Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA83-033BEGINNING OF FILE FILE TITLE 114-- 033 - 83 1 l i 1< 1 I 1l'1)_AT _N ACCOUNT NUMBER KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF II ASSESSMENTS - REAL PROPERTY RECORD LOCATION ACCO mils 00090 M 30 106150 0180 0 aiTyi iDipNfL TON AVE NE AEiITON 4355 TPE%UTKA N A 00090 M 29 104 PAGE 1 of 1 O1i0 2227769 09 AREApsi TWEE 23 SUS RNG 053 PAGE 1 OF 1 FOLIO 2 1/4 SEC LEtaA. :ES''Ri TION I LEGAL LOT 1 BLOCK 3 BRENTWOOD ADD DIV 8 2 LOT 12 ASa;EO VAl TOitY SALES «srQRr r AR l E t01 l A CrMMEE NO REASON DATE 'EXCISE t AMOUNT 1 * MAW YEAR i I T a 73 S ti i t 1 'iIlse:' T 1/ 100XVALUELAW 73 1 7S I76 III tt'i tjai t at t t 1% LVAI 00E CAKE 76 77 ti. tl; t f T LEVY CODE CHGE ii78TREVALUEDi31 `iiirto tii T 1 / %!<Z REVALUE 3 LAND DATA BUILDING DATA SAND I REA 40 ZONE ACTUAL 67200 WATERFRONT NNOp $RADE R1-07 TOTAL ROOMS 6 OPEN PORCH AREA 110 ZONE I JURISDICTION RENTON LOT VIEW NO YEAR BUILT 1963 DIN NG JURISI LOT SIZE 8030 SO f Y- EN—REC 1 DECK AREA 60 LOT S. LOT WIDTH LOT WI a" 480 LOT DEPTH 11FIRST OFFSTORIES laEA103Q BATS : L NONE ATT GARAGE AREA 290 LOT DI SEWER AVAILABLE YES UNDGRNO UTILITIES NO NQN UN06RO WATER SYSTEM YET HEAETED AREA GAS HEAT SYSTEM F AIR BASEMENT AREA 101Q FIREPLACE FINISHEDIH AREA 111u oDOODUBBLLE, TWO STORY 1 iA NONE EXTERIORHTRttCK pN NO ASPI1AtTEAREAA NONE EXTERIOR Pig NONE LOCATION ACCOUNT NUMBER KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS - REAL PROPERTY RECORDR ACCC 00090 N 106150 0190 0 sir i o ELTON AVE NE RE ITON 055 ?i IIII50NIS GEORGE C0678* l_C:CATION 090 N 29 ICH 1 — 1 OUO 22769 E AREA 032 S O 003 PAGE 1 o, 1 OLIO ; FOLIO ADDITION .. T 4 ' - z 7 , q E ritq_.-------k----,'- 4. , _-:,. PERMIT NO. . w Slit a'1-' rp' 2 3 Range S Ewn. Block_, Lot or 1 Tax Lot Tract DA 7- 4-7Description I- 2 3 - 6 3 I/7 Z li— 'C t 7. LIMITS ROAD SCHOOL WATER FIRE SEWER HOSPITAL METRO PK E REC 7' IrMRtrc YR AC LAND BLDGS _TOTAL BY DATE REASON CD FEE OWNER DATE FILE # PRICE s. `' fit Y C.: ')1L3 ; y-w-a3 F _ f, 7_" G -}' 1!fU 3/ 7c' rr S r,. 0 ic. :,-7 .'.. ,....; E.: cq i ;3 (•:. !), 7-CZ "345(,) I L4144- 'g,ic- L,6. filit' • I) j'.&Ari:',,- -- 5-::: 7-1! ,... 5 o„:.) !, 71 L 146C 8 5500 T 6960*106150-0180-0 8/9 E t I. I et[ e i..n 1 Ile VT a a i 40, h _ -, ,. l tteTor8GravelI:\ LiiiINTERIORTRIMBuilt-Up r SERVICE STATION Airy IZEM..12 SHOP VA! rr I 'w"" a ser staafwar 9f:-W? F : - rm.,.rm.,. R16s i2•WATER Tc x"w W 1 w w w A w- IION_ A\ E N` I B• sw aewee IUNION-AV NI cm-k. I.) •'wr-Tcu rI 2XoRH r.r..e z. 4 ace.. m PNk.r7 I fes e @.: ' i -.'27 •.n. `.f-- i ice r 4 4,7t .9. / / .\\ 01.25,140 Om: z fir „ . , f, 1 I, eVA."/ .. / z V lof 92733/ IV J-'' fc ,/ a/ /i{' 7 EXI GE?Jce6 a tee: b• 9 ? AO r sr. s 3 N. j t I ; m If ir - Nrip, 4t, 1 1 j OnOi i ps 7, r sa_ as` _ I PrOP4WI7 rap u,Y g 0 Ntio i./i/ tit I 3 fNG J 1.A1. 7 I' 21 X15rING REA=E ATS OFFG I Sr 7 4-ft 4°L-u+e-- mjiFeus.css 4 uses.1 lif/// 9z. I / j le r A•1 i 4 I / LI o / z I 7 SITE PLAN! r, eGALe L_1I=20 rr 1 iGI ITY MAP 7, r+o ersi.e OM 1 Kw!' NOIZT1-1 y 5..8., 4 3 se.%} S 4,TNtP 25 N, R 5 F Y.. o 9ciW wJr 4•1•63 Z 13 27D FrcI. 9 1"•20 le5J TE Al A. : 4'.a,000 5.r 0.987.ac e.. cal_ 1/c C(,bf#`1JZ3t7-7aZ'r7 ""ci'. v 121AL A eA-.5772-, I.33 hG R-033-83 r JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON FILE NO. R-033-83 I, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the State of Washington , hereby certify that the attached petitions are a true and exact copy of the original documents on file and available for inspection, on request , with Mr. Nicholas A. Petruska, 1174 Shelton Ave . N.E. , Renton, Washington 98056 . Given under my hand and official seal this llth day of January, 1984 . cf/‘1-1-"-te) 711(‘ i- )1 (L77r2D Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Renton JAI W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROO___ _'ON FILE NO. R-033-83 REZONE OF ± 57 , 725 SQ. FT. FROM R-1 to B-1 WE, the undersigned residents of Renton, Washington object to the request for rezone by James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Crookston from R-1 to B-1; File No. R-033-83; 4010 NE 12th Street; 1225 Union Ave NE; NE; 4018 NE 12th Street; For the following reasons: 1. The above rezoning request does not comply with the Renton Comprehensive plan. 2. Existing sewers are not sufficent to handle any increased development at this time, as they are presently over capacity and have been for several years dumping raw sewage into the street and nearby creek. 3. Granting of this rezone request would increase traffic hazards which already exist on NE 12th Street and would further jeopard- ize the safety of children walking to school. 4. Commercial and/or multi-family development will increase the noise pollution in the area. Noise levels for residences on NE 12th have already increased since logging was recently completed between NE 12th and Sunset Blvd NE. 5. The effect of this rezoning would increase the existing im- balance of commercial or multi-family dwellings in the affected area. 6. We believe the intensions of this rezone is for future development of multi-family housing units, which would be allowed under the proposed B-1 zoning. 7. This zoning change would reduce the marketability of single- family residences in the immediate area. The genera-1 result of this zoning change would be to significantly reduce the quality of life now existing in a neighborhood of long term Renton Residents. For this reason the majority of property owners in the 'neighborhood strongly-appose this` request for- rezoning.-- NAME (Please print)SIGNATURE ADDRESS 1. 5 • t tb • a . fah 3 ?3 l . E . + S4. ff l I 3. l(.E { c ti ! ,' C 1 L l" n C ! C / 4 5. f -s eV 6. 8. WI h4 MOON '- ODcy3m 2I< a,. 11 n 9-tgefar r pf L Quo f>/g/ZPin 5 c,_eR-z/L_ Li. may- % tom /5, L 1 / . erg/ V/ c L 3.z.,x A -(-15`OA., , GtiGt =—' ZU 3 Q V&E.,v ,j. F . gee,rut L 4 . V/L,/./ 44f/I Q0 kP/' A6*III,, L 5. L C'L R .I . 6/2EL A/24/4_..c., 1.Z o f Chu ESN A dL ti.E. N io.v 6/X ad orr_- 1P/f. Le ..-44 t .a 1. ,27,rrr,e E Ida /72a.1/ 17. e:o/ /301 f;?uA1 AST- A/F. BFAITOAf L 8 .I. A N de r_S n rt Qc J eh.c/ . Y -c Q e /c)Y e// c1v yTo Q /"/ / /n // 1,D // / Dc! /f.1-7, .., .J' is iv,' /7=,v T. JA____; W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROC_._I'ON FILE NO. R-033-83 REZONE OF ± 57, 725 SQ. FT. FROM R-1 to B-1 WE, the undersigned residents of Renton, Washington object to the request for rezone by James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Crookston from R-1 to B-1; File No. R-033-83; 4010 NE 12th Street; 1225 Union Ave NE; NE; 4018 NE 12th Street; For the following reasons: 1. The above rezoning request does not comply with the Renton Comprehensive plan. 2 . Existing sewers are not sufficent to handle any increased development at this time, as they are presently over capacity and have been for several years dumping raw sewage into the street and nearby creek. 3. Granting of this rezone request would increase traffic hazards which already exist on NE 12th Street and would further jeopard- ize the safety of children walking to school. 4 . Commercial and/or multi-family development will increase the noise pollution in the area. Noise levels for residences on NE _12th.have already increased since logging was recently completed between NE 12th and Sunset Blvd NE. 5. The effect -of this rezoning would increase the existing im- balance of commercial or multi-family dwellings in the affected area. 6. We believe the intensions of this rezone is for future development of multi-family housing units, which would be allowed under the proposed B-1 zoning. 7. This zoning change would reduce the marketability -of single- family-residencesin the_ immediate area. The general result of this zoning change would be to significantly reduce the quality of life now existing in a neighborhood of long term Renton Residents. For this reason the majority of property owners in the neighborhood-strongly oppose this request for' rezoning. NAME (Please print)SIGNATURE ADDRESS 1 t.A. sV G.An/.0T ICVSoN -126l Le- -024 /04412 . j 3 2 q t 5,../_.bu, 'Z..W/vG •' '2 • • C 4 2 /4.gjr,, d oil/ 7-e-tefD3 0/' / ciA 6.-i 3.ern 4 d1/1 d ?//,'gyp, 7 ? 72. (, //1` 74/ ! - 1 J 4 1?,qo/ HAj50 Clirr e5 6 05 /V L / 1y 71A) /frP,71-44' 5./e«f-4 Pa wS d h PCc-z-ae, j 3 5-3 2- . / /r4-.S7. f`C h J`e,ii r 6. 1' `fi-iR1c6 n k .(.e.P V• jr,-C 3_673.3 /U- 1 V 14 l") E/070 7-JcS pN A ?o 4 -,L c.o. fIr/e,,, 33 /V ctt6 Sy.. cit)%L, 8.13-s'el°vi h N e S7-c47. `r 44---„,2,614_71 _4410,../.7 %3,,9.j 2" E, ,,e n,. Ztf 9 1.9-y Pe IF/ 1,\ 'J f_0 ,ft 1c3 2,5 G e,, 10.0( C e u S/ 4." 0_10 11.f/c.,Ip- 1 4/4 4 R/f 0 2) S _ ,: - ,i (4/L(1.:1 ,.,.—mac / /7,f,,,,i,_ ‘fl. )/ rC.'-, k 12. f r- a R 13 3/4 Cam... m, E ,6„.2.-,. , Jee . 13. LePIi ). W14Scw, 0 -44,1,44e+-'jai 1'O%r < /L' /VE & G`'i 14 4614 a,wvi,e [11/s0 CL/AL,2A. , /301 La 'A,,e -n c c /t il'rt is-i to _Rs/... Vil'bG bR A( ?/ =' 3 o 1 r., ,,, py,iv ft.. , iJ' 16. S t 41/e/tfyl7- e_Ma..(1,-4. cry 55 /zz 5/ /sa`'A, 4/y, 17.17e/1 e e-p w aRD.' At-- 1. ifiz-rn--/ /.Z/J 1 « 1,-,iieg., t ,li-". 18. /a n,ei g Erie a as ,tea.-/ ry a, /2//-' e4 0Q p'f e/ge 16e4h. 1 no. „,,a :sr" ckn h4,,, I1),:ry i71 /. R PlarCP Pl. 11 _ efilitil J1 S W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROL_._TON FILE NO. R-033-83 REZONE OF ± 57 , 725 SQ. FT. FROM R-1 to B-1 WE, the undersigned residents of Renton, Washington object to the request for rezone by James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Crookston from R-1 to B-1; File No. R-033-83; 4010 NE 12th Street; 1225 Union Ave NE; NE; 4018 NE 12th Street; For the following reasons : 1. The above rezoning request does not comply with the Renton Comprehensive plan. 2 . Existing sewers are not sufficent to handle any increased development at this time, as they are presently over capacity and have been for several years dumping raw sewage into the street and nearby creek. 3. Granting of this rezone request would increase traffic hazards which already exist on NE 12th Street and would further jeopard- ize the safety of children walking to school. 4 . Commercial and/or multi-family development will increase the noise pollution in the area. Noise levels for residences on NE 12th have already increased since logging was recently completed between NE 12th and Sunset Blvd NE. 5. The effect -of this rezoning would increase the existing im- balance of commercial or multi-family dwellings in the affected area. 6. We believe the intensions of this rezone is for future development of multi-family housing units, which would be allowed under the proposed B-1 zoning. 7. This zoning _change would seduce- the marketability of single- family residences in the.-immediate- area.. The general result of this zoning change would be to significantly reduce the quality of life now existing in a neighborhood of long term Renton Residents. -For this reason---the :majority: of property - owners in the neighborhood strongly oppose this request for rezoning. NAME (Please print)SIGNATURE ADDRESS 1.MICNAEL E.Tot3 Pr /21 xLtrt.X e g.. C, 30 c SEEN AVE lJ .- • RGP%rr J 2. VWRNO/V &-, fiAPei2 4' G, 4. ad../ /o /'.mo o Del •C', 4.. 3- ad 1V1, Ton ci- VAA-(_,t..Yt'1, I 300 a. iQp 4. R tf r , DA 1S 7-7i9, iocc a-c3 O Q.cce—.c,_, . 77. e c 1, 5.OUA N ws c9 3 4:' a ,. ', el<,e 4/ A` ,.4". 'S l 6. iO&QF/9 N G nt. ,t A ZA 7 J/y/7/45-l c=-,69lr 72149 - c i /o?O0 Wee-co, cl(C. Ji DA 8.,/ i:l, f Al%ri ;: ai c ,"'tf-/ (-/ 4.i / (•i i'I/, /',--/i I) e. 9FPy-Eki D P4rrm Ytr-- f209 P'Ica i , P im NI 10. r- 1 r k 1 L - V klm e?,f- 0 co„...,_ 7 ll jfl Tht107/0 A ' k 2&..,e-)zoti-r cr P i 6-1 l R ti re(- 1 2.0 /0,4PP1.- C''-L1/2 71ei,,r-7 ,:--,_(---/ ---— I i 3 / vg_ 4- , !Ca-- -4-t• 13. SA i1A i_5 Z.; Val-k p'9 zi,e 12 .t-. ^-I 14. P, Ti/?1 X2-A 0g/i S 477 0 ,.: t-9, A/. /J, 1--? - ,o,)' / _ 15. goeNe-r Iv - Da-A)tr-cs iezatz - IV L 3g2-6 iv t / i ci p 16• w I! A/ L,• Sw RIL 7/4 dt'vl-ty-----Z`f , /0-3 4 17. /..-O / S E i 3U/i rT t J ` 36clf/ 't /cl74 t J2/147- + 18. /-',C ', ' 4/, -r , - X li'/ 17i1 /7-i-ism !,t/ JA ; W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROC....TON FILE NO. R-033-83 REZONE OF ± 57 , 725 SQ. FT. FROM R-1 to B-1 WE, the undersigned residents of Renton, Washington object to the request for rezone by James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Crookston from R-1 to B-1; File No. R-033-83; 4010 NE 12th Street; 1225 Union Ave NE; NE; 4018 NE 12th Street; For the following reasons : 1. The above rezoning request does not comply with the Renton Comprehensive plan. 2. Existing sewers are not sufficent to handle any increased development at this time, as they are presently over capacity and have been for several years dumping raw sewage into the street and nearby creek. 3. Granting of this rezone request would increase traffic hazards which already exist on NE 12th Street and would further jeopard- ize the safety of children walking to school. 4. Commercial and/or multi-family development will increase the noise pollution in the area. Noise levels for residences on NE 12th have already increased since logging was recently completed between NE 12th and Sunset Blvd NE. 5. The effect of this rezoning would increase the existing im- balance of commercial or multi-family dwellings in the affected area. 6. We believe the_ intensions of this rezone is for future development of multi-family housing units, which would be allowed under the proposed B-1 zoning. 7. This zoning change would reduce the marketability of single- _ family residences in the immediate area_ The general result of this zoning change would be to significantly reduce the quality of life now existing in a neighborhood of long term Renton Residents. For this reason the majority of property owners in the -neighborhood strongly oppose this request for rezoning. NAME (Please print)SIGNATURE ADDRESS 1. 43o_.A/J42fruilrlyrei-D15 ' 3.S v e 3 8 ace lU c. 1 a e(A-t-w 4 .0,6,r01L r c 'v l t l is Noterapyolatot, 31 x1 IV t- ` n e0 s-o ,J,E / - P T ,, 7. CZ ,t/QY S le14 8.J a''!e t .da jitAlLe. 27/. a 3714, / E /?_ Se. ''n14 2 9. 3CQ1(o NE I`-1 -E/roN 10. iz 4 I+ M 5 it g.t 54 1 fil J/LM, ' y(r I (i h f I AJ 1 R U n fiigi 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16 17. 18. 11 JAIL-__ W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROO1..,.ON FILE NO. R-033-83 REZONE OF ± 57, 725 SQ. FT. FROM R-1 to B-1 WE, the undersigned residents of Renton, Washington object to the request for rezone by James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Crookston from R-1 to B-1; File No. R-033-83; 4010 NE 12th Street; 1225 Union Ave NE; NE; 4018 NE 12th Street; For the following reasons : 1. The above rezoning request does not comply with the Renton Comprehensive plan. 2. Existing sewers are not sufficent to handle any increased development at this time, as they are presently over capacity and have been for several years dumping raw sewage into the street and nearby- creek. 3. Granting of this rezone request would increase traffic hazards which already exist on NE 12th Street and would further jeopard- ize the safety of children walking to school. 4. Commercial and/or multi-family development will increase the noise pollution in the area. - Noise levels for residences on NE 12th have already increased since logging was recently completed between NE 12th and Sunset Blvd NE. 5. The effect of this rezoning would increase the existing im- balance of commercial or multi-family dwellings in the affected area. 6. We believe the intensions of this rezone is for future development of multi-family housing units, which would be allowed under the proposed B-1 zoning. 7. This zoning change-would reduce -the -marketability of single- family residences inthe immediate area. The general result of this zoning change would be to significantly reduce the quality of life now existing in a neighborhood of long term Renton Residents.- - For this reason-the majority of property _ owners in the neighborhoodstrongly oppose this request for rezoning. A- NAME (Please print)SIGNATURE ADDRESS 1. P. /1t'•c /c f)( ( ./r_ i<.r, / '•- ;' 7,-. -.,.., /,_. i 7 . 2.'-,•,o C. v /)[ice/ 1(7, , ,lam -(0 /< ,/i ,- i l : _ / -_, r/ 3. L P. f• 1 r Le /vf, 4(i,-(.a,2k L l/ G o cz-c-c-> 4 1 j 71t,1-12-e`x-D4 . (i C' • d , e )0 k n 5h {; /')'-4./ l e--c-rn a- e_ 5.--M EO PCP R JO Hn`5ON 72%i. '. s- / . // 6' ,icon-7 4j: 7 //, f, 1 6_ /-4-"f2 4`7. , _r= ; h1= z=/ — 5 ' . /3-9A A 7. /; / jL / t c' • / /'.z( / , u-. < .4_, 4" i • s AAV liter, ,, 'Ff- ITS' ?27fy ,1/2"-- 9. I{hgY A 13 rT" -411 6-WA- I/ o fig-,---te/ AJ E .• 0. JJ!% 47( 6e— 4 / )C-'e. sic C'e r/ / 1'P 4 t_ y1. JAMis DA- v/ 5 C1,.v....i C..,.-: C o TA- c c tr A- A. %. . T c A. v ,'S 7( C / ?rCc-r->: <<. (-- 4- '" L i 3. :..;-•LA 5 • K i_/,x -• 4, .-- 92ti Ili L I ( fN Pt— 4. J•,r) iA m• N ./ e.5 \- -, , , .(-77) • - iti< 3 9.2vA / I/ 74 / 5- . ? ^ P y' f ' /)`.%C,'l •. a)i,i7 ,,- ` / Q,-1 2; lily 44 6.:7," /, r. _ (`/ti c- , i.r-rz-. 2 7, r'.`-, e-L `1 A-',Z //7'L- 7,C'l'tl-! g / M I L7 ();, ;l 7tw rwt, % J c L' 11. G _ // 8 -R W/4 er 4 rk-/"v' • A-.0 A! y/ ?.- th4-4,.... i tics/ ^'i //rw A-- 1. .. . .1- % . n s _ _ 777. ' , \- C ' ( " 1-.f . ,- ` 7.,-)I' , A I t-. ., 1 i . P J/ S W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROL___TON FILE NO. R-033-83 REZONE OF ± 57, 725 SQ. FT. FROM R-1 to B-1 WE, the undersigned residents of Renton, Washington object to the request for rezone by James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Crookston from R-1 to B-1; File No. R-033-83; 4010 NE 12th Street; 1225 Union Ave NE; NE; 4018 NE 12th Street; For the following reasons : 1. The above rezoning request does not comply with the Renton Comprehensive plan. 2. Existing sewers are not sufficent to handle any increased development at this time, as they are presently over capacity and have been for several years dumping raw sewage into the street and nearby creek. 3. Granting of this rezone request would increase traffic hazards which already exist on NE 12th Street and would further jeopard- ize the safety of children walking to school. 4. Commercial and/or multi-family development will increase the noise pollution in the area. Noise levels for residences on NE--12th-have_already_increased_ since_ logging. was recently completed between NE 12th and Sunset Blvd NE. 5. The effect of this rezoning would increase the existing im- balance_of commercial or multi-family dwellings in the affected area. 6. We believe the intensions of this rezone is for future development of multi-family housing units, which would be allowed under the proposed B-1 zoning. 7. -. This zoning change-would reduce the marketability of single- family residences _in _the_immediate_area_.__ _ The general result of this zoning change would be to significantly reduce the quality of life now existing in a neighborhood of long term Renton Residents. For this reason the majority of property owners in the neighborhood strongly oppose this request for rezoning. NAME (Please print)SIGNATURE ADDRESS 1. .4,/ L1,4 A: S- •[.c)tc, t•7./ v`.Z.... Sett i 11 c ci 7 .N. -. !( ,L( S 7 2. -S.•,f. VA )1/4; St Le c,) AkAl£.l.' [/it'YV _5,arniCr A o c '7 N. t.': / 1 ?u/ C i . 3- fel% Aiepen _ k./ a ee—i0,7-'71 --f e/71/3 c ik, 1 4. I-,2 J'C; /< <'s 1-7/= z, t2._1Av.:/ w 5. Wig!, 2 1 - i'- vf,, rr 4 gr h r} .S . V/ f t n c+ D-.1 ` —rat:,, w A u( /L F- 1 6. AnJ,: e. ,744)24,/ 14- ,.--. L o.zG, T •- / u ice/ 7 '' i t ir ,0- — a r-7.ta- C 8. '>cr•Tt Bc\ ` CI -kf\ C.C.-it vtiri _ 1C:'LZ 1 c‘<<; ranA- AWC, k` 9. I- /r' /4 C`• ` - Tom"Gr'-"r-`•. /9"•g 71, 110 r c-rrnj ht.4 ICYI-c___ L•• s -o aa" c T. t3 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 14 JA__ W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROG—FON FILE NO. R-033-83 REZONE OF ± 57 , 725 SQ. FT. FROM R-1 to B-1 WE, the undersigned residents of Renton, Washington object to the request for rezone by James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Crookston from R-1 to B-1; File No. R-033-83; 4010 NE 12th Street; 1225 Union Ave NE; NE; 4018 NE 12th Street; For the following reasons : 1. The above rezoning request does not comply with the Renton Comprehensive plan. 2. Existing sewers are not sufficent to handle any increased development at this time, as they are presently over capacity and have been for several years dumping raw sewage into the street and nearby creek. 3. Granting of this rezone request would increase traffic hazards which already exist on NE 12th Street and would further jeopard- ize the safety of children walking to school. 4. Commercial and/or multi-family development will increase the noise pollution in the area. Noise levels for residences on NE--12th_have_already_-increased_ since_logging_was___recently completed between NE 12th and Sunset Blvd NE. 5. The effect .of this rezoning would increase the existing im- balance of commercial or multi-family dwellings in the affected area. 6. --We believe the intensions of this rezone is for future development of multi-family housing units, which would be allowed under the proposed B-1 zoning. 7. - This- zoning change-would-reduce-the_marketability of single-- family- residences -in the-immediate_area..-__ The general result of this zoning change would be to significantly reduce the quality of life now existing in a neighborhood of long term Renton Residents. . For this _reason the majority of property owners in the neighborhood strongly oppose this request- for rezoning. NAME (Please print)SIGNATURE ADDRESS Iv A 6:1._,(-) hi- ti i,7_, 6 4--74,1?,, 0I i 2- {--r H S. 3 M r y-H- 4_,,,_a_ ‘). Q.).„.-ci,.. 1//4 A?..-„T fn,4 Qt,Q , )1 E_ 3 i•'nf 7/71 gf-/. ivv- -) Ui- cli.. ' ,///5. 7J G/ . 4 ., ,.-1„14-s ' C a2rtni'k-2 ^. -7n.g. -.-.c--u0-=-u-t - 1// Z 1'.Q .,.1v.tee v- , 5. &A(r X PPi./d e TN 37o I AJL 1/ T 6. t O/S 2.-/ pvv 1277-/ L ' Zf,<C' Ck 376 I xl t 7/ 74 s 7-. 7. L E n fv L E i s C-<_,v` NZ. • /1 ' -e* - . f 10. ;;. K. 2 l , I,__. t'e'r t `A: •i !-1 5 i, h ,i. ,: ,l . " !. . ,. .• A. w,In On r ke I f4 ..R..c- L/ ` 7 n''E / ,CY ..12. rl.. C 13./' 1 )f{/ J ) 71 r'Lr!' W k /r.7 _1 Y lI-- .ii 14. 1w6 < ` 1i E'f e c 41g /c/-f i'-*-Y,/ 57d F /:C, D GT. 1'1 "`te r s r.,/ is. 7 c 2 I.z . _ _i. r la--... /l 617 16. L l-l/[% /,',7.- E.o i•-'/6 G' c 17. A.,' Am-, /7 l- s1.kc ,L Ji' ( ) 196 / k-5 0 i //!,- if( P{-'e /Y . a 18 4 t (2- c At(:-Pt '7/44/p i'/.'t,Av= /0 33 .4,/>.v.,J 14sy, Ai.Ls . 1 O /S/ 1:4 .- . A S 7) - A'-' 'j ? -/..o a. /' <))f ,(.3. i J.___2S W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROunSTON FILE NO. R-033-83 REZONE OF ± 57, 725 SQ. FT. FROM R-1 to B-1 WE, the undersigned residents of Renton, Washington object to the request for rezone by James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Crookston from R-1 to B-1; File No. R-033-83; 4010 NE 12th Street; 1225 Union Ave NE; NE; 4018 NE 12th Street; For the following reasons : 1. The above rezoning request does not comply with the Renton Comprehensive plan. 2. _ Existing sewers are not sufficent to handle any innooeased development at this time, as they are presently over capacity and have been ,for -seversol years dumping raw sewage into the street and nearby creek. 3. Granting of this rezone request would increase traffic hazards ' which already exist on NE 12th Street and would further jeopard- ' ize the safety of children -walking to school. 4. - Commercial and/or multi fami-l-y--development will increase the noise pollution in the area. Noise levels for residences on NE-12th-have-already-increased-since-loggimg-was-recently completed between NE 12th Id Sluiret Blvd NE. 5. The effect 'of this rezoning would increase the existing im- balance of commercial or multi-family dwellings in the affected area. 6. We -believe the--intensions14 this rezone--is for future development of multi-family housing units, which would be allowed under the proposed B-1 zoning. ., 7. - This zoning change- woutd.reduce -the-marketability of single- family residenet b -i-n -the--immed -ate--area:- The general result of this zoning change would be to significantly reduce the- quality of life now existing in a neighborhood of long term- ,Renton-Residents—v For-thisi eason_-±he-majarity: of .property. . -- owners-in the -neighb 'hood-strongl-y--oppose this request for rezoning. r, NAME (Please print)SIGNATURE`-- ADDRESS 1. J)ric n;N/ I f/ Fr! 1,:.,r , .i ,... /' - ///.3 , X; ( V-i;< 2. lick/A-4 4. rJl/,0 ii, /`( 7.(I • L-, ( m..3 ,1,1c/.'J /tilt . /t,'.%, 7jc.r;;t".) cif/.:CZ 3-1.-•L A A 7"/-/ 7 ' ; nn2 44& Jil7?d ( Rue/ - Y AI/<c1/4-r hr C C> >C a .c.< .' _ -!1 e l/s- /arrin l ,1 4 . t\ l,P,,..4„ 5-14-A)4y &pga, Aigre. 06,;:iiii, 11/e.: 1 1// gedelewei Iv, /vi /Ve-ritt`v, 912 6. (T un V O . . //5 9 cAsrn,. 9 n JKen Q 1,,n AIc 7- jefi ( L,. iN Aek, s9 l\L ,•4' N Q_.. " 8- 1)t., II' s e v 9•Q-n J., CC I SS 13e tit c pp 1 9. 1 A Id i,Ci t__o -it 4x SS l f.)c_ 1C0 10'tiC l /Li /t i-E- //- i h'j/,/QAzi, /Y .0 11. ok, A 1/5 .J A -9 & 12.: J L ,f 4 1-IC, 0 J uu y' 110,, n 0/ fl c c/_.,,c- d i1/4i- /Z'C 7Xt, .1 13. y (L;_c,4 L). k-1•\ Dt_ ' i ). )-,.-1), i i i l Wt- :),, ( (. , :) ia \-,_ r.l(- c(S-C. 14.Eve j r L1 /3cViWe`1 p /641"-(iell //e re-dp14ni,7 'e. /O.E. yc'5-4 15.5. ir,ifitav d /9 0' 95'05-4 16. 7Y-,r.. ir' f'f.:- i_e,i t<.,•. -/ i,-i•-_, 'tee/he-n .fur- h/ _cC -s(; 17.---ti:iC,i •X:oir /- t,../e72ie i ecrl-/C //e /ifv; Ni;iK. `i .- 18 '4 P'.I,"''- i ( I ••:,r ., ;r, 7'i, ; '1,1•' 1.1 1. ('' .1 r°;r/ 11 :_ n -/ - •• . • - r _7- 1 , ) , ! , i 1 / . / 0 / //_ r/- • /- __ / /" ,?< < !. JA W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROC__ fON FILE NO. R-033-83 REZONE OF ± 57, 725 SQ. FT. FROM R-1 to B-1 WE, the undersigned residents of Renton, Washington object to the request for rezone by James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Crookston from R-1 to B-1; File No. R-033-83; 4010 NE 12th Street; 1225 Union Ave NE; NE; 4018 NE 12th Street; For the following reasons : 1. The above rezoning request does not comply with the Renton Comprehensive plan. 2. Existing sewers are not sufficent to handle any increased development at this time, as. they are presently over capacity and have been for several years dumping raw sewage into the street and nearby creek. 3. Granting of this rezone request would increase traffic hazards which already exist on NE 12th Street and would further jeopard- ize the safety of children walking to school. 4. Commercial and/or multi-family development will increase the noise pollution in the area. Noise levels for residences on NE 12th have already increased since logging was recently completed between NE 12th and Sunset Blvd NE. 5. The _effect -of this rezoning would increase the existing im- balance of commercial or multi-family dwellings in the affected area. 6. We believe the intensions of this rezone is for future development of multi-family housing units , which would be allowed under the proposed B-1 zoning. 7. . This zoning change would reduce the marketability of single- family residences -irk the immediate area. The-general result- of this zoning change would be to significantly reduce the quality of life now existing in a neighborhood of long term Renton Residents. For this reason the majority of property owners -in the 'neighborhood- strongly oppose -this- request for--rezoning. NAME (Please print)SIGNATURE ADDRESS 1. //9 s :4'Ctti. Y/ ' •u'' /0 7 r Qs F2 - , iL:_44. 2 RRi r 7- HT/Li 6- / Sf LTz1/F l/ 3. CiTh:'A,,L , . , 1= i 7)C;i S . \ !ASP I 7 iirth . Jl 4. 1(--7 Ic 1 r 1O(^ u- \ 4(..c- Al 5- <7.1/rr ,i;d 4-42. IN,n) ri r{ck -T. F= S 1, P I" I ( ( •J te: to-K, 01.4 ALE 6. ^r-,; Lr c Y -F r A ry K L', 1-i S!-f 4 R / a ( '7 SA4,Mu-. 7- / C, , a r=. y °i 1r 8. l{m r'-. i/i4f _ r / ti.. f " . i.-( ,/.- . , 9.t .icz '/) ;i'7 79f- / S 4-11- / /1 370 2 2. E./c.24 10. 7.: F 4, ,-1_ E`. /C^r') 11-771414 7 C t 12 C,;/-e'G i/.,C c<v ` :1 7l l .f= /G7 4 (7 _ 13• tit' kilt! L ?,d (%/ L iI, .'.4 G k-f. ;p r> l i . L. „1/7 14. i C aG 9I l L - ( 15. Lcl 1) L . I/A Ali )7 / v 'r 1' J f/)H b4-'/) 16. 17. 18. i4 Ji S W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROL_...TON FILE NO. R-033-83 REZONE OF ± 57, 725 SQ. FT. FROM R-1 to B-1 WE, the undersigned residents of Renton, Washington object to the request for rezone by James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Crookston from R-1 to B-1; File No. R-033-83; 4010 NE 12th Street; 1225 Union Ave NE; NE; 4018 NE 12th Street; For the following reasons: 1. The above rezoning request does not comply with the Renton Comprehensive plan. 2. Existing sewers are not sufficent to handle any increased development at this time, as they are presently over capacity and have been for several years dumping raw sewage into the street and nearby creek. 3. Granting of this rezone request would increase traffic hazards which already exist on NE 12th Street and would further jeopard- ize the safety of children_ walking to school. 4. Commercial and/or multi-family development will increase the noise pollution in the area. Noise levels for residences on NE--12th---have—already-increased-since logging--was__recently _ completed between NE 12th and Sunset Blvd NE. 5. The effect -of this rezoning would increase the existing im- balance of commercial or multi-family dwellings in the affected area. 6. We believe the -intensions of this rezone is -for future development of multi-family housing units, which would be allowed under the proposed B-1 zoning. 7. This- mooning change- would--reduce -the marketability-of single- family single- fami-3y residences--in the •immediate-area. . The general result of this zoning change would be to significantly reduce the quality of life now existing in a neighborhood of long term Renton__Residents.- For this reason the majority of property owners in -the neighborhood strongly oppose this request for rezoning. NAME (Please print)SIGNATURE ADDRESS 1. r ct 1 Sr Clan 7 4 at-tAt-0,,> .5 ye *i e /'L - -40?, z. 2- Q 6 J . C h F1 (-e t 3iil. 0 9 2 E -//z . : 7, 36 la zirdK ON -r-r1 , krre, 117-) fl/ iii 1 p-c /57_0771 4. 1/417/c z . / it7171/4„ e N 4--,4 e A n Y 5. , h,; /), i, i'-'jcn ' // , . If List 6-Li 1,4a r ., (6l\ (. ,AA l 61' i%, h; 4/I /V//T k 1P- - / cSC 7C e ry/ F2Ls /'o ofri,,, ,. -4kii y ,d/ / G /him. N vc 7' 4'- _ it)/ 7-( c =id AT Iva,h; 9. c ( A, )41 e )1(- ).,a c/-f-____.: it G /.1,-..... -1 9is 10. Oci d P,C I ,01 R" 94-6fizil). , %U./zAr ei /1// /Cl66-777_,t -d(J).a t j r 511-r, , ,,, 4,( /It h e/.Gr/!E"irot kc-x-„_tu_.. -4 `f3"..tnhZ_Vi4 1(1%J i:e.-),,, ait ill Tji i' 12. SC) C\ A) FI N S el g \ QA T 1 6 U-3 7rc--T; c `a . Ile Aft 'a 1 1 -/Re T ('fiJiTf- O , h'T:) 02-1 Ip c'eloi) i , - Ai.e'- 7 ij 1 17 14. , -tf%/i v i 1/177'A 1?4-4.ram' •r/ •!- 4---^i4:rs/ !X'lT' r4' frA :2Ai21 n 15. JL fit. j. ram -e 9 ot,:_jl. 4 l ( 1 16 17. 18. 14 JAN W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROO}._ON FILE NO. R-033-83 REZONE OF ± 57, 725 SQ. FT. FROM R-1 to B-1 WE, the undersigned residents of Renton, Washington object to the request for rezone by James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Crookston from R-1 to B-1; File No. R-033-83; 4010 NE 12th Street; 1225 Union Ave NE; NE; 4018 NE 12th Street; For the following reasons : 1. The above rezoning request does not comply with the Renton Comprehensive plan. 2. Existing_ sewers_ are not sufficent to handle any increased development at this time, as they are presently over capacity and have been for several years dumping raw sewage into the street and nearby creek. . 3. Granting of this rezone request would increase traffic hazards which already exist on NE 12th Street and would further jeopard- ize the safety of children walking to school. 4. Commercial and/or multi-family development will increase the noise pollution in the area. Noise levels for residences on NE -12th--have- already-increased-since- logging was recent-ly completed between NE 12th and Sunset Blvd NE. 5. The effect -of this rezoning would increase the existing im- balance -of commercial or multi-family dwellings in the affected area. 6. We believe the intensions of this rezone is for future development of multi-family housing units, which would be allowed under the proposed B-1 zoning. 7. . This zoning change-would=reduce-the marketability -of single- family -residences- in the -immediate-area; The general result of this zoning change would be to significantly reduce the quality of life now existing in a neighborhood of long term-Renton .Residents..-For this, reason-. the -majority; of -property _ - owners in the -neighborhoo-d-strongly oppose this request for rezoning. NAME (Please print)SIGNATURE ADDRESS 1. " EC- Cr 1TSCNfS ragigIMINI //6 F" -rile/- en 4ve A-2c ke' 4(1'1 7-ux2_} //6ertk.e.1,4A-16g.i-t- .r 4 3.. . , ! fL E+ 1,1 ,r ;» sc r7 r tc k(.rl`c c, 4 e11 -• lei • L.A I s 7 G . it_ze reA/Att/Z! 6 IOffinirMad11Mriff.'"7 7. OvNiv/iV rn e F c. Al 4 ve . /11, 1E, 8 AIPMEIMI -,• n--"- CI) .S(E'L 4,e .E . 9. , ) , C SO S -t,c0 L0. c F -1?iL'L t--t C" 711IM / A) AV AjE L2. 1c 4 U rm PriMigingla /Gj _ n 4 . . , Q izatam.•13. , A '/c',C E i eit/cJ n4./ 4 L4. AnI< ( el L (e r C7? , LC- . f 72E- L5. D. PE E ININIWAIMI/J 7(, £'ii. Tom (/' /t" c.)WM411 4 L7 J.(' SIIMPWAIM '(' 0 0 1 18. 12. F'l tar y Np1,. S-.t ` -/ 144,W'-i -- S L I (V b . f is _C _ . t c - „ . ,1i,_ . . / 5r!'1 _ , 0/L/ . 4'/, ./17, ,. . `r7 A . Jj S W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROC...-TON FILE NO. R-033-83 REZONE OF ± 57, 725 SQ. FT. FROM R-1 to B-1 WE, the undersigned residents of Renton, Washington object to the request for rezone by James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Crookston from R-1 to B-1; File No. R-033-83; 4010 NE 12th Street; 1225 Union Ave NE; NE; 4018 NE 12th Street; For the following reasons : 1. The above rezoning request does not comply with the Renton Comprehensive plan. 2. Existing sewers are not sufficent to handle any increased development at this time, as they are presently over capacity and have been for several years dumping raw sewage into the street and nearby creek. 3. Granting of this rezone request would increase traffic hazards which already exist on NE 12th Street and would further jeopard- ize the safety of children walking to school.-- 4. - Commercial and/or multi-family development will increase the noise pollution -in the area. Noise levels for residences on NE 12th- have-already-increased-sing logging--was--recently - completed between NE 12th and Sunset Blvd NE. 5. The effect -of this rezoning would increase the existing im- balance of commercial or multi-family dwellings in the affected area. 6. We believe the intensions of this rezone is for future development of multi-family housing units, which would be allowed under the proposed B-1 zoning. 7. . This zoning change would reduce the marketability of -single- - family residences--in the- immediate- area. -'- The general result of this zoning change would be to significantly reduce the quality of life now existing in a neighborhood of long term Renton -Residents.... For _t.his_-reason_fhe_snajority_ of property owners in the neighborhoodstrongly- oppose -this request for rezoning. NAME (Please print)SIGNATURE ADDRESS 1. Sec tf" iv) • S ,, : M 0;Li 2. +-.lytAA)C & rc-I9A/C 9//4...."_k L-- (7 A--6;0 J vl)eA-7 1 f?,e-yll is e.,.)-f-Z;, 3. Yf‘, , c._et, ,C(p.=i,f, L_L-,i e <,4, a r / C7 S/-e 1..7`2-, 11.i 0 e 14. CL( (T ) ljta. i 7c_ i b -.2. S n` e IIo -n ! 15. 1/ 5"4, , , i-{;1 f A, r2 /`.;, -- /A/I- 6.a frJi&i it je's//l J03Z S1iE_/ n/-- / 1/i A/•• F 74,(,ctzi•Ac., r2GL , t( ,vurrL i/.t , /o-. Slle goy p11, •A/.2,. 8.1 f'E Z_1/0.i.", i`%C 3 s c; b E , L ;.-. 9./' 7 /Zi 7/-i/5'/=/T.,c% i i 'r ,C>),. 10. C K I vif (. C P. C_ , K i- c ( ( t,c..'.1 ..--,, Le lI n - _ i 11. ( Y . t.„E ; ,(iL P -,a CJ-1 1-P,,f, i ck,. n' - /4, .) ,if)/3 Sul&/r(4, Ai/? r.1‘ F 12. LS_ rw,-Y/ TALL- E . EL-t I S I I h`/,.gxet,-, aw..F . I, f? kc%z/L C- 413. 5-7 4.!' -7A-ix. (.2zc, P. I_ 14. D/j///EL A. E2.4/3- a1.' /r• i" i /fiT0/v /4fLc. ti. c 15. -R/1 P i c e L 1-1 CA-C.fi et: /9 1C/ 4s r,' :- 7,- c t'.G i/--- //! (/ Ct. (fir•f[//1 /3 l C k'..E 16.A /4 Lei vAc%c•,e t't7c..6f; 1 , V /'D,'Io,J Nue. - "I, ' . 4 P / 17.i ,7,//,.. ;4__,....-A-1-r-Z;i-,-.:-' ( 1-447, - - il/1-"//i." p-- d 7.'--, rs,- — -"ci .0--/k F z#c — . 1 0 /. N._' ..Si"'. 1 II, 7 /,fir_ .I•A.-:i .. /l/!; f 4', / rInr- ',talk ., I t+f.. iGw JAI W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROO..-=ON FILE NO. R-033-83 REZONE OF ± 57, 725 SQ. FT. FROM R-1 to B-1 WE, the undersigned residents of Renton, Washington object to the request for rezone by James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Crookston from R-1 to B-1; File No. R-033-83; 4010 NE 12th Street; 1225 Union Ave NE; NE; 4018 NE 12th Street; For the following reasons : 1. The above rezoning request does not comply with the Renton Comprehensive plan. 2. Existing sewers are not sufficent to handle any increased development at this time, as they are presently over capacity and have been for several years dumping raw sewage into the street and nearby creek. 3. Granting of this rezone request would increase traffic hazards which already exist on NE 12th Street and would further jeopard- ize the safety of children walking to school. - 4. Commercial and/or multi-family development will increase the noise pollution in the area. Noise levels for residences on NE 12th have already increased since logging was recently completed between NE 12th and Sunset Blvd NE. 5. The effect -of this rezoning would increase the existing im- balance of commercial or multi-family dwellings in the affected area. 6. We believe the intensions of this rezone is for future development of multi-family housing units, which would be allowed under the proposed B-1 zoning. 7. This zoning change would-reduce-the. marketability of single- family residences in the -immediate area. The general result of this zoning change would be to significantly reduce the quality of life now existing in a neighborhood of long term-Rentan---Residents: For this reason__the -majority-of property owners in the -neighborhood strongly-oppose this - request- for rezoning. NAME (Please print)SIGNATURE ADDRESS k es,cY{ r,,c-cE 1 v r 2 . Li ak,6. WC- C ss cak 3. I?f_T It r ' r Y 1 < l 5 t!' 4. S/ A . 5. Re i/,f-/"l/l/C e /? -1 . 1/9A-&--tr a4-•E 7icJ 7^ 'TES S G mew tom /// `i 8.Cii Iil& 64Gli,fy 11, _,f &h XLdtit- Qu-r. 1/4% 2 9. Go 4/zni' fi A r am ijl: L0. Charles F Leo i4a,.cI l a 73 S kt,I+u v A-V NE) Rc Fciv Li. D.2._(ce. 0 73 Sty ei-kn R,, N R-e,-,fo,n L 2)YA\'. &NJ G. if She t L 3. e4Ir P Fe.x e • n L 4. ,•1/1 n'(y S LlF/S S yr U d.Q...y1 C 9 FD a /#; i 1) /4 a L5.f Cl/''/ Si /l e'e/rnciid /lut /Cc'. t.; 161 LA^d4b J.Frt I Ar777 c f s-,‘C eka /(767 gdnie)1(( 42' rC14A L7. / e Y A'UN1 tTL `Z1 ii'1z114ZL- J(;6 / i v'(/2.(.O1 18. 4 f)t- 76fr 15Z- t. c .. . I. f•.'• .1 ll l l. - . 7 n r A )r i t •`- 7 1-)), A ,/,t -i JA ; W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROO.._2ON FILE NO. R-033-83 REZONE OF ± 57 , 725 SQ. FT. FROM R-1 to B-1 WE, the undersigned residents of Renton, Washington object to the request for rezone by James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Crookston from R-1 to B-1; File No. R-033-83; 4010 NE 12th Street; 1225 Union Ave NE; NE; 4018 NE 12th Street; For the following reasons : 1. The above rezoning request does not comply with the Renton Comprehensive plan. 2. Existing sewers are not sufficent to handle any increased development at this time, as they are presently over capacity and have been for several years dumping raw sewage into the street and- nearby creek. - 3. Granting of this rezone request would increase traffic hazards which already exist on NE 12th Street and would further jeopard- ize the safety of children walking to school. 4. Commercial and/or multi-family development will increase the noise- pollution in the_ area. Noise_ levels ._for residences on NE 12th have already increased since logging was recently completed between NE 12th and Sunset Blvd NE. 5. The effect -of this rezoning would increase the existing im- balance of commercial or multi-family- dwellings in the affected area. 6. We believe the intensions of this rezone is for future development of multi-family housing units, which would be allowed under the proposed B-1 zoning. 7. . This zoning change -would--reduce the marketability of single- family_ residences_in fhe__immediate_-area. The general result of this zoning change would be to significantly reduce the quality of life now existingin a neighborhood of long term -Renton Residents.--_-- For—this reason the' majority -of property -- owners in the neighborhood- strongly -oppose this request for rezoning. NAME (Please print)SIGNATURE ADDRESS 1. /t/f / • /e/tJ 71- C .,e 7% fj._=Z' f &' • 3. .44v! /iZ_ 41,r•r .c Z/L t iA,ot Xi1 Y/VL 5 3 cro S iv 7" f L/ r 77. Y. Yam, /' 5. ter( lifi9L v 7. L>n 4l.: /f) 2 .--(74 8- The k /f i7LE y l/S/ Tlfc c. K,g. 9. Su 10\1 Q Alaa S/ t Gt P rr. a C 10'7/el., i -. .4l r •, i t c '/.C ///5- fee-,i7 4"( 7 _•K 11. F'itere* N e1s a 1;Z n''ezr- 3906 lu !I TI' C ou r+ 12. alci Alf itch 396% / ' //" r)11 f1 j),?2,-)3 E // 14. Ci L t i v M DA V Z Cl 3902 AI! 11 15- N C P '7 )fs I,,'c i c /i. ,'/z z l 7e',1 /1. j //r r r 16 f ll i/1.," key Z OE 27 I! 70,.‹._ 4 c 3 frit 18. 41, 1 ` C \ o r/' O i A 1•.- JA___S W. DALPAY/LEROY A. C ROGI...,rON FILE NO. R-033-83 REZONE OF ± 57, 725 SQ. FT. FROM R-1 to B-1 WE, the undersigned residents of Renton, Washington object to the request for rezone by James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Crookston from R-1 to B-1; File No. R-033-83; 4010 NE 12th Street; 1225 Union Ave NE; NE; 4018 NE 12th Street; For the following reasons : 1. The above rezoning request does not comply with the Renton Comprehensive plan. 2. ' Existing sewers are not sufficent- to handle any increased development at this time, as they are presently over capacity and have been for several years dumping raw sewage into the street -and nearby creek. 3. Granting of this rezone request would increase traffic hazards which already exist on NE 12th Street and would further jeopard- ize the safety of children walking to school. 4. Commercial and/or multi-family development will increase the noise -pollution -in the area. Noise levels for residences on NE 12th have already increased since logging was recently completed between NE 12th and Sunset Blvd NE. 5. The effect of this rezoning would increase the existing im- balance of commercial or multi-family dwellings in the affected area. 6. We believe the intensions of this rezone is for future development of multi-family housing units, which would be allowed under the proposed B-1 zoning. 7. . This_zoning change would reduce .the marketability of single- family residences in the immediate area. The general result of this zoning change would be to significantly reduce the quality of life now existing in a neighborhood of long term=Renton-Residents. For=this reason--jthe' majority =of property_ - - owners in the -eighborhood strongly- oppose this request for rezoning. NAME (Please print) SIGNATURE ADDRESS 1. 5An4 Ru64) J-5d- 3?oy i . //` 6r 2. 1 )R,t' Y CV,TA ris . 1( g .- 4 170 1/ CV LL 3- fw.5{_4(..rt 1 J/ v2 u SO cJ 4 - D tan e_, c(A— i-s)- ---L 5. R Z . Wi Tt E 2 L-i -3 rc,S AI I l ' C'Ty 6. G ,.,f 1 L-7 C 1 r tl CV 72--1, 1r 4C tt'I-LE J, l t, i I 24" /, q// -7 f iZ s'( ,11' / - . 7‘A 8- - 39,7 Svc 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. n JAl W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROO___2ON FILE NO. R-033-83 REZONE OF ± 57, 725 SQ. FT. FROM R-1 to B-1 WE, the undersigned residents of Renton, Washington object to the request for rezone by James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Crookston from R-1 to B-1; File No. R-033-83; 4010 NE 12th Street; 1225 Union Ave NE; NE; 4018 NE 12th Street; For the following reasons: 1. The above rezoning request does not comply with the Renton Comprehensive plan. 2. - Existing- sewers are- not-sufficent- to handle any increased development at this time, as they are presently over capacity and have been for several years dumping raw sewage into the street and nearby creek. - _ 3. Granting of this rezone request would increase traffic hazards which already exist on NE 12th Street and would further jeopard- ize the safety of children walking to school. 4. Commercial and/or multi-family development will increase the noise pollution in the area. Noise levels for residences on NE 12th have already increased since logging- was recently - completed between NE 12th and Sunset Blvd NE. 5. The effect -of this rezoning would increase the existing im- balance of commercial or multi-family dwellings in the affected area. 6. We believe the intensions of this rezone is for future development of multi-family housing units, which would be allowed under the proposed B-1 zoning. 7. . This zoning. change=would- reduce-the marketability of single- family residences in the immediate area. The general result of this zoning change would be to significantly reduce the quality of life now existing in a neighborhood of long term--ten-torr=-Residents. -=For-this-=reason-the-majority- of property-- owners in the neighborhood-strongly oppose this request for rezoning. NAME (Please print)SIGNATURE ADDRESS 451' /D Z3 S f,ELroly AVE. U1 E. 9e6K6 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. io P.toe-22_ jr. kon4.C.29.g"/, Zt7/02,.&‘e.04z_ i ztO j _.,/yfiez‘Z —4eik ae, c.0,22Zr.c.e_ D 3 ?3Qla* L. R Aire ro s-6 a 5- 9447 Pell H. AP ' xa y s Arty Y 17,7:::...:: '0A4'...11..t'. ''.4.."•1%3; es 4 i . EXHIBIT NO. 0 i s a' c• z A i a it ,4 .• I r ` rrp ° ram- <,- ...,•, .. .aG€`-me. i 1 I !I,- t : *1 i . . i .1 G. tF f ` i p' 3 r D e+*x r 4 . i '$Citi3y,:ro M '. t o wr' e!>RM 4•A',r a,.. w.•Om--.s•w.f..YriW i•O'.al11RFMrt-a.Y.•".lYwe"-lMw w iK-'+M sw..sa.,w no..!•... - F. 7'7 I-IIBIT NO.d a` ;M NO. ?- O33 - 3 it • AIN N' e . 1 ill 1 p OY a 4. 1 M a •... 0 Pc) ear. * Itk 70 f ,+ • ft. e r+. rw... H 3 Ill as wgy 1. 1 I' Y+.• fit•. ¢ . k 1 •Jam. iv. 40 w1Mw •! fX/ I rrA , aww•• s 3 A. 1V* ONO,"• 400/ 11, 49•, 16 I. M • r armr s', L. 4 t'. I t it 0 il tt••A.. • i,- ''. rk. r k' I''``>; fir. Alt lir: T '•l - r Is. y ti:..y ayw i ii JII/' a. IAlit, isc".air IIIIIIINMNI ,s\ t. 46010..." , Se' s w t ,„•!':•.1' 0!hi ':., f P!..',C...;;Cl.' '.: 14itt.; ,°' I.it' t lc,f° 1 t Y°. I;-et 1,— ,,,, . .j' i:t;: : 1 s a y a • ... `moi y lial e ` k I7 a Y d so j t t`r y- i H-IIBIT NO.0 lam. r c+ 1 • v s• s• t i,^ t 4 • lr,*.>; 01011y, • a.'" . . 1 • we' - • t! - , j, e, — „ 14.''* i 01, 4- i . - 41g 01404 ar. .tV' '. t' 1'' It iir. ' in 4 k' . g,, 1 . 4. 0. i'. P'' t At, V. ' Aii, 4, 11 L.,. I, ., fit I x 1' 1 .: y....... , 1•. L 14 pawed i. k. 4,!", 0 • t. . , 4 „.,, ,, b. •....., l 11 i i d 1• . fp r i . * ,.. Ca 5 40' . ir itir y ik,• i A" t t fir, ., 4, . .... i i .;• iik, .. • 4, • IIV. ,., ., ' t• ' sell,' L. t,., ,.•. . - r . i v,,. . 4: • 4,1".. ' y ••. 4, Alf t : 4 ilit '' irk. x s". 44,48". .( 4. - .. 9, 7. y t k e • y, it...., ii 4 ••' • * J. , A „ IA, it 1 v. ' ter` s IN i .%% fa 11, •• . A.• 411114 :, 4,....: , 1. 0w f a t f , totf T I ir •. ••• in• .,' A. 1 r. ta a` w. - 1.. iy i r`. s IA A. i i r4 • -. a - r IS V; fir• i I• 40- i alter f f f it ti i 0 i Arr.•f t ! s# t. 'rr iht arw ,r* 11 T• . ' 107,, "if . .. # -. s at , mi. . .. * We *ft • i * : pi. * it 14 ',is ,,,, 104 piL. it ,,, ,,. 41... k . or,,Ar, $ 4 411, di JO 1 . s y alb . !f i i` 1 • * 0 44. IF 0 . , r 0.4. ,i, 0- 0 • , 1-', ..? Air-4 el w * Idi, " ' I! 7 t 4 , -4 • it•-, • . r l: a'," • Arm f i a* ' yaIY4 44 vi 4" r' s. d`. gp l ' r r, iv. ir:.. r fit ys* et'r ito i. x s p a . • ! ri l Ir • • * r T 0,.. P` 4 .• r a. 30. 0...,70toi,--••• r- • r elri,' p To Si ry•1444401* 'Mt* e , tr tilt"1yr A*, , 46 if...*et. yam* may. g Y s. B• ' t a 8 M w Y w x. } :` 14 r-_ _ a. T HIBIT NO. i o ITEM NO. O 3 3 -/3 r J 7' 1 L t fir. - f 4‘ 4, 1e7,., 4,:. 7i ii' l' fk:t4, 4..:1•• 4••" 0.$ 4..., 7.-,,4,°0...!#*;",..." 1.. k ti: l.). 4.14f*.fr1, t4!,,.; 0 s/..,i. tiiO„' st,4F.;'•..*'• 07t4t,,,l„,. 7,,e.t,4.:.., 1-,'t.. il7.'.'''..'...t..„ r:.‘1,,1....'e.. 4,4„ n,1 1c..:.. t..o,,,i..:4. .'... ly 1•. cat F• r O nl may, 1 M lw+%.: 1 i" ' .' fir 1• , r` 1 (, 1 0. t. 4.; I t. - 3. N.: -, r._.-- 4, f... , 1. . . i. a.. 4 1: e.. i f..• 1,,,. tori IF it . V P.:. :' .. V.%' •,,, i t ssa... , 406, 14.. „.. t. q I 4• 14. 4' ,'"''• , ''''.. r., to, & A,,. If A44, 071islicitiht .... us 44 ilt, yi yjjjjjj_P rrr , 4 t 4 41 4. tr . 47,,, c, Jot y J M? 4w lait 4 ' 't • f r jilt I . 147 ..... 4 ,, . 41, , .,,,. 6. 4 1 .. . 46Ir at.. 4 vis. . - foir.14404, 4•. 44i., 4 , t,, t. r. ... e.--. 0 • 4. ' f y•_ A ;„ • A. iiitizt d i FN. 1 + i 141. y 1 ! PI! I , , I of, li, , . . I. essx 1ys age;. 4. 1 • 1::: Iiil' W`:; ••!• ,, fl Ilkititio, F 0., .,.•„,:.- -. ': I•!•-... ,. i: h .. ti a 1 4 44e, ef - t 5 f„ V.4,,,„ A. rh,z..... t+....*.t............•".'....., 14! Y 4. C 4. i 4, a..? dam ° M1, g• P)E•••I••'•lI FF 6 y`_ r° q,,, Y . S 7; a -' 7 , ten Z. N 03 Itibr# re,, t , VA*,-,• * 4„.:•: ' A 011451* 4. 4‘ -.. 4. 4061.. 41/4 *' I f4++. d "`. 1.• . t R " if A4 '• ' 1; 1• . ti''• t' t,. ',.. V:.'..... „, I • L4, ,* .• 2• i„. e. t... .,,,,,,„.,. 8„..,,, ,, 41. 14-, - 1,,,, . r. • - - . s „ i- -, c,;(,. 4. i. 1"": 4 • 4 . - y j .' 3...• g r. y. r ,., it , ' gyp` '. 4 * 1,.. 4 .. ' 1 i[ I..—: i;. er,1,i 2e''•,*.. ate 4, ' tc- 1t:.-f-e.4•_ 0 V. O wR fir.. AI0` 1 •" II If-. A. 3ift t r r J. gip 4 ^ t R ''# ki x. 7 a 3 Is • i ti '• e a k tittle ra•• V. °., t x ' ice e •f a ,ay 4S. I ; k iT,-04,-,„ 0411 4 • 4•s:'‘ 4ree: 4, ..41'eAt***4-44''.' Ter 4'), ''' ' '' 4 '-* ' i •I'LA -Aitk ••1,8t,„„*"!e e a , ,, , i t eta : R. lit*, 4tics., t,a ,. w» . .•"+' •>.a _ M 'it 1 ks s 41 '• kt, f ,. .i; .. ...„.• ...‘ ........ocr .'*.:.'•1..3r 'C .,..*,-, '''.' ' ', '- ' ''''' • ' 1 Yz c'.F l rt• a .$ a " 9e 4r ! •' $. essi Y r O y ).,” r i ... 101 '•? 1 , ° . . 1 AA• •. yi p ems, 44 li '•1" 1 ,1 f •t milly41..fin Vie.. r., J. %.s.j,*-"+ a'. • •+" `. i• Nt 113kj'lc72: 1! N•Js 14,ts• itl D't A .`•, ram. r a gy 1•L . '..'... ,,,Sit: °!:%-tt% Aittt‘itit,. *ctt,AW" • A d 44 ' Asa '. f . C..,'a...... 1. ! l.. ..t Fes.....A i. i NIP 4 1.-„,- 1 ' ' 1„,•,:*, r. 4 r... 3,,C7F its,we'or a , /lor•:,, . ' • •• or' 4 -.., „- „,.• i. -IP t --'1:r.tif A'/' J- 40-0;J!- s. r. - .,. -: . -- .4.•:../. i, .,,a A.1t. -• . •‘....- . ,d, a. N j,tt....i• _ ,, ._.,„..t.,-, it - T-4.-•4.. e.-...... "'• .7,77,,,, 4.46.,c...•":0111.17Allir t... tok.114... ' IL_ ,., ,It r .JP iv. • * "P 46 l' t,Ifb P door,. . 41Airt er-log.4,-, •-- „eh( •ii• de • •, , ifOIlr. ..•-,, ... 4 . ..-' ..e.,..411.,--W,r,••••—•"'ell."1".--.•--••.# . :JP. .• • , ,,,/.. _ i, '4‘,. * t.itir--, 41111•4;•,;,(1i,,,;1•3_,..M0,3t, _Aso...., -... .•4. l'''6*Ilipel. ' .. .0 Im'rAl' 4'57 "?.• * -'Is • "4"1"•77::,,t,1-..r.,1' ''''' /„. ' 1 , - I"'...• '.4 , r•-) - 4*-.- 4: •• 1* ^- ' . ‘.. ' ..• '-•.:• ' --' Pk.* ' • ••;" 4 ' ' iP,...,. l."%4. 1,--, _'. i : 1--. • = ft.ilelt , ..•''''. At Ao• .•..r- - : r.„..• r„.44,),ki:i. - • s 4" 11. mo• go •• , • urt 7 -1••••••• • iii,e .,..„ ,. .. ....-,„.., rl *t - • e,.....4.„0".„,...• 4,14.0,,,,...,_-.- , , -• .:- -' "..- ow 4•,.... ...o ..,„,.. , %it"•-. • .• • *Jill!"fir ••^FaXil....,n , ,'.. 2 f. , • 1• . . _1.••".; ...••• ...• 14,,: All‘r =_"40` ••'"" •-lii"-• •4.-' 1•414.1. Ntr.., 11)0/1,44,4' ,,,c1111, ;47 itrz ...Y.,'*,7.4"...4. •-,i,;,-^ 1. ,- t . ^* - A.,• vsr•;,:••..,,=., ,,, It It -4111.4114 - 4.0*•itor ""1 *Ant:111.•„,"11Lii Pt' lor . . 1„. , ... ,. 1., t.VD '-r -. 1...• tirrrtrrill‘..)• T."; " 'Ito' .- N.46,• 41.4041146.:# .......i'"2-11.7e••••11f• - •••••• 411•••••••••• grpmAid,•• , *44._• ‘I di,."keit ••••••••••••• •.4044, AIN ••••• 11Ip.•••It 4.40Wr'''.4 'St .' ;111I• '''tow . tti..4..• lijk...41 444,,, AN.N. 'ltd.- — 11:„. 1, it ..... .. ...••VOIO 4...‘ "e • it r it 'itt''•it ''..* . •"' -7, -• - - 4 • two .3t, 41. .Z' . 41 •'.4,• *41. •,,,,• ••• ...II.4uric-- ,....."•11t:•• AJP •r,:dZ,X,•.... ... ' .... ' 41. AO 1 • r •• .1. ... A.._• 0v ....„. if ,., . ,• ,11,e10.....r-- 116., C.* 411,14, 'f..11,te 4,, ,• •1//,, ..4• ' •sc. ar i••••• ''''.2.• 1g.. ' .414: . w. •** 1,4e F V'41*r. .4t• 4' tirtttif•••'eV • gr • .... • 1.....oIn....it". ... ••• 0,, t 7 t of4". .1.* ..•t..•.11'.0.9 s . , . •. ..••• 44."11'''14. . ..**f1400. 11- 1, • 100..'N 0...' ' ' •••••474fr:".'4:2":14ie." b. eye ii. IP .'' P•. ''.. * 44•, , X ••••• 7 * C t' •- • qt.• , `'• t. rt• • V, ..... .... '.• ...P. :.if. .' two hA.... • ri:*..•.$:;.•-. a` - A.S.flittka... , ‘t-tr'',;:e MINII•_. 21%.. . 1•7 6."' I•••NW..44".... 411. "AC.,"AL ••••• .,,„ ,.. ' ••••••1,...1 r.:,,,,,, i• .• • 141111111111r.45/11.4' r•. 3,,, „, . 3- .. 4. 1. ..•: F. 6 .1.....dh 4. r.7 Jr 111.4triXIS"...to....0 ie. •• •1,.... et. r '." e . • rt.....441. (L• '.. , 4.'• •.61.10-.. .....7____„___".... _••••• - of , •t•-•‘,,,."4". .1-.7"..-7--•. .,„•••• .•".' .• 0r.•••.1.* •••.. ; ,.,u- ...t.••*•,4"„„•• 4,,„„.,,,, ,.., . 0. ..`A.,,,' 144•01.....,417 --"-Nrt*. '', ' 4•• l.'" '••^ ,,,......1.4. ' •• ,.,-•** i''' ' *4* ift$.* t**#tos*-01`...ottpr '''••' - I•44.-:,", 1•••• i 4' '''''' ji:f ; ,•tk•ateef... ' .• < 40 ..;••' *r l'• " ' 4r''''.'".* 4••k• ••' sl4•P• / ..44‘e''.••••• • • • f • P. 4,4.44 a ... •0•••• VI •'...• • .. ' • : '''' .r •-, . ',. - -.„ 4.4... .......4,t••• 1' } * 7 XHIBIT NO. 6 I il4M NO.T- a 3 3 —i 3 I a fr. 1\ s‘ k,/ fri . 1 \! • A'." i ''' Tra."--- I litt 1,,.. 4./; ItilS%; 1/ 1" 4. t, • e, ALit • y • • 1 It tigi • 1, , tt J 1. , i i j. " it, . t, ' s,... . it S Mk. f , 4 v r' 1 111141* li: P Ir. -..* re ., 4' A •. of '' ' 4. 1."'" 1 r-j I Q r i 1 u ygy,- YYYle R d , 4 - f J> r i` Sff ae4i NP' r S•• i 4 • it t ! • , rY + , i, I " i, 4 P 44. ' 1( fit 0 4' r.!*.. '+ s'• M •' 4 j q ' .. •• r ip. 4 d t F. t ', f i is fir... 1 - t 1 1/ ' \ it: 0W . ' tat" '' III • t i i t P r 4 7 ' 4414 4 1 1 so r ' 1. 4'II ( . E Applicant JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON t l; File No.R-033-83 Project Name i Property Location 4010 N.E. 12th Street i HEARING EXAMINER: Date September 13 , 1983 Recommendation Denial Req./Rec. Date Received Date Response Appeal - Date Received October 11 , 1983 Council Approval - Date kktfi nl DCI? II- v,g3 Ordinance/Resolution 1/ Date Mylar to County for Recording Mylar Recording II Remarks: Appeal period expires October 11 , 1983. Appeal filed with City Clerk October 1 1 , 1983. /jp Q,Ud ,,,., eid i kS1' 44.1;Ne- kecnrnmE'.vdt l Q-e,vi'ai. 4rfG4-1 eI Wl Cier. - 2/f/il• N 449.- li: f Ja" Renton City Council 4 -6/2/86 Monroe Avenue NE Public Works/Utilities Department requested approval of Latecomers City-held sanitary sewer latecomers along Monroe Avenue NE, Agreement south of NE 7th Street. Refer to Utilities Committee. Lucker/Moore Public Works/Utilities Department requested relocation of Release of City sanitary sewer; release of existing City-held Easements easements; and establishment of new easements to allow construction of lake front home on Lots 83 and 84, Block A, C.D. Hillman's Garden of Eden #1 in Kennydale (Lucker, File No. RE-002-86; Moore, File No. RE-003-86) . Refer to Utilities Committee. MOVED BY KEOLKER, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was read from Public Works Director Richard C. Bryant Motors Houghton reporting the following findings of the Board of Alley Vacation Public Works on the Bryant Motors Petition for alley vacation vAC 003-86 in Block 1 , Car Works Addition, VAC-003-86; 1) easement for utilities and fire lane must be maintained over entire width and length; 2) garbage pickup access must be maintained, garbage container must be located on site, obscured from public view, and the area landscaped; 3) no public funds were expended for acquisition; 4) the City has maintained the alley; and 5) Class "A" be assigned which requires compensation. MOVED BY TRIMM, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JULY 7, 1986, TO CONSIDER THE BRYANT MOTORS PETITION FOR ALLEY VACATION. CARRIED. Annual Spring Letter was read from Edwin and Anna Dietrich, 2205 NE 9th Cleanup Place, Renton, thanking the City for the annual Spring Cleanup program, and indicating pleasure for living in Renton the past 28 years. Planning & Planning and Development Committee Chairman Keolker advised Development that the Committee is still reviewing the matter of Renton/ Committee Tukwila boundary line adjustment; and the Bryant Motors rezone appeal will be reported out on 6/9/86. Garbage Toters Councilman Stredicke requested copies of any correspondence sent to or received from participants in garbage toters test program. He also requested a status report on enforcement of the Tall Fashions retail business at 6th and Burnett, noting deadline given to owner awaiting rezone action has passed. Dalpay Rezone Responding to Councilman Stredicke' s inquiry regarding Requirements enforcement of landscaping requirements at the Dalpay rezone site on NE 12th Street and Sunset Boulevard NE, Administrative Assistant Mike Parness reported that the property owner has been given 30 days to respond. Happy Birthday Birthday greetings were extended to Councilwoman Kathy Keolker. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means Ways and Means Committee Chairman Hughes presented a report Committee recommending concurrence in the Mayor' s appointment of Ms. Municipal Arts Pat O'Dell , 15775 - 188th Place SE, Renton, to the Municipal Commission Arts Commission to complete the term of Joan Yoshitomi Appointment resigned) ; term effective to 12/31/86. MOVED BY HUGHES, SECONDED BY KEOLKER COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT. CARRIED. For the record, Councilman Stredicke noted that the appointee resides outside the City limits, and he felt residents of the City should be appointed. Mayor Shinpoch clarified that the City' s ordinance specifies that a certain percentage of Municipal Arts Commission members can live within the Renton school district. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Hughes presented a report recommending the following ordinances and summary ordinance for second and final reading: n-.1-)-1v Renton City Council 5/5/86 Page four Old Business continued Renton/Tukwila PUD Ordinance and Renton/Tukwila boundary adjustment - The Boundary Adjustment Committee is monitoring progress on these two items. Small Lot Zoning - Zoning for small lots between Grady Way and SW 16th Street - SW 16th Street/Grady This is a pending work item for the Committee. Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner authority on appeals - The Committee concurs Authority on Appeals with the City Attorney that there may be a problem with the exisitng Hearing Examiner Ordinance and recommends that the Council direct the City Attorney to work with the Hearing Examiner to modify Section 4-3011 (B) (4) as appropriate. Repeal of R-4 Zone Repeal of the R-4 zone - The Committee has decided to delay action on this item until September of 1986, so that staff and the Committee can determine what impact the site plan review process has had on the quality of proposed and approved multiple family residential developments. P-1 Designation Review of P-1 designation on Comprehensive Plan - The Committee on Comprehensive recommends that Council refer this matter to the Planning Plan Commission for their consideration during review and revision of the Comprehensive Plan. Council Inquiry Councilman Trimm questioned timing of street vacation requests Street Va,ration denoted in Item No. 2. Chairman Keolker explained need for Timing review and approval of street vacation requests by the City Council prior to plat or site plan approval by the Hearing Examiner to provide clear definition of site area under review. MOVED BY KEOLKER, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Dalpay Rezone Mayor Shinpoch agreed to investigate Council inquiry regarding Requirements landscaping and parking lot paving requirements for Dalpay Rezone, R-033-83, at Sunset Boulevard NE and Union Avenue NE, since these amenities have not been installed to date. She also indicated that the velvet art sales displays located on Illegal Sales public right of way at NE 12th Street and Sunset Boulevard on Public and Rainier and 2nd during the weekends will be checked out. Right of day Captain Don Persson added that the Police Department works very closely with the Building Department to enforce these violations. Annexation Fees Upon inquiry by Councilman Stredicke, Council President Mathews reported that the matter of annexation fees, referred to the Committee of the Whole on 3/3/86, will be delayed for discussion until the fall since there are items of higher priority under review by Policy Development Department. Stredicke expressed concern with $500 fee currently being charged by the City regardless of size of parcel , and felt the Council should act on the matter as soon as possible. Happy B-Cay Birthday congratulations were extended to Councilman John Reed. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means Ways and Means Committee Chairman Hughes presented a report Committee recommending the following ordinance for second & final reading: Ordinance #3989 An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of Hendersdr Rezone property located on the east side of Duvall Avenue NE at the R-080-85 2200-2300 block from General Classification District (G-1 ) Sunset Tails to Single Family Residential District (R-1 ) for Charles Henderson Company, File No. R-080-85. MOVED BY HUGHES, SECONDED BY KEOLKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Hughes presented a report recommending the following ordinances for first reading: c49 6 Art MEMOrap. NDUM r ADDRESS OF PROPERTY 2./ems' N c. ?i sr T' A SEATTLE-KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ceee I--cr›--.-J • ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AS-BUILT SEWAGE DISPOSAL PLAN Submit in Triplicate) LEGAL DESCRIPTION:•Tf=• 3 C 4 _ C` 0- tit` e4-4-" 6 4" u 4 "F u ' PERMIT NO.. 89.63 Lge"'T°ijr) Owner G '¢'l"r`Y S rr,~ b g 7- -`A Address )o o - zc` r 3 I S r. N 7bri Phone 1 NI Z Builder S 1' t-s'(' i F c&"*. C.4?N P'T'-'-`.. Address B{ 3 tig'e' toI 4- --Vie- Phone 3 L - 7 i)7 5-. Designer %• C- • W 1 T'F Address /.. /z- - (o'y-:"7/"' "1-- Nc r-A' •Phone Cow 1 Installer 5-7''4 7-Al Address a /7 - : Mppc..+6;44.cc'Y 14/.W'r Phone `1s. 3s¢.' I hereby certify the accompanying drawing is an accurate representation of the system installed at the listed address. I further certify all recommendations and restrictions (concerning plumbin stub elevations, maintenance of grades, fills, surface drains, etc.) listed by me on my approved site plan (or lastest approved revision thereof) dated . . .3.. /0 -di have been complied with. I further certify that this system meets all requirements of the Rules and Regulations established under King County Board of Health Rule, Regulations III & IV or City of Seattle Ordinance No. 90181 whichever is applicable. 0.?7 r". --,0-.4,-,----Q- - 7--e-/-4- A• x,-J.I/ CIERTIFICATI NO. SIONATUR[OF DUION[R DATE TO BE FILLED IN BY HEALTH DEPARTMENT ONLY Yp, Date Accepted a-"11-8/ Date Not Accepted i 6/ i Signature of Sanitarian CT A • w..G T 1r Remarks: autf/y,, 8/ A.c i:. u.,a.C z" '4 :. .4, 7414-7 `mil INSTRUCTIONS: You may use the reverse side of this form for the drawing or attach separate sheet. Use a scale which will permit the greatest detail and still contain the entire site on one page. ATTENTION HOME OWNER: Your septic tank has limitations! It was designed and installed to care for an average-size family. Overloading the septic tank or disturbance of the drainfield may seriously impair satisfactory operation. Points to remember: CITY OF RENT O N 1. Have your tank checked periodically to see if pumping is necessary (23/2-3 years). f )In IT, I tpr- 2. Do not channel ground water, surface water, footing drains or downspouts into the tank or drainfield. fjQt D3. Do not excavate, fill, place a structure, driveway or patio in, on, or over the drainfield.MAR 12 1984 4. Limit toilet fixture disposal to sanitary wastes and toilet tissue. 5. Detergents and bleaches used in normal household quantities will not harm the action of the septic tank and disposal field. co•13.15.1f REV.FEB.Tia a - r* rk.. 1 '< 4„.. t, i7 + 1. 4 - 8 e1 1== 1 res. ZFO , rn Zrz ks. 4 vg - 0. 46 1 iips i Iti r i la46... a s 41111101. 16 4) ek Nii, iik‘ CNswito. oir 1, 00446 -, 4, 4 " A s ii- N) t.... 4 i 4,,,.. 7.— L.. . 4 4r° 4...)- 4.- 4 " 7-. itu ' ii c Affidavit of Publication p, ......e IL ._„! i... it-- L., STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. COUNTY OF KING r)UL 1 2 .. Cindy Strupp being first duly sworn on oath,del oses and says that she is the chief clerk of THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesai I place of publication_of said newspaper.That the Daily Record Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County, c r m m 0 to c 0 4 D cod Q co C 8 m a>fn C• to Wm 0._+ Notice of Environmental c ca-o o in c E 5 co xNo 415 Washing ton.That the annexed is a a g'o eel; 5° ; e- 0 ZaNm•c5_. amv egv 5 x m NC000•= - Determination 3 m Q S. m 1.5 om cw Wig" as it was published in regular issues(and i2 m g >$.5 cnn LL v c-a--a V. 4 a ox in not in si:pplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period c m o o `'m not 3 1-.."4“; a B u' 3 a a0f b-V C ro 0 0 Jz m m c2 o 6rrrw--.- of ri' consecutive issues,commencing on the u c) ,11 c a o g m a; 6th June 83 l 0 3, az o< 2 cog g E s day of 19 and ending the Z E o it,,o_ 0 -e. dayof 19 both dates ap e8•' o o:. e o o m 8 inclusive•, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- r ° e m i-O u.¢ n"-hgYom—y a v, m scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee w u to S w c S U3 3 3 m charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of S.2.,..6Pwhich Oz ra- O ¢ ` is o has beer paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the U ¢ z t7 y i 3 first ins(rtion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent 5 w W w z e a o m o insertion. Z WwAZ6L 1i1 §t5 ems i+ p4 tW E L p•E Q Ua c¢UO • w c u a PZ 0 1gO..EW dN Chief Cl rk fa. oz W z w 2 us ccs m §i1g`.= Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6.th day of i J.0 ne. 198.3... 6-Z7,._/' g -4( 1 -€_.- ,e,./,_,,.,, Notary Public in for the State of Washington, residing at}tRt, King County. Federal Way Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June 9th, n55. Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopt Id by the newspapers of the State. VN 187 Rwissd 5,82 INTER-OFFICE MEMO TO: DON MONAGHAN DATE MAY 11, 1984 FROM: JEANETTE SAMEK RE: LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR DALPAY REZONE, FILE R-033-84. WE HAVE REWORKED THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE DALPAY REZONE AND WE NEED TO HAVE YOU CHECK THE CORRECTNESS OF THE LEGAL FOR ATTACHMENT TO THE REZONE ORDINANCE. IN PARTICULAR WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT PARCEL "C" OR THE CROOKSTON PROPERTY LEGAL IS CORRECT. Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASH COUNTY OF Cindy...Str L--.„, oath,deposes and s: v, ' 1'1'` f THE DAILY RECC I week.That said n/ for more than si printed and publi published four(9 now and during aforesaid place d 692 urn s 1 999$ ..Chronicle has b Ir 4 Per 48 G.n Court of the C Mont.- Tribe M r s.of M SSO, MM9 Rhk•MMO .0e.MKM WOwn.P fa i limos 01 Mt0.00. reroont Prtw 161m/SRN months M$116.110 withbolsi dolommt .1dPr WO. a1 q7 MO OAC.fabled Oar .1. NN d.. k. Washington.' 1 • V NEW YORKER as it was publishes.._ as(and dR not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issu, _ , period of one consecutive issues,commencing on the 8 P,r 1100 c.n PrMonth W made 88 P Month 4hay of May 19..8.4...,and ending the p e« i1w re°w u =16 P a d t9 "OAG " IlFO. Oar ode.It Mo.