HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA82-027OF
r•
BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT4$ ® z
RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR
009 co
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540
0
SEP1ck0
BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH
MAYOR
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 7, 1983
TO: Maxine Motor, City Clerk
FROM: Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator
Building and Zoning Department
SUBJECT: KENDRICK VARIANCE/V-027-82
This file is being transmitted for official filing with the City Clerk. The review period by
the State of Washington is over. The request is considered approved and complete by the
Building and Zoning Department.
STA rf
FIN SPEC LMAN i DONALD W.MOOS
d)v€rnor H
1.4.4 Director
STATE OF WAY IINGTY)N
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
PV-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 208/459.8000
February 8, 1983 CITY 07. UNION
PII-E
LIU FEB 9 1983
Frederick W. & Joyce Kendrick
3715 Lake Washington Blvd. N•
BUILGING/Zt NIPJG DEPT.Renton , WA 98056
Ed.' Z COUNTY: King
APPLICANT: Frederick W. & Joyce Kendrick
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT (VARIANCEANp(MI91k19(Zg(g)
PERMIT #N 590-14-1464 (100-82-027-82)
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kendrick:
The subject Shoreline Management (VarianceZadaKf MaXZW$$() permit was
received by this office on February 4, 1983 The review period
by the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General 's Office will
terminate thirty (30) days from the above date of receipt.
Notice of approval or denial will be forwarded prior to expiration of
the review period. If approval is granted, construction pursuant to
the permit may then commence thirty days from the date of the notice of
approval , provided that all other federal , state, and local laws regu-
lating such construction have been complied with.
Sincerely,
Linda S. Rankin
Permit Coordinator
Shorelands Division
cc: City of Renton
ECY 050-39(e)
Rev. 11/81
OF I
o BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENTty
Z RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR
INio0 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2543
co-
0,
9gT O SEP1E
P
BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH
MAYOR
February .3, 1983
Department of Ecology
Shorelands Division
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, Washington 98504
SUBJECT: County: King
Applicant : Frederick W. & Joyce Kendrick
Substantial Development Permit
SM-100-82 and Variance V-027-82
Dear Sir :
Please find enclosed a copy of the Substantial Development
Permit issued by the City of Renton and a variance request
to allow a structure closer than 20 feet to the shoreline.
A public hearing was held on April 27, 1982 before the
Land Use Hearing Examiner. His recommendation for approval ,
dated April 29, 1982, is included.
For some unknown reason the files were placed in the
completed files and with a recent search of our records
we discovered the discrepency.
If I can be of any further assistence, please contact me
at (206) 235-2550.
Sincerely,
R gel J. Blayloc
Zoning Administrator
cc. Attorney General
Receipt .#
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
e '
NAME DATE
11,
PROJECT & LOCATI-ON
1,
r 7 1-,
Application Type Basic Fee A6reage Fee Total
t.Jr. ,
e
Environmental Checklist
Environmental Checklist Construction Valuation Fee
TOTAL FEES
Please take this receipt and your payment to the Finance Department on the first floor.
Thank you.
OF
THE CITY OF RENTON
rww a y,, MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
o i BARBARA' Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR a LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
9'O 00.
FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-25930 -
ED SEPS°
May 17, 1982
Mr. Fred Kendrick
3715 Lake Washington Boulevard N.
Renton, WA 98056
RE: File No. V-027-82; Frederick W. and Joyce Kendrick; Request
for Variance.
Dear Mr. Kendrick:
The Examiner 's Report regarding the referenced application which was
published on April 29, 1982 has not been appealed within the 14-day
period established by ordinance. Therefore, this matter is considered
final and is being transmitted to the Building & Zoning Department
this date for filing.
Please feel free to contact this office if further assistance or
information is required.
Sincerely,
Fred J. Khlfman
Hearing Examiner
cc: Building & Zoning Department
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 29thday of April 1982 , 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.
ZP) -
Subscribed and sworn this )N - day of 1L\ r 19 Z.
k3LAT LQ
C—
P1\ tE2X
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing ate om
Application, Petition or Case: Frederick W. and Joyce Kendrick; V-027-82
The. minute, contain a tat of the pcuiLim 06 aecond. )
f JI t
April 29, 1982
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND DECISION.
APPLICANT: Frederick W. and Joyce Kendrick FILE NO. V-027-82
LOCATION: 3715 Lake Washington Boulevard North.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks a variance from the Shoreline Master Program
to allow construction of a deck addition to a single family
residence within the 20-foot setback requirement of Section
7. 14.01-C. The total variance amounts to 17 feet, which places
the structure three feet from the water's edge.
