Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA79-337 BEGINNING OF FILE FILE TITLE SPECIAL PEI� MlT SP- 33 � - 79 FOR. MEDICAL - DENTAL RLDG . IN R- a ZONE ; CORNEP OF 11 tti PL KIRKLAND AVE. NE D� . F1zCD BROWN APPEND F/LED gY RttORNEY MICHAEL ttAN15 FOK DK. Brown' 6/1y179 11A P . . J RENTON CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting July 2 , 1979 Municipal . Building Monday , , : 00 P . M . Council Chambers MINUTFS CALL TO ORDER Mayor Pro tem Barbara Y. Shinpoch ed the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the Special Meeting to order. ROLL CALL BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, Council Pre ident; MARGARET PROCTOR, EARL CLYMER, THOMAS W. TRIMM. MOVED LYMER, SECOND TRIMM, ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS BE EXCUSED: Rich rd M. Stredicke, George J. Perry .nd Charles F. Shane. MOTION C RRIED. CITY OFFICIALS D MEAD, City Clerk; SHARON EEN, Personnel Director; MICHAEL IN ATTENDANCE PA' ESS, Administrative Assis ant. Executive Session The Council convened in Exe tive Session to discuss labor negoti • tions with City' s Ne otiator, William W. Treverton of Conner, ravrock, Treverto , Inc. of Bellevue. Time: 6:02 p.m. Council rea•nvened in the Special Meeting. Roll Call : SHINPOCH, PROCTOR, CL \ ER, TRIMM. OVED B.Y TRIMM, SECOND CLYMER, MEETING ADJOURN. CARTED. Time 6:50 p.m. cam : a. ' ' Delores A. Mead, C.M.C. City Clerk nee,e—f-fir) Tr—e-rm 33-7-77 RENTON CITY COUNCIL. Regular Meeting July 2 , 1979 Municipal Building Monday , 8 : 00 P . M . Council Chambers MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Charles Delaurenti led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the Renton City Council meeting to order. ROLL CALL OF BARBARA Y. .SHINPOCH, Council President; CHARLES F. SHANE (Arrived COUNCIL shortly) THOMAS W. TRIMM, EARL CLYMER, GEORGE J. PERRY, MARGARET L. PROCTOR, RICHARD M. STREDICKE. CITY OFFICIALS CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, Mayor; DEL MEAD, City Clerk; LAWRENCE WARREN, IN: ATTENDANCE City Attorney; GORDON Y. ERICKSEN, Planning Director; RICHARD HOUGHTON, Public Works Department; BATTALION CHIEF MATTHEWS, Fire; CAPT. JAMES PHELAN, Police Department; ROBERT HUFNAGLE, Park Department; MICHAEL PARNESS, Administrative Assistant. MINUTE APPROVAL Addition Page 4: "Councilman Stredicke inquired whether Student 6/25/79 Home- Services, Bellevue, was licensed to operate within the City. " Councilman Stredicke noted since that time he has been advised the company has no permit; they have been advised of need. MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND PROCTOR, APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES. OF JUNE 25, 1979 AS AMENDED. CARRIED. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Mayor Delaurenti presented Delores A. Mead, City Clerk, with Policy and Procedure Special Award engraved placque from 'International .institute. of Manual - City Clerk- Municipal Clerks 33rd annual meeting in BalHarbour, Florida; Outstanding First Place Award in cities over 25,000 for Policy and Procedure Publication of Year Manual . Mrs. Mead accepted the congratulations with thanks, noting need under the Public Disclosure law for public access to records and index. AUDIENCE COMMENT Sandy Webb, 264 Chelan Ave. SE, called attention to dance 7/21/79 Musicians Hall. Senior Center Peggy Cummins, Municipal Arts Commission, requested letter from Stained Glass Agenda. MOVED SHINPOCH, SECOND SHANE, READ ITEM 9.a. CARRIED. Window Letter from Peggy Cummins, Chairman 1% for Arts Committee, noted Donated by offer of donation from Mr. and Mrs. Charles A. Ruud for funds Mr. and Mrs. for a stained glass window for the new Senior Citizens' Center Charles A. Ruud and explained the process by which a selection was made. The letter recommended the Council accept the donation with appreci- ation to Mr. and Mrs. Ruud, concur in the jury' s design selection submitted by Hill Associates and authorize the Administration to execute the necessary contract. The letter reported the Commission was pleased with the response received from Northwest artists throughout the competition and that the art piece will be enjoy- able addition to the new Senior Center quiet lounge area on first floor facing the river and courtyard, noting window contains subtle shades and 50% minimun transparent glass. MOVED. BY TRIMM, SECOND SHINPOCH, CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMISSION. CARRIED. Councilman Stredicke noted Charles Ruud as former owner of the Record Chronicle and present owner of the Record Stationery and Office Supply. Dr. Frederick Brown William Sharpsteen, 1075 Lynnwood Ave. NE, presented petition Rezone R-336-79 and bearing signatures of 12 homeowners requesting reversal of the Special Permit Hearing Examiner' s decision of 5/31/79 and allow the building SP 3�37-79 of a medical/dental building by Dr. Fred Brown on Kirkland Ave. NE R-2 to R-3 and NE 11th P1 . as clinics are needed and would be best buffer for Dental Clinic between residential, and business areas. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND and SHINPOCH, SUSPEND RULES AND ITEMS 9.d.c.and b. BE TAKEN FROM AGENDA Appeal by Dr. Brown -FOR ,READING.. CARRIED. Continued Planning and Development Committee Chairman Perry presented report recommending that the Council reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner in part regarding Frederick Brown rezone R-336-79 and SP 337-79 and listed errors' of fact and law regarding Con- clusions No. 1 , 2, 3 and 5 and various matters regarding Special //r/ Rento City Council 7/2/79 Page 3 Recess MOVED BY SHANE, SECOND SHINPOCH, COUNCIL RECESS. CARRIED. Time: 9:30 p.m. Council reconvened at 9:50 p.m. Roll Call : All Council Members present. Introduction Mayor Delaurenti introduced King County Councilwoman Patricia Thorpe. Mrs. Thorpe explained King County condominium ordinance. Further discussion ensued. Caren Wharton explained tenant rights . OLD BUSINESS Councilman Perry inquired of legality and identification problems for persons for persons using surnames only on election signs. Councilman Stredicke asked removal of new cars parked on City . right-of-way in vicinity of Burnett Ave. proposed -linear park. Mayor Delaurenti advised corrective measures will be taken. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means The Ways and Means Committee Chairman Clymer presented report Committee Report recommending second and final readings of the following ordinances : Ordinance #3327 (First readings 6/25/79) Street Vacation Ordinance read vacating a portion of California Ave. (VAC-4-79) Portion of also known as N. 7th St. , as petitioned by Wong. MOVED BY CLYMER, California Ave. SECOND PERRY, ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #3328 An ordinance was read appropriating $6,910 to be received from Appropriation Burlington Northern Railroad for payment of road construction Monster Road work on Monster Road. MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND SHANE, ADOPT THE Construction ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL.: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #3329 An ordinance was read rezoning property from R-1 to R-3 located Banchero Rezone at the southwest corner of NE 12th St. and Edmonds Ave. NE; Mike R-234778 Turner agent for Banchero and Florer. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE, ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: 6-AYES AND ONE- NO: STREDICKE. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Stredicke requested confirmation of covenants and dedication of right-of-way, being confirmed by the City Clerk. Ordinance #3330 Ordinance was read rezoning property from G to R-4 located at Schwa'rtzenberger west side of Shattuck Ave. S. at intersection of S. 6th St. Rezone R-339-79 MOVED BY SHANE, SECOND CLYMER, ADOPT THE ORDINANCE. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #3331 An ordinance was read rezoning property from G to R-3 located Nunn Rezone approximately 750 .ft. south of NE 4th St. along Queen Ave. exten- R-342779 sion between Greenwood Cemetery on west and City property on east. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND SHANE, ADOPT AS READ. Councilman Stredicke inquired re covenants and access, being advised by Engineer Houghton that by consolidation of parcels the access is gained. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND SHANE, ADOPT TEE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: 6-AYE; ONE NO: STREDICKE. MOTION CARRIED. First Reading The Ways and Means Committee recommended first reading of the following ordinances:. Self Storage Ordinance read amending Title IV City Code to provide for use Facilities of self-storage facilities to be allowed by Special Permit. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHINPOCH, REFER ORDINANCE BACK TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Councilman Stredicke noted the ordinance was not retroactive. Ordinance #3332 Ordinance read authorizing acquisition of property and providing Acquisition of for payment, authorizing the City Attorney to prepare condmenation Cedar River Trail petition for acquisition for construction of Cedar River Trail Properties system. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHINPOCH, SUSPEND RULES AND . ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE TO SECOND AND FINAL READINGS. CARRIED. Following readings authorizing acquisition of Haddad/Jordan/LaRue properties, it was MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHINPOCH, ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: 5-AYE: SHINPOCH, TRIMM, CLYMER, PROCTOR, STREDICKE; 2-NO: SHANE AND PERRY. MOTION CARRIED. Renton City Council 7/2/79 Page 2 Audience Comment - Continued Dr. Brown Rezone Permit issuance and recommended that the Council find that the and Appeal use proposed under special permit application will not be detri- Continued mental to the adjacent properties or welfare of community. Further the committee recommended that the Examiner's decision be affirmed insofar as it denied the application for rezone of the R-1 property to R-3 and that the remainder of the decision be reversed to read as follows: The application for reclassification of the R-2 property to R-3 is granted. The application for Special Permit to allow a professional office in an R-3 zone is granted subject to conditions (3) . MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND CLYMER, CONCUR IN. COMMITTEE REPORT AND REFER TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Michael N. Read Hearing Examiner's decision of 5/22/79 for denial of SP 338-79 Special Permit application to develop self-storage facility as an integrated office/ SP 338-79 retail business park (Renton Business Park) (B-1 zone) . A . and request for reconsideration was filed with Examiner 5/30 and Appeal denied 6/1/79. Appeal filed 6/13/79. Planning and Development Committee having reviewed the matter, recommended Council reverse the decision of the Examiner based on error of law Conclusion No. 6, 7 and 8; and recommended that the Council find that the proposed use is a similar use to the specific uses allowed in the B-1 zone and conclude that the proposed use is allowed as a matter of right, in the B-1 zone. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND SHINPOCH, CONCUR IN COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. Councilman Stredi.cke inquired of access from property onto NE 4th and requested report from. the Administration regarding traffic in general area. Planning Director noted no access proposed to either Union NE or Monore NE. See later MOTION CARRIED, Councilman Stredicke voted NO. MOVED BY PERRY, Ordinance SECOND CLYMER, REFER TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. First City Equities Planning and Development Committee Chairman. Perry acknowledged Rezone G to MP this being date set. for Hearing Examiner' s decision regarding R-328-79 Earlington First City Equities Rezone 328-79 to come before the Council , Industrial Park matter having been appealed 6/13/79 by Attorney Robert McBeth- and representing Ernie Lueckenotte and Richard Haaland, operators Appeal 6/13/79 of the Earlington Golf Course. Committee Chairman Perry noted ' change in meeting date .as applicant could not be present_ and Continued announced 7/12 7:30 meeting; that the matter will be before the City Council 7/16/79 at the 8:00 p.m. meeting. Audience: Doug Prichard requested Council acquire the property. Condominium John Goff, 4300 NE Sunset Blvd. , Springtree Apartments, requested Conversion information regarding condominium conversion ordinance. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND CLYMER, SUSPEND RULES AND PRESENT REPORT. Planning and Development Committee report noted review of condominium con- versions and recommended that an ordinance establishing a mora- torium be referred to the Ways and Means Committee. MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND PERRY, CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATION OF COMMITTEE.* Persons present making inquiries : .Caren Wharton, 24532 35th Ave. S. Kent, South King County Tenants Union, asked matter not be tied Ordinance #3326 up in committee with so many affected. *CARRIED. MOVED BY PERRY, 90-Day Moratorium SECOND CLYMER, SUSPEND RULES AND PRESENT ORDINANCE. FOR FIRST READ- on Condominium ING. CARRIED. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Clymer presented Conversion to ordinance declaring a housing emergency and imposing a moratorium October 1 , 1979 on the conversion of rental units to condominiums and providing Pending penalties. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND SHINPOCH, ADVANCE ORDINANCE TO Adoption of SECOND AND FINAL READINGS.* Persons present: Mike Poynter, Regulations 16803 SE 254th, Kent, asked moving expenses be paid to tenants Ordinance noting King County ordinance retroactive to cover expenses and asked that assurance be given that apartment passes building and fire codes. Councilwoman Shinpoch explained committee meetings and desire for good ordinance. City Attorney Warren explained an ordinance cannot be made retroactive. Dennis Whalen, 4308 NE Sunset; Bob Kresge, 4300 NE Sunset asked adoption of King County ordinance. *MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance placed on second _ and final readings declaring a housing emergency and imposing a moratorium on the conversion of rental units to condominums to October 1 , 1979. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND PERRY, ADOPT ORDINANCE. ROLL CALL: 6-AYE: SHINPOCH, TRIMM, CLYMER, PERRY, PROCTOR AND STREDICKE; ONE-NO: SHANE. MOTION CARRIED SETTING MORATORIUM. :: ir , ,r � t; !arli a y.? '*:r. :,f.,y.- N •'!;'` , •. • . . J,.Li • ' �"`,tx. r.:~ J'.JSt 'r %:',• - rr^°'r'. •,:R. :'„r'T•Rk` us!-a,:_ .a7, ..r:.,._ ,-r. PLANNI< :'AND. DEVELOPMENT' COMMITTE°E'` is 4I ;�a,: - • :t" ' �d.�.•' 1 ter` ,:,: •' .•. 1, • • • F RI BROWN REZONE' R ,33,6-7`9,' and-:;S'P�='33:7 ,`79`,,,r:;f w' • The Planning and Development Comm'itt;ee :l as. 'cons,z.de:red•Lthe'':appea1 of the above-mentioned decision dated,`�Ma: 3.1'° 197'9*.i,:•:a'%d``'�re,commends that the • City Council reverse • the decision af -:tYe': `Examiner• in part, based'• upon the- following er' - "'`Tors o�f _fact''.a'r�d;��aaw,i_ �� ;,. •,:, , ,,t. - fin,:`pi. "'i}' ,`.. 'Ir,•,�,.f z :o: onclusion No. '1 is:,rin' erro.r'.'-yin:I':that'vthe`.�a l'ica;tion• .for rezone ;,;;: - must be con sidered aridependentlo'f -a' Coric u'r.•rent',application ; a 'specia] permit for unde:r ;,ther.:. z�zirig code. .' ,t %'• 2. Cor_clusion, N,o 2 is' in "error ;in' that there!, •no; :ne.ed forj demon- strafion that -'the:, ro ert is,,.fi:,ne ded`-::fora! the)-.zoning' classification • ,b . /- r�:. ['?'fir, ) .t'5:,4"` (rt�:, • applied;.;:for. ',,., must 1b �ra�,: re°zori' '-a ]-ic�at� o t. 3. Coriclu sib ri `No. 2```i-s '' n; erro?r: ;` ri t`h'af` k �f pp cons Bred ,'in"li ht:. of'. .the.:'cr of con e g ,l a,„Of -the use'`toswhich operty s:,pro bs'ed ; h , nt 'ma, �e�r:r' r;�''` i -�;'�°than.: ;t'Y�e, a:• �.lica u e" .�4 CoricZizson'�• '`N;os% 3�:;arid �5.• ';are- :r;i�Y:. o Pp, y', ,. R-.3 property fore anyuse allowed b t'he'r'z.on rig :code-,, : •ncludin,g-• • P . P Y non-residential' uses' set .fort-h:`therei`r_ •- 5 The Hearing Examiner' s' con,clu:s'iori_- rreg'arding. issuance'-''r•:of the Special. s,f; • Permit is in: ;error;,,i-n .that"`the .application's for,, rezone and the. • special permit, 'must be' considered :ind•ep_eri;dentl.y :' ;In `view 'of the"" `. • Committee' s following recommendation;`to. reverse :'the-:`Heari-ng 'Examin'e'r_;af; decision. and to' grant the' • rezone' •to''::-R'- •t'h'.e, ''applic ation"'for permit must- be' con The Committee further recommends':;that =the' Ci t'y,R: counc.il';,f_,i_n'd, ,based -upori the record before the 'H'earing,.Eaminer :. that, the,: s,e pr. oposed .under the special permit' application wila':'no.t. be 'unduly`:•:detrimen'tal- to adjacent. and surrounding .properties ;` 'and will not be :det;rimental' to the public health, safety, morals`_and ,general.' wel,fare. ,Of'' the"community. • • The Committee further rec-ommends`.r-t'hat "the Hearing 'Examiner' s decision.• be. affirmed inso'far. .a`s:='it;' denied,'the application ,f.or '=rezone of .the R-1 property to R-3 , and_=that:'.t'he rem'ainder'`of•'-'the dec' s o.n' .be .rev.ers,ed , to read as follows 5:.: ,,;„` :' - rop� The apapplication ',for�4.reclass'i'ficat 'on :off'' thee:RZ>'p pert y to R-3: is granted:. :+'. 4 • i - • "The: application._ for - permit wa professional a - 1' • office in an R-3 ;pursant .to.p:Section '4-709A'- (-A) (,3) (a)n , is granted subject to` the •nonditions r% • • tic;• ,,t: 4+ '' } rn I M M1'•A: w,it� ,�tr'•, PlanningWand-• Dcvel'o 'ment•'?.Commi=ttee;:•.`;.::- '" ''°`' ,' , Comini'ttee ',Report �r,; :'` • Ay, :artatc,',r r.1F"n:' ;.`rY ,,n y,• ,,'°,' ')'' :} J^%• `j 'a';^', , ,7 ar,ds:� "d.<;" ,.vGs•.� �!,r:rl ^"''t ITS'•` Jul '2 1979 ' ay ' . .,' • ''i' "•r[,' ;`4 li:':.. r.+.;1'�,!•:•' .t _ .,. °;tiy;"".•, - : "i,., ,ii iY „{,.;rai}'• ,i'+, "rSid'!r'=-� • � �J f•f'� P 2 '.1W- e � s; r,- -•ts`;:,�'+'�':i�- ;,» ,�.a si;-:;.?:.,, l: . sf':: •:I: i.� 1 M' ..J° -mot ''rr-, Al :F , �r 'rF V•� .f} "i Y++ i�, y�; %; ,i: .. a" • �.v.; "7Y,Sa i''. : ,, `'�D nt'=`o��1 R'`vi'eia ''arid';' moo'°al'• ,' ';' 1'arinri' e artme f°',• sca iri ?'arid ,si sc'teens>:�;,'. iie'l•ud�i,1, a. ;�: land p g`:� .,:• gh'.��: ►• �J� , , minimum' ten foot' sa.���h=t..;ob'sou'rfn screen:.}'' - .., 9 l ., �J' x -se aratin 'tF e sta'ff`.-,'` ar]in area,.,from .the;': P P g I . -R-1. single,,faiii't•l. ro: ert to'`'th;e.eas,t ' %�.Y °• k `i„" ,; i :.'. sir:. *,,,, r.- , ..,_ "2 'Pinal 'Piibl! c%Wor;ks. D`ep-artme=nt.;:.a ,rovalo,f, .}' ;:' `. ,�" -plans.ttfore•'• ub'li-c -ifi 'rove :`e ts;'i'�er"sa4 `ro 'ria=te ,. ' ' is �:-;'`w:".,. :,: ' -_ codes and .,o:rd ria es '.. T •r • - , - ,- •.:f, .ti? c;;a-•' i:j:,!!'.'`.ts1'Y„ 4 }:"57,,' lta• - "r'.t.• f 3 Provi's 'on • forA.fre; `.::.. ' 5� 4;,.,. (3) 'pr:ot`eGt'' :ori:,'-per':; '-.ire.,:`,'D'e.pa•r;tment :.. ?r;;'. 'requirements` 'k ::R.,, •:;;,<-.f" ' 1 - ;'nyni,, r;,yFt�. ,_SF.: •:,y:i,:k' •. - • • • " - -l<.N :,6y ;;''w s 4';'Ykt.•`t`'.S,t.• ',>•', • -'{(%.rN L' �dG'b.°`"'7-r,?r< . I�x�'. ;•i i., Ct�'' ` • "p• J,.r,t_,,:�.._ i„ire • a .L..-,,-,....._ , ,_•,-, 1d' t. 4,....,.:„.•:,.•..•.."..,„..,'..•,., ,..:. .. ,'" - :j,,!` .rye;;• ..•y:‘:.:'.,.•g.;.,;,,„,•„,,2‘..,;-..,.;„.:-:•...•,-';•,.,.,-•::!:....:1,•;7.,,-,;„,!..•!•::1,,;•,,,1,,:V%.•.••.'..s;4'.,„• ;Si V ,t .,,'': . ,.•...•:•.:0:,,,,,-',t'.,,‘•:•.,•-•,'.:4.,.,.•.•,..;L.,,.:,••_;,;.' G e Perr Chairman ' ,',`, '}„',A '• .,-,:::r:,,,,'a''▪ ->,•,,,.4,3' s` "'. ' ' : Y`"'�(, .. - (tEFy ,e\''''"; A',:‘ ,: . ,1- „{, . - -',`'. 4p`; _ ;l./r V, Barbara Shinpoch .r;.?..•. ,,r :.;: ,�,1i.•a.C�> },.,iy�?,'•, .:4Y1'�:"'.,;'n Jk: fi'•-E.n"tiv', _ -,a N_ h, A(- -t% "ail•+''� ")�:,ti'(:;: - ':F'.•:'Yt:� '! (, _ Earl C1 mmey ,t..,::^ Y • • .MY, . if• o7j„ _ - 3 \'S"•}try .., /1�: t . - tF tY .i• .y1••.��.Z,:,F�.J+ j.:, t. t�tf. i•; :�' , :Q ' � „n 1.l ':fi ;' •i� :.,.": -t F 4 n .4 c te , J _ ae.- Yt, ' h `' t:. '«,iA• • :5,..^ -.L.. ,V`;., .4i• t - ' ! - :. k� r ,y„1 Y ▪ fir1'= :4, i •r. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT JULY 2 , 1979 FREDRICK BROWN REZONE R-336-79 and SP-337-79 The Planning and Development Committee has considered the appeal of the above-mentioned decision dated May 31, 1979 , and recommends that the City Council reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner in part, based upon the following errors of fact and law: 1. Conclusion No. 1 is in error in that the application for rezone must be considered independently of a concurrent application for a special permit for a particular use under the zoning code. 2. Conclusion No. 2 is in error in that there is no need for demon- stration that the property is needed for the zoning classification applied for. 3 . Conclusion No. 2 is in error in that a rezone application must be considered in light of the criteria of Section 4-3014 rather than the use to which the property is proposed to be put. 4 . Conclusion Nos. 3 and 5 are in error in that the applicant may use R-3 property for any use allowed by the zoning code, including non-residential uses set forth therein. 5. The Hearing Examiner' s conclusion regarding issuance of the Special Permit is in error in that the applications for rezone and the special permit must be" considered• independently. In view of the Committee' s following recommendation to reverse the Hearing Examiner' s decision and to grant the rezone to R-3 , the application for special permit must be considered. The Committee further recommends that the City Council find, based upon the record before the Hearing Examiner, that the use proposed under the special permit application will not be unduly detrimental to adjacent and surrounding properties, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. The Committee further recommends that the Hearing Examiner ' s decision be affirmed insofar as .it denied the application for rezone of the R-1 property to R-3, and that the remainder of the decision be reversed to read as follows: "The application for reclassification of the R-2 property to R-3 is granted. "The application for special permit to allow a professional office in an R-3 zone pursuant to Section 4-709A (A) (3) (a) is granted subject to the following conditions: , • r • Planning and Development Committee Committee Report July 2, 1979 Page 2 (1) Review and approval by Planning Department of landscaping and sight screens, including a minimum ten foot sight-obscuring screen separating the staff parking area from the R-1 single family property to the east. (2) Final Public Works Department approval of plans for public improvements per appropriate codes and ordinances. (3) Provision for fire protection per Fire Department requirements. G ge Perry, Chairman , /1y ti Barbara Shinpoch • rl lymerh jOF RA,A • o THE CITY OF RENTON. MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,.WASH.98055 o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI,MAYOR i LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9 0 Q,`O• FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 91 Teo SEP100 June 14, 1979 Members, Renton City Council Renton, Washington RE: File No. R-336-79, SP-337-79; Dr. Frederick R. Brown Request for Rezone and Special Permit. Dear Council Members: Attached is the Examiner's Report and Recommendation, dated May 31, 1979, regarding the referenced application. An appeal of the recommendation was received on June 14, 1979 within the appeal period established by ordinance, and is also attached for your review. The complete 'le r arding this matter will be transmitted to the City Clerk this da , and will be placed on the Council agenda on July 2, 1979. Ike additional assistance or information regarding this matter, please contact the office of the undersigned. ,Sincerely, A14.1 ' ‘44,4*-4"%.:- Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Planning Department City Clerk Attachments I . " '0 THE CITY OF RENTON C.) 0MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o . L �' CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR �A DELORES A. MEAD CITY CLERK D,Q-rf0 SEPItl- . June 15, 1979 • APPEAL FILED BY MICHAEL M. HANIS, ATTORNEY, FOR DR. FREDRICK BROWN '. RE: Appeal of Land Use Examiner's Decision Dated ' May 31, 1979, Dr. Fredrick Brown, Rezone R-336-79 and Special Permit SP-337-79 To Parties of Record: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's decision has been filed with the public records office this. date, along with the proper fee of$26..UO, . ° pursuant to Title 4, Ch. 30, City Code, as amended. The City Code requires the appeal must be set forth in writing. • The written appeal and all otner' pertin'ent documents will be reviewed by the Council 's Planning and Development Committee. Please contact the Council Secretary 235-2586, for date and time of the committee meetings if so desired. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above-referenced appeal will be considered by the Renton City Council at its. regular meeting of July 2, 1979 at 8:00 p.m. in,the Council . Chambers, Second Floor, ' Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Avenue South. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON ' q ad Delores A. Mead, C.M.C. City Clerk DAM/st cc: Mayor, Planning Dept. Planning & Development Committee (3) ' Public Works Director Hearing Examiner Finance Director Ron Nelson, Building Div. OF i • 40 THE CITY OF RENTON tO Z • MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI I MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER -94 ! co. FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 9I1 TF0 SEPt°° June 14, 1979 Members, Renton City Council Renton, Washington RE: File No. R-336-79, SP-337-79; Dr. Frederick R. Brown Request for Rezone and Special Permit. , Dear Council Members: Attached is the Examiner's Report and Recommendation, dated May 31, 1979, regarding the referenced application. An appeal of the recommendation was received on June 14, 1979 within the appeal period established by ordinance, and is also attached for your review. The complete: file regarding this matter will be transmitted to the City Clerk this date, and will be placed on the Council agenda on July 2, 1979. If you require additional assistance or information regarding this matter, please contact the office of the undersigned. Sincerely, +4.414 . Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Planning Department City Clerk Attachments • I � 1 R-33o-,9 Page Two SP-337-79 • Dr. Brown referenced Section L.2 (Planning Department Analysis - Special Permit) , and clarified that the' square footage of the proposed building will contain more than 3270 square feet of office space as denoted in the report due to utilization of most of the basement for current and proposed office use, and only a limited amount of space will be utilized for storage of dental equipment. Regarding the proposal for restricted one- way circulation within the parking area, Dr. Brown advised that in the clinic's current . location directly across the street from the proposal, it has been observed that patrons disregard one-way signing and travel through the parking area in both directions. He advised his desire to provide as much parking space as possible to accommodate customers as well as transit users to utilize the parking lot. Dr. Brown objected to screening recommendations since the proposed building will be an attractive addition to the area, and height of the structure will be limited. Regarding existing R-1 zoned property located east of the subject site, he indicated his intent to utilize the area for parking provisions and picnic tables for convenience of employees of the clinic, and noted that the entire residential lot, of which the R-1 portion of the rezone is a part, is owned by the applicant. He requested that the city allow provision of the 10-foot landscape screen on the existing R-1 property, and indicated his intent to maintain 7200 square feet as required by the zoning code within the lot area. The Examiner inquired regarding the elevation of the proposed structure. Mr. Brown advised that the roof of the building will be flat and equipment will be located 'elsewhere within the facility and not on the roof. Mr. Clemens indicated the height of the south elevation of 14 feet and 22 feet on the' north elevation from parking lot level to the top of the roof. Dr. Brown advised that the elevation of the site is lower than existing residential lots located •east of the site, fencing on certain portions currently exists, and the development would not visually impact the surrounding area. He indicated his opinion that provision of recommended setbacks and landscaping would severely limit the development of the site. The Examiner, inquired if the rezone proposal for the R-1 property would be scaled down to 'comply with the 7200 square footage requirement. Dr. Brown advised that plans designating the required square footage had been submitted, but the city would not approve them. The Examiner inquired if the applicant had any objection to improving the existing substandard water main. Dr. Brown indicated his concurrence in the requirement. Referencing 'Section L.2 of the Planning Department Analysis contained in Exhibit #1 which' pertains to substandard design of the proposed staff area, the Examiner requested a recommendation for resolution from Mr. Clemens. Mr. Clemens advised that any spaces in excess of the required number could be designed in any manner satisfactory to the applicant to supplement the required parking area. The Examiner requested 'clarification of the parking requirement in' relationship to the square footage of the office space contained within the clinic. Mr. Clemens and Dr. Brown reviewed the parking, requirement if all useable "space totaling 5,000 square feet in the building is eventually converted to office use and advised that the proposed 27 parking spaces would exceed the requirement. The Examiner inquired regarding the practical effects Of a one-way versus two-way. circulation pattern. Mr. Clemens advised that the recommended 10-foot landscape area on. the northeastern portion of the property would limit the maximum driveway width to 18 feet which.would be too narrow to allow a two-way traffic circulation pattern through the site. Dr. Brown questioned the necessity of the 10-foot landscape screen in lieu of five feet required by the zoning code. Mr. Clemens advised that a separation of uses is necessary to protect existing residents from potential noise and air pollution resulting from clinic traffic on the subject site, and in the past the Examiner has required as much as a 50-foot buffer for the purpose of separation of land uses. The Examiner requested testimony in support of the application. There was no response. He then requested testimony' in opposition. Responding was: • William C. Sharpsteen 1075 Lynnwood Avenue N.E. • Renton, WA 98055 • Mr. Sharpsteen indicated that although he does not oppose the rezone from R-2 to R-3 of the future site of the proposed clinic, ,he objected to rezone of a portion of an existing single family lot, for the. purpose of parking since his residence abuts the site and creation of negative visual and noise impact from the rear of his property. would occur as well as depreciation of the value of his home. Responding was: ' Roy White - 1081 Lynnwood Avenue N.E. • Renton, WA , 98055 Mr. White also indicated support of' the proposed development but objected to creation of 5:, • a parking "lot in close proximity to his residence. . He advised that because his home • May 31, 1979 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE REARING EXAMINER . CITY' OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON, CITY COUNCIL, APPLICANT: Dr. Frederick R. Brown FILE NO. R-336-79, ' SP-337-79 LOCATION: 'Southeast corner of N.E. llth Place and'Kirkland Avenue N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant 'seeks approval for rezone of two parcels totaling • 24,000 square feet at the intersection Of Kirkland Avenue N.E. and N.E. llth Place from R-2 to R-3 -to allow construction of a dental clinic. Also proposed is. a rezone to R-3 of 4,000 square feet of an 11,000 square foot R-1 zoned and developed single family parcel adjacent to the rear of the primary rezone area. SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Approval: of. the rezone from R-2 to R-3 RECOMMENDATION: ' only, subject to conditions; approval of Special Permit. . • Hearing Examiner: Denial. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department preliminary report was received by the • REPORT: Examiner on May 17, 1979. 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' May 22, 1979 at 9:40 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 report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. David Clemens, Senior Planner, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered the following additional exhibits into the record: • Exhibit #2: King County Assessor's Map designating surrounding zoning ' Exhibit #3: Site Plan as submitted Exhibit #4: Floor Plan (2 sheets) . •. . , Exhibit #5: Site Plan with staff comments • . Mr. Clemens referenced.Exhibit #5 which designates the. Planning'.Departinent recommendation for provision of a one-way circulation• pattern within the parking lot. to expedite traffic flow and alleviate congestion. ;The Examiner inquired if' the designated pattern could be .reversed or if the department specifically recommended the ingress from Kirkland Avenue N.E. Mr... Clemens advised that the department had no objection' to reversal of the one- way pattern. The Examiner .inquired if the department had a recommendation for screening the R-3 residential. property ,from the proposed clinic. Mr. Clemens. advised that a high retaining wall and -a six-foot wood fence currently exist on the R=3 property to the south, and along. with landscape screening as part Of actual 'site development would More:than adequately serve to separate the land uses. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the use-of property.,to the north of the site, . Mr.. Clemens indicated that the parcel is currently'vacant. The Examiner inquired if the'Public Works Department recommended an LID ' for improvement of 'the. substandard water main on N.E. llth Street. Mr. .Clemens indicated that to allow site development, the applicant will be required to upgrade water lines and fire flows for fire protection which can be accomplished through the city by various methods. The Examiner requested testimony by the applicant. , Responding was: ' ., . ,;'!:'r • Frederick:R.Frederick R. Brown • . i,';, : • . . '1126 Kirkland Avenue N.E ' . Renton, WA • 98055 i ' R-336-79 Page Four SP-337-79 12. There is a moderate rise in the subject property from east to west. A sharper slope is encountered from the south to the north with approximately an eight to ten foot difference across the site. Scrub grass predominates on the site with a few deciduous trees along Kirkland Avenue N.E. 13. If rezoned, that portion of the proposed rezone which is now R-1 would be surrounded on three sides (north, east and west) by R-i properties developed with well-maintained single family homes. ,This small segment of the proposed rezone would be used for parking by the staff of the proposed dental clinic. This parking area would be located adjacent to the rear yards of. these three single family homes. 14. The Planning Department report indicates that the area is generally in a transition ' from single family to multifamily uses. They also note that any transition has been quite slow and that the single family uses along Lynnwood Avenue N.E., are well maintained. They indicate that these homes should be the object of protection per • the Comprehensive Plan's Objective No. 4 which states "Property values should be protected within the community for the benefit of its residents and property owners, through effective control of land use. . ." The Planning Department recommends that the reclassification of the R-1 portion be denied as inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and incompatible with both surrounding zoning and uses. 15. The applicant.proposed to construct a professional office building (dental clinic) on the subject property pursuant to the procedures for a Special Permit (Section 4-722.B) . The building is to be one and one-half stories with a daylight basement. The proposed structure would be 22 feet in height. The applicant intends to provide 27 parking spaces which would be adequate even if the applicant developed the maximum permissible • floor space. The Planning Department recommended the parking facility be landscaped with a 10-foot wide buffer .along the eastern property line (between the clinic and the single family homes) . The department also indicated that a one-way traffic pattern be established for the parking area in order to provide adequate maneuvering space in the narrow . eastern portion of the lot. They also want final approval of a detailed landscaping plan .for the site. 16. The Public Works Department indicated that the water main which serves the property is inadequate and would have to be improved per code requirements and 'that standard fees would apply. The Fire Department noted that both access and fire hydrants must be available prior to building construction. 17. The applicant in his letter indicating the circumstances which justify granting the rezone notes that at one time the R-2 designation allowed the dental clinic; that both the lots north and south have been rezoned and are either developed with multi-family apartments or are to be so developed; and that other development has occurred creating a need for the proposed clinic. CONCLUSIONS: (Rezone) . 1. The,proponent of a rezone must demonstrate facts which indicate that the rezone meets at least one Of three criteria of Section 4-3014 which provides in part that: a. The site has not been considered in a previous area wide rezone; ' b. The subject site is potentially zoned for the new classification per the Comprehensive Plan; or c. . There have been demonstrated changes in the area since the last rezoning action. While it must be conceded that the applicant has demonstrated that some or all of these criteria have been met, the rezone and the special permit for which the applicant has also applied are integrally tied together and this indicates that the rezone should • not be granted. R-336-79 Page Three • SP-337-79 contains three stories; visual impact from the top story would be 'detrimental, and he stated that a transitional use should exist between single family residential zoning and the proposed R-3 property to prevent spot zoning. • The Examiner requested further testimony in opposition to the request. There was no • response. He then requested a final recommendation from the Planning Department representative. Mr. Clemens indicated an addition to the Planning Department recommendation to require approval of the rezone request prior to completion and approval of the special permit application. The Examiner requested further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on File NO. ,.R-336-79 and SP-337-79 was closed by the Examiner at 10:20 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION/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 reclassification of two adjacent' parcels of property (see attached map) from R-2 to R-3 (designated 'A' on map) and from. R-1 to R-3 (designated 'B' on map) , respectively. The R-2 portion of the property is approximately 20,000 square feet and the R-1 parcel is a 4,000 square.foot portion of an 11,000 square foot residential lot fronting on Lynnwood Avenue N.E. (5260 Lynnwood Avenue N.E.) . Also requested is approval of a Special Permit to establish a professional office (dental clinic) in a proposed R-3 zone. • 2. The Planning "Department report sets forth the issues, applicable policies and provisions; findings of fact, and departmental recommendations in this matter, and is hereby attached as Exhibit #1 and incorporated in this report by reference as set forth in• full therein. 3. Pursuant to the City.of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, R.C.W. 43'.21.C. , as amended, a Declaration .of Non-Significance has been issued for the subject proposal by Gordon Y. Ericksen, responsible.official. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed. by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. The existing water main will not adequately service the proposal. • 6. The proposal is compatible with the requited :setbacks, lot coverage and height requirements. of Section 4-709A of Title IV, Ordinance No. 1628, Code of General Ordinances. 7. The subject property is located at the intersection of Kirkland Avenue •N.E. arid N.E. llth Place. The property contains 24,000 square feet. The, applicant proposes reclassifying a 4,000 square foot portion of an R-1 lot to R-3 and 20,000 square feet of R-2 property to R-3. The original' proposal would have created a non-conforming 7,000 square, foot lot in. • the R-1 zone. The applicant modified. the proposal at the'public hearing to leave the required 7,200 square foot lot area in the R-1 zone. 8. The applicant also' applied for a special permit in conjunction with the rezone petition to allow the establishment of a dental clinic in the proposed R-3 District (Sections 4-709A.A(3) (b) & 4-722.B) . 9. Part of the original plat Of the City of Renton, the subject site was rezoned from R-1 to• R-2 by Ordinance No. 1922, dated November 29, 1961. 10. The area in which the subject property is located has a mix of zoning 'types. It is bounded On the northeast and south by R-3 zoning, the classification applied for in this application. To the west along Lynnwood Avenue N.E. the property is zoned R-1. • Included within this R-1 district 'is the portion of the R-1 lot ('B' on map) which • the applicant proposes to reclassify R-3. .West of the subject site along both Kirkland and N.E. llth, the properties are zoned B-1. - 11. The Comprehensive Plan for the area in which the subject property is located suggests that this property is suitable for medium density multi-family uses. The area across the intersecting street (Kirkland and llth) which is •presently .zoned B-1 is designated in- the Comprehensive Plan as potentially 'suited for commercial purposes. 