{574. day of 19 ,both dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $.8.2...8,0which has been paid in full at the rate per folioof one s for wordsb for the SUPERMARKETfirstinsertionandperfolioofonehundredwordsforeachsubsequent insertion r t 8:30 TO 8:30 Chief Clerk SUN. 1 1 TO 8:3 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4th day of about March 14, 1984, and recorded in the office of the Director of Records and Elections, Receiving No. May/ 198 4 8404300578 and which said Covenants are hereby f incorporated and made a part hereof as if fully set forth.W6e'--,A7:'SECTION II:This Ordinance shall be effective upon its f- _ passage,approval and five days after its publication. Notary Public in Td for the State of Washington, PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 23rd day of April, residing at KeittOCing County.1984. Federal ;lay Maxine E.Motor,City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 23rd day of April,1984. Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June V Barbara Y.Shinpoch,Mayor. 9th, 1955. Approved as to form: d4.i.,'',E.,J.`»a Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. VN#87 Revised 5,82 RENIl ^' SHINGTON APPROVED oF BY THE ORDI E NO,3f oe MAYOR tills 29rd day of AN ORDINANCE OF THE AWN.1964. CITY OF RENT0N,Barb"'Y.**P00% WASHINGTON, CHiANG- Mayor ING THE ZONING CLAS- Approved as to form: Affidavit of Publication SIFICATION OF CERTAIN Lawrence J.Warren, CPROPERTIESWITHIN C FROMITYOFRENTON City At> RESIDENCE DISTRICT(R-Rezone-033-83 STA TE OF WASHINGTON 1) TO BUSINESS DIS- PARCEL"A" COUNTY OF KING ss. TRICT (B-1) (DALPAY R- That Portion of the oast 280 033-83) feet of the aoutlhsa5t WHEREAS under Chap- of the southeast guar arof ter 7,Title IV(Building Regu- Section 4, Tovme hip, 23, rations of Ordinance No, North,Range 5 East,W.U., CindyStrupp 1628 known as the"Code of in ION County,Wae o n;PP being first duly sworn oIONGeneral Ordinances of the lying south of the City of Renton",as amend- Issaquah Road, descitbed oath,deg)ses and says that she is the chief clerk of ed, and the maps and re- as follows: THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a ports adopted In conjunction Beginning at the southeast therewith, the property corner of said southeastweek.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been hereinbelow described as quarter; thence northformorethansixmonthspriortothedateofpublicationreferredto, printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper heretofore been zoned as 87°59'43" west 30.01 feet published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,and it is Residence District (R-1); along the south line thereof; now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the and thence north 0°59'25" east aforesaic place of publication of said newspaper.That the Daily Record WHEREAS a proper pets- 30.01 feet, parallel to the Chronicli'has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior tan for change of zone east line of said southeast Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County, classification of said proper- quarter,to the point of begin- ty has been flied with the ping; thence continuing Building and Zoning Depart- north 0°59'25" east 44.94 Washings on.That the annexed is a Ord..#3.806 merit on or about May 9, feet;thence north 58'06'10" 1983, which petition was west 155.79 feet; thence duly referred to the Hearing south 13'09'14" west Examiner for investigation, 125.00 feet; thence south study and public hearing, 87'59'43" east 100.04,feet and a public hearing having to the point of beginning,in, as it was published in regular issues(and been held thereon on or King County,Washington. not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period about September 13, 1983 PARCEL"B" and January 12, 1984,and That Portion of the east 280 said matter having been duly feet of the southeast quarter Ong considered by the Hearing of the southeast quarter ofofconsecutiveissues,commencing on the Examiner and said zoning Section 4, Township 23 request having been denied North,Range 5 East,W.M., l8 triay of May 19 84 ,and ending the and the matter having been in King County,Washington, appealed to the City Council described as follows: of the City of Renton and Beginning at the southeast said City Council having re- corner of said Section; day of 19 ,both dates versed, with conditions,the thence north 1759'25" east inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- Hearing Examiner's deci- along the east line of said scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee sion and said zoning request section,a distanced 188.44 being in conformity with the feet;thence north 64°34'52" City's Comprehensive Plan, west 39.25 feet to the west charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of s.9.0„40 which as amended, and the City line of 132nd Avenue south- has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred word§for the Council having duly consi- east and the true point of first inset-tion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent dared all matters relevant beginning; thence south insertion. thereto, and all parties hay- 0°59'25"west to a point that Q.\....°)..' jAli.a..\44trvz..0 ing been heard appearing In bears north 0°59'25 east support thereof or in opposi- 44.94 feet from the north line tan thereto, NOW THERE- of northeast 12th Street; FORE, thence north 58°06'10"west Chief..Clark THE CITY COUNCIL OF 155.79 feet;thence westerly THE CITY OF RENTON, along the niorth line of a tract WASHINGTON, DO OR- of land conveyed to Leroy A. Subscribe d and sworn to before me this ...lttb. day of DAIN AS FOLLOWS: Crookston and wife,Sennie SECTION I:The following A. Crookston, by deed re- described property in the corded under Auditor's File Ma.}' 19..8.4.. i City of Renton is hereby No. 5455279, a distance of rezoned to Business District 120 feet to a point on the CfJ'C 8-1) as hereinbelow westlineoftheeast280feet specified; the Building and thence north 0.59'25" east Notary Public i d for the State o Washington, Zoning Director is hereby along said west line to a c- residing at 1f ax King County. authorized and directed to pant which bears north Federal Way change the maps of the 64°35'52"west front thetrue Zoning Ordinance, as Point of beginning; thence Passe( by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June amended, to evidence said south 64 34'52"east274.80 9th, 19 5. rezoning,to-wit: b feet to the true point of See Exhibit "A" attached beginning. Westei n Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, thereto and Made a part Situated in the City of Re- adopte d by the newspapers of the State. hereof as if fully set forth nton, County of King, State herein. 1 of Washington. Said property being PARCEL"C" at 40108 4018 NE 12th That Portion of the southeast Street and 1225 Union Av- 14 of the southeast V4 of enue NE) Section 4, Township 23 AND SUBJECT FURTH- North, Range 5 East,W.M., VN 087 Re,mod 5/82 ER to that certain Declare- King County, Washington, tion of Restrictive Conven- described as follows: ants executed by Petitioner- Beginning at a point 30 feet Owners on di about March north and 190 feet west of 14, 1984, and recorded In the southeast cornier of the the office of the Director of southeast V. of the south- Records and Elections,Re- east V4;thence west 90 feet; ceiving No. 8404300578 thence north 150 feet; and which said Convenants thence southeasterly 120 are hereby incorporated and feel to a point 125 feet smade aetforthhereofasiffullyrthencesouthwesterly25 SECTION II: This Ordi- feet to the point of beginning. i nance Shall be effective up- Published in the Daily Ae- on its passage,approval and cord Chronicle May 18, five days after its publics- 1964,)ti0143 Lion. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 23rd day of April, 1984. Maxine E.Motor, OF I? 4 10 t$ BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR C rn p9 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 O P 9yTEo sEPs` 4,0 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR MEMORANDUM DATE: May 1, 1984 TO: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney FROG A3 Roger J. Blaylock, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Dalpay Rezone/R-033-83 Review the Council minutes of April 23, 1984, and our previous conversation concerning the Dalpay Rezone, it appears that there still is a question of whether the existing illegal" use is required to go through site plan approval. Councilwomen Keolker specifically asked the question and the minutes apparently do not include an answer. Mr. Haggard even would not respond to answer the question. Unless otherwise directed, we assu ne that we are still required to force the site approval condition and will so inform Mr. Dalpay by the end of the week unless we receive a different response from your office. 0851)Z j r'i 7.-Dri1E• Renton City Council 4/23/84 Page two Public Hearing continued Sinnett Rezone Councilman Trimm spoke against the motion to approve the rezone and Annexation prior to final acceptance of the annexation by the Boundary continued Review Board. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC MEETING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted, Brown 10% Letter published and mailed, Mayor Shinpoch opened the public meeting of Intent to to consider the Brown 10% letter of intent to annex a .38 acre Annex parcel located on the east side of 104th Avenue SE, approximately 300 feet south of SE 166th Street. Letter from City Clerk was read advising certification by the Policy Development Department that the 10% petition contains signatures for 100% of the assessed valuation within the proposed annexing area. The letter also indicated that at this time, the City Council should determine whether to accept the letter of intent; require adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and/or any pre-existing bonded indebtedness; and authorize circulation of the 75% petition. Policy Development Director Clemens designated location of the subject site on a revised vicinity map, noting incorrect site boundaries had been reflected on the map already distributed to Council . Based upon the departmental analysis, which considered availability of public services and comments of various City departments, the Policy Development Department supported approval of the annexation. Only the Fire Prevention Bureau felt that the property represents illogical boundaries and will be difficult to identify and serve by the Fire Department. It was noted that the applicant had been unsuccessful in attempts to increase the size of the annexation by gaining support of adjacent property owners. Therefore, the applicant ' s only alternative to acquire City services is the proposed annexation of the single parcel . Continued Mr. Clemens responded to questions by Council members, noting that costs associated with an annexation of this size are very similar to one of a larger size; the annexation policy previously adopted by Council suggests that proposals be large enough to be reasonable and meet requirements set forth by the Boundary Review Board; residential use exists to the north and south of the subject site; the property has failed several percolation tests; and 104th Avenue SE, which divides the site from the City boundaries, will remain in its current, minimum-standard condition following annexation, if approved. Audience Comment Audience comment was invited. Responding were: John H. Young, 10404 SE 166th; Howard Nichols, 16618 104th Avenue SE; and Milt Cantellay, 16624 104th Avenue SE. They questioned City participation in financing the annexation; impacts to the existing drainage system in the area; extension of sanitary sewer lines across neighboring properties; and whether or not connection to City sewer lines would be possible at a later date. Assurances were provided by Mayor Shinpoch and Mr. Clemens that costs associated with the annexation will be entirely borne by the petitioner, who will also be required to obtain necessary easements for the sewer extension and provide storm drainage facilities upon development of the property; and connection to the sewer lines may be possible in the future through payment of latecomer fees. Also noted was the potential for construction of a maximum of two homes under current Comprehensive Plan allowable density. Continued Councilman Stredicke stated that because he owns property in the general area of the subject site, he will abstain from voting on this matter. To allow opportunity to secure a copy of the City' s Sewer Comprehensive Plan in order to clarify location of exsting sewer lines in the area, it was MOVED BY Brown Annexation MATHEWS, SECONDED BY REED, THIS MATTER BE TABLED FOR FIVE Tabled MINUTES. CARRIED. Time: 8:30 p.m. Advance to MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL SUSPEND THE REGULAR Ordinances &ORDER OF BUSINESS AND ADVANCE TO OLD BUSINESS, WAYS AND MEANS Resolutions COMMITTEE, DALPAY REZONE ORDINANCE. CARRIED. Ways and Means Ways and Means Committee Chairman Clymer presented a report Committee recommending the following ordinance for second & final reading: Renton City Council 4/23/84 Page three Ordinances and Resolutions Ways and Means An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of Committee property located at 4010 NE 12th Street from Residence District Ordinance #3806 R-1 ) to Business District (B-1 ) , Dalpay/Crookston Rezone, File Dalpay Rezone iNo. R-033-83. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL ADOPT R-033-83 THE ORDINANCE AS READ.* Councilwoman Keolker requested clarification of signed Declaration of Restrictive Covenants jas follows: 1 ) Under Section I , Prohibited Uses, is it the intent of the proponent that the last sentence precludes the future use for residential purposes of any property not presently used or zoned for residential purposes?; 2) Under Section 3, Site Plan Approval , is it the applicant's understanding that this section prohibits use of existing residential structures for any use other than single family residential uses without site plan approval ?; and 3) Since the City has sent notice to Mr. Dalpay that one of the structures in this rezone is not currently in compliance with existing R-1 zoning, is it clear that the existing use as noted by the City is not an existing use and that the only existing use for purposes of interpreting the covenants is single family residential ? Continued Responding for the applicant was: Joel Haggard, attorney, 720 Olive Way, Suite 1700, Seattle, WA 98101 . Mr. Haggard responded affirmatively to the first two questions, but declined to answer the third, since it is currently under review by the City and, in his opinion, is separate from the rezone issue. He did note that any change in use from residential will require approval of the city under provisions of Section 3 of the covenants. He also indicated that he represents all of the property owners petitioning for rezone in this application. Continued Nick Petruska, 1174 Shelton Avenue NE, requested clarification of Section I , noting confusion by use of double negative in the wording. Councilwoman Mathews offered the following clarification: There are three residences currently located on the subject site. The first sentence of Section I refers to the two houses which are presently being used for single family use and it states they cannot be used for any residential purpose other than single family. The second sentence actually refers to the house that is being illegally used for a commercial use and it states that it cannot be used for any residential use other than single family. Therefore, Section I covers both uses and zoning so that none of the houses can be converted to multiple residential use. Continued Laurence Wood, 1155 Shelton Avenue NE, asked if the B-1 Zoning Ordinance adopted in September of 1983 would apply to the subject rezone. City Attorney Kellogg confirmed that although the application had been filed prior to adoption of that ordinance, the rezone must comply with new B-1 zone regulations contained in Ordinance No. 3750 adopted on 9/26/83. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY CLYMER, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS FOR THE DALPAY REZONE AS PROVIDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. CARRIED. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: 6 AYES: HUGHES, KEOLKER, REED, MATHEWS, TRIMM, CLYMER. Ordinance Adopted 1 NAY: STREDICKE. CARRIED.* Brown Annexation MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL REMOVE THE MATTER Removed from Table OF THE BROWN ANNEXATION FROM THE TABLE. CARRIED. Time: 8:50 p.m. Councilman Stredicke absented himself from the Chambers. ) Mr. Clemens designated the location of the existing sewer line as denoted in the Sewer Comprehensive Plan to the southwest of the subject site on Mill Avenue S. , noting the line seems adequately sized to accommodate the property and similar-sized parcels in the immediate vicinity. However, he advised that if larger lines appear to be needed, costs for that installation must be borne by the petitioner. Benefits accrued through annexation were described, and include additional fire and police protection, libraries, parks and recreation, and utilities at lower tax rate than is currently assessed to King County residents. It was pointed out that if other residents desire to join in the annexation, the appropriate time would be at this public hearing prior to circulation of the 75% petition. However, the scope of the annexation may be modified by Council at a later date if other residents wish to be included. I A WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT APRIL 23, 1984 ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS The Ways and Means Committee recommends the following ordinances for second and final reading: Amended Ordinance Regarding Commission on Human Rights & Affairs Ordinance Amending Powers and Duties of Mayor Ordinance Amending Dangerous Building Code Dalpay Rezone Ordinance rezoning property from R-1 to B-1 , subject to conditions. The Ways and Means Committee recommends the following ordinances for first reading: Board of Public Works Ordinance Amendments Steiner Rezone Ordinance (R-1 to B-1 for property located in the 700 block of Grady Way South) The Ways and Means Committee recommends the following resolutions for eading and adoption: Fund Transfer for Aerial Photographic Enlargements of the Forbes Litigation Negatives ` The Committee recommends this be held for one week. 1984 Comprehensive Parks & Recreation Plan APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS The Ways and Means Committee recommends approval of Vouchers No. 57132 through 57426 in the amount of $625,066.34. Y` n c1\ j:1-1--) Lar1 Clymer, Chairm John Reed Nancy Mat4ws RIEEEOVEriv., APR 2 01984 WARREN rk KELLOGG c:{;a By DECLARATION OF COVENANTS , CONDITIONS , RESTRICTIONS , AND RESERVATION OF EASEMENT THIS DECLARATION OF COVENANTS , CONDITIONS , RESTRICTIONS AND 17SERVATION OF EASEMENTS (this "Declaration") made as of this Gt day of 1984, is by and between JAMES W. DALPAY, a single m n ( 'Dalpay") , and LEROY A. CROOKSTON and SENNIE A. CROOKSTON, husband and wife ("Crookston" , with Dalpay and Crookston being referred to collectively herein as Applicant") . Dalpay is the fee owner of the real property described OD on Exhibit 1 hereto (the "Dalpay Fee Property") , and the r. owner of a contract vendee' s interest in the real property described on Exhibit 2 hereto (the "Dalpay Contract Property" , with the Dalpay Fee Property and Dalpay Contract Property being C7 referred to herein collectively as the "Dalpay Property") .14 t Crookston owns the fee interest in the real property legally described on Exhibit 3 hereto (the "Crookston Property" , with Op the Dalpay Property and the Crookston Property being referred to collectively herein as the "Property") . Applicant has requested that the City of Renton ("City") change the zoning classification of the Property to "B-1" , and the City is willing to grant said change in zoning classi- fication provided that Applicant imposes on the Property the conditions , covenants , restrictions and reservation of easements set forth hereinbelow. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City' s change of the zoning classification of the Property to "B-1" , Applicant hereby declares the Property subject to the following Covenants , Conditions , Restrictions and Reservation of Easements : Section 1 Prohibited Uses . Notwithstanding the change of the zoning classification of the Property to "B-1" , the Property shall not be used for the operation of a (i) furniture store, ii) laundry, cleaning and pressing establishment , (iii) locksmith or shoe repair shop , (iv) lumber yard or fuel yard, (v) public garage, repair shop , battery service station or tire repair shop, vi) fast food restaurant or for any restaurant operating 24 hours a day, (vii) gas station, (viii) undertaking establishment , ix) mobile home park, (x) self-storage facility, (xi) 24-hour convenience store, (xii) tavern, or (xiii) multi-family use, apartments , duplexes or condominiums . Any part of the property presently being used for residential purposes shall not hereafter be FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF S4/O4.r30 057 8 B RECD F 11 . 00 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CRSHSL 11.o0 RENTON MUNICIPAL 8L06. RENTON.WA 88055 used for residential purposes other than single family residential purposes . In addition no part of the property not presently being used for or zoned for residential purposes shall hereafter be used for residential purposes . Section 2 New Structures . No new structure shall be constructed upon the Property until City, by lawful action, removes the sewer moratorium imposed by City Resolution No . 2392; provided that nothing set forth in this Section shall prohibit changes of use of any existing structures which are otherwise consistent with this Declaration and in accord with applicable laws . Section 3 Site Plan Approval . The use of any existing OD structure shall not be changed and no new structure shall be constructed upon the Property without the City' s prior approval O of a site plan for such change of use and or new structure. cl Section 4 Maximum Height . No new structure shall bepconstructeduponthePropertywhichexceedsthirty-five (35) Tr feet in height . Section 5 Crookston Property Access . An easement for ingress and egress to and from the Crookston Property from Union Avenue Northeast shall be established at a location mutually acceptable to City and Applicant when the Crookston Property is redeveloped. At such time as the Crookston Property or any structure thereon is converted to commercial use , the Crookston Property shall no longer be entitled to ingress to and egress from 12th Street except to the extent required by City for emergency access purposes . When converted to or used for commercial purposes , the Dalpay Property shall in no event be entitled to any access from Northeast 12th Street. Section 6 Building Setback Area. No new structure shall be placed on the westerly 15 feet of the Property (the "Building Setback Area") , but utility lines and landscaping may be located in and upon the Building Setback Area. Section 7 Landscaping. No new structure shall be placed upon the Property without a landscape plan approved by City and landscaping required by such plan shall be installed concurrently with the development . When the Property is redeveloped, the Property shall be landscaped in substantial compliance with Exhibit 6 to the City' s rezone hearing dated January 12 , 1984; provided, however, that if the Dalpay Property is developed or redeveloped before the Crookston Property, the boundary line between the Dalpay Property and the Crookston Property shall be landscaped with six (6) foot high Columnar Arbovitae until such time as the Dalpay Property is developed or converted to commercial use and the west and south boundaries of the Crookston Property will not be landscaped. Should the present residential building that is closest t.o N. E. 12th on the Dalpay Property be converted to a business use, then the landscaping under this paragraph shall be installed. Should the residential building to the north of the residentialODbuildingnexttoN. E. 12th, and on the Dalpay Property, be used 4 for other than residential purposes , and the building envelope C> be changed or expanded or the parking increased, or any otherCD change be made to the building or property which significantly T changes the visual impact of the property, then the landscaping cr under this paragraph shall be installed . OD Section 8 Runs with Land. This Declaration is for the benefit of City and shall run with the land. This Declaration may not be modified or amended in any respect without the written consent of the City granted in accordance with any then applicable ordinances , rules , regulations or other laws . Section 9. Joinder by Vendors . Ben Pillo , Tony Pillo , Dominic Pillo , Rose Souther and Mary Zachrison, each as their separate state , own the contract vendor ' s interest in the Dalpay Contract Property and each of them joins in Declaration for the purpose of binding their interest in the Dalpay Contract Property to the terms of this Declaration. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Declaration as of the day and set forth hereinabove. 411‘0 . Dalpay 11. e oy roo cs ton I.e•r7z.L4_, l<;', (:2-d2r4 &.7.i Sennie A. Crookston Ben Pi110 i___Z? e:_e6 Tony o Domin' Pill° 4.W2YW,, / __ e S t er ay ac Is QD STATE OF WASHINGTON) 1 ss C COUNTY OF KING c On this day personally appeared before me JAMES W. DALPAY Gto me known to be the individual described in and who executed a, the within and foregoing instrument , and acknowledged that he 0D signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official sea this / "•: of . Q,DQ/ 1984. 411,4, .., sc.). % ice: N/ ary 'u% ,c in az'' or is tare; Was in r •/-• ng 4- _ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) t ss COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me LEROY A. CROOKSTON and SENNIE A. CROOKSTON, husband and wife, to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument , and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this ,A -.day • .,., Z..' 1984. 44 -- ;1211411/ 0-67.4.0, . Notar '*. ai 's"W an., 0 t e tat of W. ( ing 'oil ,sxd rti C v11e4/ I3. G' . , s,.. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me BEN PILLO, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this / day of 1984. Notar u lic in ari• ; rr it S ate of Washington, resi4ing,.at" O I i ti. QD STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me BEN PILLO, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument , and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this / day .gf 1984. otar Pu is f an t to of shington,L r091.4ri- ,, STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me TONY PILLO, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument , and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. A O Given under my hand and official seal this 20/ day o f,.,,^ , 1984. VD Notar u is in or"th' $ to Q o ashington, residi rig. a TIP STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me DOMINIC PILLO, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument , and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. f Given under my hand and official seal this 0 ' day bf . 1984. Notary is in an or t Fate ington, res idii g.,A STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me ROSE SOUTHER, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that she,sighed the .same as her free and voluntary act and deed, for the use : anci, pur pc4 s.-; therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this d y -o 2984. b l i c in an 'f am,;,th ington, residing at STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before rue MARY ZACHRISON, to ljGD me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument , and acknowledged that she signed the same as her free and voluntary act and deed, for the es and purposes therein mentioned. w1f GIVEN under myhand and official seal this J 1984, o ti day of Notar Pu is in an c ,,t,t'ate of shington, residing at ir@ZOMED APR 2 0 1984 t " WARREN at KEL OGG DECLARATION OF COVENANTS , CONDITIONS , RESTRICTIONS, AND RESERVATION OF EASEMENT THIS DECLARATION OF COVENANTS , CONDITIONS , RESTRICTIONS AND 1 SERVATION OF EASEMENTS} EN ( this "Declaration") made as of this 1 day of 1984, is by and between JAMES W. DALPAY, a single m n ( 'Dalpay") , and LEROY A. CROOKSTON and SENNIE A. CROOKSTON, husband and wife ("Crookston" , with Dalpay and Crookston being referred to collectively herein as Applicant") . Dalpay is the fee owner of the real property described GD on Exhibit 1 hereto (the "Dalpay Fee Property ') , and the r. owner of a contract vendee' s interest in the real property described on Exhibit 2 hereto (the "Dalpay Contract Property" , with the Dalpay Fee Property and Dalpay Contract Property being V, referred to herein collectively as the "Dalpay Property") . Crookston owns the fee interest in the real property legally described on Exhibit 3 hereto (the "Crookston Property" , with UD the Dalpay Property and the Crookston Property being referred to collectively herein as the "Property") . Applicant has requested that the City of Renton ("City") change the zoning classification of the Property to "B-1" , and the City is willing to grant said change in zoning classi- fication provided that Applicant imposes on the Property the conditions , covenants , restrictions and reservation of easements set forth hereinbelow. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City' s change of the zoning classification of the Property to "B-1" , Applicant hereby declares the Property subject to the following Covenants , Conditions , Restrictions and Reservation of Easements : Section 1 Prohibited Uses . Notwithstanding the change of the zoning classification of the Property to "B-1" , the Property shall not be used for the operation of a (i) furniture store , ii) laundry, cleaning and pressing establishment , (iii) locksmith or shoe repair shop , (iv) lumber yard or fuel yard, (v) public garage, repair shop , battery service station or tire repair shop , vi) fast food restaurant or for any restaurant operating 24 hours a day, (vii) gas station, (viii) undertaking establishment, ix) mobile home park, (x) self-storage facility, (xi) 24-hour convenience store, (xii) tavern, or (xiii) multi-family use, apartments , duplexes or condominiums . Any part of the property presently being used for residential purposes shall not hereafter be FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF R4 04`.30 0578 B RE+_C F 11 .00 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CASHSL 11.00 RENTON MUNICIPAL BLDG. zoo Bill AYE.SO. RENTON,WA NOS used for residential purposes other than single family residential purposes . In addition no part of the property not presently being used for or zoned for residential purposes shall hereafter be used for residential purposes . Section 2 New Structures . No new structure shall be constructed upon the Property until City, by lawful action, removes the sewer moratorium imposed by City Resolution No . 2392 ; provided that nothing set forth in this Section shall prohibit changes of use of any existing structures which are otherwise consistent with this Declaration and in accord with applicable laws . Section 3 Site Plan Approval . The use of any existing OD structure shall not be changed and no new structure shall be constructed upon the Property without the City' s prior approval of a site plan for such change of use and or new structure . O Section 4 Maximum Height. No new structure shall be pconstructed upon the Property which exceeds thirty-five (35) feet in height . OD Section 5 Crookston Property Access . An easement for ingress and egress to and from the Crookston Property from Union Avenue Northeast shall be established at a location mutually acceptable to City and Applicant when the Crookston Property is redeveloped. At such time as the Crookston Property or any structure thereon is converted to commercial use, the Crookston Property shall no longer be entitled to ingress to and egress from 12th Street except to the extent required by City for emergency access purposes . When converted to or used for commercial purposes , the Dalpay Property shall in no event be entitled to any access from Northeast 12th Street. Section 6 Building Setback Area. No new structure shall be placed on the westerly 15 feet of the Property (the "Building Setback Area") , but utility lines and landscaping may be Located in and upon the Building Setback Area. Section 7 Landscaping. No new structure shall be placed upon the Property without a landscape plan approved by City and landscaping required by such plan shall be installed concurrently with the development . When the Property is redeveloped, the Property shall be landscaped in substantial compliance with Exhibit 6 to the City' s rezone hearing dated January 12 , 1984; provided, however, that if the Dalpay PropertyisdevelopedorredevelopedbeforetheCrookstonProperty, the boundary line between the Dalpay Property and the Crookston Property shall be landscaped with six (6) foot high Columnar Arbovitae until such time as the Dalpay Property is developed or converted to commercial use and the west and south boundaries of the Crookston Property will not be landscaped. Should the present residential building that is closest to N. E. 12th on the Dalpay Property be converted to a business use, then the landscaping under this paragraph shall be installed. Should the residential building to the north of the residentialQDbuildingnexttoN. E. 12th, and on the Dalpay Property, be usedforotherthanresidentialpurposes , and the building envelopebechangedorexpandedortheparkingincreased, or any other yl change be made to the building or property which significantly T changes the visual impact of the property, then the landscaping r under this paragraph shall be installed, QD Section 8 Runs with Land. This Declaration is for the benefit of City and shall run with the land. This Declaration may not be modified or amended in any respect without the written consent of the City granted in accordance with any then applicable ordinances , rules , regulations or other laws . Section 9 . Joinder by Vendors . Ben Pillo , Tony Pillo ,Dominic Pillo , Rose Souther and Mary Zachrison, each as their separate state , own the contract vendor' s interest in the DalpayContractPropertyandeachofthemjoinsinDeclarationforthe purpose of binding their interest in the Dalpay Contract Property to the terms of this Declaration, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Declaration as of the day and i set forth hereinabove, Jam Dalpay e oy roo ston Sennie A. Crookston Ben Pi o 2,/T 7/9,, e:/e6 Tony o 0".""%le,114.".. (;a;f:47 Domin' Pillo zr,,. __ e S ther a y ac is,o STATE OF WASHINGTON)OD ss t, COUNTY OF KING O O On this day personally appeared before me JAMES W. DALPAY C to me known to be the individual described in and who executed a, the within and foregoing instrument , and acknowledged that he qD signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed , for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official sea this of idg_d , 1984. Ni ary 'u it c in a '' or i`_ , tare Was in: , ris='"'Lng - ._ fr '''-',/: -. f f` J STATE OF WASHINGTON ) t ss COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me LEROY A. CROOKSTON and SENNIE A. CROOKSTON, husband and wife, to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument , and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. I Given under my hand and official seal this ,,i-,day • ;'.',i(/z/G' 1984.111 ., ,411114: ,,e , 140.....ii--,D, m. Notar 7',..gti1I -twa. an.. •' ct e t of W. ( ing o& !!•.4d.i :CAt resida 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me BEN PILLO, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this /5 day of 1984. QD r. Notar u lic in an ; t S ate p of ashington, resi4i.ng;,af` ` 7QD STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me BEN PILLO, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument , and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this Of •"day. •.O.f. • 1984 . Tom' • r " t J otary Pu is( hingtonc4!7bc42e,, STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me TONY PILLO, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. OD Given under my hand and official seal this Zo/-bday o•, ,, 1984. cl Notar ublic it =. ,,aor,`th' S to C o ashington, r4siaing., a ;,iIT OD STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me DOMINIC PILLO, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument , and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned . Given under my hand and official seal this (7 day of . 1984 Notary is in an or t ate ington, residing , ,, STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me ROSE SOUTHER, to me .. known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that she1signed the. •same as her free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses. anOr ,puruposea` therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this d y -o• 140.4. . .1984. blic in pan ' c%,,,th ington, residing at STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me MARY ZACHRISON, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument , and acknowledged that she signed the same as her free and voluntary act and deed, for the,„;ekes and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this ,249 ,day,,of 1984. Zr t. Notar Public in and "o.7,,tfi tote of shington, residing at 4/9/84 To: Billie From: Maxine-pi Re: Dalpay/Crookston Rezone We have not received any reply to the Attorney' s request regarding additional landscaping. In the event the Attorney and/or committee has, please do not adopt this ordinance as the covenants should be recorded prior to final reading; also we have several requests of the Parties of Record for copies of the covenants. Thanks. 4 4. OF R4,4 o THE CITY OF RENTON Z' MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MI IL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 NIL g BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR 235-2580 co- O, 9gTEO SEPlE P RECEIVED APR 2 1984 CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM CITY COUNCIL TO: Council President Bob Hughes DATE: April 2, 1984 FROM: Mayor Shinpoch Dear Bob: A Councilmember requested a written report on the Dalpay rezone -- specifically: potential conflicts which may exist in the restrictive covenants; the date the firm will terminate illegal business use on site; and a charge of an illegal sign posted on property. In reverse order: the sign was ordered removed on Tuesday morning after attention had been called to it on Monday night. Mr. Dalpay complied. A citizen reported a suspected illegal use of the property at a hearing before Mr. Kaufman on January 12. The Building Department investigated and determined the citizen 's complaint was valid. On January 19, the Building Director so advised Mr. Dalpay, in writing, and asked for his cooperation in correcting the violation. This is the usual procedure. Unless there is an immediate threat to health, safety, or welfare, we do not barge in with padlocks and risk violating due process. We attempt a little softer touch and allow time for compliance if there is a good faith showing by the offender. In this particular instance, the matter of Mr. Dalpay's rezone was about to be determined by the City Council . The belief was that if the Council sustained the request by the applicant and allowed the rezone, the matter of an insurance business on the site would be moot because it would become a permissible use. Shortly after the Council agreed with the applicant, an issue was raised whether the language of the covenants might be confusing and not clearly delineate requirements for conversion of a dwelling unit to commercial use. The Policy Development Director and the City Attorney agreed that although the language was clear in a legal sense, it might invite interpretation. Resolution to this problem is being sought presently via our attorney and the attorney for Mr. Dalpay. It is our belief that the proposed conversion will require installation of parking and other physical improvements to meet our Parking and Loading Ordinance. This will , in turn, initiate the requirement for landscaping cited in the restrictive covenants. Council President April 2, 1984 Page 2 This issue is a difficult one. Technically, the city could have and perhaps could now close down the operation. Given the circumstances, I believe the Building Department reacted correctly and with full authority to do so. Mr. Dalpay was afforded no special consideration that is not available to other citizens. i/COtt.)0/tA.. Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor BYS:hh cc: City Councilmembers City Clerk Renton City Council 4/2/84 Page three Old Business continued Dalpa_y,_Rezone For the record, Councilman Stredicke requested a status report R-033-83 on the Dalpay Rezone (held for additional information 3/26/84) . City Attorney Warren is awaiting clarification from Mr. Dalpay' s legal counsel regarding initiation of landscaping requirements upon change of site use. Councilman Stredicke thanked the JAdministration for expeditious response to his complaint regarding over-sized signing displayed on a residence at the rezone site. Community Community Services Committee Chairman Keolker presented a report Services recommending that the Administration continue to work with Committee Pacific Northwest Bell to secure additional sites for public Public Telephones access phones. The Committee has met with Bell representatives in Central Business who recommend additional phones are warranted based on pedestrian District and traffic volumes as well as impressive revenue levels generated from existing phones. Also recommended was referral of this matter to the Board of Public Works for review and approval of all sites which would require a permit to utilize the City right-of-way. Phone Booth Community Services Committee Chairman Keolker presented a report Advertising recommending that a pilot program to allow advertising on phone booths located along city arterials be referred back to Committee for further discussion. This program, proposed by Pacific Northwest Bell Company, would be under the control and at the discretion of the City. The Committee requests that the Administration work with the Bell Company to identify potential areas of conflict with the Sign Code by the proposal , and identify appropriate locations for the booths. MOVED BY KEOLKER, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means Committee Chairman Clymper presented a report recommending the following ordinances for second & final reading: BEMP Rezone An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of Held property located at the southwest corner of Lind Avenue SW and SW 19th Streets from General Classification District (G-l ) to Manufacturing Park (M-P) for BEMP Associates, R-080-83. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. Responding to Council inquiry regarding liens on the subject property for LIDs 302 and 312, City Attorney Warren felt that was immaterial to the appropriateness of the rezone. SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY TRIMM, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, REFER THIS MATTER BACK TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. ROLL CALL: 5 AYES: HUGHES, KEOLKER, STREDICKE, REED, TRIMM. 2 NAYS: MATHEWS, CLYMER, CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS MOVED BY HUGHES, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, REFER TITLE I , CHAPTER 5 City Council OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO CITY COUNCIL TO THE WAYS AND MEANS Ordinance COMMITTEE FOR REVISION. CARRIED. Salvation Army Council President Hughes requested permission to utilize the Canned Food Drive downtown Fire Station as a depository for canned goods donated by citizens to the Salvation Army. Mr. Hughes, Salvation Army Board member, advised that the organization encourages food donations year-round, having served 22,715 people in 1983. MOVED BY HUGHES, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL PERMIT USE OF THE FIRE STATION FOR COLLECTION OF CANNED GOODS FOR THE SALVATION ARMY UNLESS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS. SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY HUGHES, COUNCIL NOT OBJECT TO USE OF THE FIRE STATION AS A COLLECTION POINT, AND THE MATTER BE REFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATION TO WORK OUT DETAILS. CARRIED. Executive Council President Hughes announced an Executive Session to be Session held immediately following the Audience Comment portion of the agenda to discuss pending litigation. Replacement of Councilman Stredicke called attention to need for replacement Lane Markers of lane markings, either striping or buttons, on various streets, particularly on those containing bends with several lanes in one direction. Mayor Shinpoch indicated she would investigate the matter. A OF R4,1 A. dy © ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Z I RONALD G. NELSON — DIRECTOR p9 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 09 T60 SEPS, e0 P BARBA RA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR MEMORANDUM DATE: March 30, 1984 TO: Mayor Shinpoch FROM: Ron Nelson, Building & Zoning Official SUBJECT: Dalpay Rezone Dear Barb: In the council minutes, dated March 26, 1984, Mr. Stredicke asks three questions. I would like to answer them in reverse order. 1. The sign was put up by the tenant without Mr. Dalpay's consent and as soon as they were notified that there was a violation, the sign was removed. 2. The property owner was notified of a violation on January 19, 1984 (see attached letter) . The letter was not a strong demand letter but a notification. My phone conversations and meeting with Mr. Dalpay indicated to me his assurance to cooperate and correct the violation on his property. He did ask that strict enforcement be delayed until a determination could be made on his requested rezone. With this cooperative attitude, I believe this to be a reasonable approach. 3. The resolution of the conflicts in the restrictive covenants is presently being resolved by Mr. Dalpay, Mr. Haggard, Mr. Dalpay's attorney, and Mr. Warren, City Attorney. According to Mr. Dalpay, this should be resolved shortly. The resolution of the conflicts will then allow the council to enact the rezone and make the present use a legal use. I 3/26/84 To: Billie From: Maxine Re: Dalpay/Crookston Rezone The Attorney has raised a question on the restrictive covenants for this rezone ordinance. The ordinance is enclosed for first reading only if the question, resolved. Not ready for adoption as covenants need recording and legal needs checking. Thanks. OF R4,4 THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o -- BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9A co` FRED J. KAUFMAN, 235 -2593 O9 Tt D SEPTP March 28, 1984 Brig tte Kersten Masterstitch Furniture 833 108th Avenue N.E. 336 Burnett Avenue South Bellevue, WA 98004 Renton, WA 98055 RE: APPEAL AAD-029-84: REGARDING APPEAL FEE Dear Gentlemen/Ladies: This letter will confirm my communication with Mr. Hooker on March 27, 1984, concerning the return of the Masterstitch check which was to serve as payment of the appeal fee. The check tendered by Masterstitch (Renton Receipt 5421) was returned to the City of Ren :on due to non-sufficient funds. The $75.00 appeal fee is jurisdictional, that is, this office is not empowered to hear any appeal unless the appropriate fee has been paid. Unless the fee is received by not later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, April 2, 1984, as either cash or certified check, the appeal will be dismissed. If this office can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, 7-11(ta Fred J. Kaufman Hea-ing Examiner FJK:cl 050-'E cc: Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Finance Department Maxine Motor, City Clerk f Renton City Council 3/26/84 Page two Old Business continued Utilities Committee do not represent actual rate requirements to finance the 1990 1983 Sewer Capital Program for the city' s water/sewer utility. As part Comprehensive of the 1984 budget process, projects identified in the Wilsey & Plan continued Ham Sewer Comprehensive Plan, as well as the RH2 Engineering Water Comprehensive Plan , were analyzed and those required in 1984 were included in the 1984 budget. The rates required to finance the resulting Capital Improvement Plan were then calculated, taking into consideration the phase-out of the city in-lieu-of tax, interest earnings on bond proceeds, and other factors which were not available to the engineers when the comprehensive plans were done. continued The result of these calculations indicated that a 10% rate increase was required which increased the Renton sewer from 2.70 to $2.95 and the Renton water from $8.75 to $9.62 per month for a single family residence using 1 ,000 cubic feet. The Council approved these recommended rate increases and these are, in fact, the current rates. continued As part of the 1985 budget process, the status of the Capital Improvement Program will be analyzed and Council will be presented required rates for 1985 and beyond which they will be asked to act upon the 1985 budget deliberations. continued The Utilities Committee recommended acceptance of the Sewer Comprehensive Plan. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY KEOLKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE UTILITIES COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Utilities Committee Utilities Committee Chairman Mathews presented a report Professional recommending concurrence in the recommendation of the Public Assistants Works Department for approval of the Latecomer Agreement for Latecomers Professional Assistants, Sanitary Sewer Main Improvements, Agreement S-343. The Committee further recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY KEOLKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Utilities Committee Utilities Committee Chairman Mathews presented a report Washington Technical recommending concurrence in the recommendation of the Public Center Latecomers Works Department for approval of the Latecomer Agreement for Agreement Washington Technical Center, Sanitary Sewer Main Improvements, S-323. The Committee further recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY KEOLKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means Committee Vice-Chairman Reed presented a report recommending the following ordinance for second & final reading: Ordinance #3802 An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of Watson Rezone certain properties within the City of Renton from General Classification District (G) to Residence District (R-1 ) for Roland Watson for property located on the east side of 84th Avenue South between NW Fourth and NW Fifth Streets. MOVED BY REED, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL ADOPT THIS ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ways and Means Committee Vice-Chairman Reed presented a report recommending the following ordinances for first reading: BEMP Rezone An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of R-080-83 property located at the southwest corner of Lind Avenue SW and SW 19th Streets from General Classification District (G-l ) to Manufacturing Park (M-P) for BEMP Associates, R-080-83. MOVED BY REED, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL REFER THIS ORDINANCE BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR ONE WEEK. CARRIED. Dalpay Rezone An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of R-033-83 property located at 4010 NE 12th Street from Residence District R-1 ) to Business District (B-1 ) , Dalpay/Crookston Rezone, File No. R-033-83. Noting need for clarification of restrictive Renton City Council 3/26/84 Page three Ordinances and Resolutions continued Dalpay Rezone covenant conditions by the applicant, it was MOVED BY REED, continued SECONDED BY MATHEWS, DALPAY REZONE ORDINANCE BE HELD IN COMMITTEE TO AWAIT THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE REGARDING LAND- SCAPING AND PARKING UPON CONVERSION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS. Councilman Stredicke requested the Administration provide a written report regarding the following: 1 ) potential conflicts which may exist in Dalpay restrictive covenants; 2) the date which the existing firm will vacate or terminate the illegal business use currently evident on the site: and 3) illegal use of the sign code by the property owner with posting of a sign on the residence which is larger than any shopping center or restaurant sign in the area. MOTION CARRIED. Voucher Approval Ways and Means Committee Vice-Chairman Reed presented a report recommending approval of Vouchers 56612 through 56874 in the amount of $530,944.38, having received departmental certification that merchandise and/or services have been received or rendered. Vouchers 56602 through 56611 machine voided. Warrants included LID 314 payment: $1 ,230. 17. MOVED BY REED, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN APPROVAL OF THE VOUCHERS. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE Mayor Shinpoch welcomed Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontas, REPORT noting it is the first time the City has been honored by having Zanetta Fontas a woman serve as City Attorney during a Council meeting. Welcomed Appreciation was also extended to Ms. Fontas for recent legal research which resulted in great cost savings to the City. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY HUGHES, SECONDED BY KEOLKER, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 8:22 p.m. aZo —tom MAXINE E. MOTOR, City Clerk WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT MARCH 26, 1984 ORDINANCES The Ways and Means Committee recommends the following ordinance for second and f nal reading : Watson Rezone (R-054-83) - property located east of Raymond Ave. NW 84th Ave. S) and between NW 4 t h and NW 5th Streets extended Tfe Ways and Means Committee recommends the following ordinances for first reading: B.E.M. P. Associates Rezone (R-080-83) - property located at SW corner of Lind Avenue SW and SW 19th Street Dalpay Rezone ( R-033-83) - property located at 4010 NE 12th Street AFPROVAL OF VOUCHERS The Ways and Means Committee recommends approval of Vouchers No. 56612 through No. 56874 in the amount of $530,944.38. s' s-`Toin Reed, Vice-Chairman Nancy Ma, news OF R4.1/ c- t$ 0 'Z. THE CITY OF RENTON POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 235-2552 z sea p MEM. MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 94. co• C) P9' 1T0 SEP O BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH ME M O R A N DU M MAYOR DATE: March 26, 1984 TO: Earl Clymer, Chairman Ways and Means Committee 7., f 1 FROM: David R. Clemens, Policy Development Director SUBJECT: Dalpay Restrictive Covenants The Policy Development Department has reviewed the City Attorney's memo of March 22nd, on this subject and agrees that there may be the appearance of confusion between conversion and new development on this property. However, we believe that no such conf asion will in fact exist. Conversion of any dwelling unit on the property to corn nercial use will require the installation of parking and appurtenant physical improvements required under the Parking and Loading Ordinance. These physical improvements will initiate the requirement for landscaping installation specified in Section 7 of the restrictive covenants. Although the specific language should be sufficient to insure the requirement for landscaping installation, we agree with the attorney's office that the language of the covenants should clearly specify that conversion of either of the single family dwelling unit; to commercial use would initiate landscape installation. cc: Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Dick Stredicke, Chairman Planning & Development Committee Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administration Joel Haggard Maxine Motor, City Clerk 0ECED VIE rf-IN MAR 1! H 2 6. I 84 CITY CLERK C Or R OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY • RENTON,WASHINGTON 0 V ` u I, POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 S 2nd STREET • RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057 255-8678 Z ma k LAWRENCE I.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY DAVID M. DEAN, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY MARK E.O gTED SEP1 ZANETTA BARBER, L.FONTES, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY March 22 , 1984 MARTHA A.FRENCH, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TO : Earl Clymer, Chairman Ways and Means Committee FRJM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RE : Dalpay Rezone Dear Mr . Clymer: I have reviewed the original of the Declaration of Covenants , Ccnditions, Restrictions and Reservations of Easements on the Dalpay Rezone . These documents closely reflect the Council ' s actions and requirements on the Dalpay Rezone . There is only one potential conflict that I can see and one that probably was not considered by all parties . Rather than have the problem come up at some later date I thought it should be discussed now. A copy of this letter is being sent to the Attorney for Mr. Dalpay sc that he may be aware of the concern and respond. Tie problem, as I see it , exists if a present building on the site is utilized for business use without any reconstruction, conversion or development. In that instance a site plan approval is necessary under Section 3 of the Covenants but there may be no requirement for additional landscaping. Section 7 requires landscaping. The first portion of that Section requires landscaping only for a new structure and the second portion requires landscaping when the Dalpay property is developed or redeveloped before the Crookston property . I note that the word "converted" i:; not also included. I am not sure if the Council wishes the landscaping to be required if the property is converted to a business use but not developed or redeveloped in any fashion. A, far as I can tell , the Restr_ ctive Covenants completely meet the Council' s requirements . However, I wish to raise this issue and have it discussed so that there will be no misunderstanding s'iould the existing building be utilized for business property with no development or redevelopment taking place . In that instance No additional landscaping would be required if there would be no additional visual impacts on the surrounding neighboring properties . LJW:nd Lawrence J . Warren Dick Stredicke, Chairman Planning & Development Committee Mayor Roger Blaylock Dave Clemens Joel Haggard of np '1 oration') OF R4 0 0 THE CITY OF RENTON 111 0 Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o MID rn BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR MAXINE E.MOTOR, 90 CO. CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500 99)c SEPZc_t0 March 9, 1984 Mr. Joel Haggard Haggard, Tousley & Brain Attorneys and Counselors at Law 720 Olive Way, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Re: James Dalpay/LeRoy Crookston Rezone Application; R-033-83. Dear Mr. Haggard: At its regular meeting of March 5, 1984, the Renton City Council adopted the recommendation of the Planning & Development Committee and reversed the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to deny the rezone. The recommendation to approve the rezone is conditioned upon requirements stipulated in the Planning & Development Committee report (attached) , and those conditions must be incorporated into a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants to run with the land. Preparation of an ordinance will occur following receipt of the required covenants from your office. Please contact either the City Attorney or our office for further information. Sincerely, CITY OF RENTON Marilyn J P rsen Deputy ity Jerk Encl. nton City Council 3/5/84 Page two Public Meeting continued Honey Creek City Council should approve consideration of a PUD application Annexation for the portion of Area A proposed for rezone; and 2) the City 10% Letter of Council should find that public safety issues related to Areas Intent continued C and D require further review by the Committee of the Whole. Therefore, the 75% petition application for the annexation should proceed only for Areas A and B. Continued Audience comment: Curtis J. Martin, 3728 Park Avenue N. ; Roger Green, 9818 124th Avenue SE; Bob Tomberg, 5611 119th SE #2, Bellevue; Pat Sado, 9902 126th Avenue SE; Mr. Visick, 12405 SE 98th St. ; Chuck Youngquist, 12110 SE 96th; Mick Santa, 4444 Issaquah-Pine Lake Road, Issaquah; Russel Bergeron, 2807 NE 21st Street. Concerns included use of the proposed area for dumping purposes (wrecked autos, appliances) and responsibility for clean-up; narrow access roads in the area, specifically, Devil ' s Elbow Road, SE 100th and SE 104th Streets, which are substandard; maintenance of greenbelt areas; protection of Honey Creek; need for trunk line extension in area because lots will not percolate for septic systems; and assurance of adequate fire and police protection. Dr. Tomberg, representing Honey Creek Associates, owners of Area A, indicated extension of the trunk line will occur with or without the development, and annexation will increase the tax base and defer costs of trunk line installation; the area is now used by motorcyclists and for dumping purposes; the proposed development will be clustered on approximately 12 acres of the 48-acre site, and located well away from environmentally-sensitive Honey Creek; greenbelts will be maintained and debris removed; access is proposed to the east and south of the west side of Honey Creek to avoid adverse impact to the existing road systems; U.S. Geology maps show no coal mines in the area but that will be investigated prior to development; police and fire protection and response time will be greatly improved when responsibility is transferred from King County to City of Renton. Dr. Tomberg requested approval of the request for simultaneous review of the annexation, rezone and PUD applications; however, he noted that no firm development plans have been submitted at this stage. Continued Mr. Clemens explained the City' s rationale for including all four parcels in the original annexation proposal as a logical extension of City boundaries; however, evidence of potential development problems and hazards have changed the departmental recommendation to include only two parcels. Responding to inquiry regarding whether review by Committee of the Whole of certain public safety issues related to Areas C and D of the annexation area would obviate the Council ' s objectivity in considering the entire matter, City Attorney Warren advised that the Council would be making a policy determination, which is permissible. Mr. Clemens indicated that the applicant has agreed to accept the three stipulations in accordance with State law to proceed with annexation (City zoning, Comprehensive Plan, and bonded indebtedness) . Since all property owners in Areas A and B support the annexation, the 75% petition requirements can be satisfied if the Council reduces the scope of the proposal . Annexation of other areas may be pursued on a case-by-case basis. Continued Fire Chief Lee Wheeler clarified that with current staffing, the Fire Department can adequately serve Area B and the westerly portion of Area B; however, concern exists in serving Areas C, D and the easterly portion of Area A. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC MEETING TO MARCH 19, 1984. CARRIED. Mr. Clemens agreed to provide a synopsis of development options allowed by the Comprehensive Plan for the area; analysis of access routes to serve development; costs to extend fire and police service to specific areas; costs incurred by King County to maintain Devil ' s Elbow Road in the past. A field trip to the area was also proposed. AUDIENCE COMMENT Nick Petruska, 1174 Shelton NE, requested advancement to the Advance to Planning and Development Committee report regarding the Dalpay/ Old Business Crookston Rezone appeal . MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY CLYMER, Daloav/Crookston COUNCIL SUSPEND THE REGULAR ORDER OF BUSINESS AND ADVANCE TO Rezone Appeal OLD BUSINESS, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. R ,ntbn City Council 3/5/84 Page three Advance to Old Business continued Planning and Planning and Development Committee Chairman Stredicke presented Development a report indicating that at the 3/1/84 Committee meeting, the Committee appellants waived exemption for the subject property from the Dalpay/Crookston building moratorium imposed by Resolution No. 2392 in April of Rezone Appeal 1981 ; and waived objections to the fact that the moratorium was R-033-83 of unlimited duration. Continued The Committee found and recommended to the Council that the report and recommendation of the Hearing Examiner is erroneous in its conclusions that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed rezone is in the public interest. The Committee further found and recommended to the City Council that: a) Substantial evidence was presented demonstrating that the subject reclassification appears not to have been specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; b) The property is potentially classified for the proposed change of zone classification pursuant to the policy set forth in the Comprehensive Plan , and conditions have been met which would indicate that the change is appropriate; and c) Since the last area land use analysis and area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private developments, or the circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. Continued The Committee also found and recommended that the rezone is advisable, is in the public interest, tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioners, is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of persons located in the vicinity, and is in harmony with the purposes and effect of the Comprehensive Plan. Continued Further, the Hearing Examiner is in error in concluding, in Conclusions No. 2 through 5, that the rezone would jeopardize the public health, safety or welfare. The rezone imposes no substantial jeopardy to the public health, safety or welfare. Only development of the property would impose a jeopardy to the extent that such development would overburden the sewage capacity in the area. This impact is mitigated by the applicant' s acquiescence to the moratorium imposed by City Resolution No. 2392 which now applies to all of the subject property as a result of the applicant' s waiver of exemption. Continued Further, the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner is in error in Conclusions No. 7 and 8 that the rezone should be denied on the basis of the lack of "buffering" between the subject property and residential uses to the west and south. Subject to the conditions imposed, the Committee finds and recommends that concurrent with development, the subject property will be I buffered in a sufficient fashion from the residential uses to the west and south. Continued Therefore, the Committee recommends that the City Council approve the rezone subject to the following conditions which have been imposed by the Environmental Review Committee, Building & Zoning Department or the applicant to be imposed by covenants: Environmental Review Committee: 1 ) At the time of conversion from the existing single family use to the proposed commercial use, a fifteen foot (15' ) landscaped buffer shall be established along the south property line adjacent to NE 12th Street and along the western property line. 2) The Tax Lot 9235 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 4, Township 23 Range 5, at the time of conversion, shall be provided access to Union Avenue NE. 3) At the time of conversion of Tax Lot 9235 or any structure to commercial use, all access for that lot or structure shall not be allowed off NE 12th Street (unless properly designed emergency acess shall be required by the City of Renton as a part of the development of the property) . However, no access to the remainder of the property, when used for commercial purposes, from NE 12th Street, shall be allowed. Renton City council 3/5/84 Page four Planning & Development Committee Report continued Dalpay/Crookston 4) The maximum building height for any future construction Rezone Appeal shall be limited to the maximum height of 35 feet. R-033-33 continued Applicant ' s Proposed Restrictions: 1 ) No structure may be constructed within the westerly 15 feet of the property. Further, the western 15 feet shall be landscaped incidental to any development. Any such landscaping shall be in substantial compliance with Exhibit #6 of the rezone file. 1 2) Pursuant to issuance of city permits for redevelopment, a 1 landscape plan shall be approved by the Building Department. 