HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA80-112OF R.4A
A
0 THE CITY OF RENTON
MUNICIPAL BUI LDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055
o BARBARA'. Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER-
co.
FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-25930,
9gT D SEPI°
4O
March 23, 1981
Mr.. Charles R. Unger
3717 Lake Washington Boulevard N.
Renton, WA 98055
RE: File No. V-112-80; Charles R. Unger Request for Variance.
Dear Mr. Unger:
This is to notify you that the above referenced request, which was
approved as noted in the Examiner's report of March 4, 1981 , has not
been appealed within the time period established by ordinance.
Therefore, this application is considered final and is being
submitted to the City Clerk effective this date for permanent
filing.
Sincerely,
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
cc: Planning Department
City Clerk
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
State of Washington)
County of King
Marilyn J. Petersen being first duly sworn, upon oath
disposes and states:
That on the 4th day of March 19 81 , affiant
deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing
a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the
parties of record in the below entitled application or petition.
Subscribed and sworn this 'day of Re.c-C111 19 Gi
Nr
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing at N J-70A
Application, Petition or Case: Charles R. Unger; V-112-80
The minute, contain a tint o6 the pav',LeA of necond. )
MEMORANDUM
TO Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner DATE 2/20/81
FROM Planning Department
SUBJECT CHARLES UNGER
A report will be hand delivered to Mr. Unger today.
March 4, 1981
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND DECISION .
APPLICANT: Charles R. Unger FILE NO. V-112-80
LOCATION: Vicinity of 3717 Lake Washington Boulevard North.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks approval of a variance from the Shoreline
Master Program to permit construction of a deck addition (within
the required 20-foot setback) to an existing house. The total
variance amounts to 17 feet which places the structures three
feet from the water's edge.
SUMMARY OF ACTION: Planning Department Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Examiner Decision: Approval
PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department preliminary report was received by the
REPORT:Examiner on February 20, 1981 .
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining
available information on file with the application, and field
checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
The hearing was opened on February 24, 1981 at 9:50 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the
Renton Municipal Building.
Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the
Planning Department preliminary report. Roger Blaylock, Associate Planner, presented the
report, and entered the following exhibits into the record:
Exhibit #1 : Application File containing Planning Department
report and other pertinent documents
Exhibit #2: Enlarged Site Plan
Mr. Blaylock corrected the-figure, 19 feet, in Section L.2, line 7, of the staff report,
to 22 feet. He also corrected the word "pier" in Section L.3, line 2, to "deck."
Responding to the Examiner's inquiries regarding blockage of view and the date the
addition was constructed, Mr. Blaylock advised that views would not be blocked and the
addition was constructed approximately three years ago with setback requirements being
met at that time. The Examiner indicated concern that the requirement for lot coverage
limitation of no more than 30% had been violated.
Responding to the Examiner's concern was the applicant:
Charles Unger
3717 Lake Washington Boulevard N.
Renton, WA 98055
Mr. Unger advised that the property extends out 250 feet to the inner harbor line as
classified in the Second Class Shorelands regulations, and approximately two-thirds of
the property is under water. He advised that approval of a variance to construct the
deck would alleviate the current severe limitation of space.
The Examiner requested testimony in support of the application. Responding was:
Fred Kendrick
3715 Lake Washington Boulevard N.
Renton, WA 98055
Mr. Kendrick, immediate neighbor to the south, advised that he had no objection to
construction of the proposed deck on the 'southern portion of the lot, that no obstruction
of view would occur, and the aesthetically designed and constructed deck would allow the
best use of that portion of the lot.
The Examiner requested further testimony in support or opposition to the proposal . There
V-112-80 Page Two
was no response. He then invited final comments from the Planning Department staff. Since
no further testimony was offered, the hearing regarding File No. V-112-80 was closed by
the Examiner at 10:10 a.m.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner
now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1 . The request is for approval of a variance from the Shoreline Master Program in order
to construct a deck within the 20-foot required setback.
2. The application file containing the Planning Department report, the application,
SEPA documentation, and other pertinent documents was entered into the record as
Exhibit #1 .
3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental
Policy Act of 1971 , R.C.W. 43.21 .C. , as amended, the subject proposal has been
determined exempt from the threshold determination by the Environmental Review
Committee, responsible official .
4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the
impact of this development.
5. There was no opposition to the proposal expressed.
6. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity.
7. The subject property is located at 3717 Lake Washington Boulevard N. along the
shoreline of Lake Washington. There is a single family residence located on the
site. The deck has already been constructed.
8. The lot slopes downward to the lake at a moderately steep slope. The landward
portion of the subject property is 3,750 square feet. The remainder of the lot
is under water but is considered part of the lot when calculating the bulk requirements
of the site.
9. A 20-foot setback from the lake shore is required by Section 7. 14 of the Shoreline
Master Program. The deck is constructed within three feet of the shoreline. The
house was constructed in 1919 prior to the adoption of the plan. The house is about
10 feet from the shore.
10. Pursuant to Section 8 of the Shoreline Program, the applicant has applied for a
variance from the provision requiring the 20-foot setback.
11 . The rear yard of the subject site was generally 10 feet deep. The lot is 55 feet
deep. Current standards require an 80-foot deep lot. The applicant constructed
the deck to provide level , useable outdoor recreational space on the subject
property.
