Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA88-007
tiHIBIT NO. REM NO. A Qo 7`"-r'�'._'f,z BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT: Roger Urbaniak FILE NUMBER: ECF-007-88; •R-007-88 LOCATION: The property is located south of N.E. 43rd Place (S.E. ?Oth Street) and west of Lincoln AvenueN.E. A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks approval of an application to rezone 3 .5 acres of property from R-1, Residential-Single Family to B-1, Business Use to allow future commercial development on the property. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: Roger and Susan Urbaniak Hal and Lois Brandt Imogene Hess 2. Applicant: Roger Urbaniak 3. Existing Zoning: ' R-1, Residential-Single Family 4. Existing Zoning in the Area: King County Zoning; B-1, Business Use 5. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Commercial 6. Size of Property: +/- 3.5 acres J 7. Access: in of Ave� �N.E�.� 170/�E 4d 8. Land Use: Site is developed with a single family residence. M s 'V. iScets44 8 /o,pg0 awl A .a.v 9. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Commercial development and Exit 7 complex which currently has site plan approval for a commercial (ofSice and retail) uses. 44• .(.Qi East: Single Family Residences'AW Apartment Complex to the northeast. q 114 S, alZ w1.•! _ South: Undeveloped Prop rt and Single Family Residences faysomum, West: Undeve0 Q d Prop ty • d • Warehouse Use. C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action File Ordinance Date Annexation 1836 June 23, 1960 • im------ _--— —7 8" ,r-y RATER - - - - - - - - • N.E. 44 TH STREET ' e• - rl 1 i HER ; I ! , 12 Iy—.,..Iy ® O I I Me'Y r • !Ik1 ... flu ® ® I ;.;• eohmr• Tr.:- • ODI 33. I, r e !l n g e rail ti I. tn •v'L VT. a Aw..e•• • \\��& Abendo ood 11) 1 f '� I Foundeh nd \ \, ® ® p. i �- \\\\` � , I 'er ,\ e ® LI . I . i .. r C�—H'r•• AN'S I re ©® "o II w O \ / Q I Z SCALE 11,2001 I w 11 VICINITY MAP • � a �• I z r • ® O I 1® © I I iii © I Oi . yo I soI LEGEND l ABA I-Alder O \\G lt2z AP-Apple .. •J I B -Blreh O b" Tree E -Fir O N -Walnut 12"-14" Tree P -Nor W 4 m 4' I W -um.. '` I ' ciI,water \ © I � -� City Sewer © I ♦---♦ County Se rr.. Diet rick e--.— ....--0 Power.Lin. /....--------------- 1 ay. II I //I © • II • © II \ . © as so \ O II s0 ti• S C4LEr In=20' SITE PLAN • , • • • ..mBazAvloctsCOMPANY - URBANIAK REZONE SITE PLAN •1•IIrlMM4Yrr ':".'�"~ee-.. N.E.44th St. 8 Lincoln Avenue N. VICINITY MAP • • •' '�°"""' ' 1 Dei."...ee Renton, Washington r . • • .FN--._-__- _-_ -7 B ITY WATER -- - - - -- — __- .- -_-I I\ N.E. 44 TH I STREETy E a • C SEWER ---}— 1 .�1"li I- ® \ 1.(,_1 c10 1 II \ ( Q ® io _ €-`) ® O Iiiid� . . c/ III C7t..)---11: m II y3 { {f eaTom.. I I rte h a n p e4�\{ ti ® I xl \\ `� O - 6.-t1TN Te•rNE•- 44TN-•-St-.i —•80TH .. 1 I `t90 Acr ui u .\�� , lul • E, 2 Powe:i ood i r ® 9 r• J�1 \;a 3 / i I. E I M�1: S .i bomb 1 e e i I 1 \ e ® _ 40il- w O 7 e Z?. \ 9 VICINITY 200' MAP LiJ ''\ ( i • I i e I © I J I I I e O � __A 50 4o LEGEND: ' O 0 AI-Aler pre ® BP-Bich 0 6" Tree N -Walnut O 12"-14"Tree r I P -PearO 41 © IW -Willo.r\ I I\ 9 CilyWale'© I �� � • City Serer \ ©\ --—♦ Coenly Se..e r Dielrict Oo s © \I ® ,._____. ® \sp • \ III _6® \ V 296• V SCALE: I"c20' SITE PLAN 11 T'EB`LOCIC COMPANY URBANIAK REZONE SITE PLAN •°meR"�.°�'°• N.E.44th St. Ss Lincoln Avenue N. VICINITY MAP ��'� Onle,l.a.Pi Renton, Washington n.,..n t.jAW _, 4 I I �. r � . ce .LFM _i . ,ti ,..w. t, `": DQ . . • N -‘‘-ii•i- 'Iv a'4 . ( _ . . . h%„„ er-7 ''s. ��N i: 01 „.1:3 t : :7? , . . . 0 ■ '-'-'\ ,L () • e? i do . ..,,, .;,,. k 0 .1 i NO 0 � � 4104 Vr., 0 ,,,,,,,,,,,, poz,- t.-- d 106TH 5=.0 `' q �� ,7(..5y .,,,,,,,i: - ....a.dmin_Pjfif f 1.,,,,-.-- 0 i o 0,1, k''''''4,.. IIINI:reof/P.----__ i 'N't ' t s--e' -15 _., .....„ a k `,.... : 108'*N A V E S E ._..,. ..._... �,�� ..��,,� ' *kir i -5 ,/, 17\ I. -411) or 4,,., . �s s A1• a : 4, _ ia _ i - ii. l -=�_ gli .r... MI^' _ ate+ w_ t, 77 111111111tVqS t6Nr..4 : A' 1.1,. 4;01/4iiii - al..... 00111111111041111111.111 0../(0.ANz.„000.400masirsistaitity7o....mmiNif: (53 411111111111.111111111111111111111 ,111111111111101 ZAl /,SO C 11011.111111111111111111e iN n ill ,, : .6 31 % i, II . �� „ „ 20 . 1 v ) Sit 1 j ,kq � "'5. f. / III_._. • E PO • �., � � Ifs III � 1 lit 11 o '"'.�'� € CIS 1 II o II II kk j_ II II 0�Il{ , • J ii - n o. DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS 500-4TH AVE. ROOM 700A PRESORTED SEATTLE, WA 98104-2384 FIRST CLASS MAIL OFFICIAL VALUATION CHANGE NOTICE FOR: U.S.POSTAGE PAID SEATTLE,WA PARCEL NO. 334570-0057-05 FOR TAXES DUE IN . 1989 PERMIT NO.213 FORWARDING AND ADDRESS ?LEASE REFER TO THE ABOVE NUMBER WHEN INQUIRING CORRECTION REQUESTED / ♦ THIS IS NOT A TAX BILL MAILING ADDRESS OLD VALUE NEW VALUE BRANOT 'HAL' 581702 LAND 12727 SE 63RD ST BELLEVUE "WA 98006 71100 85300 BLDGS,ETC. 11000 10100 TOTAL 82100 95400 SEE REVERSE SIDE .HIBIT NO. E lY! NO Ke;Avvt • DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS d�P�5co� 500-4TH AVE. ROOM 700A PRESORTED SEATTLE,WA 98104-2348 FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE OFFICIAL VALUATION CHANGE NOTICE FOR: U.S. SEATTLE,WA PAID PERMIT NO.213 PARCEL NO.33457 0-0 0 5 7-0 5 FOR TAXES DUE IN 1987 FORWARDING AND ADDRESS PLEASE REFER TO THE ABOVE NUMBER WHEN INQUIRING CORRECTION REQUESTED • THIS IS NOT A TAX BILL MAILING ADDRESS OLD VALUE NEW VALUE BRANDT HAL 581702 LAND 12727 SE 63RD ST BELLEVUE WA 98006 24200 71100 BLDG 1 9000 11000 YOU HAVE UNTIL SEPT 03 1986 TOTAL TO APPEAL THIS VALUATION. 33200 82100 SEE REVERSE SIDE �,BTATe. y :d tiEitiici!, ir JACK S. WAYLAND t Director t 1889 apy STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE Region Four Office -- 16018 MIII Creek Boulevard, MIII Creek, WA 98012 -- (206) 775-1311 May 2, 1988 ".H. TBTT NO. �, EM N O. .� . � o70- S Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: ECF-007-88, R-007-88; Urbaniak, Brandt & Hess Rezone; DNS Dear Sirs: There are some wetlands and a small creek on this site. Cutthroat trout have been found in the creek just below the site. The creek has already been disturbed by previous channelization and the removal of vegetation along the banks. A plan for restoration of the creek and wetlands pro- tection should be included as a part of any plan for further development. A Hydraulics Project Approval will be required for any work in the creek. A permit may also be required from the Corps of Engineers for work in the wetlands. The "clogging" described in the SEPA checklist was probably beneficial to water quality in the creek. We recommend against enclosing the drainage swale along the street north of the site. Enclosing runoff in culverts or pipe only moves water downstream in greater volumes than a system can handle, often resulting in downstream flooding and stream channel degradation. Sincerely, THE DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE 21mann Habitat Biologist TO:km cc: Habitat Management--Olympia ..4 AIII* • 4. • I • , is. • '''' 4, .if v 1 ' . a 1 1. . ..." %yob' •4• ',.•. . 16 ' ' •ii, , • '. ,n'ti-‘.,„11.1 1 • li i‘,..:4.•• 1 .i.....A.V..,a, , . MI i:71. 4 z..141150, 14.-. , i; •I . ..,...' V •• ; 4 1 . •••• ; ; b. ' s ,• .. • • . ' ‘i e• ' 1 ti' 1 . 4 .' :%%. '•'''' i• . 9, i•-•.* ' -,..• • , . • ,...`. . 11.1:;:: i s.•-••••• •,• -4. ti• 7 '.- - % -:- •--..e,...':". .-, ...4‘.., if•4 4- " :"."--• 'Ilk '' , ,s . , „' 1....4.1. 1 IP '• 't.''''..1.- i '• ' , - • . • f' , . , . ,. . . . 1.. ..1 . ,.. e. ,- i! ' :4‘i.1 1 4,•";4‘ I 4 4,1611i :4 1 ksi- • .• Roc) .85 5- 2S•ab s. 4Z Arls., • • • kr 4 • T � r 71, I. ' � d . 4: .ip.,.. ,- 0., •;1. . :16..4 . I i•V„ ., , , •i, ., . 70.,, .... . . . ..„......!... . ... .s. .. .. . . . ...... . .. ... , . .,... .,1...,„, , • _r , Itr • •-1. • . 1..— 0; • , ....e......c-%U. -7• 'IT . '',., •. t4 ' Ak.,"1 "4,,• ' 4 . •,•: ,:'1°,." '1 4:••,' r , .a.. " , I , 14.1•0i4L,r'.. ' . • ...I 4,,,,,.. -• , , :I,. 0 4• , .4-,--- 41, - • . •‘.. ._.4' _ , 0.- • -• ,, .:.• • ' . ': .• • . ., 1' .. - ,eir • , .,.. ,01•As ' 007 ESS 6-.2,3..ess . v 1$i. .••41- 1‘,..: .. : --Nt •• ....1-Th. • • 1 IIF,. 11 . •.•. 0 ert We' Va. • „N li ' I • ...0%; 'r.....a. .-•t's ..,..-1,...., •i .4 • .. ' t e ' r..., " ••,„ ' - .. •III . ' ' •••7: ;It .A 7 ..'..", l'"` Mitt.k : -I • . .•14 . ''' Av. , -„7' il•-••.... . 4.-1.* : 11.* - 1. ... .):: • Al:. ..i 1.1----ii.-, foit" ........ . 3' .. .,41" ,.., ... "• 4. .4•, . ....• •,„1._ ,,,.. .' O. ' • s•- - ' r ..s; . • .... , . . ., .. —_ ,— i;.• , . -rt.w'‘ 44 lair' i - ...., op .•,` t ...," : ;•of :"'"4,, irj fr.••T'tlYr7'.' .., /' •• ' L4 ?a,'ok-IL*.....mir 4,;..1 A" .-•••-•'....10s, ic%'' 0017w ba. 5%0 Z5-815 •Ire. 4 • • a,'- -1L r ` ,, • •� iii0. ` :� «• 12, • 01:), .. a% 4,0 j. . . 'r v 'I ittv BEGINNING. OF FILE FILE TITLE iso_ ig-.007b FIFINIVED MP" WHEN RECORDED RETURN 0: ter= 15 23-05 4 Office of the City Clerk SEP 5 . 1995a Renton Municipal Building PIDN's: 518210-0020,0030,and 0031 200 Mill Avenue South LEASE OF Name of Project: R-07-88 Renton,WA 98055 KING COUI�1�1(,S :CTIVE COVENANT Street Intersection: NE 4th St & East of ca RECORDE Union Ave NE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation, is the holder of a restrictive covenant acquired from Henry J. Balko and Ada A. Balko dated on July 19, 1990, recorded under Auditor's File No. 9007250508, records of King County, State of Washington; and, WHEREAS, said restrictive covenant applied to the then current zoning; and, F; WHEREAS, the zoning of this site has subsequently changed; and, •c WHEREAS, on July 24, 1995 the City received a request from the owner of the property encumbered by the restrictive covenant to release said covenant; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Renton at a regular meeting on August 14, 1995 approved the 1,1 request to release said covenant; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF RENTON does hereby abandon and release all rights acquired under the above described restrictive covenant on the land described on the attached Exhibit "A". s0 N ti IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said City has caused this instrument to be executed by the Mayor and City Clerk this 3/yt day of , 19 94 . MAY Earl Cl e6))1 — �� CITY CLh Marilyn J. Petersen STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Earl Clymer and Marilyn Petersen are the persons who appeared before me, and said persons acknowledged that they signed this instrument, on oath stated that they were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the MAYOR, and the CITY CLERK, CITY OF RENTON, to be the free and voluntary act of such parties for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ,ei,47". .V 199.c c w No Public in d for the State of Washington Notary (Print) c—/J4 S7 rnEA,5 My appointment expires /0--4— 97 Au:ust 14 1995 Renton City Council Minutes Page 314 2. A covenant be recorded against the property requiring connection to the City sewer system: a) if the septic system is failing or failed; or b) if the property is sold or in any way changes ownership from both of • the two current owners; or c) if the City makes a blanket policy requiring that all occupied properties within either the City or the Aquifer Protection Area be connected to a public sewer system, when available; or d) by October 1, 2000, if the property has not been connected previously. Staff further recommended that a penalty equal to the City's monthly sewer rate be assessed for failure to connect to the system when available. If, however, the applicant can demonstrate that household income falls below the poverty threshold, as defined by the City's senior citizen discount, the penalty fee will be waived. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Transportation (Aviation) Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chair Edwards presented a report Committee recommending that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Transportation: Lake Wash agreement with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Blvd Bike/Pedestrian for construction of the. Lake Washington Boulevard pedestrian and bicycle Facility facility. The City's share of funding for the project is $557,664.00. The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 315 for resolution.) Finance Committee Finance Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a report recommending Finance: Vouchers approval of Claims Vouchers #126141 - 126762; three wire transfers in the total amount of $2,186,666.67; approval of Payroll Vouchers #136749 - 137163; and 413 direct deposits in the total amount of $1,142,629.45. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning & Developm•nt Planning and Development Committee Chair Stredicke presented a report Committee recommending concurrence with the staff recommendation that Council vacate Planning: NE 4th/Union Ordinance No. 4278 and the corresponding, site plan for the Ribera/Balko Ave NE Site Plan (Bakke),, project located at NE 4th and Union Ave NE (R-88-107), and release the R-88-107 restrictive covenant on Lot 4. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning: Residential Lone Planning and Development Committee Chair Stredicke presented a report Setback Changes recommending, that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the setback provisions of the Resource Conservation (RC), Residential - 1 Unit Per Acre (R-1), Residential - 8 Units Per Acre (R-8), Residential - 10 Units Per Acre (R-10), Residential - 24 Units Per Acre (R-24), and Mixed Residential (RM) zones. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be placed on the agenda for first reading. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT AS AMENDED TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND FRONT YARD SETBACKS BY REQUIRING A MINIMUM 20-FOOT YARD SETBACK. CARRIED. (See page 315 for ordinance.) ORDINANCES AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption: RESOLUTIONS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT AUGUST 14, 1995 RIBERA-BALKO (1) VACATE REZONE ORDINANCE NO. 4278, (2)VACATE THE CORRESPONDING SITE PLAN APPROVAL, AND (3) RELEASE THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT RECORDED IN CONJUNCTION THEREWITH. (Referred July 24, 1995) The Planning and Development Committee concurs with the staff report and recommends that Council vacate Ordinance No. 4278 and the corresponding site plan and release the restrictive covenanton Lot 4. Richard Stredicke, Chair cleaticti &O-elkai - (4) Kathy Iolker-Wheeler, Vice-Chair. R ndy Corman, a cc: Gregg Zimmerman Jim Hanson Jim Chandler July 24. 1995 enton City Council Minutes Pane 300 said refuse and debris in the City's gutters reflect a lack of civic pride in the community. He also commented on the danger of sidewalk and curb disrepair, citing safety concerns. Regarding Tonkins Park, Mr. Doyle said the drinking fountain does not work and the park's landscaping has eroded to the point of embarrassment. He urged Council to attend to this matter immediately. Mr. Doyle concluded that the downtown property recently purchased by the City from Good Chevrolet should be developed into a multi- level parking garage with ground-level retail shopping and restaurants. Councilmember Nelson explained that the stage under construction at Tonkins Park is being accomplished with donations, and the person in charge is volunteering his time. Progress is being made, albeit slowly, and when the project is completed, it will be beautiful. Councilman Tanner clarified for Mr. Doyle that none of the buildings owned by Good Chevrolet were sold to the City. Citizen Comment: Beverly Franklin, PO Box 685, Renton, 98057, commented on the proposed Franklin - Temporary se temporary use permit ordinance, describing problems experienced with truck Permit Ordinance sales, rentals and parking lots, among other uses, and emphasizing that these illegal uses are occurring in her single family neighborhood. She was concerned that the ordinance does not mention setback requirements or specify what type of structures could be built, and felt that, overall, the ordinance language is too vague. She encouraged Council to strive to make this permitting process neighborhood-friendly, and at the least include an opportunity to revocate any nuisance permit. Councilman Stredicke announced that the Planning & Development Committee will meet to discuss this subject on. August 2nd. Citizen Comment: Halinen David Halinen, 10500 NE 8th St., Suite 1900, Bellevue, 98004, submitted a - NE 4th/Union Ave NE letter regarding the Ribera-Balko Family Limited Partnership's ten-acre parcel Site Plan (Bakke), R-88- on the south side of NE 4th St. that was the subject of an application for a 107 rezone and site plan approval in 1988 (File No. R-88-107). Noting that this property was never developed, the letter requested that Council vacate the rezone as well as the corresponding site plan approval, and release the restrictive covenant recorded in conjunction therewith. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. CAG: 95-072, 1995 St el City Clerk reported bid opening on 7/19/95 for CAG-95-072, 1995 Steel Water Main Replacem Int Water Main Replacement project; four bids; engineer's estimate $337,745.22; Project, Debco Const. and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder, Debco Construction, Inc., in the total amount of $298,157.54. Council concur. Court Case: CRT-95-0 6, Court Case in an undetermined amount filed by Michael R. Caryl, 720 Olive Lu v. Renton Way, Seattle, 98101, on behalf of Young and Tommy Lu, regarding alleged personal injuries received by Young Lu at Renton's Liberty Park on 7/24/92 (CRT-95-006). Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. Annexation: Holman, SE Planning & Technical Services Division requested a public hearing be set for 2nd PI/Heather Down 8/14/95 on the Holman 60% annexation petition and concurrent zoning to R-8; the annexation area is comprised of three parcels located along SE 2nd Pl. in the Heather Downs neighborhood. Council concur. 1 l !1, HALINEN LAW OFFICES,P.S. A Professional Service Corporation David L.Halinen,P.E. Bellevue Place/Seafirst Building (206)454-8272 10500 NE 8th,Suite 1900 Fax(206)646-3467 Bellevue,Washington 98004 CITY OF RENTON JUL 2.4 1995 REl;�1VED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE July 24, 1995 HAND-DELIVERED Renton City Council 200 Mill Avenue South • Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Ribera-Balko Family Limited Partnership's 10-Acre Parcel on the South Side of NE 4th REQUEST THAT THE COUNCIL (1) VACATE REZONE ORDINANCE 4278, (2) VACATE THE CORRESPONDING SITE PLAN APPROVAL, AND (3) AND RELEASE THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT RECORDED IN CONJUNCTION THEREWITH . Dear Council Members: I am writing on behalf of my client, Ribera-Balko Family Limited Partnership, the owner of a parcel of land lying on the south side of NE 4th Street that was the subject of an application for a rezone and site plan approval submitted in 1988 under City File No. R107-88. On July 2, 1990, the Council passed a rezone ordinance zoning a portion of the site residential and a portion commercial (Ordinance 4278). A site plan approval was also issued for the residential portion of the site and, in conjunction with the rezone, a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants was recorded against a portion of the site under King County Recording No. 9007250508. The property was never subsequently developed.. During the Citywide area zoning that took place in 1993 and 1995, the entirety of the property has received one of the City's commercial zoning classifications. My client wishes to see the property developed under the commercial zoning and hereby requests that - -the Council release the restrictive covenant. Because, according to Jim Hanson of the Renton Building Services Division, the site plan approval for the previously-approved residential development on a portion of the site will remain valid until the spring of 1996 unless the property owner requests that it be vacated, to enable the Council to release the restrictive covenant, my client hereby also requests that the Council vacate both Ordinance 4278 and the residential site plan approval. To aid you in your review of this matter, I have attached a copy of the existing Declaration Renton City Council July 24, 1995 Page 2 of Restrictive Covenants. Your prompt action concerning this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your anticipated assistance. • Sincerely, HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. David L. Hahnen Enclosure cc: Ribera-Balko Family Limited Partnership Mayor Earl Clymer (with copy of enclosure) Jay Covington, Assistant to the Mayor (with copy of enclosure) Susan Carlson, City of Renton Economic Development Director (with copy of enclosure) James Hanson, City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works (with copy of enclosure) c:\cf\2271\001\council.ltl , i James Bakke. Inc. .r.... , - Rf:.:•irc- r;S DA1 - R-107-88 . +lED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST L.: OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Jut !> EB ;� ,',N, 'a(1 RENTON MUNICIPAL BLDG. 200 MILL AVE.SO. "' RENTON,WA 98055 r.•. • • .-,.• _5 s 50: il. . JDECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS , i , WHEREAS, HENRY J. BALKO and ADA A. BALKO are owners of the . • following real property in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, described as Exhibit 'A' attached hereto. WHEREAS, the ovner(s) of said described property desire to impose i • the following restrictive covenants running with the land as to use, present and future, of the above described real property. C.; Cand impose restrictions and covenants running with the land NOW, THEREFORE, the aforesaid ovner(s) hereby establish, grant LA hereinabove described with respect to the use by the•undersigned, iitheir successors, heirs, and assigns as follows: RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS 1. Only the residential site plan concurrently approved by the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated May 15, 1990 shall be ! • developed. • 2. There shall be no more than one hundred eleven (111) dwelling • units placed on the subject site. DURATION These covenants shall run with the land and expire on December 31, 2025. If at any time improvements are installed pursuant to these covenants, the portion of the covenants pertaining to the specific installed improvements as required by the Ordinances of the City of Renton shall terminate without necessity of further documentation. ..i! It - ..n'.t sx M�•�'1Q!':' - rC'. .. �+t3••J r- '. w 1,,:. _ -- • •4-;5`•4...t: 7 • • / . . Any violation or breach of these restrictive covenants may be enforced •.. by proper legal procedures in the Superior Court of king County by Ir • . either the City of Renton or any property owners adjoining subject property who are adversely affected by said breach. • Y J. 'CO /Z J • Li dtz fi /3X4/0 -4 :.‘t. ADl► A. SALKO •, ! STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. • ` County of KING On this 14 ' day of "'TZo*-! 1990, before me personally appeared the person(s) who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument- to be the free O and voluntary act and deed of said person(s) for the uses and purposes • 0 therein mentioned. t , IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my i. iiiF! official seal the day and year first above written. 4 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing ' at ICCtJT, • 4 :e • )may' :.�rns� •.r r +•"4r V .• 7} � tie f:• F 4. .y',_ 1: : 1 • • • •, • • • LOT 4 (PROPOSED): That portion of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 15, =•� Township 23 North, Range S East of the Willamette Meridian in King County, _.. described as follows: COMMENCING at the Northwest corner of the East half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 15; THENCE South 00' 54' 24' West, along the West line of said East half, 264.54 N feet to the South line of the North 264.5 feet of the Northwest quarter of said Section 15 and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING for this description; N THENCE South 88' 02' 57' East, 240.09 feet; THENCE North 39' 51' 17' East, 69.73 feet; THENCE South 88' 02' 57' East, 190.37 feet; THENCE North 46' 57. 03' East, 28.27 feet; ai THENCE South 88' 02' 57' East, 92.13 feet to the West line of the East 60 feet -..+ of the West half of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of the :a Northwest quarter of said Section 15; THENCE North 00' 47' 57' East, along said line, 147.52 feet to the Southerly margin of Southeast 128th Street; THENCE South 88' 02' 57' East, along said Southerly margin, 60.01 feet to the East line of the West half of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter �. of the Northwest quarter of said Section 15; THENCE South 00' 47' 57' West, along said line, 618.64 feet to the Southeast Sri• corner of said West half; THENCE North 88' 09' 34' West, along the East-Welt centerline of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 13, 647.65 feet to the c Southwest corner of the East half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest of •::M the Northwest quarter of said Section 15; THENCE North 00. 54' 24' East, along the West line of said East half, 397.33 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING and terminus of this description; ., • (Also known as a portion of Tracts 2 and 3 of Martin's Acre Tracts, unrecorded); ALL SITUATE in the city of Renton, King County, Washington. PROJECT: BAKKE/1O-ACRE REZONE May 18, 1990 t.. 2768.05 .2. j' tea • rr • 406 CITY OF RENTON FINANCE DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Dan Clements, Director MEMORANDUM _ r DATE: July 14, 1988 ti TO: Mayor Clymer FROM: Dan Clements RE: E & H Rezone Letter of Credit This correspondence will follow-up on our Tuesday, July 12 meeting regarding use of the above referenced letter of credit for North Renton transportation projects, and more specifically for neighborhood preservation. Use of Funds The documents associated with the letter of credit state that money shall be used: "... to fund transportation improvements recommended from the study and adopted by Council." Any transportation projects, be they neighborhood preservation or area-wide, that appear in the study, and are approved by Council, could be funded by the letter of credit. Gary Norris has indicated, however, that the City may not wish to draw-down these funds for local neighborhood preservation purposes, since it is his belief that E & H Properties is required to fund these improvements as part of normal offsite improvements. Problems with Letter of Credit There are several items in the letter of credit which should probably be modified. First, the face amount of the letter is $1.1 million, while Ordinance #4098 specifies a $1.2 million figure. Second, the letter of credit refers to Ordinance #4098, which in turn refers to "the study", as the basis for drawing-down funds. There is, apparently, still no project list which can be submitted to Council for their approval so we can draw-down funds. The letter of credit should clearly specify circumstances under which funds are drawn-down. Additionally, the letter of credit does not appear to be a standard form. The document should be reviewed by Counsel before it is accepted by the City. • Marjorie Richter Concerns The above information should respond to Mrs. Richter's concerns.regarding whether or not E & H Associates will pay for neighborhood improvements. It appears E & H will be paying either through the $1.1 million letter of credit, or through offsite charges. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington .98055 - (206) 235-2558 .. I E & H Rezone Letter of C' t ' Raze 2 Attachments Enclosed please find the following documents: 1.) A copy of letter of credit; and 2.) Attachment "A" from Ordinance #4098. If you have any additional questions or comments,.I will be happy to try and respond to them. Dan Clements Finance Director DC:pb attachments cc: Mike Parness Larry Warren Larry Springer Dick Houghton Gary Norris Rebecca Lind / Maxine Motor Exhibit II //`: , AY: id/art-4/ SPA—G SS'-81 CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: March 27, 1990 TO: Board of Public Works � FROM: Paul Lumbert T'IA( SUBJECT: REVIEW OF E & H MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS Based on a review of documentation and Council minutes, the following summarizes the E&H mitigation measures as of March 27, 1990. 1. Realignment of Garden Avenue North from North 6th to North 8th The realignment of Garden Avenue North 8th to remove the existing dogleg, was required per Ordinance 4175. The requirement was discussed in a Council meeting on September 12, 1988, in which the Council concurred with the assessment of the administration that this measure could not be completed prior to occupancy and that a bond be submitted to secure funding for such an improvement once the need for that improvement was determined. Council minutes noted that "the responsibility for design, acquisition, and construction(of this improvement)shall rest entirely with E&H Properties". Recommended action: a. Extend deferral of this project for an additional year. Retain the bond in the amount of$807,000. b. Request that the North Renton Arterial Planning Study recommend the disposition of this bond and project concept. 2. Deferral and Bond for Park Plaza and Garage on-site and off-site improvements All improvements listed on Attachement A are complete,except for an easement for the driveway on the north side of the Park Plaza Garage. Another easement will be needed for the Garden Plaza curb,gutter,sidewalk in the area of the turn-out lane. That is,these public improvements would be on private property without an easement. Recommended action: a. Acquire easements. b. Extend deferral and bond until easements are recorded. i Jr October 9, 1987 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON z,PORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: E & H PROPERTIES File No.: SA-017-87, (Garden Plaza) LOCATION: • Garden Plaza: Park Avenue North and Garden Avenue North between North 5th and North 6th Garden Plaza: Site plan approval to allow the construction SUMMARY OF REQUEST: of a seven-story office building with 245,850 square feet with 1023 parking spaces provided on-site in a four-story parking structure and an additional 305 parking spaces to be provided in an off-site parking structure located approximately 350 feet from the site. Building and Zoning Department Recommendation: SUMMARY OF ACTION: Approval with conditions. BUILDING & ZONING The Building & Zoning Department Report was received DEPARTMENT REPORT: by the Examiner on September 22, 1987. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Zoning Department Report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on September 29, 1987, at 9:05 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit #1 - Yellow File SA-017-87 containing application, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit #2 - Site Plan Exhibit #3 - Landscape Plan • Exhibit #4 - Elevation Drawing 4`'_®« —81 I' Exhibit #5 - Yellow File SA-055-87 containing application, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit #6 - Site Plan Exhibit #7 - Landscape Plan Exhibit #8 - Elevation Dawing Exhibit #9 - Illustrative model Exhibit #10 - Roger Blaylock's response to Environmental Review Committee for Park Plaza Exhibit #11 - Roger Blaylock's response to Environmental Review Committee for Garden Plaza Exhibit #12 - Letter from Richard Houghton to Roger Blaylock Exhibit #13 - New transportation summary dated September 18, 1987 E & H Properties SA-017-87, SA-055-87 October 9, 1987 Page 2 . .-,, 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 1:25 P.M. There are no Minutes available for this item. While a joint hearing was held on both the subject site (SA-017-87) and for the Park Plaza proposal (SA-055-87) they will be published as separate reports. This decision was published in an expedited fashion to accommodate the City Council review of the underlying zoning request. . J FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS 1. The applicant, E & H Properties, filed a request for a site plan approval for a 245,850 square foot office building, a four story parking garage containing 1,023 parking stalls, and a plan to house an additional 305 parking spaces in a separate parking garage 350 feet north of the subject site (See File SA-055-87; Park Plaza). 2. 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. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a, determination of non-significance (DNS) for the subject proposal. The determination was subject to a list of conditions which the ERC imposed to mitigate the impacts of the proposal. • 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located between Park Avenue North and Garden Avenue North, between North 5th Street and North 6th Street. 6. The front entrance of the proposed office building will be located on N. 6th, with its footprint running from approximately Park on the west to Garden on the east. The building will be approximately 150 feet deep from 6th to the south. 7. The existing building at 500 Park Avenue dominates the east side of Park in this block and will be adjacent to the subject proposal on the southwest. 8. A cabinet shop, specializing in custom cabinet making, is located on the southeast corner of the block. 9. The 1,023 stall parking garage takes up a good portion of the block, with frontage along Garden on the east, and sandwiched between the principle use, the Garden Plaza Building, on the north and the cabinet shop on the south. The 500 Building is located west of the garage. 10. Zoning in the vicinity is a mix of H-1 (Heavy Industry), L-1 (Light Industry), B-1 and R-4 (High Density Multiple Family) and R-2 (Duplex Residential). An H-1 district is located immediately east of the subject site and continues north and generally encompasses Pacific Car and Foundry properties and Boeing properties in this vicinity. The L-1 district in which much of the subject site is located begins generally at North 6th and runs south to North 4th, and fronts generally upon Garden North. • 11. A corridor of B-1 zoning, the type requested for this site and pending before the Council, runs the length of Park Avenue, starting just north of North 6th Street and continuing south to Bronson Way where it enters the Sunset B-1 district. Both west and east of the B-1 district is an R-4 district generally comprised of older single family homes. A similarly developed district, that is, predominantly single family homes, is the R-2 district located west and east of Park and south of North 4th Street. 12. The subject site is part of thc.; original townsite of the City of Renton. A small segment of the site, at the northwest corner, is currently zoned B-1 (Business/Commercial), a designation it received in 1953 with the adoption of the original Zoning Code. The remainder of the site and most of the remainder of the block are currently zoned L-1 (Light Industrial), again, a classification bestowed on the site with the adoption of the original Zoning Code, enacted in 1953. 13. The cabinet shop is zoned L-1. E & H Properties SA-017-87, SA-055-87 October 9, 1987 Page 3 14. As indicated, a rezone action is pending before the City Council. Currently L-1 zoning, the zoning for most of the site, will not permit the establishment of the proposed office building as a principle use, therefore the rezone request now pending before the City Council is to allow the office use outright. The proposed garage is permitted in the L-1 zone. 15. The proposed office building will be seven (7) stories in height containing approximately 245,850 sq ft. The building will be approximately 110 feet deep by approximately 340 feet long. Cantilevering, faceting and stepbacks will modify these gross general dimensions from front to back, side to side and floor to floor. 16. The proposed parking garage is approximately 240 feet deep by approximately 310 feet long. The garage will be generally three stories high over a basement. One area, due to the spiral nature of the garage, will extend to a partial fourth story. The 1,023 stall count includes some exterior ground level spaces, some located midblock along N. 5th, immediately west of the garage entrance, between the 500 Park Building and the cabinet shop, and some located near the northwest entrance to the garage. Actually serving the site will be a total of 1,373 parking stalls. Of this number, 305 will be provided by a second parking structure which will be reviewed as part of the companion Park Plaza Building. 17. Utilities serving the site consist of 6 inch water lines along both Park and 6th, an 8 inch line along 5th and a 12 inch line along Garden; 10 inch sewer lines are located along the alley off of Garden and along 5th, an 8 inch sewer line along the alley off of Park and a 24 inch sewer line on 6th. Storm water is channeled into a storm sewer adjacent to the site after retention per City Code. 18. Eight Metro Transit lines serve the site along Park. 19. Coulon Park is located approximately one half mile north of the site, with the Cedar River Trail located a similar distance to the west, paralleling the Cedar River. 20. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of heavy industrial and commercial uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the plan. The map would appear to suggest commercial development along the Park frontage with heavy industrial uses located to the east of the frontage for the remainder of the block. 21. The proposal is estimated to generate approximately 3,515.66 vehicle trips per day (staff report; traffic engineering comments). Approximately 670 to 700 of those trips would be generated during the PM peak hour. 22. The companion Park Plaza proposal will generate an estimated 2,250 vehicle trips per day, with approximately 490 to 500 of those trips during the PM peak hour. 23. These estimates work out to approximately 12 vehicle trips per 1,000 gsf. Staff indicated that the 12 vehicle trip figure is generally lower than the historical numbers that Boeing, the applicant's tenant, has usually generated. Boeing has in the past, and with their expansions now projected, could again, maintain an increased occupancy. What this means is that Boeing has generally had an employee-to-floor area ratio considerably higher than normal occupancies. All the projections are based upon ordinary occupancy loads. Any increase, even one or two employees per office unit, could reasonably be expected to drive the traffic counts even higher. 24. The North Renton Transportation Study is available separately for review. Without City Council adoption it will not be incorporated into these,findings, although information from it has been selected for inclusion. Projections indicate that approximately 50% of this proposal's traffic will pass through the North Renton residential areas utilizing Park, Garden, N. 3rd and N. 4th Streets. Approximately 23% will enter the neighborhood south of N. 3rd, again generally utilizing Park and Garden. 25. Estimates are that all roads in the vicinity will see increased usage. Increases of approximately 26% for Park and Garden north of N. 4th; approximately 23% for Park and Garden south of N. 3rd; and approximately 10% for both Park and Garden south of N. 8th. '26. The existing LOS (Level of Service) for various streets are contained within the Study. LOS is a qualitative measure of traffic congestion: with LOS C considered desirable; LOS D considered acceptable; LOS E indicating a backup with a least one change of light necessary for a vehicle to clear the intersection; and LOS F representing serious congestion and intolerable delays & H Properties /A-017-87, SA-055-87 October 9, 1987 Page 4 ("failure with maximum delay conditions" - Garden Plaza traffic report). LOS E has been defined as, representing full capacity or "operating conditions at or near capacity with difficulty in maneuver operations" (ibid). These LOS designation are enumerated as follows: Park at: Garden at: Logan at: Bronson B E N. 3rd B B A N. 4th B B B N. 6th C D C N. 8th C C wb* D eb* N. 10th C N/A Lake Wash F F Sunset E Airport B (* wb:westbound, eb:eastbound) 27. Most of these intersections are projected to decrease by one LOS, that is an LOS of B would deteriorate to an LOS of C. 28. An additional traffic report, Exhibit 13, referring to a map on Page 12, states at Page 13: "Two intersections are at LOS F currently, and each will be further stressed by project traffic: - Park/Garden/Lake Washington Boulevard - N. 3rd Street at Sunset." 