3) No new structure may be constructed upon the subject property until the City, by lawful action, removes the sewer moratorium (Resolution No. 2392) ; provided this shall not prohibit changes of use in accord with the zoning for the present structures. 4) After rezoning to B-1 , the subject property may not be used for the following otherwise permitted B-1 uses: Furniture store; laundry, cleaning and pressing establishments; locksmiths and shoe repair; lumber yards and fuel yards; public garages, repair shops and battery service stations and tire repair shops; fast food restaurants or any restaurant operating 24-hours per day; service stations; undertaking establishments; mobile home parks; self-service storage facility; 24-hour convenience stores; all residential uses except for the presently established single family residential structures; taverns. 5) An interim landscaped area between the Dalpay and Crookston property will be landscaped with six foot high Columnar Arbovitae located on the Dalpay property if the Dalpay property is developed into commercial activities prior to development of the Crookston property. Building & Zoning Department: 1 ) Filing of restrictive covenants limiting the uses as proposed by the applicant. 2) Requiring site plan approval of any reuse of existing structures or new construction. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY REED, THE WORD "AFTER" BE REPLACED BY THE WORDS "CONCURRENT WITH" IN THE NEXT TO LAST PARAGRAPH, SEVENTH LINE. CARRIED. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY REED, SECTION M. , TAVERNS, BE ADDED UNDER APPLICANT'S PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS, SECTION 4. CARRIED. (Changes incorporated above. ) Continued Chairman Stredicke announced that his purpose in signing the Committee report to acknowledge it as an accurate accounting of action taken at the Committee meeting. However, he has decided not to support the recommendation due to the sewer moratorium which indicates the rezone is premature. He also objected to the rezone due to proposed access to Union Avenue NE, not Sunset Boulevard NE, and heavy traffic, sight-distance problems and topography may create safety problems if commercial use is approved. Current illegal business use of existing buildings on the property was also cited. Council discussion indicated that the Council cannot concern itself with the applicant' s reasons for requesting a rezone despite sewer moratorium; the latest Comprehensive Plan review of the northeast quadrant, which includes the subject site, was done by the Planning Commission in 1981 at which time the site was determined suitable for business/commercial development; the appropriate time for residents in the area to express concerns is during Comprehensive Plan review; area-wide rezones (as referenced in the rezone criteria) have been infrequent; in the event of a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan map and goals/policies, as found by the Hearing Examiner in reviewing the subject rezone, neither takes precedence; if the rezone is adopted, any use of the site for other than single family residential will trigger covenant conditions including screening and access; and the Comprehensive Plan is a general guide and does not set specific site boundaries. Continued Responding to Mr. Petruska' s question regarding landscaping, Chairman Stredicke referred to No. 1 of the applicant' s proposed Renton City Council 3/5/84 Page five Planning and Development Committee Report continued Continued restrictions which states that no structure may be constructed within the westerly fifteen feet of the property, and that the same area shall be landscaped incidental to any development in substantial compliance with Exhibit #6 of the rezone hearing. Continued Speaking in opposition to the rezone were: Judy Petruska , 1174 Shelton Avenue NE; Lawrence B. Wood, 1155 Shelton Avenue NE; and Robert Daniels, 3926 NE 12th Street. Comments indicated that access to the subject site from Union Avenue NE would be dangerous because of congestion and topography; locked gates across emergency access road on NE 12th Street will cause problems; sewers in the area are at capacity and additional development will impair public health; commercial development will increase existing heavy traffic volumes in the vicinity; the proposed rezone will allow commercial development to abut single family residential uses on the south and west; approval of the rezone could set a precedent for other commercial rezones of property owned by the same applicant in the immediate vicinity; the Hearing Examiner is a qualified expert and his recommendation to deny the rezone should be upheld; approval of the rezone will place a burden on long-term residents, 249 of whom signed petitions opposing the rezone; and residents are in full agreement with the Hearing Examiner' s conclusions as an accurate assessment of the facts. Continued Mayor Shinpoch explained the appeal process, which is available to both residents and developers alike, with the final decision on rezones resting with the City Council unless the matter is appealed to Superior Court. She also reiterated Hearing Examiner Ordinance provisions which require certain land use actions to be in the form of decisions and certain others, including rezones, to be in the form of recommendations to the City Council . The Council can then uphold, reverse or modify that recommendation. Continued MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE Planning & RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. ROLL Development CALL: 5 AYES: HUGHES, CLYMER, TRIMM, MATHEWS, REED. 2 NAYS: Committee STREDICKE, KEOLKER. CARRIED. Residents requested notification Report Adopted of any further land use action on the subject property. Recess MOVED BY TRIMM, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL CALL A TEN MINUTE RECESS. CARRIED. Time: 10: 15 p.m. Council reconvened at 10:25 p.m. ; roll was called; all members present. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the Consent Agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing: Municipal Arts Executive Department/Municipal Arts Commission requested an Commission ordinance to appropriate King County Arts Commission Grant Artist in in the amount of $2,000.00 unto Municipal Arts Commission Community" for "Artist in the Community" project. Refer to Ways and Project Means Committee for legislation. (See later action.) Traffic Public Works Department/Traffic Engineering Division requested Project authorization to contract an inspector for several Federally Inspector funded traffic improvement projects; wages to be funded from individual FAUS or FASP grants. Refer to Ways and Means Committee for review and approval . Condemnation of Public Works Department requested an ordinance authorizing Parcels for condemnation of Parcels 1 (Greenwood Cemetery) , 3 (Demo Golf LID 326 Cart - Orin Dilley) , 4 (Maple Lane Association - B. Rick Whitney, partner) , and 5 (Ward Truess) on the south side of NE Fourth Street between Monroe NE and Union Avenue NE for LID 326. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. MOVED BY HUGHES, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. LID 326 Status A status report regarding LID 326, NE 4th Street Widening Report Project, was requested by Councilman Stredicke. Engineering Supervisor Robert Bergstrom advised the easterly half of NE 4th Street has a favorable ranking for award of Federal spot safety funds; however, definite decision has not been made. Renton City Council 3/5/84 Page seven New Business continued Dalpay Rezone MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY REED, DALPAY/CROOKSTON REZONE BE REFERRED TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE FOR ORDINANCE. CARRIED. Sign Code Councilman Stredicke reiterated concerns regarding enforcement of the Sign Code, noting violations are occurring at times other than weekends and evenings. Mayor Shinpoch gave assurance that all violations discovered during City business hours would be be cited. Councilman Stredicke objected to conviction of the violator being required prior to imposition of $300 fine or 90-day jail sentence, since he felt a penalty should be imposed directly upon violation as a deterrent. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY HUGHES, SECONDED BY KEOLKER, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 10: 51 p.m. MAXINE E. MOTOR, City Clerk PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMITTEE REPORT TO : Renton City Council March 5, 1984 FROM: Planning and Development Committee RE: Dalpay/Crookston Rezone R-033-83 The Planning and Development Committee has considered the appeal of James W. Dalpay and Leroy A. Crookston from the recommendations of the Hearing Examiner dated January 26, 1984. The report of the Hearing Examiner is erronously dated 1983 . The Committee has considered the record before the Hearing Examiner and the notice of and argument for appeal filed by the appellants together with the argument of their counsel and other interested parties . At the Committee meeting on March 1 , 1984 , the appellants waived exemption of the subject property from the building moratorium imposed pursuant to City of Renton Ordinance No . 2392 . The appellants further waived all objections to the fact that the moratorium imposed by City of Renton Ordinance No. 2392 was of unlimited duration. The Committee finds , and recommends that the City Council find, that the report and recommendation of the Hearing Examiner is erroneous in its conclusions that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed rezone is in the public interest . (See Conclusion No . 1) . The Committeefinds and recommends that the City Council find that : a. Substantial evidence was presented demonstrating that the subject reclassification appears not to have been specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; b. The property is potentially classified for the proposed change of zone classification pursuant to the policy set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, and conditions have been met which would indicate that the change is appropriate ; and ti ti c. Since the last area land use analysis and area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements , permitted private developments , or the circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. Subject to the conditions imposed hereinafter, the Committee finds , and recommends that the City Council find, that the change of zone classification is advisable, in the public interest , tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioners , is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of persons located in the vicinity thereof, and is in harmony with the purposes and effect of the Comprehensive Plan. The Committee finds , and recommends that the City Council find, that the Hearing Examiner is in error in concluding, in Conclusions No . 2 through 5 , that the rezone of the property would jeopardize the public health, safety or welfare . The reclassification of the property imposes no substantial jeopardy to the public health, safety or welfare . Only development of the property would impose a jeopardy to the extent that such development would overburden the sewage disposal capacity of the area. This impact is mitigated by the applicant ' s acquiesence to the moratorium imposed by City of Renton Ordinance No. 2392 which, based upon the applicant ' s waiver of his exemption therefrom, now clearly applies to all of the subject property. The Committee further finds , and recommends that the City Council find, that the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner is in error when the Hearing Examiner concludes in Conclusions No . 7 and 8 , that the reclassification should be denied on the basis of the lack of "buffering" between the subject property and the residential uses to the west and south. Subject to the conditions imposed hereafter , the Committee finds , and recommends that the City Council find, that ,Aaftcr development, the subject property will be buffered in a sufficient fashion from the residential uses to the west and south. Therefore, the Planning and Development Committee recommends that the City Council approve the requested reclassification of zone , subject to the following conditions which have been imposed by either the Environmental Review Committee , the Building and Zoning Department, and the applicant itself. The following conditions must be imposed by covenants running with the land: r Environmental Review Committee : 1 . At the time of conversion from the existing single family use to the proposed commercial use, a fifteen foot (15 ' ) landscaped buffer shall be established along the south property line adjacent to N.E. 12th Street and along the western propertyline. The Tax Lot 9235 o he southeast 1/4 of Section 4 , Township23Range5 , shall Y, provided access to Union Avenue N. E. 3 At the time of co ver ion to commercial use, all access to the subject site shall limited to Union Avenue N. E. (unless properly designed ergency access shall be required by the City of Renton as a pa t o the development of the property . ) s , -74.1, The maximum buildi ei ht for anyfuture ngco struction shall be limited to the 111941,1.mum height of thirty-five feet (35 ' ) . C Applicant ' s Proposed Restrictions : No structure may se •onstructed within the westerly fifteen feet (15 ' ) of the I. operty. Further, the western fifteen feet (15 ' ) shall e landscaped incidental to any development. 2. Pursuant to issuance of city permits for redevelopment , a landscape plan shall be approved by the City' s Building Department . 3. No new structure may be constructed upon the subject property until the City, by lawful action, removes the sewer moratorium Ordinance No. 2392) ; provided this shall not prohibit changes of use in accord with the zoning for the present structures . 4. After rezoning to B-1 , the subject property may not be used for the following otherwise permitted B-1 uses : a. Furniture store ; b. Laundry, cleaning and pressing establishements ; c . Locksmiths and shoe repair; d. Lumber yards and fuel yards ; e. Public garages , repair shops and battery service stations , and tire repair shops ; f. Fast food restaurants or any restaurant operating twenty- four (24) hours a day; g. Service stations ; h. Undertaking establishments ; i. Mobile home parks ; j . Self-service storage facility; k. Twenty-four hour convenience stores ; and 1 . All residental uses except for the presently established single family residential structures . m n iju,N-zArr,o 5 . An interim landscaped area between the Dalpay and Crookston property will be landscaped with six foot (6 ' ) high Columnar 2 . The Tax Lot 9235 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 4 , Township 23 Range 5, at the time of conversion, shall be provided access to Union Avenue N.E. 3. At the time of conversion of Tax Lot 9235 or any structure to commercial use, all access for that lot or structure shall not be allowed off N.E. 12th (unless properly designed emergency access shall be required by the City of Renton as a part of the development of the property) . However, no access to the remainder of the property, when used for commercial purposes, from N.E. 12th, shall be allowed. 4 . The maximum building height for any future construction shall be limited to the maximum height of thirty-five feet (35 ' ) . Applicant' s Proposed Restrictions: 1. No structure may be constructed within the westerly fifteen feet (15 ' ) of the property. Further, the western fifteen feet (15 ' ) shall be landscaped incidental to any development. Any such landscaping shall be done in substantial compliance with Exhibit 6 to the rezone hearing (the Carruther' s Plan) . Arbovitae located on the Dalpay property if the Dalpay property is developed into commercial activities prior to development of the Crookston property. Building and Zoning Department : 1. Filing of restrictive covenants limiting the uses as proposed by the applicant . 2 . Requiring site plan approval of any reuse of existing structures or new construction. I OF R4,4 A. BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR z rrlL 0 " co" MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 O 9P9 Tf0 SEPSE O BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR DATE: March 2, 1984 TO Dan Kellogg, Assistant City Attorney FR JM , J Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE DALPAY/CROOKSTON REZONE REQUEST: R-033-83 The following is the compiling of all of the conditions imposed by either the Environmental Review Committee or the Planning and Development Committee as set forth at their meeting of Thursday, March 1, 1984. Environmental Review Committee 1.At the time of conversion from the existing single family use to the proposed commercial use, a fifteen foot (15') landscaped buffer shall be established along the south property line adjacent to N.E. 12th Street and along the western property line. 2.The Tax Lot 9235 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 4, Township 23, Range 5, shall be provided access to Union Avenue N.E. 3.At the time of conversion to commercial use, all access to the subject site shall be limited to Union Avenue N.E. 4.The maximum building height for any future construction shall be limited to the maximum height of thirty-five feet (35'). Applicant's Proposed Restrictions 1. No structure may be constructed within the westerly fifteen feet (15') of the property. Further, the western fifteen feet (15') shall be landscaped incidental to any development. 2. Pursuant to issuance of city permits for redevelopment, a landscaped plan shall be approved by the city's Building Department. 3. No new structure may be constructed upon the subject property until the city, by lawful action, removes the sewer moratorium (Ordinance #2392); provided this shall not prohibit changes of use in accord with the zoning for the present structures. Dan Kellogg Mar:h 2, 1984 Pagr. 2 4.After rezoning to B-1, the subject property may not be used for the following otherwise permitted B-1 uses: a. Furniture store; b. Laundry, cleaning and pressing establishments; c. Locksmiths and shoe repair; d. Lumber yards and fuel yards; e. Public garages, repair shops and battery service stations, and tire repair shops; f. Fast food restaurants or any restaurant operating twenty-four (24) hours a day; g. Service stations; h. Undertaking establishments; i. Mobile home parks; j. Self-service storage facility; k. Twenty-four hour convenience stores; and, 1. All residential uses except for the presently established single family residential structures. 5.An interim landscaped area between the Dalpay and Crookston property will be landscaped with six foot (6') high Columnar Arborvitae located on the Dalpay property if the Dalpay property is developed into commercial activities prior to development of the Crookston property. Building and Zoning Department 1.Filing of the restrictive convenants limited the use as proposed by the applicant. 2.Requiring site plan approval of any reuse of existing structures or new construction. Dan, this should give your everything you need. The only possible point of confusion is that of the definition of the term "multiple family" in the Zoning Code. Multiple Family is described as three or more units and, therefore, I revised point 4(1) after consulting with Joel Haggard. The issue of access onto N.E. 12th Street for emergency vehicles is really a site design thing and I didn't believe the Committee made a specific statement or cond tion. 0722 February 28, 1984 Maxine E. Motor City Clerk The City of Renton Municipal Building 20C Mill Ave. So. Renton, WA 98055 Re: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's Recommendation, dated January 26, 1984 , James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Crookston Rezone Request; File No . R-033-83 (Remand) . Dear Ms. Motor: As a member of the Renton Highlands community, I feel that more discussion and, above all, research should be done in regards to this rezone request. Since I cannot attend any more meetings or hearings , my request must be made in written form. The point being, we need time. We cannot afford representa- tion, so must seek all free services available to the lay person such as FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) . This would enhance justice for our community and the rezone issue itself. Certain questions must be answered. Just as a banker would do before loaning money, or in this case , rezone property, we need to know how the property will be used. Will it be a good or bad investment for our community? As an advocate for environmental education, I feel that it would be important to delay any decision for three years , thus giving us , the Renton Highlands community, a just chance to find expert answers to questions that the representing attorneys have put upon us. I offer my services as a photographer and beginning film producer to visually show, perhaps in slide show form, as the landscape expert has done, what happens when certain types of growth do occur. My interests lie in the welfare of my community, state and nation' s future. Thank you. Sincerely, Michael Berry 1216 Queen Ave. N.E. MB: wmb Renton, WA 98056 206) 271-6793 r V E FEB 2 9. f884 jj 1TY rI PR le Renton City Council 2/27/84 Page five Consent Agenda CONSENT AGENDA MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY CLYMER, ITEM 8.G. , PLANNING Item 8.G. Removed COMMISSION REPORT REGARDING COULON BEACH PARK ZONING, BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION. CARRIED. Items on the Consent Agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing: Dalpay/Crookston Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner' s Recommendation filed for Appeal James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Crookston, request for rezone of R-033-83 property located at 4010 NE 12th Street; File No. R-033-83. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Texaco Appeal Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner' s Decision filed for CU-087-83 Texaco, Inc. , request for conditional use permit for facility located at 1408 Bronson Way N. ; File No. CU-087-83. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Evergreen West Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner' s Decision filed for Properties Evergreen West Properties, request for conditional use permit Appeal for buildings located in the 1700 block of S. Puget Drive; CU-037-83 File No. CU-037-83, V-038-83 and V-086-83. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Bid Opening - City Clerk reported bid opening 2/14/84 for Sunset Boulevard N. Sunset Boulevard and N. Third Street Widening Project; six bids received; N. & N. Third St. Engineer ' s Estimate: $131 ,556.00. Refer to Transportation Widening Project Committee. (See Utilities Committee Report. ) Bid Opening - City Clerk reported bid opening 2/8/84 for Heather Downs Heather Downs Detention Pond, 21 bids received; Engineer' s Estimate: $34,767. Detention Pond Refer to Utilities Committee. (See Utilities Committee Report. ) Good Chevrolet Claim for damages in the amount of $465.31 filed by Good Clain for Damages Chevrolet, Inc. , 617 South Third, Renton, for showroom window CL 0%-84 allegedly broken by concrete/rock slipping from City truck 2/14/84) . Refer to City Attorney and insurance adjusting service. Latecomers Public Works/Utilities Department submitted Latecomers Agreement for Agreement for Professional Assistants Company for sanitary Professional sewer line in alley east of Maple Avenue SW between SW Grady Assistants Co. Way and SW 12th Street. Refer to Utilities Committee. Final Payment Engineering Department submitted CAG 034-82, LID 314, East East Valley Road Valley Road Project; and requested approval of the project and LID 314 final pay estimate, commencement of 30-day lien period, and CAG 034-82 release of retained amount of $208,509. 11 to Cascade Septic Service if no liens or claims are filed against the project. Council concur. Final Payment Public Works/Utilities Department submitted CAG 053-81 , SW 43rd Street SW 43rd Street Improvement Project; and requested approval of Improvement Project the project and final pay estimate, commencement of 30-day CAG 053-81 lien period, and release of retained amount of $114,717.71 to Tri-State Construction if no liens or claims are filed against the project. Council concur. 1984 Water Public Works Department presented the 1984 Water Comprehensive Comprehensive Plan for review and adoption. Refer to Utilities Committee for Plan presentation. Public Hearing Policy Development Department requested a public hearing be set Sinnett Annexation for 3/19/84 to review Sinnett 75% Notice of Intent Petition for and Rezone Annexation and Request for Rezone, File No. R-007-84, for approximately 3.7 acres of property located on the west side of Powell Avenue SW between SW Langston Road (extended) and SW Third Place (extended) . Council concur. Consent Agenda MOVED BY HUGHES, SECONDED BY CLYMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE CONSENT Adopted AGENDA AS AMENDED. CARRIED. For Use By City Clerk's Office Only A. I . N g AGENDA ITEM RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING SUBMITTING Dept./Div./3d./Comm. City Clerk For Agenda Of February 27. 1984 Meeting Date) Staff Conta:t Maxine Motor Name) Agenda Status: SUBJECT: Appeal of Hearing Examiner' s Consent XX Recommendation; James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Public Hearing Correspondence Crookston bequest for Rezone: File No.Ordinance/Resolution R-033-83 (represented by Joel Haggarri, Atty. ) Old Business Exhibits: (Legal Descr. , Maps, Etc. )Attach New Business Study Session A. City Clerk' s Letter Other B. Letter of Appeal Approval : C. Hearing Examiner' s Report , 1 /26/84 Legal Dept. Yes No N/A COUNCIL ACTION RECOMMENDED: Refer to Finance Dept. Yes No. N/A Planning and Development Committee Other Clearance FISCAL IMFACT: Expenditure Required $ Amount $ Appropriation- Expenditure Budgeted Transfer Required SUMMARY (Background information, prior action and effect of implementation) Attach additional pages if necessary. ) Appeal filed by Joel Haggard, representing Dalpay/Crookston accompanied by required fee received on 2/9/84. PARTIES OF RECORD/INTERESTED CITIZENS TO BE CONTACTED: SUBMIT THIS COPY TO CITY CLERK BY NOON ON THURSDAY WITH DOCUMENTATION. OF I iv THE CITY OF RENTON0Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 n rn BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR MAXINE E.MOTOR, 09, 0 O CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500 09 TFO SEPS P February 16, 1984 APPEAL FILED BY JOEL HAGGARD, REPRESENTING DALPAY/CROOKSTON Re: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner' s Recommendation, dated January 26, 1984, James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Crookston Rezone Request; File No. R-033-83 (Remand) . To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 30, City Code, written appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner' s recommendation has been filed with the City Clerk, along with the proper fee of $75.00. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council ' s Planning and Development Committee and will be considered by the City Council when the matter is reported out of Committee. The Planning and Development Committee meeting to review this appeal has been scheduled on Thursday, March 1 , 1984, at 7: 30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Please contact the Council Secretary or the City Clerk if additional information is desired. Sincerely, CITY OF RENTON Maxine E. Motor City Clerk 2 I FEB 3 L L r ITY 4 5 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF RENTON 6 7 Regarding Rezone No. R-033-83 8 Application by 9 JAMES DALPAY/LEROY CROOKSTON ) NOTICE OF AND ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL 10 11 The City Council adopted a Comprehensive Land Use 12 Plan . The Plan clearly shows that the rezone property is 13 Commercial . The requested rezone does exactly that . The 14 Examiner disregards the Plan ' s Map and recommends denial . 15 The citizens at the hearing objected to any 16 potential apartments . The applicant then agreed not to 17 have apartments even though permitted by the zoning code 18 19 you have adopted . The Examiner distrusted the neighbors ' testimony and recommends denial . 20 The Examiner , having only the power of 21 recommendation, can not substitute his judgment for 22 23 yours . While he can say the rezone "should" be denied , 24 the decision is yours . Not only has the Examiner made 25 errors of law and of fact , his belief that it is contrary 26 to public welfare is an error of judgment and the Council 27 should grant the zoning subject to conditions . 28 NOTICE OF AND ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL 1 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN ATTORNEY! AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 624.82SV 1 2 The Applicants ask you to grant the requested B-1 3 zoning in furtherance of your Comprehensive Plan' s Map and 4 impose conditions which assure buffering and use 5 restrictions acceptable to the area and the applicant . 6 7 A Property Rezone, Not Site Development, Is Requested 8 It may seem too simple to have to state that only 9 a rezone is being requested . Even the Examiner reminded 10 the audience of this when saying there was no proposal to 11 build anything at this time . (Page 4 , Examiner ' s Report ) . 12 The Examiner indicated that under the site plan 13 review condition recommended by the staff , another public 14 hearing would be required. (Page 5 , Examiner ' s Report ) . 15 The Applicant has agreed to site plan review for 16 redevelopment . So before any development takes place , 17 staff review and public hearings will be held . 18 Despite this understanding , the Examiner 19 recommends denial , in part, due to "concerns" over site 20 development . This is clear error of law and judgment . No 21 development impacts will result from the rezone; and 22 developmental impacts ( if any) will be controlled through 23 the development review process . See Ullock vs Bremerton, 24 17 Wn.App. 573 , 583 ( 1977 ) . The Examiner errs by assuming 25 the City would in fact permit development that would cause unsafe sewer problems (Conclusion 2 , Page 13 , Examiner ' s 27 Report ) . There is no evidence of this in this case . The 28 NOTICE OF AND HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL 2 ATTORNEY! AND COUNSELOR! AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9!101 624•S299 1 2 only credible testimony was by Mr . Bob Bingstrom, 3 Engineering Supervisor for the City. He said that the 4 City is involved with major sewer projects that "will 5 alleviate this problemTM . (Page 8 , Examiner ' s Report . ) 6 7 The Rezone Implements The City Council ' s Comprehensive Plan 8 There is no question that the City' s Comprehen- 9 sive Plan maps the property for commercial use . The City 10 Council made this decision. It is not up to the Examiner 11 to now deny a rezone because of dislike of the Council ' s 12 decision. 13 The Map, while not establishing precise use 14 boundaries , clearly recognizes that commercial uses are 15 appropriate on the west side of Union north of 12th . The 16 Council ' s selection of the King County/Renton boundary as 17 the furthest west the commercial designation was to go 18 appears reasonable. But the Examiner disagrees with 19 Council . He says the Map is not the last word. The 20 Examiner says that this boundary is inappropriate 21 (Conclusion 7 , Page 14, Examiner ' s Report) . His 22 conclusion is error and is contrary to established policy. 23 The Examiner in Conclusion 5 sweeps away the 24 force and vitality of your land use map. In effect , the 25 Examiner tells you that when he finds some policy in the 26 Comprehensive Plan that could be construed against a 27 rezone request, then the rezone' s conformity with the Map 28 NOTICE OF AND HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL 3 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELOR/AT LAW SUITE 1700 710 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 S4•Si•• 1 can be disregarded . Applied to similar situation you have 2 planned for , this would deny commercial zoning 1 ) south of 3 N .E . 4th west of 148th S .E. ; 2 ) north of 405 just east of 4 the junction with the Valley Freeway; 3 ) north of 5 Petrovitsky Road around 140th S .E. ; 4 ) west of 405 in the 6 vicinity of Grady Way; and 5 ) north of Sunset Blvd. west 7 of 138th S . E . 8 The Examiner in Conclusion 5 establishes a unique 9 rule of law - the Land Use Map must be used in conjunction 10 with existing uses . This proposition is used, not to 11 condition a zoningrequestquest to provide buffering , but to 12 deny it since existing residential uses are on the site to 13 be rezoned and next door . ( See Conclusion 6 , Examiner ' s 14 Report ) . This means any time a rezone is requested it has 15 to be denied if an existing use is thought by the Examiner 16 to be incompatible with the Council ' s planned use . We 17 know of no policy or law in Renton which requires existing 18 9 uses , inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Map, to be preserved. If this were true your law on abatement of 20 non-conforming uses would be threatened since the existing 21 use supercedes your land use planning . 22 Please understand - we are not saying that 23 differing uses should be developed without consideration 24 of how one affects the other . That is why we have agreed 25 26 to setback , use limitations and sandscape buffering 27 requirements . But this relates to how the commercial 28 NOTICE OF AND ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL 4 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101 124.5299 1 2 development would be planned, not whether there should be 3 commercial zoning . Whether there should be commercial 4 zoning is answered by your Land Use Map. 5 The Examiner errors by speculation that the 6 rezone should be denied "If a smooth transition can not be 7 accommodated . " The Examiner makes no finding or 8 conclusion that the landscape and use buffers proposed by 9 applicant will not yield the smooth transition the 10 Examiner wants . This fundamental error of speculation and 11 of ignoring competent , expert testimony means the Examiner 12 has ignored evidence in order to effectively deny the 13 Council ' s Comprehensive Plan designation . 14 15 Selective Speculation To Deny The Rezone Is Error 16 The Examiner severely chastised the neighbors for 17 their concerns about apartment dwellers . We concur that 18 such stereotype characterizations are inappropriate and 19 illegal ( See JW, KW, LJ , TS, LS, FS, PG & Else Blount v . 20 City of Tacoma , 720 F . 2d 1126 ( 1983 ) ) . 21 Despite a willingness to chastise the neighbors 22 for speculative testimony, the Examiner relies on the same 23 quality of testimony in recommending denial . He concludes 24 that if a smooth transition can not occur , the rezone must 25 be denied . But the Examiner never concludes , despite 26 expert testimony to the contrary, that a smooth transition 27 will not result . This is error . The Examiner cannot 28 NOTICE OF AND ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL 5 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 88101 424-8288 1 2 suppose something will happen and base denial on that 3 supposition particularly when there is contrary, expert 4 testimony in the record. Decisions must be made on record 5 evidence, not speculation. The Examiner recommends denial 6 because of sewer problems . But this is totally 7 speculative since as the Examiner elsewhere recognizes , no 8 development is authorized by this rezone. And this 9 speculation ignores the contrary, expert testimony with 10 Mr . Bob Bingstrom. 11 It is certainly true that a great variety of 12 testimony and evidence is presented in a rezone hearing . 13 Evidence is not restricted because it violates the rules 14 for court rooms. While this is as it should be , the 15 rezone process is still a quasi-judicial process and 16 minimum standards to protect the due process rights of a 17 property owner are required. Even your code recognizes 18 that the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial 19 property rights of an applicant is to be furthered. RCC 20 4-3104 (C ) ( 2 ) . This means that when credible evidence by 21 an expert like Mr . Richard Carothers on landscaping is 22 presented it can not be ignored. The Examiner did and 23 this is error . 24 We invite the Council to look at the slides and 25 landscape plan presented by Mr . Carothers. It will 26 convince you that the Examiner ' s recommendation is clearly 27 erroneous and arbitrary. 28 NOTICE OF AND ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL 6 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAINT LAWANDDCOUNSELORSLOR!AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE.WASHINGTON S8101 S14•l22S 1 2 Conditional Zoning Is Reasonable And Protects The Public Interest . 3 The Examiner boldly concludes that the rezone is 4 not in the public interest and should be denied . 5 One reason given is the sewer overflows four or 6 five times a year . (See Finding 14 , Page 11 , Examiner ' s 7 Report ) . Certainly the Council is aware of this, 8 otherwise the moratorium would not have been established . 9 But the moratorium relates to when development takes 10 place , not what zoning should be applied - and as the 11 Examiner admits no development is approved by the zoning . 12 The Examiner errors when he finds that the map 13 attached to the moratorium is nothing but an aid to 14 staff . (See Finding 14 , Page 11 , Examiner ' s Report ) . The 15 moratorium specifically exempts the Dalpay property at the 16 southwest corner of Sunset and Union . Mr . Dalpay owns a 17 portion of the rezone property and it is clearly exempt 18 19 from the sewer moratorium. Mr . Crookston owns the other parcel and the map attached to the moratorium ordinance 20 indicates it is exempt . This map is incorporated into the 21 ordinance . Mr . Bob Bergstrom, Engineering Supervisor for 22 23 Renton, testified that sewer hookups are limited to the 24 mapped areas . Unless the City Council directs Mr . 25 Bergstrom otherwise this consistent administrative 26 practice applies and the Examiner should not overrule the 27 staff . 28 NOTICE OF AND J HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL 7 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 SY4-S2SS 1 2 But frankly the moratorium issue is not a 3 deciding point. We have agreed to abide by the moratorium 4 till it is lifted or 3 years pass. This time is 5 reasonable particularly in light of two things , 1 ) Mr . 6 Bergstrom testified that two major sewer projects being 7 worked on now "will alleviate this problem and the 8 moratorium in the area will be lifted" (Page 8 , Examiner ' s 9 Report ) , and 2 ) after 3 years, applicant will still have 10 to seek development approvals and construct the buildings , 11 thereby adding to the time until any sewage flows . 12 The Examiner prejudices applicant and the Council 13 by inferring applicant wants to add to a sanitary health 14 problem. This is simply untrue and the Examiner well 15 knows that before any development can occur the City will 16 review and approve it . We simply can not presume, as the 17 Examiner did, that the City Staff is derelict in approving 18 developments. 19 We are not aware of any Renton Code or general 20 law requiring zoning transitions to be smooth. This 21 standard used by the Examiner in Conclusion 8 is error . 22 But we do agree that it is appropriate for the 23 Council to assure that zoning does not cause material 24 detriment to people in the area. But there is NO 25 credible, expert testimony in this record that there will 26 be material detriment. Contrary to the Examiner' s 27 approach in Finding 20, noise and fumes ( if any) will not 28 NOTICE OF AND ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL 8 HAGGARD, CO & BRAINT LAWANDCOUNSELORSATLAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE.WASHINGTON SS101 S24-S2SS 1 2 cause material detriment . This is affirmed by the 3 Declaration of Non-significance issued for the rezone . 4 The Examiner again errors by ignoring credible, contrary 5 expert evidence . 6 We do not presume, as the Examiner does , that the 7 Council or staff erred when the Land Use Map was prepared 8 and adopted . The commercial area in which applicants ' 9 property is located was deliberate and considered . Of 10 course the Examiner disagrees with the Council when he 11 says the site is not suitable for commercial uses . This 12 is error . 13 The problem with and the fundamental error is 14 that the Examiner concludes that the site is suitable for 15 single family use if a smooth transition can not be 16 accommodated . But the Examiner never considered the 17 evidence and decided that an appropriate transition was 18 impossible . This is error . 19 The transition is assured by Setbacks, 20 Landscaping and Use Restrictions. On the west side , there 21 is a 15 foot non-building setback . On the west and south 22 is intensive landscaping which can virtually screen off 23 the site . Indeed, the neighbor to the west can cut down 24 his trees and the landscape buffer can stil be achieved on 25 site (See testimony and exhibits presented by Mr . Richard 26 Carothers) . And not only has applicant agreed to use 27 restrictions , but applicant has agreed to have no 28 NOTICE OF AND HAGGARD. TOUSLEY & BRAIN ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL 9 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELOR• AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 624-5299 1 2 apartments on the site - a position the neighborhood 3 supports and the Examiner disliked . 4 5 Conclusion - A Rezone Subject To Conditions Implements Your Comprehensive Plan. 6 The rezone decision is yours - just as was the 7 decision on the Comprehensive Plan. You can grant the 8 rezone subject to conditions . We have agreed to extensive 9 conditions that will guide development planning on the 10 site . 11 The Examiner ' s recommendation is just that . It 12 is premised upon substantial errors of fact , law and 13 judgment . His denial 1 ) presumes that the City would 14 approve a development that causes a serious , known serious 15 health problem, 2 ) is based upon reading the Land Use Map 16 in conjunction with existing uses thereby precluding 17 changes the Lands Use Plan has planned for, 3 ) assumes a 18 19 rezone should be denied unless there is a smooth transition between zones which is neither the standard nor 20 consistent with expert testimony in this record , and 21 4 ) assumes the City Council erred with designating this 22 23 property for future commercial use . 24 The Examiner opposes the Council ' s Commercial 25 designation in the Land Use Plan. This designation is 26 what applicant ' s rezone will implement . The Examiner 27 chastises the neighbors for their opposition to 28 NOTICE OF AND ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL 10 C HAGGARD, TOUSLEYa BRAINT LAWANDCOUNSELORSAT LAM SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE.WASHINGTON 28101 SE4.5II!! 1 2 apartments . Even though the zoning would permit above 3 ground apartments, the applicant has agreed to never 4 pursue apartments . 5 The rezone subject to conditions is appropriate, 6 reasonable and consistent with your Land Use Plan. It 7 should be granted . 8 DATED this 9th day of February, 1984 . 9 Respectfully submitted, 10 HAGGARD, T'OJ ELEY & BRAIN 11 l 12 By. _h/j Joel E . Hag ave. 13 Attorneys o/ Petitioners 14 3647E 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF AND ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL 11 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE.WASHINGTON 99101 SE4-SESS For Use By City Clerk's Office Only A. I . # AGENDA ITEM RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING x x=saxes x xx3s sxc== SUBMITTING Dept./Div./Ed./Comm. City Clerk For Agenda Of February 27. 1984 Meeting Date) Staff Contact Maxine Motor Name) Agenda Status: SUBJECT: Appeal of Hearing Examiner' s Consent XX Public HearingRecommendation; James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Correspondence Crookston Fequest for Rezone: File No.Ordinance/Resolution R-033-83 (represented by Joel Heggerrl, Atty. ) Old Business Exhibits: (legal Descr. , Maps, Etc. )Attach New Business Study Session A. City Clerk' s Letter Other B. Letter of Appeal C. Hearing Examiner' s Report, 1/26/84 Approval : Legal Dept. Yes_ No N/A COUNCIL ACTION RECOMMENDED: Refer to Finance Dept. Yes No. N/A Other Clearance Planning and Development Committee FISCAL IMP/CT: Expenditure Required $ Amount $ Appropriation- Expenditure Budgeted Transfer Required SUMMARY (Background information, prior action and effect of implementation) Attach additional pages if necessary. ) Appeal filed by Joel Haggard, representing Dalpay/Crookston accompanied by required fee received on 2/9/84. PARTIES OF I`;ECORD/INTERESTED CITIZENS TO BE CONTACTED: UBMIT THIS COPY TO CITY CLERK BY NOON ON THURSDAY WITH DOCUMENTATION. 11 FEB? 101 CITY CLERK COPY Lawrence B. Wood 1155 Shelton Avenue NE Renton, Washington 98056 February 25, 1984 City Council Members City Of Renton The Planning and Development Committee Meeting Re : James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Crookston Rezone File R033-83 Appeal Dear Members of the Renton City Council: As long term residents of our home in the immediate area of 20 years, we agree with the Hearing Examiner in denial of the above stated appeal . In our review of the Renton Comprehensive Zoning Plan in the Planning and Development Department we do not believe the property request complies with the plan. Two hundred fifty-three Citizens who reside in the area have signed a petition which is an Exhibit in the file along with a map showing their property locations and why they are opposed to this rezone request. Mr. Haggard has stated in his appeal that only rezone is being requested and no proposal to build anything is being considered at this time. However, the Citizens who have resided in this area for several years and have attended similar rezone and annexation hearings since 1977-1978 are aware of Mr. Dalpays intention to construct some type of multi-family use buildings on this property as well as his adjoining 6 . 7 acres west of his current office which remains in the County. Mr. Haggard also states in his appeal request that the sewer problem with current projects now under consideration will be alleviated. We as Citizens have also heard this reasoning since 1977 and the pump station at Northeast 12th and Union Avenue Northeast continues to dump hundreds of thousands of gallons of _ raw sewage into the street. Please refer to our most recent request of February 24 , 1984 , which is attached. li7 City Council Members Page two (2) City of Renton The Planning and Development Committee Meeting Mr. Haggard also refers to their presentation on land- scape buffering which was presented to Mr. Kaufman. A great portion of the trees on the west side reflected in their slide presentation were on another persons property which is totally unrelated to the rezone and over which they have no control. The moratorium is also referred to in the appeal which was City of Renton, Washington Resolution No. 2392 relating to certain properties in the Honey Creek and May Creek Drainage Basins. We are enclosing a copy obtained from the City Clerk 's Office for your review. We were unable to locate Mr. Crookston's property on the list of properties as stated in the resolution. Based on these facts as well as the many other items presented at the regular hearing, we as long term citizens of the area feel this rezone if allowed would certainly be a detriment to us property owners. We therefore request you deny the appeal for rezone to B-1 for commercial and multi family uses. Respectfully submitted, d0 Law en a B. Wood Dorothy Wo d Lawrence B. Wood 1155 Shelton Avenue N.E. Renton, Washington 98056 February 23, 1984 Mr. Bob Bergstrom Engineering Supervisor Public Works Department Mr. Roger Blaylock Zoning Administrator Building and Zoning Department City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Gentlemen: We as Citizens, who live in the area of NE 12th and Union Ave. NE have asked two questions both through inquiring in person at City Hall and at the Dalpay/Crookston Rezone Hearing R-033-83, concerning the following items: 1) In accordance with the city of Renton Resolution 2392 passed by the City Council and approved by the Mayor on the 13th day of April 1981 a moratorium would be in effect allowing only certain properties or until 361 equivalent units had hooked up to the sewer system, which was already over capacity during the wet winter months. With the rapid growth in this area, including the large apartment complex now completed at NE 12th and Union Ave. NE, the duplex complex behind the Albertson's, Pay N Save and Ernst Shopping Center, the shopping center at Union Ave. NE and Sunset Blvd. , Burger King and others who have developed since that date, we are sincerely interested in knowing exactly how many equivalent units have been hooked on to the system since April 13, 1981. It appears the rapid growth will continue even though the pump station at Sunset and Union is now overflowing several times a year, dumping hundreds of thousands of gallons of raw sewage into the street and on down into the Honey Creek and May Creek Drainage Basin. 2) Since the original hearing on the Dalpay/Crookston Rezone, Mr. Dalpay has proceeded to rent one of his residential dwellings for a commercial business, State Farm Insurance Co. , as noted in the enclosed photo taken October 8, 1983. We have been unable to determine through verbal inquiry if this is a legal use for R-1 Zoning, however, we do not believe this to be the case. The matter was brought to the attention of both your Departments, who were repre- sented at the Appeal Hearing on R033-83 on January 12, 1984, when the Hearing Examiner, off the record, advised Mr. Dalpay to be certain he was not in viola- tion of the law in operating a business concern from Lawrence B. Wood 1155 Shelton Avenue N.E. Renton, Washington 98056 February 23, 1984 Mr. Bob Bergstrom, Engineering Supervisor Mr. Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Page 2. 2) Continued this location. To date, we have not seen any action on the matter and would make inquiry as to what action, if any, has been taken to determine if the business use is proper. If the requested information is not available in your Departments, please transfer these requests at your earliest convenience in order that we may obtain a written reply. We sincerely appreciate your time and effort expended to provide the answers to our questions. Sincerely yours, 7 i 7 Lawreence B. Wood cc: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch V CITY OF RENTON , WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 2392 A RESOLUTION DECLARING A MORATORIUM FOR CONNECTIONS TO SANITARY SEWERS WITHIN THE HONEY CREEK AND MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASINS WHEREAS the areas within the Honey Creek and May Creek Drainage Basin are undergoing rapid growth, and WHEREAS the Honey Creek and May Creek Basin areas have previously been determined to be areas of concern of the City for sanitary sewer capacity , and WHEREAS the City has previously defined the boundaries of the HOney Creek and May Creek Drainage Basin as per attachment A" which is incorporated herein as if fully set forth , and WHEREAS the presently existing sanitary sewers within those basins are operating at or near capacity , and WHEREAS the capacity of those sanitary sewers are periodically exceeded in times of high rain or intensive use resulting in the discharge of untreated sewage into surface water collection systems , creeks and streams , and WHEREAS such discharge to surface water collection systems , creeks and streams is detrimental to the public health and safety , NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON , WASHINGTON , DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS : SECTION I : The above recitals are found to be true and correct . SECTION II : There is hereby declared a moratorium on the connection of new construction to the systems served by the Sunset Lift Station . This moratorium will be in effect until the capacity of the system is improved so additional connections can be allowed unless revoked by the City Council , whichever occurs first . 1- I This moratorium shall not be in effect with respect to the following properties : 1 . 75-unit apartment complex on the east side of N.E . 12th Street and Union Avenue N.E. 2. 16-unit duplex complex southerly of the shopping center at Sunset and Duvall Avenue N.E. 3 . Neighborhood shopping center at N.E . corner of Union and Sunset 4. Small L. I . D. proposed by Shannon O'Neil to serve the northeast corner of Sunset and Duvall Avenue N. E . 5 . Burger King property on S .W. corner of Sunset and Duvall 6 . Dalpay property located on S .W. corner of Sunset and Union Avenue N. E. 7 . Dalpay property located at the S .W. corner of Sunset and Whitman Court N.E . 8 . Dalpay property known as Lot 1 of the Honey Dew No. 3 . The above properties , while not included in the moratorium shall have the right to hookup to this sewer only until 361 equivalent units have hooked up to the sewers , or until the City Council has determine following the Public Works Director' s recommendation , that the sewers have reached or exceed capacity. Upon the occurrence of either such Council finding or permits being issued to construct the 361 equivalent units , no further connections shall he permitted. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 13th day of April , 1981 . Delores X. Meaa, rCity Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 13th day of April , 1981 . 4.S Barbara Y. Shint oc'h, MayorP Approved as to form: r' Ar A . Lawrence J . W4ren , City Attorney 1_ I I I 1 1 Z 1' 1` i, 1 s1•1t j1 1 I 1 j9 3bZJ/ 5 I 1 ,--3+r-z 1 1 1LA. , s9 i eS GO vB 40 3T 1 0 L'S= N gS© 36` 1 N..E. 9Li T. S7 os r 9i® m 3S Z NOT Bs 8b '~ L 1 104 PEAT Vie SFa} jzIttW PLAT T 31 —.---—— Z 7Q77 30 x. LDS= 1 50 WHITMA ti l ?G CO 4L40. t 84 Ot 5 Z= 3 ice— g1 © 4 Z4 27 26 ( 4-14 Y; tr:-. = . J I t85 8Z ditnESMMEZ i* 20 i u.E 17 — T 29 I I IZ 3 4 5 G 7 8 9 to 11 IZ I9I14 IS IG 1'I 1 S 4 LU r 1 I Ik. ftk- I4L4IL4NN 0;., 4.i. let. ,..iliii c _.,1: ,,,- . 11-- i I ,R'•4 . l. s-' 1 I 1/4 1:----- 4f.f' 11. ` W 11 1 1 1_ . '. `;fi _. 2 i A 161. 1"r 7 1 I. I 9 i3S'rr`aRn t.4 . r'd;a x 1 G. Z Lij Milk= -I Ef' Jc 'i:1/7'•i.!r'si 4 -r-J 3, I L9 4'f. II^-'Pl. . T I ISoW 4 iW b4 z W IretraZal1zIZWE11r(i 3 2IQ /eh'gri Q' _ 6 40\.,I.z.iiiii:-.. , 2 ! 4 5 16 i 7 1 a I1 .N 5 grit' t 'k, to 1 Mis . eistv:i s 1. 4 .]..,'*% ‘, I( ::,,B_ elapifilEr. _Ir 1 NE il Z 1 3 SEr - z 11 1blII10J.•, •'. . 13 IL11wtjz a %XI N.E • . 4 s II ze: Q 1 0in©i 121 1 1 t - t5 t41i7 /4I31 . .. - In II A , L IOT- P' - 7 " rum" Z 1 13 1 2 alp 3 ov E. 12 5.yliz 7 8 9 10 II I= 1,-j W i:i a( '©n m0' 3, 3 14 4 3 4 17 w I is 441L 13 11 11 _ .. Ioligis It.. c — . E 1 O'y ST. L 1 f. T s iaI 1:::ia 1 I tA..-a..•4' - G 7 3i 1 1b:IC MS V 1 I II H SHADED PAecEL5 o> LAP VA.Z-E la 1 Ex EMP; V-r-., r'1 Sn.0 . St-,,.)1 7--. OF I 0 THE CITY OF RENTON CJ `o ' Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 0 rn BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR MAXINE E.MOTOR, 90 o- CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500 0194 1 .0 SEPS" February 16, 1984 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF KING ss MARILYN J. PETERSEN, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 16th day of February, 1984, at the hour of 5:00 p.m. , your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail , to all parties of record, a true and correct NOTICE OF APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMIENR'S DECISION FILED BY JOEL HAGGARD, ATTORNEY FOR DALPAY/CROOKSTON; File No. R-033-83. Marilyn J t rsen, Deputy City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 16th day of February, 1984. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in King County OF R o THE CITY OF RENTON Op-Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 n rn BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR MAXINE E.MOTOR, c o O- CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500 0 Et) SEPS ° February 16, 1984 APPEAL FILED BY JOEL HAGGARD, REPRESENTING DALPAY/CROOKSTON Re: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner' s Recommendation, dated January 26, 1984, James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Crookston Rezone Request; File No. R-033-83 (Remand) . To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 30, City Code, written appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner' s recommendation has been filed with the City Clerk, along with the proper fee of $75.00. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council ' s Planning and Development Committee and will be considered by the City Council when the matter is reported out of Committee. The Planning and Development Committee meeting to review this appeal has been scheduled on Thursday, March 1 , 1984, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Please contact the Council Secretary or the City Clerk if additional information is desired. Sincerely, CITY OF RENTON Maxine E. Motor City Clerk z - 133 Mary Ryan real estate 450 shattuck ave. so., renton,wa.98055, 271-5311 CITY OF REN1ON February 15, 1984 D l'flq Fred J. Kaufman FEB 1 j 1984 [11) Land Use Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Ave South Renton, Wash 98055 Dear Mr. Kaufman, Regarding Norm Culver's restrictive covenant conditions: Your verbage. . ."assuring the perpetual preservation of the natural vegitation on the proposed Lot #2, together with a restriction filed on the applicant's orginal King County Lot and a similar one tied to the proposed Lot #2 regdireing that they shall only be conveyed as a totality, and that neither may be conveyed without simultaneous convey- ance of the other." Norm Culver called me and asked my interpretation of that statement regarding future short platting of his property. I told him I didn't think it would have any bearing on a future short plat other than to tie lot 2 of the subject short plat like a rider on the western most lot of a future short plat. The only other factor would enter at such time as City of REnton might annex all of Norm's property then I would suppose that the frontage of Lot 2 could be figured into the minimum frontage requirement of a new lot provided all the improvement specifi- cations would be met at that time. Norm Culver would like to have your interpretation of these possibilities with his file on the property should he at some future date make applica- tion to plat his property. Twenty years from now, no one may remember the particulars and an interpretation of future platting restrictions might prove helpful. Thank you, ry P t Rya cc Norm Culver Roger Blaylock 4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER REN1 ON. WASHING]ON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN 1 HE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE SECOND) FLOOR OF CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHING-ION ON FEBRUARY 21, 1984, AT 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: ROBERT-EARL REAL ESTATE, INC. (Eden Estates) Application for preliminary plat approval of a plat of eleven (11) single family lots, file PP-002-84, and variances for: (1) exemption of width requirements of off-site access road, file V-003-84, (2) exemption of cul-de-sac length limitations, file V-004-84, and (3) to allow three pipe stem lots, file V-005-84; property located north of N.E. 28th Street and east of Kennewick Place N.E. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Renton Building and Zoning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 21, 1984, AT 9:00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLISHED : FEBRUARY 10, 1984 if V i,-;-",\/,‘.._ _. ! ."'", ..! .. 1 ..., y ii % i ii fl t t t • I t 7'14. ( if r.,/ i/ 1 '.' 6- " '. R-3 >,:,, - . Ili r e I s I o ea I7 a '_1-r ter.3 , l I+ t e7— • us ----- -.. i I a y__s I 2 ,' I r. i fTel171 - --- 7,, . hi, t I I ,Iil i t et t• • I 1/' 79 r ,k .., :, -- - - 1 .J 7N gy a. it IS1 I 1 t : '21•i! t i . •• • 1 . II'1 W •.• , i f , 1., i e:[• •.•1n;ut,n,,••,. I 1 f- .__ ' 3. y r I' __.5C 1 . I I,;,1-: '•l,: H i !• III; '.I S.,1.1.L . . I „ I ./ 1 'I 67` 1\ Z ._ .. .i ,. I l i .l..i.Ly.'«44.•+1.6 .' -j...I,I-,..'d ,.'I 70 • 71 I •1+,1 r 5 ... . 11 l•y L I I tee 9r-H 1 ' l l ' I II 1 se •.• 1. 1 l ,_ :• a• 10R'1 1 • . . I i '1 : : I I 1 . I , :.:i t t i t l.+n v j• N 7.11: ; ' inlii! • 1r1i11 ;t,.71,1 ;_ - - J } i/' R 4 } fi 1i1111111. R 1 to , t9 7• R''4r' I i =1 R- I I Y+ Il.., ri'6.i. i 5 la S L r t r . , ., •ql:, 1 •, r It;i, L . 1 :_.:.... . IdS, II. . ' . Si. .. i .) a .. h b 1 l•Hititn i i-P.1 1 1 ! ! 1 i i 1 ! I l l r i t 1. ! a I 5'4 1 : 411 Ill ji; *I 1 1 I*1 l r" l i•r_-„ t. ' 14, s.• t I sa• s,r. r,' rl• 1"i r r!Trf i,! 1'•F.-(T t !, I ,I I I iFT.1. ;:!I T II[fT?.ITt,.. ram_ `..__ I I rra;, '1'TTiI1 i'r 1 y/Ihi + 1 s7 G-41 I •a l 1!ill!1 i 1 L 1'4: T i\R-2 I.. 1 I 565 e 11 .rY f1 vU:•1 1;i1 I 1-I1ID di L1I11.! r r - q / i I K NNYDAIELL'!' 1i fl1 ri llli 1]f I) I,.,. i F Q 4 1 11' I lT.11 •1J 11ILL1 T,j1'l l L(MINTARY \ i y _ i ', IZ • II t — I . . 7 1-`:; 1 1 t O 159 I LZ!9 L 9e L21 I t2:4 2C! i ': 2ENT 7' • ' s • -1 III )4# t t;° 1. 1 - - J,4 BUILDING 6, ZONING DEPARTMENT 200 Mill Avenue South a if~t . Renton,Washington 98055 z I or /z. Walter T ach E R 2 2 19e1 23407 123rd E. Storm , WA 98390 t 260 Hillmans Lk. Wn Garden 0 SUCH < p--. P"°M1 NO SUCH ` M 9 UMBER NIIMRE°EB 21 , t,, „n,rn Ja4 ) I RETURN 1 JENOER 984 f r ,.a yvnc, r CITY OF RENT _ N N?4977 FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 i qj 19 RECEIVED OF e-e ' .' J C il' 41# ,,t , is 033 - g3 TOTAL, 5--'0v 5 2 FEB 911884 3 4 CITY CLERK 5 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF RENTON 6 7 Regarding Rezone No. R-033-83 8 Application by 9 JAMES DALPAY/LEROY CROOKSTON ) NOTICE OF AND ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL 10 11 The City Council adopted a Comprehensive Land Use 12 Plan. The Plan clearly shows that the rezone property is 13 Commercial . The requested rezone does exactly that . The 14 Examiner disregards the Plan' s Map and recommends denial . 15 The citizens at the hearing objected to any 16 potential apartments. The applicant then agreed not to 17 have apartments even though permitted by the zoning code 18 19 you have adopted. The Examiner distrusted the neighbors ' testimony and recommends denial . 20 The Examiner, having only the power of 21 recommendation, can not substitute his judgment for 22 23 yours. While he can say the rezone "should" be denied, 24 the decision is yours . Not only has the Examiner made 25 errors of law and of fact, his belief that it is contrary 26 to public welfare is an error of judgment and the Council 27 should grant the zoning subject to conditions . 28 NOTICE OF AND ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL 1 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY &BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 624-52SS 1 2 The Applicants ask you to grant the requested B-1 3 zoning in furtherance of your Comprehensive Plan' s Map and 4 impose conditions which assure buffering and use 5 restrictions acceptable to the area and the applicant . 6 7 A Property Rezone, Not Site Development, Is Requested 8 It may seem too simple to have to state that only 9 a rezone is being requested. Even the Examiner reminded 10 the audience of this when saying there was no proposal to 11 build anything at this time. (Page 4 , Examiner ' s Report ) . 12 The Examiner indicated that under the site plan 13 review condition recommended by the staff, another public 14 hearing would be required. (Page 5, Examiner' s Report) . 15 The Applicant has agreed to site plan review for 16 redevelopment. So before any development takes place, 17 staff review and public hearings will be held. 18 Despite this understanding, the Examiner 19 recommends denial, in part, due to "concerns" over site 20 development. This is clear error of law and judgment . No 21 development impacts will result from the rezone; and 22 developmental impacts ( if any) will be controlled through 23 the development review process . See Ullock vs Bremerton, 24 17 Wn.App. 573 , 583 ( 1977 ) . The Examiner errs by assuming 25 the City would in fact permit development that would cause 26 unsafe sewer problems (Conclusion 2 , Page 13 , Examiner ' s 27 Report) . There is no evidence of this in this case . The 28 NOTICE OF AND HAGGARD, TOUSLEY &BRAIN ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL 2 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 00101 024•S2SS 1 2 only credible testimony was by Mr . Bob Bingstrom, 3 Engineering Supervisor for the City. He said that the 4 City is involved with major sewer projects that "will 5 alleviate this problem" . (Page 8 , Examiner ' s Report . ) 6 7 The Rezone Implements The City Council ' s Comprehensive Plan 8 There is no question that the City' s Comprehen- 9 sive Plan maps the property for commercial use . The City 10 Council made this decision. It is not up to the Examiner 11 to now deny a rezone because of dislike of the Council ' s 12 decision. 