Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation LandrShoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/Historic./Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RE,ATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS v < t ,,.r,(7ekj0 We have reviewed tl!is application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional info matron is needed to)o/prrop erty assess this proposal. I)ii/ Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City __ __enton Department of Planning/Building/Fes.., Works ENV/ROP MENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEP/ RTMENT: G ivf I Wa sro COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 20, 1998 APPLICATION NC LUA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 07, 1998 APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: LISA GRUETER th 4/ PROJECT TITLE: Taco Time CPA/Rezone WORK ORDER NO: 78357 1 LOCATION: Nortt side of Maple Valley Highway(3300 and 3400 block) SITE AREA: Appr)x. 3.05 acres l BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PF OPOSAL: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial CC) around the 3:300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ovrnership and currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS). The proposal would 1) amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map from CC and RS to Employment Area-Commercial (EA-C); 2)amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8 R-8)to Arterial Commercial (CA); 3)amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for permitted service and office uses, arid allow for offices; and 4) authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area which accommoth tes existing uses and future expansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA.!one which are too intensive for the area. Under study for potential commercial designation are four parcels adjacent to the Ce iar River Market on SE 6th Street which, prior to 1993, had a commercial zoning (B-1), but which were redesignated in 1933 to Residential Single-Family(RS)/R-8. Staff does not support a commercial designation at this time, pending additional analysis and public input. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Alr Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RE ATED COMMENTS C. CODE-REL TED COMMENTS We have reviewed t lis application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. A f l l c/g Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City,,, ,,enton Department of Planning/Building/Fuum.;Works ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: isINCOMMENTS DUE: APRIL 20, 1998 4-co APPLICATION NO LUA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 07, 1998 NqS APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: LISA GRUETER • PROJECT TITLE: Taco Time CPA/Rezone WORK ORDER NO: 78357 LOCATION: North side of Maple Valley Highway (3300 and 3400 block) aJ SITE AREA: Apprc x. 3.05 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PR)POSAL: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial CC) around the 3300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS). The proposal would 1) amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map from CC and RS to Employment Area-Commercial (EA-C); 2) amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8 R-8)to Arterial Commercial (CA); 3) amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for permitted service and office uses, an,1 allow for offices; and 4) authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area which accommodal es existing uses and future expansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA z 3ne which are too intensive for the area. Under study for potential commercial designation are four parcels adjacent to the Cec ar River Market on SE 6th Street which, prior to 1993, had a commercial zoning (B-1), but which were redesignated in 195.3 to Residential Single-Family(RS)/R-8. Staff does not support a commercial designation at this time, pending additional analysis and public input. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS k/61 V C. CODE-RELA7 ED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where addigonal information is needed to property assess this proposal. Wld Si ture of Directo r Authorizenepre—seWativr Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 g City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL 8, DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: bk.1 c e COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 20, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 07, 1998 APPLICANT: City cf Renton PROJECT MANAGER: LISA GRUETER PROJECT TITLE: 1 aco Time CPA/Rezone WORK ORDER NO: 78357 LOCATION: North side of Maple Valley Highway (3300 and 3400 block) SITE AREA: Approx. 3.05 acres 1 BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial CC)around the 3300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single-Family (RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS). The proposal would 1) amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map from CC and RS to Employment Area-Commercial (EA-C); 2) amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8 R-8)to Arterial Cor imercial (CA); 3) amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for permitted service and office uses, anc allow for offices; and 4) authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area which accommodates existing uses and future expansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA zone which are too intensive for the area. Under study for potential commercial designation are four parcels adjacent to the Cedar River Market on SE 6th Street which, prior to 1993, had a commercial zoning (B-1), but which were redesignated in 1993 to Residential Single-Family(RS)/R-8. Staff does not support a commercial designation at this time, pending additional analysis and public input. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Wafer Light/Glare Plants Recreation LancVShoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services i Energy/Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 77,x thof in yo2rcea, „Q7il trc B. POLICY-REEL TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELAT ED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additiioo al inform+tion is needed to property assess is proposal. q Signature ofiDirector or 4uthorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City gilthton Department of Planning/Building/Pubh orks ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEP,ARTMENT:"T'vux'ta a-v-a„. COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 20, 1998 APPLICATION NC LUA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 07, 1998 APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: LISA GRUETER iY OF RENTON PrrTnirn PROJECT TITLE: Taco Time CPA/Rezone WORK ORDER NO: 78357 LOCATION: North side of Maple Valley Highway(3300 and 3400 block) APR 0 7 1998 SITE AREA: Appr,ix. 3.05 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A 01LILl1lVa4 Lit V _ALIN SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial CC) around the 300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop curren ly designated Residential Single-Family(RS). The proposal would 1) amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map from CC and RS to Emr loyment Area-Commercial (EA-C); 2) amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8 (R-*)to Arterial Commerci I (CA); 3) amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for permitted service and office uses, and allow for offices; and 4) authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area which accommodates exi>ting uses and future expansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA 2 one which are too intensive for the area. A. ENVIRONMEVTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA;ED COMMENTS o COw1141{a We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional inform ation is needed to properly assess this proposal. io tag 14171/4 t Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City oflfon Department of Planning/Building/PublicENVIRONMENTAL8, DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPAR' MENT: CAVbIVuc..{16Vt ,NtC.C.6 COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 20, 1998 APPLICATION NO: L'JA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 07, 1998 APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: LISA GRUET or RENTONPROJECTTITLE: Tal.:o Time CPA/Rezone WORK ORDER NO: 78357 lamcr!,FAVFn LOCATION: North sice of Maple Valley Highway(3300 and 3400 block) AM 07 1998 SITE AREA: Approx. :3.05 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A IDSUMMARYOFPROP )SAL: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currentlydesi t td iivili Convenience C VISION CC) around the 300 a id 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco ime corporate offices which are under)common ownership and currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar RiverBarbershopcurrentlydesignatedResidentialSingle-Family(RS). The proposal would 1) amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map fromCCandRStoEmploymentArea-Commercial (EA-C); 2) amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8 (R*)toArterialCommercial (C A); 3)amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for permitted service and officeuses, and allow for offi :es; and 4) authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area whichaccommodatesexistincusesandfutureexpansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normallyallowedintheCAzonewhicharetoointensiveforthearea. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probableble MoreEnvironmentMinorMajorInformationEnvironmentMinorMajorInformationImpactsNecessaryImpactsImpactsNecessaryEarth Air Housing Water Aesthetics Plants Light/Glare Land/Shoreline Use Recreation Animals Utilities Environmental Health Transportation Energy/Public Services Natural Resources HisforIc/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS 2n C. CODE-RELATED C)MMENTS V y- I t,fM-l z-tali' We have reviewed this applic6 ion with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areaswhereadditionalinformation isis 7eeded to properly assess this proposal. Signature ' Ll'L 1 ' ` 74/7 XYgeofDirectortarAuthorizedRepresentativeDateDEVAPP.DOC Rev 10/93 City o. ..-1ton Department of Planning/Building/Puotic Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: awl Wa,sie j COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 20, 1998 APPLICATION NO: L UA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 07, 1998 '%ITY OF RENTON APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: LISA GRUETER PROJECT TITLE: Taco Time CPA/Rezone WORK ORDER NO: 78357 APRQ / 19 8 LOCATION: North side of Maple Valley Highway(3300 and 3400 block) SITE AREA: Approx. 3.05 acres ciuiLLANG DIVISIONIBUILDINGAREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience CommercialCC) around the 300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are undercommonownershipandcurrentlydesignatedResidentialSingle-Family(RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar RiverBarbershopcurrentlydesignatedResidentialSingle-Family(RS). The proposal would 1) amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map fromCCandRStoEmploymentArea-Commercial (EA-C); 2) amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8 (R-•)toArterialCommercial (C A); 3)amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for permitted service and officeuses, and allow for offi;es; and 4) authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area whichaccommodatesexisting? uses and future expansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normallyallowedintheCAzonewhicharetoointensiveforthearea. A. ENVIRONMENT. L IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of theEnvironmentMinorMajorMinornorble Major MoreIInformationEnvironmentImpactsImpactsNecessaryImpacts Major NecessaryynEarthPImpactsNecessary Air Housing Water Aesthetics Plants Light/Glare Land/Shoreline Use Recreation UtilitiesAnimals Environmental Health Transportation Public ServicesEnergy/ Historic/CulturalNaturalResources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this applic-ion with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areaswhereadditionalinformationisieededtoproperlyassessthisproposal. r-j 1.1,/y !a 7/et 8SignatureofDirectororAuthoriredRepresentative DateDEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 PNTONFPP / )T! D rpT RF_A(rCityo. ..-.)ton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works 1 ( QENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW $/MEET REVIEWING DEPAR(WENT: ft P A/a COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 20, 1998 ^''"L.® Vet) APPLICATION NO: I.UA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 07, 1998 APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: LISA GRUETER PROJECT TITLE: Taco Time CPA/Rezone WORK ORDER NO: 78357 LOCATION: North side of Maple Valley Highway(3300 and 3400 block) SITE AREA: Approx. 3.05 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience CommercialCC)around the 300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are undercommonownershipandcurrentlydesignatedResidentialSingle-Family(RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar RiverBarbershopcurrentlyc'esignated Residential Single-Family(RS). The proposal would 1) amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map fromCCandRStoEmployventArea-Commercial (EA-C); 2)amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8 (R*)toArterialCommercial (C A); 3) amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for permitted service and officeuses, and allow for offi;es; and 4) authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area whichaccommodatesexistinlusesandfutureexpansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normallyallowedintheCAzonewhicharetoointensiveforthearea. A. ENVIRONMENT,L IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of theEnvironmentMinorMajorInformation Minornrble Major More Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Impacts Im par NecessaryEarthImpacts Necessary Air Housing Water Aesthetics Plants LighVGlare Land/Shoreline Use Recreation UtilitiesAnimals Environmental Health Transportation Energy/Public Services Natural Resources Historic./Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 10 B. POLICY-RELATEL COMMENTS 10 4- C. CODE-RELATED C DMMENTS We have revieyred this applici tion with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areaswhereaddibbnblinformationitOededtoproperlyassessthisproposal. F79rSignatureofDirectororAuthorizeRepresentativeDateDEVAPP.DOC V Rev 10/93 City o, ,.. ,ton Department of Planning/Building/Public WorksENVIRONMENTAL8DEVELOPMENTAPPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARWENT: p`zoh Review_WeLITL ., COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 20, 1998 APPLICATION NO: I UA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 07, 1998 APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: LISA GRUETER PROJECT TITLE: Taco Time CPA/Rezone WORK ORDER NO: 78357 LOCATION: North side of Maple Valley Highway(3300 and 3400 block) SITE AREA: Approx. 3.05 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROP DSAL: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience CommercialCC) around the 300 a nd 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are undercommonownershipandcurrentlydesignatedResidentialSingle-Family(RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar RiverBarbershopcurrentlydesignatedResidentialSingle-Family(RS). The proposal would 1) amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map fromCCandRStoEmployrentArea-Commercial (EA-C); 2) amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8 (R*)toArterialCommercial (C A); 3) amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for permitted service and officeuses, and allow for off:es; and 4)authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area whichaccommodatesexistin3usesandfutureexpansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normallyallowedintheCAzonewhicharetoointensiveforthearea. A. ENVIRONMENT)L IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probableble MoreEnvironmentMinorMajorInformationEnvironmentMinorMajorInformationImpactsNecessaryImpactsImpactsNecessaryEarth Air Housing Water Aesthetics Plants Light/Glare Land/Shoreline Use Recreation Animals Utilities Environmental Health Transportation Energy/Public Services Natural Resources Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATE( COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED C DMMENTS We have reviewed this applic,lion with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areaswhereadditionalinformationisneededtoproperlyassessthisproposal. t Signature of Director or Author zed Representative DateDEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City o. .,.,1ton Department of Planning/Building/Public WorksENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: kV- OV r COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 20, 1998 APPLICATION NO: I.UA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 07, 1998 APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: LISA GRUETER PROJECT TITLE: Taco Time CPA/Rezone WORK ORDER NO: 78357 LOCATION: North side of Maple Valley Highway(3300 and 3400 block) SITE AREA: Approx. 3.05 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience CommercialCC) around the 300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are undercommonownershipandcurrentlydesignatedResidentialSingle-Family(RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar RiverBarbershopcurrentlydesignatedResidentialSingle-Family(RS). The proposal would 1) amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map fromCCandRStoEmployrentArea-Commercial (EA-C); 2)amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8 (R-•)toArterialCommercial (C A); 3)amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for permitted service and officeuses, and allow for off yes; and 4) authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area whichaccommodatesexistin; uses and future expansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normallyallowedintheCAzonewhicharetoointensiveforthearea. A. ENVIRONMENT)-L IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of theEnvironmentMinorMajorInformation Minornorble Major More Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Impacts Impacts NecessaryEarthImpacts Necessary Air Housing Water Aesthetics Plants Light/Glare Land/Shoreline Use Recreation Animals Utilities Environmental Health Transportation Energy/Public Services Natural ResourcesHistoric/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 11 0 14,000 Feet af, y ES B. POLICY-RELATEL COMMENTS NoK C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS NoI.FL. We have reviewed this applic,rtion with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areaswhereaddi" al informatio is eeded to properly assess this proposal. 424 etei.z.eSignatureofrectororAuthorRepresentative e ` " q O DateDEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 1----___-:-.11.::-__JI__‘," gi • ----, it ff i . , ,_W.:;„6-612d, , 6;' ; ----Ir— \‘‘ A E a91,1, EfE:fe:::::::::::::::::Ef:-.:-:::::K.E:H:E.--]::::-:_:::::::::::::-.. 4\75 _-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::_ H-Z: - %air t J!_'___ _- ---'- - - T---_ - _ - - - 1 DWI 1`i 1 _% 1. . sa _== -__-=-_________________ =____=_=___ - __ ::i si, 1° illiptal 1. ley Niiii 7_- Z__L4Yt_t_Y_ _ _l'tJt']`JS'l_t11S_'_I r .-• - ii,1 1. n• 1==-_H _= k` rmil_-_ __---_--____ _-__ --- 45 j -- Y 1,11 r kii,„ d .•-/ ODD t„th..,,,,,,.,„ p% L b 11411§1r.,, . I N:A i.4,9., ilji.„(0„,..26 1.1 bit .$dorsmeNs rarc1 ®lam © [1l 1 Q • n lk ,IV'i I I©lam ,tee Of tr i r . ."/. ililli r''. . .. I L 111_ l W% es• .. on kW CAM 1. PI (::: ),_ I I no.r -CMW,1g[it lia . r 1 I44/ P-I I 1 'iQ "7,-. i i, d c„,,,dt, 4 E=1 ' ("Ed ' it.-rt:.--A-- 11' . jr-2.„ Ilan jl. g_-•, 1-. r-kQ_ t--..: l.Y® \, y. Ilw. 1 :2? : i iJ1 t- tir.i, IPb 1,/ 1i114 I,1t11,i. is ,r•a. 2.iIt. ig,_ _.....„„1„,„1,00.1,Nlid,,LIO, ittmiiipt, ._44 _ P-1 il`'nab 1 I j ,` Ili.1T/12 .. m I ,.. ____., .... 1: 1 / 04.! 11 11, r,, ,,,,,_ .4021in\ ": • P‘'. 11-0 t--Pil". .., '"'' AifilArP.A.ikrIP '`.1 ._. 4112,,,...N4 r4_).....14,x...odd* -!- Itifatt,iir s., [111.--;12-mr . 1 ------ ?c A.,r,04: 1 ( ._I"A — ii4 AlthiN: to.\"". ci"M7a: 0.41/41_irtiskIT'A, le8,, 1141141411 g . . .'igh .\;- 1''' yr11,t 64611LEI!ifillP.,.ii:, .', 17. 1 17/ 2I '31' ' CA "WY° '*" " IL 6,"1"143.° 1z Ei;i5jeon, Ete V.;1: ilii.0 061.... 11•.A . 11-' Ill "I:\ 4/ 1184, 41f*P'') A.,,,,,,q,„%. 11%-: , I 4411014, ... 4iiVil1I Cr3 01 CO r, 0 nor ii....... .. lir .<:. .--1-1_.' - AA...,, ft-Aiter,,, -P-R- 7 r ERII, r Ilal al-11L- 14.k. co a. 1 rinr ur. A In I, 1t0 IL___(-11rsa71 wry 74 qui - 041 4 ,4_1: .0- ', ‘111114-1111 7 1 6DP cCrejl t i 11 ti T / . I - 1^ 7 az a City of......ton Department of Planning/Building/Public WorksENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Poktcc'COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 20, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 07, 1998 APPLICANT: City of Denton PROJECT MANAGER: LISA GRUETER PROJECT TITLE: Ta:o Time CPA/Rezone WORK ORDER NO: 78357 LOCATION: North side of Maple Valley Highway(3300 and 3400 block) SITE AREA: Approx. 3.05 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPJSAL: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience CommercialCC)around the 300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are undercommonownershipardcurrentlydesignatedResidentialSingle-Family(RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar RiverBarbershopcurrentlycesignatedResidentialSingle-Family(RS). The proposal would 1) amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map fromCCandRStoEmployrentArea-Commercial (EA-C); 2) amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8 (R-*)toArterialCommercial (C A); 3) amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for permitted service and officeuses, and allow for off ces; and 4)authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area whichaccommodatesexistinIusesandfutureexpansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normallyallowedintheCAzonewhicharetoointensiveforthearea. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of theEnvironmentMinorMajorInformation Minornorble Major More Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Impacts Impacts NecessaryEarthImpacts Necessary Air Housing Water Aesthetics Plants LighVGlare Land/Shoreline Use Recreation Animals Utilities Environmental Health Transportation Energy/Public Services Natural Resources Historir/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet oral y iivact nt_Pr71r1(;Q, B. POLICY-RELATE)COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this appli(ation with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areaswhereadditionalinformation13neededtoproperlyassessthisproposal. Signature of Director Auth rized Representative DateDEVAPPDOC Rev 10/93 City c. ..,.nton Department of Planning/Building/Public WorksENVIRONMENTAL8DEVELOPMENTAPPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 20, 1998 APPLICATION NO: I.UA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 07, 1998 APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT MANAGER: LISA GRUETER PROJECT TITLE: Taco Time CPA/Rezone WORK ORDER NO: 78357 LOCATION: North side of Maple Valley Highway(3300 and 3400 block) SITE AREA: Approx. 3.05 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROF OSAL: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience CommercialCC)around the 300 nd 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are undercommonownershipandcurrentlydesignatedResidentialSingle-Family(RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar RiverBarbershopcurrentlydesignatedResidentialSingle-Family(RS). The proposal would 1) amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map fromCCandRStoEmploymentArea-Commercial (EA-C); 2) amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8 (R-•)toArterialCommercial(CA); 3)amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for permitted service and officeuses, and allow for offices; and 4)authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area whichaccommodatesexistingusesandfutureexpansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normallyallowedintheCAzonewhicharetoointensiveforthearea. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of theEnvironmentMinorMajorInformation Minornorble Major More Impacts Impacts Environment Major Earth p Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessaryn Air Housing Water Aesthetics Plants Light/Glare Lanrl/Shoreline Use Recreation Animals Utilities TransportationEnvironmentalHealth Energy/Public Services Natural Resources HistorldCultural Presentation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 6 7 B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS a/L fc/d G T /27 )1 C. CODE-RELATED C OMMENTS o Lisd We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areaswhereadditionalinformationisneededtoproperlyass9ssthisproposal. Signature of Director or Autho ized Representative Date / `DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10ta3 rd-"- 3328 SE 6'4 ST Renton, WA 98958 April 26, /998 Ms. Lisq-Girneter Project Manager Development Services Division 200 Mill Ave. S Renton, WA 98055- Dear Ms. Greeter, My fancily has lived here-sine May 1984. We love this neighborhood-because-it-is a We feel-safe-here- and havice raised a so fee}igleaad--he--off-childrenr- in- safety. We know our neighbors and we—thenckwatch--Program to help stem-crime that-comes-strangers. We do NOT w e g o ew in commercial establishments. The look-of-our beautiful old-neighborhood-would change. The traffic pattern-on-our-quite-streets would change. It would not be as safe for our rhildren. And there would-be more strangers in the area with a potentials increased crime. It is important-for the-cnrrnatresidents-to-continue-to-have4he Cedar River Market-and-Barbershop. Again they bring a water feel-to our neighborhood, neighbors that share- -care._ There are-so few-old neighborhoods still around-with this €eet. Please leave this one as it is. Sincerely, Ctt.iwvv Jeannie M. Sage APR 2 7 1998 BLIILDiNG DIVISION Maplewood Community - Preservation Group. 3110 SE 5t St, Renton, Wa 98058 March 31st 1998 j APR 9 1998 City of Renton Planning Commission ECONOMIC DEVE._ • Commission Member Mr Brosman.NEIGHBOR1400,-.:. Renton City Hall AND STRATEG X0,.ti; :, I 200 Mill Ave South Renton WA 98055 Ref: Taco Time's Corporate Office, parking and office expansion. Oct 6/97 council meeting. Ref: City sponsored CPA rezone application. Neighborhoods & strategic planning department: City initiated CPA. 3/23/9 Dear Mr Brosman, It has come to the attention of this community, that the Corporation Known as Taco Time, has submitted a petition to the Renton Planning and Development Commission. This petition is asking for approval to rezone three residential lots to `Commercial Arterial.'This community is outraged by this proposal. Taco Time Corporate Offices: located at 3300 Maple Valley Hwy, Renton, is built on property that was previously owned by John Dobson. Taco Time have a lease option to buy, many residential properties in this community, all of them owned by John Dobson. The three lots mentioned above, are included in this lease option. Maplewood residential community is unique. Because of its geographical location it has remained essentially unchanged in the last 53 years. Also, Renton City Council recognized the surrounding areas as environmentally sensitive, and designated them, RC (resource conservation zone). Please see Comprehensive Plan Map, #F5 attached. Maplewood community is not going to benefit in any way from this commercialization; we will however stiffer adverse impacts. The residential properties which Taco Time wishes to commercialize, face onto the residential neighborhood. This is an unwanted intrusion esthetically, and will devalue property. These proposals, If they are allowed to proceed, will be the beginning of a slow process of decay of this community. In reference to the proposed zoning- CA, this is primarily oriented to automobile traffic along designated MAJOR arterial streets. The streets onto which the commercial property would exit are 'no-through streets', and are therefore in use solely by neighborhood traffic. Maplewood Community wishes to make known its objection to the above proposal to commercialize residential property in a neighborhood which is 99.9% residential. This area is also surrounded by `Resource Conservation zones, and much of the adjacent acreage has been purchased by the City for preservation as 'Open Space.' We appreciate your careful consideration of the above. Residents of the Maplewood Community will be following this issue very closely, and we will be represented at every opportunity to voice our objections. Future communications will include a petition, which will be presented at the appropriate time. Sincerely Jt6:1.0L Z.110 S . S 2 v 2 c sg34, 54. Stkl Lr-. `ST Repre entatives of the Maplewood eL), Community Phone: Nicola Robinson, 255-5160 Request 4/13/98 from Ms. Robinson to provide copies to the Environmental Review Committee. r II1 I fig*SE Sth 11„ tS4bc,'4ir S E 0P011111" : 4iv0 o . Q,, cW Pi/Jz -... . *. \ 4//,/ 4' 41111\Li4 a moo .0 Ai'''. • 411P:'-'\ 2.- 4, 0 150' 301 ' I ii o Study Area ( 98 -M - 4) I CC zone - commercial use o , Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning / R-8 zone - commercial use T. Schlepp, R. Maconie I. \ \ I R-8 zone - residential use t ___n 10 March 1998 n_- --i ,-.,,,,:,J ,,.r,.J '(,r rorlainna- March 16, 1998 Page 2 development in Area A and to reconcile the existing development outside Area A with potential zoning consistent with the land use designation. Rather than a concurrent rezone, as occurs with Land Use Map amendments within the city limits, a prezone of the same area will be processed concurrent to this amendment. COR zoning is proposed, consistent with the proposed land use designation. The prezone process allows the City Council to adopt City zoning for areas outside the city limits. Renton zoning designations would not be implemented until the area annexes. AMENDMENT 98-M-3 -Rainier Avenue North The City has requested an amendment to the Land Use Map with a concurrent rezone for an area along Rainier Avenue N. The proposal would change the Residential Single Family (RS) land use and R-8 zoning designations to Employment Area-Commercial (EAC) and Commercial Arterial (CA). The site is comprised of three parcels which total about three acres in size. The parcels are surrounded by single family uses to the north and west, and CA zoning to the south. AMENDMENT 98-M-4-Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time Site The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial (CC) around the 3300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway, properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single Family (RS), and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residential Single Family (RS). The proposal would: Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Convenience Commercial (CC) and Residential Single Family (RS)to Employment Area- Commercial (EA-C). Amend the Zoning Map concurrently from Convenience Commercial (CC) and Residential-8 R-8) to Arterial Commercial (CA). Amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for accessory storage for permitted service and office uses, and allow for offices. Authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area which accommodates existing uses and future expansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA zone which are too intensive for the area. AMENDMENT 98-M-6 - "Ruth 4 To 1" Urban Growth Boundary Amendment This proposal involves two components. First, amending the Urban Growth Boundary to include an irregularly shaped 4 acre site located on the south side of SE Lake Youngs Way between 137th Avenue SE, if extended,and 139th Avenue SE, if extended, in the area between Soos Creek and the Lake Youngs watershed. Since the site is on the east side of Soos Creek it would remain in Renton's Potential Annexation Area. Second, amending Renton's Comprehensive Plan to reflect this new addition to Renton's PAA and designating it under Renton's Comprehensive Plan as Residential Single Family. The County has proposed designating the site Urban on their Comprehensive Plan and rezoning it to R-6-P. mnM iiabrabiokbaism Rid =8J— i R ,8! ; 1 : 1 ;1- _NE 4th St. 11 ir,113 RM-I MCA CA 3ra s\ R-10 R-10 RM-I NE IL(P) 8 RMH ch z tt RM- C R-8 J E. L C r- Vv.RC 69 -i , .F 5th St. K RCCP)4446 R-8. 1& 114:1'- ' -alle 6 R C 44k1111 45 v„ R"-_8- • ; 8 G5 - 21 T23N R5E W 1/2 1.... 22 apo 1:4000 F5 YQ ZONING P 10 ` 16 T23N R5E W 1/2 TO 01/16/98 October 6, 1997 Renton City Council Minutes Page 322 believed that Renton taxpayers will ultimately benefit by it, she remained concerned with how this change was brought forth outside the budget cycle. She felt that a transcript would aid in recounting the department's objectives and revenue projections. Mayor Tanner accepted responsibility for proposing the reorganization outside of the budget cycle. Saying that he, too, will hold the new department to a high level of accountability, he added that he would not have brought this proposal to Council if he thought it would not be successful. Councilman Parker said while he appreciated Mrs. Keolker-Wheeler's comments, he believed the cost of creating the new department was small compared to the benefits citizens will receive when Renton's economic base is strengthened. Community Services Community Services Committee Chair Nelson presented a report Committee recommending concurrence in the Mayor's appointment of James Jolly and Appointment: Board of Ralph Evans, each to the Board of Adjustment for a four-year term expiring Adjustment September 6, 2001 (position numbers 5 and 6, respectively). MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Transportation (Aviation) Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chair Corman presented a report Committeee recommending that the Council approve the Renton Municipal Airport Master Airport: Master Plan Plan Update, dated August 1997. The Committee further recommended that a Update resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 323 for resolution.) Planning & Development Planning & Development Committee Chair Schlitzer presented a report Committeee regarding Taco Time's Corporate Office parking and office expansion. The Rezone: Taco Time Convenience Commercial (CC) zone would not accommodate future expansion Headquarters to CC of Taco Time Headquarters. A regional use of this size is not anticipated in Maple Valley Hwy)the zone since its primary purpose is to provide small scale neighborhood serving uses. Taco Time's office and parking expansion would require a code amendment to the CC zone regulations or a Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA)/concurrent rezone to a different designation such as the Commercial Arterial (CA) or Commercial Office (CO) district. To avoid concerns with setting a precedent, and potentially allowing strip commercial development with a wide variety of possible uses, the Committee concurred with the. Administration's recommendation that: The City should sponsor a CPA/rezone application with an associated development agreement. The preferred Comprehensive Plan designation would be Employment Area-Commercial (EAC). The matching zoning district would be CA. The CPA/rezone should consider the inclusion of the nearby nonconforming food market currently zoned Residential-8 DU/AC (R- 8), and potentially other properties next to the CC zone which are under common ownership. The City should allow continued informal use of the unimproved parking area east of Taco Time offices if there is active pursuit of the necessary approvals and development agreement to allow the expanded use and parking area by the property owner or their designee. October 6, 1997 Renton City Council Minutes Page 323 MOVED BY SCHLITZER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* Responding to Councilman Corman, Planning & Technical Services Director Mike Kattermann said that the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, initiated during the first quarter of the year, come before Council during the second or third quarter. He stated that surrounding property owners would be notified of the proposed changes, and the Planning Commission will hold the necessary public hearings. MOTION CARRIED. Utilities Committee Utilities Committee Chair Clawson presented a report recommending Utilities: Soos Creek Water concurrence in staff's recommendation that Council approve the interlocal Sewer District agreement with Soos Creek Water and Sewer District for revision of our Agreement re Service mutual sewer and water boundaries. The Committee further recommended Boundaries, CAG-97- that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See below for resolution.) CAG: 97-137, 1997 Utilities Committee Chair Clawson presented a report recommending Sanitary Sewer Main concurrence in the staff's recommendation to award the 1997 Sewer Main Rehab, Insituform West,Rehabilitation construction contract to Insituform West, Inc. The Committee Inc. further recommended that Council authorize the transfer of $50,000 from the Miscellaneous Sewer Projects account to the Sewer Main Rehabilitation Project. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. ORDINANCES AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: RESOLUTIONS Resolution #3285 A resolution was read approving and adopting the Renton Municipal.Airport Airport: Master Plan Master Plan Update. MOVED BY SCHLITZER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, Update COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Resolution #3286 A resolution was read setting a hearing date on October 27, 1997, for vacating Vacation: SW 16th St, a portion of SW 16th St. and Monster Rd. SW between SW Grady Way and SW Schober/VAC-97-003) Jackson St. (Schober; VAC-97-003). MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Resolution #3287 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Utilities: Soos Creek Water interlocal agreement with the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District to modify Sewer District the interlocal agreement between the City and the district related to Agreement re Service establishment of service boundaries. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED Boundaries, CAG-97- BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 10/13/97 for second and final reading: Vacation: SE 5th St An ordinance was read vacating a portion of SE 5th St., north of Maple Orff/VAC-97-004) Valley Hwy. (Bruce Orff/VAC-97-004). MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10/13/97. CARRIED. a © CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works 4.1 Q yr ;tig Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 N 0APR i '9 v 2 9 5 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 0` ' =`11.•9$ • F 4ibis 4 SuEs1 PNATAaE g. 512690023506 SMITH MICHAEL L 4207 SE 3RD RENTON WA 9 5MIT207 9805,42028 1297 16 04/14/98 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND SMITH 524 NEWPORT AVE SE RENTON WA 96058-2948 max o ,,,, II"„",E4iI,I.1I"11,1.1Ai„ kin„W,liW1ALlinui1 6)• NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DATE: APRIL 13,1998 A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton, The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: LUA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF/TACO TIME CPA/REZONE DESCRIPTION: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial(CC)around the 3300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway;properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS);and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS). The proposal would 1)amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map from CC and RS to Employment Area-Commercial(EA-C); 2) amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8(R-8)to Arterial Commercial(CA): 3)amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities,allow for permitted service and office uses,and allow for offices;and 4) authorize a development agreement milli all properly owners In the amendment area which accommodates existing uses and future expansions,and allows for more variety In uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA zone which are too intensive for the area. Under study for potential commercial designation are lour parcels adjacent to the Cedar River Markel on SE 6th Street which,poor to 1993,had a commercial zoning(13-1),but which were redesignated in 1993 to Residential Single-Family RS)/R-8.Staff does not support a commercial designation at this lime,pending additional analysis and public Input. GENERAL LOCATION: North side of Maple Valley Highway(3300 and 3400 block) STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE:WA PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review(ECF) Comprehensive Plan Amendment(CPA) Rezone(R) Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms.Usa Crueler,Project Manager,Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on April 27.1998. This matter will also be scheduled for a public hearing anticipated in May 1998 before the Planning Commission. It you Interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Economic Development,Neighborhoods 8 Planning Division,(425)235-2552. It comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments before the Planning Commission. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a partyofrecordandreceiveadditionalnotificationbymail,contact Ms.Lisa Grueter at(425)277-5578. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: MARCH 31,1998 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: APRIL 02.1998 " 7777", mpprw DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: APRIL 13,1998 [=^ 114, I,,,,' ip.,„,„ilk, •4, Stud ,liar B8-M-4 GENMRLOT.00C CERTIFICATION I, /re, Tr , hereby certify that 7 copies of the abovedocumenwerepostedbymein7cnsicuousplacesonornearbyP the described property on I3- Signed. ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me, a Nortary Public, in for the State o Washington residing i ce ,,, on the nth day of Lam,,,,l MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS within 300 feet of subject site PROJECT NAME: Maple Valley Highway Taco Time Site CPA/Rezone/CA Zone Amendments/Development Ageement APPLICATION NO: LUA•qg •04.2., CP6I R. Name Address Assessor's Parcel Number Refer to Attached List. The list also includes parties of record known to date. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON MAR 1 1998 RECEIVED OWNLIST.DOC\ p Applicant Certification I, , ,I G n),Lte) , hereby certify that the above list(s)of adjacent property owners Print Name)and their addresses were obtained from: City of Renton Technical Services Records Title Company Records King County Assessors Records Signed l Date I 1 6I ( Applicant) Notary Seal must be within box STATE OF WASHINGTON )SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary(Print) My appointment expires: Dated: l i ....ce not .fff . ' : :: tt ' _o :lhle:sut : :site:::lam a-»;:::>o->:->:-r:->:.>:.::.>:.>:;.:::;;:;•:::::::o-:o-:o-:o-:o-:::o-:o-:o-::a:a::a:a:o-:::a::::;;a:•::;:•;:•;:::;;•:»::;::<•::;;r:;::«:::::;•:::c::;.:'^;:a;o-:a:>;;.;::::a;...:::::. ut iil 1 i._.._ ..zY .C Si.i!•..iRff.a.................: ... ..:. \s l'a. :::.: ::.>::i::i::i::i::i::>::i::i::ii::i::>:i::i::i::i::i::::i::ii::i;:::::i:::;::i::::::::i:::::::.::::::i::; sr terry..... xr iiii iiii:!::v };iii::i:}ii;:::::i}}iiijiiii}i}ii:?^::isJ:;Cyiiiii<:i:ii:ti:iii::i:::iiij;i::i ii{_i::'i<:t::::•:::::::.i::.i:::T .}i::...i}ii}ii%.i:ii:.ii:':.:is"'..`:.:::.:i:::.:':.i:::iiiiiiii}i}i}iiiiiii:L:•}}::J:^:^i:i:.`:!:.i:::i:::.::ii. ii:!i iiii:u:ii:isi•ii:j'iiiiii:vii:Jiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:iiiiiiiiii.4:i i.')y.' .... H:\FORMS\300FT.DOC 2 512640024505 147140007500 512690021005 ALBERTS TODD MICHAEL BARTZ JENNY AUGUSTA+SCHULTZ BOZELL ROGER J+PATRICIA 3125 SE 6TH ST 3427 SE 7TH ST 3217 6TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 512640014001 512640013003 512690017508 BREWER ORLIE T JR+ROBIN S BRUNETTE SHERRY P BRUNETTE VERNON G 3217 SE 5TH ST 3205 SE 5TH ST 3301 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 512690030501 162305902304 512690013507 BUNDER ROBERT J BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE BURSKEY W 567 PIERLE AVE SE TAX DEPT 3320 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98058 1700 E GOLF RD#400 RENTON WA 98058 SCHAUMBURG IL 60173 512690032705 512690038504 512690029008 CALLAWAY DANIEL 0&ABIGAIL CAMERON JEFFREY R CHARBONNEAU D K ROSE M 24842 96TH AVE S#B 3600 SE 6TH STREET 3525 SE 5TH ST KENT WA 98031 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98055 147140002501 162305906602 512690038009 CHARLTON CAROLYN J CITY OF RENTON CLINKENBEARD JANE CELESTINE 11983 AVELLANA CIRCLE NW BENNETT W E 554 PIERCE AVE SE SILVERDALE WA 98383 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 512690032408 512690015007 512690045509 CONRAD JOSEPH H&PATRICIA CRATER MICHAEL H DAWSON LARRY A+VALERIE PO BOX 6382 3308 SE 6TH ST 3525 SE 6TH ST KENT WA 98064 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 512640025007 512690022003 512690018506 DENNY LARRY K+MARGRIET WOLT DOBSON JOHN W DOWNEN CHRIS M 3205 SE 6TH ST 6611 114TH AVE SE 3317 SE 6TH STREET RENTON WA 98058 BELLEVUE WA 98006 RENTON WA 98058 147140003509 147140005009 512640016501 EBERTZ MARK R FILLIPS JUDITH A+BAKER DALE GAFFIN JEFFREY 3321 SE 7TH ST 3405 SE 7TH ST 27320 SE 162ND PL RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 147140005504 147140003004 512690046002 GAFFNEY ROBERT J+LOUISE B GRANDE CORINNE M GUY JAMES E+ELAINE L 7560 SO 120TH 7001 OLD REDMOND RD#G 207 8226 S 114TH ST SEATTLE WA 98178 REDMOND WA 98052 SEATTLE WA 98178 512690044007 512690016005 512640024000 HAN YON OK HART R E L HAWES CHESTER E 3503 SE 6TH ST 3232 SE 6TH ST 3121 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 512690014505 512690050509 512690022508 HULBURT DAVID W&CECILIA S HUMBLE ROBERT HUSOM VIRGINIA 25328 SE 200TH 15003 134TH SE 532 NEWPORT AVE SE MAPLE VALLEY WA 98038 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98058 512690031004 147140004002 162305902700 JOHNSON KEITH L KINGERY CHERI L LA PIANTA LP 575 PIERCE AVE SE 3401 SE 7TH ST PO BOX 88050 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 TUKWILA WA 98138 512690018001 512690029503 512690037506 LIND ARISTELLA A MEHL RANDY L NARKIEWICZ ALINA 3309 SE 6TH ST 3533 SE 5TH ST 550 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 512640025502 512640013508 512690031509 NIELSEN ROBERT M ODEN JACK E OHARE JOHN D 3209 SE 6TH ST 3209 SE 5TH ST 583 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 512640026005 512690012509 512690014000 PARKER DAVID B PERROTTI ANTHONY P PETERSEN TRAVIS S+WALIMAKI 3213 SE 6TH 505 NEWPORT AVE SE 3316 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 147140000505 512690028505 512690008002 PUGLISI PHILIP&RUTH RAMSEY JOHN C REESER HAROLD 3225 SE 7TH ST 3517 SE 5TH ST 3225 SE 5TH RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 512640017509 512690013002 147140006502 ROTH GLADYS SAGE KENNETH R&JEANNIE M SAUVE DAVID J 3208 SE 6TH ST 3328 SE 6TH ST 3413 SE 7TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 512690023001 512690032606 512690023506 SCHAUT LARRY A SIEMION MICHAEL B+MARGARET SMITH MICHAEL L 12101 SE 96TH PL 111 154TH PL NE 4207 SE 3RD RENTON WA 98056 BELLEVUE WA 98007 RENTON WA 98056 512640017004 512690044502 147140008607 SPETEN 0 H STACHOWIAK VINCENT L TABOR LESLIE D 3204 SE 6TH ST 3511 SE 6TH ST 11226 26TH PL SE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 EVERETT WA 98205 512690024504 512690024009 512640018002 THEODORSEN WILLIAM G+KAREN VAN HOFF NEIL D+PERISICH,PA VAN TUYL GREGGORY L+NANCY J 3429 SE 5TH ST 3425 SE 5TH ST 3216 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 4 512690045004 512690030006 512690032002 WESCOTT JEANETTE M WILSON TIMOTHY C+CAROLYN SA WONG KAHSOON+ANN KIM WEI 5246 123RD AVENUE SE 559 PIERCE AVE SE 3512 SE 6TH ST BELLEVUE WA 98006 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 MATT TONKIN,PRESIDENT DEBBIE SHERIDAN NICOLE ROBINSON TACO TIME, CORPORATE OFFICE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING&DESIGN 3110 SE 5TH STREET 3300 MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY TACO TIME, CORPORATE OFFICE RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 3300 MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY RENTON,WA 98058 ROBERT HUMBLE 13112 195TH PLACE SE ISSAQUAH, WA 98027-6408 CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS within 300 feet of subject site PROJECT NAME: Maple Valley Highway Taco Time Site CPA/Rezone/CA Zone Amendments/Development Agreement(98-M-4) APPLICATION NO: Name Address Assessor's Parcel Number Addresses in ADDITION to list provided on 3/31/98. Refer to Attached List. M4MLAF2.DOC\ Applicant Certification IC)1)4,4-hereby certify that the above list(s)of adjacent property owners Print Name) and their addresses were obtained from: 2;c7-City of Renton Technical Services Records Title Company Records 0 King County Assessors Records SignedC(5. 9 - Date r / p n Applicant) Notary Seal must be within box STATE OF WASHINGTON )SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument 512690041508 512690033505 512690034008 BLUHM CHRISTOPHER P+WENDY L DOAN E C BRANDEL KURTIS P&BILLIE D 3609 SE 5TH PL 524 PIERCE AVE SE 1602 INDEX AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 512690033000 512690036003 512690026509 LAPLANT LILA A COBLENTZ BETTY&MIKE FEYEREISEN PATTY A LAPLANT JACK K 22320 88TH AVE S 3612 SE 5TH 7521 72ND DR NE KENT WA 98031 RENTON WA 98058 MARYSVILLE WA 98270 512690026004 512690025501 512690025006 GONZALES STEPHANIE A BATEMAN JILL V ROSS WENDY J 3604 SE 5TH ST 3536 SE 5TH ST 3532 SE 5TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98058 512690007509 CONE MATHEW S 3508 SE 5TH RENTON WA 98058 1 , iitY p kaF ,l:: :i:`:•:.':":•::E:3:o:<•::::.::'::.:.::'''::::.::,:::::r:::_ :'i:i: :::,:::c?:'i:..,3:,:: RT%1F1CA:O. : .uu0::>::::: i' :•>::':•>:::::':::::::>:::>:':::>:<'':::::; ::::>::::>::>:::::::: '...:'::•:">:::::><.>:»:::.>;.: i ., sherd* wJThatfltitidal.•GtQQ P141•0i f 3G.$tfbj£ tfG _;:::<:::•::::t::,::;<::::::;:;.;.:::;>:::';:,::.: Y' . t antcl.'P ' '1f d ::::::::: ;::: : :•`:`:::"::`' ::"' :'::'::: :: :::. ::::::•::::::;::•::•::::•::.:;1:::;; :':'::•::;::' ::;:;':;:.::::;::::<:. N Seaf walstbawithin.1iz;••• . TAT DF:W15 3.'T£N::...::.. .95.:'''.::.::.'..:. .:.....::•. ....:..:::'::::::: . ;., i stf;€3cthat:P'ki r+ri'.iir}'avesaiisfactrir n hat.::..,:.`.:::::>:> :::'::::;::<->:::....::... S.;.:,,.....-•.:. • ..•:.:.:.•:...• $::: d •#tiffs-'u . ... t: and.voluntary a 143&h :use asiiJ:and ar.siot Iedgeid tt li li iiaefiticii...•o purest#atitl4at4h't. tUtnGtkf::. ::'•:::..... E - •-••••:.-.:...::::.:;:;:..:•••••:•:....::.Fis . 4:e .• -.e....,:g,r.......................... . .:::::„,7:7)1,?,::,„.:::...,..,..,..., .. :.::. ..• „....,..„, . ...................., ..„ ,, 4,.,,, .,. t Publiain. Jur.e:Sfate:.---.in M4MLAF2.DOC\ 1/11111ff'IriMMIN IMMIIMMINIMMMIlltr 1.11.1111.111. 0 CITY OF RENTON 1 L t- ,,> 1 t1C Alr,, r M A r r 4 :ow* mil Planning/Building/Public Works z, ,, 00 ,. 1 ,__„ e- -,re ., 10 Mill Avenue South - Renton,Washington 98055 5)) ,_ .,,, I 019 8 k CC ,,cc ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED Ot:1 1- - 9 8 - F . .,;. ' .413eigir4 'Et MUT A GE 1 147140003004 GRANDE CORINNE M 1 7oc.;l0j-fi *13t, tAJW '-r-lik4 4G'27-:i., Pub -. - - 1,,!1.1 t--I .. .0- ,-:. ,-.iiii III ... - l s?> J - 1l H't- R AAIO1T PROTECT INFORMf1TTON(cent) NOS in 'r' th en ° ' EXISTING LAND USE(S):Master.appl•ic•a••i•io•n•lo••each owner. Auto repair,office,commercial, single family residential NAME: ADDRESS: PROPOSED LAND USE(S): n/a City:ZIP: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: TELEPHONE NUMBER: Convenience Commercial (CC)and Residential Single CONTACT PERSON/APPLICANT Family(RS) NAME: Rebecca Lind/Lisa Greeter PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Employment Area-Commercial(EA-C) ADDRESS:200 Mill Ave. S. EXISTING ZONING: City: Renton ziP: 98055 Convenience Commercial(CC)and R-8 PROPOSED ZONING: TELEPHONE NUMBER: 277-6188/ 277-5578 Arterial Commercial(CA) PROJECT INFORMATION SITE AREA(SQ.FT.OR ACREAGE): PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Approximately 3.05 acres PROJECT VALUE: Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time Site Comprehensive Plan n/a Amendment/Concurrent Rezone/CA Zone Amendments/Development Agreement IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? Zone 2 PROPERTY/PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: Approximately 3300 to 3400 block of Maple Valley Hwy IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSPITVE AREA? Area not shown on Greenbelt Map or Wetland Inventory. Not adjacent KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER: to a water body. 5126900210, 5126900211, 5126900195, 5126900200, DEVELOP r,5126900205, 1623059017, 5126900215, 5126900505, ENT pLANh ING 5126900506, 5126900326, 5126900327 CAN OF R JTON MAR 1 1998 RECEIVED H:\DIVISION.S\P-TS\PLANNING\LGRUETER\TACONSTRAP.DOCTG I, LEGAL l}ESCR1,. _ION OF PROPERTY(Attach seta.ittOheet if needed) TO BE PROVIDED-SEE WAIVER. TYPE;OF APPLTGATION cat FEES Check all a l cation s that l Cifi staffwi determine fees.FPPY Y. ANNEXATION SUBDIVISION X COMP.PLAN AMENDMENT $N/A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT X REZONE N/A SHORT PLAT SPECIAL PERMIT TENTATIVE PLAT TEMPORARY PERMIT PRELIMINARY PLAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINAL PLAT SITE PLAN APPROVAL GRADE&FILL PERMIT No. Cu.Yds: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT $ VARIANCE PRELIMINARY from Section:_ FINAL WAIVER ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMIT MOBILE HOME PARKS BINDING SITE PLAN SHORELINE REVIEWS: SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ CONDITIONAL USE X ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ N/A VARIANCE EXEMPTION NO CHARGE REVISION AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I,(Print Name) declare that I am(please check one) _the owner of the property involved in this application,the authorized representative to act for the property owner(please attach proof of authorization),and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. CJ 5 OO 2SO r. certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that/ 26/ signed this l a 3j p p ,-„/ instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes 0 C it/ mentioned in the inst ument Name of Owner/Represen 've) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington i 3 "Q Notary(Print) Sigiature of Owner/Representative) My appointment expires: SR(`i'ION E COMPLRTE W CI1'I'R' AIr..) CrtyFrleNumber L SA SHPL CU LIA PP FP llP ^-- RVIviP F 1 r W SM` SME. MHP BSP Aof1'O TAL.F'EFS' TCITAL POs 'Aoo I'RCIVIDED:$ F1 H:\DIVISION.S\P-TS\PLANNING\LGRUETER\TACO\MSTRAP.DOC\LG April 9, 1998 Application LUA-98-042, CPA,R,ECF Amendment to Master Application list of King County Assessor's Numbers Additional parcel numbers for parcels under study: 5126900324, 5126900325, 5126900328, 5126900329 98M4PAR#.DOC\ U•( Y o iliFR NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DATE: APRIL 13, 1998 A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: LUA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF / TACO TIME CPA/REZONE DESCRIPTION:The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial (CC)around the 3300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS);and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS). The proposal would 1)amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map from CC and RS to Employment Area-Commercial (EA-C); 2) amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8 (R-8)to Arterial Commercial (CA); 3) amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities,allow for permitted service and office uses,and allow for offices; and 4) authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area which accommodates existing uses and future expansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA zone which are too intensive for the area. GENERAL LOCATION:North side of Maple Valley Highway(3300 and 3400 block) STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: N/A PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review(ECF) Comprehensive Plan Amendment(CPA) Rezone(R) Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms. Lisa Grueter, Project Manager, Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on April 27, 1998. This matter will also be scheduled for a public hearing anticipated in May 1998 before the Planning Commission. If you interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Planning Division, (425) 235-2552. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments before the Planning Commission. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Ms. Lisa Grueter at (425)277-5578. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: MARCH 31,1998 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: APRIL 02,1998 SE 5th WO** DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION:APRIL 13, 1998 S,1111° Q SE 441017/41*4oife A o A*too 150' 00 Study Area (98—M-4) F-1 CC, rCbi u pse.e Is straw&...else ®R-B:wv r bl u e GENMALOT.DOC 0 7 t ve:°".residentialaa „ro,. PROPOSAL SUMMARY MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY TACO TIME SITE CPA/REZONE (98-M-4) The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial CC) around the 3300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single- Family (RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS). The proposal would: Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Convenience Commercial (CC) and Residential Single-Family(RS)to Employment Area-Commercial (EA-C). Amend the Zoning Map concurrently from Convenience Commercial (CC) and Residential- 8 (R-8)to Arterial Commercial (CA). Amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for accessory storage for permitted service and office uses, and allow for offices. Authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area which accommodates existing uses and future expansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA zone which are too intensive for the area. Under study for potential commercial designation are four parcels adjacent to the Cedar River Market on SE 6th Street which prior to 1993 had a commercial zoning (B-1), but which were redesignated in 1993 to Residential Single-Family(RS)/R-8. Staff does not support a commercial designation at this time, pending additional analysis and public input. H:\DIVISION.S\P-TS\PLANNING\LGRUETER\TACO\PROPSUM.DOC 4p O FiyT°,/' VG C 888 fiV Tit,* SE 5th St Itt Pi4' ØI# SE o)4 c it z5W6.IrQ 0 71 4st,ud14undey T,916 k scL 4' 0 0 401,H,;,--* 4 4/10, 0 ,150 301 ' 1 : 1 , : 00 ` Study Area ( 98 -M - 4 ) CC zone - commercial use AoNeighborhoodsSeStrategicPlanning R-8 zone - commercial use ED/N/SP K \ \ \ R-8 zone - residential use T. 8 A h e1p, R. MacOnie mimosa. Parcels considered for redesignationP Additional parcels under study (R-8) CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impacts. Use of Checklist for Nonproiect Proposals: (Please Type or Print Legibly) Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply". IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS part D). For nonproject actions (actions involvingdecisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in vANN NG P g ) the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should beO,rR -cON proposal," proposer," and "affectedgeographic area " resrespectively. O 1 or( OFPY• 199 aQR ` 'eoAmended4/9/98 c v SEPA Checklist: Maple Va„Cy Hwy Taco Time Area CPA/Rezone (95-ivi-4) 4/9/98 Page 2 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time Site Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Concurrent Rezone/CA Zone Amendments/Development Agreement(98-M-4) 2. Name of applicant: City of Renton 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Rebecca Lind,Principal Planner;Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning; (425) 277-6188; Staff Contact: Lisa Greeter, (425) 277-5578 Address: 200 Mill Avenue S.; Renton,WA 98055 4. Date checklist prepared: March 30, 1998; revised April 8, 1998 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton, Planning/Building/Public Works Department 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Planning Commission workshops/briefing in April and early May 1998. Planning Commission public hearing late May 1998. City Council action in July 1998. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Private development, such as office expansions and new commercial uses, may occur in the future as a result of the City sponsored application. These will be subject to site specific permit review. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Draft EIS for the City of Renton Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, January, 1992. Final EIS for the City of Renton Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, February, 1993. Supplemental EIS for the Comprehensive Plan, December, 1994. MDNS for Taco Time corporate office/storage construction, ECF-125-88, March 29, 1989. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. See question 7. Future office and commercial development proposals may occur in the future based upon allowances of City sponsored application. It should be noted that the Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time Site Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Concurrent Rezone/CA Zone Amendments/Development Agreement(98-M-4) application is considered a non-project legislative action. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. The application will require approval by the City Council. H:\DI VISION.S\P-TS\PLANNING\LGRUETER\TACO\98M4S PA2.DOC SEPA Checklist: Maple V:.." Hwy Taco Time Area CPA/Rezone(9,-.-4) 4/9/98 Page 3 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial CC) around the 3300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single- Family (RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS). The proposal would: Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Convenience Commercial (CC) and Residential Single-Family(RS)to Employment Area- Commercial(EA-C). Amend the Zoning Map concurrently from Convenience Commercial (CC) and Residential-8 R-8)to Arterial Commercial (CA). Amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for accessory storage for permitted service and office uses, and allow for offices. Authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area which accommodates existing uses and future expansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA zone which are too intensive for the area. Under study for potential commercial designation are four parcels adjacent to the Cedar River Market on SE 6th Street which prior to 1993 had a commercial zoning, but which were redesignated in 1993 to Residential Single Family/R-8. Staff does not support a commercial designation at this time, pending additional analysis and public input. However, the checklist analysis addresses potential effects if the study area were redesignated to commercial zoning. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topography map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial CC) around the 3300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single- Family(RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residential Single-Family (RS). Four additional parcels are shown as a study area. Refer to the attached map. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep, slopes, mountainous, other The area is generally flat. H:\DI VISION.S\P-TS\PLANNING\LGRUETER\TACO\98M4SPA2.DOC SEPA Checklist: Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time Area CPA/Rezone(98-M-4) 4/9/98 Page 4 b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) Based upon soil surveys, the slope of the subject area is generally less than 2% (King County Area,Washington Soil Survey, 1973). c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, scaly, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Puyallup Fine Sandy Loam based upon the King County Area, Washington Soil Survey, Sheet No. 11, 1972. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. The site may be subject to seismic hazards as a result of liquefaction, as is the case with much of the valley areas in Renton. e. Describe the purpose,type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. Future site-specific developments will be subject to permit review. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. Future development in the area could result in erosion during construction. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction(for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not applicable. This is a non-project action. Future development of buildings or parking lots could increase the impervious surfaces in the area. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Non-applicable to this non-project legislative action. Future site-specific proposals would be subject to the Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance, Greenbelt Ordinance, Storm and Surface Water Ordinance, Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance, and Environmental SEPA) Ordinance, as applicable. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Non-applicable to this non-project legislative action. Future site-specific proposals may cause air emissions or odors during construction and after operation due to automobiles. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? Yes No. If so, generally describe. N/A-this is a non-project legislative action. H:\DIVISION.S\P-TS\PLANNING\LGRUETER\TACO\98M4SPA2.DOC SEPA Checklist: Maple V Hwy Taco Time Area CPA/Rezone (98-M-4) 4/9/98 Page 5 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Non-applicable to this non-project legislative action. Future site-specific proposals would be subject to the Environmental (SEPA) Ordinance, Commute Trip Reduction Ordinance, and any Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority regulations, as applicable. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The Cedar River is located south of the subject area. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. The subject area appears to be located about 300 feet north of the Cedar River. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. Future development in the subject area would be subject to permit review. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. Future development in the subject area would be subject to permit review. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. The subject area lies outside of the 100-year floodplain of the Cedar River per Flood Insurance Rate Map 53033C0981, May 16, 1995. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. Future site specific development will be subject to permit review. b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. Future site specific development will be subject to permit review. H•\DIVISION.S\P-TS\PLANNING\LGRUETER\TACO\98M4S PA2.DOC SEPA Checklist: Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time Area CPA/Rezone (98-M-4) 4/9/98 Page 6 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. Future site specific development will be subject to permit review. Wastewater facilities are available in the subject area. c. Water Runoff(including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. Future site specific development may result in additional stormwater runoff, and will be subject to permit review. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. Future site specific development will be subject to permit review. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Non-applicable to this non-project legislative action. Future site-specific proposals would be subject to the Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance, Storm and Surface Water Ordinance, Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance, Aquifer Protection Ordinance, and Environmental SEPA) Ordinance, as applicable. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: Subject area does not appear to have wetlands per Renton Wetland Inventory, Jones and Stokes Associates, June 1991. X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs X grass crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup,bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Not applicable. This is a non-project action. Future site specific development may result in vegetation removal, and will be subject to permit review. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. The subject area does not appear on the State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species inventories, February 1997. Previous environmental documentation for the area does not indicate any species of concern (MDNS for Taco Time corporate office/storage, 1989; H:\DI VISION.S\P-TS\PLANNING\LGRUETER\TACO\98M4SPA2.DOC SEPA Checklist: Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time Area CPA/Rezone (98-M-4) 4/9/98 Page 7 Draft EIS for the City of Renton Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, January, 1992). d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measure to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Non-applicable to this non-project legislative action. Future site-specific proposals would be subject to the Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance, Landscaping Ordinance, Wetlands Ordinance, and Environmental (SEPA) Ordinance, as applicable. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: N/A - non-project application. Bird and mammal species common to a suburban setting are likely. Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon,trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. The subject area does not appear on the State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species inventories, February 1997. Previous environmental documentation for the area does not indicate any species of concern(MDNS for Taco Time corporate office/storage, 1989; Draft EIS for the City of Renton Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, January, 1992). c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain The entire State of Washington is included within a migration route for birds, known as the Pacific Flyway. This flyway, as it overlies Renton, is used by a variety of migratory birds, including, but not limited to the Canadian goose. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Non-applicable to this non-project legislative action. Future site-specific proposals would be subject to the Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance, Wetland Ordinance, and Environmental (SEPA) Ordinance where applicable. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, wood, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing,etc. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. Future development in the subject area would need to use energy sources. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. The proposal would apply a commercial land use designation, Arterial Commercial (CA) which allows for a greater height than the Convenience Commercial (CC) - 50 feet versus 35 feet. Unlike the general CA zone, H:\DIVISION.S\P-TS\PLANNING\LGRUETER\TACO\98M4SPA2.DOC SEPA Checklist: Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time Area CPA/Rezone(9b-1.1-4) 4/9/98 Page 8 the proposed development agreement would not allow the possibility to exceed the 50 feet limit by conditional use permit. Given setbacks and height limits of the proposed zone, future development in the subject area is not anticipated to have a significant effect towards potential solar energy use by adjacent properties. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Non-applicable to this non-project legislative action. Future site-specific proposals would be subject to the Environmental (SEPA) Ordinance, Uniform Building Code and Energy Codes, and Site Plan review, as applicable. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. Future development could result in environmental health impacts although this would be limited by Aquifer Protection Ordinance, Uniform Fire Code regulations, etc. In the mid 1980's, hydrocarbon contamination occurred due to a leak from the Olympic Pipeline Company's lines which traverse the area in an easement. It was determined in 1989 at the time of Taco Time's corporate office application that much of the contamination had been removed, and that any remaining contamination would continue to degrade through natural processes at a level which would not impact the office development. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. Future site specific development will be subject to permit review. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Future site-specific proposals would be subject to the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Aquifer Protection Ordinance, Environmental (SEPA) Ordinance, Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority regulations, State Department of Ecology rules, and State legislation, as applicable. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the areas which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic noise affects the subject area. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. Future site specific development may result in short-term construction noise, and increased traffic noise over the long-term. H:\DIVISION.S\P-TS\PLANNING\LGRUETER\TACO\98M4SPA2.DOC SEPA Checklist: Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time Area CPA/Rezone (98-ivi-4) 4/9/98 Page 9 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Non-applicable to this non-project legislative action. Future site-specific proposals would be subject to the Environmental (SEPA) Ordinance, Site Plan Review Ordinance, and Noise Level Regulations, as applicable. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Current uses in the subject area include office, commercial, service, residential, and vacant. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Historically,many properties in the City have been used for agricultural purposes. c. Describe any structures on the site. Structures in the subject area include buildings containing a variety of uses: auto repair, offices, storage, espresso stand, barber shop and a food market, as well as three residences. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so,what? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. Future site specific development will be subject to permit review. Refer to question"j"below. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Convenience Commercial(CC)and R-8. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Convenience Commercial (CC) and Residential Single Family(RS). g. If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Non-applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. The Renton Environmental Ordinance designates environmentally sensitive areas where certain categorical exemptions would not apply. The environmentally sensitive areas include: greenbelts identified on the Greenbelt Map, Conservancy and Natural environments of the Shoreline Master Program, the 100-year floodway, and lands covered by water. The Wetlands Ordinance identifies wetlands on the Critical Areas Inventory as being designated environmentally sensitive areas. The subject area is not identified on the Greenbelt Map, Wetland Inventory, 100-year floodway, and is not located within the Shoreline jurisdiction. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. Future site-specific development will be subject to permit review. Refer to Section D supplemental sheets. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? H:\DIVISION.S\P-TS\PLANNING\LGRUETER\TACO\98M4SPA2.DOC SEPA Checklist: Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time Area CPA/Rezone(98-M-4) 4/9/98 Page 10 The proposal would apply commercial land use designations to three lots containing residences. The residences would become nonconforming with the new commercial designation (CA). Over time,new development could displace the three residential units. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Within the City limits,there are a variety of housing types which may be suitable and available for displaced residents. The Renton Housing Authority oversees lower income units, and the Renton Human Services division provides a variety of assistance programs for those who may have low incomes. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposal would allow for additional commercial and office uses in the subject area. The proposed development agreement would limit the range of uses of the proposed zoning (CA) in order to reduce potential compatibility impacts. Future development will be subject to site plan review regulations, where applicable, to help ensure compatibility with neighboring properties and uses. Additional buffering is required in the proposed CA zone where commercial uses abut residentially zoned properties. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The proposal would apply commercial land use designations to three residential lots with existing residential units, and the units would become nonconforming. Currently, the units are rental. Over time, new commercial development could displace the three residential units. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Within the City limits, there are a variety of housing types which may be suitable and available for displaced residents. The Renton Housing Authority oversees lower income units, and the Renton Human Services division provides a variety of assistance programs for those who may have low incomes. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. Future site-specific development will be subject to permit review. The maximum height of the proposed CA zone is 50 feet. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The proposal would apply a commercial land use designation, Arterial Commercial (CA) which allows for a greater height than the Convenience Commercial (CC) - 50 feet versus 35 feet. Unlike the general CA zone, the proposed development agreement would not allow the possibility to exceed the 50 feet limit by conditional use permit. H:\DIVISION.S\P-TS\PLANNING\LGRUETER\TACO\98M4SPA2.DOC SEPA Checklist: Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time Area CPA/Rezone(98-M-4) 4/9/98 Page 11 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Future development proposals will be subject to Site Plan, and environmental review requirements, as applicable. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? Non-applicable - this is a non-project legislative action. Future development could result in light and glare impacts depending on the design and materials of the buildings. What time of day would it mainly occur?N/A-this is a non-project legislative action. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Non-applicable - this is a non-project legislative action. Future development could result in light and glare or view impacts depending on the design and materials of the buildings. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? N/A-this is a non-project legislative action d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Future development proposals will be subject to Site Plan, and environmental review requirements, as applicable. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Maplewood Park is located north of the subject area. Maplewood Golf Course is located east of the subject area. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. The proposed non-project action will not displace any existing recreational uses. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Not applicable. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None known. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Subsequent development will be subject to environmental and Site Plan review, as applicable. H:\DIVISION.S\P-TS\PLANNING\LGRUETER\TACO\98M4SPA2.DOC SEPA Checklist: Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time Area CPA/Rezone (98-M-4) 4/9/98 Page 12 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The subject area is served primarily by Maple Valley Highway. Local access streets include Monroe Avenue SE, Maplewood Place SE, and SE 6th Street. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Bus service is available on Maple Valley Highway generally. Transit stop locations are unknown. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. Future site-specific development will be subject to permit review. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. Future site-specific development will be subject to permit review. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. Future site-specific development will be subject to permit review. Rail transportation is located south of the subject area. Water and air transportation facilities are not located in the immediate vicinity. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known,indicate when peak volumes would occur. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. Future site-specific development will be subject to permit review. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Non-applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific developments will be subject to the Environmental (SEPA) Ordinance, Commute Trip Reduction Ordinance, Street Improvements Ordinance, Transportation Concurrency regulations, and others, as applicable. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Non-applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific proposals may require increased services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. H:\DIVISION.S\P-TS\PLANNING\LGRUETER\TACO\98M4SPA2.DOC SEPA Checklist: Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time Area CPA/Rezone (98-M-4) 4/9/98 Page 13 Non-applicable to this non-project action. Future site-specific proposals would be subject to Environmental (SEPA) Ordinance, Uniform Fire Code, as well as any requirements for mitigation fees, utility requirements, and others, as applicable. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Non applicable to this non-project action. C. 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 declaration 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: C4A41L., Name Printed: Date Submitted: 'V 9 9r H:\DI VISION.S\P-TS\PLANNING\LGRUETER\TACO\98M4SPA2.DOC SEPA Checklist: Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time Area CPA/Rezone(98-M-4) 4/9/98 Page 14 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS: CPA/Rezone/Development Agreement This sheet should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies,plans and programs. Do not use this sheet for project actions.) When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented Respond briefly and in general terms. 1.a) How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposed amendments would not directly result in an increased discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise, as the proposed application is a non-project action. Future site- specific development may result in impacts. b) Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: As applicable, site specific proposals will be subject to environmental review, and subject to RMC regulations regarding noise levels, aquifer protection, land clearing and tree cutting, storm and surface water drainage, Uniform Building and Fire Code regulations, and other requirements. 2.a) How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposed amendments would not directly result in impacts to plants, animals, fish, or marine life, as this proposed legislation would be a non-project action. Site specific developments may result in impacts existing vegetation which is primarily ornamental. Based upon a review of Renton's Wetland Inventory, and the State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Inventory, the subject area does not appear to have sensitive species, and impacts are not likely. b) Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals,fish, or marine life are: As applicable, site-specific proposals will be subject to environmental review, and the application of RMC requirements regarding storm drainage, aquifer recharge protection, land clearing and tree cutting, landscaping, etc. 3.a) How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposed amendments would not directly result in impacts to energy or natural resources, as this proposed legislation would be a non-project action. At a site-specific level, new development may result in impacts to energy or natural resources. b) Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: As applicable, site specific proposals will be subject to environmental review and Uniform Building Code energy requirements. 4.a) How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks,wilderness,wild and scenic rivers,threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites,wetlands,floodplains, or prime farmlands? See question 2 above regarding plants and animals. The location of historic or cultural sites is unknown. The subject area is not located in a flood plain. The area is not farmed presently. H:\DIVISION.S\P-TS\PLANNING\LGRUETER\TACO\98M4SPA2.DOC SEPA Checklist: Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time Area CPA/Rezone (98-M-4) 4/9/98 Page 15 b) Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: As applicable, future site-specific development will be subject to environmental review, land clearing and tree cutting regulations, aquifer protection regulations, and others. 