29. LOS F also is shown on the map (Exhibit 13) for the intersection of Bronson and Sunset but apparently this was omitted from the text. The Table on Page 16 also overlooks this intersection with its LOS F. Again, LOS F is defined as intersection failure. 30. Page 11 of Exhibit 13 states: "The North Renton arterial system currently operates internally at acceptable levels of service (in terms of the ITE definitions, and the LOS D or better standard desired by the City of Renton). However, it breaks down to "intolerable" operating conditions at the arterial convergence points approaching freeway interchange locations. This is a common situation throughout King County -- and may be unavoidable." 31. The record reflects a potential for a decreased level of service or in the alternative an extended P.M. peak. That is, one could expect a longer or extended evening rush hour. The traffic studies would appear to indicate that with the wide range of traffic enhancement measures adopted by the ERC, that the levels of service can be maintained as they are or somewhat improved. 32. Testimony from neighboring business owners as well as nearby residents disputes the accuracy of the LOS method for this area. Casting some doubt on a methodology which calculates LOS based upon traffic numbers and street and intersection widths (Webster Method utilizing optimum cycles) is the severe backups they report on more than the three "failing" intersections. A truer picture may be better reflected by experience and reality. The record reflects that backups and delays occur over an extended time frame beginning most days at approximately 3:00 to 3:30 P.M. and extending to 6:00 P.M. Intersections are blocked, left turns nearly impossible, and pedestrian passage risky at best. Insurance rates for residents are higher reflecting the additional traffic which passes through the neighborhood. This information is not conveyed in calculations based upon ITE Manuals but could be reflected in accident rates. 33. Traffic accident rates for nearby intersections for the three years 1984 to 1986 are included in the traffic reports. The intersection of N. 3rd/Park had 13, 17 and 12 accidents in the three years; N. 4th/Park had 8, 16 and 13 accidents in that time frame; N. 6th/Park had 3, 5 and 3; and N. 3rd and Garden had 3, 3 and 6 accidents. :. 34. The traffic studies and the applicant indicate that employee consolidations from other buildings in the area will modify the traffic impacts projected as the actual numbers of new employees would be reduced by such consolidations. They also indicate that a "different" worker profile would probably result in a shift of the PM peak; that is a larger white collar work force working different hours or shifts. & H Properties A-017-87, SA-055-87 October 9, 1987 Page 5 35. The applicant is responsible for certain on and off-site right-of-way improvements which are requirements at the building permit stage. In addition, the ERC imposed certain requirements which they determined would be directly attributable to the development of the subject site, and finally, staff determined that the applicant was responsible for $595,719 worth of traffic mitigation fees for a yet to be formed benefit district. Traffic related measures imposed by the ERC follow: b. That the applicant up-grade the Garden Avenue North/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection to a level of service (LOS) of D. c. That the applicant share in the cost of up-grading the traffic signal at North 6th Street and Garden Avenue North. d. That the applicant provide five lanes on Park Avenue North between North 5th Street and North 6th Street with appropriate taper sections. e. That North 5th Street between Garden and Park, be designed (channelized) and improved for three lanes. g. That the applicant agree to reconstruct the existing signal at the intersection of North 6th Avenue (sic) and North Park Avenue. h. That the applicant pay their fair share of the cost of signalizing the east and west legs of the Garden Avenue North and North 8th Street Intersections. i. That the applicant dedicate ten feet of right-of-way on North 6th Street between Garden Avenue North and Park Avenue North to allow for future widening of North 6th to five lanes. (The lower case letters identifying the conditions are taken from the ERC determination, although differing versions have been submitted.) 36. The seven story office building will be clad in mirrored glass. The basic shape will be that of a rectangle with the corners faceted at an angle or saw-toothed, actually looking more like an elongated octagon. Approaching the center of the longer facades the building narrows, presenting almost an 'hour-glass' shape. Each floor of the building will have a slightly different footprint introducing to the outside observer a varying appearance consisting of cantilevered floors, stair stepping tiers (wedding cake) and the facets. In all, a very interesting building affording the viewer a variety of perspectives. 37. The mirrored exterior can exacerbate the glare problems inherent in any all glass structure. Particular problems occur during the winter months when a low sun angle combines with the building's reflectivity to produce glare. Similar problems can occur during the equinoxes. Sometimes the glare is merely objectionable, but occasionally glare is dangerous and can interfere with the vision of pedestrians or the operators of motor vehicles. Obviously terrain and surrounding buildings can intercept or redirect glare. Glare from the proposed building may present problems for morning and afternoon rush hour users along Garden and Park and along N. 6th. The use of special glazing materials can reduce the problem and the ERC required that reflective glass be located interior to a double pane window to reduce the potential problem. 38. The office building will be approximately 90 feet tall, the garage is approximately 40 feet tall. The office building will have 20 foot setbacks along all street frontages. There will be a 40 foot separation between the office building and the garage. The garage.is setback 10 feet along Garden. A 20 foot buffer or separation is planned between the garage and its southerly neighbor, the cabinet shop. 39. The applicant has provided wider than normal sidewalks, providing 8 feet of width to accommodate the pedestrians/employees of the building. A drop off lane has been provided along N. 6th to allow passengers to be let off without hampering the traffic flow. 40. Pedestrian links between the garage and office building have been provided. An on-site sky bridge between the building and garage will provide a direct link for tenants. At grade links also provide for pedestrian passage. A second on-site sky bridge will provide a link to the 500 Park Building (not considered at issue in this hearing or decision) from the garage. The upper level of the garage will have a small landscaped seating area. Additional seating areas will be provided at the northeast corner of the building and immediately west of the parking garage. E & H Properties SA-017-87, SA-055-87 October 9, 1987 Page 6 41. The entire perimeter of the site will be landscaped. Landscape materials will be planted in the 20 foot setbacks along the street frontages of Park, Garden and 6th. Incorporated in the landscape theme will be some of the seating areas and mini-plazas the applicant is providing. To the rear of the building, between the building and garage, the applicant will install 10 feet of landscaping. 42. The landscape theme will be continued around the garage where the setback will shrink to 10 feet along Garden. Landscaping will also be installed between the garage and the cabinet shop, and between the garage and the 500 Building. The roof of the garage will contain separate planter boxes as well as the seating area described above. 43. Access to the garage is from three entrances to the structure, although, actually five driveways will feed the garage. Two driveways will be located along N. 5th, one near the corner of 5th and Park, and one approximately midblock on 5th. Two additional driveways will be located along Garden, one immediately north of the cabinet shop, at the southeast corner of the garage, and the other at the northeast corner of the garage, between the garage and the office building. The fifth driveway will be located between the proposed building and the existing 500 Park building. A set of plans indicates that the northwest entry to the garage passes between a series of opposing at grade parking stalls which could present access conflicts. A somewhat similar situation appears to exist at the southern entrance. 44. The ERC required the applicant to enter into a transportation management plan with Metro, with credit available if the number of trips were reduced. • 45. Air pollution from the additional cars was not considered in any of the documentation. Testimony at both the rezone hearing and this hearing indicated that the area may be a non- attainment area, but there was no clear response at the rezone hearing and nothing was submitted to clarify the matter at this time. What is known is that soot from automobile exhaust stains homes, furnishings and clothing. It is obvious that an additional 2,000 to 4,000 trips per day would increase the air pollution level. CONCLUSIONS 1. This office believes that at this time the only decision which can be made is to deny the project. At the same this office believes that it would only be fair to provide a complete list of positive conclusions regarding the project in order to provide the City Council with sufficient background information so that they can make an informed decision on the separate rezone and an informed decision on this current request if an appeal is filed. To analogize to a separate but current controversy: "When in doubt, vote no." (Senator Howell Heflin, Senate Judiciary Committee.) Too many questions about impacts remain unanswered, and some answers remain unclear. 2. Before going on, some prefatory remarks. Tastes differ on matters such as aesthetics and architectural fashion, especially in areas as highly charged as color and exterior treatment, as well as on whether building styles will "age" well or become dated. This office believes that the applicant has created in the Garden Plaza Building an interesting and arresting complex. In any event, features such as the mirrored finish are not subject to review, except where impacts such as reflectivity and glare could create adverse affects. 3. The project appears reasonably well designed, with a reasonable layout. It obviously can't be faulted for being out of place or incompatible with its immediate surroundings. Similarly clad buildings, also developed by the applicant, are adjacent to it (500 Park) and somewhat catercorner along 6th (800 N. 6th Building), west of the site. 4. With a combination of developer proposed measures and the additional measures that were to be imposed by the City - landscaping, plazas, pedestrian spaces and seating areas - the proposal would provide relief from the otherwise austere complexes in the area and from the ordinary office building style which is generally built lot line to lot line. The site(s) approach an office park (including, but not considering at this time, the Park Plaza Building and the 500 Park and 800 6th Street Buildings). The density and bulk of structures with the obvious absence of a large plaza and other open spaces, and the intrusion of major arterials, prevents the entire c3mpiex from achieving true office park, campus style amenities. 5: With that general introduction aside, what prevents approval are the unanswered questions remaining in the mind of the decision maker. The traffic study appears to provide few concessions to reality, rather isolating its discussions to qualitative levels of service (LOS) such as desirable, acceptable, etc., where these terms do not equate with ordinary usage when applied 0 • • E & H Properties SA-017-87, SA-055-87 October 9, 1987 Page 7 to roads with considerable congestion. There is no discussion of air pollution when parking garages are known contributors to increased pollution. Is the area a non-attainment area regarding air quality, and if so, what is the impact of this proposal? There is scant discussion of the impacts of this development on the North Renton or Kennydale areas. There is no discussion of the impacts of the reconstruction of I-405. Also ignored is the role of the lessee, the Boeing Company - its plans, its potential employee densities, its opinion, acquiescence or enthusiastic acceptance of new roads through its complex it is the prime beneficiary of the proposed buildings. 6. Traffic: There can be no argument, the existing traffic problems and the potential traffic problems loom large in the rejection, but there are other issues. (See below). The various traffic reports, even the newest North Renton Transportation Study, fail to provide much of substance regarding the residential communities potentially affected by any increased traffic load. It and its predecessors all fail to talk realistically about the existing traffic. While the LOS information may be invaluable for dealing with statistics and conveying to Traffic Engineers the status of a roadway, an informative talk of how long intersections are backed up during the peak hours would better enable a discussion of the problems and perceived problems. The neighbors and some of those who work in the area clearly identified that intersections are backed up for a substantially longer period than the 3:30 to 4:30 pm cited in the reports; that more than one or two signal sequences are necessary for vehicles to clear intersections; that driveways are unusable and pedestrians and "left-turners" are at risk. The accident statistics for the vicinity intersections are high. 7. These traffic reports also take for granted the heavy traffic along residential streets such as N. 4th. Designated arterials or not, these streets are residents' front yards. These people apparently have little relief from the traffic between approximately 3:00 pm and 5:30 pm. Air pollution is a current problem. The homes, clothes and interiors are damaged or soiled by soot. Now, maybe these single family homes no longer belong here! Maybe single family living should be abandoned in this area. If so, then it should be a conscious decision, not attained by slow suffocation under traffic and air pollution, not attained by attrition, either. (See below for Cedar River Corridor Strategy discussion and future planning decisions). 8. It is simplistic to suggest, as the traffic studies do, that 70 percent to possibly 90 percent of the traffic in the area is through traffic with neither an origin nor destination in Renton and more or less wave it away with that pronouncement or suggest that it be forced elsewhere. Even if that pass through traffic has no reason being on Renton's streets, it is there. It must be accommodated along with the new traffic which would be generated by the proposal. While a wider I-405 may help some, that's not evident from the record, and what will happen while it is being widened. There are only limited ways of navigating between Tukwila (I-5) and Bellevue (I-90) - Renton streets would appear to be one of the possibly two alternatives, the other I-405. Lake Washington and the hilly terrain to the east restrict other alternatives. 9. This office is left confused or at least unclear regarding the references which were made to employee consolidations, that is, the movements of employees from other buildings in the area to this complex. One reference was to relocation from one of the Renton Place buildings, presumably one of those located along Grady, but no consideration was given to the potential leasing of some of those spaces to other employers with other employees. 10. Along this same line, both the applicant and the traffic reports indicate that there might be a shift in the peak hour or the peak hour numbers because of a different type of employee. Supposedly the employee base would represent more white collar workers on a different work schedule. Query: If true, then how can a consolidation of already existing employees change their status and thereby the modify the impact on the peak hours? Presumably the white collar/blue collar ratios should not change for a simple consolidation? (Page 4, North Renton Transportation Study). If automation, change in employee base or other factor is the reason, it's certainly not in the record. Is one to presume that some factor is at work, without reference to a factual basis? 11. There is a lot of conjecture about the relocation of employees from one location to another, but nothing which guarantees such actions. Also nothing in the record suggests that some of the spaces would not be re-utilized by other employees if a crunch came. Should an employee density limit be imposed? 12. The traffic report is a careful assessment of the theoretical or hypothetical efficiencies of roads of a certain cross-section where cars and trucks accelerate and decelerate in optimum fashion, where driveways and turning cars do not intrude, where morning and evening darkness do not slow traffic, where the occasional pedestrian does not jay walk and where no one is able to observe the daily traffic flows. V a E & H Properties SA-017-87, SA-055-87 October 9, 1987 Page 8 13. Simply there has been no complete discussion of this proposal, its companion proposal to the northwest, the cause of these proposals - Boeing's surging sales and work force, what part Boeing can play, they own land which might be necessary to accommodate the traffic their employees, the applicant's tenants will generate. Might there not be a condition that Boeing take some responsibility and dedicate the necessary alignments that the traffic reports suggest? 14. Well if staff could reasonably require the removal of the third party, Paccar, propane tanks, it seems equally reasonable to require acquisitions or potential acquisitions of right-of-way necessary to accommodate traffic generated by this proposal. The City may utilize its power to condemn right-of-way which is needed in the public benefit, but it is not all that inappropriate, it is not inappropriate at all, to require the applicant to pay for the acquisition. 15. The need was cited for Boeing to have its employees in a centralized location and this was a suitable place for such consolidation. The question is: can this be accommodated without too many adverse impacts? Maybe such a concentration of employees with the potential traffic impacts suggested is unwarranted. Maybe Renton has no business inquiring of Boeing's plans, but with such an impact on the City as Boeing has - traffic, tax base, employee/residents - the City may need to know, even if it is not entitled to know. 16. What about additional levels of traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard. Currently the poor levels of service meter traffic but would more traffic create backups along the boulevard. Recent changes (stop signs, speed limit reduction) were implemented to alleviate some of the traffic problems, what would be the impact of new and greater traffic,on the Kennydale neighborhood? 17. The quite subjective English translations of the various Levels of Service differ substantially from the information residents and employees paint of the area. Streets/intersections with LOS C apparently are quite frequently backed up and multiple stop light changes are necessary for one to proceed through a given intersection. Therefore, one has to question whether some of the measures suggested for easing problems might help, when it may be that the severity of the problems was not accurately estimated. 18. What is apparent is that while Traffic Engineering estimates help with certain determinations and may provide reasonable indications of traffic in general, the methods may not always reflect the actual situation in a given area or neighborhood. This should not be read as an indictment of Traffic projections, in this case there seem to be discrepancies. 19. Neighborhood Impacts: Upscale development, and this proposal is upscale in terms of both apparent quality and size, cannot but have an affect on the nearby residential North Renton neighborhood. It is difficult to determine affects on property values. It would appear reasonable to expect this new development to increase values for adjoining property which is zoned similarly. What is just as probable is that it could decrease values for low density residential uses, since many people seeking residential amenities prefer quiet neighborhoods with minimal traffic. And probably as a low density residential area, this area would seem less than desirable. The mixed character of the zoning does not simplify the question. A change in the zoning of the residential areas might cause values to increase but the record is incomplete. 20. How these impacts would affect the neighborhood is unanswered. How this proposal comports with the observations found in the City's Cedar River Corridor Strategy is not dealt with by any analysis. What was classified in that document as an affordable, low density, close-in neighborhood has to be affected by these uses. But how? Unanswered. Policy Development indicated that approval of the proposed complex would not necessarily have an impact on the long range planning now underway for the entire North Renton area. At the same time Policy Development hinted that while it is de facto a single family neighborhood, it is in fact zoned for more intense residential uses, and that its single family status was probably in jeopardy. 21. It appears almost inevitable that this status would change. Not only would there be the increased traffic, but the commercialization of the area between Boeing/Paccar and the Central Business District will hasten the transition of the North Renton residential area. The Comprehensive Plan and the Cedar River Strategy may just present conflicting visions. The Comprehensive Plan - hasten the change in older transition areas; the Cedar Strategy - conserve an interesting single family neighborhood. 22. But if the North Renton area is going to change, because the neighborhood is sandwiched between downtown Renton and the Boeing complex and Boeing needs to expand and be served shouldn't there be a reasoned, deliberative process. Shouldn't it be positively demonstrated that Boeing and the area can be served as proposed. It is now obvious fact that this is primarily a single family neighborhood (and one zoned R-2 and R-4 a fact which is, or was, overlooked by many residents) whose smaller streets minimally meet R-1 traffic needs and certainly do not meet modern city standards for either commercial development or more intense residential development. E & H Properties SA-017-87, SA-055-87 October 9, 1987 Page 9 23. There has been no suggestion of how this additional traffic will impact air quality merely guesses that if the traffic moves through more freely, itself a doubtful conclusion, that air quality will not deteriorate. Garages such as that proposed here are known sources of additional air pollution, concentrating more than 1,000 vehicles in a rather confined area. 24. The issue is not merely reducible to whether the proposal relates well to its immediate site. Conclusions on those issues will follow as promised. The Ordinance clearly identifies its purposes: "To promote the orderliness of community growth, protect and enhance property values and minimize discordant and undesirable impacts of development both on and off-site." (Section 4-738(A)(2)). "To ensure convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent areas." (Section 4-738(A)(2)). These two purposes are applicable to the North Renton neighborhood and to Kennydale. The applicant's recognition of the interplay is evidenced his reference to the Council's recent changes to the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor to reduce the traffic impacts on the Kennydale low density neighborhood. In Kennydale's case it is generally developed, zoned and designated in the Comprehensive Plan for low density uses. What are the impacts of this proposal on those areas? 25. The applicant suggested that we get on with the process, that since no appeal was filed from the DNS, that the merits of the matters be reached. Renton Code permits appeals of the environmental determination up till the date of the hearing on the merits, if errors below exist. In addition, the decision maker while he may be bound by the DNS still needs sufficient information to issue a reliable decision. Not only is sufficient information necessary, but the information must also be reliable. As indicated above, one needs sufficient information to thoroughly ground a decision. The suggestion to the City Council to remand the rezone matter back to the ERC still stands. While the applicant deemed the environmental process complete, the decision maker has to rely on the SEPA information as supplemented by the information conveyed at the public hearing. The simple admission of the ERC in its DNS that it might not have jurisdiction for the imposition of some of its conditions, is strange at least, even if the applicant accepted the conditions. 26. This matter appears to suggest a Catch-22, kind of like the dog chasing his tail. The City Council wants this decision to consider when it considers the rezone, and this office would like the additional information Council will be provided, as well as the additional factual matters that the Council will conclude. Each wants information the other will provide and each decision could well feed upon the other. The City Council awaits this decision before issuing its decision on the underlying zoning and this office believes that unless the issue of underlying zoning is resolved and the Council agrees with the proposed traffic mitigation measures, it is somewhat difficult to decide whether this proposal is appropriate. 27. One word of caution, as awkward as it may be, this decision is subject to separate appeal - with an appeal period which will not expire till after the discussions on the rezone. That procedure should be clarified to all. 28. These conclusions began with passing reference to the substance of the proposal, a seven story office building and associated garage. If the above issues were resolved in its favor, the project appears well designed, introducing one of the first multilevel parking structures into the City, a rather pleasant change from usurping acres of land for asphalt.surfaces. 29. The Code provides a long, almost endless list of criteria against which to judge a site plan. The following analysis will run generally through those items not covered in the above conclusions. 30. The proposal is generally compatible with the commercial goals of the Comprehensive Plan, although its is not entirely compatible with the map element where industrial uses appear to be favored in this area. The development would be in an area apparently well served by utilities as required by the plan. The use seems almost certain to upgrade the immediate area from vacant or low rise to high tech office space. 31. If the zoning is approved the proposed use would be in conformance with the zoning code. It has greater than required setbacks, landscaping and pedestrian amenities. 32. The use is generally well segregated from adjoining uses, even the cabinet shop. It provides greater setbacks than would be required in an L-1 zone. This office cannot predict the impacts of emissions from the industrial uses in the area upon the general population or other property. 33. The site plan appears to present a well designed building. As indicated above, it offers an incredible variety of surfaces, more landscaping than is generally required, pedestrian amenities and outdoor seating areas. E & H Properties SA-017-87, SA-055-87 October 9, 1987 Page 10 34. The parking garage alone, will save the City from umpteen additional acres of asphalt. 35. The setbacks from the street and from adjoining uses would appear to provide for adequate light and air for both the subject proposal and for adjoining properties. Being located along the north edge of the block should avoid adverse shading of neighboring uses. 36. The air pollution questions related to the garage and general traffic remain, but the office use itself should not appreciably add to noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions. 37. The impact on the immediate area should not cause any deterioration or blight. At least nothing is evident on this subject. 38. While the south driveway from the parking garage might have an adverse impact on the adjacent cabinet shop, it does not appear to be any more severe than the establishment of any other use. His driveway and access have been accommodated in the revised plans. 39. There do not appear to be any appreciable undesirable impacts related to the proposed structures and site layouts that would impair the use or enjoyment or potential use of surrounding uses and structures and of the community. Again, there may be some impacts on the industrial cabinet shop but not any that appear out of the ordinary. 40. The structure is taller than most in the area but not out of scale. The variety of heights may actually add visual interest to the area. The setbacks, cantilevering and angled corners reduce the perceived bulk. The height is compatible with the proposed zone and not incompatible with the existing zoning. 41. The applicant, with some City imposed conditions, has provided pedestrian links between the building, actually buildings, and the surrounding streets. Plazas and landscaped areas link parking and buildings. 42. The building appears well placed on the site, with a generous north exposure. Natural site amenities are few and any development with the landscaping proposed will be an improvement. 43. The parking garage will help limit the amount of:paved or impervious surfaces created by this proposal. 44. The building form and placement and landscaping appear to enhance the site. As indicated in the findings, glare could be a problem which the record indicates was not fully explored. North 6th, Garden.and Park might experience reflected light during the peak hours. Provisions should be made to deal effectively,with any problem, even after construction. 45. The at-grade parking may interfere with ingress and egress from the parking garage. Not much analysis was provided on the circulation of the parking structure. Pedestrian areas are provided near, around and on the parking garage. They seem adequately separated in such circumstances. 46. The number of driveways may be excessive, both from a traffic flow perspective and from the perspective of increased pedestrian movements across these areas. Driveways will be wide to permit easy movements between the roads and driveways. 47. The applicant has consolidated access with his 500 Park building, not only the shared garage but also driveways. This limits somewhat additional unnecessary access drives. 48. The drop off lane will limit that type of interfere with arterial flow and provide a convenient drop of for members of carpools employed elsewhere. 49. To conclude, while there are a number of attractive aspects of this proposal which would cause one to welcome it to Renton, the number of unanswered questions and unresolved traffic and land use issues suggests that it be rejected at this time. DECISION The site plan is denied.. ORDERED THIS 9th day of October, 1987. <0.Pv,e „ • FRED J. KA MAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 9th day of October, 1987 to the parties of record: / a January 9. 1989 Renton City Council Minutes - - Page 4 Upon Council inquiry, Mr. Springer explained that the bulk of the site will not develop without annexation since most areas will-'require sewer service from Renton. Martin Seelig, P.O. Box 1925, Bellevue, advised that payments have been made for sewer,and water LID assessments for his property since the mid- 70's. Since concurrent review by the hearing examiner is required for rezone to a density higher than G or R-1, Mr. Seelig requested that either a 45-day continuance be granted to allow for preparation of the required site plan or the City delete his property from the annexation scope since assignment of a G or R-1 zone would represent a substantial downzone from existing King County zoning of high density multifamily. Mr. Springer confirmed the requirement for hearing examiner review of a rezone and associated site plan for more intensive zoning. Councilman Stredicke referenced information contained in correspondence from June Huson which cited potential impacts from annexation including increases in property taxes, monthly utility bills, emergency response time, and business tax. He pointed out that utility bills are lower in Renton than in King County, and he questioned relevance of business tax to residential property. June Huson, 11030 SE 76th Street, Renton, indicated that information in the letter was quoted by staff, City boundaries in the area of the subject site are already irregular, and she holds a King County business license to operate a container garden business at her home. Keolker-Wheeler indicated concern with unresolved issues but felt that those issues would best be addressed at the public hearing to consider the 75% petition. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL PROCEED WITH THE 75% PETITION BUT NOT SET A DATE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME, REQUIRE SIMULTANEOUS IMPOSITION OF CITY ZONING ON THE PROPERTY, AND REQUIRE PROPERTY OWNERS TO ASSUME THEIR PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF THE CITY'S BONDED INDEBTEDNESS. Councilwoman Keolker-Wheeler agreed with Councilman Stredicke that it is unfair to force single family residential property into annexation because of large property owners and conversely asked staff to assess whether it would be more detrimental to the property owners opposing annexation if they were deleted from the annexation than if they were included. MOTION CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Harold Brandt, 12727 SE 63rd Street, Bellevue, requested advancement to Advancement Requested Planning and Development Committee report under Old Business. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL SUSPEND THE REGULAR ORDER OF BUSINESS AND ADVANCE TO OLD BUSINESS. CARRIED. Planning and Planning and Development Committee Vice-Chair Stredicke presented a Develonment Committee 1 report regarding the Urbaniak rezone appeal. The Planning and Development Anlr,s T Trhanialc j' Committee convened on December 29, 1988, to reconsider the rezone request R orae�R-00148 of Roger Urbaniak. The subject property is located south of NE 43rd Place I; (SE 80th Street) and west of Lincoln Avenue NE. The applicant seeks a rezone of 3.5 acres of property from R-1 to B-1 to allow future commercial development. On June 6, 1988, the hearing examiner recommended the City Council deny this rezone request as untimely. The Committee tabled consideration of this appeal to give the applicant an opportunity to come forward with a more specific proposal. The applicant did not come forward with a more specific proposal on December 29, 1988. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the City Council concur in and adopt the recommendation of the hearing examiner and deny this rezone request. Furthermore, because there may have been confusion regarding the Committee's requirements, it is recommended that the Council waive that portion of the City Code, 4-725(D), which prohibits reapplication for rezone within twelve months. (See later motion.) Referring to an area map, Mr. Brandt designated the location of the subject site, described surrounding uses, and provided background information. He disagreed that the rezone is premature and speculative since he has had frequent inquiries about sale of the property. Upon Council inquiry regarding a local improvement district which failed in the area last year, Mr. Brandt indicated his opinion that the LID, which would have funded extension of utilities to participating properties as well as major traffic and roadway improvements, would have benefitted commercial pproperties more • January 9. 1989 Renton City Council Minutes Page 5 than his own. He also claimed that the site is served by sewers provided through an LID which has now been paid. Council discussion was held regarding timeliness of the rezone and surrounding uses. Vice-Chairman Stredicke clarified that all of the B-1 zoned property located south of NE 44th Street is undeveloped and business property to the north is not in proximity to the subject site. Mr. Brandt pointed out that property to the west has been developed as a light industrial use and development of the subject site cannot be developed without a rezone. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY TRIMM, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. ROLL CALL: 3 AYES: STREDICKE, TRIMM, KEOLKER-WHEELER. 2 NAYS: REED, NELSON. CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Claim: Thomas, CL-59-88 Claim for damages in the amount of $233.23 filed by Robert Thomas, 446 Windsor Way NE, Renton, for damage to vehicle allegedly incurred when car hit uncovered manhole on NE 12th Street east of Duvall Avenue NE (12/19/88). Refer to City Attorney and insurance service. Claim: Washington Claim for damages in the amount of $214.18 filed by Washington Natural Natural Gas, CL-58-88 Gas, P.O. Box 1869, Seattle, for broken gas line allegedly caused by City negligence (10/03/88). Refer to City Attorney and insurance service. Claim: Moore, CL-60-88 Claim for damages in the amount of $43.19 filed by Wade Moore, 18052 42nd Avenue S., Seattle, for damage to vehicle allegedly caused by hitting pothole in roadway at Lake Washington Boulevard and NE 44th Street (11/4/88). Refer to City Attorney and insurance service. Claim: .Wilson, CL-61-88 Claim for damages in the amount of $2,156.00 filed by Malcolm Bell, P.O. Box 66416, Seattle, attorney for Robert Wilson, alleging loss of cellular telephone while jailed due to City negligence (3/9/88). Refer to City Attorney and insurance service. Claim: DuBois, CL-62-88 Claim for damages in the amount of $22,066.79 filed by Peggi DuBois, 2907 Mt. View Avenue N., Renton, for flood damage to basement allegedly caused by failure of City to block side sewer while flushing main sewer line (3/8/88). Refer to City Attorney and insurance service. Appeal: METRO Site Appeal of hearing examiner's decision filed by METRO for site approval and Approval and Conditional special permit to develop a silviculture demonstration project at the METRO Use Permit, SA-085-88, Treatment Plant at Oakesdale Avenue and SW 7th Street, File No. SA-085-88, SP-085-88 SP-085-88. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Appointment: Municipal Mayor Clymer reappointed the following individuals as Municipal Court Court Judges Pro Tem Judges Pro Tem for one-year terms to expire on 12/31/89: Robert Anderson, 111 Williams Avenue S.; Peter Banks, 321 Burnett Avenue S.; James Cayce, P.O. Box 798; Kameron Cayce, 410 Burnett Avenue S.; Frank Davidson, P.O. Box 59; Charles Delaurenti, 3407 NE 2nd Street; Gary Faull, 321 Burnett Avenue S.; Deborah Fleck, 311 Morris Avenue S.; Richard Jackson, 111 Williams Avenue S.; Bob McBeth, 3407 NE 2nd Street; and Dave Tracy, 321 Burnett Avenue S., Suite 102 (all Renton addresses). Refer to Ways and Means Committee. Appointment: Civil Mayor Clymer reappointed Vere Thompson, 1307 S. 9th Street, Renton, to a Service Commission six-year term on the Civil Service Commission to expire on 12/31/94. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. Zoning: Annual Adoption Planning Division requested public hearing be set on 1/23/89 for Council to of Map consider adoption of the annual zoning map. Council concur. Police: Revolver Police Department requested replacement of 70 Smith & Wesson revolvers Replacement with 70 semi-automatic pistols and holsters to be offered at cost and with trade-in allowance by manufacturer due to defective barrels. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. CAG: 87-007, Kennydale Public Works/Utility Engineering Division submitted CAG-007-87, Sewer Project Kennydale Sewer Line Improvements; and requested approval of the project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of $52,012.32, commencement of 30-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $7,643.52 to contractor, Grant Construction Co., if all required releases have been received. Council concur. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT JANUARY 9, 1989 APPEAL OF ROGER URBANIAK REZONE (R-007-88) (Referred 6/27/88) The committee convened on December 29, 1988, to reconsider the rezone request of Roger Urbaniak. The subject property is located south of NE 43rd Place (SE 80th Street) and west of Lincoln Avenue NE. Applicant seeks a rezone of 3 .5 acres of property from R-1 to B-1 to allow future commercial development. On June 6, 1988, the Hearing Examiner recommended the City Council deny this rezone request as untimely. The committee tabled consideration of this appeal to give the applicant an opportunity to come forward with a more specific proposal . The applicant did not come forward with a more specific proposal on December 29, 1988. Therefore, the committee recommends that the City Council concur in and adopt the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner and deny this rezone request. Furthermore, because there may have been confusion regarding the committee's requirements, the committee recommends the Council waive that portion of the City Code, 4-725 (D) , which prohibits reapplication for rezone within twelve months. Nancy Mathews, Chair • ---- a./.7.17a 4:::5,xepfaa .,-- Richard Stredicke ohn Reed • Vo.. CITY OF RENTON i•LL FINANCE DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Maxine E. Motor, City Clerk January 11, 1989 Mr. Roger J. Blaylock The Blaylock Company 10717 NE 4th Street, Suite 9 Bellevue, WA 98004 Subject: Urbaniak/Brandt/Hess Rezone R-007-88 SW Corner of 43rd Place & Lincoln Avenue NE Dear Mr. Blaylock: The Renton City Council at its regular meeting of January 9, 1989, adopted the attached Planning and Development Committee report which concurred in the Hearing Examiner's decision and denied the subject rezone. Please note the Council waived City Code section 4-725(D), which prohibits reapplication for rezone within twelve months. Please contact this office if you have further questions. Yours truly, CITY OF RENTON Maxine E. Motor, CMC City Clerk cc: Planning Division Hearing Examiner Roger and Susan Urbaniak Harold and Lois Brandt Imogene Hess 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2501 $i 0 CITY nit' RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM DATE: November 21, 1988 TO: Nancy Mathews Planning and Development, Chairman (11..i2 FROM: Donald Erickson, Zoning Administrator, SUBJECT: Urbaniak Rezone - Conceptual Site Plan S.W. Corner of 43rd Place & Lincoln Avenue NE Reference: File No. R-007-88 On October 13, 1988, the Planning Division received a conceptual site plan entitled "Garden of Eden Plaza" to be located at the above referenced property. The site plan was submitted per the request of your committee to present a "specific site plan" to show how the property will be developed with B-1 zoning as requested by Roger Urbaniak. The applicant was granted a three (3) month delay in order to allow them to present a conceptual site plan of the proposed development. The plan has been reviewed by staff and myself and it has been determined that the proposed site plan is very conceptual, and in our opinion, does not provide the specificity the Committee sought. There is insufficient detail which leads us believe that this is not an earnest attempt in developing the property with the specific site plan submitted. Although one and two story buildings are indicated, there is no reference to probable tenants, tenants mix, etc. which would be important particularly in light of Exit 7's inability to proceed with a similar proposal. The plan has provided no information on the existing site conditions such as topography, hydrology, • and vegetation and how they will interact with the development. Appearance wise, we have no idea what the buildings will look like, as no floor plans were submitted, nor were elevation drawings that would show the height of the buildings, the style of architecture, or information of how the three illustrated buildings will interact as a shopping/office plaza in a "campus like setting" per Section 4-738 of our Building Regulations. Additionally, a landscaping plan needed in order to illustrate both site screening and beautification was not provided. Other details typically expected of a site plan submittal include information relating to.building materials and colors, and added support features such as seating, tables, bicycle racks, lighting, fire hydrants, dumpsters, etc. We have been in contact with Mr. Urbaniak with the expectation of receiving more information that would make this a viable plan. We have not, however, received any more detail from him for this project that would convince us that this scheme reflects a realistic approach to developing the property. In summary, we continue to believe that, based upon the conceptual site plan submitted for our review, the rezone request is untimely as outlined in the Hearing Examiner's decision of June 6, 1988. Please feel free to contact me if you have further questions regarding this matter. dke:jfl:mathews dsk2/jlm 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2550 %o ® CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM DATE: October 28, 1988 TO: Don Erickson FROM: Jerry Lind ZAe SUBJECT: Proposed development for Urbaniak Property S.W. corner of 43rd P1. & Lincoln Ave. N.E. Reference: File No. R-007-88 Per your request, I have done a preliminary review of the proposed development to be located at the above referenced location assuming that B-1 zoning would apply to the property. My comments of the proposal are as follows: 1. The three buildings, a bank, office building, and a shopping building are permitted uses within the B-1 zone. The buildings meet the minimum ten foot building setbacks required from the street property lines as well as the minimum ten foot landscape setbacks required along those streets and meet lot coverage requirements. 2 . Building No. "A" is proposed to be a bank building and, while generally banks have drive up windows, this proposal does not illustrate such a feature. 3 . No elevation drawings were submitted with the proposal which are required to provide information on the height of the buildings, the types of materials and colors proposed, architectural design and window and doorway locations. 4. The parking count does meet code but can be reduced as it is based upon gross square footage rather than net usable area. Handicap parking and site access for the handicapped is also required and is not shown. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2550 File No. R-007-88 October 28, 1988 Page 2 5. Walkways are illustrated on the site plan but pedestrian circulation is not well defined with linkage between the three buildings. 6. Although landscaped areas are shown on the site plan conceptually, detailed plans are required to provide detail of the plant species, spacing and sizes proposed. 7. A grading plan was not provided to show existing and proposed contours or if berming is proposed within the landscaped areas. 8. Other site improvements such as fire hydrants, lighting structures, benches and tables, bicycle racks, etc. that are generally required or provided are not shown. c LAtus,,o n 1-6 411 CITY OF RENTON - o.LL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM DATE: October 28, 1988 TO: Don Erickson FROM: Jerry Lind :Aj SUBJECT: Proposed development for Urbaniak Property S.W. corner of 43rd P1. & Lincoln Ave. N.E. Reference: File No. R-007-88 Per your request, I have done a preliminary review of the proposed development to be located at the above referenced location assuming that B-1 zoning would apply to the property. My comments of the proposal are as follows: 1. The three buildings, a bank, office building, and a shopping building are permitted uses within the B-1 zone. The buildings meet the minimum ten foot building setbacks required from the street property lines as well as the minimum ten foot landscape setbacks required along those streets and meet lot coverage requirements. 2. Building No. "A" is proposed to be a bank building and, while generally banks have drive up windows, this proposal does not illustrate such a feature. 3 . No elevation drawings were submitted with the proposal which are required to provide information on the height of the buildings, the types of materials and colors proposed, architectural design and window and doorway locations. 4. The parking count does meet code but can be reduced as it is based upon gross square footage rather than net usable area. Handicap parking and site access for the handicapped is also required and is not shown. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2550 File No. R-007-88 October 28, 1988 Page 2 5. Walkways are illustrated on the site plan but pedestrian circulation is not well defined with linkage between the three buildings. 6. Although landscaped areas are shown on the site plan conceptually, detailed plans are required to provide detail of the plant species, spacing and sizes proposed. 7 . A grading plan was not provided to show existing and proposed contours or if berming is proposed within the landscaped areas. 8. Other site improvements such as fire hydrants, lighting structures, benches and tables, bicycle racks, etc. that are generally required or provided are not shown. July 25, 1988 Renton City Council Minutes Page 219 official file. The Committee recommended that this matter be referred to the Ways and Means Committee for preparation of necessary legislation. Chairman Mathews indicated that this report relates to the PUD covenant and abandons the existing PUD. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Legal: Administrative Planning and Development Committee Chairman Mathews presented a report Appeals Ordinance regarding the administrative appeals ordinance. The Committee met on July 14, 1988, to consider this topic. It was noted that the primary purpose accomplished by the pending amendment to the Administrative Appeals ordinance is the codification of prior advice given.by the City Attorney's office, which had now become unwritten policy with the administrative departments in the City. It was therefore recommended that the amendments to the administrative appeals ordinance be approved, and the draft ordinance forwarded to the Ways and Means Committee for presentation to the full Council. It was also recommended that the administrative departments develop a procedure whereby members of the public can become parties of record on a file, and be notified when certain actions have been taken. For example, if a citizen wished to know the date of the issuance of a permit, that person could ask to be notified when the permit was issued. The department would make note of that request and send notification once the permit had been issued. It was not the intent of the committee to recommend extension of the appeal time should the department for some reason fail to give this notice. The notice is a courtesy notice only, to be given to allow the public greater access to city matters. It was therefore recommended that this topic be referred to the Administration for preparation of the necessary administrative procedure. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Appeal: liqger Urbaniak , Planning and Development Committee Chairman Mathews presented a report Rezone, R-007-88 regarding the Roger Urbaniak rezone from R-1 to B-1 for 3.5 acres located south of NE 43rd Place (SE 80th Street) and west of Lincoln Avenue NE. The appellant noted that surrounding properties are zoned B-1, business, and he wished to have the same zoning category. The Hearing Examiner recommended denial since he believed the rezone is untimely. There is no specific project proposed to go on this property, and the Committee believed that the rezone would be untimely unless it was presented with a specific site plan showing how this property would be utilized either by itself, or in connection with adjoining properties. The Committee has, therefore, tabled this matter for three months to allow the appellant the opportunity to present a conceptual site plan to the committee showing how this property would be developed. During this period of time the City Council can also consider whether or not it wishes to have all of the zoning in the general area of this property reviewed. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Sign Code: Billboards Planning and Development Committee Chairman Mathews presented a report regarding off-premise sign provisions (billboards), referred 8/11/86. The Committee discussed the outcome of the work session held by staff to discuss the proposed changes to the Sign Code. No one attended to discuss the prohibition of billboards. Members of City staff suggested a change in height allowed for signs,for government agencies: These proposals have now been included in the staffs recommendation. The Committee recommended adoption of the proposed changes as recommended by the Building Division staff, and referral to the Ways and Means Committee for the ordinance. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. Mr. Stredicke requested that in the future, Council members be provided with the old ordinance with additions or deletions denoted to make it easier to see where changes have been made. Councilwoman Mathews clarified that the new ordinance prohibits any new off-premise signs (billboards) and restricts existing billboards to non-conforming uses. MOTION CARRIED. Transportation Transportation Committee Chairman Nelson presented a report recommending Committee concurrence in the recommendation of the Public Works Department to CAG: 88-041, 1988 Street accept the low bid of Lakeside Industries, Inc. in the amount of $135,285.60 Overlay (engineer's estimate: $142,863.30) for the 1988 Street Overlay project. The Committee also recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the contract documents. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT TO: Renton City Council DATE: July 25 , 1988 FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RE : Roger Urbaniak Rezone - File No.R-007-88 The appellant notes that surrounding properties are zoned B- 1, and he wishes to have the same zoning category. The Hearing Examiner recommended denial since he believed the rezone is untimely. There is no specific project proposed to go on this property, and the committee believed that the rezone would be untimely unless it was presented with a specific site plan showing how this property would be utilized either by itself, or in connection with adjoining properties . The committee has, therefore, tabled this matter for three months to allow the appellant the opportunity to present a conceptual site plan to the committee showing how this property would be developed. During this period of time the City Council can also consider whether or not it wishes to have all of the zoning in the general area of this property reviewed. Nancy Mat ws, Chairperson Richard Stredicke v12� / . ' n Reed LJW:as . A8 . 26 : 06 . ' � • � � a, • July 25, 1988 Renton City Council Minutes Page 219 official file. The Committee recommended that this matter be referred to the Ways and Means Committee for preparation of necessary legislation. Chairman Mathews indicated that this report relates to the PUD covenant and abandons the existing PUD. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Legal: Administrative Planning and Development Committee Chairman Mathews presented a report Appeals Ordinance regarding the administrative appeals ordinance. The Committee met on July 14, 1988, to consider this topic. It was noted that the primary purpose accomplished by the pending amendment to the Administrative Appeals ordinance is the codification of prior advice given by the City Attorney's office, which had now become unwritten policy with the administrative departments in the City. It was therefore recommended that the amendments to the administrative appeals ordinance be approved, and the draft ordinance forwarded to the Ways and Means Committee for presentation to the full Council. It was also recommended that the administrative departments develop a procedure whereby members of the public can become parties of record on a file, and be notified when certain actions have been taken. For example, if a citizen wished to know the date of the issuance of a permit, that person could ask to be notified when the permit was issued. The department would make note of that request and send notification once the permit had been issued. It was not the intent of the committee to recommend extension of the appeal time should the department for some reason fail to give this notice. The notice is a courtesy notice only, to be given to allow the public greater access to city matters. It was therefore recommended that this topic be referred to the Administration for preparation of the necessary administrative procedure. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL CONCUR 1N THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Appeal: Roger Urbaniak Planning and Development Committee Chairman Mathews presented a report Rezone, R-007-88 regarding the Roger Urbaniak rezone from R-1 to B-1 for 3.5 acres located south of NE 43rd Place (SE 80th Street) and west of Lincoln Avenue NE. The appellant noted that surrounding properties are zoned B-1, business, and he wished to have the same zoning category. The Hearing Examiner recommended denial since he believed the rezone is untimely. There is no specific project proposed to go on this property, and the Committee believed that the rezone would be untimely unless it was presented with a specific site plan showing how this property would be utilized either by itself, or in connection with adjoining properties. The Committee has, therefore, tabled this matter for three months to allow the appellant the opportunity to present a conceptual site plan to the committee showing how this property would be developed. During this period of time the City Council can also consider whether or not it wishes to have all of the zoning in the general area of this property reviewed. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Sign Code: Billboards Planning and Development Committee Chairman Mathews presented a report regarding off-premise sign provisions (billboards), referred 8/11/86. The Committee discussed the outcome of the work session held by staff to discuss the proposed changes to the Sign Code. No one attended to discuss the prohibition of billboards. Members of City staff suggested a change in height allowed for signs for government agencies. These proposals have now been included in the staffs recommendation. • The Committee recommended adoption of the proposed changes as recommended by the Building Division staff, and referral to the Ways and Means Committee for the ordinance. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. Mr. Stredicke requested that in the future, Council members be provided with the old ordinance with additions or deletions denoted to make it easier to see where changes have been made. Councilwoman Mathews clarified that the new ordinance prohibits any new off-premise signs (billboards) and restricts existing billboards to non-conforming uses. MOTION CARRIED. Transportation Transportation Committee Chairman Nelson presented a report recom Committee concurrence in the recommendation of the Public Works Departmentoending l CAG: 88-041, 1988 Street accept the low bid of Lakeside Industries, Inc. in the amount of $135,285.60 Overlay (engineer's estimate: $142,863.30) for the 1988 Street Overlay project. The Committee also recommended that the Mavor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the contract documents. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. * lie, CITY OF RENTON FINANCE DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Maxine E. Motor, City Clerk July 28, 1988 • Mr. Roger Blaylock 10717 NE 4th Street, Suite 9 Bellevue, WA 98004 Subject: Roger Urbaniak Rezone 007-88, Appeal Dear Roger: The Renton City Council at its regular meeting of July 25, 1988, adopted the attached Planning and Development Committee Report. Please note a three-month delay has been established to allow the appellant to present a conceputal site plan of the proposed development. Also note the Council may consider review of the zoning in the general area. If you have further questions please do not hesitate to contact this office. Yours truly, CITY OF RENTON Maxine E. Motor, CMC City Clerk Enclosures cc: Planning Division Hearing Examiner 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2501 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT TO: Renton City Council DATE: July 25 , 1988 FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RE: Roger Urbaniak Rezone - File No.R-007-88 The appellant notes that surrounding properties are zoned B- 1, and he wishes to have the same zoning category. The Hearing Examiner recommended denial since he believed the rezone is untimely. There is no specific project proposed to go on this property, and the committee believed that the rezone would be untimely unless it was presented with a specific site plan showing how this property would be utilized either by itself, or in connection with adjoining properties . The committee has, therefore, tabled this matter for three months to allow the appellant the opportunity • to present a conceptual site plan to the committee showing how this property would be developed. During this period of time the City Council can also consider whether or not it wishes to have all of the zoning in the general area of this property reviewed. Nancy Mat ws, Chairperson ' r�7 Richard Stredicke y n Reed LJW:as . A8 .26 : 06 . June 27, 1988 Renton City Council Minutes Page 196 Police: Computer Police Department requested approval of computer software license contract Software License Contract as previously approved by Data Processing Committee. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. CAG: 87-029, N. 1st Public Works/Engineering Department submitted CAG-027-87, N. 1st Street Street Improvements improvements; and requested approval of the project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of $10,291.21, commencement of 30-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $22,344.42 to contractor, West Coast Construction Co., if all required releases have been received. Council concur. - CAG: 87-012, Oakesdale Public Works/Engineering Department submitted CAG-012-87, Oakesdale Avenue.SW, LID 332, SW Avenue SW/LID 332; and requested approval of the project, authorization for Grady Way to Monster final pay estimate in the amount of $1,033.02, commencement of 30-day lien Road SW period, and release of retained amount of $158,860.45 to contractor, Gary Merlino Construction Co., if all required releases have been received. Council concur. Public Works: Panther Public Works/Utility Department requested authorization to accept grant Creek/P-9 Channel funds in the amount of $90,000 from Soil Conservation Service for the Design Funding Panther Creek and P-9 Channel design project. Refer to Utilities Committee. LID: 332, Oakesdale Public Works/Engineering Department requested public hearing be scheduled Avenue SW on 7/25/88 to consider final assessment roll in the amount of $4,350,920.32 for Local Improvement District No. 332, Oakesdale Avenue SW Street Improvements. Council concur. CORRECTION: Date of public hearing changed from 7/18/88 to 7/25/88. Appeal: Urbaniak Appeal filed of Hearing Examiner's recommendation to deny Roger Urbaniak Rezone, R-007-8 request for rezone of 3.5 acres located south of NE 43rd Place (SE 80th Street) and west of Lincoln Avenue NE from R-1 to B-1, R-007-88. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY HUGHES, COUNCIL ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. CARRIED. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means Ways and Means Committee Chairman Stredicke presented a report Committee. recommending the following ordinance for second and final reading: Ordinance #4162 An ordinance was read approving the Final Planned Unit Development PUD: Final, Polygon known as Sunpointe III located at SW 5th Street, west of Stevens Avenue SW, Corporation Phase III for Polygon Corporation (CHG International); File No. FPUD-111-87. (Sunpointe, CHG MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL ADOPT International), FPUD- THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. 111-87 Ordinance #4163 An ordinance was read providing for 1988 year-end budget adjustments in Budget: 1988 Adjustments the total amount of $1,641,198.00. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Stredicke presented the following ordinance for first reading and advancement to second and final reading: Parks: 1988 H&CD Block An ordinance was read providing for appropriation of 1988 Federal Housing Grant Program and Community Development Block Grant Funds in the total amount of $221,287.00. Chairman Stredicke advised that $52,564 of that total is designated for two group homes in Renton. To allow time for interested citizens to comment on the ordinance, it was Moved by Stredicke, Seconded by Reed, Council refer this ordinance back to Committee for two weeks.* Discussion indicated that adoption of the ordinance is desired this date to obtain funding available on July 1; and adoption does not signify approval of rezones underway for location of group homes. *Motion failed. MOVED BY HUGHES, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL SUSPEND THE RULES AND ADVANCE THIS ORDINANCE TO SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. MOVED BY REED, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL SUSPEND THE RULES AND ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME ON THE ORDINANCE. ROLL CALL: 3 AYES: MATHEWS, REED, STREDICKE. 3 NAYS: KEOLKER- WHEELER, HUGHES, NELSON. MAYOR CLYMER VOTED AYE TO BREAK THE TIE. MOTION CARRIED. Ralph Evans, 3306 NE 11 th Place, Renton, questioned purpose of the ordinance. Mayor Clymer advised that the ordinance authorizes transfer of CDC LJ S T O ICI 4308 JONES AVE.N.E. P.O.BOX 768 RENTON,WA 98057 PRESS206/271-470707 July 14, 1988 Mr. Hal Brandt 12777 S.E. 63rd Street Bellevue, Washington 98006 • Dear Mr. Brandt: This letter is to express my feelings about your property which is located just east of our operation at 4308 Jones Avenue N.E. in Renton. Your property is described as lot 1 and 4, division 7 of block 1 in the C.D. Hillman Lake Washington Garden of Eden section of Renton, Washington. It borders our property. Your property should definitely be zoned for business. The recent activity with McDonalds, Dennys, Exit 7, Travelers, The Deli, etc. near your property indicates to me that the entire local area should be zoned for something other than residential use. Residential zoning for your property is no longer practical. The existing businesses in that area, the City of Renton, and the property owners around that location will all benefit if your property is re-zoned. Regar , /70- lement H. Heath CITY (r P' PoTON, gUL` t.0 ,1985 cc Renton City Council ; --� rt `�; `�LEF'!';9l;FICE4� , i I . HEATH PRE I NTE FZS 1617 Boylston Avenue Seattle,Washington 98122 Renton City Council 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98005 1:. `Y OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI #: SUBMITTING DATA: FOR AGENDA OF: 6/27/88 Dept/Div/Board.. City Clerk Staff Contact.. M. Motor AGENDA STATUS: Consent XX SUBJECT: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Recommendationon Public Hearing Roger Urbaniak Rezone, R-007-88 Correspondence Ordinance Resolution Old Business EXHIBITS: City Clerk's letter New Business Letter of Appeal Study Session Hearing Examiner's Report, 6/6/88 Other RECOMMENDED ACTION: I APPROVALS: Refer to Planning and Development Committee I Legal Dept Finance Dept Other FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.. Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated... SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal filed by Roger Blaylock, representing Roger Urbaniak, accompanied by required fee received on June 20, 1988. • 4i 0 CITY OF RENTON "LL •FINANCE DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Maxine E. Motor, City Clerk June 23, 1988 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss COUNTY OF KING MARILYN J. PETERSEN, Deputy City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 23rd day of June, 1988, at the hour of 5:00 p.m., your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal of Hearing Examiner's recommendation filed by Roger Blaylock, representing Roger Urbaniak, File No. R-007-88. • • i224Yy1J Marilyn J. t s n, Deputy City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 23rd day of June, 1988. Notary Public in-and for the State of Washington, residing in 200,Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2501 y of d". CITY OF RENTON "LL FINANCE DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Maxine E. Motor, City Clerk June 22, 1988 APPEAL FILED BY ROGER BLAYLOCK, REPRESENTING ROGER URBANIAK RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's recommendation, dated June 6, 1988, Roger Urbaniak Rezone Request, R-007-88 To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 30, City Code, written appeal of Hearing Examiner's recommendation has been filed with the City Clerk, along with the proper fee of $75.00. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee and will be considered by the City Council when the matter is reported out of Committee. The Council Secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council Secretary at 235-2586 any weekday after 1:00 p.m. for information. Sincerely, CITY OF RENTON c� Maxine E. Motor, CMC City Clerk 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2501 CITY OF RENTON N° 27244 FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 '."70 19 'X RECEIVED OF da •%0 tomi/f ham/; L mi �� /2- 0a7-ve TOTAL 7 00 Received by • • • • • • • • • •it • • • WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICATION NAME: FILE NO. Rz.007-88 • ROGER URBANIAK The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the Decision or Recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated ,Trip P 6 1938 . 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY) : Name: ROGER URBANIAK Name:. ROGER BLAYLOCK Address: 4112 - 78th S.E. Address: 10717 N.E. 4th ST. , SUITE 9 Fiercer Island, Washington 98400 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Telephone No. 454-1941 Telephone No. 455-1550 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDINGS OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted' in the Examiner's Report) No. Error: (SEE ATTACHED) Correction: CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: Correction: OTHER: CITY OF FIFMToN. • r No. • Error: - O• MN ;y DFay CLERK'S OFFICE. )f nwm_ Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) X Reverse the Decision or Recommendation and grant the following relief: GRANT THE REZONE REQUEST AND REZONE PROPERTY TO B-1 Modify the Decision or Recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: C G , 20 (9 88 Appel nt a rese ative Si ure Date ' NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 30 of the Renton Municipal Code, and Sections 4-3016 and 4-3017, specifically (see reverse side of page) for specific appeal procedures. THE BLAH LO„.. COMPANY B specialists in land-use procedures CITY C F R iNTON. ZIl!_Y 2 0 3 CrrY CLERK'S OFFICE. II June 20, 1988 Eg Ea bTE__, City Council City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 RE: APPEAL / ROGER URBANIAK REZONE FILE NUMBER: R-007-88 Dear Councilmembers: On May 24, 1988 , a public hearing was conducted concerning the requested rezone of 3. 5 acres from G-1, General Use to B-1, Business Use. The Hearing Examiner made numerous errors in reviewing the testimony and the written application. Subsequent acceptance of non-documented testimony from staff and cursory review of the written record not only resulted in acceptance of unsubstantiated facts, but resulted in an arbitrary and capricious recommendation to the City Council. The following are specific errors in the Findings and Conclusions: FINDING # 7 1. The Comprehensive Plan Map does not identify the subject site as Multiple Family. The subject property is designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map as Commercial. Both the Policy Development Department and the Building and Zoning Department identified the site as Commercial under their review of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Hearing Examiner references the "transitional areas" that are not identified on the Comprehensive Plan Map. 3 . On page 56 of the Comprehensive Plan, the policies specifically address the commercial node in "the vicinity of N.E. 44th and Interstate 405" as a location which "strongly endorses employment oportunities. . . .to help balance home to work traffic trips. ." 10717 NE Fourth Street,Suite 9 ® Bellevue,Washington 98004 • (206)455-1550 Urbaniak Appeal June 20, 1988 Page it This policy identifies the need for a commercial node, while the Comprehensive- Plan Map and Environmental Impact Statement specifically delineates the subject site encompassed by the Commercial land use designation. It was designed to extend southward and absorb the existing industrial uses to the west and southwest in order to create a strong commercial focus around a major freeway interchange. In addition, all previous Comprehensive Plans designated the subject site for commercial use. 4. The report does not cite a single policy from the Comprehensive Plan that is contradictory to either the creation of a commercial node at the N.E. 44th Street interchange or the rezoning the subject property. FINDING #8 1. The second and last sentences of the findings states: "East of3the site are properties located in King County which are zoned for single family residential uses, which is apparently compatible with the King County Comprehensive Plan. These King County zoning classifications are compatible with the existing zoning of the subject site. " The report appears to imply in the statement "apparently compatible" that single family residential was the intended use of the property under King County's Comprehensive Plan. The finding of fact is incomplete and misleading. Both the scope and intent of the URBAN LAND USE CLASSIFICATION applied by the NEWCASTLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN is very different than implied. Specifically, it would allow not only single family residential uses, but multiple family uses that would allow up to 48.4 dwelling units per acre (which is 61.3 % greater than Renton' s most intensive residential density, R-4) . FINDING #10 1. The last statement of the finding states: "Commercial zoning located west of the interchange has not been seriously exploited according to staff testimony. " V Urbaniak Appeal June 20, 1988 Pages A simple review of the City of Renton's zoning map reveals that THERE IS NO COMMERCIAL ZONING WEST OF THE INTERCHANGE. FINDING #11 , 1. The finding only represents half of the facts. It states: "East of the site are single family dwellings. . " This is ;true, but it does not state there is only one single family within 330 feet east of the subject site. The second part of the statement is "while northeast of the subject site is an apartment complex located off of the 44th interchange. " The statement is non-qualified in that even though the apartment project is northeast, it is immediately kitty- corner from the site. The distance of this apartment complexfrom the subject site is critical in reaching a conclusion as to future zoning of the subject site. In fact, the apartment complex, zoned RM-900, was developed at a density of approximately 23 units per acre, yet the report does not consider the dominance of this existing complex upon the adjacent properties and states in Finding #8 that, "These King County zoning classifications are compatible with the existing zoning of the subject site. " Does the report truly suggest that the existing R-1 zoning of the subject site is not only compatible, but should be retained kitty-corner from a high density multiple family complex? Urbaniak Appeal June 20, 1988 Page 4 FINDINGS #13 AND #14 1. Findings #13 and #14 address evaluations by City staff of economic market factors regarding demand for commercially zoned property in question. The report takes a subjective statement and turns hearsay information it into facts, which is a basic error since any fact must be substantiated by evidence. Opposing evidence, substantiated by earnest money agreements , was presented by Mr Urbaniak (top of page 3) , yet it was not included as a fact. Curiously all of the statements are correct, but the report needed to examine the facts as independent market indicators in the planning process. The Building and Zoning Department had indicated that "There currently is quite a bit of available, undeveloped B-1 zoned property in the immediate area and additional B-1 zoned property may not be in the best interest of this neighborhood" , while the Policy Development Department stated: "There is an adequate supply of property zoned B-1 in the area at the present time so this rezone would not appear to be in the public interest at this time. " On the other hand, Mr. Urbaniak stated that specific interest in the site had been expressed by Price Savers, Target Stores, and Safeway. In fact, Mr. Urbaniak stated that there was even an earnest money agreement on the property with Price Savers, subject to rezoning the property. Why the discrepancy between the testimony? I submit there is NONE. Both the Building and Zoning and Policy Development staffs were talking about commercial needs for the small neighborhood, while Mr. Urbaniak testimony focused on the specific firms Price Savers, Target, and Safeway. The error in the report is distinguishing what are the facts. Their market analysis considers a much wider "neighborhood" -- a community and regional market. V Urbaniak Appeal June 20, 1988 Page 5 FINDING #15 1 . The report states that there is no estimate of potential storm water impacts. The examination of the established record was incomplete. In the Environmental Checklist, (page 4) specific reference is made to a detailed storm water drainage analysis that was prepared by the Public Works Department when considering the development of the Denney' s Restaurant. The entire 110 acre drainage basis was analyzed and design approved and implemented by the Public Works Department. Implementation of the drainage plan including the a biofilter north of the Denney' s Restaurant site, which is considered by the Department of Fisheries as an excellent example of water quality improvement and stream and wetland wildlife enhancement. The report finding is obviously unsubstantiated. In fact, Finding #12, which states "They have found cutthroat trout in the creek just below the subject site" , is a positive sign of the success of the storm drainage program. Further implementation enhancing the drainage program was recently advanced by the approval of Exit 7 commercial complex. The site plan decision included the enhancement of drainage swales to create biofilters and fish access to the property immediately north of the subject site. 2. The report states that there has been no traffic estimates provided to consider the worst case. At the same time in Conclusion #11, the report references the failure of an LID for traffic improvements to service the area. The Public Works Department developed the basis for both the LID design and cost estimates from a worst case traffic scenario, which specifically included the subject property developed commercially. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Declaration of Non-Significance based upon the information available to them in the record. The decision was not appealed. V Urbaniak Appeal June 20, 1988 Page 6 3. The report states that "This office" [Office of the Hearing Examiner] "takes judicial notice of the flooding which occurs in the vicinity of the retention system north of the interchange. " We recognize that there is a problem with flooding at the above mentioned retention pond. The State Highway Department created the problem with the installation of I-405 in the late 1960 ' s. The solution to the problem was identified on page 5 of the environmental checklist where it states "The installation of a larger culvert underneath I-405 is presently scheduled for construction by the State Highway Department in 1988. " The conclusions presented in the report are consistently based upon unsubstantiated facts. In addition, they put forward statements concerning generally accept good planning policy and comprehensive plans without identifying the policy. Therefore the conclusions are abstract and conflict with both City Code and past planning practices. CONCLUSION #1 The report states that "The requested classification is not justified by the evidence and record established at the public hearing" . The evidence accepted in the report was unsubstantiated and information in the written record and testimony at the public,hearing was not considered. CONCLUSION #2 1. Numerous erroneous conclusions are based on unsubstantiated facts. First, Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Commercial, not residential. Secondly, King County's Comprehensive Plan does not prefer single family. It allows all intensities of residential use in the URBAN Land Use Classification. Urbaniak Appeal June 20, 1988 Page 7 2. The last three sentences in Conclusion #2, convey a strong sense of inability to not only carryout the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, but a deep lack of will to implement it. A statement such as "None of these Comprehensive Plans mandates any particular result" is nonsensical. The City of Renton has adopted a Comprehensive Plan as an official document. All parties including any citizen, all property owners, staff and City Councilmembers are bound by that document as it is written and formally adopted. 3. Neither written information or verbal testimony was presented showing that the Comprehensive Plan designation of Commercial had been questioned in the past for the subject site. The opposite is true: the property had been intended for commercial use through at least two Comprehensive Plan reviews in 1968 and 1981. CONCLUSION #3 The conclusion is very general. The factual error is that nothing wasquantified from the neighborhood reconnaissance. This conclusion is based on the following partial facts: 1. There is a single family dwelling on the subject site. Response: The building is over 50 years old and is actually a shack. It has been infrequently rented for the last 5 years. 2. There are single family dwellings to the east. Response: This is one single family dwelling to the east that is over 50 years old. Its useable life as a viable single family residence is questionable. 3. There are single family dwellings to the south. Response: Yes, there are single family dwellings to the south. . . .over a 1,000 feet to the south. The location appears ideal for a Commercial Land Use Designation because it does not intrude into established residential areas, plus it has excellant freeway access off of I-405. V Urbaniak Appeal June 20, 1988 Page 8 CONCLUSION #4 The report errs when it states, "In denying a rezone for property south of the subject site (Rezone R-012-86, Gibralter Homes) the Council adopted the conclusions that the site may have been prematurely reclassified even earlier since roads and services were not sufficient. " The report for Gibralter Homes must be considered in its entirety. In addition, one must remember the specific request: A DOWN ZONE from B-1, Business use to R-4, High Density Multiple Family (22 units per acre) . Findings in the Gibralter Homes the report conflict with facts presented in the Urbaniak decision. Finding #6 (R-012- 86) states the property is designated as Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan Map, while Finding #7 in the Urbaniak report states that property 250 feet closer to the freeway interchange is suitable for commercial or multiple family. Although 14 months separate the decisions , no new policies were adopted by the City Council to either help or modify the intent to establish a commercial node at the N.E. 44th Street interchange. In fact, the opposite is true. The action of the City Council to deny the requested down zone for Gibralter Homes confirmed the existing Commercial development intent for a parcel of property 250 feet south of the subject site and appears to establish the southern boundary of the commercial area. Both the Findings and Conclusions in the Gibralter Homes report support the continuation of the commercial designation to the south. Finding #15 (Gibralter Homes) "An adjoining property owner expressed concern regarding any change of zoning which would impact his adjoining and currently compatible B-1 zoning. This neighbor was concerned that a of change to his potential development patterns for his B-1 property. " COMMENT: At the same time, (Finding #8 of the Urbaniak Decision) , the report not only minimizes the influence and impact of the existing commercial/ industrial uses that extend 500 feet south of the subject site, but actually appears to dismiss the action as premature. V Urbaniak Appeal June 20, 1988 Page 9 Conclusion #2 (Gibralter Homes) "The request appears untimely. The requested zoning is out of place and incompatible with surrounding classifications and uses, and in conflict with the designations in the Comprehensive Plan. [COMMERCIAL] While staff urges flexibility, flexibility in this case would result in outright disregard of the Comprehensive Plan, surrounding zoning and surrounding uses. Even if the site were considered suitable for multiple family development, say R-2 (Duplex Residential) might provide a suitable transition between the' commercial uses proposed to front I-405 and the existing single family residential uses east and south of the subject site - " (Italics added) [COMMENT ADDED] CONCLUSION -# 6 The conclusion is based on an error. See above discussion Finding # 8. CONCLUSIONS1 # 8 AND # 9 In the middle of the Conclusion # 8 , the report states: "A quick review of the Comprehensive Plan demonstrates more areas designated for multiple family housing, commercial uses, or other uses than the City could reasonable absorb. The idea is `to balance the potential of one area against other areas and to further weigh whether adequate and suitable land has already been appropriately rezoned. " While, in Conclusion #9, the report states: "The applicant again fails to appreciate that the Plan has not specifically designated the site for commercial uses. The Plan and its interpretation remain fluid. As indicated above, the Plan has designated more than enough properties for uses not intended to be realized during the life of the Plan. " These statements are at the heart of comprehensive planning and generalidevelopment of a community. r:// Urbaniak Appeal June 20, 1988 Page 10 The Comprehensive Plan has consistently established a major commercial node at the Exit 7 freeway interchange. The wisdom of the Planning Commission and City Council to create an area that would function as not only a neighborhood commercial area, but a community commercial area with ready easy access to the freeway, was sound logical planning. There has not been a city-wide market analysis of all commercial needs to determine if the scale of the node should be modified. The error in this conclusion is based upon the partial facts presented in Findings #13 and #14 when non- substantiated evidences limited to the neighborhood commercial market needs were not combined with the testimony of Mr. Urbaniak quantifying actual regional demand. CONCLUSION # 10 The conclusion states that "the applicant oriented the project toward the north to minimize the impacts to the less developed southern and eastern properties. " It would appear more logical that the applicant, Exit 7 , focused toward the interchange for freeway exposure and away from the industrial /warehousing uses to the south because of their negative impacts upon the project. CONCLUSION # 11 The error in the conclusion is that the failure of the LID did not eliminate the need or responsibility of the property owners to address the f-uture traffic congestion problems occurring with the future development. The LID is simply a financing mechanism. There was not a challenge to the necessary traffic improvements, but to the final costs of implementing the LID with its overhead and management expenditures. In addition, the conclusion implies that failure of the LID is "making improvements in the area less likely, disjointed and possibly non-contiguous" . This statement alone demands the immediate rezoning of the subject site. Retaining the current R-1 zoning would encourage commercial development to leap frog over the subject site to the south. This site is the next logical piece of property to develop south of the Exit 7 complex. Not zoning the site only leads to more complicated and disjointed development of the area. Urbaniak Appeal June 20, 1988 Page 11 CONCLUSION # 13 "What is in the best interest of the City" ? Economics play an extremely important role in the continued health and growth of a community. An individual ' s economic rewards are interwoven with "public interest" . Renton has a prime example in the Boeing Company: increased airplane sales means strong sales taxes from increased employment. Land use decision, directly affect the economics of the general business community and the City. The zoning of the subject site was the key several months ago to developing a community shopping focus with Price Savers as the major retail store. The staff has testified that the neighborhood commercial demand does not exist in the area to support the existing B-1 zoning, let alone another 3. 5 acres. The applicant has testified that the demand is for a much "wider" neighborhood - a regional center. If a 15 to 20 acre shopping focus was created with Price Savers, or Target as the primary, then sales tax revenues generated could range between $775, 000 to $1, 030, 000 annually. [This is based upon an acreage comparison from information provided on page 136 of the DEIS for the Orillia Retail Center] CONCLUSION #14 The specific improvements design by the Public Works Department for the area, which formed the basis for the LID proposal, included street widening and signalization immediately adjacent to the subject site. The traffic analysis, design, and participation for projects such as Port Quendal, the Rainier Fund Tower, and Exit 7 , all were based on worst case traffic scenarios with the Urbaniak property zoned B-1, Business use. A question that was not addressed is what should be the composition of the commercial node? Land use decisions over the last 8 years appear to have created more small commercial parcels that encourage strip development, not a comprehensive commercial complex. Denial of the rezone request only encourages further disjointed development. Urbaniak Appeal June 20, 1988 Page 12 CONCLUSION #15 1. Renton is a community of hills and valleys. All the major roadways radiate in toward the downtown core. Many commercial areas have been located at major cross roads with residential uses over looking them. Examples include: Down town, Sunset Shopping Center, Sunset and Union, Benson and Puget Drive, and Rainier Avenue North to name a few. 2. The report states that "rear yard demarcation is generally preferred, with similar uses facing each other as neighbors. " Yet, the Exit 7 decision combined with this decision would use the street as the demarcation. CONCLUSION #16 1. The report does not comment on what facts were found with the City Council ' s exploration of the possibility that the property 250 feet south of the subject site was misclassified? If the property was improperly zoned why was it not corrected with the adoption of the annual zoning map in 1988? 2. Again, rejection of the LID is only the elimination of a means of financing at this time. Any specific traffic improvements necessary to mitigate impacts from any project will still have to be installed. SUMMARY The appellant believes that the recommendation submitted by the Hearing Examiner contains numerous errors of conclusion based upon unsubstantiated facts. o Findings #7 , 8, and 10 addressing comprehensive plans in both the City of Renton and King County are simply in error. o Finding #11 identifying adjacent residential uses, but did not quantify them based upon the distance from the subject site. This misrepresented the actual situation. Urbaniak Appeal June 20, 1988 Page 13 o Findings #13 and 14 are unsubstantiated. Incomplete evaluation of economic market demands by the staff on hearsay information does not provide fact. o Finding #15 is incorrect because in information was provided in the environmental checklist and LID design information. The ERC had not questioned the adequacy of the information and had issued a Declaration of Non- Significance that had not been challenged. Only 3 out of 16 conclusions were not based upon substantial informational errors. Conclusions # 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 , 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16 all have defects resulting from misinformation. We respectfully request that the City Council consider this appeal and decide that the rezone request is appropriate. Sincerely, C-7---- Agji (&cRoger J. Bla lo lock AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss. County of King ) DOTTY KLINGMAN , being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 6th day of June , 1988 affiant deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this e-itig day of , 1988 i c. BE !off Q`�,\ON E;.. 9-CO-OL) Pugh' 0 ,`off°° Notary Pub n and he State of Washington, °o9UG ti.•0 residing at - (2i �for , therein. v •....... '\. 0I _� OF \NNpo ROGER URBANIAK - R-007-88 Applicatiori;`�etition, or Case #: (The minutes contain a list of the parties of record.) r/ June 6, 1988 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION APPLICANT: ROGER URBANIAK File No.: R-007-88 LOCATION: Located south of N.E. 43rd Place (S.E. 80th Street) and west of Lincoln Avenue N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Approval to rezone 3.5 acres of property from R-1 to B-1 to allow future commercial development on the property. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Building and Zoning Department Recommendation: Denial BUILDING & ZONING The Building & Zoning Department Report was DEPARTMENT REPORT: received by the Examiner on May 17, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Zoning Department Report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The hearing was opened on May 24, 1988 at 9:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit #1 - Yellow File containing application, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit #2 - Assessors Map Exhibit #3 - Site Plan Exhibit #4 - Letter from Department of Wildlife regarding wetlands on the site. Exhibit #5 - Series of 7 photographs showing stream on the site. Exhibit #6 - Topographical Map. Exhibit #7 - Copy of Tax Evaluation Statements for the property. Exhibit #8 - Copy of Page 1 of the Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner. The staff report for this applicant was presented by staff member Jeanette Samek-McKague, Senior Planner. Her review included, but was not limited to the following information. The applicant wishes to rezone the R-1 property to B-1 for future commercial development, although at this time the applicant has no definite plans for the development of the site. On the Comprehensive Plan the property is shown as commercial and on the zoning map as single family, surrounded by commercially zoned properties. Some departments within City Hall that reviewed the proposal and approved without conditions while others recommended denial at this time. The denial recommendation by the Policy Development, Design Engineering and Zoning Departments was due to the feeling this rezone may be premature. It was pointed out there are currently numerous other commercially undeveloped properties in the immediate area making Roger Urbaniak R-007-88 June 6, 1988 Page 2 this request not specifically in the public interest at this time. Also, it was noted the rezone may be untimely and possibly not the best use for this land should the Comprehensive Plan be' updated in the near future. The Policy Development Department also noted it is impossible to evaluate the future impacts of a speculative rezone. Continuing, Mrs. Samek-McKague reviewed the criteria to be considered when considering a rezone such as the property being classified for the proposed zone; whether or not the site had been considered at the last area-wide land use zoning, and timeliness. Development in this area has been slow and projects that have been denied in the area of this site were noted as well as an LID that had been formed in the area, but discontinued due to protests of property owners. It is felt the timeliness factor is strong enough at this time to withhold the rezoning of this property at this time as development has been slow, other properties in the area that have been improved are now having difficulty getting tenants for their buildings, and the zoning classification may not be appropriate. The Senior Planner said the Policy Development Department has stated they will be looking at this area as a work project next year. She said the Department of Wildlife has stated there are trout in a stream located near the property and would like to see some enhancement of the stream area. She entered Exhibits 4 and 5 - and stated if the Hearing Examiner does recommend approval to the City Council then Restrictive Covenants should be placed on the property to prohibit grading and land clearing until the applicant and future owners have applied for Site Plan approval. Staff's final recommendation was that this rezone request be denied at this time. Speaking in favor of the application was Harold Brandt. 12727 S.E. 63rd Street, Bellevue. WA. 98006, one of the owners of the property, who stated he purchased the property as an investment in his future. He said the property has not changed since the time he originally looked at it for commercial uses, not residential uses. He feels time has shown that this area has developed slowly toward commercial uses; has paid for the LID over the last 12 years; does not like the term "speculative" as he has checked with City staff over the years to be sure this property would remain in commercial uses. He asked that after the Examiner further evaluated the facts that he recommend approval to the City Council. Also speaking for the applicants was Roger Blaylock. Blaylock Company, 10717 N.E. 4th, Suite #9, Bellevue, WA. 98004 who stated he does not concur with staff recommendations and does in fact feel it is timely to rezone this property. He stated he feels all three criteria for a rezone have been met, not just one, as stated by staff. He said the property has not been especially considered for rezoning since the 1968 Comprehensive Plan when this area was designated as commercial; the property was potentially classified in 1968 and 1981; regarding material change to the area Mr. Blaylock stated there have been improvements such as the LID, new sewer and water provisions. Continuing, Mr. Blaylock addressed what he felt to be the four (4) issues to be considered for this proposal such as appropriateness of the Comprehensive Plan, land use issues in the area and how they effect the subject site; market needs and timeliness. He stated the Plan was adopted in 1981 and has not been modified even though he feels there have been rezones in the area that should have prompted modification, and feels the two previous Comprehensive Plans are valid and should be used as a guide; the owners do not agree they are dealing with speculative rezoning but that they are dealing with speculative Comprehensive Plan zones for the future; stated there have been specific offers on the site based on the site being rezoned; this property is not on the fringe of a residential area but on the edge of where the multifamily areas are designated on both the City's and County's Comprehensive Plan Maps; and they are in the middle or adjacent to a buffer of multifamily development. There is a potential of 15 - 20 acres on the west side of Lincoln, combined, undeveloped, already rezoned except for the applicant's parcel, which could be combined for a community shopping center. The applicant wishes to rezone to possibly consider that alternative should it present itself. Mr. Blaylock stated in the last eight years there has been a gradual and steady development in the area; reviewed the surrounding businesses and when they were built; and stated the coordination of development in the area should be the responsibility of the site plan review and planning process. Mr. Blaylock concluded asking what can be considered "in the best public interest" as pertains to zoned ground - and referring again to the term "speculative" stated when a comprehensive plan is done there is often area-wide zoning that approaches compliance with the Plan; and stated if the zoning is done at the time the Plan is drawn up, a rezone does not have to be considered speculative just because there are no specific site plans available at that time. He closed his remarkes noting the applicant's diagreement with the comment that this particular site falls into the realm of 'speculative' property holdings. Testifying for the proposal was Roger Urbaniak. 4112 - 78th S.E., Mercer Island, WA. 98400 who addressed market needs; noted they are trying to speed up the development process as the developers are trying to purchase and place land on the market and at the same time try to project financing, marketing needs, construction costs, rental costs and determine if they are to Roger Urbaniak R-007-88 June 6, 1988 Page 3 make a profit. Referring to the subject site-he stated there has been interest from outside parties on the property such as Price Savers, Target Stores and Safeway and feels due to the interest shown it indicates to him that 'this site is right'for rezoning and development at this time. Mr. Urbaniak said this site will be developed in concert with other parcels, and to require a site plan at this time would present spotty development in the area; explained how he felt spotty development could occur; the Examiner noted there is no guarantee, no matter who is expressing interest in the site, they would develop the site and this 4 acre parcel may still end up undeveloped or a spotty development later on. Mr. Urbaniak again noted his feeling that due to the length of time involved in rezoning and pre-development criteria he would like to have the requested rezone and be ready when an offer is presented on this site for development. He concluded stating if this parcel is not rezoned and adjacent property sells before the site is zoned, the likelihood exists there will be smaller developments - if everyone else around them are forced to develop without his property, on a different time scale. He said he feels it has been made much more difficult for the larger projects to be able to acquire land at the Exit 7 area and.develop it in a way that would most benefit the City. Closing comments were received from Mr. Blaylock regarding the timeliness of the rezone. He does not feel the proposal is detrimental to the public interest and welfare; feels if the property is not rezoned then it precludes the opportunity to look at the area as a community shopping area at this time. He stated the time involved in processing when an interested party is prepared to make an offer takes away the opportunity to possibility develop the property to its potential as discussed in the Comprehensive Plan as well as reducing the value of the property should a developer be available and the applicant be unable to provide the zoning, etc. needed for the sale. In this case, the owners of the property are.going to use this investment for their retirement. Mr. Blaylock continued stating it is not felt this proposal is detrimental to the public welfare and is a logical progression of the land use pattern in that area; no environmental issues were raised, utilities are there, it is one of the easiest access areas to the interstate system; there are high levels of service with future plans to improve those services; feels the market is also available; later there is still time for public scrutiny to evaluate the use for this site through the hearing system, and feels this is an opportunity to promote the uniform development of the area; and is not felt to be speculative but felt to be timely. Referring to surface water on the site Blaylock stated the Department of Wildlife has been contacted due to the referred to trout in the stream and the suggestion to enhance that portion of the site seems reasonable under the Site Plan approval. In conclusion staff member Samek-McKague stated all of the criteria has been reviewed for this rezone request and staff looked at what the best interest of the City would be in this proposal, not just the economics of the individual; responding to a question she stated she is not sure how staff would react if a Site Plan was submitted at this time; reasoning was based on the fact that things had happened at Gibralter Homes, and the way the area was developing staff was discussing other kinds of land uses to be suggested for that area of the Comprehensive Plan. She reiterated again that a proposal is not viewed for approval based on the economic relief of the owner but must be viewed as what would be best for the growth of the City. She had no further comments. 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 10:20 A.M. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Roger Urbaniak, filed a request for approval of a rezone of approximately 3.5 acres of property from R-1 (Single Family; Lot size - 7,200 sq ft) to B-1 (Business/Commercial). 2. 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. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance (DNS) for the subject proposal. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located southwest of the intersection of N.E. 43rd Place (S.E. 80th Street in King County) and Lincoln Avenue N.E. Roger Urbaniak R-007-88 June 6, 1988 Page 4 6. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1836, enacted by the City Council in June, 1960. The site apparently has been classified R-1, its current zoning since annexation. 7. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of commercial or multiple family residential uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. The site is located in a transition area on the map element of the Comprehensive Plan. The text of the Plan would appear to encourage a commercial node near the 44th Street interchange of I-405. The Comprehensive Plan does not necessarily define the extent of the node. 8. The area contains a mix of zoning classifications. North, west and south of the site are properties zoned B-1, the classification requested for the subject site. East of the site are properties located in King County which are zoned for single family residential uses, which is apparently compatible with the King County Comprehensive Plan. These King County zoning classifications are compatible with the existing zoning of the subject site. 9. I-405 is located west of the subject site,'and the N.E. 44th Street interchange is located northwest of the subject site. N.E. 44th curves slightly northeast before curving sharply to the southeast as it merges with Lincoln Avenue N.E. 10. A commercial complex, Exit 7, named after the adjacent I-405 interchange, is proposed for the corner immediately southeast of the interchange. Denny's Restaurant and a small commercial complex are located north and northeast of the interchange. Some warehousing is located west of the site along the east side of I-405. Commercial zoning located west of the interchange has not been seriously exploited according to staff testimony. 11. East of the site are single family dwellings, while northeast of the subject site is an apartment complex located off of the 44th interchange. Additional single residences and undeveloped properties are located south of the subject site. In addition to the warehouses west of the site are undeveloped properties. 12. A creek or drainage swale runs diagonally across the property from south to northwest. Wetlands, potentially subject to federal review, are located on the site according to a determination by the Washington Department of Wildlife. They have found cutthroat trout in the creek just below the subject site. 13. The Building and Zoning Department has indicated that "There currently is quite a bit of available, undeveloped B-1 zoned property in the immediate area and additional B-1 zoned property may not be in the best interest of this neighborhood." 14. The Policy Development Department stated: "There is an adequate supply of property zoned B-1 in the area at the present time so this rezone would not appear to be in the public interest at this time." 15. There is no estimate of the maximum traffic which may be generated by development of the subject site if developed under B-1 zoning. Similarly, no estimate was made of the potential storm water impacts of development of the site and whether the storm system is capable of conveying storm water to Lake Washington. This office takes judicial notice of the flooding which occurs in the vicinity of the retention system north of the interchange. 16. Water and sewer service is provided to the site by the City of Renton. 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 4-3010, which provides in part that: a. The subject site has not been considered in a previous area-wide rezone or land use analysis; or b. The subject site is potentially designated for the new classification per the Comprehensive Plan; or Roger Urbaniak R-007-88 June 6, 1988 - Page 5 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 requested classification is not justified by the evidence and record established at the public hearing. 2. The mere designation on the map element of the Comprehensive Plan of possible commercial potential for the subject site does not justify a rezone. The map also shows that the area in the vicinity of the subject site may be suitable for residential uses. In addition, King County appears to prefer single family uses in the vicinity of the subject site. None of these Comprehensive Plans mandates any particular result. It is not that any one of these goals should necessarily prevail, it is just that pointing out the differences conveys the wealth of potential uses for this area that have been considered'at one time or another - also, at this time none appears to be preferred. In that case one has to review general land use strategies, neighboring properties, access limitations, recent actions and other applicable factors. 3. While the site is zoned for single family uses, the primary issue is not whether the site is suitable for single family uses. After all single family uses are located both east and south of the site, a single family,home is located on the site, and the applicant has indicated that freeway noise is not a problem in this location. What is the issue is whether the site is suitable for the zoning requested? That is, should the site bear a B-1 classification when factors such as surrounding uses, surrounding zoning, access, and other factors are considered? 4. In considering access to the Exit 7 property north of the subject site, access restrictions were incorporated in that approval to avoid burdening Lincoln Avenue, the major access to this site, and to concentrate trips along the more developed major intersection immediately off I-405. In denying a rezone for property south of the subject site (Rezone R-012-86, Gibralter Homes) the Council adopted the conclusions that the site may have been prematurely reclassified even earlier since roads and services were not sufficient. 5. While the applicant has indicated that without the appropriate reclassification of the subject site to B-1, larger developments are precluded from developing the site in coordination with neighboring parcels, the applicant has not demonstrated in any conclusive manner that such larger development would unify the parcels in the area. Rather, each parcel would still be clearly capable of independent development. 6. The applicant is well aware that the map is only one element of the Comprehensive Plan and it is painted, as it were, with a broad brush. The map is not intended to specifically demark zoning districts. One also has to consider that King County has designated this general area for single family uses. 7. The commercial zoning has generally been concentrated near the interchange and along the I-405 frontage roads in this vicinity. So while the Comprehensive Plan's map may designate areas in the general vicinity of the subject site as suitable for commercial development it clearly does not mandate that this particular site be zoned B-1. 8. In addition, even with a possible designation on the map, there is no mandate that a site always be zoned in conformance with that designation. The map itself clearly states: "The Comprehensive Plan is not a final blueprint, but rather a general design for future growth. In most cases, the land use element map identifies generalized areas for furture land use rather than precise boundaries between uses." The Comprehensive Plan map merely indicates that a site may be potentially suitable for a certain type of development. It designates numerous sites for similar potential. It does not anticipate that all sites will be rezoned to match the,map nor are all sites expected to be developed with uses shown on the map. A quick review of the Comprehensive Plan demonstrates more areas designated for multiple family housing, commercial uses, or other uses than the City could reasonably absorb. The idea is to balance the potential of one area against other areas and to further weigh whether adequate and suitable land has already been appropriately rezoned. It is a necessary balancing test which can discriminate to help time development in the public interest, although obviously without inflicting special harm on a particular property owner. Zoning by dividing a jurisdiction in to use districts has always enhanced certain properties, and possibly to the detriment of others. 9. The applicant's reliance on the fact that the Comprehensive Plan for this area has not been amended as substantive evidence that the site should be reclassified in accordance with the existing map designation, is without justification. The applicant again fails to appreciate that the Plan has not specifically designated the site for commercial uses. The Roger Urbaniak R-007-88 June 6, 1988 Page 6 Plan and its'interpretation remain fluid. As indicated above, the Plan has designated more than enough properties for uses not intended to be realized during the life of the Plan. The Planners, the Examiner and the Council have to consider other factors besides a bubble map projection of a possible future. 10.. While the Exit 7 complex has been approved, it is well segregated from its southern and even easterly neighbors by the smaller road system and by its layout. It is specifically orientated toward the north and northwest. It is an open "U" or "L" configuration facing north/northwest. The applicant and the City specifically oriented the project toward the north to minimize the impacts to the less developed southern and eastern properties. It is also apparent that even the properties in the vicinity of the intersection are very slow to develop and slow to lease. It is logical for the City to encourage development along the easier to service interchange area than for it to encourage scattered development in areas more remote from the interchange. 11. The LID for the area was specifically terminated by a supermajority of the surrounding property owners, making improvements in the area less likely, disjointed and possibly non- contiguous. 12. While the site may not necessarily be suitable for single family uses, this was not necessarily shown, and was not the issue. The zoning requested is inappropriate. 13. It is easy to dispose of the applicant's arguments that the property was bought for investment purposes and that these would be thwarted by denial of the rezone. The applicant's own analogy to the stock market and art investments provides the answer. The guarantees in land speculation are as certain as in those other forms of investment. There is no certainty, and a determination of the public interest in good land use planning cannot be predicated upon the applicant's expectation of gain. As staff pointed out at the hearing - when reviewing a rezone of property, it is not the individual economics of the parcel or the individual's economics which are considered - it is what is in the best interest of the City. It was pointed out at the hearing that there is no more of a guarantee of a gain from buying and selling real estate than there is from buying and selling stocks or art. Most investments are speculative by nature. The October decline of the stock market demonstrated the volatility of stocks. Even stocks with a prospectus showing a potential for growth lost ground. Like a prospectus, a Comprehensive Plan guarantees nothing, it merely points in a possible direction. 14. While the Comprehensive Plan has ndt been modified, and there are commercial uses north and east of the subject site, there are already suitably zoned undeveloped parcels in the area and those uses already developed are concentrated near the 44th Street interchange. The break created by the topography, the roadway configuration and even this small distance off of this interchange has naturally defined the limits of commercial uses. The site is definitely on the fringe of a commercial area. The nature of the roadways do not lead to nor do they encourage commercial exploration much beyond the interchange. The orientation of Exit 7 appears to terminate the commercial node. And node is what was intended - a commercial node - not a strip. 15. The topography and slope differential on the east side of Lincoln does not provide a smooth transition between the proposed commercial uses on the west side of Lincoln and the residential on the east side. Rather, it creates a situation where residential uses would. potentially be looking across and down on commercial uses. Most land use plans would not have such dissimilar uses facing each other. Rear yard demarcation is generally preferred, with similar uses facing each other as neighbors. 