HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA90-095 Ci , CITY OF RENTON
Hearing Examiner
Earl Clymer, Mayor . ,. Fred J.Kaufman
• III
January 30, 1991
Weldon Thompson .
528 Rainier Avenue South, #36
Renton, WA 98055
RE: Jodi Thompson Appeal
File No. AAD-095-90
Dear Mr. Thompson:
The Examiner' s Report regarding the referenced application which was
published December .17, 1.990 has:.not: been appealed within the 14-day
period, established by ordinance.': Therefore, this matter is, considered..
final and is._being ,,transmitted-'to ,the.. City Clerk:.this date for filing.
Please feel free' .,to: contact this office if further assistance or
information is. required.'
Sincerely,
FRED J. KAUFMAN
HEARING EXAMINER
FJK:dk
cc: City Clerk ,
Building Division
Planning Division
nnn �cn ♦_ —.._ o....aL _ (oncc - (1fK\
r '
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING i
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss.
County of King )
DOTTY KLINGMAN
, . being first duly sworn,
upon oath, deposes and states: 0 ;,
That on the 17th day of December , 1990 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.
R.X.11/4 -//4-7-rez:e2,e)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this /A411 day
of DErFA k e_lr , 1990.
4,1,- L-141-01(--
Notary rblic in a d for the State of Washington,
= residinul tt J(;v. l , therein.
Application,. ,Petition, or Case ii: AAD-095-90 - WELDON/JODI THOMPSON I
(The minutes contain a list of the parties of record.)
December 17, 1990
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND DECISION
APPELLANT: WELDON THOMPSON
File No: AAD-095-90
LOCATION: 1222 and 1224 Kirkland Avenue NE
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Appeal of decision that administrative site plan approval i
necessary prior to building on either lot, per conditions
attached to the rezone in November, 1988.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Petitioner's written request for a
public hearing and examining available information on file
the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the matter as
follows:
MINUTES
The original hearing for this appeal was scheduled for 3:00 P.M. on September 25, 1990. The appellant
did not appear at that time and at 3:35 P.M. the matter was dismissed. The next day the appellant,
Weldon Thompson, appeared at the Examiner's office explaining why he did not attend the hearing,
and requested that a new hearing date be set. Upon receiving the appellant's written request, the
Examiner set the date of December 4, 1990 for the appeal hearing to commence. Testimony below was
presented at that hearing.
The hearing was opened on December 4, 1990 at 9:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the Renton
Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit #1 - Yellow File containing application, proof of posting
and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request
The hearing opened with testimony from LAWRENCE CAMPBELL, Architect, 1609 South Central,
Suite A-1, Kent, 98052, representing the appellant. Mr. Campbell stressed that the appellant was not
appealing the condition issued at the time of the rezone approval, but wanted an interpretation of the
condition requiring site plan approval for the lots should they be developed. Mr. Thompson understood
the condition to indicate that site plan review would be required if there were more than six (6) units
built on the lots. He took this interpretation request to the planning division and was unable to receive
the clarification he requested. Mr. Campbell reiterated - clarification is necessary to determine if site
plan review is necessary for any development of the lots, or required only if more than six units are
built.
Mr. Campbell referred to portions of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation and Report issued on
August 24, 1988 and advised that the planning staff had recognized that R-3 zoning on the property
would support eight (8) units, but the applicant had only submitted a design for six (6) units. The
recommendation from the Examiner contained condition #3 which said "the development of any
additional housing units on either lot shall be subject to site plan review". Mr. Thompson felt the word
"additional" meant any units greater than six, as proposed. Mr. Campbell asked that an interpretation
be given of condition #3 so the appellant can proceed with this project.
Responding for the city was LENORA BLAUMAN, Senior Planner. Ms. Blauman referred to a letter
sent to Mr. Thompson from the Zoning Administrator dated July 30, 1990 wherein it stated that any
new development on the site would be subject to site plan review. She stated that the site plan that
was submitted with the rezone request (R-045-88) for the property was only a conceptual site plan and
no review of potential impacts or a specific number of units was made at that time. It was the intent
of the city that any development, redevelopment, renovation, or new development be subject to site
plan review as the property is in an area of transition and development of this site could impact
surrounding areas. She said the city wanted to be certain any plan for this site would be given a full
review, and the condition was necessary to implement that review.
Mr. Campbell said he has no problem with the interpretation given by Planner Blauman - and it was
this clear interpretation that was being sought by the appellant. He requested that the Hearing
WELDON THOMPSON
AAD-095-90
December 17, 1990
Page 2
Examiner now issue, in writing, his interpretation of the condition referencing the need for site plan
review so the appellant can move ahead with his project. He had no further testimony.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to
speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:25 A.M.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION:
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. The appellants, Jodi Thompson and her father Weldon Thompson, filed an appeal of a an
administrative determination that any redevelopment of the Thompson property was subject'to
site plan review. The administrative determination was made by the Zoning Administrator on
July 30, 1990. The appeal was filed in a timely manner on August 10, 1990.
2. The Thompson property was rezoned R-2 (Duplex Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density
Multiple Family) on. November 14, 1988 (Ordinance 4187).
3. The City Council conditioned the rezone by attaching the following language to the approval:
1. Not more than a total of six units shall be constructed on the subject site, which shall
consist of the existing duplex, renovated or replaced by a new duplex on the westerly
lot, and not more than four additional units to be constructed on the easterly lot.
2. The applicant receive a lot line adjustment resulting in the westerly lot containing a total
of 7,133 square feet and the eastern lot containing a total of 7,200 square feet.
3. The development of any additional housing units on either lot shall be subject to site
plan review.
4. Condition #2 is not at issue in this hearing.
5. The appellant urges that Condition #3, when read in conjunction with Condition #1, should be
interpreted to mean that site plan review is only required if the. appellant were to development
more than a total of six (6) units on the subject site, whereas the zoning administrator
determined that any development beyond the two units that currently exist requires site plan
review.
