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 AboutLUA81-055BEIkIIrk, OF FILE FILE TITLE 025 n I12Ac. U30Ac o 0.44AcW 0 w A W a 1 .: o6 -- ci_ A6.02 ; O ,1603 iso 15 oSchoolDistrict4039.34 Ac v I•Q rn I01 l2 oa N igin . 4 in William J Bonds Sr. 4.6SAC.N N O O. co6212565125 300 321.25 J25 ,3 325.62 v r 85 Ac.a 12 .6 Steve Rarr,s m° 92 1.09 Ac.--300 Cnr0.39Ac. 9 ^ School District 403 v+ I : 133.5 ; i 252 - m hj 22-t 2.45 Ac. PI L r 1r)m fin 1n a i I . z 0.56 Ac. 1.15 A I a 112 l ; 154.4 8 ® 0 0 3 6 045_4----"' 325.21 355.11 265.54 30 f La 061AC. QI-.ALL''•6 School District 403 Earl Smith a 1W „ 7•36 Ac. 2.67 Ac. A 61 0.61 Ac. a N o IiM 1 . II5.34 ISO 0 HJ0.32 Ac. Q a 6 N I M@N041 I. •• to RP4D ESMT Ac J130 ROA: F'Arr Ir. 6 c 6 4 0 C7 0 f25$£3-0- I1a{t.f3 t_=.r. 1 0t1E4T 154.6er.Ts - -- - i RENTON CORPORATEL 1 MI T- 7 C. Williams 2.37 AC. 1i ..: s Lloyd V & Hotel t ;_ i Weber ai Z N 2 AC 3 89Ac v 56B 081 j0' • Rutl r.1 1,1 II 55 i )`is , 194.41 13• prNDonaldE. 0016k 4.41 0.94Ac. McWilliams 0.93Ac. : 111 309.44 0 I.W. CorueI'I Charles Rucker o 13 J. David Jensen N 4 1 1 li e,- -_ 1.59 Ac. 1.22 Ac. I 1 I ti: b1 3so• I 1 i 2.89Ac. II. 265 343.02 11 I 0.40 Ac. 3zaoy1l 32a.ot1, s55 `; 161. 265 0 5ti I75 tmfl/ Nl 75; 175 Ucrt xi Ja Davao J nsen T Q Li C.a 22 y 0.86Ac a a a:I:j 4.90 AC. , "^ - a i '' ©a Li s w m141In15hmi11 i.:I ii (......\ 0 6 . , vl 1 6 a o.2 ac. 0,38 C. az B. 1: o D Z ibk0 0 ia ...; . v., 4, 0 . .‹ - T 611ii a o a Q 03 RVIC( I' i 1 l : ,1r 1- e, I i" Iq. 1 I 1 1 STA I•I' v, t I I 0,1 • Via' i1 OD O'sl Is S 10 j IOI{C i42 214.4) \_fir Ill15 C% 15 1 5 14: i 1 IL I9y10+i• iy 1Ts v' j- =N.E7-. 4T H=_ =S T-:ic}o :- a 0- ' s. • ,. Ill 1 1 ATLAS 0 F S EA T' 'LE REPRODUCTION IN WHOLE oAVING e I ow O,R PART FOR PERSONAL USE OR KROLL MAP COMPANY , INC., SgATTLE RESALE IS PROHIBITED BYLAW. E.: I IN. = 200 FT. COPYRIGHT KROLL MAP COMPANY , INC, 1 COUNTY 1 w ttil.tl' o • ' SEE ( 2ONc D3 ° - 5 k 4' yw ti oF o BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR 110ammo 9 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 2 -2540 0 ' 1'0 SE PI BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MEMORANDUM MAYOR DATE: July 8, 1982 TO: Planning and Development Committee FROM: Roger J. Blaylock, Zoning Administrator RE: McWilliams Appeal The Building and Zoning Department has reviewed the appeal information and does not agree with the conclusion reached by the Policy Development Department. The verbal presentation to the Planning and Development Committee should be considered part of the "additional submissions" presented to the City Council by the appellant. However, the appellant can only harm his case by not presenting a full and clear written appeal. The Building and Zoning Department presents the following chronology to clarify the present situation: May 27, 1981 Original Rezone Request "G" to R-3 (R-055-81) June 10, 1981 Environmental Review Committee Decision (ECF-058-81) Proposed Declaration of Significance June 29, 1981 Applicant Informed of Decision July 13, 1981 Appeal of Decision August 11, 1981 Appeal - Public Hearing August 21, 1981 Hearing Examiner Decision to Support ERC Decision September, 1981 to March 1982 Applicant Works on Resolving Issues by Providing Sanitary Sewer to Site December 14, 1981 Northeast Comprehensive Plan Adopted. (Changed Land Use Designation from Multiple Family to Office Park) March 30, 1982 New Rezone Request "G" to R-3 (R-030-82) April 28, 1982 Environmental Review Committee Decision (ECF-030-82) Declaration of Non-Significance June 1, 1982 Public Hearing June 10, 1982 Hearing Examiner Decision Planning and Development Committee McWilliams Appeal July 8, 1982 Page Two The Building and Zoning Department agrees with the Policy Development Department's support of the Hearing Examiner's decision based upon the facts present at the public hearing. However, one of the primary facts presented by Mr. Clemens, was not necessarily a fact, but a professional opinion which the Building and Zoning Department can not concur with. Specifically, the stability of the adjoining single family homes is questionable. These existing structures are in middle to old age (40-70 years). During the last 13 years only one of these structures has been upgraded. Our professional opinion is that this area south of N.E. 6th Street is "transitional" and not stable." Definition: (Oxford American Dictionary, pg. 664, 1980 Edition) STABLE - "firmly fixed or established, not readily changing or fluctuating, not easily destroyed or decomposed." The Building and Zoning Department's position before the Examiner was that since the area was transitional in nature, it was better to fully comply with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and rezone to office uses only with a B-1 zone. Thus encouraging the transition to occur faster. The applicant's request is a compromise between the Hearing Examiner's and the Building and Zoning Department's recommendation. The construction of the 12 unit condominium project to the south supports the request because it initiates a trend towards multiple family uses instead of office. RECOMMENDATION: Reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision. OF RSA iv v z BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENTCoBUILDING RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR MINIMOp a MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 235-2540 0 •' D sEP'tE. BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR December 16, 1981 Mr. Jack Ewing 622 S. Central Kent, Washington 98031 Dear Mr. Ewing: This letter is written to you regarding the August 21, 1981, decision of the Hearing Examiner affirming the July 15, 1981, decision of the Environmental Review Committee in which a Declaration of Significance was issued for your proposed rezone R-055-81) on the east side of Union Avenue N.E. between N.E. 4th Street and N.E. 6th Street. Because the Hearing Examiner concurred in the decision of the Environmental Review Committee, you were required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. To date you have not responded to this office on making preparations for this document. Therefore, unless you or your representative make arrangements by December 29, 1981, to meet with our staff for consultant selection and Environmental Impact Statement preparation, your application will be considered an expired file and a new one must be submitted. If you have any questions, contact us at 235-2540 or 235-2550. Very truly yours, Wve Steve Munson Assistant Planner J RE John R.Ewing &AssociatEs CI V d engineers-land surveyors JN 49806 December 22, 1981 Steve Munson in) CITY OF RENTOW Building and Zoning Department f l 7 L I City of Renton D Iji 200 Mill Ave. S EC 2 3 1981 Renton, WA 98055 BUILDING DEPARTMENT RE: Union Ave. NE Rezone Environmental Review R-055-081 Dear Mr. Munson: This letter is a follow-up to our phone conversation this morning con- firming that Mr. Ullrich is not going ahead with the Environmental Impact Statement for the rezone and will drop the rezone request at this time. Very truly yours, JOHN R. EWING & ASSOCIATES C-52- if j0C *rid, Shupe Holmberg, P.E. SH:mu cc: Sigi Ullrich 622 So.CEntral• KEnt,Washington 98031•(206)852-6633 OF I , t0f BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Z RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR 09 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 • 235-2540 0, 9gTfO SEP E 0 P BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR January 20, 1982 Mr. Sigi Ulirich P. O. Box 964 Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Mr. Ulirich: Enclosed you will find copies of two letters. One from the Building and zoning Department was written to your engineer (Jack Ewing) describing the status of your rezone application (R-055-81) and the requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement. The other is from Mr. Ewing advising our office of your intent to withdraw the rezone application and not prepare the EIS. Since we received such notice, we have closed the record and the application is now considered dead. If you have any questions, contact us at 235-2550 or 235-2540. Very truly yours, wete_ariti-1410den_... Steve Munson Assistant Planner cc: Jack Ewing SM:cl P OV Rt4I>- August 21 , 1981 1 001I11Eo IC3 Iv AUG 24 1139 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER A, ... ------- "'''- w` CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND UggfBl N. APPELLANT: _Sigi Ullrich FILE NO. ECF-058-81 R-055-81 ) LOCATION: East side of Union Avenue N.E. between N.E. 4th Street and N.E. 6th Street (extended) . PURPOSE OF APPEAL:Appeal by Shupe Holmberg, P.E. , for John R. Ewing and Associates of a proposed Declaration of Significance issued by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) for property proposed for rezone from G to R-3 by Sigi Ullrich. SUMMARY 07 DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the letter of appeal , 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 August 11 , 1981 at 10:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The Examirer reviewed the hearing procedure, advising that the burden of proof rests with the appellant to show that the Environmental Review Committee erred in its decision. He also advised tat the decision of the ERC is entitled to substantial weight based upon the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Testimony was invited by the appellant. Responding was: Jack Ewing 622 S. Central Kent , WA 98031 Mr. Ewing discussed the items which were designated deficient during environmental review, inadequate sewer facilities and impacts to traffic in the area. Staff comment had indicated that although traffic on Union Avenue N.E. was not significant, N.E. 4th Street located one-quarter mile from the subject site carries substantial traffic on a daily basis. He requested that these items be reviewed through an expanded checklist rather than preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, and the applicant would work directly with city staff to resolve these issues of traffic and sewer extension. Responding to the Examiner's request for clarification of an expanded checklist and its similarity to an abbreviated EIS, Mr. Ewing stated that the information supplied would be similar to information contained in an EIS , with other review items deleted. Responding for the city was: David Clemens, Acting Planning Director Member, Environmental Review Committee Mr. Clemens advised departmental concern that the existing problems are not related directly to the subject site, but go well beyond to significant development in the areas in the northeast quadrant. He noted that to allow one property owner to proceed while holding other property owners responsible just because of scale would be totally inappropriate in evaluating the problem. It had been suggested to the applicant that he coordinate a comprehensive analysis of the proposed developments with the developer of the Cascadia Annexation to the northeast to reduce the number of EIS's required. Responding for the city regarding the issue of sewer connection was: Don Monahan Engineering Division Mr. Monahan advised that currently no sewers extend to the subject site. The applicant is proposing to pump into lines in a different drainage basin off-site, and install a dry sewer line to be serviced by the sewer line for the basin when it is installed. However, the ECF-058-81 Page Two location of the line and required easements is unknown at this time. He noted that the engineer for the Cascadia Annexation is currently evaluating the location, sizing and easements for required sewer lines. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry, Mr. Monahan indicated that the proposed method of sanitary sewerage to the site would be a temporary pump storage system. Mr. Clemens discussed proposed development of 2200 units in the areas surrounding the subject site which are at some point of the development process, noting that proposed development on the subject site is in the earliest stages of development. The traffic volume which will be generated by the sum total of these developments will create a significant impact consisting of 6,000 daily traffic trips or a 25% increase upon existing streets and intersections, particularly N.E. 4th Street and the intersection of N.E. 3rd Street and Sunset Boulevard N.E. which is nearing capacity. Without alternative corridors a very serious problem will exist for which either solutions should be proposed or the project denied. Mr. Clemens noted that to properly evaluate those solutions, appropriate environmental review is required. Mr. Ewing advised that the current zoning on the property is "G", and the proposed project is in conformance with the proposed designation on the 1980 Comprehensive Plan. He also stated that a sewer analysis is currently underway for the sewer basin, and he questioned why the applicant, who is proposing a maximum of 18 units, would be required to do a similar analysis for the entire basin and a traffic analysis for the entire area proposed for construction of 2200 units in the form of an EIS. He reiterated his previous request that these areas of concern be addressed in an expanded checklist which would contain the same information as an EIS. Responding to the Examiner' s request for clarification regarding the sewer analysis, Mr. Monahan confirmed that an analysis is being accomplished ; however, the developer desires to connect the sewer, and until plans and analysis have been submitted and reviewed , location and specifications of the sewer connection are unknown. Mr. Ewing stated the applicant ' s intent to install a lift station, but the city has been unable to provide necessary information to proceed. He indicated a willingness to delay the project until the location of the sewer lines is established, noting that the applicant still must provide a traffic and sewer analysis, obtain a rezone, and prepare development plans which will allow sufficient time to finalize sewer plans. He also noted that this process would be preferable to the applicant in savings of time and expense than preparation of an EIS. The Examiner requested further comments. Since none were offered, the hearing regarding the Ullrich appeal was closed by the Examiner at 10:55 a.m. FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1 . The appellant, Sigi Ullrich, filed a request for a rezone of property about 81 ,700 square feet in area. The request was to reclassify the property from G (General ; Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size - 35,000 square feet) to R-3 (Medium Density Multifamily) . 2. The property is located on the east side of Union Avenue N.E. and is north of N.E. 4th Street. 3. The properties to the immediate north, east and south of the subject site are zoned G, the category assigned to the subject site. Property across Union Avenue N.E. to the west is zoned GS-1 (General ; Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size - 35,000 square feet ; SR-1 (Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size - 7,500 square feet) ; and R-1 (Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size - 7,200 square feet) . An R-3 parcel is located to the south somewhat removed from the subject property, and at the intersection of Union and N.E. 4th Street is a B-1 (Business/Commercial ) zone. 4. The applicant proposes constructing 18 units on the subject property upon achieving a reclassification to R-3. The eighteen units would create a potential for generating approximately 97 trips per day (5.4 trips/unit) . The traffic specialist indicated that the traffic will impact the intersection of 4th and Union and there will be demand for increased turning movements. The Police Department indicated that the potential development of the subject property and other development in the area will have a major impact on police services. 5. Sanitary sewer service is not available to the subject site. The applicant did not indicate a means of providing for such services. The city is in the process of analyzing possible routes for sewer line but has not concluded the study. The ECF-058-81 Page Three applicant indicated in the checklist, Items 16(d) and (e) , that approved on site utilities would be provided and be tied into the existing city systems. The city systems are not in place in this area. The record indicates that construction on the subject property could preclude an orderly extension of sewer service to northerly properties. 6. The .-ecord indicates that there are major concerns about the capacity of the N.E. 4th Street corridor to handle additional traffic and turning movements both in the immec;iate vicinity and at the heavily congested intersection of N.E. 3rd Street and Sunset Boulevard N.E. 7. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) in assessing the potential impacts of the development on the environment issued a declaration of significance (DS) for the propcsal and listed as the two reasons: inadequate utilities to service area; and traffic volumes are increasing above service levels. 8. The applicant therefore filed this appeal of the ERC' s determination. CONCLUSIONS: 1 . The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to "substantial weight" (RCW 43.21 .C.090) . Therefore, the determination of the Environmental Review Committee, the city's' responsible official , is entitled to substantial weight, and the appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the determination was in error. The burden is further defined as whether the decision was arbitrary and capricious in light of the record. (Short v. Clallam County, 22 Wn.App.825, 829, 1979) . A decis on is "arbitrary and capricious" if there is no support for it in the record and ii is therefore a willful and unreasoning action, in disregard of facts and circuristances. (Stempel v. Dep' t of Water Resources, 82 Wn.2d 109, 114, 1973) 2. The policies of SEPA are more clearly safeguarded when agency action results in full disclosure of the impacts of a proposal upon the environment. (Norway Hill v. Kirg County Council , 87 Wn.2d 267, 1976) The issuance of a Declaration of Significance by the ERC requires the completion of an environmental impact statement which does result in full disclosure. 3. There eras no contention that the subject proposal was not a major action capable of significantly affecting the quality of the environment; therefore, the ERC had to determine whether the proposal would or would not have a significant adverse effect on the quality of the environment. A majo- action is determined to have a significant adverse effect on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability (Norway, at 278) . "The nature of the existing environment is an •mportant factor. The same project may have a significant adverse impact in one lo,.;ation, but not in another location." (WAC 197-10-360(2) ) "It should also be remembered that proposals designed to improve the environment may also have adverse environmental impacts. The question at the threshold determination is not whether the beneficial aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse impacts , but rather, if the proposal involves any significant adverse impacts upon the quality of the environment. If it does , an EIS is required." (WAC 197-10-360(3)) 4. Subject to court decisions and to the criteria enumerated by the Washington Courts in analyzing the environmental threshold determinations, the decision of the ERC must be affirmed and an EIS is required. There are too many unanswered questions about the impacts of the proposal . The proposal is a major action, and the location of the subject property in an area without sewer service and along the N.E. 4th Street corridor is such to bring the proposal into the category of those which may have an adverse impact on the quality of the environment. 