16. While there are commercial parcels on three sides of the subject site, the Council has explored the possibility that property south of the subject site was potentially misclassified. And simply because a mistake might have been made in the past in reclassifying surrounding property does not serve as a foundation for additional errors in this area. If one explores the original rezoning to the south, discussion of access improvements were of concern, that concern has not changed in the interim. No progress in this matter has occurred, and an LID was rejected as recently as last month 17. The applicant would have us speculate to his success at attracting a larger commercial endeavor for the site, but it remains mere speculation. Nothing in the applicant's request would guarantee consolidated development. 18. Therefore, based on the record, the City Council should deny the request. Roger Urbaniak R-007-88 June 6, 1988 Page 7 RECOMMENDATION The City Council should deny the rezone request. ORDERED THIS 6th day of June, 1988. FRED J. KAU AN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 6th day of June, 1988 to the parties of record: Harold Brandt 12727 S.E. 63rd Street Bellevue, Washington 98006 Roger Blaylock Blaylock Company 10717 N. E. 4th, Suite #9 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Roger Urbaniak 4112 - 78th S.E. Mercer Island, Washington 98400 TRANSMITTED THIS 6th day of June, 1988 to the following: Mayor Earl Clymer Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Richard Houghton, Public Works Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Larry M. Springer, Policy Development Director Glen Gordon, Fire Marshal Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney John Adamson, Developmental Program Coordinator Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer Renton Record-Chronicle Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 P.M. June 20, 1988. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning 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. VF - — . . .'• ••''!!• ., S' ;IIII•; `17 y• •11`` I •� I .I ��r..l.f'1.,�:.«�•i '1,.'• • / �m i •IIII II y� 1 --. ,. •l' .'�,ryi{•''l•'•.1: +;..'; YY'' .r:,• J - '•C,:, r,• 14re 157 1i0 �- ', i e {KO' ��:,.,. ...: ' ••''. 10r.if•I,v..ri.4•;1`..r.'• 41114 / r, ••IIII - } sa ! ;r'. , 1 R7.114 , `ii.•�4 �? .I. Ii ' '''3 k ,• - 11.' .y{'f. irc, • ( 131 : h ,..., A .i' �• 1.68 Iti3 152 I 147 I IDb • r may:,�� / ''' 'I • 1• Y.Y. rt, • ` '• i�•y., r ^�AL^�`Ire ':9 ;lip t• . "e., �/ 'I� I,j•', 1 :,,F•♦ l• .. 4.. �I I / 137 1 f• \ TN �- ST ..-_ .. t a,. �I •• I IL 14 1 11 II. . ' ,K" ,' ' :•, ., 'ir . q,,_ 1: IZ.�:; i�z3 148 1'55 IDi 1., �1.��� :-� 't jF:• I I65,• �Fy`•-1.62 �16"� .S _Q lyr 4' ' �: (^J ,14.E. ,•^ . :; i, JJ 'o �ts .. .yf .• 7.;.,, y' :.f R/.;' •w? t.r'7..`:; 7-IP z7 sa'Lvv, •y'..I `' �.., i •I: • !i te-st IAA t :+h Ito tl 150' 149 w''S ///yyy//I 1,1s4,... ` N �I, 4 ...IIII. •� ``i .• 3 4 . / :'...-:?......•:.,;:.:,::•,!:::,.., : . I .;', ..' ',. t."... •:. '. ,; :4,4'li ••.'i... ; i . • . , ...; . .. . ,.. ... /. ','•`: c, 1 5 . \ \ --i) , . Y. , i ..+.. I I 9 1 , ,O 9 :... `, By I . '• toe ,.,•t $ .. ., 11.h , � 1 I BB —I • •.-1 —`—_ 107 Y 105 • 4 4 - _ Itz Ilfi —. ".H. _1 A URBANIK, BRANDT, HESS REZONE R-007-88 , ECF-007-88 APPLICANT ROGER URBANIK TOTAL AREA 3. 5 ACRES PRINCIPAL ACCESS N.E. 43rd PLACE & LINCOLN AVE N.E . ' • • EXISTING ZONING R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) EXISTING USE SMALL UNUSED HOUSE PROPOSED USE FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMMERCIAL COMMENTS r/ ., ,_._, • • • 1' • ..�—�- __.--c — .. - _ ... .,•! ' R�•I I` • --..--L\— • •IT--.---- _--- - 0•NC.IYE. At44 TN STR—EET I I f fi . ?.):14.5ifi:ii...:::::,:! L......,,L_,.;:,. 1 / • SEW ER /,t." ® 1© I •FJI1• k /y o loni �I a1.,- r,eAp•! ',it' I Of I �7N ,•'TSI' NEr•—•MiN—'—at-•a•5E--••aorM ,1.Lel ."\ 90 Mr . A.+r....• 1 f r \\ ® 9 s a , e \\• 5 . IQ f 'I ter`-•" J 1. °' • � e i ® ® i • C. D Hi•• AN'S f, 1 - s ® 40, I1 ® I La; SCALE I 0 \ i © .• I1 Z N VICINITY MAP 1 w..(/// II 2 w \ l 'a 1 T Z J ® Z I O _ r® J s © � !III �O l50 jI 4D LEGEND �, . D 0 1 cp AI-Ard•r 1 T Ah Apply AI eh O 6" Tr 0 ® I P -Pir Tr.. N -N•Inul O 12"-14•'T.•• ,15 I P -Pear O AI GI I I N -Willow 'r I •J—• CI II NeIer • Elp © I --.—♦ County Sewer DIN'riel \ I p--,----j Power Lln• O �i r___-- `, II I ( , o li • Q l m ______ \ 6Q N . \ IIII ,`iII ... '4.' . , P. SGALE' 1".20. SITE PLAN ' •• r :/ • '"`°""°R°"°"`" URBANIAK REZONE SITE PLAN e•Il/wr•61...Y.1 • :e•A...5.1,6"-Nr' N.E.44th St. a Lincoln Avenue N. VICINITY MAP ' • ' { " Renton• , Washington I,.. .,.;Aw - r • CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 A.M.: May 24, 1988 • COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SECOND FLOOR, RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING The applications listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. • URBANIAK, BRANDT & HESS REZONE . Application to rezone approximately 3.5 acres of property from R-1 (Single Family . Residential) to B-1 (Business Use) for future commercial use.. The property is located south of N.E. 43rd Place (S.E. 80th street) and west of Lincoln Avenue N.E. ECF-007-88; R- 007-88 PAUL BULGARELLI Application for: 1) rezone of approximately 0.89 acres of property from G-1 (General Use) to R-1 (Single Family Residential); 2) subdivision of said property into two (2) lots; 3) a variance to allow one pipe-stem lot; and 4) waiver of required off-site improvements. Located west of Smithers Avenue South, West of Talbot Road South and South of I-405 at: 1314 Smithers Avenue South ECF-025-88; R 025-88; Sh P1 108-87; V 109-87; W 110-87 FIGGINS SUNSET PROFESSIONAL CENTER REZONE Application to rezone approximately 1.44 acres of property from B-1 (Business Use) to B-1 (Business Use) for the purpose of eliminating existing restrictive covenants on the property which were established at the time of a previous rezoning of the property (R-019-86) to limit permitted uses. Property is located at 4444 N.E. Sunset Boulevard, north of N.E. Sunset Boulevard and east of Anacortes Avenue N.E. ECF-017-88; R-017-88 • BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT: Roger Urbaniak FILE NUMBER: ECF-007-88 ; R-007-88 LOCATION: The property is located south of N.E. 43rd Place (S.E. 80th Street) and west of Lincoln Avenue N.E. A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REOUEST: The applicant seeks approval of an application to rezone 3 .5 acres of property from R-1, Residential-Single Family to B-1, Business Use to allow future commercial development on the property. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: Roger and Susan Urbaniak Hal and Lois Brandt Imogene Hess 2. Applicant: Roger Urbaniak 3 . Existing Zoning: R-1, Residential-Single Family 4. Existing Zoning in the Area: King County Zoning; B-1, Business Use 5. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Commercial 6. Size of Property: +/- 3 .5 acres 7. Access: Lincoln Ave N.E. 8. Land Use: Site is developed with a single family residence. 9 . Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Commercial development and Exit 7 complex which currently has site plan approval for a commercial (office and retail) uses. East: Single Family Residences Apartment Complex to the northeast. South: Undeveloped Property and Single Family Residences West: Undeveloped Property and Warehouse Use. C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action File Ordinance Date Annexation 1836 June 23, 1960 ' BUILDING AND ZON: DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPO] _ TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING Date Page 2 D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities a. Water: A six inch water line is located along N.E 43rd St. ' near the subject property. b. Sewer: An eighteen inch line is located along the west property line of the subject property. 2. Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton as per ordinance requirements. 3 . Transit: Metro Transit Route #240 operates along 110th Avenue S.E. 4. Schools: a. Elementary Schools: N/A b. Middle Schools: N/A c. High Schools: N/A 5. Recreation: Kennydale Beach Park is located approximately 0.72 miles to the west and Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park is located 1.52 miles to the southeast. E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1. Section 4-706, Residential-Single Family 2. Section 4-711, Business Use F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1. Commercial Goal and Objective,Policies Element, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, March 1986, p. 16-18. 2. Northeast Renton Plan, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, March 1986, p. 55-60. 3. Section 4-3014 (C) , Change of Zone Classification (Rezone) . G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. The applicant, Roger Urbaniak, seeks approval of an application to rezone approximately 3.5 acres of property from R-1, Residential-Single Family to B-1, . Business Use. The rezone is being sought to allow future commercial development. . Currently the applicant and the property owners do not have plans for developing the property. 2 . The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the proposal and issued a Determination of Non-Significance on April 11, 1988. The appeal period for this decision ended on April 25, 1988. There were no appeals of this Determination. 3 . Various Departments have reviewed and commented on the application. These comments are attached to this report for review. The following summarizes the recommendations from the Departments. ' BUILDING AND ZON: DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPO] TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING Date • Page 3 The Building Division, the Parks and Recreation Department,and the Police Department approved the project without conditions. The Utility Engineering Division, the Traffic Engineering Division and the Fire Prevention Bureau approved the rezone with conditions. These conditions are items related to the actual development of the property rather than the changing of the zoning classification on the property. The Policy Development Department, the Design Engineering Department and the Zoning Division recommended that the rezone be denied. The comments of the Design Engineering Division were not tied specifically to the rezone but rather are related to future development of the site. 4. The Policy Development Department and the Zoning Division both recommended that the proposed rezone was premature. The Policy Development Department noted that the request did comply with the comprehensive plan. The Department further noted that it was "not possible to evaluate the impacts of a speculative rezone. There is an adequate supply of property zoned B-1 in the area at the present time so this rezone would not appear to be in the public interest at this time. " The Zoning Division noted that the rezone was untimely. "There currently is quite a bit of available, undeveloped property in the immediate area and additional B-1 zoned property may not be in the best interest of the neighborhood. in addition, the Division questioned the existing Comprehensive designation of commercial since the Comprehensive Plan has not been updated for a, number of years and this designation may no longer be appropriate for the site. 5. The Hearing Examiner must review three (3) specific criteria under Section 4-3014 (C) to determine that the circumstances surrounding the rezone request are, adequate to recommend approval of the reclassification to the City Council. In addition the question of timeliness is also considered. The following discusses the criteria with respect to the subject project: a. That substantial evidence was presented demonstrating the subject reclassification appears not to have been specifically considered at the time of the last area land • use analysis and area zoning. An analysis of the land use and zoning in the area where this property is located has not been reviewed since the City's conducted a study of the Northeast Renton Planning : Area in 1979 - 1981. The City Council approved the Northeast Area Plan on December 23, 1981. At that time there were no proposals by the City to rezone properties in the planning area to conform to the Comprehensive Plan. b. 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 that the change is appropriate. • BUILDING AND ZON7 • DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPOT PO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING Date • Page 4 The proposed rezone request to B-1, Business Use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. of Commercial. One of the land use policies suggests that there should be an attempt to balance the home to work traffic trips and that plan strongly endorses employment ' opportunities in the vicinity of N.E. 44th Street and Interstate 405 and the vicinity of N.E. 4the Street and DuVall Avenue N.E. ( Land Use Objective , Policy No. 4 on page 56 of the Comprehensive Plan Compendium) . c. That since the last previous land use analysis of the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. Development in the area on the south side of N.E. 44th Street has been slow. Last year Exit 7 did receive short plat and site plan review approvals to develop a commercial complex on property immediately north of the subject property across N.E. 43rd P1. An LID for utility and road improvements was also approved last year which would have included the subject property. This LID, however, is no longer valid due to the fact that property owners protested the LID. d. Timeliness: The final test to determine whether the rezone is appropriate is to address the question of timeliness. The rezone while it meets the above criteria, since they must meet one of the criterion, fails to meet the timeliness criterion. First, as mentioned above development south of N.E. 44th Street has been slow. Other properties in the area with the potential for commercial uses have not been rezoned to B-1. Several inquiries have been received for properties in the area but only a few requests for development have been made including the Exit 7 site. City staff have recently become aware of the fact that the owners of the Exit 7 site are having trouble getting tenants for their buildings. It may be that the market is not able to accommodate additional commercial uses in the immediate area other than what has already developed. Please note that while the Comprehensive Plan for the area strongly emphasized that the area should be considered for uses that generate employment vehicle trips. However, the plan was not specific on how much commercial property would be appropriate to meet such a need. Second, as noted by some of the above staff comments there is some question as to the appropriateness of the Comprehensive Plan designation of Commercial for the property. In looking at the land uses (proposed and existing) in the County to the east and those in the City, City staff are reconsidering replacing the Commercial designation with Residential for properties which have ' frontage on Lincoln Ave. The County Plan for the area shows residential uses as being most appropriate. The Policy Development staff have indicated that they will be conducting a major land use study in this area. The staff is currently preparing a information to support updating the Comprehensive Plan as a work item for next year. BUILDING AND ZON: DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPOL_ TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING Date Page 5 Finally, in light of the fact that there are several parcels, which either have commercial or the potential for commercial uses, have not been developed with commercial projects, it seems that it would not be in the best interest to rezone this parcel of property at this time. This is particularly true since the site is on the fringe of the Commercial designation on the Comprehensive Plan. The City's own Comprehensive Plan designates the properties immediately to the east across Lincoln Avenue as Medium Density Multiple Family. 6. Thus, the rezone request at this time for commercial zoning does not appear to be in the City's best interest. H. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above analysis, it is recommended that the rezone request for Roger Urbaniak, file R-007-88, be denied. • • t .�f; 'trr III a I 1 J ly ... . ' '- 146 's 7.1., 137 L 01.,'t•M,,,�'w: // IJJR 1 .:.t . .:',. •:';,.;.•,.‘..,.'.:;•:;:k•-.t:!:...1.:4:4V-,,s.f," 0.:•••:' '.." , i'.• o.• - ,;,1-. .' . ' . : '..• ,•:, - ' — • '''r- ; r, 136 % ' ,'', ,Ii 1.ritr:y.l,'b'�., . A 'Ir � •I,bBIG,j LZ 147,,o .. ?r' .t 1 / p8 i i . • -air,.•: ,,ta:. ly.:' . I I. .. _..,. . , ' !.',...h.,,,k —i, 16 17 az. z9 145 135 01 ...+�,;1 •fir. ` 6 J to ,.. I111/ ,� 1.: I '.1• .! P _ DE'1.vPl ''} '1. . ......''‘•);'''... . ',0°". . • .,7 .' • : •' .: ///:$,;.,:,: ,,,,:,,, / / .13 ! .:i.;:4!:, ,.. ••,. .::' .' . .. ,,` , , ,,..•• / .,,,, /..,.....;: • ,y,„.i?.:,., :,,..,, . :.:i., .:. L PQI� �14-8� / r. - �'' �'• i 7• • 0 149 9 er �• 54 r!7 /. n4 1a5 .,../ ..p ,....7 . ..:,,.,....„.:...: ....i.,:.,. ....i.,,,,...:.!. ............,: . . • 1. • :3 4. I. 3 4 I A0 ' . . • \ `r • �6. 6 Z 5 6 I 5 — 1:1 S • , R-3 0 / 7 sc e)'}r 7 6 ft .'! I / r 1' .9 1 'o s N ,," 57 I z Ec4." sT 89 Z105 - • 4 7LAL:4r1, •r. I., • , 1lo3. — — 1, 3_ _ — -- -- --' — ,11.� 1R ••1.�4. 1 �2 III I a URBANIK, BRANDT, HESS REZONE • • R-007-88, ECF-007-88 APPLICANT ROGER URBANIK TOTAL AREA 3 . 5 ACRES • PRINCIPAL ACCESS N.E. 43rd PLACE & LINCOLN AVE N.E. • EXISTING ZONING R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) • EXISTING USE SMALL UNUSED HOUSE PROPOSED USE FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMMERCIAL COMMENTS • I f +Til------ --—— —? e•rEIrvUutre — — — — - - --- • 1 N.E. 44 TM STREET I f r wl 7 9 0 0 o ® ® 1 I °dimeIii :( eV::• &'-•4•1T1 N�r•-..derN-•-eS-•p�R—•aorn pt'1 90 Acr 1n.wa \'' /b•ndo>:•d ..\ fev.d el.n II . . . ,ac nI � 1`, ® • I¢ l s • r 0 ® E _b ® I C. D H'i •ti AN'S . \ II • tfi ® 40' I "'a •\ sUIE I•• zoo' / © li z N VICINITY MAP li I \ • II I f ' EC) ® _ O 40 t S0 . LEGEND: r o bt Al-APd.r f AP-ip pl. 0 © ® I F -FIreN O bu ire• N -Melnul• II O li"-14^Tree P -Peer O •1 ® , 4t5 I N -Will.. '1 I I 1 C i l f tir.l.r ® i 1 City S.+.r • ©\ I --—♦ Ceunlf Se.... Dial act • I e--•----p Power line O t`� fJ \ II .. ,( ,\ \ 1 nu I \ ti ._...._ \ ® tO 1. I • -_ • O • l m dS, .._.........„ . . _ _.6 O Z16• \', I I . S CAME r Io.20. SITE PLAN . 1 1• A • "`sumac °°'P"`" URBANIAK REZONE SITE PLAN •1111KMYy1aa • N.E.44th St. 81 Lincoln Avenue N. VICINITY MAP ' NI"^""' i MMw Renton, Washington 1 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISiuiJ ; el-FF. )c E NG ) Dv E X-i&J n APPROVED R APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS n NOT APPROVED 1. Developer to initiate undergrounding all overhead electrical and communication distribution conductors (power, telephone and TV cable if present) that abutts property frontage on Lincoln Ave. NE and NE 44th Street/(110th Ave. SE) . 2. Developer also to participate in undergrounding electrical and communication conductors on NE 43rd Street. 3. Provide street light drawings with off-site improvements or by means of participation in an L.I.D. Off-site improvements also include curb, gutters and sidewalk. 4. Participation in a traffic benefit district required at time of development. ,eZ. �� ' ' • .--.-•z DATE : g. -,'e.R SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHOPOZED REPRESENTATIVE • REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 EVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : . OTIL/7 4A16-/At.E.6RIAIC __ APPROVED ONE. —� P �RO��AD I T -NDITIONS ri NOT APPROVED —1UTILIIY APPROVAL SUBJECT Til • _ LATE COMERS AGREEMENT-�IJ,= y i 11/44 0 __- LATE COMERS AGREEMENT-SEWER, _ ^ t:0 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CiRAR^E-WATET1 o' p►� s0,er x�3 fAe) la/4 4 4,07 '• e4 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CNARCE SEY1ER' }/,Eye *.44/5P,/X 0. (AG, . // = 4'4 D 9 f Lei SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA Ci:":RSE-WATER $10 d �O SPECIAL ASSESSMEN T ARM 9 MANE-SEWER No i`G I_ y lr rare' of ��J NT 4 ✓A w barAr P?I►9E OP D&i'REG RPPROYED WATER PLAN Rme ')APPROVED SEWER PLAN rYG SA"'L AS Ash Pit f:iwt�� pax,,„,,, APPROVED FIRE HYDRANT LUCATIOI;S BY FIRE DEPT. . ��5 i 4 C16 ti$ vi DATE : 7 leg [GNATURE DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ,3-F--Me/AYH 3- h ss r" • REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 :VIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : "WOW° , 010151W, n APPROVED 1---i APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ix NOT APPROVED w Fri-tour D6i84-Optnern PAS, 11 3' r... . ,T 6 u dsi rvi pf b pl w►1rtu� No0 1-1.1-6Wr ,, c..(,N -ri (ti,Y, iI P4 Cif(titp1oi�-I' Is, au tl' Pr D11 or HUBIL ricibL6 ) U 00 4,08 aJ 1 -z olv P Cp rf PRoP itrf I Iv /1+6 l immeD I riri6 Iwo RoGir ONmu (SDI "CGKY b PRoNR.r( IN)t •i i Apoi r I iv yI1-E -T) Ii\I Os ii4Is, tdd 6+12)0 .l1-odp, . . M-so, `rI- C.tnpRdI ►v6 PI. N f IUdst . r. Gam' ) U!or�Tb ►,v , -ritI� izie ib, kx-c 36 � `?LR-� 1 N\P. Li-lop Gom,nr ✓Zci nL.,. u 5,e' 15 n7a1 ride 136sr Ods16A)/ ttO J "oil, 11-C Piop69.,7`r' ¶ Lj rU IZ , ,,'' - .Q A./s ,b1Md . DATF ! 1, '),I /REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : taecb. zee G/G,-74 .APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS n NOT APPROVED r . CITY OF RENTON RECF!VFr MAR 1 1988 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. 4001 /1 ' #'' '''- if-C DATE : 2 V 6e2' SIGNAT =4,7 OF D REC R OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE / • REVISION 5/1982 — Form 182 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : -1Y _ FrOion QV\ n APPROVED J APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS n NOT APPROVED -2 i- P4of,Etry is Deoeicipen 1ny development and/or construction shall comply with current Fire and Building Codes and Ordi- iances. • 1 second means of approved access is required. Fire Department access roads/lanes shall be paved ninimum width 20'; minimum height 131.6". Yes No._..,,_ 'reliminary fire tlzv cal •ulwtians show a fire flow of ,WA - is •equired. . y�� _ - hydrants with a minimum flow of /nip. gpm each s required. , 'rimary hydrant is required to be within " _ feet of the structure. secondary hydrants are required to be within ,Qo' . feet of the ►tructure. kn approved automatic sprinkler system is required to protect the total structure. Yes...._._ No MI fire department access roads are to be paved and installed prior to construction. Yes '�No III fire hydrants are required to be installed and approved prior to construction. Yes_ _ No,.,__• 4-4e0`. DATE : ...4_ i9 /?if ;IGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE • REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 /IEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : a_73,6--5 q APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS n NOT APPROVED ti CITY OF RENTON pEcE!Vr MAR 1 1988 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. • /� i VATIiI�F nF nTnrrTno nn A��T,ll,f,T-,MT.,,,, _ DATE: / REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVI.LJN : (<5.-H) J • n APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS KNOT APPROVED 6-* re-4- l-4-0" z) - - `� A3y CITY OF RENTON�` IVY; MAR 7 1988 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. DATE : SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : P � APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS r-] NOT APPROVED / CITY OF RENION RECEinfir MAR 2. 1988 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. 411- DATE : SIGN ATURE OF DECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Fr.rJn...1 R2 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : jotic. nAPPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS F1NOT APPROVED , C.-rpt-ryyt / ;c7=444Alec-TA-o-e.-- /\d-,2rev<-t "-rre-A t - e- A —• .' bk-A, ah�v .-o►:E. L � � CITY OF RENTO t� IV�RECEVFr MAR 71988 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. DATE : 3- 7- SIGNATUR 0 DIRECTOR OR AUTHORT7FD RFPRFSFNTATTVF CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE ENVIRONMENTAT,' CHECKLIST NO. : ECF-007-88 APPLICATION NO(s) . : R-007-88 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Non-project application to rezone approximately 3 . 5 acres of property from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to B-1 (Business Use) for future commercial use. Property is located in an area designated for commercial development on the Comprehensive Plan. PROPONENT: Urbaniak, Brandt, &Hess Rezone LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: The property is located south of N.E. 43rd Place (S.E. 80th Street) and west of Lincoln Avenue N.E. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton, Building and Zoning Department. The lead agency for this proposal 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 after review of an expanded environmental checklist and preliminary site plan, on file with the. lead agency. There is no comment period for this DNS. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton • 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 235-2550 APPEAL: You may appeal this determination in writing to Renton Hearing Examiner no later than April 25, 1988 . You should be prepared ' to make specific factual objections. Contact City of Renton, Building and Zoning Department to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. DATE OF DECISION: April 6, 1988 . PUBLICATION DATE: April 11, 1988 . Ronald G. Nelson a y M. ringe Building and Zoning Director Policy De lopme Director ?L uc4uf " • ,l 922711Z- Rrd C. Hough n Public Works Director 01} rIF CITY OF RENTON • • POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor May 16, 1988 Roger J. Blaylock The Blaylock Company 10717 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 9 Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: URBANIK, BRANDT, HESS REZONE South of N.E. 43rd Place (S.E. 80th street) and west of Lincoln Avenue N.E. ECF-007-88; R-007-88, Dear Mr. Blaylock: A public hearing before the City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner has been scheduled for May 24, 1988. The public hearing commences at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you before the hearing. If you have any questions, please call the Building and Zoning Department at 235-2550. Sincerely, Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator pc: Roger and Susan Urbaniak 4112 78th Ave S.E. Mercer Island, WA 98040 Hal and Lois Brandt 12727 S.E. 63rd Bellevue, WA 98006 Imogene Hess 8919 N.E. 10th Bellevue, WA 98004 pubhear DKE:sr:cs 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2552 1 • • j fng.'(`i'r.`'T% 1P"''„sY.t�,O�4�` `''y;NoC'4�F T,f�t esty; 'i.� . �}ig,,�::NOTICE;OF'PUBLICHEAL ING,: �fq1> � RENTON"HEARING'EXAMINE i`E,.•°, IrWf k�, •GT N,t$ ` ',','': AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION '=�'A UBUG HEARING WILL BEHELD AT: TH6;REN,.,O ;HEARING:'EXAMINERtAT.'i i;: HIS.',REG LAR,IMEETING•.IN THE;i0OUN S • CI j;CHAMBB.r§,?'ON''THE;SEC�OND. 1FL Fei (CI .,ALL` '.ENTOWI ASH:,Audrey Benner OE iH' W being first duly sworn on oath states ,fINGTON,ON.MW.24 1988;r'AD9:Od'A:fe: that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the 04CON (RE, T,HE F,gLLOlyl G` ETi- l'ININS!:'04 tr�t:t igi l,�� ,. A' URBANIAK;4 ',AID-r' 'HESS"RE ONEJ,: VALLEY DAILY NEWS P Iloatiod ao ozone"'a roxu atel., I YeC es;of'prSpertyxfrom;rR j�(Sing(efFaiiiily? ResidentialAlfolitEi1,,p sines' 11se) :fold Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition futur®;commercial:,usel?.1Th ltifil'uis j,located'soutli'Of Jt.E;43rd;;Pla'ce(S;E k80ti0 Daily newspapers published six(6) times a week.That said newspapers 'street) and'=westil'of ling I�A';�;yenue;.N;E�s< are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six I ECF.00Y 68,•.R=007,-88 ti.? �#0,0 %�b�''; �; ?r,,••FiGGINS;�RSUNSE-ritf PROFESSIOiIAL: months prior to the date of publication referred to,printed and published 'CENTERkREZONE#y5;y, ,ipt,,;^ �: '•+,_� in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King Application,to;:;rezo;ne approximately;y.4a,:. },acres.of,property..from:0:(Business;use);. County,Washington.The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal to?t3-1;, Busines.1.7,0 for4004purpose,'ef':; • newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for eliminating'ex(sting,restrictive,Aovenante,on:- the'propertyi,•;which'.were.,.established-at;the:,,; King County. ttime of a.previousrezoning•:of•the;property•, (13-019.86);to limit? ermitted.usee;Prope The notice in the exact form attached,was published in the Kent Edition 00,40eated,arei 44 N.E4Suiiset.E011pverd, north)of N.E.;Sunis0ou1evard tid.eastofi4 , Renton Edition x , Auburn Edition , (and not in A�aoortes7�Ave ue' N Et �(ECF1ot7.�8 ', supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers tag' r ` "hr.�s '�aztif;ae:y:j ti; Paul Bulgarelll) 1,t,;: t o ltv$}1 during the below stated period.The annexed notice a Application,forre 1 ':rezoge.of;a pproximiatejy 0.89.,acres,mf,: r Notice of Public Hearingp oPe cfrom dr(General;:., �Usej•to R-1"(Single?Family Pe Idetitiai);t2)` R5 0 4 9 .i`subdi sion fiof:said:property Into'•,two-:(2) was published on May 13 , 19 88 • `tots, 3 a'�rianoe"`t0�.ailow`one`�pip�st ihi i'lot!fand.r4). waiveri`'of'.requiredroff-site' (improvements Located westsof-Smlthers, Avenue,South;;west of'iTaibotiRoad'Ssouth•'. ar>�d�soutito�!4Q5,iat%;,.1Bt,4RSmi4hets�gve=,t The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the [.inuelou t4181 2fi•41114-d2151tei' � �!' t S,hPi;�� sum of $ 7 ,,pro, ,1!il;1'1,048�i,.? ; 1er to.., 3 9 .5 2 108-8 V 109�7� y �� ` :.°Leg I gscriptfons`•'�of,the.:files).n ed• abovelcare-on fil0inI:thetRenton-iBuilding and.Zoning:Departmen_G#6''.1rt. ':'#:f T.•0_.4` ALL INTEREST,EG ERSONSAGrSAID • PETTIO SAREtI� EDTO;.B EYPRE=','1SENTATTHE'PBCHEARINGON MAY. ,THEIR 88•I T4;fh00eifA M:JtTO•,-EXPRESS•' ,E THEtR OP,INPIP.�t,'ngi a`'•ilr'F u` V;Ii '``;: Subscribed and sworn to before me this d day of M a 19.a& ,Published;iMayytal3 1988,Valle iDail ._. y News A5049'AcatN -tgay'u;�v'.ay, • CZ(C: • Notary blic for the State of Washington, residing at Federal Way, King County, Washington. VDN#87 Revised 11/86 • CITY OF RENTON • • RECEIVE' JUN 101988 BUILDING/ZON!NG DEPT. • BTATR ! JACK S. WAYLAND Director 'd 1889 d6y STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE Region Four Office -- 16018 Mill, Creek Boulevard, Mill Creek, WA 98012 -- (206) 775-1311 May..,"'.1988 Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: ECF-007-88, R-007-88; Urbaniak, Brandt & Hess Rezone; DNS Dear Sirs: There are some wetlands and a small creek on this site. Cutthroat trout have been found in the creek just below the site. The creek has already been disturbed by previous channelization and the removal of vegetation' along the banks. A plan for restoration of the creek and wetlands pro- tection should be included as a part of any plan for further development. A Hydraulics Project Approval will be required for any work in the creek. A permit may also be required from the Corps of Engineers for work in the wetlands. The "clogging" described in the SEPA checklist was probably beneficial to water quality in the creek. We recommend against enclosing the drainage swale along the street north of the site. Enclosing runoff in culverts or pipe only moves water downstream in greater volumes than a system can handle, often resulting in downstream flooding and stream channel degradation. Sincerely, THE DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE T. y 0 ermann Habitat Biologist TO:km cc: Habitat Management--Olympia —*METRO Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle,WA 98104-1598 April 20, 1988 O�Y OF "IcINITOcEtivEN Environmental Review Committee liP'221998 City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South BUILDING Renton, Washington 98055 G/ZONING DEPr, Determination of Non-Significance File No. : ECF-007-88 Urbaniak,Brandt & Hess Rezone Dear Environmental Review Committee: Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and anticipates no significant impacts to its wastewater facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely,Gregory M. Bush, Manager Environmental Planning Division GMB:wsa t , CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST NO. : ECF-007-88 APPLICATION NO(s) . : R-007-88 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Non-project application to rezone approximately 3 . 5 acres of property from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to B-1 (Business Use) for future commercial use. Property is located in an area designated, for commercial development on the Comprehensive Plan. PROPONENT: Urbaniak, Brandt, & Hess Rezone LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: The property is located south of N.E. 43rd Place (S.E. 80th Street) and west of Lincoln Avenue N.E. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton, Building and Zoning Department. The lead agency for this proposal 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 after review of an expanded environmental checklist and preliminary site plan, on file with the. lead agency. There is no comment period for this DNS. ti Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 235-2550 APPEAL: You may appeal this determination in writing to Renton Hearing Examiner no later than April 25, 1988. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact City of Renton, Building and Zoning Department to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. DATE OF DECISION: April 6, 1988 PUBLICATION DATE: April 11, 1988 i Pia Ronald G. Nelson 'Cr / M. tinge ./ Building and Zoning Director Policy DeopmeDirector R.chard C. Hough n Public Works Director ® CITY OF RENTON ..LL r BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director April 7, 1988 Roger J. Blaylock The Blaylock Company 10717 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 9 Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: Urbaniak, Brandt & Hess Rezone S.W. Corner of N.E. 43rd Place & Lincoln Ave. N.E. ECF-007-88; R-007-88 Dear Mr. Blaylock: Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Determination of Non- Significance for the above referenced project. If you have any questions, please call me at 235-2550. S ' cerely, i/ • Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator pc: Roger and Susan Urbaniak Department of Wildlife -Mike Creegen Department of Fisheries Hal and Lois Brandt Gerald W. Marbett Imogene Hess Gregory M. Bush Department of Ecology DKE:cs 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 ® CITY OF RENTON 'AL f BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director April 7, 1988 Roger J. Blaylock The Blaylock Company 10717 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 9 Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: Urbaniak, Brandt & Hess Rezone S.W. Corner of N.E. 43rd Place & Lincoln Ave. N.E. ECF-007-88; R-007-88 Dear Mr. Blaylock: This letter is to inform you that the Environmental Review Committee completed their review of the environmental impacts 'of the above referenced project. The Committee at their meeting on April 6, 1988, issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the project. This Determination is final and may be appealed to the City's Hearing Examiner no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 25, 1988. Any appeal must state clearly in writing why the Determination should be revised and must be accompanied by a non-refundable $75.00 filing fee. If you have any questions, please call me or Jeanette Samek-McKague at 235-2550. Sincer Donald K. Erickson, AICP ' Zoning Administrator pc: Roger and Susan Urbaniak Mike Creegen Hal and Lois Brandt Imogene Hess 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 j NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE for the following project(s) under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. The Applicant(s) have completed a mitigation process pursuant to WAC 197-11-350. URBANIAK, BRANDT & HESS REZONE Application to rezone approximately 3.5 acres of property from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to B-1 (Business Use) for future commercial use. The property is located south of N.E. 43rd Place (S.E. 80th street) and west of Lincoln Avenue N.E. (ECF-007-88; R-007-88) Further information regarding this action is available in the Building and Zoning Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2540. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the City of Renton Hearing Examiner by Monday, April 25, 1988. Published: Monday, April 11, 1988 BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT April 6, 1988 A. BACKGROUND: APPLICANT: Roger Urbaniak PROJECT: Urbaniak, Brandt, & Hess Rezone PROJECT NUMBERS: ECF-007-88 /R-007-88 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Non-project application to rezone approximately 3 . 5 acres of property from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to B-1 (Business Use) for future commercial use. Property is located in an area designated for commercial development on the Comprehensive Plan. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: The property is located south of N.E. 43rd Place (S.E. 80th Street) and west of Lincoln Avenue N.E. ,ify N;:' :/".;;;412/# t�; / / 117 2, is 17 1$ 19J!o ' j 3 n �a Z� I r•!. ( tydefene R'>s"'ar9''')/(7/////,, r" /// /,/,t I 105 '0t ;4,7 > Y 2ti_ ., ," ,„ ,,i,,, 4 1,1 _i, ,„,,, ‘4--±“ i' L-1 '7.----1 '''i" . \ ..._,_„ ,D,, 7 „if / A u - ,i, PPM Z4',,-Etil: ,_ , ((Iv__ )1 B 4i, VI/-.(,,,,;,/ / // / ______ L *7/ i. , / 1// Ir' r---i,; .f?:':,7 ' L z i lr / 72 /,"/s---.....„,,,,,, w } I it Amy I \ ,\ / Pi __:_____71_____4, i 1 1 ____ I � L 8-1 = i: 7,;?//414 (. R-3 X If /_./- ,//// 4 6 / L i N • JLL -IT t: , 41 ' 11 1f B. ISSUES: 1. Whether there are special characteristics of this property which require particular consideration in evaluation of environmental impacts which may occur as a result of the proposed rezone of the property? The subject property is located in an area which is designated for commercial development on the comprehensive map. It Environmental Rel -w Committee Urbaniak, Brandt Hess Rezone April 6, 1988 Page 2 is bounded by properties which are developed in a variety of commercial and residential uses, by the I-405 corridor, and by vacant land which could be built with commercial or residential developments. The site itself is considered to be a pivotal one, at a transitional point between commercial and residential development. As a result of this fact, it is suggested that while a program- matic rezone may be appropriate for the property, a site plan will be required prior to development of the site, to ensure that the proposed development meets the needs of and can be accommodated by the local community. This requirement is stipulated . in the Zoning Code. Additionally, it is suggested that until a site plan is approved, any and all clearing of the land of trees or other natural vegetation should be prohibited. 2 . Whether adequate public services currently exist or are now planned to serve the subject property if it is to be rezoned and then developed for commercial use? a. Access: The subject property is located in an area which is scheduled for road improvements to improve access to the site and to the surrounding area under a LID/public works project. The roadway improvements have been planned to accommodate future commercial development, in conformance with the commercial designation in the area. . The City may require dedication of roadway in conjunction with future development of the subject property. b. Emergency Services: Fire and Police Departments have reported only the probability of minor impacts from the rezone of this property. Future development would require equipment to be installed to prevent/control fire; these installations are customary for all developments. No unusual concerns are noted. c. Utilities: The Utility Engineering . Department would require the installation of water and sewer lines at the time of development of the property, as well as participation in water and sewer system development plans. Additionally, at the time of development, the applicant would need to provide a management plan for drainage of surface water runoff. 