6. The original staff report and the hearing examiner's report supporting the original rezone refer
to the potential for incompatible development and the available open space in supporting site
plan review for the site.
7. The appellant did not introduce any new information and merely relied on a reading of the
disputed language.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the Zoning Administrator's decision was'
either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary
and capricious (Section 4-3011(B)(1)(b). The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the action
of the administrator should be modified or reversed. The decision of the administrator is
affirmed.
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 255, 259
(1969).
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).
The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the decision was founded upon anything but a fair
review of the Rezone Ordinance and associated conditions. The appellant has failed to
demonstrate with cogent evidence that a mistake was made. The decision must be affirmed
since the appellant clearly failed to demonstrate that the determination was in error.
PY r 1
WELDON THOMPSON'
AAD-095-90
December 17, 1990
Page 3
3. The two conditions, Conditions 1 and 3, when read together indicate that while a total of six (6)
units may be developed on the two lots, the development of any additional housing units on
either lot beyond the current two units shall be subject to site plan review. Condition 1 only
permits 6 units. Since that zoning condition only permits six units in total, the requirements ofi
Condition 3 which require site plan review would never occur if read as urged by the appellant.
4. The appellant suggests that site plan review would only be triggered by development of greater
than six units. That would be impossible under the limitations of Condition 1. Since the
conditions should be read to complement rather than conflict with one another, the appellants'
reading is incorrect. It is clear that Condition 3 was intended to attach to any further
development of the lot beyond that now existing on the site.
5. Since the appellant has not overcome the burden imposed by the administrative review
provisions, the determination below must be affirmed.
DECISION
The decision of the Zoning Administrator is affirmed.
ORDERED THIS 17th day of December, 1990.
FRED J. KAUFFMAN
HEARING EXAMINER
TRANSMITTED THIS 17th day of December, 1990 to the parties of record:
Lawrence Campbell
Campbell & Associates
1609 So. Central - Suite A-1
Kent, WA 98032
TRANSMITTED THIS 17th day of December, 1990 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
Glen Gordon, 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. December 31, 1990. 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.
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.
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.
9
WELDON THOMPSON
AAD-095-90
December 17, 1990
Page 4
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as
well as Appeals to the City Council.
•
' CITY OF RENTON
ea ;� Hearing Examiner
Earl Clymer, Mayor Fred J.Kaufman
October 5, 1990
Weldon Thompson
528 Rainier Avenue South #36
Renton, WA 98055
Re: Re-Scheduling of Appeal Hearing
AAD-095-90
Site Plan Review
Dear Mr. Thompson:
Your letter of September 26, 1990 explaining why you failed to attend
the original appeal hearing for the above tatter was received and my
response follows.
Another hearing has now been scheduled for Tuesday," December, 4 , :1990 '
at 9 : 00 A.M. on the second floor of the Renton Municipal Building. It
is imperative that you adhere to this time and date as scheduling
constraints will prohibit setting aside more time should this date not
be honored. If you find you are personally unable to attend then we
suggest that you appoint a representative to appear on your behalf.
Sincerely,
gar
FRED J. •UFMAN
HEARING EXAMINER
FJK/dk
cc: Lawrence Warren, City Attorney
Planning Department
Building Department
•
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2593
RECEIVED
SEP 26 1990
Weldon Thompson CITY OF Ric ON
HEARING EXAMINER
September 26. 1990
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
Renton, Washington
Re:Re: Request Reschedule the Hearing for Appeal of
Determination of Site Plan
File #R-045-88
AAD-095-90
Dear Mr. Kaufman:
I apologize for missing my scheduled hearing at 3:00 p.m. on
the 25th of September. I
My scheduled arrival time from Los Angeles Was moved to 3: 30
p. t, due to problems in San Francisco. Upon my arrival, I
wail also nofified of a death in my family.
The only reason for coming to Seattle was to appear at the
hearing; I purchased an economy round trip ticket and my
scheduled return is for September 28.
I will appreciate it very much if another hearing can be
scheduled for the time I am to be here; if hot I will appoint
a representative to appear on my behalf. I�
Thank you for your consideration, again I apologize for any
inconvenience you may have encountered due to my missing the
hearing.
Very truly yours,
0-ee
Weldon Thompso
- r
RECEIVDE
SEp 24 199p
Planning/Building/Public Works Department OF F/ �.,. J
ON
City of Renton
Memorandum
Date: September 25, 1990
To: Fred J. Kaufman •
Hearing Examiner
From: Donald K. Erickson, AICP
Zoning Administrator
Lenora Blauman
Project Manager
I
Subject: Thompson Rezone (R 045-88) (AAD 095-90)
This memorandum is written to address an appeal of a
determination concerning the reclassification of the property at
1222 Kirkland Avenue North and 1224 Kirkland Avenue North from
R-2 to R-3 to enable future development of the subject parcel (s)
with multi-family residential uses.
The subject of the appeal is a request for clarification as to ;
requirements established (in conjunction with reclassification)
for site plan approval for new development on the property.
The project files indicate that, at the time of the review and
public hearing for reclassification, staff recommended this
rezone action be supported with the intended condition that any
change to type or density of use, including each/all new
development arid/or redevelopment of the property be subject to
site plan review. The purpose of this condition was to ensure
that development on this site would be consistent with existing
development on the property and with uses on neighboring
properties.
If you have questions, or would like additional information
please contact me or Lenora Blauman at Ext. 2550.
CITY OF RENTON
SEP 2 5 1990
HECEIVEu
.)ITY CLERK'S OFFICE
024.41r
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 51067
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 PUBLIC HEARING
RENTON HEARING EXAMINEF
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week. That said newspapers A Public Hearing will be held by the Ren-
are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six ton Hearing Examiner at his regular meet-
a
g p p ing in the Council Chambers on the st cond
months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published floor of City Hall, Renton, Washingto1, on
in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King September 25, 1990 at 3:00 p.m.to consid-
erCount Washington. The ValleyDailyNews has been approved as a legal Jodythd following oetRezo.