SUMMARY OF ACTION: Building & Zoning Department Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Examiner Decision: Approval
BUILDING & ZONING . The Building & Zoning Department preliminary report was
DEPARTMENT REPORT: received by the Examiner on April 21 , 1982.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Building & Zoning 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 April 27, 1982 at 9:26 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the
Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator, presented the Building & Zoning Department report,
and entered the following exhibits into the record:,
Exhibit #1 : Application File containing Building & Zoning
Department report and other pertinent documents
Exhibit #2: Site Plan of rear yard
Mr. Blaylock submitted staff comments from the Building and. Utilities Engineering Division
which were entered into Exhibit #1 . He also noted that the applicant has applied for a
Substantial Development Permit through the State of Washington; however, the permit has
not yet been issued. Addressing the specific criteria which must be met for approval of
the variance, Mr. Blaylock noted that the small size and irregular shape of the lot
creates a hardship for the property owner; and a similar variance was granted recently to
the property owner immediately to the north of the subject site. Concern of staff
relates only to the location of utility lines, and this matter should be evaluated
carefully prior to issuance of a building permit.
The Examiner 'requested testimony by the applicant. Responding was:
Fred Kendrick
3715 Lake Washington Boulevard N.
Renton, WA 98056
Mr. Kendrick supported the recommendations contained in the staff report, noting that
the proposed deck will provide approximately 300 square feet of additional space for
family activities currently lacking on site due to minimum front and rear yard
area. The proposed deck will be well-constructed and provide an attractive amenity on
the site, and views from the water should not be impacted due to current configuration
of the backdrop of the residence. i
The Examiner requested testimony in support or opposition to the proposal . Since there
was no response, the hearing regarding File No. V-027-82 was closed by the Examiner at
9:40 a.m.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner
now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1 . The applicants , Frederick W. and Joyce Kendrick, filed a request for a variance from
the 20-foot setback provisions of the Shoreline Master Program.
2. The application file containing the application, SEPA documentation, the Building
V-027-82 Page Two
and Zoning Department report, and other pertinent documents was entered into the
record as Exhibit #1 .
3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental
Policy Act of 1971 , RCW 43.21C, as amended, the subject proposal has been determined
exempt from the threshold determination by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) ,
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. The subject property is located at 3715 Lake Washington Boulevard N. The property
abuts the shoreline of Lake Washington.
7. An existing single family dwelling is located on the 4,000 square foot uplands.
The existing dwelling is located within 19 feet of the shoreline. The rear yard
slopes downward at about 30 degrees. A finger dock extends into the lake at this
location.
8. The applicant proposes constructing an approximately 300 square foot wooden deck
addition to the rear of the dwelling. The deck would come to within three to five
feet of the shoreline.
Pursuant to Section 7. 14.01 .0 a 20-foot setback is required from the shoreline of
the lake. The applicants have therefore requested a variance from the provision.
9. The upland portion of the subject lot is only 55 feet deep.
10. A similar variance was granted for the construction of a deck on the adjacent
northerly lot.
11 . The city makes a recommendation on the issuance of the shoreline variance, and the
variance is issued by the state if it concurs in the recommendation.
12. A sewer line runs along the shoreline in the vicinity of the subject site.
CONCLUSIONS:
1 . In order for a shoreline variance to be approved, the applicant must satisfy criteria
established by both the city and the state. The criteria are similar, and the
applicant has satisfied the criteria as explained below.
2. Because of the narrow, substandard landward portion of the subject site, the
applicants are deprived of reasonable development rights, especially in the matter
of useable outdoor living space. The rear yard slopes downward at about 30 degrees
and is not suitable for many outside uses. Other shoreline properties are not
similarly afflicted with both a narrow rear yard and steep slopes.
3. The variance will permit the applicant to make reasonable use of the rear yard and
permit them to enjoy uses other property owners enjoy. The variance will also allow
the creation of rear yard space without having to either excavate or fill this portion
of the shoreline. The deck will not disturb the soils or bank, whereas excavation or
fill would disturb the shoreline.
4. There is already a dock protruding into the lake at this location and the proposed
wooden deck will not interfere with other property owners nor will it materially
impact the aesthetics of the lake shore in this area..
5. Similar variances have been approved for narrow lots with steep banks to allow the
creation of useable outdoor living space. The applicant will therefore not be
receiving a special privilege.
6. The applicant must avoid any damage to or impairment of the sewer easement which is
located in the vicinity of the subject property.
DECISION:
The shoreline variance should be approved.
V-027-82 Page Three
ORDERED THIS 29th day of April , 1982.
43•4•A-
Fred J. Kau an
Land Use Hea ing Examiner
TRANSMITTED THIS 29th day of April , 1982 by Affidavit of Mailing to the party
of record:
Fred Kendrick, 3715 Lake Washington Blvd. N. , Renton, WA 98056
TRANSMITTED THIS 29th day of April , 1982 to the following:
Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch
Councilman Richard M. Stredicke
Richard Houghton, Public Works Director
David Clemens, Policy Development Director
Members, Renton Planning Commission
Ron Nelson, Building & Zoning Director
Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Renton Record-Chronicle
Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must
be filed in writing on or before May 13, 1982. 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 or
purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall .
Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING ss.
bngili.isoiP links.
Audrey DeJoie 0"2Teit' •
being first duly sworn on vicinity,,ot,:lhe4 e0uthwest,
quadrant of S.W..43rd Street
she chief clerk and.Talbot Road Smith ab-:1
oath,deposes and says that is the of out 1,200 feet.svuth Of,Val
THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a 1eO'General Hospital;-
week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been F A:E'D E-R.I.0,K-• W..;
for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, KENDAICK'.,,• •.-,: - ,+
printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper I..•:Application' for;variance.,,-'I
published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,and it is from""the Shoreline:Maker.-S
now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the Program•20 toot'setback !
aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Daily Record prequiroment,-file-V-027-82;-
Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior property: located at. 3715:
Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County, L:iske'Weshington Bivd:-Nr•+4
Legal descriptions of the
Notice o f Public files.noted above are'onlile•:
Washington.That the annexed is a in the Renton Building and'l..-
i. Zoning Department. .- •"- I
Hearing R7060 A .INTERESTED'PER-
f.SONS TO SAID PETmONS'1
t :.:.. ARE-INVITED TO BE PRE-
NOTICE OFF; . :.SENT.,AT-THE-•PUBLIC i
as it was published in regular issues(and ;';;:',.HEARING ..''. ., HEARING ON APRIL 27,7notinsupplementformofsaidnewspaper) once each issue for a period i'••• RENTON 4AND.USE:: •1982,:AT 9:00 A.M.-TO
HEARING EXAMINER: 'EXPRESS•TNEIR OPINE
4
RENTON;WASHINGTON' -..,IONS.'
of
1
consecutive issues,commencing on the ''''
A'PUBLIC.HEARING,. "" 'RONALD G.NELSON j
WILL BE.HELD.BY;THE'. BUILDING AND:ZONING-'
RENTO IC'LAND''•USE' .,' DIRECTOR.'
12th day of Apri 1 19 82 I,HEARING,EXAMINER AT• ::-PubIishid in the DalIy Re--;and endi ng the t.HIS_REGULAR -MEETING-,Cord:Chronicle April .12;
i IN.THE-000NCILCHAMB. '1982'R7060; %-:' . :
F'ERS, CITY:4
12.th,day of April 19.82.,both dates 'NTON,WASHINGTON;,ON-_.;
inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- April27,7.982,AT9.1X)A.M.
scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee i-TO CONSIDER.THE FOL
LOWING PETITIONS: •
1,VENTURAL PARTNER-
charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $3"+which SHIP (ONE 'TALBOT '
has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the f PLACE) . ' • . '
first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent is, Applittionforpreliminaryinsertion. 5 planned::unit•'devetopmsnt ;
e4,,p6g) ./ te-e„—
Chief Clerk
12th
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
April 19 82 eweed
Notary Public in a for the State of Washington,
residing at KfitiX King County.
Federal Way
Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June
9th, 1955.
Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures,
adopted by the newspapers of the State.
V.P.C.Form No.87 Roy.7-79
1
Revision 3/1981
RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
Application: Variance , V-027-82 , from Shoreline Master Program
which requires a 20 foot rear yard . Setback requested 3 to 5 feet .