13 The Map, while not establishing precise use 14 boundaries, clearly recognizes that commercial uses are 15 appropriate on the west side of Union north of 12th. The 16 Council ' s selection of the King County/Renton boundary as 17 the furthest west the commercial designation was to go 18 appears reasonable. But the Examiner disagrees with 19 Council . He says the Map is not the last word. The 20 Examiner says that this boundary is inappropriate 21 (Conclusion 7 , Page 14, Examiner ' s Report) . His 22 conclusion is error and is contrary to established policy. 23 The Examiner in Conclusion 5 sweeps away the 24 force and vitalityof your land use map. In effect , the 25 Examiner tells you that when he finds some policy in the 26 Comprehensive Plan that could be construed against a 27 rezone request, then the rezone ' s conformity with the Map 28 NOTICE OF AND HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL 3 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 624-52S6 1 can be disregarded. Applied to similar situation you have 2 planned for , this would deny commercial zoning 1 ) south of 3 N.E . 4th west of 148th S .E. ; 2 ) north of 405 just east of 4 the junction with the Valley Freeway; 3 ) north of 5 Petrovitsky Road around 140th S .E . ; 4 ) west of 405 in the 6 vicinity of Grady Way; and 5 ) north of Sunset Blvd . west 7 of 138th S . E . 8 The Examiner in Conclusion 5 establishes a unique 9 rule of law - the Land Use Map must be used in conjunction 10 with existing uses . This proposition is used, not to 11 condition a zoning request to provide buffering , but to 12 deny it since existing residential uses are on the site to 13 be rezoned and next door . (See Conclusion 6 , Examiner ' s 14 Report ) . This means any time a rezone is requested it has 15 to be denied if an existing use is thought by the Examiner 16 to be incompatible with the Council ' s planned use . We 17 know of no policy or law in Renton which requires existing 18 uses , inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Map, to 19 be preserved. If this were true your law on abatement of 20 non-conforming uses would be threatened since the existing 21 use supercedes your land use planning . 22 Please understand - we are not saying that 23 differing uses should be developed without consideration 24 of how one affects the other . That is why we have agreed 25 26 to setback , use limitations and sandscape buffering 27 requirements . But this relates to how the commercial 28 NOTICE OF AND ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL 4 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101 624-3299 1 2 development would be planned, not whether there should be 3 commercial zoning. Whether there should be commercial 4 zoning is answered by your Land Use Map. 5 The Examiner errors by speculation that the 6 rezone should be denied "If a smooth transition can not be 7 accommodated. " The Examiner makes no finding or 8 conclusion that the landscape and use buffers proposed by 9 applicant will not yield the smooth transition the 10 Examiner wants . This fundamental error of speculation and 11 of ignoring competent, expert testimony means the Examiner 12 has ignored evidence in order to effectively deny the 13 Council ' s Comprehensive Plan designation . 14 15 Selective Speculation To Deny The Rezone Is Error 16 The Examiner severely chastised the neighbors for 17 their concerns about apartment dwellers . We concur that 18 such stereotype characterizations are inappropriate and 19 illegal (See JW, KW, LJ, TS, LS, FS, PG & Else Blount v. 20 City of Tacoma, 720 F. 2d 1126 (1983 ) ) . 21 Despite a willingness to chastise the neighbors 22 for speculative testimony, the Examiner relies on the same 23 quality of testimony in recommending denial . He concludes 24 that if a smooth transition can not occur, the rezone must 25 be denied. But the Examiner never concludes, despite 26 expert testimony to the contrary, that a smooth transition 27 will not result . This is error . The Examiner cannot 28 NOTICE OF AND ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL 5 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY &BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 58101 624-5299 1 2 suppose something will happen and base denial on that 3 supposition particularly when there is contrary, expert 4 testimony in the record. Decisions must be made on record 5 evidence, not speculation. The Examiner recommends denial 6 because of sewer problems . But this is totally 7 speculative since as the Examiner elsewhere recognizes , no 8 development is authorized by this rezone. And this 9 speculation ignores the contrary, expert testimony with 10 Mr . Bob Bingstrom. 11 It is certainly true that a great variety of 12 testimony and evidence is presented in a rezone hearing . 13 Evidence is not restricted because it violates the rules 14 for court rooms. While this is as it should be, the 15 rezone process is still a quasi-judicial process and 16 minimum standards to protect the due process rights of a 17 property owner are required. Even your code recognizes 18 that the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial 19 property rights of an applicant is to be furthered. RCC 20 4-3104 (C) ( 2) . This means that when credible evidence by 21 an expert like Mr. Richard Carothers on landscaping is 22 presented it can not be ignored. The Examiner did and 23 this is error . 24 We invite the Council to look at the slides and 25 landscape plan presented by Mr . Carothers. It will 26 convince you that the Examiner ' s recommendation is clearly 27 erroneous and arbitrary. 28 NOTICE OF AND HAGGARD. TOUBLEY &BRAIN ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL 6 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE.WASHINGTON 98101 624-5299 1 2 Conditional Zoning Is Reasonable And Protects The Public Interest . 3 The Examiner boldly concludes that the rezone is 4 not in the public interest and should be denied. 5 One reason given is the sewer overflows four or 6 five times a year. (See Finding 14 , Page 11 , Examiner ' s 7 Report) . Certainly the Council is aware of this, 8 otherwise the moratorium would not have been established . 9 But the moratorium relates to when development takes 10 place, not what zoning should be applied - and as the 11 Examiner admits no development is approved by the zoning. 12 The Examiner errors when he finds that the map 13 attached to the moratorium is nothing but an aid to 14 staff. (See Finding 14 , Page 11 , Examiner' s Report ) . The 15 moratorium specifically exempts the Dalpay property at the 16 southwest corner of Sunset and Union. Mr. Dalpay owns a 17 portion of the rezone property and it is clearly exempt 18 19 from the sewer moratorium. Mr. Crookston owns the other parcel and the map attached to the moratorium ordinance 20 indicates it is exempt . This map is incorporated into the 21 ordinance. Mr. Bob Bergstrom, Engineering Supervisor for 22 23 Renton, testified that sewer hookups are limited to the 24 mapped areas. Unless the City Council directs Mr . 25 Bergstrom otherwise this consistent administrative 26 practice applies and the Examiner should not overrule the 27 staff . 28 NOTICE OF AND 7 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY& BRAIN ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 624-8200 2 But frankly the moratorium issue is not a 3 deciding point. We have agreed to abide by the moratorium 4 till it is lifted or 3 years pass. This time is 5 reasonable particularly in light of two things , 1 ) Mr . 6 Bergstrom testified that two major sewer projects being 7 worked on now "will alleviate this problem and the 8 moratorium in the area will be lifted" (Page 8 , Examiner ' s 9 Report) , and 2 ) after 3 years, applicant will still have 10 to seek development approvals and construct the buildings, 11 thereby adding to the time until any sewage flows . 12 The Examiner prejudices applicant and the Council 13 by inferring applicant wants to add to a sanitary health 14 problem. This is simply untrue and the Examiner well 15 knows that before any development can occur the City will 16 review and approve it . We simply can not presume, as the 17 Examiner did, that the City Staff is derelict in approving 18 developments . 19 We are not aware of any Renton Code or general 20 law requiring zoning transitions to be smooth. This 21 standard used by the Examiner in Conclusion 8 is error . 22 But we do agree that it is appropriate for the 23 Council to assure that zoning does not cause material 24 detriment to people in the area. But there is NO 25 credible, expert testimony in this record that there will 26 be material detriment. Contrary to the Examiner' s 27 approach in Finding 20, noise and fumes ( if any) will not 28 NOTICE OF AND HAGGARD, TOUSLEY BRAIN ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL 8 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 624-82SS 1 2 cause material detriment . This is affirmed by the 3 Declaration of Non-significance issued for the rezone . 4 The Examiner again errors by ignoring credible, contrary 5 expert evidence. 6 We do not presume, as the Examiner does, that the 7 Council or staff erred when the Land Use Map was prepared 8 and adopted. The commercial area in which applicants ' 9 property is located was deliberate and considered. Of 10 course the Examiner disagrees with the Council when he 11 says the site is not suitable for commercial uses . This 12 is error . 13 The problem with and the fundamental error is 14 that the Examiner concludes that the site is suitable for 15 single family use if a smooth transition can not be 16 accommodated. But the Examiner never considered the 17 evidence and decided that an appropriate transition was 18 impossible. This is error. 19 The transition is assured by Setbacks, 20 Landscaping and Use Restrictions. On the west side, there 21 is a 15 foot non-building setback . On the west and south 22 is intensive landscaping which can virtually screen off 23 the site. Indeed, the neighbor to the west can cut down 24 his trees and the landscape buffer can stil be achieved on 25 site (See testimony and exhibits presented by Mr. Richard 26 Carothers) . And not only has applicant agreed to use 27 restrictions, but applicant has agreed to have no 28 NOTICE OF AND 9 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 824-52SS 1 2 apartments on the site - a position the neighborhood 3 supports and the Examiner disliked. 4 5 Conclusion - A Rezone Subject To Conditions Implements Your Comprehensive Plan. 6 The rezone decision is yours - just as was the 7 decision on the Comprehensive Plan. You can grant the 8 rezone subject to conditions . We have agreed to extensive 9 conditions that will guide development planning on the 10 site. 11 The Examiner ' s recommendation is just that . It 12 is premised upon substantial errors of fact, law and 13 judgment. His denial 1) presumes that the City would 14 approve a development that causes a serious, known serious 15 health problem, 2) is based upon reading the Land Use Map 16 in conjunction with existing uses thereby precluding 17 changes the Lands Use Plan has planned for, 3 ) assumes a 18 19 rezone should be denied unless there is a smooth transition between zones which is neither the standard nor 20 consistent with expert testimony in this record, and 21 4 ) assumes the City Council erred with designating this 22 23 property for future commercial use . 24 The Examiner opposes the Council 's Commercial 25 designation in the Land Use Plan. This designation is 26 what applicant ' s rezone will implement . The Examiner 27 chastises the neighbors for their opposition to 28 NOTICE OF AND HAGGARD, TOUSLEY& BRAIN ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL 10 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 50101 624-5200 1 2 apartments . Even though the zoning would permit above 3 ground apartments, the applicant has agreed to never 4 pursue apartments . 5 The rezone subject to conditions is appropriate, 6 reasonable and consistent with your Land Use Plan. It 7 should be granted. 8 DATED this 9th day of February, 1984 . 9 Respectfully submitted, 10 HAGGARD`- LEY & BRAIN 11 12 By: L- Joel . Hag a 13 Attorneys o Petitioners 14 3647E 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF AND ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL 11 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY& BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 913101 624-8299 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. County of King SUE ELLISTON being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 26th day of January 1984, affiant deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. CSg4d-4--) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 9-4 day of _ 1984. 0-4e_e6( Nota Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Renton therein. Application, Petition, or Case fit• DALPAY/CROOKSTON REMAND: FILE R-033-83 The minutes contain a list of the parties of record.) January 26, 1984 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CIT Y OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. APP_ICANT: JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON FILE NO. R-033-83 - REMAND LOCATION: 4010 N.E. 12th Street SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant seeks approval of a rezone of + 57,725 sq. ft. from R-1 to B-1 for proposed commercial use. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Building and Zoning Department Recommendation: Approval subject to covenants and site plan approval of reuse of existing structures or new construction. Hearing Examiner Recommendation: Denial. BUILDING & ZONING The Building & Zoning Department Report was DEPARTMENT REPORT: received by the Examiner on September 6, 1983; the matter was remanded back to the Examiner by the City Council for reconsideration; and a supplemental report was received by the Examiner on January 12, 1984. PUBL IC HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Zoning Department Report, examining available information on file with the application and field checking the property and surrounding area, Lhe Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on January 12, 1984, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Rentc n Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. Rogei Blaylock, Zoning Administrator, reported that this application was previously before the Exam ner, and that the City Council remanded the matter back to the Examiner due to changes made in the original application. The following were entered into the record as follows: Exhibit #1: Yellow file, updated with information submitted to the City Council and various letters on appeal of the previous decision. It was noted Exhibit #2 (Assessor's Map showing the subject property in relation to the neighborhood), Exhibit #3 (Site plan showing existing structures and the ERC conditions imposed thereon), and Exhibit #4 (Site plan showing the maximum potential for the subject site) had previously been entered into the record and would be incorporated herein by ref:rence. Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He noted this application was first heard by the Hearing Examiner on September 13, 1983; the recommendation was forwarded to the City Council to deny the request for R-033-83; the Council then remanded the matter back to the Examiner for another public hearing. Mr. Blaylo:k noted the applicants have modified the original request submitted and considered by the Examiner to specifically limit the proposed development by use regulations and by a limitation on construction of new structures. Mr. Blaylock further stated the applicant is willing to specifically limit non-compatible uses cn the subject site, along with limiting any new development on the site for a three-year period, or to removal of the moratorium under Ordinance #2392. The applicant is asking the Council to rezone the subject property as recommended by the city staff, but subject also to the following additional restraints: REPOFIT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMESI W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMA J,D OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page 2 1. No structure may be constructed within the westerly 15 feet of the property. Further, the westerly 15 feet shall be landscaped incidental to any development permit. 2. Pursuant to issuance of city permits for redevelopment, a landscape plan shall be approved by the Building & Zoning Department. 3. No new structures may be constructed upon the subject property until the city, by lawful action, removes the sewer moratorium (Ordinance #2392), or three years pass, whichever is sooner; provided that this shall not prohibit changes of use in accord with zoning for the present structures. 4. After rezoning to B-1, the subject property may not be used for the following otherwise permitted B-1 uses: a. Furniture store; b. Laundries, cleaning and pressing establishments; c. Locksmiths and shoe repair; d. Lumber yards and fuel yards; e. Public garages, repair shops, and battery service stations and tire repair shops; f. Fast food restaurants or any restaurant operating 24 hours a day; g. Service stations; h. Undertaking establishments; i. Mobile home parks; j. Self service storage facilities; k. Twenty-four hour convenience stores These conditions are in addition to the four added constraints established by the Environmental Review Committee (See paragraph L.2.1, b, c, & d, page 3, Staff Report, dated September 13, 1983. Mr. Blaylock noted the staff recommends approval of the requested rezone, subject to the following conditions: 1. Filing of restrictive covenants limiting the use as proposed by the applicant. 2. Requiring site plan approval of any reuse of existing structures or new construction. The Examiner called on the applicant or representative for testimony. Responding was: Joel Haggard Haggard, 1 owsley & Brain Attorneys at Law 720 Olive Way Seattle, WA 98101 Mr. Haggard stated he was the attorney for the applicants, James W. Dalpay and Leroy A. Crookston. He stated it is the applicants' contention that since the requested rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, that it should be granted. Mr. Haggard offered an enlargement of the Comprehensive Plan design for the subject area; he noted this property has been legislatively determined by the Renton City Council as appropriate for commercial land use; that there is no question there is concern from neighboring property owners over this rezone, but that the Council should follow through with implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Haggard further stated that there will be a line separating the zoning classifications in this area; the line between the commercial and the adjacent residential areas to the west and south of the subject property; Mr. Haggard further stated the applicant is not in disagreement with the supplemental staff report submitted today, and has no objections to the staff recommendations made therein. Rather, the applicant is questioning whether it is appropriate to restrict the uses of the property; they are, however, willing to limit the uses on the site if the rezone is approved, subject to the restrictions referred to in the staff report above. R- EPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page 3 M- r. Haggard stated there was a concern raised by the Hearing Examiner in his last report with reference to the sewer moratorium; that there is a conflict between the text and the map with respect to the property on the southwest corner of the subject site. The applicant does, how'wer, agree to be subject to the moratorium for a period of 3 years or sooner if the mor Itorium is rescinded by the City Council. They feel the moratorium must be reasonable in time and the moratorium ordinance has no limit on it. At t his point, Mr. Haggard called on the landscape architect for a presentation. Responding was: Richard Carothers Architect 814 E. Pike Street Seattle, WA 98122 Mr. Carothers indicated his firm had been asked to present the issue of buffering the proposed property. He offered a map showing the proposed buffering to be used on the site. At t its point, the Hearing Examiner entered the following into the record: Exhibit 115: Enlarged Comprehensive Plan Map showing the subject site. Exhibit #6: Map showing the proposed buffering to be used on the site. Mr. Carothers explained the proposed buffering to be used and noted the materials selected and how they are installed can accomplish immediate buffering; that they propose a 3' wide planting strip along the north side in addition to what is recommended by staff; that there will be an exc€vated trench with a row of 6' tall Columnar Arborvitae, and immediately behind them, ther? is to be a row of evergreen material in staggered rows which will immediately make a row dense enough to obscure the site. Mr. Carothers then gave a slide presentation showing various other areas where this type of land icaping buffer has been used and its effectiveness, without having to utilize a strip of land 15' wide to do so. Mr. laggard noted this would conclude their case and that both he and Mr. Carothers, as well as the Applicant, would be available for questions. The Examiner called for further testimony in support of the application. There was none offered. The applicant then called for testimony in opposition to the proposal. Responding was: Judy Petruska 1174 Shelton Ave. N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mrs. Petruska stated Mr. Crookston, one of the applicants in this matter, has no intentions of movng or of selling his property. She asked if this were to be zoned commercially, what would that do for a buffer between the residential properties surrounding this site; where would Mr. Crookston have access to his property; she aso questioned the close proximity of Mr. Crookston's buildings to the property line. The Examiner stated there are certain setbacks already imposed in the zoning; that these would appl,i when new construction occurs and the uses for the property change. Mrs. Petruska asked what the applicant plans to put on the property when it is rezoned and what will happen if apartments are put in when the moratorium is released. She asked if they could charge from office buildings to apartments at that time. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page 4 Mr. Blaylock answered that the B-1 ordinance recently modified, allows apartments to be located above commercial activity; they would be able to build a structure with office spaces on the first floor, with apartments on upper floors. Mrs. Petruska asked Mr. Dalpay if it was his intention to put apartments on the property. Mr. Haggard stated that was merely speculative; that the applicant has no current plans. Mrs. Petruska asked if Mr. Crookston's property would have a buffer from the commercial activityI . The Eaminer stated he believes if Mr. Crookston's property was rezoned, the buffer would be on the west side of his property and would assume also that Mr. Crookston was not wanting to buffer his property if he was a party to this rezone request. Mr. Haggard stated access to Mr. Crookston's property would be internal from Mr. Dalpay's property. The Examiner called for further testimony in opposition to the request. Responding was: Michael Berry 1216 Queen Ave. N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Berry stated he also was under the impression there would be apartments placed on the subject site and asked for clarification of the intended use for the property. The 6Caminer stated the proposal before him tonight is to rezone the property to B-1; this permits certain uses; the applicant has indicated they would limit the uses to those allowed in the B-1 zone; apartments are allowed above office complexes in the B-1 zone; the applicant also must comply, however, to certain height limitations, which would not permit more than one or two stores for apartments. Mr. Berry inquired of the number of parking spaces anticipated and the traffic impact proposed for the site. Mr. Haggard indicated there was no specific site plan nor use proposal for the site at this time; that whatever parking is necessary will be determined when they determine the uses for the property. Mr. Berry asked what this development would do to his property taxes and asked if this would increase his property values. Mr. Blaylock explained that when looking at tax rates, the auditor's office looks at a piece of property and makes a comparison; that there is no comparable value between Mr. Berry's residence and the proposed uses for this property. The Examiner asked Mr. Blaylock where his staff came up with the proposed traffic and parking impacts upon this site. Mr. Blaylock stated that his office used the International Institute of Traffic Engineers manual and that this proposed map is merely speculative in that it is intended to show the maximum use of the property. The Examiner inquired of the number of stories that could be constructed on the site. Mr. Blaylock stated the B-1 zone allows 3-story buildings; that if it were a 3-story office building, that would be approximately 12,000 sq. ft., and approximately 78 required parking spaces. The Examiner again reminded the audience that the nature of this request was to zone the property, not to build anything at this time; that the proposal does not need concrete plans For the rezone. Mr. Berry asked about his insurance rates, wanting to know if they would increase because of the proposed development. R- EPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAM1ES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page: 5 M- r. Blaylock stated he could not answer that question; that would be up to an insurance agent. Mr. Berry asked if the crime rate could be expected to increase because of apartments being cons tructed in the neighborhood. Mr. Blaylock noted most multiple family and commercial buildings have better crime prevention than single family areas. Mr. Blaylock, in answer to a question by Mr. Berry, noted that if the zoning is left without a site plan approval, the building permit could be issued if they request a permit to construct soma:thing within the limitations of the B-1 zone. The Examiner noted the City has recommended a site plan review hearing be held and the public wou:d be allowed to testify at that hearing before any development of this site takes place; the property owners will again be notified as they were for this hearing. The Examiner then called for further testimony in opposition to the request. Responding was: Nick Petruska 1174 Shelton Ave. N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. 'etruska presented a petition, signed by 249 residents in the subject area, containing seven obje(:tions to the rezone request, as follows: 1. The rezoning request does not comply with the Renton Comprehensive Plan. 2. Existing sewers are not sufficient to handle any increased development at this time, as they are presently over capacity and have been for several years dumping raw sewage into the street and nearby creek. 3. Granting of this rezone request would increase traffic hazards which already exist on N.E. 12th Street and would further jeopardize the safety of children walking to school. 4. Commercial and/or multi-family development will increase the noise pollution in the area. Noise levels for residences on N.E. 12th Street have already increased since logging was recently completed between N.E. 12th Street and Sunset Blvd. N.E. S. The effect of this rezoning would increase the existing imbalance of commercial or multi-family dwellings in the affected area. 6. We believe the intentions of this rezone is for future development of multi-family housing units, which would be allowed under the proposed B-1 zoning. 7. This zoning change would reduce the marketability of single family residences in the immediate area. The Examiner then entered the following into the record: Exhibit 06: Landscape Plan for the proposed site. Exhibit #7: Area map showing location of those homes whose owners object to this rezone. Mr. F etruska inquired about access for Mr. Crookston to his own property. Mr. Blaylock noted at th time of commercial development, Mr. Crookston's access would be limited; that when Mr. (:rookston's property is developed, he would have to have access through Mr. Dalpay's prop rty. R- EPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page 6 T- he Examiner then entered the following into the record: Exhibit #8: Certified copy of Petition presented by Mr. Petruska protesting this rezone request. Mr. Haggard stated he had no objections to the map, nor to the petition so long as it is characterized as a petition containing 249 expressing views only. He commenced questioning Mr. Petruska with reference to Mr. Petruska's property values over the last two to three years. Mr. Petruska indicated he did not have these answers available to him tonight. The Examiner questioned Mr. Haggard's method of examination, noting this was an informal hearing; that Mr. Haggard could cross-examine the witnesses, however, he must do so in a different manner. The audience expressed vocal opinions on Mr. Haggard's method of examination of Mr. Petruska, and the Examiner called for a 10 - minute recess at 9:10 p.m. The hearing reconvened at 9:25 p.m. The Examiner stated he wants those present in the audience who wish a copy of the report and recommendation from tonight's hearing to sign the sheet being passed around at this time. The Examiner then called for further testimony in opposition to the request. Responding was: Robert Daniels 3926 N.E. 12th Street Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Daniels stated he lives in the residence two lots west of the subject site; that he believes the development of this property into apartments/commercial use would lessen the value of his property for future resale value; that he and his wife canvassed the area to see how others felt about the rezone. Mr. Daniels noted all of those contacted wanted to sign the petition and no one was in favor of it. Only four or five persons could not be contacted, two of which were homes for sale and vacant; one resident works for the City of Renton and chose not to sign the petition, but was not in favor of the rezone; the last residence was a rental property and the residents were new to the area. Mr. Daniels further stated he feels he received 100% cooperation from the surrounding neighbors in signing the petition in opposition. Mr. Daniels further noted the storm water is atrocious in this area; that they have had several robberies and some of those persons charged with this crime have resided in the nearby apartment buildings. Further, Mr. Daniels stated he could not get an answer from Mr. Dalpay as to what he wants to do with the property. Mr. Daniels noted that Mr. Dalpay had asked himself and others to buy his property under their own name and to sell it back to Mr. Dalpay at some future time; that the neighborhood does not feel they can trust the man. Mr. Daniels also reported Mr. Dalpay was operating an insurance operation out of his home and questioned the legality of this. The Examiner noted there are certain home occupations permitted in the B-1 zone. Mr. Blaylock stated that since this has now been made public information, efforts will be commenced by the Building & Zoning Department to stop the activity. Mr. Daniels inquired if curb, gutters, and sidewalks would be installed. Mr. Blaylock stated this was a city requirement and all public improvements are required for construction over $25,000 except for single family residences. The Examiner stated if the rezone is approved, conditions could be binding upon the property, not the owner; that the applicant has indicated he would do certain things if this were approved and the potential buyer/buyers would be bound by those restrictions. REF ORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 Jant. ary 12, 1984 Page 7 Mr. Daniels also expressed his concern over losing the existing view he has of the mountains, which is why he bought his property at that location; by placement of the trees for buffering, this would eliminate his view. He stated the noise level has already increased immensely since he bought his property and he is fearful that the development of this land into commercial actin pity will increase that even more so. Mr. Daniels then presented the Examiner with a letter opposing the rezone from a property own(r who was not able to be present tonight, Henry Dykes. The Examiner entered the letter into the record as follows: Exhibit #9: Letter opposing the proposed rezone from: Henry Dykes 3239 - 11th P1. N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Daniels again stated he was opposed to apartments being built on this site and they have asked Mr. Dalpay repeatedly and he will not indicate what his plans are for the subject site. He further noted Mr. Dalpay's prime reason for requesting annexation into the city was for cons) ruction of "apartments" as is documented in the city records. The Examiner called for further testimony. Responding was: Lawrence Wood 1155 Shelton Ave. N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Wood indicated he was opposed to the rezone request; that he had previously visited with Bob Bergstrom in the Engineering Department regarding the sewer problem at Union and Sunset and was advised that 2 to 3 million gallons of water is overflowing into the streets and into the area; that this area is already a health hazard; that a moratorium states only 361 units can hook up tc the system since the time of its creation. He asked if the city staff knew of how many hookups there have been or are anticipated to be to this system. Respi coding was: Bob Bergstrom Engineering Supervisor City of Renton Mr. E ergstrom stated he does not know how many sewer hookups have been made, but that they have been limited to those areas stated in the map attached to the moratorium ordinance and he is pertain that no more than that have been allowed. Mr. Wood asked if Mr. Dalpay would be willing to add "excluding apartments" to the list of commercial uses he would not place on this property. The Examiner asked Mr. Haggard if he had questions at this time. Mr. Haggard stated he did not. The Examiner called for further testimony in opposition to the request. Responding was: Bill Fox 1125 Shelton Ave. N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Fox asked Mr. Blaylock if there would be access onto 12th Street. Mr. Blaylock stated there would be access onto 12th Street and that any structure would have to have emergency acces; around the building to allow the fire department to fight fires, but they would not have to ha ie access onto 12th Street. Mr. Blaylock further pointed out that until a specific design for tE e property was approved, the easement roadway could be chained and gated until such time as Northeast Sunset access is available from the property. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page 8 The Examiner called for further testimony in opposition to the request. Responding was: Sandy Webb 430 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Webb indicated he does not feel the staff's portrayal of the subject site at its maximum usage has been correct since it did not include the possibility of apartment units being constructed on the site. Mr. Blaylock noted the ERC has looked at the maximum use for the property and that varies with each request; they attempted to look at the very worst, but that the ERC cut that intensity to one-third of what should have been allowed. Mr. Webb stated it might be well to consider the residential aspect and then separately the other uses and come up with some figures this audience can understand. The Examiner inquired if the site is served by sewer or septic tanks. Mr. Bergstrom responded that one of the buildings on the existing Dalpay property does not have sanitary sewers. The Examiner called on Mr. Haggard for testimony. Mr. Haggard indicated he would wait until all testimony was received by the audience. The Examiner then called for further testimony in support, opposition, or questions regarding this issue. Michael Berry questioned the place and number of garbage containers that would be serving this area. Mr. Blaylock noted it was premature to determine that at this time. Mr. Bergstrom noted the average home uses 1 to 1-1/2 cans per week, and that it is less for apartments; the City requires fencing and screening of dumpsters for apartments or businesses and are generally required to be placed in the rear areas of the property. Nick Petruska inquired if a letter opposing the rezone was received by Gene Bryant. The Examiner noted it has been received and made a part of the record. Mr. Petruska further questioned what could be developed on this property upon the expiration of the moratorium in three years. Mr. Bergstrom noted the city is working on two major projects in the area already; one being the sewer rehabilitation in the Glencoe area, and they will be sealing the cracks and attempting to locate the problems in the lines already existing and repair them; the other area to be worked on will be the Honeycreek Interceptor will be constructed, which will alleviate this problem and the moratorium in this area will be lifted. Discussion pursued with respect to relief to the existing sewer problems in this area, with Mr. Bergstrom addressing the proposals the city has made for obtaining this relief. Mr. Petruska then stated he was not opposed to development in this area; only that the residents feel this request is misleading; that they merely want to see uniformity within the area. The Examiner suggested those concerned with the city's implementation of the Comprehensive Plan should address those concerns to the City Council. Mrs. Petruska questioned who would be taking care of the greenery once it is installed, noting she has seen others deteriorate for lack of care. She also questioned the city's methods for notifying adjacent property owners on incidences such as this one. R- EF ORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 Jant ary 12. 1984 Page 9 M- r. Daniels stated he is concerned about emergency exits from this property; that if the exit is chai led and locked, this would create additional problems. He stated he knew of an instance where the Fire Department did not want one such road locked, consequently it was left open and became the main exit/entrance. He also noted there would have been more people atte iding this hearing tonight, but they felt that quantities did not affect the decision making, but asked for those present to be the spokesmen for them and asked to be informed of the resu is of the meeting. The Examiner stated he appreciated the cooperation; that numbers did not influence his deckion, it was the context of the concerns that affected his decisions. The Examiner called on Mr. Haggard. Mr. Haggard requested a 10-minute recess at 10:20 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:35 p.m. Mr. Haggard called on Mr. Carothers to answer questions regarding the landscaping. Mr. Carc thers agreed that assuming the Dalpay portion of the property is developed and Crookston's was lot, the landscaping would still be required on the west side of the Dalpay property, as well as of i the southern boundary also; that this would then be continued along the west and south sides of the Crookston property in an interim screening plan until the entire development is completed. The Examiner asked Mr. Haggard if he represented both Mr. Dalpay and Mr. Crookston. Mr. Hagc and stated he did represent both applicants. Mr. Haggard called on James W. Dalpay to answer questioning. James W. Dalpay P.O. Box 2436 Renton, WA 98057 Mr. Dalpay, in response to questioning by Mr. Haggard, stated that he did not ask anyone else to purchase property and re-sell it to him as was alleged earlier in this hearing; that he has heard all o this testimony tonight and that speaking for both himself and Mr. Crookston, they would agree; to add "apartments" to the list aleady supplied to the city which prohibits certain uses on their property. The Examiner asked if the term "multi-family dwellings" would be agreeable to be used instead of the term "apartments". Mr. Haggard stated he had no objection to that phrase. The Examiner called for further testimony. Mr. Tonda responded and inquired if this stipulation would apply to future owners of that property. The Ixaminer stated that this would depend on whether it became a covenant running with the land. Mr. Haggard stated they would agree to these restrictions. Harriet Pebles asked who would police these covenants. The Examiner stated it would be up to the s irrounding property owners to report anything they felt was being done that would not be allowed and that the city could then respond and check it out. The Ixaminer advised Mr. Dalpay if he was, as alleged, operating an insurance business from a residence, he should contact the city to obtain the proper license or to make certain it was allowed in that zone. The E xaminer called for further testimony. There was none. The I-earing was closed at 10:50 p.m. The Examiner noted he would send his recommendation to the C ity Council within 14 days and they would then take action at one of their future Council meet ngs. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page 10 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1.he applicants, James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Crookston, filed a request for approval of classification of approximately 57,725 sq. ft. of property from R-1 (Single Family esidential) to B-1 (Business/Commercial). Upon a recommendation from the Baring Examiner to the City Council that the request be denied, the applicant ppealed the recommendation and modified the original request. The matter was hen remanded for a new hearing on the modified request. 2. The original report of the Hearing Examiner issued September 27, 1983, contains the following findings which are again applicable. They are again included to simplify the readability and continuity of the report. The number at the end of each finding reflects its original number in the September 27, 1983 report. 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA, a Declaration of Non-Significance has been issued for the subject proposal by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), responsible official (#3). 4. The subject site is located at the intersection of Union Avenue N.E. and N.E. 12th Street. The property involved in the request consists of the three legal lots located at 1225 Union Avenue N.E., 4010 N.E. 12th Street, and 4018 N.E. 12th Street (#5). 5. The subject property slopes upward from north to south with two relatively level terraces occuring on either side of the slope (#6). 6. Single-family homes are located on each of the separate lots (#7). 7. The subject site was annexed into the city in May of 1964 by Ordinance #2093, at which time it was automatically zoned G-7200. A change in nomenclature changed the designation to R-1 in June of 1982 (118). 8. The Comprehensive Plan designates the general area at the intersection of Union Avenue N.E. and Sunset Avenue N.E. for a node of commercial development. The Comprehensive Plan further designates the general areas south and southwest of the intersection for single-family development and designates the areas southeast for medium density multi-family development. The Plan appears to provide for more intensive uses such as commercial and varying degrees of multi-family along the alignment of Sunset Blvd., gradually reducing the intensity of potential uses as properties become further removed from Sunset Blvd 9). 9. The sewer system serving the areas surrounding the subject site is still subject to overflow conditions during wet periods, with raw sewage escaping the system at the Sunset/Union Intersection and then flowing into Honey Creek. The city does plan on attempting to identify areas where infiltration and illegal down-spout connections enter the system. If infiltration is identified and eliminated, overflows may be less of a problem (#12). 10. The area is developed with a variety of uses. North and east of the subject site are commercial uses while single-family uses are located south and west of the subject site (#13). REPORT AND RECOMMENDAT ION JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 Jan Jary 12, 1984 Page 11 11. A similar request in 1978 for B-1 zoning for the majority of this site was denied during the preliminary recommendation process. The request was remanded and lapsed due to inaction by the then applicant (R-145-78). The applicant at that time had suggested less intensive uses of the southern portion of the site to buffer the single-family uses, but as indicated, nothing became of the proposal (#17). 12. Since 1978, the only apparent change is the modification of the Comprehensive Plan from a designation for the general area of medium-density multi-family to a designation of business and commercial (#18). 13. The single-family homes located south of N.E. 12th Street are at a topographically different level than the subject property. These homes are oriented to the south with rear yards to the north (#19). ADDITIONAL FINDINGS 14. Some portions of the subject site are within an area affected by a moratorium on new construction due to existing sewer limitations of the sewer servicing the subject site. The sewer overflows at least four or five times each year, spilling about 2 - 3 million gallons of raw sewage onto the streets in the area and then through the storm system into Honey Creek. The text of the moratorium excludes certain properties from its effects, but the Crookston property is not excluded from the moratorium text. The map referred to by the parties is not part of the moratorium but an aid prepared for staff. The attachment, as the language makes clear, "defined the boundaries of the Honey Creek and May Creek drainage basin", which is obviously not indicated on the attached map. The moratorium also included a maximum number of hookup equivalents. In addition, the Public Works Director could indicate the sewers had reached maximum capacity. Staff could not indicate whether the number of equivalent hookups has approached or exceeded those permitted by the moratorium, but nonetheless, the sewer, during wet periods, constitutes a health hazard by overflowing. 15. The applicants, on appeal, indicated their willingness to limit the bulk of the buildings, provide landscaped buffers, and limit the types of uses otherwise permitted if the site were rezoned to B-1. In addition, recognition of the sewer overflows led the applicant to agree to limit new building construction on the subject site for up to three years. The specific limitations are: 1. No structure may be constructed within the westerly 15 feet of the property. Further, the westerly 15 feet shall be landscaped incidental to any development permit. 2. Pursuant to issuance of city permits for redevelopment, a landscape plan shall be approved by the Building & Zoning Department. 3. No new structures may be constructed upon the subject property until the city, by lawful action, removes the sewer moratorium (Ordinance #2392), or three years pass, whichever is sooner; provided that this shall not prohibit changes of use in accord with zoning for the present structures. 4. After rezoning to B-1, the subject property may not be used for the following otherwise permitted B-1 uses: a. Furniture store; b. Laundries, cleaning and pressing establishments; c. Locksmiths and shoe repair; d. Lumber yards and fuel yards; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page 12 e. Public garages, repair shops, and battery service stations and tire repair shops; f. Fast food restaurants or any restaurant operating 24 hours a day; g. Service stations; h. Undertaking establishments; i. Mobile home parks; j. Self service storage facilities; k. Twenty-four hour convenience stores 16. Further, at the public hearing and as a consequence of additional citizen input regarding renters and apartments, the applicant further agreed not to construct apartments and multi-family dwellings of any kind, although otherwise permitted if the site were rezoned to B-I. 17. The conversion to and/or eventual construction of commercial uses on the subject site will increase traffic and noise levels over the levels legally encountered now at the subject site under the existing zoning. Staff estimated at the hearing that traffic could range from approximately 12.3 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. of general office space to up to 20 to 50 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. of medical office space. The estimates are approximate, but the subject site could provide area for an approximately 15,400 sq. ft. building, utilizing the general parking ratios and the height limitations imposed by the ERC. Daily traffic trips could total anywhere from approximately 190 trips to 770 trips per day. 18. The Police Department recommended on the basis of traffic, noise, light, and glare, that the request not be approved. Policy Development indicated that commercial uses should not front on N.E. 12th Street; that commercial uses should be separated from single family uses to the west and south by intervening multi-family uses; and commercial uses should be scaled to a compatible height and bulk. The Building Department indicated the reclassification should not be approved until the sewers are improved. 19. The applicant provided plans for a dense landscape buffer corresponding with the ERC's required 15 foot buffer along the west and south property lines. The buffer iwould consist of double rows of larger conifers, Columnar Arboritae and Douglas Fir as examples, and off-set or staggered to form an almost impenetrable visual barrier from the street and from the single-family homes to the south and west. The plan intended to supplement the row of Douglas fir along the western property line of the Crookston lot. Those trees are evidently on the adjacent lot and while it may remain as part of the existing landscaping, could not be guaranteed as part of any continuing buffer arrangement. 20. The applicant indicated a similar temporary buffer could be provided between the Crookston property and the remainder of the subject site if the Crookston property is not immediately converted to more intense uses. There was no evidence produced regarding the effects of the barrier on the noise and fumes which a commercial use's parking lot might generate, a concern of neighbors. 21. One of the applicants owns the commercially zoned property north of the subject site. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest, will not impair the public health, safety and welfare, and in addition, is in compliance with at least one of the three criteria found in Section 4-3010, which provides in part that: a. The subject site has not been considered in a previous area-wide rezone or land use analysis; or REF ORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page 13 b. The subject site is potentially designated for the new classification per the Comprehensive Plan; or c. There has been a material and substantial change in the circumstances in the area in which the subject site is located since the last rezoning of the property or area. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed rezone is in the public interest. 2. A rezone of property should not be approved if the public health, safety or welfare would be jeopardized by such reclassification. A rezone not in the best interests of the public and for the benefit of one or two property owners would be contrary to public policy. In the instant case, the sewers which serve the subject site overflow, thereby permitting raw sewage to enter the streets near the subject site and also to enter Honey Creek. While such overflows already occur, to accerbate this unsafe condition by approving a rezone which would permit additional development and consequently additional sewage many times the rate generated by the existing single family uses would not be in the public interest. 3. Whether the subject site is included or excluded from the moratorium should be immaterial when the public health is currently jeopardized by unsanitary conditions. In any event, the entire subject site was not exempt from the provisions of the moratorium, nor were any portions categorically exempt from those provisions. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the requisite "equivalent" hookups still existed. 1 he burden of producing evidence in favor of the rezone was on the applicant. As it stands now, an inadequate sewer subject to unsanitary overflows services the subject site. These overflows run along public streets and then into a major open stream, Honey Creek. To recommend approval of the proposed rezone would not only perpetuate the existing health hazard, but more than likely lay the groundwork for additional overflows. 4. The applicants' willingness to defer any modification for up to three years misses the point. Until the sewer situation is rectified, a rezone is not in order. Unless the sewer system is corrected, the applicant should no more be permitted to expand the use of the subject site in three years than now. The applicants' argument that a moratorium must be limited in duration to a reasonable time limit cannot overcome the existence of sanitary health problems. 5. The previous conclusions of the Examiner's Report save for the one referring to harmonious development "within" districts remain undisturbed and are incorporated by reference. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan does not stand apart from the text of the various policies and goals of that same Comprehensive Plan. The plan must be read as a totality. The map element is not a blueprint, but a guide which must be utilized in conjunction with the existing uses and the remaining text of the plan. 6. The existing zoning on the subject site does not deny the applicant reasonable use of the subject site. Single family homes located on the subject site remain compatible with surrounding development. And if the applicant's presentation indicating that commercialization of the subject site would not adversely affect neighboring single family properties was to be persuasive, then similarly, the commercial zoning north of the subject site should not adversely affect the already existing single family residential uses of the subject site. In fact, since the applicant or one of the applicants owns the commercial property to the north, the applicant is in an even better position to maintain the character of all his ownerships including the single family character of his other ownerships on the subject site by providing buffers to protect both of his interests. REPOT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMEtW. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMA D OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page 14 7. Preserving the single family zoning of the subject site maintains the existing status quo; that is, the unfortunate interface of single family uses abutting commercial uses, but it does not transfer that interface farther to the west and to other parties along the common residential block front of N.E. 12th Street. The request would only serve to transfer the incompatibility to a new location. While it is true that an arbitrary line dividing zoning districts of dissimilar uses must be drawn somewhere, the location is not necessarily arbitrarily positioned. It is an axiom of land use that dissimilar land uses should not share common side yards. The continuity of a block front should not, without more, be divided into different zones. The more intense use can adversely impact its neighbor which can lead to premature property deterioration. The dividing into two zones of the N.E. 12th block front, which is residential in character, is inappropriate. 8. In summary, the last two conclusions of the earlier report, 10 and 11, bear paraphrasing: The site is not suitable for commercial uses given the adjacent land uses on N.E. 12th Street. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan is used along with information concerning the actual site, its relationship to its surroundings and other uses. If the map element was the last word, there would be no need for further analysis. Evidently, the public hearing required for all rezones requires further detailed analysis which indicates the map element of the Comprehensive Plan is not final. If a smooth transition between uses cannot be accommodated and a boundary must be drawn somewhere, then a request to increase the intensity of uses should be denied unless overwhelming evidence in favor of the request is presented. No such evidence was submitted. The evidence submitted indicates that the site is suited for single family uses and should not be reclassified to commercial use. In addition, and equally as important, is the fact that the sewer at the current time cannot handle the sewage in the area. It is inadequate, and unsanitary conditions exist. This information, as well as the map element of the Comprehensive Plan, was considered. 9. The testimony that apartment dwellers may generally be thieves, burglars, and worse, is rejected as not only speculative and unsupported, but as harmful to the public good. T here is no evidence that apartment dwellers are anymore vagrant or transient than homeowners. Rental apartments serve a valuable purpose for those who don't choose to tend lawns and perform yearly maintenance, or for those just moving to an area for a new job, or for those not yet capable of financing the purchase of a home. For older persons who may want to remain in their neighborhood but who cannot maintain a home, apartments remain a viable option. Apartments and those inhabiting them require a place in the community, but like any other land use, apartments should be located in suitable areas as determined by the needs of the community Those occupying apartments and rental units should not be maligned, as they comprise a valuable asset to any community. 10. In light of the above findings and conclusions, the City Council should deny the request to reclassify the subject site from R-1 to B-1 as requested by the applicants. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should deny the request. ORDERED THIS 26th day of January, 1983. k4 Fred J. Ka an Land Use Hearing Examiner REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAM1ES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page 15 TR/,NSMITTED THIS 26th day of January, 1983 to the parties of record: Joel Haggard Lawrence Wood Haggard, Towsley & Brain 1155 Shelton Ave. N.E. Attorneys at Law Renton, WA 98056 720 Olive Way Seattle, WA 98101 James W. Dalpay P.O. Box 2436 Richard Carothers, Architect Renton, WA 98057 814 E. Pike Street Seattle, WA 98122 Marshall Smith 1014 Shelton Avenue N.E. Michael Berry Renton, WA 98056 121E Queen Ave. N.E. Rent on, WA 98056 Jack Hadley 1151 Tacoma Avenue N.E. Hero y Dykes Renton, WA 98056 3235 - 11 th Pl. N.E. Rent on, WA 98056 R. D. Bauer 1151 Shelton Avenue N.E. Mik€ Tonda Renton, WA 98056 1300 Queen Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Nadia Nagatkin 3901 N.E. l lth Pl. Don Jaws Renton, WA 98056 1308 Queen Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Robert W. Daniels 3926 N.E. 12th Street LeRoy A. Crookston Renton, WA 98056 4010 N.E. 12th Street Renton, WA 98056 Maurice Lavachek 1164 Redmond Avenue N.E. Douc las R. Kyes Renton, WA 98056 3924 N.E. 11th Street Rent)n, WA 98056 Judy & Nick Petruska 1174 Shelton Avenue N.E. Paul S. Chaffey Renton, WA 98056 3909 N.E. 11 th Place Rent m, WA 98056 Larry & Dorothy Wood 1155 Shelton Avenue N.E. Bill F ox Renton, WA 98056 1125 Shelton Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Everett Nelson 3906 N.E. 11 th Court Dale E. Ellis Renton, WA 98056 1159 Shelton Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Sanford E. Webb 430 Mill Ave. S., Apt. #3 K. Mullins Renton, WA 98056 1564E S.E. 138th Place Renton, WA 98056 Benjamin W. Dupris 3820 N.E. 12th Street Floyc Anderson Renton, WA 98055 1324 ueen Ave. N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Marti J. O'Sullivan P.O. Box 1551 Harri Pebles Renton, WA 98057 1026 ihelton Ave. N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Judy J. Slayer 3820 N.E. 12th Street Betty Guiley Renton, WA 98056 1025 ihelton Ave. N.E. Marilyn J. PetersenRenton, WA 98056 1040 Redmond Ave. N. E. Mike Blansfield Renton , WA 98056 1021 Tacoma Avenue N.E. Rentcn, WA 98056 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page 16 TRANSMITTED THIS 26th day of January, 1983 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director David Clemens, Policy Development Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Renton Record-Chronicle Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before February 9, 1984. 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 $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the the proposal must be made in public. This permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. f '.1 ,..1 •16 T i-- • - *.r. / .. a.=- , SL t T1-:I'l 1 i !w 1 ' . t.r 11• i91•t\/ f'3, i. I ' ,1• E +101:,, S,' n n. HI ..i u! q A:-,Q 1 i i I'll f:.o ,' t., 1' S I(11 ,111, I11I'II it , ,, —/-1 , , , I I.,: .' .• li. ` r"- 1)J C Q4 o J' `- t 1 11 2 n• l . .+ i3 ,• .•• I. l.•_1_ r_ r - Jf 7•- ia 11•. 4'7) ItiLO1111 r l •._ -1•w II ._ ,t, >' r•Qi Id,,; [ liY.t } SC lot b ST '11 1,• I 1 1 I. Y afl Ilrf i1.7 tO • r 1 o ..'_• . altr 1 rivf1k \1 ,T I• 1'—. t l,,,,IL,,,.... ..,,e , • a • 1.1. J7 4.: 1,0 Y• . t N `7t d; ••_ '_ 1_ 1 1.1_.L _ l._ I »• i•r ,• : o. 1. 1 • • ' ;y.° '1i,• •: -- .a'. . e 1 - S'- t! .t !]f` aS 1\=lrff o 1•r If! 70E J,...' • , 4,4,.. 4', i i,t I 1r w a a, !t a. a. n:i• 1+It• t• ,.., it. t.1•r \ ie, 1” 71.F { t d ., a 1 In l.o 1 wO 1•d•t,+ 1•,.fr N. 62 l T_y _ , {.' r_.- ot1 lr fa lei 6646 if! Tr F 1. 1` r• t •, 1 1 J6) '/•• 1• 1tIII • I. t•o j G- 11 6 N ,4 11 L I I 0 N t. 2C.. S 11$1y•FITI kr•-•./ tiO 11 7t 4_E ' 1 I 1 1•Al • Ito •n i i,. • S I' 1 i•1.n is I_• I•+ t!f, „ a • ~ • , a 11 I I Sf' I 11 i _ I l• , - 4I --,,.,, 1. /1 llal J.Jd161,•131,' T h. y 1 t 11 1 i If-z G 1n R- soti/,,_. G- 1 R-z R •3 1 1 R- 1 1 1 f , • • I 1 0 2 I 'I n 1 t, 1 1 1 , i';, '1., ' 1 II 11 I I+ r I 1 ('a-1 I n 1 • I 1 1 i ;4 l I j 1 r' , ( ;7-1 .,) (, I,,,q-, 1 --= it t H 1. 11} ar.311 1' 1- r f " tii,iP1 I R 3 ; 11 t l10 l ,l.l,il. t l, 1 G—t 1 t 1 `P i W 7 1 ' 1 i 1 Zi'1 Ia.,a {;• •lf' ' { 1 la l •1• '1 e i1- 'a • 1.._ _ e%r II., !'> l_L': a.• ' • t i'JJJ_ • ,Nf rtr S1 •• l1, '' ` ''\' -, S: ti\!> 1_ -, 111 Sl N {1• I I H( 4 t 1 1 J' '',i1, 1' k..' f- It h. ) Hie* ,u I.•t laf:11 I, gat•„ v.+ ,. , 11 __A7 ;Ell- _ ' t _., 1 , !, •kitl, 4 ,..Nt ..r..k.,r-‘, 1: . i!11•,...i. ..t i ''71 1 •, 1. 1,/. 11l,,, • ' rl ° t r,,,,rs `I. ."r I 111 1 i .,,•'• •I e 11 1 1 O •.a,..i. , 1V. -- 3 , .- 1, DALPAY REZONE R-033-83 APPLICANT JAMES W. DALPAY TOTAL AREA — 11,625 PR I 'NC I PAL ACCESS VIA N.E. 12th ST. EXISTING ZONING R-1, RESIDENTIAL—SINGLE FAMILY EXISTING USE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES PROPOSED USE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMMENTS January 26, 1984 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. APPLE:ANT: JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON FILE NO. R-033-83 - REMAND LOCA-ION: 4010 N.E. 12th Street SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant seeks approval of a rezone of + 57,725 sq. ft. from R-1 to B-1 for proposed commercial use. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Building and Zoning Department Recommendation: Approval subject to covenants and site plan approval of reuse of existing structures or new construction. Hearing Examiner Recommendation: Denial. BUILDING & ZONING The Building & Zoning Department Report was DEPAH TMENT REPORT: received by the Examiner on September 6, 1983; the matter was remanded back to the Examiner by the City Council for reconsideration; and a supplemental report was received by the Examiner on January 12, 1984. PUBLIC: HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Zoning Department Report, examining available information on file with the application and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as fellows: The hearing was opened on January 12, 1984, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. Roger Eaaylock, Zoning Administrator, reported that this application was previously before the Examiner, and that the City Council remanded the matter back to the Examiner due to changes made in the original application. The following were entered into the record as follows: Exhibit Ill: Yellow file, updated with information submitted to the City Council and various letters on appeal of the previous decision. It was roted Exhibit 112 (Assessor's Map showing the subject property in relation to the neighborhood), Exhibit #13 (Site plan showing existing structures and the ERC conditions imposed thereon), and Exhibit 114 (Site plan showing the maximum potential for the subject -;ite) had previously been entered into the record and would be incorporated herein by reference. Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He noted this applicat on was first heard by the Hearing Examiner on September 13, 1983; the recommendation was forwarded to the City Council to deny the request for R-033-83; the Council then remanded the matter back to the Examiner for another public hearing. Mr. Blaylock noted the applicants have modified the original request submitted and considered by the Examiner to specifically limit the proposed development by use regulations and by a limitation on construction of new structures. Mr. Blaylock further stated the applicant is willing to specifically limit non-compatible uses on the subject site, along with limiting any new development on the site for a three-year period, or to removal of the moratorium under Ordinance #2392. The applicant is asking the Council to rezone the subject property as recommended by the city staff, but subject also to the following additional restraints: 1 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page 2 1. No structure may be constructed within the westerly 15 feet of the property. Further, the westerly 15 feet shall be landscaped incidental to any development permit. 2. Pursuant to issuance of city permits for redevelopment, a landscape plan shall be approved by the Building & Zoning Department. 3. No new structures may be constructed upon the subject property until the city, by lawful action, removes the sewer moratorium (Ordinance 112392), or three years pass, whichever is sooner; provided that this shall not prohibit changes of use in accord with zoning for the present structures. 