Y� g PP g Thompson Rezone
newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for AAD-095-90
Rezone .329 acres of property from R-2,
King County. Low Density Residential Use, to R-3, Medi-
um Density Residential Use. Proaerty
The fftice in the exact fora dttached, was published in Kent Edition includes site currently developed will two
duplex units.This is a nonproject, prof ram-
, Renton Edition , Auburn Edition , (and not in matic rezone; however, the applicant's stet-
supplement form) which was regularly distributed uto 1 its subost i beers ed intent is to add two new four-plex-3s to
during the below stated period. The annexed notice a this site and to upgrade the existing duplex-
es.The project is located at 1222 and 1224
(Notice of Public Hearing) 4645 Kirkland Avenue Northeast.
All interested persons to said petitions
are invited to be present at the Public Hear-
ing on September 25, 1990 at 3:00 p.m. to
was published on express their opinions.
Published in the Valley Daily News Sep-
tember 14, 1990 4645.
The full *glo 1q of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the
sum of$
'frir;,24(Ae-e-t2C)XY-e-e-V'rA /'
Subscribed and sworn before me th?s1 S t day of S e p t - 1990
Notary Public for the State of Washington
residing at Aubuni,
King County, Washington
VDN#87 Revised 4/89
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 C
Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on September 25, 1990 at 3:00 p.m. to
consider the following petitions:
•
Jody Thompson Rezone
AAD-095-90
Rezone .329 acres of property from R-2, Low Density Residential Use, to R-3, Medium
Density Residential Use. Property Includes site currently developed with two duplex units.
This Is a nonproject, programmatic rezone; however, the applicant's stated intent is to add
two new four-plexes to this site and to upgrade the existing duplexes. The project Is
located at 1222 and 1224 Kirkland Avenue Northeast.
All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing on September 25,
1990 at 3:00 p.m.to express their opinions.
- i
Publication Date: September 14, 1990
Account No.51067 • .
•
•
•
• i
•
Ai 09.97
CITY OF R "
SEP ,;, `1� 1
CITY CLERK'S Ures
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 510 6 7
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 PUBLIC HEARING
RENTON HEARING EXAMINER
Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week. That said newspapers RENTON, WASHINGTON
are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six A Public Hearing will be held by the Ren-
ton Hearing Examiner at his regular meet-
months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published ing in the Council Chambers on the second
in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on
Ser 25,
County, Washington. The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal erthem llo in 1990 at 3:00 p.m. to consid-
g petitions:
newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Jody Thompson Rezone
King County. AAD-095-90
Rezone .329 acres of property from
R-2,Low Density Residential Use,to
The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Kent Edition R-3, Medium Density Residential
X X , Renton Edition XX , Auburn Edition X X , (and not in Use. Property includes site currently
supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers developed with two duplex units.
during the below stated period. The annexed notice a Public Notice This is a nonproject, programmatic
rezone; however, the applicant's
(Notice of Public Hearing) 4625 intent is to add two new four-plexes
to this site and to upgrade the exist-
ing duplexes.
Sept . 13 , 1990 All interested persons to said petitions are
was published on invited to be present at the Public Hearing
on September 25, 1990 at 3:00 p.m. to
express their opinions.
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the Published in the Valley Daily News on
sum of$ 29 •97 .
September 13, 1990.Acct. No.51067.4625
l'<atage4f...) 4119-0--64-e4
Subscribed and sworn before me this 17 t h day of Sept 19 90
Notary Public for the State of Washingt25n
residing at fix, •
R¢, �
King County, Washington
VDN#87 Revised 4/89
"% er �` CITY OF RENTON
AVN
..t� Hearing Examiner
Earl Clymer, Mayor Fred J.Kaufman
August 21, 1990
Weldon Thompson
528 Rainier Avenue South #36
Renton, WA 98055
Re: Appeal of Determination for Site Plan
Approval of Kirkland Avenue/Thompson Four-Plex
File #R-045-88
AAD-095-90
Dear Mr. Thompson:We are in receipt of your letter of August 8, 1990 setting out an
alleged basis for an appeal of the above determination.
The hearing date for this appeal has now been scheduled for 3 : 00 P.M,
on Tuesday, September 25, 1990. The hearing will ',be held in the
council chambers located on the second floor of the Renton Municipal
Building.
Due to time constraints of all parties, it is important that the abo e
date and time be adhered to by everyone. If there are any questions,
please contact this office.
Sincerely,
FRED J. KKUFMAN
HEARING EXAMINER
FJK/dk
cc: Lawrence Warren, City Attorney
Planning Department
Building Department
nonrc _ /11141 7'2S-')S02
CITY OF RENTON
AUG `r 0 1990
e3ECEIVED
,ITY CLERK'S OFFICE;
Weldon Thompson
528 Rainier Avenue South #36
Renton , Washington 98055
August 8 , 1990 RECEIVED
AUG 131990
Hearing Examiner CITY OF RENTON
City of Renton HEARING EXAMINER
Renton , Washington
Re : Appeal of the Determination for Site Plan Approval
of Kirkland Avenue/Thompson Four—Plex
Dear Sir :
I am submitting the above referenced Determination for Appeal
for the following reasons :
1 . When the decision was made to rezone the subject property
from R-2 to R-3 , it was our feeling that the site would
be used to its best capacity by building eight units ,
which is indicated in the Preliminary Report of the
Building and Zoning Department (Exhibit #1 , Page 3 ,
Section G , Item #1)--two four—plexes . The staff erred
in that section by stating "each of the two sites hosting
one duplex" , when in fact, there is only one duplex on
the westerly lot.
2 . In the minutes of the Hearing Examiner ' s Public Hearing
(Exhibit 2 , Page 1 , last paragraph) , the Zoning
Administrator stated the site could accommodate eight
dwelling units . However , the Administrator suggested
that rezone be conditioned to a maximum of six units .
(Exhibit 2 , page 2 , paragraph 4e )
3 . It was with the desire to build the eight units that Mr .