5.a) How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposal would allow for additional commercial and office uses in the subject area. The proposal would also apply commercial land use designations to three lots with residences. Over time, new development could displace the three residential units. Based upon the methodology for the Comprehensive Plan capacity model, the capacity for employment would be about 39 employees (gross) if redesignated to EA-C/CA (for the Staff recommended amendment area). The Staff recommended amendment area proposal is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as follows: Meets general policies to keep the City's present economic base including office uses (LU-144), and allow a mix of uses (LU-148). Meets Policy LU-146-a to expand the City's percentage of land base utilized for commercial uses. The EA-C designation requires location on streets designated as major arterial or above(LU-168). Maple Valley Highway is designated as a Principal Arterial. Policy LU-176 discourages new EA-C designations where the commercial demand can be accommodated through intensification and redevelopment of existing EA-C areas. While relocation is possible for Taco Time, the headquarters has already relocated once to a zone (B-1) which at the time allowed for office uses with no size or type restriction. Taco Time invested in their headquarters at that location, and in options on surrounding properties. Relocation is not desirable. While redesignation to EA-C would expand its designation area in the City, in terms of all commercial designations, much of the land under review is already designated commercial as CC. LU-178 suggests that primary uses of the EA-C (retail, residential, or service) should be about 50% of the total building area of the EA-C designations. Staff has determined that this is a designation-wide policy. It should be noted that retail, service and office uses can locate interchangeably in structures appearing like a retail center or in office buildings. Also Policy LU-148 promotes a mix of uses in Employment Area designations. If parcels under study (east of the Cedar River Market) were redesignated to EA-C/CA, the employment capacity would be 14 employees. With the RS/R-8 designation, the property could support about eight dwelling units (.855 ac site) assuming a 4,500 s.f. lot size, but the existing plat pattern, access, and property shape would more likely support 4 dwelling units. Staff does not support a commercial designation at this time, pending additional analysis and public input. Redesignation to Employment Area-Commercial would be consistent with some policies, and inconsistent with others: H:\DI VISION.S\P-TS\PLANNING\LGRUETER\TACO\98M4SPA2.DOC SEPA Checklist: Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time Area CPA/Rezone (98-M-4) 4/9/98 Page 16 A commercial designation would expand the City's percentage of land base utilized for commercial (LU-146-a). A commercial designation would not meet another policy requiring location on streets designated as major arterial or above. (LU-168) Unlike the adjacent market and barbershop (which are not located near Maple Valley Highway), the vacant parcels under study do not have an existing commercial use. The single family lots adjacent to Taco Time are included in the Staff proposed amendment area because the Taco Time corporation plans to expand their existing office use,the property is under common ownership, and the parcels could be integrated into the Taco Time campus and reoriented to Maple Valley Highway. Policy LU-176 discourages new EA-C designations where the commercial demand can be accommodated through intensification and redevelopment of existing EA-C areas. It is possible that commercial uses attracted to the vacant parcels would not have long-term viability with reduced visibility from Maple Valley Highway. For both the Staff recommended amendment area and the parcels under study,the City will balance policy choices in determining appropriate designations. b) Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Within the City limits, there are a variety of housing types which may be suitable and available for displaced residents. The Renton Housing Authority oversees lower income units, and the Renton Human Services division provides a variety of assistance programs for those who may have low incomes. The proposed development agreement would limit the range of uses of the proposed zoning CA) in order to reduce potential compatibility impacts. As applicable, future development will be subject to site plan review regulations to help ensure compatibility with neighboring properties and uses. Future site-specific development would also be subject to landscaping regulations, and environmental review, where applicable. 6.a) How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal would not directly result in impacts to transportation or public services, as this proposed legislation would be a non-project action. Future development may increase demand for transportation or public services and utilities. b) Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: As applicable, future site-specific development will be subject to environmental review, as well as any requirements for transportation mitigation fees, fire mitigation fees, utility requirements, Commute Trip Reduction regulations and Transportation Concurrency regulations. 7.a) Identify,if possible,whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposed action would not conflict with local, state or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. H:\DIVISION.ST-TS\PLANNINGEGRUETER\TACO\98M4SPA2.DOC SEPA Checklist: Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time Area CPA/Rezone (98-M-4) 4/9/98 Page 17 Proponent: daL Name Printed: Date Submitted: 9/Or H:\DI VISION.S\P-TS\PLANNING\LGRUETER\TACO\98M4SPA2.DOC SEPA Checklist: Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time Area CPA/Rezone (98-M-4) 4/9/98 Page 18 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS: City-Wide CA Zone Amendments This sheet should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies,plans and programs. Do not use this sheet for project actions.) When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented Respond briefly and in general terms. 1.a) How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposed amendments would not directly result in an increased discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise, as the proposed application is a non-project action. Future site- specific office, storage or shoe repair uses may result in impacts depending on location and size in the CA zone. b) Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: As applicable, site specific proposals will be subject to environmental review, and subject to RMC regulations regarding noise levels, aquifer protection, land clearing and tree cutting, storm and surface water drainage, Uniform Building and Fire Code regulations, and other requirements. 2.a) How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposed amendments would not directly result in impacts to plants, animals, fish, or marine life, as this proposed legislation would be a non-project action. Site specific developments establishing office, storage or shoe repair uses may result in impacts to these resources depending on location and size. b) Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: As applicable, site-specific proposals will be subject to environmental review, and the application of RMC requirements regarding storm drainage, aquifer recharge protection, wetlands, land clearing and tree cutting, landscaping, shoreline etc. 3.a) How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposed amendments would not directly result in impacts to energy or natural resources, as this proposed legislation would be a non-project action. At a site-specific level, new development may result in impacts to energy or natural resources. b) Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: As applicable, site specific proposals will be subject to environmental review and Uniform Building Code energy requirements. 4.a) How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks,wilderness,wild and scenic rivers,threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites,wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The amendments would not change regulations protecting sensitive areas. Future site- specific development may affect habitats, historic/cultural sites, wetlands, or floodplains depending on the location of the new office, storage or shoe repair uses. There is little farmland in Renton. H:\DIVISION.S\P-TS\PLANNING\LGRUETER\TAC O\9 8 M4S PA2.DOC SEPA Checklist: Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time Area CPA/Rezone(98-M-4) 4/9/98 Page 19 b) Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: As applicable, future site-specific development will be subject to environmental review, land clearing and tree cutting regulations, aquifer protection regulations, wetland regulations , flood hazard regulations, and others. 5.a) How would the proposal be likelyto affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land orshoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposal would allow for office, accessory storage, and shoe repair uses in the CA zone. Some office uses have been allowed in the CA zone through administrative determination. The development standards of the zone, particularly height limits of 50 feet, would restrict the intensity of office in the CA. Any additional height would require a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit. Office structures are such that the type of tenant (retail, service, or administrative) could change without much change in the visual appearance. Shoe repair is similar to other permitted uses of the zone. Accessory storage for office or service uses is similar to the allowed accessory storage for retail uses. Depending on the location of these uses there could be impacts where these uses will abut less intensive commercial or residential uses. b) Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Future site-specific development would be subject to site plan review, landscaping regulations, and environmental review, as applicable. 6.a) How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal would not directly result in impacts to transportation or public services, as this proposed legislation would be a non-project action. Future development may increase demand for transportation or public services and utilities. b) Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: As applicable, future site-specific development will be subject to environmental review, as well as any requirements for transportation mitigation fees, fire mitigation fees, utility requirements, Commute Trip Reduction regulations and Transportation Concurrency regulations. 7.a) Identify, if possible,whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposed action would not conflict with local, state or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Proponent: Name Printed: 6‘14),e4eX Date Submitted: At H:\DIVISION.S\P-TS\PLANNING\LGRUETER\TACO\98M4SPA2.DOC SE 5th St Itt4r* lit litS E 0 C__Op 1/ Q o A I4 unde study 1 4/69 0 0 44II1141 II 14,&0 150 301 ' 1...1, : 00 : Study Area ( 98 —M - 4) CC zone - commercial use 0 Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning l r R-8 zone - commercial use ED/N/SP k \ \ \ R-8 zone - residential use T. Schlepp, R. MacOnie wo Parcels considered for redesignation8April1998 r Additional parcels under study (R-8) AMENDMENT 98-M-4 - MAPLE VALLEY HWY TACO TIME SITE DESCRIPTION: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial CC) around the 3300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single- Family (RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS). The proposal would: Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Convenience Commercial (CC) and Residential Single-Family(RS)to Employment Area- Commercial(EA-C). Amend the Zoning Map concurrently from Convenience Commercial (CC) and Residential- 8 (R-8)to Arterial Commercial (CA). Amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for accessory storage for permitted service and office uses, and allow for offices. Authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area which accommodates existing uses and future expansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA zone which are too intensive for the area. Under study for potential commercial designation are four parcels adjacent to the Cedar River Market on SE 6th Street which prior to 1993 had a commercial zoning (B-1), but which were redesignated in 1993 to Residential Single-Family(RS)/R-8. Staff does not support a commercial designation at this time, pending additional analysis and public input. ISSUE SUMMARY: 1. Should the proposed area be redesignated from a less intense commercial designation/zone and residential designation/zone to a more intense commercial designation/zone? 2. Will the development agreement accommodate existing commercial businesses as well as the future expansion goals of Taco Time, and also protect the neighborhood from potentially intensive commercial uses of the Arterial Commercial (CA) zone? 3. Should changes be made in general to the CA zone to allow for offices, shoe repair, and accessory storage for service/office uses? 4. Should the study area parcels on SE 6th Street adjacent to the market be designated commercial instead of residential? RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: The Staff recommendation is to approve the proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment, rezone,general Arterial Commercial zoning text changes, and development agreement for the properties, excluding the parcels east of the Cedar River Market p l iRi tt AGas `parcels under study." CITY OF RENTON APR 0 9 1998 98M4REV.DOC\ 1 4/9/98 RECEIVED The Comprehensive Plan amendment would change the designation of the subject property from Convenience Commercial(CC) and Residential Single Family (RS)to Employment Area - Commercial EA-C). Concurrently, the Zoning Map would be amended from Convenience Commercial (CC) and Residential-8 (R-8) to Arterial Commercial (CA). The redesignation would better match current conditions of the area which are a mix of neighborhood serving commercial and community/region-wide business offices. The development agreement would restore some of the previous flexibility of the zoning applied to much of the area prior to 1993 (the old B-1 zone) by not capping the square footages of allowed office or retail uses, and allowing for more variety in uses in comparison to the existing CC zone. However, the agreement would exclude many of the intensive uses of the CA zone in order to protect the neighborhood from some potentially incompatible uses. Some text amendments would be needed generally to the CA zone to allow for offices, clarify minor repair activities (i.e. shoe repair allowed in addition to TV, electrical, upholstery, and watch/jewelry repair), and allow for accessory storage for service and office uses. Staff recommends that for parcels east of the Cedar River Market under study, that a commercial designation not be applied, but that the residential designation be retained. The parcels are vacant, do not have an existing commercial use, and do not have visibility from or lie adjacent to an arterial road. The vacant property has the potential to accommodate four single family homes. ANALYSIS: Background Uses and Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Designations - Vicinity The existing zoning is shown on Figure 1 which shows much of the vicinity on the north and south side of Maple Valley Highway as Residential-8 (R-8) with some property shown as Convenience Commercial (CC), including the an automotive repair operation, Taco Time administrative headquarters, espresso stand, and an insurance office under construction. The corresponding Comprehensive Plan designations are Residential Single Family (RS) and Convenience Commercial CC). Prior to 1993, some of the CC zoned property was designated with a more intense commercial designation, B-1. Refer to Figure 1-a. Proposed Amendment Area The City-proposed amendment area is identified on Figures 2 and 3, and equals approximately 3.05 acres (excludes parcels under study east of the Cedar River Market). The amendment area includes all of the existing CC- zoned property, plus some R-8 zoned property which applies to the existing Cedar River Market, Cedar River Barbershop, and three residences located on property contiguous to the Taco Time office for which Taco Time has a purchase option(for the southernmost residential lot, Taco Time also has a lease). Power line and fuel line easements (gas, diesel, and jet fuel) cross part of the property under lease by Taco Time. Regarding the gas lines, there would be restrictions against building permanent structures. Regarding the powerline easement, no one may build anything on the area covered by the easement 98M4RE V.DOC\ 2 4/9/98 without the express permission of the holder of the easement. Parking and landscaping could occur on the easement according to specifications by the easement holders. The vacant parcels under study east of the Cedar River Market total an additional 0.855 acres. Taco Time Office Taco Time corporate offices are located on Maple Valley Highway near Monroe Avenue SE. The existing office on the site totals 7,792 square feet, and an accessory storage building totals 1,920 square feet. Currently, 30 parking spaces are located on site. When the building was constructed in 1990, the zoning designation was Business Use (B-1). With the Comprehensive Plan update and associated area-wide zoning, the property was redesignated and rezoned Convenience Commercial (CC) in 1993. The purpose of the CC zone is: "...to provide for small-scale convenience retail/commercial centers intended to provide for basic retail and service needs of the adjacent area. Uses serving a larger area may be appropriate if they also serve the residents of the immediate area and are compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood in which they are located." Commercial uses in general are restricted to 5,000 square feet per commercial use, with a maximum increase possible of 1,000 square feet if approved by the Hearing Examiner as a Conditional Use Permit. Professional and personal offices are allowed as Administrative Conditional Uses, subject to: 1) The total gross floor area of each use in any one site shall not exceed three thousand 3,000) square feet. 2) The following criteria: A) Activities with a limited need for walk-in clientele; and B) Activities for which a reduction in parking standards to one space per five hundred(500) square feet of gross floor space could be justified. The Taco Time building is nonconforming since it exceeds the 3,000 square foot parameter, and has a parking ratio of 1 space per 260 square feet, assuming the office space only. Assuming both the office and storage space, there is a parking ratio of 1 space per 324 square feet which still does not meet the criteria. Expansion of the current use would be difficult due to the criteria. The office has no need for walk-in clientele. In the future,Taco Time also anticipates expanding their offices due to increasing corporate staff needs. Since the use does not provide for basic retail and service needs of the adjacent area and provides more parking than required (described below), the expansion of the use would be difficult to approve since it would not meet the intent of the zone, or the specific Conditional Use criteria listed above. Taco Time Parking and Expansion Goals Taco Time has 30 parking spaces, but would like to add 24 spaces. Three to four times a month, there is a need for additional parking when meetings occur with franchise owners, restaurant managers, or when employee training occurs. Currently when these meetings occur, the business owners have said 98M4REV.DOC\ 3 4/9/98 that parking overflows into the surrounding residential neighborhood. There is also an adjacent undeveloped lot to the east which is used for overflow parking as well. The Parking Code requirement for office uses is a minimum of 3 and maximum of 4.5 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (1 space per 333 square feet to 1 space per 222 s.£). This standard allows for more parking than what is allowed under the CC zone parameters for office uses (1 per 500 s.f. which equals 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet). The existing office building would meet the Parking Code requirement for its current building because the Parking Code would result in a range allowing between 23 and 35 parking spaces. To exceed the maximum spaces of the Parking Code, application for a modification would need to be made. Taco Time Property Ownership There is one underlying property owner, John Dobson, who owns the Taco Time office property, espresso property, plus several residential lots. Taco Time leases the property and has an option to purchase the land where the office is situated as well as property to the east including land with a single family residence, power line easement, and portable espresso stand. Taco Time has a purchase option for additional residential lots. The proposed redesignation includes the property leased by Taco Time as well as two lots which Taco Time has an option to purchase. Since Taco Time anticipates expanding its corporate offices in the future which would be in conflict with the current CC zone regulations regarding size, an amendment to the CC zone regulations or a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/concurrent rezone to a different designation would be needed. Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop The Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop are located on two separate adjoining parcels, and are under separate ownership. The properties were zoned B-1, but were redesignated in 1993 to RS/R-8 which staff has determined was a map error. Staff believes the intention of the CC zone applied in the area was to include the market and barbershop which are clearly neighborhood serving. The market and barber shop are grandfathered uses, and may continue, but the residential zoning would restrict their ability to expand, or potentially to rebuild without a conditional approval permit. Vacant Parcels Under Study There are four vacant parcels east of the Cedar River Market located on SE 6th Street. Prior to 1993, the zoning applied to the properties was B-1, a commercial zone. In 1993, the property was redesignated to residential. The property owners have indicated to staff that they were unaware of the designation change in 1993, and would like to reinstate a commercial designation. Although staff believes the residential zoning for the adjacent market and barbershop was in error, the staff does not believe that the residential designation for the vacant properties was a map error. In 1993, the property did not have a commercial use or a pending commercial use. This report analyzes the potential application of a commercial designation as well as the retention of the residential designation. Aquifer Protection Regulations The subject area is located in Aquifer Protection Area Zone 2. However, it was determined during review of a preliminary mini-mart/gas station and shared parking plan (submitted by Taco Time for adjacent property) that facilities with hazardous materials or underground storage tanks have the 98M4REV.DOC\ 4 4/9/98 potential to affect ground water quality equal to or exceeding a Zone 1 facility. Based on this, the Water Utility can require such facilities to meet Zone 1 requirements (RMC 8-8-7G1). Zone 1 requirements prohibit facilities with certain amounts of hazardous materials or underground storage tanks. Although the CC zone allows gas stations as an administrative conditional use, the aquifer protection regulations would prevent their location in the area. Limitations on the use of hazardous substances in Zone 1 could also affect the ability to have a dry cleaning business which is a typical neighborhood-serving use. These limitations would also affect the allowable uses of any other zone allowing commercial uses. City Council Direction Based upon a letter from Taco Time (see Attachment A), and review of options by the Administration and Planning and Development Committee, in September 1997, the City Council directed staff as follows: The City should sponsor a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA)/concurrent rezone application with an associated development agreement. The preferred Comprehensive Plan designation would be Employment Area-Commercial. The matching zoning district would be Arterial Commercial. The CPA/rezone should consider the inclusion of the nearby nonconforming food market currently zoned R-8, and potentially other properties next to the CC zone which are under common ownership. The City should allow continued informal use of the unimproved parking area east of Taco Time offices if there is active pursuit of the necessary approvals and development agreement to allow the expanded use and parking area by the property owner or their designee. A discussion of other options studied by the City Council in Fall 1997 are described later in this report. Proposed EA-C/CA Designation and Zone with Development Agreement The Employment Area - Commercial Comprehensive Plan designation is intended to `provide for commercial and residential uses requiring large amounts of land and/or high visibility and access to large volumes of automobile traffic."The matching zoning designation would be Arterial Commercial CA). The primary purpose of the zone is to provide `suitable environments for `strip' commercial development." The CA zoning regulations are more permissive than the CC regulations, and would allow a much larger range of uses on the properties. The maximum height of buildings is 50 feet which may be increased through a conditional use permit. A landscape buffer of 15 feet is required abutting residentially-zoned lots. To avoid promoting strip development which could set a precedent for other areas along Maple Valley Highway, and to avoid some commercial and service uses which may be attracted by the area's traffic flow and visibility, but which may not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, the City Council directed that a development agreement be prepared. In RCW 36.70B.170, a local government can enter into development agreement with a person having ownership or control of real property. The agreement can address the permitted uses, densities, intensities, building sizes, design standards such as heights, setbacks, landscaping, and other features. 98M4REV.DOC1 5 4/9/98 The development agreement must be consistent with the jurisdiction's development regulations adopted in compliance with the Growth Management Act. Refer to Attachment B. A proposed development agreement has been drafted and sent to property owners in the proposed amendment area (refer to Attachment C). It describes the allowed uses, and generally summarizes development standards. A comparison of use allowances is shown on Attachment D. As proposed,the agreement does not have a specific expiration date, but would be reviewed periodically around the time the City would have a thorough review of the Comprehensive Plan (every 10 years). Based upon discussions with the City Attorney, the City may want to specify an expiration date. Provisions for extending the agreement could be included in that case. Upon review by the Planning Commission and City Council, a formal development agreement would be prepared by the City Attorney's office. Further changes in the agreement may result upon Commission, Council, or City Attorney review. The Development Agreement would allow more uses than the CC zone, but not include the full range of CA uses. Key features of the draft agreement are: In comparison to the CC zone, the Development Agreement would allow retail sales of books, music, stationary, art supplies, building/hardware/garden materials, pharmacies, pet shops,photography services, retail printing and xerography, and other similar uses. The CC zone allows auto repair as an Administrative Conditional Use permit when associated with a gas station. The existing radiator repair shop is not associated with a gas station which likely wouldn't be allowed with the Aquifer Protection regulations. In the draft Development Agreement, existing vehicle service and repair uses would be allowed. This means that the existing radiator repair shop could continue indefinitely, and could rebuild to its current size if there was a fire or act of God without a conditional approval permit and without a need to be associated with a gas station. In comparison to the CA zone, the agreement would exclude residential uses, intensive retail activities (e.g. appliance, furniture, auto supply, liquor stores, sporting goods, etc.), light manufacturing, and auto sales. The CC zone maximum height is 35 feet. The maximum height of the CA zone is 50 feet. It would be specified in the Development Agreement that the 50 foot height limit of the CA zone is the maximum, and a conditional use process to exceed 50 feet would not be allowed through the Development Agreement even though the process is available generally in the CA zones. The advantages of the CA zoning with a development agreement are: Accommodates office use without size restrictions. Accommodates future commercial uses of vacant or redevelopable properties, and, Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop. The CA zone would better address the Taco Time corporate offices, and would accommodate the other property owners. 98M4REV.DOC\ 6 4/9/98 Other commercial uses could be accommodated on vacant or redevelopable properties, yet the full range of CA uses would not be available. There would be less potential compatibility impacts than a CPA/rezone without a development agreement. There would be greater certainty for the property owners, nearby residents, and the City regarding the future development in the area. There would be less concern about setting a precedent for strip commercial development on the Maple Valley Highway. Another alternative to the development agreement - which would shorten the list of uses and allow for different development standards - would be the creation of an overlay zone similar to the Automall Overlay in the CA zone. Staff has not proposed this because of the existing complexity of the zoning code and due to concerns about future expansion of the boundaries. Another overlay zone would further add to the complexity of the Renton zoning code which has twenty-two zoning classifications, plus the Automall Overlay and a series of overlay-type regulations such as Adult Entertainment, Airport, and Shoreline regulations among others. The development agreement would create less possibility of future commercial expansion along Maple Valley Highway on other properties because it would be more difficult to amend than an overlay zone; development agreements require coordination between the City and property owners under the agreement, and any amendments require a public hearing prior to adoption. The development agreement would provide greater certainty for the property owners and nearby residents for a longer period of time. Nearly all property owners in the subject area have responded with an interest in participation with the redesignation and development agreement including the owner of the radiator repair property, insurance office property, and Taco Time corporate owners as well as the underlying property owner John Dobson. The owner of the Cedar River Market is interested in a commercial designation to correct the map error. The Cedar River Barbershop property owner has not contacted Staff in response to letters and calls to the barber shop operator. Aside from Taco Time's desire for more flexibility for office and commercial uses, it should be noted that the radiator repair and insurance office property owners have indicated an interest in participating in the redesignation to EA-C/CA and the development agreement because it provides additional flexibility for the future in comparison to the existing CC zone. Further analysis of the staff recommended approach is provided below along with other options. Proposed Arterial Commercial Code Amendments Because the Development Agreement must be consistent with the underlying zone, Staff is proposing three amendments to the CA zone in general (applicable on any CA zoned property). The development agreement assumes that the proposed general CA amendments will be made. The amendments are: Add offices of any type as a permitted primary use. A 1996 Administrative Determination(See Attachment E) indicates that the CA zone allows for office uses and office buildings that comply with the development standards and list of permitted uses for the zone. The proposed amendments would formalize the Administrative Determination, and clarify that any type of office building is allowed including administrative headquarters (defined as a use 98M4REV.DOC\ 7 4/9/98 containing the day-to-day functions, e.g. management, payroll, information systems, inventory control, of a company or affiliated corporate group), business, medical and dental, personal and professional offices. See Attachment F which shows all general CA zone amendments. The development standards of the zone, particularly height limits of 50 feet, would restrict the intensity of office in the CA. Any additional height would require a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit (in the development agreement this process would not be offered). Office structures are such that the type of tenant(retail, service, or administrative) could change without much change in the visual appearance. Add shoe repair as an allowed use. The CA zone already allows electrical repair, TV repair, watch/jewelry repair, and upholstery repair. Shoe repair is a use currently allowed in the less intensive CC zone. Clarify that the accessory use of storage in conjunction with retail sales also allows for accessory storage associated with permitted service and office uses. Accessory storage is limited to 33%of the gross floor area. Other Amendment Options - Staff Proposed Amendment Area Five options are presented below for consideration for the Staff Proposed Amendment Area. A discussion of the parcels under study east of the Cedar River Market is provided separately below. For the Taco Time area, Options 1 through 3 were reviewed by the Planning and Development Committee in the Fall of 1997. The City Council agreed with the Committee that the City should sponsor a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, with the preferred designation being EA-C/CA, subject to a development agreement. Attachment G provides a list of relevant Comprehensive Plan policies addressed in the chart. PROPOSAL ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES COMP.PLAN COMPLIANCE 1. Staff Recommended • Accommodates office • Could set a precedent •Meets general policies to Proposal-For use without size for other areas along Maple keep the City's present amendment area, restrictions. Size will be Valley Hwy,this is less economic base including redesignate from CC limited based upon likely with a development office uses(LU-144),and and RS to EA-C. development standards of agreement. allow a mix of uses(LU- Amend the Zoning the zone and site 148). Map concurrently from characteristics(e.g. Commercial and CC and R-8 to CA.easement). service uses may be Meets Policy 146-a to Prepare general CA attracted to the sites expand the City's zone amendments. Accommodates future because of traffic flow and percentage of land base Authorize a commercial uses of vacant visibility;however,the utilized for commercial development or redevelopable properties, development agreement uses. agreement. yet the full range of CA will limit list of uses to uses would not be available. achieve more compatibility •The EA-C designation with the surrounding requires location on streets Recognizes commercial neighborhood. designated as major arterial use of Cedar River Market or above(LU-168). Maple and Barbershop. Valley Highway is designated as a Principal 98M4REV.DOC\ 8 4/9/98 PROPOSAL ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES COMP.PLAN COMPLIANCE Provides flexibility for Arterial. other commercial uses for existing businesses over Policy LU-176 discourages time as market needs new EA-C designations change. where the commercial demand can be accommodated through intensification and redevelopment of existing EA-C areas. While relocation is possible for Taco Time,the headquarters has already relocated once to a zone(B-1)which at the time allowed for office uses with no size or type restriction. Taco Time invested in their headquarters at that location,and in options on surrounding properties. Relocation is not desirable. While redesignation to BA- C would expand its designation area in the City, in terms of all commercial designations,much of the land under review is already designated commercial as CC. LU-178 suggests that primary uses of the EA-C retail,residential,or service)should be about 50%of the total building area of the EA-C designations. Staff has determined that this is a designation-wide policy. It should be noted that retail,service and office uses can locate interchangeably in structures appearing like a retail center or in office buildings. Also Policy LU- 148 promotes a mix of uses in Employment Area 98M4REV.DOC\ 9 4/9/98 PROPOSAL ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES COMP.PLAN COMPLIANCE designations. 2. CC Zone Text The CC zone list of • The Taco Time Non-applicable. Amendment Increasing uses is not as broad as corporate offices are Size Allowances for other commercial not and will not be a Offices. No zones,and would neighborhood-serving Comprehensive continue to promote business which is the Plan/Zoning Map neighborhood serving intent of the zone. Amendment. uses overall. Beyond expansion of A CPA/concurrent offices,the corporation rezone would not be may want to add over required. time other activities which would restricted by the intent and regulations of the CC zone(e.g.on lot with espresso stand). The aquifer recharge regulations reduce the allowable uses of the zone in this area,and the list of allowable uses is relatively smaller than other commercial zones. Another disadvantage is that the CC text amendments would apply to all CC-zoned property in the City and would need to be analyzed for effects on other CC-zoned property. 3. For proposed The Taco Time Substantial height The designation would amendment area, corporate offices would allowances(up to 250') occur next to an redesignate from CC be accommodated and which could impact the existing transit route and RS to EA-0. encouraged in this zone.adjacent residential LU-188). Amend the Zoning areas. A development Map concurrently from • Some commercial uses agreement could limit • Parking most likely CC and R-8 to CO. are allowed in the CO the maximum height to will not occur in Option-authorize a zone as secondary uses.;be less than the zone. structures(LU-190) development there are restrictions because the easements agreement. against freestanding • Other underdeveloped are likely to be utilized commercial uses,drive or vacant CC properties for surface parking through service and in the area may be since other uses appear signage.more difficult to convert to be restricted by to commercial uses 98M4REV.DOC\ 10 4/9/98 P i2OPOSAL ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES COMP.PLAN COMPLIANCE which are not easement owners. considered primary uses of the CO zone and Site and building which are discouraged design is not likely to from being in separate be pedestrian oriented freestanding buildings. or transit oriented A development because of the existing agreement could not development pattern, change these restrictions location of easement, because the zone is and traffic volumes on more restrictive,unless Maple Valley Highway. restrictions would be removed City-wide for a development agreement. This is not likely because the CO zone is intended to be an intensive office zone with pedestrian-oriented commercial activities in the ground floors. The zone would allow potentially for light industrial uses,unless restricted through the development agreement. There are not many commercial activities allowed in the CO zone which does not allow for much variety for future uses. 4. Redesignate Taco Time • The Taco Time Does not treat land Regarding EA-C,see office property and corporate offices would under contiguous option 1. adjacent residential be accommodated. ownership with parcels under option existing and planned •Regarding new CC from CC and RS to • Smaller commercial office and commercial designation for Cedar River EA-C. Retain CC for opportunities in the CC uses similarly. Market and Barbershop,the auto repair shop, zone may be more uses meet the intent of LU- insurance office,compatible with the • Less flexibility for 213 to have small-scale uses espresso stand,and surrounding other commercial uses in proximity which do not redesignate to CC the neighborhood. for vacant/change the predominant Cedar River Market redevelopable land, character of the area. and Cedar River radiator shop property, Barbershop to correct insurance office under •Regarding location,the map error. Implement construction,Cedar Cedar River Market and matching zoning.River Market,or Barbershop are within Development Barbershop,over time pedestrian range of existing agreement for Taco residential areas,but are not 98M4REV.DOC\ 11 4/9/98 PROPOSAL ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES COMP.PLAN COMPLIANCE Time property only.Potential spot zone contiguous to a street Make adjustments to issues distinguishing classified at the collector CA zone generally. the Taco Time office level. Trade area is area only. unknown. 5. Redesignate Taco Time • The Taco Time Does not treat land Regarding EA-O,see office property and corporate offices would under contiguous Option 3. adjacent residential be accommodated. ownership with parcels under option existing and planned •Regarding CC,see Option from CC and RS to • The development office and commercial 4. EA-O. Retain CC for agreement would be uses similarly. auto repair shop, simpler because height insurance office,would be the primary • Less flexibility for espresso stand,and issue to be addressed. other commercial uses redesignate to CC the for vacant/ Cedar River Market • Smaller commercial redevelopable land, and Cedar River opportunities in the CC radiator shop property, Barbershop to correct zone may be more insurance office under map error. Implement compatible with the construction,Cedar matching zoning. surrounding River Market,or Development neighborhood. Barbershop,over time. agreement for Taco Time property only.Potential spot zone issues distinguishing the Taco Time office area only. Parcels Under Study-East of Cedar River Market Redesignation to the EA-C/CA designation would meet some policies, and would not meet other policies: Redesignation of the parcels under study east of the Cedar River Market to the EA-C/CA designation would meet Policy 146-a to expand the City's percentage of land base utilized for commercial uses. It would not meet policy LU-168 requiring location on streets designated as major arterial or above as the vacant parcels are located on SE 6th Street. Although staff proposes inclusion of the adjacent market and barbershop (which are also located on SE 6th Street) in the EA-C/CA designation, this would recognize the current commercial use of the property. The single family lots adjacent to Taco Time are included in the Staff proposed amendment area because the Taco Time corporation has plans to expand their existing office use, the property is under common ownership, and the property could be integrated into the Taco Time campus and reoriented to Maple Valley Highway. Policy LU-176 discourages new EA-C designations where the commercial demand can be accommodated through intensification and redevelopment of existing EA-C areas. It is possible that 98M4REV.DOC\ 12 4/9/98 commercial uses attracted to the vacant parcels would not have long-term viability with reduced visibility from Maple Valley Highway. Redesignation to EA-O/CO likewise would not meet several policies: The designation would not occur next to an existing transit route (LU-188). It would be in the vicinity of Maple Valley Highway. Parking most likely will not occur in structures (LU-190) due to the suburban nature of the area, size of properties, and uses likely attracted there. Site and building design is not likely to be pedestrian oriented or transit oriented. Regarding a CC designation: If a use were to be established it would need to meet the intent of LU-213 to have small-scale uses in proximity which do not change the predominant character of the area. Regarding location, the property is within pedestrian range of existing residential areas, but is not contiguous to a street classified at the collector level. Trade area would be unknown at this stage. CAPACITY ANALYSIS: Housing- Staff Proposed Amendment Area Five residentially designated lots could potentially be redesignated to another commercial or office classification. Three of the lots contain existing single family residences under common ownership which are currently rentals. The other two lots contain commercial uses which are currently nonconforming under the residential designation. No change is anticipated to the Comprehensive Plan residential capacity model because the capacity model did not address parcels under one acre. A theoretical capacity analysis is presented below. The total area designated RS (R-8 zone) equals 0.81 acres (35,303 s.f.). If these sites were vacant and lot lines adjusted, this could potentially result in 7 total units (assuming a minimum lot size of 4,500 s.f), a net increase of 4 units. However, no lots are vacant. Based upon current lot patterns, only one existing lot has enough area to potentially subdivide into two lots. This would mean a potential net increase of 1 housing unit. Employment- Staff Proposed Amendment Area No change is anticipated to the Comprehensive Plan employment capacity analysis because the capacity analysis assumed the property in this area was developed. No redevelopment figures were assumed for the EA-C or EA-0 designations in the City generally. A theoretical capacity analysis is presented below assuming the capacity model's partially developed parameters for all the land except the easement. If all the subject property designated CC and RS is changed to another classification,the following potential gross employment figures could occur: Option 1 EA-C -39 employees Option 3 EA-0 -73 employees 98M4REV.DOC\ 13 4/9/98 If the main redesignation is restricted to the Taco Time office and expansion area only, the gross employment estimates would be: Option 4 EA-C/CC -27 employees Option 5 EA-0 -50 employees To determine net employment, existing employment should be subtracted. Taco Time corporate offices currently have 36 employees, ten of which do not have office space because they work on maintenance and construction crews in the field, and five of which are District Managers who have office space, but who are generally in the field most of the time. Future employee estimates for the Taco Time corporate offices are unknown. For the remaining businesses in the area including the insurance office under construction, Staff guesstimates there are about 7 to 9 employees total. Not all employees would be onsite at the same time if there are shifts. The results show that the Comprehensive Plan capacity model formula is close to the existing employment assuming the EA-C designation,particularly considering the number of employees onsite at any one time. The model shows greater employment potential considering the EA-0 designation. Capacity-Parcels Under Study The property totals 0.855 acres. It was not included in the City's capacity model. Analysis below is theoretical and based upon the model's vacant land assumptions. Square footage wise, the property could have about 8 lots with 4,500 s.f. each. However, its configuration and platted pattern would more likely support 4 single family homes. If the parcels were redesignated to a commercial designation, the resulting employment capacity would be: EA-C: 14 employees EA-O: 25 employees CC: 7 employees COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: See discussion on preceding pages. ZONJ1G CONCURRENCY: Depending on the designation selected, the zoning map would need to be modified to match the Comprehensive Plan. Depending on the designation and whether a development agreement is pursued, some changes to the CA zone or CO zone would be needed generally in order for a consistent development agreement. 98M4REV.DOC\ 14 4/9/98 CONCLUSION: The redesignation from CC and RS/CC and R-8 to EA-C/CA would better match current conditions of the area which are a mix of neighborhood serving commercial and community/region-wide business offices. The development agreement would restore some of the previous flexibility of the zoning applied to much of the area prior to 1993 (the old B-1 zone) by not capping the square footages of allowed office or retail uses, and allowing for more variety in uses in comparison to the existing CC zone. However, the agreement would exclude many of the intensive uses of the CA zone in order to protect the neighborhood from some potentially incompatible uses. The general text amendments to the CA zone would clarify minor repair activities and accessory storage for service and office uses, and allow for offices which helps implement an existing Administrative Determination. Under study for potential commercial designation are four parcels adjacent to the Cedar River Market on SE 6th Street which prior to 1993 had a commercial zoning (B-1), but which were redesignated in 1993 to Residential Single-Family(RS)/R-8. Staff does not support a commercial designation at this time,pending additional analysis and public input. 98M4REV.DOC\ 15 4/9/98 r 8 i1/1/SE 5th S7,. Orttro I14,41: 0 #a) 4• too 4.4, Q il o c'- P' pi_ 840,„ Q C 0 14 4 44 1 Q 69 a o741Ika- o 40. 4 >"*. ipp 444 II Figure 1 : ExistingZoning98 -M-4 o...................... 411 15 ' 300 o Q,, Neighborhoods Sc Strategic Planning 1 : 1 ,8 0 0 T. Sc1eT. Schlepp R. Maconie 8 April 1998 Zoning Boundaries i' i:' r'! i', i:: ii: i:: i:: i: ii: i: i: i: i; i: i: i: i: i: i: F:!:}. s:F:s.F:s:; i.:• i• 1 •.:::::' i• i' i;:}• i: : i: is!: i: i: i: i: i., 1:!•!: i:#:! e!:!: t: is . G... .................. .. :.,.:. E. i.,.}.}.:.!. i•,'. E F::,.: s: j::. 3.:: i: F. s.,.:. i. t,,,:• t•!.• F•!. v. i.}..!. F.i. i: i: i: ii: E+:[:: Ci: i. F. i...}.. t. 4. I. 1.. i. F. i. E. F. i. i. i.';.}.}. i.. 3•!.,• i.;. i:.}•:. i.:i•;. :. .. i:: 7:!:::: ta: t: E:; E:•:!: 3:!: F7: E: 66s: i:}:::} e:}: t: i:: i:i: flit , 3I. t, s !:. EE s•}.: n. F• v:• p}• ( a.' i••!' 1' t• t• t• Ea:i:3:!:. f€.. t.!... j. I•:!. i.... i. i?.}. i .}. I i. i.' t. i. i• i, i,:.},:;}: i,. s i. E; i i i. i...... i: t: f: i: i: i:!: i: i: i;}: i: i: i: i:!; i: is,.,... 1: i::: i: t: E: aii.,. i.: i; i! ii,:, i. t E•...:.!;:, i,:.:.,•:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. i.:... i.„,..,........: 3; ::!: s: s':• rr- ••, IIIp. tINtr w a , ram,'' V e', µ kx niV fo+''. m•'` a' ,,/ v p m < S , R ? , s .. q 6=',$ 4: W .?. ' S f ai .. po i ,;• . I1, N -; .. gam =' x : 9... 46,_ .,,,,, 4 Ai f gripir I f,, * f4 h ; ' r . • } e..( f -. IW i V nAllti,:;...'. t:.,-. ::: l':.. 7: r. 111e4e.•'",. V., 4''. 1., u4';'-'a' ;',.''',, s' F', .. 74: 11Ar 4::- 4411YRU1! A: pike.: u., 0 Nfrw ,,,,,,,..:, ty m 441vaioet'" ,-,, v t4: 4,. t'••• ,•::•:-:,•••-: " 7. 1'; 0 r A RC_ Ep A p y( J- 4 Alik..; 4' 1.. WS 11":::: ..: 1:: H :. .:.:.:: ::: .... 14. 744411::: ... VII * II 10111K 1. \ ta:::: 1 Ilk% r 0 1:9 1 00 ." I., 4 4: .:..,,,,,.,,:„..,„„: 4 4 C•. 4 P: , RtroK Syr 1 , 44t4or ' V 1111 Ai ' alth illimar Agra 4, a AwAsk.... att,_ 4/ 11„ 111„, irw, t,„... emlik, mot ..___ _... 41,,, AT... _,,,, 0No, 1„. 111,80. 4 Aga ks is si IP Alli III i k & aits w‘ tsu \___. a 4 . 01. 4p• • wow W G- 1 4v if/ Pip 4• At iiv p des 1, gr#:, 1111 45 1.--,,,, ii 7 \ j IFFANY ha* r i Y . PARK V1j FIGURE la INSE5thSt I rit 41r SE1,444 a) II1Liit 4Iillril#•.44:41rfi , L li . 47Q 0WA,. I/ Q y 14 4 Q 69 At o Q1* Ati 41.1" itz tot 0 150 301 ' 1 : 1 , 100 W Figure 2 : Study Area ( 98 —M - 4) CC zone - commercial use 0 Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning R-8 zone - commercial use R-8 zone - residential use T. SIchlepp minim,MacOnie minim, Parcels considered for redesignation 8 April 1998 Additional parcels under study i 1 h I 3oJI a- 7- ---1--- i, - 7 i 7._ ,,__ z f N.-.„,,,/ / \>,„\ 1 2 r r 1 y c\''' 7X" / / j l \ f s,.,,,.. w.-/ f ot ter/ f a# 6 ji 4 7 y i \ f g4 1,\- I i ii Figure 3: Aerial Photo 98—M-4 0 150' 300' t • T Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning 1 : 1 ,800 i+ T. Schlepp, R. MacOnie Parcels considered for redesignation moo' 8 April 1998 Additional parcels under study rA'A,.XceiLn:?'•~ V" r ^} 4;'! j j: y: ' V' a?f3i,4.vy'a.*•. r :C',:{. r"..+-a `ti.: V '"1'• -- •+."^`17'7'Yit`Y ^.pry: r•.-•fir tf".l`t ';!• . S. S i +3 - r .. S Y t ,r"'- ws Y yy,.:.' +.1. tt v r'a. i...... ia ti-tr f rz'-,e '4 rh- s^,,.T t r. 'l ra;•t i ?'` a1: s t r'E! rAl.f1 tom 4,...y 2 r f ' Y a .tu. ei 3300 Maple ValleyCITYOFRENTONRenton. 9505F August 4, 1997 A 0 0 0 8 phone(425)22(,.( 1997 F.((4257.228.822, Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue S. RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Renton,WA. 98055 Attn: Renton City Council Dear Council Members: Recently,while attempting to add additional parking at our corporate office complex on Maple Valley Hwy.,we discovered that the zoning designation for our property had been changed to Convenience Commercial (CC)thus restricting us from any expansion of our existing complex. The corporate office was structured in 1990 and at that time the zoning was B-1 that outright permitted the office complex and associated parking. Under the present zoning,offices are listed as conditional uses with predetermined restrictions that render our existing office building as a non-conforming use/structure. The current code restricts the size of offices to 3,000 gross square feet. The Taco Time office building is 7,792 square feet,with an accessory storage building of 1,920 square feet. Parking is also significantly restricted (one space for every 500 square foot of gross floor area). Presently Taco Time has 30 spaces but is seeking approval to add 24 spaces in order to accommodate the additional need that occurs three to four times a month,when meetings involving franchise owners,restaurant managers or employee training sessions are held. Presently,when these meetings/seminars occur, parking overflows onto the surrounding residential neighborhood, which is an impact we had hoped to mitigate. Presently the Tonkin family, under the Accord Inc., leases the property along Maple Valley Hwy, between Monroe Ave. SE, and Maplewood Street. We are considering developing the lot furthest east, and had hoped to use the property between this lot and the existing Taco Time office for parking. The proposed development would have a landscaped buffer between our property and the residential area, which would not only buffer the residences from the parking area but also from Maple Valley Highway. During the seven years since we have relocated our corporate offices to its present location,our restaurant growth has been steady. We are already feeling the pinch for the office space necessary to accommodate the growing corporate staff needed to,support our restaurants. We are discussing plans to expand our office in order to accommodate our growing needs,but unfortunately due to the present zoning restrictions,such an expansion would be prohibited. This • restriction is presenting severe consequences for our business. Ve believe that the location of our corporate office is an improvement and a benefit to Renton and the surrounding neighborhood. We have never received complaints regarding our business operation from the neighborhood,and in fact we are considered to be a good neighbor. The Tonkin family are long time residents of Renton and take pride in maintaining an attractive, successfully managed office complex. It is discouraging to know that the restrictions that are ATTACHMENT A now imposed on our property limits the Taco Time Corporation from expanding and in essence, make the existing development a non-conforming use and structure. We are requesting that Section 4-31-10.5 of the Zoning Code be re-evaluated for its actual impact on existing business. We strongly believe that the present zoning places unreasonable restrictions on our business and potential redevelopment of properties zoned CC that exist along Maple Valley Hwy. Sincerely, Mathew E. Tonkin President cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Mr. Mike Katterman Local Project Review 36.70B.160 project permit issued by a local government. [1995 c 347 § that upon government approval the project may proceed in accordance with 420.] existing policies and regulations,and subject to conditions of approval,all as set forth in a development agreement,will strengthen the public planning process,encourage private participation and comprehensive planning, and36.70B.170 Development agreements--Authorized. reduce the economic costs of development. Further,the lack of public1) A local government may enter into a development facilities and services is a serious impediment to development of new housing and commercial uses. Project applicants and local governmentsagreementwithapersonhavingownershiporcontrolofreal may include provisions and agreements whereby applicants are reimbursedpropertywithinitsjurisdiction. A city may enter into a over time for financing public facilities. It is the intent of the legislature bydevelopmentagreementforrealpropertyoutsideitsbound- RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.210 to allow local governments and aries as part of a proposed annexation or a service owners and developers of real property to enter into development agree- agreement. A development agreement must set forth the ntents... [1995 c 347 501.] development standards and other provisions that shall apply to and govern and vest the development, use, and mitigation 36.70B.180 Development agreements—Effect. of the development of the real property for the duration Unless amended or terminated, a development agreement is specified in the agreement. A development agreement shall enforceable during its term by a party to the agreement. A be consistent with applicable development regulations development agreement and the development standards in the adopted by a local government planning under chapter agreement govern during the term of the agreement, or for 36.70A RCW. all or that part of the build-out period specified in the 2) RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.190 and section agreement, and may not be subject to an amendment to a 501,chapter 347, Laws of 1995 do not affect the validity of zoning ordinance or development standard or regulation or a contract rezone, concomitant agreement, annexation a new zoning ordinance or development standard or regula- agreement, or other agreement in existence on July 23, 1995, tion adopted after the effective date of the agreement. A or adopted under separate authority, that includes some or all permit or approval issued by the county or city after the of the development standards provided in subsection (3) of execution of the development agreement must be consistent this section. with the development agreement. [1995 c 347 § 503.] 3) For the purposes of this section, "development Findings—Intent-1995 c 347§§502-506: See note following RCW standards" includes, but is not limited to: 36.70B.170. a) Project elements such as permitted uses, residential densities, and nonresidential densities and intensities or 36.70B.190 Development agreements—Recording— building sizes; Parties and successors bound. A development agreement b)The amount and payment of impact fees imposed or shall be recorded with the real property records of the county agreed to in accordance with any applicable provisions of in which the property is located. During the term of the state law, any reimbursement provisions, other financial development agreement, the agreement is binding on the contributions by the property owner, inspection fees, or parties and their successors, including a city that assumes dedications; jurisdiction through incorporation or annexation of the area c) Mitigation measures, development conditions, and covering the property covered by the development agree- other requirements under chapter 43.21C RCW; ment. [1995 c 347 § 504.] d) Design standards such as maximum heights, set- Findings—Intent-1995 c 347§§502-506: See note following RCWbacks,drainage and water quality requirements, landscaping, 36.70B.170. and other development features; e) Affordable housing;36.70B.200 Development agreements—Public f) Parks and open space preservation; hearing. A county or city shall only approve a development g) Phasing;agreement by ordinance or resolution after a public hearing.h) Review procedures and standards for implementing The county or city legislative body or a planning commis-decisions;sion, hearing examiner, or other body designated by thei) A build-out or vesting period for applicable stan- legislative body to conduct the public hearing may conductdards; and the hearing. If the development agreement relates to a pro-j) Any other appropriate development requirement or ject permit application, the provisions of chapter 36.70C procedure. RCW shall apply to the appeal of the decision on the 4) The execution of a development agreement is a development agreement. [1995 c 347 § 505.] proper exercise of county and city police power and contract Findings—Intent-1995 c 347§§502-506: See note following RCW authority. A development agreement may obligate a party 36.70B.170. to fund or provide services, infrastructure, or other facilities. A development agreement shall reserve authority to impose 36.70B.210 Development agreements—Authority tonewordifferentregulationstotheextentrequiredbyaimposefeesnotextended. Nothing in RCW 36.70B.170 serious threat to public health and safety. [1995 c 347 § through 36.70B.200 and section 501, chapter 347, Laws of 502.] 1995 is intended to authorize local governments to impose Findings—Intent-1995 c 347 §§ 502-506: "The legislature finds impact fees, inspection fees, or dedications or to require anythatthelackofcertaintyintheapprovalofdevelopmentprojectscanresultotherfinancialcontributionsormitigationmeasuresexceptinawasteofpublicandprivateresources,escalate housing costs for as expressly authorized by other applicable provisions.ofconsumersanddiscouragethecommitmenttocomprehensiveplanning which would make maximum efficient use of resources at the least state law. [1995 c 347 § 506.] economic cost to the public. Assurance to a development project applicant Findings—Intent-1995 c 347§§502-506: See note following RCW 36.70B.170. 1996 Ed.) Title 36 RCW—page 185] ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT C DRAFT#2-3/19/98 PROPOSED CONTENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL(CA)ZONE-MAPLE VALLEY HWY AUTHORITY Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170(1), the City and persons with ownership or control of real property are authorized to enter into a development agreement setting forth development standards and any other provisions that shall apply to,govern, and vest the development, use, and mitigation of the development of the real property for the duration of such development agreement. SUBJECT PROPERTY Legal description to be provided] DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Permitted Uses The following uses are permitted within the subject property provided necessary development permits are obtained. 1.Primary Uses: a.Books,music, stationery and art supplies. b.Building, hardware and garden materials (including small trees, shrubs, flowers, supplies and tools within an enclosed area). c.Eating and drinking establishments. d.Flowers,plants and floral supplies. e.Food and groceries. f.Mini-marts. g.Newsstands. h.Office and business supplies. i.Pharmacies and drug stores. j.Video sales and rentals. k.Small vehicle service and repair,existing, legal. 1.Business services, including retail computer services, retail printing and xerography. m. Family day care, day care centers, and adult day care/health programs. n.Financial and real estate. o.Laundromats. p.Parks,new and existing neighborhood, community and regional; new and existing trails and open spaces. q.Personal services such as barber shop,beauty parlor. r.Pet shop and grooming. s.Photography and photographic reproduction. t.Professional and business schools. u.Veterinary clinics without outside kennels, runs or stables. v.Shoe repair. w. Utilities, small. x.Offices: Offices including administrative headquarters, business, medical and dental, personal and professional. ATTACHMENT C DRAFT#2- 3/19/98 2.Secondary Uses Permitted Subject To Conditions: a.Professional And Business Services: i)Size and location will be reviewed as part of site plan approval. b.Art,Dance, Music: Schools and studios for art, crafts,photography, dance and music: i)No outdoor facilities or storage. ii) Retail sales of products or merchandise produced on the premises providing the sales area does not exceed thirty three percent (33%) of the gross floor area of the use. c.Temporary Uses: Temporary use, as defined in RMC Section 4-31-19E. 3.Accessory Uses: In the Arterial Commercial Zone, the following uses are allowed where incidental to a permitted primary or secondary use and shall not exceed thirty three percent 33%)of the gross floor area: a.Food Preparation: Food preparation,for on-site sales purposes only. b.Hand-Crafted Items: Hand crafting of products,for on-site sales purposes only. c.Warehousing: Warehousing and storage of products in conjunction with retail sales; storage of supplies in conjunction with service and office uses. d.Recycling/Collection Stations: Recycling collection stations; provided, the structure is not located within any required setback and/or landscaped area. 4.Administrative Conditional Uses: a.Hobby Kennels b.Veterinary Clinics,with outside kennels, runs or stables. c.Utilities,medium. 5.Hearing Examiner Conditional Uses: a.Community Facilities b.Convalescent centers and nursing homes. c.Wholesale and retail horticultural nurseries. d.Utilities, large. e.Feed stores. f.Churches, synagogues and temples. g.Service clubs and organizations. 6.Wireless Communication Facilities. Wireless communication facilities may be allowed pursuant to RMC Chapter 4-38, Ordinances 4666 and 4689, or as thereafter amended. Prohibited Uses Any use not specifically listed as primary, secondary, accessory or conditional use shall be prohibited; except those uses determined by the Zoning Administrator to be: 1) in keeping with the purpose and 2 ATTACHMENT C DRAFT#2-3/19/98 intent of the Zone; and 2) similar in nature to a specifically listed primary, secondary accessory or conditional use. Site Development Standards The following development standards apply: 1.Setbacks: Setbacks in the CA Zone shall be required as follows: a.Front—Street Setback: A minimum setback of ten feet(10')is required. The minimum setback may be reduced down to zero feet (0') through the site plan review process provided that blank walls are not located within the reduced setback. b.Rear And Side—Interior Setbacks: None shall be required except as listed in special requirements provisions below in subsection lc. c.Special Requirements: If a CA lot abuts or is adjacent to a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R- 10, R-14 or RM-I, then there shall be a fifteen foot (15') setback subject to the landscaping provisions in subsection 4c(1)or c(2)of this Section. 2.Height: a.Limits: In no case shall building height exceed the limits specified in Section 4-31-17, Airport Zoning, of the Renton Municipal Code, in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended.. b.General: A maximum of fifty feet(50'). c.Special Height Allowances: A conditional use permit or other land use permit may not authorize an exceedance of the maximum height standard. 3.Lot Coverage: Lot coverage for buildings are listed below: a.Lot coverage for buildings shall not exceed sixty five percent (65%) of the total lot area. b.Lot coverage may be increased up to seventy five percent (75%) of the total lot area if parking is provided within the building or within a parking garage. 4. _ Landscaping/Improvements: a.Street Frontage: Lots abutting public streets shall have a minimum landscaping strip of ten feet(10'), except where reduced through the site plan review process. b.Pedestrian Connection: A pedestrian connection shall be provided from a public entrance to the street unless the reviewing official determines that the requirement would unduly endanger the pedestrian. c.Special Requirements: 3 ATTACHMENT C DRAFT#2-3/19/98 1) If the CA lot is adjacent to a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-14 or RM-I, then there shall be a minimum fifteen foot (15') sight-obscuring landscaped strip. The Hearing Examiner may modify the sight-obscuring provision through the site plan review process in order to provide reasonable access to the property. If the Street is designated arterial in the Transportation Element of the City Comprehensive Plan, nonsight-obscuring landscaping shall be provided unless otherwise determined by the Hearing Examiner through the site plan review process. These provisions may be modified by the Hearing Examiner through the site plan review process where the applicant can show that the same or better results will occur because of creative design solutions, unique aspects or use, etc.,that cannot be fully anticipated at this time. 2) If the CA lot abuts a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-14 or RM-I,then there shall be a fifteen foot (15') landscaped visual barrier consistent with the definition in RMC Section 4-31-2 in effect at the time of this agreement or as thereafter amended. A ten foot (10') sight-obscuring landscaping strip may be allowed through the site plan process provided that a solid six foot (6') high barrier wall is provided within the landscaped strip and a maintenance agreement or easement for the landscape strip is secured. A solid barrier wall shall not be located closer than five feet (5') to an abutting lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10,R-14 or RM-I. These provisions may be modified by the Hearing Examiner through the site plan review process where the applicant can show that the same or better results will occur because of creative design solutions, unique aspects or use, etc.,that cannot be fully anticipated at this time. 3) If the CA lot abuts or is adjacent to a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-14 or RM-I, then all outdoor storage, loading, repair, maintenance or work areas shall be screened by a fence, or landscaping, or a lanscaped berm, or some combination thereof as determined by the reviewing official to achieve adequate visual or acoustical screening. Loading docks shall not be located adjacent to or abutting a lot zoned R-1,R-5,R-8,R-10,R-14 or RM-I. These provisions may be modified by the Hearing Examiner through the site plan review process where the applicant can show that the same or better results will occur because of creative design solutions, unique aspects or use, etc.,that cannot be fully anticipated at this time. 4) Garbage, refuse or dumpster areas shall not be located within fifty feet (50') of a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-14 or RM-I except by approval of the Hearing Examiner through the site plan review process. In no case shall the garbage, refuse or dumpster area be located within the required setback. 5.Surface Mounted Equipment: All on-site surface mounted utility equipment shall be screened from public view. 4 ATTACHMENT C DRAFT#2-3/19/98 6.Roof-Top Equipment: All operating equipment located on the roof of any building shall be enclosed so as to be shielded from view, except for telecommunication equipment. 7.Outdoor storage: a.Permitted outdoor storage must be screened from adjacent or abutting properties and public rights-of-way. Outdoor storage uses shall provide fencing, berming, and/or landscaping as determined by the reviewing official to achieve adequate visual or acoustical screening. b.Products or bulk materials covered by buildings with roofs but without sides shall be considered outside storage and subject to the screening provisions of this Section. 8.Refuse And Recyclables Collection and Storage: All recyclables collection and storage, garbage, refuse or dumpsters contained within specified areas shall be screened, except for access points,by a fence or landscaping or some combination thereof. EFFECT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Unless amended or terminated, the development agreement is enforceable during its term by a party to the agreement. The development agreement and development standards in the agreement shall govern during the term of the agreement. The agreement may not be subject to a new zoning ordinance or an amendment to a zoning ordinance or development standard adopted after the effective date of the agreement,unless otherwise provided in the agreement. Any permit or approval issued by the City after the execution of the agreement must be consistent with the development agreement. EFFECT OF OTHER CITY REGULATIONS Definitions The definitions of RMC 4-31-2 in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended, shall apply to interpretation of permitted uses and site development standards provided in this development agreement. Parking The Parking and Loading regulations of RMC 4-14 in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended, shall apply to this development agreement. Environmental Review/Sensitive Areas Where applicable, all development shall comply with all environmental review and sensitive area regulations, including, but not limited to, Greenbelt Regulations, Wetlands Management, Aquifer Protection, Landscaping, Shoreline Master Program, Flood Hazards, and Environmental Ordinance SEPA), respectively Section 4-31-34; Chapter 4-32, Chapter 8-8; Section 4-31-35; Chapter 4-19, Section 4-31-31; and Chapter 4-6 the Renton Municipal Code which are in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended. 5 ATTACHMENT C DRAFT#2 - 3/19/98 Signs The Sign Code, RMC Chapter 4-20, in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended, shall apply to this development agreement. Other Development Regulations Development shall be subject to any other applicable development standards or requirements not otherwise specified in this agreement including, but not limited to, impact fees, mitigation measures, development conditions, street and utility regulations and specifications, subdivision regulations, and health and sanitation regulations, which are in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended. AUTHORITY RESERVED Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170(4) the City reserves its authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to public health and safety. RECORDING Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.190, this development agreement shall be recorded with the real property records of King County. During the term of the development agreement,the agreement is binding on the parties and their successors. TERM The parties of this development agreement agree to evaluate the agreement periodically, but not less than every ten years. Where appropriate, periodic review of the development agreement shall generally coincide with the City's evaluation of its entire Comprehensive Plan every ten years, pursuant to RMC Section 4-3-2F in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended. AMENDMENT The provisions of this agreement may only be amended with the mutual consent of the parties. No additions or alterations of the terms of this agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and formally approved and executed by the duly authorized agents of all parties. The City shall consider amendments to the development agreement after a public hearing by the designated hearing body, and any amendments shall be adopted by ordinance or resolution of the City Council. 6 ZONE COMPARISON SUMMARY ATTACHMENT D ZONE m ZONING 6. - o USE TABLE #1 0 E E . a U U U < U < USES:CC CA Development Agreement Notes AGRICULT JRERESOURCE PRODUCTI DN AN 3.:ANIMAL KEEPING Kennels, Hobby AD AD Veterinary offices/clinics no ext. kennels, runs or stables P P Veterinary offices w/kennels, runs or stables AD AD Horticulture I nurseries (wholesale/retail)H H Nursery or ?reenhouse H H Mineral/nat Jral resource recovery H H RESIDENT'.AL Single fam ly (existing legal) Multi-family 5 du/ac maximum s Multi-family 20 du/ac maximum s Group homes I P/H Group homes II, for 7 or more H Hotels and motels P Apparel an i accessories P Appliances s Auto supplies P Books, music, stationery, art supply P P Building, hardware, garden materials P P Departmer t and variety- Drug store P P Eating & drinking establishments P P P Fabrics and related supplies P Feed stores H H Flowers, plants, and floral supplies s P P Food P P Furniture s Groceries- P P Hobbies, tcy_s_james P Home furn shings s Jewelry P Liquor stores P Mini-marts P P P Monuments, tombstones, & gravestones AD News-stands s P P Office & business supplies, computers P P (except for computers) Personal medical supplies P=Primary Use S=Secondary Use AD=Administrative Cond.Use H=Hearing Examiner Cond.Use X=Specifically Prohibited Blank=Not Allowed Page 1 3/26/98 ZONE COMPARISON SUMMARY ATTACHMENT D ZONE asu a ro I:3 Li ZONING 0 USE TABLE #1 0 E E . Q U U 0 < U < USES:CC CA Development Agreement Notes Pharmacies; P P Photographic and electronic supplies Sporting goods P Taverns P Used good; and antiques P CULTURAL, ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATIONAL Open spac3 (new) H P P Open space (existing) P P P Park, playciround or rec./comm. center H H Parks, Re,c ional (new) H P P Parks, Re,Tonal (existing) P P P Parks, Corimunity (new) H P P Parks, Corimunity (existing) P P P Parks, Nei!ihborhood (new) s P P Parks, Neil jhborhood (existing) P P P Trails (new) H P P Trails (exi:ting) P P P Adult entertainment business s Adult motif picture studios s Adult motiTipicture theaters s Amusement arcades P Amusement parks H Bowling alleys (centers) P Card Rooms s Dance halls and cabarets P Gambling casinos/games of chance/bingo (not for profit)H Outdoor commercial rec. or entertainment uses H Peep shov•sjanoramas s Sports areas, auditoriums, exhibit. halls P Theaters P Theaters, irive-in P Library or nuseum, public or non-profit H H OFFICE P ND CONFERENCE Personal— AD P P (For CA zone administrative determinations allow Professior AD P P offices as similar to professional/business services Administr,tiv0 ea quarters P P ,and other permitted uses. A formal CA zone Business P P amendment will clarify this.) Medical ai id dental P P P=Primary Use ; =Secondary Use AD=Administrative Cond.Use H=Hearing Examiner Cond.Use X=Specifically Prohibited Blank=Not Allowed Page 2 3/26/98 ZONE COMPARISON SUMMARY ATTACHMENT D ZONE a,L' To eaC ZONING c. a) E E -- • USE TABLE #1 0 0 0 t a 00 Oct 0a USES:CC CA Development Agreement Notes SERVICES Auction hot ses p Barber shot is P P P Beauty sho,,)s P P P Business SE rvices, general is P/S Cemetery, f;rematory, columbarium, mausoleum, H H Computer services (retail) P P Financial arid real estate P P Funeral hones p Health clubs/fitness centers/sports clubs p Laundromars s P P Personal SE rvice p P Pers. svcs. barber shops/beauty parlors P P Pet shop and grooming p P Photograpry & photo reprod. P P Printing, xerography (retail)P P Professional services s s Professional sports teams/promoters P Rental sere,ices, with outside storage s Rental sery ices, no outside storage Video rents Is and sales s p P Electrical repair P Shoe repair P P P (to be added to CA zone generally) Television 'epair P Upholstery repair P Watches/jewelry repair Family day care P P P Day care canters P P P Adult day care I, maximum 4 on residential property P P P Adult day care I, maximum 12 on non-res dential property P P P Adult day care II, 5+ on residential property P P P Adult day care II, 13+ on non-residential property P P P Convalescent centers & nursing homes H H Hospitals H Hospitals, :sanitarium or similar uses H H P=Primary Use S=Secondary Use AD=Administrative Cond.Use H=Heanng Examiner Cond.Use X=Specifically Prohibited Blank=Not Allowed Page 3 3/26/98 ZONE COMPARISON SUMMARY ATTACHMENT D a) u To c ZONING o USE TABLE #1 0 0 E . Q UU 0 < 0 < USES:CC CA Development Agreement Notes TRANS PORTATiON SERVICES::AND MANUFACTURED HOME SA S Automobile boat, motorcycle leasing p Automobile boat, motorcycle rental p Automobile boat, motorcycle sales P Automobile motorcycle, passenger truck sales p Automobile leasing p Automobile rental p Small vehic e service and repair P P (existing legal only) Body shops H Bus terming s, taxi headquarters AD Car washes. p Gasoline service stations s Gas station w/associated small vehicle service and pair AD Gas stations w/mini-marts AD s Gas station w/one self-service drive-thru car wash AD Parking gai e, commercial s Parking lots, commercial S Public parking s RV sales, leasing, rental p Transit centers H Truck/RV/bus sales s Large vehicle service and repair AC Uses deter nined by the Zoning Administrat)r that directly support dealerships s Helipads, ccessory to primary use H STORAGE Self-storage, 1 story, 1 building H MANUFACTURING ANONDUSTRIAt''' Labs: grinc ing & assembly of optical lens eyeglass)+s s Labs: med cal, dental s Research, development &testing S Assembly_ind packaging of: Computer AC Electronic_ AC P=Primary Use S=Secondary Use AD=Administrative Cond.Use H=Hearing Examiner Cond.Use X=Specifically Prohibited Blank=Not Allowed Page 4 3/26/98 ZONE COMPARISON SUMMARY ATTACHMENT D ZONE L' Tv ii ZONING L. C °' c a) a) _ o w E EE . --- USE ILABLE #1 000ra ra) O V U < 0 < USES:CC CA Development Agreement Notes Lt. mfg., assembly, finishing & warehousing of: Prefabricated pats&finished parts H Solid Waste/Recycling Recycling center H Recycling collection station AD AC AC Recycling drap or collection centers H COMMERCIAL) DUSTRIAL ACCESSORY OHUSES Apparel, fabric& leather goods fabrication AC AC Computer& electron. assemb. & packaging AC Food preparation AC AC AC Handcraftin;l of items/products AC AC AC clarification that storage is allowed with permitted Storage of products in conjunction service and office uses to be added generally to w/retail sales, service or office uses AC AC AC CA zone) PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES Governmert offices and facilities H H Churches, synagogues, temples H H H Service cluf:is and organizations H H H Community facilities S S/H H Community meeting hall Philanthropic institution H H Private club, fraternal or non-profit organization H H Public utility use or structure H H Utilities, small P P P Utilities, medium AD AD AD Utilities, Iar9e H H H Comm. brcadcast & relay towers H H Radio or to evision transmitter H H Telegraph !) other communication H Wireless communication facilities: Micro faci.Ij y antennas P P P Mini facility antennas P/AD P/AD P/AD Macro facility,antennas P/AD P/AD P/AD Monopole I support structures AD/H P/AD P/AD Monopole II suupport structures X/H X/AD X/AD Lattice towers!support structures X/H X/AD X/AD P=Primary Use S=Secondary Use AL)=Administrative Cond.Use H=Hearing Examiner Cond.Use X=Specifically Prohibited Blank=Not Allowed Page 5 3/26/98 ZONE COMPARISON SUMMARY ATTACHMENT D a) ea c ZONING c ` ` cLI d — USE ABLE #1 0 E 0 a 0 U 0 < 0 < USES:CC CA Development Agreement Notes Minor modificatons to existing wireless communication facilities P P P M. SCHOOLS-PUBLIC AND PRIVATE Educational insti ution (public or private) H H School, elementary (existing) School, elementary (new) H School, secondary (existing) School, secondary (new) H Portables ( xisting) P Portables Lnew, up to four)s Change in use for existing school H School expinsion up to 10% School expansion more than 10% H Schools &studios for art, crafts, photography, dance, music s s Business and professional schools P P Special schools}tech./indust. processes H MISC. USES A11 MODIFICATIONS TO DEVELOPMENT SIDS. Heights exceeding the maximum height of 50' H Increases (minor) over the max. area per use of 5,000.9sf. AD Increases (major) over the max. area per use of 5,000.9sf. H Temporary uses s s S P=Primary Use S=Secondary Use AD=Administrative Cond.Use H=Hearing Examiner Cond.Use X=Specifically Prohibited Blank=Not Allowed Page 6 3/26/98 4.2 . ZLI CITY OF,RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION INTERPRETATION/POLICY DECISION MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION: 4-31-10.4B2(c), Commercial Arterial Zone REFERENCE: NA SUBJECT: Permissibility of office uses and office buildings in the Commercial Arterial CA) Zone BACKGROUND: We have received an inquiry regarding the permissibility of construction of a new office building in the Commercial Arterial Zone. The Commercial Arterial Zone permits 'Professional and Business Services" as secondary uses but does not define these terms. Office uses are not specifically listed. Section 4-31-10.4(C1) of the Zoning Code allows the Zoning Administrator to make determinations regarding the permissibility of uses not specifically listed in the new zoning code--provided the use is "in keeping with the purpose and intent of the zone and similar in nature to a specifically listed Permitted, Secondary, Accessory or Conditional Use. JUSTIFICATION: The purpose of the CA Zone is to "provide suitable environments for strip commercial development. The CA Zone provides for a wide variety of retail sales and personal/professional services primarily oriented to automobile traffic along designated major arterial streets". Objective EA- 9.2 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan states: Secondary uses in the Employment Area Commercial designation should allow a mix of uses, including office, multi-family, and light industrial, with the primary use being retail". One purpose of the zoning code is to regulate the type and intensity of uses to ensure compatibility with uses on surrounding properties. The question of whether office buildings are allowed in the CA Zone is not a matter of use, but rather of development standards. A "retail building" could be converted to an "office building" and vice versa without changing the external structure or appearance. However, the type of use allowed in a particular buildin Is governed by the list of allowed uses in a zone. In the case of the CA Zone, personal services financial and real estate services are listed as primary uses and professional and business services are listed as secondary. The examples cited here are often located in an office building of one style or another. DECISIONI: The Commercial Arterial (CA) Zone allows for office uses and office buildings that comply with the development standards and list of permitted uses for that zone. DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL:42 DATE: DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: q/) C;alY T, (%C DATE: ATTACHMENT E ATTACHMENT F 4-31-10.4 ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL (CA)ZONE B. Permitted Uses: 1.Primary Uses: b.Services: 14) Miscellaneous minor repairs (TV, electrical appliances, upholstery, shoe repair, etc.). d.Offices: Offices including administrative headquarters, business, medical and dental,personal and professional. 