1,i . R-336-79 Page six SP-337-79 TRANSMITTED THIS 31st day of May, 1979 to the following: • Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Joan Walker, Planning Commission Chairperson Ron Nelson, Building Division 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 June 14, 1979. 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. R•-336-79 Page Five . • SP-337-79 2-. in order to recommend that a rezone be approved and that property be reclassified for a new and more intensive use it must be demonstrated that the property is needed for the .new classification applied for. This is not the case. While the applicant desires reclassification -to R-3, a residential use district with some minor exceptions, the applicant intends to establish a dental clinic on the subject site. The proposed use is more properly located in a B-1 zone. It is not-as if the applicant were attempting to. establish a clinic in a large residential area in which no appropriately zoned property was located. The subject area is zoned mainly R-2 (the R-1 portion of the present application as indicated below is inappropriate for reclassification under the present circumstances) .. Nearby is land with the appropriate zoning. The only justification to rezone to R-3, a residential district, would be to allow residential ' development, not the intrusion of a clinic, a business use, into a residential district. 3. The applicant for a reclassification should not be allowed to demonstrate that the reclassification. applied for meets the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, in this case medium density multi-family residential, 'and then use the property to establish a non-residential use. The uses confined to the east side of the Kirkland/llth intersection are' exclusively residential. There is an apartment building to the, south, and a proposed .apartment building to the north. The western properties along Lynnwood are exclusively single family residential. The clinic with its drive-through parking lot will generate .a large. number.of daily uses of a driveway on the residential side of the zone boundary. Even if well designed, the proposed use of the property will . not make a good transition between the R-1 zone to the west and the B-i zone to the east. . 4. , The proposed rezone of the small. R-1 property to the east to the R-3 reclassification would create a totally imcompatible intrusion into the midst of the single family zones along Lynnwood Avenue N.E. The use of any portion of the single family, lot for more intensive use would violate the intent of the Comprehensive Plan as' noted in Finding No. 14. The proposed use as a parking lot of this .portion of the subject property located in the midst of rear yards of single family homes is therefore inappropriate, even with the grade differences which exist. 5. The use proposed by the applicant provides an important service, but even so, it should be located in an area which is classified to accommodate the proposed' use. Residential 'property should not be used for more intensive purposes unless circumstances strongly evidence, no Other area is available per Conclusion No. 2 above. The desire of the property owner to use his-property for the proposed purpose is not enough. The applicant has- failed, therefore,, to demonstrate.a need for more R-3 zoning especially for the proposed use. Apparently the only reason for the R-3 status is not to establish medium density residential usage but to establish by special permit a clinic on the site. . (Special Permit) Because the Examiner has recommended denial of the proposed rezone, a special permit application is not available to establish a clinic in the R-2 district. RECOMMENDATION: • It is the recommendation of the Examiner that the reclassification of the R-2 property and the R-1 property to R-3 should be denied. In the event that the City Council should approve .the application, ,it is' the. recommendation of the Examiner that the reclassification to R-3' be limited to that -portion of the subject property contained in the present R-2 zone and that reclassification of the R-1 portion to . R-3 be denied. • ORDERED THIS 31st day of May, 1979. . .\Caiwk--4, . Fred J. K man . • Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 31st day of-May, 1979 by Affidavit of Mailing to the .parties' of - record: . Dr. Frederick R. Brown, 1126 Kirkland Avenue N.E. , Renton, WA ,98055 - William C: Sharpsteen, 1075 Lynnwood Avenue N.E. , Renton, WA 98055 Roy White, 1081 Lynnwood Avenue N.E. , Renton, WA 98055 a . . r • n + • TV ;,.• rh' ::, CO'rr w�,I n I•x'�"i'!!r R :j' i• • ' I ,�'C S,-.:'r1'Art Oft Ai;: ta4.1UP.'•.i[?IIZ;: N2 r • v u 9 2 31 1 ;�//`roi r9 ran_ SC LE I IGO I �JI I!. Ka/e^aar L.G.' u P 0.7 + �. 1 5. ..7 r7- __.- ;}• ._'I.n ._ ,0,ii --'-1-- 1• 74.1 1 / •.:y Ntr•.1•. A-Po,r! A 6Ae% t•. A 1 fi e- Cif TV Ji cr r'/i" .1 I • I\ •'1 "1i'; o e,° (,,(a i�nnl' 4 •.4I . 1 ' �: •.�' -. ` . L/, ,�:' ' \` 1'i. y'7 ' ` is ;: .. ';h 00..'' q ', -- J I / . �. l A\40/ , Ifyi , I. . --6 .% . 1,••••.,: .4' .,.....,:si.,1 •7. ...2. :0 7 4 i /` �o ' G ' • I //r 5 e 133 i r` •• ,M �\ •` •to Jr.., ` a9 h , ; •�.. ( en y ` �• ,• 0 pole �" NNi•A•'S/"f 1�C. .' :4�r ,�� .M.�"•r.��s li'' �`7G ` •, , arC s,,• . i R�2 . •.. 7 .,� �, /, Qr • � o" - � t:8.• 0035 ' A,/ /';.• -•ty '`'O Q- w ./ ' .�y' •, �.e 1 g _,• • Art, U ��_ . %D 'rp y it � �m s V�:rs•" .J 1 . hi ` �l r I - , I 1• 'y r vl �. 2 1 i .•}/' .7_•a* a.A' r Z. „ , 1 ., , '' // _ ; /I .i•o o' � ' I / I4, • • :,, _ /. , ,.' r.I • ,I ,' J I.• try (: ToI ^',' • I urG•d i.\ ' , .• •4 ^� 1, • uYl, •* F- / • '� 1;.7 r.l ,• . „` '' .a I'' Y I . \` • ` J RECEIVED; ,,.. .,• , „ .�" ( _ ,_:, I .r) R I , I CITY OF ,RENTO�I sil ' ' ',I'll I HEARING EXAMINER • , — ' II t i i • �1' •• Ix , I 'Ft./TITBIT;; NO. - `•it.� ' `, MAY 2 21979 I _ J [ 1 7 KI�J�IQIIli12rT,2,:i,�l :i,(i '' �'a ate, r r I I I'T�El'). .,�':'..=';'4 n/f • •-r. t tI aet '- 0 J/ —.1J,J ., . V ty yy I •''• ' • , ",• a is , '..ii., „ii . 1:,.. ,, 0., ..r; •i. : i 2 I 1'I :)FFICES OF HARPOLD, HAMS, COMBS& FIORI Offices: AUBURN • RENTON GEORGE FIORI,JR. MICHAEL M.HANIS Reply to: 405 SOUTH FOURTH DAVID L.HARPOLD LOREN D.COMBS RENTON,WASHINGTON 98055 DAVID A.LITTLE TELEPHONE: (206) 228-1301 4 19/9 June 14, 1979 ct17.' RE'" o• w ,,f Councilmembers tr.') r t:r‘; ;)N Renton City Council «:, GI• .Ef,�,•\, ,1r • Renton, WA 98055 • • Dear Councilmembers: . • On behalf of Dr. Frederick R. Brown, the decision of the Land Use,.Hearing Examiner dated May 31, 1979 , and design- ated File No. R-336-79 and SP-337-79 is hereby appealed. • The appellant is an aggrieved person pursuant to the Code of the City of Renton, and appeals the Examiner' s decision upon the basis of the following substantial errors in law or fact: 1. [Conclusion 1. ] The Examiner found that all of the criteria. for a rezone have been met as to the property, but turned it down, anyway, because it is tied to .a specific use: - as a dental clinic - which use the Examiner later determined. will "provide an . important service" (Conclusion 5) . It is error to turn down an application because the applicant has a specific, project in mind, especially a beneficial one. • 2. [Conclusion 2. ] The Examiner finds that " [t]he proposed use is more properly • located in a business zone. " The city code §4-709A provides that clinics are an appropriate use in R-3 if not "unduly detrimental to surrounding property. " • The Examiner. found no detriment to stir- • rounding property caused by the applicant' s proposed use. To 'state a use, in general, is more appropriate in one area than another is error in law. The Code nowhere indicates a clinic is more proper in a B-1 zone, ' but provides for such a use in B-1 or R-3 , under the proper circumstances in either • case. , The use is wholly cohsistant with the zoning proposed. . -2 • - Councilmembers Renton City Council Renton, WA 98055 • • • 3. [Conclusion 2,. ] . The Examiner. states "The only justification to rezone to • R-3, . a .residential district, would be to allow residential development, not the intrusion of a clinic, a business use, into a residential district. " This is error in law. A rezone may be granted to accomodate any permitted use, and clinics are a permitted use. It is error to conclude R-3 i.s strictly a residential zone and then prohibit all but residential uses. The Code allows several, uses, depending' upon . circumstances of the property. A clinic is just as. consistant under the Code with R-3 as is an apartment building. • 4. [Conclusion 3. ] ' The. Examiner concludes that an applicant " . . . should not be'. .allowed to demonstrate that the re- classification applied for meets the Objectives of. the Comprehensive Plan, in this case medium density multifamily • residential, and then use the property to •establish • a non-residential use. " This is an 'error in law. The applicant . should be allowed to, and did demonstrate • his proposed use is consistant with • comprehensive planning for the area. Residential use is only one Of -the uses • consistant with medium density residential. The name given to a planning classification should not be allowed to govern the nature and meaning of the classification. Clinics are consistant with the designation. of Medium Density Residential. • 5 . [Conclusion 3. ] . "Even if well designed, the proposed use of the property will not make a good transition between the R-1 • zone to the west and the B-l 'zone to the east. " This is factually in error. All persons who are resident in the area agree -3- Councilmembers Renton City Council " Renton, WA 98055 • that the proposed clinic use will make a better transition than uses that are available under the current R-2 zoning. Their testimony was not con- sidered by the Examiner because all felt the project was so meretorious • ' it would receive approval without their ' testimony. A petition• will be provided to the Council which it is requested will be considered by the Council as. a report of persons interested pursuant to Code ,S4-3016. • 6. [Conclusion 4. ] • The Examiner' s decision that the 'R-'1 ,tb R-3 portion of the 'appli- cation should be denied may have pre- judiced or affected his decision regard- ing the remainder of the application. • That specific zoning change was not in-. di.spensible to the project. It was added at the suggestion of the planning staff. The project can be completed, consistant in , all ways with City standards, without that zoning change. • • 7. [Conclusion 4; Finding 14 . ] "Property values should be protected within the community for the benefit of its residents and property owners,' . . . " The Examiner' s • conclusion that this project will depress property values is insupportable. All property values in the area will either be unaffected or enhanced. 8 . [Conclusion 5. ] "The use proposed by the applicant provides an important service, but even so, it should be located in an area which is classified to accomodate the proposed use. " It is error to conclude an R-3 classification is not .defined' to include clinics. The Code clearly provides for accomodation of clinics in R-3. 9. The Examiner failed to consider use of covenants • -4- • Councilmembers Renton City Council Renton, WA 98055 • • to protect from uses permitted by R-3 zoning which may not be' as compatible with this area as a clinic (eg. large • apartment buildings) . The Examiner has .this authority pursuant to §4-3010 (B) 1. The applicant is prepared to appropriately covenant the property as a condition of • rezoning. . • 10. The Examiner failed to consider the fact that when this ,project was conceived it was consistent with R-2 zoning. The • zoning ordinance subsequently changed, but the nature of changes in the area have been such as, to make this clinic more, . • rather than less appropriate. Consideration should be given to the fact that this pro- perty was rezoned to prohibit clinics (by changing, the definition of R-2) with no showing that a change in the area had made clinics an improper type of development. It can be fairly said that the applicant' s proposed use was prohibitted inadvertently. On the basis of the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the City Council reverse the decision of the Land Use Hearing Examiner. • • HARPOLD, HANIS, COMBS & FIORI • ' • • :4.'44- Michael M. Hanis Attorneys for Dr. Frederick Brown MMII:ad NO I I CL UI PUBLIC I IU\R I NG RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL_ BE HELD BY TUL RENTON I AND USE HEARING EXAMINLR Al HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS , CITY HALL , RENTON , WASHINGTON , ON MAY 22 , 1979 , AT 9 : 00 A. M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS : 1 . WILLIAM SCHWARTZENBERGER, APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM G TO R-4 , File R-339-79 ; property located at 601-609 Shattuck Ave . So . between Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way and So . 7th St . 2 . ARTHUR D. GUSTAFSON , APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGARDING PIPESTEM LOTS , File E-347-79 ; property located on west side of Union Ave. N . E . , approximately 200 feet south of N . E . 10th St . 3. RAY I . CRAWFORD AND ROD T . CRAWFORD , APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM RENTON SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM TO ALLOW PERIMETER LAND FILL FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON LAKE WASHINGTON , File V-351-79 ; property located at 5117 Ripley Lane No . 4. FREDERICK R. BROWN , APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM R-2 TO R-3, File R-336-79 ; property located on corner of N. E . 11th St . and Kirkland Ave . N . E . , east of Sunset Blvd . and west of Lynnwood Ave . N . E . 5. FREDERICK R. BROWN, APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT PROFESSIONAL BUILDING ( DENTAL CLINIC) IN R-3 ZONE , File SP-337-79 ; property located on corner of N . E. 11th St. and Kirkland Ave . N . E . , east of Sunset Blvd . and west of Lynnwood Ave. N . E . 6 . JOSEPHINE 0. NUNN , APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM G TO R-3 , File R-342-79 ; property located approximately 900 feet south of N . E . 