4. After rezoning to B-1, the subject property may not be used for the following otherwise permitted B-1 uses: a. Furniture store; 1). Laundries, cleaning and pressing establishments; c. Locksmiths and shoe repair; ci. Lumber yards and fuel yards; e. Public garages, repair shops, and battery service stations and tire repair shops; f. Fast food restaurants or any restaurant operating 24 hours a day; q. Service stations; h. Undertaking establishments; i. Mobile home parks; j. Self service storage facilities; k. Twenty-four hour convenience stores These conditions are in addition to the four added constraints established by the Enviro-mental Review Committee (See paragraph L.2.1, b, c, & d, page 3, Staff Report, dated ieptember 13, 1983. Mr. Blaylock noted the staff recommends approval of the requested rezone, subject to the following conditions: 1. Filing of restrictive covenants limiting the use as proposed by the applicant. 2. Requiring site plan approval of any reuse of existing structures or new construction. The Examiner called on the applicant or representative for testimony. Responding was: Joel Haggard Haggard, T owsley & Brain Attorneys at Law 720 Olive Way Seattle, WA 98101 Mr. Haggard stated he was the attorney for the applicants, James W. Dalpay and Leroy A. Crookston. He sated it is the applicants' contention that since the requested rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, that it should be granted. Mr. Haggard offered an enlargement of the Comprehensive Plan design for the subject area; he noted this property has been legislatively determined by the Renton City Council as appropriate for commercial land use; that there is no question there is concern from neighboring property owners over this rezone but that the Council should follow through with implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Haggard further stated that there will be a line separating the zoning classifications in this area; tie line between the commercial and the adjacent residential areas to the west and south of the subject property; Mr. Haggard further stated the applicant is not in disagreement with the sipplemental staff report submitted today, and has no objections to the staff recommendations made therein. Rather, the applicant is questioning whether it is appropriate to rest^ict the uses of the property; they are, however, willing to limit the uses on the site if the rezone is approved, subject to the restrictions referred to in the staff report above. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page 3 Mr. Haggard stated there was a concern raised by the Hearing Examiner in his last report with reference to the sewer moratorium; that there is a conflict between the text and the map with respect to the property on the southwest corner of the subject site. The applicant does, however, agree to be subject to the moratorium for a period of 3 years or sooner if the moratorium is rescinded by the City Council. They feel the moratorium must be reasonable in time and the moratorium ordinance has no limit on it. At this point, Mr. Haggard called on the landscape architect for a presentation. Responding was: Richard Carothers Architect 814 E. Pike Street Seattle, WA 98122 Mr. Carothers indicated his firm had been asked to present the issue of buffering the proposed proper.y. He offered a map showing the proposed buffering to be used on the site. At this point, the Hearing Examiner entered the following into the record: Exhibit 115: Enlarged Comprehensive Plan Map showing the subject site. Exhibit #6: Map showing the proposed buffering to be used on the site. Mr. Carothers explained the proposed buffering to be used and noted the materials selected and how they are installed can accomplish immediate buffering; that they propose a 3' wide planting strip a:ong the north side in addition to what is recommended by staff; that there will be an excavated trench with a row of 6' tall Columnar Arborvitae, and immediately behind them, there iy to be a row of evergreen material in staggered rows which will immediately make a row dense enough to obscure the site. Mr. CEEirothers then gave a slide presentation showing various other areas where this type of landsc€,ping buffer has been used and its effectiveness, without having to utilize a strip of land 15' wide to do so. Mr. Haggard noted this would conclude their case and that both he and Mr. Carothers, as well as the apf licant, would be available for questions. The Ei aminer called for further testimony in support of the application. There was none offerec. The applicant then called for testimony in opposition to the proposal. Responding was: Judy Petruska 1174 Shelton Ave. N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mrs. Petruska stated Mr. Crookston. one of the applicants in this matter, has no intentions of moving or of selling his property. She asked if this were to be zoned commercially, what would that do for a buffer between the residential properties surrounding this site; where would Mr. Crookston have access to his property; she aso questioned the close proximity of Mr. Crookston's buildings to the property line. The Examiner stated there are certain setbacks already imposed in the zoning; that these would apply when new construction occurs and the uses for the property change. Mrs. Petruska asked what the applicant plans to put on the property when it is rezoned and what will happen if apartments are put in when the moratorium is released. She asked if they could change from office buildings to apartments at that time. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page 41 Mr. Blaylock answered that the B-1 ordinance recently modified, allows apartments to be located above commercial activity; they would be able to build a structure with office spaces on the first floor, with apartments on upper floors. Mrs. Petruska asked Mr. Dalpay if it was his intention to put apartments on the property. Mr. Haggard stated that was merely speculative; that the applicant has no current plans. Mrs. Fetruska asked if Mr. Crookston's property would have a buffer from the commercial activity. The Examiner stated he believes if Mr. Crookston's property was rezoned, the buffer would be on the west side of his property and would assume also that Mr. Crookston was not wanting to buffer his property if he was a party to this rezone request. Mr. H 3ggard stated access to Mr. Crookston's property would be internal from Mr. Dalpay's property. The E>aminer call^d for further testimony in opposition to the request. Responding was: Michael Berry 1216 Queen Ave. N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. BE.rry stated he also was under the impression there would be apartments placed on the subject site and asked for clarification of the intended use for the property. The Examiner stated the proposal before him tonight is to rezone the property to B-1; this permits certain uses; the applicant has indicated they would limit the uses to those allowed in the B-i zone; apartments are allowed above office complexes in the B-1 zone; the applicant also m ist comply, however, to certain height limitations, which would not permit more than one or two stores for apartments. Mr. Berry inquired of the number of parking spaces anticipated and the traffic impact proposed for the site. Mr. Haggard indicated there was no specific site plan nor use proposal for the site at this time; that whatever parking is necessary will be determined when they determine the uses for the properly. Mr. Berry asked what this development would do to his property taxes and asked if this would increase his property values. Mr. Blaylock explained that when looking at tax rates, the auditor's office looks at a piece of property and makes a comparison; that there is no comparable value between Mr. Berry's residence and the proposed uses for this property. The Examiner asked Mr. Blaylock where his staff came up with the proposed traffic and parking impact; upon this site. Mr. Blaylock stated that his office used the International Institute of Traffic Engineers manual and that this proposed map is merely speculative in that it is intended to show the maximum use of the property. The Examiner inquired of the number of stories that could be constructed on the site. Mr. Blaylock stated the B-1 zone allows 3-story buildings; that if it were a 3-story office building, that would be approximately 12,000 sq. ft., and approximately 78 required parking spaces. The Examiner again reminded the audience that the nature of this request was to zone the property, not to build anything at this time; that the proposal does not need concrete plans for the rez me. Mr. Berry asked about his insurance rates, wanting to know if they would increase because of the proposed development. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page 5 Mr. Blaylock stated he could not answer that question; that would be up to an insurance agent. Mr. Berry asked if the crime rate could be expected to increase because of apartments being constructed in the neighborhood. Mr. Blaylock noted most multiple family and commercial buildings have better crime prevention than single family areas. Mr. Blaylock, in answer to a question by Mr. Berry, noted that if the zoning is left without a site plan approval, the building permit could be issued if they request a permit to construct something within the limitations of the B-1 zone. The Examiner noted the City has recommended a site plan review hearing be held and the public would be allowed to testify at that hearing before any development of this site takes place; the property owners will again be notified as they were for this hearing. The Examiner then called for further testimony in opposition to the request. Responding was: Nick Petruska 1174 Shelton Ave. N.E. Renton, WA 90056 Mr. Petruska presented a petition, signed by 249 residents in the subject area, containing seven objections to the rezone request, as follows: 1. 1 he rezoning request does not comply with the Renton Comprehensive Plan. 2. E xisting sewers are not sufficient to handle any increased development at this time, as they are presently over capacity and have been for several years nmping raw sewage into the street and nearby creek. 3. Granting of this rezone request would increase traffic hazards which already exist on N.E. 12th Street and would further jeopardize the safety of children walking to school. 4. C:ommercial and/or multi-family development will increase the noise pollution in the area. Noise levels for residences on N.E. 12th Street have already increased since logging was recently completed between N.E. 12th Street and Sunset Blvd. N.E. 5. The effect of this rezoning would increase the existing imbalance of commercial or multi--family dwellings in the affected area. 6. We believe the intentions of this rezone is for future development of multi-family housing uiits, which would be allowed under the proposed B-1 zoning. 7. This zoning change would reduce the marketability of single family residences in the immediate area. The Ex iminer then entered the following into the record: Exhibit #16: Landscape Plan for the proposed site. Exhibit 117: Area map showing location of those homes whose owners object to this rezone. Mr. Pe .ruska inquired about access for Mr. Crookston to his own property. Mr. Blaylock noted at the time of commercial development, Mr. Crookston's access would be limited; that when Mr. Crookston's property is developed, he would have to have access through Mr. Dalpay's property. REPC RT AND RECOMMENDATION JAME S W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page , The E xaminer then entered the following into the record: Exhibit #8: Certified copy of Petition presented by Mr. Petruska protesting this rezone request. Mr. Haggard stated he had no objections to the map, nor to the petition so long as it is characterized as a petition containing 249 expressing views only. He commenced questioning Mr. Petruska with reference to Mr. Petruska's property values over the last two to three years. Mr. Petruska indicated he did not have these answers available to him tonight. The Examiner ouestioned Mr. Haggard's method of examination, noting this was an informal hearing; that Mr. Haggard could cross-examine the witnesses, however, he must do so in a different manner. The audience expressed vocal opinions on Mr. Haggard's method of examination of Mr. Petruska, and the Examiner called for a 10 - minute recess at 9:10 p.m. The hearing reconvened at 9:25 p.m. The Examiner stated he wants those present in the audience who wish a copy of the report and recommendation from tonight's hearing to sign the sheet being passed around at this time. The E>aminer then called for further testimony in opposition to the request. Responding was: Robert Daniels 3926 N.E. 12th Street Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Daniels stated he lives in the residence two lots west of the subject site; that he believes the development of this property into apartments/commercial use would lessen the value of his properly for future resale value; that he and his wife canvassed the area to see how others felt about 1 he rezone. Mr. Daniels noted all of those contacted wanted to sign the petition and no one was in favor of it. Only four or five persons could not be contacted, two of which were homes for sale and vacant; one resident works for the City of Renton and chose not to sign the petition, but was not in favor of the rezone; the last residence was a rental property and the residents were new to the area. Mr. Daniels further stated he feels he received 100% cooperation from the surrounding neighbors in signing the petition in opposition. Mr. Daniels further noted the storm water is atrocious in this area; that they have had several robberies and some of those persons charged with this crime have resided in the nearby apartm3nt buildings. Further, Mr. Daniels stated he could not get an answer from Mr. Dalpay as to wiat he wants to do with the property. Mr. Da iiels noted that Mr. Dalpay had asked himself and others to buy his property under their own name and to sell it back to Mr. Dalpay at some future time; that the neighborhood does not feel they can trust the man. Mr. Daniels also reported Mr. Dalpay was operating an insurance operation out of his home and questioned the legality of this. The Examiner noted there are certain home occupations permitted in the B-1 zone. Mr. Blaylock stated that since this has now been made public information, efforts will be commenced by the Building & Zoning Department to stop the activity. Mr. Dar leis inquired if curb, gutters, and sidewalks would be installed. Mr. Blaylock stated this was a city requirement and all public improvements are required for construction over $25,000 except for single family residences. The Examiner stated if the rezone is approved, conditions could be binding upon the property, not the owner; that the applicant has indicated he would do certain things if this were approved and the potential buyer/buyers would be bound by those restrictions. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 January 12, 1934 Page 7 Mr. D jniels also expressed his concern over losing the existing view he has of the mountains, which is why he bought his property at that location; by placement of the trees for buffering, this would eliminate his view. He stated the noise level has already increased immensely since he bought his property and he is fearful that the development of this land into commercial activity will increase that even more so. Mr. Daniels then presented the Examiner with a letter opposing the rezone from a property owner who was not able to be present tonight, Henry Dykes. The Examiner entered the letter into tha record as follows: Exhibit #9: Letter opposing the proposed rezone from: Henry Dykes 3239 - 11 th P1. N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Daniels again stated he was opposed to apartments being built on this site and they have asked Mr. Dalpay repeatedly and he will not indicate what his plans are for the subject site. He further noted Mr. Dalpay's prime reason for requesting annexation into the city was for construction of "apartments" as is documented in the city records. The Examiner called for further testimony. Responding was: Lawrence Wood 1155 Shelton Ave. N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Wood indicated he was opposed to the rezone request; that he had previously visited with Bob Bergstrom in the Engineering Department regarding the sewer problem at Union and Sunset and was advised that 2 to 3 million gallons of water is overflowing into the streets and into the area; that this area is already a health hazard; that a moratorium states only 361 units can hook up to tie system since the time of its creation. He asked if the city staff knew of how many hookups there have been or are anticipated to be to this system. Responding was: Bob Bergstrom Engineering Supervisor City of Renton Mr. Bergstrom stated he does not know how many sewer hookups have been made, but that they have bE en limited to those areas stated in the map attached to the moratorium ordinance and he is certain that no more than that have been allowed. Mr. Wo3d asked if Mr. Dalpay would be willing to add "excluding apartments" to the list of commercial uses he would not place on this property. The Examiner asked Mr. Haggard if he had questions at this time. Mr. Haggard stated he did not. The Examiner called for further testimony in orposition to the request. Responding was: Bill Fox 1125 Shelton Ave. N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. For, asked Mr. Blaylock if there would be access onto 12th Street. Mr. Blaylock stated there would be access onto 12th Street and that any structure would have to have emergency access around the building to allow the fire department to fight fires, but they would not have to have access onto 12th Street. Mr. Blaylock further pointed out that until a specific design for the property was approved, the easement roadway could be chained and gated until suL.h time as Northeast Sunset access is available from the property. REPCRT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REM/.ND OF R-033-83 Janua~y 12, 1984 Page 13 The E<aminer called for further testimony in opposition to the request. Responding was: Sandy Webb 430 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Webb indicated he does not feel the staff's portrayal of the subject site at its maximum usage has been correct since it did not include the possibility of apartment units being constricted on the site. Mr. Blaylock noted the ERC has looked at the maximum use for the property and that varies with each request; they attempted to look at the very worst, but that the ERC cut that intensity to one-third of what should have been allowed. Mr. Webb stated it might be well to consider the residential aspect and then separately the other uses and come up with some figures this audience can understand. The Examiner inquired if the site is served by sewer or septic tanks. Mr. Bergstrom responded that one of the buildings on the existing Dalpay property does not have sanitary sewers. The Examiner called on Mr. Haggard for testimony. Mr. Haggard indicated he would wait until all test imony was received by the audience. The E)aminer then called for further testimony in support, opposition, or questions regarding this issae. Michael Berry questioned the place and number of garbage containers that would be serving this area. Mr. Blaylock noted it was premature to determine that at this time. Mr. Bergstrom noted the average home uses 1 to 1-1/2 cans per week, and that it is less for apartments; the City requires fencing and screening of dumpsters for apartments or businesses and are generally required to be placed in the rear areas of the property. Nick Petruska inquired if a letter opposing the rezone was received by Gene Bryant. The Examiner noted it has been received and made a part of the record. Mr. Pet ruska further questioned what could be developed on this property upon the expiration of the moratorium in three years. Mr. Bergstrom noted the city is working on two major projects in the area already; one being the sewer rehabilitation in the Glencoe area, and they will be sealing the cracks and attempting to locate the problems in the lines already existing and repair them; the other area to be worked on will be the Honeycreek Interceptor will be constructed, which will alleviate this problem and the moratorium in this area will be lifted. Discussion pursued with respect to relief to the existing sewer problems in this area, with Mr. Bergstrom addressing the proposals the city has made for obtaining this relief. Mr. Petruska then stated he was not opposed to development in this area; only that the residents feel this request is misleading; that they merely want to see uniformity within the area. The Examiner suggested those concerned with the city's implementation of the Comprehensive Plan should address those concerns to the City Council. Mrs. Petruska questioned who would be taking care of the greenery once it is installed, noting she has seen others deteriorate for lack of care. She also questioned the city's methods for notifying adjacent property owners on incidences such as this one. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page 9 Mr. D 3niels stated he is concerned about emergency exits from this property; that if the exit is chained and locked, this would create additional problems. He stated he knew of an instance where the Fire Department did not want one such road locked, consequently it was left open and became the main exit/entrance. He also noted there would have been more people attencing this hearing tonight, but they felt that quantities did not affect the decision making, but asked for those present to be the spokesmen for them and asked to be informed of the results of the meeting. The Examiner stated he appreciated the cooperation; that numbers did not influence his decision, it was the context of the concerns that affected his decisions. The Examiner called on Mr. Haggard. Mr. Haggard requested a 10-minute recess at 10:20 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:35 p.m. Mr. Haggard called on Mr. Carothers to answer questions regarding the landscaping. Mr. CarotF ers agreed that assuming the Dalpay portion of the property is developed and Crookston's was nct, the landscaping would still be required on the west side of the Dalpay property, as well as on the southern boundary also; that this would then be continued along the west and south sides of the Crookston property in an interim screening plan until the entire development is completed. The Examiner asked Mr. Haggard if he represented both Mr. Dalpay and Mr. Crookston. Mr. Haggard stated he did represent both applicants. Mr. Haggard called on James W. Dalpay to answer questioning. James W. Dalpay P.O. Box 2436 Renton, WA 98057 Mr. Dalpay, in response to questioning by Mr. Haggard, stated that he did not ask anyone else to purcha>e property and re-sell it to him as was alleged earlier in this hearing; that he has heard all of t his testimony tonight and that speaking for both himself and Mr. Crookston, they would agree to add "apartments" to the list aleady supplied to the city which prohibits certain uses on their property. The Ex 3miner asked if the term "multi-family dwellings" would be agreeable to be used instead of the 1 erm "apartments". Mr. Haggard stated he had no objection to that phrase. The Examiner called for further testimony. Mr. Tonda responded and inquired if this stipulation would z pply to future owners of that property. The Examiner stated that this would depend on whether it became a covenant running with the land. Mr. Haggard stated they would agree to these restrictions. Harriet Pebles asked who would police these covenants. The Examiner stated it would be up to the surrounding property owners to report anything they felt was being done that would not be allowed and that the city could then respond and check it out. The Examiner advised Mr. Dalpay if he was, as alleged, operating an insurance business from a residence, he should contact the city to obtain the proper license or to make certain it was allowed in that zone. The Examiner called for further testimony. There was none. The hearing was closed at 10:50 p.m. The Examiner noted he would send his recommendation to the City Council within 14 days and they would then take action at one of their future Council meetings. REPCRT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REML',ND OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page ?.0 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDI NGS: 1. -he applicants, James W. Dalpay/Leroy A. Crookston, filed a request for approval of reclassification of approximately 57,725 sq. ft. of property from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to B-1 (Business/Commercial). Upon a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner to the City Council that the request be denied, the applicant Eippealed the recommendation and modified the original request. The matter was then remanded for a new hearing on the modified request. 2. 1 he original report of the Hearing Examiner issued September 27, 1983, contains the following findings which are again applicable. They are again included to simplify the readability and continuity of the report. The number at the end of each finding reflects its original number in the September 27, 1983 report. 3. F ursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA, a Declaration cf Non-Significance has been issued for the subject proposal by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), responsible official (#3). 4. The subject site is located at the intersection of Union Avenue N.E. and N.E. 12th Street. The l roperty involved in the request consists of the three legal lots located at 1225 Union Avenue N.E., 4010 N.E. 12th Street, and 4018 N.E. 12th Street (#5). 5. The subject property slopes upward from north to south with two relatively level terraces occuring on either side of the slope (#6). 6. Single-family homes are located on each of the separate lots (#7). 7. The subject site was annexed into the city in May of 1964 by Ordinance #2093, at which time it was automatically zoned G-7200. A change in nomenclature changed the designation to R-1 in June of 1982 (#8). 8. 1 7e Comprehensive Plan designates the general area at the intersection of Union Avenue N.E. and Sunset Avenue N.E. for a node of commercial development. T ie Comprehensive Plan further designates the general areas south and southwest of tt a intersection for single-family development and designates the areas southeast ter medium density multi-family development. The Plan appears to provide for more intensive uses such as commercial and varying degrees of multi-family along the alignment of Sunset Blvd., gradually reducing the intensity of potential uses as properties become further removed from Sunset Blvd II 9). 9. The sewer system serving the areas surrounding the subject site is still subject to o‘erflow conditions during wet periods, with raw sewage escaping the system at the St.nset/Union Intersection and then flowing into Honey Creek. The city does plan on attempting to identify areas where infiltration and illegal dawn-spout connections enter the system. If infiltration is identified and eliminated, overflows may be less of a problem (012). 10. The area is developed with a variety of uses. North and east of the subject site are ccmmercial uses while single-family uses are located south and west of the subject sil a (013). REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMIND OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page ; 1 11. \ similar request in 1978 for B-1 zoning for the majority of this site was denied luring the preliminary recommendation process. The request was remanded and lapsed due to inaction by the then applicant (R-145-78). The applicant at that time had suggested less intensive uses of the southern portion of the site to buffer the single-family uses, but as indicated, nothing became of the proposal (#17). 12. Since 1978, the only apparent change is the modification of the Comprehensive Plan from a designation for the general area of medium-density multi-family to a designation of business and commercial (#18). 13. l he single-family homes located south of N.E. 12th Street are at a topographically different level than the subject property. These homes are oriented to the south with rear yards to the north (#19). ADDITIONAL FINDINGS 14. some portions of the subject site are within an area affected by a moratorium on rew construction due to existing sewer limitations of the sewer servicing the subject site. The sewer overflows at least four or five times each year, spilling about 2 - 3 million gallnns of raw sewage onto the streets in the area and then through the storm system into Honey Creek. 1 he text of the moratorium excludes certain properties from its effects, but the C rookston property is not excluded from the moratorium text. The map referred to by the parties is not part of the moratorium but an aid prepared for staff. The attachment, as the language makes clear, "defined the boundaries of the Honey C reek and May Creek drainage basin", which is obviously not indicated on the attached map. The moratorium also included a maximum number of hookup equivalents. In addition, the Public Works Director could indicate the sewers had reached maximum capacity. Staff could not indicate whether the number of equivalent hookups has approached or exceeded those permitted by the moratorium, but nonetheless, the sewer, during wet periods, constitutes a health hazard by overflowing. 15. The applicants, on appeal, indicated their willingness to limit the bulk of the b iildings, provide landscaped buffers, and limit the types of uses otherwise permitted if the site were rezoned to B-1. Ir addition, recognition of the sewer overflows led the applicant to agree to limit new building construction on the subject site for up to three years. The specific limitations are: 1. No structure may be constructed within the westerly 15 feet of the property. Further, the westerly 15 feet shall be landscaped incidental to any development permit. 2. Pursuant to issuance of city permits for redevelopment, a landscape plan shall be approved by the Building & Zoning Department. 3. No new structures may be constructed upon the subject property until the city, by lawful action, removes the sewer moratorium (Ordinance 02392), or three years pass, whichever is sooner; provided that this shall not prohibit changes of use in accord with zoning for the present structures. 4. After rezoning to B-1, the subject property may not be used for the following otherwise permitted B-1 uses: a. Furniture store; b. Laundries, cleaning and pressing establishments; c. Locksmiths and shoe repair; d. Lumber yards and fuel yards; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAME S W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page 12 e. Public garages, repair shops, and battery service stations and tire repair shops; f. Fast food restaurants or any restaurant operating 24 hours a day; g. Service stations; h. Undertaking establishments; i. Mobile home parks; j. Self service storage facilities; k. Twenty-four hour convenience stores 16. Further, at the public hearing and as a consequence of additional citizen input regarding renters and apartments, the applicant further agreed not to construct apartments and multi-family dwellings of any kind, although otherwise permitted if the site were rezoned to B-1. 17. The conversion to and/or eventual construction of commercial uses on the subject site will increase traffic and noise levels over the levels legally encountered now at the subject site under the existing zoning. Staff estimated at the hearing that traffic could range from approximately 12.3 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. of general office space to up to 20 to 50 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. of medical c,ffice space. The estimates are approximate, but the subject site could provide area for an approximately 15,400 sq. ft. building, utilizing the general parking ratios and the height limitations imposed by the ERC. Daily traffic trips could total anywhere from approximately 190 trips to 770 trips per day. 18. The Police Department recommended on the basis of traffic, noise, light, and glare, that the request not be approved. Policy Development indicated that commercial uses should not front on N.E. 12th Street; that commercial uses should be separated from single family uses to the west and south by intervening multi-family uses; and commercial uses should be scaled to a compatible height and bulk. 1 he Building Department indicated the reclassification should not be approved until the sewers are improved. 19. 1 he applicant provided plans for a dense landscape buffer corresponding with the E RC's required 15 foot buffer along the west and south property lines. The buffer would consist of double rows of larger conifers, Columnar Arboritae and Douglas Fir as examples, and off--set or staggered to form an almost impenetrable visual barrier from the street and from the single-family homes to the south and west. 1 he plan intended to supplement the row of Douglas fir along the western property line of the Crookston lot. Those trees are evidently on the adjacent lot and while it may remain as part of the existing landscaping, could not be guaranteed as part of aiy continuing buffer arrangement. 20. The applicant indicated a similar temporary buffer could be provided between the C rookston property and the remainder,of the subject site if the Crookston property not immediately converted to more intense uses. There was no evidence produced regarding the effects of the barrier on the noise aid fumes which a commercial use's parking lot might generate, a concern of n 3ighbors. 21. Cne of the applicants owns the commercially zoned property north of the subject site. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Tae proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest, will not impair the public health, safety and welfare, and in addition, is in compliance with at least one of the three criteria found in Section 4-3010, which provides in part that: a The subject site has not been considered in a previous area-wide rezone or land use analysis; or REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAME'S W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page 13 t . The subject site is potentially designated for the new classification per the Comprehensive Plan; or c. There has been a material and substantial change in the circumstances in the area in which the subject site is located since the last rezoning of the property or area. 1 he applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed rezone is in the public interest. 2. A rezone of property should not be approved if the public health, safety or welfare would be jeopardized by such reclassification. A rezone not in the best interests of tie public and for the benefit of one or two property owners would be contrary to public policy. In the instant case, the sewers which serve the subject site overflow, t iereby permitting raw sewage to enter the streets near the subject site and also to enter Honey Creek. While such overflows already occur, to accerbate this unsafe condition by approving a rezone which would permit additional development and consequently additional sewage many times the rate generated by the existing single family uses would not b a in the public interest. 3. IA hether the subject site is included or excluded from the moratorium should be immaterial when the public health is currently jeopardized by unsanitary conditions. Ir any event, the entire subject site was not exempt from the provisions of the rr oratorium, nor were any portions categorically exempt from those provisions. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the requisite "equivalent" hookups still existed. T ie burden of producing evidence in favor of the rezone was on the applicant. As it stands now, an inadequate sewer subject to unsanitary overflows services the subject site. These overflows run along public streets and then into a major open stream, Honey Creek. To recommend approval of the proposed rezone would not only perpetuate the existing health hazard, but more than likely lay the groundwork for additional overflows. 4. The applicants' willingness to defer any modification for up to three years misses the point. Until the sewer situation is rectified, a rezone is not in order. Unless the sewer system is corrected, the applicant should no more be permitted to expand the use of the subject site in three years than now. The applicants' argument that a moratorium must be limited in duration to a reasonable time limit cannot overcome the existence of sanitary health problems. 5. The previous conclusions of the Examiner's Report save for the one referring to harmonious development "within" districts remain undisturbed and are incorporated by reference. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan does not stand apart fr3m the text of the various policies and goals of that same Comprehensive Plan. The plan must be read as a totality. The map element is not a blueprint, but a guide which must b3 utilized in conjunction with the existing uses and the remaining text of the plan. 6. TI a existing zoning on the subject site does not deny the applicant reasonable use of the subject site. Single family homes located on the subject site remain compatible with surrounding development. And if the applicant's presentation indicating that commercialization of the subject site would not adversely affect neighboring single family properties was to be persuasive, then similarly, the commercial zoning north of the subject site should not adversely affect the already existing single family residential uses of the subject site. In fact, since the applicant or one of the applicants owns the commercial pr)perty to the north, the applicant is in an even better position to maintain the character of all his ownerships including the single family character of his other ownerships on the subject site by providing buffers to protect both of his interests. REPCRT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page 14 7. Preserving the single family zoning of the subject site maintains the existing status quo; that is, the unfortunate interface of single family uses abutting commercial uses, but it does not transfer that interface farther to the west and to other parties along the common residential block front of N.E. 12th Street. The request would only serve to transfer the incompatibility to a new location. While it is true that an arbitrary line dividing zoning districts of dissimilar uses must be drawn somewhere, the location is not necessarily arbitrarily positioned. It is an axiom of land use that dissimilar land uses should not share common side yards. The continuity of a block front should not, without more, be divided into different zones. The more intense use can adversely impact its neighbor which can lead to premature property deterioration. The dividing into two zones of the N.E. 12th block front, which is residential in character, is inappropriate. 8. In summary, the last two conclusions of the earlier report, 10 and 11, bear paraphrasing: he site is not suitable for commercial uses given the adjacent land uses on N.E. 12th Street. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan is used along with information concerning the actual site, its relationship to its surroundings and other uses. If the map element was the last word, there would be no need for further analysis. Evidently, the public hearing required for all rezones requires further detailed analysis which indicates the map element of the Comprehensive Plan is not final. If a smooth transition between uses cannot be accommodated and a boundary must be drawn somewhere, then a request to increase the intensity of uses should be denied unless overwhelming evidence in favor of the request is presented. No such evidence was submitted. The evidence submitted indicates that the site is suited for s ngle family uses and should not be reclassified to commercial use. In addition, and equally as important, is the fact that the sewer at the current time cannot handle the sewage in the area. It is inadequate, and unsanitary conditions exist. This information, as well as the map element of the Comprehensive Plan, was c Dnsidered. 9. The testimony that apartment dwellers may generally be thieves, burglars, and orse, is rejected as not only speculative and unsupported, but as harmful to the public good. There is no evidence that apartment dwellers are anymore vagrant or t ansient than homeowners. Rental apartments serve a valuable purpose for those who don't choose to tend lawns and perform yearly maintenance, or for those just rr oving to an area for a new job, or for those not yet capable of financing the purchase of a home. For older persons who may want to remain in their neighborhood but who cannot maintain a home, apartments remain a viable option. Apartments and those inhabiting them require a place in the community, but like any other land use, apartments should be located in suitable areas as determined by tf e needs of the community Those occupying apartments and rental units should not btu maligned, as they comprise a valuable asset to any community. 10. In light of the above findings and conclusions, the City Council should deny the request to reclassify the subject site from R-1 to B-1 as requested by the applicants. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should deny the request. ORDERED THIS 26th day of January, 1983. a Fred J. Ka an Land Use Hearing Examiner REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAME'.i W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page 15 TRAN3M1TTED THIS 26th day of January, 1983 to the parties of record: Joel Haggard Lawrence Wood Haggard, Towsley & Brain 1155 Shelton Ave. N.E. Attorneys at Law Renton, WA 98056 720 Ol.ve Way Seattle, WA 98101 James W. Dalpay P.O. Box 2436 Richard Carothers, Architect Renton, WA 98057 814 E. Pike Street Seattle, WA 98122 Marshall Smith 1014 Shelton Avenue N.E. Michae 1 Berry Renton, WA 98056 1216 Queen Ave. N.E. Rentor, WA 98056 Jack Hadley 1151 Tacoma Avenue N.E. Henry Dykes Renton, WA 98056 3239 - 11th Pl. N.E. Rentor, WA 98056 R. D. Bauer 1151 Shelton Avenue N.E. Mike T Dnda Renton, WA 98056 1300 Q Jeen Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Nadia Nagatkin 3901 N.E. 11 th P1. Don [Yaws Renton, WA 98056 1308 Q Jeen Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Robert W. Daniels 3926 N.E. 12th Street LeRoy A. Crookston Renton, WA 98056 4010 N E. 12th Street Renton, WA 98056 Maurice Lavachek 1164 Redmond Avenue N.E. Douglas R. Kyes Renton, WA 98056 3924 N,E. I1th Street Renton, WA 98056 Judy & Nick Petruska 1174 Shelton Avenue N.E. Paul S. Chaffey Renton, WA 98056 3909 N.E. 11 th Place Renton WA 98056 Larry & Dorothy Wood 1155 Shelton Avenue N.E. Bill Fo> Renton, WA 98056 1125 Shelton Avenue N.E. Renton WA 98056 Everett Nelson 3906 N.E. 11 th Court Dale E. Ellis Renton, WA 98056 1159 Shelton Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Sanford E. Webb 430 Mill Ave. S., Apt. #3 K. Mullins Renton, WA 98056 15646 S.E. 138th Place Renton, WA 98056 Benjamin W. Dupris 3820 N.E. 12th Street Floyd Anderson Renton, WA 98055 1324 Qi een Ave. N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Marti J. O'Sullivan P.O. Box 1551 Harriet Pebles Renton, WA 98057 1026 Shelton Ave. N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Judy J. Slayer 3820 N.E. 12th Street Betty Guiley Renton, WA 98056 1025 Sh 31ton Ave. N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Marilyn J. Petersen 1040 Redmond Ave. N.E. Mike Bl3nsfield Renton , WA 98056 1021 Ta ooma Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON REMAND OF R-033-83 January 12, 1984 Page 16 TRANSMITTED THIS 26th day of January, 1983 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director David Clemens, Policy Development Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Renton Record-Chronicle Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before February 9, 1984. 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 E <aminer'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 propel 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 $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. The appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) comm inications may occur concerning land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City C ouncil. All communications concerning the the proposal must be made in public. This permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. 1 1 40 167 1 ' ofi• t' \* 4/, it( I' ` o,:. ti,' i +k"•1!i `v i' .1( I I l±—• a.;k•• ,? .) rl { '1 :.. l t-...-1_1- L •cl .. 1 II• . ar... , •'•t,. ir '!. `` II'o ,, JJ S rn'' ''Q. 1,1 11r ki; S[ .Pt Sr = ..-1 . ( -r • . ifi .._ is-o -. o t •)•* 1 y/ 4 1 ,..,•. 11 1 1 ' :I. 1' jiLt.. r ! • IY! •T ilrlll. • .. • • •• • • I .••• r16 i 4 f,o . •,. ,i . \f 1 ,,)-- 2 ` n. 1 S'1, i , . , •:. —-.—.. 1., 1 _i_Li L I._ 7/•\•r...,r/. 4 ,. 1 t • t la.+•- •i; y••t . 1 r;• : y f. 1! f: M1,.t• .• .. t. ;i.. f4• ••/ "Yisi . !••11. 70E F 1. t l', e - - + 1 1 iii tot 11 f \ 1• r,• 1» l.. '+ ` L ,• T•• • 1 ' I _ wo • i•:1., ` 1•llfr ax, Vs 8s,0 l./ I• • !• •'•' 1 I 1 1 1 ic, 1' 1! Al,in,. 1f ,4— ; is G— 1 ice t 1 T1t1t 1. . . . ( 1114 4, I. 1 % 1 1'1 l-: t! ' i 1-{•,, .:-Y.' ; :.,- . 07, , e. T... 1 III^1 1, ••+. °` ._.. :.- '•/ • 4-, a f- 1 4E 1f '• 1 I Ili 46 as F. '• 1 M'>', • 1 1`i.• •7 f • 1' +r+• . ' 1 1 i•) .,~ j N ,• YT•, •5 1+1.• y • • a t1/ S,t, 1. 1111 • 1' f ;' • •a 11 I 1 j,n .w i_•l It/ I S/f t •'•••••1* eC//rlt4l, t•: ;J. 646`4I3!v x ,, 1 ,.1 T TT t-.'*..t`, •r}, r1 1 1 'I2ll 4ISl-rls •o, ,1 ,1 ,• ,•:•, R12 , Y i G-- 1G, 1 R-2 a—1 i R®21I 1 II 1. B_ 1 it Nl •('iffy ' 1 0 C , ; .i 604-- ar3 2 ro : •.; -.1-- 1 I III , R' 3 , t111 1,•l 11I JIB ' t,\ 1,, ) lV 1r •I'-Pl • ` .1 I dbt..(` I.1•il•rt rr'j 1. { .• 1 G-1 . I) ` . ! : ,t•;-, * • I I 1..,,,......1.1 r 1:1 la,"1 1 i l!,I •t_; •',IJa 1.,'.a ' 5.' „ t `! t. t ! s . • t`•• • I•1• .` •• 1 . N! T' 1-5 51 •t1 1 `•',1.` f' `': 4'. 9),. . 11.. Sl w ! 1. 1 i 1 I , L1 j 1 • . S f.y!_ „ fT'•i N ,+ a1 i + 14.- 1 t 1, -•1 t •!.•: J ,• M'-' 1--) 1! • ; / M t),I./ N t IP M f Z + NE 1 I•.•..1. !i 1,1°;•I. • 1. f-• ,. w • 2`11 ,'cl• i••• _'.,i•• r, I..,. • 1, r1, LP 1 ,.).' S 1.A.-1 d .. I.!e• i DALPAY REZONE R-033-83 APPLICANT JAMES W. DALPAY TOTAL AREA - 11,625 PR I NC I PAL ACCESS VIA N.E. 12th ST. EXISTING ZONING R-1, RESIDENTIAL-SINGLE FAMILY EXISTING USE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES PROPOSED USE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPF;EHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMMENTS OF i z BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT z RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR sal 09 GIIMMI el MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 co- 09 TE0 SEPSEvtk# BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR January 19, 1984 Mr. James Dalpay P.O.Box 2436 Renton,- Wa. 98056 SUBJECT: INSURANCE OFFICE LOCATED IN BUILDING LOCATED AT 1225 UNION AVENUE N.E. Dear Mr. Dalpay: This Department received a request to investigate an allegation that the subject building was being used as a commercial office, prior to the requested rezone of the property. ' The site was checked for validity of the complaint and was found that the building was being used as an insurance office, which is in violation of the present zoning of the property. Your cooperation in correcting this violation will be appreciated. Sincerely, na d Ne son - 7----L Building & Zoning Director NEED COPIES TO: SENT CITY ATTORNEY' S OFFICE G RECORD CHRONICLE (PRESS) I MAYOR' S OFFICE Z CITY COUNCIL FINANCE DEPARTMENT HW.RING EXAMINER rot../ T PUBLIC WORKS IRECTOR WILD/A A/i PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT t P/&45 3 A g- recoup 1 OF I is I ci E0, 9- 0 ro O Q" 94rE) SE PT& 6 City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner will hold a puBtle HEARING In ti CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS , CITY HALL ON JUJARY 12, 1984 BEGINNING AT A.M. 7:30 P.M. CONCERNING: FILE R-033-83 X REZONE Fr om__ R-1 T o B-1 SPECIAL / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT To SITE APPROVAL SHORT PLAT/SUBDIVISION of Lotl H PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT I VARIANCE FROM GENERAL LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS: LOCATED AT 4010 N.E. 12TH STREET LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE IN THE RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION O SIGNIFICANT [ANON—SIGNIFICANT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT I'-44 r 7 An m Ell;e Mr, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER REN I ON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL. BE HELD BY THE RENION LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN 1 HE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON ON JANUARY 17, 1984, AT 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER 1HE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: CULVER SHORT PLAT Application to short plat 1.84 acres into two (2) lots. One lot will be non-buildable and used for a greenbelt. Application is also being made for variances from minimum lot size; width/length ratio; installation of improvements; allow access by easement; and survey requirements for short plats, file Short Plat-082-83 and V-083-83; property located behind 18833 102nd Avenue S.E. and behind 5280 Talbot Road South. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Renton Building and Zoning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 17, 1984, AT 9:00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLISHED : JANUARY 6, 1984 s —, j tom, ° it I __ - 1 Y'L - — 5 3 rRE, - -- ---- ) - j it 10,,,)r f1 c/4 I vAIIEY GENERAL I 4s ° a I,/7 HOSP,T11 i 1„ s IIer 1 4, 2:.41 1 Y.--. _ _ ____________---' / I 5____, I rf n r ,r, I I _ -.. n ro " y=L.' 1 2 3 11 I P 1 R3 j7v,L _r'44 i R-3 • l i Z ft R-2 W I I I 1 -/ G- 1 1 s r Kt ' ' hl m Y1.1N 1 VA N J 1!,.1 • , ; l',,1 „, ,„, 1 L--] 450%Log IP 0 7j001 0 ['J.- . . Z3-5" i 3Z-Z3 sir r r, rl I ,. 1 i • r I . 1 ., !,!,.I._ 1 I: . . .1 I I i, I. I r..'n _ ! '11 r.Illl • I,1(i.y' 'IJ C:i,_%Tr I_ , C of Kit1GC w r ' I rl I r l. 1 I' r' r jIt I. I I C'.jc,rr,rr loJ ris ..,'i ( r m eflite:Aitt4107-7 1 _ . I. 1 It` I ; I Eilunnethel I.11 j' • Icy , is Carl.. .! , n, Ell teaT j ! IDA Clay& 1g t. j 1 J,_n; 11 I I 1 _r I tiL. I i IAj I 1 _I I tl.1i I iU,, 4 i J • L:r1 I 1 i t I S E. t orri '.I 1 , 11Ii ' l t'in1 1 . 1 ! —V ! EW H ! GN1ft J OF R k BUILDING 6, ZONING DEPARTMENT z c 1 L f it. 200 Mill Avenue South 4i 0 k PM , 9 02. 0 c, i Renton. 980SS9 6 0› 0 5 JAN tO SEP1 1986• 411 c, A f.., .1.' L 1.• ...!i 1. . ,.,;''..'.1 ' , • • i if':..'' 3'ir 1 f a Ht...I I 11-1•4 1 C) :.:,i:.i.441)E.l'i Alpha Co. 610 South Central Kent, WA 98031 JAN i 1. 1984 1. ILI t auNwAr R N •49 3 R, c \ i U Nel to len•N a 0t N r N V O •N r. 10 WI O N QASEL/NE 350. OFFSET FROM RUNWAYaf • ti f,• n N N N N h N •9'3-w T N Ifbats.67 N 350 00' I 01.56r I S1001 U9.98' 1,01 6-II' o 1 p1N In N 1 M W = fa W (Ti - 0 O W O O M i 3 a ^ Z n r'1 Z 1a a 4_` ij n O W a o 1m c o o Q, m 01^ o : ' , ,o, u ^ 6 1. 0 in L 2 O 1 - 1 .a 0 1- 01 U i N O • V1 -1 I S 2 'M 0 oi• e Q O t t APRON "C" N' v o u Q rZ W w 371s N 1 >> O ~O Z v < u 0 • t A N1 `O 231 96 o ^ v id 16. 2e . r Z 90 0e' 174 7s' 260 31' N e• sl 253 s0' p s•s7 6 M rN .e03.a' 0( 5 2 TI' 3 0' N 15.02 06 r 190 4 g' N 0.1 56 E 1.00 THE BOEING CO. LEASE— APRON "C1" roTAL AREA OF APRON -C• 553, 123. 60 SF. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Retained by City of Renton 11 ,571 .28 S.F. EXHIBIT "A" FOR S.A.* II -83 TO LAG 877-65 r°n nvrs 91. 600.60 S.F. LEASE TO CEDAR RIVER HANGARS 96,030 36 S.F. RE1rASN0ER Of APRON -C. TO e0EIR6 Co. 345,721 .16 S.F. REv. 10-29-83 EX11OIT "B" TO S.A. 11-83 TO LAG 8" i5 BOEING - APRON "C" Beginning at the intersection of the centerlines of Rainier Avenue North and Airport Way North; thence along the centerline of Airport Way North S87°30' 17"E a distance of 744.03 feet to a point located on the centerline of Renton Airport runway; thence along said runway centerline N4°49'43"W a distance of 294 .74 feet to a point referred to as Sta. 0+00; thence N4°49143"W a distance of 2,446.96 feet ; thence S85°10' 17"W a distance of 375.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning ; thence S85°l0'50"W a distance of 200.85 feet ; thence N16°28' I4"W a distance of 289. 14 feet ; thence N8°44 '31 "W a distance of 264 .84 feet ; thence N6°57'46"W a distance of 514. 11 feet ; thence NI5°02 '06"W a distance of 542 . 71 feet ; thence N0°I4'56"E a distance of 190.49 feet ; thence S84°32']5"W a distance of 2.00 feet ; thence N2°05'50"E a distance of 38.80 feet ; thence N84°50'50"E a distance of 373.05 feet; thence S4°49'43"E a distance of 1825.67 feet to the True Point of Beginning . Containing an area of 555, 123.60 square feet LESS 11 ,571 .28 square feet ( retained by the City of Renton over the South 56 feet of Apron "C") and LESS 99,800.80 square feet under lease to City of Renton for lease to Aero-Dyne Corporation - See S.A. #9-81 to LAG 877-65 (The North 401 .56 feet of the South 457.56' of Apron "C") and LESS 98,030.36 square feet under lease to City of Renton for lease to Cedar River Hangar Partnership - See S.A. #10-83 to LAG 877-65-Exhibit B - (The North 350 feet of the South 807. 56 feet of Apron "C") Total Adjusted Area of Apron "C" - Boeing Co. = 345,721 . 16 square feet. Rev. 10-24-83 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELL) BY THE RENTON LAND USF HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON ON JANUARY 12, 1984, AT 7:00 P.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON Rehearing of application to rezone 57,725 square feet of property from R-1 to B-1 for proposed commercial use, file R-033-83; located at 4010 N.E. 12th Street. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Renton Building and Zoning Dep::rtment. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 12, 1984, AT 7:00 P.M. TO EXPRESS THEIP, OPINIONS. PUBLISHED : January 1, 1984 Ronald G. Nelson Building and Zoning Director w or i et BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR 09 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 09 TF£' SEPScos§- BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR December 28. 1983 Ken E hellan 321 Burnett South Renton, WA 98055 Re: Rezone application. file R-033-83, located at 4018 N.E. 12th Street Dear Mr. Shellan: The Renton City Council has remanded the above mentioned application to the Land Use Hearing Examiner to rehear the application. A public hearing before the City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner has been scheduled for January 12, 1984. The public hearing commences at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you before the hearing. If you have any cuestions, please call the Building and Zoning Department at 235-2550. Sincerely, Roger J. Blaylock Zoning Administrator RJB:cl 0514:? F R4,'L o THE CITY OF RENTON POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 235-2552 o MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 co 0 SEP1E 6, BAR 3ARA Y. SHINPOCH MEMORANDUM MAYOR October 19, 1983 TO: Randy Rockhill, Chairman, Planning and Development Committee John Reed Richard Stredicke 1(FRCM: David R. Clemens Policy Development Director SUBJECT: DALPAY/CROOKSTON APPEAL, R-033-83 The Policy Development Department has reviewed the appeal submitted on the above referenced matter by Joel Haggard at the request of the applicants. After an extensive review of the comments contained in the expressed appeal, this department believes that this letter represents an amendment to the original application rather than an appeal. Three and one-half pages of the letter represent an exhaustive analysis and revision to the original application, which were never presented to the Examiner for his review or consideration. Further, the amendments proposed were never reviewed by the City's Environmental Review Committee. On page three of the appeal letter, Mr. Haggard indicates that Ordinance #2392 specifically exempts this property from the sewer moratorium. Neither the Examiner's read':ng of the record nor my reading of the record suggests that the property owned by Crockston located to the south of Mr. Dalpay's property has, in fact, been exempted. If such definitive information is available, it was not presented to the Hearing Examiner for his consideration. RECOMMENDATION: The Policy Development Department recommends that this revised application be resubmitted through the normal processing channels for a review by the Environmental Review Committee and the Hearing Examiner prior to any further action on the part of the City Council. In order to assist the Examiner and the Environmental Review Committee in its review, specific information regarding the effect of Ordinance #2932 on the subject properties should be submitted to the ERC and Examiner to assist in their deliberations. DRC:0345G:wr cc: Public Works Director Hearing Examiner RECEIVED CITY OF 14 HEARING E:` N0V2 ,', 1983 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT AM rl November 18, 1983 18t9t10111112111213141 16 TO: Renton City Council FROM: Planning and Development Committee RE: Dalpay/Crookston Appeal R-033-83 The Planning and Development Committee has considered the appeal of the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation dated September 27 , 1983, and based upon the Appellant' s stipulation to the four additional conditions set forth in the Notice of Appeal dated October 11, 1983, the Planning and Development Committee recommends that the City Council remand this matter to the Hearing Examiner for re-hearing of the matter in the light of those additional restrictions . 1501510 n-k." Z1 . 5 21 (( o-z$ ,'kO Q V n 7 S'P d b 1).-' 1S a .y o NC B F S,A d n( .M b("' U SS v86 linos • /'0, 77 W g4'fr £ Aa(' sisgm ' a-al°drvbs- So86 Va.1" IL" "SN G,obr cvosiaN --an cJZGb 711 Tt tj }ia Is Se,, ?'ae Z oa °e caaby n r\A v \\ ° S'"'\ 7 Q8 :N ?fit / WW,11/7 ""?"2.'-4 lit/le 7_S'lie r -z/ - M 7 £E S 73((v-ra ' al `L.a'3 e ni 9S 02 )) d 1++\I '9N 1010. N \-At vv . l\‘ 7 N '1 dW 71-1y.cc /.s'// 9-bi - cr / f-r v.sL 3A V bar!o P"L L ", d k/ I 01,r 41) SoRG 2t7ti 171 o ! }!l'w5 7-2F1t45'ZJ d W og g rY rant/ m1a-'1 ( eO( rya. f 2 7)11w g 0;6 a 7Af/ 4 'f/70K',S e o/ Z-7/ a"-V__, a i a7-%086 ? IY 6 l y5.‘ 9'e0( S 2 7-0/ r /1/4.3g03Z2 Zf391 O j j J$! V PA o!_-7 di Co 1 C 7 ' ,a$ 94,-19 g I 1L 2s os Al 'a'Jj u 0L f aq c S,'/17 3 a l C- Y 'aA / u° 7' az(s' sr&/ X pJ 9-12. 7c/ 14/ 6 c ' 'as 5 bc: s 8 , ,t01( 7ef 9 cO.M No1/YIN Yt27V o,pft NviS]/9P10 kb2/a 0,<SA NQJNVar ^a • J '' N .9n (,,8Q21 SM F/a NQ 9Sogb NQLr?Z! .?•(v n{/ (ti r, o o 1 iv Q ro_i.,, Vi i I,tA SS-S .303 o el tm4 N 8 - 2 O - qc40 -2. 3ei d7bCL 8ohQ UaYa ay-+•rt hVS b., ` -bCo•aa t c bva a.o v\ acl 1 2 3 4 BEFORE THE CITY HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON 5 6 No . R-033-83 7 Rezone Application of DALPAY/CROOKSTON APPLICANT'S PREHEARING 8 BRIEF 9 Following an appeal, the Council ' s Committee 10 remanded the matter instead of adopting the denial 11 recommendation. Two major new pieces of information will 12 respond to the Examiner ' s past concerns and permit a 13 reasonably based recommendation of approval subject to 14 conditions to now be reached. 15 This Comprehensive Plan Designated Commercial Property Can 16 and Will be Buffered from Adjacent Properties 17 Axiomatic to zoning is the existence of a line 18 separating differing zoning classifications . Such a line 19 by itself does not admit of a buffer, rather this 20 separation between classifications is reflected in other 21 zoning controls such as set backs, screening, landscaping, 22 height reductions , etc . But each approach, zoning 23 classification and classification regulations, are 24 generated by legislative decisions and then applied 25 administratively. 26 In the present case, there is no issue as to 27 where the line separating commercial and residential 28 APPLICANT'S PREHEARING HAGGARD, TOUSLEY &BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW BRIEF 1 SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 624-8299 1 should be . This has already been resolved by the City 2 Council when adopting the Comprehensive Plan . One issue 3 now is whether zoning the property B-1 tends to implement 4 the City' s Comprehensive Plan commercial designation for 5 the property. The answer of "yes" cannot be disputed. 6 Accordingly, other Comprehensive Plan policies which 7 allegedly indicate "incompatible uses must not abut" are 8 irrelevant in that a legislative decision of compatibility 9 has already been made. 10 While historically zoning decisions were of the 11 type reflected by the question "What zoning classification 12 is appropriate," our recent experience confirms the 13 two-edged approach reflected by the question "What zoning 14 classification and what conditions beyond those normally 15 applicable?" This conditional zoning approach has been 16 used to tailor site-specific conditions with development 17 constraints early in the planning and development 18 process. While a City does not have unlimited authority 19 to impose whatever condition it desires , the approach is 20 one Professor Anderson has characterized as flexible. 21 In the present case, the normal requirements of 22 the zoning code would appear to be sufficient . However, 23 the Examiner has previously indicated that due to the 24 adjacency of property to the west zoned residential, 25 buffering is desirable. (Parenthetically, we note here 26 that assertions indicating the rezone violates the 27 fidelity" to Policy B-8 is inappropriate since Policy B-8 28 APPLICANT'S PREHEARING COUNSELORS HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BA ATTORNEYS AND ATT LAW BRIEF 2 SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 624-8299 1 relates to harmonious development within a district, not 2 between districts. See Conclusion 8 , Examiner ' s September 3 27 , 1983 Report ) . 4 Buffering can be accomplished by spatial separa- 5 tion, by screening and/or by reducing use intensity. 6 Mindful of the Examiner ' s concerns over "potential" uses 7 allowed by the B-1 code, Applicant has specifically agreed 8 to not pursue certain uses otherwise permitted, like 24 9 hours convenience stores. See Applicant' s Notice of 10 Appeal, October 11 , 1983 . These USE BUFFER restrictions 11 should be imposed as a condition to the rezone. Spatial 12 separation is provided by the zoning classification and by 13 applicant 's agreement to provide a landscape buffer . 14 The Examiner was mindful in his September 27, 15 1983 report of the value of landscape buffering, but the 16 record apparently was not convincing. While the ERC has 17 felt a 15 foot landscape buffer is appropriate, Applicant 18 will go a step further to demonstrate this at the 19 hearing. Based upon the expertise and professional 20 experience of Mr . Richard Carothers, a well-known and 21 respected landscape architect and land use planner , we 22 will demonstrate that the LANDSCAPE BUFFER will 23 effectively screen and minimize alleged incompatibi- 24 lities. This evidence and opinion will provide the 25 Examiner with a reasonable basis to conclude that "a 26 smooth transition can be accommodated. " 27 28 APPLICANT'S PREHEARING C HAGGARD, O & BAT LAWANDCOUNSELORSAT LAW BRIEF 3 SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE.WASHINGTON 96101 624-SASS 1 The Rezone Is Pre-Ordained by the Plan 2 Incidential to the use of USE AND LANDSCAPE 3 BUFFERS is the issue whether this rezone will impair the 4 public health, safety and welfare. The rezone is presumed 5 in the public interest since the Council has already 6 legislatively determined that commercial use is 7 appropriate for this property. 8 The exercise of judgment is guided by established 9 policies. The preeminent, and we suggest determinative, 10 policy on the issue of should the zoning be granted is the 11 legislatively established commercial designation for the 12 property. Incidental to that are other policies relating 13 to what will be permitted under that commercial zoning. 14 From the negative viewpoint, reliance has been had on 15 Policies III-A-1 , III-B-3 , III-B-4, B-8 and V-A-7 . None, 16 individually or jointly, support overriding the Council ' s 17 judgment as to commercial . Policy III-A-1 indicates the 18 desirability of compatibility with future uses . Alleging 19 that single family houses in the area will be adversely 20 affected is not proof of such harm. The mere allegation 21 of a perceived, however honestly held, concern over 22 property values does not establish that there will be a 23 decrease following the rezone. In fact we will provide 24 evidence that commercial zoning in the area has occurred 25 at the same time property values for single family 26 residential properties have continued to increase. Policy 27 III-A-1 also talks of development when there is adequate 28 HAGGARD, TOUBLEY & BRAIN APPLICANT 'S PREHEARING ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW BRIEF 4 SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 624-8299 1 public services . The zoning does not authorize any 2 development; this is the province of building permits . 3 Policy III-B-3 ' s requirement for a smooth transition is 4 satisfied by use, spatial and landscape buffers as well as 5 the legislatively decided conclusion that commercial 6 belongs on the subject property. Policy V-A-7 is 7 similarly satisfied. The basic point is that commercial 8 is not inherently objectionable next to residential . The 9 proposed landscaping will tend to implement these 10 policies. And it is not true as has been stated that 11 commercial and residential are at "opposite ends of the 12 spectrum" ; that characterization is reserved for open 13 space and manufacturing. 14 Subsidiary Issues Are Not a Basis for Denying the Rezone 15 1 . SEWER 16 The City Council , believing there was a 17 concern over sewer line capacity imposed a moratorium by 18 Resolution No. 2392 . Parenthetically, the moratorium may 19 be suspect since not done by ordinance and not reasonably 20 restricted in time. The moratorium specifically exempts 21 the "Dalpay property located in the SW corner of Sunset 22 and Union Avenue NE. " Then, as now, two lots, #61 and 23 273, within the property were owned by Mr .Dalpay. 24 Accordingly, it is our opinion that the moratorium (except 25 as to equivalent hookup limits ) does not apply to those 26 two lots. The property to be rezoned also includes a 27 third lot, #235 , owned then, and now, by Mr . Crookston. 