12. The deck is 20 feet square and is constructed on the southwest corner of the house
and is built above grade.
13. The deck does not interfere with the view of the house to the immediate south nor
infringe on the privacy of that house as evidenced by testimony from that neighbor.
CONCLUSIONS:
1 . The applicant suffers undue hardship due to the size, shape and topography of the
subject lot and due to the location on the lot of the existing residence. The land
based area of the lot is only 3,750 square feet. Prior to construction of the deck
the rear yard sloped steeply down toward the lake and was at best only about 10 feet
deep. Construction of a deck has created useable outdoor living area for recreational
purposes.
2. Most single family residences have a rear yard from 25 to 30 feet deep which permits
the occupants outdoor space. The nature of the subject site and the location of the
house had effectively denied the applicant such amenities enjoyed by other property
owners in the zone. The deck now provides this amenity.
3. The deck has created a minimal 400 square feet of outdoor sitting space and has not
interfered or harmed adjacent properties. The property owner just south of the
subject site has not had the view of the lake obstructed and the deck does not
V-11_ —O Page Three
interfere with that home's privacy.
4. The public does not generally have access to the private rear yards of single family
homes in the area, and therefore the public welfare will not be materially harmed
by the approval of the requested variance.
5. The Shoreline Master Plan permits the construction of single family homes along the
lake shore and the existing house was constructed in the early part of the century.
The lot actually extends out into the lake but provides little open space. The
variance is the minimum necessary to afford the applicant relief from the master
program, will not harm the public welfare, nor will it impair the value of
neighboring property. Other homes have either decks or reasonable outdoor living
space, and therefore the variance should be granted.
DECISION:
The City of Renton recommends that the variance from provision 7. 14 of the Renton
Shoreline Master Program be approved.
ORDERED THIS 4th day of March, 1981 .
Fred J. K man
Land Use Hearing Examiner
TRANSMITTED THIS 4th day of March, 1981 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties
of record:
Charles Unger, 3717 Lake Washington Blvd. N. , Renton, WA 98055
Fred Kendrick, 3715 Lake Washington Blvd. N. , Renton, WA 98055
TRANSMITTED THIS 4th day of March, 1981 to the following:
Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch
Councilman Richard M. Stredicke
Richard Houghton, Acting Public Works Director
David Clemens, Acting Planning Director
Michael Porter, Planning Commission Chairman
Barbara Schellert, Planning Commissioner
Ron Nelson, Building Official
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must
be filed in writing on or before March 18, 1981 . Any aggrieved person feeling that the
decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact,' error in
judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the
prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14)
days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific
errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record,
take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that
such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting
other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in
the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall , or same may be purchased at cost in
said department.
PLANNING *lli'PAl T w..N
mRELIMAINARY CDR' TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING
FEBRUARY 24 , 1981
APPLICANT: CHARLES R. UNGER
FILE NUMBER: V-112-80
A. SUMMARY & PURPOSE OF RE EST:
The applicant seeks approval of a variance from the
Shoreline Master Program to permit construction of a
deck addition (within the required 20 foot setback) -
to an existing house. The total variance amounts to
17 feet which places the structures 3 feet from the
water ' s edge.
B. GENERAL INF2DRMATIO] :
1 . Owner of Record: CHARLES R. UNGER
2. Applicant: CHARLES R. UNGER
3. Location:
Vicinity Map Attached) Vicinity of 3717
Lake Washington
Boulevard North
4. Legal Description: A detailed legal
description is available
on file in the Renton
Planning Department.
5. Size of Property: 3,750 square feet
6. Access :Via Lake Washington
Boulevard North
7. Existing Zoning: G-6000, General Classifi-
cation District,
Minimum Lot Size
6 ,000 square feet
8. Existing Zoning in the Area: G-6000. G-7200
9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Single Family Residential
10. Notification: The applicant was
notified in writing
of the hearing date. Notice
was properly published in
the Daily Record Chronicle
on February 8 , 1981 ,
and posted in three
places on or near
the site as required
by City Ordinance
on February 6, 1981 .
PLANNING DEPARTME
l
PRELIMINARY REPOR ='O THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING: Charles R. Unger, V-112-80
FEBRUARY 24 , 1 981
PAGE TWO
C. I:I][STORY/!t:d KGROUND .
The subject site was annexed into the City by Ordinance
1791 of September 8, 1959, at which time the present
zoning classification was applied.
D. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND:
1 . Topography: The subject site slopes downward from
east to west •at a moderately steep slope.
2. Soils : Indianola loamy fine sand, 4-15% slopes
InC) . Permeability is rapid. Availability water
capacity is moderate. Runoff is slow to medium
and the erosion hazard is slight to moderate.
This soil is used for timber and for urban develop-
ment.
3. Vegetation: Some lawn and a few shrubs are located
on the subject site.
4. . Wildlife: The existing vegetation may provide
some habitat for birds and small mammals.
5. Water : No surface water was observed on the subject
site (February 6, 1981 ) .
6. Land Use: An existing single family residence
is located on the subject site. Adjacent properties,
contain similar structures with Lake Washington
to the west and railroad tracks to the east. '
E. D;DiI, :m:t®s;Ic D t';:?A mAk TERISTICS:
The surrounding properties are prinicpally single family
residential in nature.