1 -Environmental Re-- ,1w Committee Urbaniak, Brandt u Hess Rezone April 6, 1988 Page 3 d. Street Improvements: The Traffic Engineering Department would require the applicant to initiate and/or participate (through a LID) in improvements to the site, including, but not limited to: undergrounding of electrical and communication conductors on Lincoln Avenue N.E. , N.E. 43rd Street and N.E. 44th Street; providing street lighting, curbs, gutters and sidewalks. At the time of development the applicant may be required to participate in a traffic benefit district. C. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that ERC issue a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated, with the following conditions: 1. That in order to ensure preservation of the integrity of the property, the applicant shall be required to obtain authorization from the City in advance of any and all cutting or clearing of vegetation from the property. NOTE: A site plan shall be required prior to development to ensure that proposed use of the property conforms to requirements/standards designed to protect the local environment. D. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS: Various City departments have reviewed and commented upon the project. These comments are as follows: Police Department: No adverse law enforcement input noted. Fire Prevention Bureau: No comments. Design Engineering: No comments. Traffic Engineering: Developer to initiate undergrounding all overhead electrical and communication distribution conductors (power, telephone and TV cable if present) that abutts property frontage on Lincoln` Ave. N.E. and N.E. 44th Street/ (110 Ave. , S.E. ) . Developer also to participate in undergrounding electrical and communication conductors on N.E. 43rd Street. Provide street light drawings with off- site improvements or by means of participation in an L. I.D. Off-site improvements also include curb, gutters and sidewalk. Participation in a traffic benefit district required at time of development. Environmental Ref -w Committee Urbaniak, Brandt, Hess Rezone April 6, 1988 Page 4 Utility Engineering: No comments. Parks and Recreation: No Park or Recreation impacts at this time. Building Division: No comments. Zoning Division: The subject rezone request to B-i does not have a site development plan to follow, therefore if B-i Zoning is approved, the ERC should assume a worse case analysis of full development potential of property, i.e. , full retail/office use with parking garage. A scoping E.I.S. should be provided or an expanded checklist to address a worse case scenario of the property. Applicant will need to be put on notice of participation into N.E. 44th Street L.I.D. Policy Development: This proposal would appear to require the worst case analysis since it is • programmatic - unaccompanied by a specific development proposed. Under this assumption the environmental documentation should be expanded to evaluate maximum development potential with the accompanying impacts on traffic, storm water, aesthetics, land use, etc. Maximum development scenario could include a 95-foot building, full lot coverage, structured parking for maximum site utilization. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA March 25, 1988 Third Floor Conference Room Commencing at 10:00 a.m. TIME/KEY PARTICIPANTS NEW: Traffic ANNETTE HICKS DAY CARE CENTER 10:00 - 10:20 Application for conditional use permit to allow a Day Care facility for 50 children having approximately 2,800 square feet (utilizing an existing Single Family Residence) to be located in a G-1 (General-Single Family) zoned district. Property located at 3324 N.E. Sunset Boulevard. ECF-009-088/CU-009-088 Traffic/Storm Utility Engineer HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH 10:25 - 10:45 Application to rezone approximately 2.9 acres of property from R-1 to P-1 and approximately 4.6 acres of property from B-1 to P-1 for a total of 7.5 acres and application for conditional use permit to allow for the development of a 1,500 seat auditorium addition to the existing church facility. ECF-003-88; R-003-88; CU-003-88 Traffic URBANIAK, BRANDT & HESS REZONE 10:50 - 11:10 Application to rezone approximately 3.5 acres of property from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to B-1 (Business Use) for future commercial use. The property is located south of N.E. 43rd Place (S.E. 80th street) and west of Lincoln Avenue N.E. ECF-007-88; R-007-88 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M. Renton Municipal Building April 6, 1988 3rd Floor Conference Room MINUTES ATTENDING: Ron Nelson, Chairman; Larry Springer, Policy Development Director; Dick Houghton, Public Works Director; Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator; Mike Parness, Administrative Assistant; Jeanette Samek-McKague, Senior Planner; Carolyn Sundvall, Recording Secretary. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman. CONTINUED: RENTON VILLAGE CINEMA Application for site plan approval to allow the expansion of an existing three-plex cinema (20,000 sq. ft. and 1,405 seats) to operate as an eight-plex cinema for a new total of 36,253 sq. ft. and 2,260 seats. ECF-090-87; SA-103-87 Don Erickson gave background information on the project. He stated that the issues that are significant are road right-of-way, storm drainage and traffic impacts. The ERC then reviewed the recommendation and conditions set forth in the Staff Report and discussion took place. Larry Springer expressed a concern that the conditions did not show traffic calculations on the increased daily trips. He asked that Gary Norris respond to this request, and that it be added as a mitigated measure. DECISION: Larry Springer made a motion to issue a Determination of Non-Significance with the conditions listed on the Staff Report including calculations on the increased daily trips. Ron Nelson seconded the motion. Carried. DOUGLAS PRELLWITZ Application for preliminary plat approval to allow a twelve (12) lot single family subdivision on 2.56 acres of property. Property located in the 2300 block of N.E. 13th Place. ECF-010-87; PP-013-87 Don Erickson gave background information. He stated that the project had been deferred a year ago because the cul de sac exceeded 500 feet in length and the Committee had determined that a secondary access plan was needed. The applicants have now provided this secondary access road. The ERC members then reviewed the Staff Report and discussion took place. DECISION: Ron Nelson made a motion to issue a Declaration of Non-Significance - Mitigated with the one condition listed on the Staff Report. Larry Springer seconded the motion. Carried. RENTON FAMILY PRACTICE CENTER Application to rezone eight (8) lots (115' x 350')/.92 acres located at the Northwest corner intersection of South 5th Street and Williams Avenue South from R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) to B-1 (Commercial) to enable future commercial,development at this site. This proposal includes three undeveloped lots, one lot developed with a single-family home and four lots developed with medical services, under a conditional use permit. Property located at 411 to 425 Williams Avenue South. (ECF-001-088; R-001-88) Don Erickson gave background information on the project. He stated that the Committee had previously considered issuing a Declaration of Significance due to the fact the applicant submitted a rezone application without specifying future use of the property. He stated that we are dealing with eight lots of which the southern four are currently used for an existing medical clinic facility. The northern half of the site is currently vacant. The committee then considered a contract rezone subject to site plan and discussion took place. Larry Springer suggested that the ERC review the site plan concurrently with this rezone. He expressed concern that the site is going from a R-3 designation to a higher density use without any understanding of the potential impacts. DECISION: Don will meet with Roger Blaylock to discuss these ERC concerns. 1 E. , Fc ERC Minutes April 6, 1988 page 2 A THE VYZIS COMPANY (SOUTHGATE OFFICE PLAZA) Application for special permit for fill and grading permit to allow the filling of approximately 14,320 cubic yards of material on 20.9 acres of property. Note: Site was previously filled with permit no. SP-134-78. Property located on the west side of Lind Avenue S.W. between the 1900 to 2300 block. (ECF-088-87 and SP-102-87) Don Erickson gave background information. He stated this application was reviewed at the same time as Alaska Distributors. We had asked the applicants to work with us, until the P-1, P-9 Channel was resolved, as we didn't want to issue a Determination of Significance. The applicant responded that they were anxious to proceed and that a portion of the site is already above the flood plain, which they would like to have the option to finish off. The areas below the flood plain would be left alone. Some grading would be done for better drainage. They would avoid any fill below the 100 year flood plain The lower area would be used for parking. Larry Springer 'stated that we are just looking at a fill permit. Discussion then took place. DECISION: Ron Nelson stated he would like staff to look at the project further. Especially Bob Bergstrom and Nancy Lazwell-Morris. A motion to defer was unanimously approved. NEW PROJECTS: ANNETTE HICKS DAY CARE CENTER Application for conditional use permit to allow a Day Care facility for 50 children having approximately 2,800 square feet (utilizing an existing Single Family Residence) to be located in a G-1 (General-Single Family) zoned district. Property located at 3324 N.E. Sunset Boulevard. (ECF-009-088/CU-009-08 8) Don Erickson gave background information. He stated that this is next to a shopping center, and is presently an existing single family dwelling. Hours of operation will be from 6:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. The site is very constrained and they are proposing access from Sunset Blvd. In so doing, they may be denying access to a larger site. Dick Houghton stated that this is a high volume area and not suited for children. Larry Springer expressed concerns about public health, safety and welfare. DECISION: Ron Nelson asked that the project go back to staff because of traffic questions and building code concerns on conversion from single family to a commercial use. A motion to do this was unanimously adopted. URBANIAK, BRANDT & HESS REZONE Application to rezone approximately 3.5 acres of property from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to B-1 (Business Use) for future commercial use. The property is located south of N.E. 43rd Place (S.E. 80th street) and west of Lincoln Avenue N.E. ((ECF-007-88; R=007=88) Don Erickson briefed the ERC on the project. He stated that this was a non-project action. The applicant wants a B-1 rezone south of Exit 7. Because they are consistent with the Comp plan done in 1980, there was no EIS that addressed traffic impacts. Discussion then took place. Don Erickson felt that it was not timely because of an abundance of B-1 commercial in the area already that is undeveloped and we are contemplating major land use studies in this area. DECISION: Ron Nelson made a motion to issue a Declaration of Non-Significance and that the Hearing Examiner be made aware of the timeliness factor. Larry Springer seconded the motion. Carried. OTHER Letter to ERC regarding proposed Kenworth Truck Plant, PACCAR Defense Systems Site. Don Erickson reviewed the letter with ERC members. He stated that a concern at this time, is that there is no application or project description. He stated that the two issues are: 1) Who the Consultant will be. 2) The City's control over the process. The other issue is that we have been following an administrative procedure for EIS consultant selection and that the applicant had conflicting information on how to proceed. He reviewed the selection process with the ERC. Discussion then took place. DECISION: Ron Nelson made a motion to meet with the proponent and explain the City's process and ask the applicant for a checklist with a description of the project, so they know that this is the first step. Larry Springer seconded the motion. Carried. e ' N OT I C E .2. Nvi p, oNm NT 4. , L. i',.iti.ffi+Ir .4. RA re. N APPLICATION NO. ECF-007-88 ,R-007-88 ' APPLICANT URBAN TAK, BRANDT & HE S S PROPOSED ACTION APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3 . 5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO B-1 (BUSINESS USE) FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. GENERAL LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF N.E . 43rd PLACE. (S.E. 80th STREET) AND WEST OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E . POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (E.R.C.) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES >4DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL NLWILL NOT BE REQUIRED. THE CITY OF RENTON WILL NOT ACT ON THIS PROPOSAL FOR 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE BELOW. COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER BY 5:00 P.M., APRTL 25 , FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT AT 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA April 6, 1988 Third Floor Conference Room Commencing at at 10:00 a.m. CONTINUED: DOUGLAS PRELLWITZ Application for preliminary plat approval to allow a twelve (12) lot single family subdivision on 2.56 acres of property. Property located in the 2300 block of N.E. 13th Place. (PP-013-87) RENTON FAMILY PRACTICE CENTER Application to rezone eight (8) lots (115' x 350')/.92 acres located at the Northwest corner intersection of South 5th Street and Williams Avenue South from R-3 (Multiple- Family Residential) to B-1 (Commercial) to enable future commercial development at this site. This proposal includes three undeveloped lots, one lot developed with a single- family home and four lots developed with medical services, under a conditional use permit. Property located at 411 to 425 Williams Avenue South. (ECF-001-088; R-001- 88) THE VYZIS COMPANY (SOUTHGATE OFFICE PLAZA) Application for special permit for fill and grading permit to allow the filling of approximately 14,320 cubic yards of material on 20.9 acres of property. Note: Site was previously filled with permit no. SP-134-78. Property located on the west side of Lind Avenue S.W. between the 1900 to 2300 block. (ECF-088-87 and SP-102-87) NEW PROJECTS: ANNETTE HICKS DAY CARE CENTER Application for conditional use permit to allow a Day Care facility for 50 children having approximately 2,800 square feet (utilizing an existing Single Family Residence) to be located in a G-1 (General-Single Family) zoned district. Property located at 3324 N.E. Sunset Boulevard. (ECF-009-088/CU-009-088) URBANIAK, BRANDT & HESS REZONE Application to rezone approximately 3.5 acres of property from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to B-1 (Business Use) for future commercial use. The property is located south of N.E. 43rd Place (S.E. 80th street) and west of Lincoln Avenue N.E. (ECF-007- 88; R-007-88) y . BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT April 6, 1988 A. BACKGROUND: APPLICANT: Roger Urbaniak PROJECT: Urbaniak, Brandt, & Hess Rezone PROJECT NUMBERS: ECF-007-88 /R-007-88 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Non-project application to rezone approximately 3 . 5 acres of property from R-1 (Single Family. Residential) to B-i (Business Use) for future commercial use. Property is located in an area designated for commercial development on the Comprehensive Plan. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: The property is located south of N.E. 43rd Place (S.E. 80th Street) and west of Lincoln Avenue N.E. 4 Aid' ,/ `'. , ,„ `,„,,,o A 76r., 5r i a 1 L.' _v. /�� // T7 15, IG. 17 I$ IQ 4 44°/. /:// 4 Utz I �l's 5{ .� I IB5 .4•N';'0Z 167 s 1 .Y 25_ InB I35 132 Id iSY/y//:// //// ////////://.. ALLie ..i.,,, 8? T519 4 S z r ilI I„. 5 .Z. 'f''' • ,,,/,,. iki 5,, ,,-_-_-_:_ _, , i„,,,, ,0 (oft. li ��J ppm ,59.0vi, i � �'— —` �� . F'i.`' a ,t9� '. )111V 111 Z • � 17/ 10-2 • I / ////, ///• _ .1:, I t-'7›,,A, ,, Orr, \ i\ / . ,/% r/ ' I S' I 1 \e,s' ;,1 ___ ) / ' R-3 __..___ g) Ni,. ,, _ 9 N 4rjT r Z , h' L I �_ B. ISSUES: 1. Whether there are special characteristics of this property which require particular consideration in evaluation of environmental impacts which may occur as a result of the proposed rezone of the property? The subject property is located in an area which is designated for commercial development on the comprehensive map. It V �. Environmental Re .:w Committee Urbaniak, Brandt" c Hess Rezone April 6, 1988 Page 2 is bounded by properties which are developed in a variety of commercial and residential uses, by the I-405 corridor, and by vacant land which could be built with commercial or residential developments. The site itself is considered to be a pivotal one, at a transitional point between commercial and residential development. As a result of this fact, it is suggested that while a program- matic rezone may be appropriate for the property, a site plan will be required prior to development of the site, to ensure that the proposed development meets the needs of and can be accommodated by the local community. This requirement is stipulated . in the Zoning Code. Additionally, it is suggested that until a site plan is approved, any and all clearing of the land of trees or other natural vegetation should be prohibited. 2 . Whether adequate public services currently exist or are now planned to serve the subject property if it is to be rezoned and then developed for commercial use? a. Access: The subject property is located in an area which is scheduled for road improvements to improve access to the site and to the surrounding area under a LID/public works project. The roadway improvements have been planned to accommodate future commercial development, in conformance with the commercial designation in the area. The City may require dedication of roadway in conjunction with future development of the subject property. b. Emergency Services: Fire and Police Departments have reported only the probability of minor impacts from the rezone of this property. Future development would require equipment to be installed to prevent/control fire; these installations are customary for all developments. No unusual concerns are noted. c. Utilities: The Utility Engineering Department would require the installation of water and sewer lines at the time of development of the property, as well as participation in water and sewer system development plans. • Additionally, at the time of development, the applicant would need to provide a management plan for drainage of surface water runoff. " Environmental Re ma Committee Urbaniak, Brandt -i Hess Rezone April 6, 1988 Page 3 d. Street Improvements: The Traffic Engineering Department would require the applicant to initiate and/or participate (through a LID) in improvements to the site, including, but not limited to: undergrounding of electrical and communication conductors on Lincoln Avenue N.E. , N.E. 43rd Street and N.E. 44th Street; providing street lighting, curbs, gutters and sidewalks. At the time of development the applicant may be required to participate in a traffic benefit district. C. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that ERC issue a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated, with the following conditions: 1. That in order to ensure preservation of the integrity of the property, the applicant shall be required to obtain authorization from the City in advance of any and all cutting or clearing of vegetation from the property. NOTE: A site plan shall be required prior to development to ensure that proposed use of the property conforms to requirements/standards designed to protect the local environment. D. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS: Various City departments have reviewed and commented upon the project. These comments are as follows: Police Department: No adverse law enforcement input noted. Fire Prevention Bureau: No comments. Design Engineering: No comments. Traffic Engineering: Developer to initiate undergrounding all overhead electrical and communication distribution conductors (power, telephone and TV cable if present) that abutts property frontage on Lincoln Ave. N.E. and N.E. 44th Street/ (110 Ave. S.E. ) . Developer also to participate in undergrounding electrical and communication conductors on N.E. 43rd Street. Provide street light drawings with off- site improvements or by means of participation in an L.I.D. Off-site improvements also include curb, gutters and sidewalk. Participation in a traffic benefit district required at time of development. Environmental Rev- -w Committee Urbaniak, Brandt, Hess Rezone April 6, 1988 Page 4 Utility Engineering: No comments. Parks and Recreation: No Park or Recreation impacts at this time. Building Division: No comments. Zoning Division: The subject rezone request to B-i does not have a site development plan to follow, therefore if B-1 Zoning is approved, the ERC should assume a worse case analysis of full development potential of property, i.e. , full retail/office use with parking garage. A scoping E.I.S. should be provided or an expanded checklist to address a worse case scenario of the property. Applicant will need to be put on notice of participation into N.E. 44th Street L.I.D. Policy Development: This proposal would appear to require the worst case analysis since it is programmatic - . unaccompanied by a specific development proposed. Under this assumption the environmental documentation should be expanded to evaluate maximum development potential with the accompanying impacts on traffic, storm water, aesthetics, land use, etc. Maximum development scenario could include a 95-foot building, full lot coverage, structured parking for maximum site utilization. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA March 25, 1988 Third Floor Conference Room Commencing at 10:00 a.m. TIME/KEY PARTICIPANTS NEW: Traffic ANNETTE HICKS DAY CARE CENTER 10:00 - 10:20 Application for conditional use permit to allow a Day Care facility for 50 children having approximately 2,800 square feet (utilizing an existing Single Family Residence) to be located in a G-1 (General-Single Family) zoned district. Property located at 3324 N.E. Sunset Boulevard. ECF-009-088/CU-009-088 Traffic/Storm Utility Engineer HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH 10:25 - 10:45 Application to rezone approximately 2.9 acres of property from R-1 to P-1 and approximately 4.6 acres of property from B-1 to P-1 for a total of 7.5 acres and application for conditional use permit to • allow for the development of a 1,500 seat auditorium addition to the existing church facility. ECF-003-88; R-003-88; CU-003-88 Traffic URBANIAK, BRANDT & HESS REZONE 10:50 - 11:10 Application to rezone approximately 3.5 acres of property from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to B-1 (Business Use) for future commercial use. The property is located south of N.E. 43rd Place (S.E. 80th street) and west of Lincoln Avenue N.E. ECF-007-88; R-007-88 Li . BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT . March 23, 1988 A. BACKGROUND: APPLICANT: Roger Urbaniak ' PROJECT: Urbaniak, Brandt & Hess Rezone PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ECF-007-88; R-007-88 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Application to rezone approximately 3 .5 acres of property from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to B-i (Business Use) for future commercial use. Property is located in a area zoned for commercial development on the Comprehensive Plan. • LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: The property is located south of N.E. 43rd Place (S.E. 80th street) and west of Lincoln Avenue N.E. /1/ g- ��1 I I —-- I \ I I H t 76rw S r - _ .- / .%'r 13z.:fil__::t32..::::c,..E,i::..A.-19 ' 7- .- -.j 11;,0 7;37 - WI . :: ) / l 1 s -,1 21 Z3 148 135 132 / l: ,„,/,„,/ / / / L r. '''':,, ..._ _ -`y � < 7N f Z E'8 : 1 r to I. I( >PPUD 69.81 / ..,... ; -- - )13 --I. - a ;-/ l/ 9 es h 65 a 150 149 ..r, NE L5F4— no. SE ` OTu 51. 3 ;I. . z Z , //// w 0,: > I I 1 6 i 5 0 I 4 L 11 -)R-3 - 7 • 7 Al V 1 , 19 / 2- 9 i ,w ST Z L-5 - -L-- _ :: 1 or _1 los --- Ha. ter. B. ISSUES: (Land Use) 1. Whether the proposed rezone is supported by the Comprehensive Plan? The property is located in an area designated for commercial use on the Comprehensive Plan. This designation has been in place for some time; there is no immediate plan to re-evaluate this area. 2. Whether the proposed rezone is appropriate with respect to the Technical Advisory Co ,ttee Urbaniak, Brandt & Hess Rezone March 23, 1988 Page 2 availability of and need for commercial properties in the City? A study of properties in the vicinity of the subject property reveals that there are currently several available, undeveloped commercial sites. That being the case, there is a question as to whether it is in the best interests of the immediate neighborhood or the community-at-large to rezone the subject property for commercial use at this time. A review of the application materials provides information indicating that this piece of property is sited at a pivotal location, immediately adjacent to existing and newly developing commercial projects. Additionally, there is residential development to the east of the site. However, the site itself is not particularly desirable for housing as it abuts the I-405 corridor. Because of the proximity to this corridor, and to commercial development, and because of its limited appeal for housing, the property is well-suited for commercial development. 3 . Whether it is possible to sufficiently evaluate impacts from rezone, and potential maximum commercial development of the site, based upon materials provided in this programmatic rezone application? This application is a general one, addressing only issues relating to rezone of the property. As there is no accompanying specific development proposal, it is incumbent upon the City to consider the property as being developable (and developed) to the maximum level of intensity permitted by the Code (e.g. building height, lot coverage, parking, landscaping) . Under this assumption, environmental documentation should be expanded to evaluate the property under maximum development potential/standards, including, but not limited to data on traffic patterns, utility services, and land uses. Alternatively, conditions should be set to require site planning or to require other conditions/covenants which set parameters for site development. 4. Whether the existing or planned infrastructure is sufficient to serve this property if it is fully developed for commercial use? The subject property is located in an area which is scheduled for utility and road improvements under both a LID, and public works projects for the City of Renton. These improvements have been planned to accommodate future Technical Advisory Co Lttee Urbaniak, Brandt & He Rezone March 23, 1988 Page 3 development in the area; there is no stated concern with respect to the capacity of these improvements to serve this site in the event of maximum commercial development. The Utility Engineering Department would require the installation of water and sewer lines at the time of development of the property, as well as participation in water and sewer systems development plans. The Traffic Engineering Department would require the developer to: a) initiate undergrounding of all overhead electrical and communication distribution conductors that abut the property on Lincoln Avenue N.E. and N.E. 44th Street, and participate; b) participate in undergrounding electrical and communication conductors on N.E. 43rd Street; c) provide street light, curb, gutter and sidewalk drawings with off-site improvements or by means of participation in an L.I.D; and d) participate in a traffic benefit district required at time of development. In addition, at the time of development the applicant would be required to provide plans and obtain permits for on- site grading activities and utility services. (Environmental) 5. Whether adequate public services exist or are now planned to serve the subject property if it is fully developed for commercial use? The City Police Department and Parks Department assess probable minor impacts from the rezone action; there is no assessment of impacts which might be incurred from maximum commercial development on this site. The Fire Department would require installation of hydrants and access roads to serve the property if it is developed, and would require equipment installation in the facility to prevent/control fire; these installations are customary for all developments. No unusual concerns are noted. C. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the ERC issue a Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated, with the following land use conditions: 1. The applicant shall be required to submit a site plan prior to development of the subject property. 2 . The applicant shall submit documentation delineating impacts and mitigation measures to the site from proposed specific development in conjunction with development application. Technical Advisory Co: .ttee - Urbaniak, Brandt & Hess Rezone March 23 , 1988 Page 4 3. The applicant shall agree to abide by all requirements and conditions established by the City in conjunction with evaluation of a specific development application. No environmental conditions are required. D. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS: Various City departments have reviewed and commented upon the project. These comments are as follows: Technical Advisory Co] ttee Urbaniak, Brandt & Hess Rezone March 23, 1988 Page 5 POLICE DEPARTMENT: Environmental: No adverse law enforcement impact. noted. Land Use: No comments. FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU: Environmental: No comments. Land Use: • DESIGN ENGINEERING: Environmental: No comments. Land Use: 1. Offsite improvements required. 2. On site grading and utility plans required. 3 . Plan and profile of 1 & 2 above required on 22 x 34" ink on original nylon. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Environmental: 1. Developer to initiate undergrounding all overhead electrical and communication distribution conductors (power, telephone and TV cable if present) that abutts property frontage on Lincoln Ave. NE and NE 44th Street/(110th Ave. SE) . 2. Developer also to participate in undergrounding electrical and communication conductors on NE 43rd Street. 3 . Provide street light drawings with off-site improvements or by means of participation in an L.I.D. Off-site improvements also include curb, gutters and sidewalk. 4 . Participation in a traffic benefit district required at time of development. Land Use: 1. Developer to initiate undergrounding all overhead electrical and communication distribution conductors (power, telephone and TV cable if present) that abutts property frontage on Lincoln Ave. NE. and NE 44th Street/(110th Ave. SE) . 2. Developer also to participate in undergrounding electrical and communication conductors on NE 43rd Street. Technical Advisory Col ttee Urbaniak, Brandt & Hess Rezone March 23 , 1988 Page 6 3 . Provide street light drawings with off-site improvements or by means of participation in an L.I.D. Off-site improvements also include curb, gutters and sidewalk. 4. Participation in a traffic benefit district required at time of development. UTILITY ENGINEERING: Environmental: No comments. Land Use: Approved with conditions for Rezone only. PARKS AND RECREATION: Environmental: No part or recreation impacts at this time. Land Use: No comments. BUILDING DIVISION: Environmental: No comments. Land Use: No comments. ZONING DIVISION: Environmental: No comments. Land Use: No comments. POLICY DEVELOPMENT: Environmental: This proposal would appear to require a worst case analysis since it is programmatic-unaccompanied by a specific development proposal. Under this assumption, the environmental documentation should be expanded to evaluate maximum development potential with the accompanying impacts on traffic, storm water, aesthetics, land use, etc. Maximum development scenario could include a 95-foot building, full lot coverage, structured parking for maximum site utilization. Technical Advisory Com tee Urbaniak, Brandt & Hess Rezone March 23, 1988 Page 7 Land Use: This rezone, while in conformance with the Comp Plan, would appear premature. It is not possible to evaluate the impacts of a speculative rezone. There, is an adequate supply of property zoned B-1 in the area at the present time so this rezone would not appear to be in the public interest at this time. NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMI- NATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON,WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE for the following pro- ject(s) under the authority of the Renton Au dr e y r ,beingfirst dulysworn on oath states Municipal Code. The Applicant(s) have completed a mitigation process pursuant to that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the WAC 197-11-350. URBANIAK, BRANDT&HESS REZONE Application to rezone approximately 3.5 VALLEY DAILY NEWS of property from R 1 (Single Famfor Residential) to B•1 (Business Use) for • Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition future commercial use. The property s located south of N.E. 43rd Place(S.E.80th street) and west of Lincoln Avenue N.E. Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week.That said newspapers (ECF-007-88; R-007-88) are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six Further information regarding this action monthsprior to the date ofpublication referred to,printed andpublished is Department,aaable in the Building and Zoning Municipal Building, Renton, in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King Washington, 235-2540. Any appeal of ERC County,Washington.The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal action must be filed with the City of Renton Hearing Examiner by Monday, April 25, newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for 1988. King County. Published: April 11, 1988 Valley `ally News R5025 Account#51067 The notice in the exact form attached,was published in the Kent Edition , Renton Edition ; , Auburn Edition , (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period.The annexed notice a Public .'sotic was published on 4 },ri.L 11 , lySS R5025 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $ 18•24 Subscribed and sworn to before m is day of E.p r i 3 198 L Notaryblic for the State of Washington, 6' , residing at Federal Way, Ci d Y 0 RENTON ( �. King County, Washington. f'• iJ �� � Er) / VDN#87 Revised 11,86 • { ., `1 121 U • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OR I G A L RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON 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 MAY 24, 1988, AT 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: URBANIAK, BRANDT & HESS REZONE Application to rezone approximately 3.5 acres of property from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to B-1 (Business Use) for future commercial use. The property is located south of N.E. 43rd Place (S.E. 80th street) and west of Lincoln Avenue N.E. (ECF-007-88; R-007-88) HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH Application for a rezone of the R-1 zone to P-1 zone according to.the Comprehensive Plan, and application for a conditional use permit for the expansion of the present church on the same parcel. The B-1 zones parcel would be fully developed for church parking. Total site is 7.5 acres in two parcels. Located at 3031 N. E. 10th St. (ECF-003-88; R-003-88; CU-003-88) ANNETTE HICKS, DAY CARE CENTER Application for conditional use permit to allow a day care facility having approximately 2,800 square feet (utilizing an existing Single Family Residence) to be located in a G-1 (General- Single Family) zoned district. The project is intended to provide day care for 50 children. A portion of the required access, parking and landscaping for this project may be located on property adjacent to the subject site through legally recorded easements running with the land and valid for the life of the project. Located at 3324 N.E. Sunset Boulevard. (ERC-009-88; CU-009-88) RENTON VILLAGE CINEMA Application for site plan approval to allow the expansion of an existing three-plex cinema (20,000 sq. ft. and 1,405 seats) to operate as an eight-plex cinema for a new total of 36,253 sq. ft. and 2,260 seats. Located in the Renton Village complex at 25 South Grady Way. (ECF-090- 87; SA-103-87) • Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Renton Building and Zoning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 24, 1988, AT 9:00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. Published: May 13, 1988 td • • • i{ ./mil I' ® i :I"= r' lc . . . ! :. ... ':• - c/91-:-",7''' ,. ; - r.."---';..'1= ..' ::::•'.• . .• ' • - , • . • .. +:'' Clty , of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner •,; . ' will hold a : CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS , CITY HALL • . .' ON'' ''-.' MAY 24, • 1988 BEGINNING AT ►.M. • P.M. • • CONCERNING: ECF-007-88, R=007-88 ' Y URBANIAK, BRANDT & HESSREZONE , '.:.!•"�'�, , it ,. ;,' , . APPLICATION' TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3. 5 ACRES. OF PROPERTY FROM R1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO B-1 (BUSINESS _USE) FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE . . N.E. NN Di .1NEEt 1 -. • ..i � O O I � ` N m y a•r m, L``L � . ' .\ 7 4:.-4.1":";,,, ip,'• ,,,t,„ i,', ' ""• L'• '?:•d,'".1.:'i:: .. I . 0 I 107-1 •0.. P: rrc� II I Y•' .. , .. „. „ . . . • e . . \ ••• .. .if i , . •,\ ---F--.. ! ID,_ ,;f e;;rs O .. e I z . Cµl 1..,.., . . . If w f� YICINIIY,t1AP. , • 4. ® • III 1 Y4• . I(0,:, ' , \ 11 • • 0 9 ® i 1 -MO•� O .•"•In , . • "vl • N•1,.r . . . :.i ,I oi D ® I vrl I r -... ClIr Y.In . .; 0\ 9 • 44 ;, .i i i • '1 �m I 1 . .. ,. . ....--. —_:., cz...;,:..,...........:.,:,. ,GENE — L°-o, .,Ll_ 1 AN R ~ ADORES- 1 LOCATED . SOUTH_ OF N.E .43rd.PLACE (S.E'. 8 0th. .STREET): AND• WEST. OF LINCOLN AVE N.E ' '''FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL THE CITY : OF RENTON -' ,.,ry,,., ':'' BUIL'DING.&ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 fit, ' :'''!';1-.,r. , ,,, HIS;',; NOTICE ' NOT TO BE ' . REMOVED. .WITHOUT :.' PROPER AUTHORIZATION i J AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the / day of 7� , 1988, I deposited 'n the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing `y 4y ii 4 documents. This information was sent to: NAME: Roger J. Blaylock The Blaylock Company 10717 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 9 Bellevue, WA 98004 Roger and Susan Urbaniak 4112 78th Ave S.E. Mercer Island, WA 98040 Hal and Lois Brandt 12727 S.E. 63rd Bellevue, WA 98006 Imogene Hess 8919 N.E. 10th Bellevue, WA 98004 SIGNED BY: L,ii4rz.a4.- SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this /6? tit day of , 1988. pooge IS fIP�FS•C,':..e.0 44:o 01 A R,. 0 ' 4.2-6Lt—e--C) C '•9 :V'`s1 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, ���/ '•GG�• ;.•������ residing at `��tJ7�� , therein. -Ze OF W PS,ie Project Name and Number: Urbanik, Brandt, Hess Rezone ECF-007-88; R-007-88 0 1111424_, WUA- (307 8d i _ q Ve4104) _:: : THE BLAYLOCK COMPANY • r�u specialists in land use procedures j . _ r7-74,J9 ,, JC ,.._ . .. . . . • 1 • , _. .1 \ , „:„Le, ,/,....-1,..