28 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN APPLICANT'S PREHEARING ATTORNEYS ANDCOUNSELORS AT LAW BRIEF 5 SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE.WASHINGTON 98101 624-8299 1 The moratorium text would not exempt this lot; however, 2 the mapping attached to the moratorium resolution does 3 show it as exempt . Due to the conflict between the text 4 and the map, the issue is whether Lot #235 is exempt from 5 the moratorium. Subject to a review of the legislative 6 history to show the contrary, the mapping would control . 7 However, this is an irrelevant issue since 8 Applicant has agreed to be bound by the moratorium until 9 rescinded or three years pass. 10 2 . PETITIONS 11 The views of neighbors supporting or 12 opposing the rezone may be given substantial weight, but 13 it cannot be cotrolling . Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 14 454 , 462 (1978 ) . Such views , if considered only numeri- 15 cally, are not probative evidence for a quasi-judicial 16 rezone. Similarly comments made for or against the rezone 17 which do not reflect competent or material evidence should 18 at most be disregarded and at best be precluded. Exten- 19 sive, repetitive and non-expert testimony on property 20 values, traffic design, etc . may reflect personal beliefs 21 and still not constitute probative evidence. We rely upon 22 the Examiner to avoid prejudice to the applicant in these 23 matters. 24 Respectfully submitted, 25 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN 26 l 27 oel E . Haggar ; 28 2 419 E HAGGARD, TOUSLEY& BRAIN APPLICANT'S PREHEARING ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW BRIEF 6 SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE.WASHINGTON 98101 624-5299 CITY OF RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 12, 1984 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 7:30 P.M.: COL NCIL CHAMBERS, SECOND FLOOR, RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING The applications listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON Rehearing of application to rezone 57,725 square feet of property from R-1 to B-1 for proposed commercial use, file R-033-83; located at 4010 N.E. 12th Street. w BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 12, 1984 APPLICANT: JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON FILE NUMBER: R-033-83 A. SUMMARY & PURPOSE OF REQUEST: The applicants have modified the original request submitted and considered by the Land Use Hearing Examiner on September 13, 1983 to specifically limit the proposed development by use regulations and by a limitation on construction of new structures. B. ANALYSIS: 1. The original proposal submitted by the applicant was fairly limited by the decision of the Environmental Review Committee. These limitations have not been opposed by either the applicant or the general public. 2. The applicants in their response to the Land Use Hearing Examiner's decision of September 27, 1983, proposed to the City Council specifically limiting non-compatible uses on the subject site, along with limiting any new development on the site for a three year period, or to removal of the moratorium under Ordinance 2392. The first two points dealing with the fact that no structure would be located in the westerly fifteen feet of the property and that any development or redevelopment plans of the site would require approval of the City's landscape architect are non-substantive because they are implied requirements under the Environmental Review Committee's decision and city codes dealing with landscaping. 3. The Building & Zoning Department has taken the position that the rezone request as limited by the Environmental Review Committee, is a proper land use for the subject site. Applicant's proposal limits the types of commercial uses. In effect, we have created a transitional commercial area that could be utilized as a use buffer between standard high-density commercial activities and residential areas. In fact, the Planning Commission looked at the concept of creating an office use buffer zone which would create both a buffer from the points of view of intensity of land use, and size and setbacks of structures. 4. There was specific discussion in the Examiner's first report addressing the issue of a fifteen foot landscape buffer and the effectiveness of that buffer. Fifteen feet from a landscaping point of view is more than a sufficient area to create a dense evergreen screen. In fact, I would presume that the applicant will argue that fifteen feet is twice as much as necessary to provide screening. The continuing problem with landscaping is the fact that all trees start out small and end up large, and the inconvenience and lack of screening for that period when they develop. However, the specific size of materials could be dictated so that an immediate screen of at least twelve to fifteen feet in height could be provided by using a combination of evergreen and deciduous plantings. SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON R-033-83 JANUARY 12, 1984 Page 2 S. The Building & Zoning Department does take exception with any contract rezone from the point of view of enforcement. The City of Renton does not have the staff to review and enforce specialized zoning documents. Each time a business license was requested or a building permit application was submitted, review of the underlying restrictive covenants is very difficult and time consuming. It might be more appropriate for the Hearing Examiner to consider requiring site plan approval or a planned unit development review of the subject site. The Hearing Examiner has utilized this approach where a single-family residential area was across the street from a retail commercial area (Tino Cugini, Short Plat 382-79 and 384-79). RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above analysis, it is recommended the rezone request, File R-033-83, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Filing of restrictive covenants limiting the use as proposed by the applicant. 2. Requiring site plan approval of any reuse of existing structures or new construction. 9 3928 NE llth Place Renton, Washington 98056 January 10, 1984 Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Mr. Kaufman: I am the property owner on the south side of NE 12th Street directly across the street from the Crookston property. This letter is to let you know of my opposition to the proposed James Dalpay/LeRoy Crookston (File No. R-033-83) rezone. I feel the rezone will devalue my property and have a negative impact on the existing neighborhood. I already see too much commercial prop- erty and multiple family dwellings adjacent to my neighborhood. Any more commercial growth will increase traffic and bring the possibility of more crime. It is my belief this rezone will not in any way contri- bute to the betterment of single family residential homes. Sincerely, Jean Bryant RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEAPING EXAMINER AM JAN1 11884 71819:t8,11:l2:1:2:3,4,5P6 Rentcn City Council Noveriber 21, 1983 Page Two PUBLIC HEARING of the request to fully utilize the site for development of contir ued an auto-unloading facility. Burlington Northern is presently Burlington Northern constructing Oaksdale Avenue SW including installation of all Petitions for Street utilities, which will serve development within the subject plat. and Flat Vacation MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY HUGHES, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. * For the record, Councilman Stredicke asked if there are any streets developed, platted or planned extending northerly of the subject plat. Mr. Houghton advised that a plat formerly filed by Burlington Northern with the City of Tukwila has expired without being developed, and that to his knowledge, no platted streets exist to the north. At the present time, Oaksdale Avenue SW is the sole access to the northerly property. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY HUGHES, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO APPROVE THE STREET AND PLAT VACATIONS. CARRIED. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY HUGHES, REFER TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE FOR ORDINANCE. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Nick Petruska, 1174 Shelton Avenue NE, requested discussion Advarce to Old of the Dalpay /Crookston Appeal of Land Use Hearing Busin ass Examiner's Recommendation, File No. R-033-83. MOVED BY ROCKHILL, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL SUSPEND THE RULES AND ADVANCE TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT UNDER OLD BUSINESS. CARRIED. OLD E',USINESS Planning and Development Committee Chairman Rockhill Planning and presented a report indicating consideration of the appeal Development filed by Mr. Dalpay, rezone applicant, for property located Committee at 4010 NE 12th Street. Based upon the appellant's Dalpa'' /Crookston stipulation to the four additional conditions set forth in Appeal of Hearing the appeal letter, dated 10/11 /83, the Committee recommended Examiner's that the City Council remand this rezone back to the Hearing Recommendation Examiner for re-hearing of the matter in light of those File ND. R-033-83 additinal restrictions. MOVED BY ROCKHILL, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND REMAND THIS MATTER TO THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR RE-HEARING* Mr. Petruska requested the hearing be held during the daytime since evening hearings are inconvenient for residents wishing to attend. Administrative Assistant Michael Parness indicated he would notify the Hearing Examiner of Mr. Petruska's request. Contirued Lawrence Wood, 1155 Shelton Avenue NE, questioned whether the Committee had discovered an error in law or fact to warrant the decision to remand the matter. Chairman Rockhill explained that discovery or an error in law or fact is required to allow the Council to overturn the Hearing Examiner, but that finding is not a prerequisite for remand procedures. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY REED, THE HEARING EXAMINER BE NOTIFIED THAT CITIZENS IN THE AREA HAVE REQUESTED REHEARING OF THE DALPAY REZONE BE SCHEDULED DURING EVENING HOURS. CARRIED. Advan :e to MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY HUGHES, COUNCIL Old Business - SUSPEND THE RULES AND ADVANCE TO WAYS AND MEANS Ways t Means COMMITTEE REPORT REGARDING LID 320/325 BONDS. Commie tee CARRIED. LID 3: 0/325 Finance Director Michael Mulcahy briefly described scope of Bond Sale completed Local Improvement District projects for which bonds are being issued : LID 320, $20, 000 watermain and hydrant project, located in the vicinity of NE 27th Street between Edmonds Avenue NE and Devils Elbow involving four parcels of property; and LID 325 (One Valley Place) , roadway project for 30-acre tract located near Valley General Hospital, SW 43rd Street and SR-167. Seattle Northwest Securities Corporation has offered to purchase the bonds (total value of $832, 560. 00) at $97. 25 per each $100 of par value, plus accrued interest from the date of the bonds to the date of delivery to purchaser. This is the first time bonds have been sold at a discount K PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT November 18, 19E TO: Renton City Council FROM: Planning and Development Committee RE : Dalpay/Crookston Appeal R-033-83 The Planning and Development Committee has considered the appeal of the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation dated September 27 , 1983, and based upon the Appellant' s stipulation to the four additional conditions set forth in the Notice of Appeal dated October 11 , 1983, the Planning and Development Committee recommends that the City Council remand this matter to the Hearing Examiner for re-hearing of the matter in the light of those additional restrictions . O J v F IP CO 0 THE CITY OF RENTON POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 235-2552z p MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 11AC cry SE P O P BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MEMORANDUMMAYOR Oct)ber 19, 1983 TO: Randy Rockhill, Chairman, Planning and Development Committee John Reed Richard Stredicke FRCM: David R. Clemens Policy Development Director SUBJECT: DALPAY/CROOKSTON APPEAL, R-033-83 The Policy Development Department has reviewed the appeal submitted on the above refe renced matter by Joel Haggard at the request of the applicants. After an extensive revi:w of the comments contained in the expressed appeal, this department believes that this letter represents an amendment to the original application rather than an appeal. Three and one-half pages of the letter represent an exhaustive analysis and revision to the original application, which were never presented to the Examiner for his review or consideration. Further, the amendments proposed were never reviewed by the City'sEnvironmentalReviewCommittee. On page three of the appeal letter, Mr. Haggard indicates that Ordinance #2392 spec fically exempts this property from the sewer moratorium. Neither the Examiner's reading of the record nor my reading of the record suggests that the property owned byCrockstonlocatedtothesouthofMr. Dalpay's property has, in fact, been exempted. If such definitive information is available, it was not presented to the Hearing Examiner forhiscDnsideration. REC'DM1 ENDATION: The Policy Development Department recommends that this revised application be resubmitted through the normal processing channels for a review by the Environmental Review Committee and the Hearing Examiner prior to any further action on the part oftheCityCouncil. In order to assist the Examiner and the Environmental Review Corn nittee in its review, specific information regarding the effect of Ordinance #2932 on the :ubject properties should be submitted to the BRC and Examiner to assist in their deliberations. DRC c0345G: r cc: Public Works Director Hearing Examiner 01. R6 THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL v MUNICIPAL BUILDING • 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH • RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 • 235-2586 OpA o' 01 L t,L0°* November 8, 1983 APPEAL FILED BY JOEL HAGGARD, LEGAL COUNSEL FOR JAMES DALPAY/ LEROY A. CROOKSTON Re: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's Recommendation , dated September 27, 1983, James Dalpay and Leroy Crookston Request for Rezone from R-1 to B-1 ; File No. R-033-83; 4010 NE 12th St. To Parties of Record: The Renton City Council 's Planning and Development Committee will meet to discuss the subject appeal at its meeting of Thursday, November 17, 1983 at 4:00 p.m. in the sixth floor conference room of the Municipal Building. Your attendance is invited. If you have any questions regarding this meeting , please phone the Council secretary at 235-2586. Thank you. C4- 4N.Cf24. 1--(;)\cej ., ;14 Randy Rockhill , Chairman Planning and Development Committee RR:bd cc: City Clerk NOVI4, ll CITY CLERK of R THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL soll.,rn MUNICIPAL BUILDING • 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH • RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 • 235-2586 C) m ,r 09 43, 0 414.0 SEPIC` O C October 21 , 1983 APPEAL FILED BY JOEL HAGGARD, LEGAL COUNSEL FOR JAMES DALPAY/ LEROY A. CROOKSTON Re: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner' s Recommendation , dated September 27, 1983, James Dalpay and Leroy Crookston Request for Rezone from R-1 to B-1 ; File No. R-033-83; 4010 NE 12th St. To Parties of Record: The Planning and Development Committee is postponing review of the subject appeal due to delays in other matters before the Committee. You will be notified as soon as the appeal is scheduled for review. Sincerely, C--- "/"" er q*c"Ciisio Randy Rockhill , Chairman Planning and Development Committee RR:bd cc: City Clerk R THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL rn MUNICIPAL BUILDING • 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH • RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 . 235-2586 0 9 co- 0 F' SEP1C-° October 20, 1983 APPEAL FILED BY JOEL HAGGARD, LEGAL COUNSEL FOR JAMES DALPAY/ LEROY A. CROOKSTON Re: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's Recommendation , dated September 27, 1983, James Dalpay and Leroy Crookston Request for Rezone from R-1 to B-1 ; File No. R-033-83; 4010 NE 12th St. To Parties of Record: The Renton City Council 's Planning and Development Committee will meet to discuss the subject appeal at its meeting of Thursday, October 27, 1983 at 4:00 p.m. in the sixth floor conference room of the Municipal Building. Your attendance is invited. If you have any questions regarding this meeting, please phone the Council secretary at 235-2586. Thank you. Randy Rockhill , Chairman Planning and Development Committee RR:bd cc: City Cler,V' YE [Fs 1LLOCT21. 193 CITY CLERK Rentoi City Council Octob;ar 17, 1983 Page Five NEW BUSINESS Council President Trimm announced an Executive Session Executive Session to be held directly following the Audience Comment portion of the agenda to discuss status of Playtime court case. ADMINISTRATIVE Mayor Shinpoch announced selection by the Metro Rules and REPORT Regulations Committee, on which she served, of Alan Gibbs Metro Director as new Metro Director. Mr. Gibbs, former Secretary of the Selected Department of Social and Health Services, will be confirmed by the entire Metro Council on October 20, 1983. Bruce McKay Mayor Shinpoch advised that Bruce McKay, longtime Renton Hospitalized resident and former City Councilman, is in Valley General Hospital after suffering a serious heart attack. AUDIENCE COMMENT Mary Merbach, 13732 SE 141st, rerrinded Council of numerous Heather Downs occasions the drainage problems incurred by Heather Downs Drainage Problem residents have been brought to their attention. She stated that with the increase in development density supported by the city, low areas such as Heather Downs are being impacted by the constant sliding of the canyon walls. She felt that the construction of a retention pond currently being studied will be a "bandaid" on the total problem if high density development continues to be encouraged in the area. Dalpzy Rezone Nick Petruska, 1174 Shelton Avenue NE, requested confirmation Appeal of the Planning and Development Committee meetina to discuss the Dalgay appeal of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation, File No. R-033-83. Councilman Stredicke confirmed the meeting on Thursday, October 27, 1983 at 4:00 p.m. NE Fourth Street Pat Houlbjerg, 14319 SE 100th Place, referenced discussion Improvement regarding NE Fourth Street improvements, and inquired if Project (LID 326)the city's liability would be removed if signing were installed to alert drivers that a dangerous situation exists. City Attorney Kellogg advised that once the city acknowledges a safety hazard exists and takes mitigating measures towards that situation, the potential for liability exists if injuries or accidents occur. Ms. Houlbjerg requested that the City Attorney be in attendance at the Transportation Committee meeting scheduled for discussion of this matter. Executive Session MOVED BY TRIMM, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PLAYTIME COURT CASE. CARRIED. Time: 9: 14 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Council reconvened into regular session; roll was called; Time: 9:48 p.m. all Council members present. MOVED BY TRIMM, SECONDED BY HUGHES, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. 2 MAXINE E. MOTOR, City Clerk 0E: RA, THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL r*°' oZ MUNICIPAL BUILDING • 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH • RENTON, WASfiINGTON 98055 . 235-2586 O 90 o' 0, 9g1ED SEPS° October 21 , 1983 APPEAL FILED BY JOEL HAGGARD, LEGAL COUNSEL FOR JAMES DALPAY/ LEROY A. CROOKSTON Re: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner' s Recommendation , dated September 27, 1983, James Dalpay and Leroy Crookston Request for Rezone from R-1 to B-1 ; File No. R-033-83; 4010 NE 12th St . To Parties of Record: The Planning and Development Committee is postponing review of the subject appeal due to delays in other matters before the Committee. You will be notified as soon as the appeal is scheduled for review. Sincerely, c)"'"c194r °C.1/14).4.) Randy Rockhi l l , Chairman Planning and Development Committee RR:bd cc: City Clerk Renton City Council October 17, 1983 Page 1 hree File No. CONSENT AGENDA Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Recommendation, R-033-83, rezone request for James DalpaY and Appeal filed on continued Crookston, filed by Joel Haggard, attorney,for property at 4010 NE 12th Street. Refer to Planning and ezont, - 33-8 `" Development Committee. R., R-033-83 _ royal of appraisal Appraisal for Gen Public Works Department recommended by app applicants, Kay SengVAC Avenue Vacation in the Calvinunt f Khoury U for submitted of Gen Sengle VAC )1-83 West and value Avenue, VAC 01-83 (payment of one-half appraised required within 90 days) . Council concur. CityClerk submitted petition from Burlington Northern Burli igton Northern plat (Block Nine of Petition for Plat Railroad Company for vacation of a RenBlo I I) . Refer Vacai ion Burlington Northern Industrial Park, to Board of Public WO(Seeks and earlearlier action under public lic hearing for November 21, hearings, same petitioner.) MOVED TRIMM,ADOPTBY CLYMER, COUNCIL CO PRESENTED. CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA AS Count South CORRESPONDENCE Letter from League of Women Voters of Kbying the League, Candidate Night announced a Candidate Night, sponsored on October 18, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. at the Renton School 10/18/83 Administration Building, 435 Main Avenue S. Candidates will make brief, introductory select panel as wellnts and respond to as from the audience. questions from a OLD BUSINESS Council President Trimm presented a Committee of the Committee of Whole report recommending the City Attorney review the the Whole proposal to locate construction warning signs along NE on NE Fourth Fourth Street from Monroe to° Unionp Avenue warned NE untilalthough StreetUpdateet Project (LID LID 326 is completed.Y tre326) this interim solution would improve inf using tetyhean espgbssisess r by lowering speed limits, proprietyYion questionable. Drivers will soon realcannotze start a project that tw thout is not occurring, and the City bid laws are violated. Use going out for bids; otherwise, of weighted barrels for signing is illegal, and use of h unweighted barrels isdangerous. disregard forstheedy ellow line that n aged many drivers are showing are turning left, the accident rate has decreased since the line was painted. Councilman Stredicke favored the Committee recommendation as for athe interim City's liability solution. if eftnturnsn Hughes indicated conareagainallowedafter recognition of the safety hazard. ed Mayor Shinpoch also informed a u cil ef bersthattherequired 12ity Crrntinu has appealed to the State foot turning lane width, but has not yet received an answer. If the appeal is denied, additional property must be acquiredCOredNDEI through condemnationTHIStron.MATTERVED BY TO THECTRANSPORTATION gY l"RIMM, REFERCouncilman COMMITTEE FOR STUDY AND REPORT BACK. nun against Stredicke, Transportation Committee Chairman,sp Committee the referral. MOTION CARRIED. (Transportation Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, 10/25/83, at 7: 30 p.m.) Committee of Council President Trimm presented a Committee of the the Whole Whole report recommending that the study of widenito the ng Vide of of I 405 through itRteetonMOVEDvBY TRIMMrredS CONDED g Trans _oi_tatron Comm _ 1-405 BY REED, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. Committee of Council President Trimm presented a Committee of the the Whole Whole report on Marine Patrol negotiations. Theith Marine Administrationidis dIsland to to ndec deuecwhichofussions µ them King County andd Mercer can provide best service at lowest cost. Information. Council President Trimm reported gracious hospitality Sister City extended by officials of Renton's Sister City, Nishiwaki, Visit by Trimm For. Use By Ci t Clerk's Office Only A. I . # G AGENDA ITEM RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING xaxa SUBMITTING Dept./Div. /Bd./Comm. City Clerk For Agenda Of October 17, 1983 Meeting Date) Staff Contact Maxine E. Motor Name) Agenda Status: SUBJECT: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Consent XXX Recommendation; Request for Rezone by Public Hearing Correspondence James Dalpay/Leroy Crookston : R-033-83 Ordinance/Resolution Old Business Exhibits: ;Legal Descr. , Maps, Etc. )Attach New Business Study Session A. C ty Clerk's Letter Other B. Letter of Appeal from Joel Haggard , atty. C. HQarinq Examiner's Report, 9/27/83 Approval : Legal Dept. Yes No N/A COUNCIL ACTION RECOMMENDED: Refer to Finance Dept. Yes No. N/A Planning End Development Committee Other Clearance FISCAL IM'ACT: Amount Appropriation- Expenditurf: Required $ Budgeted $ Transfer Required $ SUMMARY (Background information, prior action and effect of implementation) Attach additional pages if necessary. ) Appeal filed by Joel Haggard, legal counsel for James Dalpay/Leroy Crookston, accompanied by required fee received on October 11, 1983 within established appeal period. PARTIES OF RECORD/INTERESTED CITIZENS TO BE CONTACTED: See page eight of Examiner's Report. SUBMIT THIS COPY TO CITY CLERK BY NOON ON THURSDAY WITH DOCUMENTATION. OF 1? 4, 111,0 THE CITY OF RENTON C.J 0 s-- MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 n aaj; rn BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR MAXINE E.MOTOR, 090 O CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500 09gr SEPSEOO October 12, 1983 APPEAL FILED BY JOEL HAGGARD, LEGAL COUNSEL FOR JAMES DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON Re: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's Recommendation, dated September 27, 1983, James Dalpay and Leroy Crookston Request for Rezone from R-I to B-I; File No. R-033-83; 4010 NE 12th St. To Parties of Record : Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 30, City Code, written appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's recommendation has been filed with the City Clerk, along with the proper fee of $75.00. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee and will be considered by the City Council when the matter is reported out of committee. Billie Dunphy, the Council Secretary, will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. Sincerely, CITY OF RENTON Maxine E. Motor City Clerk qF I? THE CITY OF RENTON0z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 NIL o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-25939,4 0 SEPTE( P MEMORANDUM DATE: October 3, 1983 TO: Files FROM: Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner SUBJECT: DALPAY/CROOKSTON REZONE (R-033-83) Add ad as a party of record to the above referenced rezone application is: Marilyn J. Petersen 1040 Redmond Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING State of Washington) County of King SUE ELLISTON being first duly sworn, upon oath disposes and states: That on the 27th day of September 1983 , affiant deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. 574 Subscribed and sworn this S LA of cA 19 . 4 pi e ice Notar ublic in and for the State of Washington, residing at Renton Application, Petition or Case: JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON FILE NO. R-033-83 The minutes contain a tiist 06 the paAti.ei, 06 n.ecoAd. ) O F R' 1f 11 THE CITY OF RENTON 111.1.11 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 n rn BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR MAXINE E.MOTOR, 0- 9 o- CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500 p P 9 TED SEP- October 12, 1983 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss COUNTY OF KING MARILYN J. PETERSEN, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the twelfth day of October, 1983, at the hour of 5:00 p.m. , your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail, to all parties of record, a true and correct NOTICE OF APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION FILED BY JOEL HAGGARD, ATTORNEY FOR JAMES DALPAY /LEROY A. CROOKSTON ; FILE NO. R-033-83. L% i G2fli.6: irt Marilyn J. ter C% en, Deputy City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this twelfth day of October, 1983. 0>tt -e_5--ea' Not ry Public in an for the Stat f Washington, residing in 10 THE CITY OF RENTONu2 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 orn BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR MAXINE E.MOTOR, Aa co- CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500 47-FD sEPt- gO October 12, 1983 APPEAL FILED BY JOEL HAGGARD, LEGAL COUNSEL FOR JAMES DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON Re: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's Recommendation, dated September 27, 1983, James Dalpay and Leroy Crookston Request for Rezone from R-I to B-I; File No. R-033-83; 4010 NE 12th St. To Parties of Record : Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 30, City Code, written appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's recommendation has been filed with the City Clerk, along with the proper fee of $75. 00. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee and will be considered by the City Council when the matter is reported out of committee. Billie Dunphy, the Council Secretary, will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. Sincerely, CITY OF RENTON Maxine E. Motor City Clerk 2 U I I Is`;u3jtiiii 4 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK CITY OF RENTON 5 6 RE: REZONE REQUEST File No. R-033-83 7 by JAMES DALPAY / LEROY A. CROOKSTON NOTICE OF APPEAL 8 9 We ask the City Council to rezone the subject 10 property as City Staff recommended, but to subject the 11 rezone to the following additional restraints: 12 1) No structure may be constructed within 13 the westerly 15 feet of the property. 14 Further , the westerly 15 feet shall be 15 landscaped incidental to any 16 development permit. 17 2) Pursuant to issuance of City permits 18 for redevelopment, a Landscape Plan 19 shall be approval by the City Building 20 Department. 21 3) No new structures may be constructed 22 upon the subject property until the 23 City by lawful action removes the sewer 24 moratorium (Ordinance 2392) or 3 years 25 pass, whichever is sooner ; provided 26 that this shall not prohibit changes of 7 / / / 8 / / / NOTICE OF APPEAL 1 HAGGARD, TOUBLEY & BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 824-5299 1 use in accord with zoning for the 2 present structures. 3 4) After rezoning to B-1, the subject 4 property may not be used for the 5 following otherwise permitted B-1 uses; 6 a) Furniture Store; 7 b) Laundries, cleaning and pressing 8 establishments; 9 c) Locksmiths and shoe repair ; 10 d) Lumber yards and fuel yards; 11 e) Public garages, repair shops and battery service stations and tire 12 repair shops; 13 f) Fast food restaurants or any restaurant operating 24 hours a 14 day; 15 g) Service Stations; 16 h) Undertaking establishments; 17 i) Mobile home parks; 18 j ) Self service storage facilities; and 19 k) Twenty-four hour convenience 20 stores . 21 These conditons are in addition to the four added 22 constraints established by the ERC (See Paragraph L. 2. a , 23 b, c & d, Page 3 , Staff Report, dated September 13 , 24 1983) . Should the Council wish these conditions to be 25 recorded as covenants running with the land (except if 26 changed by a future council) , we would have no objection. 27 The Comprehensive Plan specifically supports the 28 requested rezone. The only concern that both Staff and HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE NOTICE OF APPEAL 2 720 OLIVEE WAY SEATTLE.WASHINGTON 98101 624-828B 1 the Examiner expressed about the Plan related to 2 buffering . The Staff concern was resolved prior to the 3 hearing. No citizen living adjacent to the west appeared 4 at the hearing to object. Staff recommended and the 5 applicant agreed to both a height limit and a landscape 6 buffer . And in this appeal applicant has extended this by 7 agreeing to a specific Landscape Plan approval process. 8 The idea of a buffer , advanced by Staff and 9 accepted by the applicant, is of aid in avoiding adjacent 10 potentially incompatible uses , however speculative . The 11 Examiner still was apprehensive because of the speculative 12 possibility of a gas station, fast food restaurant 13 drive-in window or twenty four hour convenience store. 14 This speculation is removed by the applicant' s agreement 15 not to have any such uses on the property, whether 16 permitted by the zoning code. This is explicitly provided 17 by our added condition #4 set out above. 18 The only other issue involves timing . Let us 19 remember that as a matter of law Ordinance 2392 20 specifically exempted this property from the sewer 21 moratorium. In fact, capacity has been reserved within 22 the sewer system for the development of the property. The 23 Examiner frankly erred when making Conclusion #7 that said 24 the "sewer situation obviously rules out the subject site 25 at this time. " 26 The applicant is sensitive to general concerns 27 over the sewer , even though the Council has already 28 NOTICE OF APPEAL 3 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101 824-5250 1 exempted his property from the moratorium. The applicant 2 is sensitive to general concerns over the sewer even 3 though the Examiner has effectively tried to override the 4 Council ' s prior decision to exempt the subject property 5 from the moratorium. And so the applicant has agreed to 6 an added condition #3 (Note: without waiving any rights 7 to the moratorium exemption) to voluntarily restrict new 8 structures on the property for 3 years or when the 9 moratorium is lifted, whichever is sooner. 10 With the Comprehensive Plan support, with the 11 specific sewer moratorium exemption, with the four ERC 12 conditions, and with the applicants four added conditions 13 described here, the Council should grant the rezone 14 subject to conditions . Staff has reviewed the matter and 15 provided sound advise. The rezone should be granted. 16 DATED this llth day of October , 1983. 17 Respectfully submitted, 18 HAG ARIS U,SLEY & BRAIN 719 20 oel Haggard 21 cc: Mr. J. W. Dalpay 22 Mr . Roger Blaylock Renton Hearing Examiner 23 8656C 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF APPEAL 4 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE,WASHINGTON DS101 624-028D CITY OF RENTON N? 3529 FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 RECEIVED OF Wrt Ci.1(( ,LE)K'61,Jr( ,l,l'y Appeal- (4 RZITh)np)-AiR- Th 1,pai / CArr f)kS-tr0 rr D o TOTAL 7 j _ cx) C w_ M 2 OCT H. 1383 3 4 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK CITY OF RENTON 5 6 RE: REZONE REQUEST File No. R-033-83 7 by JAMES DALPAY / LEROY A. CROOKSTON NOTICE OF APPEAL 8 9 We ask the City Council to rezone the subject 10 property as City Staff recommended, but to subject the 11 rezone to the following additional restraints: 12 1) No structure may be constructed within 13 the westerly 15 feet of the property. 14 Further , the westerly 15 feet shall be 15 landscaped incidental to any 16 development permit. 17 2) Pursuant to issuance of City permits 18 for redevelopment, a Landscape Plan 19 shall be approval by the City Building 20 Department. 21 3) No new structures may be constructed 22 upon the subject property until the 23 City by lawful action removes the sewer 24 moratorium (Ordinance 2392) or 3 years 25 pass, whichever is sooner; provided 26 that this shall not prohibit changes of 27 / 28 / / / NOTICE OF APPEAL 1 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 624-5299 1 use in accord with zoning for the 2 present structures. 3 4) After rezoning to B-1, the subject 4 property may not be used for the 5 following otherwise permitted B-1 uses; 6 a) Furniture Store; 7 b) Laundries, cleaning and pressing 8 establishments; 9 c) Locksmiths and shoe repair; 10 d) Lumber yards and fuel yards; 11 e) Public garages, repair shops and battery service stations and tire repair shops; 12 13 f) Fast food restaurants or any restaurant operating 24 hours a 14 day; 15 g) Service Stations; 16 h) Undertaking establishments; 17 i) Mobile home parks; 18 j) Self service storage facilities; and 19 k) Twenty-four hour convenience 20 stores. 21 These conditons are in addition to the four added 22 constraints established by the ERC (See Paragraph L. 2. a, 23 b, c & d, Page 3 , Staff Report, dated September 13 , 24 1983) . Should the Council wish these conditions to be 25 recorded as covenants running with the land (except if 26 changed by a future council) , we would have no objection. 27 The Comprehensive Plan specifically supports the 28 requested rezone. The only concern that both Staff and HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW NOTICE OF APPEAL 2 SUITE 1700 WAYOLIVE WAY SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 624-8289 1 the Examiner expressed about the Plan related to 2 buffering. The Staff concern was resolved prior to the 3 hearing. No citizen living adjacent to the west appeared 4 at the hearing to object. Staff recommended and the 5 applicant agreed to both a height limit and a landscape 6 buffer. And in this appeal applicant has extended this by 7 agreeing to a specific Landscape Plan approval process. 8 The idea of a buffer , advanced by Staff and 9 accepted by the applicant, is of aid in avoiding adjacent 10 potentially incompatible uses, however speculative. The 11 Examiner still was apprehensive because of the speculative 12 possibility of a gas station, fast food restaurant 13 drive-in window or twenty four hour convenience store. 14 This speculation is removed by the applicant' s agreement 15 not to have any such uses on the property, whether 16 permitted by the zoning code. This is explicitly provided 17 by our added condition #4 set out above. 18 The only other issue involves timing . Let us 19 remember that as a matter of law Ordinance 2392 20 specifically exempted this property from the sewer 21 moratorium. In fact, capacity has been reserved within 22 the sewer system for the development of the property. The 23 Examiner frankly erred when making Conclusion #7 that said 24 the "sewer situation obviously rules out the subject site 25 at this time. " 26 The applicant is sensitive to general concerns 27 over the sewer , even though the Council has already 28 NOTICE OF APPEAL 3 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY & BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 624-5299 1 exempted his property from the moratorium. The applicant 2 is sensitive to general concerns over the sewer even 3 though the Examiner has effectively tried to override the 4 Council' s prior decision to exempt the subject property 5 from the moratorium. And so the applicant has agreed to 6 an added condition #3 (Note: without waiving any rights 7 to the moratorium exemption) to voluntarily restrict new 8 structures on the property for 3 years or when the 9 moratorium is lifted, whichever is sooner. 10 With the Comprehensive Plan support, with the 11 specific sewer moratorium exemption, with the four ERC 12 conditions, and with the applicants four added conditions 13 described here, the Council should grant the rezone 14 subject to conditions. Staff has reviewed the matter and 15 provided sound advise. The rezone should be granted. 16 DATED this llth day of October , 1983. 17 Respectfully submitted, 18 HAG U LEY BRAIN 19 20 oel Haggard 21 cc: Mr. J. W. Dalpay 22 Mr . Roger Blaylock Renton Hearing Examiner 23 8656C 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF APPEAL 4 HAGGARD, TOUSLEY& BRAIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITE 1700 720 OLIVE WAY SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 824-5299 L. f 35) NEED COPIES TO: SENTSE J CITY ATTORNEY' S OFFICE 1__ V RECORD CHRONICLE (PRESS) MAYOR' S OFFICE L_ v/ CITY COUNCIL a FINANCE DEPARTMENT Milkini HEARING EXAMINER 1-_ v216_ y-r.i-Z'11T1 L"it11Y 1 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR I PARK DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT LtThPiA, f Zoit/l 7' A PL4 A/AI 1 iii ,o,1Urr o t/ 9 f September 27, 1983 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: APPLICANT: JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON FILE NO. R-033-83 LOCATION: 4010 N.E. 12th Street SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant seeks approval of a rezone of + 57,725 sq. ft. from R-1 to B-1 for proposed commercial use. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Building and Zoning Department Recommendation: Approval. Hearing Examiner Recommendation: Denial. BUILDING & ZONING The Building & Zoning Department Report was DEPARTMENT REPORT: received by the Examiner on September 6, 1983. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Zoning Department Report, examining available information on file with the application and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on September 13, 1983, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The i ollowing documents were entered into the record as exhibits: Exhibit #1: Yellow file containing the application, staff report, and other pertinent documents. Exhibit #2: Assessor's Map showing the subject site and vicinity. Exhibit #3: Existing site plan showing buildings in black and conditions imposed by the ERC. Exhibit #4: Site plan showing the maximum potential for the subject site. Rog.:r Blaylock, Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He noted the subject site is under a two-party ownership, James W. Dalpay and Leroy A. Crookston; that single-family developments exist immediately west and south of the subject property. He stated the Comprehensive Plan designation is non-committal for this area and shows the subject site on a borderline between commercial designation and single-family residential. The Examiner expressed concern that N.E. 12th Street should not bear the access to and frori this site. Mr. Blaylock noted that the site plan shows no open access onto N.E. 12th exci:pt for emergency access. Disc ussion was held between the Examiner and the Zoning Administrator with respect to the sewer moratorium imposed by Ordinance 2392. It was pointed out that the subject property was specifically exempted from the moratorium by the City Council because the dev:lopment plans had been generally accepted for the site. t T JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON R-033-83 September 27, 1983 Page 2 Mr. Blaylock reported the staff recommends approval of the rezone request and suggested that the four conditions imposed by the Environmental Review Committee be imposed as restrictive covenants on the rezone. The Examiner asked if the staff had considered the potential of multi-family development in the B- 1 zone. Mr. Blaylock stated the traffic would be less and of a different pattern and that it was a consideration; the worst traffic would be generated by commercial activity. In answer to a question by the Examiner, Mr. Blaylock reported between 40 and 45 units could be developed on the subject site. The Examiner then called on the applicant or representative for testimony. Responding was: James W. Dalpay P. 0. Box 2436 Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Dalpay reported he and Mr. Crookston anticipate maintaining the existing buildings for the present until the moratorium is removed but changing the use to commercial since commercial tenants are interested. Mr. Dalpay indicated he had not other testimony at this time. Further testimony was received from: G. W. Lucker Architect 8101 Rainer Avenue So. Seattle, WA 98118 Mr. Lucker indicated the purpose of the request is to be able to utilize the existing buildings on the Dalpay property for commercial use; that Mr. Dalpay has already received requests from prospective tenants to open businesses on the site; that Mr. Dalpay does not wish to expand any buildings on the property at this time. Mr. Lucker noted the proposal shown in Exhibit 4 is the maximum development that could occur on the site; that 2,000 sq. ft. has been taken out of the larger bulding on the proposed site to allow an additional buffer on N.E. 12th and that since it is not feasible to build higher than one story on N.E. 12th, they will not exceed the height limitations on that side of the property. The Examiner asked if the applicant would be willing to be bound to that height limitation. Mr. Lucker suggested maintaining single-family height limitations for this area; he indicated there will not be any increase in sewer load and that it possibly would decrease because there will not be families living on the site if it is redeveloped as a commercial site. Discussion was held with respect to access to Union Avenue. Mr. Dalpay stated if the existing buildings are utilized, there would be no access to N.E. Union Avenue because of the embankment and further that they would not be utilizing that particular building. The Examiner called for further testimony in support of the application. There was none. The Examiner called for testimony in opposition to the application. Testifying was: Judy Petruska 1174 Shelton Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 JAM3S W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON R-033-83 September 27, 1983 Page 3 Ms. Petruska indicated she was present today to represent her neighborhood. She stated this is a family residential area and they have been attempting to maintain that status for years; that the traffic on N.E. 12th has already increased because of the apartments coming into the neighborhood; the fences on 12th across the street from the proposed site have 8' fences to attempt to cut down the noise; and further that she was advised several years ago that sewers in the area could not handle much more increase. Ms. Petruska voiced her objection to the public hearing on this matter being conducted during the day hours. The Examiner then called for further testimony in opposition to the request. Testifying was: Lawrence Wood 1155 Shelton Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Wood stated he feels this area is a continuous hearing problem, citing R-041-77, at which Public Works Director Houghton testified that N.E. Sunset and Union Avenue N.E. lift :station was presently over capacity and that the city had no intentions of increasing the rapacity; however, during the hearing for R-145-78, Richard Monaghan advised that plane for the lift station had been delayed indefinitely and that the station was at its max mum. Mr. Wood indicated most of the residents to the south and west of the proposal are long -term residents and he believes the problems already incurred due to traffic would be ever more if commercial development is allowed. Mr. Wood asked if the restrictions imposed by the ERC could be changed at some future date to allow apartments in the B- 1 zone. Mr. Blaylock advised that apartments are allowed now under the current zoning; that no conditions imposed by the ERC can be changed after the appeal period, which has already expired. Mr. Wood also indicated a desire to hold evening hearings and objected to any commercial property bordering on 12th Avenue which would cause problems to an area which is alre idy over-built as far as apartments and commercial property is concerned. The Examiner called for further testimony. Mr. Lucker stated he believes the mitigating things done buffering along 12th and the west side of the property and the scale of the buildings is not increasing traffic on N.E. 12th, rather it is taking it all out onto Union. This is a commercial/business district and is designated as such in the Comprehensive Plan and does not feel that any studies made during the production of the Comprehensive Plan took all of these matters into account and that is why it was designated as potential business on this corner. The Examiner asked Bob Bergstrom, Engineering Supervisor for the Public Works Department, if he could indicate whether there was adequate sewer capacity at this time to :serve any further development, barring the existence of a moratorium which has exe:npted this property from its effects. Mr. Bergstrom stated the subject property is served by the city sanitary sewers which, in that area, drains into the pump station on southeast corner of Union and Sunset; this can handle dry weather flows adequately; peak flows cannot be handled at this location and it ove -flows approximately 4 to 5 times a year with sewage flowing into the streets out of manhole lids. Mr. Lucker asked Mr. Bergstrom what would be the effect if the two existing buildings were changed from single-family to office use. Mr. Bergstrom stated a general conversion to light office use decreases water use and wastewater use if the showers and bathrooms are not being used like in a single-family setting. Mr. Bergstrom indicated he was not certain if those buildings are connected to the sanitary sewers at the present time. The Examiner asked if the buildings were converted to commercial uses, would they be reqiired to hook up to the sewer at this point. JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON R-033-83 September 27, 1983 Page 4 Mr. Bergstrom indicated state law requires if sanitary sewers are available within 200 feet of a structure, they are required to hook up; the City of Renton has taken a less aggressive action toward mandatory hookup. Mr. Wopd asked what impact apartment units would have on the sewer system. Mr. Betgstrom noted that the problems are not actually being caused by the sewer system, but rather by the illegal and leaky hookups made to the system. In ans*er to a question by the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Bergstrom noted the impact on the sewer system by a restaurant in the area would depend on the number of seats available and the type of restaurant. The Examiner called for any further testimony. Judy Petruska questioned whether the placement of asphalt and concrete in the commercial development of this site would inhibit the natural drainage of the wastewater. Mr. Bergstrom stated there was wastewater from home and business uses and is supposed to go into Metro for treatment; however, on its way, it goes through sewer pipes that are buried in the ground and it has been found that there are a lot of leaks in that area. Either through intentional hookups or roof drains, patio drains, or yard drains into the system, or accidental damages to it by heavy trucks or poor installation techniques, there is a lot of water in that area. Mr. Blaylock asked Mr. Dalpay if he would be willing to place a covenant on the property that he would not expand his area until the sewer moratorium is lifted. Mr. Dalpay indicated he would be willing to do so. The Examiner called for further testimony. There being none, the hearing was closed at 10:00 a.m. The Examiner stated his recommendation to the Council would be issued within 14 days. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. the applicants, James W. Dalpay and Leroy A. Crookston, filed a request for approval of a reclassification of approximately 57,725 sq. ft. of property from R-1 Single-Family Residential); minimum lot size - 7,200 sq. ft.) to B-1 Business/Commercial). 2. The application file containing the application, the State Environmental Policy Act SEPA) documentation, the Building and Zoning Department Report, and other pertinent documents, was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA, a Declaration of Non-Significance has been issued for the subject proposal by the Environmental Review Committee (ER C), responsible official. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. The subject site is located at the intersection of Union Ave. N.E. and N.E. 12th Street. The property involved in the request consists of the three legal lots located at 1225 Union Ave. N.E., 4010 N.E. 12th Street, and 4018 N.E. 12th Street. 6. The subject property slopes upward from north to south with two relatively level terraces occuring on either side of the slope. 7. Single-family homes are located on each of the separate lots. 8. The subject site was annexed into the city in May of 1964 by Ordinance 2093, at which time it was automatically zoned G- 7200. A change in nomenclature changed the designation to R-1 in June of 1982. JAMIS W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON R-033-83 September 27, 1983 Page 5 9. The Comprehensive Plan designates the general area at the intersection of Union Ave. N.E. and Sunset Ave. N.E. for a node of commercial development. The Comprehensive Plan further designates the general areas south and southwest of the intersection for single-family development and designates the areas southeast for medium density multi-family development. The Plan appears to provide for more intensive uses such as commercial and varying degrees of multi-family along the alignment of Sunset Blvd. gradually reducing the intensity of potential uses as properties become further removed from Sunset Blvd. 10. The area in which the subject site is located is affected by a moratorium on the issuance of building permits. A reading of the list of exemptions from the moratorium is unclear as to whether the whole of the subject site, if in fact any of the subject site, is exempted from the moratorium. Since the language of the moratorium identifies the Dalpay property at the intersection of Sunset Blvd. and Union, it would appear that those separate legal lots not at that intersection are omitted, especially those not owned entirely by Mr. Dalpay. The moratorium specified an upper limit on the number of equivalent hookups even with the exemptions. No evidence was produced supplying the remaining equivalents, if any. 12. The sewer system serving the areas surrounding the subject site is still subject to overflow conditions during wet periods, with raw sewage escaping the system at the Sunset/Union Intersection and then flowing into Honey Creek. The city does plan on attempting to identify areas where infiltration and illegal down-spout connections enter the system. If infiltration is identified and eliminated, overflows may be less of a problem. 13. The area is developed with a variety of uses. North and east of the subject site are commercial uses while single-family uses are located south and west of the subject site. 14. N.E. 12th Street is primarily a residential street along its entire length with the exception of its intersection with Sunset Blvd. approximately a mile to the west. Because of 12th Street's residential nature, the staff has recommended that if the rezone were approved, access be precluded from the subject site to 12th Street and that access be limited to Union Avenue. The record indicates that modifying the access would not be possible given the current slopes and building locations. The ERC conditions requiring access via Union could not be complied with while maintaining the existing buildings. 15. While the applicant has proposed commercial redevelopment of the subject site, the requested B-1 zoning would permit the development of multi-family housing. The site could potentially support construction of approximately 40-45 units of multi-family housing with resultant increases in population, traffic, and school age children. Staff did not analyze these potential effects. 16. The applicants indicated that there would be no physical changes to the subject site until after the moratorium were lifted, but they further indicated they might change from residential to commercial uses in the structures in the interim. (See Finding 14 and potential conflict with a condition imposed by the ERC) 17. A similar request in 1978 for B-1 zoning for the majority of this site was denied during the preliminary recommendation process. The request was remanded and lapsed due to inaction by the then applicant (R-145-78). The applicant at that time had suggested less intensive uses of the southern portion of the site to buffer the single-family uses, but as indicated nothing became of the proposal. JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON R-033-83 September 27, 1983 Page 6 18. Since 1978, the only apparent change is the modification of the Comprehensive Plan from a designation for the general area of medium-density multi-family to a designation of business and commercial. 19. The single-family homes located south of N.E. 12th Street are at a topographically different level than the subject property. These homes are oriented to the south with rear yards to the north. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest, will not impair the public health, safety and welfare, and in addition, is in compliance with at least one of the three criteria found in Section 4-3010, which provides in part that: a. The subject site has not been considered in a previous area-wide rezone or land use analysis; or b. The subject site is potentially designated for the new classification per the Comprehensive Plan; or c. There has been a material and substantial change in the circumstances in the area in which the subject site is located since the last rezoning of the property or area. The applicants have failed to demonstrate that the request is justified. 2. While the lack of a transitional use in the map element of the Comprehensive Plan for this area presents a problem for implementing zoning changes without unduly impacting low intensity uses, the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan demonstrate that incompatible uses clearly should be separated from each other. The map element, like other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan, providesguidance to an area's potential development. A thorough review though looks not only at the map, but at the actual physical site, the actual land uses abutting, adjacent and near e site, and the various goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 3.nder the guidance of the map, one would be left with incompatible uses abutting ach other (east/west), facing each other (north/south) and the more intense ommercial use adversely affecting the single family homes. he 1978 request for the same zoning only for a slightly smaller site was conclusive although at that time the applicant indicated that the request would be odified to decrease the potential impacts on the southerly properties. 4.ith the exception of the map modificiation, the only change is an expansion of the request to a larger area. It is not as though the applicant has a very large parcel where wide bands of trees and scrubs could be used to screen commercial uses from both abutting westerly and nearby southerly single-family homes. 5. A fifteen foot buffer generally will provide relatively minor buffering especially given the elevation differences. The single-family homes to the south could well be peering into a gas station, fast food restaurant drive-in window, or twenty-four hour convenience store. 6. The new request does not vary much from the original except that the neighbors would be exposed to a larger frontage of B-1 zoning now and that the map element of the Comprehensive Plan has been modified to potentially permit commercial uses somewhere in the vicinity of Union and Sunset. The emphasis is cm 'potential' since again reference must be made to various goals and policies which indicate repeatedly that incompatible uses must not abut. Rather there should be a smooth transition from what are considered more intense uses to less intense uses or vice versa. JAMI S W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON R-03.i-83 September 27, 1983 Page 7 7. Policy III-A-1 indicates that development is favored when it will not necessitate redevelopment and where it is compatible with future uses. It is obvious that the majority of single-family homes in the areas west and south of the subject site are long-term land uses which would be adversely affected by the proposed B-1 zoning. Redevelopment of the single family homes does not appear contemplated at this time That same subsection indicates priority for development be given areas containing adequate public services (III-A-4). The sewer situation obviously rules out the subject site at this time. 8. Policy III-B-3 specifies that boundaries of districts will be buffered by uses compatible with each district. That is the smooth transition alluded to above between districts with differing levels of intensity. Policy III-B-4 recommends that transitional areas be converted but only with new uses compatible with the existing uses while Policy B-8 indicates development should be harmonious in intensity within a district. The requested B- 1 zoning and its potential range of uses preclude any fidelity to these policies and further violate Policy V-A-7 which indicates that commercial areas should be compatible with adjacent land uses. 9. Landscaping when recommended usually serves to aid buffering between two uses that are incompatible but at least appear next to each other on the scale of uses; i.e. single- family to duplex; duplex to low density multi-family; high density multi-family to commercial. It is difficult with smaller sites to provide sufficient landscaping to effectively buffer incompatible uses at opposite ends of the intensity sprectrum. 10. As the decision by the previous Hearing Examiner indicated, the site is not suitable for commercial uses given the nearby land uses and this remains so even though the map element was modified to some extent. It cannot be emphasized enough that it is the actual site, its relationship to its surroundings and other uses and not the map element which must dominate any determination on what is in the public interest. If the map element were to govern, there would be no need for any further analysis or clarifying goals and policies, and that is not how land use analysis operates. 11. If a smooth transition cannot be accommodated, a request to increase the intensity of uses should be denied unless overwhelming evidence in favor of the request is presented. No such evidence was submitted. The site sits adjacent to single-family uses, the sewer is at capacity and the number of equivalent hookups was not presented, and landscape buffering will not adequately separate the incompatible uses. The City Council should therefore deny the request to reclassify the subject site to commercial. The applicant has not applied for zoning which would be transitional between the commercial zoning on Sunset and the single-family zoning along 12th and it would be inappropriate without more to consider such a request without full analysis by staff. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should deny the request. ORDERED THIS 27th day of September, 1983. Vcst,„ Fred J. Kaufm n Land Use Hear Examiner JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON R-033-83 September 27, 1983 Page 8 TRANSMITTED THIS 27th day of September, 1983 to the parties of record: James W. Dalpay P. O. Box 2436 Renton, WA 98056 G. W. Lucker Architect 8101 Rainer Avenue So. Seattle, WA 98118 Judy Petruska 1174 Shelton Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 Lawrence Wood 1155 Shelton Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 TRANSMITTED THIS 27th day of September, 1983 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director David Clemens, Policy Development Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Renton Record-Chronicle The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the the proposal must be made in public. This permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before October October 11, 1983. 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 $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. j.-'Gle iP` a ,, 4 1/ i { r I:. iw 1 ', o,t:' 1 . j)•i. ,tr• t+f:'": '• i..i) I 1 C 7 ii,.. / • 1 ,, , ,.° 1.a! •; t h 1 ' ., ^ • p '• t:Ll'1•,s . •. . 1,,,, ` a.Q n,-,, 4 '. 44. ,. ,t 1 + 1 l;.., 1 (_SC1 IQL- Lew - '1 1 _I_' • !i ) • ) „' 144 , t, tlo t, ` , j , , t t' t 1 „i', I , .1---r 1 . . 1 TI I _1., '"7, t1, 7- ' •, 1.. . ..\.% 1 yI ! , 1 r, a f9 %.,, '•r, rr% Y t" , - d .t .. • 5 , 1 •`1 ' 1 e 1_ s ', •I t.l, t,f.r.l,..tw 7,0 N\ t S 1 t • 1 •- 1_LI 1• __L_1 , lf:7/ ' t ts• »t•f1 t0•q' « 1• \,rya. _ _ O •o 15 / ;i•o t toe S r,c J.. .-. • . , 16 „'++ ., f• •t'l, f• r.i• 1+ t. „ ui.. at• t0 I. t 1i l` frt.e•:.IIN s•tast 1 e,-, 1 .e t t , Oo I IO. a t. 47 J , _' .,:.' 1• L 1l` ., n ••Ls .}.•..t I` M. I, t!. L, SI IN 1 y1y I ' i 1 1.`I •,7 1,111'.••J/ t.Ir J to-i G— 1 so• 4 1. o l•0'1 f 1 I' 1 tpi 1. 1 I • ..a'I l: I I I {,?) i ; Si i. . pa - - — 1 1 ._ ...- _ I 11 .,c si' •f . r r ... ., i,S -- 1 rt 1 - i ,9' -'T 1 •,..../ot •e S •e '}s. 1 I 1 1 WI A. ii. I. \ - 4:1'•• t 44 !t .,cst 1' M ' N^ -. i 1 I, f • I Z- \ •8 ,.-..eLLLLLL« , •. i.. k`J 1. • •i'r;.. l` i 17 le r,oy 7 ,..i-, ,, ;i N i1, .' - 1 1 1' .s.. 1 I e• s a.S•1Tt '' f ,'t• er t! IS fj 1+ C` 1 1 \a li. t; {•.1i L1t sf N a, w t• ft tl!I T itiY 1L la. 6 r 1 i 7 ; S`,. tti= ,4' 'off T'll •w•" . tip f .i1 i S 1414,1.1 ,TsT, ,o„ ,r ,•I,•I,aj,. ,' w l_ R-2 Gt ' 1 l' 1 I; G- 1 i R-2 I R-3 ' 1 r,17 1 . j7hl l` B- 1 . 1 I S • 1 t0';+3 I III • 121 t, r '1 J"l 11 1 CO ', a . , r.._. 7 T B- 1 i r . .. •l'i_ 1 I . . 1— T— I , 1 ,,1 , 1 1 r ?I,1., 111, . 01) A 1 , :•j I 11 l' 3R-3 J.,' t ' t1, 1' r ', = p) t" i-Pt . '4 I l,, 1 1-. E, 1 1 ht•a -cl i I t[ (f • ' , , 1 I• „ 4• I .1, iz 4 t 1rhI . ,al.) . i , • , • •• e 1 I ,ln L. 1,0, 1 hs :I• Sfi " 1' I_ , '-'' 1S";51','1 '' 1 Q[" 51I1TN,i , , ' ,. • s { ) , r 11 1 I. •i • ) l1. e ir431.(c. , n +ut. ` I DALPAY REZONE R-033-83 APPLICANT JAMES W. DALPAY TOTAL AREA — 11,625 PRINCIPAL ACCESS VIA N.E. 12th ST. EXISTING ZONING R-1, RESIDENTIAL—SINGLE FAMILY EXISTING USE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES PROPOSED USE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMMENTS I,KV K.+C J Ir-.1 ,-,- f.-- .... -. 1 iY urR I :WATIrot Yy M M1 1 w ob ,. ,.., D. r J UNION- AVE ME UNlOt l_-AVE t I J ai„ I n'1fa M ter+, Waimea 4 0c[arau- 41 7. 7 7/ 1 1 re'..Pt:al...Kr ," ,,, i 4,„,/,f,,.,' . e . rei ii e j14/ j e.- ..----. i y/ < I / 14.; 7, JaajAP/ . . ,/,` , cee ss r L+ai r 43/44171164 8 i/ 0 7 / I 1 j r 3I/ r 4 piiii, k 46/ / // Old / xl it .... ..4 17 Paieruir 6 13/86a6. Li'ldki lit411I1_4 6, I- O ZI10 j O 1 1 3 i f7«C— i aXI'3TING " -C ATG OrpGG " / roy=e 1-psa,iir,....,44-'" T...„lb ofa , I a I' A IL...(' ! >- di i / 7/ i44 1i s if f f I 1 j- L. - Z IL - 4 I , i S I T LAI I i ylGlft7 Iiiial11-1 I, I ill611114. ei:e. Siw..I- 94101 1.•10 T 1[dlTt IJ[rJ 4D,o0a • a9s71G f.l loft 92h'l I't 7:'S 7 1O17 AP2A .S7,72- 1 I.33 ,c R-033-83 O F I? o THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9A 0` FRED J. KAUFMAN, 235 -2593 O9gr' SEP1E ' MEMORANDUM DATE: October 3, 1983 TO: Files FROM: Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner SUBIECT: DALPAY/CROOKSTON REZONE (R-033-83) Added as a party of record to the above referenced rezone application is: Marilyn J. Petersen 1040 Redmond Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056 CITY OF RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RECEIVED PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER SEPTEMBER 13, 1983 S E P 6 1983 AM PM AGENDA 718,9110,11112111213141516 COMMENCING AT 9:00 A.M.: COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SECOND FLOOR, RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING The applications listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. JAMS W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON Application to rezone 57,725 square feet of property from R-1 to B-1 for propc:sed commercial use, File R-033-83; located at 4010 N.E. 12th Street. WICI. HOMES, INC. Application for preliminary plat of seventy (70) single-family lots (File PP-035-83), along with a variance request for six (6) pipestem lots (V-049-83); property located on the east side of Union Avenue N.E. and north of Fernwood East Plat at approximately the 100 block. ROW.AND J. WATSON Application to annex 3.3 acres of property into the City of Renton, and application to rezone said property from G-1 to R-1 for future single-family short plat, File R-054-83; property located east of Raymond Avenue N.W. (84th Ave. 3.) and between N.W. 4th and N.W. 5th Streets extended. I OF R4,4 i © ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR p MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 pco-At, O9"0. SEPSE BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR DATE: AUGUST 23, 1983 TO:FRED KAUFMAN, LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER FROM: ROGER BLAYLOCK, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT:DALPAY REZONE PUBLIC HEARING(R-033-83) An error was made in the public hearing notice for the Dalpay Rezone scheduled for Tuesday, August 30th. The error was of sufficient size to force readvertising for September 13th. The applicant has been informed of the change in the public hearing date. 11P BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING RECEIVED SEPTEMBER 13, 1983 CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER SEP i 1983 APPLICANT: JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON aM PM FILE NUMBER: R-033-83 7,R'911(1'll'Cl1l 12i3,4,5,6 A. SUMMARY & PURPOSE OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks approval of a rezone of + 57,725 sq. ft. from R-1 to B-1 for proposed commercial use. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1.Owner of Record: James W. Dalpay and Leroy A. Crookston 2. Applicant: James W. Dalpay and Leroy A. Crookston 3. Location: Vicinity Map Attached) 1225 Union Ave. N.E. 4010 N.E. 12th Street 4018 N.E. 12th Street 4.Legal Description: A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Building & Zoning Department. 5.Size of Property: 57,725 square feet. 6.Access: Union Avenue N.E. & N.E. 12th Street 7. Existing Zoning: R-1, Residential - Single Family 8. Existing Zoning in the Area: G-1, General; R-1, Residential - Single Family; R-2, Residential - Two Family; R-3, Residential - Multiple Family; and B-1, Business 9.Comprehensive Land Use Plan:Commercial/Single Family 10. Notification: The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly published in the Daily Record Chronicle on August 19, 1983, and posted in 5 places on or near the site as required by City Ordinance on August 19, 1983. C. HISTORY/BACKGROUND: The subject site was annexed into the city by ordinance #2093 of May 25, 1964, at which time it was zoned G-7200. This zoning classification was later changed to the R-1 designation with the adoption of Ordinance #3634 of June 13, 1982. D. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND: 1. Topography: The property slopes upward from north to south with slopes up to 20%. 2.Soils: The subject site has the following three types of soil: Everett Gravelly Sandy Loam (EvC), 5 to 15% slopes. Runoff is slow to medium, and the erosion hazard is slight to moderate. This soil is used for timber, pasture and urban development. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON R-033-83 Page 2 Ragnar - Indianola Association, 2 to 15 percent slopes. This soil type consists Ragnar fine sandy loam and Indianola Loamy Fine Sand soils. These soils are used for timber. Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam (AgC), 6 to 15% slopes. Permeability is ' moderately rapid in the surface layer and subsoil and very slow in the substratum. Runoff is slow to medium and the erosion hazard is moderate. This soil is used for timber, pasture, berries, row crops and for urban development. 3. Vegetation: The site is covered with urban residential vegetation consisting of ornamental trees and shrubs. 4. Wildlife: Small birds and mammals are present. 5. Water: No surface water was observed on the subject site. 6. Land Use: The subject site consists of three (3) single-family dwellings. E. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: The subject site is surrounded by commercial uses to the north and east and single-family residences to the south and west. F. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Water and Sewer: Water - A 12-inch water main extends along Sunset Blvd. N.E. and along Union Ave. N.E. near the subject site. An 8-inch line extends along N. E. 12th Street. Sewer - An 8-inch sanitary sewer line extends along N.E. 12th Street and along Union Ave. N.E. adjacent to the subject site. 2.Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton as per ordinance requirements. 3. Transit: Metro Transit Routes #107 & 108 operate along N. E. 12th Street adjacent to the subject site. 4.Schools: Not applicable. 5.Recreation: Not applicable. G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1. Section 4-706, Residential (Single-Family). 2. Section 4-711, Business. H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1.Section 4-3014(c), Change of Zone Classification (Rezone). 2. Policies Element, Comprehensive Plan: Section 5A - Commercial Areas Objective and Section 5B - Commercial Structure and Sites Objective. 3.Ordinance #2392, Moritorium for Connections to Sanitary Sewers Within the Honey Creek and May Creek Drainage Basins. IMPACT ON THE NATURAL OR HUMAN ENVIRONMENT: 1. Natural Systems: Additional storm water runoff is anticipated. 2.Population/Employment: Additional information is required to determine the employment impact a commercial development might produce. 1011111 PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER JANES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON R-0)33-83 Page 3 3. Schools: Not applicable. 4. Social: Minor. 5. Traffic: Additional information is necessary before the traffic impact can be ' determined. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Non-Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended, RCW 43-21C, a Declaration of Significance with conditions was issued by the Environmental Review Committee on August 10, 1983. K. AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED: 1.City of Renton Building & Zoning Department. 2. City of Renton Design Engineering Division. 3. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division. 4.City of Renton Utilities Engineering Division. 5.City of Renton Fire Prevention Bureau. 6.City of Renton Policy Development Department. 7. City of Renton Parks & Recreation Department. L. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS; 1. The applicants are seeking a rezone of approximately 57,725 square feet from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to B-1 (Business Use) for expansion of proposed commercial uses. 2. The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the original proposal and issued a proposed declaration of significance based on an unrestricted B-1 use. The applicant responded in writing on August 10, 1983 with a modified rezone request which would actually create a contract rezone. The Environmental Review Committee then reviewed the request on August 10th and issued a declaration of non-significance subject to the following four conditions: a. At the time of conversion from the existing single-family use to the proposed commercial use, a fifteen (15) foot landscape buffer shall be established along the southern property line adjacent to N.E. 12th Street and also along the western property line. b. Tax Lot #9235 of the SE Quarter of Section 4, Township 23, Range 5, shall be provided with access to Union Avenue N.E. c. At the time of conversion to commercial use, all access to the subject site shall be limited to Union Avenue N.E. d. The maximum building height for any future construction shall be limited to a maximum height of thirty-five (35) feet. The conditions imposed by the Environmental Review Committee substantially limit the normal heighth of a building in the B-1 Zone from ninety-five (95) feet to thirty-five (35) feet. This limitation on height, combined with the required landscape buffer and access controls reduce the impacts upon the adjacent single-family residential neighborhoods to the south and west. 3. The Land Use Hearing Examiner must review four specific criteria under Section 4-3014(C) to determine that the circumstances surrounding the rezone request are adequate to recommend approval of the reclassification. The following evidence clearly demonstrates that the rezone request is appropriate. a. That substantial evidence was presented demonstrating the subject reclassification appears not to have been specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning. I' PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER JAMES W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON R-033-83 Page 4 The subject property was annexed into the city in 1964 by Ordinance 2093. In December of 1981, the Northeast Renton Plan was adopted. Since that time, the specific site has not been considered for rezoning. Therefore, it would appear to comply with this criteria. b. That the property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the policy set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and conditions have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate. The Comprehensive Plan shows the subject site on a borderline between commercial designation and single-family residential. The Comprehensive Plan does not show any buffering between the commercial designation and the single-family. This is highly unusual situation in the Comprehensive Plan. Generally, there are varying grades of use buffers between the disproportionate uses. The Environmental Review Committee has conditioned the rezone to both provide a heighth buffer and a landscape buffer between the established single-family residential and the proposed commercial development. c. That since the last previous land use analysis of the area, zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development, or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material changes. The general development in the area has been very slow as a result of a sewer moratorium in the general area (Ordinance 2392). The subject property is only one of a half dozen properties which was specifically exempted from the moratorium by the City Council because the development plans had generally been accepted for the subject site. Prior to the placement of the moratorium, the general area had been undergoing significant commercial commercial growth, with the development of Forest Brook Townhouses on the northwest corner of the intersection and Sunset Square on the northeast corner of the intersection. d. Timeliness: The final test to determine whether a rezone request is appropriate is to address the question of timeliness. The subject parcel is the next incremental piece to develop adjacent to the B-1 zoning to the north. The other three corners of the intersection have already been developed and development on this final southwest corner would complete the commercial node designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Public utilities are available to the subject site and even though the site is within the Honeydew Creek Interceptor area, it was specifically excluded by the Legislative Moratorium adopted by the City Council. Therefore, capacity was reserved within the sewer system for the development of subject site. Reduction in height and ultimate design capacity of the subject site by the Environmental Review Committee provides an extra margin of error within the design of the Moratorium. Department comments center on the problem of adequate sewers and the issue of incompatible adjacent land uses. The Environmental Review Committee has, in effect, mitigated the concerns of impact upon adjacent uses by directing access and limiting development by the creation of landscape buffers and maximum height limits. Even though the staff continuously points to the problem of sewers, the City Council has specifically exempted the project from the sewer moratorium area. Off-site improvements will be required with the construction of any building or remodeling of any structure with a value greater than 25,000 per code requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above analysis, it is recommended that the request for rezoning from R-1 to B-1, as modified, File No. R-033-83, be approved. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVI )N : 11 ,/ ,;: di APPr•OVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED eeile G BOG/o" kk/ 6 76ez 5 z s/ S 4//74 4/A e6,z eoi/ dee5 5&6/ z 54 /o4 Ak C: ii20 teleS& oedi c&/4 /ef/Z"eir/ AlDATE : 9y/k5 i REPRESENTATIVESIUREOFDIRECTORORAUTHORIZEDREPRESSAIVE REVISION 5/1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : BC-b 6, n APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS n NOT APPROVED f;-/-4Dek0) 2JC)-7-sSeC AJD,,P-..„2. u AA02z0 7) DATE : Jl SIGNATURE OF ECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 7-i26- n APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS n NOT APPROVED 6e DATE : er3 SIGNATU F I ECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ncvlSlnld S/19/12 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIV] ON : OAPPROVED FlAPPROVED WITH CONDITIONS n NOT APPROVED Ow a-- s,,..... o 4 i 4- - 4.3,-.4.2,.„e.„7e-- p,--a - - s pLT,,---- i,., o/ L. D SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR R AUTHORI E5i);;47,.. vD REPRESENTATIVATE ; iL/ E REVISION 5/1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION :07/4/r'}/ .gAZGIAI,E,E,2/ALG I ( APPROVED El/APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED UTILITY APPROVAL SUBJECT TO Cyt>/tet" trl.//_n n,1110. .LATE COMERS AUREEMENT • WATER t4p LATE COMERS AiRE!MENT - SEWER go 4sips L-EVEtrInfr$T CYIRGE - MATTER I,O}.} i4 Dial LE , OCCA) S, 10.04 /s . -rx 431000el, `- 172./e S)JT:li peYa;.:-I.cgt .^3,.: I' • SEWER 11 11 11 It 11 It = $ I 2.- sPECi. AOSSIIEO ini. .,.+.ARSE • MARR 140 It344 oa PECIAL AcSESSMENT AREA WISE - SEVER No APPROW.; 1,11TM PLAN APPROVED SEER PLAN 2 SEwga.. 5 rtItc.6 g+A+&7 770 pKarl e2'oaf40--1, ( tc Vub 1pc ,erz0.a-) APPROVED FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS oetkl.ns a+ ig p-uor 16- 6l444.,t M. le.„ti,it,C3- N? FIRE SEPT. FIRE FIOM ANALYSIS 2 DOI- 74;:)egDATE : ` 5/ « /e573 SIGNATURE 0 DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : TT-a,4' L4y/4e/7 0 APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONSJJ JEl NOT APPROVED f L , 4' -si tile DI/Pro .19}".a k. Ca 1.4 g Leer- pi c.o e 1111-3 eg;::ge 1167 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR ORZRIZED REPRESENTATIVDATE :1:%73 DFVISION 5/1982 I R-EVIEWIN-G DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : POLICE El APPROVED 1APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS E NOT APPROVED This would impact the surrounding residences with extra traffic , noise and light glare. However if the rezone is improved the following conditions should be imposed: 1) All lighting be on the exterior of the property and shine inward. 2) Strict hours of operation on the business be imposed(suggest 8:00AM to 10:00 PM Monday thru Saturday & 10:00 AM to 10:00 PM on Sundays) 3) During construction-- Hours would be 8:00 AM to 6:00PM Monday thru Friday. 4) Make improvements on N. E. 12 at Union Ave N.E. to provide for a two way left turn lane on Union N.E. from Sunset Blvd to N,E, 12. , Improve N.E. 12th and provide a left turn lane, also improve sight distance for East bound vehicles on N.E12 at Union N.E. 5) Any building be equipped with burg. alarms , security doors and locks. Capt. (';D.R :Pe sson5/20/83DATE : SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : APPROVED 1 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS n NOT APPROVED 1 /li'L'tDATE : /4,000/'.. G3 S G ATURE OF DIRECT R 0 AUTHORIZED R RESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Apalication No(s): R-033-83 Environmental Checklist No.:ECF-023-83 Description of Proposal:Application to rezone 57,725 square feet of property from R-1 to B-1 for proposed commercial use. Proponent: James. W. Dalpay Location of Proposal: Located at 4010 NE 12th Street Le3d Agency:City of Renton Building and Zoning Department Th s proposal was reviewed by the ERC on June 1, 1983, and August 10, 1983, following a or( sentation by Jerry Lind of the Building and Zoning Department. Oral comments were accepted from: Richard Houghton, Robert Bergstrom, Paul Lumbert, Roger Blaylock, Ed We oten, Ronald Nelson, James Hanson, David Clemens and Jerry Ljnd. Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-023-83 are the following: 1. Environmental Checklist Review, prepared by: James W. Dalpay, DATED April 8, 1983. 2.Applications: Rezone (R-033-83). 3. Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance: Building and Zoning Department, Fire Prevention Bureau, Parks and Recreation Department, Design Engineering Division, Utility Engineering Division. 4. Recommendations for a declaration of significance: Police Department. 5. More Information: Traffic Engineering Division, Policy Development Department. Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined this development does not ha ie a significant adverse impact on the environment. An EIS is not required under RCW 43 21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a complete environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Reasons for declaration of environmental non-significance: This final declaration of no 1-significance is issued subject to the following four conditions being complied with: 1. At the time of conversion from the existing single family use to the proposed commercial use, a fifteen foot (15') landscape buffer shall be established along the south property line adjacent to NE 12th Street and also along the western property line. 2. Tax Lot 9235 of the SE 1/4 of Section 4, Township 23, Range 5 shall be provided with access to Union Avenue NE. 3. At the time of conversion to commercial use, all access to the subject site shall be limited to Union Avenue NE. 4.The maximum building height for any future construction shall be limited to a maximum height of (35') thirty-five feet. SIGNATURES: file it"ll Rc.nald G. Nelson David R. Clemens Building and Zoning Director Policy Development Director y t it(i=m Riard C. Houghton Public Works Director PUBLISHED: August 15, 1983 APPEAL DATE: August 29, 1983 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 023 _ 83 APPLICATION No(s) : REZONE (R-033) PROPONENT: JAMS W. DALPAY PROJECT TITLE: DALPAY REZONE Brief Description of Project : APPLICATION TO REZONE 57 ,725 SO. FT. OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 TO B-1 FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION: PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 010 N.E. 12th STREET SITE AREA: 57 ,725 S.F.(1.33ACRE) BUILDING AREA (Gross) : DEVELOPMENT COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1) Topographic Changes : X 2) Direct/Indirect Air Quality: X 3) Water & Water Courses : X 4 ) Plant Life: X 5) Animal Life:X 6) Noise: X 7) Light & Glare: X 8) Land Use: North: COmmERCIAL East: COMMERCIAL South: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL West : SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Land Use Conflicts : MAJOR TO SINGLE FAMILY AREAS View Obstruction: MORE INFORMATION NEEDED 9) Natural Resources: X 10) Risk of Upset : X 11) Population/Employment : X 12) Number of Dwellings :X 13) Trip Ends ( I TE) : 14 RE TNFORMATTDN NF:F DFJ] Traffic Impacts : MORE mroRmarraoN NFFDFD 14) Public Services: X 15) Energy: X 16) Utilities : X 17) Human Health: X 18) Aesthetics : X 19) Recreation: X 20) Archeology/History: X Signatures: f it(Ct (.4' Ronald G. Nelson D id R. Clemens Building & Zoning Director Policy Development Director 2 ; PUBLISHED: AUGUST 15, 1983 Richard C. Houghton APPEAL DATE: AUGUST 29, 1983 Public Works Director NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A IUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1983, AT 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOL::.OWING PETITIONS: JAM3S W. DALPAY/LEROY A. CROOKSTON Application to rezone 57,725 square feet of property from R-1 to B-1 for proposed commercial use, File R-033-83; located at 4010 N.E. 12th Street. ROWLAND J. WATSON Application to annex 3.3 acres of property into the City of Renton, and application to rezone said property from G-1 to R-1 for future single-family short plat, File R-054-83; property located east of Raymond Avenue N.W. (84th Ave. S.) and between N.W. 4th and N.W. 5th Streets extended. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Renton Building and Zoning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1983, AT 9:00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLISHED : September 2, 1983 Ronald G. Nelson Building and Zoning Director CERTIFICATION I, JERRY LIND, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATT3ST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing in the King County, on the 2nd day of September, 1983. 0 SIGNED: CITY OF RENTON Affidavit of Publication SEP 131983 STATE OF WASHINGTON ss BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. COUNTY OF KING Audrey De Jo i e being first duly sworn on NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARNG oath,deposes and says that yhe is the chief clerk of RENTON LAND USE THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a HEARING WEASHINGTON week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been RENTON, HEARING willformorethansixmonthspriortothedateofpublicationreferredto, A PUBLIC HEARING will printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper be held by the Renton Land published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,and it is Use Hearing Examiner at is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the regular meeting in the coun- aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Daily Record cil chambers, City Hall, Re- Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior nton,Washington on August Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County,30, 1983, at 9:00 a.m. to consider the following peti- tions: Washington.That the annexed is a-Li°tice..of..Publ i.c JAMES W. DALPAY Application to rezone i 5 11,625 square feet of Beeville; h property from R-1 to B-1 for proposed commercial as it was published in regular issues(and use, file R-033-83; lo- not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period cated at 4010 N.E. 12th Street. FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH of consecutive issues,commencing on the Application for condition- al use permit to allow an addition of two 12'x 56' 1.9.t h..day of A4lgulit 19.8.3....,and ending the portable classroom units to an existing church facility along with a park- q a of up 19.8.11..,both dates ing lot for 94 cars, file in fui and that such newspaper was regularly distrib uTed to its sub- CU-053-83; located at scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee 2640 Benson Road South. Legal descriptions of the charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $2.l*6.Q which files noted above are on file has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the in the Renton Building and first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent Zoning Department. insertion.All interested persons to said petitionsare invitedto be prresesenttpublicatthepublic hearing on August 30,1983, at 9:00 a.m.to express their Chief....Clark opinions. Ronald G. Nelson Building and Zoning Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1.9.t11 day of Director Published in the Daily Re- cord Chronicle August 19, AUSUa.t. , 19.$3. 1983. R8695 Notary Public in and the State of Washington, residing at King County. Fedef iI wai Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June 9th, 1955. Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. VN#87 Revised 5/82 i R 4 U i era iO a w. i r51IF- City of Renton Land • Use HearingExaminer will hold a PUBLIC HEARING r in CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ,_ CITY HALL ON SEP1ENFER 13, 1983 BEGINNING AT 9:00 A.M.P.M. CONCERNING:FILE R-033-83 4 0 .oz 11Ni c3TicE_ F1 REZONE From R-1 To B-1 I 1 SPECIAL / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1 To z J, 1 SITE APPROVAL SHORT PLAT/SUBDIVISION of Lots PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT y4 VARIANCE FROM q A H GENERAL LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS: Y ifs L(CATED AT 4010 N.E. 12TH STREET, d. LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE IN THE RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION J SIGNIFICANT ON—SIGNIFICANT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT CIF R4, BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON — DIRECTOR 09 co MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 0, 947. SEPT O P BARBARii Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR DATE: AUGUST 23, 1983 TO:FRED KAUFMAN, LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER FROM: ROGER BLAYLOCK, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT:DALPAY REZONE PUBLIC HEARING(R-033-83) An error was made in the public hearing notice for the Dalpay Rezone scheduled for Tuesday, August 30th. The error was of sufficient size to force readvertising for September 13th. The applicant has been informed of the change in the public hearing date. 4. t,f(*.f13C!'.1.;• ' 41.4„-% ,' r T .., .... f'.. .. ,' , ',VS::, • 4i‘ 1 a.,, DECLARATION APPLICATION NO. ECF-023-82 (R-033-83) 0 PROPOSED ACTION APPI I CAT I ON TO RF7ONF 1 1,625 SO.FT. OF PROPFRTY 91()M R-1 TO 13-1 FOR PROPOSED COMMERCIAL USE GENERAL LOCATION AND OR ADDRESS V., OCATIT AT 4010 NiE. 12TH STREET, POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL TION.. THE CITY 0 ' RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ( E.R.C.) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED AG TI ON ODOES PDOES NOT HAVIL*A SIGNIFICANT- ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE IRONMEN1r. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EiwiLL WILL NOT 1.,11- E REQUIRED. gm.. 4XN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY I3E FILED WITH THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER 13Y 5:00 P.M., AUGUST 29, 1983 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING S ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 4.'' s4..,' 7, t;•.:.; c•, ' t i 4., -,;,,•4,.1--,,)1-;,-,.•,..;,-, . _..•-- •,- . 2--:,,-, r,,- 4,1,,--0;,,„',........, .'" r, DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No(s): R-033-83 Environmental Checklist No.:ECF-023-83 Description of Proposal:Application to rezone 57,725 square feet of property from R-1 to B-1 for proposed commercial use. Proponent: James. W. Dalpay Location of Proposal: Located at 4010 NE 12th Street Lead Agency:City of Renton Building and Zoning Department This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on June 1, 1983, and August 10, 1983, following a presentation by Jerry Lind of the Building and Zoning Department. Oral comments were accepted from: Richard Houghton, Robert Bergstrom, Paul Lumbert, Roger Blaylock, Ed Wooter, Ronald Nelson, James Hanson, David Clemens and Jerry Lind. Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-023-83 are the following: 1.Environmental Checklist Review, prepared by: James W. Dalpay, DATED April 8, 1983. 2.Applications: Rezone (R-033-83). 3. Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance: Building and Zoning Department, Fire Prevention Bureau, Parks and Recreation Department, Design Engineering Division, Utility Engineering Division. 4. Recommendations for a declaration of significance: Police Department. 5. lAore Information: Traffic Engineering Division, Policy Development Department. Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined this development does not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. An EIS is not required under RCW 43.21C 030(2)(c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a complete environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Reason3 for declaration of environmental non--significance: This final declaration or non-significance is issued subject to the following four conditions being complied with: 1.at the time of conversion from the existing single family use to the proposed commercial use, a fifteen foot (15') landscape buffer shall be established along the outh property line adjacent to NE 12th Street and also along the western property line. 2.ax Lot 9235 of the SE 1/4 of Section 4, Township 23, Range 5 shall be provided with access to Union Avenue NE. 3. At the time of conversion to commercial use, all access to the subject site shall be limited to Union Avenue NE. 4.he maximum building height for any future construction shall be limited to a maximum height of (35') thirty-five feet. SIGNAL URES: ll/l(lri.=) Ronald G. Nelson David R. Clemens Building and Zoning Director Policy Development Director Yit 7( Richard C. Houghton Public Works Director PUBLIS-IED: August 15, 1983 APPEAL DATE: August 29, 1983 f ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 023 _ 83 APPLICATION No(s) : REZONE (R-033) PROPONENT: JAMES W. DALPAY PROJECT TITLE: DALPAY REZONE Brief Description of Project : APPLICATION TO REZONE .57 ,725 SQ. FT. OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 TO B-1 FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION: PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4010 N.E. 12th STREET SITE AREA: 57 ,725 S.F.(1.33 ACRE) BUILDING AREA (Gross) : DEVELOPMENT COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1) Topographic Changes : X 2) Direct/Indirect Air Quality: X 3) Water & Water Courses : X 4) Plant Life: X 5) Animal Life:X 6) Noise: X 7) Light & Glare: X 8) Land Use; North: CONA4ERCIAL East : COMMERCIAL South: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL West : SINGT E FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Land Use Conflicts : MAJOR TO SINGTE FAMILY AREAS View Obstruction: MORE INFORMATION NEEDED 9) Natural Resources : X 10) Risk of Upset : X 11) Population/Employment : X 12) Number of Dwellings :X 13) Trip Ends ( I TE) : MORE TNFORMATTON NEFInF:n Traffic Impacts : MORE INFORMATION NEEDED 14) Public Services : X 15) Energy: X 16) Utilities : X 17) Human Health: X 18) Aesthetics : X 19) Recreation: X 20) Archeology/History: X Signatures: R/ V/i onald G. Nelson D id R. Clemens Building & Zoning Director Policy Development Director c PUBLISHED: AUGUST 15, 1983 Richard C. Houghton APPEAL DATE: AUGUST 29, 1983 Public Works Director REND .,11 BUILDING & ZONING DEPAKTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - C 23 - 83 APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE (R-033-831 PROPONENT : DAMES W, DALPAY PROJECT TITLE : DALPAY REZONE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:APPLICATION TO REZONE 11,625 SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY FROM F-1 TO B-1 FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION : PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4010 N.E. 12th STREET. TO : n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 5-25-83 ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT I ! POLICE DEPARTMENT I ( POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT l ( OTHERS : COMMENT;; OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P ,M , ON TUESDAY MAY 24, 1983 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED DATE : 3 GNS ATURE OF DIRECT R 0 AUTHORIZED R RESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 REND vr1 BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 023 - 83 APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE (R-033-83) PROPONENT : JAMES W. DALPAY PROJECT TITLE : DALPAY REZONE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:APPLICATION TO REZONE 11,625 SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY FROM F-1 TO B-1 FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION : PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4010 N.E. 12th STREET. TO : t ! PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 5-25-83 EfENGINCERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : 1 UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION n FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU ri PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT n POLICE DEPARTMENT n POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 11OTHERS : COMMENT OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRIT] NG , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON TUESDAY, MAY 24 1983 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : G ` I ( APPROVED 17 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS I ( NOT APPROVED S -- DATE : iL/ SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR R AUTHORI ED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - (23 - 83 APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE (R-033-83) PROPONE \IT : UAMES W. JJALPAY PROJECT TITLE : DA!_PAY REZONE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:APPLICATION TO REZONE 11,625 SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY FROM F-1 TO B-1 FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATIOA : PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4010 N.E. 12th STREET. TO : I J PU:3LIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 5-25-83 D ENGINEERING DIVISION 1 TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : TjUTILITIES ENG . DIVISION n FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU n PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 11BU .LDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT n POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I ] OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON TUESDAY, MAY 24, 1983 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION :OT/Lirk,Z . -JLIAGE,E2/ ,z APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED UTILITY APPROVAL SUBJECT it 6-f) BATE COMERS AOIEEMENT • WATER p ATE COMERS AI;REEMEN, • SEWER t40 III T;EVEl IPPr T CNmRf . WATER G44.1 DesII-L. °mugs 10.04 /s4.FTA 43,000 tt,r 417Z.el F,Nivr peve :i.:'gi . '.g?•i{ . SEWER 1, it it n li I'2'Z.be SeFi;: smite c::, . oIRCE • WATER 140 344 .°D PECIA[ ASSESSMENT ARL (ORSE • SEWER NO APPRovr i vOTEE PLAN APPROVED SEWER Pt tN C sew&L. 5&JcLr 5+e&7 re, moilds'etgu w--1, oaro""° ,„ 426,1) APPROVED FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS aencrns oµwwwt ,..,war 66 g,,,u,t `'- lcs,,{,t t,-- I1 FIRE WT. Z FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS 2 Do/I DATE : '.,/ `6 /F3 SIGNATURE 0 DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ENk %,.l BUILDING & ZONING DEPAKTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 023 - 83 APPL I CA'"I ON NO(S) : REZONE (R-033-83) PROPONENT : DAMES W. DALPAY PROJECT TITLE : DALPAY REZONE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:APPLICATION TO REZONE 11,625 SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 TO B-1 FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION : PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4010 N.E. 12th STREET. TO : n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 5-25-83 ENGINEERING DIVISION 1QTRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : 1 UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU n PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT n BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT 1 POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I IOTIERS : COMMENT.3 OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON TUESDAY, MAY 24, 1983 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 77;-. n APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS F-1 NOT APPROVED pgs, Dilpr 0 ve A.&(6:Le..r.% 9 utizzer.. d, L./.40ts e-e• 417 DATE : 3 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 RENl url BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 023 - 83 APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE (R-033-83) PROPONENT : JAMES W_ DALPAY PROJECT TITLE : DALPAY REZONE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:APPLICATION TO REZONE 11,625 SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY FROM P-1 TO B-1 FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION : PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4010 N.E. 12th STREET. TO : 0 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 5-25-83 ENGINEERING DIVISION I ] TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION 0 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU OPARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT UPOLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FlOTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M. ON TUESDAY, MAY 24, 1983 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : POLICE APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS gi NOT APPROVED This would impact the surrounding residences with extra traffic , noise and light glare. However if the rezone is improved the following conditions should be imposed: 1) All lighting be on the exterior of the property and shine inward. 2) Strict hours of operation on the business be imposed(suggest 8:00AM to 10:00 PM Monday thru Saturday & 10:00 AM to 10:00 PM on Sundays) 3) During construction-- Hours would be 8:00 AM to 6:00PM Monday thru Friday. 4) Make improvements on N. E. 12 at Union Ave N.E. to provide for a two way left turn lane on Union N. E. from Sunset Blvd to N,E, 12. , Improve N.E. 12th and provide a left turn lane, also improve sight distance for East bound vehicles on N.E12 at Union N.E. 5) Any building be equipped with burg. alarms , security doors and locks. Capt. D.R -Pe sson DATE : 5/20/83 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE RFVISION 5/1982 RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - C23 - 83 APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE (R-033-83) PROPONE JT : JAMES W. DALPAY PROJECT TITLE : DALPAY REZONE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT :APPLICATION TO REZONE 11,625 SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY FROM F-1 TO B-1 FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION : PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4010 N.E. 12th STREET. TO : l -- PU3LIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 5-25-83 I] ENGINEERING DIVISION 1 TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : OUTILITIES ENG , DIVISION F-1 FIDE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT n PO _ICE DEPARTMENT n PO_ICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT n OT -IERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON TUESDAY, MAY 24, 1983 REVIEWIJG DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : BC n APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS p NOT APPROVED J/07-) L. 01- 5 f 442-- i- DATE : f7 Jl SIGNATURE OF ECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE RFVIcION 5/1982 REN1 vr4 BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - C23 - 83 APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE (R-033-83) PROPONE VT : JAMES W. DALPAY PROJECT TITLE : DALPAY REZONE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT :APPLICATION TO REZONE 11,625 SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY FROM F-1 TO B-1 FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LO CATIO!J : PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4010 N.E. 12th STREET. TO : n PU3LIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 5-25-83 II ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC FNG . DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : El UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION NFIEPREVENTION BUREAU 1-1 PMKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 1 BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT F.] DEPARTMENT n POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OTHERS :_ COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M . ON TUESDAY, MAY 24, 1983 REVIEWI'JG DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : jZi iLc n APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED DATE : 51/Z.- 473 SIGNATU F I ECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 r'C)L.1 ( Date circulated : MAY 12, 1983 Comments due : MAY 24, 1983 ENIVIRONIMEINTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 023 - 83 CITY OF RENTON APPLICATION No (s ) . REZONE (R-033-83) MAY 121983 PROPONENT : JAMES W. DALPAY POUCY DEVELOPMENT nFRT PROJECT TITLE : DALPAY REZONE Brief Description of Project : APPLICATION TO REZONE 11 ,625 SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 TO B-1 FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION : PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4010 N.E. 12th STREET. SITE AREA : 11,625 S.F. ( .27 ac. 3UILDING AREA (gross) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : pdTy2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : e'-- 5) Animal life : u 1 6 ) Noise : 7) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north : 4ona/ezei east : (I, / f (9 / south: ..1/7/ 1/749 west : Land use conflicts : ` View obstruction : (-44 J ,,e/C.:39--- -- I ' ///4 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : y 12 ) Number of Dwellings :J 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : AK, //+ traffic impacts : 4, 14 ) Public services : I Y- 15 ) Energy : Y- . 16 ) Utilities : X 1 17 ) Human health: g 18 ) Aesthetics :SZ-I' 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Arche logy/history : COMMENTS :4i//;e 2/7/7 L/ % J ZC S • Recommendation : NSI DOS More Information Reviewed by : Ye. ' Title : il,-bt i/ Date : ,//y/1 FORM: ERC-06 Date circulated : MAY 12, 1983 Comments due : MAY 24, 1983 EPUVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 023 - 83 APPLICATION No (s ) . REZONE (R-033-83) PROPONENT : JAMES W. DALPAY PROJECT TITLE : DALPAY REZONE Brief Description of Project : APPLICATION TO REZONE 11 ,625 SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 TO B-1 FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION : PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4010 N.E. 12th STREET. SITE AREA : 11,625 S.F. ( .27 ac. 4UILDING AREA (gross) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes :V 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : C/ 3) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : l 5 ) Animal life : 6) Noise : 7) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north: east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : p V. 14 ) Public services : I 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 19) Aesthetics : 1 ) ) Recreation : 20) Archeology/history : v COMMENTS : Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information /7 Reviewed by : hh itle :c CidS/ JDate : FORM: ERC-06 Date circulated : MAY 12, 1983 Comments due : MAY 24, 1983 EINVIROINMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET E C F - 023 - 83 APPLICATION No (s) . REZONE (R-033-83) PROPONENT : JAMES W. DALPAY PROJECT TITLE : DALPAY REZONE Brief Description of Project : APPLICATION TO REZONE 11 ,625 SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 TO B-1 FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION : PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4010 N.E. 12th STREET. SITE AREA : 11,625 S.F. ( .27 ac. )BUILDING AREA (gross) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6 ) Noise : xxx 7 ) Light & glare : xxx 8 ) Land Use ; north: east : south: west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE) : traffic impacts :xxx la ) Public services :xx 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18) Aesthetics : 1 ) ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : N. E. 12th at Union N.E. is already a difficult intersection by adding a commerical zone at the intersection would impact traffic(we can't handle the accidents we get now why add more?). A major concern is the impact the light and noise from a com- merical development would have on the residental homes next to the site. Before this rezone in considered we need a plan for Union Ave. N.E. from Sunset Blvd. to N.E. 4th. What are we going to allow in this corridor? What traffic patterns are we going to adopt for Union N.E. ? Recommendation : DNSI DOS xxx More Information Reviewed by : Title : Date : FORM: ERC-06 Date circulated : MAY 12, 1983 Comments due : MAY 24, 1983 ENNVIRONMEINTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 023 _ 83 APPLICATION No (s) . REZONE (R-033-83) PROPONENT : JAMES W. DALPAY PROJECT TITLE : DALPAY REZONE Brief Description of Project : APPLICATION TO REZONE 11 ,625 SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 TO B-1 FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION : PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4010 N.E. 12th STREET. SITE AREA : 11,625 S.F. ( .27 ac. 3UILDING AREA (gross) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6 ) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north: east : south: west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE) : traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information Reviewed by :- .c ,A.A' _ Title : RA__e_,../ I Date : ii//r- FORM: ERC-06 4 a)f0iru Date circulated : MAY 12 , 1983 Comments due : MAY 24, 1983 ENIVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 023 - 83 APPLICATION No (s ) . REZONE (R-033-83) PROPONENT : JAMES W. DALPAY PROJECT TITLE : DALPAY REZONE Brief Description of Project : APPLICATION TO REZONE 11 ,625 SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 TO B-1 FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION : PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4010 N.E. 12th STREET. SITE AREA : 11,625 S.F. ( .27 ac. )BUILDING AREA (gross) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3) Water & water courses : X 4) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6) Noise : 7) Light & glare : 8) Land Use ; north: east: south: west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment :p` 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services: I 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : 1 ) ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : AD t7/I/o,. c_ C2 o.c) E c;e LID /' P.11c1— c1 6 Ste`" . cork Recommendation : I X DOS More Information Reviewed by : itle : Date : j FORM: ERC-06 L)T' S Date circulated : MAY 12 , 1983 Comments due : MAY 24, 1983 EPJVIRONMEINTAL CHECKLIST REVIEV SHEET E C F - 023 - 83 APPLICATION No (s ) . REZONE (R-033-83) PROPONENT : JAMES W. DALPAY PROJECT TITLE : DALPAY REZONE Brief Description of Project : APPLICATION TO REZONE 11 ,625 SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 TO B-1 FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION : PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4010 N.E. 12th STREET. SITE AREA : 11,625 S.F. ( .27 ac. bUILDING AREA (gross) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (o) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3) Water & water courses : f 4) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6) Noise : 7) Light & glare : 8) Land Use ; north: east : south: west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9 ) Natural resources : c 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : I I 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health: 18 ) Aesthetics : 1 ) ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : w44c, Se w /i We ide( t cu1Jh S Recommendation : DOS More Information Reviewed by : Title : Oj/L/Ty 4 N ///, ,,e/AIG Date : `s// /ra FORM: ERC-06 Date circulated : MAY 12 , 1983 Comments due : MAY 24, 1983 ERVIROINHEINTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET E.CF - 023 - 83 APPLICATION No (s ) . REZONE (R-033-83) PROPONENT : JAMES W. DALPAY PROJECT TITLE : DALPAY REZONE Brief Description of Project : APPLICATION TO REZONE 11 ,625 SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 TO B-1 FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION : PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4010 N.E. 12th STREET. SITE AREA : 11,625 S.F. ( .27 ac. 3UILDING AREA (gross) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (°b) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : I 5 ) Animal life : 6) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : 8) Land Use ; north: east : south: west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 1.//e0 17 ) Human health: 18) Aesthetics : 1) ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS :a 3 ?Z Ala ig.% ow 4 sI-..mil • Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information Reviewed by : Title : Date : FORM: ERC-06 FIRE Date circulated : MAY 12 , 1983 Comments due : MAY 24, 1983 fl ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW S1EET RentnFnpza-)L1 Fir'Prevention Dur;au ECF - 023 - 83 ni CZ APPLICATION No(s ) . REZONE (R-033-83) PROPONENT : JAMES W. DALPAY MAY Z 2 1983 PROJECT TITLE : DALPAY REZONE Brief Description of Project : APPLICATION TO REZONE 11 ,625 SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 TO B-1 FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION : PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4010 N.E. 12th STREET. SITE AREA : 11,625 S.F. (.27 ac. 3UILDING AREA (gross) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3) Water & water courses : 4) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6) Noise : 7) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : 1 15 ) Energy : 16) Utilities : 17 ) Human health: 18 ) Aesthetics : 1) ) Recreation: 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : Recommendation: DNSI l/ DOS More Information Reviewed by : Tit1ep 240/2" Date : 8`3 FORM: ERC-06 1 saa.'- pfl , syiVys ,pup P r ,'t/P hrlr9 9 -rocam p. saw '71 ;W/O s'AiV o 240_Li 9/77..//S WQc9' iAVIS t7 Z/ I o fii'ysai S 4 t.1)71 Zi /1 o u/o+1?P*nof c3 ?7 -WY)j N7 /S ./ S J V Z -7 / env p7/are,11 7, 1177114 ' -1 Aa0727Ly 2/ ix, 5 5 Q./7arn / f2,o/s ,/ Q/d1/ 2.71 0;1u/pm 5 2/ 3J lp,/v!17 /li/J tpi Cl/ Pi/aj g1 La 7 S1/2y5 fa4/, 571:41. SJAI --#q sfowdy S 2 ' , 2U7717719 17 cep S? u1/ -7$19 "lir u2 G a2op T D ,rdb7 N/ As/22/ suaa714.6v2 s sa/Pp 7 of y I7Sn sS /Seig 7//5. pas+tdath Zuu a/r/127 /wiz£i oC/ a. 4 P,i/L!/ ud1 ?J 64.4r5 7'/ 54o8b •W39 WW1 Cd3C1 DNINoZ/9NICIlIng 4/12/aPW 861 0 T snv nn Jo ILU 16.d 4ay /apOLVAtia.#46/ NO1N3U 10 A1ID a4/ (n t,' o/ p/g ZLLO' LZL • 81186 NOIoNIHSVM •3111V3S • H1 (lOS 3flN3AV if 3I NI Vb •S-F'frt'' 1 D 3 1 I H D 21 `d 213 >I D fl i 3 9 2J O 3 9 y o mob Zp ef, A47/ FAQ 0 Tv d4r—,/xfi3 Try19 277 P/ —r")+4270wApy (fey .4,4 .51.44,1v, 7-27(2) 2r7',V4Li gir2 r7z :74fier/ed-?g - z -?1-77--0730 -Ad; 4/0/lliqups/xa" 7'19 f- °4-12451/ .. ""/ tee' i; 6717 fidAyS sp 4-4‘.74, - rs5V-13Z4e,eVK I urnolf.S 3N 0/1/n _-tiv !.3w+2 P ss 11 19 n "evn7q 010 a7Nf poSa/a ..1/ 0/ 'aJ77 9!Q f gy p/Mq JV /.1 ' 7 Sold9.00,714/61er 7/. 722S9 -2,W2fLij . aiPe p 1 7 v " : t Z(/$(7 *-q af Ifis a.VZ(' tt/IL 2rt/0 - ytp r' 4/,I0l.10 S I __ w laid.74 rap 1 ./ 745 P uv/./D ,S'sr i" 12 S1 7/Jt17,1 rj LC z(/ ///, V - -'"J / -/r'ss S s/ a-' `keys 7/12 y r,1 f79 • ( L ) - 4 p' i 1 A, 1 u11 l7/ 4 Wf M utnez/S s d s /9' f'af ° / rinuy.wdv 7 va :72/g GEORCE W. LUCKER ARCHITECT fof RAINIER AVE. SO. SEATTLE, WA 98118 Z 1- 03 p- 1 VeArt„at.44t s-kadv; wdrrmi—t=. V Ar xiw•vw.... V i r LAND HOMES COMMERCIAL IN iTMENT NOTARY DALPAY & ASSOCIATES 4033 N.E. SUNSET BLVD. P.O. BOX 2436, RENTON, WA. 98055 BA 6-6363 July 26, 1983 Environmental Review Committee Renton Municipal Buildine 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Gentlemen: May I request that I be present, with counsel , when my property is reviewed by your committee. Very truly yours, Dalpa G/ €3:2 RiliTON___ JUL 2 6 1983 f..,cv4' "... . 3 DE PT. OF RE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR p MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 90 co- 0 FO SEP-1 - OP BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR June 7, 198 Mr. Ken Shellan 321 Burnett Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: DALPAY REZONE, File R-033-83 Dear Mr. Shellan: The Environmental Review Committee has issued a proposed declaration of significance on the above proposal as presented. Any environmental review of a proposed rezone must be evaluated based on the worst case. The rezone request of 1.33 acres could result in the construction of 45 dwelling units or approximately a 12,000 to 15,000 square foot building. This added to the adjacent .52 acres of B-1 zoned property immediately to the north could result in a 65 unit complex or a 20,000 to 25,000 square foot commercial building. Three areas of concern were 1) land use impacts on adjacent parcels, 2) traffic/access, and 3) sewer capacity. LAND USE The proposed rezone intrudes into the residential area along N.B. 12th Street. Single family areas are typically buffered from commercial areas by either a physical buffer, i.e. : vegetation, topography, etc. , or by a use buffer. The Comprehensive Plan appears to have utilized the topography of the site as the buffer and directed the commercial designation toward the intersection of N.E. Sunset Boulevard and Union Avenue N.E. Possibly Tax Lot 9061 could be developed in low density multiple use to create a desirable buffer effect. TRAFFIC/ACCESS The direct access of commercial traffic onto N.E. 12th Street, which is a residential street, creates a major conflict and intrusion of the commercial use into the established residential area. I Mr. (en Shellan June 7, 1983 Page 2 SEWER CAPACITY Even though this property was excluded from the Honey Creek sewer moratorium, it was allocated only a limited number of sewer units. Does this request exceed those basic units? And does the rezone have to be conditioned to a maximum density or square footage? In summary, the ERC has issued a proposed declaration of significance. This means that they believe there are major impacts with the proposal as presented. Two avenues of approach are available. First, more information can be presented to convince the ERC that a negative declaration should be issued. The second would be to formally revise the proposal. The latter would seem the more appropriate and expedient. There does appear some logic in proposing a B-1, business use zone on TEx Lot 9061 and as R-2, low density multiple family residential zone on Tax Lots 9273 and 9235. This eliminates the intrusion of both the commercial use and the access into a single family residential area. Plus it reduces the total density. Sincerely, Roger J. Blaylock Zoning Administrator RJB:0177Z:wr Cl?I RA o THE CITY OF RENTONU ;• ® POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 235-2552 n : MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 09 co, 09l1T 0 SEP-c° 4‘ June 1, 1983 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO: Fred J. Kaufman Land Use Hearing Examiner FRO VI: David R. Clemens Policy Development Director RE: R-033-83 (Request to rezone approximately 11,600 sq. ft. of property from R-1 to B-1 for future commercial use at 4010 N.E. 12th Street The concerns of this Department regarding the subject application have been expressed in the Environmental Review Checklist and Development Application Review Sheets. These matters together with a discussion of relevant implementing policies from the Policies Element of the Comprehensive Plan (1981) and the sub area Northeast Comprehensive Plan (1981) will emphasize the incompatibility of the proposed commercial uses with the adjacent residentdial uses and zoning on the south: ECR3 and DARS ITEMS: A. Traffic and Utilities - More information is sought on these factors as commercial uses would clearly increase traffic in the vicinity and the subject site is in an area of questionably adequate sewers and water capacity. Applicable Policies: Policies Element, Comprehensive Plan: 1.A.1. Adequate transportation capacity and utilities necessary to service new development should be available or provided in conjunction with actual development. 3.A.4. Land where adequate public utilities are available should be given priority for development. Utilities Policies, Northeast Comprehensive Plan: 1. The availability of sanitary sewers should be a prerequisite for new land development. 2. The Honeycreek Sewer interceptor should be constructed. ERC June 1, 1983 Page 2 B. If approved, the subject proposal would eliminate appropriate multiple family locations. Applicable Policies: Policies Element, Comprehensive Plan: 3.B.3. Boundaries of districts should be buffered by uses compatible with each district. Land Use/Commercial Development Policies, Northeast Comprehensive Plan: 5. Multiple family residential uses should be encouraged as buffers between commercial uses and less intensive uses. 7. Where appropriate design can be developed, mixed residential and business uses should be accommodated in commercial land use designations. C. Commercial uses should not front or side on to N.E. 12th Street and should be separated from Single Family uses to the west and south by Multiple Family uses. Applicable Policies: Policies Element, Comprehensive Plan: 4.C.4. Single family dwellings should be buffered by low density multiple family uses from more intense uses. 5.A.7. Commercial areas should be compatible with adjacent land uses. 5.B.3. Structures should be adequately set back and buffered from other uses. 5.C.2. In order to maximize the convenience aspect, only one corner of an intersection should be developed for commercial uses. D. Commercial uses facing Union Avenue should be restricted in height and bulk to a scale compatible with residential uses in the vicinity. Applicable Policy: Policies Element, Comprehensive Plan: 5.B.5. Developments should be designed and maintained to avoid adverse impacts on adjacent properties. Based upon the above review and evaluation of the applicable policies, it is recommended that the Hearing Examiner deny the proposal as submitted. DRC:SM:wr 0150G r Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF RENTON COUNTY OF KING ss. 9 F., rei N 11 DSEP131983CindyStruppbeingfirstdulyswornon she chief clerk 8UlLOING/ZONING L F'T, oath,deposes and says that is the of THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Daily Record Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County, Environmental Determination Washington.That the annexed is a F. Public Notice Public Nit we sit backd as it was published in regular issues(and NOTICE OF ACKERLEY COWrSes." not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period ENVIRONMENTAL CATIONS, INC:o Mills, is exac e DETERMINATION 045-83) ENVIRONMENTAL Application for ttg and the oth( one REVIEW COMMITTEE permit to allow •he explainedofconsecutiveissues,commencing on the RENTON,WASHINGTON off-premise sign t prairie Brea]The Environmental Re- increased in heil but he di(15th Au,gust 83 view Committee (ERC) has 42'3", File B-29E'day of 19 and ending the issued a Final Declaration of cated at 423 Airport1oment in whiNon-Significance with con- Environmental F ditions for the following pro- Committee (ERC) has is- day of 19 both dates jects:sued a Final Declaration of inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- JAMES W. DALPAY Non-Significance for the fol- scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee ECF-023-82) lowing projects: Application to rezone FIRST PRESBYTE- 11,62528• 8 0 square feet of RIAN CHURCH,(ECF- charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $ which property from R-1 to B-1 043-83) has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the for proposed commercial Application for condition- first insertion and per folio of on undyed words for each subsequent use, File R-033-83; lo- al use permit to ii(Ilow an insertion.cated at 4010 N.E. 12th addition of twC 12'x56' Street. portable classroom units JAMBS ROUTOS(ECF- to an existing church 040-83) facility along-with a park- Application for building ing lot for 94 cars, File Chief Clerk permit to allow construe- CU-053-83; property lo- tion of a 11,200 square cated at 2640 Benson 15th foot warehouse, File B- Road South. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of located approxi- Further information regard- y at the 4200 block mg this action is available in 43rd Street. the Building and Zoning De-August , 19.&.3... Notary Pull in and for the State of Washington, residing at%wit, King County. Federal Way Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June 9th, 1955. Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. VN#87 Revised 5/82 r- City ct lnttn 1!Building&1: C4. 1 Affidavit of Publicationk g7. E-L-..,iTaZiLl_.. STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ss. JU1 i 2 19 Cindy Strupp being first duly sworn on oath,deposes and says that S he is the chief clerk of THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper adeliMIIIIpublishedfour(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,and it is iii,now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Daily Record Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County, 0 m 7 °' m `" o C,.c U n - N m ca E rorn¢apa) UN >c4 c— co a>o a>-- E 0 E< E Notice of Environmental 0 , o - N NWashington.That the annexed is a N c a c o E- - o> a> o cO > a 0La>a) cci> M c) Z = a c o cam a VV)Uxaa> ow o a> a> a>._N L, G N Ae.Xe. ' t at on t.c 15 o E R. a> 3- a> c a> C O O.c a cr C O1 m'O_0 N L OONa)L O> c a C— N L O h > E-0L o t.E i) -.or di; E 0 as it was published in regular issues(and a> E > a 5 cn u P m co c 2 a m a W not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period F a> n 0 c°n o o>73 N g 2 w o¢ ccL N O Z a> m aNNJNN. M of one consecutive issues,commencing on the V C j 0 D co 2 cnn a X - a>m oui Tao w c . dF a a> Q; O c`Eao to cao.cnHa Fa> it6thdayofJune1983andendingtheZa) o> a> a> U ocoo o as . rnw02a a>c m al'Evv > Eo c c¢ '' a> m JD d 0 @ IV O N C O O Y 0 o Z,Ea,a c ai day of 19 both dates tZ a¢0 a L 3.o o ¢ a n o a`> minclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- o a, . a> > c a>1_0 0¢ m m a scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee n= 0 •5 c°.o€O w E.N 3 a> 1 k J z 6 2 N t IL C O O charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $.2.l.b,Owhich U c)z < 1- has L° o 0 N n has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the U ¢, z 0 m '~a>o m first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent w W w- a`>w m c < o a g insertior.. O WF-Z u'irco E a> a> m UJ " Zc \' 1:- ODOZW Q o oa.y2,I c 0Q ¢_ 0ZO W p v> 1-' 5 cu U m O O Z Z L 3 7 0 ( 4)<(D C Chie ...0 rkili w C F 52 o k Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of June..........., 198.3... je95 -5'g %.41e Notary Public in an o the State of Washington, r 'ding ate, King County. FgdQral Way Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June 9th, 1955. Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. VN#87 Revised 5/82 PROPOSED DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE Application No(s): R-033-83 Environmental Checklist No.:ECF-023-83 Description of Proposal:Application to rezone 57,725 square feet of property from R-1 to B-1 for proposed commercial use. Proponent: James W. Dalpay Location of Proposal: Located at 4010 N.E. 12th Street Lead Agency:City of Renton Building and Zoning Department This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on June 1, 1983, following a presentation by Jerry Lind of the Building and Zoning Department. Oral comments were accepted from: Roger Blaylock, Ronald Nelson, Jerry Lind, James Matthew, David Clemens, Richard Houghton, Gary Norris and Donald Persson. Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-035-83 are the following: 1. Environmental Checklist Review, prepared by: James W. Dalpay, DATED April 8, 1983. 2. Applications: Rezone (R-033-83). 3. Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance: Building and Zoning Department, Fire Prevention Bureau, Parks and Recreation Department, Design Engineering Division, Utility Engineering Division. 4. Recommendations for a declaration of significance: Police Department. 5. More Information: Traffic Engineering Division, Policy Development Department. Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined this development does have a significant adverse impact on the environment. An EIS may be required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a complete environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Reasons for proposed declaration of environmental significance: The Committee has determined that the proposed rezone has significant impacts in the following three areas of concern: 1.Land use conflicts with neighboring residential. 2. Traffic/access to site. 3. Sewer capacity. SIGNATURES: u,"--/./%6 Ronald G. Nelson D id R. Clemens Building and Zoning Director Policy Development Director 79y1t, Ri hard C. Houghton Public Works Director PUBLISHED: June 6, 1983 APPEAL DATE: June 20, 1983 Date circulated MAY 12, 1983 Carmel__ due : MAY 24, 1983 EN VIRONIMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET E C F - 023 _ 83 APPLICATION No(s ) . REZONE (R-033-83) PROPONENT : JAMES W. DALPAY PROJECT TITLE : DALPAY REZONE Brief Description of Project : APPLICATION TO REZONE 11, 625 SQUARE Peter OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 to B-1 FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION : PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 010 N.E. 12th STREET SITE AREA : 11,625 S.F. (.27 ac.) BUILDING AREA (gross) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (o) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : X 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality :X 3) Water & water courses : X U ) Plant life : X 5 ) Animal life : X 6 ) Noise : X 7 ) Light & glare : X 8 ) Land Use ; north: dim, east : C)DMMERCIAL south: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL west : SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL land use conflicts : WORM SINGLE FAMILY AREAS V i e v obstruction : MORE INFORMATION NEEDED Natural resources : X Id ) Risk of upset : X 11 ) Population/Employment : X 12 ) Number of Dwellings :X 13 ) Trip ends ( 1 T E ) :MORE INFORMATION NEEDED traffic imparts :MORE INFORMATION NEEDED 14 ) Public services : I X 15 ) Energy : X 16 ) Utilities : X 17 ) Human health: X 18 ) Aesthetics : X 19 ) Recreation: X 20 ) Archeology/history :, X COMMENTS : SEE ATTACHED DECLARATION Signatures: l 74(;i 2/ X/7 Ronald G. Nelson D id R. Clemens Building Official Policy Development Director L r-vr Ri hard C. Houghton( ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA May 25, 1983 THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM: COMMENCING AT 10:00 A.M. PENDING BUSINESS: ECF-013-82 EVERGREEN PROPERTIES J.V. SP-015-83 SA-016-83 ECF-011-83 SCHNEIDER HOMES, INC. PP-020-83 ECF-018-83 AUSTIN COMPANY SP-029-83 ECF-022-83 ARLENE L. ROBERTS R-032-83 OLD BUSINESS: ECF-020-83 SENECA AVENUE ASSOCIATES B-289 NEW BUSINESS: ECF-023-83 JAMES W. DALPAY R-033-83 Application to rezone 11,625 square feet of property from R-1 to B-1 for proposed commercial use; located at 4010 N.E. 12th Street. ECF-025-83 CHARLIE C. PENOR R-034-83 Application to rezone 3.25 acres of property from G-1 to R-1 for a future single family plat; located at the northeast corner of S. 55th Street and Talbot Road S. ECF-026-83 WICK HOMES, INC. PP-035-83 Application for preliminary plat of seventy (70) single family lots; located east of Union Avenue N.E. at the 100 block. INFORMATION: Memorandums from Richard Houghton and Gary Norris regarding project improvement assessments in the N.E. 3rd/N.E. 4th Street corridor for Texaco, Rax Restaurant and Safeway. 