Lawrence Campbell , architect, requested that a site
approval be used for the eight units , giving the
Appellant a chance to further study this possibility ,
rather than limiting the site to six units . (Exhibit 2 ,
Page 2 , paragraph 4 . )
4 . It was by the Appellant ' s own request that the site
approval was adopted in the event eight units were
requested after the rezone .
The City of Renton Ordinance *4187 (Exhibit 3) as adopted ,
Hearing Examiner — City of Renton Page 2
permits the total of six units on the site (Exhibit 3 , page
3 , Item #1) and gave us the option and opportunity to develop
additional units by stating that "additional units shall be
subject to site plan approval (Exhibit 3 , Page 3 , Item 3) ,
which is exactly what we requested .
After final approval of the rezone , further analysis was made
by the owner , and the decision was made not to build two four
plexes , but to add the one four plex and retain the existing
duplex as the condition of Exhibit 3 , page 3 , Item 1 .
We appreciate the opportunity given us for the possibility of
eight units , on the site , however , it is our feeling that six
units are better suited for this particular location .
It is with the above reasoning that the whole purpose of the
site approval (which Appellant requested) was only to apply
if the site were to accommodate seven or eight units . It
does not apply if used for the maximum of six units .
I will appreciate your prompt response to this matter .
Very truly yours ,
Weldon Thompson
jn
11, r'
' • t `'� CIT``' =.'JF RENTO
''' Department of Piaiiiing/Building/Public Wor Ifs
Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator , ,
July 30, 1990
1
~ Weldon Thompson
6820 51 st Avenue South
' Seattle,Washington 98118
SUBJECT:• Kirkland Avenue/Thompson Four-Plex--Approval Process Required '
City file#R-045-88
Dear Mr.Thompson:
As you requested, I have reviewed your preliminary project plans and made a determination as to the
process necessary to obtain a buildingpermit for the above-referenced
e d project. You
will need to obtain
administrative site plan approval for the project prior to submitting a building permit since site plan
approval was required by the City Council as a condition of approving a 1988 rezone for the site.
The August 16, 1988 Planning Department staff report to the Hearing Examiner included a
recommendation that the Hearing Examiner recommend approval of the rezone provided that ariy future 1
development be subject to site plan approval (see page 5 of the staff report, attached). The August 24,
1980 Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation also included a recommendation that"the
development of any additional housing units on either lot shall be subject to Site Plan Review" (see
recommendation#3, Page 4 of the report, attached). The City Council conditionally approved the rezone
on November 14, 1988, subject to the findings, conclusions and decision of the Hearing Examiner.
Condition#3 of the restrictive covenants (filed with King County in 1988, #8811150495, attached) states
that"the development of any additional housing units on either lot shall be subject to site plan review."
's
Although site plan review is not mandatory for all four-plexes, it is my interpretation that the Council wanted 1
site plan review for this site in order to assure"sensitive, compatible development"with the surrounding
property. This interpretation is also consistent with both the Planning Staff and Hearing Examiner
' , recommendations.
Appeals of this administrative determination must be filed with the City's Land Use Hearing Examiner, along
, with the required $75.00 filing fee,within fourteen days of this letter.
If you have any questions regarding this administrative determination or the appeal process, please contact
Laureen Nicolay at 235-2550.
S:'' r Ei......______.
•
Donald K. Erickson,AICP
Zoning Administrator '
cc: Veapplication file
file#R-045-88
.1
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2631
„ '.- •' .. . ..
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 4187
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON CHANGING
THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE
CITY OF RENTON FROM R-2., LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USE, TO
R-3, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USE' (THOMPSON - R-045-88) .
WHEREAS, under Chapter 7, Title IV (Building Regulations) of
Ordinance No . 1628. known as the "Code of General Ordinances of the
City of Renton, " as amended, and the maps and reports adopted
conjunction therewith, 'the property hereinbelow described has
heretofore been zoned as R-2, Low Density Residential Use; and •
WHEREAS, a proper petition for change of zone classification of
said property ' has been filed with the Planning Division on or abo4
May 26, 1988,. which petition was. duly referred to the Hearing
II
Examiner for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a Public
Hearing having been held thereon on or about Augus.t 16, 1988, and
staid matter having been duly considered by the Hearing Examiner, a4
said zoning request being in conformity with the City'
Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly
considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been
heard appearing in support thereof 'or in opposition thereto;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS :
SECTION .I : The following described property in the City of
Renton is hereby >rezoned to R-3, Medium Density .Residential Use,, as
hereinbelow specified, subject to the findings, conclusions, and
decision of. the Hearing Examiner dated August 24, 1988; the Planning
r I
1
ORDINANCE NO. 4187
Manager is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of th-
Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit:
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as
if fully set forth herein.
(Said property, 0. 329 acres, being located at 1222 and
1224 Kirkland Avenue N.E . )
and subject further to Restrictive Covenants filed under Auditor' s
File No. 8811150495
SECTION II : This Ordinance shall be effective upon its
passage, approval, and five days after its publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 14th day of November
1988 .
Maxine E . Motor, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 14th day of November
1988 .
Earl Clymer, Mapok
App ed as to form: \ J
Lawrence J. arren, City Attorney
Date of Publication: November 18,-1988
ORD. 57 : 9-14-88 : as .
. I
R-045-88
Oct . ' 14 , 1988
CITY OF RENTON
TO: City of Renton OCT 2 6 1988
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton , Washington 98055 RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
ATTN : Maxine E. Motor - City Clerk
•
RE: Jodi L. Thompson Rezone
Rezone . 329 acres of property from R-2 , Low Density Residen-
tial Use , to R-3 Medium Density Residential Use . Property
located at 1222 .& 1224 Kirkland Avenue N.E. ECF-045-88; R-045
-88 . Execution' of RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS reflecting the follow-
ing conditions :
1 . Not more than a total of six units shall be constructed
on the subject site , which shall consist of the existing
duplex , renovated or replaced by a new duplex on the
westerly lot , and not more than four additional units to
be constructed on the easterly lot .