3.Accessory Uses: In the Arterial Commercial Zone, the following uses are allowed where incidental to a permitted primary or secondary use and shall not exceed thirty three percent(33%)of the gross floor area: e.Warehousing: Warehousing and storage of products in conjunction with retail sales:storage of supplies in conjunction with service and office uses. CAGLOBL2.DOC\ ATTACHMENT G EMPLOYMENT AREA Summary: These policies are designed to ensure that Renton will have adequate reserves of land as one tool in its economic development efforts. Adequate land is necessary to attract new businesses in an effort to expand and diversify the employment base. Diversity and Stability Objective LU-W:. Promote diversity and stability in the employment base. Policy LU-144. The City should endeavor to keep its present economic base, including the heavy industrial development, light and medium industrial users, supporting commercial and office land uses. Policy LU-145. The City should provide incentives including adequate land supply and land use guidance for new businesses and for existing businesses relocating within the City. Policy LU-146. Adequate amounts of land suitable for all types of industrial, light industrial, office and commercial uses should be available for present and future development. Using the growth assumptions, criteria for determining "adequate amounts of land" for the employment area should be based on the following. a. Commercial: Provide for local and regional shopping needs of the residential and employment sectors of the community. Currently, Renton has provided 8.7% of its land base for commercial retail uses. Because of Renton's unique location as the interstice between a number of state transportation routes and a regional freeway this percentage should be expanded to capture a larger share of the commercial market. b. Industrial: Sustain the land use base for existing industrial users. Renton has provided 14.6%of its land base for industrial uses, a higher percentage than many other of the area's cities. This percentage is expected to decline as Renton grows in land area. Discussion: The mixed use concept is intended to create flexibility in the development code. With changing technology and combinations of uses within one business campus, traditional land use classifications may be too restrictive. A flexible approach can facilitate business development and stimulate creation of nodes of employment activity supported by commercial and service uses. Renton's commercial retail land base has increased from 6.7% to 8.7% over the last few years whereas its industrial land base has declined from around 20%in the early 1990's to around 14.6%in 1996. c. Office: Provide for stand alone office uses, and offices that support industrial uses in order to reach future employment levels. Renton currently provides 6.0%of its land base for office uses. d. Light industrial: Sustain the amount of existing uses and provide for a modest future expansion of light industrial development. e. Residential: Locate residential uses only in Commercial Arterial Zoned Areas, and limit residential development to multi-family uses which support Commercial Employment Areas and are clearly secondary to commercial uses. Policy LU-147. Renton should play a leadership role in the state and regional economic and industrial development forums. EAPOL.DOC\ 1 ATTACHMENT G Policy LU-148. In each employment designation, an appropriate mix of commercial, office, light industrial and industrial uses should be encouraged. The mix will vary depending on the employment area emphasis. Policy LU-149. Employment Area designations should each have a primary emphasis but allow a range of allowable secondary uses. Policy LU-150. Small-scale uses should be encouraged to cluster to maximize their contributions to the community and their use of infrastructure and amenities. Policy LU-151. Sites and structures should be designed (e.g. signage and facades; building height, bulk and setback; landscaping; parking; storage and delivery areas) to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent less intensive land uses. Policy LU-152. RESERVED Discussion: The mixed use concept is intended to create flexibility in the development code. With changing technology and combinations of uses within one business campus, traditional land use classifications may be too restrictive. A flexible approach can facilitate business development and stimulate creation of nodes of employment activity supported by commercial and service uses. Infrastructure Objective LU-X: Make efficient use of infrastructure. Policy LU-153. Adequate infrastructure (e.g. roads, utilities, public services) should be in place prior to occupancy. Policy LU-154. As a priority, railroad transport should be encouraged as an alternative to heavy truck transport. Railroad facilities in industrial areas should be protected from adverse development. Policy LU-155. Developments should be encouraged to make greater use of the municipal airport, but only for aviation purposes (e.g. light weight express freight,business jet and charter services). Policy LU-156. Convenient transit stops, both along public streets and within employment areas, should be coordinated between major employers and public transit authorities. Policy LU-157. Lands with adequate existing infrastructure should be given priority for development. Environmental Quality Objective LU-Y: Maintain environmental quality at a level desired by the community. Policy LU-158. Local policies and regulations for hazardous materials and wastes should comply and be coordinated with federal, state, and regional policies and regulations. Policy LU-159. Land uses which have been determined to be hazardous to the aquifer should be phased out in Aquifer Protection Zone 1. New uses which could be hazardous to the aquifer should locate outside Aquifer Protection Zone 1. EAPOL.DOC\ 2 ATTACHMENT G Site Design Policy LU-160. Developments should provide appropriate treatment (e.g. landscaping, improved building facade)along major arterials to mitigate adverse visual impacts. Policy LU-161. RESERVED Policy LU-162. On-site open space and recreational facilities in developments should be required. Policy LU-163. Site design of developments should be encouraged to maximize public access to and use of public areas as well as shoreline areas in locations contiguous to a river, lake wetland or stream, where such access will not jeopardize the environmental attributes of the area. Light Industry Objective LU-Z: Promote the development of light industries in suitable locations. Policy LU-164. Light industrial uses which are allowed should be less intensive in order to maintain compatibility with adjacent uses. Policy LU-165. Light industrial uses should not create noxious conditions such as noise, odors, or traffic which could detract from the office uses allowed in this category. Policy LU-166. Light industry should be an allowed secondary use in Employment Area designations. Policy LU-167. Light industrial uses should be allowed as secondary uses in Neighborhood, Suburban, Downtown, and Office/Residential centers. Discussion: Specific policies for light industrial uses are incorporated into the policies for Employment Area and Centers. These policies provide general direction on the location and compatibility of light industrial uses with other mixed uses. EMPLOYMENT AREA- COMMERCIAL Objective LU-AA: Provide for commercial and residential uses requiring large amounts of land and/or high visibility and access to large volumes of automobile traffic in areas outside of Centers and the Center Downtown designations. Policy LU-168. Employment Area - Commercial designations should only be located on, and have access to, streets classified as major arterials or above. Policy LU-169. Individual parcels should be encouraged to consolidate to maximize flexibility of site design and reduce access points. Policy LU-170. Individual development projects should be encouraged to: a. minimize curb cuts and share access points, b. provide for internal circulation among adjacent parcels, c. share parking facilities, EAPOL.DOC\ 3 ATTACHMENT G d. centralize signing, e. create a unified style of development,and f. provide landscaping and streetscaping to soften visual impacts. Policy LU-171. Residential uses in the Employment Area - Commercial designation may be a single use development and should be limited to a maximum density of 20 du/acre. Policy LU-172. Create a 24 hour population and a source of affordable housing by promoting residential and commercial development in the Employment Area-Commercial designation. Policy LU-173. Single family development should not be allowed in this designation. Objective LU-BB: Ensure quality development in Employment Areas -Commercial. Policy LU-174. Parking areas should be landscaped (including street trees, buffers, berms), especially along the roadways,to reduce the visual impacts. Policy LU-175. Landscape buffers, additional setbacks, reduced height, and other screening devices should be employed to reduce the impacts (e.g. visual,noise,odor,light)on adjacent, less intensive uses. Policy LU-176. Increased demand for commercial uses should be accommodated through redevelopment and intensification of Employment Area-Commercial designations rather than expansion of those areas. Policy LU-177. Special design considerations (e.g. landscape, streetscape, signage, building design) should be encouraged for areas which are designated as gateways for the city. Policy LU-178. The primary uses (retail, residential or service) should account for a minimum of fifty percent(50%)of the total building area within Employment Area-Commercial designations. Policy LU-179. A unified style of commercial or residential development should be encouraged through site standards, including: a. minimum lot depth of 200 feet, b. maximum height of 4-6 stories, c. parking to the side or rear of the building, d. maximum setbacks which will allow incorporating a landscape buffer, and e. common signage and lighting requirements. Policy LU-180. Public amenity features (e.g. parks, plazas, recreation areas), beyond those required for the mitigation of adverse environmental impacts, should be encouraged as part of every development. Policy LU-181. Development should be designed to be compatible with adjacent, less intensive uses, e.g. lighting, fences, landscaping, setbacks should all be considered during site design. EAPOL.DOC\ 4 ATTACHMENT G Policy LU-182. Employment areas located between East Valley Highway and SR 167 should buffer their uses from SR 167 through a sight obscuring 15'wide native vegetation strip along SR 167. EMPLOYMENT AREA- OFFICE Objective LU-CC: Promote intensive office activity including a wide range of business, financial and professional services to local, regional, national, and global markets, supported by service and commercial activities. Policy LU-183. Low, medium and high intensity office should be encouraged as the primary use in the Employment Area-Office designation. Policy LU-184. Secondary uses in the category should include a mix of commercial and light industrial activities. Policy LU-185. Retail and services should support the primary office designation in this category and should be encouraged to locate on the ground floor of office and parking structures. Policy LU-186. High-rise office development should be limited to up to 25 stories in height. Thirty stories may be obtained through a height bonus system. Policy LU-187. Height bonuses of 5 stories may be allowed in designated areas under appropriate conditions where sites provide additional public benefits such as plazas, parks, exceptional landscaping and/or public art. Policy LU-188. Intensive office uses should be located contiguous to an existing or planned transit route. Objective LU-DD: Ensure quality development in Employment Area-Office areas. Policy LU-189. Intensive office sites and structures should be designed (e.g. signage; building height, bulk and setback; landscaping;parking)to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. Policy LU-190. Parking should be provided on-site, in parking structures, and buffered from adjacent uses. Policy LU-191. Internal site circulation should be primarily pedestrian oriented. Policy LU-192. Vehicular access to the site should be from the major street with the access points minimized but designed to ease entrance and exit. Policy LU-193. Public amenity features (e.g. parks, plazas, recreation areas), beyond those required for the mitigation of adverse environmental impacts, should be encouraged (i.e. through incentives or similar means)as part of every development. Policy LU-194. Site and building design should be transit and pedestrian/people oriented. Ground floor uses and design should be pedestrian oriented. EAPOL.DOC1 5 ATTACHMENT G CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL Objective LU-FF: Permit small-scale commercial uses which serve the personal needs of the immediate population in residential areas and reduce automobile travel. Policy LU-213. Small-scale commercial uses may locate in close proximity to one another but should not concentrate to the point of changing the predominant character of an area from residential to commercial. Policy LU-214. Commercial structures in adjacent convenience commercial designations or in planned developments within a Residential Options designations or Residential Planned Neighborhood designations should be compatible with the single family character of the residential area. Standards should be developed to govern the design and operation of such areas to ensure their functional and visual compatibility with residential neighborhoods. Policy LU-215. Small-scale home occupations that provide opportunities for people to work in their homes should be allowed in residential areas. Standards should govern the design, size, intensity, and operation of such uses to ensure their compatibility with residential uses. Policy LU-216. A mix of uses (e.g. convenience retail, consumer services, offices, residential) should be encouraged in small-scale commercial developments. Policy LU-217. Products and services related to large scale motorized machinery, vehicles, or equipment should not be allowed as small-scale convenience commercial uses. Policy LU-218. Residential densities within Convenience Commercial designations should be 5 dwelling units per acre. Residential uses should be secondary to commercial uses and be included within commercial structures. Policy LU-219. Commercial structures in adjacent Convenience Commercial designations should be compatible with the single family character of the residential area in height, frontyard setbacks, lot coverage, and building design. Objective LU-GG: Maximize the convenience and minimize the impacts of small-scale commercial uses through appropriate siting. Policy LU-220. Small-scale commercial uses should be located: a. within pedestrian range of existing and planned residential areas. b. _outside of the trade area of other small-scale commercial uses offering comparable goods and services. c. contiguous to a street classified at the collector level. EAPOLDOC\ 6 PLANNING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS LANCI USE,PERMIT SUBMITTAL WAIVED MODIFIED COMMENTS REQUIREMENTS: BY: BY: Applicatior Fees X L `City sponsored application. Environmental Checklist Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy) X City sponsored application. Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) X City sponsored application. Justification for CPA and/or CPA/Rezone X See issue paper King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site X fi,11 Mailing labels list based upon Technical Services data base. Legal,Description X To be provided prior to ERC review. List of Surrounding Property Owners Mailing Labels of Property Owners Map of Existing Site Conditions X fj Refer to Figure 3 of Issue Paper- 1 aerial photo. Master Application Form Neighborhood Detail Map X eitt, Scale at 1"=150' Cy Plan Reductions (PMT's) X Neighborhood detail map provided at 8 1/2x11. Postage X City sponsored application. Project Narrative X See issue paper Title Report or Plat Certificate X ii rlc, City sponsored application. Topography Map (5' contours) X , Site is flat; 2% or less slope per King County Area Soil Survey, 1972/1973 APPLICATION: n - LI) C-- / (- DATE: 3 3/ ?g I TTWAIVE.DOC\ 1 NA LU A'' 1 (/ -( l- fr R Return Address: City Clerk's Office City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 20010323001449 CITY OF RENTON COY 11.00 PAGE 001 OF 004 03/23/2001 13:10 KING COUNTY, WA MODIFICATION OF RESTRICTIVE Property Tax Parcel Number(s): 512690-0324,512690- COVENANTS 0325,512690-0328,512690-0329 Project File#: SHP-99-093 Street Intersection: SE 6`h Street&Pierce Avenue SE Reference Number(s)of Documents assigned or released:N/A Grantor(s): Grantee(s): 1. Long Classic Homes,Ltd. 1. City of Renton LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1 through 7,inclusive,City of Renton Short Plat No.LUA-99-093,recorded under King County Recording No.20010105900006,said Short Plat being a portion of lot 9,block 9,Maplewood Division No.2, a according to the plat thereof recorded in volume 39 of plats,page 39,in King County,Washington. m Situate in the Southeast quarter of Section 16,Township 23 North,Range 5 East,W.M.,City of Renton,King County, cv Washington. Cr) Whereas the Grantor,as named above,required restrictive covenants on the property described above dated July 27, 0 1999 and recorded under Recording Number 19990727000089 of King County,State of Washington;and WHEREAS, the City of Renton, Washington determined that the wording of the restrictive covenant numbered as o item#2 in said document required clarification;and, o WHEREAS,the City Council authorized the modification of restrictive covenant#2 on February 5,2001; WHEREAS,the City Council approved the wording of restrictive covenant#2 to be modified as follows: 2. Initial construction shall be limited to one story in height,with the allowance for additional bedrooms under roof eaves within the established roofline of the single story structure. The structures shall be constructed in a manner that is harmonious with the established"rambler-type"housing of the neighborhood. Future remodels shall be governed by the R-10 zoning in effect at the time of the remodel, or the successor zone most similar to the R-10 zone which exists at the time of this covenant."and, WHEREAS,the remaining restrictive covenants(#1 and#3)in said document are to remain unchanged;and, NOW,THEREFORE,the City of Renton does hereby authorize the modification of the restrictive covenant described above on the land described above pursuant to the attached exhibit. of IN WITNESS WHEREOF,said City has caused this instrument to be executed this23'`day of/)\4.rct;20 0/ . I ssic Ho ,Ltd STATE OF WASHINGTON )SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 2-OIL 7 and signed this instrument and acknowledged that he/she/they was/were authorized,S,o_execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the tho3iCJG.A7i 41.i ot= 5-+-,-'c. of 5 I°-G'j g- 0'1 3 to be the free and voluntary of such party/parties for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Vflcjcj fQrrn Notary Public i4t and for the State of Was 41A.ton Notary(Print) WainKALACHEPF My appointment expir Dated: .-'.Db- O e 1 MARILYN KAMCHEFF 4 NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON 41 ter,COMMISSION EXPIRES f JUNE 29, 2003 City of Renton G\,. • F R V A ZSEALc7;orw4"."... Jesse er,Mayor Marilyn Pet so ity Clerk 2 EXHIBIT A CONRAD PARCELS LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 1 through 7, inclusive,City of Renton Short Plat No.LUA-99-093,recorded under King County Recording No.20010105900006,said Short Plat being a portion of lot 9,block 9,Maplewood Division No. 2,according to the plat thereof recorded in volume 39 of plats,page 39,in King County,Washington. Situate in the Southeast quarter of Section 16,Township 23 North,Range 5 East,W.M.,City of Renton, King County,Washington. c* c" cy-a CD c 2001 032 300114r1 EXHIBIT B i N.W. '4- SEI . 21, TNP Z3 ,4. , RGE. 5 S. N.M U Z p 0 LL1 co 9, 5. Cow w.or II+c::%c"- LaT LL1 co r V ey) ` tip 3..„ Z nC, 0 3 o- 4 Lu z 7, 5880 SF d w t,z5 5 o V vi`° 0+-. 7 LL.L 0) /1 9. cy' / m 9 /I 5 f- O Q A55MS=!;E:K PARtsL. .NOS. a Z 5IZ )Q 5IZtAo_o3Z5 10 0328 o 0 // i N S 032, P o 4 / as ro y/(/ 11 {- t qL_ Lora NccE-s5 1v V" S 1 - DRIVE akc er LOr u 3 y? n w'WIDE- 5go5 S>: r7/ paIVP' flO a5o5 1h1L7TE3r`.T M6.T// 3, / Q J pal 7.• -Z.......i, / G I S1 DTP a„ 7 ZoNMG: R-EN 4ESO SF v 9 I IIMIN.Li7i Slz f ly: 46c0 SF o I , MIN. Lot-Size.,FROP. 4S50 SF MIN.L r WIofN: 50' MIN. LT.LF Tii: LDS' o, S1=78Acks... FRD.•.T: Zo.4o>. REAR: 'Zo' 51oE: 6. moo, NOKTl1 cmroFs lma 7r r,L 517E sG>EA: 30.2'u, SF y.: t"' 35' o.s ACRE DEC 16 198 No, uors FROFOS D: '.UUILL N(i DIVISION No. LL/TS Eh,STI iG : 4 98--0 j:j2;; 00255 UA Return Address: CITY OF RENTON AG 20.00 City Clerk's Office City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Please print or type information Document Title(s): DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — TACO TIME (RES 3414; R-98-042) Reference Number(s)of Documents assigned or released: on page of document(s)] Grantor(s)(Last name first,then first name and initials): 1..r) 1. City of Renton 2. 3. 0 4. Additional names on page of document 11 Grantee(s) (Last name first,then first name and initials): 1. John W. Dobson, owner 2. Matthew Tonkin, president of Accord Inc. , Lease Purchaser 3. 0 4. 0 Additional names on page of document 0 Legal Description (abbreviated: i.e. lot,block,plat or section,township,range): Tract B, and Lots 8 and 9, Bock 6, Maplewood Division No. 2, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Volume 39 of X® Additional legal is on page 10 of document Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 5126900205, 512690211, 5126900215, 1632059017, 0 Additional legal is on page of document The Auditor/Recorder will rely on the information provided on the form. The staff will not read the document to verify the accuracy or completeness of the indexing information provided herein. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PARTIES 14' This agreement made and entered into this /s day of DeCcmker 1999, by and between the City of Renton ("City"), a municipal corporation of the state of Washington, and John W. Dobson, owner of parcels of property within the area covered by this development agreement Owner"), and Matthew Tonkin, president of Accord Inc., also known as Taco Time, and lease purchaser of the same parcels of property within the area covered by this development agreement Lease Purchaser"). RECITALS WHEREAS, there are existing corporate offices and commercial uses generally in the area north of Maple Valley Highway at the intersections of Monroe Avenue S.E. and Maplewood Place S.E.; and WHEREAS, those office commercial uses and related properties are presently zoned Convenience Commercial (CC); and ts, WHEREAS, the owner of the building presently housing the Taco Time corporate offices has indicated a desire to expand those headquarters and parking areas; and 0 o WHEREAS,the Convenience Commercial zone will not accommodate such expansion; and N WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Renton, Washington believes that such expansion can be accommodated pursuant to Comprehensive Plan Amendments/Rezones, Renton cp Municipal Code amendments, and a development agreement as authorized in RCW Chapter 36.70B.170 through 210; and WHEREAS, the parties have negotiated the proposed development agreement; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing about the Comprehensive Plan Amendments/Rezones redesignating properties from Convenience Commercial and Residential Single Family/R-8 to Employment Area Commercial/Arterial Commercial, potential Renton Municipal Code amendments, and associated development agreement on September 16, 1998; and, WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Planning and Development Committee minority report on January 4, 1999 which recommended retention of the Convenience Commercial designation for the Taco Time properties, redesignation of a small portion of an adjacent Residential Single Family/R-8 zoned lot to Convenience Commercial for access/parking purposes, and amendment of the Convenience Commercial zone to allow existing, legal administrative headquarters offices with a moderate expansion of offices,and parking; and WHEREAS, the adopted Committee report also includes recommendations for development agreements or covenants which incorporate Environmental Review Committee mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, this development agreement has been presented at a public hearing before the City Council held on the 14th day of June, 1999; and WHEREAS,the City Council has taken into account the public comment presented at that public hearing; and WHEREAS, this development agreement has been reviewed and approved by the City Council of the City of Renton,Washington;*and WHEREAS, this development agreement appears to be in the best interests of the citizens of the City of Renton,Washington; NOW,THEREFORE,the parties do agree as follows: SECTION 1. AUTHORITY Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170(1), the City and persons with ownership or control of real property are authorized to enter into a development agreement setting forth development standards and any other provisions that shall apply to, govern, and vest the development, use, and mitigation of the development of the real property for the duration of such development agreement. L SECTION 2. SUBJECT PROPERTIES CV O I o A. Legal Description and Illustrative Map: The subject property is legally described in Exhibit cp A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth, and graphically represented in the drawing attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein as if fully set forth. o B. King County Property Identification Numbers: The following list indicates the King County Property Identification Numbers applicable at the time of this development agreement, and a o brief description of current uses on the properties: N Property Identification General Description of Number Current Uses 5126900205 Southerly portion of said property to be redesignated Convenience Commercial allowing access/parking, and northerly portion to remain residentially designated recognizing existing home 5126900211 Location of corporate offices 5126900215 Location of espresso stand 1632059017 Power line and fuel line easement area a M SECTION 3. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Permitted and Prohibited Uses: 1.Permitted and Prohibited Uses. Except as provided in subsection A.2 below, the applicable conditions of the Convenience Commercial Zone identified in the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Title 4, Development Regulations, in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended, shall apply to interpretation of permitted and prohibited uses applicable to the subject properties. 2.Maximum Expansion of Existing, Legal Administrative Headquarters Offices. Existing, legal administrative headquarters offices are permitted secondary uses, subject to: a.Parking expansions may be allowed in accordance with RMC Title 4 Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended. Lin N b.A one-time expansion of building square footage, not exceeding 3,500 square o feet may be permitted, subject to: CG 0 CV i.The site plan review process; and t-- ii. The building expansion shall be addressed in a single site plan review application; there shall be no phasing, and o Complete building and construction applications shall be submitted to the City by the Lease Purchaser, or Owner, or their representatives no later than June 1, 2006. The Lease Purchaser, or Owner, or their representatives shall obtain all necessary building and construction permit approvals from the City no later than December 1, 2006. Building permit expiration shall be governed by the Uniform Building Code. If complete applications are not made, and/or permit approvals are not obtained by the respective dates, the allowances for building expansion shall expire. iv. Once all necessary approvals are obtained, the expansion is constructed, and occupancy is permitted,no additional expansions shall be allowed. c.Parking and building expansion related to the Taco Time Corporate Offices should be generally consistent with the conceptual plan in Exhibit C, unless, based upon City review, changes are warranted in order to meet all applicable City regulations and requirements. d.The site plan review process shall be conducted in accordance with Section 5 of this Agreement. B. Site Development Standards: The development standards of the RMC Title 4 in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended, shall apply to the subject properties, except as provided in subsection B.1 to B.3 below. 3 le all 1.Building Height: Maximum building height shall be 35 ft., except for Wireless Communication Facilities which shall comply with the height standards and Airport Related Height Limits of the RMC Title 4 in effect at the time of this agreement, or thereafter amended. 2.Landscaping: a.Standards: LANDSCAPING Minimum Landscape Width Required Along 10 ft., except where reduced through the site plan Public Streets review process. Minimum Landscape Width Required When 15 ft.wide sight-obscuring landscape strip. The a Commercial Lot is Adjacent to Property Hearing Examiner may modify the sight-obscuring Designated Residential) provision in order to provide reasonable access to the property through the site plan review process. If the CC lot is adjacent to Maplewood Park,non-sight-obscuring landscaping shall be allowed where appropriate to ensure adequate visibility for purposes of public safety. If the street is a designated arterial by the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan,non-sight- t_n obscuring landscaping shall be provided unless 0 otherwise determined by the Hearing Examiner through o the site plan review process. 0 These provisions may be modified by the Hearing Examiner through the site plan review process where the applicant can show that the same or better result will 0 occur because of creative design solutions, unique o aspects or use, etc., that cannot be fully anticipated at o this time. Minimum Landscape Width Required When A 10 ft. sight- obscuring landscape strip shall be a Commercial Lot is Abutting to Property provided. A solid 6' barrier wall shall also be provided Designated Residential) and located within the landscaped strip. A maintenance agreement or easement for the landscape strip shall be secured. A solid barrier wall shall not be located closer than 5'to an abutting residentially zoned' lot. These provisions may be modified by the Hearing Examiner through the site plan review process where the applicant can show that the same or better result will occur because of creative design solutions,unique aspects or use,etc., that cannot be fully anticipated at this time. 1 R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM-I zones, or the successor zones most similar to the listed zones which exist at the time of this agreement. ii 41010 I. b. Timing of Landscape Improvements: For the subject properties, the landscape requirements of subsection B.2.a shall be applied, and installed prior to final City inspection of: i.Any building demolition requiring a demolition permit; and/or ii. Building construction which expands the footprint of current buildings or adds additional buildings on site; and/or iii. Parking stall additions/reconfigurations which add parking/access areas to portions of properties which, at the time of this agreement, do not have improved parking/access surfaces. For any other development applications requiring City review, the reviewing official shall determine application of landscaping requirements to address the potential visual and compatibility effects of the specific development request. 3.Access: Access for the subject properties shall be through the existing or future Taco r, Time development,and not from Newport Ave SE. (SE 6th St.) o SECTION 4. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 0 Prior to the issuance of any City permits allowing expansion based on Section 3.A.2 of this Agreement, , the Owner or his agent, or the Lease Purchaser with the Owner's consent shall prepare and submit a Lot Line Adjustment application which adds the southern portion of Parcel No. 5126900205 to either parcel o number 5126900211 or 1632059017. The purpose of the lot line adjustment is to allow Accord Inc. Taco Time) access across their leased properties. The boundary of the lot line adjustment shall: A. Recognize the boundary of the Convenience Commercial designation on Parcel Number 5126900205 as shown on Exhibit B; and B. Result in a conforming lot for the northerly portion of Parcel Number 5126900205 and allow retention of the existing single family residence that will remain designated Residential Single Family/R-8. SECTION 5. SITE PLAN REVIEW A. 'When Required: For the subject properties, site plan review is required for any size development or redevelopment. B. Review Authority and Hearing: The following subsections supersede RMC Section 4-9-200.0 and D, Exemptions and Criteria to Determine if Public Hearing is Required, respectively. All other provisions of RMC Section 4-9-200 shall apply. 1.Development proposals which are categorically exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act shall be subject to the administrative site plan review process. 111110 2.Development proposals which are not categorically exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act shall be subject to the Hearing Examiner site plan review process. C. Other Requirements: See Section 3.A.2 of this Agreement. SECTION 6. EFFECT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Unless amended or terminated, this Development Agreement is enforceable during its term by a party to this Development Agreement. This Development Agreement and development standards in this Development Agreement shall govern during the term of this Development Agreement. This Development Agreement may not be subject to a new zoning ordinance or an amendment to a zoning ordinance or development standard adopted after the effective date of this Development Agreement, unless otherwise provided in this Development Agreement. Any permit or approval issued by the City after the execution of this Development Agreement must be consistent with this Development Agreement. SECTION 7. EFFECT OF OTHER CITY REGULATIONS A. Definitions: The definitions of RMC Title 4 in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended, shall apply to interpretation of permitted uses and site development standards provided in this development agreement. cv c= B. Parking: The Parking and Loading regulations of RMC Title 4 in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended, shall apply to this development agreement. cv C. Environmental Review/Sensitive Areas: Where applicable, all development shall comply with all environmental review and sensitive area regulations, including, but not limited to, Greenbelt Regulations, Wetlands Management, Aquifer Protection, Tree Cutting and Land Clearing, o Landscaping, Shoreline Master Program, Flood Hazards, and Environmental Ordinance (SEPA), o addressed in Title 4 and Title 8 of the Renton Municipal Code which are in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended. D. Signs: The Sign Code, RMC Title 4, in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended, shall apply to this development agreement. E. Other Development Regulations and Permits: Development shall be subject to any other applicable development standards or requirements not otherwise specified in this agreement including, but not limited to, permit process requirements, impact fees, mitigation measures, development conditions, street and utility regulations and specifications, subdivision regulations, and health and sanitation regulations, which are in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended. SECTION 8. AUTHORITY RESERVED Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170(4) the City reserves its authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to public health and safety. 6 11011 SECTION 9. RECORDING Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.190, this development agreement shall be recorded with the real property records of King County. During the term of the development agreement, the agreement is binding on the parties and their successors. SECTION 10. TERM A. Building expansion allowances shall sunset no later than December 1, 2006 in accordance with Section 3.A.2.b of this Agreement. B. Except for Section 3.A.2.b, the remainder of this development agreement runs in perpetuity with the subject properties, unless amended or rescinded by the City Council in accordance with the procedures of Section 11 below. The parties of this development agreement agree to evaluate the agreement periodically,but not less than every ten years. Where appropriate, periodic review of the development agreement shall generally coincide with the City's evaluation of its entire Comprehensive Plan every ten years, pursuant to RMC Title 4 in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended. cJ SECTION 11. AMENDMENT 0 0 The provisions of this agreement may only be amended with the mutual consent of the parties. No additions or alterations of the terms of this agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and formally approved and executed by the duly authorized agents of all parties. The City shall consider amendments c-' to the development agreement after a public hearing by the designated hearing body, and any amendments shall be adopted by ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and thereafter recorded. 0 DATED this /5-0., day of /C s k44, , 1999. CITY OF RENTON By. _ Jesse Tanner,Mayor Attest: Marilyn J. et n, City Clerk Approved Form: Lawrence J. arren,City Attorney 7 411.alb STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING nn THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on I31i day of i i-ea.migit. , 1999,before me, the undersigned, a notary_public in and for the Stare of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared A4 -P- 1&V.m IA-- h,Irl oAAAA-r Pea,? .vl , to me known to be the ri Gul 4 L Gt.b-Gt e c. (50'b f the City of Renton, a municipal corporation that executed the within and forgoing instrument and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said City for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute such instrument, and that the seal affixed, if any, is the corporate seal of said City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. NO Y PUBLICC in and for the State of Washington. Nota 1.1lCxtt -e 1..)e LA_IMGL0 h Ln j '"- My appointment expires: - ,11ct IUD I f L17 7 . F-, C F''' !c, M - PROPERTY OWNER o U N 1C4 r John W.Dobson 0 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) 1 n c>,^ o ss roe_ r F +- COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that John W. Dobson is the person who appeared before me and who signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED:CQ,..e ti 3 1999. A,..„..,.., k1_,,L,_, Q :o NOTARY NARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington. i /- : clot TARA.0,0.i/JG 12- OA tTi ikCLL l00 - PUBLIC Vppointment expires: (p-9-D 1 1%\ O\WASN_- ACCORD INC. (LEASE PURCHASER) B aZ. Z Matthew Tonkin,President S 110 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING THIS IS• TO CERTIFY that on this 349 day of 1999, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Matthew Tonkin to me known to be the President of Accord Inc., the corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument, and that the seal affixed, if any, is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. 2 yop ••'•:/;'; NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington. J' per" /t-- Notary: 11 Pf 0 kJ...) c^- J :2 ‘-‘ aFJG ,ic N U 0 / ^Z) >• My appointment expires: — - 0 O O O N O N 9 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tract B, and Lots 8 and 9,Block 6,Maplewood Division No. 2,according to the plat thereof,recorded in Volume 39 of Plats,Page 39, in King County, Washington: EXCEPT that portion of said Lot 9 described as follows: Beginning at the most westerly corner of Lot 1, said Block 6: thence South 61°09'15"East a distance of 50 feet; thence South 09°55'00"West a distance of 51 feet; thence North 65°05'00"West a distance of 40 feet; thence Northerly, along the westerly line of said Lot 9, a distance of 59.6 feet to the Point of Beginning; AND EXCEPT those portions thereof lying southwesterly of the northeasterly margin of State Road No. 1IP 5 (SR169) as said margin was established under King County Superior Court Cause Number 757887. AND EXCEPT that portion of said Lot 8 described as follows: c S. Beginning at the northwesterly corner of Lot 8,Block 6, Maplewood Division No. 2, according to the plat thereof,recorded in Volume 39 of Plats,Page 39, in King County, Washington; thence North 70°16'15"East, along the north line of said Lot 8, a distance of 128.44 feet to a point on a curve concave to the east having a radius of 192.20 feet and a central angle of 14°35'05"and being subtended by a chord which bears South 20°21'00"East 48.79 feet, said MIIID point being on the southerly margin of Southeast 144th Street(Southeast 6th Street) as shown on said plat; thence southeasterly along said curve and said margin, a distance of 48.93 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 8; thence South 52°02'30"West, along the east line of said Lot 8, a distance of 67.32 feet; thence North 62°40'58"West a distance of 95.43 feet to the True Point of Beginning Containing 0.14 ACRES more or less. TOGETHER WITH That portion of the Defense Plant Corporation Right of Way as shown on Maplewood Division No. 2, according to the plat thereof,recorded in Volume 39 of Plats, Page 39, in King County Washington, lying between Lot 8,Block 6, and Tract B of said plat; and northeasterly of the northeasterly margin of State Road No. 5 (SR169)as said margin was established under King County Superior Court Cause Number 757887. All situate in the Southeast quarter of Section 16,Township 23 North,Range 5 East,W.M., City of Renton,King County,Washington. f0 2000 011 2000255 cii,Q, . . C/i b, c:,,,,, /<> 0 6C 4K 0 Q) 01P 2 y <>/g n 041111 5 7 2 ED 0 3 Iaple 7alleoloo' 200'y le11 y oi :i ,2oo S, l6g o,._1112) N n Property Subject to Development Agreement Building Outlines o Neighborhoods 8 Strategic Planning Subject Area LD Gjr eler, 0. Dennison EXHIBIT B: ILLUSTRATIVE MAP F` O D Iunc 1999 2000 011 2000255 TacoTimtM r mut '/. / LOS t i'!// i7F i„ 1// o o• \-EXHIBITC: R 8 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 8 LOT r R SE 6N STREET T. ram 4 rwau . Y t LOT t f // 41. l'•"%,% • q \ V°1''‘ d&4 lk% Ve • 4', A .R-3 i;"-4:.Z7.?" Ir.., tiN la Q y i.%/•' .!/'/ ^fir UStA¢NT ARL `. L-Jti.o }sri c rnuso it r C,.,. i• j 2 isWitrAAlS a / tWSC 11 rAla:lXC Jy', 7 / Ala' -t j% T..a. ir MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY SITE PLAN SCALE 1"a 40'-0" pUTLDTNG A-EXISTING OFFICE SPACE PROPOSED PHASE T.ADDITIONAL PARKING; 2 STORIES-7,792 TOTAL SF EXISTING BUILDINGS ON SITE TOTAL 9742 SQ.FT. MAXIMUM PARKING STALLS ALLOWED(CA ZONING) BUILDING B-EXISTING TRAINING CENTER 4.5 PER 1,000SQ.FT."43STALLS 1 STORY-1950 TOTAL SF PROPOSED PHASE ii-ADDITION TO BUTLDING; M"LANDSCAPED AREA PROPOSED ADDm0N TO OFFICE BUILDING OF 3400 SQ.FT. 13,142 TOTAL SQ.FT. Si 0 RTI I MAXIMUM PARKING STALLS ALLOWED(CA ZONING) 4.S PER 1,000 SQ.FT.-59 STALLS CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF ORDINANCES ADOPTED BY RENTON CITY COUNCIL Following is summary of ordinances adopt- AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ed by the Renton' City Council December 20,1999: • ORDINANCE NO.4821 Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the An ordinance,of the City of Renton,. Washington, amending Chapters 1, 3, 8 and 11 of Title 4 ,(Development SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL Regulations), of Ordinance No.4260 entl- tied"Code of General Ordinances of the 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 City of Renton, Washington' by creating gt an urban center design overlay district and repealing Ordinance No:4793, an emer- a daily newspaper published seven (7)times a week. Said newspaper is a legal washWashington,adoptingance fthemulCityamily housing • newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months design guidelines in the RM-U(Residential prior to the date ofpublication, referred to, printed and published in the English language Multi-Family•Urban 4 and,CD (Center Downtown)zones.. _k 4) continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County Effective: 12/29/99 Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the ORDINANCE NO 4822 State of Washington for King County. An ordinance of the City-of Renton, Washington, adopting the 1999 amend- The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County ments to the zoning classifications of pro- Journal not in supplemental form) which was regularly distributed to the subscribers perties located within the City of Renton. andPP g y Effective: 12/29/99 during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a ORDINANCE NO:4823 An ordinance of the:City 4 of RentobJ : • Washington,•amending'Section 6-9-1 of: : : Ordinances Adopted Chapter 9,Children,Unattended,-of Title VI • Police Regulations), of Ordinance No: as published on: 12/24/99 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington' by defining adult supervision The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing,pu lication is the um of$100.63, Effective: 1/23/2000 charged to Acct. No. 80506 1 s An ordinance ofhe' CCEityBofRenton, Washington, establishing an assessment, Legal Number 7020 district for sanitary sewer service in a por- lion of the east Kennydale •and west Kennydale sub-basins and establishing the Legal Clerk, Sou Co y Journal amount of the charge upon connection to the facilities. Effective: 1/23/2000 ORDINANCE NO.4825 Subscribed and sworn before me on this `Z day of L.Qp. , 19V An ordinance of the City of Renton,: - : Washington, amending Chapter 11, Utility- : Tax, of Title V (Finance and Business; - ; , : ice r,-e/f /J Regulations),of Ordinance No.4260 the• ; - - f// fled"Code ), f Ordinance Ordinances of She l City of Renton, Washington"-by adding:a - . • ti,'`•• new section entitled "Definition of Gross ' Notary Public of the State of Washington Income" and rescinding subsection 5-11- 1.A.3. y rt residing in Renton h r,, ,`=' ' •Effective: 1/23/2000 King County, Washington ORDINANCE N0.:4826 An ordinance of•the:City'of Rentop, Washington,changing the zoning classic-- O L cation of approximately•.10`acres of pro-, i. t• •.• ••'-' G • ?• '°•,:- located north.-of 'Male- Vallec- perty P Y: -•: f,• L . S 1.1• •,:. Highway, from Residential-8`DU/AC (R-$). : . eatg,i:3b: " Lto Convenience Commercial (CC) (Maple Valley Taco Time; CPA 98-M-4, File NQ. LUA 98-042). Effective: 12/29/99 1111December20, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes Page 457 Purposes BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER,COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#4826 An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of approximately Zoning: Taco Time 0.10 acre located north of Maple Valley Highway from Residential-Eight Headquarters Rezone from R-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre(R-8)to Convenience Commercial(CC) for Maple to CC Valley Taco Time(R-98-042). MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY EDWARDS,COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Council President King Parker presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Council: Certificate of outgoing Councilman Dan Clawson,saying that Mr. Clawson has been an asset Appreciation to Dan Clawson to both the City Council and to Renton's citizens during the last four years. Council: Meeting Cancellation MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL for 1/17/2000 CANCEL THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AND REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS OF 1/17/2000 IN OBSERVANCE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.'S BIRTHDAY. CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 8:16 p.m. MARILY J. ' ERSEN, CMC,City Clerk Recorder: Brenda Fritsvold December 20, 1999 CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF ORDINANCES ADOPTED BY' RENTON CITY COUNCIL Following are summaries of ordinances' adopted by the Renton City Council on October 25,1999::.: @',r• "'.'3•,';, _: AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION An''ordinance C of the CityCi -tyy Ooff''Renton, Washington,',adopting the 1999 amend• ments to the City's 1995•Comprehensive, Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the Plan, Maps and-Data,in ,conjunction therewith. Effective: 11/3/99 •,• - `•`;;'.z ' SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL ORDINANCE NO.4797.;- An ordinance.of the-. City of:Renton, 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 classiti-;Washington,nfan thectonoProximatelY'0.86 acre'located north of SE 6th Street from Residential -' a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal Eight Dwelling Units-Per Acre_ (13-8) to. Residential -;10 Dwelling Units Per Acre newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months R-10).for the Maple;Valley,Taco Time; prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language Conrad Parcel(R-98-042)ti:, ”, ti Effective: 11/3/99. i' continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County ORDINANCE'NO 479a;Y, Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the An ordinance'of the:City of-Renton; Washington, changing the zoning classifi. State of Washington for King County.cation of approximately p.t,4Vacre,located The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County north of Maple Valley Highway'from Acre Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers Residential Eight Dwelling units PCC)forR-8)to convenience Commercial(CC)for • during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a the Cedar River Market(R-98-042):,,:: ; Effective: 11/3/99 ORDINANCE NO.4799` Ordinances#4796-4807 An ordinance:of the City.of Renton, Washington,_changing the zoning classifi- as published 10/29/99 cation of approximately.0.014oximately.0.014 acre locatedp cation SE-6th-Street'from Residential - Eight Dwelling'Units,Per-Acre (R-8)•to The full amount of the fee cha r said foregoing pub' tion-is-the-surn $163.88, Convenience•Commercial (CC)•for the Cedar,River Barber Shop(R-98-042). charged to Acct. No. 80506 . Effective::.11/3/99:-:-•:•• .-. ORDINANCE NO.4800. ' - • An ordinance:of,the•City of Renton,Legal Number 6789 Washington;changing the zoning;classifi- cation of approximately:17.1 acres located ; between Gene Coulon:Park on the east, • Legal Cle , uth (Ay Journal Boeing Manufacturing Operations on the west,•and Lake Washington on the north' from Heavy Industrial(IH),to Center Office Residential '(COR) for:the Southport Subscribed and sworn before me on this-^ It,day of 19C Project(Seco Development,R-99-027).••:- Effective:'.11/3/99 • •-•' ORDINANCE:NO 4801 v•t' ' `."-• An ordinance.-of the'City of Renton 9p< V tl . A r_ Mg.Washington,.changing the zoning• oca ifi`` v • CCCJJJrrr cation of approximately'4.8-acres-locatedl t. ' •at 3521 CedarAve.•,S. from Residential- Notary Public of the State of Washington Eight,Dwelling-.Units•Per.Acre:(R-8);to, Residential= 10 Dwelling Units Per AcreresidinginRentonR-10) for Lakeridge Development(R 99 King County, Washington os3). L Effective: 11/3/99 ' cs..,ORDINANCE NO.4802 1' ' An ordinance of--the'City of Renton,.• Washington"amending Title 4 (Develop-'' 1/,,, O, ,., :'.. •-.,;•' ment Regulations)of City Code by adding Js. i:.:1'„''• ' a Center, 'Office-Residential-3 Zone, ' amending Center.Office Residential use allowances.and development standards, amending site plan review procedures. Washington,cnanging me zoning ciassu,- cation of approximately 0.014 acre located north of SE 6th Street from Residential - Eight Dwelling Units Per Acre (R-8) to raed'f r said foregoing pub•' • s tite£Um o $163.88,Convenience Commercial (CC) for the Cedar,River Barber Shop(R-98-042). Effective: .11/3/99 .• ORDINANCE NO.4800 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington,changing the zoning classifi- cation of approximately•17.1 acres located between Gene Coulon Park on the east,Legal Cle , th y Journal Boeing Manufacturing Operations on the west, and Lake Washington on the north from Heavy Industrial(IH)to Center Office I , Il Residential (COR) for the Southportneonthis — _ lay of 19 Project(Seco Development,R-99-027). 1 Effective: 11/3/99 • ORDINANCE NO.4801 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington,changing the zoning classifi- cation of approximately 4.8 acres located at 3521 Cedar Ave. S.from Residential- Notary Public of the State of Washington Eight Dwelling Units Per Acre (R-8) to residing in Renton Residential = 10 Dwelling Units Per Acre King County, Washington R-10)for Lakeridge Development(R-99- 053).-. ' Effective: 11/3/99 ' ORDINANCE NO.4802 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington,'amending Title 4 (Develop- ment Regulations)of City Code by adding a Center 'Office Residential-3 Zone, amending Center Office Residential use allowances and development standards, amending site.plan review.procedures, deleting master site plan approval pro- cedures, and amending modification procedures. Effective: .11/3/99 ORDINANCE NO.4803 An ordinance of the-City of Renton, ; Washington,amending"subsections 4-2- 060.F,G and K,4-2-070.1;J,K,L,M,N,0, P,0 and R,'4-2-080.A,and 4-2-120.A and C of Chapter 2,Land Use Districts,of Title 4(Development Regulations)of City Code by adding allowances for office uses.and minor repair in the .Commercial Arterial CA)Zone,adding allowances for'existing, legal administrative headquarters offices in the Convenience Commercial (CC)Zone, and adding allowances for accessory stor- age in the commercial and industrial zones. Effective: 11/3/99 ORDINANCE NO.4804 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington,designating a Planned Action for the Southport site, approximately 17 acres located adjacent to Lake Washington and -between ,Gene. Coulon Memorial Beach Park 'on the east,Wand Boeing Manufacturing Operations on the west. 3` Effective: 11/3/99 : ORDINANCE NO.4805 . An ordinance_of the -City of Renton, Washington,increasing'golf lesson fees. Effective: 1/1/2000. . . ORDINANCE NO.4806 An ordinance of the City'of Renton, Washington,:increasing animal license fees. ' - Effective: 1/1/2000 ORDINANCE NO.4807;', cAn ordinance of ,the ,City of_;Renton, Washington, amending subsection's 8-1rr9.A,'8-1-9.8.1, ? and 3,;and 8;1 9.0 of Chapter,1,•Garbage, and,subsection 8-4- e31 C.I fpf,Chafife01,44Vater'bf,;7-tle'VIIIHe,a(4h,and Sanitation)of'City Code relat- ng to gear 2000 utility rates'for ail custom- ter classes t i t r;Effective:::11/3/99 v.c+' tei .)4 , xakComplete texts of Iheseordinances are available at the Renton Municipal Building, f1Q55 South Grady Way;and;posted at theRenton:Public Library; tbo;.Mill;Avenue ' sSouth")Jppn,xequest to the City Clerk's office,425)430-651•0 copies will also be mailed for a fee. .. N `J:Petersen C irk7Cable Manager . ' P..,,,,,,ed In the South County Journal: October 29,1999:6789 11111011/ 1/10 7r-oti z__ CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 3414 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH ACCORD, INC. TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF TACO TIME CORPORATE OFFICES AND PARKING AREAS. WHEREAS, there are existing corporate offices and commercial uses generally in the area north of Maple Valley Highway at the intersections of Monroe Avenue S.E. and Maplewood Place, S.F., and WHEREAS, those office commercial uses and related properties are presently zoned Convenience Commercial (CC); and WHEREAS, the owner of the building presently housing the Taco Time corporate offices has indicated a desire to expand those headquarters and parking areas; and WHEREAS, the Convenience Commercial zone will not accommodate such expansion; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Renton, Washington, believes that such expansion can be accommodate pursuant to Comprehensive Plan Amendments/Rezones, Renton Municipal Code amendments, and a Development Agreement as authorized in RCW Chapter 36.70B.170 through 210; and WHEREAS, the parties have negotiated the proposed Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, this Development Agreement has been presented at a public hearing before the Cite Council held on June 14, 1999; and WHEREAS, the City Council has taken into account the public comment presented at that public hearing; and N RESOLUTION NO. 3 414 4140 WHEREAS, this Development Agreement has been reviewed and approved by the city council of the City of Renton, Washington, and WHEREAS, this Development Agreement appears to be in the best interests of the citizens of the City of Renton, Washington; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign a Development Agreement with Accord, Inc. to allow expansion of Taco Time corporate offices and parking areas. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 18th day of October 1999. Marilyn P rs , City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 18th day of October 1999. c70-""""4"-- Je Tanner, Mayor Approved as to form: w) Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.739:8/03/99:as. 2- 0 yQ. y 7-02- CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 4799 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM RESIDENTIAL-8 DU/AC (R-8) TO CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL (CC) (MAPLE VALLEY TACO TIME/CEDAR RIVER BARBER SHOP; CPA 98-M-4, FILE NO. LUA 98-042). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Land Use Districts, of Title IV Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 known as the "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as Residential-8 DU/AC (R-8); and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This matter was duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about September 16, 1998, and said matter having been duly considered by the Planning Commission, and said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Convenience Commercial (CC), as hereinbelow specified. The Neighborhood and Strategic Planning Division is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit: 1 110 ORDINANCE NO. 4 7 9 900 See Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. One parcel consisting of approximately 0.014 acres located north of S.E. 6TH Street.) SECTION II. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 25th day of October 1999. Marilyn J. to s , City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 25th day of October 1999. Jess er, Mayor A..ified as to form: AppCues-a.n t P Lawrence J. Warren, ity Attorney Date of Publication: 10/2 9/9 9 (Summary Only) ORD.794:8/03/99:as. 2 v 410 0 EXHIBIT A CEDAR RIVER BARBER SHOP LEGAL DESCRIPTION The southerly 37 feet of the westerly 23 feet of Lot 9, as measured along the southerly line of said Lot 9 and at right angles thereto, of Block 9,Maplewood Div.No. 2, according to the Plat thereof,recorded in Volume 39 of Plats,Page 39,records of King County,Washington; Situate in the Southeast quarter of Section 16,Township 23 North,Range 5 East, W.M., City of Renton, King County,Washington. H:\EconomicDevelopment\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\TACO\BSLEGAL.DOC CEDAbeIVER BARBER Si* REZONE Exhibit E 1 SE 5th St, liftSS - Ili* ' .-i (Ac'-5) ' 4S64#Q) 0 l'h SI(0 WieP 47 Sel 4 1 ki7y C-) Cb S' 0 150 300 Subject area I iJ I R-8 to CC) 1 : 1 ,800 1!, 0 Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning 4.11i1Y. 20 July ir9991 Dennison 12- 1Y- V2_ CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 4 7 9 8 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM RESIDENTIAL-8 DU/AC (R-8) TO CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL (CC) (MAPLE VALLEY TACO TIME/CEDAR RIVER MARKET; CPA 98-M-4, FILE NO. LUA 98-042). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Land Use Districts, of Title IV Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 known as the "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as Residential-8 DU/AC (R-8); and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This matter was duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about September 16, 1998, and said matter having been duly considered by the Planning Commission, and said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Convenience Commercial (CC), as hereinbelow specified. The Neighborhood and Strategic Planning Division is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit: 1 O. ORDINANCE NO. 4798 See Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. One parcel consisting of approximately 0.14 acres located north of Maple Valley Highway.) SECTION II. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 25th day of October 1999. vs/ Marilyn J. et r n, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 25th day of _ October 1999. c-70.4A-v-tn....---"" Jess anner, Mayor Ap yved as to form: d Lawrence J. W City Attorney slate of Publication: 10/29/99 (Summary Only) URD.792:8/03/99:as. 2 410. EXHIBIT A CEDAR RIVER MARKET LEGAL DESCRIPTION The southerly 120 feet of the westerly 88.25 feet of Lot 9, as measured along the southerly line of said lot and at right angles thereto, of Block 9,Maplewood Div.No. 2,according to the Plat thereof,recorded in Volume 39 of Plats,Page 39,records of King County,Washington; LESS the southerly 37 feet of the westerly 23 feet of said Lot 9,as measured along the southerly line of said Lot 9 and at right angles thereto. Situate in the Southeast quarter of Section 16,Township 23 North,Range 5 East, W.M., City of Renton, King County,Washington. H:\EconomicDevelopmen t\STRATP LN\P LANN ING\LGRUETER\TACO\M KTLEGAL.DOC Clie, RIVER MARKET.*ZONE Exhibit B SE 5th St z) csc Y Q.) 1 c? i 111‘S):e i::,•::i:v. cvj 6eth _. et e r, ilk7 6 Y c), z7 c, 0 150 300 Subject area I R-8 to CC) 1 : 1 ,800 oxi0iztrrhoodsn&sStrategic Planning 4.'W 20 July 1999 M i CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 47 97 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM RESIDENTIAL-8 DU/AC (R-8) TO RESIDENTIAL-10 DU/AC (R-10) (MAPLE VALLEY TACO TIME/CONRADS; CPA 98-M-4, FILE NO. LUA 98-042). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Land Use Districts, of Title IV Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 known as the "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as Residential-8 DU/AC (R-8); and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This matter was duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about September 16, 1998, and said matter having been duly considered by the Planning Commission, and said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Residential-10 DU/AC (R-10), as hereinbelow specified. The Neighborhood and Strategic Planning Division is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit: 1 Oil ORDINANCE NO. 4797 IP. See Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. Four lots consisting of approximately 0.86 acres located north of S.E. 6TH Street.) SECTION II. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 25th day of October 1999. I Marilyn J et r en, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 25th day of October 1999. Jess anner, Mayor A ed as to form: 6 7„.. Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Late of Publication: 10/2 9/99 (Summary Only) ORD.793:7/20/99:as. 2 0111 EXHIBIT A CONRAD PARCELS LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of City of Renton Short Plat No. 033-81,as recorded under King County Recording No. 8201149002, Records of King County, Washington. Situate in the Southeast quarter of Section 16, Township 23 North,Range 5 East, W.M., City of Renton, King County,Washington. H:\EconomicDevelopment\STRATPLN\P LANNING\LGRUETER\TACO\CONLEGAL.DOC Ift CONRAD REZ04.•r Exhibit B I SE 5th St lit I 41It4i) I 1ilItS'S() ioAt e."44‘ s s 0 pl 0.e ll s1 :.: cb 1 1 169 1 0 150 300 Subject area R-8 to R-10) 1 : 1 ,800 C • Neighborhoods Sc Strategic Planning ED/N/SP L. Grueter, 0. Dennison 20 July 1999 October 25, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes Page 377 survey also indicated that customers strongly prefer that Coal Creek Utility District(not the City of Bellevue)continue to provide for utility service. The district is financially sound and has the infrastructure in place or in its long- range plans to handle future build-out of its service area. For this reason,the Utility Committee recommended that the City Council and the Administration. send a letter and a resolution to Bellevue stating Renton's opposition to Bellevue's proposed partial assumption of the Coal Creek Utility District. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PARKER,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMI ITkE REPORT.* Responding to Councilman Edwards,Councilman Schlitzer explained that the proposed change in jurisdiction for a portion of the utility district would have a completely negative effect on all affected customers. Adding that both Renton and Newcastle are highly satisfied with the utility district's performance and level of service,he said transferring one-third of the district's service area to . Bellevue would be disruptive and costly and would raise rates for numerous customers for no reason other than conformance to a political boundary. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCES AND The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading: RESOLUTIONS Ordinance#4796 An ordinance was read adopting the 1999 Amendments to the City's 1995 Comprehensive Plan: 1999 Comprehensive Plan,Maps and Data in conjunction therewith. MOVED BY Amendments KEOLKER-WHEELER,SECONDED BY SCHLITZER,COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Rezone:Taco Time Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler noted that the ordinance rezoning the Maple Headquarters on Maple Valley Valley Taco Time headquarters on Maple Valley Highway from Residential- Hwy from R-8 to CC(R-98- Eight Dwelling Units Per Acre(R-8)to Convenience Commercial(CC)is 042) being held due to complications arising from the recent death of the property owner. Ordinance#4797 An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of approximately Rezone: Conrad Parcel on SE 0.86 acre located north of SE 6th Street from Residential -Eight Dwelling 6th St from R-8 to R-10(R-98- Units Per Acre(R-8)to Residential- 10 Dwelling Units Per Acre(R-10) for the 042) Maple Valley Taco Time Conrad parcel (R-98-042). MOVED BY KEOLKER- WHEELER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER,COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#4798 An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of approximately Rezone: Cedar River Market 0.14 acre located north of Maple Valley Highway from Residential-Eight on SE 6th St from R-8 to CC Dwelling Units Per Acre(R-8)to Convenience Commercial(CC)for the Cedar R_98-042) River Market(R-98-042). MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER,SECONDED BY CORMAN,COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#4799 An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of approximately Rezone: Cedar River Barber 0.014 acre located north of SE 6th Street from Residential-Eight Dwelling Shop on SE 6th St from R-8 to Units Per Acre•(R-8)to Convenience Commercial(CC)for the Cedar River CC(R-98-042) Barber Shop(R-98-042). MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER,COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#4800 An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of approximately Rezone: Southport Project 17.1 acres located bet-ween.Gene Coulon Park on the east,Boeing Shuffleton Site), from IH to Manufacturing Operations on the west,and Lake Washington on the north from COR(R-99-027) Heavy Industrial(IH)to Center Office Residential(COR)for the Southport October 25, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes • Page 378 Project(Seco Development,R-99-027). MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER,COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#4801 An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of approximately 4.8 Rezone: Lakeridge acres located at 3521 Cedar Ave. S. from Residential - Eight Dwelling Units Development, 3521 Cedar Ave Per Acre(R-8)to Residential - 10 Dwelling Units Per Acre (R-10) for S, from R-8 to R-10 (R-99-Lakeridge Development(R-99-053). MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED 053) BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Rezone: La Pianta Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler explained that the ordinance for the La Development,NE 3rd/4th Sts, Pianta rezone(approximately 94.05 acres located on the south side of NE 3rd from RHM to R-10 and R-14 and 4th Streets and east of Edmonds Ave. NE) from Residential Mobile Home R-99-054) RMH)to Residential - 10 Dwelling Units Per Acre (R-10) and Residential - 14 Dwelling Units Per Acre(R-14) is also being held for further action, and will not be presented for second and final reading this evening. Ordinance#4802 An ordinance was read amending Title 4 (Development Regulations)of City Planning: Center Office Code by adding a Center Office Residential-3 Zone, amending Center Office Residential Zone Amendments Residential use allowances and development standards, amending site plan Southport Project) review procedures, deleting master site plan approval procedures, and amending modification procedures. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#4803 An ordinance was read amending subsections 4-2-060.F, G and K,4-2-070.I, J, Planning: Commercial Arterial K, L, M,N, 0, P, Q and R,4-2-080.A, and 4-2-120.A and C of Chapter 2, Land and Convenience Commercial Use Districts, of Title 4 (Development Regulations) of City Code by adding Zone Amendments (Taco allowances for office uses and minor repair in the Commercial Arterial (CA) Time Headquarters Expansion) Zone, adding allowances for existing, legal administrative headquarters offices lv"°` in the Convenience Commercial (CC)Zone, and'adding allowances for accessory storage in the commercial and industrial zones. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#4804 An ordinance was read designating a Planned Action for the Southport site, Planning: Southport Project approximately 17 acres located adjacent to Lake Washington and between Planned Action Ordinance Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park on the east and Boeing Manufacturing Operations on the west. MOVED BY SCHLITZER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#4805 An ordinance was read increasing golf lesson fees. MOVED BY EDWARDS, Budget: 2000, Golf Lesson Fee SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS Increases READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#4806 An ordinance was read increasing animal license fees. MOVED BY Budget: 2000, Animal License EDWARDS, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE Fee Changes (Increase to Two- ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Year License) Ordinance#4807 An ordinance was read amending subsections 8-1-9.A, 8-1-9.B.1.,2 and 3, and Budget: 2000, Solid Waste 8-1-9.0 of Chapter 1,Garbage,and subsection 8-4-31.C.1 of Chapter 4, Water, Utility Rates of Title VIII(Health and Sanitation) of City Code relating to year 2000 utility rates for all customer classes. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. 1111 October 18, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes Page 365 Rezone: Taco Time An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of approximately Headquarters on Maple Valley 0.10 acre located north of Maple Valley Highway from Residential-Eight Hwy from R-8 to CC (R-98- Dwelling Units Per Acre(R-8)to Convenience Commercial (CC)for Maple 042) Valley Taco Time(R-98-042). MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10/25/99. CARRIED. Rezone: Conrad Parcel on SE An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of approximately 6th St from R-8 to R-10 (R-98- 0.86 acre located north of SE 6th Street from Residential- Eight Dwelling 042) Units Per Acre(R-8)to Residential - 10 Dwelling Units Per Acre(R-10) for the Maple Valley Taco Time Conrad parcel (R-98-042) . MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10/25/99. CARRIED. Rezone: Cedar River Market An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of approximately on SE 6th St from R-8 to CC 0.14 acre located north of Maple Valley Highway from Residential-Eight R-98-042) Dwelling Units Per Acre(R-8)to Convenience Commercial(CC) for the Cedar River Market(R-98-042). MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10/25/99. CARRIED. Rezone: Cedar River Barber An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of approximately Shop on SE 6th St from R-8 to 0.014 acre located north of SE 6th Street from Residential-Eight Dwelling CC(R-98-042) Units Per Acre(R-8)to Convenience Commercial(CC) for the Cedar River Barber Shop(R-98-042). MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY EDWARDS,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10/25/99. CARRIED. Rezone: Southport Project An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of approximately Shuffleton Site), from IH to 17.1 acres located between Gene Coulon Park on the east,Boeing COR(R-99-027) Manufacturing Operations on the west,and Lake Washington on the north from Heavy Industrial (IH)to Center Office Residential(COR)for the Southport Project(Seco Development,R-99-027). MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10/25/99. CARRIED. Rezone: Lakeridge An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of approximately 4.8 Development, 3521 Cedar Ave acres located at 3521 Cedar Ave. S. from Residential-Eight Dwelling Units S, from R-8 to R-10 (R-99-Per Acre(R-8)to Residential- 10 Dwelling Units Per Acre(R-10)for 053) Lakeridge Development(R-99-053). MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10/25/99. CARRIED. Rezone: La Pianta An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of approximately Development,NE 3rd/4th Sts, 94.05 acres located on the south side of NE 3rd and 4th Streets and east of from RHM to R-10 and R-14 Edmonds Ave.NE from Residential Mobile Home(RMH)to Residential- 10 R-99-054) Dwelling Units Per Acre(R-10)and Residential- 14 Dwelling Units Per Acre R-14) for the La Pianta Limited Partnership(R-99-054). MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10/25/99. CARRIED. Planning: Center Office An ordinance was read amending Title 4(Development Regulations)of City Residential Zone Amendments Code by adding a Center Office Residential-3 Zone, amending Center Office Southport Project) Residential use allowances and development standards,amending site plan review procedures,deleting master site plan approval procedures, and October 18, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes Page 366 amending modification procedures. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10/25/99. CARRIED. Planning: Commercial Arterial An ordinance was read amending subsections 4-2-060.F,G and K,4-2-070.1,J, and Convenience Commercial K, L,M,N, 0,P,Q and R,4-2-080.A,and 4-2-120.A and C of Chapter 2, Land Zone Amendments (Taco Use Districts,of Title 4(Development Regulations)of City Code by adding Time Headquarters Expansion) allowances for office uses and minor repair in the Commercial Arterial(CA) Zone, adding allowances for existing,legal administrative headquarters offices in the Convenience Commercial(CC)Zone, and adding allowances for accessory storage in the commercial and industrial zones. MOVED BY 0. R CLAWSON, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10/25/99. CARRIED. Planning: Southport Project An ordinance was read designating a Planned Action for the Southport site, Planned Action Ordinance approximately 17 acres located adjacent to Lake Washington and between Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park on the east and Boeing Manufacturing Operations on the west. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY CLAWSON,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10/25/99. CARRIED. Budget: 2000, Goff Lesson Fee An ordinance was read increasing golf lesson fees. MOVED BY CORMAN, Increases SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10/25/99. CARRIED. Budget: 2000,Animal License An ordinance was read increasing animal license fees. MOVED BY Fee Changes(Increase to Two- CORMAN, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER,COUNCIL REFER THE Year License) ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10/25/99. CARRIED. Budget: 2000, Solid Waste An ordinance was read amending subsections 8-1-9.A, 8-1-9.B.1.,2 and 3, and Utility Rates 8-1-9.0 of Chapter 1, Garbage,and subsection 8-4-31.C.1 of Chapter 4,Water, of Title VIII(Health and Sanitation)of City Code relating to year 2000 utility rates for all customer classes. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10/25/99. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler commented that when the City moved into King County: Downtown its new building last year,the polling place which was at the former municipal Renton Polling Place building was moved to the First Presbyterian Church. She wondered why the polling place wasn't moved to the new City Hall instead. City Clerk Marilyn Petersen replied that King County selected the new polling place. She offered to find out if it would be possible to have it relocated to City Hall. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PARKER,SECONDED BY CORMAN,COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 9:00 p.m. MARIL ' l TERSEN,CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Brenda Fritsvold October 18, 1999 October 18, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes Page 366 amending modification procedures. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10/25/99. CARRIED. Planning: Commercial Arterial An ordinance was read amending subsections 4-2-060.F,G and K,4-2-070.I,J, and Convenience Commercial K, L,M,N,0,P,Q and R,4-2-080.A,and 4-2-120.A and C of Chapter 2,Land Zone Amendments(Taco Use Districts,of Title 4(Development Regulations)of City Code by adding Time Headquarters Expansion) allowances for office uses and minor repair in the Commercial Arterial(CA) Zone,adding allowances for existing, legal administrative headquarters offices q in the Convenience Commercial(CC)Zone,and adding allowances for accessory storage in the commercial and industrial zones. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL REFER THE RDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10/25/99. ARRIED. Planning: Southport Project An ordinance was read designating a Planned Action for the Southport site, Planned Action Ordinance approximately 17 acres located adjacent to Lake Washington and between Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park on the east and Boeing Manufacturing Operations on the west. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY CLAWSON,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10/25/99. CARRIED. Budget: 2000,Golf Lesson Fee An ordinance was read increasing golf lesson fees. MOVED BY CORMAN, Increases SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10/25/99. CARRIED. Budget: 2000,Animal License An ordinance was read increasing animal license fees. MOVED BY Fee Changes (Increase to Two- CORMAN, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER,COUNCIL REFER THE Year License) ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10/25/99. CARRIED. Budget: 2000, Solid Waste An ordinance was read amending subsections 8-1,-9.A, 8-1-9.B.1.,2 and 3, and Utility Rates 8-1-9.0 of Chapter 1,Garbage, and subsection 8-4-31.C.1 of Chapter 4,Water, of Title VIII(Health and Sanitation)of City Code relating to year 2000 utility rates for all customer classes. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10/25/99. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler commented that when the City moved into King County: Downtown its new building last year,the polling place which was at the former municipal Renton Polling Place building was moved to the First Presbyterian Church. She wondered why the polling place wasn't moved to the new City Hall instead. City Clerk Marilyn Petersen replied that King County selected the new polling place. She offered to find out if it would be possible to have it relocated to City Hall. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 9:00 p.m. 411P MARIL TERSEN,CMC,City Clerk Recorder: Brenda Fritsvold October 18, 1999 October 18, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes • Page 364 Mayor Tanner explained that this rate increase is proposed for several reasons, including the annual contractual obligation to the hauler for collection costs, which is set at 80%of the Consumer Price Index. Additionally,the Solid Waste Utility owes the Waterworks Fund its share($50,000)of the new utility billing system expense. Responding to Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler,Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Gregg Zimmerman said it is not likely that revenue requirements will increase as a result of renegotiating the solid waste collection contract for next year. He added that the City can choose to extend the current contract for the first six months of 2000 while negotiations are completed. Budget: 2000, Animal License Finance Committee Chair Edwards presented a report recommending adoption Fee Changes (Increase to Two- of an ordinance that authorized an increase in the two-year animal license fee Year License) for the year 2000. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE REPORT AS READ. CARRIED. (See page 366 for ordinance.) Councilman Edwards stated that changing to a two-year license will result in cost savings for pet owners. Councilman Corman concurred that this is an extraordinarily reasonable fee, and approximately half of what King County charges. Budget: 2000,Golf Lesson Fee Finance Committee Chair Edwards presented a report recommending adoption Increases of an ordinance that authorizes an increase in golf lesson fees at Maplewood Golf Course. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE REPORT AS READ. CARRIED. (See page 366 for ordinance.) Parks: Council Chambers Responding to Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler,Facilities Director Dennis Podium Microphone Culp said the microphone at the podium in the Council Chambers has been replaced with one of higher quality than the old one. A longer stem is on order, which should also help pick up the comments of those addressing the Council. Mr. Culp added that another microphone is planned for installation on the other side of the podium near the projector. ORDINANCES AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: RESOLUTIONS Resolution#3413 A resolution was read authorizing the sale of surplus equipment. MOVED BY Parks: Surplus Furniture and PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE Equipment RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3414 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Development Services: Taco development agreement with Accord,Inc. to allow expansion of Taco Time Time Development corporate offices and parking areas in an area located generally north of Maple Agreement,Headquarters on Valley Highway at the intersections of Monroe Ave. SE and Maplewood Pl. Maple Valley Highway SE. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY CORMAN,COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. C The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 10/25/99 for second and final reading: Comprehensive Plan: 1999 An ordinance was read adopting the 1999 Amendments to the City's 1995 Amendments Comprehensive Plan,Maps and Data in conjunction therewith. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 10/25/99. CARRIED. a DOCUMENTS FOR RECORDING KING COUNTY RECORDS &ELECTIONS DIVISION TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE: AI/ /999 FROM: L ,6 r l-t0 — A)I OY-k) d l Ya 1/ t C 1 r')I lame. ton.and extension)r I 0)0 - (P57? ) v BILLING ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxx/xxx xxx.xxx.)cxxx.xxxx.xx.xxxxxx): IS REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX FORM REQUIRED? No ItAi Yes (Attach form) Account will be charged$200 filing fee) INDEXING NOTES: SPECIA],RECORDING INSTRUCTIONS: 1-ku L. CL (.Q_Co( o s2.m bo,titc ( Ol( t 33 nL k tn1 Ave_ 1 Dg , &CU (--Q-) R g 1 DATE ACQUIRED: (¢ (P LI ___ GRANTOR: s 1 L( &( OU)%LA\ PURPOSE: I Y..QWMJVI $ r C- V COMM(IN DESCRIPTION: 1 CLVI ADDRESS:3 4( mot' SE LC Sf P.I.D. ,6 (, j( 90 c O 3 L- 7 S-T-R: 1 Cc „2.3/Y— (415 CROSS STREETS: 6E Q t ' 1 e ±/T 1a pL1I ~r ( • s. F CURRENT USE: Coma-te.A ci( ' Lam/ efOL.A.De MANAGING DEPARTMENT: it) isp DEPT. FILE#. t-- RECORDING# Rev Date 7/97 TS/REC DOC.DOT/bh RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WHEREAS, the undersigned is owner of certain real property commonly known as the Cedar River Barber Shop located within the City of Renton; and WHEREAS,that real property is legally described as: See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth and WHEREAS, the undersigned has participated in a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone for the property described in Exhibit A, which Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone were subject to certain conditions which are to be imposed upon the property through these covenants; and WHEREAS, the undersigned wishes to procure for the benefit of the property the Comprehensive Plan and Rezone; NOW, THEREFORE,the undersigned imposes the following covenant: Upon any development that occurs which triggers SEPA review under the SEPA ordinance in effect at the time of this covenant, the following additional improvements will be installed as partial environmental mitigation: a.A six foot wall in addition to required ten foot landscaped setbacks where properties redesignated Convenience Commercial (CC) abut residential zoned properties. b.Sight obscuring landscaping where properties redesignated Convenience Commercial (CC) are adjacent to residentially zoned properties, except adjacent to Maplewood Park where modifications to sight obscuring RESTRICTIVE COVENANT - 1 landscaping should be allowed to ensure adequate visibility for purposes of public safety. This covenant shall not be effective until the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone which serve as the basis of these covenants. DATED this c. 2 y2Lday of 1999. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING c I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me and who signed this instrument and acknowledged it to his/her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: ‘2 'V CJ,VC 1999. d for the of Washington. Notary: A.w V6 7Z)IV Mu rzin-L TL Z My appointment expires: Q D -6 - pn 1INy,,i oIAR? I: PustA 1. FOp wks*:` RESTRICTIVE COVENANT -2 RECEIVED JUN 2 5 1999 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. NEIGHBORHOODS. firj (W.AND STRATEGIC PLANNING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 244X, is the person who appeared before me and who signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: 7 J(/NC , 1999. O Y LIC in an for the stat Washington. Notary: 402//5Q/G e l h'--fArG vrM/ /fiUTI//,/fZ7&f A8.159.02. My appointment expires: 9-/0 401+ ormir s iiiiiii11P iASN`` RESTRICTIVE COVENANT - 3 EXHIBIT A CEDAR RIVER BARBER SHOP LEGAL DESCRIPTION The southerly 37 feet of the westerly 23 feet of Lot 9, as measured along the southerly line of said Lot 9 and at right angles thereto, of Block 9,Maplewood Div.No. 2, according to the Plat thereof,recorded in Volume 39 of Plats,Page 39,records of King County,Washington; Situate in the Southeast quarter of Section 16,Township 23 North, Range 5 East,W.M.,City of Renton, King County,Washington. H:\Economic Development\STRATPLMPLANNING\LGRUETER\TACO\BSLEGAL.DOC DOCUMENTS FOR RECORDING KING COUNTY RECORDS &ELECTIONS DIVISION TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE: pf, 999 FROM: l._.l 9 oU .Y' 1 &) I k DO Y h S Ill Sfra V n) 9578) BILLING ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxx/xxxxxx.xxx.xxxx.xxxx.xx.mooD x): IS REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX FORM REQUIRED? No Yes (Attach form) Ac t w U be charged S2.00 filing fee) INDEXING NOTES: SPECIAL, RECORDING INSTRUCTIONS: I-4 LUQ_ a- (rL(o r'(P d Copt j o e O ' d Pa+ Con ra4 Soy 3 R•a_ Oul-t--,c GO A q 8'0(P4), DATE ACQUIRED: 9 9 GRANTOR: TO.,se_ 11 avid I Y t Ua_ Cm rad PURPOS on CPkli27 " GQ (too 6006(U16 (0V1 0-1/4 COMMON DESCRIPTION: ADDRESS: no add 1-4_5S f Vac cLM r D 3 - P.I.D. `' / 09/9 D 3 S-T-R: a 5.i1/ - 5 Ja Cogt, D 3ot. CROSS STREETS:6 F Lc` t Sty,t p C- I I Pi 5 E - CURREI T USE:v 0 L ct l b t MANAGING DEPARTMENT:E f A ( 5 P DEPT. F::LE#. q D ^i") — q- RECORDING# Rev Date 7/97 TS/REC_DOC.DOT/bh RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHEREAS, the undersigned is owner of certain real property located within the City of Renton; and WHEREAS,that real property is legally described as: See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth and WHEREAS, the undersigned has participated in a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone for the property described in Exhibit A, which Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone were subject to certain conditions which are to be imposed upon the property through these covenants; and WHEREAS, the undersigned wishes to procure for the benefit of the property the Comprehensive Plan and Rezone; NOW, THEREFORE,the undersigned imposes the following covenants: 1. The number of residential lots that can be achieved on this property shall be limited to seven, and the structures that may be constructed on the property are detached single-family dwelling units only. 2. Initial construction shall be limited to one story in height, with future remodels governed by the R-10 zoning in effect at the time of remodel, or the successor zone most similar to the R-l0 zone which exists as of the time of this covenant. 