Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA90-048 Vol #1 LC 86 19C)119S ) 119 frOW 3 S k ..1101 bv4c)o\ �\)NO To Date Time WHILE YOU WERE OUT of Phone TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN • WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH `-m"m"1 RETURNED YOUR CALL Message Operator 1 \ \ : , ;�� e i 1I _, / ,..,... szk 1 „`s cs - . ....**". 111111r ' s...,sov.o.m.,.l.wmw...�.m,.Io..>.,COMLA 1 ` o..i� y 1-y-''J� _ r I ` I W �, ?ATOM U0N3a iTk19 m — . .� ^Aikh DNT81% . j� C �\h. _ _ _ A ? earo to ao* ; / �� z�,.T... ,, wv,nas, n .nw r Si saga o menu.a o=ow a Amyx any,+ a ..�.,.�,., ,o„n..... a,o .m.......,..rawo w ama's...,... ...,,,.„ v...==.."=7,17".4: (9 \ . • , . . •,,,)• r• r ..... ......,..........--subs, w , ♦ i✓ a. yea '+ i x •N a.. .o.,.,mo w,., .° 1 \-\ \, UM.W;x #a 4 oA=mai ,aoammaoataa • C ,.` MI8JIU8 OXIT 6113 /✓ Pit 'CI x • �.,w.TATV,,,N, �. '4 t x \ . p— _ 1 11100°. (A : r- _ a (.. J 4R1{1 T1 _ TT __ \_ ___ J ,Y�1/1.411 - - - Ia!RI - — — _ — _ — - I -,_s Hs-Ctl 1 Ic,A( �— _ b ra a as. ---1 - DMIT81Jt3 V_ __ BaeO in,a01 DXII•a Aa _\ -a'-y I H ., . V.,I--- --tn- - II_.)t 1 , +1 ; ., �1 � 111111�I if „ tr _____ _____________:_.„ . [ `__ 1 't 1 9 J —alqJ c [ \ L\�\\�\ ,. I \ �\\ _ a ; NAJ9 39 ___ __ J � t� At., _ XTaoX - -- ------ -- -- - ----- ---- --:o_roe-,J -----— -- �(Ilnumm0� ® fialur O r II] 1 .11 - i L - 1 \ 4.0% I � �V%I\\ avlrMAci. tea:IT - nR 124 . �� // \ _2IL 44 10.14 -- 0 : \ _ � s �,\ T -14k.M.44 11 IDa6 /%S �� •L911orJ5L Nw<q.. \\ ll I Gk.IQl. I Lb 9r. $ I I / t �• i n Pofgl{la•IlW TWMstWG) I. \/ \ .-r - •M°%- I \\ Z\\ '' : i -MN-Trf1Pf046 UKFi ` ` ,\.`' tore.. ` \'\ MULnrFslmc nunFwB�e \ ,�)� (>' \\,\ ��40 ; I cR. ILI cF 124. ' IRN\ <. \ _ b°q %/gp I 211 \ N 4 l r OE v ?a8 \ I «.Q II \ I'ULTPU91%E I. �g,E z II�'tF•cO vi...k \ CR " _ ._ 1 s2R� _ _ v2_4 i_-_:, i 114. I I ,� u..nr. ' — _ ----IT ' \11*-,•;--1, -- / Ir -�-- nuvnoicws I ��- wApr - \\/ I I 61 / i j i . - II C�17ao0 vs. aGla••c. P�tANvv r I j\ Tr- - - " : L'Df4.RY. G*. II9=�I '"' °IOb 'III \ W. li Ofr ram 5�r t, - I I w, IV - -- — ■ I°9Al '1%. -\ i 1 ' - f~.. I _ f, _ GW N6 Sin�TL1AR'(7 - I I - _ Nr Fa i GI 40. 12 0. III I� b 1°a 1 / I 1 / f00 LEVEL -•I -YP°r 7-�-'- 1,.; ,_ 200 LEVEL �' I - Lk10Jr 19 FGP.q.YdvBL I i I 1 1 -t1IlY lAQpy',II I.l oar 1 NJG£ ..15.9 L. nit, _ 1 (B2MCTU211V LEVEL) I11��'' �9 I — I T ' emu _ _Gp yJ11 i (rii' J� I ;l I , EXISTING BUILDING REMODEL (PHASE-I-B) A3 C.ommunity ,•:■'-,• NORTH Church REVISeo II. -V-EOWE,. '• --..":4 1 C. 21 it 01011 AEI kr 4,1,',:,4 iten.j'\ •[ • a�7^ j7%�4�j .p v �, } rn \,� N f'--i _— MU 0 D ey o,Sf 61- •. SO /" ,,.,,. _f... I., r ti i i„ ed - = u •23 00, 21 m foiii I r o 4 e•z_!Ill!FT1 1. 10• .' :: SJ�(/ el . 'I�Zt�(.7 I ^ T • N-E. ems' 'vim �•� �A°. 4J0 : .. -- -- �p • 323.70 co m— ;1 5r3 80 35836 T �Yi o♦ •S`,p.' e- J co a' o m, '•• N y /dj � ,� N C�c�l f I C , 30 :J IN'JEX_AV€�; 11.E _o_ 1 74 J8 ll.yr 2 ti,, 3.Y.Jp t. ' 1 41 .„ ,310.. • p _s m a SJ9h'S .. O 4 ° [ m W\• gtii a , (� N 'Y 2rJ °I. • �ti� y\ _ La .ts- :i, ,q11 5\ R ` 0 > (' m 9 ' zv3•b' a3,l Si �• 0 5 i 4, i. r t ':.. ,2041' �2, ? Va , ' R T`op.k,„,..r. i G H L A N D S w ;. 2ygo a ' p N co �InC 1 W ' 0 `•OS 4�•d. O. �1 Bw•• ` �.;=4. �((y t�oS • W�l t _A 'p �, N •'.�J�� •_._ _ -'_.__. ___ �______ _._.___. ___ _ ""we"'�• - ,9 �`,r� L�jo`` ,(l�/��n kr-o11 4 O1 0,IP. wt. �•..� N•,`1�'<. 0! 'n ��u __ _ _ -- - ! \/ ' I.i. .v '"17,,[� t1 l ct -_e l 2 .. a o, VW o C.P , G,ti P,!. "l . / r q' '830 .4 / L is w • 7/!7• ," ' 90-_79J0 '9 -_ _-_- " 0 LI �/ / P. O\ • 0\ s..i Tj CA CI M pF vsoKj s ' iiri cn . ? 1 Nr • I. :�/--p t 4 30J/ ti`# D ti q, rs�s oe a a'o�i , • �, O. CD o O _- "_ 1 ---- - "8iv'— 1' 4 41 6' ',9 CD c°' " r S...I 9 9"E''4 "\y\ ,' �' " c. 7 9 2 :.__ , .I J ' �.� . - 9449 8yt,, 'ems s at9 - , ... -Cr. cri _-.''' 'S L.A. ^( .'u . ' I. —� Jr -•ti • '6 (y),.t 4 .�` i !9_:p ::i I 1 -0���ti \/ olm `}, I � �,.. �, ( ^II Ft^ . ., 5 �M i, n •jj Cn q �i; pip• Al 11/ ' (, .D`'>� •9.s0 "'' 70 �, --..ra�4 _ls.._- t ._ .. , i e al • __t1s- •_ _ 'r5 . • 7c 'I / •' .-: ! , r A I KI R�fLAND �� O yi9.7.• rr �'rn ° r., z--��., 6,-,0 e - _ t .o p , ry r' •- - °p 76 9 '7! Nl 1 o m t� a1 „L t-_ I� ., w w r, u, �1 3104 = ' y I'21I Ef N ;,•---- -�' fJn ./67 ., -r•_ 4,�p( N ' , —,Y y o.1...),,,,!'f,,.',r��4 ' rv�' Pi N p0" t3 , G_S2.J o til" 1 Y r m o •; (� r - ... ,..,1-: - ..�• 'era (b lP �' •I�.._ ram- J. v. ((, O� . 1 �b�...Y�Ito i„ -- .J a _. �.7; i ,1 ` _V� ..i D r„, �. /••66 75• .! l., 7 ti 7' I v . w . W (o v , H h(p P q ;'r, .1 . 66 74..,'2 73.3, 7.17;�r`�z" 73 9 !(/�)733n 3.38 �55 74.5. 1� N o� "l ,c ? S/n 1.'899 397 9,67 '69i •'S.OI V 75 01 //2 8' /oO.aP._. nut n, 1 gw d1�G,�, Y�Z`ram 14/..•rti� c?—• I. ==•0 co -: ,.'-4 O • O O o _ _ __ q 90.11 30,a85 61.51 C, \S' -•�„� `� ” , b ofa' m of (n I,b 3 , �wo I I �� p `N N+ �� N o.Y • ■ U I!1 I _ _ 80 1Z Imo' ! n •p. {.i -� 1 2O0 N = w 60 7590 :eft o► _ �� a. ,off ro4 • . 7ti.80 ( to U a• �s, ` r. w = -�•6- — - - _- . -- ...-,__ LY N N W O O D00.0 AVE. • ;6; \�� ti o nt/4 �� wse � �^, t. 11^n� ;3 0 {, Yl 75 : "w 75 .80� 76.94 80.06 •3j g f fir,, ' c v�CI �1� 1[=rfllT 1 la � ��oolIll t'III oll Ic'i.. H/ , ol� 1 GI q Ya-T.� ; 75.0 >e,a_ A, r As If • • i' $ i1Jy� ~ IU A- y.,c�a5"- •rSol 1l-.a �a _ a , N I. i \ , � -, .,�� l m I NGTON 4t A V E. ,s �� ri Muw4623° 2 2101 R ro\kr) - .J �„--CD N ry IV tom, tV '`�/ • :...../'�.04 O u • • ♦ �9 • -t to „�' y Cr / • ,-- - - (• E• _ • S.Y • ..��nr • , , � , 3 -sue -' • gip mad• .' I n, 51380 3583Ii �,li �� Yw' Vy ,/N -�/• j i al M. , N I 'J\Jf i!.'1 l 1 � i N s anti a, �Vi/ s ,, , '14.41 •r.i2i/s 7/ ''in.-io'-3a i '_9o•-.u' 1 J :ems. \ c :c', w iia y mW : 5..3 JIO.J 4 w� \ B• 1 4%il_',m !.1�\ a� P N 1- ,,(\ :It A SJONS }1 09 4 ` o ;V`! -ht- m 9S zo'it rny3 1 si c 0 5�9- �, 4• 6 U "n' wy O_�'. r. hI Pi ÔU " 'P3HLANDS • ..I H tr�,*.j. LO ii �Za�t '/ 0� J r4 /� . -W a SS 4 �0�4 u, 902 u i-,At° it or`e02 W `°n ,c� �J_u l'33 u,4. `/ 0Q> p,(tlt t06ti • ' 40 •— �.n (A .�‘ * 4, °,4rr. rO • N `� of +4 N r. ' 'fOttw ^.�l � �t�u �+ 2iI.•. o`ni�j+ OOi NWe �'J__ - _. '=--1� = ' -.<. �>r'' /\.7 � t, r vuIt *�' �s^1 i{ '7 • u:� //}��'"��Pc t0 m70 / / • 1t� �i4' r r• 1� ' is . 4. v ct p/��j� /.jd. m / • n- •�•� .4 [, . 7117 �'\, •�,..79.10_ 9/�4 \.__4 - __ - 7O— /r / O\ 0\ `, w� f-� .r r:.t C.RESr / N, N tfi? . m N 0 '! �y t,�� W (�. f ---. y ,90W[. . '''41%gi,t:-.-rq.',3,t,- . :.:41 i ei.--,,.,. l02 b �°*,%Iv S OF vp ; _ n Jo 84 _, _ ,. "', r ss Rt titY y5�1 s �t —-_ _ _ J Efr1 r E l ®N---- - �. ..► �r 21�• h�04 , I V• cp O N +' • !! 1Z ; t \yp ���% Oro Ir D r®y l, dd%5 to0. 1`' a �^ .. e•3R .t"..9") fir"' �, 1 u 4cs .�j r - .. ry _ - h. o , .ire { �svz 1 i S71 yi+• jam((\\�.��,,jj``�'�'`` 119.19 - CTl Cr', .J', -rs� „..,T.".,zi„;ror,'- t:• - _ '� r .:s - P ti i�+ .. •ci t]f1. _il7� .1� " t� r II �i _ i� ,� �(► ._ - , . _ •• r� 4 'r• , . , i �' rq p, J�''( of `n. _ .i _`+'-- r Ft^ �� _ '_- .- . .. -'�•'.._. ..- ,. { :q r,r• ` •• ', '�� :�at �� /tv(�( S A. t t ,o 7,w ` t ,,Ed'a:-.. rti �-" — - /.8/ 1/ . . _ _ t15 !u . 7s !cM�'/ Y `O ..i9.7• rn y, f--i, a- r a'�„J gQ _SS-..._ cn- c.�FQ t„tV N re `a t„ 7J ,� !•S 66 %5 tr � ` t"69:�) SAI .. 75 0/ !l .40_74:'2 't 7 ' �" .� 0 74,5! S:� u, --1 -r 70.6°may[ Ii'� �'71' �w■I _ s.c3- 1`'`g fie• LV — � ` ,`, l!��;a�rl✓."/�f�.l��_. �"�.•�O� CD •I` I_ �" . � �O • O4 q' c p � 'to- _ _ m .98.11 8R9g 6L5r t! � N- u IV.—. � ---_ 0.4 L _ `, J Imo' !\ \,• `''v� `)� // . n OO/ � oLL • 6-cri PI• 1 L ��.0 75� N i 80 60 75.tio �., 7$.8o y(�4' n� a `�'�3!'; ��D � `� _ �� >T = - LYNNWOOD AVE. 6�/` ;6;, F \\ Ai{i ni/4 �� 20/ T 5 4 37 �' r� /3 0 EST:ili 7 r �-�-� n� -7-5--� 80 76.94 8°.0�6 80.06 roo.o / ¢�y 6b �/t\) , `1{� r� � �1 S�u �C_F1 1/T 1 la 111 PI 1 o II W 1 Ili r, / o� GI PV3 Me o T 75.0 ;-L� >8 n. AI r Z' -frd E - / , -II' II„III"�I 1''r.,,..,,r.6...o"i-414 t.p, : '- ; • -__-.--.--:.--%-51-4.,%.4-z-,!:1.44'- l i,-,:1 _ = = _ c 1 . .oulK tz lei-1 u4.Lrtr o.ac • exreurq-Nam., � ' .1wa1.1.,44 ecws 1.4 smancrJ S ///0. _ _ m0 r ` rwulwlco $�T li^ ,1 1 I —- _ . 1 �rt _ l 6 * i'.. IPY-"�` r t. „..„,„...„,,,,I... a„. t 1. m i It { I; 1 •• ; -� AEU 1�9 i �: / i i' ; a te_ 1- 9w'-41'IIA/� • - id— M ►c'tea. —1,a_Ivnc IM WEST �Tha"Dmen�A�,o r �,�ww ___ _._ess�l_s- 1 ( - aXtleare►,...I ecwnaxmal Rae ELEVAT,IONS A4 0 ommunily Church Peo6eo 11.19.9i _krH•g 4j = • k 'GLENWOOD VE.N'E� t = V.F1.�•a,r- SI `'1 71':' / p^•�`.\ �j: .+r..i�-r j vE r i - ,IGHLANDS a ' a�'. %T��?Sl /' JEFFERSON_ • AVE. ^ V• --- t1 .._=, I i - o1L..I,tE�D. A. , ' . F" Ne l:l.-'-.^ 11 ITi yI • C 1 . !)..`�:v' „�IRTLAND 1-!,V134• -..=11 !I .-_ �_ _�l f -__LrieML17 � l I.--1'" . • • • . .4. 110-.4.'leit •10434p Le'Q, ., . . .., ,,,,,, I ft . , o II r ..r„..(401.......... , •,. I. A . ! . ./ ./ z ,,....) , .2., ,,,,4-: .:.. 1 ,iii\Ra. , - , . • , ‘, 7 /. }1111 a �V'� 4 i , r / 9- I < e3" dd om 1 — , JEFFER:. �'7 I. 'ao I `' / I -'''4"---- 4_ {•._______ (I. ir...4 Ak. •�-��`IlhIN I I -,�O UIPPER'SON 8TR8lT II F� II I II I I�, l:A T ; ?�� : if il 11 "41 11 1 t 0 il A,I'1 r4. 9 • ' KIRKLAND 1 "'•••"" ooar øJ( , • • • I R —_ , , 1 III I 1 I II. _ si 1 oa ;i.e. - ` �q� Ion 7, , �� lei J • `}`} • 74 2.� .. s;a 1:_ ." �J .4) . muD• I.Z'' A-D :0;1 srr714"i •So k. /es u�� ,>:" • 1 41 .Q\�• _5 V loom Ia:. "-13--C�—pp" v • N „U1- A � . C �. . - o •iD.. h Y '�d _ _ � LS • • -f 4 L �� O �l��q VY _. !A' t n I a 4 �V. O t a Z O r r • •Y _ (A s ., ' . .... • • . f 1. • -s: • X . . .......... .... ..�::,•:. • .,,0• 323.l0 � ni.-. 15r3 BJ5 ` 9s to ;,•;::�:i�1��` .'" ; ' `_;•:`-`'' � ls .,P :.:., w i,e h. � l •, 1. • _.-__ . _- 7 B 2 I % • y T u o .:•'... ..':.•,'%•.•''• --.,11t...,,,....'-'-•'-'1::'--7=•:,? c ‘r•::.'4it:•:—: .'•'-•-• •,`,...-• ;.'• �w .. .1. ,_ X C / lc) • • s •� o • N f 4 Vt . I 0 D to � • _.4` 1 � �, ..• :.... m ..•.. .. . . .... ......'::. ..:... ,�. .. • '" ,. L- ... �.4, .. 06 rn "...;....'.:.C.:.. •.. • . ..•1.‘..1 . ......;z4..ri.„,;!...:. ...•:..:...'::': .. ....,:,.. 1.'.i.•.!.. ....:?F‘'.4i:,..,'..,.:-.....; ...:,.....:. , ..... . d > -.�..: lit `..�., .g :...:.'.. • 476,;.s,•0 ':,•,..::.:.. 0..,1•'• W ui ♦e► p1 . N'CP o -- --- ;.�_ ttj•: .. • • .•... - t ,. ...... ,y. to.. .,. :. -. � ::'-.�:"' �1 : /� • -.-4'• :..• ' • .• .9s•ii.0 ': • ....• .•..:. "Li..-.'•..:.95.:.: •.:.*:..;-•• :•-• ; .•.:•.:•:7-.."-:•••••-.-.; .•..•''.1.- :. ...:.:..::''''',..:.:•:::..:,.......:•....,•:...:....• :....:-.-.... .. -!l'‘).4',',..••-..:::-1!/.,•:!•'s':•4. • '•• ' ,-t...... .-4 •:cam . —. .. . .. ... :. m.� �::� - ."■ ..O ... .11/545.,- O w' a .. -;..-,,::-.-..0. •. •.-r._....:..,•.....-:- 'Y W 0 y.. 1 • .............,.. . .. .. ... .. .. a ...... a .. .... .. ,.. '(,'. :>�,il• . ` - YS�:�y i.._:......::.-:.,::r;!,,c..:.4.i.:•-At.:.-.. . ,„.-•._7:.:*4:,.....3.%.;:4:.:.i3:':.:t..„.'6-...-.,il,.'._..„:.... -i:..1E.",.i._. • s.: 85.90� � . . .c ;:.. .' ` i.. ca. q n .. a L).. 11 w `l 98 r m,' ti z.. :..:. .. .8c. 1?:'-1. c . sue' ER .' ? >z i s � 6 .y S. � � � � . . — . . Kl RKL - _ . . . __��_,f>4.�;-.:.tom;. N • AND n(0 r • •o0 o tbg is A'I t 7969357. �. n. , • 1 ,..112216 Ib o i; .. __es...,-, IIr r ti o. .: • n. :; O .,' �, � 1 1° Ch= i'' Q,rV� n' ( Sb. -. (V to (" i," l:.�O 3104 � _ _- y <��-i4�'s�=:,•; -'�!'' • _ '-'i.r 1,. —. ` .. 'I' N ..J �p (u tV (4'.-� N � � .O .� e•-�:c./ ., •i '� '•.0 �'(3' �- �' ��: - 1 ::":1 .,e ;� S lli /_ /S L O y{> . ( :: 3f•N. , tT y_ 1 " 4 - lr Ia""l . � ! • J-- — ''66 75 l _ �. 7 7. J1� . v ;0. w w'N. ,....�':. nc.6t�. u• I'_ i _, 66 74.:'2• 73.3_ 7.i7>�-7. 73,'"�/ 7,3'3a. ' 3.38" .�55 LL74.5:.� � O :.Cps,,, �•�,-� ' • 1 <.•us . . Sll/1,889 397- M7 i-3- . 75.0f - .. ' '" 75.0/ -112E %07. ••' .: r.. 6: : 4S ..I''', • y. ,,.. (.0- ,1 (r, o o` o cn_• •c _�.�.. _ r7.0 8o,.<Y �;.�� • �� � � 1 .• 2 0 0 (, N. _ [� - • y . W - S 80 6D .Co w, ,../. �, \P .Z T.• F ��----'---..., _ -- '- - __^ LYN N•W 0 0 D (:, A VE. , P, '11- X. �'F' / N u• /• 73 S0 lr 71--- 75 ',.__..'-":',._. •;;n.' -73 .8Q, - ':7G:9:4,T bo; - r ,�, (: t List-Milli � -mp�,ll.y. ��,_.� �-• :� 1` �S� } ';8: 6F.._80.3 �IAoo -: :^n:a,r x,x 'fJ`/ 1 ")-,i;.• C•C K�A w Y-. Lis1 '=IILiiL=W; f.lT 1 I.L: vI .Y:K'f7l� I J1i1' '0:.1��',N" j'' O'7i -'1 �'(-.^-��.o:) (b,<...:.<• a <' 5'D' :•.1. 6;-9 i".z .'.,:;. ..„•` • .. N, t� ICY IJ / of Ili 1_,:.�;P„ M• o. .... -', .:?,... ." .1 . e'Q,: wl... ' \_a V \CY f �. j / . f , (IT l. q.2. - tomr a I ir iT1r !4 :u i,r^1 �iw / • ' i pa,rom T C f / r��nPFw: r-\, / II. h ••1, o L'/Ili i i ri1 lr_aoT Nrw3e :-' I `7 eannw I.wrze ,}rEwu.�w.. .. _1 7 (79-) ' -6'200! '.12� . r_. ra' t 'z \\ % nf` ;00z srhn�� 2 � `' 4,1,1 NOS A. / O Cwp rr)i n c.KrsJm! q q�... • u / - t.7 _ � .-,,,,./ .ria GateG TKO., I ...,,,12'I 1 GLAsl3C�1 �E?1 ¢ ,tea NJ TIP'na sc V1. 1 u.,�vcnn a (aJu�/aCL 3 r _ 1 (I -- ' ��� - - li 1 11� Fl,,...._ Mun�•«aG `I I / marsh w...�- I ° �Ij I ' nu��n_r�TiL—'� =--_ — _=—_ wa7s+sx �v,rae - Zt Ft -1 '"'�'"fl ��-`- —C• _ - _ _- COD Lvv1-CG-(YI 1$ve.L-.) I -, J{ i--- II 1 ——— la, LG-�/t=L- I I i ; I 9/( I FLOOR PLANS I I I A2 c ommuni :,-o I NORTH 4 Church K�,v 11.0191 -EIEW7d°- I I ( I= / • - nee ii : • .-,. .,.., - � i � _ .6 _ , „00 , .. .. 1 pri , r �n .„.„. „___). 1 UV 4c � wr.1•es I - 1 c.:. -1 Ga % . bb St•i I ry Id If.•7: \ tt•��N Haw. O r- - \ \ , of;� • \\ \ — °• lip Jsw ld Wi , .. 1 1 _Nb�rb N • c� L 0 ....,-. t \ - 41 N Y "' _ .jam, �� ... 1 1i-hr1 -1.”, ` I �' G a io9 _ __ - enro.0 en a �y aw w. ' ,as- _ f n11.1.t \ —� - ___-_- - tf. MiM.I ieo.lr.• - 1 Si:,;: A V pax \ ......„ i . I )t,. ' I" 11V What Will Phase I Cost? project. Such debt will inhibit our freedom as „ future ministry opportunities are presented. New C.E./nursery construction $930,700.00 Therefore,these funds will be raised in a capital 200 LEVEL Remodel existing C.E. space 147,380.00 stewardship campaign over the next2-3yearsso 100 LEVEL • Remodel office space 84,000.00 that the Phase I construction can be built on a i _ Fire sprinkler system 145,000.00 �� cash basis. Gam.$ Subtotal $1,307,080.00 The Elders are committed to the Scriptural I principle that no one be subjected to any undue `\ Off-site improvements S279,000.00 pressure for participation in the capital steward- �\ -( -�,.. ' Construction contingency (5%) 79,304.00 ship campaign. Each one must decide in his or �` `"=1 .00,.E Construction Subtotal S1,665,384.00 her own heart how the Lord would have them yor- - participate in this offering to Him(Ex.35:21;2 Cor. eI _ '°' Other costs (taxes, professional 9:7), for God loves a cheerful giver." ,Ilh �',„.:\ „mot fees,permits,telephone,alarm, �� �� etc.) $27o,230.0o Will An Outside Stewardship �* - 1 r _ Consultant Be Used? \ `\ .. : Total Project Costs $1,935,614.00 Probably, although the Elders have made no „ final decision on this point. We do not have the `Y` `"0 / 2r necessary experinece or skills in our staff and lay ,r= k- ._, How Will This leadership to successfully direct a capital stew litilL ardship campaign. Therefore, it is likelythat we �--1 - Money Be Raised? g will retain a consultant to assist our staff and lay W^r °� F - 1 ' 1 We are trusting God to miraculously provide leadership to see this important campaign to a �� \' ', 1 these funds through the faithful and sacrificial successful conclusion. $ 1A4 s ,14 I giving of His people. The Elders believe that we If a consultant is retained,the consultant's fees `r.�� 1 1 ; I\i ✓—T r 1 Q---` 11 should not encumber our body and future ministry will be less than what we would pay as a loan fee potential with substantial long-term debt for this if we borrowed the funds from a lender. What Is Phase II? Two Question and Answer meetings are sched- uled for April 30 and May 7 after the evening service. Questions are encouraged. — • ? � Building On A Firm Foundation `�� ,,� ••••�•�•�•°•°�•° The Elders be available to answer •=�' ~` % regarding this proposal during the annual Elder .utaHome Visits which are scheduled for May.y' Highlands Community Church M.(: _ I .ru r° /- '' "'"" _ The special meeting of membership to be hel _ - 4 1� r? : at the church on June 4, 1989 at 6:00 p.m. "Building On A Firm Foundation" - What Is It? What Will The Members Be • "Building On A Firm Foundation" ,X .'Q,," if -// 44,J,'--% ,'? is the theme for the Site De- Asked P�, E °•°••�/ Asked To Approve At Th. velopment Master Plan that the I RECEIVED li't- �k` \, ��\`� 1. Special Meeting? Elders have proposed for the N.E. . F B,t .« RAT[ 2 ' _ development of our existing I6' ' •°'°°'•° _; ��T • E 1992 iv .AN, °• _ At the special meeting of members on June 4, / - y.��f °N r roe ?' V� r the Elders will seek ratification of two proposals: p p rtY. ° Members will be asked to ap l ` )c-,� -ING EXAMINER I FUTURE PARKING _v , °AR+ 1. Approval in concept of the proposed I, _ i development of our existingroe in prove the masiierplan in concept at a special meeting of the ') • �'� p property rty j i * , 1 1 > 1 accordance with the Site Development ' 1 ; ii Master Plan; and membership to be held on June F - -� ''_' 4, 1989 at 6:00 p.m. r ,l C ..,..,.... �, 2. Approval of the specific plan for = commencement of construction of the What Is The B = - S �� Phase II will complete the development of our Phase I improvements as soon as the funds - _- U� existing property and will include: are provided. Master Plan? "� ' •_, C . 1. Construction of a 1500-seat auditorium Approval of the specific plans for and corn- The master plan provides for - _- =_, = = adjacent to the South wall of the gym; and mencement of construction of the auditorium in the optimal development of our = _- L -t, T -2. Remodeling of our existing sanctuary for usePhaseIIwi!!notbesoughtatthespecial meeting. existing site in two phases over , A as classrooms. several years as our facility needs Why Should We Embark require expansion of our buildings. ��\,�•'��` Aii`'�R,� MI_,.. - This construction will commence when our _ On This Project Now? present sanctuary is reaching capacity,and will require congregation approval at that time. No The need for this project becomes quite evident What Are Our Facility Needs Right Now? specific approval of Phase II construction will be as we examine our current ministries,the growth During this past year the Elders have re-evaluated our current facility needs: sought at the June 4 special meeting of the that has been experienced in the past, and the membership. growth that can be realistically expected in the 1. Most adult classes must be offered at 11:00. This makes the 9:15 service crowded,while future. the 11:00 service is not crowded. What Will Phase II Cost? The Elders believe that the Lord has retained 2. Our nursery is very crowded. this property in this strategic location throughout 3. Children's Mid and AWANAleaders do not have sufficient room to encouraae No estimate of the cost of Phase II has been the years for our use in His ministry.The God-given prepared. That information will be necessary challengeministry Highlandsa aressive outreach in theirgrograms. of before Com .� when Phase II construction is proposed. munity Church is to become the regional 4. The narthex and general building circulation are congested. The method for funding Phase II construction equipping" and "sending" organization that This study showed an urgent need for construction of additional Christian Education and nursery has also not been determined. God would have us to be. "From everyone who space as soon as possible. has been given much,much will be demanded." How'Can I Luke 12:48. What Is Included In Phase I? The Elders believe that the Lord would have us Get More Information? all walk by faith and accept this challenge to Phase I construction will include: expand the scope and impact of our ministry. 1. A new two-story classroom and nurserybuilding (11,900 square feet), to be built adjacent to An information brochure has been prepared to Highlands Community Church is a growing rY Q I provide details regarding the master plan pro- ministry.The Elders ask each person to prayerfully the West wall of the gym; posal and Phase I construction.Copies are avail- consider his or her part in enabling this continued 2. Installation of the long-deferred off-site improvements(curbs, gutters, sidewalks) on our able in the narthex. growth of ministry through this exciting project. vacant land;and 3. Remodeling of some existing C.E. and office space, including installation of fire sprinkler system. Because of the urgent need for these facilities,construction of Phase I will commence as soon as the Lord provides the necessary funding. • • CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttman,Administrator February 13, 1991 //�� `"L` e� EXHIBIT N t < /� ' M N c-ow� Lloyd Hoshide gc A ��. 833 Kirkland Ave. '� S Renton,WA98056 o RECEIVED SUBJECT: Highlands'Community Church FEB - - 1992 ECF; CU-041)9010 CITY OF RENTON Dear Mr. Hoshide: HEARING EXAMINER The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed this project on January 16, 1991 to evaluate whether there were any significant adverse environmental impacts from the project and to provide the necessary mitigation measures. Upon receipt of your comment letter the project was referred back to the ERC with your letter for their consideration. At the ERC meeting, the members determined that the environmental concerns listed in your comment letter had been adequately addressed by the Determination of Non- Significance- Mitigated issued on January 16, 1991. The fourteen day appeal period for the environmental determination will end at 5 p.m. on March 1, 1991. An appeal of the environmental determination would be filed with the office of the Hearing Examiner with a fee of$75.00. If no appeal is filed, the next step for the proposed project is for staff to review the project pursuant to the Site Plan Ordinance (4-31-33) and place conditions on the proposed development for the non- environmentally related issues. The project is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing in late May. At that time staff will be recommended further conditions for the project and make a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner of whether the project should be supported or denied. You and those signing the petition will be notified of this date. The applicant has indicated that the reason for this expansion is mostly to relieve overcrowding in the existing facilities. However, as you have correctly noted, an increase in size will allow the church to continue to grow. In order to remove as much traffic generated by the church from the streets in front of the residential area as possible the City will be requiring the applicant to improve the driveway from the parking area to NE 10th Street between the Golden Pines Apartments and the Safeway store. Although this will not reduce the traffic going to the other facilities mentioned in your letter it should reduce the amount of traffic on the residential streets from the church. The church has acknowledge that the street parking has been a problem in the past. Mr. Ralston, of the Highlands Community Church, stated in a meeting with City officials that letters have gone out to the Church members indicating that anyone parking illegally (e.g. on sidewalks, blocking driveways) will be ticketed by the Renton Police. It Is our understanding that this has reduced the problem in the area. Also, as part of the proposed development the applicant will be required to provide additional parking in accordance with the Renton Municipal Code. This should also help reduce the street side parking problem that you noted. If these measures do not work it may be advisable to consider adopting a "residents only" permit parking program here. The proposed change of zone is to provide a zoning designation on the developed portion of the property that more accurately reflects the existing use. Any future change in use or further development of the property under the proposed P-1 zoning would still require City review. In the case of any expansion of the church further conditional use permits would be required and would only be approved after public 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 hearings. Another reason for the rezone at this time is that it will provide the nexus to allow the City to require a rezone on the portion of the property presently zoned B-1 (Business District) should the church request permission to expand into this area. It should be noted that a church is a principal use in the B-1 zone and a conditional use in the P-1 (Public Zone). The City is aware of the residents concerns in this area regarding the expansion of the church use at this location. Staff is available and willing to work with the citizens to try and resolve these Issues. If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please contact me at 235-2550. Sincerely, ffhl‘ Mark R. P , AICP Project Manager Hoshide -+ G 6 The Seattle Times Thursday,January 9, 1992 -,r4///j/r ,k./. /0 CL 'L U ',,;,u .:;� ' w. ..,,,.,,,,,,,w ,ms„.„ 1 .a, .. .:rx s 'ate.::...• • . .•••;•.•n.,, ra';Nso. . a-7•Fi a'rt. •i .a.. x a� -ii- . °mow.,:::' -S . 2,--;,...,-1.,Wiaiit South home index FEB - - 1992 �� �� - Closings for the week of December 23,1991.�'rT•Y OF RENTON !!f"' j Sales of new and existing homes filed at the county a t • covering the South. The t (�I f Region 1:The area along the gn�xs c«:w index charts the course of sales and prices for the Sou�W s for specific neighbor- Pierce County King County ......EBUSIN s,a �'R,n1°" hoods and areas also are broken out The information is provided by TRW Real Estate Information Services,Inc. !ems•;K• .+. line that includes Federal �' e. ` ••Normandy PMt - . ... .......... CURRENTtMEEK A�� 261rEEK TEAR-TO-DATE Way,West Campus and Twin „M, •Wiley•• sums AWL PRICE MOH LOW SA,ms ArO. CE SALEB Arc.PRICE fA►Es AVO.►wcE Lakes.The eastern border IS K•"r REGION I '' Auburn aNa about 51st Avenue South. ,• • Mowed• New 4 $207,825 $370,000 $132,000 10 $179,841 167 $176,005 314 $185,343 An, neggmmIrqitvrt:-.. i.&,,, .' '. Existing 23 $125,154 $270,000 $45,000 21 $151,456 622 $132,580 1,182 $131,426• Region 2:The Auburn area, �R� „ry 6man law REGION 2 The Seattle Times:31620 23rd Ave.S., Tieaer including Algona and Pacific. - quite 312,Federal Way,WA 98003 New 2 $151,470 $195,990 $106,950 2 $218,450 Pa $197,495 155 $185,952 g Y Puwellup !annoy tak• Existing 11 $130,672 $180,000 $58,730 15 $111,503 348 $118,464 629 $116,202 It runs from 51 st Avenue _ John H.Stevens,946-3986.FAX 946-3982 REGION 3 South east to about Lake ' f..,-.New 3 $141,033 $163,000 $110,100 7 $148,664 134 $135,498 250 $138,229 Morton. Existing 5 $133,018 $210,000 $55,500 2 $149,500 188 $138,187 313 ' $133,889 STOCKWATCH/SOUTH has not made a final decision on REGION 4 Region 3:Black Diamond - the$5.5 million purchase,says - ,New 6 $167,158 $253,450 $83.000 10 $181,834 196 $166,139 355 $167,120 and Enumclaw south to the - Bob Durr,Capstone's general Existing 23 $128,463 $290,000 $40,500 20 $175,433 477 $144,862 904 $142,035 Pierce County-King County • CZ,------", � REGION S '`�"t V i-'%, ..- New 7 $185,618 $291,859 $134,295 18 $181,432 217 $175,912 369 $177,783 line.The northern limit is just • M. M� �uSl�� � LSG y ' Existing 4 $193,122 $315,000 $90,000 13 $111,492 421 $132,883 827 $131,578 north of the Black Diamond its. _ , cy, REGION 6 � ` �,�` �/ L+ New 0 $0 $0 $0 1 $124,000 13 $143,544 26 $147,089 Ca) M l$P(,- Va�� 3y y s , l . Existing 2 $122,500 $145,000 $100,000 3 $106,813 86 $121,898 169 $119,641 Region 4:A broad area from �1 148th Avenue Southeast, ? . C31 FjLn�IL ��F}�,o J�7 f6 c OL%��/ , NewREG10N 7 0 $0 $0 $0 3 $142,650 40 $167,296 86 $165,534 including the Lake Wilderness 97� Existing 4 $251,712 $401,900 $110,000 12 $157258 321 $143,788 606 $140,151 area.It runs north to the May I •----- REGION 8 Valley Road and roughly 1453 j I ,Jan.14 I : . i I.TYlfda�_ New 1 $126,500 .$126,500 $126,500 1 $186,500 14 $133,191 23 $133,664 follows that road as a northern - Existing 15 $109,072 $200,000 $40,280 15 $118,500 497 $111,561 922 $109,878 boundary. //'�� REGION 9 lj G� �H% l.:l.D5itUicS �TD � '`c.a../ Cf Ujj°� +.••New 7 $192214 - $228,500 $108,000 3 $163,943 -92 $209,991 176 $212,222 Region 5:The Kent area Existing 13 $122,008 $175,000 $87,250 13 $133,654 508 $130,009 981 $127,625 east of the Valley Freeway.It REGION 10 covers Meridian,the Lake l __ _ ,,O.-C. /ieX New o $0 $0 $0 0 $0 15 $1a2267 2s $155,436 II,�C �I I Existing 1 $205,500 $205,500 $205,500 5 $178,400 67 $175,089 106 $175,304 Meridian area and Panther - t TOTAL _ I moon noon,at me to t pinta New 30 $177,720 55 $174,370 970 $172,119 1,779 $173,625 Region 6:The Kent area 1qa i L, J J J J °... 1 I 5Existing 101 $132,552 119 $140,544 3,535 $131,421 6,639 $129206 west of the Valley Freeway, including Star Lake. •ter [�// (,d-( ;n- Sales '� Seattle Number of new and existing homes sold 0 Issaquah a 90 Region 7:Along Puget 2 weekly over the past 26 weeks/ �_l- G © _ Sound,includingDes Moines Il i�" �j� eoo _ - k- N, I _ MILES and Normandy Park. 9 • Sea-Tac _-4S -._...._..__......_-..��.. - ,1 0 - \Renton , ® t-•-• - Region 8:Between owners is available from the Ser- - att - - i Normandy Park and the south %•- SOUTH REPORT vice Corps of Retired Executives at' .- .. --- d. I Seattle city limits.ft covers the Greater Renton Chamber of i� Vaeho Normandy` Kent , - the Burien and White Center Developer negotiating sale Commerce.Call 226 4560 for an �;_ ! P ` 0'W' j' ° Valleye areas,as well as SeaTac and .: of land to Capstone Homes appointment. - -III 1 J©East the Seattle-Tacoma 2 4 6 CUD 2 14 b s 20 22 24 a; Hill - I,AUBURN ON THE MOVE WeekInternational Airport. • Capstone Homes Inc,may buy I Fariba Ronnasi,previously a PI1Ce pnttia ) ® Region 9:The Renton- 'en nand to build 350 single-family personal banker with Security Pa- Average sales puce of new and existing • __ Auburn Tukwila areas.ft follows the homes in Riverbend Estates,a cific Bank joined the Puget Sound homes combined over PSI weeks 0 Black master- lapped community off Au- Bank's Midway branch as a branch "sue°TT[TT"' i I: , Federal © 3 i 405 corridor along Lake p Kent yl i'• Diamond jai., �., ; .-t +f:;$140.1g4- Washington to just south of burn Way North,near the officer. 1p..4-4-4 ,! 12r18191 € `�,WaY the Newport Hills area. border. ■Lynn Nishimura,a volunteer ar-i-z-r r t r•--1-.. '' -I CLIO P.Hendley&Associates Inc.is with the Northwest Women's Law 1e r1-••-� tri-r4 `°•© i KING ,. developing Riverbend Estates and Center,joined Puget Sound Banks Region 10:Vashon Island. is negotiating a sale of 109 acres to Renton ranch as a branch officer. 1a . ,y Tacoma PIERCE CO Maple Valley based Capstone,says t -+ 11 �� LAKE " ' ;Pat Hendley,president of the de- ■Please send your business news 15- , t *1'l --'T'" Area TAPPS ' I Enumclaw ,......,_-..x._i�___. �..__.._. . boundaries `� f • velopment company. to: The Seattle Times, Business z . a s D 2 >t a a a 2+ a Capstone,one of the Seattle News Department, P.O. Box 70, walk u 1 ' _^ region's biggest homebuilders,has Seattle,WA 98111. • - 'N _,,a letter of intent with Hendley but � ~ Lloyd Hoshide February 28, 1991 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner Department of Planning/Building/Public Works . 200 Mill Ave S. Renton, WA 98055 . Subject: Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated; Final for Application ECF-090-048 addition of Class room and office space, Highlands Community Church � | Dear Mr Kaufman: This letter is an appeal of subject environmental determination per Section 4-6-23 Renton Municipal Code. Pursuant to the published notice of February 15, 1991, this appeal is filed before 5:00 p.m. March 1, 1991. Appellant alleges the Determination Nonsignificance - Mitigated, Final was reached after irregularities in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) processing per Renton Code 4-6 and WAC 197-11 as incorporated by reference and should therefore be reversed per Section 4-6-23:B. 4. c and the DNS withdrawn per WAC 197-i1-340 (3) (a) (ii) & (iii) and that a new theshold determination be ordered per WAC 197-11-340 (3) (c). Appellant alleges that environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives are not assessable with the limited information applicant provided. Appellant alleges irregularities in the SEPA processing per Section 4-6 and WAC 197-11 as incorporated by reference in these areas: WAC 197-11-960 Environmental Checklist questions: (Renton Code 4-6-12) A.6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable) . Answer: Spring 1991 A.7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further � activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes,explain. Answer: None with this proposal. WAC 197-11-960 Environmental Checklist, Instructions for applicants: the fourth paragraph states: The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you tn explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to to determining if there may be significant adverse impacts. Mr Fred J. Kaufman page 2 Pursuant to the above, a letter dated September 24, 1990; Richard W. Ralston, Chairman, Building Committee Highlands Community Church to Honorable Theresa Zimmerman, et al ; Re: Highlands Community Church Application for Deferral of On-Off Site Improvements; states that: l� a.the church's plan for construction of a new auditorium were modified, and the 1988 rezone and conditional use permits applications were withdrawn. b. the master plan for development of the church' s site • was modified to provide development of the site in two phases. Phase I: Christian Education Building, immediately. Phase II: Construction of new auditorium, Conclusion: Church construction plans are known for both near and long term. Information was available to complete questions A.6 and A.7 by revisions to cover phases I and II. It follows that answers to quest ions A. 11, B. 1. g, B.7. b. 1), B.8.J, B.8. 1, B. 10.a, B. 10.B, B. 14.A, B. 14. c, B. 14.d, B. 14. f, B. 14. g, B. 15. a, B. 15. b, are suspect for the same reason. Documentation per Renton Code 4-6-13:E. 3 Renton code 4-6-13:E.3 reads: The applicants proposed mitigation measures (clarifications, changes, or conditions) must be in writing and must be specific. For example, proposals . . . Two City letters are in file which make specific requests for information from the applicant: a.a letter dated June 27, 1990; Mark R. Pywell to Steve Hammer, Highlands Community Church Architect, requesting information on five features on the future sanctuary; and b.a letter dated October 8, 1990; Mark R. Pywell to Richard Ralston, Highlands Community Church Building Committee Chairman, requesting elevation information for proposed auditorium. Appellant searched the CU;R-048-90 file for a documented response to no avail on February 25, 1991. In a follow-up phone call to Mark R. Pywell on February 26, 1991, appellant learned that no response was received on the June letter. That in meeting following the October request, it was said that information was lacking because the construction was not planned until several years downstream. The communication was said to be verbal. Conclusion: Applicant did not transmit the requested data 'in written form as required by 4-6-13:E. 3. Appellant found no evidence in City files that the verbal transmissions were documented. WAC 197-11-340 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS) Item (`) (b) reads: The responsible official shall send the DNS and environmental checklist to agencies with Jurisdiction,the department of ecology, and affected tribes, and each local agency or political subdivision whose public services would change as a result of Fred J. Kaufman page 3 implementation of the proposal and shall give notice under WAC 197-11-510. Adopted by reference in 4-6-17: and WAC 197-11-502 Inviting Comment. An affidavit of service by mailing is available in City files showing mailing of determinations and checklists to the required parties as defined by WAC 197-11-340(2) (b) on January 18, 1991. The determination was the DNS-Mitigated dated 1-16-91. The SEPA checklist available for mailing was the copy dated April 24, 1990 (Renton Planning Division received date). Conclusion: Appellant infers that because comments were invited using checklists with the irregularities identified under WAC 197-11-960 Checklist questions (this letter), the comments received as well the lack of comment by other agencies inferring lack of objection to the environmental analysis per WAC 197-11-545(2) have no standing. Summation: Applicants current projects building title, Christian Education Building, and current resources (two school busses), and no increase in Sunday traffic infer to appellant that a week day private school is planned at the current expansion. Appellant could easily be wrong for one would not conclude that by a study of applicants WAC 197-11-960 checklist answers. Is the additions true use obscure? Has there been misrepresentation? Were the comments invited using misrepresented checklist data? In view of these questions, appellant feels threaten by applicant providing minimum information on the additions use. Confidence that a reasonable assessment of environmental impacts has been made is not possible with information provided. Likewise, appellant has no knowledge or information on applicants development plans for the siting as well as the design features of his proposed new sanctuary/auditorium. Appellant feels that there is reasonable cause to believe that a fair assessment of cumulative environmental impacts has not been achieved. ��M �As t �N, , ���,T�o� e���� EXHIBIT NCB. By 1972 it was determined by a committee studying the �j feasibility of meeting future needs,that the congregation Gods Fait/ �- 1 nas would benefit greatly by a family life center and gymnasium, and that more office space was needed. f,, In 1974,another ground breaking ceremony was held,and To Cis fPeopi(e At by November,1976,the new building was dedicated. As the Lord continued to bless Highlands Community 5 finds Community Church Church,the elders continued to look to the future.Seeing the five acres adjacent to the church site available,Pastor Wilson approached the chairman of the owners,a development corporation,and entered into negotiations.The chairman,a153 Jewish gentleman,agreed to sell the property to the church T after Pastor Wilson told him that God was saving the property r _ 1 " o ?. t ' , 4 for us. N ♦: - '.. Cr" Before any papers could be drawn up,he was approached �'t 4 by another development company that wanted to purchase the , ► 1 h I"1 s rn property.The chairman told them that he had already ��_�► Uljjr Il 1011011111191111911iri �� � .. _ e committed to sell to the church.He stood by his word with no �. t r \ -' ' - " co guarantees that the church would be able to muster the funds. j 11! v.: 4, ' to �I 11 ,r 4/..., : , N (T1 Duringtheir negotiations,Pastor Wilson led the chairman ' ''''t1 �'- • to Christ and,within one week after the purchase was final- •-.,.., ized,the gentleman went to be with the Lord.He reaffirmed "" � his faith in Jesus during the pastor's visit in the hospital. The road to the present hasn't always been easy.But • ' /j through it all we have seen God's hand upon our efforts. As we look to the future,and as we go forward with purity of heart and singleness of purpose to do all to the glory of God,we are assured that His faithfulness will abide. The Lord our God,to j whom we look for all good things,is faithful above all we can think or With my mouth will ask.Time and again He 4 11 hi „lc: f make brown thy faith- has proven His faithful- 1 fulness to all generations. ness to the congregation at (Psalm 89:1b) Highlands Community Church,and it is in honor Community of Him that we recall those C h U CC h special times when His faithfulness has ministered 3031 NE 10th•RENTON,WA 98050•200/255.4751 to us. • ". �. Highlands Corn- Both the Roman Catholic Archdiocese and the Renton i 1��"� . munity Church had its Ministerial Association(representing the Protestant congrega- 1 congrega- .„ ii a on i humble beginnings in lions)determined that they had no present need for the site ✓ 1943 when local Protes- and deferred to Highlands Community Church.Even so,the ' itan I®• +/ tant churches sought to Federal Housing Administration would not allow the property Z' `i ), '':' provide services for to be sold to Highlands Community Church. (►) a4 a;�4 _ . 10,000 Boeing Corpora- After nine years of trying to purchase the property,Pastor �L r .1 don employees living in a Wilson appealed to senators Warren Magnuson and Henry 4 . ' + temporary war-housing "Scoop"Jackson for assistance.It was Senator Jackson's help J A• Project- especially,that paved the way for the Federal Housing N Administration's a roval of the sale.In 1946,six people met with a young pastor who had PP v h� r served three summers at a Bible camp ministering to the In 1957,for the sum of$9,000,the FHA presented the �`� children of the temporary community.That young pastor, church with the quit claim deed for Block 32,the site the Wallace Wilson,was asked to establish a permanent church in federal government had determined was the appropriate place the area.On the third Sunday in September of that year,they for the church—on a hill,in the heart of the community. gathered for their first service at the Renton Highlands On February 8,1958,100 people attended the ground Housing Administration building. breaking service for the original sanctuary and offices which The Lord was faithful in blessing this fledgling congrega- now comprise the fellowship hall.Arriving at the ceremony don,and within one year it was supporting its first missionary was a carpenter whose children had been attending Sunday in Nepal.In 1956 Highlands Community Church sent its first School,and who had been working in California for the past missionaries,Russell and Mary Draper,to Africa.From out of two years.He offered to supervise the construction at no cost. that ministry were produced seven churches,a Bible school, Although there was no one with construction experience in and a hospital. the congregation,with his help the building was constructed As the congregation continued to grow,the need for its by members working every Tuesday and Thursday evening, own facilities became apparent.But there were no properties plus all day on Saturdays.The total cost was$50,000 in available in the Renton Highlands at the time.It was then that materials. • God's faithfulness was most apparent. C On the Sunday before Christmas,1958,the first services were When the federal government was no longer in need of conducted in the new sanctuary Wit}un two Years the properties in the Renton Highlands,it decided to sell them congregation had grown to require two services.It became apparent that before long a larger sanctuary would be needed.to private individuals.Within the plans for the community was a site for a church,which was meant for a recognized In July,1962,ground was broken for construction on the church denomination.Highlands Community Church,not new sanctuary,using , a being affiliated with any denomination,was not eligible to buy a hoe from Africa `_ �t the property. provided by one of ,i. ", _ In order to obtain government recognition,we joined the the church's mis- li, ✓1 ;' le % Independent Fundamental Churches of America.But there sionaries.In less than , ,,.• ; ` 'r l±' twothe new —'.s..�eye :-•••i•—• .•.... y•'1 1�1 i . were other obstacles to overcome.The Roman Catholic years ,; i Archdiocese and the recognized Protestant denominations had sanctuary was in use, ±i 1 t � first choice to build two churches on the bite chosen by the and the church saw 1:21 . . ,._ government. the need to begin . .1 "" ' - '` .. ... multiplestatfing. t `j t , 54AIC. Tu42y , -1T4-/27- o/ut.y /9'6 Z G'd"1fe.. -4F LE3f C2) fiER25 (/9e. q) . _ god 's Faithfittne ss To His People At Hwidands Community Church f L,.o u)5 HIP 044-L- 6Tw2r FEG ‘5S$ �,_,. CoHpeTE SO09AY C1412.157MA•S vise - r .` ,} t, 1 }4 ' . , 6YM00c5i M ) i•• rt�` �� �vO,r,o,J ®FFaco' A _ 1`{ ' — ten. tiltq .. k- lit' ,4.,_,,. ., _ jr*, SAX CTOA21 v�,e# # ., ,) `'` � �-' • ; Mom' SC JOel1 S.Z: . i Gf /�. COHO��rc LG53 ! MAa CI-, yea af,. .9 The Lord our God, to whom we look for all good things,is faithful C =s j above all we can think or m m With my mouth will ask. Time and again He z 0 W I make known thy faith- has proven His faithful- 61 � fulness to all generations. ness to the congregation at C (Psalm 89:1b) Highlands Community m N m Church,and it is in honor 33 0 of Him that we recall those Z special times when His faithfulness has ministered to us. r , • CITY OF RENTON • iy,... U.S.POSTAGI = Planning/Building/Public Works Department i ' JAN23 92 lip= i W, I•:;,:,-P 'I a 'i,zi !) 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 / ) 1 " WA SI. ‘ ...,..j I. F1'hile:2-' * .. . Opi ' VI' ( • • 722780-102 -05 Renton •ghlnds Assoc. c/o ellmond Realty 91,Vi24th Ave, NE #104 . I ellevue, WA 98005 • -----} . i - .fldntil6Luhhhdli . . . .. . . NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 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 February 4, 1992 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the following petitions: HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH ECF-048-90 The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the project site from R-1 (Single- Family Residential) to P-1 (Public Zone) and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to construct a two-story (12,800 sf) addition to the existing one and two-story (42,500 sf) church building (on a 17,995 sf footprint) in order to provide additional classroom and office area. The project is located at 3031 NE 10th Street. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing on February 4, 1992 at 9:00 a.m. to express their opinions. 722780-1025-04 ; Renton Highlnds Assoc. • c/o Bellmond Realty ; 919 124th Ave. NE #104 `Bellevue, WA 98005 hexpub CITY OF RENTON sENTUN w U.S. A PGE ._= Planning/Building/Public Works Department = ; ` ( J123 )92 =;; i P?el ' �. ; LioL V ;s S 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 r WASH• � � m E-E i'i--" x 8 3 1 V 9062162 * * a 4: 67- 7.) 11167 807440-0020-02 Kirkevold, E. O. 917 Lynnwood Ave. NE e ( Renton, WA 98055 \ { e•-)I A B - ��• UNABLE TO Fi,R ARD _ RETURN TO SEQL R `' ' - 4 • 4 Yf ,1 pp5 do + Al t ii iiiat ,a : > ah:: 4 ) 140') o NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 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 February 4, 1992 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the following petitions: HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH ECF-048-90 The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the project site from R-1 (Single- Family Residential) to P-1 (Public Zone) and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to construct a two-story (12,800 sf) addition to the existing one and two-story (42,500 sf) church building (on a i7,995 sf footprint) in order to provide additional ciassroom and office area. The project is located at 3031 NE 10th Street. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing on February 4, 1992 at 9:00 a.m.to express their opinions. • • hexpub CITY OF RENTON '`"r0"'-., ; � Planning/Building/Public Works Department • JAN23 •• ,; :; i ,` • ) 4200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 s F��Ez i�. J , . Al/ 0090-04 • r 722790- John & Louise AilYA)(1 piacentini, 2540 NE Riverside Way Portland, OR 97211 t�'..�:t it_ *f(! 9 s i 3 s t:123 1 240 s;;i't,c til S' FIACENTINI'TENN MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS UNABLE 1L1 FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER II,Iiiil11i11iii111liltiiiifilll11I1,Ii11iiiiiiiiili NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 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 February 4, 1992 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the following petitions: HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH ECF-048-90 The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the project site from R-1 (Single- Family Residential) to P-1 (Public Zone) and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to construct a two-story (12,800 sf) addition to the existing one and two-story (42,500 sf) church building (on a 17,995 sf footprint) in order to provide additional classroom and office area. The project is located at 3031 NE 10th Street. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing on February 4, 1992 at 9:00 a.m. to express their opinions. . • • • • • hexpub 0..s. ,. .. . 'a . _ - • .•' t-''- '1*. "?..• _-5,-. •:-' •:.- , • ---.11.7„:"--:,,.- ----. ' .. . ,;r.,_.......,_, --- - ."-ejTY OF Otivrr . . ,. ._ . ...,.... •• _ To ___ . __ „... ,• .: - - . . - — . •• ••:-.v.i. .. .... :,.,... 0.7::iii.m,,.. . .. ...27. ., .74r7se-----,,_-_„,,,,,,Q4L• • AcaE ; ,, ,.• ••••_,, __,. 1 ..;,,,•,,, . . ., . . .. Plarming/Building/Public Works Department , _ . - -..92 - . . ,. . . / 25 . • ..-: ..• • • 200 Mill'Ave'nue South-Renton, Washington 98055 .. imb, , ---.1raskk• - '1"--- - ' 1 F 94412. -I.6 2 * P A v • / 7----7- 1245720-0196-04 / . - ---- • • • Harrison F. Joan/ 7307 Sand Poi/ - ;Way NE a/ .. Apt. 617 1 \ ---% - ! Seattle, WA 9 115 . . . .. --, ,r1 2 • . . , Z661 I AS' ADDRE,SSED c';', _4_,_ ---, I 83 No' • . UNABLE TO FORWARD \\? N d 0, .• • " • . lthilAnithaddAmildnamihj RETURN TO WRITER •• '• ---__ _ . . - • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 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 February 4, 1992.at 9:00 a.m. to consider the following petitions: HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH ECF-048-90 The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the project site from R-1 (Single- Family Residential) to P-1 (Public Zone) and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to construct a two-story (12,800 sf) addition to the existing one and two-story (42,500 sf) church building (on a 17,995 sf footprint), in order to provide additional classroom and office area. The project is located at 3031 NE 10th Street. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing on February 4, 1992 at 9:00 a.m.to express their opinions. • hexpub CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER 200 Mill Avenue South-Renton, Washington 98055 This material was accepted at the public hearing but not as an Exhibit. CITY OF RENTON m Office of the City Attorney • Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren. February 20, 1992 TO: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner Caih. 4)( � FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney HFgR/��AtA„e RE: Highlands Community Church F0 Dear Mr. Examiner: It has come to my attention that some person has raised a claim that my office has, in some fashion, influenced the city' s handling of an application by Highlands Community Church. Such an allegation is recklessly made with no basis in fact. Apparently the accusation was made because Dan Kellogg is a member of Highlands Community Church and at one time was an active member of the church board. I have specifically spoken with him about this accusation. When he served on the board and the subject of any application to the City of Renton camp up, he withdrew from the meeting so as to not influence the decision. However, he is no longer on the board and thas played no part in this application to the city. Even if Mr. Kellogg had been involved, he does not handle the land use matters for this office. I do. I not only have not influenced the process at all, I have not even known that it was going on until after this claim was raised. The first knowledge I had that the Highlands Community Church was approaching the city for some sort of a permit was when I was contacted by an attorney for Highlands Community Church and asked if my office would serve as an escrow agent for certain conveyancing documents tied to this application. Since I am not really aware of the particulars of this application, I do not know how I could influence the city's handling of the application. As a final matter, I do not understand how the city attorney's influencing of an application implicates the hearing examiner' s process at all . As you well know, I have not contacted you about the application. You are an independent decisionmaker, and if there was any influence as to the city' s presentation of the material to you, it could be rebutted by the surrounding property owners.. I am offended by the claim that my office might have influenced this application in any way. It is a totally groundless Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street-Renton,Washington 98057 - (206)255-8678 Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner February 20, 1992 Page 2 accusation. If anyone should be upset with me, it should be the church. I was rather forceful, several years ago, in insisting that the church install required parking. In taking that position, I substantially advanced the arguments of the neighbors against the church. It' s indeed ironic that these same neighbors now attack me personally. d447444"‘" Wal414°44.4"11136.'-- Lawrence . arren LJW:as . cc : Mayor Clymer A8 . 79 : 82 . ,O i 1 6 .. , .�• /• ,'tom,}ti.'11: i. • 'Ie , i `, j - $ ' eN �► I a ' i / ., 1 /1'. if j T / I ' 111 i , GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Highlands Community Church Addition 3031 NE 10th Street Renton, Washington Project No. T-2160 .:::.:::...... .. Terra Associates Inc. . . A . A Prepared for: Highlands Community Church Renton, Washington pE C E ! V ED FEB 2 5 1993 October 2, 1992 BUILDING DIVISION � ffi• TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. °8 Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology fls and Environmental Earth Sciences 171 E C E OCT I 9 1992 GBPARCSaI9ECTS, FS. October 2, 1992 Project No.T-2160 Mr.David Peterson c/o Highlands Community Church - 3031 NE 10th Street Renton,Washington 98027 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Highlands Community Church Addition 3031 N.E. 10th Street Renton,Washington Dear Mr.Peterson: - We have completed the geotechnical study you requested for the proposed addition to the Highlands Community Church in Renton, Washington. The location is shown on the attached Vicinity Map,Figure 1. The purpose of our study was to explore the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions in order to provide recommendations for site preparation, foundation design, and earthwork construction procedures. The - scope of our work included test pits, laboratory tests on representative soil samples and geotechnical engineering analyses. This report presents the findings of our study and summarizes our conclusions and recommendations. In general, all or part of the site is underlain by fill containing extensive debris. The fill overlies the original topsoil layer which together extend to a depth of eight to nine feet. Underlying the original topsoil layer, the soils consist of medium dense, fine to medium grained, silty sand. We understand-that much of the addition site was once a residential street with underground utilities. It is our opinion that the proposed addition may be constructed using conventional spread footings placed on competent native soils, where it can be reached, or on structural fill. The existing fill should not be used to support the proposed structure. Alternatively, the addition may be supported on augered concrete piles which extend below the fill and topsoil layers and into the competent native soils. However, additional exploration would be necessary to develop design criteria for piles. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 • Phone (206) 821-7777 Mr.David Peterson October 2, 1992 This report describes our explorations and explains our recommendations in greater detail. We trust this information is sufficient for your present needs. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES,INC. /7741 Dennis B. Green Project Engineer teodore J.Sci ner P.E.-- Principal Engin er. - DBG/TJS:tm cc: Mr.David Peterson, GBP Architects Mr.Dave Young, 19131 SE May Valley Rd,Issaquah,Washington Project No.T-2160 Page No. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Project Description 1 2.0 Scope of Work 1 3.0 Site Conditions 2 3.1 Surface 2 3.2 Subsurface 2 3.3 Groundwater 2 4.0 Discussion and Recommendations 2 4.1. General 2 4.2 Site Preparation and Grading 3 4.3 Foundations 4 4.4 Ground Floors - 4 4.5 Lower Level Retaining Walls 4 4.6 Lateral Load Resistance - 5 4.7 Drainage 5 4.8 _Slopes and Embankments 5 4.9 Excavations 5 4.10 Utilities - 6 5.0 Additional Services 6 6.0 Limitations 6 Figures Vicinity Map Figure 1 Exploration Location Plan Figure 2 Soil Classification System Figure 3 Test Pit Logs Figure 4 Grain Size Analysis Figure 5 Appendices Summary of Relevant Design Parameters Appendix A Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing Appendix B (i) Geotechnical Engineering Study Highlands Community Church Addition 3031 N.E. 10th Street Renton, Washington 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of a proposed addition to the Highlands Community Church located at 3031 NE 10th Street in Renton, Washington. The project location is shown on Figure 1. Based on the site plan provided to us, we understand that the addition will be to the west side of the existing gymnasium building. The addition will consist of a two story building having twelve classrooms, two stairwells and foyers, and an elevator. The ground floor will match the gymnasium ground floor. However, at the north end of the gym building, where the locker rooms are located, the existing floor and foundation steps up approximately five feet while the proposed addition adjacent to this area will remain at the lower elevation. Based on our experience with similar projects,we anticipate that the structure will be supported by a system of bearing walls and isolated interior columns. Structural loads are expected to be about 3 to 5 kips per foot for bearing walls and about 30 kips for interior columns. Once plans have been finalized, we should be provided an opportunity to review foundation and earthwork drawings and specifications. At that time we can provide supplementary recommendations,if needed. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK Our scope of work was outlined in detail on our proposal to you dated August 13, 1992. Our proposal was accepted and we were authorized to proceed on August 31, 1992. Accordingly, our field exploration consisted of excavating two test pits at the site. Based on information obtained both in the field and laboratory, analysis was performed to develop recommendations for design and construction. Specifically this report addresses: 1. Site preparation and grading 2. Foundation support alternatives 3. Floor slab support 4. Design lateral earth pressures 5. Subsurface drainage Project No.T-2160 October 2, 1992 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 Surface The southern two-thirds of the site of the proposed addition is relatively flat. Presently it is a gravelled surface and is used as a parking area and access road to nearby paved parking areas. In the northern portion of the addition site the ground surface slopes moderately upward approximately fifteen feet to a paved parking and delivery area. The slope is landscaped with shrubs and trees. A terraced path constructed of soil and railroad ties leads from the gravelled parking area up the slope to the'delivery area. We were told by several members of the church that the addition site lies in an area that once was a residential street. The entire area, including the property on which the church is built, was at one time occupied by government housing. — 3.2 Subsurface The upper soils at both test pit locations consist of loose to medium dense fill. In the test pit located near the middle of the proposed addition, the upper five feet contains extensive debris including metal, 'cut-off pile butts, asphalt, large concrete elements, and possible smelter waste. The fill encountered in the southern test pit consists of a much cleaner silty gravelly sand containing some asphalt. Underlying the fill in both test pits is about two feet of native, loose, reddish brown sand with silt. This soil unit is underlain by medium dense, silty sand to a maximum explored depth of 12.5 feet. 3.3 ' Groundwater No groundwater seepage was encountered in either of the test pits. The test pits were left open for only a short time.' It should be noted that groundwater levels can vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. 4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 General Our study indicates that all or part of the site is underlain by five to six feet or more of uncontrolled, non-homogeneous fill containing extensive debris. The native soils underlying the fill consists of loose to medium dense silty sands. The uncontrolled fill should not be used to support building or floor loads. The medium dense, native sandy soils are competent and will provide adequate foundation support for the planned construction. Page No.2 Project No.T-2160 October 2, 1992 Based on our study, it is our opinion that the proposed addition is feasible, although site preparation may be more costly and time consuming than anticipated. The building addition may be constructed using conventional spread footing foundations placed on competent native soils or on structural fill. However, neither footings nor floor slabs should be placed on the uncontrolled fill. Alternatively, the structure may be supported on augered concrete piles extending through the fill and into the competent native soils. However, obstacles to drilling may be encountered which require removal before drilling can continue. If excavation at the north end of the project site is to proceed below the bottom of the existing footings, underpinning may be necessary. Underpinning may also be necessary elsewhere if excavations adjacent to existing footings are required to extend below existing footings in order to remove unsuitable soils. Underpinning should be completed before the excavation proceeds below the footings. Elsewhere,shoring may be necessary if cuts can not be adequately sloped. Our recommendations should be incorporated into design and construction of the project. The following sections of this report present more detailed recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of site development. 4.2 Site Preparation and Grading Uncontrolled fill should be removed from the building footprint, and the desired grade restored with structural fill. Where removal of the fill requires an excavation below an imaginary plane extending laterally a footing width from the base of the existing footing and then downward an angle of 1:1 (H:V), underpinning may be necessary. Alternatively, footing trenches may be excavated to competent native soils and filled with lean mix concrete. Trenches which will parallel the existing footing and extend below the aforementioned imaginary plane should be excavated and immediately backfilled with lean mix concrete in approximately ten foot sections. Each section should be completed prior to excavating the next. Excavation to remove remaining existing fills below the building could them be accomplished inside the lean mix once it has cured. We recommend that any soils to be imported for use as structural fill be evaluated by Terra Associates, Inc. before they are brought onto the site. For import fills, we suggest that no more than five percent of the soil fraction passing the 3/4-inch screen be finer than the No.200 sieve, and that the fill has a maximum aggregate site of six inches. All structural fill, other than lean mix concrete,should be placed in horizontal layers and compacted to a density equal to or greater than 95 percent of its maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). The fill material should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. The individual fill layers should not exceed twelve inches in loose thickness. Structural fill beneath footings should extend beyond the footing a distance equal to the fill thickness. Page No.3 Project No.T-2160 October 2, 1992 4.3 Foundations The planned building addition may be supported on conventional spread footing foundations bearing on the competent native soils, or on the lean mix concrete or structural fill placed over competent soils. Footings may be proportioned for maximum bearing stresses of 2500 pounds per square foot, considering both dead and live loads. When wind or seismic loads are included, a one- third increase is permissible. Continuous wall footings should be at least 12 inches wide and isolated column footings at least 18 inches square. Footings exposed to the weather should bear at least 18 inches below adjacent outside final grades. Alternatively, augered concrete piles may be used to transfer structural and floor loads to the underlying competent soils. Additional subsurface exploration would be necessary in order to determine design criteria. However, we anticipate that 12 inch diameter augercast piles fifteen to twenty-five feet in length would provide load bearing capacities of 20 to 25 tons each. However, considering the debris encountered at Test Pit TP-1, excavation to remove obstructions to pile advancement should be expected. 4.4 Ground Floors Ground floors may be structurally supported or constructed as slab-on-grade. Slab-on-grade floors may be supported on competent native soils or on structural fill placed on competent, native soils. The existing fill should not be relied upon to support slab-on-grade floors. To provide a capillary break, we recommend placing at least four inches of free-draining fill, such as pea gravel, beneath the slabs. In areas where moisture is undesirable, a plastic barrier at least ten mils thick should be placed on the gravel. An inch or two of sand may be used to protect the membrane during construction and aid in curing concrete floor slabs. 4.5 Lower Level Retaining Walls Basement and retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils they retain. Walls free to rotate about their base may be designed to resist an equivalent fluid weighing 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Walls restrained at the top should be designed to resist an additional uniform pressure of 100 pounds per square foot (psf). The above pressures assume a maximum wall height of twelve feet and that no hydrostatic forces, adjacent high footings, surcharge loads, or sloping backfill will occur above the walls. If any of these are expected, we should be contacted for the appropriate design criteria. Retaining and foundation walls should be backfilled with compacted free-draining granular soils containing no organics. The backfill material should meet the criteria for soils imported for use as structural fill, as described in Section 4.2 of this report. In general, on-site native soils are useable as backfill however, the existing fill soils are not. Page No.4 Project No.T-2160 October 2, 1992 The purpose for using a free-draining, granular backfill is to assure that the design pressures on the retaining walls are not exceeded due to hydrostatic pressure build-up behind walls. Perforated pipe drains should be installed at the base of the wall footings, and free-draining backfill should be placed behind the walls. These pipes should drain to the storm drain system. 4.6 Lateral Load Resistance Lateral loads on foundations due to backfill stresses, wind, or seismic loads may be resisted by passive soil stresses on the sides-of footings and foundation walls, and by friction on the base of foundations. We recommend estimating passive resistances based on an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). This value assumes that the footing concrete is poured against "neat" excavations or that the backfill is compacted to at least 95 percent of its ASTM D-698 (Standard Proctor) maximum dry density. The calculated friction, resistance at the base of foundations should not exceed 40 percent of the foundation dead load. 4.7 Drainage We recommend the use of drains at the base ofall foundation and retaining walls. The,drains should empty into the storm drain system. The footing drains should be surrounded by at least six inches of pea gravel wrapped in geotextile filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N. Roof drains should be separately tightlined-to the storm drains. In areas adjacent to the building, final site grades which are not paved should be sloped away from the buildings. 4.8 Slopes and Embankments Although we do not anticipate that fill slopes or embankments will be required on this site, we point out that all fill -slopes should be constructed with a finish inclination of 2:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) or flatter. Any permanently exposed slopes should be immediately seeded with appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion potential. 4.9 Excavations Excavation slopes should be constructed in conformance with the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to four feet high may be made vertical. For slopes higher than four feet, temporary cuts in the medium dense, native soils should have an inclination no steeper than 1.5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical). - Page No.5 Project No.T-2160 October 2, 1992 4.10 Utilities Where utility lines are to be excavated and installed in the paved parking areas,we recommend that all bedding and backfill be placed in accordance with APWA and all applicable local and state specifications. Excavated on-site native soils will generally be suitable for backfill of utility trenches. Backfill placement and compaction should be in accordance with the recommendations given earlier in this report. 5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES We recommend that Terra Associates, Inc. be provided the opportunity to review the final design and earthwork specifications in order to verify that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the project design. To observe compliance with the design concepts,specifications and recommendations, and to allow expedient design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated, we also recommend that Terra Associates, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. These services should include: 1. observing installation of augered piles or piers if used; 2. observing all earthwork operations and the placement and compaction of any structural fill that may be required; 3. observing all footing and slab areas prior to forming and concrete placement; 4. performing field density tests on compacted fills and backfills; 6.0 LIMITATIONS The analyses and recommendations submitted herein are based on data from two test pits. However, actual subsurface conditions may differ from those observed in the test pits. The nature and extent of any'such variations may not become evident until construction. If variations are observed during construction, Terra Associates, Inc. should be requested to evaluate the actual site conditions and review the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with construction. This report has been prepared specifically for this project. It is the property of Terra Associates and is intended for the exclusive use of the Highlands Community Church and its representatives. We do not guarantee project performance in any respect, only that our work meets normal standards of professional care. No other warranty,expressed or implied,is provided. Page No.6 . , , • . , '''.. , ..i. - • • .,•.... • . ... ... . . - . - , , • ' . . • 1. ' . . .... . : . . . .- _ .• •. • ___•-•__...... ... . • .. ---,...„ „ ......::,--........' •. . ..\...-;„ ,, . . • . _., . -f • ./: • -. \.: . . . 1 . - 2,-sr, ,s,...t. • . , . . • --,- : _,...,. - -7.:- 'I ' s' • 2" ;:s; -V li, 1 . -'•• " 2 ,-1—s.,7, : ;147 I • ..1:240.,i •ST ',If • < ' E -.1,-- -; '..".Grn,' '.221..: ''' - .,_ 't .-.4.;.-...,-2...., 1 . : '• .,i.--' , ;*:.;5-:''Y•LI ,.''. .-! - .C2\ '. • 5 15 1 .,,, s.• - . -_,. s : ./.L'o°r" • '1.1 6V-1 >s•- s' sd•-is- .7 •s 4 7 . •. 10..1 =S• :il .1 ":42 Y .1 .'...1:',.f. q 1.,, ' ;1' i': ..-.7...e. ;7 ...v 2r; - --- -..-: -'"" i e., s:.j. l'. -- 4 7 : .1;.1;294,,is: „1 SE'...TN•Si •- ,. _ .. _ .. _.. .-I .,,,..; •E 19T-,17 t ISiMr7 ' 7 ..... .... ' .. . ^I 7 ':-.' -. . 7! F-,7,,; i 1 '..:;,- •„ ,,, Th17 , ; z:,:,............:..,gr--.. 1: Si ...,....-„, i ,,..,•; ,,.....• .. .,:• T.; ,,,n.,. NE ,..1 .: .,;„,,,,.„ i g. a ,..• .. m..r, -• . ., ,,__..s, , g >1 m. 12 74F ''A fl -•"5 - .•,.i 8 ,,,5.7 .?ii,'„,,,,.., 4 Z NE -:, <,......1,5,1.-s• -1E.g' '' ''''IS (i' ZAE)m P 17,1 -.-, -',. ci, sq—/s, g o. i 17,NSI '- • ..51 i II.... .:..,.... , NE Nam S - , .11 - ' ',-5 c,,t.,-, • - T f 1 Z . " 'E tn" r 6 ST -- -" ' NE 11211-1 '., .‘I' I • . . NE PA,0 i •:PV 4 '‘.. ..,,,K'Z '- §" .::1'1. l'‘: ilf7- .,,k 3 . i'_u l',.•...; tz, 6F.22.1 .-. -i,ir2.,, .,.;.,.., -.4 i, 6 ...4• ouvER M .-) ,D0? ied7 :If. •.....,' ,.. 'E.-- NE Mr, st.7..C,..iN I-,1 AIIINI>:J.I... • 1:1,i 't 4.13'NE'0, .„, NE MTN =,.... 4 2- ,NE,T,-4 D,.,."X I. 4' ,.. • -- ._ ,. cillVA.I:. . z 7f ace---4,.....1.-_.• . . 8' ‘0,7_31,. ......1 :. < -,...IL 0.,„: . .,. MTN, l Z NE 1 ', - ; ..„ :I., •• 91';‘.. .II -_-Zi.,.T 1. .:.,p 6'.1 sE I ti4 . SE `ITN iii _ ,E, E.- !TEST l'e 1 1. ta, ST - •--, IT ST al ST :-Tt---;I ' . ' ' PROJECT I ir i= I, „,.4.:,„,:: ,-;,..ii ,,,"el 9F-. F. , \ : -1.1 1 1— -1_-.'\ z''' 6/11:4 e 71F4'f.'si § 1: "I'-. ___-,,E 175'4 s• SITE , ..5„.. ,39311.ST ' st ,. .•.i ,2„, .., NE TTH ST .6. ST ... ...-- €1121ST ST '1 • '' CI r,"4,-74, •,--;..."-ar-mi--; 'j;.' 2111.1C, 7.s.Slijah2_,ST -, P in -,! • ,..‘., . ,"<,: li.,,,,.:‘ :„:`... ci, 5 ci NE 6 L g ; ... ISTMel. :. I FN I ,./ ‘,...,,,.. „,,,, •• 1.; 1 • N :. 6TH ST' I 'f ' %, !\; i• , ' .. e. iiit , ,0 I 12,1TH ._. , 4,2 ii,...,NT.,SIT,, ....,' E, SE 126-TH ST . ., , -EN AV NE !4+ LIEsITH ; I 1. if 6,- e i IN • l'T, '. ' SE '-' l'.'';*i RENT°N RENTON' 126TH - -= ' I -tg I L 1 " 6TH CT : ' 41AM.-----lit 41. '-- Si—-'-— r-. TE ITATil-—ST -'-- - 1N ARIONI .TILES=K.. . ... ..1 I-1,Z I.e -1' i 1 : - - GRelmoo ,1 SELI29TH ST ',,Y1 _ F. littO .ST,. 47 z. +SE ISIST>i.lAr..i 51 - -1 rta, . .,z,NETf11)..PE. - z Zi 1 ; 'Hi I a*s.i.* • ,s' • ' -. ,..• - ,7No:syl-I ct . I . IT. FEAT V .,/Ai S "'----,. . NE 2ND I-sr. °=sr4 .,%-r• :• :SI-- 1132''°' 1 ST SE :32ND SI..),.,,V 1 ....,i 1 Ve 3 .is.,,,,. 1 & z-NI. TwrouvE, ...57 * g F-, zei- CF.ert., '1 .1". ..:,.., . i. /,.' I Z i: 2 ;- .169 . CM.RIM. , SE 2NO 'I •.. SE I ST _MTN ST SE 13E, i 7.PAPX i. _ ,"I— — 47——"7— I-6-1—————— ,•-•-.0'...-r.'%-1'1'54, i nA-1, 5----T. —,—:---. t.- •-- •—-i-—t'r— . 1 . 1 C.,1 !..._ri -SE MTH.ST .,•.....; r4 .7. . '''''' 1 -e4. I § "SE ':%"": •rt"" p,,s! PA srs __ ssi 7:1,3144 P, ,-- r • '4.`. 1,.4 -1?.., i D '..... , % 2.4. ' ..i.f 2 ' V .-,...-.: ...7 sE •----- ' ',. SE 1.0HIS7 ,,,4,!..1:' , ',.. -."...- .:El°SE S,...,' AIAP(E451)00 I . .:1',7...,'•• '... ..s 2:zx.- ,E'7.:..,1 '.'' '..' ....:. 7 ,E 03.4 SeZ'i,..4, '''i. , .PLI . L.:_-_ 4.;:,-,z,:li -',,,ril I Fr.;?,,, •-il,E.,;-,, ,T. :.... .,50uRSE ,.1.IT“ ..5,r .. •-sr. _,.. ._ ,,,,,. • ... E.' . - • i-!1-4. \'',Zr...5'‘' '4c'`..S. I • : --li .,,.1, I E 1 .-j-, '--.;•,-: g =• • VICINITY MAP ,f7-7.7 TERRA _ HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH ,.• •••. . .• .. - ASSOCIATES • RENTON,WASHINGTON a Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 2160 ' Date 9/92 Figure 1 ..2 • MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER GRAPH SYMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION GRAVELS Clean GW 0: O .•. Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little a5 •Gravels ••Q•p. � or no fines. • - ta. (less than , Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little J 2N More than 5% fines) GP ' or no fines. N N More coarse - ° fraction is GM 3 • • . 'c Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, non- ", a• ; > larger than No. Gravels , ; -J .' • plastic fines. Z E N 4 sieve. with fines GCjj Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic o %�• • • fines. ,• � SANDS Clean SW '- / Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or Sands - = no fines. co co U o (less than- re - More than SP Poorly-graded sands or gravelly sands, little et *' cu 5% fines)50% of coarse ,t, , or no fines. 0 o fraction is ' - +� �' Siltysands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines. smaller than SM 2 No. 4 sieve. Gravels ' ' -.- with fines 1. .: SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. to N SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or J N clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity. 5 > Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly N as L Liquid limit is less than 50% - CL Vj/ clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. W E0 I I I Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity. Z o c� OL III 1 I 1 I I g g Y P Y re Q 2Z SILTS AND CLAYS - MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine 0 .c c sandy or silty soils, elastic. W ;v ZS `Z ° s" Liquid limit is greater than 50% CH // , Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, co - OH I I I I I^ organic silts. - - HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT .. Peat and other highly organic soils. - - _ DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS Standard Penetration 2" OUTSIDE- DIAMETER SPLIT. Q Density Resistance in Blows/Foot I SPOON SAMPLER Very loose 0-4 1 2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER Loose 4-10 OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER ° Medium dense 10-30 P SAMPLER PUSHED G Dense 30-50 * SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED czVery dense >50 Q WATER LEVEL (DATE) - n WATER OBSERVATION STANDPIPE Standard Penetration C TORVANE READINGS, tsf g Density Resistance in Blows/Foot qu PENETROMETER READING, tsf C) Very soft 0-2 W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight a Soft 2-4 pcf DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot J Medium stiff 4-8 LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent Stiff 8-16 N Very stiff 16-32 PI PLASTIC INDEX Hard >32 N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM � TERRA • HIGHLAND COMMUNITY CHURCH ASSOCIATES RENTON, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-2160 Date 9/92 Figure 3 Test Pit No. TP-1 Logged by: DBG Date: 9-14-92 Depth (ft.) USCS/ Soil Description W Graph (%) Brown-black silty gravelly SAND dry, loose (Fill) Concrete, asphalt metal debris, pile ends, possible SM smelter waste. 5 „ ,_ r Brown, silty SAND, moist, loose (Fill) 18 aSP�� 12 SM„i Red-brown SAND with silt, fine to medium grained, moist, loose. 10 Brown siltySAND, fine to medium grained, moist, 14 SM : - medium dense Test pit completed at 12.5 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered Some caving in upper 5 feet. Test Pit No. TP-2 Logged by: DBG Date: 9-14-92 Depth- (ft.) Graph Soil Description (oW) - Brown, silty gravelly SAND, fine to medium grained, moist, 6 _: a-SM ` medium dense. Asphalt at 2 to 3 feet. (Fill) . 5— = 9 14 Red-brown SAND with silt, fine to medium grained, moist, SM loose. ", Brown, silty SAND, fine to medium grained, moist, medium 10— SM dense. 6 Test pit completed at 11 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered. No caving. TEST PIT LOGS TERRA HIGHLAND COMMUNITY CHURCH ASSOCIATES RENTON, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants - Proj.. No. T-2160 Date 9/92 Figure 4 ' SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES I NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH, U.S.STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN MM N 0 O ON O a O N 8 r0N r N CO0 0 O O O O O O O O O .. 4 . 100 90 . .....................\ - 10 (0 80 20 CD R1 T_ Imo 70 30 m 0 Z . ,\\, n D3 o 60 40 Z N -� —I E rm c_) w un z 50 . . 50 0 D N 00 33 40 60 m Do m . __ . . \ CO 30 - 70 -< •• I . -o --Io m 20 s 80 z 2 o 2 —I N !0 10 90 O 33 — m D D 0 I 1 , 1 1 ' : . , : i 1 .. , I 100 Z Z O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O CD CD V• C7 N r CD CD V' Cl CV r CD CD V M N O G 5 O O O O —1 0 Z M N Or CO CO M N r O O O p O V, GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS N Z n COARSE I FINE I COARSE MEDIUM FINE m COBBLES GRAVEL 1 SAND FINES c6 CD En & D N 2 Z y Key Boring or Depth USCS • • Description Moisture LL PL Z � r- Test Pit (ft.) Content (/D) rn Z 2 — •— TP-1 10.0 SM silty SAND 14 co C • c 33 m 2 . —0— TP-2 6.5 SP`SM SAND with silt • 14 01 . • / 1 • :.10 t J II FriN.\� ';4 , ' . re. Ce ,,, . i • r t; , : -7 i , i i i . , i i i . .1, / ... ,_. ..\. \\.. . \ _.„„074.,* • . . , _.:.61 . ,. .,c..1c. _ . . I ., _71 1 .1 f I r ! ! i . ,. , . I • -0\0:-• .--....-...\ y� • L Ii (r/1 1 Q��• ` ` \ •t ` `\ limi j I. 1 I I I I. ! • i . 1 1 ,/a_� / . / r / • 1 - • .`' - �_• - -x-. f.. LEGEND - ---- • ' •,:.X.J.01. .. . .- ....1: •:.. -: -.r.:-.-,' f•- `11‘"P : '\ •• - - "1 .- ! TP-1 APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION ' t•• I_ . '';. . •4 „ „ , . $ ,� 1_ ! ® ; -..*. r /....'1711. ' . • , : r h.-1....J. :-... .: „A. wr ....__ , . . . .. ...- : .. .. t. ,_ . :,.., ... .. - --- , L______._,.. ..z,.: . . . _ r /.. -. t i P Rom: 41Ip / \ N; NF I. } isaii .rml,, NV: . • ...- .f. -:, -..... 1.:7'': ''''SW. = /sT I . ! \t. f.. -CATI r-N ' / 'X' ' I \ • tar ! \ / / t [� • I 1 - ICO I 1 \ . -• . 1 '-,-..„., • ." 1 : / ' mirimi . ---31==--: , ! \-- . ' . ,..L ; CY- . i _ -• . ...-- ---7 .:.. • ,,/. i KIRKLAND AVENUE NE 40 0 40 80 1"=40' o . scale feet . • TERRA EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN r' ,� HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH . ^.:. 2._. -`1 ASSOCIATES RENTON, WASHINGTON • 1""':,- — Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 2160 I Date 9/92 I Figure 2 • APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF RELEVANT DESIGN PARAMETERS Soil Bearing Capacity 2500 psf Wall Pressures Unrestrained 35 pcf EFP Restrained 35 pcf EFP to plus 100 psf uniform Passive 300 pcf EFP Friction Coefficient 0.40 APPENDIX B -FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING The field exploration was conducted by an engineering geologist from our firm who classified the soil conditions encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative soil samples and observed pertinent site features. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification system described on Figure 3. On September 14, 1992,we performed the field exploration with a rubber-tired backhoe owned and operated by Evans Bros. Backhoe Service of Bellevue, Washington. Subsurface soil conditions at the site were explored by excavating two test pits to a maximum depth of 12.5 feet below existing grade. The approximate test pit locations are shown on the Exploration Location Plan, Figure 2. Logs of the test pits are presented on Figure 4. Representative soil samples obtained from the test holes were placed in closed containers and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture content of each sample- was measured and is reported on the test pit logs. Grain size analyses were performed on two samples;the results are shown on Figure 5. LUR•OIO .Oq-g, CV PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON 14/4 (4Y1a4i �,,,,i, MAR i 2 1991 LeA-LAA-1, , a,�� RECEiVED Att lB41514.21 , 4#1e114 otetv �. are &14,, , the 9.,easr (hiee4e-g- 1) /9* 4--t-eat-tze4 EGF - aye - Vo lie/1"xj4 • g)-u-y, prize ptt /I11a-66,k I i %-taA, !Yw,. Traf 474, 4..-Lxe.t47, /2.a_e _et, 4e_tivaA.v t r;ve-u_e( .41,7 , -1Le_ y4Ae-4,4;0,,, /44 4 I 1 , Gl k at ti . /64 ,/ 2.41 14-71,0_e_4 c2a a, 2eet-we�f 0�J� At-d-V - pos4 -I6v -a11/ 3e 04 :1Z 5-117.WPY-V-W- rtrir,P7W-r-War-Y-11— -V brirW rrzw,19 lAw c?i-iri4-t, 701 e.1.491 31/Lopp ?-p? c-v,0774 • „Ty_ �202? r-w--fr tea' • 119-14" ft -var4w-ildr eiVr PTV '41 /)#-?WrY 7,Z 11#. CV 9-T7y . P3119 Wr' r6 �N ov I®Ili®II® Mil MI= GABBERT BROWELEIT PETERSON ARCHITECTS PS October 21, 1992 City of Renton DEVELOPMENT PLANNING 200 Mill Avenue South CITY OF RENTON Renton, WA 98055 ATTN: Mark Pywell OCT 2 1992 Planner R CEWE D RE: Highlands Community Church Dear Mr. Pywell: As you requested, I am supplying you with a copy of the geotechnical engineers report of the soil condition at the foundation of the proposed addition. Also attached are a copy of the partial site plan, indicating the location of the ramp to the basement, and a copy of the exterior elevations. The ramp and basement, as shown, will have little visual impact, and I believe should be no problem. The basement is to be used for storage of church supplies, decorations, etc. Excavation would require the removal of approximately 1,900 cubic yards of soil. Please let me know'as soon as possible if there would be any problem developing this basement under the Conditional Use Permit the church presently holds. We will be awaiting your decision. Sincerely, GBP Architects, P.S. R ert A. Bozorth Architect Enc. Principals: Marlin J.Gabbert AIA, Larry L.Broweleit AIA, David A.Peterson AIA 6920 220th SW Suite 200 Mountlake Terrace WA 98043 (206)774-4701 FAX(206)776-5177 AP ©VEE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT �NNlNG DIVt t, N CITY 4F REN�O JUNE 22, 1992 jui 2 4 19°? Highlands Community Church Appeals, File No. CU;R-048-90 (Referred 4/6/92) The Planning and Development Committee met on May 28, 1992 to review the appeals on Highlands Community Church. The property is located at 3031 N.E. 10th Street. The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly 2.9 acres of the project site from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to P-1 (Public Zone). Additionally, the applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit to construct a 3-story addition to the church for classroom and office space. The committee notes that the city is currently working on a new Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, it is the opinion of the committee that any change in zoning at this time would be premature and, therefore, concurs with the recommendation of the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner also decided that a conditional use permit should be approved subject to numerous conditions, one of which was the closure of the northernmost driveway of Kirkland Avenue N.E. The committee finds that the closure of this driveway would be detrimental to traffic circulation and safety, therefore recommends the council reverse the hearing examiner's decision regarding closure of this driveway. Further, this committee recommends that the Traffic Department be directed to work with the applicant to determine if ingress only circulation from irkland Avenue would be a p; ropriate. /IGt•t Gt.sr.,n In all other matters of the appeals, the committee recommends concurrence with the hearing examiner's recommendations and decisions. Bo E wards, hair Richard M. Stredicke, Vice-Chair Nancy L. thews, Member CITY9:37:as. cc : Mark Pywell Don Erickson AOVD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON COMMITTEE REPORT ,1UN 2 4 1992 JUNE 22, 1992 REcEN ,® Residential Parking Permit Zones for Residential Streets Located Near Highlands Community Church On May 28, 1992, the Planning and Development Committee met to review the appeal of the Highlands Community Church. During that meeting it was determined that the residents living near the Highlands Community Church were concerned about on-street parking by church attendants. Therefore, it is recommended that the administration send a letter to all parties of record to explore the possibility of establishing residential permit parking zones on those streets near and around the Highlands Community Church located at 3031 N.E. 10th Street. Bob Edwards, Chair d 5- -7-Yer-vc6e,------ Richard M. Stredicke, Vice-Chair -( NCO V"'-Lo s Nancy L. IVfitihews, Member CITY9:38:as. cc : Don Erickson Mark Pywe l l Mel Wilson* *Letter to be transmitted by Jay Covington Transportation Services Division. List of parties of record attached . PLANNING DIVISION CITY Og RE iTON WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: / 0y� Richard W. Ralston c/o Highlands Community Church ,_.. 3.031 N.E. 10th Street F 3 - y Renton, WA 98056 QUIT CLAIM DEED THE GOLDEN PINES PARTNERSHIP, a Washington limited partnership, for and in consideration of lot line adjustment, conveys and quit claims to HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH, a Washington non-profit corporation, the following described real estate, situated in King County, State of Washington, together with all after acquired title of the Grantor therein: That portion of Block 33 of the Corrected Plat of Renton Highlands No. 2 , as per recorded plat thereof recorded in • Volume 57 of Plats, on pages 92 to 98 , inclusive, records of King County, Washington, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast , corner of Block 33 of said plat; Thence South 02°52'21" West along the East line of said Block 33 a distance of 220. 00 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 4 of City of Renton Short Plat No. 188-76 as recorded under King County Recording Number 7808170836, and the true point of beginning; Thence South 87°07'39" East 30.00 feet to the centerline of vacated Jefferson Ave. N.E. ;• Thence North 02°52'21" East along said centerline 30. 00 feet; Thence North 87°07'39" West 30. 00 feet to the East line of said Block 33 ; Thence South 02°52'21" West along said East line 30.00 feet to the point of beginning. All situate in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington. , Dated: t- .7 , 1991. The Golden Pines Partnership, a Washington limi ed partnership, by Conifer D=v-lop en s, Inc. , a Washington corpora 't eneral partner by 4( # / ,ag. --- Allan E. Hanson, President by C A.A_ ,��'�c<�c i -L1C,, Secretary QUIT CLAIM DEED PAGE - 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) Q ) ss COUNTY OF I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that I-LA, /),I, o and p�,6:1'4 A14/, signed this instrument, on oath stated that they were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the President and Secretary of Conifer Management, Inc. to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: /27' a J /Z`^Q/ 7-- ) t ry Public i and for the State of ashington, residing at S'/4.q-,,Q- •� My appointment expires: /� -S- /ssz D5. 6: 08 :4/15/91:dk QUIT CLAIM DEED PAGE - 2 _i MAY 7 1991 WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Conifer Management, Inc. P. O. Box 11246 Tacoma, WA . 98411 PARTIAL RELEASE OF MORTGAGE The owner and holder of that certain mortgage bearing date of September 1, 1976, executed by THE GOLDEN PINES PARTNERSHIP, a limited partnership, to secure payment of the sum of ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED - TWENTY-EIGHT THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND NO/100 Dollars ($1, 128,900 . 00) and interest, and recorded under King County Recording Number 7609230681, for value received does hereby release and discharge from the lien of the said mortgage the following described portion of the mortgaged premises, situate in King County, Washington: That portion of Block 33 of the Corrected Plat of Renton Highlands No. 2, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 57 of Plats, pages 92 through 98 , inclusive, records of King County, Washington described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Block 33 of said plat; Thence South 02°52'21" West along the East line of said Block 33 a distance of 220. 00 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 4 of City of Renton Short Plat No. 188-76 as recorded under King County Recording No. 7808170836, and the true point of . beginning; Thence South 87°07'39" East 30. 00 feet to the center line of vacated Jefferson Avenue N.E. ; . Thence North 02°52'21" East along said centerline 30. 00 feet; Thence North 87°07'39" West 30. 00 feet to the East line of the said Block 33 ; Thence South 02°52 '21" West along said East line 30. 00 feet to the point of beginning. Situate in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. But this release shall not impair the lien of the said mortgage as to the lands therein described not hereby released. DATED: `/r/ Z , 1991. USGI,Inc. as Servicing Correspondent • ecurity Pa 'fic National Trust Company (New ork) T P _ BY: / Wi6 lliam M. Prentice, Vice President 1 = • - - STATE OF CI,o/JEC,-t c .1 ) COUNTY OF c,4-,z ) I, SIC GLs , a Notary Public, in and for said County, in a State aforesaid, do hereby certify that (.ea,►1 ,74 i u.-krtF,J-r-t ce- , , perpppnall y known to . me to be the same person whose name is, as Wc...c rzEs.(1z ,�-r of USGI, Inc. , a corporation of the State of Qc,�,�6-c-,-Lcc-&; subscribed to the foregoing instrument, appeared before me in person and severally acknowledged that he/site, being thereunto duly authorized, signed, sealed with corporate seal, and delivered the said instrument as the free and voluntary act of said corporation and as his/he own free and voluntary act, for the uses and purposes therein set forth. Given under my hand and notarial seal, this 4.4- -- day of , 19 91 . Notary PubYi My commission expires • CONSENT BY HUD TO PARTIAL RELEASE The undersigned, intending to be legally bound by the terms hereof, hereby evidences its consent to, and approval of, all of the terms, conditions and provisions of the foregoing Partial Release. THE UNI'1hl) STATES OF AMERICA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT BY: TITLE: • QUIT-CLAIM DEED THE GRANTOR, WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS COMPANY , a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington • having its principal place of business at 815 Mercer Street, Seattle, in said State,for and in consideration of one Dollar ($1.00) conveys and quit claims to HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCHthe following described real estate, situated in the County of King State of Washington ivalUsiiiNpuncycicfftreigawic ts=t e ,pit>llx iRlblitexp t a fitemo t p l c: The Westerly 5 feet of the Easterly 30 feet of Jefferson Avenue.N.E. (vacated) extending from the Southerly right-of-way (extended) of N.E. 10th Street Southerly for a distance of 220 feet, and lying between tracts 32 and 33 within the corrected plat of Renton Highlands #2 as recorded in Volume 57 of Plats, Pages 92 through 98, records of King County. Situate in the Northwest quarter of Section 9, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , which includes those rights acquired from HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH on January 19, 1977, by. Easement instrument #7705020588, records of King County, Washington. • The purpose of this instrument is to relinquish an existing gas easement, referenced herein, and return said property rights to the Grantor therein. Dated this day of , 19 90 WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS COMPANY By R.J. Tomlinson Senior Vice President -- Legal and Administration State of Washington County of ss. On this day of ,19 before me personally appeared to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to he the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the asps and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath slated that lie was authorized to execute said instrument mud Ilrat the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at 0 4/144! 3031 NE 10th Street • Renton, WA 98056 (206)255-4751 (206) 255-5460 FAX Community Church Jim Amandus Senior Pastor • PLANNING DIVISION �'� May 17, 1993 CITY OF RENTON G'A,oK4- MAY 1 7 1993 Renton City Council RECEIVED 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Council Members: • In agreement with your request for a parking covenant as part of the CB zoning on our church property, attached is a covenant signed by our Elder Board chairman, Mr. Bill Dunn, and notarized. Also attached is a copy of the plan showing the covenant area and legal description. We understand that City Attorney Larry Warren has reviewed this covenant and it meets with his approval. Thank you for your action concerning our request for CB zoning. Sincerely, R.W. Ralston Building Committee Copy: Kay Shoudy- Planning Bill Herman Ron Lawler Chris Renzelman Mike Smith Marlene Spann Bob Stevens Worship/Music Adult Ministries Students/Singles Small Group Ministries Children's Ministries Facilities Missions After Recording Return to: George Kresovich Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-2925 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS This Declaration of Covenants ("Declaration") is made by the HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH, a not for profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington (the "Highlands Church") , for the benefit of the City of Renton (the "City") , a municipal corporation of the State of Washington. RECITALS A. Highlands Church owns two adjacent parcels of land within the City. The first parcel of property (referred to as "Parcel A") is the site of the existing Highlands Community Church building. That parcel is legally described in Exhibit A attached to and incorporated in this Declaration. The second parcel of property (referred to as "Lot 4") is partially used to provide parking to serve the Church building located on Parcel A and is partially vacant. B. The Highlands Church has obtained a conditional use permit from the City of Renton authorizing certain land use activities on the two parcels of property described above. In approving that conditional use permit the City has relied upon the parking provided on a portion of Lot 4 to serve the Church structure on Parcel A. C. The parties wish to provide for the continued use of a portion of Lot 4 to provide parking to serve Parcel A and to provide for the future potential use of Lot 4 either by the Highlands Church or by a successor in interest while continuing to provide such parking. NOW, THEREFORE, Highlands Church covenants as follows: 1. That portion of Lot 4 legally described in Exhibit B attached to and incorporated in this Declaration shall continue to be used to provide parking to serve the existing church located on Parcel A subject to the following conditions: _ - 1 - 1. 1 In the event that the City amends the parking requirements established in its applicable ordinances or in the event that the City establishes different parking requirements that are specifically applicable to the use on Parcel A through an individual permit or approval issued by the City, and in the event that such change in the City's general or specific parking requirements applicable to Parcel A reduces or eliminates the need for the parking provided for on Lot 4, then the area on that portion of Lot 4 subject to this restrictive covenant may be reduced or eliminated provided that sufficient parking is provided on Lot 4 to comply with either the general or the specific parking requirements governing the use of Parcel A at that time. 1.2 In the event that the Highlands Church wishes to build one or more additional structures on Lot 4 or to expand its existing Church located on Parcel A onto Lot 4 this restrictive covenant shall not prevent such a structure or structures or such an addition from being built on that portion of Lot 4 subject to this covenant; provided, however, that Highlands Church will continue to provide all of the required parking necessary to serve the structure or structures located on Parcel A and on Lot 4 as provided by the general ordinances of the City or by the specific conditions of any individual permit or approval granted by the City to the Highlands Church. This parking shall be provided either on the remainder of Lot 4 that is not presently subject to this restrictive covenant or on such other property proposed by the Highlands Church and accepted by the City as a location for such parking. In the event that Highlands Church wishes to relocate the parking presently provided on the area subject to this restrictive covenant, Highlands Church shall execute and record a restrictive covenant providing for similar restrictions as those contained in this Declaration on the property on which the parking will be relocated. 1. 3 The parking provided on the area subject to this restrictive covenant may be jointly used by the Highlands Church and some other property owner in the vicinity; provided, however, that such a joint use agreement shall comply with all of the ordinances of the City regulating such parking agreements and provided that such a joint use agreement shall not materially interfere with the use of the area subject to this restrictive covenant for its primary purpose of providing parking to serve the church use now existing on Parcel A. - 2 - 2 . This Declaration is intended to run with the land, to benefit the City, and to be binding upon the successors and assigns of the Highlands Church. This Declaration shall last so long as Parcel A is used for church purposes under the existing land use approvals granted by the City or by subsequent permits and approvals granted by the City to the Church or its successors in interest. 3. Nothing in this Declaration shall be interpreted as preventing or prohibiting other uses of that portion of Lot 4 that is not subject to this restrictive covenant; nor shall this Declaration be interpreted to prohibit the legal division of Lot 4 through a boundary line adjustment, short plat, formal plat, or other legal process of the City and the sale or lease of the parcel or parcels so created. 4. In any action brought to enforce this Declaration or to determine the rights of the parties under this Declaration, the prevailing party shall be entitled to collect, in addition to any judgment awarded by a court, a reasonable sum as attorneys' fees; and all costs and expenses incurred in connection with such a lawsuit. For the purposes of this Declaration, the prevailing party shall be that party in whose favor final judgment is rendered, or who substantially prevails, if both parties are awarded judgment. This Declaration shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. DATED as of this (&'- day of May, 1993 . HIGHLANDS OMMUNITY CHURCH By Its Cln�r-w,� 4 4& 5{0LCs STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTYOFKING ) On this /(o day of , 1993 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary .Public in nd for the State of Washington, d 1 co sioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be 6 Y/rtQiL � .5 of Highlands Community Church, the corporation that xecuted the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation for the - 3 - uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL hereto affixed the day and year first above written. ���•� lfhI I4%, kin ght,V1-144a) •• ON. � NOT Y PUB C in and for the ,••••J� ••' oN'••.�0$ State of Washington, residing • °�9:�G at 0:054,0 ,dE 451l - � u NOTARY (Pi My commission expires Z �), /17;6 st,e024%.: PUBLIC2 l'e#7)At 19,1 . WA ,„ �s st 3 1 7 2 1 4 — 4 - B-IBIT A To TEE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BETWEEN TEE -EIGELANDS COMM ITT =Rex AND TEE CITY OF R NTON LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL "A" Block 32, corrected plat of Renton Highlands No. 2, according to the plat recorded in Volume 57 of Plats, pages 92 to 98, in King County, Washington. Together with those portions of vacated Jefferson Avenue Northeast adjoining, which upon vacation, attached to said Premises by operation of law. Also together with the following described parcel: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Block 33 of said plat: a Thence South 02°52'21" West along the East line of said Block 33 a distance of 220. 00 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 4 of City of Renton Short Plat No. 188-78 as recorded under King County recording number 7808170836, and the true point of beginning: Thence South 87°07'39" East 20.00 feet to the centerline of vacated Jefferson Ave. N.E. : Thence North 02°52'21" East along said centerline 30. 00 feet: Thence North 8 7°07'39" West 30.00 feet to the East line of said Block 33: Thence South 02°52'21" West along said East line 30. 00 feet to the point of beginning. All situate in the Northwest quarter of Section 9, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington. EXHIBIT B TO THE RESTRICTIVE COVMANT BETWE= ,TEE a: S COMUNITY =CRCS AND-TEE CITY OF RENTON LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF TEAT PORTION OF LOT 4 SvSJECT TO RESTRICTIVE PXING COVMANT That portion of Lot 4 of the City of Renton Short Plat recorded under King County recording number 7808170836 and vacated Jefferson Avenue N.E. adjacent thereto contained within the following described property: Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of said vacated Jefferson Ave. N.E. with the North margin of N.E. 9th Street being 30 feet Northerly of the centerline of said N.E. 9th Street: Thence N 2°5.2'21" E along the centerline of said vacated Jefferson Ave. N.E. , a distance of 220.00 feet: Thence N 87°07' 39" W 30.00 feet: Thence N 2°52'21" E 123.17 feet: Thence N 65°27'17" W 245.29 feet: Thence N 5°08'21" E 249.54 feet: Thence N 54°36 '45" W 54.51 feet: Thence S l°57'48n W 315.18 feet: Thence S 65°27j17" E 138.00 feet: Thence S 2°52'21" W 377.48 feet to the Northerly margin of said N.E. 9th Street being a point on a curve concave to the South through which a radial line bears N 13°29'45" W: Thence along said Northerly margin and said curve to the right, having a radius of 871.59 feet, through a central angle of 10°47'00", an arc distance of 164. 04 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 73, 344 S.F. , more or less. t"-- 1.. • t.ri+ i`?, t �.� I 1' WOW' ' 1 0°6' 2/ III .04 • r� nay �+ i a+O4,: t . f 4111, 1 , , . • ,,, . .. .. .Hf6 l''' - 0-164 ft . l • S it 36M/ t j,. '. • / 3 5 fil R , U.1 01 -9,0 • " ` CIT1 OF RENTON .'r, sal/ Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator March 5, 1996 Jim Amandus, Senior Pastor Highlands Community Church 3031 Northeast Tenth Street Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Bible Summer Day Camp Dear Mr. Amandus: We have reviewed your letter of February 21, & 29, 1996. It is our determination that the proposed summer program is consistent with the existing conditional use permit and no further permits will be required at this time. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 277-5586. Sincerely, Mark R. P II, AICP Project Manager 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,25%post consumer 4 I illiail f4°.9- CO UNITY CHURCH 3031 Northeast Tenth Street,Renton, Washington 98056 3131 • February 21, 2996 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING (''"OF RENTON Telephone • (204)2554751 Mark Pywell FEB 2 6 1996 200 Mill Ave. S. Facsimile Renton,WA 98055 g ECE1tz (206)2554460 Dear Mr. Pywell, The purpose of this letter is to request your evaluation on our plans to launch a summer day camp program. I need to know if there is any reason why this program is not allowable under our existing conditional use. Let me explain the program. I have been at Highlands Community Church for seven years. The first five years I was here we ran a one week vacation Bible school. We had approximately 300-400 children in attendance with large volunteer and paid staff. The last two years we changed our programming approach. We Jim Ainandus moved the one week vacation Bible school approach off campus. We have run six weeks of Senior Pastor neighborhood Bible clubs. This has likewise been met with excellent results. Brenda Chance This year we are redesigning our approach once again. We are going to combine the best features Preschool of these two stated approaches and develop and eight week summer day camp. We expect that the day camp will have about 50 children enrolled. It will be led by volunteer and paid staff. The David Grover programming will be similar to our one week vacation Bible school: biblical instruction, singing, worship/Music games, crafts. The length of the day is currently under evaluation. We are considering the need of our single parents who are working,which would necessitate a begiiming time between 6 A.M. and CJ Johnston 8 A.M., and a closing time between 4 P.M. and 6 P.M. The age level would include elementary Junior High aged children from our congregation. As with all of our programs, we will also welcome children from the community. Ron Lawler Adults/Singles It is our commitment to maintain our integrity with both the City and our neighbors. Therefore, I am inviting the counsel from the City whether there is any reason why a summer day camp of this Cry Mailman nature would not be allowable under the existing conditional use of our facilities. Students/Young Adults Thank you for your attention to this request. I will look forward to your reply. Nike Smkh • Missions/Small Groups .Sincerely Marlene Spann i n Children ....,,,,, . im Amandus Bob Stevens Senior Pastor . Chaplaincy JA/lh r \ CITY OF RENTON " L. Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator • February 28, 1996 Mr. Jim Amandus Senior Pastor . Highlands Community Church • 3031 Northeast Tenth Street. • Renton, WA 98056-3131 • . • Subject: Letter of February 21, 1996 Dear Mr.Amandus: • We are currently reviewing your letter. A couple of.questions need to be addressed before we can respond to the letter. • 1. Your letter states that approximately 50 children will be enrolled in the vacation Bible school and that the school will run for eight.weeks. I assume that it will be fifty children per week. Is this a correct assumption? - 2. What is the maximum number of students in a given one week period? 3. How many staff will be.involved each week? _ . . • , 4. The start of 6:00 A.M. could put traffic on the adjacent residential streets at an early hour. Will you be advising parents to use a certain approach and if so what approach and where will the drop-off point be located? ' As soon as you respond to these issues,we will be able to format a reply to your letter. Sincerely, - WV" • Mark R. II,AICP Project anager ' • 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 RI This paper contains 50%recycled material.25%post consumer • Highlands Communityk.hurch ' • CU;R-048-90 March 12, 1992 Page 20 RECOMMENDATION The City Council should deny the request to reclassify the subject site from R-1 to P-1. DECISION The Conditional Use Permit is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. 2. Additional landscape materials shall be selected which minimize interference with remaining views across the site from the east. 3. Perimeter landscaping around the parking areas should be of sufficient height and density to prevent headlight glare from spilling off the site. 4. All landscaping shall be subject to the review and approval of Planning Staff. The applicant shall post a $3,000 bond or other appropriate device which ensures that the landscaping survives to serve its intended purpose. 5. The applicant shall be,responsible for the relocation of any utilities that might be disturbed by the proposal, including those located in the vacated Jefferson alignment. 6. The applicant shall curtail weekday activities early enough so that few church participants are disturbing the surrounding community after 10:00 pm. 7. All exterior lighting shall be designed and installed so that off-site spill-off of light is minimized. All lighting shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Staff. 8. The applicant shall fulfill the terms of its lot line agreement with the appropriate party including granting that party access rights across church property. 9. To further limit the impact of the expansion in the neighborhood, the applicant shall close off the easternmost driveway, NE 9th Street, and the northernmost driveway, Kirkland Avenue NE. ORDERED THIS 12th day of March, 1992. YatAA- FRED J. K FMAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of'March, 1992, to the parties of record: Mark Pywell Senior Planner 1Rh 3031 Notreet,Renton, Washington 98056-3131 February 29, 1996 Telephone ( 2584751 Facsimile Mr. Mark Pywell Planning Department • 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mark, This letter is in reply to your February 28th letter. The following is in response to the Jim Amandus four questions you raised. Senior Pastor 1. This first year we project that there will be 50 children per day Monday through Brenda Menu Friday, for eight weeks. Preschool 2. What is the maximum number of students in a given one week period? As stated David Grover above, we expect 50 children per day. Multiply this by five week days, this would be Worship/Music 250 children per week. This number would be less than the 400 children we have run previous years one week Vacation Bible Schools. It is also less than our cutrent CJ'lohnst°n midweek AWANA that begins at 6:45 P Wednesdaynight, with 300 Junior High program children. u Lawler Adults/Singles 3. How many staff? The staff ratio is the same for our children's ministries- one Ad volunteer or paid staff for every 8 elementary child. We project six to seven staff Chris�elinan members. Students/Young Adults 4. What will be the traffic pattern and drop off in the morning? The 6 AM start time Mike smith is only for those single parents who have this need. The major programming begins Missions/Small Groups at 9 AM. Therefore there will be a minimal number of drop offs. The ingress is the one way entrance off of Kirkland. The regress is through the 9th Street or 10th Street Marlene Spann exits. Children Thank you for your review. If I can be of further of assistance please let me know. Bob Stevens Chaplaincy Sincere F im Amandus Senior Pastor - .. r • ,, 1 ,.•_,t,,;:. . ..._ . . .._......______. . /- i 1 "--:'7---_., - .,..-, .---,- •-..... .------ ---- r.-77-7-.. . • • , :_....: :._ - --,--. -„,„.•_._ ______ . •... • .. . .. --/-f . • I , . ; . ../ik ‘. . - - - .4 • - . - '• .-xitlio, •.- - • J 4, . ... , .... '''''7,. "---' . •:,...,& il / . — I '..,r, .,:`,". ,,... . .-,,, ::::- . % 4 - ‘111, -, i • • " • ic.-T,„....iiiii.— --—•• --....i.s: --ktzpi --. — I . .,N..\'-'-`,:\ - .."LN . -\--- tiactiti - • .- .--- -,...: I.,.„ • ;..--. .-.\•,..\\.. N\ .•.4111940 • N• VI. .1%qi.1 C.; '... 1 '' I 1 i : ; 1 ; - i 1 Ai.,,...„..,.,. . it -74 : • t • ..• --• ', 1 WO ! 1 ,, • ! .• -..... ..........:. N.,-.....4).--_,......,,T12,..c.„,...s. 4‘..3%, - .,•;! ,' i, - 1 1 1 . ; :. , • : ..• 1, [ - 71>i • ,.. . ,...• -mt.\ ,:-. ..- .-.., -...:._-.....,...., -..‘„ •• .--. - - ' ' . I• i . i 1- ; ,:- _: i , . • 1 . ... . .. , • . ,,,sams , 1 1 . , / =lc., I -I..— — —..--..--; :-..702..-'-'...7.7s..\•. . : ..",C7\-.7.;‘7.-7..A.,..:-:::\•-..; ,. ..... 7... .. .-., ,. • i • LEGEND • : ! .. . •- . - _. , . ••,-,,:- - .:-.-I.i.".i. --V, ;•-•-fri.; ' • • ....7'.."W' . - .1 i. ' aiu :. - ,- ' . . -.. ..,...._ . . • •••--. : '.-:,. / .....J.i...... \NO. . • - .. .. . .• . •.:- r TP-1 APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION - • I ‘•• / I's'.jA11), • ' Xvr7: --- •-,- . . ; ' .4-44. . .- 's ..A.__, / .-i.,,s -• . /....- Z 11 •. . . :••• ! f • ,I . . - - - ' -.:0-...; / ' ---ti-co- ------7 :. /.• I •. ,. ..,.. • ...,. • ! . ..ar.. . ....glir' // :•77:-* ---- .:. • : .„. • - cp.. ..... . . ... . / --- or4-..----.....," /,...4 • ._ •. •,r--: 4 .• •••„ ",..o. • tot ; i 7 / , -.:. ""7"-----4 .. • . - 0 ;- • • . -. • ....„.../ -....„. 0. / i K•1 -•• /-- ..: 0- crti----,1 - .:Ji '; , • . "fti / . ,•-.--7-•,. -N •"'S lit , - %, .. -.A.... 444, _.,.,. mik.i.,z ...• • , : X 1 • , , . . : , ...... . • -.. • - ! I I • , •, _.•,-,• ...- r i .... • dat• .1 f .,, 1/fiN ..... , t : • - %. . "•' - ---1- • \ -----..._______\ - ' ' . ., ) - • ,i. ., ,./ . ' ••••1• --, . • . -• A, ;i I I\ ".. ., .. ., ,......../ -•--...„,,v, . - t • , . .. • . ,,. i .. 4, .. ., , • . . . \ E., 1 I ri • .- ....--- / .. "• A . ! . -- . - .., '''...,' ; .... - I) • ' , ,, • • . ‘: -.1-7 ',7/' I .i I / . NWIli , -,--' - A • -.N. ' •• . r 0 6 • i . • . . _ _-- —-,_,___,• ._-.. . -C4____s; - • . -- ., KIRKLAND AVENUE NE , 40 0 40 80 • 1-=40' r •••• •••• scale ' feet /-.77 TERRA EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH .., ‘, -:..; '_•r1 ASSOCIATES RENTON.WASHINGTON . . Gentechnical Consultants Pro'. No. 2160 1 Date 9/92 I Figure 2 • t5s • . •` " �`� �t � � � : _ + ,I ' I I i - -� is �_.. . .,..._ -T_z ' ' \�` `1. ': `'\'''.; _:-- - -- ---- 4. ._ :* ' : : . — _ . i \. LEGEND rr . • - F • \fy'-"-' - - _ - _ ){� -r�. _- j..- I , ._ el TP-1 APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION 3 i .. v tip. . 1. e�- •�t / - • jI — . ' — ,`: !' A � tot .} fit- Z ;.-�. " , ,`_ ›. .-k;i1;' , . 1 l��� y 1 • • r� i \.....____A ..--• , 1 1 \ 4 -• i l' - - \ �7o.7c I •• ; / j • KIRKLAND AVENUE NE - 40 0 40 80 ' 1"=40' I . scale feet • /77 TERRA - EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN r,'.. ..., �•"g HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH T :_ !' ' ASSOCIATES RENTON,WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Pro!. No.2160 'Date 9/92 Figure 2 'RI lcu= i-g-eit 4 ' CITY 'O -Planning/Building/Public Works Department - ,Earl Clymer,.Mayor _ - . Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator February :13,_`1995 _ -. . Mr. Bob°Gevers 9OO.Kirkland Ave: NE _ . Renton, WA 98056 ' • . SUBJECT:- HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY:CHURCH DAYCARE QUESTION Dear Mr. Gevers,, ' . • Thank you for your attached letter in regard to alleged preschool/da• ycare activities=occurring ' , _ at the Highlands Community Church. :In response to our inquiries on' the subject, we have received the'.attached letter from.the Church. In the letter the Church maintains that although - . they do conduct Church related-programs involving children:'-as well as parents, "Highlands does "not" run a day care ,center of -any sort nor::does ,Highlands have any . form of preschooling'on a daily basis - .. I do not have evidence to- the ,contrary of this statement'other.than the things you have Observed,thathave lead you to:,speculate that the Church is operating a daycare or preschool operation. . Perhaps the activities-listed in the Church's letter will help to explain the current activities. In 'regard to:the noise issue, the:Church apparently felt that the activity in question was excessively loud, and sent copies of the letter you attached to the neighbors: The City does have a noise ordinance, and'will-respond, as priorities allow, to complaints of excessive noise. . do not find cause to investigate the question of daycare activities any further et this time. Sincerely, :_ 22 3//- /- e--(, --------- . Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator ' cc: MarkPywell✓ - • Bob Arthur ' 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton,Washington 98055 : ' � ° '�---- 7' -- - - - --- ---- - ------- ----------- - --- --- - -- - ---- ---' '- ' '----' - - -'- - - '- -- -- ' ' ' - '- - - -- --- -- - ---- -----/9- --- - y -� ---- -- -'--' ----- -' - - p � L -� �� 4�1 - _' '__- � 7 ���L&�&�/ -_ - -- --- - ' --' --' - -- v" - � - - -- - _ g (:1-0) 1/1z--Q-(ncv 4P14-0( - - )1 ci 444/ I*1-141)111771r1P 411147/ I'vvp r kw/ Ali _... _ . _ . .( 0-0) 2- am. n-90._. . --- -- - - � - - - - tairvpP 7-xi-n49-0/ 9 , • (1141d#,/. • ®EV MENT t rr O 0414 livAuNG Al COM NITY CHURCH Elvesto 3031 Northeast Tenth Street,Renton, Washington 98056-3131 Telephone (206)2664761 City of Renton February 9, 1995 • 200 Mill Avenue South Facsimile - Renton, WA 98055 (206)266-6460 Att: Mr. Mark Pywell Project Manager • Subject: Highlands Community Church Dear Mark: I am in receipt of your letter dated "February 1, 1995" concerning the use of Highlands Community Church as a day care center. As per our conversation of today, let me reiterate that Highlands does "not" run a day care center of any sort nor does Highlands have any form of pre- schooling on a daily basis. J' A "duSAs we have for many years, Highlands offers the following programs: Senior"' "'aPasor Brenda Chance Every Tuesday Morning (Except summermonths): Preschool We have a program called "MOPS" (Mothers of Preschoolers) David Grover Every Tuesday Morning (Except summer months): Worship/Music We have a program called "Mary' Morning" which is a program for Women's ministries. Ron Lawler Adults/Singles Every Wednesday Evening (Except summer months): Chris Renzelman We have a program called "Awana" which is for children and • Students/YoungAdults parents as well as teachers, Mike Smith Every Sunday morning we have Sunday school for people of all. Small Groups/Evangelism ages (Babies through Senior citizens) at the 9:15 and 11:00 AM Hours. Marlene Spann Children Every summer we hold a vacation bible school for one week. Bob Stevens Chaplaincy All of these programs have been going on for many years and there have been no recent changes. No private organization has any programs of this nature going on at the church at any time. Day care operation or other church uses of a schooling nature have not been addressed by the hearing examiner as far as I can remember.- I hope this will answer your questions and give you information to pass, on to others. Sincerely, Dick Ralston s, Y • r ik<HURCH INC-Pij V J-Licl FEB 1 1995 3031 Northeast Tenth Street,Renton, Washington 98056-3131 CITY OF REN i ON PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN. Telephone (205)256.4761 • Facsimile (205)266-6460 February 7, 1995 i • Our neighbors 904 Kirkland Ave.NE • Renton, WA 98056 ' Dear Neighbor, Last Sunday a guest singing group came to our church to present an evening Black Gospel Music concert. We were unaware that the volume was inappropriately high. However; one of our neighbors was kind enough to inform us that it was a.problem. I am writing to you to let you know of our regret for this imposition upon you, and any others of our neighbors. Jim Amandus It is our desire to be good neighbors. We want to be sensitive to your needs. And so, Senior Pastor I would ask your forgiveness for the offense of last Sunday. And I assure you that I fBr armsnda Chance s will ensure that this does not happen again. Preschool .„,- Listed below are the neighbors of the church to whom we have sent this letter. We've David Grover tried to include everyone who may have been affected. If you hear of anyone else Worship/Music who was disturbed, please call the church office at 255-4751 so that we can apologize to them as well. ' Ron Lawler Adults/Singles Your Nei r, Chris Renzelman `I • Students/YoungAdults Mike Smith mandusSmall Groups/Evangelism - ' r Pastor Marlene Spann • S • Children . • . Letters Sent to: ' Bob Stevens Shirley A. Fassett • Sunset View Apartments Chaplaincy Kay Johnson • ' • ' • • ' Our neighbors at 804 Kirkland Ave. Jack Stewart Our neighbors at 3104 NE'10th St. Golden Pines Apartments CITY OF RENTON .11 Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator February 1, 1995 Mr. Bob Gevers • 900 Kirkland Ave. NE Renton, WA 98056 SUBJECT: HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH LANDSCAPING ISSUES Dear Mr. Gevers: Thank you for your inquiry regarding landscaping issues associated with the Highlands Community Church. We have looked into the condition of .the landscaping strips in the parking lot, and our response is included in the attached memo. As a result of these findings, it is our intention to take no further action on this item at this time. You have also asked about alleged day care activities occurring at the Church. We are investigating this issue, and will inform you in the event our findings indicate a violation. Sincerely, • 2)/117 Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator cc: Mark Pywell Bob Arthur WWI ?A:11 Ovnnna Qnnth _ RPntnn Wnchinatnn ARfliS December 5. 1994 Renton City Council Minutes Page 505 OLD BUSINESS Council President Stredicke expressed concern about Zoning Code provisions Zoning: Group Homes in that allow group homes in single family residential areas. MOVED BY Residential Neighborhoods STREDICKE, SECONDED BY TANNER, COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR A REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON WHETHER THE CITY CAN RESTRICT GROUP HOMES FROM LOCATING IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS.* . City Attorney Warren replied that it appears City regulation of this issue has largely been preempted by Federal and State laws, which mandate that group homes with six or less residents be treated as single family residences. Councilman Tanner noted that the City of Bellevue recently acted to allow a group home in a commercial rather than a residential area. Mr. Stredicke asked whether the City can or should regulate group homes. *MOTION CARRIED. Building: Hi hhiands Noting a complaint received from Bob Gevers, 900 Kirkland Ave. NE, Community Church Renton, 98056, Council President Stredicke asked that the Code Enforcement ` Landscaping Requirements Officer investigate whether specific landscaping requirements for the Q _ / . _?�V k Q Highlands Community Church, adopted by Council on 11/19/90, have been "� U completed and enforced. WSDOT: I-405 S-Cury Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler commented on the recent dangerous icy Project conditions on the Renton Hill Cedar Avenue bridge, saying this situation must be addressed either by the City or WSDOT. Mrs. Keolker-Wheeler also requested that the Police Department provide statistics on the number of accidents that have occurred at the intersection of Main and the new Cedar Avenue ramp. ORDINANCES AND RI SOLUTIONS The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption: Added Item Executive Assistant Jay Covington explained that the Renton Housing Resolution #3098 Authority has asked the City to approve a resolution sanctioning the H&HS: Renton hiousin: Authority's efforts to acquire the Cedar Park Apartments. The resolution is Authority Acquisition needed for the records of the federal agency with which the Authority is (Cedar Park Apts) working. A resolution was read supporting the Renton Housing Authority's efforts to acquire additional low-income housing (Cedar Park Apartments). MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for second reading and adoption: Ordinance #4485 • An ordinance was read amending Section 8-1-9 of Chapter 1, Garbage; Utility: 1995 Rates Subsection 8-2-2.G and 8-2-3.E of Chapter 2, Storm and Surface Water Drainage; Subsections 8-4-24.F.1, 8-4-31.B and 8-4-31.C.1 & 4, of Chapter 4, Water; and Subsections 8-5-15.A & D of Chapter 5, Sewers, of Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) of City Code relating to 1995 utility rates for all customer classes. MOVED BY SCHLITZER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. ROLL CALL: SIX AYES (TANNER, SCHLITZER, CORMAN, EDWARDS, NELSON, KEOLKER-WHEELER), ONE NAY (STREDICKE). CARRIED. A, CITY RENTON lae, Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer,Mayor - Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator December 2, 1994 • C. J. Johnston, Facilities Manager Highlands Community Church 3031 NE 10th Street Renton, WA. 98056-3131 Dear Mr. Johnston: For the past several months I have been investigating a City Council referral complaint which alleged: poor maintenance of existing landscaping; poor maintenance of the parking lot; inadequate number of plants on the perimeter berm which would prevent the glare of headlights from spilling onto adjacent properties; and inappropriate methods utilized to hydroseed the large vacant parcel of property on the west side of the parking lot. In the past, Mr. David Young of your Building Committee, has been working with the City in an attempt to reconcile each item of the complaint. To Mr. Young's credit, as well as the Church membership, each of the items, with the exception of the following two, have been resolved. Poor Maintenance of Existing Landscaping An on-site inspection conducted November 30, 1994, showed evidence that the proposed weed control maintenance program alluded to in Mr. Young's letter of July 14, 1994 (attached), appears not to be in force as there are a number of areas where the weeds have been growing for some time. The Renton Council Committee report (attached) dated November 19, 1990, also alludes to a landscape maintenance problem. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-31-34G mandates: Property owners shall keep the planting areas reasonably free of weeds and litter. Within fifteen (15) days receipt of this letter, the Church will be required to remove the weeds from the landscaped and parking areas surrounding the main Church building. A re- inspection of the premises will be conducted the week of December 19, 1994, to determine compliance. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton,Washington 98055 Installation and maintenance of existing landscaping. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-31-34G, maintenance, states: • Plantings are to be maintained in a healthy, growing condition and those dead or dying shall be replaced within six (6) months. Enclosed with this notice is a plan showing the planting areas in question. The four areas indicated are located on the southeast portion of the parking lot which is bordered by Kirkland Avenue NE and NE 9th Street. The plantings are color coordinated for ease of identification. The type and numbers of plants to be replaced are as follows: TYPE NUMBER • 1. Tam Juniper 8 • 2. Flowering Plum 4 • 3. Viburnum Davidii 9 The plantings shall be installed as shown on the plan. According to the Municipal Code you will have until June 6, 1995, to comply with this order. Also, according to the Municipal Code, you must respond, in writing, within fifteen (15) days receipt of this letter indicating that you acknowledge and agree to the conditions stipulated. Please address all correspondence to me at Renton City Hall, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA., 98055. We will appreciate your cooperation in this endeavor. If you have questions, you may call me at 277- 6169. • Robert L. Arthur Land Use Compliance Inspector Development Services . . . . r I . • ••••• . • . .--•--..--•-r----•*- . .. I ;,)N M 01M.4 era^-_,,s ex.. Go'G 01-ftea1 0*.lomet-cr,- . &GI •. _ w _...inn. (1)._ --___ 4..--C.1.%-fr-4.: -4,Y--1;t:4-. *.- 7) -• • -I- - ( . ..... . _. 1 • • ! , ; • • I i 1 I I ' I I . . I I• . I I . ; I IIZ4 a Q O. i 1 ' I • , • ! , • . I Tam Juniper \ . . • , • r , \ two Flowering Plum .• r ..• t, ' • .. • Ifia,/,.;% Viburnum Davidii , '"`• Aer-'1.7)41=.4.--fle....,.C.4.0 NCAZS.T;e C., ..)g FrA.C.4/ .- " I / . . • •. .„• I ., .•• 1 I I . I • I .- • to.'•••••:,,, ...3UNrr .. 6,:::;.• . , 1 1 , I I• • I . . . ••,.ii' e•-'9" ••• . z-: CU , - . • . • , 1.4 I 1 , I • , . . ---1.4 1 V.P">:. le, i z ti.5 •. . ,. . . 2;5. 1. 1 -,• i - ...,_ •_______ii,,•.,. . : . . . ,.,.,•. , i ..... • • . • A,T1lAIi,„l"l,,,1i•ii. , -.- • . . .. • I_ , , 'N--..1,1 , •; 1 •. • 1 ,I ; ., , ... ..• viOlt " ' i II '1 A.-r ;1-):t-i .l . - -— ----OW-Z . . . • . . . ' , . • ..... . • • 1 - .. . ' , 1 I.• , I - ,•, I ' 1 1 • ; .; • 4ft • . , . , 1 • , , : • ../0("A'..4,-,-..,-„,..%, .. . _ , I I • .t- - ., 1 _ ..,.., . . I I • •1 .. •• I ..2;j"•••i 1 I I -. -1 . F'•"e' ' 1 Ae4YZ,•11 1 ' -. 1 - I In.Cfs/..41E11,0 :rt-urA '" •-•. .._ -,2:Wfil _ --t -75' -11 . - . * . I i • : , . .Nt,"."..,,i• 17V-..,. . * • 1 i..,J'•••ire 2 7.64-1 ' • . • .. .v 4,-' I V I I I 1 • I i- I I 1 • . . , ---•/ /).• arreAto= ,14-0C,6 rsio>on •. -,. • Tr • vi CY-et-furl .c2.---vti",1 :. . • ..- • . -r . . . - . . .. . . . • • . . . . , . . " . ...•• • il • :-• .1 J _ I . I . 1 - I • • . ...I • I . I 1 ... , I I I I , 1 .1;\ I I .) . , :•• • , . . .• . / Mi10. . . - , . .. . ' 3031 NE loth Street .. Renton, WA 98056-3131 • COMMUNITY C H ' U R C H (206) 255-4751 (206) 255-5460 FAX • ,- crry OF:�ENTON • July 14, 1994 Jim Amandus g ,_•;'', a` r. - Senior Pastor • { JUL 19 1994 Mr. Robert Arthur - , Land Use Compliance Inspector . BU LDI G DI'SON • City. of Renton . • 200 'Mill Avenue S. - • Renton, WA 98055 . Dear Mr: Arthur:. . Thank you for meeting with us on our site yesterday. , The items that you pointed out that require additional work • or .correction for final approval of our landscaping will be ' addressed in a . timely manner as we discussed. • • We will be planting additional Otto Lukenen' Laurel per . your instructions to provide proper spacing and•visual' . . V 'buffering along N.E . 9th Street. . That -work' Will be ' • accomplished next week. ' The dust problem in the parking lot . along that section will be corrected by a thorough washing . • as soon as the extruded -curb and asphalt are replaced: •I am hopeful .that those items will be completed next week as • well. ' ' • I apologize for the machinery that was operating on the ' site during unauthorized hours . • I have talked to both the project superintendent and the landscaper to assure that . , this will not happen again. As soon as the project -is finaled' and operational we, ' ,- . plan to provide regular maintenance of our planting areas, • ' both• new and old. Thi's will involve volunteer work parties which we expect to have working on a- monthly basis, along with periodic chemical weed control when and where necessary. _ Thank you again for the helpful and- courteous manner in which you have dealt -with this matter. If I 'can be of any . further assistance in• assuring that your task is made. . . easier,- please call me at 255-4751 . , S' nc rely, ' ' David M. Y ng ' , • ' Building Committee . Kelly JohnSon . Ron Lawler- •- ' Chris•Renzehnan .Mike Smith- . Marlene Spann . Bob Stevens ' Junior High, ._ ' • Adult Ministries,_, .- Students/Singles . 'Small Group Ministries' ` Children's Ministries Facilities :: -Missions Greg Zimmerman . _ . Paul Lumbert . — . A. Iiir3PR 0,VED . • 'COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE • / COMMITTEE REPORT • • • / / November 19, 1990' • Highlands Community Church - On-Site improvement Deferrals(Referred 7/11/88) • . This topic has been in, the Community Services -Committee for a substantial period of time: Highlands Community . Church wishes to continue the . deferral of its on-site improvements- including parking and landscaping. They state that they . are in the process of obtaining approval to construct another building for church purposes and that the pavement that would be installed would .have to be torn up to accomodate the. church -building. The church also claims that the elevation of the church building would he such: as to require additional parking which is not under The church footprint to be removed. The'committee has also heard complaints from the neighbors about parking violations. •On-Site Parking: • The committee recommends, with respect to on-site parking, that the churc'h' be required to . install that portion. of the -parking previously deferred, which is located on the right- hand or south side of the walkway as shown on the attached sketch and' labeled "area• to be paved."This parking shall be installed no later, than the end of February 1991, unless such' time is' extended by the City Council. The parking on the• left hand or north' side of the walkway' will be held in abeyance. .If the, parking that is installed proves to be inadequate, or if the church is making inadequate progress toward obtaining approval to construct •the church building, then, the City Council will reconsider whether or not it wishes to .have' the deferred parking:installed. Installation' of the parking' requires some drainage control. Therefore, to fully handle the on-site parking the following three step process should he followed: • • 1. The paving requed under this report should begin -as soon as possible to be completed • no later than the end of February 1991, unless the time is extended by the City • Council. The remaining required, parking, deferred by this report,' will be installed as part of the construction of the. 'education center unless ordered installed earlier pursuant to the previous paragraph. , 2. The .church shall install a simple drainage swale to intercept the flow from the parking lot and take it off site into a' pipe and catch basin. This is a' temporary solution. . 3. The applicant has sub'mitted a site plan for„an 'educational center on the subject -. property. The following supplemental condition shall be appended to the upcoming site • plan approval and Hearing Examiner report: "The storm drainage plan shall' include • drainage facilities for the paved parking ,area' lying_ west of vacated- Jefferson' Avenue and adjacent to N.E. 9th Street. An element of the storm water drainage design shall . • be' to provide adequate drainage facilities for the subject parking area and to-terminate _ • • use of the temporary drainage swale located immediately west of the parking area." -� Landscapint: ,- • It was also mentioned that the landscaping of'the church had become overgrown with weeds i and was generally poorly maintained. The church shall be required to bring the landscaping up to satisfactory condition and to remove the weed-s and other foreign. materials in the landscape area. The church indicates that it recently held a meeting to discuss this problem COMMUNITY SERVICES COS_ ITTEE REPORT ` November 19, 1990 - 2 and, as a result of that meeting, has scheduled 'a maintenance day at the church and has arranged for periodic maintenance thereafter. This ~should satisfy the city's concerns, and _periodic review of the state of the • landscape maintenance may be conducted by the administration. Off-Street Parking: • • The neighbors have,made several complaints about parking violations occurring on the surface streets. The church has announced to all of its members that they should obey parking laws in and around the church property. If that does not alleviate the problem, then the police . department is requested, to undertake enforcement in this area until the problem is resolved. ' The City Council retains jurisdiction over this matter. , • (---\XXX‘ , Ther sa Zimmerman, C air " • 41111 • • J/Tanner, Vice-Chair • • Toni .Nelson, Membe LJ W:a•s. CITY8:47. 4-31-34 4-31-34 E. Amended Landscaping Plan: The approved 5. General Requirements: landscaping requirements may be modified upon request to the Building and Zoning a. Existing desirable vegetation should be Department. The plans may be approved, preserved where applicable. denied or returned to the applicant with suggestions for changes that would make b. Stripping of vegetative slopes where them acceptable. harmful erosion and run-off will occur shall be avoided. F. Landscape Requirements Specific: c. Areas of fragile natural environments 1. Existing Plant Material: Existing trees should be protected from development and and other vegetation on the site of a pro- encroachment. posed development may be used where prac- tical if the quality is equal to or better than d. If practicable, unique features within available nursery stock. the site should be preserved and incorporat- ed into the site development design (such as 2. Green River Valley: Any development in springs; streams, marshes, significant vege- the Green River Valley shall provide a mini- tation, rock out-croppings and significant mum of two percent (2%) of the total site for ravines). landscaping suitable for wildlife habitat. This landscaping is in addition to any other G. Maintenance: landscaping requirements by this Section or any other ordinance. 1. Landscaping required by this Section shall be maintained by the owner and/or occupant 3. Shorelines Master Program: Any develop- and shall be subject to periodic inspection by • ment within the protected shorelines area the Building and Zoning Department. Plant- shall be required to meet the standards and ings are to be maintained in a healthy, grow- requirements of the City Shorelines Master ing condition and those dead or dying shall Plan. be replaced within six (6) months. Property owners shall keep the planting areas. reason- 4. Slopes: ably free of weeds and litter. a. General: The faces of cut and fill slopes 2. The Building Director or his designated shall be developed and maintained to control representative, is authorized to notify the against erosion. This control may consist of owner or his agent that any installed.land- effective planting. The protection for the scaping as required by the Building and slopes shall be installed within thirty (30) Zoning Department, is not being adequately days of grading completion and prior to a maintained and the specific nature of the request for final project approval. Where failure to maintain. The Building and Zoning slopes are not subject to erosion due to the Department shall send the property owner or erosion-resistant character of the materials his agent two (2) written notices, each with a such protection may be omitted with the fifteen (15) day response period. The notices permission of the Public Works Department; shall specify the date by which said mainte- provided, that this protection is not required nance must be accomplished and shall be by the rehabilitation plan. addressed to the property owner or agent's last known address. b. Other Devices: Where necessary, check dams, cribbing, riprap or other devices or H. Violation: Violation of this Section shall be a methods shall be employed to control erosion misdemeanor punishable as provided in this and sediment, provide safety and control the Code. Each and every day or portion thereof rate of water run-off. during which violation of any of the provi- • sions of this Section is committed, continued • 1293 • City of Renton v�v rLANNINV CITY OF RFNTCN VZr. James Chandler • Building Official Ati'j 0 3 1994 Renton City Hall RECEIVES Subject : Highlands Community Church landscaping and use of driveways, Reference : File No. :CU ;R-048-90 August 2, 1994 Dear Mr. Chandler, I have noticed that the landscaping of the subject church is less than half completed and no further work has been done for some time to complete the landscaping as required by the Conditional Use Permit.This worries me and the rest of the people residing around the church. The landscaping of the church has : been an eyesore for many years and has been discussed with city personal for many years .The homes around the church all have very nice front yards which are well maintained, while the church continuously refuses to remove weeds from the landscaping and no regular maintenance has ever been done. Back in October 1990 a landscaping maintenance program was mandated by your building department with a threat that periodic inspections be made. (see attach ment 1 ) No inspections were ever made and the weeds continue to flourish. It should also be brought to your attention that the land- scaping of the aisles in the existing parking lot were never plan- ted, although it was required when the Conditional Use Permit for the addition of the gymnasion was issued many years ago. The weeds are also doing well in those areas . During the hearings for the application of the Conditional Use Permit to add the educational wing which has now been construc- ted, the landscaping was discussed extensively. As a result the City Staff recommended in its report that a surety device of a minimum of $ 3000. 00 for 3 years be provided by the church to assure survi- val of the landscaping. (see attach ment 2) This recommendation has been made a condition of the Conditional Use Permit by the Hearing Examiner. (see attachment 3 ) I am providing you with the above background information so that you are aware that the landscaping of the church has always been an issue with the neighbors. I therefore , would impress on you not to issue the permit for occupying the educational wing un- til ALL landscaping shown on the drawings ,approved by your building department, has been completed. Also, that all the weeds be removed and the aisles in the existing parking lot be planted. There is also a traffic problem that needs to be addressed. The Conditional Use Permit for the latest addition requires the easterr►ost driveway on NE 9th street be closed-off. The intent of this is to reduce the impact of traffic on NE 9th street by having cars leave the parking lot using the newly paved drivewu towards the Safeway store. This is not happening, now the easternost drive- way on NE 9th street has been closed-off. Instead cars are exiting through the southernmost driveway on Kirkland Ave NE. • When the Conditional Use Permit for the addition of the gym- nasium was issued, one of the conditions was that the southernmost • driveway on Kirkland Ave NE only be used for ingress to reduce the impact on the already heavily travelled Kirkland Ave NE, being an arterial. I therefore would request of you that part of the occupation permit of the educational wing, the church be required to post a sign designating the southernmost driveway of Kirkland Ave NE as ingress only and the churchgoers be notified as such. In summary, I would like to urge you NOT to issue the permit for occupying the educational wing until: 1.All landscaping have been installed required by the Conditio- nal Use Permits issued for both the educational wing and the gymnasium. 2.A permanent sign has been installed in the parking lot at the southernmost driveway on Kirkland Ave NE stating the driveway be used for INGRESS only. I appreciate your cooperation in the above matters. Sincerely, 491/"1/14v16 Cornelus "Bob" Gevers 3 Attachments C.C. : Mr. Bob Arthur Mayor Earl Clymer Mr. Mark Pywell Councilman Richard Stredicke .Copies : Ron Nelson 7 9c//H6AJ ,1. • Greg Zimmerman • Paul Lumbert /CLI-F5PR • COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE • COMMITTEE REPORT November 19, 1990 Highlands Community Church - On-Site Improvement Deferrals (Referred 7/11/88) • This topic has been in the Community Services Committee for a substantial period of time. Highlands Community Church wishes to continue the deferral of its on-site improvements including parking and landscaping. They state that they are in the process of obtaining approval to construct another building for church purposes and that the pavement that would be installed would have to be torn up to accomoclate the church building. The church also claims that the elevation of the church building would be such as to require additional parking which is not under the church footprint to be removed. The committee has also heard complaints from the neighbors about parking violations. On-Site Parking: • The committee recommends, with respect to on-site parking, that the church be required to install that portion of the parking previously deferred, which is located on the right hand or south side of the walkway as shown on the attached sketch and labeled "area to be paved." This parking shall be installed no later than the end of February 1991, unless such time is extended by the City Council. The parking on the left hand or north side of the walkway will be held in abeyance. If the parking that is installed proves to be inadequate, or if the church is making inadequate progress toward obtaining approval to construct the church building, then the City Council will reconsider whether or not it wishes to have the deferred parking installed. Installation of the parking requires some drainage control. Therefore, to fully handle the on-site parking the following three step process should be followed: 1. The paving required under this report should begin as soon as possible to be completed no later than the end of February 1991, unless the time is extended by the City Council. The remaining required parking, deferred by .this report, will be installed as part of the construction of the education center unless ordered installed earlier pursuant to the previous paragraph. 2. The church shall install a simple drainage swale to intercept the flow from the parking lot and take it off site into a pipe and catch basin. This is a temporary solution. 3. The applicant has submitted a site plan for an educational center on the subject property. The following supplemental condition shall be appended to the upcoming site plan approval and Hearing Examiner report: "The storm drainage plan shall include drainage facilities for the paved parking area lying west of vacated Jefferson Avenue and adjacent to N.E. 9th Street. An element of the storm water drainage design shall be to provide adequate drainage facilities for the subject parking area and to terminate use of the temporary drainage swale located immediately west of the parking area." wigzialis Landscaping: It was also mentioned that the landscaping of the church had become overgrown with weeds and was generally poorly maintained. The church shall be required to bring the landscaping up to satisfactory condition and to remove the weeds and other foreign materials in the landscape area. The church indicates that it recently held a meeting to discuss this problem .17 II •' COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT /` November 19, 1990 2 and, as a result of that meeting, has scheduled a maintenance day at the church and has arranged for periodic maintenance thereafter. This should satisfy the city's concerns, and periodic review of the state of the landscape maintenance may be conducted by the administration. Off-Street Parking: The neighbors have made several complaints about parking violations occurring on the surface streets. The church has announced to all of its members that they should obey parking laws in and around the church property. If that does not alleviate the problem, then the police department is requested to undertake enforcement in this area until the problem is resolved. The City Council retains jurisdiction over this matter. -----) Theresa Zimmerman, C air 4111110 J/Tanner, Vice-Chair Toni Nelson, Membe Li W:as. CITY8:47. N.. owd •_r 0 7"K) CITY OF IZ ,N rl'U N Department of I'I;utning/luilding/Puhlic Works Eatl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator October 8, 1990 R. W. Ralston Highland Community Church 3031 NE IOtlt St. Renton, WA 98055 SUB.!: Landscape • I Maintenance and Parking In City Streets 3031 NE 10(11 St. Dear Mr. Ralston: The Land Use Inspector and myself visited the above r inspect the landscaping and City c rcfr'rerrced church site in order to IuN (o be fair) 1 freer Parking. We found the landscaping I • . Avenuenkinl; urea were in Fail y good be condition. io'n. However, I g Kirkland the areas west and ioadjacent to the been advised that Larkin v• extensive ntainlenance. In addition, we have b church (i.e. g violations are continually taking blocking driveways, crosswalks, and fire hydrants;cparkinge on e streets around the Our request to you is twofold. Ri g on sidewalks). rs pe ing violations t and strongly t,re we ask uest that they make violations. Your parishioners aware of theSecond, we ask that you assemble and adhere t�oea immediately discontinuein o said of the on-site landscaping. Periodic inspections will be made to program for all • We appreciate your coope►;ttion in these matters. If you have any questions or need determine compliance. additional information please contact me at 277-6180. Sincerely, Ronald G. Nelson Building Official Construction Field Services • RC►N:m jp cc: Pot Porter rgnt/7/303I11E 10 • 200 Mill oven' A1- T4c,I/LENT .rPRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEA131t";r� MINER HIGHLANb, ,J OMUNITY CHURCH ADDITION .. February 4, 1992 Page 11 As part of the past development that has occurred on the subject property, the applicant has provided improvements on the adjacent streets. No additional road improvements are required for this proposed addition. The applicant will need to provide all Code-required improvements for the project site. H. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner support the proposed rezone and approve the conditional use permit with the conditions listed below: 1. The applicant shall comply with all conditions established by the Environmental Review Committee on January 16, 1990. 2. The applicant shall provide new easements as required and obtain releases from existing easements from the City of Renton, Puget Power, and Washington Natural Gas prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. 3. The applicant shall record, through the City of Renton, an ingress/egress easement to the Golden Pines Apartment and a Lot Line Adjustment for the required setback area prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. 4. The applicant shall pave and stripe the gravel parking lot to provide the parking required for this proposal prior to the issuance of occupancy permits of the proposed addition. 5. The applicant shall provide a surety device equal to 10 percent of the value of the landscaping provided under this_permit or a minimum of $3,000 for a three year period from the date that the landscaping is approved by the City of Renton. prelmrpt /4-7 -if/7 ge417 .43 Highlands Community Church CU;R-048-90 March 12, 1992 Page 20 RECOMMENDATION The City Council should deny the request to reclassify the subject site from R-1 to P-1. DECISION The Conditional Use Permit is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. 2. Additional landscape materials shall be selected which minimize interference with remaining views across the site from the east. 3. Perimeter landscaping around the parking areas should be of sufficient height and density to prevent headlight glare from spilling off the site. 4. All landscaping shall be subject to the review and approval of Planning Staff. The applicant shall post a $3,000 bond or other appropriate device which ensures that the landscaping survives to serve its intended purpose. 5. The applicant shall be responsible for the relocation of any utilities that might be disturbed by the proposal, including those located in the vacated Jefferson alignment. 6. The applicant shall curtail weekday activities early enough so that few church participants are disturbing the surrounding community after 10:00 pm. 7. All exterior lighting shall be designed and installed so that off-site spill-off of light is minimized. All lighting shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Staff. 8. The applicant shall fulfill the terms of its lot line agreement with the appropriate party including granting that party access rights across church property. 9. To further limit the impact of the expansion in the neighborhood, the applicant shall close off the easternmost drivewae NE 9th Street, and the northernmost driveway, Kirkland Avenue NE. ORDERED THIS 12th day of March, 1992. FRED J. K FMAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of March, 1992, to the parties of record: Mark Pywell Senior Planner i ( ..��/`/`��,,..,, ;.���''�����������W����..���`'����..:�::����.�����•:.:��..�.�.i:� :.�.:.� �•i:::::::i::.::��.:'�.::•'::::�::::::�i'::'''.::::::iiii:::::C::::::•:��'':�iiiiii::::i::::::i::i::i`i:•:'��.•�:::'.'::' :.:.::.::::::::.:.:::::::�::�i:�i:�:ii%�iJ•i:!.... .:..::.�::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::�::::::::::::::�.::�::::::::::::::.::�:.:::::iiiii:.;�::'.::'::�::::is ii}:..:::iii• The following are related files: lFile!No. Description CU, R-048-90 Highlands Community Church (AAD-93-158) AAD-93-158 L Cornelus Gevers, Appeal Re: Highlands Community Church (CU, R-048-158) 93-152, CU/ECF Highlands Community Church Basement. (AAD-94-008) AAD-94-008 Lloyd Hoshide Appeal of ERC's DNS in Re: Highlands Community Church Basement (93-152, CU/ECF) Attention City Clerk: Please enter the above information into the WANG system index. Please file this cross-reference sheet on top of all other filing in file no. OqF From: The Office of the Hearing Examiner '— `10 —(-)9-O -93 - 15„ ,9 ,) - f 4fr COM NITY CHURCH 3031 Northeast Tenth Street, Renton, Washington 98056-3131 February 7, 1994 -IT1r OF RENTON Telephone ' Pr:FtV (206)2554751 Mr. Earl Clymer, Mayor City of Renton FEB 0 7 1994 200 Mill Avenue S. -���� .,.� i FacsimileF{Ut(:ES (206)265-6460 Renton, WA 98055 DIVISION Mr. James C. Hanson, Director Development Services Division City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055-2189 Re: Highlands Community Church Gentlemen: I am writing to you concerning the consideration now being undertaken by the City of Renton of the action that it will take in response to the remand by the City's Hearing Examiner of the problems raised by the height of the church's addition. I believe Jim Aman that there are several facts that the City needs to consider, in addition to those related to Senior Pasttorr building and zoning code issues, in making its decision on this matter. Before I discuss Brenda Chance those factors, I would like to discuss briefly the background of this controversy. Preschool BACKGROUND David Grover Worship/Music The Church has admittedly built an addition that is taller than that shown in the Kelly Johnson plans submitted in our application for a conditional use permit. This happened for two Junior High reasons. First, when the architects began to work on the construction plans for the addition they discovered the plans for our existing structure that they had been working Ron Lawler on were in error and that the elevation of our existing second floor was several feet Adults/Singles higher than had originally been thought. Since both good design practice and safety factors dictate that these floors should be at the same elevation, it was necessary to raise Chris Renzelman the height of the building. While the elevation of this floor of the addition does not Students/Young Adults directly relate to the Church functions that will be carried out in the addition it does Mike Smith facilitate the participation of our members in those functions. Small Groups/Missions Second, in reviewing the restrictions placed upon this project by the conditional Marlene Spann use permit, our architects did not interpret that permit as establishing a specific height Children restriction on the addition. The recent Hearing Examiner's decision disagrees with that interpretation. However, we would note that the City administration, in reaching its Bob Stevens decision to lift the original work order, arrived at the same interpretation of that Chaplaincy stopp original conditional use permit as had our architects. In any case, in proceeding with the construction as it presently exists, the Church acted in good faith and did not believe that it was violating any requirements of the City. In addition to the background context of this controversy, another factor important for the City to understand is that the structure of this addition is completed. Any substantial changes to that structure would result in extraordinary costs that the Church simply could not bear. We have consulted with our architects and we do not believe that there are any practical alternatives that could substantially modify the height of the existing structure. Finally, we think it is important for you to know that the addition complies with all building code requirements and with the requirements of the underlying zoning that applies to this property. This structure does not exceed the height that would be allowed if a single-family home were built on this property. According to the Hearing Examiner's recent decision, this structure violates a significantly lower height limit that the Hearing Examiner established in the original conditional use permit. USE OF STRUCTURE IN OUR CHURCH MINISTRY The purpose of this addition is to provide adequate space to allow for the religious education of children, young adults, and the adult members of our congregation. This is an integral and inseparable part of our ministry. We believe that the City should not take an uncompromising position requiring strict enforcement of what the Hearing Examiner has now determined to be a height restriction without regard to the fact that this structure complies with the requirements of the underlying zone and without regard to the consequences that such an uncompromising position would have on our efforts to operate our church. We believe that only those public interests that are of the highest order can outweigh legitimate claims to continue to provide the religious education that is to be carried on in this addition. Surely, where the City would allow a single-family home to be constructed to a height greater than this addition, it cannot claim an overriding interest in restricting the height of this structure below that allowed by the underlying zoning. Since any substantial change to the present building would entail costs that are impractical for us to bear and would result in a substantial interference with our ability to perform the functions of our ministry, we would request that the City fully consider the facts set forth in this letter in arriving at its determination as required by the Hearing Examiner. We would be happy to provide additional information or to elaborate on the information set forth in this letter if that would be helpful to the City in arriving at its decision. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, \ A 71 /Jim Amandus / Senior Pastor 01-8 -- r it 4 • Ell IMMO GABBERT BROWELEIT PETERSON ARCHITECTS PS February 4, 1994 Development Services Division City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055-2189 Thrrer Attn: Mr. James C. Hanson ;`F '- Director Re: Highlands Community Church; Hearing Decision, L'11+1 K.)tv`""`"k�� File No. AAD-93-12 i r;)U� • Dear Mr. Hanson: I am writing to you concerning the issue remanded to you by the Hearing Examiner concerning the height of the Highlands Community Church. I have reviewed the Hearing Examiner's decision. While I disagree with that decision and resent the unprofessional and offensive characterizations of my conduct by the Hearing Examiner that are contained in that decision, I recognize that you are not responsible for those statements nor can you remedy them. However, I felt it important, before I address the substantive issue that you are considering because of that decision, to state that I do not accept the characterizations of my motives or actions set forth in that decision. I am writing to you to address the issue of the height of the addition. I am starting with the assumption that the finished floor elevation of the second floor is fixed at its present height. That is so because of such factors as the proposed use occupancy of the addition, the requirement of the ADA, and basic principles of good design. Any attempt to lower this floor elevation would have created serious potential problems to the safety of the occupants of the building. For this reason, we do not believe that a change in the finished floor elevation of the second floor is appropriate. We believe that the City agrees with this position. Thus, the focus of concern is the height of the structure from that floor elevation. The height of the occupied space (ceiling height) has already been reduced in our original design from nine feet (the height I would typically use for the larger rooms in this space) to eight feet (the standard height for a single- family house). The space would not be suitable for its intended use if this height were further reduced. Similarly, the space allotted for the ceiling, light fixtures, and drywall fire protection is the minimum necessary to accommodate these functions. Further, the parapet above the existing roof cannot be reduced without compromising its function. The parapet at the highest point of the new roof slope is only 6" above the existing parapet. (Nor, would I note, is there any way to make that parapet transparent as suggested by the Hearing Examiner). The only area left to address is the structure supporting the roof itself. The existing roof structure is provided by 30"TJI joists, 32 inches on center. This is a typical structural system for a wood-framed building that has the spans this building has. We did not choose it because it was the cheapest system available. The use of wood trusses or bigger TJI'S spaced further on center would have been cheaper. Both of those alternatives would have increased the height of the structure. We could have used somewhat smaller joists at a lesser distance on center, but this alternative would not have substantially reduced the height of the structure. We chose the roof structure system that has been used because, given all of the factors that we had to consider--the structural requirements, the use of the space below, construction methods and techniques, fire-safety requirements, height of the building, and cost- - it provided the best solution, in our judgment, to a complex problem. (I would note that at the time that we designed the roof I did not interpret the conditional use permit as incorporating a Principals: Marlin J.Gabbert AIA, Larry L.Broweleit AIA, David A. Peterson AIA 6920 220th SW Suite 200 Mountlake Terrace WA 98043 (206)774-4701 FAX (206)776-5177 specific height limit. I knew that the height of the structure was an important issue and took measures to reduce that height where possible; however, I believed that the height limit that applied was the 35-foot height limit contained in the underlying single-family zone). We have reviewed various possibilities that could be incorporated at this time without a complete change to the structure of the existing addition. Any such major change in the structural system of the addition would entail costs that would be extraordinary. Given this consideration, there is no practical way of changing the roof structure that would reduce the height of the addition below the height of the adjacent gymnasium roof. Further, none of the alternatives that we have considered would reduce the height of the existing addition by more than 8 to 12 inches at most. We would note that even this minimal reduction in height would require the complete tear-out and destruction of the existing roof structure, insulation, and roofing membrane as well as the reconstruction of an entire new roof. We would estimate that such an action would entail costs ranging from $160,000 to $190,000. Such costs do not appear warranted to us given the minimal reduction in height that would result . I would be happy to discuss the issues raised in this letter or answer any questions that you may have concerning our conclusions. Sincerely, GBP ARCHITEC , S. 1c):LISO) David A. Peterson AIA Principal DP/fm COPY: George Kresovich Dave Young 2020dp01.LTA • January 31, 1994 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON orrY OF PENTON REPORT AND DECISION gEcE v APPELLANT: Cornelus Gevers =3 0 1 1993 Appeal Re: Highlands Community Church DLv.w., ,, +tRvIcFs File No. AAD-93-158 DrvisioN LOCATION: 3031 NE 10th Street SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Appeal of: City's administrative determination to lift Stop Work Order. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the applicant's written request for a hearing and examining available information,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following is a summary of the hearing held January 10, 1994. The minutes, as follows, are not verbatim transcript but a general summary of the issues discussed The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on January 10, 1994, at 9:03 a.m., in the first floor conference room of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow File containing letter of Exhibit No. la: Conditional Use Permit Master appeal,proof of posting and publication and other Application submitted by Highlands Community documentation pertinent to this request. Church, received by City on April 24, 1990. Exhibit No. lb: City's Conditional Use Permit Exhibit No. lc: Attachment to Exhibit la, Church's Application Procedures Justification for Conditional Use Permit Exhibit No. ld: Building Elevations,received by Exhibit No. le: Site Plan/Roof Plan, received by Planning on April 24, 1990 Planning on April 24, 1990 Exhibit No. lf: Elevations (Exhibit 6 of the Exhibit No. lg, 1 of 8: Building Permit Plans, Title Conditional Use Hearing) Page(T), received by the City of Renton May 20, 1993. Exhibit No. lg,2 of 8: Building Permit Plans, Exhibit No. lg,3 of 8: Building Permit Plans, Crawl Space Plan(A2.1), received by the City of Elevations(A5), received by the City of Renton May Renton on May 20, 1993. 20, 1993. Exhibit No. lg,4 of 8: Building Permit Plans, Exhibit No. lg,5 of 8: Building Permit Plans, Stair Building Sections(A6.1), received by the City of Sections(A6.2),received by the City of Renton May Renton on May 20, 1993. 20, 1993. Exhibit No. lg,6 of 8: Building Permit Plans, Exhibit No. lg,7 of 8: Building Permit Plans, Parking Area Lighting Standard and Pole Base Detail Lower Level Plan/Crawl Space(E2.1), received by (E0.1), received by the City of Renton May 20, 1993. the City of Renton May 20, 1993 Exhibit No. lh: Photograph Views from Kirkland Exhibit No. li: Photograph S.W. Views(Sh. 4 of 4) Avenue NE(Sh. 3 of 4) Exhibit No. lj: Photograph S.E. Views (Sh. 1 of 4) Exhibit No. 1k: Photograph S.E. Views(Sh. 2 of 4) Exhibit No. 11: Video Tape Exhibit No. 2: Environmental Checklist • Appeal of Comelus Gevers Re: Hig Is Community Church '„ File No.: AAD-93-158 January 31, 1994 Page 2 Exhibit No.3: ERC Staff Report, dated 12/19/90. Exhibit No. 4: Determination of Non-Significance with Cover Letter, dated January 17, 1991, signed by Don Erickson. Exhibit No. 5: Smaller Versions of Elevations Exhibit No. 6: Photographs submitted by the Church's architect at the CUP hearing(Exhibit 5 at the CUP hearing) Exhibit No. 7: Photographs titled Additional Exhibit No.8: Exhibit 8 is the Planning Department Obstruction of View on Mountains caused by Report to the Hearing Examiner proposed addition, submitted by Mr. Gevers as Exhibit 28 at the CUP hearing. Exhibit No. 9: Hearing Examiner's Conditional Use Exhibit No. 10: Transcript of certain portions of the Permit Decision public hearing before the Renton Hearing Examiner, February 4, 1992. Exhibit No. 11: Duplication of Exhibit 9, excerpts Exhibit No. 12: June 22, 1992, Renton City Council of the Examiner's Decision Minutes with statements to and by the Council that the addition will be no higher than the current building. Exhibit No. 13: A complete copy of the June 22, Exhibit No. 14: Transcript of a portion of the 1992, Renton City Council Minutes. June 22, 1992, City Council Meeting. Exhibit No. 15: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Exhibit No. 16: Terra Associates, Inc. geotech Decision filed by Hillis Clark et al. on behalf of report, October 2, 1992. Highlands Community Church, dated March 26, 1992. Exhibit No. 17: Letter from David Peterson (GBP Exhibit No. 18: Letter from Mark Pywell,to David Architects)to Mark Pywell, dated October 9, 1992. Peterson (GBP Architects), dated October 16, 1992. Exhibit No. 19: Letter to Robert Bozorth(GBP Exhibit No. 20: Letter from David Young Architects)from Mark Pywell, dated (Highlands Community Church)to Mark Pywell, November 9, 1992. dated November 18, 1992. Exhibit No. 21: Letter from Donald Erickson to Exhibit No. 22: Stop Work Order, dated David Young, dated December 10, 1992. December 10, 1993. Exhibit No.23: Letter to Comelus Gevers from Exhibit No. 24: Project Narrative for Basement James Hanson,Director, Development Services, dated Conditional Use Permit, receive stamped December 15, 1993. December 10, 1993. Exhibit No. 25: Environmental Checklist for Exhibit No. 26: Tape, Renton City Council, Basement, dated 10/12/93. June 22, 1992. Exhibit No. 27: Tape of portions of the Hearing Exhibit No. 28: Tape of portions of the Hearing before Renton's Hearing Examiner, February 4, 1992, before Renton's Hearing Examiner, February 4, 1992, (Tape 1, Side B). (Tape 3, Side A). Exhibit No.29: Letter to the Washington State Exhibit No.30: Letter to Dick Ralston from Donald Department of Ecology from Donald K. Erickson, Erickson, dated January 17, 1991. dated January 17, 1991. • Appeal of Cornelus Gevers Re: Hid ds Community Church File No.: AAD-93-158 January 31, 1994 Page 3 • Exhibit No.31: Two sheet document as follows: (1) Exhibit No.32: Affidavit of publication of Public Notice of Environmental Declaration,Application No. Notice of Environmental Declaration for Application ECF-048-90; (2)Copy of same No. ECF-048-90(Ref. Exhibit 31), in the Valley including the certification of posting. Daily News, dated January 25, 1991. Exhibit No.33: Letter to Dick Ralston from Exhibit No.34: Letter to Lawrence Warren from Donald Erickson, dated March 7, 1991. George Kresovich, dated June 18, 1993. Attachment is a letter to the City's Planning/Building/Public Works Department from David Peterson, Project Architect, dated May 19, 1993. Exhibit No. 35: Site Plan View Analysis(Al) Exhibit No.36: Section View Analysis (A2) Exhibit No.37: Section View Analysis (A3) Attorney for appellant, PETER J. EGLICK of Peter J. Eglick&Associates, Suite 1212, Bank of California Building, 900 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98164, stated this is an appeal of a determination by the City to withdraw a stop work order for the construction of the Highlands Community Church. Throughout the project's Conditional Use Permit (CUP)public hearing and appeal it was represented that the proposed building addition would be at, or below, the level of the existing church building. The height of the addition is now four(4)feet in excess of the approved height. Mr. Gevers notified the City of the excess height in December 1993. A stop work order was issued but was subsequently withdrawn by the City. Evidence will be submitted showing the original plans submitted to the City,the representations made concerning the building height, the height as it is constructed, and photos of the impact on Mr. Gevers. The issue is that the building's existing height was not authorized by the CUP. Another issue is the crawl space/basement that has been constructed but was not described on the plans when the Examiner considered the CUP. Also, excavated soil containing possible smelter waste has been spread around the site without proper supervision or permit. All counsel noted that they agreed to hear the crawl space/basement issue. The Examiner noted that the crawl space/basement issue is scheduled for CUP hearing shortly. Mr. Eglick stated that when the Examiner considers whether or not to reimpose the stop work order-- the crawl space/basement issue should be considered. Attorney for Highlands Community Church, GEORGE KRESOVICH, of Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101-2925, noted that the City issued a building permit and this permit incorporates all City decisions concerning the subject structure and its conformity with both the land use zoning and building codes. The City issued the building permit last summer and construction of the crawl space, as it has been constructed,was authorized by the City. Mr. Eglick discussed church/state issues, stating it is an issue for a court. Regarding SEPA compliance, Mr. Eglick noted two environmental issues that were neither disclosed, discussed nor addressed as part of the Environmental Review Committee's(ERC)Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance(MDNS). The issues are view impact as well as excavated "bad dirt." These issues constitute reasons for reinstituting the stop work order. At the February 4, 1992, hearing the complaint was raised that the Church had come in with a revised plan adding 1,000 square feet. At that time the Examiner stated the Church should submit a final site plan. The Church's attorney, Mr. Wilson, answered "we're not further changing the proposal." Mr. Eglick stated that evidence will show that building permit plans were later submitted which showed increased height. No notice was given to the public, no notice was given to the Examiner, and no CUP revision was sought. Parties stipulated to the admission of exhibits. Discussion of a possible stipulation regarding the addition's height ensued. CORNELUS T. GEVERS, 900 Kirkland Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98056, introduced exhibits le through 11. Discussion ensued regarding the viewing of Exhibit 11, a 25 minute video tape. Mr. Eglick introduced exhibits la, lb, lc,and 2 through 28. • Appeal of Comelus Gevers Re: Hig is Community Church File No.: AAD-93-158 January 31, 1994 Page 4 Mr. Gevers is a mechanical engineer(B.S. degree)and worked in various mechanical engineering positions, ending his career after working 30 years for the Boeing Company. Boeing assignments consisted of design as well as review of engineering drawings. At the public hearings during the building of the existing gymnasium, Mr. Gevers expressed concern about that building blocking his view of the Olympic mountains. As a result,the height of the building was established so he could see the Olympic mountains over the roof. When the addition was started it was represented that it would be no higher than the gymnasium but the addition's extra height has now completely blocked his view of the Olympic mountains. LAWRENCE WARREN, City Attorney, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055, questioned Mr. Gevers. Mr. Gevers confirmed, acknowledged or noted that he has no experience in materials handling or soils reports. At the December 1993 Council meeting he did refer to possible smelter waste and had no further basis to testify of more than possible smelter waste. The geotechnical report states possible smelter waste; he did not draw any conclusion from the architect's letter which mentioned "bad soils" but he did raise questions as to why no further investigation or lab tests were done to find out what "bad soils" meant. He reviewed the City's project file, including Don Erickson's letter stating that the Church cannot build a basement. He does not have any experience in the interpretation of building codes and relied on what he saw in the City files. He asked Mr. Erickson what his letter(regarding the basement)meant and Don Erickson replied it was his interpretation of the building code. c_ f /Nr 2eq T 04 Dew c - Responding to Mr. Kresovich's questions, Mr. Gevers confirmed, acknowledged or noted that the handwriting on Exhibit le is his writing and reads "received March 1, 1991." He received the drawing from the Planning Department at City Hall and reviewed it shortly after. Exhibit l g, pages 1 through 8, were reviewed at the Planning Department in City Hall on December 20, 1993, and are the plans which were approved for building permit issuance, number 18680, dated August 17, 1993. He has been concerned about the Church's construction of its property for some time and does not recall when construction began. Mr. Gevers confirmed that he lives near the addition construction site; the church property is within his view; and he looks out to see the Olympic mountains mostly during the summer. In reply to a question about possible smelter waste and the geotechnical report, Mr. Gevers stated his concerns began when he noticed excavated dirt which had been heaped up on the western portion of the site. He thought the dirt would be deposited elsewhere, but it was graded over the site. He went to City Hall and discovered that there was no permit for excavations or grading, he then reviewed the geotechnical report. Asked if he had any evidence indicating that the structure being built is not in compliance with the building permit plans, Mr. Gevers replied that he could not vouch for that and would never be given the opportunity to see the building information and compare it to the drawings. He confirmed that he had no evidence that the church addition was not in compliance. He owns his home and does not have an easement across the church property preserving a view corridor or a right to a view. The gymnasium and the new structure interfere with his view. The height of the building only became obvious to him when the south wall was put up on December 9, 1993. He went to City Hall on December 10, 1993. Mr. Kresovich moved for dismissal of the appeal as there are no claims of violations of city codes, ordinances, state statutes, or other requirements in regard to contaminated soils. There is no evidence that contaminated soils exist on the property. Conclusions have been made as to the meaning of statements contained in certain documents--which is not an establishment that there are contaminated soils on the property. The appellant has failed to prove that issue entirely. The Examiner replied that since time was limited he is not willing to dismiss any of the claims, or arguments. Mr. Warren stated it was perplexing to hear Mr. Eglick state that the City and applicant were estopped from arguing the constitution in this state and doubts case authority for such a statement. The City would be negligent in not taking the Constitution into consideration. The Examiner's CUP decision and City Council's decision must be reviewed to determine the conditions imposed. The Examiner and City Council cannot condition "every nail" in their decision. To do so would deny reality and nothing would ever be built. Field conditions always require changes and it has to be left to the administrative staff to determine where changes are minor and where they are major. The key to the entire case is the increase in elevation of the addition. The Church was trying to match up floor elevations. Is this a major modification from that approved by the Examiner? If it is a major modification, is it substantial enough that it can overcome the free exercise of Church rights under the United States and Washington State Constitutions? This does not mean that the Church does not.have to go through the CUP process. The stop work order cannot be expanded to include soils and there is no evidence of contaminated soils • Appeal of Cornelus Gevers Re: Highlands Community Church FileNo.: AAD-93-158 • January 31, 1994 Page 5 outside a passing reference in the Terra Associates report. The history of this project shows a lot of discussion about height on this addition and the discussion was largely in the context of what is permissible height within the zone and the development in the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Kresovich stated the appeal is of a stop work order and that stop work order was issued pursuant to a citizen complaint that the structure did not comply with the CUP. Exhibits show that the City staff administering the land use and building regulations are left with the Examiner's CUP decision and the decision of the City Council. To evaluate what the building permit authorizes staff does not go back and review the hearing transcripts or file. They rely upon the decisions and make an effort to interpret the intent of the decisions, fairly and accurately. The Church is going to present an explanation for how the height of the Church came to be changed,the reasons for the change,why it was something not-known at the time of the CUP hearing and evidence regarding the soil issue. Mr. Kresovich introduced exhibits 29 through 34. Portions of Exhibit 11,video tape of Church addition,were viewed with comments by Mr. Gevers. DAVID PETERSON,the church architect,Gabbert,Broweleit, Peterson, 6920 220th SW, Suite 200, Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043, responded to questions from Mr. Kresovich. His firm developed the Church master plan submitted for CUP and they were then hired to design the.addition. He is the lead architect on this project. The CUP plans were developed'from the master plan which was a preliminary concept. Square footage and elevation were developed using 12 foot floor to floor, 12 foot floor to roof, and a foot for parapet. After the CUP permit . was granted the schematic design was developed, and design development resulted in the construction documents that were submitted for the building permit. The master plan was developed from drawings the Church provided of the original gymnasium building and as they proceeded they found that the floor to floor heights were inaccurate. A surveyor was hired to do spot elevations and it was found that they were considerably off on the floor to floor elevations. This meant raising the addition or looking for alternatives of how to match floors. The upper floor presented the problem since the addition is being added to an existing structure and they had to bring the total building into ADA(American with Disabilities Act)conformance. The stairs and ramps option is dangerous because of the type of people occupying this building: The addition includes a nursery, small children classrooms, elderly people attending fellowship functions, and people carrying small babies. It was decided to have the floor to floor elevations match. The gymnasium and the first floor of the addition match but the second floor had to be changed on the addition to match the second floor of the existing structure. The occupancy plan was switched and flipped to allow reduction of ceiling heights on the main floor. On the second floor, ceiling height went from 9`feet to 8.feet in an effort to keep the building height down. The increased height-of the addition is more costly for the Church. The soil problem resulted in an advantage to the neighborhood since the mechanical equipment,which was to be placed on the roof, can go into the crawl space. This improves sight conditions and'it is easier to maintain mechanical equipment in a crawl space. • Mr.Peterson introduced exhibits 35, 36 and 37. Mr. Eglick objecting to the exhibits. The Examiner accepted the exhibits'as conceptual. . • Responding to questions from Mr. Kresovich,Mr:Peterson stated that the.size of the project required a soils report to determine bearing capacity of the soil for foundation work and to determine groundwater. The report was prepared by Terra Associates. The result was that all, or part, of the site was underlaid by fill containing- excessive debris. The fill overlays the original"soil to a depth of 8 to 9 feet. The structural and soil engineers recommended that they not put a spread footed type of building.on this material. The option was to over excavate and remove the bad soil. Back hoe tests uncovered chucks of concrete and bituminous material. Bad soil is soil that you cannot bear on--talking about engineering or structural characteristics. Two options were considered: (1)over-excavate and replace removed soils with compacted structural fill;(2)over-excavate the site and put in a deep crawl space. Option 2 involved over-excavation down through 9.feet of soil, getting rid of that soil that was inappropriate to bear on,and extending the foundation down to that level and putting in a structural floor. The Church choose option 2 and discussed it with the City. The City informed the Church that it could not use the crawl space area for the desired purposes until a CUP was • issued. It'was determined that the area could be built as a crawl space after talking to City building official, Jim Chandler and with the International Conference of Building Officials(ICBO). The Uniform,Building Code • restricts crawl space only by a minimum depth,not a maximum depth. The crawl space is presently designed to • • i Appeal of Comelus Gevers Re: Hig is Community Church File No.: AAD-93-158 January 31, 1994 Page 6 house,the mechanical equipment for the addition(HVAC systems)and access is provided, by an outside ramp and door n the west side of the building. Stairs are designed as add/alternates and are not built: They will not be built until, or if, a CUP is obtained. The elevator can go down to the crawl space but is keyed off. The equipment room for the elevator is located in the crawl space area. The construction of the crawl space did not �a impact the height of the building. ii Responding to Mr. Eglick,Mr. Peterson stated there is a concrete restraining slab in the crawl space that the :f structural engineer said should be installed to save foundation costs. The crawl space has lights in the mechanical unit areas. Floor to ceiling is 9 feet, so you end up with under 8 feet and lights hang below that. By the time the pipes,,etc.,are installed you will have to.duck. There are areas for a couple of louvers and mechanical pressure air intake. A ramp goes down to access the door on the southwest side. A space is set aside for two stairways which,could be extended down in the future--one on the south and one on the north. 'The crawl space runs the length of the building and is approximately two-thirds of the width on the west side. The approximate square footage is 4,000. • During the back hoe tests there were problems getting through debris. The structural,and soils engineers said that auger casts would not be the way to go. They did have to move soldier piles because of obstruction. Responding. to a question of whether they had tried putting in auger concrete piles,Mr. Peterson stated that you don't just try something when you are designing a system as it would be too expensive to try optional structural systems. hl. With regard the Terra Associates'reference to smelter waste,Mr. Peterson stated that the bid documents had a unit cost set for contaminated materials. The base bid assumes that contaminated materials would not be encountered. Handling of contaminated soils would be an additional cost. 'The plans reviewed at the CUP stage were an estimate. After schematic design and design development,using the drawings from,the owner,the construction documents were developed. They were hired as architects after the CUP. The height error was discovered and brought to the attention of the owner. He does not know when it was brought to the attention of the City.. They reviewed the conditions of the CUP and found nothing specific on height in the conditions or zoning and then looked to ways to keep the addition's height to a minimum. Counsel discussed a request for a red-lined drawing. , Mr. Eglick and Mr. Peterson discussed the TJI roof truss support system,what is being put in and other roof options to reduce the height. Mr. Peterson noted that in deciding on a roof system they tried to be realistic,to keep the height of the building down, and keep costs down. In regard to matching the height of the second floor, Mr. Peterson stated the gymnasium is two floors high, at the end of the gym is corridor that comes across the north end and contains large restrooms. The restrooms have been renovated so that they are accessible. The . corridor is - 7 feet wide. The•corridors to be lined up run"north/south along the west side of the gym wall and east/west, meeting on the north side of the gym. 'A ramp would require a five foot landing before hitting the wall plus nineteen plus feet of run. Renovating the restroom floor height was not evaluated. A twelve foot ramp is required for every one foot of height, plus landings. The conditional use plan does not show the planned uses although an early master plan drawing may. DAVE YOUNG,Chairman of the Building Committee for Highlands Community Church, 19131 SE May Valley, Road, Issaquah WA 98027, responded to questions from Mr. Kresovich. He has been associated with the construction of the addition fora year and a half, and has worked with the,contractor and supervised the construction process for the last several months. Construction started just after Labor Day. He is familiar with concerns of the suitability of the soils for construction'purposes. Terra Associates were concerned about the debris;underlying the site,requiring over-excavation to expose the debris. The soil was not suitable to build on. and provide proper bearing. It was unknown how much debris was in the soil. The soils report gave a number of options of how to handle debris and there was conferencing as to the economical and proper development of the site. The Church decided to over-excavate the site and remove•soils to 9 feet below existing grade. Excavation was observed daily: The excavated top soil"layers were a variety of old construction materials and miscellaneous debris'such as concrete(old pieces of curb and cutter)asphalt,copper pipe,2 or 3 pieces of cast metal and underlying all was mostly fine sand. The area of excavation was somewhat larger than 3,800 square feet. The debris;was found mostly in northwest corner of the site. Actual debris was equivalent to a dump truck size load, or two: The remaining excavation area was excellent bearing soil, mostly fine to medium fine sand. Counsel and the Examiner discussed testimony as it applies to soil expertise. . Appeal of Cornelus Gevers Re: Highlands Community Church File No.: AAD-93-158 January 31, 1994 Page 7 Terra Associates had a representative observe excavation regularly. Mr. Young discussed excavation with the Terra representative. A City inspector was periodically on the site. Mr. Young visited the site twice a day. The contractor was aware of the possibility of encountering contaminated material during the excavation. The contract with the contractor is'a fixed-cost contract with add-alternates based on conditions that are extraordinary or unanticipated. Soil condition is one of the add-alternates: The contractor is not affiliated(a member)of the church and was the low bidder. No contaminated material was encountered by the contractor,the soils inspector, the City, or Mr.Young. One truck load of scrap metal was taken away and the remaining debris was separated from the soil and piled to the west of the addition. Some excavated material was spread in the field area. Responding to Mr. Eglick, Mr.Young confirmed, acknowledged or noted that he did not have a copy of the contractor's contract with him;the contractor was given a copy of the soils report before bidding on the project, and the contractor was charged with the knowledge that there was possible smelter waste or debris on the site. He did not have with him the text of the contract's extra-ordinary conditions triggering an add-alternate. The bid did not include removal of hazardous materials. Add-alternates are to be determined by Terra Associates,the contractor, or himself. Terra Associates provided regular soils report. The soils were never tested nor were suspicious materials found. The original geotech report was based on the soil engineer's uncertainty of what would be found and that there were undetermined materials. Mr: Eglick asked for copies of any regular soils reports. Discussion ensued amongst counsel and the Examiner regarding the request for soils reports. Mr.Young confirmed, acknowledged or noted that he was on site for a portion of the time that soldier piles were being augured. The soldier piles were positioned on the north end and along a portion of the west wall of the existing building where the excavation cuts would be deepest. Due to soil obstructions,two soldier pile locations were moved and the structure redesigned. • Called as a rebuttal witness by Mr. Eglick, Mr. Young confirmed, acknowledged or noted that he became aware of the height issue the day the stop work order was placed on the building. His job is to act as the church liaison between the project manager and site superintendent. He is the church representative responsible for supervision of the construction. A surveyor shot elevations early in the process after it was found that elevations were not matching. He became aware that someone had a problem with the addition's height on December 10, 1993. The Church conferred with the architect's office throughout the'design process. The Church became aware of the height issue the same day as the City building department. The architect never characterized the height, nor thought the height, was a problem. They have tried to do the best job possible for the neighbors,the Church and to make the space work. He was aware from day one that cost was an issue and design parameters determine cost. He is not aware of the specific cost parameters that were evaluated. He did tell the City Council that the height would be 12 inches in excess of that shown on the CUP plans. He now,knows that 12 inches is incorrect. The figure submitted by Mr. Kresovich is accurate(2 feet, 3 inches). Design/development is an interactive process between a client and architect. There were quite a few people involved in the design/development process; and in determining what uses would be assigned to what floor. When the floor plan switch was discussed the issue of height was not mentioned. Mr. Eglick presented his closing statement. The City did not explain its decision to withdraw its stop work order and the plans show specific violation of what was represented during the CUP process. The City has taken a position of casualness. If a citizen is going to be asked to go through the CUP process and the City treats the result as casual,or non-binding,then you will find this forum loses prestige or effectiveness. This is not the intent of the code and the process should not be undercut in this way. The master application submitted by the Church calls for fully dimensioned plans,showing all structures and features. The lists are extensive and.detailed. No one can review these materials and believe that what is submitted to the Examiner is merely conceptual. If a mistake was made the mistake should be charged to and,borne by those that made it,not by those that properly relied on the process. The decision of whether or not to stop,work does not relate to if a CUP can ultimately be granted. If there is a violation, it is a violation. Currently,there is not a CUP that covers this project as it has been built. Cost issues can be addressed in the context of a reapplication that the Church should want to do to avoid abatement. Exhibit 23 purports to be a determination that issuance of the building permit plan was okay and there is no violation with regard to the CUP. We have appealed that determination within the necessary time frame and our Appeal'of Comelus Gevers Re: Higl :s Community Church File No.: AAD-93-158 January.31, 1994 • Page 8 _ - appealcovers not only the height but the concept that whatever was done as a resultof the building permits plans is allowed, for example to the basement. Mr. Erickson's actual determination on the crawl space is that if a floor • is put in-- it is a basement and-you need a CUP first. Mr. Erickson decision is very clear and was never appealed. The City's final determination on the basement is the December 10, 1993, letter which letter is one- sentence, appears to address the issue,revisit it,and decide the other way. The basement should not be there without environmental review of impacts in regard to use and construction. Construction includes the potential - impacts of bad soils,possible smelter waste and the like. The Terra Associates report described possible smelter waste. No testing has been done on the soil. The fact is that SEPA was not complied with,there was obvious ,, piece mealing,and the CUP that was issued did not contemplate a crawl space or basement. The basement provides additional basis for a stop work order and the City's decision not to impose a stop work is properly • before the Examiner. . Mr. Warren stated we have an appeal of an administrative determination which says you have a crawl space,not a basement. The appellant insists it is a basement. It has been argued that possible smelter waste is smelter waste. We have a simple issue of what is the addition's height in relationship to the CUP. We are talking about a stop work order versus a zoning determination. Procedural issues and small deviations are being elevated beyond that of constitutional rights, The City issued a stop work order when it became aware that there may be a discrepancy in the height. The City then lifted the stop work order. Mr. Hanson's letter may not be an absolute model of clarity but the fact is theissue is well framed for the Examiner. What does extra height mean in relationship to , this particular structure? What statute does this extra height violate? The single family zone permits 35 feet. What ordinance is.violated? What code is violated? 'What rule is violated? What regulation? What permit condition is violated? The answer for each question is none. Look at the ERC conditions, at the Examiner's decision,the City Council's decision--there are no height limitations except that imposed by code. There is no condition imposed that the extra height violates. There is no individual right to'a view acknowledged in City Code and there is no view policy in City ordinance-or statutes. Mr. Warren then discussed church state cases as cited iii'the City's brief. Staff has the ERC's decision,the Examiner's decision, and the City Council decision from which to make a • decision about what is appropriate. They then must consider constitutional provisions. The decisions the staff made are not only supportable but are the only rationale decisions that could be made under the circumstances. There is no reason for the City to reopen the SEPA process on view. In balance, even without the Church's status ; as a Church,the administrative determination was appropriate and when considered in light of the constitutional law and the cases.• ' Mr. Kresovich presented closing argument, stating that Highlands Community Church is,not estopped from ti asserting First Amendment rights because it did not pursue a judicial appeal after the City's rezone denial. A First Amendment right cannot be waived by riot carrying through On an appeal if later an enforcement action is brought;against you. Two issues have been raised by the appellant. First, a question of bad soils. Most of my clients build and when they talk,about bad soils they mean the soil"you cannot build on. That is the meaning of bad soils in this record. There is a question of height. A Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated was issued by the ERC and no condition of that decision limited the height of the structure. There,was no appeal of • that determination and the City, under.its SEPA authority, can not impose a height condition for the preservation of a private view. It has been stated that there is a basement which was not authorized by the CUP. This space, as now.constructed, is a crawl space and is not intended,nor.will it be allowed,for any sort of human occupancy.- It is in compliance with the CUP that has been issued. The crawl space can become space for accessory uses if a new CUP is issued by,the City and then changes are physically made to it. If a CUP is not approved this space will remain the way it is today, a crawl space. Conditions of the CUP have not:been violated and construction of this crawl space was authorized by the City through the issuance of the building permit. The floor slab which is there as a structural slab--being part of the foundation system. ' The last issue is whether the addition's height violates the CUP that was issued to the applicant. We have heard .that the height is a violation and the integrity of the process will be completely undermined unless the Examiner finds itso. The Examiner considered the height and did not merely pass on it. He concluded "The expansion will have modest impacts on nearby property but the impacts of this expansion do not appear to be undue or ' overwhelming. While this office has to acknowledge that views will probably suffer,the proposed church addition is actually no taller than:an ordinary single family home although it is certainly bulkier." The addition, as it exists today, is actually no taller than an ordinary single family home. The Examiner has to take into Appeal of Comelus Gevers Re: Community Church File No.: AAD-93-158 January 31, 1994 Page 10 4. All landscaping shall be subject to the review and approval of Planning Staff. The applicant shall post a$3,000 bond or other appropriate device which ensures that the landscaping survives to serve its intended • purpose. 5. The applicant shall be responsible for the relocation of any utilities that might be disturbed by the proposal, including those located in the vacated Jefferson alignment. 6. The applicant shall curtail weekday activities early enough so that few church participants are disturbing the surrounding community after 10:00 p.m. 7. All exterior lighting shall be designed and installed so that off-site spill off of light is minimized. All lighting shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Staff. 8. The applicant shall fulfill the terms of its lot line agreement with the appropriate party including granting that party access rights across church property. . 9. To further limit the impact of the expansion in the neighborhood,the • applicant shall close off the easternmost driveway,NE 9th Street, and the northernmost driveway,Kirkland Avenue NE." 5. The main body of the Hearing Examiner's Report contains the background which provides the basis for those specific conditions. The report contains formal Findings and Conclusions. There are a number of Findings and Conclusions that deal with height issues which form one of the elements of this appeal. Extracted from those Findings and Conclusions are the following relevant quotes: "FINDINGS: • - 9. The proposed three-story expansion will contain 13,769 square feet • divided as follows: Levels 000 and 100 will each contain 6,697 square feet; and Level 200 will contain 375 square feet. . . . 20. The addition will be finished to match the existing building with stucco, brick and wood trim. Roof treatment will match the existing gymnasium which is flat. • 21. View and elevation drawings indicate that the addition will blend with the mass of the existing structure but will intrude into the existing view corridor as viewed from the east or southeast along Kirkland. " "CONCLUSIONS: . • 18. The expansion will have modest impacts on nearby property but the impacts of this expansion do not appear to be undue or overwhelming. While this office has to acknowledge that views will probably suffer,the proposed church addition is actually no taller than an ordinary single- . family home, although it is certainly bulkier. . 5 • Appeal of Cornelus Gevers Re: Highiands Community Church • File No.: AAD-93-158 January'31, 1994 Page 9 consideration in a CUP process that a use does not have impacts which are different from.the impacts of other ' adjacent allowed uses in that zone. The reason Mr. Gevers has a view to protect is that the Church developed , their site several hundred feet away from his house,allowing a view. If the property had been developed for Single family home allowed by the zoning code he would have•no significant view. The CUP allows no greater E impact'.than that which is allowed outright. In closing,Mr. Eglick revisited the CUP,crawl space/basement issue, SEPA process, and church/ ;1state issues. ;� Mr. Eglick requested the opportunity to submit a supplemental brief regarding First Amendment issues stating the Examiner would receive the brief by the close of business,Thursday, January 13, 1994. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding the appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 3:58 p.m. FINDINGS,.CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters•the following: FINDINGS: • 1. The appellant, Cornelus T. Gevers, filed an appeal of a Determination of the Director of Development Services Division that revoked.a Stop Work Order for the construction of an addition to Highlands Community Church(applicant). The addition was being constructed pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit(CUP)issued by the Hearing Examiner. 2.. ' The church is located at 3031 NE 10th Street. The appellant resides at 900 Kirkland Avenue NE. Both 1. properties are located in-Renton, Washington. 3. The Hearing Examiner issued the CUP approval on March 12, 1992. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit is a final decision unless appealed to the City Council. A companion request by the applicant was to reclassify the-site from R-1 (Single Family Residential)to P-1 (Public/Quasi-Public). The Examiner recommended that the City Council deny that request. 4. The relevant recommendation and decision language from the Examiner's report states: ; ' I I "RECOMMENDATION . The City Council should deny the request to reclassify the subject site from R-1 to P-1. DECISION The Conditional Use Permit is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. 2. Additional landscape materials shall be selected which minimize interference with remaining views across the site from the east. 3. Perimeter landscaping around the parking areas should be of sufficient height and density to prevent headlight glare from spilling off the site. Appeal of Cornelus Gevers Re: Hill lds Community Church File No.: AAD-93-158 .-' January 31, 1994 Page 11 24. The requested conditional use permit to allow the proposed expansion appears reasonably well designed and should not unduly affect the adjoining residential neighborhood,nor should it adversely affect the public interest." • 6. City staff also develops an analysis and preliminary recommendation to the Hearing Examiner of the . applicant's proposal for delivery at the Public Hearing. This report is available prior to the public hearing to both the applicant and other persons who might be interested in a proposal. One was prepared for the underlying application. That staff report contains the following language: Page 3, last sentence of the fifth paragraph of Section G. 1. "The proposed layout of the addition is necessary in order to locate the proposed structure where it will impact the view of the adjacent residents the least." Page 7,first sentence of the second paragraph of Section(c) "As noted previously,the proposed addition will not exceed the height of the existing structures. The proposed height of the addition is twenty-five feet(25'). The P-1 zone allows a maximum of fifty feet(50')._The applicant has located the proposed structure at the rear of the existing building in order to'limit the visual impact of the addition on area residents. Staff believes that the proposed addition will provide the minimal obstruction of existing views,while still • providing the additional floor area that the applicant has requested." Page 8, second sentence of the second paragraph of Section 4, and fourth sentence of the third paragraph of Section 4. • "Due to the slope of the terrain in this area,the proposed structure will not be seen over the existing sanctuary and gymnasium when viewed from Kirkland Avenue. " ". . . The main portion of the building will have a flat roof in order to reduce the visual impact of the building. This roof will be consistent with the roof of the adjacent gymnasium." A telling statement in the staff report: Page 8, fifth paragraph, last sentence, states: "Staff believes that the proposed plan being reviewed under this conditional use permit meets those goals and is compatible with the adjacent residential areas." " (Emphasis added:this was not a plan for a 26 or 27 or 28 foot tall building but one 25 feet tall)." Next paragraph: • "The proposed addition will not exceed a height of 25 feet,which is compatible' with the other two-story buildings in the area." 7. Generally, attached to the report are maps and architectural drawings that provide location information as well as layout, landscaping and elevation drawings. The elevation drawings show that the addition was to be 25 feet tall. • Appeal of Comelus Gevers Re: Hig is Community Church File No.: AAD-93-158 January 31, 1994 Page 12 8. The applicant prepared background information for submission to the City in support of its application including a"Justification for Conditional Use Permit for Highlands Community Church." That . document was date stamped April 24, 1990. At Page 2, second paragraph under"Effect on Adjacent '' Properties" it stated: ,1 "The height of the proposed structure has been limited to a level below that of • the existing adjacent structure to enable it to subtly nestle against the existing facility. The proposed church addition is a height•of 28 feet from grade level at the parking lot entry to the top of the roof parapet. The design of the addition incorporates a flat roof which parallels the existing roof line of the adjacent structures." . 9. The applicant's SEPA checklist states: "There will'be no fill or cut." Further, it states: "Height: 28'-0" • above finish grade at south entry." 10. There are a number of references through the various documents prepared by the applicant and circulated internally by the City to it various reviewing departments and divisions. Most of these documents contain less specific descriptions of the proposed addition. In many cases describing it as a"two-story addition." • 11. The Conditional Use Permit provisions are•contained in Section 4-31-36. Section 4-31-36(E)provides the actual requirements for application: I ' Application Procedure: Application for a conditional use permit shall be submitted and reviewed pursuant to Chapter 8, Title IV of the City Code. The application shall include a site plan drawn to scale showing the actual dimensions and shape of the proposed site,the exact sizes and locations of existing buildings and structures, if any, and of the proposed building or alteration. The plan shall show proposed landscaping, off-street parking, signs, ingress and egress and adjacent land uses.Any additional information requested by the Building Department shall be included in the application. (Ord. 3599, 1- 11-82). • 12. .The actual plans submitted for staff review and examined by the public(Original Exhibit No. 6-Exhibit if for this proceeding),shows a height of 25 feet, on both the west and the south elevations. The south elevation does demonstrate that the structure north of the addition is 28 feet. 13. .' Another elevation drawing found in the original application files(Exhibit No. 1d)showing a red stamp date of March 16, 1990 shows an elevation of 24.feet. The north building is shown as 28 feet. 14. The plans submitted for the building permit are stamped by the City with a variety of stamps that include specific language on them. One stamp requires the signature of the applicant or representative. It states: File Copy 0 • I understand that the Plan Check approvals are subject to errors and omissions and approval of the plans does not authorize the violation of any adopted code or ordinance. Receipt of contractor's copy of approved plans acknowledged. • • David M.Young signed the plans for the applicant. . Appeal of Comelus Gevers Re: Hi < ds Community Church ti File No.: AAD-93-158 January 31, 1994 Page 13 15. A second stamp appears on the building permit plans and incorporates similar language. It states: Approval shall not be construed as the authority to,violate or cancel any provisions of codes, ordinances,or other regulations enforced by this city. This was signed by a representative of the City. ' 16. The'City's brief includes a letter from the project planner indicating that a basement was not permitted, (Mark Pywell,November 9, 1992,Exhibit No. 5 of the City Brief). Exhibit No. 21 is a letter from the then Zoning Administrator to the applicant's representative indicating that the addition of a basement below the originally approved two-story addition would require a new conditional use permit. It informed the applicant that"a crawl space without a floor can be constructed under the existing conditional use permit." It further stated that: "If a concrete floor is required for the structural support of the walls;'then we would have to consider it a basement and not as a crawl space." The letter closes with the admonition that this is an appealable decision and sets forth the appeal requirements and fees; - 17. The actual difference in height, according to the church, is two feet,three inches(2'3"). The appellant disputes this number but did not have direct access to the applicant's site to provide its own numbers. It estimates that the building is about 3 (three)to 4 (four)feet taller than the submitted plans and the adjoining gymnasium. The applicant's submitted plans show'a 25 foot tall addition while the gymnasium • is shown as 28 feet. The addition is now at approximately 30 feet, 3 inches. 18. Both parties to this proceeding were parties to the original, underlying land use hearing that resulted in the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. That CUP is the'issue of this appeal. Both parties to that original hearing appealed the'Hearing Examiner's decision to the City Council. The appellant herein • appealed the approval of the Conditional Use Permit by the Hearing Examiner. The applicant herein appealed both the recommended denial of the reclassification and a condition the Examiner imposed regarding driveway access,not specifically relevant to this proceeding.. 19. The applicant withdrew its appeal of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation that the reclassification be denied prior to City Council final action on the applicant's appeal. 20. At the June 22., 1992 City Council,meeting,the Council upheld the Hearing Examiner's approval of the Conditional Use Permit and modified the condition regarding the driveway,access. 21. It is undisputed by all parties herein that the proposed height of any addition was an issue at the original public hearing on the land use action and on the appeal to the City Council. It remains an issue at this proceeding. 22. It is undisputed by all parties that the applicant represented to all parties, including the Hearing Examiner,the neighbors,the appellant herein, and the City Council that the new addition would not be higher than the existing gymnasium to which it was to be attached--along the gym's western wall. The representation went so far as to maintain that the new addition would not be seen over the gymnasium's roof from the appellant's vantage point. 23. The current appellant attempted to have the City Council informed of a legal decision regarding "Church- State"relations but the City Attorney informed the City Council that"the Smith ruling would not be • Appeal of Cornelus Gevers Re: Higniands Community Church File No.: AAD-93-158 January 31, 1994 Page 14 appropriate for the subject application since it is not a church and state issue."(City Council Minutes, i June 22, 1992,Page 277) 24. Exhibit No. 23 from the Director,Development Services,James C.Hanson to the appellant, states: ,y I "On December 13, 1993 the subject stop work order was removed from the Highlands Church construction. The'City of Renton found that the construction - was in compliance with the plans for the building permit B-18680. The City also reconfirmed the decision made when the building permit was issued that the • construction in general is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the conditional use permit CU-048-90." 25. There was no testimony that the enforcement of any City requirement would interfere with any parishioners exercise of their religious worship. The record does not demonstrate that enforcement of the underlying building permit or conditional use criteria would impinge on the liturgical activities of the 1 • Church. 26. . . The applicant admitted that the approved Conditional Use Permit did not include plans for either a basement or crawl space. An area below the ground floor level has been developed by the applicant. The City has determined that in order for it to be used as a basement the applicant would require a separate Conditional Use Permit. This decision was made in the above referenced determination by the Zoning Administrator and remains the City determination. As a matter of record,the applicant has submitted an application to create the basement. In the meantime,the applicant has poured a floor in the excavated area and proposes using it in the interim for mechanical equipment. The City has approved these uses but has apparently required it to be "sealed" off with no stairway access and no windows. It does contain vents and elevator access. 27. The crawl space area was created after the applicant discovered the underlying soils were not capable of bearing the load of the new addition. This information came to light in a geotechnical report by Terra Associates. That firm took borings and found "bad" soils that were the result of old fills. It appears that the connotation of"bad" as used in this report were directed at its stability. The report does apparently note that there might be some construction.materials and possible smelter contaminants. The architect mentioned bituminous materials, smelter waste and old metal. ; 28. I The applicant has spread the excavated materials over a portion of the site where they are subject to the elements including wind and rain. a ; 29. The record does not contain any information about the constituent properties of these materials other than' the above referenced comments in the original reports about contaminants. The City does not appear to have any definitive soil test results. The applicant refused to disclose any testing results if they existed. 30. Once the non-bearing soils were excavated,the applicant determined that the church could possibly make use of the excavated area for storage or other purposes and that it might be cheaper and more practical to use the void rather than import clean soils and create a stable foundation for the new addition. As a result of this decision, it contacted the City regarding converting this space to useful space. The request met with the Zoning Administrator's negative determination noted above. That determination was not appealed. 31. • Section 4-31-36(A)contains the following purpose language: "A. Purpose: The purpose of a conditional use permit is to allow certain • • uses in districts from which they are normally prohibited by this Chapter when the proposed uses are'deemed consistent with other existing and potential uses • Appeal of Comelus Gevers Re: Hig Is Community Church File No.: AAD-93-158 January 31, 1994 Page 15 within the general area of the proposed use. Except as provided in this Section, a conditional use permit may not reduce the requirements of the zone in which the use is to be located." 32. Unexplored by any party was why a two-story addition abutting and connecting with a two-story existing structure came to be more than two feet higher. It must have something to do with occupancy requirements or changed regulations, but it is unanswered by the record. CONCLUSIONS: I. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision was either in error,or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions,or was arbitrary and capricious(Section 4-3011(B)(1Xb). The appellant has demonstrated that the action lifting the Stop Work Order should be modified or reversed. The decision, for the reasons discussed below, is reversed. 2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision,when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious(Northern Pacific Transport Co. v. Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472, 478 (1966). 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v, Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259 (1969). 4. The appellant has demonstrated that the decision as it stands must be reversed. The decision regarding the crawl space contravenes an administrative decision that a concrete floor not be added without approval of a conditional use permit for the lower level. That was a separately appealable decision which the applicant did not challenge. The sole reason this office even considered the basement issue was at the urging of all counsel. The Stop Work Order was originally directed solely at the issue of whether the height conformed with the Conditional Use Permit. The Director, Development Services, expanded its scope as evidenced in Exhibit No. 23 wherein it was found that the project was generally in compliance with the Conditional Use Permit. 5. There can probably be no argument with the first part of the letter lifting the stop work order. The work probably does conform with the Building Permit issued. The real question is whether the Building Permit complies with the underlying Conditional Use Permit. It is the underlying Conditional Use Permit which forms provides the basis for the Building Permit. The Building Permit cannot be used as the sole basis for the decision. 6. So while the decision of the governmental agency is entitled to substantial weight,that does not mean that the appellant has an insurmountable burden. As discussed below,the respondents did not provide any citation to City law that allows a height in excess of that approved in the underlying Conditional Use Permit. On this issue the matter is remanded to the Development Services Director to cite legal authority to permit the building to be approximately two feet taller than the underlying Conditional Use Permit. 7. As further discussed below there was no authority to create a crawl space with a concrete floor. This office will not enter into a protracted attempt to distinguish a"floor" and a concrete "slab." The Zoning Administrator's decision is clear that even as a structural element, a floor was not permitted. Since the applicant did not appeal that determination the crawl space is in violation of the provision. While it may comply with the Building Permit, that cannot justify ignoring the Zoning Administrator's determination. As the language on the "Approved Plans" notes,the permit does not approve items in contravention of other City regulations. The Zoning Administrator's determination has the force of law. Appeal of Comelus Gevers Re: Higl s Community Church File No.: AAD-93-158 January 31, 1994 Page 16 8. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter, unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. There is no doubt that the original agency erred in its determination. 9. The church's architect seems to have engaged in a pattern of behavior where liberties were taken with interpreting the original Conditional Use Permit decision as well as the Zoning Administrator's decision. He indicated that he did not have a problem with the additional height as it complied with 35 foot height limits of the underlying Zoning. He added a concrete floor to the basement in complete disregard of the then Zoning Administrator's decision that any floor, even for structural support required a new conditional use permit. The architect based this upon discussions with an outside agency, completely ignoring a written decision he had already received from the City. Can the applicant justifiably argue that submitting its interpretation to an outside body permits it to flaunt an existing determination. Let me ask, can anybody do that? Or just this applicant? Is there any purpose to City review if an applicant can step outside the process and get "approval" for its plan from someone other than the City? This office has no trouble deciding that the mere suggestion is ridiculous. 10. The exhibits submitted by the applicant demonstrating view corridors(Exhibits 35, 36 and 37)and the substitution of single family homes is irrelevant in this appeal. Those diagrams might have been relevant in the original conditional use hearing but this decision involves the reasonableness of allowing the addition to be constructed taller than the allowed by the submitted conditional use application. It no longer matters how the overly high addition compares with single family homes. 11. The question regarding height boils down to two issues: One, whether the conditional use permit restricted the height absolutely and if so does the current addition violate that restriction? Two, whether the conditional use permit's height limitation provided a close approximation of the final height. And then whether this approximation would allow for some flexibility in the field to permit a match with the features and floor elevations of the existing structure and then,therefore, whether the current height is reasonable in terms of the flexibility inherent in matching an addition to an existing structure. 12. The respondents argue that no decision or condition explicitly attached a height limitation to the Conditional Use Permit. This office is left pondering how far the decision maker must go in attaching to a decision, all the properties inherent in an application. While the spacing between joists may be going to far, if a project has an inherent design, reflected in its submitted plans, must all aspects of that proposal, including its width, length, square footage and height again be spelled out? Or is there an implicit condition, unless otherwise modified by the language of the decision, that an applicant will comply with its own submissions? If an application is not generally considered defining and its properties a limitation on its bulk then it is clear that everything would need to be spelled out. All parties agreed that this would not necessarily be required but stopped short of accepting that in this case, the application limited the ability of the applicant to deviate from its proposed application. The applicant even stipulated that it represented and understood that neighbors, including the appellant, and the Hearing examiner and the City Council understood that the subject addition would be no higher than the existing gymnasium. It would seem that if everyone understood that proposition,that the new addition would not be higher than the existing gymnasium,that including a height limitation as an independent condition was no more needed than including the building's width or length or base elevation. It would be surplus language. 13. It is clear from the applicant's admission that all the parties understood the new addition would, at least, not exceed, if not actually be shorter than the existing complex and that everyone relied on those diagrams and verbal representations and representations made by the applicant's then legal representative that the plans posted at the Conditional Use Hearing and analyzed and discussed by staff at that hearing constituted the application. Appeal of Comelus Gevers Re: Hi; ids Community Church File No.: AAD-93-158 January 31, 1994 Page 17 14. As noted,the "Application Procedure" for a conditional use permit is exacting. They are not intended to be speculative or based on dubious field work. "The application shall include a site plan drawn to scale showing the actual dimensions and shape of the proposed site,the exact sizes and locations of existing buildings and structures, if any,and of the proposed building or alteration." 15. A conditional use permit is specific to the use,the scope and the scale. It is not merely a shell that is approved. Nor is the approval solely for the use divorced from the bulk of the shell. A review of the criteria calls for an analysis of a number of factors. 16. If the applicant had submitted architectural plans for a 20 foot tall,two-story building with a flat roof, would the Hearing Examiner have had to included that precise language in the decision to foreclose the applicant from constructing a 25 foot tall building with a peaked roof. This office thinks not. The plans submitted by the applicant form the basis for the decision. A review of most of the conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner and the additional change by the City Council only highlighted issues and concerns where the plans were not clear or changes to established patterns were required. The basic framework of the building was not called out separately. There was no need to. Once again,what was the framework of the applicant's plans-a two-story, 25 foot tall building. What was required for a complete Conditional Use Permit- The application shall include a site plan drawn to scale showing the actual dimensions and shape of the proposed site,the exact sizes and locations of existing buildings and structures, if any, and of the proposed building or alteration. It seems clear that the parties had a right to rely on the plans submitted by the applicant. 17. Therefore, even if the "conditions" imposed by the Examiner and by the City Council neglected to specifically address the issue of height, the plans submitted by the applicant defined the height of the proposed addition. The applicant submitted plans for an addition that was 25 (twenty-five)feet tall and one that would not be higher than, nor visible over the existing gymnasium. The addition does not meet those terms. The Hearing Examiner's approval, as amended by the City Council, has the force of law. 18. With that issue out of the way, the decision can now turn to the question of whether or not those plans, like the basement floor the applicant installed,were set in concrete. It would appear that given appropriate legal foundation that there may be some flexibility to achieve a match of a new addition to an existing structure when the field conditions or some unforeseen change in circumstances might force a re- examination of the proposal. In other words, it may be reasonable to depart from the plans submitted and approved if support can be found in City Code for such changes. 19. Unfortunately, the record does not provide any basis or citation for allowing flexibility even to overcome the architectural problems in linking up the existing structure with the proposed addition. The letter lifting the Stop Work order(Exhibit No. 23)merely contains a conclusory statement without any support. That letter simply explains that staff reaffirmed its determination that the construction is "in general is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the conditional use permit CU-048-90." It's clear that the building is at least two feet taller than the "actual dimensions"required under the Conditional Use Permit Application Procedure(Section 4-31-36(E)). As concluded above,there was no mention of a"floored" crawl space, basement or other form of excavated space under the building in the original Conditional Use Permit approved by the Hearing examiner. And also as noted the concrete floor violated a direct administrative determination that was not appealed in a timely fashion. This issue will be remanded to the agency below to assess whether the deviation from the height was reasonable and to determine whether an architectural change such as thin steel cabling or structural glass could be used to form a safe but "transparent"parapet. 20. Between the excavation that was predicated on unstable soils, and the potentially excessive height, it appears that the applicant or, at least, its architect was hell-bent on moving ahead, even at the risk of violating permit conditions or administrative decisions. It was not going to be inconvenienced by a • Appeal of Cornelus Gevers Re: Hig s Community Church File No.: AAD-93-158 January 31, 1994 Page 18 height limit or a detailed soils analysis or another public hearing before pouring a concrete floor or even accurately measuring the existing structure and drawing up accurate plans for the required public review. 21. The applicant or its representative clearly cut corners or decided to be expedient instead of careful. It is not as if hidden in the bowels of the building were asbestos materials or weakened pipes that could not be uncovered until construction began. The physical dimensions,the juxaposition of hallways and restroom entrances which apparently stymied the applicant were always known or at least available if someone had •planned in advance or done a little field work. The "discovered" disparity in floor heights should have been evident when the project began. 22. Regarding the basement,the applicant could have avoided this complication easily. It could have just refilled the void created to find solid purchase with load bearing soils or it could have complied with the City decision and applied for an expanded conditional use permit to allow a basement. Again, its representatives made a decision in favor of the applicant without considering the law or previous decisions. 23. This office does not want to seem in anyway cavalier, callous, disrespectful or ignorant of the issue regarding church and state but in the instant case that the argument is lacking in imperative. The church as applicant applied for a conditional use permit and a rezone of its property. A recommendation to deny the rezone was forwarded to the City Council along with a recommendation to generally approve the conditional use permit subject to some conditions, including one on driveway access and another requiring the church to curtail weekday activities after 10:00 p.m. The appellant apparently withdrew or otherwise abandoned its appeal of the recommendation to deny the rezone. It limited its appeal of the conditional use permit to the issue limiting circulation through the driveway. It did not raise any church- state arguments curtailing the weekday activities. It did not raise or pursue any church-state arguments at all and submitted to the public hearing on both the rezone and the conditional use permits issues. 24. Now the Church raises the church state issue over something as secular as building height, not involving a steeple or religious adornment. The argument seems like a ruse to excuse its miscalculations, and it is clear that the applicant miscalculated dimensions. The applicant also breached its "gentleman's agreement" which was quite literally its promise to the surrounding community to keep the building below the level of the gymnasium. It also seems that the City is now attempting to have it both ways. It indicates that it believes the church is governed by Conditional Use Criteria and permitting requirements but that an enforcement action or appeal to hold the church to the requirements of the permit is barred by constitutional limitations. The question then must be asked, what good is it for the City to require a church to run the gauntlet of the permitting process if it can then thwart the process by violating the conditions that the church itself submitted as the basis for its application. Remember the church did appeal the underlying decision regarding the denial of a rezone and portions of the Conditional Use permit as it pertained to parking and circulation, but it did not appeal any conditions related to height. 25. This case can be distinguished from the church state cases cited by the respondents. First,there were no' factual allegations that the enforcement of these provisions might in any way interfere with the religious practices of the parishioners. Second,the applicant is the one who submitted the plans for a church addition that was to be 25 feet high or at least, no higher than and not visible over the adjoining gymnasium. These plans and restrictions were not imposed by an outside body like an Historic Preservation agency. Second, it would appear that the church informally entered into a gentleman's agreement with its neighbors. It is the church's own statements that suggest that the new addition would be "nestled in" with the adjoining gymnasium to diminish its impact on adjacent residents. With statements such as that, the appellant and his neighbors, at least, could count on some semblance of scale and compatibility. Until submitting those plans the church was free to build, like anyone else, an addition 35 feet high. The provisions are neutral, the church like any other non-single family residential applicant was governed by these regulations. (Citation omitted) Appeal of Comelus Gevers Re: Hie:.:_►ds Community Church File No.: AAD-93-158 January 31, 1994 Page 19 . 26. The church state issue is one this office cannot entertain at this time. That is not to say that it is not an important issue in some circumstances, it is just that attempting to raise it in these circumstances seems misplaced. The City Attorney reluctantly agreed that the applicant and churches in general are probably subject to the Conditional Use Permit process. This applicant submitted to it. Can the applicant now argue that it is exempt from an enforcement of those regulations? If so,this office will allow a more erudite body to deal with the issue. Under the circumstances the appeal is appropriate and is not barred by church/state case law. 27. This office does not find any basis to upset the original SEPA determination presented by the facts in the record. DECISION: . 1. The matter of whether the building's present height is appropriate given the field conditions vis a vis the underlying Conditional Use Permit is remanded to the decision maker, James C. Hanson, Development Services Director. The Director may choose to entertain whether another method of"walling" in the parapet is appropriate. 2. The appeal seeking to find the basement a violation of the Conditional Use Permit is granted. 3. The appeal regarding SEPA compliance is denied. ORDERED THIS 31st day of January, 1994. FRED J. KA MAN • HEARING EXAMINER • • TRANSMI 1"1'ED THIS 31st day of January, 1994 to the,parties of record: Cornelus T. Gevers 900 Kirkland Avenue NE Renton WA 98056 , Peter J. Eglick Bob Sterbank Peter J. Eglick&Associates Suite 1212, Bank of California Building 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle WA 98164 Dick Ralston 14221 W. Lake Kathleen Drive SE Renton WA 98056 • • Appeal;of Comelus Gevers Re: Higl 's Community Church File No.: AAD-93-158 January 31, 1994 Page 20 Dave Young 1913.1 SE May Valley Road Issaquah WA 98027 i• 1 George Kresovich Hillis Clark Martin&Peterson 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle WA 981017 2925 h . David Peterson Gabbert, Broweleit,Peterson 6920 220th SW, Suite 200 Mountlake Terrace WA 98043• Mark Pywell .Project Manager • TRANSMITTED THIS 31st day of January, 1994 to the following: ir -Mayor Earl Clymer Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Members,Renton Planning Commission Greg Zimmerman,Interim Plan/Bldg/PW Administrator Art Larson,Interim Fire Marshal Jim Hanson,Development Services Manager Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Mike Katterman,Interim Technical Services Administrator Manager Transportation Systems Division James Chandler,Building Official Utilities System Division Jay Covington,Mayor's Executive Assistant Valley Daily News Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, Request for Reconsideration must be filed in fi writing on or before 5:00 p.m., February 14, 1994. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or.based-on erroneous'procedure,errors of law or fact, erior in judgment, or the discovery of new!evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for -reconsideration by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request:! shall'set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper: Any appeal is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8,Section 11,which requires that such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within twenty(20)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. 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. • G - r. Appeal of Comelus Gevers Re: Higi;,-i ids Community Church File No.: AAD-93-158 January 31,1994 , Page 21 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. • • • • . . . .. • • .- r). h cs-io ra ph 6 Ft-erni. _ . . . • ,.. N 0. /A . . . • . .. . . . . , • I • , • . . ACTOAL nelanr ., . . , . •. . • oF ADPIPOPI . . • . . • . . _ • • , . . • • 4. ......— .0,...... lei° 4:4• • _ ..........._ —v. ...• 6pY I-I . _ .• Aoo r "It" ... . . •:;-- Li iv- :•-• .• .......„. ,:.,-, ..• , -110 . . .44. ,'.:,i*..-Vo.1.. .:r.7'. l'v; r •-,:'. . '..•; ...,,,- .:.'.-,.`'!--,:•4.•.1 41.."..".. F. ..."... 1 : .7,.f:•%4.4.;:..7.4.0...,:5. . . . . ..., ••••.;... .:..g.; agi:1;•.. ,#) .,• . • -, . „...._ ,,,i:, -1 • • ,! EX 1ST , ...4.. - . . ..54.„- ,•.••. ,4,, .1.: „:_• . , • ii:. .1 . • •,...._ .. • .... . ; ri 1 , ''• 4 ." .-.011:,..4 F -...:. ;.,.,4 --.4 :: 4 I ,1;...;.•••"0,-.1•• i..-•..-i..:,',:tii-;,:••••• ... ' .•' .:t 1 • . 1' . e... •4:tr....71 . - ri a• '4 t• --1, • - . . . ... . , • • - - • A • t‘ j •--.-,...-a.;:-.-..-- 5:".•,t.7.!:-...;--,.-., '• .4 .I . . . • •12122/q3 .. . . • • • . . • . .. . r • . -:.•-• - • :.-irt, ......t..._• ‘. . -- , -.• . -, •.- ...i-•_.-dp...!.......:- ..._•21.--• • 4....4750, ..•,..,2,2k, - ..---• . Ac7-0,11 lie/664/T I .- : . 54.---.,.--N. . \ ‘--'-•'; • •...v.....,.,•Alit'Z.,o, : 1. ziii.r..0.i. ;•, . i..s .. ,...t ....... coF AVPIT/oN-,.........................pr...... '4- • . . _ . ; i 'It. • . • - . • - f 4 .P Art..4V.4111011111:A.,.. It, 1 .. ... •m.:".../..::: ,.(ICA i6 . . . .. f .. • • :-'-• • . ..,.. • 1191Millkir - , ...:- -...i.,...--,-.: -..... .411:11. •-•-; ....00 iiiit • . 77::--.:37: _ , a'-- --_-,-..7,...._...-!-- , • . . :Agilr.° ----.--z----- -g..- .7„....... .,...,:tifp. •le , ft- , • _ _ .- • 14,:0p o : • • t ..:44 •... . . . . . • ....._:_.• .. .0 ...,...6.:.t.....,,...-•.. ; '.4. .tr,10!.".v."I. !;' vs s, , ••••*--i:.:.;!.-p:.. ,..;... .:71.......71-7:41;•:_ ftt"...f.':':".... .l'11:-...:- , I ..-. : 1,-,?,,,,,.... At; •-•%, ---;: k,,tl..2$5,... .,...t.,..„..,,..„:„.....g. ....,. a YN1 .0„ , 1 ,-: , . ., ..„ ..,.. Rowe' - -im-r.p...f.-_,--.:':,..;---•-... : • - .•-• ,•••.‘-..- - ,. • • • •.. • . • -i.--. . • -.. .- . . . • .. . / ... mg or. • , ..,., .mu. • :....I-. . li —. _ - .• . '. . . • ......; . .s- 1ST. . ... . ...... I .• I— ---; I II ! - ••••••• 44.1411 I•am.. . . • . . . . f s• ....,--4.• .. • :•• • a . • •. .. . _ - •• . . . . • • • Law Offices Peter J. Eglick & Associates • Suite 1212 • Bank of California Building • 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington.98164 Peter J. Eglick (206) 464-1435 Carol Eychaner Bob C. Sterbank FAX 382-3450 Land Use P4,rn,er • • • December 21, 1993 • • • • URGENT . • Sent by Fax to: 255-5474 ' Lawrence J. Warren Warren, Kellogg, Barber, Dean & Fontes, P.S P.O. Box 626 100 South Second Street Renton, Washington 98057 Re: Highlands Community Church, File Nos. CU;R-048-90 and LUA-93-152 • Dear Larry: • As you know from my earlier letter today, this office represents Cornelus T. Gevers • with regard to the. above , applications. • We write to request that the City immediately reimpose the stop work order previously imposed and then vacated on the above construction project. As discussed in detail below, failure to do so will subject the City to needless liability and result in expensive litigation for all parties concerned. As you know, the approval of the CUP for construction of the church addition was premised on a height no greater than that of the existing gymnasium. After approval of the CUP, the church apparently submitted plans to the City which' changed this premise, and commenced construction on them without further review or approval by the Hearing Examiner or notice to the interested public, including our client. As soon as our client discovered the change, he brought it to the City's attention and• demanded that a stop work order be issued. The order was issued, and then subsequently withdrawn by the City. We understand that, as part of the City's consideration of whether or not to withdraw the stop work order, the church made verbal commitments to the effect that it would not proceed with construction until after the appeal period and any appeal filed on withdrawal of • the stop work order had been resolved. . •Nevertheless, according to our client, construction is now proceeding briskly. Lawrence J. Warren . December' 21, '1.993 Page 2 Further, while.the; City Council instructed that any appeal to ' the Hearing Examiner' ,be expedited, •the City Planning Department staff has riot .allowed' Mr. Gevers to copy materials needed. for preparing an appeal to the Hearing.EXaininer. ' • For example, it has refused to allow Mr. Gevers 'to. make copies ..of portions of the . relevant plans submitted by the • church .to the ,City, which are obviously . important; to .resolution. of •the issues. on 'any 'appeal. . The City .should not view this matter. as one..•in•. which it . is. insulated from 'liability. Pursuant to Radach V. Gunderson, 39 Wn. App. 392 , 695 P. 2d 128 (1985) ', it is. the• City:which will be' liable • if, as • we expect *will •be ' the. case', .Mr. Gevers prevails in his . appeal before ..the Hearing. Examiner and/or '.in subsequent court . litigation. In Radach, • failure of. the City, of Ocean 'Shores to • enforce its zoning code requirements resulted in a decision by the , • court of appeals requiring abatement' (to satisfy the legitimate • concern of the affected neighboring property owner) ,' 'and' further • noting that .the city would be responsible to the, applicant' for any . • damages resulting from the need 'for. abatement.- The City of 'Renton has now.: placed' itself in the• same situation •here..• • • • • Another aspect .'of 'the matter which .has, arisen. recently also suggests that the City.should reimpose the. stop work. order. without . delay, rather • than awaiting . any subsequent . Hearing Examiner. . proceedings.- :It is• now' apparently conceded that the* church. has • also proceeded with•excavation and construction of a basement which was not part of the original Conditional Use•Permit. application 'and was not' approved by the Hearing .Examiner •in any manner. . In fact, the church has submitted. an, after.-the-fact application for such • construction, 'which' is pending. Yet, once again, it is continuing . with . construction on..the' project as, if its approvals are in hand. To make matters worse, the. basement construction apparently involves potentially . smelter-contaminated soils, based . on . an • • October 1992 soils report which was not .previously. disclosed to the• • • - . • 'public or to the Hearing Examiner. • • • . - . . . • This raises questions concerning not only the church!s 'failure ' • to obtain 'a Conditional Use Permit, -but also concerning its failure to comply. with ' Chapter 10 of the Renton Code, "Mining;. Excavation • and Grading, " , as ' well.. •.as the legality of the .threshold • determination for the :church. project, Which • apparently did ' not 'consider'`or disclose to the ..reviewing/commenting. public the, full . • scope of the project and all information available ,concerning*.its . potential environmental impacts.. . .- :• • . In *closing, .we . emphasize . again that this should not be a • matter of academic interest to • the City. • The. review of this . project has not been, consistent with applicable legal requirements. ' There is .a . substantial likelihood (if not • a.* Certainty) :that • LawrenceJ. • Warren • December 21,• 1993 Page 3 abatement will be required.. It is. in' .the City's interest to call . a halt to all further construction now, until the inconsistencies between the church's applications, • approvals, and subsequent construction have been 'sorted out and 'resolved.'• . ' . • Please advise immediately. as to the City's response • Sincerely, . . PST R. J. EGLICK` & .ASSOC7TES • = :P ter J. . 1 k • PJE:aeg... ' cc: , James Hanson, Planning Dept. , via fax Client • GEVERSIWARREN-L.APP11• • ••. • • • 1 , We also note' that•the history of usage of: the site suggests that, subsequent to 'the vacation . of Index, and .Jefferson •.Streets, the • public has established a 'prescriptive •easement for access across the. property' from the east to the west' and' north, and directly north:.to 'the nearby Safeway store, . To .the extent.that..the City has issued approvals ,which• .are 'inconsistent with . this prescriptive right, this. must••also be resolved.. A. .. • - ` l.. r,m'OF nE_.irrow Law Offices .. • : • Peter- J. Eglick & Associates • :.. Suite 1212. Ir.2 2. I993 . Bank'Qf California Building ,t :. ::.�:--. • • 900 Fourth Avenue ~! ;.b. ..r� Seattle, Washington 98164 Peter.J.'Eglick : (206);4641435 .:. ... Carol'Eychaner'. :'Sterbank f=AX'382-3450.' " '' Bobob • .:Lana Use Planner'. ' ' De 21:,. .•1993 IIRGENT•: .. ::. .. .. . Sent via . First-Class Mail 'and'•:Vi•a Fax to: '235.-2541 - ; ' : ' -City 'of Renton. Planning Depart,m3nt _ 20.0 Mill Avenue:'South': :• •.• • 'Renton, :Washington 98055: :.: •_ ••: . .. . . • . • : :',' ATTN: :James Hansony:;:Dire'ctor, .Development.::Services Division : _ : Re Request to Inspect and,Copy,Files :Pertaining. to.Highlands• ' .. • ": Community'.:Church Pursuant to the..•,Washington. : Public.. .. . •`: • Disclosure •'Act, •RCW::Ch. '..42::1'7 . -• : .. ' •' : Dear -Planning Department: • : • ' This letter::is. submitted:'on' behalf of. our .client,; Cornelus• • Gevers ..••• to repeat:', his earlier request: that.. :.,you . ,produce :for'.. .;.: '.•.::inspection:•-•:.and . copying ' materials in '::'€i�les :::rel•ating to the:- • applications:.submitted by'_the:Highlands Community: Church (including . ' :Fi'le::Nos-. ::CU;R.-04:8-90':and LUA-9.3-152).:. `. : • . . 'In particular, •Mr. Levers •is. requesting copies' 'of any and all..' . • •:Environmental:- : Checklists -.*:submitted• in •'connection ' :with:: these :applications , :and any:...threshold •;determinations`: .other: than issued :on. January 16; 1991 '•:(which we'..already have)'....,'.: `.Mr,.'.Gevers . is.`:also :'requesting :copies 'pr. the complete' October: • • . • 2', 1992, Geotechnical..Engineering Study:prepared:for this -project .. ' . by: .;Terra .:.Associates, : : Inc:.;:' '. any: .documents` or: . 'correspondence' : • pertaining.' to that: .study,; and:.. 'any.•.: documents' relating:' to ' soil • conditions:or•.soil .tests on .the"Project.site :or the:Church.'s .plans": or: 'actions:: 'pertaining :thereto::;;._ ' :;. This 'request also':includes inspection and copying of all plans `- :and ' schematics. submitted: in support- of these' °applications:: • ': We • understand: that the •Planning:,Department: has:-.refused ..to allow Mr. .Levers copies of ‘portions.: of ;.:these:;:..:plans,:;` citing': :' • ' . •ucopyright!!;:concerns:. :.: Please be':advised::that 'these•:•.plans.: are .part. :. : : . of -a :public .file; :and 'that:.Mr._. Gevers.:needs:to:review theri and:make :'copies: of 'them .to .Assist.. him .in Preparing .an 'appeal:'.to.'the Hear_ing : • Examiner and •for' other: legal,' non-.commercial 'purposes...: : .:° •• . Printed on recycled paper.with vegetable.based role ' City. ;of Renton Planning`':Department. .; December .21, :1993' Page •' - . • It•'is: a: violation:;of the :Washington:-Public:Disclosure Act,...:RCW :. . .• :Ch.. .,;.42.:17=:..:(See,:•; e:�_;-•,:RCW...42.•1.7•.27.0) ,.: for::the• City:.to :••refuse:,to �- . allow;these.-;'mater.ials ;to' be .copied:: Such..refusal will s• ubject::'the.:',.':: :City'.:to litigation,, damages, and: attorneys!, tees •.and.:.costs... :;:RCW ` •.42•. 17:340-(4) • • .. • „ -:We . tiould•:..-thiherefore'•... appreciate;: your :..prompt' and�:•complete .'•::•cooperation•:. with. Mr. .:: G,evers :,,in.::.copying::' these materials.•:today.;. . . :' • : :•pursuant to .this•.second• -request: • : - '• P'lea'se' contact:.-me, immediately: if :you.+have:•any::,questions':about., : ::' :: the .aboj,'. : Sincerely' • P .. :. :J. ..,'EGL•ICIt: & :ASSOCIATES--,' :. .: •' : _.:'.� ::�: ::,: .titer:. ee • 1 ick . f PJE:ae : :::•cc. Larry:•Warren Cit• Attorney, via.•-fax.':to-••255..547:4' }: ' ..Fred•.Kaufman.;:,•. City:Hearin Examiner .. v'ia. fax.. to '235.�25.13-. ;;:-:`: :'..- ;- '.- • Client�� II c% � CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Earl Clymer, Mayor Marilyn J. Petersen December 14, 1993 Mr. Bob Gevers 900 Kirkland Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Re: Waiver of Administrative Appeal Fee; Highlands Community Church Conditional Use Permit and Rezone; File No. R,CU-90-048 Dear Mr. Gevers: This letter will confirm the Council action taken at the regular Council meeting of December 13, 1993, concerning the Highlands Community Church building height. Following discussion, the Council adopted a motion advising that you file an administrative appeal with the Hearing Examiner within the 14-day appeal period. The Council also waived the required $75.00 filing fee. Please feel free to call if additional information or assistance is needed. Sincerely, Marilyn . Pe rsen, CMC City Clerk cc: Mayor Earl Clymer Council President Bob Edwards Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2501 • 4:1A 61-2 • tg , .. . / � r 4a:, (ii , . t hi ,/, ., vio f/q0 ,, . . . , • p • COM NITY CHURCH • 3031 Northeast Tenth Street, Renton,,Washington 98056-3131 • Telephone (206)2554751 • December 15, 1993 • ' DEC 2 0 1993 Facsimile (206)255-5460 ttI\ !U Iki v►i i .,vtVCIL lu Bob Edwards Renton City Council . ' ' • 200 Mill Avenue South . . Renton, WA 98055. Dear Mr: Edwards: . • At the last City Council meeting our church became a subject once again of • ,'heated controversy and debate. You are certainly seasoned in dealing with :conflict-and working it through for the benefit Of the citizens. So, I am not writing regarding the issue that was before you and is now directed to the • Hearing Examiner. I am writing because my integrity and the integrity of Highlands Community Church has been publicly called into question by . members of City Council. • Jim Amandus Senior Pastor During the previous,City Council assertions were made by members of the Brenda Chance � audience accusing Highlands Community Church of disregarding the Preschool is neighbors. We were characterized as people who proceeded until they got caught--an example of trying to get away with as much as they can. Those David Grover statements went unchallenged by the Council. In addition, Council members Worship/Music endorsed the attitude that Highlands is guilty of deceit and'dishonesty! Kelly Johnson High p City.Council was explained to.the.Cit Council that our architects neglected to inform us Junior of any modifications that they made to our building plans. It was their Ron Lawler perception that they were well within the City building codes and the Adults/Singles al expressed parameters outlined by the Hearing Examiner.,The new building was never mandated at a certain height. However, our neighbors and we Chris Renzelman 'ourselves understood that the height of our new building would not exceed' Students/Young Adults ' the height of our gymnasium. As construction proceeded it was,obvious that Mike Smith - ' the new building is about one foot above the adjoining gymnasium. Small Groups/Missions ' I do not resist nor resent the neighbors appealing to the Hearing Examiner for Marlene Spann :... 