2 . The applicant receive a lot line adjustment resulting in
the .westerly lot containing a total of 7 , 133 square feet
and the eastern lot containing a total of 7 , 200 square
feet . If the two individual lots are combined into one
( 1 ) legal lot , then this condition shall not be applicable
3 . The development of any additional housing units on either
lot shall be subject to Site Plan review. This condition
shall apply whether the •two ( 2) lots are combined , or .
remain separate as per condition 2 . above .
Legal Description of property is as . follows :
Corrected
Lot 1 , , Block 11 167e.FEekice Plat , Renton Highlands No . 2 according
"' to plat recorded in Vol . 57 of plats pages 92.-98 , in King County ,
Washington; except the easterly 60 feet . 'Together with:,
East 60 feet of Lot 1 , Block 11 , Corrective Plat, Renton Highlands
No . 2 , according tothe plat recorded in Vol . 57 of plats , pages ,
92-98 inclusive , in King County , Washington. Together with an ease-
ment for ingress , egress and utilities over the following descri-
bed property : Beginning at the Northwest corner of the above de-
• scribed; thence south 40 feet ; thence west 40 feet ; thence north
40 feet ; thence east 40 feet to the true point of beginning .
The above three (3) conditions are approved and FAath:pt��le' as *0499 't=t
written . RECD F 00
I, L C »:s:4:y:A. 0 0
I
•
.111E6 FUR RELIM AT REQUEST Of: Jodi L . Thompson Date /0 /, '6 /dP,f) .
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
RENTON MUNICIPAL BLDG. 7
200 MILL AVE SO.
RENTON,VIA ' 155
4. "- 'i
I
1
I
. ;
.: .
_.
. ,
. . . .
. .
• . .
•
• . .
. . .
. • ;
A-5, 1717
STATE OF 12
ss.
County of Ik/'`� C7 a r
On this N4, day of e7c ,A. D. 19 before me, the undersigned',a Notary
Public in and for the State of V✓ /,A0('7 'v , duly commissioned and sworn personally appeared
to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument as attorney in fact of
=--- .4, T,v� eiD.,e-.) •
.' therein described, and acknowledged to me that he signed and sealed the said instrument as such attorney in fact
7 for said principal, freely and voluntarily, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that the power
r of attorney authorizing the execution of this instrument has not been revoked and that the said
D ,n'_7,i X. �.�/PgveLi is now living.
'. WITNESS my hand and official seal•hereto affixed the day and year in this certificate first above written.
n Notary Public in and for the State of ---C'-e
reaidin /c
(Acknowledgment by Attorney in Fact. TICOR TITLE INS RA�NNCE'CO PANY. Form L 30)
•
'
.
,*" ; I
BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING
August 16, 1988
APPLICANT: Jodi L. Thompson
FILE NUMBER: ECF-045-88; R-045-88
LOCATION: 1222 & 1224 Kirkland Ave. N.E.
A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST:
Applicant seeks to obtain a non-project, programmatic rezone of
.329 acres of property from R-2, Low Density Residential Use, to R-
3,
Medium Density Residential Use. Property is currently developed
with two duplex units; future plans include the upgrading of these
units and the addition of two new four-plexes to this site.
B. GENERAL INFORMATION:
1. Owner of Record: Jodi L. Thompson
2. Applicant: Jodi L. Thompson
3. Existing Zoning: R-2, Low Density Multi-Family
Residential
4. Existing Zoning in the Area: R-2, Low Density Residential; R-
3, Medium Density Residential; B-
1, Commercial.
5. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Medium Density Residential Use
6. Size of Property: .329 acres
7. Access: Kirkland Avenue N.E. serves property at
1222 Kirkland Avenue N.E. and 1224
Kirkland Avenue N.E. ; N.E. 13th Street
serves 1224 Kirkland Avenue N.E.
8. Land Use: Each of the two properties is developed
with one duplex unit.
9. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Property is primarily
zoned for low density residential
use; there is also some property
zoned for medium density
residential use. These
properties are typically fully
developed.
East: Property is zoned for and
developed with commercial uses.
South: Property is zoned for R-
2, Low Density Residential Use
and B-1, Commercial Use. The
majority of properties are
developed; there is a limited
amount of vacant property.
(
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO 2 HEARING EXAMINER
August 16, 1988
Jodi L. Thompson Rezone
Page 2
West: Property is zoned for and
generally developed with low
density and medium density
housing. There is some vacant
property.
C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND:
Action File Ordinance Date
The subject property is part of the original township of the City
of Renton.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Utilities
a. Water: The property is served by a ten (10) inch water line
along Kirkland Avenue N.E. and a six (6) inch water line
along N.E. 13th Street.
b. Sewer: The property is served by eight (8) inch lines
along both Kirkland Avenue N.E. and N.E. 13th Street.
c. Storm Water Drainage: The property is served by twelve (12)
inch pipelines along Kirkland Ave. N.E.
2. Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton as per
ordinance requirements.
3. Transit: METRO line #111 serves the property via Kirkland
Avenue N.E.
4. Schools:
a. Elementary Schools: Hillcrest Elementary is located
approximately 0.50 miles from the subject site.
b. Middle Schools: McKnight Middle School is approximately
0.50 miles from the subject site.
c. High Schools: Hazen High School is located approximately
1.25 miles from the subject site.
5. Recreation: North Highlands Park is approximately one-quarter
mile from the subject property. Kiwanis Park is approximately
two-thirds of a mile from the site.
E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE:
1. Section 4-708, R-2, Low Density Residential Use.
2. Section 4-709A R-3, Medium Density Residential Use
3. Section 4-3014(C) Change of Zone Classification (Rezone)
F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL
CITY DOCUMENT:
1. Comprehensive Plan Compendium, March 1986, General Policies -
Residential Element, pp.14-15.
