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 AboutLUA81-045BEGINNING OF FILE FILE TITLE 045 mIciar undev0116 •tfi L, t C T11 v—e Coe-0 Puv— Applicant DAN SHANE (RAMAC , INC. ) File No. R-045-81 Project Name RAMAC, INC. Property Location Maple Valley Highway (SR-169) between Stoneway Concrete and LaRue property. HEARING EXAMINER: Date 6-5-81 Recommendation Approval with restrictive covenants RCCOPI I N Hr S1Ds<lUD.35n Req./Rec. Date Received 6-19-81 Date Response 6-25-81 Report modified) Appeal - Date Received Council Approval - Date Ordinance/ 6 5 '2 / Date W/d */g/ Mylar to County for Recording Mylar Recording # Remarks: For Use By City Clerk's Office Only A. I . # AGENDA ITEM RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING SUBMITTING Dept./Div./Bd./Comm. Land Use Hearing Examiner For Agenda Of August 10. 1981 Meeting Date) Staff Cortact Marilyn Petersen Name) Agenda Status: SUBJECT: :Ile No. R-045-81 ; RaMac, Inc. Consent X tequest for Rezone Public Hearing Correspondence Ordinance/Resolution X Old Business Exhibits (Legal Descr. , Maps, Etc. )Attach New Business Study Session A. Examiner' s Report, 6-5-81 Other B. C. Approval : Legal Dept. Yes No_ N/A X COUNCIL ACTION RECOMMENDED: Approval with Finance Dept. Yes No. N/A X Other Clearance estrictive covenants FISCAL MPACT: Expenditire Required $ Amount $ Appropriation- $ Budgeted Transfer Required SUMMARY ;Background information, prior action and effect of implementation) Attach additional pages if necessary. ) The appeal period for the Examiner' s Report and Recommendation on the subject application has now expired, and the report is hereby forwarded to members of the City Council for referral to Ways and Means Committee and subsequent adoption of an ordinance. PARTIES )F RECORD/INTERESTED CITIZENS TO BE CONTACTED: See page 4 of the attached report. SUBMIT THIS COPY TO CITY CLERK BY NOON ON THURSDAY WITH DOCUMENTATION. I . F NRaMac, Inc. o R F J cr‘ 1 0 28 1981 so) A te9' N Sept. 24, 1981RogerBlaylock Renton City Planning Dept. Renton, Wash. Dear Mr. Blaylock, In response to your letter of Sept. 21 and in regards to your earlier letters of July 22, and Aug 19, I wish to seek your guidence and assistance for legal clarifications. In earlier discussions with Mr. Dave Clemens, acting planning director, he stated that in no way will we be able to use N.E. 3rd as an access point to our property either via Old Bronson Way or connecting to Monterey Drive. With Mr. Clemems feelings so strongly and his influential strength on the E.R.C. , I don't feel it is of much use to hire a consultant to try and justify an already predispossed access alternative. This leaves us really only one possible access point, that of SR 169. My question to you and the city of Renton is as follows: Who has authority to allow us to use SR 169 as our access point? In a letter we received from the Renton city's traffic dept. (copy attached) it appears that the city has the jurisdiction over the highway. Another letter in which the State of Washington responded to yourself, they indicate that the access via the SR 169 is under their jurisdiction. Until the city can give us complete assurance that we can have right of access to our property via SR 169, we cannot proceed to respond to your E.R.C. proposed declaration of significants. Your legal dept. should be able to tell us who has the authority over SR 169, and if there isreally any significant problems with access off N.E. 3rd. We are awaiting your response so we might be able to adequately respond to the E.R.C. request. Sincerely, Allen Bishop Ramac Inc. cc : R Houghton D Clemems — R'Plson RaMac, Inc. • P.O. Box 653, Renton, Washington 98055 • (206) 271-4705 OF R4 ,4 A. 0 ° PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Z TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION • 235-2620 O MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 9, 0 0- 09gT D SEPTO BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR July 14, 1981 RAMAC P.O. Box 653 Renton, WA 98055 Attention: Mr. Dan Shane Dear Dan: Pursuant to your telephone call of this morning, I have reviewed the RCW's 1976 revision and found in 47.24.020(2) that the City of Renton has jurisdiction over access to the Maple Valley Highway. In your particular case this would not include any access which the state purchased from you. At this point in time, it is my understanding that your proposed access does not lie within the access rights purchased by the state. Personally, I believe a safer and more efficient access could be developed along Bronson as we have discussed earlier. However, I understand your desire to get the project underway. If you have any questions, please let me know. Very truly yours, 726_44, - Gary A. orris, P.E. Traffic Engineer GAN:ad cc: R. Houghton D. Clemens R. Nelson gaL OHN SPf LI MAN DUANE BERENTSON Governor y Secretary STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of District Administrator • D-1,6431 Corson Ave.So., C-81410 • Seattle, Washington 98108 July 15, 1981 OF Roger J. Blaylock, V Associate Planner 1981 City of Renton JUL 16 X- 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 f r r PGDSQ, Dear Mr. Blaylock: With reference to your June 29, 1981 letter regarding access to the Maple Valley Highway, we have reviewed the plans and location and have the following comments. However, because the plans did not contain sufficient data to totally assess the impacts, our comments should be considered only general in nature. 1) The access which would be in the best public interest is probably via a realignment of old Bronson Way. Safe access to N.E. 3rd Street could then be accomodated at a signalized intersection. 2) Any access onto SR-169 would have to be limited to right- turn in and out only unless channelization and/or a signal were constructed. 3) Before any action is taken, the developer should be re- quired to submit a traffic impact and safety evaluation of the several options. We hope this information meets your needs. If you have any further questions, please call Bill Carter at 764-4030. Very truly yours, J. D. ZIRKLE, P.E. District Administrator 4151, r0"'" KERN L. JACOBSON, P.E. District Traffic Engineer AWC:jk cc: J. Olson f ' A. R At- 4.°PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Z TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION • 235 -2620fl'W) 0 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 9,0 cry 0947'St SEPTE O BARBARA :. O: HINPOCH O July 17, 1981 aE F1 Eo 4. U , U` n 1981 Mr. Charles Shane 3003 Mountain View Ave. North Re ton, WA 98055 9i` N NG Subject: Access to NE 3rd Street via Old Bronson Way NE Dear Mr. Shane: Pursuant to your request for information regarding the subject access, I present all information available to me at this time: 1 . Old Bronson Way NE was a city street prior to the construction of FAI -405. Since that time, the roadway has served only as an access to adjacent properties. 2. The existing zoning of properties adjacent to the Old Bronson Way and operational characteristics of NE 3rd Street suggest the need for intersection control at Bronson and NE 3rd. 3. The development of Monterey/Bronson and NE 3rd as a signalized intersection as well as vehicle queues from North 3rd and Sunset have precluded the safe and efficient movement of vehicles from Old Bronson to NE 3rd in a full access mode. The residents of the apartments adjacent to Old Bronson have complained continually regarding their access to NE 3rd. 4. Unfortunately, access to the Maple Valley Highway is not significantly better. Also, the Washington State Department of Transportation may have some control over access to that facility; and, as it stands now, they want to know why the City won' t allow access to NE 3rd. The Environmental Review Committee has determined that the developer should show by way of a professional traffic study which access is most desirable. A retort of this nature would need not be extensive. Frcm my standpoint, I would like to see the City evaluate extending Old Bronson from NE 3rd to Maple Valley Highway. The WSDOT has indicated they would be very interested in pursuing any idea which would improve traffic circulation in this arca. The proposal would be similar to the sketches we discussed earlier. The in' ent at NE 3rd would be to configure the intersection so that we would have Mr. Charles Shane Page 2 Jul" 17, 1981 fou- legs instead of the existing five. The purpose of such a project would be to )rovide alternate paths for southbound traffic (i .e. Maple Valley Highway, FAI 405 southbound or the CBD) coming down NE 3rd. This would serve to reduce congestion at North 3rd and Sunset which is a priority for the City. As 3 temporary measure, it appears reasonable to allow a channelized right in/ rig-it out access from Bronson to NE 3rd. This may be acceptable to you. However, it should be well documented that the problem being addressed is not an isolated incident, but an overall situation that exists within the City of Renton. The City, like many municipalities, does not understand the impact of existing zoning and zoning policies on the transportation system. It is imperative that a study be done to analyze the situation and develop appropriate wide scale measures to bring trip generation suggested by local zoning in corcert with the available capacity and the feasibility of providing additional capacity to our transportation system. As I have stated previously, this can most appropriately be pursued with a long-range (10 - 20 years) transportation study. I pope this resolves the questions you have and will serve your purposes . If yot. have any additional questions, please let me know. Very truly yours, r Gary A. Norris , P.E. '- Traffic Engineer GAll:ad cc R. Houghton D. Clemens R. Nelson 6 2751 OF I o THE CITY OF RENTON U Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 n BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR DELORES A. MEAD 0, o CC' CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500 O94Teo SEP E O P August 21, 1981 RaMac, Inc. P.O. Box 653 Renton, WA 98055 RE: Recorded documents: Restrictive Covenants 4-045-81 Dear Sir, ' Enclosed herewith, please find your recorded copy of the document(s) recorded with King Co. Records and Elections and on file in the City Clerk's Office. If you have any questions, please, do not hesitate to call this office. Very truly yours, CITY OF RENTON Delores A. Mead, CMC City Clerk DAM:db ENC: illigg, - . INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE Date August 18, 1981 TO: City Clerk FROM: Engineering Dept. SUBJECT: RaMac, Inc. Rezone R-045-81 We have reviewed the legal description of the subject rezone R-045-81 and found it to be satisfactory according to our records. Attached please find a copy of said legal description presented as exhibit "A". Very truly yours A doul Gafour Engineering Specialist AG/sp Attachment cc: Planning Dept. pF fibi4 pirF'/E l '„,.. AUG 20 1981 fst 244NG DEP PR 7. EXHIBIT A RaMac, Inc. Rezone, File R-045-81 LEGAL DESCRIPTION That ptn of Govt Lot 8 and Govt Lot 9 Sec 17=23-5 lying Nly of centerline of Cedar River as shown on Highway map 1971 and lying Sly of State Rd #169 as now existing; except the- E 100 feet thereof, and EXCEPT That portion of Goyernment Lot 8, Section 17 , Township 23 North, Range 5 East W.M. , King County, Washington described as follows : Beginning at the intersection of the East line of said Lot 8 , with the Southerly margin of the Maple Valley Highway; thence along said Southerly margin N 56°43 ' 47" W. 167.48 ' to the true point of beginning; thence continuing N 56°43 '47" W. 278. 59 ' thence S 32° 52 ' 13" W. 63. 18 ' ; thence S 11 °56 ' 13" W. 39. 52 ' ; thence S 56°43 ' 47" E. 326. 32 ' ; thence • N 1 ° 14 ' 13" E. 117. 96 ' to the true point of beginning, and EXCEPT That portion of Govt Lot 8 , in Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. King County, Washington, described as follows : Beginning at the intersection of the west line of said Lot 8, with the southerly margin of the Maple Valley Highway; thence southeasterly along said margin 450 ' ; thence sputhwesterly at right angles to said margin, 150 ' ; thence northwesterly parallel to and 150 ' distant of said margin, to its intersection with the west line of said Lot 8; thence north along said west line to the point of beginning, and EXCEPT That portion of Government Lot 8 in Section 17 , Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. described as follows : Beginning at the intersection of the East line of Government Lot 8 in Section 17 , twp. 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , with the Southerly margin of State Highway No. 169 (Maple Valley Highway) ; thence North 56°43 ' 47" West along said Southerly margin 488.07 feet to the true point of beginning; thence South 32°52 ' 13" West 71 . 23 feet; thence South 11 °56 ' 13" West 180.58 feet; thence North 78°03 '47" West 214 feet, more or less; thence North 8°01 ' 27" East 39 feet, more or less; thence North 83°15 '57" West 101 .00 feet; thence North 6°44 ' 03" East to• a point 150 feet Southerly measured perpendicularly from the Southerly margin of State Highway No. 169 ; thence Northeasterly to a point on the Southerly margin of said State Highway No. 169, 330 feet Northwesterly from the true point of beginning; thence Southerly along said High margin 330 feet to the true point of beginning. (located on Maple valley Highway) 9 45 40 © ° PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 7-6 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION • 235 -2620 oO MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 9,0 co• 0 Q 4/7' C' SEP1 ` O BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR July 14, 1981 Rt-A/ RECEIVED 'o RAMAC JUL 14 1981 P.O. Box 653 4 Renton, WA 98055 Attention: Mr. Dan Shane NG DEPT\ Dear Dan: Pursuant to your telephone call of this morning, I have reviewed the RCW's 1976 revision and found in 47.24.020(2) that the City of Renton has jurisdiction over access to the Maple Valley Highway. In your particular case this would not include any access which the state purchased from you. At this point in time, it is my understanding that your proposed access does not lie within the access rights purchased by the state. Personally, I believe a safer and more efficient access could be developed along Bronson as we have discussed earlier. However, I understand your desire to get the project underway. If you have any questions, please let me know. Very truly yours, CC 726)-4 Gary A. orris, P.E. Traffic Engineer GAN:ad cc: R. Houghton Clemens R. Nelson Renton City Council 8/17/81 Page 3 Ordinance and Resolutions continues Ordinances for The Ways and Means Committee recommended first reading and First ReAding referral back to committee of the following ordinances: Union Avenue An ordinance was read annexing territory to the City of Annexation Renton, known as Union Avenue Annexation. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND HUGHES, REFER ORDINANCE TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE FOR ONE WEEK. CARRIED. RaMac, Iic.An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification from Rezone R-3 Residence District to B-1 Business District, property located R-045-81 at Maple Valley Highway (SR-169) between Stoneway Concrete and LaRue property, known as RaMac, Inc. Rezone R-045-81 . MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND ROCKHILL, REFER ORDINANCE TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE FOR ONE WEEK. CARRIED. Resolution #2415 The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: Borrowirg Funds A resolution was read authorizing Director of Finance to borrow 500,00C 500,000 from Street Forward Thrust Fund and allocate unto Park Fund, $300,000 and Street Fund, $200,000 with repayment not later than 12/31/81 . MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND HUGHES, ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution #2416 Automatic Response A resolution was read authorizing Mayor to enter into interlocal Mututal Aid cooperative agreement with adjoining cities re mutual aid for Agreement fire supression and/or emergency medical services. IT WAS MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND HUGHES, ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. NEW BUS NESS Aviation Aviation Committee recommended approval of Fancher Flyways, Inc. Committee leases, LAG 06-76, West Side Apron "C" five year lease, and LAG 2096-2, West Side Office Area, three year lease. IT WAS MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND TRIMM, THAT COUNCIL AUTHORIZE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE LEASES UPON APPROVAL OF THE CITY ATTORNEY. CARRIED. Frequent Bus It was noted by Councilman Reed that buses stop every 100 yards Stops on on Puget Drive South and traffic becomes backed up and congested. Puget Drive Administration will investigate further re possibility of requesting elimination of some stops. ADJOURNMENT IT WAS MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND REED, MEETING ADJOURNED. CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 9:36 p.m. Delores A. Mead, C .M.C. City Clerk CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR Office of the City Clerk COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF August 17, 1981 COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN LOCATION REMARKS COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE STREDICKE AVIATION STREDICKE COMMUNITY SERVICES Tues. 8/18 4:45 p.m. REED 3rd Floor Conf. Room City Shops Tues. 8/25 4:45 p.m. 3rd Floor Conf. Room Metro 201 Study PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Thurs. 8/20 4:30 p.m. ROCKHILL One Valley Place Appeal PPUD-032-81 and Green River Drainage Basin Policy PUBLIC SAFETY HUGHES TRANSPORTATION TRIMM UTILITIES SHANE WAYS AND MEANS Mon. 8/24 7:00 p.m. CLYMER 6th Floor Conf. Room OTHER MEETINGS & EVENTS Renton City Council 8/3/31 Page 2 Consent Agenda - Continued Auction Letter from Purchasing Controller, Gloria Minnick, announced 9/12/81 Public Auction of surplus property and equipment will be conducted 9/12/81 at 10:00 a.m. at the City Shops located at First North and North Williams Ave. Letter noted terms of sale. Information. State Law by Letter from Police Chief, Hugh Darby, requested adoption of the Reference State Law by reference in order to use Municipal Court rather than District Court. Refer to the Public Safety Committee. LaRLe Rezone Land Use Hearing Examiner, Fred Kaufman, recommended approval with restrictive covenants for Rezone R-045-81 from R-3 to B-1 for 10 acres located on Maple Valley Highway between Stoneway Concrete and LaRue property; known as RaMac, Inc. Rezone. Refer to the Ways and Means Committee for ordinance. Con.:ent Agenda MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND CLYMER, ACCEPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS Approved PREPARED. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS Council President Stredicke made inquiry re Green River Valley drainage questions and was advised by City Attorney Warren he Coulcil Inquiries would respond as quickly as letter received from Acting Public Works Director. Stredicke inquired re water agreement with City of Kent and was advised agreement made three or four years ago, not used until last Friday with start of exceptionally hot weather and continued to tap through today, possibly causing shortage on Talbot -Hill . Mayor Shinpoch requested the agreement be reassessed. Stredicke asked total water reservoir capacity and reserve, today and year ago. Councilman Reed inquired as to cost to Kent, being advised by Mayor Shinpoch that cost was higher than for Renton residents. Ways and Means Ways and Means Committee Chairman Clymer presented committee Committee report recommending concurrence in filling three vacancies as Water Department requested by the Water Department ; two water maintenance workers Vacancies and one utility technician apprentice. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND Filled HUGHES, CONCUR IN COMMITTEE REPORT AND APPROVE FILLING OF THE THREE VACANCIES . CARRIED. Vouchers for The Ways and Means Committee recommended approval for payment of Payment Vouchers No. 35098 through No. 35275 in the amount of $437,486.81 having received departmental certification as to receipt of merch- andise and/or services . Machine Voids : No. 35093 through 35097. Approval includes : LID No. 322 Revenue Warrant No. R-6 in the amount of $641 . 10. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND ROCKHILL, COUNCIL CONCUR AND APPROVE PAYMENT OF VOUCHERS. CARRIED. OR)INANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Weis and Means The Ways and Means Committee recommended second and final readings Conmittee for the following ordinances on first readings 8/3/81 : Ordinance #3566 An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification form Church of Christ G General to R-3 Residence District for property located at 2527 Rezone NE 12th St; known as the Church of Christ Rezone. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND ROCKHILL, ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: 5-AYES: ROCKHILL, HUGHES , CLYMER, TRIMM AND REED; ONE NO: STREDICKE. MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance #3567 An ordinance was read amending the City Code relating to gambling Amusement Games tax for amusement games . MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND HUGHES, ADOPT Gzmbling Tax THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES . CARRIED. Ordinance #3568 An ordinance was read appropriating $6,000 from Unanticipated AEpropriation Revenue to the Park Fund for Senior Citizens Center for totally Senior Center self-supporting programs. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND ROCKHILL, ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. First Readings The committee recommended first readings of the following ordinances Bulk Storage An ordinance was read amending the building regulations re Truck Amendment Terminals by Conditional Use Permit; plus Summary ordinance. MOVED Warehouse Facility BY CLYMER, SECOND ROCKHILL, REFER ORDINANCE BACK TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting August 10 , 1981 Council Chambers Monday , 8 : 00 P .M .Municipal Building MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF RICHARD M. STREDICKE, Council President; RANDALL 'ROCKHILL, ROBERT COUNCIL HUGHES, EARL CLYMER, THOMAS W. TRIMM AND JOHN REED. CHARLES F. SHANE ABSENT. CITY OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, Mayor; LAWRENCE WARREN, City Attorney; DEL MEAD, City Clerk; DAVID CLEMENS, Acting Planning Director; LT. DON PERSSON, Police Dept. ; JOHN McFARLAND, Personnel Director; M. MOTOR, Deputy City Clerk and Recorder PRESS GREG ANDERSON, Renton Record Chronicle MINUTE APPROVAL MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND CLYMER, ADOPT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 3, 1981 AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Executive Mayor Shinpoch requested Council move to Executive Session at Session conclusion of the regular Council business in order to discuss update of labor negotiations, land acquisition and personnel matter. AUDIENCE Michael Miller, Triad Associates, Kirkland, requested the report COMMENT concerning the West Coast Trucking Site be presented. MOVED BY ROCKHILL, SECOND STREDICKE, SUSPEND THE ORDER OF BUSINESS AND Triad Associates PRESENT THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REPORT. CARRIED. West Coast Planning and Development Committee Chairman Rockhill presented com- Trucking mittee report regarding appeal of Administrative decision concern- Appeal of ing the West Coast Trucking Site by Triad Associates,representing Administrative Gary M. Merlino,as referred to committee on 7/20/81 . The report Decision stated the committee reviewed the Administrative decision that the proposed use by West Coast Trucking is a bulk storage use as defined in Section 4-702(28) or revised Code Section 4-702(B)3. The Committee recommended that the City Council find the proposed use does not involve the presence of fixed bulk containers or visible stockpiles for a substantial period of the year and there- fore does not come within the provision of the bulk storage ordinance and therefore reverse the Administrative decision. MOVED BY ROCKHILL, SECOND CLYMER, COUNCIL SUPPORT THE FINDINGS OF THE PLAN- NING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND ADOPT THE REPORT.* Discussion ensued. Council President Stredicke inquired re proposed ordinance changing bulk storage requirements. (See ordinance on first reading 8/10/81 ) . Stredicke inquired re restrictions for the truck site as to landscaping, fencing, etc. if bulk storage ordinance not appli- cable. Acting Planning Director Clemens advised site plan approval needed to obtain permit. Stredicke noted concern for length of stor- age for items such as unoperative trucks, etc. *MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are adopted by one motion which follows the business matters included: Union Ave.Letter from King County Boundary Review Board approved the Union Annexation Ave. NE Annexation which consists of 28.5 acres located along the east boundary of the City in the vicinity of SE 128th/NE 4th St. bounded on west by Union Ave. NE. Refer to the Ways and Means Committee for ordinance. City of Newcastle Letter from King County Boundary Review Board denied incorporation Incorporation of the City of Newcastle, but will allow later annexation proposal Denied of northern portion to Bellevue and southern portion to Renton, or all to one or other. Information. INTER—OFFICE MEMO TO; Del Mead, City Clerk DATE 8/17/81 FROM: Planning RE: RaMAC, INC. REZONE The proposed ordinance has been reviewed for accuracy. You will note corrections indicated in red at the bottom of page one and the second line of page two. The approved legal has been provided by Engineering. For Use By City Clerk's Office Only A. I . # AGENDA ITEM RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING SUBMITTING Dept./Div./Bd./Comm. Land Use Hearing Examiner For Agenda Of August 10. 1981 Meeting Date) Staff Contact Marilyn Petersen Name) Agenda Status: SUBJECT: File No. R-045-81 ; RaMac, Inc. Consent X Public Hearing Request for Rezone Correspondence Ordinance/Resolution X Old Business Exhibits: (Legal Descr. , Maps, Etc. )Attach New Business Study Session A. Examiner' s Report, 6-5-81 Other B. Approval : C. Legal Dept. Yes_ No_ N/A X COUNCIL ACTION RECOMMENDED: Approval with Finance Dept. Yes_ No. N/A X Other Clearance estrictive covenants FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditire Required $ Amount $ Appropriation- $ Budgeted Transfer Required SUMMARY (Background information, prior action and effect of implementation) Attach additional pages if necessary. ) The appeal period for the Examiner's Report and Recommendation on the subject application has now expired, and the report is hereby forwarded to members of the City Council for referral to Ways and Means Committee and subsequent adoplion of an ordinance. OYi REN10 vG 7 PARTIES OF RECORD/INTERESTED CITIZENS TO BE CONTACTED: P ..'' g See gage 4 of the attached report. e QQNNINGOE SUBMIT THIS COPY TO CITY CLERK BY NOON ON THURSDAY WITH DOCUMENTATION. RaMac , Inc. Rezone, File R-045-81 LEGAL DESCRIPTION That ptn of Govt Lot 8 and Govt Lot 9 Sec 17.23-5 lying Nly of centerline of Cedar River as shown on Highway map 1971 and lying Sly of State Rd #169 as now existing; except the E 100 feet thereof, and EXCEPT That portion of Government Lo47 8, Section 17 , Towns'iip 23 North, Range 5 East W.M. , King County, Washington described as follows : Beginning at the intersection of the East line of said Lot 8, with the Southerly margin of the Maple Valley Highway; thence along said Southerly margin N 56°43 ' 47" W. 167.48 ' to the true point of beginning; thence continuing N 56°43 '47" W. 278. 59 ' thence S 32°52 ' 13" W. 63. 18 ' ; thence S 11 °56 ' 13" W. 39. 52 ' ; thence S 56°43 ' 47" E. 326. 32 ' ; thence N 1 °14 ' 13" E. 117. 96 ' to the true point of beginning, and EXCEPT That portion of Govt Lot 8 , in Section 17 , Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. King County, Washington, described as follows : Beginning at the intersection of the west line of said Lot 8, with the southerly margin of the Maple Valley Highway; thence southeasterly along said margin 450 ' ; thence southwesterly at right angles to said margin, 150 ' ; thence northwesterly parallel to and 150 ' distant of said margin, to its intersection with the west line of said Lot 8; thence north along said west line to the point of beginning, and EXCEPT That portion of Government Lot 8 in Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. described as follows : Beginning at the intersection of the East line of Government Lot 8 in Section 17 , twp. 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , with the Southerly margin of State Highway No. 169 (Maple Valley Highway) ; thence North 56°43 ' 47" West along said Southerly margin 488.07 feet to the true point of beginning; thence South 32°52 ' 13" West 71 . 23 feet ; thence South 11 °56 ' 13" West 180.58 feet; thence North 78°03 ' 47" West 214 feet, more or less; thence North 8°01 ' 27" East 39 feet, more or less; thence North 83°15 '57" West 101 . 00 feet; thence North 6°44 ' 03" East to a point 150 feet Southerly measured perpendicularly from the Southerly margin of State Highway No. 169 ; thence Northeasterly to a point on the Southerly margin of said State Highway No. 169 , 330 feet Northwesterly from the true point of beginning; thence Southerly along said High margin 330 feet to the true point of beginning. (located on Maple Valley Highway) 30 CITY OF RENTON , WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO.3571 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON , WASHINGTON CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R-3 ) TO BUSINESS DISTRICT—DISTRICT (B-1 ) R-045-81 - RaMac , Inc . ) . WHEREAS under Chapter 7 , Title IV (Building Regulations) of- Ordinance No. 1628 known as the "Code of General Ordinances of the 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-3 ) ; and WHEREAS a proper petition for change of zone classification of said property has been filed with the Planning Department on or about April 27, 1981 , which petition was duly referred to the Hearing Examiner for investigation , study and public hearing , and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about June 2, 1981 , and said matter having been duly considered by the Hearing Examiner 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; subject to the findings , conclusions and decision of the Hearing Examiner dated June 5, 1981 ; the Planning 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 Maple Valley Highway SR- 169 ) between Stoneway Concrete and LaRue property . ) AND SUBJECT FURTHER to that certain Declaration of Restrictive Covenants executed by Petitioner-Owners on op about August 6, 1981 and recorded in the office of the Director of Records and Elections , Receiving No . 8108100350 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 24th day of August , 1981 . Delores A. Mead , City C erk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 24th day of August , 1981 . c 'Barbara Y. hinpo , Mayor Approved as to Form: Lawrence J . Wa ren , City Attorney Date of Publication : August 28, 1981 (Summary Form) EXHIBIT "A" ORDINANCE NO. 3571 RaMac, Inc. Rezone, File R-045-81 LEGAL DESCRIPTION That ptn of Govt Lot 8 and Govt Lot 9 Sec 17=23-5 lying NlyofcenterlineofCedarRiverasshownonHighwaymap1971andlyingSlyofStateRd # 169 as now existing ; except theE100feetthereof , and EXCEPT That portion of Government Lot 8 , Section 17 , TownAip 23North, Range 5 East W.M. , King County, Washington described as follows : Beginning at the intersection of the East lineofsaidLot8 , with the Southerly margin of the Maple ValleyHighway ; thence along said Southerly margin N 56°43 ' 47" W. 167.48 ' to the true point of beginning; thence continuingN56°43 '47$ W. 278. 59 ' thence S 32° 52 ' 13" W. 63. 18 ' ; thence S 11 '56 ' 13" W. 39 . 52 ' ; thence S 56°43 ' 47" E. 326 . 32 ' ; thence N 1 . 14 ' 13" E. 117 . 96 ' to the true point of beginning, and EXCEPT That portion of Govt Lot 8 , in Section 17 , Township 23 North ,Range 5 East, W.M. King County, Washington, described as follows : Beginning at the intersection of the west line of said Lot 8 , with the southerly margin of the Maple ValleyHighway; thence southeasterly along said margin 450 ' ; thence sputhwesterly at right angles to said margin, 150 ' ; thence northwesterly parallel to and 150 ' distant of said margin , to its intersection with the west line of said Lot 8; thence north along said west line to the point of beginning, and EXCEPT That portion of Government Lot 8 in Section 17, Township23North, Range 5 East, W.M. described as follows : Beginning at the intersection of the East line of Government Lot 8 in Section 17 , twp. 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , with the Southerly margin of State Highway No. 169 (Maple Valley Highway) ; thence North 56°43 ' 47" West along said Southerly margin 488.07 feet to the true point of beginning; thence South 32'52 ' 13" West 71 . 23 feet ; thence South 11 °56 ' 13" West 180.58 feet ; thence North 78°03 '47" West 214 feet, more or leas; thence North 8°01 ' 27" East 39 feet, more or less; thence North 83' 15 ' 57" West 101 . 00 feet ; thence North 6°44 ' 03" East to a point 150 feet Southerly measured perpendicularly from the Southerly margin of State Highway No. 169 ; thence Northeasterly to a point on the Southerly margin of said State Highway No. 169 , 330 feet Northwesterly from the true point of beginning; thence Southerly along said High margin 330 feet to the true point of beginning. (located on Maple Valley Highway) y N,N., ' 4,_ .0 ' 1, ., y/ A/'"-, '- -dr illiv. \\-7, .. .. , LIBERTY /i i ' \ ' B-I ,,,,,, 3,.. T]• I I 1 PARK i S A tr _,yr r 1 1 t.. N -L4: C£Aff r,Pr 1 t I 1.7 14 0. , .,, . - ., 1 R-4j330-14.1--r 541.: ,., , itj.- . '& 1: 7 ! -. I.2 M ammil p .1111%. i., 4 ., •,- ..H- 1 ' ' 1 • 464 -!. 14 . , ._ ..p ,.. R .: -1..., ,2,,..- - 4% °TIN, 4.- t indikilarl"R-' r ... 4 “__,, — • ,p-1 4 At - Se '-‘ - G 3 17( 4) r • .O N 1-.1 .• •• •. I \4,,.-I ram.+.»«. 4 1 1 Y y A\I x. E`, 1. , 6.- ICy1 , 6. 11 pU". .,t a c. R-4 I 1 ou. . RAMAC , INC R-045-81 REZONE FROM R-3 TO B-1 APPLICANT Ramac , Inc . TOTAL AREA ± 10. 0 PRINCIPAL ACCESS Maple Valley Highway - State Route 169 EXISTING ZONING R-3 , Multiple Family Residential EXISTING USE Apartments and motel . PROPOSED USE Office. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Medium Density Multiple Family COMMENTS File No. R-045-81 RaMac, Inc. DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHEREAS, RaMac, Inc. is the owner of the following real property in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, described as follows: See attached legal description) O ll) WHEREAS, the'owner of said described property, hereinafter "the property," desires Q to impose the following restrictive covenants running with the land as to use, presentCD and future, of the property; 00 CD NOW, THEREFORE, the aforesaid owner herebyestabli.9hes grants and imposes 00 restrictions and covenants running with the land as to the use of the land hereinafter described with respect to the use by the undersigned , their successors, heirs and assigns, as follows: DEVELOPMENT Development on the subject site shall be limited to those business and commercial uses permitted within the B-1 zone under guidelines established within the City of Renton Zoning Code, thereby barring further expansion of residential uses on the subject property. DURATION These covenants shall run with the land and expire on December 31 , 2025. Proper legal procedures in the Superior Court of King County may be instigated by either the City of Renton or any property owners adjoining subject property who are adversely affected by any violation or breach of these restrictive covenants. Reasonable attorneys' fees incurred during an enforcement proceeding will be borne by the parties whom the court determines are in error and shall be entered as a judgment in Luch action. Dan Shane, President RaMac, Inc. 81..08..10 0350 STATE OF WASHINGTON) RECD F 4.00 COUNTY OF KING CPSHS,L nti. 22 On this =(p day of kuo\uSk- 19 $1 , before me personally appeared Dan Shane to be known to be the President of RaMac, Inc. , that executed the within and foregoing instrument , and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument for said corporation, and that the seal affixed, if any, is the corporate seal of said corporation. Witness my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. Lx,4 Notary Public in and fo : t4, State FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF of Washington, res i d i ng. c1PMt! `.lY-wdh e: E ?;(.,F rr.f'' D OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK i;T,,g Co. Roc , L'';'3 n 1•1: RENTON MUNICIPAL BLDG. / Deputy200MILLAYE. S0. ,, ' RENTON, WA 98055 Page One of One Attachment RaMac, Inc. Rezone, File R-045-81 LEGAL DESCRIPTION That ptn of Govt Lot 8 and Govt Lot 9 Sec 17-23-5 lying Nly of centerline of Cedar River as shown on Highway map 1971 and lying Sly of State Rd #169 as now existing; except the E 100 feet thereof, and EXCEPT O That portion of Government Log 8 , Section 17 , Township 23 V) North, Range 5 East W.M. , King County, Washington described p as follows : Beginning at the intersection of the East line O of said Lot 8 , with the Southerly margin of the Maple Valley 00 Highway; thence along said Southerly marg±n •N 56°43 '47" W. p 167 . 48 ' to the true point of beginning; thence continuing N 56°43 ' 47" W. 278. 59 ' thence S 32°52 ' 13" W. 63 . 18 ' ; thenceODS11 °56 ' 13" W. 39. 52 ' ; thence S 56°43 ' 47" E. 326. 32 ' ; thence N 1 °14 ' 13" E. 117 . 96 ' to the true point of beginning, and EXCEPT That portion of Govt Lot 8 , in Section 17 , Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. King County, Washington, described as follows : Beginning at the intersection of the west line of said Lot 8 , with the southerly margin of the Maple Valley Highway; thence southeasterly along said margin 450 ' ; thence southwesterly at right angles to said margin, 150 ' ; thence northwesterly parallel to and 150 ' distant of said margin, to its intersection with the west line of said Lot 8; thence north along said west line to the point of beginning, and EXCEPT That portion of Government Lot 8 in Section 17 , Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. described as follows : Beginning at the intersection of the East line of Government Lot 8 in Section 17 , twp. 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , with the Southerly margin of State Highway No. 169 (Maple Valley Highway) ; thence North 56°43 ' 47" West along said Southerly margin 488 . 07 feet to the true point of beginning; thence South 32°52 ' 13" West 71 . 23 feet; thence South 11 °56 ' 13" West 180. 58 feet; thence North 78°03 ' 47" West 214 feet, more or less ; thence North 8°01 ' 27" East 39 feet, more or less; thence North 83° 15 ' 57" West 101 . 00 feet; thence North 6°44 ' 03" East to a point 150 feet Southerly measured perpendicularly from the Southerly margin of State Highway No. 169 ; thence Northeasterly to a point on the Southerly margin of said State Highway No. 169 , 330 feet Northwesterly from the true point of beginning; thence Southerly along said High margin 330 feet to the true point of beginning. (located on Maple Valley Highway) AT RE= Of RE cow 1 IRIS P t:, OFFICE IA CLERK RENTON MUNICIPAL PLPC. 41IG 10 11 03 NI90 ' AS Mil Ar" REHNIi, 1;,i saU55 RECORDS1R ELECTI NS FLED COUNT•r 1 FLED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK RENTON MUNICIPAL BLDG. 200 MILL AYE. SO. / RENTON, WA 98055 File No. R-045-81 RaMac, Inc. DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHEREAS, RaMac, Inc. is the owner of the following real property in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, described as follows: See attached legal description) WHEREAS, the 'owner of said described property, hereinafter "the property," desires to impose the following restrictive covenants running with the land as to use, present and future, of the property; NOW, THEREFORE, the aforesaid owner hereby establishes, grants and imposes restrictions and covenants running with the land as to the use of the land hereinafter described with respect to the use by the undersigned , their successors, heirs and assigns, as follows: DEVELOPMENT Development on the subject site shall be limited to those business and commercial uses permitted within the B-1 zone under guidelines established within the City of Renton Zoning Code, thereby barring further expansion of residential uses on the subject property. DURATION These covenants shall run with the land and expire on December 31 , 2025. Proper legal procedures in the Superior Court of King County may be instigated by either the City of Renton or any property owners adjoining subject property who are adversely affected by any violation or breach of these restrictive covenants. Reasonable attorneys' fees incurred during an enforcement proceeding will be borne by the parties whom the court determines are in error and shall be entered as a judgment insuch action. 77 Dan Shane, President RaMac, Inc. STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF KING On this (4) - day of kuolvsk- 19 $i , before me personally appeared Dan Shane to be known to be the President of RaMac, Inc. , that executed the within and foregoing instrument , and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument for said corporation, and that the seal affixed, if any, is the corporate seal of said corporation. Witness my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. 4.X11<‘9 . kasiq Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in PQ,hrpyi Page One of One Attachment it, RaMac , Inc. Rezone, File R-045-81 LEGAL DESCRIPTION That ptn of Govt Lot 8 and Govt Lot 9 Sec 17-23-5 lying Nly of centerline of Cedar River as shown on Highway map 1971 and lying Sly of State Rd #169 as now existing; except the E 100 feet thereof, and EXCEPT That portion of Government Log 8 , Section 17 , Township 23 North, Range 5 East W.M. , King County, Washington described as follows : Beginning at the intersection of the East line of said Lot 8 , with the Southerly margin of the Maple Valley Highway ; thence along said Southerly margin N 56°43 ' 47" W. 167 . 48 ' to the true point of beginning; thence continuing N 56°43 ' 47" W. 278 . 59 ' thence S 32° 52 ' 13" W. 63. 18 ' ; thence S 11 ° 56 ' 13" W. 39 . 52 ' ; thence S 56°43 ' 47" E. 326 . 32 ' ; thence N 1 ° 14 ' 13" E. 117. 96 ' to the true point of beginning, and EXCEPT That portion of Govt Lot 8 , in Section 17 , Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. King County, Washington, described as follows : Beginning at the intersection of the west line of said Lot 8 , with the southerly margin of the Maple Valley Highway ; thence southeasterly along said margin 450 ' ; thence southwesterly at right angles to said margin, 150 ' ; thence northwesterly parallel to and 150 ' distant of said margin, to its intersection with the west line of said Lot 8 ; thence north along said west line to the point of beginning, and EXCEPT That portion of Government Lot 8 in Section 17 , Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. described as follows : Beginning at the intersection of the East line of Government Lot 8 in Section 17 , twp. 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , with the Southerly margin of State Highway No. 169 (Maple Valley Highway) ; thence North 56°43 ' 47" West along said Southerly margin 488 . 07 feet to the true point of beginning; thence South 32°52 ' 13" West 71 . 23 feet ; thence South 11 ° 56 ' 13" West 180. 58 feet; thence North 78°03 ' 47" West 214 feet, more or less ; thence North 8°01 ' 27" East 39 feet , more or less ; thence North 83° 15 ' 57" West 101 . 00 feet; thence North 6°44 ' 03" East to a point 150 feet Southerly measured perpendicularly from the Southerly margin of State Highway No. 169 ; thence Northeasterly to a point on the Southerly margin of said State Highway No. 169 , 330 feet Northwesterly from the true point of beginning; thence Southerly along said High margin 330 feet to the true point of beginning. (located on Maple Valley Highway) File No. R-045-81 RaMac, Inc. DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHEREAS, RaMac, Inc. is the owner of the following real property in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, described as follows: See attached legal description) WHEREAS, the owner of said described property, hereinafter "the property," desires to impose the following restrictive covenants running with the land as to use, present and future, of the property; NOW, THEREFORE, the aforesaid owner hereby establishes, grants and imposes restrictions and covenants running with the land as to the use of the land hereinafter described with respect to the use by the undersigned , their successors, heirs and assigns, as follows: DEVELOPMENT Development on the subject site shall be limited to those business and commercial uses permitted within the B-1 zone under guidelines established within the City of Renton Zoning Code, thereby barring further expansion of residential uses on the subject property. DURATION These covenants shall run with the land and expire on December 31 , 2025. Proper legal procedures in the Superior Court of King County may be instigated by either the City of Renton or any property owners adjoining subject property who are adversely affected by any violation or breach of these restrictive covenants. Reasonable attorneys' fees incurred during an enforcement proceeding will be borne by the parties whom the court determines are in error and shall be entered as a judgment in uch action. Dan Shane, President RaMac, Inc. STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF KINGAik On this (o day of AuoluSk- 19 $V , before me personally appeared Dan Shane to be known to be the President of RaMac, Inc. , that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument for said corporation, and that the seal affixed, if any, is the corporate seal of said corporation. Witness my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. ttSul4 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in PQ,hroyl Page One of One Attachment RaMac , Inc. Rezone, File R-045-81 LEGAL DESCRIPTION That ptn of Govt Lot 8 and Govt Lot 9 Sec 17-23-5 lying Nly of centerline of Cedar River as shown on Highway map 1971 and lying Sly of State Rd #169 as now existing; except the E 100 feet thereof, and EXCEPT That portion of Government Log 8 , Section 17 , Township 23 North, Range 5 East W.M. , King County, Washington described as follows : Beginning at the intersection of the East line of said Lot 8 , with the Southerly margin of the Maple Valley Highway; thence along said Southerly margin N 56°43 '47" W. 167 .48 ' to the true point of beginning; thence continuing N 56°43 ' 47" W. 278. 59 ' thence S 32° 52 ' 13" W. 63. 18 ' ; thence S 11 °56 ' 13" W. 39. 52 ' ; thence S 56°43 ' 47" E. 326. 32 ' ; thence N 1 °14 ' 13" E. 117. 96 ' to the true point of beginning, and EXCEPT That portion of Govt Lot 8 , in Section 17 , Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. King County, Washington, described as follows : Beginning at the intersection of the west line of said Lot 8 , with the southerly margin of the Maple Valley Highway; thence southeasterly along said margin 450 ' ; thence southwesterly at right angles to said margin, 150 ' ; thence northwesterly parallel to and 150 ' distant of said margin, to its intersection with the west line of said Lot 8 ; thence north along said west line to the point of beginning, and EXCEPT That portion of Government Lot 8 in Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. described as follows : Beginning at the intersection of the East line of Government Lot 8 in Section 17 , twp. 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , with the Southerly margin of State Highway No. 169 (Maple Valley Highway) ; thence North 56°43 ' 47" West along said Southerly margin 488. 07 feet to the true point of beginning; thence South 32° 52 ' 13" West 71 . 23 feet ; thence South 11 ° 56 ' 13" West 180 . 58 feet; thence North 78°03 ' 47" West 214 feet, more or less; thence North 8°01 ' 27" East 39 feet, more or less; thence North 83°15 ' 57" West 101 . 00 feet; thence North 6°44 ' 03" East to a point 150 feet Southerly measured perpendicularly from the Southerly margin of State Highway No. 169 ; thence Northeasterly to a point on the Southerly margin of said State Highway No. 169 , 330 feet Northwesterly from the true point of beginning; thence Southerly along said High margin 330 feet to the true point of beginning. (located on Maple Valley Highway) of RA,11, di o THE CITY OF RENTON Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 nesil BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR DELORES A. MEAD 090 o CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500 0411), eo SEPS00 August 31, 1981 RaMac, Inc. P.O. Box 653 Renton, WA 98057 ATTN: Mr. Dan Shane RE: City of Renton - Rezone 045-81 Dear Mr. Shane: The Renton City Council at its regular meeting of August 24, 1981, has adopted Ordinance No. 3571 rezoning your property from Residence District (R-3) to Business District (B-1) A copy of the above-referenced Ordinance is enclosed. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON e Maxine E. Motor Deputy City Clerk MEM:db ENC: 1 Iic__ IL u t5 ' '/ Public Notice Highway); thence North 56°43'47" West along said Southerly margin Affidavit of Publication 488.07 feet to the true point of beginning; If thence South 32°52'13" CITY OF RENTON,West 71.23 feet; thence STATE OF WASHINGTON WASHINGTON South 11°56'13" West 9 • COUNTY OF KING ss. ORDINANCE NO. 3571 1 80.58 feet; thence AN ORDINANCE OF North 78°03'47" West THE CITY OF RENTON, 214 feet, more or less; WASHINGTON thence North 8°01'27" CHANGING THE ZON- East 39 feet, more or .1 Michele lice being first duly sworn on ING CLASSIFICATION less; thence North OF CERTAIN PROPER- 83°15'57" West 101.00 TIES WITHIN THE CITY feet; thence North oath,deposes and says that 3he is the L i of Clerk of OF RENTON FROM RE- 6°44'03" East to a point THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a SIDENCE DISTRICT(R- 150 feet Southerly mea y week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been 3) TO BUSINESS DIS- sured perpendicularly for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, TRICT(B-1) from the Southerly mar- I printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper Section 1: An Ordinance gin of state Highway No. published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,and it is changing certain property 169;thence Northeaster- now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the located at Maple Valley ly to a point on the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Daily Record Highway (SR-169) between Southerly margin of saidChroniclehasbeenapprovedasalegalnewspaperbyorderoftheSuperiorStonewayConcreteandStateHighwayNo. 169,Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County, LaRue Property, Renton, 330 feet Northwesterly King County, Washington, from the true point offromResidenceDistrict (R- beginning; thenceWashington.That the annexed is a..C'xN.iiXlan.O ...357.1 3) to Business District(B-1) Southerly along saidwhichpropertyislegallyde- High margin 330 feet to R6?©J scribed as follows: That ptn of Govt Lot 8 the true point of begin- ning.ning. (located on MapleandGovtLot9Sec17-Valley Highway). as it was published in regular issues(and 23-5 lying Nly of center- Section 2: This Ordi- not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period line of Cedar River as nance was adopted on shown on Highway map August 24, 1981. A full 1971 and lying Sly of text of this Ordinance willcs' • #169 as now be mailed without charge of I consecutive issues,commencine^^" except the E upon request to the Citythereof, and Clerk. 28 A u8 t 81 Published in the Dailydayoft19andenciofGovern- Record Chronicle Au- ti 6" Section 17, gust 28, 1981. R6704113North, day of 19 bo[ W.M.,King ington de-inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to it. ows: Be-scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of th O intersec- t line of charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $--" ,6- w ith the has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for` U`a of the first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequ, . hway; insertion. v outh- A::..-j3,47, r true ling g N Chief Clerk W. 1 S 3Subscribedandsworntobeforemethis 1 day of 2'; LUq.:U.B k , 19..0. ,. afre..... - :4rvilaze...,‘„ Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Kart King County. Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June 9th, 1955. Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. V.P.C.Form No.87 Rev.7-79 OF R- v A. 46 o THE CITY OF RENTON y © Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 n ea DELORES A. MEADBARBARAY. SHINPOCH. MAYOR aim 0 CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500 O91TF0 SEP11-1° August 31, 1981 RaMac, Inc. P.O. Box 653 Renton, WA 98057 ATTN: Mr. Dan Shane RE: City of Renton - Rezone 045-81 Dear Mr. Shane: The Renton City Council at its regular meeting of August 24, 1981, has adopted Ordinance No. 3571 rezoning your property from Residence District (R-3) to Business District (B-1) A copy of the above-referenced Ordinance is enclosed. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON Maxine E. Motor Deputy City Clerk MEM:db ENC: 1 i OF R N -- q, j,r A. b o THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 lLo BARBARA Y. SHINPOCFL MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 90 FRED J. KAUFMAN, 235-2593 0o9 T P RFN EC SE121 9 June 25, 1981 2 JUis3 zo 1981 Mr. Allen Bishopp 0 --- 44 RaMac, Inc. w, P.O. Box 653Nr' DEPA 6! Renton, WA 98055 RE: File No. R-045-81 ; RaMac, Inc. Request for Rezone; Request for Reconsideration. Dear Mr. Bishopp: I have reviewed your request for reconsideration in the above entitled matter, and find that there is some merit in your request as outlined below. The subject parcel , as you have indicated, should not be denied the natural attributes of being located immediately adjacent to the Cedar River, and therefore the dense landscaping buffer which was required should be modified. Some form of landscaping is appropriate to soften the effects of proposed development on the river' s users and the users of the park which will be developed on the opposite shore. Therefore, landscaping subject to review of the city's Landscape Architect will be required. The provisions of the city's Shoreline Master Program define and delimit the types of development which may occur adjacent to the shoreline, and the subject proposal will have to comply with those requirements. Both parking and commercial development must yield to those provisions, and a shoreline Substantial Development Permit will be required. The Planning Department indicated in its initial report that the site, adjacent as it is to heavy industrial uses, is not reasonably suited to continued residential purposes, and is certainly not suitable for expanded residential purposes. In addition, traffic considerations, both on the Maple Valley Highway and on 1-405 at the particular intersection of those roadways, currently require limitations on residential development since such development has a greater effect on peak hour traffic levels than corresponding commercial development. The applicant has the burden of demonstrating that the requested reclassification is in the public interest, and data related to the traffic conditions in this area was lacking from the subject application. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the impacts of increased traffic on the Maple Valley Highway are capable of being mitigated by the rezone proponents. Therefore, the limitation on further expanding the residential density is reasonable and should not be modified. Allen Bishopp Page Two June 25, 1981 In accordance with ordinance provisions, a new appeal period has now been established for the referenced matter which will expire on July 9, 1981 . Please do not hesitate to contact the office of the undersigned if further information or assistance is required. Very truly yours, 774VOAA"'-- Fred J. Kaufman Land Use Hearing Examiner cc: Parties of Record RaMac, Inc. June 19, 1981 RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER JUN 1 9 1981 Ir. Fred Kaufman AM PM Hearing Fxaminer 7,8,9,10,11,12,1,2,3,4,5,6 City of Renton pear "r. Kaufman: I are in receipt of your decision in the Rezone Penuest for the 10+ or - acres of residential (P-3) land to the proposed R-1 zoning along the Cedar River. I would like to appeal your recommendations that you have stated in the written report. In paraeranh 6 of the conclusion and also in naragrarh 2 of the recommendations, it is stated that a 25 foot intense landscaped harrier of evergreen and shrubs, adjacent to the river, he nlaced and maintained to the annroval of the city, as to mitigate the effects of further develonement of proposed park. The beauty of the River should not he screened off from the north bank to allow the few 1.110 will use the proposed nark a softer, quiet, serene view. The developement that is planned for this area will he a more pleasing structure than what is there presently. We will need to design the landscanning of the site to meet the needs of the develone- ment, the natural river side and the green belted area. However, a 25 foot restriction is an over extension of the needs and would negatively effect the narking to a point of a very restricted developement, or no dcvelonement. T feel we can work the building design and the landsca»pint* to- gether to eihance the shoreline without adversly effecting the proposed park with less of a restricted buffer area than 25 feet. Your reconsideration of this point would he anrreciated. I will enclose a rendering of the proposed building herewith for Your viewing of the tune of structure and landscanping we are proposing for develonement. You can see tat this will not adversly effect the view from the nark side of the rive:-. I would like to anneal your other recommendation that of restricting the expansion of current residential use. I feel that with the current energy prices and the further demand toward restricting use of energy that the concept of living close to your emnloyment will he in high demand. With the proposed office use for this site, I don't feel we would he adversly effecting the residential environment. With the current zoning of the adjacent Properties, that of heavy industry and 13-1, where there are no restrictions on the residential RaMac, Inc. • P.O. Box 653, Renton, Washington 98055 • (206) 271-4705 RaMac, Inc. r. Fred Kaufman Page 2 build un. I fel our concept of an office nail: with ^ossihle residential mixed of high quality anartments or cornlominiums is being achvercly singled out. I feel th^ size of the land tieing regional can meet the demands of both corrercial offices and. residential . Therefore, T amnia request that vent rpcnnsider this *point in your recommendations. Sircerrly. Allen Ri shorn AR/cd RaMac, Inc. • P.O. Box 653, Renton, Washington 98055 • (206) 271-4705 1 • :".. *....7,1• 1'.4..!‘" 4:- •...• ...is.. : 7' • '.i .,• .-1•:. P-41,-;-.. X.,1 •• ...- 114" ii,iti :mli.141't IstripsHr;' . 4' 4flikt:..• 0 ,...• t 60164%.•J L....airia 4....... 0 . 41.I . , ... ,, 1.4'.7•/..•...'ropy:..; 1 1 . 6110. rt. • '' - • • -4- • • 14401111" .' ue.44•••",40....., .••••• .d•-- • .•,' . • 1.--. -•••••••---' '' '.. 111:.;^. 61,.. '''..;:-'4.'''''10....`-',.........t.'"" I....11. •t , .. • fr:. al.hi. t i,414:1.e.i4WW'r7 . . 4 . , . 3:XIIII.W. --rd'.. ......e.frd.- ;33 .. 10.40•410k.' 41‘.-sr' :.i.;:- -'t...‘ 4- '.‘I' -' ' lit,":4P.41,1. 1"i'‘•••• 1" kviy ,'4."•*•:•:.•••.#4.?, 1.,',.*. '^ •..%;41 • 4440'17+• Iv ••-•r f., i.4, ;:stfop .i.r,A,„•4: 4,• . 44ta.....• - 7 ,7:.. •-.6,„. . . - ......... 4,i, .. -T •• 1. • r... por...A.,.•1 Nip 0• g •S144. -'.k... t'.•- re 4* pi...s. ;„.Or - 36p•: 14441-tlfid.•••F-".1.••1 _,,,,„•(.4,Absor.;. 11Pix p. • 4,, 440,` ,Asji. r : ..I.- •;2, _-,.._ • - 1061..740.i ,....,7,7,1r..00....:?4,‘,.. ..„..--.- : . . ..)•.,y-.', • r.. •. 1,.-A-4..,, ,--• %.•.. ' ..AR: !k• 44 4,A",....„...,.. A 1 i.r..4i‘4 04 IfiLi;yei.l. • 4 4„i k .. '4 pOrM60143.'P'J. 9 :s• • • • . 7/ 4 t t•.t,ir.%'1, . IiIIIII.11. 141111111...1111111kr:)t"'. I 4.Orilk•;• ‘''' . • 4- • pi...*.4 It .... ,I .• .:.•e.U.....* • ', ...4,4& • • 1,.•• ......-r-m- r .•.. . A,*,1..• • 44106 '''' ab. pg. tr,z1•41.. 3 le jr 'ifr, 3inV.. '.* A '''.9130r P*1:' .4•1'. 4414 Irairiq!Siker."' '• 1. • I.ettit'' t•A..........""f•rff ' ' 101N----.... • - - :-,--4. 4.,.... ,Cr.,• t.,. .,.!:,4, . 64/.4 '4 , ...,+". . 4• ki, ,1..,.)1p„.. „„ airel4..-‘174"" .. 9. ,;'••:-;:ipeo y.•-J. ..,••• A,••• -••,••••••4!'•. ..,,tirsf. , ..*,"t -' II'14 f".0:44:-.-,,,./.•' 0 • h.4... ..,,-,14.•m,40,14,,, . . ...i.t:iyie4„zzvz-4,-•:-:t.`40.'/';••••011 . NT::...•.+0, ,' 'WA•• ' " ..4,1/2.,,jyt,•41 I.'• ii, 14*. 4.- i' .... ,• 144, 1 ' - I t•-• '1, x--WA-• ' .t.,',1 -•ft1 14 07•7".", .•00403,,it•'''''' - 1„,.,,.., •;•., Iiitifil:,, • 7,'. • • ' 4......c..1Th,_ d _,.. ....V . . kcal,. +ii !..,,,•i II MN ,....„...14......,.,..N•i,.. v ..,Mpg, . .8...iik, I * 1..•i4"tr••• el14014/ X. 40 •• on e 440, - A- 'INT., e e., .,w.2,04-iereslilikalliik1W.Ir''''..40111*te 4 oil !,4. 44..',;,•••••t 3).41F-:•rf ' 4 Al .. , • ..dik,.....:J..11•••'...*. root V" 4•• •..•-- Aktt, 01.-.-;, 4;;; . 1 •-, 11 - 41-.4:"", ,. t III, ? 4.0,14 -• A..., e• ,. 4.:le1,., ,. I 7.,„ 1;• ,104010.1 re - - -••••••fur,:...nrucr,..,. .' . uril-ls.• - ....,,,, or,...: .. ,:.'" . ..%%.* 1.*. 1 • ....,..... ., iii'i,4:ii...................... ....--• ,l:lk' •;....if*:.%,-..;.i."•,z...1,W...A MONO° ra. - i..i.Zi:- "...• . 1.' ....avrt" .., ..w .*, ..... 07...in. .. r or•-• r--7 en_ 1.. 9; 1.. - 2...4.*:f4e614„ ititt041". . - r!, -. ........,....:?.:,,,,.....;_::,...,...,iii....-rurr...1,!...,: . .,,.:,- 4.. . - :,..;.•-........ : ..-, .. is .A, .-,,,,• • -.1 44J , ,,.:,.,_......,,,,.. ;„1.b.A...A-.. :'....t....da,wieTtzt-lv.tri!,:n:.• 4 -1!?..'" ''' ' 4.'. 4 e. siutUi I Wilt ir .'0..4,0er, • . • - ••.14..••.:•'' 1;7..' . ./: L. . -, : ti. 1 z..-- •• 11trul• CI .sg. all I 11 11.1_,I,„4. • I ''t..../It. 1:-; 154 1 :.'41.4 :%••• '. . ...%.• 4N.:24.•`•;'. •, -.".'f..'..' ''.... • . " 411.!... illr A . "",,,,-;.. .*;;. 7 • ...'...'• . •• *'• 11 -•.° ' .• 1211111E1 1C1.1.!! 11111 rii531 1"-- P.."-'1........,&4„,.._,..- l' isiliallut -__ ;lei_ oil 'El III IC- 6 v, ......,!, -.• .-.' . 7,:1 . Arsir.ali- 1,., Ili irn r 4.rivit,• 4- - 41bre......,-, •- .• 7 -....-• .••••••-••!/(;."' ! rf §...- r •.; 4.4. a••a 4. * 4 I. • 40.00.0.111110.0.111111. . •11141(.. • 4 .,L.'9:04..‘:.: L.•';•• '..6. 1'4Ct.:',4404 1 a....... IS. ,000. 011. •V.:. 4.. if 1,,,,!..../At ..,,,,i,,,,,,,iy„.1. 411.4j, ',....4114•••• 4•?''4" x".,'.• .. ., 1..44.V.47'414",14.!•1(64 44;..., ? es..‘4,-, 4, ••••?f, ::„.•,.. .,,A.'.92,4)6„. , 1144. ps,,, e.:). 4ix,.,,,.al:4' •,,,./(01,4,.0.44- 3 4-46..4:...r•ili .., , ,• s'or .. .... . :44.„..vei, „thl tw.,,,:l i. ft%,•A."...,..A.• irs'•••••%....4 ittE . ' '17;0 t.: ;11i411,it,n •• • So .Y. 4,0 1 fl*4o. !',.$4,,r' i.-•••-f f,t1.*:•:',.!'•".',I i.,:., , el• 414 ,t,•-".11. ,•II.c• , . i• r„., t.'4-:1.i.:,,, ,•,e4,As••. r',•::'14:4..•,';''....,:•.„: , ..'';1•••• ••• ••• •. • E•4.4•-.14,4-. 11•:••1,;:u4. ' '•,' ••• 4i. i , i;„-' •i r '‘:•••. .•1 . i 60..•' ;',';;_ s?t,' ..C:.1- A 14;i!.;,... . sr_ ir.- sN"N`14.usto . It IIA .tyi%tf 1 . •i 4 ' •1 • ' "4 . • ;44. At'. ''.11% P .S e • ', 'Kg hi :• • • 9' . •.-i.•• ,:'. ',-- .i.A+ ... •'',.• ' •'- '4. .`,.' 1. ••••f' • ',., :• ! . •, .1' ' .. June 5, 1981 i v tIF I ( THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 4 l CITY OF RENTON 421. REPORT AND A 4Ait4 N TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICANT: RaMAC, Inc. FILE NO. R-045-81 LOCATION: Maple Valley Highway (SR-169) between Stoneway Concrete and LaRue property. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks approval of a rezone from R-3 to B-1 for future development of an office building, restaurant and mini-mall . SUMMARY OF Planning Department : Approval with restrictive covenants. RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner: Approval with restrictive covenants. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department preliminary report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on May 26, 1981 . PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on June 2, 1981 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department report. Roger Blaylock, Associate Planner, presented the report, and entered the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit #1 : Application File containing Planning Department report and other pertinent documents Exhibit #2: King County Assessor's Map Exhibit #3: Site Plan (Illustrative purposes only) Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding removal of existing buildings from the site, Dan Shane, applicant, stated that certain structures would be demolished through a phasing process. He also advised concern that residential development not be restricted on the sit( since plans include construction of a high rise commercial building containing residential uses on the upper floors, similar to a larger structure proposed in the City of Bellevue. The Examiner requested testimony in support or opposition to the proposal . There was no response. He then invited final comments from the Planning Department. Mr. Blaylock suggested that the requirement for restrictive covenants allowing B-1 uses remain in effect, but should include a provision to limit maximum residential development on the site to a specific density. The Examiner requested final comments. Since none were offered, the hearing regarding File No. R-045-81 was closed by the Examiner at 9:32 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1 . The request is for approval of a reclassification of approximately 10 acres from R-3 (Medium Density Multifamily) to B-1 (Business/Commercial) . 2. The application file containing the application, SEPA documentation, the Planning Department report, and other pertinent documents was entered into the record as Exhibit #1 . 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , R.C.W. 43.21 .C. , as amended, a Declaration of Non-Significance has been issued for the subject proposal by the Environmental Review Committee, R-045-81 Page Two responsible official . 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. Depending on the nature of development, the applicant may have to mitigate impacts upon the sewer pump plant. 6. The subject property is located on the south side of the Maple Valley Highway between the Stoneway Concrete plant and the LaRue property. 7. The subject property is generally level , although it is below the grade of the Maple Valley Highway. The Cedar River forms the southern boundary of the subject site. 8. The site is currently developed with an apartment/motel complex, and therefore most of the natural vegetation has been removed from the site. 9. The subject site was annexed into the city in 1959 after a series of actions, including annexing, withdrawing annexation and repealing the withdrawal . The site was rezoned from its initial classification of G (General ; Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size - 35,000 square feet) to R-3 in March of 1961 by Ordinance No. 1878. 10. The Comprehensive Plan, currently under review, indicates that the area in which the subject property is located is suitable for the development of medium density multifamily dwellings and recreational uses. One of the proposed alternative uses being considered in the review process for the subject site is a designation of commercial for the subject site. 11 . The site was rezoned in 1961 , prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1964-1965. The Maple Valley Highway now carrying 22,000 vehicles per day has seen considerable growth in traffic levels since that time and is operating near capacity Page II-18; Southeast Renton Comprehensive Plan) . 1-405 has been constructed since the tire of the rezone. 12. The zoning districts in the area consist of two B-1 parcels located along the north edge of the subject site along the Maple Valley Highway. These B-1 zones contain taverns and a small grocery and are surrounded by the subject site on three sides. There is another B-1 zone with a new office building immediately west of the subject property. Further west are the M-P (Manufacturing Park) zone containing the Interpace Company and the H-1 (Heavy Industry) zone containing Stoneway Concrete. North of the subject site above the bluff is an S-1 (Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size - 40,000 square feet) zone. 13. The subject site is located in the valley created by the Cedar River. Property both north and south of the subject site is located on bluffs above the floor of the valley. 14. The Planning Department indicated that because of the heavy traffic on the highway, the site's proximity to the highway, and because of the already considerable flow of traffic along the highway, the site is no longer suitable for residential development. The Planning Department indicated that the adjacent uses, the business uses immediately north and west of the site, and the heavy industrial uses west of the site have made the area unsuitable for residential purposes. Increased and continued residential use of the site would increase the traffic along the Maple Valley Highway according to the Planning Department. The department therefore originally recommended covenants to restrict the property to solely commercial uses if the rezone were approved. 15. The city has acquired property for the proposed easterly expansion of the Cedar River Trail just south of the subject site on the south side of the river. In addition, the proposed park is in the Conservancy Environment under the Shoreline Master Program. CONCLUSIONS: 1 . The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest and will not impair the public health, safety and welfare in addition to compliance with at least one of the three criteria listed in Section 4-3014 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 R-045-81 Page Three Comprehensive Plan; or c. There has been 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. Under the circumstances, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed reclassification to B-1 should be approved with the concommitant ability to expand residential uses on the subject site. The site should therefore be reclassified to B-1 but restricted to commercial uses with no expansion of current residential use. 2. As the Planning Department indicated, the site was historically used for commercial development. The uses surrounding the subject site are no longer conducive to residential amenities, and the heavy volumes of traffic on the Maple Valley Highway create noise, odors, light and glare problems on the subject site. The further redevelopment of the area in residential development would not permit the establishment of a sound, viable neighborhood as the subject property is isolated from other residential development (Policy Element 4.A) . Entry into residential areas should be limited to local traffic. The Maple Valley Highway is anything but a local access street (Ibid, 4.A.7) . Transitional areas should be converted from one use to another as soon as possible and the new uses should be compatible with the existing uses of a district (Ibid 3.B.4) . In addition, the further expansion of the residential density on the subject site will tax the level of service of the Maple Valley Highway which currently serves more than 22,000 vehicle trips per day and which, during peak hours, is used to near capacity. The density permitted under B-1 zoning for residential development would be up to 700 units or about 4200 additional traffic trips per day. Adequate transportation is required under policy element l .A. l . 3. The site is currently designated for medium density multifamily development, but the Planning Commission is reviewing that designation with consideration of commercial status believed more appropriate. The site is isolated from other residential communities and is surrounded by either B-1 zoning (three parcels abutting the site are B-1 ) or M-P and H-1 districts, located immediately west of the site. These parcels are developed with commercial and/or industrial uses which are not compatible with residential development. 4. The Comprehensive Plan map element does not receive review in a vacuum. The Policy Element indicates that suitable housing and living environments are to be encouraged. The increase in traffic, the surrounding uses, the isolation from other residential uses and the potential impact on existing traffic demonstrate that the subject site is not suitable for expanded residential development and is more suitable for commercial development. 5. Since the applicant has applied for the reclassification, and the Planning Department indicated that the site is not suitable for residential development, restrictive covenants should be executed which restrict the use of the subject property to commercial uses. 6. The proximity of the site to the Cedar River and the fact that portions of the site are designated for recreational uses require that the applicant protect the river and Conservancy Environment of the proposed adjacent park and trail from the visual effects of development. Therefore, the applicant should intensely landscape the 25 feet immediately adjacent to the river with sight-obscuring evergreen trees and shrubs planted to approximate natural riparian vegetation. This will mitigate the effects of further development on the proposed park. 7. The proposed B-1 classification will expand the existing and surrounding B-1 district and make one large uniform commercial node for compatible development. The B-1 classification requested is therefore consistent with surrounding zoning and is compatible with the goals and policies of the existing Comprehensive Plan if not entirely consistent with the map element. The site has outlived its usefulness as an acceptable residential community and would better serve the public health, safety and welfare if business and commercial uses were established on the subject site. t R-045-81 Page Four RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the request to reclassify the subject property from R-3 to B-1 subject to the following conditions: 1 . The execution of restrictive covenants which limit development on the subject site to those business and commercial uses permitted within the B-1 zone and barring further expansion of residential uses on the subject property. 2. The execution of restrictive covenants providing for the installation and maintenance of a 25-foot landscape buffer along the southern boundary of the subject site adjacent to the Cedar River. Such landscaping shall approximate the natural riparian vegetation of t e shoreline and shall be subject to the approval of the city's landscape architect. ORDE ED THIS 5th day of June, 1981 . Fred J. K fman Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of June, 1981 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Dan Shane, P.O. Box 653, Renton, WA 98057 TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of June, 1981 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Acting Public Works Director David Clemens, Acting Planning Director Michael Porter, Planning Commission Chairman Barbara Schellert, Planning Commissioner Ron Nelson, Building Official Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before June 19, 1981 . Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen 14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall , or same may be purchased at cost in said department. i IP 1 fir:••• L/BERTY : .' g—I , ithN i, N a Q S , 1-4 M70urc T i 1 P ARK I 1 v; CEmerear p...1 4,, ,."" . , . T4g, -‹.„-_, 11 ' 1 ,_. R z R-3ijtfg _ tf- .fi - a 1. A R-44lrifFIVIIII%ii ,,- _ 3-44 t , ; ...T. or:. . M—P e. 13.0,,,.• i 1 j I:, '!i lr 1::::, '', '41:.t''Sssm...._ i - ..•1 . 1 *. , 7.,-': • _ . p_1 40......illre, 17- ----- 4 r> OM I Fos T.q III 2° 1 11.I.4. ft ' R R N 141. 0 R ViO a.rr t+ .t Y PN i n ,,P R-4 0‘, ,, ... RAMAC , INC R-045-81 REZONE FROM R-3 TO B-1 APPLICANT Ramac, Inc . TOTAL AREA ± 10 . 0 PRINCIPAL ACCESS Maple Valley Highway - State Route 169 EXISTING ZONING R-3 , Multiple Family Residential EXISTING USE Apartments and motel . PROPOSED USE Office. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Medium Density Multiple Family COMMENTS Revision 3/1981 .67 fa, r RENTON P(._ANN I NG DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Ap pi i:.a t i on I 4 0..di rs27 4 6 ",.N o" Jehtelop_r6.414 12CA-fee e_ttttddi TrerisavAicy_l_?-!'toltipit.71H i:Ccation : rAfASI Vet.ite 4 -19'+w^ rna ^ t . r 4'`s ' q + . 44 IIP: P., h t 44_1614qiiir___,roict,6_Z<*twe,e:., i'V .- 414:P. 14.,v _ Rqb-tYlf-'1-C IP ;U Publ ic Works Department DEn ,ring Division SCHEDULED ERC DATE: .. ,I ,, L raffle Eng. Division SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:5 ,a y lUtilities Eng. Division El Fire Department E Parks Department IJ Building Department El Police Department J Others CCY."•1ii:NTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN KITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 :00 P .M. LEVI'nliNG DEPARTMENT/'DIVISION.19/ /C p<oved 0 Approved with Conditions 0 Not Approved DATE: .. 7„.1--AySianatureofDirectororAuthorize7 -4 --- i,L',ViEW ENu DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Approved DApproved with Conditions 11Not Approved DR I.E i)mature of Di Vector or Author i zadRcpres(-ntati ve Revision 3/1981 54 46? RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application: R‘,2,40 fE (A-Qy.S- /) R'3 'fO JeAI.t lap NAe4CC Office 60 ile ti iresit t Ktt1N1111 WIQ w Location: Mole (b it 1 h / s, 16Q) .h.seeh $T A('W ea/fertile' iL L-- ra°t1rpp - . i 'I'1/1 AI Ploy 13 4 Applicant Q &Tite • TO;Pullorks Department A ngineering Division SCHEDULED ERC DATE: 7t/S/ I Traffic Eng. Division SCHEDULED HEARING DATES/ZMrUtilitiesEng. Division Fire Department Parks Department Building Department Police Department Others: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Approved ® Approved with Conditions Not Approved y L DATE: s // Signature of Director or Authorized epresen ati REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved DATE: Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Revision 3/1981 $Is t. 1 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET t to.p11 ation: V4 ' eil '' . a , 4;jrmr:;ytq___ o- f" •__074'C' - , ----r i destelop qryrp g,' q y-yq} y. a. gyp papy > -;m coCti....]i_. ,II&; '';IA:, ,. ,+5-u. AP-xna. tl ' N . .. tK^ 1 ° _.. _, __..— — -. 0 Location: V IA. yob 45: to ee, tic : 1.ekliqe_lotteeD rtge_1:1 ;14%4 • ' 1 i,,,,t:____RA. inft_Cr t.,r,,,,‘„_. C :jPublic Works Department 0 Engi neer og Division SCHEDULED ERG DATE: V4.0 Traffic Eng. Division SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:, . Utilities En . DivisionQ9 IFire Department ii Park ,epar Lmont L_ bui 1 di nq Deu rtinent il Police Department LiOthers: CC N , NTS Oa SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO TIIE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. C i,i V I';i•;ING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: (:—C) ('--- Q Approved fl Approved wi th Conditions / O Not Approved v l 6:72_ AA/ S o /a1 AQD-QLe ATc 7 DATE 1:E v i:;li iNG LEPARTv,:,:: Lv Li ';pp roved j_J kp;'op.ea ,.i th ioedi t ions i._. Not 'yppruved DATE: __ __ ignature of Director or Authorized Representative Revision 3/1 981 576/8/ RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SEET RG-0244/611ke)vs-7,50 3 it 8.--/ G rvp elestelbil ..ettetiffee qt. deffio-tesii hi.2.v. c Ski6.9)46444WN7'41-311401.414eO ofereit.'' 441 #414 Of ,hA17 A })1itiL r :OPubl ic Works Department Engineering Div i SCHEDULED ERC DATE: . LiTraffic Eng. Division SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:S/24ADUO11tiesEng. Division Fi r )artment arks repartmen ding Department PoliceLiDepartment Li Others: Y;:vi.ENTS OP. SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN LITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P.M. C iLVIJG DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: 2ppproved fl Approved wi th Cond i tions n Not Approved cri ALA402_012,„ ALL ot Diro7 AuLhorized P,epsentaT:-.17 DEPATMENT/DIVISTON : El Approved D Approved wi th Conditions fiNot Approved DATE: inutnre of Director or Authori zed e p res en ta ti ve Revision 3/1981 54/8/ RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET 170_ pq 4E4444 hie44.th. re_Sica te_41,1j_pg y may a z ccaticn: o0l p g 1 `_,ems 1 - y Pik/ 9 AO) 14,11 e LJPubiis Works Department flEngineering Division SCHEDULED ERC DATE: -31 DTraffic Eng. Division SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:<` * ArtOUtilinesEng. Division Fire Department n Parks Department u i3 ' ding Department Police Department Others:_ y CCMENTS 0: SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDhD IN cRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P.M. 0 EVI ING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: POLICE Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved See comments on ERC sheet. I,t5 .,R. Persson DATE: 5/4/81 of Director or Authorized Representa t.i ve 1:F V1 N(4 t. ErARTMNr/DIvISA ON L J AppreveLd I A proved wi th Cof.d i donsons 1J Nat Approved DATE: nature of Director or Author)zed Representative Date circulated ; 5.7:14v Comments due : 5/..5A/ E1 V IROINHEtiTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECE - 60/4. - 2L APPLICATION No (s ) 64 .6 f-T h PROPONENT :_- a_Rex. t e .:. d a._ _.<—_:_, PROJECTTITLE q .':"_ _.........._._.._......__..._.-....__. ._.,.._......_.___._.._._...._,....,_ w.,.._...._.__, _ .... Brief Description of Proje ct :RF vt• . ' f''96- n e y,'71,_ ` ,.-9 ,, ..3••, 1 p F YleiIN-Je. \ ov. ,f ca e_fogri ? 1- J ei y ' ,) 3lq yEyrb . LOCATION . if lorvio,, ::. 1(0 '.1/ r J,L•eitt 'a s. ". k - 'C Yy y/,. p ^' f Fla c Y J ci 3"Cr ' ' ::.--y d;. SITE AREA : A.2..orkvit. 046.1cw- ,..„'" BUILDING AREA (gross ) """- DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : °' IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes r______ .._. 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality 3 ) Water & water courses : Plant life 5 ) Animal life : 6 ) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : 5 P ) Land Use ; north : east : 1. south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : _ 9 ) Natural resources : I 10 ) Risk of upset :_.____..._....________ _______ 11 ) Populat. ion/Employment : I X/ 12 ) Number o f • Dui e l l i n g s a . __.__.__ 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts :-._ 14 ) Public services M 15 ) Energy I o.. ._ „___,._.._ 16 ) U t i 1 i t i e s : d._..._,........j 17 ) Human health : li3 ) Aesthetics : r.__..... 19 Recreation _____.____..... ........__ w_._..____ ._,_.,...,_.... _.._.___._Y_ 20 ) Archeology/history ...__._._ w COMMENTS : Recommendation : ANSI DOS More Information Reviewed by : i Iatic : t, c al I12 . Date : ,,, 5- $.. -7Z,. FORM: ERC-06 Date circulated : :., '/ Comments due : Cd_ __ _ ENVIRGNIMENTAL c _ CoKL ISI REVIEWU[I SIiEE! ELF _ T . ---- APPLICATION N o (s ) o s-6 .. 1. s_, MaePROPONENT :__ e< 4 '. .. PROJECT TITLE : w . ., .V. .a. tl. Brief Description of Project :tt '•,5 _ Iteieez , 0`' Cq;le. 41r0.0'‘ LOCA.rION : . :..,l€` o c 9 dol eu. e ° ` . r SITE AREA : A po . if ac,,, BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : . `. IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : T i i 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : _ ._ __ _____ _______ _______1 3 ) b% .. . ..__ w_.__,I 3 ) Water & water courses : f 1 4 ) Plat life : A-_ 1 5 ) Animal life : _ _ . r__._...._. . .. .._.a.. w ._ ._:.,.._._. e 6) Noise :1 7 ) Light & glare : 4 1 i 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : 0 south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction :_. _ 9 ) Natural resources __. _1—: lii ) Risk of upset :____ .—__ _._ __ . IIwe11 ) Population/Employment . _ a ____ _______ 12 ) Number of Dwellings :1 `. 13 ) Trip ends ( I TE ) traffic impacts : _ y 14 ) Public services . d..._.__..__„__ ....... v.._ _... r_^z ._..-. _..__. .__ , f .._ a_ . .,..,- 15 ) Energy : f.,.-... _ , ,._..._. 16 ) Utilities __ V 17 } Human health :_...._:.,, m...__W-w......._..m. ....__ e .. ..... __..,._._.K w.. .... LL 18 ) Aesthetics : W... 19 ) Recreation : .__ W_ —_-.__ _.. IIT IIT20 ) Archeology/history s COMMENTS : Recommendation : N`T I DOS More Information Reviewed by ,_124-----_itle :6e4. SAWC. Da te : 5,,jiiiii FOPJ1: ERC-06 Date circulated : 1 Comments due : O ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REJIEL' SHEET ECF - erff - APPLICATION No ( s ) ._ "C .S`- PROPONENT : QC4. t‘C • PROJECT PROJECT TITLE : 24)tie- Brief Description of Pro ject :Rey e 711) j^twpye 6,)74, Y 0Pin } "-, ' Id 0t-164/0 b •1 LOCATION : Mt ! P Ae#4eg-v(SX/4.Y.2e:eitzee-p r Yist ec.a+.,4y2 ca af/ - t.. p 49 SITE AREA : Appeccia. iate c. BUILDING AREA (gross )_ ._ DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO II Topographic changes :______ I 2 ) Direct/indirect 6ir quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : L" 4! ) Plant 5 ) Animal life : j._....,_.. 6 ) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9 ) Natural resources : _,_ _/ w 10 ) Risk of upset : 4 11 ) Population/Employment _ 7-12 ) Number of Dwellings L..._.__.w 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : J . traffic impact : F L r. 1 ,412414.014 ue.14 1--ILI ke' 14 ) Public services : 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health :___ 18 ) Aesthetics 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history: COMMENTS : Recommendation : DNS! V DOS More information Reviewed by : & I/ 4 1!-- ti : 1e : Date : FORM: ERC-•06 Date circulated : , .VI! Comments due : ,..L5-2/.. E1 VIROiNHE1rJT L CHECKLIST RL@'/I€i SHEET ECF -- 46/‘ -- g1 APPLICATION No (s ) • b(ti 8 w w............. PROPONENT ° Gt. d1 e . :t . PROJECT TITLE 6-2.J i!E. 3rief Description of Project ve t.Ti , grt?7'v, tlM c;i•L.fAt eti,, I,- si-, g—if It et Op$'Z, C.^ a p t°?C3Ua ir z`'. /c'iG?4:cA-p,, . ° LOCATION : P C/A 1i °. 11 k//61,?6 X e lf'tesi Spit eeci Ce3,.e a s ; -,sr: a SITE AREA :Appel-0c. AN010 BUILDING AREA (gross ) °""""` DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 177: 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : 11- i 4- i 4 ) Plant life 5 ) Animal life :__ ..._.._._.____ . _ i 6 ) Noise : w.. 7 ) Light & glare 1 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9 ) Natural resources :_ I 1w._,......_.__ ,_..._........ 10 ) Risk of upset 11 ) Population/Employment . 12 ) Number o f Dwellings :_____ 1_ ..,_._.__. __,.,..._......_.. _,.__. r _ .. _ . 5 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : 1 14 ) Public services e._ 15 ) Energy : R^ W..._ 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 1 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : R....,..s ..,__......m 1.. ax,.w.,_......,_.. 20 ) Archeology/history .. .j COMMENTS : Recommendation : DNSI / DOS More Information Reviewed b y :11- 4-,-.- n.,.°. 1 .i.tle /o 1- _-- Date _5/V FORM: ERC-O6 Date circulated : a5"Comments due : 5Ay NMI "Hip iC E.UlTAL. EHEC LIES! (REVIEW SHEET ECF ._ v`ry ... `4)1 APPLICATION No (s ) . a:_ 1 PROPONENT : Pa. / y{ C i 2-KC . PROJECT TITLE : Pg. ..c. Brief Description of Project :ue.s4 40 t'e=zevre 6/71e 4014, 1e-3 LOCATION : P 4 dctio-r(S/q/6Pit4S7/w a SP4Ptecu. 7 cx e SITE AREA : biecr BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE 11INJR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes 1,...,. __ ..__ _ ___ 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses _ 1„,_.. K.,'_.__._.__ 1_. 4 ) Plant life ___ _ __ Iw 5 ) Animal li re :_______^__ _ w.._. .. 6) Noise ___.....___._.._._,_____. _._,_,.,...,__._, v I_ j 7 ) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 19) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset ;._ _ __ _.._ _._. 11 ) Population/Employment: :___ 12 ) Number of Dwellings : R...L_._ W. _ w_ _ _I J...,.._.... 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) _ . traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : I IV15 ) Energy . v... ..__ _ 16 ) Utilities : t/ 17 ) Human health : ___._.,_._..,.. 1., r-_.,..__._. 1 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : r_ r,..®_.. ,._..._._ ` a..... L'' 2 0 ) Archeology/history ..__.._. _._..___._ _...____ _________,._.,_._,.... .. __.,.____.__. 1_ COMMENTS : Recommendation : DNSI / DOS More Information Reviewed by : Iitle : Date : s/ w,_._... a........,,_....._,.. 1 FORM: ERC-06 Date circulated :0/ Comments due : . ..5A// ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIE ' SHEET ECFI APPLICATION No (s ) PROPONENT dCG 1,4"C . PROJECT TITLE : 'FZ®W Brief Description of Project e trey Tr*) s 1Y43ot, )10-3 CJ 1 441P-.(044/ C 'lam' C fb§tts'/tr G> (:*PPee LOCATION wilo . 1!a/e' 6 - e! /02 a ,sh 4, 4210 e+1..,:,• SITE AREA : AiveG-5.c.. BLILE)ING AREA (gross )._. u_. .W. a .. ..x..._.,... DEVELOPMENTAL ( OVERAGE (%) : IN ACT RE11It lJ NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE IN; u 1 ) Topographic changes : Direct/Indirect air quality :_ 3 ) Water & water course,, . 4 ) Plant life 5 ) Animal life :_____ r.-_ __. ._... N. . o_.W._ 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 ( I T E ) • traffic impacts : xxxxx 14 ) Public services : T-xxxxx 15 ) Energy _ ._____,__._._.._._. m___ b_ 16 ) Utilities :__ 17 ) Human health :__..._._....____ W_.,,..,.._.. ,...__._.........._, ._._._....... _.....__.....a.._....,._._,..a.__.. 18 ) Aesthetics : s 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENT There is a potential for a severe impact on the police dept. services in this development, therefore respectfully request more information. A good area map showing what is intended to be built would be of help. Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information xxx Reviewed by : Lt.( ..t. .R%sson title : Date :5/4/81 t'ORM: ERC-06 Date circulated : ,541/ Comments due : 5/s/cY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEWSHEET ECF - ,O 11"C - gl APPLICATION No (s ) . R-OY,$=8/ PROPONENT : R..rvia., ,2-KG PROJECT TITLE : PE'24:446- Brief Description of Project :RepueS4 To "e20/re S T 'Prow. 3 e7&/ '`to r`U re )v e/optle+..+d o i'c e 19444" ,/-E n/. rc. LOCATION : /1 11,M42141( ifriiescraW YiefeliveeiptStroptecoos7 toNace4 LA A't.„„4 p-0)&+- (j• J SITE AREA : Aivetrx. /Ote^r=.4 BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : t 3 ) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : v 5 ) Animal life : 6) Noise : 7 7 ) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north : Ma_1) neast : 12IoICC'S P` ia we.e- south : Ce cia •e- I ee- west : 2-Pe (414I' e Land use conflicts : 000 E View obstruction : NvNE - 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : WO - cJ traffic impacts : eqe, 12 PO _.T1 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 :e3 Title : PL,9410-c Q Date : / Movio. Fa81 FORM: ERC-06 PLANNING DEPARTNENT PRELIMINARY 4 PORT TO THE REARING EX LINER PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 2, 1981 APPLICANT: RaMAC, INC. FILE NUMBER: R-045-81 A. SUMMARY & PURPOSE OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks approval of a rezone from R-3 to B-1 for future development of an office building, restaurant and mini-mall. B. GENERAL INPORMM ION: 1 . Owner of Record: Dan Shane 2. Applicant : RaMac, Inc. 3. Location: Vicinity Map Attached) Maple Valley Highway SR 169) between Stoneway Concrete and LaRue property. 4 . Legal Description: A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department. 5. Size of Property: 10 acres 6. Access:Via Maple Valley Highway 7. Existing Zoning: R-3, Residence Multiple Family; minimum lot size 5,000 square feet. 8. Existing Zoning in the Area: B-1 , "G" , S-1 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Medium Density Multiple Family, Recreation 10. Notification: The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly published in the Daily Record Chronicle on May 18, 1981 , and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City Ordinance on May 22, 1981 . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TC -HE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: JUNI , 1981 RaMAC, INC. ; FILE NO. R-045-81 PAGE TWO RC. I'T'®gZY/D CRG CgD D :3f The subject site was annexed into the City of Renton by Ordinance No. 1965 of May 27 , 1959. This was repealed by Ordinance No. 1787 of September 1 , 1959 , which was subsequently repealed by Ordinance No. 1789 of September 9 , 1959. It was rezoned from "G" to R-3 by Ordinance No. 1878 of March 21 , 1961 . D. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND: 1 . Topography: The subject site is essentially level with a slight downward slope from northwest to southeast. 2. Soils: Urban land (Ur) is soil that has been modified by disturbance of the natural layers with additions of fill material several feet thick to accommodate large industrial and housing installations. The erosion hazard is slight to moderate. Riverwash (Rh) consists of long, narrow areas of sand, gravel and stones along channels of the layer streams. Some areas are barren of vegetation and others support scattered cottonwoods , willows, and other trees and shrubs. Overflow and alteration by severe erosion and deposition are frequent. 3. Vegetation: Most of the natural vegetation has been removed through previous development. However, some shrubs and a few trees are located adjacent to the river bank. 4. Wildlife: The subject site presently does not provide suitable wildlife habitat. 5. Water: Although no surface water was observed on the subject site, the Cedar River is adjacent to the southerly boundary. (May 22 , 1981 ) 6.i Land Use: Existing land uses on the site consist of apartments , a motel, and a tavern. The Maple Valley Highway and a steep embankment are to the north while a sand and gravel operation and service station are adjacent on the east. To the south is the Cedar River with a brick manufacturing plant on the south side and a cement and gravel facility to the west. E. o 'IGHBWrOOD CHARACTERISTICS: The surrounding properties are a combination of commercial, light industrial, and some multiple family residential land uses. F. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1 . Water and Sewer : A 12-inch water main and the Metro Gravity sewer are located on the Maple Valley Highway adjacent to the subject site while several 8-inch sanitary sewers also traverse the property. 2. Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton as per ordinance requirements. 3. Transit: Metro Transit Routes No. 143 and 912 operate along the Maple Valley Highway adjacent to the subject site. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPOR 'O THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: 4E 2 , 1981 RaMAC, INC. ; FILE NO. R-045-81 PAGE THREE 4. Schools: Not applicable. 5. Recreation: Not applicable. G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1 . Section 4-709A, R-3, Residence Multiple Family 2. Section 4-711 , B-1 , Business District. H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF TH. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1 . Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, 1965, Commercial, Page 11 . I . IMPACT ON THE NATURAL OR HUMAN ENVIRONMENT: 1 . Natural Systems: Rezoning the subject site will not directly affect the property. Future development will remove the vegetation, disturb the soils, increase storm water runoff and have an effect on traffic and noise levels in the area. Through proper development controls and procedures, however, many of these impacts can be mitigated. 2. Population/Employment: Rezoning will have no direct impact on population or employment. However, future use of the site will have to be addressed upon specific development. 3. Schools : Not applicable. 4. Social: Increased opportunities for social interaction would result with completion of the proposed facilities. 5. Traffic : Since the specific type and size of structures to be built are presently unknown, these impacts would better be addressed at the time of future construction. J. E 1I*#iv'ow AL ASSESS '/'7 H RES I OLD DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the City of Renton ' s Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended, RCW 43-21C, the Environmental Review Committee on May 11 , 1981 , issued a declaration of non-significance for the subject proposal. K. AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED: 1 . City of Renton Building Division. 2. City of Renton Engineering Division. 3. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division. 4. City of Renton Utilities Division. 5. City of Renton Fire Department. L. PLANING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1 . The proposed rezone request from R-3, Multiple Family Residential to B-1 , Business Use, is not specifically consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium Density Multiple Family Residential. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT '7 THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: JUNE 2, 1981 RaMAC, INC . ; FILE NO. R-045-81 PAGE FOUR 2. Modification of this land use classification to Business Use is being considered by the Northeast Quadrant Committee based upon physical changes in the area since it last evaluated in 1965. 3. The Hearing Examiner is required to find that one of three criteria for a rezone has been complied with under Section 4-3014 (C) (1 ) . Since the subject site is not specifically classified by the Comprehensive Plan, the justification for the rezone request must rest in the fact that the site has not been specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis (Section 4-3014 (C) (1 ) (a) ) or that physically changes both public or private have affected the subject property (Section 4-3014 C) (1 ) (c) ) . 4. The site was rezoned in 1961 prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and has not specifically been considered since, thus complying with Section 4-3014 (C) (1 ) (a) . All construction on the site was completed prior to 1967. The subject site has in fact been used for commercial purposes for the last 50 years. The physical setting of the subject site has changed in the last 20 years with the construction of I-405 and the widening of SR 169 , the Maple Valley Highway. The site is now bordered on the north by a major arterial that handles in excess of 22 ,000 cars daily. Thus appearing to satisfy Section 4-3014 (C) (1 ) (c) . 6. The site has two physical boundaries, which isolate it from nearby residential uses. The Maple Valley Highway with the steep embankment to the north separates the subject site from the proposed ERADCO residential development and Monterry Terrace, while the Cedar River separates the site from the potential residential developments on the north side of Renton Hill. Therefore, the fact that the site is isolated from existing and proposed residential developments suggests that the request is not detrimental to the public welfare. 7. Adjacent uses to the subject site suggest that the present residential designation may be detrimental in itself. Both Stoneway Concrete and the Interpace Corporation are considered to be heavy industrial in character and even though the subject site has functioned in a semi-residential character as an apartment-motel for a substantial period of time, we must question the quality of that residential community in relationship to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 8. The residential character of the site has been intruded upon by rezoning and construction of commercial uses . Ordinance Nos. 1878 (1961 ) , 2207 (1966) and 2238 (1966) have all precipitated development of commercial uses , a mini-retail center, office building, and tavern respectively. 9. The residential goal is "TO ENCOURAGE SUITABLE HOUSING AND LIVING ENVIRONMENTS. " The increase in traffic as a result of the construction of a major state highway and the commercial and industrial activities in the vicinity imply that any residential use of the site is inappropriate and as a result of its isolation is potentially more suitable for commercial, as opposed to residential development. PLANNING DEPARTMENT" PRELIMINARY REPORT ) THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: JUNE 2, 1981 RaMAC, INC. ; FILE NO. R-045-81 PAGE FIVE 10. The Policies Element of the Comprehensive Plan states : Commercial Goal: To promote attractive, convenient, viable systems of commercial facilities. Commercial Areas Objective: Sound commercial areas should be created and/or maintained and declining areas revitalized. The applicant ' s proposal to convert the existing motel-apartment use to office space (See SM-088-81 ) meets this objective. Policies : Commercial zoning should only be allowed to the extent of short-term needs. The applicant ' s proposal to phase redevelopment on the property from the existing use to offices demonstates a desire to carefully but actively improve the property. The site lends itself to non-retail commercial uses thus relieving pressure for office use on other more appropriate retail sites such as the central business district and along Grady Way. To improve access, planned clusters of commercial development should be encouraged, and commercial strip areas should be discouraged. The sites physical constraints insure clustered rather than strip development. Commercial areas should be located and designed to minimize travel and congestion and to promote safety. Retail or office/service uses of the site will reduce peak hour traffic demand on Maple Valley Highway as discussed in the Declaration of Non- Significance. To minimize traffic congestion, commercial areas should not be located near facilities that require a high degree of safety and traffic control. As noted above, peak traffic demand will be reduced with potential for improved safety and reduced traffic congestion. M. DEPARTMENTAL R D. illaNDATION: Based upon the above analysis, it is recommended that the Hearing Examiner recommend to the City Council that the requested rezone, File No. R-045-81 , from R-3 to B-1 , Business Use, be approved subject to the filing of restrictive covenants which preclude the use of the subject property for residential uses and thus circumventing the benefits to the City in traffic safety and public service. 5417 rrN\1. 2 f r• LIBERTY j / ir Bal 3 PQK I / It, ._ „.i. CEMETERY lit 11. iv N. r)...1 r-N S s R 04 - -1 ,- k : D1 1. .,77 11. , ii, - _. . _ M- P qeit 0 I; ep486 B—I 4irt 1100;;n1• s r I ' • . ' 1 04 T: sO' .s:'‘ •• G it ietlL..• , 1 C[ ma`s 1 1 . I r r I 1 N ,,1 .. Gs:_i l_ 1 V O i 1 R-4 r RAMAC, INC R-045-81 REZONE FROM R-3 TO B-1 o.. APPLICANT Ramac , Inc. TOTAL AREA ± 10. 0 PRINCIPAL ACCESS Maple Valley Highway - State Route 169 R-3, Multiple Family ResidentialEXISTINGZONING EXISTING USE Apartments and motel . Office.PROPOSED USE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Medium Density Multiple Family COMMENTS 1 Itevi';;L;1 3t'i )Si s t"4 j , RENTON 1'l.ANN!.Nii Ui PAN'I Nil N I DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET t.T_ ].:i1 L L )•. n{• 4',=,[,yyy c" a(( tt°" 7,we''tm ^' A '., t..... ? 3 . fir.9 , R2 .'R`'.= 1l :.-_." ,..":' 4.:;7_ („t* . ..4t/.Ys .. ')t f-..--- --Fp.-7_,___. ) .1, -7 @{1,y- Or(, / QJ f:-, - c) ,, '` fir R .I U P s o f G,+ ` {w) 'f. 4_.c;t .•,f.4r_ .(.`.'i i_... .;Ee `=r_,t 1w',W 4 fi I.{ i+4a 4' o,,,,, 13,i [4;£l0r '•1 .r_• k. 4. , '''•'4C1. i,,yv.'r. LccCt i J te ^ 0;11)4- G+ ' V P4'# {: ..L° t _' .f r+ 7 fj, y7' 1 „ r+t j`- try 3 i. y../kAi7 C ._!,y 4•.-._.4 _ d:'_1 1}M1e•. ti :.L A.%t e.O.Frye. ,/ _`'—_..._. e Ai:Pi1 e f 3 0'.:Li Pub 1 ii: ilorks Dcpartalent Division l w' ' `rjEn(iiner'ng SCHEDULED LIT DATE.: )..:_, I-1r is Eng. Division 4.— • ,) t L- SCHEDULE ) HE^ . G DATE: `' 8 :/,4;. +' ' 4 L.. 0t.• • ies Eng. Divisiol e„rt.. I_... -ire I)tlpai'tmcnt D Parks Dopartment El E3ui l di no Department Ell Police Deportment fit;, ,r, . C(;!`nLNT.T, i: SUGGESTIONS REGARDINGRDING TILL;; APPLICA•.1'1CN SHOULD BE PRWIDEi) l:: WRITING. PLEASEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING T)E).'AR'1'MENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. (!_: RE N( ' Di;P11R`i'.-1f;:'TT/DIVIS ION • 4 f ?_ . E: _._..--r roved j r' ),'11'i Cj i t o;d i is ;' I)!;r'nv;t. 1 tiu6 / /"f( `-- /2-46._ ic-//Kti Co 1 / J t /4../3/'/C 0 Oel:- n7 i ) : G c/f4LTE:Cu r i i.. t',:. '. cc . .u:hc' i ... .l .:i l-i"OfltaCl\•? 5/ . i1.;\•1L:i‘ i i:ii 1IZ`l'i'11'.N't'/UIV'i.;.IOi: : n; proved r u4pproved l•ri t lr Cond i ti( .:,; Li Not Approved S46) di TO ANY M(414 nE/I LATiuT1 ec..,opktS AA,) 4teuri cx>civso#r (EQW(/Cd 0/ V: L: 5/l//9/ i gnature L T Di ro c r or ; u Ivor I:ed I:epresentil t.i VC I FZE/IEWING DEPARTMENT, VISION: 7,..--. 6..,---...2...e.A., Approved 0 Approved with Conditions 0 Not Approved 5)----,,,- ,,,__:e d,,e ,,)6„..._. ,-..-De-e----- -,3 DATE: Signature of Director or Authorized epreseni 0'..v : Ext., ApppovedwithConditions1I '. ....; ', , j /ii,),1/41l.• DATE: /fr74-.., or AULI10/7.i :C.s_tanta_tive il,rknpcovedL__ , Li Approvod wi th Condi tions tgkNot Approvc,d c---- ei., 6044/ /5- x/O-1 A,i)&.)QU ai - -- - 1 i. .). - , . .., ,,. ' , . .,-,.•: . l d . .'' , i ;Ved- 1i ....; .2....:1-- UT V L.;-.1: )1.' P;' L.A t.*"..! I ! il:Y 1%1'.CAI 'i51.I th i ()it,: i I ..1 )1:- 1 1 Not f\proved ri\J,.s.._ c--f--t, ,-._i gf-±-6-, ._••-•••,--,-,4.......„ et------ce ,,)'.02..,C ,C„ gi„."f2._ f" "--":(.._, ,,__..„... 7b „0...._____.-"C 1,,_ ,-.,-----,L-•-- ... Z -t 1,--t_ C.,-..-C--.,.-,.- ‘ 6,-, 3' ._ e_,,,- r _ i,1vA-1 s-- 0-'-I /4-•,--r-xl--.0-,0-0-4-- . 2-4-t.--r"..."''..- -7."'"' .C.,--s1c--- 4A-C-'14- s 414" L-t-÷.'-..-.-''.-1 1 V'- - --4- „ 44e_ 5 4,--.-^ 2c,_14c ''--- --:12• —" --'' 44 4-Q-3-r'tf fo--- P' 4- - --...- 4... ,,, f j t-ke i1,..„.....g...... '-,- L—itt7;7_,—.../..,_......4....— -...• - r,„„4,-,_„,,,_ ,,,,,_,...... 75,L,......„4,.._..t••__i. -- r-i— 1ld-'4_____ i,Tri.: ViA iv,.; .,..; i...,) . • . ,. , - t' I 1 ' ' ‘• 1 1_1,...,1 .. I 'iL '.12/ 01.V 1 .• l '. POLICE L.j,ki.,,..1 ,.) t._•! ; , ; ,1 .• 1 X See comments on ERC sheet. e t. .R. Persson 5/4/81 FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No (s) : R-045-81 Environmental Checklist No. : ECF-046-81 Description of Proposal: Rezone of +10 acres from R-3 to B-1 Proponent: RaMAC, INC. Location of Proposal:South side of Maple Valley highway (SR-169) between the Highway and the Cedar River adjacent to the Sahara Tavern Lead Agency: CITY OF RENTON This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on May 6, 1981 , following a presentation by Steve Munson of the Planning Department. Oral comments were accepted from: Don Persson, Police Department James Hanson, Building Department Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-045-81 are the following: 1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheet, prepared by: Roger Blaylock DATED: May 1 , 1981 2) Applications : R-045-81 3) Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance were received from the Building, Parks and Recreation, and Planning Departments and the Engineering and Traffic Engineering Divisions of the Public Works Departments. More information was requested by the Police Department. Acting as the Responsible Official, tho ERC has determined this development does not have 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: 1 ) The developer will mitigate any impacts upon the sewer pumping plant as a result of any future development. 2) The developer shall construct any necessary traffic improvement to allow future access onto Maple Valley Highway. 3) All shoreline improvements shall be done at one time under the provisions of the Shorelines Management Sub- stantial Development Permit. Signatures: 49/6) kfk--- KY(C Ronald G. Nelson David R. Clemens, Acting Building Director Planning Director hard C. Hough on, 7--;( -? R). A ing Public Works DirectoI DATE OF PUBLICATION: May 11 1981 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 JUNE 2, 1981 , AT 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: 1 . RaMAC, INC. Application for rezone from R-3 , multiple family residential, to B-1 , business use of an approximate ten acres site, file R-045-81 ; property located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway (SR-169) between the Highway and the Cedar River adjacent to the Sahara Tavern. 2. CF/CHG ASSOCIATES Application for revised residential use portion of preliminary planned unit development (P.U.D. ) Phase I) , file PPUD-050-81 ; property located on the west side of Hardie Ave. S.W. between Sunset Blvd. S.W. and Burlington Northern Railroad Right-of-way. 3. CHG INTERNATIONAL, INC. Application for commercial and office use portion of preliminary planned unit development (P.U.D. ) Phase II) , file PPUD-049-81 ; property located. on the west side of Hardie Ave. S.W. , north of Burlington Northern Railroad Right-of-way, east of proposed Maple Ave. S.W. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Renton Planning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 2, 1981 , AT 9 :00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLISHED: May 18, 1981 DAVID R.CLEMENS ACTING PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I, STEVE MUNSON, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing in King County, on the 15th day of May, 1981 . C\rru SIGNED: I' 0 A .. ' t . •.. i r I li 1 , i / .1 \ 1 i:T ! ii t , t,. r. I I t Ji 1 l'.' 1 /I tiI CIENFAAL: t• ATION: AIM OR ADDRESS: PROPERTY LOCATE) ON THE SOUTH SIDE , =HARE VALLEY HIGH ? (SR-169) IEWEEN THE HIGHWAY AND THE CEDAR RIVER ADJACENT TO THE zAliARA TAVERN LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 1 DETAILED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OH FILE IN II1E OFFICE OF THE RENTON PLANNING DhF I . i S POSTED TO NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS OF iiir ..., .- , '' '1- i‘ alo• TO BE HELD IN CITY CO /NCIL CI-CAMBERS, MUN16113A - om JWE 2, 1931 BEGINNING AT Gm P.M. CONCERNING ITEM [-Af REZONE FILE #R-045-81) FROM R-3 To B-1 O SPFICI ,t.., PERMIT 74, il SITE APPROVAL O WAIVF114, r-i SHOREiNE MANAGEMENT PERMI O , DECLARATION OF NON-SIGN I F I CAN CE--D I RECT APPEAL TO HEARING EXAMINER 1 I ril" FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL 235 2550 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION AlORD1SZa' , `. 5 4 3 2 1 T© 1 i O` R.f fio 8-1) 8/XISS R-I YORD 03113 sefriREVEarEDC14-1 Ai* $-s) +0 1 i R11) R-t) R-3, AN. A-At) r 1 1 7 t/t/77 1 441 N i 1 F RENDR- 1 // /r, f O19Vt, R!F;1 t1 D 1 1 / i C 1 A 271981 N,_, N N., ®Rp i22Q'7 1 1i% I ti I IIioRD.#3353N i • 1 `% E'fNc SPA¢ isiBD 4 sok 5- i cot oia A 3113) lik I 1 I I oczD ASS CR 3 d--1 l C 7 2.41 sG o ORDit, 22 PUQ I«l p 1 63 , 3 is 4 T.j j t` , r::' OP. ko\k0 lsl 1 f M 5 Tt. eikt.1411) . P- 46,00 i; 121 zt 1 ofv z mil "1 11 (,,`c,_t k . R 2 y „` 38 F+`*/ L - Shc t LWAU K 39 N AGOG- - r PA %--, C is 1 I 1i (J -1 iLzoAir - 40 tiik1 A33S3 1 V"- -------, fit .off i i 1 11 1` 4• c___, Qhsia`, 1 1 iI5I I 1 OF RA,+. THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o rn BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9° co FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 09gT D Eoe$'SEP1 August 4, 1981 Mr. Dan Shane RaMac , Inc. P.O. Box 653 Renton, WA 98057 RE: File No. R-045-81 ; RaMac, Inc. Request for Rezone. Dear Mr. Shane: This is to notify you that the above referenced request , which was approved subject to restrictive covenants as noted in the Examiner' s report of June 5, 1981 , has not been appealed within the time period established by ordinance. Since restrictive covenants have now been signed, this matter will be transmitted to the City Clerk for placement on the City Council agenda on Monday, August 10, 1981 for referral to the Ways and Means Committee. You will receive notification of final approval of the application upon adoption of an ordinance by the City Council . Sincerely, 4rt V*4444‘ Fred J. Ka fman Hearing Examiner cc: Planning Department OF R4, o THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9,0 O FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 041 7-ED SEPI.E P June 25, 1981 Mr. Allen Bishopp RaMac, Inc. P.O. Box 653 Renton, WA 98055 RE: File No. R-045-81 ; RaMac, Inc. Request for Rezone; Request for Reconsideration. Dear Mr. Bishopp: I have reviewed your request for reconsideration in the above entitled matter, and find that there is some merit in your request as outlined below. The subject parcel , as you have indicated, should not be denied the natural attributes of being located immediately adjacent to the Cedar River, and therefore the dense landscaping buffer which was required should be modified. Some form of landscaping is appropriate to soften the effects of proposed development on the river' s users and the users of the park which will be developed on the opposite shore. Therefore, landscaping subject to review of the city's Landscape Architect will be required. The provisions of the city's Shoreline Master Program define and delimit the types of development which may occur adjacent to the shoreline, and the subject proposal will have to comply with those requirements. Both parking and commercial development must yield to those provisions, and a shoreline Substantial Development Permit will be required. The Planning Department indicated in its initial report that the site, adjacent as it is to heavy industrial uses, is not reasonably suited to continued residential purposes, and is certainly not suitable for expanded residential purposes. In addition, traffic considerations, both on the Maple Valley Highway and on 1-405 at the particular intersection of those roadways, currently require limitations on residential development since such development has a greater effect on peak hour traffic levels than corresponding commercial development. The applicant has the burden of demonstrating that the requested reclassification is in the public interest, and data related to the traffic conditions in this area was lacking from the subject application. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the impacts of increased traffic on the Maple Valley Highway are capable of being mitigated by the rezone proponents. Therefore, the limitation on further expanding the residential density is reasonable and should not be modified. Allen Bishopp Page Two June 25, 1981 In accordance with ordinance provisions, a new appeal period has now been established for the referenced matter which will expire on July 9, 1981 . Please do not hesitate to contact the office of the undersigned if further information or assistance is required. Very truly yours, T ".‘aV•0444k""'--- Fred J. Kaufman Land Use Hearing Examiner cc: Parties of Record RaMac, Inc. June 19, 1981 RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER JUN 1 9 1981 Mr. Fred Kaufman AM PM Hearing Fxaminer 7,8r9,10,11,121112,3,4,5,6 City of Renton pear "r. Kaufman: I am in receipt of your decision in the Rezone nenuest for the 10+ or - acres of residential (P-3) land to the proposed R-1 zoning along the Cedar River. I would like to appeal your recommendations that you have stated in the written report. In naragranh 6 of the conclusion and also in naragrarh 2 of the recommendations, it is stated that a 25 foot intense landscanned harrier of evergreen and shrubs, adjacent to the river, he n]aced and maintained to the annroval of the city, as to mitigate the effects of further develonement of proposed parks. The beauty of the River should not he screened off from the north ban'. to allow the few who will use the nroposed park a softer, nuiet, serene view. The developement that is nlanned for this area will be a more pleasing, structure than what is there Presently. We will need to design the lardscanning of the site to meet the needs of the develone- ment, the natural river side and the green belted area. However, a 25 foot restriction is an over extension of the needs and would negatively effect the narking to a point of a very restricted develonement, or no develonement. I feel we can work the building design and the landsca'nins* to- gether to chance the shoreline without adversly effecting the Proposed part- with less of a restricted buffer area than 25 feet. Your reconsideration of this point would he anpreciated. I will enclose a rendering of the nrorosed building herewith for your viewing of the tvne of structure and landscapning we are proposing for develonement. You can see Lhat this will not adversly effect the view from the nark side of the river. I would like to anneal your other recommendation that of restricting the expansion of current residential use. I feel that with the current energy prices and the further demand toward restricting use of energy that the concept of living close to your emnloyment will be in high demand. With the proposed office use for this site, I don't feel we would he adversly effecting the residential environment. With the current zoning of the adjacent properties, that of heave industry and B-1, where there are no restrictions on the residential RaMac, Inc. • P.O. Box 653, Renton, Washington 98055 • (206) 271-4705 RaMac, Inc. r. Fred Kaufman Page 2 build un, I €el our concent of an office nark with nossihle residential mixed of high quality anartments or condominiums is being advercly singled out. T feel the size of the land heing rezoned can meet the demands of both cornercial offices and residential . Therefore, T request that you reconsider this noint in your recommendations. Sincerely, Allen Pi shon;l AR/cd RaMac, Inc. • P.O. Box 653, Renton, Washington 98055 • (206) 271-4705 s 1t 1A j. 1r:. v r• r :". rs v' S + a t 41)—: ii i. F • *`. i I. e. Z. Y.., a } M. I" V' t1Lir td. ....... t.. •} . r . , i• ti 7`, t • • y FaiTj r} a+ 1' i try, 1r` i °^.-' 17' 1..• .••,,} . 1 4_ I., ` i . y• Ki ' . y• ,. a, 1 l' I,: .. r p6.} f"• nv' 1' M' y • r. too"^ ay A. h sy 1ti f+ till 1 , M, 1 s o . 1Jw J ...., 1 c911lffM _ w 1 MMIIMMNIM MM' r r .:: ;• 1ii t y 1 s0100iM° 11 e00101.. Teti t.... ./ l. . er, o-!°• • • . , 1, R!. 1 t t , • iiitA r' Mi,• •• `. . ' IC.••.... •. "'•- m`,,".} r j• 1: . ..••-' a:. w' 41411 pI11U11U I 4• .. 4f. n "+.' a . w. , l w.!•:.;• •. - :. t. i . L. jus4 a t®® eo° NI° 1 ' tit _ o A® 11' „ w. », 1 e ssr . mo... 1T-,7Q t. jam 4 t fi ,. D r yv 4 1d• s yy4(} yjyjj i1 itr ` i " , s yyy :- " Nli xori. A' 1 for p t ". 1/4 ; lilt n i RaMac, Inc. June 19, 1981 RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER JUNi 1 9 1981 Mr. Fred Kaufman AM PM Hearing Examiner 7,R,9,10,11,12,1,2,3,4,5,6 City of Renton d Dear Mr. Kaufman: I am in receipt of your decision in the Rezone Request for the 10+ or - acres of residential (R-3) land to the proposed B-1 zoning along the Cedar River. I would like to appeal your recommendations that you have stated in the written report. In paragraph 6 of the conclusion and also in paragraph 2 of the recommendations, it is stated that a 25 foot intense landscanped barrier of evergreen and shrubs, adjacent to the river, be placed and maintained to the approval of the city, as to mitigate the effects of further developement of proposed park. The beauty of the River should not be screened off from the north bank to allow the few who will use the proposed park a softer, quiet, serene view. The developement that is planned for this area will be a more pleasing structure than what is there presently. We will need to design the landscapping of the site to meet the needs of the develope- ment, the natural river side and the green belted area. However, a 25 foot restriction is an over extension of the needs and would negatively effect the parking to a point of a very restricted developement, or no developement. I feel we can work the building design and the landscapping to- gether to alliance the shoreline without adversly effecting the proposed nark with less of a restricted buffer area than 25 feet. Your reconsideration of this point would he appreciated.. I will enclose a rendering of the proposed building herewith for your viewing of the type of structure and landscapping we are proposing for developement. You can see that this will not adversly effect the view from the park side of the river. I would like to appeal your other recommendation that of restricting the expansion of current residential use. I feel that with the current energy prices and the further demand toward restricting use of energy that the concept of living close to your employment will be in high demand. With the proposed office use for this site, I don't feel we would be adversly effecting the residential environment. With the current zoning of the adjacent properties, that of heavy industry and B-1, where there are no restrictions on the residential RaMac, Inc. • P.O. Box 653, Renton, Washington 98055 • (206) 271-4705 RaMac, Inc. Mr. Fred Kaufman Page 2 build up, I feel our concept of an office part: with rossihle residential mixed of high quality apartments or condominiums is being adversiv singled out. I feel the size of the land being rezoned can meet the demands of both commercial offices and residential. Therefore, I would request that you reconsider this point in your recommendations. Sincerely, Allen Bishopp AB/cd z RaMac, Inc. • P.O. Box 653, Renton, Washington 98055 • (206) 271-4705 If j a ar• t.f•-..,1,. -•y'+ S r " r '••• r. 1 1 2.• • a y a^•10.- ',,ray rz\t, t': - '"" v - e.. -•, `R ram• r4 ',fir r!•r .. • di Y- 1- 4410.11 f , ; e. i Y- ' 1 Y. S"• r = 1 sar n r 44-41=1------4.0 oil.an lortrd,; 1.-___,..4 ., _, . - • lopoilw 1M, ?'.1.,, . .: t, 74,:• ' i; ioitt1MM r i,; • z 4. ICI 11l e,4111•75....,--4-— • vi‘ s-• i . _ . ..... 1111111:.: 1:1,1:. 11, 1::. 1 .".....;!..„. .. IiP r•aia- M Receipt # CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT NAME_ DATE PROJECT & LOCATION Application Type Basic Fee Acreage Fee Total Environmental Checklist Environmental Checklist Construction Valuation Fee TOTAL FEES Pleas(. take this receipt and your payment to the Finance Department on the first floor. Thank you. OF RA,A o THE CITY OF RENTON z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 O ammo BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT co' 235- 2550 9 7*FD SEP'v° May 15, 1981 RaMac, Inc. P.O. Box 653 Renton, Washington 98057 Re: Application for rezone from R-3, multiple family residential to B-1 , business use, of an approximate ten acres site, file R-045-81 ; property located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway (SR-169) between the Highway and the Cedar River adjacent to the Sahara Tavern Gentlemen: The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on May 13, 1981 . A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for June 2, 1981 at 9 : 00 a.m. Representatives of the applicant are asked to be present. All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing. If you have any further questions , please call the Renton Planning Department, 235-2550. Very truly yours, LL,,lilt er J. Blaylock Associate Planner RJB:wr FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No(s) : R-045-81 Environmental Checklist No. : ECF-046-81 Description of Proposal : Rezone of +10 acres from R-3 CO- B-1 Proponent: RaMAC, INC. Location of Proposal:South side of Maple Valley highway (SR-169) between the Highway and the Cedar River adjacent to the Sahara Tavern Lead Agency: CITY OF RENTON This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on May 6, 1981 , following a presentation by Steve Munson of the Planning Department. Oral comments were accepted from: Don Persson, Police Department James Hanson, Building Department Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-045-81 are the following: 1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheet, prepared by: Roger Blaylock DATED: May 1 , 1981 2) Applications : R-045-81 3) Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance were received from the Building, Parks and Recreation, and Planning Departments and the Engineering and Traffic Engineering Divisions of the Public Works Departments. More information was requested by the Police Department. Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined this development does not have 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: 1 ) The developer will mitigate any impacts upon the sewer pumping plant as a result of any future development. 2) The developer shall construct any necessary traffic improvement to allow future access onto Maple Valley Highway. 3) All shoreline improvements shall be done at one time under the provisions of the Shorelines Management Sub- stantial Development Permit. Signatures : tz&zioe) at/(7;t3 -(fcc:(1, Ronald G. Nelson David R. Clemens, Acting Building Director Planning Director 11 L4J R}chard C. Hough on, A ing Public Works Directo i DATE OF PUBLICATION: May 11 1981 DATE OF APPEAL: May 25, 1901 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a final declaration of non-significance for the following project : RaMAC , INC. (ECF-046-81) Application for rezone from R-3 , multiple family residential , to B-1, business use , of an approxi- mate ten acres site, file R-045-81 ; property located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway (SR-169) between the Highway and the Cedar River adjacent to the Sahara Tavern . Further information regarding this action is available in the Planning Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550 . Any appeal of the ERC action must be filed with the Hearing Examiner by May 25, 1981 . PUBLISHED : May 11 , 1981 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING Statc of Washington) County of King Marilyn J . Petersen being first duly sworn, upon oath disposes and states: That on the 5th day of June 19 81 , affiant deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. 4,4 Subscribed and sworn this S day of V vIP/ 19 SS( • OXIAX ry . t1tiliV Notary Public in and for tFj„e State of Washington, residing at KeivIton Application, Petition or Case: RaMAC, Inc. ; R-045-81 The minuteb contain a ti.s.t o6 the paAti.a os second. ) C rY OF RENTON too , 18017 1 FINANCE DEPARTMENT 3 v RENTON, WAS HINON 98055 19 G T RECEIVED OFC 4 (" - -ef--l w s,,r, D D6/3Ai/ A a. a 3 rJ () i 1 ,->/ .(ii .//4-' 0 60 <I i 9a . a 6 n/ 1- 1- ' i/i(/L-4 /T. 000/.31// 94, 0 4 () o-o . r NI oiill C.) a TOTAL 6/) ,1 r.: lf J x.. i(i4Q r) ;:':=11 1 Hi,';wi i GWEN E. MAR /L, FINANCE //DIRECTOR w I` Receipt # 107.7 C I TY.\4F RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT NAME "%?, 111/2(. _TAXI p v DATE f3AWTI /`(?^.+( i PROJECT S LOCATION Re,8-,l /iJ P%L= 1* I'/ 1-/-Tc/lr4,/ Application Type Basic' ee Acreage Fee Total e,.C(70e. 00.100 DvJ)> 4a.OaD() i Environmental Checklist 60, 00 Envi`onmental Checklist Construction Valuation Fee Q,OC) A/o VA" oply Do voo lN. J; i r. TOTAL FEES 6 .0 Please take this receipt and your payment to the Finance Department on the first floor. Thank. you.' rwt.r ha,,,,... . y_o. y.r i,r,....u.u_t,_.......L'u7.r ...•:L7'r.c!.. e .w...,s.. . ,,..r. r . ,a.. .... . ,.L..... ..r.,.,,.._., PwltkybY i CITY OF RENTON 4 \\\ oo \`s RE7.o11E APPLICATION OR OFFICE USE ONLY V 1 y R+ '/ LAND USE HEARING PPLICATION NO. '1`_ 'n o ."I EXAMINER 'S ACTION PPLICATION FEE $ APPEAL FILED ECEIPT NO. CITY COUNCIL ACTION ILING DATE Pl ORDINANCE NO. AND DATE EARING DATE PPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 : Name RaMac , Inc. Phone 771-4705 Address P.O. Box 653 Renton, Washington 9805? Property petitioned for rezoning is located on Maple Valley Hwy. (SR 169) less property between Stoneway and Phyllis LaRuets property- currently zoned B4 Square footage or acreage of property approximately 10 acres Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach a separate sheet) see attached Existing Zoning B-1 , R3 Zoning Requested B1 OTE TO APPLICANT: The following factors are considered in reclassifying property. Evidence or additional information to substantiate your request may be attached to this sheet. (See Application Procedure Sheet for specific requirements. ) Submit this form in duplicate. Proposed use of site Office buidlingt restaurant, mini-mall List the measures to be taken to reduce impact on the surrounding area. To the west is already industry (Stoneway) To the North and South is Green belt To the East is B-1 How soon after the rezone is granted do you intend to develop the site? Immediately Two copies of plot plan and affidavit of ownership are required. Planning Dept. 1-77 i AFFIDAVIT I ,Dan Shane (President, Rallac, Inc.) , being duly sworn, declare that I am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me this 27 day of April 19 131 , Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing a0 i& s= Name of Notai Public) gnature of Owner G 2003 maple Valley Hwy. Address) Address) Renton, Washington City) State) 271 -4705 Telephone) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found to be thorough and complete in every particular and to conform to the rules and regulations of the Renton Planning Department governing the fJling of such ° application . APR 27 1981 F- Date Received ,19 By NG DEP_P Renton Planning Dept . 2-73 That portion of Government Lot 8 Section, 17 , Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the east line of said Lot 8 with the southerly margin of the Maple Valley Highway; thence along said southerly margin north 56°43 '47" west 488. 07 feet; thence south 32°52 ' 13" west 71 . 23 feet; thence south 11 °56 ' 13" west 309. 11 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing south 11 °56 ' 13" west 210 feet, more or less, to the center line of Cedar River; thence southeasterly along said center line to an intersection with a line parallel to and 100 feet west of, measured at right angles to, the east line of said Lot 8; thence north 1 °14 ' 13" east along said parallel to a point that is 297. 55 feet south of, measured along said parallel line, the southerly line of said Maple Valley Highway; thence north 71 °10 ' 34" west 428. 53 feet to the true point of beginning; TOGETHER with an easement for ingress and egress over the easterly and westerly42 feet in width of the following described tract; Beginning at the intersection of the east line of said Lot 8 pith the southerly margin of the Maple Valley Highway; thence along aid southerly margin north 56°43 ' 47" west 117. 94 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing north 56°43 '47" west 370. 13 feet; thence south 32°52 ' 13" west 71 . 23 feet; thence south 11 °56 ' 13" jest 520 feet, more or less , to the center line of Cedar River ; thence southeasterly along said center line to an intersection with a line parallel to and 100 feet west of , measured at right angles to, the east line of said Lot 8; thence north 1 °14 ' 13" east along said parallel line 425 feet, more or less, to the true point of beginning. V That portion of Government Lot 8, Section 17, Township 23 North , Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County , Washington , described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the east line of -said Lot 8 with the southerly margin of Maple Valley Highway; thence along said souther margin north 56°43 ' 47" west 488. 07 feet; thence south 32°52'13" Lest 71 . 23 feet; thence south 11 °56 ' 13" west 309. 11 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing south 11 °56 ' 13" west 210 feet, more or less, to the center line of Cedar River; thence southeasterly along said center line to an intersection with a line parallel to and 100 feet west of,, measured at right angles to, the east line of said dot 8; thence north 1 °14 ' 13" east along said parallel line to a point that is 297. 55 feet south of, measured along said parallel line, the southerly line of said Maple Valley Highway; thence north 71 °10 '34" west 42.8. 53 feet to the true point of beginning; TOGETHER with an easement for ingress and egress over the easterly and westerly 42 feet in width of the following described tract: Beginning at the intersection of the east line of said Lot 8 with the southerly margin of the Maple Valley Highway; thence along said southerly margin north 56°43 '47" west 117. 94 feet to the true Joint of beginning; thence continuing north 56°43 ' 47" west 370. 13 eet; thence south 32°52 ' 13" west 71 . 23 feet; thence south 11 °56 ' 13" jest 520 feet, more or less , to the center line of Cedar River ; thence southeasterly along said center line to an intersection with a line parallel to and 100 feet west of, measured at right angles to, the east line of said Lot 8 ; thence north 1 °14 ' 13" east along said parallel line 425 feet, more or less , to the true point of beginning. That portion of Government lot 8, Section 17, Township 23 north, Range 5 East, W.11. , in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of East line of said lot 8, with the southerly margin of Renton Maple Valley Highway; thence north 56°45 '47" west along said margin 546.36 feet to the point of curve; thence along said curve to the right with a radius 11 ,489.2 feet a distance of 348.2 feet; thence south 6°44 ' 03" west 390 feet to true point of beginning; thence at right angles north 83°15 ' 57" west 64 feet; thence north 23°15 ' 57" west 329.31 feet; thence south 66°44 ' 03" west to the intersection with the center line of Cedar River; thence southeasterly along said center line to a point from which the true point of beginning bears north 6°44 '03" east; thence north 6°44 '03" east to the true point of beginning. Together with an easement for ingress, egress, and utilities over and across a strip of land 45 feet in width the easterly line thereof being described as follows: Beginning at a point of the south line on the renton—maple valley highway in Government lot 8, section 17, township 23 north, range 5 east, W.I . , in King County, Washington which point is 894.38 feet measured along said south line from the intersection of said south line with the east line of said government lot 8; thence south 6°44 ' 03" west to the north line of the first described tract of land. That portion of Go, nment Lot 8 in Section 1 Township 23 North, Range 5 East W.11. , described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the East line of said Lot 8, with the Southerly margin of the Renton—Maple Valley Highway; thence North 56°43 '47" West along said margin 546.36 feet to a point of curve; thence along said curve to the right with a radius of 11 ,489. 2 feet, a distance of 348.02 feet; thence South 6°44 ' 03" West 390.00 feet; thence North 83°15 '57" West 64 feet; thence North 23°15 ' 57" West 329.31 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing North 23°15 ' 57" West 140. 11 feet; thence North 66°44 ' 03" East 38.49 feet, more or less, to its intersection with a line parallel to and 100 feet distant from the Southerly margin of said Renton—Maple Valley Highway; thence Northwesterly along said parallel line bn a curve to the right with a radius of 1562.69 feet, a distance of 105.9E feet, more or less, to its intersection with a line parallel to and 5 feet distant from the Northwesterly wall of the most Westerly buildings; thence South 66°44 ' 03" West along said parallel line to its intersection with the center line of Cedar River; thence Southeasterly along said center line to a point from which the true point of beginning bears North 66°44 ' 03" East; thence to the true point of beginning; TOGETHER WITH an easement for ingress and egress over the following described tract: Beginning at a point on the Southerly margin of the Renton— Maple Valley Highway, said point being 894.38 feet, measured along said Southerly margin from the intersection of the East line of said Government Lot 8; thence Northwesterly along said Southerly margin 72. 80 feet; thence South 6°44 ' 03" West 424. 68 feet; thence North 23°15 ' 57" West 329.31 feet; thence South 66°44 '03" West to the center line of Cedar River; thence Southeasterly along said center line to a pbInt from which the point of beginning bears North -6°44 '03" East; thence to the point of beginning; EXCEPT the following described tract: Beginning at the point of beginning of the above described tract; thence Notthwesterly along the Southerly margin of Renton— Maple Valley Highway, 72. 80 feet; thence South 6°44 ' 03" West 424. 68 feet; thence North 23°15 ' 57" West 329.31 feet to the true point of beginning; thence South 66°44 ' 03" West 93.0 feet; thence South 23°15 '57" East 361 . 0 feet; thence North 66°44 '03" East ,93.0 feet; thence North 23°15 ' 57" West 361 . 0 feet to the true point of beginning, That portion of Government lot 8, Section 17, township 23 north, range 5 east, W.M. , in King County , Washington, described as follows: Beginning at intersection of east line of said lot 8 with the southerly margin of Renton-Maple Valley Highway; thence north 56°43 '47" west along said margin 546.36 feet to a point of curve; thence along said curve with a radius of 11 ,489. 2 feet a distance of 348.02 feet; thence south 6°44 '03" west 124. 74 feet to true point of beginning; thence continuing south 6°44 ' 03" west 265. 26 feet; thence at right angles north 83°15 ' 57" west 64 feet; thence north 23°15 ' 57" west to an intersection with a line that is parallel to and 110 feet distant measured at right angles to the southerly margin of said Renton-Maple Valley Highway; thence southeasterly along said parallel line to true point of beginning; TOGETHER with an easement for roadway and utility purposes over and across the easterly 45 feet of the following described tract; The northeasterly 110 feet of that portion of said Government lot 8 lying southwesterly of the Renton-Maple Valley Highway and lying west of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the south line of said highway northwesterly 894.38 feet, measured along said line from its intersection with the east line of said Government lot 8; thence south 6°44 ' 03" west to the center line of Cedar River and terminus of Said described line. THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 8 AND 9 AND DRY RIVER BED IN EAST HALF OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17 , TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH , RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY , WASHINGTON , DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOU 8 WITH THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN O.F THE RENTON—MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY AS SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN EXISTED PRIOR TO AN ACTION FOR CONDEMNATION OF RIGHT—OF—WAY FOR SR 169 IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 761406; THENCE NORTH 56°43 '47" WEST ALONG SAID MARGIN 546. 36 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE : THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 11 , 489. 2 FEET AN ARC DISTANCE OF 348, 02 FEET TO A POINT HEREAFTER CALLED POINT "A" ; THENCE SOUTH 6°44 ' 03" WEST 390 FEET; THENCE NORTH 83°15 ' 57" WEST 64 FEET; THENCE NORTH 23°15 ' 57" WEST 469. 42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 66°44 ' 03" EAST 38.49 FEET; : MORE-, OR LESS , TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 100 FEET DISTANT SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF SAID RENTON— MIPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CLRVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1562. 69 FEET A DISTANCE OF 1 [ 5. 98 FEET, MORE OR LESS , TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH A LINE PARALLEL W7TH AND 5 FEET DISTANT FROM THE NORTHWESTERLY WALL OF THE MOST WESTERLY BUILDINGS; THENCE SOUTH 66°44 ' 03" WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL L NE TO THE CENTER LINE OF THE CEDAR RIVER ; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CENTER LINE TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 17; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST LINE TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF SR 169 AS CONDEMNED IN SAID KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 761406; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF SAID SR 169 TO A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 6°44 ' 03" WEST FROM AFOREMENTIONED POINT A ; THENCE SOUTH 6°44 ' 03" WEST TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 110 FEET DISTANT SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF SAID RENTON— MaPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 66°44 ' 03" WEST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 66°44 ' 03" EAST TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. That portion of Government Lot 8, Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W. M. , in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the East line of said Lot 8 with the southerly margin of the Maple Valley Highway; thence North 56°43 '47" West along said margin 488.07 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing North 56°43 '47" West 58. 29 feet to a point of curve; thence along said curve witha radius of 11 ,489. 2 feet, a distance of 354.01 feet; thence South 06°44103" West 680 feet, more or less , to the center of Cedar River; thence Southeasterly along the center line of Cedar River a distance of 300 feet, more or less; thence North 11 °56' 13" East 520 feet, more or less; thence North 32°52 ' 13" East 71 . 23 feet to the true point of beginning. BEG AT INTRSN OF E LN GL B & SLY MGN MAPLE VALLEY HWY TH NWLY ALG SD HWY 488. 07 FT TH S 32-52-13 W 71 . 23 FT TH S 11-56-13 W 149. 11 FT TO TPOB TH CONTG S 11-56-13 W 160 FT TH S 71 -10-43 E 428. 53 FT TO PT 100 FT W OF E LN SD GL TH N 01-14-13 E 91 FT TH N 67-51 -17 W 98.09 FT TH N 59-31-39 W 329.05 FT TO TPOB ALSO BEG AT SE COR ABOVE DESC TR TH N 71-10-43 W 39. 60 FT TH 5 13-31-03 W TO THREAD OF CEDAR RIVER TH ELY ALG SD THREAD TO PT 100 FT W OF E LN OF SD GL TH N 01-14-13 E TO BEG OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1 FOR OFFICE '1SE ONLY L) ' 4 Application No. Environmental Checklist No. 4;711, G - PROPOSED, date: FINAL , date : Declaration of Significance Declaration of Significance 0 Declaration of Non-Significance Declaration of Non-Significance COMMENTS : Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , Chapter 43.21C , RCW, requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals . The Act also requires that an EIS be prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required , or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your explanaticn in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary . You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele- vant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review with- out unnecessary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal , not just to the license for which you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed, even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, with- out duplicating paperwork in the future. NOTE : This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State of Washington for various types of proposals . Many of the questions may not apply to your proposal . If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I . BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent RaMac, Inc. 2. Address and phone number of Proponent: P .O. Box 653 Renton , Washington 98057 271-4705 3 . Date Checklist submitted 4/27/81 4. Agency requiring Checklist 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: CEDAR PLAZA E . 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) : Office Building 1 I 2- 7. _ocation 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 ) : See attached drawing 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : November 1984 9. List of all permits , licenses or government approvals required for the proposal federal , state and local --including rezones ) : Normal bwildino permits 10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion , or further activity related to or connected with this proposal ? If yes , explain : no 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal ? If yes , explain : no 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- posal ; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: II . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) 1) Earth. Will the proposal result in: a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? YES MAYBE NO b) Disruptions , displacements , compaction or over- covering of the soil? x YES MAYBE NO c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? x YES MAYBE WU— d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X YES MAYBE NO e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or off the site? X YES MAYBE NO f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands , or changes in siltation , deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay , inlet or lake? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 3- 2) Air. Will the proposal result in : a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X YES MAYBE NO b) The creation of objectionable odors?x YES MAYBE NO c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature , or any change in climate , either locally or regionally? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation : 3) Water. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements , in either marine or fresh waters? YES MAYBE NO b) Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? x YES MAYBE NO c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? YES MAYBE NO d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? YES MAYBE NO e) Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X YES MAYBE NO f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? YES MAYBE NO g) Change in the quantity of ground waters , either through direct additions or withdrawals , or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X YES MAYBE NO h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection , or through the seepage of leachate , phosphates , detergents , waterborne virus or bacteria , or other substances into the ground waters? YES MAYBE NO i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies?X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: l) 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 NO b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique , rare or endangered species of flora? YES MAYBE NO c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area , or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? Y ET- MAYBE il- d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 4 4- 5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds , land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms , X insects or microfauna)? YES M YB N0 b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or: endangered species of fauna? YES MAYBE NO c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement X of fauna? YES MAYBE NO d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 6), Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? - X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Yam- MAYBE W Explanation:( 8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the y present or planned land use of an area?YES MAYBE NO Explanation: Presently R3--we are submitting B-1 application now 9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X YES MAYBE NO X b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of haiardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? YES MAYBE X Explanation: 11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri-gam'? bution, density, or growth rate of the human population X of an area? Y-B-E E- • Explanation: R3-residential to B1 light industry 5- 12) lousing. Will the proposal affect existing housing , or reate a demand for additional housing? X _ YES MAYBE NO Explanation : Replacing 20 year old apartments with office huilriinrj 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? X YES MAYBE NO c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? YES MAYBE NO d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X YES MAYBE NO e) Alterations to waterborne , rail or air traffic? X YES MAYBE NO f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists or pedestrians? x YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon , or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas : a) Fire protection? X YES MAYBE NO b) Police protection? X YES MAYBE NO c) Schools? x YES MAYBE NO d) Parks or other recreational facilities? X YES MAYBE NO e) Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? X YES MAYBE NO f) Other governmental services? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (a) We are working with the fire department on a satisfactory loop system per their specs 15 Energy. Will the proposal result in : a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X YES MAYBE NO b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X YES MAYBE NO 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 YES MAYBE NO b) Communications systems? X YES MAYBE NO c) Water? X YES MAYBE NO 6- d) Sewer or septic tanks? X YES MAYBENO e) Storm water drainage? X YES MAYBE NO f) Solid waste and disposal? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? x YES MAYBE NO 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 YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? x YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 20) Archeological /Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: III. SI(,NATURE I , the undersigned, state that to the best of my kno ed. - th- . ove information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead . . -nc ma • draw any decla- ration of non-significance that it might issue in re anc: ups is checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful k • disclosure on my part. Proponent: 4 signed nzei' /mac2nted City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 dA BRIEF HISTORICAL SYNOPSIS OF THE PROPERTY In the early 1930 ' s Cottonwood Grove was built and operated as a resort, motel and dance hall. The property was thus used as a commercial property site by Cottonwood Grove until sold in the late 1950 ' s to C. F. Shane. Mr. Shane in 1959 built 63 apartments on the most easterly portion of the property. In 1962 for the Seattle World ' s Fair , the Riviera Motel was built. This motel had 96 units and was located on the most westerly portion of the property. The motel is still in operation today. The Riviera enter was built in 1962 and comprised a Tavern, Grocery Store, 3arber Shop and Restaurant. In 1966, 70 additional apartments were built in the middle of the complex. In 1967, the Sahara Tavern was built and put into operation. This property has been basically used for commercial purposes for at least the last 50 ears. The surrounding properties have been in various commercial usages for many years. The property to the west has been used since the early 1940 ' s by Stoneway and Renton Concrete as light industrial manufacturing and dispersment facility. The property to the south (south side of Cedar River) since early 1900 ' s has been 3 brick manufacturing plant. The property to the east has been a sand and gravel operation and at present there is a gas station. The property to the north is a steep sloped embankment and has little use but as a green belted area. Maple Valley Highway (SR169) has a traffic pattern of over 22,000 cars per day. The high traffic count will continually increase with future building efforts to the east in Fairwood and Maple Valley. 1 ENDING ' OF FILE FILE TI77.E