1 - clarification of this issue. We have respected and appreciated the quality of m ;Y_Children ,•- —-- __.. --',. —leadership that:the City has provided.. However.,.Iq• uestion b _ do-resent qutioeing Bob Stevens 1 Chaplaincy ' I placed on our integrity or honesty with you as a City Council or our neighbors. We have acted in good faith, and will continue to do so. Since I assumed the leadership of Highlands Community Church, five years rago, I have chosen not to respond to comments during Council meetings from . 4 City Council members regarding past actions of Highlands. Since I was not in leadership at that time I am unable to address them first hand. However, I take great offense at any,public insinuation that would call my leadership or the good name of Highlands Community Church into question regarding this I current issue. Yes, this is an issue that needs to be resolved. But, this is NOT • s an issue of dishonesty or deception. I trust that this situation will be resolved without needless polarization of the citizens in our community who attend Highlands by the inaccurate statements and sentiments by Council members. When I have questioned the Councils motives or decision I'have come e to you directly. I request the same respect from you before you prejudge my motives or decisions. During the recent strike, when people maligned the City Council, I defended your integrity-I hope to experience the same from you. It is my commitment to see our city benefit from the united efforts of religious, business, and political leadership. Let us continue to work together at building goodwill among us. Sincerely im Amandus Senior Pastor E , k , ' 6 Lo„d use WHEN RECORDED RE'TUI- k Office of the City Clerk Renton Munidpal Building OR IG N aL 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 • After • -cordi,g Return to: George K.eso ich Hillis Cl. Martin &Peterson, P.S. •" • 500 Gallan• Building 1221 Seco • .venue Seattle, 'A • 101-2925 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS • This Declaration of Covenants ("Declaration") . is .made by the HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH, a not for profit corporation ' ' organized and existing under the. laws of the State of Washington, (the "Highlands Church") , for the benefit of the City of Renton (the "City") , • a municipal corporation of the ,State ' of Washington. . RECITALS A. Highlands Church owns two adjacent parcels of land CD within the City. The first parcel of property (referred to as co "Parcel- A") is the site of the existing Highlands Community rJ Church building. That parcel is legally described in Exhibit A attached to and incorporated in this Declaration. The second CD parcel of property (referred to as "Lot 4") is partially, used to provide parking to serve the Church building located on Parcel A (7- and is partially vacant. B. The Highlands Church has obtained a conditional use ' ' ' permit from the City of Renton authorizing certain land use activities on the two parcels of property described above. In approving that conditional use permit the City has relied upon the parking. provided on a portion of Lot 4 to serve the Church structure on Parcel A. C. The parties wish to provide for the continued use of a portion of Lot 4 to provide parking to serve Parcel A and to provide for the future potential use of Lot 4 either by the Highlands Church. or by a. successor in interest while continuing to provide such parking. NOW, THEREFORE, Highlands Church covenants as follows: 1. That portion of Lot 4 legally described in Exhibit B attached to and incorporatedin this Declaration shall continue to be used to provide parking to serve the existing church located on Parcel A subject to the following conditions: ' - 1 - r 11�ti ..-.�,n .-q�;t �! 00 tS:2D . r CC_`.C290E€ �J �T '�.7� �7;�J ;';.11;7J•���' .,:`l%! � Ji;:.•t r,,: JU .] >� 5�0 .�1. • 9 1. 1 In the event that the City amends the parking requirements, established in its applicable ordinances or in . the event that the City establishes different parking requirements that are specifically applicable to the use on Parcel A through an individual permit or approval issued by ' the City, and in the event that such change in the City's general or specific parking requirements applicable to Parcel A reduces or eliminates the need for the parking provided for on Lot 4, then the area on that portion of Lot 4 subject to this restrictive covenant may be reduced or eliminated provided that sufficient parking is provided on Lot 4 to comply with either the general or the specific parking requirements governing the use of Parcel A at that time:. 1.2 in the event that the Highlands Church wishes to build one or more additional structures on Lot 4' or to expand it's existing Church located on Parcel A onto Lot 4 this restrictive covenant shall not prevent such a structure or structures or such an addition from being built on that portion of Lot 4 subject to this covenant; rm provided, however,, that. Highlands Church will continue to provide all of the required parking necessary to serve the CJstructure or structures located on Parcel A and on Lot 4 as `O provided by the general ordinances of the City or by the. C specific conditions of any individual permit or approval granted by the City to the Highlands Church. This parking shal,l be provided either on the remainder of Lot 4 that is not presently subject to this restrictive covenant or on such other property proposed by the Highlands Church and accepted by the City as a location for such parking. In the event that Highlands Church wishes to relocate the parking presently provided on the area subject to this restrictive covenant, Highlands Church shall execute and record a restrictive covenant providing for similar restrictions as those contained in this Declaration on the property on which the parking will be relocated. 1. 3 The parking provided on the area subject to this restrictive covenant may be jointly used by the Highlands Church and some other property owner in the vicinity; provided, however, that such a joint use agreement shall comply with all of the ordinances of the City regulating such parking agreements and provided that such a joint use agreement shall not materially interfere with the use of the area subject to this restrictive covenant for its primary purpose of providing parking to serve the church use now existing on. Parcel A. • 2 - 7 2 . This Declaration is intended to run with the land, to benefit the City, and to be binding upon the successors and assigns of the Highlands Church. This Declaration shall last so long as Parcel A is used for church purposes under the existing land use approvals granted by the City or by subsequent permits and approvals granted by the City to the Church or its. successors in interest. 3 . Nothing in this Declaration shall be interpreted as preventing or prohibiting other uses of that portion of Lot 4 that is not subject to this restrictive covenant; nor shall this Declaration be interpreted to prohibit the legal division of Lot 4 through a boundary line adjustment, short plat, formal plat, or other legal process of the City and the sale or lease of the parcel or parcels so created. 4. In any, action brought to enforce this Declaration or . to determine the rights of the parties under this Declaration, the prevailing party shall be entitled to collect, in addition to any judgment awarded by a court, a reasonable sum as attorneys' fees; and all costs and expenses incurred in connection with such a lawsuit. For the purposes of 'this rm Declaration, the prevailing party shall be that party in whose CO favor final judgment is rendered, or who substantially prevails, Cr) if both parties are awarded judgment. This Declaration shall be N governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. DATED as of this Z, ' day of May, 1993 . HIGHLANDS OMMUNITY CHURCH s By e...4 -7(4400L-- Its (3o k �- STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS. COUNTY OF KING ) On this . 2nd day of June , 1993, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared William Dunn , to me known to be Chairman of Board of Highlands Community Church, the corporation that executed the , foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation for the - 3 - • uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL hereto affixed the day and year first above written. f°•`s. 1 ' NOTARY PUBLIC in an forAf the =� % State-f. Was ington, residing r . _ ; .. ..... at • N. a 1.� ' '� My commission expires -�2-p3 3 17 2-14 • CO (J • r.) (f. — 4 — EXHIBIT A TO THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BETWEEN THE HIGHLANDS COMITY CNuRCB AND THE CITY OF RENTON LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL "A" Block 32., corrected plat of Renton Highlands No. 2, according to the plat recorded in Volume 57 of Plats, pages 92 to 98, in King County, Washington. Together With those--portions--of--vacated Jeffersofl AVenue Northeast adjoining, :which: upon vacation,' attached .to said premises by operation of law. Also together with the following described parcel: 'Commencing at the Northeast corner of Block 33 of said plat: 00 Thence South 02°52'2l" West along the East line of said Block 33 --- a distance of 220.00 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 4 of City of Renton Short Plat No. 188-78 as recorded under King OQ v0 County recording number 7808170836, and the true point of O beginning: c-0 Thence. South 87°07'39" East 30.00 feet to the centerline of vacated Jefferson Ave. N.B. : . Thence North 02052''21" East along said centerline 30.00 feet: Thence North 87°07'.39" West 30.00 feet to, the East line of said Block 33 : _ Thence South02°52'21"West along said East line 30.00 feet to the point of beginning. All Situate in the Northwest quarter of Section 9, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M.. in. the City of Renton, County of King, state of Washington. . 317200 .i^ EXHIBIT B TO TEE IutBTRICTIPS COVENANT BETWEEN • • TSB HTanctiANDS GOMLttrNivz cHURCg AND THE CITY OF RENTON LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THAT PORTION OF LOT 4 SUBJECT TO REBTRICTlvS PARKING COvBNANT That portion of Lot 4 of. the city of Renton Short Plat recorded under King County recording number 7808170836 and vacated Jefferson Avenue N.E. adjacent thereto contained within the following described property: .._- Beginning at the . of tlie centerline of said vacated Jefferson Ave-. N:B`_ with 'the North margin of N.E. 9th Street being 30 feet Northerly of the centerline of said N.E. 9th Street: Thence N 2°52'21" E along the centerline of said vacated Jefferson Ave. N.E. , a distance of 220.00 feet: Thence N 87°07139n W 30.00 feet: Thence' N 2°52'21" E 123.17 feet: Thence N 65°27'17" W 245.29* feet: Thence N 5°08'21" E 249.54 feet: Thence N 54°36'45" W 54.51 feet: Thence S 1°57'48" W 315.18 feet: Thence S 65°27'17" E 138.00 feet: to Thence S 2°52'21" Vt. 377.48 feet to the Northerly margin of said 0 N.E. 9th Street being a point on a curve concave to the South CO through which radial line bears N 13°29'45" W r Thence along said Northerly margin and said curve to the right, �O having a radius of .871.59 feet, through a.central angle of 0 10°47'00", an arc distance of 164.04 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 73,344 S.F-.-, Ttiore or less. 3 1 7 2 0 0 ' TOTRL P.08 ..,.o rnr cn W111AINS DOS.KY.CYCLED MATERIAL.10%POST CONSI IMFR ' Highlands Community Church CU;R-048-90 March 12, 1992 _ _ Ele ie----=-P c 9-(2---( Page 5 �R m/4 t''X 4 4-1/4-) JIM AMANDUS, Senior Pastor, Highlands Community Church, 3031 NE 10th Street, Renton, WA 98056, offered a description of the building, a two-story structure of 13,800 square feet, stating that the purpose of the new structure would be to add six additional classrooms to provide services for the existing membership, not necessarily to enlarge membership. Regarding parking, he advised that the church had taken steps to encourage members to stop parking on the street. The Hearing Examiner asked about the success of this campaign, whether the members were parking on the lot or on the street. Mr. Amandus answered that according to a recent traffic study, there had been significant progress. The Examiner asked about classes during the middle of the week. Mr. Amandus stated that ..... �- .__ . p as ld classes were he on SundaX,_and during,the middle b le of the week there was a Wednesday evening club rog ram. STEVE HAMMER, Gabbert Broweleit Peterson Architects PS, 6920 220th SW, Suite 200, Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043, stated that there were some minor changes on the plans, and the square footage was changed because the plan was modified slightly so that all of the addition would be on the current R-1 zone and that future work or future additions would be separated onto the B-1 zone. Possible future construction of a sanctuary would take place entirely on the B-1 zone, but these were two totally separate projects. He offered Exhibit #6 showing updated elevations, saying the elevator penthouse had been raised to tie into the third floor of the existing building. The substantial Dart of the building was 25 feet high„ while the elevator.,pnthpuse was planned to be 37 feet above,the_finished floor of the lower level. Square footage would also be affected, as the addition would be 13,769 square feet instead of 12,800 square feet as stated in the staff report. The existing building was 43,425 square feet. One minor addition to the front of the building was a triangular piece that was cut out of the building on the southwest corner of the new structure, and if there was an addition in the future, it would have had to be built back onto the building. The other discrepancy which Mr. Pywell had mentioned was the area of the zone in question, the amount of the rezone would be 2.9 acres and the existing B-1_zone. was five acres. The Examiner stated that he would prefer that those types of things were carefully described early in the process, and he hoped the legal notice over-included rather than under-included, to correctly inform the public. Mr. Hammer stated his site plan had shown the correct figures all along and he didn't know where the discrepancy came from. He clarified how he arrived at the four photos (Exhibit #5) showing the new addition superimposed on the current building, stating that it was not an exact construction but an approximation to the best of his ability. Mr. Hammer made the following corrections to the staff report: 43,425 square foot rather than 42,500 square foot church building; the square footage of the addition was 13,769, not 12,800; it had an 8,770 square foot footprint, not 6,697; the church complex would be 57,194 square feet when complete, and the footprint was 17,289 square feet rather than 17,995. The area of the new paving that was just done by the church was 24,000 square feet, which would accommodate 75 cars. Mr. Wilson stated that the actual notices that went out to the public did not state any particular acreage, but since the actual acreage being rezoned was less than what Mr. Pywell was asserting, he felt there would have been an over-inclusion, so no one was mislead. The staff report indicated that the site was not served by Metro when actually, there were two bus routes that stopped on Kirkland and NE 10th streets. In terms of the rezone from R-1 to P-1, this parcel had been zoned R-1 for three decades, and for that entire time the Comprehensive Plan had indicated this parcel as planned for public/quasi-public uses. Mr. Wilson recapped zoning requirements, and said the growth and success of the church had changed since the last zone change in the 1950's. He felt that the growth of the church constituted considerable change in conditions that would substantiate the Rezone. He also felt that it was highly unlikely that this property would ever revert back to development as private residential, therefore he felt the P-1 zoning would be more appropriate, and provide more predictability for the church in terms of its • Highlands Community Cnurch CU;R-048-90 March 12, 1992 / LMj 1 ad t /4V L- I S Pc-102-(- to 35 feet in R-1, and no restrictions on lot coverage. That raised fears that residential concerns would be stonewalled. He wondered why the zoning couldn't be left the way it was and the applicant could continue to operate as they had for the last 34 years, while the residents could have confidence that they could continue to receive protection under the R-1 zone, which prohibited development of uses detrimental to the residential environment, a clause not found in P-1. He also felt that rezoning to bring the property into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan was not a strong enough reason in that the language in the Plan stated that the plan was not a developmental ordinance and not intended to retroactively impose compliance with goals, objectives and policies of non-existent property, which to him meant that the Plan itself was not a reason for compliance. Regarding the Conditional Use Permit, Mr. Hoshide said that the church was the significant structure in the area, and they had been able to co-exist all these years, but now the church was asking for more expansion. He felt that the neighbors would be trapped by continued growth of the church which would impact their property values and quality of life. The neighbors felt strongly that the 55,300 square-foot size of the church would result in a David and Goliath relationship, and the neighborhood could not tolerate more growth. The Examiner advised that the time allotted for the hearing had run out, court was going to convene immediately, and he would continue the hearing to a time and date certain. He stated that the public was welcome to come at that time, but he would limit testimony and would allow no repetitious testimony as there was no point to that. He also asked that the applicant submit a concrete proposal as ,y( .he would like to know that the ro osal before him was the final one that staff and the neighbors could review as the fina proposal. -- Mr. Wilson stated that the revision in square footage was only a discrepancy, not a plan change. WILLIAM J. FLYNN, 911 Lynnwood Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98056, asked what ever happened to the park that, in 1953, was designated for that area. BETTY J. COWAN, 905 Lynnwood Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98056, asked why the applicant had requested a change from R-1 to P-1 on the east side of the property. This matter was continued to 2:00 p.m., February 13, 1992. The hearing closed at 12:59 p.m. Subsequently, the hearing was re-scheduled to February 20, 1992. The hearing resumed at 2:05 p.m., February 20, 1992 as the Examiner called for continuing testimony from those opposed to the proposed Conditional Use and Rezone applications by the Highlands Community Church. Ms. Cowan spoke in reference to the traffic engineer's testimony, stating she felt that Ms. Reinart must have visited an entirely different site to have come up with a report showing no parking problems. Ms. Cowan said she was familiar with the driving route that swings on Kirkland to NE 10th and turns at NE 9th because she had driven that way to church and during the week, and there was stop and go traffic around the church on any Sunday, a problem which had become increasingly worse over the years. She said many of her neighbors shared her opinion, and presented a petition regarding traffic congestion. MARRESHEEN McKAY, 904 Kirkland AVE NE, Renton, WA 98056, stated that she had to get up at 4:00 a.m. each morning to leave for work and found it impossible to get to sleep because of all the traffic and noise associated with the church activities. She felt that by 8:30 or 9:00 p.m. at night, it should be quiet so a person could get to sleep, and presented a petition regarding noise which had been signed by other neighbors who were also concerned about the noise and bus and other traffic. 4,'.— : mm F e/ 1....e.:71 _.---41-.. .,...• ' . •-_-,-_,,-_-_—_ _...:1 !:ii:.,',.,.-.:1;-7/„Dli...077--..-. yAnGap. C /OYTM ri.1....br{"mx. ... R pTY,10-FiYI G/Wflo.lv�O.1- -. - - __ w4.eMW7 Ta-1 Ioo^,c..1 - -,f I IP I Ii • • ITI r I I ar 7i— ��. __ rn = — m— 1 r� ' Well' .,26'Tt Ill 101 IC ELEVATIONS A4 / m Omunity ,�.•�l•-o•, M Church Rcneo u.,q ai _ar«•e1.C,.*kr+•_ PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE H [NG EXAMINER H ANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH 1 February 4, 1992 r Page 7 6.--4-cr-:- iee-pe,-(2 — In the past, area residents have noted that the on-site landscaping of the church was not adequately maintained. Staff is recommending to the Hearing Examiner that the applicant be required to submit a surety device of $3,000 to ensure that the landscaping is maintained. 3. Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. The following site requirements shall be required: a) Lot Coverage: Lot coverage in residential districts (R-1 and R-2) shall not exceed fifty percent (50"/0) and the lot coverage of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Lot coverage in all other zones shall conform to the requirements of zone in which the proposed use is to be located. The P-1 zone does not have a lot coverage requirement. The proposed building, with the addition, would cover approximately 10 percent of the subject property, this is less than other zones limit building development. b) Yards: Yards shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Additions to the structure shall not be allowed in any required yard. As noted previously, the applicant needs to obtain a lot line adjustment in order to provide the required rear yard setback. The applicant has worked out a lot line adjustment with the adjacent property owner and a copy of the agreement is in 1, ! the file. The applicant has placed the lot line adjustment application in an escrow account to ensure that it will be recorded at the time this application is approved. i. ' $ The applicant and the adjacent property owner did not want to complete the lot f' \' line adjustment if this application was not approved. As there would be no reason for requiring the lot line adjustment without the proposed church addition being constructed as proposed, the request to place the document in an escrow account seemed reasonable to the ERC and the City Attorney. Once the lot line adjustment is recorded and the property has changed over to the church, the proposed location of the existing church building and the proposed addition will meet all Code-required setbacks. c) Height: Building and structure heights shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Spires, belltowers, public utility antennas or similar structure may exceed the height requirement upon approval of a variance. Building heights should be related to surrounding used in order to allow optimal sunlight and ventilation, and minimal obstruction of views from adjacent structures. XAs_nDt _previously, the proposed addition will not exceed the height of the existing structures. The proposed height of the addition is twenty-five feet (25'). X The P-1 zone allows a maximum height of fifty feet (50'). The applicant has ic located the proposed structure at the rear of and in the view shadow of the existing church building in order to limit the visual impact of the addition on area Ix residents. Staff believes that the proposed addition will provide the minimal obstruction of existing views, while still providing the additional floor area that the applicant has requested. prelmrpt CIT' OF RENTON "'l Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator December 10, 1992 Mr. David M. Young 19131 SE May Valley Road Issaquah, WA 98027 SUBJECT: �ighlands Community Church �c U-048-90 Dear Mr. Young: We have completed a review of the materials that were submitted by you with the request to allow a basement to be constructed under the proposed addition to the church as part of the existing conditional use permit. The submittal of this request requires an interpretations of the Renton Municipal Code. As you are aware the originally proposed two-story addition was approved as a Conditional Use Permit under Section 4-31-36 of the Renton Municipal Code. This section of the Code does not contain language which would allow for an administrative determination permitting an increase in size of a proposed project beyond that which was described at the time of the public hearing. The 3,800 square foot basement was not discussed at the time of the public hearing, nor was it discussed at the subsequent Planning and Development Committee meetings. Thus, I believe the addition of a basement, at this time, could only be considered under a new conditional use permit which would have to be reviewed by this Division and brought before the Hearing Examiner at a public hearing. Although we can not allow the construction of a basement under the existing conditional use permit (CU-0 t8-90), in reviewing the Uniform Building Code we have determined that a crawl space without a floor can be constructed under the existing conditional use permit. This area would need to be "shelled off" so that it could only be used as a crawl space and not be used for storage. If a concrete floor is required for the structural support of the walls, then we would have to consider it as a basement and not as a crawl space. If, at some future date, you wanted to convert this space to a basement, we would be willing to consider it under the appropriate permits. It appears that even under the zoning codes that are being developed by staff to replace the existing Zoning Ordinance the basement would require a conditional use permit. _00 . . W�5..._-; :.. 98Cf5 Mr. David M. Young , December 10, 1992 CU-048-90 Page - 2 If you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact either Mark Pywell, Project Manager, or me at 235-2550. Since this is an administrative decision it can be appealed subject to the provisions of Section 4-8-11.B. within 14 days from the date of this letter. Such appeals are to be filed with the Office of the Hearing Examiner and must be accompanied by a $75.00 filing fee. Sincerely, ,Dc�vc-��eQ_ • �� ,�-A�J �1Lc cam-$ Donald K. Erickson Zoning Administrator yotrg3llattat3 WO 410410 November 18, 1992 , �iFi�pMENT PLANNING 'Eiv oN Mr. Mark R. Pywell NOV 1 S1992 Planning Department bit,Jz City of Renton �, E/VEp 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Mr. Pywell: Pursuant to our conversation of November 17, I would like to outline our request regarding the addition of a basement storage area to our approved conditional use permit #C U-48-90. As I mentioned, our intent is to use the basement strictly for storage and we would likely be agreeable to almost any reasonable stipulations to assure that the facility be limited to that use. Your letter mentioned that the basement would add approximately 6000 square feet to the project. Due to the fact that the east wall of the basement will be held well back from the existing outer gym wall it will actually add only about 3800 feet to the new building area. I realize it is still well over the 10 percent limit you referred to in your letter, but it is much less invasive than a full basement would be. Apparently from our discussion, the code is unclear or silent on the subject of adding accessory uses such as we are proposing to a conditional--use permit after the permit has been approved. I understand that the City staff have interpreted that as depriving them of any administrative discretion in the process, holding instead that any changes that increase the square footage of the approved project, whether accessory or primary, require a new conditional use permit. We would like to get a definite decision on this matter if possible. If staff determines that they absolutely cannot act administratively on this change, we would appreciate knowing what our alternatives are and your suggestions on the fastest and most efficient way of accomplishing our objective. We are hopeful that there is at least some shortcut to the full conditional use application process. In addition, we are anxious to know, should a new or modified application be necessary, if the Planning Department staff would be supportive. Though we believe our proposal is consistent with the spirit of the code, we know that the City staff's support is vital to our success. We are most anxious to resolve these questions. If I can be of any assistance, please contact me at 839-6610 or 235-1572. S' :1 ely, 4 ...., -0'41.4u2wer- David M. Youn Highlands Community Church CITY 'F RENTON "LL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator November 9, 1992 Mr. Robert A. Bozorth Architect Gabbert Broweleit Peterson Architects 6920 220th SW, Suite 200 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church CU-048-90 Dear Mr. Bozorth: We have reviewed your request to add a basement to the proposed addition for which a conditional use was approved by the City of Renton on June 22, 1992. It is our opinion that the addition of the basement would be an expansion of the condition use permit that was considered under an appeal and finally approved by the City Council. Our concern is that the basement would add approximately 6,000 square feet of storage area. The proposed addition that was previously considered under the conditional use permit included a total of 13,769 square feet of area. The proposed basement would increase the square footage of the addition by more than 43 percent. This is well above the limit of 10 percent that staff can review administratively. Another concern is that at a latter date, this area could easily be converted to another use potentially without further City review, increasing the parking demand beyond that which was considered at the time of the original permit review. It is our recommendation that you utilize one of the alternative methods for supporting the proposed structure that is analyzed in the geological report that was submitted with your letter. The inclusion of a basement in the project at this time would cause enough of a change to the original project description and to the size of the addition, to require the submittal of a new conditional use permit. If you choose to proceed with a new conditional use permit for the proposed basement, I would recommend waiting until after the first of the year. As you are aware the City is currently developing a new zoning ordinance which could potentially alter the submittal requirements for any such proposal. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 235-2550. Sincerely, 04/re4,/ Mark R. ywell Project Manager BozoilhAetter 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Gu, R -048 - 90 " CITY IF RENTON }^ -;, Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator October 16, 1992 Mr. David A. Peterson AIA Principal GBP Architects, P.S. 6920 220th SW, Suite 200 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church Dear Mr. Peterson: We have reviewed you letter dated October 9, 1992. Please submit a copy-of the geological report that describes the "bad dirt" and the quantity of dirt that you wish to remove. We would also need a site plan of the area of the church where you wish to locate the "narrow ramp". As you are aware this project was closely reviewed by the neighbors and it was also reviewed by the City Council. We need to be sensitive to the concerns expressed at the public hearings when we are review these plans to ensure that we are not expanding the scope of work significantly beyond that which was described in the project description. If you have any questions regarding these concerns, please contact me at 235-2550. Sincerely, Mark R. P ell Project Manager • 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ftsgmmaraw GABBERT BROWELEIT PETERSON ARCHITECTS PS PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON October 9, 1992 OCT 1 3 1992 City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South R E Loci v It O Renton, WA 98055 ATTN: Mark Pywell Planner RE: Highlands Community Church Dear Mr. Pywell: In our telephone conversation I told you that the soils tests we received for this project indicates that there is 8 to 9 feet of bad soil which will need to be removed from the area below the proposed building. Because of this, the Owner wishes to develop a basement below the addition. The basement would be used for storage of church supplies, decorations, etc. We anticipate that a narrow ramp would be built along the west side of the addition to allow access to the basement. The addition will not impact parking requirements for the project, as it will be only used for storage. The addition of a basement will not change the appearance of the addition, as it will be underground. Please let me know if there would be any problem developing this basement under the Conditional Use Permit the church presently holds. We will be waiting for your decision. Sincerely, GBP Architects, P. . David A. Peterson, AIA Principal Enc. • Principals: Marlin J.Gabbert AIA, Larry L. Broweleit AIA, David A.Peterson AIA 6920 220th SW Suite 200 Mountlake Terrace WA 98043 (206)774-47,01 FAX(206)776-5177 cu 0en-90 James & Linda, St.John 1010 Kirkland Ave. NE Renton, WA 98056 August 8, 1992 PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON AUG 1 1 1992 Mr. Mark Pywell RECEIVED City of Renton Planning, Building, Public Works Dept. 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 • Dear Mr. Pywell, 1'04 am writing in response to your letter regarding restricted parking along Kirkland Avenue. My wife and I are against this proposal. The members of the Highlands Church usually park in front of our house on Sundays only, but they have never been bothersome. We have had no noise or nuisance problems and our driveway has never been blocked. As a civil engineer, I get involved in site development projects, which require off-street parking for all events. Most streets are wide enough for overflow parking and are already dedicated for use by the automobile. Church and school properties could be better used for more buildings, playfields, and landscaping rather than larger parking lots. Have you considered allowing the church to use the unemployment office parking lot on NE 10th as an overflow lot? It is never used on Sunday. In addition, the requirements for the parking permit seem very bothersome • with annual renewals and trying to obtain guest passes. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely yours, itafn,66 -v It If • ou -0?1-70 CIT'z OF RENTON Office of the City Attorney Earl Clymer; Mayor Lawrence J. Warren '`''VINO DIVISION ENTON JUL 3 0 1992 • to ED July 29 , 1992 Mr. Michael K. Davis-Hall Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson 1221 Second Avenue, #500 • Seattle, WA 98101-2925 Re: Highlands Community Church Escrow Dear Mr. Davis-Hall: By letter dated July 1, 1992 I asked for some further direction concerning this escrow. Just in case you did not receive a copy of my July 1st letter, another copy is attached. I note that four (4) weeks have gone by since my prior correspondence to you. I am absolutely powerless to act without further direction. Therefore, if I have not received direction on this matter, by August 15, 1992 , I will return the paperwork to you and close my file. Very truly yours, (5-/ Lawrence]. Warm Lawrence J. Warren LJW: ldm Enclosure cc: Mayor . Jay_ Covington ark Pywell • Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057 - (206) 255-8678 • Mg, ' Y" OF RENTON Administrative Services Earl Clymer, Mayor Dan Clements, Director June 25, 1992 Mr. Cornelus (Bob) Gevers 900 Kirkland Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Michael Davis-Hall - Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 5,00 Seattle, WA 98101 Subject: Appeals of Highlands Community Church Rezone and Conditional Use Permit Requests; File No. R-048-90 and CU-048-90. Dear Messrs. Gevers and Davis-Hall: At the regular Council meeting of June 22, 1992, the Renton City Council concurred in the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee that because the City is currently revising the Comprehensive Plan, the requested rezone is premature. The Council also determined that closure of the northernmost driveway to the church property on Kirkland Avenue NE would be detrimental to traffic circulation and safety; therefore, the hearing examiner's decision to permit the closure was reversed. Finally, Council recommended that the applicant and staff continue to work together to determine whether ingress only from the northernmost entrance to the subject property from Kirkland Avenue NE would be appropriate. Enclosed are copies of both of the Planning and Development Committee reports adopted on June 22, 1992, regarding this matter. Please feel free to call if additional information is needed. Sincerely, Marilyn J P t sen, CMC City Clerk 235-2502 cc: Mayor Earl Clymer Councilwoman Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Mark Pywell, Senior Planner Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner Enc. (2) 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton. Washington 98055 APPROVED ' %/1 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT DUNE 22, 1992 ' Highlands Community Church Appeals,File No. CU;R-048-90 (Referred 4/6/92) The Planning and Development Committee met on May 28, 1992 to review the.appeals on Highlands Community Church. The property is located at 3031 N.E. 10th Street. The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly 2.9 acres of the project site from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to P-1 (Public Zone). Additionally, the applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit to construct a 3-story addition to the church for classroom and office space. The committee notes that the city is currently working on a new Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, it is the opinion of the committee that any change in zoning at this time would be premature and, therefore, concurs with the recommendation of the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner also decided that a conditional use permit should be approved subject to numerous conditions, one of which was the closure of the northernmost driveway of Kirkland Avenue N.E. The committee finds that the closure of this driveway would be detrimental to traffic circulation and safety, therefore recommends the council reverse the hearing examiner's decision regarding closure of this driveway. Further, this committee recommends that the Traffic Department be directed to work with the applicant to determine if ingress only circulation from irkland Avenue would be a ropriate. 4u-C( t.n.ry In all other matters of the,appeals, the committee recommends concurrence with the hearing examiner's recommendations and decisions. /1g,Of /cf-Y4-77:a Bo Edwards, Chair Richard M. Stredicke, Vice-Chair ncviit-c-inAogrw,-5 a ,044- v^/ Nancy L. thews, Member ' 741- n`/ CITY9:37:as. cc : . Mark Pywell Don Erickson A1OV ED PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT JUNE 22, 1992 Residential Parking Permit Zones for Residential Streets Located Near Highlands Community Church On May 28, 1992, the Planning and Development Committee met to review the appeal of the Highlands Community Church. During that meeting it was determined that the residents living near the Highlands Community Church were concerned about on-street parking by church attendants. Therefore, it is recommended that the administration send a letter to all those r is record r°andparound the thes Highlandsbility of eCommunity residential locat locatrking zones on ed N E. 10th those streets Street. Bob Edwards, Chair Richard M. Stredicke, Vice-Chair Nancy L. Mrthews, Member CITY9:38:as. cc : Don Erickson Mark Pywell Mel Wilson* *Letter to be transmitted by Jay Covington Transportation Services Division. • List of parties of record attached . V June 22. 1992 Renton City Council Minutes Page 276 release filing fee, which has been paid, and the processing fee, which is now due and payable. The Finance Committee further recommends Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the release of easement document and that the City Clerk record the document with King County. Councilwoman Mathews pointed out that the property lies between the East Valley Highway and Lind Avenue, south of 34th, and approval of the committee report would allow a lot line adjustment to accommodate wetlands in the area and provide setbacks for the wetlands. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* Responding to Councilman Stredicke's inquiry, Senior Planner Lenora Blauman assured that the site does not contain wetlands. *MOTION CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Richard Wilson, 1221 2nd Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, 98101, requested Wilson - Highlands advancement of the Highlands Community Church appeals report. On Community Church behalf of the church, Mr. Wilson stated that the rezone request has been Appeals (CU;R-048- withdrawn. 90) Advancement Request MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL SUSPEND THE REGULAR ORDER OF BUSINESS AND ADVANCE TO OLD BUSINESS, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT, HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH APPEALS. CARRIED. Planning & Referred 4/6/92 - Planning and Development Committee Chairman Development Edwards presented a report stating that the Committee met on 5/28/92 to Committee review the two appeals on the Highlands Community Church. The Appeal: Highlands appeals were filed by Cornelus Gevers, 900 Kirkland Avenue NE, Renton Community Church 98056, and the attorney for the applicant. The property is located at 3031 (Gevers), R-048-90 NE 10th Street. • The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly 2.9 acres of the project site from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to P-1 (Public Use). Additionally, the applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit to construct a three-story addition to the church for classroom and office space. The committee notes that the City is currently working on a new Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Committee that any change in zoning at this time would be premature, and the Committee concurs with the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner also decided that a conditional use permit should be approved subject to numerous conditions, one of which was the closure of the northernmost driveway of Kirkland Avenue N.E. The Committee finds that the closure of this driveway would be detrimental to traffic circulation and safety, and therefore, recommends the Council reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding closure of this driveway. Further, the Committee recommends that the Traffic Department be directed to work with the applicant to determine if ingress only circulation from (the northernmost entrance of) Kirkland Avenue would be appropriate.* (See motion adopting change below.) June 22. 1992 - Renton City Council Minutes `` Page 277 In all other matters of the appeals, the Committee recommends concurrence with the Hearing Examiner's recommendations and decisions. (End of report) Cornelus Gevers, 900 Kirkland Avenue NE, Renton, 98056, representing the Highlands residents surrounding the church, objected to approval of the conditional use permit for the property. Mr. Gevers suggested that the Council suspend its decision on the committee report and requested that the Administration provide a written clarification of the meaning of • the following terms contained in the conditional use ordinance, "community need, detrimental over-concentration, undue adverse effect, and compatible residential scale and character of the neighborhood." He suggested further that the City Attorney be asked to provide Council with information pertaining to the Supreme Court ruling on Smith regarding church and state issues. Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes explained that a legal definition process cannot be done after the fact, and clarified that the Smith ruling would not be appropriate for the subject application since it is not a church and state issue. *MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING REVISION: CHANGE SENTENCE 2, PARAGRAPH 5, TO READ: FURTHER, THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT THE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT BE DIRECTED TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO DETERMINE IF INGRESS ONLY CIRCULATION FROM THE NORTHERNMOST ENTRANCE OF KIRKLAND AVENUE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.* Councilman Stredicke cautioned that any three-story building construction in a single-family residential area should meet regulation building height. Responding to Council President Keolker-Wheeler's inquiries regarding the driveway and height issues, Ms. Mathews said that the Hearing Examiner's recommendation would allow an addition at the back of the church building. She stated further that the addition would meet height requirements and would be no higher than the current building because of the slope of the property. She noted that some residential views will be obstructed by the addition. Senior Planner Mark Pywell stated that a standard height of 35 feet is allowed in R-1 zones and this project meets the requirements. s Councilman Edwards clarified that Mr. Gevers had appealed the view obstruction issue, but there is no basis for denial of the building permit since the City does not have a view ordinance. Responding to Mr. Stredicke's inquiry, Mr. Pywell assured that a site plan was submitted with the request for a conditional use permit. *MOTION CARRIED. June 22. 1992 Renton City Council Minutes Page 278 Planning: Highlands Planning and Development Committee Chairman Edwards presented a Community Church, report stating that on 5/28/92, the Committee met to review the appeal of Residential Parking the Highlands Community Church. During that meeting, it was determined that the residents living near the Highlands Community Church were concerned about on-street parking by church attendants. Therefore, it is recommended that the Administration send a letter to all parties of record to explore the possibility of establishing residential permit parking, zones on those streets near and around the Highlands Community Church located at 3031 NE 10th Street. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* Mr. Edwards clarified that residents, the Hearing Examiner, and the Planning and Development Committee had expressed concern about the effects of the church on parking in the surrounding neighborhood, and he said that the Committee wanted to apprise residents of the availability of parking permits as a possible way to alleviate parking issues. Councilwoman Mathews pointed out that response to the letter will indicate whether there is an interest in a modified parking permit process or other ways to ease the impact of church activities on parking. *MOTION CARRIED. Recess MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. Time 8:58 p.m. The Council meeting reconvened at 9:06 p.m.; roll was called; six Councilmembers present; Councilmember Jesse Tanner absent. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council President Keolker-Wheeler removed Item 7.g, Honey Creek Final Planned Unit Development (FPUD-144-92), from the consent agenda, and added an item regarding the Pollos Estates Final Plat (FP- 160-91). (See added item on Page 279.) MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL REMOVE ITEM 7.e, SIERRA HEIGHTS SANITARY SEWER (CAG- 063-91), FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION. CARRIED. Appointment Mayor Clymer reappointed Donald Jacobson, 2919 NE 5th Place, Renton; Planning Commission and. Eugene Ledbury, 511 Stevens Court NW, Renton; to the Planning Commission for three year terms to expire 6/30/95. Council concur. H&HS: North Human Services Division recommended that contract for the renovation of Highlands Building B, North Highlands Neighborhood Center (Phase 3), be awarded Neighborhood Center, to Gram Construction in the amount of $39,951.00 since low bid was Bldg. B Renovation, within the project budget, there was more than one bid, and there were Gram Construction no irregularities; required expenditure $39,951 (Project approved as part of 1991 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program). Council concur. Building: Uniform Development Services Division recommended adoption of the 1991 Bldg., Mechanical, Uniform Building; Mechanical; Plumbing; Housing; Swimming Pool, Hot Plumbing, Housing, Tub, and Spa Codes; and the amendment of the 1991 Mechanical Code Swimming Pool-Spa- fee schedule. Refer to Public Safety Committee. Hot Tub Codes June 22. 1992 _tenton City Council Minutes Page 285 Public Works: Public Councilwoman Mathews suggested that staff hold a meeting regarding the Information, 192nd progress of the 192nd corridor project for residents of the affected area, Corridor or send out a letter informing residents that a meeting will be held when specific routes have been determined. Parks: Ivar's Councilwoman Mathews reported an incident at the Ivar's Restaurant in Restaurant, Coulon Coulon Park in which an employee was rude to the public, and requested Park, Public Relation that the management be alerted to the importance of public relations. Mayor Clymer will refer this matter to Community Services Administrator John Webley. Fire: Fireworks Ban Following Councilman Stredicke's comments that fireworks be eliminated in Renton, Councilman Schlitzer pointed out that after careful consideration of this issue by the Public Service Committee, the Council concurred that no change be made in fireworks regulations this year. (Fireworks will be allowed between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. on July 4th only.) AUDIENCE COMME T Referencing earlier action on the Highlands Community Church appeals, Citizen Comment: Roy Hoshide, 833 Kirkland Avenue NE, Renton, 98056, expressed Hoshide - Highlands concern that rezone of the Highlands Community Church property might Community Church be accomplished by other means without notice to residents, and Appeals (CU;R-048- requested that the property be ineligible for the Comprehensive Plan 90) area-wide rezoning process. Council President Keolker-Wheeler said that the Comprehensive Plan process has provided a period during which property owners can submit zoning requests which will be considered in the area-wide rezoning process. She suggested that Mr. Hoshide review those zoning requests immediately following the 7/31/92 deadline to determine whether an application has been filed for the church property. At that point, he can become a party of record in the official file. Ms. Keolker also encouraged Mr. Hoside to become involved in the Comprehensive Plan process and attend citizen forum meetings to understand the plans for his area. Councilwoman Mathews cautioned that the Comprehensive Plan area-wide rezone process may preclude public hearings for individual sites and could address several issues in an area at one time. Citizen Comment Sarah MacDonald, P. O. Box 1825, Renton, 98057, said that on July 4th Neighbor's Mail Box last year, a neighbor's mail box was blown up by fireworks, and Blown Up on 7/4/91 requested that the Police Department patrol her neighborhood this year on the holiday. Citizen Comment Versie Vaupel, P. O. Box 755, Renton, 98057, commented that the area- Vaupel - Area-Wide wide rezone process is dangerous since public hearings will not be held Rezone for individual properties. Ms. Vaupel referenced a letter from June Maston, The Highlands, Seattle, (refer to correspondence on page 279) complaining that neighbors use her vacant lot at 207 Garden Avenue for their own purposes. Ms. Vaupel assured that this was not the case. She also corrected the letter, noting that few residents work in the area or walk to nearby businesses. 4 (-4-L,0-44 MiLeietvvl (m44-1-at( -72-244A0-i. 44-ce4A44c-L-,. • ,t4.t k /(4 ,64,AG(S4,4./ IA-Se 479‘,„ 6c-444 0444-4e-e-- • 0-01-e-e( et,44;141,1-v 92egA,,,4-1.vip )4,Le( .26.1reitaie,14,1,944, 22 ,6e11.4,,,„friat-&+,otty ,e \ 'crAt decvt,c,t.: g44/t4,144;a4 de.et- 1;,-; otri 64,, a neGg-Z1.6wt g-ttimt tike avA.0- ,e4 ivra 'Vexe• 614/777-4-e_ S 744,0, tiv;1-e eafre:,e_ fke ,i adt,04.2„ A:t/ ,/ 44,/.1(Anz " NiArf46• 4- 47-L.g.-oec 4h 724;,;,, Ake, 444)2.4„,m,i- )1(1SeLAA-14 ..ee.ed yeet.;,atc..&e, 441,14,e-- dle,e4te-e, 49-04*441",. ce.4 ._ 41,4( ak 06(4(kid 714( 1-61 /do_ a -7.e,, 6,;-itez • d, (friA.R.4 at-ett CIPPifri,vt'am,v—tc a alma ,te 1,ThApol ,210. '71-11")-1-Ptet-vi-gv --rnA/vw Prx 7'2'4- WV ):72- )7/1,-/-a • 97, ;yr ?m) P4-8 Avlivov zyr -2-p-IrtAv /;) )a--1-4-fL e-m/ 97-A-9-7x) - (pi-a ow, Z----yfr-p-ati .71:p 19-72-41/? �1"?1) °fix 147( r~vd-e/1 cop 74-2 _?rativ `tea '7 v P1°P -)-` i/---Proev ' rfrw" arif /-v-pr2tri-iv ?4..),L4,0 p--yvt0 - fix? v --(41 ...940/ -74 ramii 1-7,2714-#4 /,t_r-kyv _74(1-01---4) rylik —7. /AV 042"-1-& 21/27-/ 4-r- 9/4-w- -t-vv � ri-67 .ray " 0,1"1•0 y 4221,f, rvrt,:9-- aty p744-1-2(6 )5)7/' -Yrc p-mv ryz - .424 ja, aw,s-0,49 97,7- retyl) -?--el'112:7 A44-0 --1/1-6/V 174'1 ''_"1'4"'"4-6?) a/ -Y1/ • • b/e2M- 0A/fiett It A a.441.14-0 4e44- e-c, a-44e a gi-te 1;keek_tto. s--41-if77,44taetat- & vethai 4 — of et, Aet4/te.- f izfrvuLizektz, 4i tiezQ- UA /1e . 414a7etd- o-tA4e Th4-ti/kvt, "7 "ag 0 4. 6 ,at% 104, 49-6e- rhrt- " d--gre 444- f &tit 6144,i/di shAre,4-eeit., ,, A rtiVe avtf#1,14-1.4 011,et-t, dA.:a Gtiet@l-a 24 azAt-frS-ed /41-0- (9-1-v z17-te • (.444,;, Priee atepA _ /14 ilit-St avvvvvt-est,-6(4. - ,4,, At lei at UMAA42.4 A • Ani- Afr9:-Lo- t1 61-e,v1.41- t e , / 197 .tet, #7,0z-vt- 0_14-7,eri-o- /6,7 nivid 01,44,4 / 40-6-dtry . • y 174 -770 /1.9 '-'2;411,-14: , 37z :`"-1411 "4-174 //7-1'41 .. / p772 1,77-er ( . , 41-62-4 BQ - � y`"it /97L1 vv ] e 7Q2'r 6;7 17-rin/ -vim' z, 7 (v- y-vvrtiv IP -0-43-1 -nraf n:vr PPYvv 4?-0 1-14-01 P �� ) °lam' A 47-54-0-y- . $1471/1/P P-P1'717 ?raPWri �k,� � '�-�,97,17 o r.ne„ 2-1p. irw-' 14 a - , ir^-1--v --"4-4111r J 6teoitiv at„et, -(A-LA-0-1-/A4t,es_ dt>i/tz 1 /.1J_4., L s d_ect /v� Aae A e( a-ot.t o-s-vcrikta_ �'�'�� (sue/' ea): 1,e-e�, tea - tte , ,.a2' -1," J,Lce Ac-&-eter- tie - ds .. _ ," adfree,,„„e sor . . ram( e.oc , -z ,ext,t.i.et fruhAA.,:at) ge A e 61-ta - - e „4-4.--2-&-te_ et ctte dte-lite4) 4i-44 4..;2 . ✓ 4e w ' J 1 7-vvw-ev --7 to-g-Tivr7-sfr.-- 9-/; )14it ",.erY ; '1 - p1r9 7? 9d --)2-1 -zrpg= p_ rwy P*, v , H_ 2i,i9 -,,,,./-744/2/rep • , 1 " ' --?.?'"' 'a"- ' if - ' ' 1 _.?-frfr1"/' n:litil 1-1-07 -)°‘11-1 '-%- "47 :111 '19/'t:?1/1'';91'-' 1M-1": 1. . 011 4`44- 11 7/ :P7i41`:/ r "1 "/- '-‘141141141° /111-4io- cro1.77 -r-L.-1.4filki, 0-iivi. eV r 0 j • 4'"V1191. 7,1411 - '1.- 444419 ' ''72 'V ' --1:r---,4-ip ' ' s' -' P71 ' tn"p lert-i) 10 j 7 .pn i 1 ?-04-7171177-0 ci p p/ evii.- -Y4 .n ri4 A'Aii.. k-wvi. vo )1 7z7-61-fir--P -2 filr'elill - ' •i-wv-11J p-vvo -3r--01-- _ inor -ligio-yenv 9-p. :-L1y -”,: 7a .....4 ii ' - 7 -io 1 P75/4-.11. "3-1170-14,117- 0 ) r ,71'irc7471'''111197 11(1-4 11-vp79 . 4 )0n1,v 17:Pwin-1-1,4,70,44-2, 11 , .. . ,,,. , • 7-72,?.?7;Av ,,1.'. . WY1 l'''''ar41 . ' /17 irP , 191.11p 1,4% a'-'42:2074- 1:7441r0 ,,-719c7 .1.4 p-N-ligebil,r, ilpv,--T 77-14-4,p 2- _ 2R-/-7,--?-cv_ 9-4-Pl-r4/ • aw eir-777,7?-?1,0 —7-10 , cr ' 2 OOP /0, ail 0,--vaia of" 0- a ,;(- elvt-6.teLA-„, h.- A-L.-a- 6./1-1.4v-e. /6, .„/p /444---e 74A,e,e 449'-1-1`112t k4 ' e- 4itzq 0-444.-&61' 4"-L4,10-4_ 4/ A. f 1 , -�, ,9 alo(4 )-6/ike:4-..: c 1.4.6 * nv Io Jt 0,tx /0---doicAt .14,4-17u ,4„t_t,ote4_67y72,-„...,0( • o e-e4.4;10 ktioe." 4.7 _ te...., -Q( � d /:44e `- Ecit P 1 AMANDUS, James A. ESKENAZI, Penny 3031 NE Tenth St. 951 Lynnwood Ave. NE Renton, 98056 Renton, 98056 ARFSTEN, Earl & Grace EVANS, Velma 861 Aberdeen Ave. , NE 2805 NE 8th St. Renton, 98056 Renton, 98056 AUGUSTON, Donald R. & FLYNN, William J. Frances 911 Lynnwood Ave. NE 912 Sunset Blvd. NE Renton, 98056 Renton, 98056 GEVERS, Bob (Cornelus J. ) BARTLEY, Dorothea 900 Kirkland Ave. NE 1033 Kirkland Ave. NE Renton, 98056 Renton, 98056 HAMMER, Stephen A. BRYANT, John W. & Donna A. GBP Architects PS 217 SW Langston Rd. 6920 220th SW Renton, 98055 Moonlake Terrace, 98043 CAUGHIE, Wayne HANSON, Allan 308 Summit Ave. N. , #20 Conifer Management Kent, 98031 PO Box 11246 Tacoma, 98411 CHAN, Margaret Safeway Stores, Inc. , #366 HOGAN, Lawrence M. PO Box 947 15631 SE 148th, Bellevue, 98009 Renton, 98056 COWAN, Betty HOSHIDE, Lloyd 905 Lynnwood Ave. NE 833 Kirkland Ave. NE Renton, 98056 Renton, 98056 CURTIN, Fred KAMPSCHROR, Jean 201 Union Ave. SE 3413 NE 7th St. #209 Renton, 95056-3848 Renton, 98059 KELLY, John DAVIS-HALL, Mike 6249 S 153rd St. 1221 Second Ave. , Suite Tukwila, 98188 500 Seattle, 98122 KITTELSON, Janice 14525 SE Renton-Issaquah DERE, Jeffrey Rd. , # 5 2326 NE 10th Pl. Renton, 98059 Renton, 98056 KRAUSS, Robert W. (Bob) & DUNN, Amy & William C. Carol F. 3126 SE 17th Ct. 2708 NE 24th St. Renton, 98058 Renton, 98056 yo,„43.0,, ��; w,, 2 KRUEGER, Craig SALISBURY, James E. 1560 140th Ave. NE 1300 Eagle Ridge Dr. S Bellevue, 98005 #I-1057 Renton, 98055 LECKIE, Ron 1604 Aberdeen Ave. NE SCHLITZER, Tim Renton, 98056 368 Stevens Ave. NW Renton, 98055 LURAGHI, Ed 19806 SE 127th St. SCOTT, Judy Issaquah, 98027 14213 143rd Ave. SE Renton, 98059 McKAY, Marresheen 904 Kirkland Ave. NE STEVENS, Marie A. & T.L. Renton, 98056 (Bob) 14019 SE 100th P1. NELSON, Roald & Milma Renton, 98059 839 Kirkland Ave. NE Renton, 98056 THOMAS, Michael M. 17406 128th SE OAKES, Norman Renton, 98058 12953 SE 157th P1. Renton, 98058 VAUGHN, A. Lee & Alvina 3013 NE 8th St. RALSTON, Richard W. Renton, 98056 14221 W Lake Kathleen Dr. SE VAUPAL, Versie Renton, 98059 Box 755, Renton, 98057 REINART, Geri David I. Hamlin & WALLACE, Jay S. Associates 1207 N 33rd St. 1319 Dexter Ave N. Renton, 98056 Suite 270 Seattle, 98109 WILL, Hugh M. & Mildred 6030 S 127th Pl. RENZELMAN, Chris Seattle, 98178 PO Box 2515 Renton, 98056 WILSON, Richard R. Hillis Clark Martin & ROENICKE, Carol Peterson 3112 SE 18th St. 1221 2nd Ave. , Ste 500 Renton, 98058 Seattle, 98101 ROLLIS, Virginia YORK, Ruth & Larry 2901 NE 10th, 14527 SE 183rd #431 Renton, 98058 Renton, 98056 YOUNG, David M. & RUDY, Terri Sandra J. 2837 NE 4th Ct. 19131 SE May Valley Rd Renton, 98056 Issaquah, 98027 3 YOURKOWSKI, R. Jean 14716 SE May Valley Rd. Renton, 98059 4 ite1-•.e GLt'?S- iD . RENTON CITY COUNCIL . Council Committee Information Sheet / t 1 Committee Pia.vir\M y� a� ,-'�C�.(Ca ilie.,YIT MeetingDate - 8-9�J � 'OO Pf')1 v ` w ci I 1 -iktu4t bek-_5 5 �. � rh Subjects). 1. �y 104 ,15 �..orytYliA)111-� CAC, ,,,1, 7 y ,' 5 2. Y 3. • 4. 5. 6. Please PRINT Clearly! Name -.> Addressvh nclude?city:'84 z1p) Daytime Phone l..�vY-0 -0514.1nc: g3 tlZle-4.MOb 1:ve13 ) Psz07a0)1SOSlC ZZ6`,57E9JI II (Z4'A/ c/j�9///E 3os Su IT A-V .N, 2oIl<6-Hr;kill 2031 3-3 3 6--L- ,t .J 1Z`C S,. olz s 145 -7 SG t.a3 (Z-Gt,'1"btt_ Inds,9505E 393 (967 = Staff in Attendance . Name - Department Phone : . 2_rt-A. .' 0 Nrrls - -',Leq_411 .-- :CouPcllI Secre::tarial,rFo11'ow-;aP,.3Needed: ::�...:r..�=s�=.'g-4�"r13.�^3:xi _ -r1z..1:++?.::.s-�vvtt. �._..:-Y�.hY,.- -. £'i3 fi' y -..+';l:1T )A-.M iL'fr -..`.''�! M( Co"mmitte'-ReprortWi11„Be, Prepare'd�By,. 1. �F- " S Date Required: , 2: Date. Required: 3, Date Required: Date Required: : 5. `. _ 's''''- . . Date Required: 6. . . • - S Date Required:. council.frm c, ,,2 7.9-..s_g--e,- .,7_.s,,,fgy-,..?-0-7-(77_-_7',- r?"/L :Nr.91-sr? 9 ri-V--00•ArttY-:ji- 01c3V7zL1- --- -1"-}-i'19, -I d . II-4(2i ' -Q-?°9- - ) 71J) iN-A-p-i!JAI-- 0 1 s-v-t rk ,V 0 T-i- L 2, .,..._...__9 _(2_..9_,.. __ _- �-1 Gov-�- --t ------ - _. .._._..__...__._.._..._. ..r ; -0 T= 9._-r N -r.. !.-...-..-------------fy C- 603 . -- -4-6---;>2":"--fi .---- -7,4'raWee'rieTilsO.,7/-7F1- q1-4-TbP2:7-.. ------------------47-V/-47:-V94V-- __________________L4________:(___ ---7" :17-9-.171 L6 -;..9.7-5-0/1..--1Tro_7_ 1-t-,=_V /Tre14, --7-.orr, .i 2 710b , c ..s77 QS t-77"ThfrrYT,A P?"--9'g-5-1' /v° s 7g./J 47ir iiivx_c--- 1 . - ,s 7 9 _s_s 7_5,474- __V/ ' ''.QN'7X / £ ' Q/ ii A 7LY6'g ...3V fl-0 V G 7--- (s6`J I- _ r" go-! ir.o271 — 9a a =7/10 -_s 0,s,2a ; -sa-b4A - 7 1/�' t ✓. --`;' /__q-12:7_-e '9V-Y-CT/4 --a )1,46- , - 0/ --EM 1 1 yiy"------r_i-jyrr- itsz._--..._ _, ._..._..____._-.._...-..._._ a 99/-.SS 2. s3Sog6 ',1'ofti-7Z/ ? ,,f '3 Z/ u4.L/ 1 3 YvIAGH_L..._.*..-7 : '''H2j..._... 7 532-/ c2L, / __ ) cl�Z r 3S L/f4pciP:uy C ( SS . 1 7; Z.2/ .5" _OV ZJ_ -d T ... Jr-__.1__ ,r �,, g J7- �-. / 9i 1 Nam..__ s . '0 f1 -6/10 e/2-',C _____C_Sr. 1,..-0_4(,/ kictivay ,./ - ..6' '3 (ki -'/ 0g i t4.4,1--non r.--a-vil n)y --c-7 Q a_, d =E, -3 ? ,2- fir 7Gr. , vg 6_-.._c_ era i7- 7 ,- 4_ ---..._ R...__ _ ,:.._ ..4 .._ ---Vag--GPI '... Z,Wes7. 1 —7 /f E r/ - -12, , _.....-.... c;)i) N•42.,&c: ---,ST 'r fwA-PA'-ul•'-- .--/-,(:, C / .-.'. ?- S 1----- ,)7 i . 71 'A (),Z i li li • ✓I .54 Li €21 . ..__T Tg ..._. ► 5..ooy#9ly ar/_n2 f __ ...__..._.. 5 Ma _.-.. 2Ls.-I-Az L2.9,6 17j /0t119/1 nkt •2'S 1 ticnpn -VtA 1MS 11022 .0270 5r74.14W -dfr 4/1411144t:''&156te Lg2-- 1 2_2 49 b 1-x2Li-C • -S 4.S 1-4 1-6;Z 1 ' L Zoe- ) V7._.c� s L z . \ v/ 00 _..__...... ....__. 64 • o j o wo1 Ned! 2.9 N COVirg s N c S / °N : ;n:�e�-kl...._..�.._...�_.TIT vo_CI • • ' RENTON' CITY COUNCIL '. _ . ; Council Committee Informa.tion,•.S,•,�t' ,., „ _ : .. Committee I • •• t -• . 6, tt.. . ; - Meeting Date O J [1 IAPPINFILIMA l !.� ,:, Subj.ect(s) 1. ! i , ��3_ �.� 1 gli -illt .a , 3EMI.A-.'.;...' - . 'l'.',-,.. `-',-.:11,1,ni1.1_rrigo) 4- - _ . 4. . . . 5. • •• • Pleas PRINT learly! Name ' Address (include city & zip) Daytime Phone • Cc.l1,4R.1) U/I L ern4 I2-2.t,7-1.10 A4VV it Sad 5 rn'rv< IV 61- r CiZ3-t?`FS • m r rvio !�aL oSy''' - Jo. . .'J:_._ p -urTia ' o ^ . _ak C4• t. ( 0,44 A 3 (FL(A E.:t L— g•Fo Vic) 22s =4=, 2 _. ':-•:;ti,:_ _ _ 7, IAs yy . , 17 �f .:tom ��. .:�P �e���,4�� .. �-:� :a. :;' ,z. '1 ,��1 i.• � j L' y, _ t r '=�T.1F • _ .. Ci -_-_ =-• '::::';'-Staff- ::n ance° - _ ed - iri.Att Plo �'De arm :-Na T; - P - • - is ,:: te._.::' -- .....__ .. •r:5-� . ..a ,-...rr .. 1 i Q,.a •- rim_. .._ ., � - er �`• - - _.._ , . BRA-;ils pa n o A��i ^' :r=T - e Jn* ' w,• t r ,�4 Y t • -s 5 !-fir _ _ _ , r. r .r. • :fir � .._ _.. ... ;i3; w-.- eed _1 L'J N��E10 cr'tarial' o ncil�:Se .e °;�C'ou _P_ _ r.. .�. ,yam;_.. -,.:. -: - - _ _ -- - • _ .s • - Committee•:Re ort>_Will•Be:�,Pre ared..By • • _ p : ma's • "-'i ; _ - '''� uired:. -- . ;J. Dafe Re . ir�a - - u'r ed. _ : Fr, ate:''R - '].ate:rRe uir e uired:'. . . :.. . . te.�R ,- "Da Q - rr _ te, R •u'red:' ,:err :':1.- `.i'..; - r•1, .. ,. _ _ -...._ .. ,. .. , n : c • , �a �e ui ed: `D - ter![ .4' - ._ ... ..: �l- "CO U11Cl1:frm' N - - t . . - - r . _ti, - . - - - -- � ''k _-�."z'::`-:,-`•., _ ��: - = x ._. tom.._ -. {_ +r;r • s No_Ls n 9 S 7..A11,1� p n/2 SSA' '2;$ 8 6' �;c:p- d-,B '1`'Q�`?ff 1=''s.iiri L n ... � � 1v p ,s ,ri l N o - .'` zi--, 6 rpi- %���, a �7 9/ b � ��-bi Q i GCS 9C " Oe -r12"c-7 / i+ I &E5--92 Z 9 Q 0, C - pia ofv-4a 1?ii.2 cl' s� f apr".5 o fo 7 7 _ '2'LLI- L*L .� o-Q 2().4. 14 -. (t/' ./L61' 177 ; 014/ ` ,(49$1)"J)/ (�}f ' , ,,. 'Y'Z -/z. Z .$P? 1" c�a. 2 ,9 fT'1 S ( g'lS J 047-9 0/-7 32 77(v14l'( 6 ?2 GGz oc36 /P` - '-I — "c..'1 L,2 G--�j y, p� ,— . -2s—'' sX/-c-7?- / _, � /ay)(� LI•ZI—Z..- "Z ' SP,q6 -': y°F Pild:(.finl• , ;N_,,9z. .:T, - aac 'aa3.3- ac %o CITY JF RENTON Renton City Council Earl Clymer, Mayor June 1, 1992 APPEAL FILED BY 1) CORNELUS GEVERS AND 2) HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision, dated March 12, 1992, regarding Highlands Community Church application for rezone and conditional use permit; File No. R-048-90, CU-048-90. To Interested Parties: The Planning and Development Committee will continue review of the subject appeal on: Thursday, June 4, 1992 4:00 PM Council Chambers Second Floor Renton City Hall This is not a public hearing, but a working session of the Planning and Development Committee. As all Council committee meetings are open to the public, you are welcome to attend. The committee will discuss only those items specifically appealed and will submit a written recommendation to the full Council for their consideration at a regular Monday night Council meeting. If you have questions regarding this meeting, please phone the Council secretary at 235-2586. Sincerely, Bob Edwards, Chair Planning and Development Committee PADCOMM.NOT 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2586 April 13. 1992 Renton City Council Minutes Page 167 MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE APPOINTMENT OF JOY POFF TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was read from Louis J. Haff, P.E., County Road Utility: Sewer Engineer, King County Division of Roads & Engineering, 500 4th Moratorium Exempt'•n, Avenue, Seattle, 98104-2339, requesting an exemption from the East King County, 155 Renton sewer moratorium for the County's Consolidated Office & Repair Monroe Ave. NE Facility (CORF) site located at 155 Monroe Avenue Northeast. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY TANNER, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE UTILITIES COMMITTEE. Appeal: Highlands Correspondence was entered from Betty Cowan, 905 Lynnwood Avenue Community Church NE, Renton, 98056; Penny Eskenazi, 95,1 Lynnwood Avenue NE, Renton, Rezone, CU;R-048-'10 98056; and Milma E. Nelson, 839 Kirkland Avenue NE, Renton, 98056; supporting the Hearing Examiner's decision denying rezone of the Highlands Community Church property, 2.9 acres, located at 3031 NE 10th Street, from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to P-1 (Public Zone). Correspondence was also entered from Lloyd Hoshide, 833 Kirkland Avenue NE, Renton, 98056; supporting the appeal (Gevers) of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the conditional use permit for the Highlands Community Church site. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL REFER THE CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Planning: Wetlands Correspondence was read from Del Rowan, Corporate Public Affairs, The Ordinance Boeing Company, P. O. Box 3707, Seattle, 98124-2207, commending the City of Renton for its efforts in insuring that input from all interested parties was considered throughout the development process for the Interim Wetlands Ordinance. Mr. Rowan also commented that the Planning Commission displayed an open attitude during the proceedings, offering suggestions to the process and making judgments based on fact rather than conjecture. He further commended the Council Planning and Development Committee for its thoughtful discussion of the issues and subsequent recommendations. He said that the Interim Wetlands Ordinance strikes a balance between property development and wetlands protection interests. H&HS: Meals-On- Correspondence was read from William R. Moyer, Director, Nutrition Wheels Program Projects, King County Senior Services, 1601 2nd Avenue, Suite 800, Seattle, 98101-1579, thanking the City for its assistance and financial support for the Renton Meals-On-Wheels program which enables senior residents to maintain an independent lifestyle in their own homes. Mr. Moyer also reported that during the first quarter of 1992 the program has served 3,523 meals to 78 homebound Renton residents, and noted that this is the largest program in King County outside of Seattle. Public Works: Local Correspondence was read from Governor Booth Gardner regarding Senate Control of Pesticides, Bill 6273, entitled "An Act relating to clarifying the Department of SB 6273 Agriculture's authority to regulate pesticides." Governor Gardner said that the proposed legislation sought to limit the authority of local governments to control pesticide use within their RECEIVED ArT 79l RENTOhl April 8, 1992i ; l �,,,^� • Renton City Council Planning and Development Committee Re: File No. R - 048 - 90 I wish to express my support of the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny Highlands Community Churches request to reclassify block 32 ' from R-1 to P-1. I stringently oppose the rezoning of this property on the grounds that it is both unnecessary to the applicant's stated objectives and that it removes absolutely necessary and critical regulatory and developmental guidelines that insure a measure of protection to local homeowners. Obviously the fact the block 32 could be rezoned does not mean that it should be rezoned. There is nothing in the lengthy legal rhetoric of the "errors" and "corrections" presented by the applicant's attorney that changes the fact that the residential community perceives the proposed rezone as having an extremely negative impact on the welfare of our community. They have expressed a broadbased opposition and presented well documented evidence to support their concerns and objections. Clearly, the requested rezone represents a material detriment to public welfare and local property owners in the judgement of the Hearing Examiner as well. I urge that the Planning and Development Committee support the Examiner's recommendation to deny the rezone application. Thank you. Penny Eskenazi 951 Lynnwood Ave. N.E. Renton, Washington 98056 206 228 1691 9 z-- ,,,;,/ 04-1 6.°T' :` j „Li; a,„,e C ALg2-€- JP--?-1 . RECEIVED APE. 91992 / RENTON CITY COUNCIL 905 Lynn od Ave. NE Renton, WA 98056 • _.. .-5 .. . . . . , . 157Y'r.fY-/ .A.1.;L,112,1/-7' :.;c1N-V-1H .....s i, •aN 3 -7 / -I. • , I :. T J-3-g ,:•;.' till Pi, • . . .„,,. 7„?.,21 2z, ,g_.4_ 11.....i.... . , .. . c . ../ j ,./...2 -.) 1( r.i , • r .i 11. VI?, , '1 • i i 'yg4/11,)/1/y27 •-.9ANYY_IN '1,1 J-.0 \ % . . . l'\) - •'''r, :.•,.......t• /4rs..., ', 5-479/LVd-jtvw0)3 y 311.! H.-L-1/Y1 IP ijk l 3.3W.-;9k/ /1//. a.. .1)';'' , a: ,o, -•- q-i . 'id-,-/ c.- c"- • `` 's , :0-- u- , ,,•-,)i 1/4_ LI : •''..) • it\-:;_s_,‘2.,,,,/.;' 1--Li e< 't igN ,Yil 0 -5-1•1 --/73-741 -5-b. ° ' . ...,_ X. \•- • • c' I° t . cn • . . ( ,, ' n't • l'`/ '' • ' P/11 '-/io_i/kly • . , 5-• •- . . . . . .05— 07,,k. 77/ kv- 00 lf ...., -_., . . - • ' bb-C iw--C__Gr /11/01- /_-1 ./-,c./ 'z 5 c;.,,s,2, • y.,0 ' i y 0 _L /1/-a g -7 Ai• A #" el AI Y 7 i'./e 1 1//Y 2> E --'?• . April 8,1992 Renton, WA 98056 RECEIVED Planning and Development Committee Renton City Council APR 9 1992 200 Mill Ave Renton, WA 98055 RENTON CITY COUNCIL To The Committee Persons: Subject: File No. CU; R-048-90, Appeals made on Hearing Examiner's Recommendation and Decision by the Highlands Community Church and by Cornelus Gevers. As a person of record, this letter is written to state my position on subject appeals pursuant to Renton Code 4-8-16:B. . I should state that I appeared and gave testimony in opposition to both the rezone application and the conditional use permit requested by appellant. My home is in the Renton Highlands just three doors south of appellant's church. The appeal by the Highland Community Church alleges that the Hearing Examiner erred in twelve paragraphs of conclusions. In my opinion, appellant's allegations are not supported by evidence. The rationale to support my position(s) is detailed in attachment (A) . It is arranged to parallel appellants dissertation. I offer my position with the hope that it will be considered by the Planning and Development Committee in a decision to support the Hearing Examiner's recommendation on the requested rezone. Regarding the Cornelous Gevers' appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision. to grant the conditional use permit, my name appears among the (154) petition signers opposing the conditional use permit, Exhibits #14 & #33. Consequently, I am supportive of Mr Gevers position in opposition to the conditional use permit. I offer this information as an aid for the Planning and Development Committee to reach a decision on the Gevers appeal. Attachment: (A) Sincerely, Lloyd Hoshide 226-5891 833 Kirkland Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Hc'sh:i.de Position, Attachment A, page 1 HE Conclusion No. /Appellant Paragraph No. 1. /Appellant Paragraph No. 3, 1st sentence. "At the request of Renton City Staff, Highlands Community Church applied for a rezone of the R-1 Portion of its property in connection with its proposed classroom addition. " Hoshide position. . . based upon my studies of correspondence in the yellow file, Exhibit #1, appellants contention "At the request of City Staff, " is a misrepresentation of a recommendation as a request. The recommendation (advice) was solicited and received from City Staff to satisfy a specific set of appellant defined guidelines. Hoshide rationale. . .Appellants agent, GBP Architects, P.S. , sought City advice in a January 30, 1990 memo (see yellow file, Exhibit #1) which referred to an accompanying City of Renton memo dated June 9, 1989 (see yellow file, Exhibit #1) that was addressed to Mr Steve Hammer of GBP. That GBP, furnished a copy of the 6-9-89 memo is bore out by the GBP received-date. stamp plainly visible on the yellow file copy. The 6-9-89 memo responded to two criteria: (1) construction of an addition on two lots of differing zone designations and; (2) potential sale of the commercially zoned lot (B-1) . The 1-30-90 memo asks for zoning advise considering those circumstances. A City of Renton memo dated 3-14-90, Donald K. Erickson to Shawn L. J. Busse of GBP, stated: "After review of the submittals you provided, the Planning Department staff concurred to recommend that the church seek a rezone of only the easterly parcel (from R-1, Residential District, to P-1, Public Use) and retain the existing B-1 (Business District) zoning on the westerly parcel. " By coincidence, appellant's master application was signed and notarized on 3-14-90, the same date as Renton's zoning recommendation. Appellant misrepresents the City' s recommendation (advice) as a request. That appellant wanted to retain the differing zone designations is confirmed public statements made by Curt Willis, Chairman, Board of Elders as recently as for the Valley News of February 11, 1991, Exhibit #17, that sale of the B-1 lot was an option. 1. /Appellant Paragraph 4, 1st Sentence. "The record demonstrates that the City' s requirements for granting a rezone application, as set in Renton City Code ("RCC") : 4-8-14(C) , are fully satisfied. " Hoshide position. . .Appellant' s contention is just that for his argument at the public hearing failed to convince the Hearing Exarniher, a land use expert, who in Renton's system is vested with the task of hearing rezone applications and the making of rezone recommendations for the City Council. Hoshide rationale. . . Renton's rezone application procedure states: "the burden of proof in demonstrating that the zone change is appropriate lies solely upon the proponent. " Renton's Hearing Examiner ordinance establishes that the Hearing Examiner, a position free of undue influences, shall hear and judge rezone applications for his recommendation to the City Council. Moreover, under Change of zone classification 4-8-14:C. 2, it states following a list of requirements: ". . . , then in such event, the Hearing Examiner may recommend that the City Council approve the change of zone classification. " The operative word here is "may" which allows the Hearing Examiner discretion in his recommendation. ti Hoshide Position, Attachment A, page 2 1. /Appellant paragraph 4, First phrase of end sentence. "Staff has recommended approval of rezone, " Hoshide position. . .On this proposal, it is my opinion that City Staff has demonstrated a total lack of objectivity which renders staff recommendations as unworthy for consideration because of the predisposed inclinations. Hoshide rationale. . .This is not a pretty picture. I cite these staff actions which have driven me to conclude the bias. For example: A. City of Renton memo dated February 13, 1991 (see yellow file, Exhibit #1) : Mark R. Pywell to Lloyd Hoshide; responding to an ERC comment letter delivered to City Hall, February 5, 1991 (see yellow file, Exhibit #1). 4th paragraph, 3rd sentence. "It is our understanding that this has reduced the problem in the area. " Example comment. . .The above statement was written without evidence that the previously stated actions would produce results. Note that a Valley News photograph published 2-11-91, Exhibit #17, a Monday, that shows parking and congestion on both sides of Kirkland Ave NE. By deduction, the photograph would have been taken, Sunday, 2-10-91. No other Sundays or days of saturated parking were possible prior to 2-13-91. My envelope was postmarked 2-14-91. Renton Police action resulting from the citizen complaint of Bob Severs at the City Council meeting of 2-11-91 took place the evening of 2-14-91 as described in the 3-5-91 letter to Mr Severs from Mayor Clymer (Exhibit #15) . In my opinion, use of the sentence is not prudent. B. Same City of Renton memo: 5th paragraph, last two sentences. "Another reason, for the rezone at this time is that it will provide the nexus to . allow the City to require a rezone on the portion of the property presently zoned B-1 (Business District) should the church request permission to expand into this area. It should be noted that a church is a principal use in the B-1 zone and a conditional use in the P-i (Public Zone) . " Example comment. . . The above contradictory statements were made by a senior planner, a land use expert, to a layman. Through studies of the zoning ordinances, I've concluded that no connection (nexus) exists to impose a rezone of the B-i lot if the church decides to build a church there. A church is a principal use in a B-1 zone. Therefore, it could be proposed there without a zone change or conditional use permit. Moreover, it is reasonable to conclude that a voluntary zone change would not be requested. It would only complicate development. An expert could be expected to have this knowledge. Consequently, the question arises. What is the motive in sending me the ambiguity? C. Proposal' s expansion configuration. Appellants 13,769 square foot expansion configuration is not the configuration used in the SEPA processing resulting in the DNS-M threshold determination. • Hoshide Position, Attachment A, page 3 Example comment. . .The integrity of. Renton' s SEPA process is questioned. City staff acquiesced to appellants proposal charges from the 11, 900 square feet to 12, 800 square feet and ultimately to 13769 square feet. The DNS-M threshold determination was granted based upon the review and comments upon the 11, 900 configuration. The 13769 square foot configuration was offered by appellant at the February 4, 1992 Public Hearing. To those in attendance, it was obvious that staff was seeino it for the first time. The transcript confirms this (pane 8, 3rd paragraph). While the 11, 900 square foot addition received full SEPA review, the 12, 800 & 13, 769 configurations were accepted by Renton without SEPA processing that included public and agency comments. WAC 197-11-350, (4) limits the allowances for changes and clarifications to supporting documents on proposals to those prior to threshold determinations. Moreover, the 13, 769 configuration's drawing introduced a phantom building footprint (the 1500 seat new sanctuary the Elder Chairman mentioned in the Valley News of 2-11-91, Exhibit #17) that was not part of the original drawings which received SERA processing with public and auericy comments. Staff is in effect allowing phased review. WAC 197-11-060, (5) (d) (ii) states that phased review is not appropriate when it will avoid discussion of cumulative impacts. In this citizen's opinion, questionable SEPA processing has taken place. 1. /Appellant Paragraph 4, second phrase of 2nd sentence. • "and project opponents presented no evidence at the hearing to show that any Code requirements were not met. " Hoshide position. . . appellant's contention is not supported by fact. Hoshide rationale. ..along with other testimony, adjacent residents (project opponents) argued that the proposed zone change was not in the public ,interest and detrimental to adjacent property owners. See transcript pages 8, 9, 10, & 11. The argument was reiterated 155 times by petition signatures opposing rezone, Exhibits #14 & #33. 1. /Appellant Paragraph 5 "Correction: Replace the language quoted above with "The requested classification is justified and should be approved by the City Council. " " Hoshide position. . . appellant's proposed correction should be disallowed. The hearing examiners recommendation against granting rezone should remain intact. ' Hoshide rationale. . . appel.lant's allegations do not stand up to critical scrutiny as shown in the preceding dissertation. 4. /Appellant paragraphs 1 & 2. Hoshide position. . .Disal.low appellant's correction, I am supportive of the Hearing Examiner's conclusion 4. Hoshide rationale. . .The Hearing Examiner developed a conclusion and supported his position with factual 'rationale. 6. /Appellant paragraphs 1 & 2. Hoshide position. . .Disallow appellants correction, I am supportive of the Hearing Examiner's conclusion 6. . • Hoshide Posit ion„ Attachment A, page 4 Hoshide rationale. . .The Hearing Examiner, a land use expert, appropriately discusses P-1 and R-1 differences in comparative terms. 7./Appellant paragraphs 1 & 2. Hoshide position. . .Disallow appellants correction, I am supportive of the Hearing Examiner's conclusion 7. Hoshide rationale. . . In concert with the Hearing Examiner's conclusion, 8-1 properties in the proximity were developed in a manner to minimize effects upon the residential area to the east. For example, at Safeway, Golden Pines, Sunset View, and Employment Security, parking was positioned away from the residential area. 8. /Appellant paragraphs 1, 2 & 3. Hoshide position. . .Disallow appellants correction, I am supportive of the Hearing Examiner's conclusion 8. Hoshide rationale. . .The Comprehensive plan's objective for Churches, see extract Exhibit #11, states that Churches in residential areas should be developed so as to minimize intrusion into residential areas. Similarly, its policy states that churches located in residential areas should be of a size and intensity similar to the adjoining residential use. 9/ Appellant paragraphs 1 & 2. . Hoshide position. . .Disallow appellants correction, I am supportive of the Hearing - Examiner's conclusion 9. Hoshide rationale. . .maintaining the westerly boundary of the R-1 zoning at the mid point of the vacated Jefferson Ave provides residents reasonable assurances that intense church activities can be controlled. 10/ Appellant paragraphs 1 & 2. Hoshide position. . .Disallow appellants correction, I am supportive of the Hearing Examiner's conclusion 10. Hoshide rationale. . .Appellants church is a de facto conditional use on a R-1 residential lot. Again, the objective and policies of the. Comprehensive plan Exhibit #11 apply (the same as in the rationale for conclusion 8) . 11l Appellant paragraphs 1 & 2. Hoshide position. . .Disallow appellants requested deletion, I am supportive of , the Hearing Examiner's conclusion 11. Hoshide rationale. . . In my opinion, this conclusion is consistent paragraph 4-8-14:C.2 of the Hearing Examiner' s ordinance and 4-3-2:C. of the Comprehensive Plan. 12/ Appellant paragraphs 1 & 2. Same Hoshide position and rationale as for Conclusion 11 is applicable to 12. Hosh i de Position, Attachment A, pane 5 13/ Appellant paragraphs 1 & 2. Same Hoshide position and rationale as for Conclusion 11 is applicable to 13. 14/ Appellant paragraphs 1 & 2. Hoshide position. . .Disallow appellants requested correction, I am supportive of the Hearing Examiner's conclusion 14. , Hoshide rationale. . .Appellants contentions are not bore out by evidence presented • at the Public Hearing. For example, church expansion was accomplished in three stages with the major expansions coming after the residential area was filled as shown using the year built data from the King County Assessor's Public Information System, Exhibit #18. Similar data was submitted for the properties from the Certified List (furnished by appellants agent) of Properties within 300 feet of appellants church which shows Employment Security, 1000 Index Ave NE, as the last property developed, 1982, see Exhibit #20. Moreover, adjacent residents voiced their objection by petition, 155 strong, to further attrition of the right to enjoy their property see Exhibits #14 and #33. The basis for correction is unfounded. 20/ Appellant paragraph 1, second sentence & entire last paragraph. "There is nothing in the record to support this conclusion, and it should be revised if not eliminated in its entirety. " "Correction: replace conclusion No. 20 with the following language: To further limit the impact upon of the expansion on the neighborhood, the applicant should close off the easternmost driveway on N.E. '9th Street. " Hoshide position. . .Disallow appellants requested correction, I am supportive of the Hearing Examiner's conclusion 20. Hoshide rationale. . .Contrary to appellants contention, congestion in the area' of the driveway, (news photograph, Exhibit #17) as well as regular traffic hazards (photographs, Exhibit #25) are a matters of the Hearing record. Local residents driving this area are well aware of the traffic congestion and risks at the adjacent corner, NE10th and Kirkland Ave NE. Appellants claim that buses would not be able to deliver^ children to the church is inconsistent with testimony given in the Hearings that the expansion is provide room for church' s young people. From the testimony, it would appear that bused children would be delivered adjacent to the new building in the lower lot without a need to traverse the parking lot. And further, since parking stalls are normal to the axis of parking lot aisles, traffic in the lot can go with equal ease either way. Moreover, photographs of Exhibit #25 show buses backed into a stowed position at the rear of the upper lot. This is an indication that buses are able to turn around in the upper lot and back in since there is no vehicle connection between upper and lower lots. It appears to be a more difficult task than entering and exiting after turning about and would not be affected by the closure. onirorrin :� (f flk`ro No/S/Yrd�l3 HJY/YJ/J 5-1I\I-U1H91 01, -Sh0-li . —Sh ...el 'ON . _31/, KIS p3N1WYY3 ✓ V a'l� f'(�; S/VO/L 4-3WWoJ 3/¢L H-1.i,v1 4-/V3W a 5 ' AI/ l}fr° SY0gfl7/7/V YPv s7Y -173M cv c/Y0S7_/V Q 7 6' ' .d//V dg572 f7 1 W d7Y 3O1O Se)41:1313 A 'o eRag,! ' fc7 jfr ZGE1 2 0 -IcTd as °Ar 7 7'G✓ o o r - d b / 'L 'i !?)d V• • 7.50.8d " 1/N0 ` 4, - -. N-g ell .a A/ GrNf17)11/1 S£ - ' m I L. A4 A E, if/EL.So ff-35, HMKLñ1VP /hie Ale— c A7E,TO Ar PM• viv4 '9'51°5-4 - T AP R USA r s z prIno,ono00 CiTY c Eel< c , '7 7 oFRENT /V • Sea / 1-1 AveKote • k 0 I?Ex/TO A/ 1/(/A • April 6, 1992 Zenton City Council Minutes Page 155 Citizen Comment Marjorie Richter, 300 Meadow Avenue North, Renton, 98055, said that Richter - Use of the audience sitting in the back of Council Chambers could not hear, and Microphones requested that Councilmembers use their microphones. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Court Case: Ateser, Court case filed by Coskun R. Ateser in the amount of $10,000,000 for CRT-92-008 loss of income and wages and $40,000,000 for emotional distress allegedly caused by unreasonable harassment, search and seizure, and violation of privacy (1989) (CRT-92-008). Refer to City Attorney and insurance service. Court Case: Court case in an undetermined amount filed by Joan M. Lotto and Lotto/Dessault, CRT- William Dessault, as guardian ad litem for Joan Lotto, for personal injury 92-007 and damage to vehicle allegedly incurred in collision with Fire Department aid truck (8/1/91) (CAG-92-007). Refer to City Attorney and insurance service. Appeal: Highlands City Clerk submitted appeals filed by Cornelus Gevers, 900 Kirkland Community Church Avenue NE, Renton; and Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S., (Gevers), R-048-90 representing Highlands Community Church, regarding Renton Community Church rezone and conditional use permit (R-(148-90; CU-048-90). Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Appeal: Vyzis City Clerk submitted appeals filed by Paul. B. Chau, Senior Investment Company Latecomer Officer, GSIC Realty Corporation, Redwood City, California; and Lynn Agreement, LA-002- E. Ristig, attorney representing The Boeing Company, regarding proposed 91 assessment for Vyzis Company latecomer agreement for water, storm water, and street improvements in SW 19th Street, Lind Avenue SW to Raymond Avenue SW (LA-002-91). Refer to Hearing, Examiner to hold public hearing. LID: BNR Crossing - Transportation Division requested approval of City participation in Street Improvements, project costs for street improvements in proposed railroad crossing Local Lk. Washington Bl., Improvement District (LID), 3700 block, Lake Washington Boulevard; and 3700 Block authorization to assess LID project participants by"buildable lot" (estimated project costs $140,000; estimated revenue generated $110,000- $120,000). Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. Streets: Pelly Avenue Transportation Division requested authorization to implement extension of N., Parking parking restrictions and permit parking system, 300 block, Pelly Avenue North. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. Streets: Commute Trip Transportation Division submitted State Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Reduction (CTR), requirements (Section 20-25, SSHB 1671) for local legislation. Refer to SSHB 1671 Transportation (Aviation) Committee. Utility: 1983 Utility Systems Division submitted draft resolution amending 1983 Comprehensive Sewer Comprehensive Sewer Plan to extend the City's sanitary sewer service area Plan, Service Area in Sierra Heights to a corridor along SE 104th Street, 128th Avenue SE Extension and SE 102nd Street. The Washington State Department of Health has declared this a severe health hazard area. Council concur. (See Page 157 for Resolution #2890.) CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI #: SUBMITTING DATA: FOR AGENDA OF: April 6, 1992 Dept/Div/Board.. Administrative Services/City Clerk Staff Contact.. Marilyn Petersen" AGENDA STATUS: Consent XX SUBJECT: Public Hearing.. Appeals' of Hearing Examiner's recommendation; Correspondence.. Renton Community Church Rezone and ordinance Conditional Use Permit, R-048-90, CU-048-90 Resolution Old Business.... EXHIBITS: New Business.... A. City Clerk's letter Study Session... B. Two letters of appeal Other C. Hearing Examiner's Report, dated 3/12/92 RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVALS: Refer to Planning and Development Committee Legal Dept Finance Dept.... Other FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment... Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated,.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeals filed by Cornelus Gevers, 900 Kirkland Avenue NE, Renton, and Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. representing Highlands Community Church, each accompanied by required fee received on March 24, 1992, and March 26, 1992, respectively. Examiner's recommendation: Deny rezone; approve conditional use permit subject to nine conditions. cc: Hearing Examiner Don Erickson, Planning Department '% 0 - CITX - OF RENTON "LL Administrative Services Earl Clymer, Mayor Dan Clements, Director March 30, 1992 • CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss COUNTY OF KING ) NANCY MILLS, 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 30th' day of March, 1992, 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 Cornelus Gevers; private citizen, and Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S., representing Highlands Community Church, File No. R-048-90, CU-048-90. Nancy ills, eputy CI Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 30th day of March, 1992. 0 \O-LOA_AQ),444.4aZZ No . is in and for e State of I d �`t. Washington, residing in 1)1'c/4(2-R.4 9 ' `t.4s 3730 Ira 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ® CITY` -OF RENTON "LL Administrative Services Earl Clymer, Mayor Dan Clements, Director March 30, 1992 APPEALS FILED BY 1) CORNELUS GEVERS AND 2) HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Recommendation, dated March 12, 1992, regarding Highlands Community Church application for rezone and conditional use permit; File No. R-048-90, CU-048-90 To parties of record: - Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, two written appeals of the hearing examiner's recommendation on the referenced matter have been filed with the city clerk, each accompanied by the proper fee of $75.00. NOTICE IS;HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee, and the recommendation of the Committee will be considered by the City Council at a subsequent Council meeting. The council secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time Planning and Development Committee. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, please contact the council secretary at 235-2586 any weekday after 1:00 p.m. for information. Sincerely, Ajp. r. Marilyn J e l 'sen, CMC City Clerk 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 9805.5 �tltl1TLH- glkIBJH°.ial APPEAL MAR 2 4 1992 HEARING EXAMINER WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO REI 'r 6' 'YFFlCE COUNCIL. FILE NO. CU ; R-048-90 APPLICATION NAME: Highlands Community Church The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated March 12 - 19 92 . 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY) Name: Comelusi T. Gevers Name: Address: 900 Kirkland Ave N.E. Address: Renton. WA 98056 Telephone No.206-255-8816 Telephone No. 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: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No. Error: See attached sheets Correction: CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: See attached sheets Correction: OTHER No. Error: See attached sheets Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) j� Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: None • Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other �f a4 E% /99A /Ap ellant/Representative S �: rii .i e� (Tha044L te NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-16, for specific appeal procedures. November 15, 1991 heappeal.doc/forms i 1 City of Renton City Code- Title IV"- Building Chapter 8 - Hearing Examiner Section 16 - Appeal 4-8-16: I APPEAL: . D., . . J .' , j „.; "52;_ 1: - C Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior]Court, any interested party aggrieved by'the'Examiner's written decision or recommendation " may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, Within. ;I 'fourteen,(14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report.' The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with the fee schedule of the City. A. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in ' fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the'appellant seeks relief. i B. Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of. ! record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit-letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice i of appeal. . i C. Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members .of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained 1 in the Examiner's report, the 'notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. I: D. No,'public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony , shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council may remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence..of,any entr-yi upon-the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. II I. E. The consideration by the-City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing - Examiner's report, the.notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. F. If,I;upon appeal of a decision of the. Hearing Exaniiher-'on'an a pp'li'cation'submitted pursuant to j1. Section 4-8-10A and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact.or law exists in.the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for ;i reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the' decision'of the Examiner accordingly. G. . If,"upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant'to Section 4-8-1 OB or C, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial'error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the a. proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application ' pursuant to Section 4-8-1OB or C. H. In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified' - or amended findings and,conclusions other than those set forth in the report-of the Hearing F, Exariiivr ach'�nat'erial`.fW4iI shall'be supported by- substantip,evidence in,,the record. The.... • burden cif prdof`=sha�1P res yvXth`'the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82)." ' ''`'' - Q °''"'a•r::\1 '''. , heappeal.doc/forms f 1 ATTACHEMENT TO WRI, CN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAM:, R'S DECISION/RECOM- MENDATION TO RENTON .CITY COUNCIL. FILE NO : CU ; R-048-90 HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH. Conditional Use Permit Conclusions . Par.# 17 The interpretation of "There is a general community need for the proposed use at the proposed location" is in error. First of all, the word community should be interpreted as "people living in the same district, " meaning the Renton Highlands Community. A letter written by Mr. Steve Hammer, architect for the Highlands Community Church to Mr. Donald Erickson, dated March 24, 1989 regarding the proposed expansion had an attachment stating the justification for the conditional use permit request. The subject of community need was discussed as one of the justifications. It states that the "Highlands Community Church has been serving the Renton Highlands Community at this present location for over 30 years" , and that the pre- sent location is best suited for several reasons one of which is "close to the people and families it currently serves" . This letter is part of exhibit # 1. A petition (exhibit # 14) objecting to the addition of the church was signed by 152 people from the Renton Highlands Community. These are people that the church claims it will serve , but yet are objecting to the dominance of the High- lands Community Church. It is also clear from the petition signed by the people in support of the addition (exhibit #8) that the support does not come from the Highlands community. Worse yet the majori- ty of 63% comes from outside the city of Renton and come from as far as Snohomish, Puyallup and Bellingham. Only a few of the Renton residents reside in the Highlands (exhi- bit # 26) signed the petition. Both senior pastors and the board members also live outside the City of Renton. Considering the above, it can only be concluded that the addition to the church does not serve the community need. The reference to the protected exercise of religion is irrelevant since the proposed addition is only to be used for school rooms for children and as stated by the senior pastor not to enlarge membership. The Renton Highlands is literally overwhelmed with churches (exhibit # 21 ) which is supported by the fact that no other community in the Greater Seattle Area has a concentration of churches like it. This alone should be enough reasons for denying the conditional use permit. Par.# 18 The addition will have a very significant impact on proper- ties on. the Eastside of Kirkland Ave N.E. Most of our views have been eliminated by the previous expansion and this pro- posed expansion will practically eliminate any view from our properties (exhibit # 28) Par.# 19 The applicant has not provided more parking stalls than re- quired. The proposed number of parking stalls is 320 and the requirement should be 342. Although Staff claims that only 185 parking stalls are re- quired for the existing building, a requirement was esta- blished by the City for 222 parking stalls as part of the per- mit for the previous expansion. - 2 - No changes in city codes should be applied retroactively to an existing building and the requirement of 222 parking stalls should still stand. A copy of the memo with this re- quirement is in exhibit # 1 . The proposed expansion requires an additional 120 stalls which will make a total of 342 stalls if the expansion would be build. The Hearing Examiner also suggested that the traffic and parking survey, done by a traffic engineer hired by the church attorney (exhibit # 10) and the photographs submitted by the church neighbors may reflect the bias of the respective con- tributors . (findings par.# 17) The traffic engineer knew what she was hired for and ob- viously had to produce a report favorable to the cause. It would be very naive to think that a negative report could have been submitted. Besides , nobody can dispute the report, r since none of us was pent during the survey and no pictures I Corr.ec4-4, AG I0_ were included. I b9 a fpl;ca.,...4- On the other hand, the pictures submitted by the neighbors poke ca9_Q taken on a Sunday morning at approx. 11 :00 a.m. clearly shows v2a ¢ the full church parking lot with several cars parked in isles \ 1 1 of the parking lot. Some of the pictures also show numerous cars parked on the streets surrounding the church as a re- 1 suit of the full parking lot . Also shown on the pietures are cars parked less than 3 ft from street corners at almost �I 0X every street and cars parked t bus stops , because no more legal street parking was available. These pictures clearly show the present church parking situation observed by the ------ - neighbors practically every Sunday and is not biased in anyway. Any addition to the church can only result in any even more intolerable parking situation. This is another reason why the Conditional Use Permit should be denied. Par.# 22 The statement that "The landscaping on the site was recent- ly refurbished" must be clarified. The landscaping was only "refurbished" after a letter was sent by a City of Renton Building Official in Oct. 1990. This letter was the result of complaints by the neighbors to the Community Services Committee, since the church has continuously ignored the complaints . The refurbishment consisted of some weeding and spreading of bark by church members on a couple of week-ends in 1990. No maintenance work has been done since, although the Oct. 1990 letter specifically stated that a maintenance program must be assembled and adhered to for all on-site landscaping. The church never had and still has no intention of adopting a regular maintenance program for the on-site landscaping. It isn' t even trying to be reasonably compatible with the surrounding residences. But yet it is planning an addition which will cost approx. one million dollar and pay for it out of it's own funds. Presently the landscaping along N.E. 9th street and Kirk- land Ave N.E. is overtaken by the weeds and is there for everybody to see. Par.# 24 The Hearing Examiner states that the expansion should not unduly affect the adjoining residential neighborhood with- out any explanation why he feels that way. - 3 - Most residents surrounding the church think otherwise by signing the petition submitted as exhibit # 14. They are the adjoining residents who expressed their feelings , which must be more important than deciding by gut-feel. In addition to the above I would like to inform the Council that this proposed addition is to be built on the vacated portion of Jefferson Ave N.E. Building on the vacated land will be in violation of verbal requirements established by the City and guarantees made by the church although these were not recorded as an ordinance , they must still be con- sidered binding. Following are some transcripts from the Public Hearing held on April 27 , 1981 for the vacation of a portion of Jefferson Ave N.E. 1 . The Mayor asked the Public Works Director about the presence of a sanitary sewer in that portion of Jef- ferson Ave N.E. The Public Works Director confirmed the presence of the sanitary sewer and stated "Jef- ferson Ave N.E. will therefor never be eligible for construction" The Mayor than asked "Nothing will change this?" The Public Works Director repeated "Nothing will change this! " 2. A Council member asked the petitioner what the planned use for Jefferson Ave N.E. is. Answer by petitioner "Parking lots " The same council member than asked the petitioner whether he would agree with a restrictive covenant stating that the vacated street only be used for a parking lot. Answer by the petitioner was "He had no qualms with that exception" . I would strongly suggest that the Council take the time to listen to the tape recording of the Public Hearing, which I have in my posession and would gladly make available for that purpose. Based on the above stated errors and unfounded conclusions made by the Hearing Examiner I would like to submit that the Council reverse the decision by the Hearing Examiner and deny the conditional use permit for the expansion of the Highlands Community Church. SPECIAL NOTE: I would like to make the request that any legal rulings that might be requested by the Council as a result of this appeal not be made by any of the City attorneys. This request is made to avoid any possible conflict of interest due to Mr. Kellogg's membership with the Highlands Community Church and Mr. Warren's association with Mr. Kellogg, not only as City attorneys but also as partners in a private law firm. This request will protect Mr. Warren from having to make any more ru- lings that seem to favor the Church, like the one allowing the Council to change the wording of a motion a week after it was passed at the conclusion of a Public Hearing without another hearing and also allow- ing changes to the published outcome of the Environmental Review.Com- mittee without requiring another appeal period. hope I will receive your favorable support in this matter. • . . MTV OF RENTON APPEAL �A� 2 6 ���� HEARING EXAMINER. WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOIvIMENISATION TO RENTON GIBT.Ym4.6vLI) COUNCIL. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE FILE NO. CU; R-048-90 ' APPLICATION NAME: Highlands Community Church Conditional Use Permit/Rezone The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated March 12 19 92 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY) Name: Highlands Community Church Name: Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. Address; 3031 N.E. 10th Street Address: 1221 Second Ave.j Suite 500 Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone No. 255-4751 Telephone No. 623-1745 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: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No. Error: • Correction: CONCLUSIONS: No. Error. See Attachment A Correction: OTHER • No. Error: • — . Correction: 3. SUMMbRY OF ACTION JJEQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) See Attachment B X Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: . X Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other r Hilli rt ar a eters , P.S. By: c / March. 26, 1992 Appellan /Represent ive Signature ich el Davis-Hall Date NOTE: Please refer to Title 1Y, Chapter 8, of the Renton.Municipal Code, and section 4.8.16, for specific appeal procedures. • Novembor 15, 1991 heappeal.doc/forms Highlands Community Church File No. CU; R-048-90 Attachment A Specification of Errors: Conclusions 1. Error: Conclusion No. 1 states in part that " [t]he requested classification is not justified and should not be approved by the City Council. " This conclusion is erroneous. Highlands Community Church is located one block east of Sunset Boulevard N.E. on approximately 7.87 acres. The property is divided by a zone district boundary, with the easterly 2 . 9 acres zoned R-1 (single-family residential) and the remainder B-1 (business) . Abutting the site to the northwest are the commercial uses of Sunset Boulevard, including a Safeway supermarket. Multi-family residential uses are north of the property, with single-family residential development across Kirkland Avenue N.E. to the east and across N.E. 9th Street to the south. At the request of Renton City staff, Highlands Community Church applied for a rezone of the R-1 portion of its property in connection with its proposed classroom addition. This area is designated for Public/Quasi-Public Use in the Renton Comprehensive Plan. The proposed rezone to P-1 (public use) would make the R-1 property's zoning consistent with its Plan designation. The record demonstrates that the City's requirements for granting a rezone application, as set forth in Renton City Code ("RCC") § 4-8-14 (C) , are fully satisfied. Staff has recommended approval of the rezone, and project opponents presented no evidence at the hearing to show that any Code requirements were unmet. As set forth below, the Examiner's recommendation that the rezone be denied ignores these requirements as well as the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Correction: Replace the language quoted above with "The requested classification is justified and should be approved by the City Council. " 4 . Error: Conclusion No. 4 states in part that "the existing R-1 zoning remains appropriate for the subject site for a number of reasons. The R-1 zoning on the subject site serves, ever so tenuously, as a buffer between both the commercial uses and the more intense residential uses along Sunset and the single-family uses along Kirkland. " This conclusion is incorrect. -All applicable rezone requirements have been met, and the site has been designated for the proposed P-1 zone for decades. In Highlands Community Church File No. CU; R-048-90 Attachment A Page 2 addition, the property is occupied by a church, the type of public use that the P-1 zone was created to accommodate. See RCC § 4-31-9 (A) . In contrast, the R-1 zone is intended for residential uses. See RCC § 4-31-5 (A) . The R-1 zone is therefore inappropriate, and should be changed. Correction: Delete all of Conclusion No. 4 following the first four sentences. 6. Error: This Conclusion states in part that " [a] church in the P-1 zone would be permitted to be 50 feet tall and using the averaging formula applied to sloping roofs, it could, in reality, be taller. " This is not correct. Churches are conditional uses in the P-i zone. The City's conditional use standards require buildings to conform to height limitations established by the zoning code, but also require heights to be related to surrounding views "to allow optimal sunlight and ventilation, and minimal obstruction of views from adjacent structures. " RCC § 4-31-36(C) . It is therefore incorrect to state that churches would be categorically permitted to be 50 feet tall in the P-1 zone. Rather, building heights would be evaluated in terms of their impact on surrounding structures. The Examiner's concerns regarding potential height impacts created by the rezone are thus unfounded. Correction: Replace Conclusion No. 6 with the following language: While technically the P-1 zone could permit a church to be 50 feet tall, the City's conditional use permit process would require a proposed structure's height to be evaluated in terms of its impact on surrounding properties. Appropriate conditions could be imposed in a conditional use permit to ensure that a structure in the P-1 zone does not unduly impact the residences in the area. Depending on the status of the streets, the rear yard is generally larger for the R-1 single-family zone. Lot coverage is limited to 35% in the R-1 zone, whereas there is no such restriction in the P-1 zone. 7. Error: Conclusion No. 7 states in part that " [t]here seems to be no cogent reason for the introduction of another Zoning District into this area which is already well divided among competing zones. " This too is not correct: Renton's Comprehensive Plan has designated this site for Public/Quasi- Highlands Community Church File No. CU; R-048-90 Attachment A Page 3 Public Use, a designation that would be implemented by the requested zone change. The. record contains uncontroverted evidence that property should be zoned in accordance with its comprehensive plan designation. See Exhibit #29. The applicant has also met all City rezone requirements. By giving no weight to the Comprehensive Plan, the Examiner has ignored the City's longstanding position that this property is appropriate for public uses such as churches. Correction: Replace Conclusion No. 7 with the following language: Both the existing R-1 district and the proposed P-1 district permit the establishment of churches, and both require churches to be subject to conditional use approval. The conditional use criteria are similar in either review. However, the existing R-1 zoning is contrary to the City's Comprehensive Plan designation of the property for Public/Quasi-Public use. The proposed rezone would implement the Comprehensive Plan. 8 . Error: This Conclusion states in part that "the map element [of the Comprehensive Plan] represents a toss-up with about four different designations coming together in this general vicinity . . " This is simply not the case. Renton's Comprehensive Plan provides one designation and one designation only for the subject site: Public/Quasi-Public. The fact that there are other plan designations in the vicinity of the site shows only that the City specifically identified this area for public uses. Again, the Examiner has overlooked the weight that should properly be given to the Comprehensive Plan. Conclusion No. 8 goes on to state that " [t]he predominant characteristic which should carry more weight is the fact that the site is so intimately associated with its single-family neighbors to the east. " The Examiner has given inadequate consideration to the church's neighbors to the north (multi- family residences) and the northwest (large-scale commercial developments) . The church is every bit as "associated with" these neighbors; indeed, the Ekaminer recognizes this fact in Finding of Fact No. 10, stating that " [t]he site is located in a definite transition zone between areas designated for commercial uses along Sunset and residential uses east and south of that commercial corridor. " Residential development across the street from the church should not control the zoning of this site. Highlands Community Church File No. CU; R-048-90 Attachment A Page 4 Instead, the City should follow its Comprehensive Plan and its standards for evaluating a rezone request. Zoning code requirements have been met, and the request should be granted. Correction: Replace Conclusion No. 8 with the following language: The property for which the rezone is sought is potentially designated for the P-1 classification under the Renton Comprehensive Plan. 9 . Error: This Conclusion states that any transition from single- family uses in this area "should occur further from the single-family uses. " The basis for this statement is that the existing church serves to buffer these smaller residential uses from "the more intense commercial, multi-family, and frankly, church uses . . . . " The Examiner thus acknowledges that the transition from single-family uses has already occurred: It takes place as one crosses N.E. 9th Street and Kirkland Avenue N.E. onto the church property. The requested rezone thus hardly constitutes a wholesale departure from the existing development pattern in the area. Instead, it recognizes the City's plans for this site and places the church in the zone designed for such uses. Correction: Replace Conclusion No. 9 with the following language: The requested zone would require any further church development to undergo the conditional use permit process. Thus, it would not permit outright large-scale development of the site that is presently forbidden. In contrast, churches are permitted outright in the B-1 zone, subject to more generous height and bulk limitations. The P-i zone will provide a buffer between the commercial zoning to the west of the subject property and the residential uses to the east and south. 10. Error: Conclusion No. 10 describes various types of churches, properly noting that larger churches could generate more significant impacts on the surrounding community. It concludes, however, by stating that the R-1 zone is appropriate in this instance because "R-i conditionally permitted churches would appear to be the kind expected to serve a more local population and, therefore, be scaled accordingly. " The record contains no ,J Highlands Community Church File No. CU; R-048-90 Attachment A Page 5 support whatsoever for this conclusion. The congregation that a particular church serves depends upon an enormous number of factors, including denomination, locations of surrounding churches, and clergy. The zoning code is certainly not a device that should dictate who attends a church. Instead, the code must be applied according to its terms regardless of the composition and magnitude of a particular congregation. The City's rezone requirements are fully satisfied here, a fact that the Examiner has completely ignored. Correction: Delete the final two sentences of Conclusion No. 10. 11. Error: This Conclusion repeats the Examiner's belief that the proposed rezone is unjustified. The basis in Conclusion No. 11 is essentially that the rezone would "introduce[ ] one more incongruous element into the hodgepodge of zones which already exists in this transitional area. " The proposed P-1 zone is hardly "incongruous" in light of the Comprehensive Plan's designation of the subject site. Furthermore, the Renton City Code contains no reference to considerations such as this in its rezone criteria. Instead, it describes specific requirements that must be satisfied in order for a rezone application to be approved. This rezone meets the City's standards, and therefore warrants approval. Correction: Delete Conclusion No. 11 in its entirety. 12 . Error: Conclusion No. 12 states that the proposed rezone from R-1 to P-1 is "illogical" because the church property would remain under two different zone classifications even if the rezone were approved. Again, the Examiner has simply ignored Renton's adopted Comprehensive Plan. The property for which Highlands Community Church is seeking a rezone is designated for Public/Quasi-Public use in the Plan, not for residential use. The rezone will correct this disparity. The fact that it will not eliminate every disparity that exists in an area which all parties agree is transitional does not preclude the City from at least partially correcting the problem. The Comprehensive Plan is more than mere paper -- it expresses the City's goals for the use and development of its property. The proposed rezone will be a step towards realization of these goals. Correction: Delete Conclusion 12 in its entirety. Highlands Community Church File No. CU; R-048-90 Attachment A Page 6 13 . Error: This Conclusion states in part that "it is just as reasonable to alter neither [the R-1 nor the B-1] district's zoning and simply permit the church to exist as it currently does. " The Examiner has yet again ignored entirely the effect of Renton's Comprehensive Plan. What would truly be reasonable would be proper application of the City's rezone criteria, which are satisfied here, and a rezone of the R-1 property in accordance with its Comprehensive Plan designation. Correction: Delete Conclusion 13 in its entirety. 14 . Error: Conclusion No. 14 states in part that "if there were any change in circumstances in this area, they have been the impact of a growing church on a residential community. " The Highlands Community Church R-1 property has been so zoned since the 1950's. To state that the only changed circumstances in this area are the results of church growth amounts to claiming that the City has not developed in some four decades. Nothing could be further from the truth. During the intervening years, there have been tremendous changes in this area in terms of surrounding development, traffic, and infrastructure. Again, as the Examiner found, the church is in a transitional area. The P-1 zone will implement the City's Comprehensive Plan while at the same time subjecting the church to the conditional use permit process. Correction: Delete Conclusion No. 14 after the first three sentences. Replace the deleted material with the following language: The Renton Comprehensive Plan designates this site for Public/Quasi-Public development, a designation that will be implemented by the requested zoning. Conditions have substantially changed since the original zoning of this property. The requested rezone is advisable and in the public interest, and will further the preservation and enjoyment of Highlands Community Church's property rights. The rezone is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan, and is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other persons. Because all City and state rezone requirements have been met, the City Council should approve the reclassification of the site from R-1 to P-1. 20. Error: Conclusion No. 20 states that " [t]o further limit the impact of the expansion in the neighborhood, the applicant Highlands Community Church File No. CU; R-048-90 Attachment A Page 7 should close off the easternmost driveway, NE 9th Street, and the northernmost driveway, Kirkland Avenue NE. " There is nothing in the record to support this conclusion, and it should be revised if not eliminated in its entirety. The northern driveway on Kirkland Avenue N.E. provides access to the church's "upper" parking lot, located at the intersection of N.E. 10th Street and Kirkland Avenue N.E. This small lot can also be reached by a driveway from N.E. 10th Street. Because the main sanctuary entrance of the church is next to this lot, it currently serves as a dropping-off point for church members: Cars, vans, and buses enter the lot by turning right from N.E. 10th Street, discharge their passengers at the church door, and exit by turning right onto Kirkland Avenue N.E. From this point they simply turn right again into the main, "lower" parking lot. The two lots are presently connected by the vacated Jefferson Avenue N.E. The classroom addition, however, will preclude vehicle passage between the lots. The Examiner's condition requiring that one of the upper lot's driveways be closed would thus leave this lot with only one driveway. This situation raises numerous problems. As an initial matter, buses would be unable to use this lot to discharge children to the church. The lot is not large enough to permit a bus to turn around and exit onto N.E. 10th Street. Removing access to Kirkland Avenue N.E. would thus force buses to discharge children in one of two places, either on the sidewalk in front of the church, actually increasing congestion in the area by stopping on the street itself, or in the lower parking lot. The latter could raise safety issues by forcing children to cross the lower parking lot to reach the church. More generally, however, it is likely that closing off this driveway would in no way reduce congestion. If the egress onto Kirkland Avenue that presently exists were removed, cars dropping off church members in front of the church would be forced to turn around in the upper lot and exit onto N.E. 10th Street. This would obviously create congestion during times of high attendance, where there now exists smooth passage past the sanctuary doors. Alternatively, cars could choose not to drop off passengers in front of the church. Families would then face the decision of where to park. It seems quite possible that Highlands Community Church File No. CU; R-048-90 Attachment A Page 8 they would choose to minimize their walk to the front door of the church in making this decision, i.e. , by parking along the nearby public streets of Kirkland Avenue N.E. and N.E. 10th Street. Again, rather than reducing any traffic problems, closing off the northern driveway on Kirkland Avenue N.E. would instead exacerbate them. Had there been any indication at the hearing on the church's application that this condition was being considered, these issues could have been developed at that time. Instead, with no support on the record, the Examiner has imposed a drastic new measure recommended by neither City staff nor project opponents. The conclusion should be revised. Correction: Replace Conclusion No. 20 with the following language: To further limit the impact of the expansion on the neighborhood, the applicant should close off the easternmost driveway on N.E. 9th Street. " J Highlands Community Church File No. CU; R-048-90 Attachment B Summary of Action Requested For the reasons set forth in Attachment A to this Notice of Appeal, Highlands Community Church requests that the City Council take the following action: 1. Reverse the Examiner's recommendation on the church's rezone application and approve the rezone; and 2 . Modify the Examiner's decision on the church's conditional use permit application by removing the portion of Condition No. 9 that would require the church to close off the northernmost driveway on Kirkland Ave. N.E. 3 1 2 3 0 9 1 s i _______ --= CITY OF—REHTON 1 CITY TREASURER I 03-26-1992 `• REG/RCPT 02-24429 �ay9 pn CASHIER ID . H --- _ -_--===_-__=__ 8000 MISCELLANEOUS RE $75.00 3 HEARING EXAMINER APPEAL 000.000.00.338.58.00.0000 i. TOTAL DUE $75.0O RECEIVED FROM: i HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON 1 . ssiJ CHECK $75, I TOTAL TENDERED —_—_—_,—__—__-- CHANGE DUE $0 00 1 : s.: 1 CITY OF RENTON MAR 2 4 1992 RECEN CI lY CLERIC'S®DICE CITY OF RENTON CITY TREASURER . . REG/RCPT a 02-24354 03-24-1992 CASHIER ID = G 10: 2_am 7057 UNKNOWN ACCOUNT $75.00 HEARING EXAMINER APPEAL . 999.999.99.999.99.99.99999Q TOTAL DUE $?5,00 RECEIVED FROM: CORNELUS GEVERS CHECK $75 a 0Ci TOTAL TENDERED $75 0 00 CHANGE DUE $0.00 - i Mike Davis-Hall U 1221 Second AVE, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98122 Richard Wilson Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson 1221 Second AVE, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101 Jim Amandus Senior Pastor., Highlands Community Church 3031 NE 10th Street Renton, WA 98056 Steve Hammer Gabbert Broweleit Peterson Architects PS 6920 220th SW, Suite 20.0 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Geri Reinart David I. Hamlin & Associates 1319 Dexter AVE N, Suite 270 Seattle, WA 98109 Cornelus "Bob" Gevers 900 Kirkland AVE NE Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Lloyd Hoshide 833 Kirkland AVE NE • Renton, WA 98056 �--� William J. Flynn I A 911 Lynnwood AVE NE Renton, WA 98056 Betty J. Cowan ) 905 Lynnwood AVE NE Renton, WA 98056 / Marresheen McKay 904 Kirkland AVE NE Renton, WA 98056 Milma Nelson 839 Kirkland AVE NE Renton, WA 98056 Penny Eskenazi95 Mark Pywell Gregg Zimmerman Renton, WA 98056 Lynnwood AVE NE Senior Planner City Plan Review Supervisor Mayor Earl Clymer « Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Lynn A. Guttmann, Administrator of Members, Renton-Planning Commission Jim Hanson, Development Services Manager Gary Gotti,,Fire Marshal Ronald Nelson, Building Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Jay Covington, Mayor's Executive Assistant Transportation Systems Division Valley Daily News Utilities System Division 0 CITY' - F RENTON • r` '` „• Administrative Services Earl Clymer, Mayor Dan Clements, Director • March 30, 1992 APPEALS FILED BY 1) CORNELUS GEVERS AND 2) HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Recommendation, dated March 12, 1992, regarding Highlands Community Church application for rezone and conditional use permit; File No. R-048-90; CU-048-90 To parties of record: Pursuant to Title-IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, two written appeals of the hearing examiner's recommendation on the referenced matter have been filed with the city clerk, each accompanied by the proper fee of $75.00. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee, and the recommendation of the Committee will be considered by the City Council at a subsequent Council meeting. The council secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time Planning and Development Committee. If you are not listed in local telephone directoriesand wish to attend the meeting, please contact the council secretary at 235-2586 any weekday after 1:00 p.m. for information. Sincerely, 11 Marilyn sen, CMC City Clerk • • 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 • • APPEAL MAR<<, 2. f• 1992 HEARING EXAMINER WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTONs'G -Tqt 1Grn COUNCIL. FILE NO. CU ; R-048-90 APPLICATION NAME: Highlands Community Church The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated March 12 19 92 . 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY) Name: Cornelusi. T. Gevers . Name: Address: 900 Kirkland Ave N.E. Address: Renton. WA 98056 Telephone No.206-255-8816 Telephone No. 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: • FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No. Error: See attached 'sheets • Correction: CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: See attached sheets Correction: OTHER No. Error: See attached sheets Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: None Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other avtca). A ellant Re resentative S. rirai�i e-- (fl744ch te 19 p / p NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-164, for specific appeal procedures. November 15, 1991 heappeal.doc/forms ATTACHEMENT TO WRI( [N APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMI' 'S DECISION/RECOM- MENDATION TO RENTGiv CITY COUNCIL. FILE NO : CU ; R-048-90 HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH. Conditional Use• Permit Conclusions . Par.# 17 The interpretation of "There is a general community need for the proposed use at the proposed location" is in error. First of all, the word community should be interpreted as "people living in the same district, " meaning the Renton Highlands Community. A letter written by Mr. Steve Hammer, architect for the Highlands Community Church to Mr. Donald Erickson, dated March 24, 1989 regarding the proposed expansion had an attachment stating the justification for the conditional use permit request. The subject of community need was discussed as one of the justifications . It states that the "Highlands Community Church has been serving the Renton Highlands Community at this present location for over 30 years" , and that the pre- sent location is best suited for several reasons one of which is "close to the people and families it currently serves" . This letter is part of exhibit # 1. A petition (exhibit # 14) objecting to the addition of the church was signed by 152 people from the Renton Highlands Community. These are people that the church claims it will serve, but yet are objecting to the dominance of the High- lands Community Church. It is also clear from the petition signed by the people in support of the addition (exhibit #8) that the support does not come from the Highlands community. Worse yet the majori- ty of. 63% comes from outside the city of Renton and come from as far as Snohomish, Puyallup and Bellingham. Only a few of the Renton residents reside in the Highlands ( exhi- bit # 26) signed the petition. Both senior pastors and the board members also live outside the City of Renton. Considering the above , it can only be concluded that the addition to the church does not serve the community need. The reference to the protected exercise of religion is irrelevant since the proposed addition is only to be used for schoolrooms for children and as stated by the senior pastor not to enlarge membership. The Renton Highlands is literally overwhelmed with churches (exhibit # 21 ) which is supported by the fact that no other community in the Greater Seattle Area has a concentration of churches like it. This alone should be enough reasons for denying the conditional use permit. Par.# 18 The addition will have a very significant impact on proper- ties on the Eastside of Kirkland Ave N.E. Most of our views have been eliminated by the previous expansion and this pro- posed expansion will practically eliminate any view from our properties (exhibit # 28) Par.# 19 The applicant has not provided more parking stalls than re- quired. The proposed number of parking stalls is 320 and the requirement should be 342. ' Although Staff claims that only 185 parking stalls are re- quired for the existing building, a requirement was esta- blished by the City for 222 parking stalls as part of the per- mit for the previous expansion. - 2 - No changes in city codes should be applied retroactively to an existing building and the requirement of 222 parking stalls should still stand. A copy of the memo with this re- quirement is in exhibit # 1 . The proposed expansion requires an additional 120 stalls which will make a total of 342 stalls if the expansion would be build. The Hearing Examiner also suggested that the traffic and parking survey, done by a traffic engineer hired by the church attorney (exhibit # 10) and the photographs submitted by the. church neighbors may reflect the bias of -the respective con- tributors. (findings par.# 17 ) The traffic engineer knew what she was hired for and ob- viously had to produce a report favorable to the cause. It would be very naive to think that a negative report could have been submitted. Besides , nobody can dispute the report, since none of us was Pent during the survey and no pictures were included. On the other hand, the pictures submitted by the neighbors taken on a Sunday morning at approx. 11 :00 a.m. clearly shows the full church parking lot with several cars parked in isles of the parking lot. Some of the pictures also show numerous cars parked on the streets surrounding the church as a re- sult of the full parking lots . Also shown on the pictures are cars parked less than 300 ft from street corners at almost every street and- cars parked at bus stops , because no more legal street parking was available. These pictures clearly show the present church parking situation observed by the neighbors practically every Sunday and is not biased in anyway. Any addition to the church can only result in an even more intolerable parking situation. This is another reason why the Conditional Use Permit should be denied. Par.# 22 The statement that "The landscaping on the site was recent- ly refurbished" must be clarified. The landscaping was only "refurbished" after a letter was sent by a City of Renton Building Official in Oct. 1990. This letter was the result of complaints by the neighbors to the Community Services Committee, since the church has continuously ignored the complaints . . The refurbishment consisted of some weeding and spreading of bark by church members on. a couple of week-ends in 1990. . No maintenance work has been done since, although the Oct. 1990 letter specifically stated that a maintenance program must be assembled and adhered to for all on-site landscaping. The churchnever had and still has no intention of adopting a regular maintenance program for the on-site landscaping. It isn' t even trying to be reasonably compatible with the surrounding residences . But yet it is planning an addition which will cost approx. one million dollar and pay for it out of it's own funds. Presently the landscaping along N.E. 9th street and Kirk- land Ave N.E. is overtaken by the weeds and is there for everybody to see. Par.# 24 The Hearing Examiner states that the expansion should not unduly affect the adjoining residential neighborhood with- out any -explanation why he feels that way. . - 3 _ Most residents surrounding the church think otherwise by signing the petition submitted as exhibit # .14. They are the adjoining residents who expressed their feelings , which must be more important than deciding by gut-feel. In addition to the above I would like to inform the Council that this proposed addition is to be built on the vacated portion of Jefferson Ave N.E. Building on the vacated land will be in violation of verbal requirements established by the City and guarantees made by the church although these were not recorded as an ordinance , they must still be con- sidered binding. Following are some transcripts from the Public Hearing held on April 27, 1981 for the vacation of a portion of Jefferson Ave N.E. 1. The Mayor asked the Public Works Director about the presence of a sanitary sewer in that portion of Jef- ferson Ave N.E. The Public Works Director confirmed the presence of the sanitary sewer and stated "Jef- ferson Ave N.E. will therefor never be eligible for construction" The Mayor than asked "Nothing will change this?" The Public Works Director repeated "Nothing will change thisl " 2. A Council member asked the petitioner what the planned use for Jefferson Ave N.E. is. Answer by petitioner "Parking lot! " The same council member than asked the petitioner whether he would agree with a restrictive covenant stating that the vacated street only be used for a parking lot. Answer by the petitioner, was "He had rio qualms with that exception" . I would strongly suggest that the Council take the . time to listen to the tape recording of the Public Hearing, which I have in my posession and would gladly make available for, that purpose. Based on the above stated errors and unfounded conclusions made by the Hearing Examiner I would like to submit that the Council reverse the decision by the Hearing Examiner and deny the conditional use permit for the expansion of the Highlands Community Church. SPECIAL NOTE: I would like to make the request that any legal rulings that might be requested by the Council as a result of this appeal not be made by any of the City attorneys . This request is made to avoid any possible conflict of interest due to Mr. Kellogg's membership with the Highlands Community Church and Mr. Warren's association with Mr. Kellogg, not only as City attorneys but also as partners in a private law firm. This request will protect Mr. Warren from having to make any more ru- lings that seem to favor the Church, like the one allowing the Council to change the wording of a motion a week after it was passed at the conclusion of a Public Hearing without another hearing and also allow- ing changes to the published outcome of the Environmental Review.. Com- imittee without requiring another appeal period. hope I will receive your favorable support in this matter. APPEAL ` HEARING EXAMINER 'Xi-\k' '- 6 1992 WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOlvMENDATION TO RENTON CITY •- ; COUNCIL. :_ :s ;;.. ...:,=r:.;E: FILE NO. CU; R-048-90 APPLICATION NAME: Highlands Community Church Conditional Use Permit/Rezone The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated March 12 1:9 92 . 1. IDENTIFICATI;ON OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY) Name: Highlands Community Church Name: Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. Address: 3031 N.E. 10th Street Address: 1221 Second. Ave., Suite 500 Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone No, 255-4751 Telephone No. 623-1745 2. ,P ,IFTCATION (OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) . Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No, Error: • Correction: • CONCLUSIONS: • No. Error. See Attachment A Correction: • OTHER No. . Error: Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) See Attachment B X Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: X Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other • Hilli its r eters , P.S: March 26, 1992 B Appelian /Representative Signature` is el Davis—Hall rate NOTE: Please refer to Title TV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4.8.16, for specific appeal procedures. Novemboh 15, 1991 heappeal.doe/forms Highlands Community Church File No. CU; R-048-90 Attachment A Specification of Errors: Conclusions 1. Error: Conclusion No. 1 states in part that " [t]he requested classification is not justified and should not be approved by the City Council. " This conclusion is erroneous. Highlands Community Church is located one block east of Sunset Boulevard N.E. on approximately 7. 87 acres. The property is divided by a zone district boundary, with the easterly 2 . 9 acres zoned R-1 (single-family residential) and the remainder B-1 (business) . Abutting the site to the northwest are the commercial uses of Sunset Boulevard, including a Safeway supermarket. Multi-family residential uses are north of the property, with single-family residential development across Kirkland Avenue N.E. to the east and across N.E. 9th Street to the south. At the request of Renton City staff, Highlands Community Church applied for a rezone of the R-1 portion of its property in connection with its proposed classroom addition. This area is designated for Public/Quasi-Public Use in the Renton Comprehensive Plan. The proposed rezone to P-1 (public use) would make the R=1 property's zoning consistent with its Plan designation. The record demonstrates that the City's requirements for granting a rezone application, as set forth in Renton City Code ("RCC") § 4-8-14 (C) , are fully satisfied.. • Staff has recommended approval of 'the rezone, and project opponents presented no evidence at the hearing to show that any Code requirements were unmet. As set forth below, the Examiner's recommendation that the rezone be denied ignores these requirements as well as the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Correction: Replace the language quoted above with "The requested classification_ is justified and should be approved by the City Council. " 4 . Error: Conclusion No. 4 states in part that "the existing R-1 zoning remains appropriate for the subject site for a number of reasons. The R-1 zoning on the subject site serves, ever so tenuously, as a buffer between both- the commercial uses and the more intense residential uses, along Sunset and the single-family ' uses along Kirkland. " This conclusion is incorrect. All applicable rezone requirements have been met, and the site has been designated for the proposed P-1 zone for decades. In Highlands Community Church File No. CU; R-048-90 Attachment A Page 2 addition, the property is occupied by a church, the type of public use that the P-1 zone was created to accommodate. See RCC § 4-31-9 (A) . In contrast, the R-1 zone is intended for residential uses. See RCC § 4-31-5 (A) . The R-1 zone is therefore inappropriate, and should be changed. Correction: Delete all of Conclusion No. 4 following the first four sentences. 6 . Error: This Conclusion states in part that " [a] church in the P-1 zone would be permitted to be 50 feet tall and using the averaging formula applied to sloping roofs, it could, in reality, be taller. " This is not correct. Churches are conditional uses in the P-i zone. The City's conditional use standards require buildings to conform to height limitations established by the zoning code, but also require heights to be related to surrounding views "to allow optimal sunlight and ventilation, and minimal obstruction of views from adjacent structures. "" RCC § 4-31-36 (C) . It is therefore incorrect to state that churches would be categorically permitted to be 50 feet tall in the P-1 zone. Rather, building heights would be evaluated in terms of their impact on surrounding structures. The Examiner'.s concerns regarding potential height impacts created by the rezone are thus unfounded. Correction: Replace Conclusion No. 6 with the following language: While technically the P-1 zone could permit a church to be 50 feet tall, the City's conditional use permit process would require a proposed structure's height to be evaluated in terms of its impact on surrounding properties. Appropriate conditions could be imposed in a conditional use permit to ensure that a structure in the P-1 zone does not unduly impact the residences in the area. Depending on the status of the streets, the rear yard is ..generally larger for the R-1 single-family zone. Lot coverage is limited to 35% in the R-1 zone, whereas there is no such , restriction in the P-1 zone. 7 . Error: Conclusion No. 7 states in part that " [t]here seems to be no cogent reason for the introduction of another Zoning District into this area which is already well divided among competing zones. " This too is not correct: Renton's Comprehensive Plan has designated this site for Public/Quasi- , 1 Highlands Community Church File No. CU; R-048-90 . Attachment A Page 3 Public Use, a designation that would be implemented by the requested zone change. The record contains uncontroverted evidence that property should be zoned in accordance with its comprehensive plan designation. See Exhibit #29 . The applicant has also met all City rezone requirements. By giving no weight to the Comprehensive Plan, the Examiner has ignored the City's longstanding position that this property is appropriate for public uses such as churches. Correction: Replace Conclusion No. 7 with the following language: Both the existing. R-1 district and the proposed P-1 district permit the establishment of churches, and both require churches to be subject to conditional use approval. The conditional use criteria are similar in either review. However, the existing R-1 zoning is contrary to. the City's Comprehensive Plan designation of the property for Public/Quasi-Public use. The proposed rezone would implement the Comprehensive Plan. 8 . Error: This Conclusion states in part that "the map element [of the Comprehensive Plan] represents a toss-up with about four different designations coming together in this general vicinity " This is simply not the case. Renton's Comprehensive Plan provides one designation and one designation only for the subject site: Public/Quasi-Public. The fact that there are other plan designations in the vicinity of the site shows only that the City specifically identified this area for public uses. Again, the Examiner has overlooked the weight that should properly be given to the Comprehensive Plan. Conclusion No. 8 goes on to state that " [t]he predominant characteristic which should carry more weight is the fact that the site is so intimately associated with its single-family neighbors to the east. " The Examiner has given inadequate. consideration to the church's neighbors to the north (multi- family residences) and the northwest (large-scale commercial developments) . The church is every bit as "associated with" these neighbors; indeed, the Examiner recognizes this fact in Finding of Fact No. 10, stating that " [t]he site is located in a definite transition zone between areas designated for commercial uses along Sunset and residential uses east and south of that commercial corridor. " Residential development across the street from the church should not control the zoning of this site. I Highlands Community Church File No. CU; R-048-90 Attachment A Page 4 Instead, the City should follow its Comprehensive Plan and its standards for evaluating a rezone request. Zoning code requirements have been met, and the request should be granted. Correction Replace Conclusion No. 8 with the following language: The property for which the rezone is sought is potentially designated for the P-1 classification under the Renton Comprehensive. Plan. 9 . Error: This Conclusion states that any transition from single- family uses in this area "should occur further from the single-family uses. " The basis for this statement is that the existing church serves to buffer these smaller residential uses from "the more intense commercial, multi-family, and frankly, church uses . . . . " The Examiner thus acknowledges that the transition from single-family uses has already occurred: It takes place as one crosses N.E. 9th Street and Kirkland Avenue N.E. onto the church property. The requested rezone thus hardly constitutes a wholesale departure from the existing development pattern in the area. Instead, it recognizes the City's plans for this site and places the church in the zone designed for such uses. Correction: Replace Conclusion No. 9 with the following language: The requested zone would require any further church development to undergo the conditional use permit process. Thus, it would not permit outright large-scale development of the site that is presently forbidden. In contrast, churches are permitted outright in the B-1 zone, subject to more generous height and bulk limitations. The P-1 zone will provide a buffer between the commercial zoning to the west of the subject property and the residential uses to the east and south. 10. Error: Conclusion No. 10 describes various types of churches, properly noting that larger churches could generate more significant impacts on the surrounding community. It concludes, however, by stating that. the R-1 zone is appropriate in this instance because "R-1 conditionally permitted churches would appear to be the kind expected to serve a more local population and, therefore, be scaled accordingly. " The record contains no Highlands Community Church File No. CU; R-048-90 Attachment A Page. 5 support whatsoever for this conclusion. The congregation that a particular church serves depends upon an enormous number of factors, including denomination, - locations of surrounding churches, and clergy. The zoning code is certainly not a device that should dictate who attends a church. Instead, the code must be applied according to its terms regardless of the composition and magnitude of a particular congregation. The City's rezone requirements are fully satisfied here, a fact that the Examiner has completely ignored. Correction: Delete the final two sentences of Conclusion No. 10. 11. Error: This Conclusion repeats the Examiner's belief that the proposed rezone is unjustified. The basis in Conclusion No. 11 is essentially that the rezone would "introduce[ ] one more incongruous element into the hodgepodge of zones which already exists in this transitional area. " The proposed P-1 zone is hardly "incongruous" in light of the Comprehensive Plan's designation of the subject site. Furthermore, the Renton City Code contains no reference to considerations such as this in its rezone criteria. Instead, it describes specific requirements that must be satisfied in order for a rezone application to be approved. This rezone meets the City's standards, and therefore warrants approval. Correction: Delete Conclusion No. 11 in its entirety. 12 . Error: Conclusion No. 12 states that the proposed rezone from R-1 to P-1 is "illogical" because the church property would remain under two different zone classifications even if the rezone were approved. Again, the Examiner has simply ignored Renton's adopted Comprehensive Plan. The property for which Highlands Community Church is seeking a rezone is designated for Public/Quasi-Public use in the Plan,, not for residential use. The rezone will correct this disparity. The fact that it will not eliminate every disparity that exists in an area which all parties agree is transitional does not preclude the City from at least partially correcting the problem. The Comprehensive Plan is more than mere paper -- it expresses the City's goals for the use and development of its property.' The proposed rezone will be a step towards realization of these goals.. . Correction: Delete Conclusion 12 in its entirety. 1 1 Highlands Community Church File No. CU; R-048-90 Attachment A Page 6 13 . Error: This Conclusion states in part that "it is just as reasonable to alter neither [the R-1 nor the B-1] district's zoning and simply permit the church to exist as it currently does. " The Examiner has yet again ignored entirely the effect of Renton's -Comprehensive Plan. What would truly be reasonable would be proper application of the City's rezone criteria, which are satisfied here, and a rezone of the R-1 property in - accordance with its Comprehensive Plan designation. Correction: Delete Conclusion 13 in its entirety. 14 . Error: Conclusion No. 14 states in part that "if there were any change in circumstances in this area, they have been the impact of a growing church on a residential community. " The Highlands Community Church R-1 property has been so zoned since the 1950's. To state that the only changed circumstances in this area are the results of church growth amounts to claiming that - the City has not developed in some four decades. Nothing could be further from the truth. During the intervening years, there have been tremendous changes in this area in terms of surrounding development, traffic, and infrastructure. Again, as the Examiner found, the church is in a transitional area. The P-i zone will implement the City's Comprehensive Plan while at the same time subjecting the church to the conditional use permit process. Correction: Delete Conclusion No. 14 after the first three sentences-. Replace the deleted material with the following language: The Renton Comprehensive Plan designates this site for Public/Quasi-Public development, a designation that will be implemented by the requested zoning. Conditions have substantially changed since the original zoning of this property. The requested rezone is advisable and in the public interest, and will further the preservation and enjoyment of Highlands Community Church's property rights.' The rezone is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan, and is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other persons. Because all City and state rezone requirements have been met, the City Council should approve the reclassification of the site from R-1 to P-1. 20 . Error: Conclusion No. 20 states that " [t] o further limit the impact of the expansion in the neighborhood, the applicant Highlands Community Church File No. CU; R-048-90 Attachment A Page 7 should close off the easternmost driveway, NE 9th Street, and the northernmost driveway,, Kirkland Avenue NE. " There is nothing in the record to support this conclusion, and it should be revised if not eliminated in its entirety. The northern driveway on Kirkland Avenue N.E. provides access to the church's "upper" parking lot, located at the intersection of N.E. 10th Street and .Kirkland Avenue N.E. This small lot can also be reached by a driveway from N.E. 10th Street. Because the main sanctuary entrance of the church is next to this lot, it currently serves as a dropping-off point for church members: Cars, vans, and buses enter the lot by - turning, right from N.E. 10th Street, discharge their passengers at the church door, and exit by turning right onto Kirkland Avenue N.E. From this point they simply turn right again into the main, "lower" parking lot. The two lots are presently connected by the vacated Jefferson Avenue N.E. The classroom addition, however, will preclude vehicle passage between the lots. The Examiner's condition requiring that one of the upper lot's driveways be closed would thus leave this lot with only one driveway. This situation raises numerous problems. As an initial matter, buses would be unable to use this lot to discharge children to the church. The lot is not large enough to-permit a bus, to turn around and exit onto N.E. 10th Street. Removing access to Kirkland Avenue N.E. would thus force buses to discharge children in one of two places, either on the sidewalk in front of the church, actually increasing congestion in the area by stopping on the street itself, or in the lower- parking lot. The latter could raise safety issues by forcing children to cross the lower parking lot to reach the church. More generally,_ however, it is likely that closing off this driveway would in no way reduce congestion. If the egress onto Kirkland Avenue that presently exists were removed, cars dropping off church members in front of the church would be forced to" turn around in the upper lot and exit onto N.E. 10th Street. This would obviously create congestion during times of high attendance, where there now exists smooth passage past the sanctuary doors. Alternatively, cars could choose not to drop. off passengers in front of the church. Families would then face the decision of where to park. It seems quite possible that Highlands Community Church File No. CU; R-048-90 Attachment A Page 8 they would choose to minimize their walk to the front door of the church in making this decision, i.e. , by parking along the nearby public streets of Kirkland Avenue N.E. and N.E. loth Street. Again, rather than reducing any traffic problems, closing off the northern driveway on Kirkland Avenue N.E. would instead exacerbate them. Had there been any indication at the hearing on the church's application that this condition was being considered, these issues could have been developed at that time. Instead, with no support on the record, the Examiner has imposed a drastic new measure recommended by neither City staff nor project opponents. The conclusion should be revised. Correction: Replace Conclusion No. 20 with the following language: To further limit the impact of the expansion on the neighborhood, the applicant should close off the easternmost driveway on N.E. 9th Street. Highlands Community Church File No. CU; R-048-90 Attachment B Summary of Action Requested For the reasons set forth in Attachment A to this Notice of Appeal, Highlands Community Church requests that the City Council take the following action: 1. Reverse the Examiner's recommendation on the church's rezone application and approve the rezone; and 2 . Modify the Examiner's decision on the church's conditional use permit application by removing the portion of Condition No. 9 that would require the church to close off the northernmost driveway on Kirkland Ave. N.E. 3 1 2 3 0 9 - ri AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING . STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss. County, of King ) WANDA M. BRITTS , being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the l2td y of March ,1992 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. 81 - SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this / day of March , 1992 (1L . Notary i,n and f the State of Washington, residing at y .,e.,c. jr , therein. Application, Petition, or Case CU;R-048-90 Highlands Community Church . (The minutes contain a list of the parties of,record.) r r E e March 12, 1992 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION APPLICANT: HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH File No.: CU;R-048-90 LOCATION: 3031 NE 10th Street SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly 2.9 acres of the project site, from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to P-1 (Public Zone) and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to construct a three-story (13,769 square foot) addition to the existing one and two-story (43,425 square foot) church building (with a footprint of 22,665 square feet) in order to provide additional classroom and office area. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Planning Division Recommendation: Approval with Conditions • PLANNING DIVISION REPORT: The Planning Division Report was received by the Examiner on January 28, 1992 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Division 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 February 4, 1992, at 9:35 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 - Vicinity Map Exhibit #3 - Site Plan • Exhibit #4 - Elevation Drawings Exhibit #5 - 4 Photos Showing Superimposed New Addition Highlands Community CU;R-048-90 March 12, 1992 Page 2 Exhibit #6 - Updated Elevations Exhibit #7 - Parking Plan Exhibit #8 - Petition in Support Exhibit #9 - Resume' of Geri Reinart Exhibit #10 - Parking Survey Exhibit #11 - Extract of Comprehensive Plan Exhibit #12 - Extract of Renton Zoning Code Exhibit #13 - Escrow Package Exhibit #14 - Two.Petitions (Rezone & Conditional Use) Exhibit #15 3-5-91 letter to Mr. Gevers from Mayor Clymer Exhibit #16 - Church Newsletter Article Exhibit #17 - News Article Exhibit #18 - Printout of Area Development Exhibit #19 - Comments.from Neighbors (2 sheets) Exhibit #20 - Changes in Neighborhood Exhibit #21 - Map of Area Churches Exhibit #22 - Petition Regarding Traffic Exhibit #23 - Petition Regarding Noise Exhibit #24 - Card Showing Driving Directions Exhibit #25 - Photos Showing Parking Exhibit #26 - Map Showing Church Petition Signers by Zip Code Exhibit #27 - Corrected Square Footage (2 sheets) Exhibit #28 - Church Floor Plan & Photos Taken from Mr. Gevers' Home (2 sheets) Exhibit #29 - 2-20-92 Letter to Hearing Examiner from Richard Wilson Exhibit #30 - Ordinance #3435 For Vacation of Jefferson Highlands Community - CU;R-048-90 March 12, 1992 Page 3 Exhibit #31 - Calendar of February Church Events Exhibit #32 - Geocoding Drawings (2 sheets) Exhibit #33 - Addendum to Original Opposition Petition (2 sheets) Exhibit #34 - 2-16-92 Statement from Richard R. Goff (*These numbers were subsequently corrected by Exhibit #27.) The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by MARK PYWELL, Senior Planner, Development Services Department, who stated that-the applicant was seeking to rezone a *4.-1 acre portion of the site from R-1 (single-family, residential) to-:P-1 (Public) zone, and was..proposing to construct a two-story, *12,800 square foot addition to the existing one and *two-story *42,500 square foot church building. The Examiner tasked whether it would make.more.sense, since part of the site was already zoned.B-1, to rezone the rest of the site B-1., where a.church is-permitted-outright and the-applicant would not have to go through the additional permit process. Mr. Pvwell said that Staff felt the church was more of a public/quasi-public use rather than a business use, the B-1 is a business district, and that P-1 was more appropriate due to the nature of the use. The remainder of the site was designated for commercial use on the Comprehensive Land'Use Map, but B-1 on the Zoning Map. The entire site-is *7.9 acres with the project site *4.1 acres of that. Churches are a conditional use in the P-1 zone as well as.the R-1 zone. The current building has a *17,995 square-foot footprint and the applicant's requested.addition would bring the total size to *55,300 square feet. The applicant had indicated possible future construction of a sanctuary building to seat 1,500 people. If the church did decide to proceed with that project it would have to be reviewed at that time, both for site land'use and;environmental impacts. Mr. Pvwell reviewed.:Rezone criteria under which the Hearing'Examiner would be considering the application, noting that there should be evidence that the subject reclassification appeared not to have been considered during the last rezoning. The last review was in 1982, and staff could find no evidence that this particular area was considered as a specific zoning question. The Comprehensive Plan was being reviewed currently and no future determination had yet been made for, this area, however, the requested rezone would bring the property into compliance with the existing Comprehensive Plan. Existing public utilities and roadways appeared to be adequate to serve the, proposed project. Under the Conditional Use criteria, there appeared to be community need, and staff did not believe there was an over-concentration of churches in the area, since the nearest church was more than a quarter mile away. There had been some concerns raised by the neighbors in the past but staff believed those issues could be addressed in the remaining criteria. The Examiner asked about proposed further expansion of the church down the line, and said this permit or whether it was approved or not, should not be an indication of how staff might review any subsequent permit requests. He stated that supporting a larger educational and administrative staff here did not mean the City would support building of a large sanctuary in the future. Mr. Pvwell said that was correct, and said that staff felt the project was suitable for the proposed land use, noting that there was additional parking area shown on the site plan, which should relieve some of the concerns of the residents about on-street parking. Staff was also requiring that access to NE' 10th be paved and upgraded to help convince the church goers to use that route off of Sunset. The P-1 zone does not specify a limit to the lot coverage, but the proposed building plus the existing church complex covered about 10% of the building site. In order to provide the proper setback on the northwest corner of the church, the applicant had negotiated a lot-line adjustment with the Golden Pines Apartment complex. Highlands Community i:nurch CU;R-048-90 March 12, 1992 -. Page 4 This document was being held in an escrow account. In the determination issued by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the lot-line adjustment was requested to be recorded prior to the hearing, but in dealing with the apartment complex and HUD, staff found them unwilling to provide the lot- line adjustment unless the project was approved. As a condition of issuing the Conditional Use Permit, the lot-line adjustment would be required to be recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits. The height limit in the P-1 zone is 50 feet, and the proposed addition height was 25 feet, consistent with the zone. ' The applicant had moved the proposed development, which would not exceed the 28- foot height of the gym, to the rear of the church to minimize any view disruption. Mr. Pvwell said the new structure would be wood, stucco and brick to match the existing buildings. The applicant would provide additional landscaping, and staff had recommended a bond for three years to assure installation and maintenance of landscaping. Some area residents had voiced-concern that the church complex was getting too large for the area and this was causing problems with the adjacent neighbors about the use of the streets surrounding the-church for parking by church members. Staff believed these problems had been.addressed by requiring additional parking, a paved second entrance on the subject property, and a continuing campaign by the church to encourage its congregation not to park on the street. He said neighbors.could request the City to issue-permit-only parking along their, side of the street, but this cannot be required as part of the Conditional Use Permit. The Examiner asked whether the City had such an option available and also wanted to know how much of the westerly lot was paved. Mr. Powell replied that he understood it was an available option, however, whether the City had ever granted that or not, he wasn't sure. He said the paved area measured about 30 feet by 250 feet, and the applicant would pave an additional area about. 30 feet wide. Part of the parking was paved in the past and.at that time, the applicant created a temporary stormwater control plan. The applicant would be required to establish a final stormwater quality control plan when the remainder of the parking lot was.built which would be about 300 parking spaces when completed, exceeding code requirements.. Staff•supported providing all of the parking requested by the applicant. Mr. Pvwell reported that there also had been concerns in the past about traffic. After review, Staff had found the streets would not exceed rated capacities as a result of the proposed addition. Regarding noise and glare, the P-1 zone stated that truck traffic and other noises normally associated with an operation were to be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., unless the Hearing Examiner found, due to specific circumstances, that other hours of operation should be established. The landscaping had been addressed, much of which already existed, and the main area where landscaping was needed was around the newly installed parking lot and the rear of the new addition. Most of the public improvements were existing. Jefferson Street was vacated, however there were still some existing easements for utilities, which were for providing service to the church. Puget Power and Washington Natural Gas had indicated that they would not have a problem either releasing their easements or working out new ones with the applicant. The City would need to work with the applicant in providing easements for some utility lines which cross the property. Staff recommended support of the proposed Rezone and Conditional Use Permit. RICHARD WILSON, Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500,.Seattle, WA 98101, stated that the addition being proposed was an appropriate expansion of the church for its education facility. There had been a prior application which included a new sanctuary, but that application had been withdrawn. He noted, however, that some of the calculations of square footage needed correction, saying they were minor in nature except the total square footage should be about 1,000 more than shown on the site plan, which would affect the parking requirement which is based on one space per 100 square feet, indicating a need for an additional 10 parking spaces.- The applicant intended to offer an additional 20 spaces, bringing the total to 320, with the intention to assure that parking demands would be met on church property. F" Highlands Community ?-,e,6-ch CU;R-048-90 March 12, 1992 Page 5 JIM AMANDUS, Senior Pastor, Highlands Community Church, 3031 NE 10th Street, Renton, WA 98056, offered a description of the building, a two-story structure of 13,800 square feet, stating that the purpose of the new structure would be to add six additional classrooms to provide services for the existing membership, not necessarily to enlarge membership. Regarding parking, he advised that the church had taken steps to encourage members to stop parking on the street. The Hearing Examiner asked about the success of this campaign, whether the members were parking on the lot or on the street. Mr. Amandus answered that according to a recent traffic study, there had been significant progress. The Examiner asked about classes during the middle of the week. Mr. Amandus stated that classes were held on Sunday, and during the middle of the week there was a Wednesday evening club program. STEVE HAMMER, Gabbert Broweleit Peterson Architects PS, 6920 220th SW, Suite 200, Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043, stated that there were some minor changes on the plans, and the square footage was.changed because the;plan was modified slightly so that allof the addition would be on the current R-1 zone and that future work or future additions.would be-separated onto the B-1 zone. Possible future construction,of.a sanctuary_would.take place entirely.on the B-1 zone, but these were two totally separate projects. He-offered--Exhibit #6 showing..updated elevations,saying the elevator penthouse had been raised to tie into.the third floor of the existing building. The substantial part of the building was 25 feet high, while the elevator:penthouse was planned to be 37 feet above the finished floor of the lower level. Square footage would also be affected, as the addition would be 13,769 square feet instead of 12,800 square feet as stated in the staff report. ' The existing building was 43,425 square feet. One minor addition to the front of the building was a triangular piece that was cut out of the building on the southwest corner of the new structure, and if there was an addition in the future, it would have had to be built back onto the building.` The other discrepancy which Mr. Pywell had mentioned was the area of the zone in question, the amount of the rezone would be 2.9 acres andthe-existing B-1 zone was five acres. The Examiner stated that he would prefer that those types of things were carefully described early in the process, and he hoped the legal notice over-included rather than under-included, to correctly inform the public. Mr. Hammer;stated-his site plan had shown the correct figures all along and he didn't know where the discrepancy came from. He clarified how he-arrived at the four photos (Exhibit #5) showing the new addition superimposed on the current building, stating, that it was not an exact construction but"an-approximation to the best of his ability. Mr. Hammer made the following corrections to the staff report: 43,425 square foot rather than 42,500 square foot church building; the square footage of the addition was 13,769, not 12,800; it had an 8,770 square foot footprint, not 6,697; the church complex would be 57,194 square feet when complete, and the footprint was 17,289 square feet rather than 17,995. The area of the new paving that was just done by the church was 24,000 square feet, which would accommodate 75 cars. Mr. Wilson stated that the actual notices that went out to the public did not state any particular acreage, but since the actual acreage being rezoned was less than what Mr. Pywell was asserting, he felt there would have been an over-inclusion, so no one was mislead. The staff report indicated that the site was not served by Metro when actually, there were two bus routes that stopped on Kirkland and NE 10th streets. In terms of the rezone from R-1 to P-1, this parcel had been zoned R-1 for three decades, and for that entire time the Comprehensive Plan had indicated this parcel as planned for public/quasi-public uses. Mr. Wilson recapped zoning requirements, and said the growth and success of the church had changed since the last zone change in the 1950's. He felt that the growth of the church constituted considerable change in conditions that would substantiate the Rezone. He also felt that it was highly unlikely that this property would ever revert back to development as private residential, therefore he felt the P-1 zoning would be more appropriate, and provide more predictability for the church in terms of its Highlands Community 3'cii rch .' CU;R-048-90 March 12, 1992 Page 6 future use. The principal complaints from residents in the area immediate to the church were traffic and parking. The applicant had tried to respond to that and paving the present gravel area would help, expanding parking to 320 stalls. A Rezone would bring the property into compliance with its Comprehensive Plan designation, and the Rezone was not detrimental. The proposed addition for classrooms would not result in a wholesale expansion of the church or a physical alteration that, in and of itself, would attract great numbers of new members. He recognized that any future proposed sanctuary addition had that potential and said that issue would have to be addressed at that time. He also reviewed Conditional Use Permit requirements, noting that he felt the applicant met all the criteria. He submitted.a petition with 730 signatures in support of the proposed project, saying that there was a pressing need for the addition, as some classes were being held in stairwells because of lack of space. This was the only church within a quarter mile and since it was an addition to an existing church, would not result in an over-concentration of churches in the area. The project met lot coverage requirements in both the B-1 and P-1 zones. Regarding noise and glare, he clarified a Staff- recommended condition limiting hours.of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., stating that should be a limitation on construction, not on church operations. Mr. Powell pointed out that the zoning ordinance.didn't distinguish between operation or construction activities, but it did allow the church to request different hours of operation. Mr. Wilson then requested that hours of operation for church activities be extended to 1.1:00 p.m. GERI REINART, Traffic Engineer with David I. Hamlin & Associates, 1319 Dexter'Avenue N, Suite 270, Seattle, WA 98109, summarized the results of the parking survey she'conducted at the Highlands Community Church on Sunday, January 26, 1992, which included an inventory of the church parking lot and parking on NE 10th between Kirkland.and Index, Kirkland Avenue'between' NE 9th Street and "NE 10th Street, and along NE 9th' Street between Kirkland Avenue and Jefferson' Avenue. In answer to the Examiner's question about whether the church members knew the survey was being conducted, Ms. Reinart stated she did not know, but reported that there seemed to be no significant amount of cars parked on any of the streets, and over all, the majority of the church parking was being accommodated in the parking lot. She also advised that there was no curb and gutter section on the east side of Kirkland which might cause people parking there to roll up on the sidewalk, getting in the way of pedestrians. In answer to the Examiner's question about sight distance from the NE 10th Street driveway, and whether there was any problem with people turning left or right out of that driveway, Ms. Reinart replied that she did not evaluate that aspect. Mr. Pvwell stated that he had visited the site and did not recall any sight distance problems there but that he had not taken measurements. SENIOR PASTOR JIM AMANDUS stated that Mr. Wilson had arranged for the parking survey at the request of the church, but church members were unaware that it was being conducted. In addition, he noted that particular date was one of the highest in terms of church attendance. MR. WILSON stated that he felt the favorable results of the parking survey demonstrated the success of the applicant's campaign for increased parking lot use by the congregation. He also felt that the burdens imposed on the applicant had been met and existing impacts on the community had been addressed and mitigated. He said the church concurred with staff recommendations except for hours of operation, and asked the Examiner to set other hours during which church activities could take place. GREG ZIMMERMAN, City Plan Review Supervisor, stated that he had been involved in the plan review for this project for a number of months. He advised that the City would require that the current stormwater code, according to the adopted 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual, be used on the design of the'stormwater facility. When approximately 75 parking stalls to the southwest of the current church site were recently paved, there had been created a temporary drainage swale to Highlands Community straiutch ' CU;R-048-90 March 12, 1992 Page 7 collect the stormwater and route it through the City stormwater system. One requirement would be that currently existing pavement be incorporated into the new proposed stormwater facility. Another issue involved the vacation of Jefferson Avenue which ran through the site, with the City and several other utilities retaining utility easement rights. The existing eight-inch sanitary sewer line apparently _ only served the church, therefore, it would not be an inconvenience to the City to have the sewer line cut back to where the building extension was proposed but the applicant would have to go through a release-of-easement procedure. Mr. Zimmerman said the original intent in the vacation of Jefferson Avenue granted by Renton City Council, was to allow only parking facilities to be built over that vacated portion, however, one week later the Council added an addendum allowing church buildings to be located in the vacated street. CORNELUS 'BOB' GEVERS, 900 Kirkland Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98056, referred to the vacation of Jefferson Avenue by saying that the motion to vacate the street was passed at the official public hearing. The addendum was made at the.Council meeting without a public hearing. Mr. Wilson stated that there was nothing in the vacation ordinance that limited, restricted.or otherwise regulated the use.of the vacated street, and askedMr. Zimmerman if he agreed, to which Mr. Zimmerman answered-that his reading of the ordinance concurred with that statement. Mr. Gevers stated his and other neighbors' oppositions to the proposed project, which included what he considered to be lack of cooperation from staff, insufficient public notice, concessions to the DNS, withholding of information from the public, and insufficient staff time spent on the data. The Examiner pointed out the issues he dealt with were substantive, such as was this project appropriate as outlined, what Mr. Gevers felt was wrong with this_project,why the Council should deny the rezone, and what were the specific reasons why the Conditional.Use Permit should be denied. Mr. Gevers again,voiced his concern that the public had not had a chance to review the changes in the project, which he felt were substantial,.-and said errors in the staff report, on the number.of parking stalls for example, suggested that;more,time was needed to review the project. Mr. Pvwell stated that the original application did indicate an 11,800 square foot addition. Subsequent to .that, the applicant asked to revise the plans to a 12,800 square foot addition, and these changed plans were accepted about mid January and copies of the revised plans were then placed into the file. Staff did not feel that the relatively small changes would require any new conditions or comments. MR. LLOYD HOSHIDE, 833 Kirkland Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98056, said he had gone to look at the plans after the public notice and found no drawings in'the file at that time showing the 12,800 square footage. - Mr. Gevers continued, stating that an increase in the height of the building would,be a major impact on his view, he felt there was an over-concentration of churches in the immediate area, (nine within one square mile), and he felt that the staff report seemed to favor the applicant. The Examiner noted that staff usually took a stand on each project, whether or not in their opinion it should be approved, and what conditions might be necessary to make it compatible or more compatible. Mr. Gevers stated that.he wanted time to compare the revised drawings and the landscaping to what was now being requested. He considered the traffic analysis done by the applicant to be highly biased, he questioned the use of expert'witnesses, and the legality of concessions made to the applicant by the City. He mentioned his concern that a member of.the church, Mr. Dan Kellogg, was employed in the City attorney's office, which made him uneasy on these rulings which seemed to favor the church, seeing it as perhaps a conflict of interest He failed to understand the reasoning behind rezoning'the portion of the applicant's property to P-1, since it had been there for 30 years under the R-1 zoning and said the ' Highlands Community Griurch CU;R-048-90 March 12, 1992 Page 8 neighbors would feel more comfortable keeping the R-1 zone for the differences of what was allowed, building height for instance. The Examiner stated that the church would be permitted under either zone. Regarding the vacation of Jefferson, Mr. Gevers said that during the hearing on that matter, it was specifically stated that no structure should ever be built on the sewer line located in the vacated street. The Examiner said that he was guided by the ordinance and if there was a problem with the ordinance, then Mr. Gevers should challenge that. Mr. Gevers stated that he and the neighbors strongly objected to the rezoning; that parcel should never be developed or allowed to be built on. The proposed plans carefully avoided any buildings on the B-1 lot and they would like to see something being built on there, within the zoning requirements, but it should be changed to P-1. He said that parcel was at one time assessed at $1,250,000 with taxes at over $800,000 which was appealed and the taxes reduced to $7,000 which would bring the value down, out of a B-1 zone. In answer to the Examiner's question, he felt that claims that the parking problems had gotten better were just wishful thinking on the part of the applicant. Mr. Hoshide stated his concerns regarding the project, rioting that the neighbors feared the loss of the protective R-1 zoning, felt the-church was beginning to dominate the neighborhood, and were concerned that if the zone was changed to P-1 there would be nothing to stop the church from getting approval for a new sanctuary which would attract new members, thereby increasing the intrusion into the neighborhood and exacerbating existing problems of parking, traffic congestion, and noise. He felt that references made by church members about the new sanctuary proved that it was the next step. The Examiner stated that any proposed future sanctuary building construction was not part of the instant project, and he could not consider it at this time. After several warnings by the Examiner about discussing the sanctuary building which could not be part of any consideration during this hearing, Mr. Hoshide continued with his testimony, however, any further references to a proposed. sanctuary have been deleted from these minutes. .. Mr. Hoshide,discussed the changes,in the size of the proposed building, noting that it went from 11,900 to 12,800 square-feet and-now the applicant was asking for 13,797 square feet. In answer to the Examiner's question about what size addition had been reviewed by the ERC, Mr. Pvwell said the original 11,900 square foot addition had been reviewed but when the copy amended to 12,800 square feet was submitted, the staff that had made the original comments to the ERC indicated that this was a minor change which did not call for any further comments on their part. Staff was not aware of the 13,800 square feet now being asked for until the applicant mentioned it at this hearing. He said he met with Mr. Zimmerman during the break and discussed this matter with him, but Mr. Zimmerman did not feel that this would be a substantial change that would require any additional conditions on the part of the City. In answer to the Examiner's question whether the building footprint had changed, Mr. Hammer stated that any project was constantly in a state of flux and there were two changes to the project, but the effective square footage was very_minor, the footprint increased very little, about 1,000 square feet; the height changed a very minor amount in a small area that was hidden behind an existing building. He said the drawings were available for review, and that the plan really hadn't changed, they had made an error in the original area calculation. The Examiner said that the footprint had been altered by about 1,000 square feet, or one sixth of the original proposed size of the building, which he felt was substantial. Mr. Hoshide discussed the history of the neighborhood and church growth, saying that the residences had been in place as long as the church had, and the major expansion of the church came after the neighborhood was already filled in. He felt that the neighbors needed the protection of the'R-1 zone and something more than verbal assurances from their big neighbor. Their concerns centered around the development standards which included a 95-foot height limit allowed by the P-1 zoning, as opposed Highlands Community 'inurch CU;R-048-90 March 12, 1992 Page 9 to 35 feet in R-1, and no restrictions on lot coverage. That raised fears that residential concerns would be stonewalled. He wondered why the zoning couldn't be left the way it was and the applicant could continue to operate as they had for the last 34 years, while the residents could have confidence that they could continue to receive protection under the R-1 zone, which prohibited development of uses detrimental to the residential environment, a clause not found in P-1. He also felt that rezoning to bring the property into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan was not a strong enough reason in that the language in the Plan stated that the plan was not a developmental ordinance and not intended to retroactively impose compliance with goals, objectives and policies of non-existent property, which to him meant that the Plan itself was not a reason for compliance. Regarding the Conditional Use Permit, Mr. Hoshide said that the church was the significant structure in the area, and they had been able to co-exist all these years, but now the church was asking for more expansion. He felt that the neighbors would be trapped by continued growth of the church which would impact their property values and quality of life. The neighbors felt strongly that the 55,300 square-foot size of the church would result in a David and Goliath relationship, and the neighborhood could not tolerate more growth. The Examiner advised that the time allotted for the hearing had run out, court was going to convene immediately, and he would continue the hearing to a time and date certain. He stated that the public was welcome to come at that time, but he would limit testimony and would allow•no repetitious testimony as there was no point to that. He also asked that the applicant submit a concrete proposal as he would like to know that the proposal before him was the final one that staff and the neighbors could review as the final proposal. Mr. Wilson stated that the revision in square footage was only a discrepancy, not a plan change. WILLIAM J. FLYNN, 911 Lynnwood Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98056, asked what ever happened to the park that, in 1953, was designated for that area. BETTY J. COWAN, 905 Lynnwood Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98056, asked why the applicant had requested a change from R-1 to P-1 on the east side of the property. This matter was continued to 2:00 p.m., February 13, 1992. The hearing closed at 12:59 p.m. Subsequently, the hearing was re-scheduled to February 20, 1992. The hearing resumed at 2:05 p.m., February 20, 1992 as the Examiner called.for continuing testimony from those opposed to the proposed Conditional Use and Rezone applications by the Highlands Community Church. Ms. Cowan spoke in reference to the traffic engineer's testimony, stating she felt that Ms. Reinart must have visited an entirely different site to have come up with a report showing no parking problems. Ms. Cowan said she was familiar with the driving route that swings on Kirkland to NE 10th and turns at NE 9th because she had driven that way to church and during the week, and there was stop and go traffic around the church on any Sunday, a problem which had become increasingly worse over the years. She said many of her neighbors shared her opinion, and presented a petition regarding traffic congestion. MARRESHEEN McKAY, 904 Kirkland AVE NE, Renton, WA 98056, stated that she had to get up at 4:00 a.m. each morning to leave for work and found it impossible to get to sleep because of all the traffic and noise associated with the church activities. She felt that by 8:30 or 9:00 p.m. at night, it should be quiet so a person could get to sleep, and presented a petition regarding noise which had been 'signed by other neighbors who were also concerned about the noise and bus and other traffic. - Highlands Community �cnurch -F CU;R-048-90 March 12, 1992 Page 10 Mr. Flynn stated that he felt there was a hazard in the present design of the church because he had witnessed and had videotaped two teenagers dancing on the roof of the classroom, on the east side of the gymnasium. He felt that the building design should be altered for greater safety for the children, for whose benefit the addition was being proposed. MILMA NELSON, 839 Kirkland AVE NE, Renton, WA 98056, stated that she had lived around the corner from the church for 34 years, and on one recent occasion when there were many cars parked on her street, called the church. Her call was answered by a recording giving instructions on how to drive to the church from outlying locations. She said it was scary to think that the neighborhood could be overrun by people coming from outside the local area. She did not want to challenge their right to exist or operate but was very concerned about the growth and traffic congestion. She also had a concern about the safety of neighborhood children on such congested streets. PENNY ESKENAZI, 951 Lynnwood AVE NE, Renton, WA 98056, said that several of her neighbors had asked her to present their objections and concerns. The church's compatibility evaluation of the site was based on the assumption of P-l rezoning. That was without-regard to the fact that block 32 had always been zoned R-1. The applicant suggested-that there was community need. Three additional churches were located within a quarter mile radius, and seven within walking distance; 17 within a six to seven square-mile area. She felt that no one presently lacked opportunity to worship in the community. She said that photos taken of the church parking lot on Sunday, February 2nd and 9th between 10:00 and 10:45 a.m. clearly indicated that the expert opinion of the traffic engineer was an underestimation of the parking space necessary to accommodate the church membership. .Lots were full and cars were shown parked in the area slated for development as the-educational facility. It appeared that the available parking was going to be seriously diminished,as the church. continued-its expansion. Mr. Wilson objected to the comments on the labels of the photos being submitted but notto the photos themselves. Ms. Eskenazi said the church had activities scheduled for 24 of the 29 days in February, and it certainly could be expected that new facilities would further expand and extend membership activity. The applicant had not made its case for Conditional Use. It was her perception that continued development and expansion of the church was not compatible with a neighborhood church but more in keeping with a regional facility, a perception that was supported by the ZIP code study of 711 church petition signers which found that 36.7% were Renton residents, while 63.3% lived outside of Renton. She said that the 152 adjacent property owners had presented their statements about unchecked growth, noise, traffic, parking, escalating activity levels, safety hazards, the disproportionate size of the structure in relation to the surrounding residences and their potential loss of view and property values. They did not feel that the church membership fully appreciated the impact that an active, expanding organization had on a residential community. Each church member was present for only a small portion of the activities which sometimes extended late into the evening, but the neighbors were - exposed 24 hours a day to the negative aspects of their expansion. The R-1 zoning afforded protection and assurance to the neighbors that further development was not planned for the parking area, which now served as a much needed buffer zone to the massive buildings and high-density activities of the church. She stated that P-1 zoning was not required to accomplish the stated objectives of the church. Ms. Eskenazi said that to ignore the protection that the R-1 zoning now afforded the home owners in order to place the appropriatelabel on Block 32 was pure bureaucratic nonsense. Collectively, she and the other neighbors represented the primary land use for the area that would be impacted by a change of zoning. She emphasized that their welfare as a community must take precedence in this matter, and it was not timely to grant a rezone which would upset the checks and balances that now maintained a measure of insulation and protection from church activities.• P-1 zoning was not necessary for church growth and it eliminated much of the incentive to maintain a fair and productive relationship with Highlands Community inurch s1 CU;R-048-90 March 12, 1992 Page 11 homeowners. The neighbors felt that R-1 was an absolutely necessary and critical element to the process which protected the interests of many local property owners over the private goals of one group. The regulatory aspects and developmental criteria afforded by R-1 preserved the residential atmosphere and stability. The Examiner stated that the applicant and staff had come up with a definitive chart of the expansion plans, and various numbers that were somewhat in doubt at the last hearing, and asked Mr. Pywell to enter those into the record. Mr. Pvwell reported that the applicant had'submitted a revised site plan. The Examiner asked for confirmation that the only change was the numbers, and that the footprints that were shown on the drawings submitted at the previous hearing were the same as they were at the last hearing on this matter. Mr. Pvwell said that was correct,and read the actual footages into the record: existing building, 43,425'sf, the proposed addition, 13,769 sf, for a total of'57,194 sf. Mr. Pvwell also noted that after the.February 4th hearing, he had discussed the change of numbers with the ERC members, who did not request any further consideration on their part. Ms. Cowan said that Mr. Wilson had madea statement that the applicant was not planning to build anything further. Yet in his report he mentioned an area that would be developed for church use at a later date. She thought the rezone request was for that purpose. The Examiner stated that the applicant did have plans to_develop at one time but that was not presently before the'City and therefore he would riot consider it at this time. Mr. Gevers said he would like.to bring out the affect of the addition on his residence, presenting two views taken from his home, showing how the addition would further obstruct his view. He said he had added a second story to his home because ofthe view, part of which had already_been taken away by the construction of the gymnasium: Mr. Wilson addressed the issues which had been raised by the residents; regarding the discrepancies in the square footage, he said the minor errors in the numbers did not require a further examination for SEPA purposes by the ERC; regarding the escrow arrangement, it was too onerous to have the documents recorded prior to the hearing and then, if no approval was gained, to un-record them. The escrow assured that the lot line adjustment would take place, once approval was gained. Regarding Mr. Kellogg's church membership and employment in the City attorney's office, Mr. Kellogg had absented himself from this proceeding at the church, so there would be no appearance of fairness issue. Regarding parking.and traffic, Ms. Reinart, a licensed traffic engineer, had counted every car and found no observable problems. At present the lot could accommodate 300 cars and 320 spaces would be striped when the parking lot was completely paved. He said allegations being made that the proposed addition would generate new traffic were not true since the educational facility expansion was only to serve existing membership. Regarding community need, he felt that community could mean more the entire affected community, not just the city of Renton. Regarding the size of the new facility; "13,769 square feet was not disproportionate for this kind of educational facility. He pointed out that Highlands Community Church had been in the neighborhood for over 30 years and was entitled to continue that use, and that the only determination to be made was whether the new addition would create an impact on the neighborhood that was qualitatively different from what had been there before. Although residents might be discommoded on Sunday mornings, they had to recognize the constitutional amendment regarding freedom of religion. Under case law, the City may exercise its land use controls as to church facilities when it affected the exercise of religion, only to the 'extent that it did not unreasonably interfere with the exercise of that right. Mr. Gevers objected to the use of the First Amendment in this matter, as he felt the purpose here was to interpret Renton Codes. Highlands Community church CU;R-048=90 March 12, 1992 Page 12 Mr. Wilson continued, saying that there had been no points raised that would override that First Amendment right. It had not been-shown that there was a public safety threat due to congested traffic. He also questioned the legitimacy of applying the statement regarding an over-concentration of churches in the area, saying that requirement was dubious. There were only two churches within a quarter mile. He also said that it could not be seriously alleged that because there was a church next door that another church would be denied the right to locate. He said that all the criteria for a rezone had been met. He felt that the church should be recognized for what it was, not residential but public/quasi-public, and the Rezone would bring the property into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He felt the neighbors would not, as a result of rezoning, lose protection as the church was a conditional use in the P-i zone as well, and as such, it must receive a Conditional Use Permit, but the church would have the underlying assurance that the specific use was the one that the City had zoned for. The Rezone would not cause the church to strike out on a wholesale departure from its current use; only to continue to exercise its rights to make sure that the children of this church had the opportunity for education. He asked that the Rezone and Conditional Use Permit be granted. Mr. Hoshide pointed out that the 9:30 a.m. conclusion of the traffic engineer's test was too early, as the parking lot was most full at 10:00 a.m., as borne out by the pictures of the parking lot taken at 10:30 to 10:45 a.m. He felt that she had left too early to get a realistic sampling of the parking volumes. Regarding the level of activities at the church, the activity schedule for the month of February (Exhibit #31) demonstrated the almost continual use of the church buildings. Regarding the Comprehensive Plan, he noted that his reading of the plan stated that churches located in residential areas should be of a size and intensity similar to the adjoining use, and the church was and always had been on a residential lot. Mr. Gevers said by his count, the number of parking stalls should be 332 while 320.were presently being proposed. He felt the interpretation of community need by Mr. Wilson was a matter of convenience because most of the parishioners did'not belong to the community, and most officials including both senior pastors didnot,live in the community. Regarding the Conditional Use Permit, Mr. Wilson was_saying that it was only for church use and Sunday school, but there was preschool, daytime and nighttime activities. The neighbors were being bothered every day. He said they were not trying to overturn the First Amendment, and didn't want the church to leave, but were trying to coexist with the church, and just wanted the church to be a good neighbor, not bring any more people from outside. Mrs. Nelson stated that she had observed many different types of classes being held at the church including karate, jazzercise, and cat shows. She said the church had never needed a rezone to do what they did, why not just continue as it was. In her opinion, street parking was a problem because church members didn't want to park in the lot, finding street parking easier access. The buses often had severe problems turning the corners due to cars being parked too close to the corners. Mr. Flynn said he was devastated and objected very strongly to the use of the First Amendment references made by Mr. Wilson, and that he would be the last person in the world to go against a church, any church. Mrs. Cowan said Reverend Wilson had come to her house, stood in her window and admitted that the addition would block her view. She said the loss of the view would lower the value of her home. Mr. Powell stated that he had no changes to the information provided in the staff report. He also said that Mr. Gevers had referred to the parking numbers being off. Staffs recommendation for this project was based on an analysis for the entire building at this time. Previous requirements were not used. Highlands Community'viurch CU;R-048-90 March 12, 1992 Page 13 The Examiner requested one extra week in which to consider the decision, and there were no objections. 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 3:29 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Highlands Community Church, filed a request for approval of a rezone of property from R-.1 (Single Family; Lot size - 7,200 sq. ft.) to P-1 (Public/Quasi-public) to accommodate a church school expansion together with a request for a conditional use permit to accommodate that same expansion. 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-at 3031 NE 10th Street. The site is located between NE 9th Street and NE 10th Street on the south and north, respectively•and between Kirkland Avenue NE on the east and Harrison Avenue NE on the-west. The vacated right-of-way for Jefferson Avenue NE runs through the subject site. Sunset Boulevard NE is located northwest of.the site. 6. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1246, enacted in April, 1946. 7. The church complex actually straddles two zoning districts. The R-1 zoning the applicant proposes changing .is located on the east side of the site. The west side of the site is zoned B-1 (Business/Commercial). The vacated right-of-way of Jefferson provides the demarcation between zones. The eastern, R-1 acreage that would be reclassified is 2.9 acres. The entire site is 7.87 acres, leaving approximately 5 acres zoned B-1. (Staff originally reported the rezone site would be 4.1 acres). 8. The existing building is 43,425 square feet over three floors and a balcony. The existing building has a 22,665 square-foot footprint. 9. The proposed three-story expansion will contain 13,769 square feet divided as follows: Levels 000 and 100 will each contain 6,697 square feet; and Level 200 will contain 375 square feet. The addition's footprint will be 6,697 square feet. The church's total square footage, after the addition, will be 57,194 square feet and the footprint will be 29,362 square feet. (These numbers were corrected during the course of the hearing and reflect the actual proposal.) Lot coverage would be approximately 10%. A lot-coverage requirement does not exist for the P-1 zone and up to 35%.lot coverage is permitted in the existing R-1 zone. Highlands Communitychurch CU;R-048-90 March 12, 1992 Page 14 10. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of public and quasi-public uses, commercial uses and both single-family and multiple-family residential uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. The Map element of the Comprehensive Plan would appear to designate the church property for public-type uses. The site is located in a definite transition zone between areas designated for commercial uses along Sunset and residential uses east and south of that commercial corridor. 11. The zoning in the area reflects the transitional location of the church as well. Multiple-family residential uses are located north of the site, including one that occupies the northern half of the western lot it shares with the church. The apartment building that shares the lot with the church is actually zoned B-1, the zoning that corresponds with the applicant's westerly parcel." North of the site, across NE 10th Street,.is a small R-3 zone. There are multiple-family . residential uses-located in this district. South of the site and west of Jefferson is an R-2 (Duplex Residential) district. Single-family uses correspond with the R-1 (Single-Family Residential; Lot Size - 7,200 square feet) district and occupy the lots south and east of the church, south of NE 9th Street and east of Jefferson and Kirkland, respectively. This R-1 district also extends north of NE -10th and east of Kirkland and single-family homes are also located here. Commercial uses are located west of the site in the B-1 district that generally follows the Sunset corridor. 12. As currently proposed, the church-addition would violate the setback requirements along the northwest portion of the addition. To accommodate the addition; the applicant has entered into a contract to purchase sufficient property from the adjacent parcel to permit the addition to meet code requirements. The contract has been placed in escrow to assure that the agreement is appropriately executed only if the proposed expansion is approved by the City. 13. It appears that utility lines run under the site in an alignment that corresponds with the former alignment of Jefferson Avenue. Staff reported that it appears that these easements serve only the subject site. In any event, the church has submitted letters which indicate that other potential easement holders would be willing to have the easements or utility lines relocated to an area not affected by the proposed expansion. 14. The church's landscaping suffered a lack of maintenance.in the past but this has been corrected. Staff has recommended that the approval of the project be conditioned on a landscape maintenance bond being provided to assure the continued upkeep of the landscaping. 15. Neighbors of the project have complained of excessive traffic and parking problems on the residential streets east and south of the site. Some of these complaints were taken to the Mayor's office and the Police Department. Staff has recommended the paving of a driveway to encourage its use as an alternative to access through residential streets. 16. Staff analysis indicates that the area roadways have sufficient capacity to serve the traffic generated by the existing church and the proposed expansion. Staff has recommended that.the driveway to 10th be paved to re-route traffic away from the residential areas east and south of the church. 17. A one-day parking survey commissioned by the applicant showed limited parking usage of the nearby streets during worship hours. There were allegations that the congregation had been asked recently to cooperate with efforts of the neighbors at reducing on-street parking and that • Highlands Community nurch CU;R-048-90 March 12, 1992 Page 15 the survey would not reflect normal congestion. Similarly, photographs submitted by the neighbors reflect specific visits to the site. These various exhibits may reflect the bias of the respective contributors. 18. The church membership consists of residents of a wide area and appears to demonstrate a regional representation. 19. The existing complex requires 185 parking stalls. The addition will require 110 additional stalls. The applicant will be providing parking on the church property for 320 vehicles. Additional paving and striping (stall delineation) have been installed to accommodate the parking requirements of church patrons. Staff has recommended paving of the remainder of the church's gravel parking area. 20. The addition will be finished to match the existing building with stucco, brick and wood trim. Roof treatment will match the existing gymnasium which is flat. 21. View and elevation drawings indicate that the addition will blend with the mass of the existing . structure but will intrude into the existing view corridor as viewed from the east or southeast along Kirkland. , CONCLUSIONS Rezone 1. The proponent of a rezone=must demonstrate that the request is hi the public interest, that it will,not impair the public health,,.safety-and.welfare and in addition, complies-with at least one of the criteria found in Section.4-8-14, which provides in part that: a. The subject site has not been considered in a previous area-wide rezone or land use analysis; or b. The subject site is potentially designated for the new classification per the Comprehensive Plan; or c. • There has been a material and substantial change in the area in which the subject site is located since the last rezoning of the property or area. The requested classification is not justified and should not be approved by the City Council. 2. It does not appear that the subject site was specifically analyzed the last time the City did an area-wide land use review. The past Comprehensive Plan reviews that have been done have not changed the land use designation for the site. It would appear that the current review of the Comprehensive Plan also will not alter or modify this land use designation. 3. The Comprehensive Plan has a number of components. The Map Element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for public and quasi-public uses. It also shows the surrounding areas as suitable for commercial uses and mixed residential uses. The Map Element in a conspicuous note states: "NOTE: The Comprehensive Plan is not a final blueprint, but rather a general design for future growth. In most cases, the land use element Highlands Community Church CU;R-048-90 March 12, 1992 Page 16 map identifies generalized areas for future land use rather than precise boundaries between uses." 4. The goals and policies provide a textual framework in which to interpret and implement, as appropriate, the map's general guidelines. That textual framework emphasizes compatibility, unifying identity, and appropriate transitions between zones. It suggests more intense uses be appropriately buffered by less intense uses when possible. It provides that residential amenities and characteristics be preserved. After a thorough review, it becomes, apparent that the existing R-1 zoning remains appropriate for the subject site for a number of reasons. The R-1 zoning on the subject site serves, ever so tenuously, as a buffer between both the commercial uses and the more intense residential uses along Sunset and the single-family uses along Kirkland. The reason for this tenuous buffer is that, fortuitously, a church has occupied the extreme edge of this R-1 zone: The church is kind of a wedge between the intensive uses located along Sunset and the-single-family uses east and south of Sunset. The church plays this role very well. 5. The church is an example of a more intense use that is permitted in an R-1, zone by conditional use permit. As such, it is subject to R-1 bulk standards such as setbacks, heights and lot coverage. Its status as.a conditional use-would not change if the P-1 -zoning requested were granted but some of the more limiting bulk standards would be relaxed. This relaxation would permit a larger mass to be situated immediately adjacent to an R-1 zone fully developed with low intensity single-family uses. 6. A church in the P-1 zone would be permitted to be 50 feet tall and using the averaging formula applied to sloping roofs, it could, in reality, be taller. While similar averaging can be applied in the R-1 zone, starting with the shorter_35 foot•limit of the R-1 zone, less imposing structures could be built on the subject site. In addition to the height differences permitted, the rear yard (depending on the status-of the streets)•is generally larger for the R-1 single-family zone and lot coverage is limited to 35% in the R-1 zone, whereas there is not such restriction in the P-1 zone. 7. There seems no cogent reason for the introduction of another Zoning District in this area which is already well divided among competing zones. While the Comprehensive Plan may suggest P-1 zoning, it does not mandate such a zoning designation, particularly, when the existing R-1 designation permits the development of the applicant's proposed use. Both the existing R-1 district and the P-1 district permit the establishment of churches and both require churches to be subject to conditional use approval. The conditional use criteria are similar in either review. As shown above, the P-1 zone could permit a larger complex while the R-1 zone might restrict the size of any ultimate development to a scale more in keeping with the single-family district requirements. 8. - In the current case, while the map element represents a toss-up with about four different designations coming together in this general vicinity, the land use policies and goals should be more controlling. The predominant characteristic which•should carry more weight is the fact that the site is so intimately associated with its single-family neighbors on the east. It is obvious by the number of signatures gathered in opposition to the expansion that this church has had an impact on the immediate community. But signatures alone don't define this issue. It is more appropriate to match the scale of the less intense neighboring uses, in this case the R-1 zone's uses, than permit the more generous scale of the westerly neighborhood, the B-1 commercial district, to dictate the impacts. Highlands Community i;nurch CU;R-048-90 March 12, 1992 Page 17 9. In other words, if any transition from the less intense single-family uses is to occur in this area, it should occur further from the single-family uses. The church property provides the appropriate opportunity to buffer the more intense commercial, multiple-family and frankly, church uses, from the less intense single-family uses located northeast, east and south of the church. Since the courts have recognized that, in zoning, it is entirely necessary, as a matter of course, to draw district boundaries somewhere, the current location is more appropriate than one closer to the single-family community. In addition, the R-1.zoning-.not only permits churches under the same general conditional use rules as P-1 zoning, but permits the proposed expansion requested by the church in this instance. 10. While the Renton code does not appear to distinguish between different levels of church hierarchy or infrastructure, it is clear that there are differences. There are the small sanctuaries that serve local parishioners and there are the somewhat larger complexes with larger sanctuaries that cater to a wider audience. There are also even larger complexes which might correspond ' with cathedrals and then there are the complexes which include exhaustive administrative functions resembling commercial organizations and, finally, those that include educational facilities. There is no doubt that a wide difference in impact would be anticipated from uses on one end of this spectrum, the local church, and the impacts associated with running a large complex with administrative offices and educational facilities. The impacts can most definitely spill over into the community. When the surrounding neighborhood is commercial, the impacts would probably be less noticeable. When the adjacent neighborhood is single-family residential, more so. The"R-1 conditionally permitted churches would appear to be the kind expected to serve a more local population and, therefore, be scaled accordingly. R-1 is appropriate in this case. 11. The designation of some"portion of this area as potentially suitable for P-1 zoning-by the Map Element'does not carry enough weight to-counter the negative land use implications noted above. Further, other than the map,element, there does not appear to be any overriding reason to reclassify a portion ,of a block, let alone only a portion of the church complex, to P-1 at this time. There is no reason to introduce an unrelated zone, P-1, into this particular location other than to accommodate the church which is already reasonably accommodated and permitted by the existing R-1 zone. It just introduces one more incongruous element into the hodgepodge of zones which already exists in this transitional area. Again, P-1 zoning would permit a less, or at least potentially less, compatibly scaled building next to existing single-family homes. 12. While the request might make some sense if the entire church property were to be reviewed, the request is inappropriate in its present incarnation. In isolation, there is no reason to reclassify half the church site to P-1. If it were to unify the entire complex under one zoning it might be appropriate although that question is not before this office. To eliminate the R-1 zoning in favor of the P-1 zoning while leaving the just-as-incompatible B-1 zoning for the other half of the church property is illogical. 13. At"the moment it is just as reasonable to alter neither district's zoning and simply permit the church to exist as it currently does. The church is a legally conforming use permitted in the R- 1 zone. The church has not been denied any ability to appropriately expand. Under either the existing R-1 or the proposed P-1, the church would require a conditional use permit. Other than the potential for a larger expansion in a P-1 zone, the applicant has the same rights and privileges as it would in an R-1 zone. And in this area, the larger more bulky structures that could be constructed in the P-1 would be incompatible with the residential scale this site faces on two or three sides. . Highlands Community i;nurch CU;R-048-90 March 12, 1992 Page 18 14. It is clear from the reaction of the immediate community that this church has had impacts on the community. If they were slight there would not have been such concerted opposition. While there was also concerted support for the applicant's request, the supporters are affected in a different manner. The disapproval of the rezone does not prohibit the proposed church expansion while it does protect the single-family neighborhood from potentially greater impacts on their homes and lives. It would appear that if there were any change of circumstances in this area, they have been the impact of a growing church on a residential community. Those are not the types of changed circumstances that provide support to rezone property from a compatible R-1 to a less compatible P-1. Therefore, the City Council should not approve the reclassification of the site from R-1 to P-1. Conditional Use Permit CONCLUSIONS 15. The applicant for a Conditional Use Permit must demonstrate that the use is in the public interest, will not impair the health, safety or welfare of the general public and is in compliance with the criteria found in Section 4-31-36 (C) which provides in part that: a. The proposal generally conforms with the Comprehensive Plan; b. There is a general community need for the proposed use at the proposed location; c.. There will be no undue impacts on adjacent property; d. The proposed use is compatible in scale with the adjacent residential uses, if any; e. Parking, unless otherwise permitted, will not occur in the required yards; f. Traffic and pedestrian circulation will be safe and adequate for the proposed project; g. Noise, light and glare will not cause an adverse affect on neighboring, property; h. Landscaping shall be sufficient to buffer the use from rights-of-way and neighboring property where appropriate; and i. Adequate public services are available to serve the proposal. The requested conditional use appears justified and should be approved. 16. The proposed expansion is compatible with both the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan for this area, whether one looks at the potential P-1 designation or the adjoining neighborhood. A church is considered a reasonable use, although subject to this particular conditional use analysis, in or near single-family areas. Similarly, church related uses including educational facilities and reasonably related administrative functions are reasonable in or adjacent to single- family areas. 17. This office tends to agree with the applicant that determining community need on the protected exercise of religion is difficult to address. This office would be reluctant to make such a determination unless it was apparent that an area was literally overwhelmed with churches that Highlands Community'church CU;R-048-90 March 12, 1992 Page 19 significantly interfered with other protected rights. That is not the case. Nor does it appear that this expansion crosses the line. 18. The expansion will have modest impacts on nearby property but the impacts of this expansion do not appear to be undue or overwhelming. While this office has to acknowledge that views will probably suffer, the proposed church addition is actually no taller than an ordinary single- family home, although it is certainly bulkier. The staff analysis did not conclude that the addition, as opposed to the already existing functions, would have much of an impact on the community after the construction period. Construction activity always generates some untoward impacts. Even with the addition, the lot coverage is still only about 10%, well below the 35% lot coverage permitted in an R-1 zone. 19. The applicant has made appropriate provision for parking, providing more stalls than required. Staff generally discourages excess parking since excess parking can encourage additional automobile traffic but, since parking on nearby residential streets has been a recognized problem, the modest supplementary parking suggested by the applicant appears reasonable. The parking will occur in designated lots and will not occur in required yards or setback areas. This office would have to agree that on-street parking in front of neighboring residents' homes can be irritating, but unless parking restrictions are adopted, people, both area residents and non- residents are permitted to park on the public street and this could continue even if the church's parking lot were enlarged. People seek parking that is convenient both in terms of closeness to their intended destination and in terms of ingress and egresss. Some people are willing to park further from a destination to be able to avoid parking lot tangles that occur when many people attempt to leave a lot at the same time. Others want the proximity, particularly if weather is inclement. Without legal restrictions, people will continue to park where it is convenient for them. 20,. To further limit the impact of the expansion in the neighborhood, the applicant should close off the easternmost driveway, NE 9th Street, and the northernmost driveway, Kirkland Avenue NE. 21. The proposed addition, again, after construction activity has ceased', should not result in undue noise, light or glare, particularly if exterior building and parking lot lighting is selected that minimizes off-site spill-off and reasonable limitations on activities limit late night hustle and bustle. To keep the impacts on the adjacent community to a minimum the applicant should curtail weekday activities early enough so that few church participants are disturbing the surrounding community after 10:00 pm. 22. The landscaping on the site was recently refurbished. The ERC also required additional landscaping. Any additional landscaping should be selected to minimize,interference with remaining views across the site from the east. Perimeter landscaping around the parking areas should be of sufficient height and density to prevent headlight glare from spilling off the site. To ensure that the landscaping survives to serve its intended purpose, the applicant should bond the landscaping subject to approval of the City. 23. The proposed expansion should not unduly tax existing public services. The applicant will have to appropriately relocate any utilities that might be disturbed by the proposal, including those located in the vacated Jefferson alignment. 24. The requested conditional use permit to allow the proposed expansion appears reasonably well designed and should not unduly affect the adjoining residential neighborhood, nor should it adversely affect the public interest. Highlands Community't urch CU;R-048-90 March 12, 1992 Page 20 RECOMMENDATION The City Council should deny the request to reclassify the subject site from R-1 to P-1. DECISION The Conditional Use Permit is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. ~t 2. Additional landscape materials shall be selected which minimize interference with remaining views across the site from the east. 3. Perimeter landscaping around the parking areas should be of sufficient height and density to prevent headlight glare from spilling off the site. 4. All landscaping shall be subject to the review and approval of Planning Staff. The applicant shall post a $3,000 bond or other appropriate device which ensures that the landscaping survives to serve its intended purpose. 5. The applicant:shall be responsible for the relocation of any utilities that might be disturbed by the proposal, including those located in the vacated Jefferson alignment. 6. The applicant shall curtail weekday activities early enough so that few church participants are disturbing the surrounding community after 10:00 pm. 7.' All exterior lighting shall be designed and installed so that off-site spill-off of light is minimized. All lighting shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Staff. 8. The applicant shall fulfill the terms of its lot line agreement with the appropriate party including granting that party access rights across church property. 9. To further limit the impact of the expansion in the neighborhood, the applicant shall close off the easternmost driveway, NE 9th Street, and the northernmost driveway, Kirkland Avenue NE. ORDERED THIS 12th day of March, 1992. YaLtA- FRED J. K FMAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of March, 1992, to the parties of record: Mark Pywell Senior Planner Highlands Community biurch CU;R-048-90 March 12, 1992 Page 21 Gregg Zimmerman City Plan Review Supervisor Richard Wilson Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson 1221 Second AVE, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101 Jim Amandus Senior Pastor, Highlands Community Church 3031 NE 10th Street Renton, WA 98056 Steve Hammer Gabbert Broweleit Peterson Architects PS 6920 220th SW, Suite 200 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Geri Reinart David I. Hamlin & Associates 1319 Dexter AVE N, Suite 270 Seattle, WA 98109 Cornelus "Bob" Gevers 900 Kirkland AVE NE Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Lloyd Hoshide 833 Kirkland AVE NE Renton, WA 98056 William J. Flynn 911 Lynnwood AVE NE Renton, WA 98056 Betty J. Cowan 905 Lynnwood AVE NE Renton, WA 98056 Marresheen McKay 904 Kirkland AVE NE Renton, WA 98056 Milma Nelson 839 Kirkland AVE NE Renton, WA 98056 Penny Eskenazi 951 Lynnwood AVE NE Renton, WA 98056 `y, Highlands Community Lnurch CU;R-048-90 March 12, 1992 Page 22 Mike Davis-Hall 1221 Second AVE, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98122 TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of March, 1992, to the following: Mayor Earl Clymer Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Lynn A. Guttmann, Administrator Members, Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson, Development Services Manager Gary Gotti, Fire Marshal Ronald Nelson, Building Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Jay Covington, Mayor's Executive Assistant Transportation Systems Division Valley Daily News Utilities System Division Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. March 26, 1992. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous-procedure, errors of law.or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 16, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. 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. . . • " .• ' • • .. . • , . •• •. , . . .. • • • , : — • • - . . -. - •. --. . 1L 1 . . 11 g LI . • //ii / I . 1. • --.,, .,. ri;i1UPIP,'7.,.. 'i. IL" "is•—•••.....___ . ge • - •A.NM,-*%•;'''.461,..t.;". • j ' I . • (/ t• ( • .• '- T-i-I'',. ,:1.....-,..Evr...!-1114wrxr" • ----'-r---'----"4.-- • 1 ., l•-'•••;1 11./V1a1 rt ...a...114, . ....''''....... .....'\.... G-11...-e- I t i • .! _ iv,imi,10,:gpimiziorips riii_. ll itemzo..;._ 4%.„---•-•, . • .. :: •L..iiii riket.1.5..:Ali.,F.,..." .... . . r- • li • ''''''‘''''''‘.-....,... I- . . Mig-`101-- , .. 1.... _ ,_......, . z. . ..,.......„,_,........r -,.411,04,..., •_•,.... . ../0 r • , ,,, r v*AILjaffigm c•47 , 0 !-':'1 -Y''' irg.41 NI I. i,• ''. . -4-1.551%fr. VI 116 1 411111 • • • i: I • _1 1 . , .'''''.'. 44:4' . "M.":je:' •iFr .„--**,..•__.,.. -.: ''`'H- .,. 'k5-‘,{,.4,-.4;..• -14 Ii4 I" 'ILi-'.• ••=.- • C."1-9-.2.c..2... 22.-1 2........_ A. ' Alif ..-- -1'. - • .. .--. . . 0 • .1 4 sjio i • I I . . 1,-1!.. . • . --gf..:. • • •I 0_, If . 1 *A.=, : 11:., il _. —. ......_ . . , . ',.,',I' Vrcti;". 44, i''S7I,37 ,g:-. •ri. t, •• 1. .'a grol .. •-41(f • 4 I, I ' ..k''-2•• 14 4.1 i . •.- -. :,,,,k,,• ..M.E 011: ......., ,-,,,s- • • •,rxr...41,‘ ..K. -. /41111 17..1-10.74. -,f.,:i•1 .. 211 '4'..."--...M...71.1'\\. P-.‘,--, • - j• ----1 • ,:I•'•• . .2 ---\.. - -.•'‘ 471': . --7 -.• . ---"- 7 • 0:// -1fil:rlit .• •2 j•••--.,.. '( .1,e.i• '' _., , . • •A: ...'-'1 , . ••,1"ED C E I /0$4,.. . , . •-,' AP .1 - i , flit-' 1 _ •_ —4-itsl--.„ • . °I11.:Li'I .-- , •"-• ' "'•2 V /C2,' , ''''' .• .fil 2.....' - NE'' IA .... . .. • . ,1 • , .. RI. ".11 71 1 .i. /..-1 lti a-7j 1.. • V/• Airo." . t, __ 'I A?M,P.7. Il "."-..' - , .134,:it \< • III* ir•A a • __________ -,,.- •1E1(0 . . 0..0„0-.‘t:7 ir„..Y.I4 !,„...,.cr. It '• / • •I I i--1:: ......._* •;''w"0 CE •,,,!...'?141AIINiMII.: Ar. - lc! .r i 4i.----1, "T"-•,atieg" • ;Ie.Ering..'- ti. ezt-v-leAr..0.,.... . ...1.• ..,..•..ajz,Irgh. • - • ll .- r1- .R1 4,'*•.,.."4-- ,,F...-01q..Ai! ,,,,....., • .— li. - • - . . \Zs,. 0 =• 7; k‘l•'-'0".. -feff,SIM th* ! : -: —,,1 N g. —T7 .,, , _ -__ ,. . ..„,..,-.. . ..., .. .., . . A _ qv i 1 ,• E.' ,:f. ..—• 1 •-,,, .W.f.. 1 \.... - , '1... ; --11) 7‘' . • - i . . .' I : • C....r.,,E....2....1.- . . • -,.• 4,..' • ___.1- I.- -Wlit li . , . ,,,--,,.....,-..w4. : - ' ''.. -'''''',t".1 -. .2-'*•'-'.r..1.--....:12'"•... -----rar . • • • . • • . I .H.E. •TH sr. $1: _1- ..•.. , . ----: ___ T---11. • . .. ... , . . . • __ • . . Rs...c.E.121.4.. • .,,14••• 41 . , K•I' . . SITE PLAN / ROOF. PLAN \ Al . . NORTE . I( )' g•...40'-0.. . 1:fuhlo4fimmu6 nity Church • Eric). , . , ! • ' .. . . I . . • . . . 1 j.':.,,...7i:.1.;,:“.-,1"':•• •,-- - - . . . • . • - ! I • ..., ....., '' .... , ' , ..• . . . . ......, --'",-....„,........„,„ . •. -.... . -.... 1-- . , 11- -........ . . . , --..., . • --a.,,.. . . . -.... . . - . .I . , ... ' • '-'•'''. :.-:','.T.-.';.-..i.',..-.- I , . . ..... '''''---. • ..., ....i. -, , .1,i•.".,..+,•-,, • - ..`, ii---.• • • . . .77C"-.1...i....,.., . i -..... . r , n ..,-r-- 77 - , , .... . • , -1 ___5.( , __ /, .; .... iliumnis_ __ __ _.___71>11/1.1117211 _ _ . 1 u . 1 __ • iiSr • .I I , .. , _10111 , / .iiir i 1 I .1.,..„ • . . . __L. . .. rrtaric- -....• • • . ___.--- ,•-• • ---.-4_, . . , ."` i - • . , 1, ..5,;z0,4.. _ 1. 1 NE illi ''..............„ 1 I . { _ . . • ; • -' - ._ . , . .- --...,,N)'-'i ' ,,,,,crp.r.......,... / .. .. • . . I I' /' r itt,--L.ki •-1Y1._ Li• ___] .1.A_ „..... . . . . .. . . .. . . ., • ...-. _ ,•,- r_.... I. • . . 1 1 • 1 ,,......... ... .• ., . ...,..........„. 1 : • J / .. . . o .' I Ill r"-, ..:Q : . .... •• -,--t--r.- LL.,' ..2 . II I •-.--- 1: -n,..P!-.: •! / 1 . , in. - ._ , D; , 1 ; L _r_f _ _ i '"'—f 7. I i I II ..--,,•-• H• —_.• .. F-4.--,t2.2,4- - • 1 ....• I I .,-.11'-‘,....,..". 111 - , 1 "-r."..--.''..."^ . • • . ...V...1 • I • .1 . X I . • 0.7,6... -7 - . ! ____. ,, , •:.•,,••••- i ,„,,,,, ..• I . . ' --ril ! t- ---- - •' f 0 )• . _____ .?-.:;.t....... ; • . .. — -..... 1 o • 1 r,• a.,....,..„ I •1 ., r'z,-;.• /, ‘•,•-','/ ,A. • ,,.......1.•y 13, . / i!;:: • ) ,..) I .— ;,..1.,4, ' I / . ..r/ , ' • E s:',.. 1 . : 4,0* fl.....7".:-.•,.. i II --•!`..c.*:"4,?..i •' I!-4 .,-••lzt..., . • '.:,/ I \s•\ - /\:.,A-?,>(''''''''''. i----,.. . , , ,. . . _.___ 1 V.4' I , • I I' ,..,.....--,...1.- /'---. \.. I • -----=r . ..,,,,,....-.., .,;---N- • 1 . I 1 . , . _ in,,..1 ...,......... i, -.f.t.P../....) v.,...no........,-. . (.5..",•-•e 1 . .\.. . . . , . I I • . I . . I I . .....,..,-,....,.....,......rni:, " CO 4... / I ..r.....61. s.,4., . r L 1 . . " .__ 1 ' •"'!il. -I , ,. GoneiVe. W....6F I 1,........C. I . . ' "4;;Edli .....,,,,...., ,...,..i.....: 1.1._ I.....X, r-wr 44 -rr id . E.,,....... I • . . II -... . a_...,,„,....,„ ...,_:„.• if •---r . " _ .. 1* _1)\_•_11. . I 145, L•eveL_ . _. _ L.ave.....-(a-rri.....as,S......) I , . . .. , i • . 1 I I . .• 1. . 'I I . I , • _ 1 . ‘,:----_:_-_•:,-.7::::..:_', . FLOOR PLANS I A2 0/andt. (...ti I • KV 4 Ii II -ELEV,Pf, NORTH ommunay ,,.•:,-0- 1 . - Church . I . , i• • . I COD 1 I • • . . . • • • Er • • ..'............17:- . :. •.--":";-:7--:I-—--11! !II NI!r:.;,..17....!.,. . • • • 9 aul -- - • . ' _ •rs - Bpi---'--�--- - • - C- -_ = _ __iin� II I`-I_ k :.'i ell s._:-- • - •OYTM pI s.. P.NC GMG411-Lr NELI LOFbP6.Y1,1G-1 1t-1C _� . sHKp.(V1J PO L'•"n01-!IY'�IT1G'� • • il 111rmF1r w �� {:. f 1 , , _ IY.G�4 WIL*G�GaLAb I. I I i•l I:I' dd MTA "— L-1-----1 ,____J_________7-------g-ft- • /- , 1 1, _�ar�. i�llup,mim 21 ifl !�Rsii 77'►� .—T; —1a?,--, ,1— e•ra-.r• � � =— ■� �"�'LDS_•-:// — - r E•T e..cuwP/�' �� \ 1 �—cs 1-:-_'_.- F Mall-• -immiaO. is —"PirCi _— Tea _ • r usl ca•+aruwnaJ rae ) . *Meal-a . '..diffichizilvA__,____ . C) EIEVAT)ONS A4 Community , . +'-a'•a Church PrO44.0 11'19.91 -NM,614.nm1•C • ( IT I t) ' EXHIBIT No., [T�'�M Nr, U • R- 0 S-• 9� SUMMARY OF BUILDING AREAS - _-HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH RENTON, WASHINGTION JAN 5, 1992 EXISTING BUILDING: 000 LEVEL 8,770 S.F. 100 LEVEL 17,289 S.F. 200 LEVEL 16,400 S.F. BALCONY 966 S.F. TOTAL 43,425 S.F. FOOTPRINT 22,665 S.F. PROPOSED ADDITION: ' 000 LEVEL 6,697 S.F. (43.3% OF 000 LEVEL) 100 LEVEL 6,697 S.F. (27.9% OF 100 LEVEL)' 200 LEVEL 375 S.F. (02.2% OF 200 LEVEL) TOTAL 13,769 S.F. (24.1% OF TOTAL) FOOTPRINT 6,697 S.F. (22.8% OF FOOTPRINT) ,TOTAL BUILDING: 000 LEVEL 15,468 S.F. 100 LEVEL 23,985 S.F. 200 LEVEL 16,775 S.F. TOTAL "57,194 S.F. FOOTPRINT 29,362 S.F. . 51 ' G. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT: Highlands Community Church PROJECT NAME: Highlands Community Church Addition APPLICATION NO(S): ECF;R;CU-048-90 LOCATION: 3031 N.E. 10th Street A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the project site from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to P-1 (Public Zone) and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to construct a two-story (12,800 square foot) addition to the existing one and two-story (42,500 square foot) church building (with a footprint of 17,995 square feet) in order to provide additional classroom and office area. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: Highlands Community Church 2. Applicant: Highlands Community Church 3. Existing Zoning: B-1, Business District and R-1, Single-Family Residential 4. Existing Zoning in the Area: R-1, Single-Family Residential; R-2, Low Density Multi- Family Residential; R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential; B-1, Business District; P-1, Public Zone 5. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Public/Quasi Public Use and Commercial Use 6. Size of Property: 7.87 acres 7. Access: N.E. 10th Street 8. Land Use: Church 9. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Multi-family residences East: Single-family residences South: Single-family residences West: Commercial uses prelmrpt PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE „RING EXAMINER :ILANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH ADDIT February 4, 1992 z_ J Page 2 : • • C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action File Ordinance Date Initial annexation -- 1246 4-30-4 D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities a. Water: A ten inch water main runs along Kirkland Avenue N.E. b. Sewer: There is an eight inch sewer line running along N.E. 10th Street. c. Storm Water Drainage: A 15 inch corrugated metal drain pipe runs along N.E.9th Street to the intersection of vacated Jefferson Avenue N.E. 2. Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton as per ordinance requirements. 3. Transit: The subject site is not served by Metro transit. The closest transit route,is #107/108 which runs along N.E. Park Drive. 4. Schools: N/A. 5. Recreation: Highlands Community Center is approximately one-third mile west of the subject site. E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1. Section 4-31-5, R-1 Residential Zone. 2. Section 4-31-9, Public Zone(P-1). 3. Section 4-31-10, B-1 Business District. ! 4. Section 4-31-36, Conditional Use Permit. F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1. Northeast Renton Plan, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, 1986 (pgs.55- 60). 2. Residential Goal, Objectives and Policies, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, 1986(pgs. 14-16). 3. Community Facilities Goal, Churches Objective and Policies, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, 1986(pg.26). 4. Commercial Goal, Objectives and Policies, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, 1986(pgs. 16-18). prelmrpt • PRELIMINARY REPORT TO Tlz. CARING EXAMINER _ IHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH ADDIT February 4, 1992 Page 3 5. Section 4-8-14(C), Change of Zone Classification (Rezone), City of Renton Code. G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. The church property is designated as R-1 (Single-Family Residential) on the east half and B-1 (Business District) on the west half. The applicant is requesting the change of zone from R-1 to P-1 (Public Use) at this time, as the proposed development is located within the R-1 zone and it is felt by City staff that the P-1 zone is more appropriate for a church use and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Public/Quasi-Public. • There is an existing 42,500 s.f. church building on the subject property which includes the church sanctuary, classrooms, office space and a gymnasium. The structure is one and two-stories in height and built on a 17,995 s.f. footprint. The applicant currently provides 260 parking spaces of which 215 are now paved and approximately 45 are unpaved. Landscaping is provided around the building, within the paved parking areas and around the perimeter of the subject property. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 12,800 s.f. two-story addition onto the existing building. The two-story addition would be constructed on a 6,400 s.f. footprint, providing a total of 55,300 s.f. church complex. The applicant has stated that the additional classroom and office space will allow the church to operate its classes more efficiently and allow for the church to continue to accept new members. In the future, the applicant has indicated that one additional sanctuary building providing seating for 1500 people may be proposed. This development will require additional review at the time of the proposal and probably a change of zone from B-1 to P-1. The addition that is presently requested is not dependent on the future construction. Therefore,the City may review the current request without requiring the applicant to apply for the permits needed for the sanctuary. The east side of the project site is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Residential) and the west side is zoned B-1 (Business District). The applicant has requested a change of zone from R-1 to P-1 (Public Zone) on the east side of the project site. The church is a conditional use in the P-1 zone and a permitted use in the B-1 zone. The proposed layout of the church addition is inconsistent with the setback standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has established an escrow account a required lot line adjustment that will provide the area necessary to bring the proposed addition into conformance with the Code-required setbacks. The proposed layout of the addition is necessary in order to locate the proposed structure where it will impact the view of the adjacent residents the least. There are single-family homes to the south, east and northeast, multifamily apartment units to the north and west, and commercial retail buildings to the west of the project site. A church is generally considered to be compatible with the land uses noted above. In this case, there has been a problem in the past with the applicant not maintaining the landscaping on the church grounds. Recently, the applicant has corrected this condition . and staff will recommend to the Hearing Examiner that a landscape maintenance bond be required as part of the conditional use permit. Staff is also recommending that an existing driveway from the parking area to NE 10th Street be paved in order to encourage as much traffic as is possible to exit the subject property without passing through the residential areas. prelmrpt PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE RING EXAMINER LANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH ADDIT February 4, 1992 Page 4 At the time that the ERC issued the Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated,the ERC noted that they wanted the lot line adjustment to be recorded prior to this public hearing. They also required the applicant to provide Golden Pines Apartment an ingress/egress easement across church property to the Golden Pines Apartment's parking area which is located at the rear of the Apartment's property. The only access to this lot is across the church's property. This covenant was to be recorded prior to this public hearing. The applicant requested that they be allowed to place both of these documents into an escrow account. This account would be set up in a manner that both documents would be recorded after the conditional use permit was approved but prior to the issuance of building permits. The reason for requesting this action was that the applicant and Golden Pines Apartment owners did not want to record the lot line adjustment if the conditional use permit was not approved. The ERC and the City Attorney determined that this would be a procedural change and not a substantive change to the conditions. Therefore, the ERC approved the request of the applicant. A portion of Jefferson Street, that was vacated in the past, underlies the area that will be developed as part of this proposal. Although the street was vacated, there are existing utility easements that the applicant will need to relocate or have released. The applicant has obtained letters from the holders of these easement (City of Renton, Puget Power, Washington Natural Gas) stating there willingness to release or move these easements as they only seem to serve the church complex. 2. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA(ROW 43.21.C., 1971, as amended), a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated, was issued for the subject proposal on January 16, 1990. The Mitigation Document is attached. 3. Various City Departments have commented upon the proposed development. The content of their comments is integrated into this report. (The complete text of staff comments is available in the project file; the plans for the proposed complex have been revised. City staff have reviewed the amended plans and all Departments have indicated that their original comments are still valid.) 4. In reviewing the permit application requests described briefly above,the Hearing Examiner is called upon to consider the following criteria: REZONE CRITERIA Section 4-8-14(C)(1) lists three criteria that the Hearing Examiner is asked to consider, along with all other relevant information, in making a decision on a rezone application. 1. 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. The subject property was not considered for rezone at the time of the last land use analysis of the area, done in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan assessment of 1982. That assessment noted a considerable potential for growth in Northeast Renton, but no changes were made in the Comprehensive Plan Map. prelmrpt • • PRELIMINARY REPORT TO T,f .TARING EXAMINER =HLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH ADDIT February 4, 1992 - Page 5 The Comprehensive Plan is being reviewed currently; no determination has been made as to proposed uses in this area. However, under the State's Growth Management Act, development will be directed to areas such as Northeast Renton in which development activity presently exists and where there is available (or potentially available) infrastructure to serve new development. 2. That the property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and conditions have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate. The subject property is designated for Public/Quasi-Public land uses on the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The proposed rezone to P-1 (Public Use District) would be appropriate. 3. That since the last previous land use analysis of the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property, have undergone significant and material change. As noted above, development activity has occurred in the surrounding area since the last land use analysis of this area for the Comprehensive Plan. Existing public utilities and roadways appear to be adequate to serve the proposed addition to the church complex. The applicant will need to relocate some existing utility lines on the subject property and to provide easements to the City of Renton over the existing public utility lines that do not currently have easements. 4. The final test to determine whether a rezone is appropriate is to address the question of timeliness. Is it appropriate to rezone the subject property at this time? Staff believes that the proposed rezone is timely for the following reasons: a) the property that the existing church complex is located on is currently zoned R-1, which is a Single- Family Residential Zone, the proposed P-1 zone is more appropriate for the church complex which is a quasi-public land use; b) the applicant has requested that the City review a conditional use permit for the expansion of the church complex; and c) the proposed rezone would bring the subject property into conformance with the existing current plan. It should be noted that the requested rezone does not include the portion of the subject property which is currently designated as B-1 (Business District) on the current City of Renton Zoning Map. The applicant•has indicated that this area will be developed for a church use at a later date. Staff believes that it would be appropriate to rezone that portion of the site to Public Use (P-1) at the time that the development is proposed. • prelmrpt PRELIMINARY REPORT TO TH1, \RING EXAMINER \LANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH ADDIT February 4, 1992 Page 5 The Comprehensive Plan is being reviewed currently; no determination has been made as to proposed uses in this area. However, under the State's Growth Management Act, development will be directed to areas such as Northeast Renton in which development activity presently exists and where there is available (or potentially available) infrastructure to serve new development. 2. That the property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and conditions have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate. The subject property is designated for Public/Quasi-Public land uses on the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The proposed rezone to P-1 (Public Use District) would be appropriate. 3. That since the last previous land use analysis of the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property, have undergone significant and material change. As noted above, development activity has occurred in the surrounding area since the last land use analysis of this area for the Comprehensive Plan.' Existing public utilities and roadways appear to be adequate to serve the proposed addition to the church complex. The applicant will need to relocate some existing utility lines on the subject property and to provide easements to the City of Renton over the existing public utility lines that do not currently have easements. 4. The final test to determine whether a rezone is appropriate is to address the question of timeliness. Is it appropriate to rezone the subject property at this time? Staff believes that the proposed rezone is timely for the following reasons: a) the property that the existing church complex is located on is currently zoned R-1, which is a Single- Family Residential Zone, the proposed P-1 zone is more appropriate for the church complex which is a quasi-public land use; b) the applicant has requested that the City review a conditional use permit for the expansion of the church complex; and c) the proposed rezone would bring the subject property into conformance with the existing current plan. It should be noted that the requested rezone does not include the portion of the subject property which is currently designated as B-1 (Business District) on the current City of Renton Zoning Map. The applicant has indicated that this area will be developed for a church use at a later date. Staff believes that it would be appropriate to rezone that portion of the site to Public Use (P-1) at the time that the development is proposed. ' a prelmrpt PRELIMINARY REPORT TO TEM -3ARING EXAMINER 41ILANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH ADDIT February 4, 1992 Page 6 CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Section 4-31-36 lists 11 criteria that the Hearing Examiner is asked to consider, along with all other relevant information, in making a decision on a Conditional Use application. These include the following: 1. Comprehensive Plan: The proposed use shall be compatible with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standard of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and any other plan,program, map or ordinance of the City of Renton. -The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map designates the portion of the subject property which is under consideration for Public/Quasi-Public uses. The church complex is considered a Quasi-Public land use. Although churches are not specifically described within the Comprehensive Plan, several of the issues would apply. The Utilities Objective section of the Northeast Renton Plan states that adequate utilities should be a prerequisite for any development. There are adequate utilities in this area to serve the proposed development. The Transportation Objectives for the Northeast Renton Plan states that adequate transportation facilities need • to be provided. Adequate road facilities exist for the proposed development. 2. Community Need: There shall be a community need for the proposed use at the proposed location. In the determination of community need, the Hearing Examiner shall consider the following factors, among all other relevant information: a) The proposed location shall not result in either the detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. Staff does not believe that the proposed addition to the existing church is a detrimental overconcentration of the land use (a church complex) in this area of the City. Although this is a large church complex, it is the only one known to staff within approximately 1/4 of a mile. b) That the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. Staff believes that the subject property is suited for the proposed church complex. There is adequate area for the required landscaping and parking on the subject property. The project site has access onto two of the residential streets that lead out to Sunset Blvd. In the past, there have been concerns raised by area residents concerning the parking and landscaping of the church. The parking concern related to the adequacy of the parking area and the fact that the people using the church were parking on both sides of the adjacent streets. Recently, additional parking has been provided on-site. Staff is also requiring additional parking be provided as part of this conditional use. If parking remains a problem, the adjacent residents may want to request that the City establish a residents only parking area on the residential side of the adjacent streets. However, this would need to be done through a separate application and would not be part of the applications by the church which are currently under review. prelmrpt PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE 1 SING EXAMINER F_, "{',ANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH ADDIT February 4, 1992 Page 7 II In the past, area residents have noted that the on-site landscaping of the church was not adequately maintained. Staff is recommending to the Hearing Examiner that the applicant be required to submit a surety device of $3,000 to ensure that the landscaping is maintained. 3. Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. The following site requirements shall be required: a) Lot Coverage: Lot coverage in residential districts (R-1 and R-2) shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) and the lot coverage of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Lot coverage in all other zones shall conform to the requirements of zone in which the proposed use is to be located. The P-1 zone does not have a lot coverage requirement. The proposed building, with the addition, would cover approximately 10 percent of the subject property, this is less than other zones limit building development. b) Yards: Yards shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Additions to the structure shall not be allowed in any required yard. As noted previously, the applicant needs to obtain a lot line adjustment in order to provide the required rear yard setback. The applicant has worked out a lot line adjustment with the adjacent property owner and a copy of the agreement is in the file. The applicant has placed the lot line adjustment application in an escrow account to ensure that it will be recorded at the time this application is approved. The applicant and the adjacent property owner did not want to complete the lot line adjustment if this application was not approved. As there would be no reason for requiring the lot line adjustment without the proposed church addition being constructed as proposed, the request to place the document in an escrow account seemed reasonable to the ERC and the City Attorney. • Once the lot line adjustment is recorded and the property has changed over to the church, the proposed location of the existing church building and the proposed addition will meet all Code-required setbacks. c) Height: Building and structure heights shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Spires, belltowers, public utility antennas or similar structure may exceed the height requirement upon approval of a variance. Building heights should 'be related to surrounding used in order to allow optimal sunlight and ventilation, and minimal obstruction of views from adjacent structures. As noted previously, the proposed addition will not exceed the height of the existing structures. The proposed height of the addition is twenty-five feet (25'). The P-1 zone allows a maximum height of fifty feet (50'). The applicant has located the proposed structure at the rear of and in the view shadow of the existing church building in order to limit the visual impact of the addition on area residents. Staff believes that the proposed addition will provide the minimal obstruction of existing views, while still providing the additional floor area that the applicant has requested. prelmrpt j I , ' PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HE4. EXAMINER HIGHLAP:: F-IOMMUNITY CHURCH ADDITION February 4, 1992 Page 8 4. Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the residential scale and character of the neighborhood. (Ord 3599, 1-11-82) The proposed two-story 12,800 s.f. classroom addition will be attached to the west side of the existing structure. Due to the slope of the terrain in this area, the proposed structure will not be seen over the existing sanctuary and gymnasium when viewed from Kirkland Avenue. A portion of the proposed structure will extend south of the existing building and will be visible from Kirkland Avenue. The portion of the proposed addition that would be visible from Kirkland Avenue would include a canopy over an existing walkway, the entrance/lobby area of the proposed addition (ground floor) and two offices (second floor). The proposed addition will be painted to match the existing building. The exterior walls of the building will be predominantly finished with stucco,with wood and brick in some areas. A wood fascia will accent the building walls. The main portion of the building will have a flat roof in order to reduce the visual impact of the building. This roof will be consistent with the roof of the adjacent gymnasium. The applicant is proposing to provide additional landscaping along the west side of the building and along the south boundary of the adjacent Golden Pines apartment property. Recently, the applicant has refurbished the existing landscaping around the perimeter,.of the project site by removing weeds and replacing dead plant materials. Some area residents have voiced the concern that the church complex is getting to large for this area and that is causing problems within the adjacent neighborhoods. Staff have addressed these problems by requiring the additional parking, a paved second entrance onto the subject, property, and by requesting that the applicant work with its own congregation to resolve the conflicts with the neighbors. Staff believes that the proposed plan being reviewed under this conditional,use permit meets those goals and is compatible with the adjacent residential areas. The proposed addition will not exceed a height of 25 feet, which is compatible with the other two-story buildings in the area. The exterior of the building will be finished in stucco, wood and brick which will match the existing church complex. These building materials will also be compatible with the structural materials used in the buildings within the adjacent properties. 5. Parking: Parking under the building structure should be encouraged. Lot coverage may be increased to as much as seventy-five percent (75%) of the lot coverage requirement of the zone, in which the proposed use is located, if all parking is provided underground or within the structure. (Ord.3903,4-22-85) Recently, the church, in accordance with City requirements, paved most of the gravel parking lot(shown as the westerly four rows of parking on the site plan). As the remainder of the gravel parking area is now needed to provide the required parking spaces for the church and to encourage church members to park off of the streets, the remainder of the gravel parking lot should be paved. The driveway which accesses 10th Street needs to be paved in order to provide additional ingress/egress for the parking lot and adequate parking for the proposed development. prelmrpt _ I PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEAP. XAMINER HIGHLAN )MMUNITY CHURCH ADDITION February 4,1992 Page 9 • The parking for the church complex is calculated as follows: Existing Sanctuary Seating Capacity 420 84 stalls Existing Gym 72 stalls Existing Auditorium 20 stalls Existing Sunday School Classrooms 0 stalls Existing Office Space 9 stalls Total required for existing structures is 185 parking spaces. The Sunday School Classrooms do not require additional parking spaces as they are a joint-use with the sanctuary. The proposed addition to the church complex is 12,800 square feet. The Parking and Loading Ordinance indicates that one (1) parking space is required for each 100 square ' feet of floor area. In order to determine the "floor area," you need to subtract out the area for stairs, elevators, etc. Once this is accomplished, it would provide a floor area of approximately 11,000 square feet which, in this case, would require an additional 110 parking stalls. The total church complex would require 295 parking stalls. The applicant is proposing to provide a total of 300 parking stalls. Due to the past concerns that have been raised regarding the off-site parking on adjacent streets, staff would recommend that the project provide the 300 parking stalls as indicated on the site plan. Staff is concerned that the parking area also provides the fire access lanes around the building. When the parking lot is laid-out, the applicant will need to ensure that the turning radius on the parking lot aisles, that also serve as fire lanes, are provided with 45 foot { turning radii. ' 6. Traffic: Traffic and circulation patterns of vehicles and pedestrians relating to the proposed use and surrounding area shall be reviewed for potential effects on, and to ensure safe movement in the surrounding area. The proposed addition of classrooms would allow for the expansion of church activities. This, in turn, could generate additional traffic. In the past,there has also been a problem with church members parking in front of the single-family homes along Kirkland Avenue. Some mitigation of this impact has been provided by the road improvements recently completed by the applicant. Recently, the church, in accordance with City requirements, paved most of the gravel parking lot (shown as the westerly four rows of parking on the site plan). As the remainder of the gravel parking area is now needed to provide the required parking spaces for the church and to encourage church members to park off of the streets, the remainder of the gravel parking lot should be paved. The driveway which accesses 10th Street needs to be paved in order to provide additional ingress/egress for the parking lot and adequate parking for the proposed development. City staff have reviewed the rated street capacity of the streets adjacent to the subject property. The adjacent streets have the capacity to absorb the potential traffic that would be generated by this proposed addition. 7. Noise, Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts shall be evaluated based on the location of the proposed use on the lot and the location of on-site parking areas, outdoor recreational areas and refuse storage areas. prelmrpt j ' , PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEAT, LEXAMINER HIGHLAf DMMUNITY CHURCH ADDITION February 4, 1992 Page 10 Noise, light and glare are anticipated with the construction activities. There is an existing senior citizen apartment complex adjacent to the church property and the project site is located in a residential area. Some mitigation of these impacts on the adjacent land uses will be achieved through the restrictions on hauling operations and the limits on construction activities established by the ERC. Light and glare are anticipated to occur as a result of the traffic generated by the project and by security lighting for the buildings and parking areas. Mitigation of these impacts will be achieved to some extent by the existing and proposed on-site landscaping. Lighting fixtures that direct lighting into the interior of the subject property will further mitigate the potential impacts. 8. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by building or paving. The Hearing Examiner may require additional landscaping to buffer adjacent properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use. As noted previously in this report, there is existing landscaping on the subject property which the applicant recently refurbished. The applicant is also required by the ERC to submit an amended landscaping plan for the subject property. This plan needs to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. 9. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses to conditional uses such as day schools, auditoriums used for social and sport activities, health centers, convents, preschool facilities, convalescent homes and others of a similar nature shall be considered to be separate uses and shall be subject to the provisions of the use district in which they are located. No accessory uses are requested as part of this application. 10. Conversion: No existing building or structure shall be converted to a conditional use unless such building or structure complies, or is brought into compliance, with the provisions of this Chapter. No conversions are proposed as part of this application. 11. Public Improvements: The proposed use and location shall be adequately served by and not impose an undue burden on any public improvements,facilities, utilities,and services. Approval of a conditional use permit may be conditional upon the provision and/or guarantee by the applicant of necessary public improvements, facilities, utilities,and/or services. In the past,the applicant had provided a gravelled parking lot as an overflow parking area. As part of an agreement reached with the City's Community Service Committee on November 19, 1990, to complete improvements required in conjunction with previous building on the project site,the applicant has paved a portion of the existing gravel parking lot. This agreement allowed the parking lot to be paved with only a temporary drainage control system. The applicant also agreed to provide a permanent drainage control system as part of the next phase of development which is now being reviewed. Staff recommends that the drainage system for the recently paved parking area be required as part of the present development. prelmrpt PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEAr, EXAMINER HIGHLAN, IMMUNITY CHURCH ADDITION • , • . February.4, 1992 Page 11 • • • As part of the past development that has occurred on the subject property, the applicant has provided improvements on the adjacent streets. No additional road improvements are required for this proposed addition. The applicant will need to provide all Code-required improvements for the project site. H. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner support the proposed rezone and approve the conditional use permit with the conditions listed below: 1. The applicant shall comply with all conditions established by the Environmental Review Committee on January 16, 1990. 2. The applicant shall provide new easements as required and obtain releases from existing easements from the City of Renton, Puget Power, and Washington Natural Gas prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. 3. The applicant shall record, through the City of Renton, an ingress/egress easement to the Golden Pines Apartment and a Lot Line Adjustment for the required setback area prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. 4. The applicant shall pave and stripe the gravel parking lot to provide the parking required • for this proposal prior to the issuance of occupancy permits of the proposed addition. 5. The applicant shall provide a surety device equal to 10 percent of the value of the landscaping provided under this permit or a minimum of $3,000 for a three year period from the date that the landscaping is approved by the City of Renton. prelmrpt ' I Dat J DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER - PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT: Highlands Community Church PROJECT NAME: Highlands Community Church Addition APPLICATION NO(S): ECF;R;CU-048-90 LOCATION: 3031 N.E. 10th Street A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the project site from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to P-1 (Public Zone) and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to construct a two-story (12,800 square foot) addition to the existing one and two-story (42,500 square foot) church building (with a footprint of 17,995 square feet) in order to provide additional classroom and office area. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: Highlands Community Church 2. Applicant: Highlands Community Church 3. Existing Zoning: B-1, Business District and R-1, Single-Family Residential 4. Existing Zoning in the Area: R-1, Single-Family Residential; R-2, Low Density Multi- Family Residential; R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential; B-1, Business District; P-1, Public Zone 5. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Public/Quasi Public Use and Commercial Use 6. Size of Property: 7.87 acres 7. Access: N.E. 10th Street 8. Land Use: Church 9. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Multi-family residences East: Single-family residences South: Single-family residences West: Commercial uses prelmrpt PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEP. EXAMINER HIGHLAI OMMUNITY CHURCH ADDITION February 4,1992 Page 2 C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action File Ordinance Date Initial annexation --- 1246 4-30-4 D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities a. Water: A ten inch water main runs along Kirkland Avenue N.E. b. Sewer: There is an eight inch,sewer line running along N.E. 10th Street. c. Storm Water Drainage: A 15 inch corrugated metal drain pipe runs along N.E. 9th Street to the intersection of vacated Jefferson Avenue N.E. 2. Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton as per ordinance requirements. 3. Transit: The subject site is not served by Metro transit. The closest transit route is #107/108 which runs along N.E. Park Drive. 4. Schools: N/A. 5. Recreation: Highlands Community Center is approximately one-third mile west of the subject site. E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1. Section 4-31-5, R-1 Residential Zone. 2. Section 4-31-9, Public Zone (P-1). 3. Section 4-31-10, B-1 Business District. 4. Section 4-31-36, Conditional Use Permit. F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1. Northeast Renton Plan, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, 1986 (pgs.55- 60). 2. Residential Goal, Objectives and Policies, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, 1986 (pgs. 14-16). 3. Community Facilities Goal, Churches Objective and Policies, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, 1986 (pg. 26). 4. Commercial Goal, Objectives and Policies, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, 1986 (pgs. 16-18). 5. Section 4-8-14(C), Change of Zone Classification (Rezone), City of Renton Code. prelmrpt PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEA, EXAMINER HIGHLAIN )MMUNITY CHURCH ADDITION February 4, 1992 Page 3 G. : DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. The church property is designated as R-1 (Single-Family Residential) on the east half and B-1 (Business District) on the west half. The applicant is requesting the change of zone from R-1 to P-1 (Public Use) at this time, as the proposed development is located within the R-1 zone and it is felt by City staff that the P-1 zone is more appropriate for a church use and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Public/Quasi-Public. There is an existing 42,500 s.f. church building on the subject property which includes the church sanctuary, classrooms, office space and a gymnasium. The structure is one and two-stories in height and built on a 17,995 s.f. footprint. The applicant currently provides 260 parking spaces of which 215 are now paved and approximately 45 are unpaved. Landscaping is provided around the building, within the paved parking areas and around the perimeter of the subject property. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 12,800 s.f. two-story addition onto the existing building. The addition would be constructed on a 6,400 s.f. footprint, providing a total of 55,300 s.f. church complex. In the future, the applicant has indicated that one additional sanctuary building providing seating for 1500 people will be proposed. This development will require additional review at the time of the proposal and probably a change of zone from B-1 to P-1. IMPACTS The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element designates the project site for Public/Quasi- Public land uses. The proposed rezone and the use of the project site for a church are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The east side of the project site is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Residential) and the west side is zoned B-1 (Business District). The applicant has requested a change of zone from R-1 to P-1 (Public Zone) on the east side of the project site. The church is a conditional use in the P-1 zone and a permitted use in the B-1 zone. The proposed layout of the church addition is inconsistent with the setback standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has established an escrow account for the required lot line adjustment. When recorded,the lot line adjustment will provide the area necessary to bring the proposed addition into conformance with the Code-required setbacks. The proposed layout of the addition is necessary in order to locate the proposed structure where it will impact the view of the adjacent residents the least. There are several utility easements within the area that the proposed addition is to be located. The utility lines located in the easement appear to serve only the church property. The applicant has submitted letters from the holders of the easements stating that they are willing to work with the church at the time of construction to relocate or release the easements. The applicant has stated that the additional classroom and office space will allow the church to operate its classes more efficiently and allow for the church to continue to accept new members. There are single-family homes to the south, east and northeast, multifamily apartment units to the north and west, and commercial retail buildings to the west of the project site. A prelmrpt • ' PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEAD EXAMINER HIGHLAN DMMUNITY CHURCH ADDITION February 4, 1992 Page 4 church is generally considered to be compatible with the land uses noted above. In this case, there has been a problem in the past with the applicant not maintaining the landscaping on the church grounds. Recently, the applicant has corrected this condition and staff will recommend to the Hearing Examiner that a landscape maintenance bond be required as part of the conditional use permit. Staff is recommending that an existing driveway from the parking area to NE 10th Street be paved in order to encourage as much traffic as is possible to exit the subject property without passing through the residential areas. At the time that the ERC issued the Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated, the ERC noted that they wanted the lot line adjustment to be recorded prior to this public hearing. They also required the applicant to provide Golden Pines Apartment an ingress/egress easement across church property to the Golden Pines Apartment's parking area which is located at the rear of the Apartment's property. The only access to this lot is across the church's property. This covenant was to be recorded prior to this public hearing. The applicant requested that they be allowed to place both of these documents into an escrow account. This account would be set up in a manner that both documents would be recorded after the conditional use permit was approved but prior to the issuance of building permits. The reason for requesting this action was that the applicant and Golden Pines Apartment owners did not want to record the lot line adjustment if the conditional use permit was not approved. The ERC and the City Attorney determined that this would be a procedural change and not a substantive change to the conditions. Therefore, the ERC approved the request of the applicant. A portion of Jefferson Street, that was vacated in the past, underlies the area that will be developed as part of this proposal. Although the street was vacated, there are existing utility easements that the applicant will need to relocate or have released. The applicant has obtained letters from the holders of these easement (City of Renton, Puget Power, Washington Natural Gas) stating there willingness to release or move these easements as they only seem to serve the church complex. 2. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21.C., 1971, as amended), a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated, was issued for the subject proposal on January 16, 1990. The Mitigation Document is attached. 3. Various City Departments have .commented upon the proposed development. The content of their comments is integrated into this report. (The complete text of staff comments is available in the project file; the plans for the proposed complex have been revised. City staff have reviewed the amended plans and all Departments have indicated that their original comments are still valid.) 4. In reviewing the permit application requests described briefly above,the Hearing Examiner is called upon to consider the following criteria: REZONE CRITERIA Section 4-8-14(C)(1) lists three criteria that the Hearing Examiner is asked to consider, along with all other relevant information, in making a decision on a rezone application. prelmrpt PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEA ,EXAMINER HIGHLAt,, OMMUNITY CHURCH ADDITION . ,. February 4, 1992 Page 5 1. 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. The subject property was not considered for rezone at the time of the last land use analysis of the area, done in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan assessment of 1982. That assessment noted a considerable potential for growth in Northeast Renton, but no changes were made in the Comprehensive Plan Map. The Comprehensive Plan is being reviewed currently; no determination has been made as to proposed uses in this area. However, under the State's Growth Management Act, development will be directed to areas such as Northeast Renton in which development activity presently exists and where there is available (or potentially available) infrastructure to serve new development. 2. That the property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and conditions have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate. The subject property is designated for Public/Quasi-Public land uses on the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The proposed rezone to P-1 (Public Use District) would be appropriate. 3. That since the last previous land use analysis of the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property, have undergone significant and material change. As noted above, development activity has occurred in the surrounding area since the last land use analysis of this area for the Comprehensive Plan. Existing public utilities and roadways appear to be adequate to serve the proposed addition to the church complex. The applicant will need to relocate some existing utility lines on the subject property and to provide easements to the City of Renton over the existing public utility lines that do not currently have easements. 4. The final test to determine whether a rezone is appropriate is to address the question of timeliness. Is it appropriate to rezone the subject property at this time? Staff believes that the proposed rezone is timely for the following reasons: a) the property that the existing church complex is located on is currently zoned R-1, which is a Single- Family Residential Zone, the proposed P-1 zone is more appropriate for the church complex which is a quasi-public land use; b) the applicant has requested that the City review a conditional use permit for the expansion of the church complex; and c) the proposed rezone would bring the subject property into conformance with the existing current plan. It should be noted that the requested rezone does not include the portion of the subject property which is currently designated as B-1 (Business District) on the current City of Renton Zoning Map. The applicant has indicated that this area will be developed for a church use at a later date. Staff believes that it would be appropriate to rezone that portion of the site to Public Use(P-1) at the time that the development is proposed. prelmrpt • PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEAP, -XAMINER HIGHLAN MMUNITY CHURCH ADDITION February 4, 1992 Page 6 CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Section 4-31-36 lists 11 criteria that the Hearing Examiner is asked to consider, along with all other relevant information, in making a decision on a Conditional Use application. These include the following: 1. Comprehensive Plan: The proposed use shall be compatible with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standard of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and any other plan,program, map or ordinance of the City of Renton. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map designates the portion of the subject property which is under consideration for Public/Quasi-Public uses. The church complex is considered a Quasi-Public land use. Although churches are not specifically described within the Comprehensive Plan, several of the issues would apply. The Utilities Objective section of the Northeast Renton Plan states that adequate utilities should be a prerequisite for any development. There are adequate utilities in this area to serve the proposed development. The Transportation Objectives for the Northeast Renton Plan states that adequate transportation facilities need to be provided. Adequate road facilities exist for the proposed development. 2. Community Need: There shall be a community need for the proposed use at the proposed location. In the determination of community need, the Hearing Examiner shall consider the following factors,among all other relevant information: a) The proposed location shall not result in either the detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. Staff does not believe that the proposed addition to the existing church is a detrimental overconcentration of the land use (a church complex) in this area of the City. Although this is a large church complex, it is the only one known to staff with 1/4 of a mile. b) That the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. Staff believes that the subject property is suited for the proposed church complex. There is adequate area for the required landscaping and parking on the subject property. The project site has access onto two of the residential streets that lead out to Sunset Blvd. In the past, there have been concerns raised by area residents concerning the parking and landscaping of the church. The parking concern related to the adequacy of the parking area and the fact that the people using the church were parking on both sides of the adjacent streets. Recently, additional parking has been provided on-site. Staff is also requiring additional parking be provided as part of this conditional use. If parking remains a problem, the adjacent residents may want to request that the City establish a residents only parking area on the residential side of the adjacent streets. However, this would need to be done through a separate application and would not be part of the applications by the church which are currently under review. prelmrpt PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEA40EXAMINER HIGHLAN1pOMMUNITY CHURCH ADDITION February 4,1992 • Page 7 F, In the past, area residents have noted that the on-site landscaping of the church was not adequately maintained. Staff is recommending to the Hearing Examiner that the applicant be required to submit a surety device of $3,000 to ensure that the landscaping is maintained. 3. Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. The following { site requirements shall be required: a) Lot Coverage: Lot coverage in residential districts (R-1 and R-2) shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) and the lot coverage of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Lot coverage in all other zones shall conform to the requirements of zone in which the proposed use is to be located. The P-1 zone does not have a lot coverage requirement. The proposed building, with the addition, would cover approximately 10 percent of the subject property, this is less than other zones limit building development. b) Yards: Yards shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Additions to the structure shall not be allowed in any required yard. As noted previously,the applicant needs to obtain a lot line adjustment in order to j; provide the required rear yard setback. The applicant has worked out a lot line adjustment with the adjacent property owner and a copy of the agreement is in the file. The applicant has placed the lot line adjustment application in an escrow account to ensure that it will be recorded at the time this application is approved. The applicant and the adjacent property owner did not want to complete the lot line adjustment if this application was not approved. As there would be no reason for requiring the lot line adjustment without the proposed church addition being. constructed as proposed, the request to place the document in an escrow account seemed reasonable to the ERC and the City Attorney. Once the lot line adjustment is recorded and the property has changed over to the church, the proposed location of the existing church building and the proposed addition will meet all Code-required setbacks. c) Height: Building and structure heights shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Spires, belitowers, public utility antennas or similar structure may exceed the height requirement upon approval of a variance. Building heights should be related to surrounding used in order to allow optimal sunlight and ventilation, and minimal obstruction of views from adjacent structures. As noted previously, the proposed addition will not exceed the height of the existing structures. The proposed height of the addition is twenty-five feet (25'). The P-1 zone allows a maximum height of fifty feet (50'). The applicant has located the proposed structure at the rear of the existing church building in order to limit the visual impact of the addition on area residents. Staff believes that the proposed addition will provide the minimal obstruction of existing views, while still providing the additional floor area that the applicant has requested. prelmrpt PRELIMINARY REPORT TO'L YlEARING EXAMINER :[GHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH ADDIT February 4, 1992 Page 8 • 4. Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the residential scale and character of the neighborhood. (Ord 3599, 1-11-82) The proposed two-story 12,800 s.f. classroom addition will be attached to the west side of the existing structure. Due to the slope of the terrain in this area, the proposed structure will not be seen over the existing sanctuary and gymnasium when viewed from Kirkland Avenue. A portion of the proposed structure will extend south of the existing building and will be visible from Kirkland Avenue. The portion of the proposed addition that would be visible from Kirkland Avenue would include a canopy over an existing walkway, the entrance/lobby area of the proposed addition (ground floor) and two offices (second floor). • The proposed addition will be painted to match the existing building. The exterior walls of the building will be predominantly finished with stucco,with wood and brick in some areas. A wood fascia will accent the building walls. The main portion of the building will have a flat roof in order to reduce the visual impact of the building. This roof will be consistent with the roof of the adjacent gymnasium. The applicant is proposing to provide additional landscaping along the west side of the building and along the south boundary of the adjacent Golden Pines apartment property. Recently, the applicant has refurbished the existing landscaping around the perimeter of the project site by removing weeds and replacing dead plant materials: Some area residents have voiced the concern that the church complex is getting to large for this area and that is causing problems within the adjacent neighborhoods. Staff have addressed these problems by requiring the additional parking, a paved second entrance onto the subject property, and by requesting that the applicant work with its own congregation to resolve the conflicts with the neighbors. Staff believes that the proposed plan being reviewed under this conditional use permit meets those goals and is compatible with the adjacent residential areas. The proposed addition will not exceed a height of 25 feet, which is compatible with the other two-story buildings in the area. The exterior of the building will be finished in stucco, wood and brick which will match the existing church complex. These building materials will also be compatible with the structural materials used in the buildings within the adjacent properties. 5. Parking: Parking under the building structure should be encouraged. Lot coverage may be increased to as much as seventy-five percent (75%) of the lot coverage requirement of the zone, in which the proposed use is located, if all parking is provided underground or within the structure. (Ord.3903, 4-22-85) Recently, the church, in accordance with City requirements, paved most of the gravel parking lot(shown as the westerly four rows of parking on the site plan). As the remainder of the gravel parking area is now needed to provide the required parking spaces for the church and to encourage church members to park off of the streets, the remainder of the gravel parking lot should be paved. The driveway which accesses 10th Street needs to be paved in order to provide additional ingress/egress for the parking lot and adequate parking for the proposed development. prelmrpt PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE. LING EXAMINER ?' LANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH ADDIT February 4, 1992 Page 9 ' • The parking for the church complex is calculated as follows: Existing Sanctuary Seating Capacity 420 84 stalls Existing Gym 72 stalls Existing Auditorium 20 stalls Existing Sunday School Classrooms 0 stalls Existing Office Space 9 stalls Total required for existing structures is 185 parking spaces. The Sunday School Classrooms do not require additional parking spaces as they are a joint-use with the sanctuary. The proposed addition to the church complex is 12,800 square feet. The Parking and Loading Ordinance indicates that one (1) parking space is required for each 100 square feet of floor area. In order to determine the "floor area,"you need to subtract out the area for stairs, elevators, etc. Once this is accomplished, it would provide a floor area of approximately 11,000 square feet which, in this case, would require an additional 110 parking stalls. The total church complex would require 295 parking stalls. The applicant is proposing to provide a total of 300 parking stalls. Due to the past concerns that have been raised regarding the off-site parking on adjacent streets, staff would recommend that the project provide the 300 parking stalls as indicated on the site plan. Staff is concerned that the parking area also provides the fire access lanes around the building. When the parking lot is laid-out, the applicant will need to ensure that the turning radius on the parking lot aisles, that also serve as fire lanes, are provided with 45 foot turning radii. 6. Traffic: Traffic and circulation patterns of vehicles and pedestrians relating to the proposed use and surrounding area shall be reviewed for potential effects on, and to ensure safe movement in the surrounding area. The proposed addition of classrooms would allow for the expansion of church activities. This, in turn, could generate additional traffic. In the past,there has also been a problem with church members parking in front of the single-family homes along Kirkland Avenue. Some mitigation of this impact has been provided by the road improvements recently completed by the applicant. Recently, the church, in accordance with City requirements, paved most of the gravel parking lot (shown as the westerly four rows of parking on the site plan). As the remainder of the gravel .parking area is now needed to provide the required parking spaces for the church and to encourage church members to park off of the streets, the remainder of the gravel parking lot should be paved. The driveway which accesses 10th Street needs to be paved in order to provide additional ingress/egress for the parking lot and adequate parking for the proposed development. • City staff have reviewed the rated street capacity of the streets adjacent to the subject property. The adjacent streets have the capacity to absorb the potential traffic that would be generated by this proposed addition. prelmrpt PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THI :RING EXAMINER .$LANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH ADDIT February 4, 1992 Page 10 7. Noise, Glare: Potential noise,light and glare impacts shall be evaluated based on the location of the proposed use on the lot and the location of on-site parking areas, outdoor recreational areas and refuse storage areas. Noise, light and glare are anticipated with the construction activities. There is an existing senior citizen apartment complex adjacent to the church property and the project site is located in a residential area. Some mitigation of these impacts on the adjacent land uses will be achieved through the restrictions on hauling operations and the limits on construction activities established by the ERC. Light and glare are anticipated to occur as a result of the traffic generated by the project and by security lighting for the buildings and parking areas. Mitigation of these impacts will be achieved to some extent by the existing and proposed on-site landscaping. Lighting fixtures that direct lighting into the interior of the subject property will further mitigate the potential impacts. The P-1 Zone, Section 4-31-9.D.6, states that truck traffic and other noise normally associated with an operation shall be limited to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and seven o'clock p.m. unless the Hearing Examiner shall find that due to the specific circumstances of the particular application, other hours of operation should be established in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. 8. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by building or paving. The Hearing Examiner may require additional landscaping to buffer adjacent properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use. As noted previously in this report, there is existing landscaping on the subject property which the applicant recently refurbished. The applicant is also required by the ERC to submit an amended landscaping plan for the subject property. This plan needs to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. 9. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses to conditional uses such as day schools, auditoriums used for social and sport activities, health centers, convents, preschool facilities, convalescent homes and others of a similar nature shall be considered to be separate uses and shall be subject to the provisions of the use district in which they are located. No accessory uses are requested as part of this application. 10. Conversion: No existing building or structure shall be converted to a conditional use unless such building or structure complies, or is brought into compliance, with the provisions of this Chapter. No conversions are proposed as part of this application. prelmrpt PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE BRING EXAMINER ,> •LANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH ADDIT February 4, 1992 ' Page 11 ' 11. Public Improvements: The proposed use and location shall be adequately served by and not impose an undue burden on any public improvements, facilities,utilities,and services. Approval of a conditional use permit may be conditional upon the provision and/or guarantee by the applicant of necessary public improvements, facilities,utilities,and/or services. In the past,the applicant had provided a gravelled parking lot as an overflow parking area. As part of an agreement reached with the City's Community Service Committee on November 19, 1990, to complete improvements required in conjunction with previous building on the project site,the applicant has paved a portion of the existing gravel parking lot. This agreement allowed the parking lot to be paved with only a temporary drainage control system. The applicant also agreed to provide a permanent drainage control system as part of the next phase of development which is now being reviewed. Staff recommends that the drainage system for the recently paved parking area be required as part of the present development. As part of the past development that has occurred on the subject property, the applicant has provided improvements on the adjacent streets. No additional road improvements are required for this proposed addition. The applicant will need to provide all Code-required improvements for the project site. H. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner support the proposed rezone and approve the conditional use permit with the conditions listed below: 1. The applicant shall comply with all conditions established by the Environmental Review Committee on January 16, 1990. 2. The applicant shall provide new easements as required and obtain releases from existing easements from the City of Renton, Puget Power, and Washington Natural Gas prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. 3. The applicant shall record, through the City of Renton, an ingress/egress easement to the Golden Pines Apartment and a Lot Line Adjustment for the required setback area prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. 4. The applicant shall pave and stripe the gravel parking lot to provide the parking required for this proposal prior to the issuance of occupancy permits of the proposed addition. The fire lanes that pass through the parking lot shall be provided with 45 foot radii. 5. The applicant shall provide a surety device equal to 10 percent of the value of the landscaping provided under this permit or a minimum of $3,000 for a three year period from the date that the landscaping is approved by the City of Renton. 6. The applicant shall pave the driveway from the parking area to NE 10th Street in order to encourage church members to exit via NE 10th Street. 7. The applicant shall acknowledge, in writing, that the P-1 Zone limits the hours of truck traffic or other noise associated with the operation of these facilities to the hours between 7 a.m.and 7 p.m. unless other hours are established by the hearing examiner. prelnirpt • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST NO.: ECF-048-90 APPLICATION NO(S): CU;R-048-90 PROPONENT: Highlands Community Church PROJECT NAME: Classroom/Office Addition DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the project site from R-1 (Single-Family Residential)to P-1 (Public Zone)and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to construct a two-story(12,000 s.f.)addition to the existing one and two-story (17,995 s.f.) church building in order to provide additional classroom and office area. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 3031 NE 10th Street LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code (see attached sheet). These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. • This Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). Because mitigation measures have been imposed,the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fifteen (15)days from January 21, 1991. Any interested party may submit written comments which must be submitted by 5:00 p.m., February 5, 1991, in order to be considered. A fourteen (14) day appeal period will commence following the finalization of the DNS-M. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee c/o Don Erickson,Secretary Development Planning Section Department of Planning/Building/Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South • Renton,WA 98055 PUBLICATION DATE: January 21,1991 DATE OF DECISION: January 16,1991 • SIGNATURES: j 1/j(o 1611 Lynn A.puttrriann,Administrator DATE Departnt of)Pianning/Building/Public Works 1 -1.s. — 5 / J E.Webley,Administtator DATE Co munity Service Department • y �i1/ /� Lee Wh 9ILr,Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department milsig • DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES PROJECT: Classroom/Office Addition PROPONENT: Highlands Community Church ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF-048-90 APPLICATION NUMBER: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the project site from R-1 (Single-Family Residential)to P-1 (Public Zone)and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to construct a two-story (12,000 s.f.) addition to the existing one and two-story (17,995 s.f.)church building in order to provide additional classroom and office area. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 3031 NE 10th Street CONDITIONS: The Environmental Review Committee Issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with the following conditions: 1. The applicant, in order to address aesthetic Impacts and to control dust, shall hydroseed and maintain, as necessary, the undeveloped portion of the property (until it Is developed) to discourage its use as a driving course,which causes dust and noise impacts,and to reduce the dust which on windy days blows of the site and is a nuisance to the adjacent single-family homes. The hydroseeding shall be completed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. 2. The applicant shall submit an amended landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Development Planning Section which shows the provision of an adequate curb, fence, landscaping or a combination of these along the driveway between the parking area and N.E. 10th Street. This Improvement shall be Installed to ensure that vehicles do not access the lower(vacant) portion of applicants property from the driveway or parking area. These improvements shall be installed In conjunction with the construction of the classroom addition and maintained for the life of the project. 3. The applicant shall,in order to mitigate construction-related impacts(e.g.,noise,dust,traffic)shall submit a construction management plan including the following: a)an erosion control element;b) an element for the periodic watering of any disturbed soils to reduce dust; c) an element for the limiting of hauling operations to the hours between 8:30 A.M.and 4:30 P.M.;d)an element limiting on-site construction activities to the hours between 7:00 A.M.and 7:00 P.M.on weekdays and 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays (with no construction allowed on Sundays) to mitigate the impacts of construction noise on adjacent residential areas; e) an element for the protection of existing storm drains from the soils disturbed during the construction activities;and f)a$2,000.00 cash deposit for street cleaning. This plan shall be followed throughout the construction phase of the project. 4. The applicant shall pave the driveway from the westerly edge of the parking lot to N.E.10th Street. The driveway shall be paved to residential street standards from the southern edge of the Golden Pines parcel to N.E. 10th Street and in accordance with Fire Prevention Bureau standards for emergency access from the parking area to a point adjacent to the south boundary of the Golden Pines parcel. The paved driveway shall be provided in conjunction with the construction of the classroom addition and completed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. 5. The applicant shall provide the Golden Pines Apartment complex with an easement for ingress/egress to the apartment complex's parking area. The easement shall be recorded on conjunction with the recording of the lot line adjustment and prior to the public hearing for the conditional use permit for the classroom addition. 6. The applicant shall provide easements for the two existing sanitary sewer lines within the project site to the satisfaction of the Utilities Services Division prior to the Issuance of site preparation/building permits. • I mitmeas-1 Note: The applicant shall, In accordance with the City of Renton Uniform Fire Code, Install a sprinkler system throughout the existing church building and proposed structure. The sprinkler system will need to be approved by the City of Renton Fire Prevention Bureau. Note: These conditions will be recommended when the project is reviewed by.the Hearing Examiner for the conditional use permit. A. The applicant shall provide new easements as required and obtain a release of the existing easements from the City of Renton, Puget Power and Washington Natural Gas prior to the Issuance of site preparation/building permits. B. The applicant shall complete a lot line adjustment with the owners of the Golden Pines Apartments to provide the necessary set back prior to the public hearing for the conditional use permit for the classroom addition. C. The applicant shall pave the remainder of the gravel parking lot to provide adequate parking for the proposed land use. D. The applicant shall provide a $3,000.00 bond to ensure the maintenance of the landscaping for a three year period prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. E. The applicant shall provide a permanent drainage system for the recently paved parking lot on the westerly portion of the subject property in accordance with the agreement proposed by the Community Services Committee to the satisfaction of the Utility Services Division prior to the Issuance of occupancy permits for the proposed addition. F. Future expansion will require site plan approval, environmental review and probably a change of zone. • mitmeas-2 REI''r^k. .2OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEP IRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHE]= REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: (2 /,(,2• ). DATE CIRCULATED: 4/26/90 COMMENTS DUE: 5/10/90 EFC - 048-90 • A'PLICATION NO(S): R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which isl•located on 7.87 acre propoerty. At present, a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use). In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1, (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to''construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. LOCATION: 3031 NE 10th Street SITE AREA: 7.87 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 11,900 sq ft IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY • 1. Earth 2. Air 3: Water 4i Plants • 51 Animals 6i Energy & Natural Resources 71 Environmental Health 8. Land & Shoreline Use 9 Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light & Glare • 12. Recreation 13. Historic & Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services / r6. Utilities ✓ COMMENTS: • c _ i Ore4i sAtI/ be jvsflF�ed i✓1 Cal cc( Glroi-as. in_r'c�scc J 1 1 A n approved (c 10,rar�� Ev;oston /Sed r'ntCvt4-a+rof) con`7 r0 ( i014n .Sh4I f be obrr, e� �'� r pi,b{is Works BQ FF I cc� D iUia kc j �, (cl ,s an I be r tc c c G� i l` -1"h e -c ;, ,,i Onv A)0.•0 � I re;�h a F Fc- ^e Cbn�'�oI risiz p dr mash he I�j can bc1or' I ecctVu —t< 51 u nd rn+o -e eK ii + ; S�r Qe. s7s t 4 y ocs We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified area of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. A/A441- 00- 0C4/6Atth Pt ' -Mark (ilo- Signature of Director or Authorized Representative CO Date Rev. 6/88 • RE"T :. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEF__I TM.7:- DEVL -. PMENT APPLICATION REVIEW ECF- 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S) . : R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on a 7.87 acre property. At present a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use) . In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1 (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. . LOCATION: 3031 N.E. 10th Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION • FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON MAY 10, 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: / APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ✓ NOT APPROVED T a r; - u/1'1vl r,e(r `fix_ 10 atro n. 0 Co 1-e% cs,As uJTII be 6.bahlieet , 071 Grv'l 12)414s, _ f pro v (411 GctS07) 17)ForAla±rOr1 or'' c'tj'11.1 01 careie_5forcd �►m Ghd c 2 r'()< u-4--6,,g11 — Do4c-«-+ o•'. re-9 U I`1 e,�cvftf 5�ti( I)'e i n, r c rc,�-d[1�G.�J w1-}1,, I� I� rnq Cocrn( 5UrAce �✓t/4�cr Pes7yi r1uvtNal • Prldrfo^a ( Jl J( crc 1l) �ro ru ,, r"1 i h . i*.M�-ton m.(1 .be_ re v I�Ec� by us{.• ° l 1 P r) 4 del [,E/i1/(/7jl,P( DATE /1O SIGNATURE OF l‘kko 7CTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 RENTO_N. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPi..tTMENT 'i/ •>; ifi ? ? vr, ONME TAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET( REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: / lek 1a• DATE CIRCULATED: 4/26/90 COMMENTS DUE: 5/10/90 EFC - 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S): R; CU 048-90 1 7 rEzil -18 .1% )4j) PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church ANR,2 7 1990 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expo 1 ,a OF Tegiouscomplex which 4is located on 7.87 acre propoerty. At present, a 5.08 acre sectionr�oR rl +rt Mbned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use). Ijt 9lWb_ €1 b.4•MeE$roposed expansion, the+applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1, (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. LOCATION: 3031 NE 10th Street SITE AREA: 7.87 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 11,900 sq ft 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 & Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land & Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11.E Light & Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic & Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15.ippp Public Services 16.J Utilities x COMMENTS: 4EE. Coh ATRCnel, '12.,vi-eIA) g3,+ &WPvtns i- Frrs SVAtET., `,�o We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. A13-CD.ouv Ek�ou(Il �. ✓ 1{A t B LqRU Signature of Director or Authorized Representative op �� Date � Rev. 6/88 1 RENT(... COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEP.tTMENT DES )PMENT APPLICATION REVIEV .`JEET ECF- 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S) . : R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on a 7.87 acre property. At present a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use) . In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1 (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. . LOCATION: 3031 N.E. 10th Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON MAY 10, 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: AITR- UlAUV\ €rS6T2- 17EP�. APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ? NOT APPROVED _ rR po ED IMPRO06HE+cT5 EN CROAcN 01ER A.1 EXisrj+46 uru'%( EAS6HEur 011E2 VAcATE9 STv-Eer• - SL MIT SEPA9-ME WATEQHAW tNPR.aOENE*+TS PUI4 Fort f14E PRcTEtTicU SPRiHvaivL SYatErs - A09tTioNAL KVOQ&►rt5 liA`{ qE RFccui2.ED_ _ A Leo'E0 uSKIE21iAiN SIVA-tit IS RF60.iRED if R.E xcow 9E•MRn1D is NM Z S00 Oti - A siRE Ftow h►JAV(Si% f1AY BE £E(,tui%ED TO AlceR TAiN ts.a� GttK 's SwSTeN CA*1 1)&u0e, move Fi¢EfUU) DENA*'D. C- ✓AIMr 172 rE6t0P14FNT cECAS PEE crrAcK€V cfe izegt.-tO 1 T- /1) i4V DATE NA.Y S lG90 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 FEE APPLICATION: f DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEb, SHEET 7 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP d OTHER • DATE: S'_ /- �•a APPLICANT: `� � �l�u JOB ADDRESS: `3G3`/- h. . / ,fit-. 0 NATURE OF WORK: //,GJoOGh-/ �.•o cow.' U v © PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 5--/O-90 DATE RECEIVED Comments Due BY PROPERTY MGMT. .1- 3o-go Comments or suggestions regarding this application should be provided in writing. Please provide comments to the Comm. Dev. Dept.(C.D.D.) by 5:00 p.m. on above date. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION Q FEES APPLIED 71 CANNOT APPLY FEES ❑LEGAL DESCRIPTION NEED MORE INFORMATION ❑SQUARE FOOTAGE 4 ❑FRONT FOOTAGE .1.) ��.t�G rw .��C4 �• ❑VICINITY MAP It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice, that the fees quoted below will apply to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements (i.e. underground utilities, street improvements, etc.) PROJECT COST LATECOMER LATECOMER AGREEMENT - WATER NO PER. FTG. FEE CITY HELD —o PRIVATE DEVELOPER HELD —o - LATECOMERS AGREEMENT - SEWER CITY HELD —a — I, PRIVATE DEVELOPER HELD _r I SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE - WATER UNITS SUCC FEE Single family residential dwelling unit $300/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit $175/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.04/sg. ft. of property x 3s42.V7.?? >3r/3/7/2. :1 SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE - SEWER Single family residential dwelling unit $300/lot x Apartment, condo, each multiplex unit $175/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.04/sa.ft. of property x 3s/a.s7.z? 0/3 7/2. 'y - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (Hospital Area) WATER UNITS SAD FEE DEVELOPMENTS WITH 1500 GP•M FIRE FLOWS OR LESS: Area Charge $0.034 per/sa.ft. x Frontage Charge $16.00 per front ft. x DEVELOPMENTS WITH GREATER/THAN 1500 GPM FIRE FLOWS: Area Charge $0.048/per `sa.ft. x Frontage Charge $'18.00 der front ft. x — — / SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (Honey Crk. Intercptr) - SEWER UNITS SAD FEE AREA CHARGES: \ Residential dwelling unrits, apartments or equivalents; $2501 per dwelling unit x Commercial developaent: $.05 per sg.ft. of ross site area x FRONT FOOTAGE CHARGES: / $37.19 per Front'Ft. •(\on ea. side) x $74.38 per fr.,ft.(prpt ' on both sides of imprv.) x —O— p / aZ�i— Q Q.aJ cz G� ¢J wc. l q g o TOTAL: $ �? `7`�S The above quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees, side sewer permits, r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. D . DATE Signature of Director or Authorized Re resentative • • REi COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPr.RTl C ENVIRON NTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 401e,c1Pi?, DATE CIRCULATED: 4/26/90 COMMENTS DUE: 5/40/90 f (? EFC - 048-90 y • APPLICATION NO(S): R; CU 048-90 ='4' PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on 7.87 acre propoerty. At'present, a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-I (Single-Family Use). In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1, (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. LOCATION: 3031 NE 10th Street SITE AREA: 7.87 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 11,900 sq ft 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 & Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land & Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light & Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic & Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services 16. Utilities COMMENTS: /• � � 2 =.CP sue- - �z „ '02 • / 77-07( .AP4 3. .4 a. 'i s ,„E c-' /7 6 /0./4, /-, ,t-4 ''4% (s 3 i) A) /vim Av Za e have re iZ ewF?this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this prop7l'. 71K , r�� P�.✓ �yyl )990 Signature of Director or Authoriz Representative Date • ✓ NGGt "—cs, 0 3 e GL (DC^•fi.D G, DPi/n(SGt�/ tli( f ; o� �> iCnP �.0 13V6/88 C�p4, 6'S4S. dairo "ca pA a.,.. -z � r o�^°^- � t ,,ua-eed � 2tGcv / ,e07> i. t/o iC;'" y. ., �,. 1.-e ev1'D '. «cam y: RENL;.�r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPeiRTME::,.ti,. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF- 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S) . : R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on a 7.87 acre property. At present a 5.0{8 acre section of the property is zoned, B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acje portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use) . In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1 (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,1900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. . LOCATION: 3031 N.E. 10th Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON MAY 10, 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: t5C.4/27 APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED l 41 a. aGIX-( ,a4 c-7, /0-,/C221.14Ztad ee.tfi.�i'�-��/.,- an.. ?2'1 /3¢`/ O '', P ,- , „ /a , MH, Ts, Co c P.P�-. il„t1,�' p.�p�•G��B„pz �^' o t/�T'�ry /0,/'I G�L, s /$ c�� neg i ' SIGN TURE OF I CTOR OR THORIZE EPRESENTATIVE DATE ¢/'� /c9e) ' EL. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT . DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF- 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S) . : R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on a 7.87 acre property. At present a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use) . In order to 'achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1 (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. . LOCATION: 3031. N.E. 10th Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON MAY 10, 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: b„y,.S pby--fa. / .yf7V-c,S APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED -74 r i� E 943 71:-. 70 c1" 71 e,v a a_ 7Gt Qz) l/I fey- P. P( 457 :9 DATE // SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHO ZED REPRESENTA IVE CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: May 7, 1990 TO: Arneta Hennigner, Utility Plan Review ' FROM: Clint Morgan, Transportation Systems ct ock ' SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church, NE 9th Street, East of Harrington Avenue NE aIn response to your memo dated May 1, 1990 with reference to the above subject, we would request the following comments ? be forwarded and each item addressed on the proposed drawing '; before department approval is given: � 1) Monument Station to be shown at station 0+55.05. 2) Sta. 1+00 - show street dimension curb to curb. 3) Sta. 1+20 to approx. Sta. 2+70, show curve data for transition area. ;4) Sta. 3=60 (approx. Sta. ) show monument station on drawing. , 5) Sta. 5+25 Show roadway dimension from center line to curb on either side of street. ! 6) Sta. 6+00 Show roadway dimension from center line to curb on either side of street. i7) Typical roadway cross section - Correct cross section dimension as marked in red on the attach photo copy. CEM:ps CC: John R. Ralston CEM331 PROJECT: HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH SUBJECT: STORM LOCATION: NE 9TH STREET 1. Show•datum 2. Elevations shown on storm in profile inconsistent with drawings on file in this office. (see drawing Highlands Community Church file 2-2-173). Is data presented on these plans from field datum? 3. Show station of PC, PT & PRC on.plan. 4. Label grade break stations. 5. LabeI gutter line as north gutter line. 6. Show distances offset from centerline on each CB and MH in profile. 7. It is unclear where existing CB will sit in proposed improvements - plan view shows them from in front of gutter to behind curb. Clarify.location and show details if adjustment is required. 8. Elaborate on end and'beginning of construction station - is rest of area improved? Show notes like match existing - etc. 9. Show location of D/W approaches if any proposed. AJH 4/23/90 a/NE9th/AJH/bh \4 � -OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEP. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET Ally '1'ro,1,•` �J REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: e e;, 7 1�1✓Con DATE CIRCULATED: 4/26/90 COMMENTS DUE: 5/10/90 +A .. EFC - 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S): R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is allocated on 7.87 acre propoerty. At present, a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use). In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1, (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to,construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. LOCATION: 3031 NE 10th Street SITE AREA: 7.87 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 11,900 sq ft IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth 2.i Air 3 Water 4. Plants 5., Animals 6 Energy & Natural Resources 7I Environmental Health 8. Land & Shoreline Use • 9! Housing 10. Aesthetics • 1 i. Light & Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic & Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services 16. Utilities COMMENTS: . • • Ro-p- /l,O'r ouch'C pOit2_ .. Sl�i'�f.4,LCca_,, 11�U Lki' •• J C� S�-�tilG2S' We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of obable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. ( (LC" Signature of Director or Auth0ri ed Representative Date • • Rev. 6/88 . r. • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF.- 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S) . : R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on a 7.87 acre property. At present a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use) . In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-i (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. . • LOCATION: 3031 N.E. 10th Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON MAY 10, 1990. • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: V APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED • /' // ' , DATE SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR'AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 'tvNiVG REI' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DE1..RT)1�,_ .,:ry y i&ic olt ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEEPA' 0 19 c,�''4%1„ REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 71 • DATE CIRCULATED: 4/26/90 COMMENTS DUE: 5/10/90 rr �✓ EFC - 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S): R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is(located on 7.87 acre propoerty. At'present, a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use). In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1, (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. LOCATION: 3031 NE 10th Street SITE AREA: 7.87 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 11,900 sq ft IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE • 'MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY • 1.; Earth 2.1 Air 3. Water 4. Plants 5.1 Animals 6.j Energy & Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land & Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10�. Aesthetics 111. Light & Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic & Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation • 15. Public Services 16. Utilities COMMENTS: Ti` 4PA1U510i4 tYIN4ssAust kN'OVE 215 t- RFPO IrA pNc7S 1 ,rtiE 14E14tir viC)cO • ILNFFIC EVs.upfref.0 . C HEcwL.ts7 mekr(ioos ?e14Ic Vouumv5 OK) 5u1.rp h►ucH , ¶ &) 1`� Gi+ 1k) Z k1LM Y11,05 , 01,E J EKI ay�`'7 Lszov]ScAP1Nt0 'Fort i esTV►t-fIcs 1 Yvcri 5t,t, LAivo cow-v.-ben/It . Su GG tsT 12,000 d._ ST'tz 1 we\+wmr rov atiuC t, 7o 1 J o 13 e. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. uy,nok 4-O-RC Signature of Director or t rized Representative Date Rev. 6/88 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEraRTmtl T DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF- 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S) . : R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands. Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on a 7.87 acre property. At present a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use) . In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1 (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. . LOCATION: 3031 N.E. 10th Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:, UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION �HORT- RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON MAY 10, 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:-- Cca R yf N I nic? T N U lSlo 0 ONv APPROVED /APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED rJ C o r u^'A VQ o R-ITZ.CAZ . 1=r3D1^-1 -) 'o P-1 I . Rz co r i w►eiui C JtJrrio‘J LA,S pc 17 TO PSt4-)° C.I6u2 cI- 1 -114t tbrNO 5GlcPINCo 1420uwO r'146 G14.4R01' lS SUl'b 1P UOARAD A � NjetaSTU n t 1 r5u IS I4P . 11.1S PRaper,eo LAn,lrJscA p Puo pt.A. .) 15 1Jar NOP ItaVFaQ . 1 N C.LU 0 t 'r14e "NCC CA NA,*ES I YJ l'- 0101'4101V 5 ; O 121✓-r vv pLL rzcx.14( 1 t..) ity,k0 utojbscu,pt f r\ 5 9 ,1 • 1'1 (Ak.)rp sc I+uG pubs JTE2 p,L.oNC. 1.1tc, 10'r,L 1S GuR!torv7Ly AL(, - pC.Prik.rT W Irl'1 lit-MS, SI4ritmibibtrrf c,r cujo cc.vEl?.•. • T,Ttou ► uwoel2C9Ctoukvo I RRIG HTI c>h) Fort- A&L 1.3-1,V L AK D SGAIJ1,Xo o Aro°W1o►Z,4..Cowl F6ROUS 'TR.CS AR,ok.wo T•id 5oit w►''(e R 13u 062.i DATE SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (‘(-,rnyy‘Otl}i ' r n\ I'11h.t11 r> • I • • S"�i s in»V4drnd •c�ad3 +3r1 5Rd1 .s ci3NtJ M ss® •Zi�dnald r at oolid Tvoc1 'cadvhsan►e1 rOW Cr(101-IS )-1I1I)N4A'1'7Li lk\'D 9+LL 9r 4 Q1 °htiNINd -n'cj 0 ' No S`r1rvd 1 q1S j.ev3?'dc-c)�� 4t. oyvianIr i ' z!_J 43y1'1E1MS0IS Nvir). 1S3c 30 'cxxud ' hi o i Li GC}Azi CMaN '�11.11 Mcvsv..cin7Do rvodn 'Zc cr v I nb3Z1 o .•Qc i o .1 -rxvid w+2104-14 ni c oQ rc, utA hti i i fv{l,Ll .1s3 S 'Ora N I`d1. N I b J,11008. ),-Li all •-) S 1 c7ryt did CV caocvlirg Gwi3c.Aki.l9 . ' Ob-( .4?0 -lira ' RE° -.. .:OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPr..:T......T N,� `:V C qF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET 4Y 0 - REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: AtALI r . /99n DATE CIRCULATED: 4/26/90 COMMENTS DUE: 5/10/90 EFC - 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S): R; CU 048-90 RECEIVED PROPONENT: Dick Ralston APR 2 6 1990 PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church PARKS 3,RECREATION BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expan omplex which is located on 7.87 acre propoerty. At present, a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial_ Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use). In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1, (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. LOCATION: 3031 NE 10th Street SITE AREA: 7.87 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 11,900 sq ft 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 & Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land & Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light & Glare • 12. Recreation 13. Historic & Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services 16. Utilities COMMENTS: , yc �fiLd-lo _/ O ./Y1 d UU �wc , fcr We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identifie eas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposa ignature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Rev. 6/88 • I O . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEP..d7; T DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF- 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S) . : R; CU 048 9 ECEIVED PROPONENT: Dick Ralston APR 2 6 1990 PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing t P 11B4if-,glo}s ing religious complex which is located on a 7.87 acre property. At presen a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use) . In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1 (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. . LOCATION: 3031 N.E. 10th Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION • TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT :Y. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 'DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT • OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS' TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON MAY 10, 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: APPROVED (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED • DATE SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 • RENJ 7,OMMUNITY.DEVELOPMENT DEP. .TM:' ENVIRONM NTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: DATE CIRCULATED: 4/26/90 COMMENTS DUE: 5/10/90 EFC - 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S): R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on 7.87 acre propoerty. At present, a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use). In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1, (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. LOCATION: 3031 NE 10th Street SITE AREA: 7.87 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 11,900 sq ft 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 & Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land & Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics • 11. Light & Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic & Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services 16. Utilities COMMENTS: A rI s [aov w PePizoP¢r Arr8`. — 6N5tJze— Buiwi>,v Des1 k5 Go /0.41- r to/ EX-IA-AUG. � SrrrL�zrz� rr asPvaas gs rr�.h Anf34 CAM o., . • A. vt?t. - LavtDSLAP,lot, -a, 7512- ncakin • g "DDE'S 4,4bse..,.Pio to INt-eAe flan R-e4.otn.et,e,.,r, ? 6L-rr., 144zRawl. Is a- u,M1 i2 .0,1ae rr 7 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have- identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. i/z_77f0 Signature f irector or Authorized Representative Dat Rev. 6/88 •RE`, `a;T COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTM;:__ . ' • DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF- 048-90 . APPLICATION NO(S) . : R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church • BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on a 7.87 acre property. At present a 508 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use) . In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P41 (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. . LOCATION: 3031 N.E. 10th Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: - UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT "COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION • SHORT RANGE t- LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON MAY 10, 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED • ALAI- 1`7 ;9Q Tscp...) ft 'SPL r Zv i,,G DN n 45s&ce-L 7 p-PoSeT3 : (3-L/ I • • DATE 047,19 SIGNATURE O IR CTOR R AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE • • RE".,._ s°:h COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEP� IT_ TREN i ON FIRE DEPT. ENVIRONMEN_-�,L CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: CS/.Jip, APR 2 51990 DATE CIRCULATED: 4/26/90 COMMENTS DUE: 5110 9O El F Th EFC - 048-90 • PLANNING DIVISION APPLICATION NO(S): R; CU 048-90 orrY OF P.EN i ON PROPONENT: Dick Ralston APR 2 6 i990 PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church • BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on 7.87 acre propoerty. At present, a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use). In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1, (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. LOCATION: 3031 NE 10th Street SITE AREA: 7.87 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 11,900 sq ft 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 & Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land & Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light & Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic & Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services 16. Utilities COMMENTS: • We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. , /720 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date 41 Rev. 6/88 RE, , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEP,,1..TM • DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF- 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S) . : R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on a 7.87 acre property. At present a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use) . In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P41 (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. . LOCATION: 3031 N.E. 10th Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT "COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON MAY 10, 1990. ' REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED Any development and/or construction shall comply with current Fire and Buil ind g codes and Omit- nances. A second means of approved access is required. Fire DNartment access roads/lanes shall be paved minimum width 20'; minimum height 13' 6". Yes o ` Preliminary fire flow calculations show a fire flow of o?,So b is required. 3 hydrants with'a minimum flow of I, oo gpm each is required. Primary hydrant is required to be within /50 feet of the structure. Secondary hydrants are required to be within 3 o 0 feet of the structure. / An approved automatic sprinkler system is required to protect the total structure. Yes All fire department access roads are to be paved and installed prior to construction. Yes 7LNo._ All fire hydrants are required to be installed and approved prior to construction. Yes �/ No 4f,,e4,.v.z.dAt 62.64-"'" Aita144Sf � DATE 0,4, a7G l9 qa SIGNATURE OF IREC OR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE / REQUIRED FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS HAZARD IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION NAME: /�//y , 'z7s. CU`rrntu�ir�� U.B.C. CLASS OF BUILD ADDRESS: 30,3/ N. E, /0 aiSTC,-/4 uee'y FIRE MGMT AREA r ' DETERMINE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION - CLASS (CIRCLE ONE) : I - II IV III \CD RE-RESISTIVE NON-COMBUSTIBLE ORDINARY WOOD FRAME MIXED TOTE: IF "MIXED," SEE SPECIAL INSTRUCTION FOR AREA AND BASIC FIRE FLOW) DETERMINE AREA: GROUND FLOOR AREA: FT2 NUMBER OF STORIES TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 9 R9,5 (A) DETERMINE BASIC FIRE FLOW FROM TABLE #1, USING AREA (A) : 75-0 GPM (B) DETERMINE OCCUPANCY FACTOR ADJUSTMENT: ADJUSTMENT: - /) / 11- S GPM (C) IF LOW HAZARD, SUBTRACT UP TO 25% OF (B) : IF HIGH HAZARD, ADD UP TO 25% of (B) COMPUTE SUB-TOTAL (B+C) : (IF B+C LESS THAN 500 GPM, INSERT 500 GPM) 31 SG2. 5 GPM (D) DETERMINE SPRINKLER ADJUSTMENT: ADJUSTMENT: - /,7g/• 25 GPM (E) (IF COMPLETELY SPRINKLERED, SUBTRACT UP TO 50% OF (D) : IF LIGHT HAZARD OCCUPANCY AND FIRE RESISTIVE OR NON-COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION, SUBTRACT UP TO 75% OF (D) . DETERMINE EXPOSURE ADJUSTMENT: USING THE TABLE AS A GUIDE, ENTER THE SEPARATION AND ADJUSTMENT FOR EACH OF THE "FOUR FACES" OF THE BUILDING IN THE TABLE AT THE RIGHT: SEPARATION MAX. ADJUSTMENT EXPOSURE SEPARATION ACT. ADJ. 0-10 25% MAX NORTH /5"O ADD % 11 - 30 20% MAX EAST /00' ADD /O % 31 - 60 15% MAX SOUTH /SO't ADD -G- % 61 - 100 10% MAX WEST //5-1 ADD S % 101 - 150 5% MAX TOTAL % OF ADJUSTMENT 150 or 4-Hr WALL 0% MAX (NOT TO EXCEED 75%) % (TOTAL % ADJUSTMENT TIMES (D) ADJUSTMENT: -{- 5 - 7 5'-GPM(F) DETERMINE ROOF AND SIDING COVERING ADJUSTMENT: (IF SHINGLE COVERING, ADD 500 GPM) ADJUSTMENT: GPM (G) ). COMPUTE ESTIMATED FIRE FLOW REQUIRED: F D+E+F+G IS LESS THAN 500 GPM, INSERT 500 GPM) F D+E+F+G IS GREATER THAN 12,000 GPM, INSERT 12,000 GPM) (D+E+F+G) REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: 0�50 0 GPM (H) SIGNED: DATE: ��.`6, , I990 • RENT ::OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPA.TMF' o� ois ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ' . ‹-G 04,ti REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 6; 90 • • DATE CIRCULATED: 4/26/90 COMME TS(EWE: 1ca. $ = �' ttL•. F- t EFC - 048-90 E C E 0 �,V 7 LS 1- .._.�` ' 1 APPLICATION NO(S): R; CU 048-90 U APR '2 5; 930 ;i, ;;. PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church • " BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on 7.87 acre propoerty. At present, a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use). In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the japplicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1, (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. LOCATION: 3031 NE 10th Street SITE AREA: 7.87 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 11,900 sq ft IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1: I Earth 2. Air 3. Water 4. Plants 5. Animals 6. Energy & Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health • 8. Land & Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10.' Aesthetics 11.1 Light & Glare 12: Recreation 13. Historic & Cultural Preservation 14! Transportation 15 Public Services 16' Utilities COMMENTS: We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of pr.obrable impact or areas here additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. / zG-F 67 Signature P'Director or Authorized Representative Date • Rev. 6/88 v-' R; N COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPART: ' • DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF- 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S) . : R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church • BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on a 7.87 acre property. At present a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use) . In order to achieve the • proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1 (Public Use) and to obtain' a conditional use permit to construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. . • LOCATION: 3031 N.E. 10th Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION • FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON MAY 10, 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: _f /-11) APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED • 44/- DATE -J Q SIGNATURE DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE / REV. 6/88 cir -T7-4,t‘Pn.a.L . =Mil \ I IL aci R. „iilv, Aim i i , ( I) z ea co 0 NI\N i . Ilf-W i 1 igi:iiitri",fill*Altifindillit 4Ik_ 1' i gl:to.saw- ay,rinri-c0.1,?:04:.r.Jr „ b ., ' ii i R.i saJe.. ex.rt-141.0.14...1- IZ\:C1..X101:1;11 I C 1 rr --f-l..E. 104, . INIA 44111Viiiinel i I ' lir7RAP".Ili ige511..- rt., , ho ir:----______ ifiAr. •rim ActiR i C.i• fl A I . I ''.- i I a t...1... 1 ,I 4, i • 2,-,T....._ ii, ‘*'1.•...Z....S',Z4 ••-•... *it). • . • ''`•:: / L,p,, 46„, f 71 trOZ,t AZ-17.47f-,..4^1- I 1 J Iii,. - - - F • ',AAA 00-1 4ah/Sp s%0 ____ .._ (11)VV.-1/4 rr-r rtAF" •,..",T) I, 4—1 lip, 'MW 1 1 , i .• - Ti . ivia I / N. . . •.. C.1olp &II*. •CI)ill r.."3111PEli'ZIZI •\ • V•, -- P . 1;.•.,r<iy,,A nbcf al;14114., 411111. E : 4 • -I P. :I' III 1 — / k - 4 414 • 2 0,.. qb3..t4; A ' ' .--;.w• ' • .---31,40 I, . X II '..:.1' .32 IriZE7 .1 . °'7 - :,, .. , :, i _ - 4, • " 0 f 1 ,.. ,,,,,,[.-Pizzszp•-•• - Aellii.I i I- •i ,pr...kri.... gi "*" -- , ti.4,4 "1-- •,'\(;., < 40 1 1 d '• - i'..-, 1_371P` <= /- , , (. . _ ill ZI k '010-120Wil :1,*7 - • I __\,_ ,..v,-• —,kr-f4.,., - , — Galt IPAr...1...... — . 104 Z' IIII 01,TW4/1.., tRig.. rvst :i ft2- ' 0.1 2w-e-- 6 1,4•Kr..., — -- t I I I 1 . ;.,P, 6••:%T,*\•.1)'.'rinc 09.„ ___ _ _ iv c,' ._ 7 1111 t' Eliii:+4 ...e ii"-.":„. i .n.J. „it...ve. ....•,,...4,y, n Fiar7.° ....t...‘ . — 1 -- ws.f.4 r — . EXte iha• lit . I, -_. PARK a P R 2 O_AR.3- - MI 1 • . -- . ,.. ,... ,.. •••••mei 04:L7. . ME R.Grem,,..4.ft• • • . ''...aiVapirokThr.. 0"`ii '-".• ,. ... , v . !• r- s.7----- ---------------------.,-- 1 . .. .• \ , I st..is•-,E 1 1 _ K.f.r114- 41A/A414,.. SITE PLAN / ROOF PLAN \ Al mosiii—(i!l, i•:40.-e" LOMMUnlly Church MO • • . _ . '44.. ! I • ''''''''•••,,,,,s,,,, i 1 .. •••.., ....., 1. ii- 4..,‘ •.„...,,'.-''.. -‘••... .. . . . ,'44••• / . . '... ' / s........ s'•. • / ''. .1111120221 1- .., ........... . ____,.// '1 ; (/ .. .4 ‘1,1031111111 I I . . . Mtg. _1 1! ,.. _____--/ . //// /III IN.--1 ."" :.. pr---=-- —7- •,...it„.,.................„. ,/ G.,...., ,......: i 771 ,'_... ,p...,...,......•••a i''''.9.--.."' . 1•A'•••C4 c,..,4E.1 ______//, /' .. , ,..,,,,,--4. . i .. ,. . .. 1 I / r----:11-0:m hal •-J.-111_,---=„ • ,I,...,.., ......• • / L .........•• • ERZY__.1.3._ i • / s" ... -- `i ---..., ...— 'T_TT,i:r\5!_,,,: - •.1 .1 , ,:.;•::i.;s. I I I Pool oa 1 i 1 Pu.t.•-‘•.. •, I . , 5 I 141,-,.......,•• .....-_,. t.,..11..... • ,...-...-....- III; w.-. • . . . ....,,,,..„, ...-, .,.1. .t.......-a.,:feke 0•,,,,, _ _ , r \ • ., tr.,,A,. -'.#' •. I _____13 .._ .,. 0 _ _ i . / ,.. . , ..I .X..••••-I, , 1.!••aoor.e.., • • 1 r. , ', •7.1 -'. • ..,.....1 G.,,, \ 1 / •. ; ,...5 0. i I / • 6 •:',. / 1.' i:•,1 I.,,, .,, V* sap_m_mt22_ \./ 457'7,.7g'24- • j-k..._!±„. , f•"7,...17„ I I . .-\,./ 4......70.,.•4,4a . I I -- WO••• 1 l ——-- r e•1051,-.. I I I 1 ,..,.., G:..,•-13:7-1/ ,e.,,' i,•;,-, 8 >,* ,,,.„,..„5_ I I 8 i .F-G.C.,.. ..,...no,..,,--r..- 1 r,....../,.....:.0... , f.,10,1/. • I C....sc•4•PI i I 11 . :•....,,,as e.......c.w.") .1---- Elf,4.•f l• ; -' " 4.1.40 a, Jilt.. • •. ' , J , ----. , •_ • ---1 'till i L 111111111 F.,-....... I • 1'::nr:r:i'''''.1. - ./. ....,-,-...es.% rxr1.--t• Tr id . 6s; ....... .).‘^ I • rI ,1 _._. .,-...e.ws......e-r./ rec...^.,.....) Ice:, i . I 1 . . . . . :I 1 I A2 ;/---*Wii* FLOOR PLANS NORTH INF omrnuni y . 1/8.:1.-0. I SE, .1011 -EU V•7* Church - , • I ME) • 1 I. • • I . . . I • • I . . I . • Oa I ''' I .''''''.......\. • \ ,,.)., 1,•21:it' IllekV::::'' 1 111211•2121.2.6. 1 tufrovi...,:'„.,,2.21212,,:'..„ r, y •.am..122 .•:, I 2.a.lac. ' ..-2...-2,-**---' . •I '''"' I 54 I r Iploirok60'. r7 ;I HultOotos.1. Mt. 1 1 6 1 LSo,I, \ . A ,rna,...,_,........,... 1 x ...... 1 I .• . 10 , ,,, , • .,........!-.,-1!••ti.L.L./ I *GI \\\ 4110.fr41h I• PARrpOnz I. . -71 -- -,* \ I I ,1 r. .1 2122212' \10 . 2i1 -- - 411111111111 . I hill.TVRIFROE 1 '' '..00.4—rs."---J , - VERN. k' '''- -' ••'.- 1)4- kr=1YLI'' ( •1 1.4.- lib. ...---, ". .- \ • .1 r .....-\ , , 10,.r 1 C 4.....N.IMR-.: . IR j .....' ......,.._ NIZN. 11. m• •T -14 1 [ -E. ....- ---„-- 12.2,-p4.1/ • , .....„j.:T. r , 110\ i ,,. . .._,. ...w , ......, , . ) .. i . _.•,,.... _..„. I P W.V.&.....• / .... ,-.-. -• \ \ 4F . i- IF -----/-1 I n-11-111 .--——1 /.... 0 - . ..NNT' _..„---- — 1 W, mr: • N:111111-, ill '.11'.6 • II • ./ I i 1 „,-----' 1 . il TrIrr 1 P ‘4...-p i i . El .. EXIN.,0 NoPTH:TV s. II I I, _._, IMO PI I -._..-__--.-11--- • I • \I.r.„; PILIL1.4,4409 0 s'. A V 96,4, IIS. 1-m., r L..4.4.y. .,,, J ., ..- , *III I '.' l CM L \ I - .., • 1 = 1 -- - -1-1 _ I t ./ J „ 1111 Mkt A— !"•,:i ra.4-2,-.2-/ . , 222.4,.. • I 121 ...0 _ 1 MAU ',Plf. , IANCM .27,„,„,, ... I . I , \ I 11 h ' • . ---i,"--- I i -- . •. . ,,,,,.......• . " - Ica.im. e.a. 10 1 -'41."‘°•.°. 1 N.TH-0•0"40 0A. AO CA 106 i 1 1 I I r- • , 100 LEVEL 0.1.r I 41 1 .-A01.17.110.011,0-01-VolL I ';\ . i ' 100 1__ -a ETII NIG.THJ.4=TUATLII 11 _ —a.— L____• _IL_ _i _i I.i 1_ ...4,,..ist:Hgerem•14,0.0.TIN INT. HIANCTUART • • ''''"f1/.. V 427 1-• 6'4 LII : 1 . • I . 3,1o4. EXISTING BUILDING REMODEL (PHASE I-B) 4 Communily Church A3 NORTH NEVITET, 11.01.0-ev,,AHF. \ ..„..u.,„\„...,.....„ 14.„.„ 1.,it _.. 61 .;ii 1.1.,i z,..5;.._n7z7r.7p__,; r ,7r : -r---- ., I ,.-,„-, • n„, , ,,,,-,- I., , .,-,,-,,,. 1 I ,^--1, 1 f1(.4,. I Int, 1•••,^b-r• 0-• 11 . 1, 0 - 1-117---1- I ( AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Dolores E. Ashbaugh ,being first duly sworn on oath acct. #51067 states that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the , VALLEY DAILY NEWS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 600 S. Washington Kent, WA. 98032 RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A Public Hearing will be held by the Ren- Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week. That said newspaper ton in Hearinthe Cgouncil Chambers on Examiner at his regular these meet- cond is a legal newspaper and is now and has been for more than six flooring of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed. and February 4, 1992 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the following petitions. published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH Kent, King County, Washington. The Valley Daily News has been ECF-048-90 approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the project site from R-1 (Single- State of Washington for King County. Family Residential)to P-1 (Public Zone)and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to con- The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Valley existingatwo-stoone and(12 two-story ,800sf) (42,addition50oto sfthe) Daily News (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distrib- church building(on a 17,995 sf footprint)in uted to the subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed order to provide additional classroom and office area. The project is located at 3031 notice a public notice 46965—City of Renton , notice • NE 10th Street. Legal descriptions of the files noted of Public hearing above are on file in the Development Ser- vices Division, Third Floor, Municipal Build- ing, Renton. was published on January 24 , 1992 All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hear- ing on February 4, 1992 at 9:00 a.m. to The full amount of the fee ch rged for s ' foregoing publication is express their opinions. the sum of $ 37 . 41 ' Published in the Valley Daily News Janu- ary 24, 1992 6965 Subscribed and sworn before me this 8.611 day of 5.Ja • 19 92 C.-42,2,-.1.? " ,0° ' Notary Public for the State of Washington residing at Kent King County, Washington VDN/#83 Revised 11/91 • OF R4, . C70 Mr DTI i o & y 6• ._ SEp•c0P • City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner will hold a 'PUBLIC HEARING in CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL ON FEBRUARY 4,1992 BEGINNING AT 9:00 A.M. P.M. CONCERNING: HIGHLANDS CHURCH CU;ECF;R-048-90 THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO REZONE THE EASTERLY PORTION OF THE PROJECT SITE FROM R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO P-1 (PUBLIC TO CONSTRUCT AAND TO TWO-STORY FTIONAL USE PERMIT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING ONE AND TWO-STORY 42,500 SF CHURCH BUILDING (ON A 17,995 SF FOOTPRINT) IN O DER TO800 S PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CLASSROOM AND OFFICE AREA; 4F �/ �? "�'�; '' or .z •. .39 L'l • E • N, • Riot la ,T ` it e,z°W..a 10 ..T' cFa'7,r.� .� '',„ -JIM �' E• •. A � � ,xn c FJ�Uimaiz ' tI • GENERAL LOCATION AND l^V I 3031 NE 10TH STREET FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL THE CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION 235-2550 - - _ THIS NOTICE;'.NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT ---- _---___.—. PROPER AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATION ,sous cep_1144 PIi .I 1 , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 3 COPIES OF 4 -- - • PPGARE1'I-J i6BOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN �� CONSPICUOUS e•• .:4..A7oh%4/1C ®ON OR NEARBY THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY ON o o .74, / `oN, ma -{ • /�U - �• - ATTEST: Subsc bed and sworn to before me, a ��':Cep, .410 Notary Public in and for the State of Nash to Sr O. �8 �a." .c resi i i ,t , on the 9 SIGNED: cD Qom• .•19•.• ©0, day o /0'• o***0 VAS;'� 0044 C GAT980AM,FEBRUARY4, i9s2 :>' :.::: >. d e will . :: ::.:a . . ..::::::�.::::::::.:q:::a.:ed.::o.::::eating.at the,d«Gret�on..�f:the..Heann :�xarrtm�r,•::::...::::.:::..:_:...:::. PROJECT NAME: HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH PROJECT NUMBERS: CU;ECF;R-048-90 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the project site from R-1 (Single-Family Residential)to P-1 (Public Zone) and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to construct a two-story (12,800 sf) addition to the existing one and two-story (42,500 sf) church building (on a 17,995 sf footprint) in order to provide additional classroom and office area. The project is located at 3031 NE 10th Street. PROJECT NAME: PS BUSINESS PARK PROJECT NUMBERS: CU;ECF-122-91 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ' Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow up to 6,000 sf of existing nonconforming light industrial uses in a B-1, Business Use Zone. Total building area is 28,000 sf. The project is located 865 Rainier Ave N. hexagnda :;.OF::.REN. .ON:•-:•••.•: z ••• •�: . 'RRE NT :.P LANN> ::::<::::::::::::< ::;:<::;:;:::>::.:::::: ;;::;::;::: . :: . . I . IT...0 • • On the 2/8 day of , 191 , Ideposited in the mai10,V\ oft United States a sealed envelope containing 4. e, ylUta t- documents . This information was .sent to: .• Name Representin • g • OLAAM.CX4.14 • • • • • • • • (Signature of Sender) lia.Y?* L. Sub cribed ands App d+,me this '9 day of ,,�0 •�UpN,MIS*o4.0 1� • : �_ - �a�� 4 Not •Pub i. in and for the I, p:• j Sta of a-shington residing e issa #,SHING,0,••,� therein. �IIIiu" s ro� Mike David-Hall E. F. Sheets Fymiko Hoshide 1221 Second Ave, Ste 500 813 Kirkland Ave NE 833 Kirkland Ave NE Seattle,WA 98122 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Comelus T. Gevers 'Gordon/Lois Neilson Steven C. Muhich 900 Kirkland Ave NE 819 Kirkland Ave NE 856 Kirkland Ave NE Renton,WA 98056 - Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 • Allan Hanson, President Charles B. Lartz t`k. R0.`s4v\ Conifer Management, Inc. 818 Kirkland Ave NE 142.21 .W �- 6 ,>C 3848 S Junett Renton,WA 98056 L � PO Box 11246 �U ° ()SC Tacoma,WA 98411 Brian R. Price 755 Kirkland Ave NE Margaret Chan Renton,WA 98056 Safeway Stores, Inc. #366 PO Box 947 Ellen Medley Bellevue,WA 98009 756 Kirkland Ave NE Renton,WA 98056 Roald/Milma Nelson 839 Kirkland Ave NE Shirley Fassett Renton,WA 98056 908 Kirkland Ave NE Renton,WA 98056 Lou Nelle Sims 3011 NE 9th Richard/Sherrill Goff Renton,WA 98056 830 Kirkland Ave NE Renton,WA 98056 Vernon/Betty Doane 844 Kirkland Ave NE Harvey/Jane Sandahl Renton,WA 98056 836 Jefferson Ave NE Renton,WA 98056 Dan Flynn 844 Kirkland Ave NE Frances L Sneddon Renton,WA 98056 3030 NE 10th,Apt 302 Renton,WA 98056 Teresa Henry 836 Kirkland Ave NE George/Marrasheen McKay Renton,WA 98056 904 Kirkland Ave NE Renton,WA 98056 Hillman/Norma Gwinnett 805 Kirkland Ave NE Dwight/Linda Peterson Renton,WA 98056 3009 NE 9th Renton,WA 98056 Kenneth/Marian Taylor 801 Kirkland Ave NE Lawrence/Marcia Lauckner Renton,WA 98056 825 Kirkland Ave NE Renton,WA 98056 C.Floyd Hughes ' 804 Kirkland Ave NE Ray E. Fidecaro Renton,WA 98056 824 Kirkland Ave NE Renton,WA 98056 T.J. Cadwell 812 Kirkland Ave NE Maxine U.Johnson Renton, WA 98056 912 Kirkland NE Renton, WA 98056 C,GL- 0`ffs- �� _ .. » r . ' _----,-,,,, wmmmmtboaolgIlligitllImm - - mNswmmomimmmmqmmm ':::•:':' ,,..'::':::::':::':': :'::'::':'i::":':'::'::is:':::':'::'::: ::.:.::.:::':':'::::::::;:•::::•:':•:.•::::.::�':�':•:'::::':::::. C�I:T:Y<>O F'z:RENT ::<:�: T :;;:<:. `�;'......: ;s:zMMi1:::.Ifi:Y :�D..�ELOP: :;'« �<: : >mmmm<:;:>:::�:: �::::DEPAR. .M. ENT.:.OF...Cd... ...N....... .......E... ... ................ .:. ' ::::::::::::.'::..':..:'::.::::::::.' ERT F �"��,ATI ON.. .1 < > trt <> < »> < . CRI .IC O R:TY: W:N ERS> > >>>>: >::::::>: : < < <:OFN��:TIF:I. AT:1 � :N<:. :F>P:R. PE O :>::<: :: :: :: :�::> > »> h l 3....0....f eet.... .f.....h............... ........ .......... .... ..................::::::::::.::::::::.'.':: 1411160***FO1R OFFICIAL USE�O^NLY*** PROJECT TITLE: c 1 DWWV\UNl\ �tuK� 111 APPLICANT: APPLICATION NUMBER: C.U.; -c ci .»448 -1O The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Community Development Department will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER_ . Alhadef, N. Jack 999 3rd Ave. , Ste 4125 722750-0625-06 Seattle, WA 98104 Alhadef, N. Jack 999 3rd Ave. , Ste 4125 722750-0620-01 Seattle, WA 98104 Ashbaugh, Gertrude 839 Jefferson Ave. NE 245720-0100-09 Renton, WA 98056 Baker, Kenneth R. 929 Lynnwood Ave. NE 807440-0010-04 Renton, WA 98055 Bardessono, John 3104 NE 10th 285480-0200-04 Renton, WA 98055 Boyd, William H. 11258 Glendale Wy. S. 245720-0060-07 Seattle, WA 98168 Bushore Albert L. & 6031 Hazelwood Lane 722780-1028-01 Lois S. Bellevue, WA 98006 ' Campbell, James M. 839 Lynnwood Ave. NE 807440-0045-03 Renton, WA 98055 PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF REIN TO6�E Cowan, Jack L. & 905 Lynnwood Ave. NE 807440-0030-00 Betty J. Renton, WA 98056 APR 2 4 1990 NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL # Davis, Renan 824 Index Ct. NE 245720-0065-02 Renton, WA 98055 Doane, Betty 844 Kirkland Ave. NE 807440-0100-05 Renton, WA 98056 Eskenazi, Morrey 951 Lynnwood Ave. NE 807440-0005-01 Renton, WA 98055 Eustis, Lloyd 829 Index Ct. NE 245720-0020-06 Renton, WA 98055 Fassett, Shirley A. 908 Kirkland NE 807440-0125-06 Renton, WA 98056 Flynn, William J. 911 Lynnwood Ave. NE 807440-0025-07 Renton, WA 98055 Fritsch, Francis A. 851 Jefferson Ave. NE 245720-0110-07 Renton, WA 98056 Gevers, C. T. 900 Kirkland Ave. NE 807440-0115-08 Renton, WA 98055 Gleason, Dennis M. 824 Jefferson NE 807440-0220-00 Renton, WA 98055 Golden Pines 17801 NW 2nd Ave. 722780-1027-02 c/o American S & L Miami, FL 33169 Gregg, Glenn R. 850 Kirkland Ave. NE 807440-0105-00 Jane S. Renton, WA 98056 Hamman, Larry D. 923 Lynnwood NE 807440-0015-09 Renton, WA 98055 Harrison F. Joan 7307 Sand Point Way NE 245720-0196-04 Apt. 617 Seattle, WA 98115 Henry, Paul J. 836 Kirkland NE 807440-0095-02 Renton, WA 98055 Highlands Com. Church 3031 NE 10th St. 722780-0995-02 Renton, WA 98055 Highlands Com. Church 3031 NE 10th St. 722780-1023-06 Renton, WA 98055 . Hoffman, Gary L. 845 Index Ct. NE 245720-0040-02 Renton, WA 98056 NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL # Hoshide Lloyd 833 Kirkland Ave. NE 807440-0155-09 Renton, WA 98056 Hume Investments Ltd. 401 1124 Lonsdale Ave. 008900-0090-05 N. Vancouver, B.C. V7M 2H1 Johnson, Kay F. 912 Kirkland Ave. NE 807440-0130-09 Renton, WA 98055 Kindopp, Peggy M. 840 Index Ct. NE 245720-0045-07 Renton, WA 98056 Kirkevold, E. 0. 917 Lynnwood Ave. NE 807440-0020-02 Renton, WA 98055 Knudson, Milo 845 Lynnwood. Ave. NE 807440-0040-08 Renton, WA 98055 Letnes Jerry T. & 18024 SE 144th St. 245720-0197-03 Sharon K. Renton, WA 98056 Malune, Donald M. P.O. Box 66294 722790-0093-01 Seattle, WA 98166 McKay, G.R. 904 Kirkland Ave. 807440-0120-01 Renton, WA 98055 McKinley, James S. 820 Index Ct. NE 245720-0070-05 Renton, WA 98055 Muhich, Steven C. 856 Kirkland Ave. NE 807440-0110-03 Renton, WA 98056 Nelson, Roald E. 839 Kirkland Ave. NE 807440-0150-04 Renton, WA 98056 Parker, Willard C. 832 Index Ct. NE 245720-0055-04 Renton, WA 98055 Peterson, Dwight 3009 NE 9th 807440-0225-05 Renton, WA 98055 Piacentini, John & 2540 NE Riverside Way 722790-0090°04 Louise Portland, OR 97211 Renton Highlnds Assoc. 919 124th Ave. NE #104 722780-1024-05 c/o Bellmond Realty Bellevue, WA 98005 Renton Highlnds Assoc. 919 124th Ave. NE #104 722780-1025-04 c/o Bellmond Realty Bellevue, WA 98005 NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL # Richards, Eugene M. 1402 22nd NE #440 008900-0140-05 Auburn, WA 98002 Richarsdon, G. W. 837 Index Ct. NE 245720-0030-04 Renton, WA 98055 Safeway Stores Inc. P.O. Box 947 722780-1026-03 #366 Bellevue, WA 98009 ATTN: Margaret Chan Sandahl, Harvey L. 836 Jefferson Ave. NE 807440-0215-07 Renton, WA 98055 Sather, Barbara A. 3112 NE 10th 285480-0205-09 Renton, WA 98056 Sea-Eye Bldg. Corp. 4020 E. Madison Ste. 320 722790-0075-03 Seattle, WA 98112 Sims, Lou Nelle 3011 NE 9th 807440-0145-02 Renton, WA 98056 Sneddon W. J. 830 Kirkland Ave. NE 807440-0090-07 Renton, WA 98055 Staab, Delore M. 851 Lynnwood Ave. NE 807440-0035-05 Renton, WA 98056 Stewart, Jack 926 Kirkland Ave. NE 807440-0140-07 Renton, WA 98055 Tek-Electric Control 5940 SW Hood Ave. 008900-0050-03 Portland, OR 97201 Ternet, J. A. 841 Index Ct. NE 245720-0035-09 Renton, WA 98056 Tiegs, Marcella D. 845 Jefferson Ave. NE 245720-0105-04 Renton, WA 98056 Tonda, Ernest J. 528 Edmonds Ave. NE 245720-0025-01 Renton, WA 98056 Veitch, Donald 836 Index Ct. NE 245720-0050-09 Renton, WA 98055 Vukov, S. J. 5641 Pleasure Pt. Ln. 722750-0635-04 Bellevue, WA 98006 Vukov, S. J. 5641 Pleasure Pt. Ln. 722750-0630-09 Bellevue, WA 98006 , • NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL-NUMBER White Ralph W. & P.O. Box 2126 245720-0115-02 Delores Renton, WA 98056 Wilson, Wallace R. 17212 SE 128th 807440-0135-04 & Inez Renton, WA 98056 • Wong, Yuen K. & , 6311 Seward Park S. 72290-0091-03 Hannah Seattle, WA 98118 Wood, Katherine E. 825 Index Ct. NE 245720-0015-03 Renton, WA 98056 CERTIFICATION I, kY.(A A. 1!a'„N-w,iv--' , hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent . -'''''-„,-c propert owners and their addresses were taken from the records of the King County.• -�', Assessor as prescribed by law. • ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before ' ' - me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of - Washington residing at on the I O41day of , /43 g a ��� /� (412.Signed: � �?,� CERTIFICATION FOR MAILING t'L?AYmn u I, alc •S ,u- , hereby certify that notices of the public eeti-rig‘•bn the subject were mailed on 11 Z3jw,a...11._.s:G.0.11A1.1s.142.11.17:.;.:0140t, , to each listed adjacent property owner as prescribed by law. 1 ����ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before ! .' o• OT � � me, a Notary Public, in a d for the State of 'fin Washin ton residing at s��4-i kletic o on.the 0)3.,� day o /4j40/-- , m o F ci��' l/L .t AC e G'G, Sigfi* .:..?, ��` y�� C Rev10 9. CERTNOT2.doc )` Law Offices _ ■ HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON ■ A Professional Service Corporation 500 Galland Building,1221 Second Avenue Seattle,Washington 98101-2925 (206)623-1745 Facsimile(206)623-7789 11111MMING Carl January 22, 1992 PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON VIA FACSIMILE JAN 2 3 1992 Mr. Mark R. Pywell RECEIVE! Senior Planner Development Services Division Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Highlands Community Church Addition Renton File No. ECF-048-90 Dear Mr. Pywell: This letter will confirm our discussions of yesterday and today regarding the above-referenced project. Our client, Highlands, Community Church, will place the following documents into escrow: (1) Quit Claim Deed from The Golden Pines Limited Partnership to Highlands Community Church for certain real property presently owned by The Golden Pines Limited Partnership, along with a Partial Release of Mortgage covering the same real property. The property described in these documents is that which must be conveyed to Highlands Community Church in order for the proposed addition to meet the City of Renton's setback requirements. (2) Easement for Ingress/Egress from Highlands Community Church to The Golden Pines Limited Partnership. This document will grant to the Golden Pines Apartment complex an easement for ingress/egress over the existing driveway located on Highlands Community Church property and presently used to access the Golden Pines Apartments parking lot from N.E. 10th Street. . The escrow instructions will provide that the above documents will be recorded after the City of Renton has issued a conditional Mr. Mark R. Pywell January 22, 1992 Page 2 use permit for the Church's proposed addition and granted final approval of the Church's present rezone application, and any applicable appeal periods have expired. If, however, either of the City's approvals are appealed, the documents will not be recorded until such appeals are fully resolved and the approvals have been upheld. We will provide you with a copy of the escrow agreement described above not later than Friday, January 30, 1992. You have indicated that the City will accept the escrow agreement in satisfaction of the easement and lot line conditions contained in the City's Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance for the Church's addition, issued January 16, 1991. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. e y trul ours, /5_ Michael Davis-Hall cc: Highlands Community Church 3 1 1 3 6 6 " CITY ' F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn.Guttmann,Administrator January 22, 1992 a Dick Ralston 14221 W Lk Kathleen Dr SE Renton,WA 98056 SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church CU;ECF;R-048-90 Dear Mr. Ralston: The date of Tuesday, February 4, 1992, at 9:00 a.m., has been set for a Conditional Use Permit and Rezone public hearing to review the above-referenced matter. The hearing, before Mr. Fred Kaufman, Renton Hearing Examiner, will be held in the Council Chambers'on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before the hearing. If you prefer to make other arrangements to receive the staff report, please contact Kathleen Childers,277-5582, or Sandi Seeger,277- 5581. If you have any questions, please call 235-2550. Sincerely, Donald K. Erickson,AICP Zoning Administrator cc: Attached Party of Record List hexItr/DKE/f®c 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Mike David-Hall E. F. Sheets Fymiko Hoshide 1221 Second Ave, Ste 500 813 Kirkland Ave NE 833 Kirkland Ave NE Seattle,WA ,98122 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Cornelus T. Gevers Gordon/Lois Neilson Steven C. Muhich 900 Kirkland Ave NE 819 Kirkland Ave NE 856 Kirkland Ave NE Renton,WA'98056 - Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Allan Hanson, President Charles B. Lartz Conifer Management, Inc. 818 Kirkland Ave NE 3848 S Junett Renton,WA 98056 PO Box 11246 Tacoma,WA 98411 Brian R. Price 755 Kirkland Ave NE Margaret Chan Renton,WA 98056 Safeway Stores, Inc. #366 PO Box 947; Ellen Medley Bellevue,WA 98009 756 Kirkland Ave NE Renton,WA 98056 Roald/Milma Nelson • 839 Kirkland Ave NE Shirley Fassett Renton,WA 98056 908 Kirkland Ave NE Renton,WA 98056 Lou Nelle Sims 3011 NE 9th Richard/Sherrill Goff Renton,WA 98056 830 Kirkland Ave NE Renton,WA 98056 Vernon/Betty Doane 844 Kirkland Ave NE Harvey/Jane Sandahl Renton,WA 98056 836 Jefferson Ave NE Renton,WA 98056 Dan Flynn 844 Kirkland Ave NE Frances L Sneddon Renton,WA 98056 3030 NE 10th, Apt 302 Renton,WA 98056 Teresa Henry' 836 Kirkland Ave NE George/Marrasheen McKay Renton,WA 98056 904 Kirkland Ave NE Renton,WA 98056 Hillman/Norma Gwinnett 805 Kirkland,'Ave NE Dwight/Linda Peterson Renton,WA'98056 3009 NE 9th Renton,WA 98056 Kenneth/Marian Taylor 801 Kirkland Ave NE Lawrence/Marcia Lauckner Renton,WA 98056 825 Kirkland Ave NE Renton,WA 98056 C. Floyd Hughes 804 Kirkland Ave NE Ray E. Fidecaro Renton,WA 98056 824 Kirkland Ave NE Renton,WA 98056 T. J. Cadwell 812 Kirkland Ave NE Maxine U.Johnson Renton,WA 98056 912 Kirkland NE Renton,WA 98056 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 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 February 4, 1992 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the following petitions: HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH ECF-048-90 The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the project site from R-1 (Single- Family Residential) to P-1 (Public Zone) and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to construct a two-story (12,800 sf) addition to the existing one and two-story (42,500 sf) church building (on a 17,995 sf footprint) in order to provide additional classroom and office area. The project is located at 3031 NE 10th Street. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing on February 4, 1992 at 9:00 a.m.to express their opinions. Publication Date: January 24, 1992 Account No. 51067 hexpub OF RE . c °::' . SEP City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner • will hold a . • i.p u 0 .11.c. : . .H.E.A.R....ING . .: • in • CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, • CITY HALL • ON • FEBRUARY 4, 1992 BEGINNING AT ' 9:00 A.M. P.M. CONCERNING: . . . HIGHLANDS CHURCH CU;ECF;R-048-90 THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO REZONE THE EASTERLY PORTION OF THE PROJECT SITE FROM R-1 ((SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO TO CONSTRUOCIEAAND TWO-O OO 2BTAIN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING QNE AND TWO-STORY 42, 00 S500 SF) CHURCH BUILDING (ON A 17,995 SF FOOTPRINT) IN O DER TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL . CLASSROOM AND OFFICE AREA A+7'V .? •-'' �� "'it' 1W4 V.;it, ty 1, s. ki . iT ! r,37 . . : ' '4i iNE •�• .cn `:4^ic+3.[aµ 1 • • ;`�jl • a • i;a O` �� r• u 'i.� 'a tt 1i1m . _ 'm•? Ii, . fix. - .1 • C - '! g 2 E � 9 ty:a "Bit,-':;A INs e g1y. ,�:i�2 �fl ' 1' '•' pp++!!? N GENERAL LOCATION .AND 3031 NE 10TH STREET • FOR .FURTHER 'INFORMATION CALL THE CITY OF RENTON . • PLANNING DIVISION • 235-2550 • THIS NOTICE'..NOT TO ' BE REMOVED WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION HE%PSTR CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: January 22, 1992 TO: File FROM: Mark Pywell, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church At the time that the ERC issued a Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated they placed a condition on the project require the applicant to record an ingress/egress easement in the favor of Golden Pines Apt. prior to the public hearing. The applicant has requested that they be allowed to place the document in an escrow account that would allow the document to be recorded upon approval of the conditional use permit. At the January 22, ERC meeting I discussed this proposal with ERC and the City Attorney. It is the City's opinion that the request is reasonable as without the project approval there is no action on which to base the request. They also felt that by placing the document in an escrow account it would remove the applicant from the actual recording process sufficiently so that the City could feel comfortable that the document would be recorded. Final ERC agreed that the proposal was not a substantive change to the ERC condition but merely an amendment to the procedure so that it would not require them to issue a new determination. I have talked with the attorney for the applicant. He has agreed to fax me a letter regarding the proposal and to ensure that the escrow account is established prior to the public hearing. CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: January 22, 1992 TO: File FROM: Mark Pywell, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church CU;R-048-90 At the time that the ERC issued their Determination of Non-Significance the Committee added a note to the mitigation measures stating that the applicant was required to obtain and have recorded a lot line adjustment from the adjacent Golden Pines Apt. prior to the public hearing for the Conditional Use Permit. Golden Pines Apartments is a senior citizen apartment complex that receives support from HUD. The applicant stated that although the necessary documents have been signed, the parties involved were reluctant to process the application through the City until the project that necessitated the lot line adjustment was approved. Their concern was that if the project were to be denied, they would then have to process a second lot line adjustment to return the lot line to its original positions. At the request of the applicant I discussed this problem with the Secretary to the ERC. Who, after consulting with the ERC members, agreed that we could recommend to the Hearing Examiner that prior to the issuance of any site preparation permits or building permits that the applicant be required to record the lot line adjustment. The ERC felt that as the requirement was only a note to the applicant and not a condition of approval,that the matter did not require a new determination from them. PLANNING DIVISION CITY OE RENTON WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Richard W. Ralston JAN 2 0 1992 c/o Highlands Community Church 3031 N.E. 10th Street VC. Renton, WA 98056 QUIT CLAIM DEED THE GOLDEN PINES PARTNERSHIP, a Washington limited partnership, for and in consideration of lot line adjustment, conveys and quit claims to HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH, a Washington non-profit corporation, the following described real estate, situated in King County, State of Washington, together with all after acquired. title of the Grantor therein: That portion Of Block 33 of the Corrected Plat of Renton Highlands No. 2 , as per recorded . plat thereof. recorded. in Volume 57 of Plats, on pages 92. to 98 , inclusive, records of King County, Washington, described as follows: - Commencing at the Northeast corner of Block 33 of said plat; Thence South 02"°52'21" West along the East line of said Block 33 a distance of 220. 00 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 4 of City of Renton Short 'Plat No. I88-76 ' as recorded under King County Recording Number 7808170836," and the. true point of beginning; Thence South 87°07'39" East 30.00 feet to the centerline of vacated Jefferson Ave. N.E. ; Thence North 02°52'21" East along said centerline 30. 00 feet; Thence North 87°07'39" West 30. 00 feet to the East line of said Block 33 ; Thence South 02°52'21" West along said' East line- 30.00 feet to the point of beginning. All situate in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington. Dated: f ? , 1991. The Golden Pines Partnership, a Washington limi ed partnership, by . Conifer D=v-lop en s, Inc. , a Washington corpora - 't eneral partner by ' Allan. E. Hanson, President • by 2 C. Secretary - QUIT CLAIM DEED PAGE - 1 • • STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ,(� ss COUNTY OF /i�,etL� ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ,4LL.AN /11/1,vS o N and pi',Bek ,4,v,-' 'A-,¢ signed this instrument, on oath stated that they were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the President and Secretary of Conifer Management, Inc. to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 0,7` a 7. / 91- t ry Public i and for the State of ashington, residing at My appointment expires: / -c - f2_ D5. 6 :08 :4/15/91:dk • • QUIT CLAIM DEED PAGE - 2 r• z MMiAY ' 7 1991 WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Conifer Management, Inc. P. O. Box 11246 Tacoma, WA 98411 PARTIAL RELEASE OF MORTGAGE The owner and holder of that certain mortgage bearing date of September 1, 1976, executed by THE GOLDEN PINES PARTNERSHIP, a limited partnership, to secure payment of the sum of ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-EIGHT THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND NO/100 Dollars ($1, 128 ,900. 00) and interest, and recorded under King County Recording Number 7609230681, for value received does hereby release and discharge from the lien of the said mortgage the following described portion of the mortgaged premises,, situate in King County, Washington: That portion of Block 33 of the Corrected Plat of Renton Highlands No. 2 , according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 57 of Plats, pages 92 through 98, inclusive, records of King County, Washington described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Block 33 of said plat; Thence South 02°52'21" West along the East line of said Block 33 a distance of 220. 00 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 4 of City of Renton Short Plat No. 188-76 as recorded under King County Recording No. 7808170836, and the true point of , beginning; Thence South 87°07'39" East 30. 00 feet to the center line of vacated Jefferson Avenue N.E. ; , Thence North 02°52'21" East along said centerline 30. 00 feet; Thence North 87°07'39" West 30. 00 feet to the East line of the said Block 33 ; Thence South 02°52 '21" West along said East line 30. 00 feet to the point of beginning. Situate in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. But this release shall. not impair the lien of the said mortgage as to the lands therein described not hereby released. DATED: y , 1991. USGI,Inc. as Servicing Correspondent ecurity Pa 'fic National Trust Company (New ork) T P • BY: � William M. Prentice, Vice President 1 - .rL STATE OF ) COUNTY OF c,4-, ,e �:b ) I, StiltAA.) GcSw�o.J� ! a Notary Public, in and for said County, in toe State aforesaid, do hereby certify that (.13,11 :,;-,,,,, , ize-,v- (..E- , pers pnalq_y known to me to be the same person whose name is, as Vlc -PR.Egcllf_.,) - of USGI, Inc. , a corporation of the State of Ca,J,Jc--c_nC4; subscribed to the foregoing instrument, appeared before me in person and severally acknowledged that he/sue, being thereunto duly authorized, signed, sealed with corporate seal, and delivered the said instrument as the free and voluntary act of said corporation and as his/he,r own free and voluntary act, for the uses and purposes therein set forth. Given under my hand and notarial seal, this L'--' - day of •VMAt../ , 1991 Notary PubYi My commission expires -313r (1Q— CONSENT BY HUD TO PARTIAL RELEASE The undersigned, intending to be legally bound by the terms hereof, hereby evidences its consent to, and approval of, all of the terms, conditions and provisions of the foregoing Partial Release. • THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT BY: TITLE: • PROJECT NARRATIVE The proposed project is a 12,800 square foot addition to the existing church building. It will be a 2 story structure built on the west side of and adjacent to the existing building. A small amount of remodel will be done in the existing building to interface with the new construction. No site work is proposed except landscaping adjacent to the addition. The new building will tie into all existing utilities and drainage systems. The primary use of the new facility will be Christian education classrooms. Some nursery rooms may also be provided. The schedule of the project is not known for certain at this time as it depends on receiving proper permits and funding. Estimated cost of the addition is $1, 026, 000. PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON JAN 1 7 `092 REGEN I Y� itov • %., m �_, CIT1 JF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator October 14, 1991 Richard Ralston 14221 W Kathleen Lake Dr. SE Renton, WA 98056 SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church Addition/Rezone CU;R-048-90 Dear Mr. Ralston: ' This project has tentatively been scheduled for a public hearing on January 7, 1992 at 9 a.m. When this project was first submitted we had discussed the possibility of you submitting some photographs of the church building as seen from across Kirkland Ave. and NE 10th Street with the new construction shown on the photographs as dashed lines. I believe this may help you to demonstrate that the proposed additions will not be highly visible to your neighbors. In the past you have submitted a copy of the proposed lot line adjustment application. The actual application and fees will need to be submitted to the satisfaction of the City of Renton. The lot line adjustment will need to be recorded prior to the issuance of any site preparation/building permits. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 235-2550. Sincerely, Mark R. Py ,,AICP Project Manager • • G i , 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 L' ((St✓ o4 ,,.,,. 4 CIT s OF RENTON mMEL im • ..,.:: Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttman,Administrator May 30, 1991 Dick Ralston 14221 W Lk Kathleen Dr. SE Renton,WA 98056 SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church ECF;CU;R-048-90 Dear Mr. Ralston: On January 16, 1991,the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated with six conditions and the requirement that the lot line adjustment with the owners of the Golden Pines Apts be recorded prior to the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. It is my understanding that you have been working with the owners of the Golden Pines Apts.and HUD to complete the lot line adjustment but at this time it has not been reviewed by the City and it is not ready to be recorded. In order to meet the advertisement date for a June 18, public hearing the project needs to be advertised no later than June 8,this requires us to send a notice to the newspaper on June 3. At this time it does not look likely that we will be able to maintain that schedule. The next available date for a public hearing on this item will be July 2. In order to meet this date the lot line adjustment and the easement required by the ERC would need to be recorded prior to June 15, 1991. If you are unable to meet this date we would not be able to schedule a public hearing until September or October due to previous commitments on other projects. All of the items noted on the Notice of Determination as being required prior to the public hearing must be submitted before I can advertise this project for the public hearing. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at 235-2550. Sincerely, 744//‘1 ' Mark R. Pywe CP • Project Manager cc: Mike Davis-Hall 1221 Second Street,. Ste.500 Seattle,WA 98122 - 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ii .. k •o CIT' ' OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttman,Administrator May 30, 1991 Cornelus"Bob"Gevers 900 Kirkland Ave. NE Renton,WA 98056 SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church ECF;CU;R-048-90 Dear Mr. Gevers: • In the past you had requested to know what the minimum number of parking spaces that Municipal Code would require of a this church. As you are aware the minimum number that the Code may indicate is not always what the City requires at the time of the public hearing. In this case staff has in the past required additional parking for the project based upon the variety of uses that occur. The applicant has proposed to provide a total of 300'on-site parking spaces for the existing church structure and the proposed addition. As you are aware, the church recently paved a portion of the gravel parking lot in conjunction with some street improvements that were required by the City. The intent was to divert some of the street parking onto the church property. Staff will recommend that the remainder of the gravel parking lot and the landscaping be installed as part of the current project that is currently being reviewed by the City staff. Ordinance 4-14-8.D.1 indicates two methods to determine the parking requirements for rooms. The "fixed seat"method is applied to auditoriums and other rooms where the seats are anchored in place (e.g. movie theaters). In rooms where the chairs can easily be removed or added the square footage method is used. In the case of the multi-purpose rooms proposed as part of this application the square footage method has been used. In most cases that I have worked with this usually requires the greater number of parking spaces. City ordinances and policies change over time. Instead of just adding the parking requirements for an addition on to the previous parking requirements we recalculate the parking for the entire project. This allows us to ensure that the existing phases of development meet code requirements. In some instances this could reduce the number of parking spaces required for a project. However, in the specific instance of the church, staff will require an increase in the number of parking spaces over what was required in the past to help reduce the parking problem that has occurred in the past. As I noted above, the church has already paved some of these spaces in an attempt to off-set the community concern regarding the street parking. The following is a summary of how I would calculate the parking requirements for the church at this time. Use Parking Required Existing Sanctuary (Seating Capacity 607-Actual Fixed Seats 420) 84 Gym 72 Auditorium 20 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Sunday School Classrooms (Joint-Use with Sanctuary) 0 Existing Office Space 9 Proposed Addition 79 Total number of Code-required spaces 264 However,due to the concern raised by the local community regarding the street parking, I will recommend to the Hearing Examiner that the applicant be required to provide the 300 paved and stripped parking spaces indicated on the site plan. . As I have discussed with you in the past, staff will be making further recommendations at the time of the public hearing. Landscaping will be another issue that I will raise. I will recommend that the applicant will be required to provide the Code-required landscaping and also provide a maintenance bond to ensure that the landscaping that is provided is maintained. A minimum five foot landscaping strip is required between parking lots and properties used or zoned for residential uses. This will require a landscaping strip along Kirkland Ave and 9th Street in the area of the parking lot. The Parking and Loading Ordinance also requires that 5%of the interior of large parking lots be landscaped. In this case a total of 4,392 square feet of landscaping must be provided. The proposed plans indicate that approximately 5,500 square feet of landscaping will be provided. The ordinance also requires that this landscaping be provided throughout the parking area. The intent is to break up the appearance of a sea of asphalt and to provide shade within the parking lot. I understand your concern with the parking situation that has existed in the past and the desire to see that the expansion of the church does not increase the problem. It is my understanding that the church has taken several efforts to reduce this problem. They have informed me that they have written to their members requesting them not to park on the residential sides of the streets adjacent to the church. If this combined with the new parking spaces does not relieve the problem, you may want to look into requesting restricted parking on the residential sides of Kirkland Ave, 10th St and 9th St. The Hearing Examiner has brought it to my attention that you have expressed concern that the public hearing might be held on a date that you will be.out of town. At this time, the earliest date that a public hearing could be held would be July 2, 1991. If the Church is not able to provide the data we have requested prior to that date we will probably not be able to hold a public hearing before the fall hearing dates due to commitments to other projects. I hope this letter has clarified the position I will be recommending at the time of the public hearing. Sincerely, 0/,/311, Mark R. Pywell, P Project Manager May3ORr Cornelus "Bob" Gevers May 28, 1991 Mr Fred J. Kaufman PLANNING DIVISION Hearing Examiner CITY OFRENTOW City of Renton 200 Mill Ave S. MAY 2 9 1991 Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Public Hearing Scheduled for June 18,1991. RECEIVED Reference: Conditional Use Permit application by the Highland's Community Church (file No. CU;R-048-90). Dear Mr Kaufman: As the representative of the neighbors of the Highland's Community CQiurch opposing the proposed addition, I am asked to testify at subject Public Hearing. However, I will not be able to attend the Public Hearing tentatively scheduled on June 18,1991 due to prior commitments. These commitments, which take me out of town, were made last year and required payments which will not be returned if dates are changed. The dates I will be out of town are as follows: June 17 through June 24,1991; July 22 " July 26,1991; Aug. 26 " Aug. 30,1991. Since I would be the key opposition person to testify at the Public Hearing, I would like you to reschedule to a date where it would be possible for me to attend. Your favorable response will be much appreciated. cc: Sincerely, Mr Mark Pywell g01/.44A,e(4" Cornelus "Bob" Levers 900 Kirkland Ave NE Renton,-WA 98056 255-8816 Cornelus "Bob" Gevers May 28, 1991 Mark R. Pywell PLANNING DIVISION Project Manager, Development Services Division CITY OFRENTON Dept of Planning/Building/Public Works 200 Mill Ave S. MAY 2 9 1991 Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Highland's Community Church ECF; CU;048-90 RECEIVED Reference:(a) Your letter dated March 19, 1991; Same subject. (b) City of Renton, Planning Department Memorandum; dated September 26, 1973; Subject: Highlands Community Church. Dear Mr Pywell: Your reference (a) letter states that only 84 parking spaces are presently requ8ijed for the existing building. This number, unfortunately, does not agree,t'he number of parking spaces required at the time the - permit for the latest church addition was issued. Reference (b) memorandum Shows the analysis done by the City's Planjiing Department for the latest addition. The 222 parking spaces arrived at from this analysis is the number imposed on the church as part of the approval of the permit. Your reference (a) letter also states that only 79 more parking spaces are required for the planned addition. An analysis based upon 1 space for every 100 square feet of floor area. This method would only, seem valid if the floor area is specifically designated as classrooms. The fact that the , rooms are identified as "multiple use rooms" would allow the Church to use these rooms as an extension of the main auditorium on Sundays and weeknights during regular church services or special events. This, then, warrants that the number of parking spaces be calculated using the 1 space for each four seats formula (ordinance 4-14-8;D;1). Moreover, even if 79 additional parking spaces were required with planned addition, a total of 222 + 70 = 301 parking spaces should be imposed. The parking situation is very important to the residents residing around the Church. There is already a problem with inadequate off street Church parking resulting in too many cars parked on the streets. It may be true that "adequate" parking spaces are provided according to the City Ordinances, yet, in actuality more spaces should be provided to txs. minimize parking on the streets. My comments are made to impress on you the necessity for accurate calculations using realistic conditions when interpreting ordinances to arrive. at the parking space requirements. Calculated requirements should alleviate rather than exacerbate the parking and traffic problems that already exist on the streets around the Church. In addition, I would also recommend that the square footage of the parking lot and the landscaping on the corner of NE9th Street and Kirkland Ave NE be recalculated to determine compliance with landscape requirements. A large area of paved parking has been added recently t.� Mr Mark R. Pywell page 2 without any additional landscaping.t Some areas in between parking spaces have been filled with gravel which can hardly be called landscaping. ' t 1 Your early response showing revised calculations for parking spaces and square footage of the parking lot and landscaping will be appreciated. I will need your reply in time for use at the Public Hearing. f Attachment: (1) Sincerely, 71r 7,1i4441!!! " Cornelus "Bob" Gevers 900 Kirkland Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Phone 255-8816 l ° - REVISED OV ,A G U PLANNING DEPAETMENT a RENTON, WASH I (;TON n 'r. „�,1 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 0 RENTON.WASHINGTON 98055 • : 235-2550 0 . (0. 4'4gTFosE�c MEMORANDUM September 26 , 1973 TO.: Files FROM: Mike Smith SUBJECT : Highlands Community Church REVISED PARKING REQUIREMENT ACTIVITY AREA NO. SPACES ORDINANCE 1 . Existing Sanctuary 121 Parking & Load- (607 Seating Capacity) ing Sec . 4- • 2203 , 1 . 2 . New Gym ( 7200 sq . ft. @ 1 72 Parking & Load- space/ 100 sq ft. ) ing , Section 4-2208 ,4 ,A. 3. New Auditorium (2 ,000 sq . ft . 20 Parking & Load- @ 1/ 100 sq . ft. ) ing , Section • 4-2208 ,4 ,A, 4 .- Sunday School Classrooms 0 . Parking & Load- (Joint-Use with Sanctuary) ing , Section 4-2204 ,6 . 5 . Office Space ( 1800 sq . ft. 9 Parking & Load- @ 1/200 ) ing , Section 4-2208 ,4 ,A. • TOTAL REQUIREMENT : ( 222 SPACES • MS :wr j t. 11 ro c j X�/ �� C sS 6Sr~?e4s %►� CI] OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttman,Administrator May 21, 1991 Mike Davis-Hall 1221 Second Street, Ste.500 Seattle,WA 98122 SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church ECF;CU;R-048-90 Dear Mr. Davis-Hall: Enclosed is a copy of the letter received from Mr.Gevers on March 12, 1991,that you requested. If you need any additional information, please do.not hesitate to contact me at 235-2550. Sincerely, Mark R. Pyw , ICP Project Manager 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 %• CIT"_ OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttman,Administrator May 6, 1991 Dick Ralston 14221 W Lk Kathleen Dr. SE Renton,WA 98056 SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church ECF;CU;R-048-90 Dear Mr. Ralston: On January 16, 1991,the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated with six conditions and the requirement that the lot line adjustment with the owners of the Golden Pines Apts be recorded prior to the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. It is my understanding that you have been working with the owners of the Golden Pines Apts.and HUD to complete the lot line adjustment but at this time it has not been reviewed by the City and it is not ready to be recorded. In order to meet the advertisement date for a May 21, public hearing the project needs to be advertised no later than May 10th. At this time it does not look likely that we will be able to maintain that schedule. The next available date for a public hearing on this item will be June 18. In order to meet this date the lot line adjustment and the easement required by the ERC would need to be recorded prior to June 5, 1991. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at 235-2550. Sincerely, Mark R. P ,AICP Project Manager 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 co a CIT' DF RENT ON ONo Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttman,Administrator April 26, 1991 Mike Davis-Hall 1221 Second Street, Ste.500 Seattle,WA 98122 SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church ECF;CU;R-048-90 Dear Mr. Davis-Hall: Enclosed is a copy of the February 13, 1991 letter from me to Mr. Horshide. If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 235-2550. Sincerely, gee/ri Mark R. Pywell, CP Project Manager • 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 CITX OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttman,Administrator April 19, 1991 Mr. Cornelus T. Gevers • 900 Kirkland Ave. NE Renton,WA 98056 SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church ECF;CU;R-048-90 Dear Mr. Gevers: The following information has been provided by the Transportation Systems Division in response to your letter dated April 9, 1991. Issue A copy of the traffic analysis was requested. Response Per the City's policy guidelines a developer is not required to submit a Traffic Impact Analysis unless the development were to generate a daily week day peak vehicular volume of 100 vehicles or approximately 1,000 vehicles per day. The proposed addition is estimated to generate 92 daily vehicle trips (10 daily peak hour trips) and an estimated 375 Sunday trips as calculated from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. This volume is below the City's policy guideline requirement referenced above. The typical daily roadway capacity for a two lane urban roadway with frequent signalized or stop intersections is 12,500 vehicles for an average service level. The roadway volumes on the streets in question are too low to be in our traffic count program, but one may estimate that the volume would not exceed 2,000 vehicles per day. This does not indicate a roadway capacity problem. Issue Parking on the street and blocking driveways is an issue described by residents. Response: This appears to be the main problem for residences. Overflow parking on the street during church services and activities would create congestion on the street. Also parking to close to driveways would certainly make it difficult for residences to exit and access their property. Solution: One particular solution is to ensure the maximum on-site parking as required by ordinance is provided and all parking areas are paved. This is usually a functional review item monitored by planning. If code is met,we do not normally recommend more parking then is required by code. Secondly the parking lot access to NE 10th Street via the backside of the Safeway Store should be'paved to encourage people to access and exit away from single family residents. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 • Third, if off-site parking is still a problem then the residents of the area could petition the City to install restrictive parking on one side of the street. Fourth option for the residents is to request law enforcement if people are parking to close to their driveways and hindering their access. It should be noted that staff will be recommending that all on-site parking areas be paved and that the driveway to 10th Street also be paved. If you have any further questions regarding these issues, please contact me at 235-2550. Sincerely, Mark R. Pywell P Project Manager APR19LTR CIT OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttman,Administrator March 19, 1991 Mr. Cornelus T. Gevers 900 Kirkland Ave. NE Renton,WA 98056 SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church ECF;R;CU-048-90 Dear Mr. Gevers: The following information is being provided in response to your letter received March 12, 1991. 1. Ordinance 4-14-8.G.1 states the following: One (parking), space for each five seats in the main auditorium, provided that spaces for any church shall not be less than ten (10). For all existing churches enlarging the seating capicity of their auditoriums, one additional parking space shall be provided for each five (5) additional seats provided by the construction., For all churches making structural alterations or additions which do not increase the seating capicity of the auditorium, see Section 4-14-8D1. Ordinace 4-14-8D1 states that: One parking space for each four (4) fixed seats or one parking space for each one hundred (100) square feet of floor area of the main auditorium or of principal place of assembly not containing fixed seats,which ever is greater. In this particular case, the parking requirement was based the seating capacity of the main auditorium for the existing building plus a square footage requirement for the addition. The main auditorium of the church has a seating capicity of 420 people. At a ratio of five seats per parking space this would require 84 parking spaces. The 11,900 square foot addition will provide approxiamately 7,875 square feet of addition assembly area. At one parking space per 100 square feet an additional 79 parking spaces could be required. The total parking requirement of the church would be 163 and 300 spaces are proposed by the applicant. This provides a greater than the minimum required number of parking spaces. 2. I calculated the parking using the information provided by the applicant and the City Ordinances. 3. The Transportation Systems Division is responsible for determining the traffic impacts of proposed development. Clint Morgan would be the contact person. 4. It is my understanding that Mr. Morgan reviews the type of project and the potential traffic generated by that type of development to determine if the adjacent roadways can handle the traffic 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 r of if further studies need to be required. In this case a determination was made that further traffic studies were not required. If you have any further question, you can contact Mr. Morgan directly at 235-2569. If you have any further questions regarding these matters, please contact me at 235-2550. Sincerely, Mark R. P I,AICP Project Manager CITY - iF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttman,Administrator April 18, 1990 Mr. Comelus T. Gevers 900 Dirkland Avenue NE Renton, WA. 98056 Subject: Highlands Community Church / ECF-048-90 Dear Mr. Gevers: To maintain continuity and control for tracking Development issues your correspondance has been forewarded to the Planning Department with our comments and proposed solutions to the transportation issues you raised in your letter dated April 9, 1991. The Planning Department will respond to your requested information as soon as possible. Very Truly Yours, -, 4‘,7 7 z Clinton E. Morgan Development Services(Transportation) 910EM061 • cc: Gregg Zimmerman Mark Pywell 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 AWNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON APR 1 8 1991 * ECEVED CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: April 17, 1991 TO: Mar} FROM: Cl r SUBJECT: HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH/ CORRESPONDENCE RESPONSE/ CORNELUS GEVERS / ECF-048-90 To maintain continuity and control for tracking of Developments comments it is my understanding that all Correspondence shall be directed through the planning project manager. Development Services will provide you with the required information to respond to questions from out side sources. The following are the issues and responses for the Cornelus Gevers Correspondence dated April 9, 1991. ISSUE 1) A copy of the traffic analysis was requested by Mr. Gevers. RESPONSE: Per the city's policy guidelines a developer is not required to submit a Traffic Impact Analysis unless the development were to generate a daily week day peak vehicular volume of 100 vehicles or approximately 1,000 vehicles per day. The proposed addition is estimated to generate 92 daily vehicle trips (10 daily peak hour trips ) and an estimated 375 Sunday trips as calculated from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. This volume is below the city's policy guideline requirement referenced above. The typical daily roadway capacity for a two lane urban roadway with frequent signalized or stop intersections is 12,500 vehicles for an average service level. The roadway volumes on the streets in question are too low to be in our traffic count program but one may estimate that the volume would not exceed 2,000 vehicles per day. This does not indicate a roadway capacity problem. ISSUE 2) Parking on the street and blocking of driveways is an issue described by residents. RESPONSE: This appears to be the main problem for residences. Overflow parking on the street during church services and activities would create congestion on the street. Also parking too close to driveways would certainly make it difficult for residences to exit and access their property. SOLUTION: One particular solution is to ensure the maximum on-site parking is required by ordinance is provided and all parking areas paved. This is usually a functional review item monitored by planning. If the code is met, we do not normally recommend more parking then is required by code Secondly the parking lot access to NE 10th street via back side of Safeway store should be paved to encourage people to access and exit away from single family residents. Third if off-site parking is still a problem then the residence could petition the city to install restrictive parking on one side of the street. Forth option for the residence is to request law enforcement if people are parking to close to their driveways hindering their access. Please prepare a response to Mr. Gevers letter. If I can be of any further assistance, let me know. I will inform Mr.Gevers that Development Services Division is providing you the information so you can respond to his questions. 910EM060 cc: Gregg Zimmerman CrtlY OF RENTOW RECEIVSD (Jgga_. 1964;lit APR 1 1_1991 -- fiet &Lev DEvezP=ERmEs ads, 026-0 .save,e,e ""4„ca.az cF _ 04,L69 _ 90 eguA. 4/n4, 4i76167 , 114 -.64d 7_61 2' 2,.. 0 /12A- ()1 -eif 4nti64/t, (ivw a,z. 4wL-e ?x4.e4,t, Zec-ir-e &L-e- /- aot-, r Wi;e_a2t:61, 48-1,1.0.&24.1_,L0( - 0„,61„ki, /,a," • a..ea te6 fie ,k.ifee a_daze aue 4,4",iA.eZ OfAA, Le • tai,y-ettP4/14- * Jte.e6 f ` aff e-uA_ (hittils OtitY-e4.4,c1.4e.ers _ 014,04,,,1 Peu-e4a, 4e/&01e _ 950g-6 Ecru--'7%-to1 �-o on, cur c�o'b "1wyP, :4---srraNngrp vy,! :_ram_ 4g—livd/ "9-0 1-??•Ifai 42-7-74?-srAvv ryr ?-71/ 11 P-77 /1"29 )0A-w ' s-)711F 41/, - 71/,/ 142P/,."r/ rn-a-hlin,qt) aW77 tr:R9L-SV-117712 ,, °-127. )'°19 r-FP*1"-7W )7/71/314___// / 1721n___/ A/X 1/7144A/ /Dr-W-12 g1/ 1 AY ' t irpvy4:41 4,7x 7x. PP'-vg* t Thrr. v J. 1°- /(71°-% 221- f/ l'42?"'9/°) ir'-'fr "1-frk,/ -7r, -4- ,-v , - -kir4 7-P7 cy P-zAiv) -)1/P "4/91,4Y---: / //yv -�� 4 1 ir, V VWV 4 /'rr j Cornelus "Bob" Gevers March 15, 1991 James C. Hanson Manager, Development Services Division PLANNING DIVISION Dept of Planning/Building/Public Works CITY0FREN70N 200 Mill Ave S. Renton, WA 98055R 1991 Subject: Highlands Community Church .. C EN ED Reference:(a) Public Hearing of April 27,1981 regarding petition to vacate a portion of Jefferson Street; (b) Renton City Ordinance No. 3545; (c) Building Permit application by the Highlands Community Church (file No. CU;R-048-90) Dear Mr Hanson: A public hearing has been tentatively been scheduled for May 21,1991 by the Hearing Examiner regarding reference (c). The hearing for the application will be affected by the outcome of reference (a) public hearing. It has come to my attention that irregularities exist between the wording of the motion passed by the Council after the conclusion of reference (a) public hearing and reference (b) ordinance, written as a result of the motion. The motion passed at reference (a) public hearing limits the use of the vacated Jefferson Street, to a parking lot only, while reference (b) ordinance allows the Church to build on the vacated street. It is for this reason that I am challenging the wording of reference (b) ordinance, since no subsequent public hearing was held regarding the vacation of Jefferson Street to change the motion passed by the Council during reference (a) public hearing. In fact, the wording of the ordinance is a total reversal of the agreements reached at the public hearing that resulted in the motion passed by the Council. As a participant in the reference (a) public hearing, I feel that a public trust has been violated in the Ordinance No. 3545 process. One reasons that in fairness, the City Council should have reopened the public hearing on any request to change the motion passed at the public hearing. People who testified during the initial hearing should have been afforded another chance to be heard. To confirm my recollections for this challenge, I have obtained a copy of the tape recording made during the reference (a) public hearing. This allows me to restate to you some of the statements made during the public hearing. They are: 1.A Council member asked the petitioner, what the planned use for Jefferson Street is: Answer by petitioner: "Parking Lot" Mr James C. Hanson page 2 2.The same Council member asked the petitioner whether he would agree with a restrictive covenant stating that the vacated street only be used for a "Parking Lot." Answer by petitioner was: "He had no qualms with that exception." 3.The Mayor asked the Public Works Director about the presence of a sanitary sewer in that portion of Jefferson Street. The Public Works Director confirmed the presence of the Sanitary Sewer in Jefferson Street and stated that "Jefferson Street will therefore never be eligible for construction." The Mayor then asked, "Nothing will change this?" The Public Works Director repeated "Nothing will change this!" 4.A motion was made twice by one of the Council members to vacate and sell Jefferson Street for $1.00 with the condition that if any utilities are to be moved, it be done at petitioner's expense. This motion died both times for the lack of a second. 5.The Council was also cautioned by one of the members that a church less than four blocks away asked for vacation of a street for a play area. This Church then sold out to a developer within a year and new houses were built on the property. This caution resulted in the following motion passed by the council. "Council grant the vacation subject to restrictive use permit, including a reversionary clause that property revert to the City if not used as a parking lot, easements be retained and no fee charged." The reference (b) ordinance specifically refers to the Public Hearing on April 27,1981 and no other public hearings. Yet, the reversionary clause was altered to read as follows: "Be and the same is hereby vacated subject to an easement over, across, under and on all of the afore described property in favor of the City for utility and related purposes. And subject further to a City reversionary interest in the property, in the form of a reversionary clause in the conveyance to the abutting owner that the property should revert to the City if not used exclusively for church purposes." In summary, it is clear that the agreements reached during the only public hearing held on the vacation of Jefferson Street was that easements be retained by the City and that no building be permitted on Jefferson Street. However, Ordinance No. 3545 requires easements to be retained by the City but allows buildings to be constructed on Jefferson Street. Based on the above, I am challenging the legality of the changes made to the motion passed at the reference (a) public hearing. I request that action be taken to revise the wording of reference (b) to read exactly as the motion passed at the reference (a) public hearing. / James C. Hanson page 3 Since your determination of my request can significantly effect reference (c) application, it may be advisable to suspend further actions regarding the application until this matter is resolved. Your cooperation and response will be appreciated. Sincerely, cc: Cornelus "Bob" Gevers Mr Donald Erickson 900 Kirkland Ave NE Ms Lynn Guttman Renton, WA 98056 Mr Fred Kaufman Phone 255-8816 Mr Mark Pywell Mr Gregg Zimmerman %• °' CIT.' OF RENTON =._� ✓ Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator March 7, 1991 Dick Ralston 14221 W Lk Kathleen Dr SE Renton,WA 98056 SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church ECF-048-90 Dear Mr. Ralston: This letter is to inform you that the appeal period has ended, for the Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated, on the above-referenced project. No appeals were filed. If you have questions or desire clarification of the above, please call Mark Pywell at 235-2550. For the Environmental vie om ee, ( 2)44.411) • J Donald K. Erickson,AICP Secretary cc: C.T.Gevers Highlands Community Church 900 Kirkland Ave NE 3031 NE 10th St Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Allan Hanson, President Margaret Chan Conifer Management, Inc. Safeway Stores, Inc.,#366 PO Box 11246 PO Box 947 Tacoma,WA 98411 Bellevue,WA 98009 noappeal/OKE/kac 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: February 13, 1991 TO: Environmental Review Committee FRO . D nald K. Erickson,AICP oning Administrator Staff Contact: Mark R. Pywell, AICP Project Manager SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church ECF; CU; R-048-90 A Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated was issued on January 16, 1991. The attached comment letter signed by 35 individuals was submitted on February 5, 1991. The letter request reconsideration of three issues. Item 1. Traffic on Residential Streets The increase in the size of the church at this location will increase traffic on the adjacent residential streets. The ERC has already placed conditions on the project requiring the improving of the driveway that will provide ingress/egress for church members onto 10th Street to the west adjacent to the Safeway store. This should reduce the number of vehicle trips on the residential streets to the south and east. Item 2. On-Street Parking Street parking has been a problem in the past. The church has stated that letters have gone out to the church members stating that in the future cars parked illegally (e.g. blocking driveways, on sidewalks, in front of fire hydrants) will be ticketed and/or towed. Staff will be recommending to the Hearing Examiner, at the public hearing for the CU permit,that the remainder of the gravel parking lot should be paved. In the past,the gravel parking lot was not used by church members do to the difficulty for women to walk in the • gravel. The paving of the gravel lot will ensure that the Code-required parking is provided on-site and make the lot more useable for church members. Item 3. Change of Zone Staff recommended that the applicant apply for P-1 zoning'on the developed portion of the project site when the proposed development was reviewed at a pre-application meeting. Staff feels that the P-1 zone is more closely related to the existing and proposed development than the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zoning. Further, development of this property by the church or any future church would still require a conditional use permit approved by the City whether the site is zoned P-1 or R-1. The comment letter questions the need for the change of zoning at this time. They are concerned that the P-1 zoning could allow other land uses onto the property that would impact the residential area more than the church already impacts them. Although the P-1 • zoning does allow for a variety of public uses such as government buildings and quasi- public uses such,as private schools, these are only allowed as conditional uses in the P-1 zone. Another church group would be able to move into the existing buildings no matter if the zoning is changed to P-1 or remains R-1. As noted previously, staff will be making further recommendations on this project to the Hearing Examiner on non-SEPA related issues. Staff feels that the recommendations to the ERC were reasonable for the proposed project and staff does not recommend that the ERC modify the conditions at this time. • • • • I I I I I I February 13,1991 • To: Lynn Guttmann,Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator John Webley,Community Services Administrator Lee Wheeler,Fire Chief From: Don Erickson,Secretary • • :::;::•:<i::i::>�:i::>::::<:;»>::i::;.:;i::;::r:i::i::i:::'<';:>.:<�::>:::::::::i::::i>:::: 3:::::;:�::i�:i::is:::s::::i::::i::i:<:»::>::::i::�:b�i::::i::::>:::i<::::<:::';;: g::::::::::.......................d:Floor.Conference:.Room>:<:»::>::::<>:<::: ::>:<:::>:<:<::»:>:<::>;::;::::;a<::<:;::>::»:<>:::>;» ;;;:•;;;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.::::.;; Agenda attached below. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA • February 13, 1991 Third Floor Conference Room Commencing at 10:00 AM TIME/KEY PARTICIPANTS NEW CHEVRON USA,INC. CU;ECF-096-90 Applicant seeks to redevelop an existing service station on a 24,295 sf lot. Construction includes an 1,1,000 sf bldg, four fuel dispensers, and three new 12,000 gallon fuel tanks. The project is located at 301 South Grady Way. • .RECONSIDERATION HIGHLANDS CHURCH CU;R-048-90 The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the project site from R-1 (single-family residential) to P-1 (Public Zone) and to construct a two-story 12,000 sf addition to the existing church in order to provide additional classroom area. The project is located at 3031 NE 10th Street. BLACK RIVER,PHASE VI ECF;RVMP;SA;SM-143-90 The applicant proposes to construct a four-story 71,057 sf office building with landscaping and parking on a 169,314 sf site. The project site is located on the east • side of Oaksdale Avenue and approximately 150 feet north of South Grady Way. cc: J.Covington,Executive Assistant to the Mayor . • L.Warren,City Attorney F.Kaufman,Hearing Examiner G.Gotti,Fire Marshal • J.Hanson, Development Services "�� CITY )F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department • Earl Clymer,Mayor Lynn Guttnian,Administrator February 13, 1991 , 41. Lloyd Hoshide 833 Kirkland Ave. NE Renton, WA 98056 SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church ECF; CU-048-90 • Dear Mr. Hoshide: The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed this project on January 16, 1991,to evaluate whether , there were any significant adverse environmental impacts from the project and to provide the necessary mitigation measures. Upon receipt of your comment letter the project was,referred back to the ERC with your letter for their consideration. At the ERC meeting, the members determined that the environmental concerns listed in your comment letter had been adequately addressed by the Determination of Non- '. Significance- Mitigated issued on January 16, 1991. The fourteen day appeal period for the environmental determination will end at 5 p.m. on March 1, 1991. An appeal of the environmental determination would be filed with the office of the Hearing Examiner with a fee of$75.00. If no appeal is filed, the next step for the proposed project is for staff to review the project pursuant to the Site Plan Ordinance (4-31-33) and place conditions on the proposed development for the non- environmentally related issues. The project is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing in late May. At that time staff will be recommended further conditions for the project and make a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner of whether the project should be supported or denied: You and those signing the petition will be notified of this date. • The applicant has indicated that the reason for this expansion is mostly to relieve overcrowding in the existing facilities. However, as you have correctly noted, an increase in size will allow the church to .continue to grow. In order to remove as much traffic generated by the church from the streets in front of the residential area as possible the City will be requiring the applicant to improve the driveway from the parking area to NE 10th Street between the Golden Pines Apartments and the Safeway store. Although this will not reduce the traffic going to the other facilities mentioned in your letter it should reduce the amount of traffic on the residential streets from the church. The church has acknowledge that the street parking has been a problem in the past. Mr. Ralston, of the Highlands Community Church, stated in a meeting with City officials that letters have gone out to.the Church members indicating that anyone parking illegally (e.g. on sidewalks, blocking, driveways) wills be ticketed by the Renton Police. It is our understanding that this has reduced the problem in the area. Also, as part of the proposed development the applicant will be required to provide additional parking in accordance with the Renton Municipal Code. This should also help reduce the street side parking problem that you noted. If these measures do not work it may be advisable to consider adopting a "residents only" permit parking program here. The proposed change of zone is to provide a zoning designation on the developed portion of the property that more accurately reflects the existing use. Any future change in use or further development of the property under the proposed P-1 zoning would still require City review.. In the case of any expansion of the church further conditional use permits would be required and would only be approved; after public 1' 4 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton. Washington 98055 hearings. Another reason for the rezone at this time is that it will provide the nexus to allow the City to, require a rezone on the portion of the property presently zoned B-1 (Business District) should the church request permission to expand into this area. It should be noted that a church is a principal use in the B-1 zone and a conditional use in the P-1 (Public Zone). The City is aware of the residents concerns in this area regarding the expansion of the church use at this location. Staff is available and willing to work with the citizens to try and resolve these issues. If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please contact me at 235-2550. Sincerely, 97Z/e • Mark R. P ,AICP Project Manager • • Hoshide �I r . .. .. CITY ;)F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer; Mayor Lynn Guttman,administrator • February 13, 1991 Dick Ralston 14221 W Lk Kathleen Dr SE Renton,WA 98056 SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church ECF-048-90 Dear Mr. Ralston: This letter is to inform you that the comment period has ended for the Determination of Non-Significance • - Mitigated for the above-referenced project. Comments were received. The issues raised by the respondents have been noted and will be considered by Staff in their reports. The Committee's determination is final and may be appealed to the City's Hearing • • . Examiner no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 1, 1991. To appeal this Declaration, you must file your appeal document with the hearing examiner within fourteen (14) days of the date the Declaration of Non- Signiificance is final or the Declaration of Significance has been published in the official city newspaper. • See City Code Section 4-6-23, RCW 43.21 C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. There shall be only one appeal of a Declaration of Non-Significance or Declaration of Significance, and if an appeal has already been filed, your appeal may be joined with the prior appeal for hearing or may be dismissed if the other appeal has already been heard. Any appeal must state clearly why the determination should be revised and must be accompanied by a non-refundable$75.00 filing fee. • If you have questions or desire clarification of the above, please call Mark Pywell at 235-2550. e Environmen ev' w Cora ee, • Donald K.Erickson,AICP Secretary cc: C.T.Gevers Highlands Community Church 9001Grkland Ave NE 3031 NE 10th St Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Allan Hanson, President Margaret Chan Conifer Management, Inc. Safeway Stores,Inc.,#366 PO Box 11246 • PO Box 947 Tacoma,WA 98411 Bellevue,WA 98009 • • stitapel/DKE/kae 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Dawn R i e g e r ,being first duly sworn on oath states RENTON, WASHINGTON that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated for the following pro- VALLEY DAILY NEWS ject(s) under the authority of the Renton • Municipal Code. The following Applicant(s) Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition have completed the mitigation process: HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY Dailynewspapers six (6) times a week. That said newspapers CHURCH publishedECF-048-90 are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six The applicant seeks to rezone the months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published easterly portion of the project site from R-1 (Single-Family Residential)in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King to P-1 (Public Zone) and to obtain a County, Washington. The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal aConditttional Use Permit to construct newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington forry (12,000 s.f.) addition to the existing one and two-story King County. (17,995 s.f.)church building in order to provide additional classroom and The notice in the exact form attached, waspublished in the Kent Edition office area. The project is located at 3031 NE 10th Street. xx , Renton Edition xx , Auburn Edition xx , (and not in Further information regarding this action supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers s available in the Development Services duringthe below statedperiod. The annexed notice a Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 235-2550. This Deter- mination is FINAL. To appeal this Declara- Public Notice (Environmental Determination) 5347 lion, you must file your appeal document with the hearing examiner within fourteen (14) days of the date the Declaration of was published on Feb. 1 5 , 1991 Non-significance is final or the Declaration of Significance has been published in the official city newspaper. See City Code Sec- tion 4-6-23, RCW 43.21 C.075 and WAC The full amount of the fee char for said foregoing publication is the be onl 680 for further details. There shall sum of$ 99 - 9 4 y one appeal of a Declaration of Non- r Significance or Declaration of Significance, and if an appeal has already been filed, your appeal may be joined with the prior appeal for hearing or may be dismissed if the other appeal has already been heard. This appeal period which will end at 5:00 p.m. on March 1, 1991. Any appeal of this decision may be made to the City's Hearing Subscribed and sworn before me this 1 2 day of Marc h19 91 Examiner, Municipal Building, 200 Mill Ave- nue South, Renton, Washington 98055. An appeal must state clearly, in writing, why the Determination should be revised and must be accompanied by a non-refundable $75.00 filing fee. Pubws on -/ - l4. -If(1(P9A1- Februalry 15, 1991ished in a ccVateNo. 51067 Daily e 5347 Notary Public for the State of Washingto residing atiitkrR, Renton King County, Washington VON#87 Revised 4/89 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the following project(s) under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. The following Applicant(s) have completed a mitigation process: HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH ECF-048-90 The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the project site from R-1 (Single- Family Residential) to P-1 (Public Zone) and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to construct a two-story (12,000 s.f.) addition to the existing one and two-story (17,995 s.f.) church building in order to provide additional classroom and office area. The project is located at 3031 NE 10th Street. Further information regarding this action is available in the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. This Determination is FINAL. To appeal•this Declaration,you must file your appeal document with the hearing examiner within fourteen (14) days of the date the Declaration of Non-significance is final or the Declaration of Significance has been published in the official city newspaper. See City Code Section 4-6-23, RCW 43.21 C.075 and WAC 197-11-680 for further details. There shall be only one appeal of a Declaration of Non-Significance or Declaration of Significance, and if an appeal has already been filed, your appeal may be joined with the prior appeal for hearing or may be dismissed if the other appeal has already been heard. This appeal period which will end at 5:00 p.m. on March 1, 1991. Any appeal of this decision may be made to the City's Hearing Examiner, Municipal Building,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055. An appeal must state clearly, in writing,why the Determination should be revised and must be accompanied by a non-refundable$75.00 filing fee. Publication Date: February 15, 1991 Account No.51067 pubnot NOTICE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION APPLICATION NO. ECF-048-90 PROPOSED ACTION . CLASSROOM/OFFICE ADDITION HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH • THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO REZONE THE EASTERLY PORTION OF THE • PROJECT SITE FROM R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO P-1 (PUBLIC ZONE) AND TO OBTAIN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY (12,000 S.F.) ADDITION TO THE EXISTING ONE AND TWO-STORY (17,995 S.F.) CHURCH BUILDING IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CLASSROOM AND OFFICE AREA. GENERAL LOCATION AND OR ADDRESS 3031 NE 10TH STREET 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 ❑DOES7OES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ❑WILL XVVILL 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., MAR(':I—I 1 1 qqi FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION AT 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION envpgir / NOTICE ENVIRONMENTAL • DECLARATION APPLICATION NO. ECF-048-90 • PROPOSED ACTION CLASSROOM/OFFICE ADDITION HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH • THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO REZONE THE EASTERLY PORTION OF THE PROJECT SITE FROM R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO P-1 (PUBLIC ZONE) AND TO OBTAIN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY (12,000 S.F.) ADDITION TO THE EXISTING ONE AND TWO-STOY (17,995 S.F.) CHURCH PROVIDE A DIIT ONAL CLASSROOM AND OFFICE AREAL IN ORDER TO GENERAL LOCATION AND OR ADDRESS 3031 NE 10TH STREET POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE C E.P.C.3 HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION ❑DOES IKDOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ❑WILL WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. THE CITY OF RENTON WILL NOT ACT ON THIS PROPOSAL FOR 18 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., MAR(':I-1j 1G41 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION AT 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION • CERTIFICATION I , M(-34-ri SCSV , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 3 COPIES OF • THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN 3 CONSPICUOUS PEEQc'g..51 ON OR NEARBY. THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY ON 2- 1S- I • toopytETJ, • ;•O Cp.cA`�JEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a • _ ° NOTARY �`n'i Nary Public, in and for the State of Washi gton • puBt.ic Aiding in , on the 5 SIGNED : � .. Q4®J �•vG�9 i99�.�OO� of a C? WASH\N 0 411 CITN _ 3F , RENTON "LL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttman,Administrator • February 13, 1991 Lloyd Hoshide 833 Kirkland Ave. NE Renton,WA 98056 SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church ECF; CU-048-90 Dear Mr. Hoshide: The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed this project on January 16, 1991 to evaluate whether there were any significant adverse environmental impacts from the project and to provide the necessary mitigation measures. Upon receipt of your comment letter the project was referred back to the ERC with your letter for their consideration. At the ERC meeting, the members determined that the environmental concerns listed in your comment letter had been adequately addressed by the Determination of Non- Significance- Mitigated issued on January 16, 1991. The fourteen day appeal period for the environmental determination will end at 5 p.m. on March 1, 1991. An appeal of the environmental determination would be filed with the office of the Hearing Examiner with a fee of$75.00. • If no appeal is filed, the next step for the proposed project is for staff to review the project pursuant to the - Site Plan Ordinance (4-31-33) and place conditions on the proposed development for the non- environmentally related issues. The project is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing in late May. At that time staff will be recommended further conditions for the project and make a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner of whether the project should be supported or denied. You and those signing the petition will be notified of this date. The applicant has indicated that the reason for this expansion is mostly to relieve overcrowding in the existing facilities. However, as you have correctly noted, an increase in size will allow the church to continue to grow. In order to remove as much traffic generated by the church from the streets in front of the residential area as possible the City will be requiring the applicant to improve the driveway from the parking area to NE 10th Street between the Golden Pines Apartments and the Safeway store. Although this will not reduce the traffic going to the other facilities mentioned in your letter it should reduce the amount of traffic on the residential streets from the church. The church has acknowledge that the street parking has been a problem in the past. Mr. Ralston, of the Highlands Community Church, stated in a meeting with City officials that letters have gone out to the Church members indicating that anyone parking illegally (e.g. on sidewalks, blocking driveways) will be ticketed by the Renton Police. It is our understanding that this has reduced the problem in the area. Also, as part of the proposed development the applicant will be required to provide additional parking in accordance with the Renton Municipal Code. This should also help reduce the street side parking problem that you noted. If these measures do not work it may be advisable to consider adopting a "residents only" permit parking program here. ' The proposed change of zone is to provide a zoning designation on the developed portion of the property that more accurately reflects the existing use. Any future change in use or further development of the property under the proposed P-1 zoning would still require City review. In the case of any expansion of the church further conditional use permits would be required .and would only be approved after public 200 Mill Avenue Snuth - Rentnn Wachinsrtnn 9521155 hearings. Another reason for the rezone at this time is that it will provide the nexus to allow the City to require a rezone on the portion of the property presently zoned B-1 (Business District) should the church request permission to expand into this area. It should be noted that a church is a principal use in the B-1 zone and a conditional use in the P-1 (Public Zone). The City is aware of the residents concerns in this area regarding the expansion of the church use at this location. Staff is available and willing to work with the citizens to try and resolve these issues. If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please contact me at 235-2550. Sincerely, 91///‘ . Mark R. P , AICP Project Manager • • • II Hoshide February 11. 1991 Renton City Council Minutes Pane 45 111 AUDIENCE COMMENT Donald Leavitt, 301 116th Avenue SE, Bellevue, stated that he owns Citizen Comment: Leavitt approximately 50 acres of land located directly adjacent to the City of - Sewer Service Renton. A previous attempt to annex this property to the City failed. He Connection (Stonegate) has since made application to and received approval from the County for a 53-lot subdivision on the property. Mr. Leavitt said that in discussions with the City Administration, he was informed that Renton sewer and water services were available. On January 28, 1991, a letter from Mr. Leavitt to Council was read which requested interim sewer service from the City for this property. The Council considered the letter, and subsequently informed Mr. Leavitt that the City would not serve properties outside its boundaries. Mr. Leavitt stated that he would like to annex this property to the City of Renton, and asked Council what its attitude would be toward such an application. City Attorney Warren cautioned that if an annexation petition is ultimately brought to Council for decision, government principles and the appearance of fairness doctrine indicate that Council not pre-judge this issue. Therefore, other than a general expression of Council policy, it would not be appropriate to discuss support or non-support of annexation at this time. Council made the following inquiries: 1) Does this property border May Valley? 2) Will the operating district make the necessary improvements? 3) Why is the development limited to 53 lots when the previous annexation application indicated a subdivision with more than twice that number? Mr. Leavitt said that the property boundaries are near May Valley Road. He explained that in order to access District 90 water lines, he would be required to install a mile of pipe line which would not be economically feasible. Mr. Leavitt said the property is heavily wooded, and economics and the sewer service considerations indicate that 53 lots would be more appropriate for this property. He also noted that installation of septic tanks requires land clearing, and connection to sewers would allow retention of more trees. Citizen Comment: Everett Wilcock, 11830 164th Avenue SE, Renton, expressed his opposition to Wilcock - Sewer Service annexation of Mr. Leavitt's property, and noted that the sensitive May Valley Connection (Stonegate) area has severe water and drainage problems. Citizen Comment: Gevers Cornelius Gevers, 900 Kirkland Avenue NE, Renton, stated that the - Highland Community Highlands Community Church is holding classes on Thursday evenings which Church, Traffic Control cause traffic and parking problems in his neighborhood. He requested that the Police Department monitor the area. Mayor Clymer assured Mr. Gevers that he would refer this matter to the Police Chief to monitor and report back. Citizen Comment: Webb - Sanford Webb, 430 Mill Avenue South, Renton, commented that personnel I-405 S-Curve Project conducting the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) open house regarding the I-405 S-Curve project on Thursday, February 7, indicated sincere interest in taking public comment and acting upon it. He reported that a WSDOT handout outlined the phased timing for the construction on Renton Hill. Citizen Comment: Versie Vaupel, P. O. Box 755, Renton, commented that legislation which Vaupel - RVTI would separate Renton Vocational/Technical Institute (RVTI) from the Renton School District and allow RVTI to take as its sole property school buildings and grounds presently occupied on a rental basis has been approved by the State House Committee (House Bill 1039, Senate Bill 5184). Ms. Vaupel said that the State Higher Education Committee will be considering this issue, and urged that opposition to this action be conveyed to this committee by the City and by concerned citizens. Mayor Clymer noted that a letter has been sent to the governor and legislators regarding this issue, and the following correspondence was received in response to that letter. Correspondence from Senator Leo K. Thorsness, 11 th Legislative District, Olympia, was read expressing his opinion that the community would be better served by placing the vocational/technical institutes (VTI) under the governance of community colleges; however, he will make sure that the legislation is drafted to include protection for open spaces and playgrounds. Citizen Comment: Wagner Rich Wagner, 1321 South 7th Street, Renton, noted that the Executive - King County Justice Director of King County is proposing South County as a location for the Center County Justice Center, and urged that the City investigate the opportunities and advantages of locating the center within the City of Renton. Council made the following comments: RENTON CITY COUNCIL NING®��ISION Abbreviated Meeting of REPITnN February 11, 1991 AN cfiY 9A Municipal Building Monday, 7:30 p.m. 'FEB Council Chambers MINUTES , � .�V � CALL TO ORDER Mayor Earl Clymer led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF TONI NELSON, Council President; NANCY MATHEWS; ROBERT COUNCIL MEMBERS EDWARDS; RICHARD STREDICKE; KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER; JESSE TANNER; THERESA ZIMMERMAN. CITY STAFF IN JAY COVINGTON, Executive Assistant, LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City ATTENDANCE Attorney; MARILYN PETERSEN, City Clerk; DAN CLEMENTS, Administrative Services Administrator; LYNN GUTTMANN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; KAY SHOUDY, Planning and Technical Services Manager; DAVID MARTIN, Transportation Planning Supervisor; REBECCA LIND, Senior Planner; CHRISTOPHER PERAGINE, Facilities Designer; CAPTAIN DON PERSSON, Police Department. PRESS Tina Hilding, Valley Daily News; Geordie Wilson, Seattle South Times APPROVAL OF MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 4, 1991, AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. PROCLAMATION A proclamation by Mayor Clymer was read declaring February 17-23, 1991, as National Engineers Week in Renton and urging all citizens to join in celebrating this year's observance under the theme "Engineers Turning Ideas into Reality." MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION. CARRIED. Utility: TCI Cable, 3-H Consultant Lon Hurd, 3-H Cable Communications Consultants, 4517 Management California Avenue SW, Seattle, reported that TCI Cable increased basic service rates in 1991, and chose to charge the City utility tax to subscribers. This has resulted in an increase to subscribers, including the utility tax, of 7.8 percent in basic cable service and 10.8 percent in expanded basic cable service. Mr. Hurd said that the information offered by TCI to subscribers regarding the increases has been confusing, and that his office and the City have received many inquiries. He noted that a draft letter clarifying these charges was included in the information distributed to Council this evening, and when this letter has been finalized, it will be mailed to Renton citizens. Mr. Hurd also noted that TCI had referred to the utility tax as a B&O tax, and that this error has been corrected. Mr. Hurd informed Council that he has been investigating the failure in cable service on January 16, 1991, and the possibility of obtaining a rebate for cable subscribers for this temporary interruption in service. Council made the following inquiries: 1) Why was sales tax charged for cable services? 2) Does the City have control over cable rates? 3) Is competition allowable? 4) What percentage of the City is served by the cable franchise? Mr. Hurd explained that: 1) Cable subscribers are required to pay for the Cable guide and converters, and State sales tax is charged on these items only. 2) The City has no control over rates because the Federal government has deregulated cable rates and services. 3) Presently the City's cable franchise is non-exclusive, and there is nothing to prevent competition. 4) 95-98 percent of the City is served by cable. Council requested that the letter to citizens clearly state that the sales tax is required by the State for specific items only, and that tax is not on basic cable service. 1 Lloyd & Fumiko Hoshide February 4, 1991 CIV'OF RENTON Don Erickson, Secretary D E C E I V E Environmental Review Committee Developmental Planning Section FEB o J 1991 Department of Planning/Building/Public Works - 200 Mill Ave S. Renton, WA 98055 BUILDING DIVISION Subject: Environmental Checklist No. ECF-048-090 - Determination of Non-Significance (Mitigated) for Highlands,Community Church This is a protest letter. I take issue with subject finding because it defines micro mitigation issues and ignores the macro effects upon local residents created by adding an enormous addition (67%) to the existing structure. The long term interests of adjacent residents maintaining a pleasant R-1 community is not being protected by your finding for these reasons: 1-Adding' classroom and office space to the existing structure could only lead, to increased facility use in both frequency and volume. Current - to and from traffic to Church and other events is at the upper limits for both speed and density through •a single family residential area. More traffic is not tolerable. The area is already burdened with Metro bus traffic as well as fast traffic to and from the Highlands Elementary School, Renton Vocational Technical School and the Employment Security Office. Remember, this is R-1 residential. 2-Street parking during current Church events saturates available space along NE 10th easterly beyond Kirkland Ave, both sides of Kirkland Ave beyond NE 10th, and along NE 9th. Moreover, week day over flow parking for Employment Security congests NE 10th. This can only get worse. 3-A rezone from R-1 to P-1 for the easterly portion of subject property would ultimately lead to uses that are to the detriment of adjacent R-1 neighbors. Any use change at subject property would degrade the overall residential characteristics and is not in the interests of residents trying to maintain a nice middle class residential area. The aggregate of the above is of keen SIGNIFICANCE to me as a'-Renton citizen living in an pleasant R-1 neighborhood. Protect our neighborhood. Protect Renton. r Several of my neighbors are in agreement. There names are attached. Attachments: (3) cc: Earl Clymer - Thank you, Toni Nelson • Robert Edwards G.:4 ‘-4— 7;7'Richard Stredicke ' Nancy Mathews Lloy Hoshide Kathy Keolker Wheeler 833 Kirkland Ave NE Theresa Zimmerman ' Renton, WA 98056 226-5891 Jesse Tanner r ' M _ . I wish to also voice my protest to ECF-048-090 for the reasons stated in the Hoshide letter as well as others of my own. NAME ADDRESS PHONE Yi . ., , , am .,X€K e� asp=�z9'y.- . >.,—., e ii _ ,'1✓Lt1A F ,1/F1..so1v 8'39 ,4 ,yKLAND ..fve, .255 7.79`/ • -7W L . . Litt 61 We Ile Si r1 s 3aiu /V, . c5".5"-.57 9 9 Giw( -N .0170-, gRi 4 k rak HD pVt. NE .:6--.5-9.Q e 9 . 13z Y 5 Dui gv.( Ifr/Zia0Aieb9a, we .2.5--�'yo7 •(\� ylj .. 4". 14vivv--r , 1 bklie kiAideff.kaP 40 , N E 2,67-6--.4/76 7 . 4�, ., V 4 -Ai° Z ,c 5 77o6 /�L�iI//o?147irL -��"'�vow.-�c� Po`5 �� r �pi 144 tS�� 2 . Noce. mA Lu) ill)/a) i 7` t64- 4.-eds I 5- iVAIA.4t,S,414-'t I2)1. (775-5- "S/ 711 , 1Vl A fz ►A Al i 1)I 1-0 R 8 0 I K,A: -Pet.- a.'w itl E 3 SS--..3.3 ` r-r-Z-0 r d it le.,c v.i.,0 a' N•e . '. - 33.3 I H.e.7i1,�:2. Rtft, v '° i /K;id.1//�/.... 01-,5',3-d.1=,j Q -o`/.1. 43 I& 11`_C ` d - 'T. S• CA.Aa.,? L. i Af to-de \ hi-k,aekmai n `� .. t5 -11(46 eij ear: aNai•i--s. aifili44 7�/j /d/il...i� 1.-/9i,Li '* /V • .2-, 6 - c 75 . 6o,,,,e®,e� Ai /p Ai I wish to also voice my protest to ECF-048-090 for the reasons stated in the Hoshide letter as well as- others of my own. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 0)3.19424.4Y 6. Akro_ . 41--3sq/ 'e cezr ,4? c 75 /f1', ' k&' ii) Ac.'►< It- :Lg. ` Q %C) P/A4ed11 )74-474/2 1(1, � /�irjL,,,vo ,t-. R�;✓__. a 02 e-893,. .5 tri'G/ c�.60 P.c f tiz�d� 5?-a ie� /ten<�/%v�. l1J.� , (4a -'112, pfracid Sib 6'Wt. sc,w ye./I/, 5 t6s---0//t - fv. I�-� y `73L J-e,Fc'4r�.9 v) :.. 71 't ',$ '( • Fn&v�,.ce s �.. S nec(d eM id__„.„ 3e 3 ' 2?,c. /at- 4�o1-, 30 2 02 7/ /1/f� Carp. `. ,.Y 61 itjtifrca,.r,0 /4v1 Z Z 6 - S T Z 7 CAtArt kiVv1/4C OLf- L. kit,61/4104 'buut '6-809 a,,.s O3 /1Y 2 77 06 1 C . Ir'-ete ov\ 10_,a4Q%1J3OI c3O09 ch 2 7''7 C)639 A ltvg iv 4AU .i4/ei itfai.11,,t,e. YgClezek<AAND 4 if We" 2 xe. 1.'1• ri Gam, /t, v.- y-- °!iZ it<r 2, 7 I wish to also voice my protest to ECF-048-090 for the reasons stated in the Hoshide letter as well as others of my own. NAME ADDRESS PHONE , yete Fay Oita 4.1Y-(/°--) K-2/kl'J j),C6 11( 4,1 Avd /12:7 a.? 714 cPc)._. fig%METRO Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle,WA 98104-1598 PLANNING DIVISIONS January 28, 1990 crry®FRENTON JAN 301991 Environmental Review Committee c�tai D c/o Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Development Planning Section Department of Planning/Building/Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Determination of Nonsignificance File No. : ECF-048-90 Highlands Community Church Dear Environmental Review Committee: Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and anticipates no significant impacts to water quality or to Metro's wastewater facilities or public transportation services. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, Gregory M. Bush, Manager Environmental Compliance Division GMB:p1g5998 Ink WIWashington State Duane Berentson Department of Transportation Secretary of Transportation District 1 15325 S.E.30th Place PLANNINGIVISIIooN Bellevue,Washington 98007-6568 CITY (206)562-4000 JAN. 2 5 1991 DATE: January 23, 1991hitVW , TO: Don Erickson, Chief, Current Planning Planning Division Public Works Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 �0‹ FROM: JAMES L. LUTZ, P.E. , Utilities/Developer Engineer Washington State Department of Transportation District 1 15325 SE 30th Place, MS 113 Bellevue, WA 98007-6597 This letter is in response to the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance and environmental checklist that we received from the City of Renton on January 23, 1991. X We have reviewed the subject documents and have determined that the traffic generated by this development will not have a significant adverse impact upon any state highways. File No. SR No. ECF-048-90 900 Please contact Robert Eichelsdoerfer of my Developer Services section at PHONE: 562-4297, SCAN 638-4297, if you have any questions. ':; CZ:'I'Y OF FtENTON _U R REN•T :pLANNTN�;: bTV;TSTON:::::::":;•:><:g ::>::::::::>:: ::M:z::<:.;:::: AI?FTDAV IT OF SERVICE BY; MAILING ':::` ::::::: On the I8L day of �ZPU.a , 19 ql , I deposited in the mail of the United States a sealed envelope containing .4c:rerMtticc"hvrn av,,ct ckecic.A %%IS documents . This information was .sent to: Name Representing +4 .jd* 0.f- C O — Mr. Paul Reitenbach, Chief, Community Planning Mr. Gregory M. Bush, Metro Department of Wildlife Department of Fisheries Mr.James Lutz, Department of Transportation Mr.Jay Laughlin, City of Seattle Duwamish Tribal Office Muckleshoot Tribal Office D.L. Lensegrav, Puget Power • (Signature of Sender) Pm k . G f!L J •Subscribed ��ul„ 19 q/ ,,��GP Ef��4v� to me this / day of v NOTARY :p S. `��'1.( t "*~ a Nota Pub_l . in and for the -4' PUBUC Sta of Was ington residing . • 2 •V>F :It ts9.: O�' at ,/-� ,,*o WAST.?,,,, the ein. ' gnMar Project :Name P.t0),Oti,Number. . r %0 CIT, OF RENTON `gig�..,, Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator January 17, 1991 Dick Ralston 14221 W Lk Kathleen Dr SE Renton,WA 98056 SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church ECF-048-90 Dear Mr. Ralston: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee and is to inform you that they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. The Committee, on January 16, 1991, decided that your project may be issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated with the following conditions: See enclosed Mitigation Measures document. Because the Environmental Review Committee imposed specific mitigation measures rather than issue a Determination of Significance, there is a required 15 day comment period during which comments are solicited from various agencies, jurisdictions or individuals (including the applicant) who may have an interest in the Committee's decision. The comment period will end February 5, 1991. Following the end of the comment period, the City will finalize its Determination unless comments received require a reevaluation. Following the finalization of the Determination,there is a required 14 day appeal period. WAC 197-11-660 states that the responsibility for implementation measures may be imposed upon an applicant only to the extent attributable to the identified adverse impacts of the proposed action. Since an environmental impact statement has not been prepared for this project, any mitigation measure established by the ERC not directly attributable to an identified adverse impact is deemed to be voluntarily accepted by the applicant. Staff urges you to contact the various City representatives,as appropriate, (e.g.,the Public Works Division) as soon as possible,to obtain more information concerning specific mitigation elements recommended for this project, if you have specific questions. This information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and will enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. In addition, by the end of the comment period, we should be able to establish"a tentative public hearing date before the Hearing Examiner, should a public hearing be necessary. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call Mark Pywell or me at 235-2550. or Environm nt ev' mittee, Donald K. Erickson,AICP Secretary cc: C.T. Gevers Highlands Community Church 900 Kirkland Ave NE 3031 NE 10th St Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Allan Hanson, President Margaret Chan Conifer Management, Inc. Safeway Stores, Inc., #366 PO Box 11246 PO Box 947 Tacoma,WA 98411 Bellevue,WA 98009 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 f CIT.- OF RENTON Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator January 17, 1991 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section Mail Stop PV-11 ' Olympia,WA 98504 SUBJECT: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith are copies of Environmental Determinations and Environmental Checklists for those projects reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee on January 16, 1991: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED Highland Community Church: Classroom/Office Addition ECF-048-90 The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the project site from R-1 (Single- Family Residential) to P-1 (Public Zone) and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to construct a two-story (12,000 s.f.) addition to the existing one and two-story (17,995 s.f.) church building in order to provide additional classroom and office area. The project is located at 3031 NE 10th Street. The 15 day comment period for these projects will end on February 5, 1991. Following the end of the comment period, the City will finalize its Determination unless comments received require a reevaluation. Following the finalization of the Determination,there is a required 14 day appeal period. If you have questions, please call Mark Pywell or me at 235-2550. For the Environmental Review Committee, Donald K. Erickson,AICP S Secretary cc: Mr. Paul Reitenbach, Chief, Community Planning Mr.Gregory M. Bush, Metro • Department of Wildlife Department of Fisheries Mr.James Lutz, Department of Transportation Mr.Jay Laughlin, City of Seattle Duwamish Tribal Office . Muckleshoot Tribal Office D.L Lensegrav, Puget Power agncyltr/D)E/kac 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 • CITY O► ENTON JAN 1 91991 RECEIVED JI1Y CLERK'S OFFICE 51067 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 361 '16 Kathleen Hoover ,being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the VALLEY DAILY NEWS • Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Dailynewspapers sixtimes a week. That said newspapers ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE published (6) RENTON, WASHINGTON are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six The Environmental Review Committee months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non- in the English language continuallyas dailynewspapers in Kent Kingject(s) Nor- Significance-Mitigated thgated for the followingheR ' g ject(s) under the authority of the Rer•r� County, Washington. The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal Municipal Code. newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH County. ECF-048-90 King The applicant seeks to rezone the easter- ly portion of the project site from R-1 (Sin- The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Kent Edition gle-Family Residential)to P-1 (Public Zone) and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to XX , Renton Edition XX , Auburn Edition XX , (and not in construct a two-story(12,000 s.f.)addition to supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers the existing one and two-story (17,995 s.f.) duringthe below stated period. The annexed notice a Public Notice church building in order to provide addition- al classroom and office area. The project is located at 3031 NE 10th Street. (Environmental Determination) 5222 This decision will be finalized in fifteen (15) days. Written comments received after 5:00 p.m., February 5, 1991 will not be was published on January 21 , 1991 considered.A fourteen(14)day appeal peri- od will commence following the finalization of DNS-M. The mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environ- The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$ 3 9 .9 6 mental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton,Washing- ton 9ub05h. Phone: 23Valley 0. L CjL(-fl Published in the Valley Daily News Janu- ary 21, 1991 5222. Subscribed and sworn before me this 2 5 t h day of Jan. 19 91 10 II J 0 Y// ame Notary Public for the State of Washington residing at King County, Washington VDN#87 Revised 4/89 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON,WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the following project(s) under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH ECF-048-90 The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the project site from R-1 (Single- Family Residential). to P-1 (Public Zone) and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to construct a two-story (12,000 s.f.) addition to the existing one and two-story (17,995 s.f.) church building in order to provide additional classroom and office area. The;project is located at 3031 NE 10th Street. This decision will be finalized in fifteen (15) days. Written comments received after 5:00 p.m., February 5, 1991 will not be considered. A fourteen (14) day appeal period will commence following the finalization of DNS-M. The mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. Publication Date: January 21, 1991 Account No.51067 • pubnot • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST NO.: ECF-048-90 APPLICATION NO(S): CU;R-048-90 PROPONENT: Highlands Community Church PROJECT NAME: Classroom/Office Addition ' DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the project site from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to P-1 (Public Zone) and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to construct a two-story (12,000 s.f.) addition to the existing one and two-story (17,995 s.f.) church building in order to provide additional classroom and office area. LOCATION OF.PROPOSAL: 3031 NE 10th Street LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton ' Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section • The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority'of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code (see attached sheet). These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. This Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). Because mitigation measures have been imposed,the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fifteen (15) days from January 21, 1991. Any interested party may submit written comments which must be submitted by 5:00 p.m.', February 5, 1991, in order to be considered. A fourteen (14) day appeal period will commence following the finalization of the DNS-M. Responsible Official: • Environmental Review Committee c/o Don Erickson, Secretary Development Planning Section Department of Planning/Building/Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South S Renton,WA 98055 PUBLICATION DATE: January21, 1991 . • DATE OF DECISION: January 16, 1991 . SIGNATURES: S Vi I IP Lynn A utt 1 nn,Administrator DATE Y I Depart "ent o Pla n ding/Building/Public Works £_.. J --1£ — 9 E.Webley,Adminis ator DATE Co munity Service Department • /&./ /Lee, h r, Fire Chief DATE Ren` n Fire Department mitsig • DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES PROJECT: Classroom/Office Addition PROPONENT:. Highlands Community Church . ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF-048-90 • APPLICATION NUMBER: . DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the project site from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to P-1 (Public Zone) and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to' construct a two-story (12,000,s.f.) addition to the existing one and two-story (17,995 s.f.) church building in order to provide additional classroom and office area. • LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 3031 NE 10th Street CONDITIONS: The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with the following conditions:. 1. The applicant, in order to address aesthetic Impacts and to control dust, shall hydroseed and maintain, as necessary, the undeveloped portion of the property (until. It is developed) to discourage its use as a driving course, which causes dust and noise impacts, and to reduce the dust which on windy days blows of the site and is a nuisance to the adjacent single-family homes. The hydroseeding shall be completed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits: 2. The applicant shall submit an amended landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Development Planning Section which shows the provision of an adequate curb, fence, landscaping or a combination of these along the driveway between the parking area and N.E. 10th Street. This improvement shall be installed to ensure that vehicles do not access the lower (vacant) portion of applicants property from the driveway or parking area. These improvements shall be installed in conjunction with the construction of the classroom addition and maintained for the life of the project. 3. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate construction-related impacts (e.g., noise, dust, traffic) shall submit a construction management plan including the following: a).an erosion control element; b) an element for the periodic watering of any disturbed soils to reduce dust; c) an element for the • limiting of hauling operations to the hours between 8:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M.; d) an element limiting on-site construction activities to the hours between 7:00 A.M.and 7:00 P.M. on weekdays and 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays (with no construction allowed on Sundays) to mitigate the impacts of construction noise on adjacent residential areas; e) an element for the protection of existing storm drains from the soils disturbed during the'construction activities; and f) a $2,000.00 cash deposit for street cleaning. This plan shall be followed throughout the construction phase of the project. 4. The applicant shall pave the driveway from the westerly edge of the parking lot to N.E. 10th Street. The driveway shall be paved to residential street standards from the southern edge of the Golden Pines parcel to N.E. 10th Street and in accordance with Fire Prevention Bureau standards for emergency access from the parking area to a point adjacent to the south boundary of the Golden Pines parcel. The paved driveway shall be provided in conjunction with the construction of the classroom addition and completed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. 5. The applicant shall provide the Golden Pines Apartment complex with an easement for ingress/egress to the apartment complex's parking area. The easement shall be recorded on conjunction with the recording of the lot line adjustment,and prior to the public hearing for the conditional use permit for the classroom addition. • 6. The applicant shall provide easements for the two existing sanitary sewer lines within the project site to the satisfaction of the Utilities Services Division prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. • • mitmeas-1 ' ‘,I Note: The applicant shall, in accordance with the City of Renton Uniform Fire Code, install a sprinkler system throughout the existing church building and proposed structure. The sprinkler system will need to be approved by the City of Renton Fire Prevention Bureau. - Note: These conditions will be recommended when the project .is reviewed by the Hearing Examiner for the conditional use permit. • A. The applicant shall provide new easements as required and obtain a release of the existing easements from the City of Renton, Puget Power and Washington Natural Gas prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. B. The applicant shall complete a lot line adjustment with the owners of the Golden Pines Apartments to provide the necessary set back prior to the public hearing for the conditional use permit for the classroom addition. C. The applicant shall pave the remainder of the gravel parking lot to provide adequate parking for the proposed land use. D. ' The applicant shall provide a $3,000.00 ,bond to ensure 'the maintenance of the landscaping for a three year period prior to the Issuance of site preparation/building permits. E. The applicant shall provide a permanent drainage system for the recently paved parking lot on the westerly portion of the subject property in accordance with the agreement proposed by the Community Services Committee to the satisfaction of the Utility Services Division prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for the proposed addition. F. Future expansion will require site plan approval, environmental review and probably a change of zone. • • • • • • • • • • • • • , s mitmeas-2 N OT C E ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION APPLICATION NO. ECF-048-90 PROPOSED ACTION, CLASSROOM/OFFICE ADDITION HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO REZONE THE EASTERLY PORTION OF THE PROJECT SITE FROM R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO P-1 (PUBLIC ZONE) AND TO OBTAIN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY (12,000 S.F.) ADDITION TO THE EXISTING ONE AND TWO-STORY (17, 95S.F.) CHURCH AND OFFICE AREA.G IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADDITIONALCLASSROOM GENERAL LOCATION AND OR ADDRESS 3031 NE 10TH STREET POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED • PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. • THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE [E.R.C.3 HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION ODD ES UlDOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. . AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ❑WILL $WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. THE CITY OF RENTON WILL NOT ACT ON THIS PROPOSAL FOR 1B DAYS FROM THE DATE BELOW. COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY FFBRUARY5, 1991 • AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY • BE FILED WITH THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER BY. 5:00 P.M., FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION AT 235-2550. • DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION envpetr • CERTIFICATION I , M �Y Sn.JP.`o.. , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 3 COPIES OF • THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN 3 CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON OR NEARBY THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY ON Z 2- qj ,,opt �GpRET� . • •��. falossio y • c•.•A`i� si: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a NOrm.„. m.�„'] Pubii., in and for the State of Washingtonh • N : �, . •Visr�siSin in �.h� , on the v�� p p :,�,�yPIa,10 :dayof GI/ ,SIGNED : *#'#..IV SHti� ,�sts , NOTICE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION APPLICATION NO. ECF-048-90 PROPOSED ACTION . CLASSROOM/OFFICE ADDITION HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO REZONE THE EASTERLY PORTION OF THE PROJECT SITE FROM R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO P-1 (PUBLIC ZONE) AND TO OBTAIN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY (12,000 S.F.) ADDITION TO THE EXISTING ONE AND TWO-STORY (17,995 S.F.) CHURCH BUILDING IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CLASSROOM.AND OFFICE AREA. GENERAL LOCATION AND OR ADDRESS 3031 NE 10TH STREET POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE I E.R.C. ] HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION ®DOES MODES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ❑WILL $WILL 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 FFBRUARY 5, 1991 AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER BY , 5:00 P.M., FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION AT 2 3 5-2 5 5 0. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION envpstr o e o • • • Etitrltorirr;:<::.:: a,, e ;.. nv.n'o ntaL Rev a Cv m NOTICE::::.. :>::<:<<::>...... ......»:» .......... ... January 16,1991 • To: Lynn Guttmann,Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator John Webley,Community Services Administrator Lee Wheeler,Fire Chief From. on Erickson,Secretary M,eeti g Date<i>>>>'•> >> Janua;'.:.;':16 19"9:.`<><z <> >><> <`'•<>'>':>? <°>>'•'•<«'•z <>::; ::»»»»»::; >::»::>::»>:<:::>::>;:::< »::>::»::::; • ::Locatfon.;::>::»:<::<::»<::::;:::::<:::>T.:...:d:F...loo„�ot?.:.:.:ence;::.o..:::.::•::::::::.:::::.�:.�::::::::::::::::.�.:�::::::::::::::::.:�::::::::::::::::::•:.:;•..:.::.: Agenda attached below. • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA • January 16,1991 • Third Floor Conference Room Commencing at 10:00 AM TIME/KEY PARTICIPANTS NEW HIGHLANDS CHURCH CU;R-048-90 The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the project site from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to P-1 (Public Zone) and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to construct a two-story (12,000 sf) addition to the existing one and two-story(17,995 sf) church building In order to provide additional classroom and office area. The project is located at 3031 NE 10th Street. • BLACK RIVER,PHASE VI ECF;RVM P;SA;SM-143-90 The applicant proposes to construct a four-story 71,057 sf office building with landscaping and parking on a 169,314 sf site. The project site is located on the east side of Oaksdale Avenue and approximately 150 feet • north of South Grady Way. • RECONSIDERATION EAST VALLEY OFFICE CENTER,BLDG 3&4 ECF;SA-118-89 • The project consists of two four-story office buildings on • a 14.47 acre plat. It will be divided Into two phases with Phase I consisting of the east building (Building 3), 592 parking spaces (inch 1'18 spaces held in reserve), landscaping to match the adjacent properties and the pedestrian plaza extension being built Immediately upon approval. Phase II, consisting of the west building (Building 4),592 parking spaces(incl. 118 spaces held in reserve),landscaping and completion of the plaza will be construction upon completion of Phase I. The project is located at 1701 East Valley Frontage Road for Building 3 and•1700 Lind Avenue for Building 4. ., -......" . -...• •.;??.::-..... .:::.;:ii:i....,..i...i..iiiii......i.,:i::.:iiii,:::,...:::::::::::::::....:::::::,.:.:..f.....*...................,...::::::::::.:::::::......:::.::::i:::::::::i:i...::::::...,.,.:::::::::........:::::...::::::...,...........:::::::.,....,........:.......,,,,,,................:.........,,.......,....,:i.........,....,..........,......,....i:,....f.i.,,,:iiiii::„.„.......„..„:„.., .::iii;::ii!iii.•:•i.:Esgimi'..:DERAII:TNIg.NT.:iP.,E:::P.M.NNINp/sguivpiti.191.e..P111.0.•::WP9KningE. ..:.•:.;M:.,.:::.,..-l..ig....,.I.i.i.R.!.,.1.1..g.,...:g::.:::;.::•i"i:•i:::i.i:.::i.:gM"...i"iT..,.-i..Ei.i...i.i.i.i.i.-i.ii.0iffi.i."ii..i.i.:i..i..,..!.,..i...Eiii.o...."lsgi,o...i.w•:':.ii.i..•i.•:::,:iei•.i.:..:.:i....N....i.i,i.i..:„::v:...ii.•:i.:ik..imom..::•„:•:•-.;..:•:•:..vN.....,T.......A.„.....4....•i...l,.......E::::..N........t,g......W...,.....0.,........i,i0...i..:::i.,..,1V..7I..:N.,::,..I.:..:..:..:.:.,.:.:... STAFnEPofir .„.:.:.*...i.:i.:.i.*...,:..,.*....::..:.:.:;...:.:.,.:.::x.......,.*...,.:.:.:.i.*...i.m.........:.,:.........*....::.K....:x...........,.......,.::.:..: .i::i:;: i:::':::i':ii;':::::•I:si.:i.i.iiii.i.:]iii.iiiiliiiii.: ja titi a t y.1.6.K.:1991 VX Mii...i.::i..*:.:P;....I..kW' MA'...MO V.:'..N..:4:*:Q..tii.M.:ii•.'...::::.::.::.::::::i::::.:M:::.:i:i:i...:::...i..:E::: M:i:::'.:i:i::;:i::i:::i:.:.i:.i:i:.:.ii...iiM:.::::::::::',i.P: .i:i:i..1:',ii:i•....i:.i i:.iii:i':::::::::i:i::iiiii:::•::W:.iiii;iiii::iii:ii::ii:iUi:. :li:;:;ii::.i*iii:ii:i.:.::.:.::s.ii.i..,i::::..:...ii.:..&iii"..ii.gi:iiii....:..:i.:.:.:M:.:;.'.:.:.iigii:.::..Mi..:AiiNi,:::...e;.*"..*i..i::*:...Miff..:.*:...i..i..ifi:M::.*i*::i 40 K ANOj.tiBli!i!iniiMiiiiIiii!!!$:AifiS'iiiii!tiiiiiilliiig,Highlands. s.'Communitypho totpg.miwimmimisio.:...:. r.iff-40.;ifformi.:.igii.g:iii...gi.inioiii.iiii..iimii..iii.mg.fi..N.::.01Aio.:0:ii..(:)ffieoAdditraff.iiii.....:.mimimii.iiiiiiii:ii,.ii:....iiii:.?..:iii:::?:i:...,:iii]ig.:?:i:.:.:.::. : iii,i,i::::j:ii.:iiii:i:i::::.:i:,:i:m::;i:,*,:i:,:i:i:i:i::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::„...::::::::,:,:i...,..,:,..:..,::::,::::.*:,„..:::::::::::::....::::.,...:::.:::::::::::......,:„......::::::::: NVIRONMENTAUQP1E0!<tit$'..rf,.iii,:,ii:xi:?.::::ii:iiiiiiggF]i•PO.;:i:R.:;.P.40:P9i.iiii:.:.:1:::iiimii:i:::iiii::::':::ii:.:::::::iiiimiiimm....:i:::ii.??:iiii:::?::iii.?::iin i.........,:„...*.,..::.:::,.....:::::.,,,,......,...,......:.:.,.....,..........,:.::::..........::.:.:.......,..::,:.:,:........::::i*i*:*i::::::::::::::.::::::.:.::::i:...?,. .:::::.::::,.:::.:::.:.:::.:....:,:....:* *:,i*::,,:::::::i*:::::::::::.::::::.,..::::::::::::::::::::::::„..::::*:*i*,...::::: ::::::::-,..*.:.:::.: • l.:.::•:..C...::'::::::::::i,..,..:•i•sii.iiigfiiiailig::.i:i:i..i:iiii!...Aii?..i.:iii::::iiiiiiigigi .WiiiiNi...,... :',::, ...4:i...:::?..ili:.:,:::::1:iii...-.:isoi,.',iii:ii...i.,:::.:.....•.;i::i...iiii:iiiiii:Oi:,..,;i:::::iiii.::iiiiii;?:: :::.ii'..*:::iii:i:.:::im::::::-..:-.. .m.w:.:iiei:.•ii 0.g. PRIP.TIORPt Pf..1.QP04.60gainglItoAtoliogt)ti..:opy0!t§::rqqtqlf..i.fea51-..k portion of ::::::i.is:.•. :::. :::i•.:i•ii•ii.ii•iiNci:•••gi.imi:•isimini;i;:.i.immi•iiii:.:g:ii::::iiiiiii:.i::::.:.w:ii:i,.iii,.;•:::miltp.•:ipe.o140r: ite..from'ifi*l.:'(S.ingle-•.,FAt-c.ply.:i.1:3ppJOq.9110)..tq.i•.: 01:•il'ii:iiiii.'iiii::.:•i',..0iiiiiiiiniSM'OP•insiigi§ii•iffedisiiMieRVP .ir0.66.tiV664 :ifiaiii:6ii:.W15(gliiii.f.o.'6,flati400.,i.1):00 •••:-.•:.::::.:....:•..g:gi:::::iii.•:RONER;::::::•:::;:i:4:ERE:.;ig•::'::i;iggii.:M.S: ;.;:•:',.;;Pg#6fifikfi,*.aii•gfi...66Miiki*;06 •(1•Z-,•p•o•Cf.....21;)::**loitiprf.:•:.:. ...i;.;i:::;;I::::iininii:i;NONINignini.•-•!'iNiNgniOisiffgigi!ilissiinisii6IK61Wfafiidi.V661Wi5&f0.6. t.divo:7,:;00$-•• ::fjphoro-ii.. ..::::ii..,....i.:.gi....::::1;i:::,i:?.:i:ggifflii.:::::inii:::i•iiii.E:::::::•igini'isisCiii,..g.i.iliBinii•:!KiisiieliAV:...iitikilii'disti*a.6ii:iiiaitireMdddditidila;.0W§ itiorfr:and:i: office area ••••••••••••••,:•:••••:,:::::::::::-.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::*:;.,:::::::::::::::::::;•„:::::::::::::::•,*:::*i .:::::•:.,:....: :,•••::::::::::::.:.:•:•:.:•:•:.:....x.,,,,,,,,,,i,:•:•:,••••,....:•:•:•:•,:,..:•••,:•:•,:•:•.••••••,•••••••.••••••••••••••••• -::::•::::-::••••:::.;:iiiiiiiii-:::• •••••::it-f..f:•:::':::•:,..':::-,:.':•••••••::::::::Ii'-*-•iiiii*-•:*-4•1'..iiiiiiii.:-.1W:::::.iiii.:'•,•iiii:•ii:.ii:iiiiIiiiii-i:iiiimii••••.:•::ii..i...*:,•:,.?;•-•.,.::•-•:-:•,.:,.*i...i:...:.::::-..••••••••.,-,::::........i::-..:i..:-.K:-.,:-,i:::::::-.....::::*-;:-:..-::i:•:::.*-::•:*•:::::.:•.:-•*i::.K:::.*:• :-.....:.::.,:-..:-..-::.*-:•.-,*-,,,:...-.....*...,K:::.:*-„,-... ':i..i.i.:,:•:,,i':,iii:,':':,iii..:11.1..Til..1:,t01)..Q, A„1-.1.101. N.":*).E.:PROPOSAL, . fiiiiif:.:i: ii':.-•::•iiif:...:;-•:...::-.ii..iii'::::::•:•:.30stt',:-.N,..'E'ici'.11 0 th.'S.tre qt.s.:'....c.:.:'. f........:.:::...:::::::::iiiii...iiii:.:M.::....:n:i* ::::::...*i:i:i*.::::.:5.:::::...:iff...::::::::. '..::::::.:::.;-..;..:-.-i::-.i.:.:.:,,,,,,,.....,,,,,x.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::*f::::...i.:::-:.:.......,,:.::::::::::,....x.,:::::,::::.,,•:.....,,,,,,,,,,,,,::::::::::,.x.:,?:,,,,,,,.:,,,,,,,i?,.....:,.,.....,.i.,i...,................ . .i: ::...';.',....:....'::'....i...Vii...1::::....:'..ii:.::.................,...:*!:...:i:iiii.....:.:....... . ..f..i...i....f., .*]..ic.. : . i*:,,,,,,:.......::....:.::* mi.ii..:•,if.:.....:iisii.iiim....iis8 0 Es::::::::i:::::::::::..*:::::::::::::::::::::::,....:5.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::5*:::::A44thow$/Land,..lise:::::::Natu rabFrivironmenti:::::Traffio-i*: t4604p.i....tr6titig.•: lia:•.!:•••.G1g.C::.:•Tob.lid.m:setvio ,,E6Oli.i ----,':':'-••••••:'•'-:'-•?:••••••?:•••••••:•••••••?•••••••••••••••••-•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••----,----....--••••••••••••••-...-------..........,-,-.-••••••:.--•:::,-..,:::•••••••:::.::•:.:,:,,..:....:::::::-*:.*i•::::::::••••••••::::i*if,,,:::::::::::::,-•::::::::...K....:••.::::::-::::-::-..* :-mf,i::::.*:::.*:::.*::::::::::::::•:: -,:•,:i::::.i.::::,.•.?„-„,i.i.x:-.„.i.i:K.-:::::-::,:if,iii.,ii:.:,...ii.:*x..K*K:-„K:.,:::-;:::i*::i*...:if:*i*:.::*ii*iiiii.f,•:-.;:-„:•:::::-:••••.::*•.*:;-,-*i*-:construction:::::::::::•:::::::::,....,::.;:,:*i:::if,*-,:::-:*:•...:::::-..*:...i:i*::::::i*-,:•,..,:,:•::::::::,::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::•:•••••:::::::: • i:::•••,:i::.;...:..::e:1::::.i:i:::M-.0.:-..:.i....,1.L.:-•%Q..!.:::V:k-•••,MV::•:::!,:i:':.•••N•::::!....!4.,::.8,--..-.-•;)„':,•.,.0,•••:::,i-s::iiM:;0-.:-:•ii.:i $1m.6ff..i f::.:.:.ONimIinenirds'.Mthat:the:04•:::0.acoptaPetrmln•-•0at•*Icn'f•-•::*:i.i • -"."--.."---.....""".•••----..----.•.•"".••-.-••--...::::::::::::-.....:.::::.:-:••••••••••.-0-N4fi•sidhifi64nomo4g§6;mithltho.,.followingio.iiiiiiii::: . • .i.i.i.i;I:...g.--::::•M ::;::::ii.riii•Eisii•iisii:i.ii.iai. P...i'iii.sii.11:-.1inii.ii•iiMliMill'iiitEsirs. conditions('Oiit-.Yage...-2),,,••:••!,:.,:.,:•••i,:•••?•:•::,i,:.::::::::::::,...:-•-•::%••::-.-••••.:,:if,:i:••:-•-•••••••:::i:,.•,...,.:•::::,.:,•-•.:i..-::,.:::::::;:::::::::. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••...•••••••• ...................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................ .....„......................„....................... -- ' NN ' I/ir I 1 . i 11 I ' -..,. ......v.-.....z..-- I 1 1" / -• t I r-------.1."-----.. 1 ! I ..; . F • 1=--wr - -....,___:,_,........._ ,-,.i. .--,.....,-......--• ------.. i , Itrz.,,,,,,z,...,_ ....14-5...... . ,,N:7....... :f...7: ., .. 77777 • - NC' jii f' •./ ri‘ . ‘. • ... /. / ! J . ) 'N/ -':‘1 l4' ' ri--1 I • , - f on. .! ," s'•••.'••.:., i 'I 1.4 • ,,, ,t, .— , ...., . ,•i„ . ••• cf4'iti.1! /'‘ •-'' ' •-,!; 1...4. .s. — •W. 1 ? - -. . - • : . 6 1- , —— ..7-_ A4,,.?...!!.'•-. .. IT. ..7./,.!.,: •-•.•• jn ell . -,,.,.-1--1 • ,..,.., --,, . --,..,1,.......- .7.att.; 1:"'.. ' ) - - — E= ,..v. =- -=1:1-- .-_.=i:_.: •=-::::-: E•-i- E.IL: [,...,1,-.. -...:i . ;' -='- 7L=_--. -.f..:1_-:' E.:::. 1:::::::: -----•:7: -:-:li! .11.--1 , ...,...._....,.. : :. c•-•.,, :it:7.,17. ,. : ,,,7,„1-:..;,.. -,....,-.7.::::: -±77-7::' ,:-.II _...].-.-.-.1. ... :: •e'l.: :r.s' -.‘‘..\. ;\‘\V:,.." :-....:;iiili_4-2_,,4411,1 I.—1 . , 1. 1 .... ' • ---- 1-.1.4=-4.-:".E4 ' ;,..."=-........, " 1.--.*------1 Ell -.1 [• •— • \ - . '(-:‘ ,..-.,j-• "-.----' ----------------;,,,>--H--/-./ i -••111\---:\-.I '4; 1 - ...- 1,1..-1--__ -. . ,,,,,,,,h.,....• • • , . . .4,4. • erupt • • Environmental Review r e Staff Report • • Highlands Communi.; _-__urch Addition • December 19,1990 • • Page 2 • Aesthetics 1. The applicant, In order to address aesthetic Impacts and to control dust, shall hydroseed and maintain, as necessary, the undeveloped portion of the property (until It Is developed) to discourage Its use as a driving course,which causes dust and noise Impacts, and to reduce the dust which on windy days blows of the site and is a nuisance to the adjacent single-family homes. The hydroseeding shall be completed prior to the Issuance of occupancy permits. • 2. The applicant shall submit an amended landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Development - Planning Section which shows the provision of an adequate curb, fence, landscaping or a • combination of these along the driveway between the parking area and N.E. 10th Street. This improvement shall be Installed to ensure that vehicles do not access the lower(vacant) portion of applicants property from the driveway or parking area. These Improvements shall be installed in conjunction with the construction of the classroom addition and maintained for the life of the project. Construction • 3. The applicant shall,in order to mitigate construction-related impacts(e.g.,noise,dust,traffic)shall submit a construction management plan Including the following: a)an erosion control element;b) an element for the periodic watering of any disturbed soils to reduce dust; c) an element for the limiting of hauling operations to the hours between 8:30 A.M.and 4:30 P.M.;d)an element limiting on-site construction activities to the hours between 7:00 A.M.and 7:00 P.M.on weekdays and 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays (with no construction allowed on Sundays) to mitigate the Impacts of construction noise on adjacent residential areas; e) an element for the protection of existing storm drains from the.soils disturbed during the construction activities;and f)a$2,000.00 cash deposit for street'cleaning. This plan shall be followed throughout the.construction phase of the project. Public Safety 4. The applicant shall pave the driveway from the westerly edge of the parking lot to N.E.10th Street. The driveway shall be paved to residential street standards from the southern edge of the Golden Pines parcel to N.E. 10th Street and In accordance with Fire Prevention Bureau standards for emergency access from the parking area to a point adjacent to the south boundary of the Golden Pines parcel. The paved driveway shall be provided in conjunction with the construction of the classroom addition and completed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. 5. The applicant shall provide the Golden Pines Apartment complex with an easement for Ingress/egress to the apartment complex's parking area. The easement shall be recorded on conjunction with the recording of the lot line adjustment and prior to the public hearing for the conditional use permit for the classroom addition. 6. The applicant shall provide easements for the.two existing sanitary sewer lines within the project site to the satisfaction of the Utilities Services Division prior to the Issuance of site preparation/building permits. Note: These conditions will be recommended when the project is reviewed by the Hearing Examiner for the conditional use permit. A. The applicant shall provide new easements as required and obtain a release of the existing easements from the City of Renton, Puget Power and Washington Natural Gas prior to the Issuance of site preparation/building permits. B. The applicant shall complete a lot line adjustment with.the owners of the Golden Pines ' Apartments to provide the necessary set back prior to the public hearing for the conditional use permit for the classroom addition. C. The applicant shall pave the remainder of the gravel parking lot to provide adequate parking for the proposed land use. D. The applicant shall provide a $3,000.00 bond to ensure the maintenance of the landscaping for a three year period prior to the Issuance of site preparation/building permits. ercrpl Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Highlands Community Church Addition December 19,1990 Page 3 • • E. The applicant shall provide a permanent drainage system for the recently paved parking lot on the westerly portion of the subject property In accordance with the agreement proposed by the Community Services Committee to the satisfaction of the Utility Services Division prior to the Issuance of occupancy permits for the proposed addition. F. Future expansion will require site plan approval, environmental review and probably a change of zone. • • ;:�i::iii:F.::(v::i::::i:}:•,::::::::::i::ski:{::!::::issi:::si:$::i:[+•:4:i!v:i•'.:::i:+j':::::::j�:$!::j:!jiiiiiii:!v'•::i::i::5::i::i::,+•:}:i::i::i'iii';i;:;;ii:;;i:}::::isi�:::::::::::::i:::::'`:{:::i::i:ij`::::�::::': ��••'y'isiY��Y%'::iiiii:vii:$:'L?<L::<:jj::i:::Li::::::i:i:;i:iiiii:i:ii:>.:::i::ii i:y:i:,v::i::i'rii:>:iiiiii:?ri:i ::iieiii:L:ii`:::i%::i::isi::isifi:i::::: Y,.;i:;:;{:YY.`fv�i:` !fii::j;:;,i:i:::CY� �;i�iFi:?':;:r:$::?$$};:ji$�i:j;?::.;iii:!:;i;:•::;:y::::+.;:::i:;.}}4::•i'r'4;:;.�.ii}ii?A'8'r:ni}}ii'.y:y..�:.�:a:;ii'.;}}•..;;•:::;;::Y9;;•:::;•n•;;;.;;.....::..::...•.. :v -. a BACKGROUND The church property Is designated as R-1 (Single-Family Residential) on the east half and B-1 (Business • District) on the west half. The applicant Is requesting the change of zone from R-1 to P-1 (Public Use) at • this time,as.the proposed development Is located within the R-1 zone and It is felt by City staff that the P-1 zone Is more appropriate for a church use and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Public/Quasi-Public. There Is an existing 17,995 s.f. church building on the subject property which includes the church sanctuary, classrooms, office space and a gymnasium. The applicant currently provides 260 parking spaces of which 215 are now paved and approximately 45 are unpaved. Landscaping is provided around the building,within the paved parking areas and around the perimeter of the subject property. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 12,000 s.f.two story addition onto the existing building. In the future,the applicant has indicated that one additional sanctuary building providing seating for 1500 people will be proposed. This development will require additional review at the time of the proposal and probably a change of zone from B-1 to P-1. IMPACTS • • The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element designates the project site for Public/Quasi-Public land uses. The proposed rezone and the use of the project site for a church are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The east side of the project site Is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Residential) and the west side is zoned B-1 (Business District). The applicant has requested a change of zone from R-1 to P-1 (Public Zone) on the east side of the project site. The church is a conditional use in the P-1 zone and a permitted use In the B-1 zone. • The proposed layout of the church addition is inconsistent with the setback standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed layout of the addition is necessary in order to locate the proposed structure in a location where It will not block the view of the residents along Kirkland Ave. There are several utility easements within the area that the proposed addition is to be located. The utility lines located In the easement appear to serve only the church property. The'applicant has submitted letters from the holders of the easements stating that they are willing to work with the church at the time of construction to relocate or release the easements. The applicant has also submitted a letter from the owners of the adjacent property Indicating their willingness to co-operate with the church on the lot line adjustment. The applicant for the church addition has stated that the lot line adjustment application Is presently with the owners of the adjacent property for signatures. The project will be conditioned to require the necessary•lot line adjustment and easement relocation or release In order to make the project consistent with the Ordinance. fl The parking provided on the subject property Is sufficient for Code requirements, Staff is recommending that the gravel portion of the parking lot be paved to encourage its use by the church members. The additional classroom and office space will allOw the church to operate its classes more efficiently and allow for the church to continue to accept new members. • There are single-family homes to the south,east and northeast,multifamily apartment units to the north and west,and commercial retail buildings to the west of the project site. A church Is generally considered to be • compatible with the land uses noted above. In this case,there has been a problem In the past with the • applicant not maintaining the landscaping on the church grounds. Recently,the applicant has corrected this condition and a landscape maintenance bond will be required as part of the conditional use permit. Staff Is recommending that an existing driveway from the parking area to NE 10th Street be paved In order to encourage as much traffic as Is possible to exit the subject property without passing through the residential areas. . • • orcrpl • Environmental Reviev im ,e Staff Report — Highlands Commun _ lurch Addition December 19,1990 • Page 4 • 1. Aesthetics/Land Use Impacts: The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the project site from R-1 to P-1 In order to provide a zoning which Is more appropriate to the existing land use which is a church. At the time of any future expansion of the church buildings into the B-i zone, the City will probably require a change of zone to P-1. Staff Is not requiring this at this time as the church could decide not to expand and sell off a portion of this property. A church is allowed in both the R-1 Single-Family Residential Zone and the P-1 Public Zone as a conditional use. The applicant has requested the rezone as the land use (a church) is more properly considered a Public Use than a Single-Family Residential land use and the P-1 zone is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map_designation of Public/Quasi- Public. The applicant is also seeking to construct a two-story, 12,000 s.f. addition on to the existing church. In the future,the applicant Is proposing to construct a sanctuary to the west of the existing structure. No time table for the proposed future development has been established by the applicant. When the applicant decides to proceed with the future development of the sanctuary,a separate site plan approval,environmental review and a possible rezone from the existing B-1 zone to P-1 will be required. At this time,the church Is requesting approval to build an addition onto the existing church that will extend Into the vacated Jefferson Avenue right-of-way. Existing development Includes the main church building,classrooms,a gymnasium;paved parking areas and a gravel parking area. Jefferson Avenue N.E.was originally proposed to extend across the project site. On May 4, 1981, the City Council vacated the right-of-way through VAC-1-81. The vacation allowed for structures to be built across the vacated right-of-way but retained the utility easements and also included a clause.stating that the vacated street would revert to street right-of-way should the property be sold for any use other than a church. The proposed two-story 12,000 s.f. classroom addition will be attached to the west side of the existing structure. Due to the slope of the terrain In this area, the proposed structure will not be • seen over the existing sanctuary and gymnasium when viewed from Kirkland Avenue. A portion of the proposed structure will extend south of the existing building and will be visible from Kirkland Avenue. The portion of the proposed addition that would be visible from Kirkland Avenue would include a canopy over an existing walkway, the entrance/lobby area of the proposed addition (ground floor)and two offices(second floor). The proposed addition will be painted to match the existing building. The exterior walls of the building will be predominantly finished with stucco,with finished concrete in some areas. A wood fascia will accent the building walls. The main portion of the building will have a flat roof in order to reduce the visual Impact of the building. This roof will be consistent with the roof of the adjacent gymnasium. • The applicant is proposing to provide additional landscaping along the west side of the building • and along the south boundary of the adjacent Golden Pines apartment property. Recently, the applicant has refurbished the existing landscaping around the perimeter 'of the project site by removing weeds and replacing dead plant materials. There are three existing utility easements within the vacated Jefferson Street right-of-way where development Is proposed. The easements are for Puget Power,Washington Natural Gas and the • City of Renton. The proposed project will be conditioned at the time of the public hearing to • require the applicant to obtain release of the easements or relocate the easements prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. All three of these agenciess have stated that the proposed addition will not impact their easement rights. The applicant will need to work with these agencies to relocate the easements as necessary. • As proposed,the addition does not provide sufficient setback from the property line. The applicant Is working with the adjacent property owner to complete a lot-line-adjustment.in order to provide the area required for the setback. Staff recommends that the lot line adjustment be completed prior to the Issuance of site preparation/building permits. ' • • • • ercrpt Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Highlands Community Church Addition December 19,1990 Page 5 • ' in the past the western portion of the project site has not been landscaped and the natural grasses have been allowed to dry out during the summer months. In order to Improve the aesthetic appearance of this area and to control dust staff recommends that this area be hydroseeded. Staff also recommends that the driveway on the north side of this area be provided with a 6"curb,wood fence,landscaping or a combination of these to ensure vehicles do not access the vacant portion of the lot from the drivewayor parking area. Mitigation Measures: See Recommendation#1,#2 and Notes A and B. Policy Nexus: N/A 2. Natural Environment • Impacts: Approximately half of the applicant's property has been developed in the past for the church,parking and landscaping. The remainder of the site Is covered with various grasses and weeds. The applicant has stated that this area will be developed in the future for additional parking and one additional building. Neighbors have indicated that drivers have used this area for unauthorized activities and raised dust which is a nuisance to the neighborhood. Staff recommends that the applicant hydroseed this area to discourage unauthorized activities to prevent It from becoming a nuisance to the neighbors. In the recent past, neighbors have complained that the on-site landscaping was not maintained on the project site. Staff will recommend,when the project is reviewed by the Hearing Examiner,that the applicant provide a$3,000.00 bond for a three year period to ensure that the landscaping is maintained. !, Mitigation Measures:. See Recommendation#1 and Note D. Policy Nexus: Landscape Ordinance 4-31-34 3. Traffic Impacts: a) Construction Construction activities are expected to generate traffic which could Impact area roadways and become a nuisance for the adjacent residential areas. Staff recommends that hauling operations be limited to the hours between 8:30 A.M.and 4:30 P.M.In order to mitigate the traffic Impacts on the adjacent residential areas. b) Operations The proposed addition of classrooms would allow for the expansion of church activities. This,in turn, could generate additional traffic. In the past,there has also been a problem with church members parking in front of the single-family homes along Kirkland Avenue. Some mitigation of this Impact has been provided by the road Improvements recently completed by the applicant. Recently,the church, in accordance with City requirements, paved most of the gravel parking lot (shown as the westerly four rows of parking on the site plan). As the remainder of the gravel parking area Is now needed to provide the required parking spaces for the church and to encourage church members to park off of the streets,the remainder of the gravel parking lot should be paved. The driveway which accesses 10th Street needs to be paved In order to provide additional Ingress/egress for the parking lot and adequate parking for the proposed development. c) Area Concerns The residents of the Golden Pines Apartments have accessed the parking lot at the rear of the apartment complex by a driveway between the apartment complex and Safeways since the apartments were constructed In 1976. There is no reasonable way for emergency vehicles and apartment dwellers to access the rear parking lot except by way of this driveway. It Is evident that the Church now owns the property on which the driveway is located. Staff is concerned that this driveway could be blocked by the present or some future landowner. Although there Is no record that this driveway was ever a public street,staff recommends that the applicant provide an Ingress/egress easement to Golden Pines to ensure that the driveway remains open. arcrpt Environmental Revie mriktee Staff Report Highlands Community Church Addition December 19,1990 Page 6 Mitigation Measures: See Recommendations#2,#5 and Note C. Policy Nexus: Parking and Loading Ordinance 4-14,Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6 4. Noise,Light and Glare Impacts: a) Construction • Noise,light and glare are anticipated with the construction activities. There is an existing senior citizen apartment complex adjacent to the church property and the project site is located in a residential area. Some mitigation of these impacts on the adjacent land uses will be achieved through the recommended restrictions on hauling operations. Further mitigation will be achieved through the limitation of on-site construction activities to the hours between 7:00 A.M.to 7 P.M.on weekdays and between 8:00 A.M.and 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays. b) Operations Light and glare are anticipated to occur as a result of the traffic generated by the project and by security lighting for the buildings and parking areas. Mitigation of these impacts will be achieved to some extent by the existing and proposed on-site landscaping. Lighting fixtures that direct lighting into the interior of the subject property will further mitigate the potential impacts. Mitigation Measures: See Recommendation#2. Policy Nexus: Site Plan Review Ordinance 4-31-33,Environmental Review Ordinance 4-31 5. Public Services a) Police and Fire Service Impacts: Police and Fire Prevention Bureau staff report adequate resources to provide anticipated services to the site during construction activities and operations with system Improvement fees and with Code-required improvements (e.g.,fire hydrants,20 foot wide fire lanes). Staff is concerned with the ability for emergency vehicles to access the parking lot behind the Golden Pines Apartment complex. At the present time emergency vehicles access this lot from a driveway located on the Church's property. The Highlands Community Church obtained this property when the street right-of-way was vacated by the City of Renton. Staff recommends that the Church provide an ingress/egress easement along this driveway to the Golden Pines Apartments to ensure the ability of emergency vehicles to access the apartment complex. Staff also recommends that this drive be paved in accordance with City standards. Mitigation Measures: See Recommendations#4 and#5. Policy Nexus: Urban Design Goals/Comprehensive Plan b) Storm Water Impacts: As noted previously In this report,the applicant had provided a gravelled parking lot as an overflow parking area. As part of an agreement reached with the City's Community Service Committee on November 19, 1990, to complete improvements required in conjunction with previous building on the project site,the applicant has paved a portion of the existing gravel parking lot. This agreement allowed the parking lot to be paved with only a temporary drainage control system. The applicant also agreed to provide a permanent drainage control system as part of the next phase of development which is now being reviewed. Staff recommends that the drainage system for the recently paved parking area be required as part of the present development. Mitigation Measures: See Note E. • Policy Nexus: King County Surface Water Design Manual, Environmental Review Ordinance 4-31 ercrp! Environmental Review Committee Staff Report • Highlands Community Church Addition December 19,1990 Page 7 • c) Utilities impacts: There are two 8"City sanitary sewer lines located within the subject property that do not have easements. One line extends from the center of N.E.9th Street to N.E. 10th • Street at Index Ave. The second line extends along the south boundary of the Golden Pines property but it Is located entirely within the Church's property. This line does serve both the Church and the Golden Pines Apartments. The City has accessed and maintained these sewer lines In the past. However, at this time it seems prudent for the • City to obtain easements to ensure that future development on this site does not Interfere • with the City's ability to access and maintain these lines. Recommendations: See Recommendation#6. Policy Nexus: Utilities Policies/Comprehensive Plan 6. Construction . Impacts: The on-site improvements required In conjunction with the development of the addition • to the church, parking and landscaping will generate noise, dust, debris and traffic. Standard construction mitigation measures should adequately address these impacts. Mitigation Measures: See Recommendation#2. Polley Nexus: Policies Element/Comprehensive Plan,Environmental Review Ordinance 4-31 • E TS;::«>::;:>:::::><:>::;:«:<::>:<:::::>::<:»>:<::<;:::;:::>;;<::::>::::>:«:<: :::>::>::. :�°z:»<:>:<€<C41111MEN�'5:::(�.F�i�yiE�1V'INca.:pEP ARTM T c m. Vartou$Dity siepartments hav e reviewed and cammentedupon the p lect, LAND USE • Construction Field Services: Approved with conditions. NO building code check done. Development Planning: Approved with conditions. 1) Recommend rezone from R-1 to P-1. 2) Recommend conditional use permit to expand church. 3) The landscaping around the church Is substandard and needs to be refurbished. The , proposed landscaping plan Is not approved. Include the following changes and additions: Remove all rock In all planters and landscape densely with trees and shrubbery; the landscaping planter along NE 10th is currently all bark- plant with trees, shrubbery &ground cover; provide underground irrigation for all new • landscaping added; add more coniferous trees around site for winter color/buffer. 4) The landscaping is currently poorly maintained. Suggest minimum$3,000.00 performance bond to be required for three years upon - occupancy of the new addition. 5) Provide pedestrian sidewalks from church building to adjacent sidewalks on streets. 6)All parking to serve the church facility should • be paved, landscaped, and provide proper storm drainage. 7)Most parking stripes have faded. All parking • stalls should be repainted clearly. ¢' Fire Prevention Bureau: Approved with standard conditions. Approved fire alarm system is required. Long Range Planning: Approved. What is the reason for maintaining a split zoning on the parcel? Current: B-1/R-1. Proposed: B- • 1/P-1. How about rezoning the entire church lot P-1? Parks and Recreation: Approved with conditions. Police Department: Approved. ercrpl Environmental Revie Imnir.:ae Staff Report • Highlands Community`church Addition December 19,1990 Page 8 Sewer Utilities: Not approved. 1) Applicant shall submit a separate original ink on mylar 22"x 34" Sanitary Sewer Plan and profile. 2)Show all pipes,lengths,types, slope,size, MH, TS, CO and bends. Show all elevations In plan and profile. Maintain 10'Horiz& 10"vent separation between water and sewer. 3) Show bearings and distances on all Sanitary Sewer Easements on Sanitary Sewer Plan. 4) No structures over easements. 5) Front sheet shall be a composite utility plan showing all crossings. Storm Water: Not approved. Clarify whether or nor the location of catch basins will be changed, on civil plans. Provide all necessary information on utilities (I.e., pipe diameter, slope,rim and invert elevations,pipe material). Detention requirements shall be in accordance with 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Additional detention will be required, by use of SCS Hydrograph method. Plans shall be submitted on 22"x 34"prints. Transportation: Not approved. Deferred off-site Improvement plans for NE 9th St to be updated per attached inter-office comments. Water Utilities: Not approved. Proposed improvements encroach over an existing Utility Easement over the vacated street. Submit separate watermaln improvements plan for fire protection sprinkler system. Additional hydrants may be required. A looped watermain system is. required If fireflow demand Is over 2,500 GPM. A fireflow analysis may be required to ascertain that City's system can deliver above fireflow demand. Subject to development fees per attached fee review sheet. • ENVIRONMENTAL Construction Field Services: Probable minor impact on housing. Development Planning: 1) The expansion may cause adverse traffic impacts to • the neighborhood. Traffic has not been evaluated. Checklist mentions peak volumes on Sunday - how much, and how much In daily trips on weekdays? 2) Landscaping for aesthetics Is not adequate. Se Land Use comments. 3) Suggest $2,000.00 street clean-up maintenance bond be provided. Fire Prevention Bureau: Probable minor Impact on public services. Long Range Planning: A DNS would be appropriate. Ensure building design Is compatible w/existing structure, it appears so from application. Abundant landscaping should be added to building. Does the Landscaping In parking area meet our requirements? Seems barren. Is there a way to Increase it?? Parks and Recreation: The proponent has not addressed the off-site impacts which will be minor as many of the users live in the immediate area. These will be on-site Impacts that need to be addressed. Police Department: Project not anticipated to significantly Impact police services. • • erapt • Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Highlands Community Church Addition December 19,1990 Page 9 Sewer Utilities: 1) Project Iles outside limits of Sanitary Sewer Moratorium. 2) Project not affected by APA. 3)There is an 8"sanitary sewer on NE 10th St flowing from Jefferson Ave NE to Index Ave NE(S327). Depth is approx 10.12'. Must be field checked and verified by applicant. 4) Site plan shows new addition encroaching on adjacent property by approx.7 feet. Adjacent property to the west Is not shown under the ownership of Highlands Community Church but that of Golden Pines. 5)Site plan shows new addition or a portion thereof is to be built over a portion of the now vacated Jefferson Ave NE under Ordinance No.3545. Said Ord. 3545 states It is subject to an easement over the entire area vacated for utilities. No permanent structures over easements. There Is an 8" sewer there In that easement. Storm Water: The Increased area shall be justified in calculations. An approved Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan shall be submitted to Public Works. A Baffled Oil/Water Separator shall be required (if there is not one already present) after the control restrictor manhole and before drainage leaves the site and goes Into the existing street system. Transportation: Deferred off-site improvement plans for NE 9th St to be updated per attached interoffice comments. • Water Utilities: See comments on Land.Use. • • • ercryt c CITE ,)F RENTON =.Y Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator December 27, 1990 Allan Hanson, President Conifer Management, Inc. 3848 So. Junett P.O. Box 11246 Tacoma,WA 98411 SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church Classroom Addition CU; R-048-90 Dear Mr. Hanson: The Highlands Community Church has requested a change of zone and a conditional use permit from the City of Renton in order to construct a classroom addition on to the existing church. We are in receipt of a copy of a letter, dated September 12, 1990, in which you have indicated a willingness to work with the church in completing a lot line adjustment on a portion of the vacated street right-of-way. It is our understanding that the necessary background material for the application is being completed at this time. It has also come to the City's attention that the driveway from the apartments parking area to N.E. 10th Street is located on the Church's property and that an ingress/egress easement was never obtained for the use of this driveway for the apartment residents. As part of the City's approval of the Church's expansion and the lot line adjustment noted above the City will require the Church to provide you with an ingress/egress easement to ensure the ability of emergency vehicles to access your parking lot. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 235-2550. Sincerely, e‘zr/ Mark R. Pyw CP Project M ger Hanson 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 CIT ;OF RENTON f� • Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator December 27, 1990 Margaret Chan Safeway Stores Inc. #366 P.O. Box 947 Bellevue,WA 98009 SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church Classroom Addition CU; R-048-90 Dear Ms. Chan: • The Highlands Community Church, located at 3031 N.E. 10th Street, Renton, has requested a change of zone and a conditional use permit from the City of Renton in order to construct a classroom addition on to the existing church. It has come to the City's attention that the driveway that is accessed from near the back of your store and leads out to N.E. 10th Street is located on the Church's property. A background check of our records does not indicate that an ingress/egress easement was obtained for the use of this driveway. As part of the development of the proposed Church expansion the City of Renton is considering several options regarding the future of this driveway and the ability of vehicles accessing the driveway from your parking lot. At this time we would like to receive your comments regarding the future development in this area. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 235-2550. Sincerely, Mark R. Pywe P Project Manager Safeway 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ::' R,.MENT pF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS ... • L.REVIEIN::. : TAF1=REP: ecetnber.... :'i P,:LICANT,.:::::::::•.:.::::::::::.:::::::::.�:::::.:.:::.:..Mi hla :. am uni :. h r. h::::•:::::::::::::;:::.::.:.::;::::;:•::::>::.. ON OF PROPOSAL The a ;liontseeks.tp rezone the eagterl prtion of • e rm S eFa e .....................................:: e o c d o u .z n.; ;.'n`•>t"'o`fain:: <:> n on se.a o e G d U .............................................. :<:f rmit::to<:' n truet:a'>two sto`y 12'0 ::>ssf':::>additi n<. 0 »>b c o d• <••::>:.::.;::.•:O• C::::dN OF,PROPOSAL..........•.::;:.:;•:3.031.N�1.O;h Streek.::.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;::.;�.;;:;•..:•::..:::.:::.::.::.::::.:.::.::.:::.:::.::::.::. >';'. `.':::;::>;:.::S•.:::5:•................;:>.:>:«<::;;:.r:>::...............>::<::<::<::::Aesthetics/Land..Use Natural Envlromm �tF Traffic,..: 4 i;:.;:,. 2;Light'>'n >..lar:.'' P: ['i`2 :S`rvii::;:•:5 ?'!''n :: G ubc e d e< Nose d c a. :::::.::::::>::::>::>:.>:.:::::::.::.;:::::>::;:.;::r:.;:::::;:::0::�::.;:.:;.:............:;>:::>::::::.::Stsff reCOff!mends:il,atthg.,ERC,ado,?,abetermination• P c a o....::: e:R...J�.::.).� • • • • ercrpl Environmental Review mittee Staff Report Highlands Communi.r-c.;rurch Addition December 19,1990 • Page 2 • Aesthetics • 1. The applicant, in order to address aesthetic impacts and to control dust, shall hydroseed and maintain, as necessary, the undeveloped portion of the property (until it is developed) to discourage its use as a driving course and to reduce the dust which is a nuisance to the adjacent single-family homes. The hydroseeding shall be completed prior to the'issuance of occupancy permits. • 2. The applicant shall submit an amended landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Development Planning Section which shows the provision of an adequate curb, fence, landscaping or a combination of these along the driveway between the parking area and N.E. 10th Street. This improvement shall be installed to ensure that vehicles do not access the lower(vacant) portion of applicants property from the driveway or parking area. These improvements shall be installed in conjunction with the construction of the classroom addition and maintained for the life of the project. Construction 3. The applicant shall,in order to mitigate construction-related impacts(e.g.,noise,dust,traffic)shall submit a construction management plan including the following: a)an erosion control element;b) an element for the periodic watering'of any disturbed soils to reduce dust; c) an element for the limiting of hauling operations to the hours between 8:30 A.M.and 4:30 P.M.;d)an element limiting on-site construction activities to the hours between 7:00 A.M.and 7:00 P.M.on weekdays and 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. of Saturdays to mitigate the impacts of construction noise on adjacent residential areas; e) an element for the protection of existing storm drains from the soils disturbed during the construction activities; and f) a $2,000.00 cash deposit for street cleaning. This plan shall be followed throughout the construction phase of the project. Public Safety 4. The applicant shall pave the driveway from the westerly edge of the parking lot to N.E. 10th Street. The driveway shall be paved to residential street standards from the southern edge of the Golden Pines parcel to N.E. 10th Street and in accordance with'Fire Prevention Bureau standards for emergency access from the parking area to a point'adjacent to the south boundary of the Golden • Pines parcel. The paved driveway shall be provided in conjunction with the construction of the classroom addition and completed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. • 5. The applicant shall provide the Golden Pines Apartment complex with an easement for ingress/egress to the apartment complex's parking area. The easement shall be recorded on conjunction with the recording of the lot line adjustment and prior to the public hearing for the conditional use permit for the classroom addition. Note: A. The applicant shall provide new easements as required and obtain a release of the existing easements from the City of Renton, Puget Power and Washington Natural Gas prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. B. The applicant shall complete a lot line adjustment with the owners of the Golden Pines Apartments to provide the necessary set back prior to the public hearing for the conditional use permit for the classroom addition. C. The applicant shall pave the remainder of the gravel parking lot to provide adequate parking for the proposed land use. • D. The applicant 'shall provide a $3,000.00 bond to ensure the maintenance of the landscaping for a three year period prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. • ercrpt • • Environmental Reviev imittee Staff Report Highlands Community nurch Addition December 19,1990 Page 3 • E. The applicant shall provide a permanent drainage system for the recently paved parking lot on the westerly portion of the subject property in accordance with the agreement • proposed by the Community Services Committee to the satisfaction of the Utility Services - Division prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for the proposed addition. F. Future expansion will require site plan approval, environmental review and probably a change of zone. • IS BACKGROUND The church property is designated as R-1 (Single-Family Residential) on the east half and B-1 (Business District) on the west half. The applicant is requesting the change of zone from R-1 to P-1 (Public Use) at - this time, as the proposed development is located within the R-1 zone and it is felt by City staff that the•P-1 zone is more appropriate for a church use and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Public/Quasi-Public. There is an existing 17,995 s.f. church building on the subject property which includes the church sanctuary, classrooms, office space and a gymnasium. The applicant currently provides 260 parking spaces of which 215 are now paved and approximately 45 are unpaved. Landscaping is provided around the building,within the paved parking areas and around the perimeter of the subject property. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 12,000 s.f.two story addition onto the existing building. In the future,the applicant has indicated that one additional sanctuary building providing seating for 1500 people will be proposed. This development will require additional review at the time of the proposal and probably a change of zone from B-1 to P-1. IMPACTS The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element designates the project site for Public/Quasi-Public land uses. The proposed rezone and the use of the project site for a church are consistent with the Comprehensive • Plan. The east side of the project site is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Residential) and the west side is zoned B-1 (Business District). The applicant has requested a change of zone from R-1 to P-1 (Public Zone) on the east side of the project site. The church is a conditional use in the P-1 zone and a permitted use in the B-1 zone. The proposed layout of the church addition is inconsistent with the setback standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed layout of the addition is necessary in order to locate the proposed structure in a location where it will not block-the view of the residents along Kirkland Ave. There are several utility easements within the area that the proposed addition is to be located. The utility lines located in the easement appear to serve only the church property. The applicant has submitted letters from the holders of the easements stating that they are willing to work with the church at the time of construction to relocate or release the easements. The applicant has also submitted a letter from the owners of the adjacent property indicating their willingness to co-operate with the church on the lot line adjustment. The applicant for the church addition has stated that the lot line adjustment application is presently with the owners of the adjacent property for signatures. The project will be conditioned to require the necessary lot line adjustment and easement relocation or release in order to make the project consistent with the Ordinance. The parking provided on the subject property is sufficient for Code requirements. Staff is recommending that the gravel portion of the parking lot be paved to encourage its use by the church members. The additional classroom and office space will allow the church to operate its classes more efficiently and allow for the church to continue to accept new members. There are single-family homes to the south,east and northeast,multifamily apartment units to the north and west,and commercial retail buildings to the west of the project site. A church is generally considered to be compatible with the land uses noted above. In this case,there has been a problem in the past with the applicant not maintaining the landscaping on the church grounds. Recently,the applicant has corrected this condition and a landscape maintenance bond will be required as part of the conditional use permit. Staff is recommending that an existing driveway from the'parking area to NE 10th Street be paved in order to encourage as much traffic-as is possible to, exit the subject property without passing through the residential areas. ercrpt • Environmental Review 'mitTee Staff Report • Highlands Community unurch Addition December 19, 1990 • Page 4 , noENTArivEEMENT......ENVrF#ONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Aesthetics/Land Use Impacts: The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of.the project site from R-1 to P-1 in order to provide a zoning which is more appropriate to the existing land use which is a church. At the time of any future expansion of the church buildings into the B-1 zone,the City will probably require a change of zone to P-1. Staff is not requiring this at this time as the church could decide not to expand and sell off a portion of this property. • A church is allowed in both the R-1 Single-Family Residential Zone and the P-1 Public Zone as a conditional use. The applicant has requested the rezone as the land use (a church) is more properly considered a Public Use than a Single-Family Residential land use and the P-1 zone is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map designation of Public/Quasi- Public. • The applicant is also seeking to construct a two-story, 12,000 s.f. addition on to the existing church. In the future,the applicant is proposing to construct a sanctuary to the west of the existing structure. No time table for the proposed future development has been established by the applicant. When the applicant decides to proceed with the future development of the sanctuary,a separate site plan approval,environmental review and a possible rezone from the existing B-1 zone to P-1 will be required. At this time,the church is requesting approval to build an addition onto the existing church that will extend into the vacated Jefferson Avenue right-of-way. Existing development includes the main church building,classrooms,a gymnasium,pave,d parking areas and a gravel parking area. Jefferson Avenue N.E.was originally proposed to extend across the project site. On May 4, 1981, the City Council vacated the right-of-way through VAC-1-81. The vacation allowed for structures to be built across the vacated right-of-way but retained the utility easements and also included a clause stating that the vacated street would revert to street right-of-way should.the property be sold for any use other than a church. . The proposed two-story 12,000 s.f. classroom addition will be attached to the west side of the existing structure. Due to the slope of the terrain In this area,the proposed structure will not be seen over the existing sanctuary and gymnasium when viewed from Kirkland Avenue. A portion of the proposed structure will extend south of the existing building and will be visible from Kirkland Avenue. The portion of the proposed addition that would be visible from Kirkland Avenue would include a canopy over an existing walkway, the'entrance/lobby area of the proposed addition (ground floor)and two offices(second floor). The proposed addition will be painted to match the existing building. The exterior walls of the building will be predominantly finished with stucco,with finished concrete in some areas. A wood fascia will accent the building walls. The main portion of the building will have a flat roof in order to reduce the visual impact of the building. This roof will be consistent with the roof of the adjacent gymnasium. The applicant is proposing to provide additional landscaping along the west side of the building and along the south boundary of the adjacent Golden Pines apartment property. Recently, the applicant has refurbished the existing landscaping around the perimeter of the project site by removing weeds and replacing dead plant materials. There are three existing utility easements within the vacated Jefferson Street right-of-way where development Is proposed. The easements are for Puget Power,Washington Natural Gas and the City of Renton. The proposed project will be conditioned at the time of the public hearing to require the applicant to obtain release of the easements or relocate the easements prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. All three of these agencies have stated that the proposed addition will not impact their easement rights.. The applicant will need to work with these agencies to relocate the easements as necessary. • As proposed,the addition does not provide sufficient setback from the property line. The applicant is working with the adjacent property owner to complete a lot-line-adjustment in order to provide the area required for the setback. Staff recommends that the lot line.adjustment be completed prior to the issuance of site preparation/building permits. ercrpt Environmental Review mittee Staff Report Highlands Community Church Addition December 19,1990 Page 5 • In the past the western portion of the project site has not been landscaped and the natural grasses have been allowed to dry out during the summer months. In order to improve the aesthetic appearance of this area and to control dust staff recommends that this area be hydroseeded. Staff also recommends that the driveway on the north side of this area be provided with a 6"curb,wood fence,landscaping or a combination of these to ensure vehicles do not access the vacant portion of the lot from the driveway or parking area. Mitigation Measures: See Recommendation#1,#2 and Notes A and B. Policy Nexus: N/A • b. Natural Environment Impacts: Approximately half of the applicant's property has been developed in the past for the church, parking and landscaping. The remainder of the site is covered with various grasses and weeds. The applicant has stated that this area will be developed in the future for additional parking and one additional building. Neighbors have indicated that drivers have used this area for unauthorized activities and raised dust which is a nuisance to the neighborhood. Staff recommends that the applicant hydroseed this area to discourage unauthorized activities to prevent it from becoming a nuisance to the neighbors. In the recent past, neighbors have complained that the on-site landscaping was not maintained on the project site. Staff recommends that the applicant provide a$3,000.00 bond for a three year period to ensure that the landscaping is maintained. Mitigation Measures: See Recommendation#1 and Note D. Policy Nexus: Landscape Ordinance 4-31-34 c. Traffic • Impacts: 1) Construction Construction activities are expected to generate traffic which could impact area roadways and become a nuisance for the adjacent residential areas. Staff recommends that hauling operations be limited to the hours between 8:30 A.M.and 4:30 P.M.in order to mitigate the traffic impacts on the adjacent residential areas. 2) Operations The proposed addition of classrooms would allow for the expansion of church activities. This,in turn, could generate additional traffic. In the past,there has also been a problem with church members parking in front of the single-family homes along Kirkland Avenue. Some mitigation of this impact has been provided by the road improvements recently completed by the applicant. Recently,the church, in accordance with City requirements, paved most of the gravel parking lot(shown as the westerly four rows of parking on the site plan). As the remainder of the gravel parking area is now needed to provide the required parking spaces for the church and to encourage church members to park off of the streets,the remainder of the gravel parking lot should be paved. The driveway which accesses lath Street needs to be paved in order to provide additional ingress/egress for the parking lot and adequate parking for the proposed development. Mitigation Measures: See Recommendation#2 and Note C. Policy Nexus: Parking and Loading Ordinance 4-14,Environmental Review Ordinance 4-6 d. Noise,Light and Glare Impacts: 1) Construction Noise,light and glare are anticipated with the construction activities. There is an existing senior citizen apartment complex adjacent to the church property and the project site Is located in a residential area. Some mitigation of these impacts on the adjacent land uses will be achieved through the recommended restrictions on hauling operations. Further ercrpl :•,,,,,--,,-,,, '... <•-''.;c.:,,,,:,-,.,;•-,.::.:,e;., '-;',,,-:.;:;•.: .4-1-, 4+;;;',1,',..;'.:,.'1,;.V•iil',..'''./,';',:,'•-. '' .• ..;. , ...:''.; ,, :-;-. •,'';'•. ;!1'.:,`F;;;''i'..,,,,:;•;,..41''-gi'..:;'.*. -: ;-;_''''''':'',.•;.:.,,,i,' •',,,• ':','.",',.,,';'.-•0:-',',..".•:',,",';;;."r2:":f(, ' ." ' ' .t';-:-.f',.:]K•isV.,';.,;•'‘'',.'i".:,!;?,,,,',1''':',';,;;P?';''.;'•;.'-'2- '',..-:' '•:-''•';',. ..?.'t:,.:,...-:',4-: .',. ..,...;t:,•"'.''',:••.1..',I,'',',:':;'‘..`J'.:;::';',4--' --" ) ,'..,,,,,,::';'1,..; :'...4,;-,...,'...„• ',•.;'.'• X.'::;.,';'''');.:• '';' ,..A.1,',';F"-,: '; ,,, ,'. . ti,l,q1,;.1.;'..1,i,ii,;7,,•',.:•.':,•,;,,;;':': •','': ' Environmental: .:RevieIti rriiffeeSteff.R2efi,.?,,'0,..ii,„•:•.';,,-'-'.::::''''."...,4,1''',•';;!;-t:',1',.,,':';;:,;J•,•.1.",` , :;;....,.;:,.. •...;..;: 7:',"ii":-.-,' :.,;•;% '•:.,..?;.,,i',.;,;:;;.',.,:._•;,,,:i,,: HighlandeCommunity.unurOhAddition',- in' •• • •...' „,..,.2. ,.,.-i ....,• : `.....:,..,,,,, ,,,,•:, 1,--;„ ,,•,,,:, ,..,...: ,r.:,., :„..,....,•,,,,,,„,•,,,, ., „,,, .. •- ' '' ''.-.7'.:••DeCerilheei9199b•'',ti'f:..;--...1;ii;...-:-. - ..1*.:'•:-,;..,-•`,0-' 4ii .: - '-:-,i,•••,e•- •'.,..i,:-..•7•.•,4'...:,1;:-....;„,-,1J,ii -,I..' ...,..-..;',;:`,i"?..'!."1, '','..• , „, '., ..r.',, •,.'0',,,',.A- .,-,-... t''.: ,1,:.: , •i.-';..`,011.." ',',...-...', .:',,;1;.r.-:,•-•,•pill'',..-.••...,-.;./''''''-''''. ''','-' :7,....',.;',,' ',..:.'.t'..5....:!'.; ; :•-', ;‘,';',',.:.'.;'..-;',,;'T.',•.; .-:',-...,(,;,.. '''"'' ":•'-''';;','. r-",- 9e!9:':117`'''''.7.' ",•'..-.;:i'',''•:..:',k'i'..";.•,1'.:7 .--.:''',.:.••I..i:II,?,,::•,--:".::',':/-..F-74:,fi'i':".•'-ii',.',:', ....:!\•%;''''4i..' ,. ,.,, ,;.1''';,f 1i;'• 'ii•I'..,''..1 .2.'i'e.j....)i.".'0,'''', ,,.i';,..,..:,'..,-..r.1.,•,..,=:;:,',,,,".; ,,,4F....,!.'•; :c.;,,,.-.:'1.::) -;;,.i'' .,-..':- ' - ,..,..;,'..:.,,.;,.,..'..., .i...1 ,,,,.1,,..':-..',D. '... ',‘:.ifi,Yf,:r; %,',';','''..',•,- ,':',..,,,,i'., '..+1:,:.-,,,..,--...,.1'''t,-•.','-' '. ,'.,", :';',,','..,. ',. ,,,.,;,..fc,.•,,‘"-•:::,.. ,0,-,6.-•••;.•.•••x,r,-.....•_-.-,•I.-",;.',,':;,:-..,1,.,..:';...-,..,,....,".;•••.-.,,.."..„-,'-..; „.. ,-lap 41$ ;,.. -,;...,!..p, :,•.•;•. '1 ; ,:., .._.,.. :.•.•...,,;,':,:0;1(;..,,,;,....',",1=.%,)-.; -1i r.•',-„'::.•.•;::,..'.1?;:•"[,4,t.,..'•....;...,-"•,,',,,,,,:.w!.ii.,',-;.'-.'; ":;` ,'--li• ,.,,i';'•"', ,;;;.•.• '..."', ,....0 1,..:4'4;;•z;•',-•:,!;; ,•',• •. '..'''''''f.'it''' •''''''' . -'•T'''. ,ilr.';,•;. .. ..- ,:;...5--- ';''..,;.,, • '..f;•::',. ..','`'f','•'•: Ir': .fl' '5(•"i:''''W. :-'''-'4 -:'' 1' '' "-it: '4tr'u''c' .'r:i. .Ct'iN./.iiie .'tii the',',..:.'i:'•„ )'''•;:•:','''''''.2!. .•'..' ''' '. ''Ls mitigatiOn•Wili':oe•achleV,e`ditnrough/t.b#1,Prnif019.0119;t:,0,117„,s,..tP,,,,9911. , • . 700 AlvRO•i.P'ivf:"Orii•ieekdaysandbetwen3:0p),!_k.:.M.:.- nd6:00 P /1...,;;0,-i '„'.."2..;•., -' .;.. -, :;,'i••.,' ..;:i.',".:•,.,;,',,','•.,• .• .-7Satu'rdays...-,,;.,....' •'• , f.,,,,•-...-!... .,;.... . ...i'. I:--,,,,,,•.,....,,_,';,!,_•,,I,;•,.-;,,i,,,,•;:,,,,:„,,..,.....,!,,, . •4.•,:. ;,,,•,,:i.-.,....•,,,,,:7.,,,... :, •• _ , ;;,.,•.,.., t . •• ', .•":'•.:::.:-...,•.: -. . L;-';,.'.....,-,..,ir.,..:i7.;...„1.•i.., i..i.:'-i,..il.'„....-'..:•-,•'•',•.•l'i'r;'i-t'•''-'''-:"'•'..'i,i:-.'%'2')•''.':"•,•.•2-3 rt!.P-1''-,-•••. './1,.''..,..,,!:,:.'',..' ,i.'"-,..'?:',.',"•.•:i,.;•.,,:..:.;.:.,1:;0:.:'"1•,,-- ,1,-:•"..,,..-,4.`"-:4-1,.-e7.-.,,-1'7.1:.-':,';.'.:, ;.4'.,:lI' ' ,•...•.i,.;:.‘,..-.1..`.,. .'.......• ..:-,-..',,:,,-:%::, •. ': ..... ',7: ••,....:.'. ./.:`4.*:'-. .`.';',. ,i'.'•.•ii::::•,r...'"'!"..t,."'' ''•' i",'''. :' ''.` •,:i',1.:•,•'•:'..,..':' -• ,.'.. '' '' ''-';''''''''•• '' '' '';;"•''''',-''''' ,',•-• , , ,,.••••,it: ''''• d'b the prOjecf4i ' •''' .• , •;!:',, ; ''':''.. 1,.....„.••11,, ''''..,''' '' '' ,...1;fg'11f-a:rci;glar'elar''.e'':a'n't(d'ip''ateb ood.,.d.,u,iia:6,A,`41,c,e,su..,1t.i,;-of,;,.,th_e„.,tra 11.,...q.,,generale Y , —.....-.?;11 ..',.f.'•.,...•• •I'''..:.• '• -•••••';-••..I. .i.,,,,,7: and,b'.'' ecuriti.'llgi-ifind-;forttliet buildihgshd,:p_a_09ngarear .;: ifigaffOri,;Of.these Impactsi'„.?-,'-'•,•...• .• :::::•';„:,' ,''''.f.'''',','''.''''','..-!,1,...'..!4'..:" ,S.' ...,,. . ,.; lli.:Oer-achieVa•:'t'O, ,,•?-1-j6",` -t-'0;7;20.: ,,,,„ki:@....,.",e--,,ist_i.h,p,,r.p1:1:;p,r,.c.i.p.p.,sed'on site landscaping:,',';,:-.;:,•.,... _ ,, ''' •" •' ''''•''..:'''''''''.:.'''''''').., ' 'f:':,'Lighting'fixtures thet-Idirect'lighting.!.j.ns,to`..,tbeAiTeniorf.,trip subject property will further.,.;.. .:,;;,..,,,,,:',,,,.....1,.,„ ''''''' ' •' ..•' ''...,...•:'1•:';:,,'",'''•''''.:mitigate the potential ifrip.kt$:.:.:.„,,,,-,)....„.-,,,-,-,,',1..',j'',',.-:';'':.'-:,-,'':':•:''•.'I',' '' •':''--'..•15-:-,,;,',;'r,:il-c•-,.'i''i'-,,.-.,-.''-', ,,;,:,..:, '.'...,'1r ., k.i', ,.;:i..,.1.., •:..-,..,,,..-,',:4•-T1 ,t , ,l:,1,;:,,',,!2„,5:•.•,,--,-•:,;..i,.•:.,..;.,...,.,'.i.-.2 `, ' „ iIiiic;iiOrNe1ir : ed66jifeidAii6ffi : 1r -1,:,t,,,i-.-.,.";-„...•4}„:,.,,::;,,,,1,1,;`.:.1,.,,,•;,,,',',:1i,.2.•,,,:,;.,•;'.,...' ' • •,.,,, . , „„,-, .•''.,4•1.., - - '''''''''!" - •••'-' ••.:1••'2'-'•?,-"-;:!•:',:....,,..!? ,, •'-''''',..'.',..,:•; "`:'.:'...:'...','-'-',' 1,7:;;11:'•".;,'T''': '''. Policy Nexus ',ii,tn-vironrnental'ReVieWOrdinanCe 4-31 ',.'...•:.;,.'•I.._ , ', ', "' ''..,,:".‘,..*.:'y. -,-.-.:*"..1'."' •-,, ':,.Site Plan.ReV.,ieW:CrdinapcelP1-,.-; ..:• •.,,..-.- :..-.....:.‘i•,„,..,,,:::• ..i,,,, ;,... •i, ,,, ;•;.•,,',...,'"';,',i',.'",,,,-„,.•'.. •. '- i.-.:'•'',1'•'-: "••••6: Public Services'•• :‘,''q'',1.- ,,,r •.-,•-,,,;;.' ,,.',,, ,' •: :. .-: - ,,:` ,;,..,: • .,,,..ii ,.',%,',.'; : ,''.-.., .•,' '.,- : . '• . ''• '.' '. . . ' 1.'''' :' ''':' ''':"... ' .-g,. .2,'S,,,,,". ',1. ,., • . ..• i.'.'' .-",''',‘...:',:r • A;;: :t1' .P'• '''.,., I '';',':'...'..,';''.:,.-,':','-.1_..•'' , '..., ••:'''„ s'.,' _,',„:!i):';.,, Police and Firp..,q.e.!yi.?" .?-,-;.-. ,..,.'z'y.;i,•„-, , ;',....:,-,;.-,-, ,.,,...„ .-,:'•,; ..,,..,.: . 4:•:::,,,!,,, ,1-,‘,,i,.....:•:,,,,,.4.4.;:1,. ..,;:. ':,,,•-, .i',:;• ft,1,,,,-.,,', ,,..::::.,:jr,t..,,,,--:,.;,6:•:'•..'.,-.,)1,:;.,:,,--1',{:::,',.."0,.'4.;.'.- 2-.1.'.-.-.,,,,,'::i:,.1',-...,':•:).--:-. ...., , ., c,,,,,,bi.,,ic,.(46,-Adon„-:-,,,,.:,,,,,,,,., -.I' k:,'i'..6"iia'67iv.,Fire*FeVerition',6urte,4,14),Vaff,!;r2p2,r1191:0:ye,ir.! „...,• ii,_,,... = -.,:;',""'".•,.±.,•'.. -.' ,,,,,-;•',,m13 ,...z,- •-•••ail i.i.6,'au'i-in . -constructionI • ' -`'' ‘'`' ", T y-,0,;,•"Ii.. ;I' ,antisipetedsecy_ices..to.,_. e, . ?g .,,,activities and.2 ope,rasipp. with system. , . _ .., .,.,, . . , „,,, .,,,.- ; • , •-,-, - •. ''' fees and With Code required improyements'(e...941,fire hydrapte,,._??,,•fo,otwide ,-;,,. ....., , .........;...; - .- , • . ,. 7;;•,.i:.. :.,• .improverrient . , .. ,,, ,._. .,.,..„ ,.1„.7„,-,.:7 -,I,.?•..,,,,• ;.- •...:•-',i.;i"...,...: 1-...,,,.i•••,f,-,..,,•,!•; ,.••.•:•,•:•,,..,1,, ...-.:.„ .,. . •.' - - .. .:';'.'.'''' i •'1 i.'•'f'-I' rieS) :: ''" :'''•''- .•'''''- :-. . • I.•'..-! ':;' '', :•'...'fli,•,...... .-,', . ' .'. . . i i 'lc---•'.,'-i'':', :.••.-", • • • . i'''....41.i.;'-'.,l'I',“'...,-;',..b;ta`ff:1'S,eo-'nderne'ld,Witb;i1:1e'-ab ilit'y'.'''.fOst.:.,e'Tle,:.r'e'li''cy,''..v'ebi.Clies.':t'Oadcess the Pal:kin.g,lot,.,6ehind,..,•-•;,..„,•,J•,. : --., : , ' •' ,',•'' ...:'7"...`:'1fie:bold il•Pfnes)Arp:ar1rVenqdbmplex;-•AttgfigPres-:'eni`tin2-e6:m,Tel.6enCyebidleS'.:ac,c,i,s6tbisj....:,,',..,,,':i,,!,,,,-,.;:,.,,•li,•„:,:, .'..'..:,' ,...'•• :, .,'.',•..',.'' '.'',_::..-:'...,-..,..4,.1''.1.`,..,,'t'':'•-... ...;'',.lotfrOf ' drileway located:;.,:iCh,‘.9''h-7.A,;.rg.T..:;s1roert'v'tie-.:.fHio."F..l,an,ds'.Com::: m-un•ity,Chur-c0 oiainedAils PrOperis'kieri;iii itreetindht-pfzWaiwes,yacateaibY ifeiditi:of Fii6-y,,•.'Ji-i,,.,;2,0,.1•,,,.,,.:.'„,,• ;. . ... . ,..,,•ii•-,‘.. . , ''' . ,,.....-.'',''' ,'"-- ' (',.•:-'4•••,."Staffr recommends th‘ithe'...-bhi.iiCh:'ip!-.'-9-y.'iplei";0n1":,',...in,g'ies/egre's.'s easement along.this :.-,. ••„ . .. • '''''''''''-'::,'••:1-.-'' ': '.,-•••.'4,,,':‘'.''driveway to the Golden P.inas'.i.ipartrrientsto,,iensure..„,.thei.eb.,ihtySf ei-p—qr.6.6,i@i,,.,./Oic.1.0-.t8-.....--.1....:,,,r;:,:,:;,. • ' ''... ''.'.'''' '''.".. ''' .•'•"'"''.'.... ' 'tt ','.apartment complex ,6faffald.p5r6q9mmpnql ,It1,4f,ti.f. clrp.6'.,":1,i6.:paved in ,, cp,esp.,. 9, _ ,,.•., ,-•,„ ,7,--. ..4,-..,7.,i- .,.i)-..;,.,.....• .::;,,'1.11 *2".d.; '1,.-."7-•`i''.'.'.".,:',-.!,..-•.,;''',1';`,:i'. '. ' ' ' ''. ' ' '' •r:•I'- aecbidaricemith'City standar0.7„. • - , „,.... .• ' ':• :- , -..-rc,l'' ';--.,----; • .-••••• -z- •'•:- •.•,-• :•-•-•"::17.."...''''''",'' -,-:„•_.":, 1:;-.....,,,'•,.-, .......', .:•,--,'.',..y.:'-•.,;,,-.;:I.:,•--•.• i; •if.....0.:;:,..7.,••,:....,„..::.-• 4: , ' ---dii'-' *4110 i5';;•, ''.'"=,..-i•F..,.:r''.i, .),,,h',`'4••;:r_V'f.,41,:i..,,..1.• ,., ,. ' - • '.. .-.. ...,...,,,...,-.1,:Kilit.16aikili Measures See Recomrnen.,a 9.0e 6 ....„1„. .:„...7,.,...••••••;,-.?„,...,-„',...-.:7•.:,,i'.,•;;,,,,.,„, ,,, .•., •i•.,,,,:cp;•:,-, ;,,.,,••it. i. „ , II 11 • ••''::.. .\',.•'. '-7. ''' "' :'',i,l',,',': P'Olfdy'r-NeeUS:;urbah'oesignGbals/PprrIP.renP9...1Yetpl,y .:.,•, .. ;,,,,, ....,,, . , ,,,,- ,,,.,..,,,,,,...:.: .,,, ., .: :_,-:,_.... • ,,...,,,..,..,.. !. : ,. ,.:,,,...._,,.. ..,.,.,... , ,,,,,-,; ..,,-.-..,...,.. . - ,.:.,,,_, .,.,•,.;•-,,..,....----...-,.,-0.„,,,,,•,,,,11,:,,.„-.....‘,,.....:,,,,,..,,.,,_. , ,......,..„..,;.,..„ ,.,• ,,,,,. .•.'2),,,, stoi-hpatr!...,:,,,,,...:.,;.•...,,,.....!..-,,,...-._„H. ..,.,'..,, ,',..:...4:'., -,-:,-;'..,!...7'.1.,,..-,..,,,--_'_,[...•:..,';,,t. ..,.. .":,. :'..., • -..., • '• -;.',........1.,;,..;.,,,...s.,..,,i,;ii:61-...,r).,11,-;':,-",...„.A",:i•i.10.- .-ip'-,? Gcic--.§•-1;-,*-:tr1-ftillsi-grio1'6:6'-'a-ri.-pilrl't:6aa*PfOyided,a gravelled par,ing...1';..c•,.„.., -•. ic '`•[-fee-,:•'Ag.."1s'a`i't '61..-,7)af-,i•i'agr'eenierif.-irea-OCecl*iti?;:f179.Rty- ','''.-'.i,;• •,' ''' ' ..1,;:,t',4s.'qn):.9YeEll9r1,-.parking . ,_•.i,.•••• .r: '''''',''-'?''..''il ' , ,-•:'•;•i',.•'..i-',';s.',...;Community Service ;:coMmitteei,oR„•,1;401'"';'!1?-6.0r1",.":;11.6'.,)I'L9 complete99; f'd' improvem9pts;.,. ..,:'T,,..i• -•' . ' ' ' ' liaS'' ' '''..i.... . . , conjunction With:Pre' "i'l vio building'6Wthe project.7sitp the.applicant, , paved. ,'...''',1'.....;„ •'.' ••: ' •,, .._11.-':.2",•.,:••.irc"-rPcitikr.eCt!ri -,......•.ii: :.....-.-•-. • :•,----': .)-1,1,-,....agreementalloWed:thd'Parking,lot to be f,';" .' ;4 ... •',.: • fportion of the existing gravel.parkipg,lotp,.,iis ....,,,• ..,..,..„-, .,., , . . , ,-,,--,,.t6.11.i...: ,,r, oaPV96eViiifi•only" .3 te''-m-P.'orary'-.d.falnlad-e.j.:cto‘jilior:,,•,s,jf.g:te:M,.,::.,f1 The-applicant.a.flso.,..a,gr,6,e,q,. . :„.....,, .., 'Sp'rOVIdea.PeFrrianen'tdrairage;CO.1,-ittoi.systep;:.:aslpart:of the.nextphase of development which j•S•••-riow.being: recommends 991-prnptittv,.,p-i9 drainage.system for the recently,,,",•;:•.: paved parking' area'be required as part of the present development • ' '. --•• ''''.`.: ''. '' ' '' iij.j,•71f4 :`,',''.,".',4; ':':''...1....:,;.:.:2'.., ''' •,"-','.‘:.,,.- ',--','..:,t'.,,;,,,,,,,:.,,,•1 ,...., :,.,',,...J., ;;-,,„,-;;.::;,.:,-, •, 4 4 II It MT'trifion'h46asures:•See Note E.:7', : ,,,,::...•,...;-:„ •-,.:•.',•,:, ,*•.-,,•Ji...-. ••,;',,,...., . ,-,-;-;,.• ' •, i'.-‘',. -1:'..-,.--..'., , . . ..."..'",..: ':,. , ' •. ••..'.'„. Policy' ;:li Nexus King"'''kfrig l'ICOintY'i,S:pr(4C9:'Ati,afer'':'•_b,e,Szi_grifi';Manual,:4;Eny......ironmerlal•(!;:tev77., "•,:,',..; .1. i-.., ..• -•.."s...-10rdinanOeA-pi ,, •..,.,.-:,, ,-,,• ,... .,i., •: ,,, ;.,,. ,.:• '. , .... ".'',.,' -..-i-,,! ',.. ' ' ;•7 2,'.:',f';:,' -- . i,..1. ;‘: '', ':"''' • :'.. '"', :.."',.l'..i:.', ',„;: ,''.,-.,..,,i',,'..‘ . : [it:.';' ,.."--;'..- .,-'•-•...' .,':,.,•:i. f:2-•', ' .•, .2, ... ,•., ,; ', . . •' • - f. ,_...•.'. -Construction ;-•-••_':_-, -: -,. ,' `„: '.,.: :;,,i.'..;'.:',-!t,,,;-.:•„••,:,;,-..)-:'.,,,,,..,',..:,,,7-•:::-:',,,.-,, ,„ ,•.,,,,........',..,;:::? ,,,'•,:.,,,,:.-,: .., . . .. ... i'rn'peCiSii.fh'e ol'ii::s'iit'eli,9:npIrrge.rre''n.i...§.11.''r4tiie.:4,1,1ni'clopipliot16fi,,w.,•it.h:!tii-e:development of the addition..,,, ... ,, • ' ', , '..i.•to:the,chUriCh, ba-rkin-g',and landscaping willi.,Igene_iat..,e;n.O.:ise,fiidust,?...debri.S and traffic Standard .,• . . ' ,.... •',. " '' ',..-;•-.'",."•:!? construction riiii0,tir1 -i-it'au,ie, 1-.1,pi.iyaletiiii.:"." 1?,i,..'g.,.,cilr,,e_s,s. F1,7611-rip,!c. . -...,,,,,.... . j Miticiatlori Measures .,,,-....,,,,.,,••••:.,,,.,....., . ' - -.4v.- --- 'se '#2:-.•„' ,,.,•''q.-„-. ;,...... •, ... •-, • .„i ..i,•. ..4•;•,... : '.•• ::. , • . .,,:,....,,.....,.,,,,.. .• • ;;,_e Recommendation, - , -,..r,;„1,,-,..,,.,..,' ,...,....:,..,..,, I P OiiCyl'NeiCiiS1.1;;'P-01i-die.-L'Elerp' entioOrn'O:reherifSIVe:Og-i'',En§111:6n;rnenta1•pevie,.wrCrdinauce ,,..,:::„.4...:.,..,.:::.,:i. , . ,• "• .',' ,:,i,:,: ••- •'..-,.',:,,.:, ., • •11 . --, ''-• -:, ....•',i. .. '.;.;'..•z .. ..--,";.;',.1, •':';,`-.i'..I'.: ' '.-. .T ::,';'-',-'''..1;`' . ' :. '.• ' •`.. *: ' •:, • • ' , ' • . ercrpt ... .. , '.' „".., . , ., ,•.... , , . • - , .. , Environmental Reviev imittee'St afff R`�'" s a? i i'i".'• '{" :+' ;;`+'-: N; Highlands'Communit :Church'Addition `3' Al'' ` 'i'`-,. 'r 4' 'r.` it' 1' „s ��Decemlier:l9� 1990`r _ �+�• j ;'i: ,,. ;,, a e7� 9 t' •.t • , i- • ,, I� •. S'- - • ,I, f 'I' '.J 'rj�• i,I t' k 'a" 'u itl� %!i .. :?�::}:[::':'t::?ii;i5il :c%:::i:?;isi::�?: :;;,`i::' isa `;"..':i:;i::: isc::!:t: :'�...i.?i:i::i:iri%; :i::::::Yii� sir'�� f::�:'f:::aEi:ci;i<cji:` i;c?i;';ai?i;i?i?c''i:::::i:i...... ' " ,';;'','' COMMENYS�1F#3EV1EW'INQ DEPA�iY1V(�M'T'S' ..; I ;:;:;::;Various•City departments have.reviewed and commented u Q:•?.>the.:: ro ec <These:: omments , i ........... „9 r P.. ` ,. - `,- ,ter i. .1; .�Ifr,i�'� it i' ;',N. ! '!Constructi ri' -''';: o Field•Services• :`, ,~Approved ;witf%:condition's . tN0 building codei check;' -.;' -` • ;,4; •• r. done:' 1::',12...::::..' .'�'. I!Develo ment'Plannin '` _ A-'roiedi'with'<conditions:,''f1-Recommen 'rezone[from '[' ; +t: R-1;'to'P;1'r' 2„Recommend1conditionaf use` ermit',to+ ';j` .':,;'I; .:.� 't('a.; -`-Vii.-`'C- -n., ,r "sl!t.;;r'�l,i?TG�'.tfC' LY:zi� 'I'.��,',��t;�`f ''''' `;' • ''?','''''7••`.' :E.: "':ex andkchu"rcli:',,:3 r,The•,landsca !n '"around'thechurch?f:': `' ,�;�' ,�,,;: • '„',, :�s,substandardr;'and:�;neetlsr to.,,be;l!refurbishr.ed. The G. J `' ,'proposedaandsca ing' lan.is:not approved.`Include;tfie'' followln"cfian-es?'and;addjtlons!:Remove'a„..,,,ll rock'in,,all', • i;";` p a e s;',and ;landscape7..adensely;'°with e:1, anii ' (:':.y'f, ,i�r i f. 1• - .,` - _ e+,..e•-,I.r:r..'.l. - .''fr','r ' ai:.:, 11' ,.shrubbe ,.the'.4l ri s • t :'';;''j, ,�•.;'� .`<:',.;•-`,'• •ry,• ,a d taping;::plan er••along: NE'10th' §; s rcurrentl ;;alli`,'barki< ai iant 'with:;'trees'f:'shrubbe &i? r'o'u`'ndcover;, `rovide under round',irri ation,or''all new`'[,,;: ` '�' „iC_ rr4 ,..4. a 'r,Fnr.,:.}a,Y' ?;` • L; 1`'• '�•'; landscaping„_added '`addirmore<,coniferoustrees'around ;r .'�.I' '' ..,4'',� site"r;fori ;\�;. .). "',I•r ;� winter.>.color buffer:; ,4 The.:-landsca In `is'.:''" 3; !!(.; ;., = i tcurrentf,'Dori maintained:.;;Su est.minimum' 3 000.00 a ' erformarice''bbond;ito'•b l•r" ir" 'f'r:th'r rs' 'n',;. •'':.�; :;,,. _ - h�' �;�` :P, - �-- e equ ed;.o eey�ea s;upo ,. ,I„' • '�.�occupancy':of•the;never addition.�� 5 Provide''�pedestrian•• • . ':,''"''sidewalks from church;building to adjacent sidewalks on I,` . '' t',', :1''� streets:' 6 ;All, 'kin :to'serve:the''church facilit 'should; '-. . ' I: ,,�"..- '`,.`.,; be pavedf',,landscaped,',ed' ','and rovidei r proper ;storm t..rr.,`';ir•' `..,i, ;11'>r' ,.+:,;;' na - f? P P I? °' :;;z',?t. 'h,r''' dra'inage9i7);Most:parking`stripes have faded.,All parking ,, k, .ir,hr`':';I; ,stalls should tie repainted:clearly., J :41 i1, ;•Fire.Prevention Bureau:'', - :'='1!,• 'A proved:;'witfl':'standard'conditions.' A roved1.firealarm:- i' li: ,.-.4. ':J;; , .,r,,,, 0` :,.-;''system is required•: • >• `'' r t\' :f.; ere ,i•1(,+f ,1, '�t: 7` 'LongRange_Plannin :o. ';A 'roved: <What;is""the`'reason"ifor;'maintainin 'a's lit:';' 5'. ' �. ,.,. i' ;zonln "o !t , I ,:, 'a. {�; ,}c g.',n;heparcel7= Current: B:1%R-1.` Proposed:',:B :'i, :' �II' • `ire - r. '�tl?' !'' • ,i I, ,', :{' • .1 R-1::How about:rezonin .the.entire'church lot P-1?• '.i'• ''+' 'Parks an ':•` •}.-'. },. d'Recreatio'• ;' ;ir' q."'roGedwdh'coniiitlons 1.; i' ' I. .Police De artment. A roved:,` 7•,' • a ri'M, ,fy. y). '\ l ";7• - - ;, "i;', 1. ^"ah''.ir •i:, r,,: •%.., <. I'', t- zSew r t` t N':s. e U ilitiest �:• r.`;,+' Nofi::a roved.'{;'+1 ' A licant shall-'sufimit:a'".se''a"rate (I;! ' ' 'tori final+InksoNim lar'22":x 34'tSanita ',Sewer„Plan`and • profile:'>2)`Show,all;pipes tllengths,types;:slope,;'size';.MH;, •'1;` : '.,' .. ' ,1; 'Sh'ow'all•' • TS,'':CO arid;,;tiends: ,, elevations...in.plan''andz " profile., Maintaln;l0'aHoriz&+1y0"ventseparion between' :,.-;4 water and sewert:':3"Show;b'earin 's and distance's on`aI ,+6:',`,• :` .,.i j'a '�. ;;,.,' Sanitary Sewer'Easements;one Sanitary'Sewer;'Plani':4 , s''.' %!;I''I' ?No-'structures'over'easements.:5,Front;sheet,sha111be aJ;", `l� �P�„' :com``osite:uil'� plan sfiow'in all crossin Sr',:i' • _ , ' \r :( 1 Storm;Water:' =r' 'No't�:a roved: .Clari 'whether'` r t ti;I: :,;, ify:, e, or�:,no he loca;ori,_of.' ' ;. i. catcFi'•fiasins;will'beichanged;.`on civil plans:,:Provide;all':; nece"sddr °;inf&matiorit;;on:utilities i.e.:I, i e.kdiameter4' "• ' 'fir ,1: t• :`slope;rim`acid,invert'elevations,'. i pe,mate'rial iDetention'; +'. a:,;I• r. ,'- requlrementss sha114:be; in' accordance,with,,`1990; Kingi I• :-;.,':�;`,'Coonfi� Surface'` 'Watery-iDesi n` .Manual.; )';Additional; .jai•••s' ; ;', 'i'' 'detentionwills'bee,;required,:by-?user'of,iSCSr�Hydrograph , .� i141: `:, ',a::i'� ji.'�''"„ - -'l.-• - -=3 Fr,yi .t:i_- _ _ ., .,: 'l- ' "' ttmethod::'Flans.._shalfbe,submitted'on'22:,x34 prints: 'fir`'.,r. t - -t �fir`•-' li i'r.;-z' ,.�.` i . ..:•'-'•:.1:.;.::::.'•-•.';': - TransportationC` ii'tNOtta rove& Deferredi;offsite imrovement' lans for. ';r', '!• • t,:1 :NEi1 9tli!,Stj-to}"fie'?updated.:per:;,attached Interoffice': .I - P., ,e.•rFr• .'co'mments!y ;y _ } ,:- -f,r,:. `'I. Environmental Review mittee Staff,,Report,•. :' ' ;r :1 ,;''' ,Highlands_Communit" Church Additions -�•.J. ',," �'k' 'f:� �:).. _ =s-', , '�Decembe'r�,'19 '1990r ▪ �-� `. .;,`' ,c�, ., ,' �?iy'il„ `I ;`,/ r' • 9 • 1,. i s 'i�, • .,�1 - 'ti I' " • • - Y I• 1• iii. ':1' rp" r:: „ .L.� 'tx .19: �i, y, • H • ,Water,Utilitiesc •:d„ .°Not a roved: ;Pro osed im rovem'ents.encroach`,over' ' • f- • I' ; ani'existin' Utility.;'Easement<:over"the/;vacat•ed sfreet.': i,� .,. .,, ,:r, rya3=„ _•(^ ' +`• ` .'Sutirnit se aratei'wate main'iim'roy,,,,,., 'l„st. .,vf a' '.r', , :, r';;� ,.Ih,.; .• i'.vi_;:.'rf.f'L;. ''t• _ .P..�„z,.,;,.,,�- .,n,P..,_• ..P.,, .,.:•r�.:. ,ir.s.,f.. :, E'. i��1' �\ • 'rotectiori`s rinkler�•system:•'�AdditionaliFi�drants'rna"ibex•: i'1 re "ir >.I :w`t m 'n' st'in 'is-'re,•uired'-ifr { ;r;; 'li,f '#. Jt..,..qu ii:e;A' Doped',, a er ai- sy e q [J• ,;•l, ;;,::;'i. lfireflow demandris``over,2`500!.GPM:,'.A4:fireflow analysis':` 'r' ;'j "ir - `; ;•I,,S'~i ;,r',••I1.`•`f �f'S:,7�t•:'' ''''' r'•:^.: :, t...,, Y • 'l":•'s;`' t`! :'_`;, ma be''re uiredi,t0:"`;ascertaln:;'that• Cif 's.system"cari,` .;;; 'r;`, `a '.'•'s ,• :deliver`above'i-ed fee'review sheet. ;,i. .r� , j , ,. ',\� 1i� ill ,, - 1`': J ` {' 2• ' .,'''=,ENVIRONMENTAL' " - +;'• ;a+ ;;Construction Field:Se{niices:;,'` i" Probable'minor•im▪act o_n',housln :I +i ''t, t il,. '''' ',;'Development P.lannin `' 1 '1The'ex a nsiont;'h4-4 causeadverse'.traffic impacts'to'. „' - ')I:''._` " :r the'`•neighborhoodi':',,Traffic has•not'!; •been;;;evaluated::,.`,; Y.n '''%f?,;• ``"Checklist';mentions" Bak•'•volumes!on Sunda I;";how` :'F,%;'i ^'`�•� ''ally +jr:. s .,py .Y',x�,B- {',",+•+; , ar.,' ';much;,-., hover?much,ins sail t•,a,,,e ...weekda s. :2 1 mid; `'i �i��'.' ,+,,:..,r,., Y P. ,.i Y ) r•..;`;�,i ii' `'• Landscaping'for,aestf etics is not`adequate:''Se Land'Use r `�.' i''')` ;•i comments,,It4'3) 'Sul 'est.''2 000.00';streets clean=upp'' ',i` 1' 1� i rtr,.t t 4' 4 "m int"ri nce n r videdE.1,. ;',',;:.' a e a do d;be" o r• kr :I , ' P Fire Prevention'BureauC''' .Probable"minor"'Imp• ct'ori' ublic services :.?,' �' , i 'tip i °' :,st.:,r.:'i. ii ,•r:Long''Ran..V.'lannin A,DNS,wouid be'a 'ro`riate:.'!Ensure buildin'',de'si n is':- ` L-?t` 5'' 'corn"atlbles'=V✓'existln s`:rstrUcture,' it''.' ears;'so' from i 'i` i' i••;'`' ':a' lications�Abundant1landscain :should be'added,to'.`'." 'iL' "r'r:cbuildin•I5Does the'Landsca'in sin' arkin'.a'rea'meet"our':.; " . .�d' `'.5�;',,� :x.r.;."',-.�.:.�...yv>ir:;_j:.=:'-T='ray,. ,,.. :r.'-:,. J%F• +I'+•1' 4"•,"^`'rre uirements?r(Seems,barren:'',Is there a'.wa to increaser?= �i+ k`, +I.. .,d Ci v:�, Sr= - 'i Parks and Recea{on: 'z' `','.,:.`•Tile `rd" onent,has'`ri t?addressed'the offsite'im 'ac s: irk' .>t � - `:x�-;=•,nr• -r^.a• :j, r. �:�,p,gyp_'��:,.-°-:r.. r;� t: ` • • whicht willr.be:4:minorsas:man'j lof:th'e 'users,'live`:in': ' ,', di' immediate''ales,,:Thesewill'be,on-siife impacts that need,I ,;j::, ..;" • i'!• is i • 1,: ` , to`be`addre§sed:''' _ :j,. •S.it t) - .,,.;:,'�'�� �'ll. .r ,i.� • ,ire, ,'.'.: C( �'If� i'1� i. .turf; 'Gi�` x-,��'.., ,1 `C. y��id .,•'' - ▪ ,,.14{. •.P, }"�1 Ti" ;Police'DeparErrient^"',�• :P�oject;'�'nof'= nticipated- to.significantly �impact`.'police' ''i• • .k.� 5''i'., -'l,If,;°+, '.,°i: .Ft .,1' `j, c;tir".' ' ' Sewer;Utilities:� "� t 'Project'''.rile''s'• ;o_utsidel';limits':.of'.:Sanita A`Sewer': , ;i,. _ '``ii •';,I' ii .11 'i Moratorium' 2 .P'ro ect'not affected by"APA. 3) Th•ere is:'t ;j,:, n}8",sanitarysewer'on"NE',10th St flowing'from.Jefferson,°`,; ',i, t' • '!i: "' '.. '! rAve;NEitoslndexA've_'NE, S327 'Depth,is.a roicr1012'.I l t • .Aryl 1':` "�fr�!''*,' :,,, "f`•: - C': ;,a' S,;Must,tie°field,chieckedand,verified 6y'applican, 4..,-.6;, ,(,, i" i'.;'}�"' '''" lam shows]new`raddition iencroachin' on'adjacent; „ ro ert ;,b a rox:;T>feet:,:Ad scent ro•ert to ;:,:i,• ...: •,r'' r�„ •'"' ''r`.: '.`'','' �P :P ,Y_Y,.PP. "-•o P, P. Y, l i ',,i{• - ,;. , ti• ir'.• sip.! y �, r:..�..,' - �r, y,r. , .,.a7...,. ,,�r;J, '';' ^,' i§, not:;'shown:=;under•��flie;���ownershi �:,,.ofi.;Hl hlandsi•1 .N • _ ':,'.:_- Community'Cliurcli'buEtfiat�of.'GoldenPines:;`.5)Site�plan;;,�', ;; •• • • shows'new addition'or,a portion thereof,is'to;be built , s•• -.a''`'ortioniof^tlie.n5%,-:Sacated Jefferson Ave NE 'un8er^'' -lr '"'° '^';;;ti' "; Ordinance Noi`3545:i Said`Ord:a:3545:states°it'is•'subectil:.''•,,: .I' "';'• .?f" A.I - .,,,,L{ ram_41:` -"Y.�F.`_e.a =,1i e.� ;rl --i' >to;an easeinentr'oveb`the`entire:''areavacatea'for',utilities:''.- No`perman`enist�uctu�es over'`easements: There,is an 8'`'.'' - -"r" 'J; ,'�'?'j :.sewer;there.in'that;easement,f'• ;,• .:I 4; •j• ` ,i • ,Storm• '•Water:r • .i't, •;'>' ;Th'e increased'area•'shall be:justified''In'calculati:'•Baffled • • .1;;, F ' > •? ' • " ,•I'Oil 'ateriSe arator,sliali'be:required',(if there'is"not;one •i. ,,":_;.:9,.."alr•eady present .after;the;;control restrictor.manhole-and }t,,, • ,'}_.Y ;;ti,. e:a ie... r � ;"before drain•s e.leaves;tfie"site anc`"Des into the''existin ;i:' ;'streetsystems • Transportation: "'- ;`, Deferredr;,off-sltellmprovemenf plans for NE 9th St to be .`�', updated;per,:attached;interoffice comments Watercomments'on Land,Use, • i '' l `a;` . , V • :v:::..it`;,.?:::'.::..'f::::.t iy:::•,::i::v<4:�:: ::::::':is}:'•,":. ::i::::::::::!::ti?ii::is}}: :::•,:.isi:::!:i:::::::::::;.i:::ii:::;. C f. . ent n :E'nvi:onm nt e ': ......................... ...........................::. al.Revtew > • • December 19,1990 To: Lynn Guttmann,Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator John Webley,Community Services Administrator Leo Wheeler,Fire Chief From: �(`Yl Don Erickson,Secretary ' :.:.:eetin, ;pate,:•:::::::::::•:::D.ecember.;7:$.;1:990......::::.:::......:.:::.::::::::•::::::::::•.:.::::::::::::::.:::::.:::::::::::.::....:,;::::::::::::::.:: ovation,:.;:;:•;:•;:•;:•:... ,..::Third Floor conference Room:, . :.::;:::»:: ........ Agenda attached below. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA DECEMBER 19, 1990 • Third Floor Conference Room • Commencing at 10:00 AM • TIME/KEY PARTICIPANTS NEW. • VMC MOB II/ACC-EIS Issuance ECF-063-89&ECF;SA-113-89 EIS for the Medical Office Building II and the relocation of the Ambulatory Care Facility • GULL INDUSTRIES HYDROCARBON VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM ECF-142-90 The site contains hydrocarbon-contaminated soil and ground water. The clean-up procedures chosen for this site is the hydrocarbon vapor extraction system. A vacuum is applied to (a) well(s) to induce air flow to subsurface soil. The soil gas is drawn off and discharged to the air.. The project is located at 3800 NE Fourth Street. • HIGHLANDS CHURCH C U;R-048-90 The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the • project site from R-1 (single-family residential) to P-1 . (Public Zone) and to construct a two-story 12,000 sf • addition to the existing church in order to provide additional classroom area. The project is located at 3031 NE 10th Street. • • RVTI BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY BLDG • ECF;SA-094-90 The applicant seeks site plan approval for a three story, 51,000 s.f. building to be used as a classroom facility. The project is located at 3000 N.E. 4th Street, N.W. corner of the intersection of N.E.4th St.and Monroe Ave. N.E. • �� y T • •• '�,�, ,t 't .. r t I Zt,,t�Z I i. '�� i; �� r - 4 n awwtr<} k>:'.; ,x:"9i xx ds f < < ih _. i , 1r'i'i, t .. o s.. b pAi T7 a•.>,.,/P1/ 1 Ir/e'/Bu,,.DIyN�G rPUBrLICWORKS�'�Y� ' : ,a,. y ,y?r•1f !. w L ,. to i E ;Jf4Jh E,.. r, .;,e j�rN '2' k• ?..,.- ...• ..A.,i 4 < .. . ti 4. { .. 1'�Nc +s>,'9 iAtiCtb77 04044'M pis�M'M1ia?�4iT.fi21J51......` I , ;d;l n , � f♦1a!?�4JNQ r•{?*ii ,,`,itt.,v' ''. Fc�N y,' :' �t �4 Tc,'� 4".' •,'�,•a..4.' 'Y d S.: t k ,s .i3.• YG s c Sfi t ,-� a`<'Xr•7 Q' 'ih'> � $; y xy1 S;.it to sa`rR y„:pt..t ., ,. ,. -AP,' •j Y ..< a:a a 1'u�5•,�^�r,l aF �: .vs. ,,5+'.ti i'�.'^ ��. r }����if�•k��' -"'q�`�Y���,�o�' r"�C ' d 1 L��yi Y.�i. '7' , ,,AP.'1 J ,... ;` }. Wit"�:• -,'H,gfitnds 0ommwnnY Church igtn••+� r ft I'� Z a �,••• i! Q `i', d cl:„fi it vi Y• „ a ��fiY�� } �t''t ' •'Ay s' :ii c'Y assroco Addition n • : ?_asra ;,m A a .. C, ns #, . a Y f•Y . Z , -•' y `aa,:'� f, ""n3,n , t,, '�lr'ii i,i I , Pa;: yt 4r 5,+ fa!-YY,`.t, JY wtu 1 }<rT < >}•v i.h�1rFE.':iw,:.:xv.?.;Y:.. .S?. V' a '� . .,.. > 2 i.„ k i+ n.rt': . , r,' �.%.% i,1,,,c k+'+k4t N,•tk - 6� ' h �,o ' gyp ' tM , 5i �'' � "8�.e� ,h<,Yxry4ii�u,+>' r'cf`�4<•4�^ '. ` s ,aJ'�.'�kF'�` k'r s, , SC s IP. l {OF vo AG Y '.ye pp cant,seeks t. e,,ni the east•rty partlQig,0, ;. t e�, ��� 3�� ...a>'` �.A: � the FroJ`. Tte��ia �R A? S1[%gie amII��R$sldehtlal��ivA ,��, ° . I``' .., "r Yi.�I'Y;(I`� 4,�;{P.ublte ' Q1 a t>�nd -, aita�}}"a Condlkiai lthA sa'. ', ti 1 ¢ f T Y:{� �{ ti, Ir' i , i r3, ,4„ r' ',�r`< > e •k T'`s „J•Wr<< , r -�, v •'rY "' 9;03 4i,{ a F:.W t:,..iri + a ¢ " t ? Y' r �t�f I t • ����� �.� . f �`� < ,� r�� Y P�rmfe to>CattsKfilc���.iwo�stary�,#�,>�4 's,f Faddktlo>�K�c� � � ° �!, ' `< 44`- 4V 111 4 rili.C•a n k?' ! v},.J d t,..'4 P. Vq}A a. t.1 { ` {'�' ' {+ f Ii`n'u,aY' ba.1-„.:,,, o SitR Al:t -i1Ild,, t`"'C,10416 &#"��h..—,' i-:W° g'.. I k. ��' 1 a > <N o- < t><0 sr4. h a•:: a Y+r ih.:, `I=f•Y 1 1^ z• !S't,,n< S�'�„ '', ;'2',"+ ltl� . .oCrletbrczvide,'additfontlassomafi�at�`: ir+ ��i- <�+�b:Y .b.} .t Nfi}. <5<.VV A<r40 >*d•::<�i. f sM•+YS�I W r d tl" i,F�Z,fe r ° h -x. a; .i-' k'' '',a.I•.; r< $ ,n .,4< kl yy 4 s i Yi";::,,;t. , ,fit p l I.. a I' ti� Q -j7 t htt"1F I?t $A �' �' ! .31St Cliff Strdet, - x�,7.A'ti�„efoli,K:..,,/% w ,'� t t'' + xi, , #.,4r , w• j�.}+< ^'k1'� s e ,,,,•5e r h �rl"yr",I`j f�`t i'Fh ,,,4 'wli ? ,r ,F-L I alh '� ,h !• C }, , < Y r �Y• "I;"i 'tit"! r i r`� +A r I y y ,r�r t� ,�y '��r x ',it,' .9� '�'k,r rY � y a� f Ex w ��,� y; w�a � +� a��t, { .y ir „rti•` �W a j ar.,. C,•„1,;.t^rft'J',4 At 1. ° .:+�'. k,"r e..-° {+kr 11.d� : ;•iSh,.I 'Lr . yP+ - f ' t +i i f utslrykJ a 'ay I, I t I. n� . i sI m I ' �': q 7 ✓J P'�'t 16 E ° 6 ? 1 I I `\ ei+ �� I I I t l� 4,. i•°t`..V. rl( r:1;' b ' I ,a �"- ` ' , . II + ' pp}.y'1 ,yyb'tt,?iap�ii ' L ,i I I YCG .r... � • I I I G'+ "•,`''rid }}`:�yf F 1 �.TRf1' IU. a•o +f y LJ�N,'. r I t l N N \ ' LI-- .1 ' I R°....- ••;,;: .t jvr rt,i c t 4I iI �•{{a, h2 ''f r ,,�.r T .0 !. IOtry T bt' '�N�'bltkr. - ��? � 4 ,,gip I ^may r- V '`i!r7r•, 1-ter:. I r ;fin ,4' f • �� 1 — r. : /11/I 'q' � f t � .•.r.'-' ' / .. . — , .- MO .'.. r'''.,/,'PPri 7'. `A4: .''''•, ,,,ttfre;,;-%r.:-.:. `'J •7 '( i qI Ili-.�Y1 .. 1. kl '• • ` ® �w�d..vy �� II .•J , - 5ti� .a- p r .1 fl T <— -- <�c qa� hl••+ _ �t.4 t4„S i 5, Inis e +'"-'rxarnb 4 zt>t.6? i C = _- I I ,(r• is t"T' 'a�'y, { r 4 r 1 �% -I^ ` �= r7b C� _ -�--_ I M �,,qi ( T: '`' i E � r ,� ' i _ — { 'N I ;i 1, t'lh • �. ,,,11 � �'-- II .4 — I i ri.tL_ s ,fit �n �.- ��•�� �/ `�I1 , _ • r. a SIN 1 r . >J' IW f i'M! 'sd ! _.t + ...,* , t4; ". tir x,,yeti ,a .,,. "1rw .}eErr"y .) +�-'r`k'(. '+:i tc• r-, s• 45,„Yxr 2 , $ a'a ,4 i „Y aij5 r lk !t}t r rCi a y; �}»"Yt SSs�F {* f` Y J A�7 t1c'. _ 1;` I + tr •6 t , 5 +ye} ,}yc,.., ;* i Y hn y lu Y �Y 5 •t1d} xi,1,5t. }+y; I `1 � ]tk�✓#'i t� { h(} �'�. �f�L� r u1 r mg., . s1. att ' t .tir p6 ,;,..?.. I y ti k 4j GT •,,�tJ4 1 -.�. , :I I r, EMI + °, 7 vi ,+ :,.,t` ICt +� r 'lr�a C` r .} r �, P {"d S ''''''•0. }d r y 1} ,y "'... tt 1 7V 7 }, r 4 R r+ f 2 xf° R .� P ! 4 1° '• .41PW''�� w,.... -` ,t,,d . Via• � . ••�r,s/,3f .. !'1, F tt + t 9 .m L x `el Z!`l r y r fit l y . a 1v roen {j=e•ewe it(ee Staff Report fat GW Sx G' {ft}'{i �a ��Gt �F S f.y� +F � f yt. '+•'. i h•,�x y 4 '. '�na o:aR':141,1, ,. 5Ar }5�Y,,} <x'• K +rtiir.Ar,, r $�G. r ` ,ap fh F.t.i .v + e k'-r if- .+ i'i 2, r Vtk kS�` ;Fiig '9-2.!ds Communit Ghurc Addition �+ ,r 4.1 #', : '� ' i ,,r', gyp,, N•YV.!b t x4y� M t '�vl� i 1 'i d.l, • 1 + 1 I F e 1 f 4 4 I £ 4 nn �� r � k rf � INl 1 iehleAdst9 t,990 ,1 +rlo �, p �Y a 44411�1'tl 4� ,k rdo `••s�i S i ,, +4, �,..,. Il• f Ss u"trk4.7wl�e gg "? t r sF A G '3' >r , .t . 3 d fi a r �'; g 4':' • 4'a+{e ci'r l '� rk4 ,• .„,1-- �.?. M „4�v1 v�' .i l Sri r�f�, fl ti'Y,,,.5 y �M1,', b f..,'+Nt't €,,,,, `,, ,,4 ,,,k*, 4, , ....£.,,k4 s,,,,,t �?G; ?T4',41.'44o-. 1 'Afjc •L��P tf ,, [ `' x r ,� ,�'yf .c.'4 z! 141„t +4.41. n t "lk'r d','! ; a } 271J' , �. g!{yF �1" r 9 fi;.f`•1 1' a:Y i'VY., Ya',�"i r�g4 � N,,,1', . .. i,lT ,VIG�, kl`'{ I � . },rl1t irzi, w,il, "'° -Yg ,,dpf% f t s• I,:r.'a t }+i Lv t g %r'�.,1;?Y a +,.•'„r;.kp;;':l,k, ..f: ..°, :af•'1;4.4.>.:r,: , `;:•'%i,?2i' u < 1 B a':; E O Np :f'• Stl z . <> :r ::°:'f st K >•....N:',, . •' '''iK, tt t 1 •• yy :R G. M M�.. ATi O N.$. '�.p• :�d.Y >4,�,x��t2 •:>;; Wa,�, ;�^�. �� < ,; ,-�.� , rA IT ��. �T'£'e a ��N J 6t s Lo I hw •x^'?a ��« `�Y.i s i6 •R { � ��w? � ,,s �`Yi:+...♦ �' �• fi£ � It ?" ":0K..Mff"'�r1..,, . , r k d + •a a / t: 1, ,,, + :. ,14,t ` - Y - �.,,��, p h jst I i,Jy 1 11 C Y 4- k.,4 F . is1-$ ;A 3 a<Jry1 {`4.:,- a31 4 r�iyt r 4k'IAaI}.t '�n1a L Y,� '.`�',+ Tryr:y�r� N f `i " ' a +��°rry a � �`!`= 5�1"�,r„. r•r �� f ,�#,x f ��`tl�� }'. 1 ;: 1 c D r o-;fa t,.w 1,.M Y 6; d u'W ''r At, it t r I,4 t.:.+d, ',i d 1 IFa, r a . j A;: i' . :. e • fit:orde.to address��a��esthetic Impacts and toicontfol dust, shag ydroseed,fand t,k ''. t ecessary the , ndeJeloped `o`r lort of the property (until it (s�developd) to r,� 1�F rr� �,. ,,n p ,,, 4'u,r }« discourse see,as a driving•co?use daoxreduce the dust;which 1, a nuisance to the adjacent t+x�fk si 9le K i �. tes he tydroseed ali�be°`completed prior to the Issuance"t`of?b.ccupancy . 11„` ft , �- %"t 1 'i(rF 4 i,.`,er+a $ ,,r" t l ( . ,'t l It • t iR •� � ,+ rai,�4v4�' r9 ""i10.�$t 4144.. raw 9,'� „yr, r 6� 4N•!su k � ���#��` � y,. � .'h^t4r�r� f • ?. e aj �5r r a'A t,t,t �161. '•' / I } ,yi;. .c r a4 £ .• '•'l,I z A,P , ,/y L x v$SY 6 ii x i v'A! ' I "4 Co• -.. io 1' '- ✓ `+'7"0f7wk� % �a 4104 `r ,,` lair l;rrx1 , ' r�'f.��' Y � .' ,v,,:2, k. . •-2n.,��, roli `{� a i "v r'•„ �. �r& 't, 6 .y •e• 'S,aro y„• i E �" ,l k b dt v �. 1 F J. } i4 ? f+Y,rN�.f s 11 a�ik�. 7 1 y rI t �, a 1 Yi tee+;�l pt shall n de toamitigate construct on related impactsr(e g�tnolse dust traffic)*shall }¢<�:"; r.a -s,•uitQ onstructloN4managem'en la ncluding',thefollowing: a)_an'erosionfcontrol�elementsb) , r��i ` e e a t�yk__fo��r ti e erlod�E°watering o n +dlstur a `soils to reduce dust c)an}element , ,,),, ;xr - '�YYf '♦a ` `s'rgP' L Ta aAryW�•Tlx• r • R W:;''' "�rr L t Itl g till o ra ratio s o the' ' ur • etl seen l3 30 A.M.a •td 4•30 P M d a element Ilmlting • °, r •�,�s, e, pnsir tlo actMiles o}te our 'between BOO A M a"nd$7 00 P M4i'"weekdays"ana.mou• 4i,,*l v+ a e• a n ewa .. , ek+ a , a o r I E ►vl a�' 00 R bf Satdajs t �gate thimpacts of tpconstructiort�"nolse oni�adjaceri ix` ti, t, } 1..t tpn 5 'N ftY. y ,a :c ..-q: ,;� i si , a'' i es� lal areas,e�?a a einen to th protection of existing storm drains from.the soils distur: x : . r a,. t e a tt' S V ,., sib 9:.Y M.*y: } • *'+rgV,r. i tr r > .. l D! �j tiring , . o str t o acfi'''i,. A .$2 000 00 bond for stree, • ,,ring ,This•plan shall bet l M,. ' g t n�t ax t , S.1• • • . x+ iv ri i4 ?t t ! tAC 0 �e OrlStrllCtl ase of the' :OjeCt s 1 a t t ��, �] , ", y=;��Gstt; ` }r :.Is r M Y5 i a t,1,'w$ ,r clapty I A > r y'r-i Y b`'� Yl ' it t d y i 1 1+ a}a �- A ri�4{� k yLs tS �>A Ah3 'rE¢ f r >tl' I Sty '( t z a y , xl t` 0 r Rt i rS�j !, iy ,. fl „ 4 , 1, . . pia " t" ;fir kA• ,1 vIv r,- st 'n}4-., ,,` k+°�`;,k, Y t Y s n /Si , a i1`f id�� i¢ f u7'Ytfn�y' I fix:i f , M1"a ". , V I . ,t t wcS•t rl, f ntzl£ �t d£arl'T•�itS. !�P.I °Byi.l,S'" , } bE1'62 IP' �titil't +DVtltix 'A�, • �;� tea p I n=shal .rpv do new easements as required and obtain a release of the existing Y'f l �� x s x¢r ar -"It'''' a: .1.rnt •I'r ie y,» ' t b,.e.`,t., tha £ y," ri' t e' penf'''''��r�]�th�e Glt o''' .�'���o t' Puget oweriand_Washingtort Natural Gasprior,,the :.i 4; '' " 04,4 WJ� r .- 1 Ih x,"r try, tY' ' a c} of site preparation b"'tiilding ermits. fs ; (t qv, }°{; a asJrr e..1 'c f p f d' ' ,:x", t Iswd �,. i,=J' i ,1r••cant shallyYcomplete a Jotrline adJustment with the owners of the Golden Pines w fl,� yt �' • 'l'i+. M. Lb,@i:in Nl N e{ 1 .E {y AA' A,fr '� 1 f ��. rlen . ,provide the ecessaryrt set back, or toy the issuance !of site,l" r��,,? pl y i�1;•. a•ol„.,. iid`g,er Its ih 'r , h {i 1 S'r � ,,r t s`,r 9I ti r ds . .. ,1'),', l Tw 51, x$Y ',A.!.,l f a ra•rTx w �4. iz, apap,,•• ,, 1.a a e a 1d r o the rave rk(n lot and the •rivew.a to N + +a+p tx e9 �Pa ,ga�,A 1, a£�n » y f + )jlC �T( . . at. pro`(de sufficient . rking area"and ingress/egress`-to the church D n • pxr1 gr p '-y yyYY r x}r Ir )i t M r ,µit s 7� F 1,.�`;.A .�I�t r-i(t r r'1, elc4 Vr�3 g a y trr M��g; r hi..) iiJ 1i +•Incas., hail,,hprovkide .i's$3 000 00R'.bond3tol ensu;a the maintenance ofl the i* P a' r., • i-n•sca•ng o a'three ear period prior foy,�t,he issuance of sfte preparatlo/building,r,�l t y�• •1! pi F ai'S ,5!. ,4 r* Lmissua {. w E 4; r *{ 47+� • ... AW',6 r .. r t4i` t jjyet,'.4 A, A : 1•, s Y, 1 .t, r tit r vk , b�Saf��Y•!. h +j ap• ca a •rov de 1perrr)anent inage system for the recency paved parking a �„ V A e Jax }C"i d4w,r 'Wx>,n i A., A+.. w. a a. �k'M".a x.. �: ,' i4414 tie wesserl •o to oftthe subject propertyig accordance vrtl thewagreement 1 ?,. " x' il.1 4 ,PM, ,xY} k -} i d oA. N , J 1 } i4j ,,,. {. • . os•a b the Com nary Se Ces Gommittee to the sadsfactio of the(ltii Services • r�M' +2 rnit. r 3 ,�49 w t r" h;•4+ 4*r ".,rr.rxu »Mc- }� f�n.y t f ;D}t s•r j. o o thh,+e Issuance yovf occupancy;permits for the proposed addition •.i>y =v�,7a1 h 1 a'Vt1}`a V,1;,_". y,V•ir 'E,'i--1 tJ ti� 1'ji'� SiTu�`S•i • 4,' :.{`*•'� 4;�yu�i^&.�j? t 12iga `"�•al' i--• I'i ur expansloI1 will regilre site,plan appro alx environmental review andlprobably;.a '�, �s,f` £ . �• e 0 0 •6f.`'�a�9�.:. ,�,�1�94�.�•,� !'*W' g.�a w ��r,�;,��,+, a th ,,c 1A .�a.rr t••.',ai trt k �f � ^r g i'IA hrx4}J#`6 ±a; a� !tr �£`'%�`"�s ! ya tk�`�4^,t'r;4y��f•+.&,i �r�. r,� 'X Y 1 � r >ti at'tt� n� "d "Y .,sr�', t� has •,4, A , + `k,*1 :, ,t v,�1'`n . J4Sµ 3 t:r`$14' i ')'r,k '1 - }' 11tro�i n^�H4 e.A0.111`,)?Fxi S}t-' IfiAR�`115i,1Vx,i.41 to ,.a::,1...._Y,-.� aer,i.� at,G ':�{S`1{, l rr 1 }t v.>T.:''' 't)'S•ii J`� :M'<Y :i'. .i':::':4 :i%•ii�'i i':raf$I.�ig.s ij..4 i'::i• :..tits�rga'si 1:. •,f� 2,,,t ,µ.,: -i r a cat 1.;t.�iY�.�.ti:rd a'�,` ,k. +i," ;ttd:;';:21 .(..<•;.S'••'.•�•ws :p:;f:,.;.�s i 'D'l.3• S i ^^..{:�:�1c 11'C�••�; d.I 1,.�t£4 ?•..,•��•'.<,jk"•4, �;'�1.1;p.;uSr,�,Y,g:�,.,.,.,::+: y;>#t,RrM; ���3�..:..l.i.C;v�.,}•.�P{.;>`•t.1,.d. .v. •.1.,�.t,..i .,�l.i .1: TV$a )S$L1.4,' ,£ �•�:ii,iii it A •r LSbM1.4�(�"n>w44�`il iSi .k Otte,.i. i k'?,, > ,�.',i!...,,,,, 4it£9.o-}i 9 %.. ; I,. 'l'. 4t 2 ;, ACK •.!i 1 • �' , c. r, 7 rs ,rY - Yy Vy' s§ 1 '!he cIT� •• i!I °•e na -. sI„ Sing am Resdential)-on the easy I apd B° (Bus ess 'ti 1 _ �R l��b t gi xN �,� � i � .,. 'ham � �.'w .>t Ott � II . r l �, r�� , iD St lct of he. es ai .,..,applicantfIs, eq`�estingatfie•change of zone from R 1 to•P'y 1 Publicy se)4a� t�, s` • n Aa t ^PAy'r..' ue gi#. ri2f,z+ni • , 7,14'ry fi •i gr As F } ts�t1 .9 as rje . opos de e,o (nen's cated'wlµhhin tt'ie"R lizone and!Vs-felt by'City staff that the,'.-) r: 1 a I 0,+ r a�aYAV#IL" .. 'd i,4 �r r�p.(eYb. �a q r.>bt�s. �?`,rs n "'.4 �.ty rw�.V,.M+a 9,� K+.,1.�tR�a...,,,.3•w, ,r� one.V ogre a „o riate,o churcmuse and Islconsisten wfth the Com rehensNe'Pian de$I ratio tof I Pp p a s,,, 6 ,'„ f ;t� p 9 i •t . 4 u)illc�uasl P •11c M,t�°�p ry '' ,air•.1...1.1i t t 4!<,i ?.,cyf,.A :T 3 rt'•i. n4Zf.1 g•�7 ,�� f; 1 , • ee 4 4"i h 'r a4 !.. '�„ ., i 3i.xx t A ¢'•+ r •?,,:1 4S�' '>'• K,'• .!'''r .✓ 4t It ,e II`yrv. r{ e .h ;' tl,(it r� xt }. � { t� � c I r Z. i here is ar ,existing, .995 sf„fchurch,building on the subject property which include=s�the�church W`�f . �,.. "> san . i. . w. et'dfflce,,�,{{space°a`nd altgyrrjna ,Y.. Th ai., nl4.- - currently provides 260t�rking ) t s 7 1 L '1r:atl Y,vplFC ,, f t id,tbn D �RMilflln I� r W+"I.nrr M2 h" I :Fa d ,�. spades of Ict)�5 are r ovyppaved and prox(matel 45tare unpavAd Landscaping its provided around ,i , 4. ';i e• II.ing ;itt the p.avedtpark ng areas�`and around ih`e perimeter`of the`subJect propert t ,a- 3 w;h "i _ a 'irfr��A"(Y r ix ' ' • 9 I I t a'F•{ }"A F i ,,, i+>i�A s 4 ,� s � c ` �w N �.knyli i' -10 , 1,}„rt j f ,, ti7 k iI, x, ;t, Q P. s •x F5'' 6.,.t - i,.: +, '�. .t., °f+`i{i. # .. 'i t r5 }�M 1414t. "0:**Y iN,41 , Fy�l 'l,,,.0 (r} 't�lt' r.,, 7., n.„,, 4,•t if al t 2 a• p711 4^ .,}£9 '' n Ix , i r r l ?�i 1 t•t,, 'li r, h , dmax i!fit,�+ `4}C4 rti '+ 1'1 el bk L>w ' S�s+•6'4ti:. �a 1 �a IT: k. =Y i s 4,. A , ' D'ins': AY S .i�„ t ! ' ,,1 iit y 4rr '5llt i44, . �'•¢ � ,... It t i4, ,i l,t, ".1 x , I 4kn >, 4•,..e'e Y e.4. 4rY t4#14+`' '. a •q �Y�'.,P ,y., -i, ax Fx, "'w ,, S a • is r ctr�'L i0$ '' -,6 ,'7syfas„ t i t '� i7,ati. an Viteit .� 9 1 bti #01.- * �WO '�4y •4ri ,, J s ' x 41 Y� t•. 2 t• rr 151' t '1 kxSr tsa ;ta a D+il f i''f"` ,. t .i nla r$ it 4., r . 14 1r r i 4 ,..,:. "�.5�`xd i'i!y�• R',1t� t r1't jfx.' . .:.(> 3 p'< ,, $}"t22},f,.,4 ,. r i x. .,,,,,, t ,)s i S♦i r� S rrr #•1"" ,� txp 4��y�^• eA,� ,�y.. ''1w.Pvt it t , „i.'rh,C 14..+ , , .s. ' ..�£., xt.�ar k :V st7'...�h1`;i�i�V�f�9� .7` G':a4'i. '!n.w, dY�`.,�kt, .h�Al.,,,;' ., 'j r f``'a� A .p Ykr, iy t P j, t b+c t'' 1 !r r� c a',.,v ry, }'r.4, `yr9 +f'ti•4,x ,-. c' h I: s ErW4 s pov t, s•$ �qr, qk , is r t''i sxrrV'j'� j*`x x� . y,t?`i 4.0•v1 :1, ,,v"r " `1,4*.t t k'� b , 4t f ; ;. t1s'-,Y . t"'i , tj.l.k °`I',(,,i t,,s '• rr i( 'V 4 q i,': ' t.�. `: at u,�� fib{• �£�..sGt} r . ��' �S n�ir �f �X' rt i p r,�t,4 {{o�r�etaRa ei.:' ttee Staff Report y�r�n, "� DI^ �� '' ti t4 jfir clf tt y ��. �r�� tMtt3' : w. a y � ?} M 2 � j e {r .t�o, Yns ?1{{ +c , � * t, lghTlanas 0 u A rc� 'ddltlonr., ' '... >wf, (k�s ' ` v'#4iM!tj ,Si LN"4 .:fit}if hYr r y7c14fw r7i;:i/;',: ,„^y�W', "'�� eSC�`} �"��VI� {� < � iJµ� V,,1�y3{+, �,� i�f: �f;Wi7 S�f�r `r+ fAfY't �. �eCe be �8' 9 t "a sP�'cXr stk+ a '�� �l' v i r``��v$t��' v 2'�a +u It 6 ct't ,b tt�y �s�y� ,, e�r ,c,r1 n}. °�fK,1R "$ 4I,riv* 4�e{n r' 1 t s . S.rt�4:c?.1 n ''' 44: :F.i=. r s = v rA a U fl No ',J,': 5A r ,,4sI' ..*'t " 4R'•'f r1,t�` y q�o + ��'•� ¢¢y,ti ..t'f r * lF.rfi P t Jla, �� f ''r; �s��• "• 'y'" a I t I'S� i}�n�, a' ,,� `r �rk ,, .4 r St .t., ' '; a .,. , u ik s , ti �' f x k i^.��{.y�t�l yy�jry`�' u k w q "�,x yy'' r �>: , s 1",�' � j.,�'� fir, 4i, l {!, ,4S,j_f (^ �kr h L ,, y hr 3t h/ "H. } ! 1 h , w , Iw 4 4 r 'fie rc' Ft Is <� l ��. f ns r p { y 1 . 1 ,Y .`r t1.1. J�'q, �f�'1+itf%. ��^ ,+1{ye Q "�� �� P t d ,�J ' brit ��'�^.� ( r> ( Y I�� 1 ;i1 p• .if��{isji s•t e 1'o •Itioyna Usei erpilt,itorconstruct'a12 000 s f,two story addition onto the tP i •M°�Id 1�41( art re thg applicant�as ndicated that one edditlonalisan uary bM fldingtp ovlding, `s+ ' „f' r atfn p0,1(4. ople w(f1`be prop swim 1 his"deveiopment will require additionaf.revlew at the time of the,;�t"�',,, ,�'f�-• ruk•A' rt-Mtt9glirr49P•.MA.,Y+,++YM'v , •.,� +. ,p . gb19 u`Vic,. )•ro•osa n• • • abiy change of one f om B 1 to`P 1 6'.'.S + r r3 i t*4' h: ,t,fort y,,a, Wk; ~ ' ft`,1 `,0.1 . 1 1f„ ;rJ�.1. r 4 1l 41 r; sw i.. t s f I ' �i +t -• rt Ott, t.t 0 , f'fi I,44.44S. v'a '' J% F, Rsr: 71r �.�.`s?, l t � s �� ; �r1 "1 r r`'r :I a =1 z r'r T ,.. ,t w 4. s ',a, t s rs q+y, cep , ,+ 'llyf t.t. ,�� 's� ff V, ,y f ; 6 ..l;Y,".a ij '�{rP 4'',...41,.i'ksyr b vA..,,;4y,)u� ,., +s ,-,4, 4 4 t' 1 4 'tif4V 1,� s�•'(s00 f 71i w' 3iN-i 'Ill:4:4e Element designates the',project, iffor PPubllc/Quasi PPublic land uses; h r f',, •„• • •D •�•�tJ )! ?.• die •ec site forp.church,are consistent wfth'th'e Cornprehenslve f;a t j 1. f il. ;Ci� pt,' ,r{y t 4 d +.d41,k.i . , h,10: gyN�rr{,aa� 'XIFr 1 .; :.�fM6.Ask .a r44%q f SPIP4X�' 0 L a,.*rj Fd 'xt'!..t.ith• 3d' ; y{ • t•#S9A(1• •je sits%zoned Rt ;LS ngle'Fa I esidentlal) and the west side Is zoned B. ;.,�ft,'-�r !RI s r % 1 alp,.1jca t� as eq„es ed�4,140,an e o one fro R to P 1t(Public one)'on the �+' # ti d:' Alt �,Its. D i3rc4 is"=t""o dI a17*'"e nth pzf o a a" nd�a permitted u"se'in the B'-1 , .,,9,r;2', y� t r t, `' r' r 1 �'i'.. 1,4 e ptopos a,i ji•Z„1„'r.Jar r i; '�it's'Mid' 11s ncons sten with the setback standar•s of the Zoning 11 ii,-, a ?Y,grmdt_w. nr "e, y Ol e .� 8 , ,, ,,'t'e;,i, ,o •tta ce L. p .pos^. la o the add s o lsinecessar i order�to locate�the pro sad cturekina r *cat o.. e:fa ; ii .o bl• a the view, of esidents ong.Kirkland Ave herre1areiseveralt"utillry. asset a ;s t iD th .:rye a` fie rotos;. additio ^s to.be located fie utility IfnesZlocated fIn#tits 4 c P P .#. c�T �� '1Nm.M..•, ., ,Cv .k ytr as�A e plea g• fr49. e chu�rc rope /. he a•plleant has submittedlletters fron1kthe4holders �'. t 9.C + w �a- a,s e as e s stat t a e e willlgg o:wor wit ' hurch at the time of consiructiort,to'relocate , 4n .!•rDe A, b• xr a'•- zr *•ti+- t ;. t 1, �le se tC at ea e s e a pliant has soso�' Itted a lette from the owners '),the adjacent .t • ;dfca ; .e i�"'i grass to c�'_ pe to "ft the ch 'rch on the lot line a ust ant T►te appllca k • P..... r - Q+iD' .. 'r6ftt► �s.YG!riltirCli ri' l ne$, "t , ,• 4 4 'c f d•Ito a s,toed atthe I`o line adJus men2 appil on Is presentlyjvVfth��e owners of the r • e r ,F e 'VIA 0 s, natures Thhe project tvilf be conditl'oned to require the necessa`ry lot.line • safe t n as 4 e t f to"ca'tlo or eleas `n •rder o:t aka'the•p>rojec'i"con°sistent;with`fthe Ordinance. „ 'I''''''. f ; t.o., ',,.ct t t rI �i +{ t +b 2 na.�i,.'�¢`'Si p µP p � tiF^y" I aei••rkfn i�p(�� . • 1•�•4 •ec props` s'sufflclent fo ,Code requirements Staff-Is(ecommending !,f t" ( 4'e'!�uK�d�+1-' '"FP � ,t' .� ,ALw ',� ( `V�YY Y T 'te YI4,44 f rr =. I^N y"^ � }�D a gra el.o I. ,p<th •a , • o be• ved t.encourage fts use by the church members ',�y 4. at r F, t! i r ;, a f 1tY ,�, . , , r n �� � ;tip �, Ail ? •CJ •. h'. r•o t.a` Jt•i a space wil a o the hurch to operate its classes more efficiently and r , eyt� (0� [ ! :cceptn4 1@ b8 S K h 1� t r w qil a 'il 17 lam ':tIj4jJ po•!eS+o "e south tea +a •northeast,multifamily apartment unks o the'northtan. 9 ,; " <�• v+,k}yfq,r,r.trp'- 'A" #, �.v-wt.tMr_.,srb,m*.u i �a w. �t r f'esl ,n offirea re a rbul• ngs o,t eweel'L ft e�proecrt.lteel&cwh�u"rcchhls:gene*ra" yrconsidered,t •: (�I o . b a tt J n uses` of" above ""ltbis case there�tias been a, robiem In the sf with;the r , . ' • ai e ,, .w� �n- ", to P 'fit,"' ' �..,� ,r t �.r a '. rF pRl ca ttt 71a nt l'1n hea dscap ng.or nthe;churcfgrourxis Recentl�"%fhe appl can hastcorrected : , WC,. Hq,l: M. ,1M:,U"�'6!' f A.t.♦ ��o+t�,r .� ,,.,11: YWAIy y:lfi 1 .•r .r.: �. ;t,s'co 121,1e a4 and(sca e',",,w�ain 71.'n' bond lillbeb",required as part,of thetco4ndftlo alkuse'perm ' t, t. coe Den inghatati'ezisting drfvewayt"r'om the rking a eaa`o NE 10th Street be paved in orde " Wn o. r:, ra{r.N*, a m+ 4 4. s. N e�, i.4 d .. 4.Mf + f• e� co rase I 1Ff •ch traffic as'Is' possible to°ext the�subjectrpro arty without passing through the Ot t+,y �iespe to ea y N 'rr 1 n4 it1�s,, tr w r.'r F�K +i Y 5 t c ..1 :4,E } ",,,�, ,iF tty t ;i M 1 t tw ''', , . ' rt °4tteM�dc(,�� d g,tt,t :ro+'t' i �+{i'�l`{ `b 7�G' .I' ' 1.,l 2v .�fks`a 1 ," ° rS.H ,J ,'':*'4' s i7, n''' L'r l r -J }F+„ y. 4, ;a � s o • ENTAIL ELEMEfi7S' ' ... { rl + - rµu"�I� ,1, �t iyr0 U` t�if�l'Q��h 4 'D , E �Y'�t t '`�j,�f' s f u. +k 4 t�.t#,. �r :r r �r h +'te t tr't • 1 ppp ea seeks ore onne the easterly portionof the project site from R-1to P 1t In A'gn l Sgy,sr.+•.dr y'gaifr , a4+tt�r +. Ly, ,�, {.r•er •'• o� e�" o nl g which is; e.Ore appropriate'to the existing land use which Is a church At �t s ijD e�hat y ure xpa>�`sio offthher' rr bulI ings intothe 6 1 L one Kthe`'.Cfry will p obabiy 't k a•B 4" <i r r r•r + w a m e r w'., h 7 {r kt ,c t'equire a ge,q zzone to P 1 Staff Is�not�requiring this at this time as the church could decide rrt ,. v '. ' i'II• t • e.g°Sell nff 0 t10 •,this' 0 0,,z.,• ''` fi `b•,i't' ,, h! — Iri ,A r i, ; w v 9 f p i,7 t ,ke :y 'i rn Mtn t:c� ,_ , if' rb' y$ s3A' t 4 {, e 't 4j:i10 y.,h" ;' �: ' b.•j 'i Iowa.; both the,R Single-Famlly,Resldential Zone and the°P-1 Public Zone as a "h .r. •Io al" rso ,, •e'a �°(Ici aant as re uesied the rezone as"the land use a chu�ic�i Is more O q•e4Y o sidere•,a, �iblic Dse,than a Single Family Resklentlai�land use and the�P l zone is� 'fiar�r Y • •.tie its'the Comprehensive P a Land Use,Element Map deslgnatlon of Public Quasi- a , 111 n•,cant s,':also seeking to construct a two-story, 12,000 s f addition on tot he existing t 4',A.)i.J a r 7� dJo+x+ p,:qt,( +. �'•ywr uai•+�r fu'pfor•,: t M.. ' �ss'°'W'71'r"+ r {, • f`� u 4a ' tA.�e future a1:�a pliant is poposing to construct a sanctuary to the westwof the existing xR T rct re °4� d e able thepro osedfuturedevelopmenthasbeenestablishe��l the ; (�..I cg i h e .Iica"n decfdes Po proceedfwifh the futureedevel'opment of"t>e sanctua a t xt'FY M ter N.. ,,. ,4..., wfr v� t rr k. .r ua>c tf ^LSw a t +4 4.r f} 'F ' so.a ate site.la4;a ,pr. D "ev a' nd a possible rezone from the exlstIng,B iitzone f ;:�r' to i7°� 1.t. b • 9•, ' _ F ?,ar 'r•' .� fe,f c dqt)}.�, ,�� _• t�r g'� Ss L'r"' s s,t r+ s i, yrrt. 5i'.11ta '>.�. xt r'aY 3"' cs , Y t e + s P�,t,r I Lk ttrtis dirt r ,t 1 aJ �+• r„ n Y ,n 1' K y�+, t ,s A' r t I ;'4 St.0 7 W n t➢ ZZ iyv .p,�'4 i k 4 4 r L. ,t: , b 1 ;a. 1 ,n i,1 ',.f''+ K,' +, Yr qt' i a t Y �a V'` t :,.a+ a• ,tP�a,.lr t d's ^t rs T s ,5 a '., 'r N,..i ' ,.r%'�'11. A' rr Ydi1 i .f . jr r\, ,' r 34 t ,Di. 'ir, t = ,i} i� S' � , r1 _tdY� k� g1 " r P+�97 pe,� ix`N��t • 1 t yt t^'� : 4 ' 1 , 1 4 t.4:1 `,K4 Y ' ti'r •t, ' '-:t'';'•: 'F I, 1 r ' t k. i i . u , •5,i �.11 + s' , yt ,•11 '4 I nn yy�t I rY iF« f�l y !� '1 F gy,� tsi S, �,,•^t4 •�L!.,ent Ii 'Ae '] p vx P4. IQ:,,,,� a�.. , �ti v a 4,r;..;1= ,. -r �i114. z�c; �, ee Sta Re ort �{, vP ,r' r vb4., ,1 e T,aAk yl t! P `• n t�'"ii ,. b"fir. . , kr t t>,pfr t. jighla 'en-. 'munity Chu ch Addition ) ,�,, x*, i ,, s�^ . , � r+ '4., v s,,, i t. ,r' ,t , s Al Y. Jm khn++w i t C� ,y�,,�},*'( B yt. `�1 '� H� • P�' ,r5?°f4" �. •�}°; aA3 h :, , �rd�^ •C? Mvl , Ai ce be t9 e u „ tr „,•: M',� :, �' i'�d#�' i,, ''`44v §� - ' x:s °ih''�" , � ',,' + Syr A f t 61 1 .: t �yi. I g at,•':. r ! ' t.2'{ .',,V -+'vWt:14.^,fw .i y {; � ' . n -$,a4 ... 6� M,,,N•t, 6 r � •!F h fr. f ' �v �a i��`' k+fA hr rpF�ty�r n X,p!e�"� � tn�r � ���',�," � ��r.,��'•r>,�r ,�dt�,a} r1 r t31 0 4,�'-,h i,�R a 'f v� wr+?'• " r g , i y�,�p,�4 � l �� x.. F. 9 ,+J Y'"ry��,>''� � r 1P"v1t^:K + e,,, �, �` ���?,4�� ' S,t� (a`#�� ��' �l�t,. 1f . S re est n� t 4 :# a u ,t �a ?• 1 f+. " x stin hur l µri 9Y , , ✓,t )s g approval to build an addition onto the existing church that will,�N1 �• w, • ..� aCate• Jefferso venue rl ht of wa f xistin develo ment`Includes'the male . q. �a. y�•d;;1. .:`fie'f'alna.. t g Z. ,iR i,.y�. t w !h• p r r b _ti�,� l of build g'classrooms a gymnaslum;�`paved parking ar.„„ ,' :d a gravel parka g area h?.n' J'f a ° l i,]' q: F t h ,t °e m a, 1 4 r i ii �. 7 G �t eY, r ye. ',,' r t , ',...,,,ig t e ,t d t' h trkr,r f+`.i aJ`i F,�^^ ;9 )r, 1 .t '� , •+ . `„oen e was, rig naily proposed to extend across the project site. On May 4 1981 + 1,pt, ` 'b. r d,i , cti • w+qm ,t+.M •, 8 { v. qep a ycn Y a.. ,r`y7 # . 1 rd+ '� T } tea 1 _ c a/a {(1_Q lg f-waY through VAC,�81 �Y(�TI he vacatfor�allowed for fillaures to r� i, - .T WI a is z,, taipe h 7• iimeaser a i,an INo in .? i '�`'�i uil'tt/F., • j.uil mross a acate riofva but retat ed'tthe aril easements and also includedr;a � . gross,-, �. nett.g r'1�7«J, ++n,r , i,N>r i aA-• W . . a uld.P,e`Pr c°a. iiv ',',Ti' t Ef. ; s tat nthaPt�ieacated street w•ujdt rave orstreetright of way•should the property`6e �4tJt -•;• •vr v S o ertha'cate ucll. "`'tk 1,>;' e4, fir«r f'si a, i +, sips# t47,5,tr rst r fr e:t. h ' 'i zh • er ';', � r,9'fti j:1;11 f�'; :!.1{ } t�f g f 'h6 " r ` ll .' ,t� t i' +�''� PD ;:'; ' 1 °i,t. "Y `t#rt 'r �"e � ''n t f « a •ro.osed twp s o • •• e, class oo�.ddit o will�be attach o he est side o tithe' �r �.yfy, #t l,: 1st( s uctu-�Du slo ae o e e1 alp f"this•area the roposed structure .. of be ' i' �gRiR f f . il. p• Y.'IY tT �,w�.1N t-.,A,.. `GII+r• een•,er,d e. st sa tua�*'and g asiu hen ewed frorpKir1dand enue : portion f �Si;' �Ni� r'„ ttSr^'orviBb �,� 'IMi�{y,p�! �' y, •r •r :oil 4 4 t e pro_ s s ruct.ure will ex enc out o the existing'jbuilding:and"�viq be°' slble fro�Mand L, + ve "e' � proposed a�dftlon tha'"wouidPbe"visible from Kirkland Aveeue`ou't. i.-:. <'ts`,r"° >. .�.,. ft>Wd. ''° t eat,• tit' ., d.e , ijr><4. se•• d[1' , , j ,tuts op l,Tyovef•a eitin`g!wakway' the entrance/lobby area of the pro•osed addition ,. Hid; pt i ,1,1,4; +n+�m)U s .Iec `r... w,, lv, 'ti a J ,.4,7 t" .Y t•. rl t sy 4'' L yy,7 rou • o.r a d o off ces second floor a > li f ° c s t. f • N y 4 v rt: = y x C) 4��� t9 "�,qt�1"�t +,' t L a} fro �rh, f �t� �.1. ,.t�;�' i={��,�1�.:uj,fiH� `'4$`4wti��9'��Y� '�`t�1���t?�`r kR.il'�f'(h�,,zr�'• dVi rQ rn� W "ti s". $, ' e=propose•'additort (II be,painted to atch the'•existing'1building:4The'exteriorkwalls'of thess"�kr ,;*�utci. ',fie ^'hr''. S' -."Y TFV f�•w 1rvq i FP :uw 3.. 1 'Ffi+.. fyi k 1x n fi iJldl,rg se.!d redomminantlly inish"edPww,lthwstucco',,with°finl-sheddconcrete In sommo areas kwood s,�',;w £ 3f �s,Ia., '.cr t1 a bulllidng,wal�is The alb portion of the bulidfng W�111F�ave a flat roof�ln�order to Y n ��� •�]9e, ,e� sue?,r .act of the building This roof wlil be consistent;wfth the'roof of,the adjacent� r yr+ .� x�&.E#, t nr .k> G (F a +ui , ,5.�- ° ,'7 yt_ f ' , ttt&w1.41, ', itt4 d!ci, rl N S s,1 1, i M1r t F y, ( 2 tas it ,; ,, s i s i s .;t w, i of 54 e, ':� ,1 ! 3 tar a�+� kM rr �a i •�� 1 t rQ r�.� �fP. - •yt h, •I tr,'l f,r ` , .s w e f , r .,r¢ j3# t �s .1.. ., l,ca�p .. oposl g to provide additional'iandscapinga long thae�west side of,the wilding 4I ` , d alo-:rnlJg,t a sout bpundary•of/}the adjacent Golden<Pines.apartmentfproperty Recently the i ;t , • t•+,� N,` ! Y3ti,6•:hrf '4+ 1ln pit' � �i''1( 1 r (•p a�, .as of r Fed.t e ex.stng�andscapingr"aro'und the'per(m'eter'oflthe'.projectisRe by ;} i , � r y•��r . :•s4a d •r"placin tea• pla?]t materlais t , y�..r,,k. A.,:,,,,,..L ` Ya " ` b 4 +, C iY"�!�Ht . ° �Ki, t �. r111r/.: die e.are tee ex stria ut li ease ants ithin the vacated Jefferson Street right of way where 4�,yaal, ,v,. pm. trMHd9lie_- 4a�.. 'Y ,'>7 M-g' ,.$ ts. + y r,;!"'nr ,r ]My, •p e o e s, rope , �tsd• A.. ,,6„f' g l l #11.4„,e,„ .,yr ngit, t T r, ' 1,, i y of•e to e o s oje ail be.conditioned at the"I. •• of therpubiic.,tiearjng0to t` �- t e.uh�gg��t e applica o'�o6 al release o the eaFs ments"or relocate the eas ments�p�l Fic the � 1 •--v a;'�a3as`f .ur. w '„,w• .« :e«fM , r M r,� hit. r i u` W i suan�ce.q�si p eparatipnlb Ild'(ing" err its 111'three of hose agencies have statedithat the , �� ,x e. sadsa•diit ri , nit~,:•M a e w . ., , dr $ l 1� I n t impact t air easement rights he applicant will need to work with these� 4 ' ,, �,, f ry•., �`Gt",r h{..A»Ytiv�ii,M„«faW,f,l: i f 4 rr-! •e t e ,elocate t ie ease ents,as ecessary r 3 .",¢p>r y F ".1 H 3 y n 'P' qt!'c 4 x `y i �. t a!: 4It r,'+sr, ?•� ''t 4 �' s,'n >,"'7H`i<,Th •� C i++k+.• ' ,,' .r•., •r e' •d des of.roVdesufflclentsetbackfromthepropertyline The:applicanti"� rt } �7f Y?tt":• W.1`t�z=%J tA?2,- r�t ifs +'4 ,' • I c�it e add cerj prope owner to Co leteAa lot line adjustment in-- ,-11 to provide tart t 1. ry M• d�>T tiff yre:fntt.�f.A'. nk ry ° ::Da t r .•}4 x w a 'h.+. l�i�l e• ired dj th k Sta recommends that the lot'Iine`adjustment{be'completed = � ,41i Isla i .t s .': of site"�preparatfon Ilding permits �eik 4 ti 4 •+ �i �'"•t ', ` �, r. vy ;4n g� 'YS'tqY y i`k', �` �,i ,r'q(� ., i -5 Y7,•. hs•Y' ti ,. tt .4 At i:4A i Arl3'..X A k 4 $1.{.{ `a$S,$'X'� i ',;?i 7 I r^X x, d.�,•• #,Pura 0 leas �rer See Notes A and B a�t a tt ��?'�� ���,yt�?+f. �6. . �, f,t� ��i��S ,'ft)C� u x� ,,. ".t ,Yeas, r°, i'S,r 'S,40. t',�",0 sb P.6t } �. lq)yH v "� + ' )! �MS�y�p.-�, Gti a� �..��'t f� S r ��i� � S V4 ;t sn�y ��i k'�f;#�1 1 -. N•xu N A ,a�'4 � • � tm 444Nro E. , , k` `, � � �,r•�k�,trx ..?;!!,:t, r ,�, �i ,�of 1:f' r�,, ¢y, �, a# , t r� , �, w9 'i' '?4 i,ty�Yt g ""� #h""� ia- '�� ril ,' - ,� 1 r r�.a" ,�`j '� t< �k ir-at iron e•n 3 a t,i,' ., { �}y '}+ xff" #�s !+f t; ,i l.r+, n 3iN '4. tG r i ', .- i j, 1 4 4 'A ,,+✓•iv°A H txi�, t,v 1 ,<,+s �%t1�1,., Po '`I,u..a 1:•hf�v�°1k' Y ,tl ,,°,�, T `;4,'n: l', itt.`kt n ' *? ry_tr,� f7..•st {" ., aGtT.LY t •.'.' f j" r 8 a,l•:+1a el x. of heap icant s property has`been developed in the past for the ; ''° '' n a� rw'w .f Y r tt,m +e py rvaariou+ ', n - '-ryf: � , t park nga • an• c •1 g e remainder of the s e'is covered Wfth various grasses and 1 4 �r G, w�m,r p r A ,Y M 'xi eed e ap�•is t has stated t a t s'area wil 11 developed r1 the.fufure fo'addftional parking h o , k.'F a fi +nn 4,r Par w v=Y.:,y, rx s4tf•.•'u.,y�b vq • o e: d. r�a 11d el boys ave ndicated that drivers ave used this area for i P A. 'osr• lira °erns rn -saMw.,..t�'• + tp';p'nr�aut o`'r' e• t• cffv tee d raised dus s a n isance to then ghborhood Staff 1 _�00 s.,le Icar +d� seethls ar''eo•discourage unauthorized•activ t�les"`to �a J , i•r v t t. • t be •tl i�•E Sance to a eig bors. ) t p 1'. J y1d F 1t,e J y .44 .., 4 t r 4. . ,! A t r 4 �,i.tr. 1 ,f'i GY•1'. { • !1 1� 1 e } l;e•"t•�• t�„�+ :f o •a n • t is t 'e op sfte'la •scaphg was�not maI'tined o r+? #�i t{•ro eo sitze , to rp • en•s a 'yhe applica• nt provide a$3 000 00 bond'for a thr9ee"yea 1,0, 4? {J .�a`o ensure that the iandsc p'n Is malntained`°',t x,�, , 9 °o� oy+A tA :,t t trrq t`xf°lzk a ! , 1y '„� r''! ?:4 , '• y , r` ' nAu, ' i 7 . on Me suns.. See Recommendation'#1 and Note D a� , Y•t,?a,, ,,,� ` ' ''i r. .trl 1� .t, 'try eb•S bw+ 1. WrlrjO�'r fa- t� 8� ja �e �� � .ti t ,t •t $ -� t,' i,t °�,�{r etc Nexus Landsca•e Qrdinance 4�yy 3l-34 t 1• '>N , ° + t S t1 +,'le s 6 S_- xt x� r.,4 �,v{ �X ,'"()�4 3 `., d • , • r^ya ,r 4 t �i,'� ,tt 'a+ly r ll,ya ! ut iFz¢, 5 tit'i�C4)1'?(z�} t+ t J: �Iv Jp r t: t4i:. 1 tM 1kv ,e 'y� , M `. . p i, 1 x t yS t . ,,a ,f rw +, f (yj, fk i ih ,�,,k".,.� a ,°y. 1 , } )r r x {' y"'" f�7 f l �{ y dd 45 1y_yt=t��qg����'�'f4 x�` 4l. �4 , 4 1 y ,.�er , {� ,,�/� 1 ,,il t » ."tl f o,...l�,,trbt , ,. ,!, =.i y r Ji. e [,.F !• rt.2i , ,i,,, P '�}' 1 P Y+.1 l Yd' k, e'Lf„ ; s t r t v r �3.iv vr' h P j8f',j t r #r + 7 rk.+% a x 4 +i ,•1 1 ra''j ��f >,y`�.,e r� a cl, f f . a'° ,y JaC ,r; ,4 e. , i� 1' p ,, 4 F F,� t, rF 2 . � tz x rk , a ' . , � ! , � �,�" `� .P�'� ft'� 'r� � Yl�'.��+ , M+, w�ii S`E;'� 'ar o '�'��'ij��p�Rl fi+ �i��"r �7�`f, 1 ' V , 1 raw'ti , i t''ii �q 4 '"Yid,. 1 '' ,t,'ia+r r q 7 rt° ,,1 t fil t `, r � 'i I ' t'$ c',f,f �.+'If�. s�M��6v. �i�tca: 't�! ri�� �'.a� k4# 5� ) f�t�.A n3�i�g� �,���. t. , ....:.% t 4 , .; ' F•rF { h :, ,M, r� xs, r 0, '+��« i. fF, , _/#a t'� y a. a+. x. y= !•j ' + t , 11 i , ;,1 f"it µNfI'}r+t�+fC,,f 't fGiiii l'll�i!.f}PS,'a`� �tt�,1,',.i. I �i t 5 e =l c ,! 1 .t .1,1, ,r 4,' -, Gn'. k3• r 4 y {{f�lip' R 3 h'7 .r , Vt i >�j t t.c; v`f r-•. r r r' „ �' K,t t7l �"#'Q • ! tF . ; ru i t 0. 9'K1 k 1 .,t'' • i rj'''= Y `,'h+ I,y ''�.,3'?t� ✓�a `'.y• .,�' .. pit . ,,G` 7 � r l(� .,. .,.,'..ill � „• ..rrM x_ `:,',. ,., .r t,- 7 vi-a .CA~. i �:f ;f.,7�*:.fn.�u ._ '...f,<y6i:• 1 :,, �'a L n•,r i S y1: 1 "" �' a�7 i�tx S u i fA #- g`>r Gz`r r �r a f 'tY r.,,:. a,aiiuty hv.1ry�n H+ '�Y r .),,. 1 �Jit $ ti s 'b •`•"',',.',....,, s J ' , e <tj < tvt (.'. } '.{1 I e 3 A 1r.:.7 "k"t ,t ,' ` t- • i Ha rl f ,R 4Y qti RL fix` ytf „.�fi �tm(f 4��yt+'b,}n�� '( Mr *r)' •�71�ate to ltteeS$ n 4IFyif r' r m t ta}r:{ ri1 w#r w 4 3 t y Ir a+ s1r1 2 tY�i�Y I l S 7 t$r } " r u h g a S Ol 1 t. clt dditieii p,F^ .4.'ri' i l,' h^r t@. ,� R ,�I k ar'r+!`tl r"'�' hiet'4 ,' t{ +y • . n,l v v , in !t� i m f.S tr J�Y d r. ece ef9 y1 •'• v .(:,:. �t, h�f , e4i'ilH�i�1�t,��'y }tD1i� ,�.;4,-.'�Y%.' 1 e - r�),.��J,(tt 7%ttc,1,"11 1 r Y4`$y' r. J - �. }N a • , •4r4 ,>: Nei I Il ]'. ( h�, t,,,,, '.'Y31 z Ii wi,trty�r�rh}u '�1 ,3�y j Jrh� t/''' ,0„, t D`, °sf i '•Y c,- .,r Y,�-Y• y+ 1 r t• ??Fi�1 �y'�y'y�}� �.�r y� S� rrF I� : v��, `,r�o�1�J,S"ithy:/l+ ei. ��1 #t}�',$'�,"�'vl +tI f�'' r1 �S^Ar $'.' S � r 1:' y, ,J'�. ka �. ro ;1r � ,X� a ��• 4 "� :r} r TIY :` '^'i,,,,�' ".'4 '� C,if• tot* ct hies are expected o generate tra_fil,,. hichcou dimpac area • dwa Y''s 3 t •e /a u lance fo (hee adJace t��fr``resldentlalareas Staff"fecommends that; aui 1g . , . ., e h nu Y• JgY„�'►S xY.h 4'>'s' 1' f1rJe4 ) +�' /r- ny, V ) � ' 4••era lords�e�riited ;th ours petweerr&30 A M and 4.30 P M 1n order to mftigate tahe , ,a s��y r m s a. crsu Ju yvui.dv v h e r acts n the ad ace tf esldential areas ,�to i !u' ' j yx'u� 11 �y��t* ,1t y f%'. 71 p 1 t♦,�rJy,,,,,„y fl� : "Jy'',tti,�t°Si, -,. %�h' S r "C r_f<t1' `' r::: .'v'.4' 1 `` t -1 -.LI P7'14j g� �}# /f`'tf l.' ,t e�1CAl/� YL(,� \ I'iC .,1--4' f C••e •tQ� o- ';#ksr r S6 ,v r r� rti 3 �Z . • 6. t t;, ,.,, ' rt, r,¢1',t71+ C•*} ,, q. t propos • a•diton o cassroorms ould'allow for the expansion.of church,activftles �., +Or`r., ans > rt V.+++ M K,ayn�• yew.rt"' ;oil hn acwrX r T'�iGt is '. t oulOIrenera a addftional traffic, In theipast there has also been a problem f . rt y,rj"•giBta . A�.. Yi h a 6 c w,µn Aww '''—i 1 tf�¢ i i�,�citi� e "erkin frontof the single famll omesalong Klrrcland�A"�enue, ,f r 1 iMNAh N+.+".v +WetT rwh N ..r"r<x• r nw. a.,. ',s,It r r} s .,;:. , . , . i , ,. , ,,` �ejff gat o o thl act asbeenp ovidedibthe roadimprovements+recently r -fa �y; }" yy: '7.1r•' 6 'Yp '""yttli.'4hw.'r M Y4•M. • •ete f e,�p Iica ecent7 ,thacF�urch"�`,,in'accordance wfth City requirements ,`; l• ..' os et"g vel par Ing lot(show as the'westerly fou rows•of parking�on the v,f �'•t M w;wY w�.x r,�a�1+e., iK.n,R' w a�+w w..,M 'r, ,,to •lan the e air d_er'o t egrave�ParCln area istno reed" to rovidethe c r Y�g4a'" 4t fW. �...sa.Y �, rg&. r ,.erw.•s�'"""r'� 'p`a. "ti' ?�.` ' . �, i :t ed a gasplaces church and to encoura a churcf�members to' rk off • , ,, r��P,,,."+:u' uy •tlnv"c•,�vAn^�w 1$ "ti, •r g 1``",1 n/nYM� 41 r �1 rtti.•�9v .1 +Y ' (al t 'Jets der aind tl a gravel arking tot should be paved The driveway whic WI cesse Ot reet,4.needs to a paved I order to"provide�"additio l Ingress'/egress for •...,,,'...;: ,,A., t. •a king to and adequate parking for t'hi�p p'i 'p , t1 ,r e ro osed'develo inent'1gr.tt�,,..r.t,. , J;ra+ ' 1 `',ry, P,,Y ay'� .iu i.?YY�+."57�5�' ��t-ln't1 •, (,���"1•`�14d.�ti, r y R. !� •_ '•i�' '".Yjt ,See 'ecom endation#2 and Note C . , , °" T� -�r ...,n+r,-- t t .tt:,;os 1 1. fi�r R r ., .i h,. .r fi _t,�: 9 1'X•�Il�h1►1 Zi i;(}! (r• oading Ordinance 4�14 Envirokn�mental Review •Ordinance 4-6 'x k ,* u, t,. �_,..�, 'r• r 1, dr t r �� o,iz r, tt,t}` r> k F �.V 1 v,, i' ry �^(' • 11 r,,li!1 tl,,t � s� -S�s t• r , A "1��rr , y �t5i„ 1111 Yk ' 3 i' (!� 1��1�Sa�5iiTJf7 �,t•�a'� y 4 4 4rW £ .a3rla #e��`� �✓: ir� .r� "ems t I r r xt +a a t i i , 4 ,,,fA{F, 1 ..,aT .Y �..—.f.-. 1 ,?.1$'�`If�Fj'J d t 4'c # F r1kt s yJ JY trt rr411!`'''1I�S'; . h ,,;r t 1 rt f A i 7,z`p,,,, ` r.,t, iY �Air J,1 _F.. er , (R O. g�rtzt+ n gla e�areantlo tied.with theNconstruction actMtles4 There is an existing i k: • �Qit zet apart e c mpl e adJace 'to the"cHurcl property anai)e4protect site is {;i 5: I,!4'.tedla, psl•:'"'�tfa r a 0 e ftig, to ojthe e'Impactson'theadjacentlanduses :,�`t,�,,'. '1 l� be�a$ e e•'f r �hfhe ecpmmend restrctlon" is on"rtiaul n o rations Further, ^ , tq il�I ' ill b 'achlev "r3ug r. lie"d I ftatlo"rn"���of1on sife constr on activhi s to tF a t,�' S n rY t.:.yh�q,, a JIc I • eei !,'•t M;tors 'o weekdaysand•betweensOO•fA.M d'6:00P'M`o YSo,f f-au •* �,'i �� �..: k • i�j! a •fie ��r� ep. •k( '• ur, esut•• t t c •enera t •r• '"t ? t t: .f wur CCighti g •• :i. Iltl ngs and�parkl g'ar s i. Mhigatton4of these pacts 1b`ti' r ; I be achieved 'to some.exte b ie existing_and pro led o�n sIt lanclscapin. xI tr,' a t g (lxturaS tfla d rec �gFi'tln! to'.the into for .f the sub ect;property'wil tfurtfie ,t r' �j tigate the potentiab mpacts "fin iulr •:tion Measure See 1'e ommendato 'r'2 f r s t;, ,,..ei r.4Yf r° „`ir''':I,d k r.., ' `' y i✓ i •71ta�a►t-?�rF�' ( �� :'► `'Ord ance 1 33 Environmental Re-ew O:napce ` 1 1yp�,',^ ,. t ,`�+ f i°,t I u i,o,fi+ i;9 w,k 1 P,�,' 45V..,a +� {•.til:i'.. .'lc0 y'r: iC�IT�`IC3 "- y t YY pia. 4 i Y•iJCYr •;. I r? r , ,�„ m.a h • e`a • ire•• ••'.re' ''''' Bur" staff,report adequat reso aces o provide H ' 4}�y r ' r• icipate•f a ces totthe,siterduring�construction activities and operation"s fth system tt • r t` ` 1 r•roe es ees and-Wtth Code requlred improvements (e g' fire hydrants 20•foot Wide,f 4$ ,': . ' I r .latest' ii,f t 'Y j rr.ys,if 1` !.-,n„.;u7ti 1 f4 ,gr,f,41,1,4,1�'t{rr'r`: 4,, w�, . �it s su, fR iiZ N t 'f,pJ ? ,Y , �>, + L*'�Kt'p 4��i n r'VS t , r � r • • one •e•ulred r r�, >ti r� at }1dJ�r�1t1 � {i n }a;& 5 �VIt 1 FF t h Y� � t , lH ry Y i f l 4 .fi 'vc:,Y^ -yt .i r '01`;'f.nr} ris+? ,c :? „ t' • +�,Y'�. yy,,�� 7y�/�,y{ . t r sr{' hF�k �I•,xi ,. ,�7 iw ayr.71TM S f`t+ , . 'f `:-,. 9' •gt.",4's d� �',.y'c,„ y ry a T t v l s d s ,1,(j{' . , P}S f . � 7 ,. , ,f '41 i ' yli ,+?tit h?'t ��� �:.,rsf t� tirt r Ja 'utJ a , r r t '1It L1 .r 'rSi,ryV,h14 n ,t• r,R..,,¢t:A er r, f F 4e ps a F `( t^ tr{✓' , 1,; t K 1 tl i+ t; t 1 p"' 1,l! I!` 14t t r rG trt c 7 :44 ;.{ h>y,f g•• t 1 ?"w t o„r ,• )J,.1 t 4 J + ,, 1J 1�y vt +h�, ' , ;.7 t ,,-,, it `.'r 1 °"•lei ii,4:'{ki 4 yv3,Lst ,, i>t A..,, ;4 Jtc',�' ,. n e,r M � { t:q dl Ik ,hl,r ty @ #?l'�`T'�,�r" ;s t � �tiA�k n"r-g�l� r ,a •y 'tr'v Ix� �, s,ems �y cc h}j 4 r . r +u.,,,?. s 2 I �•„ t4�t e t� I. . M 1. >•'T��,,.n{�A'+t�.iY u;+tt T t'1 s1t ' e, t< F "y,,,^ VP1: Pti..n ",4i ��`n , h to `It is c ! r Y, p'.ky flA to vrb „{�•'V➢ �� rl �.*.,�,.,32` JJ Y A �1r"ir• �F�ro tL� a� 'tt�' � a B �.•1�� Z$ Jt iV'�Sg�'}b.,e.,'.v ��L r �a. ' l r'.". . a Dttee Staff Report• ,�tX.'" rY l yr ',1,g,� S F i0.t ; 4. S w t 1•} �! ',MU ' JZ• , urcfeAddltion r is ti. Wl y,17 �i 'S '.r` Ar 1"hjtti Y'r G,• q}r 1 J.i 1 "t •d t >h i t af�� :� f ! +� . ••rye°{. •'1}, �a 7' sJ;t 4`I lcw T x}x s �`t { P t �,.! r { � yk� 't''w% r ' `'nCf,.:i ,, t , !4, i A ,�,{ F s� .' r�"'n" 0,-G r r tW,,_ '� .fiia j,,- 'fl�l. rt � i vt•�� �����d � ��� }�+7�W�¢��Kt s s i s� y�y,� t , r "��� `� I a .j tP t' ``*,sr, f '? 19,„ 1 't'1d t>`S A d `.1),,,� +� �,, t ,,,%.P�i r v' 1 4'' > . SANI133 � • yc ,', ,/,,fir„? kt f+ fp. 2., yi ,?,, tr"ih t� j .. �, . a r ' rtya 7 Ac f T,k a t �y,.; a + r pg v. 4' tr� Y e +. .. • J r,,k 6 1 � :,„2,x ar ,, R.kk d sl.t u, C mar'{, w `§ k,,»,�,,o 1(, t itv t o r.2, s a a o e 4 F A 4 t "S ix - ry r ?d "rr n tya, rS,1 q l{A i ra btIM ;Y 3^ y .r,'Y}Y�s,�(r(s j YaK r, „fie ''.} r y.' g 1 7 t r ti: W �,�y° r , }rq C A} : {•• ... 1114p f4 1- 4n "k h.,n f A' }'lvf.fi Yt1A t { yTw S• ,, I ,I• ' M rtr q• tw�fi' 2 t o it •a ?;7„` o :.,•re h o'.Ss thl apart,,the applicant ha• provided a gravelled parking it } a.. .,wcuwles ra Te o R n felt as`a� eo ear,. area' ' s Qari•''o ail agreement" eached itftheCity s ,,�� r , r •,,,,,„,„_, n ' a W rw �r ir' rtw an t": y« i.•u u i, e 7• j, tee o ovember f9 990 to complete Improvements yt, - ,, t: a ? 11t M7. •Inv'Cwfr r4� r3 t 1g�, t5 r Wb�peD.nt gi ,k"l F i •uir • o t ct o wit a oas •uiid(ng on the role sft 4 the a'' cant has paved r 4 ' ..t r' Jrl,ahx :� �, ry v* 'e e,.. �a. 4f r+>� ,1 v� v.n s ait ';j r"} rdl•o o..tilt tie.' stin g e paskl Ilot 'l his',�'greement;ailowed tha parking lot to be a• � y;; ,.w.•-tk p 3 ,m. r•, R''••> 4Na,,t it n d' b r, y yy ri'. 44, ( •, it • q erpoora • Inage contrd systerp he'applican also agreed to Jy • o I �'�, At.r �7. r sar3 • I r �.x u+' �ra. no,Rt aK' 7 A � y'�i+`t il.. Id ermmanent d Jna a ontrolas siemm a rt the nextrhase oofrdevelo men; ;,?,fz` fK .'I" 1' v „P 0+ 4�" g fwa4t r n�- YI o ,r.aiu.... „ as Mak y P F K 1R���q tl f ; ov eQ evie ""ed Staa ecomrri,e tds4ha the drainage syste fortlie recently ,;,fart,w. ;I,f t arc. a',rewla?�+ i pmlt. '.,y-N >r, air i' j�,ved • r ng a ea e required aS part of,tFje present development^ }w•j ,��`���rh�m�e�« , �. ..,:,),....,•....,,,,..,,^a f�,S,rs,,Jtii t 'reci I w K,',f iitr �r. ae k JrFi,4.tcr t rub !7tt r.,i . I lac _ i{ I� Y�+{li� GM k ` ' tiy�C ° Ai �t ^ ,�I :Is.• See Note•E . 't nn ,14; �.e.h..�.�.. �t r �h1 it 4`A,y,...t°yr k F P;� SCa i v'�r p f y f •. c � � Rtx ft� 3 i k rt f,». it ret4, ls•i '1 kr t;d•7CC��r^► ,,s , :A f. County'Surface Water;Design Manual .Environmental I Review l rr '„'`y `:, > 119 • I u y c i, {W wy: wit' It 'rt .. ' a t..'� 9Y '',, t 4t I q 11 �F r �r s 14,,. t, l i fir At r4q, b}}cc �i ��,q r ' dr r 7r6t4�r y�'1 .� t T+ t 4t4ii ty � (tr ,".rr - .". „..+ �&A ��' r �".x {'i d�F ����.`�;y ,t%+]�-�' t,s f ,Prue r,, M{ra NYt I r ,1 i :•V '� ,4: �} "' c�.¢�;.1 iir;. : V f '�I } f..711;A11.'!.'it1'!i 1 4, 14j k.4,.64y1�Y�r 1 1 i-1�14'`d .4' ri ,trSK r(st i, - a -kk AA' , �i qe h ' d f, +I t r1 41 t a i.;i +{�4 t.�`ri '''. ''S'yf test t e` M .��(..i d 19 r #Ilil•� ter• • •� s re u r . I con• unction with the develo ment of ttthe addition ,r } • i [ .. ill' a (ia" 9 ,a ..� ir .�. W �t , P x Ml t l� 'Ark t r . • t]g a .mandscaping�vr,ll generatemolse dust debris and traffic•w Standard,, •, , £ '�;F�, Nk ,tr 9 'nd a ur+1 ,4 1Mo. as rr., 'T 5: • i t.a { :3:1i •f rt ig• loA Me•s, e`should adequately address theselImpacts ice?„ 'IX 4,1� yi p•ti . t 14 C} r t h (q f, Gird 3 2 itG I�r, + 4�y t t c, -r R Li A fi �sF 5+ w�r1 �rt����'k79 fu...i ..1C,5y ...• . • ee ecommendatfon, , 0 t',f' .'G� t6j,s'* , ' 6, t4' t � ,e3 ':P ry a r,>•* ., r • r` • •+ ,r ns ,r Yti£ l++,y(,7TY[. n•A; r k r.t`t+, !' 9't t(`r';,: T °i.4� '>a. •,,,,c tA; • t '+rs+ 4s,+,y^{}I ; " ; r e 1 iSP�. +'t fitrusi3ny��t typr, '1.tw�tfat Sx�i'��r f "� (�. a�, lY ,t►t i+6} 1 'lb' Ele ent%Comprehensive P(an�Environmental Rev ew Ordinance�4�1 <(• fe ,r� r .,,,..-r,...,..� t 01t+ �• }+w� • ',w ,,, ',Y: ,r( „�'rt 5 j' s0.tf f 4+ ,N� �3 t� �, sr 7 a.,', j k'"'� • �:''` 4,. i.r a� e .; ;Itt1a ' t nht , w� . . it 'f• .41. 9JW}.'°t•5 •:?r•si 4'.,,, :j:;::;:::;.�.Y/,: :i,r< .. {•Cd M:,%r'a:its r ,:;,A+ A -• T ' 111'Ii G,D p4 .TM N't'S,' . x • iw,,...1.,' : ;; + : �. . ;� $ ,�j� s• 'kt rt. .]FrSS ).p � �+r p�Af fiF;y¢vi �y 4 T .k•th > fG • •, ;$j .,9.:A s ttI M v y .>r .• e; •Y•k*f , "',' 1..'* �~`trS.iC, %.f'i!9..1"s.. 5 -.',..' ,t-, } (w ,• £' 3s'}1��LS�,P +� d t+r� �� rW k a $e`p" �}t�� �TI.74 i , 4 Varl s:CIfy>de•a mutts hale reylaWed and Comme•i-,—.•i po the p o ecx hese>romment$p c ••, $e> .8' ,i a?. ?I• r a ..'1 gi,..4 y r s r. It , #,, S4��r '� • • �` I� r�3ir ? ,^�+�,'kt�.'; t°�. Vo�• h"Y,e�.iat.. >,'f;°;P�:;, M:y; R ,4 ? ?, ,, .eg •, t,, . 1,, ,3ti t z . S fy a^,$� ,4 y1k.eY J �y s5S F b { r• 'r'1., t '`,.: if ..... , v ,,,,m jr.. , ! }' +, i + �(�� j < p �*rX'�+7�„p r x rta �?tu'' w7.... K a syyu� �,u' r �. It y ( dr+3}"'a.l„t"1 ): r ,w j' ti ,'J,b •" +� (�7f1 G�r �i$ 1xs' I 1r'tt� .4� IY+, q LAND USE r� n� ''I'•fit tF'R�� �5, „S. Ng• P r. *j,• t tt k rtn S rk{,q 1: I r nfi }iz4.4 ,rLyr? �� im�. 4. � �4��f0�� �:Jrw<�Y it".4 ��5 .' ���l�.�p d4 rk�f rs-�! µ'S Co s ruction Fie . Se .ices Approved•awith,condhIons NO building,code check, �,�w );, i h r i' dor19 ' _.. 7sMw ��t4 � `a rL'''f-tt�FNiit�iF "ili?r t�`�'F�t" ,,st. 5r, ,b" ?.. it! r,6u„i r •¢ 'r d k!'x,n w�a• �kt),,-i'w d t's,h 3'.. i� �at� ii Ief:} 1 1 y, pp oved with conditions 1) Recomrpend rezone from ; r +t .1;.- 2) Recommend conditional usa perm" to*`jti,.tr ra q.y expan�Achurrcch. 3) The landscaping aaround he church r,t c1, s s,,"sub"standard and needs to beerefurblshed The i,°> Ya r r - ww. rrta t t' a b - rot,.";4' �a?,: Prp os landscaping piani,is,Pot.approtlt-• cWdeith'e .t � oliowi�ng cFianges and addition`s Removee.„ 4,,o�clr injall 11'�r;Y .laiiters andlilandscape• densely with trees and�•�, F� .• r1 ref ur` x� rn-w 'aa>,n.r• wrr •y�'• f 1+y�` "r n t 'i d'stirubbe ;;the landscaping planter long NEr+0th Yls ri� ';f ,c�rentl�all t ark pit lant with treesstirubb�ery; j��t' rr '- ,groundGOYer ro,'I. undergroun r"rigatior►.f7 ar new r- t i� ' A4.r ateWN'r.6v A N•� 'N Mlle' rof �r s-•a1r' 4 3r landscaping'added, add mi oniferousttrees around ,� 'I + ' 4 she' for,+?`tiln,, • olor/buffe / 5,,'te landscaping Is r ka + 1 /LA w aA IAFYrYk"i ftMl A•rr;.• .1 currentlyoorly malnta•lned��Sugeest,itmintmum$3 OOoa00 -7 ll ' pe.forrmance?bon to tiee.required for41t e`tjrears upon f�• #f ;•ray•} rr occupa•r cj "of1the tew additionsei,�provide1pedestrian rxs :� w,sidewal s from' fohurch ullding to adJacent�sidewalks on h ,,,,,,:,.,,,,,,,,,,,•„,,,,,,,,,,. t ". ' , +v+;1 '✓y, a tt%r..y. t w, rIn ;A tfv ,,i,„e +i ! r,4 j i 'streets' 6)= I(fp.wa,.n µo serve the hutch facility should r t 9; j, �E b paved�laridscaped an�p---Ici proper storm•i ,, • "i drainage 7)Most,parking stripes•have iced.All'parking 1,Fc,,, W "„r'. r. `stalls should be repainted clean ' r k,* t,a yy>tp¢ a `: r t, �,+ 4 iy .. A t _ ✓•.4t1j''� t ki 1 1'j , ( j {;f,(�tf,rJp�y• i p.ro ed with*standar•}conditions"`Approved fire alarm .7�i';tiJi,''` • temp squired ku r kj r, t m,��rrf.,,`t > ti4 `e ttY# "Sk afeie H+ 'r „ i,a*{ m4 ; ° l u�iY yh ,'}rx {4� .tf� � �( tl J l pprov •r*Whatddis'the reaso rfor frtalrtalning a splft irfi ,+ i r i s P* ,•t• 4 .. f v.w4 y. ' zdn�n on t e� rce7? Current t B 1 R- Proposed B x s , g y P P�1 How abo t reigning the entlre`ch�u^rc'hflotjP1? J ," ; f o'ut 4tP� tr'• ., • f`2Ffit ,,r r }i r'7$ f f1dliCll', "d�C Jr :proved with conditions t Y`rr ' ° '• + '. i,r, Y ::•ti t h , i'.' + it + rj r $'• tale ri hn d�•,.�,t,S`� 41 't iq t 4 r} a �� "� "ftn�' , a �+rt} ti. t ;t)i}a' 1 }t5 d, "Sx f �`� rf3b• dt z t ; e ,8',. ��atX i ' q'Ssr:�. k;5,t ���} rJ� `iti g it �•^t4��'2„ � �„b, &�7 l^"�, • g t „i w ,,. Y'S Y'Y# X��Y 4 "fir t ,,d+,�t f'r`�fx 9. r~t'' 4.[..... "?� b ,� t,,''°tl Mt.l Asa ` Epy ror enta w e tttee Staff epon r lN' , �z,}; 4 � , �,i ' a � � YVy^ w'wa a w .,,5''i • , S�� E d r i�`P �ri• � i'h�ax�w�'n�r > 4f,'�fr q�. fghlargds o m'l. :, Church Addition k ,�. ��' ;?. ,f r.LO: t* ,,aT 'xr . ,. h� *4 r+t 34, r 5 a.l t' 5y 5 5r �« `i o`' �0 e e 4 99� f r y; ° ��'-�E+� ! ICY'+�ti#, �t a o $r x} i` g � t�, 9•#£ 'A �`" 1 ^r;S, t, h� " 1�a‘. 'ale' w J , , , 'ft x>', } #t?f 'i�'�Q 7q d i kA I t� , MZ . } Y age R • : tl , , trt1'JurS + .10,,'k�F$ r ,AII'r�'At �� A4 35 4»' rt .yjy,, ' dV iS frit' i �' ] ,� k�+tl:1 9 --,:4My1 a4hdt1f'4r "�}}`, �Y:iL t dsi � ,, .'" y'f N..3 , u'fr , , d I 1, i F tirS s. y a rA Witg,I } r'b'f f �.� 1.t . y / T E ,: ' `° 4. r2t yE�s I f t iE 4s,, �,y t It ��x �iA �hP "�� ,. �"E r��� �s�>�t.���, r�tiYr�2r d y� t ,y"+,. �531 '� t , 5 1;,., �) ! PCxr 'S yy A a,A,, ,,' 4:- Y d� t i t i V i { 4 c`[�}} / '� Xik? ft s f' Ali a '.,y tttt h -r • .,I 7�t�t�T� g }� i"1.�1� k � �i1�-E ice' t P�� it t i t 1 K FYI Y l� .4, k 1. 0' 5 �' .�'�f' kt'''k .!.li �7, r d�1 r t `iri '7, t "hey : "fit x£ d ^ a&r ����a� '. pproved ;f �u a �(( � t �rt� �, � , �, g I t k ✓ 'tr.t t s "/�!�' {f vh r d,f � 'p�1rr� ��uM� ���k}n:. ,. ..ar'-Pa,M� ` $ {rg"tlr�� �Yr'��t�'�M4 �, �c 1.,�aS a� s�fL : iICC�l1 Not approved•n 1) 'Applicant„shallsubmfta separate y,i?x original Ink?on mylar�22 x 344Sanitary`�Sewer ,Plan and t "+ ,� ,1w'3 T arA 4 P f S• y'� w • j profile 2)Sh"ow'ailpipes,lerigtstypes' slope,size1MH, , ik �,1 ,, ' . S Cti and bends Show ali elevations in plan nd .S ` ` .�oflle Maintain l0' oriz&yy 0 ent`dse ration between f; tl9si'; aS j(ui 1r tAt. } a S�, rµi.. fe suNb f f, GS i 1 'S water and sewer 3 Show bearin s and distances on all,''t tYx.;. ,,'M. 5. ua .>i, 7�,:_ g *. ..t r y....f a h'.u< I f + 1 ":' $anitr"yy}S� ewe-",,�E'asemepts on Sanitary Sewer Plan t`'4) ,,x ,r, ..'t;, 1 Mti. !,M Y^*ir°tl`,•-i une '• 'i'. 9 Y • �o�structures`overeasements 5 F ant sheet;shall be.a a'tsi. iv° comp•osite titility plan showing'all crossings. „> , u t�`4I trot appro ed, Clr�tiether or 'nor the location ofr ,� ' a • t atch basins will be changed,+on civil,plans Provide ails ,, ?,.' necessa information ont"utilitiesu(I.epipeG`dlameter " + ` rf - r ry n. , +lad fn> 9rj slope;rim and invert:elevatlons;fpipe material) Detention )y t . C, n��aa rtu r. requirements shall, be—Aln ace.../t' e astth 1990 King I ,:1 tk`' County�su`rface Water Design Manual ' Additional^� ,„ ,j detention'willl1 be equlred�6 by useFofrSCS rlyd7:9,,,h t t,; H. - Y ',rr t>;i.rd } d 5 J..w a'I •G t.�a �, method Plans shall`be submitted"on'22•X 34,'prints t�;,#zw i�' s,•;, ` ranspoi do •• Not approved Deferred off-site improvementaplans for #�}t , aNE�9thk St tobe~'updated:•per, attachedlpteroffice k�'�' comments s ` , - r �i•" `;���.1'a"� ' "t`I; caw v fi • rr� A+t'>i`Li.L.4�T, • '4'`[$ f k rldr arA ,v;V l"t d,yt.'a � ? jjl ? ' } �ot4approved, ,Proposed.Improve •ments encroach•over'jl + ar existing Utility Easemert "over'the vacated •streetf,`?4 '' , Submit eparatEN., „ mia7n Improve ent`s plan�ior""fire 4G 5 ". r'otectIon's"rinkler`'s"stern ., tionailh""drants+ma`M'Eie `ifl�40" required� Awloopedwatermainsysfemisrequired K k` , s flreflow derriand pis,over2 500FGPM: A flreflow analysis,,, -4.. r, as be required to ascertain that./try s system can F del boveflreflo demand�Subecttto•development <", _ , g .t fees�pe�"attached feeyreview sheet? tE, , )E g. xfg Y„ lth lr{ •9 ... ' " ' P ,� .rat `. t S` `nt' }F it} rYt, Yt ,al i;� �. }',:. • EN7.VIRONMENTAL 4'1.,S,^¢4,1 �`,+�;.it'!f t���`, � 8 Fi=' t IR 4 �1�A�f,rcrf'�t•4 „.• g°4{M- 44 4 `�1,,` �Z,• # ttg 3� (' • tl�?Sy)C7i { ( Probe ie minor impact on housing Yµ" f11'.. �d h�� *' t, t'tL N+:--5 0kl� tt by f' b it r ,, + Jil .y4Y°uP 3'"S *Sh S k t,I�`t S l bt 1! SX C ja � rifi• 1) The expansion•may cause�erse traffic impacts'to +� the "nelghbbrhood }Traffic has' jtot been evaluated , 2yy ,`1t �; Checkiisttmentions peak, volumesr�on Sundays hove r fi ` `` ,?• ;muchwwb�ar"id how' much'in "daily'" rips oq weekda"ys 'Us .fit,,,` >r,^t' ,, Landsca I fo aesthet cs Is"o ad'e'quate,7 S`e"'Land.Use � , , p 9 C� , ., � q 4�t cJs,-r,�i ,xYvwY +*v t , comrpents" 3) i$uggest $2 00. 00,street clean up�,,r maintenance bond be provided ' T, : r°d•r''°,, w ii e' r t jq, , k. 2°Y,,.- 1d"... aM.f"". Uskq� S:" Qtl^-4 4, ^,, robab e`m!florin-pactM "one ubliclser"vices�'t ,t uTf} . 5n d �,Y lfi1 et.0 rSl PP i, �' '' !sfi t�rl,fl DF' wouid be appropriate: Ensure building design Is 'r coiiipatible w/existing •structure itVappears. so"'tfrom"�°'t �;',Y ;., - application Abundant landscapingishouId be added•to,,4r #,� buildingDoes the�Landscaping in parking area meet our Irs, f equirerpents Seems barren:i is there atway,to Increase ,Et.4 t+J` ��-.1 .7ihip _, k t, f i-� z '"' p �3 '�S Cr 1. ¢ art i a•F.t 'K ,, i, „. -c ea o hefiprwIA..,t has not addressed the off stte impacts f lch wlll"be minor�as many ofk t e iusers'rlive in'the :- , + j " rpmedlate area `These will,t a on sitfs e lmpactsahat need, , ,r; ' to be addressedt. ' • %+ab� a� b,x "+' '> ,fy,+� s° it , ., t 1d > i}i , Protect •not,;anticipatedx to significantly,Impact'pollee°` (Y ft" services- y g r�,, 'k� it ��..,{+; i '.if'"��fy�,, '"In.k�y.b !£ aYk •,$(('+'yykk..,� %r4 .. ! 5 •,,,,. him 1 .GSi1A MBA it • a`e. 1 ', �M w "il.1}LC g t, Qr` 41 i'h� *" 'i,. y�i' tU3 t'tM1,s�'y'�2�./a.`�tP�. .,•j���j}S jrY,t,kQ l,:: ,. 1 �k +Ei,";,pl=,+ „ ,;,�+. �" ..S s ...y3F•'t ctN kwt :, f tt,,� r + i f, „ r, ut " b<tti ti •'• '',q e ` i } , 7 t ?ft 041 ns , AL+• ' • "44 t!-.4" r:. -a, 1• p+ k+y i,rt t t . g 't1 t:,Fin 02rY f n 4 „,,,,. „s.{°A:•i `'d r Ka ! t-{'� ,,, "�• ' ,F �.iSti N 'tt tr r g, C . 44, 5 , a ,, P i i t a 11,r >�rwr>'� t"��d � �� f t a a' Intl e tr' r,,, 'fit. 7. R yy S A 'IQ }7 r t et.� S` 3r > i£;. k: }. �} R �'$' t d �" S' h`�kk w r,t,"� 6w`�Fad'} .�' +yiltrfl4�' Fn ` d '�,5 T f ri1r+'''i�'1!le*7 k'e,'y¢ ei f c�; (h f= +fttr-, "4 G ,, ,jfd : I4}t 4 t NNf I `'F,` F `: , ec (� ,*r4 ,• V PJh t�{.F , y{J '�•,�i,yrR ,,: ,r f,f a �5, r+s "d.4� jr4 W' S1 ,"^aw.i.• :. �a. r s . x. ,_.t, Y1 . ri• a, td ...rmY r �.i" �9',. • City of Renton Technical Advisory Committee MEETING NOTICE December 14,1990 To: Gregg Zimmerman Rubin Yu Glen Gordon Sam Chastain Penny Bryant Jim Hanson From: I Don Erickson,Chairman Meeting Date: December 14,1990 Time: 8:80:AM Location:':: Third Floor Conference Room Agenda is listed below. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA DECEMBER 14,1990 Third Floor Conference Room Commencing at 8:30 AM TIME/KEY PARTICIPANTS NEW PROJECTS GULL INDUSTRIES HYDROCARBON VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM ECF-142-90 The site contains hydrocarbon-contaminated soil and ground water. The clean-up procedures chosen for this site Is the hydrocarbon vapor extraction system. A vacuum Is applied to (a) well(s) to Induce air flow to subsurface soil. The soil gas is drawn off and discharged to the air. The project is located at 3800 NE Fourth Street. HIGHLANDS CHURCH CU;R-048-90 The applicant seeks to rezone the easterly portion of the project site from R-1 (single-family residential) to P-1 (Public Zone) and to construct a two-story 12,000 sf addition to the existing church in order to provide additional classroom area. The project is located at 3031 NE 10th Street. ...............................::::........... .•::i•5�.:�.{•:S.`.•:4:4i:?•::i�i::�i:C4:•:•i:SC:�:i?:�i:i:?i:�:�:f:�:�:(:�:i�i:i�`:ii�i:�i !:}}:... Tr. ..��• •;�..r.� C N. 0 0 LI.CAT1. .N ... .................... . .. «: ::::::>:::<:;:::>:<:: ::::;:::::; • • NAME: _'REZONE $ Highlands Community Church SPECIALPERMIT $ TEMPORARY PERMIT $ ADDRESS: 3031 N. E. 10th _'CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ SITE PLAN APPROVAL • $ SPECIAL PERMIT $ CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98056 ___GRADE&FILL PERMIT $ (NO:CU.YDS: ) —*VARIANCE $ • TELEPHONE NUMBER 2 5 5-4 7 51 (FROM SECTION: ) _'WAIVER $ ROUTINE VEGETATION :.;:<';.:.;.::_,>:•<.:<TACT PER$ON APPLICANT MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ • NAME: Richard W. Ralston (*JUSTIFICATION REQUIRED) ADDRESS: 14221 W. Lk. Kathleen Dr. S. E. SUBDIVISION: $ X LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98056 SHORT PLAT $ • TENTATIVE PLAT $ PRELIMINARY PLAT $ TELEPHONE NUMBER 2 3 5-5 0 5 7 _FINAL PLAT $ NO.OF LOTS: PLAT NAME: OJ-ECT (.N FOR MATIO • ;N.::.::;:.::.:.:.>:.>:.:.»;;:.: PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ 12,Eh4To N \I`l7HL.A ND 9 er:AY,V\0 µ \T`( CNN--C \ l oT t, 4E A•D 5v5"C ��N V PRELIMINARY • FINAL PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: 3031 N.E. 10th Renton, WA 98056 BINDING SITE PLAN: — $ • KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): MOBILE HOME PARKS: . $ • _TENTATIVE EXISTING LAND USE(S): _PRELIMINARY BU1LIi4(7' _FINAL • PARK NAME: EXISTING ZONING: . NO.OF SPACES: • - ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ PROPOSED LAND-USE(S): PROJECT VALUE: $ C.NURLbA A c�TM`c NT 8 U Il✓D 1 N4 ' SENSITIVE AREA: APA: —1 _2 —OTHER _N/A. SEWER MORATORIUM AREA: YES NO PROPOSED ZONING: t- - 1 TOTAL FEES: $ SITE AREA(SQ.FT.OR ACREAGE): DATE PAID: POSTAGE PROVIDED: YES NO . . .........:........:.:..:::::::::::..::•::... . :::This:>:':;<ctl n::to ••::e.::�:': :;: s orri•''l'e�ed:�:• Y. X.. ..::...::.:.::.::•.:::.:::::::::•:5�::. .::.::':CIJ: LLA PP....FP....T�...�.�'. .�2UM�?:::::::::. ::'::::'::::::•: .::•::':::.:>:';:•;:<•:;:• .; :: AAD .W... PUD... T?'tl .::::.S.M.:::.$IvLE PMH� FMPSp $.SP:.:'::'::•::'::;.:;::;.:::.:: '::<.::;•>:.;::.:.;>:.;:.::.::. :':. :::::::.::.:::::::•:::::::::. • • • • • • • • • • Pro . ect Narrative• • i i a e ns r ion f • addi io o the existin church structure on Parcel "A" - • • • I Kirt Willis , being duly sworn, declare that I am (please check one) x the authorized representative to act for the property owner, the owner of the property involved in this application and that the.foregoing statements and answers herein contained.and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS . DAY OF 19_ • , NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON,RESIDING AT: Highlands Community Church My commission expires: • by .. • • (Name of Notary Public) • (Signature of Owner) Kirt Willis, Chairman 3031 N. E. 10th Board of Elders (Address) (Address) • , Renton, WA 98056 (City/State/Zip) (City/State/Zip) 255-4751 (Telephone) • • (Telephone) • Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other material • required to constitute a complete application are listed in the"Application Procedure." RtnMastr 2/90 1/r/j/ • QUIT-CLAIM DEED THE GRANTOR, WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS COMPANY , a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington having its principal place of business at 815 Mercer Street, Seattle, in said Stale, for and in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) conveys and quit claims to HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH thefollowing described real estate, situated in the County of King State of Washington pmd-4t I yciMumgt 1 xemeli ax k as hxtl g x pk fi iltipi : The Westerly 5 feet of the Easterly 30 feet of Jefferson Avenue.N.E. (vacated) extending from the Southerly right-of-way (extended) of N.E. 10th Street Southerly for a distance of 220 feet, and lying between ' tracts 32 and '33 within the corrected plat of Renton Highlands #2 as recorded in Volume 57 of Plats, Pages 92 through 98, records of King County. Situate in the Northwest quarter of Section 9, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , which includes those rights acquired from HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH on January 19, 1977, by Easement instrument #7705020588, records of ' King County, Washington. The purpose of this instrument is to relinquish an existing gas easement, referenced herein, and return said property rights to the Grantor therein. Dated this day of 19 90 WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS COMPANY • By R.J. Tomlinson Senior Vice President -- • Legal and Administration • State of Washington County of ss. On this clay of '19 before me personally appeared to me known to he the of the cnrpnrnlinn that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument In he the free and voluntary act and deed ill said cnrpnraliun, for Ilm uses and purpose:; therein mentioned, and nn oath stilled that he Was authorize;I In execute said instrument and Ihal the seal affixed is the corporal() seal of said corporation. • IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at • . ' coniFeR MANAGEMENT,INC. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT/LEASING December 6, 1990 Richard W. Ralston Chairman, Building Committee Highlands Community Church 3031 NE 10th Street Renton, WA 98056 Reference: Proposed Lot Line Adjustment Dear Mr. Ralston: The request for a Lot Line Adjustment as proposed in your letter of November 2nd has been presented to HUD. A copy of their response is enclosed. As you know, our property is subject to both an FHA insured mortgage and a rental subsidy contract (under the HUD Section 8 program) . It would be helpful if you provide some of the information they request, i.e. (1) a letter from a surveyor to satisfy Para 1 (c) , (2) a letter from the title company to satisfy Para 1 (f) , (3) a written opinion from an appraiser to satisfy Para 2 , and (4) an appraiser's letter re value, if necessary, :to satisfy Para 3 . The original title insurance policy was issued by Safeco (which is now Chicago Title) . The policy no. is 350325. I have spoken to Mike Beckman at Chicago Title (628-5612) regarding the proposed lot line adjustment. They will need legal description and the survey. There will also be a fee of approximately $ 230 for the required endorsement. His address is Columbia Center, 701 Fifth Avenue #1700, Seattle 98104. I suggest you handle this directly with him. Also, the Quit Claim Deed for the subject land must show the following party as grantor: The Golden Pines Partnership, a Washington Limited partnership Conifer Developments, Inc. (General Partner) By Allan E. Hanson, President 3848 SO.JUNETT,P.O.BOX 11246 TACOMA,WA 98411,(206)475-6610 FAX(206)472-0499 As I had indicated earlier, the process of a release would not be simple. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, CONIF A MENT, INC. • Al an H on President AEH/pm • • U.S. Departm( ousing and Urban Development '• Seattle Office, Region X Arcade Plaza Building • 1321 Second Avenue L O Seattle, Washington 98101-2058 CONIFER MANAGEMENT, INC. December 3, 1990 DEC - 51990 Mr. Allan Hanson, President Conifer Management, Inc. APPV'D COOED P.O. Box 11246 Tacoma, Washington 98411 Dear Mr. Hanson : SUBJECT: Partial Release of Security, Golden Pines, 127-38017 We have reviewed your letter dated November 27, 1990, regarding partial release of security at the subject project. • We will give consideration to your request provided that you submit to this office the documentation required by HUD Handbook 4350.1, chapter 4, section 7, paragraph 4(a) . We request that you provide all of the required documentation subject to the following exceptions and/or modifications : Paragraph 1(a) . Already submitted. Paragraph 1(b). Required. • Paragraph 1(c). Note that only the plat in question need be certified as to whether or not utility lines are present. A letter from the surveyor should be adequate. Paragraph 1(d) . Already submitted. • Paragraph 1(e) and 1(f) . Required. Paragraph 1(g) and 1(h) . Not required in this instance. Paragraph 1(i ) . Necessary, if applicable. Paragraph 2. A full appraisal may not be required. A written opinion from a professional appraiser would suffice, providing a determination is made that the release would have no effect on the value of the property. If an effect on value is determined, then • it will be necessary to make the other valuations as outlined in this paragraph. This is the only instance where a full appraisal may be necessary. • Paragraph 3. Only necessary if value is determined. INSURED PROJECT SERVICING HANDEOOK. I 4350.1 CHG 41 • • CHAPTER A. SECTION 7 are met which would have been imposed had a request been made in proper fashion. However, if the con- version is unacceptable, the mortgagor is unwilling to make the required restoration or meet HUD require- ments in order to obtain approval, the Housing Management Division Director shall impose sanctions as outlined in paragraph ld(1) tnrouyh ( 6) of this Section until compliance is achieved. (5) When a HUD subsidized (Sections 8, 221(d) (3) BMIR, 236, and any projects receivirxg rent supplement or interest reduction payments) insured project or a portion thereof • is altered for conversion to cccm'ercial or other non- housing uses, it becaries covered under the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, and is subject to accessibility design standards issued by the General Services Administration at 41 rPMR 101 29.607. Essentially, the . above design standards require compliance with the "American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A 117.1 1961 (R1971) Specifications for Making Buildings and Facilities Accessible to and Usable•by the Physically • Handicapped." - 4. PARTIAL RELEASE OF 'SECURITY. Release of a portion of the mortgaged property shall be considered favorably only when the interest of HUD will not be impaired. Approval of a partial releases shall be • given by the Housing Management Division Director. Copies of deed . of release agreement and all other supporting documents shall be - forwarded_to the ARA for Housing and to the Director, OLM, Headquarters. a. Negotiated Releases. (1) A request for partial release of mortgaged property shall • be in writing addressed to the Housing Management Division Director and shall be accompanied by: " (a) A written statement setting forth the intended use of that portion of the property to be released and the consideration, if any, to be received by the mortgagor. • • Page 3 2/80 • ( -. . INSURED PROJECT • • , . SERVICING I�' NDECOK_ 350.1 CHG 41 CL_AvrFR ' . SECTT(N 7 are met which would have been inbosed had a request been made in proper fashion. However, if the con- version is unacceptable, the mortgagor is unwilling to make the required restoration or meet HUD require- ments in order to obtain approval, the Housing Management Division Director shall impose sanctions as outlined in paragraph ld(1) cnrouyh ( 6) of this Section until compliance is achieved. (5) When a HUD subsidized (Sections 8, 221(d) (3) 311R, 236, and any projects receiving rent supplement or interest reduction payments) insured croject or a portion thereof is altered for conversion to commercial or other non- . . housing uses, it becomes covered under the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, and is subject to accessibility design standards issued by the General Services Administration at 41 FPMR 101 29.607. Essentially, the . above design standards require compliance with the "American National Standards Institute .(ANSI) A 117.1 1961 (R1971) Specifications for .'Making Buildings and , Facilities Accessible to and Usable by the Physically Handicapped." • • 4c PARTIAL RELEASE OF SECURITY. Release of a portion of the mortgaged property shall be considered favorably only when the interest of HUD will not be impaired. Approval of a partial releases shall be given by the Housing Management Division Director. Copies of docd of release agreement and all other supporting documents shall be forwarded to the ARA for Housing and to the Director, OLM, Headquarters. a. Negotiated Releases. (1) A request for partial release of mortgaged property shall be in writing addressed to the Housing Management Division Director and shall be accort ied by: " (a) A written statement setting forth the intended. use of that portion of the property-to be released and the consideration, if any, to be received by the • mortgagor. • • Page 3 ' 2/80 • • INSURED-PROJECT SERVICING HANDBOOK . . • 4350.1 CHG 41 • • • CHAPTER 4, SECTION 7 • 7(4, A written statement from the mortgagee consenting to the transaction, subject to whatever conditions and restrictions the mortgagee may require. The statement • shall also set forth the current status of the insured mortgage and the then current mortgage balance. If • the mortgage is in default, the nature of such default must be stated. di, In the event there are privately_avned utility lines or mains 1`ccated'within-the•portion of .the property to be" released,"'a-written statLrient--setting forth the identity of those who' will have responsibility for continued operation and•maintenance of the utility lines and mains. The mortgagor must arrange for any , • . easements which may be required in the future operation and maintenance of. the utility lines or mains. (d) 'A plat shaving the property to be released with metes • . and bounds shown and shaving the relationship of the property to be released to the entire mortgaged property. 4110 The proposed form of deed whereby the property is to • . be conveyed, a legal description thereof, and the proposed form of easement deed or easement reservation to be used, if any, in accordance with item (c) of paragraph 4 a (1) c of this Section. d � • . • • • • 2/80 Page 4 (thru 6) LNJUKt.11 YKUJt.I,l • �` f7 SERVICING HANDBOOK • . 4350.1 CHAPTER 4, SECTION 7 * / A letter from the title insurance company which issued the existing mortgagee's title policy to the effect • that the release of a portion of the mortgage security • 'will not adversely affect the policy or title insurance and the validity or priority of the lien of the insured mortgage on the remaining property. (g) The proposed form of letter agreement to be executed by the mortgagor and mortgagee whereby both parties agree that the payment to principal on the mortgage, if any, as required by the mortgagee or HUD because of the partial release of mortgaged property is not to be considered as an optional prepayment, as that term is used in the mortgage or note, and that failure to make the regular monthly payments will constitute a default under the mortgage. (h) A written statement from the governmental unit having jurisdiction if the partial release of mortgaged property is for street dedication or other public purpose, setting forth the consideration to be paid, if any; whether or not assessments are involved; and the obligation being assumed as to continuing operation and maintenance, if appropriate; accompanied by the • • proposed form of conveyance to be used. Any other documents to be executed by the mortgagor affecting its interest in the mortgaged property. (2) Determination will be made as to: (a) The value of the entire property before release. (b). The value of the property remaining after the release, • taking into account any and all severance damage. • (c) The value of the property to be released, and (d) The effect of the release on the remaining portion of the mortgaged property, if any, other than the monetary.value. • • (3) A determination will also be made as to the amount which the mortgagor must apply in reduction of the unpaid balance . of mortgage principal in the event the amount required by the mortgagee is less than the greater of the following • stuns Page 7 11/77 INSURED PROJECT , SERVICING HANDBOOK . ' I. 4350.1 f CHAPTER 4, SECTION 7 * (a) An amount which will result in the adjusted unpaid • balance of principal having a ratio to the value of the mortgaged property, after the release, no higher than the present unpaid balance of principal now has to the value of the mortgaged property; or _ (b) An amount equal to the loss in value to the project resulting from the release of that portion of the property. (4) Under certain circumstances, where no monetary considera- - tion is to be received by the mortgagor but the interests of HUD stand to be enhanced, the foregoing requirement as to a minimum amount to be applied as a reduction of the principal balance may, with the concurrence of the mortgagee, be modified or waived. (5') Upon receipt of the findings of the Property Operations Branch (or Underwriting Staff) , the Housing Management Division Director shall approve or disapprove the request. No fees will be imposed by HUD for a transaction of this nature. If the land is to be released from under the • insured mortgage, then a release agreement shall be drawn, . ' executed by the parties and approved on behalf of the Secre- tary by the Area Office Director after it has been cleared' by the Area Counsel for legal sufficiency. A copy of the . approval letter with a full set of instruments shall be ,forwarded to the ARA for Housing and the Director, OLM - • 'Headquarters. b. Partial Taking of Security by Condemnation. When a portion of the mortgaged property is taken by a public authority by the institution of condemnation proceedings, such taking can be without the prior approval of either the mortgagee or HUD. But the responsibility remains with the mortgagee- to keep currently informed concerning such proceedings to assure that claim for adequate compensation is properly instituted. The Housing Management Division Director shall also keep currently informed as to the status of the proceedings. When condemnation ';Jproceedings have been concluded, certified copies of the award and all related documents, if possible, shall be obtained and • forwarded to the Director, OLM, Headquarters and to the ARA for Housing. • 5 EASEMENT. a. Mortgagors, on odcasion, are requested by municipalities, public forf utilities, or others to grant easements or rights-of-way construction of sewer or power lines, or for other purposes. * 11/77 Page 8 • 3031 NE 10th Street Renton,WA 98056 (206)255-4751 • CO I m ImunIty • JimAmandus Church Senior Pastor . • November 2, 1990 Mr. Allan Hanson Conifer Management, Inc. • P. 0. Box 11246 Tacoma, WA 98411 Re: Highlands Community Church Lot- Line Adjustment of Boundary with Golden Pines Dear Al: When we met with you regarding the proposed lot line adjustment between the Church and Golden Pines we agreed that the church would proceed to obtain the necessary legal descriptions and survey • drawings for submission of this application to the City of Renton. Our surveyor has now completed this work. I have enclosed to you the following documents: 1. Lot line adjustment map (18" x 24") including the present and proposed legal descriptions of our respective properties. 2 . Original and one copy of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment application form. 3 . • Narrative description of this proposal for your convenience in seeking the approval of HUD (if deemed necessary) for this lot . line adjustment. 4 . Copy of proposed Quit Claim Deed. We are now prepared to submit the Lot Line Adjustment to the City of Renton for approval. Your review of this matter (and submission to HUD if necessary) will be appreciated. • Please execute the original application form and return it to me in :the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope. When the application has been approved by the City of Renton we will make the necessary arrangements to present the Quit Claim Deed and mylar • copy of the survey map for execution by you. • If you have any questions, please contact me at 235-5057 . Thank • you for your consideration of this matter. Ve co l .‘ i rd Ralsto • Chairman, Building ' ommittee RWR:dk Bill Herman Chris Renzelman Mike Smith Wallace Wilson Worship/Music Stuaenf/Singles Missions/Evangelism Pastor Emeritus LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Highlands Community Church - Golden Pines Renton, Washington Highlands Community Church is a non-denominational church which has been in existence since 1946. Since the early 1950's it has been located at 3031 N.E. 10th Street, Renton, Washington. Its property surrounds the Golden Pines facility, bordering on the East, South and West. Some years ago the church and Golden Pines joined in a request to obtain the vacation of unopened Jefferson Street which divided their properties. This vacation request was granted by the City of Renton. Thus, Golden Pines became the owner of the Westerly half of Jefferson Street, and the church became the owner of the Easterly half. The church has proposed to build a Christian Education wing adjacent to their present facility, on the West side of the existing gymnasium structure, and in the vicinity of the Southeast corner of the Golden Pines property. Due to the necessary configuration of the attachment between the existing church building and the new building, the church proposes to acquire a small portion (30' x 70' ) of the Westerly half of vacated Jefferson Street which Golden Pines owns for purposes of the building pad and setbacks required by city code. The acquisition is proposed to be accomplished by lot line adjustment of the common boundary between the church and Golden Pines. A copy of the lot line adjustment map (18" x 24") is enclosed for illustration. It should be emphasized that this proposed lot line adjustment does not encroach upon the originally platted parcel upon which the Golden Pines facility was built. The parcel proposed to be deeded to the church is located entirely within the boundaries of vacated Jefferson Street, and does not affect the current or proposed operations of the Golden Pines facility. WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Richard W. Ralston c/o Highlands Community Church 3031 N.E. 10th Street Renton, WA 98056 QUIT CLAIM DEED THE GOLDEN PINES PARTNERSHIP, a Washington limited partnership, for and in consideration of lot line adjustment, conveys and quit claims to HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH, a Washington non-profit corporation, the following described real estate, situated in King County, State of Washington, together with all after acquired title of the Grantor therein: That portion of Block 33 of the Corrected Plat of Renton Highlands No. 2 , as per recorded plat thereof recorded in Volume 57 of Plats, on pages 92 to 98, inclusive, records of King County, Washington, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Block 33 of said plat; Thence South 02°51°21" West along the East line of said Block 33 a distance of 220 . 00 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 4 of City of Renton Short Plat No. 188-76 as recorded under King County Recording Number 7808170836, and the true point of beginning; Thence South 87°07°39" East 30. 00 feet to the centerline of vacated Jefferson Ave. N. E. ; Thence North 02°52 '21" East along said centerline 30 . 00 feet; Thence North 87°,07 '39" West 30 . 00 feet to the East line of said Block 33 ; Thence South 02°52 '21" West along said East line 30 . 00 feet to the point of beginning. All situate in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington. Dated: . • The Golden Pines Partnership, a Washington limited partnership, by Conifer Developments, Inc. , a Washington corporation,- its general partner by Allan E. Hanson, President by Secretary QUIT CLAIM DEED P . CO ?Y (. STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that and signed this instrument, on oath stated that they were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the President and Secretary of Conifer Management, Inc. to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at My appointment expires: D5 . 5 : 21: 12/12/90 :dk QUIT CLAIM DEED PAGE - 2 November 19. 1990 Renton City Council Minute Page 347 2) North Soos Creek: There was too much planning and delay involved in the annexation study process. 3) Committee of the Whole: Topics should be part of the Council meeting, and minutes should be made available to the public. 4) Defense of residents'rights: In the Boeing Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), citizen rights were not protected. Citizen Comment: Vaupel Versie Vaupel, P. 0. Box 755, Renton, commented that the Renton - RVTI Use of Renton Vocational/Technical Institute (RVTI) is a non-profit organization designed School District Facilities to serve the City of Renton by providing quality vocational training opportunities. She pointed out that RVTI is part of the school district in the area of administration only, is a regional institution, and is virtually a separate entity from the school district. Ms. Vaupel noted that the RVTI covers a boundary from Pierce County line to north of the Seattle Central area, then from the west at Vashon Island to Kittitas County line on the east. Many school districts are within those boundaries; yet only Renton School district carried the extra levies for RVTI. In Spring 1990, the State Legislature passed a bill that allows RVTI to separate from the local school district administration, and allows possible assumption of title to the school district property it presently occupies. Ms. Vaupel requested that the City try to keep RVTI in Renton, noting that if it becomes a State entity, it could be sold. Citizen Comment: Gevers Cornelius Gevers, 900 Kirkland Avenue NE, Renton, referred to the matter - Highlands Community of the Highlands Community Church on-site improvement deferrals to be Church Deferral reported out of the Community Services Committee at this meeting, and expressed his appreciation to the Committee for recommending a satisfactory resolution for all parties involved in this matter. Citizen Comment: Vaupel Versie Vaupel, P. 0. Box 755, Renton, complained that several deadlines - Renton/Boeing Noise were missed in regard to the Boeing Final Environmental Impact Statement Mitigation Committee, (FEIS) because of unclear public notices and a lack of citizen knowledge Appeal Administrative regarding the appeal process. She also claimed that the written agreement on Determination Language noise mitigation between Boeing and the City was modified after expiration of the appeal period to Superior Court, thereby depriving North Renton residents of appeal rights. In response to Councilman Edwards' inquiry regarding the status of the appeal process handbook, Councilwoman Keolker-Wheeler said this matter will be held in the Ways and Means Committee until language for a citizen handbook has been developed by the City Attorney's office. She said the first draft of this information will be made available to the Council and the public when it is completed, and pointed out that this project will take considerable time since it involves extensive research of appeal policies and procedures. Ms. Vaupel also commented that the North Renton Citizens and City administration entered into an agreement which included formation of a Noise Mitigation Committee composed of three Boeing representatives and three community representatives to discuss noise levels at the Boeing airport. She objected to the Mayor's appointment of a county resident to this committee. She said that the North Renton citizens feel the committee should consist of community representatives who live within the City limits. Councilman Tanner entered the following correspondence regarding this matter: 1) Memorandum from Mayor Clymer to Mr. Tanner dated September 28, 1990, stating that three candidates were needed for the Noise Committee. Mayor Clymer said he had asked Councilwoman Zimmerman and Councilman Tanner for possible candidates and had talked to the North Renton Defense Fund regarding this issue. He stated further that he had received one recommendation, and needed two more names. He also commented that since this action was a result of administrative decision and is being challenged in the court, it would not be wise for the administration to select the two members. 2) Memorandum from Mr. Tanner to Mayor Clymer stating that he was still having difficulty finding a West Hill community representative to serve on the Renton/Boeing noise committee, and indicated that Marge Richter of North Renton was willing to serve on the committee. He said that Ms. Richter's record of community service spoke for itself, and he was pleased to nominate her for the committee. Mr. Tanner stated that he also objected to the appointment of a County resident to this committee, requested that this appointment be reconsidered, November 19. 1990 Renton City Council Minutes - Page 349 Public Works: Aquifer Utility Systems Division submitted the draft Aquifer Protection Ordinance Protection Ordinance for review and approval. Refer to Utilities Committee. MOVED BY MATHEWS„ SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. \ CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE 1 Council President Mathews entered correspondence from Albert and Norma Garbage: Waste Sorting Arrington, 7027 South 131st Street, Seattle, received November 13, 1990, Facility, Black River stating the following concerns regarding the proposed Black River Quarry / Quarry Area construction waste sorting facility: 1) Site is much too near congested areas. 2) Estimated 900 truck trips a day will further impact I-405 and Highway 181 traffic conditions. 3) Excess noise will result from truck engines, and trucks backing up and dumping materials. 4) Noise will be generated by machinery, such as chippers grinding wood waste. 5) Exhausts of truck traffic, dust from waste, and toxic materials will create air pollution. 6) Recreation sites will be impacted, and potential hazardous conditions created for pedestrians. 7) Natural areas, such as the blue heron rookery should be protected. 8) The operation is dependent on land fills. The letter suggested consideration of on-site recycling, wood waste composting, and reuse of brick. 9) Trucks should be required to sort materials and direct wastes to appropriate recycling centers. 10) Trucks should be required to cover all loads. 11) Trucks should be banned I-405 and I-5 during rush hours. 12) Means must be employed to reduce the impact of traffic, noise, air pollution, unsightly environment, and to protect wildlife habitats. Mr. and Mrs. Arrington stated that the proposed construction waste sorting facility generates further concern because trucks may take a short cut through South 131st Street (Langston Road) which has excessive traffic, and suggested that the facility be located in a rural area. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY ZIMMERMAN, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE OFFICIAL FILE. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS Community Services Committee Chairman Zimmerman stated that the Community Services Highlands Community Church deferral of on-site improvements has been Committee under consideration for a some time, and the Committee is gratified that Public Works: Deferral, resolution of the matter has been reached that is satisfactory to concerned Highlands Community parties. Church, On-Site Improvements Ms. Zimmerman presented a Committee report stating that Highlands Community Church wished to continue the deferral of on-site improvements including parking and landscaping because they are in the process of obtaining approval to construct another church building. It was pointed out that the pavement that would have to be installed would have to be torn up to accommodate the new building. The church also claimed that the elevation of the church building would require additional parking to be removed which is not under the church footprint. The Committee has also heard complaints from the neighbors about parking violations. With respect to on-site parking, the Committee recommended that the church be required to install that portion of the parking previously deferred which is located on the right hand or south side of the walkway. This parking shall be installed no later than the end of February, 1991, unless such time is extended by the Council. The parking on the left hand or north side of the walkway will be held in abeyance. If the parking that is installed proves inadequate, or if the church is making inadequate progress toward obtaining approval to construct the church building, the Council will reconsider whether or not it wishes to have the deferred parking installed. Installation of the parking requires some drainage control. Therefore, to fully handle the on-site parking, the following three step process should be followed: 1) The paving required under this report should begin as soon as possible to be completed no later than the end of February, 1991, unless the time is extended by the Council. The remaining required parking deferred by November 19, 1990 Renton City Council Minutes Page 348 and recommended that the third member be an appointee from North Renton/Kennydale citizen organization. Councilwoman Zimmerman expressed agreement that a City resident should serve on this committee, and urged reconsideration of this appointment. Council President Mathews pointed out that there is a need to work with neighboring jurisdictions on the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the City should consider being open to allowing non-resident participation on other issues. Ms. Zimmerman requested that the Administration recommend a policy on composition of City committees indicating when residents of the City and County will be allowed to serve on a committee. Citizen Comment: Roger Blaylock, 10717 NE 4th Street, #9, Bellevue, expressed his concern Blaylock - RVTI Use of regarding RVTI's use of Renton School District facilities and suggested that Renton School District the City and School District work together on this issue to avoid serious Facilities impact on Renton citizens. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Claim: Malik, CL-073-90 Claim for damages in the amount of $17,395.40 filed by attorney Frank W. Payne on behalf of Ida Mae Malik, 4248 "A" Street SE, Auburn, for injuries incurred in fall at Park and North 8th allegedly caused by City failure to replace street lights (7/27/89). Refer to City Attorney and insurance service. Claim: Nettles, CL-074- Claim for damages in the amount of $10.81 filed by Robert Nettles, 3506 NE 90 7th Place, Renton, for replacement of hub cap allegedly lost when claimant hit manhole installed below grade (10/19/90). Refer to City Attorney and insurance service. Claim: Hay, CL-075-90 Claim for damages in the amount of $1,190.50 filed by Richard D. Hay, 1301 South Puget Drive, Renton, for vehicle damage allegedly caused by falling tree limbs at Maplewood Golf Course (10/27/90). Refer to City Attorney and insurance servLg. Claim: Jensen, CL-076-90 Claim for damages in the amount of $234.30 filed by Debra Jensen, 16127 126th Avenue SE, Renton, for replacement of two tires allegedly damaged by pothole on SW 43rd Street (11/9/90). Refer to City Attorney and insurance service. Public Works: Sewer City Clerk submitted request from Renton Vocational Technical Institute Moratorium Exemption, (RVTI) for exemption to sewer moratorium to allow construction of new RVTI, Monroe Avenue business technology center on main campus located at Monroe Avenue NE NE & NE 4th Street and NE 4th Street. Refer to Utilities Committee. CAG: 90-095, Mt. Olivet City Clerk reported bid opening 11/14/90 for Mt. Olivet Water Storage Tank Water Storage Tank Repainting; 7 bids; engineer's estimate: $200,000.00. Refer to Utilities Repainting Committee. Appeal: Budd Latecomer Hearing Examiner submitted recommendation on Budd latecomer agreement Agreement, North 36th appeal filed by John F. Harris; water improvements in North 36th Street (#W-986) between Meadow and Park Avenue North, approved by Council on 7/2/90. Refer to Utilities Committee. H & HS: Human Services Housing and Human Services Division requested approval of consultant Plan Consultant Contract contract for Human Services Plan to guide the City in providing human services. Refer to Community Services Committee. Annexation: Honey Creek Planning Division requested a public hearing be set on 12/3/90 to consider Ridge the 60% annexation petition for the Honey Creek Ridge annexation, approximately 44 acres located in the vicinity of 124th and 125th Avenue SE and SE 100th and 104th Streets. Council set public hearing for 12/3/90. King County: Local Utility Systems Division requested resolution adopting the King County Local Hazardous Waste Hazardous Waste Management Plan as recommended by Suburban Cities Management Plan Association for a Management Coordination Committee to develop plans and budgets to be submitted to the King County Board of Health. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. Public Works: 1991 Utility Systems Division submitted 1991 Comprehensive Sewer System Plan; Comprehensive Sewer full presentation to be made at Council meeting of 01/08/91 by staff and System Plan consultant. Refer to Utilities Committee. 