2. Comprehensive Plan Compendium, March 1986, Area Specific
Policies - Northeast Renton, pp. 55-61.
d
PRELIMINARY REPORT ' HEARING EXAMINER
August 16, 1988
Jodi L. Thompson Rezone
Page 3
G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS:
1. The applicant, Jodi L. Thompson, seeks approval for a non-
project, programmatic rezone of a parcel of property
approximately .329 acres, from R-2, Low Density Residential to
R-3., Medium Density Residential.
This property is presently partially developed, with each of the
two sites hosting one duplex. There are future plans for
upgrading of the existing units and for construction of one new
four-plex on each of the sites.
2. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and
SEPA (RCW 43.21(C) , 1971, as amended) the Environmental Review
Committee, the responsible official, issued a Determination of
Non-Significance on July 18, 1988.
3. Section 4-3014(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.
a. That substantial evidence was presented demonstrating the
subject reclassification appears not to have been specifically
considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and
area zoning.
' t
The subject property was part of the original township of the
City of Renton. It was developed with the now existing low-
density residential uses in approximately 1940..
The property was designated for Medium Density Residential Use
in the Comprehensive Plan which was adopted in 1982. However,
no changes were made in land use zoning in the area at that
time. There is no information which indicates that the
subject property has been specifically evaluated in
conjunction with any areal land use analysis since that time.
The Long-Range Planning Division has indicated that the
Comprehensive Plan designation currently in place continues to
be valid.
The evidence indicates that the application for rezone,
therefore, conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and that the
subject property is appropriate for rezoning to uses shown on
the Land Use Map.
b. That the property is potentially classified for the
proposed zone being requested pursuant to the policies set
forth in the Comprehensive Plan and conditions have been met
which would indicate the change is appropriate.
The subject property has been extremely stable with respect to
zoning, development and use since its original incorporation
into the City of Renton. Land use action has been confined to
construction and maintenance of the residential units now
existing on the property.
In general, there has been increased and diverse development
in the area. Development within two miles of the site includes
multi-family residential uses, commercial uses, office uses
and public uses. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that this
trend is anticipated to continue and to intensify -- the
Northeast Section of Renton, in which the site is located, is
experiencing a greater level of growth than any other section
of the City.
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO J HEARING EXAMINER
August 16, 1988
Jodi L. Thompson Rezone
Page 4
Public utilities, street improvements and public services are
adequate to serve the site and other developments presently
located in the area. These amenities can be improved upon to
accommodate future developments on the subject property and in
the vicinity.
c. That since the last previous land use analysis of the
area zoning of the subject property, authorized public
improvements, permitted private development or other
circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone
significant and material change.
Reclassification of the subject property to conform to the
Comprehensive Plan designation would be consistent with the
City's present development goals, and current, as well as
likely future, development trends.
While the present application 'is for a non-project,.
programmatic rezone, the proposed reclassification would allow
implementation of a tentative plan for future development of
additional multi-family residential uses on this site, to
serve the growing number of persons interested in housing in
the Northeast Section of Renton.
Generally, existing public utilities and services (e.g.
electricity, telephones, fire service, police service, water
mains, sewer lines, storm drainage systems, schools and
recreational developments) are adequate to serve this site and
the local community. The rezone action will not effect any
utilities or services. With future development, the applicant
can and may be required to implement specific mitigation
measures tied to a specific proposal, and to improve utilities
and services, as appropriate, to any proposed development.
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?
The subject property is located in an area which generally
includes a mix of uses. Multi-family housing is the predominant
use. The area also includes single-family residences, commercial
uses. Offices and public uses are located within two miles of
the site. There are some tracts of land zoned for residential
use which are not presently developed, however, the majority of
residential properties are developed.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property for Medium
Density residential use. A rezone would permit development at a
level of density which is consistent with the type and level of
1. neighborhood development which is now present and which is
anticipated to occur.
5. Representatives of City departments have been generally
accepting of the application to rezone. The Public Works
Department, Long-Range Planning, and Fire Prevention Bureau have
recommended that the applicants enter into agreements with the
City, at the time of future development, to participate in
improvements to utilities, roadways and public services, as
deemed appropriate by the City, in order to ensure adequate
services to the site and the surrounding community. Long-Range
Planning and Parks and Recreation have also suggested that
future development be subject to design review to ensure
compatibility with the residential character of the local
community.
F
PRELIMINARY REPORT , HEARING EXAMINER
August 16, 1988
Jodi L. Thompson Rezone
Page 5
it
H. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION:
Based upon the above analysis, it is recommended that the Hearing
Examiner recommend to the City Council the approval of the rezone
to R-3, Medium Density Residential Zone, file 045-88, with the
following conditions:
1. That anyfuture development on either p property be submitted to
the City for site plan review.
Note: Typically any use in the R-2 or R-3 zone is required to
go through site plan review pursuant to Section 4-738 of the
City's Building Regulations unless it is SEPA exempt. It is
conceivable that the development of two four-plexes at different
times on different lots would be exempt from SEPA and therefore,
site plan review.
August 24, 1988
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
APPLICANT: JODI L. THOMPSON
File No: R-045-88
LOCATION: 1222 and 1224 Kirkland Avenue N.E.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for approval of a non-project, programmatic
rezone of .329 acres of property from R-2 to R-3 for
future upgrade plans on the two units currently on this site
and the possible addition of two new four-plex units to the
site.
SUMMARY OF ACTION: Planning Division Recommendation: Approval with
conditions.
PLANNING DIVISION REPORT: The Planning Division Report was received by the ..
Examiner on August 9, 1988
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 August 16, 1988 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 - Comprehensive Plan and Context.