3.The lot layout to be used for the single-family homes shall be similar to the preliminary site plan received by the City on December 16, 1998, attached hereto as Exhibit B, RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS - 1 and shall be consistent with all City ordinances and codes effective as of the date of recording of these covenants. These covenants shall not be effective until the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone which serve as the basis of these covenants. DATED this ( day of L/614-Q` 1999. 2b,e,(fk, STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that( ,, . )44• is the person who appeared before me and who signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: as 1999. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state ashington. Notary: tMyappointment YN KAMCHEFF COivMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS -2 g STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING A k /1 . Cam,-,,e,.w * I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is pa r;r;h A-— is the person who appeared before me and who signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. BATED: 1999. Ar NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state .1 ` ashirgton. Notary: t g.159:14. My appointmeP RILYN KAMCH EFF gION EXPIRES 8/29/99 RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS - 3 EXHIBIT A CONRAD PARCELS LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 1,2, 3 and 4 of City of Renton Short Plat No. 033-81,as recorded under King County Recording No. 8201149002,Records of King County,Washington. Situate in the Southeast quarter of Section 16,Township 23 North,Range 5 East,W.M., City of Renton, King County,Washington. H:\EconomicDevelopment\STRATPLN\PLANNING LGRUETER\TACO\CONLEGAL.DOC EXHIBIT B N.W. '/4- SE-cT. at, rNP z3 Jul. , IRG`... 5 E. w,M i V I Z 6 r 41/• AREA Ihl ?NREN0l•+-SIS LLI g L6 CO: or- I ;:c¢ !1 r W rn 2653 k Z. 2% r2 Y .c3S way.: O wI Z rti v. 2D' S9 ,3 V 0 3 4 Y 0/ 58% SF E.' cole2"j Sr' 51ss) s;zd 0, cd a OI LJ.I Nin 9s, 03 7 4 1 rn n 9 . ci, a .0, m v po i 5- tksse. rs pa izcsL Nos. a 51zo)a 5121u40- 03Z4- Ul Q o3Z5 4c.o0 SP o3ZS 0 0329 o o / ti' I S ni qLL. LOT.3 ACC R-5 PRIV i4TE DRNv c - r LOT x 3 1 r o 4- a g N 4 210 wIo 5g0CSP t/ t PRIVATE- Ra+o y aso j ti r 4s s s- v/ o 497 o SITE D?.TA i J ZONING : R-8 sso SF NAP MIN. Lr T SIZE R!'o: SF II PAN- Lor- slZ P s st= v MIN. LOT WICTH : SO MIN. LOj".NTH : (05' Gs. SETSAC- FAG.,iT: Zo' 0, REAR: Zo' S1D: 5'Zoo'No17T1-1 C TYOFRWION TRIAL- SITE krtEA: 37,27(0 SF RECTIve0 0.2)(0 Ac RE l: I"= 3a s DEC 16 1998 No, LOT'S PROPoSeb: 7 No. Lana Exis IKIG : 4 8UILUIN(i OIVISION APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT July 12, 1999 Taco Time Area Proposed Development Agreement Convenience Commercial(CC)Zone Amendments April 13, 1998;May 10, 1999) Based on the adopted Committee report from January 4, 1999, staff has prepared proposed amendments to the Convenience Commercial Zone office allowances as well as minor amendments to accessory storage in all commercial and industrial zones. The Committee considered public comments received at the public hearing held June 14, 1999. The Committee recommends that the staff prepare an ordinance consistent with the staff report dated May 5, 1999, and in addition include a sunset clause for the one-time building addition for existing,.legal Administrative Headquarters Offices. The sunset date would be seven years. The ordinance would be approved along with other related ordinances prepared in conjunction with the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Also based on the adopted Committee report from January 4, 1999, staff in conjunction with the City Attorney have prepared a proposed Development Agreement for the Taco Time Corporation and property owner. The Development Agreement is based on the ultimate adoption of CC zone amendments regarding allowances for existing, legal administrative headquarters offices with minor parking and square footage allowances. The agreement would include Environmental Review Committee mitigation measures related to building height, access, landscaping, site plan review and other provisions. The Committee considered public comments received at the public hearing held June 14, 1999. The Committee recommends that the staff prepare a resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into the agreement. The agreement should be consistent with the staff report dated May 6, 1999, and in addition should include a sunset clause for the one-time building addition for existing, legal administrative headquarters offices. The sunset date would be seven years. The resolution would be approved along with other ordinances prepared in conjunction with the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. 46.-?-1C2?1 Kathy dolker-Wheeler, Chair g-a0/6" Bob Edwards,Vice Chair Dan Clawson, Member cc: Sue Carlson p&dfin r. July 12, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes • Page 249 Volunteer Program Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler said while Ms.Mejlaender's work is Coordinator Contract exemplary,she was concerned that the coordination of Renton River Days used to be done by a permanent City employee,but has now been turned over to a contract employee. She wondered whether this position should be made into a regular full-time position with benefits. Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer,responded that after the resignation of Laurie Ness,the City's first Volunteer Coordinator,the Administration took the opportunity to combine this function along with special events activities into one contract. Council President Parker explained that this person performs promotion and marketing work for the City as a consultant to specific programs and events. He supported approving the contract this evening as proposed,adding that Council can take up the question of whether it should be made into a full-time regular position during budget deliberations. Councilman Edwards suggested shortening the ending date of the contract from June 30,2000 to December 31, 1999 to coincide with the City's budget. Councilmember Nelson agreed this would be preferable,as the River Days Board of Directors was concerned that the contract for the event's coordination not expire a few short weeks before River Days. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER,COUNCIL EXTEND THE CONTRACT WITH SONJA MEJLAENDER FOR SPECIAL EVENT AND VOLUNTEER PROGRAM COORDINATION FROM JULY 1, 1999 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1999 FOR$22,500. CARRIED. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR DISCUSSION PRIOR TO BUDGET DELIBERATIONS LATER THIS YEAR. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was read from the Board of the Highlands Community Citizen Comment: Highlands Association,urging the City to immediately fund necessary improvements to Community Association— properties operated by the Renton Housing Authority in the Highlands. Renton Housing Authority,Mayor Tanner noted that the Housing Authority is an independent entity which Maintenance of Housing Stock controls its own finances and is wholly responsible for operating and maintaining the various properties which it owns. He added that this letter may be related to an application by the Housing Authority to the City's new Neighborhood Program for minor work to some of its buildings. OLD BUSINESS Planning&Development Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a report Planning&Development recommending that a public hearing be set on July 26, 1999 for proposed Code Committee amendments changing the dates and procedures for the Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan: amendment review process. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, Amendment Review Process SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMI Fl EE Changes REPORT. CARRIED. Planning: Taco Time Planning&Development Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a report Development Agreement regarding the proposed Taco Time development agreement and Convenience Commercial(CC)Zone amendments. Based on the adopted Committee report r from January 4, 1999, staff has prepared proposed amendments to the l 1 1 ( c -q$/)`C Convenience Commercial Zone office allowances as well as minor ji amendments to accessory storage in all commercial and industrial zones. The Committee considered public comments received at the public hearing held June 14, 1999. The Committee recommended that staff prepare an ordinance July 12, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes • Page 250 consistent with the staff report dated May 5, 1999, and in addition include a sunset clause for the one-time building addition for existing, legal Administrative Headquarters Offices. The sunset date would be seven years. The ordinance would be approved along with other related ordinances prepared in conjunction with the 1999 Comprehensive Plan amendments. Also based on the adopted Committee report from January 4, 1999, staff and the City Attorney have prepared a proposed Development Agreement for the Taco Time Corporation and property owner. The Development Agreement is based on the ultimate adoption of CC zone amendments regarding allowances for existing,legal administrative headquarters offices with minor parking and square footage allowances. The agreement would include Environmental Review Committee mitigation measures related to building height,access, landscaping, site plan review and other provisions. The Committee considered public comments received at the public hearing held June 14, 1999. The Committee recommended that staff prepare a resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into the agreement. The agreement should be consistent with the staff report dated May 6, 1999,and in addition should include a sunset clause for the one-time building addition for existing,legal administrative headquarters offices. The sunset date would be seven years. The resolution would be approved along with other ordinances prepared in conjunction with the 1999 Comprehensive Plan amendments. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Finance Committee Finance Committee Chair Edwards presented a report recommending approval Finance: Vouchers of Claim Vouchers 172326- 172745 and two wire transfers totaling 2,702,796.18. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Transportation Committee Transportation Committee Chair Corman presented a report regarding the Public Works: Pacific Fiber proposed license agreement for Pacific Fiber Link, L.L.C. Pacific Fiber Link Link Fiber Optic System plans to provide high-capacity, inter-exchange transport on a long-term lease Through Renton basis to telecommunications common carriers on underground fiber optic cables. The conduit will be installed using conventional trenching,horizontal boring and directional drilling methods. This is a ten-year license agreement between the City of Renton and Pacific Fiber Link. Pacific Fiber Link(PFL)is a Washington State limited liability company. PFL is owned by Ledcor Industries,Inc. and Mitek Communications,Inc. Mitek Communications,Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Michel's Pipeline Construction, Inc. PFL has no subsidiaries or other parent companies. City Code encourages telecommunications services such as this to promote competition and provide advance services on the widest possible basis to businesses,institutions and residents of the City. The Transportation Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the license agreement with Pacific Fiber Link, L.L.C. The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the agreement. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY CLAWSON,COUNCIL CONCUR INT HE COMMITTEE REPORT CARRIED. ORDINANCES AND The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading: RESOLUTIONS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date 7- PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT July 12, 1999 Taco Time Area Proposed Development Agreement Convenience Commercial(CC)Zone Amendments April 13, 1998; May 10, 1999) Based on the adopted Committee report from January 4, 1999, staff has prepared proposed amendments to the Convenience Commercial Zone office allowances as well as minor amendments to accessory storage in all commercial and industrial zones. The Committee considered public comments received at the public hearing held June 14, 1999. The Committee recommends that the staff prepare an ordinance consistent with the staff report dated May 5, 1999, and in addition include a sunset clause for the one-time building addition for existing, legal Administrative Headquarters Offices. The sunset date would be seven years. The ordinance would be approved along with other related ordinances prepared in conjunction with the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Also based on the adopted Committee report from January 4, 1999, staff in conjunction with the City Attorney have prepared a proposed Development Agreement for the Taco Time Corporation and property owner. The Development Agreement is based on the ultimate adoption of CC zone amendments regarding allowances for existing, legal administrative headquarters offices with minor parking and square footage allowances. The agreement would include Environmental Review Committee mitigation measures related to building height, access, landscaping, site plan review and other provisions. The Committee considered public comments received at the public hearing held June 14, 1999. The Committee recommends that the staff prepare a resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into the agreement. The agreement should be consistent with the staff report dated May 6, 1999, and in addition should include a sunset clause for the one-time building addition for existing, legal administrative headquarters offices. The sunset date would be seven years. The resolution would be approved along with other ordinances prepared in conjunction with the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. ttd . athy dolker-Wheeler, Chair Bob Edwards,Vice Chair Dan Clawson,Member cc: Sue Carlson p&dfin Lisa Grueter r. -. EDNSP CITY JF RENTON Renton City Council Jesse Tanner,Mayor June 16, 1999 SUBJECT: Taco Time Area—Proposed Development Agreement/Covenants & Convenience Commercial (CC) Zone Amendments To Interested Parties: The Renton City Council's Planning &Development Committee will meet to review the above-referenced item on the following dates: Thursday,July 8, 1999 3:30 PM 7th Floor/Council Conference Room City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,Washington This is not a public hearing,but a working session of the Planning &Development Committee. As all Council Committee meetings are open to the public, you are welcome to attend. If you have questions regarding these meetings,please phone Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison, at 425-430-6501. Sincerely, 16414Th 6.01W}- W h.e.e,e?1) Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Chair Planning&Development Committee Renton City Council 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6501 June 14, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes • 216 Referring to the use of a sunset clause,Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler noted that some projects currently being built were approved ten to twelve years ago even though the underlying zoning has changed in the meantime. Adding a sunset clause would avoid this situation with this project. There being no further audience comment,it was MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN,COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. Planning:Taco Time This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Expansion(Development accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Tanner opened the public hearing Agreement) to consider the proposed Taco Time development agreement for its headquarters located on Maple Valley Highway near Monroe Ave. SE. 01014, j Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner,described the site the development agreement would cover and explained that State law authorizes the City to enter into an agreement with the property owner. The agreement needs to be consistent with the City's development regulations;however, the agreement assumes adoption of the Convenience Commercial(CC)zone amendments previously discussed. Continuing,Ms. Grueter explained that the agreement incorporates the Environmental Review Committee mitigation measures which are: 1)Limit height of future development to 35 feet; 2)Restrict access from SE 6th St.; 3) Require site plan review for any size development or redevelopment;4) Require landscaping abutting or adjacent to residentially zoned property. She texplained further that the landscaping improvements would be required to be installed at the time of any building demolition or expansion,or parking stall additions or reconfigurations. Describing the terms of the agreement proposed by staff,Ms. Grueter recommended that a fixed sunset term be applied only to the building expansion which would be coordinated with the CC zone amendments. The remaining provisions of the agreement would run in perpetuity with the property and be reviewed periodically. In conclusion,Ms.Grueter said that pending Committee review, staff will prepare a resolution to be coordinated with the adoption of the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and CC zone f amendments. I Responding to Councilman Edwards,Ms.Grueter explained that fencing would be installed where the property abuts a residential zone. Site obscuring landscaping would be applied to property adjacent to residentially zoned property,except where modifications should be allowed to ensure visibility. Audience comment was invited. Barbra Gilbert,3624 SE 5th Pl.,Renton, 98058, expressed her concern regarding the portion of property that is currently being leased to a coffee stand. She feared a larger commercial structure being built on that portion which,along with the Taco Time Headquarters building,would make for a intensive commercial area. Describing efforts by surrounding residents to improve their neighborhood,Ms. Gilbert reiterated that she is worried about the effect the subject project could have on the area. She urged Council to stop the expansion,adding that in a few years Taco Time could,once again,ask the City to approve yet another expansion. Denise A. Carey, 3300 SE 5th St.,Renton,98058, stated that since the subject property is not allowed access to SE 6th St., if more access points will be allowed onto Maple Valley Highway. She urged Council to look into how the June 14, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes II 217 development will affect traffic on Maple Valley Highway. Councilman Corman said since there is nothing to prevent the consolidation of the various portions of the property,the City needs to be very clear on what the property will be used for. Responding to Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler,Ms. Grueter pointed out the access points on the property,commenting that direct access is discouraged off of Maple Valley Highway. Responding to Councilman Edwards,Ms. Grueter stated that the coffee stand portion of the site is currently zoned Convenience Commercial and a retail establishment of up to 5,000 square feet could be built on that portion. She explained that any development proposal would be subject to site plan review, landscaping provisions,and access restrictions. Debbie Sheridan, 3300 Maple Valley Hwy.,Renton, speaking as an employee of Taco Time, said that she has been unable to find any record of public comment at the time of the Taco Time Headquarters construction ten years ago. Addressing the question of storage,Ms. Sheridan emphasized that food is not stored on the premises and the company has no intention of doing so in the future. Responding to Councilman Parker,Ms. Sheridan reported that trucks make deliveries to the Taco Time Headquarters but do not stay for extended periods. She thought that trucks may be parking on the vacant lot near the coffee stand. Responding to Council inquiry,Ms. Sheridan stated that if the expansion is approved,Taco Time plans to improve the parking right away and expand the headquarters within five to seven years. There being no further audience comment,it was MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. Legal: Adult Retail Uses This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Moratorium accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Tanner opened the public hearing to consider extending the moratorium on adult retail uses within certain geographical locations. Mike Kattermann,Director of Neighborhoods& Strategic Planning,explained that the moratorium was initially imposed by Council in July of 1997,and has been renewed three times since then. He reviewed the conditions of the moratorium. To date,staff has been researching studies that have been done in similar jurisdictions around the country in terms of the effects of the uses on adjacent properties. Staff has also notified businesses that will potentially be affected by the proposed regulations. Mr.Kattermann reported that an approach has been developed to amend the City's existing regulations. The moratorium extension is requested to give time for the public to review and comment on the draft ordinance and resolution. He mentioned also that environmental review is currently underway and the review period expires on July 1, 1999. In conclusion, staff recommends adoption of the resolution extending the moratorium for an additional six month period. Audience comment was invited. Heidi Carlson, 806 Index Ct.NE,Renton,98056,stated that it has been two years since she started picketing the adult book store located in the Highlands. She expressed her appreciation of the City's work regarding this matter and q8-04z RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting June 14, 1999 Council Chambers Monday, 7:30 p.m. MINUTES Municipal Building CALL TO ORDER Mayor Jesse Tanner led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF KING PARKER, Council President; TIMOTHY SCHLITZER;RANDY COUNCILMEMBERS CORMAN;TONI NELSON;BOB EDWARDS;KATHY KEOLKER- WHEELER;DAN CLAWSON. CITY STAFF IN JESSE TANNER, Mayor;ZANETTA FONTES,Assistant City Attorney; ATTENDANCE BRENDA FRITSVOLD, Deputy City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; SUSAN CARLSON, Economic Development,Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Administrator; BETTY NOKES, Economic Development Director;MICHAEL KATTERMANN, Director of Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning; DEREK TODD, Finance Analyst; LISA GRUETER, Senior Planner; JIM SHEPHERD, Community Services Administrator; COMMANDER CURTIS SMALLING, Police Department. Council Minutes Correction MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL AMEND THE MINUTES OF 6/7/99 TO REFLECT THE PRESENCE OF TONI NELSON AT THE MEETING. CARRIED. APPROVAL OF MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL COUNCIL MINUTES APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 7, 1999 AS AMENDED. CARRIED. PROCLAMATIONS A proclamation by Mayor Tanner was read declaring the week of June 14 -20, National Flag Week: 1999,to be"National Flag Week"in the City of Renton, and encouraging all June 14 -20, 1999 citizens to celebrate our nation's symbol of unity,which stands for our country's devotion to freedom, and to equal rights for all. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION AS READ. CARRIED. Councilmember Nelson thanked Boy Scout Troop 464 for raising the flags in downtown Renton to mark the holiday. PUBLIC HEARINGS This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Planning: Taco Time accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Tanner opened the public hearing Expansion(CC Zone to consider the proposed Taco Time Convenience Commercial(CC) zone and Amendments) Commercial/Industrial zone code amendments for its headquarters located on Maple Valley Highway near Monroe Ave. SE. Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner, explained that on January 4, 1999,a Planning & Development Committee Minority Report was adopted by Council which directed staff to prepare amendments to add existing legal Administrative Headquarters Offices to the CC zone, allow for parking expansions, allow for a one-time 3,500 square foot addition,and allow for storage of supplies in conjunction with service and office uses. Administrative Headquarters Offices are currently allowed in the Industrial, Center Downtown, Commercial Office, and Center Office/Residential Zones. The CC zone would be amended to allow existing Administrative Headquarters Offices as secondary uses. To help ensure that these amendments would be May 17, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes 215 limited to Taco Time's existing corporate office,expansion would only be allowed for existing Administrative Headquarters Offices that currently exceed 3,000 square feet and which exist as of January 1, 1999. With these amendments,new Administrative Headquarters Offices would not be allowed in the CC zone. Turning to the accessory storage portion of the amendments,Ms. Greeter said that use of storage is allowed with retail sales in all the commercial zones and will be allowed in all industrial zones with the Valley Zoning Amendments. The proposed amendment would clarify that the accessory use of storage in conjunction with retail sales also allows for accessory storage associated with permitted service and office uses. In conclusion,Ms. Grueter stated that staff recommends that a formal ordinance be prepared and coordinated with any sunset clause that may be recommended in the related development agreement. Staff additionally recommends that these amendments be approved along with other related ordinances at the time of the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendment adoption. Councilman Schlitzer explained that including a sunset clause in the development agreement will act as a safeguard to prevent future expansion. Councilman Edwards stated that although he did not feel that the expansion will have a negative effect on the surrounding area,he agreed with the use of a sunset clause. Audience comment was invited. Barbra Gilbert, 3624 SE 5th Pl.,Renton, 98058, expressed her disappointment in the Council's decision to allow the expansion. Ms. Gilbert related the reasons why she felt the expansion should not be allowed, including: 1)The increased amount of storage allowed with the expansion might be used for food,thus attracting rats; 2) Concern that an affordable neighborhood will be turned into a commercial area; 3)A portion of the property currently being leased for the operation of a coffee stand could potentially be the site of a 5,000 square foot building; 4)An increase in the amount of trucks making use of the subject property; and 5) Concern that traffic will increase as a result of the expansion. She urged Council to reconsider its decision to allow the expansion. Responding to Councilman Corman,Ms. Grueter said that building permits for the site were issued to the Taco Time Corporation in 1989 and construction was completed around 1990 or 1991. Denise A. Carey, 3300 SE 5th St., Renton, 98058, said she has lived in the neighborhood since 1970. Agreeing with the Ms. Gilbert's comments, she stated that she is happy with the neighborhood the way it is. Responding to Councilman Corman, Ms. Carey said that prior to the construction of the Taco Time Headquarters,there used to be a building at the site that served various purposes until it burned down. Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler reitereated that she opposed the Taco Time expansion and recalled that Taco Time said they would not ask for an expansion when they obtained the original permits for the project. Councilman Parker asked to see documentation regarding Taco Time's statement that they would not expand their business. Pointing out that the matter is a May 17, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes 216 private property issue, Mr. Parker said that if the property is zoned appropriately and meets all of the development criteria,the property owner should be able to expand as needed. Referring to the use of a sunset clause, Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler noted that some projects currently being built were approved ten to twelve years ago even though the underlying zoning has changed in the meantime. Adding a sunset clause would avoid this situation with this project. There being no further audience comment, it was MOVED BY PARK1 , SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. Planning: Taco Time This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Expansion (Development accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Tanner opened the public hearing Agreement) to consider the proposed Taco Time development agreement for its headquarters located on Maple Valley Highway near Monroe Ave. SE. Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner, described the site the development agreement would cover and explained that State law authorizes the City to enter into an agreement with the property owner. The agreement needs to be consistent with the City's development regulations; however,the agreement assumes adoption of the Convenience Commercial (CC)zone amendments previously discussed. Continuing, Ms. Grueter explained that the agreement incorporates the Environmental Review Committee mitigation measures which are: 1) Limit height of future development to 35 feet; 2)Restrict access from SE 6th,St.; 3) Require site plan review for any size development or redevelopment; 4) Require landscaping abutting or adjacent to residentially zoned property. She explained further that the landscaping improvements would be required to be installed at the time of any building demolition or expansion, or parking stall additions or reconfigurations. Describing the terms of the agreement proposed by staff, Ms. Grueter recommended that a fixed sunset term be applied only to the building expansion which would be coordinated with the CC zone amendments. The remaining provisions of the agreement would run in perpetuity with the property and be reviewed periodically. In conclusion, Ms. Grueter said that pending Committee review, staff will prepare a resolution to be coordinated with the adoption of the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and CC zone amendments. ti Responding to Councilman Edwards, Ms. Grueter explained that fencing would be installed where the property abuts a residential zone. Site obscuring landscaping would be applied to property adjacent to residentially zoned property, except where modifications should be allowed to ensure visibility. Audience comment was invited. Barbra Gilbert, 3624 SE 5th P1., Renton, 98058, expressed her concern regarding the portion of property that is currently being leased to a coffee stand. She feared a larger commercial structure being built on that portion which, along with the Taco Time Headquarters building, would make for a intensive commercial area. Describing efforts by surrounding residents to improve their neighborhood, Ms. Gilbert reiterated that she is worried about the effect the subject project could have on the area. She urged Council to stop the expansion, adding that in a few years Taco Time could, once again, ask the City to approve May 17, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes 217 yet another expansion. Denise A. Carey, 3300 SE 5th St., Renton, 98058, stated that since the subject property is not allowed access to SE 6th St., if more access points will be allowed onto Maple Valley Highway. She urged Council to look into how the development will affect traffic on Maple Valley Highway. Councilman Corman said since there is nothing to prevent the consolidation of the various portions of the property,the City needs to be very clear on what the property will be used for. Responding to Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler, Ms. Grueter pointed out the access points on the property, commenting that direct access is discouraged off of Maple Valley Highway. Responding to Councilman Edwards, Ms. Grueter stated that the coffee stand portion of the site is currently zoned Convenience Commercial and a retail establishment of up to 5,000 square feet could be built on that portion. She explained that any development proposal would be subject to site plan review, landscaping provisions, and access restrictions. Debbie Sheridan, 3300 Maple Valley Hwy., Renton, speaking as an employee of Taco Time, said that she has been unable to find any record of public comment at the time of the Taco Time Headquarters construction ten years ago. Addressing the question of storage, Ms. Sheridan emphasized that food is not stored on the premises and the company has no intention of doing so in the future. Responding to Councilman Parker, Ms. Sheridan reported that trucks make deliveries to the Taco Time Headquarters but do not stay for extended periods. She thought that trucks may be parking on the vacant lot near the coffee stand. Responding to Council inquiry, Ms. Sheridan stated that if the expansion is approved, Taco Time plans to improve the parking right away and expand the headquarters within five to seven years. There being no further audience comment, it was MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. Legal: Adult Retail Uses This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published inMoratorium accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Tanner opened the public hearing to consider extending the moratorium on adult retail uses within certain geographical locations. Mike Kattermann, Director of Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning, explained that the moratorium was initially imposed by Council in July of 1997, and has been renewed three times since then. He reviewed the conditions of the moratorium. To date, staff has been researching studies that have been done in similar jurisdictions around the country in terms of the effects of the uses on adjacent properties. Staff has also notified businesses that will potentially be affected by the proposed regulations. Mr. Kattermann reported that an approach has been developed to amend the City's existing regulations. The moratorium extension is requested to give time for the public to review and comment on the draft ordinance and resolution. He mentioned also that environmental review is currently underway and the review period expires on July 1, 1999. In conclusion, staff recommends adoption of the resolution extending the moratorium for an additional six month period. May 17, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes 218 Audience comment was invited. Heidi Carlson, 806 Index Ct.NE, Renton, 98056, stated that it has been two years since she started picketing the adult book store located in the Highlands. She expressed her appreciation of the City's work regarding this matter and asked that Council renew the moratorium. Phillip Beckley, 655 Ferndale Ct.NE,Renton, 98056, echoed the previous speaker's comments and said that he was proud to be associated with the City. There being no further audience comment, it was MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL SUSPEND ITS RULES AND ADVANCE TO THE RESOLUTION REGARDING THE ADULT RETAIL USES MORATORIUM EXTENSION. CARRIED. Resolution#3396 A resolution was read declaring a moratorium on the permitting of adult book Legal: Adult Retail Uses stores, as defined,within specific geographical areas, establishing a public Moratorium hearing date,and establishing a termination date of 12/14/99 for the moratorium. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL SUSPEND ITS RULES AND ADVANCE TO THE COMM1TI'EE OF THE WHOLE REPORT ON THE SUBJECT OF ADULT RETAIL USES. CARRIED. Committee of the Whole Council President Parker presented a report regarding adult retail uses. The Legal: Adult Retail Uses Committee of the Whole received a briefing on the status of the Administration's Moratorium efforts to revise City Code regarding the regulation of adult book and video stores, also known as"adult retail uses." A set of draft ordinances has been prepared for public review and comment. The Committee recommended that the Council set a date of June 28, 1999, for a public hearing on the draft ordinances. The Committee further recommended that the issue of whether to allow these uses along SW 16th St. and I-405 in the Valley, and the administrative appeal process, be referred to the Planning and Development Committee. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 1999 and beyond. Items noted included: To help maintain sufficient blood supplies in the community,the City is holding a summer blood drive on Wednesday,June 16th, at Renton City Hall. The Human Services Advisory Committee is in the process of reviewing 33 applications received for the year 2000 funding. The estimated amounts available are$57,783 for Community Development Block Grant human services, $241,914 for capital projects, and$200,300 from the General Fund. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. CAG: 99-064, 1999 Street City Clerk reported bid opening on 6/08/99 for CAG-99-064, 1999 Street Overlay, M.A. Segale Overlay; four bids; engineer's estimate$562,883.70; and submitted staff May 17, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes 219 recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder, M.A. Segale,Inc., in the amount of$611,092.50. Council concur. CAG: 99-066, Shattuck Ave S City Clerk reported bid opening on 6/08/99 for CAG-99-066, Shattuck-Ave. S. Stormline Replacement, D.A. stormline replacement;ten bids; engineer's estimate$52,921.87; and submitted Zuluaga Construction staff recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder, D.A. Zuluaga Construction, Inc., in the amount of$47,833.96. Council concur. CAG: 99-068, SW 27th St City Clerk reported bid opening on 6/09/99 for CAG-99-068, SW 27th St. Culvert Replacement, Scoccolo Culvert replacement; 11 bids;engineer's estimate$717,832.00;and submitted Construction staff recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder, Scoccolo b Construction, Inc., in the amount of$591,863.81. Council concur. Latecomer: 99-002, Gelvezon City Clerk submitted request from Elvis Gelvezon, 16203 - 122nd Ave. SE, Auto Repair(Elvis Gelvezon) Renton, 98055,for a latecomer agreement for waterline improvements to serve for waterline improvements,Gelvezon Auto Repair at 619 SW 12th St., Renton. Refer to Utilities SW 12th St Committee. Community Event: River Days Executive Department requested waiver of permit fees for 1999 Renton River Permit Fee Waivers &Banner Days activities endorsed by the Renton River Days Board of Directors. Staff Installation additionally seeks authorization to install River Days banners on City light poles from June 28 through August 15. Council concur. Public Works: Skyway Water Utility Division recommended approval of an agreement between Renton Coordinated Water System and nine other purveyors within Skyway's critical water supply area for the 1999 Plan(1999 update), CAG-99- update of the Skyway Coordinated Water System Plan. Refer to Utilities Committee. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE An electronic mail was read from Terra McCaffree, Shelton Ave.NE,.Renton, Citizen Comment: McCaffree— 98056, requesting that Renton ask Seattle City Light to waive the access fee it Seattle City Light Power Line proposes to charge residents along Shelton Ave.NE for use of an existing power Access Fee, Shelton Ave NE line easement. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER TO THE UTILITIES COMMITTEE and the ADMINISTRATION. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS Finance Committee Chair Edwards presented a report regarding the 1999 budget Finance Committee amendments for Transportation Improvement Projects (TIP). The Committee Transportation: Six-Year TIP, recommended the 1999 mid-year budget adjustments associated with the 1999- 1999-2004 2004 Six-Year TIP go to public hearing on June 21, 1999. The ordinance increases the appropriation in Fund 317 by$11,769,233 and increases the appropriation of Fund 305 by$180,968. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance be presented for first reading after the public hearing. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Finance: Vouchers Finance Committee Chair Edwards presented a report recommending approval of Claim Vouchers 171267 - 171892 and three wire transfers in the total amount of 3,255,797.53. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Development Services:New Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler asked if the Administration has looked into the Single Family Dwelling at 308 matter regarding a single family house being constructed between Factory Ave. Factory Ave N N. and Factory Pl.N. which has access only off of the alley located between these streets. Mayor Tanner replied that a permit was issued for the house in May 17, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes 220 question, saying that it was an administrative decision that permitted the construction. ORDINANCES AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption: RESOLUTIONS Resolution#3397 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Transportation: Agreement interlocal agreement with the State of Washington entitled"A Renton-WSDOT with WSDOT for ramp Understanding to Manage Transportation." MOVED BY CORMAN, metering, CAG-99- SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Barbra Gilbert, 3624 SE 5th Pl.,Renton, 98058, commented that Renton's Citizen Comment: Gilbert-Governmental Access Channel 28 and the monthly publication"CitySource" Renton Government Access offer very useful information regarding City and community matters. Channel 28 EXECUTIVE SESSION MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADJOURN INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR 47 MINUTES TO DISCUSS PROPERTY ACQUISITION. CARRIED. Time: 9:03 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:50 p.m.;roll was called; all Councilmembers present. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 9:51 p.m. BRENDA FRITSVOLD,Deputy City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann June 14, 1999 N,rO City Of Renton PUBLIC INFORMATION HANDOUT June 14, 1999 PROPOSED MAPLE VALLEY TACO TIME DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT For additional information, please contact: City of Renton Planning at 425-430-6575 or call Lisa Grueter directly at 425-430-6578. BACKGROUND During the review of the Maple Valley Highway Taco Time Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezone, Development Agreement proposal, the City Council adopted a Planning and Development Committee Minority Report(January 4, 1999)which directed staff to: 1. Maintain the Convenience Commercial designation for the Taco Time offices, Transmission Line Easement, and espresso stand site. 2. Redesignate a small triangular portion of the southerly residential lot adjacent to Taco Time offices and the Transmission Line Easement, from Residential Single Family/R-8 to Convenience Commercial to allow Taco Time access across their leased properties. The boundary of the new CC designation will allow for a lot line adjustment that retains the single family residence, and results in a conforming lot. 3. Amend the Convenience Commercial Zone to add "existing, legal Administrative Headquarters Offices" as a secondary use and "the storage of supplies in conjunction with service and office uses" as an accessory use. For "existing, legal Administrative Headquarters Offices" allow for parking expansions, and for a one-time building expansion of 3,500 square feet maximum. No new Administrative Headquarters Offices would be allowed. These proposed amendments have been prepared and provided under separate cover. 4. Prepare a development agreement or covenants which incorporate Environmental Review Committee mitigation measures. The proposed development agreement described below would be one step in implementing the City Council's direction. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Authority In RCW 36.70B.170, a local government can enter into development agreement with a person having ownership or control of real property. The agreement can address the permitted uses, densities, intensities, building sizes, design standards such as heights, setbacks, landscaping, and other features. PHHNDDEV\ 1 The development agreement must be consistent with the jurisdiction's development regulations adopted in compliance with the Growth Management Act. Subject Properties The proposed development agreement would apply to the Taco Time lease properties identified on the attached map. Current uses on the properties include corporate offices, power line/fuel line easement, an espresso stand,and rear yard area of a residential lot. General Description of Standards Permitted uses for the subject properties would be consistent with the Convenience Commercial (CC) zone allowances. The agreement assumes adoption of CC zone amendments allowing existing, legal Administrative Headquarters Offices with a one time expansion of 3,500 square feet and parking expansion. The agreement incorporates mitigation measures applied by the City during environmental review, which in summary would: 1. Limit height of future development to 35 feet. 2. Restrict access from SE 6th Street. 3. Require site plan review for any size development or redevelopment. 4. Require a 6-foot wall and 10 foot landscaped setback where the subject property abuts residentially zoned property. 5. Require site obscuring landscaping where adjacent to residentially zoned property, except adjacent to Maplewood Park where modifications should be allowed to ensure adequate visibility for purposes of public safety. Building heights would be limited to 35 feet, the current CC zone limitation. Access would be through the existing or future Taco Time development, and no access would be allowed from SE 6th street. Addressing mitigation measure 3, the administrative site plan review process would apply to development proposals which are categorically exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act. The Hearing Examiner site plan review process would apply to development proposals which are not categorically exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act. Addressing mitigation measures 4 and 5, the landscape improvements would be required to be installed prior to final City inspection of: Any building demolition requiring a demolition permit; and/or Building construction which expands the footprint of current buildings or adds additional buildings on site; and/or Parking stall additions/reconfigurations which add parking/access areas to portions of properties which, at the time of this agreement,do not have improved parking/access surfaces. PHHNDDEV\ 2 All other applicable City codes and requirements (e.g. parking, environmental, signs, etc.) would continue to apply to the subject properties. Future Amendment The agreement is binding on all parties and their successors: the City, the property owner, the Taco Time corporation. However, the agreement may be amended upon mutual agreement. Prior to amendment, a public hearing is required, and any amendments are to be adopted by ordinance or resolution. Term As proposed, the term of the agreement would run in perpetuity with the property. The agreement would be reviewed periodically,but not less than every 10 years. The Planning and Development Committee requested that staff investigate the ability of the City to apply a fixed term(for example, seven years)rather than an indefinite term. Staff has confirmed with the City Attorney that a fixed term could be incorporated into the Development Agreement. If the City Council wishes to pursue a fixed term, staff would suggest that there be a sunset clause on the building expansion provision,but that the remaining provisions of the development agreement remain in effect in perpetuity (and reviewed periodically). This would ensure that the applied mitigation measures would remain in effect in perpetuity (e.g. building height and access restrictions, landscaping requirements, etc.). Staff has discussed this partial sunset clause with the City Attorney and he has agreed that a partial sunset would be appropriate. Also, if a sunset clause is applied to the one-time building expansion allowance, staff would suggest the Convenience Commercial zone amendments allowing a one-time building expansion for existing, legal Administrative Headquarters offices have a consistent sunset date. PHHNDCC PHHNDDEV\ 3 CiQ 6// 'e, ') 2 z) c-- z) 42' A ,._'•(>° g0aPop44) oSfo' c' i o Q,- 0 t os 4 t] 0 0 Cl 0 D 1147 e Valle41#,.#0 100 200' y /At 1 : 1 ,200 Si?,0 ti Property Subject to Development Agreement Building Outlines Subject Area s/ SPNeiED/N ghborhoods & Strategic Planning 0 L. Grueter, O. Dennison 8 June 1999 CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 14th day of June, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. as the date and time for public hearings to be held in the seventh floor Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, 98055, to consider the following: 1. Taco Time Convenience Commercial (CC)Zone Amendments 2. Taco Time Proposed Development Agreement/Covenants 3. Extension of Moratorium on Adult Retail Uses All interested parties are invited to attend the public hearings and present written or oral comments regarding the proposal. The Municipal Building is fully accessible, and interpretive services for the hearing impaired will be provided upon prior notice. Call 430-6510 for additional information. Marilyn :0, 440 en City Clerk Published South County Journal May 28, 1999 Account No. 50640 5/28/99 — Mailed to Parties of Record (170) CD ICNT/ 1 A mi O Qv CiQ 0 a 0 0 PC70 0 t cr J T I O ag' 0 ED 0 1/ Q 2) tiQ.,'il,Q (( 44p.ej, C2' aa J 00 20 S/cD7a irr69 1 02 21 1 Potential Development Agreement Building Outlines Subject Area o Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning ED/N/SP T. Schlepp, R. MacOnie 7 December 1998 DEBORAH NATELSON 147140007500 512690021005 501 NEWPORT SE BARTZ JENNY AUGUSTA+SCHULTZ BOZELL ROGER J+PATRICIA RENTON,WA 98058 3427 SE 7TH ST 3217 6TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 512640014001 512640013003 512690017508 BREWER ORLIE T JR+ROBIN S BRUNETTE SHERRY P BRUNETTE VERNON G 3217 SE 5TH ST 3205 SE 5TH ST 3301 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 ROBERT J.BUNKER 512690024504 512690013507 567 PIERCE AVENUE SE THEODORSEN WILLIAM G+KAREN BURSKEY W RENTON,WA 98058 3429 SE 5TH ST 3320 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 512690032705 512690032408 512690029008 CALLAWAY DANIEL 0 CONRAD JOSEPH H&PATRICIA CHARBONNEAU D K ROSE M 1633 BOYLSTON AVE.#108 PO BOX 6382 3525 SE 5TH ST SEATTLE,WA 98122 KENT WA 98064 RENTON WA 98055 512640025007 512690022003 512690018506 DENNY LARRY K+MARGRIET DOBSON JOHN W DOWNEN CHRIS M WOLT 6611 114TH AVE SE 3317 SE 6TH STREET 3205 SE 6TH ST BELLEVUE WA 98006 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 512690016005 147140005009 512640013508 HART R E L FILLIPS JUDITH A+BAKER DALE ODEN JACK E 3232 SE 6TH ST 3405 SE 7TH ST 3209 SE 5TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 512690031004 512690029503 512690008002 JOHNSON KEITH L MEHL RANDY L REESER HAROLD 575 PIERCE AVE SE 3533 SE 5TH ST 3225 SE 5TH RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 512640017509 512690028505 512690044502 ROTH GLADYS RAMSEY JOHN C STACHOWIAK VINCENT L 3208 SE 6TH ST 3517 SE 5TH ST 3511 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA ' 98055 RENTON WA 98058 512640017004 512690013002 512690023506 SPETEN 0 H SAGE KENNETH R&JEANNIE M SMITH MICHAEL L 3204 SE 6TH ST 3328 SE 6TH ST 524 NEWPORT AVE. SE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058-2848 512690007509 512690032606 CONE MATHEW S SIEMION MICHAEL B+MARGARET DWJ LEIST 10420 SE 187th Pl. 111 154TH PL NE 3114 SE 5th Street RENTON WA 98055-8435 BELLEVUE WA 98007 Renton, WA 98058 NEAL WHITNEY WILSONSON 0 TIMOTHY C+CAROLYN SA NICOLA ROBINSON 3532 SE 5TH STREET 559 PIERCE AVE SE 3110 SE 5TH STREET RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 MATT TONN,PRESIDENT DEBBIE SHERIDAN 512690034008 KI TACO TIME,CORPORATE OFFICE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING&DESIGN BRANDEL KURTIS P&BILLIE D 3300 MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY TACO TIME,CORPORATE OFFICE 1602 INDEX AVE SE RENTON,WA 98058 3300 MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY RENTON WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 512690041508 512690033505 512690026509 BLUHM,CHRISTOPHER P DOAN E C FEYEREISEN PATTY A BLUHM,WENDY L 524 PIERCE AVE SE 3612 SE 5TH 3609 SE 5TH PL RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 9805S RENTON WA 98058 TROY DEADY 512690036003 512690025006 COBLENTZ BETTY&MIKE ROSS WENDY J 3436 SE 5TH STREET 22320 88TH AVE S 3532 SE 5TH ST RENTON,WA 98058 KENT WA 98031 RENTON WA 98058 BRYAN/JULIE MILLER KATHLEEN COULTER TIM WALTER 3202 SE 5TH STREET 3325 SE 6TH 3101 SE 5TH STREET RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 DEANNA SCHACHLE GRANT ROBERTS ISLAH M. DIAMBRI 645 Southcenter Mall #349 3216 SE 5TH STREET 3232 SE 5114 STREET Tukwila,WA 98188-2836 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 PAUL ROLLINGER MARION STREIFEL RON LEISE 501 NEWPORT AVENUE SE 3340 SE 51"STREET 3412 SE 5 T"STREET RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 BRIAN ANDERSON WILMA HAUCK JOHN E. STACH 13133 149r"AVENUE SE 3108 SE 6T"STREET 3118 SE 51"STREET RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 BARBRA GILBERT DAVID NEWBURG HEATHER SAUM 3624 SE 5TH STREET 554 PIERCE AVENUE SE 3124 SE 6TH STREET RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98058 AUBREY SMITH DOUG HORVATH MR&MRS HENNINGER 528 NEWPORT AVENUE SE 3701 SE 5TH PLACE 3308 SE 5TH STREET RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 KIM E.LARSEN B.KEVIN MAPLES NOLAN LANGE 3629 SE 5T"STREET 3605 6114 STREET 520 PIERCE AVENUE SE RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 KAREN ASHMORE D.W.MACGREGOR STEVE BERGSTROM 3616 SE 5T"STREET 3621 SE 5T"STREET 3620 SE 51" STREET RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 KATHLEEN HARRINGTON MARISSA JOHNSON BEN MUZZEY 14926 130T"AVENUE SE 3224 SE 5T"STREET 10413 SE 174TH RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 MICHELE PONTHIEUX JUANITA NAMES BETSY ERCOLINI 583 PIERCE AVENUE SE 3009 SE 51" 3016 SE 51" RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 DONNA WILLIAMS MARK WILSON BECKY SMITH 3309 SE 51"STREET 3106 SE 5114 528 NEWPORT AVENUE SE RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RUTH VARGEL DAVID RICHARDS DANA STONE 3312 SE 6r"STREET 3225 SE 6T"STREET 3316 SE 51"STREET RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 BRANDY BATEMAN ERIK HERBOLD JULIE MOLINA 3329 SE 61"STREET 13216 SE 151ST STREET 15621 1581-"AENUE SE RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 GARY LESTER SEAN BUTCHER ALICIA&ROXANNE IGLESIAS 13114 SE 150T"STREET 3614 SE 5T"PLACE 3533 SE 6r" STREET RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 DANIEL HANSON LORI GOEMAN A.M.RHODES 3429 SE 61"STREET 3122 SE 5T"STREET 3624 S3 51"STREET RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 DAINA ROBIN HANSON JERRY MAYHUGH CHAD DAWLEY 3420 SE 6111 STREET 3531 SE 6114 STREET 3025 SE 61"STREET RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 MICHAEL W.JESMORE RONDA SCHAFER JOANN ANDERSON 3330 SE 6TH STREET 3609 SE 6TH STREET 3701 SE 6TH STREET RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RICHARD GATHMAN JOHN STREIFEL TUIUEA LEA MANAO 3621 SE 5TH PLACE 3340 SE 5T"STREET 15266 PINE DRIVE RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 BRIAN PIEDFORT ROBIN O. STONE WENDY ROSS 3608 SE 6TH 3420 SE 5TH STREET 3532 SE 51"STREET RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 LARRY BROSMAN DEBBY GAUTHUN LINDA MILLS 3625 NE 9th STREET 3115 SE 51" STREET 3616 SE 61"STREET RENTON,WA 98056 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENEE CONDIE COLLEEN&SAM GOMES VINCENT L. STAEHOWAH 3601 SE 6TH STREET 3444 SE 5TH STREET 3511 SE 61"STREET RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 JESSE TYNER DERECK B. SMITH JOSEPHINE PORTER 3705 SE 6T"STREET 3020 SE 5T"STREET 3613 SE 6TH STREET RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 EARLENE M.BALA KAREN M.MADSEN JEFF R. CAMCOON 3121 SE 51"STREET 3624 SE 6TH STREET 3600 SE 61"STREET RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 KENT KAUF STEVE LAMMON DAVID KELTNER 3625 SE 5TH PLACE 3608 SE 5TH PLACE 3620 SE 51"PLACE RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 DIANE JACKSON WENDY BLUHM PAT DOAN 3105 SE 5TH STREET 3609 SE 5TH PLACE 524 PIERCE AVENUE SE RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 TIM HAWKINSON DENISE CUTLER DEANNA DONALDSON 3021 SE 6TH STREET 3012 SE 5TH STREET 3017 SE 6TH STREET RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 ELIZABETH M.STRAHAN SHANNON LISA EMILY BAGLIEN 3109 SE 6114 STREET 3025 SE 6114 STREET 3029 SE 6TH STREET RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 TRAVIS PETERSEN RONALD EBERLE MARY SANDHEI 13051 SE 101"St. 3101 SE 6114 STREET 3104 SE 6r"STREET Renton,WA 98056-2434 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 JON CALDWELL CLAUDIA COVILLE TERRY CRAMER 3401 SE 5114 STREET 3313 SE 5TH STREET 3321 SE 51"STREET RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 ELIZABETH A.PARKER SCOTT DUNGAN RALPH EVANS RENTON REPORTER 3316 SE 6T"STREET 3306 NE 11"PLACE 723 SW 10T"ST.,SUITE 275 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98056 RENTON,WA 98055 162305902304 512690038504 147140002501 BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA CAMERON JEFFREY R CHARLTON CAROLYN J FE 3600 SE 6TH STREET 11983 AVELLANA CIRCLE NW TAX DEPT RENTON WA 98056 SILVERDALE WA 98383 1700 E GOLF RD#400 SCHAI1MBIJRG IL 60173 512690038009 512690015007 512690045509 CLINKENBEARD JANE CELESTINE CRATER MICHAEL H DAWSON LARRY A+VALERIE 554 PIERCE AVE SE 3308 SE 6TH ST 3525 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 147140003509 512640016501 512690044007 EBERTZ MARK R GAFFIN JEFFREY HAN YON OK 3321 SE 7TH ST 27320 SE 162ND PL 3503 SE 6TH ST . RENTON WA 98058 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 RENTON WA 98055 147140005504 147140003004 512690046002 GAFFNEY ROBERT J GRANDE CORINNE M GUY JAMES E+ELAINE L 7560 SO 120TH 7001 OLD REDMOND RD#G 207 8226 S 114TH ST SEATTLE WA 98178 REDMOND WA 98052 SEATTLE WA 98178 512640024000 512690014505 512690022508 HAWES CHESTER E HULBURT DAVID W&CECILIA S HUSOM VIRGINIA 3121 SE 6TH ST 25328 SE 200TH 532 NEWPORT AVE SE RENTON WA 98055 MAPLE VALLEY WA 98038 RENTON WA 98058 147140004002 162305902700 512690018001 KINGERY CHERI L LA PIANTA LP LIND ARISTELLA A 3401 SE 7TH ST PO BOX 88050 3309 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98058 TUKWILA WA 98138 RENTON WA 98058 512690037506 512640025502 512690031509 NARKIEWICZ ALINA NIELSEN ROBERT M OHARE JOHN D 550 PIERCE AVE SE 3209 SE 6TH ST 583 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 512640026005 512690012509 512690014000 PARKER DAVID B PERROTTI ANTHONY P PETERSEN TRAVIS S+WALIMAKI 3213 SE 6TH 505 NEWPORT AVE SE 3316 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 147140000505 512640017509 147140006502 PUGLISI PHILIP&RUTH ROTH GLADYS SAUVE DAVID J 3225 SE 7TH ST 3208 SE 6TH ST 3413 SE 7TH ST RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 512690023001 147140008607 512690045004 SCHAUT LARRY A TABOR LESLIE D MILLMANN,JEANETTE M. 12101 SE 96TH PL 11226 26TH PL SE 10620 SE 186TH STREET RENTON WA 98056 EVERETT WA 98205 RENTON,WA 98055 512690024504 512690024009 512640018002 THEODORSEN WILLIAM G+KAREN VAN HOFF NEIL D+PERISICH,PA VAN TUYL GREGGORY L+NANCY J 3429 SE 5TH ST 3425 SE 5TH ST 3216 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 512690032002 512690007509 WONG KAHSOON+ANN KIM WEI MARGARET SIEMION CONE MATHEW S 3512 SE 6TH ST 3416 SE 6TH STREET 3508 SE 5TH RENTON WA 98058 RENTON,WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 DAVID LERSTEN ROBERT HUMBLE 3114 SE 5TH 13112 1951 H PLACE SE RENTON,WA 98058 ISSAQUAH,WA 98027-6408 Renton,WA 98055 TY OF RENTON 0$Z 14 FC E 4.50._,cE1s JUN 0 7 1999 7,c',,,!' R v tTy 2 . V A..1,. .. hi\- . ,O,P 512690037506 NARKIEWICZ ALINA 550 PIERCE AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 f' . .. 1 i...i LC { fir' 1 t 1 1 ,V n T 16S- ii 18Sa I1,1,,I„I,II,,,,I,i„i,l„,II,„I,I„Il„.I,I,I,I„1,1,H1„1 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 4 A T r F1 ti', Renton Municipal Bldg.0 NY 2 a'S s ` 1055 South Grady ay 0 anton.WA9 r Q.S. 1 fi c 4 ° CITY OF R" JI N 08 ,;. 512690044007 HAN YON OK 3503 SE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RETURN <—•—a66 TO WRITER n . v. , ADDRESSEE r e W M UNKNOWN sd A&47-.4- II,1„1„1,11,,,,1,1„1,1,,,11„i1t1„11,,,1, 1,1„1,1in1,'. Erie feEr;`r _;: - OFFICE OF THE CITY CL Renton Municipal Bldg.U hAY 2 e's s 1055 South Grady Way a Renton,WA 98055 0_ 05 24 4c Felt—t1 C--- ci OF REN i O' 512690022503 U Lt A/ T A 7 e----r# (9 0 HUSOM VIRGI,IIA JUN 0 8 1.532 NEWPORT AVE SE 98058IRENTONWA F,:: _1` ED 1 i i ./. - RET!SRN ---: 6 . , 4.. Ci) ,Cil ( )/ Lt CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 14th day of June, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. as the date and time for public hearings to be held in the seventh floor Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, 98055, to consider the following: 4 C1. Taco Time Convenience Commercial(CC)Zone Amendments 2. Taco Time Proposed Development Agreement/Covenants lCE OF THE CITY CLERK f,\,<} f_f .. iton Municipal Bldg. CI h" AY 2 4's)fl .. eta , J 5 South Grady Way f -+ op lton,WA 98055 0 5'''t"a ,F F C Ii,F.R E,S.CI E) .4 T 4 E 1 __is ?,41., : 0:.. -, i 512690007509 v CONE MATHEW Cj 3508 SE 5T CONE508'/< 980582012 1498 19 06/05/9 ' RE N W! CONEA'MATTIEW RD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND 10420 SE 187T1-! PL RENTON WA 98O5S-8435 Au10 li'ii5171 I1,1nW1int1,1„1A,itIIm1t1A„l1AiWttW,„14,1 ij`.' ;` ;-- ,'k 5/28/99 - Mailed to Parties of Record (170) M CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: June 9, 1999 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Chair Planning and Development Committee FROM: Mike Kattermann STAFF CONTACT: Lisa Grueter(ext. 6578) SUBJECT: Committee Questions-Taco Time Development Agreement At the Planning and Development Committee meeting held on May 20, 1999,the Committee requested information about the Development Agreement term,and potential future appeals of development permits. Attached is a memo from the City Attorney,as well as a memo to the City Attorney from staff. If the City Council wishes to pursue a fixed term for the Taco Time Development agreement, staff would suggest that there be a sunset clause on the building expansion provision,but that the remaining provisions of the development agreement remain in effect in perpetuity(and reviewed periodically).This would ensure that the applied mitigation measures would remain in effect in perpetuity(e.g.building height and access restrictions,landscaping requirements,etc.). Staff has discussed this partial sunset clause with the City Attorney and he has agreed that a partial sunset would be appropriate. Also,if a sunset clause is applied to the one-time building expansion allowance, staff would suggest the Convenience Commercial zone amendments allowing a one-time building expansion for existing,legal Administrative Headquarters offices have a consistent sunset date. cc: Mayor Tanner City Council Members Jay Covington Sue Carlson CITY OF RENTON Office of the City Attorney Jesse Tanner,Mayor Lawrence J.Warren MEMORANDUM RECEIVED To Mike Kattermann,Economic Development J U N 3 ; 1999 From:Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGtC PLANNING Staff Contact: Lisa Grueter 1Date June 2, 1999 Subject . Taco Time Development Agreement • By memo dated May 1999,you ask two• questions "'The first is whether or not the term of the - agreement can be for seven years rather'than having the agreement come back to the Council for periodic review: That can be done However, if there is going to be any subsequent rezoning of the property,this will require public notice and public hearing. That process should be started well in advance of the termination date of this agreement so that we would not have zoning on the property without the safeguards of the development'agreement The next question you ask is whether or not the neighbors or Taco Time could appeal the hearing examiner's site plan decisions despite the development agreement. I believe the answer is that such an appeal is possible. I do not believe that Taco Time can seek a more liberal interpretation of the uses and development standards for the property contained within the development agreement because of the written terms of the agreement. However,the examiner could impose an additional condition, say under his SEPA authority, which would go beyond the agreement and which Taco Time would like to appeal. I hope this adequately answers your questions. Should you have any other questions please let me know. Lawrence J. arren LJW:as. cc: Jay Covington A8:160.26. Post Office Box 626 - 100 S.2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425)255-8678. CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE:May 27, 1999 TO: Larry Warren FROM: Mike Kattermann STAFF CONTACT: Lisa Grueter(ext. 6578) SUBJECT: Taco Time Development Agreement—Committee Questions At the last Planning and Development Committee meeting,there were two questions: Can we put a fixed term in the development agreement(e.g. 7 years)instead of stating theagreementwouldhaveperiodicreview? Lisa said yes it was possible,and we have some language we'd like to confirm with you that would replace the term language on page 6: Section 10. Term The term of this Agreement shall be seven(7)years from the date fully executed, afterwhichitwillexpire. If we have a sunset clause in the development agreement,we probably need a sunset clause in the code amendments to the CC zone that allow for a one time building expansion. Can Taco Time or the neighbors still appeal Hearing Examiner site plan decisions despite the development agreement? Can the Hearing Examiner apply conditions different than the agreement? We responded that we thought that there would be opportunity for appeals since the permit process allows for it. Also,the Hearing Examiner could be more strict, and that he would have the authority to apply conditions consistent with the code authority granted to him. We thought we should confirm our interpretation with you and see if you had any otherthoughts. The Committee would like responses to their questions prior to a scheduled public hearing on June 14, 1999. If you could contact me or Lisa by June 8th, we would appreciate it. Thank you. Attachment cc: Lisa Gructer TS_SERVER\SYSZCOMMOMECGNDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LG RUETER\TACOUwme m3.doc\cor APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date 5-- A1147 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT May 24, 1999 Taco Time Area Proposed Development Agreement/Covenants Convenience Commercial (CC)Zone Amendments April 13, 1998; May 10, 1999) First, based on the adopted Committee report from January 4, 1999, staff has prepared proposed amendments to the Convenience Commercial Zone office allowances as well as minor amendments to accessory storage in all commercial and industrial zones. A public hearing is needed in relation to the proposed amendments. Second, also based on the adopted Committee report, staff in conjunction with the City Attorney have prepared a proposed Development Agreement for the Taco Time Corporation and property owner. The Development Agreement is based on the ultimate adoption of CC zone amendments regarding allowances for existing, legal administrative headquarters offices with minor parking and square footage allowances. The agreement would include Environmental Review Committee mitigation measures. Since the proposed Development Agreement changed substantively since the time of the Planning Commission public hearing last September 1998, another public hearing should be held. Last, as another implementation of the last adopted Committee report, the City Attorney has prepared covenants for the Conrad properties to be redesignated from Residential Single Family/R-8 to Residential Options/R-10. Other covenants have been prepared related to ERC mitigation measures for the Cedar River Barbershop and Market which would be redesignated from Residential Single Family/R- 8 to Convenience Commercial. The Planning and Development Committee recommends two public hearings be held on the same evening for the CC Zone amendments, and for the proposed Taco Time Development Agreement. The recommended hearing date for both items would be June 14, 1999. The Committee also recommends approval of the proposed covenants for the Conrad, and Cedar River Market and Barbershop properties. 461%,1 /dC'ebi — /ti)l\--- Kathy Kedlker-Wheeler, hair Bob Edwards, Vice Chair Dan Clawson, Member cc: Mike Kattermann P&DPH\ CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: May 6, 1999 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Chair Planning and Develo ment Committee FROM: Mike Kattermann STAFF CONTACT: Lisa Grueter(ext. 6578) SUBJECT: Maple Valley Taco Time Area — Proposed Development Agreement and Covenants ISSUE: Whether to execute the attached development agreement for the Taco Time Corporate properties which incorporates ERC mitigation measures and which implements City Council direction related to maintenance of the Convenience Commercial zone, and limited parking and building expansion? The property owner and the Taco Time Corporation would also execute the development agreement. Whether to proceed with the attached covenants for other properties in the Maple Valley Taco Time area, consistent with Council direction related to the redesignation of the Conrad properties, Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop? Covenants would be executed by the property owners. RECOMMENDATON: Set a public hearing and authorize the Mayor to execute the development agreement with Taco Time and the property owner. Approve the proposed covenants. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: Pursuant to the City Council's adoption of a minority Committee Report on January 4, 1999, staff has prepared covenants and a development agreement. The covenants were prepared by the City Attorney. The Development Agreement was prepared by Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning staff with input by the Development Services Division staff and with oversight and review by the City Attorney. Covenants were prepared for the following properties: May 6, 1999 Page 2 Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop properties: For these properties, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning Map would be amended from Residential Single Family/R-8 to Convenience Commercial. The covenants include ERC mitigation measures. The covenants would help staff to remember these mitigation measures if development applications are made in the future that would trigger SEPA thresholds. The mitigation measures reflect standards found in the Convenience Commercial zone. Conrad vacant parcels: The Council directed that the properties be redesignated from Residential Single Family/R-8 to Residential Options/R-10 subject to a development agreement or covenants which limit the number of lots to 7, limit the unit type to detached single family only, and indicate that initial home construction should be one-story with future remodels governed by the R-10 zone in effect at the time. Covenants were prepared whichlisttheconditionsrequestedbyCouncil. The covenants are being sent to the property owners for their review. Once legal descriptions are finalized, and the property owners have reviewed them,the covenants would be signed. They would be recorded by the City. The covenants should be signed prior to approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments/Rezones. The covenants become effective upon the approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone ordinances. The development agreement revises previous drafts that assumed the EA-C/CA proposed designation. The new development agreement assumes a designation of CC, and incorporates applicable ERC mitigation measures: Taco Time lease/option properties: For these properties, the Council gave direction as follows: 1. Maintain the Convenience Commercial designation for the Taco Time offices, Transmission Line Easement, and espresso stand site. 2. Redesignate a small triangular portion of the southerly residential lot adjacent to Taco Time offices and the Transmission Line Easement, from Residential Single Family/R-8 to Convenience Commercial to allow Taco Time access across their leased properties. The boundary of the new CC designation will allow for a lot line adjustment that retains the single family residence, and results in a conforming lot. 3. Amend the Convenience Commercial Zone to add"existing, legal Administrative Headquarters Offices" as a secondary use and "the storage of supplies in conjunction with service and office uses" as an accessory use. For"existing, legal Administrative Headquarters Offices" allow for parking expansions, and for a one-time building expansion of 3,500 square feet maximum. No new Administrative Headquarters Offices would be allowed. These proposed amendments have been prepared and provided under separate cover. 4. Prepare a development agreement or covenants which incorporate Environmental Review Committee mitigation measures. The new draft development agreement is being sent to the property owner and to Taco Time Corporate offices for their review. Taco Time staff are preparing legal descriptions for inclusion in the development agreement and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone ordinances. A public hearing would need to be scheduled regarding the development agreement. May 6, 1999 Page 3 CONCLUSION: The proposed development agreement and covenants have been prepared in response to Council direction and would help ensure that development occurs consistent with the intent to ensure that development occurs compatibly. cc: Mayor Tanner Council Members Jay Covington Sue Carlson Larry Warren Marilyn Petersen P&DCOV RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WHEREAS, the undersigned is owner of certain real property commonly known as the Cedar River Barber Shop located within the City of Renton; and WHEREAS,that real property is legally described as: See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth and WHEREAS, the undersigned has participated in a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone for the property described in Exhibit A, which Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone were subject to certain conditions which are to be imposed upon the property through these covenants; and WHEREAS, the undersigned wishes to procure for the benefit of the property the Comprehensive Plan and Rezone; NOW, THEREFORE,the undersigned imposes the following covenant: Upon any development that occurs which triggers SEPA review under the SEPA ordinance in effect at the time of this covenant, the following additional improvements will be installed as partial environmental mitigation: a.A six foot wall in addition to required ten foot landscaped setbacks where properties redesignated Convenience Commercial (CC) abut residential zoned properties. b.Sight obscuring landscaping where properties redesignated Convenience Commercial (CC) are adjacent to residentially zoned properties, except adjacent to Maplewood Park where modifications to sight obscuring RESTRICTIVE COVENANT - 1 landscaping should be allowed to ensure adequate visibility for purposes of public safety. This covenant shall not be effective until the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone which serve as the basis of these covenants. DATED this day of 1999. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me and who signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: 1999. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of Washington. Notary: My appointment expires: RESTRICTIVE COVENANT- 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me and who signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: 1999. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of Washington. Notary: A8.159.02. My appointment expires: RESTRICTIVE COVENANT - 3 RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WHEREAS, the undersigned is owner of certain real property commonly known as the Cedar River Market located within the City of Renton; and WHEREAS,that real property is legally described as: See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth and WHEREAS, the undersigned has participated in a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone for the property described in Exhibit A, which Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone were subject to certain conditions which are to be imposed upon the property through these covenants; and WHEREAS, the undersigned wishes to procure for the benefit of the property the comprehensive plan and rezone; NOW, THEREFORE,the undersigned imposes the following covenant: Upon any development that occurs which triggers SEPA review under the SEPA ordinance in effect at the time of this covenant, the following additional improvements will be installed as partial environmental mitigation: a.A six foot wall in addition to required ten foot landscaped setbacks where properties redesignated Convenience Commercial (CC) abut residential zoned properties. b.Sight obscuring landscaping where properties redesignated Convenience Commercial (CC) are adjacent to residentially zoned properties, except adjacent to Maplewood Park where modifications to sight obscuring RESTRICTIVE COVENANT - I landscaping should be allowed to ensure adequate visibility for purposes of public safety. This covenant shall not be effective until the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone which serve as the basis of these covenants. DATED this day of 1999. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me and who signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: 1999. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of Washington. Notary: My appointment expires: RESTRICTIVE COVENANT -2 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me and who signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: 1999. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of Washington. Notary: A8.159:01. My appointment expires: RESTRICTIVE COVENANT -3 RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHEREAS, the undersigned is owner of certain real property located within the City of Renton;and WHEREAS,that real property is legally described as: See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth and WHEREAS, the undersigned has participated in a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone for the property described in Exhibit A, which Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone were subject to certain conditions which are to be imposed upon the property through these covenants; and WHEREAS, the undersigned wishes to procure for the benefit of the property the Comprehensive Plan and Rezone; NOW, THEREFORE,the undersigned imposes the following covenants: 1. The number of residential lots that can be achieved on this property shall be limited to seven, and the structures that may be constructed on the property are detached single-family dwelling units only. 2. Initial construction shall be limited to one story in height, with future remodels governed by the R-10 zoning in effect at the time of remodel, or the successor zone most similar to the R-10 zone which exists as of the time of this covenant. 3.The lot layout to be used for the single-family homes shall be similar to the preliminary site plan received by the City on December 16, 1998, attached hereto as Exhibit B, RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS - 1 and shall be consistent with all City ordinances and codes effective as of the date of recording of these covenants. These covenants shall not be effective until the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone which serve as the basis of these covenants. DATED this day of 1999. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me and who signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: 1999. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of Washington. Notary: My appointment expires: RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS -2 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me and who signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. SATED: 1999. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of Washington. Notary: AS.159:14. My appointment expires: RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS - 3 EXHIBIT B r N.W. Y.1- SECT. 2 I TWP z3 N. , RGE 5 E.. 'N,M V Z io S_ e AREA Ikt "RENTt e5+s W g iS. GOES NCJr INC.iiCE. !:T LLi i.72: 2 S9 / cN 00 o- 4 7›, - a55 -.-disa...: 4.,D• dwit-,e LJd Y cl'iaiD 588a SF d c 5la25 SF t3€) S474 io. Lu N tan p3 y LLl C 9s. Q s 9 , o. 0. m -. o / 5-I- o 4. NSSESSDRS %.K!'-FJ Nos.• 6 a N // SI€) ^,•0 Q- S12Ia90- 03Z4-4LOo SF /i rl 0325 g lL 0328 3) iii0329As• o, i 9' h0. / as- N4 yti 11 F- aL Lnr3 P cc>= PRN r al r DRIv E. exc.mac- LOT It 3 1 3 c o v1 xD/\y 21.0 WWtD- 6305 sF 4(' t/ 4 pRIvATS- Rio 450 G' I_ C t1Ttuii F#rJ+t6+r/ i3 a ho4ensisF / o, o 9 0 4 // So. 49^° / SITE. DNT 4„ 7 Zot4I i G : R-6 w g56o SF ti MIN. LcsT size Rsa'o: asco 4IIb'MIN. Lor size_PROP. 45SO SF 0' MIN. Lcr W Ip11d: 50' MIN. LOZ'. PTH : !05' coS , SETSAzks'. F4 O 4r: ZO' EAR: Zo' SIM: 5' c zo, No f1 cmoFa9IT TOW- SEIT +4TREt1: 37,2% SF R crn o.Scc PORE E- ' 1u - 3a1 DEC 1 6 1998 No. LUT's PROFD: 7 No. t_or EhiSTINIG : 4 BUILDING DIVISION Draft May 5, 1999 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PARTIES This agreement made and entered into this _ day of 1999, by and between the City of Renton ("City"), a municipal corporation of the state of Washington, and John W. Dobson, owner of parcels of property within the area covered by this development agreement Owner"), and Matthew Tonkin, president of Taco Time and lease purchaser of the same parcels of property within the area covered by this development agreement("Lease Purchaser"). RECITALS WHEREAS, there are existing corporate offices and commercial uses generally in the area north of Maple Valley Highway at the intersections of Monroe Avenue S.E. and Maplewood Place S.E.; and WHEREAS, those office commercial uses and related property are presently zoned Convenience Commercial (CC); and WHEREAS, the owner of the building presently housing the Taco Time corporate offices has indicated a desire to expand those headquarters and parking areas; and WHEREAS, the Convenience Commercial zone will not accommodate such expansion; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Renton, Washington believes that such expansion can be accommodated pursuant to Comprehensive Plan Amendments/Rezones, Renton Municipal Code amendments, and a development agreement as authorized in RCW Chapter 36.70B.170 through 210; and WHEREAS, the parties have negotiated the proposed development agreement; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing about the Comprehensive Plan Amendments/Rezones redesignating properties from Convenience Commercial and Residential Single Family/R-8 to Employment Area Commercial/Arterial Commercial, potential Renton Municipal Code amendments, and associated development agreement on September 6, 1998; and, WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Planning and Development Committee minority report on January 4, 1999 which recommended retention of the Convenience Commercial designation for the Taco Time properties, redesignation of a small portion of an adjacent Residential Single Family/R-8 zoned lot to Convenience Commercial for access/parking purposes, and amendment of the Convenience Commercial zone to allow existing, legal administrative headquarters offices with a moderate expansion of offices, and parking; and WHEREAS, the adopted Committee report also includes recommendations for development agreements or covenants which incorporate Environmental Review Committee mitigation measures; and Draft May 5, 1999 WHEREAS, this development agreement has been presented at a public hearing before the City Council held on the_day of 1999; and WHEREAS, the City Council has taken into account the public comment presented at that public hearing; and WHEREAS, this development agreement has been reviewed and approved by the City Council of the City of Renton,Washington; and WHEREAS, this development agreement appears to be in the best interests of the citizens of the City of Renton, Washington; NOW,THEREFORE, the parties do agree as follows: SECTION 1. AUTHORITY Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170(1), the City and persons with ownership or control of real property are authorized to enter into a development agreement setting forth development standards and any other provisions that shall apply to, govern, and vest the development, use, and mitigation of the development of the real property for the duration of such development agreement. SECTION 2. SUBJECT PROPERTIES A. Legal Description and Illustrative Map: The subject property is legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth, and graphically represented in the drawing attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein as if fully set forth. B. King County Property Identification Numbers: The following list indicates the King County Property Identification Numbers applicable at the time of this development agreement, and a brief description of current uses on the properties: Property Identification General Description of Number Current Uses 5126900205 Southerly portion of said property to be redesignated Convenience Commercial allowing access/parking, and northerly portion to remain residentially designated recognizing existing home 5126900211 Location of corporate offices 5126900215 Location of espresso stand 1632059017 Power line and fuel line easement area 2 Draft May 5, 1999 SECTION 3. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Permitted and Prohibited Uses: 1.Permitted and Prohibited Uses. Except as provided in subsection A.2 below, the applicable conditions of the Convenience Commercial Zone identified in the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Title 4, Development Regulations, in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended, shall apply to interpretation of permitted and prohibited uses applicable to the subject properties. 2.Maximum Expansion of Existing, Legal Administrative Headquarters Offices. Existing, legal administrative headquarters offices are permitted secondary uses, subject to: a.Parking expansions may be allowed in accordance with RMC Title 4 Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended. b.A one-time expansion of building square footage, not exceeding 3,500 square feet may be permitted, subject to: i.The site plan review process; and ii. The building expansion shall be addressed in a single site plan review application; and iii. Once all necessary approvals are obtained, the expansion is constructed, and occupancy is permitted,no additional expansions shall be allowed. c.Parking and building expansion related to the Taco Time Corporate Offices should be generally consistent with the conceptual plan in Exhibit C, unless changes are warranted in order to meet all applicable City regulations and requirements. d.The site plan review process shall be conducted in accordance with Section 5 of this Agreement. B. Site Development Standards: The development standards of the RMC Title 4 in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended, shall apply to the subject properties, except as provided in subsection BA to B.3 below. 1.Building Height: Maximum building height shall be 35 ft., except for Wireless Communication Facilities which shall comply with the height standards and Airport Related Height Limits of the RMC Title 4 in effect at the time of this agreement, or thereafter amended. 2.Landscaping: a.Standards: 3 Draft May 5, 1999 LANDSCAPING Minimum Landscape Width Required Along 10 ft.,except where reduced through the site plan Public Streets review process. Minimum Landscape Width Required When 15 ft. wide sight-obscuring landscape strip. The a Commercial Lot is Adjacent to Property Hearing Examiner may modify the sight-obscuring Designated Residential) provision in order to provide reasonable access to the property through the site plan review process. If the CC lot is adjacent to Maplewood Park,non-sight-obscuring landscaping shall be allowed where appropriate to ensure adequate visibility for purposes of public safety. If the street is a designated arterial by the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan,non-sight- obscuring landscaping shall be provided unless otherwise determined by the Hearing Examiner through the site plan review process. These provisions may be modified by the Hearing Examiner through the site plan review process where the applicant can show that the same or better result will occur because of creative design solutions, unique aspects or use, etc., that cannot be fully anticipated at this time. Minimum Landscape Width Required When A 10 ft. sight- obscuring landscape strip shall be a Commercial Lot is Abutting to Property provided. A solid 6' barrier wall shall also be provided Designated Residential) and located within the landscaped strip. A maintenance agreement or easement for the landscape strip shall be secured. A solid barrier wall shall not be located closer than 5'to an abutting residentially zoned' lot. These provisions may be modified by the Hearing Examiner through the site plan review process where the applicant can show that the same or better result will occur because of creative design solutions, unique aspects or use, etc., that cannot be fully anticipated at this time. 1 R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM-I zones, or the successor zones most similar to the listed zones which exist at the time of this agreement. b.Timing of Landscape Improvements: For the subject properties, the landscape requirements of subsection B.2.a shall be applied, and installed prior to final City inspection of: i.Any building demolition requiring a demolition permit; and/or ii. Building construction which expands the footprint of current buildings or adds additional buildings on site; and/or 4 Draft May 5, 1999 iii. Parking stall additions/reconfigurations which add parking/access areas to portions of properties which, at the time of this agreement, do not have improved parking/access surfaces. For any other development applications requiring City review, the reviewing official shall determine application of landscaping requirements to address the potential visual and compatibility effects of the specific development request. 3.Access for Taco Time Corporate Properties: Access for the subject properties shall be through the existing or future Taco Time development, and not from Newport Ave SE. (SE 6th St.) SECTION 4. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Prior to the issuance of any City permits allowing expansion based on Section 3.A.2 of this Agreement, , the Owner or his agent, or the Lease Purchaser with the Owner's consent shall prepare and submit a Lot Line Adjustment application which adds the southern portion of Parcel No. 5126900205 to either parcel number 5126900211 or 1632059017. The purpose of the lot line adjustment is to allow the Taco Time Corporation access across their leased properties. The boundary of the lot line adjustment shall: A. Recognize the boundary of the Convenience Commercial designation on Parcel Number 5126900205 as shown on Exhibit B; and B. Result in a conforming lot for the northerly portion of Parcel Number 5126900205 and allow retention of the existing single family residence that will remain designated Residential Single Family/R-8. SECTION 5. SITE PLAN REVIEW A. When Required: For the subject properties, site plan review is required for any size development or redevelopment. B. Review Authority and Hearing: The following subsections supersede RMC Section 4-9-200.0 and D, Exemptions and Criteria to Determine if Public Hearing is Required, respectively. All other provisions of RMC Section 4-9-200 shall apply. 1.Development proposals which are categorically exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act shall be subject to the administrative site plan review process. 2.Development proposals which are not categorically exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act shall be subject to the Hearing Examiner site plan review process. C. Other Requirements: See Section 3.A.2 of this Agreement. SECTION 6. EFFECT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Unless amended or terminated, the development agreement is enforceable during its term by a party to the agreement. The development agreement and development standards in the agreement shall govern during the term of the agreement. The agreement may not be subject to a new zoning ordinance or an 5 Draft May 5, 1999 amendment to a zoning ordinance or development standard adopted after the effective date of the agreement, unless otherwise provided in the agreement. Any permit or approval issued by the City after the execution of the agreement must be consistent with the development agreement. SECTION 7. EFFECT OF OTHER CITY REGULATIONS A. Definitions: The definitions of RMC Title 4 in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended, shall apply to interpretation of permitted uses and site development standards provided in this development agreement. B. Parking: The Parking and Loading regulations of RMC Title 4 in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended, shall apply to this development agreement. C. Environmental Review/Sensitive Areas: Where applicable, all development shall comply with all environmental review and sensitive area regulations, including, but not limited to, Greenbelt Regulations, Wetlands Management, Aquifer Protection, Tree Cutting and Land Clearing, Landscaping, Shoreline Master Program, Flood Hazards, and Environmental Ordinance (SEPA), addressed in Title 4 and Title 8 of the Renton Municipal Code which are in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended. D. Signs: The Sign Code, RMC Title 4, in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended, shall apply to this development agreement. E. Other Development Regulations and Permits: Development shall be subject to any other applicable development standards or requirements not otherwise specified in this agreement including, but not limited to, permit process requirements, impact fees, mitigation measures, development conditions, street and utility regulations and specifications, subdivision regulations, and health and sanitation regulations, which are in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended. SECTION 8. AUTHORITY RESERVED Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170(4) the City reserves its authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to public health and safety. SECTION 9. RECORDING Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.190, this development agreement shall be recorded with the real property records of King County. During the term of the development agreement, the agreement is binding on the parties and their successors. SECTION 10. TERM This development agreement runs in perpetuity with the subject properties, unless amended or rescinded by the City Council in accordance with the procedures of Section 11 below. The parties of this development agreement agree to evaluate the agreement periodically, but not less than every ten years. Where appropriate, periodic review of the development agreement shall generally coincide with the City's evaluation of its entire Comprehensive Plan every ten years, pursuant to RMC Title 4 in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended. 6 Draft May 5, 1999 SECTION 11. AMENDMENT The provisions of this agreement may only be amended with the mutual consent of the parties. No additions or alterations of the terms of this agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and formally approved and executed by the duly authorized agents of all parties. The City shall consider amendments to the development agreement after a public hearing by the designated hearing body, and any amendments shall be adopted by ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and thereafter recorded. DATED this day of 1999. CITY OF RENTON By: Jesse Tanner,Mayor Attest: Marilyn J.Petersen, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on day of 1999,before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared to me known to be the of the City of Renton, a municipal corporation that executed the within and forgoing instrument and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said City for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute such instrument, and that the seal affixed, if any, is the corporate seal of said City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington. Notary: My appointment expires: Draft May 5, 1999 PROPERTY OWNER John W. Dobson STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that John W. Dobson is the person who appeared before me and who signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED:1999. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington. Notary: My appointment expires: TACO TIME By: Matthew Tonkin, President STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this day of 1999, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Matthew Tonkin to me known to be the President of Taco Time, the corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument, and that the seal affixed, if any, is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington. Notary: My appointment expires: 8 Draft May 5, 1999 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION To Be Provided] 9 Draft May 5, 1999 EXHIBIT B ILLUSTRATIVE MAP To Be Provided] to EXHIBIT C CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN Tacolime. WALL 4 LOTS iv c 0 y io LOT, V ' L V° R-8 Ta W SE 6 STREET111. j b O 1 LOT' 11*`\ Q- c\‘N p i YY/q/%; / % / ,/,. W 71 r-'/' CI RESSoY, 4 " SfSJ ESP f V 4 I A , ?, 7, ' EAfENT AREAAYD IF,/ G_ SUB-LED AREAE.`OSTLYG PARKING,- PHASE I PAR}CINC/ PHASE II PARKING// ADDITION /ADDIl'IOY, C- it i T L-+ :,,. TBi /. /l'////1, ',i / % ,/ / -- MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY SITE PLAN SCALE 1"=40'-0" BUILDING A-EXISTING OFFICE SPACE PROPOSED PHASE I-ADDITIONAL PARKING: 2 STORIES-7,792 TOTAL SF EXISTING BUILDINGS ON SITE TOTAL 9742 SQ.FT. MAXIMUM PARKING STALLS ALLOWED(CA ZONING) BUILDING B-EXISTING TRAINING CENTER 4.5 PER 1,000 SQ.FT.=43 STALLS 1 STORY-1950 TOTAL SF 4PRO9 PROPOSED PHASE II-ADDITION TO BUILDING: LANDSCAPED AREA 13,142 SEDO ADDITIONAL FT. NORTH TO OFFICE BUILDING OF 3400 SQ.FT. NORTH MAXIMUM PARKING STALLS ALLOWED (CA ZONING) 4.5 PER 1,000 SQ.FT.=59 STALLS CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: April 22, 1999 TO: File 98-042,CPA,R,ECF FROM: Lisa Grueter C/I6 SUBJECT: Taco Time CPA,Rezone,etc Per discussions with Jana (Huerter) Hanson, additional SEPA review is not required to address the City Council's adopted Committee Report of January 4, 1999 related to the Council selected designations and requirements. The City Council's ultimate recommendation for the above project was to apply a lesser intense commercial designation for the Taco Time area (maintain Convenience Commercial for existing CC areas and redesignate the market, barbershop, and a small triangular area near Taco Time to the CC designation), and to apply the R-10 zone to the Conrad site provided units are limited to 7 single family dwellings (falling within a range reviewed in the environmental checklist). A development agreement would be prepared incorporating previous ERC conditions for the Taco Time site. Also based on discussions with Jana Hanson, the adopted ERC mitigation measures would generally continue to apply. The development agreement would apply to the Taco Time lease properties, and would incorporate ERC mitigation measures. The few mitigation measures related to the Cedar River Market and Barbershop properties would apply, and could be referenced in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone ordinance. Covenants could also be prepared to incorporate the applicable mitigation measures. The mitigation measures are related to commercial designations and would not apply to the Conrad properties which are not being redesignated to a commercial classification. The requirements that the City Council requested include: limit the number of lots to 7,limit the unit type to detached single family only, and indicate that initial home construction should be one-story with future remodels governed by the R-10 zone in effect at the time; also the layout should be consistent with a preliminary site plan dated December 16, 1998 and consistent with all City ordinances and codes. The requirements would be prepared as covenants and should be signed by the property owners prior to approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments/Rezone. The radiator repair shop and insurance office sites would remain designated Convenience Commercial. Any future redevelopment or additions would be governed by the applicable City regulations. In further conversations with Jana Hanson on April 13, 1999, the only portion of the City Council's recommended approach that should be revisited in SEPA are the proposed Convenience Commercial . zone amendments which were not previously reviewed. The CC zone amendments will be prepared and reviewed as a separate application. TS_SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-H:\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\TACO\SEPAMEM2.DOC\Ig April 15, 1999 Page 2 Public hearings would be held with the Council related to the CC zone amendments as well as the revised Taco Time development agreement. The Comprehensive Plan Amendments/Rezone,Code amendments, and development agreement would be adopted along with the other 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone applications later this year. Attachments: Memo to Jana Huerter dated March 23, 1999 E-mail April 6, 1999 from Jana(Huerter)Hanson Planning and Development Committee Reports,January 4, 1999 ERC Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated cc: Jana Hanson Mike Kattermann Larry Warren CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: March 23, 1999 TO: Jana Huerter FROM: Lisa Grueter SUBJECT:Taco Time CPA, Rezone, etc. (LUA 98-042, CPA,R,ECF) For your review, attached is the Council's recommendation for the Taco Time area and the original notice of application, ERC report and SEPA checklist. Per our recent discussion, the City Council's ultimate recommendation for the above project was to apply a lesser intense commercial designation for the Taco Time area (maintain Convenience Commercial for existing CC areas and redesignate the market, barbershop, and a small triangular area near Taco Time to the CC designation), and to apply the R-10 zone to the Conrad site provided units are limited to 7 single family dwellings (falling within a range reviewed in the environmental checklist). A development agreement would be prepared incorporating previous ERC conditions for the Taco Time site. You thought that a new application (including a new notice of application and SEPA checklist), and a new determination from ERC are not required because the net result is a lesser intense proposal. Here is more information about what was originally submitted as part of the Taco Time application: The application included a staff report which addressed existing designations and uses, and analyzed various commercial designations for the subject area (see original map) including CA, CO, and CC. The Conrad property was also reviewed as a "study area" under these designations. It was noted for the Conrad piece that the Residential Single Family/R-8 designation could potentially allow for between 4 and 8 units. The staff report at that time didn't address application of the Residential Options/R-10 designation to the Conrad piece because the property owners wanted consideration of commercial designations. The notice of application identified the Taco Time area as being redesignated from CC and RS/R-8 to EAC/CA, and the Conrad area as being under study. The environmental checklist reviewed the staff recommendation of applying EAC/CA to the Taco Time area except for the Conrad property. The Comprehensive Plan capacity analysis, assuming the CA zoning for area, showed a potential for 39 employees gross. (The staff report indicated that for the whole area existing employees total between 43-45, but not all are on site at one time due to shifts such as the market or due to job function such as at Taco Time where between 10 to 15 employees are in the field all or a majority of the time). Other commercial designations were not reviewed in the checklist although reviewed in staff reports. TS SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-H:\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\LGRUETER\TACO\SEPAMEM.DOC\lg March 23, 1999 Page 2 The Conrad property was reviewed under a variety of scenarios (CA, CO, and CC), as well as noting that under the existing designation of RS/R-8 could result in between 4 and 8 units. The checklist at that time didn't address application of the Residential Options/R-10 designation because the property owners wanted consideration of commercial designations. Based upon the Council recommendations, the area which would be redesignated from RS/R-8 to Convenience Commercial is small (the barbershop, market, and a small triangular portion of a lot to allow Taco Time access along the Maple Valley Highway frontage). The Comprehensive Plan capacity analysis, assuming the CC zoning for the existing plus the newly designated area, would equal around 31 employees (gross). Looking at just the area to be added to the CC designation would add the capacity for 4 new employees over existing conditions using the Comprehensive Plan capacity model. Please confirm whether or not any amended application materials are needed and whether any additional SEPA review is required. I would need to know by March 29th. Thanks. cc: Mike Kattermann Lisa Grueter From: Jana M Huerter To: Lisa Grueter Subject: Taco Time Date: Tue, Apr 6, 1999 9:12AM Lisa, I apologize for not providing you my answer in writting as you had requested. As I have already said, the changes to the Taco Time CPA and rezone do not require that we revisit SEPA since there are no significant changes that would impact the environment. I also verified this with Barbara Ritchie of the DOE and she confirmed my position. Sorry again that this took so darn long to respond to . Page 1 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT NAME: TACO TIME CPA/REZONE DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial CC)around the 3300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway;properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single-Family(RS);and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residential Single- Family(RS). The proposal would 1)amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map from CC and RS to Employment Area-Commercial(EA-C); 2)amend the Zoning Map concurrently from CC and Residential-8(R-8)to Arterial Commercial(CA); 3)amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for permitted service and office uses, and allow for offices; and 4)authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area which accommodates existing uses and future expansions,and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA zone which are too intensive for the area. Under study for potential commercial designation are four parcels adjacent to the Cedar River Market on SE 6th Street which,prior to 1993,had a commercial zoning(B-1), but which were redesignated in 1993 to Residential Single-Family(RS)/R-8. Staff does not support a commercial designation at this time,pending additional analysis and public Input. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: North side of Maple Valley Highway(3300 and 3400 block) LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM May 25,1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee 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 time of the determination may submit written comments.After review of the comments,if Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination,then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter,Land Use Review Supervisor,City of Renton Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055. If an appeal of the environmental determination is also filed with the Hearing Examiner during the same 15-day comment period,then the Environmental Review Committee will first take action on the request for reconsideration and the appellant will be notified that the appeal is on hold pending the Committee's decision on the reconsideration request. The City will notify the appellant/person requesting reconsideration and parties of record and the Hearing Examiner of the Environmental Review Committee's final determination. The appeal process will then be continued unless the appellant notifies the Hearing Examiner in writing that he wishes to withdraw the appeal. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM May 25, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)-235-2501. PUBLICATION DATE: May 11,1998 DATE OF DECISION: May 05,1998 SIGNATURES: Gregglmn aan,Ad rinistrator DAT Department of`Planning/Building/Public Works m Chastain,Administrator DAT Community Services Department Lee h ler,Fir hief DATE Renton Fire Department DNSSIG DOC CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICAION NUMBER: LUA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF APPLICA'JT: City of Renton PROJECT NAME: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 98-M-4 TACO TIME CPA/REZONE) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial (CC) around the 3300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single-Family (RS); and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residential Single-Family (RS). The proposal would 1) amend the Comp Plan Land Use Map from CC and RS to Employment Area-Commercial (EA-C); 2) amend the Zoning IV ap concurrently from CC and Residential-8 (R-8) to Arterial Commercial (CA); 3) amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for accesory storage for permitted service and office USE'S, and allow for offices; and 4) authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area which accommodates existing uses and future expansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA zone which are too intensive for the area. Under study for potential commercial designation are four parcels adjacent to the Cedar River Market cn SE 6th Street which, prior to 1993, had a commercial zoning (B-1), but which were redesignated in 1993 to :Residential Single-Family (RS)/R-8. Staff does not support a commercial designation at this time, pending additional analysis and public input. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: North side of Maple Valley Highway (3300 and 3400 block) MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Limit the height of future development on all parcels re-designated EAC/CA to 35 feet. 2. AccE ss for the three lots proposed for re-designation from Single Family/R-8 to EAC/CA , King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900195, 5126900200, 5126900205, to be through the existing or future Taco Time development, not from Newport Ave SE.(SE 6th St.) 3. For the Taco Time properties and adjacent three lots, and the four vacant properties east of the market and barbershop, King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900195, 5126900200, 5126900205, 5126900211 5126900215, 5126900324, 5126900325, 512690328, 5126900329, and 1623059017, require site plan review for any size development or redevelopment of properties re- designated EAC/CA. Site plan review will be required for other properties redesignated EAC/CA according to Renton Municipal Code thresholds. 4. Req.lire a 6 foot wall in addition to required 10 foot landscaped setbacks where properties re- desiinated EAC/CA abut residential zoned properties. 5. Require site obscuring landscaping where properties re-designated EAC/CA are adjacent to residentially zoned properties, except adjacent to Maplewood Park where modifications to sight obscuring landscaping should be allowed to ensure adequate visibility for purposes of public safety. 6. For the Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop properties, King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900326 and 5126900327, proposed developments which meet current SEF'A threshold requirements are to trigger imposition of mitigation measures 4 and 5. APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date /— — PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Minority COMMITTEE REPORT January 4, 1999 Taco Time Comprehensive Plan Amendment Referred April 13, 1998) Upon considering the staff, Planning Commission, and citizen input regarding the Maple Valley Highway Taco Time Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezone, Development Agreement and general CA Zone Amendments, I concur with the Majority of the Committee on several recommendations, including: Recommendation 1. Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop properties Recommendation 3. Radiator Repair and Insurance Office Sites Recommendation 4. Conrad vacant parcels Recommendation 5. Amendments to the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone generally I respectfully dissent from the majority regarding the Taco Time site. I would also maintain the Convenience Commercial designation, but recommend allowances for a moderate, one-time expansion of building square footage in addition to allowances for additional parking. The allowance for a moderate building expansion would help keep the Taco Time operation viable for many more years at its current location. Representatives of Taco Time estimated that, with moderate expansion, they could continue to operate for up to 18 more years at their current location. It is a clean, relatively quiet enterprise that has invested in its site. If the business moves to another location, the current buildings and site may end up with multiple tenants, higher turnover, and a less well-kept site. I believe a moderate expansion of the existing building, with necessary environmental and plan review measures, would not significantly impact the neighborhood, and would allow continued co-existence with a responsible corporate neighbor. I would offer an alternate Recommendation 2. 2.Taco Time lease/option properties: I concur with sections 2a, 2b, and 2d, but would change section 2c as shown below: c)Amend the Convenience Commercial Zone to add "existing, legal Administrative Headquarters Offices" as a secondary use and "the storage of supplies in conjunction with service and office uses" as an accessory use. For "existing, legal Administrative Headquarters Offices" allow for parking expansions, and for a one-time building expansion of 3,500 square feet maximum. No new Administrative Headquarters Offices would be allowed. With Council concurrence, I would request the Administration to prepare an ordinance for the code amendments and property redesignations, and to prepare development agreements or covenants for consideration by the City Council which incorporate the above recommendations. - Dan Clawson, Member cc: 3u C i own Sue Carlson City CI iX TacoTime.rpt\CoR APPROV E3 D'r CITY COUNCIL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Date — — r7 MAJORITY COMMITTEE REPORT January 4, 1999 Taco Time Comprehensive Plan Amendment Referred April 13, 1998 ) The Committee met four times to consider the staff, Planning Commission, and citizen input regarding the Maple Valley Highway Taco Time Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezone, Development Agreement and general CA Zone Amendments. A majority of the Committee recommends the following: 1.Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop properties: Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning Map from Residential Single Family/R-8 to Convenience Commercial. 2.Taco Time lease/option properties: a)Maintain the Convenience Commercial designation for the Taco Time offices, Transmission Line Easement, and espresso stand site. b)Redesignate the southern portion of Parcel No. 5126900205, the southerly residential lot adjacent to Taco Time offices and the Transmission Line Easement, from Residential Single Family/R-8 to Convenience Commercial to allow Taco Time access across their leased properties. The boundary of the new Convenience Commercial designation shall allow for a lot line adjustment that retains the single family residence and results in a conforming lot. c)Amend the Convenience Commercial Zone to add "existing, legal Administrative Headquarters Offices" as a secondary use and "the storage of supplies in conjunction with service and office uses" as an accessory use. For "existing, legal Administrative Headquarters Offices" allow for parking expansions, but not additional building expansions. This would allow Taco Time to expand its parking area over its properties to the east, but not allow for additional building square footage. No new Administrative Headquarters Offices would be allowed. d)Prepare a development agreement or covenants which incorporate Environmental Review Committee mitigation measures. We believe the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for this area was to ensure compatible, neighborhood-serving development through the Convenience Commercial designation. The Majority approach to the Taco Time site would help ensure protection of the adjacent residential neighborhood by maintaining the Convenience Commercial designation and restricting building expansion. It would also accommodate Taco Time's need to access all of its property and to expand parking. 3.Radiator Repair and Insurance Office Sites: Maintain the Convenience Commercial designation. 4.Conrad vacant parcels: Redesignate the properties from Residential Single Family/R-8 and Residential Options/R-10 subject to a development agreement or covenants which limit the number of lots to 7, limit the unit type to detached single family only, and indicate that initial home construction should be one-story with future remodels governed by the R-10 zone in effect at the time. The lot layout should be similar to the attached preliminary layout, and consistent with all City ordinances and codes. TacoTtme.rpt\CoR 5.Amend the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone generally to allow offices, accessory storage for office/service uses, and shoe repair. Incorporating the above recommendations, the Committee requests the Administration to prepare an ordinance for the code amendments and property redesignations, and to prepare development agreements or covenants for consideration by the City Council. lL &eke/ l Ll Kathy Keq ker-Wheeler, Chair rTh Tim Schlitzer,Vic Ch CC: i..y Cuv;rreCX1 Sue Carlson TacoTimr.rpt\CoR I 1 V•'N. I± J-=`--+ . 1 , 1 W V I. w I w. , , .L. y r,1,\ Q Z r- ti Weil. INN PNRENTH.s, W 0 11/ 9 / Sw Cow )4ar 1r4c:.ucF Lar W co Iv itZe4- ''L i.4Ad-a +a' wit:E. Z co do*S9 / 3 Q Z co 0 0 3 o- 4 Lit -- co i i n25 Sj= 5888 St=o tsb) 54L') 7 I Ce O I.0 N t0 i ID y L31 ,n9s, Q 0 /3 5- I 743ru / 5-7so Q _ 1 Asse s Pa,F.rsi Nos. 8 a 5tze) /0 Q 512to40- 032A-4,Oo SF v o3Z5 QJ. 032.8 0 032cj As• o 9*o? // es- 14/ n LSD qLL LDTs ,^`a 5 PRIV P,T'E 4. o C} U DRr44 t= E)c.E?r LOT 3 3 Co d 9 2[o WIcE T 05 5 i° pRrvRTe- Ro,o-may cc r 4 uTWTE3 Et c.friexiT7/ 3 4508) Y Il3' / !oS h 4 4rd-75 SF 4U/ - / 0. ZU O / SITE. DI4"TA 7 70mikiG: R-B 0„), 45so SF MIN. lssr Sze RG2'oE : 4x0 SF o 1INN. LUi- Sae.PROP. 455D SF 0 Al 4 I . LOT WIpTH : So' MIN. Lai_DEPTH : GS' cos. SETBAC FFt T: Zv' b?/ REAR: Zo' SIDE: 5' S 1 zoo, NoISTtI cITYoF.RENT% T+ L- SITE. P'RE•A: 31,2749 SF RECicR=o o.co P tE. I = DEC 16 1998 JO. L Ots PROPOSED: 'T No. 1._c7P5 EhtS11KIG : 4 13UILUtl1-DIVISION RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting January 4, 1999 Council Chambers Monday, 7:30 p.m. MINUTES Municipal Building CALL TO ORDER Mayor Jesse Tanner led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF KING PARKER, Council President;DAN CLAWSON; KATHY KEOLKER- COUNCILMEMBERS WHEELER; BOB EDWARDS; TONI NELSON; TIMOTHY SCHLITZER. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMAN RANDY CORMAN. CARRIED. CITY STAFF IN JESSE TANNER,Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; ATTENDANCE ZANETTA FONTES, Assistant City Attorney; MARILYN PETERSEN, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; MICHAEL KATTERMANN,Director of Neighborhoods& Strategic Planning; DEREK TODD, Finance Analyst; CHIEF GARRY ANDERSON,Police Department. APPROVAL OF MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 1998, AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Mayor Tanner presented a certificate of appreciation to Bob Edwards in Council: Recognition of 1998 recognition of his outstanding service to the City and the Renton community as Council President Bob President of the City Council in 1998. Edwards ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 1999 and beyond. Items noted included: Renton asked the City of Seattle to change the way in which citizens were being notified of Seattle's public workshops on the Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan, since some residents felt they were being led to infer that the notification was coming from Renton, and further, that their attendance at the workshop was required. The City's Giving Tree Program enjoyed a wonderful response to those in need,with approximately 90 individuals receiving donated gifts. In addition,Renton's firefighters and the Renton Police Chaplaincy Fund donated over 150 toys to the Giving Tree and the Salvation Army's Toy-n- Joy fund. Bids for phase two of the Cedar River Flood Control project(floodwalls and levees)will be opened on February 9th, with construction to start March 15m The Department of Justice has approved a grant for Renton's Police Department for mobile data computers and related technology in the amount of$303,675. AUDIENCE COMMENT Margaret Siemion,3418 SE 6th St., Renton, 98058, did not support allowing Citizen Comment: Siemion — the Taco Time administrative headquarters site on Maple Valley Highway to be Taco Time Rezone and rezoned from Convenience Commercial (CC) to Commercial Arterial (CA). Expansion She said that allowing a rezone to CA while requiring a development 4.'0\r agreement would merely"sugarcoat"the proposed expansion of this building. January 4, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes Page 5 Concluding that this decision will affect the future of the adjacent Maplewood neighborhood, she asked that the Council's decision on this matter ensure protection of the residential area. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL SUSPEND ITS RULES AND ADVANCE TO THE PLANNING& DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE'S MAJORITY AND MINORITY REPORTS ON THIS SUBJECT. CARRIED. Planning& Development Committee Majority Report Planning&Development Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a Rezone: Taco Time Expansion majority report regarding the request from Taco Time for a Comprehensive Maple Valley Highway), R- Plan amendment for its headquarters located on Maple Valley Highway near Monroe Ave. SE. The Committee met four times to consider the staff, Planning Commission, and citizen input regarding Taco Time's request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment,rezone, development agreement, and general Commercial Arterial (CA)zone amendments. A majority of the Committee recommended the following: 1. Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop properties: Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning Map from Residential Single Family/R-8 to Convenience Commercial (CC). 2. Taco Time lease/option properties: a) Maintain the Convenience Commercial designation for the Taco Time offices,transmission line easement,and espresso stand site. b) Redesignate the southern portion of Parcel No. 5126900205, the southerly residential lot adjacent to Taco Time offices and the transmission line easement, from Residential Single Family/R-8 to Convenience Commercial to allow Taco Time access across their leased properties. The boundary of the new Convenience Commercial designation shall allow for a lot line adjustment that retains the single family residence and results in a conforming lot. c) Amend the Convenience Commercial zone to add"existing, legal Administrative Headquarters Offices"as a secondary use and"the storage of supplies in conjunction with service and office uses"as an accessory use. For existing,legal Administrative Headquarters Offices," allow for parking expansions,but not additional building expansions. This would allow Taco Time to expand its parking area over its properties to the east,but not allow for additional building square footage. No new Administrative Headquarters Offices would be allowed. d) Prepare a development agreement or covenants which incorporate Environmental Review Committee(ERC)mitigation measures. We believe the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for this area was to ensure compatible,neighborhood-serving development through the Convenience Commercial designation. The majority approach to the Taco Time site would help ensure protection of the adjacent residential neighborhood by maintaining the Convenience Commercial designation and restricting building expansion. It would also accommodate Taco Time's need to access all of its property and to expand parking. 3. Radiator Repair and Insurance Office Sites: Maintain the Convenience Commercial designation. 4. Conrad vacant parcels: Redesignate the properties from Residential Single Family/R-8 and Residential Options/R-10 subject to a development agreement or covenants which limit the number of lots to seven, limit the unit type to January 4, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes Page 6 detached single family only,and indicate that initial home construction should be one-story with future remodels governed by the R-10 zone in effect at the time. The lot layout should be similar to the attached preliminary layout,and consistent with all City ordinances and codes. 5. Amend the Commercial Arterial (CA)zone generally to allow offices, accessory storage for office/service uses, and shoe repair. Incorporating the above recommendations, the Committee requested the Administration to prepare an ordinance for the Code amendments and property redesignations, and to prepare development agreements or covenants for consideration by the City Council.* Planning&Development Planning&Development Committee Member Clawson presented a minority Committee Minority Report report regarding Taco Time's request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Rezone: Taco Time Expansion Upon considering the staff, Planning Commission, and citizen input regarding Maple Valley Highway), R- the Maple Valley Highway Taco Time Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezone, development agreement and general Commercial Arterial (CA)zone amendments, I concur with the majority of the committee on several recommendations, including: Recommendation 1. Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop properties Recommendation 3. Radiator Repair and Insurance Office sites Recommendation 4. Conrad vacant parcels; and Recommendation 5. Amendments to the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone generally. I respectfully dissent from the majority regarding the Taco Time site. I would also maintain the Convenience Commercial(CC) designation,but recommend allowances for a moderate, one-time expansion of building square footage in addition to allowances for additional parking. The allowance for a moderate building expansion would help keep the Taco Time operation viable for many more years at its current location. Representatives of Taco Time estimated that,with moderate expansion, they could continue to operate for up to 18 more years at their current location. It is a clean,relatively quiet enterprise that has invested in its site. If the business moves to another location,the current buildings and site may end up with multiple tenants,higher turnover,and a less well-kept site. I believe a moderate expansion of the existing building,with necessary environmental and plan review measures, would not significantly impact the neighborhood, and would allow continued co-existence with a responsible corporate neighbor. I would offer an alternate Recommendation 2, as follows: Recommendation 2. Taco Time lease/option properties: I concur with sections 2a, 2b, and 2d,but would change section 2c as shown below: c) Amend the Convenience Commercial (CC) zone to add"existing, legal Administrative Headquarters Offices"as a secondary use and"the storage of supplies in conjunction with service and office uses"as an accessory use. For existing, legal Administrative Headquarters Offices," allow for parking expansions, and for a one-time building expansion of 3,500 square feet maximum. No new Administrative Headquarters Offices would be allowed. With Council concurrence, I would request the Administration to prepare an ordinance for the Code amendments and property redesignations, and to prepare development agreements or covenants for consideration by the City January 4, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes Page 7 Council which incorporate the above recommendations.** Citizen Comment: Brosman — Larry Brosman, 3625 NE 9th St., Renton, 98056, said as the chair of Renton's Taco Time Rezone and Planning Commission, which has formally taken a position on this subject, he Expansion wanted only to note his appreciation of the efforts of numerous groups and individuals to cooperatively and satisfactorily resolve this issue. Citizen Comment: Horvath— Arlene L. Horvath, 3701 SE 5th Pl.,Renton,98058, asked that the City not Taco Time Rezone and allow Taco Time's building to expand, but permit only more parking at this Expansion site. Councilman Clawson explained that, as someone who manages several commercial lease properties,he knows firsthand the problems that can occur with tenant turnover. Noting that most of Taco Time's headquarters traffic is attributable to employee training,he suggested that this use generates less traffic overall that would a personal services business such as a law, insurance or accounting office. He felt that allowing this moderate expansion would therefore be the prudent thing to do, and concluded that tying the expansion to a development agreement would afford sufficient protections for the Maplewood neighborhood. Responding to Councilman Edwards,Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes confirmed that the City can enter into development agreements with property owners which are more(but not less)restrictive than the applicable zoning criteria. Councilman Parker stated that the current use of this property is rather quiet, with no truly detrimental noise or traffic impacts to the surrounding area. He agreed with Mr. Clawson that the requested expansion seems reasonable, emphasizing that the zoning will not change. Adding that this is private property for which the owner is proposing a moderate expansion and— moreover—is agreeing to certain restrictions, he felt that allowing the expansion would not only be fair but would also strike a balance between the interests of all involved parties. Councilman Schlitzer reviewed the history of this site,pointing out that when this building was first constructed,Taco Time represented to the City that the use would not expand in the future. Now,however,the company is asking for a 25%expansion. Saying that the surrounding neighborhood opposes the expansion,he added that it had also opposed the building's being constructed in the first place. He was troubled with allowing a 25% expansion for a building zoned Convenience Commercial (CC), questioning if the City wants to set a precedent and start allowing this for all CC-zoned areas in Renton. He concluded that although it is reasonable to allow the extra parking, a physical expansion of the building would unacceptably intrude into the neighborhood. Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler explained that both of the committee reports would allow expanding the parking area to alleviate spillover onto the residential streets,thereby protecting the neighborhood. Emphasizing that Maplewood is a neighborhood, she said it was never the City's intention for this area to have a great deal of commercial uses. She concluded that inherent in the policies of the Convenience Commercial (CC)zone is that its uses are supposed to serve the existing neighborhood. Mr. Parker cautioned that,if it approves the proposed agreement relating to the single family development on the Conrad parcels,the City would be in danger of selectively setting development standards for particular areas. He maintained that this is a private property issue, saying that if a proposed January 4, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes Page 8 development meets the City's regulations, it should be allowed and not further restricted. Also, he did not believe that the proposed expansion would change the character of the neighborhood. Mrs. Keolker-Wheeler replied that if any precedent is being set by the agreement pertaining to the Conrad parcels, it is that a developer, the City,and affected residents can work together to reach an agreement which is acceptable to all interested parties. Responding to Councilman Edwards, Mike Kattermann, Director of Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning, said that any development agreement for the Taco Time property would be the subject of a public hearing before the City Council prior to its being approved. Moved by Keolker-Wheeler, seconded by Schlitzer,Council concur in the majority committee report as presented. Roll call: two ayes(Keolker-Wheeler, Schlitzer); four nays(Parker, Clawson,Edwards,Nelson). Motion failed. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE MINORITY COMMITTEE REPORT AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council President Parker noted the addition of item 6.j.,described on page 9. Court Case: CRT-98-015, Court Case filed on behalf of Local 32 of the United Association of Plumbers&Pipefitters Union Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry alleging v. Renton, et al. that NW GM Contractors (a subcontractor on the City Hall remodel project) has not paid required wages,nor made required monthly fringe benefit contributions to Union employees. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. Appeal: Pierre Grady Way City Clerk submitted appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision denying a zoning Rezone from CO to IM, SA- reclassification from Commercial Office (CO) to Medium Industrial(IM) for 98-126 the Pierre Grady Way site located on SW Grady Way between Oakesdale and Powell Avenues SW; appeal filed on 12/30/98 by Vicki Morris,representing James and Barbara Pierre (File No. SA-98-126). Refer to Planning& Development Committee. Vacation: Lake View Blvd City Clerk submitted petition for street vacation of a portion of Lake View 104th Ave SE), Blvd. (104th Ave. SE)located east of Lake Washington Blvd. and south of NE Martindale/VAC-98-004 20th St.;petition submitted by James S.Martindale, 9712 237th Pl. SW, Edmonds, 98020 (VAC-98-004). Refer to Board of Public Works; set a public hearing for January 25, 1999 to determine the advisability of the vacation. (See page 11 for resolution setting the public hearing.) Plat: Estates at Hidden Creek, Development Services Division recommended approval, with condition, of the Final (NE 8th St/Chelan P1 Estates at Hidden Creek Final Plat; 10 single family lots on 1.73 acres in the NE),FP-98-154 vicinity of NE 8th St. and Chelan Pl.NE (FP-98-154). Council concur. (See page 11 for resolution.) Planning:R-10 and R-14 Zone Economic Development,Neighborhoods& Strategic Planning Department Changes recommended amendments to the R-10 and R-14 zones to: promote small lot development; resolve Code conflicts and clarify fencing and buffering requirements for commercial uses; and incorporate a definition system that classifies single family as traditional detached and semi-attached, and multi- family as including townhouses and flats. Refer to Planning&Development Committee. January 4, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes Page 12 actually an alley, is being used as a street. AUDIENCE COMMENT Brian Miller, 3202 SE 5th St., Renton, 98058, expressed disappointment that Citizen Comment: Miller—although 116 Maplewood residents declared their opposition to the Taco Time Taco Time Rezone and headquarters expansion, as did the City's Planning Commission and two Expansion Councilmembers,it will nevertheless be allowed because four City Councilmembers approved it. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 9:06 p.m. MARIL J. TERSEN, CMC,City Clerk Recorder: Brenda Fritsvold January 4, 1999 Cedar River Market 3418 S.E. 6th Renton, WA. 98058 425-228-0758 January 4, 1999 Subject: POTENTIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ZONING AMENDMENT CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL CHANGED TO COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL. Dear City Council Members, This area is growing so very rapidly, in just a few years we have had the Maple Valley Highway widened, new stoplights, the new much larger Golf Course. The building is just beginning at 140th across from the Golf Course and will happen soon at the Aqua Barn with Apts. and Condos. We all have noticed the increase in traffic and know it will only get worse. The City has been requested from Taco Time to change their zoning of Convenience Commercial to Commercial Arterial. This is based on extra parking and expansion needs. On February 17, 1998, we were notified of an interest in incltid- irg other properties and ours in the Commercial Arterial Zoning. Any business would welcome a higher zoning for future possibil- ities . We thank the City for including us. We wore also notified that in 1993, in the City Wide Comprehen- sive Plan, our zoning was changed to Residential . We were shocked since the store, Cedar River Market has been here since 1945 . After inquiring into this zoning change, we were told it was a mapping error. We would like to have the requirements and all reasoning presented to us for each strategic component built into the final copy of the zoning map. What party is responsible for editing the final copy? If there are mapping errors with respect to the zoning components, what are reasons for delaying a corr- ection to such errors? Why are the zoning maps not checked every year? In 1992 a critical issue of concern to the City Council was Convenience Commercial uses near neighborhoods . What was the pur- pose and reasoning for changing the B-1 Zoning to Convenience Commercial, Commercial Neighborhood and others? Have other Con- venience Commercial zonings been changed to Commercial Arterial? Will they now be changed to make a business conforming? We as a business would love to have a Commercial Arterial Zone. We as a small neighborhood business are also a neighbor and hear the concerns of growth from those among us. Everyone has express- ed some concern for the developments in and around this neigh- borhood. Convenience Commercial is limited to 3, 000 square feet. Commercial Arterial can be at least twice that or more. On October 20, 1993, the City Planning Commission recommended maintaining the Convenience Commercial Zoning and deny the Commercial Arterial Zoning with the proposed development agree- ment, which "Sugar Coats" the proposed Taco Time expansion. On November 16, 1998 and in following planning meetings, a few City Council Members recommended to ensure protection of the neighborhood and asked not to include three homes in the re- designation.They also recommended to keep the Convenience Com- mercial Zoning with a development agreement to make Taco Time conforming and be allowed some extra parking. We thank the City Council Members for this recommendation. This would allow Taco Time to be conforming without going to Comm- ercial Arterial and protect the future of this neighborhood. The City Council Members have a difficult situation to balance the best interests of a neighborhood and business . We realize it' s not an easy job to have. This decision will affect the future of this neighborhood. We thank the City for listening to us and our neighbors. Sincerely, Th/ f4; Margare Siemion APPROV7D DY Ci i i ccuNC. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Date /- V- 9.7 MAJORITY COMMITTEE REPORT January 4, 1999 Taco Time Comprehensive Plan Amendment Referred April 13, 1998) The Committee met four times to consider the staff, Planning Commission, and citizen input regarding the Maple Valley Highway Taco Time Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezone, Development Agreement and general CA Zone Amendments. A majority of the Committee recommends the following: 1.Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop properties: Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning Map from Residential Single Family/R-8 to Convenience • Commercial. 2.Taco Time lease/option properties: a) Maintain the Convenience Commercial designation for the Taco Time offices, Transmission Line Easement, and espresso stand site. b) Redesignate the southern portion of Parcel No. 5126900205, the southerly residential lot adjacent to Taco Time offices and the Transmission Line Easement, from Residential Single Family/R-8 to Convenience Commercial to allow Taco Time access across their leased properties. The boundary of the new Convenience Commercial designation shall allow for a lot line adjustment that retains the single family residence and results in a conforming lot. c) Amend the Convenience Commercial Zone to add "existing, legal Administrative Headquarters Offices" as a secondary use and "the storage of supplies in conjunction with service and office uses" as an accessory use. For "existing, legal Administrative Headquarters Offices" allow for parking expansions, but not additional building expansions. This would allow Taco Time to expand its parking area over its properties to the east,but not allow for additional building square footage. No new Administrative Headquarters Offices would be allowed. d) Prepare a development agreement or covenants which incorporate Environmental Review Committee mitigation measures. We believe the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for this area was to ensure compatible, neighborhood-serving development through the Convenience Commercial designation. The Majority approach to the Taco Time site would help ensure protection of the adjacent residential neighborhood by maintaining the Convenience Commercial designation and restricting building expansion. It would also accommodate Taco Time's need to access all of its property and to expand parking. 3.Radiator Repair and Insurance Office Sites: Maintain the Convenience Commercial designation. 4.Conrad vacant parcels: Redesignate the properties from Residential Single Family/R-8 and Residential Options/R-10 subject to a development agreement or covenants which limit the number of lots to 7, limit the unit type to detached single family only, and indicate that initial home construction should be one-story with future remodels governed by the R-10 zone in effect at the time. The lot layout should be similar to the attached preliminary layout, and consistent with all City ordinances and codes. TacoTime.rpt\CoR 5.Amend the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone generally to allow offices, accessory storage for office/service uses, and shoe repair. Incorporating the above recommendations, the Committee requests the Administration to prepare an ordinance for the code amendments and property redesignations, and to prepare development agreements or covenants for consideration by the City Council. tOkute,_, Kathy Keglker-Wheeler, Chair rc:t54/ Tim Schlitzer, Vic Ch Cc: Jay C\Jv i,rg-cai Sue Carlson TacoTime.rpt\CoR I AcS S ESSORS { R L_ 5I2L t0 032-4- o3Z5 D32S . 329 p,l_l_ LOTS NCr 55 FR 1 ATE DRN E_ E)<PT LOT # s , D ZON 1 ram 6 R- M I r , i_. T' S t2.e. REc ScO MEN . L o SIZE, PRoP 45•SZ) Sl= 1AIN . L T WIDTH SSo' M I NN . LOT- _ITN : toS' 13 FRO+.ir: 20' St DE ; S' 1 oy?L. st TE cSEA : 3 7,2-7c o .SCfl P LOTSS PRO PoSEt7 ; 7 NO, LOTS 1titG APrr OV D BY CITY COUNCIL Date 97 PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Minority COMMITTEE REPORT January 4, 1999 Taco Time Comprehensive Plan Amendment Referred April 13, 1998) Upon considering the staff, Planning Commission, and citizen input regarding the Maple Valley Highway Taco Time Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezone, Development Agreement and general CA Zone Amendments, I concur with the Majority of the Committee on several recommendations, including: Recommendation 1. Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop properties Recommendation 3. Radiator Repair and Insurance Office Sites Recommendation 4. Conrad vacant parcels Recommendation 5. Amendments to the Commercial Arterial(CA)zone generally I respectfully dissent from the majority regarding the Taco Time site. I would also maintain the Convenience Commercial designation,but recommend allowances for a moderate,one-time expansion of building square footage in addition to allowances for additional parking. The allowance for a moderate building expansion would help keep the Taco Time operation viable for many more years at its current location. Representatives of Taco Time estimated that, with moderate expansion, they could continue to operate for up to 18 more years at their current location. It is a clean,relatively quiet enterprise that has invested in its site. If the business moves to another location, the current buildings and site may end up with multiple tenants, higher turnover, and a less well-kept site. I believe a moderate expansion of the existing building, with necessary environmental and plan review measures, would not significantly impact the neighborhood,and would allow continued co-existence with a responsible corporate neighbor. I would offer an alternate Recommendation 2. 2.Taco Time lease/option properties: I concur with sections 2a, 2b, and 2d, but would change section 2c as shown below: c)Amend the Convenience Commercial Zone to add "existing, legal Administrative Headquarters Offices" as a secondary use and "the storage of supplies in conjunction with service and office uses" as an accessory use. For "existing, legal Administrative Headquarters Offices" allow for parking expansions, and for a one-time building expansion of 3,500 square feet maximum. No new Administrative Headquarters Offices would be allowed. With Council concurrence, I would request the Administration to prepare an ordinance for the code amendments and property redesignations, and to prepare development agreements or covenants for consideration by the City Council which incorporate the above recommendations. Dan Clawson, Member CC: lug CLvuigl0n Sue Carlson TacoTime.rpt\CoR CITY OF RENTON OCT 281998 D CITY CLECREI SOFFICE CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/NEIGHBORHOODS & STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: October 26, 1998 TO: Kathy Keo er-Wheeler, Chair Plannin: .nd Development Committee VIA: er, Mayor nn iFROM: ike Kattermanrl'V ighborhoods and Strategic Planning Director STAFF CONTACT: Lisa Grueter(430-6578) SUBJECT: Maple Valley Highway Taco Time Site(98-M-4; LUA 98-042 CPA, R,ECF) On July 27, 1998, the City Council approved a Planning and Development Committee report recommending approval of various 1998 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. It was noted in the report that the Taco Time amendment proposal was being held on appeal to the Hearing Examiner and would be continued to the 1999 review cycle; in the report matrix, it was also noted that the Taco Time application would be forwarded to the City Council in the Fall of 1998. The Hearing Examiner resolved the SEPA appeal in favor of the City finding that the environmental determination and mitigation measures were adequate for the proposal. With the appeal resolved, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 16, 1998 and completed its deliberations on October 7, 1998. A copy of Planning Commission minutes and correspondence received will be provided under separate cover to the Planning and Development Committee. A staff report, analyzing the subject area and presenting staff and Planning Commission recommendations, is attached for your review. It supersedes previous reports sent to the Committee last April 1998. The staff recommends that the Committee prepare its recommendation for the site for the full Council this year to provide direction for the staff and the interested property owners and citizens. However, any formal amendment to the Comprehensive Plan by ordinance would need to be coordinated with 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendment review cycle since the City may only amend its Comprehensive Plan once a year for non-emergency proposals. cc: City Council Jay Covington Sue Carlson City Clerk P&DMEM.DOC 10/26/98 AMENDMENT 98-M-4 - MAPLE VALLEY HWY TACO TIME SITE LOCATION: The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial CC) around the 3300 and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway; properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single- Family (RS)/R-8; and the Cedar River Market, Cedar River Barbershop, and Conrad properties currently designated RS/R-8. Figures 1 through 3 show existing zoning and study area boundaries. ISSUE SUMMARY: 44: 1. Should the proposed area be redesignated from a less intense commercial designation/zone and residential designation/zone to a more intense commercial designation/zone? 2. Will the development agreement accommodate existing commercial businesses as well as the future expansion goals of Taco Time, and also protect the neighborhood from potentially intensive commercial uses of the Arterial Commercial (CA) zone? 3. Should changes be made in general to the CA zone to allow for offices, shoe repair, and accessory storage for service/office uses? 4. Should the study area parcels on SE 6th Street adjacent to the market be designated commercial or residential? RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff Recommendation The Staff recommendations are to: For all properties in the proposed amendment area except for the Conrad properties, change the designation of the subject property from Convenience Commercial (CC) and Residential Single Family (RS) to Employment Area - Commercial (EA-C). Concurrently, the Zoning Map would be amended from Convenience Commercial (CC) and Residential-8 (R-8) to Arterial Commercial (CA). The redesignation would better match current conditions of the area which are a mix of neighborhood serving commercial and community/region-wide business offices. For the Conrad properties east of the Cedar River Market, staff analyzed various alternative commercial and residential designations. After initially reviewing the CC/CC, EAC/CA, Employment Area - Office (EA-O)/Commercial Office (CO) and RS/R-8 designations, staff analyzed the RO/R-10 designation at the Planning Commission's request. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation to apply the Residential Options (RO)/R-10 designation. Approve a development agreement to apply to the amendment area redesignated to EA- C/CA. The development agreement would restore some of the previous flexibility of the zoning applied to much of the area prior to 1993 (the old B-1 zone) by not capping the square footages of allowed office or retail uses, and allowing for more variety in uses in comparison to the existing CC zone. However, the agreement would exclude many of the 9SM4REN 2.DOC\ 1 10/26/98 intensive uses of the CA zone in order to protect the neighborhood from some potentially incompatible uses. Some text amendments would be needed generally to the CA zone to allow for offices, clarify minor repair activities (i.e. shoe repair allowed in addition to TV, electrical, upholstery, and watch/jewelry repair), and allow for accessory storage for service and office uses. Planning Commission Recommendations The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 16, 1998, and deliberated on October 7, 1998. A copy of public hearing minutes, correspondence, and the Commission report are provided under separate cover. Their recommendations are to: Apply the CC designation and zone to the Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop properties. Deny the staff recommendation for the Taco Time lease/option and option properties to redesignate the properties to Employment Area-Commercial/Commercial Arterial designations. Maintain the current CC designations for the Taco Time office building, easement and espresso stand properties. Maintain the current RS/R-8 zoning for the three residential lots. Maintain the CC designation for the radiator repair and insurance office properties. Deny the proposed development agreement. Designate the four Conrad parcels with the RO land use designation, with a concurrent rezone to R-10. Approve the code amendments to allow offices, accessory storage for office/service uses, and shoe repair in the CA zone. ANALYSIS: Background Uses and Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Designations -Vicinity The existing zoning is shown on Figure 1 which shows much of the vicinity on the north and south side of Maple Valley Highway as Residential-8 (R-8) with some property shown as Convenience Commercial (CC), including the an automotive repair operation, Taco Time administrative headquarters, espresso stand, and an insurance office recently constructed. The corresponding Comprehensive Plan designations are Residential Single Family (RS) and Convenience Commercial CC). Prior to 1993, some of the CC zoned property was designated with a more intense commercial designation, B-1. Refer to Figure 1-a. 98M4REV2.DOC\ 2 10/26/98 Proposed Amendment Area The primary amendment area is identified on Figures 2 and 3, and equals approximately 3.05 acres excluding Conrad parcels under study east of the Cedar River Market, discussed below). The amendment area includes all of the existing CC- zoned property,plus some R-8 zoned property which applies to the existing Cedar River Market, Cedar River Barbershop, and three residences located on property contiguous to the Taco Time office for which Taco Time has a purchase option (for the southernmost residential lot, Taco Time also has a lease). The vacant Conrad parcels under study east of the Cedar River Market total an additional 0.855 acres. Easement There is a 200 foot (+/-) easement for overhead power lines and for fuel pipelines (gas, diesel, and jet fuel). Regarding the gas lines, there would be restrictions against building permanent structures. Regarding the powerline easement, no one may build anything on the area covered by the easement without the express permission of the holder of the easement. Parking and landscaping could occur on the easement according to specifications by the easement holders. Regarding the location of the gas/diesel/jet fuel lines within the 200 foot wide easement area, the lines do not necessarily lie within the middle of the easement according to Mark Krueger with Olympic Pipeline. The pipelines are marked in the field. There are two pipelines with the following easement widths within the larger 200 foot easement: 16"line with a 20 foot easement 20" line with an open easement Olympic Pipeline could theoretically claim the whole easement area for the pipeline with the open easement,but is more likely to negotiate for a 30 to 50 foot area according to Mark Krueger. Olympic Pipeline would review any development plans to ensure adequate buffer areas from the pipelines. Taco Time Office Taco Time corporate offices are located on Maple Valley Highway near Monroe Avenue SE. The existing office on the site totals 7,792 square feet, and an accessory storage building totals 1,920 square feet. Currently, 30 parking spaces are located on site. When the building was constructed in 1990, the zoning designation was Business Use (B-1). With the Comprehensive Plan update and associated area-wide zoning, the property was redesignated and rezoned Convenience Commercial (CC) in 1993. The purpose of the CC zone is: "...to provide for small-scale convenience retail/commercial centers intended to provide for basic retail and service needs of the adjacent area. Uses serving a larger area may be appropriate if they also serve the residents of the immediate area and are compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood in which they are located." Commercial uses in general are restricted to 5,000 square feet per commercial use, with a maximum increase possible of 1,000 square feet if approved by the Hearing Examiner as a Conditional Use Permit Professional and personal offices are allowed as Administrative Conditional Uses, subject to: 1) The total gross floor area of each use in any one site shall not exceed three thousand 3,000) square feet. 93M4REV2.DOC\ 3 10/26/98 2) The following criteria: A) Activities with a limited need for walk-in clientele; and B) Activities for which a reduction in parking standards to one space per five hundred(500) square feet of gross floor space could be justified. The Taco Time building is nonconforming since it exceeds the 3,000 square foot parameter, and has a parking ratio of 1 space per 260 square feet, assuming the office space only. Assuming both the office and storage space, there is a parking ratio of 1 space per 324 square feet which still does not meet the criteria. Expansion of the current use would be difficult due to the criteria. The office has no need for walk-in clientele. In the future, Taco Time also anticipates expanding their offices due to increasing corporate staff needs. Since the use does not provide for basic retail and service needs of the adjacent area and provides more parking than required (described below), the expansion of the use would be difficult to approve since it would not meet the intent of the zone, or the specific Conditional Use criteria listed above. Taco Time Parking and Expansion Goals Taco Time has 30 parking spaces, but would like to add 24 spaces. Three to four times a month, there is a need for additional parking when meetings occur with franchise owners, restaurant managers, or when employee training occurs. Currently when these meetings occur, the business owners have said that parking overflows into the surrounding residential neighborhood. There is also an adjacent undeveloped lot to the east which is used for overflow parking as well. The Parking Code requirement for office uses is a minimum of 3 and maximum of 4.5 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (1 space per 333 square feet to 1 space per 222 s.f.). This standard allows for more parking than what is allowed under the CC zone parameters for office uses (1 per 500 s.f. which equals 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet). The existing office building would meet the Parking Code requirement for its current building because the Parking Code would result in a range allowing between 23 and 35 parking spaces. To exceed the maximum spaces of the Parking Code, application for a modification would need to be made. Taco Time Property Ownership There is one underlying property owner, John Dobson, who owns the Taco Time office property, espresso property, plus several residential lots. Taco Time leases the property and has an option to purchase the land where the office is situated as well as property to the east including land with a single family residence, power line easement, and portable espresso stand. Taco Time has a purchase option for additional residential lots. The proposed redesignation includes the property leased by Taco Time as well as two lots which Taco Time has an option to purchase. Since Taco Time anticipates expanding its corporate offices in the future which would be in conflict with the current CC zone regulations regarding size, an amendment to the CC zone regulations or a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/concurrent rezone to a different designation would be needed. Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop The Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop are located on two separate adjoining parcels, and are under separate ownership. The properties were zoned B-1, but were redesignated in 1993 to RS/R-8 which staff has determined was a map error. Staff believes the intention of the CC zone 98M4REV2.DOC\ 4 10/26/98 applied in the area was to include the market and barbershop which are clearly neighborhood serving. The market and barber shop are grandfathered uses, and may continue, but the residential zoning would restrict their ability to expand, or potentially to rebuild without a conditional approval permit. Vacant Parcels Under Study- Conrad Properties There are four vacant parcels east of the Cedar River Market located on SE 6th Street. Prior to 1993, the zoning applied to the properties was B-1, a commercial zone. In 1993, the property was redesignated to residential. The property owners have indicated to staff that they were unaware of the designation change in 1993, and would like to develop an office or condominiums. At the Planning Commission hearing the Center Neighborhood(CN) designation was requested. Although staff believes the residential zoning for the adjacent market and barbershop was in error, the staff does not believe that the residential designation for the vacant properties was a map error. In 1993, the property did not have a commercial use or a pending commercial use. This report analyzes the potential application of commercial or residential designations. Aquifer Protection Regulations The subject area is located in Aquifer Protection Area Zone 2. However, it was determined during review of a preliminary mini-mart/gas station and shared parking plan (submitted by Taco Time for adjacent property) that facilities with hazardous materials or underground storage tanks have the potential to affect ground water quality equal to or exceeding a Zone 1 facility. Based on this, the Water Utility can require such facilities to meet Zone 1 requirements(RMC 8-8-7G1). Zone 1 requirements prohibit facilities with certain amounts of hazardous materials or underground storage tanks. Although the CC zone allows gas stations as an administrative conditional use, the aquifer protection regulations would prevent their location in the area. Limitations on the use of hazardous substances in Zone 1 could also affect the ability to have a dry cleaning business which is a typical neighborhood-serving use. These limitations would also affect the allowable uses of any other zone allowing commercial uses. City Council Direction Based upon a letter from Taco Time (see Attachment A), and review of options by the Administration and Planning and Development Committee in September 1997, the City Council directed staff as follows: The City should sponsor a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA)/concurrent rezone application with an associated development agreement. The preferred Comprehensive Plan designation would be Employment Area-Commercial. The matching zoning district would be Arterial Commercial. The CPA/rezone should consider the inclusion of the nearby nonconforming food market currently zoned R-8, and potentially other properties next to the CC zone which are under common ownership. The City should allow continued informal use of the unimproved parking area east of Taco Time offices if there is active pursuit of the necessary approvals and development agreement to allow the expanded use and parking area by the property owner or their designee. 98M14REV2.DOC 5 10/26/98 A discussion of other options studied by the City Council in Fall 1997 are described later in this report. Proposed EA-C/CA Designation and Zone with Development Agreement The Employment Area - Commercial Comprehensive Plan designation is intended to "provide for commercial and residential uses requiring large amounts of land and/or high visibility and access to large volumes of automobile traffic."The matching zoning designation would be Arterial Commercial CA). The primary purpose of the zone is to provide "suitable environments for `strip' commercial development." The CA zoning regulations are more permissive than the CC regulations, and would allow a much larger range of uses on the properties. The maximum height of buildings is 50 feet which may be increased through a conditional use permit. A landscape buffer of 15 feet is required abutting residentially-zoned lots. To avoid promoting strip development which could set a precedent for other areas along Maple Valley Highway, and to avoid some commercial and service uses which may be attracted by the area's traffic flow and visibility, but which may not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, the City Council directed that a development agreement be prepared. In RCW 36.70B.170, a local government can enter into development agreement with a person having ownership or control of real property. The agreement can address the permitted uses, densities, intensities, building sizes, design standards such as heights, setbacks, landscaping, and other features. The development agreement must be consistent with the jurisdiction's development regulations adopted in compliance with the Growth Management Act. Refer to Attachment B. A proposed development agreement has been drafted and sent to property owners in the proposed amendment area (refer to Attachment C). It describes the allowed uses, and generally summarizes development standards. A comparison of use allowances is shown on Attachment D. As proposed, the agreement does not have a specific expiration date, but would be reviewed periodically around the time the City would have a thorough review of the Comprehensive Plan (every 10 years). If the approach is accepted by the City Council, a formal development agreement would be prepared by the City Attorney's office. Further changes in the agreement may result upon Council, or City Attorney review. The Development Agreement would allow more uses than the CC zone, but not include the full range of CA uses. Key features of the draft agreement are: In comparison to the CC zone, the Development Agreement would allow retail sales of books, music, stationary, art supplies, building/hardware/garden materials, pharmacies, pet shops,photography services,retail printing and xerography,and other similar uses. The CC zone allows auto repair as an Administrative Conditional Use permit when associated with a gas station. The existing radiator repair shop is not associated with a gas station which likely wouldn't be allowed with the Aquifer Protection regulations. In the draft Development Agreement, existing vehicle service and repair uses would be allowed. This means that the existing radiator repair shop could continue indefinitely, and could rebuild to its current size if there was a fire or act of God without a conditional approval permit and without a need to be associated with a gas station. 98M4REV2.DOC\ 6 10/26/98 In comparison to the CA zone, the agreement would exclude residential uses, intensive retail activities (e.g. appliance, furniture, auto supply, liquor stores, sporting goods, etc.), light manufacturing, and auto sales. The CC zone maximum height is 35 feet. The maximum height of the CA zone is 50 feet. It would be specified in the Development Agreement that 35 feet is the maximum height, and a conditional use process to exceed 35 feet would not be allowed through the Development Agreement even though the process is available generally in the CA zones. The Development Agreement would require site plan review for any size development on the Taco Time properties. In addition,access would not be allowed from SE 6th Street. The advantages of the CA zoning with a development agreement are: Accommodates office use without size restrictions. Accommodates future commercial uses of vacant or redevelopable properties, and, Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop. The CA zone would better address the Taco Time corporate offices, and would accommodate the other property owners. Other commercial uses could be accommodated on vacant or redevelopable properties, yet the full range of CA uses would not be available. There would be less potential compatibility impacts than a CPA/rezone without a development agreement. There would be greater certainty for the property owners, nearby residents, and the City regarding the future development in the area. There would be less concern about setting a precedent for strip commercial development on the Maple Valley Highway. Another alternative to the development agreement- which would shorten the list of uses and allow for different development standards - would be the creation of an overlay zone similar to the Automall Overlay in the CA zone. Staff has not proposed this because of the existing complexity of the zoning code and due to concerns about future expansion of the boundaries. Another overlay zone would further add to the complexity of the Renton zoning code which has twenty-two zoning classifications, plus the Automall Overlay and a series of overlay-type regulations such as Adult Entertainment, Airport, and Shoreline regulations among others. The development agreement would create less possibility of future commercial expansion along Maple Valley Highway on other properties because it would be more difficult to amend than an overlay zone; development agreements require coordination between the City and property owners under the agreement, and any amendments require a public hearing prior to adoption. The development agreement would provide greater certainty for the property owners and nearby residents for a longer period of time. Nearly all property owners in the amendment area have responded with an interest in participation with the redesignation and development agreement including the owner of the radiator repair property, insurance office property, and Taco Time corporate owners as well as the underlying property owner John Dobson. The owner of the Cedar River Market is interested in a commercial designation to 93M4REV2.DOCV 7 10/26/98 correct the map error. The Cedar River Barbershop property owner has not contacted Staff in response to letters and calls to the barber shop operator. Aside from Taco Time's desire for more flexibility for office and commercial uses, it should be noted that the radiator repair and insurance office property owners have indicated an interest in participating in the redesignation to EA-C/CA and the development agreement because it provides additional flexibility for the future in comparison to the existing CC zone. Further analysis of the staff recommended approach is provided below along with other options. Proposed Arterial Commercial Code Amendments Because the Development Agreement must be consistent with the underlying zone, Staff is proposing three amendments to the CA zone in general (applicable on any CA zoned property). The development agreement assumes that the proposed general CA amendments will be made. The amendments are: Add offices of any type as a permitted primary use. A 1996 Administrative Determination See Attachment E) indicates that the CA zone allows for office uses and office buildings that comply with the development standards and list of permitted uses for the zone. The proposed amendments would formalize the Administrative Determination,and clarify that any type of office building is allowed including administrative headquarters (defined as a use containing the day-to-day functions, e.g. management,payroll, information systems, inventory control, of a company or affiliated corporate group), business, medical and dental, personal and professional offices. See Attachment F which shows all general CA zone amendments. The development standards of the zone, particularly height limits of 50 feet (35 feet in the development agreement area), would restrict the intensity of office in the CA. Any additional height would require a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit (in the development agreement this process would not be offered). Office structures are such that the type of tenant (retail, service, or administrative) could change without much change in the visual appearance. Add shoe repair as an allowed use. The CA zone already allows electrical repair, TV repair, watch/jewelry repair, and upholstery repair. Shoe repair is a use currently allowed in the less intensive CC zone. Clarify that the accessory use of storage in conjunction with retail sales also allows for accessory storage associated with permitted service and office uses. Accessory storage is limited to 33%of the gross floor area. Other Amendment Options-Staff Proposed Amendment Area Five options are presented below for consideration for the Staff Proposed Amendment Area. A discussion of the parcels under study east of the Cedar River Market is provided separately below. For the Taco Time area, Options 1 through 3 were reviewed by the Planning and Development Committee in the Fall of 1997. The City Council agreed with the Committee that the City should sponsor a Comprehensive Plan Amendment,with the preferred designation being EA-C/CA, subject to a development agreement. Attachment G provides a list of relevant Comprehensive Plan policies addressed in the chart. 