3031 NE 10th Street • Renton,WA 98056 (206)255-4751 Community Jim Amandus Church Senior Pastor November 14, 1990 • City of Renton Department of Planning,Building,Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South PLANNING DIVISION Renton, WA 98055 CITY OF REILTON Att: Mark Pywell Project Manager NOV 1 6 1990 Re: Highlands Community Church CU;_R-048-90 E9 Dear Mark: I am enclosing a letter from Washington Natural Gas Company which covers the existing gas line easement and the corrective steps they .will make. I am also enclosing a letter from Puget Power which accomplishes the same. You will note that Puget power only has an easement on the north vacated portion of Jefferson Avenue which currently serves the church and which does not fall within the scope of the project. As noted there is no easement over the south vacation. As requested, Mark, please proceed with the project to secure as early a date before the hearing examiner as you are able. We need this building desparately. • Let me know if any other problems . arise as soon as possible so that I can take care of it or them. • Thank you for your cooperation. • Sincerely • Richard W. Ralston Building Committee • • • • Bill Herman Chris,Renzelman Mike Smilh '•Wallace:Wilson Worship/Music Student/Singles Missions/Evangelism Pastor Emeritus w . - -p Washington Natural Gas A Washington Energy Company November 8, 1990 Highlands Community Church 3031 N.E. 10th Street Renton, WA 98056 Attention: Mr. Ralston Re: Gas Line Easement on Vacated Street in Renton Dear Mr. Ralston: This letter is to inform you of our actions concerning the above area and the future project by Highlands Community Church. Washington Natural Gas Company plans to relinquish our current easement for the 2 inch gas main back to the Church to avoid future conflicts with the construction of your new facility. We would ask that,in return,the Church provides Washington Natural- Gas Company an easement to protect our present Cathodic protection station located in the Church's planting strip. Our right-of-way people are presently working on the necessary paperwork to accomplish this arrangement and will be in touch with the Church in the near future. Unless I hear otherwise, I will plan to have the existing 2 inch gas main cut and capped to clear the Church's future construction site. Should you have any questions feel free to call me at 224-2079. . - I will schedule the line to be cut and capped during the second week of January, 1991. Sincerely.! );_,Ail ';,, 4--e- (1---:/ , oseph V. J nga,J Supervisor Public Improvements Distribution Office Washington Natural Gas Company 815 Mercer Street(P.O. Box 1869), Seattle,Washington 98111, (206)622-6767 t r to ¢ • November 9, 1990 Re: Renton Highlands Community Church Vacated Right-of-Way Dear Mr. Ralston: This letter furnished per your request, is provided for information as required by the City of Renton. Puget Power does not have existing facilities in the area of the vacated Jefferson Avenue, except that which is shown in the North 150 feet on the attached universal map. Furthermore, it doesn't appear that we intend to construct facilities in this area unless a request is received for new service in this area. If I can be of any further assistance, please contact me at our Renton Service Center at 235-2948. Sincerely, Bernie Larson Sr. Customer Service Planner The Energy Starts Here° Puget Sound Power&Light Company 620 South Grady Way P.O. Box 329 Renton,WA 98057-0329 (206)255-2464 OI13-....ar co - • k I K-12113-X /' 318503-11do71'1 SiiicErV,H' ��'_ GZX F 3ooT I I '101%-ktsie iri _oTv__________- _ litallpripw/ ;iris Qo R-/22•Z L!L-/2H-X F:b I O 0I ; :: ' /31BSCb-/(o1c73�/ 31B =�{-Iralo77� /ono. 11 1 7oz TL-l09-Z s Ja _ .u1.rA. 1 _ 1BY7B-1(aL72D02 -j} ,- ! -1141-X f�1 ` �-` \ - . ,..,.\ . `�,o 11I 101 331 zo5,0 X Z, - 7 ,. .77,,,/ I - t-.' • >J I 31B'1/07-1/0(0201 '/7PX 5-176,-X J- II(o5X 11Z I, 1• 3184(0+{-16(0735 • 280 Al-I 4.1 318s1451-4480/ ZS I I -I I Ai-3(o8q-X 1 318'45Z-I(o(o73to P_X I 31841419-11,26t301 E • 182 La 1 I13 1 - iro7FX z3 1 3IB4137-r(o(o7(0sl 1 Al-7453-X L-X 3 r8�i37 Al-&SOLI X 31843'1-/41;753 1(0(o7(oY • �I 3IB'•138-1(0(073(0 �''I II • 181 42 TP. 1� _ •� 14,1 '• 0 y� ► kIG2 • ST g C n j i r. 1 2l II Q ice/ 23 1� 17 31BY33-!L!o I • aT 2 r3 �IDT�c 1 I e CITE ='OF RENTON S, miL Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator October 19, 1990 Richard Ralston 14221 W Kathleen Lake Dr. SE Renton, WA 98056 SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church Addition/Rezone CU;R-048-90 Dear Mr. Ralston: In response to two of the questions raised at our meeting today, I have talked with, Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator. He has indicated that the Conditional Use permit could be conditioned to require the release or relocation of the City easement and the approval of a lot line adjustment prior to the Issuance of site preparation/building permits for the addition. We will still need the letters from Puget Power and Washington Natural Gas before we can proceed with this application. Also, we will need the determination regarding the reversionary clause before we can proceed. It is my understanding from talking with Gregg Zimmerman that he will try and resolve this Issue. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 235-2550. Sincerely, g70,"/' Mark R. Pywgl CP Project Manager 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2569 • `' 4 CITY OF RENTON ra;:,.rst z,.,.,:. Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator October 8, 1990 Richard Ralston Chairman, Building Committee 14221 W. Lake Kathleen Dr. SE Renton,WA 98056 SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church CU;R-048=90 Dear Mr. Ralston: I have recently reviewed your project and letter, dated September 24, 1990, with Don. Erickson, Zoning Administrator. He noted that your letter indicated two phases for the future developmentof your site. We recommend that the conditional use permit application should be amended to include both phases of your project. If your architect can amend the site plan and provide some elevations:for the proposed auditorium, it should not delay the review of your project by City staff. The advantage to you for this would be that at the,time you proposed to construct the auditorium, you would not have to go through a second public hearing unless, at that time, you desired to modify the plans significantly. Conditional use permits are generally considered to be valid for five years from the date of approval. I have also discussed your letter, dated September 14, 1990 and addressed to me, with Gregg Zimmerman of the Public Works Section. He indicated that we would need a letter from Washington Natural Gas indicating that the proposed development would not affect.their easements right or that they agree that the easement and pipeline could be addressed at the time of construction. We would need this letter prior to the public hearing. As it stands now, it seems that the main hold on your project is the reversionary clause in the street abandonment and the easements. It is my understanding that you are working to resolve the on-site easement issues. If you have any questions regarding any of the matters discussed above, I would be glad to set.up a meeting with the appropriate City personnel. Sincerely, 0 Mark R. P ell, AICP Project Manager 200 Mill AVPnIIP Cni;th - P'pntnn \Ainchinnfi.n ocncc _ IlAKX lic_nccn INTERESTED PARTIES � ` � ~ - Corneluu T. Gevera Notified -Staff 900 Kirkland Avenue NE - Kanton , UA 98056 Jay Covington Ron Nelson ' Greg Zimmerman PLANN\NGD\V\3|OQ CAY0FR[NT0N Paul Lumbert Lynn Guttmann ��|^ 7 ^' 0VU - Nark Pywal l Pat Porter Larry Warren R. W. Ralston � 14221 H. Lake Kathleen Dr, 3E Renton , WA 98059 Highlands Community Church 3031 NE 10th Street Renton , WA 98056 ' ' ! | ! � | ! i | ' � � ► CITY OF RENTON THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL Earl Clymer, Mayor TO: Interested Parties FROM: Theresa Zimmerman, Chair Community Services Committee DATE: September 25, 1990 SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church Application for Deferral of On-Off Site Improvements The Community Services Committee will meet to continue discussion of this matter on: Tuesday, October 2, 1990 3:30 PM Sixth Floor Conference Room Renton City Hall You are invited to attend. If you have any questions regarding this meeting, please phone the Council secretary, Billie Dunphy, at 235-2586. Thank you. • { itAkT.\ ) Lryvryoz,kiro ),) The esa Zimmerman, Chair TZ:bd CS.NOT 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2586 f ' 3031 NE 10th Street Renton,WA 98056 (206)255-4751 • Co 1 I I 1 u n i Jim Amandus Church' Senior Pastor • • • • RECr:4`k(ED September 24, 1990 SEP 2 1990 Honorable Theresa Zimmerman RENTUi\ „AUL . Honorable. Jess Tanner • Honorable Toni Nelson • Community Services Committee .Renton City Council 200 Mill Avenue South Renton , WA 98055 Re: Highlands Community Church Application for Deferral of On-Off Site Improvements Dear Members -of the City Council : • This letter is written to clarify the situation. regarding our application for continued deferral of on and off site improvements. Factual Background The following background information is our understanding of the sequence of events involving this application as best can ' be constructed based upon our records and 'the records of the City: 1 ., In 1983 a building permit was issued to allow the church to • construct an addition to its parking lot. This was to provide additional parking . in addition to. code requirements to alleviate street parking in the neighborhood . • 2 . The Board of Public Works authorized a one-year deferral of installation of the paving and landscaping along the westerly two aisles and the northerly third of the first aisle. This • was in recognition of the fact that future development 'plans • would likely require those improvements to be torn out. 3 . . The church posted a cash deferral bond of $5000.00 which is still held by U .S. Bank for the benefit. of the' City. 4. From 1984 through 1987 the one-year deferrals were extended by the Board of Public Works as authorized by ordinance. Bill Herman Chris Renzelman Mike Smith Wallace Wilson Worship/Music Student/Singles Missions/Evangelism Pastor Emeritus S, C_ . • • • Community Services Committee September 24, 1990 Page 2 • 5 . In 1988 the Board of Public Works informed the church that it . had no further authority to grant deferral of the improvements. 6 . The Board of Public Works suggested that the' church request that the City Council waive the construction of the deferred paving and landscape improvements with the understanding that they would be installed in connection with the church' s then, pending applications for rezone and conditional use permit to . allow construction of a proposed new auditorium. 7 . Accordingly, the church filed , its request with the City Council by letter, received by the City on June 27 , 1988. The • request was referred to the Community Services Committee' on July 11 , 1988. No further action has .been taken. 8. In the meantime: a. The church's plans for construction of a new auditorium were modified, and the 1988 rezone and conditional use permit applications were withdrawn by the church . b. The master plan for development of the church' s site was modified to provide for development of' the site in two phases. • Phase I : The first phase is construction of a two-story Christian Education building immediately adjacent to the westerly side of the existing . gymnasium. • Phase I improvements ( including these deferred improvements) will be constructed as soon as 'the necessary rezone and • conditional use permit approval 'can be obtained. Phase II : The second phase proposes construction of a new auditorium. This will complete the development of the site. c. The church has filed new applications for. rezone and conditional use permit approvals . for the - Phase • I • development. These applications are pending review by the Community Development Department before being submitted for review by the Hearing •Examiner. • d. At the request of the Board of Public Works, the church has proceeded 'with construction of off-site improvements ,(curbs , gutters and sidewalk) along the' northerl_y margin of N.E. 9th Street. A building permit has been issued for these improvements, and construction should be completed within a few days.. • • • Community Services Committee ' September 24, 1990 Page 3 • 9 . The church' s June 22 , 1988 request for waiver of the paving and • landscape improvements has now been taken up for consideration by the Community Services Committee. Current Status of Church's Request The church acknowledges its responsibility to complete the curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements along N. E. 9th Street. These long-awaited improvements will not be affected by the plans. for • development under Phase I of our master plan. Therefore, the church is proceeding with construction of these improvements. However, we believe that it will be inefficient and wasteful to install paving .and landscape improvements at this time which will likely have to be torn out for the forthcoming construction of the Christian Education addition. ' Rezone and conditional use permit applications are being pursued _ by the church to prepare for construction of this addition. When these applications are approved the church will immediately proceed , with development of final building plans and apply for a building permit to construct the Christian Education building. That development will include all of the deferred paving and landscape improvements. In the event that the rezone and conditional use permit applications are not approved, then the church understands that it. will be necessary to immediately install the deferred paving and landscape improvements. Therefore, the church requests that the City Council waive installation of the deferred paving, and landscape improvements pending completion of review of the rezone and conditional use permit applications , subject to the requirement that the deferred . improvements be installed immediately in the: event that the rezone and conditional use permit applications are not •approved. • Pending Zoning Applications • We request that. the City , Council proceed with its consideration of our request for. waiver of the paving and landscape improvements with care because of the church's pending. rezone and conditional use permit applications for construction of the Christian Education • building planned under Phase I of our mater plan. Because these land use applications will ultimately come before the 'CityCouncil in its quasi-judicial capacity, it is important that the members • of the City Council not violate the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine by having ex parte contact with anyone regarding these • Community Services Committee September 24, 1990 Page 4 applications, or pre-judging the church's application prior to presentation of the report of the Hearing Examiner on our applications to the City Council . Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Res ctfully submit W (/ Richard W. Ralston Chairman, Building Committee ( y , tO CITY OF RENTON BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS ' Earl Clymer, Mayor PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON August 31, 1990 CITY OF RENTON c'I:P -- 4 199U RECEIVED .,..` AUG 3 1 1990 Mr. C. T. Gevers DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 900 Kirkland Avenue N.E. • DIVISION Renton, WA 98056 SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church Dear Mr. Gevers: As a follow-up to the Board of Public Works meeting, enclosed please find for your review a copy of the minutes. Also, this will be an agenda item again next week, September 5th, simply to amend the motion to reflect referring the matter back to the appropriate Council Committee. This issue was brought before the Council by the Church's administrative staff sometime ago in an attempt to .extend the 5-year limitation for a deferral; consequently, the Board's recommendation to install the improvements, rather than defer, will go back to the Community Services Committee and is on their agenda for September 18,1990 at 4:30 p.m. You can contact Billie Dunphy, Council Secretary, on 235-2686 for more information. If I can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to call me on 277-6194. Sincerely, ''Patricia M. Porter Recording Secretary hilch/890/pmp cc: Jim Hanson Paul Lumbert Don Erickson,/ Billie Dunphy 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2569 s CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: August 28, 1990 TO: Jim Hanson, Chair • Renton Board of Public Works FROM: Donald K. Erickson,AICP Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Highland Community Church CU; R-048-90 The Highland Community Church application for a conditional use permit and a change of zone is presently on hold pending further information from the applicant. The project as proposed was to be constructed over an existing easement containing a sewer line and a natural gas line. The project was also encroaching on the rear setback area. Staff can not continue to process this application until the problems with the setback and the easement have been resolved. The applicant has indicated his willingness to work with Public Works and the natural gas company to relocate the lines and the easements or to do whatever Is necessary to resolve their concerns. He also indicated that he would be working with the adjacent property owner to purchase a portion of the adjacent lot to provide the necessary setback area. This will also require a lot line adjustment to resolve the location of the property line. `',!� '` CITY OF RENTON Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator August 17, 1990 Dick Ralston 14221 W Lake Kathleen Dr. SE. Renton,WA 98056 Subject: Highlands Community Church CU; R-048-90 Dear Mr. Ralston: • As we discussed on the telephone on Friday, August 10, 1990, Section 4-31-36 (A).of the Renton City Code, Conditional Use Permits, states that: "Except as provided In this Section, a conditional use permit may not reduce the requirements of the zone in which the use is to be located." Section 4-31-36 (C.3.b) states that: "Yards shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Additions to the structures shall not be allowed in any required yard." It will be necessary to resolve the issues concerning the location of the easements and the property line before we can complete the processing of your application. We can not approve a conditional use permit when we do not know where the building will be located. The following is a summary of the comments that have been received to date on the proposed project: Storm Water 1. An approved Temporary Erosion/Sediment Control Plan shall be submitted to Public Works. 2. A baffled oil/water separator shall be required (if it is not already present) after the control restrictor manhole, and before drainage leaves the site and goes into the existing street system. 3. Clarify whether or not the catch basin location will be changed. 4. Detention requirements shall be in accordance with the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Additional detention will be required, by use of SCS Hydrograph Method. Water Utility 5. Proposed improvements encroach over an existing utility easement over the vacated street. 6. Submit separate watermain improvements plan for fire protection sprinkler system. 7. Additional Hydrants may be required. 8. A looped fire system is required if firefiow demand is over 2,500 gpm. 7(1(1 Mill Avpn„P cniith - Rentnn Wachincrtim oQncc - (')nZ\ -rIc_1411 Dick Ralston Highlands Community Church - August 17, 1990 Page 2 9. A fireflow analysis may be required to ascertain that the City's system can deliver above fireflow demands. 10. Subject to development fees. Sewer Utilities 11. There is a 8" sanitary sewer on NE 10th St. flowing from Jefferson Ave. NE in Index Ave Ne. Depth is approximately 10.12 feet. Must be field checked and verified by applicant. 12. Site plan shows new addition encroaching on adjacent property by approximately 7 feet. Adjacent property to the west is shown under the ownership of Golden Pines. 13. Site plan shows the new addition, or a portion thereof, Is to be built over an existing easement. No permanent structures are allowed over easements. There Is an 8"sewer line In the easement. Traffic Division 14. Deferred off-site improvement plans for NE 9th St.to be updated. Current Planning Division 15. Addition landscaping,for aesthetics shall be provided. 16. Existing landscaping needs to be refurbished. 17. All parking areas for the proposed project should be paved. 18. Stripping in existing parking areas is faded and should be restripped. The comments outlined above may become conditions of approval for the environmental review or for the conditional use permit. It is not necessary for you to resolve all these issues at this time. They are provided so you can begin to get a sense of how your project is being perceived by the various City Departments at this time. It is necessary for us to resolve the issues regarding the easements and your property line with Golden Pines before we can start the hearing process on this project. The 8" sanitary sewer line and the easement must be resolved with the Public Works Department. There is also a gas line and easement for Washington Natural Gas. It would appear that it might be possible for you to work out a method to relocate these lines,with the respective holders of the easements. However, we can not complete the processing of your application until these are resolved or the proposed addition is located outside of the easements and with the required setbacks. In our last conversation, you indicated that you would either purchase all or a portion of the half-width vacated street from Golden Pines to ensure that the addition and parking was located entirely on your property with appropriate setbacks. This also needs to be resolved before we can complete the processing of your application. r Dick Ralston • Highlands Community Church August 17, 1990 Page 3 If you do not want the project held up until the Issues regarding the easement acid property line are resolved, you would have to redesign the building so that it did not encroach on the easement or the property line. These plans would have to be submitted for the City's review. If, at a later date, you were able to resolve these issue and wanted to return to this design, then a new conditional use permit would be required. In other words, the plans submitted for Building Permits must reasonably match what is presented for the conditional use permit. I do not believe any of the issues listed above can not be resolved, however, it may take some time for you to reach the necessary agreements. Also, you mentioned that you were having the property resurveyed in order to verify the location of the buildings on the project site. If the survey resolves any of the issues, please let me know. At this time, if you wish to withdraw the application, we would rebate a portion of the fees that were assessed the project. We are also willing to hold on to the project until these issues are resolved and then complete the processing of the application. If I can be of any assistance, please contact me at 235-2550. Sincerely, Mark R. Pywel,AICP Project Manager CITA OF RENTON NIA Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator August 7, 1990 Dick Ralston 14221 W Lk Kathleen Dr SE Renton, WA 98056 SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church CU;R-048-90 Dear Mr. Ralston: In my last conversation with Steve Hammer, he indicated that you were working to resolve the issues concerning the existing easements on the Church property. It is my understanding that your lawyer was working with the Public Works Division and the Washington Natural Gas Company to resolve the easement issue. It was also my understanding that you were working with the adjacent apartment owner to obtain the half-width road dedication from the vacated road. This was necessary to avoid having to relocate part of the proposed addition due to the need for setbacks from property lines. At this time, I would appreciate an update on these issues. As you are aware, we can not process the application until the concerns regarding the easements and setbacks have been resolved. If I can be of any assistance in this matter, please contact me at 235-2550. Sincerely, Mark R. Pywell,AICP Project Manager cc: Steve Hammer Gabbert Broweleit Peterson 11000 Lake City Way NE Seattle, WA 98125 • 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2631 i ic ;,; i-' - ;;;'''' 2 Fi ,,y , is t$ ' ;;, • CITY OP RENTON. `..Li-. Y.1 S-. ' ' PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor ;, - a' ; Lynn Guttmann, Director July 12,.1990 :.f.' • • Dick Ralston 14221 W. Lake Kathleen Dr..`SE y Renton, WA 98056 ;_r'a` era= `3Subject: Hi hlands Cor munity Church ; Conditional'Use'Permit. CU; R-04$-,90j ,,: ::i, . ' Dear Mr. Ralston, ,,,' - R From discussions with yours arphitect it ismy understanding that you are currently working to resolve the Issues regarding the easement crossing the project site. This could Include having the easements legally removed from your propertyititle.,.;or relocating the easement. The resolution of the easement problem could affect the design of.the,cfiurch sanctuary. Therefor, the project is'on',hold''until.such time as.you can develop a method to resolve the easement issues. r. Ifyou have an `..4. '::' ., y questions.�regarding�this matter, please contact me at 235-2550. :,,.., • Sincerely ` ' • 0./d---- . . Mark R. P ell,AICP ', Senior Planner ;'0. • .", s`4 :,t: : ..,. , • • 200 Mill Avenue'Soii'th.`-':Renton,'.Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2569 ,; "Facsimile (206):235-2513 J ♦ • - / I n nur•. W I / I ____________ i) cy;rir i .�_.. _~ • '----... w LI V .n..w' e.xl.•t rw. is R�..r P♦a \\ �\\J W Y41w111y `/I� I molv Ailt \ rr _ N F I K-1�n�� ',���- fir, , _ __. GENERAL NOTES -. �\ \ ��--.A� -_-__. '''",,.�.,x.,,.ra�.,.�.lxl.w�,e— Ij ' Or / 1 t ...}r q-' 4, - ` p o. i II A►='I',f 11 -• V' _< '''' lkIld' '''' z..1;/,:41-17'1,,,:,,r_rill,::: ,e p; "•" 11,41 ONO MUM gill ,t,„ 9 z r _j____i dill I Iu Ir - - et o j e},— ,I - _ - 9 Y - _ O•; ic — i — - hi YT {,E sxgr- ro -- 'EMSINO _ _ - - - 4it I f 'AJ' PARKING F Y CARS - 1R�I J II I I--i s .�•'• ______ILE. 9TH ST. -- ........-......."•41..-- N _4000 ----EI ,11.1_ - A I .G I LL / _ __-_-y - I aI r qxmL LANDSCAPE PLAN/ommu�D '— Church Stephen Hammer MIND GABBERT BROWELEIT PETERSON Architect ''rogramming•Planning•Interior Design 11000 Lake City Way N.E. •Seattle WA 98125 • (2061'367-36C9 �" CITI OF RENTON A Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Director June 27 , 1990 Steve Hammer Gabbert Broweleit Peterson 11000 Lake City Way N.E. Seattle, WA 98055 RE: Highlands Community Church Conditional Use Permit CU; R-048-90 Dear Mr. Hammer, I received your letter dated June 25, 1990 and the attached plan. I need the following information from you in order to continue the SEPA processing: 1. The square footage of the future sanctuary. 2 . The height of the future sanctuary. 3 . The number of stories. 4 . The proposed maximum use/capacity of the sanctuary. 5 . The footprint of the sanctuary. As soon as you can answer these questions I will be able to continue the review of the project. If you have any questions please contact me at 235-2550. Sincerely, Mark R. ywell, AICP Senior Planner 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2631 ie 4, 199 0 PLANNING DIVISION Mr. Donald Erickson,AICP CITY OF RENTON Chief, Current Planning Community Development Dept. JUN - 6 1990 City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue RECEIVE, Renton, WA 98055 Re : Highlands Community Church Proposed Classroom Addition File 048-90 Dear Mr. Erickson, My review of the subject files and discussions I have had with Ms.Laureen Nicolay of your office, has indicated no evidence of any records or any acknowledgement of the verbally expressed objections and recommendations made by me when the earlier additions to the church were proposed. This is also reflected in the correspondence between the church and your department. It is for this reason that I decided to re-iterate the objections to the uncontrolled growth of the Highlands Community Church by the residents of adjacent homes. It is my opinion from observations made on Sundays that the church facilities are more than adequate for the number of people attending the church. Neither does it appear to be a problem with growth. It must also be noted that very few of the residents immediately surrounding the church attend the Highlands Community Church,although Mr. Taylor from GBP architects claims otherwise. Mr. Taylor also claims that, "The proposed development does not cause an overconcentration of church use in this area. " There are presently nine (9) churches serving a one mile square area in which the Highlands Community Church is located. This area is located within NE 4th Street,Edmands Ave NE, NE 12th Street and Union Ave. The question then arises : "What constitutes overconcentration?" Mr. Taylor also states that adequate parking exists. All I want to know is why the surrounding streets are always lined with cars , even parked on sidewalks and at busstops , during the services on Sundays. The parking problem is aggrevated by the overlapping of parking requirements caused by people arriving for the next service before the previous service has ended. If anything is needed, it certainly would be paved parking spaces. Getting the cars parked in a parking lot rather than on the street will alleviate the traffic problems and the problems for the adjacent residents to ingress and egress their driveways. There is also a problem with the existing unpaved parking lot, which is often used by drivers to practice tire skidding and thus creating alot of noise and dust. / ,� 2 Mr. Taylor also states in his summary that the proposed conditional use is very suitable for the expansion of the church in terms of the community and service. , As I stated before, most people attending the church do not reside in the Highlands area. It is not our community's need and the majority of our community is not being serviced by this church. As a matter of fact this church, unlike other churches has never shown any consideration for the community and refuses to resolve any grievances expressed by the community. It does not conform to the adjacent surroundings , because the weeds are completely taking over the landscaping and the unpaved areas , while surrounded by homes with beautiful yards. Several reqests have been made over the years to maintain the landscaping, which fell on deaf ears. All the above grievances were expressed by many residents of the Highlands during meetings at the time the addition of the Auditorium was proposed by the church. A petition was circulated in the Highlands and was signed by numerous families in an effort to convince City Hall about the disagreement we have with the church in regards to the "community needs: I was to present this petition at the Public Hearing which was never held. The same feelings towards any determination by the Highlands Community Church what our needs are or what services we require, still exists and will be expressed anytime the opportunity is given. I am providing you with all the problems created by the church in our neighborhood with the request these be discussed with all the affected departments. These problems should also be brought up during the Technical Advisory Committee and the Environmental Review Committee meetings. My reqest to you is to reject the request for the rezoning from R-1 to P-1 and to also reject the reqest for conditional use. Should 'it be agreed to that additional facilities are to be built, these should be built on the B-1 zoned portion of the lot, which is already suitable without any rezoning. Any buildings to be added can not impair view of the residences surrounding the church. This was a verbal agreement reached between the Planning Dept and the church prior to the approval of the addition of the gymnasium. I also feel that no accessory uses should be permitted and stipulated in the approval. The use of the facilities must be limited to the Highlands Community Church related services only and at no time be rented or leased. I also feel that the landscaping requirements needs to be expanded. A maintenance agreement should be imposed to force the church into regularly removing weeds from landscaped and unpaved areas. I also feel that the unpaved parking lot should be paved to eliminate the noise and dust problems stated above. 3 I would also strongly recommend the following conditions be imposed should there any constructions be allowed: operation of heavy equipment should only be allowed during weekdays between 8. 00 am and 5. 00pm. a water spray truck be stationed on the construction site during excavations and other dirt moving operations , for dust control. no permission be given for the use of vibrators on asphalt rollers during paving. (our homes were shaking on their foundations when vibrators were used during the pavement of the existing parking lot) require posting of a name with phone number of a church official that can be reached whenever problems develop. I ,myself,and I am sure a lot of my neighbors would be very pleased if you would accept my recommendatios and would consider my grievances when making your recommendations to the Hearing Examiner. Sincerely yours, C.T. (Bob) Gevers 900 Kirkland Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Tel. 255-8816 RENTO_ `OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DE] _'.TMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: (294-vi7/ Z{) 2) DATE CIRCULATED: 4/26/90 "` COMMENTS DUE: 5/10/90 EFC - 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S): R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on 7.87 acre propoerty. At present, a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use). In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is, seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1, (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility., LOCATION: 3031 NE 10th Street SITE AREA: 7.87 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 11,900 sq ft 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 & Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land & Shoreline Use 9. Housing • 10. Aesthetics 11. Light & Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic & Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services 16. Utilities COMMENTS: • �hL in cK&eiseo( ores shy Il be J Usti�1e� i� cad l�_1r'o An /frovc ( Pwrarvl Ce09101/) d.f`met/id-a-17ron 0,14(01 j)4n -FhT/f sIdb yn11-1-60 h' i b I s c W ar ks .Ba FF�� D►1 w �or s G►aII be_ rec�t!teJ ( i &" 0- YW al -0 G6n oI IkSfri !h4h ha1�j d_eol in a c J. IectVeyl ' 72_; Sr Y�o et 'r OLf In o :` ie CIS�rh S f r (`_s7-S-fe444 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable .impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. OCel-fAZJ./4/ Rot 1 yrag-g (qv-- Signature of Director or Authorized Representative CO Date Rev. 6/88 RENT__. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DE. __ TMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF- 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S) . : R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on a 7 . 87 acre property. At present a 5. 08 acre section of the property is zoned B-i (Commercial Use) . and a 2 . 79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use) . In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1 (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11, 900 square foot education center to serve the existing ,42 , 500 square foot church facility. . LOCATION: 3031 N.E. 10th Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE . PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P.M. ON MAY 10, 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: / APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ✓ NOT APPROVED C I a r cr� \it/heiC1-eitr c a< 110 r f - 10 Okt ro-k or- CQ 1 y � pis Divl ,o 11 rii_ce,csa fj 17) Fer i,04-f(oll oil (1 1 1y e'c57 ( (le_,-16 I PPS 0'1 I G /,S(Dr) (I )1 G(l/l d Je vv'1'r v 1 s 1 Ye A-FG"J D ocri'`4-(0A r 9 v+r �5 5 k1 4( 12\e fr a e e o fici-k ce._ w r'i o K. �� l P ia'►\I AO b-e �(Aa of 04 2-2 c 3( II to x i n,-1_5 , dV �Lr DATE s./ 1O SIGNATURE OF 1‘,61;) CTOR OR AUTHORIZED ED REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 RENTO.: _;OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEl:.__TMENT A.. 1 '�a�'j '1i' ®4 • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET 4, T$ Q�" REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 0/(.)00—ie/L) G UO, oro, ' DATE CIRCULATED: 4/26/90 COMMENTS DUE: 5/10/90 EFC - 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S): R; CU 048-90 le-5? L TitPROPONENT: Dick Ralston �.. APR 2 PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church 7 1990 CI t7 Lin".tY BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expa- �F it' •' gious omplex whch 4 is located on 7.87 acre propoerty. At present, a 5.08 acre section��44 '. d• ' + ' Sned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use). IVIYtitlhkaViefinroposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1, (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,90.0 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. LOCATION: 3031 NE 10th Street SITE AREA: 7.87 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 11,900 sq ft 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 & Natural Resources _ 7. Environmental Health 8. Land & Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light & Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic & Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services 16. Utilities COMMENTS: 4EfGehik ,,,,--% ay.) c c 'YekNIit-1A) gfrr 1)-MWPHt t F'ECS Sufic. vI d We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. A.1-512) uv 6'A P2. ✓ NA-Y 8 j lags Signature of Director or Authorized Representative e/ Date Rev. .6/88 RENTI _ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DE_=>J_TMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF- 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S) . : R; CU ,048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on a 7 . 87 acre property. At present a 5. 08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2 . 79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family. Use) . In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone- the R-1 acreage to • P-1 (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11, 900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42 , 500 square foot church facility. . • LOCATION: 3031. N,E. 10th Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: - UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE . PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P.M. ON MAY 10, 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: \ J Te(L U if4C 6set2- DEPc, APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS X NOT APPROVED _ PRb?osED 14PRouet4e45 EN CROAM OVER A,J CXis-i,36 miut tFstHET o)tR ° VACATED St .Em. • •Salmi iT SePARkkE come wog iiAPR-ove s rS Fem.) Fog f tE PRb ecid ) SB2iN x. SY&TeM - An-R oaKt- ttYOQAr eS MAY %E RZrutuiT,EO A tooPEO vsh e2.14 Sy'S'fVtt iS RE&LUREO if Fitt1Ww vEtothiD is OVER. 2, SOO GPM. A cite Etaw Piorkt)(SiS WAY BE REQuitED -b We-2 -tativr 04N 's SYS-MA LA13 v&l ivt4. Move R@EFU" DEwAa*►p ▪ 9.1(1,X-T. "TV DE Mae 9 Pli evi- eftes pa AT1-Act 9 1 'TAE J I&tJ SttEtT - D NAN 8 MODATE � SIGNATURE OF DIRECTO OR AUTH ED REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 FEE APPLICATION: L, . DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEIt. J1EET WI ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET El PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP El OTHER • ' DATE: 9D APPLICANT: . C.Fc.rt�uu� JOB ADDRESS: 3.0 . Yl• . /0 71( NATURE OF WORK: fix/-is / tr.t..�o ® PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 5-10- q0 DATE RECEIVED Comments Due BY PROPERTY MGMT. ,Lc=- 41- 36t-92) Comments or suggestions regarding this application should be provided in writing. Please provide comments to the Comm. Dev. Dept. (C.D.D.) by 5:00 p.m. on above date. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ® FEES APPLIED ri CANNOT APPLY FEES Q LEGAL DESCRIPTION NEED MORE INFORMATION IJ SQUARE FOOTAGE 0 FRONT FOOTAGE 24) rk. A-GGdLdva QVICINITY MAP It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice, that the fees quoted below will apply to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements (i .e. underground utilities, street improvements, etc.) PROJECT COST LATECOMER LATECOMER AGREEMENT - WATER NO PER. FTG. FEE CITY HELD PRIVATE DEVELOPER HELD LATECOMERS AGREEMENT - SEWER V CITY HELD —.© PRIVATE DEVELOPER HELD SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE - WATER UNITS. SUCC FEE Single family residential dwelling unit $300/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit $175/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.04/sq. ft. of property x 34 1,07m , `/�3,rfja. ' * ; ' SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE - SEWER Single family residential dwelling unit $300/lot x Apartment, condo, each multiplex unit $175/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.04/sq.ft. of property x +3sda,07.z-. �3 7/2. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTR CT (Ho pital Area) WATER UNITS SAD FEE DEVELOPMENTS WITH 1500 GP , FI' ' FLOWS OR LESS: Area Charge $0.034 p:r sq.ft. x Frontage Charge $16.0 per front ft. x DEVELOPMENTS WITH GREATER EN 1500 GPM FIRE FLOWS: Area Charge $0.048 per .q.ft. x V Frontage Charge ., 8.00 p•r front ft. x o -- SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (Honey Crk. Intercptr.) - SEWER UNITS SAD FEE AREA CHARGES: Residential dwell ng u its, apartments or equivalents; ,25 per dwelling unit x Commercial develop t: $.05 per sq.ft. of 'ross site area x FRONT FOOTAGE CHARGES: . $37.19 per Fron Ft. on ea. side) x $74.38 per fr. 't. (prpt on both sides of imprv.) x —C— . ti.0 /q.q0. V TOTAL: $ The above quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees, side sewer permits, r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. O 1111' at-6.4e— DATE Signature of Director or Authorized a resentative ' RENTO1, ..;OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEl'...TMENT ENVIRON NTAL CHECC��KLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: prc G �1J� p�- 4 i")--v DATE CIRCULATED: 4/26/90 COMMENTS DUE: 5/a1 /9r EFC - 048-90 04 of, APPLICATION NO(S): R; CU 048-90 `0`` . l PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on 7.87 acre propoerty. At present, a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use). In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1, (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. LOCATION: 3031 NE 10th Street SITE AREA: 7.87 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 11,900 sq ft 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 & Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land & Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light & Glare • 12. Recreation 13. Historic & Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services 16. Utilities COMMENTS: 2. c#AV.-&-00( A P74 3. i\o...2_7.4 a., 0,-.J 46 1 0-1—' C 4 1-2"-)"fr) ottAe (46 4 r'- rS 27) , i)-2e6 / /0./0 ' 7'%1 I 21z 41'„ /6 0 Ajp41,)M-1-i-Ik1-6711 °: 0,, A I')/!6 °1-‘47‘m'&4-r 4 <� emu!' D i Gl.12fl---) �'' , ,Lo /' i�`�` We nave re iewe this application with particular attention to those areas in hich we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this propo, 1. Signature of Director or Authoriz Representative Date c� 03545. GL nti(9-G/( � c, �t'`Q ��Y� Rev. 6/88 J,i,v . No 5°. ,, , RENTC-. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DE1-2-1TMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF- 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S) . : R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on a 7 . 87 acre property. At present a 5. 08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 . (Commercial Use) and a 2 . 79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use) . In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1 (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11, 900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42 , 500 square foot church facility- - LOCATION: 3031 N.E. 10th Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON MAY 10, ,1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ":_-;1C APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 1 OT APPROVED C',."`` (44-- 49-11,4 'eV-r- Calljtv -4-/"Iciry e z 34;11 4#A - '' ' . p I� Ts Co h o. ` ��a 3. a d 2..126 ) tea ., ►P1a. 11.0 Ou,c ,®-cam /04-01 0,4,ei itz C,97,y4,- 4-6, .0-6-6-b fol-ro /046244-(-;? ali m„e2)4",-go- DATE 99b SIGN TURE OF I CTOR OR THORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 RENTO.N COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DES -knTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW/SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ) s,>))./ DATE CIRCULATED: 4/26/90 COMMENTS DUE: 5/1.0, 0 ao 0 , ,1es EFC - 048-90 T$s ui 1' APPLICATION NO(S): R; CU 048-90 �4 `90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on 7.87 acre propoerty. At present, a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use). In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1, (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. LOCATION: 3031 NE 10th Street SITE AREA: 7.87 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 11,900 sq ft 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 & Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land & Shoreline Use 9. Housing ._ 10. Aesthetics 11. Light & Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic & Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation • 15. Public Services 16. Utilities L� COMMENTS: D,e te—frit_p_41 JEJ740 b e ed. / 1 T4 r' � a We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 01-y 1?7. 1 Signature of Director or Authorized Repr entative Date Rev. 6/88 1 "_, .. 0 -'p CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: May 7, 1990 TO: Arneta Hennigner, Utility Plan Review FROM: Clint Morgan, Transportation Systems e gl. SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church, NE 9th Street, East of Harrington Avenue NE In response to your memo dated May 1, 1990 with reference to the above subject, we would request the following comments be forwarded and each item addressed on the proposed drawing before department approval is given: 1) Monument Station to be shown at station 0+55. 05. 2) Sta. 1+00 - show street dimension curb to curb. 3) Sta. 1+20 to approx. Sta. 2+70, show curve data for transition area. 4) Sta. 3=60 (approx. Sta. ) show monument station on drawing. 5) Sta. 5+25 Show roadway dimension from center line to curb on either side of street. 6) Sta. 6+00 Show roadway dimension from center line to curb on either side of street. 7) Typical roadway cross section - Correct cross section dimension as marked in red on the attach photo copy. CEM:ps CC: John R. Ralston CEM331 y PROJECT: HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH SUBJECT: STORM LOCATION: NE 9TH STREET 1. Show datum 2. Elevations shown on storm in profile inconsistent with drawings on file in this office. (see drawing Highlands Community Church file 2-2-173). Is data presented on these plans from field datum? 3. Show station of PC, PT & PRC on plan. 4. Label grade break stations. 5. Label gutter line as north gutter line. 6. Show distances offset from centerline on each CB and MH in profile. 7. It is unclear where existing CB will sit in proposed improvements - plan view shows them from in front of gutter to behind curb. Clarify location and show details if adjustment is required. 8. Elaborate on end and beginning of construction station - is rest of area improved? Show notes like match existing - etc. 9. Show location of D/W approaches if any proposed. AJH 4/23/90 a/NE9th/AJH/bh 1 ' r RENT_-_ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DETMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF- 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S) . : R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on a 7. 87 acre property. At present a 5. 08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2 . 79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use) . In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1 (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11, 900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42, 500 square foot church facility. . LOCATION: 3031 N.E. 10th Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND ,RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON MAY 10, 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: 1�`,Sjc =>y--fazf. J 'f c APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED LIL i !119 DATE SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHO ZED REPRESENTA V 7 IVE / REV. 6/88 CITY OP RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: May 7, 1990 TO: Arneta Hennigner, Utility Plan Review FROM: Clint Morgan, Transportation Systems e gr9/t SUBJECT: Highlands Community Church, NE 9th Street, East of Harrington Avenue NE In response to your memo dated May 1, 1990 with reference to the above subject, we would request the following comments be forwarded and each item addressed on the proposed drawing before department approval is given: 1) Monument Station to be shown at station 0+55.05. 2) Sta. 1+00 - show street dimension curb to curb. 3) Sta. 1+20 to approx. Sta. 2+70, show curve data for transition area. 4) Sta. 3=60 (approx. Sta. ) show monument station on drawing. 5) Sta. 5+25 Show roadway dimension from center line to curb on either side of street. 6) Sta. 6+00 Show roadway dimension from center line to curb on either side of street. 7) Typical roadway cross section- Correct cross section dimension as marked in red on the attach photo copy. CEM:ps CC: John R. Ralston CEM331 PROJECT: HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH SUBJECT: STORM LOCATION: NE 9TH STREET 1. Show'datum 2. Elevations shown on storm in profile inconsistent with drawings on file in this office. (see drawing Highlands Community Church file 2-2-173). Is data presented on these plans from field datum? 3. Show station of PC, PT & PRC on plan. 4. Label grade break stations. 5. Label gutter line as north gutter line. 6. Show distances offset from centerline on each CB and MH in profile. 7. It is unclear where existing CB will sit in proposed improvements - plan view shows • them from in front of gutter to behind curb. Clarify location and show details if adjustment is required. 8. Elaborate on end and beginning of construction station - is rest of area improved? Show notes like match existing - etc. 9. Show location of D/W approaches if any proposed. AJH 4/23/90 8/NE9th/AJH/bh . SsrtRi{i,Rss”' RENTO] OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEI ,TMENT 0/774 Q® 16 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET Aftir 04, REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 941-Gete, 4t' ;.: 649190 DATE CIRCULATED: 4/26/90 COMMENTS DUE: 5/10/90 b, EFC - 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S): R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing, religious complex which is located on 7.87 acre propoerty. At present, a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use). In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1, (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. LOCATION: 3031 NE 10th Street SITE AREA: 7.87 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 11,900 sq ft 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 & Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land & Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light & Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic & Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services ✓ 16. Utilities COMMENTS: -Rp Vt-01' Ok-AARa otatik cs1 (u.vCcucti V) We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of robable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. p/(-1-- PM 0 Signature of Director or Authorized R presentative Date Rev. 6/88 REND, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEL___TMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF- 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S) . : R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on a 7.87 acre property. At present a 5. 08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) . and a 2 . 79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use) . In order to achieve the proposed expansion, .the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-i (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11, 900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42, 500 square foot church facility. . LOCATION: 3031 N.E. 10th Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION . SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE • LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT . OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON MAY 10, 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: V APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED P44, r DATE ".61M SIGNATURE OF DIRE OR OR THORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 RENTL_.-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DL_ ;RTMENT Pt�, 1°IU Olttlifr ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEE AY ® ky REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ,( .i/.v� gL)i,,n.e..--,•� k • ' 41`'vT.4��, DATE CIRCULATED: 4/26/90 COMMENTS DUE: 5/10/96. ` � s• EFC - 048-90. APPLICATION NO(S): R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on 7.87 acre propoerty. At present, a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use). In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1, (Public Use). and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. LOCATION: 3031 NE 10th Street SITE AREA: 7.87 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 11,900 sq ft. 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 & Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land & Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light & Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic & Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services 16. Utilities COMMENTS: i P ) Oi fr C.Acuat 4CMEINSt RFFI G trw pk,75 T� I1iE NibwiPiC1`IG0 p 4*1=biS f' C 1 13tc,t*) VVk,u . C. pit-C Ih L tST 1v1C:t 1 lc U3 peibrIC VOLUP VJ5 S()Ob Ibl W,y) 10 '4 0c it Roo 1°4� ht 4Ac 1+ \ ) oalL'ai 1-R,IPS O ) EKt ca,, 7 L zoQ0SO144pl' 4 Tut ilii51v1ielics Is P)cn IN. UO - SEA. LitovO . ® SuGGisT 2pere,= STittel C. ,U c)? vvv.► rreN)lilacv 6Sorv® 13t, We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this., . proposal. T. usevlak 4 -W-90 Signature of Director or trized Representative Date Rev. 6/88 . 7 • • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT D1& RTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF- 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S) . : R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: -Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands. Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex' which is located on a 7.87 acre property. At present a 5. 08 acre section of the property is ' zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2 . 79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use) . In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-i acreage to P-1 (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11, 900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42 ,-500 square foot church facility. . • LOCATION: 3031 N.E. 10th Street TO: • PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: • ENGINEERING DIVISION • TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION' SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE. PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT ' . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE _ LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT • ' OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED .IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M: ON MAY 10, 199Q. . REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: edORR,b01 IJ r3I0L5 v APPROVED, ,^APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS - NOT APPROVED • 't.Co rV11411eM0 MEOktmow, • 1 �o - I C) Re CO m Alencl1,0 COOOrr1OaltL t,,r z e, 1 II ' TO PSo C timelier -ipte L.1%r10O SOAP ICU Co u►vo C.Ht4 R ke 15 SuPa SIMMA O o Njetyco10 f t., Mibuititsisi460 . The P L s -I� 1tra�pos�o Ptn� cApPLX. - %K.) t 5 b%) 1' NAPItouto 1 N C LU 0 t, 'r1ie ptvLet.o.livco c is • • R r ovv per, Mock< 11J L Pl.Prti1` MD LJ soot rovi0541,or 1't►4 m -c4 h )o s19?L4 J . • IztAv Ltjo Sc in . PutftAxe& PsLorvG Lira 10, 1S WItReviLY lit..(. ►TI4 S -51* + erer 4 CPrt.0uwo CCA,Stt..• • PR )1 Qe vwoeizcoMoumb t kitt o o aw 1co R l,Wcwto scAp�►luTp o %DO W1o►Lt. C001 FERZouu Tuts AtLcx) Jo tro& ►►re it COLOR./1 4 gj ,R-' SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORTZED REPRESENTATIVE l.onnwlit .CAII11NO Cam// ,1,w QJ. 1 �I�d�alC� ivalciau d cknoN e) ro3mtcl, crno1s W-11044AI'r MWD 3F1i, 3rr-s Q.L 4)011N'Nd M141 Q rio SLiY1k1MsOCI1 j.rvallwe cai.. tory ion in4L 1,1k3 'D ' 1:! CI.W14Oda O IS C00,4 IZf,LSao c °3som'N'21d MaaiN CIS * MNtctn Q rioc1C\ 5W44 Zc 0131)(nba' ..1 a% al. cti ova 3'vd uA l liQ 7:-,®(3ooPc tM 1% e N(uA .-LSVAnS '01ZN(�l.� Iti i Id‘Al 'awn s 1 Dry(d4 car'44-1 IA-11, c ;- RENTO1. ,...OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEF:..:;TMENT /7.-o yc/ dei ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET °r/•qy �"0417 oe0 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: k��.0 7 „, DATE CIRCULATED: 4/26/90 COMMENTS DUE: 5/10/90 EFC - 048-9.0 APPLICATION NO(S): R; CU 048-90 I ECE VEJ PROPONENT: Dick Ralston }"i' 2 6 1990 PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church PARKS&RECREATION BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expan n. e omplex which is located on 7.87 acre propoerty. At present, a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use). In order to achieve the proposed expansion;_ the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1, (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an•11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. LOCATION: 3031 NE 10th Street SITE AREA: 7.87 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 11,900 sq ft 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 & Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land & Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light & Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic & Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services 16. Utilities J�// COMMENTS: LI__A t-•`�"—I'� .�'r� i1�d die ,6-& d41—fr‘- We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identifie eas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposa .0Ter —y60. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Rev. 6/88 i RENTL_r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEl TMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF- 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S) . : R; CU 048 ?9 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston i,;',: 2 6 1990 1 PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church # BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing tL.!-.0 tyfialEC Vs1 ing religious complex which is located on a 7. 87 acre property. At present a' 5. 08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2 . 79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use) . In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-i (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an , 11, 900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42, 500 square foot church facility. . LOCATION: 3031 N.E. 10th Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON MAY 10, 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: APPROVED XAPPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED DATE SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 311, RENTON i:OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEP :FMENT ENVIRONM NTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: erxiff DATE CIRCULATED: 4/26/90 COMMEr I< DUE: 5/10/90 EFC - 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S): R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on 7.87 acre propoerty. At present, a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use). In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1, (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. LOCATION: 3031 NE 10th Street SITE AREA: 7.87 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 11,900 sq ft 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 & Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land & Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light & Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic'& Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation • 15. Public Services 16. Utilities COMMENTS: A S wet"Lio 3o 'PIzeP¢1*re-- . 6°61)7-8— 1w106, Dess(24 co .tPilP"-Le -to/ ERt'Ai►9V 5Trzula1,9gcr, iT aa°Ppi4oeS ".9 P rh i4PA4(.4.n0 7 . ArBdN : LA,V" [hP10(D Sw0191.), bar Atz.hvb "gviLb/Au,— W1z•S I vsQ 4'+vitaSc �Pi�t, ►� i(-iN to DI-Else !Leer flue aelZsD Mew1.0.0T ? 5e S 1 tNJ . 1 S - d►. ' ' l 10 '►ic.pec3 - ? We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 9/477r0 Signature f irector or Authorized Representative Dat Rev. 6/88 ' RENTOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEr2-iATMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF- 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S) . : R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on a 7 . 87 acre property. At present a 5. 08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2 . 79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use) . In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-i (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11, 900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42 ,500 square foot church facility. . LOCATION: 3031 N.E. 10th Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION ' PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE //LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON . MAY 10, 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: , , ' APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED 1`' 'Q - � 02 riP taco la c, it SPL.,— 20o4,9 pN 60a4e107 1 -►1 / ._ 1 ?izot>9S,m : 2, / P- I \r‘Ou9 0400gr fzZo4"4(9 1164 e1,.rl .9r�c.l� -P- 7 /f''p DATE `l��Z? SIGNATURE O R C ITOR R AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE l REV. 6/88 RENTa. ..OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DE1-- TMENTREm.ON FIRE DEPT. ENVIRONMEN��TAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: APR 2 51990 DATE CIRCULATED: 4/26/90 COMMENTS DUE: 5Rm'(: „ ED EFC - 048-90 PLANNING APPLICATION NO(S): R; CU 048-90 CITY OF RENTONN PROPONENT: Dick Ralston APR 2 6 1990 PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on 7.87 acre propoerty. At present, a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use). In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1, (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. LOCATION: 3031 NE 10th Street SITE AREA: 7.87 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 11,900 sq ft 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 & Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land & Shoreline Use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics 11. Light & Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic & Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services 16. Utilities COMMENTS: We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas 'of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. ,ippo Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Rev. 6/88 • REND__ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEl_l:TMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF- 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S) . : R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on a 7 . 87 acre property. At present a 5. 08 acre section of the property is zoned B-i (Commercial Use) and a 2 . 79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use) . In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1 (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11, 900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42 , 500 square foot church facility. . LOCATION: 3031 N.E. 10th Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE:. ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON MAY 10, 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APP OV,ED Any development and/or construction shall comply with current Fire and Building Codes and Ordi- nances. A second means of approved access is required. Fire De meet access roads/lanes shall be paved minimum width 20'; minimum height 13' 6". Yes o Preliminary fire flow calculations show a firs flow of o7, 5-00. is required. 3 hydrants with a minimum flow of /, oo o gpm each is required. Primary hydrant is required'to be within /5 0 feet of the structure. Secondary hydrants are required to be within . 3 o 0 feet of the structure. An approved automatic sprinkler system is required to protect the total structure. Yes 1 AU 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 c _ No /27-41-1A-4-ji DATE gm, a7t f??O SIGNATURE OF IREC OR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 gi4 /192/i�/791e/ REQUIRED FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS 1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION NAME: /�j/y,,ey,',p5 apnrntiii ,yy U.B.C. CLASS OF BUILD ADDRESS: 3a3/ N. E. OP� °, 7/414e6 FIRE MGMT AREA 2. DETERMINE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION - CLASS (CIRCLE ONE) : I - II IV IIINCD FIRE-RESISTIVE NON-COMBUSTIBLE ORDINARY WOOD FRAME MIXED (NOTE: IF "MIXED, " SEE SPECIAL INSTRUCTION FOR AREA AND BASIC FIRE FLOW) 3. DETERMINE AREA: GROUND FLOOR AREA: FT2 NUMBER OF STORIES TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 9) 29.6- (A) 4. DETERMINE BASIC FIRE FLOW FROM TABLE #1, USING AREA (A): �/, 7,$'0 GPM (B) 5. DETERMINE OCCUPANCY FACTOR ADJUSTMENT: ADJUSTMENT: — /) / I' ' .5- GPM (C) IF LOW HAZARD, SUBTRACT UP TO 25% OF (B): IF HIGH HAZARD, ADD UP TO 25% of (B) 6. COMPUTE SUB-TOTAL (B+C) : (IF B+C LESS THAN 500 GPM, INSERT 500 GPM) .31 5-62- 5— GPM (D) 7. DETERMINE SPRINKLER ADJUSTMENT: ADJUSTMENT: — 67i/. 26 GPM (E) (IF COMPLETELY SPRINKLERED, SUBTRACT UP TO 50% OF (D): IF LIGHT HAZARD OCCUPANCY AND FIRE RESISTIVE OR NON-COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION, SUBTRACT UP TO 75% OF (D) . 8. DETERMINE EXPOSURE ADJUSTMENT: USING THE TABLE AS A GUIDE, ENTER THE SEPARATION AND ADJUSTMENT FOR EACH OF THE "FOUR FACES" OF THE BUILDING IN THE TABLE AT THE RIGHT: SEPARATION MAX. ADJUSTMENT EXPOSURE SEPARATION ACT. ADJ. 0-10 25% MAX NORTH /SD -F ADD -c-- % 11 - 30 20% MAX EAST /CO' ADD /O % 31 - 60 15% MAX SOUTH /5O't ADD -Gs- 61 - 100 10% MAX WEST //5' ADD 5 % 101 - 150 5% MAX TOTAL % OF ADJUSTMENT 150 or 4-Hr WALL 0% MAX (NOT TO EXCEED 75%) /5— % (TOTAL % ADJUSTMENT TIMES (D) ADJUSTMENT: +- j �{ °7g'�`GPM(F) 9. DETERMINE ROOF AND SIDING COVERING ADJUSTMENT: (IF SHINGLE COVERING, ADD 500 GPM) ADJUSTMENT: GPM (G) 10. COMPUTE ESTIMATED FIRE FLOW REQUIRED: (IF D+E+F+G IS LESS THAN 500 GPM, INSERT 500 GPM) (IF D+E+F+G IS GREATER THAN 12,000 GPM, INSERT 12,000 GPM) oZ 3 1S6 Z6 (D+E+F+G) REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: A 6-® U GPM (H) 11. SIGNED: /< 4 . . DATE: Q�/J�� ,We ,, /P90 RENTO1'. `;OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DE1.-i TMENT` 9 �0 ✓y' � `9/O ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET < 04,<40 `' REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: i�(y,'� DATE CIRCULATED: 4/26/90 COMME TS : 5 1 EFC - 048-90 T® E C 2 0 ^^ Lq u -�_ APPLICATION NO(S): R; CU 048-90 ' ' APR -251990 � 'I? PROPONENT: Dick Ralston 1/ r PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which,' is located on 7.87 acre propoerty. At present, a 5.08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2.79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use). In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1, (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11,900 square foot education center to serve the existing 42,500 square foot church facility. LOCATION: 3031 NE 10th Street . SITE AREA: 7.87 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 11,900 sq ft 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 & Natural Resources 7. Environmental Health 8. Land & Shoreline Use 9. ,Housing !� 10. Aesthetics 11. Light & Glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic & Cultural Preservation 14. Transportation 15. Public Services - 16. Utilities COMMENTS: We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of pT. ble impact or areas here additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature Director or Authorized Representative Date • ;f Rev. 6/88 r RENT COMMUNITY 'DEVELOPMENT DE1'___TMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF- 048-90 APPLICATION NO(S) . : R; CU 048-90 PROPONENT: Dick Ralston PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Community Church BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing religious complex which is located on a 7 . 87 acre property. At present 'a 5. 08 acre section of the property is zoned B-1 (Commercial Use) and a 2 . 79 acre portion is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Use) . In order to achieve the proposed expansion, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R-1 acreage to P-1 (Public Use) and to obtain a conditional use permit to construct an 11, 900 square foot education center to serve the. existing 42 ,500 square foot church facility.. . . LOCATION: 3031 N.E. 10th Street TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION . TRAFFIC ENG.. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION . SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON MAY 10, 1990. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ' NOT APPROVED C �.. DATE ����(9 SIGNATURE IRECTOR OR AUTHO IZED REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 ' ^ ^ . ^ ^ ` KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS ' ' PAI1108O-S! AS36 REAL PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION 11/20/87 ACCOUNT NUMBERI 722780-1023-0 PROPERTY ADDRESS! N£ 9TH J ST ST � TAXPAYER NAMEz HIGHLANDS 'COMMUNITY CHURCH QTR: NW SECT: 09 TNNt 23 RNC: 05 FOLIO C22770-0-2 SUBAREA: 530-000 LEGAL DESCRIPTION - PACE 1 / ` LOT BLOCK 338 PLAT3 RENTON HIGHLANDS NO. 02 CORR PLAT RENTON HIGHLANDS 02 CORRECT PLAT LOT 4 TCN POR VAC ST ADJ RENTON SP 188-78 REC AF 07808170836 SD SP DAF BLK 33 RENTON HIGHLANDS 02 CORRECTED PLAT TCN POR OF RENTON HIGPLANDS PLAT LY E OF E MCN OF H ST LESS POR OF SD BLK 33 DAF BEG NLY CDR OF SD BLK 33 AT NXN OF SLY LN OF NE 10 TH ST 8 SELY LN OF 20 FT PLANTING AREA ALC SE LN OF HE SUNSET BLVD TH S 35-41-33 1 ALC SE LN OF SD PLANTING AREA 214 ^38 FT TO CRV TO ROT TH CONT ALC SD SE LN OF PLANTING S IP 8 PLO CRV TO, RCT WITH RAD OF 459,51 FT DIST OF 50^41 FT TH S 07-39-07 E 297,97FT TH N 55-35 3 E 47^ 83 FT TH S 31-09-37 E 78^ 15 FT TH N 54-03-28 E 265^35 FT TH N 01-58-51 Q 26018 FT TAP ON SELY LN OF HE 10 TH ST TH N 54-35-42 N 229 ^ 11 TO POB 8 LESS POR OFISD BLK 33 DAF BEG NE COR OF SD BLK 33 TH NNLY ALC S MCN OF HE 10 TH ST ON CRV TO ROT WITH RA' OF 930 FT DIST OF 212^ 93 FT TO POT TH N 54-35-42 0" 32. 97 FT TH S 05-09-24 N 240 FT TH S 65-27-' 1 E 245 FT TAP ON" �7 NLY MCN OF S ST SD PT BEING' 220 FT SLY OF HE CDR SD BLK 33 TH N 02-51-18 E ALC SD NLY MCN 228 ^ FT TO TPOB 8 LESS POR CONDEMNED KCSC CAUSE NO 744378 FOR ST * * END OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION � � CHOOSE ONE OPTION� PRINT THIS SCREEN < PRINT > SEE PROPERTY CHA4ACTERISTICS < PF3 > OR < PF15 > SEE PROPERTY HISTORY < PF6 > OR < PF18 > SEE TAX INFORMATION < PF2 > OR < PF14 > TO END < PF12 > OR < PF24 > ` / / � � � / - . >< b3jJ > NO < 3Tjj > ON, Ol { bTJJ > 80 < WJ > N0IlVH80ANI XUl 338 < 8TEJ > NO < 9jJ > A8013IH A18]JO8J ]]S < 913d > NO < Wd > S3I1SI8]W&WH3 Al8]J3GJ ]]S < lNI8J > N]]83S SIHl lNI8.::l :NGIldO ]ND 3800H3 (3~O ) � * * N0IlJI83S3O lV031 20 ON] * * POV IS OVA @OJ 40.1. 1VlJ 1335803 3 # SONVlHSIH NOlN38 lViJ 8803 30 ^ON SONVlH5IH NOlN38 UVlJ 3C N3Ol8 lO� T 39VJ - NOIldI83S30 000-06q 3V38u8OS z-O-omm vQwn 20 35N8 C3 !NMI 60 1133S MN HlO H38OH3 AlINONAO3 SONVlHDIH 33HVN 83AVdXVl . ' lS HlOT ]N TCOC !SS38OOV Xl83dO8J 0-9660-88Z33Z �8]8NDN lN0033V �8/�3/�T '� N0IlJIH3S3O 1US31 Al8]J08J lV]H 9CSV ' TS-O80lTIVJ SlN]NSS]SSV AO lN]Nl8Vd]0 AlN003 5NIA . , ' ` ^ t CIT � 'OF RENTON "LL '` Community Development Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Kenneth E.Nyberg,Director April 26, 1990 Dick Ralston 14221 West Lake Kathleen Drive S.E. Renton, Washington 98056 Re: Highlands Community Church, 3031 N.E. 10th Street, R;CU 048-90) Dear Mr. Ralston: - The Community Development Department has formally accepted the above referenced application for preliminary review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee on May 18, 1990. Following that review you will be notified that: 1) your application is complete and has been scheduled for environmental review and determination, or 2)- that additional information is required to continue processing your application for environmental review. If you have any questions, please contact me at 235-2550. Sincere , Donald K. Erickson, AICP Chief, Current Planning DKE/mr. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ^_ :�?:ii:•::i•i:•::•is�i:{':}<L•:•i:>j_ii}Y:}:_}>}:C�ii::•:4:i•i:•}}}}}}:?:>}}:•?}}:.:yii :}Y.:i�>'{;� (:'�i:}''{i:;:�;:ii:.>::!iC•::•:•}:':;•i:{ :{•:?<•:•:S':.}:?.i>:i•:v'�:<f:: -•�>:;is�•`.:c:`.�>:�:':i:�:�>:5:�. ................. i �'i:`•iCYTY�:`':> �?��E'•1NTO��i::2 �` :`•i�i2�:�;':i�??:'• ?�>?i�FII'iEiNO:S i�:<t�i<�>it�>i?ii:�ii;:::.:i:`;�>ii� �'•��:>1:�: ............. :.:>:..:>:<.;..:.:..::..::.::..:....::..::..::..::..:..........:::::.:..::...:::.::..:U.:::.x:::::....:::::.:.. .UPMEhI''Y`.:.b�PA�2'Y'1VL�hT')`'....:::::::.�:::. :: :..,. . .:::::::::....:..:::....::..::....•.•.•... 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, and attach additional sheets if necessary. APPLICANT TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES t. NAME: Hlalt�LAN► ‘-oM .lu rN 1-1-r NUR . REZONE ! GFROM (RI TO 4 ) $ o. SPECIAL PERMIT ADDRESS: • _TEMPORARY PERMIT e'D{. 1,1e- {OT1-I VCONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 954-'0" _SITE PLAN APPROVAL CITY: ZIP: _SPECIAL PERMIT - GRADE&FILL 1Ze-1,11OFJ lAjA gBe:2000 (NO. CU.YDS:, *VARIANCE TELEPHONE NUMBER: (FROM SECTION: _) .( ' ) Z•6�" d''h I _ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMIT CONTACT PERSON (*JUSTIFICATION REQUIRED) r)-1 ci NAME: SUBDIVISION: b 1 GK PAt'r"ai-.1 SHORT PLAT (ADDRESS': II _TENTATIVE PLAT -I { W, 1 r". I'-(~HI Lr'C+ ,�l�i. PRELIMINARY PLAT _FINAL PLAT CITY:` {�. ' I� ZIP: _*WAIVER ry 1 , 1 del V6, - *(JUSTIFICATION REQUIRED) NO. OF LOTS: TELEPHONE NUMBER: PLAT NAME: OWNER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ • _PRELIMINARY NAME: FINAL A� ,D�ppL.�GAr t _ P.U.D.NAME: • ADDRESS: 3 _BINDING SITE PLAN: $ CITY: ZIP: MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ TELEPHONE NUMBER: • _TENTATIVE - _PRELIMINARY LOCATION FINAL PROPERTY ADDRESS:, � (PARK NAME: ���{ F. I .5 �y',y 'I1 W.E44rot {ie_ NO. OF SPACES: EXISTING USE: Z-HVI Ke. -1 __ ZONING: -K. I d�r7 �r \/ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ / 6' • PROPOSED USE: TOTAL FEES: $ q ,00 AREA: SQ.FT. O,F�,PP,R"OP-ERTY: ' ' • 0 - 7g7° CCevc�� - • - . -. 03 - Q.E, 6-l) 07..79- ct ee✓/- PLANNING DIVISION C►TY or RENITON STAFF USE ONLY - -ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING APR 2 4 1990 DATE RECEIVED: APPLICATION RECEIVED &DETERMINED TO BE: DATE ROUTED: _ACCEPTED, NOTIFICATION SENT: INCOMPLETE, NOTIFICATION SENT: \\ BY: Master Application Form Page 2 • Legal description of property (if more space is required, please attach a separate sheet). • A-TrA,UNr�-- t=%i t rrI • • • AFFIDAVIT ' I, 6*fA' A, (-f , being duly sworn, declare that I am (please check one) the authorized representative to act for the property owner, the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. • , SUBSCRIBED°'AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS _. /4 DAY OF e„J 19 90 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF , WASHINGTON, RESIDING AT: (Name ojf Notay,y, Public) , (Signature of Owner) g (Address) O (Address) , •j 9 ' /cs' T11,� ( � l (City/State/Zip) (City/State/Zip) c. 7-3�op 67-3 Ca9 (Telephone) (Telephone) - f Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other material required to constitute a complete application are listed in the "Application Procedure." RtnMastr Revised 9/89 5 1� r:iii': }ii'•i$ii:. j:{:: jji}ii?i::i::iii::j{::::ii':�i 1i:v$i'r$:{:is' {;: :::{:;{::::W:Yvi:::ti::Ji::i:;:$}:�i;:•'{Y•.y:•i::i:ii:i?iG:i• :i�i: ":'::: '*:' • i:..i:.'•::ii?: •:•:•i i:•ii:•:• : :•:i•is• ii:•::::iN:.: iiiY.4 :};:;i:;i:;...i i:i 1.0. S .... .. ..... : ::•..::.;:::;:.ii:•::::•:::.>:>i::.:.: .::::::i:•ii::•: •i:.001�T1�itJNil"1' b0.-tt.0..M. 14.:....... ..::.........:.:..:.::. :::.: .:_.. .. : . ..:-:. MASTER APPLICATION_;:.:: :< I.:<•' :.�:. :.:. 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, and attach additional sheets if necessary. APPLICANT •• TYPE OF APPLICATION & . FEES ' . NAME: , • 'Hlit-IL-ANI�aGor%IMUNlTh' GUNK V"REZONE FROM (RJ TO // ) $ 65-(5. • _SPECIAL PERMIT ADDRESS: _TEMPORARY PERMIT 01 • 1 1L .I49-11-I VCONDITIONAL USE PERMIT c,.Se I _SITE PLAN APPROVAL CITY: ZIP: _SPECIAL PERMIT - GRADE& FILL . IZIrI'r0� �BCJ{%✓� (NO. CU.YDS:. ) .... *VARIANCE TELEPHONE NUMBER: ' , (FROM SECTION: • ) Cg6) zoo- .17* . , _ROUTINE VEGETATION I , , MANAGEMENT PERMIT • . . CONTACT PERSON (*JUSTIFICATION REQUIRED) . NAME: SUBDIVISION: • $ .• _'' • 1 c- I2IK .KALJ 17 J .. • • . _SHORT PLAT ADDRESS: - • " _TENTATIVE PLAT• I4 .1 i J.I,-,a . I' �HI LGi e.}.-1 7.4 —PRELIMINARY PLAT _FINAL PLAT ' CITY: • I A ' ZIP: : _*WAIVER . / � , k.A . *1 bj.6' *(JUSTIFICATION REQUIRED) ' NO. OF LOTS: ' • TELEPHONE NUMBER: PLAT NAME: • PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ ' OWNER ' _PRELIMINARY • NAME: ' _FINAL ,AM - D, b.r1�L-le P.U.D.NAME: 'ADDRESS: • BINDING SITE PLAN: $ CITY: ZIP: • • MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ TELEPHONE NUMBER: ' • _TENTATIVE _PRELIMINARY ' LOCATION _FINAL PROPERTY ADDRES�S:���,J ` �' PARK NAME: .pto?>I 1-45.4 k9 I l 11 f-tTi ,• I 4�--1 I,�Y�. NO. OF SPACI S: -- EXISTING USE: £/{-1L-4 1<e-1A ZONING: I2. I , kN17 I'' I • • \/ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ AO'2 USE:-ej1.�I1-Ir�r..0 PROPOSED US .. TOTAL FEES: • ' $ /-7 7 g " 4 AREA: .SQ.FT. OF•PROPERTY: ' J 2.lr J 3'2-4 )' . - ' STAFF USE ONLY - -ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING PLANNING DIVISION " •CITY OF RENTON , • DATE RECEIVED: APPLICATION RECEIVED &DETERMINED TO BE: �p 2 `�t DATE ROUTED: _ACCEPTED,NOTIFICATION SENT: Aj 6� �9�0 _INCOMPLETE,NOTIFICATION SENT: �.� ��E'i�. BY: aka ,. Master Application Form Page 2 Legal description of property (if more space is required, please attach a separate sheet). • • AFFIDAVIT I, 6 /'' A/ ,4. ( �'1 L'� , being duly sworn, declare that I am (please check one) ><. the authorized representative to act for the property owner, the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS / (DAY OF 19 90 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, RESIDING AT: a�J CAv 612€.49 Py) (Name f Notary Public) (Signs ure of Owner) MO o v DC (Address) (Address) k--)%--A 9 ' /ems' 1 , IAA (City/State/Zip) (City/State/Zip) 3W7-3(000 • 1Co7 3 601. (Telephone) (Telephone) Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other material required to constitute a complete application are listed in the "Application Procedure." RtnMastr Revised 9/89 - - so ICITY OF RENTON :: .... NVIRONMENTAL:,CHECKLIST ::;::::;.. . ........ .... Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probably significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist ask you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your' own observations or.project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question • does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark • designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. . • The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impacts. Use of Checklist for Nonproiect Proposals: (Please Type or Print Legibly) Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may' be answered "does not apply". IN ADDITION, complete' the"'SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). • For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. • A. BACKGROUND • . 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: • 2. Name of applicant: PI lei 'lt--'11..I1-11-re-r 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: I7IGk» 12A�31'®l.� , ?���- 5607 I6911-1 i mot-!'f 2kJ , WA. 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting checklist: LATI 1' e.1-4-roi J PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENT O'! APR L 4 1990 E C IVCRD -2- 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): I • 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Wv�li W n-1-1 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. PcT' --n 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. • t�lO t—l�✓ • 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. GvNt�IT1ol-1 - U I'L .t-i IT te7L-1 l-.�I ti1G� p�t�2r''1[T' -rr-r k h- 4 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. G'e21 r A J I E— LA 1 Oki 19 tT el-J 'PCB'C'i-'{�. 1 ���►-�' e,H -II-Gi4 or- At,- I-Jet �s?4t�J'f'I IJGI eAKKI I-Jci 12 -�"-t'i-¢af1i1 D�hd t� (�1 �. r x'-vk ki. 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. �tT'►2..-i�J(,�-I ✓�,�i: owl -r -lt-1. pe2 0,e)1 NE I OTH , I-oi-1 k A. ►- ,,�,► .- I�("tdt,l p,TrAc•kIt-cam B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep, slopes, mountainous, other tKIMAt .II. 1 Fry rAc--1I--1"r-r• • b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) 0 Y. MA0(11-1 -1 .1.- c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, scaly, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. • d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. NoN� • -3- e. Describe the purpose, type,and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. cptic f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. NlJ� g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? I kJ 1ll-1%1e-r. PSI"' h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 1 i-ipa K--'( �IQ�J. 'i i.I CO �9L�I�t� per• p�dvit .lz7 I�Ut ii-1c� cdoNet1riwGT"I . 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 knownl�IF1i�iJG� z-el-�PIQI.IGTIOlJ kJ 'U4-ice 'I`f pic�n�.,t�©ice-rNo�iy- -I�►cf"�r t4-►n'H kJ© b. Are tht,r n off-sit urces o em ssa t--IOh1G- c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: I49f ,AI�f Vl riDl r�- • 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, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. NO� 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. • 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 blel affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description,.purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. 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. -4- 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. Ho 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. • 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. 12.oars tJ' ',AA, 10e. -f© -1'N L,eI •TIo• r 1 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: CIO) 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other v."' evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of .vegetation will,be removed or altered? , Q. iFIFCc-1-4 'I.'t4 ' 12-1" c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of .native plants, or other measure to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: " " 1 ••r2=211c W-Txj'VTINc-1 �n r'64=9I ->o-r7 �K'Is• p1�,A�l�.IT IJ 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, other l'44%rf Mammals: deer,deer, bear, elk, beaver, other t.441-1e- Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other 1-1rpt-ate`• -5- • b. List,any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. • Nor' 1 c. • Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain • • d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if,any:. • Not'' , • 6. Energy and'Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, wood, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be • used for heating, manufacturing, etc. • `--I-t- is©K • 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 this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: riA©r~dL- W I t.-i Ei -r'Hv- p.Tl=. f � GPI: 7. Environmental Health • • • a. Are, there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic • chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. • 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. I-10•N 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: • • b. Noise • 1) What types of noise exist in the areas which may affect your project (for • example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Noi pl�lt-'1 11-=1' Vr.NI L.ArcAIJt ' WILL— Nor T -rH*. • 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. • 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: • NoN>✓ 8. Land and Shoreline Use • • • a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? . . 'I'H�, lit�r�l��►-I'f' L40 E. or-Tt- v- AN. [� 'r MULTI PAH I .--r. gip. gi►-tc� ��.M II..--T.; b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. NO • -6- c. Describe any structures on the site. GN UIQG-N C p A NG-T'UAlar-r, -L p '-"f�i Otv2I ' I4- 1==>4 en-M . d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? I..JotJt=. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? IC' I 'Ai--10 Imo- f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? r- I i pVll��--IU g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? NJ1'r' D•t��i.-dG-A'V . h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. h10 i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 'P — 10 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Nail I✓. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Nvr' l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: 'r'Mt✓. N%A�I1�1-r`�( I,�JI t� leN, IC I i - c7 1,,Jrr'I-1 t ILK, -ro I--I IGI1-I to Ho©tom Apfo 46%!-.. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. i4%rr b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. I--149r AreL.lc c. Proposed measures to reduce,or control housing impacts, if any: 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. H -viktr : I'r��T lo14: �lglr-K,�f'��rro r woop-to• b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? 114 -i l�I 14 1'I c 4. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: 1�Mt� L t��GA.pI 4.1NIc-4-1 IMpKcN/r2=5, Ue I l— , t-lesc e--H 4-'•t�113 �l- hlt� W I'1"1� I f'I NCB �1W111_.NT`'1r I i. Light and Glare -7- a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? No-r Ak:71:91-11.1::9NA.L, b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? • c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? • 1-101-1e.- d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: • t•-1,0"r 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? • b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. 1,-1e9 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: • I.Jerr 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. . • . . • b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. • c. • Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: blGrr • • -8- 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. Ne. 10 K L,A, r? , l�t Ne. "Ir� 1, 1-1 c1 o �� 'r-rM, lol—.A`.l. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Y c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? L:�I�r1 l�AlgKft4C-i �'P ' 12•2. o✓>; -t-©k.l Gi r-A .t.. l 178 e->e I T1 Nei rAN/e AN t3 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? e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. • f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. t ..l<•N/ 1-II-.'1 ^.> oI-1�l.lNl�l j; I-1c9 g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: N©f' A I�L.IG-AFL . 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. 16. Utilities a. Circle •tilities currently' aval • at the site:Ctlectricit Mural ga C...water,� telephone sanitary sewer septic system, other. 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. C-ol4112-L4c---'i'I P i`,4.11 Nc-i, r'4=1.4 N ta'r l v.--r -.. -9- 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: Name Printed: Gj j\I , -}-)AM rn 5Az. . - ,, -10- A ` 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 environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. 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?. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:• . 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: • 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 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? • Proposed';measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 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? V _ -I l- . _ t 1 Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: ( IA )1 1) : GABBERT BROWELEIT PETERSON Architecture=Programming=Planning Interior Design 3 March 22 , 1989 MAR 2 4 1989 AEC [IVE Mr. Donald Erickson Zoning Administrator Department of Community Development City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue • Renton,-. WA 98088 Re: Highlands Community Church Proposed Classroom Addition Dear Mr. Erickson: We are 'working with Highlands Community Church in a proposed classroom addition to their existing church facility. The addition is about 11, 900 sq. ft. on 2 floors. Our main concern is the fact that the proposed addition is located on 2 use zones. The church currently owns property in an R-1 zone (where the existing building is located) and in a B-1 zone (adjacent to the existing building) . See attached site plan. The owner is aware that a church use requires a Conditional Use Permit in a . R-1 zone and is permitted outright in a B-1 zone. However, during schematic design we felt it would be best to see if there is ' a problem with building on both zones for this one addition. Our assumption is that if the church was ever to sell their B-1 zoned property (which they are not planning at this time) , they would at that time need to do a lot line adjustment so that the B-1 property: would have a setback from the classroom addition. It does not appear that any rezone would be required now and the church does not plan on pursuing a rezone at this time. We were told by planner Mary Savela, that we should write this letter to you to get a ruling on this question. • NAMA NANNING DiVIMON APR 2 4 1000 Principals: Marlin J.Gaubert AIA Larry L.Broweleit AIA David A.Peterson AIA Associates: John Taylor AIA Richard Connell d it M,`sue ...„A t .};' 11000 Lake City Way N.E.^Seattle WA 98125^(206)367-3600 c� Please look at this question and let us know if you see any potential problems with this proposed addition. If there is a problem or if rezoning or anything is required, please get back to us as soon as possible so we can let our client know that they will be required to do at this time. Thank you very much for your consideration of this issue. Sincerely, GBP A hitects, P.S. • Steve comer SH/sp Enclosures 1 , i:-.,..17.?, -;.:9 L._. ' -,::,-„c.,..:,..-,.-,,--;'.1:-;e:E.;.-,••- .)',.,'„,... Lo if ..?. ..'. ..,.., ,,., . , ...1 / I iIIII411 I ;;;S.t,ci.I 1,t.:5,.-;-4:-4.X.J•4:"l44.ci5:;.:fi::::;:t -,..:j ' ._l.e-:c,.1,:4mL...1..-z,A",.r;F'-;.,!,.:,1:.P,•,..:.:',:-:.'.„•':('''F—...:.:-,-.:,„-'....c-•'''•:--..•:c.e';';7•-,'7..1,,,, ''74.-f f:-:'::':.•. S ' 3 85 , cale 000 Al ...• ••. .4.,,„ — ,c: ",'90,,'S';.;,-,.,:k.'-::P v:4•z'...';,• '— ''-'-•- '•;, \IN lilt I gr• . "t•fii?':"&"% ::1,CCr:..?-5c f .4i:`:•Ce4, ?.!':•-•,:::'.c7i,:"CCI 7'f'°,4.4-5..."''''.. ;2. ,i,, •• 1‘ .. Sit Nik 4-'46' • q--;6,177,t!a•' :IP 1 '••?.,:'..:::;:‘:-....s.-,:. ? all ' •:%':,:s:-'1'.", '.rc':, „,;‘ aws 00000000o. .'•9.!'2.`",„ .-• -7• '••:::-:", — ---- .. -,......•.;•,_,.....;:3 4.:, • - ii.• hiorifs.,.., ,, „ „.. • • ,z,,,., it . .000.0.000.00.00.... ‘..q• !!INii. - •%},.5;,4..,:nii::. ,...,'-''..3,..--;•-•,,,• • \:i:m. r.,..,: :.4.: .-,.... i=i;; : trA IM11111 1.. .,,,,,• A K E ,.. 1, :4. :. • of 1111/11 ,... ... „... : .. •.0. .:..:.:.:. ,,... ,........ . 4a.6*- 1;!•.•", . J 13_ ..,.,,,,,, ir J-- TON ::::::...',9:;'..`'. fc•eto3lik.::4.... "r 1 • glIl oi. .••4. . :,,,,,„,, , II:tt.I.,.. . , • ' .1 [...t\ \3 lair - "-- ingrilit •:.:.::::::.... • •,••s. 1111\ .1 Qk's ‘ via — ---ti j ..... .... Allge4144%, 0 0 • . 7 1'11::i II •0000• IN(IOWA 00000 ..6. „1,291NrAge 1 iiiii:::4(11 wilisial 5: '•'•'•'•'•'•'•OWANUM11,Mir illkilri::77• ,,, •00000• , . 000000 ' ---'••••• ...,„..1 fen •00oor- ,,, . arm ,..1/.4, .1111/hi - .; • - -- MEM. ,--- ;-•-•-• • •VI,...iNtl". ••••,„„••••411111k1 :ii::•1,-- 1,:mour•ripi . am ...... :...-..00.0.00000.7, 3,4.,.. II, • • • • • • , h . :.:::.... ............: , ,ay.mmmmm, MEM 00000000• .0.4.*. . a.............. ' • • • • • • •, ' ::i::::.:.:.: :::::::::.:: '5 A 000000 ..-•.••'''..... - ••' • • • • • • • • ••;,,, . ...... ...—.., •:::::::::::: 11,AI:111 WA IMP: Ellil .000°000' *1 ij;,.') • • v." 1 rollill..:*: ',1!!, 0:0"-•,,A.• , 1:",••••••••••••• • \* • , ,.,c_ ::: ii , ..1,:a....., •:iiiight0dr-14 .1 Ida" 'o°o°093°o°0'. .•,;,sp; g•00,ki • • • • • • 8 • • • •\_• • '', . .::ii:iiiiii ag111.01Ak4, ..::i:7.487) A'I'r.145 gin& 1 0;1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • :, Aim---- ...:•:•:•,.0::: .., OEM. • I----i .00000d. go:,,i . •••••••••••••••••• ••• ••••• ._._ -. • 00• ,°g•g,,,.a • • • • • • • • • • • • • ' ii: rft.t.,-- 1 in.1 . ENNINIMi1.,., ...5,°•:,.5•$.1 • • • • • • • • • • • • c 'ii:::ii: 11 ,1Lso ,,,, LY- roe . ?6969:, i, • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ,. •ii:iirall 7-0-7,k.7., w411 ,.. 0000000000 ' ',.;.0.0,f. 4 DI 0')GO r 0, • • • • • • • • • ..?, .00000 000 .0. iill . ., •0.00.,,00000001 g :.• • 4-6 . •• •. •• •• • • • •. • ... .001 41 , mit ....... ,.-- ()gig Z..' rv, •••••••• ••••••• . 4t , mos ,.00 pm )00 o 0„ , • • • • •fa•rb ril ••••••••• •\ 111111111 .. =4 : rtiog-...: ggggo g. . . . . •• • • • • • •1 • \ ::....:..;:.:...::::..::: .:.: 11.41144... ............. • • ••• li • • • • • • • •„.• • . • %INF—mai it . ...:.:.:::.. ..:,i:iii:i:i::::::i* ogo 2 2go 11:. '3, • • • 1 ::i::!11111H:i:i:::i::::::.... 1.4• • • • I •.....,.:. . . , ,. . _ ,.. . • • • ..:.,.,:.:.,,,,,,,:: • • • . • i,‘ ii,d1... . _ . .• . .., a ...:.......:.:„......,m................ . - \71.N:. T1 °go 00 • • • .•:-i:i:i::::::.:i::.i:i:i:::Hisl • • • • ‘• . A f NI •-.. •Vgli Mitaii:‘• '‘'.0.. ?0°,,, u ,,,04,1t,11 0 0 • '0:1:,:C::'isil. • . • . 414; iip%Ab •0000000 ,,t, ,.,..:.,.,.:.,.,.:.:.,,,,.,sem , _,,,_ ,., ,„,,,, . iii.10. -1 0. - ,...0 0.000',3•0,,,,,, • •• )1.i.i.:_:.:.:.=.;,....f...;4:: 7-ar s 7 erii 7 0 0• :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:......:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. i ilminiras•::;:::::...... •::°g4Ogtgtg,IN. . 1 —41iiii q ... • •6‘.. • 41 I rimassol , 1.0121::1_ ..*E igagoliVisigiAl,_ _411„ !/ 1 ,..iiiiiii., ::,7:. ..!1::r.,11,11 iii:i:i:...119•011., ...:: :i:i;:i::*- !IIIIIIr igEgotig:*:444?ggV/A lir: iriti-- a., ifir • '.: ':iMAiliiiffi::•:'' .....::: 0000000%0 0 0 0 0:0(7000°0°0°000%%. • _mil....11, .:::::: ggegigggggggoPikk/il IS.: a ge•or/.I.4 F43' §cA .,,,,ti::.:. ..,i.,...•., ,•t:i:::::•••• ...:.::iiiiiiiiiiiiil.40.00000000.0:00000.0000...00000000000000000.00000.00.0... ::::::::::::::::::: „maim ::i:i:: ?gtgtotitgtgtgO .:°g'l - ---% ' • . ..:. :•••• 3. '• ..:::::::::**::::::::i:::::ii. 5000000000•000000000• ••••••••••••••••••:.....::................::::::::::.:::::::::::::::.:.:,.....x.x.. go;c:',000?0.0.3 k•0 On,,,,...,is„kill --I '-'1!' '--'''••' .•::::::::iiiiiiiiiii:Mii:i: oVoWocaPo°0*•o°09oVoWN• ,:::,:7y_ ........... .......... ................ ... p ; - • ••• • 0 " • Nil • , ir =.144„ ,,, ,„11.... ...,.....r A 1: ,tkii , ':i*:iiiiiiiiiiiiiffiiiiiii Dovo0000000.00000.•000000.000000000000. i.:..;.:::‘0.00. ,,,,, Vi.T, lin .5 miaow mosi . Al i. i'll-i ler.1- - litf:TAFIIIII.. o''') '/.11 :f''. - -•• ''.:i i i i i:*i:i i:.:g i i i i i i i::%::::'::• 50°80°00°0°0°0°070:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0°.;, i::i:i 14.:.:::—....... r ri 1.11.11......"7".—1 ''..' 0.0°00.• .::':':':':':::::::::::::::::::: a0000000000000000000 t ........„.:.,,:,: .,. .0o0o0o.00.. • I• 'i; :i::i:i:i::iiiiii:i:: a.op.o.000 000.o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0oo• i 1.:::: ..:, I ill 1'Oc'Oc.ii`oliiii loinneli.413t117;7Annri • c',,.• 1.1, k •00000• •• •1 e• ) ..00000_o_o„ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: • •o o o 0 o o_o_o_. -7 •:•::.:..:.:.:.:::: .,• ,,,, v000000.v0000. Ill UM C.ggggig:igggg :11:111111-111 ,4,rg/ 'i...'4.''-cme•Y", , "••••."""" "',3:41 NM termi,,...•.0. .:0.0 .,,-,, i ;1111111::;e0 -• -,/, 4,43644. 1*. ',,,C:)1 :'.- ' :iiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiii ,..0.1 •00.0.°09:?•• ,-..Ei .*.::::::::.:::::::i: 1 lementilim•Niiiitilirallifilit .00:°,./4'' - 4„itiite."; ., .i.: ..... , •::*i:::i*::i:i:i::::: ,(316.'4%6...4,,4, ..•,.4,•4• .••'•• ..:•: :. •0 N011021011011011111011110111 11302111011111i , ,,, •...,...... ' —.Rink ;O.:' '•:•': , , .:::::;•:::.:•:.•••• ;•t,,, •,, ..".., .., .:• , t rvitilL! HIM!!!!!!.4, . .....,\.,.:.„. 7, t:1;1%.,,,5. . .`t.2• ....'.,•.',-..13'il,-9/-.,P o.42.:9.12%.•. ':::: ::::::::::::: . .dig0 c, . , Ili•a - limilipimar' '-ilEggOillin niiiiill %.An'1,,-', .01, .'fi2- ,,: .g•;ra'e..;•••,,°' '.'''''''0 jel. :::: :i:i:i:::i:: MIN% e?i ',.iv`i,, I.• ry• Ix v. '':•,•Y?;•;9 .•.5 .;•• '".,,c.,.6. ,.P .','* %cr;ntia.•':''., •.•••••.... -••v ,6- a Amami.mai MAUR '''.‘,..'...9.., Yt'ryie,-.,__,..c." ':::,-`„,.• .,./.;.6 1 2''d'd:4,:fi',',.,;•-r ZO Cf;''.r.V .C,'"!•ri ti rp:c. ••••::::::::•:. ,, — . r a'irminum 0•.-.•..•7. 121091P • •a; .0:•.(1.;. • '••• ek4.3 .7, INNI.:•••••`,i) ? r,.... ,•., •••.... o(p.;,-)• o b.....,.,...h.. ••• 1.111111111.- ,1,:f.,4•••.`i• , o 6c'•a•••••••° iiii.i :.• ...,,..1•01.g! \ •.q, flo z,'„. • ,••; „L. . -44.6 - 1 .1-rees',;,- ., \ ,I Ni • "----...„,....__________________________ . _________________________________j 1 APuET N.E. TN ► _ ST Rif APARTMENT �= , - �� BUILDING N. \ it I ' IF,-,:—:7,01 ,,. . , � ,L -1 .- ' •�� i40:#111 fat. fir, --.7,,e11111 f.: -- ::._..----,,, ...,-----<•-•.--2,.. -->•-•,.-.4,s,ilit , . • • , — A 4 -,,,-_-__. ---,•-•-,-•_,.7.•._ ,. • ,,.4w1,41:4.!..41,4t k , s....,..:... ,„ • ..? , , 1,10 . • 4,,,,,,/ 7', '0 *4 Alt..444Vi,,,.,,..,,,,,,:,, ,/,,,,,,,,ft.1 t '�/ • "N...: d EXISTING BUILDIN=// .. 1`\g,O NILTI 8-1 Zmwe .."'.;.> F . ri <w ' ' I QI li ter. " Z 1 c,W . ( MOM 6 ctt) • I,41 .Y 'Ilia cc , . , talk • i v , . :.5,1rer:a WTI.:111. -.4 Ii! , , „. il, • . ' ' =` T. ec- oy8-`•d • - } HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH • 3031 NE 103th Street .. ' Renton, WA Justification for Conditional Use Permit for Highlands Community Church: EXISTING CONDITIONS: Highlands Community Church currently owns two side by side parcels of land in the Renton Highlands area. One parcel, presently zoned R-1 (Residential) , is approximately 2 .9 acres and houses the existing church complex. This parcel is bordered by NE 10th Street on the north, Kirkland Ave. NE on the east, and NE 9th Street on the south. The other parcel to the west of the above, zoned B-1 (Commercial) , is approximately 5 acres. Currently it is being partially used for church parking. PROPOSAL: • This justification report proposes to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for the expansion of the present church on the above mentioned parcel. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The proposed church expansion is compatible with the City of Renton's comprehensive plan, as well as the zoning ordinance. COMMUNITY NEED: .! Highlands Community Church has been serving the Renton Highlands community at this present location for over 30 years. The church continues to grow because of its programs of religious instruction, worship, and fellowship which are known to be excellent. In order to continue serving the people and families that call. Highland Community Church their home, the church must expand. The proposed development, for a 11,900 S. f. christian education addition to the present church faciliy is projected to serve the growing needs of the church for many years to come. The present location is best suited to supply these needs for the following reasons: PLANNING bivISION CITY OF RENTON APR 2 41990 1. Existing owned church facility. 2. Growing area of Renton. 3 . Close to the people and. families it currently serves. 4 . The property is currently and also proposed under the comprehensive plan, to be used in such, a matter. 5 . The proposed development does, not cause an over concentration of church use in this area. The present facility is a church use and therefore the development is merely an expansion of an existing use. EFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES: The proposed use will not result in substantial adverse effects on adjacent property. It will not generate additional Sunday morning traffic and the existing parking is more than adequate. Parking is located to the south and west of the proposed addition thus limiting the visual impact to the surrounding single family residential properties. The proposed expansion of the church complex shall use residential exterior materials such as brick, stucco, wood and composition shingle roofs to remain compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The height of the proposed structure has been limited to a level below that of the existing adjacent structure to enable it to subtly nestle against the existing facility. The proposed church addition is a height of 28 feet from grade level at the parking lot entry to the top of the roof parapet. The design of the addition incorporates a flat roof which parallels the existing roof line of the adjacent structure. This, we believe, allows ample sunlight and minimal obstruction. Requirements of setbacks, yards, building height, coverage and landscaping shall conform to all ordinances. A landscape plan has been prepared and submitted to enhance the development, satisfy the city requirements and to buffer the church expansion in regards to the surrounding neighborhoods. In addition, all existing landscaping will remain and be maintained. The proposed, development does not require major contouring or grading except for building excavation. Essentially all existing contours will remain approximately the same outside the proposed structures. The addition to the present facility does not replace any landscaping, buildings, or screening but is proposed at the existing parking area to the west of the existing church structure. There are no current plans to use the church facility for accessory use. The proposedaddition to the existing facility will require the . existing-. facility to be fully, sprinkled . for fire protection as designated by the Renton Fire Department. The proposed expansion . and existing facility will conform to all provisions of the local, state and' UBC codes. The church expansion is not anticipated to pose undue, burden on public utilities, services or' improvements. SUMMARY: In summary, we believe the proposed conditional use is very suitable for the expansion of the church in terms of the comprehensive plan, community need and service, non-significant effect on adjacent properties, and compatibility. We sincerely believe all requirements can be satisfied to achieve a successful final product for the, church and the surrounding, community. Submitted by: John F. Taylor, AIA ' GBP Architects, P.S. 1 Justification for rezone from R-1: to P-1: • The request for: rezone of, the property is in response to the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and to the city's desire for the rezone to: take place concurrently with the conditional use permit application. ' 40: CITY OF RENTON "1 -` Community Development Department. Earl Clymer, Mayor Kenneth E.Nyberg,Director • March 14, 1990 Shawn L.J. Busse • . Gabbert Broweleit Peterson 11000, Lake City .Way NE Seattle, Washington 98125 Re: Highlands Community Church Expansion 3031 NE 10th Street, Renton Dear Ms. Busse:. This letter is sent as a follow up to your recent conversation with Laureen Nicolay of our office regarding the above-referenced project. After- review of the submittals you provided, the Planning, Department staff concurred to recommend that the church seek a rezone of only the easterly parcel (from R-1, Residential District, to P-1, Public Use) and retain the existingB-1 (Business District) zoning on the westerly parcel. You will need to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for any expansion or development occurring on the P-1-zoned parcel, but not for the B-i-zoned parcel. However, Site Plan approval will be required for development on either parcel. I have enclosed a copy of the current "Rezone Application Procedures" and a "Master Application" form. Please feel free to contact myself or Laureen Nicolay at 235-2550 if you have any questions regarding this letter or the application process. Sing ely, Donald K. Erickson, AICP Chief, Current Planning Division RECEIVE DKE/ln MAR 16 1990 enclosures GBP ARCHITECTS, P.S. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 'V i .-5.-..-;:v::::::-.7,...,, 7.-.4,\y•:-:: 1 L-1 J )(... -,:-f...'1 C P.;:.•.'„ r, : t;4.1A. ...,-.••,....., , ......:,•,!.:- ;.: ,:" -:- 7-:,.•.r.,, I \ ,.:c:-:'-'-..:.:.: -:7,.c.f.-;..:!- - : -,>:: ',..:.t.7'.,--,?'.4, Scale 1 ,5 • ism ....g , City of Renton -) - - ,-`,-r-4-r-e-v.il':,- - 11;;:f.,-;,_ -.--.,;-•,- ...,-.t.,-.6%,,:•--, ..:-..,: - c•,!::,-.--.3,:,..vAr,-s,,,,e--;',•:. • ,..,,,..,,,,,%:,....:,....,-, ..,:.,. , -- :-..,-..:-.,;.:•• .,--,:..k. . _ ;',...7.ti.:..1-,'',I i ,r;7:' '..4.:.•'.o -•••••••ces_ ..... • :y• . 7 all S COMPREHENSIVE .. , PLAN i IviN.-7' ,.g,. ..4:- '.• '‘ .--•'.'''-••••7..''...',: Ar ill .-c'rr- •:.c.A„.,,...ocuo.......0....., . ti „.. ..,..„ • .. •.... , A !..::.?.:::. . .. „„. , _ 4 ':,:::::: ,• :::::•:• !.!....P.,..!"- .:.(.3,.. —1 lit::.•. .:.:'.::.:.::. -I,s'.0...,; I r.—. ‘1,1,. ., wet 1111 „-(0, .:::::1::::.:.i:• i,r,,c.,!..,c&. 1 i, . -::' ,.... ..i:: : .•, . _,,, t.7.0°00:•:444 7 7,,:. `••• •••• - 11116L-§-1::: •' 0. lell _ •-,,vins ...„ , „ ... MIIIIIIME .:•:.:.:,' j•SAMININII • f?';'•W' MN, Ill - ill.4:S..... INN •0 0 0 0• j Thal . :II::: .....___t . •" ' ;.:4.7",.. Mrli 00000 '••0 0002..--- '-q1;;I:: 11101111111 ...-\\,1,......_...... .. ,z_..o..0.i ,:.,...F.49.... ••• .R.,__4N aiiiiigg :0: .,...• - • _., ..L1 . -• • • . ••• • --F i i i ' x.:.:::•:::::::•:•.•mg_jpfrunt 44., 1-11 EM:;: iNi ..•:0:00.00.00.00,.: '''',...., • • • • • •4011;411V" '1,1111Illi61.... • • • • • 4,, -. ,• :*::,... .....• 1 .• 00000000• • • • • • •• ''. :::•:•::':.:iiii:j:.rEP....";kiii-1,,la 11,/,iusammer.. NEM 000000 • • • • • • ',.,,, '' ' i ,,•:.:.::•:. AP. , •eeov0000d• ...:::*9). • • • • • • i :::::::::, Isom[ .::::.:.. - • I. tit Odin, •0000.• 0,0nonono,.,„ .:• .. ....A.e„,• • • • ,• • ''-,c- '. :4§Betyi••••„, ...,4 cj . , • • • • •\ • • . Myiii isvu_...eseme :-.784,40., 91§41hh Zia= ." ' ,--- • • • • • • • : .:•:•:•:•:.:•:• ••••::.:.:. /ims1P, , i ..•• • • • • • • \• • • -• Wii.:111" AU:I r-1111' !* L......0 ,—..— •41*.•6• .9%.*.• ' *M. MIMI rail- =ill I .:e. i 11M11.1111111:., i .—— -• • „ • • • • • \• • • c,•, =MI .11811 lim:OFL7• I cr,c. ••••••• •••41.•••• ,.. .141efimmi 7 --.- zr.&... .0001,010 IL .:ep 4,p uovoo.oc p000000c 0 • • • • •• • • • • • , 4 0.00.0.00 • • • •4. .. Iffill. 11. 17 . 7 i.000.wog ..:::::.,:... .. . .. . <> ..9...° '• ...°••••• ' . --tp" 7 °°' 12.0, --. I ....... • • • • • • • • ,,.0.0. —6 ig. : • • • • • • ' W0-4-'Jigmak c ••• • • • • • • • il1. •• 'A 1101r :mi./ I . . . • • • • • — •ii • • • • • t. ':::.]::il::::':i::':::::'11111 • • • • • 111414 ,-d-:.-deisamplus okii_;. N- , ,,um„,E,,::..,,.. . • • • • /, 44 71' 0....d. .............:.:.:.:::::.. iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit ::'i::''i*:'i:,.:-,..:um 002.• • ' 9 0 0• :•:.:•:.:.:-:.:-:-:-:.:••:.:.:.:.:.:•:•:. immummommuse :.:ii:':.:'. p:::,.. .=--......,----..Nem t•••to, ., •a,. AS. . ii um :Iv'41'40)• a lit4il'N 1 um• 54 o o•o o• :•:•:•:•:•:•::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..... .,,,,,,,,, °.'°°° *i:i::•:: ::ff.::::: :ff mommir:damilsommi Z.., ........ 11 -,,,,,, n,••.•. .,,,, fe rii,i,.',,, ..:.,..".:-' —.....::::::i,i:i*i:i: 0-0' eiwil vovowouov .."'. 3:=P:=::i f.•-g!!!!!!!-•..::Miii... *Essamt _ , lig111;;;;::: I ii_ AT,IT I r „:ii!:gt:: ,. :ffligi •"' - 1 ----um••• OMInniaT 0.=••0.... '"•:i:i*:: ii REIF iii-.-iiir.i . tt:=4::;.,,,!,0:::,,, iiii _lif 44,!, :!iwii :.• .,,, ...:::o ' .0,.. ....., .. „,..7• 77,-----,,.,,,, .,,.r, •m, °.:114 re .......... A 1: itiit 'e," .• :: ii LAND USE ELEMENT i:‘,4IN NI nmstosil 4.IV - .-0..... 1:::13.47.0;! .....)---ijfr .00.00.00. LILft'Zir.,•P , 1 / • .1.1 T., 0.0 0.• . •0.0 0. ....._... s.,„...... •0.000 : • ••0000• 201111111•1=1111111 INUMENIallS IMMEMIN",.., ,.•,714,•/ ' '• : leaMINIONIa , Single Family ZMMEHIMMI 11•11•11111111111111•11 Commercial 1":: -; =Hz:InvN.! / L&.., ..,\ .,„Qv v.,,„,, ...... _.........„. '... , v......w4tiot... , .......•, .. , . ...... !!!!!!!!!!hi' - .,--- 4 ' ,....7...„ Low DensFamily ity .•.••••.•...... Multi- Office / Office Park nigur • ,:.:,:13.);,.`,',,.,...t(I.,„_!4/K 'it.;.'-;72..:1 ..;.:3:,;` ............. ::.:.:.:...:.:..,- Noi# .'1';•r(t)t`: , -.'''' ' '' Illlia.e'1.-,4;8 -.aim. . •,;:. 0%,,,, .,,p,,,,,,Er.; 'atE• • T"..',?1°Z, 'IC "'1, . . •0 000000 .I 1*"V' . . . ".' ...."."-".,zA,.:(r, ...--0 A. 44.,1/4 p.r.i., ar: 4,•,..,....,,,,,,,,,,,, . ..„,f,' :::i:imi:K:K:iii: .••ii•• ..t'4• ,...,.0'. '... • ".•'•4/,',4,'.1.3",..• .:,0,r ,., ::::::::::::::::::::::,:::. Medium Density ............ ,, Multi-Family 0.0.00.• •.00.0.0 00.00.0• •000000. 00.00.0. Public/Quasi-Public - vs ilk -•is-oi,,o..".;kr,ii: 0!-.;.o..1:.,.. f' I -.•• i,t,in• n, \ I, '•00000 III v0000• 1,•ti :VV.' C ..:.:'::...:... .1 High Density c :.,.: 0000 "0;;;;-!....,%., • Light Industrial ,v. •0.• - •00 ..e.. .,.....„., .,(....., ...,.. - .. , /. ,:e'oceFic,..;(1' -......''..-.'. -' .1,,,,.!,..,•:,..!,,,..,S.•, ''c" •tt '' ,,•V.,.,-,R:•;•M.6!n' • P V,,,.. a .,t',.. ,..:W.\'::e 4"1.0"•,-.6,, • .c N. .- .. •.' :3';•%03.01.n'ti..).'.• ':C! :..'t;,,,i i•.' C•rZel i Multi-Family . • • • ..., 4..-i ---. .... .::i:iiii:i::::...';.ob-„ ‘.... ,,. :f'-`..-.-,4,yt' ''. '''• ''f,:z-''' - '52:'-: • • • - ;::i:E:i:i*K:::i:i:i::.. - r Ll',:is.5,, c.,:ii:./0,•,,,, „Q.,st"47,..4, _._.% fv, 4.,,e1.-e' 'e.f. Recreation • • • Heavy Industrial 0°.°0. ,. •.1. .„7„:.y.. low • • • ,..00000.0.0.0. .::::.:::::::.:.-----** ...ft•.••-•.,3.'•''''.4;: •0 OW ,•• %OW te: .>0 0,01.0'.. ,t9 s, C.1.•,• 000• 0 • 000, ..n ;, '' 4' "•• .'''';1.' • '-',C''''':.z::: :B.:mg , .',.•,:,,i'•77.r.''l'eff\ Greenbelt .__.________ ----------- Manufacturing Park .... __ . ..".::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .•,,;:-.....;.;.,.,,5•,,..:‘,.f.‘,0, ,, .. l"' .o......V "kEe5.0.' k• '....:.::::**i*::ii:::. AN 0°.°0°.°.. ...._ / Multiple Option iA,:„::.::...;:.:,..:.it,:. 411111r1111111111 /..•00.00000:00,• N Gti- ,z/ - Qa PROJECT NARRATIVE The proposed project is a 12 , 000 square foot addition to the existing church building. It will be a 2 story structure built on the west side of and adjacent to the existing building. A small amount of remodel will be done in the existing building to interface with the new construction. No site work is proposed except landscaping adjacent to the addition. The new building will tie into all existing utilities and drainage systems. The primary use of the new facility will be Christian education classrooms. Some nursery rooms may also be provided. The schedule of the project is not known for certain at this time as it depends on receiving proper permits and funding. Estimated cost of the addition is $1, 026, 000. SMLPJ2. 42 • PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON APR 2 4 1990 VED c�rti ` v-�dr— ry ifE D TICOR TITLE INS_. LANCE RECE 1008 Western Avenue,Seattle,Washington 98104-1032 (206)223-7878 DEC 28 ea GBP ARCHITECTS, P.S. LIMITED LIABILITY REPORT Refer to: • Number A-376419 Unit : 16 PETER R. HARPER . MELANIE MINOR DIRECT DIALING (206) 223-7883 HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH 3031 NORTHEAST 10TH - RENTON, WASHINGTON 98056 ATTENTION: DALE SHUCK Date: DECEMBER 21, 1987 at 8:00 A.M. This is a report as of the date shown above, showing the record title is vested in: HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH, A WASHINGTON NON-PROFIT CORPORATION ( Covering the following property: PARCEL A: BLOCK 32, CORRECTED PLAT OF RENTON HIGHLANDS NO. 2, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT - RECORDED IN VOLUME 57 OF PLATS, PAGES 92 TO 98, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TOGETHER WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF VACATED JEFFERSON AVENUE NORTHEAST ADJOINING, WHICH UPON VACATION, ATTACHED TO SAID PREMISES BY OPERATION OF LAW. PARCEL B: i LOT 4, RENTON SHORT PLAT NO. 188-78 RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 7808170836, BEING A PORTION OF BLOCK 33, CORRECTED PLAT, RENTON HIGHLANDS NO. 2, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 57 OF PLATS, PAGES 92 TO 98, INCLUSIVE, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND A PORTION OF RENTON HIGHLANDS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 46 OF PLATS, PAGES 34 TO 41, INCLUSIVE, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED JEFFERSON AVENUE NORTHEAST ADJOINING, WHICH UPON VACATION, ATTACHED TO SAID PREMISES BY OPERATION OF LAW. PLANNING DIVISION :' CITY OF RENTON Subject to: APR 24ism A-376419 PAGE 1 1. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES, and interest thereon, which may be imposed pursuant to RCW 84.36.810 upon cessation of the use for which an , exemption from taxes has been granted. According to RCW 84.36.812, the County .Auditor shall not accept an instrument of conveyance (for recording) unless the additional tax has been paid. 2. MORTGAGE to secure the, indebtedness of the' amount herein..,stated and any other amounts payable under' the terms thereof, recorded in the Department of Records and Elections of King County, Washington. Amount :. $300,000.00 Dated : AUGUST 1, 1974 • Recorded : AUGUST'15, 1974 Auditor's File No. : 7408150403 . Mortgagor : HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH Mortgagee., :. '.BANK OF WEST, RENTON HIGHLANDS BRANCH, RENTON, WASHINGTON ' SAID INSTRUMENT WAS AMENDED BY, AUDITOR'S FILE' NO'. 7606210478 IN WHICH ADDITIONAL BONDS WERE ISSUED IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $150,000.00,' TO THE RECORD OF WHICH REFERENCE IS HEREBY MADE FOR FULL PARTICULARS. . �. AFFECTS PARCEL A. • 3. ESCROW AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: BETWEEN : HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH, RENTON, WASHINGTON AND DANIEL KELLOGG, ATTORNEY AT LAW AS ESCROW AGENT DATED : FEBRUARY 13, 1980 RECORDED. :. FEBRUARY 14, 1980 • RECORDING NO. : 8002140594 . REGARDING : : ISSUANCE AND SALE OF FIRST MORTGAGE COUPON AND COMPOUND INTEREST BONDS. AFFECTS PARCEL B. '1 4. TRUST •INDENTURE• DATED FEBRUARY 13, 1980 BY AND BETWEEN HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY . CHURCH AND THOMAS A. GLESSNER AS DISCLOSED BY ::INSTRUMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 14, 1980 UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 8002140595. SECURES BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $350,000.00 AFFECTS PARCEL B. A-37419 PAGE 2 • 5. DEED OF TRUST to secure an indebtedness of the amount herein stated and any other amounts payable under the terms thereof, recorded in the Department of Records and. Elections of King County, Washington. Amount : $350,000.00 Dated. : FEBRUARY 13, 1980 Recorded . FEBRUARY 14, 1980 , Auditor's File No. : 8002140596 Grantor . HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH, A_ WASHINGTON NON-PROFIT- CORPORATION Trustee : THOMAS A. GLESSNER Beneficiary : OLD NATIONAL BANK, RENTON HIGHLANDS BRANCH, RENTON, WASHINGTON AFFECTS PARCEL B. 6. RIGHT OF THE PUBLIC to make necessary slopes for cuts or fills upon said premises in the reasonable original grading of streets, avenues, alleys and roads, as dedicated in the plat. 7. AN EASEMENT with provisions, conditions and covenants as may be set forth therein. For : ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINE • (.. Reflected of record by instrument Recorded : SEPTEMBER 27, 1929 Auditor's File No. : 2562330 Affects : OVER A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES AND OTHER LANDS. 8. WE NOTE CERTIFIED BOND RESOLUTIONS RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE 'NO. 5027601, 5450444 AND 5918736 BY HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH TO THE RECORD OF WHICH REFERENCE IS HEREBY MADE FOR FULL PARTICULARS. 9. WE NOTE BOND RESOLUTION RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 7408150404 BY HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH, TO THE RECORD OF WHICH REFERENCE IS HEREBY MADE FOR FULL PARTICULARS. 10. AN EASEMENT with provisions; conditions and covenants as may be set forth therein. For GAS PIPELINES In favor of : WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS COMPANY Reflected of record by instrument , Recorded : MAY 2, 1977 Auditor's File No. : 7705020582 Affects : WESTERLY 5 FEET OF THE EASTERLY 30 FEET OF VACATED JEFFERSON AVENUE NORTHEAST OF PARCEL A. A-376419 PAGE 3 • 11. AN EASEMENT. WITH PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS AS MAY BE DEFINED THEREIN. FOR : UTILITIES AND RELATED PURPOSES AS DISCLOSED BY ORDINANCE NO. 3545 RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 8105180477 AFFECTS VACATED PORTION OF JEFFERSON AVENUE NORTHEAST WITHIN PARCELS A AND B. 12. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, contained in instrument. Recorded : MAY 18, 1981 Auditor's File No. : 81051804.77 (ORDINANCE NO. 3545) Executed by . . CITY OF RENTON As_ follows : SUBJECT FURTHER. TO A CITY REVERSIONARY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN THE FORM OF.A REVERSIONARY CLAUSE IN THE CONVEYANCE TO THE ABUTTING OWNER THAT THE PROPERTY SHOULD REVERT TO THE CITY IF NOT USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR CHURCH PURPOSES. 13. AN EASEMENT with provisions, conditions and covenants as may be set forth therein. For : UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATION LINES AND ABOVE GROUND CABINETS In favor of : PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, A ( .. WASHINGTON CORPORATION Reflected of record by instrument Recorded : OCTOBER 4, 1985. Auditor's File No. : . 8510040374 Affects : BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BLOCK 32; THENCE WEST 10 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH MARGIN OF NORTHEAST 10TH STREET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 10 FEET; THENCE WEST 10 FEET; THENCE NORTH 10 FEET; THENCE EAST ALONG THE SOUTH MARGIN OF NORTHEAST 10TH STREET 10 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. AFFECTS PARCEL A. 14. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND/OR EASEMENTS and maintenance agreements as contained in short plat, as hereto attached: Recorded : AUGUST 17, 1978 Auditor's File No. : 7808170836 Executed by GLOBE DEVELOPMENT CO., A PARTNERSHIP AFFECTS PARCEL B. 15. AN EASEMENT as delineated on the face of said short plat Recorded AUGUST 17, 1978 Auditor's File No.: 7808170836 For : UNDISCLOSED - Affects : NORTHERLY PORTION OF LOT 4 (PARCEL B) A-376419 PAGE 4 • 16. AN EASEMENT with provisions, conditions and covenants as may be set forth therein. For : PUBLIC UTILITIES (INCLUDING WATER & SEWER) In favor of : CITY OF RENTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Reflected of record by instrument Recorded : JULY 20, 1977 Auditor's File No. : 7707200931 Affects : PARCEL B 17. AN EASEMENT delineated on the face of, or dedicated by said plat For : SANITARY SEWER Affects : VARIOUS PORTIONS OF PARCEL B 18. EASEMENT FOR WATERMAIN 10 FEET IN WIDTH OVER SAID PREMISES, AS DELINEATED ON THE FACE OF CORRECTED PLAT, RENTON HIGHLANDS NO. 2. AFFECTS PARCEL B. This report is restricted to the use of the addressee, and is not to be used as a basis for closing any transaction affecting . title to said property. Liability of the company is limited to the compensation received therefor. By 74 .) Authorized igna ry Charge: $348.00 Tax : $27.49 RR/PMM C-345 1 CC: GBP ARCHITECTS, P.S. • A-376419 PAGE 5 r PLANNING&ZONING FEES / � ` ` NAME: PRC}JECT: /r v��/ K - Annexation Fees 000/000/345.81.00.02 Appeals &Waivers 000/000/345.81.00.03 Binding Site Plan/Short Plat 000/000/346.81.00.04 Cornpn*henniva.P|anArnandnn8nt 000/000/345.81.00.06 Conditional Use Fees 000/000/345.81.0.0.06 q,5,7 ' Environmental Review Fees 000/000/345.81.00.07 Preliminary Plat 000/000/346.81.00.08 5046 Final P|u1 (General Fund) 000/000/345.81.00.09 5096 Final Plat (Park Fund) 101/800/346.81.00.00 FinaKPre|inninaryPUO 000/000/345.81.00.10 Grading & Filling Fees 000/000/345.81.00.11 Lot Line Adjustment 000/000/345.81.00.12 Mobile Home Parks 000/0 O0/345.81.00.13 Rezone 000/UOO/345.81.O0.14 Routine Vegetation K8gn)tFees 008/000/345.81.00.15 Shoreline Substantial DevFees 000/080/345.81.00.16 Site Plan Approval 000/000/345.81.00..17 Special/Temporary Review Fees 800/000/345.81.00.18 Variance Fees 000/000/345.81.00.19 1 Other K1ion Planning/Zoning Fees 000/000/345.81.00.20 ` Maps 000/000/341.50.00.00 7041 Photo Copies 000/000/341.60.00.24 Publications 000/000/341.60.00.24 Postage 000/000/308.90.00.18 7055 ` Sales Tax 000/000/231.70.00.00 9998 ' | .~~--'G DIVISION �� ' mn�of nEm`°~ DATE / �%APR �� �� �°°O�O� t$ CITY C RENTON , Community Development Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Kenneth E.Nyberg,Director March 14, 1990 Shawn L.J. Busse Gabbert Broweleit Peterson 11000 Lake City Way NE Seattle, Washington 98125 Re: Highlands Community Church Expansion 3031 NE 10th Street, Renton Dear Ms. Busse: This letter is sent as a follow up to your recent conversation with Laureen Nicolay of our office regarding the above-referenced project. After review of the submittals you provided, the Planning Department staff concurred to recommend that the church seek a rezone of only the easterly parcel (from R-1, Residential District, to .P-1, Public Use) and retain the existing B-1 (Business District) zoning on the westerly parcel. You will need to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for any expansion or development occurring on the P-1-zoned parcel, but not for the B-1-zoned parcel. However, Site Plan approval will be required for development on either parcel. I have enclosed a copy of the current "Rezone Application Procedures" and a "Master Application" form. Please feel free to contact myself or Laureen Nicolay at 235-.2550 if you have any questions regarding this letter or. the application process. Sin ely, frOrn PY-e. 4top � - s Donald K. Erickson, AICP Chief, Current Planning Division DKE/ln • enclosures . r 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 • r IL )i ) L )i )1 i �s „i GABBERT BROvvELEIT PETERSON ; ; fiLit7N Architecture.Programming.Planning=Interior Design � FE B 1 1990 ElIVE January 30, 1990 Renton Planning Division 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Highlands Community Church 3031 NE '10th Renton, WA Conditional Use Permit Upon the suggestion of Jerry Lind, I am submitting this letter and the attached preliminary C.U.P. application plans. I request that your department make a determination with regards to the maximum allowable lot coverage of the proposed Christian Education Addition to the existing church facility. Highlands Community Church currently owns two adjacent parcels of land in the Renton Highlands area. One parcel is approximately 2 .9 acres and currently zoned R-1. The second parcel is approximately 5 acres and currently zoned B-1. The current comprehensive plan designation of the site is P-1. A portion of the proposed addition lies on the parcel zoned R-1 with the other portion on the parcel zoned B-1 (see attached plans and letter date 6-9-89) . Based upon your interpretation of Title 4, Chapter 7, Section 7- 748, of the City of Renton Building Regulations, the above information and the attached set of plans would you consider the following questions: 1. What is the best way to proceed with the Conditional Use Permit? 2 . Can the site be considered a single parcel? 3 . Would you support a variance of the required lot coverage or ;zoning of the site? It is our understanding that the present zoning ordinance for a C.U.P. in a R-1 zone allows only 17. 5% lot coverage. 4. Should we pursue rezoning a portion of the site or the entire site? • Principals: Marlin J.Gabbert AIA Larry L.Broweleit AIA David A.Peterson AIA Associates: John Taylo'AlA Richard Connell 11000 Lake City Way N.EI,°Seattle WA 98125.(206)367-3600 I Thank you for your time. I look forward to receiving your response. Please contact me at 367-3600 with your determination. Sincerely, GBP Architects, P.S. Shawn L.J. Busse SMLPJ2 .29 1 �p... i I .. _ fo I ° aAh '3 T /\;:ZI. I �� Z nu J • • •I !t L1 /', j44 � r 7,7/ 1111111111111 3 R-3 , . , , 1, 46 ✓ I Z , R .,___,}_ a q 10 Be_ 147 1 (J- o , 1V /> r , 12)h i 44:.-.' / 4z , 'l yj . I ?O O+ '/-r %! 1 1 I r' t y , 1 3 Z - - 1, V) i )1o., a4 1T l it , 1 R-3 , r /,- �, - _7.3 t, , 1 1111 1 1 • /, , N E I l u� It,:T 38 ts° ' r � � 3le 1N E oir Ili\V.\,s ? -"N,,,,,.: e 1: j _.4 (-- r/ b C. �y' 5X 1:7 1 -„ v i r� -I/ ,'S 0 t y I I3 �� it 17/ r IQ r- IG- 1 La. '. y37 ' 9 i IItiI ..'" 6i( Y ,� , , i .. ,...,...._. , . // , i i _1 . 1 ,, t - t I jos..i..4r 1 I \ ' 7 it. ' _ 1 t' I_ , Z 3I I / • :-.- = aN L , t 1 • Si '------N .,_...L_t. 10 •1 IIT i 10 • ' ) . rl �\ • �� �j \C: , � �. 11 t � 41 � 1... . ILfa 1 z jo I j � L __ _' . - -t 1 rl N. NE __I__1 . il ,,j,,t4---:19 N .3 I • .‘,. �� � ' �� z, , Air �� ` tt �' 1h � r. z •t : I R-2 • F 5 4 f — • -'_ 5 ' ' `' • `. a ' - s Y'' :1 _ ( - ' ' v 1 i 8 lII�,NLANDS 4 � — -- 1 .1 .1 ,� N E 1 ELEtA; NTAPY ;l-f— •� I �1 I� l 'T'- s�' '. 11 �ClI(`I.�l .ice a ,` 1 1 .... _9 p 1 41z �� ` H 1 1 4 � s b T , . •i r __ t ,. N E ` q I I 9 j! Ifs ' JIl Z R3 'f lU ./r v •'� to '/p '° z I1 11 'I � _ 4 S It. 2/ ".9/7 • ' 't -'i ----.... A _ .2.•••••"...4. . • Z ?---- -• 1 , �.1 21 C-\-1 ---)" .. .•:----' - I . 1// / F/1.• * ,r • 11 , -'mot 1�-r !ti ' I• PzfI �,• f � ( _ 1 e o . r . •, , /- 1• 1a 1i __:A . ., ____ 4 , --.....„ ,, ... , „ . .),„" i ' ,. .o 4 1, / z '_-it 1/ o I 1 N E • ti :0: CITY OF .RENTON • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT• • Earl Clymer, Mayor • . Planning Division • June 9, 1989 • Steve Hammer Gabbert Broweleit Peterson 11000 Lake City Way N.E. Seattle, Washington 98125 • • RE: Highlands Community Church Proposed Classroom Addition • • • • • - Dear Mr. Hammer. We have reviewed your request to construct a classroom addition to the existing Highlands Community Church and have determined that the addition may be placed on • the two church owned parcels, each of which has a different zoning designation. As you are-aware, the project.will require a conditional use permit since the project site • includes property zoned R-1,.Residential-Single Family. Churches and church •• . • expansions.as separate structures are only allowed. by a conditional use permit in that . C • zone. Secondly, your. letter discusses.the point that in the event the church'decides to sell the commercially zoned property, that.a lot line adjustment could be applied for and presumably approved:by the.City: Please be-aware that such an application.may or may . • not.be approved. Further,, that.at.such.time.,the City may determine that a short plat application is the most appropriate-process'.for-modifying the lot.lines between the'two parcels. Again, we cannot guarantee that such an application would be.approved by the City. . . . • We apologize for the lateness of this response. . If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to call us.at 235-2550. Sincerely, / (94,44t. r- r-- . rct— , .r" n Doanld K. Erickson, AICP J r 1Qgi Zoning Administrator • V Lt. >; :• , ; DKE/McK:m jp • • • 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton. Washington 98055 - (206)735-2550 • Facsimile (2061 235-25.13 -5- b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Ncvrf' Ki-101j1-1 c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain • 1`.14 • d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if,any:, , 1--1c7rG-Ap�lr�- 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, wood, wood stove, solar) 'will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. I .r"ulai... c ©1� Nr11-1� b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. 1—Jo c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: -rH e. pva I14 L.It-ATIr.-. 712 2 M T 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. NoN�.; 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Naf4 L- 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Hc7r b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the areas which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?. 14c'I I� ri•l HAI<I l-:1' vw N 14J L.-,Arc AIJI� kll t,.l-- 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. �I-1 rr�U�-r j4 Nol', i�A�+r�nr--ram. I, 2 e -fls-14M: TY ��IG t-4c b`+\-T'rir-i 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: NoN� 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? • -rHe, GHI�Ir2, . `rI-111 D.ra r evr T'-r I� I" 1UL-'1 rAi-1 I L'-( b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No