Exhibit #3 - Assessors Map
Exhibit #4 - Site Plan
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by the Zoning Administrator, Don Erickson,
who presented the following information on the proposal. The original application shows two lots on
the eastern portion of the site, but it is not known if these lots are recorded with King County and
considered legal lots. The applicant had been asked to provide information to clear up this point but to
date staff has not received said information, and that request will be a condition of approval; staff
looked at the application with possible grandfathering; the lot on the eastern portion is 5,678 sq. ft.
with the lot to the west where the current duplex exists is 8,651 sq. ft.,(assuming there are two legal
lots). Future plans may include upgrading of the current units on the site with the zoning request
placing a higher density on the property; the surrounding area consists mostly of commercial uses, with
other duplex structures located in close proximity; public utilities are available to the site. In his
review of the rezone criteria, Mr. Erickson stated the request appears to be timely as the zoning was
placed in this area in 1982 but there is nothing to indicate a specific rezone request for this property
was sought at that time; the request meets the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; schools
and parks are in the area; open space will be protected should future development occur, and public
utilities have been available to the site for a number of years. The additional housing would add
approximately 2 students to the school district, 48 vehicle trips per day, and 16 to 20 additional
residents.
There have been many other duplex-type units developed in the area and Erickson noted this is not a
clearly established multi-family zoned area. This site could accommodate 8 dwelling units with this
rezone and the site, if evenly divided, would not meet the current minimum lot size of the R-3 zone
Jodi L. Thompson
R-045-88
August 24, 1988
Page 2
which is 7200 sq. ft.. Also, if future development is to be directed toward the eastern portion of the
site, Mr. Erickson said it was staff's belief that that portion of the site should have a minimum size of
7200 sq. ft. which would raise the question of future development on the western portion as it would
contain less than the minimum 7200 sq. ft.. Assuming the grandfathering provisions creating the
existing plat would carry over, the applicant could then construct the 4-plex on any size lots.
Considering the above information it was staff's recommendation that this proposal be recommended
for approval by the Hearing Examiner, to the City Council, subject to the conditions that any future
development on either property be submitted to the City for Site Plan review, and prior to the
development or redevelopment of the site documents should be provided to show the date of
segregation of the lots and their size to in some way ensure the grandfathering provision on minimum
size lot is not carried forth.
Lawrence Campbell, Architect, 1609 South Central, Suite A-1, Kent, 98032, representing the applicant,
noted concurrence with the conditions set out by staff. He commented about the several existing
duplexes in the area that were built in about 1943 and said it is felt this proposal will encourage the
upgrading of some of the older housing in the area. The existing duplex will be either upgraded with
new units added to the east half of the site, or the existing duplex would be removed and new units
built on the whole site (considering the site as one entity instead of separate pieces of property). He
said the request is a,mirror image of what now exists to the north and west in terms of matching
buildings; the property is now under one ownership even though it was purchased separately in two
different time periods. The Examiner stated the City's concern is whether two legal lots have ever
,existed on the site and whether possible prior ownerships sold off the property without legally
segregating the parcels. He suggested a title search. Mr. Campbell said the maximum units on the site
would be 8, which would include the parking requirements also, and in no case will there be more than
8 units. He said the Site Plan review condition is acceptable.
Also wishing to respond was Weldon Thompson, 6820 51st Street So., Seattle, 98118,.father of the
applicant. Mr. Thompson stated this property was quit claim deeded to his daughter in 1982; originally
he purchased the eastern 60 ft. of-the property in 1974 with the western parcel purchased in 1977.
Don Erickson suggested if single ownership is what is being dealt with at this time, and the applicant
concurs, it may be easier to condition the rezone for a maximum of 6 dwelling units at this time. The
other duplexes in the immediate area were again reviewed by Mr. Campbell. Mr. Campbell also
requested that this rezone be conditioned upon approval of a Site Plan rather than a preconceived
number of 6 units as he feels the plans should be studied by City departments first. Under the code
they would be permitted to build 8 units, but whether or not they can achieve that number is not
certain at this time. He would rather not be conditioned for only six units as this may impose an
unfair economic condition on the applicant. He explained they intend to retain the present units to the
west and put in a townhouse 4-plex to the east, and with the upgrading of the western building it
would tie into the new building to the east - but does not feel there should be a limit on the number of
buildings (up to 8) if in fact the property offers a better total development. He had no further
comments. •
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to
speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:10 A.M.
I .
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION:
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. The applicant, Jodi L. Thompson, filed a request for approval of a reclassification of
approximately .329 acres of property from R-2 (Duplex Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density
Multiple Family).
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. There was no opposition from the public regarding the subject proposal.
• 6. The subject sii.. ecated at 1222 and 1224 Kirkland Avenue N.I e site is located on the
southeast corner of Kirkland and N.E. 13th Street. N.E. 13th runs no further east than the
' I
Jodi L. Thompson
R-045-88
August 24, 1988
Page 3
eastern boundary of the subject site. It dead-ends at that point and has been vacated west of
Kirkland. It is only open for the stretch along the site's north property line.
7. The site is just off of Sunset Boulevard N.E. which is a major arterial.
8. The subject site is part of the original townsite of the City of Renton. The zoning was
probably attached with the original adoption of zoning by Renton in 1953.
9. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is
located as,suitable for the development of medium density multiple family uses, but does not
mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 1982.
10. A single duplex building is located on the site. The building contains two dwelling units.
11. The site is comprised of two separate lots. The western lot is approximately 8637.79 square
feet, while the other, the eastern lot, is approximately 5679 square feet.
12. The zoning in the vicinity of the subject site is characterized as a mixture of residential and
commercial districts. The subject site and property immediately south are zoned R-2. North of
the site is additional R-2 property and R-3 property, the category requested by the applicant.
13. Immediately east of the site and abutting what would be the existing rear (east) property line is
a B-1 (Business/Commercial) district which rUns along Sunset at this location. The intersection
of Sunset and 12th is a major commercial node along Sunset.
14. Across Kirkland is an R-2 parcel and south of that a B-1 commercial parcel. The public
library is west of that B-I parcel. Along the south side of 12th, just south of the subject site,
is additional B-1 zoning along Sunset as it runs diagonally southwest. Kirkland intersects Sunset
one block south of the subject site.
15. Additional scattered parcels of medium density development are located generally north and
west of the subject site.