„74,-. oi LA) - , r . • , , .7 -7u-S ra_ 63-.Z.D o 1p j`p r2 eg . • ail tj " January 8 , 1988 Kurt Buchanan Washington Department of Fisheries! Building # 4, Room 2129 L ____ __ .__v- 7600 Sand Point Way N. E. Seattle, Washington 98115 • Dear Mr. Buchanan: In our telephone call of December 18 , we discussed your i inspection of a site in Renton to determine whether there is a potential fisheries habitat. Enclosed is a map of the site showing existing vegetation and • - topography.' The property is the proposed Urbaniak rezone on the southwest corner of the intersection at N. E. 44th Street 1. and Lincoln Avenue North in Renton. I will call you early next week to make an appointment for • the on-site inspection. • Sincerely, i . (-7-' 0Vie•- • . '7 61N(44 S . Roger J. Bla lock R�� `"re- - STATE OF WASHINGT - n ;• 1 DEPARTMENT;;`_ OF • '_;; " - �yi IB89�QY FISHERIES CITY OF RENTON tr. CFEBVIE1 KURT BUCHANAN �� ��8 REGIONAL HABITAT MANAGER Habitat Management DivisionSCAN 335-6582 BUILDING p (� Iii Seat le,aWA 981115 ay N.E. (206) 5458582 ! Z NING DEPT. i ..aY 3 :' - 10717 NE Fourth Street,Suite 9 - • Bellevue,Washington 98004 • (206)455-1550 ,l , THE BLAYLOCK COMPANY specialists in land-use procedures • • January 27 , 1988 Kurt Buchanan Washington State Dpt. of Fisheries Building # 4 , Room 2129 7600 Sand Point Way N. E. Seattle , Washington 98115 Dear Mr. Buchanan: After our conversation of January 21, I consulted with my client and he concurs with the concept of improving the • quality of the storm water drainage leaving the site and create a new habitat if possible to enhance the fisheries resources in the immediate area. • Actually design considerations by the Washington State Department of Fisheries would occur when a specific project design is being reviewed by the City of Renton. A very sensitive approach to the design review process would be to use firms such as the Water Shed of Kirkland or Water Dynamics of Enumclaw to develop the design for the storm water collection system to collect and place it in an open steam bed. At this early stage we would anticipate that the stream. bed will be located along the western margin of the subject ' s site. • Thank you for your professional review of the on-site amenities and determination whether a fisheries resource could be developed on the site. This would appear to tie _ in with the concept promoted by the City of Renton to create Open drainage channels that would encourage the resource that has been- identified to the north adjacent to the Denny' s _ restaurant- site. , We will' keep you informed of any future development on the site and also if you form any subsequent purchasers of the Department of Fisheries concern in the general area. Sincerely, , �RoJ. -Blaylock psn cc:Roger Urbaniak • 10717 NE Fourth Street,Suite 9 ' . • Bellevue,Washington 98004 • (206)455-1550 ®/ ,k `4 CITY OF RENTON ta BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director ' March 10, 1988 Mr. Roger J. Blaylock The Blaylock Company 10717 N.E. 4th Street Suite #9 Bellevue, WA 98004 SUBJECT: URBANIK, BRANDT, HESS REZONE File Numbers - R-007-88, ECF-007-88 Dear Mr. Blaylock, The Renton Building and Zoning Department has conducted a preliminary review of the above referenced application to rezone approximately 3 . 5 acres of property from R-1 to B-1 located at the southwest intersection of NE 43rd Place and Lincoln Avenue N.E. The applications have been routed for departmental review and is tentatively scheduled for the Technical Advisory Committee on March 23 , 1988. The application as presented does not provide us with a site plan on how the property is to be developed if the B-1, Zoning Classification is granted. It is therefore a speculative rezone and we then must assume that the property will be developed to the maximum potential allowed based upon that zoning. The environmental review conducted for this project will be predicated upon this assumption. In respect to the public hearing that will be required of the rezone, without development plans accompanying the application, this office will not support the rezone to B-1 for merely speculation. Even with the comprehensive plan's designation of "commercial" for the property, it may be untimely to rezone the property. Also, the City's Comprehensive Plan has not been studied or updated within his region for several years and perhaps commercial is not the best designation for the property's future use. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 Blaylock Company March 9, 1988 Page 2 If you are able to provide us with any information in respect to the future use and scope of development proposed on the property, we may be persuaded to alter our initial impression. Otherwise, as mentioned, support for the project will not likely be attainable at this time from this department. /4(/ Donald K. Erickson, ACIP Zoning Administrator DKE:JFL:sgr Blaylock/lind is oO ` CITY OF RENTON °oa BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director March 3, 1988 Imogene Hess 8919 N.E. 10th Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: Urbaniak, Brandt & Hess Rezone File No. ECF-007-88, R-007-88 Dear Ms. Hess, • The Building and Zoning Department has formally accepted the above referenced application. It has been routed for departmental review and is tentatively scheduled for the Technical Review Committee on March 23 , 1988, for consideration. If you have any questions regarding the scheduling of this project, please contact our office at 235-2550. Sincerely, CALkciLAAN- Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE/sar Filedsc:a:accptltr 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 CITY OF ItENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director March 3 , 1988 Hal & Lois Brandt 12727 S.E. 63rd Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: Urbaniak, Brandt & Hess Rezone File No. ECF-007-88, R-007-88 Dear Hal and Lois Brandt, The Building and Zoning Department has formally accepted the above referenced application. It has been routed for departmental review and is tentatively scheduled for the Technical Review Committee on March 23, 1988, for consideration. If you have any questions regarding the scheduling of this project, please 'contact our office at 235-2550. Sincerely, Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE/sar Filedsc:a:accptltr 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director March 3, 1988 Roger J. Blaylock The Blaylock Company 10717 N.E. 4th St. , Suite 9 Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: Urbaniak, Brandt & Hess Rezone File No. ECF-007-88, R-007-88 Dear Mr. Blaylock, The Building and Zoning Department has formally accepted the above referenced application. It has been routed for departmental review and is tentatively scheduled for the Technical Review Committee on March 23, 1988, for consideration. If you have any questions regarding the scheduling of this project, please contact our office at 235-2550. Sincerely, Donald K. Erickson, AICP ' Zoning Administrator DKE/sar Filedsc:a:accptltr 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 db -OW CITY OF RENTON ask BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director March 3, 1988 Roger & Susan Urbaniak 4112 78th Ave S.E. Mercer Island, WA 98040 RE: Urbaniak, Brandt & Hess Rezone File No. ECF-007-88, R-007-88 Dear Roger and Susan Urbaniak, The Building and Zoning Department has formally accepted the above referenced application. It has been routed for departmental review and is tentatively scheduled for the Technical Review Committee on March 23, 1988, for consideration. If you have any questions regarding the scheduling of this project, please contact our office at 235-2550. Sincerely, • Donald K. Erickson, AICP 7� Zoning Administrator DKE/sar Filedsc:a:accptltr 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 It w {' CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director March 3, 1988 Mr. Roger Urbaniak Bellmond Realty 919 124th N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 RE: Urbaniak, Brandt & Hess Rezone File No. ECF-007-88, R-007-88 - Dear Mr. Urbaniak, The Building and Zoning Department has formally accepted the above referenced application. It has been routed for departmental review and is tentatively scheduled for the Technical Review Committee on March 23, 1988, for consideration. If you have any questions regarding the scheduling of this project, please contact our office at 235-2550. Sincerely, Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE/sar Filedsc:a:accptltr 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: rkildwi DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 29 , 1988 COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 11 , 1988 EFC - 007 - 88 APPLICATION NO(S). : REZONE : R-007-88 PROPONENT: ROGER URBANIAK PROJECT TITLE: URBANIAK, BRANDT & HE S S REZONE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3 . 5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO B-1 (BUSINESS USE) FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION: THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF N.E. 43rd PLACE (S.E . 80th STREET) AND WEST OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: CITY OF RENTON RECF VFr MAR 11988 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expert' n and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additiona •rmation is n eded to properly assess this proposal. / a 8 Sign a of Director or Authorized Representative Date RENTO UILDING & ZONING DEPAI VENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF — 007 _ 88 APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE: R-007-88 PROPONENT : ROGER URBANIAK PROJECT TITLE : URBANIAK, BRANDT & HESS REZONE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO B-1 (BUSINESS USE) FOR FUTURE COMMFRC LAI IISF_ LOCATION : THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF N.E. 43rd PLACE (S.E. 80th STREET) AND WEST OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. TO : [—] PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 3j23/88 0 ENGINEERING DIVISION fl TRAFFIC ENG . DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU E] PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 1I BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT F-1 POLICE DEPARTMENT El POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M. ON. MARCH 11. 1988 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : G3L-7� APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [1] NOT APPROVED CITY OF RENTON REcEVVFr MAR 11988 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. Ze. C, (-107/W DATE: (-7- 10 SIGNA E OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 • 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET Wen Fire DePt. . REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: FtnPreventianBur�n fre- VireAw4Icr, .\vri Vh. DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 29 , 1988 COMMENTS AN MARCH 11:•188 EFC - 007 - 88 APPLICATION NO(S). : REZONE : R-007-88 r PROPONENT: ROGER URBANIAK PROJECT TITLE: URBANIAK, BRANDT & HE S S REZONE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3 . 5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO B-1 (BUSINESS USE) FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION: THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF N.E. 43rd PLACE (S.E . 80th STREET) AND WEST OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation // 15) Public Services ./ 16) Utilities COMMENTS: CITY OF RENTON REcFlvrr FEB 29 1988 BU!LDONGIZONING DEPT. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Fn, A . • RENTC. BUILDING & ZONING DEPA MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 007 _ 88 APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE: R-007-88 PROPONENT: ROGER URBANIAK PROJECT TITLE : URBANIAK, BRANDT & HESS REZONE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO B-1 (BUSINESS USE) FOR FUTURE COMNIFRCIAI USF. LOCATION : THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF N.E. 43rd PLACE (S.E. 80th STREET) AND WEST OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. TO: El PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 3/23/88 El ENGINEERING DIVISION n TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : n UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION M FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU CITY OF RENTON n PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT pEcFnrcr • BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT FEB 291988 • POLICE DEPARTMENT BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT n OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M. ON. MARCB 11, 1988 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : ? i \cW\ n APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED ,P12epeery is cue:tope-4 Any development and/or construction shall comply with current Are and Building Codes and Ordi- nances. A second means of approved access is required. Fire De. partment access roads/lanes shall be paved minimum width 20', minimum height 13' 6". Yes No......— Ad/A, is Preliminary fire ti w cal l: ians show a fire flow of required. y jA hydrants with a minimum flow of /ow gPm each is required. Primary hydrant is required to be within /sa feet of the structure. Secondary hydrants are required to be within .34.o' feet of the structure. An approved automatic sprinkler system is required to protect the total structure. Yes.,..,... No.... All fire department access roads'are to be paved and installed prior to construction. Yes... No.�.; All fire hydrants are required to be installed and approved prior to construction. Yes..., No...... DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 i 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEL1 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: arl<S DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRU RY 29 , 1988 COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 11 1988 EFC - 007 - 88 APPLICATION NO(S). : REZONE : R-007-88 PROPONENT: ROGER URBANIAK PROJECT TITLE: URBANIAK, BRANDT & HESS REZONE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3 . 5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO B-1 (BUSINESS USE) FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION: THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF N.E. 43rd PLACE (S.E . 80th STREET) AND WEST OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics �C 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: No �a,�k CYLei 11 -ti, l. ci 4 71— -4./ CImOFFRRENTON IVEC REC , 'MAR 11 BUILDING/ZONING DEFT. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional infor ti e ed to properly assess this proposal. r/Zr Signatu of Direct() or Authorized Representative Date Form d RENTI BUILDING & ZONING DEP 'MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 007 _ 88 APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE: R-007-88 PROPONENT : ROGER URBANIAK PROJECT TITLE : URBANIAK, BRANDT & HESS REZONE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO B-1 (BUSINESS USE) FOR FUTURE COMMFRCIAL USF_ LOCATION : THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF N.E. 43rd PLACE: (S.E. 80th STREET) AND WEST OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. TO: n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 3/23/88 n ENGINEERING DIVISION n TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : El UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION n FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU SPARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ❑ POLICE DEPARTMENT 0 POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 :00 P .M. ON. MARCt1 11, 1988 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : ,/ i4 T /e. c/ G6l --&‹. [XL!WPROVED F-1 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Eli NOT APPROVED CITY OF RENTON RECEIVEr MAR 1 1988 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. i DATE : 2 2 � p'SIGNAT # 1' ` OF D REC R OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE • REVISION 5/1982 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET " REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Vol c nPa�C DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 29 , 1988 COMMENTS DUsie, .J RC, ,,;1:9, 8 EFC - 007 - 88 CITY OF RENTON (-1 APPLICATION NO(S). : REZONE : R-007-88 I� FEB 2 9 198R PROPONENT: ROGER URBAN IAK 6 2 C E O pa L5 (� PROJECT TITLE: URBANIAK, BRANDT & HESS REZONE U BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3 . 5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO B-1 (BUSINESS USE) FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION: THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF N,E, 43rd PLACE (S .E . 80th STREET) AND WEST OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water X 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources x X. 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use X 9) Housing �- 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare X 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation _ 14) Transportation u 15) Public Services J4, 16) Utilities '�C COMMENTS: _--14C A-Ast.kAA,obt_ tb-t-r -24-ae-T • ) "P'=la7Z -LOX S 41-t-'-t-t""L-4-461 CITY OF RENTdN RECEIV r MAR 71988 • BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impactor areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 4,4,)A:41 3- 7- )J2g Signature f Director or Authorized Representative Date Form 4 RENT( BUILDING & ZONING DEPA MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 007 - 88 APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE: R-007-88 PROPONENT: ROGER URBANIAK PROJECT TITLE : URBANIAK, BRANDT & HESS REZONE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO B-1 (BUSINESS USE) .FOR FUTURE COMMFRCIAI USF. LOCATION : THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF N.E. 43rd PLACE (S.E. 80th STREET) AND WEST OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. TO : n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 3/23/88 r-] ENGINEERING DIVISION r1TRAFFIC ENG . DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : n UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION 0 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU F-1 PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT n BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 0 POLICE DEPARTMENT 154._POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE 'COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M. ON. MARCH 11, 1988 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : j7OtIc.. APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS F4NOT APPROVED /C.I� egl,mic, 7Z ..e ll'l1(.t.ast c, ,t.,.(iCI-OL.O.. ) . st, / D -lam ft l . t CITY OF REIdTO . RECEWF1 MAR 7 1988 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. 4i ,J� � DATE : 3- 7- X SIGNATURE0 DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 i 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: lac DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 29 , 1988 COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 11 , 1988 EFC - 007 - 88 APPLICATION NO(S). : REZONE : R-007-88 PROPONENT: ROGER URBANIAK PROJECT TITLE: URBANIAK, BRANDT & MESS REZONE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3 . 5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO B-1 (BUSINESS USE) FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION: THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF N.E . 43rd PLACE (S.E . 80th STREET) AND WEST OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: 4.44-t4 CITY OF RENTON PECF:IVEC MAR 21$BB;. BUILDING/ZONING DBIDT. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional infor tion is ne ded to properly assess this proposal. () „e,L, Signa ure of D. ector o Authorize Representative Date Fnrm A ..t RENTC; BUILDING & ZONING DEPA MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF — 007 _ 88 APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE: R-007-88 PROPONENT: ROGER URBANIAK PROJECT TITLE : URBANIAK., BRANDT & HESS REZONE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO B-1 (BUSINESS USE) FOR FUTURE COMMFRCIAI USE. LOCATION : THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF N.E. 43rd PLACE (S.E. 80th STREET) AND WEST OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. TO: Ell PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 3j23/88 Ell ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG . DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION 0 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU r-] PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT n OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M, ON. MARCH 11, 1988 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : FA—APPROVED ri APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS n NOT APPROVED CITY OF ktNION RECFn/Fr MAR 2.. 1988 BUILDING/ZONING DEP"T. v 1( - DATE: 44—,407 5`r RE SIGNATURE OF D CTOR OR AUTHOR,IZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 n "us 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: alt3v�eerl DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 29 , 1988 COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 11 , 1988 EFC - 007 - 88 APPLICATION NO(S). : REZONE : R-007-88 PROPONENT: ROGER URBANIAK PROJECT TITLE: URBANIAK, BRANDT & HESS REZONE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3 . 5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO B-1 (BUSINESS USE) FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION: THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF N.E . 43rd PLACE (S .E. 80th STREET) AND WEST OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR . MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth ✓ 2) Air ✓� 3) Water 4) Plants ✓ 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use ✓ 9) Housing ✓ 10) Aesthetics ✓ 11) Light and Glare �✓ 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation ✓ 14) Transportation ✓ 15) Public Services 16) Utilities ✓ COMMENTS: CITY GF FENTON In Ecg,VEC MAR ,1 1988 BUiLDSNG/ZONING DEPT. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional infor ation is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signatur of irector o thorized Representative Date Few— A RENT( BUILDING & ZONING DEPA MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 007 _ 88 APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE: R-007-88 PROPONENT : ROGER URBANIAK PROJECT TITLE : URBANIAK, BRANDT & HESS REZONE . BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-i (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO B-1 (BUSINESS USE) FOR FUTURE COMMFRCIAI USF. LOCATION : THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF N.E. 43rd PLACE. (S.E. 80th STREET) AND WEST OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. TO: 0 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 3/23/88 ENGINEERING DIVISION r1TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : n UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION n FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 0 PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT n BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT n POLICE DEPARTMENT El POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT n OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 :00 P .M. ON. MARCH 11:, 1988 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : l' n APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS JNOT APPROVED /erte4.- ee 3 41 CITY OF RENTON MAR 71988 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. DATE : SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE • REVISION 5/1982 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Zrir-Nlifyi DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 2 , 1988 COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 11 , 1988 EFC - 007 - 88 APPLICATION NO(S). : REZONE : R-007-88 PROPONENT: ROGER URBAN IAK PROJECT TITLE: URBANIAK, BRANDT & HESS REZONE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3 . 5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO B-1 (BUSINESS USE) FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION: THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF N.E , 43rd PLACE (S .E . 80th STREET) AND WEST OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. SITE AREA: f�C.R.e BUILDING AREA (gross): YW - IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth 2riell/Nu. 2) Air .mod. 3) Water iv ..opg 4) Plants a ifivl7 UEPT. 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) 11:q and Shore Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 7� 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation ��. 15) Public Services L/�. 16) Utilities COMMENTS: 1'c st-te ifD t pm' ' P Ft)(, cco, rH - R i E 6v1 J(&)1 Al V co J I / 4 0_6 31 ULJD I\-S.S (A,m0 wort t CGP.S SIS r(4,Lb a meit)1 6011 AL C p6Zopermr6, I '• �U Vk, i 1/d L/ �1��, tA 5 q I ( pNR,Iciro6 GAP, 6F o A csoopro6 6,i,S, 3-&duuO b• p era c)� 64PN0D iri p ly c6-1 k3131185,5 piolLI C;WT tA) uu I'Ut l7 lbe ipto 010 Pt�`ZYI�I A-1 1 iT IUD, 4+1 311' L. I, Q , We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 3-2. 1 -08 Signature of Dir ct r or Authorized Representative Date Fnr,,, A RENT( BUILDING & ZONING DEPA MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 007 _ 88 APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE: R-007-88 PROPONENT : ROGER URBANIAK PROJECT TITLE : URBANIAK, BRANDT & HESS REZONE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO B-1 (BUSINESS USE) FOR FUTURE COMMFRCLAI USF_ LOCATION : THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF N.E. 43rd PLACE (S.E. 80th STREET) AND WEST OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. TO : PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: 3j23/88 0 ENGINEERING DIVISION n TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : n UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION n FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU CITY OF E�Yo�i� R � l�J � klPARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT O pzi_nMAR211 BUILDING & ZONING EPARTMENT 1. n POLICE DEPARTMENT n POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT [1OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON. MARCH 11, 1988 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : -CD\IIYO, Ut Obi OK). n APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS rx NOT APPROVED LO n i ltOul D 6/8i-ripieneAd P6P4Os, 71 3u S \ItLZ011 Wticiudsi c1u,R,rw&)i L�' is, Chu IS Pr Di/ or A V A I L Ev6Le ) utootv&Cp80 ey I `Z,ot P RT`( PR.oPERT7`f its 1 wlvv LT I N-16 Nxiess Nuo ROD► 1La'JA , I -(.,W)\-)t° PTO P.T'( Irkr f fool rbe wife IN i pr c ii9 is- Auso, Gom pRe I asi u P tAN tv brt Up OI IA) i 2 Quo& 36,6,E 1e,ktap Corn,rn r�c1 r�L t,t5z,15 1001 13857 odslc/N1`tloki Plop trris ibev 1__ DATE : 7`'2.1-'8 SIGNATURE OF DIREC&R OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 CITY OF RENTON A %,,,, ' REPEIVC,D MENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET 2149N ENVIRON MAR P 1988 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: LI�iIi-\t-c DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 29 , 1988 COMMENTS DUE Ui 4E i/ZONINA8eEPT. EFC - 007 - 88 APPLICATION NO(S). : REZONE : R-007-88 PROPONENT: ROGER URBAN IAK PROJECT TITLE: URBAN IAK, BRANDT & HE S S REZONE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3 . 5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO B-1 (BUSINESS USE) FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION: THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF N.E . 43rd PLACE (S.E . 80th STREET) AND WEST OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth 2) Air V 3) Water 4) . Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation - 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services ✓ 16) Utilities COMMENTS: We have reviewed this application with .particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where addition.. .7nfor iin is needed to properly assess this proposal. , 0 „ -3/ 9 kg Signatu! - of Director or Authorized Representative Date / `, RENTO 3UILDING & ZONING DEPAI' TENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET CITY OF RENTON RECF11.10 ECF - 007 - 88 MAR p ig88 APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE: R-007-88 EUIWLNNG/ZONING DEPT. PROPONENT : ROGER URBANIAK PROJECT TITLE : URBANIAK, BRANDT & HESS REZONE . BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO B-1 (BUSINESS USE) FOR FUTURE COMMFRCIAI USF_ LOCATION : THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF N.E. 43rd PLACE (S.E. 80th STREET) AND WEST OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. TO : n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 3i23/88 ri ENGINEERING DIVISION n TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : 171iTILITIES ENG , DIVISION n FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU n PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT Ei BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT n POLICE DEPARTMENT n POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT in OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M, 0N. MARCH 11, 1988 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : . 147L/Ty ,d1V6-/A/h&.Eaed1MLo ri APPROVED ' APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS n NOT APPROVED Foie i Ozoac%a ®I/bc. St dPgatte & f 1 UTILITY APPROVAL SUBJECT TO _.--- LATE COMERS AGREEMENT-p 7 --h10 LATE COMERS AGREEMENT-SeiGFA �_ Lia��- Q ',SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CRECIE-WA�: :i F. S••. r. x(1..fAc) /S2,4A ,�/0�� '" SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT Ci-ARCI -SEWER yeas a. .X (,?. (AG, // = Atto, ®9e: e/ SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CI? :3SE-WATER `0 l 1 lg� �D SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ARM MANE-SEWER MO 1 ���' YTeNE G�DA�EL APPROVED WATER PLAN ] 11 fi"f* Of ' ' 4 ahletwii4hke APPROVED SEWER PLAN V- 5N4-/4 ,. ' IK LrN .* o tllt�.Eia$4 SE t 2Ll, APPROVED FIRE RYDRANI LOCUMS 165 BY FIRE ez 2T. FI;iE€E17111fIPry °In ? apit-t- v 1 ` .4 DATE : 3/ 7 A SIGNATURE I1 DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE .3-e-JfB'Lvo }-S-ss • REVISION 5/1982 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 29 , 1988 COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 11 , 1988 EFC - 007 - 88 APPLICATION NO(S). : REZONE : R-007-88 PROPONENT: ROGER URBAN IAK PROJECT TITLE: URBANIAK, BRANDT & HESS REZONE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3 . 5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO B-1 (BUSINESS USE) FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. LOCATION: THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF N.E. •43rd PLACE (S.E . 80th STREET) AND WEST OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants �r 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources B� 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: 1. Developer to initiate undergrounding all overhead electrical and communication distribution conductors (power, telephone and TV . cable if present) that abutts property frontage on Lincoln Ave. NE and NE 44th Street/(110th Ave. SE) . 2. Developer also to participate in undergrounding electrical and communication conductors on NE 43rd Street. 3. Provide street light drawings with off-site improvements or by means of participation in an L.I.D. Off-site improvements also include curb, gutters and sidewalk. 4. Participation in a traffic benefit district required at time of development. , CITY OF RENTON QCEIVFD MAR 71988 stamilivsizONINOPT.�� We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise, in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. . /7g, Signature of Director or Authoriz d Representative Date Form d RENT( BUILDING & ZONING DEPA 'MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 007 _ 88 APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE: R-007-88 PROPONENT : ROGER URBANIAK PROJECT TITLE : URBANIAK, BRANDT & HESS REZONE • BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO B-1 (BUSINESS USE) FOR FUTURE COMMFRCIAI USF_ LOCATION : THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF N.E. 43rd PLACE (S.E. 80th STREET) AND WEST OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. TO : n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 3/23/88 ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG . DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION 11:1 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT n BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT n POLICE DEPARTMENT n POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT n OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 :00 P .M, ON. MARCH 11, 1988 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : -T-2tYTT)C E NG 1 J€ fi g-1 1 n APPROVED [ ' )ROVED WITH CONDITIONS 0 NOT APPROVED 1. Developer to initiate undergrounding all overhead electrical and communication distribution conductors (power, telephone and TV cable if present) that abutts property frontage on Lincoln Ave. NE and NE 44th Street/(110th Ave. SE) . 2. Developer also to participate in undergrounding electrical and communication conductors on NE 43rd Street. 3. Provide street light drawings with off-site improvements or by means of participation in an L.I.D. Off-site improvements also include curb, gutters and sidewalk. 4. Participation in a traffic benefit district required at time of development. • DATE: �/6Z ��Li� 0/7 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHO ' ZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 e CITY OF REN'TON FILE NQ(S): -60 -eel)BL )ING & ZONING DEPARTMIMASTER APPLICATION NOTE TO APPLICANT: Since this is a comprehensive application form, only those items related to your specific type of application(s) .ore to be completed. (Please print or type. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) APPLICANT ITYPE OF APPLICATION NAME FEES Roger:Urbaniak ) ,� ADDRESS Be1lmond Realty *iFRow R-1 TO B-1 919 12 4 th N.E. 0 SPECIAL PEST* CITY ZIP ED TEMPORARY PERMIT* Bellevue, WA 98005 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT* coL TELEPHONE SITE PLAN APPROVAL (206) 454-1941 CD SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GRADE AND FILL No. of Cubic Yards: - CONTACT PERSON 0 VARIANCE* From Section: * Justification Required NAME Roger J. Blaylock The Blaylock Company 4 ADDRESS SUBDIVISIONS: 10717 N.E. 4th St. , Suite 9 0 SHORT PLAT CITY ZIP 0 TENTATIVE PLAT Bellevue, WA 98004 0 PRELIMINARY PLAT TELEPHONE 0 FINAL PLAT (206) 455-1550 0 WAIVER (Justification Required) OWNER NO. OF LOTS: NAME PLAT NAME: See Attached t " ADDRESS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: 0 PRELIMINARY CITY ZIP 0 FINAL TELEPHONE P.U.D. NAME: 0 Residential 0 Industrial 0 Commercial 0 Mixed LOCATION MOBILE HOME PARKS; PROPERTY ADDRESS Southwest Corner N.E. `0 ' k& Lincoln Ave. N.E. 0 TENTATIVE EXISTING USE PRESENT ZONING PRELIMINARY ED Small unused house R-1 FINAL PROPOSED USE PARK NAME: NUMBER Of SPACES: Og) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE !Z OO SQ. FT. ACRES AREA: 3 .5 TOTAL FEES ° ` `,-; " 11N"9STAFF USE ONLY -- ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING ''1 "STAMP i l I' P� DATE STAMP `' UMil + ,n �L) t 1 .yI APPLICATION RECEIVED BY: '- �.l�Ot_ 9�/tifa �I,9 1 i__ ,'L8 / 5-1q�1�•- !' TA J? APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: �V '' iJ 0 Accepted --:. - G/ZONING DEPT. 0 Incomplete Notification Sent On By: (Initials) DATE ROUTED ADDITIONAL MATERIAL RECEIVED BY: 2 . 2 qI -tiVb APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: QAccepted 0 Incomplete Notification Sent On By: (Initials)_ ROUTED TO: 0 Building eel Design Eng. En Fire fit Parks In Police MI Policy Dev. Traffic Eng. ± Utilities Legal description of property (If more space Is required, attach a separate sheet). 4401 Lincoln Ave N.E. Southwest corner of N.E. 44th Street and Lincoln Ave N.E. (S.E. 80th St. and 110th Ave S .E. ) . Lots 1 and 4 , block 2 , C. D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden .Additioo Seattle, Vol. 16 of plats, page 18, in King County, Washington. N.E. 1/4 Section 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East. AFFIDAVIT Roger Drbaniak I, , being' duly sworn, declare that I am authorized representative to act for the property owner,Mowner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS 6 DAY OF —g, , NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, RESIDING • AT - ---RteAVY)[))1�ff 1 (Name of Notary Public) (Signatwe of Owner) r/7 (Address) .' (Address) (City) (State) (Zip) 233q (. 7 (Telephone) . Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete " application. Plans and other materials required to constitute a complete application are listed in the "Application Procedure." Form #174 • c;TYOFRE 0 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 1 1800 COLUMBIA CENTER, 701 FIFTH AVE., SEATTLE, WA 98104 (206) 628-5666 Li FEB 0 a 198p CO BUILDING/ZONING L. February 4, 1988 Mr. Roger Blaylock The Blaylock Company 10717 NE 4th Street, Suite 9 Bellevue, WA 98004 Dear Mr. Blaylock: At the request of Hal Brandt, this letter is to verify ownership of the following described land: , Lot 1 except that portion of the north 150 feet thereof which lies easterly of the west 36 feet; and all of Lot 4, Block 2, C. D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle, Div. No. 7, according to the plat thereof recorded in volume 16 of Plats, page 18, in King County, Washington. We have searched the records and as of January 29, 1988 title to the above described land is vested in HAL BRANDT, THE HEIRS AND DEVISEES OF SAMUEL M. HESS, DECEASED and ROGER URBANIAK, dba GARDEN OF EDEN JOINT VENTURE. The interests of Brandt and Urbaniak are presumptively subject to the comminity interests of their spouses, if married. The probate for Hess is pending and discloses that his former wife, IMOGENE C. HESS, claims an ownership interest in his share. Should you require further information, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Kathy V Bergen Sr. Title Officer CC: Hal Brandt (-_ ':' U. ( 10`) "( ,. PN e REVENUE STAMPS THIS SPACE RESERVED FOR RECORDER'S USE Pioneer National Title Insurance Company WASHINGTON TITLE DIVISION T Filed for Record at Request of ttt .:ii1WUED era ' ..-..... EQUEST OF. `� ' t^ C111,1 1975 MAY 8 Atli 8 30 u �cl 0 TO CC G` c e -rp�e / DIRECTCli:::C.COKO ,t ZOO 12 'z• - 4's/, ELECTIONS KiI:G CO. wtr. 0�►�rt^�tn /: DEPUTY 21n v'ptG^ r0rFv y, -j --- VIC ) -' ' ' re 0 ___B 0 5 '0138 i X FORM t_-aa•R C\J bUlLD1NGiZ0N►NG DEPT. o Deed and Seller's Assignment of Real Estate Contract Co (CORPORATE FORM) CD j THE GRANTOR MUNSON INVESTMENT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, l!-? for value received conveys and quit claims to 03/1 $Mld$XXXRHYLLTX XXNEX4 8X>} AAKIII4X6 {XKK4K}filf iiii4 HAL BRANDT, SAMUEL M. HESS , and ROGER URBANIAK dba GARDEN OF EDEN JOINT VENTURE , , the grantee, the following described real estate, situated in the County of King State of Washington including any interest therein which grantor may hereafter acquire: North 150 feet of Lot 1, Block 2 , C. D. Hillman' s Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle , Div. No. 7 , according to the plat recorded in Volume 16 of Plats, Page 18 , in King County, Washington, EXCEPT the West 36 feet. '•-v SUBJECT TO: delinquent taxes •as fcX s3xrl6.iKtc} lfcxM66/4x and does hereby assign, transfer and set over to the grantee that certain real estate contract dated the 20th day of September, 1967 between Munson Investment Corporation, a Washington corporation, assellerand Richard S . Beamer, a single man and J. Starr Farish, a single man, as purchaser for the sale and purchase of the above described real estate. The grantee hereby assume sand agree s to fulfill the conditions of said real estate contract and the grantor hereby covenants that there is now unpaid on the principal of said contract the sum of IN WITNFSS WHEREOF, said corporation has caused this instrument to be executed by its proper officers and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed this / 41 day of May, 19 7 5. MUNS N INVES MEN -.