98M4REV2.DOC\ 8 10/26/98 PROPOSAL ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES COMP.PLAN COMPLIANCE I. Staff Recommended • Accommodates office • Could set a precedent • Meets general policies to Proposal-For use without size restrictions. for other areas along Maple keep the City's present amendment area, Size will be limited based Valley Hwy;this is less economic base including redesignate from CC upon development standards likely with a development office uses(LU-144),and and RS to EA-C. of the zone and site agreement. allow a mix of uses(LU- Amend the Zoning Map characteristics(e.g. 148). concurrently from CC easement). Commercial and and R-8 to CA.Prepare service uses may be Meets Policy 146-a to general CA zone Accommodates future attracted to the sites because expand the City's percentage amendments.Authorize commercial uses of vacant of traffic flow and visibility; of land base utilized for a development or redevelopable properties, however,the development commercial uses. agreement. yet the full range of CA uses agreement will limit list of would not be available. uses to achieve more The EA-C designation compatibility with the requires location on streets Recognizes commercial surrounding neighborhood. designated as major arterial use of Cedar River Market or above(LU-168). Maple and Barbershop. Valley Highway is designated as a Principal Provides flexibility for Arterial. other commercial uses for existing businesses over Policy LU-176 discourages time as market needs new EA-C designations change. where the commercial. demand can be accommodated through intensification and redevelopment of existing EA-C areas. While relocation is possible for Taco Time,the headquarters has already relocated once to a zone(B-1)which at the time allowed for office uses with no size or type restriction. Taco Time invested in their headquarters at that location, and in options on surrounding properties. Relocation is not desirable. While redesignation to EA- C would expand its designation area in the City, in terms of all commercial designations,much of the land under review is already designated commercial as CC. LU-178 suggests that primary uses of the EA-C 98M4REV2.DOC\ 9 10/26/98 PROPOSAL ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES COMP.PLAN COMPLIANCE retail,residential,or service)should be about 50%of the total building area of the EA-C designations. Staff has determined that this is a designation-wide policy. It should be noted that retail, service and office uses can locate interchangeably in structures appearing like a retail center or in office buildings. Also Policy LU- 148 promotes a mix of uses in Employment Area designations. 2. CC Zone Text The CC zone list of • The Taco Time Non-applicable. Amendment Increasing uses is not as broad as corporate offices are Size Allowances for other commercial not and will not be a Offices. No zones,and would neighborhood-serving Comprehensive continue to promote business which is the Plan/Zoning Map neighborhood serving intent of the zone. Amendment. uses overall. Beyond expansion of A CPA/concurrent offices,the corporation rezone would not be may want to add over required. time other activities which would restricted by the intent and regulations of the CC zone(e.g.on lot with espresso stand). The aquifer recharge regulations reduce the allowable uses of the zone in this area,and the list of allowable uses is relatively smaller than other commercial zones. Another disadvantage is that the CC text amendments would apply to all CC-zoned property in the City and would need to be analyzed for effects on other CC-zoned 98M4REV2.DOC\ 10 10/26/98 PROPOSAL ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES COMP. PLAN COMPLIANCE property. 3. For proposed The Taco Time Substantial height The designation would amendment area, corporate offices would allowances(up to 250') occur next to an redesignate from CC be accommodated and which could impact the existing transit route and RS to EA-O. encouraged in this zone.adjacent residential LU-I88). Amend the Zoning Map areas. A development concurrently from CC • Some commercial uses agreement could limit • Parking most likely will and R-8 to CO. Option are allowed in the CO the maximum height to not occur in structures authorize a zone as secondary uses.;be less than the zone. LU-190)because the development there are restrictions easements are likely to agreement. against freestanding Other underdeveloped be utilized for surface commercial uses,drive or vacant CC properties parking since other uses through service and in the area may be more appear to be restricted signage. difficult to convert to by easement owners. commercial uses which are not considered Site and building primary uses of the CO design is not likely to zone and which are be pedestrian oriented discouraged from being or transit oriented in separate freestanding because of the existing buildings.A development pattern, development agreement location of easement, could not change these and traffic volumes on restrictions because the Maple Valley Highway. zone is more restrictive, unless restrictions would be removed City-wide for a development agreement. This is not likely because the CO zone is intended to be an intensive office zone with pedestrian-oriented commercial activities in the ground floors. The zone would allow potentially for light industrial uses,unless restricted through the development agreement. There are not many commercial activities allowed in the CO zone which does not allow for much variety for future uses. 4. Redesignate Taco Time • The Taco Time Does not treat land Regarding EA-C,see office property and corporate offices would under contiguous 98M4REV 2.DOC\ 11 10/26/98 PROPOSAL ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES COMP. PLAN COMPLIANCE adjacent residential be accommodated. ownership with existing option I. parcels under option and planned office and from CC and RS to • Smaller commercial commercial uses Regarding new CC EA-C. Retain CC for opportunities in the CC similarly. designation for Cedar River auto repair shop,zone may be more Market and Barbershop,the insurance office,compatible with the • Less flexibility for uses meet the intent of LU- espresso stand,and surrounding other commercial uses 213 to have small-scale uses redesignate to CC the neighborhood. for vacant/ in proximity which do not Cedar River Market redevelopable land,change the predominant and Cedar River radiator shop property, character of the area. Barbershop to correct insurance office under map error. Implement construction,Cedar Regarding location,the matching zoning. River Market,or Cedar River Market and Development Barbershop,over time. Barbershop are within agreement for Taco pedestrian range of existing Time property only. Potential spot zone residential areas,but are not Make adjustments to issues distinguishing contiguous to a street CA zone generally. the Taco Time office classified at the collector area only. level. Trade area is unknown. 5. Redesignate Taco Time • The Taco Time Does not treat land Regarding EA-O,see office property and corporate offices would under contiguous Option 3. adjacent residential be accommodated. ownership with existing parcels under option and planned office and • Regarding CC,see Option from CC and RS to • The development commercial uses 4. EA-O. Retain CC for agreement would be similarly. auto repair shop,simpler because height insurance office,would be the primary • Less flexibility for espresso stand,and issue to be addressed. other commercial uses redesignate to CC the for vacant/ Cedar River Market • Smaller commercial redevelopable land, and Cedar River opportunities in the CC radiator shop property, Barbershop to correct zone may be more insurance office under map error. Implement compatible with the construction,Cedar matching zoning. surrounding River Market,or Development neighborhood. Barbershop,over time. agreement for Taco Time property only. Potential spot zone issues distinguishing the Taco Time office area only. Parcels Under Study- Conrad Properties East of Cedar River Market The RS/R-8 designation of the subject site is consistent with the zoning of parcels to the north, east, and west of the property. This section analyzes the potential application of other commercial or residential designations. 98M4REV2.DOC\ 12 10/26/98 Redesignation to the EA-C/CA designation would meet some policies, and would not meet other policies: Redesignation of the parcels under study east of the Cedar River Market to the EA-C/CA designation would meet Policy 146-a to expand the City's percentage of land base utilized for commercial uses. It would not meet policy LU-168 requiring location on streets designated as major arterial or above as the vacant parcels are located on SE 6th Street. Although staff proposes inclusion of the adjacent market and barbershop (which are also located on SE 6th Street) in the EA-C/CA designation, this would recognize the current commercial use of the property. The single family lots adjacent_to Taco Time are included in the Staff proposed amendment area because the Taco Time corporation has plans to expand their existing office use, • the property is under common ownership, and the property could be integrated into the Taco Time campus and reoriented to Maple Valley Highway. Policy LU-176 discourages new EA-C designations where the commercial demand can be accommodated through intensification and redevelopment of existing EA-C areas. It is possible that commercial uses attracted to the vacant parcels would not have long-term viability with reduced visibility from Maple Valley Highway. Redesignation to EA-0/CO likewise would not meet several policies: The designation would not occur next to an existing transit route (LU-188). It would be in the vicinity of Maple Valley Highway. Parking most likely will not occur in structures (LU-190) due to the suburban nature of the area, size of properties, and uses likely attracted there. Site and building design is not likely to be pedestrian oriented or transit oriented. Regarding a CC designation: If a use were to be established it would need to meet the intent of LU-213 to have small-scale uses in proximity which do not change the predominant character of the area. Regarding location, the property is within pedestrian range of existing residential areas, but is not contiguous to a street classified at the collector level. Trade area would be unknown at this stage. The CN designation whether applied to the Conrad property or the entire proposed amendment area would not meet key policies: Application of the CN designation does not appear workable based upon the analysis of relevant policies and objectives shown in Attachment H. The CN designation promotes creation of mixed use urban districts, significant concentrations of development, and focal points (LU-92, LU-Q, LU-97, LU-105, LU-106) that would be difficult to provide in a 4 acre area which has a suburban development pattern. There is not enough vacant/redevelopable land to allow for transitional land uses (LU-93). The golf course would more likely provide a gateway to the City in this area. Regarding the RO designation: 98M4REV2.DOC\ 13 10/26/98 The designation of the Conrad Property with the RO/R-10 designation is workable based upon analysis of LU-50, the primary policy guiding the RO designation, since development patterns are established, and there are four existing vacant lots accessing SE 6th Street which has utility services. Future development could be compatible with Policies LU-48 and LU-55 depending upon the design of the dwelling units. There could be a concern about spot zoning. Refer to Attachment H. CAPACITY ANALYSIS: Housing- Original Amendment Area Five residentially designated lots could potentially be redesignated to another commercial or office classification. Three of the lots contain existing single family residences under common ownership which are currently rentals. The other two lots contain commercial uses which are currently nonconforming under the residential designation. No change is anticipated to the Comprehensive Plan residential capacity model because the capacity model did not address parcels under one acre. A theoretical capacity analysis is presented below. The total area designated RS (R-8 zone) equals 0.81 acres (35,303 s.f.). If these sites were vacant and lot lines adjusted, this could potentially result in 7 total units (assuming a minimum lot size of 4,500 s.f.), a net increase of 4 units. However, no lots are vacant. Based upon current lot patterns, only one existing lot has enough area to potentially subdivide into two lots. This would mean a potential net increase of 1 housing unit. Employment- Original Amendment Area No change is anticipated to the Comprehensive Plan employment capacity analysis because the capacity analysis assumed the property in this area was developed. No redevelopment figures were assumed for the EA-C or EA-0 designations in the City generally. A theoretical capacity analysis is presented below assuming the capacity model's partially developed parameters for all the land except the easement. If all the subject property designated CC and RS is changed to another classification, the following potential gross employment figures could occur: Option 1 EA-C - 39 employees Option 3 EA-0 - 73 employees If the main redesignation is restricted to the Taco Time office and expansion area only, the gross employment estimates would be: Option 4 EA-C/CC - 27 employees Option 5 EA-0 - 50 employees To determine net employment, existing employment should be subtracted. Taco Time corporate offices currently have 36 employees, ten of which do not have office space because they work on maintenance and construction crews in the field, and five of which are District Managers who have office space, but who are generally in the field most of the time. Future employee estimates for the Taco Time corporate offices are unknown. For the remaining businesses in the area including the insurance office under construction, Staff guesstimates there are about 7 to 9 employees total. Not all employees would be onsite at the same time if there are shifts. 98M4REV2.DOC\ 14 10/26/98 The results show that the Comprehensive Plan capacity model formula is close to the existing employment assuming the EA-C designation,particularly considering the number of employees onsite at any one time. The model shows greater employment potential considering the EA-0 designation. Capacity- Conrad Parcels Under Study The property totals 0.855 acres. It was not included in the City's capacity model. Analysis below is theoretical and based upon the model's vacant land assumptions. Square footage wise, the property could have about 8 lots with 4,500 s.f. each, but density maximums would allow a maximum of 6.8 units. However, its configuration and plat pattern would more likely support 4 single family homes. RO/R-10 designations would allow for duplex, triplex or fourplex structures in addition to detached single family. One structure is allowed per lot. Based upon current R-10 standards and the current plat pattern, the maximum number of units that could be accommodated on each existing lot is two duplex), allowing a total of eight units. If the parcels were redesignated to a commercial designation, the resulting employment capacity would be: EA-C: 14 employees EA-O: 25 employees CC: 7 employees COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: See discussion on preceding pages. ZONING CONCURRENCY: Depending on the designation selected, the zoning map would need to be modified to match the Comprehensive Plan. Depending on the designation and whether a development agreement is pursued, some changes to the CA zone or CO zone would be needed generally in order for a consistent development agreement. 93M4REV2.DOC\ 15 7 8 lit S's J SE 5 t h S ill N SE o 4 e04 1\ iii 4041 co,44111.7 MOMMINIBMI1 4/ Q 0s Q 6/8,, 69 kV?o 0- 0 ,e4, _ 41W/*** 0 6 Figure 1 : ExistingZoning0 150 300 0 Neighborhoods Sc Strategic Planning 1 : 1 ,8 0 0 T. SNPcll 8 Aprilp998 eppp R. MacOnie Zoning Boundaries Nr•Ir F?tiyN1 r i+, tit tj C l'® 2 i p 1 4r, ri:t. rg.fir 4y.; d*t ia tF 1., Ei wb • , 1 5 MIX,., mAillb ; k h/ 4461A, ' c.:;'•..'• ."•_?a :.:¢:..::::.:.::;: -.,,I,;t,, ter a{ y, • b9 3,'{,,_- A-1' 'l?q #t E !T i wt, A y 1+&r, t y."x 7y`11v Nu tX. `zY.IC „ j, .,k.V+i/ ,w.J•1 .f +.• r(tom .A.tr iviir v r I r 4 yy r fitLSs atom C 44{ Aa 1"..a E>w 1Lx0 ip t t 3.4.4_ i, rAk *al M'}1h ft4nrLLBi. r I'dr.l• r t K'h t7 o gmhilimmilt C4r-[ t t tY3 i.s3- t a L 1 d D C y 4" 7 I\ 4. R:'C 46. Y! t%S v yy l dY'yy ifsC I N 71 ill 0 1 2,_.......,747f,........ all 41/1U lk4NP 1 I' gum11111S i .'01,,,AV..cii,:'4"4174:" 1 , .C-L.-1 4\ 4444404.\\*s,..,:• 111 IL op P fiwiltCALIR44. 4 ,Olv, 1 e.4::::\ Sri,' c‘, . ., Anklat.IlibiS *I-1 wi 461 41 1,..41r#4 4. # i,N,\\ ow a$ lip alba; air as mew ft,Fird. 120 INH6:-::1:;,:i.,4 . Milimille LIN OirAr Imo- fr MI i APIr10 4\Ile NNW 441101* NEW NN.. 0 7::;,'st xis i4, 4, 11111 c f t -Eff.. rA lirwill SE 5th St tit** II 1I 40. 4ri 4 0 411110SEHi, P a. 0 AilP°I4/ Q o I• 0 Ap a A y 6/8/, , . . . . 41w4169a so 44144tS&0 150 301 ' 1 : 1 : 00 ` Figure 2 : Study Area ( 98 —M - 4) CC zone - commercial use T Neighborhoods Se Strategic Planning R-8 zone - commercial use 1 .ED/N/SP K \ \ \ R-8 zone - residential use 4. T. Schlepp R. MacOnie ammo,* Parcels considered for redesignatior tit. • 8 April 1998 immisom Additional parcels under study 4.' ' ''' ,.,.. 47*'. ;.- 0,.,, o'.:,:•`'' :.:',',,,.. A CO i ti,,, g. .., :....,:' 4,-,,,,, Ni .",, f nft..,, . fi,; ..•..".... t.,.„, t, 4: . i... ' .,' .. r..,,. - ,..;"' , i. ti, kit; 4. „„, - 1\ 7. - - - % . 0.'• 4., iii( • •<'.* At. ,,,, ..,:. 1 ., ,..,, . f. r.` A" , 4 Aern. -. ',.- It! 0) 4,,,,,,..,. - >‘.. 1," A.,... t,"" e#;. 114i4,-;$ .,„ • „ v ,, , t ..,,,,,,,..,, ,,„.. ,„.,-‘,,,,.. , ' • t o97- g`: 44.-. • W.c. i.' ''..... tfivA.,_. 4,.. A 75 L''-'- " " A• ''''.--"• -,.. 41-''..' i' • ' 1. nik'''''''''''' ' 2, 7, 11.- V , .:. ' t, ' '‘. 4. . --,;, p. . .'. ii - C .--. 1, 0,... 4- b. 49., if,.-......: V...: e• 4.; ,-... 1 ,. lor '-. 4 . ‘.. * 4-„,,,, / A* '". 14•101. 1 .', C4`. 4k - ,,`,_., ,,,.. . 2,,,„:, 1'., , yir: 0-,..,, •_ . IkT.: 1 , T. V• itrif; 1'`... ttfAilit'•-• . 4.,. v'. -,- 4' i 0 -- e3 - f-, r'... 4.,. .. 1.:.,; 1,-)"„' fico' l# s,,,'-. ' 1'; . 4fg , '.., -(.... 4-,, ,;: e• '''''', •).-', x,. 45c,' 4,* ' 4`. 04. 4.$ 1,. .' , I..• ils1410+, , 4.3*.,! , r': .• : ro erftet.-,!..:, Irk, •,`,..--• , „,, A'.-' 4,:, 1.,,,, ,,%,. 4-• ,•- 4 ,.-„, .• ,, ' Isill 1 r, , ,,,,,,,,....,,;,-",.." 7*., 04.„. t It., .. 4, 0" 7, d,, ••• ._ , ,,,,, v1v,„ /. 4., 4.- i.. i. ; r:*. f"- ifr $•• nti,, . ,',‘„, • -• i;.,• t, P.--, 1,,,,,,,,„,--. 1,-,.., r--....,..; ;•.,,.,,....,, 4,,., ,„ 4,-;,, ...•" tr J,'`'''' '.-":••• Tx1- 41. 11,' TV. : ` i '' s ::. L N Vk•-. 057/°'., 47. 4- t4cc... y$'-. '. ' 1744 1pf ' VA. ' li,-.. 47 iltil*, , ," V,,,,, : 4, 4' eic, 4".:,.,,, k ' 1*,,,,,,,, • 0 v.,-. 5 ,,,.. • ev, f.,..• , es. .-„„ © ::: co 04.:•••, 44„,..,,,,,, 41- 4,,,, A • ..;,- 1,<.:': ., b• •: c. ";). •-, 11§' 41" 41` 41.? 4":., 70- 4o „ R.I.+•'` 2'' 41: 1•• At, V 14g;-...;.: 0,-,: rtit& b- p., th„ %' •'' f „, '',„ , T..-, 2.- 1, i i 4,,,.,,,,, '• '., -,,,,- ,, t c_ t- ,.-',.. iii: rtr,„ w:...„„%, .: It';,!,,- t,, ,•••• 4,,'..), t:..,' L.,,,„ 4404wtez, r- Nr,„ ...,. 41. 541zit. . es.',.-,,-,• . 4. 4hf- 7.)- A, 40,*„„,. zs,.-.° 4-.• A-,.. 1 • ' fr,'•,- . - 41' ** h.' 4- 4- 7. LCD ii. i. ,,_(- L ( I) 4•,--,- Litt.... . 147..,•-';'''''.;". 141- P. V. ''. •-•,-. i..,. r.,,,,., 0 • - .. - 1- 4, 04,,,,!-, skl,.. 413-,=••,:,,, • ;',-,... : 5: Ave ,:,,,,,,,,,- AkItttlt, 1-.."'-4-!,• ,..',-?..,,,-"•' t, t1.,. .., 14.,,,- ::., - ,,,,, r, i ,__, i:.. . 0 _ 2 0... re..- A.,...: 111::-;',...,..",, wi" 7... 4,', ............,:, -, . '- 4- Ne' f, '.*.:,: eiri. tiz,'. 41 :, V444 c'``-' 4?-`.`^':',..,. "..- C ?".•., 14- r+ P k,, ,,,,,...,,,,..,,,,, - i, Fr oi ' 1, 1,,, 74/ 0• 41,,,,. ",,,-;,„," 0 s r,..,,,, • cs•- tir.' 4'* 4:. tke " 4/./ L '''' * ' 1. ' t 4, 1 4, 14ktir,,,1 * c''... 7` iti: W.:....*: 1.' '-''''. . 1'`''''''`• 44'',, AT''..• '' k-:*. ii;.`'''. ' 1' in, r ,.''.;-'`: '' **" ''''.. 7• 4413j3e'-...' r '''' t T1'. 1*. 1' A 0..... ...,-.,. 44- N.,•..‘." ,,..,-.., 44--,,-,,,— N.,- . - Ai - - , - -; 41, 44g- T. it*: 1114'.. t::' 27, i'.,- 4.', 4_,..-. SN'.. k'' ..,; •.- 4.\;. ;=, 710' F4*'''"... .... 1%*'‘ Nlk: S.''' f, ' -',.;;., 4*** 14,.... 4.'.,• er43`;.'' i-' 4• tit' 2.-,, '''' -,, p', ' t.'" 451'' , - 4:''',, thla: till Ix 1 3e0L _ III 0) Cu th p.4: . 44:'',,, i, i, kkt. 4. ,-.. 4,,,,, 41 74.4. Pv444n: ii.:: 34.,../:\ ir.,.:, 44., ss,..,,,;. r.,. 1,,,,,\.'",-, t'''',. 1 3*. 0,A.,, T;vt?' 40.41, 4h,.0.:\,.,.; .: 1,,,,, y,,.. 1E, is,,,,, i, l' z„' '. 1.' e,'"% L.;*:/,'?,...,,,;; vs-,,•,: c.,;,,, k3A:,:.;:::.....,:„....,;;,;...: 4,;.:„., 1- 4; 11. 4, b, 444. 4} 7er,,,,,, T, o, zi ,, lir 4,!..,, i): we ,,.; 4. 7.,,., c,,,,,,•,-. 7g....,,,../., 4„,.. .,...,,,„ f. 4.,,, w,..„„,. 0401%,„,„ 1.,.., .....„.,,,...,„ .., , ...„„ ift,.. ,,, , 14,„;..„ ,,,. 04 . .,,,,_., , . g, .„: 11.,......,, 44,,,,,,- ... ...• I + 7,,,, IP. . -. 1... ier. -,.,„: '., 4' • ,.., • T1 ; fp, p,: ji 1,- r' ,,• 71. 4, . • k, 4, 4-,, -...-,.. 0. 0i... p. t-, 4k-,,, 41,,,, 1,•,,, ~,--,., ' 41,. - Tote , h4- . •., ,\'', Az. ...,....-..,• t: t• it.........,.. ..„. .,...: J,,-,.. 4,• ; le - 4, ,, 4,,,..,. -•,:. ...„ v„,.. 4.., '...,- 4, 4%,,, i,..„ ii....: 4- f,.•,,.;..,,,,„-, 4- - v.,,,, c.,,, l("„„ .,-.,,.. s cy, . v a , A, S.,„ ''. 1,, „ 4.,, • ekt.,„„„%;.,.., y,!,„ ‘,..,/ toi•-:,..;.. t ..;,, 44... J,,,,,. t-,,,, ,...;,, 1, 14...,, i,;••,. 0, , i• et.,,,. 1. 3-,../.,,,- . - -...*-.., 0 .. -, r-,- 1,•,:_. z,.:-/, '* 10.,- 1-, . 75 lir 4FA".. 4 , 4 . ,-. 4.'!' r., z ' 0 ' wt. - . s 4, .- •,-. 4- s. ' N Nt..._* e' Jr. glir' JAW'. L . 1- c t '-' 1;; I'' tite' - - r.' '''';',', ''- 174" rr *. 4' s ;.. 041- .- Nil,' 41,,,, kA . •,, " P 4'.,, z.,4. f,,,,, t4, 1 '..,.'") 111,.' 470-?';.!,,*. t. . '. 4.' .''' ; 0 f.,.!\ , Vf..',;'.:.':* 4.' ';, o k ,.., . 1..: 1,?..:::,.,,,,-.. uA „,, A,„ 4,, ,.?,,,., 7 iefv,-:" tg . 13,- i"" 4,*. ,'••, 4, 04i•'.. 4;` e `'.' '... '.. . 1). 4% 4:: s7. 1t . 5f,: t4;,‘- - '.;' 14P/ , . '' -,' 4%,.,/ t 4 `, t U 4•:5 t. 4-. ''''* 1(•:* .."'''' ,,,,'' b' Y 4,', ' 4", .; 40. A 1 1, Ak.,- t• Ils..,,, vs i' AllAw 4,'' .. P..,!,' d- .• 4'44...- 1, 1, 46 s•". u,•.*•.$ 4,,.:. 4$ .,,.,..,, 411*.•.•,; .# 9141p. t ,,,-.....- - •-....., 4..,, v- q•-•,,,,--,,- i.,,,,: y4r- a- 7,-/ '-, "-$ • 4-, Or'.' .. ->,,,. i.,- ii. “- '--- A", 41. ' - .-----, In 40 r= - - . ... 4., ,.. N* 10. 17; i: 0• 1a0.;*#-.. .; 4... P,,,,, r,.. 0' . 411, r 1' ' t. •, 7A- ,:' i •.. ikii , - y., i. 1°! :: 41' 7.;;*:•''' •''. 4' ;; Y'''*• A. A•;. -.. r;,./', v4/ 4. 4. ', 4„,''''--. . .„` .'-•,; A- Itet.--' 7;,,, v- c44- 4,,, zw--,-,., l',`, 3.=" 1.- 4' l' ;:. ,- 4.• 7•••,, •, t -• . A. V ,;. 1. 117jr"... 4, 7:= 2.,., , . 71- 4 44,, -, , .'., , 1%,-- 310._ s'•-,' w.„,,,- q..,,,./... - ••• 197_,, 4,-, 4.-,, t*,,,, i: ity.,. 411. tv- Ty.,,, v1.?, ili, 11"--. „,-: ,. t": 41" 1: t...,,,, INIIK.,' k., 1 0 cu -- 4.-> 4,...,,, 4•-•,;,',.. 4.•,,.. 10„:,....,.,... . w),,... , ,,,, ,„,,,',.. ,• • , i.;,..,. ; 1,..- tw.. 1,,,..,„ ii. .,/,, 44z,-,,_ Ay..,....,.. , .; ., pr:,.•.,`,- 4,„,,„- vi, , .., gm. 4,, E.. yet.,; 4,.,;,., A .,,,..? il,:', 4-, ' c . 1. i,;-, '' '..-- ;•.', 44: ' Ill, , A„ I f U --s_. 73 r. , r-, ' ,- . : . ,,,...„.., t 44. 4: h . , 41, ' 4%,, 3,,---;` ••,.., ' 14 t.,. 4. , , esika „,, x,...,_ ir -... . ,-,:,, S,,,,, ititzi,..-,,...„ 0,.. 1.--,:; r, , A., 4, fe, M.,,,, eZ. ... 14. * 4 . 1.. • ' .,,, '. sr.',,'',„.--.- 44.. s.',.; a, gtvi , , -:,„ d 75 2 t,„., ..,,,,, i:„,„ • 4„ ik. •, v•- , I. -„ A ,,,,.`•• 1,;',." 4-, '. r . ,;, 41., V7 Op: 417. 1, AN, ,,,. ‘ 74 ,;., ‘ tt. 44, , ,=*.:-= • ,,,,,,,,,,, 4 e c ' Ncro•-.... v.,, .,,,•;- 4 s.....„.,- 1.?„',. f,"-- 7,,,, ,...„ 4 : 4.••,.!...,, „.. , • ‘'... r.,- 5, 0, 4,,, ' . ',.... 1/4 T.* ' AP. .), Zgekg:', 1,,, , -' . '. 04. ,, A,..;,,,,, ,,;.„,.', t.,,..-, I., 2-=. 1., 1,,,•,..,,, , 1„ ,, , 01,, 47 , • a_ - cr v. . Ig ; r„.- .. : •' 1',",..; k- 4., T' 7.,•• •-•• 4.,- '- r. t.•;'„,, ,...::- '!-', 04 ••,, : , E14):".' '•' t .'", .. eit70,, i NIY,-, 4-'" , .,,, 4- 1-.." -; 1' tf i::;,,,:,,,,,,, , r, ...-. A..'• 44:- is•-• 47, t-it,','•••*„ , i'` ‘'' s' r-''''. 1*'' ' ': ' 43: 4-' . r:•‘ 4'-'; -•.' ;,'-'- ' ...:',.`,.. A' s. '' Ir''; ry" k,:). Ot.', 17/ 1'':% 4A.,', ' Sik, .. 4; 1' ' ' 17' 4.:- V., A- rl'}'' V''‘.:''.' j '':' '' A. i,.:;,;; 4" Vr '.." ' '• ..,,‘,; 1 I 4 I Z.. 44,•. * •••_,... w- l• pf' - - al - ,'•••••• •,,,< ••• •••••, 0, a„, • • , ..,,, k ' 0, 1 4 t` , rilk .,... 4,,,, 41: t, ‘,,,:.. 40-... hc, -.. ; i• . , : ' 44 - : i, Ii' 04 s%',*,,, t4IF,, ii- VP i..' ' k0: 1: 1! 1,‘„ r- sss i', ',. '„..,,', A ,, ,\* t,' IT,,-„, C,!,, q: At• ' ci,'!" ,,,,,'!•. 40:,,,, l' :':',',.- il ,, /*,' „_*",'''' ' 4f. 4 . . r ,..,„"';',: 44 '-':.%; le;,..` ji, .....?, tri.;, 1, 4.,- '.. --: I - : ,.„ - 44/ 40, p`., Itlet '. " st ,, 2. vi l' ili, .,,,,,,,`"' . 4. 47, 4; - it-. ei.-:,,;, V, -*„,, ii4- v;-„ 1,. 4- - 0,..- ' r,... , -- 4,•::•-,- . -- ..,,, 0-- r z 1 10. x.. ., . 0. 4.; 4••':, i..?'' ;,' FA, iit.,- qv:.‘,.. 1. 7, 4', 1•••• - ' , ' • yr'••••:‘- •, 1 .- 4.- , , .. t--. ' , '. -- ,,,...-. 00 4,;. 7„: •• - , - 4.,,- • •• .-. te- , . , • A ,,,-,---- 14'.- -, I' pi''''''. 4(,,: ;:/ ...,- 3, 41: 1: 1- lts. 4. Z. 444,: t:- 1',' 4,-.. tli.-- 4f. 74,,',,,:,:: ev- vv.:‘,',#, ..,,,_.,, 1-,?- i' lfr,.. ... f '--., 7::., 1• 1.,#;,..„ v,. 0 --,' i:# 4,.... t: - 17*, -'-_,!•*. t :,':',, t- iiirs; i'l A .{,,‘„.,-. 1. , , . , A1..- 4 - vo ,,. ir , " 4''. ' ,-','' '"' 1" 1 - r . 3- 4 ..,, Ir'', ' ' '''''''' , IT, ' t",, 14,,, 4/ 7: 1 et 1: 4 ,;• .--,•-•• < 7 • •,', - . -- 7 :- T7.,. illt 4','•':',.,' 4 vii. :• it."`" c''' Z• 2'„: 4,*";:,„ . ', : r.' , ;,..., L.. ;,„,,, I "' ptf '' 4.‘, :',: 4•,- 9_ :,.,•!,,,, Tit,, 41,. p jp,,,,.. ._ A.-:,', 44) 0, 4 . 1,:',., ' 4,: 1/4.%::,,,,,, 46 ,- r: . 1,,,,,:._ 4? ,, J,,,,,,,,', 41' a 4,.. , 7:. t':, tt 0 p., ... 1„,..., , 4, iv ,,,,,.,-, T, 4. 414- it :.,., ,...,„ ,:%.,.... i, s.,,,, c N ••,,,,,,,,- ft,„ 4- 1.. ...,- 1. 4-' ils, - , ..., 4.- im 4. 4. L., •-,-, iircit,,,' r,,* , - fil./....; 14.- e -, if 0, •.,,,,, t.: r`, 4,,,-,,,,,. 1,'",", t-.,:,' 0 o t ?....,„ -•,. ., ,,, 11 ' A- I' ve. F.- ' \ •'' T` • t%,- 1'• 1.. r ep, mr,,,, ,,, ,, ,•:.,,,,, i,.. 0,,,, a, 912.• -•- e. _•,--, . 4„, •_,.,,;-- 4-,,,,, _ i_,) la C,, , Auk '.' k - 4:, k• •• r,•:,: f .., ,• tf, ,,',,, t ,,,,,,,,..„,,%, •. 4, , • 1,,,.' Irk . S '',,,.. r. ot..... i.- 1" ....,.... _,.. t., - „ It' . t.- ,, A.,...„. ,,,, q 1.-. 1_ ,, -' itt,- c- , ' ' , t, AN.. i,..-...„ ' .....-..., f, ;..,.$ 1. 7(':.;., ,,,!, ''-'•,„,', e. c...,, i. iTh 01... 0. c." Te, ,.,..',,, ,. ..-- Ag' ,-., 4 - 1, 4 '.. `..'-';',, i .. '-'-- ‘.., : 41,..: ;',"•.'..' '' .= .;, 11'.,,,- C co f.,;* f. i*,,' 1,, '. pit .,-`' ', 4", ,- ,,, ,,,,,,• ' P.''',,,,,- 7- 4: P.,, 4; `. 4-.• 414. 41, 41 41V' ij ' AV' 71. P1, 1 ''''' ...*...`;'* ' Ar, ci,.. 44. 0. .., 1,„,,, , ,,,,,, r..,-;, f C.,'-, i. 4,,,„ 5''"' ' ' ''.:, z),.*:;,.,,'& T? 44 At:-*: 4i,' '''-',," C. 1 '• ral k., 447,: 44,* lit ti f,,;;', 4' t4 ! I,-.., 41':? t: E. ?,,, , ‘_, J., vA.,-,-.- 7,,,,-*„ r- : z., ,..,;.,.. W: ' ' , . .'"-", •,,',.• ', gel, e.. MF- 1.-. 4 7. , i:.; 1, 11x. , 1 '• '. .., 4.'. 1..), t• i„ p.. till fiat i0-'1.`';...„ 4..g';,.94'/.,,4 4#,,,•l)•' td4',;S,,o'_i...,... iV,.„..'.•4. I,',•,'' i r1%.t7';;,•-, 4,`it'v.:4',.4,. i.6•.'.0,,1/2':‘,. s'.',".1•.,L7,.•.,' 21..•,',..,",..4-4.4.-r,,,.,,A5'..."W,',,,'-,,,y,N'-.,,,,.,.,::,,,.,„..,."'-,.. PA..u-••.,<.4,-,.1.-4.'•,-. Y.-„'-/.1.-`-.c''-2.:'-',.:.,,,''.`S',.' A,,','.,$,.,,i'•: L'.-'t'.4r",..k.'',`i'I-l"h•,.4 7'..:4,..; 1-4,.,Pc.41-,, a:•.,` 1-:''a,“,r'.t.:Wa.:i'tA4:,,4.'..'1 o,2,,1 I,',1f;,, cI,'t,',,,' r'i'''.'.6',,'?.'' W,0'.v',a''.1.k',1,1k.4e.W't,:!'r1,a,", a','`k z,.',N1'„,{'-',oI' C,,.1' A'rl•',4`',„,,:,.i,,-,.''': A.'4.,,« I.":•,.0: 4,1"l0Y e,'4,:%4iX1I:•,L\ i:I.,e-r'.ts0l-" 4.,,:l:.:.',,.. 44exr'-i!i,4mi'.l.-Y?:-.,,''_,' A,A-,','-', o r,:t,s', 44"'.",r'-.^:4,.,i'.:O-„,$1-7,„4,4,A,t.,4-,7.,., v,:.,*7,t,,,4..• f'Y1:4.f. ng.,a,4t-..r.p?,.-•„,,,.',,-4-,:+.,4,'t.:.:„.......-4^.1;,i'-%t,-- 1,-4* A,•:-',"4r-0.,,,, 4*.1,•-;• 1-!-•1• 1,4, r.1,.,.'.,r4,4,4i'.:,.:-., 0-...',, er•,.. 4eu`•. 4,,,,,,, ss.• 7•,..i,1:..•.,.. 4.„''.,'•, F-,:•,%-'.-7,_.-.'•.,4',,.0,.";.4. 1;,,:..1...T,,444A,.r•.c/,",:. 1.,•.;.„'' 4,4•-,.,•.-',4,-•:4.,,-:.,.;:.,,,*,, f1..'-,%' Tg,,.,..,: e: V•.•,,,,,'g,:.',.,.,,.:0, 4..,,.,,-,,,. 4.r,,.,„i' r,--i:,;.,', V''.,:i,t- pr.,.'', i,,-1•."'.ji.'.-:..„.4,,.,,,•, 44,,-,W.•jk•,,-.,p.,„s1,,.•,'.,,'`,,,,, 4,‘' ci, t:,.„,iE.'*,—%,W.'4'-,.e...ir....'.-.-,. t4C•i.'.,,i;,,, 7'•;.,,..•1,•',;a,'4A p',t':'-e/,g',,t. 44.,;,44.-..:.4%%-.'„,4.r1-r'4-4';'.',- 0A..1i.k..,'.-'' 1,',- 4.,'-,,;.' 1.1', 4zf•,s/,.•.•1'•, y A4p.7..,.',. 5'1,. 4„-Ai,. 7,, S..,,,n,,',,,,,,. v,..,-•,,..., r.‘\-',.7... i...',.,".....,.4..„,...'4.4'','„-r,,•., i,.k,.‘-,'1.,: fr/,,:,"6,-,1 r.%,-.,, f,' i.'e',..:. t.;i,..;-,.,7, 0.1,• 2,,.g'.:,,',,,,,„ A.1,f',,,'.a,,_1,r,,.•''.,' bk., L'.,„.-, c,..,'- 44„'.,, 1.,.,,-,.'•' 7..1,,•,....w<,',;.;e.•,-441,,., t.,.,<4,., v.1-},:1, iQ',:k<4,,,,,,t',,,.',T!:i",,,'•.",-- p•,„i t.-. i-:i 4,g.,-•-:.,, l- l4 4-la.y.-.‘-'\•.,, I. y,;..Z.„i., 1V,A,.r•.,°,,, I; t,',;,...,„' i4"/.' 4m,`„.",g,,,..,,,"-,,., F,,',4.I,,,,,f?.#i7, ll,,t„ L.,,.-..'' 1.vi-'.•t'1•„ 1'./t..,;...t.,„'.,4.:.,‘li,.it„•, te'•..%,„y4'P'1,-,%'/'' r.2.'. i,.'. l...',,- r,,i,r':-i#.- tt..t-,0.."t.''.-.i,.,.t, A.,,if".b.i' y r A L'a•r,ql il';,t:e.'i1, R,4ee.:t.,'r.cvi,,,,.}..., t-.4.,.'•-•" ff,,:-,,4.'... j,.i‘ 4•„ k.t"„4*t A'r0l*„,''?.t,e,.,,..Aii,"7'",' M:,''.I''.•--1t.,`,; tC.r 4••.;.,.' 4..i..';,'i., I.:,C:•1,,,., I•°,,.1' C4,''tkt,;i,•,-'. 0 i.f,A•.;' 0,,„:',.-,,4,.e,y.', ie'.2.,'.,,'-..'-. t-.fi.'`, A,., J - jt iv,i .,••, v4-,.-', T•‘4-e.:.. 4I•,•,' t‘.. WiP-.-F.,.`-‘."•.:,v•.c.:•;,.1.,„t,,,ro0;p..-fL"•;-,,%,i„c;I,;t,.t..•;,4)..,„f.,w. i^',,: N1v,-;14g.;'':i,• to.,X,Ar.,i4 k--o,,,.4r,.6l.;r.,„1;.', F'-1,..-,•-. f-,,,'•,:,,,i,...; t r::',.,. t,o.,,t,0,."-l0„...-.0e'.*p.',,1.;,,‘.',... p,,4...4'.,e•,:,, 4.,_,-:--.,•.,' A-.,-,,,,0• 4',, p-.,,..,.4„,_<7,..'-.,,..'.,"! 4'„,V,0•..,.'.'.4l,T1:,..,'` A.1.'.e.,...„ tz':.. F'•..4-„iot',k',r-':x-P.T,''',.. w'i:,i'-.„I• 1,-.Ior.,,.'.' 1.. V..4'.,i••.-. 0..:-''i""..'A,..,-r. 14.•0,:,...'.,..,• r.. C2•<"-C,;•'a; TWF—_ 1'..-.. C'.4_D...S•4)4,44.4i c 1f4-'z4h2.4n7I0 iN f ' V '' 1 cZ_c4'i•• i•1•.•.°.• r-.rFYn'.0cac.a1ea0d..)s,s.:.. p loa44 t ,,,,. , ,,,,,,. - g.... A :, - I* tq, ., 1%;, . i':-. 1 -'''' 1 n ,,, p, i, •. k ' .' ' r-. 4: 4' 7-.--': i'':` , r,, o- st... r•-,- 4.- wir,..-.. ..' :- ' t' 1,,,,,,,,,.,,,,„:: xs,....... 14,, „,,,,, 1 , V,,,..:",,.‘* N itr ' Jr.% :..-' !,..^. 4..,-( 4, 4,,, f4-_,,- " ' I,* , ..-" Arx ' 4, , if .,..,• ',.."^ - th ''' V''' 1) F,' 4 •• ' f tk.',' 1, 1.‘..,!/ 4. 1r0- . f;,.. . si„ r 4, 4„ iv, r , F,-- i ( 21: kfg i •,., ,. I A v,,,, 4- :.. . . • Is „( 7,., , t,,-`;',, V• , 7,-,.',. i• 4, 4, 01.,, A_ s- , 4t, ; Or;,;•,.„. .* 4 ,,,, i;' il- J, ,,, .•-, 0 ,,,, i,,,;,, 14, r, t4,-. 1!' '''''' '% .' 9. r*** AL: ' T• 4S'''% 5 '-'''' c-`,- , i' v i o 4,'' • i. 1 ` t •-•,":,,' , T`'-'( 4. 0" . 5. - ' C'"" g• 1, 4" , 31. • " T ;-' ril- 4 A 4., . c..., ". r• Ott.. t 74`, 1„ t.•.! ..,. „._.•,, g. s# ,. 7•,:.,,'-`‘.._ , i..,,,-• 4 kr.,.• • Tip.,„-, 4.- 4,-,- 1) ,..,,_> Z:,., v, ,, i•,••,,, j,.,,,. „,,.. do., , . _,,, ,., (. 1, cria„ 414:;, t-- L.,. •„ i„, ,.. 4- 4k ,• ', ikt.';'," ' ,- F,."' • tv; •-•:• sTA,,',.,•::,,..,',. 4-4 4,.?' 411. • uur 7, 1. 4.. ....:.. iti r M itt J.. ‘,;, _ k ,, ,,.,/ , d' 9 ' 4, r11)....... 1 trZ... tr. i' ' ilittfri4, w4....., 1 , .. ,,..: „...., ti. y ....,:-..... . L,. .. 1 s cx ) xV.Li.27 l_i:.. ` -- ` W~ YC.39 4111= e_-' c x 2;,2: 3.9 4. 73-1;2-77--I-- t, ,\ \ \ mil 1 _ 1 \ 1 4), I 1 \ 1 / L :,..-:::;,„'..%;, 21-.2.-:\.,, \ \\ \ II \ \ 1 if,/////;4M 41111111r411111111WW 44Ale : 1\::-\11:\\\:\ t‘ V\ I:\ 111, 4141////iiiri/iji:////1,5 xl Ili NI" to A,i,'„etit'\\:,\:,,\?,,,,„-k,;:,,-„-,,,,,, x 1?7E1 imintrati N,\\Mggi 3 .41104aililipoNNipl 40,, :--''.'1044Adirfrip, Af...- i l' Ig011i f 9.31Eif ltilitXJ13.5jS 1=.10gill 19.69 1 \ 4It 7, I 1/1 i % 1) x 19.50 IP 20 1.3) 10 2.-,. 1 c i „ 4#11) C IN 77 9.C.'.4244e2°.44 O.:. 00 14. 13.93 I' 20.36 1 y.9^ X Ilk! Q O.,' Ilk di". 11 37 15... X. : 1. f '' 2.:3 7`l 1 / _ J.4? J_= I F.1. , as I 44. 2ri.G: lib..I/ 11a.10 p t ',I ; 9 r: ei,r 19.3? 18.1; eir IQ 57. X zo.a_ 311 r;; 22.a7 5. h 20.97 S9 2V D3 lPr ‘ 13.47 20-, mayN x Figure 4: im Contours (98-M-4) 0 150' 300' 0 Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning 1 : 1 ,800 Q T. Schlepp, P pT. h1e1998 MacOnie Parcels considered for redesignation May Additional parcels under study fx,e. j ! ir . rg4: K+ti u5: : vx:."r+ : v .A rJ r '!+ _ r":Y I.. _ •:; . r .w•y.1.i+" i .Tl Y"'`- .. w' 11:retit:i:-•, f"i^:! ti" 4,1:*T:w .• -. ,tit i f.. . t . ;.+ 4rv..wKt, N . - Ti4j2.v 4/:70- ti+: ' .i+ hfe -.T . wY.41 S t. 7 tt!.li. a e•• '.F74yice• 1 k a/-u u [ / e;ff fracomie, CITY OF RENTON 3300 Hanle\:,u,, Penton,\i',{9s05 August 4, 1997 AUG O 8 Phone(425) 22r..r 1997 • Fa_•<(425i.22s•s2: Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue S. RECEIVED ITY CLERK'S OFFICE Renton,WA. 98055 Attn: Renton City Council Dear Council Members: Recently,while attempting to add additional parking at our corporate office complex on Maple Valley Hwy., we discovered that the zoning designation for our property had been changed to Convenience Commercial (CC)thus restricting us from any expansion of our existing complex. The corporate office was structured in 1990 and at that time the zoning was B-1 that outright permitted the office complex and associated parking. Under the present zoning, offices are listed as conditional uses with predetermined restrictions that render our existing office building as a non-conforming use/structure. The current code restricts the size of offices to 3,000 gross square feet. The Taco Time office building is 7,792 square feet, with an accessory storage building of 1,920 square feet. Parking is also significantly restricted (one space for every 500 square foot of gross floor area). Presently Taco Time has 30 spaces but is seeking approval to add 24 spaces in order to accommodate the additional need that occurs three to four times a month,when meetings involving franchise owners, restaurant managers or employee training sessions are held. Presently, when these meetings/seminars occur, parking overflows onto the surrounding residential neighborhood, which is an impact we had hoped to mitigate. Presently the Tonkin family, under the Accord Inc., leases the property along Maple Valley 1-Iwy, between Monroe Ave. SE, and Maplewood Street. We are considering developing the lot furthest east, and had hoped to use the property between this lot and the existing Taco Time office for parking. The proposed development would have a landscaped buffer between our property and the residential area: which would not only buffer the residences from the parking area but also from Maple Valley Highway. During the seven years since we have relocated our corporate offices to its present location,our restaurant growth has been steady. We are already feeling the pinch for the office space necessary to accommodate the growing corporate staff needed to,support our restaurants. We are discussing plans to expand our office in order to accommodate our growing needs, but unfortunately due to the present zoning restrictions, such an expansion would be prohibited. This restriction is presenting severe consequences for our business. We believe that the location of our corporate office is an improvement and a benefit to Renton and the surrounding neighborhood. We have never received complaints regarding our business operation from the neighborhood, and in fact we are considered to be a good neighbor. The Tonkin family are long time residents of Renton and take pride in maintaining an attractive, successfully managed office complex. It is discouraging to know that the restrictions that are ATTACHMENT A now imposed on our property limits the Taco Time Corporation from expanding and in essence, make the existing development a non-conforming use and structure. We are requesting that Section 4-31-10.5 of the Zoning Code be re-evaluated for its actual impact on existing business. We strongly believe that the present zoning places unreasonable restrictions on our business and potential redevelopment of properties zoned CC that exist along*Maple Valley Hwy. Sincerely, Mathew E.Tonkin President cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Mr. Mike Katterman Local Project Review 36.70B.160 project permit issued by a local government. [1995 c 347 § that upon government approval the project may proceed in accordance with 420.] existing policies and regulations,and subject to conditions of approval.all as set forth in a development agreement,will strengthen the public planning process,encourage private participation and comprehensive planning, and 36.70B.170 Development agreements--Authorized. reduce the economic costs of development. Further,the lack of public 1) A local government may enter into a development facilities and services is a serious impediment to development of new housing and commercial uses. Project applicants and local governmentsagreementwithapersonhavingownershiporcontrolofreal may include provisions and agreements whereby applicants are reimbursed property within its jurisdiction. A city may enter into a over time for financing public facilities. It is the intent of the legislature by development agreement for real property outside its bound- RCW 36.7013.170 through 36.70B 210 to allow local governments and aries as part of a proposed annexation or a service owners and developers of real property to enter into development agree- agreement. A development agreement must set forth the menu." [1995 c 347 § SUI.] development standards and other provisions that shall apply to and govern and vest the development, use, and mitigation 36.70B.180 Development agreements—Effect. of the development of the real property for the duration Unless amended or terminated. a development agreement is specified in the agreement. A development agreement shall enforceable during its term by a party to the agreement. A be consistent with applicable development regulations development agreement and the development standards in the adopted by a local government planning under chapter agreement govern during the term of the agreement, or for 36.70A RCW. all or that part of the build-out period specified in the 2) RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.190 and section agreement, and may not be subject to an amendment to a 501, chapter 347, Laws of 1995 do not affect the validity of zoning ordinance or development standard or regulation or a contract rezone, concomitant agreement, annexation a new zoning ordinance or development standard or regula- agreement, or other agreement in existence on July 23, 1995, tion adopted after the effective date of the agreement. A or adopted under separate authority, that includes some or all permit or approval issued by the county or city after the of the development standards provided in subsection (3) of execution of the development agreement must be consistent this section. with the development agreement. [1995 c 347 § 503.] 3) For the purposes of this section, "development Findings--Intent-1995 c 347§§502-506: See note following RCW standards" includes, but is not limited to: 36.708.170. a) Project elements such as permitted uses, residential densities, and nonresidential densities and intensities or 36.70B.190 Development agreements—Recording— building sizes; Parties and successors bound. A development agreement b)The amount and payment of impact fees imposed or shall be recorded with the real property records of the county agreed to in accordance with any applicable provisions of in which the property is located. During the term of the state law, any reimbursement provisions, other financial development agreement, the agreement is binding on the contributions by the property owner, inspection fees, or parties and their successors, including a city that assumes dedications; jurisdiction through incorporation or annexation of the area c) Mitigation measures, development conditions, and covering the property covered by the development agree- other requirements under chapter 43.21C RCW; ment. [1995 c 347 § 504.) d) Design standards such as maximum heights, set- Findings—Intent-1995 c 347§§502-506: See note following RCW backs,drainage and water quality requirements, landscaping, 36.70B.170. and other development features; e) Affordable housing; 36.70B.200 Development agreements—Public f) Parks and open space preservation; hearing. A county or city shall only approve a development g) Phasing; agreement by ordinance or resolution after a public hearing. h) Review procedures and standards for implementing The county or city legislative body or a planning commis- decisions; sion, hearing examiner, or other body designated by the i) A build-out or vesting period for applicable Stan- legislative body to conduct the public hearing may conduct dards; and the hearing. If the development agreement relates to a pro- j) Any other appropriate development requirement or ject permit application, the provisions of chapter 36.70C procedure.RCW shall apply to the appeal of the decision on the 4) The execution of a development agreement is a development agreement. [1995 c 347 § 505.] proper exercise of county and city police power and contract Findings--Intent-1995 c 347§§502-506: See note following RC\V authority. A development agreement may obligate a party 36.70B.170.. to fund or provide services, infrastructure, or other facilities. A development agreement shall reserve authority to impose 36.70B.210 Development agreements—Authority to new or different regulations to the extent required by a impose fees not extended. Nothing in RCW 36.70B.170 serious threat to public health and safety. [1995 c 347 § through 36.70B.200 and section 501, chapter 347, Laws of 502.] 1995 is intended to authorize local governments to impose Findings—Intent-1995 c 347 §§ 502.506: "The legislature finds impact fees, inspection fees, or dedications or to require any that the lack of ccrainty in the approval of development projects can result other financial contributions or mitigation measures except in a waste of public and private resources,escalate housing costs for as expressly authorized by other applicable provisions•ofconsumersanddiscouragethecommitmenttocomprehensiveplanning state law. [1995 c 347 § 506.)which would make maximum efficient use of resources at the least economic cost to the public. Assurance to a development project applicant Findings—Intent-1995 c 347§§502.506: See note following RC\V 36.708.170. 1996 Ed.)Title 36 RCW—page 185) ATTACHMENT B At. ATTACHMENT C DRAFT#3 - 9/1/98 PROPOSED CONTENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL(CA) ZONE-MAPLE VALLEY HWY PARTIES This agreement made and entered into this day of 1999, by and between the City of Renton. a municipal corporation of the state of Washington, and and and and owners of parcels of property within the area covered by this development agreement. RECITALS WHEREAS, there are existing commercial uses generally in the area north of Maple Valley Highway at the intersections of Monroe Avenue S.E. and Maplewood Place S.E.; and WHEREAS, those commercial uses and related property are presently zoned Convenience Commercial (CC)or Residential - 8 Dwelling Units Per Acre (R-8); and WHEREAS, the owner of the building presently housing the Taco Time corporate offices has indicated a desire to expand those headquarters: and WHEREAS. the Convenience Commercial zone will not accommodate such expansion; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Renton. Washington believes that such expansion can be accommodated pursuant to a development agreement as authorized in RCW Chapter 36.70B.170 through 210; and WHEREAS, the parties have negotiated the proposed development agreement: and WHEREAS, that development agreement has been presented at a public hearing before the Planning Commission held on the day of 1998; and WHEREAS. the City Council has taken into account the public comment presented at that public hearing and the Planning Commission recommendations; and WHEREAS. the development agreement has been reviewed and approved by the City Council of the City of Renton, Washington; and WHEREAS. the draft development agreement appears to be in the best interests of the citizens of the City of Renton. Washington; NOW.THEREFORE. the parties do agree as follows: SECTION 1. AUTHORITY Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170(1), the City and persons with ownership or control of real property are authorized to enter into a development agreement setting forth development standards and any other provisions that shall apply to, govern, and vest the development, use, and mitigation of the development of the real property for the duration of such development agreement. ATTACHMENT C DRAFT#3 -9/1/98 SECTION 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY Legal description to be provided] SECTION 3. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Permitted Uses The following uses are permitted within the subject property provided necessary development permits arc wed. See Section 5 regarding development permit requirements. 1.Primary Uses: a.Retail: 1) Books, music, stationery and art supplies. 2) Building, hardware and garden materials (including small trees, shrubs, flowers, supplies and tools within an enclosed area). 3) Eating and drinking establishments. 4) Flowers,plants and floral supplies. 5) Food and groceries. 6) Mini-marts. 7) Newsstands. 8) Office and business supplies. 9) Pharmacies and drug stores. 10) Video sales and rentals. b.Services: 1) Small vehicle service and repair, existing, legal. 2) Business services, including retail computer services, retail printing and xerography. 3) Family day care, day care centers, and adult day care/health programs. 4) Financial and real estate. 5) Laundromats. 6) Parks, new and existing neighborhood, community and regional; new and existing trails and open spaces. 7) Personal services such as barber shop,beauty parlor. 8) Pet shop and grooming. 9) Photography and photographic reproduction. 10) Professional and business schools. 11) Veterinary clinics without outside kennels,runs or stables. 12) Shoe repair. 13) Offices: Offices including administrative headquarters, business, medical and dental,personal and professional. c.Utilities, small. 2 ATTACHMENT C DRAFT#3-9/1/98 2.Secondary Uses Permitted Subject To Conditions: a.Professional And Business Services: 1) Size and location will be reviewed as part of site plan approval. b.Art, Dance, Music: Schools and studios for art, crafts, photography, dance and music: 1) No outdoor facilities or storage. 2) Retail sales of products or merchandise produced on the premises providing the sales area does not exceed thirty three percent (33%) of the gross floor area of the use. c.Temporary Uses: Temporary use, as defined and regulated in RMC Section 1 31 190 Title IV. 3.Accessory Uses: In the Arterial Commercial Zone, tThe following uses are allowed where incidental to a permitted primary or secondary use and shall not exceed thirty three percent(33%) of the gross floor area: a.Food Preparation: Food preparation, for on-site sales purposes only. b.Hand-Crafted Items: Hand crafting of products, for on-site sales purposes only. c.Warehousing: Warehousing and storage of products in conjunction with retail sales; storage of supplies in conjunction with service and office uses. d.Recycling/Collection Stations: Recycling collection stations; provided, the structure is not located within any required setback and/or landscaped area. 4.Administrative Conditional Uses: a.Hobby Kennels b.Veterinary Clinics, with outside kennels,runs or stables. c.Utilities, medium. 5.Hearing Examiner Conditional Uses: a.Community Facilities b.Convalescent centers and nursing homes. c.Wholesale and retail horticultural nurseries. d.Utilities, large. e.Feed stores. f.Churches, synagogues and temples. g.Service clubs and organizations. 6.Wireless Communication Facilities. Wireless communication facilities may be allowed pursuant to RMC Chapter 4 38, Ordinances 4666 and 1689 Title IV, in effect at the time of this agreement or as thereafter amended. B. Prohibited Uses Any use not specifically listed as primary, secondary, accessory or conditional use shall be prohibited; except those uses determined by the Zoning Administrator to be: 1) in keeping with the purpose and 3 ATTACHMENT C DRAFT#3 -9/1/98 intent of the Zone this Agreement; and 2) similar in nature to a specifically listed primary, secondary accessory or conditional use. C. Site Development Standards The following development standards apply to all the subject properties,except where provisions indicate applicability to only certain identified parcels. Development shall be subject to any other applicable development standards or requirements of the Renton Municipal Code not otherwise specified.= 1.Setbacks: Setbacks in the CA Zone shall be required as follows: a.Front — Street Setback: A minimum setback of ten feet (10') is required. The minimum setback may be reduced down to zero feet (0') through the site plan review process provided that blank walls are not located within the reduced setback. b.Rear And Side — Interior Setbacks: None shall be required except as listed in special requirements provisions below in subsection lc, Special Requirements. c.Special Requirements: If a CA lot abuts or is adjacent to a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-14 or RM-I, then there shall be a fifteen foot (15') setback subject to the landscaping provisions in subsection 4c(1) or c(2). Landscaping Improvements,of this Section. 2.Height: a.Limits: In no case shall building height exceed the limits specified in Title IV, Section 4 31 17, Airport Zoning Height Restrictions, of the Renton Municipal Code, in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended.. b.General: A maximum of fifty feet(50'). thirty-five feet(35'). c.Special Height Allowances: A conditional use permit or other land use permit may not authorize an exceedance of the maximum height standard. 3.Lot Coverage: Lot coverage for buildings are listed below: a.Lot coverage for buildings shall not exceed sixty five percent (65%) of the total lot area. b.Lot coverage may be increased up to seventy five percent (75%) of the total lot area if parking is provided within the building or within a parking garage. 4.Landscaping/Improvements: a.Street Frontage: Lots abutting public streets shall have a minimum landscaping strip of ten feet(10'), except where reduced through the site plan review process. b.Pedestrian Connection: A pedestrian connection shall be provided from a public entrance to the street unless the reviewing official determines that the requirement would unduly endanger the pedestrian. 4 ATTACHMENT C DRAFT#3-9/1/98 c.Special Requirements: 1) CA Lot is Adjacent to Residentially Zoned Lot: If the CA lot is adjacent to a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-14 or RM-I, then there shall be a minimum fifteen foot (15') sight-obscuring landscaped strip. The Hearing Examiner may modify the sight-obscuring provision through the site plan review process in order to provide reasonable access to the property. If the CA lot is adjacent to Maplewood Park, modifications to sight obscuring landscaping shall be allowed where appropriate to ensure adequate visibility for purposes of public safety. If the Street is designated arterial in the Transportation Element of the City Comprehensive Plan, nonsight-obscuring landscaping shall be provided unless otherwise determined by the Hearing Examiner through • the site plan review process. These provisions may be modified by the Hearing Examiner through the site plan review process where the applicant can show that the same or better results will occur because of creative design solutions, unique aspects or use,etc.,that cannot be fully anticipated at this time. 2) CA Lot Abuts Residentially Zoned Lot: If the CA lot abuts a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-14 or RM-I, then there shall be a fifteen foot(15')landscaped visual barrier consistent with the definition in RMC geetieft--4-34-2-iii-effeet-et-tlie-tinie-ef-this-egfeement-er-as-thefeafter amended. A ten foot (10') sight-obscuring landscaping strip e allo ea tw-eugh the site plan e idea that shall be provided.asaav.c.0 cauvcc- Ae solid six foot(6') high barrier wall provided-shall also be provided and located within the landscaped strip_Aan-a maintenance agreement or easement for the landscape strip is shall be secured. A solid barrier wall shall not be located closer than five feet(5') to an abutting lot zoned R-1,R-5,R-8,R-10,R-14 or RM-I. These provisions may be modified by the Hearing Examiner through the site plan review process where the applicant can show that the same or better results will occur because of creative design solutions, unique aspects or use,etc.,that cannot be fully anticipated at this time. 3) Screening of Outdoor Activities: If the CA lot abuts or is adjacent to a lot zoned R-1, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-14 or RM-I, then all outdoor ctoragc, loading,repair, maintenance or work areas shall be screened by a fence, or landscaping, or a lanscaped berm, or some combination thereof as determined by the reviewing official to achieve adequate visual or acoustical screening. Loading docks shall not be located adjacent to or abutting a lot zoned R-1,R-5,R-8,R-10,R-14 or RM-I. These provisions may be modified by the Hearing Examiner through the site plan review process where the applicant can show that the same or better results will occur because of creative design solutions, unique aspects or use,etc.,that cannot be fully anticipated at this time. 4) Location of Refuse Containers: Garbage, refuse or dumpster areas shall not be located within fifty feet(50') of a lot zoned R-1, R-5,R-8,R- 5 ATTACHMENT C DRAFT#3-9/1/98 10, R-14 or RM-I except by approval of the Hearing Examiner through the site plan review process. In no case shall the garbage, refuse or dumpster area be located within the required setback. d.Timing of Landscape Improvements: 1) For the Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop properties, King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900326 and 5126900327, proposed developments which meets Or exceeds current State Environmental Policy Act threshold requirements are to trigger imposition of landscape requirements of subsection 4c(1) and (2) above. Imposition of the requirements of subsections 4c(3) and (4) will be determined during consideration of building, site plan or environmental review applications by the reviewing official. where appropriate to • address the potential visual and compatibility effects of the specific development request. 2) For the Taco Time properties and adjacent three lots, King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900195, 5126900200, 5126900205, 5126900211, 5126900215. and 1623059017, the landscape requirements of subsection c(1)and(2)shall be applied at the time of: a) Any building demolition requiring a building permit; and/or b) Building construction which expands the footprint of current buildings or adds additional buildings on site:and/or c) Parking stall additions/reconfigurations which add parking/access areas to portions of properties which, at the time of this agreement, do not have improved parking/access surfaces. For any other development applications. landscape requirements of subsection 4c above shall be applied during consideration of building, site plan or environmental review applications by the reviewing official, where appropriate to address the potential visual and compatibility effects of the specific development request. 3) The landscaping provisions of subsection 4c above for the remaining properties subiect to the agreement shall be required, during consideration of building. site plan or environmental review applications by the reviewing official, where appropriate. to address the potential visual and compatibility effects of the specific development request. 5.Surface Mounted Equipment: All on-site surface mounted utility equipment shall be screened from public view. 6.Roof-Top Equipment: All operating equipment located on the roof of any building shall be enclosed so as to be shielded from view, except for telecommunication equipment. 6 ATTACHMENT C DRAFT#3-9/1/98 7.Outdoor storage: a.Permitted outdoor storage must be screened from adjacent or abutting properties and public rights-of-way. Outdoor storage uses shall provide fencing, berming, and/or landscaping as determined by the reviewing official to achieve adequate visual or acoustical screening. b.Products or bulk materials covered by buildings with roofs but without sides shall be considered outside storage and subject to the screening provisions of this Section. 8.Refuse And Recyclables Collection and Storage: All recyclables collection and storage, garbage, refuse or dumpsters contained within specified areas shall be screened, except for access points,by a fence or landscaping or some combination thereof. 9.Access for Taco Time Corporate Properties: Access for the three parcels east of Taco Time's existing corporate offices, King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900195, 5126900200, 5126900205, shall be through the existing or future Taco Time development, and not from Newport Ave SE.(SE 6th St.) D. Site Plan Review. 1.For the Taco Time properties and adjacent three lots, King County Property Identification Numbers 5126900195, 5126900200, 5126900205, 5126900211, 5126900215, and 1623059017, site plan review is required for any size development or redevelopment. a.Development proposals which are categorically exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act shall be subject to the administrative site plan review process. b.Development proposals which are not categorically exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act shall be subject to the Hearing Examiner site plan review process. 2.Site plan review may be required for other properties subject to this agreement which are not listed in subsection 1 above, according to standard Renton Municipal Code thresholds. 4.EFFECT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Unless amended or terminated, the development agreement is enforceable during its term by a party to the agreement. The development agreement and development standards in the agreement shall govern during the term of the agreement. The agreement may not be subject to a new zoning ordinance or an amendment to a zoning ordinance or development standard adopted after the effective date of the agreement, unless otherwise provided in the agreement. Any permit or approval issued by the City after the execution of the agreement must be consistent with the development agreement. ATTACHMENT C DRAFT#3 -9/1/98 5.EFFECT OF OTHER CITY REGULATIONS • A. Definitions The definitions of RMC 4 31 2 Title IV in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended, shall apply to interpretation of permitted uses and site development standards provided in this development agreement. B. Parking The Parking and Loading regulations of RMC 41 11 Title IV in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended, shall apply to this development agreement. C. Environmental Review/Sensitive Areas Where applicable, all development shall comply with all environmental review and sensitive area regulations, including, but not limited to, Greenbelt Regulations, Wetlands Management, Aquifer Protection, Landscaping, Shoreline Master Program, Flood Hazards, and Environmental Ordinance SEPA),fetaeetivel-y-Seetio4-34-2A-C—litater-.4427-Ghesef_g_gl_see.tienitijater_449rseetieft 4 31 31; and Chapter 4 6 addressed in Title IV and Title VIII of the Renton Municipal Code which are in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended. D. Signs The Sign Code, RMC Chapte. ^ 20 Title IV, in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended, shall apply to this development agreement. E. Other Development Regulations and Permits Development shall be subject to any other applicable development standards or requirements not otherwise specified in this agreement including, but not limited to, permit process requirements, impact fees, mitigation measures, development conditions, street and utility regulations and specifications, subdivision regulations, and health and sanitation regulations, which are in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended. SECTION 6. AUTHORITY RESERVED Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170(4) the City reserves its authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to public health and safety. SECTION 7. RECORDING Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.190, this development agreement shall be recorded with the real property records of King County. During the term of the development agreement, the agreement is binding on the parties and their successors. SECTION 8. TERM This development agreement runs in perpetuity with the subject properties, unless amended or rescinded by the City Council in accordance with the procedures of Section 9 below. The parties of this development agreement agree to evaluate the agreement periodically, but not less than every ten years. Where appropriate, periodic review of the development agreement shall generally coincide with the 8 ATTACHMENT C DRAFT#3 -9/1/98 City's evaluation of its entire Comprehensive Plan every ten years,pursuant to RMC Section 4 3 2F Title N in effect at the time of this agreement, or as thereafter amended. SECTION 9. AMENDMENT The provisions of this agreement may only be amended with the mutual consent of the parties. No additions or alterations of the terms of this agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and formally approved and executed by the duly authorized agents of all parties. The City shall consider amendments to the development agreement after a public hearing by the designated hearing body, and any amendments shall be adopted by ordinance or resolution of the City Council. DEVAG998.DOC ZONE COMPARISON SUMMARY ATTACHMENT D ZONE. To To ZONING 2 L L 4) C a) d a) E E -- :• USE TABLE #1 o E E U 0 U < 0 4 USES: CC CA Development Agreement Notes AGRICULTURE, RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND'ANIMAL KEEPING; Kennels, Hobby AD AD Veterinary offices/clinics no ext. kennels, runs or stables P P Veterinary offices w/kennels, runs or stables AD AD Horticultural nurseries (wholesale/retail)H H Nursery or greenhouse H H Mineral/natural resource recovery H H Single family (existing legal) P Multi-family E du/ac maximum s Multi-family 20 du/ac maximum s Group homes I P/H Group homes II, for 7 or more H Hotels and motels P RETAIL SALES` :.> Apparel and accessories P Appliances s Auto supplies P Books, music, stationery, art supply P P Building, hardware, garden materials P P Department and variety- P Drug store P P Eating &drinking establishments P P P Fabrics and related supplies P Feed stores H H Flowers, plants, and floral supplies s P P Food P P Furniture s Groceries— P P Hobbies, toys, games P Home fumishings s Jewelry P Liquor stores P Mini-marts P P P Monuments, tombstones, &gravestones AD News-stands S P P Office & business supplies, computers P P (except for computers) Personal medical supplies P P=Primary Use S=Secondary Use AD=Administrative Cond.Use H=Hearing Examiner Cond.Use X=Specifically Prohibited Blank=Not Allowed Page 1 3/26/98 ZONE COMPARISON SUMMARY ATTACHMENT D s mc ._ ZONING WLS GI) USE TABLE #1 a E o a U V U Q U < USES:CC CA Development Agreement Notes Pharmacies P P Photographic and electronic supplies P Sporting goods P Taverns P Used goods and antiques P CULTURAL, ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATIONAL Open space (new) H P P Open space (existing) P P P Park, playground or rec./comm. center H H Parks, Regional (new) H P P Parks, Regional (existing) P P P Parks, Community (new) H P P Parks, Community(existing) P P P Parks, Neighborhood (new) s P P Parks, Neighborhood (existing) P P P Trails (new) H P P Trails (existing) P P P Adult entertainment business s Adult motion picture studios s Adult motion picture theaters s Amusement arcades P Amusement parks H Bowling alleys (centers) P Card Rooms s Dance halls and cabarets P Gambling casinos/games of chance/bingo (not for profit)H Outdoor commercial rec. or entertainment uses H Peep shows, panoramas s Sports arenas, auditoriums, exhibit. halls P Theaters — P Theaters, drive-in P Library or museum, public or non-profit H H OFFICE AND:CONFERENCE .> Personal AD E P (For CA zone administrative determinations allow Professional AD P P offices as similar to professional/business services Administrative headquarters E P and other permitted uses. A formal CA zone Business E P amendment will clarify this.) Medical and dental P P P=Primary Use S=Secondary Use AD=Administrative Cond.Use H=Hearing Examiner Cond.Use X=Specifically Prohibited Blank=Not Allowed Page 2 3/26/98 ZONE COMPARISON SUMMARY ATTACHMENT D Tcr d ZONING d d o USE TABLE #1 0 E 0r a U 0Q C? 4 USES: CC CA Development Agreement Notes SERVICES Auction houses P Barber shops P ,P P Beauty shops P P P Business services, general Pis PIS Cemetery, crematory, columbarium, mausoleum H H Computer services (retail) P P Financial and real estate P P Funeral homes P Health clubs/fitness centers/sports clubs P Laundromats s P P Personal service P P Pers. svcs. barber shops/beauty parlors P P Pet shop and grooming P P Photography & photo reprod. P P Printing, xerography(retail)P P Professional services s s Professional sports teams/promoters P Rental services,with outside storage s Rental services, no outside storage P Video rentals and sales s P P Electrical repair P Shoe re air P E P (to be added to CA zone generally) Television repair P Upholstery repair P Watches/jewelry repair P Family day care P P P Day care centers P P P Adult day care I, maximum 4 on residential property • P P P Adult day care I, maximum 12 on non-residential property P P P Adult day care II, 5+ on residential property P P P Adult day care II, 13+ on non-residential property P P P Convalescent centers& nursing homes H H Hospitals H Hospitals, sanitarium or similar uses H H P=Primary Use S=Secondary Use AD=Administrative Cond.Use H=Hearing Examiner Cond.Use X=Specifically Prohibited Blank=Not Allowed Page 3 3/26/98 ZONE COMPARISON SUMMARY ATTACHMENT D ZONE a, euTti ZONING c .E o USE TABLE #1 0 0 0 a c C? 0 0 < U < USES: CC CA Development Agreement Notes TRANSPORTATIONSE. ., ICES AND MANUFACTURED HOME Automobile, boat, motorcycle leasing P Automobile, boat, motorcycle rental P Automobile, boat, motorcycle sales p Automobile, motorcycle, passenger truck sales p Automobile leasing p Automobile rental p Small vehicle service and repair P P (existing legal only) Body shops H Bus terminals, taxi headquarters AD Car washes p Gasoline service stations s Gas station w/associated small vehicle service and repair AD Gas stations w/mini-marts AD s Gas station w/one self-service drive-thru car wash AD Parking garage, commercial s Parking lots, commercial s Public parking s RV sales, leasing, rental p Transit centers H Truck/RV/bus sales s Large vehicle service and repair AC Uses determined by the Zoning Administrator that directly support dealerships s Helipads, accessory to primary use H STORAGE Self-storage, 1 story, 1 building H MANUFACTURING AND 1NDUSTRlALt: Labs: grinding & assembly of optical lens eyeglasses s Labs: medical, dental s Research, development&testing s Assembly and packaging of: Computer AC Electronics AC P=Primary Use S=Secondary Use AD=Administrative Coed.Use H=Hearing Examiner Cond.Use X=Specifically Prohibited Blank=Not Allowed Page 4 3/26/93 ZONE COMPARISON SUMMARY ATTACHMENT D ZONE men To ZONING E e w — o E E. . USE TABLE #1 0 0 0 r a cri 0 0 0 < 0 < USES: CC CA Development Agreement Notes Lt mfg., assembly, finishing & warehousing of: Prefabricated parts&finished parts H Solid Waste/Recycling Recycling center H Recycling collection station AD AC AC Recycling drop or collection centers H COMMERCIAUINDUSTRIAL f ACCESSORY.USES Apparel, fabric& leather goods fabrication AC AC Computer& electron. assemb. & packaging AC Food preparation AC AC AC Handcrafting of items/products AC AC AC clarification that storage Is allowed with permitted Storage of products in conjunction service and office uses to be added generally to w/retail sales, service or office uses AC AC CA zone) PUBLIC:iFACILITIES AND.SERVICES Government offices and facilities H H Churches, synagogues,temples H H H Service clubs and organizations H H H Community facilities . S S/H H Community meeting hall Philanthropic institution H H Private club, fraternal or non-profit organization H H Public utility use or structure H H Utilities, small P P P Utilities, medium AD AD AD Utilities, large H H H Comm. broadcast& relay towers H H Radio or teevision transmitter H H Telegraph &other communication H Wireless communication facilities: Micro facility antennas P P P Mini facility antennas P/AD P/AD P/AD Macro faciy antennas P/AD P/AD P/AD Monopole I support structures AD/H P/AD P/AD Monopole II support structures X/H wAD X/AD Lattice towers support structures X/H X/AD X/AD P=Primary Use S=Secondary Use AD=Administrative Cond.Use H=Hearing Examiner Cond.Use X=Specifically Prohibited Blank=Not Allowed Page 5 3/26/96 ZONE COMPARISON SUMMARY ATTACHMENT D d u ZONING C o EE USE TABLE #1 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 < 0 < USES: CC CA Development Agreement Notes Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P P P M. SCHOOLS=PUBLIC AND PRIVATE Educational institution (public or private) H H School, elementary (existing) P School, elementary (new) H School, secondary (existing) P School, secondary (new) H Portables (existing) P Portables (new, up to four) s Change in use for existing school H School expansion up to 10% School expansion more than 10% H Schools &studios for art, crafts, photography, dance, music s s Business and professional schools P P Special schools: tech./indust. processes H MISC USES:ANO;MODIFICAT.IONS.:TO. ::...., DEVELOPMENT:STOS Heights exceeding the maximum height of 50' H Increases (minor) over the max. area per use of 5,000 gsf. AD Increases (major) over the max. area per use of 5,000 gsf. H Temporary uses s s s Primary Use S=Secondary Use AD=Administrative Cond.Use H=Hearing Examiner Cond.Use X=Specifically Prohibited Blank=Not Allowed Page 6 3/26/98 2 . z cITY OF:RNTON. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION INTERPRETATION/POLICY DECISION MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION: 4-31-10.4B2(c), Commercial Arterial Zone REFERENCE: NA SUBJECT: Permissibility of office uses and office buildings in the Commercial Arterial CA) Zone BACKGROUND: We have received an inquiry regarding the permissibility of construction of a new office buildinc in the Commercial Arterial Zone. The Commercial Arterial Zone permits ''professional and Business Services" as secondary uses but does not define these terms. Office uses are not specifically listed. Section 4-31-10.4(C1) of the Zoning Code allows the Zoning Administrator to make determinations regarding the permissibility of uses not specifically listed in the new zoning code--provided the use is "in keeping with the purpose and intent of the zone and similar in nature to a specifically listed Permitted, Secondary, Accessory or Conditional Use. JUSTIFICATION: The purpose of the CA Zone is to "provide suitable environments for strip commercial development. The CA Zone provides for a wide variety of retail sales and personal/professional services primarily oriented to automobile traffic along designated major arterial streets". Objective EA- 9.2 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan states: Secondary uses in the Employment Area Commercial designation should allow a mix of uses, including office, multi-family, and light industrial, with the primary use being retail'. One purpose of the zoning code is to regulate the type and intensity of uses to ensure compatibility with uses on surrounding properties. The question of whether office buildings are allowed in the CA Zone is not a matter of use, but rather of development standards. A "retail building" could be converted to an "office building" and vice versa without changing the external structure or appearance. However, the type of use allowed in a particular buildingis governed by the list of allowed uses in a zone. In the case of the CA Zone, personal services financial and real estate services are listed as primary uses and professional and business services are listed as secondary. The examples cited here are often located in an office building of one style or another. DECISIOht:- The Commercial Arterial (CA) Zone allows for office uses and office buildings that comply with the development standards and list of permitted uses for that zone. DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: e e, L--- DATE: APPROVAL: 1c^,ll L DATE: 6 - :2-c - c- ATTACHMENT E J ATTACHMENT F 4-31-10.4 ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL(CA)ZONE B. Permitted Uses: 1.Primary Uses: b.Services: 14) Miscellaneous minor repairs (TV, electrical appliances, upholstery, shoe repair,etc.). d.Offices: Offices including administrative headquarters, business, medical and dental,personal and professional. 3.Accessory Uses: In the Arterial Commercial Zone, the following uses are allowed where incidental to a permitted primary or secondary use and shall not exceed thirty three percent(33%)of the gross floor area: e.Warehousing: Warehousing and storage of products in conjunction with retail sales;storage of supplies in conjunction with service and office uses. CAGLOBL2.DOC\ ATTACHMENT G EMPLOYMENT AREA Summary: These policies are designed to ensure that Renton will have adequate reserves of land as one tool in its economic development efforts. Adequate land is necessary to attract new businesses in an effort to expand and diversify the employment base. Diversity and Stability Objective LU-W:. Promote diversity and stability in the employment base. Policy LL-144. The City should endeavor to keep its present economic base, including the heavy industrial development, light and medium industrial users, supporting commercial and office land uses. Policy LU-145. The City should provide incentives including adequate land supply and land use guidance for new businesses and for existing businesses relocating within the City. Policy LU-146. Adequate amounts of land suitable for all types of industrial, light industrial, office and commercial uses should be available for present and future development. Using the growth assumptions, criteria for determining "adequate amounts of land" for the employment area should be based on the following. a. Commercial: Provide for local and regional shopping needs of the residential and employment sectors of the community. Currently, Renton has provided 8.7% of its land base for commercial retail uses. Because of Renton's unique location as the interstice between a number of state transportation routes and a regional freeway this percentage should be expanded to capture a larger share of the commercial market. b. Industrial: Sustain the land use base for existing industrial users. Renton has provided 14.6%of its land base for industrial uses, a higher percentage than many other of the area's cities. This percentage is expected to decline as Renton grows in land area. Discussion: The mixed use concept is intended to create flexibility in the development code. With changing technology and combinations of uses within one business campus, traditional land use classifications may be too restrictive. A flexible approach can facilitate business development and stimulate creation of nodes of employment activity supported by commercial and service uses.. Renton's commercial retail land base has increased from 6.7% to 8.7% over the last few years whereas its industrial land base has declined from around 20%in the early 1990's to around 14.6%in 1996. c. Office. Provide for stand alone office uses, and offices that support industrial uses in order to reach future employment levels. Renton currently provides 6.0%of its land base for office uses. d. Light industrial: Sustain the amount of existing uses and provide for a modest future expansion of light industrial development. e. Residential: Locate residential uses only in Commercial Arterial Zoned Areas, and limit residential development to multi-family uses which support Commercial Employment Areas and are clearly secondary to commercial uses. Policy LU-147. Renton should play a leadership role in the state and regional economic and industrial development forums. EAPOL.DOC\ 1 ATTACHMENT G Policy LU-148. In each employment designation, an appropriate mix of commercial, office, light industrial and industrial uses should be encouraged. The mix will vary depending on the employment area emphasis. Policy LU-149. Employment Area designations should each have a primary emphasis but allow a range of allowable secondary uses. Policy LU-150. Small-scale uses should be encouraged to cluster to maximize their contributions to the community and their use of infrastructure and amenities. Policy LU-151. Sites and structures should be designed (e.g. signage and facades; building height, bulk and setback; landscaping; parking; storage and delivery areas) to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent less intensive land uses. Policy LU-152. RESERVED Discussion: The mixed use concept is intended to create flexibility in the development code. With changing technology and combinations of uses within one business campus, traditional land use classifications may be too restrictive. A flexible approach can facilitate business development and stimulate creation of nodes of employment activity supported by commercial and service uses. Infrastructure Objective LU-X: Make efficient use of infrastructure. Policy LU-153. Adequate infrastructure (e.g. roads, utilities, public services) should be in place prior to occupancy. Policy LU-154. As a priority, railroad transport should be encouraged as an alternative to heavy truck transport. Railroad facilities in industrial areas should be protected from adverse development. Policy LU-155. Developments should be encouraged to make greater use of the municipal airport, but only for aviation purposes (e.g. light weight express freight,business jet and charter services). Policy LU-156. Convenient transit stops, both along public streets and within employment areas, should be coordinated between major employers and public transit authorities. Policy LU-157. Lands with adequate existing infrastructure should be given priority for development. Environmental Quality Objective LU-Y: Maintain environmental quality at a level desired by the community. Policy LU-158. Local policies and regulations for hazardous materials and wastes should comply and be coordinated with federal, state, and regional policies and regulations. Policy LU-159. Land uses which have been determined to be hazardous to the aquifer should be phased out in Aquifer Protection Zone 1. New uses which could be hazardous to the aquifer should locate outside Aquifer Protection Zone 1. EAPOL.DOC\ 2 ATTACHMENT G Site Design Policy LU-160. Developments should provide appropriate treatment (e.g. landscaping, improved building facade)along major arterials to mitigate adverse visual impacts. Policy LU-161. RESERVED Policy LU-162. On-site open space and recreational facilities in developments should be required. Policy LU-163. Site design of developments should be encouraged to maximize public access to and use of public areas as well as shoreline areas in locations contiguous to a river, lake wetland or stream, where such access will not jeopardize the environmental attributes of the area. Light Industry Objective LU-Z: Promote the development of light industries in suitable locations. Policy LU-164. Light industrial uses which are allowed should be less intensive in order to maintain compatibility with adjacent uses. Policy LU-165. Light industrial uses should not create noxious conditions such as noise, odors, or traffic which could detract from the office uses allowed in this category. Policy LU-166. Light industry should be an allowed secondary use in Employment Area designations. Policy LU-167. Light industrial uses should be allowed as secondary uses in Neighborhood, Suburban, Downtown, and Office/Residential centers. Discussion: Specific policies for light industrial uses are incorporated into the policies for Employment Area and Centers. These policies provide general direction on the location and compatibility of light industrial uses with other mixed uses. EMPLOYMENT AREA- COMMERCIAL Objective LU-AA: Provide for commercial and residential uses requiring large amounts of land and/or high visibility and access to large volumes of automobile traffic in areas outside of Centers and the Center Downtown designations. Policy LU-168. Employment Area - Commercial designations should only be located on, and have access to, streets classified as major arterials or above. Policy LU-169. Individual parcels should be encouraged to consolidate to maximize flexibility of site design and reduce access points. Policy LU-170. Individual development projects should be encouraged to: a. minimize curb cuts and share access points, b. provide for internal circulation among adjacent parcels, c. share parking facilities, EAPOLDOCI 3 ATTACHMENT G d. centralize signing, e. create a unified style of development, and f. provide landscaping and streetscaping to soften visual impacts. Policy LU-171. Residential uses in the Employment Area - Commercial designation may be a single use development and should be limited to a maximum density of 20 du/acre. Policy LU-172. Create a 24 hour population and a source of affordable housing by promoting residential and commercial development in the Employment Area-Commercial designation. Policy LU-173. Single family development should not be allowed in this designation. Objective LU-BB: Ensure quality development in Employment Areas -Commercial. Policy LU-174. Parking areas should be landscaped (including street trees, buffers, berms), especially along the roadways,to reduce the visual impacts. Policy LU-175. Landscape buffers, additional setbacks, reduced height, and other screening devices should be employed to reduce the impacts (e.g. visual,noise, odor, light)on adjacent, less intensive uses. Policy LU-176. Increased demand for commercial uses should be accommodated through redevelopment and intensification of Employment Area- Commercial designations rather than expansion of those areas. Policy LU-177. Special design considerations (e.g. landscape, streetscape, signage, building design) should be encouraged for areas which are designated as gateways for the city. Policy LU-178. The primary uses (retail, residential or service) should account for a minimum of fifty percent(50%) of the total building area within Employment Area- Commercial designations. Policy LU-179. A unified style of commercial or residential development should be encouraged through site standards, including: a. minimum lot depth of 200 feet, b. maximum height of 4-6 stories, c. parking to the side or rear of the building, d. maximum setbacks which will allow incorporating a landscape buffer, and e. common signage and lighting requirements. Policy LU-180. Public amenity features (e.g. parks, plazas, recreation areas), beyond those required for the mitigation of adverse environmental impacts, should be encouraged as part of every development. Policy LU-181. Development should be designed to be compatible with adjacent, less intensive uses, e.g. lighting,fences, landscaping, setbacks should all be considered during site design. EAPOLDOC\ 4 ATTACHMENT G Policy LU-182. Employment areas located between East Valley Highway and SR 167 should buffer their uses from SR 167 through a sight obscuring 15'wide native vegetation strip along SR 167. EMPLOYMENT AREA- OFFICE Objective LU-CC: Promote intensive office activity including a wide range of business, financial and professional services to local, regional, national, and global markets, supported by service and commercial activities. Policy LU-183. Low, medium and high intensity office should be encouraged as the primary use in the Employment Area-Office designation. Policy LU-184. Secondary uses in the category should include a mix of commercial and light industrial activities. Policy LU-185. Retail and services should support the primary office designation in this category and should be encouraged to locate on the ground floor of office and parking structures. Policy LU-186. High-rise office development should be limited to up to 25 stories in height. Thirty stories may be obtained through a height bonus system. Policy IA-187. Height bonuses of 5 stories may be allowed in designated areas under appropriate conditions where sites provide additional public benefits such as plazas, parks, exceptional landscaping and/or public art. Policy LU-188. Intensive office uses should be located contiguous to an existing or planned transit route. Objective LU-DD: Ensure quality development in Employment Area-Office areas. Policy LU-189. Intensive office sites and structures should be designed (e.g. signage; building height,bulk and setback; landscaping;parking)to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. Policy LE-190. Parking should be provided on-site, in parking structures, and buffered from adjacent uses. Policy LU-191. Internal site circulation should be primarily pedestrian oriented. Policy LU-192. Vehicular access to the site should be from the major street with the access points minimized but designed to ease entrance and exit. Policy LU-193. Public amenity features (e.g. parks, plazas, recreation areas), beyond those required for the mitigation of adverse environmental impacts, should be encouraged (i.e. through incentives or similar Means)as part of every development. Policy LU-194. Site and building design should be transit and pedestrian/people oriented. Ground floor uses and design should be pedestrian oriented. EAPOLDOC' 5 ATTACHMENT G CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL Objective LU-FF: Permit small-scale commercial uses which serve the personal needs of the immediate population in residential areas and reduce automobile travel. Policy LU-213. Small-scale commercial uses may locate in close proximity to one another but should not concentrate to the point of changing the predominant character of an area from residential to commercial. Policy LU-214. Commercial structures in adjacent convenience commercial designations or in planned developments within a Residential Options designations or Residential Planned Neighborhood designations should be compatible with the single family character of the residential area. Standards should be developed to govern the design and operation of such areas to ensure their functional and visual compatibility with residential neighborhoods. Policy LU-215. Small-scale home occupations that provide opportunities for people to work in their homes should be allowed in residential areas. Standards should govern the design, size, intensity, and operation of such uses to ensure their compatibility with residential uses. Policy LU-216. A mix of uses (e.g. convenience retail, consumer services, offices, residential) should be encouraged in small-scale commercial developments. Policy LU-217. Products and services related to large scale motorized machinery, vehicles, or equipment should not be allowed as small-scale convenience commercial uses. Policy LU-218. Residential densities within Convenience Commercial designations should be 5 dwelling units per acre. Residential uses should be secondary to commercial uses and be included within commercial structures. Policy LU-219. Commercial structures in adjacent Convenience Commercial designations should be compatible with the single family character of the residential area in height, frontyard setbacks, lot coverage, and building design. Objective LU-GG: Maximize the convenience and minimize the impacts of small-scale commercial uses through appropriate siting. Policy LU-220. Small-scale commercial uses should be located: a. within pedestrian range of existing and planned residential areas. b. _outside of the trade area of other small-scale commercial uses offering comparable goods and services. c. contiguous to a street classified at the collector level. EAPOLDOC\ 6 ATTACHMENT H RO AND CN POLICY ANALYSES POLICY ANALYSIS RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS - CONRAD PROPERTIES Policy LU-48. Buildings should front the street The existing lot pattern on the Conrad property rather than be organized around interior shows a road easement to access the two rear lots. courtyards or parking areas. The other two lots front SE 6th Street. The rear lots would support buildings organized around the private road easement. Policy LU-50. Residential neighborhoods may The designation of Residential Options with the be considered for the Residential Options corresponding zoning of R-10 would meet criteria Designation if they meet three of the following b, c, and d since development patterns are criteria: established, and there are four existing vacant lots a. The area already has a mix of small scale accessing SE 6th Street which has utility services. multi-family units or had long standing There could be a concern about spot-zoning four duplex or low density multi-family zoning; adjacent parcels under common ownership. b. Development patterns are established. c. Vacant lots exist or parcels have redevelopment potential. d. Few new roads or major utility upgrades will be needed with future development. e. The site is located adjacent to a Center designation. Policy LU-55. Development in Residential Except for commercial uses nearby, the Options should be compatible with existing residential development in the neighborhood development patterns and be sensitive to unique consists of single family detached housing. features and differences among established RO/R-10 designations would allow for duplex, neighborhoods. Development standards should triplex or fourplex structures in addition to reflect single family neighborhood characteristics detached single family. One structure is allowed such as ground related orientation, coordinated per lot. Based upon R-10 standards, the structural design, and private yards. maximum number of units that could be accommodated on each existing lot is two duplex), allowing a total of eight units. CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD - AMENDMENT AREA WITH CONRAD Policy LU-91. Center boundaries should be If utilizing the proposed amendment area designated according to the following criteria:including the Conrad property, the boundaries a. The boundary should coincide with a would be drawn at major changes in land use type major change in land use type or intensity. since the boundaries would be placed next to single family zoned property. The area is flat, b. Boundaries should consider topography and boundaries would occur along rights-of-way and natural features such as ravines, hills, or rear property lines. There are no prominent and significant stands of trees. focal points in the amendment area. The potential c. Boundaries should occur along public amendment area would be less than 1,200 feet rights-of-way including streets or utility from the intersection of Maplewood Place and easements, or at rear property lines where Maple Valley Highway. justified by the existing land use pattern. CNPOLM4.DOC\1 ATTACHMENT H POLICY ANALYSIS Boundary lines should not be drawn through the interior of parcels. d. As a maximum distance, the boundary should be drawn within 1,200-1,500 feet from one or two focal points which may be defined by intersections, transit stops or shopping centers. When a Center contains more than one focal point, the boundary may be drawn within 1,200- 1,500 feet as a maximum from a line connecting the focal points. Policy LU-92. Centers should be designated There are existing office and retail commercial where there are the following characteristics: activities on separate properties with no shared a. a nucleus of existing multi-use parking or access or common design which development, would not be characterized as multi-use. The Conrad properties, the easement and espressob. potential for redevelopment, or vacant land to encourage significant stand sites are vacant or partially vacant and concentration of development. could support some development. However, the amendment area would not result in a significant c. principal gateways to the City as defined concentration of development. For comparison, in the Community Design Section of the the sizes of the existing Center Neighborhood Land Use Element. districts in the City are: d. Center locations should be located on Proposed Amendment Area: 4 acres major transit and transportation routes. NE Sunset Boulevard: 115 acres e. Center locations should be served by the City's arterial street system. S. Puget Drive: 33 acres The area would not be a principal gateway to the City, since the golf course area further east would be the more likely gateway to the City. A portion of the amendment area would be located along Maple Valley Highway, a principal arterial. Policy LU-93. Transitional land uses which There would not be much opportunity to provide surround the Center are designated to provide for transitional land uses near the single family buffers to the less intensive uses. zones such as moderate density residential (e.g. RO/R-10) given the size of the potential amendment area, the amount of vacant land, and existing commercial uses on much of the properties. Objective LU-Q: Encourage a wide range and The existing uses are suburban in character and combination of uses, developed at sufficient future development on the limited vacant land intensity to maximize efficient use of land, would not likely result in the creation of an urban support transit use and create an urban district. district. Policy LU-97. Encourage multi-story office, commercial, and multi-family uses. CNPOLM4.DOC\2 ATTACHMENT H POLICY ANALYSIS Policy LU-98. Discourage single story suburban style development. Policy LE-105. Develop at least one major focal The available vacant land is not necessarily point within each Center which defines the core located in the core of the potential amendment of the Center and is visually distinctive.area. Maplewood Park would abut the proposed Policy LU-106. Focal points should include a amendment area, and would not be central. combination of public areas such as parks or plazas, architectural features such as towers, outstanding building design, transit stops or outdoor eating area. These features should be connected to pedestrian pathways if possible. Policy LU-114. Promote the clustering of The existing commercial uses are auto oriented, Neighborhood Commercial uses and discourage and future development is not likely to change the development of strip commercial areas. this orientation given the location and size of the available vacant/partially vacant land. Policy LU-115. Adequate retail goods and The vacant property would likely be developed services should be provided at neighborhood for office uses (Taco Time/Conrad) or residential centers to encourage residents to shop locally for (Conrad), and would not result in provision of daily goods rather than drive to regional centers. retail goods. The market allows for some local shopping. Additional development is not likely to provide enough of a nucleus of additional retail/service activities allowing residents to shop locally rather than regionally. Policy LU-117. New garden style multifamily The CN designation is affected by the development should be discouraged. [Density - moratorium, and would affect the Conrad Reserved pending development of code property if applied. Density has not been language] established. Multi-family uses may not be compatible with the surrounding lesser intense uses. This could be addressed in a development agreement. Policy LL"-118. Office uses should be limited to To accommodate the Taco Time office, a service office development and should be 1-2 Comprehensive Plan text amendment would be stories in height. needed to generalize office types that could be allowed including administrative headquarters, personal,professional, etc. CNPOLM4.DOC\3 ATTACHMENT H POLICIES FOR RO AND CN DESIGNATIONS RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS AND RESIDENTIAL PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD General Policies Objective LU-K: Create new planned residential neighborhoods in areas mapped as Residential Options RO) and Residential Planned Neighborhood (RPN) which include a variety of unit types designed to incorporate features from both single family and multi-family developments, and to support cost efficient housing, infill development, transit service, and the efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. Policy LU-41. Provision of small lot single family detached unit types, townhouses and multi-family • structures compatible with a single family character should be encouraged provided that density standards can be met. Policy LU-42. A range and variety of lot sizes should be encouraged. Policy LU-43. Central place public amenities should function as a focal point within the development and should include features such as a public square, open space, park, civic or commercial uses. The central place should include passive amenities such as benches and fountains, and be unified by a design motif or common theme. Policy LU-44. The dwelling types, including detached and attached units, should be clustered and connected within the overall development through the organization of roads, blocks, yards, central places and amenity features to create a neighborhood with diverse housing types. Policy LU-45. Development should occur on a flexible grid street and pathway system to the extent feasible given environmental constraints, traffic flow, and the pattern of existing development. • Policy LU-46. Condominium ownership may occur in any unit type. Policy LU-47. Townhouse development should provide either condominium or fee simple homeownership opportunities. Policy LU-48. Buildings should front the street rather than be organized around interior courtyards or parking areas. Policy LU-49. Non-residential structures may have dimensions larger than residential structures but should be compatible in design and dimensions with surrounding residential development. Residential Options Policy LU-50. Residential neighborhoods may be considered for the Residential Options Designation if they meet three of the following criteria: a. The area already has a mix of small scale multi-family units or had long standing duplex or low density multi-family zoning; b. Development patterns are established. c. Vacant lots exist or parcels have redevelopment potential. d. Few new roads or major utility upgrades will be needed with future development. e. The site is located adjacent to a Center designation. Policy LU-51. The net development densities should be 10 dwelling units per acre. If 100% of the dwelling units are detached, a density bonus may be allowed to a maximum of 13 dwelling units per acre. CNPOLM4.DOC\4 ATTACHMENT H Policy LU-52. Minimum net development densities should be 7 dwelling units per acre. Policy LU-53. Detached single family housing, townhouses, and small scale multi-family units should be allowed in Residential Options. Policy LU-54. A maximum of 50% of units allowed within an individual RO development may consist of attached units which includes townhouses, and small scale multi-family units. Policy LU-55. Development in Residential Options should be compatible with existing development patterns and be sensitive to unique features and differences among established neighborhoods. Development standards should reflect single family neighborhood characteristics such as ground related onentation, coordinated structural design, and private yards. Policy LU-56. Non-residential structures, should be clustered and connected within the overall development through the organization of roads, blocks, yards, other central features and amenity features to create a neighborhood. CENTERS Summary: The concept of the Center relies on creating a boundary to contain more intensive uses and prevent them from encroaching on adjacent neighborhoods. However, within the boundary, greater freedom and flexibility of land use is intended compared to traditional zoning classifications. The Center is intended to be an intense urban mixed use place which is pedestrian oriented that provides a visual and physical focal point for the surrounding residential area. Centers should provide community focus for their surrounding neighborhoods. General Policies Policy LU-82. Promote the clustering of Center uses and discourage the development of strip commercial areas. Policy LU-83. General policies of the Center Section also apply to the Downtown Element. Policy LU-84. Different types of Centers should have different ranges, mix and characters of development. Policy LU-85. Centers should have high priority for infrastructure improvements. Policy L11-86. Centers should function as gateways into the City or neighborhoods. Policy L11-87. Centers should provide community focus for their surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU-88. The boundary should encourage maintenance of unique and independent centers. Policy LU-89. Create Centers which support a citywide transit system and encourage pedestrian access. Policy LU-90. Centers should incorporate transit stops within them. Locational Criteria Policy LU-91. Center boundaries should be designated according to the following criteria: a. The boundary should coincide with a major change in land use type or intensity. b. Boundaries should consider topography and natural features such as ravines, hills, and significant stands of trees. c. Boundaries should occur along public rights-of-way including streets or utility easements, or at rear property lines where justified by the existing land use pattern. Boundary lines should not be drawn through the interior of parcels. CNPOLM4.DOC\ 5 ATTACHMENT H d. As a maximum distance, the boundary should be drawn within 1,200-1,500 feet from one or two focal points which may be defined by intersections,transit stops or shopping centers. When a Center contains more than one focal point, the boundary may be drawn within 1,200-1,500 feet as a maximum from a line connecting the focal points. Policy LU-92. Centers should be designated where there are the following characteristics: a. a nucleus of existing multi-use development, b. potential for redevelopment, or vacant land to encourage significant concentration of development. c. principal gateways to the City as defined in the Community Design Section of the Land Use Element. d. Center locations should be located on major transit and transportation routes. e. Center locations should be served by the City's arterial street system. Policy LU-93. Transitional land uses which surround the Center are designated to provide buffers to the less intensive uses. Policy LU-94. Changes to adopted boundaries should only be made in the following circumstances: a. The original mapping failed to consider a major natural feature or significant land use which would make implementation of the boundary illogical. b. The amount of land within a Center is inadequate to allow development of the range and intensity of uses envisioned for the Center. Policy LU-95. Maximize the use of existing urban services and facilities and revitalize commercial areas outside of Renton's downtown by permitting residential development mixed with commercial areas designated as Suburban, Neighborhood, and Office/Residential centers. Policy LU-96. Incentives should be developed to encourage future development or redevelopment pro- jects that incorporate residential uses. Mix and Intensity of Uses Objective LU-Q: Encourage a wide range and combination of uses, developed at sufficient intensity to maximize efficient use of land, support transit use and create an urban district. Policy LU-97. Encourage multi-story office, commercial, and multi-family uses. Policy LU-98. Discourage single story suburban style development. Policy LU-99. Allow for limited light industrial development if conditions can mitigate the impacts of these uses on adjacent development, the Neighborhood, Suburban, and Downtown centers. Policy LU-100. Mixed development within the same structure should include uses which are compatible with each other, i.e. office and certain retail uses with residential; office and retail; light industrial; and heavy commercial. Policy LU-101. Commercial uses within a residential mixed use development, should be located and designed to preserve privacy and quiet for residents. Site and Building Design Policy LU-102. Site and building design and use should be oriented primarily toward pedestrian/people to maximize pedestrian activity and minimize automobile use for circulation within the center. CNPOLM4.DOC\6 ATTACHMENT H Policy LU-103. Existing residential and commercial development should be integrated as much as possible through alterations in parking lot design, landscapes, signage, and site plan alterations as redevelopment opportunities occur. Policy LU-104. Signage for mixed use development should be consolidated on one structure and located in the manner that will reduce light and glare impacts to the residential users. Focal Points Policy Lt:-105. Develop at least one major focal point within each Center which defines the core of the Center and is visually distinctive. Policy LU-106. Focal points should include a combination of public areas such as parks or plazas, architectural features such as towers, outstanding building design, transit stops or outdoor eating area. These features should be connected to pedestrian pathways if possible. Policy LL"-107. Existing intersections of arterial roadways should be evaluated for opportunities to create focal points. Circulation and Parking Policy LU-108. Vehicular circulation should be internal and access to adjacent streets should be consolidated. Policy LU-109. Vehicular access to the site should be from a principal arterial street with the number of access points minimized. Policy LL-110. Parking for residential uses in the mixed use developments should not disrupt the pedestrian or auto access to the retail component of the project. Parking should be accommodated as part of the structure, in back of, or in the side yards for the residential users. Policy LU-111. Site plan designs which locate parking lots associated with commercial uses, apartments or other uses behind or adjacent to structures are encouraged. Discourage parking lots from locating between structures and street rights-of-way. Policy LU-112. Minimize the percentage of land devoted to surface parking by encouraging shared parking and development of parking structures. Buffers Objective LU-R: Create a buffer at the boundary of Centers to protect adjacent less intensive land uses from the impacts of urban activities within the Center. Policy LU-113. Buffers may be a combination of: a. less intensive land uses, b. open space (not parking lots), c. structural elements, d. landscape features, e. fencing, and f. other features which meet the spirit and intent of these policies. Center Neighborhood Objective LU-S: Create neighborhood centers which include commercial, light industrial, and residential uses and serve the basic, ongoing needs of the population in adjacent and surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU-114. Promote the clustering of Neighborhood Commercial uses and discourage the development of strip commercial areas. CNPOLM4.DOC\7 ATTACHMENT H Policy LU-115. Adequate retail goods and services should be provided at neighborhood centers to encourage residents to shop locally for daily goods rather than drive to regional centers. Policy LU-116. Residential uses should not exceed 50% of the overall mix within a center, with the remaining 50% commercial/light industrial uses in order to implement the growth policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Policy LU-117. New garden style multifamily development should be discouraged. [Density - Reserved pending development of code language] Policy LU-118. Office uses should be limited to service office development and should be 1-2 stories in height. CNPOLM4.DOC\8 CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: October 20, 1998 TO: City Council Mayor Tanner FROM: Larry Brosman PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Recommendation - Maple Valley Taco Time Comprehensive Plan Amendment,Rezone,Development Agreement, CA Zone Amendments RECOMMENDED ACTION: Designate the four Conrad parcels with the Residential Options land use designation, with a concurrent rezone to R-10. Apply the Convenience Commercial designation and zone to the Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop properties. Deny the Administration recommendation for the Taco Time lease/option and option properties to redesignate the properties to Employment Area-Commercial/Commercial Arterial designations. Maintain the current Convenience Commercial designations for the Taco Time office building, easement and espresso stand properties. Maintain the current Residential Single Family/R-8 zoning for the three residential lots. Maintain the Convenience Commercial designation for the radiator repair property. Maintain the Convenience Commercial designation for the insurance office property. Deny the proposed Development Agreement which "sugar coats" the proposed Taco Time expansion. Approve the code amendments to allow offices, accessory storage for office/service uses,and shoe repair in the Commercial Arterial zone. Planning Commission Action and Recommendation The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 16, 1998 for the proposed Maple Valley Taco Time Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezone, Development Agreement, and general Commercial Arterial zone amendments (98-M-4; LUA 98-042 CPA, R, ECF). Deliberations were completed on October 7, 1998. In response to citizen testimony and petitions presented, as well as detailed review of staff reports and field review of the neighborhood, the Planning Commission made the above recommendations unanimously. For:. Beverly Franklin, Rose Anne Jacobs, Eugene Ledbury, Becky Lemke, Rosemary Quesenberry, Rich Wagner Against: None Absent: Jeff Lukins Signed Larry B sman Planning Commission Chair cc: Jay Covington H:\DIVISIONS\P-TS\PLANNING\AMENDS\1997\PCRPT.DOC 2 i 1 t SE 5th St R s gig 4 RS t.. *1,,, sE cift41Pel, 1) C k.31 c c 0 s 1 I V.:•:•:•:•:•:•:•...:•:.:.:•:•:-:: 0 CI 0 04/4 Z 404150304 AP,) I 1111L7 Existing and Proposed Land Use Planning Commission Recommendation AA% Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning ww..9 PISNAT, R. MacOnie RS to CC 4F.ita071 20 October 1998 t RS to R 8 SE 5th St lit I dift lip 40os 1# \lie SE 1) lE ill\LD( ,7 0 * ollip MIlligl• 8440,i C 6D, 4k 4/4 • N441111111N. 9 N,.. ci•oo 411, 40:NII*40150301iiiiii....--:,7"1.•-••••••••••••••••••— iii 1 : i , 00 N il Existing and Proposed Zoning Planning Commission Recommendation trAtt. N; grhoods Ac .Strategic Planning IILI 01 R-8 to CC T. Octobe; regtfac"IC t R-8 to R-10 Zr. — 3 cl3 0 0 Zz ZZ P r Z- tit 6N' 0 v--4qpicl 0000v,b Y N gq))T00".IIV U r Co-N 4 A h9( l‘z, W C s--ily,1 yf 11 9 z c rn 7 1 w T. V 210 1, rp) C J RAD SHORT PLAT 1 LOTS A EG ER ENGINEERING vvt sr. 9419 S. 204 PI. Kent, Wa. 98031 PREL1N\ . SITE.... PLAN 25) 850-0934 ot. APPROVED BY CiTY COUNCIL Date '- PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Minority COMMITTEE REPORT January 4, 1999 Taco Time Comprehensive Plan Amendment Referred April 13, 1998) Upon considering the staff, Planning Commission, and citizen input regarding the Maple Valley Highway Taco Time Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezone, Development Agreement and general CA Zone Amendments, I concur with the Majority of the Committee on several recommendations, including: Recommendation 1. Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop properties Recommendation 3. Radiator Repair and Insurance Office Sites Recommendation 4. Conrad vacant parcels Recommendation 5. Amendments to the Commercial Arterial (CA)zone generally I respectfully dissent from the majority regarding the Taco Time site. I would also maintain the Convenience Commercial designation,but recommend allowances for a moderate,one-time expansion of building square footage in addition to allowances for additional parking. The allowance for a moderate building expansion would help keep the Taco Time operation viable for many more years at its current location. Representatives of Taco Time estimated that, with moderate expansion,they could continue to operate for up to 18 more years at their current location. It is a clean, relatively quiet enterprise that has invested in its site. If the business moves to another location, the current buildings and site may end up with multiple tenants, higher turnover, and a less well-kept site. I believe a moderate expansion of the existing building, with necessary environmental and plan review measures, would not significantly impact the neighborhood, and would allow continued co-existence with a responsible corporate neighbor. I would offer an alternate Recommendation 2. 2.Taco Time lease/option properties: I concur with sections 2a, 2b, and 2d, but would change section 2c as shown below: c)Amend the Convenience Commercial Zone to add "existing, legal Administrative Headquarters Offices" as a secondary use and "the storage of supplies in conjunction with service and office uses" as an accessory use. For "existing, legal Administrative Headquarters Offices" allow for parking expansions, and for a one-time building expansion of 3,500 square feet maximum. No new Administrative Headquarters Offices would be allowed. With Council concurrence, I would request the Administration to prepare an ordinance for the code amendments and property redesignations, and to prepare development agreements or covenants for consideration by the City Council which incorporate the above recommendations. Dan Clawson,Member cc: 3,y Co, ton Sue Carlson TacoTime.rpt\CoR APPROVED E'/ CITY COUNCIL PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Date,-- MAJORITY COMMITTEE REPORT January 4, 1999 Taco Time Comprehensive Plan Amendment Referred April 13, 1998 ) The Committee met four times to consider the staff, Planning Commission, and citizen input regardingtheMapleValleyHighwayTacoTimeComprehensivePlanAmendment, Rezone, Development Agreement and general CA Zone Amendments. A majority of the Committee recommends the following: 1.Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop properties: Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning Map from Residential Single Family/R-8 to Convenience Commercial. 2.Taco Time lease/option properties: a)Maintain the Convenience Commercial designation for the Taco Time offices, Transmission Line Easement, and espresso stand site. b)Redesignate the southern portion of Parcel No. 5126900205, the southerly residential lot adjacent to Taco Time offices and the Transmission Line Easement, from Residential Single Family/R-8 to Convenience Commercial to allow Taco Time access across their leased properties. The boundary of the new Convenience Commercial designation shall allow for a lot line adjustment that retains the single family residence and results in a conforming lot. c)Amend the Convenience Commercial Zone to add "existing, legal Administrative Headquarters Offices" as a secondary use and "the storage of supplies in conjunction with service and office uses" as an accessory use. For "existing, legal Administrative Headquarters Offices" allow for parking expansions, but not additional building expansions. This would allow Taco Time to expand its parking area over its properties to the east, but not allow for additional building square footage. No new Administrative Headquarters Offices would be allowed. d)Prepare a development agreement or covenants which incorporate Environmental Review Committee mitigation measures. We believe the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for this area was to ensure compatible, neighborhood-serving development through the Convenience Commercial designation. The Majority approach to the Taco Time site would help ensure protection of the adjacent residential neighborhood by maintaining the Convenience Commercial designation and restricting building expansion. It would also accommodate Taco Time's need to access all of its property and to expand parking. 3.Radiator Repair and Insurance Office Sites: Maintain the Convenience Commercial designation. 4.Conrad vacant parcels: Redesignate the properties from Residential Single Family/R-8 and Residential Options/R-10 subject to a development agreement or covenants which limit the number of lots to 7, limit the unit type to detached single family only, and indicate that initial home construction should be one-story with future remodels governed by the R-10 zone in effect at the time. The lot layout should be similar to the attached preliminary layout, and consistent with all City ordinances and codes. TacoTime.rpt\CoR 22 5.Arend the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone generally to allow offices, accessory storage for of ice/service uses, and shoe repair. Incorporating the above recommendations, the Committee requests the Administration to prepare an ordinance for the code amendments and property redesignations, and to prepare development agreements or covenants for consideration by the City Council. K,C-eke-/ - Kathy Keliker-Wheeler, Chair Tim Schli2er, Vic Ch cc: }a-re Sue Carlson TacoTime.pt'CoR N.W. 'Y4 SFe-`.r. Zl, MR Z3 /mil. , RGE— 6 E. W,M v 45 Z T i 6. • 4" AREA !NI PngENn-+Fs, W m26S. COES r ar INC:uCE LCT Z CD A. rZ›- = _ZS i.+ara J' wiCE cd 00 3 4 Z C v. toz5 S ' 58833 SF 13 )) s z.? 0, 12G .'O 11 ° V C!J 9s. to3' L1.t Co cu0' a, ., • co O 9 /d S Asses Pl+t i- NOS. 6' ' a ti / 5 zs J SIZ1o90- 032A- size.) a Q o3Z 5 4t,00 SP c 0328 a Q 0329 Aso, bso V) LAL-L.. LDT ACGE55 PRIV RE DRr1>= ccs 'r LOT x 3 n 4 U j yy 2co'wl a PRIVATe- fIcAD— 905 5F 4 U 4 v111_111ES 46,417 450 ) in" CC r I Y p 11 T7) s./ 31 d ' lobo. G h IIJSSF (y/ O • SIDE DI TP. ZONu,G: R-6 456o SF MIN, Lar SIZE R5 'o: 45cO SF N MIN. L.Br Size-MOR 455D SF 111114MIN. Lcsr *norm: 50' MIN. LOT_ PTii: h5' sSe cosp,Se E Zk .. FRo..T: 24Y REAR: 20' o"/ SIDE: 5' bo' I.(oaTl-1 CITY OFRENTO: TOJA_- SITE- tREA: 37,2% SF I RECENFD o.Sco PGRE ScAi.E.: 1"- 301 DEC 16 1998JD. L:OT'S PROPOSED: '7 No. LCSis E c1snniG : 4 8u1L.Liavu DIVISION CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: December 17, 1998 TO: Lisa Grueter, Strategic Planning, EDNSP, x6578 FROM: Jana Huerter, Development Services, P/B/PW, x721q SUBJECT: Conrad Short Plat Joseph Conrad has submitted a proposed plan for the subdivision of property located off of SE 61h Street, west of Pierce Avenue SE (please see attachment). The property is currently zoned R-8 which allows a density range of 5 to 8 dwelling units per acre--4 to 6 lots. If the property is rezoned to R-10, with a range of 7 to 10 dwelling units per acre, the density would allow a minimum of 6 to a maximum of 8 detached single-family lots. The preliminary plan submitted, proposing 7 detached single-family lots, would be acceptable by current R-10 development standards with one minor modification to the drawing. Lot 5 do es not meet the average width requirement of 50 feet. The dividing property line between lots 4 and 5 may be adjusted so that the average width for lot 5 is met without reducing any of the requirements for lot 4. This minor modification will not preclude the potentia I for the subdivision of this property into 7 lots. TS SERV];R\SYS2\COMMON\H:\DIVISION.S\DEVELOP.SER\DEV&PLAN.ING\LMN\CONRAD.DOC 4w 1 6\ cn oi fi/ 4! r8 33 tr m y 'n Q PCSSG atS pATR_z_l Nos. 1 Q- 2 l2 O ` 03St Z V ' 0325 0 Q.. 032S 2 to03 a , p,L.l_. LDT5 IMF"c"-5 PRI\' f4TE cr U/ (7/ DR\1 LOT 3 4° 1 4j i i n/ TE DPTP, zoNNG : R-B M N . UST- S1Z-E REQ'o: 45co SF Mi Ni - Lar Size- PROP 45S) SP r•A 1 N . LoT' r!cm : SSo' NMN . L07 _ Cos' SF EAcIdl, FRorvT: Zd REAR : 2o' St DE : 5' ITY OF Rom'. 10 E t T EA : 3`?,27(o SF , F sv o ,Bcg b lib DEC 16 1958 0 LOT PROFS : 7 No. w"i z EkAST1 Ki G :4 buiLDiNKI DIVISION C ,sa--) nwleA CITY kiF RENTON Renton City Council Jesse Tanner,Mayor November 24, 1998 SUBJECT: Taco Time Comprehensive Plan Amendments NOV 2 5 199E To Interested Parties: The Renton City Council's Planning &Development Committee will meet to review the above-referenced item on the following dates: Thursday, December 3, 1998 Thursday,December 17, 1998 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 7th Floor/Council Conference Room 7`h Floor/Council Conference Room City of Renton City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way 1055 South Grady Way Renton,Washington Renton, Washington These are not public hearings, but working sessions of the Planning&Development Committee. As all Council Committee meetings are open to the public, you are welcome to attend. If you have questions regarding these meetings,please phone Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison, at 425-430-6501. Sincerely, qaka)—Wh C 1 ethdc9- yiu Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Chair Planning & Development Committee Renton City Council 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6501 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/NEIGHBORHOODS & STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: November 16, 1998 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Chair Planning and Development Committee VIA: Y' Jesse Tanner,Ma•or 5 I FROM: Mike Kattermann• e hborhoods and Strategic Planning Directorv STAFF CONTACT: Lisa Grueter(430-6578) SUBJECT: Maple Valley Highway Taco Time Site - Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Options COMMITTEE DIRECTION At the Planning and Development Committee meeting of November 5, 1998, the Committee provided direction for the Maple Valley Taco Time area. Generally, the Committee indicated a preference for limiting Taco Time expansion possibilities while allowing for some access and parking, ensuring the zoning is compatible for existing neighborhood-serving businesses, and maintaining the single family zoning in the remainder of the subject area, as indicated in the table below: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMENTS AMENDMENT SITE/DOCUMENT COMMENTS Taco Time Ensure protection of neighborhood. Do not include 3 homes in redesignation. Allow for lot line adjustment to southern residential lot to accommodate parking/access across properties. Access should not be allowed through the neighborhood, but from current access points. Staff should provide a comparison of zones, parking, and uses, and possibility for expanding the existing Taco Time building. Market and Barbershop Residential zone was probably a map error. Zone these use appropriately to accommodate these businesses. Conrad properties (4 vacant parcels)Maintain RS/R-8 designations. General CA Zone.Amendments (offices, shoe Recommend approval. repair, accessory storage) November 16, 1998 Page 2 CC AND CA ZONE COMPARISON Based on the Committee's direction, staff has prepared additional information comparing the Convenience Commercial (CC) zone, and Arterial Commercial (CA) zone in terms of office uses, height, and parking. OFFICE USES-ZONE COMPARISON USE/STANDARD CC CA CA w/DEV. AGMT. Allowance for Office Personal or Professional No specific category. Administrative Office Zone allows general headquarters,personal, business services, professional,business, financial and real estate medical and dental services,professional assumes approval of CA services. Offices allowed zone amendment). by admin. determination. Code amendment proposed for clarification of office allowances. Maximum square foot 3,000 s.f. No maximum. Determine No maximum. Determine requirement for office by development standards by development standards use setbacks, height,parking (setbacks, height,parking need). need). Parking Requirement Use restriction Parking Code Parking Code max. 1 space/500 s.f. Medical/dental: 1 Medical/dental: 1 space/200 s.f. space/200 s.f. Professional/business: Professional/business: min. 3 spaces/1,000 s.f. min. 3 spaces/1,000 s.f. max. 4.5 spaces/1,000 s.f. max. 4.5 spaces/1,000 s.f. Maximum Height 35 ft. 50 ft. 35 ft. Parking Requirements The Parking Code requirement for office uses is a minimum of 3 and maximum of 4.5 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (1 space per 333 square feet to 1 space per 222 s.f.). This standard allows for more parking than what is allowed under the CC zone parameters for office uses (1 per 500 s.f. which equals 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet). The existing Taco Time office on the site totals 7,792 square feet, and an accessory storage buildingusedforsometrainingclassestotals1,920 square feet. Currently, 30 parking spaces are located on site. The parking ratio equals 1 space per 260 square feet, assuming the office space only. Assuming both the office and storage/training space, there is a parking ratio of 1 space per 324 square feet which still does not meet the CC zone criteria.. The existing Taco Time office building would meet the Parking Code requirement for its current building because the Parking Code would result in a range P&DZONE.DOC\ November 16, 1998 Page 3 allowing between 23 and 35 parking spaces. To exceed the maximum spaces of the Parking Code, application for a modification would need to be made. ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT OPTIONS New amendment boundaries (see attached map)have been identified for the area which: Exclude the Conrad property from redesignation, to maintain the RS/R-8 designations. Maintain the RS/R-8 designation for the 3 existing homes. Allow a lot line adjustment to the southerly residential lot which would make access across Taco Time's leased properties possible. Based upon staff analysis, the lot line adjustment would create a conforming R-8 lot. A rear yard setback of 20 feet would be maintained, and the remaining lot area would equal approximately 6,750 square feet. The lot line adjustment would also allow access across Taco Time's other properties fronting Maple Valley Highway, and the width assumes a front setback, a row of parking, two-way travel lane, and setback from the RS/R-8 property. Within the new amendment area,the land use/zoning designations could include: DESIGNATION OPTIONS SITE DESIGNATION COMMENTS Barbershop CC Would become conforming under either possible designation. CA with development CA w/Development agreement would offer more variety of future Agreement uses. Property owner has not responded to staff letters about development agreement. Market CC Would become conforming under either possible designation. CA with development CA w/Development agreement would offer more variety of future Agreement uses. Owners have indicated a preference for CC for their site and the other existing commercial uses in the neighborhood. Radiator Repair CC Non-conforming under CC. Would become conforming with CA and development CA w/Development agreement. CA with development agreement Agreement would offer more variety of future uses. Owner has indicated an interest in the Development Agreement. Insurance Office CC Would conform under either designation. CA with development agreement would offer CA w/Development more variety of future uses. Owner has Agreement indicated an interest in the Development P&DZONE.DOC\ November 16, 1998 Page 4 SITE DESIGNATION COMMENTS Agreement. Taco Time- Office • CC Taco Time use is currently non-building, easement, conforming in the CC zone because of its espresso stand site CC amended square footage and parking. A separate conditional approval permit would be CA w/Development needed to assure all could be rebuilt in Agreement case more than 50% is destroyed by fire or other catastrophe. The CC zone could be amended to remove the parking ratio requirement, in which case parking requirements would be based upon the Parking Code. The CC zone could also be amended to allow existing legal administrative headquarters offices, and accessory storage for office and service uses. This would make the current use conforming. Another variation could include an amendment allowing for limited office expansion, for example 3,000 square feet, or based upon a certain percentage. A development agreement could be prepared which limits access through the neighborhood, specifies landscaping, and other site plan requirements. The CA zone with development agreement has been analyzed in previous staff reports. If pursued, to avoid spot zoning issues, it would be best to apply the designation and development agreement to other properties, such as the radiator repair property and insurance office in addition to Taco Time. Existing CC Zone The objective of the Comprehensive Plan Convenience Commercial (CC) designation is to "permit small-scale commercial uses which serve the personal needs of the immediate population in residential areas and reduce automobile travel." The purpose of the CC zone is: "...to provide for small-scale convenience retail/commercial centers intended to provide for basic retail and service needs of the adjacent area. Uses serving a larger area may be appropriate if they also serve the residents of the immediate area and are compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood in which they arelocated." P&DZONE.DOC\ November 16, 1998 Page 5 Commercial uses in general are restricted to 5,000 square feet per commercial use, with a maximum increase possible of 1,000 square feet if approved by the Hearing Examiner as a Conditional Use Permit. Professional and personal offices are allowed as Administrative Conditional Uses, subject to: 1) The total gross floor area of each use in any one site shall not exceed three thousand 3,000) square feet. 2) The following criteria: A) Activities with a limited need for walk-in clientele; and B) Activities for which a reduction in parking standards to one space per five hundred(500) square feet of gross floor space could be justified. Accessory storage (up to 33% of gross floor area) is allowed for retail activities, but not specifically for office and service uses. The maximum height of buildings is 35 feet. A landscape buffer of 15 feet or a combination wall/10 feet of landscaping is required abutting residentially-zoned lots. The Taco Time office development is nonconforming since it exceeds the 3,000 square foot parameter, and the parking ratio.The office has no need for walk-in clientele. CC Zone- Possible Amendments The Committee was interested in how to allow for additional parking and access across Taco Time properties. The CC zone could be amended to remove the office parking ratio requirement, in which case parking requirements would be based upon the Parking Code. A Parking Code modification would be needed to exceed maximum parking requirements. This amendment would affect other CC zoned sites with office uses, such as the insurance office. The CC zone could also be amended to allow existing legal administrative headquarters offices which would recognize Taco Time's office, but not allow for new administrative headquarters in the CC zone. It would also be appropriate to make general provisions for storage in conjunction with office and service uses as these uses are permitted in the CC zone. These changes would make the Taco Time buildings conforming. It should be noted that the change to allow storage in conjunction with office and service uses would apply generally to other CC zoned properties, such as the insurance office. If desired, the CC zone could be amended further to allow for limited office expansion, for example 3,000 square feet, or based upon a certain percentage. It should be noted that the 3,000 square foot size restriction currently applies per use per site. If an office is placed on the espresso stand site and shares parking with the existing office complex,all the parcels could be interpreted to be a"site." Taco Time would have to choose in that case whether to add the office space to their existing building or to place it on the espresso stand site. The location of additional office space would not affect Taco Time's ability to place a permitted commercial retail use on the espresso stand site. P&DZONE.DOC\ November 16, 1998 Page 6 If use or parking expansion is allowed,staff would recommend a development agreement or covenants incorporating environmental mitigation measures addressing height, location of access points, landscaping requirements, and site plan review thresholds. For review, current CC zone use restrictions and possible amendments allowing for the Taco Time use are attached. CA Zone with Development Agreement The Employment Area - Commercial Comprehensive Plan designation is intended to "provide for commercial and residential uses requiring large amounts of land and/or high visibility and access tolargevolumesofautomobiletraffic." The matching zoning designation would be Arterial Commercial (CA). The primary purpose of the zone is to provide "suitable environments for `strip'commercial development." The CA zoning regulations are more permissive than the CC regulations, and would allow a much larger range of uses on the properties. The zone does not address maximum square footage requirements. The maximum height of buildings is 50 feet which may be increased through a conditional use permit. A landscape buffer of 15 feet or a combination wall/10 feet of landscaping is required abutting residentially-zoned lots. To avoid promoting strip development along Maple Valley Highway, and to avoid some commercial and service uses which may be attracted by the area's traffic flow and visibility, but which may not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, a development agreement was drafted. Refer to the staff report transmitted to the Committee on October 26, 1998,particularly Attachments C and D. The Development Agreement would allow more uses than the CC zone, but not include the full range of CA uses. Key features of the draft agreement are: In comparison to the CC zone, the Development Agreement would allow retail sales of books, music, stationary, art supplies, building/hardware/garden materials, pharmacies, pet shops, photography services, retail printing and xerography, and other similar uses. The CC zone allows auto repair as an Administrative Conditional Use permit when associated with a gas station. The existing radiator repair shop is not associated with a gas station which likely wouldn't be allowed with the Aquifer Protection regulations. In the draft Development Agreement, existing vehicle service and repair uses would be allowed. This means that the existing radiator repair shop could continue indefinitely, and could rebuild to its current size if there was a fire or act of God without a conditional approval permit and without a need to be associated with a gas station. In comparison to the CA zone, the agreement would exclude residential uses, intensive retail activities (e.g. appliance, furniture, auto supply, liquor stores, sporting goods, etc.), light manufacturing, and auto sales. The CC zone maximum height is 35 feet. The maximum height of the CA zone is 50 feet. It would be specified in the Development Agreement that 35 feet is the maximum height, and a conditional use process to exceed 35 feet would not be allowed through the Development Agreement even though the process is available generally in the CA zones. The Development Agreement would require site plan review for any size development on the Taco Time properties. In addition,access would not be allowed from SE 6th Street. P&DZON E.DOC\ November 16, 1998 Page 7 If the CA zone and development agreement are pursued,it is recommended that the zoning and agreement apply to other properties, such as the radiator repair property and insurance office in addition to Taco Time,to avoid spot zoning issues. Attachments: Potential Amendment Boundary Potential CC Zone Amendments cc: City Council Jay Covington Sue Carlson City Clerk P&DZONE.DOC\ w e ODU Nt.c7 . 411k.4 11/` '4Q, 461, os7o:12, Niv. b /,,, C-.5 e s 1../ 1 0 00 oL \ cal= 40, 4 0 0 00 0 4149z* ,.. 3 4e / 47 1 ,,./„(,) ilmil,J/ 1,4 QJ 4 o Wt;)/S/Pi6 9 ea 4.t tt 4 4012 ' 250' Q l it 1 ,500 0 Potential Amendment Boundary t _ . 9) Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning ED/N/SP 20 Offset T. SchlepR. MacOn[e Building Outlines12November1998 Potential Amend. Boundary , CC ZONE AMENDMENT OPTION 4-2-060 ZONING USE TABLE USES CC OFFICE AND CONFERENCE Administrative Headquarters, existing legal S## Business Medical and dental Medical and dental clinics Offices Personal AD 98 Private conference centers Professional AD 98 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ACCESSORY USES Storage of products in conjunction w/retail AC48 sales Storage of supplies in conjunction w/service AC48 and offices uses 4-2-080.A CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH ZONING USE TABLES 48. Allowed where incidental to a permitted use and shall not exceed thirty three percent 33%) of the gross floor area. 98. Provided that the total gross floor area of each use in any one site shall not exceed three thousand (3,000) square feet and subject to the following criteria: a) activities with a limited need for walk-in clientele and b) activities for which a reduction in parking standards to one space per five hundred (500) square feet of gross floor space could be justified. A single expansion of office square footage may be allowed, not exceeding 3,000 square feet, subject to the site plan review process. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH TACO TIME Prepare a development agreement or covenants which incorporate ERC mitigation measures, including: 1. Limit height of future development to 35 feet. 2. Access restricted from SE 6th Street. 3. For Taco Time, require site plan review for any size development or redevelopment. 4. Require 6 foot wall and 10 foot landscaped setback where abutting residentially zoned property. 5. Require site obscuring landscaping where adjacent to residentially zoned property, except adjacent to Maplewood Park where modifications should be allowed to ensure adequate visibility for purposes of public safety. CITY vF RENTON i %% Renton City Council Jesse Tanner,Mayor October 27, 1998 SUBJECT: Taco Time Comprehensive Plan Amendments To Interested Parties: The Renton City Council's Planning &Development Committee will meet to review the above-referenced item on the following dates: Thursday, November 5, 1998 Thursday,November 19, 1998 4:00PM 4:00PM 7th Floor/Council Conference Room 7th Floor/Council Conference Room City of Renton City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way 1055 South Grady Way Renton,Washington Renton,Washington NOTE ADDRESS CHANGE********** These are not public hearings,but working sessions of the Planning &Development Committee. As all Council Committee meetings are open to the public, you are welcome to attend. If you have questions regarding these meetings,please phone Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison, at 425-430-6501. Sincerely, 1404 Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Chair Planning &Development Committee Renton City Council 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2586 MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY TACO TIME SITE CITIZEN CORRESPONDENCE & PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES/REPORT OCTOBER 26, 1998 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED Letter Received From Date Received Matthew Tonkin August 8, 1997 Nicola Robinson, Neal Whitney, John Ramsey, April 9, 1998 Troy Deady, Margaret Siemion, D. Leiste, Anne Marie,Brunette Joe and Pat Conrad April 13, 1998 Jeannie M. Sage April 27, 1998 Nicola Robinson, Anne Marie Brunette, Wanda May 26, 1998 Burskey, Margaret Siemion Pat and Joe Conrad August 24, 1998 Matthew Tonkin September 14, 1998 The Smith Family September 14, 1998 Mike Siemion,Margaret Siemion September 16, 1998 Nicola Robinson-presenting neighborhood September 16, 1998 petition STAFF CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING ZONING CHANGE IN 1993 Lisa Grueter to Margaret Siemion, April 9, 1998 Lisa Grueter to Joseph and Pat Conrad, May 7, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes, September 16, 1998 Minutes,October 7, 1998 Report, October 20, 1998 LETLIST.DOC\ i. .•+-::;1.-t '*. tom"` J a're,p-,- `s7::1-.0 . • .i 4 t 7. _ ffi ' i.. 4. . I,',.. ;!'':-..._'' tiv?'Tt: - fayxRJ Jrades I?SF - TD t 4-P Co,u Lt , TacoTiñhle 3300 Maple Valley H„ yiMK CITY OF RENTON Renton.WA 98058 Phone(425) 2_'l+•l(SG August 4, 1997 AU G 0 81997 fax(425)22S•8126 Municipal Building RECEIVED 200 Mill Avenue S. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Renton,WA. 98055 Attn: Renton City Council Dear Council Members: Recently,while attempting to add additional parking at our corporate office complex on MapleValleyHwy., we discovered that the zoning designation for our property had been changed toConvenienceCommercial (CC)thus restricting us from any expansion of our existing complex. The corporate office was structured in 1990 and at that time the zoning was B-1 that outrightpermittedtheofficecomplexandassociatedparking. Under the present zoning, offices are listedasconditionaluseswithpredeterminedrestrictionsthatrenderourexistingofficebuildingasa non-conforming use/structure. The current code restricts the size of offices to 3,000 gross square feet. The Taco Time officebuildingis7,792 square feet, with an accessory storage building of 1,920 square feet. Parking is also significantly restricted (one space for every 500 square foot of gross floor area). Presently Taco Time has 30 spaces but is seeking approval to add 24 spaces in order to accommodate the additional need that occurs three to four times a month,when meetings involving franchise owners, restaurant managers or employee training sessions are held. Presently, when thesemeetings/seminars occur, parking overflows onto the surrounding residential neighborhood, which is an impact we had hoped to mitigate. Presently the Tonkin family, under the Accord Inc., leases the property along Maple Valley I-Ivy,between Monroe Ave. SE, and Maplewood Street. We are considering developing the lotfurthesteast, and had hoped to use the property between this lot and the existing Taco Time office for parking. The proposed development would have a landscaped buffer between our propertyandtheresidentialarea, which would not only buffer the residences from the parking area but also from Maple Valley Highway. During the seven years since we have relocated our corporate offices to its present location,our restaurant growth has been steady. We are already feeling the pinch for the office spacenecessarytoaccommodatethegrowingcorporatestaffneededto,support our restaurants. We arediscussingplanstoexpandourofficeinordertoaccommodateourgrowingneeds, butunfortunatelyduetothepresentzoningrestrictions,such an expansion would be prohibited. This restriction is presenting severe consequences for our business. We believe that the location of our corporate office is an improvement and a benefit to Rentonandthesurroundingneighborhood. We have never received complaints regarding our businessoperationfromtheneighborhood, and in fact we are considered to be a good neighbor. The Tonkin family are long time residents of Renton and take pride in maintaining an attractive, successfully managed office complex. It is discouraging to know that the restrictions that are GCS p(- ue_ now imposed on our property limits the Taco Time Corporation from expanding and in essence,make the existing development a non-conforming use and structure. We are requesting that Section 4-31-10.5 of the Zoning Code be re-evaluated for its actual impactonexistingbusiness. We strongly believe that the present zoning places unreasonable restrictionsonourbusinessandpotentialredevelopmentofpropertieszonedCCthatexistalong*MapleValleyHwy. Sincerely, 1/ 11 Mathew E. Tonkin President cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Mr.Mike Katterman Maplewood Community - 3110 SE 5th St, Renton, Wa 98058 March 31st 19 REry v yjl; „ p, City of Renton Planning Commission Commission Member: Mr Mark Smith.. APR 9 1998 Renton City Hall 200 Mill Ave South ECl%'• • ''4aL.)PMENT, Renton WA 98055 oa-o A. .i . F MINING Ref: Taco Time's Corporate Office, parking and office expansion. Oct 6/97 council meeting. Ref: City sponsored CPA rezone application. Neighborhoods & strategic planning department: City initiated CPA. 3/23/9 Dear, Mr Mark Smith, It has come to the attention of this community, that the Corporation known as Taco Time, has submitted a petition to the Renton Planning and Development Commission. This petition is asking for approval to rezone three residential lots to 'Commercial Arterial:' This community is outraged by this proposal. Taco Time Corporate Offices: located at 3300 Maple Valley Hwy, Renton, is built on property that was previously owned by John Dobson. Taco Time have a lease option to buy, many residential properties in this community, all of them owned by John Dobson. The three lots mentioned above, are included in this lease option. Maplewood residential community is unique. Because of its geographical location it has remained essentially unchanged in the last 53 years. Also, Renton City Council recognized the surrounding areas as environmentally sensitive, and designated them, RC (resource conservation zone). Please see Comprehensive Plan Map, #F5 attached. Maplewood community is not going to benefit in any way from this commercialization; we will however suffer adverse impacts. The residential properties which Taco Time wishes to commercialize, face onto the residential neighborhood. This is an unwanted intrusion esthetically, and will devalue property. These proposals, If they are allowed to proceed, will be the beginning of a slow process of decay of this community. In reference to the proposed zoning- CA, this is primarily oriented to automobile traffic along designated MAJOR arterial streets. The streets onto which the commercial property would exit are 'no-through streets', and are therefore in use solely by neighborhood traffic. Maplewood Community wishes to make known its objection to the above proposal to commercialize residential property in a neighborhood which is 99.9% residential. This area is also surrounded by 'Resource Conservation zones, and much of the adjacent acreage has been purchasedbytheCityforpreservationas 'Open Space: We appreciate your careful consideration of the above. Residents of the Maplewood Community will be following this issue very closely, and we will be represented at every opportunity to voice our objections. Future communications will include a petition, which will be presented at the appr -riate time. Sincerel 311 o SC 7t1,‘c:// - 31 ( sc 7 scc. s sY-. cam' -4-e-Le,, 1 71 Z 3 y 3 6 SL .S't'l 5}C11 ;r s4/ mac' b e ni .1 44i • ,,¢Z4_g Representatives of the Maplewood Community Phone: Nicola Robinson, 255-5160 March 16, 1998 Page 2 development in Area A and to reconcile the existing development outside Area A with potential zoning consistent with the land use designation. Rather than a concurrent rezone, as occurs with Land Use Map amendments within the city limits, a prezone of the same area will be processed concurrent to this amendment. COR zoning is proposed, consistent with the proposed land use designation. The prezone process allows the City Council to adopt City zoning for areas outside the city limits. Renton zoning designations would not be implemented until the area annexes. AMENDMENT 98-M-3 - Rainier Avenue North The City has requested an amendment to the Land Use Map with a concurrent rezone for an area along Rainier Avenue N. The proposal would change the Residential Single Family (RS) land use and R-8 zoning designations to Employment Area-Commercial (EAC) and Commercial Arterial (CA). The site is comprised of three parcels which total about three acres in size. The parcels are surrounded by single family uses to the north and west, and CA zoning to the south. AMENDMENT 98-M-4-Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time Site The proposed amendments would apply to properties currently designated Convenience Commercial (CC) around the 330Q and 3400 block of Maple Valley Highway, properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices which are under common ownership and currently designated Residential Single Family (RS), and the existing Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop currently designated Residential Single Family (RS). The proposal would: Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Convenience Commercial (CC) and Residential Single Family (RS) to Employment Area- Commercial (EA-C). Amend the Zoning Map concurrently from Convenience Commercial (CC) and Residential-8 R-8)to Arterial Commercial (CA). Amend the CA zone in general to clarify minor repair activities, allow for accessory storage for permitted service and office uses, and allow for offices. Authorize a development agreement with all property owners in the amendment area which accommodates existing uses and future expansions, and allows for more variety in uses while excluding other uses normally allowed in the CA zone which are too intensive for the area. AMENDMENT 98-M-6 - "Ruth 4 To 1" Urban Growth Boundary Amendment This proposal involves two components. First, amending the Urban Growth Boundary to include an irregularly shaped 4 acre site located on the south side of SE Lake Youngs Way between 137th Avenue SE, if extended, and 139th Avenue SE, if extended, in the area between Soos Creek and the Lake Youngs watershed. Since the site is on the east side of Soos Creek it would remain in Renton's Potential Annexation Area. Second, amending Renton's Comprehensive Plan to .reflect this new addition to Renton's PAA and designating it under Renton's Comprehensive Plan as Residential Single Family. The County has proposed designating the site Urban on their Comprehensive Plan and rezoning it to R-6-P. SE Sth St lit* i litip 4 SE 4.till, Pe, 14t a) 0 Lir 41* IP 0 0 ape gyp\dif 44111111111\CY. o° . it4" 0 150' 301 i r,. 10000 Aliblb/. Stud Area ( 98 —M - 4) I 1 CC zone - commercial use O, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning A R-8 zone - conrrercial use ED/NSP Sca ePp, R. bfacOnie R-8 zone - residential use rvr 10 March 1988 Parcels considerect -for redesign naa 1 , ' R•78' ii1 I 1RTf NE4thSt. R-8 RM-I EA CA 3ra \'.03 k,. R-10 R-10 0 0 RM-I NE 8 IL(P) RMH N W oN N W z N 4' R-8 RM!-I. It... , w 9 RC f. —is E '5th St. i R-;8 N RC(P) RC Atio . R_.8, 8 G5 - 21 T23N R5E W 1/2 4?0F 5o , ZONING 1:4000 It 4. P/ /Pw `C` SERVICES 16 T23N R5E W 1/2FN't0 01/16/98 i- April 1998 720CE/1/ p , ECCityofRentonMPlanning/Building/Public Works 200 Mill Ave.So. Renton,Wash.98055 RE: Property owned by Joseph&Patricia Conrad(see enclosed tax bills) Renton,Wash. Attn: Larry Brosman Planning Commission Chairman Dear Larry, It has come to our attention that the City of Renton has changed the zoning on our property from BI to Residential. We were unaware and never notified of the hearings prior to this action. We purchased the property in 1984 with B1 Zoning paying a price in keeping with BI Zoning. We stopped in at City Hall to verify this information. We were told that you are working on your Comprehensive Review right now. Taco Time has asked for a change of zoning with property adjacent to their Building. It was also disclosed that you are considering changing the Zoning on the Barber Shop and the Mini Mart(which abuts our property)to CA Zoning. We ask that you consider rezoning our property along with the others to at least CA so we will not have such a financial loss. We understand that you are considering only a limited use in the CA Zoning is this area. We are awaiting the details on that information from Lisa Grueter which should come shortly. We were very impressed with how cordial Lisa was. She tried to be very helpful with this emotional and stressful matter. We would be very appreciative of your help. Sincerely Yours, Joe and Pat Conrad P.O.Box 6382 Kent,Wash.98064 253 631-3057 253 639-5282 Fax jpconrad@juno.com Enclosures: Tax Statements Plot Plan of our Property showing B1 Zoning SEE REVERSE SIDE ERTYTAX p?1 1yJb KINU CUUNIT, WA, HEAL ESTATE TAXUNTNUMRM600•500 FOURTH AVE,SEATTLE WA 98104.23875126904—0 s KEEP CUR LLING DISTRIBUTION CURRENT BILLING INFORMATIONSlate 5 0 3 4 C Local School Support Lana vale. CTHIS Less ImprovementsCounty Lea:Exempt Value.....13.64City TAXABLE VALUE 11 2 CPORTIONU^;ncorpor.tedlfload... P*rt 2.9 b `"" Rat. 13 1 Fire.. General Tax Sewer Nor Water other Charges C VG ALL PARTS WHEt.PAYING IN PERSON Library TOTAL CURRENT BLLWG Odle( ,•1.s () MOW Texas F 8 TOTAL CURRENT BILLINGEmergencyMedSvc .... INCLUDING OMITSOtherCharges5.0 0 VOTER APPROVEDTA`CUAR 15 2.1 CONRAD JOSEPH H & PATRICIA 054898 TGEKIWNOAK 152 5_ _PO BOX 6382 SOIL CON 46' 7KENTWA 98064 5.00 First half must be paid or postmarkedi '*•''.:'••:BLOCK CODE°' SEC%:,.t iNP •- by April 30. or FULL AMOUNT BE •"^ `'t-DEL1NOUENCY INFORMATION Oj COMES DELINQUENT and accrues YEAR . INTEREST992100InterestandpenaltyasprescribedbyPENALTY PRINCIPALMAPLEWOODDIV #2 law. U fiat hallLOT1OFCITY' OF RENTON SHORT paid by April 30 erPLATNO •0 3 3-81 RECORDING O 00^d interest moat h.paid by octob. •r 2p L 9 31 or It becomes delinquent and L2p1L 19pp29SMA IQRTOp pT p Tc F interact end Penalty.OT 9 6LK tW0 D DIVDNO 2 ETC FULL AMOUNT MAY BE PAID APRIL30th DELINQUENT TOTAL TOTAL CURRENT, AND DEUNOUENTS SEE REVERSE SIDEERTYTEE Eg PP1I 1998 KING COUNTY, WA, REAL ESTATE TAXERTYT11_g0325-07 RM 600-500 FOURTH AVE,SEATTLE WA 98104-23872KEEPCURRENTBIWNGDISTRIBUTIONCURRENTBILLINGINFORMATION 'State 5 0 3 3 C Local School support Land Value THIS County 4 8••6 8 Improvements c+10 2.4 7 Lea::Exempt vane PORTION•P°^ Uninwrporated/Road TAXABLE VALUE 2600 6.96 Levy flats 131747FireGeneralTax Sewer Nor Water Other Charges j Omitted Taxes ' 1G ALL PARTS WHEN PAYING IN PERSON Library TOTAL CURRENT BIWNG 35. e Other 4.19 TOTAL CURRENT BILLING .Emergency Med Svc INCLUDING OMITS 351.5OtherCharges5.00CONRADJOSEPHH8PATRICIA054898 TOTAL LnpF 351.50 VOTER APPROVEDPOBOX638211I SILLV CON 109.EKENTWA 98064 SOIL 5.00 t . ,,. BLOCK = '^'•First half must be paid or postmarked-CODH•sSI;C yTYI(B',j,R(a. by April 30. or FULL AMOUNT BE. KDELINQUENCYINFORMATION :COMES DELINQUENT and accrues YEAR INTEREST 9 9MAPLEWOODDIV # 2 2100 interest and penalty as prescribed by PENALTY PRINCIPAL law. It first hall paid by April 30LOT2OFCITYOERENTONSHORTsecondhalfmustbepaidbyOctoberPLATNO033— p81SHRpERCTORDING NO 31 or it becomes delinquent end LT194LK29SDASHORTOP LAATT DppF 00fOes interest and penalty. PROPERTY ADDRESSE NEARD6THNSE2ST ETC FULL AMOUNT MAY BE PAID APRIL 301h DELINQUENT TOTAL TOTAL CURRENT AND DEUNOUENTS SEE REVERSE SID 1998 COUNTY, WA, REAL ESTATE TAX PEATY TAX P10 if RM 60C FOURTH AVE,SEATTLE WA 98104.2387 OUNT NUMBER CURRENT BILLING INFORMATION5126900328-04 KEEP State a • LandValu• THIS Local School Support.... Improvements 50 3 2 C County 52602 Less:Exempt Value..... City 10 9.47 TAXABLE VALUE 2 8,1 urdncorporatsa'Road.... levy Rat. 13 4PORTIONPert7.44 GeneralTa: i eU. Fire.. Other Charges S Sewer&Aar Water TOTAL CURRENT BILLING c7 S.t Library minted Tax. NG ALL PARTS WHEN PAYING IN PERSON rOther 4848 TOTAL CURRENT BILUNG Emergency Med Svc INCLUDING OMITS ..... 375-.t our..Charges 5.100 VOTER APPROVED TOTAL CI is h ACING 117 e-CONRAD JOSEPH H & PATRICIA 054898 • Tf'C PO BOX 6382 SOIL CON 5.00 KENT WA 98064 First half must be paid or postmarked _•.. DELINQUENCY INFORMATION•,-'4' .• LOT i ; BLOCK • CODE' SEC::%.1WP •;RG_' by April 30.or FULL AMOUNT BE• INTEREST 9 9 2100 COMES DELINQUENT end accrues YEAR PRINCIPAL inrer.st end penally as prescribed by PENALTY MAPLE W O O D D I V *2 law. If fast hall paid by April 30 LOT 3 OF CITY OF RENTON SHORT second hall r k b use be paid Oct beer PLAT NOQ0033—TG8 1cxRECORDING NO and accrues interest and penalty. E 11214a2P29S1'IAYCH/OLtIVDAFO 2 ETC FULL AMOUNT MAYBE DELINQUENT TOTALPAIDAPRIL30th TOTAL CURRENT: c AND DEUNQUENTS SEE REVERSE SIDE 1998 KING COUNTY, WA, REAL ESTATE TAX ERTYTAX 1p ilk RM 600-500 FOURTH AVE,SEATTLE WA 98104.2387 NT NUMBER KEEP • .,,...,,.CURRENT BELLING DISTRIBUTION, i. "="..•CURRENT BILLING INFORMATION -:.f 512690-0329-03 State Lend Value C 5 0 31 e THIS Local School Support.. 2 0.7 4 Improvements County less:Exempt Value City 4 3.6 4 TAXABLE VALUE 11,2 C PORTION UParnitncorporated'Road.... 2296 Levy Rate 13,147 General Tax Jr if 75.C Fire Other Charges- 152SewerdlorWaterTOTALCURRENTBILLING Library Omitted Tax. NG ALL PARTS WHEN PAYING IN PERSON other. 1•I'8 TOTAL CURRENT BILUNO 152•Emergency Med Svc 5•O O INCLUDING OMITS...... Other Charges VOTER APPROVED TGTAL IN 152.56 46 e CONRAD ILL IN H & PATRICIA 054898 d'i` E N A_R PO BOX 6382 SOIL CON 5.00 KENT WA 98064 First hall must be paid or postmarked r._• -.DELINQUENCY INFORMATION '' s 3 Y by April 30, or FULL AMOUNT BE-LOT 3, F• #y:a '.BLOCK, .CODEie>SEC'= TWP RG?INTERESTCOMESDELINQUENTandaccruesYEAR PRINCIPAL 9 9 2100 interest and penalty as prat crihed by PENALTY M A P L E W 0 0 D DIV *2 law. If first half paid by April 30 LOT 4 OF CITY OF RENTON SHORT son31 d or itanb comes delinquent must be by tob er PLAT NO .033-881 RECORDING NOOA accrues interest and penalty. LOT148QKp29SAAPLE /OLDIVDNO 2 ETC FULL AMOUNT MAY BE DELINQUENT TOTAL PAIDAPRIL30th 152.TOTAL CURRENT i. 4 f•:. oWtia 1 v / / n T •, ;, 'F. 't il.r• r:: •i r •hx l .;:.i' Xr c: ory L a ,, .7,?r k;,•.. .fY N,I/1 \ i 41.4,1;:^a. 1• It Y•j,ir..: ''a '`/a• :42 r'ts?. .V' A '.'9 v.. ,. t.., 9 s rs 4.. •:"..:', : ••... :; 4:•I;..:,'.z:..{'•'• •F k`'r.`,t'%Q t.` .. • .F T z 'tY 1't. .,''j...• S`•el w • j+'i;C•T•i'-••.:J ... 'r'• tr ti.. z` •9y''t''. y...! t' C,'1=•t=:.fl:i t'=.Y. .. : ;-lu;•]'+"a t Fr :y ? ', • ' '}'•tt .., ,.,.,;.1'7; / ..f`• ui., • }••ia.4• ti.,,• N,...,;;' .`w:!•':::t' ...$,.I•r,• l., i k,r') e j/ ':. r:! te../_,..:%:'.:P-.'f(..,'.. :,•x' it ::. :nt;(*••i:. a I•t • .,e• . ••.• CI% .•t`S` S 4'," v4.1.• -.1'7 • f.*Y.• ,:it T .,. r..,.•• P; .+_-• _% — z tiny f t 1• 't i'?:*41'..r 'y-r••. .Q,.' 1:: -rt:4f f t.L•;}. ': f:.' ... I:.'' y::- .i.•I• •.l -.. • t' , N•„ N. • 1:' a . 1 r .1+, t, 1n.' t •r,:-t...:.` :.• .• :qw. ;F.,:: 41 r y..,t•k IJt.•yr'<;i.:+' .:i.,: r.i,l:.: r•'=paS: ..} ... NZ..., v;:{}may• „ •y' In :itr ry fi.i~.•:•i:j,l„+ r,, .7'• t t <4ir 1t. •. wCCyk. ,'y.e!4'c'':, ,*S':Av:3t '•,.pt'• 3••.Y.(.{i,r''`.. • .'(' •'A:. }..'i.••r e.;•;i'N•,`y,-`. .ti. .n•,i_z: p..•C:ii.i+• ';i5 i'l. I v . 1t,7=. :•1 . M.'.••' , i lcr', '.rY tj•'j:.' 'kr`:,F;./.rA,..r. 1..i. r • ': i"•1•.rr'`• .,i;+i:;C:F`'• •I?'. 1 I .. J7 __ 1;`A.?:. f `• • Ir . \' 4.i. ' TT' •i:_ i.1 •. + p O'+. nit ts Iti.® Y• • i/:t. to.•t.: `i.:• \'i y.''•ry \ A®®® ' '0'•f a..i. `•"-'-IP"' a I'' 1,1 aSi. tri4*Y tISAr's * • 1'• : . '' 40q •*:. ;® k.. {: i•.411.' 4.r t i ; t s ( 1 1:,' :•• 5 • trt't=- p QO.•1•fp.:s S { t'& 4' y • A, r II l' i';': III :••••I I ' figil.%A.•nA • .• :::.''''';. \ ' '''.\..C;* 4 .4.-- f' Vs 1... 1 9 a '. •a r .t 1./ 1 y •.` t. iiiipitt 1 Fes 1 'Q 51) „ i^ _"A=t,={ 4. FPO I• % • " r ° ° G 1., f Y y® w, J e r , , IIIre?v..II ,ae a y\%•9]cd,®}4 11 1]t+ I, ir ©® ,„ •• ••(•; likti 09k M1 1 q m•.t''i t 1 t"' t]t•.,- tr I6 n I.I J1y l A'" a= 9 1 V IA t, •! y 1,• pp -',L'r ' u 11 /Q t` 4 6. `To ysT+ °Ito 9 56. S s' r z .b + ad 19p Q'T a. 9' . 4 8b P pfir1,00 4 1 s y' co- .4, o .` 0 i oiso e.NN / N s 4"?.,,, i/ 51. L t G \G T Viz a •es'.A Q.1 ` ''-' °:.S is V z4 7aa1• yoz,s CDos -0; .3..4_ c wo 5Bf6 i 1°yt,5 a r s g >_ 3a I CI 2 39.60 r. o r sa..v '15: 4. o o b a h V x gyp cz as 0l> 9 S o D 0:15 6• r w k. 2 0* t i . a 3 apa sr,vy m ors P\ h, .. s. o S a _, 3 ° y c '' o K ;>,,,,>< ..T .S/ S5i S 0s,+'. 6 ... . 0 f - F 9,.. rr 7 C - • - ., o E al e 0- osq 0, 4 ' °, erg E' ao. e S i J . 91. 4' E8 0 IN Ii' F2 3'-8 sC,r. n•,gyp y Uj ?7 y 4 7•E1 7s • • ti 82 9D02 4o R •1 7 p >`' n.. vr 9' le rV• -Rr` 3g': 2 ,v s•ue:,s\: /.ts c'' Si, 7- 9A ''•'cj 39. o '' , o 4, A 2'9' o =ram :, e. et1/+I o > ° S , • t,3 0\ 2 emote 4 20 O• See`;s • 7s.,./ y l, r 6 p`' s fl' 3 9. i5 it IQ 1rr 25,774 o' 9r' ••••y id i i t 4.F, 59 C s`s"., >s 9 Df 1. h l Ls. S K J7 y5 4 L, e. opts y o iv •/s s= ' s• 6 S+ 3p• O 6T, 7 03\56 L /(•, y,..34, /' S7 ^a- J r• J >o O3{/. AL! ' 1 IF, Mp < ,'KOO/ `1 Y,k,. 01'19 l_ 4, 9„YCC l of's r it3T 1441.0 OP.. aRO P••3:, q A /0 411111111411N. qo L S 11.+ ti 7ti r !," 9 o , ca y y 00/P •Cr, >ply El, h JO Y O F i h 'p ??o' > s 1 m R7. s'. :'?S' o 1r ?4 9 oS o 3 0}tis A. 4 Y s va 404 r4 m,„ 'b a ka 4OP. RR yFRN o,e4'[• 4 1 °'°`A6 1 3 ' °e 0°6 . 4' 03 'A5 slo. /4 T'•- p_ =ao.=..` c, pL` 5 ' X T b p3ggI. 0 i a. • C„ e c .S, T S 4.01 fg-4l-d 3328 SE 611'.ST Renton,WA 98058- April 26, 1998 Ms. Lisq er Project Manager - Development Services Division 200 Mill Ave. S Renton,WA 98055 Dear Ms.Greeter, My family has lived here-since May 1984. We love this neighborhood because-it-is a-quitere& We fed safc litre- and have raised a soalere-4eeling he and-thee--other.-child ren-may lay in safety. We know our neighbors and-verse the 4 ckwatchPragram to help stem crime that tomes-with-strangers. We do NOT wanto-rk3e-allow in commercial establishments. The looker beautiful old-neighborhood-would change. The traffic quite-streets would change. it would not be as safe for our children. _And there would be more strangers in the area with a potential for iucreased fries. It is important for the-cu t-ruts-toeontinue`za ave-The Cedar River Market-and-Barbershop. Again they bring a-warm-feel to our neighborhood, neighbors that share anti-fare._There are-so few old neighborhoods still around-with This-feel. Please-leave this one as it is. Sincerely, 1) Jeannie M.Sage E. APR 217:1998 BUiLCJ1ivG !'1SlJi`+ 3110 SE 5th St, Renton,WA 98058 May 23, 1998 Planning Commission,for the City of Renton Commission Member. CITY OF RENTON City Hall, 200 Mill Ave South, MAY 2 6 1998 Renton,WA 98055 RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE Ref:Project No.LUA-98-042,CPA,R,ECF.Maple Valley Hwy Taco Time Site Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Concurrent Rezone/CA Zone Amendments/Development Agreement(98-M-4) Dear Commission member, This letter is to advise you that an appeal is being filed with the hearing examiners office, addressing the environmental determination of non-significance,of the above mentioned project,and the mitigation measures recommended by the Environmental review committee. If the above mentioned proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan is approved,there will be commercial development of three properties which are currently designated Residential Single Family'(RS),and which are also classified as,`Affordable Housing.'units.The Maplewood community is outraged by this proposal. There will be adverse environmental impacts resulting from the above development in the following areas:Land use,housing,aesthetics,and light. Land use impacts will result from the demolision of three residential buildings,by: removing affordable housing units from the market,displacing the current tenants,and by placing non-conforming,(CA)commercial arterial zoning,in a neighborhood which is 99%residential,this will adversely impact the quality of our environment.The property lines of four homes on SE 66 St,border the area of proposed zoning change.These said homes will have their view significantly obstructed,experience decreased light entering their residences,and suffer a loss of property values. Other residences,which have full or partial view of these three lots,will also experience overwhelming negative impacts upon the aesthetics of their environment.The(CA)Zone allows for buildings up to 50 ft high. The current Taco Time Office building is 28 ft high,this building is already an obstruction to ones view,and decreases the amount of light entering adjacent residences. The Maplewood Community finds the above proposal will result in significant adverse impacts to the quality of our environment,this would be the beginning of a slow processofdecayofouruniqueresidentialcommunity. We are requesting the Environmental Review Committee reconsider their environmental determination,and find the adverse environmental impacts to the quality of our environment of significance.We request an EIS be initiated on this project,and also appeal for changes to the mitigation measures. We are asking for any building,to be no greater in height than the single story residences that are already existence on the three residential lots in question. Our expectation is that the residential lots will not be changed to a commercial zoning. Thank you for your attention to this letter.I believe this issue may be on your agenda for your next meeting on May 27`h. 5 3xRepresentativesoftheMaplewoodCommunity: Sincerely t yr fix mac? . : t. 7.: Aug.13,1998 AUG 2 4 1998 TO: City of Renton ECONG`.I!C DEVELOPMENT. NS'OriSDP o Du. AND S'?ATE:'. PLANNING Ref: File No.:LUA-98-092,AAD Location: Maplewood area east end of City From: Pat and Joe Conrad Our Property:four parcels adjacent to the Cedar River Market on SE 6`h.Street Our property was down zoned from B1 to Residential in 1993. We were unaware ofthischangeuntilAprilof1998. We(lid not receive notification of the meetings considering this down zoning. We would have responded if we had known. We ask that you reconsider our property in this rezoning action along with TacoTime, the Market and the Barber Shop. If our property remains residential it will have quite an impact on the value of the property and will hurt us financially. WefeelthatourpropertywasalsorezonedbyamappingerroraswastheMarketand the Barber Shop. We have been asked to write a letter explaining what we would like to do with the property. We would want to build something that would blend with the area andthattheneighborswouldfeelcomfortablewit-II—and be proud to live by. Our plans have always been to build nice Condominiums on the property. We would however be happy to build a two-story office building similar to the one that has just been finished across the street if that is more acceptable to the neighbors. CA zoning would allow a 2 story office building similar to that one. We have been caught in the shuffle. We feel our property was down zoned without proper notification to us. We have paid taxes on B1 zoned property for quite a few years. Now with the assessment for the water and sewer it doesn't seem right to ustohaveourpropertydown-zoned causing the value to decrease to less than half of what we paid for it 12 years ago. We cordially ask that you reconsider our zoning to CA. Sincerely, Pat and Joe Conrad cc:Jay Covington cc:Derek Todd G. 1,TacoTime® y. .. 3300 Maple Valley Hwy Renton.WA 08058 phone(425)226-6656 Fax(425)228-8226 September 11, 1998 a : rti$ SEP 1 4 1998 ECO..•_...ti. - - City Of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Attn: Renton Planning Commission RE: AMENDMENT 98-M-4-MAPLE VALLEY HWY TACO TIME SITE Dear Council Members: During the meeting on April 22, 1998 of the Planning Commission, many questions and concerns were raised with regards to the potential Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Amendment and Taco Time's intentions for the future development of our property along Maple Valley Highway. Although our future plans are at present, very preliminary and speculative, we would like to clarify our position in regards to the present zoning classification and our support for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Taco Time office building located at 3300 Maple Valley Highway is the corporate headquarters for Accord, Inc.. The parent company,Taco Time International (T.T.I.), is based in Eugene, Oregon. In 1979 Accord, Inc. became an independent operation as the franchisor for Western Washington. T.T. I. remains the franchisor for the remainder of the United States as well as the worldwide franchisor. Accord, Inc. is owned and operated by the Tonkin family, who have resided in Renton since 1884. Their restaurants combined with that of their franchises total 78 restaurants in Western Washington. When we first moved our office to this location in 1990, we had 45 restaurants including corporate and franchise stores. Since that time we have increased to 78 restaurants,with additional new locations in the planning stage. While our restaurant increase has been significant, the unforeseen increases in our sales have created the greatest impact and stresses on our support systems. The additional increases Page 3 September 11,1998 The properties we presently lease are comprised of both CC and R-8 zoning, which prohibits us from adding the parking we need and would restrict us from adding space to our office complex. If the zoning were to be changed to CA on only those properties presently under a CC zone, without the inclusion of the three houses included in the re-designation, Taco Time would still be unable to add parking or expand in any way. We are certainly sensitive to the concerns of our residential neighbors and believe the proposed developmental agreements, concerning setbacks, landscape requirements, barrier walls and property access restrictions, sufficiently address any concerns. We do not believe the residential neighborhood would be impacted in a negative manner. In actuality the improvements would be ascetically beneficial to the surrounding area, and aid in noise reduction caused by traffic on the Maple Valley Highway. Our leased properties have many inherent limitations as well, including a large easement area.We would not be allowed to build on this easement, only landscape and parking are permitted. These restrictions combined with the parking requirements necessary for commercial uses prohibit any major expansion. The attached site plan was prepared as a preliminary study for possible future development for these properties should the Comprehensive Plan Amendment be implemented. This site plan reflects the maximum development that could occur taking into account the developmental and code restrictions. This site plan is a study only and should not be considered a definite proposal for our future development. We appreciate your review of this zoning amendment. We hope that Taco Time's long time presence in Renton, our involvement with the community and the jobs that we provide, will be taken under consideration while evaluating this zoning amendment. Sincerely, ax,/,_e,) 2 Mr. Mathew Tonkin President Enclosure(1) I t \A\Ags Tacoilme N, ..f , v . ",t‘,.S ‘s;Irf c` c`..' i; \ SE 61B_STREET_ - t V \\ Ilk V1/4.1\' .4iN V' V a VVV"'ddE1`iii11f333 intoroan col ' ,, ,& D\\` Y4 l. i A. 7 '' 1»f J7 PARc.Q usam+r,uu. \ c\< t::.\.s' i U YR-}i TRACT 6 MAPLE_VALLEY HIGHWAY. _ SITE PLAN SCALE 1"=40'-0" BUILDING A-EXIS ING OFFICE SPACE _BUILDING D-PROPOSED NEW STORAGE SPACE 2 STORIES-7,792 TOTAL SF 1 STORY-1950 TOTAL SF 1 BUILDING B-EXISTING TRAINING CENTER BUILDING E-PROPOSED NEW OFFICE SPACE I , 1 STORY-1950 TOTAL SF 2 STORIES-6,480 TOTAL SFAik DUII.DINGC-RROPOSEDNEWOFFICESPACE MINIMUMN STALLS STAALLDREQUIRED: 82 NORTH-_. 2 STORIES-8,676 TOTAL SF Mike and Helen Smith RECE "' 524 Newport Ave. SE Renton,WA 98058 SEP 1 4 1998 ECOI O'.I!()EVELOpM ,, 9/11/98 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing with concerns about 98-M-4,the Maple Valley Taco Time Site. I live at 524 Newport Ave. SE. and have two small boys, ages one and three. We bought this house for one reason: The Neighborhood. Understandably we had concerns about raising our children in the city. However,we were lucky enough to find this"old fashioned small town"in the middle of the city. In this neighborhood, almost everybody knows everyone else. Personally, everyone on my block is literally our extended family. When you go into the store, the owners call you by name and everybody waves and says"hi"on the street. There are children in almost every other house throughout the neighborhood;we all know this are careful to watch out for them. To quote Hilary Clinton, "It takes a village to raise a child"and fortunately, that's exactly what we have here. On top of this, our location is great. You get the feeling that you're not in the city when you step out of your house only to see hills covered with beautiful trees. Yet we are only minutes from Downtown Renton shopping. My main concerns are that the office buildings will bring us"back to the city"as, obviously,we would now be looking at buildings instead of trees. And I'm also concerned that the employees won't respect our neighborhood as far as driving slow and safe enough for our children, as well as keeping the local park and streets clean. I think this neighborhood is worth preserving. Thank you for taking my thoughts into consideration. Sincere! , The Smith Family li r,r3(;. ql 2d`)14V i 1,1-0) S-7)friek.4,.f-no\;i aYr i ' 2 tiU 711; 1 U1) 7-,sVa) -feU 9! 2V 11,107 i i; 0)}(? )0)/00 c, ?,') O- rp(')1 o Pc U tin op 1 u vre d Y, C t !Ld:a11M cd_m 1roM 014O1 Uo b 9U pp200 c saio8_,a14.,-. O1(7U)-1, 0— ' • 11 pm oM -dA\ cot) ,- )) w'u< (77d UC1 pauoy '-dG1 VI1' t9 DJ\\ ' VI) OJC i 2 2 Iva W Q raa a1 1 ` Uaz A C1 '` 15'/' t la{1 f- 7vD v' oCJ AI 1 {: fa-9-) t a+ ipLApi1.9 c_;au)4)-Ci Doz p-w-'Yo' c av--d yam an)7ja,1 SZ2(ri i)l,)-f--, if245-i1vp " 001.101 :J'-y'l0.0 1A-91,tA901171n-nc2- 4) Th,e 01r our? C'S J.0 1 rvi S-i 'l t/i0,((- Ta t cris lA crop -)0 at'I P1-1 rnr))10/19 ti+oo cjoC:itim 607072.A V / t aD - Z faav>n )iau no) r9 ?up- ' g.bb 1 91 '(VJ 11.B t71 9 '111 I a 111l ,!a SvYa o G't`'. 1 o2b • 1/ f v 67 7;1$ g mot12-fid_aklAvi-r)0126As Itfi y)11 1 auo1 -t1-01 l' 1S 7 o--S o S 1 b--9),-.Diawu V 1L'nUc9 a a f t (sa sx00IA0141731,1 )row , ! i J Cfr2friAA)vto V -a i o ) ,-n7,, in) [J ,JOWZiA- sT odtr-op o rig /fr row' s-u0, . thl PG-Dal/VI ?ST? 7fl v °1+1' t to-ab-nrt7W d-rvhboro 4-noip-O'ridp piiro hitry-rn,tinmo--) /boa_ t! oN ; fit o Lt I 7I-i' atAn- ;. O t hy1'a a)7I1)otl '571 TL'11J i s 1/x)&l rU A 4 93 )-9r›a•t,tru,,00 e-a-RwartAlrl4Q 5-VA ntTi r a l 9- VANIA2d(ffnorw [11,1-to.) 11)171 qif; c i lam°r z fit cn -f-d- , 2 -9 1a A.Prp ro +of rid-off saf-p f51 J P I(Q ( ZA J p 1 P7 2./tb cv„d f,, rodeo "l r 1316A0-0.1 ii-Y4_3_--og 1-72)?