5. The city is currently in the process of reviewing the sanitary sewer issue for that area of the city. Drainage basin delineations as well as route selection is under review. Development of the subject site could impact or even preclude northerly extension of the sewer line. Such issues remain unresolved and the information disclosed by an EIS will aid the decision maker to arrive at a reasoned conclusion on the rezone. 6. The city has major concerns about the traffic corridor serving the subject site. These corridors don' t end at the intersection of N.E. 4th and Union, but extend westward to N.E. 3rd, Sunset Boulevard and 1-405. ECF-058-81 Page Four 7. WAC 197-10-060 makes it clear that the "total proposal including its direct and indirect impacts" should be reviewed when making an environmental determination. "The total proposal is the proposed action, together with all proposed activity functionally related to it. Future activities are functionally related to the present proposal if. . . b) The present proposal facilitiates or is a necessary prerequisite to future activities." (WAC 197-10-060(2) (b) ) The impacts of a proposal include its direct impacts as well as its reasonably anticipated indirect impacts. Indirect impacts are those which result from any activity which is induced by a proposal . These include, but are not limited to, impacts resulting from growth induced by the proposal , or the likelihood that the present action will serve as a precedent for future actions. (For example, adoption of a zoning ordinance will encourage or tend to cause particular types of projects.)" (WAC 197-10-060(3) ) (Emphasis supplied) 8. In the present case, the applicant proposed not only a rezone, but in addition, an eighteen (18) unit apartment complex. Other areas surrounding the subject site, besides being sparsely developed, are also zoned G and also designated for multifamily purposes by the map elelent of the Comprehensive Plan, and the reclassification of the subject site could induce similar requests in the immediate area. The entire proposal would therefore include such potential secondary or indirect impacts. 9. The ERC' s determination that a full EIS is required is reasonable in light of the record. Requiring an EIS is more consistent with the policies of SEPA. The provision of an EIS will enable the decision maker to fully evaluate the project. The policy enunciated in "Norway Hill" was that public agencies should foster the environmental full disclosure goals of SEPA. "An affirmative threshold determination should be overturned only if found to be arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law." Short at 830) Whether or not a proposal should or should not be approved should be based on firm environmental evidence before the decision is made. (Norway at 279) The decision of the ERC should be affirmed. The action of the ERC is not willful and unreasoning action, in disregard of the facts and circumstances. Only the preparation of an EIS would allow a reasoned decision to be made on whether or not the proposal should be permitted and under what circumstances. Therefore, the decision of the ERC is affirmed. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. ORDERED THIS 21st day of August , 1981 . 3 Fred J. Ka man Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 21st day of August, 1S81 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Jack Ewing, 622 S. Central , Kent, WA 98031 Don Monahan, Engineering Division, City of Renton TRANSMITTED THIS 21st day of August , 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 September 4, 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. ECF-058-81 Page Five An appea is governed by Title IV, Section 3011 , which requires that such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within 20 days from the date of the Examiner 's decision. Affidavit of Publication oFRk- STATE OF WASHINGTON cg.NEo 74161.COUNTY OF KING ss. LI JUL 10 1981 Michele Roe being first duly sworn on Z w she Chief Clerk 9yI' P oath,deposes and says that is the of THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a G DC week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Daily Record Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the County in which it is published, to-wit,King County, Washington.That the annexed is a Ned Notice R6589 as it was published in regular issues(and not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period of C 1 consecutive issues,commencing on the 1 day of Jun3 19 81 and ending the day of 19 ,both dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $2 9 which has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent insertion. Chief Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2 day of Jun0 , 19 81 ZIT. <J244.6.\ --4 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Mail 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 homes on Lot #1, Victoria Published in the Daily Re- Park Division No. 4,file TP- cord Chronicle June 15, 053-81; property located at 1981. R6589 the southeast corner of South 27th Place and Talbot Road South. 2. CHURCH OF CHRIST ECF-057-81) Application for rezone from G-7200 to R-3 to permit construction of future addi- tion to existing church and paving of existing parking lot, file R-054-81; property located at 2527 N.E. 12th Street. 3. DENNIS M. ANDER- SON (ECF-059-81) Application for Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit to al- low construction of a 50 foot long single family residential moorage dock, file SM-91- 81;property located at 2731 Mountain View Avenue North. The Environmental Re- view Committee (ERC) has further issued a proposed declaration of significance for the following project: 1. SIGI ULLRICH (ECF- NOTICE OF 058-81) ENVIRONMENTAL Application to rezone from G DETERMINATION to R-3 to allow development EVVIRONMENTAL of nine duplex units, file R- REVIEW COMMITTEE 055-81;property located on RENTON, WASHINGTON the east side of Union Av- The Environmental Re enue N.E. between N.E.4th view Committee (ERC) has Street and N.E. 6th Street issued a final declaration of (extended). re-non-significance for the fol- Further information lowing projects: garding these actions is av- 1. CASCADE PACIFIC ailable in the Planning Build-DEVELOPMENTDe-CORPO- ing, part Renton, e Municipal , RATION (ECF-056-81)235-2550. Any Washington ofappealofApplicationforatemporaryERCactionmustbefiled use permit to allow place- with the Hearing Examiner ment of a trailer for sales of by June 29, 1981. De ecr 9 O R4, iv THE CITY OF RENTON L MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR 0 LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9 co' FRED J. KAUFMAN, 235 -2593 091t SEPI ° July 22, 1981 Mr. Shupe Holmberg, P.E. John R. Ewing & Associates 622 S. Central Kent, WA 98031 RE: Appeal of Environmental Determination; File No. R-055-81 ; if ECF-058-81 ; Union Avenue N.E. Dear Mr. Holmberg: This office has received your appeal of the environmental determination in the above entitled matter. A public hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, August 11 , 1981 , at 10:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Please feel free to contact this department if you require further assistance or information. Sincerely, Ate--+^ H4FredJ. Kaufman of RF Hearing Examiner 77/ N K I"C Jn nr'` ED cc: JPlanning Department JUL 22 1981 y,` DEPT' CF A. 416 „ 16_, O THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 ammo eel r Cr) BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 90 FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235 -2593 09 TE4-' SEP-f00 July 22, 1981 TO: David Clemens , Acting Planning Director Richard Houghton, Acting Public Works Director Ron Nelson , Building Official ti,'del Mead, City Clerk FROM: Fred J . Kaufman, Hearing Examiner RE: Appeal of Environmental Determination; Shupe Holmberg, P. E. for John R. Ewing & Associates; Rezone File No. R-055-81 ; ECF-058-81 . An appeal of the determination of the Environmental Review Committee was received by this office in the above entitled matter on July 13, 1981 . Please forward two copies of all official documents and correspondence concerning this application to our office no later than 5:00 p.m. , Friday, July 31 , 1981 , for review prior to the public hearing. Publication of the public hearing by the Planning Department should indicate the date as Tuesday, August 11 , 1981 , at 10:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Fred J . I fman OF RFC o THE CITY OF RENTONU60Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 noall R BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4 235- 2550 0,9 • L. SEPZ 0 July 27 , 1981 Mr . Sigi Ullrich P .O. Box 964 Renton , Washington 98055 RE : APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION APPLICATION FOR REZONE, File R-055-81 ECF-058-81) ; property located on the east side of Union Ave. N .E. between N.E. 4th St . and N.E. 6th St . (extended) Dear Mr. Ullrich : This is to advise that a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner has been scheduled for 10 : 30 a.m. on August 11 , 1981 , to consider your appeal of the pro- posed declaration of significance issued by the Environ- mental Review Committee. The hearing will be held in the Council Chambers, Renton City Hall . Very truly yours, atele'q* -81 Roger J. Blaylo k Associate Planner cc : Shupe Holmberg, P .E . John R. Ewing & Associates 622 So. Central Kent , WA 98031 Donald E . McWilliams 2820 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton, WA 98055 THIS PROPERTY GENERAL LOCATION: AND, OR ADDRESS: EnoT SIDE OF UNION AVENUE N . E. BETWEEN N . E. 4TH STREET AND N .E. 51H STREET (EXTENDED) iiGAL DESCRIPTION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON rILE IN THE RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT I S POSTED TO NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MUNICIPAL BUILDING ON ._ AUGUST 11, 1981 BEGINNING AT 1c,30 A.M. P.M. CO10ERNING ITEM Z U REZONE LI SPECIAL PERMIT li SITE APPROVAL Li WAIVER Li SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPEAL BY SHUPE HOLMBERG, P,E„ FOR JOHN R. EWING AND ASSGCIATESSOPOFPROPOSEDDECLARA]lON OF SLGNIf[f.ANf.F 1: 4111 6-11: ii/0). FOR FURTHER IN CALL 235 2550 ':ii oi- ry,g7 gi THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON August 11 , 1981 , AT 10: 30 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITION: SIGI ULLRICH APPEAL: Appeal by Shupe Holmberg, P.E. , for John R. Ewing and Associates for a proposed Declaration of Significance issued by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) for property proposed for rezone by Sigi Ullrich, File No. ECF-058-81 (R-055-81 ) , located on the east side of Union Avenue N.E. between N.E. 4th Street and N.E. 6th Street (extended) . 