16. R-1 zoning (Single Family; Lot size - 7,200 sq. ft.) is also located in the area northwest of the
site.
17. The R-3 zoning requested permits up to 25 units per acre. The subject site would, therefore,
support up to 8 units on the .329 acre site.
18. The site and surrounding area was developed during the 1940's. The area consists almost
predominantly of duplexes similar to the subject site.
19. The applicant's tentative proposal would be to maintain the duplex along Kirkland so that it
would match the duplex development immediately across the street, and develop the eastern
portion of the site as an R-3 development to reflect and mirror the development immediately to
the north. The idea would be to have similar densities facing one another.
20. The site is essentially level with a slight topographical break along the east property line.
21. Hillcrest, McKnight and Hazen are the schools serving the site. Hazen High School is fartherest
from the site being located at approximately 1.25 miles.
22. The site actually consists of two lots although staff could not confirm the legality of the
subdivision. The western lot contains the existing duplex while the eastern lot is vacant.
23. Eight units on the site would generally produce approximately 2 students, approximately 48
vehicle trips per day and approximately 16 to 20 persons. The development of new units would
be offset by the existing units.
24. Staff recommended that the applicant provide documentation regarding prior divisions of the
site; that the site be developed subject to Site Plan approval to assure sensitive, compatible
development; and that the lot lines be adjusted to accommodate legal development. The last
condition would have the applicant re-divide the site so that the western lot would be just
under the minimum 7,200 square foot limit, but with existing development which could be
replaced. The resulting eastern lot would contain 7,200 square feet capable of containing a
density of 4 units.
Jodi L. Thompson
R-045-88
August 24, 1988
Page 4
25. Staff indicates that utilities and roads could serve the additional development without being
burdened.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest, that it
will not impair the public health, safety and welfare and in addition, complies with at least one
of the criteria found in Section 4-3010, which provides in part that:
a. The subject site has not been considered in a previous area-wide rezone or land use
analysis; or
b. The subject site is potentially,designated for the new classification per the
Comprehensive Plan; or
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 warranted subject to conditions enumerated below.
2. The zoning on the site has not been reviewed since the adoption of the latest Comprehensive
Plan in 1982 nor since the application of the original R-2 zoning in 1953.
3. The zoning requested, R-3, is compatible with the designation of the site for medium density
multiple family uses in the Comprehensive Plan.
4. While changes to the immediate area have been slow, the site is quite close to Sunset (one block
removed) which has undergone considerable changes in the last 25 years. Sunset is now a major
arterial, and the node at Sunset and 12th immediately south of the site is developed with a wide
variety of commercial uses. Immediately east is the rear of a shopping complex.
5. The additional six units which might be built will not adversely affect the underlying
infrastructure. Water, sewer and storm sewers are all sufficient to serve the site.
6. Again, with two units existing, the increase of up to six units probably would not tax the roads
although it might permit the encroachment of too much development. The site is not unlike
other sites in the immediate vicinity and these generally offer relatively copious open space.
Attempting to shoehorn in additional dwelling units in this area could introduce
incompatibilities vis a vis densities, building types and uses fronting other uses. Therefore,
staff's recommendation that not more than six units in total, the existing duplex, renovated or
replaced by a new duplex, and four additional units, appears reasonable to maintain the
openness of the area and compatibility
between opposing units.
7. In conclusion, the proximity of the site to Sunset and 12th, the common lot line with a B-1
zone, the patterns of development on the immediate block and across both frontage roads justify
reclassifying the site as requested.
8. The City Council should, therefore, reclassify the subject site from R-2 to R-3 subject to the
limitation on density to a total of six units.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council should reclassify the subject site from R-2 to R-3 subject to the limitation on
density to a total of six units, and subject to the execution of Restrictive Covenants reflecting
the following conditions:
1. Not more than a total of six units shall be constructed on the subject site, which shall
consist of the existing duplex, renovated or replaced by a new duplex on the westerly
lot, and not more than four additional.units to be constructed on the easterly lot.
2. The applicant receive a lot line adjustment resulting in the westerly lot containing a total
of 7,133 square feet and the eastern lot containing a total of 7,200 square feet.
3. The development of any additional housing units on either lot shall be subject to Site
Plan review.
, Jodi L. Thompson
R-045-88
August 24, 1988
Page 5
ORDERED THIS 24th day of August, 1988.
'1"zi
A-
FRED J. K MAN
HEARING E AMINER I'
TRANSMITTED THIS 24th day of August, 1988 to the parties of record:
Lawrence Campbell, Architect
1609 South Central, Suite A-1
Kent, Washington 98032
Weldon Thompson
6820 51st South
Seattle, Washington 98118
TRANSMITTED THIS 24th day of August, 1988 to the following:
Mayor Earl Clymer Councilman Richard M. Stredicke
Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Richard Houghton, Public Works Director
Members, Renton Planning Commission Larry M. Springer, Planning Manager
Glen Gordon, Fire Marshal Ronald Nelson, Building Director
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney John Adamson, Developmental Program Coordinator
Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer Renton Record-Chronicle
Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 P.M. September 7, 1988. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of
the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the
discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a
written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the
Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and
the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified
requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance
Department, first floor of City Hall. 6
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.
I '
' I
/
`
`
CITY OF RENTON
CITv TREASURER Li RE,/KCP) : 02-10092 08-13-1990 � n« 1996
CASHIER ID : C 3:59 nm "�«V Q'
8000 MISCELLANEOUS RE $75.00 -'Nva
APPEAL TO HEARING -
EXAMINER -°I»E~�
p9?'99v'f9.99999.99.999999
_......._
[OTAL DUE $75.00
RECEIVED FROM: �
WELDON E THOMPSON/RENTAL ACCT
�
Ci�ECK $75.00
|OTAL TENDERED $75.00
e"JifiNGE DUE"DUE $0.00 �
===================================== y
�
�
�
�
�
�
1
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�j
�
�
J
�
