HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA99-126February 7, 2000 Renton City Council Minutes Page 34
Margie Beitner,Nell Daniel and Danette Proszek
Employee of the Fourth Quarter: Glenn Kost(Capital Projects)
Mr. Shepherd also announced that Jerry Rerecich was chosen as the 1999
Employee of the Year for his commitment to the community and his staff over
the last 30 years. Mr.Rerecich has been instrumental in developing new
programs and events, such as Communities in Schools and the limited
hydroplane races at Coulon Park,and he is a trusted manager, supervisor, and
friend.
Executive: Chief Finance&Information Services Administrator Victoria Runkle, along with
Administrative Officer Community Services Administrator Jim Shepherd,Economic Development
Recognition Administrator Sue Carlson,Human Resources Administrator Mike Webby,
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Gregg Zimmerman,Chief of
Police Garry Anderson and Fire Chief Lee Wheeler presented a framed print of
the annual "Clam Lights"event at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park to Chief
Administrative Officer Jay Covington in appreciation for his exemplary
leadership.
On behalf of all of the department heads,Ms. Runkle said that Mr. Covington
is motivated by his sense of duty and by his belief in Renton's excellence and
potential. She added that although Mr. Covington's work challenges are
limitless,he continually demonstrates faith in the City's employees and finds
ways for them to do their jobs better.
Mr.Covington said Renton is a rare community where people do things for it
because they care about it and about those with whom they work.
APPEAL Planning&Development Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a report
Planning&Development regarding the Motorcycle Works Appeal. The Committee convened on
Committee February 4, 2000,to consider the appeal by Ted Abernethy, d/b/a Motorcycle
Appeal: Motorcycle Works of Works of Renton,of the Hearing Examiner's decision dated 11/15/99.
Renton, SA-99-082,A-99-126
The appellant operates and is purchasing the motorcycle shop at the
intersection of S.4th Place and Rainier Ave. S. The shop is located east of and
abuts the Fred Meyer parking lot.
The subject project would develop an approximately 8,850-square foot building
on a site located just south of appellant's business. The subject site is located
immediately north of a railroad trestle and embankment on which the railroad
is located,and on the west side of Rainier Ave. S.
The proposed building would be a retail building and would include 39 parking
stalls. The ERC issued a DNS-Mitigated for the project.
Appellant Abernethy appealed on four issues, focusing on trip generation and
traffic on that portion of the Fred Meyer property which lies between the
appellant's parcel and the subject site and is a driveway from Rainier Ave. S.to
the Fred Meyer parking lot.
The Committee did not find an error or fact or law. Therefore,the Committee
recommended that Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner.
MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER,
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 2000 and beyond. Items noted
included:
APPROVED BY 1
CITY COUNCIL I
Date a'7-"
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT
February 7, 2000
Motorcycle Works Appeal; File No. LUA-99-082, SA-A,ECF and File No. LUA-99-126
Referred December 13, 1999)
The Planning and Development Committee convened on February 4, 2000, to consider the
appeal by Ted Abernathy, d/b/a Motorcycle Works of Renton of the Hearing Examiner's
Decision dated 11/15/99.
The Appellant operates and is purchasing the motorcycle shop at the intersection of 4th Place and
Rainier Avenue South. The shop is located east of and abuts the Fred Meyer parking lot.
The subject project would develop an approximately 8,850-sq. foot building on a site located just
south of the appellant's business. The subject site is located immediately north of a railroad
trestle and embankment on which the railroad is located, and on the west side of Rainier Avenue
South.
The proposed building would be a retail building and would include 39 parking stalls. The ERC
issued a DNS-Mitigated for the project.
Appellant Abernathy appealed on four issues, focusing on trip generation and traffic on that
portion of the Fred Meyer property which lies between the Appellant's parcel and the subject site
and is a driveway from Rainier Avenue South to the Fred Meyer parking lot.
The Committee did not find an error of fact or law. Therefore, the Committee recommends that
the Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner.
5,6-d(Atdhz
Kathy lker-Wheeler, Chair
a
Tim Schlitzer, i -Chair
be401414,41‘ 46$44441'
mod a4t6/ 44-
February 7, 2000 Renton City Council Minutes Page 35
City staff are working with the U.S.Census Bureau to obtain a "complete
count"of Renton residents for the 2000 census. Census forms,to be
mailed on March 13,must be returned by April 11 th.
After gathering information about existing flaws in the Olympic Pipeline
Co.'s petroleum lines in Renton,the Mayor will now send letters to federal
and state representatives requesting that the company be required to
hydrostatically pressure-test its entire pipeline in Washington.
In conjunction with the sidewalk removal and replacement portion of the
fiber optics installation,Parks maintenance crews will replace the existing
Crimson King Maples on the west side of Wells Ave.between S. 2nd and
S.Riverside Drive.
Habitat for Humanity in South King County recently contributed$11,000
toward a home in Renton and is looking for property to be donated.
Regional Issues: County-wide Mayor Tanner added that another information item of note is the plan by King
Water Demands and Supply County Executive Ron Sims and Seattle Mayor Paul Schell to conduct a
Assessment coordinated county-wide assessment of the area's water demands and supplies.
Mayor Tanner reported that he has agreed to have Renton participate in this
activity,if only to keep apprised of developments as they occur. He assured
Council that he will keep it informed in the event that the City must make any
formal decisions on this issue.
Public Works: Olympic MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL JOIN THE
Pipeline Hydrostatic Testing ADMINISTRATION IN LOBBYING STATE AND FEDERAL OFFICIALS
TO REQUIRE THAT OLYMPIC PIPELINE CO. CONDUCT
HYDROSTATIC TESTING OF ITS FACILITIES IN WASHINGTON TO
DETERMINE THEIR SAFETY. CARRIED.
Mayor Tanner added that he was surprised to learn that the company can
continue to operate its pipeline even if some sections of the pipe walls are a
mere 20%of their original thickness.
AUDIENCE COMMENT Marleen Mandt, 1408 N. 26th St.,Renton, 98056,commented on the proposed
Citizen Comment: Mandt — changes to certain SeaTac flight paths,particularly the suggested "split east
SeaTac Proposed Flight Path turn"whereby planes which now turn east over Leschi and Medina would turn
Changes east earlier,over Mercer Island and Renton. Ms. Mandt said that her
Kennydale.neighborhood is already subjected to airplane noise from Renton's
municipal airport,where much of the activity is repeat takeoffs and landings
from students of the flying instruction schools. She added that Kennydale is
also affected by seaplanes from the municipal airport base, I-405 traffic noise,
helicopters which travel down the freeway corridor, trains on the tracks near
the lake,and personal watercraft at Gene Coulon Park.
Citizen Comment: Wright — Barbara Wright, 1115 N. 33rd St.,Renton, 98056, sought the City's help in
Metro Bus#105 (Use of N.getting Metro bus#105 rerouted. Ms. Wright explained that this bus uses N.
33rd St. in Kennydale as Turn- 33`
d as a turn-around although this road is narrow and steep,and not at all
Around)suited for this use. Saying that this route puts 26 buses per day on 33rd, she
added that residents are concerned for their safety and that of their children.
Ms. Wright concluded that she has spoken with both Renton staff and people at
Metro,to no avail.
MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL REFER
THIS MATTER TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. CARRIED.
Citizen Comment: Abernethy Ted Abernethy,485 Rainier Ave. S.,Renton, 98055,expressed his
Motorcycle Works Appeal dissatisfaction with Council's earlier action this evening denying his appeal
ofN--- cN n A
February 7,2000 Renton City Council Minutes Page 36
Fred Meyer Shopping Center)• the proposed new development at the Fred Meyer shopping center on Rainier
Ave. S. Mr.Abernethy was especially disappointed that he did not get a chance
to address the full Council on this subject before it rendered a decision.
Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler responded that Mr.Abernethy had been
apprised of the law last week and the fact that Council could not consider any
further testimony or new information in this matter. She suggested that he
work with Fred Meyer to secure a satisfactory access to his business, saying
that the City cannot address this problem since it is between two private parties.
Council President Corman added that Council has, in the past,considered
eliminating this type of appeal from its process because, as Ms.Keolker-
Wheeler explained,the law restricts it from hearing additional testimony from
its constituents. Council can only consider whether the Hearing Examiner
made an error of fact or of law in rendering his decision.
Mr. Abernethy announced his intention to appeal this matter to King County
Superior Court,noting that while this will further delay the development,his
primary concern was gaining safe and adequate access for his customers.
Citizen Comment: Burgess — Key Burgess, 1800 NE 20th St.,Renton,98056,agreed with Mr. Abernethy
Motorcycle Works Appeal that the access to Motorcycle Works is unsafe,and that something should be
Fred Meyer Shopping Center) done about it.
Mr.Corman reiterated that Council is prohibited from considering this subject
except on a very narrow basis as proscribed by law. He emphasized that even
though Councilmembers may have sympathetic opinions on this matter,they
cannot inject these into the proceedings.
Citizen Comment: Jones — Dehanna Jones, 13321 -25th Ave.NE, Seattle, 98125,concurred that the
Motorcycle Works Appeal access of this business is not safe.
Fred Meyer Shopping Center) Councilman Parker agreed that the driveway for this business is not
appropriate; however,he felt that the subject of this appeal was only minimally
related to Motorcycle Works' access issue. He suggested this problem be
resolved congenially between the neighboring businesses.
Citizen Comment: Schatz — Tony Schatz,485 Rainier Ave. S.,Renton, 98056,owner of Motorcycle Works
Motorcycle Works Appeal since 1967,said according to the law,the driveway for this business is too close
Fred Meyer Shopping Center) to the stoplight. Adding that part of the walkway is on his property,he said
Fred Meyer had promised to rectify the access issue when it developed its
shopping center,but this promise was broken. He encouraged Councilmembers
to personally look at this situation themselves.
Council President Corman suggested that if Motorcycle Works used a second
driveway for many years before Fred Meyer bought the property and closed
this access,the business may have a prescriptive easement for continued use of
this property. He encouraged Mr. Schatz and Mr.Abernethy to investigate this
question,emphasizing that it is a civil matter. Assistant City Attorney David
Dean added that State law allows a private property owner to condemn a
private way of necessity on someone else's property,under certain conditions.
Mayor Tanner agreed to have staff look into this matter,but warned Mr. Schatz
that if what he says is true and the remaining driveway is too close to the
stoplight,he might be required to close it altogether.
Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler suggested that staff investigate whether S.4 th
Pl. could be made into a public street,which might help Motorcyle Works
accomplish its goal of safe access.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
County of King
MARILYN MOSES being first duly sworn, upon oath,
deposes and states:
That on the 15th day of November ,1999, affiant deposited in the mail
of the United States a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with
postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or
petition.
Signature: M qv\ k . z.d)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this /64 day of 1L 411.11`1999.
otary Publi in and for the State of Washington,
residing at 11.pA1; `YL therein.
Application, Petition, or Case No.: Appeal of RPI Building
LUA99-1 26,AAD
The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record.
CITE- OF RENTON
City Clerk
Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen
February 9, 2000
Mr. Ted Abernethy
485 Rainier Avenue S.
Renton, WA 98055
Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision; RPI Building; LUA-99-126, AAD;
Motorcycle Works
Dear Mr. Abernethy:
At,the regular Council meeting of February 7, 2000, the Renton City Council approved
the Planning and Development Committee report recommending that the Council affirm
the decision of the Hearing Examiner on the referenced appeal since the Committee did
not find an error of fact or law.
If I can provide additional information or assistance regarding this matter, please feel free
to call.
Sincerely,
s-r)
arilyn t rsen
City Clerk/Cable Manager
cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner
Council President Randy Corman
Leslie Nishihira, Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510 /FAX(425)430-6516
This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer
APPROVED BY _I
CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Date
COMMITTEE REPORT
February 7, 2000
Motorcycle Works Appeal; File No. LUA-99-082, SA-A, ECF and File No. LUA-99-126
Referred December 13, 1999)
The Planning and Development Committee convened on February 4, 2000, to consider the
appeal by Ted Abernathy, d/b/a Motorcycle Works of Renton of the Hearing Examiner's
Decision dated 11/15/99.
The Appellant operates and is purchasing the motorcycle shop at the intersection of 4th Place and
Rainier Avenue South. The shop is located east of and abuts the Fred Meyer parking lot.
The subject project would develop an approximately 8,850-sq. foot building on a site located just
south of the appellant's business. The subject site is located immediately north of a railroad
trestle and embankment on which the railroad is located, and on the west side of Rainier Avenue
South.
The proposed building would be a retail building and would include 39 parking stalls. The ERC
issued a DNS-Mitigated for the project.
Appellant Abernathy appealed on four issues, focusing on trip generation and traffic on that
portion of the Fred Meyer property which lies between the Appellant's parcel and the subject site
and is a driveway from Rainier Avenue South to the Fred Meyer parking lot.
The Committee did not find an error of fact or law. Therefore,the Committee recommends that
the Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner.
td
Kathy lker-Wheeler, Chair
Tim Schlitzer, i -Chair
December 13, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes ) - Page 439
Councilman Edwards added that while Renton had already pledged to revisit
this subject next year,in the meantime I-695 was approved which has greatly
complicated matters. He noted that the question remains as to which
population of voters would vote on a proposed increase in ISD impact fees
which would affect only a small portion of Renton residents. City Attorney
Lawrence J.Warren concurred that the answer to this question is yet to be
determined.
Citizen Comment: Wilcock— Everett Wilcock, 11831 — 164th Ave. SE,Renton, said that Renton should not
Issaquah School District be able to allow growth without ensuring that the necessary infrastructure is
Impact Fees financially provided for. He said the impact fee adopted by Renton is not
sufficient to meet ISD's six-year capital facilities plan, although Renton
adopted this plan by reference in its own Comprehensive Plan.
City Attorney Warren explained that although this is true,according to the
Growth Management Act the only program which requires concurrency
between jurisdictions is transportation planning. He added that the subject of
school capital needs and how these are planned for could be taken up as an
inter-governmental rather than a concurrency issue.
Cot. lman Schlitzer spoke to the problem of boundary conflicts between the
Issaquah and Renton school districts,which differs from the boundary between
the cities of Renton and Issaquah. Saying that Renton School District has
indicated that it does not cost$18,000 to ensure school capacity for each single
family dwelling,he emphasized that Renton is able to handle its growth
without imposing any school impact fees at all.
CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the
listing. At Councilman Edwards'request, item 7.d.was removed for separate
consideration.
Appeal: RPI Retail Building at City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision affirming the
Renton Center,Ted Abernethy ERC's approval of the site plan for the RPI retail building at Renton Center;
SA-99-082 appeal filed on 11/29/99 by Matthew D. O'Conner,representing Ted Abernethy
SA-99-082). Refer to Planning&Development Committee.
Appeal: Renton High School City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the site
Modernization(Site Plan and plan and variance application for the modernization of Renton High School;
Variance),Renton School appeal filed on 12/02/99 by Richard E.McCann and Wayt T. Watterson,
District(SA-99-120)representing Renton School District(SA-99-120). Refer to Planning&
Development Committee.
City Clerk: 1999 General City Clerk submitted the 1999 General Election canvass results from King
Election Canvass Results County Records&Elections, as follows: Mayor, Jesse Tanner(8,340-
elected); Council Position No. 3,Kathy Keolker-Wheeler(7,875 -elected);
Council Position No.4,King Parker(8,175 -elected); Council Position No. 5,
Toni Nelson(5,287-elected)and Heidi Carlson(4,567); Council Position No.
7,Dan Clawson(4,403)and Don Persson(5,289-elected). Information.
CAG: 99-068, SW 27th St Surface Water Utility Division submitted CAG-99-068, SW 27th St. Culvert
Culvert Replacement, Replacement; and recommended approval of the project,authorization for final
Scoccolo Const pay estimate in the amount of$4,817.40, commencement of 60-day lien period,
and release of retained amount of$29,593.20 to Scoccolo Construction,Inc.,
contractor,if all required releases are obtained. Council concur.
Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Systems Division recommended review of updates to the
Transportation Element Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Refer to Transportation
Updates Committee.
CITY or RENTON COUNCIL AGEND,. .3ILL
AI#: ri.0. •
SUBMITTING DATA: FOR AGENDA OF: 12/13/99
Dept/DivBoard....City Clerk
Staff Contact Marilyn Petersen AGENDA STATUS:
Consent XX
SUBJECT:Public Hearing
Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision affirming ERC Ordinance
8/17/99 approval of site plan for RPI Retail Building at Resolution
Renton Center(File SA-99-082&AAD-99-126) Old Business
EXHIBITS: New Business
A. City Clerk's letter Study Session
B. Appeal(11/29/99) Other
C. Hearing Examiner's Report&Decision(11/15/99)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVALS:
Refer to Planning and Development Committee. I Legal Dept
Finance Dept
Other
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
Expenditure Required Transfer/Amendment....
Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Appeal filed by Matthew D.O'Conner,Attorney at Law,representing Ted Abernethy of Motorcycle Works of Renton,
accompanied by required$75 fee received on 11/29/99.
RCITI )F RENTON
siL City Clerk
Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J. Petersen
December 1, 1999
APPEAL FILED BY: Ted Abernethy, Motorcycle Works of Renton
Representative: Matthew D. O'Conner, Attorney at Law
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 11/15/99 affirming the
Environmental Review and Land Use Action Report&Decision dated 8/17/99
approving the site plan for the RPI Retail Building at Renton Center, subject to
conditions. (File No. LUA-99-082, SA-A, ECF and File No. LUA-99-126, AAD)
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8,Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the
hearing examiner's decision on the Real Property Investors, LLC request for site approval
has been filed with the City Clerk.
In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F,within five days of receipt
of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the
appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten
10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The
deadline for submission of additional letters is December 10, 1999.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents
will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council
secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and
Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and
wish to attend the meeting,please call the Council secretary at 425 430-6501 for
information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration
by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting.
Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner
decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the
merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a
showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available
at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on
this matter will be accepted by the City Council.
For additional information or assistance,please feel free to call me at 425 430-6502.
Sincerely,
Manlyn sen
City Clerk/ le Manager
Attachments
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510/FAX(425)430-6516
L: This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer
Ted Abernethy Zanetta Fontes Leslie Nishihira
485 Rainier Ave. S.
Renton City Attorney Office Renton Development Services Div.
Renton, WA 98055
Anton Schatz Geri Reinart Paul Lumbert
17801 SE 146th 1319 Dexter Ave. N., #270
Renton, WA 98059 Seattle, WA 98109
Renton Development Services Div.
Tom Lee James Hamm Matthew D. O'Conner, Attorney
4000 E. Madison, #290 1420 Fifth Avenue, #2200 8011 Greenwood Ave. N.
Seattle, WA 98112 Seattle, WA 98101-2333 Seattle, WA 98103
City of Renton Municipal e; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 - Al is
4-8-110C3
Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify
the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant
seeks relief. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92)
4-8-110C4
The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the
City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82)
4-8-110E8
Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the
Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may
submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14)
calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82)
4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council - Procedures:
1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall
notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal.
2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their
positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of
appeal.
3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City
Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and
conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by
the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82)
4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or
additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the
party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the
hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council
shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost
of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon
the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a
remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no
new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record
before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-
93)
5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the
record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties.
6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an
application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record, the
Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the
preceding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner
accordingly.
7. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application
submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council
determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the
Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to
the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application.
8. Decision Documentation: In any event,the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall
specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the
Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The
burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82)
9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejectinat decision of the
Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of
this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997)
11/29i1999 16:29 7830233 CARPENTER R F'AVt b
I iO"-7:a-199'? 1 a a" REI ITOt I CITY CLERK OFC CITY OF RENTON P•02/03
APPEAL
HEARINO EXAMINER NOV 2 9 1999
WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATIr J.C' UNTON CITY COU\
FILE NO. ix ,p-j) CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
APPLICATION NAME: ft pa.( to C.t cvAc;
The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Ap al from the decision or recommendation of the Land t,
Hearing Examiner, dated AJ o JeMber 1 5 19 gel .
1. IDENTIFICATION 0J PARTY
APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ) .NY):
Name: -Tett P rot/ / lUo1-rxryeit tool i'as-FO/1 Name: _I11 Ie D. DC 4ner
Address: ytc35 i ec ittirS • Address: nwoocS tiffrE &L
Rok ot', C.L>4_ So55 e, w
t elp3
Telephone No vas - aa6- a Telephone No. Citd. .
2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORSSAttach_additional sheets, if necessary)
Sec forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based:
FINDING OF FACT. (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report)
No. Error:
CAtea
Correction:
CONCLUSIONS:
No. Error:
Joe `mod`t cid
Correction.
OTHER:
No. Error:
R el
Correction:
3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief:
Attach explanation, if desired)
Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: OUMum The D/US -
odify the decision or recommendation as follows:
R-mand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows:
O er
OVe11 q 99
Appella t/Rcpresent:ttvc Signature are
NOTE: Pleace refer to Tide 1V. Ctupter 8. of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, tor specific procedures.
11/29/1999 1b: 29 7E330233 LAKKLNILK K taut e.
MATTHEW D. O'CONNER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
8011 GREENWOOD AVENUE NORTH • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON, 98103-4228 USA
TELEPHONE:(206)782-0722 • FAX:(206)783-0233 • E-MAIL:oconnereoconnerlegal.com
November 29, 1999
City of Renton City Council
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Re: Appeal by Motorcycle Works of Renton of Hearing Examiner's Decision re: RPI
Building
File No. LUA99-082,SA-A
Appeal File No. LUA99-126,AAD
SPECIFICATIONS OF ERRORS;
CONCLUSION #7:
Error: The City-of-Renton-estimated 345 new trips per day will be added to or
blend with the fairly substantial traffic counts already experienced along Rainier but Bill
have a severe impact on the number of trips experienced on(what the Examiner called) the
driveway' on the west side of the intersection at Rainier Ave. South and S. 4`'' Place. The
concern of M W R is not on the increased traffic on Rainier Ave. S. but onto and off of S.
Place.
Correction: The Hearing Examiner's basis for upholding the actions of the ERC
were erroneous and should be overturned.
FINDING # 20:
Error: The traffic report offered by the City of Renton and which was adopted by
the Hearing Examiner, stated that .... "This amount of traffic is negligible when compared
to the traffic volumes on the adjacent streets."As mentioned above, this proposed use will
not significantly affect the number of trips north and south on Rainier Ave. South due to its
large overall traffic flows but it will have a severe impact on the number of trips both onto
and off of S. 4''' Place.
Correction: The Hearing Examiner's basis for his conclusions was erroneous and
should be overturned.
FINDING #2I
Error: The City's report did not specify what percent of the trips used in calculating
its figures would come from the `driveway' referred to by the Examiner.
Correction: The City should be required to so state so that the Examiner could then
make a fully informed decision.
11/29/1999 1b: 19 /63d133•LAKVtNItK K r:a t ev
OTHER (Transcription of testimony by Anton Shatz)
Error: The transcript of testimony by Anton Schatz offered by the Examiner stated
that Mr. Schatz claimed that"When Fred Meyer bought its property, they put a newdrivewayinon4"' Place with a sidewalk, landscaping and curb." Actually Mr. Schatz
stated that "When Fred Meyer bought its property, they promised to put a new driveway inon4Placewithasidewalk, landscaping and curb." If the Hearing Examiner based his
decision on the mistaken belief that Fred Meyer actually built the driveway on 0, then that
would significantly affect the factual basis for the Examiner's conclusions. The drivewayMr. Schatz mentioned does not exist—Fred Meyer never built it.
Correction: Remand to Hearing Examiner for further consideration.
Pursuant to RMC 4-8-1 10F(4), MWR requests the admission of additional
information by MWR regarding the traffic flow onto and off of S. 4'''Avenue. The
information will he supplied in the form of written expert testimony regarding the traffic
flows onto and off of S. 4'Avenue. This information could not reasonably have been
made available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner as it is now needed to
supplement the findings of the City's expert testimony that the Examiner found to be"not
clear" (Finding #2 I ) and"not convincing" (Conclusion 07).
November 15, 1999
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND DECISION
APPELLANT: Ted Abernethy
Motorcycle Works of Renton
Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA99-126,AAD
LOCATION: S 4th Place and Rainier Avenue S
SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeals site plan approval of RPI Building
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 October 19, 1999 hearing.
The official record is recorded on tape.
The hearing opened on Tuesday,October 19, 1999, at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor
of the Renton City Hall. 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 LUA99-082,SA-A(by
proof of posting and publication,and other reference)
documentation pertinent to the appeal.
Exhibit No.3: Vicinity map Exhibit No.4: Intersection diagram
Exhibit No.5: Estimated Trip Traffic for PM Peak Exhibit No.6: Estimated Trip Distribution by
Hours Percent and Daily Volume
Exhibit No.7: Photographs(6)
Parties present: Ted Abernethy,Appellant
485 Rainier Ave S
Renton,WA 98055
Representing City of Renton
Zanetta Fontes,City Attorney
Leslie Nishihira,Assistant Planner
1055 S Grady Way
Renton,WA 98055
Representing Applicant RPI
Tom Lee
4000 E Madison,#290
Seattle,WA 98112
Ted Abernethy
Motorcycle Works of Renton
Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA99-126,AAD
November 15, 1999
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.
Mr.Abernethy, appellant herein, stated that he is in the process of purchasing Motorcycle Works of Renton,
hereinafter MWR, from Anton Schatz. His argument with the City's granting the land use for the proposed
retail building is that it would affect the traffic flow in the area,especially as it relates to his business. He
described the traffic flow onto 4th Place from Rainier Avenue and its impact on his site at the current time. To
increase the traffic flow would basically land-lock his site. He requested an easement onto 4th Place to give
customers safe access to his business. He detailed the history of the buildings on the proposed site as well as
his own site and the Fred Meyer complex to the west,and the traffic patterns in the area. MWR for many years
had a side access onto 4th Place. When the Fred Meyer complex was completed,that side access was removed.
On cross-examination from Ms. Fontes,Mr.Abernethy stated that MWR's current driveway has been in use
since 1967. He also responded that he had not been in contact with Fred Meyer regarding access to his site
from their property,nor had any traffic studies been conducted at his request. Based on his personal
observation,he did not believe the traffic study submitted by the applicant was accurate in the number of
predicted vehicle trips per day generated by the proposal. His main concern for his business was the increased
likelihood of traffic accidents. Photographs were submitted of the appellant's site and the intersection of
Rainier Avenue S and 4th Place.
Anton Schatz, 17801 SE 146th,Renton, Washington 98059,testified on behalf of the appellant. He stated that
in 1964 he bought the MWR site and at that time there was a driveway on 4th Place as well as on Rainier
Avenue S. When Fred Meyer bought its property,they put a new driveway in on 4th Place with a sidewalk,
landscaping and curb. A representative from Fred Meyer met with him and told him they would put the
driveway back in,but they never did. At no time did he ever have a written agreement with the prior or present
owners for the driveway.
Leslie Nishihira,on behalf of the City,described the proposal as being an 8,850 square foot retail building to be
located at the southwest corner of Rainier Avenue S and S 4th Place. It would include the creation of 39
parking stalls. She further described the City's process application,and detailed specifics of this proposal
including plan review,posting of the project,and contact by the appellant. The traffic analysis which was
submitted with the application was also discussed,along with other recent or current development proposals for
the nearby area.
Geri Reinart, 1319 Dexter Avenue N,#270, Seattle,Washington 98109,a traffic consultant for the applicant,
described the process used for calculating traffic impacts to this site. The size of the previous building was
compared to the size of the proposed building as a basis for calculating the net change in both the peak hour
and daily traffic trips. From the ITE Manual,the closest land use designation to a motorcycle business would
be new car sales. Ms. Reinart further explained the exhibits relating to peak hour traffic and trip distribution.
On cross-examination,she stated she based the figures on the previous square footage for the same land use,
not necessarily Rich's, as it has been gone for 5 years. If Rich's was open now,the new use would generate
Ted Abernethy
Motorcycle Works of Renton
Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA99-126,AAD
November 15, 1999
Page 3
approximately 45 additional trips based on the larger square footage. Those trips would be spread throughout
the various streets,not just at one location or at one point in time. Mr.Abernethy asked if the ten-fold increase
in his business had been taken into consideration.Ms.Reinart stated it was not,that their assessment was for
the proposed land use.
Paul Lumbert,Public Works Department, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton, Washington 98055,
stated that on July 14, 1999 a manual count was taken of the traffic southbound on Rainier Avenue at S 4th
Place during the PM peak hour,and it was indicated at 1,816 vehicles. Normally the PM peak hour is 10
percent of the 24 hour period,or approximately 18,000 traffic trips. He further responded that the City
maintains the pedestrian walkway at the Rainier and 4th intersection,even though it is a private driveway.
Tom Lee,applicant representative, stated that even though Mr.Abernethy has a difficult driveway situation,the
reason for the appeal was a SEPA determination on a retail building that has nothing to do with their driveway.
He stated that the appellant is using the proposed development to try and gain access via Fred Meyer which the
applicant cannot give him and it has nothing to do with the SEPA process.
In his closing argument,Mr. Abernethy concluded that their concern was the increased traffic on S 4th Place
and the existing problematic driveway. He stated that an easement onto S 4th Place and an entrance-only
driveway off Rainier Avenue would be a safe resolution of the situation.
In her closing argument,Ms. Fontes concluded that the purpose of the appeal was whether the City erred in its
determination and should there be an EIS required for the proposal. The increase in traffic was the appellant's
main concern and the traffic consultant's testimony indicated that the additional trips were insignificant to the
overall traffic through this intersection on a daily basis. The real issue here is the dispute between Fred Meyer
and MWR over its side access,and not the City's. The proposal has no significant adverse impact which cannot
be mitigated by the traffic mitigation fees,and those are not in dispute.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The
hearing closed at 11:20 a.m.
FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS&DECISION
Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1.The appellant,Ted Abernethy,filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated
DNS-M)issued by the ERC. Mr.Abernethy,hereinafter the appellant,filed the appeal on August 30,
1999 and the appeal was filed in a timely manner.
2.The appellant operates and is buying the Motorcycle Works of Renton. That business is located at 485
Rainier Avenue South. The shop is located on the west side of Rainier Avenue immediately north of
the signal light for the intersection of Rainier Avenue South and South 4th Place.
Ted Abernethy
Motorcycle Works of Renton
Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA99-126,AAD
November 15, 1999
Page 4
3.The proposal that is the subject of the appeal would develop an approximately 8,850 square foot
building on a site located just south of the appellant's business. The building would be constructed on
what is called Parcel E of the larger commonly called Fred Meyer Shopping Center. Parcel E is located
immediately north of a railroad trestle and the embankment on which the railroad line is located.
4.Parcel E is approximately 31,385 square feet and trapezoidal in shape.
5.While there previously had been a business located on the subject site,there has been nothing on the
site for approximately five years.
6.There is currently no defined use for the proposed new building.
7.The proposed building pad is located south of a driveway that appears to form the western extension of
S 4th Place where it intersects Rainier Avenue S. While it is controlled by a City owned and operated
traffic signal and appears to be an extension of S 4th Place,the City indicates it is not a City right-of-
way,that is it is not a public street. This driveway does have a three-lane section. The northernmost
lane is westbound and allows traffic into the Fred Meyer Center either from Rainier(right turn)or
through traffic from S 4th Place crossing Rainier. The middle lane permits a left turn onto northbound
Rainier or through traffic to S 4th Place east of Rainier. The southernmost lane allows right turns
southbound onto Rainier. Further reference to this driveway will refer to it as the "4th driveway."
8.South 4th Place east of Rainier has a similar but reversed lane configuration. It is a three-lane section.
The southern lane allows eastbound right turns to S 4th from Rainier or eastbound through traffic to
cross Rainier from the 4th driveway. The center lane allows through traffic to cross Rainier westbound
or a left turn to southbound Rainier. The northernmost lane allows northbound right turns to Rainier.
9.Rainier northbound in this area is two lanes both north and south of this intersection. Northbound as
the intersection is approached one emerges from under the railroad trestle. There is a sign at this
location prohibiting left turns into the 4th driveway and the subject site.
10. The southbound lanes of Rainier north of this intersection are four lanes wide. The left lane
accommodates only left turns. The two center lanes are for through southbound traffic. The right-most
lane accommodates either through southbound traffic or a right turn into the 4th driveway or the
appellant's driveway located immediately north of the 4th driveway.
11. The appellant's driveway and the 4th driveway are almost contiguous. The appellant's driveway
accommodates both ingress and egress in the one location. The appellant's business has increased
approximately ten times in the last few years and since the applicant's subject site was vacated.
12. The appellant has challenged the DNS which indicated:
C]urrently,the area surrounding the subject site is developed with an existing
shopping center, including associated parking areas and improvements. The proposal
would not change the character or significantly increase the current use of the center.
There, impacts to surrounding property and uses would be minimal."
Ted Abernethy
Motorcycle Works of Renton
Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA99-126,AAD
November 15, 1999
Page 5
13. The appellant disputed this claiming the use"is across the street from the exit to a shopping center and
would significantly change existing circulation patterns."
14. They claim the proposal would greatly impact the traffic volume on S. 4th Place. They further claim
that a significant increase in traffic will harm the appellant's business. Currently, it is problematic for
vehicles exiting the appellant business. The increase could lead to additional traffic making the
appellant's driveway inadequate.
15. The appellant claims that comparing the past traffic from the proposed site does not appropriately
consider the fact that when that site was last utilized,the appellant had three points of access. It had the
current driveway. It also had a southern driveway to the 4th driveway and a western driveway to the
Fred Meyer parking lot west of the appellant business. When the Fred Meyer complex was
redeveloped,that developer closed off these two additional driveways.
16. The traffic report provided was based on an approximately 8,500 square foot "retail pad." It was
termed a reconstruction of an existing 7,400 square foot pad for a net increase of 1,100 square feet.
Access to this pad is most directly available via the center accesses along Rainier Avenue and
indirectly from the access to Sunset Boulevard." (March 2, 1999 letter from David I.Hamlin&
Associates)
17. The report used trip generation numbers for"Specialty Retail Center." This type of use would generate
approximately 40.67 trips or approximately 346 trips for a retail pad containing the proposed 8,500
square feet. The PM Peak(afternoon rush hour)is estimated to be approximately 22 trips. Certain fast
food restaurants could double some of these projections.
18. The report then compares this to the number of trips a pad of 7,500 square feet would have generated or
approximately 301 trips per day. This number supposedly represents the earlier business pad that was
on the site. The report does not indicate the type of prior use,nor does it indicate that the prior use was
abandoned approximately five(5)years earlier. The PM Peak is estimated to be approximately 19
trips.
19. There is no projection for AM Peak traffic. This office presumes that many retail businesses are not
open during the early morning rush hour.
20. The traffic report provides this conclusion:
The proposed re-development of one of the retail pads at the Renton Center will have
a very limited impact on the adjacent street system....This amount of traffic is
negligible when compared to the traffic volumes on the adjacent streets."
The numbers in this conclusion are the net change between the proposed larger pad to the prior pad or
45 daily trips and 3 peak trips.
Ted Abernethy
Motorcycle Works of Renton
Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA99-126,AAD
November 15, 1999
Page 6
21. Charts accompanying the report show that approximately 65 percent of the trips would head south,
north and eastbound, but it is not clear if these trips would enter/emerge from the 4th driveway.
22. The ERC imposed a traffic mitigation fee based on the net change from the prior 7,400 square foot
footprint to the proposed 8,500 square foot footprint. Other than concluding there would be
approximately 45 new trips,the ERC took no other notice of traffic or transportation issues.
23. The estimates for traffic along Rainier varied. There are no current traffic counts and the estimates
varied from approximately 18,000 vehicle trips per day to approximately 25,000 trips.
CONCLUSIONS:
1.The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial
weight. Therefore,the determination of the Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's
responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the
determination was in error.
2.The Determination of Significance and the mitigation measures imposed by the ERC in this case are
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.
3.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 the decision
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.
6. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the actions of the ERC were erroneous or arbitrary and
capricious. There is a definite burden in overturning an administrative determination. The appellant
did not present evidence that the ERC decision regarding this development should be modified. That
does not mean that development will have no impacts or that legitimate safety issues may not exist.
7.While this office is not convinced that the net change in traffic from a use that closed approximately
five(5)years ago to a new business accurately represents the traffic impacts of the proposed
development,that in and of itself does not mean the overall ERC determination was incorrect. It still
appears that the total traffic generated by the proposed business,approximately 345 trips per day,will
Ted Abernethy
Motorcycle Works of Renton
Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA99-126,AAD
November 15, 1999
Page 7
not be significant. The 345 trips can enter or leave this larger shopping center from any of four or five
driveways including driveways to the north,west and other locations along Rainier Avenue. The 345
trips will be spread out over the course of a business day. And finally,they will be added to or blend
with the fairly substantial traffic counts already experienced along Rainier. In this light, it does not
appear that this would be significant in terms of SEPA impacts.
8.The appeal appears to have been brought in good faith. The appellant appeared to earnestly believe that
the new development adjacent to his business will have an adverse impact on that business.
9.SEPA and the impacts it analyzes are context dependent. That is,additional traffic in some locales
could have a definite adverse impact,whereas in other locales the impacts would be less significant
because of the high background traffic. Whether one uses only,the new traffic that the larger pad or
retail business may generate over the former business or even using the total traffic of the pad(ignoring
that it replaces a former business),the traffic will not greatly impact the flow along Rainier Avenue.
There is already a signalized intersection which controls the flow and meters it to some extent.
10. The absence of SEPA impacts sufficient to trigger either conditions or the preparation of an EIS does
not mean that there might not be a safety issue which needs to be addressed by the City.
11. If there are true hazards and the complex interplay of the applicant's roadway/driveway,the appellant's
immediately adjacent driveway,Rainier's traffic and illegal turning,then the City always retains some
right to preclude, limit or condition access to its public streets. If there is a safety issue the City could
limit the access to the 4th driveway if it finds safety issues. The City could alter the flow or even close
the access point entirely to safeguard traffic flow and public safety. The appellant might seek such
review if the situation appears to warrant it.
12. Finally,there appear to be underlying legal issues between the parties that this review cannot reach. It
does appear that the appellant probably needs to seek third party advice on its remedies if it was denied
access to which it was legally entitled due to custom and use or other reasons.
13. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the
matter,unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. No such
conviction results from hearing this case. This office,based on the record,will not substitute its
judgment for that of the ERC.
DECISION:
The decision of the ERC is affirmed.
ORDERED THIS 15th day of November, 1999.
FRED J.KAUF
HEARING EXAMINER
Ted Abernethy
Motorcycle Works of Renton
Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA99-126,AAD
November 15, 1999
Page 8
TRANSMITTED THIS 15th day of November, 1999 to the parties of record:
Ted Abernethy Zanetta Fontes Leslie Nishihira
485 Rainier Ave S 1055 S Grady Way 1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055
Anton Schatz Geri Reinart Paul Lumbert
17801 SE 146th 1319 Dexter Ave N,#270 1055 S Grady Way
Renton,WA 98059 Seattle, WA 98109 Renton, WA 98055
Tom Lee James Hamm
4000 E Madison,#290 1420 Fifth Avenue,#2200
Seattle,WA 98112 Seattle,WA 98101-2333
TRANSMITTED THIS 15th day of November, 1999 to the following:
Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Admin.
Members,Renton Planning Commission Jana Hanson,Development Services Director
Chuck Duffy,Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Director
Lawrence J. Warren,City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official
Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer
Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
Sue Carlson,Econ. Dev.Administrator Betty Nokes,Economic Development Director
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.,November 29, 1999. 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 may not
Ted Abernethy
Motorcycle Works of Renton
Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA99-126,AAD
November 15, 1999
Page 9
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.
December 1, 1999
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON
ss.
COUNTY OF KING
MARILYN J. PETERSEN, City Clerk/Cable Manager for the City of Renton,
being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the
United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and
not a party to nor interested in this matter.
That on the 1st day of December, 1999, at the hour of 5:00 p.m your affiant
duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King
County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal
of Hearing Examiner's decision filed by Matthew D. O'Conner, Attorney at Law,
representative for Ted Abernethy, Motorcycle Works of Renton (File No. LUA-
99-082, SA-A, ECF and File No. LUA-99-126, AAD).
d'f// rY
Marilyn J. PM sen, City Clerk/Cable Manager
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 1st day of December, 1999.
5.1\ inkot
Brenda F,:its•c-old
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing in W-4-A-Q-
Ted Abernethy Zanetta Fontes Leslie Nishihira
485 Rainier Ave. S.
Renton City Attorney Office Renton Development Services Div.
Renton, WA 98055
Anton Schatz Geri Reinart
17801 SE 146th 1319 Dexter Ave. N.,#270
Paul Lumbert
Renton, WA 98059 Seattle, WA 98109
Renton Development Services Div.
Tom Lee James Hamm Matthew D. O'Conner, Attorney
4000 E. Madison, #290 1420 Fifth Avenue, #2200 8011 Greenwood Ave. N.
Seattle, WA 98112 Seattle, WA 98101-2333 Seattle, WA 98103
CITY OF RENTON
City Clerk
Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen
December 1, 1999
APPEAL FILED BY: Ted Abernethy, Motorcycle Works of Renton
Representative: Matthew D. O'Conner, Attorney at Law
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 11/15/99 affirming the
Environmental Review and Land Use Action Report&Decision dated 8/17/99
approving the site plan for the RPI Retail Building at Renton Center, subject to
conditions. (File No. LUA-99-082, SA-A,ECF and File No. LUA-99-126, AAD)
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8,Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the
hearing examiner's decision on the Real Property Investors, LLC request for site approval
has been filed with the City Clerk.
In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F,within five days of receipt
of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the
appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten
10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The
deadline for submission of additional letters is December 10, 1999.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents
will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council
secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and
Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and
wish to attend the meeting,please call the Council secretary at 425 430-6501 for
information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration
by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting.
Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner
decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the
merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a
showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available
at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on
this matter will be accepted by the City Council.
For additional information or assistance,please feel free to call me at 425 430-6502.
Sincerely,
Marilyn sen
City Clerk/ le Manager
Attachments
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510 / FAX(425)430-6516
This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer
City of Renton Municipal de; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 - A als
4-8-110C3
Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify
the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant
seeks relief. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92)
4-8-110C4
The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the
City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82)
4-8-110E8
Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the
Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may
submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14)
calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82)
4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council - Procedures:
1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall
notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal.
2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their
positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of
appeal.
3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City
Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and
conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by
the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82)
4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or
additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the
party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the
hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council
shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost
of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon
the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a
remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no
new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record
before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-
93)
5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the
record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties.6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an
application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record, the
Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the
preceding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner
accordingly.
7. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application
submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council
determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the
Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to
the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application.
8. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall
specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the
Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The
burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658,9-13-82)
9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejectina decision of the
Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of
this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997)
11/29/1999 16:29 7830233 AKrLNILK K uz
F i01 c-29-149'? 1•t:—" k'Et ITOt I CITY CLERK OFC CITY OF RENTON R•G12/03
APPEAL
HEARING EXAMINER NOV 2 9 1999
WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATI( IC' UNTON CITY COL'
FILE NO. W P -ix aki) CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
APPLICATION NAME: pa.l to Ct 0,Ac;
The undersigned interested party hereby i es its Notice of Appal from the decision or recommendation of the Land C
Hearing Examiner, dated A/U(/e(bec /.5 19. gel
1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY
APPELLANT: REPRESS]TATIVE (IF i .NY):
Name: 1ett rn 1/40f -It L
fl
oll a,-FoA Name: fPlAl1Ps, - O( i r
Address: L/S5 e7 Address:_ twQQc 'S" )J
r •1
41
q /
11 Y
W ak0,Ar `4Y 4 1 (255 er v- r81o3
Telephone No Lids - aa,- cr05 Telephone No. t ` 763 - (1>itdCq
2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS(Attach additional sheets_if necessary)
Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based:
FINDING OF FACT. (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report)
No. Error:
qiicteitiA
Correction:
CONCLUSIONS:
No. Error:
cAc
Correction.
OTHER:
No. Error:
r(el
Correction:
3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief:
Attach explanation, If desired)
Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: OU&'4Jer DAJ.5 -
odify the decision or recommendation as follows:
R.mand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows:
0 er
r 9
Appclla t/Rcpresent.tive Signature' Date l
NOTE: Pleacc refer to Tick IV. Crupter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8.110F, tor specific procedures.
11/Ly/1`d`J`J lb: L'J /b.ibLJJ LaKr .NItK K
MATTHEW D. O'CONNER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
8011 GREENWOOD AVENUE NORTH • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON, 95103-4228 USA
TELEPHONE:(206)782-0722 • FAX:(206)783-0233 • E-MAIL:oconnereoconnerlegal.com
November 29, 1999
City of Renton City Council
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Re: Appeal by Motorcycle Works of Renton of Hearing Examiner's Decision re: RPI
Building
File No. LUA99-082,SA-A
Appeal File No. LUA99-126,AAD
SPECIFICATIONS OF ERRORS;
CONCLUSION #7:
Error: The City-of-Renton-estimated 345 new trips per day will be added to or
blend with the fairly substantial traffic counts already experienced along Rainier but Aill
have a severe impact on the number of trips experienced on(what the Examiner called)the
driveway' on the west side of the intersection at Rainier Ave. South and S. 4`'' Place. The
concern of M W R is not on the increased traffic on Rainier Ave. S. but onto and off of S.
4'" Place.
Correction: The Hearing Examiner's basis for upholding the actions of the ERC
were erroneous and should be overturned.
FINDING # 20:
Error: The traffic report offered by the City of Renton and which was adopted by
the Hearing Examiner, stated that .... "This amount of traffic is negligible when compared
to the traffic volumes on the adjacent streets."As mentioned above, this proposed use will
not significantly affect the number of trips north and south on Rainier Ave. South due to its
large overall traffic flows but it will have a severe impact on the number of trips both onto
and off of S. 4'' Place.
Correction: The Hearing Examiner's basis for his conclusions was erroneous and
should be overturned.
FINDING #2I
Error: The City's report did not specify what percent of the trips used in calculating
its figures would come from the `driveway' referred to by the Examiner.
Correction: The City should be required to so state so that the Examiner could then
make a fully informed decision.
ll/L7/ 177 10. 47 in-DCJL7 7 r.iv u
OTHER (Transcription of testimony by Anton Shatz)
Error: The transcript of testimony by Anton Schatz offered by the Examiner stated
that Mr. Schatz claimed that"When Fred Meyer bought its property, they put a newdrivewayinon4thPlacewithasidewalk, landscaping and curb." Actually Mr. Schatz
stated that "When Fred Meyer bought its property, they promised to put a new driveway inon4Placewithasidewalk, landscaping and curb." If the Hearing Examiner based hisdecisiononthemistakenbeliefthatFredMeyeractuallybuiltthedrivewayon4', then that
would significantly affect the factual basis for the Examiner's conclusions. The drivewayMr. Schatz mentioned does not exist—Fred Meyer never built it.
Correction: Remand to Hearing Examiner for further consideration.
Pursuant to RMC 4-8-1 10F(4), MWR requests the admission of additional
information by MWR regarding the traffic flow onto and off of S. 4'h
Avenue. The
information will he supplied in the form of written expert testimony regarding the traffic
flows onto and off ot S. 4"Avenue. This information could not reasonably have been
made available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner as it is now needed to
supplement the findings of the City's expert testimony that the Examiner found to be "not
clear" (Finding #21 ) and "not convincing" (Conclusion#7).
December 1, 1999
APPEAL FILED BY: Ted Abernethy, Motorcycle Works of Renton
Representative: Matthew D. O'Conner,Attorney at Law
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 11/15/99 affirming the
Environmental Review and Land Use Action Report&Decision dated 8/17/99
approving the site plan for the RPI Retail Building at Renton Center, subject to
conditions. (File No. LUA-99-082, SA-A, ECF and File No. LUA-99-126, AAD)
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8,Renton City Code of Ordinances,written appeal of the
hearing examiner's decision on the Real Property Investors, LLC request for site approval
has been filed with the City Clerk.
In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F,within five days of receipt
of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the
appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten
10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The
deadline for submission of additional letters is December 10, 1999.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents
will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council
secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and
Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and
wish to attend the meeting,please call the Council secretary at 425 430-6501 for
information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration
by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting.
Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner
decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the
merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a
showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available
at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner,no further evidence or testimony on
this matter will be accepted by the City Council.
For additional information or assistance,please feel free to call me at 425 430-6502.
Sincerely,
Marilyn sen
City Clerk/ le Manager
Attachments
Ted Abernethy Zanetta Fontes Leslie Nishihira
485 Rainier Ave. S.Renton City Attorney Office Renton Development Services Div.
Renton, WA 98055
Anton Schatz Geri Reinart Paul Lumbert
17801 SE 146th 1319 Dexter Ave. N., #270
Renton, WA 98059 Seattle, WA 98109
Renton Development Services Div.
Tom Lee James Hamm Matthew D. O'Conner, Attorney
4000 E. Madison, #290 1420 Fifth Avenue, #2200 8011 Greenwood Ave. N.
Seattle, WA 98112 Seattle, WA 98101-2333 Seattle, WA 98103
06 CIT_ OF RENTON
City Clerk
Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J. Petersen
December 1, 1999
APPEAL FILED BY: Ted Abernethy, Motorcycle Works of Renton
Representative: Matthew D. O'Conner, Attorney at Law
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 11/15/99 affirming the
Environmental Review and Land Use Action Report&Decision dated 8/17/99
approving the site plan for the RPI Retail Building at Renton Center, subject to
conditions. (File No. LUA-99-082, SA-A, ECF and File No. LUA-99-126, AAD)
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8,Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the
hearing examiner's decision on the Real Property Investors, LLC request for site approval
has been filed with the City Clerk.
In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F,within five days of receipt
of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the
appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten
10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The
deadline for submission of additional letters is December 10, 1999.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents
will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council
secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and
Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and
wish to attend the meeting,please call the Council secretary at 425 430-6501 for
information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration
by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting.
Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner
decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the
merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a
showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available
at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner,no further evidence or testimony on
this matter will be accepted by the City Council.
For additional information or assistance,please feel free to call me at 425 430-6502. L
Sincerely,
ft
Marilyn rsen
City Clerk/ le Manager
Attachments
1055 South Grady Way- Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510/FAX(425)430-6516
This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer
City of Renton Municipal le:Title IV, Chapter 8. Section 110 -A uls
4-8-110C3
Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify
the substantial error(s)in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant
seeks relief. (Ord.4353, 6-1-92)
4-8-110C4
The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the
City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82)
4-8-110E8
Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the
Superior Court,any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may
submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen(14)
calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82)
4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council-Procedures:
1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall
notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal.
2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their
positions within ten (10)days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of
appeal.
3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City
Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and
conclusions contained in the Examiner's report,the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by
the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82)
4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or
additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the
party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the
hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council
shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost
of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon
the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a
remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no
new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record
before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-
93)
5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the
record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties.
6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If,upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an
application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record,the
Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the
preceding to Examiner for reconsideration,or modify,or reverse the decision of the Examiner
accordingly.
7. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application
submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record,the Council
determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the
Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to
the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application.
8. Decision Documentation: In any event,the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall
specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the
Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The
burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658,9-13-82)
9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejectina decision of the
Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of
this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997)
11/29/1999 16:29 7830233 CARPENTER R PAGE 02
t 10't-21:'a-L 9 1.1:4" REI ITCiN CITY CLERK OFC CITY OF RENTON R. 02/03
APPEAL
HEARING EXAMINER NOV 2 9 1999
WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATIC',JAgNTON CITY COLS
FILE NO. P t l-ix a'1]
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
APPLICATION NAME: pa.( 10 C t e c;
The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Ap al from the decision or recommendation of the Land t.
Hearing Examiner, dated AJDi/e,,b7 1,5 19 cic .
1. WENTIFICATION OF PARTY
APPELLANT:/
fl REPRESENTATIVE (IF ,9.NY):
Name: "1P crnett / /1/06.ryc/t (.vo113 ka„-(on Name: D(.4400K
Address: lig 4,Cr S • Address: ALIjo0C} lE )0. _`
ga t(1 r", c.)A SO55 e
t
A- 9t9Io3
Telephone No ydS - aa6- deia5 Telephone No. t - 7 - cird
2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets if necessary)
Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based:
FINDING OF FACT. (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report)
No. Error:
9e_ 444eit4
Correction:
CONCLUSIONS:
No. Error:
Cn
b//c dd
Correction.
OTHER:
No. Error:
rLeA
Correction:
3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief:
Attach explanation, if desired)
x Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: OUP'-loiir 'ue DA15 ,
odify the decision or recommendation as follows:
2R mand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows:
O er
5 o tin 9 9
Appella t/Represent nye Signarzc ate 7-
NOTE: Please refer to Title IV. Ctupter 8. of the Renton Municipal Code. and Section 4-8-110F, tor specific procedures.
11/29/1999 16: 29 7830233 CARPENTER R PAGE 03
MATTHEW D. O'CONNER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
8011 GREENWOOD AVENUE NORTH • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON, 98103-4228 USA
TELEPHONE:(206)782-0722 • FAX(206)783-0233 • E-MAIL:oconnereoconnerlegal.com
November 29, 1999
City of Renton City Council
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Re: Appeal by Motorcycle Works of Renton of Hearing Examiner's Decision re: RPI
Building
File No. LUA99-082,SA-A
Appeal File No. LUA99-126,AAD
SPECIFICATIONS OF ERRORS;
CONCLUSION #7:
Error: The City-of-Renton-estimated 345 new trips per day will be added to or
blend with the fairly substantial traffic counts already experienced along Rainier but mill
have a severe impact on the number of trips experienced on(what the Examiner called) the
driveway' on the west side of the intersection at Rainier Ave. South and S. 4`h Place. The
concern of M W R is not on the increased traffic on Rainier Ave. S. but onto and off of S.
4'" Place.
Correction: The Hearing Examiner's basis for upholding the actions of the ERC
were erroneous and should be overturned.
FINDING # 2(1:
Error: The traffic report offered by the City of Renton and which was adopted by
the Hearing Examiner, stated that .... "This amount of traffic is negligible when compared
to the traffic volumes on the adjacent streets." As mentioned above, this proposed use will
not significantly effect the number of trips north and south on Rainier Ave. South due to its
large overall traffic flows but it will have a severe impact on the number of trips both onto
and off of S. 4"' Place.
Correction: The Hearing Examiner's basis for his conclusions was erroneous and
should be overturned.
FINDING #21
Error: The City's report did not specify what percent of the trips used in calculating
its figures would come from the `driveway' referred to by the Examiner.
Correction: The City should be required to so state so that the Examiner could then
make a fully informed decision.
11/29/1999 16: 29 7830233 CARPENTER R PAGE 04
OTHER (Transcription of testimony by Anton Shatz)
Error: The transcript of testimony by Anton Schatz offered by the Examiner stated
that Mr. Schatz claimed that"When Fred Meyer bought its property, they put a newdrivewayinon4'h Place with a sidewalk, landscaping and curb." Actually Mr. Schatz
stated that "When Fred Meyer bought its property, they promised to put a new driveway inon4'^ Place with a sidewalk, landscaping and curb." If the Hearing Examiner based his
decision on the mistaken belief that Fred Meyer actually built the driveway on 4'h, then that
would significantly affect the factual basis for the Examiner's conclusions. The drivewayMr. Schatz mentioned does not exist—Fred Meyer never built it.
Correction. Remand to Hearing Examiner for further consideration.
Pursuant to RMC 4-8-1 10F(4), MWR requests the admission of additionalinformationbyMWRregardingthetrafficflowontoandoffofS. 4'h
Avenue. The
information will he supplied in the form of written expert testimony regarding the traffic
flows onto and off of S. 4'Avenue. This information could not reasonably have been
made availahle at the time of the hearing before the Examiner as it is now needed to
supplement the findings of the City's expert testimony that the Examiner found to be"not
clear" (Finding #2 I ) and "not convincing" (Conclusion$ 7).
CITY OF RENTON
CITY TREASURER
REG-RECEIPT:82-8051787 C:Nov 38 1999
CASHIER ID:T 8:43 am A:Nov 38 1999
8888 MISCELLANEOUS REVE 75.80
APPEAL
080.008.80.345.81.88.800883
TOTAL DUE 75.80
RECEIVED FROM:
ABERNETHY, TED - MOTORCYCLE WORKS
CHECK:75.00
TOTAL TENDERED 75.80
CHANGE DUE 0.80
II
CITY CLERK DIVISIONSendConiesTo•
z Date:CITY
9
ATTORNEY ea p '17_ CITY COUNCIL /, /1i ,, 9mi 4 4LaViroteemCOMMUNITYSERVICES/PARKS
EDNSP/ECONOMIC DEVELOP.
FINANCE/INFO SERVICES
FIRE DEPT/FIRE PREVENTION t AuYHEARINGEXAMINER
HUMAN RESOURCES/RISK MGMTHUMANSERVICES
LIBRARIES
MAYOR/EXECUTIVE
MUNICIPAL COURT
PLANNING COMMISSION
POLICE
CODIFIER
NEWSPAPER
PARTIES OF RECORD- af-t Lee/m Pit
Planning/Building/Public Works:
ADMINISTRATION Ititteff is1irn s4"*
p•6642441
AIRPORT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PadaLTRANSPORTATIONSERVICESLUTILITIES&TECH SERVICES 511914'1114141 *tit)
HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT
November 15, 1999
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND DECISION
APPELLANT: Ted Abernethy
Motorcycle Works of Renton
Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA99-126,AAD
LOCATION: S 4th Place and Rainier Avenue S
SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeals site plan approval of RPI Building
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 October 19, 1999 hearing.
The official record is recorded on tape.
The hearing opened on Tuesday,October 19, 1999,at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor
of the Renton City Hall. 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 LUA99-082,SA-A(by
proof of posting and publication,and other reference)
documentation pertinent to the appeal.
Exhibit No.3: Vicinity map Exhibit No.4: Intersection diagram
Exhibit No.5: Estimated Trip Traffic for PM Peak Exhibit No.6: Estimated Trip Distribution by
Hours Percent and Daily Volume
Exhibit No.7: Photographs(6)
Parties present: Ted Abernethy,Appellant
485 Rainier Ave S
Renton,WA 98055
Representing City of Renton
Zanetta Fontes,City Attorney
Leslie Nishihira,Assistant Planner
1055 S Grady Way
Renton,WA 98055
Representing Applicant RPI
Tom Lee
4000 E Madison,#290
Seattle,WA 98112
1
Ted Abernethy
Motorcycle Works of Renton
Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA99-126,AAD
November 15, 1999
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.
Mr.Abernethy,appellant herein, stated that he is in the process of purchasing Motorcycle Works of Renton,
hereinafter MWR,from Anton Schatz. His argument with the City's granting the land use for the proposed
retail building is that it would affect the traffic flow in the area,especially as it relates to his business. He
described the traffic flow onto 4th Place from Rainier Avenue and its impact on his site at the current time. To
increase the traffic flow would basically land-lock his site. He requested an easement onto 4th Place to give
customers safe access to his business. He detailed the history of the buildings on the proposed site as well as
his own site and the Fred Meyer complex to the west,and the traffic patterns in the area. MWR for many years
had a side access onto 4th Place. When the Fred Meyer complex was completed,that side access was removed.
On cross-examination from Ms.Fontes,Mr.Abernethy stated that MWR's current driveway has been in use
since 1967. He also responded that he had not been in contact with Fred Meyer regarding access to his site
from their property,nor had any traffic studies been conducted at his request. Based on his personal
observation,he did not believe the traffic study submitted by the applicant was accurate in the number of
predicted vehicle trips per day generated by the proposal. His main concern for his business was the increased
likelihood of traffic accidents. Photographs were submitted of the appellant's site and the intersection of
Rainier Avenue S and 4th Place.
Anton Schatz, 17801 SE 146th,Renton,Washington 98059,testified on behalf of the appellant. He stated that
in 1964 he bought the MWR site and at that time there was a driveway on 4th Place as well as on Rainier
Avenue S. When Fred Meyer bought its property,they put a new driveway in on 4th Place with a sidewalk,
landscaping and curb. A representative from Fred Meyer met with him and told him they would put the
driveway back in,but they never did. At no time did he ever have a written agreement with the prior or present
owners for the driveway.
Leslie Nishihira, on behalf of the City,described the proposal as being an 8,850 square foot retail building to be
located at the southwest corner of Rainier Avenue S and S 4th Place. It would include the creation of 39
parking stalls. She further described the City's process application,and detailed specifics of this proposal
including plan review,posting of the project,and contact by the appellant. The traffic analysis which was
submitted with the application was also discussed,along with other recent or current development proposals for
the nearby area.
Geri Reinart, 1319 Dexter Avenue N,#270, Seattle,Washington 98109,a traffic consultant for the applicant,
described the process used for calculating traffic impacts to this site. The size of the previous building was
compared to the size of the proposed building as a basis for calculating the net change in both the peak hour
and daily traffic trips. From the ITE Manual,the closest land use designation to a motorcycle business would
be new car sales. Ms. Reinart further explained the exhibits relating to peak hour traffic and trip distribution.
On cross-examination, she stated she based the figures on the previous square footage for the same land use,
not necessarily Rich's,as it has been gone for 5 years. If Rich's was open now,the new use would generate
Ted Abernethy
Motorcycle Works of Renton
Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA99-126,AAD
November 15, 1999
Page 3
approximately 45 additional trips based on the larger square footage. Those trips would be spread throughout
the various streets,not just at one location or at one point in time. Mr.Abernethy asked if the ten-fold increase
in his business had been taken into consideration. Ms.Reinart stated it was not,that their assessment was for
the proposed land use.
Paul Lumbert,Public Works Department,City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055,
stated that on July 14, 1999 a manual count was taken of the traffic southbound on Rainier Avenue at S 4th
Place during the PM peak hour,and it was indicated at 1,816 vehicles. Normally the PM peak hour is 10
percent of the 24 hour period,or approximately 18,000 traffic trips. He further responded that the City
maintains the pedestrian walkway at the Rainier and 4th intersection,even though it is a private driveway.
Tom Lee,applicant representative, stated that even though Mr.Abernethy has a difficult driveway situation,the
reason for the appeal was a SEPA determination on a retail building that has nothing to do with their driveway.
He stated that the appellant is using the proposed development to try and gain access via Fred Meyer which the
applicant cannot give him and it has nothing to do with the SEPA process.
In his closing argument,Mr.Abernethy concluded that their concern was the increased traffic on S 4th Place
and the existing problematic driveway. He stated that an easement onto S 4th Place and an entrance-only
driveway off Rainier Avenue would be a safe resolution of the situation.
In her closing argument,Ms. Fontes concluded that the purpose of the appeal was whether the City erred in its
determination and should there be an EIS required for the proposal. The increase in traffic was the appellant's
main concern and the traffic consultant's testimony indicated that the additional trips were insignificant to the
overall traffic through this intersection on a daily basis. The real issue here is the dispute between Fred Meyer
and MWR over its side access,and not the City's. The proposal has no significant adverse impact which cannot
be mitigated by the traffic mitigation fees,and those are not in dispute.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The
hearing closed at 11:20 a.m.
FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS&DECISION
Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1.The appellant,Ted Abernethy,filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated
DNS-M) issued by the ERC. Mr.Abernethy,hereinafter the appellant,filed the appeal on August 30,
1999 and the appeal was filed in a timely manner.
2.The appellant operates and is buying the Motorcycle Works of Renton. That business is located at 485
Rainier Avenue South. The shop is located on the west side of Rainier Avenue immediately north of
the signal light for the intersection of Rainier Avenue South and South 4th Place.
Ted Abernethy
Motorcycle Works of Renton
Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA99-126,AAD
November 15, 1999
Page 4
3.The proposal that is the subject of the appeal would develop an approximately 8,850 square foot
building on a site located just south of the appellant's business. The building would be constructed on
what is called Parcel E of the larger commonly called Fred Meyer Shopping Center. Parcel E is located
immediately north of a railroad trestle and the embankment on which the railroad line is located.
4.Parcel E is approximately 31,385 square feet and trapezoidal in shape.
5.While there previously had been a business located on the subject site,there has been nothing on the
site for approximately five years.
6.There is currently no defined use for the proposed new building.
7.The proposed building pad is located south of a driveway that appears to form the western extension of
S 4th Place where it intersects Rainier Avenue S. While it is controlled by a City owned and operated
traffic signal and appears to be an extension of S 4th Place,the City indicates it is not a City right-of-
way,that is it is not a public street. This driveway does have a three-lane section. The northernmost
lane is westbound and allows traffic into the Fred Meyer Center either from Rainier(right turn)or
through traffic from S 4th Place crossing Rainier. The middle lane permits a left turn onto northbound
Rainier or through traffic to S 4th Place east of Rainier. The southernmost lane allows right turns
southbound onto Rainier. Further reference to this driveway will refer to it as the "4th driveway."
8.South 4th Place east of Rainier has a similar but reversed lane configuration. It is a three-lane section.
The southern lane allows eastbound right turns to S 4th from Rainier or eastbound through traffic to
cross Rainier from the 4th driveway. The center lane allows through traffic to cross Rainier westbound
or a left turn to southbound Rainier. The northernmost lane allows northbound right turns to Rainier.
9.Rainier northbound in this area is two lanes both north and south of this intersection. Northbound as
the intersection is approached one emerges from under the railroad trestle. There is a sign at this
location prohibiting left turns into the 4th driveway and the subject site.
10. The southbound lanes of Rainier north of this intersection are four lanes wide. The left lane
accommodates only left turns. The two center lanes are for through southbound traffic. The right-most
lane accommodates either through southbound traffic or a right turn into the 4th driveway or the
appellant's driveway located immediately north of the 4th driveway.
11. The appellant's driveway and the 4th driveway are almost contiguous. The appellant's driveway
accommodates both ingress and egress in the one location. The appellant's business has increased
approximately ten times in the last few years and since the applicant's subject site was vacated.
12. The appellant has challenged the DNS which indicated:
C]urrently,the area surrounding the subject site is developed with an existing
shopping center, including associated parking areas and improvements. The proposal
would not change the character or significantly increase the current use of the center.
There, impacts to surrounding property and uses would be minimal."
Ted Abernethy
Motorcycle Works of Renton
Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA99-126,AAD
November 15, 1999
Page 5
13. The appellant disputed this claiming the use "is across the street from the exit to a shopping center and
would significantly change existing circulation patterns."
14. They claim the proposal would greatly impact the traffic volume on S. 4th Place. They further claim
that a significant increase in traffic will harm the appellant's business. Currently, it is problematic for
vehicles exiting the appellant business. The increase could lead to additional traffic making the
appellant's driveway inadequate.
15. The appellant claims that comparing the past traffic from the proposed site does not appropriately
consider the fact that when that site was last utilized,the appellant had three points of access. It had the
current driveway. It also had a southern driveway to the 4th driveway and a western driveway to the
Fred Meyer parking lot west of the appellant business. When the Fred Meyer complex was
redeveloped,that developer closed off these two additional driveways.
16. The traffic report provided was based on an approximately 8,500 square foot"retail pad." It was
termed a reconstruction of an existing 7,400 square foot pad for a net increase of 1,100 square feet.
Access to this pad is most directly available via the center accesses along Rainier Avenue and
indirectly from the access to Sunset Boulevard." (March 2, 1999 letter from David I. Hamlin&
Associates)
17. The report used trip generation numbers for"Specialty Retail Center." This type of use would generate
approximately 40.67 trips or approximately 346 trips for a retail pad containing the proposed 8,500
square feet. The PM Peak(afternoon rush hour)is estimated to be approximately 22 trips. Certain fast
food restaurants could double some of these projections.
18. The report then compares this to the number of trips a pad of 7,500 square feet would have generated or
approximately 301 trips per day. This number supposedly represents the earlier business pad that was
on the site. The report does not indicate the type of prior use,nor does it indicate that the prior use was
abandoned approximately five(5)years earlier. The PM Peak is estimated to be approximately 19
trips.
19. There is no projection for AM Peak traffic. This office presumes that many retail businesses are not
open during the early morning rush hour.
20. The traffic report provides this conclusion:
The proposed re-development of one of the retail pads at the Renton Center will have
a very limited impact on the adjacent street system....This amount of traffic is
negligible when compared to the traffic volumes on the adjacent streets."
The numbers in this conclusion are the net change between the proposed larger pad to the prior pad or
45 daily trips and 3 peak trips.
Ted Abernethy
Motorcycle Works of Renton
Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA99-126,AAD
November 15, 1999
Page 6
21. Charts accompanying the report show that approximately 65 percent of the trips would head south,
north and eastbound,but it is not clear if these trips would enter/emerge from the 4th driveway.
22. The ERC imposed a traffic mitigation fee based on the net change from the prior 7,400 square foot
footprint to the proposed 8,500 square foot footprint. Other than concluding there would be
approximately 45 new trips,the ERC took no other notice of traffic or transportation issues.
23. The estimates for traffic along Rainier varied. There are no current traffic counts and the estimates
varied from approximately 18,000 vehicle trips per day to approximately 25,000 trips.
CONCLUSIONS:
1.The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial
weight. Therefore,the determination of the Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's
responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the
determination was in error.
2.The Determination of Significance and the mitigation measures imposed by the ERC in this case are
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.
3.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 the decision
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.
6.The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the actions of the ERC were erroneous or arbitrary and
capricious. There is a definite burden in overturning an administrative determination. The appellant
did not present evidence that the ERC decision regarding this development should be modified. That
does not mean that development will have no impacts or that legitimate safety issues may not exist.
7.While this office is not convinced that the net change in traffic from a use that closed approximately
five(5)years ago to a new business accurately represents the traffic impacts of the proposed
development,that in and of itself does not mean the overall ERC determination was incorrect. It still
appears that the total traffic generated by the proposed business,approximately 345 trips per day,will
Ted Abernethy
Motorcycle Works of Renton
Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA99-126,AAD
November 15, 1999
Page 7
not be significant. The 345 trips can enter or leave this larger shopping center from any of four or five
driveways including driveways to the north,west and other locations along Rainier Avenue. The 345
trips will be spread out over the course of a business day. And finally,they will be added to or blend
with the fairly substantial traffic counts already experienced along Rainier. In this light, it does not
appear that this would be significant in terms of SEPA impacts.
8.The appeal appears to have been brought in good faith. The appellant appeared to earnestly believe that
the new development adjacent to his business will have an adverse impact on that business.
9.SEPA and the impacts it analyzes are context dependent. That is,additional traffic in some locales
could have a definite adverse impact,whereas in other locales the impacts would be less significant
because of the high background traffic. Whether one uses only the new traffic that the larger pad or
retail business may generate over the former business or even using the total traffic of the pad(ignoring
that it replaces a former business),the traffic will not greatly impact the flow along Rainier Avenue.
There is already a signalized intersection which controls the flow and meters it to some extent.
10. The absence of SEPA impacts sufficient to trigger either conditions or the preparation of an EIS does
not mean that there might not be a safety issue which needs to be addressed by the City.
11. If there are true hazards and the complex interplay of the applicant's roadway/driveway,the appellant's
immediately adjacent driveway,Rainier's traffic and illegal turning,then the City always retains some
right to preclude, limit or condition access to its public streets. If there is a safety issue the City could
limit the access to the 4th driveway if it finds safety issues. The City could alter the flow or even close
the access point entirely to safeguard traffic flow and public safety. The appellant might seek such
review if the situation appears to warrant it.
12. Finally,there appear to be underlying legal issues between the parties that this review cannot reach. It
does appear that the appellant probably needs to seek third party advice on its remedies if it was denied
access to which it was legally entitled due to custom and use or other reasons.
13. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the
matter,unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. No such
conviction results from hearing this case. This office,based on the record,will not substitute its
judgment for that of the ERC.
DECISION:
The decision of the ERC is affirmed.
ORDERED THIS 15th day of November, 1999.
I
FRED J.KAUF146\N<
a(41N-6-'1---)
HEARING EXAMINER
Ted Abernethy
Motorcycle Works of Renton
Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA99-126,AAD
November 15, 1999
Page 8
TRANSMITTED THIS 15th day of November, 1999 to the parties of record:
Ted Abernethy Zanetta Fontes Leslie Nishihira
485 Rainier Ave S 1055 S Grady Way 1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055
Anton Schatz Geri Reinart Paul Lumbert
17801 SE 146th 1319 Dexter Ave N,#270 1055 S Grady Way
Renton,WA 98059 Seattle,WA 98109 Renton, WA 98055
Tom Lee James Hamm
4000 E Madison,#290 1420 Fifth Avenue,#2200
Seattle, WA 98112 Seattle, WA 98101-2333
TRANSMITTED THIS 15th day of November, 1999 to the following:
Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Admin.
Members,Renton Planning Commission Jana Hanson,Development Services Director
Chuck Duffy,Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Director
Lawrence J. Warren,City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official
Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer
Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
Sue Carlson,Econ. Dev. Administrator Betty Nokes,Economic Development Director
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.,November 29, 1999. 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 may not
Ted Abernethy
Motorcycle Works of Renton
Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval
File No.: LUA99-126,AAD
November 15, 1999
Page 9
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.
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the
SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL
600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING
RENTON HEARING EXAMINER
a daily newspaper published seven (7)times a week. Said newspaper is a legal RENTON,WASHINGTON
An Appeal Hearing will be held by the
newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular
prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language meeting in the Council Chambers on the
continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County seW floor City , 1l, Renton,
Wasshinhin
floor
on OOctober 19 1999 at 9:00
Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the AM to consider the following petition:
State of Washington for King County.RPI BUILDING
eThenoticeintheexactformattached, was published in the South County TAD-a9-12s
ppellant, Motorcycle Works of
Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers Renton, appeals the administrative site
during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a plan approval and environmental review
committee staff report dated August 17,
1999 (File No. LUA-99-082,SA-A,ECF).
RPI Building RPI proposes construction of a 8,850 sq.ft.
building in the Renton Center. Location:
504 Renton Center Way SW.
as published on: 10/8/99 Legal descriptions of the files noted
above are on file in the Development
Services Division, Sixth Floor, Renton CityThefullamountofthefeechargedforsaidforegoingpublicationisthesumof$40.25, Hall.
charged to Acct. No. 80510 All interested persons to said petitions
are invited to be present at the Public
Hearing.
Legal Number 6672 Publication Date:October 8,1999
Published in the South County Journal
October 8, 1999.6672
Le7I Clerk, outh County Journal
Subscribed and sworn before me this ) 1day of nr,1- , 19 ( /
s o"N•' • Gi'i Notary Public of the State of Was ington
5 o4*
s fFkq••d' residing in Renton
NkomoNkomo •King County, Washington
9 BI' O.(•
11
p/ftp;fWA H```•
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the
SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL
600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032
NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING
RENTON HEARING EXAMINER
a daily newspaper published seven (7)times a week. Said newspaper is a legal RENTON,WASHINGTON
An Appeal Hearing will be held by the
newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular
prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language meeting in the Council Chambers on the
continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County
second floor of City Hall, Renton,
Washington, on October 19, 1999 at 9:00
Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the AM to consider the following petition:
State of Washington for King County.RPI BUILDING
AAThenoticeintheexactformattached, was publishedCounty TheintheSouth a pe6Theappellant, Motorcycle Works of
Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers Renton, appeals the administrative site
during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a plan approval and environmental review
committee staff report dated August 17,
1999 (File No. LUA-99-082,SA-A,ECF).
RPI Building RPI proposes construction of a 8,850 sq.ft.
building in the Renton Center. Location:
504 Renton Center Way SW.
as published on: 10/8/99 Legal descriptions of the files noted
above are on file in the Development
Services Division, Sixth Floor. Renton City
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$40.25, Hall.
charged to Acct. No. 8051067. c All interested persons to said petitions
are invited to be present at the Public
Hearing.
Legal Number 6672 Publication Date:October 8,1999
Z"fl `
Published in the South County Journal
October 8, 1999.6672
ega Clerk, ou u ouMnal
Subscribedworn before me o this tq day of OCI , 19 9 /
Ilimioll,h..e,t
0. <gSiOIVF 4%•0 Notary Public of the State of ashington
NOTARY ':residing in Renton
King County, Washington
5. N:
UBL\G
p:
N
i,/•
fll jA- 0-
CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING
OCTOBER 19, 1999
AGENDA
COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM,
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL
The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which
they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner.
PROJECT NAME:Appeal — RPI Building
PROJECT NUMBER: AAD-99-126 (LUA-99-082,SA-A,ECF)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The appellant, Motorcycle Works of Renton, appeals the administrative site
plan approval and environmental review committee staff report dated August 17, 1999 (File No. LUA-99-
082,SA-A,ECF). RPI proposes construction of a 8,850 sq.ft. building in the Renton Center. Location: 504
Renton Center Way SW.
AGNDA.DOC
NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING
RENTON HEARING EXAMINER
RENTON, WASHINGTON
An Appeal Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council
Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on October 19, 1999 at 9:00 AM to
consider the following petition:
RPI BUILDING
AAD-99-126
The appellant, Motorcycle Works of Renton, appeals the administrative site plan approval
and environmental review committee staff report dated August 17, 1999 (File No. LUA-
99-082,SA-A,ECF). RPI proposes construction of a 8,850 sq.ft. building in the Renton
Center. Location: 504 Renton Center Way SW.
Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, Sixth Floor,
Renton City Hall.
All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing.
Publication Date: October 8, 1999
Account No. 51067
NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING
4 77)CIT OF RENTON
Hearing Examiner
Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman
September 13, 1999
Mr. Matthew D. O'Conner
8011 Greenwood Avenue N
Seattle, WA 98103-4228
Re: Appeal by Motorcycle Works of Renton of Administrative Decision re RPI Building
File No. LUA99-082,SA-A
Appeal File No. LUA99-126,AAD
Dear Mr. O'Conner:
This office has reviewed your request for a night hearing. This office does not hold evening
hearings. While a daytime hearing might inconvenience some persons, a similar case can be
made for evening hearings.
In addition,please find attached our procedures. It will be unnecessary for multiple parties to
introduce the same or similar testimony regarding the proposed project.
If this office can provide any other assistance,please feel free to write.
Sincerely,
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Larry Warren, City Attorney
Leslie Nishihira
Applicant
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515
MATTHEW D. O'CONNER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
8011 GREENWOOD AVENUE NORTH • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON, 98103-4228 USA
TELEPHONE:(206)782-0722 • FAX:(206)783-0233 • E-MAIL:oconner@oconnerlegal.
comM
pSe tember 09, 1999
E @ E I u
SEP 131999
Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
City of Renton NER
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Re: Appeal by Motorcycle Works of Renton of Administrative Decision re RPI Building
File No. LUA99-082,SA-A
Appeal File No. LUA99-126,AAD
Dear Mr. Kaufman,
Thank you for granting Motorcycle Works of Renton(MWR) a hearing to appeal
the administrative decision. However, MWR feels that the time of day of the hearing(9am,
Tuesday, October 19, 1999) is prohibitive. A 9am hearing time will require several of the
parties who would like to testify to not work for that morning and that would require
closing the store for that morning.
Accordingly, MWR hereby requests an evening hearing time.
Sincer
9//
7,
1
Matthew D. O'Conner
Attorney At Law
cc: Ted Abernethy, Motorcycle Works of Renton
MATTHEW D. O'CONNER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
8011 GREENWOOD AVENUE NORTH • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON, 98103-4228 USA
TELEPHONE:(206)782-0722 • FAX:(206)783-0233 • E-MAIL:oconnereoconnerl-:al.com
RiE:I(311 LIJ
September 09, 1999
161SEP 131999
Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
City of Renton I'',.- li?•
1055 South Grady Way
Renton,WA 98055
Re: Appeal by Motorcycle Works of Renton of Administrative Decision re RPI Building
File No. LUA99-082,SA-A
Appeal File No. LUA99-126,AAD
Dear Mr. Kaufman,
Thank you for granting Motorcycle Works of Renton(MWR)a hearing to appeal
the administrative decision. However,MWR feels that the time of day of the hearing(9am,
Tuesday, October 19, 1999)is prohibitive. A 9am hearing time will require several of the
parties who would like to testify to not work for that morning and that would require
closing the store for that morning.
Accordingly,MWR hereby requests an evening hearing time.
Sincer
Matthew D. O'Cormer
Attorney At Law
cc: Ted Abernethy, Motorcycle Works of Renton
CIT.. OF RENTON
Hearing Examiner
Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman
September 2, 1999
Mr,Matthew D. O'Conner
8011 Greenwood Avenue N
Seattle, WA 98103-4228
Re: Appeal by Motorcycle Works of Renton of Administrative Decision re RPI Building
File No. LUA99-082,SA-A
Appeal File No. LUA99-126,AAD
Dear Mr. O'Conner:
We received your appeal dated August 25, 1999, and the hearing will be scheduled for Tuesday,
October 19, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City
Hall.
Should you have any further questions,please contact this office.
Sincerely,
Fred J. K fman
Hearing Examiner
cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Larry Warren, City Attorney
Leslie Nishihira
Applicant
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515
MATTHEW D. O'CONNER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
8011 GREENWOOD AVENUE NORTH • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON, 98103-4228 USA
TELEPHONE:(206)782-0722 • FAX:(206)783-0233 • E-MAIL:oconnereoconnerlegal.com
August 25, 1999
Hearing Examiner AUG 0 1999
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way qq1Y OfR ON
Renton, WA 98055 HEARING 0(AM(NER
Dear Hearing Examiner,
Motorcycle Works of Renton, c/o Ted Abernethy,485 Rainier Avenue South,
Renton,WA 98055,hereby appeals the City of Renton P/B/PW Department's August 17,
1999 Administrative Site Plan Approval&Environmental Review Committee Staff Report
file# LUA-99-082, SA-A, ECF).
In¶3 on page seven of the August 17 Renton report,the city claims that
C]urrently,the area surrounding the subject site is developed with an existing shopping
center, including associated parking areas and improvements. The proposal would not
change the character or significantly increase the current use of the center. Therefore,
impacts to surrounding properties and uses would be minimal."
Motorcycle Works of Renton(MWR) is aggrieved and disputes this finding of fact
for the following reasons: The staff report erroneously claims that the proposed site is
within"an existing shopping center and would utilize existing circulation patterns. This is
an incorrect statement of fact;the proposed site is across the street from the exit to a
shopping center and would significantly change existing circulation patterns.
Specifically, this proposal would greatly impact the traffic volume on S. 4`h Place
by increasing the traffic flow to the intersection of 4th and Rainier Avenue South. A
significant increase in traffic at the intersection would harm MWR; currently,it is
problematic for vehicles exiting MWR as such vehicles are,upon leaving MWR's parking
lot, forced to turn right into the middle of that intersection. An increase in the amount of
traffic flowing to (and particularly `from')the proposed Real Property Investors' (RPI) site
would have a significantly adverse impact on MWR as the increase could lead to the one
ingress/egress to MWR becoming inadequate.
This adverse impact is increased by the specific use of the proposed site as a retail
site versus office use. It is foreseeable that traffic flow will be increased more for a retail
site than for office space.
Also, Part One,¶2 of the August 17 Renton report states that, "The building would
occupy the same location as the previous building..." When the previous building on the
proposed site was in place, the traffic ingress/egress onto S. 4th Place was significantly
different. At that time,the business on the MWR site had three separate access routes to its
parking lot, the current one on Rainier Ave. South, one on S. 4`h Place, and one into the
Fred Meyers parking area.
Accordingly, "the impacts to surrounding properties and uses"would not be
minimal and MWR requests an appeal of this approval and staff report.
Sincerely,
Matthew D. O'Conner
Attorney At Law
cc: Ted Abernethy, Motorcycle Works of Renton
MMwww
Matthew D.
N
er,Attorney at Law FIR! "ICE`8011 Greenwoou Ave N. 206-782-0722 1711Seattle,WA 98103-4228
Date 8 Gi
Pay to the
Order of
0/4>r5
n
RANK
dONN' 55 gg noh 027905SEittI.BWA 96100 19-2/1250
W o eta I
1,08
DSET),1,1e(
9 4iion 1711
CITY OF RENTON
CITY TREASURER
CASHIERTID : 8289:209am A:08-38-1999
5887 APPEALS & WAIVERS 75.88
008.008.80.345.81.08.000803
TOTAL DUE 75.88
RECEIVED FROM:
M. O'CONNER
CHECK
75.88
TOTAL TENDERED 75.88
CHANGE DUE 8.08
911 - ag2lSA
P/ iw .. r
y
y .. :. r J M \c yit ± a . . :,
w fx '
4"y '''•`ttA s'°'`'
i l T' "p Q{ 't h -•.•w , sue. :o
F 1 t , fi
Wgty,,Fi..'*/
i ,5 .5 s.R'`k ,yririv3_+.filxS
v;Fh ', d S .'y,t.
t S` 19 Lti-4/P
v'
44i
ft
aa .. DEV QPti+ , S i1fICES
tN
ft1W3vy o9'
tro,
4,':..y '•
Mr`\ :#7 , w i' J: ntivi :'e,: .r
t t.\F`'f;. is
f• « { 2 ' t ssr,
4 ;.
t.flA%l %F 'y`e3"`:4w 4.y,.y a. 6,'.xs"•n' ,
tt. 3'3s/ _a'.,s .x :'`` .,.:..:>
r y"ty. `4,, t,fr._i,.
d `-, g
S
Ott
f. `,
j,,: ut.Cm.40. 9 vgAi A , Rs p i,.i61 ., :
i
y .
i
tr
i?-;-dui ;' t -^ `;
yam tyNev_,Atvwsev:;:ntiroi,„Avito
x fx<'z: ?t':
t,' `u.`:
Y
t:„ /^.R -:.._..:..,. ..,. • :...,...t,,,... .,n> :v Wit. .i, `
tsat.", , / :e,' ^„ n„ y5 /m.x :, +.•an:{A„„!_..f',^k:?^ :.v•y ..k•,?e(.M4`Ji\ Y:.M+'.t. tt y•.ric .a" .r•.^ `" .E p tea.\
r
i..y kpRoPERTY OWNER(S) P tOJ. ECTIN. ORMATI0.Nt? %f .. ; '.Note If ihbre(a mote then one tapaT Owner •i5fease`attacR er)edcfdonatr
notarized Master Application for i;sr i .. PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME:
NAME: r.C t-- --r.o. (2. R P I LLC
Q
rt _ l PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION:
ADDRESS: 1 G RAINIER AVE S & S 4TH P L
CITY: 1>47g y , ic> ZIP: z4 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER,S1:
1 tom'
182305-9157-00
TELEPHONE NUMBER: l.
182305-9238-03
p 1•
d -2 3- e. EXISTING LAND USE(S):t,1EN
R -(
o%,
VACANT pev k°
of EN
APPLICANT4ii ott er:,than owner}-
p.( '.,
1999
NAME: I PROPOSED LAND USES: 45)
REAL PROPERTY INVESTORS. LLC
RETAIL BUILDING C
ADDRESS: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION:
400 EAST MADISON STREET EMPLOYMENT AREA COMMERCIAL
CITY: ZIP:
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION(if appicable):SEATTLE, WA 98112
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
EXISTING ZONING: i
r
206 .322 4600 CA
PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable):
rcorn—ACT PERSON .
SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE):
NAME:
EDI LINARDIC 31 ,385 SF
COMPANY Cif applicable): PROJECT VALUE:
I LDG/ARCHITECTS 440,000
ADDRESS:
IS THE SITE LOCATED IN 7HE AQUIFE:i PROTECTION AREA?
1319 DEXTER AVE N., SUITE 260 NO
CITY: ZIP:
IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLYSEATTLE, WA 98109 SENSITIVE AREA?
TELEPHONE NUMBER: NO
206 283 1292
LEGAL DESCRIP.TION OF:PROPERTY {Attach "separate sheet if'necessary}; .
LOT E OF CITY OF RENTON BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT NO.
LUA-99- 1017—LLA RECORDED APRIL 6, 1999 UNDER RECORDING NO.
9904069001 . BEING A PORTION OF THE HENRY A TOBIN LAND CLAIM NO. 37
AND A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 16 IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON
TYPE OF APPLICATION i SEES
Check all a licationPA ZyPas that Itppty <City`staff will determine fees
ANNEXATION SUBDIVISION:
COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT
REZONE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL PERMIT SHORT PLAT
TEMPORARY PERMIT S TENTATIVE PLAT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PRELIMINARY PLAT
RSITE PLAN APPROVAL IDa,CO FINAL PLAT
GRADE & FILL PERMIT
y
NO. CU. YDS: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT:
VARIANCE
FROM SECTION: PRELIMINARY
WAIVER FINAL
WETLAND PERMIT
ROUTINE VEGETATION
MOBILE HOME PARKS:
MANAGEMENT PERMIT
BINDING SITE PLAN
SHORELINE REVIEWS:
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $
CONDITIONAL USE
VARIANCE S j
EXEMPTION No Chare X_ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Q0 tl
REVISION
AFFIDAVIT f}F OWNERPHIP
I, (Print Name) EDI LINARDIC , declare that I am(please check one)_the owner of the property involved in this application, Xthe
authorized representative to act for the property owner;please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements end answers herein
contained end the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge end belief.
ATTEST: Subscribed Ind sworn to before me. a hats. uEDILINARDICjt:• R 1
fo the State of A( residing at cy ifNameof0'yJr'ner/Representative) 7f l e. L.i A on the.21itda.olt,,` yw i, i
I j 1PP
Signatureeof Owner/Representative) 1/C?-7—i '; , V
Signature Of Notary Public) pit `".' 2-10 . r0
h, 'vt
This section to be completed by City Staff.)
City File Number:.Z.V7' - A ;AAD :BSP CAP $ :CAP U CPA. CU-A CU-H LLA
MHP ,:FPUI3 .FP PP R RVMP,CSA-A SA-H SHPL A .:SHPL4{ SP".SM .SME TP .::V-A'.:V-H W
TOTAL FEES: $ i)5ZI, ) TOTAL POSTAGE PROVIDED: :$ .f t ?5' r,„ 33
MASTERAP.DOC REVISED 8197
F3 • 7 T23N R5E E 1/2
RM—I 11 R-io z
1A IL(P)
3iid Pi.
cY--- CC
IL_ dr =
P-1
R-1O(P)
IX '
7 Airport Way INN R-8 co
L ........Oc., E ].
c4
CA' I R8' iSTToin 1St HRL--1 1H I cD
ini
x
Y
i I R-81l I R:8 faiCt .. ; til --
I ci CA 64
r aL a- c° —
i'° 0 _ CD(P)
CD
RMI-U
RM— 4fti
N d ,s -a
CA
i g a.C D
CA S 2nd St.S 2nd St / zw_
CD CD _ --J.CA CJ,` _ CD dD24
1- _ 921,
J--CD (CD - .s _ S 3rd St7 cD Ic, ( . ,-. l _T - N
z75F-- \ iCAI
S' I3Ird(j 1 LI CD
o 1 cD A I I cD 1 ( I (L_ -z cD
CD CDCP) e
CD CD
I
CD QID CD CD .f lb
CDCD CIXi)S. C / CD CD CD CD CD CD
f 1
CD:rD CD -f-
CD
CA p 46 -It 1• it w § -< 1 c
any ' _ ,/ . m -:. ' 1
ce S6.h= St -- —! ' -
RM—U
7 .... ,CAS I_ D _- _ I C. .-
CI, - S -7th 6
I
1
f '
i.. ... • i. f••.Ii H_
f.13 1
f.f
11
Y o
G3 . 19 T23N R5E E 1/2
S Y O 4 °?
F3ZONING00
F
L SERVICES
18T23N R5E E 1/2
ZONING MAP BOOK `
Irginf,rignie n
455 . a/4i so., '` 459 __ _`c_cE'_ '-
Iii74543;
k•' -.:
1.*,,],::
F,:,
1:1„.;
i.,:..:.::::
1,
i.,,
ii1:t::
i.„i.si Ip.i-'
a
i f•-,-
70 .
1.. i r •110 ,.t'::'-:''.:-
i.'K-.*-..:'::-.,-
C::.•'
i u;: E• `1 ''.
IMF 6ij ,
dN R4E *--; ,R4 , 304.. .t i•T24 Eft !1B't2 i '.5 ; • 44:4NtE"26 T24N RSE
1%It.',''::.:i.ii::nl:C.:]!?:...i4ti:,-.,:ii.:4:$:-,..:,. - J ! :...;..0.1:,: :1-.. .. • 4 1, Ill. 19IF. 6(sk. ...441/4 464 :
lk.• 1:.,.i,, :::-m,,,:i-c,2:,.: ... •....... ,. -,.'or-" . - .,
i„:::::: ,• -- - ,:' l:;;;•;,..:;::-. --- /ff,00k AINI 'I.-. . 4-- -C 7c
i-,,:,:‘::
1.:.-:
p,:giiift
r.
iE:,:!1il 36 T2,,:. ,„, 31 T24N RSF.' 3 ry E..f 24N R5E
14.1 1 i
i...-i.e.,-.
7
i;...
IS,P,.AR)
f r-4t I \
307 C RL .' 08
M 4
6
ra...;l.ii h Iiiiiiiiip
I1.0 R 2 T23N R5E
in.-1. '' ..i
4.'
16,61.6 --el'1, 1,44.1.:
r '1'711
p IL- -''' ' ,--- 1
40.4. '-: i -:- -0
806 del
kb
1 W =42zi• -z,,,-7.- 0
1-moz.1 ‘ ‘...- .-,-. . - \iiii.: ,,.. :.;,, " '...:-J,:-.... 411AL., . .gr, .,... i, -, , . .
r, i ,.. _, , :i t'-,-"r'',K. ._.VII,! .... . Pv..,' E 6i -114 4 3N
a &
C{. •5E ,,': /iti Al'•. a1., as• .' 10_.23IN 1R 7 11 TA31R5E
t
1
4. ,til”-370 LE -Rail 81i 1,-,,.'• 11
iE 9
F 47A: .
41:-
TA\
VRIOlk
r_ 1'x,.
i t i:r ar1 1 i
i.:-
0; a- a :
iJCP.'1 twkSt
r 18 23 R II E 16 T23..RSEI. )SX13 1 2,1`RSE. y x
lliU `. 5 -',t
4_33.6
r
I /
t r d* 371 81,_ " s 16 ' ° . '.
1rim
41 • til dEr -( _:•.,,,,.. 71e, t„ 1 ,0,,, • *- '; .----:::-. ..-':'. .-&:7._-
1:--:
1/1
T2 N R4 , ', 1
19'T23. '•y I ' T23N1R5
r
L2T;•T23 .:...22 T23N R _ 23 T23N RSE 2
s •4a++_.
aa-,
1-11 •o 0 e01 11I i.o*2 e' a
0 ' - I '
t' -. ' ..=: ..;7:-' I-- C ' " 'f - IF tn..... - h. ( :-.)#-":.4 .. - .. .-'r.',.,<
1
1 Ir,,1;I x't l300,T23g1 '
Fir ..
9.:L2.3LRSE>`
IR
7 Ni.SE 26 T23NZOk7t'1'
S UP :51 _ i, ?
jt
825, s82 ` 8
f1, y -. ),4
t, ,
r;,,,, .. •
36 T2JN'R$ 31 T231lRSE 32- N rRSE j ht.,
r •,
I 1 - .
cs36JYn.T23N SE •r 4 t23N RSE _, 35 T23N 11
6. i " i 0--..—'—'.
m• , 6 , • 608 ' 0,° 32' 833 i::::>::::» . 8
0 1 2 :p j p r. -,—:-.
22N RAE 1 T-?2N—R4E 6 T22N R5E(•'.-4 F$'
T22N R5E, ,4,
g.
R5E •_,7'3 T N R5E ,_• II 2 T22N R5E;:}T.: $2;
p a
KROLI
RC Resource Conservation CC 1 Convenience Commercial
tvl Publicly Owned
n Residential 1 du/ac El Center Neighborhood Rer.:oa City Limits
PAGE# rR-5 Residential 5 du/ac I CS I Center Suburban
Adjacent City Limits
IR-B Residential 0 du/ac I CD I Center Downtown Grey Text) Ercxoncs
SECT/TOWN/RANGE
IRio Residential Manufactured Homes I CCR I Center Office Residential I Autor all District A
IR-la Residential 10 du/ac I CA I Commercial Arterial ,; I•:•:•:1 Automall District D
Piii
R-le Residential 14 du/ac n Commercial Arterial Aulomall PAGE
j CM ReaidenLial Multi-Family Infill Commercial Office
in
CM Residential Multi-Family Neighborhood Center I- Industrial - Heavy INDEX11itI•l n Residential Multi-Family Suburban Center Industrial - MediuriL
mni Residential Mulll-Family Urban Center I-1 Industrial - Light
i
a1-7Public Use
m
a I l
1 I I I
I
114,i,VP,,,A2klay.va f ' i 1 I f c . 4.-kfr‘_--. p L031:1.11A.111/0
6 41 4/
I \il I
1
4_i.
No
LEFT
pi J. I . 1, I \if ill4' i v 1\ 1 01.i
1 I I
1
1
1
t
1111,1
1
1.„
1
1 NI .,,
r__,cL,_ A 1
NORTH
z
Q +
S.2ND ST.
5 0)
5 ) S.3RP ST.
II)0)
UNSET SL"•
0)1XX -TOTAL SITE TRIPS
XX) -NET INCREASE IN SITE TRIPS 0)
6RP 91'WAY
I-405
ESTIMATED P" PEAK HOUR TRIP ASSIGNMENT
FIGURE S
DAVID I.HAMLIN S ASSOCIATES RPI RETAIL PAD PAGE
RENTON,WA. F-5
NORTH
4:4H 40%
ui
S.2ND ST.
55%
3RD ST. 52
gUNSET BLV411111144
XX -TOTAL SITE TRIPS
XX) -NET INCREASE IN SITE TRIPS
10%
P4)
6RP'121'yrp,Y
1-405
ESTIMATED TRIP D ISTR IEUT ION
BY PERCENT DAILY VOLUME)
E 6URE 2
DAVID I.HAMLIN 4 ASSOCIATES RPI RETAIL PAD PAGE
RENTON,WA. F-2
L q,
010-
a._
4^ •.--".4..^4•
4 la--4 0:5, '
1
411111111."....
vvvmm...
1444.44....,
ene....e.g.*.
e.
Altitlitiat0;' ' • . -. 42111414‘440P4ili r4.5.41 41.1:4,-. ',
1kler*
4.....44111144#11t4V-
4
4• •,
t' •'•i '.. .;:!...#'''. ' ' ' " . .
r.'.:•• ...i.'=',..
vom
AP*
0
ie.AgVior.dwlli .
1V4016..6.
41111111111%
44 . ,
V'
4.4%,„ "-,. •
aollsollowerwo
1//a/Mar film
1
1111 WO* mil I I leso %.1. ,.,8
limp
01-41 cirit.tf-:,/ t-
ii,II
mimum.8.--,.....,
37)ANI° ff'
4 4 j
v""IIIIIIZIr 11/6_......
aI A, II fill . • • LA
110.••••4, „____
1... .w............
11111111
Or
Nr- .
e .
j . .41111111r
101.....Mir• &
40r.
iiii,
reline&
01.. MOO -14 • -.. -
vitt .
to
i
1
ail
I
11111110 I "1
40.
iii .;r a'
i
i•
ld ii•
P
I 4 es
4
t A •• 41.•
11.,.
If ,
ai
4 • 4..
ir
0 - ..,•-- op
At • 1;4
d. •
11
t
i
11
n • •••'4-
I
f . ' "
f
V: 1 ;.I...
8'
1. . , •t .
1..
V
A
R iv yr,Sib,
J% 411‘it .
r
r..
1 !' 1
e• ., . r•6 • .. i .•
ii
Mt; • .! •t- I •
t yp,
I N AI
1,
Ik
r . I v.
1*, '
ett..*
Isq 11
n
e 14' -•••' ..Plitill
i .
i 7
In
P ) 4. i
OP i .
V \ .41
WI
4811.
V i . •' ' . • .'
ir.,Al I • %
Lk
Ir. 1.,,41, •. • ...
4,
j P 41111121W--
wr , . •,,
11' .
I
411r---, _
7.:-e.'.. •l'''.,
afir.1.00 . i .
i4- 4
014111L. 4 .". .• .'
1%, .41c ‘,
10111%... 4ir ,c41
0
illt 4. •1k ' *JP'
ak
I, •
0 ' • I.
dt.
4r NIi•4,
ei-"
7'.
illiF
NM
4
le/
AI"
41104....
MO.•,
40114
4.7:•
am...
IBM
4'
7'
0111111111Or'
PL
Or
1.•
Oil
7.'
11,
t.
1
waitomemilr
ft.
4...__
amboomiimr
ow.
yip. ,_
er
111111Mailia.
11111.
01.
111*
i,
111........
001.
10.
1.
llit
kill
A
r•-•••-•"-----
P-----
z-
IrlIP -.
00100."'
aligift.
111111P11$
r.
11111111."
i
di
lik.
a Wa.
AI
glillear4, ,
411...".
oatill
0
4
7••
111111111mum..............- -
Ae.
4.
111411111
A ._,_
1 _
h.
I ,
7'
5
1,
1gAv -.... ....,
k.......
0*
d,
t' „
igi
aim.
igios .........
e
I
i .
b •
k.
I. ,..
mor
s,...:
0;.•
I
0
1
1
11:
Pn.
4.
771
ik.
457.•
ders...
4 14 . .'
Aril
rEgh
HEE
MR
00
k‘
11111
8
i . ••'
a
s.8•
i,:
j-- •
8
42/
16:
120/
14111:
il '
1.
1.
8.
4h4P1410._
4treSi
iillek.
8.
3
M
IN
Ai
gift
I
VA
1
1
sir
ulf00 .
I
I'
k
4••• •• ''``.....
111111t
44.....
a..
Imm........
mpr
4.4....
4.
O.,
ii,.:
6 ,
e.,... '
44
11I • *
Vial
f
41,
1
SP(
le
4:•
11.
d''' '
ii....
A • ••"?'
40
ite
0; •'
II,
4%.*
0010•
a, .
t
F'
4"
43$
I
4, . ,- ,•
4.. ` ,
i.
ie
411L.. " •
w
e
41k
IP .
S•
ar,„.. . ••••••.•••
oio.. ..
1 .-.)
I , • ,-. ••
1
t`
1
T
I
J
0,•
el .
ir .
4
r ;
i$ •*".......
s - • ' • •
ill
1
0111:
1 , ..• - .' '
I
t
t . .• •-•
WO
4. •.
ai#
1111Art.-
47#
14
7.
Ill .
4. ._ • '
i .
1%,..
1 .
0p•
r "v •
t-
f'
1 • --
1
I ..• ' , , ,
441
Nli*
1 ,....
I..
Ii.
41/40
4...
S
Ay
hI3INIV
id
t...
11,
01.................
lii
i-il:
is
iiii31.-- -
I r ;`
vit ,
10(
J.
a d , IV
sisimv .17,v- -
O
1 ' I 4 ir 1:41011144' 1' rrr
ii k .
Effie
i
ilk 4E1 7 0,4 4.2„.„,je .......•i„.........,_
e.--
g .
st .
f
i
t.
j !'•
l •
A.•
1
4
i
Nir ,
14 .
I,
Ai:
4*.
t
rir
fi
1h.
s• `
lit
1
talk,
j7
v.
w
4
Alit • , •
Iserit
i
4 .
t
3 ' ••••‘, ••
kill .
It'
A '
P
9r. .
4
1
i
I .
i:
S.. '
4:
4R..
t
i,
1
1•
0
f
r ,
t?— ' •
Ai
iiiiiiirIV .
ltj4 .
i' • ',•
44•• ‘
1.
t" . -•! ''
Os, „,
e
A
t•
P.
44 '
1
i .
Ir
1
4
1•
a
II
de .
L
y
4.
i1
t
1
4
h '
j
I
4
t
6,
0.1
L
4
1-
ell ...
3
4
1
O
ti3O
Ce
il.
t
4
r
A
16
1
V
CO
vab
el
t ,
u '
r .#
js
Est•
1
t
i
e : ,
1
r
0
i . •
e*
iii
it , .. .
t
i
i '.
i,. .,.
4,
1
ri
iii)
d '
i•
t !
N.
4
4. - '
T
A
i
1
1 •
i
ter
0
I.
C • -.
r .
4 •Mb il iot.s. $ie,- at•ba '4 -
11. Zur;op.*
I..it kidk i
A.
lob Aii.if 40t
p, ft,
1' I 'e, •90 44 • . th: • •
t
1„ *.
dr d• • i. I
di 41>ig•.Att,,,. :
r
10
j$
41‘ Alit .."111111V t
e .
0 ,i
s 11 liop.44 • •lk , II, , 0 VI,.., ; .f 4 Air is , - •
I a. .,, .• ....
It Si. • • 14 ' •• ••• .it I
t ' ' f. fr
I' - • •% 1, ,
I. . . . •, 1 ... k I
lir
11119.•• 1110
b .
s -•.'
1 . t
A .' • ..d.‘.:
1''
P.
ski.,• ••• li ;. . • '
0:4 .•
4. e, ..... _.'•'•'..
t. *,
4°
I,• '.•.',
O.w„..*,,,"',
a1.17ill-'..••‘• lNAa).•gi.ti.„•.•
II•'•
51b•4
4'
1,.-.
1.
111,4,,.
i-
11‘
r.
i•...
J,,
43.••.••••
ii"
M.
4.
i.•.#•.
a•:i'gl•'•'
4 •
1.'
il•
a...
SA1 INitLfr 46a - -
44 iii-
i
r .
4 si 04
AP
I••.
r
V..•••.
14
es
0 ir ‘A IV:•'., • .
Nok
irk
P iiii ;
1/4 • .. • 4,1i *.- ...
q.II. 10,-, •- i s• ,s...
it .. ak .`- ,ir iiiel,
kib-' .r.,,,',•• • .r,,.•,•
4 Pr : 0
Ali: .. .
is . ..
t*L . .., Ill NI• • :r. •• t 1141%( '/IL.• .'
I .... " ,Alltr
4'14
AM,
400.1b..•
4 ..
10 411 ' ;
1 Up: ^` '.....4,
L.• ': ;
14-.• * 1111611. 4
11114114111INNIIINiklir
t4 -*fp
rII,
7•41.,*: ..''4',lir .:
4:
I. • .
ir1.,;1/4 ,•••4
1 :'
Mill511111" .
10.
1
It
kr r lio.
Jaw. .„... ,...,. Q
Ilk'
f
RODEO 34%,„ .-404.
I
e..
7
Lag • lift A
ew•tt if
rallgekall.111111111111 16 lillimmamitil 1
a• ••
Illb
i Irili"-"ellip 4 vtio
I
I bon,
MOD ENTRANCE .r'''bx N , •
MEM 111.2 1 vel
at
isimierawassasi• for Itt• - .t.. ..
ea, -44
4---..
Motorcycle
MI
Pr .
NM '-- - ' -
411111111111111111111.16,W 0 r k s
48 Rns.,,••• S
4 lir
1
de I
6. I,
10 .• • • 14,... '
1.•*
1‘11*• 416, '!• .
r
11 lima44,•
a.
ay Off."
f
9
410s
11111110111.11111.01MIIIIIIIIMMIP
111k t ,
tiifr .
a
a// '
k
R ((
Y
l C°4. 1
1 r ' fi 111
ill
at1*-,a 011dIllil.'
1.:
i alli iI
1111V f'
I
I II adi. .-. .1r Pi'A r,
i
r-:: '
I
f. ..:
4,
111.
114 11
rill I
illA / . .
i 4.
0
a al,.,
rWM.4111411 r air)
411
1.
i
r
a
4 .- ) it I^ i ai
I
k t MM.
4 'IP' ) % -
7
Ai
Y ic;i.•:
of •1 •
tivit fit
n yit •,: . '
lit' *
0 K'• .'i i ,A 11_: , .
fix.. , 4.
1.,, . . .. . . ,
47.Y .-, {
r' 6
41:111Ntro' libr inx
T
lic.: -0. i' Ill
1\ ..
4 1 At rih, i .
t YM t E. r r .of at
0
4,, . .. , La
z(
y
I'*• ' *• • '' ••4 .e - ' , t I
a
r
4