Location: 3715 Lake Washington Boulevard North
Applicant: Frederick W . and Joyce Kendrick
IQ:Oublic Works Department
N/A
ngineering Division SCHEDULED ERC' DATE:
Traffic Eng. Division
SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:
4/27/8 2
Utilities Eng. Division
Fire Department
Darks Department
wilding Department
Police Department
Others:
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN
WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 :00 P.M. Or
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Tj2.....
j Approved ® Approved with Conditions ® Not Approved
ALDATE: ;y ;?---
Sign , e of Director or Authorized Representative
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: l/jcc P 6 kk l v`
Approved Approved with Conditions" Not Approved
iti.903,a, 5-040,_,I 49 c.4e4pa,..e._ Ail c?" s,A,viair
K42iimh,s1141"^- DATE: /yLI Z7°I/QLSignatureofDirectoribrAuthorizedRepresentative6 _p
of I
o BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTORsill
O MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 ® 235-25409,
o co•
OR
rFD SEPW°
BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH
MAYOR
April 21, 1982
Mr. Frederick W. Kendrick
3715 Lake Washington Blvd. N.
Renton, Washington 98056
RE: PROCESSING OF SHORELINES SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT/VARIANCE REQUEST
Dear Mr. Kendrick:
The variance request application is proceeding ahead and a public hearing is scheduled
for Tuesday, April 27, 1982. At that time the Hearing Examiner will conduct the
public hearing and make a decision within 14 days as to approval of the variance. The
variance request will then be transmitted to the State of Washington for a final
decision.
The Substantial Development Permit will be issued after the thirty (30) day review
required by state law at the local level. It will then be forwarded to the State for
their review and concurrance. Checking through the file, I did not find a notice of
your publishing in the Renton Record Chronicle for a Substantial Development Permit.
I have filled out the necessary publication for your convenience, however, you must
submit it to the Renton Record Chronicle for publication. If you have already done
this, please disregard.
If I can be of any further assistance, please contact me at 235-2550.
Sincerely,
u(41 64.
Roger J. Blaylock
Zoning Administrator
RJB:cl
1.
SHORELINE APPLICATION
NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
Notice is hereby given that Frederick W . and Joyce Kendrick
have ' filed an application for a substan-
tial development permit for the construction or development of
residential deck
located at: 3715 Lake Washington Boulevard N .
within Section(s)
32 of Township 24 N, Range 5 ,
in the City of Renton, King County,, Washington. Said develop-
ment is proposed to be within
Lake 41a s h i n t o n
and/or its associated wetlands.
Any person desiring to express his views or to be notified
of the action taken on this application should notify the Building
Zoning Department, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington
98055 in writing of his interest within thirty (30) days of the
last publication of this notice.
Publication dates of this notice are and
THE ITEM MUST BE PUBLISHED TWICE ON TH-E SAllE OF TWO
CONSECUTIVE WEEKS . PEEASE HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
SENT TO THE BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT .
3-82
N
flg u l.11 I NG AND ZONING DEPA'T'i„r ff
PR11 ,IMINARY I"u ®Ri' TO THE IEARING IN1 R
PUBLIC HEARING
APRIL 27, - 1982
APPLICANT: KENDRICK, FREDERICK W. & . JOYCE
FILE NUMBER: V-027-82
A.A gim;• NY gY P11UI;iw s1E OF "'1+4QDES7i:':
The applicant seeks a Variance from the Shoreline Master
Program to permit construction of a deck addition to
a single family residence within the 20-foot setback
requirements of Section 7. 14 . 01-C. The total variance
amounts to 17 feet, which places the structure 3 feet
from the water ' s edge.
B. GENERAL INFO m-A TION:
1 . Owner of Record: KENDRICK, FREDERICK W.
JOYCE
2. Applicant: KENDRICK, FREDERICK W.
JOYCE
3. Location:
Vicinity. Map Attached) 3715 Lake Washington
Blvd. N.
4. Legal Description: A detailed legal
description is available
on file in the Renton
Building & Zoning
Department.
5. Size of Property: 4,000 square feet.
6. Access : • Via Lake Washington
Blvd. N.
7. Existing Zoning: R-1 , Residence Single
Family.
8. Existing Zoning in the Area : R-1
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
April 12 , 1982, and
posted in three places
on or near the site
as required by City
Ordinance on April 9 , 1982.
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
KENDRICK, FREDERICK W. & JOYCE
APRIL 27, 1982
PAGE TWO
C.
The subject site was annexed into the City by Ordinance
1791 of September 8, 1959, at which time the present
zoning classification was appliced.
D. wwYSICAL CKG OU ID:
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 development.
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 (April 9 , 1982) .
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. NEL,'41:I N,POO P C v TTRISTICCS
The surrounding properties are principally single family
residential in nature.