F. ll'1:LIC SERVICES:
1 . Water and Sewer: Three foot water mains extend
east-west immediately to the south of the subject
site while 8 foot mains run north-south on the
west side of the railroad tracks and along Lake
Washington Boulevard. An 8 foot sanitary sewer
runs north-south along Lake Washington Boulevard
together with the Metro Gravity sewer.
2. Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton
as per ordinance requirements.
3. Transit: Metro transit route #240 operates along
Lake Washington Boulevard to the east of the subject
site.
4. Schools : Kennydale Elementary School is approximately
1\li
3/4 of a mile to the southeast of the subject site
while McKnight Junior High School is approximately
one and 3/4 miles southeast and Renton Senior High
School is within two miles to the southwest.
5. Recreation: Kennydale Beach Park is within i mile
to the south while Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park
is approximately z mile south.
G. PLIC:\ 1GE SECTIONS OF THE ZONINGG CODE:
1 . Section 4-729 ; "G" , General Classification District
e_
PLANNING DEPAR NT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING: Charles R. Unger, V-112-80
FEBRUARY 24 , 1981
PAGE THREE
H. APPLICABTA SECTIONS OF THE cO t' 3':mI:'I NSIV PLAN OR OTHER
OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT:
1 . Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, 1965, Page 11 ,
Residential
2. Renton Shoreline Master Program:
a. Section 7-14 , Residential Development
b. Section 8, Variances and Conditional Uses
I. - IMPACT OI ` HE IMMORAL OR HUMAN-ENVIRONMENT:
1 . Natural Systems: Minor
2. Population/Employment : Minor .
3. Schools : Minor
4 . Social: Minor
5. Traffic : Minor
J. ENVIROmP1001AL ASSSSS T/ 1 v" S1ffiOL D 1 EI E 41I iN;`,TION:
Pursuant to the City of Renton' s Environmental Ordinance
and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended,
RCW 43-21C, the subject proposal is exempt from the
threshold determination of environmental significance.
K. AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED:
1 . City of Renton Building Division.
2. City of Renton Engineering Division.
3. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division.
4 . City of Renton Utilities Division.
5. City of Renton Fire Department.
L. PLANNING ,DARTNENT ANALYSIS:
1 . The applicant is requesting a variance from the
Shoreline Master Program which requires a minimum
20 foot setback of a structure from the water' s
edge (Section 7. 14. 01 (B) ) to legalize a deck which
was constructed only 3 feet from the shoreline
in the summer of 1980.
2. The subject lot was created in the early part of
the century and the house was constructed in 1919.
The ,lot is only 55 feet deep. Under the present
subdivision ordinance, the minimum lot depth would
be 80 feet. The house presently' is setback only
10 feet from the shoreline. At the location where
the deck is built, the house is set back 19 feet.
The rear yard angles at approximately 30 degrees
toward the water,
3. The Shorelines Management Act governs development
on the shoreline. The proposed pier will cost
more than the allowed $1 ,000 and a substantial
development permit has been applied for. The Revised
Codeof Washington and the Washington Administrative
Code require that specific criteria established
under WAC 173-14-150 be applied. The variance
is not granted by the City of Renton, the variance
is granted by the State of Washington. The City
of Renton makes a recommendation to the state and
the state concur in that recommendation for the
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT iv THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING: Charles R. Unger, V-112-80
FEBRUARY 24 , 1981
PAGE FOUR
variance to become valid. The variance criteria
differs whether the development is in the water
or on the upland portion from shoreline. The
following analysis addresses each of the six criteria
to be reviewed by the state:
a. "That strict application of the bulk, dimensional
or performance standards as set forth in the
applicable master program precludes a reasonable
permitted use of the property. "
The physical limitations of the lot size of
approximate 3,750 square feet and the lot
depth of 55 feet along with the slope of the
rear yard precludes the normal development
of a functional rear yard. The property owner
has 3 methods of filling, excavating, or con-
structing a deck to create a level space for
outdoor use.
b. "That the hardship described4n ,WAC 173-14-150
3) (A) above is-,specifically related to the
property, and is a result of unique condition
such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural
features and the application of; the Master
Program and not, for example, from deed restrictions
or the applicant' s, own action."
The physical limitations of size depth and
slope uniquely apply t,o this specific lot.
Other lake front lots in- the general vicinity
are wider and larger in size thus providing
more useable area.
c. "That the design of the project will be compatible
with other permitted activities in the area
and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent
properties or to the shoreline environment
designation. "
The other adjacent uses are allsingle family
residences. Decks and docks normally associated
with single family residences are common in
the general area. The deck is more aesthetically
acceptable than either excavating the yard
or filling the yard to create level ground.
d. "That the variance authorized does not constitute
a grant of special priviledge not enjoyed
by the other property owners in the area and
will be the minimum necessary to afford relief. "
The applicant has created approximately 400
square feet of useable space, while the typical
rear yard along the shoreline in the vicinity
is in excess of 1 , 200 square feet. The variance
is a necessity as a result of the lot size
and depth and the topography; otherwise, the
property owner would be deprived of useable
outdoor space, which other neighbors enjoy.
It appears that the request is minimum1necessary
to provide a useable rear yard and is not
a granting of special priviledge.