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 August 11 , 1981 , AT 10: 30 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLISHED: July 27 , 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 24th day of July, 1981 . c- SIGNED: ,04Y7Le 7,164.1,44".t. s JofRA,'/ y' o THE CITY OF RENTON U •% © Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 osaLIMMO BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9A O FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 0 0, 947' SEP11-° July 22, 1981 TO:David Clemens, Acting Planning Director Richard Houghton, Acting Public Works Director Ron Nelson, Building Official Del Mead, City Clerk FROM: Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner RE: Appeal of Environmental Determination; Shupe Holmberg, P.E. for John R. Ewing & Associates; ezone File No. R-055-81 ; f ECF-058-81 . An appeal of the determination of the Environmental Review Committee was received by this office in the above entitled matter on July 13, 1981 . Please forward two copies of all official documents and correspondence concerning this application to our office no later than 5:00 p.m. , Friday, July 31 , 1981 , for review prior to the public hearing. Publication of the public hearing by the Planning Department should indicate the date as Tuesday, August 11 , 1981 , at 10:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Thank you for your attention in this matter. 1 OF RRffENIE JUL 22 1981 Fred J. fman DEp . JRE John REuing&Associates . avi 49806 July 13, 1981 R j, Fred Kaufman JUL 13 1981 Hearing Examiner City of Renton 9yti200MillAve. S e4//Renton WA 98055 JNGDEPP RE: Union Ave. NE Rezone Environmental Review R-055-81vi Dear Mr. Kaufman: This letter is in response to the Environmental Review Committee's decision in their letter dated June 29th, 1981. We feel that the traffic volume increase and lack of sewer in the immed- iate area are engineering problems, to be solved in the design of the project. Therefore, please accept this letter as an appeal on that decision. Very truly yours, JOHN R. EWING & ASSOCIATES irt;72/, Shupe Holmberg, P.E. SH:NH:mu 622 So.C€ntral•Kent,Washington 98031•(206)852-6633 OF R4,1' j IP K THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 salL • o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9 c 235 - 2550O9 rFD SEP1E 9 P June 29, 1981 Mr. Sigi Ullrich P.O. Box 964 Renton , Washington 98055 RE: UNION AVE. N.E. REZONE/ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW R-055-81 Dear Mr. Ullrich : The Environmental Review Committee considered the information submitted with the rezone request on June 10, 1981 and they determined that a Proposed Declaration of Significance should be issued based on (1 ) inadequate utilities to service the area and (2) area traffic volumes are increasing above service levels. The applicant has the right to appeal the decision of the Environmental Review Committee to the Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the date of the decision . However , since there is some doubt in the date of notfication of the City ' s decision to the applicant , the above date shall be deemed as the official date of the decision . Therefore , an appeal must be submitted by 5: 00 p.m. on July 13 , 1981 . If I can be of any further assistance, please contact me at 235-2550. Sincerely, 1\0%14. 57,-6. AO, LVCre Roger J. Blaylock Associate Planner RJB: rjb 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 projects: 1. CASCADE PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (ECF-056-81) Application for a temporary use permit to allow placement of a trailer for sales of homes on Lot #1, Victoria Park Division No. 4, file TP-053-81; property located at the southeast corner of South 27th Place and Talbot Road South. 2. CHURCH OF CHRIST (ECF-057-81) Application for rezone from G-7200 to R-3 to permit construction of future addition to existing church and paving of existing parking lot, file R-054-81; property located at 2527 N.E. 12th Street. 3. DENNIS M. ANDERSON (ECF-059-81) Application for Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit to allow construction of a 50 foot long single family residential moorage dock, file SM-91-81; property located at 2731 Mountain View Avenue North. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has further issued a proposed declaration of significance for the following project: 1. SIGI ULLRICH (ECF-058-81) Application for rezone from G to R-3 to allow development of nine duplex units, file R-055-81; property located on the east side of Union Avenue N.E. between N.E. 4th Street and N.E. 6th Street (extended) . Further information regarding these actions is available in the Planning Department , Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the Hearing Examiner by June 29, 1981. Published: June 15, 1981 NOTICE ENVIRONMENTAL r LARATIoN PL OPOSED ACTION APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM 'G' TO R-3 TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF NINE DUPLEX UNITS, FILE NO , R-055-81; ECF-058-81 GENERAL LOCATION AND DR ADDRESS PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF UNION AVENUE N . E, PETWEEN N. E. 4TH STREET AND N. E. 6TH STREET (EXTENDED) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. THE CITY OF RENTON - 0 : IRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE E.R.C.3 - • S DETERMINED THAT THE PTRA1 DES []DOES NOT, HAVE A SIGN IFICA6 ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIROGNI- MENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, QWILL DWELL NOT, BE REQUIRED. AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY E3E FILED WITH uN 29R1981 ON HEARING EXAMINER ElY 5:00 P.M., FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPItRTMENT 235-2550 DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PROPOSED DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE Application No(s) : R-055-81 Environmental Checklist No. : ECF-058-81 Description of Proposal: Proposed rezone to R-3 for duplex develop- ment Proponent: ULLRICH, SIGI Location of Proposal: East side of Union Avenue N.E. between N.E. 4th Street and N.E. 6th St. (extended) . Lead Agency: Renton Planning Department This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on June 10, 1981 , following a presentation by Steve Munson of the Planning Department. Oral comments were accepted from: David Clemens Ronald Nelson Richard Houghton Roger Blaylock Steve Munson Gary Norris James Matthew Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-058-81 are the following: 1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheet, prepared by: Steve Munson DATED: June 10, 1981 2) Applications : R-055-81 3) Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance: Building Department 4) Recommendations for a declaration of significance: Planning Department Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined this development does have significant adverse impact on the environment. An EIS is 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 significance: 1 ) Inadequate utilities to service area. 2) Traffic volumes are increasing above service levels. Signatures : laftqn(_,1 i WO647/0 / 2/al Ronald G. Nelson David R. Clemens, Acting Building Director Planning Director çthI4ctingicWorksDiror DATE OF PUBLICATION: JUNE 15, 1981 EXPIRATION OF APPEAL PERIOD: JUNE 29, 1981 1 i ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE JUNE 10, 1981 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 10 :00 A.M. THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM PENDING BUSINESS: HIGHLAND VILLAGE, LINCOLN PROPERTIES; (ECF-053-81) OLD BUSINESS: ECF-052-81 PACIFIC AGRO COMPANY B-254 Application for building permit to allow construction of 5200 square foot building for storage and blending of bulk fertilizer; property located in the vicinity of 903 Houser Way North. NEW BUSINESS: ECF-059-81 DENNIS N. ANDERSON SM-91-81 Application to allow construction of a private moorage for personal use at newly constructed single family resi- dence; property located at 2731 Mountain View Avenue North. ECF-057-81 CHURCH OF CHRIST R-054-81 Application for rezone from G-7200 to R-3 to allow a small addition to the existing church structure and the paving of the existing parking lot; property located at 2527 N.E. 12th Street. ECF-058-81 SIGI ULLRICH R-055-81 Application for rezone from 'G' to R-3 to allow the development of the site for construction of nine duplex units; property located on Union Avenue N.E. between N.E. 4th Street and N.E. 6th Street (extended) . ECF-056-81 CASCADE PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT CORP. TP-053-81 Application for a temporary use permit to allow a construction/informational trailer situated on Lot #1, Victoria Park #4, in conjunction with a single family project of 29 lots; property located at the southeast corner of South 27th Place and Talbot Road South. 0 0 1 4 t' + 4 ritmr I G k_____. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE j JUNE 10, 1981 A 14.4 ea i ,,,,i, f i:........