F. PUBLIC SERVICES:
1 . Water and Sewer: Three foot water mains extend
east-west immediately to the south of the subject
site while 8 inch mains run north-south on the
west side of the railroad tracks and along Lake
Washington Boulevard. An 8 inch 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
3/4 of a mile to the southeast of the subject site
while McKnight Middle School is approximately one
and 3/4 miles southeast and Renton High School
is within two miles to the southwest.
5. Recreation: Kennydale Beach Park is within 1/4
mile to the south while Gene Coulon Memorial Beach
Park is approximately 1/2 mile south.
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
KENDRICK, FREDERICK W. & JOYCE
APRIL 27 , 1982
PAGE THREE
G. PLIC I LE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE:
1 . Section 4-706, R-1 ; Single Family Residence District.
H. m,!"PLIC\::,>r X SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTTER
OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT:
1 . Renton Shoreline Master Program:
a. Section 7-14 , Residential Development.
b. Section 8, Variances • and Conditional Uses.
I. IMPACT ON THE NATURAL EUMAN VI ON T:
1 . Natural Systems : Minor
2. Population/Employment: Minor
3. Schools : Minor
4 . Social: Minor
5 . Traffic : Minor
J. 3TVI*( i'i r l aN TAL ASSES ,ti T'/'T H r,,m OLL DETERMINATION:
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. . AtG:AwCI1S/DEP , irAn'Ts CONTACTED:
1 . City of Renton Building & Zoning Department.
2 . City of Renton Engineering Division.
3. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division.
4 . City of Renton Utilities Division.
5. City of Renton Fire Prevention Bureau.
6 . City of Renton Parks & Recreation Department.
7. City of Renton Policy Development Department.
L. DEPARTMENT AN LYSIS:
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 construct a deck only
3 feet from the shoreline.
2 . The subject lot was created in the early part of
the century. The lot is less than 55 feet deep.
Under the present subdivision ordinance, the minimum
lot depth would be 80 feet. The house presently
is setback only 19 feet from the shoreline. The
rear yard angles at approximately 30 degrees toward
the water.
3. The Shorelines Management Act governs development
on the shoreline. The proposed deck will cost
more than the allowed $1 ,000 and a substantial
development permit has been applied for. The Revised
Code of 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
PRELIMINARY REPORT Tu THE HEARING EXAMINER
KENDRICK', FREDERICK W. & JOYCE
APRIL 27 , 1982
PAGE FOUR
the state concur in that recommendation for the
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
approximately 4,000 square feet and the lot
depth of +50 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 (1 ) filling, (2) excavating,
or (3) constructing a deck to create a level
space for outdoor use.
b. "That the hardship described in 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 to this specific lot.
Most of the lake front lots in the vicinity
are generally wider and larger in size thus
providing more useable area.
c. "That the design of the project will be compatib.l,e
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 all single 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 350
square feet of useable space, while the typical
rear yard along the shoreline in the vicinity
averages 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 minimum, necessary
to provide a useable rear yard and is not
a granting of special priviledge. Charles
Unger, V-112-80, the adjacent property owner
to the north, was granted a similar variance.
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
KENDRICK, FREDERICK W. & JOYCE
APRIL 27 , 1982
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 be
visual from the lake.
4 . in addition, the City of Renton' s Shoreline Master
Program, Section 8. 02,. established similar 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 shorelines
in the same vicinity.
The subject lot appears to be one of the smaller
lots (+4 ,000 square feet) in the general area
and of severely restricted depth, only +50
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 30% 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 or injurious
to property on the shorelines in the same
vicinity.
The deck does not intrude or interfere 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.
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
KENDRICK, 'FREDERICK W. & JOYCE
APRIL 27 , 1982
PAGE SIX
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.
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 prupose 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
Master Program and the established uses of
the area.
5. 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. II 1 "ARTMENTAL ANALYSIS:
Based upon the above analysis , it is recommended that
the variance request be granted.
1 7rs—:J t-
sr Y
2.,1r el
1 '•
L . 1 ' .. '[ . 1,
I
TTTTv r7/,i.j . ./
I, • mot• n,r•I
I
t I I I p1 II
i
l
f
42
t
C.
1<'fI1/4,‘
t
1 tIrI1v) i . 1
f , i
f
yNl1 l 7 tI r tl
R
y
a
l
9
I\
n
5064
d /j '—
o. /1 7 III
e 5
i !
jj
2_____4 _••._ .1
l --— ---__ • e`e
r
tt a •_
J
o.®N••.
