Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA96-128 (2) 6: ) CIT1 )F RENTON sal ;: . Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman January 30, 1997 TYopf3 N SON Springbrook Associates P.O. Box 53525 JA' 3 0 1997 Bellevue, WA 98015 RECEI VEp Re: Rezone of Springbrook Associates Property File No. LUA-96-128,R Gentlemen: The Examiner's Report and Recommendation regarding the referenced request has not been appealed within the time period established by ordinance. Therefore, this matter is being submitted to the City Clerk this date for transmittal to the City Council for review. You will receive notification of final approval, as well as a copy of the enacting ordinance from the City Clerk upon adoption by the City Council. You will be notified of all action taken by the City Council upon approval of the request. Please feel free to contact this office if further assistance or information is required. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner FJK:mm cc: City Clerk Don Erickson, Project Manager Ccit,* Div (-- `ass 200 Mill Avenue South- Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2593 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer • • ` :-CIT•. . .DF RENTON - '. :: Hearing Examiner - % Er�!� ab.i. ,(4 Fred J.Kaufman . , 0:1 ' iza4 i t' Itae- - pZgNN/ • CM/ONGD/V/ a • ' A 571111"I', : ' • : ' d4 . T°N . i6 f 4/1a 0/11 'e 1 ' - • N 1 1997 /RA/ oil-kr4to ` , _ : . . to ‘4,,e4/01 Jill !.. byt 66 wig d laAil ate flay hates Rezone, LUA-96-128,R - • n/zeirdiff4.4, Pifr,/titfin , � -� ideration in the above matter from City staff. .They r/'7- ►y(f'•gel, rig condition: future .the height limits on all resulting lots -1,417:, - ' ve limits that currently apply to this entire /l• 'tag/ treated as if it:were adjacent and abutting . ' : ' : o , - _ , 'llir% it0t, 0/ 96. - ..:.•'''''''. ''„ ';',' -. -,i,,, , , •-• , ,: : ._ . . . ,... , 14044 'ftrV 1 p((///,1,//P_ , 1 ,gy to implement and could.resultiin inconsistent ...•- • ?ft/I A cw-iii/t) 4 A . .04 f.v tioii stand'asis arid.permit the City Council to •ems-.+" f,/ 4 oe u4 Ads: prig already has at least two different height limits. ' _ __ — _A___.,__,_-____a___. _ !liit buildings up to and in°some cases greater than _ • 250 feet tall.=Then there are the" height liinits`that limitheights to 20 feet over the permitted , - , - residential height limits'for`CO.uses'that are adjacent to residential uses.:.Therefore, treating the - • - subject site and any potential:division:of the site as though;:it''all continued to be 'adjacent" to- - • residential development would not introduce'anything substantially different from that now ,occurring. 7.1F, : ''' ; ; `. - - ; • - •. ' This office.rarelyintru'des in policy matters and is not particularly interested in how tall ." ' - -buildings may be in the City, other than when the context suggests the tall structures may have an untoward impact on adjacent uses: In those situations;the criteria indicate that other. • - ..considerations must be weighed. - -- - - : - . - - •' The Comprehensive Plan's'apparent goals and objectives for the land around the hospital (and • - Renton Technical College, although riot applicable here) suggest supportive office uses. The ' l. Comprehensive Plan also suggests that any such development be scaled in accordance with the surrounding community particularly calls for low-scale (height) development adjacent to • •: - - residential neighborhoods.` - I. _ ' ' -' ' It is•clear:that the CO Zone permits very large scale structures;structures up to 250 feet and even • ',taller in some cases:-'Moving such•structures one tiei of lots away from;single family uses would ..• :' not necessarily'diminish the impacts of 250 TOO.tall buildings on single'family or-Other',,:], ;' _ - , ":-:residential-uses:"':The'affects would.be demonstrable if':these taller buildings are,in any:way.::• > :. ;'' _ :, • _>.- oriented south,..southeast,-southwest and.probably'other orientations It is not hard to envision i� Vie'. '.j ` - - 200 Mill Avenue South:-:Renton;-Washington 98055 (206)235-2593 - - ' • This oaner contains 50%receded material.20%nost consumer - - " ' 1 J CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS • MEMORANDUM DATE: - December 19, 1996 - TO: Fred Kaufman,H ' Examiner FROM: Mike Katte • and Technical Services Director • SUBJECT: Clarification of Zoning Terms Abutting and Adjacent In your recent report and recommendation for the Brain Rezone (LUA-96-126,R) and D & R Enterprises Rezone (LUA-96-130,R) you based your decision to recommend denial of these two rezones from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone based upon Mr. Erickson's response at the hearing as to how "adjacent" was interpreted. Mr. Erickson in responding to your question indicated that "adjacent" has traditionally meant that properties had to physically abut. He apparently was not aware that in August of last year, this definition was changed when the City adopted new setback provisions for the City's residential zones. . Prior to this date "adjacent" meant.that two properties had to physically abut but under the new definition properties across a street, railroad, or right of way are now also considered to be "adjacent". This change was made to ensure similar front yard setbacks along both sides of a street. Attached is the earlier definition of"attached" that Mr. Erickson referenced followed by the new definition adopted on August 21, 1995 as part of the amendments for residential setbacks. As a result of this new definition both the Brain Rezone and the D & R Enterprises Rezone sites would meet the definition of"adjacent"arid, in this case because they are adjacent to lots designated as residential on the City's Comprehensive Plan, future building heights on these two sites would be restricted to heights no more than twenty feet(20') over the height allowed in the adjacent residential zone. In this case the adjacent residential zone is R-8 with a maximum height of 30 feet so that the maximun permitted height without conditional use approval would be 50 feet, not 250 feet (300 feet with bonus amenities approved by the Hearing Examiner). In light of this new information we request reconsideration of both the Brain and D &R Enterprises rezones. This information may also have a bearing on the Frary and O'brien Rezones which you are currently considering. Thank you. Attachments: 1995, 1996"Adjacent"zoning definitions. Illustration of current definition"adjacent" dememo.doc December 18, 1996 • Page 2 • DEFINITIONS FOR"ACCESSORY" Pre-1995 Zoning Code Amendments to Section 4-31-2: Definitions "A": ADJACENT PROPERTIES: All contiguous properties, with the assumption that railroads and public rights-of-way, except limited access roads, do not exist. Post-August, 1995 Zoning Code Amendments to Section 4-31-2: Definitions "A": ABUTTING: Lots sharing common property lines. ADJACENT: Lots located across a street, railroad or right of way,except limited access roads. PROPERTY LINE • I1 LOT i I7° I LOT 2 I I LOT 3 I, .�.....•—•...`.�-,�....�. ..�.. . H:\W W60DO11MEMO.DO11bh City of Renton P/B/PW Dc.t,y.:.ment Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Springbrook Associates Rezone L UA-96-128,ECF,R _ PUBLIC HEARING DATE:December 3, 1996 _. • Page 1 of 5 PUBLIC City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date December 3, 1996 Project Name Springbrook Associates Rezone Applicant City of Renton,Planning/Building/Public Works Department File Number LUA-96-128,ECF,R Project Description City initiated rezone of an irregular shaped 5.62 acre site from Public Use (P-1)Zone to the Commercial Office(CO)Zone. Project Location 403 S. 38th Court, Renton,WA. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record Springbrook Associates;P.O. Box 53525;Bellevue,WA 2. Zoning Designation Public Use(P-1)Zone 3. Comprehensive Plan Center Institution Land Use Designation 4. Existing Site Use Vacant • 5. Neighborhood Characteristics _ North Single-family area to the north across S. 37th Street. Uses around CONCURRENCE Court include medical and dental offices/clinics. DATE ll''l`{4 East Single-family residential uses predominate across Talbot Road S. NAME INITIAL/DATE m.p e A)C II-/4— South Valley Medical Center is the predominate use south of the subject site. Uses at VMC closest to the subject property include medical t� ..6✓N17 Mc, ii-Q office buildings and a large parking structure. Panther Creek and its greenbelt run along the southern boundary of the si ie. West Panther Creek wetlands and greenbelt and then SR-167. 6. Access Talbot Road South and S. 38th Court SPNGBRUK.DOC/ • City of Renton P/B/PW Dapurtment Preliminary Report to the.Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Springbrook Associates Rezone L UA-96-128, ECF,R PUBLIC HEARING DATE:December 3, 1996 Page 2 of 5 7. Site Area 5.62 acres • 8. Project Data: Area Comments Existing Building Area NA Not applicable,non-project action rezone New Building Area NA Not applicable,non-project action rezone Total Building Area NA Not applicable,non-project action rezone C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Adopt Comp Plan with . 4496 .February,20, 1995 Area-wide Land Use and Zoning Maps including Zone Name Changes Adoption of Draft Comp 4405 June 7, 1993 Plan with Area-wide Land Use and Zoning Maps Adoption of Interim 4404 June 7, 199I Zoning Code D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. • Utilities Water Not'applicable,non-project action rezone Sewer Not.applicable,non-project action rezone Surface Water/Storm"Water Not applicable,non-project action rezone 2. Fire Protection _ Not applicable,non-project action rezone 3. Transit Not applicable,non-project action rezone 4. Schools Not applicable, non-project action rezone 5. Recreation Not applicable,non-project action rezone 6. Other Not applicable,non-project action rezone SPNGBRUK.DOC/ City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Springbrook Associates Rezone LUA-96-128,ECF,R PUBLIC HEARING DATE:December 3, 1996 Page 3 of 5 E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Section 4-8-14.C., Change of Zone Classification(Rezone) 2. Section 4-31-9, Public Use Zone (P-1) 3. Section 4-31-16, Commercial Office Zone F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Policy LU-140. Regional health and/or medical facilities larger than five acres should be located in institution medical centers. Policy LU-143. Small-scale health care facilities (e.g. minor emergency clinics,practitioner offices) should be encouraged to locate in neighborhood and community commercial centers. G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The current proposal is part of a series of five (5)proposed rezones of privately held properties by the City of Renton. These rezones would change the Public Use (P-1) zoning designation on the subject properties to zoning already in the area that allows many of the uses found on the five properties. The current five P- 1 rezones are part of a series of approximately fifty (50) that will be necessary to assimilate out the P-1 Zone. This consolidation of the City's zoning is based in part upon an extensive staff report that was prepared in November, 1993 the findings of which are summarized in staff's May 4, 1994, Staff Report to the Planning and Development Committee on the issue of the relevance of the Public Use Zone, given Renton's new zoning codes, and whether or not this left-over zone should be assimilated into the City's other zones. In June, 1994, the City Council's Planning and Development Committee (see Exhibit B') directed the Planning/Building/Public Works Department to proceed with the assimilaiian of the P-1 Zone into other zones that had been adopted in une, 1993 and which accommodated most, if not all of the uses typically allowed in the P-1 Zone. As noted above, this recommendation.was based upon a fairly extensive staff report on the Public Use Zone that was prepared in November, 1993. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the city of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971, as amended), on November 12, 1996,, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-significance for these five proposed rezones. • SPNGBRUK.DOC/ City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Springbrook Associates Rezone LUA-96-128,ECF,R PUBLIC HEARING DATE:December 3, 1996 Page 4 of 5 3. COMPLIANCE WITH ERC CONDITIONS Because no mitigation measures were imposed on this non-project action, there were no ERC conditions that the applicant was required to comply with. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS . Because this rezone is a non-project action under SEPA as well as a part of a package of City sponsored P-1 rezones, comments from other reviewers were not solicited. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH REZONE APPROVAL CRITERIA Section 4-8-14.0 "In the case where a change of the zone classification of property is recommend, at least one of the following circumstances shall be found to apply:" GENERAL CRITERIA: a) Previously Not Considered Zoning Reclassification That substantial evidence was presented demonstrating the subject reclassification appears not to have been specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or The subject site was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area rezoning in either June, 1993 since it was understood that Staff were studying the P-1 Zone and were preparing recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council on whether this special purpose zone should be retained, or, assimilated into the City's other new zoning classifications. Single-family areas abut the five private rezone sites to the north, east, and west and were rezoned in June, 1993 to the R- 8 (Single-family Zone). The subject site was not included in these rezones because the City was waiting for the Council's resolution as to how the Public Use Zone would be handled. In June of 1994, the Council directed staff to proceed with the assimilation of the P-1 Zone into the city's other new zones. b) Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Its Elements and Policies That the property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and conditions have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate; or IThe subject site has been determined to be potentially classified for the proposed Commercial Office Zone based upon the fact that it is designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Map as Center Institution. Objective LU-V states that such areas are to be provided to assure adequate land and infrastructure for the expansion of facilities to serve post secondary education nd health care needs of the area and protect adjacent uses from impacts of these more intensive uses endments to the Commercial Office Zone are currently under consideration. If approved these would a low both medical institutions and convalescent centers/nursing homes and retirement residences as permitted uses in this zone. Medical and dental offices, currently allowed in this zone, would continue to be allowed. Accessory uses such as electrical generation plants would also be allowed. Provisions requiring limited exterior signage for retal and service establishments would no longer apply. SPNGBRUK.DOC/ • City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Springbrook Associates Rezone LUA-96-128,ECF,R PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 3, 1996 Page 5 of 5 Because of the high number of offices/clinics in the subject area as well as on Valley Medical Center's north campus it was felt that the CO Zone,with the proposed amendments,would be the most appropriate of Renton's existing zones for this area. Also,there are areas along Talbot Road S. south of S. Can Road that are currently zoned Commercial Office. c) Timeliness of Proposed Rezone That since the last previous land use analysis of the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. -As—votert-ab-04,e proposed rezone is timely because in June, 1995, the City adopted new zoning provisions to protect the public trust that implemented Public Facilities Policies LU-229, LU-230, and LU- 231. These provisions which ensure early notification for nearby residents and property owners whenever there is a change of use, ownership, or major tenancy of any publicly owned property allowed the City to move ahead with its P-1 rezones and their assimilation to other zones. H. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend approval of the Springbrook Associates rezone, File No. LUA-96-128, ECF, R, (without a public use"P"suffix attached, in this case because this is a privately held parcel),for the following reasons: 1. The rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for this parcel, 2. The rezone is consistent with City policies that encourage the location and siting of smaller scale health care facilities such as clinics, practitioner's offices, convalescent centers, and similar uses in centers rather than being geographically dispersed throughout the city. In this case, because of the intensity of some of these smaller-scale health care facilities it is proposed that they remain in the Center Institution center, and be zoned consistent with other commercial office uses, including clinics in the area. 3. The rezone is consistent with the proposed rezones of abutting privately held Public Use zoned properties to the Commercial Office Zone. Four other privately held P-1 zoned properties are also proposed to be rezoned to the CO Zone. This is important because the minimum lot size in this zone is 25,000 square feet, and some of these lots may have to be consolidated to achieve full development potential. 4. The subject rezone is a non-project action under SEPA and is a legislative act which of and by itself will not result in new development although will provide the potential for more intense uses than allowed in the existing P-I Zone since the CO Zone has the potential of allowing twenty (20) story buildings because this zone allows building heights of up to 250 feet for developments on sites larger than 25,000 square feet. Note: The applicant was not required to comply with any mitigation measures since the Environmental Review Committee issued a straight Determination of Non-significance for these proposed rezones when it considered them on November 12, 1996. SPNGBRUK.DOC/ EXHIBIT 'A' PR-12 EXHIBIT"A" SPRINGBROOK ASSOCIATES PROPERTY REZONE FROM PUBLIC USE(P-1) TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE(CO) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4 of East Valley Medical Park Short Plat, City of Renton Short Plat No. 77-113, Recorded under King County Recording No. 7808151009,Records of King County,Washington. All situate in the Southeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington. SPRNBRK.DOC\ r / c _ yo 4 y v f�' ^� • y .. r /-1 '') 0 /2:. . n _ .3.•.r - ' ..ra7 1-r-"*":#'______::2.....+ 01,c) , ` Y '.(�r-....h - 2.i'.se . aasr 7 f ^G, /'. ,. �• _ 'c2-rc_s1-..: :.4 '"2! . � y l i �p F .Al. s. 4 O • 9 `... K 77/. - fRgl. ySS. 'Goo.o— .. t229,/4T. y ' �, j S 4`:, o\ vi. • I'— .e } •J 2!-ii �7'H S` M s w y / c T: — h 8 3 0 Gj' 1'. ry,F A 5/73 va v ' 0 8 003 ny 4® i¢ •i : I.28 ` 1 28,Qc. . �, M 9 a m.s, .- la^a owo ' Cc ,28,E of• :r I. . 0 ,53 , 5 hCa e 1 •••e 2 A:yy /� 00 Af .4 ! .x-a .s /mo /-- V (` L. -- 7 \ It' h s�� Tt 9' ,s ti h �6 t • o /1G 1 ii �� 0 / �‘o Oi �s.z, p►50 n /R h o 0 28 0 �. 0 4a - 4 0 . b i e 76 p�1 2 S N A o �a R pl$O O ♦ k "1 - _ 20o P A 1 .ro (P� b 4 Q cos 2 ; �• • c ♦ u g. 5 {J tli f • yr< Q P�" $�t J �g0 o p Cr .s9-/i M�O`COL o S� :3-0 J ,ryry., .. : A //T. j V O \�O M //]., GS.$< •V lI•/7W /`/7S.]] ���.0 W •',. 9.2 w $13 ice-----. - Ni 9CYL I • � • zG , I : /' '/3-78- 78/2149018 d- 4- s' 0 �' , PDX. -' A L -.- PCL C .�- sea K6 • II V Ol$rj .o PCL. A 3o - oll° / - ?`A`• :_ ' 4° 3° a jf. y 1 c•�./?3f• .7. - .9c/.Z.9 1' C. .vev-o..-oe.., .3oeA9..11- F. /00 B6/.25 4 I� �h 1 t/� .1� 10 Sy �.� , iD . 44 N ; °j PCL. B Ate: 01 _ g • l:/ • 0 . 7B.6/ 615 .✓89-o9-ost✓ 34G.4Z - b y�1oPo W '0 23 36 Ea 9 s' - • /q'i R 7b 85 b N S 177 • n h 589-ce-4ee `m -W ,os9B 7 h�// Jfo. o n 3�D • ri11111D11• D 410• EXH1B116' e, r PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT (JUNE 6, 1994) PUBLIC USE ZONE REVISIONS (Referred 5124/94) The Committee recommends that staff proceed with the assimilation of the P-1 Zone into existing zones. The Committee also recommends that staff continue to work with all interested parties to address concerns of the Planning Commission and the Planning and Development Committee related to preserving the public trust and revising the development standards related to these uses. • This action will allow staff to proceed in a timely manner with amendments to the Comprehensive Plan related to these public uses. The Committee will continue to work with staff on the remaining issues and report back to City Council prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments. • The Committee recommends City Council concur in this report. • 47/1a/e/ Kge-e6., Kathy Ke er-Wheeler, Chair A.__ Bob Edwards, Vice-Chair • • R dy Corman, ern er :jr-r”ent-e,*(-4-,41. pdc nrpt 1 EXHIBIT 'C' .k'-8 cts i - lift 411 \ \ cll val. in . _4 a sg-0 i % airella Q) MK . ,..._, co. iii /15 :a a nun th St I r/ e� It" F'- t 470, r 111, ,.. , , I , _ _ v. _ -ti ei . , 1 177th Av SE MI Pit /-- ir.' "Ca r- I 4,4' 0 S: i 0 ,...(:) 101 allikbh. , /_,-Si • LONG RANGE PLANNING. . Don Erickson LAND U S E ACTION FILE #9 6- 12 8 •6,,a,.>) 7 . o: 6 ikl REZONES FILE #PR- 12 0 30o soo FROM P- 1 TO CO --•--- REZONE SITE CITY LIMITS 1 :3600 MMINMONageMagadakta•MPAn.r.-..v.mr 4:06MtatkngledraillirkZ,, 0104,0:110.04411mingetealfl ... . 1,• . 0.::*.dg:00.0::N.*: . 'COMPARISON MATRIX OF ELMENTS THEFULICLJSE ZONE ANDTHE (CO) COMMERCIAL OFICE SESSIONNEMNAMENNOMMOrk •... v.„MORVAMMWMagggean.,:;:;0e.**.i:MalatsWg N'';.WW:INMO:ligVainMaiNi:a.:§ig:;i:A..tig.::fa. PLIBLI.MuseRmfzoNeggigainganuomanommonsm.iiiimmlo;gozoyCONIVI ERCIAIZORNARZONeismisiiiiiiingnimingsmogniega Government buildings such as schools, hospitals, libraries; Offices: administrative/headquarters; professional; Business Park and Ride lots; Municipal utility lfacilities; Municipal Serivces; general; Business and professional schools, Airports; etc. business services; existing neighborhood, community, and regional parks, trails, and open spaces; existing public and private elementary and secondary schools/portables existing MOP of June 7, 1993(site plan review for expansions less than 10%); theaters; utilities, small; existing use designations(see code for complete explanation 43-31-16.h) STREET SETBACKS STREET SETBACKS Arterial (major/secondary) 30 feet Street Setback front 15 feet Arterial Collector 25 feet Street Setback 25 feet or less(15-30) feet Moderate Density Residential 20 feet 25-80 feet (15-25) feet All others 20 feet over 80 feet (30-50) feet Rear/Side none required • RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS(from abutting lots designated residential) RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS(from abutting lots designated residential) Low Density Residential 50 feet Not Applicable • - Moderate Density Residential 20 feet MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT Public Buildings 50 feet* General 250 feet (bonuses up to 50 feet exist Public and Private Utilities 20 feet for additional amenities) Residential Adjacency 20 feet over residential max. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE • No limit other than established by yards. 65% of the total lot area 75% if parking is provided within the building * 75 feet permitted subject to specified provisions,such as increased setbacks,sloped roofs,etc. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF ORDINANCES ADOPTED Kristina Thompson, being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of BY RENTON CITY COUNCIL the Following are summaries of ordinances adopted by the Renton City Council on Feb- ruary 10, 1997: SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL OR2 An ordinance ofthe E O City�of Renton, 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 Washington oppchanging the zoning ocla tedcat g g tion of approximately 1.32 acres located at 3901 Talbot Rd. S.from P-1 (Public Use)to a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal CO No.R 9mmm2err)ial Office)(Brain Rezone;File newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months Effective: 2/19/97 prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language ORDINANCE NO. 4653 continuallyAas a dailynewspaper in Kent, KingCounty, Washington. The South CountyWashington ordinance inof the City of Renton, Y 9 changing the zoning classifica- Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the tion of approximately 1.02 acres located at State of Washington for King County. 3731 Talbot Rd.S.from P-1 (Public Use)to in the South CountyCOe (Commercialn Office)(0&R Enterprises The notice in the exact form attached, was published Rezone; File No. R-96-130). Journal (and not in supplemental form) which was regularly distributed to the subscribers Effective: 2/19/97 4654 during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a An ordE inanceAofC the NO.Cityof Renton, Washington changing the zoning classifica- Notice of Ordinances Adopted tion of approximately 0.91 acres located at 3711 Talbot Rd.S.from P-1 (Public Use)to CO(Commercial Office)(Frary Rezone: File as published on: 2/14/97 No. R-96-129). The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$72.99 OR 9/97 Legal Number VN2564 Effective: DAN65 I An ordinanceIN of the City 4 of5 Renton, Washington changingCE the zoning classifica- tion of approximately 0.52NO.acres located at J 400 S.38th Ct.from P-1 (Public Use)to CO Legal Clerk, th Coun Journal (Commercial Office) (O'Brien Rezone; File 9 No. R-96-127). Effective: 2/19/97 ORDINANCE NO. 4656 Subscribed and sworn before me on this /X day of .Y-ras_ , 19 y 7 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington changing the zoning classifica- tion of approximately 5.62 acres located at 403 S.38th Ct.from P-1 (Public Use)to CO ."f' (Commercial Office) (Springbrook Associ- G� ates Rezone; File No. R-96.128). Effective: 2/19/97 ? '1' 1' otary Public of the State of Washington Complete texts of these ordinances are posted at the Renton Municipal Building, c) ! /� residing in Ftefttom Q�.-G<w-- 200 Mill Avenue South; and the Renton --,.. f : N Q T A/t y King County, Washington Public Library, 100 Mill Avenue South. //.*� * Upon request to the City Clerk's office r PU a L`G t `p (235-2501) copies will also be mailed for a ee. 4-"%-f �/ Marilyn J. Petersen �9jt•,..tit,,,,... ,,,,, City Clerk Published in the South County Journal ,,��, February 14, 1997. 2564 February 10, 1997 Renton City Council Minutes Page 44 Ordinance #4653 An ordinance was read rezoning approximately 1.02 acres located at 3731 Rezone: 3731 Talbot Rd S Talbot Rd. S. (D&R Enterprises) from P-1 (Public Use) to Commercial Office (D&R Enterprises), from (CO) Zone. MOVED BY SCHLITZER,, SECONDED BY KEOLKER- P-1 to CO, R-96-130 WHEELER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #4654 An ordinance was read rezoning approximately 0.91 acres located at 3711 Rezone: 3711 Talbot Rd S Talbot Rd. S. (Frary) from P-1 (Public Use) to Commercial Office (CO) Zone. (Frary), from P-1 to CO, MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL ADOPT R-96-129 THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #4655 An ordinance was read rezoning approximately 0.52 acres located at 400 S. Rezone: 400 S 38th Ct 38th Ct. (O'Brien) from P-1 (Public Use) to Commercial Office (CO) Zone. (O'Brien), from P-1 to MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CO, R-96-127 ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #4656 An ordinance was read rezoning approximately 5.62 acres located at 403 S. Rezone: 403 S 38th Ct 38th Ct. (Springbrook Associates) from P-1 (Public Use) to Commercial Office (Springbrook Associates), . (CO) Zone. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, from P-1 to CO, R-96- COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL 128 --. AYES. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Council President Keolker-Wheeler announced that Council has been invited Annexation: May Valley to tour, with the Planning Commission, the May Valley Prezone (Phase. II) Prezone, Tour of Area area on Thursday, February 13th from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. Council: Interim Water Councilman Schlitzer reported that Council will be asked to formulate a Group Agreement position on the proposed Interim Water Group agreement, recently distributed to the member jurisdictions. He asked that the Administration review the proposal for this purpose. Council: Councilman Schlitzer asked that Council receive a briefing on the Telecommunications Act Telecommunications Act, specifically on how Renton intends to approach the Policy provisions of the act. City Attorney Lawrence J. Warren replied that staff has been working on this matter and will provide the requested briefing to the Committee of the Whole in the near future. Community Event Renton Councilman Parker again encouraged interested, persons to attend the Renton Community Summit, Community Summit, scheduled for February 26th from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 2/26/97 at Valley Medical Center's Education Training Center. Those desiring more information may call the Chamber of Commerce at 226-4560. Responding to Council inquiry, Executive Assistant Jay Covington said neighborhood groups .across the City have been invited to attend. Chamber of Commerce representative Betty Nokes added that although business representatives are being charged $50 to attend the summit, private residents and neighborhood group representatives are being offered the reduced rate of $35 per person. Councilman Edwards suggested that the summit be videotaped and shown later, perhaps via Renton's government access channel, for those who are not able to attend. AUDIENCE COMMENT Sarah McDonald, PO Box 1825, Renton, 98057, commented on recent street Citizen Comment: improvements on Grant Ave. S. and on the projected costs of the proposed McDonald - Port Quendall Port Quendall project, in particular those that may be publicly funded. Project r- 12-7 _ 42- Y CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 4656 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM P-1 (PUBLIC USE) TO CO (COMMERCIAL OFFICE) (SPRINGBROOK ASSOCIATES REZONE; FILE N.O. LUA-96- 128, R) . WHEREAS, under Chapter 7, Title IV (Building Regulations) , of Ordinance No. 4260 known as the "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, " as amended, and maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as P-1 (Public Use) ; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This matter was duly referred to the Hearing Examiner for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about December 3, 1996, and said matter having been duly considered by the Hearing Examiner, and said zoning request having been recommended, 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: 1 ORDINANCE NO. 4656 SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to CO (Commercial Office) as hereinbelow specified, subject to the findings, conclusions, and decision of the Hearing Examiner dated January 13, 1997 and subject further to the condition that if the site should be subdivided in the future, the height limits on all resulting lots shall be governed by the most restrictive limits that currently apply to this entire site, meaning all construction shall be treated as it if were adjacent and abutting single family zoned property; the Development Services 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, approximately 5 . 62 acres, is located at the western end of South 38th Court that traverses between Shattuck Avenue South on the north and Talbot Road South on the southeast, at 403 South 38th Court . ) SECTION II . This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five (5) days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 10th day of February , 1997 . Marilyti ODetersen, City Clerk 2 ORDINANCE NO. 4656 APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 10th day of February , 1997 . 9-11-1-43-4-----7-04-----4--- Jesse Tanner, Mayor A ed as to form: 6 ?rtA,o--e-zu4.42a7/110.-1-y,..Q.4.— Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 2/14/97 ORD. 639 :1/28/97 :as . • 3 EXHIBIT 'A, PR-12 EXHIBIT"A" SPRINGBROOK ASSOCIATES PROPERTY • REZONE FROM PUBLIC USE(P-1) TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE(CO) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4 of East Valley Medical Park Short Plat, City of Renton Short Plat No. 77-113, Recorded under King County Recording No. 7808151009,Records of King County, Washington. All situate in the Southeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King • County,Washington. • • SPRNBRK.DOC\ EXHIBIT 'C' . \ *s . ' . I ,L, R-e, * • ' . r--z.., it MUM . , ->. al q Ima" ' -e i r„, � , , czy rv.k."-0 f Mill im; thSt II mime I F'.. ( • 441 (rIA .., I . 1 I trail . A-v4iSi, 4,1 z-J -P- t AS 0 . . S:i 0 00 Illtill„ ,.. ti LONG RANGE PLANING LANDUSE ACTION FILE #96- 128 �W* Don Eri tni, °96""`�' REZONES FILE #PR- 12 FROM P- 1 TO CO 0 300 600 -- REZONE SITE CITY LIMITS 1 :3600 February 3, 1997 Renton City Council Minutes Page 34 Rezone: 3901 Talbot. Rd S An ordinance was read rezoning approximately 1.32 acres located at 3901. (Brain), from P-1 to CO, Talbot Rd. S. (Brain) from P-1 (Public Use) to Commercial Office (CO). R-96-126 MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 2/10/97. CARRIED. Rezone: 3731 Talbot Rd S An ordinance was read rezoning approximately 1.02 acres located at 3731 (D&R Enterprises), from Talbot Rd. S. (D&R Enterprises) from P-1 (Public Use) to Commercial Office, P-1 to CO, R-96-130 (CO). MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 2/10/97. CARRIED. Rezone: 3711 Talbot Rd S An ordinance was read rezoning approximately 0.91 acres located at 3711, (Frary), from P-1 to CO, Talbot Rd. S. (Frary) from 'P-1 (Public Use) to Commercial Office (CO). R-96-129 MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 2/10/97. CARRIED. Rezone: 400 S 38th Ct An ordinance was read rezoning approximately 0.52 acres located at 400.S. (O'Brien), from P-1 to 38th Ct. (O'Brien) from P-1 (Public Use) to Commercial Office (CO). CO, R-96-127 MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 2/10/97. CARRIED. Rezone: 403 S 38th Ct An ordinance was read rezoning approximately 5.62 acres located at 403 S. (Springbrook Associates), 38th Ct. (Springbrook Associates) from P-1 (Public Use) to Commercial Office. from P-1 to CO, R-96- (CO). MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, 128 COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL. READING ON 2/10/97. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Council President Keolker-Wheeler announced that at the Executive Session Council: Sound Mazda held on January 27th, Council asked the Administration to prepare a Notice of (Lycette/Blume) Property Exercise of Option for the Lycette/Blume property in downtown Renton. The Purchase, Burnett & property, currently occupied by Sound Mazda, is located between Burnett and. Logan and S 2nd & 3rd Logan, adjacent to the Downtown Transit Center. The property will be combined with parcels the City already owns for development of a downtown. plaza or town square. The City Attorney has prepared the Notice of Option to Purchase. The purchase price of the property is $1 million, of which $400,000 was authorized by Council for this purpose in the 1997 budget. The balance of the purchase price will be funded from the 1996 year-end carryover. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL_ AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE OPTION AND ALLOCATE SUFFICIENT FUNDS FROM THE 1996 YEAR-END CARRYOVER TO'` PURCHASE THE LYCETTE/BLUME (SOUND MAZDA) PROPERTY. CARRIED. Parks: Cedar River Councilman Schlitzer relayed comments received from the Senior Citizen's Walkway Flooding, Access Advisory Board on the difficulty experienced in crossing Logan Ave. S. when. Across Logan Ave the Cedar River walkway is inaccessible due to flooding. Many seniors have expressed a desire for a pedestrian-safe alternative to crossing Logan. Mayor Tanner agreed to look into this matter. February 3, 1997 Renton City Council Minutes Page 33 property into lots less than 60 feet in width. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. Rezone: 3901 Talbot Rd S Hearing Examiner recommended approval of City-sponsored rezone of the (Brain), from P-1 to CO, Brain property, 3901 Talbot Rd. S., from P-1 (Public Use) to Commercial R-96-126 Office (CO), File No. R-96-126. Council concur. (See page 34 for ordinance.) Rezone: 3731 Talbot Rd S Hearing Examiner recommended approval of City-sponsored rezone of the (D&R Enterprises), from D&R Enterprises property, 3731 Talbot Rd. S., from P-1 (Public Use) to P-1 to CO, R-96-130 Commercial Office (CO), File No. R-96-130. Council concur. (See page 34 for ordinance.) Rezone: 3711 Talbot Rd S Hearing Examiner recommended approval of City-sponsored rezone of the (Frary), from P-1 to CO, Frary property, 3711 Talbot Rd. S., from P-1 (Public Use) to Commercial R-96-129 Office (CO), File No. R-96-129. Council concur. (See page 34 for ordinance.) Rezone: 400 S 38th Ct Hearing Examiner recommended approval of City-sponsored rezone of the (O'Brien), from P-1 to O'Brien property, 400 S. 38th Ct., from P-1 (Public Use) to Commercial CO, R-96-127 Office (CO), File No. R-96-127. Council concur. (See page 34 for. ordinance.) Rezone: 403 S 38th Ct Hearing Examiner recommended approval, with condition,. of City-sponsored' (Springbrook Associates), rezone of the Springbrook Associates property, 403 S. 38th Ct., from P-1. from P-1 to CO, R-96- (Public Use) to Commercial Office (CO), File No. R-96-128. Council concur... 128 (See page 34 for ordinance.) Metro: Commute Trip Transportation Systems Division submitted proposed contract with,the King_ Reduction Services for County Transit. Department for the provision of Commute Trip Reduction 1997, CAG-97- services to Renton employers through December 31, 1997. The $41,324 cost it fully funded through grant money received from King County. Refer to. Transportation Committee. CAG: 94-073, Union Ave Transportation Systems Division submitted CAG-94-073, Bituminous Surface NE Chip Seal, City Treatment ("chip seal") for Union Ave. NE; and requested approval of the Transfer of Kent project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of $3,167.85, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount or $2,790.28 to City Transfer of Kent, Inc., contractor, if all required releases: are obtained. Council concur. Utility: 1997 Annual Utility Systems Division requested approval of the proposed annual consultant Consultant Contract List contract list for water, sanitary sewer, surface water, hydraulics/hydrology, geohydrology, and soils/geotechnical engineering services for the year 1997. Refer to Utilities Committee. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER,. COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was read from Greg Aalto, 270 Bronson Way NE, suggesting Citizen Comment: Aalto - that the City restore the usefulness of the lower Cedar River walkway, which Flooding on Cedar River is often flooded during the wintertime, by laying down additional concrete on Walkway the sidewalk to raise the level of the walking path above the water. ORDINANCES AND The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the RESOLUTIONS Council meeting of 2/10/97 for second and final reading: i r CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL y AI #: 545 • SUBMITTING DATA: FOR AGENDA OF: a -03_ 1n Dept/Div/Board.. HEARING EXAMINER t Staff Contact... Fred J. Kaufman, ext. 2593 AGENDA STATUS: Consent XX SUBJECT: City sponsored rezone of Springbrook Assoc.Property Public Hearing.. from P-1 (Public Use)to CO(Commercial Office)Zone Correspondence.. Location: 403 S.38th Court Ordinance XX File No.,LUA-96-128,R Resolution Old Business.... EXHIBITS: 1. Hearing Examiner's Report New Business.... 2. Ordinance Study Session... Other RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Hearing Examiner's Recommendation APPROVALS: and adopt ordinance. Legal Dept Finance Dept.... Other FISCAL IMPACT: N/A Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.. Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated... SUMMARY OF ACTION: In June 1994, City Council directed Planning/Building/Public Works to proceed with assimilation of the P-1 Zone into the other zones adopted in June 1993. The other zones do accommodate most, if not all of the uses that were typically allowed in the P-1 zone: • The recommendation of the Hearing Examiner for approval of the City-sponsored rezone was published on December 17, 1996. A request for reconsideration was received,to which the Hearing Examiner did not change his recommendation. No appeals were received during the appeal period which ended January 27, 1997. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) did not impose conditions;however,the Hearing Examiner imposed the following condition: "If the site should be subdivided in the future,the height limits on all resulting lots shall be governed by the most restrictive limits that currently apply to this entire site, meaning all construction shall be treated as if it were adjacent and abutting single family zoned property." The Examiner recommends that City Council approve reclassification of the subject property from P-1 to CO with the aforementioned condition imposed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. December 17, 1996 • OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION APPLICANT: City of Renton Springbrook Associates Rezone File No.: LUA-96-128,R LOCATION: 403,S 38th Court SUMMARY OF REQUEST: City-initiated rezone of an irregular shaped 5.62 acre site from Public Use(P-1)zone to the Commercial Office(CO)zone. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on November 26, 1996. PUBLIC HEARING: In accordance with Section 4-8-14(C)(2),the Hearing Examiner shall determine if a change of zone classification is advisable, in the public interest,tends to further the. preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner, is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof,and is in harmony with the purposes and effect of the Comprehensive Plan. In such event,the Hearing Examiner may recommend that the City Council approve the change of the zone classification. EXHIBITS: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing application,proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. -Exhibit No.2: Site plan MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the December 3, 1996 hearing. • The legal record is recorded on tape. • The hearing opened on Tuesday,December 3, 1996, at 9:33 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. City project manager,DONALD ERICKSON,P/B/PW Special Projects,City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,Washington 98055, presented the.staff report. He explained that when the City prepared its Comprehensive Plan in 1993 it deferred making changes to the.Public'Use(P-1)zone to allow more time to study existing P-1 uses. Originally,the P-1 zone was intended to recognize public ownership and to provide a C- V City of Renton Springbrook Associates Rezone File No.: LUA-96-128,R December 17, 1996 Page 2 process that would expedite development. The study found that the City's new zoning allows the same public uses in virtually every zone. It was also,found that a relatively high percentage of actual public uses are not located in the P=1 zones. For example, City Hall and the Fire Station are in the commercial zone and schools and parks are generally located insingle family zones. Staff proposed to the City Council's Planning and Development Committee that the City should either assimilate all public uses in P-1 zones or allow for public uses in all other zones. The City Council chose the latter recommendation since there are adequate provisions in other zones to accommodate public uses and it would be more consistent with the Growth Management Act. Mr.Erickson stated that approval to rezone the subject site from Public Use(P-1)to Commercial Office(CO) Zone is requested. The subject site is an irregular shaped 5.62 acre parcel located at 403 S. 38th Court. It is near Valley Medical Hospital to the south. There are single family residences to the north across S. 37th Street and tol the east across Talbot Road South. To the west is the Panther Creek wetland and greenbelt and then SR- 167. The existing site is currently vacant. In closing,Mr. Erickson recommended approval of this rezone request for the following reasons: (1) the rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for this parcel; (2)the rezone is consistent with City policies that encourage the location and siting of smaller scale health care facilities such as clinics,practitioner's offices, convalescent centers,and similar uses in centers rather than being geographically dispersed throughout the City. In this case,because of the intensity of some of these smaller-scale health care facilities, it is proposed that they remain in the Center Institution center,and be zoned consistent with other commercial office uses, including clinics in the.area;..(3)that the rezone is consistent with the proposed rezones - of abutting privately held Public Use zoned properties to the CO Zone. Four other privately held P-1 zoned properties are also proposed to be rezoned to the CO Zone. This is important because the minimum lot size in this zone is 25,000 square feet, and some of these lots may have to be consolidated to comply with the minimum lot size and to achieve their full development potential; (4)the subject rezone is a non-project action under,SEPA and is a legislative act which of and by itself will not result in new development although it will provide the potential for more intense uses than allowed in the existing P-1 Zone since the CO Zone has the potential of allowing twenty(20)story buildings because this zone allows building heights of up to 250 feet for developments on sites larger than 25,000 square feet. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project.. There was no one else wishing to speak,and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:38 a.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: 1. ' The applicant,City of Renton, filed a request to reclassify the subject site from P-1 (Public/Quasi- public)to CO(Commercial Office). 2. , The City of Renton filed requests for approval of a series.of approximately forty(40)or fifty(50) separate rezones involving a series of separate properties generally but not always owned by public agencies including the City,King County and the Renton School District. The City proposes phasing City of Renton • Springbrook Associates Rezone File No.: LUA-96-128,R December 17, 1996 Page 3 out its P-1 Zone, a zone that in the past was designed to accommodate public and quasi-public uses. Each of the proposals requests that the new zoning be changed to closely, if not exactly match, surrounding zoning districts and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The yellow file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1. 4. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance(DNS)for the subject proposal. 5. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 6. -While the background information on the study and proposed abolition of the P-1 zone will be the same for each report, each site will receive separate attention and a separate decision. 7. The P-1 (Public/QuasiPublic)Zone was established in the early 1950's to accommodate governmental - facilities as well as certain private uses such as private medical clinics and private hospitals,as well as private schools, museums and the like that accommodated the public. The permitted uses were expanded over the years to accommodate an even wider range of uses while other zoning districts also - broadened their range of respective uses, in effect, duplicating the permitted uses in the P-1 zone. The current zoning categorization generally appears to accommodate most, although not all,of the uses the current P-1 zone permits. The City Council directed staff to make a recommendation as to the continued need for a distinct P-1 zone. "A result ofthat study was presented tothe Planning Commission(May 4, 1994 Report). The Planning"Commission recommended the assimilation of the P-1 zone. The City Council then directed that individual parcels be assimilated into nearby,compatible zones after appropriate public hearings. The current action is the result of those decisions. 8. The subject site is located at 403 South 38th Court. The site is approximately 5.62 acres in size. The site-is quite irregularly shaped, and while addressed on South 38th Court it also has frontage via a dogleg to Talbot Road South and additional frontage along South 37th Street. This rezone proposal is a companion to rezones proposed for lots north and south of it(Brain File No. LUA-96-126,R;D&R Enterprises File No.LUA-96-130,R). 9. The site is north of the Valley Medical Center complex. In addition,two parcels located north of this site between S 38th Court and South 37th Street are also,being considered for similar rezoning treatment. 10. The City proposes designating the site CO. While the City has attached a special P-suffix designation to any public property which will be reclassified from P-1;that suffix will not be attached to private properties if they are reclassified from P-1 to another designation. Rather,,they will be treated like all other private property for development or sale purposes. - - 11. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development Center Institutional uses,represented in general by uses such as Valley Medical Center and Renton Technical College,but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. - 12. The height limits of the CO,permit buildings with a height of up to 250 feet whereas the current P-1 Zone limits building height to generally 50 feet. City of Renton Springbrook Associates Rezone File No.: LUA-96-128,R December 17, 1996 Page 4 Commercial Office Height Limits: §4-31-16D4. Height: §4-31-16D4a. General: A maximum of two hundred and fifty feet(250'). §4-31-16D4b. Special Height Allowances: §4-31-16D4b(1). Heights may exceed the maximum height by up to fifty feet(50')with bonuses for plazas and other amenities, subject to a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit. §4-31-16D4b(2). When a building is adjacent to a lot designated as residential on the City Comprehensive Plan,the building may exceed the height allowed in the adjacent residential zone by a maximum of twenty feet(20'). 13. Staff has noted that they have interpreted "adjacent" as meaning immediately abutting and that an intervening street removes this limitation. In this case,this parcel actually abuts an R-8 zone along its west and northwest boundaries. But the parcel is large enough that it could be subdivided. That would separate the portion that abuts the residential properties from a portion that does not abut residential properties. Therefore,this could allow development of 250 foot tall buildings on the portion that does not abut residential properties. 14. Zoning in the area consists of two predominant zoning districts including the existing P-1 zoning. East, northeast,north and west of an adjoining parcel is R 8 (Residential Single Family)Zoning. King County is located east and southeast and its zoning is residential and office related south toward Carr Road. There are CO zoned parcels south of the Talbot and South 43rd intersection. 15. The site is currently vacant but staff noted that a development application is in some stages of planning. Staff did not believe that the proposed structures would exceed the height limits of the current P-1 zone. and probably would be less than permitted. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest,that it will not impair the public health, safety and welfare, and in addition complies with at least one of the criteria found in Section 4-8-14,which provides in part that: a. The subject site has not been considered in a previous area-wide rezone or land use analysis; or b. The subject site is potentially designated for the new classification per the Comprehensive Plan; or c. There has been a material and substantial change in the area in which the subject site is located since the last rezoning of the property or area. The proposed zoning with conditions outlined below appears appropriate. 2. This property varies from the two companion sites since it does abut an R-8 Zone and therefore the building would be limited to 55 feet in height. It seems appropriate to approve this rezone, although as City of Renton _. Springbrook Associates Rezone File No.: LUA-96-128,R December 17, 1996 Page 5 noted the parcel could be divided creating the potential for a 250 foot tall structure-near,if not legally "adjacent" to, single family homes and zoning. 3. As noted in the discussion of the two companion sites,the CO zone's potential height of 250 feet makes it inappropriate for this site or even portions of this site. Any reclassification should therefore limit development potential so that buildings cannot exceed an approximately 55 foot height limit if the site were to be subdivided. 4. The P-1 district and its associated properties were removed from the city-wide reclassification effort to study the basis for the,zone itself. This site as well as the other P-1 properties were segregated for special review. The public hearing that preceded this recommendation is the first analysis since that study demonstrated that there is no reason to maintain the P-1 zones. 5. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area as suitable Center Institution but appears to designate property east, north and even west of the site for single family uses. The Center Institution designation in the Comprehensive Plan does not necessarily require CO zoning but apparently the CO zone comes the closest to permitting the uses proposed in the Comprehensive.Plan. At the same time Policy LU- 143 suggests small-scale health care facilities in neighborhoods. 6. It is clear that the possible 250 foot height permitted in the CO zone could introducebuildings that are completely out of scale with the nearby single family zones, and more importantly the single family uses located across Talbot and along South 37th Street and along Shattuck Avenue South. In this case, as long as the lot remains one consolidated parcel, site plan review and the existing height limitation should protect surrounding and abutting single family uses from the shadow and shading impacts that could be associated with 250 foot tall,20-story office buildings. The problem could arise if the site were to be the subject of a subdivision. Again,the site plan ordinance has been more recently limited to guiding development rather than conditioning it or significantly scaling back the intensity of development. 7. It would be inappropriate to rely on either site plan review or even SEPA after generally vesting certain rights in property, in this case,height limits, if 250 feet tall can be called limits. Neither SEPA nor the site plan review process are intended to ultimately control neighborhood character. That is the overriding purpose-of the Zoning Code. The zoning requested at this juncture would permit 250 foot tall structures on property located very close to single family zones in which 35 foot tall structures predominate. That would be inappropriate. • 8. None of the roads that abut this site provides either sufficient setback or buffering to protect the interests of the single family homes west or north of this particular parcel. 9. Therefore,while this:site currently,differs from its companion sites, a subdivision could alter that dissimilarity., Therefore, covenants restricting the height of buildings seems appropriate if this rezone is approved. 10. As with site plan review and SEPA, it has been shown that the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan cannot,be used to lessen the density of plats where the proposed density has been determined to be intrusive and out of character with surrounding uses. Therefore,there should be no mistaken reliance on other polices or regulations when the zoning would permit 250 foot tall buildings. City of Renton Springbrook Associates Rezone File No.: LUA-96-128,R December 17, 1996 Page 6 11. While granting such zoning does not require 250 foot tall buildings and there are no plans for anything that large, approving the requested zoning does vest the right to potentially develop such structures. In this area, that would be inappropriate. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the reclassification of the subject site from P-1 to CO subject to the following condition: • If the site should be subdivided in the future,the height limits on all resulting lots shall be governed by the most restrictive limits that currently apply to this entire site,meaning all construction shall be treated as if it were adjacent and abutting single family zoned property. ORDERED THIS 17th day of December, 1996. FRED J. FMAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 17th day of December, 1996 to the parties of record: Don Erickson Springbrook Associates Kevin Bessler, 200'Mill Avenue S P.O.Box 53525 'P.O.Box 34029 Renton,WA 98055 Bellevue,WA 98015 ' ' Seattle, WA 98124 TRANSMII1'ED THIS 17th day of December, 1996 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner .. Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Administrator Members,Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson,Development Services Director Art;Larson,Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney James Chandler,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Mayor's Executive Assistant Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler South County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00-p.m.,December 31,1996. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision Of the Examiner is ambiguous or 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 a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered 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, Chapter 8, Section 16,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee,of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. City of Renton Springbrook Associates Rezone File No.: LUA-96-128,R December 17, 199,6 Page 7 Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. •Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. , All communications concerning the proposal'must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. `• The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. • • • • • • EXHIBIT'`tC' . F-8 1 \ i'..13 cu id • \ • i• ,L) 11 4 , . • CD �' R-g . 1. ill ' .r.-' ' * /01111111111 i . , 113"Tro , . ,,,,. iiil, ums,„* . -7 ‘ . (Ty i w An , . illatillillraill th St Ir ,,,, , w4I ■ice #�.-g. /2 ;. 1 8 i „ilk., , ie 4 I Olt f . - . lir /7 F- 1 0 1 A 1• f . . , , , , , . , , ,. Ss s 1177th . Av- SE , ' . .,. , ,_\ _:. ..„, 0 • • • 1 At. 0 , • • 4.0 tibb -- ..‹) ' ,,. ./ . .-- . /, �� • • LONG RANGE PLANING+ f Don Erickson LANDUSE ACTION FILE #96- 128 ,A .. R.� D. s" REZONES . FILE #PR-12 0 300 soo FROM P-1 TO CO ::.:_. :: •.:.:.;:.::<.;:.:<.>:.;>: .. REZONE SITE :.:<.:.:. CITY LIMITS 1 :3600 . City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Springbrook Associates Rezone LUA-96-128, ECF,R PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 3, 1996 Page 1 of 5 PUBLIC ' City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date December 3, 1996 Project Name Springbrook Associates Rezone • Applicant City of Renton,Planning/Building/Public Works Department File Number LUA-96-128,ECF,R Project Description City initiated rezone of an irregular shaped 5.62 acre site from Public Use (P-1) Zone to the Commercial Office(CO)Zone. Project Location 403 S. 38th Court,Renton,WA. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: I. _Owner of Record Springbrook Associates;P.O. Box 53525;Bellevue,WA 2. Zoning Designation Public Use(P-1)Zone 3. - Comprehensive Plan Center Institution Land Use Designation 4. Existing Site Use Vacant 5. .Neighborhood Characteristics North Single-family area to the north across S. 37th Street. Uses around S. 38th Court include medical and dental offices/clinics. East Single-family residential uses predominate across Talbot Road S. South Valley Medical Center is the predominate use south of the subject site. Uses at VMC closest to the subject property include medical office buildings and a large parking structure. Panther Creek and its greenbelt run along the southern boundary of the site. West Panther Creek wetlands and greenbelt and then SR-167: 6. Access Talbot Road South and S. 38th Court 7. Site Area 5.62 acres - SPNGBRUK.DOC/ s r' ✓ • City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Springbrook Associates Rezone • LUA-96-128,ECF;R PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 3, 1996 Page 2 of 5 8. Project Data: Area Comments 1 Existing Building Area NA Not applicable, non-project action rezone New Building Area NA Not applicable, non-project action rezone Total Building Area NA Not applicable, non-project action rezone C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Adopt Comp Plan .with 4496 February 20, 1995 ;Area-wide Land Use and Zoning Maps including Zone Name Changes Adoption of Draft Comp 4405 June 7, 1993 Plan with Area-wide Land Use and Zoning Maps Adoption of Interim 4404 June 7, 1993 Zoning Code D. PUBLIC SERVICES: • 1. Utilities ;j Water Not applicable,non-project action rezone Sewer Not applicable,non-project action rezone Surface Water/Storm Water Not applicable,non-project action rezone 2. Fire Protection Not applicable,non-project action rezone 3. Transit Not applicable,non-project action rezone 4. Schools Not applicable, non-project action rezone 5. Recreation Not,applicable,non-project action rezone 6. Other Not applicable,non-project action rezone • SPNGBRUK.DOC/ City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Springbrook Associates Rezone LUA-96-128, ECF,R PUBLIC HEARING DATE:December 3, 1996 • Page 3 of 5 E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OE:THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Section 4-8-14.C.; Change of Zone Classification_(Rezone) 2. Section 4-31-9,Public Use Zone(P-1) 3. Section 4-31-16, Commercial.Office Zone • F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Policy LU-140. Regional health and/or medical facilities larger than-five acres should be located in institution medical centers. " Policy LU-143. Small-scale health care facilities (e.g. minor emergency clinics,practitioner offices) should be encouraged to locate in neighborhood and community commercial centers. G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: • 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND, - • The current proposal is part of a series of five (5) proposed rezones of privately held properties by the City of Renton. These rezones would change the Public Use (P-1) zoning designation on the subject properties to zoning already in the area that allows many of the uses found on the five properties. The current five P- 1 rezones are part of a series of approximately fifty (50) that will be necessary to assimilate out the P-1 Zone.' This consolidation of the City's zoning is based in part upon an extensive staff report that was prepared in November, 1993 the findings of which are summarized in staffs May 4, 1994, Staff Report to the Planning and Development Committee on.the issue'of the relevance of the Public Use Zone, given " • Renton's new zoning codes, and whether or not this left-over zone"should be assimilated into the City's other zones. - In June,. 1994, the City Council's. Planning and Development -Committee (see Exhibit `B') directed the Planning/Building/Public Works Department to proceed'with the'assimilation of the P-1 Zone into other zones that"had been adopted in June, 1993 and which accommodated most, if not all of the uses typically allowed in the P-1 Zone. As noted above, this recommendation was based upon a fairly extensive staff report on the Public Use Zone that was prepared in November,.1993. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the city of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and-SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971, as amended), on November 12, 1996, the"Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-significance • for these,five proposed rezones. • • • SPNGBRUK.DOC/ , • City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Springbrook Associates.Rezone •LUA-96-128, ECF,R PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 3, 1996 Page 4 of 5 3. COMPLIANCE WITH ERC CONDITIONS Because no mitigation measures'were imposed on this non-project action, there,were no ERC conditions • that the applicant was required to comply with. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Because this rezone is a non-project action under SEPA as well as a,part of a package of City sponsored P-1 rezones, comments from other reviewers were not solicited. • 5.' CONSISTENCY WITH REZONE APPROVAL CRITERIA Section 4-8-14.0 "In the case where a change of the zone classification of property is recommend,at least one of the following circumstances shall be found to apply:" • GENERAL CRITERIA: a) Previously Not Considered Zoning Reclassification That substantial evidence was presented demonstrating the subject reclassification appears not to have been specifically considered at the time of'the last area land use-analysis and area zoning; or The subject site was,not specifically considered at the time of the-last area land use analysis and area rezoning in either June, 1993 since it was understood that Staff were studying the P-1 Zone and were preparing recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council on whether this special purpose zone should be retained,.or, assimilated into the City's other new zoning classifications. Single-family areas abut the five private rezone sites to the north, east,and west and were rezoned in June, 1993 to the R- 8 (Single-family Zone). The subject site was not included in these rezones because the City was waiting for the Council's resolution as to how the Public Use Zone would be handled. In June'of 1994, the Council directed staff to proceed with the assimilation of the P-1 Zone into the city's other new zones. b) Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan; Its Elements and Policies That the property is potentially,classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the policies'set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and conditions have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate; or • The subject site has been determined to be potentially classified for the proposed Commercial Office Zone based upon the fact that it is designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use'Map as Center Institution. Objective LU-V states that such areas are to be provided to assure adequate land and infrastructure for the expansion of facilities to serve post secondary educational and health care needs of the area and protect adjacent uses from impacts of these more intensive uses. Amendments to the Commercial Office Zone are currently under consideration. If approved these would allow both medical institutions and'convalescent centers/nursing homes and retirement residences as permitted uses in this zone. Medical and dental offices, currently allowed in this zone, would continue to be allowed. Accessory uses including electrical generation plants for medical institutions would also be allowed. Provisions requiring limited exterior signage for retal and service establishments would no longer apply. • SPNGBRUK.DOC/ A City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Springbrook Associates Rezone LUA-96-128, ECF,R PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 3, 1996 Page.5 of 5 Because of the high number of offices/clinics in the subject area as well as on Valley Medical Center's north campus it was felt that the CO Zone, with the proposed amendments,would be the most appropriate of Renton's existing zones for this area. Also,there are-areas along Talbot Road S. south of S. Carr Road that are currently zoned Commercial Office. c) Timeliness of Proposed Rezone That since the last previous land use analysis of the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. The proposed rezone is timely because in June, 1995,the City adopted new zoning provisions to protect the public trust that implemented Public Facilities Policies LU-229, LU-230, and LU-231. These provisions which ensure early notification for nearby residents and property owners whenever there is a change of use, ownership, or major tenancy of any publicly owned property allowed the City to move ahead with its P-1 rezones and their assimilation to other zones. H. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend approval of the Springbrook Associates rezone, File No. LUA-96-128, ECF,R, (without a public use"P"suffix attached, in this case because this is a privately held parcel), for the following reasons: 1. The rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for this parcel, 2. The rezone is consistent with City policies that encourage the location and siting of smaller scale health care facilities such as clinics, practitioner's offices, convalescent centers, and similar uses in centers rather than being geographically dispersed throughout the city. In this case, because of the intensity of some of these •smaller-scale health care facilities it is proposed that they remain in the Center Institution center, and be zoned consistent with other commercial office uses, including clinics in the area. 3. The rezone is consistent with the proposed rezones of abutting privately held Public Use zoned properties to the Commercial Office Zone. 'Four other privately held P-1 zoned properties are also proposed to be rezoned to the CO Zone. This is important because the minimum lot size in this zone is 25,000 square feet, and some of these lots may have to be consolidated to achieve full development potential. 4. The subject rezone is a non-project action under SEPA and is a legislative act which of and by itself will not result in new development although will provide the potential for more intense uses than allowed in the existing P-1 Zone since the CO Zone has the potential of allowing twenty (20) story buildings because this zone allows building heights of up to 250 feet for developments on sites larger than 25,000 square feet. Note: The applicant was not required to comply with any mitigation measures since the Environmental Review Committee issued a straight Determination of Non-significance for these proposed rezones when it considered them on November 12, 1996. SPNGBRUK.DOC/ . pi •�� 4 � 3 n ,." 4 o • • lr-ew-J7F•7_•° �.: �sp`'s• Nr``� R.1' oyO :o`Sp r!h � ..''' -te* IiE 0-fy ,�s+�r<. �,��•.F.�y .,_ . 7s 2..• .9e• . m y3 Ai'. • • ,� .RY }�, �' 0 01.::., e2 se r+ir '. .. r, -�zi :.� �� ,11 II ccl •a A. 0% All tl I roo J ..r _ q o -1111 ry O A` �o L 8 ~•`� op3^5 �l/ p !¢ h I,2g 1 Zg�¢c. . • 28 S N 9 s�•� ea -o�qO ' I. or c. o y 1 • ��'�� 9B•9a �" s s3 •: 55A h c.. . ; c•e z Ah5 7j7e e� ® �: N ^n Ts ,i.• B2, roo _ /�. T e • N' ` : -V' .n' �0 �x-, �'.S Iee L N, Of_I' 0 `•Q p, ei �. No /6 e Q 0 y1. o r II if 0 • / �,o n �?•Z° OL5 1b ? f /$ ti o O . • 28 • �_ s 3 .. R o�e.ce ? 0 • 0V10 l`b K 2 �o • a , ,ci 76 O O © k 7s • ® / o •/CJ.9f -�'_ _tip=�- /� N - r ,ILe A • LOT ., ; kt' ZI `il 'Cr, y Eli • for 4 PFt� 1.°' !<�• � A 'Cr .e9-/i �+, ��yyo Co • �`�.��`OO J / b K. f /f I& GS.•+4 • N!I-/1M "/1S•]) Y��'O W • •C .2 ^ iu ss -�Ra 14' er �•,r ^ c • R S.13 �� /i 9. • .__ 0 «i cry G w 0 . 1 • 11 • 1 . ;• f Sao 31J_0e-03W - 3 • a st?I3-78- 7812149018 te • h a s7 i` ` a\s 0 nj Ill �pox. • - sT Ac- .' �• r-K�`iR6 'S.6b �r PCL . C . ��o . 0 • ,..1 a� . 5. p. o • d PCL. A ��$ 0�90 y,.s ¢,/ • h c Nb 9 • /4Rt• 6E4 •30-45-5 f f0° 0 Z : 0 3" g„ 8 Bc/.zs 1 MOp_o3-Oaw. 300 i A �1/739 c AQ.ZIS- �L F °•-- B6/.Z5 /o0 2Gt7 • - 4 II • 1• N r0g° .' I4.:1. 003 os .. • IA . • W N 4 PCL. B pc'' gg o C ' W.6/ e� .�/B9-03-oB W ._346.4e. , ,q pi'° ip W � 30 29 ti 3( la 23 /55C '70 e5 • e• S 177 ` n h S69-0a--14 • • 41 -P /a598 7 • 90\8 �, •8 j6�a Nik) \D „. lk h P. •__ q off° o- EXHIBI.T'-`B' • • EXHIBITS' bk..16 UJ li-)1 �11�C f ;I ' • -6 -qf PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT (JUNE 6,, 1994) PUBLIC USE ZONE REVISIONS • (Referred 5/24/94) The Committee recommends that staff proceed with the assimilation of the P-1 Zone into existing zones. The Committee also recommends that staff continue to work with all interested parties to address concerns of the Planning Commission and the Planning and Development Committee related to preserving the public trust and revising the development standards related to these uses.• • This action will allow staff to proceed in a timely manner with amendments to the Comprehensive Plan ,related to these public uses. The Committee will continue to work with staff on the remaining issues and !report back to City Council prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments. • The Committee recommends City Council concur in this report. • 4/Ytif - b(AZaigi-a.Ld • Kathy Keg er-Wheeler, Chair Bob Edwards, Vice-Chair • R dy Corman, em er .. :je242-7,"2.4"Pt-4-'4-1. • pdco,fpt • EXHIBIT 'C' , 18 03' Ilk A . vi 4 , .ctQ.) 7* a . ..,,, ) i R-e, , 4 a ► /i ! ;. ,,„„, . 1 ; . 6 As g ,,,, ,,,,,,,,„„ ,pri isEsso t(,), h St MIS .tom 11%. 163 . P- t 3 ' . 0 0, ,. ' Cit 7- I i , 177th . Av - . SE c '' *4" 20 • , ` 400 0 , ♦ ,...„, , 0s Seib. - `` •4, LONG RANGE PLANNINGf 4. DOA Erickson LANDUSE ACTION FILE #96- 128 MacOb D. �""°''c° REZONES FILE #PR- 12 t A • 7 November 1996 0 300 600 FROM P- 1 TO CO -- REZONE SITE 1 :3 6 0 0 CITY LIMITS . ........:::•.::.:::••::•:r..: .... ... -vc•-' ...;..,.:„-:r:n''•::••-.,• :n•:•::.:::::.• ... H.•n•:WM:,•::..,..r•::{•:r:::::::,.,..;..n......v.::•::::•:::::•::•.:::::.:•::::..,...,,..:::n••:., ,..-:..:.•::}•.:::,•. {•.t•:};•}}•::::•{:},: .,�.::•:,.:..:r:..... .. ,.r :•..... .�'.f• .. :... ... ..... .,...k . w:r . n:.. .h. n...; :. .:.n......, >.,. ..x. ..h.h. :a.,: :..} ,.rr..: ••f:,Y•;?;x}:::•.':x:.K.;{.Y::+•r•Y•vr}:{}}'d•:d3 r: ........,. .:.. :r.: .., YY.k•Y .:.. .a fn :....:: , .\ r. .!.� ... .. r..Y.:. ...n.: .. •xx ... •:�: r:.Y t>-.?r..t.{::::.•::.••::rr:':.. ..3%{;P#^ •'i•�E•. .':•.,•:....>:.r.: a 3!{,;;.}afi ..f,.nT•-h::v:.:•:-:-•. •r.4,' :} .N .. S n .a „K`.,::: f. :{i..{{ •. x +::.• (,f y.✓ , `;:, ff.h:•#.a ,Y S+:•r; .»w>vT'T.:S••/" i.-- fi c+. :3`;.- :r .-:i.:?, 4 2::rh,'•::.. ...fi: ..}x ...h :• v t. '3. ,} ` v `:.h•. .a nv:Yfii'?;\., :T.Y4> x.Ka'.•Y.... ::x•'l� Y...:u:.t:�$Y?l 3{• £Sw:x fi{6`�vfx v}}y �4:v r •n3.{v.Y rh@:.r :fF`. .v�.x'...er :./.r �,,}nv •'�t..ar,•:• Y� .:✓.v.r. t,f:3;f:ra..t3;?•>Y•}�:Y.,., .. :{#.�:•}•• .•+.•hvh•J: ,:f•'. t:.;.S ti•'3{'•NtS::.x ,,>vK�.: ti•.QY: .yv.k�. ...k �... .},;.,.;,•3.Ili'# ��..rt.fftta•x,L�:}},;...:.;...{;:'•�;'•::: +,3�:•.. .::. : .;;i;3Y„}a+.Y�{••:a•:•:Y•v-a•r .{.:+{:.}:Y'..:}? ,,'?h�.!:.,,,,.;�::.,{...:;} : ,s . :,,.;nr .? .:� Y.C, �.+ :•l`• Y : :,+`}.. ..,.\, .. ;S. .. � 3:f ? .:}r r f.�:•`• �f• ..a a;�k•: :;�.. • {Mr: v{., ,: 3lY{�M.:i�.}. ... 'f}'�-►t'r. .... .. -•:: �},yi.�� .`�E�fi: .��� �y!��.}w�C �ic�;{��w-::: �.,. '. MK�:.: {.`�:..'..+?YI.••�afdfR ... T7�FM ,;i • , vi. :r ���pp## �4aa} .)y �-.: x�:• .•. � �,IIMt#4iM .yMr � '+r� �. WA4: AY►: ;MT>f .7:F•fYM. Ate- .]��Yt .. R7Fh �i' •.i.. .r. ..n..:.... ....,. n..... ...... ......., fv.::nn:. „•.:•3,h• ..a>. .. S .,c 3�. .t.. .liS.. ..�.aT+v. a}... . ... .v.:.�..' • n :• .. •.•::w::,.,; ,4 •:•:. •:.,. . r•.r:. n{wnvv•.•;•. •:Y••••.{,. .. v,. .. n ...:n. ..n :. vn .. •n ... n,. ...... , .. .. ....: �{.n ..: •�+r...:r ... } :{:a`Y::'ir":, } '-:Y}r. � ' :a:�: rr{{ n.{v }•{•:t:•3:n:}::?•a wx} :}f.•.,v.S 3..3 h;.4S.w•:x.:h .:f. .n .•?,n }.. .:} ra..�C...a...•> . {t. S.. .,tn r E.. ,:<: rY•:; .:• :a :J•h.;.,{:{..3.. t..x.k..Y .'•:Y;`< : •rY. .,�a.,.,•. ,.✓.•',I.. .nf,. .} ...w { ,..--•„:...n .., .. .. k ...,.. .. ...J r•:•.t....,:..n: ... :x. ,r '+„f., fi f{•:.•:. n•::•r: ...:,•�,.:.>.t•+. f.... r}3.. .vw:t'.4 R h\{+• ..h. r ..$.+r::+'•}}'•}.t vfh.: '4 +�:. S. f•.wf nL: ..a..s.:.,,.� : .... ...a. .....5. ,rn :t.,:f.::•:::}?:;an��•,t.4n,ty a}24�+,,r ,#5... ,;.;,;2 .:•n,•:::h:{.:;y.},; .f..w'X. :.;... Y. a..;}.{.:.; ,::,;..:a� :••+,'• .,r n3: •r Kxr+ •.�, J;,}}.. 4: :aa.• ....h,.:.. : ..:...,..)ti....a .. .. : r v.r ... .Y4:....:.7, f�,:.�hh,v. 4. ,...5,...t}S.!a., n......n.'�•Y. f::�:t•.^ ..:r.. :.\:�'hxtt.:�:•:+•:••. ,rJ. �::{4:r ++#•.. y��..)r +.r3.: r 4r n .. ...:.. v.v.:- . ., .v...t-.#.. i--- ..v:n'Y.. , ..• .. ......:-*-.+C n : Y.} .: vh,.. v..{n... 'f. i•'•'r:+/•'/.• d .: 4{. {.,Y.Y v.'•x Y. .,•Y/•}}. h.::.. eY.n 4 ..hv ..h::. +::#.:::?;K...\C;3.:.........::ra,n,. .:f:.k• ,t�•.:+.. .t +•rf L... ..,,. ,r,��,..:?4,?••.:•• .:"33 f ,{....:. :tt+.,:n.�.t3..1 :,n. :: ,•: a:.,,:.� ....{{+.•: .:....,.k... ........ .,,t•(:�.v.\. ......,.:••.:..3,. k\+•• .:: ..,.} :.}••.:w.•.4,•:•a:l.. •:s+:r.: r?•:•t+?.T. n ..4+:• § f.C,.'} ,..x r.^..:.^�:�.:Fr�{:.., ?..: . 1 .r<..+\. K.:.......h?;.....t`<......... ..K A. {{ v,..: . ..,.vl vv n✓nQ .:li.. n..�i.Y ..'\n... }f.v... .. '34a+....x:.r... ..f...d, ••..: f. ..t r�. na� vvi: �r+Y4:•}}{:,.. n:Y^i } .-......::...,.:....Kx........t........\.*Y•... ,:.. .. n:•n:........ .. ....S• .... .h .,.: , r.., ,:..C..:c .. r33�. ..x`Lt .?..C:,.. .fir. ,,,a•.:.rYhfa:... 6rx:s...: •:.$.,..K,-C•.,. .rr r.: :W. ::•+3r•.:4 ... ,r..h Y...:*::: ......n.,......n.:... . ...4,'w}..,. ,r.>.. ..F} ..:. , ...^.. ., :,, \:�. :.. .• ,: :T.. ...p .x{S .f.:.}..n:••Y• :?•.5:.5, •x .r..,.r.Y. +.. .f T. .,� .> .'3.. :}. ?•xr.`.•SY:t.wr.Y.,:t•:3:+•:: rt�•v. •i?t::::. x:>. >:•'+:r, :f :�•}....}:..fi., t:•3,r ..h,. ...+�..;.: :T.• ...��.taYtx,: }: .3 .#. .i.a ...ah•.,,4:.. ::.J'+ .T. w ,•{t., r...n ; fit. ?•Yi•}: '-::+"•:' `}>£.. ..a v+•Y•.h vnG.n.}.?n.F � f.Y:+r. ..t3>:. "4.. rrF ,+33::,:::}}:3:}x :.l.{.,..- .,.:.?•:.};..:,;.}..:f•:+'{+».�..:...ka•..: -n.,.h 3: �?' ., ,• : ,�%^{;a. .• .. +... /?�......:..,.�� Riik:J�:.Y:}}.hx•��i}: : ,..;.. .,a..{,:t.�•}'::ita%:.•:.•S.•{ r.h rru•}. +a�C ••rn.. ..c J'S....f x;c K,•....: ..h..:.v•3n,v /....v.wx. h,\£} w .f,,:..a:,..:.afi+•a• ::{.h rr•. ..f.,..f... Y•}'nf}•>: ,..t.! ..Y:.n.C:3:. {:},c..�.:: t:�r+v.•t r v.`d:^h?. } •�;.•;+.{..,h., }•.fi.: .... :•{.}.•:,:.}�.+•.•n.....::. .T.,...;..?.a f>..r.y� .:r �•.4,•.t .K+r.','F n ..... .. .:•: ..C.. '}. x.� h3:-:..h •::K•}+.• :.}^�• ..Y: f T.>.:f Kx:n.n-•.. 5..:....,.,..w•. n.. n..:.: /..:..t.... .. r ♦a , .. ..a ,,.. ,'',•: tfi .h r..n,.?,.n....{ ..r. .". ,• •r•• $Y..: u •..f•0.:. 2.... •:..:•. :•f }: m... .. +r`x v:3.. +C,.. ..', ......,,> ....,....::..Y:. .. ..:h.. .r.......:n k: v:.'# :}.. .. ., ::. :h.w .. ... n. :,�... , ,Y• r t::?•r,+.:v.,t•3•{•3:. ,•h �( n:x4:5}::,.f..h{;.4•}:•ai+•r. :•:;a^.•rxn.�:. �3. ..r.•:;/.: :r..nh... ...... :.v......v.. :...r.\: .Y hv.,:... { ...... by..�?v. .hn<. ,.:h..,Kv .,hh..mr.r\.v.)),,$.}.. .. .: .. .....n>.r av{•iF.v.vff}':r }%+}}'•i'4l`... :.:}...}nn..x ..N.a:•} ,:�.v:f.v.. y� :J•d.q.. . ..vrr.....A...,.>. ..... ...:n.'.,..... :by f. .....�.:v.h... .•f...... vxt:. ..... #h',��.,v✓` ......n,..}.....{nh.v.�•.� �.v Y•.vnn f.:n 33:?•,rf.: hhn�r ,•x. ..�`.fiva.'•.+.•`i: ..f....A/.�'• ::'r.{-.....3:riYt?•} t:•F.,.:n. ..::..Y..,... .:.h........ .:....:,..... ..:.. .x .,....):... £....r.w. .. rfi�...:. n).:..r...,... w..,...}...h.. .... .... .. .., .v..:,.... ..�?{•rr f;,..:> . .....:...:x,:..,......n,.........ri..h}..,......:..t...,...3.:r..,. f.....,.u :...t.,•:........:..'}. .. .a..:....t>...r....r.....a .,,.:..., ...f...r...:..t...........:.............:......vf..:,s...,..h ..}...r.xn:::...r..x.;.............•r....:.. .:n:•::........::}:'•3+^• ..... .:3.n..:...n.:.,-, :.,•:,cr:K. .h.:..,.:............:.}.............Y..,.....;:.;.....n..........n.::..v.{. .;.}..n,n,, ..}..:,.� ... ...f..;,nv.f.2,.....n...n..`nn...;.......,. nn:::x....n.v : ,• n.... . + • :fi:f:•ff3{.v :}'333f:•T::3:•33•::3Y;Y:33:33::33•:3:;t::'+'• ) :'iY:Y .:. n::• .. .....:... ,,.::.,t.:.a:......:.:r::....:.r..:h•S:YY.^..Y;;;f r•::.:t:%v.•.::.::33+3•:3:v,..::#::3':3::3#S:Y#:Y:33:#::::;.,,..;:5:'•:?:;{.•.::..::..:....:•:::•:.,•:::::::.:. •:.::�::v:: ...............:......:..:::n.;....:... ........... :• ::::::.,:•:•::......,•::::..:..<:•r::YY:3::::}:#:6::f:YY:3:YY•3::3•:}:•rt•}}}•.;Y#:;:3::}}`:-3Y:3•::•r:;:;�:.;...;, •.. ...n..... ...:.... ..... :::}::::::::::::::::.v::::•K:.v::::.K::•:.}}'•}:}'{{{:}:.}•.v:::::::v::tY:::::::::.:.:vn...... r. • `•. .M:.::lf.,{f......r....... }rxr}:•r3}}... ..... .... .. .. .......:::::n•.}w}:•.:3?3:+:YY:•:f::3333i37t';•::::•::::v::>:v:-.,••:::•::a::•: ::}.:::•:......... ,f..n .,. .-.. .. ::::t•..•• .,:::. . .. ... .. ....:......... ......:...:.........n....,...n...:.n....n......v................:S.}::::w.?v,.... -� }^:w ..f.. r:rK•r.•::::v v:•?:...;,.:n:r.;{.•.,•rv,{{... . .. .. .... ... ..,, ......r...:.. r..........:.:... ., ... . ...:•, .. '•}}3:•r f:::r:Y{.}•t}:•rx:nxh:;Y.:::h.:h,,,.}.:>.:v.::n x:.:::+:•:S•:d::•::.vh+th:+•: . :. .. ............n.nv.......v...n..,....,...,,..:.n.....5:.. r.n....::..n�cn.....:^f:.n....,. }:?•:•r .. :: .. .... .... ..�....... ...n• .. ....... vhv.n,.,(CO)..:.; .. .. ..r: ..;{..:;... :::•}^,4::}}}:::.};h;.y{•Yi:{•>'•<:r,{h}:^:a}r:h'•'{v:•3}vrr'?'ti::Ya'... ... .......... .........+................................w......n..,}v: ...n..,}.............. .....,•...:.... \.. ..,,(�� .; :... (/y� .nonr:•Y.a:•rx4'''..........:n :.}...+ v:r}. .. [ .. ..... . .. :.........:......,.}..........................,......:...,,t:............. ...... ..:,rr.,. . : . . �O �OMMER+�t.T��....£71`�IvY..I�.:�t�NC;:r:h..............f•.... ,.::::v:a:r:Sw:•.... UBI. use. P.�...�on�l:�......:.........:.:................................... ..,........,..�:.,.r....+........... ...... . . ..,.... . . . .. . .. . ... . . }r:3.n:....... :....::..........................................................................:......n••v:::•�•:v::n:w::;..;.. ..;n....,.•: ::::::::: •v::: :::::::: :::::::nvnv: :::•:h::.:::nv;:i:• •:.v n......v............................. Government buildings such as schools, hospitals, libraries; Offices: administrative/headquarters; professional; Business • - -- Park and Ride lots; Municipal utility (facilities; Municipal . - Serivices; general; Business and professional schools, - - Airports; etc. • . business services; existing neighborhood, community, and regional parks, trails, and open spaces; existing public and • • private elementary and secondary schools/portables existing as of June 7, 1993(site plan review for'expansions less than , - 10%); theaters; utilities, small;existing use designations(see code for complete explanation 43-31-16,h) STREET SETBACKS STREET SETBACKS Arterial (major/secondary) 30 feet - Street Setback .front 15 feet , Arterial Collector • 25 feet Street Setback 25 feet or less(15-30) feet Moderate Density Residential 20 feet . 25-80 feet (15-25).feet _ All others. ' - 20 feet -' ' over 80 feet (30-50) feet Rear/Side none required ' RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS(from abutting lots designated residential) RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS(from abutting lots designated residential) Low Density Residential 50 feet Not Applicable : Moderate Density Residential 20 feet . • MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT • . MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT Public Buildings 50 feet* General 250 feet (bonuses up to 50 feet exist Public and Private Utilities 20 feet for additional amenities) . Residential Adjacency 20 feet over residential max. tt MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE • X No limit other than established by yards. 65% of the total lot area. ttdd 75% if parking is provided within the building ti * 75 feet permitted subject to specified provisions,such as increased setbacks,sloped roofs,etc. d, EXHIBIT 'C' kl-S ' I I\ \ i?' °. • ! CD :rilkirAlli' I Z-0 4 ©�► • a� 1 1 . cp, 1 . 61, Itin g a mil .t...... ira IN th St 1 Era „,,,,,,,m or 1 / P- g riivcit i r I fir ., P.- 1 177th Av - SE . . cs *41r r— I , _-'. 0 . 0," 0 °I° tillk - ,...cl, ,, , I. Gtic) LONG RANGE PLANNING LANDUSE ACTION FILE #96- 128 �. 