\ ,b,_ oiu..i i. a DENNIS N. ANDERSON 4- \ r 1 TON' LAKE I - 7 r , WASHING iipi - 'EW i i[, ‘,„"tr----, In PR- F,\-\ mow 1 4M". i.:... i".r, rtivN. a 4\1i1'mi1m 1' m t r i=.-._i1si=_i14 Ck-t•_:_:,,.._,.,„ i'\, 0— t'\\ s°_‘\-" 4—— A1 F, Nftr. t] CHURCH OF CHRIST L Utter PACIFIC AGRO COMPANY 1 11,1 C ,d , 4 a- 0 \\ )J1111i,.. SIGI ULLRICH legal_AMPAM--.1 ii, ,\ Vignillfir/ 11°"" • I 191 , 11111 Whine")WV* II I i _Mil 1 III mi-- 1 ! Ifib_ , li V ilifr 10liiii _11 HIGHLAND VILLAGE '` it ` fin 't+ 1 i1 LA 11 L .. CASCADE PACIFIC I. -a.j,f1 tea* 111 i a or"..rifill iIIjii MN hi i 1 I I --- — / li R,, lt, ` I A I f I 1 II [ I H L_-\ I I LAKE 111 YOUNGS a41101. Date circulated : 6ls1$l Comments due : Z1eilgj ENIVIRONMEINITAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - OS$ - R/ APPLICATION No (s ) . R Orcr—Bi1 PROPONENT : Ut/1.1.4A_ S pi PROJECT TITLE : PE2 E Brief Description of a l • p Project : v s'7t 7 7 r e aor, sue' 6 10R 34r 4-ore4evetO e,ect e 9cc oil 4ekc.1ki`f-s LOCATION : S/4e D lea J iKra /1 11 ..1%: 5'xi A4 SITE AREA : itV9Setel.e5 BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6 ) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : V 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 : V 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : I N/ 15 ) Energy : V 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health :V 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : E ,e,E v Eye s,E S/a, Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information 0 Reviewed by : 4.._ Title : 1.0 tE4E,tJ„c,E/ZIAy6- 7:tiGlo9.1-. +'T Date : e — /( — P/ FORM: ERC-06 I UTILITY APPROVAL SUBJECT TO I C- B/ LATE COMERS AGREEMENT - WATER y,ES 355 LATE COMERS AGREEMENT • SEWER ND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE - WATER yEs SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE • SEWER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE • WATER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE - SEWER Ivp APPROVED WATER PLAN e5 APPROVED SEWER PLAN Y,Es APPROVED FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS BY FIRE DEPT. y.-s FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS Ygs Date circulated : C/618/Comments due : .glib/ ENVIRONHENITAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - Ds: - / APPLICATION No (s ) . /9— ®Ss8/ PROPONENT : bibs 4A Siet PROJECT TITLE : &20/VG' Brief Description of Project : 1?cfve$1 7a tezeirte Si lre b%.P "6 o R-3 4- f e`to cieveIOp*a+(I a e 9ctu41eSe c311 i+ LOCATION : S:sSi 4 e O le a t A r EVP. "frie rcrG^ N f',(4-44 1 , SITE AREA : / 48etelrey BUILDING AREA (gross ) "-- DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6 ) Noise : 7 ) Liyht & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : tit-1 , L.s o-„L-4. e-k. sitiensalsor b 2`' b o H H..,. 1 Yi a L i^1—t r le e Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information Reviewed by : Title : Date : y/V FORM: ERC-06 Date circulated : giJl81 Comments due : 4gbigj ENIVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - D58 - / APPLICATION No (s ) . / — O.S-1.C-8/ PROPONENT : (J jeA i PROJECT TITLE : RE2-cw& Brief Description of Project : t 6 " l0 3 4r (-a ore deireloprftcpn"t`tli'.' 9c vide tali i`ks LOCATION : Sige G lc tie i0r live. /trJeittieev, // 7' -I . $4( G SITE AREA : yf $$,r tYiy BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) ; -^ IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO_ 1 ) Topographic changes : v/ 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 1,7 3 ) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 1//'' 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 : E 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : 14) Public services : I i/ 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : Recommendation :D S More Information Reviewed by : 1 itle : Irze,r= 77vV? Date FORM: ERC-06 Date circulated : /1 SIN Comments due : .g19lij ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - DS: - APPLICATION No (s ) . os-r-8/ PROPONENT : b/f.i//e lf 9 prPROJECTTITLE : E2E- Brief tDescri ion of Pro j p va 7 r c ao, ,,sue' c ra-w. 16 to R 3 `Cen- ilefttect :vredevelop glem.to'E' 9c4u4/ek6ki`' s LOCATION : 6ccSi 4 e O 1F Uh t 0/l Are. ,e to eei / S/ t •/% SITE AREA : .s./ $8ett —e$ BUILDING AREA (gross) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : —^ IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6 ) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : X 11 ) Population/Employment : X 12 ) Number of Dwellings : x A 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : /74,4.'4'4441.( .it'S 4' ¢iallin 'fX(Sunr'f) traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : k 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : Recommendation : Alp SI DOS More Information_ Reviewed by : ! r.,,..- e .:"6--/14;(44-ec.) 1 itle : a/2ft— i2,0C Date : eljio/ e FORM: ERC-06 Date circulated : tic/8i Comments due : 4:J9/9/ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIIEW SHEET ECF - 05B - f3/ APPLICATION No (s ) . R 0s-s-8/ PROPONENT : bitp.ic i PROJECT TITLE : P041eT Brief Description of Project : tveff T4 pezevie ie'reve 4 4, " " 1oR-34)- fcrfoy.edettelop theAttere 9 dude k j+$ LOCATION : 67, Si 4 o U,,'e r Ace. Je i k•ce, /vg- le _IV f e6-44 f 0) SITE AREA : t/. $gQGYe$ BUILDING AREA (gross ) J' DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : t 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6 ) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north : SS e•-)4...(e e rz ,r it sC,LIPA`VI ss e-o east : v aetee1Opeen south : If west : 5ingt'P l Land use conflicts : 1p .5 66,Sers ems-r,ow-,%as old Y( ICCsIt/ est View obstruction : i 9 ) Natural resources : v 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : 17 40.1..,( 7c-,•fs7, .j ( Y,-;ps A/d or p i S ) traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 1/ 18 ) Aesthetics : 1/ 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : tr. COMMENTS : Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information Reviewed by : Slue. Uvtseyel Title : irsi•s-74-0+-r / 4 / 4n',rev" Date : 4//0/g FORM: ERC-06 Date circulated : g/ /81 Comments due : ighigi ENVIRONIMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - D,SB - $?/ APPLICATION No (s ) . /9— oSS=8/ PROPONENT : IJ/b ic/ij S,'qi PROJECT TITLE : JQ GLtte- Brief Description of Project : 1?eitves'Y livrezoore 5/11-e terb.wI 6 l o R 3 ''or ore et elt4Ifi to{' 9 cc ud/e k cv k(+$ LOCATION : 6 Si q e a/0 IrP. 4.6-1. crGn ,4/L /' p, , „ SITE AREA : f $ggGYrs BUILDING AREA (gross) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (o) ; r^ IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO_ 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : V 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : r , c traffic impacts : t p f N L Ur-ripe-, , ji..4,-•_ -744evea,A; r 14 ) Public services :V 14Z 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : f/ 17 ) Human health : 18) Aesthetics : Le 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information Reviewed by : l r Title : 7i/< a,S Date :c y/e FORM: ERC-06 Date circulated : gisigl Comments due : g19/9/ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - O5S - / APPLICATION No (s ) . os-s=8/ PROPONENT : UlieleA _'42t PROJECT TITLE : iQE2 ttE Brief Description of Project : AI u a fo R-3 4r f vTvre dew elopm tore 9ctu4/e se `f-s LOCATION : 5/le es le Uh/o, GYP. xf-g— i k•cen 4// 11 4art% 1 SITE AREA : 8geteive5 BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6 ) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : Ae 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : Recommendation : DNSI x DOS More Information Reviewed by : Pig title : Date : 4'/Sf7/ FORM: ERC-06 Date circulated : /s18/Comments due : ‘19/91 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 058 - / APPLICATION No (s ) . PROPONENT : (Jib-i4A f rt PROJECT TITLE : PEZOit/E-- Brief Description of Project : cued 7 pe20ie sue• r t"6 fo R-3 47- fa-fore develop 1'o a 9cju,o!e k Lk i+s LOCATION : si 4te o ,F Uti i 0.4 Aire. Atcle i race., N S/ .ro% f'we-444 SITE AREA : ,.`/ 88ekePt'S BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6 ) Noise : 7 ) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9 ) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : xw traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : xx 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : ** these units by them selves will not cause a major problem however they will impact the police operation slightly. Add these units to the number of other small and large units being built, together they will have a majcr impact on police services. Recommendation : „DN,I xxx DOS More Information Reviewed by : 1 itle : Date : 6/8/81 FORM: ERC-06 6/S/8l evision 3/1981 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application: RE2ewe [Q-ass' 8 ) f16 "7445 14- 3 —e_ t ar fv7t, ideYiPlep.ert+ f y db/Jlx Liat 1 s. Location: fit d W.•it Ate, CI E we•.-. ` e- 6o1eerie Applicant: VIIHeR , Si,i TO:Public Works Department Engineering Division SCHEDULED ERC DATE: g/iol Traffic Eng. Division SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:44014 Utilities Eng. Division Fir epartment 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. Oli 6/91 81 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: S s Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved DATE: yi,jye Signal! a of Director or Author d Representative REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved DATE: Signature of Director or Authorized Representative CI") fjl/ Revision 3/1981 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application: RE24# (A.. $S- 8) ffG "ja A 3 -far tee,? uv-R de Yet o.d+ 404 1 dc W'x, tin i f.r. Location: P' he/0V'°. / e- vA, Se•/V 40 1: Applicant: 1Jf!p,eA, Sip TO:Public Works Department Engineering Division SCHEDULED ERC DATE: 4/filig f Traf ' Eng. Division SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:4730/ I ti ' ies Eng. Division ire 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. O: 9/a1 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: 0 Approved alrpproved with Conditions Not Approved a// 0/1.76.