1•
1 '
F.jF•
1 I`•••t_ {
t T I —_
ti • '
k.r-pt. 1'p t Y a c.-
I!
I/
Il I o
tt
P` /% ... 'R laO 14 tM'rM..
o
I .
l
1 %.
l ` '•-'l•F ,lj
2 ' . IMMO tOgillitl t ' ' ' ' ; .' -R-4. ,/sn
Aar, ANC1N ti
on il(0 Mi# --. . , - _z 1
144
0lie /P I 5.; i
s J I . , +
e:,msx s.t
7• Ir -leach' x. ;.V41.^`•-.“041`tl"7R. 1
t f
I_ ' i
firi
I t..
1 Q~ T ' ,,
Ll `• `.'
rY -
e `,' • j L 141 6
R'. _.._ 1 YT ITT T1—T` iT1 r'r T,l ui• .«.... _.
a.,=r
I I i I. %.•{
de'V:@® . +
r' a '
r.. ... 1 . - 1
1;..`•4.i ,: FREDERICK & JOYCE KENDRICK
V-027-82
VARIANCE FROM 20 FOOT SETBACK FROM SHORELINE
rr..... .. . . _ _. .._. __..
APPLICANT Frederick & Joyce Kendrick
TOTAL AREA ±
4 ,000 sq . feet
PRINCIPAL ACCESS Lake Washington Blvd . North
EXISTING ZONING R-1 , Single Family Residential
EXISTING USE Single Family Residence
PROPOSED USE Single Family Residence
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN . Single Family Residential
COMMENTS
r,
G
L
l`
i. +
rr y i
I
6, i. - °aV., _ L
i.dr. . .mei :.: . ,.,- .. .
II"(Ak. _ ' t.
4 '.
fr. - '' .
n ;i‘ ..,',- ' , if." tz r v .
A ( / . .
4b I ,
I .. .e0..... , . . . ....: . .
4
i . .
N is
s b . l;1,1 1.iill tc. 1 Plii it" ra
t i
t
At.y4 -lcr
M'
F.li ay
1'•
i
a 1'i
t /jfl - '• fii
JJ r 1 1 ,,. 4 1}
i
t J P
yr,s ,-n.•nMy r't. v++•:. .
1ft ! : ,
t !
j
to
tir r
a••'a)n}diJ „ ,,1-• 3i9F
P
1 r
rS, 1.•r• A t.,:k
1
i a r V
r i 1,
1.
w•.rt..+.r . •
1
I g pYr
Rj 11111101
r , ?1
4 .. _ r 11.\ :, t
S'..$
f'
11II 1111
1
1 1 I gI
1 '
e• 4• •
1•
144r . r
v
11
1
F!,EDERICK G JOYCE KENDRICK1• .
i.-; ;^ Wit,.,..s:- : . '• .4';,.,:t•, ,'g ' ..P m -x 3715 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD . N .
r.;'. '' 0. z VARIANCE FROM SHORELINE MASTER
PROGRAM V— 027-02
1
r-,
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 April 27, 1982, AT 9 : 00
A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS:
VENTURA PARTNERSHIP (ONE TALBOT PLACE)
Application for preliminary planned unit development
for 325 multiple family units, file PPUD-020-82; located
at vicinity of the southwest quadrant of S.W. 43rd Street
and Talbot Road South about 1 ,200 feet south of Valley
Generals Hospital.
FREDERICK W. KENDRICK •
Application for variance from the Shoreline Master Program
20 foot setback requirement, file V-027-82; property
located at 3715 Lake -Washington Blvd. N.
Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in
the Renton Building and Zoning Department.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE
PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 27, 1982, AT 9 : 00
A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS.
PUBLISHED: April 12, 1982 RONALD G. NELSON
BUILDING AND ZONING
DIRECTOR
CERTIFICATION
I, STEVE MUNSON, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE
ABOVE DOCUMENTS 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
9th day of April, 1982.
C. SIGNED:fryWIA*‘t47w1_
OF R4,
oy0' BUILDING ZONING DEPARTMENT
z eaLLAo RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR
O s
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTOIM, WASH.980559,0 et235-2540
0cls
94, 04,
SEPT
BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH
MAYOR
April 9, 1982
Frederick W. Kendrick
3715 Lake Washington Blvd. N.
Renton, •WA 98056
Re: APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM20FOOTSETBACKREQUIREMENT, FILE V-027-82; PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 3715 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD. N.