7 November 6�`' REZONES FILE #PR-12 FROM P- 1 TO CO 0 300 600 -- REZONE SITE CITY LIMITS 1 :3600 EXHIBIT 'A' PR-12 EXHIBIT"A" SPRINGBROOK ASSOCIATES PROPERTY REZONE FROM PUBLIC USE(P-1) TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE(CO) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4 of East Valley Medical Park Short Plat, City of Renton Short Plat No. 77-113, Recorded.under King County Recording No. 7808151009,Records of King County,Washington. All situate in the Southeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M:, King County,Washington. • • SPRNBRK.DOC\ S • �• SIT' jF RENTON Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor • Fred J.Kaufman January 13, 1997 Mr. Mike Kattermann. Planning/Technical Services Director City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue S % Renton, WA 98055 - Re: Reconsideration of Springbrook Associates Rezone, LUA-96-128,R • Dear Mr. Kattermann: • This office has received a,Request for Reconsideration in the above matter from City staff. The objection was to the imposition of the following condition: • If the site should be subdivided in the future,the height limits on all resulting lots shall be governed by the most restrictive limits that currently apply to this entire site;meaning all construction shall be treated as if it were adjacent and abutting single family zoned property. • Staff was concerned that it"would'be difficult to implement and could result in inconsistent height restrictions." , This office believes it will let the recommendation stand as is and permit the City Council to review this matter,perhaps in full.. The'CO Zone already has at least two different height limits. There are the general height limits which.permit buildings up to and in some cases greater than 250 feet tall. Then there are the height limits that limit heights to 20 feet over the permitted residential height limits for CO uses that are adjacent to residential uses. Therefore,treating the subject site and any potential division of the site as though dill continued to be"adjacent" to • residential development would:.not introduce-anything-substantially different from that now " occurring. :.. - " This office rarely intrudes in policy matters Wand is,notparticularly interested in how tall • : - buildings may be in the City, other`that when the context suggests the tall structures may have ., an untoward impact on adjacent uses.•.In,those situations,the criteria indicate that other . considerations must be weighed. The Comprehensive Plan's apparent goals and objectives for the land around the hospital (and • Renton Technical College,-although not applicable here) suggest supportive office uses. The Comprehensive Plan also suggests that any such development be scaled in accordance with the surrounding community and particularly calls for low-scale(height) development adjacent to residential neighborhoods. • It is clear that the CO Zone permits very large scale structures, structures up to 250 feet and even taller in some cases. Moving such structures one tier of lots away from single family uses would not necessarily diminish the impacts of 250 foot tall buildings on single family or other residential uses. The affects would be demonstrable if these taller buildings are in any way oriented south, southeast, southwest and probably other orientations. It is not hard to envision 200 Mil] Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2593 that an intervening lot 100 feet deep would not substantially diminish the impact of a 250 foot tall building.on 30 foot tall structures only 100 feet north. What creates the difficulty in this case and the other rezones in this area is that we have an "either/or" situation. The CO Zone permits very tall structures and the other non-residential zones permit uses that have been deemed incompatible around the hospital and Renton Technical College such as fast food outlets and other commercial uses. The fact that the Zoning Code does not offer an intermediary or alternative zoning category that might meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for areas around both the hospital and Renton Technical College seems an oversight that should not necessarily be "fixed" by blindly.imposing CO zoning in areas too close to single family areas. Therefore,this office would either recommend the conditions suggested or recommend that the proposed CO Zoning for the subject site be denied until such time as zoning and structures permitted under that zoning can be assured to be compatible with surrounding uses. • If this office has misinterpreted the other goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and by extension,the City Council's policy prerogatives,then this office apologizes. Staff has pointed to the Shegrud Rezone(LUA-95=031,R). Frankly,the reference to another decision where this potential incompatibility might have been overlooked clearly should not be used to justify further potential gross incompatibilities. In simple terms, one mistake cannot be used to justify another. - • Sincerely, Fred J. Kau an Hearing Examiner • FJK.mm 'vT.. ': `'• `vw iYttl• 6:` cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner :• •` ;44 :. . r,5° Jay Covington,Maybes Executive Assistant • Lawrence Warren,City Attorney: Gregg;Zimmerman Jim Hanson CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON DEC 3 1 1996 PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS RECEIVED MEMORANDUM CITY CLERKS OFFICE DATE: December 31, 1996 TO: Fred Kaufman,Hearing Examiner FROM: Mike Kattermann,Planning and Technical Services Director SUBJECT: Reconsideration of Springbrook Associates Rezone Recommendation In your recent report and recommendation for the Springbrook Associates Rezone (LUA-96-128,R) you recommended the City Council approve the reclassification of the subject site from P-1 to CO subject to the following condition: "If the site should be subdivided in the future, the height limits on all resulting lots shall be governed by the most restrictive limits that currently apply to this entire site, meaning all construction shall be treated as if it were adjacent and abutting single family zoned property." Development Services staff has indicated a concern that this condition would be difficult to implement and could result in inconsistent height restrictions. Also,we can find no precedent for limiting height on future subdivisions if such properties comply with the minimum lot dimensions and lot size of the underlying zone. In this case the minimum lot size of 25,000 square feet would have to be complied with for any future subdivision. Because the Springbrook Associates site is so large(5.62 acres)there is a potential for the site to be subdivided at some time in the future. In light of the clarification of"adjacent"as it applies to non-residentially zoned properties adjacent to residentially zoned properties as set forth in my memorandum of December 17, 1996 to you, additional conditions limiting building heights in the CO Zone now seem unnecessary. In our opinion it would be inappropriate to restrict heights on new lots that do not meet the more encompassing definition of"adjacent". Also, it should be noted, no such limitations were suggested for the 5.34 acre Shegrud Rezone site(LUA-95-031,R, Site No. 8)when it was considered for rezoning from P-1 toCO in May of 1995. Please consider this memorandum a formal request for reconsideration of the above referenced condition for the Springbrook Associates Rezone (LUA-96-128, R) as set forth in your report dated December 17, 1996. Thank you. cc: Gregg Zimmerman Jim Hanson H:\W W60DODMEMO.DO11bh r. .,, ,� =ai .CITY'` '►F:.RENTON LL <- ••LL '�� - Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman • January 30, 1997 Springbrook Associates P.O. Box 53525 Bellevue, WA 98015 Re: Rezone of Springbrook Associates Property File No. LUA-96-128,R Gentlemen: The Examiner's Report and Recommendation regarding the referenced request has not been appealed within the time period established by ordinance. Therefore,this matter is being _ submitted to the City Clerk this date for transmittal to the City Council for review. You will receive notification of final approval, as well as a copy of the enacting ordinance from the City Clerk upon adoption by the City Council: You will be notified of all action taken by the City Council upon approval of the request. Please feel free to contact this office if further assistance or information is required. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner FJK:mm cc: City Clerk Don Erickson, Project Manager 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2593 Si This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer , CITY OF RENTON.COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI #: SUBMITTING DATA: FOR AGENDA OF: Dept/Div/Board.. HEARING EXAMINER Staff Contact... Fred J. Kaufman, ext. 2593 AGENDA STATUS: Consent XX SUBJECT: City sponsored rezone of Springbrook Assoc.Property Public Hearing.. from P-1 (Public Use)to CO(Commercial Office)Zone Correspondence.. Location: 403 S.38th Court Ordinance . XX File No.LUA-96-128,R - Resolution Old Business.... EXHIBITS: 1. Hearing Examiner's Report New Business.... 2. Ordinance Study.session... Other RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Hearing Examiner's Recommendation APPROVALS: and adopt ordinance. Legal Dept Finance Dept.... Other FISCAL IMPACT: N/A Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.. Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated... SUMMARY OF ACTION: In June 1994, City Council directed Planning/Building/Public Works to proceed with assimilation of the P-1 Zone into the other zones adopted in June 1993. The other zones do accommodate most, if not all of • the uses that were typically allowed in the P-1 zone. The recommendation of the Hearing Examiner for approval of the City-sponsored rezone was published on December 17, 1996. A request for reconsideration was received, to which the Hearing Examiner did not change his recommendation. No appeals were received during the appeal period which ended January 27, 1997. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC) did not impose conditions; however, the Hearing Examiner imposed the following condition: "If the site should be subdivided in the future,the height limits on all resulting lots shall be governed by the most restrictive limits that currently apply to this entire site,meaning all construction shall be treated as if it were adjacent and abutting single family zoned property." The Examiner recommends that City Council approve reclassification of the subject property from P-1 to CO with the aforementioned condition imposed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. X° • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES. WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM P-1 (PUBLIC USE) TO CO (COMMERCIAL OFFICE) (SPRINGBROOK ASSOCIATES REZONE; FILE NO. LUA-96- 128, R) . WHEREAS, under Chapter 7, Title IV (Building Regulations) , of Ordinance No. 4260 known as the "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, " as amended, and maps and ' reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as P-1 (Public Use) ; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This matter was duly referred to the Hearing Examiner for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or • about December 3 , 1996, and said matter having been duly considered by the Hearing Examiner, and said zoning request , having been recommended, 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: 1 • ORDINANCE NO. SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to CO (Commercial Office) ' as hereinbelow specified, subject to the findings, conclusions, and decision of the Hearing Examiner dated January 13, 1997 and subject further to the condition that if the site should be subdivided in the future, the height limits on all resulting lots shall be governed by the most restrictive limits that currently apply to this entire site, meaning all construction shall be treated as it if were adjacent and abutting single family zoned property; the Development Services 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, approximately 5 . 62 acres, is located at the western end of South 38th Court that traverses between Shattuck Avenue South on the north and Talbot Road South on the southeast, at 403 South 38th Court . ) SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five (5) days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 1997 . Marilyn J. Petersen, City Clerk 2 ORDINANCE NO. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 1997 . Jesse Tanner, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD.639 :1/28/97 :as . 3 %0 : CITY. RENTON • ma.• Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman January 13, 1997 Mr. Mike Kattermann Planning/Technical Services Director ' City of Renton . 200 Mill Avenue S Renton,WA 98055 Re: Reconsideration of Springbrook Associates Rezone, LUA-96-128,R Dear Mr. Kattermann: This office has received a Request for Reconsideration in the above matter from City staff. The objection was to the imposition of the following condition: If the site should be,subdivided in the future,the height limits on all resulting lots shall be governed by the most,restrictive limits that currently apply to this entire site,meaning all construction'shall'be treated as if it were adjacent and abutting single family,zoned property: r" • Staff was concerned that it"would"be:difficult to implement and:could result in inconsistent height restrictions." This office believes it will let the recommendation stand as is and.permit the City Council to review this matter,perhaps iri"full.=Tle CO'Zone'already has at least two different height limits. There are the general height limits which'permit buildings up to and iii some cases greater than 250 feet tall. Then there are the height limits that limit heights to 20 feet over the permitted - . , residential height,limits for CO uses'that are adjacent to residential uses. Therefore,treating the subject site and any potential.division of the site as though it all continued to be 'adjacent".to residential development would:not introduce anything substantially,different from that now : • occurring. • This office rarely intrudes policy ymatters,and`is;not ' particularly interested in how tall. : buildings'may bein`the City, other than when the context suggests the tall structures may have . an,untoward.impact on adjacent uses; .In those,situations,the criteria indicate that other. . ' considerations must be weighed. The Comprehensive Plan's apparent goals and objectives for the land around the hospital (and Renton Technical College, although not applicable here) suggest supportive office uses. The Comprehensive Plan also suggests that any such development be scaled in accordance with the surrounding community and particularly calls for low-scale(height) development adjacent to residential neighborhoods. . It is clear that the CO Zone permits very large scale structures, structures up to 250 feet and even taller in some cases. Moving such structures one tier of lots away from single family uses would not necessarily diminish the impacts of 250 foot tall buildings on single family or other residential uses. The affects would be demonstrable if these taller buildings are in any way oriented south, southeast, southwest and probably other orientations. It is not hard to envision 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton,Washington 98055 - (206)235-2593 that an intervening lot.100 feet deep would not substantially diminish the impact of a 250 foot tall building on 30 foot tall structures only 100 feet north. What creates the difficulty in this case and the other rezones in this area is that we have an "either/or" situation. The CO Zone permits very tall structures and the other non-residential zones permit uses that have been deemed incompatible around the hospital and Renton Technical College such as fast food outlets and other commercial uses. The fact that the Zoning Code does not offer an intermediary or alternative zoning category that might meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for areas around both the hospital and Renton Technical College seems an oversight that should not necessarily be "fixed" by blindly imposing CO zoning in areas too close to single family areas. Therefore, this office would either recommend the conditions suggested or recommend that the pfoposed CO Zoning for the subject site be denied until such time as zoning and structures permitted under that zoning can be assured to be compatible with surrounding uses. If this office has misinterpreted the other goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and by extension,the City Council's policy prerogatives,then this office apologizes. Staff has pointed to the Shegrud Rezone"(LUA-95-031, R). Frankly, the reference to another decision where this potential incompatibility might have been,overlooked clearly should not be used to justify further potential gross incompatibilities: In simple terms, one mistake cannot be used to justify another. Sincerely, Fred J. Kau an Hearing Examiner Tanner°� �k'x`� r' esse '?>-MaoJ - rJ: JayCovington,�'M a or s Executive Assistant - • Y ='. Lawrence Warren, City Attorney: Gregg Zimmerman .,. . Jim Hanson - i CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON DEC 31 1996 PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS RECEIVED MEMORANDUM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE: December 31, 1996 TO: Fred Kaufinan,Hearing Examiner FROM: Mike Kattermann,Planning and Technical Services Director SUBJECT: Reconsideration of Springbrook Associates Rezone Recommendation In your recent report and recommendation for the Springbrook Associates Rezone (LUA-96-128,R) you recommended the City Council approve the reclassification of the subject site from P-1 to CO subject to the following condition: "If the site should be subdivided in the future, the height limits on all resulting lots shall be governed by the most restrictive limits that currently apply to this entire site, meaning all construction shall be treated as if it were adjacent and abutting single family zoned property." Development Services staff has indicated a concern that this condition would be difficult to implement and could result in inconsistent height restrictions. Also, we can find no precedent for limiting height on future subdivisions if such properties comply with the minimum lot dimensions and lot size of the underlying zone. In this case the minimum lot size of 25,000 square feet would have to be complied with for any future subdivision. Because the Springbrook Associates site is so large(5.62 acres)there is a potential for the site to be subdivided at some time in the future. In light of the clarification of"adjacent"as it applies to non-residentially zoned properties adjacent to • residentially zoned properties as set forth in my memorandum of December 17, 1996 to you, additional conditions limiting building heights in the CO Zone now seem unnecessary. In our opinion it would be inappropriate to restrict heights on new lots that do not meet the more encompassing definition of"adjacent". Also, it should be noted, no such limitations were suggested for the 5.34 acre Shegrud Rezone site(LUA-95-031,R, Site No. 8)when it was considered for rezoning from P-1 toCO in May of 1995. Please consider this memorandum a formal request for reconsideration of the above referenced condition for the Springbrook Associates Rezone (LUA-96-128, R) as set forth in your report dated December 17, 1996. Thank you. • cc: Gregg Zimmerman Jim Hanson • H:\W W6ODOTTMEMO.DOT\bh AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of King ) MARILYN MOSES , being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 17th day of December ,1996, affiant deposited in the mail of the United States a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: L- /144 ��-�� C� SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 1711 day of)€k 1996. J/ - Not. Publ c in t for the State of Washington, 1 : _ residing at 7 , therein. Application, Petition, or Case No.: Springbrook Associates Rezone LUA-96-128,R The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. KEIP° RT ERI \ G HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT December 17, 1996 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION APPLICANT: City of Renton Springbrook Associates Rezone File No.: LUA-96-128,R LOCATION: 403 S 38th Court SUMMARY OF REQUEST: City-initiated rezone of an irregular shaped 5.62 acre site from Public Use(P-1)zone to the Commercial Office(CO)zone. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on November 26, 1996. PUBLIC HEARING: In accordance with Section 4-8-14(C)(2),the Hearing Examiner shall determine if a change of zone classification is advisable, in the public interest,tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner, is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof, and is in harmony with the purposes and effect of the Comprehensive Plan. In such event,the Hearing Examiner may recommend that the City Council approve the change of the zone classification. EXHIBITS: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing application,proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.2: Site plan MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the December 3, 1996 hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. • The hearing opened on Tuesday,December 3, 1996, at 9:33 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. City project manager, DONALD ERICKSON,P/B/PW Special Projects, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055,presented the staff report. He explained that when the City prepared its Comprehensive Plan in 1993 it deferred making changes to the Public Use(P-1)zone to allow more time to study existing P-1 uses. Originally,the P-1 zone was intended to recognize public ownership and to provide a City of Renton Springbrook Associates Rezone File No.: LUA-96-128,R December 17, 1996 Page 2 process that would expedite development. The study found that the City's new zoning allows the same public uses in virtually every zone. It was also found that a relatively high percentage of actual public uses are not located in the P-1zones. For example, City Hall and the Fire Station are in the commercial zone and schools and parks are generally located in single family zones. Staff proposed to the City Council's Planning.and Development Committee that the City should either assimilate all public uses in P-1 zones or allow for public uses in all other zones. The City Council chose the latter recommendation since there are adequate provisions in other zones to accommodate public uses and it would be more consistent with the Growth Management Act. Mr. Erickson stated that approval to rezone the subject site from Public Use(P-1)to Commercial Office(CO) Zone is requested. The subject site is an irregular shaped 5.62 acre parcel located at 403 S..38th Court. It is near Valley Medical Hospital to the south. There are single family residences to the north across S. 37th Street and to the east across Talbot Road South. To the west is the Panther Creek wetland and greenbelt and then SR- 167. The existing site is currently vacant. In closing, Mr. Erickson recommended approval of this rezone request for the following reasons: (1) the rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for this parcel; (2)the rezone is consistent with City policies that encourage the location and siting of smaller scale health care facilities such as clinics, practitioner's offices, convalescent centers, and similar uses in centers rather than being geographically dispersed throughout the City. In this case, because of the intensity of some of these smaller-scale health care facilities, it is proposed that they remain in the Center Institution center, and be zoned consistent with other commercial office uses, including clinics in the area; (3)that the rezone is consistent with the proposed rezones of abutting privately held Public Use zoned properties to the CO Zone. Four other privately held P-1 zoned properties are also proposed to be rezoned to the CO Zone. This is important because the minimum lot size in this zone is 25,000 square feet, and some of these lots may have to be consolidated to comply with the minimum lot size and to achieve their full development potential; (4)the subject rezone is a non-project action under SEPA and is a legislative act which of and by itself will not result in new development although it will provide the potential for more intense uses than allowed in the existing P-1 Zone since the CO Zone has the potential of allowing twenty(20)story buildings because this zone allows building heights of up to 250 feet for developments on sites larger than 25,000 square feet. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak,and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:38 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: 1. The applicant, City of Renton, filed a request to reclassify the subject site from P-1 (Public/Quasi- public)to CO(Commercial Office). 2. The City of Renton filed requests for approval of a series of approximately forty(40)or fifty(50) separate rezones involving a series of separate properties generally but not always owned by public agencies including the City,King County and the Renton School District. The City proposes phasing City of Renton Springbrook Associates Rezone File No.: LUA-96-128,R December 17, 1996 Page 3 out its P-1 Zone, a zone that in the past was designed to accommodate public and quasi-public uses. Each of the proposals requests that the new zoning be changed to closely, if not exactly match, surrounding zoning districts and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The yellow file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1. 4. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance(DNS)for the subject proposal. 5. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 6. While the background information on the study and proposed abolition of the P-1 zone will be the same for each report, each site will receive separate attention and a separate decision. 7. The P-1 (Public/QuasiPublic)Zone was established in the early 1950's to accommodate governmental facilities as well as certain private uses such as private medical clinics and private hospitals, as well as private schools, museums and the like that accommodated the public. The permitted uses were expanded over the years to accommodate an even wider range of uses while other zoning districts also broadened their range of,respective uses, in effect, duplicating the permitted uses in the P-1 zone. The current zoning categorization generally appears to accommodate most, although Snot all, of the uses the current P-1 zone permits. The City Council directed staff to make a recommendation as to the continued need for a distinct P-1 zone. A result of that study was presented to the Planning Commission(May 4, 1994 Report). The Planning Commission recommended the assimilation of the P-1 zone. The City Council then directed that individual parcels be assimilated into nearby, compatible zones after appropriate public hearings. The current action is the result of those decisions. 8. The subject site is located at 403 South 38th Court. The site is approximately 5.62 acres in size. The site is quite irregularly shaped, and while addressed on South 38th Court it also has frontage via a dogleg to Talbot Road South and additional frontage along South 37th Street. This rezone proposal is a companion to rezones proposed for lots north and south of it(Brain File No. LUA-96-126,R;D&R Enterprises File No. LUA-96-130,R). 9. The site is north of the Valley Medical Center complex. In addition,two parcels located north of this site between S 38th Court and South 37th Street are also being considered for similar rezoning treatment. 10. The City proposes designating the site CO. While the City has attached a special P-suffix designation to any public property which will be reclassified from P-1,that suffix will not be attached to private properties if they are reclassified from P-1 to another designation. Rather,they will be treated like all other private property for development or sale purposes. 11. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development Center Institutional uses,represented in general by uses such as Valley Medical Center and Renton Technical College, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 12. The height limits of the CO permit buildings with a height of up to 250 feet whereas the current P-1 Zone limits building height to generally 50 feet. City of Renton Springbrook Associates Rezone File No.: LUA-96-128,R December 17, 1996 Page 4 Commercial Office Height Limits: §4-31-16D4. Height: §4-31-16D4a. General: A maximum of two hundred and fifty feet(250'). §4-31-16D4b. Special Height Allowances: §4-31-16D4b(1). Heights may exceed the maximum height by up to fifty feet(50')with bonuses for plazas and other amenities, subject to a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit. §4-31-16D4b(2). When a building is adjacent to a lot designated as residential on the City Comprehensive Plan,the building may exceed the height allowed in the adjacent residential zone by a maximum of twenty feet(20'). 13. Staff has noted that they have interpreted "adjacent" as meaning immediately abutting and that an intervening street removes this limitation. In this case,this parcel actually abuts an R-8 zone along its west and northwest boundaries.-But the parcel is large enough that it could be subdivided. That would separate the portion that abuts the residential properties from a portion that does not abut residential properties. Therefore,this could allow development of 250 foot tall buildings on the portion that does not abut residential properties. 14. Zoning in the area consists of two predominant zoning districts including the existing P-1 zoning. East, northeast,north and west of an adjoining parcel is R-8(Residential Single Family)Zoning. King County is located east and southeast and its zoning is residential and office related south toward Carr Road. There are CO zoned parcels south of the Talbot and South 43rd intersection. 15. The site is currently vacant but staff noted that a development application is in some stages of planning. Staff did not believe that the proposed structures would exceed the height limits of the current P-1 zone and probably would be less than permitted. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest,that it will not impair the public health, safety and welfare, and in addition complies with at least one of the criteria found in Section 4-8-14,which provides in part that: a. The subject site has not been considered in a previous area-wide rezone or land use analysis; or b. The subject site is potentially designated for the new classification per the Comprehensive Plan; or c. There has.been a material and substantial change in the area in which the subject site is located since the last rezoning of the property or area. The proposed zoning with conditions outlined below appears appropriate. 2. This property varies from the two companion sites since it does abut an R-8 Zone and therefore the building would be limited to 55 feet in height. It seems appropriate to approve this rezone, although as City of Renton Springbrook Associates Rezone File No.: LUA-96-128,R December 17, 1996 Page 5 noted the parcel could be divided creating the potential for a 250 foot tall structure near, if not legally "adjacent"to, single family homes and zoning. 3. As noted in the discussion of the two companion sites,the CO zone's potential height.of 250 feet makes it inappropriate for this site or even portions of this site. Any reclassification should therefore limit development potential so that buildings cannot exceed an approximately 55 foot height limit if the site were to be subdivided. 4. The P-1 district and its associatedproperties were removed from the city-wide reclassification effort to study the basis for the zone itself. This site as well as the other P-1 properties were segregated for special review. The public hearing that preceded this recommendation=is•the.first analysis since that study demonstrated that there is no reason to maintain the P-1 zones. 5. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area as suitable Center Institution but appears to designate property east,north and even west of the site for single family uses. The Center Institution designation in the Comprehensive Plan does not necessarily require CO zoning but apparently the CO zone comes the closest to permitting the uses proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. At the same time Policy LU- 143 suggests small-scale health care facilities in neighborhoods. 6. It is clear that the possible 250 foot height permitted in the CO zone could introduce buildings that are completely out of scale with the nearby single family zones, and more importantly the single family .uses located across Talbot and along South 37th Street and along Shattuck.Avenue South. In this case, as long as the lot remains one consolidated parcel,.site plan review and the existing height limitation should protect surrounding and abutting single family uses from the shadow and shading impacts that could be associated with 250 foot tall, 20-story office buildings. The problem could arise if the site were to be the subject of a subdivision. Again,the site plan ordinance has been more recently limited to guiding development rather than conditioning,it or significantly scaling back the intensity of development. 7. It would be inappropriate to rely on either site plan review or even SEPA after generally vesting certain rights in property, in this case,height limits, if 250 feet tall can be called limits. Neither SEPA nor the , site plan review process are intended to ultimately control neighborhood character. That is the overriding purpose of the Zoning Code. The zoning requested at this juncture would permit 250 foot tall structures on property located very close to single family zones in which 35 foot tall structures predominate. That would be inappropriate. 8. None of the roads that abut this site provides either sufficient setback or buffering to protect the interests of the single family homes west or north of this particular parcel. 9. Therefore, while this site currently differs from its companion sites, a subdivision could alter that dissimilarity. Therefore, covenants restricting the height of buildings seems appropriate if this rezone is approved. 10. As with site plan review and SEPA, it has been shown that the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan cannot be used to lessen the density of plats where the proposed density has been determined to be intrusive and out of character with surrounding uses. Therefore,there should be no mistaken reliance on other polices or regulations when the zoning would permit 250 foot tall buildings. City of Renton Springbrook Associates Rezone File No.: LUA-96-128,R December 17, 1996 Page 6 11. While granting such zoning does not require 250 foot tall buildings and there are no plans for anything that large, approving the requested zoning does vest the right to potentially develop such structures. In this area,that would be inappropriate. RECOMMENDATION: The.City Council should approve the reclassification of the subject site from P-1 to CO subject to the following condition: If the site should be subdivided in the future,the height limits on all resulting lots shall be governed by the most restrictive limits that currently apply to this entire site, meaning all construction shall be treated as if it were adjacent and abutting single family zoned property. ORDERED THIS 17th day of December, 1996. FRED-J. FMAN HEARING EXAMINER • TRANSMITTED THIS 17th day of December, 1996 to the parties of record: Don Erickson Springbrook Associates Kevin Bessler 200 Mill Avenue S P.O.Box 53525 P.O.Box 34029 Renton, WA 98055 Bellevue,WA 98015 Seattle, WA 98124 TRANSMITTED THIS 17th day of December, 1996 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman, Plan/Bldg/PW Administrator Members,Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson, Development Services Director Art Larson,Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney James Chandler,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Mayor's Executive Assistant Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler South County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,December 31, 1996. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or 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 a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered 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, Chapter 8, Section 16,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. City of Renton - Springbrook Associates Rezone File No.: LUA-96-128,R December 17, 1996 Page 7 Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in.the.land.use.process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. EXHIBIT 'C' . \ .k'•13 . i co' • QD'LI - '�� I ic-z-4 s asimmi • . i. kftm , i > ,,,,- * ali"-wo ,...._, oi,_ ► ► c,-_, e„,,, a e. g th St r ..o..k..... iga IL ,E3 , , , p. , ii, I , 3 • / /4h 4 ,,, :-.-. 01 • gAr 17- f IT . H 177tii . Av* . Si, 1 I S: *ir I l'- lAS 0 0 0s tilibb...., . ovon o~ • , LONG RANGE PLANNING + + Erickson LANDUSE ACTION FILE #96- 128 R »' D. V"""�``,,,,�' REZONES FILE #PR-12 0 300 soo FROM P-1 TO CO .:::.::._.;.::<.:.;:...:::;:.:>;;.;:.;:.;>: - REZONE SITE 1 :3 6 O O CITY LIMITS • E /\ iti i ! t t • \ ---- (3 6 _. ,..___ ,, / , i �-\ ., / .. ... . ... _ .„ . ,........., .,......,, . . . ..., ........4.:. . .„„).,‘ c,„ ‘,/ . %I la Ad If -,47_______::_2i 111 \ /3 4'.% t 4-0 'vim ry , Ry ;r ^, .z.l9.. , '2u. - 4 , • . �0 0 .c '� '� ,�. �.. eZ,u-.�sy 1 .i i c_s -Rz/,Qt •o t;-•::;; 3' 1 N • � 0 ; 0 a..., L. I 2g�. ` ' '7 h /'6•ss h : na ..94p.O�a� /!� do 1 5 p 9g ��'7 �`3 \ J7 `V r ri 1 .0 n; 7� 9B '� • -s. Z�?� n .T 0 �s .s�s2 fix-3 ys ,va O 1 4 ts- pi �` " ti I /4- tII / \° ` � 5-1 06u f f /6 4 o 2 g h L ' _,Fs n �c �e �a ? o‘b0 th0 55 ��� N t: S �� Jo. 1 /to T• - � 01 '� rzc7f • ........... .r. 1 q • R , LOT 2 ♦ I k ,�O I 1 et •\ LOT / ; 1. e CI oli • c,•Q 5 • ,) Ps i Lo r .� Q P�\ t• • Q .8 �G p.� o•' II 39' �09 ' c i _ 1 �� Og „t i& as.sa A,i,.,7is, .co.Zc + o 1— �` �\E'� M`b\O r M /13.31 ..�. S c0 K P a0� (" ,�..�s Ci•32 �Eo• j. rn CD -.. s.13 /.77 / N i 7 � 0 I ^ t• O Itor J15.06'.o3w 0 'f N 0 .sa i. 1 % y * 37 cam= ,op t s r` A G• 71? o, v 3�0•or 4,44 o PC L. A ot�� '' t O. f V - • �� L J !- n 30 3-- say N il 0 1 °' 3k Bci. zs L A'es_ 0.3- 00w .300 1 \ 44 `.. A? l./73� T6/.25 R�?rJ1 .� F /Oi0 2oo _ g I 4 v\ � ;.� top .� �,�� - o dp ‘... 1 _ Oa LA W N.) `k-I A�/ h PCL. B M - - a.c•9 • NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non- Significance for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Elaine Kahns, being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the CPRINGBR ASSOCIATES REZONE .,A -128,ECF,R Prcoosed city sponsored rezon- atei SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL Held P-, zoned parcel loca 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 western end of South 38th Court that tra- verses between Shattuck Avenue South on a dailynewspaper seventimes a week. Said newspaper is a le al the North, and Talbot Road south on the published (7) 9 southeast from Public Use(P-1)to Commer111 newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months cial Office(CO).The subject site is currently prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language vacant and will likely develop with a new retirement residence if this City initiated continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County rezone goes through. Location: 403 South Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the 38th Court. n e s n r State of Washington for KingCounty. The 15 day comment period with con- m 9 Y current 14 day appeal period for this project t n The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County will end at 5: s00 PM on Dseceember 3, 1996. Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers Following this,the City will finalize its Deter- during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a a reevaluation. A peal procedures eed rposed Appeal procedures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Notice of Environmental Determination Development Services Division,Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington as published on: 11/18/96 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to make specific factual objec- tions. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$56.15 Re At Public Hearing will be held by the n ing Examiner at his reular Legal Number VN2284 meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washing- 11 ton on December 3, 1996 at 9:00 AM to c?0 tn.( Yan.61 consider the Rezone. Published in the South County Journal Legal Clerk, South County Journal November 18, 1996. 2284 Subscribed and sworn before me on this day of Ai IfY• , 19 i/" y a ee A„ •\Ctof, 4+ 1` - too � `f'01ARi.. \ • 1 A Notary Public of the State of Washington % p t, •• * 1 residing in Renton N cr`•� ' B L ): =eI King County, Washington �r�0••31•ti\� of 411 Washington State Northwest Region Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North Sid Morrison P.O.Box 330310 Seattle,WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206)44WELOPMENT PLAT''"', "ITY OF RENTI OEC121w, DATE: December 6,1996 n , . EIVED TO: Donald Erickson City of Renton, Project Manager 200 Mill Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Subject: SR 167 MP 24.77 CS 1766 Determination of Nonsignificance- Springbrook Associates Rezone `a\404 File No. LUA-96-128,ECF,R FROM: Robert A. Josephson, PE,Manager of Planning& Local Coordination Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North, MS 122 P. O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review this project, which is located at 403 South 38th Court. Our response is checked below: X We have reviewed this subject document and have no comments. The project will have no significant impact on the state highway system. However, we would like the opportunity to review at the time of any further development. The State recommends that a traffic study be prepared to analyses the state intersections that are impacted by ten or more of the project's generated peak hour trips and also determine what mitigation measures, if any would be required. If you have any questions, please contact Don Hurter at 440-4664 or Vickie Erickson at 440-4915 of my Developer Services section VEE:vee File Name CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM Date: December 5, 1996 To: Rebecca Lind/Planning & Technical Services Don Erickson/Planning & Technical Services From: Jana Huerter/ Environmental Review Committee Subject: REZONES LUA-96-125, ECF; LUA-96-126,ECF; LUA-96-127,ECF; LUA-96-128,ECF; LUA-96-129,ECF; LUA-96-130,ECF We just wanted to inform you that the comment and appeal periods have ended now for the environmental determinations on the above subject projects. No appeals were filed on the environmental determinations. This decision is final. The Hearing Examiner will notify you when the appeal periods for the Rezones have expired CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the +-'' day of VloveisAcur , 1996, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing }}-E rtioo vT documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing 5pr t v.)bvook Nsoc vet (Signature of Sender) %%C . 1- • . .e.ters...rt..e— STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) // I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that StAl i)R,4 7 0 V L signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and volunta act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 1I /60. 2PubIianoeteofWaSTnQth '• r1 r� a Notary (Print) / 4 tff4 r 9;(t"4 v4-2 My appointment expires: / q fi c Project Name: srt rgbvook ASSOc\a-k-a Project Number. 110 _ Zg R, E, NOTARY DOC �•j' O R N .::.. .:>;:':.:::<:>:;:;::.::.:::::>:<.:::;:;>:::::: :>::::.;;'.:::>>:>:::;::>::;»:.g:::.: >:HEARING MINEM. COMMENCING OUL {:::'':�.:'y::i:::::;i�<::::::i::::::i::<;:i::::::::::i;i'':i::::::iy;:�"'ii::{:;:ii'��'•:'S•Y+�:�::::i:i::.::ry;<'r,::::ii::;: ,v::i::::::::ii:':i::..::::'::v,::ii::::.::::i:::::•,:y:i:�::i:+:{{;:�:::�'::i;;:airy?iji::i::::::}ii'::ii;:.'•j;+:ii:`:ii$j'�'<;�.:ii':}::'I The a::.:plicatio°n.s>€:fisted'are In:order:::of':>. icatiort num a:»o I :an o>. e - . .::.. ..:..:.......... .R................. ..............................:.:::.......:.:.:::...:::� ..:1.......:.....::.:........�..:t.:..�. .�:.....d::ri.:t::n...cessari. :::th.e::>arct�:r:iit<�vhicft> PROJECT NAME: • SPRINGBROOK ASSOCIATES REZONE PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-96-128,R PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed city sponsored rezone of a privately held P-1 zoned parcel located at the western end of South 38th Court that traverses between Shattuck Avenue South on the North, and Talbot Road south on the southeast from Public Use (P-1)to Commercial Office (CO). The subject site is currently vacant and will likely develop with a new retirement residence if this City initiated rezone goes through. Location: 403 South 38th.Court. PROJECT NAME: BRAIN REZONE PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-96-126,R PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed city sponsored rezone of a privately held P-1 zoned.parcel at the northeast corner of the Valley Medical Center campus, on the west side of Talbot Road South from Public Use (P-1)to Commercial Office (CO). The existing dental offices would be a permitted use in the new CO Zone. No change of use is contemplated as a consequence of this City initiated rezone proposal. Location: 3901 Talbot Road South. • PROJECT NAME: D&R ENTERPRISES REZONE PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-96-130,R PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed city sponsored rezone of a privately held P-1 zoned parcel at the southwest corner of the Intersection of South.38th Street and Talbot Road South from Public Use (P- 1) to Commercial Office (CO). The existing medical/dental offices would be a permitted use in the new CO Zone. No change of use is contemplated as a consequence of this City initiated rezone proposal. Location: 3731 Talbot Road South. AGNDA.DOC • City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Brain Rezone LUA-96-126,ECF,R PUBLIC HEARING DATE:December 3, 1996 Page 1 of 5 PUBLIC City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date December 3, 1996 Project Name Brain Rezone Applicant City of Renton,Planning/Building/Public Works Department File Number LUA-96-126,ECF,R Project Description City initiated rezone of an irregular shaped 1.32 acre site from Public Use (P-1) Zone to the Commercial Office(CO)Zone. Project Location .3901 Talbot Road S., Renton,WA. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record Dr.Eugene Brain,DDS 5454 Lake Washington Blvd. SE Bellevue,WA 98006 2. Zoning Designation Public Use(P-1)Zone 3. Comprehensive Plan Center Institution Land Use Designation 4. Existing Site Use Vacant 5. Neighborhood Characteristics North Immediately to the north are Panther Creek greenbelt and vacant 5.62 acre site proposed for future retirement residence. Uses around S. 38th Court include medical and dental offices/clinics. North of S. 37th Street area is single-family residences. East Single-family residential uses predominate across Talbot Road S. South Valley Medical Center is the predominate use south of the subject site. Uses at VMC closest to the subject property include medical office buildings and a large parking structure. DRBRAIN.DOC/ . ➢ iF . City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Brain Rezone LUA-96-126,ECF,R PUBLIC HEARING DATE:December 3, 1996 . ' Page 2 of 5 1 West Valley Medical Center's North Campus and specifically the e' Medic Services building and at-grade parking lots. Further to the 11, west is VMC's larger multi-story parking garage. l 6 Access Talbot Road South. I 7 Site Area 1.32 acres 8: Project Data: Area Comments Existing Building Area NA Not applicable,non-project action rezone . ' ' New Building Area NA Not applicable,non-project action rezone Total Building Area NA Not applicable,non-project action rezone C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Adopt Comp Plan with 4496 February 20, 1995 ' Area-wide Land Use and Zoning Maps including " Zone Name'Changes Adoption of Draft Comp 4405 • June 7, 1993 Plan with Area-wide Land Use and Zoning Maps Adoption of Interim 4404 June 7, 1993 • II Zoning Code • li D. PUBLIC SERVICES: a, 1. Utilities • nl • Water Not applicable,non-project action rezone 1 ( Sewer Not applicable, non-project action rezone . Surface Water/Storm Water Not applicable,non-project action rezone 2 Fire'Protection Not applicable,non-project action rezone 3. ' Transit -, Not applicable,non-project action rezone 4 Schools Not applicable,non-project action rezone • S. Recreation Not applicable,non-project,action rezone 6 Other Not applicable, non-project action rezone DRBRAIN.DOC/. t City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Brain Rezone L UA=96-126, ECF,R PUBLIC HEARING DATE:December 3, 1996 Page 3 of 5 E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Section 4-8-14.C., Change of Zone Classification,(Rezone)' 2. Section 4-31-9,Public Use Zone(P-1) 3. Section 4-31-16, Commercial Office Zone F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Policy LU-140. Regional health and/or medical facilities larger than five acres should be located in institution medical centers. Policy LU-143. Small-scale health care facilities (e.g. minor emergency clinics,practitioner offices)should be encouraged to locate in neighborhood and community commercial centers. G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The current proposal is part of a series of five(5) proposed rezones of privately held properties by the City of Renton. These rezones would change the Public Use.(P-1) zoning designation on the subject properties to zoning already in the area that allows many of the-uses found on the five properties. The current five P- 1 rezones are part of a series of approximately fifty (50) that will be necessary to assimilate out the P-1 Zone. This consolidation of the City's zoning is based in part upon an extensive staff report that was prepared in November, 1993 the findings of which are summarized in staff's May 4, 1994, Staff Report to the Planning and Development. Committee on.the issue of the relevance of the Public Use Zone, given Renton's new zoning;codes, and whether or not this left-over zone should.be'assimilated into the City's other zones. . , In June, 1994, the City Council's Planning and Development Committee (see Exhibit `B') directed the Planning/Building/Public.Works Department to proceed with the assimilation of the P-1 Zone into other zones that had been adopted in June, 1993 and which accommodated most, if not all of the uses typically allowed in the P-1.Zone. As noted above, this recommendation was based upon a.fairly extensive staff report on the Public Use Zone that was prepared in November, 1993. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the city of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971, as amended), 'on November 12, 1996, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-significance for these five proposed rezones, including this one. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH ERC CONDITIONS Because no mitigation measures were imposed on this non-project action,'there were no ERC conditions that the applicant was required to comply with. • DRBRAIN.DOC/ 1 City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Brain Rezone LUA-96-126,ECF,R PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 3, 1996 Page 4 of 5 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Because this rezone is anon-project action under SEPA as well as a part of a package of City sponsored P-1 rezones,comments from other reviewers were not solicited. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH REZONE APPROVAL CRITERIA Section 4-8-14.0 "In the case where a change of the zone classification of property is recommend, at least one of the following circumstances shall be found to apply:" GENERAL CRITERIA: a) Previously Not Considered Zoning Reclassification That substantial evidence was presented demonstrating the subject reclassification appears not to have been specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or The subject site was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area rezoning in either June, 1993 since it was understood that Staff were studying the P-1 Zone and were preparing recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council on whether this special purpose zone should be retained, or, assimilated into the City's other new zoning classifications. Single-family areas abut the five private rezone sites to the north,east,and west and were rezoned in June, 1993 to the R 8 (Single-family)Zone., The subject site was not included in these rezones because the City was waiting for ' Public Use Zone would be handled. In June of 1994, the-Council the Council's reso lution as to how-the directed staff to proceed with the assimilation of the P-1 Zone into,the city's other new zones. b) Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Its Elements and Policies That the property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and conditions have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate; or The-subject site has been determined to be potentially classified for the proposed Commercial Office Zone based upon the fact that it is designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Map as Center Institution: Objective LU-V states that such areas are to be provided to assure adequate land and infrastructure for the • expansion of facilities to serve post secondary educational and health care needs of the area and protect adjacent uses from impacts of these more intensive uses. Amendments to the Commercial Office Zone are currently under consideration. If approved these would allow both medical institutions and convalescent centers/nursing homes and retirement residences as permitted uses in this zone. Medical and dental offices, currently allowed in this zone,would continue to be allowed. Accessory uses including electrical generation plants for medical institutions would also be allowed. Provisions requiring limited exterior signage for retail and service establishments would no longer apply. Because of the high number of offices/clinics-in the subject area as well as on Valley Medical Center's north campus it was felt that the CO Zone,with the proposed amendments,would be the most appropriate of Renton's existing zones for this area. Also,there are areas along Talbot Road S. south of S. Carr Road that are currently zoned Commercial Office. DRBRAIN.DOC/ City of Renton P/B/PW Depa, ry Report to the Hearing Examiner PROJECT NAME:Brain Rezone LUA-96-126,ECF,R PUBLIC HEARING DATE:December 3, 1996 Page 5 of 5 c) Timeliness of Proposed Rezone That since the last previous land use analysis of the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. The proposed rezone is timely because in June,, 1995,the City adopted new zoning provisions to protect the public trust that implemented Public Facilities Policies LU-229, LU-230, and LU-231. These provisions which ensure early notification for nearby residents and property owners whenever there is a change of use, ownership, or major tenancy of any publicly owned property allowed the City to move ahead with its P-1 rezones and their assimilation to other zones. H. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend approval of the Springbrook Associates rezone, File No. LUA-96-128, ECF, R, (without a public use"P"suffix attached, in this case because this is a privately held parcel),for the following reasons: 1. The rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for this parcel, 2. The rezone is consistent with City policies that encourage the location and siting of smaller scale health care facilities such as clinics, practitioner's offices, convalescent centers, and similar uses in centers rather than being geographically dispersed throughout the city. In this case, because of the intensity of some of these smaller-scale health care facilities it is proposed that they remain in the Center Institution center, and be zoned consistent with other commercial office uses,including clinics in the area. 3. The rezone is consistent with the proposed rezones of abutting privately held Public Use zoned properties to the Commercial Office Zone. Four other privately held P-1 zoned properties are also proposed to be rezoned to the CO Zone. This is important because the minimum lot size in this zone.is 25,000 square feet, and some of these lots may have to be consolidated to achieve full development potential. 4. The subject rezone is a non project action under SEPA and is a legislative act which of and by itself will not result in new development although will provide the potential for more intense uses than allowed in the existing P-1 Zone since the CO Zone has the potential of allowing twenty(20) story buildings because this zone allows building heights of up to 250 feet for developments on sites larger than 25,000 square feet.. Note: The applicant was not required to comply with any mitigation measures since the Environmental Review Committee issued a straight Determination of Non-significance for these proposed rezones when it considered them on November 12, 1996. DRBRAIN.DOC/ 1 . 4. • • 4• • `/V 0.`.�h :Q I' ^G. ,'. s ..�'; • 2:Lt-J,r,r z �- O "Ill tl e / 'O►t-� 1ti • 8 3 co' 1 moo , �� Si riRD of o J ` N. 0 I• ,pa a,, Z.F. 0 �A''by !v 0 !4 y Zg I Zg�Qc. . ',1 • 8 ,� N •i 28: . h Aid 'ess b �. ^a otg0 '' p • Q • S3 `1 55AG• t? ,,•"o® lI I. • A �' '�B 9B9 7s•. 06('''All •4/g e. • ez. i0o• .j qi t / cP\o O 31i�' ot5� tin '• t 'r f 4e? 414 0 .Zg,4 - 1 y �o A-C'' 0�� 1, _ rs L5e6 0 fcl..1 -�=• �� N y Q vi 1 cor p ♦ a� y�; SIT for, N S.?' • 5 ` % 1:1 Q .e! 9-�[or f P 16• �90 A ��q M y\a0 „7.,L CS.S4 vtr.,7w �(O ar i R t\ P� I, • •+s:�a • co I' c i.a1 of Y: Z/ 2 E Z 8�8 iu.a �_ _ 7..r • 0) t •AteJ1.37 7F77S.J /U -- - .Mu l 9,26 _ t, ° w 0 • 1 I i �T' ' ll /ao N. e•a_oe_03W 3 , • tax • S 4-7G_/G - 0 . I. l3-78- 78121490/8 �' sk w al 37 \ % \� 4 •''z ^� NO�y 62. PCL C i i` s PCL. A 30 O185. ot9° t'' R• o E D 1' to - tAc. *0 30 •6E4 30- 3-5 9 sat" Q i °3k •�'-� ; 8 Bci.zs I RQ`�- ,E .f.-oa-0ew. 30o Z 4 .7t'!.?34 >. ' s61-25 '1 /00 200 0. lil! .. ", lo. e� ' 100 -_ ' • - 3 in -_o3-oB �diEa W , \ h PCL. B p� W l ,' h 10� 1 01 �_. 9e9 8 10 i o 7e.6/ a, m N'89.03.08‘../ "' -34G.4e. b qfl 0' 10.23/ 30 30 k- 29 ti 3C V e;� • A' 'S a '70 85 5' b 1C S 177 • . I n h 969-02-46e 1W -p /05.96 7 ,qv 1 h a $ 8aivl.co r a t t EXHIBIT'`B' • • EXHIB1TS' PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT • (JUNE 6, 1994) •• PUBLIC USE ZONE REVISIONS • (Referred 5/24/94) The Committee recommends that staff proceed with the assimilation of the P-1 Zone into existing zones. The Committee also recommends that staff continue to work with all interested parties to address I concerns of the Planning Commission and the Planning and Development Committee related to preserving the public trust and revising the development standards related to these uses. • This action will allow staff to proceed in a timely manner with amendments to the Comprehensive Plan related to these public uses. The Committee will continue to work with staff on the remaining issues and report back to City Council prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments. The Committee recommends City Council concur in this report. . e .,c7i, • • . 1•40-eial - 1/(Ak edi Kathy Keg er-Wheeler, Chair h . • Bob Edwards, Vice-Chair • • • • R dy Corman, em er EXHIBIT 'C' \ \ .K.-8. ccs lift A 1 cz, Ai CD i &iLi R-EN Tioy ,. a g,-E5 ii,.. 4 . ,- ... ; ,. _ • ailiM,,,,,.. "iii Q) . M _ wkwazabil . ,, 0:5 II . 111111 _: th St i,, --- Ni ile . 0 , i 1?-6 17-1 lir K-s,,,,, I A I77th .. Avm . SE S' *jr P- i 2y A • ! , ,- ,) o• tiku . _ , ,, , ,. .? Y LONG RANGE PLANNING ; �� LONG RA LANDUSE ACTION FILE #96- 126 4. 7 D. �`° REZONES FILE #PR- 14 0 300 600 • FROM P-1 TO CO - REZONE SITE 1 :3 6 0 0 CITY LIMITS ::::v:,:..,-.:.....+...w:::•v:r.. .. :nv:•,•:•:::• ....,,..,.;.; ..x.v:•vv•:..,}-;-.y}.;.;..tv..:..: .......?^"f}::+5 t'::h}'?F isir:r••:f:?::.;:;h..;..S\pvf. :.:::..;.;;,,...n•. ..: .. v .t of}.v}.r.}.:: r.... V ...x , R• r ., ,+ ,Y , r r: •.v:.+}.}.;••:::{::h:•:•x:!{: •,,}!.•. .....;i}}:t:.}v.}Y::v.}•••n:+:•}'+'+'+ •!:Y••{.v•{+'•.x•1.:}Y::•Y:.! »\.. !.+ M.n..v,i \.. vni.. r4,.. J{ .[<. {...vf.. } J v f. ..:}}:::•: •}:\?r ^Y};}yf:;:?{}:;:$;?.{tiv'i?`'}:;•Yr:. v.t rn{ .S! ,•'f.... {v h.n :}:. .. i -.}, 4. av v:\�... .!::+t 7n•+,.'M n .r$C• . +.},:.4.}4vv::v {{{.xJ¢. •n{•:\•T'$'.......: {• Y •:!V l ::T?ifi� •�4'i•7. �.+T: j\. ..{..{ rv�}..:. n v�+. 4 vf.n$Yvv w:•}rtvv'+' .{.. :'h.... f n {n aM vf••!•.r ^•r'$:S Y{.v. ,v..},?..}::i v:•A•}.• �., .•iC'w.,..TC2}`vi:xv .Jfi'' v�.. ^:r...,v.} y .}. ... {?• an:.,.. :..}:+{{!•;:}., r.r.„•:::.••r•xh. n •.S?W: •. •,.t• :r»,,,r..n. .r .....�.. ,..:. }. :} + � •£i nr nr££+•,•, •;::::• :.+cfr• + ,..{.: :,t•$.x{,'�;'J�,'•{e+C}i7':ti:,`.;Ra v F� ..$...£�c•:..Mr:ti�'•.}.,r. .,;:;;fi{..{,, r7:{/n,.,,r.:./'k •�,.:{.. ,.�2:.: :.\} }.�, x { .2 �y.o-`a t ?,. ,•f�y C:.r/ ...9;:r:v .,r"..}>. ,Rr... �fi w.r 1T .. � •.{�y�. .•,. •}, .!y...,fi .,:. z''' :.:�'. :..`•}::� .. :'#' k ff vr...,$n. .�....w � #�•.}. . �' .'�: •`^;' f:+`'}f�..t .}�.�.}t}+•:: ��y'+�, ,,•� ! { ��.^yh rn;y�,.,:♦■,w,{, .} { ro: EiVIEN • !....+}rn.r.,... ,....n.:r:v:!!hr•.rl.• f•7'i�:•:-.+}.•!n r}.{�f}':i' } v.•:.. .:. •:Yl.� :' :.+C ::r.:'+'•'f.•}. .. v r. v,,:'•,+. + •+O Y.. v ;+:f' L•Y�tx-'{hi^'�:?: ?•f n}.. .4'#{{..v,?.}:}:nf•::�"} { vYw:f.> rYnJ :..5!c:•}::f.\:,•r•Y:�f.r .,.•+:yf..::rn k::rn::•k•:n.,.}tip!$Y!+w}$;\.,,,. $vn�, } .h::.;•,. ..? , C•t•:.'4 .i:: ».; r':`+:'•}:??;i .+}.t n •}n+f:•$:f: ,•'s }2"{'•;.'.�k . .v.{c., .,.,,•:.n••::.t.$;.$ .v++,:... ,Cn• • !.�?$ :3�r ..hr ./! '�..a. .}..:v ti ..S... ..�S`£t•':�n .vTr. �f .fdfi5 rt{ Lr.•. i•..h. .k?$> .. #•.+•., ..tA...Y... `•fit.. T r`�:+.` :}f?S. ..f:n:•k•.$f.?': .•:t,•:}:• .a :.:}.. x r rn..,}.x•:...is• +" } +�c. �2#T�$;•:. .*f$:h}••: :}.;•. ,•:#. „;�C^:';3..... ���';'>+••.R-» :-Y•n•:?•:•-•xa:•}:r.Y.r::,.;;.., ::Xk.., r/:c n `!?/„c,•f{7#;,,•r:•r::n. •.�}r $$:aro+. .x .�Q�v' h: r,.!. �s ''�/.a. !•: ..k .{„+: ,Y�h.+v f'•.+.x�,^£"fi •.�!r .r#r. Jr. ).,. a. \}: .', .f.:•: ..s:.�•:Ch.r.! .f•.h,.:.,.,{!'h .r.$:+•x,•: .•f3+. 'Y., .8:�\�` .?$+}:.v ..kf, hb a , t!,cn +:t•Y .,:r{.+r..k:w ./.: ., {:t .} •!Y, ''b2`::• .,M+Y:H•:•+••}\,+• .i. ..f.nth'•. .r/.' t+,. •vY:,n n�n• Tt r. r�"S2 .�}•f •.a. fn} n^�• :%.}:.};x4}v;.}}}:.iiii:h:::.+•:}n,. o;: .rf. nhx•:..... e }+}:}f X2, f !}. f: w. C fSv.n,{. Y.+• •,•f•. •!J•' -`-- 'i.•:•.?• ........,................... n n..]✓• r.f$'•S£•:.}$:}Y.+`• �.. .. :n.�•ty• •:1�s f •' � , :{•: {v�.f.•:rti., $$;;,, •.:2•}..: ,.:r$::.. .:T.'V r-,fi'4�:++:k; f....,•\:}}+:•} }}�}TT f+?R� --- - :...,.:.•... .. ... .....,.........T... .. h.,.n',..., .:.r.,{hk,•..,r,•. .,c:... .+c4:. / .. {Y£•: .. ...5.� .'�k• :. •.,�.4'x't`'•x'iFe:�''. r.:: r..�Y:�. .Y'�'•n �C.+x. t..}1:), ':+r,.�.;{.,,$fi!r:..•: :•r Y-. x:• .+}}•.°c`•':— :,•r::•:f,.+•W.,,v,-:.,. r,..h.�:?: ::•.:'•.,:;.}::,,:{.?.�.. t:�;;..}. .Sf.3$ +. »�•.> ••,•:Sa r}};}}. �.}:{h � r {n.}.}f:f�4/'}}:•:.•+ :}:.Y,. ...h};•}}$M.:'}:'+;?ft. .} „$„.•3:•`• :•`•'+b a,.!. $.•::•:n•:r}•l.•:::^::•}}:•:•n•.,-:.?{.. !.n,:. ..n,}� ,:.,.}.£......,.:..A.;•: ' ,.. ..., }.. ,r. ...n>•:���.�:.�:�. ,..s.. '{a+ .. h•: l•'�}^�r'�: a...}.: ••+t� r''t;{.t?S„ t. •'}c r 3 Y.'!� .:S...t}.;;..,.:.,•...,.,... :,.r r:... .,}.. ,.;x. .t'0$`. 2•.., r..: w 4...r.., ;�3G+`}h• +..a:.2. .u..S.kh 4.. .rY•b:?•:tgf{•a. ,.?•::+:•:.�:•:::•..... ... ... \.. .,...xw•F••}Y:•.;:}.,,{..};:..}:::•:rr......xx'�f.� •t?.. }.:Sx :: .+. n .?ti}.frT :.4,: .:>.?••,+n»,. ��' 6 .:��'.i,+ .ffi. {+•r... +•-�$x•>:�: f. , n•::,,.-$::..::•}•:.�:.v.:.::•.:•:..:rn.,..x',: . }...v. .,:..»..,.r.....a ...i......r ,.... .3 .. +� .$ .. ...f.•+}•::};•g .+m ?:l•; ,y" •T{{..r :.t, •+$.. .,?#•`•,•+vt•• .fir a.. ?...: .......:..........:.,......n�?t ,.C.}.n» .}rn... ....:.......:.}.....,....r �:Wrx�::.:. ...,.. .S :} .. Rr.,t..+'f..,r. .`�t:G... ?,• ^ctin.;:5a"t•n,:.},::•::.n+r.`y''tiY''�!.t•�i.•rt'F!•�':{} ..}. .}..•}.+•:f:•+s};•^2•,':.�..••:.... .£:,• r..}T..:..:.. v}..........v......nMn.......n :.......,...., S,n...<.........:..2, , .t. >.. f ..�•.. .s.i?n. r.,:.n... r., ...,. ...u.n..}•.. }. ... ....:!... �.. h {20$2.,. ;{?x,� ?{;:.$,,.}. t....}. .,\. .}.}.•:•: !a�:af•. .;. +:R�:,� .n. .... ..:...., ..........,...r.... .......:..,2}.n......}...,..,•.....,......,.... @,.{ �rf..3.:.v....:$fi..f ..f#Y.ti ...•i.r,a.�: ..�<�.`.. .h ..t ,T .,+T}:+�r$ ..+.{f'n' ,�($t.,'}:. ..}.. ...�:..+ ••:,9.+,... ,?.f:.'. .:... ., ....n........ ..?•.. n... v..n...........r....r....n....n....,f..`hvvv.. a....f....n...+nn.n.:.......vF...v... r.?v..nr... }. :x......v. •.,h+ nr. .{{;r..::rv:++!h:?!...} .ff:: }:+•Y:n:?,+•%v ../t'•x::r?..}.:}::Y.•xY:... .\}:v ..{xn•':f• .. ::. ::{...:::::::$.•...}:.;.}.�::n•, ....•.....,.,.....,, :....................,..�...:.........,..n......,Tr...�^,.......r.;...:...,..: .n...n........Y::......,....nn.,.:T.r..t.....:.....rfih....,.fi•....TC..,s.....,•...r..r.�.$..,$.a.{:.}.2.:...i,:?•::::}::::i•}.�}..i..,.......�... ...».................,....c$T:nh:}..,.....�..h.?4^r:.n..,:,..}:•: ................................... ..:n::::.:::::::::........::.v: ...........,•}:...r.....:.... +w::nv'?.}:...... .n..tv...n\n};.w.,.,::::+'?'':'':<#i:•`.d.. $$:2}�:$$'�$$?{#i�i�:;:-::;:$$$::}x.v::!h.v!:Y+ ...........v......................v.....................v........n.......................v.r........................\....v!.......{........»....n..:.:.... ..v.....n... ......r..+r.r.,........v. ....f•.,•:+:.,•:::+::..... ....r..:::.-.., ...,,{.. v::.v:v:-T:::::f+•::::•:by\h.v.v:;}.v::{>.::... ... .....{.n.... .............................:.}....n...n }:..}........v...f.. ..........n!..}}:v.v�:n•. . .. .,.;.: .; ., - . ... ...r.. ; ... m,{•: :::: :;::^•: :^$$$i<r}?x$+•• ... .. .....:...\\...r.........................................................v.n......n...................... .. .. .. .r.... .. ... • $$$ $i$$}:$.:v:::\•.v:::}•.4:::};..;}.{..:-::•:::••::::::::h::;::r:.;::•: ii#S:?n$ � .: .. •n•.:: ....::...:.w.......................................v........ ........n.........r..,.n...............x........ ... .. .. :. '.}}{•: �' r$::ii::v;:j;::;$$$$r•${i$:>?4%i}?'ii{ +.:•:•:4 :�Xi•:{?i:,>.;:i+??:i:�.jk>it} PUS.LIC..US>�:..P..'1...�alt�l»......................................,........ .......k...........................................,....,.. +�I~?..CQI�(.M�Ft+�tl�l»..al=�`f.IrE��t7Nl�#:;:<::::##> ;�#>:.. ,Y.... ............................................:...............................:::::::•}:n:?•:v::nv:::::::.:w:::::•: .......................n...•a•::::.w.Y,,v::;,w::::.•...............n.....x.r...................,..n•...................r.r........v......... :. ,:v;}:.+.•::::••.v:••}:.::..i....v.. Government buildings such as schools, hospitals, libraries; Offices: administrative/headquarters; professional; Business Park and Ride lots; Municipal utility (facilities; Municipal Serivces; general; Business and professional schools, Airports; etc. business services; existing neighborhood, community, and regional parks, trails, and open spaces; existing public and 11, private elementary and secondary schools/portables existing as of June 7, 1993(site plan'review for expansions less than 10%); theaters; utilities, small; existing use designations(see . code for complete explanation 43-31-16.h) STREET SETBACKS _ STREET SETBACKS Arterial (major/secondary) 30 feet Street Setback front 15 feet Arterial Collector 25 feet Street Setback 25 feet or less(15-30) feet Moderate Density Residential 20 feet 25-80 feet (15-25) feet. All others . 20 feet over 80 feet (30-50) feet Rear/Side none required • RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS(from abutting lots designated residential) RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS(from abutting lots designated residential) Low Density Residential 50 feet Not Applicable • • Moderate Density Residential 20 feet • MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT Public Buildings .• 50 feet* General 250 feet(bonuses up to 50 feet exist Public and Private Utilities 20 feet for additional amenities) Residential Adjacency 20 feet over residential max. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE • No limit other than established by yards. 65% of the total lot area 75% if parking is provided within the building H * 75 feet permitted subject to specified provisions,such as increased setbacks,sloped roofs,etc. - i r ' 4;;, _ CITE- IDF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator November 21, 1996 Springbrook Associates P.O. Box 53525 Bellevue, WA 98015 SUBJECT: Springbrook Associates Rezone Project No. LUA-96-128,ECF,R Dear Property Owner: The date of Tuesday, December 03, 1996, at 9:00 a.m., has been set for a public hearing to review the above-referenced rezone: The hearing, before Mr. Fred Kaufman, Renton Hearing Examiner, will be held in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will .be mailed to you one week before the hearing. If you prefer to make other arrangements to receive the staff report, please contact Karen Codiga, 277-5582, or Sandi Seeger, 277- 5581. If you have any questions, please call me at 277-6181. Sincerely, Donald K. Erickson, AICP Project Manager HEXLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ® i hr.; rerv::lt'I l k ridl..'0 p,r;:1 c•nnatuior i'f•:?4YY;i•}Y:v}»xvAY;}'::{::.v:::::::•:•.:YY•::::•?:vY:}i:{?{!{-}:4'{?•:?ti?4':4:};?{•}:•::.}Y}}::<.}}i}Y::}';' ;• :;.r.;Y'LY:•YYY}:•Y.•}'::{4Y4}:•}:;4;:.:t;:;}:}:it ..f.... r.f ..r.f::.::..•.::r:?:?•:..:•::f•.f:.G::•:... f.........�?{•:n•:::.:�:v}}r•.. :•-4..:::::-::�E.�.{ .,{-.. .{. : .:{ ,-. .}r.:4.r;_:_. :..4... ..1...:.{ JM•. •}x 4:{}.Yx,.y.::{{4i:?':+:-.nw+{::.,fr}..,v•ryr:: }?{::n*I.;4 : qf/ n••q;{•;:.Yr::::::?:+. n,{.{:!•}:..4:':• !{:n.;.nr iiYR>%.. Y Y}}:•Y.:?•w:n•:-:r.•:}:nv:. '. � :• ': � .7 ..% /.+r: :?.}w;:r.:..•u, rr;?.::•. :...... •;Y%.}:f?4f.?+ ...{+. .F... •Y.-.:{'.fY/ hfif{};:- .v;v4++•:{{:?:+•.......n.;;?..:f:::,••}:•.v:::..:..:.:?r f... .:?...v:K....... ....r-:::r:. - :. v: . :' f�:4:•Y:is}::r>:rL.+J.�::^ J. /. .:.{ {4;.:4:.Y:{{�:.: r:,.r:.. f. :..f.::.:. .C . ...OF.. N :4�.}'.} iv�i�.}:.. {.�.T: ..::.. .:f:::.:•.�::..:::.•n•:::::ri:..::.:.... r R.7...SON:::::;:' ;:::f' ::r:..:::. v.w.r.. n: .:•:::r r.. : :.v.v:.... : :. : .: n.,C....::x.. :... j.u••n•n:v: ??•'f.??:?t+i:?•v::::::4?{:{. Y{•j{:?4f vii:f'}�::::/J.R r'tr•::`L-}. +n}.vx f{Y n'•}}:f!{•:'.:Y..} .fl.�^}.: f...fn....:.....f n, •.:??•::?:+?:.:. :....:'fur v�?• .Sf..::.............n•: ..r.......n.v.:.:Y'.:??:+?•};L•Yv}'.•::??+4}.•y:4y{r4r.+f�:>i�i:{• .:........::.{........n......:3C+:}if..f. :lfr..nxCN1 f?t':; .........:r..�::•:::::.?.;..:.�::::r-:::.....:..{:•:•:::�;:L4.4Y:vY:{.:..:,�/?.h:{.::•:::f..•.�:....,....-....;..{• .... .. ..::. ..:. ...t......... of /...a}{{,{:..,�' v- •Y::n:Y•?L•Yi:4:•:4:{{::.;#{{?:.;:;;r;:fY::x•:r.•:.::::.:.'.3:v. :.+.,,+;.+r t ..... .....{•: •. ..: :::3/}##} ';4•{{:4.v{.;f;.+::#?'#:ir,.:::. .rit::,•;r.r.;A'ti:• �":-. {+•f•::::{4'?•.... •:rr.•n{?:•:�::.. �:4::{:::::L:'`:.::::Y{f;;,r.,r{4: :}:}{,.rr.;,t,,. �{.•...3�}if,�.,�;ir°f�#N,rr..r.{3{{n!}?.,.3}iti?ii:?: n ..% :r:}.. :T 4 . rG�•, xf + >:.�.}:{:.;;: .n,f};} .:C NT: .;tANIVI � >I.��.: I•� {.:::}�.:.:::4i}:;f,....},.:::},,:... {{�4..f� .{�:.>Y�::.: };;.;:?i:,.;r: :{.>:::3.»:.;}n....i.� : ..P NGQ Vt5 C,1[�r>}: .;n... .,�.xf }4x.}- ......:r.:::::•::.: n.:. L..t.v ....tt.: Gfi R4.`f Yx. •-:--;- ..:•::n•:..{:....n::?•.:. :r•..:..3. 4:•::•:::�:.�:•:: ....r.....:t;n+:r r ':.:::::.� -.:.. .. :...:... :....:.-:..r..:.t.2. 4•}•• .f.?. {:{..... ....:..n•:.r:..:...n..:..::.{..... .... f::r.�.;:f•::�L•Y:•:::?::3;:;x;::..:...4:•:;YY.�:-:4}:;•Y:3{•4.�YY:�:3;>:•Y:{•:;•}::• ... ..:,.::... ...t•. ...•'- ..�+c. ,ot'.. •:bn•. n•/�:• ::-•.,{>;.,,..,ar•:::f:;Y{.{:}.•}:n-:•{�}3:.:: .:•.y>:::Y 4 n•.tf Yr::•:r:. ::::o::'iiir`;:3:};^}:3 {{?3333:Y.33.:.!?:3<?.'•::::ar�i•�33:{ :..n..: r:n.x?.n-::.rff, :/f :,{ f. ...•.c.... -:+-}'+`}:::.. .:}::...::... .r:f4c??L::a`•.r:.r..:.. /Y 3Y}:i`• F.•iy�'' :•f.- }. t:4y}i::. v./. 'rtG j::'f.:i{n;?+{{tfi.. 4:r:..... ..L .:/ `.4{r.':33: r. .:,?.:.{..,.:f.:}f..�.::.{.::,L:t:?t:... D. 1f. :. :;OF ER.�..I:CI" � I41U•• ..,�: ,}":::... f .� ?......;::•::.;.73#.::::.:,{::{.:}...::� .:...:... ... .......::..... �1:=.r a..rr.. ::s �. ervl.. ria:: .:.,..t :�-�, .:�.: •,x.,,;?�;�. ...y ......,...::.>......:.,.<::f:+r:r•}: :r.n r..........::... ...f::•;::•.},. i'+;.;:.};:::.L.::3{r r: o.S�?/.�'.fi:: .;Y fY..........r:N:... .............:.....:.::.C}r:i+f+i:a:::f'•'.:}:.:'::'•:•Y}}}}-:-}:c: :... r..:-:•::::...... :.....:.r.::.:n••::n:•.rr:::•r::::>:..v:•+:Y...: }:,-:-::4: .........::......f............u•::fn:Nn3•:.t•:::.:::::n :.......t.....:. .:.t•....r::n.....r:...:r.......rn.:•:.�:::.:............,,,t.).....? :..,of.t......t..r....:..:n....:.{,:.:+:•:}•}::Y:', :Y+i'vY•'' !{.+{. stty^.�}i:'.f?3}N°:3{.!;ff n•: :::::::.. fr.,..:::rr:f..:.:n:.:.:..:::::••::.:f..,.,.r:•r::::::• n•:::::.:...... .,�{..::::.�•::,::::n•:-n::::.:.::.::.:.:.n.:r::n.r::• /t:1 `ram: ...ft..........r.....:.G........:.n...:•.v::.....::..... .:..:..,C...::::/....... rf:v::}Tf....:......n..::....:.........................:::L:f::.{n}}:?.:......... :..........Y. .L :. ..: ��({{'' L�'+; .f. & ...4..+i. :,,„};.}}...„., }r.x'r...... r :::......':Y!••-`.+:}-• -..... •::••.•.•::.:::}::::::::::::::::::..........:...r......4..::i•.�f•:::::..r.::..::n•......r..:: :..::::r::::::?.r,:::::::::•:::•:::::::::.::::.::..; .:•:'}•::::::.n.::::}:+•r::.:::::.:::. {.... ...n : Y'33 . • On the 14ki day of V\4vpv. er , 1996, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing • EE2C, 4€A€Jtvv\t natal,is . documents. This information was sent to: • Name Representing - cc at . • Ktn. •C F t r- bj 'maw). - • . --r- ma1•4 : Weill sn,eX - 1 ` , zeist cf 4-tslneyts, Lltck t6cvnde vi• 1 e t if -TvttY‘SPo7-taly v, Slue. 7:Z.wnnc _ �1 4 Sea-4_ . Lluwavvttsk 1vstltan-Tv lc. c ifY\ c.ovtn , c\ shevles , VWU.cicicStoo1 iNatclN "-Tv-Le... (Signature of Sender) S kAr taa I sc r---l.m.v- STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify•that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 0�1- K, 5E 64 signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary ..act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Ni Dated: ////4Iq6 vim.:-.�NN\•..,_- 11 .•' .... _' ' . E— a; Notary Pu i in an f the State of v aF ln�o"n • Notary(P nt) ,4 ,1- - L t My appointment expires: 9 9f,- t .'- d Project Name: i I, Sprtvibvook Pr oc. Retore.I 5r0.ry Retovle D £ 2 Evi erFvtsc R t+e. Project Number. 16 125, R. I '(_ 119 r e, --L clip - 130 R 1 cif NOTARY.DOC a CITT- OF REleTT®ITT Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator November 14, 1996 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section _ PO Box 47703. Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination and Environmental Checklist for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on November 12, 1996: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE SPRINGBROOK ASSOCIATES REZONE LUA-96-128,ECF,R Proposed city sponsored rezone of a privately held P-1 zoned parcel located at the western end of South 38th Court that traverses between Shattuck Avenue South on the North, and Talbot Road south on the southeast from Public Use (P-1) to Commercial Office (CO). The subject site is currently vacant and will likely develop with a new retirement residence if this City initiated rezone goes through. Location: 403 South 38th Court. The 15 day comment period and the 14 day appeal period for this project will run concurrently. The comment/appeal period will end at 5:00 PM on December 3, 1996. Following the end of the comment and appeal period, the City will finalize its Determination unless comments received require a re-evaluation. Appeal procedures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. If you have questions, please call me at (206) 277-6181. e Environmen /evi-w Co ittee, Donald K. Erickson, AICP Project Manager cc: King County Water Pollution Control Division, Metro Department of Wildlife Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources Don Hurter, Department of Transportation Sue Rumery, City of Seattle Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Rita Perstac, Puget Power AGNCYLTR.DOC\ 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ® rhis p:rper contains 50',,recycled material.20",.pp:.t r nn:.umer CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM Date: November 13, 1996 To: - Don Erickson/Planning &Technical Services From: Jana Huerter/ Environmental Review Committee Subject: Springbrook Associates Rezone Project No. LUA-96-128,ECF,R On behalf of the Environmental Review Committee, I would like to inform you that they have completed their review of your project. The Committee, on November 12, 1996, decided that the subject project will be issued a Determination of Non-Significance. The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made by the Environmental Review Committee under the authority of Section 4-6-6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information, on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The 15 day comment period with concurrent 14 day appeal period for this project will end on December 3, 1996. Following this, the City will finalize its Determination unless comments received require a reevaluation. Appeal procedures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. • dnsmm • ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: SPRINOBROOK ASSOCIATES REZONE ' PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-96-125,ECF,R Proposed city sponsored rezone of a privately held P-I zoned parcel located at the western end of South • 35Ih Court that traverses between Shattuck Avenue South on the North.and Talbot Road south on the southeast from Public Use(P-1)to Commercial OBice(CO).The subject site Is currently vacant and will I likely develop with a new retirement residence If this City Initialed rezone goes through.Location: 403 South 35th Court. • THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE(ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. 'AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. nYOU MAY COMMENT ON THIS DETERMINATION UNTIL 5:00 PM, . THE CITY WILL NOT ACT ON THIS PROPOSAL UNTIL AFTER THIS DATE. n APPEALS OF THIS DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER BY 5:00 PM.�, • ® YOU MAY COMMENT ON THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM ON DECEMBER 3. 1996 OR • APPEAL THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM.DECEMBER 3. 1996. THE COMMENT AND APPEAL PERIODS WILL RUN CONCURRENTLY. l ' i - .y L— �. .. R ' .. =8 .., A 0 4,- -CO• i o '36r-s• 1- -r 1 , r0 R:B; :¢ .l ' 0 ;vtr,'s t• ; h w • 41* J . �t U LA f ///, �B • , • _ 1 ''" I.. • ;II T" ff "1i tti• i.••• ...'r-- 1177th Ave. • ••.,Pry` .,' v" .. CO .).. i'YL'mcAL ccitnER. y • 1 0 � s,,��a'St. • -- , r-r. _ • ' FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.PLEASE CONDI A AT 2E -255 THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT ' SERVIC0. ' DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUTPROPER AUTHORIZATION I Please,Include,lhe'project'NUMBER when calling for proper file Identification::? -:.;...II CERTIFICATION . I, �St.U1 � e-lci r 1 , hereby certify that 3 copies-of the above document were poste by me in r 3 conspicuous places.on or nearby the described property on Signed: r��1k 0 ?fait �) . t , STATE OF WASHINGTON ) . - ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) . . . l � I certify that 1 know or have satisfactory evidence that 6b t \..6Kc'vl. y � signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and volunttarys�acfl Tor'tHe uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. • z ' ),-t ti n 0, ,•• '.. • .�)r: 4 � a 1 • Dated: 1 i l/L/ /46 � NotaryPublic and for t State�. AC ton ; . t•> ._., g ,✓ CA : Notary(Print �17� L� °t'L 'My appointment expires: q/at . NOTARY.DOC ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ,-- POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: SPRINGBROOK ASSOCIATES REZONE PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-96-128,ECF,R Proposed city sponsored rezone of a privately held P-1 zoned parcel located at the western end of South 38th Court that traverses between Shattuck Avenue South on the North, and Talbot Road south on the southeast from Public Use(P-1)to Commercial Office(CO). The subject site is currently vacant and will likely develop with a new retirement residence if this City initiated rezone goes through. Location: 403 South 38th Court. • THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. YOU MAY COMMENT ON THIS DETERMINATION UNTIL 5:00 PM, . THE CITY WILL NOT ACT ON THIS PROPOSAL UNTIL AFTER THIS DATE. APPEALS OF THIS DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER BY 5:00 PM, XXX YOU MAY COMMENT ON THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM ON DECEMBER 3, 1996 OR APPEAL THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM, DECEMBER 3, 1996. THE COMMENT AND APPEAL PERIODS WILL RUN CONCURRENTLY. 411 CC R-8 • . R=8 _ _I • .. . . j. .j °: .. • s 36Vr a r tt :M. ..j w ._..... �•.• S 37�hir_Sf, _ • 5ith 1 . _._-_._. (177th Ave. • • LEx / W ME0t vCA� CENTER- f, l kt-30.... • :-Q „ ./ • ® 7 \ s4 ; /d St. Ga� com -.._ 7-1 r--,--, .... FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION ,,P.leas-e include,:the' 'ro-ect:NUMBERw"encallin for: .p J .......:: ... ...h. .. ., g pro er.:fileadentlfication :''>; `:::`�:`;:.:: -t CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-128,ECF,R APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON/PLANNING &TECHNICAL SERVICES PROJECT NAME: SPRINGBROOK ASSOCIATES REZONE DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposed city sponsored rezone of a privately held P-1 zoned parcel located at the western end of South 38th Court that traverses between Shattuck Avenue South,on the North, and Talbot Road south on the southeast from Public Use (P-1) to Commercial Office (CO). The subject site is currently vacant and will likely develop with a new retirement residence if this City initiated rezone goes through. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 403 South 38th Court LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section This Determination of Non-Significance,is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not,act on this proposal for fifteen (15) days. The 15 day comment period and the 14 day appeal period for this project will run concurrently. The comment/appeal periods for this project will end at 5:00 p.m.,on December 3, 1996. Appeal procedures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. PUBLICATION DATE: November 18, 1996 DATE OF DECISION: November 12, 1996 SIGNATURES: /1/0qil'it/74k g Z' erm , Administrator 4 2/7 6 DA E Depart'et of. annin /Buildin /Public Works 9 9 am Chastain, Administrator DATE Community Service Department .—,/ /.0 -..7 4df74 r, Flrhlef DATE re Department DNSSIG.DOC ( NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON • The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. SPRINGBROOK ASSOCIATES REZONE LUA-96-128,ECF,R Proposed city sponsored rezone of a privately held P-1 zoned parcel located at the western end of South 38th Court that traverses between Shattuck Avenue South on the North, and Talbot Road south on the southeast from Public Use (P-1) to Commercial Office (CO). The subject site is currently vacant and will likely develop with a new retirement residence if this City initiated rezone goes through. Location: 403 South 38th Court. The 15 day comment period with concurrent 14 day appeal period for this project will end at 5:00 p.m. on December 3, 1996. Following this, the City will finalize its Determination unless comments received require a reevaluation. Appeal procedures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on December 3, 1996 at 9:00 AM to consider the Rezone. Publication Date: November 18, 1996 • Account No. 51067 dnspub %► CIT: OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator November 14, 1996 Springbrook Associates P.O. Box 53525 Bellevue, WA 98015 SUBJECT: Springbrook Associates Rezone Project No. LUA-96-128,R,ECF Dear Property Owner: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee and is to inform you that they have completed their review of the environmental, impacts of the above-referenced project. The Committee, on November 12, 1996, decided that your project will be issued a Determination of Non-Significance. The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made by the Environmental Review Committee under the authority of Section 4-6- 6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information, on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The 15 day comment period with concurrent 14 day appeal period for this project will end at 5:00 PM on December 3, 1996. Following this, the City will finalize its Determination unless comments received require a reevaluation. Appeal procedures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at 277-6181. - For the Environmental Review Committee, ho\d CVVqn I SS Donald K. Erickson, AICP Project Manager DNSLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50".,recycled material,20°..post consumer • STAFF City of Renton Department of Plarzning/Building/Public Works REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE November 12, 1996 Project Name Public Use(P-1)Rezones Applicant City of Renton File Number LUA-096-126 - LUA-096 Project Manager Don Erickson 130 Project Description See attached Proposal Description&Summary. Project Location 5- sites in vicinity of Talbot- Road S. and SW 38th Court Exist. Bldg. Area gsf Not applicable. Proposed New Bldg.Area gsf Rezone,Not applicable Site Area Not applicable. Total Building Area gsf Rezone, Not applicable RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommend that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non- significance for these non- project rezone actions. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 da A.'cal Period. X Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period with Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. Project Location Map ERC10-28.DOC City`of Renton PB/PWDepartment E 'mental Review Committee Staff Report CITY SPONSORED P-1 REZONES, O:.-EVE PRIVATE SITES -' LUA-96-126-LUA-96-130,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFNOVEMBER 11,1996 Page2 of4 C. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. These five rezones are considered to be non-project, legislative actions. As a consequence these rezones will in and by themselves not result in any actual physical development. Specific proposals resulting from this proposed new zoning, if it is approved, which are not exempt because of size will have to go through SEPA review. Impacts identified at that time could be mitigated. Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only,they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development? 1. Earth Impacts: These five rezones are considered to be a legislative non-project action under SEPA. Mitigation Measures: Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. Nexus: N/A 2. Air Impacts: These five rezones are considered to be a legislative non-project action under SEPA. Mitigation Measures:Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. Nexus: N/A 3. Water Impacts: These five rezones are considered to be a legislative non-project action under SEPA. Mitigation Measures: Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. Nexus: 4. Plants Impacts: These five rezones are considered to be a legislative non-project action under SEPA. Mitigation Measures: Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. 5. Animals Impacts: These five rezones are considered to be a legislative non-project action under SEPA. Mitigation Measures: Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. ERC10-28.DOC City of RentonPB/PWDepartment 1 •onnrentalReview Committee Staff ieport CITY SPONSORED P-I REZONES, Cr-aVE PRIVATE SITES ` -' LUA-96-126-LUA-96-130,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFNOVEMBER 11,1996 Page3 of4 6. Energy and Natural Resources Impacts: These five rezones are considered to be a legislative non-project action under SEPA. Mitigation Measures: Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. 7. Environmental Health Impacts:These five rezones are considered to be a legislative non-project action under SEPA. Mitigation Measures: Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. 8. Land and Shoreline Use Impacts: These five rezones are considered to be a legislative non-project action under SEPA. Mitigation Measures: Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. 9. 1, Housing Impacts: These five rezones are considered to be a legislative non-project action under SEPA. Mitigation Measures: Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. 10. ,i Aesthetics Impacts: These five rezones are considered to be a legislative non-project action under SEPA. Mitigdtion Measures: Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. 11. Light and Glare Impacts: These five rezones are considered to be a legislative non-project,action under SEPA. Mitigation Measures: Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. 12. ° Recreation Impacts: These five rezones are considered to be a legislative non-project action under SEPA. Mitigation Measures: Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation Impacts: These five rezones are considered to be a legislative non-project action under SEPA. Mitigation Measures: Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. 14. Transportation Impacts: These five rezones are considered to be a legislative non-project action under SEPA. Mitigation Measures: Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. ERC10-28.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department E` mmental Review Committee Staff Report CITY SPONSORED P-1 REZONES, O.'.:YE PRIVATE SITES s L UA-96-126-L UA-96i I30,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFNOVEMBER 11,1996 Page4 of 4 15. Public Services Impacts: These five rezones are considered to be a legislative non-project action under SEPA. Mitigation Measures: Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. 16. Utilities Impacts: These five rezones are considered to.be a legislative non-project action.under SEPA. Mitigation Measures: Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable,these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation,Measures and/or Notes to Applicant Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. • ERC10-28.DOC • Proposal Description for Five Private Rezones from P-1 to CO Zone In 1994 the Renton City Council authorized the Planning/Building/Public Works Department to proceed with the assimilation of those sites currently zoned Public Use (P-1) into Renton's other 21 zones. The need for this zone had been lessened by the City's 1993 Interim Zoning Code which included a number of new zones, most of which provided for most, if not all, of the uses previously allowed in the P-1 _ Zone. Also, analysis revealed that there had been a great deal of inconsistency in the application of the P-1 Zone over the years in that many public uses were not zoned P-1, having been adequately accommodated in the prevailing zones where they were located. Other reasons for changing the zoning were that the City had recently adopted new provisions providing greater development flexibility for community facilities as well as a an early notification process for all publicly owned properties whenever there was a change in ownership,use, or major tenancy. In 1995 the City Council approved the first of the P-1 rezones to other zones,approving nine publicly sponsored private P-1 rezones. ,The current proposal is a continuation of the P-1 rezoning process begun in the fall of 1995. It involves City initiated rezoning of five (5) privately held P-1 zoned parcels located immediately north of Valley 'Medical Center, near the intersection of S. 38th Court and Talbot Road South. The five sites in question are designated Center Institution on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. All five of rthe current batch of privately owned P-1 zoned parcels are proposed to be rezoned to the Commercial Office(CO)Zone., Vicinity maps and legal descriptions for each site have been provided as part of the Master Application.' Proposal Summary for Five Private P-1 Rezones It is the City's intent to phase out and eventually eliminate all of its current P-1 zoned properties by assigning other nearby zones that currently accommodate these uses or which can be easily amended to accommodate these uses are in place. The subject proposal is to rezone five(5)privately held properties located immediately north of Valley Medical Center near•the intersection of S. 38th Court and Talbot Road S., (all on the west side of Talbot Road S.), from the Public Use(P-1)Zone to the Commercial Office(CO)Zone. The subject proposal, a legislative act, is considered to be a non-project action under the provisions of WAC 197- 11, SEPA Rules. Subsequent development proposals on these five (5) sites would be considered project actions. An Environmental Checklist has been prepared for the proposed rezoning of these five privately held, P-1 zoned sites to the CO Zone. 5RZNSMRY.DOC/ City !enton Department of Planning/Building/I ;,;Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: AKm, COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 15, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-128,ECF,R DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 22, 1996 APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON/LONG RANGE PLANNING PROJECT MANAGER: DON ERICKSON PROJECT TITLE: SPRINGBROOK ASSOCIATES REZONE WORK ORDER NO: 78146 LOCATION: 403 SOUTH 38TH COURT SITE AREA: N/A I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposed city sponsored rezone of a privately held P-1 zoned parcel located at the western end of South 38th Court that traverses between Shattuck Avenue South on the North, and Talbot Road south on the southeast from Public Use (P-1)to Commercial Office (CO). The subject site is currently vacant and will likely develop with a new retirement residence if this City initiated rezone goes through. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information ' Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic./Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet rUnOr rI(pCLC ` 0-fl pot ici vic B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Ldaahh fi 11094 / aq Cf° Signature of Director or Aut •rized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10193 Citnton Department of Planning/Building AraWorks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: i:7S COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 15, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-128,ECF,R DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 22, 1996 APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON/LONG RANGE PLANNING PROJECT MANAGER: DON ERICKSON PROJECT TITLE: SPRINGBROOK ASSOCIATES REZONE WORK ORDER NO: 78146 LOCATION: 403 SOUTH 38TH COURT SITE AREA: N/A I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposed city sponsored rezone of a privately held P-1 zoned parcel located at the western end of South 38th Court that traverses between Shattuck Avenue South on the North, and Talbot Road south on the southeast from Public Use (P-1)to Commercial Office (CO). The subject site is currently vacant and will likely develop with a new retirement residence if this City initiated rezone goes through. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS (A.,,e_. /20 A tom. C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS \, /-lIA--0(A}L-_. /14D,/.( ) '•°C-. -C4t- /4. J*ff—zis We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this prop sal. � A4C4C4.&711cf,a1/4--) /6 Z�SC \ _ ignature of Director or Authorized Representative Date/ DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10l93 City` , enton Department of Planning/Building/Puy„ Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:OziAc c i ...4Miceo COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 15, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-128,ECF,R DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 22, 1996 yno APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON/LONG RANGE PLANNING PROJECT MANAGER: DON ERIC eWAKI PROJECT TITLE: SPRINGBROOK ASSOCIATES REZONE WORK ORDER NO: 78146 966i, E C 100 LOCATION: 403 SOUTH 38TH COURT ,47, , SITE AREA: N/A I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A `O.1 --,i C d•-``V.3 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposed city sponsored rezone of a privately held P-1 zoned parcel located at the western end of South 38th Court that traverses between Shattuck Avenue South on the North, and Talbot Road south on the southeast from Public Use (P-1)to Commercial Office (CO). The subject site is currently vacant and will likely develop with a new retirement residence if this City initiated rezone goes through. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More I Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS U 06 C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS • 006. We have reviewed this appli ation with articular a ention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional i a ne e t ro oily ssess this proposal.. 0 r Signature of Direct Authorized Representative Dateal& DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City !enton Department of Planning/Building/k .µ Works ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:"T 17-1•thklUV‘ COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 15, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-128,ECF,R DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 22, 1996 APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON/LONG RANGE PLANNING PROJECT MANAGER: DON ERICKSON r. .c7F-.�� PROJECT TITLE: SPRINGBROOK ASSOCIATES REZONE WORK ORDER NO: 78146 �E °14 LOCATION: 403 SOUTH 38TH COURT OPT SITE AREA N/A BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A i99i; SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposed city sponsored rezone of a privately held P-1 zoned parcel Ioca -at-tCevps1e end of South 38th Court that traverses between Shattuck Avenue South on the North, and Talbot Road south oniftl . e' v southeast from Public Use (P-1)to Commercial Office (CO). The subject site is currently vacant and will likely develop with a new retirement residence if this City initiated rezone goes through. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts impacts Necessary. Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services • Energy/ Historic./Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet • B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS A ud i tl o w d ((Id acAa sly l rtilpvo vektaA e/ S , 3 7-t 15-t Wucvi ke i✓-lid az & Gatiart/ w 66Sltc Aye rvleP . We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable Impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. A)S ��. %14/16 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10f93 City !enton Department of Planning/Building/I ;Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: I4_1Gk u.. .ker)S e COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 15, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-128,ECF,R DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 22, 1996 �9a ®P FrMPr'O�r APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON/LONG RANGE PLANNING PROJECT MANAGER: DON ERICKSON ,meta PROJECT TITLE: SPRINGBROOK ASSOCIATES REZONE WORK ORDER NO: 78146 I 3qSg LOCATION: 403 SOUTH 38TH COURT bu-� �u�� A.on SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposed city sponsored rezone of a privately held P-1 zoned parcel located at the western end of South 38th Court that traverses between Shattuck Avenue South on the North, and Talbot Road south on the southeast from Public Use (P-1)to Commercial Office (CO). The subject site is currently vacant and will likely develop with a new retirement residence if this City initiated rezone goes through. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS I v o ci>fry 1,14-X/t/ We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Akr i 14Z i 10/7-1 t'M Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City tenton Department of Planning/Building/I :.;Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: pit \ ReVleui - l,Ja�21t- COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 15, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-128,ECF,R DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 22, 1996 APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON/LONG RANGE PLANNING PROJECT MANAGER: DON ERICKSON Clio rtic rar-iti,I PROJECT TITLE: SPRINGBROOK ASSOCIATES REZONE WORK ORDER NO: 78146 LOCATION: 403 SOUTH 38TH COURT OCT 2 iq96 SITE AREA: N/A I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A , SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposed city sponsored rezone of a privately held P-1 zoned parcel located at tfiery end of South 38th Court that traverses between Shattuck Avenue South on the North, and Talbot Road south on the southeast from Public Use (P-1)to Commercial Office (CO). The subject site is currently vacant and will likely develop with a new retirement residence if this City initiated rezone goes through. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Ught/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic./Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet • B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATEDE - COMMENTS IV O COW1lk.lict We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 1U2� G h&Vi /(7 /c 4 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.16/93 L City'.,. !enton Department of Planning/Building/I `;V v l T ON FIRE DEPT. ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIEWWWWWAgIlEET jj 1• � tire. ��.V�� COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMB 'f`5,L 1 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-128,ECF,R DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOisiVED APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON/LONG RANGE PLANNING PROJECT MANAGER: DON ERICKSON PROJECT TITLE: SPRINGBROOK ASSOCIATES REZONE WORK ORDER NO: 78146 LOCATION: 403 SOUTH 38TH COURT SITE AREA: N/A I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposed city sponsored rezone of a privately held P-1 zoned parcel located at the western end of South 38th Court that traverses between Shattuck Avenue South on the North, and Talbot Road south on the southeast from Public Use (P-1)to Commercial Office (CO). The subject site is currently vacant and will likely develop with a new retirement residence if this City initiated rezone goes through. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts impacts Necessary Impacts . Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water .. UghVGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet ��f 14,000 Feetl 100 /'G,� .60 ' �.yt./�d G/S ,t/0fel V / B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS ^^ ' /tk • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS Id/ We have reviewed this application ith particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additio =l information is nee•' to properly assess this proposaL a"et.i.p jit /tJ 3 q� SignatuIt'irector or Authorize. 'eprese ative DateDEVAPP. Rev.10/93 r NOTICE OF PRO'r•uSED ENVIRONMENTAL/RE _'NE APPLICATION RENTON, WASHINGTON An Environmental Checklist Review (ECF) and Rezone (R) Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: SPRINGBROOK ASSOCIATES REZONE/LUA-96-128,ECF,R DESCRIPTION: Proposed city sponsored rezone of a privately held P-1 zoned parcel located at the western end of South 38th Court that traverses between Shattuck Avenue South on the North, and Talbot Road south on the southeast from Public Use (P-1) to Commercial Office (CO). The subject site is currently vacant and will likely develop with a new retirement residence if this City initiated rezone goes through. GENERAL LOCATION: 403 South 38th Court PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review Rezone The date of Tuesday, December 3, 1996, at 9:00 AM, has been set for a Rezone (R) public hearing to review the above- referenced matter. The hearing, before Mr. Fred Kaufman, Renton Hearing Examiner, will be held in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington The application can be reviewed in the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted anytime prior to Public Hearings, during Public Hearings, or prior to an administrative site plan approval. For further information on-the application, or if you wish to be made a PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications, by mail, of the 'City's environmental determinations, appeal periods and/or the public hearing date(s) for this project, please contact the Development Services Division at 235-2550. Please include the project ' NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. — — —---___ .. . r ctI Cl: 423 e3th; st . •fi �7.. t h� R—$ R-$. 73 o-o C � 48f RI 1.. R i � � A ms �r f 177th Ave. _ VALLEY, '\j • ' MEDICAL CENTER -t; I ; • r,o <ir. ;. - -- ; t / -( , _, GENMALOT.DOG )CO `- ` �54�3r� St. . % ...5 I . 3023059002 3023059026 3023059034 CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON BRAIN W EUGENE DDS 200 MILL AVE SOUTH 200 MILL AVE S 5454.LK WASHINGTON BLVD SE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 BELLEVUE WA 98006 3023059040 3023059044 3023059045 HURST G A HOSKIN THOMAS J WILLARDSON MARION C 3619 TALBOT RD S 9370 46TH AVE SW 409 S 36TH ST RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98136 RENTON WA 98055 3023059052 3023059053 3023059054 ACIERTO DOMINGO C+NATIVIDAD LOKEN CLIFFORD 0 D+R ENTERPRISES 412 S 37TH ST 417 S 36TH ST 18107 157TH AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 WOODINVILLE WA 98072 3023059055 3023059109 3023059110 BOSTICK MICHAEL S+PATRICIA FRARY LYNN R MD OBRIEN DANIEL N DR 411 S 36TH ST 3764 SW 171ST 400 S 38TH CT RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98166 RENTON WA 98055 3023059111 3123059026 3123059065 SPRINGBROOK ASSOCIATES ALLENBACH HERMAN M BRAIN W E PO BOX 53525 1018 SW 144TH 5454 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD SE BELLEVUE WA 98015 SEATTLE WA 98166 BELLEVUE WA 98006 3123059085 5070000010 5070000020 BRAIN W E AGOG SILVER D+GRACE T GILLIAN ANNE LIVING TRUST 5454 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD SE 3621 SHATTUCK AVE S 3615 SHATTUCK AVE S BELLEVUE WA 98006 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 5070000030 5070000040 5070000050 PONDER THOMAS L KUMARAN RUDRA+SAVITRI BOSTICK HARRY G 3609 SHATTUCK AVE S 3603 SHATTUCK AVE S 3527 SHATTUCK AVE S ' RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 5070000140 5070000150 5070000160 SUNDQUIST JOANNE HILLMAN LAWRENCE D+NANCY L VICTOR B • BLISS SHIRLEY 3620 SHATTUCK AVE S 400 S 37TH ' 3604 SHATTUCK AVE S RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 5070000170 5070000180 7616800290 THOMAN STEPHANIE REMY JOHN J FRARY LYNN R 404 S 37TH ST 408 S 37TH ST 3764 SW 171ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98166 7616800300 7616800310 8558600030 VILLASISTA MARY VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MATNEY CINDY C 9612 S 177TH ST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 1332 E WALNUT RENTON WA 98055 400 S 43RD ST KENT WA 98031 RENTON WA 98055 r • 8558600035 8558600040 - 8558600070 LOVE BRUCE HIATT RONALD D JR+JOLENE M NAYLOR KERMIT D &NANCY J 3614 TALBOT RD S 17258 TALBOT ROAD SOUTH 3607 MORRIS AVE S RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 8558600075 8558600080 8558600125 . , MAPLE FLOYD GILBERT LINDA E FOURNARAKIS NIKOLAOS 17249 98TH AVE S PO BOX 58244 4008 78TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98005 RENTON WA 98058 MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 8558600130 8558600135 8558600140 EVANS TIMOTHY M AASHIEM WALLACE L GETTY MICHAEL G 17412 TALBOT ROAD SOUTH 17420 SPRINGBROOK RD 17405 98TH AVE S RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 8558600145 8558600150 8558600155 ARNSON THOMAS C+NANCY L THOMPSON O'NEAL+EDNA L HWANG JACK J+SHIRLEY 17411 98TH AVE S 17419 98TH AVE S 516 S 38TH CT RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 8558600185 8558600190 8558600195 , BATES VERLA M HILLIARD KATHLEEN R HILL VAUGHN L 9603 SOUTH 175TH STREET 9613 SOUTH 175TH STREET 9623 S 175TH RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 8558600200 8857670040 8857670050 PEDERSEN JAMES R&LARAE D VALLEY GENERAL HOSPITAL VALLEY GENERAL HOSPITAL 521 S 38TH CT 400 S 43RD 400 S 43RD RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 8857670100 8857670100 8857670110 VALLEY GENERAL HOSPITAL VALLEY GENERAL HOSPITAL .VALLEY GENERAL HOSPITAL 400 S 43RD 400 S 43RD 400 S 43RD RENTON WA 98055 .RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 . ) , _ l i NomncE . 1 ,, . PENDING APPLICATION PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: SPRINOBROOK ASSOCIATES REZONEA.UA-99.125,ECF,R • DESCRIPTION: Proposed city sponsored rezone of a privately held P-1 zoned parcel located at the western end of South 30th Court that traverses between Shattuck Avenue South on the North,end Talbot Road south ee the southeast from Public Use(P-1)to Commercial Office(CO). The subject site Is currently vacant and will likely develop with a new retirement residence If Ws City Initiated rezone goes through. GENERAL LOCATION: 403 South 38th Court PUBLIC APPROVALS: Building Permit -_Preliminary Plat __Short Plat Conditional Use Permit _Rezone _Site Plan Approval XXX% Environmental Review —_Shoreline Conditional Use %XXX REZONE Fill 8 Grade Permit —Shoreline Substantial Permalit ezone(R—Other above- referenced matter. The 3, FredMKaufman.en Renton for Heaing Examiner Willribe heldvIn tewhe Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hell.Renton,Washington. The application can be reviewed In the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. . Comments will be accepted any lime prior to Public Hearings.during Public Hearings,or prior to an administrative site • -plan approval.Comments for Substantial Shoreline Permits must be received within thirty(30)days from the lest dale of =,::appicauTs'Notice of Application"publication In the Valley Deily News. Far further Information on the application.or II you wish to be made a PARTY OF RECORD end receive additional notifications of the Citys environmental determinations,appeal periods endlor the public hearing dele(s)for this project,please contact the Development Services plvislo n at 235.2550. --� —. i —' Stl 1 - LEGEND • - • -';-t 1' L.: J-— Resource Conservation • • I -- '=I Residential I du/se • CM M. R-8 IT ..=8 -1-• ..1 ■e Reoldenust a du/cue vfs' ,36 -r1r���' -I ■-. 2esldenua a du/cue • • "id �' Q R-S, -7'- 'I O RnldenUal Manufactured Noma • > > 6;-71(I Sl I• 1 th LX3 Residential 10 du/cue • • . li) .. ' ./ r:i, _Ir ®Rordenum w du/se 8 C A /f��, ) SB RR-t ReeidanUel Muw-nmly term • / //,f/�j Reudenu.l Mmu-r.mty Neighborhood Center I%G,n ''I r 1 1 ®R„idenU.l Mute-r•mty Suburb..center .- ; I T' _ on-u R•eteenUat Motu-Ramty Urban Center Al . ..':.''. 1-- 177th Ave. p Convenience Cnwmercrat i'•F: y ®Cmbr Neighborhood ' kl l MtiSC t CENTER,-tr cr Center Suburban 1 ' Sl.J n center Downtown j�o Co ®e.nt.r omc.R..iaew.l 0 . ©Cammerctal AN•rid S ON'Sl. Commercial omo. O industrial-Bem - --T 0 lnelawel-Medium • ,e. co CJ. ®Industrie%-Light ..� ...... ___-; =I Public On • r‘ - r PLEASE INCLUOE•THE PROJECT:NUMBER WHEN CALUNO FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. I - CERTIFICATION I, S,I,IPrAA4 Jc,Gl(SOYI , hereby certify that I'YIYe& copies of the above document were posted by me in'(Vly'P,& conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on Oc ek ti5;lelOC61 Signed: �, qablivi(/Yi STATE OF WASHINGTON ) • ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) • .. I certify that I \know or-have satisfactory evidence that �1)' .. ii- ,• Gic signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary:afzw tie uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. - �� .. P P �t..••''6-s Dated: MI 1/�,6 ���i .-- ` Notary Pub' n and f r the State=okWaskiington • Notary(Print) M1 A--QUA-Qt - ( r QL-u- My appointment expires: 97'/� s NOTARY,OOC NOTICE . PENDING APPLICATION PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: SPRINGBROOK ASSOCIATES REZONE/LUA-96-128,ECF,R DESCRIPTION: Proposed city sponsored rezone of a privately held P-1 zoned parcel located at the western end of South 38th Court that traverses between Shattuck Avenue South on the North,and Talbot Road south on the southeast from Public Use (P-1) to Commercial Office (CO). The subject site is currently vacant and will likely develop with a new retirement residence if this City initiated rezone goes through. GENERAL LOCATION: 403 South 38th Court PUBLIC APPROVALS: ' Building Permit Preliminary Plat Short Plat Conditional Use Permit Rezone Site Plan Approval XXXX Environmental Review Shoreline Conditional Use XXXX REZONE • Permit Fill&Grade Permit Shoreline Substantial Other Development Permit The date of Tuesday,December 3,1996,at 9:00 AM,has been set for a Rezone(R)public hearing to review the above- referenced matter. The hearing, before Mr. Fred Kaufman, Renton Hearing Examiner, will be held in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall,Renton,Washington. `• The application can be reviewed in the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted any time prior to Public Hearings,during Public Hearings, or prior to an administrative site plan approval. Comments for Substantial Shoreline Permits must be received within thirty(30)days from the last date of applicant's"Notice of Application"publication in the Valley Daily News. For further information on the application, or if you wish to be made a PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications of the City's environmental determinations, appeal periods and/or the public hearing date(s) for this project, please contact the Development Services Division at 235-2550. _. _• --.- 3t: j tR-8'. LEGEND . Gj. :�'. ' 1-1 R• esourceConservation - ,�i I " n R• esidential I du/ac bL. :..R_g_ CC ry R-8 _ ': n Residential 5 du/ac cu N ;; S' 36tti"•S I"' n R• esidential 8 du/ac 7.0 j am. .`., R-e: "'lX n Residential Manufactured Homes ... 5.371:h`..St. ;7'th Cr] • ....• R-io Residential 10 du/ac Q �AMR .,, Residential 24 du/ac V } pm Residential Multi-Family Infill ( CA / '//� '; , 3. am Residential MulU-Family Neighborhood Center , , I cmi Residential Multi-Family Suburban Center �A ,1 Residential Multi-Family Urban Center • (.177th Ave. n Convenience Commercial VALLE:(, ! „Cr."--‘ n Center Neighborhood ` MEDICAL CENTER, i n Center Suburban / 4 I „. \, n Center Downtown • / 1. ,,,S COR Center Office Residential / 4a n Commercial Arterial • ..co 0 ,.......A,... St , S 43Fd'St. ' Ga CO Commercial Office .. El industrial - Heavy i' . 1 I . n industrial - Medium i r+f-I 1t Industrial - Light 2:1746. lrlJ P-1 Public Use • r PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I :...:.::::::..::::.:::....:......... ::::::::::::::.:...............:............................:, ......................:::::.::::.:::.:::.:.::.:..::...:......:...::::.:.:.::.::....:..... .. .. ..:....::.:::.::::...:.:....... : ..:::....::........ ...............................:............................ .:........................: : • • R ,D• • • •••PP AT• •E PEOWN<ER ; ,>'> >iMME >> '`<«<>PROJE.Otr.100:;::::::::. .. RTY..O. S . 0 ORMATI:O.N <>� ���>';`:<< >>>:' C Note :>If:there:is more than oneile'al:owner,:"lease attac(]ar additional 8 P notarized;MasYer,Appliaatwn:for each;oivner A PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: •NAME: f V 1L Orr / ELIA,m- PROPERTY/PEeT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: r 0 .l5 x 5.352 • � 6 CITY: (1..5.Vc. ZIP: goo is KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): -o c2 c?G l! (g1.) TELEPHONE NUMBER: EXISTING LAND USE(S): VA 'C/id►N.:.,::�yi.f..::otheI��a.:/fop....�.:n/e..:�f' _::::::::::. NAME:'RAM /►4 /C✓��G'/1'�"�/�-'v Y�(g�-'�-^=� PROPOSED LAND USES: COMPANY(if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: 6I1Yl! ,r•�--t om ' �nt-r7rI OI\D ADDRESS: �_� ��� ��i� PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): i\l fiU'tZ CITY: ,--ta2f,t ZIP: 1` 5 EXISTING ZONING: 1JJ► L ( OZCN TELEPHONE NUMBER: PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): • /\f @_.6) V ................. ....................................................................................................................... SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): NAME: 1::? k t COMPANY (if applicable): C r �-� PROJECT VALUE: �y�, C RECE.I'V ED ADDRESS: � / /WU., AV N V c IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? UO • OCT 1 6 1996 CITY: ZIP: g4iE �•_ T PUNNING IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANV'�>(1 $E b VIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVEIT AAREA?. t�� TELEPHONE NUMBER: Y 'l/�6 %1 � / 1 .......... ... .... ......:L pE€ DE'S:CRIP::, PERT °' tta. ... a .ara L..........................:::...... I . , efEE ':: ' <::::�'::':' :'::':'': ?�: ':::::::: ::: : ::: . ��� ` '�. de e e s>:::<:>::::>:::::>;<:::>::>:>:>;:<:<:<::::;>::>::>::»<:>: t t ...t.. ..t.. t. ...sta.... ..................t..............e.... .e. .......... . ...................:. .. ::. _ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION:. _ COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT $ _ REZONE $ _ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ _ SPECIAL PERMIT $ _ SHORT PLAT .• $ _TEMPORARY PERMIT . $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT . • $ _ _ PRELIMINARY PLAT $ _ SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ _ FINAL PLAT $ _GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ (N0. CU. YDS: ) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ _VARIANCE $ (FROM SECTION: 1 _ PRELIMINARY ) _,WAIVER $ _ FINAL , , , . ' , . _WETLAND PERMIT .. $ ROUTINE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ • MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ _ BINDING SITE PLAN $ SHORELINE REVIEWS: . . . . , , . _ SUBSTANTIAL'DEVELOPMENT $ — CONDITIONAL USE $ . _ VARIANCE $ . _ EXEMPTION $No_Charae _ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ REVISION $ . :::• :••>:•:•>:•::<::::<•:::•:•::»>:•>:•>::>:::•»:•>:<::•:•>:•>::>:••••••:•<•:>•::::<>::::•>:•>:•>:IM:<:>::>::>:»:•••>AF:F:CDAVtT:>O:F>OWN:ER.SH ................................................... .................................. I, (Print Name) , declare that I am (please check-one)_the owner of the property involved in this application,_the authorized representative to act for the property owner (please attach proof of authorization), and that the..foregoing statement,!;and answers herein contained and'the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. • ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public,in and for the State of • residing•at (Name of Owner/Representative) 19 , on the_day of (Signature of Owner/Representative) • . (Signature of Notary Public) s t . :>:<><•••:>••:GiNum er...... ...... ....:.: . .;:.;:. :. ...5.... ::•>rS.H.. ......C. ...... ...............V.......TP.....SP.....RUMP.....V.................. .Q»:>S::.:;;::: IVf.<:>)VI:IR:E43SP`:> A« <CP `><»'. » >>: :>«::> " >> ' <>>> .::.:.:::; :: : ::. ::::::.::.:::::::::.:::.:::.: S C ::.;.:.,,,,$<> <:':`''> '` «>`''< : °`':< °`i><:�:0:::': ` .<'OS: : :�G� PRO IQ Q. :> ;::; :::: TALFEES......................................... ............T .IAE,.P. TA. . ..... . .. .� ....5 ... .......... ........... ............... ..... .... ii MASTERAP.DOC REVISED 9/96 . 302305911109 3023059111 SPRINGBROOK ASSOCIATES \ ,PO BOX 53525 BELLEVUE WA 98015 30 305 111 • 4 CITY OF RENTON EAST VALLEY MEDICAL PARK SP REC AF # 7808151009 SD SP DAF - POR SE 1/4 BEG AT S 1/4 COR TH N ALG C/L OF SD SEC 250 FT TH N 89-06-03 E 950 FT TO TPOB TH N PLT N-S C/L OF SD SEC 421.49 FT TO WLY PROD OF SLY LN OF TR REC AF #4687718 TH S 84-17-00 E ALG SLY BDRY SD TR & SLY BDRY TR REC AF #4643926 813 .94 FT TO WLY LN CO RD TH S 06-00-20 W ALG WLY LN CO RD 520. 01 FT TO N LN TR REC AF # 4696849 TH ALG NLY LN SD TR N 74-39-53 W 674 .52 FT TO ANGLE PT TH S 89-06-03 W 105 FT TO TPOB • 0 s\ nd ' CITY OF RENTON ZONING MAP 3t: , R-g. LEGEND • • C, . :' : L. RC Resource Conservation �Qi R-1 Residential 1 du/ac �i_ R-8 R-8.... R-5 Residential 5 du/ac 6t I R-B Residential 8 du/ac -. . CC acu rCY R-8: RMH Residential Manufactured Homes w s` 7th ..St • 7th R-10 Residential 10 du/ac AllaR-14 Residential 24 du/ac W RM-I Residential Multi—Family Infill C.) CA / 38t r RM-N Residential Multi—Family Neighborhood Center _. ,'' RH-C Residential Multi—Family Suburban Center ,A: :.. $ RM U Residential Multi—Family Urban Center t 177th Ave. CC Convenience Commercial i ..P-1 :. .;� VALLEY G? / t \\ CN Center Neighborhood MEDICAL CENTER.. -6 ' ... + Cs Center Suburban •O i Q! •! CD Center Downtown -,,.Q 1 COR Center Office Residential • ` `� CA Commercial Arterial C0 0 .:•� .... ; Gay S 43rcl St. Leo I Commercial Office ,,,0 caps ....MOM MIN11.1.4 IH Industrial — Heavy Ill Industrial — Medium �4e' CO CO IC Industrial — Light a10 P-1 Public Use p-I (P) Publicly Owned S 4+cal. School p-1 p-1 I Ca CO(P) __..0. Renton City Limits 0 600 1200 RM-L... _ �ti`�Y o� 1 :7200 , • LONG RANGE PLANNING : PB/PW TECHNICAL SERVICES ; ' 08/02/96 f � R-1 5331 I 1 PR-13 Springbrook Associates - 403 S. 38th Court Proposal Description for Five Private Rezones from P-1 to CO Zone In 1994 the Renton City Council authorized the Planning/Building/Public Works Department to proceed with the assimilation of those sites currently zoned Public Use (P-1) into Renton's other 21 zones. The need for this zone had been lessened by the City's 1993 Interim Zoning Code which included a number of new zones, most of which provided for most, if not all, of the uses previously allowed in the P-1 Zone. Also, analysis revealed that there had been a great deal of inconsistency in the application of the - P-1 Zone over the years in that many public uses were not zoned P-1, having been adequately accommodated in the prevailing zones where they were located. Other reasons for changing the zoning were that the City had recently adopted new provisions providing greater development flexibility for community facilities as well as a an early notification process for all publicly owned properties whenever there was a change in ownership, use, or major tenancy. In 1995 the City Council approved the first of the P-1 rezones to other zones,approving nine publicly sponsored private P-1 rezones. The current proposal is a continuation of the P-1 rezoning process begun in the fall of 1995. It involves City initiated rezoning of five (5) privately held P-1 zoned parcels located immediately north of Valley Medical Center, near the intersection of S. 38th Court and Talbot Road South. The five sites in question are designated Center Institution on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. All five'of the current batch of privately owned P-1 zoned parcels are proposed to be rezoned to the Commercial Office(CO)Zone. Vicinity maps and legal descriptions for each-site have been provided as part of the Master Application. • Proposal Summary for Five Private P-1 Rezones It is the City's intent to phase out and eventually eliminate all of its current P-1 zoned properties by assigning other nearby zones that currently accommodate these uses or which can be easily amended to accommodate these uses are in place. The subject proposal is to rezone five(5)privately held properties located immediately north of Valley Medical Center near the intersection of S. 38th Court and Talbot Road S., (all on the west side of Talbot Road S.), from the Public Use(P-1)Zone to the Commercial Office(CO)Zone. The subject proposal, a legislative act, is considered to be a non-project action under the provisions of WAC 197- 11, SEPA Rules. Subsequent development proposals on these five (5) sites would be considered project actions. An Environmental Checklist has been prepared for the proposed rezoning of these five privately held, P-1 zoned sites to the CO Zone. RECFIvFr OCT 18 1996 5RZNSMRY.DOC/ DEVELOPMEN r PLANNING CITY OF RENTON .• t , :i:::::::ii:::i::i:ii'ii ii}iii::::::::v:X'i;;;':i::".:{::iii`::i'i:i:::::i'::ti�+:is+'iii:!4:•ii: 1:0: : ::: Ci y:.O ..Re .iiigginginadEgiainiiiiENVIRONMEN ANINEENNEENiiiiii ENVIRONMENTALCHECKL .S. ... .... ................ PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA), Chapter 43.2IC RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal(and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project.plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write."do not know"or"does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related tp determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS(part D). For nonproject actions(actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer,"and"affected geographic area,"respectively. A. BACKGROUND • • 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Public (P-1) Zone rezones of five privately held parcels around S. 38th Court and Talbot Road South. 2. Name of applicant: City of Renton 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Michael D. Kattermann City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue Renton, Washington 98055 206-277-6190 4. Date checklist prepared: October 14, 1996 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton, Department of Planning/Building/Public Works - Development Services Division 96PRSEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Ch' ;_st Fivei, rate P-1 Rezones to-00 Zone < October 11,1996 Page 2 of 13 6. Proposed timing or schedule(including phasing, if applicable): The City Council is expected to review the proposed action in October or November, 1996. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. This is a non-project action. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. DEIS for the adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Jan. 16, 1992; FEIS for City's Comprehensive Plan, Feb. 1, 1993; and, SETS for City's Comprehensive Plan, Dec. 1994. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.Not applicable,this is a non-project action. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. . - Renton City Council will need to approve the proposed zoning reclassifications of the five subject parcels. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The proposed non-project action is a proposal to rezone five privately held parcels north Vall ey Medical Center in the vicinityof S. 38th Court from P-1 zoning to CO zoning. of Before these rezones can be finalized amendments to the CO Zone are required to make retirement residences a permitted secondary use in this zone. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. if a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. File# Names of Owners&Addresses File# Names of Owners 8,Addresses PR-10 Lynn Frary, M.D. PR-13 Springbrook Associates 3711 Talbot Road S.; Renton, 98055 403 S. 38th Court; Renton, 98055 PR-11 Dr. Daniel Obrien PR-14 Dr. Eugene Brain 400 S. 38th Court; Renton, 98055 3901 Talbot Road S.; Renton, 98055 PR-12 D & R Enterprises 3731 Talbot Road S.; Renton, 98055 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS t. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other The proposed rezone of the five subject parcels in the vicinity of S. 38th Court and Talbot Road South to the CO Zone are located on relatively flat land. b. What is the steepest slope on the site(approximate percent slope?) Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. 96PRSEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental C jst Fly ,'vate P-1 Rezones to CO Zone October 11,1996 Page 3 of 13 c. What general types of soils are found on the.site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and-note any prime farmland. Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development.• - e.- Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by.themselves result in any development. f. ' Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. g. , About what percent of the site will be covered with Impervious surfaces - after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. 2. AIR ' a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. None. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your. proposal? If so, generally describe. . No. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will, not of and by themselves result in any development. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate,state what stream or river it flows into. 96PRSEPA.DOC 1, .. City of Renton Environmental Cf .st FivE__ jjate P-1 Rezones to CO Zone • October 11,1996 Page 4 of 13 Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to(within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be _ placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. - Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of-and by themselves result in any development. 5 Does the floodP proposal lie within a 100-yearlain? If so, note location on the site plan. Not applicable. The proposed non-project.action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. • 6) Does the proposal env any discharges of waste materials to y g surface waters? 'If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to this non-project action. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septictanks or other sources, if any(for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to this non-project action. c. Water Runoff(including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). 96PRSEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Ci, List Fivs .1.vate P-!Rezones to CO Zone October 11,1996 Page 5 of 13 Where will this water flow? Will this water flow info other waters? If so, describe. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a legislative, non-project action and therefore will not have development associated impacts. See above. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. See above. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Not applicable. The proposed action does not include a specific site or development proposal. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the current non-project action. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to this non-project action. N/A deciduous free:alder, maple, aspen, other N/A evergreen tree:fir, cedar, pine, other N/A shrubs N/A grass N/A pasture N/A crop or grain • N/A wet soil plants:cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other N/A water plants:water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other N/A . other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the current non-project action. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not relevant to the current non-project action. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Not applicable at this time. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not relevant to this non-project action. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Not applicable at this time. The proposed-non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones 96PRSEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Ch€,. t Five mite P-1 Rezones to CO,Zone October 11,1996 — Page 6 of 13 will not of and by themselves result in any development. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the current non-project proposal. Birds:hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other N/A Mammals:deer, bear, elk, beaver, other N/A Fish:bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other N/A b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No known threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the subject rezone sites. However, at the time of subsequent development this issue would be appropriately addressed. Since the current proposal is considered to be a non-project action analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain Not applicable.The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not relevant to the current non-project proposal. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy(electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,manufacturing, etc. Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not relevant to the current non-project action. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the current proposal. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. Since the uses allowed under the proposed new zoning are not expected to have any greater need for public services than the uses allowed under existing zoning analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. 96PRSEPA.DOC • City of Renton Environmental CL Mist: Fir .ivate. P-1 Rezones to CO Zone October 11,1996 ._ Page 7 of 13 2) Proposed measures.to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not relevant to this non-project proposal. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not relevant to the proposal. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise -- _ • would come from the site. Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning-five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not relevant to • this non-project proposal. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise Impacts, if any: Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the current proposal. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. The subjects sites of this rezone are typically vacant or used for medical related uses. b. Has the site been used for agriculture?-If so, describe. Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. c. Describe any structures on the site. Not applicable. Whereas there are structures on some.of the five rezone sites, the subject proposal to rezone'these sites is a non-project action. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. See above. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves, result. in any development. Therefore, no demolition is anticipated as a result of the proposed action. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? These five privately held parcels are currently zoned Public Use (P-1) Zone. These rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. 96PRSEPA.DOC • City of Renton Environmental Ch; ;t Five, ,ate P:1 Rezones to CO Zone October 11,1996 Pagel of 13 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The current comprehensive plan land use designation for the five rezone sites is Center Institution. g. 'If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this element.of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? - Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this-element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. k Proposed measures to avoid or reduce.displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment.is not applicable to the proposal. L Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, If any: Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. 10. AESTHETICS . a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s)proposed. The CO Zone allows building heights of 250 feet on sites 25,000 sq. ft. or larger. Since the maximum height in the P-1 Zone is 50 feet (without special development provisions)taller structures than in.the P-1 Zone could occur. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action that will rezone properties to a zone that allows greater building height, but reduced lot coverage over existing zoning. Increased building heights might obstruct more views from upland properties than under the provisions of the current P-1 zoning. On the other hand, decreased lot coverage and good site plan review might create view corridors below 50 feet in height that might not otherwise have been provided. 96PRSEPA.DOC • • • City of'Renton Environmental C, list Fig, ;ivate P-1 Rezones to CO Zone October 11,1996 • Page 9 of 13 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Since these rezones are considered to be a non-project action view impacts cannot be fully assessed until specific project actions are developed. Site plan review and SEPA disclosure at the time of future development would allow view impacts, if any, to be assessed and mitigation measures proposed where appropriate. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, - generally describe. Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. 96PRSEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Chi_ 2st Five, rate P-1 Rezones to'CO Zone October 11,1996 Page 10 of 13 Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this, element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this•element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe(indicate whether public or private? Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. e. Will the project use(or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water,rail, or air ' transportation? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, Indicate when peak volumes would occur. -Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Not applicable. Therefore, mitigation measures are not required for these non- project actions. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection,police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. The proposed non-project action includes rezoning five privately held parcels from the P-1 Zone to the CO Zone. These-rezones will not of and by themselves result in any development. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Not applicable. See above. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Not applicable. The subject proposal is a non-project action. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Not applicable. Therefore, analysis of'this element of the environment is not applicable to the proposal. 96PRSEPA.DOC ' ' City ofRenton Environmental C, Mist Fii ivate P-1 Rezones to CO Zone October 11,1996 Page 11 of 13 C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of fu di I u e Proponent: Name Printed: 1h i CP-1 i• 04.1&'"nle2 rti r-\ Date: -gG • • 96PRSEPA.DOC City of Renton Environmental Ci;, ,,st Five' ,'rate P-1 Rezones to CO Zone • October 11,1996 Page 12 of 13 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (These sheets should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs. You do not need to fill out these sheets for project actions.) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. (a) How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;production,storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The,proposed non-project action does not involve a specific site or development proposal and therefore the proposal would not directly result in an increased discharge to water, emissions to air, production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise. (b) Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Not applicable. 2. (a) How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? - The proposed non-project action does not involve a specific site or development proposal and therefore the proposal would not directly result in impacts to plants, animals, fish, and marine life. (b) Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: The proposed non-project action does not involve a specific site or development proposal and therefore the proposal would not directly result in the depletion of plants, animals fish or marine life. 3. (a) How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposed non-project action is a legislative act pertaining to the zoning designation on five existing site. This action, if approved, will not result in any development by itself. Individual project actions will be required to comply with the SEPA Rules. Therefore, the proposal would not directly result in the depletion of energy or natural resources. (b) Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: The proposed non-project action does not involve a specific site or development proposal and therefore the proposal would not directly result in the depletion of energy or natural resources. 4. (a) How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated(or eligible or under study) for governmental protection;such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The proposed non-project action does not involve a specific site or development proposal and therefore the proposal would not directly result in impacts to environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands. (b) Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Not applicable. See above. 96PRSEPA.DOC • City of Renton Environmental 4klist Fig ?rivate P-1 Rezones to CO Zone October 11,1996 R _ Page 13 of 13 5. (a) How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposed non-project action does not involve a specific site or development proposal that would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with , existing plans. (b) Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Not applicable. See above. 6. (a) How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposed non-project action does not involve a specific site or development proposal and therefore the proposal would not directly result in increased demands on transportation, public services and utilities. (b) Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Not applicable. See above. 7. (a) Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local,state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment The proposed non-project action does not involve a specific site or development proposal and therefore the proposal would not conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful sack of II isc r on m Proponent: Name Printed: n Date: /Q 96PRSEPA.DOC