PLANNING DEPARTMEN
PRELIMINARY REPORT s., THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING: Charles R. Unger, V-112-80
FEBRUARY 24 , 1981
PAGE FIVE
e. "That the public interest will suffer no substantial
detrimental affect. "
At the present time the public does not have
the right of access to the shoreline in this
general area or does it appear that this situation
will 'change. The shoreline is almost completely
occupied by single family residences; public
use areas are concentrated to the south at
Gene Coulon Park. Therefore, the only possible
detrimental impact to the public would visual
from the lake.
4 . In addition the City of Renton' s Shoreline Master
Program, Section 8. 02, establishes similiar criteria
for the review of variances. The following analysis
addresses each of the five criteria.
a. , Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applying to the subject property
or to the intended use thereof that do not
apply generally to other properties on shore-
linessin the same vicinity.
The subject lot appears-to be one of the smallest
lots (+3,750 'square• feet) in the general area
and of severely restricted depth, only 55
feet. " In addition the 30 degree slope of
the existing rear yard deprives the property
owner of useable outdoor space. These physically
limiting conditions apply specifically to
the property and not the majority of the other
properties in the vicinity.
b. The variance permit is necessary for the preserva-
tion and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant possessed by the owners
of other properties on shorelines in the same
vicinity.
Other properties in the vicinity typically
have 1 ,200 plus square feet of useable rear
yard space. The deck constructed by the applicant
provides only 1/3 of that typical for the
area. Therefore, other properties in the
area that do not have steep rear yards enjoy
the priviledge of having useable open space
which the subject property does not enjoy.
c. The variance permit will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare of injurious
to propert on the shorelines in the same vicinity.
The deck does not intrude or interfer with
the use of other property in the vicinity
nor is it materially detrimental to the public
welfare. This is discussed in detail under
analysis point #3-c.
d. The variance granted will be in harmony with
the general purpose and intent of this Master
Program.
The request is in general conformance with
the goals and policies of the Shoreline Master
Program for the City of Renton and specifically
in conformance with the goal that "new residential
developments should optimize utilization of
open space areas. " The actual construction
of a deck in association with a single family
residence is in greater harmony with the intent
of the Master Program than either filling
or excavating the site to create useable open
space.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT Ti HE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING: Charles R. Unger, V-112-80
FEBRUARY 24 , 1981
PAGE SIX
e. - The public welfare and interest will be preserved;
if more harm will be done to the area by granting
the variance than would be done to the applicant
by denying it, the variance will be denied,
but each property owner shall be entitled
to the reasonable use and development of his
lands as long as such use and development
is in harmony with the general purpose and
intent with the Shoreline Management Act of
1971 and the provisions of this Master Program.
The construction of the deck provided the
property owner with a minimum of useable open
space. The general character of the area
is single family residential. The construction
of the deck is in general harmony with the
Masters Program and the established uses of
the area.
5. Even though the deck has been constructed illegally,
the evidence presented shows that the physical
limitations of lot size, depth and slope, create
a unique situation for the actual functioning of
the lot as a single family residence would be ample
justification to grant the variance request'. ,
M. DE;'.:' ! r iiiAn'TAL ANALYSIS:
Based upon the above analysis, it is recommended that
the variance request be granted. .
x 1j 2L 75
r
CCC
IO.
z
of y
r/
INS.'2 VW.
i',,ise t d Y
trdi"
L AL 1/
1 (0 I 'i $.
4 \
ECr614 art 19 O_I 1 Jr Qa_ -st
Oa ter ,. I V. yF, r .+".
a"`*.
I:,
j
r `r. P. 02 2 fI - - 1 -__ 1 I - - .. - .__ ____-_—_
III
r _ t
17.
y . 101
p ! 6 5 __ — •-
K 1. _ __ • ,.s Leo I
r/
pp'' '
92 __ ---
I ]f
r
llrr0IL
r
iI 9 tijis 4 =
4 fed)J
a i i
i i
i.1,t,l•.siitlp,L., .,,L ,La- .,T
I.,
R k
f //
4... '
13111181 m-
r^.._ ,
i_4E3, 82 t o r0 7I
79
uIII' llallail " 1 l --. - -1 1 ---P
1111:r, 1 .'
I I ' Sllt. 2+
420 y
m r;1 i11f 1111 . 1r l
H ! LMEMAL" Cj4,4, 1 _._ -J I 'J45 b 572
I. etri G.-- 1.!,• o /0-0 'arit.., . ., . i i it 5 ,
e),/IIttua Iii 5D 5L
Ir
I I
1, / _ :1- ril ii1i111 1", wy f)
L.,+
on.'?.s. 1, a
b 47 911 O.
I I
4».
m..p.Jrl.. .ter^.'
i„y> 1{
Y w,+ A II 8y$f pP
III
I,F:1ft Ju1uii'
1• li 141 '1.,11.k I _tom,
j1r 11 ;1,;
I
Il7I I1 FTI Is.. to it g i00 rs.,
m 1•
i0Sv 3.`
i:retti ....,.-.s.•.uemL. 60
a a.:.1 11 1 1 III g:
P
r1f•1+7+TT RT1'TTfI I IIII I '.M,' .y 4" vP FIC CO.
i
CHARLES R. UNGER,' V-112-80
APPLICANT CHARLES R. UNGER TOTAL AREA ±3, 750 sq. ft.