Dear Mr. Kendrick :
The Renton Building and Zoning Department formally acceptedtheabovementionedapplicationonMarch31 , 1982. A publichearingbeforetheCityofRentonHearingExaminerhasbeensetforApril27, 1982, at 9 : 00 a.m.
i
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 RentonBuildingandZoningDepartment, 235-2550 .
Very truly yours,
Yi
Roger1J. Blaylock
Zoning Administrator
0 cM.oC a--t'‘ca LCQ.Yr)
c oL2_c14 wlttC,i 3 Fr To G FT Oci
W a uu. a%-/,-C .
T A1c 40 L 02.
exY LA cLaa 0('' c4-0.01.1
a'k Clata C1- O'V kiZ.&
CM-1-4'"NiC 241 tti" k4 0S. 1010
C crIxiaAr- 0A-A. OA,-0.,L.
U o,,
auv 0.:3• cL‘czt.‘.12.._ tkor
crag
i>
trarec..\.e.cLetwktee- :_C el.A)-
uA eLLANY. ka 1/4}klAJJ- 4
OF IIENTON
yuJ
MAR 6 982
BUI GiNG/ZONING DEFT.
OF 'RA,
L VARI. A, NCE . APPLICAT -ION . . :
N CITY . OF RENTON
090 P PLANNING DEPARTMENT :
9TE0. SEP1'
4
2 0 6) 2 3 5-2 5 5 0 CITY OF RENTON
c
NOTE: TO APPLICANT!/ Please OFFIC SE ONLY 61Y8L
read instructions on
J
back of •is form
Application No. • BIS;'_p1NGIZONI`1v DEPT.
carefull/before
Associated Files)
prepar 'ng your appli-,
catio for VARIANCE.
Date Received:
N. Date Accepted:
Approved: 0%
Q
DATE:
Denied:
Publication Date: Affidavit:
Comprehensive Plan
Zoning:l'''''''''''''
In addition to the information below, the applicant should include a site map and any
other pertinent information which will assist in the review of this application. The
Planning Department reserves the right to require additional information needed to
evaluate the application (note Variance Application Procedure on the last page) .
1. Name of Applicant: FQ,E>ezAc.4 . V.I. V.e IJpe.I C14`
2. Mailing Addreess: 371 V4LAKE A,7 L4b 1 J
e.el4'rd4 ) WASA 5 26543 telephone No. ;2210'4005
3. APPLICANT IS: 12rOwner E Lessee
Q Contract Purchaser t] Other (Specify)
V
4. Name and address of owner, if other than applicant: ES N(sr= >A ,,N- •
c
Telephone -N8•-y_ .- •`
5. General location of proposed project (give street address if any or neart'•'s-`treet
and intersection) : 315 Liwe wAstAgLV t) t4
j
Cet'r664 W A M ) sg®5i
6. Legal Description (if lengthy, attach as separate sheet) : s err OP. Lis 4i)
ALL 1. T 42 4 43 4 14 Io*T e3F 1. 5r 44 cs ' I Li..t4AAS
1,AIDE W 0 GARDE cF E 2 . !
7. State EXACT VARIANCE REQUESTED/SPECIFY CODE SECTION:
176 35101L.D 1lGctG Wr + it 3P'T -ro 5017 eF
1...A 14'E W/1/41 AS44 I.JUTbL .
1-
8. Why can't the property be developed within the requirements of the ordinance?
1%1 ( ' BE= • 'To t5 G oZttota a,P 114e LLSC
0C., F.A 1Jlll../ 'RE-CQGAIkema . 'TME Lost 446. -16.
SLOPE TdwJ x rkkE LACE ANC PCec1otS cF
iT ARE uuuS i
Iv.` ° :d1`iati. ',-)L,';::. ..
AFFIDAVIT
I, JtVC„...e. 4.:4;"..c./oye..kT •4.0•VeNINQ1C,Vbeing 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.
f2j#1,,
IJUS •
01•,titure of Owner
32 AS-- t-h Aid- Z,40•/Ai.
Address J
4 w A, cJ 9cFo ib
City, State, and Zip Code Number)
Telephone No. c1 - 45 ^ 4'a O
Subscribed and sworn before me this
G
day of` '/l/4 l92'q2.-.."