4th St . , west of Union Ave . N. E. , between Greenwood Cemetery and existing City of Renton property . Legal descriptions of applications 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 MAY 22 , 1979 AT 9 : 00 A. M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS . GORDON Y. ERICKSEN PUBLISHED May 11 , 1979 RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I , STEVE MUNSON , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW . ATTEST : Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public , on the 9th day of Maywalykg.4,44)‘ 19 79 . SIGNED�� � NOTICE THIS PROPERTY GENERAL LOCATION: AND, OR ADDRESS: PROPERTY LOCATED ON CORNER OF N . E . 11TH ST . AND KIRKLAND AVE . N . E. , EAST OF SUNSET BLVD. AND WEST OF LYNNWOOD AVENUE N . E . LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A DETAILED LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS AVAILABLE ON FILE IN THE RENTON PLANNING DEPT . I S POSTED TO NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MUNICIPAL BUILDING ON MAY 22, 1979 BEGINNING AT 9:00 AM p.M. CONCERNING ITEM Rf el REZONE FROM R-2 To R-3, FILE No : R-336-79 k'i SPECIAL PERMIT (OENOTALTCLINIO PROFESSIONAL WILE . NO; 5�-337-79 SITE APPROVAL WAIVER • SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT U FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL 235 2550 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION OF R 0 THE CITY OF RENTON " " '' ' MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTO L WASH.98055 saws CHARLES J. DELAURENTI,MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT °9 m• 235-2550 447.FD SEPTA May 9 , 1979 Frederick R. Brown 1126 Kirkland Avneue NE Renton , Washington 98055 RE: NOTICE OF APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM R-2 TO R-3 , File R-336-79 AND APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT PROFESSIONAL BLDG . IN R-3 ZONE , FIle No : SP-337-79 ; property located on corner of N . E. llth St. and Kirkland Ave . N . E . , east of Sunset Blvd . and west of Lynnwood Ave . N . E . Dear Dr. Brown ; The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on April 16 , 1979 . A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for May 22 , 1979 at 9 : 00 am . Representatives of the applicant are asked to be present. All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing. If you have any further questions , please call the Renton Planning Department, 235-2550. Very truly yours , Gordon Y. ricksen Planning irector By: , ,ram avi emens , ssocia e Planner cc : Gerald Edlund Assoc-. Suite 409, 15 Grady Way , Renton , WA 98055 Rowe/Harris and Associates , Architects Wenatchee , WA 98801 A OF CITY OF RENTON - - G� Rat /PeA APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL P�� �� �' If a� lsy FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 0 DEpARKso- F:i1e No . SP- 5.37-79 Date Rec' d. Application Fee $ /tz-D Receipt No . /719 Environmental Review Fee $ 4=7 D • ti APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 6 : - 1. Name Frederick R. Brown Phone 226-1422 Address 1126 Kirkland Ave. N.E. , Renton, Washington 98055 2. Property location Southeast corner of Kirkland Ave., N.E. and N.E. Eleventh Place. . 3. L'egal description (attach additional sheet if necessary) 'Lots 3 & 4 Block 2 Graceland Terrace as recorded in King County Plats Vol 60 Page 64 24 q 000 s . ft. R-2 4 . Number of acres or square feet r q Present Zoning 5 . What do you propose to develop on this property? Professional Building 6 ., The following information shall be submitted with this application : A. Site and access plan (include setbacks , Scale existing structures , easements , and other factors limiting .development) 1" = 10 ' or 20 ' B. Parking , landscaping and screening plan 1" = 10 ' • C. Vicinity map (include land use and zoning on adjacent parcels) 1" = 200 ' to 800 ' D. Building height and area (existing and proposed) E. A special permit required by the Renton Mining , Excavation and Grading Ordinance shall submit the information listed in Section 4-2307.5 in addition to the above. 7 . LANDSUSE HEARING EXAMINER'S ACTION: Date Approved • Date Denied Date Appealed Appeal Action Remarks • Planning Dept. �4� 1 1-77.r = RECEIVED, NW( I 1979 FREDERICK R. -BROWN D.D.S. ,o44/ -��-- W--• 1126 Kirkland Ave. N.E. . N� pEP P Renton,: Washington 98055. 226.-1422 "' Planning Department City.of Renton : Subject: Rezone R2 to R3 for a professional building with additional staff parking. I would like to amend my rezone application as instructed by Mr,. David R. Clemens of your department and comment on each of thethree rezone points that he requested. I would like to amend my rezone application to include that portion of lot 27 of Graceland Terrace that:abuts my property as per plan drawn up by Gerald Edlund Assoc. of Renton. I am the present owner of this property and would like to use it for staff parking. I would like this portion added to lot number k so that it can be included in the rezone and can be used by my dental staff in the proposed professional building which now requires R3 zoning. The .area would be beautifully fenced and,landscaped. It -would be used for staff parking in which ;there would not be-.a lot of- in and out movement. Currently this area has. a high cement wall on the southwest side and a rock wall and old fence on the south. The,. rest ,of the area is surrounded by rather old and rotting wood fence. This pro-" ,posal would not add anyadverse noise or appearance to the area because the area in question is lower than the property around it and the. fence would be high Jenough to screen the cars. "-The parking for the house'on n this property is behind the house. The driveway leads from the street, around the house to the back.. The ,slot size is large enough to accomodate_this proposed parking and still leave an ladequate.-number of square feet to meet current lot size requirements. Comment on point A of form .4-3014 .4-3016 II purchased the property in 1964 to build a professional building on. At that time the R2 zoning permitted this type of building. In subsequent years the property . • to the south and to the north was rezoned from R2 to R3, by_the planning commission. I'attended the meetings for these :rezonings and it was brought. out that the R3 met the qualifications of the comprehensive plan therefore R3 on both sides of my -'propertywas approved.'. Because my professional -building was allowable with R2 , zoning I found no reasdn to rezone my property. Since that time Renton has '- . _ ,changed zoning requirements for professional buildings to ,R3. Page 2 Subject: Rezone R2 to R3 for a professional building with additional staff parking. Comment on point B of form 4-3014 4-3016 The property is potentially zoned for the reclassification being requested at this time. In an area of 7 lots that were originally classified R2 you have rezoned 5 of those lots to R3 upon request. Testimony showed that this met the comprehensive plan for the area. All rezoned lots border my property. Three lots were rezoned to R3 for a large apartment called the Highlander, 2 lots to the north of my property were rezoned to R3 for a 19 unit apartment to be built by Mr. Roy White, owner of the property. The property and proposed professional building is near the center of the core area of the Renton Highlands business area and directly across the street from the first Renton Highlands medical-dental building, in which I have been located since 1959. . Amongst the businesses in this immediate area are banks, a liquor store, post office, retail stores and three other professional buildings and a new condominium project. Comment on point C of form 4-3014 4-3016 The Highlands is undergoing considerable growth at this time and needs a new professional building as our present building is on B1 land and will one day probably be removed from that property or torn down. The property is on the metro bus route and has the main highlands bus stop in front of it, making it very convenient for people to use the bus to get to their doctor or dentist. The Highlands area has been without a medical doctor for some time, people with emergencies are occasionally brought into the dental offices for treatment. We cannot help them and have to send them on, out of the area. A new pro- fessional building might attract a medical doctor to the Highlands area. This project is ideally suited for the property and the Highlands area at this time. I have owned this property for more than 15 years. It has been researched by three different architects over the years for the best type of building to place on the property when the need for such a building became evident. I wish to build as soon as I can get through the permit process. Anything that the planning commission could do to expedite the permit process for this badly needed professional building would be of great help. Many large condominiums and apartment complexes are currently being constructed in the Renton Highlands area which would be within walking distance of this professional building. The need for medical and dental services, and professional services of all types, will be greatly increased with the completion of the presently being constructed projects. With the great need to save energy and fuel the location of this project is very desireable. Sincerely, 2.--a,./(ivc;009 ? 6 s , Frederick R. Brown D.D.S. i I , AFFIDAVIT • I, 1 Frederick R. Brown , 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 her6with submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of . my knowledge and belief. i Subscribed and sworn before me 1 this 13 day of 1-4.\\ , 191°1 , • Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at \cc�, - I . .......e6A ' ", , • (Name of Notary •u• m c) (Signature of-Owner 1126 Kirkland AVe. N.E. (Address) (Address) • j Renton, •Washington:-{ 98055 I . (City) (State) 226-1422 I (Telephone) , (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) . . CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found to t•r•a ,• and complete in every particular and to A conform to the rules a -4J + s of the Renton Planning Department governing the filing V sR Ow \tion . • Date Received i APR I 16197919 By: _ I ", 'NC' 6EPp`�. Renton Planning Dept . l . 2-73 4 h '16 • i ,1 I Nz ,. it ; I j i I. 1°,sI '+ . a .: ',7 i �'°' , '1 .' �� '. it i 1 sue' d{�/ J� r� 1 :. i `r.i Il I i 1. I� l P� ram"'�' i 1: S•., t a I Eli Pa d i.y )' Ls......, .,.. . ,,. .+,M._1 11.1 'i A 1 1 a; . fir ..`,,—, ( i �,`; , ;, FORM 1,58E . Stcgtutory Warranty (,'fled, i 1 I THE GRANTOR JOHN 1'�AC&N1'1LLO and VERLEIGEI Rt\CA.NELLO, his wife - for and in consideration of TEN DOLI.4R.S ($10.00) AND OTi•1ER GOOF AND VALU.AB1 CONSIDERATION in hand paid, conveys and warrants to i'RZDERICK R. BROWN and '•;ARGARET E. BROWN, his wi:o_ . . the following described real estate, situated in the County of /sing State•Of Washington: . ,' Lot 3, block 2, Gracel,and Terrace, according to plat recorded in Volume 60 1 of Plats, page 64, in King County, Washington • 1 Subject to all easements , restrictions and reservations of record, ' 1 This deed is given in fulfillment of that certain real Dolan: con.ra.ct between the parties hereto, dated February 4, . 19 64 , and r:onditioned for the conveyance of the above described property,and the covenants of warranty herein contained shalt not apply to .o.ny title. interest or encumbrance arising by, through or under the purchaser in said contract, andushall e ss c'�u`r't not apply to any taxes, assessments or other charges !cvled,' assessed to the.date of said contract. • • day of F bruary , '17 64 Dated this 4th ,� f , J • 1 '7%_r`• ._______S{._.'_..__.._ __._._-,��t'4r t.} 6.,' -'---.___,.. _,:_--.Hi..,. . ___• __ __L., . .I.t ilsAL i II STATE OF WASHINGTON, County of Ki ng I On this day personally ;appeared before me John Racanel.Io ZLnc?Ver.lei€;h Raca:':e l io be the ir,illvidU3l dP.'s:rihe,1 in and 'xi: fa:li:tili'd khr, ri-ithin and foregoing inStrurnent, and to rite kno�r. to si d the r.cm-, vs their f,te and voluncary ,act and eked, for thr .1CiCT1C':'iC'Clj% i'i1Ei ,1C'V i3;L es n �UTI 'o: tl't'4'i'1 t7::!:'t ?iYi. /; 'f•- .r L ,; 1 f, ,r., v:cL O ).'ti3 z'_Gl L15i5 r iiti!J of /, i 1rf , ` j , . `�,,'"-•' i' •!-1 ...---•i.- /./ 11,,!1r y F i 1il c inriind /or i`be .51414 0f lt,�d1$Ithli>�(Ff3, —• ' 'ia 1 y r ^ / • 1 1 -2- 7. I.`oca,tion,'of,,,propvsa;i (describe the physical setting of the proposal , as well •as, the,',extent of the, land area affected by any environmental impacts, including, any other "inforlmatiomneeded to give an accurate_ understanding of the environ- 11entai settin'Oof the;#proposal ) : the on tar ,of.'the business core area of the Renton Highlands. On the • ;t,z bcru$h property line is the Highlander Apto on the north property line is l*ncl'that is 3dsied R-3. AU of _Cracela nd•T r o i s-zoned meept , mjy 2, 6tP::which are zoned 11-2. The building will cover 13.6 of the land.- ' 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : ._ Fall of 1980. . • . • 9. List of all permits,. licenses or. government approvals required for the proposal • (federal , state and local--including rezones) : - Cha.nge of R,2 to R-3 zoning • Special Peniit 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: - All applications are included with this proposal. . • • 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? VET— MAYBE NU— (b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over- covering of the soil? Y-R-r- MAYBE NO (c) Change in topp.rapbj' or gro d surface relief features? Earth w3isi be tilled. in on South property • line to beautify an misting cement retaining wall. Irm AAYB WU- (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any X unique geologic or physical features? YES - MAYBE . rr • ' (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , _ X either on or off the site? - YES ' RAYNE NV (f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition -or erosion which • . • may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? YES MAYBE• N� Explanation: CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM %`e� r � ; \ 4 /1/1, *1-;:‘ , (.0 - r1 •E 4An U\ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Application No. XJ. G> 7l Environmental Checklist No. -c:f=— '/�� ( PROPOSED, date: FINAL , date: ® Declaration of Significance EI Declaration of Significance 0. 