-CQ.Rl?Q ION V:"060•7• t N,Z 13y.. �",� t- .-L — , 40 President. F.14°... . °`$ gy ._ate d 71, ,, _ wN t OM0j 1 Secretary. STATE OF WASHIN TON,G a6,IN Ytssh Y iASVAWI Count of King OFE 1u b t'oully� On this / ....----- May, 1975 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and fo e State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Richard R. Munson nand Esther B. Munson to me known to be the President and Secretary, respectively, of MUNSON INVESTMEN'. CORP .RA . 11 the corpora s' Ecured the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary,•� 1,0 a said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that they r•10e.--•.pES z~< dized to execute the said in and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corpora•„....4 ,, WittelOt it. and-antif'offieial seal hereto affixed t da and year first above writte, i ` .---3:,p- '- •••.: ---/ ‘.A 2----t- -,--C-c,,-- J��i=- ` �• " Notary Pub in and for the State of Washington, 7,,.•.i.c� G\.• i` residing at Renton. • /f = !')I y'e 6' CL I ttiv. CI left ��_431 3/216.7 .7 WASHINGTON REAL ESTATE CONTRACT ° f TITLE INSURANCE .. COMPANY • ��A. t. '.�• G.. THIS AGREEMENT,made and entered into this 27th day of February, 1967 between WILLIAM F. FAAS and HAZEL IRENE, FAAS, his wife hereinafter called the "seller,"and MUN C R'e ' 'TION a Washington corporation o -r) L • hereinafter called the "purchaser," FEB 0 51988 WITNESSETH: That the seller agrees to sell to the purchaser and the purchaser agrees to purchase of the seller the following described real estate, with tl a tAPAgail s lUtttrateCii the County.of KING State of Washington,to-wit: Lots 1 and 4 Block 2, C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle, Div. No. 7 according to plat recorded in Volume 16 of plats, page 18, in King County, Washington • The terms and.conditions of this contract are as follows: The purchase price is FORTY THOUSAND ($40,000.00 ) Dollars,of which EIGHT THOUSAND and no/100 ($ 8,000.00 ) Dollars has been paid, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, and the balance of said purchase price shall be paid as follows: in monthly installments of $250.00 or more per month, including interest at the rate of 6 3/4% per annum on the diminishing balance. First of said payments to be made April 1., 1967 and a like payment on the 1st day of each and every months thereafter, until full balance of purchase price has been paid. Payment to apply first • upon account of interest due to date of payment and the balance on the principal. „Tt is understood that there is a mortgage on the property in the amount of $6,200.00, which said mortgage the Seller agrees to pay according to the terms thereof. In the event of his failure to make such said mortgage payment, the Purchaser may make the payments and deduct the amount of the payment from the payment to the Seller under this contract. The purchaser is entitled to take possession of said premises on C lOS ing The purchaser agrees to pay before delinquency all taxes and assessments that may as between grantor and grantee hereafter become a lien on said premises. • The purchaser assumes all hazards of damage to or destruction of any improvements now on said land or here- after to be placed thereon,and of the taking of said premises or any part thereof for public use. The purchaser agrees, until full payment of the said purchase price, to keep all buildings on said described premises insured to the full insurable value thereof against loss or damage by fire in some company acceptable to the seller and for the seller's benefit as interest may appear and to pay all premiums therefor and to deliver all policies and renewals thereof to the seller. In case the purchaser shall fail to make any payment hereinbefore provided by the purchaser to be made, the -- seller may make such payment and any amount so paid by the seller, together with interest thereon froth dat,gf..cY 1, payment until repaid at the rate of ten (10) per cent per annum, shall be repayable by the purchaser on d-. . without prejudice to any other right the seller might have by reason of such default. • The purchaser agrees that full inspection of said described premises has been made and'that ne he e11 nor assigns shall be held to any covenant respecting the condition of any improvements on said premlirs" agreement for alterations, improvements or repairs, unless the covenant or agreement relied on be in writingl and attached to and made a part of this contract. '.,_� • Tt .S Si•kei RESERVED F% RECORDER'S USE1 ri .1401. B r CD 02 TFIilL .'INS(URANCE'"CIJi °A Y _C-1 c vA C a;�.Trl �� Ln Filed for Record at Request of } -- 3 G. e de* OF Ed ew c.o"h t l4fy/4irrr `:::." z ; ZO N. Name CZQ . . .ale."'Sri g-- 4'()l.l'S.l.R. ,/,f:? Z.. e 1 7U D /�P� ? fr E�%i i '1 IkOE, ,S E Address .... k i8 j....�.sed.: r al 0 RECCE F 5. Ol3 City and State 8l //c.l.�uf 4 7't.QO r CASHSL '+:»1 i. 00 CITY OF RENTON _ • Form 467-W-1-REV FEB 0 51988 atutory Warranty Deed I f40`kivn+zIm.x ,M F. FAAS, survivor of the marital community of Willia F. Faas and Hazel Irene Faas, and owner of vendor's interest in real es- to a contract cove in thehereinafter-described real estate by reason of 0 for an considerationtvroperty suryvorsnp Agreemen , CD FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($40,000.00) CD 0 in hand paid, conveys and warrants to MUNSON INVESTMENT CORPORATION, a Washington N corporation, u4 the following described real estate, situated in the County of KING , State of .4.4 Washington: gel Lots 1 and 4, Block 2 , C. D. Hillman's Lake Washington N Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle, Div. No. 7 co according to plat recorded in Volume 16 of plats, page 18, in King County, Washington. I Sales Tax Paid On Contract MI.No.620 King Co.Records Division Deputy ey � _, This deed is given in fulfillment of that certain real estate contract between the parties hereto, dated • . February 27 , 19 67 , and conditioned for,the conveyance of the above described property, and the covenants of warranty herein contained shall not apply to any title, interest or encumbrance arising by, . through or under the purchaser in said contract, and shall not apply to any taxes, assessments or other charges levied, assessed or becoming due subsequent to the date of said contract. . Real Estate Sales Tax was paid on this sale on March 1, 1967 , Rec. No. D670590 • Dated this 22nd day of March 19 72. 7/2., arr-' fry ' -6"'V-- (sEAL) • STATE OF WASHINGTON, (sue) ss. County of King On this day personally appeared before me WILLIAM F. FAAS to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein ment tit ••'r <''''' ai GIVEN under my hand and oci e9r ffi 33 •• of a ch ,19 72. •AC:0 4 ` m 0:-QC i , ,t,o� phi•.PI I at i 4..... ' .i,e' 14:1:it.l1/4...) , j ,°'otary Pu in and for the State of Washington, _'V .0.sr,'•• ... '.4.r �4,.,,',0.0 siding at Seattle ,On" I t w err rt. ac sP.2.7:?' t se.to , A ' - . CY..1.4ik- . 41C.IKAA.• , F i ' '_.._ i,...14 44.,:c• 4.,C 6 klinia g TAIii: S EsPERTOR WA 91055 7,1 v-P11-32:-,24-05 LESS ST the_443 .47 ir 0055-07 SAN HESS INC RAMGEPERT A4004 ' - - - 2151 i 901 . 75050T ' 35.040. 226.400- • 0 46.404_ 700 112Ts AVENEMSELLE WA vti . 1 t 44,2 vt-NE-32-24-05 1 Liss a 150 IT EP w 39 FT LESS E T20 FT 4 twv:,..wi 2.34 I. 0056-06ffitANDT s4AL - 2151 t VI- ". ••75050 31060 _it.01)0_ _ • 0 2_,-_7` XX - I 12727 SE 63RD SINIELLEVUE WA 91036 - 1 8 4•2 tr-NE-V-25 to 150 Fr LESs 0 sw, Fr LEss E Teo Fr - Trft Air.23 JAI : 00 -701-:titima-iik---'-- 10651 SE 101s ST 2. 51 1_1111, 1 75057 ' 15,040. 71.T0t , ry.00 SZ, e 7.e.0, 7,911_22 is: 1e727 SE 63RD SreilELLEwUE to 99006 . '. PI v-NE-32-z4-05 E 120 VT LESS CO Po . • roll loi•a.eik „ ....r5. t 0059-03 WAIN CLE$E$T is 4308 ARES AV NE 2151 6 N3 _, 76t22, 1g..000 2T4.500 1-11.,9C1. Sof.,4,X1 1617 BOTLSTai•SEATTLE WA 91122 24,2 t-NE-52-24-0 a' I Ai $5 FT *F s is AroftvE4 et Welt sP IP rt0C.tit Z-Nii -1 0060-00 HEATH PROPERTIES _L 4232 JONES At HE 2/54 6 3 • 844122 325.0110 L 1 2 6*NO i Sat 21 r Ar_a. i 1617 EIO-rLSTili*SEATTLE IAA villa 3•2 t-NE-32.-205 LESS it in F 7 AS APPPof5. eft AlIttrs SP At; u .,:'..4"....V.` ,0 0075-03 ST CIE EIVIFI S 2151- i._901_ 8•4330 . 12,064 /6.9:100 - . • T44,4C4, .., 744 &LAND PI. E•sEATTLE WA98102 - : 5•2 t-NE-32-N-os. • -_.. _. i'• 1 0076-02 LuNDsTKPI JAP/Es ST 215T 6. !IL'.PO EbOx 973'XilliELLEWLE mA 9109 . _ 0m 00775 LPt0C5X•.1219, P T 2%300 ST1. ri7.5Oe . :t. cr 1080-06 HU-DELT INC Tors #0 sf • Zr51 6 073 -- 760123 30 000 49 718 • At k". .Hni; • " -..,i 6840 1121$ Ave SE•RERTCli WA 99055 . . , .7•2 poet-32-24-0i LESS A-, 7$ Ft,' LEIS s In P . ., 1134.,VZ ..id • "r 0081-15 Jego6Ors PETER w 1 NATALIE F 4210 JONES At S8 - 21T 6 107 12113* 46.607 t00,..,01 7?kit* /79,,79c • i 510 i4Tm ST,RAIKKI IAA 9115a . . 641' vt-a-32,-24-05.2 _ , _.,.'7! Az I • 0082-04 JopeesOFF PETE* v $ 144740 F . 1081N At SE • .2/41 4_90$ . --- iji,iii;---41---iiiiiPT ---Tiii,,,iiii7, --x i, 310 tow sTfrorFoNo WA 985 1 - ,2 to1324/4-6S S 96 O * in OP , • r . . . . 00113-03 JOwP6OR PIMP w $ IPATALIE F TOSTs kr Si 2111 6.1991• &INT km 426,607 - z 77.4110 - , a•: 7 r_ 51D %TN si•RAvous0 wA 985fr 6-7,2 rqi-Sz--4.4-9, a ?IF T oF. Ltr r a LOT 6 ‘Ess 4 229° ,'F7 'm.114 . .7,_ " ....... ,- , . ,. . „_ . . .. . . . . . . , . 114'',12,: .' '- ''' ..- -- .. - -. - . .. . „ . . . . . . ....„., ...,.... -11F • ,..vma.411141111.0, , 11.•••••••,,,,,WW,......! . , , „ ., .,,.,-. i .•, ,. . , . . • ,5 . $07 (*Plan ItIr ii$9211/7 Elk (STAri allialrik_ARC.Jefil'Ll Widoiera, i..14)-4*_,,_11.149k, i`- .• ij • VASNIIIKTON NENk ESTAf Sic STEA st, IVES Al INKONSVf011i _gis; M . C; . s.,_.1% tk kin AC-- towmar trt ACI-Jipt70., . . I ' NIS IPFCSAPTIOR IS LEASO f ARO *ORO rft PROPENtv'OP iiO4•41110111 aiNc WWI 9044-47,0, t1N,... , . .) ' , . . . . . . - . , , .. • i . I P ... . A . ' 4. 4 ' ' • ' • ' '. . . - -- 134570.4i1LOWSS ILIC COMO OF EDEN I ?COM, . .. wit-.16. . 04 to -,, - - -.- • . - . - . . , pc L_ .', tl-1110 OWN) *OE - SEWS - IS MI ' ' .Olt! f Isqu.kort ' IS' 1 ..4101, '; LW tOTAL-.... .. ifcrt.-5-f1. fik . 1 ,......÷...f.12”--15-%11,51........'••......... ..........••••••••.....141.1 .ii- 7- , , • • - iph.§4 ...4......o..:.......;.;.... r$ cite . . rooka . 50.....0,311, .• mks* WA- 900S5 - - --.• rei ',461.44.».40,-41$$ Tit t r ••*rvaPaw•Pv-..awlirs...r--S-Itlr-At-Tyw-.".....M.-- 1...50.1.0.0•411. . ...........- 0095.,..-; ;;;4.,f7ci-ri4 tidPit!_€$ C 4424 ANS bt NI . . , .. . ,..,....r&....r.f....._ _.,....„ ! ' .. r.-/T t Ifi . . t 114s01: EiV tilki.t A-4 hy'lrElt7/6 IVA 941056 • vul. "Ri*Vv;1,+4-0, NI ti4. 1:t * T,,,,t, . - 416•Ak k tik, i to9 , ..... . ..... _ _A-Z:717.7riTA, 7"...".P..—. * "t 1 t t 11, , ' _ f!",iit•t:4 1.,:?!It1 - 21' P00 . , it 2 7,44,:.:4 , 9•2 04•01.*31,1:-4N-431, 41 ta 1.4*.' !t ta t_ritt **,°. rt 44.4 , ;.. ....„."........„-.,,.....„..„.....„.........." _ - „....._...„,.............. ......0,-A7-..,..:7!-.,,,,,............--..0.0.......0,.........7!:..- -:,...0.i.vow,m,”.7 t,-wy: ' 01/470,77,7 15 tg a :W. $144 40110$ Nt 01 ..- - ir” t' 544 V. eio,•4::4 t.1,-, 14 ' Jet,--194 0.,,50 '.. ' * 7,4 110:',; ,,,..ik i. ty.:11 t Tien:)7 fl,-ARIP.4.074* WA 9.004. . Iktt IN.4 ''.v.-C..17, 1, Ile2' (. ..,' 4,, 7;";* v, .'-. !,,',? ait,-,,. -.. , . _ - (._, -, ,-:•'. ,..;Air'.. - 1. . X..-,..,-.1r4-r-".7r.,IMMINIVS44...--1:--- .,..7"="3-,SM"...-,..,"7.7_,,,r..'..:''.. .7-•--*-1.-ViliVINSIPEP MifirliNSMIP-1,- ---""---- -rithlfr_griVetW,M,.137-... '.', 4 1 cryfrTi2 V r'!--7 r''--71 •P,c-, f) $l 41 ';:i,1,.V. 1•4.t,.:,-11 11.4_,.!0-..1 ;; 1.‘.g.,,:' 4 Ni, vs, ' 1,•f,) ,404 . „ , . .., '' •,‘,"_ -..-.C.-r:"..,15‘..---S., -.1,1WIMMIPS.TZ`T.,42,A,..lieriraMPIR.10.10.11..1..FOr..--^,W,•.M.e-Wet.23,41.111.04P1MRSIMPW".--:---:—_-_'-'2.04,496.191LIITV-CItIrM ST I.:.:.1. t 90-,-;;',", 0- iii.)30. :. . - it t.,A.A. 4, •;:-;...,'"---. . f;'T 01.:•; ,,-"!N WA 90004 ill w:-#0;-,.4.7.,(4• 11. 3, *I k l' ,:. • !,. ,_ ,,,„ , 0 9N\°1-1 • = • (---\''CO .., . . ,o r:y • 1\%. • % \. ,,c.,,,,. ::',3 1.' ./.....s: / ..s • • SEE REVERSE SIDE 1987 REAL ESTATE TAX STATEMEN T \ ' - P10 le KING COUNTY,STATE OF WASHINGTON 70-00.55-07 0%, .CURRENT BILLING DISTRIBUTION _ _ CURRENT BILLING INFORMATION 4( A\ Slatr.School Support.. 26001A Local School Support.. • Land Value County . Improvements 226,400 416.49` City Less:Exempt Value.... • Unincorporated/Road .. 897,83 TAXABLE VALUE... . O Port Levy Rate '�-26 7 4 2 Q Fire 92. 40 General Tax 12.7a738 BRING ALL PARTS WHEN PAYING IN PERSON Special Assessment .... 21d1.81 1 Sewer&/or Water Library Surface Water Mgt. .... Other TOTAL CURRENT BILLING 53. 70 Omitted Taxes 21891. 81 __ Emergency Med Svc.... 56.60 _ — SAN HESS INC MANAGEMENT ACC R0878 Special Assessment ...- -- 700 112TH AVE NE 4uil.ua W.IliENT ' "N • I01ALf.UROMITS BILLING BELLEVUE WA IOlAI.(:UIIIiENTIiILLING 98004 • - INCLUDING OMITS First half must be paid or postmarked - - LOT by April 30 or FULL AMOUNT BE- DELINQUENCY INFORMATION BLOCK CODE SEC nyP interest and penalty COMES DELINQUENT and accrues INTEREST MC= . BE- RG as YEAR Y prescribed by PENALTY law. If first half paid by April 30 HILL MANS LK WN 2 GARDEN OF 2151 second half must be paid by October 1 LESS ML K E DE N * 7 31 or it becomes delinquent and E LED FTN0& ALL 4EX W 36 FT LESS accrues interest and penalty. • FULL AMOUNT MAYBE • PAID APRIL 30th SWM DELINQUENT TOTAL . ;; -�"""•..- .�-- TOTAL CURRENT AND DELINQUENTS 2,891.81 URBAN IA REZONE NORTHEAST FORTY-FOURTH STREET & LINCOLN AVENUE NORTHEAST REN T ON, WASHINGTON • Roger tJrbaniak Garden of Eden Joint Ventures 4112 76 th Av S E Mercer island, WA 98040 • • Roger Blaylock 10117 N E 4th St., Suite 9 Bellevue, WA 98004 (206) 455-1550 - FEBRUMY , 1999 CITY OF pa I II VE05VS BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. -_;- THE BLAYLOCK COMPANY specialists in land-use procedures F February 4, 1988 Mr. Don Erickson Zoning Administrator City of Renton 200 Mill Ave S. Renton, WA 98055 RE: Urbaniak Rezone Dear Mr. Erickson: The Blaylock Company has been retained by Mr. Roger Urbaniak of Garden of Eden Joint Ventures representing Roger and Susan Urbaniak, Hal and Lois Brandt and Imogene Hess to seek a rezone of 3.5 acres of property located on the southwest corner of N.E. 44th Street and Lincoln Avenue N.E. from R-1, residential, to B-1, commercial. Currently the property is occupied by a small single family residence used as a caretaker' s cottage. Attached are the formal applications along with the justification and environmental check list. If you have any questions please contact me directly at 455-1550. Sincerely, (-- k? < 90..../C-9 • k. (0.1,L0.4 , Roger J. Blaylock jaw CITY OF R :iN' o;J M 1-_ II FEB 0 51988 OuILDING/70„„f G 0EpT, 107171E Fourth Street,Suite 9 0 Bellevue,Washington 98004 6 (206)455-1550 APPLICATION C ) MASTER pL1I Vr AZr41 VlyR`� SING & ZONING DEPARTME t,„,„,,„„ TION AA NOTE TO APPLICANT: Since this is a comprehensive application form, only those items related to your specific type of application(s) are to be completed. (Please print or type. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) APPLICANT I TYPE OF APPLICATIONl' NAME FEES Roger Urbaniak E REZONE*IFROM R-1 To B-1 ) ADDRESS Bellmond Realty 919 12 4 th N.E. Q SPECIAL PERMIT* Q rail ay PERMIT* CITY ZIP Bellevue, WA 98005 MI CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT* Q SITE PLAN APPROVAL TELEPHONE(2 0 6) 4 5 4-19 41 Q SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GRADE AND FILL No. of Cubic Yards: VARIANCE CONTACT PERSON Q VARFromIANCE*Section: * Justification Required NAME Roger J. Blaylock The Blaylock Company 0 ADDRESS SUBDIVISIONS: 10717 N.E. 4th St. , Suite 9 Q SHORT PLAT CITY ZIP Q TENTATIVE PLAT Bellevue, WA 98004 0 PRELIMINARY PLAT TELEPHONE (2 0 G) 4 5 5-15 5 0 CI FINAL PLAT Q WAIVER (Justification Required) OWNER NO. OF LOTS: NAME PLAT NAME: See Attached ADDRESS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: Q PRELIMINARY CITY ZIP Q FINAL P.U.D. NAME: TELEPHONE Residential Q Industrial QCommercial Q Mixed LOCATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: PROPERTY ADDRESS Southwest Corner El TENTATIVE N.E. " " & incoln Ave. N.E. PRELIMINARY EXISTING SE A� PRESENT ZONING FINAL Small unused house R-1 PROPOSED USE PARK NAME: NUMBER OF SPACES; o Q ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AREA. I SQ. FT. 1 ACRES.5 ( ! TOTAL FEES CITY OF RFNT STAFF USE ONLY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING DATER � re, `:� �g C APPLICATION RECEIVED BY: APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: FEB 0 51988 Q Accepted 0 Incomplete Notification Sent On By: BUILDING/ZONING DI PT (Initials) DATE ROUTED ADDITIONAL MATERIAL RECEIVED BY: APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: Q Accepted Q Incomplete Notification Sent On By: (Initials) TED TO ,16 . Building Og Design Eng. ro Fire fX Parks Police tg Policy Day. Et Traffic Eng. 1416 Utilities Legal description of property (if more space Is required, attach a separate sheet). 4401 Lincoln ive N.E. Southwest corner of N.E. 44th Street and Lincoln Ave N.E. (S.E. 80th St. and 110th Ave S.E.) . Lots 1 and 4 , block 2, C. D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden .Additiorgo Seattle, Vol. 16 of plats, page 18, in King County, Washington. N.E. 1/4 Section 32 , Township 24 North, Range 5 East. • AFFIDAVIT • Roger Urbaniak I, , being• duly sworn, declare that I am Qauthorized representative to act for the property owner, owner of the property Involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the Information herewith submitted are In all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS 6.<4 • DAY OF �.Q 1) .l NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE. STATE OF WASHINGTON, RESIDING . AT If►, • 11 11 A • /11 /Vat),a 7‘.--7‘7 """) (Name of Notary Public) (Signatyti of Owner) (Address) (Address) v/- 7 • (City) (State) (Zip) • (Telephone) . Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other materials required to constitute a complete application are listed in the "Application Procedure." • y r , * I I , Urbaniak rezone Owners: Garden of Eden Joint Ventures Roger and Susan Urbaniak 4112 78th Ave S E Mercer Island, WA 98040 Hal and Lois Brandt 12727 S E 63rd Bellevue, WA 98006 Imogene Hess 8919 N E 10th Bellevue, WA 98004 rrCITY OF RENTOOnJ 1-11] FEB 0 51988 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. JUSTIFICATION REZONING JUSTIFICATION The request is to rezone 3 . 5 acres at 4401 Lincoln Avenue N. E. from R-1 to B-1 . This change in the zone classification complies with all three zoning criteria established under Section 4-3014 : (1) the current zoning preceded the last Comprehensive Plan land use analysis , (2) there have been significant and material changes in the area, and (3) in conformance with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, the reclassification to B-1 is appropriate . (1) The current zoning preceded the last Comprehensive Plan land use analysis. In 1981, the Planning Commission reviewed the Comprehensive Plan for the Northeast Quadrant but no consideration was given to rezoning the land to match the plan, so the then existing R-1 zoning was allowed to remain. (2) There have been significant and material changes in the area. From 1960 , when the area was annexed, until 1981 , except for some of the property along Jones Road, the area east of the freeway was vacant . In the county, there were a few single family homes on large lots . More recently, in the county, an apartment complex was built northeast of the offramp. Then, within the city, Denny ' s Restaurant was constructed. A few years later, a motel and a small neighborhood shopping center were added. These form the nucleus for a commercial , node at this "easy off-easy on" offramp. Now, "for sale" or "for lease" signs are sprouting up all around. Immediately north of the subject site , a • site plan to allow a MacDonald ' s Drive-In restaurant has recently been approved and construction is under way. (3) The reclassification to B-1 is in conformance with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, and the rezone is appropriate. During the last review of the Comprehensive Plan for the Northeast Quadrant , the Planning Commission recognized that this area around Offramp 7 is an appropriate place for commercial uses . A Commercial designation was adopted for the area and is now shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map. Adjacent areas within the city limits are zonedrf,pr r` commercial uses . Only this site remains in residential L [;/ zoning . !�u • FEB 051 I 98& t'U/LU;r 'G/zop'NG dEp r .j Urbaniak Rezone Justification page 2 . The Policies Element of the comprehensive plan states : V. D. (3) Community commercial areas should be located far enough apart so there is no encroachment on • another's service area. There is a very small neighborhood commercial area about 1 mile to the south of Offramp 7 . Other than that, there is no place for freeway-related business between Renton and Bellevue. Some of the implementing policies stated in the Northeast Plan seem to urge the rezone : • III.B. (1) Land use decisions within the Northeast Quadrant should be consistent with available transportation, community facilities , and utilities. The site is easily accessible from both the offramp and the onramp to I-405. There is a Metro bus stop immediately adjacent to the site. City utilities are already in. III.B. (4) To help balance home to work traffic trips the Land Use Plan strongly endorses employment opportunities in the vicinity of N.E. 44th and Interstate 405. Rezoning will prepare the way for commercial development which will provide additional employment opportunities at this freeway offramp. Development activity in the area would indicate that the application is timely. Besides the new businesses already open, a commercial development is being built on the property between N. E. 43rd Place and the curve of 109th Av N. E. On the west side of the freeway there are applications for a mid rise office building and for a large commercial development . Approval of this application will allow commercial development to supplement existing and future businessess around this freeway offramp. ENV IRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - • r City of Renton ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: This application is for a rezone, only. No specific project is proposed at this time. 2. Name of applicant: Roger Urbaniak 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Owners: Garden of Eden Joint Ventures Roger and Susan Urbaniak 4112 78th Ave S E Mercer Island, WA 98040 Hal and Lois Brandt 12727 S E 63rd Bellevue, WA 98006 Imogene Hess 8919 N E 10th Bellevue, WA 98004 Contact person: Roger Blaylock The Blaylock Co. 10717 N.E. 4th, Suite 9 Bellevue, WA 98004 455-1550 4. Date checklist prepared: February 1, 1988 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton, Washington C.; Y OF =! �:) ri 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable) D �(� (� u1 (5 L/ L� NSA FE8 0� 5198 QUlLDING/ZOf�l�G pEP7� • Y Urbaniak rezone page 2. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity relative to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Plans are to sell the property for building of a motel or other suitable freeway-related enterprise complementary to the businesses developing in this new commercial area. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. In 1979 the Renton Public Works Department prepared a storm water drainage plan. 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. None 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. None - ultimate development will determine what will be the appropriate permits. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. This proposal is: to rezone the 3.5 acre site from R-1 Residential to B-i commercial. 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 topography 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. 4401 Lincoln Av N. E. Southwest corner of N.E. 44th Street & Lincoln Av N.E. (S.E. 80th St and 110th Av S.E.) . Lots 1 and 4, block 2, C. D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle, Vol. 16 of plats, page 18, in King County, Washington. NE 1/4 Section 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East. Urbaniak Rezone page 3. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one) ; flat, rolling,. hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other The site is slightly undulating, sloping from the southeast corner down to the northwest corner in slopes ranging from 4% to 8%. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope) ? The steepest slope is in the southeast corner of the site where the slope is about 8%. 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. The soil is generally sandy. Within the last forty years the site has not been used for agriculture. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Prior to development of the site, the undulations will probably have to be modified to accommodate commercial construction. It is anticipated that some fill will have to be imported. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction or use? If so, generally describe. In 1967, when ownership interest was first secured by one of the parties hereto, the property was cleared with the exception of the fruit trees adjacent to the house and a few alders on the western boundaries. Subsequent new growth of blackberries and alders was cleared from most of the site in 1983. Again in 1987, blackberry and alder growth were cleared from part of the site. No significant erosion was observed from these actions. Those portions of the site not re-cleared by the above actions would probably be re-cleared to facilitate site drainage prior to construction. Any control procedures necessary to mitigate erosion would be instituted at that time. • • Urbaniak Rezone page 4. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings) ? This information is not available until there is .a specific proposal for construction. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: N/A These questions will be addressed more fully in connection with a specific proposal for construction. 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. N/A Generally, it is anticipated the commercial site will not generate sources of air pollution. Any increase would be attributable to automobiles accessing the site. b. Are there any offsite sources of emission? Non-source emission is generated by the automobiles on 1-405. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Normal mitigation measures will be considered when there is a specific proposal for construction. 3. WATER a. Surface: 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, wet-lands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The site is across freeway I-405 about 800° from Lake Washington. The existing drainage basin is approximately 110 acres in area. The Renton Public Works Department extensively studied the basin at the time of the construction of the Denny's Restaurant north of the subject site. Normal drainage from the basin flows northward to the holding pond north of Denny's. From there it is discharged to Lake Washington through a culvert under 1-405. To address the ecological needs and assure that clean surface water from the closed drainage basin enters Lake Washington, a biofilter was created in the holding pond north of Denny's. The biofilter has Urbaniak Rezone r page 5. functioned very successfully and Joe Robles of the Department of Fisheries has used the design as an example across the state. The installation of a larger culvert underneath 1-405 is presently scheduled for construction by the State Highway Department in 1988. With regard to the subject site, drainage swales and ditches which were open twenty years ago have since, in most instances, gradually become overgrown and choked with new growth of blackberries, alders, willows, etc. This clogging effect has resulted in increasing diffusion and ponding of surface water run off in localized, more level areas of the property. Some corrective actions to re-route drainage and/or clean out the overgrowth was undertaken during the fall of 1987. There is a drainage ditch along the street north of the site. It could be anticipated that, during development, existing drainage swales and patterns would be relocated and/or enclosed and that the new growth of alders, etc, in the present locations would be removed. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200°) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No 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. None 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. ground: _ 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No - Urbaniak Rezone page 6. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks 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. The property is served by City of Renton sewers. 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) . Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water will continue to drain in the existing pattern to the holding pond north of Denny's. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: None, the holding pond was sufficiently sized to accommodate development per the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: x deciduous tree: alder, aspen, elm, walnut, pear, apple x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs: blackberries, holly x grass o crop or grain x wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other o water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None. Blackberries and alder were cleared from the subject site in 1983 and again this fall in anticipation of the sale of the property. The ultimate use of the property will determine the type of permanent landscaping. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None • Urbaniak Rezone page 7. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: None 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: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, finches, blue jays, other Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain No d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None 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 energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity is available to the site. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of the proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None. No definite plans are proposed at this time. 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. No Urbaniak Rezone page 8. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other) ? 1-405 is less than 400 feet away from the site, but the higher elevation of the freeway appears to eliminate significant adverse impacts. 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. Unknown until the ultimate use is proposed. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts if any: N/A • 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The existing small house on the site is not being used. On the adjacent property to the west is a warehouse. Immediately to the south are vacant lots zoned B-1 and advertised for sale. Farther to the south and to the east are single family residences. The lot to the north has been approved for commercial development in the immediate future. To the northeast, in the county, is an apartment complex. Within the city, a small shopping center and a motel have recently been established in this commercial node at the northeast corner of offramp 7 from 1-405. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No, except for a pear, a walnut and several apple trees in the yard immediately adjacent to the house. c. Describe any structures on the site. There is a small house now used as a temporary caretaker's quarters. r - - Urbaniak Rezone page 9. d. Will any structures he demolished? If so, what? No, not as a result of the rezone. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R-1 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Commercial g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? N/A j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Commercial development is occurring in the area around this freeway offramp. Commercial zoning would allow compatible land uses on this site. The question will be addressed more fully when a proposal is made for a specific use. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. The B-i Zoning classification generally discourages residential uses. Urbaniak Rezone page 10. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The small house will undoubtedly be eliminated by future development. It was middle income housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A 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. N/A b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: N/A 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur. None b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: N/A Urbaniak Rezone page 11. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? May Creek County Park lies to the north of the site. This is an undeveloped park which provides opportunities for walking in a wilderness ' area along the creek. Kennydale Park, on the west side of the freeway within the City of Renton, is on the shore of Lake Washington and provides a place for water-related activities. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreational opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 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. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N/A 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. The site abuts N.N. 44th Street and Lincoln Avenue N.E. which lead directly to offramp 7 with immediate easy access to I-405. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The site is served by Metro Route 240 on Lincoln Av N.E. with a bus stop adjacent to the site. - Urbaniak Rezone page 12. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? N/A 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) . No e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. N/A g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The review of other proposed projects in the general vicinity, specifically Port Quendall, have analyzed the need for improvements to the public streets. The Environmental Review Committee has used this data to condition several project-specific proposals. At the time of actual development, it is generally anticipated that, when a specific use is identified, proportional participation in the area-wide Traffic Improvement Benefit Assessment District will be required. 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)? Unknown. Ultimate use such as a retirement facility might increase demand for aid service. However, without a specific use the general answer would have to be no. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control" direct impacts on public services, if any. N/A 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Urbaniak Rezone page 13. 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. For future construction, sewers are available along N. E. 44 Street; and there are an eight inch water line along N. E. 44th Street and a 12" line along Lincoln Av N. E. 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 full disclosure on my part. Proponent: 2/I/8 B Name Printed: 17OIL q. 3 ( c& y ! oak • • Urbaniak Rezone page 14. D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (This sheet should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs. Do not use this sheet 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 envirnoment. 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. 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 rezone would not increase discharges, emissions or toxic substances. The application for a specific use will address these questions. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: N/A 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish or marine life? None Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish or marine life are: N/A 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources. The rezone would have no effect. The application for a specific use will address these questions. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: N/A 4. 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? There are no such areas on the site. The rezone will have no effect. Urbaniak Rezone page 15. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: N/A 5. 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 proposal would not affect shoreline use. The rezone would allow uses compatible with the comprehensive plan and complementary to the other uses in the area. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are. none 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Transportation, public services and utilities will not be affected by the rezone. The application for a specific use will address these questions. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: None 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. There would be no conflict. 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 full disclosure on my part. Proponent: (49tS2/ 1 S13 Name printed: t` O pQ - t 0. I OGk Y • j I l Tw------ ---— — t—c ITv Y•TEI — — — — — —- -/f..---1J--—...—\-- N'.E. 44 TH STREET r• r ° ® 43° ()......... ' ,..' , .1? !I ' ' . 7 _,.--.1.7- 1.1 . ..; ' - c SEWER • B .' .ohtr• 1 " ...fc 7' .p i , I- ! I t ® ` i 1 •-aim �r —..-aeril ■_.wrn1111 I t7441.1 �. , { -� V .a • k1 � " to d '\ ® ® Ii _4 C. D�_ Hi 1 AN'S III . • i .. . • ® 40 I I Y/ O SCALE I'•200' ` i g. Z Il w VICINITY MAP • • II w . \ iwi z ® 1 0 „. ._ I •z S : 1 . u N I FO SO a l l 4D ' I LEGEND rl ` o Al-■Ia.. 1. O ® ® 1 I A_./ . -EIrc6 O 6" ire• • F -Fir O Y -Yalnul 12"-14"Tree/ P -Pear 0 0 ® - 55 I -Y -Willer • I I r cit,Water C1 t1 Sew■r ©\ 12) I ----� [ounlF S■..n District li C�-----0 Power 1.Sz O • 60 •of 1 _ II \ . I ® ro O II ® ar \ I •60 276• \ I; : . 'il . SCALEr P'•20' , SITE PLAN ' r • •'""■""V O0WAN/ URBANIAK REZONE SITE PLAN .I�Irrrr�.art • •�-��-� N.E.44th St. 81 Lincoln Avenue N. VICINITY MAP • """' ' l . Renton, Washington • n.�..,y'1■w r 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 29 , 1988 COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 11 , 1988 EFC - 007 - 88 APPLICATION NO(S). : REZONE : R-007-88 PROPONENT: ROGER URBANIAK PROJECT TITLE: URBAN IAK, BRANDT & HE S S REZONE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3 . 5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO B-1 (BUSINESS USE) FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE . LOCATION: THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF N.E. 43rd PLACE (S.E . 8 0th STREET) AND WEST OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director.or Authorized Representative Date Form 4 RENT(', BUILDING & ZONING DEPA �. ENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 007 _ 88 APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE: R-007-88 PROPONENT: ROGER URBANIAK PROJECT TITLE : U.RBANIAK, BRANDT & HESS REZONE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO B-1 (BUSINESS USE) FOR FUTURE COMMFROIAI USF. LOCATION : THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF N.E. 43rd PLACE (S E.: 80th, STREET) AND WEST OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 3j23j88 • ENGINEERING DIVISION El TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : O UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION • FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU • ri PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT El BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT El POLICE DEPARTMENT • POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE_ COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M. alIC,;. MARL{ _: _ 1988 , REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : • APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS n NOT APPROVED DATE : SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR....O,R AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 1 R 7