1 . r I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON ON AUGUST 30, 1983, AT 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: JAMES W. DALPAY Application to rezone 11,625 square feet of property from R-1 to B-1 for proposed commercial use, file R-033-83; located at 4010 N.E. 12th Street. FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Application for conditional use permit to allow an addition of two 12' x 56' portable classroom units to an existing church facility along with a parking lot for 94 cars, file CU-053-83; located at 2640 Benson Road South. Legs. descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Renton Building and Zoning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 30, 1983, AT 9:00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPII\IONS. PUBLISHED : August 19, 1983 Ronald G. Nelson Building and Zoning Director CERTIFICATION I, JERRY LIND, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing in the King County, on the 17th day of z_e Aust, 1983. tzt)Lpi, ti c. —SIGNED: le A. I - OF RFC 0y E 0 SEP City of Renton Land. Use Hearing Examiner will hold a PUBLIC HEAH11110 in CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS , CITY HALL ON AUGUST 30, 1983 BEGINNING AT 9:00 A.M. P.M. CONCERNING: FILE R-033-83 x• REZONE From R-1 To B-1 Li SPECIAL / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT To i SITE APPROVAL I J SHORT PLAT/SUBDIVISION of Lots 1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PROM GENERAL LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS: PROFERTY LOCAILU AT 4010 N.E. 12TH STREET. LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE IN THE RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION 0 SIGNIFICANT 0NON- SIGNIFICANT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING &ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 S NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT 1:14:11,PEP APATHroP17,4411nr0 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Final Declaration of Non -Significance with conditions for the following projects: JAMES W. DALPAY (E F-42'3-82) Application to rezone 11,625 square feet of property from R-1 to B-1 for proposed commercial us , File R-033-83; located at 4010 N.E. 12th Street. JAMES ROUTOS (ECF-040-83) Application for building permit to allow construction of a 11,200 square foot warehouse, File B-296; located approximately at the 4200 block of S. 43rd Street. ACKERLEY COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (ECF-045-83) Application for building permit to allow a 10' X 25' off-premise sign to be increased in height to 42'3", File B-295; located at 423 Airport Way. Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Final Declaration of Non- Significance for the following projects: FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (ECF-043-83) Application for conditional use permit to allow an addition of two 12' X 56' portable classroom units to an existing church facility along with a parking lot for 94 cars, File CU-053-83; property located at 2640 Benson Road South. Further information regarding this action is available in the Building and Zoning Dep€,rtment, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the Hearing Examiner by August 29, 1983. Publ:.shed: August 15, 1983. CIRe' 4 ITY OF RENTOFILE NO(S): -033-3- BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT e-oF- Zi- ,. 4. ,,, f,l,p MASTER APPLICATION NOTE TO APPLICANT: Since this is a comprehensive application form, only those items related to your specific type of application(s) ore to be completed. Please print or type. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) APPLICANT I I TYPE OF APPLICATION NAME FEES JAMES W. DALPAY ADDRESS En REZONE*(FROM TO 31 p/ P. PDX 214? i SPECIAL PERMIT* CITY ZIP TRY PERMIT* RENTON, WASHINGTON g99r6 Ell CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT* TELEPHONE 1 -- y I SITE PLAN APPROVAL r--1 GRADING AND FILLING PERMIT 226-6/61 7 No. of Cubic Yards: CONTACT PERSON I ' VARIANCE From Section: NAME Justification Required K. SHELLA:' ADDRESS SUBDIVISIONS: 21 BURNET- SOUL E] SHORT PLAT CITY ZIP Q TENTATIVE PLAT RENTON, WA`.,H I NTON 000r t- Q PRELIMINARY PLAT TELEPHONE Q FINAL PLAT S_F IIED WAIVER Justification Required) OWNER NO. OF LOTS: NAME PLAT NAME: - LEROY A. CROOKSTON ADDRESS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: 4010 NE 12th ST. Q PRELIMINARY CITY ZIP ED FINAL RENTON, WASHINGTON 98056 P.U.D. NAME: TELEPHONE 25C-6695 0 Residential ED Industrial El Commercial ED Mixed LOCATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: PROPERTY ADDRESS 4010 NE 12th ST. RENTON, WN. TENTATIVE EXISTING USE PRESENT ZONING O PRELIMINARY RESIDENTIAL FINAL PROPOSED USE PARK NAME: COMMERCIAL NUMBER OF SPACES: El ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 5),°% SQ. FT. ACRES a T° AREA: H ,h2S TOTAL FEES STAFF USE ONLY -- ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING DATE STAMP_ !( 1 0 VI Let 1 li 1 APPLICATION RECEIVED BY: )-6 JtJ 1983ll APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: MAY9 Accepted CD Incomplete Notification Sent On By: Initials) DATE ROUTED ADDITIONAL MATERIAL RECEIVED BY: ii APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: W 6 -12 -83, 2-g El Accepted QIncomplete Notification Sent On By: Initials) ROUTED TO: n Building CEJ.Design Eng. CU/ Fire 0 Parks Police nie Policy Dev. tif Traffic Eng. L Utilities REVISION 5/1982 Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach a separate sheet). BEG. AT A POINT 8111 30 FT NORTH AND 190 FEET WEST OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1 '4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 THENCE WEST 90 FEET, THENCE NORTH 150 FEET THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 120 FEET TO A POINT 125 FEET NORTHEASTERLY OF BEGINNING THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 125 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AFFIDAVIT I, LEROY A. CROOKSTON E Senn i e A.CROOKSTON , being duly sworn, declare that I am Dauthoriaa'Weserilagie to act for the property owner, ®owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS 29th DAY OF APRIL, 1983 19 + NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON,RESIDING AT RENTON 4/ Na of Notary Public)Signature f wner) P.O. BOX 2436 RENTON, WN, 98066 4010 NE 12th St, Adel;ess) • Address) RENTON, WASHINGTON 98056 City) State) (Zip) 255-6695 Telephone) Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other materials required to constitute a complete application are listed in the "Application Procedure." 1 `)>STY OF RENT( T FILE NO(S): —• - . BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT N J MASTER APPLICATION NOTE TO APPLICANT: Since t: "s is ;c+ap ehelsive application form, only those items relateo your specific -ype of opp:ication(s) are to be completed. Please print or type. Attach additional sheets if necessary. r APPLICANT ITYPE OF APPLICATION NAME ems„ a. .c, JAMES W. )ALPAY FEES REZONE*(FROM TO 1 ) II ADDRESS P.O. BOX 2436 1 SPECIAL PERMIT* ED CITY ZIP TEMPORARY PERMIT* RENTON, WASHINGTON 98056 ED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT* Q TELEPHONE 1 I SITE PLAN APPROVAL CD GRADING AND FILLING PERMIT 226-6363 No. of Cubic Yards: CONTACT PERSON VAFroNCE From Section: Justification Required NAME K. SHELLAN ADDRESS SUBDIVISIONS:^ NETT SOUTH 1 1 SHORT PLAT CITY ZIP Q TENTATIVE PLAT RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 Q PRELIMINARY PLAT TELEPHONE Q FINAL PLAT 11 0 WAIVER Justification Required) OWNER NO. OF LOTS: NAME PLAT NAME: JAMES W. JALPAY ADDRESS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: P.O. BOX 2436 Q PRELIMINARY CITY ZIP ED FINAL RENTON, WASHINGTON 98056 P.U.D. NAME: TELEPHONE ED Residential ED Industrial aCommercial Q Mixed LOCATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: PROPERTY ADDRESS ED 12S5 UNION AVE. N.E. s. 4018 NE 12th St. TENTATIVE EXISTING USE PRESENT ZONING PRELIMINARY ES I DErJUL 1 d FINAL PROPOSED USE PARK NAME: C ok\INen KC-AL NUMBER OF SPACES: v n ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 6 Co 1---- SQ. FT. ACRES AREA: 40,000 TOTAL FEES 46 794's STAFF USE ONLY -- ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING 39.21.2 .10 DATE STAMP )r €1. j(r: t• 1.1 \/ APPLICATION RECEIVED BY: 9r! Q 1 L y 9 APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: MAY 9 198.E CI Accepted Incomplete Notification Sent On By: Initials) DATE ROUTED ADDITIONAL MATERIAL RECEIVED BY:I,_-1 63 APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: 2,— j . Accepted QIncomplete Notification Sent On By: Initials) ROUTED TO: CM Building CZ!. Design Eng. fla Fire Parks Police ttj Policy Dev. CA Traffic Eng. 121 Utilities REVISION 5/1982 A lex Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach a separate sheet). EF ADDENDUM AFFIDAVIT I, JAMES W. DALPAY being duly sworn, declare that I am authorized representative to act for the property owner, ®owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF GO 19c NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON,RESIDING AT Q2-1-0-/L/e) Name of Notary Public) j9.rture of Owner) L/.s i1'l '1J p Rnx 943F, Address Address) RENTON, WASHINGTON 98056 City) State) (Zip) 226-6363 Telephone) Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other materials required to constitute a complete application are listed in the "Application Procedure." 4110 41111 That portion of the east 280 feet of the southeast quarter r ofstthe W.A1. , in southeast quarter of Section 4 , Township 23 North ,Rage King County , Washington; lying south of the Renton-Issaquah Road, described as fcllows : Beginning at the southeast corner of said southeast quarter; thence north 87°59 ' 56" west 30. 01 feet along the south line thereof; thence north 0° 58' 56" east 30 .01 feet , parallel to the east line of said southeast quarter, to the point of beginning; thence continuing north 0°58' 58" east 44. 94 feet ; theni.:e north 58°.06' 10" west 155. 79 feet ; thence south 13°09 ' 14" west .125.00 feet ; thence south 87°59 ' 56" east 160. 04 feet to the point of beginning , in King County , Washington. That portion of the East 280 feet of the Southeast quarter of the South- east quarter of Section 4 , Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Section; thence North 0° 58 ' 58" East along the East line of said Section, a distance of 188 .44 feet; thence North 64° 34 ' 52" West 32 .95 feet to the West line of 132nd Avenue Southeast and the true point of beginning; thence South 0° 58om5theWNorth lestineooftNortheast rl2thrStreet58 ' 58" East 44 .94 feet f thence North 58° 06 ' 10" West 155.79 feet; thence Westerly along the North line of a tract ofb land y ndeconveyed to eyeded Leroy A. Crookston and wife , Sennie A. Crookston, under Auditor' s File No. 5455279 , a distance of 120 feet to a point y on the West line of the East 280 feet;which bears thence North 0° 58 ' 58" East along said 4 est line to a point North 64° 34 ' 52" West from the true point of beginning; thence South 64° 34 ' 52" East 274 . 60 feet to the true point of beginning. Situate in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington. CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON wrip?:711:007114\TwON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM MAY 91983 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Application No. 1i O3J - 3 Environmental Checklist No. E C F- 00? 3 - 3 PROPOSED, date: FINAL , date: Declaration of Significance Declaration of Significance Declaration of Non-Significance Declaration of Non-Significance COMMENTS: Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires PT- 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 shoJld 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 you* proposal . If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I . BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent JAMES W. DALPAY 2. Address and phone number of Proponent: P.O. BOX 2436 RENTON, WASHINGTON 98056 226-6363 3. Date Checklist submitted APRII R 19R3 4. Agency requiring Checklist CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPT, 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: 6. Nature and brief description of the proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements , and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature) : BUSINESS REZONE 2- 7. Location of proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal , as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environ- mental setting of the proposal ) : NORTHWEST CORNER OF NORTHEAST 12th ST. AND UNION AVENUE AVE. N.E. 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : 9/1/83 9. List of all permits , licenses or government approvals required for the proposal federal , state and local --including rezones) : REZONE 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes , explain: NOT AT #PRESENT (DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL BUSINESSES.) 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: NONE 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? X V MAYBE NO b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over- covering of the soil? Z(_ YES MAYBE NO c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X yr MAYBE Al- d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X Yam- MAYBE NU— e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or off the site? X Y grfrir NO f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands , or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the X bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? YEs- MAYBE AU— Explanation: NORMAI GRADING FOR CONSTRIICTION OF PARKING 3- Air. Will the proposal result in: a) Air emiFsions or deterioration of ambient air quality? YES MAYBE Nb b) The creation of objectionable odors? Yt MAYBE NO c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X YES MAYBE NS— Explanation: TEMPORARY DUST DUE TO NORMAL CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURE. 3) Water. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in currents , or the course of direction of water movements , in either marine or fresh waters? X YES MAYBE NO b) Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X Yam— MAYBE WO— c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? YES MAYBE N6— d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? Tn.— MAYBE rO 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 Nb— f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? Y MAYBE k g) Change in the quantity of ground waters , either through direct additions or withdrawals , or through A 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?X YES MAYBE NO i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X YES MAYBE NO-- Explanation: ADDITION OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE WATER MITIGATED BY AN APPROVED STROM DRALN RETENTION SYSTEM. 4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of flora (including trees , shrubs , grass , crops , microflora and aquatic plants)? YES MAYBE b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora?X YES MAYBE NT— c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? PEA MAYBE W d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? vrf_ WAY 0-- Explanation: a- 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)? YES MAYBE NO b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna?X YES MAYBE NO c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area , or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? X YES' MAYBE NO d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X YES MBE Explanation: 6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: MAYBE ADDITIONAL VEHICULAR NOISE 7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X YES MAYBE IA Explanation: 8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X YES- MAYBE N6- Explanation: 9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X Yi"S MAYBE NO b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X YEg— MAYBE WO-- Explanation: 10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X YES- MAYBE NN Explanation: 11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Urn- Explanation: 5- 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? YES WATiTif NO Explanation: 13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? X YES MAYBE NO b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? YES MAYBE NU c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? X YEf- RITE KU— d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X YES M—AYFIE WU— e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X VET— MAYBE Fir f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, X bicyclists or pedestrians? YET— MAYBE Explanation: SMALL # OF ADDITIONAL CARS BY COMMERCIAL USE. l4) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? YES MAYBE a— b) Police protection? y YES MAYBE NO c) Schools? YES MAYBE NiO d) Parks or other recreational facilities? YES MAYBE N-O e) Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? X YES MAYBE NO f) Other governmental services? X YES WTI-Tr NO Explanation: 15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X M-TYET W b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X Y! MAYBE WO- Explanation: 16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities : a) Power or natural gas? X RAYFE W b) Communications systems? X YES Mir WO-- Cc) Water? X YES MAYBE NO 1 6- d) Sewer or septic tanks? YES— RATITE e e) Storm water drainage? YES MIT 0- f) Solid waste and disposal? X YES M YYBE NO Explanation: 17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X PEA- MAYBE 0— Explanation: 18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X VES MAYBE W-6— Explanation: 19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?X YE MAYBE WU— Explanation: 20) Archeological Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? X Yam— MAYBE F5— 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 iss • ante upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation illful lack .f full disclosure on my part. Proponen . Mir sign- . AMES W. DALI' name printed l) City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 r Into(Dffirrsrof h L7n +'rt ennet e11an v 1983 321 igurnett ibenue .youth MA post Mffirr Sox 26 3Senton, 1us12ington 98057 206) 255-5600 May 6, 1983 Building and Zoning Department Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Justification statement for James Dalpay Rezone application (property is located at the N.W. corner of Union Avenue N.E. and N. E. 12th Street) . Dear Sir or Madam: The following is a justification statement for rezoning the subject property to the B-1 Zoning Classification. As will be discussed, the B-1 reclassification was rejected by the hearing examiner more than five (5) years ago; subsequent changes in the subject geographical area, however, collec- tively point toward the need to rezone the area to B-1 . More- over, such a rezone is permitted and called for by the Renton City Code Section 4-3010 et. seq. 1978 REZONE REQUEST In April of 1978 , the current applicant attempted to re- zone the subject property to B-l. Although public opposition to the rezone was minimal, the rezone was rejected for three primary reasons . First, the examiner had concerns about sewer capacity in the subject vicinity. Second, the potential problem of mixing residential and commercial developments i.e. creating contiguous incompatable uses without sufficient buf- fers. Finally, and perhaps the primary impediment to the rezone, was the prematurity of the rezone proposal . City personnel seemed to generally agree that a rezone to B-1 was on the horizon but the time had not yet quite arrived for t May 6, 1983 Building & Zoning Department RE: Justification statement for James Dalpay Page 2 affectuationg that reclassification. A few salient comments from the hearing examiner in his April 17 , 1978 decision are illustrative of this point: A. "However, it is apparent that this area encompas- sing the intersection of Union Avenue N.E. and N.E. 12th Street is in a state of transition. " B. "The pressure to change the zoning has not become significant or sufficient at this time to neces- sitate changing the zoning . . . . " C. "The transitional and developing character of the area indicates that the timing of the proposal is somewhat premature. Perhaps as the northly a- butting B-1 property (real estate office) is fully developed, the subject site may be appro- priate for consideration of reclassification. Also the northly portion of the site may be po- tentially included in the development of this property. In any case, it appears that additional development of and in the area is necessary to substantiate the requested rezone. The land-use picture of the area requires further definition. " These three impediments to a B-1 classification have now dissapeared and the time is ripe for such a rezone fully in accordance with the Renton City Code (see particularly Sec- tion 4-3010 et. seq. ) . THE TIME IS NOW RIPE FOR RECLASSIFICATION TO B-1 The three major concerns indicated above expressed by the hearing examiner in 1978 no longer exist. 1. Sewer availabilty. The subject property was spec- ifically exempted by Resolution #2392 from the sewer moratorium in the vicinity. The resolution permits the developer to hook-up with the sewer system at such time as the subject site is de- veloped. 2 - i May 6 , 1983 Building & Zoning Department RE : Justification statement for James Dalpay Page 3 2 . Contiguous incompatable uses. This potential problem has been and can be greatly mitigated by the following: A. Substantial commercial development in the area in the last five (5) years. As the hearing examiner forsaw in 1978 , commercial development is burgeoning in the subject vicinity. Three of the four corner lots on Union and Sunset now have substantial commercial projects (the appli- cant 's parcel is the exception); since the last re- zone request, the corner located kitty-corner from the applicant ' s was approved for a shopping center development. Moreover, substantial commercial de- velopments have sprung up and are springing up in an easterly direction along Sunset. Where commer- cial developments have not been constructed, fairly dense multi-family developments have been built. The subject vicinity has now adjusted and adapted to this natural infiltration of commercial and fairly dense multi-family usage. B. The neighboring resident is participating in the rezone request. Mr. & Mrs . Crookston, the owners of the property abutting the applicant 's property, wish to par- ticipate in the rezone to B-1 . Thus , the proposed rezone property will not isolate or insulate any residentially zoned property and further the B-1 area will run flush up against the county - city boundry line i.e. the B-1 will be a natural buffer between county and city properties. C. Buffers exist. Natural buffers exist between the proposed B-1 site and neighboring residental properties. These na- tural buffers include topography and vegetative buffers between areas, as well as roads and fences. In other words , there is a clear break between the proposed B-1 site and neighboring residental pro- perties. 3 - May 6, 1983 Building & Zoning Department RE: Jusitification statement for James Dalpay Page 4 3 . The time is ripe for a rezone. As indicated in item 2-A supra, substantial commer- cial development has occured in the subject vacinity in the last five (5) years. Moreover, far more substantial commer- cial development is under way - held back only by the sewer moratorium (which does not affect the applicant ' s property) and this moratorium should be lifted according to city per- sonnel in a year or two. In other words , the commercial flood gates have parted and continued substantial commercial development is imminent. As the hearing examiner perspica- ciously pointed out in 1978 , the "pressure to change" will someday become significant and sufficient - that someday is today. Several other issues deserve brief discussion. First, the full range of utilities are available to the subject site. Second, traffic flow and access are not problems. Sunset is sufficiently wide to handle the proposed rezone to B-1 and the concomitant commercial development and if necessary, access to the subject site can be restricted along N.E . 12th Street. Finally, the proposed rezone is fully in compliance with the underlying principles of the Comprehensive Plan. The above reasons militate for the reclassification of the subject site to B-l. y. Respectfully submitted this ti day of 1983. Very truly yours, Kenneth B. Shellan KBS :lg 4 - 1 ENDING OF FILE Fig TITLE ff033 —&3 e 4 1 I 14 DilaaIt old CL,6910/9601L UPDATES FOR FILE : R 13 .- OSS ROFILMED December 11,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 449 Development Services: Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report Removal of Restrictive concurring with the staff recommendation to remove restrictive covenants Covenants on Dalpay placed on the Dalpay properties(tax nos. 30423059273,0423059273,and Properties,Union Ave NE 142305235)in 1984,and recorded by King County as no. 8404300578. The properties are located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of NE p ?3 12th St. and Union Ave. NE. The property owner James Dalpay requested n 3 consideration of this action. Staff concurred due to conflicts between the recorded restrictions and current Comprehensive Plan policy. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Utilities Committee Utilities Committee Chair Clawson presented a report recommending Utility: Oversizing concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the request for Reimbursement for Water reimbursement in the total amount of$53,750 from JDA Group LLC, for costs Main, Sixth Street Short Plat, related to the installation of a new eight-inch water line in NW 6th St. as JDA Group requested by the City's Utility Division. City Code allows developers to request the City to participate in the cost of the utility improvement when the City requires a route for the utility that is more expensive than other potential routes for the best interest of the City and the general locality. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution#3847 A resolution was read approving the Cottages at Honey Creek Final Plat; Plat: Cottages at Honey Creek, approximately 4.1 acres located at 4821 NE Sunset Blvd. MOVED BY NE Sunset Blvd,FP-06-041 BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3848 A resolution was read approving the Savannah at the Park Final Plat; Plat: Savannah at the Park, approximately 1.73 acres located in the vicinity of the 900 block of Union Ave. Union Ave NE, FP-06-127 NE. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON,COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and advanced for second and final reading: Development Services: Boeing An ordinance was read designating a Planned Action for Sub-District 1-B of the Subdistrict 1B Planned Action Boeing Renton Plant property,an approximately 51-acre parcel bounded by Logan Ave.N.,Garden Ave. N.,N. 8th St., and N. 6th St. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER,COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. Ordinance#5242 Following second and final reading of the above-referenced ordinance, it was Development Services: Boeing MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ADOPT THE Subdistrict 1 B Planned Action ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Annexation: Maplewood An ordinance was read annexing approximately 60.5 acres of property located Addition,Maple Valley Hwy primarily along the south side of SE Renton- Maple Valley Hwy. east of Maplewood Gardens and west of the Cedar River where it crosses under the SE Renton-Maple Valley Hwy. (Maplewood Addition). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON,COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE :" ' 'A'_ ) BY COMMITTEEE REPORT C7i7 L December 11, 2006 Date /'-// 02006 Request to Remove Restrictive Covenants Dalpay Property Referred November 27, 2006 The Planning and Development Committee concurs with the staff recommendation to remove restrictive covenants placed on the Dalpay properties (tax #30423059273, #0423059273, 1 42305235) in 1984, and recorded as King County document#8404300578. The properties are located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of NE 12th Street and Union Avenue NE. Mr. James Dalpay,property owner, has requested consideration of this action. Staff concurs due to conflicts between the recorded restrictions and current Comprehensive Plan policy. Tern Briere, hair Dan Clawson, Vice-Chair 70,in -(L, Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Jay CCaington Alex Pietsch Neil Watts Rebecca Lind Jennifer Henning November 27,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 415 hearing process pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan amendments was invalid, and voiced her support for the appeals that were filed concerning environmental issues and the public hearing process. Ms. Petersen emphasized that citizens should not be forced to spend their money on legal services in order to do what the City should already be doing in regards to these matters. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 11/13/2006. Council concur. 11/13/2006 Appointment: Municipal Arts Mayor Keolker reappointed Kristi Hand, 517 Smithers Ave. N.,Renton, 98057; Commission Marie McPeak,409 Jefferson Ave.NE,Renton, 98056; Evelyn Reingold, 833 SW Sunset Blvd.,L-56,Renton,98057;and Eleanor Simpson,418 Wells Ave. N., Renton,98057,each to the Municipal Arts Commission for a three-year term expiring 12/31/2009. Council concur. Annexation: Preserve Our Administrative,Judicial and Legal Services Department recommended approval Plateau, SE 128th St of a resolution regarding the Preserve Our Plateau Annexation election requesting that King County produce a voter's pamphlet,authorizing election steps, and transmitting the ballot title. Council concur. (See page 416 for resolution.) Community Services: Henry Community Services Department recommended approval of the proposed 2007 Moses Aquatic Center Fees Henry Moses Aquatic Center fee schedule. Refer to Committee of the Whole. Community Services: Facility Community Services Department recommended approval of the proposed 2007 and Recreation Fees&Rates facility and recreation fees and rates schedule related to athletic field fees, Carco Theatre rental rates, Community Center rental rates,and park picnic shelter fees. Refer to Committee of the Whole. Development Services: Boeing Development Services Department recommended adoption of an ordinance Subdistrict 1 B Planned Action regarding the Planned Action for Subdistrict 1 B of the Boeing Renton Plant property; approximately 51 acres bounded by Logan Ave.N.,Garden Ave. N., N. 8th St.,and N. 6th St. Refer to Committee of the Whole; set public hearing on 12/11/2006. Development Services: Development Services Division recommended approval to remove restrictive Removal of Restrictive covenants imposed in 1984(R-83-033)on the Dalpay properties located on Covenants on Dalpay Union Ave. NE between NE I2th St. and Sunset Blvd.NE,as the covenants are Properties,Union Ave NE now outdated and in conflict with the goals of the current Comprehensive Plan. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Plat: Windstone II,Mt Baker Development Services Division recommended approval of the Windstone II Ave NE, FP-04-124 Short Plat as a Final Plat;nine single-family lots and one tract on 3.6 acres located north of NE 17th St. at Mt. Baker Ave.NE. Council concur. (See page 417 for resolution.) Council: 2007 Legislative Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Priorities recommended adoption of the proposed 2007 legislative priorities. Refer to Committee of the Whole. Annexation: Maplewood Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Addition, Maple Valley Hwy recommended a public hearing be set on 12/11/2006 to consider the proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation and associated zoning; 60.5 acres located at 130th Ave. SE and Maple Valley Hwy. Council concur. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. fY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA —L AI #: j/ (3 Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: )November 27, 2006 Dept/Div/Board Development Services Division Staff Contact:Elizabeth Higgins, x7382 Agenda Status Consent: Subject: Public Hearing... Request to remove Dalpay properties restrictive covenants.Correspondence Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits:New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions RC 8404300578 Information... Ordinance 3806 Vicinity map Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Planning and Development Committee Legal Dept Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: None Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted: Revenue Generated: Total Project Budget City Share Total Project SUMMARY OF ACTION: In 1984, restrictive covenants were required by the City as conditions of rezone of properties located on Union Avenue NE between NE 12th Street and Sunset Boulevard NE. Those restrictions placed by the covenant are now outdated and are in conflict with the goals of the current comprehensive plan and should be removed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the administration's request to remove restrictive covenant bearing King County recording 8404300578 for Dalpay property located on Union Avenue NE between Sunset Blvd and NE 12th Street. H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev&plan.ing\ERH\Preapplication reports\Preapplication follow-up\dalpay_covenant_agenda_bill.doc ti`SY O PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS g; DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE:November 20, 2006 TO: Randy Corman, Council President Members of the Renton City Council CC: Kathy Keolker, Mayor FROM: k Gregg Zimmerman( inistrator STAFF CONTACT: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, x7382 SUBJECT: Removal of Restrictive Covenant ISSUE: Should the City of Renton remove a restrictive covenant from properties ("Dalpay properties") located on Union Avenue NE between Sunset Boulevard and NE 12th Street tax #0423059273, 0423059061, and 142305235)? RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached Release of Restrictive Covenant documents by affixing your signature. BACKGROUND: On May 4, 1984, a restrictive covenant was placed on properties owned by Jim Dalpay as a condition for rezoning the property for commercial use. According to the Supplemental Report to the Hearing Examiner,the purpose of the covenant was to "create a transitional commercial area that could be utilized as a use buffer between standard high-density commercial activities and residential areas." To create this buffer, the covenant required a 15-foot landscape screen adjacent to residential zones, limited building height to 35 feet and prohibited access from NE 12th St. In the 22 years that have passed since the placing of the covenant, the City's land use goals have undergone a considerable amount of change. As a result, the motives behind the covenant no longer justified and run contrary to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. It is no longer the City's intent to segregate commercial and residential uses. Rather, there is now a focus on promoting the development of mixed-uses and this site would benefit from that goal. Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-338 states "Commercial Arterial zoned areas should include an opportunity for residential uses and office as part of mixed-use development." Page 2 of 2 October 24,2006 Similar to the language of the covenant,the Commercial Arterial zone has a requirement for a 15-foot landscaped area between commercial and residential zones. However, the code allows this requirement to be modified through the Site Plan Review process, whereas the covenant allows for no flexibility. If a modification were approved by City officials, street-front commercial space could be developed, which would be much more in-line with the goals of increased visibility and pedestrian access than the restrictions of the covenant. When the covenant was placed, the commercial zone allowed for a building height of 95 feet. The current Commercial Arterial Zone allows for a considerably lower height of 50 feet. By removing the height restriction of 35 feet from the covenant, added vertical density would be allowed which would better achieve Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-347. "Implement development standards that encourage lively, attractive medium to high-density commercial areas." Because of the complex topography along Sunset Blvd, the prohibition of vehicular access from NE 12m St imposes an unnecessary hardship on the property. During the pre-application meeting conducted in September 2006, the Planning/Building/Public Works Department was not opposed to allowing access from NE 12th St. Again, removing the covenant restriction and allowing for the Site Plan Review process would provide City oversight on any development and would create room for flexibility and creative development. CONCLUSION: Because of changes in the City's Comprehensive Plan and codebook, the outdated restrictions placed upon the Dalpay properties by restrictive covenant are no longer necessary and are in conflict with the City's current land use goals. By removing the covenant, both the City staff and the developer would be allowed a greater opportunity for flexibility which would result in a development that would more closely match the desired results of the Comprehensive Plan. H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev&plan.ing\ERH\Preapplication reports\Preapplication follow-up\Dalpay issue paper.doc pp@gOVETT APR 20 1984 WARREN&KELLOGG By DECLARATION OF COVENANTS , CONDITIONS , RESTRICTIONS, AND RESERVATION OF EASEMENT THIS DECLARATION OF COVENANTS , CONDITIONS , RESTRICTIONS AND leSERVATION OF EASEMENTS (this "Declaration") made as of this Gl day of 1984, is by and between JAMES W. DALPAY, a single m n ( 'Dalpay") , and LEROY A. CROOKSTON and SENNIE A. CROOKSTON, husband and wife ("Crookston" , with Dalpay and Crookston being referred to collectively herein as Applicant") . Dalpay is the fee owner of the real property described aD on Exhibit 1 hereto (the "Dalpay Fee Property") , and the owner of a contract vendee's interest in the real property described on Exhibit 2 hereto (the "Dalpay Contract Property" , with the Dalpay Fee Property and Dalpay Contract Property being referred to herein collectively as the "Dalpay Property") . Crookston owns the fee interest in the real property legally 11 described on Exhibit 3 hereto (the "Crookston Property", with pp the Dalpay Property and the Crookston Property being referred to collectively herein as the "Property") . Applicant has requested that the City of Renton ("City") change the zoning classification of the Property to "B-1" , and the City is willing to grant said change in zoning classi- fication provided that Applicant imposes on the Property the conditions , covenants , restrictions and reservation of easements set forth hereinbelow. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City' s change of the zoning classification of the Property to "B-1" , Applicant hereby declares the Property subject to the following Covenants , Conditions , Restrictions and Reservation of Easements : Section 1 Prohibited Uses . Notwithstanding the change of the zoning classification of the Property to "B-i" , the Property shall not be used for the operation of a (i) furniture store, ii) laundry, cleaning and pressing establishment , (iii) locksmith or shoe repair shop, (iv) lumber yard or fuel yard, (v) public garage, repair shop, battery service station or tire repair shop , vi) fast food restaurant or for any restaurant operating 24 hours a day, (vii) gas station, (viii) undertaking establishment, ix) mobile home park, (x) self-storage facility, (xi) 24-hour convenience store, (xii) tavern, or (xiii) multi-family use, apartments , duplexes or condominiums . Any part of the property presently being used for residential purposes shall not hereafter be FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF 84.04/7.0 0578 E RECCE F 11 . 00 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CASHSL 00 RENION MUNICIPAL BLDG. 200 Mill AYE.SO. RENT _WA MOS used for residential purposes other than single family residential purposes . In addition no part of the property not presently being used for or zoned for residential purposes shall hereafter be used for residential purposes . Section 2 New Structures . No new structure shall be constructed upon the Property until City, by lawful action, removes the sewer moratorium imposed by City Resolution No . 2392; provided that nothing set forth in this Section shall prohibit changes of use of any existing structures which are otherwise consistent with this Declaration and in accord with applicable laws . Section 3 Site Plan Approval . The use of any existing W structure shall not be changed and no new structure shall be constructed upon the Property without the City' s prior approval of a site plan for such change of use and or new structure. v, Section 4 Maximum Height. No new structure shall be constructed upon the Property which exceeds thirty-five (35) Tr feet in height . OD Section 5 Crookston Property Access . An easement for ingress and egress to and from the Crookston Property from Union Avenue Northeast shall be established at a location mutually acceptable to City and Applicant when the Crookston Property is redeveloped. At such time as the Crookston Property or any structure thereon is converted to commercial use , the Crookston Property shall no longer be entitled to ingress to and egress from 12th Street except to the extent required by City for emergency access purposes . When converted to or used for commercial purposes , the Dalpay Property shall in no event be entitled to any access from Northeast 12th Street. Section 6 Building Setback Area. No new structure shall be placed on the westerly 15 feet of the Property (the "Building Setback Area") , but utility lines and landscaping may be located in and upon the Building Setback Area. Section 7 Landscaping. No new structure shall be placed upon the Property without a landscape plan approved by City and landscaping required by such plan shall be installed concurrently with the development . When the Property is redeveloped, the Property shall be landscaped in substantial compliance with Exhibit 6 to the City' s rezone hearing dated January 12 , 1984; provided, however, that if the Dalpay Property is developed or redeveloped before the Crookston Property, the boundary line between the Dalpay Property and the Crookston Property shall be landscaped with six (6) foot high Columnar Arbovitae until such time as the Dalpay Property is developed or converted to commercial use and the west and south boundaries of the Crookston Property will not be landscaped. Should the present residential building that is closest to N. E. 12th on the Dalpay Property be converted to a business use, then the landscaping under this paragraph shall be installed. Should the residential building to the north of the residentialODbuildingnexttoN. E. 12th, and on the Dalpay Property, be used ij for other than residential purposes , and the building envelope be changed or expanded or the parking increased, or any other CD change be made to the building or property which significantly07 Ts changes the visual impact of the property , then the landscaping under this paragraph shall be installed .Tr QD Section 8 Runs with Land. This Declaration is for the benefit of City and shall run with the land. This Declaration may not be modified or amended in any respect without the written consent of th.e City granted in accordance with any then applicable ordinances , rules , regulations or other laws . Section 9. Joinder by Vendors . Ben Pillo , Tony Pillo, Dominic Pillo , Rose Souther and Mary Zachrison, each as their separate state, own the contract vendor' s interest in the Dalpay Contract Property and each of them joins in Declaration for the purpose of binding their interest in the Dalpay Contract Property to the terms of this Declaration.. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Declaration as of the day and _ i- set forth hereinabove. Jam- : . Dalpay e oy roo ston Sennie A. Crookston Ben Pillo 2 2j6 7Tony G 0--""NRA-t.it., ----. ::(C' Domin Pillo 454a‘'/ __ e S they a y ac sO ' STATE OF WASHINGTON)OD ss C COUNTY OF KING c On this day personally appeared before me JAMES W. DALPAY C to me known to be the individual described in and who executed CV the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he Gp signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. 4 Given under my hand and official sea this f y of pc , 1984. N ary u c in a ' for t %e ,State Was in t , re Aing „at ,}, bid% STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me LEROY A. CROOKSTON and SENNIE A. CROOKSTON, husband and wife, to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument , and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this 1984 . U . : , h, l_ Notar ,i+ ` ,°: and„f•` cthe State of W. : ingi•orr,„ !t; . diiv Cat f1#4) A STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me BEN PILLO, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this / ' day of d -`2— 1984. 0J 0 Notar u 1 isin and , -6f, S ate p of ashington, residing:.at" 00 v1 M STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me BEN PILLO, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument , and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this / _day of 1984. otar Pu ih an to of shington, resi4Iit 'a•f STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me TONY PILLO, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument , and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this Zo/day of,,_ '___ , 1984.r. 4 Q. Notar ublic LI l • ,_for th State Q of ashington, residingat =` a, X STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me DOMINIC PILLO, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument , and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this (? dayof . 1984. Notary ' •lic in and or t. ate ington, residing, a„, STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me ROSE SOUTHER, to me . known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that she .:signed the same as her free and voluntary act and deed, for the use and, purposes., therein mentioned. r GIVEN under my hand and official seal this y of 4:1984. blic in ,a.nr''fO ;,;,th ington, residing at STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me MARY ZACHRISON, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the u, within and foregoing instrument , and acknowledged that she signed the same as her free and voluntary act and deed, for the :uses M and purposes therein mentioned. O GIVEN under my hand and official seal this ,p daq of I 1984,CP OD Notar Pu is in and 'a. th t' te of shington, residing at' CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 3806 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R-1) TO BUSINESS DISTRICT B-1) (DALPAY R-033-83) WHEREAS under Chapter 7, Title IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No. 1628 known as the "Code of General Ordinances of th41 City of Renton", as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as Residence District (R-1) ; and WHEREAS a proper petition for change of zone classification of sail property has been filed with the Building and Zoning Department on or about May 9, 1983, which petition was duly referred to the Hearing Exai liner for investigation, study and public hearing, and a public September 13, 1983 and hearing having been held thereon on or about/IJanuary 12, 1984, and said matter having been duly considered by the Hearing Examiner and said zoning request having been denied and the matter having been appealed to the City Council of the City of Renton and said City Council having reversed, with conditions , the Hearing Examiner's decision and said zoning request being in conformity with the City' s Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto , NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I: The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Business District (B-1) as hereinbelow specified; the Building and.Zoning Director is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. Said property being located at 4010& 4018 NE_ 12th Street and 1225 Union Avenue NE) AND SUBJECT FURTHER to that certain Declaration of Restrictive Covenants executed by Petitioner-Owners on or about March 14, 1984, and recorded in the office of the Director of Recors and. Elections, Receiving No. 8404300578 and which said Covenants are hereby incorporated and made a part hereof as if fully set forth SECTION II; This Ordinance Shall' be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 23rd day of 1984. Maxine E. Motor, City ClercF APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 23rd day of .44l., 1984. oc`er,,- Barbara Y. Shinpo h, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence S. Wa en, 'City Attorney Date of Publication: May 4, 1984 Republished May 18, 1984 To correct legal ORDINANCE NO. 3806 Rezone-033-83 PARCEL "A" Thzt portion of the east 280 feet of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 4, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., In King County. Washington; lying sou,:h of the Renton-Issaquah Road, described as follows: Beg nning at the southeast corner of said southeast quarter; thence north 87°59'43" west 30.01 feet along the south line thereof; thence north 0°59'25" east 30.01 feet, parallel to the 5ast line of said southeast quarter, to the point of beginning; thence continuing north 0°59'25" east 44.94 feet; thence north 58°06'10" west 155.79 feet; thence south 13°09'14" west 125.00 feet; thence south 87°59'43" east 160.04 feet to the point of beginning, in King County, Washington. PARCEL "B" That portion of the east 280 feet of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Sectic n 4, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, describedasfol.ows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Section; thence north 0°59'25" east along the east The of said section, a distance of 189.44 feet; thence north 64°34'52" west 32.95 feet to the west line of 132nd Avenue southeast and the true point of beginning; thence south 0°59'2;," west to a point that bears north 0°59'25" east 44.94 feet from the north line of northeast 12th Street; thence north 58°06'10" west 155.79 feet; thence westerly along the north ,ine of a tract of land conveyed to Leroy A. Crookston and wife, Sennie A. Crooksi,on, by deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 5455279, a distance of 120 feet to a point of i the west line of the east 280 feet; thence north 0°59'25" east along said west line to a point which bears north 64°34'52" west from the true point of beginning; thence south 64°34'5:'" east 274.60 feet to the true point of beginning. Situatec in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington PARCEL "C" That portion of the southeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 4, Township 23 North, Range 5 ,past, W.M., King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginninc at a point 30. feet north and 190 feet west of the southeast corner of the southeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4; thence west 90 feet; thence north 150 feet; thence southeasterly 120 feet to a point 125 feet northeasterly of beginning; thence southwesterly 125 feet to the point of beginning. Revised 5/14/84 c.i V a3 1• ti O Pc" a . so z e AL-so% c a t, I. W nr ZO\t7 ./ )1 CVSs , h,16Zik• : • N,.....4,,T t/ZOa :. 4. „ sf a ve9-zc•r r.,: — sx1 ao-rq ;tidN't Ur, N d,. / - Otd/N eP'7 i( I . a N rt 6 va, L 14; a x o s• Y ti. Lis h •o 1, p S 2.140 ( h N.'V --. ' .a,, ' VI:' L \,.,.......... t Pc. '• . 0. a i a .per :.sue , Z co os 1 Roo iri. z 72 • o liCE - 49,. • • w' ori N 01 i I. 0'0 , r[ tt, A• r,,+• . *.`•''..4 •/ of p.` 4 Co•MP h` I - a :• i..5 ,. . 2 I 9 2 Bs .*___et'e.a e.r q 3 30 30 r Ordinance No. 3806' Rezone '033-83 . r 1 ' i,NE R, _.. .R:-8 7. R o NE 22 G CD R-8 St 22nc :• 1 i st1j a' e_ Q)j- -- o z 1 ii, 0a' 7 = 6 I , 1 1 iG( 3) .„4.4......__I . k i,! • 8 , ri. I - -, ! i lb 0 r— -- R- N t1, 1-Tth St„ a it fiV A 1i RI-8 I1Il I. R=-1'1 'iv., - AO '', 1 L7 4\ 1 R Pti:! Ipi4trillia- MEM __I_ e u_ a ,... f 1 . 410. IcA a e _ maw ___,ILIi-' & 'I/ ":NE rf h o 74_.... . kali 1 r--4.E Ell NE! LR-r--84116 EtT1 R 4 SITE EXHIBIT 1 tip z BUILDING ZONING DEPARTMENT OF Re RONALD G.NELSON-DIRECTORZ l2, ` 0 MVNICJPAL SU)LDINO Zoo mill AVE-SO. RENTON.WASH.B8066 • 235-Z5'U :f': BARBARA Y. $NtIYPOCH c • • MAYOR tr : i j . DATE March 2, 1984 k"•••• • •.•:,% Dan Kellogg, Assistant City Attorney j:`— • : p: ' FROM.Roger Blaylock, ZoningAd9dYAdministrator i. SUBJECT: CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE f. DALPAY/CROOKSTON REZONE REQUEST:R-033-83 1•.;....% ,•+•: f •a The following is the compiling of all L the conditions imposedmp by either the 1 .- 61, •.;Environmental Review Committee or the Planning and Development Committee es set forth at their meeting of Thursday.March 1, 1994. i•:i •• ., . ••• I i Envltenmental Review Committee 1. At the time of conversion from the existing single family use to the proposed commercial use, a fifteen foot (15') landscaped buffer Shall be established along 1'•'"• the south property line adjacent to N.E. 12th Street and along the western propertyr • line. 2. The Tax Lot 9235 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 4, Township 23.Range 5, shall be provided access to Union Avenue N.E. 3. At the time of conversion to commercial use, all access to the subject site shall be ti:` A limited to Union Avenue N.E. ti-S• 4. The maximum building height for anyfuture construction shall be limited to the 9 :• + .0• maximum height of thirty-five feet(35'). t•,•3 i AonlJcant's Prnc'cad f eatrictiobs pi r. 1. No structure may be constructed within the westerly fifteen feet (15') of the property. Further, the western fifteen feet (15') shall be landscaped Incidental to tie '• - • „e any development. r 2 Pursuant to Issuance of city permits for redevelopment, a landscaped plan shell be t..;t fet.. ;approved by the city's Building Department. r'•' ' 3. No new structure may be constructea upon the subject pr^perty until the city, by lawful action, removes the sewer moratorium (Ordinance #2392); provided this a- shall not prohibit changes of use in accord with the zoning for the present t w' Sir' ea• r,.• i • . r s44 y, f;.+ti,.•i. 1--,' _ , 7111.114 wry rw.. ti• ?•.,•• .. '•• t p 1 I••ts.NI 1 i -1 al I MA I r , o BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: e '. :. JANUARY 12. 1984 I• '! : t APPLICAN1: 7AMI:S W.DALPAY/I.LRUY A_CROOKS'ON l FILE NUMBER: R-0S3-BS r•• • '' A. SUI fAMY d PURPOSE OF REQUEST: r:r The applicants have modified the original request submitted and considered by the Land Use Hearing Examiner on September 13. 1983 to specifically limit the F•proposed development by use regulations and by a limitation on construction of new 1 structures. B. ANALYSIS: j( r ' el 1 i. e• e +. 1. The original proposal submitted by the applicant was fairly limited by the i.• i decision of the Environmental Review Committee. These limitations have not been opposed by either the applicant Dr the general public. t4 2. The applicants In their response to the Land Use Hearing Examiner's decision I of September 27, 1985. proposed to the City Council specifically limiting non-compatible uses on the subject site, along with limiting any new 1 e• development on the site for a three year period, or to removal of the moratorium under Ordinance 2392.i 1 The first two points dealing with the fact that..no structure would be located in the westerly fifteen feet of the pruperty and that any development or I• ` i•' redevelopment plans of the site would require approval of the City's r a . •• • landscape architect are non-substantive because they are implied T s requirements under the Environmental Review Committee's decision and city Y ' codes dealing with landscaping_ rr• .1 , • •• f ' V 3. The Building & Zoning Department has taken the position that the rezone f 1..., g request as limited by the Environmental Review Committee, is a proper land I use for the subject site. Applicant's proposal limits the typos of commercial uses. In effect,we have created a transitional commercial area that could be *r of utilized as a use buffer between standard high-density commercial activities and residential areas. In fact, the Planning Commission looked at the concept of creating an office use buffer zone which would create both a buffer from the points of view of intensity of land use, and size and setbacks of structures. 4. There was specific discussion In the Examiner's first report addressing the issue of a fifteen foot landscape buffer and the effectiveness of that buffer. Fifteen foot from a landscaping point of view is more than a sufficient area to create a dense evergreen screen. In feet, I would presume that the e applicant will argue that fifteen feet is twice as much as necessary to provide screening. The continuing problem with landscaping is the fact that all trees start out small and end up large. and tho inconvenience and lack of screening for that period when they develop. However, the specific size of materials could be dictated so that an Immediate screen of at least twelve to s fifteen feet in height could be provided by using a combination of evergreen s and deciduous plantings. 1 y t• I ' a r t u.• r i a PRELIMINARY REPORT TO TEE HEARING EXAMINERIN TAMES W.DALPAY/L11ROY A.CROOKSTON R-033-e3 T. Page 3 3. Schools: Not applicable. 1. Socielt Minor. 5, Traffic: Additional information Is necessary before the traffic Impact can be determined. r. El ONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Purzuent to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State 7_______ Non-Environmental PoUcy Act of 1971, a: amended, RCW 43-21C, a Declaration of Significance with conditions was lssued by the Environmental Review j ' Committee on August 10, 1983. 1.. AGBNCIES/DBPA1 TMENTS CQNx11,CT15));s 1. City of Renton bolding A Zoning Department. 1, City of Renton Design Engineering Division. 3. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division. 4. City of Renton Utilities Engineering Division. S. City of Renton.Pire Prevention Bureau. I•` 6. City of Renton Policy Development Department. 7. City of Renton Parks&Recreation Department. L. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS; P. 1.. The applicants are reeking a rezone of approximately 57,725 square feet from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to B-1 (Business Use) for expansion of proposed comtaercialuses. I 2. The ilweirtmesental Review Committee reviewed the original proposal and issued a proposed declaration of significance based on va unrestricted B-1 use. The applicant responded in writing on August 10, 1983 with a modified rezone request which would actually create a contract rezone. The Environmental Review Committee then reviewed the request on August 10th and issued a declaration of uion-significance subject to the following four I.a conditions: a. At the time of conversion from the existing single-family use to the proposed commercial cse, a fifteen (15) foot landscape buffer shall be established along the southern property line adjacent to N.B. 12th Street and also along the westernproperty Ilnc. b. Tax Jet 19135 of the SE Quarter of Section 4, Township 23, Range 5, shall be provided with access to Union Avenue N.B. c. ,At the time of conversion to commercial use, all access to the subject site shall be limited to union Avenue N.B. d. The maximum building height for any future construction &ail be iimited to a maximum height of thirty-five OS)feet. The conditions Imposed by the Environmental Review Committee substantially limit the normal heighth of a building in the B-1 Zone from ninety-five (95) feet to thirty-five (35) feet. This limitation on height, combined with the required landscape buffer and access controls reduce the '\ impacts upon the adjacent single-family residential neighborhoods to the v south and weal. 3. The Land the Hearing Examiner must review four specific criteria under Section 4-3014(C) to determine that the circumstances surrounding the rezone request are adequate to recommend approval of the reclassification. The following evidence clearly demonstrates that the rezone request is appropriate. a. That substantial evidence was presented demonstrating the subject reclassification appears not to have been specifically considered at the 0.0578: ParcelA That portion of the east 280 feet of the SE 1/4 SE1/4 of Section 4 T23N R5E lying south of the Renton-Issaquah Road described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said SE1/4;thence north 87°59'56"west 30.01 feet along the south line thereof; thence north 0°58'56" east 30.01 feet,parallel to the east line of said SE1/4 to the point of beginning; thence continuing north 0°58'58"east 44.94 feet; thence north 58°06'10"west 155.79 feet;thence south 13°09'14"west 125 feet; thence south 87°59'56" east 160,04 feet to the point of beginning, Parcel B: That portion of the east 280 feet of the SE1/4 SE1/4 of Section 4 T23N RSE described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said section; thence north 0°58'58"cast along the east line of said section a distance of 188.44 feet; thence north 64°34'52"west 32.95 feet to the west line of 132nd Ave. SE and the true point of beginning; thence south 0°58'58" west to a point which bears north 0°58'58"east 44.94 feet from the north line of NE 12th St.; thence north 58°06'10"west 155,79 feet; thence westerly along the north line of a tract of land conveyed to Leroy A. Crookston and wife by deed recorded under Auditor's file#5455279 a distance of 120 feet to a point on the west line of the east 280 feet; thence north 0°58'58"east along said west line to a point which bears north 64°34'52"west from the true point of beginning; thence south 64°34'52"east 274.6 feet to the true point of beginning. Prohibited uses include: furniture store, laundry, cleaning and pressing establishment, locksmith or shoe repair shop, lumber yard or fuel yard,public garage,repair shop, battery service station or tire repair shop, fast food restaurant or any 24 hour restaurant, gas station,undertaking establishment,mobile home park, self-storage facility,24 hour convenience store, tavern,multi-family use, apartments, duplexes or condominiums, Any part of the property presently being used for residential purposes shall not hereafter be used for residential uses other than single family.In addition,no part of the property not presently being used for or zoned for residential purposes shall be hereafter be used for residential purposes. No new structure may be constructed on the property until the City removes sewer moratorium imposed by City Resolution#2392; change of use of existing structures consistent with the provisions of this covenant are acceptable. No new structure may exceed a height of 35 feet. An easement for ingress and egress to and from the Crookston Property from Union Ave. NE shall be established at a location mutually acceptable to the City and the applicant when the Crookston property is redeveloped.At such time when the Crookston property or any structure thereon is converted to commercial use, the Crookston property will no longer be entitled to ingress and egress from 12th St., except to the extent required by City emergency services. When converted to or used for commercial purposes,Dalpay property shall in no event be entitled to access from NE 12th St. A setback on the westerly 15 feet of the property is required.Landscaping and utilities is acceptable on the setback. No new structures may be approved without a Iandscaping plan approved by the City and installed concurrent with development. See Rezone dated 1-12-84. R-83-033 D5 84i-110645 Lots 2 inclusive, and Lots 14, 15,46 and 47, Block 22, Hillman's Earlington Gardens Div.#1 e ept that portion conveyed for State Highway SR 405 and except that portion thereof for lid Ave. SW A 20-foot s= back from any public right-of-way, the first 10 feet of which must be landscaped, • - balance of the setback may be used for additional landscaping or parking, at the o er's discretion. A 10 foot setback r aired along property lines abutting the Casterline property, only ifnon-residential . es occurred adjacent to the Casterline property while the Casterline property itself uses for residential purposes. I xpires 12-31-2025 r3 8105180709 ct 10, Springbrook Acre Tracts, except that portion lying north of S. 192nd Street; al so a cept that portion platted as Hi-Park Tracts; also except S. 192nd Street,more p rtic ly described as follows: Somme••'•g at a point on the north line of Section 6 T22N R5E from which the nc rtheast coma• of said section bears south 88°27'05"east a distance of 724.03 feet; thc;nce south 00° '36"west a distance of 30.06 feet to the intersection of the south line of S 192nd Street an. the west line of Tract 10 of Springbrook Acre Tracts and the true po:nt of beginning; the. e south 88°27'05"east,parallel with said section line and along sail south Iine of S 192n. treet 156 feet;thence continuing along said south line south 36'25'05" east 164.19 feet; ' -nee continuing along said south line south 88°27'05"east parallel with said section line 81.'4 feet; thence continuing along said south line north 37`32'55"east 117.08 feet; thence •uth 31°03'44" east along the west line of Hi-Park Tra its First Addition 98.83 feet; thenc:continuing along said wet line south 01°24'39" we.t 263.45 feet; thence continuing alon: said west line south 12°42'26"west a distance of 150.03 feet; thence continuing along sail . est line south 15°54'53"west a distance of 252 26 feet to the north line of Tract 9A, Sprit':.rook Acre Tracts; thence north 85°41'13"west 354.92 feet; thence north 00°22' ."east along said west line of Tract 10, Spriagbrook Acre Tracts 756.31 feet to the true poin •f beginning. The owner(s), and their successors,heirs and as ':.i s agree to participate in, sign a petition in support of, and accept any future ocal Improvement District(LID) or city-initiated proposal and to pay their fair share therefore for