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 x'n I . BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent ",rederick ,i. horn: 2. Address and phone number of Proponent: 1126 l•:irkland Ave., li . . .Menton, dashin,;ton 9305.5 • 226-14P22 3. Date Checklist submitted .'.ur .l 17. 19'?) 4. Agency requiring Checklist :ity of Renton 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: I rof essional i uilclinG in : enton highlands for Dr. reed 11. Brown, :. 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) : A professional building,- mainly l'euical and Dental, split-level of approximately ', , -00 sq.ft. It will have a stained cedar siding exterior. It will be completely landscaped with ample parkin:; and a drive around the building. -4- (5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds , land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms , insects or microfauna)? X YES MAYBE 0 (b) Reduction, of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? • Y S MBE NO (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement X of fauna? ES MATTE 'NO (d). Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X YET- MUTE N Explanation: X (6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: y • (7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? XY S MAYBE AU— Explanation: • (8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the X present or planned land use of an area? . S FITTET WU- • E x p l a n a t i o n: This is in a "business area acid Tight across the street from my present dental.office. • (9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use of any .natural resources? . ; • X,•v YES MAYBE NO . (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X YES 'MAYBE ' WU— Explanation: • • 1 (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) X in the event of an accident or upset conditions? . • Y - MAYBE; Explanation: • (11) . Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- ' • ' button, density, or growth rate of the human population X • of an area? _ . _ , _ yrsE 1111- Explanation: -3- , t L (2) Air. ' Will the proposal result in: _ (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air- • X quality? YET— MAYBE N- • (b) The creation of objectionable odors? X V!T MAYBE NO ' (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, _ or any._change1in•climate;.•e.ither locally or regionally? i VES 7 MAYBE f• Explanation: . i I (3) Water. . Will the proposal;iresult in: ' (a) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of X water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? YES MA BE NO ' (b) ; Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns , or X the rate and amount of surface water runoff? t MAYBE MO ,s (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? MAYBE 0- (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water X body? YES— MAYBE NO (e) Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration • surface water quality, including but not limited to X temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? YES MAYBE NZS" ' (f) Alteration, of the direction or rate of flow of . X ground waters? • . YET- MAYBE P10 • (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? ._. . • V t oaF` 7 (i). Reduction ,in the amount of water otherwise available X • ' ' for public water'supplies? ' YES MAYBE Aim ' . 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, ' :. X microflora 'and aquatic plants)? ' YES . . -€ NZ- • , (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or X 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? . . MAYBE ii4- (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Explanation: -6- (d) Sewer or septic tanks? X YES MAYBE NO (e) Storm water drainage? �_.. ..... ._ YET- MAYBE O X (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 X mental health)? YES MAYBE 0— Exylanation: ' (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 :publlc .•view?' . ,: . r:., - DES-- MAYBE NT Explanation: - • • (19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? �E S M A^'Y Nu- Explanation: • - (20) Archeological/Historical . Will , the.proposal result in .an,, alteration of a significant archeological or historical ' site, structure, object or building? . , .. YES. , MAYBE: NO 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. orwillful lack,of.full disclosu o my part. Proponent: igne . Frederick R. Brown (name printed) City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 • -5- t ,. (12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? YES Ufa' 10 Explanation (13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal- result-in: - (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement?' - -- X - YES M YBE NO (b) Effects- on' existing parking facilities, or- demand-- • for new parking? TM, RUNE fJ� (c) Impact upon existi'ng„transportation ,systems? ::-_ • , • 'irEr 'MAYBE WU— (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or X movement of people and/or goods? • - YE ` " MAYBE. WO X - (e) Alterations to -waterborne, rail or air traffic? YES MAYBE NO (f) Increase .in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, X bicyclists or pedestrians? Yew. MAYBE Explanation: Patients will be coming to and from the building. New parking is being provided with the building. • (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),,•,F,i re• protection? X YES MAYBE M5 (b) Police protection? YET MAYBE NU— (c) Schools? X . . YES . MAYBE O X (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? .- • YES 'MAYBE . NO (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X YES MAYBE NO . (f) Other governmental services? X YES MAYBE NO • Explanation: • (15) Energy. Will 'the proposal result in: ' (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X VES MAYBE N (b) -,Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require X • the development of new sources ,of,energy? may— MAYBE (}ice Explanation: - (16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: • X (a) Power• or-natural gas? • Yam" MirBE O (b) Communications systems? X TIES (c) Water? X YES MAYBE ' NO - . -.:. / . . . ' • ; • 'tkli it:J. -,..• • . ' •' . wk,1 i ':V • . . • ____: ,: •1,1 ,,,. / ' . ...... ' . , 4.'`:44."`10‘"----..,- III: : • •-- - :,.k:.:V'-"1 4' . . '.:.' -Wit•'• . - 7 .. . I .;',. i ...r.'3!;," 4. " .• 1 ."-- - . • . . . ;7-;;',,,r," '''..•;•;'&''''''''' . •, ::• ;j:.•.fr. • • --••••• - . ' ___._._._-• • • . . -. ' • ..._ .. • .•1 _,-4 . ,f••• 3.-- . ••1, - -,.- •-, • .••._ ,., • . ----- -.- , 1 /, .-1:„ W.11. .."-V4---trP— „. . • p 7.------------1- , • %...c. i_., - : I-: • .• , • . . - , :::„. ' •'',. . . 4,;',4.4;.., ,,. '.:Ii,1 ...,?' "‘ 4. :''•.','-T A:••• . , CZ ' C '-'' ,.... '''''‹''') '7"•. 1 . -. . ;.. • - • 1 . ' ••'.. , ' ,/ I 1 ._.:• 0 yr....,4103..**(611.-eia,441.‘ , • ' . — , . ,.'' • , '• • 101,_• ..• . :-..' . • . p • N v , 4- 3404,0 Asmi...r 7.4v/AC . . . , • . i .. , , , . --, • • .. , 4V-6 . Soi • . . •. • !•.1.!:1\t}ft.' , .. . • ''• c"------ • ,.... .. , •-•,-.. • . .. ...,...7...IVEOED .-.... . • I , Fz-' . I, ,, f?.;•:'..„,:-%. • • ... ., • •-. / i ,.-- /4.,..., InDLIVS.TIt. ;4,•.,-,:.3, ,. bldg. site ,. .,• , ,-; . ..;,- . • • l'.7.:;',4:;:4;• . ...." 26 • - . . y : '\ - . • f!'"I• • ..•:, . . _ .• • . ,•,.:.. ..4.--Zr..''4'..i`..•,t,';,.,,.11t,41-4.:.•,;:••'.; i al. ,./...'". ail/ AFT 9-.1a. „ • .j,..1..rr,C.I.,Y.. I.I'A."t.F.:".".:,!...'''e.,-;.*i, :: ' ' •0 • ••„1.,;„ • .• • , '4' . i• :' • , • ,. . 44 ..u.1 fe-3 ./.. ; •••' ':' • . .>.: i'•";... ' . -'0 ' •Vi l . . 'A , • ' ' '• - ''t 7-4W-At'-':',ii-•••-•:',41'-':=Itf, '.---,: -.,4-'-''' ,..!*-44.14-4. ':•:-....,''' '. --,- -- fek,",. 1-. ,-, 1 ; ••••-;:: i•---- . .rt •• .., • - -c.• .: 7.: 3 '42Xel rn-.4'..er= 4•.,=•••.'4' • "4' ,-..i•x-f,infe-,• ',...‘•• .,- ,-,•'. ,.. I.t.,3 • i .--"' -''.t4<----f.L.-• •,• -e'.7;%"•.:".& :,:' -;"":Vizklt•F.SA:,.-A-1"A‘,--4.,01•Nn. ;.eit..s-1-.,-.- -47 -..il'.4 : 1 -4k • . .0 --71 • ! , '.i •,.,_-'-; .. . •': r'''....''*-1.,,.r..1.,..,.1,,..e- fs1;:t?-4'-nr_t;?'..r- ..-----':'- 't1-'' '''':'..'"'.:5..7-2q:?‘?-j,'*:%;'`‘'.:ii:.11;* ' 1-,'. ..: . • -;... •' • ;‘:4 g-1 .1---". •2 I F...-1. • _, ...\,:\ ‘ c. • •,,•0, ".;:.;;,le.:•,,,4p.-it,..:i.: -t,21'.4:uk,;.4,:.: . •.,-` .s•.••r•, -,,-,,,,ifi-estrii%,. .,.......:2•., •, . ,-,..• , . • ...._.. ....„, -,•.,,..„,•••„....,. •_,.....„.••••_•,,,„„„....•,..„, ,, .... • ...„: •.... ....,....,.,.4%,„4.2•4••••.. ..,„..1„-- „ - • ....? . . . ..... ,,,,..9.V.i.? :i• • • "•.* '...--4",-.f.,,C.-.1-&,...7-,':7 .1"1-4,,,,••-t,*-1. -F'''' ;,,, k• ,:z..-,,.„.,.,..,,,,,,,,,. — . — ). :. 1 .. •-• . ..1.:0-' - \,--- • ,4,.. -.. J 4.--..7,-, •,„:,...,,,•-•,.....-re,/•.!-, ..•.:. - ••• -. •,- .„.t...* --Irt -,,....,,,15. ., , 3, • . ,. ,,....v.,:,3:- .....,..,".,,t4,..i-4,-.. ...,-,,,,, ,:,..:p.....,„;...:..,,,,,,, ,,.,....,,,I.,„4.,. 1- ;...... . . ... .,,,..qt...,..,....,....-.., ....,,,,'„, .. ..,. . ..,,,,,. --, 4*......,:, ,;,.. :-,,,,a, , •,,,,.0.,..v.-,. .— 1- . ••,....\ 'y,., • e., , 1 , . VICINITY MAP ,, •. , ...!„t. ;,.: 4,V..-c.-7...,.-„, ,,,,,, • 1,.-r.:... :-.4....• •• -- -• . r• ., - ,-... ....--,..„,,, ,-,,• -- , • -v-- -1,...i!"7. .4,r,,,,---.9•-. .,,, • •••:' • ....- 'am= .1,:••,•.,•,--•,,,,... ',--,..-'-. :••2:••• • I -1- \,\,'• •.,'„. 0 ..f.,- '... -'-:44,--1'--i:h-,: '•-;---. t-----47. 1.1. • .•' . • -.. ..•.. ;.'4f....(t.`-:1- '- ':'":_s-“...4.''' ''--':'r ,.., 'I to' ••'15,A*.;. . . . -- • , " , ':^e-- 1 1 \ 4 - • . .. . i -:- • ..1 -:6.: ! . , .,`' :'..0 , _. _I _ __;,..:. . i_ . ...., . . _ _,q . . \-4,7: .• . -,-, ..". • . • , . . . i• t.,, _ . ..., ..4lf..1".- -I— -r7.-•••• - ' • - i - , 11, • , ,.. . • C .,. 0. . ' • • . . . -... • ., .- • . .4. „. . ... .. ,...,„ ... , --- =" ,. . , ,,= ,, • -.• • • . • \ , • , -, • ,., -.. , .-. • • ,. .1s-c*. • _ , • • • ' \ \ . ' • . 147 - , ) . . . . •,. • ,.. . . i ' . • • • - / . . I \ %„: 1. h S. . '3 1'4.0 ' . • • i • . . ' . , ....., r , •-... ... . ,A ; • . - • . . . . . . • • I . 2 S ' 4 . I . ' 5 • -' 7 6 - ••,. : ' • • I I. ...ye•-;.% ...„..:,j7 1.ft., /.... •A, \ ' . .' I1*/•....''''' * ;.i,''. .1• -• t•'''.1 ' •• ', • . • . . \ ,. . • I • , . .'•• ,, . " •,0 . r,/ ,--- . ?;.1..... 1 '"..... , ‘ • • . • I . • . • • . . • . . . •• .• •• • ..... ' • €4'....• • , . i Ili • . ! I' • • •• •I . .-• / -.- iEllyirl, •.---...i . / • rj.';'t?". '•i .i!: 6 . •• .' • , . 0 - ••NinuarANIIM / • • - . .• • • -}- 57 I.G , f--- a . " ,k :—‘111NWP' - -- ••- ‘315.11.m2.'..P.1310. •k''' l'• .i; "'---v,----,____,.,,.... „.... ,•, \ • • '...,,,,:• • , -,r- .1 ...:. - 1' -1 alci - P f o}11 d Ott IL,7':f• • . . ..Z:,.:%!:',.1(4. 11. ,111:1'6 Iii r:',11.1:!$:'.igli,1,..t,, - 11 1,,, ' ..,,,2.- k co* • • ,zi...1,4,..,- r2„......; -', ;., ,.......,,.. r \ • '• . \ , . . • -- ; f' f , 11 ,.. . II .t4.0•- •'''% ',I ...f• t,. .i1,7•Pi--. ,• ..1..,A.1 Ili-I.:.11, - . ' ''''' ',;•• 1 •'':‘;'_.._;',-;Li `..-A.1---!' . . .. --• \ _. -.t'•--,-•, . -- - ,...ii.--."4:-. . ,0 ,f: ' l'•!:,•:,‘,:,' - • \ fiV '7'-'-'*V :•• • . c_•._, __ - -- ---- " —- - -- ---- \ t;• t -. • ,, rs - r -PLAN--- - — '. if. i4 :5 ' WEST E 1 , •-•. • . ... • . . . l'• . • . I: • . , ... ... • , . . • ' . • I 1 'i..fl'4 7 , • • • PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT JO.. THE HEARING EXAMINER ` PUBLIC HEARING: DR. 'FREDERICK BROWN , RR336-.79 , SP-337-79 MAY 22, 1979 PAGE TWO • ' 4. Wildlife : Existing vegetation on the site provides suitable habitat for birds and small mammals . 5 . Water: No water was evidenced on the subject site . 6 . Land Use : The : subject site is presently undeveloped . E . NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS : The surrounding area includes a variety of light commercial , single and multiple family residences , and professional office uses . F . PUBLIC SERVICES: 1 . Water and Sewer:.. A 10" water main runs north-south along Kirkland Avenue NE adjacent to the subject site and 8" sanitary sewers are located along Kiirk:land and NE 11th Place . 2. Fire Protection4, Provided by the Renton Fire Department as per City ordinance. 3. Transit : Metro Transit Routes #107 and #142 operate along Kirkland Avenue NE adjacent to the subject site . 4. Schools : Schools are uneffected by this dental clinic. 5. Recreation : Recreation uses are uneffected by this dental clinic. G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE. ZONING CODE : 1 . Suction 4-706, R-1 ; Residence Single Family. 2. Section 4-709A, R-3 ; Residence Multiple Family. 3. Section 4-711 , B-1 ; Business District. H:. APPLICABLE'-SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT : 1 . Land Use Report , 1965 ,. Objectives.. 2 . Policy Statement , 1965 , The Neighborhood and Community Plan . I . IMPACT ON THE NATURAL OR HUMAN ENVIRONMENT : 1 . Natural Systems ; Rezone of the site will not have a direct impact. However , future development of the site will disturb existing soils , increase, storm water runoff and have an effect on traffic and noise levels in the area . These impacts can be mitigated through proper = developmentcontrols and procedures , however . ' 2. Population/Employment : • Additional 'emptoyment will be approximately 20 assuming 6 employees per 1000 square feet of usable office area ( 3270 square feet) . 3. Schools : Not Applicable . 4. Social : Not applicable . 5 . Traffic : .'Addi.ti'onal traffic is exPected to be approximately 245 traffic trip's 'per day bsed upon 75 trips per 1000 square feet of office area. No traffic counts are available for Kirkland Avenue NE but this traffic level appears to be well within the street capacity . J . ,ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION : Pursuant to the City of Renton ` s .Environmental Ordinance and the State ,Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , as amended , RCW 43-21C , a negative declaration of environmental impact has been prepared . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING MAY 22 , 1979 APPLICANT: DR , FREDERICK R. BROWN FILE NUMBER; R-336-79 and SP-337-79 A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST ; The applicant seeks a rezone of the subject site from R-2 to R-3 and concurrently requests approval of a Special Permit to allow construction of a professional building (dental clinic) on the site . (Site development map attached) B. GENERAL INFORMATION : 1 . Owner of Record : DR . FREDERICK BROWN 2 . Applicant: DR. FREDERICK BROWN 3. Location : SE corner of NE llth Place (Vicinity Map Attached) and Kirkland Avenue NE 4. Legal Description : A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department. 