—C Y/ L 'Cot/s Tree,-c 7—/v i-L/ Cade./I e Qul,C Gt/lam/ b ' DATE: C' /%/ Signature of Director or Au oriz d Representative REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:I,47-14_,ri Approved pproved with Conditions Not Approved 4 —,+14,g4,w(A...- r? DATE: 6- /(0- 7/ Signature o rector or Authorize Representative UTILITY APPROVAL SUBJECT TO g/ LATE COMERS AGREEMENT • WATER YES tt)-3 55 LATE COMERS AGREEMENT • SEWER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE • WATER Y. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE • SEWER l S SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE • WATER Ap SPECIAL ASSFSSME[+ AREA CHARGE • SEWER AJo APPROVED WATER PLAN YES APPROVED SEWER PLAN VAS APPROVED FIRE HYDRA! LOCATIONS BY FIRE DEPT. FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS 4-s 6/s/81 Revision 3/1981 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application: REiaew t4 . $$'.8) it l7 GYeyefapnert+ owe `? 4A/ex t1SI3 fse Location:, Ad. 01 art 44,t• - E `1 G 7A' •/ye — oeerle Applicant: L1f,t+ec i, S1®i• TO: Public Works Department Engineering Division SCHEDULED ERC DATE: 4//d0A., Traffic Eng. Division SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:4/34a Utilities Eng. Division Fire Department Parks Department EIBu' ding 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. 0 6/1/$31 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: POLICE DEPT. Approved ® Approved with Conditions [] Not Approved 1) Hours of work be Mon thru Fri. 7 : 00AM to 7 : 00PM Saturday 10 : 00AM to 6 : 00 PM, no work on Sundays. This area has single family residence in the area that would be disturbed by early or longer work hours. Also construction workers should not be allowed to play radios, steros, etc. as they try to have them louder than construction. equip & then the residence in the area are disturbed & we have complaints 2) $1, 000 cash street cleaning bond be posted, for the site DATE: clearing work. Sig re ,of/iirector or Authorized Representative e;re). "ersson 6/8/81 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: DApproved Approved with Conditions ONot Approved DATE: Signature of Director or Authorized Representative ego IN! Revision 3/1981 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application: RE2ewe P. ass-a// 116 ~7to IQ' 3 .L er- 60 r bp. r + o'E ¶ d . t, Wmi's. Location: E. jd. O1atis't Aye, Ate ieejtbv Ne- 40CerieN14 Applicant: 11I1r, ! TO:public • s Department g ngineering Division SCHEDULED ERC DATE: Odelig. p Traffic Eng. Division SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:4/3 /A Id lities Eng. 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. O! 6///8I REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Esly/AveG!'i ' Approved ® Approved with Conditions Not Approved 5 j e.c.T To me-ci l/ v.7 41// 611, c€f p-e-M 4.113. t DATE: 6/0/ Signature of Director or Authorized Representativ REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: 0 Approved ['Approved with Conditions Not Approved DATE: Signature of Director or Authorized Representative b/s/8/ Revision 3/1981 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application: RE N& ras ad "6 L6 4. 3 4llr b' i7 ur-e. deYetb prxert+ 4:44 i etrod@x Aim I's, Location: p per,, b' At, g' Applicant: U/l p,eA Saw TO: Public Works Department D?,01"'veering Division SCHEDULED ERC DATE: Odit affic Eng. Division SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:e/. 05/4 Utilities Eng. Division Fire Department Parks Department Building Department 0 Police Department El Others:_ COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. 0 9/19I REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: 7-y-a-64 C E/L e y ) 1_ Approved El4pproved with Conditions [] Not Approved 4 liax C se *' ti 9 - //0 8 1 ©rd, Er'' U - 4 /1/074 '`a-af/s 7 y-ai- J a z q/ e Cam(-4 c- ,, •4GL, S , 9//0 8 7 a/rd,-T.s . iirPe c'e_ ! L /ig4? to k7 t. 7.-rCI U/ DATE: S 0 g/Signature of Director or Cutho zed Repre entative dvi& a e/ ne(zs saey yh b4y( c, S/wee/ g 54 iA of REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: DApproved D Approved with Conditions 0 Not Approved DATE: Signature of Director or Authorized Representative 6/S/ / ision 3/1981 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application: RE2 ',ggtALaS .-8) tt6 "76 4• 3 .61„.. deye!oprnen+ o'f ¶ dp'.y. an i fs. Location: 4, `dl1' O 4 VIt illt 1• ist t+'0*, N yr /ye- 40(e,ieNd Applicant: 11I1r,cA, Siyi i L;Public Works Department Engineering Division SCHEDULED ERC DATE: 04/9/ Traffic Eng. Division SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:4/3O/.9/ Utilities Eng. Division Fire Department Parks Depatment uilding 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 6/9/81 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: r` Approved aApproved with Conditions Not Approved 0A4ILIti aaa-1 e4,Kz4 DATE: Signature irector or Authoriz d Representative REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved DATE: Signature of Director or Authorized Representative x CITY OF RENTON RE7ONE 4PPLICATJON FOR OFFICE USE ONLY LAND USE HEARING APPLICATION NO. O c'0 EXAMINER 'S ACTION APPLICATION FEE $ /0e0 APPEAL FILED RECEIPT NO. glic771 CITY COUNCIL ACTION FILING DATE 0 ORDINANCE NO. AND DATE 74; ING DATE 7'0. ' q.c© rke^/ 1'li.St eir,St Fee j APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 : 1 . Name Sigi Ulirich Phone 271-6303 Address PO Box 964, Renton, WA 98055 3. Property petitioned for rezoning is located on Union Ave. NE between NE 4th St. and NE 6th St. (extended) 4 . Square footage or acreage of property 1. 88 ac. 5. Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach a separate sheet) The south 132 feet of the north 431 feet of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 10, T 23 N, R 5 E, W. M. , in King County. Washington; LESS County Road. 6 . Existing Zoning G Zoning Requested R-3 NOTE TO APPLICANT: The following factors are considered in reclassifying property. Evidence or additional information to substantiat your request may be attached to this sheet. (See .Applicatio Procedure Sheet for specific requirements . ) Submit this fort in duplicate. 7. Proposed use of site Development of site for 9 duplex units. 8. List the measures to be taken to reduce impact on the surrounding area. Appropriate measures in landscaping & design will be employed in the 20-foot rear set-backs. An open area of approximately 4600 sq. ft. w provide a growing buffer between the proposed turnaround & the site to the south. Land- sca ing on the north ro er line w 11 rovicle a sisight barrier forsite tq north. 9 . How soon apfter the rezone i g anted co ou intend to develop tie site? Construction will be completed within one year. 10. Two copies of plot plan and affidavit of ownership are required. Planning Dept. 1-77 r AFFIDAVIT I , D /7 /ci T , M -( j'i//4't4 I being duly sworn, declare that I am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me this ? day of Ali-7 19 F / , Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at /(4/ 1 itO sN me of tart' Public) Signature o Owner ela-ee-1411--1,--A1--X cLezz," 7 Address) Address) Kai to•n •, 1 t 1/ 1 '-- D i- r . ...._ City) State) 5: A S tiQ Telephone) NP11N 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 1 governing the filing of such application . I Date Received 19 By: Renton Planning Dept . 2-73 Proposed rezone site is located in an area of Renton that is presently undergoing rapid change due to development. The area incorporating the site in question was zoned G under annexation to the City of Renton Ordinance #2290, November 23, 1966). However, as early as 1968, areas to the south and east of the site have been rezoned R-3 (Ordinance 2390 & 2482). Recognizing the need for an increase in multiple-family development in community areas, the City of Renton, under the Comprehensive Plan revised January, 1980), showed the site potentially zoned for medium density multi-family residential. With the increasing demand for housing, and in keeping with the policy guides of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, an R-3 zoning is requested for the site. it iV J Q4 ANNING r` RENTON URBAN AREA T I lz,COMPREHENSIVE PLAN i ""61 REVISED JANUARY 1980 1.-f_ I gilt. 13' il AN L.r.;;;;;.--.0 1 .. , LEGEND i 4 if iI= SINGLE FAMILY LIGHT INDUSTRY OR M- f IR LOW DENSITY MULT. FAY. - HEAVY " MED. ° •• " =IMANUFACTURING ARK /• 1NIHIGH 11 n " i sg RECREATION k`\I COMMERCIAL MT GREEN/ELT 1111EIMIPUBLIC •GUASI-PUBLIC 1i VIE II ii L"---" L. 1 litLAKE I171 r ai fi 11 WASHINGTON 111'11_17 Ill` fi,-;1 ,0‘1/4N in iiitigpram,,* ,,,......::-553#5 Ai EiC:-C r mi Ea' air t I E Ej 1\ AL ,, - Ik -. .-...` kepi I cooNIEllinoAim'maws, rh;; ii _ ItVirg elf WEE III Mil 1;1j _ ill '^ ....,., Ir. SWAPO IV.:0.. , 1100:41 I mow 1 --, Mr 1 I ___ 1. - t4Ati.st I igilFIRP itiucoriG i/ • f o 44: ‘ f ri . -.•.•.:.;:::::::::::::otismo wit.4., 7::::::::•:•:•::::•:::::. mi . L- 1 T1- 4..4ic,taN t, '''''' . 14.1F614c4PeolikPl air - .° I. As T-wij IIII ' 14.111-111 Aso& 1 rii:::::.:::Kii , II Valv., 2virliz..,..,,,„, c::)iiiiiimi vm, laiimila 4,i 4,:,,-,.:::„ 61111::\ ( r4T6 ; fi\714111111.116arI PSOIA\s\ If iivc '". '. IMI v.v....\ tiiii larisimm•pirowi Leas 41 ,::.".;.{:a...1.1,1:::::::::::.:.:::.:::f....::.::{ lig*\111111:661 s7A-•,.:7°.;\4,4\% la-ik\ aria taw.\rF::::::::::Pf:::.:?...::::::2::::' ....... °•.! ,itr-`.\„.. \lmia it aro izIt\--' `-' - ' W'IL%‘ 434S8*"41'.'' 4 - oa. ----1.,:::::::. ,7*=::::::-..g:::E:.:;.:aA "Ill ilit LT& 1 4) 151 II , \ a2 3 ;iiiia 101,v 0i i 1111 k P4 ic t , 1.-1 i„ f 1 Ill'. ill mmmo LAKE a g!i•A t 4 YOUNGS J z r.,o I I lungEI COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan is an official public document adopted by the City Council as a policy guide to decisions regarding the physical development of the community. It indicates in a general way what the people of the community consider as desirable future land use development. The areas denoted on the map above are generalized. The definitions listed on the back will aid in interpreting the map. This is not a Zoning map and therefore, does not represent existing zoning within the city. Zoning of individual parcels of land is outlined on the Zoning map and specific uses permitted are defined in the Zoning Code. For further information call the Planning Department at 235-2550, Municipal Building, Renton, WA 98055. 7.„,..._. „... A. , , , t. Ak AI I.:'• Atli g i ill i 1 I ..• ---, d:,-/ 44‘61„, I4/ I 4..I H S 4 gi I i]Al?j2• If 91"f4 2/t., , f _....! pg, -,,,,,,,,,f,,0......,, ,,.--- 7.-- ."1"=11-. 6-,-- 7-i --- 174;26. .i.•. •. • .. l;'.: iltrAk . • r ilitts. '''' 4'kili6:110k,IIPS:..."...)217'Seto•,t I t ' : 4„ ", i„,/, ;,.. ' . .' ... : . 1 . . . . ill 7 do • It77 .4 ••. 4, s' gie,,L. titb 111104*.1;1 V% •I, Ili••• vits1114>. I 40,1,(#.4•i ... e.47(„1. 6. 1,-„,40''"•• •ii ii ' .1i i-- - _ j•-.......- .... .....-- _ ,,,, ,, ,, . ..„- 4-•••••••010•46.11•••4ft-•••••4o-11 .46 4illie.. •/ f , V . 0 tri Irtli1 I I I v .' •• ' I 1 1 e# W. '' .• W I-, , • I • I I I I , 1 i, t „,011:4:,, ,\. , 6 , 6,1, •I.rt / i II i aik:5'\.\ . a . .. t . , s ' 1.11,4\iiiiiiitliilliF I °•• ''. ' 1110.1. I .:, , .. . . \ • •' 1" titilik.bile. 40;i0e„:„ilotilisiwirte . 1 II' / 1 1.4II tu0 II Illeirikethild"1"14 411•1••••-411.-•••••••• : 111•1111111111111•1111=I 17] I I 4 i! H-- --• I 1 1 I 11 i 9_, 4=111•...B.-4,11•1••••11.4•..0•••-•••41•11m....- 111 ' I / 1 g 1 I I,.; i• i 4-- 1T- ti I Az.- 4 • 1 i I i 1 ,A gm 11 3 ; 0 1 A2.131...2V\13D 1 Elli 0 -111111111 L GOO AAN132I 0 1 i . I i ,1 0 A . V a, I ,1 s i ip _ ,1 I L-1771--0 e•TT i 11 .--- I , 1 d 1 i it\ ,02aiIi1I P 1: 1 i . IIa- i. I' 1 I I ; 111 1 L i 11.--- i 1 ,- i ; 1 L. 4, 611. I L II is,414‘I ' I LimIE..8 . 1 1 I 11 lil LI• c---111 1-lis4I _ _ 1 11111015- • II: --i- ti I I an. IL 1 i 11CM •cage .9 lasono el.. .....;.gc r.......,..... it:El -'zI "I' ti B 1----: 6. r ' 6441 Ir... ' I___ I rillaVe•il I en • I at a qiCI"D'a Al .5 - 1""L 'imaietePr ' IfigliF,ANAll.Ira we.."•01.1'DoLoale, _.. ...opman53E03 ea WIT/ita uslifila s We" VIII; "71..nl ' 1211 4 ‘116.: ;• .RTI .111.1ait.411112111"'WI' I e-1110 itt8 .... 60 ea . . ;10 ,1 1,1 .. 11. 1. II 0' • •1 a •. 4 1• '- I L'urivedbreig° -.2 ' `5 I . . 1 ' • ' . ,i-- s i. t 14 I.., .::il. 1 IN Li 1111 OP 1:-- - 14:+149 '' me's s is Ciiiii14- ..en0081-9-K. ; - 7C1.4fa i •."'- -- . T,. T'.1TT-4.• ' 1 % 1 , am t•CI 1114:1 4.Ill 1 • • • I P KO• a ,, It It It A 1 1 PA:Gir iii1, ,B/ :31 t...11 . • ,A WWII .' • .'"VeRia4111IRI11111r1...so 1 1-11, r31.1451 Oa , __., .f•- . .re- .': ! " " .Ibil 4. • ,..,- • MP • .. . ra -- ,..., 1.-1. .. ., . a NO 4--} • „.. _ 1In •• I t I zip allirVig .1-:, r • 16+.- - re 4 qfP 4 - '' iL, 1 S all ,,1- *-... 1 r01" ...at tiii-' e 4b,.'''4''' _ ,n, lit in I .. t...lowee !. hor4h...NO IllifiliV 4'.. -• ': k;1•.:.11 0 , 1 1 - -•/ 1 . ^I, - •-, IP I % 0%.4:-)r:.;•.11;fl t '' .• ' ' "'. 1 1•1;:''•''.. '74' Mal .;• i 1 r.....,........1 ;Asi ,•44, sf gi 1 I k . . Tit,•L.1!i".,ia. ..b. s'.% n...•• ,4- i si i :1 I •.,j1.4PhiP .1..r.41. • f. k.1 • 4 • , . 4 4.,4 • - • iIII /I F 1.44'1.. ".OD ••6 1 „it.r. . I I II iqs ••1.17 'I .1.!..i,:i., I,e. a r.77.7,3 9 I" ••, 1 4. r- I I J I ist N ,...,-,.., ...... r( N''''------I li:„..,......4 41 4.5 cat 7 me / il aeeu Aw a A-----5r----" Z/ Qi el 1 / ( T):3Ix`\ c w""1°° 1 x ram.9 1 1 4,....i.i ......, \ i 08\ I 1 4 LEGAL DE_GRIPTt J ruG 3ourai .et Fee,'corms'AKM77[ b/F>•er LW* wR.. OF.lAIk OF Ow/4 OF 3fe.A1; rz3 AI;R SC.. owl. M./ 4a/O C0CILI VW 7b.,/ O/LIJ6 Le.]O GOtMUTV ..OAO. 1 3C.6.i_e.: I.-,Z.O. N TAX LOT5_ AJ I IOL 0La_L1v_ •ILLIAAl SL9 LCS A. 350 UUOU AVE. iL01! Oe TVA.ram 3 v..rOU...ADM. 5S5S RGKfOY. 44AM. 'JEOSS 1- 04 .011.A4 N.[A4xG YALE:L••!KILL 4SIL UE 4111-Jr. MuIO+.MMSM. 9003Z I14 MAZGL ELY.A.GE 1LO UUO.I AVE. 19JT124..,•VA M. 511033 uswcwa wva[m n Own. sxer Jam N [W SI(.I ULL .IGHON uv o owrn o-Aw suwvvow! 1. r1-61 j RE IV 4'' ENkomo.RELO JE-uuiou AVE. 6ITE. , MEW— wr.waswlwarow xosl ast-sasx IllareDESIGNEDIvIowawwDv 'CHECKED n 49601._ n_, o[uam i NI IorumL uzI 1 D6A I cki 1 iNSi-I i SITE PLAu—PROPOSED r 4 Printed for Distribution by 1, Security Title Insurance Company SECURITY of Washington TITLE PURCHASER'S ASSIGNMENT OF REAL ESTATE CONTRACT AND DEED O c.) a) LID C r: For value received the undersigned holder of vendee's interest in that certain real estate contract entered into on the 15th day of March 19 67 between LLOYD S. PETERSON and JENNIE F. PETERSON, his wife as seller, and NINO V. HOLMES and JOYCE M. HOLMES, his wife as purchaser, for the sale and purchase of the following real estate situated in King County, Washington, including any interest therein which grantor may hereafter acquire: The South 132 feet of theNorth 431 feet of the N.W. quarter of the S.W. quarter of the S.W. quarter of Section 10, Township 23 North Range S E.W.M., in King County, Washington; Except the West 30 feet thereof for road. RE N TO 0, s Z' MLES TALC L! !v Ji,MAR s684AN41f1NLUAMS C{ DEFur. Ma )i4, r ' 0 w do hereby assign, transfer and set over to DONALD E. MCWILLIAMS and DORIS L. MCWILLIAMS, his wife the assignee, the said real estate contract, and _ 3 said assignor do bargain, sell and convey said described premises to said assignee, who hereby assumes and agrees to fulfill the condition of said real estate contract. a t. Th 0) Dated this k4 day of1/7 19 68. ki-t•-e---Z.,. V-1.2-, .,,,,,,, z;„:",,?72-‘1""< r--'4 M- \--....c /7-71:-e-'7--) STATE OF•WASHINGTON,_. ss. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS: C2 M \,X-1'/c- COUNTY OF KING vohtr* I s day personally appeared before : si° 'bed in and who executed the withi . gt, instrument, f r and voluntndaryahatctand a eed sfor th® husesme a 4d 4: .!4 ,.si6 therein mentioned. L1 , _ 5 day of march 1 : 6 gander my hand an official a1 t I. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Keaton, 1' , U S SPACE RESERVED FOR RECORDER'S 'SE SECURITY TITLE INSUF,f..vUE COMPANY y S CIJOITY OF W4SHIN6TON n N 5TIT ..Of eecorvc <v6rvce eea c was G Ory fe•c. r.nn,N 3 so UITr-; O Filed for Record at Request of J a I..i :r 0 ... r , NAME . y' /:. 17t R O"I 11 I ` ADDRESS in 7 0 D CITY AND STATE /` -- ;" , r j R,...—. r::'w.--• s:..____.:`.:..4u.:I,R.` 'ri '.i.:i,4:.>i 4.tw-st'ea .:......1 y::-+Mlw il't`.,w-s..--.d....b.:, ;awiMe+Ml....... X.tfid30 HSYM J !Nf? 9t1?1a o11ond :I v 8 El . t )6t iO1S3R f3a tc 39vd ion peep LSoc'« '' '7 g9 L50c Proposed rezone site is located in an area of Renton that is presently undergoing rapid change due to development. The area incorporating the site in question was zoned G under annexation to the City of Renton Ordinance #2290, November 23, 1966). However, as early as 1968, areas to the south and east of the site have been rezoned R-3 (Ordinance 2390 & 2482). Recognizing the need for an increase in multiple-family development in community areas, the City of Renton, under the Comprehensive Plan revised January, 1980), showed the site potentially zoned for medium density multi-family residential. With the increasing demand for housing, and in keeping with the policy guides of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, an R-3 zoning is requested for the site. INNING -- y RENTON URBAN AREA N amCOMPREHENSIVEPLAN REVISED JANUARY 1980 L+ ' ` 1 .' r wt.r.:.;;;;'-' 1-4' LEGEND t IQ [IMGLL FAMILY LIGHT INDUSTRY OR Y•f 4 LOW DENSITY YULT. FAM. - HEAVY " i' MED. " " " © MANUFACTURING PARK ,AWI I 1111. M1GN " " " CIMIfT•!!if RECREATION 1. COMMERCIAL lSisd+GREENBELT M_ I 1 &iellph,....„____ TS: TON E 611111.re Iiz li i !J ie k- , eift.„IIII11111Pirife12.-i ! - r, 14111111111:21V --- mei 1.9,- Allittla T- 4,.._,\ k:_ i-,l 1. 1,- 1-*. 1-\7...,,-., k( 1i; 1m--`1ii,_ 1r/1rk( 1ta- L= t_. t1_ i., k gT u:....%: 1.: i,. 6..:?:4ls::?.'„ l...:ti...: R; l;_oiIiPi. g r. oM.-ri.NA-,, R' i.. 1 f:\..6t!:.c.\: t:.; 5i.-_,-:.: z,.lt4..-:, 6,..::\ V:/ v..:' il:. i. V..., B....... 1g.: q1.-. 1:<.%.. 4{ 6 4. i\ i,-- 4.. i;.- 6.:. i0. r-.- 1„: c10:i_..,:i';•:::.< 1..:..,.:...:.:.* I:,—*. 1.-. N:':... 1: 1. 4... 1a.:• sIi.:. 4. 1 7 1: i-.y1. r1., 1ii:,. 1:., d:.. 1-: i:' i--. t: i a! ii:,:1i. r- 1:, l., ill:ia-: v r,'1OeM'kI''%"7el4li.41 i.\,.' 7\ 3/4., f. x,_ N0,‘ k, V„4W,.. 0. n);At.1Mr# x14ii1mI, r: i ka:ffl11,.:ioL: iif.;./:4i.:li:1.- i0i',; v':. 4k: A., i 4- w' s-'_cl. Ir, i, p` 5J1a,. ig1; Is1gne 1mIa1#1liNp:stsm, il: MC 1 ttk4l:..0.:. 0..,•. 4a= f AIL\ ri. 1 4- I I f: o., ftPE: l m0:- m: l_ f v::! :;. 0:•..-::: t1::•• ' N. iI.:..i0 *. 1,:.• 7 0:•,:.";:. t..: 1:_:•:v.:.=•: He.:. 4:• t„:.:. o..: 1:•._: ia•:::::i..: rI1z i....,:: 4iD: ilt.:... I:::,:' i:,.':,. iIi) i i1 a2, W 7vli,, r1 Fw4iIiA31k\=es1 13" 4 i.,..11-,O„,,.,,,*,A,..,.,. t r ci:.k. 1:.., 1." 4 k:..f... e:•.. Ss..<. i:...:,,.ji._...4 i 7a 4 i4m` fts!, a kif:1,.._,, N,.,_.fi, r 6(`IIII5-1 L, L i! i d m 1 \ Ili\4K..1IF1foo?,,..„ 11 s\% e16 all til1!; fli ANII Ii\744 I 4 11 LAKE YOUNG-S 18 II11,___- g 4 I w141411I1" I , COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan is an official public document adopted by the City Council as a policy guide to decisions regarding the physicaldevelopmentofthecommunity. It indicates in a general way what the people of the community consider as desirable future land use development. The areas denoted on the map above are generalized. The definitions listed on the back will aid in interpreting the map. This is not a Zoning map and therefore, does not represent existing zoning within the city. Zoning of individual parcels of IlL land is outlined on the Zoning map and specific uses permitted are defined in the Zoning Code. For further information call the Planning Department at 235-2550,Municipal Building, Renton, WA 98055. i d i , , IY 1 1 TT f• ter i:4'T .:. r l.Ajs•in•f'i1 A ' M{ Of"; ill , r I i y c 7 0 T s I 1 ...,./••'mY: I+M—..•r•. IL.f, ... • •II. i , . 1.•' r •. •rI'. •.ri.. .:.l• 1 1 1 • O a t r 2 _ f fl 1 iic• NE 4 o k.,.•s ' S I r Ep 0111 f v 1 q I r•. • • ai oA• s"'dA9 TVs nannnn roe I J 10. , i r-„, . 13 i t 10"1 At ,wd58112 L.•P Y.' ...± v© 5'a.71. i. S 1.111 Y_ , 1 ett71 ' I y ,A a 1_' --_ — 35'i ,°7 9K RIQS'A. a a 0 es f e I ss®eQewiamtne ,':.0' Q 61"'•..L,' N m' I Aim i1+A A1/14FAl lililllN, 'A I ki Brno ..-.a . ., E ! g= I am®6mcecsc! ':11•i.,Ni IlEddl9t o: asp rnit; 7. IN i , IL- l-Iii Mr - I der017 1s i1 I 1 o LIBI ' !' I icy 1' A F i G Iir GRCENW OD 1 CEMET RY 4111 M'1 4/, 111 `li. 1 I t i o I 1 d — I I 11 i 11 I I I I I G 1 I I T SR— ! I 11 I IHMENNINIMPOINIM. •-..-.. ti.-•••-Lm-•-••••••-•*.m t".1171 L II i s il p ©vakm prmoe . in I I C. lri I 1 rtw w• !w aura.-.-e,.— I I. , . ` .. ww...Y1•• 14' 11N ••T . 7. I 7V- A 7:;„ 411•`j is 9, i v r.. •`N IO"4,'ii' ' N , '•.cif 440 .AltitV%;)'4;4 0..".‘.: I ., t•t• 1 eVINW/*Id+t. if , . 6:44.4 I t.4• S T I; I 7-- ii); tr....k.'., \'1. RivER 411‘ 7 SR-1 i'/, 7 1 s 0 , \i\III71111111.1.1111116.111.11"." 1"11111111111111‘‘ 1 0'.' ' 11 ( / y CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON r` YT`, rf`4-' iD Q, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM c,, MAY 2$ 1.31 k"."-)1 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 9 Application No. D.6-54/ Environmental Checklist No. ,e6A—- te...5d - / PROPOSED, date: FINAL , date: EjDeclaration of Significance Declaration of Significance Declaration of Non-Significance Declaration of Non-Significance COMMENTS: Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals . The Act also requires that an EIS be prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele- vant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review with- out unnecessary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal , not just to the license for which you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed, even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, with- out duplicating paperwork in the future. NOTE : This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State of Washington for various types of proposals . Many of the questions may not apply to your proposal . If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I . BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent Sigi Ullrich 2. Address and phone number of Proponent: PO Box 964 Renton, WA 98055 271-6303 3. Date Checklist submitted 4. Agency requiring Checklist City of Renton Zoning 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: n/a 6. Nature and brief description of the proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature) : Request for rezone of a 1. 88-acre site from G to R-3 for the eventual development of 9 duplex dwellings. 2- 1. Location of proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal , as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environ- mental setting of the proposal ) : The site is relatively flat with a slight rise on the east end. Brush grass cover the western end with a few conifer & cottonwood trees. The trees become denser toward the east property line. Surrounding sites are of similar vegetation & growth. 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : One year from rezone approval. 9. List of all permits, licenses or government approvals required for the proposal federal , state and local --including rezones) : Rezone Application. 10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes , explain: Yes. Construction of 9 duplex units & associated improvements is planned. 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? X YET- MAYBE W 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 AU— d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X YES MAYBE W e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or off the site? YES MAYBE NOS 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 Y MAYBE W Explanation: Grading. construction. & paving of site will cause over- covering of soil. Existing ground will be contoured to allow proper grading for construction of units & road. 3- 2) Air. Will the proposal result in: a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X Y MAYBE Fi5— b) The creation of objectionable odors? X YET— MAYBE A c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X YES uvilr NU— Explanation: Exhaust emissions, during construction &, once completed, during occupancy, will increase in the area. 3) Water. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements , in either marine or fresh waters? X YES MAYBE NO b) Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X YET— M YBE F c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? YES MAYBEN d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? YES MAYBE NO e) Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? YES MAYBE NO f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? YT MAYBE NO g) Change in the quantity of ground waters , either through direct additions or withdrawals , or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? YES MAYBE NO h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents , waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? X Yt- gun- DTO— i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? YES MAYBE Explanation: Development of site will alter absorption rates & water runoff; however, an approved drainage system will provide control of run-off channel it along the natural drainage pattern. 4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops , microflora and aquatic plants)? X YET— MAYBE AU— b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? Y1'm MAYBE N c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X Trr MAYBE 1115— d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? YES Rua tif Explanation: Clearing of site for construction will remove existing brush, gras , trees that occupy construction space. Existing_ao a does not annfar to be of any endangered or rare species. Landscaping of site u.pwi rLimp]etion may introduce new species of flora but not interfere with naturjl regeneratic i of native flora. 4- 5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms , insects or microfauna)? X TEE- MAYBE NO b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna?X YES MAYBE NO c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? X YES- MAYBE NO d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X YES W N Explanation: Existing fauna (i.e. rodent, insect, bird, etc. ) populations will be forced from site during development but may return upon completion or at such time as conditions of natural habitats are right. 6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation:During the construction phase of project. equipment noise may increase existing noise levels. 7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X YES MAYBE WO-- Explanation: Street lights on finished street & dwelling lights will add new light to area. 8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X YT MAYBE N-0-- Explanation: Approval of rezone would change use from existing G zoning to R-3 zoning. 9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X YES- MBE NO b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X Y E - MAYBE WU— Explanation: 10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X Y€T- MAYBE N( Explanation: 11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X YES- MAYBE N0 Explanation: 18 new families will occupy site once project is completed. 5- 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X YES MST NO Explanation: Project will add housing. 13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? X YES WEE NO b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X VE MAYBE 0— c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? X V— gANTE d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X YES WIT 0— e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? YE!- MAYBE N f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists or pedestrians? X YES MAYBE WO— Explanation: The addition of 18 new families will add vehicular movement in area. Depending on choice, existing transit (taxi, bus) may be used. Appropriate safety measures will be taken to reduce traffic hazards. 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 N- b) Police protection? X YET— RAM" WU— c) Schools? X YES MAYBE iW 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 MBE NO Explanation: Public services will be required for site. 15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X Y S— MAYBE W b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X YES MAYBE tATIT— 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 YT RATET (FT b) Communications systems? X VT - RTflif WU— c) Water? X YES MAYBE NO I S 6- d) Sewer or septic tanks? X YES MAYBE Nii-- e) Storm water drainage? X YES WYE NU— f) Solid waste and disposal? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: Approved on-site utilities will be provided by the developer and be constructed to tie into existing city systems. 17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X TM MAYBE WO— 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? MAYBE N Explanation: 19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? YET— MAYBE N6 E cplanation: 20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? X YES MAYBE WO-- Explanation: III. SIGNATURE I , the undersigned, state that to the best my k d, e the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the 1 ad a e a withdraw any decla- ration of non-significance that it might issue in elian e o this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful ack o 11 isclosure on my part. Proponent: X signe'd) Sim rie4 Uti-LA0 CN name (rinted) City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 ceipt # 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 ' , b, Please take this receipt and your payment to the Finance Department on the first floor. Thank vou. ENDING OF FILE Fig TITLE if 5 ' I