-1-fiv ropAovvi-wQd irvjfirapierV Tavoz r-op s\ontvia_ Lto I.r; S'eT -r / 7fLf - r ,t h27 z L Y C, THE DRAFT LAND USE PLAN MAY CHANGE THE, CHARACTER OF YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD The City of Renton's Planning Commission has presented an advisory recommendation to the City Council on the proposed comprehensive Land Use Element. The Draft Land Use Element is part of the Comprehensive Plan required by the Growth Management Act of 1990, and will guide zoning and development in the City for the next a years. zoning. he new land use plan will lead to major changes in existing land use The Draft Land Use Element proposed by the Planning Commission, after extensive public review and comment, includes policies for residential, commercial, and industrial uses, transportation, utilities, annexations, community design, open space and the environment. Some of the critical issues of concern to the City Council are: Where new growth will occur in the city. In-fill development, particularly duplexes and four-unit structures. Redevelopment in the downtown emphasizing a mix of uses and high density residential activities. Establishment of "urban separators"--areas of open space and low density uses. Dispersed commercial growth in outlying community centers. Convenience commercial uses near neighborhoods. Mixed office/residential uses at several locations outside the city center. The City Council will review the draft land use policies and map during June and July, and will then adopt a "preferred" land use alternative which will be used to guide preparation of area-wide zoning and regulations. The final land use policies are expected to be adopted by December, 1992. Citizens, property and business owners are encouraged to participate in this process through workshops, public meetings, and public hearings. The City Council's schedule through July is shown on the back of this notice. Information about the plan is available in the Planning Division (235-2552). Written comments may be submitted anytime during the process to: City Council, Renton City Hall, 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, WA 98055. C , City of Renton Land Use • Reninal DtonCiCo io unncbil in F tyecis December,1992. 0 a Alternative Please keep this • El n as Q 0 E V `j tabloid for reference, Fall 1992 „ .. ...ram a. IR E and Use in Renton As the Comprehensive Plan is prepared,City staff and elected officials Land use provides the physical framework for all the essential day-to- will be working closely with King County to assure that the City's plan is lay activities of a city: work,play,community and family life. Without consistent with the objectives of the County plan,and that the adequate management of the land use framework,these critical functions Countywide Policies are coordinated with our local plan. nay fall out of balance,disturbing the harmony and quality of life in a ommunity. Goals and Policies 4fter a decade of rapid population growth and associated development, In 1988,the City of Renton adopted a broad mission statement to define aWashingtoncommunitieshaverecognizedthespecialneedforlong- common purpose for plans and programs:erm planning as land uses change in response to growth. Comprehen- dve planning is a way for communities to successfully anticipate future The City of Renton,in partnership with residents,business and government,seeds and costs. is dedicated to:provide a healthy atmosphere in which to live and raise families,encourage responsible growth and economic vitality,and create a 2enton's current Comprehensive Plan is more than 20 years old,which positive work environment resulting in a quality community where people ed the City Council to initiate a process in 1989 to revise and update the choose to live,work and play." Ian. For the past three years,the Planning Commission,City Council The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan will carry out thetadCityAdministrationhavebeenworkingtoprepareanewCompre- City's mission statement as a set of broad goals,objectives and policiestensivePlantomanagegrowthanddevelopmentaswemoveintothe for eleven subject areas that affect the following aspects of community1°century. life: residential and commercial uses,industry, agriculture,open space and parks,environment,community design,transportation,airport,public facilities,utilities and annexation. status of the Comprehensive Plan Update A brief summary of the goals is contained in this tabloid. The full text of n 1990,the Washington State Legislature strengthened state planning the Draft Land Use Element goals and policies are available at the Long-aws with the passage of the Growth Management Act. The new law Range Planning Division,Third Floor,City Hall,or at the Renton CityailedformandatoryadoptionofcomprehensiveplansinallcitiesandLibrary. ounties affected by the law. These new comprehensive plans were equired to contain five primary elements: Land Use,Transportation, Jtilities,Capital Facilities,and Housing. tp 0 a n tlDO 'ill Ma 3ecause Renton's land use planning process was already underway,th, pry11 to wag`as is o;ity Council was able to auicklv reshane the nlannine nrnreesc to nrena re. a"Land Use Element"that would mcci the requirements of the Growth "— t Management Act,and would provide the framework on which to build j 1theotherplanelements. Comprehensive Plan:A set of maps and written policies intended to l represent a"vision"of the future physical design and character of the By the end of 1991,the City of Renton's Planning Commission had City,and guide development over the next 20 to 30 years. developed-with substantial input from citizens and property owners- several alternative concepts of a future vision for Renton. The impacts Land Use Element: A plan or scheme designating the location and of these alternative land use patterns were examined in a Draft Environ- extent of use for agriculture,timber production,housing,commerce, industry,recreation,open spaces,public utilities,public facilities.and '' mental Impact Statement distributed to the public early in 1992. other land uses as required by the Growth Management Act. 0 After receiving the Planning Commission's recommendations,the City Areawide Zoning: Zoning adopted for a district consistent with the Council initiated a series of meetings to allow citizens to comment on Comprehensive Plan,rather than on a lot-by-lot basis. the Plan. The City Council then selected a"preferred land use alterna- Urban Growth Areas: Areas designated by a county for urban tive,"to be reviewed and analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact development during the next 20 years as required by the Growth Statement due in December. The City Council expects to make a final Management Act.Only rural uses are permitted outside urban growth r decision in December on an Interim Land Use Element,that will be in areas. place until the final Comprehensive Plan is adopted by the City Council in July 1993. Mixed Uses: An area,site,or building where a mix of different land uses such as residential,office,retail or manufacturing uses are allowed. Citizens need to be aware that some new development may occur after InfihL:Development that occurs on vacant land within urbanized areas. the Plan is adopted in areas where the land use is expected to change in the future. This happens because development projects were already Public Facilities: Streets, highways,sidewalks,street and road 1;„6,;.,..coerrn,c rr,fne-ciannlc ,tnn,rcar.Water cyclernc Onr,n,nr1 , elite a Look.--- Tlie Land r• oe;X•Use Map MERCER ISLAND o•r ; 'u r at ttzpiM•h:The Land Use Mapis a geographic eO representation of broad catego- I 3 I •::::V:,• 'ries of land uses,called"land use designations" 3 r that' see legend) rIdentifywhere!and uses may be located,and what mix of land 1 ie ;• f: :.';:.;: :: i;; uses can occur within an area. These designations guide the g adoption of zoning districts and zoning r '' ss$-: g regulations that affect the ti• . A; {;use of individual,privately-owned I`SEA7LE isties. Citizens and property owners should carefully examine these S W W siti"i +At`..designations because they will have a significant impact on the N. 'e`Mr ••'';>•future of their neighborhood or business district. 5, yN. a S T-' ° StCs''":ti!'q' O1.2 i RESIDENTIAL GOAL .. . I :;:;•'' rf'\ O.o. "s..;:41IpII1I Promote pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods wherej '6:''•'•'•'Niiiialf I I III'.iVXtA'people can work, sp:7:shop and play within proximity of their homes o.' ;:3<d i G,'I n' s's o..tolicies will promote neighborhoods that have a strong sense of corn- o •• '''•sry r3i • rrn iunity and neighborhood r;:;:;:••;:i •. e••aa>: 'I se,•l llll•:?q:•••••••:•'7.g oal identity:offer a variety of housing types for a r,•s ,:.•.••sL;•:f:• tide•• Q :MtnktI '0:::::rr'?;0 :'opulation diverse in age,income,and lifestyle;are developed at Y' •""f"%• "•'••!•s f 1 --_=rY•'+ ensitics sufficient to support Oer:;:°:; ? i:X:il 1 a,ar. r public transportation and make efficient r r ,.;. _4Scofurbanservicesandinfrastructure.I t:.•:i`:':•`••••'•' •.: ' . g s.';.;rIIIIyJIJIII Jl residcntialgrowthpoliciesfocusnew r _;:- 1'igrowthinRenton's downtown, r:.•'sr,t / t new neighborhoods where a mix of residential structures would be rr 4'Olowed,and s s v ; err \V/// :% :, e1i, i i •:.: ti.>as part of redeveloped commercial and office areas.b'M:tforclabilityofhousingwouldbepromoted. Low density uses would a• t••irequiredinenvironmentallydw014,4 i: :••;••{z,Al.iysensitiveareas. New growth in single- r ge.*:, :4Ve,,T4gimilt'neighborhoods would be infill atareas. densities s : r':•`000t'te.tiexistingonly. T:W: velopment of small-scale multi-family,small lot residential,,sees- tail rrryhousingunitsandresidentialmixed-uses are 1 ytt,:.:.z...1.. lik. r r yr 'f1O• Cs to traditional single and proposed residential, r a ,_.Kyt;/date y ititI8multi-family housing. and community i,,ns,.;n;•:fusingwouldbefocusedprimarilyinthedowntownandcommunity1 •'r o ..::::: titers. Existing multi-family neighborhoods r}? oJ r rf+'•y:'v'ti'Z ,;,•,••;Y 8 borhoods would be maintained,and SAS*::: ib'r::::::•::: S rr. ; .t.Blau in fill would be allowed. J rS:t:•Me i''••':':•'" •••:•;M'•dL ced use development allowing resides- 4 111.114,111411.41kit,commercial and office uses in the 00 to building or on the same site would t 1•: • :••• >y r Imlhlx.E.,` y,•yl.'•'.encouraged in downtown areas and in rt l[iltl'I 31'• _ m'•'dfrr vl•+ ;s• tmunity and neighborhood commercial renters t wdirryd:" ENTERS GOAL Provide a well-balanced,com atible,attractive, e''•r}rr'' •'' r,•tis,SetiPe,convenient.and ei:S.r••..aF:;:.•.•..d;.,::•ift:ii'•$.re:.•robust system of commercial,office and residential development j•L•• •,'••=••Y:":•+:S:CGsea 4,.::within designated centers which serve the needs of the area. i0.'•'oi,, r'y'•''' ';S`M ''M development in the City's downtown will be encouraged and would 3 r i i i'i4>iii i.'s r`':rv'.f,,'r•+'•°s•':sludeamixoflandusesincludingmulti-family M ;i*i>•i•i!oioi :•:5•::•,<:: yresidcould comma- s, 'tip!.'!..• ,S. .*•••W`.:4•:•:.-:sI.offices and some light industry. KENT ey::'••'.,• !o v.o.i.:.s.;;S F:f°w•ry. Downtown uses would be in-f:••,•, f•, y t.. t•errdcdtoservetheregion. Kei':•.',:" t t iettal .: •:`:::::i::• nsification of development would also occur outside of downtown Teas called"centers"which would contain commercial growthundistinctboundariesservingadjacentresidentialareas. Multi-ily residential uses would be allowed in centers with some small 4 e multi-family development surrounding the centers and serving as aerortransitionbetweenlanduses.I OPEN SPACE AND PARKS GOAL tide of the centers,smaller scale convenience commercial developmentIdservenearbyareasonly. Growth would also occur in two new Office/dential centers at the City's gateways. In these areas,commercial,residen- Develop and maintain a diverse open space rx•ork. Renton will maintain a high quality parks and reccreation system and provideandofficeuseswouldbemixedinmasterplanneddevelopments. adequate parks and open spaces for current and future population. An open space network will be developed containing both private and public lands totutionalcenterswouldberecognizedemphasizingeducationalormedicalprotectenvironmentallysensitivelands,and to maintain aites,with expansion occuring only within distinct boundaries,with an pleasing urban form and visual quality.all master plan• ENVIRONMENTAL GOAL4PLOYMENTAREASGOALComimaprotectionnfRenton'.r',mum!•ar nm- I rd , I j 1i CITY O F R E N T O N G-1 s ®" P-1 L ZONING MAP NE 3 a ZONING MAP LEGENDdrsGREENWOODi` CEMETARY SYMBOL DISTRICT USEL '1 R-3 ` , '.- ' _xR 44 G-1 Y,?} 1; G-1 RESIDENTIAL — SINGLE—FAMILY HI R-1 RESIDENTIAL — SINGLE—FAMILYTNE2nt, u53ilc d WORKS n= R-2 RESIDENTIAL — TWO—FAMILY MAINTENANCE R-2. ;1,1'R-3 RESIDENTIAL — MULTIPLE—FAMILYFACILITY IN G `WI a4R y RESIDENTIAL — MULTIPLE—FAMILY G-1 iP'1°-4 PUBLIC USE WC:© BUSINESS USE O-P OFFICE PARK T G-1 L 1 .:1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL THIS MAP jS TO ASSIST IN ` 1 p I MANUFACTURING PARKDEERMIINGTs.HE•ZONING 0 PROPERTYC • ,B-1 N AND S OR INFORMIATION D ILWWTRATl1 PURPOStMS tl Y 1 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL P},1,, ', I,,lrynv Vt.',, ' 9. z sj s T TRAILER PARK x "" :,,'7'' ti ,1/•',,, , y$; 'P,' r. `ihy', i CITY LIMITS i:\ ok v ` i/ t M.,PLEWODIMPORTANT CHECK EACH REZONE ORDINANCEeStr • '', 14 RI5'i4FOR POSSIBLE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTSStilaIGOLF-GOURS ', 1 IL i/a '?:) . s`:? t{`n r t +'t„; DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS r a,, ,4 r y r r sa v . Otis PAGE i'i_ , ,, " r ' 1' DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ""-ro - m LST DATE: Ol/2rc 0/g _ 5316NTO w..M VP&n.iv v rye..:. ._._.__.._.._ a g!::=74:::ais: M aiw=ii ti :Rii :i i i y.iifi r _.. LLJ y,-.::/?_:_••» n.; am" •.:—•---r - —_ V/ v ...: r ma -•- -- ,- : . J c:::,, —. ---•.._ Y 1st PL 111PFiL'. G....m:•:...—._Y^.:n"ira-..:-=ei:=x:xa°f •=.^:i-..._.:::::::r.°'';Yc::--''V i.—.:.•...:i• T- °1i ij?ii i? ufw ltee.ir =_''::S tj s'.`. - 'r'_= C7 miiii744741.i.nw :a:..vrm:.a lotiii r--5w '•r•.•.ierau. ::••:.ii—in.-- .—w. SE 2n d 713Mra•n,ir. ws Y C ' I 7iiii.Ta aww i SE h S. o sE•h ? 11111110..........,./....-<SE 5th ST r ......, MMIIIMIll MM... WI • SF w...„.„...:1e- z th LjL: roz. 7..-.÷.1.........:•::::itt, 011MMI IIIMMINIMMA, 8th OR zA_= 4.w.. max.:.::..-.._.::::4_:: crjs 7 ec 1 r 3110 SE 5th St., Trenton, WA 98058 September 16th 1998 City of Renton. PlanningCommission. Commission Member. Reference: Amendment 98-M-4 Maple Valley Hwy, Taco Time Site. (LUA 98-042, CPA, R ECF Commission Members, I would like to present this petition to you on behalf of the residents of the Maplewood Community. The individuals represented here are expressing their outrage at the proposed zoning change of 3 residential lots to `Commercial Arterial.' These 3 lots are on SE 6th St., and about the Taco Time office, which faces the Maple Valley Road. See Map attached) In the process of trying to make the CA zone compatible with a residential community, many mitigation measures have been outlined during the process of environmental review. All the mitigation measures in the world will not make a CA designation, either appropriate or acceptable in a residential community. It appears that the content of zoning categories can be manipulated and changed at any time and for many reasons. Where will this end for our community, and what will this place we call home look like in 10 or 20 years? To place a commercial building 35-ft high, within our community, is physically unappealing and esthetically intrusive; setbacks, fences or landscaping do not provide an adequate shield against this non-conforming monster. Demolition of 3 affordable housing lots, to make way for a commercial property, flys in the face of statements made by the Renton City Council in December of 1992, documented on the `Final Decision, City of Renton Land Use Alternative.' Quote, Residential Goal. Affordability of housing would be promoted." ( This document is included with those presented by Margaret Siemion.) We request that the amendment for the residential lots be denied, so that we can be assured that the integrity of our community will be maintained. Sincerely lr P-aVivOarGyN Nicola Robinson. Maplewood Resident since 1985. Please find attached the etition . a. letter. P s purpose is outlined in the attached There are a total of 116 signatures. 8 signatures were from interested and concerned individuals from outsideourneighborhood. The remaining 108 signatures, should represent — 1 signature per household,Except in I believe 2 cases. This means easily 75% of this community isappeasedtorezoningresidentiallotstoacommercialdesignation. There are approximately 140 residential properties in this neighborhood. Sincerely AO ucl\cAk "\A Nicola Robinson PETITION. We, the residents of the Maplewood Residential Community are outraged by the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, and the Zoning Map, as outlined below. We do not support this proposal, and take this opportunity to make our objections known. This area is developed primarily with single family uses, approximately 150 homes. There are only a few com- mercial uses. The nature of the uses permitted by the amendment and the CA zoning, are incompatible with current designations. We object to the potential loss of affordable, low cost housing, which will result if(R-8) zoned lots are re- zoned (CA), and secondly, to the negative aesthetic impacts which will occur within our community . The mitigation measures are inadequate, and the pro- posed amendment is inappropriate. We request the commission and city coun- cil deny its adoption. REFERENCE: Amendment 98-M-4- MAPLE VALLEY HWY TACO TIME SITE. (LUA 98-042, CPA, R, ECF) This petition is specifically in reference to the properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices, consisting of 3 *lots, currently designated (R-8), and under common ownership. (Please see attached map) PURPOSE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT: To amend the zoning map from Residential-8 (R-8), to Arterial Commercial (CA). This re-designation would allow commercial development SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS. T uA LTr c 3 io Sth c)\' e k.` w VW c)._ o)-5 E 5t r 4-44 5I4.1 171. j 2 f1 5L e 72 5,F 0 561 1)ewra titi,l-i, ,g,64va,e t Wi//1M UCA"3m 8 se 21 )-!4 PETITION. We, the residents of the Maplewood Residential Community are outraged bytheproposedamendmenttotheComprehensivePlanLandUseMap, and theZoningMap, as outlined below. We do not support this proposal, and take this opportunity to make our objections known. This area is developed primarilywithsinglefamilyuses, approximately 150 homes. There are only a few com-mercial uses. The nature of the uses permitted by the amendment and the CA zoning, are incompatible with current designations. We object to the potentiallossofaffordable, low cost housing, which will result if(R-8) zoned lots are re-zoned (CA), and secondly, to the negative aesthetic impacts which will occurwithinourcommunity . The mitigation measures are inadequate, and the pro-posed amendment is inappropriate. We request the commission and city coun-cil deny its adoption. REFERENCE: Amendment 98-M-4- MAPLE VALLEY HWY TACO TIME SITE. (LUA 98-042, CPA, R, ECF) This petition is specifically in reference to the properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices, consisting of34lots, currently designated (R-8), and under common ownership. (Please see attached map) PURPOSE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT: To amend the zoning mapfromResidential-8 (R-8), to Arterial Commercial (CA). This re-designation would allow commercial development SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS. l_A246_,,__CW-D =__-- l 7 3ii& 3 e.m. VLA(t 3Z7 - ' ffy-)3/3) / /4 Dn ,rp / Gw.c'/2v s S. ial e4!4r Set Z S6 . `/ 7'. A..' i 1 0d-ragg*- 145E or F ; % ri 7-6 r . hien /771-/ 06v, A , z, 6,° 1.r ter. vvj,,Th,t ,g1.ICr G as s ',- rubre m moo, tI __ *. g t a Y n. Winn),,, qf,n: ,- i..4 ,--__,-- 0 PETITION. We, the residents of the Maplewood Residential Community are outraged by the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, and the Zoning Map, as outlined below. We do not support this proposal, and take this opportunity to make our objections known. This area is developed primarily with single family uses, approximately 150 homes. There are only a few com- mercial uses. The nature of the uses permitted by the amendment and the CA zoning, are incompatible with current designations. We object to the potential loss of affordable, low cost housing, which will result if (R-8) zoned lots are re- zoned.(CA), and secondly, to the negative aesthetic impacts which will occur within our community . The mitigation measures are inadequate, and the pro- posed amendment is inappropriate. We request the commission and city coun- cil deny its adoption. REFERENCE: Amendment 98-M-4- MAPLE VALLEY HWY TACO TIME SITE. (LUA 98-042, CPA, R, ECF) This petition is specifically in reference to the properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices, consisting of 3 *lots, currently designated (R-8), and under common ownership. (Please see attached map) PURPOSE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT: To amend the zoning map from Residential-8 (R-8), to Arterial Commercial (CA). This re-designation would allow commercial development SI URE PRINT NAME ADDRESS. OM A 01/be j a/V6I 520 P/I.e‘Z ie'' ,f,- L. ..., ZME111 9IIMEMIE A AL 6 . /. a GRE G6( _ 6. 1 5. 1_; 6 ' r New IMMO • ,, • s'-' ____11-c_ LA. J1 . L ._ _irl .—.. I is iPa.c___ 410 5E 5 ,_1! rifi_____. f.4f,2-_,-4 Neiss4 . col-itoezzy0 SaarlY___5i-00a_ fqy e , .M k zze f()wir SF o y 74 r54.Ay;4-0, 1 h,' 'JYIs t4 I(E. - 5 7) 5E c. 5- Iffir/W7 ArMOritre/0 4/7‘); /A -. L. 1 /1(9Z C itg-e 0.14 a._._ i_. e 1 it a, _ TAIrmemike ArwilkUmago.t e 5 --2--)66 C;Er Idc:- 1 7 PETITION. We, the residents of the Maplewood Residential Community are outraged bytheproposedamendmenttotheComprehensivePlanLandUseMap, and theZoningMap, as outlined below. We do not support this proposal, and take this opportunity to make our objections known. This area is developed primarilywithsinglefamilyuses, approximately 150 homes. There are only a few com-mercial uses. The nature of the uses permitted by the amendment and the CA zoning, are incompatible with current designations. We object to the potentiallossofaffordable, low cost housing, which will result if(R-8) zoned lots are re-zoned (CA), and secondly, to the negative aesthetic impacts which will occurwithinourcommunity . The mitigation measures are inadequate, and the pro-posed amendment is inappropriate. We request the commission and city coun-cil deny its adoption. REFERENCE: Amendment 98-M-4- MAPLE VALLEY HWY TACOTIMESITE. (LUA 98-042, CPA, R, ECF) - This petition is specifically in reference to the properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices, consisting of34lots, currently designated (R-8), and under common ownership. (Please see attached map) PURPOSE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT: To amend the zoning mapfromResidential-8 (R-8), to Arterial Commercial (CA). This re-designation would allow commercial development SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS. lve 4/ /c a •OV1 C r,. Pems---_\ ` ' i ' - .Z IP. "Iir ' I , mm_____ F'• . . ob. • ._.. 5 .:th-...±. 'IP , . IMinnift "l" -e '0 i 14 '5% ____r_____—_______ 4' (X. cw b L MA-gLL (AicCSo 3/06 Sc 55 e i. irrow, , % ir/,., t_ t- 1- •,, Z . coo it-ex- 33 A- Re,A-O cos / a sE (pt Itim--, d 4 , 'AIL, 35/(&6' Se 5r/I W---- 01/73A-/ Ats li 4 efi • raZvidrAy sly 6 PETITION. We, the residents of the Maplewood Residential Community are outraged by the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, and the Zoning Map, as outlined below. We do not support this proposal, and take this opportunity to make our objections known. This area is developed primarily with single family uses, approximately 150 homes. There are only a few com- mercial uses. The nature of the uses permitted by the amendment and the CA zoning, are incompatible with current designations. We object to the potential loss of affordable, low cost housing, which will result if(R-8) zoned lots are re- zoned (CA), and secondly, to the negative aesthetic impacts which will occur within our community . The mitigation measures are inadequate, and the pro- posed amendment is inappropriate. We request the commission and city coun- cil deny its adoption. REFERENCE: Amendment 98-M-4- MAPLE VALLEY HWY TACO TIME SITE. (LUA 98-042, CPA, R, ECF) This petition is specifically in reference to the properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices, consisting of 3 4 lots, currently designated (R-8), and under common ownership. (Please see attached map) PURPOSE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT: To amend the zoning map from Residential-8 (R-8), to Arterial Commercial (CA). This re-designation would allow commercial development SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS. JuLO Nv lI ISs't AL/6 1.44(1/ 36- 65-ivk f1v govitk 3 . /9 SE PL AL t G l A 1 G-,LbS 553 11111 V2 - a/ EeS 3// / o '`` s7-- 6 P Pe 1 sTh S' PETITION. We, the residents of the Maplewood Residential Community are outraged bytheproposedamendmenttotheComprehensivePlanLandUseMap, and theZoningMap, as outlined below. We do not support this proposal, and take thisopportunitytomakeourobjectionsknown. This area is developed primarilywithsinglefamilyuses, approximately 150 homes. There are only a few com- mercial uses. The nature of the uses permitted by the amendment and the CA zoning, are incompatible with current designations. We object to the potentiallossofaffordable, low cost housing, which will result if(R-8) zoned lots are re-zoned (CA), and secondly, to the negative aesthetic impacts which will occurwithinourcommunity . The mitigation measures are inadequate, and the pro-posed amendment is inappropriate. We request the commission and city coun-cil deny its adoption. REFERENCE: Amendment 98-M-4- MAPLE VALLEY HWY TACO TIME SITE. (LUA 98-042, CPA, R, ECF) This petition is specifically in reference to the properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices, consisting oflots, currently designated (R-8), and under common ownership. (Please see attached map) PURPOSE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT: To amend the zoning mapfromResidential-8 (R-8), to Arterial Commercial (CA). This re-designation would allow commercial development SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS,,'' V.,..LIO°'--.rn ...1.111A4r .1 Z •ie' C,Gt ce a z 30 a-S 5 4- 6 ati 1 Ik'- - — L= - i d . 4, 3s.3i s£ s 1 ./ / i/: e, / ...1/Al i /. , !.S Cow A. SEIVI .! aid riff 'i grin 517 roMVIiffA#A g(PlcikS6a-ce, 3(00 g C,; s--r lib , f ,l Jo1')nyi Arasr<r)v‘ I --76 1 G'f-ti c PETITION. We, the residents of the Maplewood Residential Community are outraged by the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, and the Zoning Map, as outlined below. We do not support this proposal, and take this opportunity to make our objections known. This area is developed primarily with single family uses, approximately 150 homes. There are only a few com- mercial uses. The nature of the uses permitted by the amendment and the CA zoning, are incompatible with current designations. We object to the potential loss of affordable, low cost housing, which will result if (R-8) zoned lots are re- zoned (CA), and secondly, to the negative aesthetic impacts which will occur within our community . The mitigation measures are inadequate, and the pro- posed amendment is inappropriate. We request the commission and city coun- cil deny its adoption. REFERENCE: Amendment 98-M-4- MAPLE VALLEY HWY TACO TIME SITE. (LUA 98-042, CPA, R, ECF) This petition is specifically in reference to the properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices, consisting of 3 l lots, currently designated (R-8), and under common ownership. (Please see attached map) PURPOSE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT: To amend the zoning map from Residential-8 (R-8), to Arterial Commercial (CA). This re-designation would allow commercial development SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS. 333a sZ' 674.-f; A4:41 ,,/----v-..-------- 4-- 11/,'ci/67,6"Z- 4,-, \7e5P-ra/26. -WP 47e.,--72...- ez.,,,o. VS-a.r. c n,: s0\.v•- Strom 3 3`t 0 So' _ -Si ,X0 I rR:c--\/lo it 0-41ickev. 36)\ ( .5E- 6-4` P( c.0 a i^I D e gi-nt.-* __4-2-€) — AI Vii, 0_,A_A e-eCi 5s32- .;'-i-• -.--51.- 4. a- a=0-tt 51:f• aw/I‘v, bdtgtAnVv,_IALLviwk,eakcktit,-/ f-l'i,'-' ijsoS Y c_______':__-;• _________. L.R.( 'il-i ? ( tr-'6 A-Fl (cx()S S( Ct %'.--akif a c4 Ti 1s 360/Go SF_ tom TD.K /11 o,fOAAA\ I t 4)1- 1 ,<<.Y..t6'ea k 4:_li ()veit4efA PETITION. We, the residents of the Maplewood Residential Community are outraged bytheproposedamendmenttotheComprehensivePlanLandUseMap, and theZoningMap, as outlined below. We do not support this proposal, and take thisopportunitytomakeourobjectionsknown. This area is developed primarilywithsinglefamilyuses, approximately 150 homes. There are only a few com-mercial uses. The nature of the uses permitted by the amendment and the CA zoning, are incompatible with current designations. We object to the potentiallossofaffordable, low cost housing, which will result if(R-8) zoned lots are re-zoned (CA), and secondly, to the negative aesthetic impacts which will occurwithinourcommunity . The mitigation measures are inadequate, and the pro-posed amendment is inappropriate. We request the commission and city coun-cil deny its adoption. REFERENCE: Amendment 98-M-4- MAPLE VALLEY HWY TACO TIME SITE. (LUA 98-042, CPA, R, ECF) This petition is specifically in reference to the properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices,consisting of3A,lots, currently designated (R-8), and under common ownership. (Please see attached map) PURPOSE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT: To amend the zoning mapfromResidential-8 (R-8), to Arterial Commercial (CA). This re-designation would allow commercial development SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS. I 7r/9 5--, Li('J 6--- -e.42.F, AIL, 70 v 02s1.4) Toi C j a S . .s— S T C • g1 _—- 3s—r--- s-77 —3.g sit, i e,,,- ,,,t i emu- g J - uti e7 ei. P PS- X,A4-21 urr f , s t .rr w,t1 S, ' A i-Qq`e,i,22 nG11- 1 ce:A/ E Ccwc 1'3 1 i a' ST' wr9 PETITION. We, the residents of the Maplewood Residential Community are outraged by the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, and the Zoning Map, as outlined below. We do not support this proposal, and take this opportunity to make our objections known. This area is developed primarily with single family uses, approximately 150 homes. There are only a few com- mercial uses. The nature of the uses permitted by the amendment and the CA zoning, are incompatible with current designations. We object to the potential loss of affordable, low cost housing, which will result if (R-8) zoned lots are re- zoned (CA), and secondly, to the negative aesthetic impacts which will occur within our community . The mitigation measures are inadequate, and the pro- posed amendment is inappropriate. We request the commission and city coun- cil deny its adoption. REFERENCE: Amendment 98-M-4- MAPLE VALLEY HWY TACO TIME SITE. (LUA 98-042, CPA, R, ECF) This petition is specifically in reference to the properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices, consisting of 3 z4.1ots, currently designated (R-8), and under common ownership. (Please see attached map) PURPOSE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT: To amend the zoning map from Residential-8 (R-8), to Arterial Commercial (CA). This re-designation would allow commercial development SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS. 3 6 i3 5- 1- Sze- ee oN NV _IL WI __, m14_ rfrdA . e- 1. g,F - (D 412 511^.=:' Iupi4 _, _-_:,mi _/ ;. 71 ...osf Ada 4 ' v 7"/ r 007 -1/ -7,4aida tdietartlir sto-7-ttirfw-7-/Fel/4/le 0.e57)g-r__ tom d 2- 4 D ` 9u.1 -) 00; d Ire/ / Pie 36 a 6 e5 , 1 "Z PETITION. We, the residents of the Maplewood Residential Community are outraged bytheproposedamendmenttotheComprehensivePlanLandUseMap, and theZoningMap, as outlined below. We do not support this proposal, and take this opportunity to make our objections known. This area is developed primarilywithsinglefamilyuses, approximately 150 homes. There are only a few com- mercial uses. The nature of the uses permitted by the amendment and the CA zoning, are incompatible with current designations. We object to the potential loss of affordable, low cost housing, which will result if(R-8) zoned lots are re-zoned (CA), and secondly, to the negative aesthetic impacts which will occur within our community . The mitigation measures are inadequate, and the pro- posed amendment is inappropriate. We request the commission and city coun-cil deny its adoption. REFERENCE: Amendment 98-M-4- MAPLE VALLEY HWY TACO TIME SITE. (LUA 98-042, CPA, R, ECF) - This petition is specifically in reference to the properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices, consisting of34lots, currently designated (R-8), and under common ownership. (Please see attached map) PURPOSE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT: To amend the zoning mapfromResidential-8 (R-8), to Arterial Commercial (CA). This re-designation would allow commercial development SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS. 117:MW..44, 1 's 1 . - 6&s. . r1 % s 3D IZ IA -r' Am rm_ ( r— y. i MAINS,SQ1 7)54IV 4 L--9010 i Avg. . " 5r9,' iimi 202-l rJG co T \ S;. f!. a .1:. ‘‘,74, ; e _r A. i IMINIPMIN - : 0 s - b PETITION. We, the residents of the Maplewood Residential Community are outraged by the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, and the Zoning Map, as outlined below. We do not support this proposal, and take this opportunity to make our objections known. This area is developed primarily with single family uses, approximately 150 homes. There are only a few com- mercial uses. The nature of the uses permitted by the amendment and the CA zoning, are incompatible with current designations. We object to the potential loss of affordable, low cost housing, which will result if(R-8) zoned lots are re- zoned (CA), and secondly, to the negative aesthetic impacts which will occur within our community . The mitigation measures are inadequate, and the pro- posed amendment is inappropriate. We request the commission and city coun- cil deny its adoption. REFERENCE: Amendment 98-M-4- MAPLE VALLEY HWY TACO TIME SITE. (LUA 98-042, CPA, R, ECF) This petition is specifically in reference to the properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices, consisting of 3 lots, currently designated (R-8), and under common ownership. (Please see attached map) PURPOSE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT: To amend the zoning map from Residential-8 (R-8), to Arterial Commercial (CA). This re-designation would allow commercial development SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS. er'r y CRm h o rPe' 1111VIEWIllJoni C/LO '1) -`L 3 ,-co ' SF 5-1-j-7 cf ZA/My 227/JA/y- 205 C., S JCIIIL PETITION. We, the residents of the Maplewood Residential Community are outraged bytheproposedamendmenttotheComprehensivePlanLandUseMap, and theZoningMap, as outlined below. We do not support this proposal, and take thisopportunitytomakeourobjectionsknown. This area is developed primarilywithsinglefamilyuses, approximately 150 homes. There are only a few com-mercial uses. The nature of the uses permitted by the amendment and the CA zoning, are incompatible with current designations. We object to the potentiallossofaffordable, low cost housing, which will result if(R-8) zoned lots are re-zoned (CA), and secondly, to the negative aesthetic impacts which will occurwithinourcommunity . The mitigation measures are inadequate, and the pro-posed amendment is inappropriate. We request the commission and city coun-cil deny its adoption. REFERENCE: Amendment 98-M-4- MAPLE VALLEY HWY TACOTIMESITE. (LUA 98-042, CPA, R, ECF) This petition is specifically in reference to the properties abutting the Taco Time corporate offices, consisting of34lots, currently designated (R-8), and under common ownership. (Please see attached map) PURPOSE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT: To amend the zoning mapfromResidential-8 (R-8), to Arterial Commercial (CA). This re-designation would allow commercial development SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS. CJ N 0tekera,.Ir. AA A/41 EheRic 3 )n/ _G 6.-4) m1,, S. SE 5th St lilt/ tot/ 1,411 ‘S E 1014 iwt, It Qo q 44 44r: . 1' l' 34, 4 3i h 4j, I 7 •7 . bik4 I' Tic) ' V 4..._ #4114169I A a 0 44, , ktt '0 50' 3 0' 1 : 1 , 0 Amendment 98 - M - 4 vti 0 i%sio„. ghborhoods & Strategic Planning 04 Under studR. hiacOnie y N ro 20 July 1998 MU EAC Land Use and CA Zoning I=,cf,1. 2)7 CITY Cyr' RENTON MIL Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Planning Susan Carlson,Administrator Jesse Tanner.Mayor April 9, 1998 Margaret Siemion Cedar River Market 3418 SE 6th Street Renton,WA 98058 SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP ERROR Dear Ms. Siemion: Based upon your discussions with Rebecca Lind and Lisa Grueter,I am writing to confirm that there appears to be a zoning map error whereby your market (and the adjacent barbershop) were redesignated in 1993 from B-1, a commercial zone classification;to R-8, a single family residential classification. Other commercial uses in the vicinity, such as the Taco Time offices and radiator repair shop were given a classification of Convenience Commercial(CC). We believe there is a basis for this finding of a map error for your property (parcel no. 5126900326) because the property has had a long standing commercial use (since about 1945), and because the existing use of the property clearly meets the intent of the CC zone to: `i.. provide for small-scale convenience retail/commercial centers intended to provide for basic retail and service needs of the adjacent area...." Under the R-8 zone, commercial uses such as the market are not allowed, and would be considered legal nonconforming uses. Nonconforming uses can continue unless abandoned. If there was a fire or other act of God, the use could be rebuilt up to 50% of the value, unless a conditional approval permit is granted where 100%of the use could be rebuilt. The other option is to amend the map to a commercial designation. As you are aware,the City is in the process of reviewing Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Amendments, and is proposing to apply the Employment Area-Commercial/Arterial Commercial (CA) designation to your property and other nearby properties, subject to a development agreement limiting the list of uses of the CA zone. The Staff report analyzes other options including applying the CC zone to your property. In any case, the Staff proposal and options propose a commercial designation for your property which would accommodate the market. The map amendment and related approval of the development agreement would be final after Planning Commission review and City Council approval. In the meantime, you wished to have confirmation that should the structure be destroyed prior to the Comprehensive Plan/Zoning amendments are completed that you would be able to rebuild. Based upon the above information, I have determined that staff will support a rezone to CA with a development agreement, and, in the event the market is destroyed prior to that approval, we will process an emergency conditional approval permit that would allow you to rebuild. onn r4;11 AVPI111P Cnlith - Renton. Washington 98055 Page 2 April 9, 1998 Should you have further questions,please contact me at(425)277-6190. Sincerely, 731 1(40 c • Michael D. Kattermann, AICP Director,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning cc: Rebecca Lind y CITY •OF RENTON it i •%'Ss7, Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Planning Jesse Tanner,Mayor Susan Carlson,Administrator May 7, 1998 Joseph&Patricia Conrad Conrad Realty PO Box 6382 Kent,WA 98064 SUBJECT: PUBLIC NOTICE FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ZONING UPDATE IN 1993 0 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Conrad: Per your request, attached is some information about public notification during the Renton Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Update. A chart describes the various meetings and advertisements. Aside from various newspaper notices, and utility billings, some notices were sent to property owners. Attached are two notices specifically sent to all property owners of record, and your address was on our list. One notice indicated that the proposal may affect all properties in the City of Renton and provided an application form to request a change, and the other was a notice'for a public hearing. If you have any questions or need additional information,please contact me at(425) 277-5578. Sincerely, isa L. Cirueter, enior Planner cc: Rebecca Lind,Principal Planner conlet.doc L, F .'-. 1 l l' s „1 t H j ,fin.+ us TABLE B COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MEETING DATES AND PUBLIC NOTICES DATEpresentation b staff to Plannin: Commission re Corn Plan u sate. beginning of 1_y5_89 Plannin- Commission Meetin. Com rehensive Plan Presentation b Staff 5-10-89-89Plannin. Commission Meeting Comprehensive Plan Goals/Objectives/Policies Exercise- 6-89 - Planning Commission revision to ••licies. Meetings are ublic and advertised.* 7 2 for Comprehensive Plan with survey. Telephone and mail survey to date Visioning g_g Renton -Com rehensive Plan Serve Re _+ re aced b Decision Data Re •st conducted.Developed Comprehensive Plan policies and Discussion Papers. 1-24-90 thru 11- planning Commission Meetings Comprehensive Plan-Annexation Policies. Notices sent to North Soon Creek13-91 10-10-90 Planning Commission-public Hearings and Corn rehensive Plan Lists.Planning Commission Open Houses to discuss revisions to Comprehensive 10-17-90 ro rt owners)Plan and look at alternatives. 3/28/91 Mailed 26,000 notices(Renton propertyy PC •..n House-Renton Senior Center 4-10-917 PC •• n House-Hi.hlands Communit Center 4- 2 - 91 PC •• n House-Nelsen Middle School 4-24 91 Com rehensive Plan Policies Use Element. 8-5-91IS 1 Cit Council Public Hearin:Determination of Si: Policies ificance Sco in: Notice for Efor Land Des': scion 9- 2 - 91 Valle Dail News Public Notice on Corn Plan Revision and E• uest for Corn. ntal I' Plan. act Statement 9-22,25.27-91 Valle Dail News Sco.in: meetin: for EIS on the Corn.Notice/letter mailed from City asking for comments on Scope of EIS for the 9-26-91 Sco in: Meetin: -Renton Cit Council Chambers CompPlan Land Use Element. Mailed to EIS agencies list and Comp Plan 10 2-91 Notice Mailed list. notice ublished PC Public Hearin: Notice-Draft Land Use Element Valle Daily News, le.al PC Public Hearin: -Draft Land Use Element Ge - Cit Counciloncilh Soo Creek list. 12- 1- 1Wetlands 1-8-92 Mailed to Comp Plan list, d 28 and Valle Dail News. 1-9-92 Notice of Public Workshops Worksho• notice on Charm PC public Hearin. -Draft Land Use Element-Renton Senior Centeralternati e 1-15-92 Public Workshops-create land use map and determin 1-22-92 Use Element* 1-23-92 Cit Council Hearin: on DEIS on Draft Land1111111111 Cit Council Public Hearin.Public Worksho• Follow U• Meetin: held i t Re toannin: m Senior ter 2-4-92 scion R-•ucsts 2-11-93 Com. Plan Desi: r 2-19-92 Plannin. Commission Meetin• Corn Plan Des'. scion R-•nests heard b Plannin: Commission. 2-26-92 planning Commission Meetin. Land Use Element FE1S CCPRE$ENS TABLE B (continued)PLAN MEETING DATES AND PUBLIC 3-11-92 Plannin 5-22-92 Commission Public Hearin_ NOTICESNotice Planntn, Commission Public Hearin6-25-92 Neighborhood Daft Land Use Plan Com. Plan6-29-92 Meetin, notice May Change the Character of Land Use Ma.Neighborhood sent to Corn. Plan list and ValleYour Neighborhood'Meeting Meetin_-Renton Co Dail News.&7/15/92 Meetingnununit Forum on the Draft Land UseUnlitRentonCommunityForumontheDraftLandUse Plan - E y Billings (2 runs) Senior Center. Elks Club. 7-1-92 Mailing to Taxpayers of Notice to PropertyRentonOwners"-Zoning Requests for land use designation and 7-20-92 Hearin zonin; 7/3I/92 deadline yOwners'-Zoning Requests for land uRentonReoveruse designation7-27-92 Cit Council Public CC Public Hearin; on Corn. Plan gnation and 8-I-92 Valle Hearin,Article 'Land Use PlanLand Use alternativesDailNewsCCPublicH Under Stud .' Mailed toHearin: on Corn Plan Renton Cit citizens.8-5-92 Mailin; toNotice on the Committee of the Land UseCornPlanListWhole8- alternativese8-7-92 Valle Como Plan List and Areawide l I-92 meetingDailNews-Legal Notice Notice to ProZonin; R •nests g(also notice mailed tortOwners' List City Council- 8-I I-92 Committee of the Whole, SCommitteeofthe Comp Plan I-and Use Element. P ial Meeting on auWholeMeetingR •nest lists. Mailed to Comp Plan and Zoning I I, 1992, ati 8-24-92 Co Consider the Comprehensive Plang DesignationCommitteeoftheWholenotified7-31-92, p Land Use alternatives. Comp Plan list 9-28-92 Tabloid with Land Use Alternative*Letter Mailed Preferred Land Use MapIO-l-92 Notices of Cit Mailed to 27,000 Pre addresses b and policy summaryIO_13_92 Council Nei,hborh zi code. Distributed 3,00 bunted meth ds City Council Neighborhood god Meetin,s other methods,10-20-92 Meetings Mailed to Corn. Plan1022-92 Meetings List. g held with City Council out in the neighborhood IO27-92 Areawide Zoning g borh10-29-92 d to discuss the 10-20-92 Renton Re Drier 1-27-93 City Council/PI Article "Draft Land Use Alternative adopted by Council.'Hearin: arming Commission Joint Public tnme Hearing for public co Mailedn to Renton Cit residents. Notices nt on Draft Interim ZaninmailedtoCornPlanlist. g Code Amendments. t . rRenton 1_36 n Land Use Element FELS TABLE Ls (continued) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MEETING DATES AND PUBLIC NOTICES 2-1-93 Notices Mailed Notices regarding City Council Public Hearing on Draft Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, Zoning Code Amendments, and Zoning Map. Notices mailed to Comp Plan List and City of Renton Property Owners(11,500). 2-15-93 City Council - Public Hearing Public Hearing on Interim Land Use Element, Areawide Zoning, and Interim Zoning Code Amendment. Committee of the Whole, City Council Meetings, Planning Commission Meetings notices placed on TV-Channel 28 and in the Valley Daily News "Meeting Notices." City of Renton 1.37 Land the Element FEIS Mailed to All Property Owners; Mailed in June Utility Billing 55086 WA'tio.LPI32i Est SC086 dM `uolua'a ON.I.tKRI3d illnos anuany II!YI OOZ aroa uotsintQ 2utuuEjd 3Jdl.sod'S'!1 Inn N-tna uNuag Jo ' !D V::270 NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS The City of Renton will accept requests for consideration of land use designs- tions and zoning from property owners until July 31, 1992. Interested property owners should submit the application form on the reverse side of this notice to the City's Long Range Planning Division. The City of Renton is in the process of revising the City's Comprehensive Plan consistent with the Washington State GrowthManagementAct. The City Council expects to complete the Interim Land Use Plan and Areawide Zoning by December 31, 1992. The Interim Land Use Plan and Areawide Zoning may affect all properties in the City of Renton. A special process for review of private requests for plan amendments and zoning has been adopted by the City Council. Applications will be accepted untilJuly31, 1992,without a fee,and after that date no applications will be accepted again until January 1, 1993,when the standardprocedureforamendmentsandrezonesisexpectedtoberesumed. All applications submitted by July 31 will be consideredbythePlanningCommissionandCityCouncilastheyreviewthedraftInterimLandUsePlanandAreawideZoning. The City Council will hold public meetings and workshops during July to consider a"preferred"land use alternative which willguidepreparationoffutureAreawideZoningmapstobepresentedtotheCityCouncilinNovember,1992. Other public forums,hearings and meetings are planned to be held starting in September. Information about the land use map,public meetings and other events can be obtained at the City's Planning Department,235-2552. A public hearing on the land use alternative will be held by the City Council on July 20,at 7:30 p.m.,in the City Council Chambers,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton. z: 1:$ v;•,..:-! S`•r GCS':%s: .. .' '• s:. COMPRJEIIENSIVE PLANAREA-WIDE ZONING DESIGNATIONI. Applicant Name: 2. Address: Are you the property owner? Yes__ If no, what is property? No__ your interest in the 3. Location ofProperty: (Attach map or locations drawing rfpossible.) 4. Existing Use on Property: 5. What land use or uses are you requesting for the property? 6. What are your reasons for requesting these uses? Signed hone Number Date Submit form to Long Range Planning Division, Cit y of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton, WA 98055. . Telephone:235-2552 Y O NO TICE OF or • . PUBLIC HEARING INTERIM LAND USE ELEMENT INTERIM ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS AREAWIDE ZONING MAPS The City Council will hold a public hearing to take public comments on the Interim Land Use Element, Zoning Code Amendments and Area wide Zoning Maps. Date of Hearing: February 15, 1993 Place: City Council Chambers Renton City Hall, Second Floor 200 Mill Avenue South Time:7:30 p.m. The Interim Land Use Element, Zoning Code Amendments and Areawide Zoning Maps are proposed to be adopted by the City Council in March, 1993. After adoption, the Interim Land Use Element and Areawide Zoning Maps will be effective until the final Comprehensive Plan required by the Growth Management Act is adopted in July, 1993. The Interim Zoning Code Amendments will be in effect until development regulations consistent with the Comprehensive Plan are adopted by the City Council in July, 1994. Copies of the documents may be obtained at the Long Range Planning Division, Third Floor, City Hall (235-2552). Written comments should be directed to the City Council President, c/o City Clerk, at the City Hall, address above. OPEN HOUSE: City staff will be available Date of Notice: 2/1/93 from 5-7:00 pm in the 1st Floor Conference Room, City Hall, to answer questions about the proposed Land Use Plan and zoning. 7;1cac.((ct- /9.3 A+KIN.3ERLY K . WROTEN RO3ERT E DINH ANTONY 1MAC +NGOC RICH BATES RICHARD H+VIOLA R COURT 52:a UNION AVE `J _ 613 UNIDirAYEb NE• 6947 COAL CREEK PKWY SE 3059 R=;JT0'J WA 98059 RENTON W'Ar;5.98O5.9 RENTON WA 98059 r; .:3:;.. . JEAN+CECILIA A v=NTPESS BETTY C NEVI CHARLES':N+KAREN R+ET A SUMMERS BRIAN L+KIMBERLY R EEK PKWY 4K105 75:i VASHON PL NE 3803 COAL CREEK•->PKWY SE 950 ANACORTES CT NE 5059 R="JTON WA 9P059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 E R T F5LUCILLE 1' ERNST JACK C 7:ETTERLY SCOTT k 3 KELLIE PFITZER RANDY R+LAVONNE E. .NE 959 HCQUTAM AVE NE 962 FIELD AVE NE .965 HOQUTAM AVE NE 5nn59 RENTON WA 98059. RENTON 4A 98059 RENTON WA 98059 ED & JUDIE SHURE CHAR'_ ES H III+GAYLE A GRAHAM CHERYL STALEY C 1201 N 28TN PL PO 6OX 3197 PO BOX 3407 98062 RENT ON WA 98063 .. .,. • FEDERAL WAY WA 98063 FEDERAL WAY WA 98063 TMENTS UNION PLACE.:';': '•••, c.: ,,GAROT EJGENE O+JO..N L GAROT EUGENE 0 C/O TARGA : R./•E•''SERYICES INC P 0 BOX 5001 PO BOX 5001 WA 98063 PS BOX 4503' ' ';'(' 1 :%4. KENT WA`'="': 98064 KENT WA 98064 FE0ERAL'WAY "W '., 3LA ;98 63:,: F L' Q4 K ELOISE L NRA>3 JOS E1' 11.4,- P.ATRICIA PRELL KAREN LEONARD WILLIAM S+CHRYSTINE PJ>.dOX 638ZVL ` '.4 r PO BOX 5 469 P 0 BOX 79 • 64. KE4-4 WA 1, w ' xr5,.,, ip, 4 3t KENT • WA 98064 SNOQUALMIE WA 98065 - ' T 1 Hv1: AzU a - `, 015 ,,CAMPBELL JOHN A SCHAUER HENRY W gan g ' "``1 14331 NE 174TH ST NE 14539 186TH• PL..NE':• •.. ,J a - W00DINVILLE WA 98072 WOODINVILLE WA. ..98072A. 95065 0„... r ur , , i f'3ititw•. „pr.,r,"sl-ram--`.t. ti... ,kf 'u, .vt.•*-„,;. s'c;`,,-).,,,77.N 4a. v`tp'4"'•(„3' r eJ,,.,i Alba 4 raw• aZI{{{' d Vie i. .?.-; RICIa a 57.014 .t,,y.! & 1 EN• T-CORD PRICE CHARLES E+MAGvASH G RODDIE MILAN 7TH ST 15r725 F.}ol „ ti,;,,t .,,",'fi 16424 164TH AVE NE NE17300135TH`` #82 wa 9E072 WOAD t r= '3 2, WCOOINVILLE WA 98072 W00DINVILLE• WA. '98072 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes September 16, 1998 City Municipal Building 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Planning Commissioners Present: Larry Brosman, Beverly Franklin, Eugene Ledbury, Becky Lemke, Jeffrey Lukins Planning Commissioners Absent: Rose Anne Jacobs, Rosemary Quesenberry, Richard Wagner City Staff Present: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner; Rebecca Lind, Principal Planner; Judy Wright, Recording Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Brosman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Secretary Franklin called roll; Commissioners Jacobs, Quesenberry and Wagner were absent as l-excus-ed. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of May 27, 1998 and August 5, 1998 were approved as written. 4. AGENDA REVIEW: Chair Brosman moved Agenda Item #11, "Commission Deliberation and Action" to immediately follow the Public Hearing. There were no objections. 5. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED: Chair Brosman noted the correspondence received; no comments were made. 6. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None. 7. BRIEFING: None. 8. PUBLIC HEARING — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT#98-M-4, MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY TACO TIME SITE Ms. Grueter described the comprehensive plan amendment as a proposed land use map amendment with concurrent rezone to Arterial Commercial (CA) and development agreement. The site is located near 3300 and 3400 block Maple Valley Highway, is approximately 3.05 acres (area under study plus 0.86 acres-Conrad property), proposes a change from Convenience Commercial and Residential land use to Employment Area-Commercial (EAC), change the Convenience Commercial and R-8 zoning to Arterial Commercial, change the CA zone city wide to include offices, shoe repair, and accessory storage, and include a development agreement to limit the uses. Issues and analysis included: 1) Should the proposed area be redesignated from less intense commercial and residential designation to Arterial Commercial? Staff considered the previous zoning, the ownership, Taco Time's expansion and parking goals, Convenience Commercial zone limitations, the Aquifer Protection, and surrounding uses. There are limitations to the zoning: size of office, number of parking spaces, and the aquifer limits underground use. The present Taco Time site is at capacity and additional parking and office space is needed. Uses in the neighborhood are largely residential with some commercial uses (radiator shop, market, insurance office and espresso shop). Planning Commission Minutes September 16, 1998 Page 2 2) Will a development agreement accommodate businesses and protect the surrounding neighborhood? The packet included a list of permitted uses, landscaping/buffering requirements, aheightlimitof35ft., limitations on access, and a site plan review process. Staff, through thedevelopmentagreement, tried to protect the residential uses, but allow more flexibility than in the CCzone. Car sales and multi-family development were eliminated. 3) Should changes be made in general to the Arterial Commercial zone (CA) to allow offices, shoerepair, accessory storage for office/service uses? Through an Administrative Determination, someofficeshavealreadybeenallowedintheCAzone. Shoe repair has been allowed in the CC zone,therefore, could be appropriate for the CA zone. Accessory storage has been allowed for retail andshouldallowaccessorystorageforofficeusesaswell. 4) Should the study area parcels on SE 6th Street (Conrad property) be designated commercialinsteadofresidential? Ms. Grueter noted the property was formerly zoned B-1, and in 1993 wasredesignatedtoResidentialSingleFamily (R-8 zoning). Currently the property is vacant and is backfromthemainhighwaywithlittlecommercialvisibility. Redesignation to a commercial use would meetsomeComprehensivePlanpolicies, but would not meet others such as CA zoning must be adjacenttoarterials. Staff reviewed a variety of options for the amendment area. These included: Employment Area-Commercial (CA)with CA zoning (staff recommendation); a zone text amendment to the ConveniencepCommercial (CC) allowing for larger offices; Employment Area-Office with CO zoning which isprimarilyassumedbylargerofficestructures; EAC/CA for Taco Time office property and 3 residentiallotswiththeremainderCC (inc. the espresso stand), however, this would be considered a spotzoning; and Employment Area-Office with CO zoning for Taco Time office property and 3 residentiallots; remainder CC (including the espresso stand), but is also considered spot zoning. Options reviewed for the Conrad property: Residential Single Family/R-8 (staff recommendation);EAC/CA, EAO/CO/CC, or designation allowing small office or condominiums (Conrad request). Staff Recommendation: Change proposed amendment area to EAC and CA; maintain RS/R-8 forpropertyeastofCedarRiverMarket (Conrad); change CA zone (city-wide) to formally allow offices,shoe repair, accessory storage, and adopt a development agreement. The Chair opened the Public Hearing for public comment noting a five minute limitation and asked fornamesandaddressesofthosemakingcomments. Joe Conrad, 24114 135th Avenue SE, Kent, WA 98042, representing himself and his wife Pat, saidtheyhavethefourparcelseastoftheTacoTimesiteandstatedwhentheypurchasedyearsago, they were told it had a B-1 zoning and a list of uses were provided. Mr. Conrad s aid eittwastheirintentiontobuildasmallofficewithcondominiums. Two years when preparing to build, theConradswereinformedtherewasinsufficientwaterfortheareawhichwaseventuallycorrected. Hesaidwhentheywerereadytobuild, Mr. Conrad was told that he could not build his original concept asthepropertyhadbeenrezonedin1993toR-8. He said he was never notified of any rezones orhearings, etc. Mr. Conrad said that he paid business property value for the parcels and has beenseverely, financially damaged. He said that he understands the City is trying to protect theneighborhood, but believes there is a zone (Neighborhood Commercial or CN Zone) that would fiteveryone's needs. Mr. Conrad said the CN zone would make a transition from the commercial toresidentialandhasmorelimitationsthantheCAortheCC. It is designed to allow commercial usesthatwouldserviceaneighborhood. He asked that their four parcels be considered for theNeighborhoodCommercialtoallowthemtodevelopthepropertyaswellasbeingagoodneighbor.Nicola Robinson, 3110 SE 5'h Street, Renton, WA 98058, submitted a petition with 116 signatures onbehalfoftheMaplewoodCommunity, along with a letter dated September 16, 1998, expressing theiroutrageattheproposedzoningchangeofthethreeresidentiallotsto "Commercial Arterial". The Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 16, 1998 letter stated that making the CA zone compatible with a residential community, many mitigation measures have been outlined during the environmental review process. The letter states "that all the mitigation measures in the world will not make a CA designation either appropriate or acceptable in a residential.' Ms. Robinson said that demolition of three affordable housing lots to allow commercial uses, contradicts statements made by the Renton City Council in December of 1992. The petitions requests that the amendment for the residential lots be denied so that the residents of the community can be assured that the integrity of the community will be maintained. Margaret Siemion, 3418 SE 6th, Renton,WA 98058, daughter of Mike Siemion and owner of the Cedar River Market which has been in the community for 50 years and under the Siemion's ownership for 30 years. Ms. Siemion read her letter dated September 16, 1998, reviewing the land use history in the market area and noted that on February 15, 1993, Mr. Dobson asked the City Council not to downzone his property from its business designation (B-1). In the end, Mr. Dobson's property and the Radiator Shop were zoned Convenience Commercial and the Cedar River Market was zoned residential. She asked about the zoning map process, and whether errors happen; and if they were designated residential by mistake, why do they have to wait to have the error corrected. Ms. Siemion continued noting that a development agreement with a Commercial Arterial zoning is not reassuring and changes in property do occur in the future. She concluded by stating that the City planners wanted residential for the area and not Commercial Arterial which is clearly not in the small neighborhood's best interest. Convenience Commercial is best for their Market and the residential property should remain as is. Kathleen Coulter, 3325 SE 6th Street, Renton, WA 98058, said the important factor for Renton and King County if this rezone is completed, is the fact that a message will be sent that affordable housing is not important. The three families which would lose their homes may not be able to afford living elsewhere, and the three single family residences are great starter homes. With Taco Time having options to buy the other two properties on the block, raises the question of when Taco Time will ask for the remainder of the block. She believes that there should be a stop to increasing the size of Taco Time in the residential neighborhood. In response to Commissioners, Ms. Coulter said that they rent the house, and while the Taco Time building is quite intrusive, other than the garbage pick-ups, there is not much traffic or noise. The current parking lot is not full most times. Debbie Sheridan, with Taco Time, 3300 Maple Valley Highway, Renton, WA 98058, said without the adoption of the comprehensive plan amendment, Taco Time will not be able to expand its Western corporate headquarters. Ms. Sheridan noted that one of the three residential properties behind Taco Time building is rented by a Taco Time family member, therefore, there are only two parcels that are being rented. Ms. Sheridan showed the Commissioner some pictures of the Taco Time site. She said that their proposal is only to add one additional building with a storage building. Regarding the parking lot, she noted that because the site is the Western corporate hub, seminars and large meetings will be held at the site which will determine how much parking is needed. Paul Rollinger, 501 Newport SE, Renton, WA 98058, saying he moved to the neighborhood 16-17 years ago which was a rural residential area. He is in favor of keeping the residential character with its very modest homes. He said that he has watched the neighborhood be "dumped" on noting that the State's largest pipeline runs through the neighborhood. Ten years ago there was a huge oil spill and the neighborhood had to endure the construction zone for a long period of time while the clean up occurred. He said that the City does not paint the playground equipment, and now the neighborhood will be enduring another two years of construction equipment, because the original oil spill was not completely cleaned up. Mr. Rollinger said that the two businesses, Renton Radiator and Cedar River Market, are small time businesses and not disruptive to the community. John C. Ramsey, 3517 SE 5'h Street, Renton, WA 98058, said many years ago, he collected 122 signatures which were submitted to the Planning Commission regarding the four vacant lots that the Conrads own. He said that his property is located NW of the Conrads where he has lived for 31 years and noted at one time there was a proposal made by the Clark Bridge Corporation to build 44 apartments on the four vacant lots and Mr. Ramsey was determined that this project would not occur. Planning Commission MinutesSeptember16, 1998 Page 4 He said that he loves his neighborhood and he is also happy to come to the City and defend it. Hesaidthattherehasbeennomaintenancetothepropertyuntilrecentlyandtheneighborhoodcontendedwithrodentsfromthoselots. He said only 4 nice single family homes should bethelots. He does not agree with any other type of building. Mr. Ramsey said he believes thathasTimeshouldleavethethreeresidentialhomesstandingsofamiliescanusethem. He thanked the built on Commission for listening to his comments. es Taco Bryan Miller, 3202 SE 5`h Street, Renton, WA 98058, said he wished the residentsneighborhoodwerevotingontheamendmentratherthanthePlanningCommission as thereoftheMaplewooddoubtwhatthevotewouldbe. Mr. Miller said he moved to the neighborhood three years agoawestruckbyits "Leave It to Beaver" land with the exception of the Taco Time buildin is no City just allocated $65,000 to upgrade the Park which the neighborhood children use as welland was to the market. Mr. Miller said he doesn't understand how Taco Time got to the neighborhood He said the it doesn't fit with the 1940-style homes. as going impacted by the expansion of Taco Time as they live in Kent. Mr. Miller said that he od becauseRegardingtheConrads, he said that they would not beTacoTimeknowswhattheyareplanningforthefutureandtheyarelookingtoTacoTime'sbelieves that t.Grant Roberts, 3216 5'h Street SE, Renton, WA 98058, said that he and his wife work at the bnnefisofWashingtonandmovedtotheMaplewoodneighborhoodJuly1, 1998. He said they considerable time shopping for a home,'and while theyUniversitytheydecidedtopurchasetheirpresenthomebecausetheylikedtheneighborhood. Mr. Roberts said aqualifiedforhomesinahigherpricerange, that Taco Time is an eyesore for the neighborhood and does not belong in the neighborhood.commercial uses are allowed to continue to occur, it will be very unfortunate for the neighborhood HaskedthattheCommissionnotallowmorecommercialusefortheirarea. g hood, If He Kathleen Coulter said that Taco Time is currently leasing the property that they are on, andoptionforthethreeresidentialparcelsbehindtheirfacility. If the rezone doesn'twillnotbeallowedtoexpandandmaybewillmoveandtheneighborhoodcanresume as it w have an past. happen, Taco Time as in the Mr. Brosman said three letters were received regarding #98-M-4, Taco Time Amendment: oneMikeandHelenSmith, dated 9/11/98, one from Matthew Tonkin of Taco Time, dated 9/11/98, andanotherfromPatandJoeConrad, written 8/13/98. from Debbie Sheridan, Taco Time, said that presently the company leases all of Lot 9 & 8, where is located, the easement, plus an option to purchase lots 6 and 7. They also have options and 5 in Blk. 6. the house P on Lot 1 Keith Coulter, 3325 SE 6th Street, Renton, WA 98058, moved to the neighborhood in 1992, and rentedthehouseat3333SE6thStreet (corner lot) from 1992-1995. They were asked to move becauseTacoTimewasusingthatareaasadrivewaytoaparkingareaandstorageunit. Theythen m3335andnowTacoTimewantstotakethissecondhousewhichisupsettingtohisfamily.that he would purchase the house if given the opportunity. He said moved to Becky Smith 528 Newport Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98058, said that Taco Time expandedparkinglotdeclaringaneed, however, she has yet to see one car parked in that extra lot and nothatthegrassisverytall. P d their ted M/S to close the Public Hearin but kee the written record o en until the next meetinnotedthatthisistheonlypublichearingthatwillbeheldontheamendment,tlhoweever, further 7'h .correspondence can be sent to Council when they discuss the amendment. Commission decided to deliberate on the issue this evening, but not take formal action until the next meeting. ' lowing discussion, the motion carried. Following The meeting recessed at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 September 16, 1998 The petition submitted by Ms. Robinson with the 116 signatures dated September 16, 1998 was entered into the record. Mr. Lukins said that while three commission members are absent this evening, there is a concern about deliberating in depth because it will be discussed again at the next meeting. However, Mr. Lukins said because he will be out of town for the October 7`h meeting, he would like to share some of his thoughts and concerns about the amendment. Mr. Lukins said that the amendment site raised huge issues and a real Delia for him when reviewing the original vision on what was wanted for the neighborhood in the original Comprehensive Plan. Staff responded to Mr. Lukins' question that Taco Time was permitted in 1989 and constructed in 1990-91 under the B-1 zoning which was an allowed use at the time. The height allowed in the B-1 zone was 90'. Issues raised by this amendment are: is this an appropriate place for Taco Time to expand, and the Conrail's testimony regarding their four sites. Mr. Lukins said that he will have a difficult time if Taco Time expands in the area even though they have a nice building with good upkeep. The expansion with Building "C" on lots 7 and 8 and the new proposed storage building "D" on lot 6 poses substantial growth of the site and affects the properties to the north side of 6`h. There is currently a buffer of single family homes and with the growth will only have landscaping as a buffer which changes the'scope of the neighborhood. He said that he would vote against approving EAC for the sites. Mr. Lukins said that the downside is that if the amendment is'not approved, Taco Time might move out which he would not blame them especially if they need additional space. Their business is good for Renton, however, if they need a much larger site, he does not believe this site to be the appropriate one. Another issue is that if Taco Time leaves, the property is zoned CC and it is not clear what would take its place. Regarding the Cedar River Market, Mr. Lukins said he believes a mapping error occurred, and has no problem changing that to Convenience Commercial. The Conrad property poses another dilemma. He said that he would agree with duplex or fourplex, but nothing larger which the R-10 would accomplish. He said that he would like to hear more comments from the other Commissioners on this issue. In response to Commissioner questions, the CN zoning is Center Neighborhood which staff did not analyze because there are many policies of where and when a center can be designated and staff did not consider this designation. Ms. Lind said that presently there are only three areas with CN zoning (Duval/Sunset Center, Puget Drive Center and one in the Potential Annexation area). Mr. Conrad's testimony regarding the CN acting as a buffer between the commercial and residential uses is somewhat accurate, but the CN is a more intensive zone than the current CC zone. She said that staff can report further on the CN and R-10 zoning for the next meeting. Mr. Lukins said that he would like to see the City in a win-win situation and possibly a compromise between the Conrads and the neighborhood might be worked out. Staff expanded on the Cedar River Market zoning map error stating that they currently have a Conditional Use Permit allowing the non-conforming use in case there was a fire, and if the market needed to be rebuilt, this permit would allow it to happen. The Siemions have been notified that an emergency permit would be processed if there was the need, but it is the City's intention in the options outlined that the Market will have a commercial designation. In response to Commissioner's comments, staff said that if Taco Time did leave their site, another commercial fast food business could utilize the building, although the use has a 5,000 sq. ft. limitation. The development agreement proposed places further limitations on the CA zone in the amendment. Commissioners also asked for a map which includes the location of the Maplewood community to the golf course. Staff said that they will review the entire corridor. Regarding the easement for the pipeline allowing a parking lot, Ms. Grueter said that the easement includes two utilities: gas line and Planning Commission Minutes September 16, 1998 Page 6 overhead powerlines. Taco Time has talked with the two utility owners and would be restrictedparkingand landscaping. Another issue to consider, is there buffering required for the easement?to Responding to further review of the amendment, Ms. Grueter said that the HearingExaminerthelevelofanalysispreparedbytheCity, plus the level of mitigations proposed were sufficient.amendment is granted, Taco Time's application will require detailed environmental review. D felIft that the City's Plan Review section had no comments. If there is a future development, it would e s b cttoalltheCity's concurrency requirements. DOT and uld be subject Commissioners asked for aerials to review of the area. Ms. Franklin suggested that if CommissionershavenotdrivenintheMaplewoodarealately, to do so before the next meeting.Taco Time building is a clean and nice looking building, but she does not believe itexpanded. She said that the should be 10. NEW BUSINESS: Ms. Lind passed out a Tentative Planning Commission Schedule forthroughDecember1998. She noted that if the work can be completed the first meetinginasecondmeetingwillnotbeneeded. September December, 11. COMMISSIONER DELIBERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATION: No action was taken on12. AUDIENCE COMMENTS: Ms. Robinson asked how many members make up the Commission,# h. many make a quorum, and how many will be available for October 7 .are nine commission members, and five members need to be present for aquorum. Ms. Lind how that staff will make copies of the Public Hearing tapes for the absent Mr. Brosman said that there Absent members must listen to the testimony t said recommendation. It was also noted that the Planning Commission is a recommending body to listen to.given this evening if they are to vote on thetheissuewillgoforwardtoCouncilfortheirfinaldecision. Members of the audience were oencouragedandtoattendtheCouncilmeetingwhenthisissueisconsidered. 13. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Larry Brosman, Chair Beverly Fran ' ; cr ary DRAFT CITY OF RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes October 7, 1998 City Municipal Building 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Planning Commissioners Present: Larry Brosman, Beverly Franklin, Rose Anne Jacobs, Eugene Ledbury, Becky Lemke, Rosemary Quesenberry, Richard Wagner Planning Commissioners Absent: Jeffrey Lukins City Staff Present: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner; Rebecca Lind, Principal Planner; Judy Wright, Recording Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Brosman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Secretary Franklin called roll; Commissioner Lukins was absent and excused. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chair Brosman corrected the Minutes of September 16, 1998, noting that item 2 "Roll Call", excusing the absent members had been omitted. He requested the Minutes reflect that error. The Minutes for September 16, 1998 were approved as amended. 4. AGENDA REVIEW: Chair Brosman asked that item 11, "Audience Comment" precede "Commission Deliberation and Action." There were no objections. 5. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED: Chair Brosman noted the correspondence received; no comments offered. 6. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None. 7. BRIEFINGS: None. 8. POLICY/CODE STUDY SESSION: None. 9. NEW BUSINESS: None. 10. AUDIENCE COMMENTS: None. 11. COMMISSIONER DELIBERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATION: Comprehensive Plan Amendment #98-M-4, Taco Time — Commissioners Wagner, Quesenberry and Jacobs, who were absent at the September 16, 1998 Commission meeting, said they have listened to the tapes of the meeting, read the Minutes and are up to speed to discuss the Taco Time amendment. Ms. Grueter briefly described the Taco Time Amendment which is located near 3300 and 3400 block Maple Valley Highway and constituting 3.05 acres and .86 acres (Conrad property). Staff recommendation for the amendment: change the Taco Time land use designation from Convenience Commercial (CC) to Employment Area Commercial (EAC) with concurrent zoning of Arterial Commercial (CA), maintain Residential Single Family/R-8 zoning for property east of Cedar River Planning Commission Minutes DR AFT Page 2October7, 1998 Market (Conrads), revise the Arterial Commercial zone to formally allow offices, shoe repair, accessory storage, and adopt a development agreement. Staff reviewed maps indicating the variousparcels. A map showing the extended area out to the Aqua Barn was discussed. Ms. Lind said that King County has a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment request to change a portion of the Aqua Barn area to urban residential use which allows 4-12 units per acre and also allows attached units.The County does not revise the zoning concurrently with the land use revisions. She said that she understands a 300 multi-family unit will be proposed for the site. Renton City Council wrote a letterdisagreeingtothelandusedesignationchange. Ms. Grueter stated other options were considered for the Taco Time amendment area: Convenience Commercial Zone text amendment (to allow larger offices); Employment Area Office/CO; combinations of EAC/CA for Taco Time and 3 residential lots with the remainder CC (espresso stand); and Neighborhood Commercial or CN. Options for the Conrad's property were RS/R-8 (staff recommendation), RO/R-10, EAC/CA, EAO/CO, CC, or CN (Conrad's request). Staff noted that a Public Hearing on the Taco Time Amendment was held on September 16'h and the written record was closed October 7`h. Staff suggests that the deliberations result in three motions: one for the Taco Time, insurance office, and radiator repair shop; one for the Market and barber shop;and one for the Conrad property. Mr. Wagner expressed concern about jumping to the Commercial Arterial zone which is the City'smostintensivezoneandaskedwhyCommercialOfficemightnotbemoreappropriate. Ms. Grueter said that they looked at the entire site and noted that the amendment includes a development agreement which is more restrictive than the zone. A CO designation would be considered a spot zone. Other comments noted were leaving the zoning as is, and the issue is not the Taco Time expansion or Dobson or Conrad's property, but a discussion about what makes a good neighborhood. The City Council, through the Comprehensive Plan policies, strive to preserve neighborhoods, do not allow granny flats, and development agreements are the wrong way to go. The question is what is right for the site? The Commission decided to make motions for each parcel considered in the study area. M/S to change the land use designation for the Conrad's four (4) parcels to Residential Options (RO) with concurrent R-10 zoning. Parcels are under 1/ 2 acre in size and staff anticipates duplexes. This recommendation will be considered by the Planning and Development Committee this year, but the amendment will be folded into the 1999 Amendments. In response to Commissioners, staff said the amendment was not tabled, but due to the request for reconsideration and appeal of the Renton Environmental Review Committee's Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance, it was determined to hold the public hearing at a later date. Motion carried. M/S to deny Staff's Recommendation to change the Taco Time site to Commercial Arterial (CA). Commissioners noted that while the building looks good and is maintained, it does not belong in theneighborhoodandexpansionisnotacceptable. Taco Time is already a non-conforming use in the Convenience Commercial zone because the structure is 9,000 sq. ft. which is too large for the CC zone. Taco Time can continue to exist as a Non-Conforming Use and could rebuild to its present sizeifafireoccurred. Motion carried. M//S to not approve the Development Agreement which would only "sugar coat" a terribly wrongdecision (Staff's Recommendation). Motion carried. M/S to change the Cedar River Market and the Barber Shop to Convenience Commercial. This recognizes their respective historic place in the neighborhood. Motion carried. Planning Commission Minutes DR P I T Page 3 October 7, 1998 M/S to leave the Radiator Repair Shop as Convenience Commercial and remains as a non- conforming use. Motion carried. M/S to reject Staff's Recommendation for the Insurance Company site and retain the Convenience Commercial designation for the parcel. Motion carried. Chair Brosman said that the Comprehensive Plan policies refer to preserving open space and not allowing urban sprawl, and with all the testimony and letters received, it is evident that the residents of the area do not want sprawl to happen. Staff said that Council will receive copies of the petition submitted plus letters sent to the Commission. Staff said there is a final recommendation that needs the Commission's consideration regarding the revisions to the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone city-wide. Revisions include: add office use into the CA zone, add shoe repair use, and allow storage to service and office uses limited to 33% of the total gross area. Following a brief discussion and locating the CA properties oin the City map, M/S to accept the Staff's Recommendation to revise the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone per Staff's Recommendation. Motion carried. The meeting recessed at 8:35 p.m. to 8:40 p.m. Downtown Pedestrian Core Ordinance — Mr. Dennison said the Commission was briefed on this issue at its August 5' meeting and restated that the amendment will preserve the intent of Downtown Element Policy DT-4 creating a Pedestrian District in downtown Renton. The intent of the Pedestrian District is to emphasis the retail and consumer services, provide uses that generate pedestrian traffic, draw a critical mass of businesses and customers to the downtown. Density is the key issue. Mr. Dennison said that since 1994, light industrial, commercial parking and multi-family residential uses have been restricted in the Pedestrian District as it does not fully implement the intent of Policy DT-4. The issue of the policy being implemented incompletely was raised when a new tenant came into the District which is not considered consistent with the policy. The current effort is to implement the intent of the policy, identify and restrict all uses inconsistent with the policy, reinforce the main criteria—does it generate traffic? Staff noted that this policy only affects the ground floor, street frontage locations within the District. The proposed restricted uses include: all residential, retail with outdoor storage, offices, funeral homes and related uses, laundromats, day care services, health services, taxi and individual transportation, research, development and testing, repair services (must be accessory), government offices, community facilities, private clubs and organizations, social service facilities, business and professional schools, bowling alleys and recycling stations. Issues for consideration are: legal nonconforming uses (because they are currently a legal use) - could continue, but not expand (locksmith/vacuum repair, printer repair, service, supplies, Christian Science reading room). Other uses which might be considered and staff would like the Commission's input are: hotels/motel, theaters, dance halls/cabarets, and general business service. General business services use is broadly interpreted and resists a strict definition. The proposal would add conditions to specify certain uses and restrict all others. The Commission's discussion included the concept that food services draw large amounts of people and a non-conforming use is okay if sales are included with the use. Staff noted that as long as the ground floor frontage is a conforming use, it doesn't matter what occurs in the back or upstairs area. It was noted that the amendment addresses street activity use and not urban design or storefront, and asked if the City already has storefront guidelines? Staff said that they will research to see if there are any design requirements for uses in the CD and specifically the Pedestrian District. The issue was raised of whether it is the appropriate time to start restricting certain uses especially since the downtown is beginning to come together. Commissioners asked if"pedestrian access" has a defined depth, and staff said "no", it only reflects what constitutes"street frontage". The question of how much Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT Page 4October7, 1998 of the storefront needs to be impacted with the use was raised. The purpose of the policy is togeneratetraffic. Concern was raised of creating a road block to the market place now when there isnotthedemand. Commissioner Franklin suggested that the Veterans Memorial on Main and Third be included in thePedestrianDistrict. Staff noted that the proposed amendment only controls the uses that go there,therefore, if the park stays a park long term, it did not appear to be necessary to limit the uses thatmaybeusedonthatparcel. Staff said if the Commissions to restrict the uses in that area, they couldincludeitintherecommendation. Motion moved to include Main Avenue (East and West sides between 2"d and 3rd) in the PedestrianDistrict. Staff said that at the last meeting it was discussed if this had been proposed several yearsago, and staff said it was previously sent to the Council who opted not to change the PedestrianDistrictboundary. Following discussion, the motion was withdrawn. Hotel/motels and theaters do not create daytime traffic. It was asked if there can be a street frontage width which has a second uses behind possibly with a day/night ratio, such as an entry lobby area forotheruseswhichisnotanapproveduse. Develop a certain amount of footage on the street frontwhichisacceptableandallowotherusesbeyondthefrontage. Staff will bring further information along with a recommendation to the Commission for their consideration at the next meeting. 13. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Larry Brosman, Chair Beverly Franklin, Secretary CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: October 20, 1998 TO: City Council Mayor Tanner FROM: Larry Brosman PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Recommendation - Maple Valley Taco Time Comprehensive Plan Amendment,Rezone,Development Agreement, CA Zone Amendments RECOMMENDED ACTION: Designate the four Conrad parcels with the Residential Options land use designation,with a concurrent rezone to R-10. Apply the Convenience Commercial designation and zone to the Cedar River Market and Cedar River Barbershop properties. Deny the Administration recommendation for the Taco Time lease/option and option properties to redesignate the properties to Employment Area-Commercial/Commercial Arterial designations. Maintain the current Convenience Commercial designations for the Taco Time office building, easement and espresso stand properties. Maintain the current Residential Single Family/R-8 zoning for the three residential lots. Maintain the Convenience Commercial designation for the radiator repair property. Maintain the Convenience Commercial designation for the insurance office property. Deny the proposed Development Agreement which "sugar coats" the proposed Taco Time expansion. Approve the code amendments to allow offices, accessory storage for office/service uses, and shoe repair in the Commercial Arterial zone. Planning Commission Action and Recommendation The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 16, 1998 for the proposed Maple ValleyTacoTimeAreaComprehensivePlanAmendment, Rezone, Development Agreement, and generalCommercialArterialzoneamendments (98-M-4; LUA 98-042 CPA, R, ECF). Deliberations were completed on October 7, 1998. In response to citizen testimony and petitions presented, as well as detailed review of staff reports and field review of the neighborhood, the Planning Commission made the above recommendations unanimously. For: Beverly Franklin, Rose Anne Jacobs, Eugene Ledbury, Becky Lemke, RosemaryQuesenberry, Rich Wagner Against: None Absent: Jeff Lukins Signed Larry B sman Planning Commission Chair cc: Jay Covington H:\DIVISION.S\P-TS\PLANNING\AMENDS\1997 PCRPT.DOC 2 t SE 5th St Ear R S littfo sE eie 8z, iDilitil0 4:.::.::.::.::.:.:::.:::"..:::::.:.:::.::.::.:::. • 4k Q 0 , 40441' 0 150 30 I r. Existing and Proposed Land Use Planning Commission Recommendation K lifillircRods MacOnie& . Strategic Planning 20 October 1998%1140 A \\ R S to CC PS -to RD w 8 SE 5th St it S-- 4./ liel ft*.e SE iltet e0 4, 0ilk-8Q/0( E Q(( 4kLP/9161911111\ Thf 0 11141/ipt150301 ' 1 : 1 , : 00 i Existing and Proposed Zoning Planning Commission Recommendation 116,porhoRodms c8con. Strategic Planning e R-8 to CCWI? 20 October 1998 R-8 to R-10