5 . Size of Property : ±24 ,000 square feet 6 . Access : Via Kirkland Avenue NE 7 . Existing Zoning : R-2 , Residence Two Family 8. Existing Zoning in the Area : R-1 , Residence Single Family , minimum lot size 7200 square feet; R-3 , Residence Multiple Family , minimum lot size 5000 square feet; B-1 , Business Use . 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan : Medium Density Multiple Family 10 . Notification : The applicant was notified in- writing of the hearing date . Notice was properly published in the Record Chronicle on May 11 , 1979 and posted in three places oy on or near the site as required by City Ordinance on May 11 , 1979. C. HISTORY/BACKGROUND: The subject site is part of the original plat of the City of Renton . It was rezoned from R-1 to R-2 by Ordinance #1922 dated November 29 , 1961 . D. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND: 1 . Topography: The subject site has a moderate east to west slope , and a more sharp slope from south to north . The total difference in elevation across the site is approximately 8 to 10 feet , or an average slope of 6% to 8%. 2. Soils : Arents , Alderwood material (AmC) . Runoff is medium, erosion hazard is moderate to severe . This soil is used for urban development. 3 . Vegetation : The site is primarily scrub grass with a few deciduous trees located along Kirkland Avenue . ,LANNING DEPARTMENT )RELIMINARY REPORT TO-TEE HEARING EXAMINER A`I r-tsr '; 'UBLIC HEARING: DR, FREDERICK R. BROWN , R-336,79 , SP-337•-79 :.. lAY 22, 1979 : )AGE FOUR 9. The Fire Department advises that fire hydrants and access must be. available prior to building construction , and the building construction is required to conform to the Uniform: Fire Code . 'LANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: (SPECIAL PERMIT) 1: The applicant proposes to construct a one and one-half story dental clinic on the property described in the foregoing rezone application . • 2i The subject building will consist of 3270 square feet of office area and 1524 square ' feet of storage in a lower level daylight basement. The total parking requirement for this use is 16 spaces for office areas and one space for the storage space . Proposed are 27 spaces for general public use and a separate lot area of 7. spaces for staff use only . Design of this staff area is substandard , but as auxillary space alternate design is acceptable . 31. The structure has ' a wood exterior treatment with a flat roof design and decorative wood f4acia on the roof and entry overhangs . Due to the flat roof design .rooftop equipment (if. any:), should, be architecturally screened 'to compliment 'the 4. The applicant's submitted. plans for landscaping are very schematic , but do provide direction for consideration of future more detailed plans . The public portion of the parking area should be screened i from the adjoining; residences by a combination o'f fenc,,ing , evergreen hedge and evergreen trees (4,2204.8-B ) . ,, : 5, Per the recommendation on the rezone to reduce the area of the staff parking (property being rezoned from R-1 to R-3) , the final design will require. modification , and screening 'should consist 8 of evergreen trees -10 ' in hiehgt on 10 ' centers on the north , east and south property lines . ' 6. The _Traffic Engineering comments on parking are apparently confusion over the proposed parking plan . Per #1 above , more than adequate d parking is proposed . Additional comments, of other departments are attached for consideration . M . .-'DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS: (REZONE) Based upon the foregoing analysis , recommend approval of the rezone from R-2 to R-3 only , and 1 . The R-2 to .R-3 zoned area shall be screened.1)y' :a minimum 10' deep landscaped strip consisting of a tight, sight:Obscuring , evergreen screen. bEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS ; (SPECIAL PERMIT) Based upon the foregoing analysis , recommend approval of the special permit for construction of a dental clinic in an ':R-3 zone subject to : 1 . Revision of the staff parking area to conform to the area and screening recommendations of the rezone ; 2 . Final Planning Department review and approval. Of a detailed landscaping plan including sight screens per Analysis #4 .of the Special Permit; 3. Final Public Works Department approval of plans for public improve- ments per appropriate codes and ordinances ; A. Provision of fire protection per Rezone analysis #9 . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER :, PUBLIC HEARING: DR. FREDERICK R. BROWN , R-336,79, °SP-;33r7-79 MAY 22, 1979 PAGE THREE 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 DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS ; (REZONE) 1 . The applicant proposes to rezone 2 parcels totaling 24000 square feet at the intersection of Kirkland Avenue NE and NE 11 th Place from R-2 to R-3 to allow construction of a dental clinic . Also proposed is the rezone to R-3 of 4000 square feet of an 11 ,000 square foot R-1 zoned and developed single family parcel adjacent to the rear of the primary rezone area . 2 . The subject request for rezone to R-3 is generally consistent with the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan which identifies a medium density multiple family transition between the business zoning to the northwest and the single family use to the south- east. 3. The proposed rezoning of 4000 square feet of the R-1 parcel to the rear will have less lot area than would be allowed under the current R-1 (7200 square feet) minimum lot size . Due to the clear difference in the proposed dental clinic and the existing single family use of the property , a future subdivision or lot line adjustment may be sought to divide the R-3 and R-1 zoned properties . In this instance , the remaining R-1 zoned area would become non-conforming due to the lack of required minimum lot area . The area of the propose R-1 to R-3 rezone should be reduced , or eliminated entirely . 4. Although the area may be in transition from single family to multiple family , this , transition has been historically quite slow. The single family uses facing Lynnwood Avenue NE are an enclave of well maintained homes that have been surrounded by multiple family , professional , and church uses . Certain measures to protect these single family residence uses should be provided as conditions of any rezone and site development. Comprehensive Plan , Land Use Report, 1965, Page 17 , Objective 4 , states "property values should be protect- ed within the community for the benefit of its residents and property owners , through effective control of land use and enforcement and application of building and construction codes . " Objective 6 also encourages "the development and utilization of land to its highest and best use in such a way as to promote the best interest of the comm, ni'ty and contribute to its overall attractiveness and desirability as a place in which to work , shop , live and play . " The stability of this area for rezoning to R-3 from the current R-1 appears to be a totally unwarranted intrusion of an intense use into a single family area . 5 . Due to the topography of the single family parcel , which slopes rather sharply from east to west, visual protection as well as land use transition is crucial . The proposed clinic use intends to place parking in immediate proximate to the single family lot . Although landscaped screening is proposed , consideration should be given to heavy sight obscuring screening of the parking area . 6. The appli,cant' s letter of May 1 , 1979 (copy attached) addresses the findings required by the Hearing Examiner pursuant to 4-3014. 7 , The Engineering and Building Divisions indicate no objections to the rezone . 8. UtilltltS i11Owcering notes that the water main on NE llth Street is substandard , that water and -sewer fees will apply , and that water and sewer plans must be approved and installed . . . • „ . , ' I • • , ! ; V V 1..._;/. ) ••••• • 1.......h.. ' • '1i • : •-•J .)1 ••wer.,i:lFt L ... . . 7: e7 SCA.,•11•_.-r I • I00 l...G.' I ' 1 , • ,,,,TrOfill9 !tar.. • ...... • tli i 1. . , :.;btf-theih.•_.. .. - . . • =-; :'f, • 1 -. , I y i•••0 I•p ......4.4,1, Oil ‘., .• 4-v 'I., A • 6464.Itt.,‘.,,,..; -,,,,-; , . ' ,..,1 • 7:r, - 7-- - ---••.11. •-I - •--• It • -.4.- If 7431 1:' , • - 'Y`, ' 4 ' --•:..•:..' 3... '' . I. , .3•..;:..--.•.; ' . . ,, i ,i•Re -,,,, ..n. _, , .• ‘ ,1 '1 'P....". , ,.4-• 4 37 T.?.4 .., ',...W..:!_57/1" r t - • . " 4 P , • l'" •••‘••• = • - •ri ? • .14 L ., • %; •, ,,,,..,,;••••Lt AO•. 11 ../s-A.A-1,-;",I . . ,,,,„...,. • . •%./ ' '''. . f4/4Y . . 5 ' ' • , . ii ' •'; * ' )7" 4 Vt 0 7/4. 1 1 - ‘ ir-.44.4 ..4 4. •i• ,„ / .-'I • I I' 1 4% . 4.• , '' ' il/:7 1 „"Lr'••• .'" i•: 'I • .',„-•*K• ,`I ,‘ 4 ' t,/4' •• - tV . Ar,'; -• 41' ''': ''''; ' e'. . ' ' '4' ' . .,. 1. 1°. 4.:' .. 1 - / • . • ,% -, ..,„, .,„.. ., • . -1 - ,° v • ''' .°,C' a I. 1 1' el. ' ';,,..• ...' ., ....,-1 4.4:;.11.%-- e•!'il f. -.',f ' ' • • • • ... , • . . •-, •• . .,e .' . . . •, of) • • i'. ' ";.j. .• '• .., . , . I . ' .....•4:'1'. • . • • ''' j ''''; 1 • C • ' •'-‘r4j t';' • •• 3 • . )..• • ' . . , 110. .•••% ,i,.. .A !J# ./ti T , I 1 t'.... . ' '' 74% A i • • ol• " •:V. ' • * ' •••• lik% - • 1 •!, J r. . I •. ;;;'.':•,,''' ' C• '- • - i , .1', ',i1 • i • ,•i 'I. •.. .. is' t.. • ,• I 't, - .<•.‘-1 g ,•''''. ••• ,';L , . ./ w•; • • , t' .. • , .....--, -, , • . , •• • s•,11,;°..• ,..' ';• II;,....O.'• '0 ,. 4 , . ,..* ith it. -,• ,• _„ . i• - r• -4. ,./. ,- ‘ • • •%- I , • •• \ . 1 , .,,,...\\Nop, i 44..,,..:., ..7, ,,,,io ,:.4, .•.-..7-t• ...-',. ' , • O 1 b \\4' '" '" ;; V..()• , • • 4 .. 1 • t,' • . . • V\1, ;' • r. • , • ; .11,......4.;% ': • . •I ' i.. I . , r .i.'•" .1, ", c - ,-la', , . -.4 , •I'' .'4. 6 . lkii.•.'.*.ml . At... . , . . A,, ‘, A 1 F.,:,';'., ly“...ja.,Attxj;i:.:',.1','..',.".,.,•,..s".:?(e.,- , It ....,.• . .01 ... Vt. . •: !I l'''' .;.: " .. , 1.a.. ,.. ..: I., , I ,1 4 •i Ci. •. . • • t., . i ,, 4 r ,, ,• V/ , ' • "a, , • • . r 41, • ,•- .. ,. (• •• . r:-',' .,-i-4" '. ‘, .7, :.--- 1,.;; ''' •1"' • 1 ;::.. • I '., . •• i',:,4 g, t•k ' -- • .,, •41 .../ 4.1",••..,,,,t,rf','•,•.., •P' _ JI i - r• , • - .. .. ...., .7; '.4 • "•074,!1%.''' ,••-k ,•, ........, ,./ 4 . ,... i It i 1,,,,_••1 II I ••••. .11 .1143 • • ! 6"..• ..' r r i 46•'..9I \NI „ .....1,,h' 7 ;‘--.--"L',•`:, ""•'-' .4 3', ,s..........,,,,eip,;,,..?, r'• k ;; #, 17, ,.. .., , ., . ., .,. J` '• •a--•---- 1 01 '''‘ 4. 1' '• • 7 , " ''.: .,`ez".4‘, -1,p • ../ 1 • 'A . - i 11.4 ‘ ;-, ••• ..04,., ;..1 . •r 4.i.•/ .• 04° '-'-' •''ff ,\1 F:',4 fl- . . 7, 8,1 744N 21ta5 ... ,'.,?, . pt I • • 1. 0 ,,.." ; .1.,. .,, . i...1• 1 iiie'',, ,'' .' Y;41.\1''''..s'.4‘d.t':''e; . r.445 '.. Isiii,',,,',7 1 , . .• • £.- ,-.', O 't .11.; .. , •4 ,... ‘I'lf , • •lir 0 . • ' n:- 1,4 iw• . I •. , ,, . , . •k\ii, Z7•io. , l./ •- 1,- . •Vr'..11,^, :',..i,• • ,...!... - il:145 4. . '4:2. '''1',L. ,-t'' t? '1C. . '0.:..:: iiiavt4111 r,•.• • I'--1-‹ • •-, III , '',4 ., 1.4.•' 41,, •4. . „4 • 3 ,,-"„" :' . . • riijz ',. .f iI 9 l'''''' , .--N,•••• , • ••• . .; .. ,,r. .,. • ,• - •.,, ,•,:'• A • , . l'illil• • • ' . .e- r•:-' •• . I.ik1/4., ' . • • ' " tig ', ., At . ,• e f•4 lik .. .. 11;, .• , -. .° 'ci., .,, • 'I - II.i•I •L- 4 : Ilk 1 ,. • •' ..,, , • .•. , , i , • ,,- ,• •••••4-.4 4.. ' t,' ,o . •,,',* Ilk I • _. .11£._ •.;Nig.- g 10 • i ,‘ .41. ' :el „IIIIIII. - 1 ' . , ' 1".',.r• ? 164- '' '•,. • • '••''' 1 ;1.4 iii‘ ' , i• . 41444. .''"•"" - '-.;'g '''114 * • 4 ''' " ' ,-1-:".,:II ''4' r ' '---. • .., . I ,14 I , I ' .• 1 .4c., / ' i'l ".' 'f.A.0'..-- Of•i• I ‹ Wi • •.. •'" '.1 . ' '• ..1 •••• ' ; ' 1, ''' :•'. . ' , • .. , I I . -•N (3; , .' F r• .. ••• ; :, if' .,'''''I ..,...1k ...5 i.' . •.: 1 I • r i i' • r . . .\', ,•I ^•',:-1, ';'•, : I- •fl, ' , . . '; ,..., •)• •• ,' WI, V • •; . •1 • i ‘.'•t • 11'14> -•I; I' • • . ... I.,.. •i - l'''..• .•: ,:., .-'. • .:. ' ., .. ,••/',..... .. , - I . III., •• I, • ' . •#4 • •A , I . •.' • • / • •. / i •re I .•2 ' U)t E." ( i„• l• • - ;4 / .. .''. 'A, • i it. ti,...1, . ..)..1;r1 , f •. • . .• .,' 1 • „' ' . i• .' ' • . • '' • ' ° -Nit."'11',"' ik -,..,• .. si -- ',' '• I N 'a! I '' 14 1 1 1-.....- .f.- •;•.4. .. .T.... ..,.'f. '1.... ..., .,? • • ••••-• '• • t•'•4), ,t .:I i. ,, , ,•;,` 4 ' L'.0 I • I ,• I I•A, I • . • , ' /' .• , . „•• t•••; . ....•• •11111111.0 . . .• '•••,' . • • . 4•t• '; i i /••• . ••- '' ^ ,.....,.... . i i •„ . ,, . ,,,..: , ,., :\ :, ‘,., .• ,. ; ,_ .. ,, •. .„ , ..,„ ........, .‘.., .,„1 ' .. ; ill. z.i: • .1. . 1 • .. ‘‘ %'` - 1.7 1 A • '' \.• - `"V '"‘4.. . 1 ,• ••• • , ,• • 1 I• .1 .• • ..., .,. .,",. `..f. , fr, .,.'. •'' ,.\\. !..e........1..Z .IP•, ' r-.-.. -7- • ' '''' ''''''''''' . •••.--• ;-.1 ! '•• .•• ,,F.9/1 • I \ 7 . I 3} . •.• • ,,t•i 4 • . • •' ..1? • , I i i 1.13 l "• ' ,/1 e ;pt .. I 1 :2; ;,..-.... • 1. 1 ; i • I . \ • I /..,'•'‘A''' i.". . • • .r.'4'.,•0"1; •••'•4; '4 ...1. • ( 1 ' cs.\ ' ..' ' C.:).• 414,-,.. •,..,. '.:,..-. ..! , .'•. .••v-••' . • . I .. . . - .. • ': ': ., !.. .-. • 1, 3) • 1 , 1 ..f.(• .'-` ea. ; •.- . .)71: 1 •-...r..• 1 •,;-• ... „ .•,V, , , ' L. ' I .1 t A' ‘ ' •I ..1 ' . '1• . i‘. 1 . 4• I , ' • 1,. X. ,:- •-:•',::.. . ''' ••')'' "... ' 1,, it >•I I-1 \i'•e I r • . rr 4 ,tt 4, re,..t.q. : : !..) • i f I j . i I I >1. 14: ,. A.. , ... .. , '0. ,, ,,, ; ... ,:.'S._. , j-- • .----1Z• 1 ) • F-•:,-..,...i io-.4-.17 1 •,/, . • i .., • -.3;. • •....,; 4-i f • ,., .L::‘. . ,.:. I . . -a . • ...,.• , . •L.-..4., ../..• , '' ,., ,.-4-'-' • a! i'I' ' ,C1 ." ...I .-, -,.. " f • •:. I/- •7: - -4k... rg ••• : •••':,,4-7.•\, .•;7....1.7,` ..',7. ; :,,,i ..., . . .. . - i I ,• ,„_. .-c! . _.. i• ! c, . . ;- , s ,..., .:. • , • *7 ' " .0 • , P• 4?0',' -' \ 0',..,0:.,c,, .4:', . . . . ... 4. 0,- . ",N ••:, ,,e,...;::,.-kw -,:, .- P7T---'- ! - - 2 . ' 1- . ' -11 r , , ,,, (.. ..• .> •••• •3•14,-.,"tt Ix.,'-: •- 1.71 "' .,..!. , 1.,, .!, it• , ., •-% 1 ,. .), .