PRINCIPAL ACCESS Lake Washington Blvd North
EXISTING ZONING G-6000
1 EXISTING USE Single Family Dwelling
PROPOSED USE Deck Addition
4
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Single Family Residential
COMMENTS
F a
L
Nick i
Exi n 170
67°
20 P.rOpoS‘d
DeCk///
North '
Line
xng structure
Property
Roadway Easement
1" = 20°
Garage
Deck
Bulkhead
ak ashington
Southern Elevation
1" = 10'
0 4 a
OF R4,4
6THE CITY OF RENTON
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
oalms BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT
9-
0 Co' 235- 2550
0914.0 SEPreg*'
P
February 5, 1981
Charles R. Unger
3717 Lake Washington Blvd. North
Renton, Washington 98055
Re: APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM THE SHORELINE MASTER
PROGRAM 20 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT, file V-112-80;
property located at 3717 Lake Washington Blvd. No.
Dear Mr. Unger:
The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above
mentioned application on December 28, 1981 . A public hearing
before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for
February 24 , 1981 at 9: 00 a.m.
Representatives of the applicant are asked to be present.
All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing.
If you have any further questions, please call the Renton
Planning Department, 235-2550.
Very truly yours,
Roger J. Blaylock
Associate Planner
s
RJB:wr
6
n1?a+ C S VJ.pktit
t
Lu+r c, S F
lit .
r
e
u; 7ri
p z ls. ,'s• 'si.s '`
y+,
i, a ''# *r,, h1
M• ,r ,,. A j 1 ire M1I`i`. r
4
i, r
z ri { } ate, I -' 1; fit= 1 I I, ` A'
7 S 1 y v.3.
s:+`w
r, ei}'•1 .:N =: X1Fsa ;f
h is j i s ' [ Plol,' }yy, nre6 ' ,>»„uJ 1 +>" 1'p ,1 5 r°,"'
s"
4 w}i9 ' r Au
GENERAL LOCATIO AND, ''•11 ADDRESS: I
3717 LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD NORTH
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: .
LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE IN RENTON PLANNINGDEPARTMEII.T
I S POSTED TO NOTIFY PROPERTY OW Y E S Alr f
r
Zs t* { g
u+irik: ,sS ;It,s'-ii E1Y ds.
sJ IpA:
Fa
Ar a
i J
f#, k: t j (Z4xr' aS; tAta„x a.,,,.._ fix It. ! a,:a .;4r ,2 w .,. J r
TO ;= E HELls
IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MUNICIP ' . L BtUILP.I
ON FEBRUARY 24, 1981 SEGINNI''.G AT _9:00 A.M. - .RN.
Ca','CE0D, ' l' 'ic. IT . ',, 511
J RE, ' i', , -‘,; .
Y.
1ietJr
spa r r s f. { eti:
1 S ,4 iY:'" iI . to AI . . 'a t • ,
14 9
AIVE•I't
f ' i1,
y i A
i rztte
5: fif1 },
a F, u .#
r
i•
n-VARIANCE FROM SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 20 FOOT REQUIREMENT
F y4 FURTHER INFOR,'ATI N CALL 235 25 1
THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE RE 'NED WI }'I OU G i t . ,
e'E•a "UMW C 'TO 0R •
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
RENTON, WASHINGTON
A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING
EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON FEBRUARY 24 , 1981 , AT 9 : 00
A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS:
1 CHARLES R. UNGER- - -
Application of variance from the Shoreline Master
Program 20 foot setback requirement, file V-112-80;
property located at 3717 Lake Washington Blvd No.
2. THOMAS R. DAHLBY
Application for variance from the Zoning Ordinance
setback requirements (Section 4-716A) and a variance
from the Parking and Loading Ordinances (Sections
4-2206 (1) (a) ; 4-2206 (1) (c) (2) ) to allow the reduction
in aisle width and stall length; property located at
1402 Maple Avenue S .W.
3. VEHICLE TEST TECHNOLOGY, INC.
Application for rezone from G to M-P, file R-004-81 ,
to allow construction of State Motor Vehicle Inspection
Station for automobile emissions ; property located
on the south side of S.W. 10th Street between Thomas
Avenue S.W. and Lind Ave. S.W.
4. HENRY DAUBERT
Application for rezone from G to B-1 , file R-009-81 ,
to allow potential use as a remodeled office; property
located on the northwest corner of Shattuck Ave.
So. and S. 7th St.
Legal descriptions of files noted above are on file in the
Renton Planning Department.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE
PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 24 , 1981 , AT 9 : 00
A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS.
PUBLISHED: February 8, 1981 DAVID R. CLEMENS
ACTING PLANNING DIRECTOR
CERTIFICATION
I , STEVE MUNSONHEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE
DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON
THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW.
ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to
before me, a Notary Public , in
and for the State of Washington
residing in King County, on the
6th day of February, 1981 .
SIGNED: 411". sx
zr/Aa4Zz \
ao 0
Attachment Variance Application
Shoreline Management Substantial
Development Permit
i 4 2 -$°
To whom it may concern:
Gentlemen:
As owner and occupant of the residential property in question, we
request that a shoreline variance be granted based on the circumstances
of the property. A hardship does exist without the deck construction
and the space used to its potential .
a) The space in question cannot be utilized effectively
except by the construction of a deck. More outdoor
living area is needed and a deck is a reasonable use
for the property. No other area is available to be
utilized.
b) The lot is shallow and slopes at a 30° angle toward the
water.
c) The deck construction would concur with neighborhood
development and would be a complimentary addition to
our yard and home. It would in no way adversely
effect adjacent properties or the shoreline environment.
d) The deck construction would not exceed any past or
current construction practices on Lake Washington
and would be the minimum development to afford relief.
e) The public interest will in no way suffer any detri-
mental effect from the development-.