Notary Pubri0.&;in and for the State of
Washington resriding at *---,r, 0-4-44-pc-p-
2.,- 2.-:e . 2----:, _•.,._.,__
Name•of_.Notary Public
11i11 •ill'
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, . . '
RENTON MUNICIPAL BLDG,
200 MILL AVE. SOUTHRI`1TOIl, YASti, 98055
0
Address
2-
T.I
T,
S
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM r77 OF RENTON
171-11 [FOldWlq6
MAR 2 61982 —'
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Application No. 1c
e ill-MO --(62o 6U:rifVG/ZtiNING DEPT.
Environmental Checklist No. C oZ6) " F(9-
PROPOSED, date: FINAL , date:
EiDeclaration of Significance Declaration of Significance
IDDeclaration 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 r
G eep eAc... • \7"'1 4 56((..'
2. Address and phone number of Proponent:
31t5 Rs+-k Ez‘.-vb esgrrot4
vsiksA4 0 26563. .
4tc5
3. Date Checklist submitted
4. Agency requiring Checklist
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) :
C. N!.Strc OC.1.1 NI ottts.t tusce foe ekt.ktL`(
QeccePiirr'tot ot,l 5tt.1C l. A•t At,
Nks Loc. eb o
v l 1 ttG"tc* .
1 d
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) :
5 LA v..e- wsitsAk gWD N, eEkfret, ,V 4 y
9s05'(0. . I t.b T OF bC-Gt4 13 u.. eeN
uSCc" 1. r' IkS4ki1 SGCati•••
8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal :
9. List of all permits, licenses or government approvals required for the proposal
federal , state and local--including rezones) :
10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain:
t lo
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal? If yes, explain:
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?
YE- MAYBE N
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over-
covering of the soil? V
YES MAYBE NO
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
YE3- MAYBE AU—
d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
Vt MAYBE %1,44
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
Y-- Wffirir 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?
VT MAYBE in--
Explanation:
64`. Y• '1111 S I •,
3-
2) Air. Will the proposal result in:
a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality?
YET— MAYBE HU—
b) The creation of objectionable odors?
Yrs.— MAYBE le
c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature,,
or any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
YET— MAY E 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 NO
b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns , or
the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
Y€5 MAYBE 0
c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
YES MAYS N
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 AU
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?
Y MAYBE 0
i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available
for public water supplies?
YES MAYBE le/
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)? V
Y1 MAYBE AU—
b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of flora?
YES MAYBE N
c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or
in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing
species?
YTV MAYBE
d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
Explanation:
4-
5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of
any species of fauna (birds, land animals including
reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms,
insects or microfauna)?
T RATITE NO
b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of fauna?
YES MAYBE 0
c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area,
or result in a barrier to the migration or movement
of fauna?
DES-- MAYBE NO
d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
YES MAYBE N
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
Explanation:
8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the
present or planned land use of an area?
Y S MAYBE N
Explanation: 61...\S'CN,G0 isoz. k o{
C L®T !$ tAOS I.E
tak4G— Ilk-141"
otz,-CicAsx. o F LaT . USA4C3LiE Foe ?M*ti.‘e egC IJ
9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
YET— MAYBE NO
b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
YET— MAYBE NO
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?
Yam- MAYBE Yr
Explanation:
11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri-
bution, density, or growth rate of the human population
of an area?
YOB MAYS E
Explanation:
6-
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
YES MAYBENO
e) Storm water drainage?
YES NU
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)?
VET— MAYBE N
Explanation:
18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of
anyanyscenic 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 N
Explanation:
19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the
quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
YES MAYBE NU—
Explanation: Mte.tr ASE Q +GiPCA1 Ott FlOZ
FA M t
20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an
alteration of a significant archeological or historical
site, structure, object or building?
Yam— MAYBE
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:
9
l .W • O_h c e
signed
t,.Rined
CeeDEQAcke . V 1(1 Q.J( . I4b ‘C.ke
name printed)
I
City of Renton
Planning Department
5-76
I
1111
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
c) Impact upon existing transportation systems?
YES" MAYBE NB-
d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
YES— MAYBE 0
e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
YE- MAYBE NO
f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
YET— MAYBE N
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?
YET— MAYBENb-
c) Schools?
YES MAYBE N
d) Parks or other recreational facilities?
YES MAYBE NO /
e) Maintenance of public facilities , including roads?
YES MAYBE NO
f) Other governmental services?
YES MBE 0
Explanation:
15) Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
YET— MAYBE NO
b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy?
p/Vt MAYBE
Explanation:
16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new
systems, or alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? V
YET— HATTE 10
b) Communications systems?
YES RATFTE
c) Water?
YES MAYBE NO