••f : ,a.t ; ' ... '' . ,,7' , . .4, •;;.:,„‘.... ;1 1 . .•• ) .1:(ij •• • I . • ,.•;; le i I. . •... :. 5 ' b' 0%-• ,' - i$ ' • .1. • ' ', 'I ' ' 1 r %.:, (b. /:, •,..*:,.; .P. '. .e. ,' i i ' . . i, '. ' i Of 1.-. u, . . ...;.,-,„ c,.., .77, •.. . ; .. i% . • / ,.•;t: .,•C' •• I I •PC15 le I if) . I ; IV. I 4:.0.. • ••4." ' ' -,1 . '° ..: .. f er.,__._.• ! 04 4 L .,3, .._.1.; 7.,,, • , / . 1 i t r• .... •.,___ , ''1;-..'- ...- . ‘. 1 !:?„,....; ! '.,;''..., ; '!•• •4 . . . . .. . •• ... , ' . . . . . , . ,•• • ' . .., . ' •. ,. . . . • • . •. .. •t • .. . , „ .. .. . • , -..-. - .. _ . . ... . -• • • )1 - ... .. .....- , J ' • • i • .. ,,..,. , l S ,1 r W S f �• as ' 1�ti : , , 4 P , 1 I •k . .t ,....."'",..,.i . 1, , 1`,_I al•• t• 1 ' •, , LIa 205 . ' 1.�,,\_� .Sr` ,� •y I • ,C.- n � • . • Z �' {�-J 1 • �'� g. R_I•� i.., � � r. „ '• W Ash: 1,. 4 �.-�+�t• '�_-i i ut i 1 1 y 11 ' 7. . n 1., . .. , 7,,-- . liti - -1, ii . r— 'V- .=, I' -. _. 4r1r7.7---,-,-„7.4-4t-.` 4 , ••• • Ire • •• ..9 . . p3 Imo• ..,,' ) , cif � 1..... •� �TM w��`' . Lw .'~ _ iWi: •� F V n e• t oa d�21•fr '� • \� •1 • �1�1 J 3 1•a 1 L�•yr w.?1•'' i i i i ` ' ' j1• 4U ,rV 99 .// +` - t.' •I •rJ• p r-L .t +J�a t e r r d� i •1 •-` •�\ • 7 • r r-'-�� `,S;m p/[/ �,� y, n s:.�..��,"' .'` l•„i_` _ Q M1 ,- '• s �>• i ' _ .?•r• �jj 3,Y� H 4 io^:4k,1 : r. ;' fr�"T� r..,- , a• , t • Ib• a, . I '4. 1.—• E. ,1 "•�{)o °,•` ,e� e e 5 , 11 i P—, ,,,+ • `ti,,,,,„ h / e,( -- •"•I „ • I I,I.•• • •ler e, � 1 ,i » r,l .11. � , !' ry \ J� 97 _97�1I4+ � r. I ..._ - r,.,.. �j ; : i�s - ., 35e. e. -� r' < �r. f 'y r i 4 JIB ���'• �.: 1 -- t 1.° "1\+l_ ,,• r�,/1 1FI . 1.:., .,,,,., '. 'l•. .at�r -1'+t ' ., o I • 11 •,.Ir l .•Iln l,.l,+l 1.I• , 4 •_ ". .•.r,-, .J eft •' 0`STa.,. 1,..-•I..I.,'},,•,„..:•li�� ,1 .{ •I I •I �.r ,) ,•••yti, ,I•I ,,• ' 'r -t - . > . . . 4 I- 4� ••1 : ' l.1 2' �• •,st}"r'1' 1r•'`•r'.�, �. ]] I ]2 o1n 'I�i.. 1...�r.1 :IT.; �•,N�`.J L 1 Li 1 1 , . • • .,l . 3lleTR' � -+ t _ -i 91.11 1 ! I • I ...04 r rem' .I Y o-. l;Ir r }} , fl a• W•,'i,,4,• (,° •�. i i „rrr.. . `T �..—, •I ., (. . '•+1'- �,"- . . .[ •ate , •;•,- 11..•• ' V•• •��4••� -N� .7i ' 1 r z' r .►4r "-',, • '•• y ,y• •_•,, y'1 • •• .f, .. y1,^ .-...'»,_•;,' . i t ',7-�1 Y.•1 ..•a '^. 4 . 1 :> 1 I. • I'3•LJR • • :.1-.�-:: w.n+ / 'r 1'i >: ; f •;' ,;�' 1. 11 _- i _ -'h: I• .\,. 'ice. : _ - 5- 1.., +f} • I: ,- ,. : ;,i,.... `':.•.•..+' {`,, , = , 1�l. 4 le .l_.! '1_t_1.-1 1-A.., 1 t •;�•J'1 �•4-..j� 1�, . , ..,.,,,,„....! '+,1;�• . I - N`E.7�1 .Tr .TT . i : u m c:' °i,'<;� t I, , 1 I , „ s ,r. , r .,'•,i - Y . •r ..l.e;�,�\r -a•�'1 • tl -1I, I .._ ,•,•��. ,r e 0.. ).. .•ij1JSi a 2 �:4 ia �+. t_.W = • J4 I .-.�+�"'_"_\. I "fit ,"` _J > - i �1'. •,•• ,;%-�, • 5, ..}r N"°..`.r•i•1. , ~ /�( • vAc 1 I �NL I••�•1M1'-Pal!{ 1 ,�j••+'•��a,Di•�1 t _-..;1i- , z• IrI ,� i on---- a . :� s,Q�. ,,a: .• N,•.• �•~\',,"•. ry t'a i ' I N:B, .r wa u t e+.-` +r 1 is ISA til 1 • ' Yam+• �` • '.••'I"I'• .r .• „ ,• u n vo•� .. I •� .� 'l,•.• .-Y` + -• • ' i ;A C "T` : } 1 '_ 1 .-.I.. . i - . i ' • 1 ,:, ..._..„_,_,.,. ,two • iiI3 11 ..• i 1 DR. FREDERICK R . BROWN . R-336-79 , SP-337-79 !, • I APPLICANT DR , FREDERICK R BROWN TOTAL. AREA ±24 ,000 sq ft a ' PRINCIPAL ACCESS • Via Kirkland Avenue NE J � 1 R-2 , Residence Two Family , , EXISTING ZONING ' Undeveloped 1 EXISTING USE i PROPOSED USE' Dental Clinic/Professional Bldg . COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Medium Density Multiple Family i i 1 COMMENTS I I i ROUTING SCHEDULE FOR. .AP:PLICATiuii TO: O Finance Department , Fire Department Library Department OPark Department 0 Police Department irublic Works Department v tk in 0 Building Div. Engineering Div. (Please verify}leg_al descriptio Q Traffic Engineering Div. 0 Uti1ities Engineering Diva FROM: Planning Department , �(signed by- responsible official or his dDAI//o ' ee) F,,` / DATE : I /9 PLEASE REVI THIS APPLICATION FOR : APPLICANT : /`, - ; , i LOCATION : 4/etee ,g,.. ' ./ //LI . , /: ' ' APPLICATION(S) : - ieelOge. 6i9 . 44 ice' *V1 •#. i t IN ORDER TO BE INCLUDED 'IN THE REPORT TO THE HEARING EXA ' "' RETURN ANY COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY : ..® . ,4/ REVIEW BY OTHER CITY- DEPARTMENTS : j 1 REVIEW BY OTHER. CITY DEPARTMENTS : . => ' ' t Department : e= � r e i Approved r—t Not fTlApproved w\= � PP Comments or conditions : 7, re 2 y_e- Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date • • • - !r r �aa , •• r •z. ; r �u) a • I rb . • L11i ' , itr,•.,,, ;0 D/ .'S f Irr /•,,,. u , ...1 ; , '.. • ;> yU Ti 1 t rvi F '.S ! k, . • r a r i • am r„r:....-I . r. . ,... y . . • r• 'r.,,, tIIr . , •/- `J 'I zr: vorhrt 1 - I r I 'II 1- I• 71 ;I. jj �- I r., u. I I l • t It J I I ill • pl ,. • • I 111 1 ' .I ,i _ + ' h/ . • 1 r,• of i r t ,�1r�LL ,. t6, '11 I {/'/.. 'rhn•"• S.• 'e• ^ 'GAF• ,rl, / • "Sit' •1 •IL• /.. .',r •+ '� 1 ,J diJ,J, 1', /, ,, ) d,,tzl 0 - .I NC./ \ ,i 1 , �. .M. J !/ ' 1`t,x) c + 1 M ' r 1 t\�•41 I - 1 ( /1 4 1 •''} ` �•'� r L )�� ' • L ''741 •,1-• I:.C/1I\• .,+� } I to• �; �` p( / I/P Jam• `. !L I� I I •aT 4,� 9% I .' ' ' . ' ''; ../#4,:: .. Irr;13P3\ g _� y y, \\HICII L e g,/'I, I �. :ter .. ,T'' r •• , , •rt,e!�•o„ 0y • fir„ f-• I I k tr cc/• " i -.- • . • ( • • �+ a t ;. • if.n` - - r" } �,)�• \gin. ,• l. • f•. 1 I► + `r #M "./ •',, ()f.•I • 'q\•R, • I' t. --" -,— " " .!\C,� r• 'may �tj �` `f £11 • . , AA • ' ' . • • 1 ,,. $1.24, I ) I• ' . c T4'1.r1 C�f .' • N. 1 )11'1i, , , 'LI I. 1 1 •I'd 1' I • • � , 0 , " . I a T ' i' � • v + \ i. , Fs \ • \ . 1 E — +.II 3�r -(, I r.o`/ .f, • ,, �,1 ems.A. *` /• it •^.f/ 1�'/•'"0 t�. '• 1.� • ,�- �•' I i _..) • •. • _._- .-- y. ..p (iC a. .w) .�., -'..- - 1 J • O by •0•uL ,^ I4 :�1 • . . .• i1. ' \ ~ l v91'9Q I �x .'rs' D' '.:sr r.t NN N+, —... .. a. • i r•r[ ra(r ev�•q. .,u-c '. 1..; a{:_ --- --. 1 d.� I 1 �t�Q91-' 1. J,rd 0..l,.r is ''.I 1{^_.. .. .__._._...-! J•'VJiI qM 'r7- I 6 r :J"1 001 I 3l'd;)s �ia•ov 6__, ...,............ AA NI.•..R./4 (, . . . 1 .,, K...• .V •.g. ! . . . 1 �I �rJ . . , I i :; r ROUTING SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION TO: O Finance Department, Fire Department Library Department OPark Department • O • Police Department OPublic Works Department O Building Div. 0 Engineering Div . (Please verify legal descriptio .dpid OTraffic Engineering Div . r 0 Utilities Engineering Div. FROM: Planning Department , (signed by responsible official or his de 'g e/e) yAOh / . , :/,rDATE : / • PLEASE REVI THIS APPLICATION FOR : APPLICANT : LOCATION : t/ e r %APPLICATIONS) : 9te,, ,f/fit ♦ '9 1,70,14, f. ' , 7... IN ORDER TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REPORT TETORT THE ENHHEARING EXA I RETURN ANY COMMENTS TO THE PLANNIPO • REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : p�Pri2r is f l tTi L-1 Tel w e(JZpLJGi7 ( J TL S�c�S S'inwnrt2.7 .�../,��a SBG pie aS o / SGZ 15(. �Slc:.vt I�EG,t'�'""G�! C?p/,0r26.c, L✓iI c GAL. s�✓Gw O ON J /3/)5 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department :ats / /� ���GV �-/L c Approved Not Approved /3 , +.p��s; �-/c �� Comments or conditions : iL qcr/r.(��-rLr(,:S /j«-c'-`. /„k 64v,e,t _y r'a/t/c7/-',G/i V�2 //,r 3/v /171--'i:1 /`//�C:` /t v/�'/ /7/vT_S Si1r�'LG / //t/ 7'2? C_ /"--, AS �6,• ,G:/�'/tJC /`��Gr"! ?C`/` 7'C�;S. ,` -/ 5///7/C_ /Lae r / .-T/7( L./� Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Da e ROUTING SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATIO.N TO: 0 Finance Department 8 Fire Department Library Department 0 Park Department . . 0 Police Department QPublic Works Department ' 0 Building,. Div. 0 Engineering Div . (Please verify legal description O Traffic Engineering Div . 0 Utilities ' Engineering Div . FROM: Planning Department , (signed by responsible official or his de 'g ee) OA WO eigtia5/ DATE : 40,69 PLEASE REVI Oe THISS APPLICATION FOR : APPLICANT : Ia /V( LOCATION : iliett/ti // /16 APPLICATION(S) : 9' ���� litebte ilf,' *11- # IN ORDER TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REPORT TO THE HEARING EXA RETURN ANY COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY : 0 it 77 . REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : g/_ ?Dr,1_, GI:Approved [ J Not Approved Comments or conditions : / n -6-__2_ c} --- '- - Signature of Dirictor or Authorized Represent ative Date • REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS: Department: [7j Approved Q Not Approved Comments or conditions : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date ROUTING FOR: REVIEW. OF -ENVIRONMENTAL CF.....AIST FORMS • TO : O Finance Department Fire Department Library Department Park Department ,Police Department .0 Public Worksr Department aBuilding Div. Engineering Div. J , Traffic Engineering Div . ® 'Utilities Engineering Div . FROM: Planning Department , ( signed by responsible official or his designeeit/0 ie ek°A0,1_ l'W SUBJECT : Review of ECF- A plication No . : Action Name : _. ! Please review the attach ed . Review requested by (date ) : /79 Note : Responses to bewritten in ink . REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : • REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : 6�-� )A..z..e'c>,-), j SIGNIFICANT / ' i NON SIGNIFICANT . Comments : Signature of Director• or Authorized Representative Date ROUTING SCHEDULE ,F.O:R •APPLICATION' TO: O Finance Department 8 Fire Department Library Department ,.. 0 Park Department OPolice Department. Q Public Works Department O Building Div . L; 0 Engineer .ngLL;Qiv . (Please verify legal descriptio © Traff,ic : Engineering Div. O Utilities Engineering Div. FROM: Planning Department ,,.. (signed: by responsible official or his dD,iu/D ee) ' S .l'r�fi' 1 , DATE . /r,� PLEASE REVI : . THIS APPLICATION FOR : - i APPLICANT : 0 , r� °` :.r.{�� ;: LOCATION : tom/ t APPLICATIONS) : .%`: "*7 . '''' ' 1 ' ''' r 1/.. ”I # IN ORDER TO BE I•NCLUDED IN THE REPORT TO THE HEARING EXA r'R� . t ANYCOMMENTS TO THE PLANNING. DEPARTMENT B If if _ RETURN REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : • .... .. ..... REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : D P.a r tme n t : - ,7I-,z2/—i-:<<. r ti'Gl�I------;�-e/JUG Approved , Not Approved Co ents or cond= ons : 44 T� vld7.'7,a �� n-1 �Y Ic . a�J‘-'s•�� --- - 1 J / G- pci ,111) 1 7,/,_,_. ",___,„' _ /„___7,_,,A7--- - ________, /7,y Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date ROUTING FORIiREV.IEW;;Of; ENVIRONMENTAL. CHECKLIST FORMS TO: O Finance Department Fire Department Library Department r' Park Department 7 Police Department Public Works Department Building Div. • Engineering Diva • cDraffic Engineering Div . dad .o�n•• Utilities Eng.i;neering Div . t FROM: Planning Department , ( signed, by responsible official or his designeeji a . } �� "i SUBJECT: Review of /EECF ; A plication No . : ' Action Name : 4e t %: 'Ple ase review the attached. Review requested by (da.te) :.' 1/ Note : Responses to be written in ink . REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Qi No i - 03,7, /1 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : • Department: SIGNIFICANT ',--'' NON SIGNIFICANT Comments : ( \/". . k Signature of Director or Author`iz-ed /hepresentative Date ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO: O Finance Department Fire Department III Library Department T Park Department Police Department OPublic Works Department 8 Building Div . Engineering Div: ' O Traffic Engineering Div . O Utilities Engineering Div. r,., FROM: Planning Department , ( signed by responsible official or his designeied4e I6?' difritlai 14bL _ SUBJECT : Review of ECF- _; A plication No . : Action Name : AiV . ;0°64efe ti` Please' review the atta ched . Review requested by (date) : �/ / 9 Note : Responses to be written in ink. REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : 0- 7)' I ' SIGNIFICANT NON SIGNIFICANT Comments : --,r•-•-._-- 6-‘,7-a .._____ / ' Signatur- of DireR,tor or Au horized Representative Date m. . ., . REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : ' ' SIGNIFICANT ' i NON SIGNIFICANT Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date V ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO: O Finance Department ' Fire DepartmentIII Library Department '` Park Department Police Department OPublic Works Department Building Div . .. • ' ' ,Engineering Div:) Q Traffic Engineering Div . I j Utilities Engineering Div . , FROM: •Planning Department , ('si'gned' by responsible official or his designee . 40 ±1j/fobl_______ - , SUBJECT : Review of ECF- A!plication No . : - A /7 ction Name : <` -- . '`t `-" Please revs'ew the attached . Review requested by (date) : g/® g Note : Responses to be written in ink . REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : I % 1 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : ------ ------_7 ,crAZ_/-7 E"(JGlA) EL=i' f?u SIGNIFICANT ',( NON SIGNIFICANT Comments : , Z.Z,/ ' r--- '''--- ' .- „„-- ---r-,__,_j a/,• "/7 7 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date PROPOSED/FINAL CLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE )N-SIGNIFICANCE Application No . R-336-79 ; SP-337-79 ® PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . ECF-456-79 ® FINAL Declaration Description of proposal Applicant seeks rezome from R-2 to R-3 to allow construction of a professional building (dental clinic ) Proponent DR . FREDERICK R . BROWN Location of Proposal SEcorner of NE llth Place and Kirkland Avenue NE Lead Agency CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT This proposal has been determined to 0 have i not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS 0 is ❑ X is not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 (2 ) (c ) . This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency . non Reasons for declaration of environmental/ significance: Measures , if any , that could ,be taken to prevent or mitigate the environmental impacts to such an extent that the lead agency would withdraw its declaration of significance and issue a (proposed/ final ) declaration of non-significance : Responsible Official GORDON Y . ERICKSEN Title PLAN ,.= GyECT! ' Date MAY 16 , 1979 Signature ,4,/ t, . 4tI ... 4 ..1'._,.,. . _. ...... ._ (.. 4.. City of Renton Planning Department 5-76