Your consideration in this request is appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Charles R. Unger
s'al- S7 o
MCA-‘2 -80
1 '-p
AFFIDAVIT
I , CHARLES R. UNGER being duly sworn, declare that I
am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the
foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information
herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
Subscribedbs and sworn before me
this / day of
L/k 19 4P9,
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing at J
azizzimi e. atimi,/,07-0
N e of Notary #ublic) Si nature of Owner)
0 3717 Lake Wadlington Blvd. N.
Address) Address)
Renton, Washington 98055
City) State)
226-3537
Telephone)
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me
and has been found to be thorough and complete in every particular and to
conform to the rules and regulations of the Renton Planning Department
governing the filing of such application .
Date Received 19 By:
Renton Planning Dept .
2-73
Ddck
Exi. ;n• R_
A x
T. ,;: ....- 67
201 Propds4d
Deck'
North
55' Property
Existing structure
Line
V
Roadway Easement
1" = 20'
L
Garage
Deck
N\
Bulkhead
ake Washington
Southern Elevation
1" = 10'
1 ..
t
OF I
C.) $ z SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971
09 CITY OF RENTON
AOA*
to sEPiMO
P
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
r1 1j o
n
APPLICATION FOR: OFFICE USE ONLY:
r .
Application No. : S14d 87— BO
ECF No: ird C—6 2 1 8o
XX SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT Sec-Twnp-R ,/,)1,.32.-231A(- S' •4IA4,
PERMIT
Date Received NOV. 7,19 80 &, 6
Date Accepted N Y!. 141 lq
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Date Approved
Date Denied
IXXI VARIANCE A// 2--5oFIs_ .c . .
Publication Date - ai .24 e" AFF
Comprehensive Plan P?,1,4--
EXEMPTION
Zoning 0- C000
Water Body J KK WAghtnV&T®rJJ
In addition to the information below, the applicant should in6'lude a site
map and any other pertinent information which will assist in the review of
this application. The Planning Department reserves the right to require
additional information needed to evaluate the application (note permit
procedure on the last page) .
APPLICANT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REQUIRED IN ITEMS 1 THROUGH 14 BELOW:
1. Name of Applicant Charles R. Unger
2. Mailing Address 3717 Lake Washington Blvd.. North, Washington 911055
Telephone: 226-3537
3. Applicant is:4',37'-3/70
0 Owner
0 Lessee
WI Contract Purchaser
Other •• (Specify)
4. Name and address of owner, if other than applicant: George Hauth
Conchas Dam, New Mexico Telephone
5. General location of proposed project (give street address if any or nearest street and
intersection) 3717 Lake Washington Blvd. North, Renton, Washington 98055
6. Legal Description (if lengthy, attach as separate sheet) : Portions of Lots 37, 38 & 41
and all of Lots 39 fie 40 of Block "A" Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden
Addition to Seattle #2, according to plat recorded in Volume II of plats, page 64
in King County, Washington, together with 2nd Class Shorelands adjoining.
7. Name of adjacent water area or wetlands: Lake Washington
8. Intended use of property: Residential - Lot contour and bulkhead require deck to pro-
vide useable space and accessibility to maintain rockery type bulkhead,
9. Generally describe the properLy and existing improvements: 67' X 50' waterfront lot
with single family dwelling built in 1919 with numerous remodels and additions.
10. A. Total construction cost and fair market .value of proposed project include
additional developments contemplated but .not included in this application:
950.00
p
B. '' Construction dates (month and year) for which permit is requested:
Begin January 1981 End February, 1981
11. ' Does this project require, a shoreline .location? Explain. Yes, as there is no other
space' available on lot:
12. List any other permits for this project from state, federal , local' governmental
agencies or the City of Renton for which you have applied or will apply, including
the name of the issuing agency, whether the permit has been applied for, and if so,
the date of the application, whether the application was approved or denied and
the date of same, and number of the application or permit:
City of Renton - Building Dept.
13. Site and vicinity maps (refer to application instructions): Attached. _
14. Additional information:Useable yard space measures 15' X 30' . Unuseable portion
measures 27' X 20° on 30 degree angle toward water. Deck would conform to existing
neighborhood construction. and general Lake Wash. land use and have no damaging impact
on surrounding environment. Shallow lot and family living necessitates deck for needed
space.
15. VARIANCE CRITERIA
If the applicant is seeking a variance, the applicant must include a written
justification) narrative addressing the following criteria as specified in
Section 173-14-150 of the Washington Administrative Code:
A. Development On Land.
1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance
standards set forth in the applicable City of Renton Shoreline Master
Program precludes or significantly interferes with .a reasonable
permitted use of ' ,a property.
a,
2. That the hardship is specifically related to the property, and is the
result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural
features and the application of the master program, and not, for example,
from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions.
3. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted
activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent
properties or the shoreline environment designation.
4. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special
privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will
be the minimum necessary to afford relief.
5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental
effect.
B. Development either waterward of the ordinary high water mark or within
marshes, bogs, or swamps:
1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance
standards set forth in the applicable City of Renton Shoreline Master
Program precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable permitted
use of the property.
2. That the hardship.is specifically related to the property, and is the
result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or
natural features and the application of the master program, and. not,
for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions.
3. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted
activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent
properties or the shoreline environment designation.
4. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special
privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will
be the minimum necessary to afford relief.
5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
6. That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not
be adversely affected by the granting of the variance.
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ssCITYOFRENTON
I Charles R, Unger being duly sworn, certify
that I am the above-named applicant for a permit to construct a substantial
development pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and that the
foregoing statements, answers, and information are in all respects true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Ao / /' OC. .i' r
Signature
Subscribed-and sworn to me this l6 day of
5643-44/VO
Nota Public in an /for' the State of
W ington, residing at
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
OUTLINE OF PERMIT PROCEDURE
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1. The applicant obtains the permit forms ,-completes and returns
them to the Planning Department.
2. Applicant puts public notice in newspaper of general circulation
in Renton once a week for two weeks .
3. Interested parties may submit comments to Renton Planning Depart-
ment for 30 days following last public notice .
4 . After at least 30 days from last public notice , Renton Planning
Department grants or denies permit.
5. Within eight ( 8) days from the Renton Planning Department action,
copies of the action taken and the application form shall be sub-
mitted to the Washington Department of Ecology, and the office of
the State Attorney General .
6 . If permit is granted, permittee c&hnot begin construction until
30 days after date permit is granted. If permittee is informed
that a review of the permit is to be held by the Hearings Board
then he must further delay construction until the review. is com-
pleted.
7. .. The minimum time required to process a permit is 68 days .
8. If permit is denied, applicant may appeal to Shoreline Hearings
Board, as outlined below.
APPEAL PROCEDURE
Appeal initiated by Department of Appeal initiated by the applicant
Ecology or Attorney General or by a private party
1 . Either the Department of 1 . Any person , including the
Ecology or Attorney General applicant, aggrieved by
may request review of the the granting or denying of
granting or denying of a a permit may request an
permit within 30 days of appeal . The request is sent
the action of the Renton to the Department of Ecology,
Planning Department. Notice the Attorney General , and the
is sent to the Planning De- Hearings Board.
partment and the Hearings
Board. 2 . Either the Department or the
Attorney General must certify
2 . The Hearings Board conducts a the request as valid for the
review as requested and accepts review to continue. Certi-
or overturns the decision of fication must be given within
the City of Renton . 30 days .
3 . Any part to the review may 3 . If the request is certified,
appeal the Hearings Board the Hearings Board conducts
decision to Superior Court.a review and sustains or
overturns the decision of
the City of Renton.
4 . Any party who fails: to obtain
certification or any party to
a review before the Hearings
Board may appeal to Superior
Court.
City of Renton Planning Dept.
February 9, 1973
REV. : September 12, 1980
AFFIDAVIT
1 , CHARLES R. UNGER being duly sworn, declare that I
am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the
foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information
herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
Subscribed and sworn before me
this / day of 19 A,
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing at 1
bdijd,042_,) 6-deg i.(9.47.0
N a of Notary t blic) S-' gnature of Owner
e02,630 3717 Lake Wa±ington Blvd. N.
Address) Address)
Menton, Washington 98055
City) State)
226-3537
Telephone)
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me
and - has been found to be thorough and complete in every particular and to
conform to the rules and regulations of the Renton Planning Department
governing the filing of such application .
Date Received 19 By:
Renton Planning Dept .
2-73
C OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY _ A( a„ - -1
Application No. Y— //Ze -
Environmental Checklist No. ,,_C/'rr—12Z !: '
PROPOSED, date:FINAL , date:
0 Declaration of Significance Declaration of Significance
Declaration of Non-Significance ® Declaration of Non-Significance
COMMENTS:
Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires
all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their
own actions and when licensing private proposals . The Act also requires that an EIS be
prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment.The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a
proposal is such a major action.
Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information
presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where
you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your
explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should
include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele-
vant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all
agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review with-
out unnecessary delay.
The following questions apply to your total proposal , not just to the license for which
you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers
should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed,
even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all
of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, with-
out duplicating paperwork in the future.
NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State
of Washington for various types of proposals. Many of the questions may not apply to
your proposal . If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the
next question.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I . BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent Charles R. Unger
2. Address and phone number of Proponent:
3717 Lake Washington Blvd. North
Renton, Washington 98055
3. Date Checklist submitted November 13, 1980
4. Agency requiring Checklist Renton Planning Dept®
5. Name of proposal , if applicable :
6. Nature and brief description of the proposal (including but not limited to its
size, general design elements , and other factors that will give an accurate
understanding of its scope and nature) :
Construction of a 20' X 20' deck to better utilize unuseable portion of lot
that slopes on a 30 degree angle toward water,
2-
7. Location of proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal , as well
as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts , including
any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environ-
mental setting of the proposal ) :
3717 Lake Washington Blvd. N., Renton, Washington. 67' X 50' waterfront lot
with single family dwelling built in 19]9 with numerous remodels and additions.
Unuseable portion measures 27; X 20° on 30 degree angle toward water.
8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal :
February, 1981
9. List of all permits , licenses or government approvals required for the proposal
federal , state and local --including rezones) :
City of Renton — Building Permit
10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion , or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes , explain:
no
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal ? If yes, explain:
no
12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro-
posal ; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future
date, describe the nature of such application form:
II . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required)
1) Earth. Will the proposal result in :
a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures? XXX
YES MAYBE NO
b) Disruptions , displacements , compaction or over-
covering of the soil? XXX
YES MAYBE NO
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief
XXX
features?
YES MAYBE NO
d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
XXXuniquegeologicorphysicalfeatures?
YES MAYBE NO
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils ,
either on or off the site? XXX
YES MAYBE NO
f') Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands , or
changes in siltation , deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
YES M YBE NO
Explanation:
3-
2) Air. Will the proposal result in:
a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality?
YES MAYBE NO
b) The" creation of objectionable odors?
YES MAYBE 14
c) Alteration of ..air movement , moisture or temperature ,
or any change in climate , either locally or
regionally?
YES MAYBE N
Explanation:
3) Water. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in currents , or the course of direction of
water movements , in either marine or fresh waters?
YES MAYBE NTO
b) Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns , or
the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
YES MAYBE N
c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
YES MAYBE NO
d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
YES MAYBE NO
e) Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration
surface water quality, including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
YES MAYBE NO
f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters?
YES MAYBE NO
g) Change in the quantity of ground waters , either
through direct additions or withdrawals , or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
YES MAYBE NO
h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through
direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate,
phosphates , detergents , waterborne virus or bacteria,
or other substances into the ground waters?
YES MAYBE N
i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available
for public water supplies?YET- MAYBE Nti
Explanation:
4) Flora. Will the proposal result in:
a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any
species of flora (including trees , shrubs , grass , crops ,
microflora and aquatic plants)?YES MAYBE N
b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of flora?
YES MAYBE NO
c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or
in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing
species?
YES MAYBE NO
d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? A_
YES M YBE NO
Explanation:
I
4-
5 ) Fauna. dill the proposal result in :
a) Changes in the diversity of species , or numbers of
any species of fauna (birds , land animals including
reptiles , fish and shellfish, benthic organisms ,
insects or microfauna)?
YES MAYBE NO
b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of fauna?
YES MAYBE NO
c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area ,
or result in a barrier to the migration or movement
of fauna?
YES MAYBE NO
d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or
glare?
YES MAYBE N
Explanation:
8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the
present or planned land use of an area? A
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Y
YES MAYBE NO
b) Depletion of any nonrenewable' hatural resource? f
YES MAYBE NT-
Explanation:
10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including ,
but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation)
in the event of an accident or upset conditions?
YES MAYBE N
Explanation:
11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location , distri-
bution, density, or growth rate of the human population
of an area?YES MAYBE NU—
Explanation:
f r
5-
12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing , or
create a demand for additional housing?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation :
13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in :
a) Generation of additional vehicular movement?
YES MAYBE NO
b) Effects on existing parking facilities , or demand
for new parking?
YES MAYBE NO
c) Impact upon existing transportation systems?
YES MAYBE NO
d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
YES MAYBE NO
e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? 1"
YES MAYBE NO
f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles ,
bicyclists or pedestrians? X
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon , or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services
in any of the following areas :
a) Fire protection?
YES MAYBE NO
b) Police protection?
YES MAYBE NO
c) Schools?
YES MAYBE NO
d) Parks or other recreational facilities?
YES MAYBE N
e) Maintenance of public facilities , including roads?
YES MAYBE NO
f) Other governmental services?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
15) Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? i
YES MAYBE NO
b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy? P
YES MAYBE WU—
Explanation:
16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new
systems, or alterations to the following utilities :
a) Power or natural gas?
YES MAYBE N
b) Communications systems?
YES MAYBE NO
c) Water?
YES MAYBE NO
6-
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
YES MAYBE N
e) Storm water drainage?
YES MAYBE N
f) Solid waste and disposal?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of
any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
YES MIT N
Explanation:
18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of
any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
19) Recreation. Will the proposal result i.n an impact upon the
quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
YES MAYBE Ni0
Explanation:
20) Archeological Historical . Will the proposal result in an
alteration off a significant archeological or historical
site, structure, object or building?
YES MAYBE N
Explanation:
III. SIGNATURE
I , the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information
is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any decla-
ration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should
there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
Proponent:
signed)
Charles R. Unger
name printed Y
City of Renton
Planning Department
5-76
CITY OF RENTON
FINANCE DEPARTMENT No._ 16042
RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 U-L) • .ICJ 19 Y(1
RECEIVED OF Ckeii7..,.f,J 7/./Li ./ i._./
ky, 0
TOTAL /5---5 00
GWEN E. MARSH L, FINANCE D;RECTOR
Receipt
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NAME 4,
1 DATE /
1/-
PROJECT & LOCATION /r 5 7/ 7
Application Type Basic Fee Acreage Fee Total
1 ,'
j.;;2/,(!,5)(;)
7 007111-y'- •
rd.
L.-:--(fi,:- '2_44,gelnvironmental Checklist
Environmental Checklist Construction Valuation Fee
o 1 ) TOTAL FEES
Please take this receipt and your payment to the Finance Department on the first floor.
Thank you.