No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA78-162 OF RA,A 4, 40 o THE CITY OF RENTON c.) 40 0 z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 omalt CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9 `O FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 0,9g7' eD SEP1E���P August 3, 1979 TO: Files FROM: Hearing Examiner Office RE: File No. R-162-78; Robert B. Martindale Due to the length of time which has elapsed since the referenced application was continued on May 23, 1978 and the recent death of the applicant, this matter is considered inactive and the permanent file is being transmitted this date to the City Clerk's office for filing. cc: Planning Department J OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICANT: Robert B. Martindale FILE NO. R-162-78 LOCATION: Vicinity of 1400 Lake Washington Boulevard North SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests approval of a rezone from G and G-6000 to R-4 to permit the construction of condominiums and/or apartments. SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Approval with restrictive covenants. RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner: PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on May 18, 1978. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on May 23, 1978 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. Michael Smith, Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered the following additional exhibits into the record: Exhibit #2: King County Assessor's Map Exhibit #3: Topographical Map Exhibit #4: Plot Plan Mr. Smith corrected Section L. Environmental Assessment/Threshold Determination, which states that the subject proposal is exempt from the threshold determination and EIS requirements of SEPA. The section was corrected to state that a negative declaration of environmental significance had been issued for the subject proposal and he noted that the declaration was attached to Exhibit #1. The Examiner asked the applicant if he concurred in Exhibit #1. Responding was: Robert B. Martindale 5021 Ripley Lane Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Martindale indicated nonconcurrence in the report. He stated objections to restrictive covenants which specify maximum density and setback requirements, noting that the requested R-4 zoning meets designations of the Comprehensive Plan and the Puget Sound Transportation Study for the area. Mr. Martindale objected to soils reports' contained in Exhibit #1 which report existence of erosion hazard, rapid runoff, and slippage potential, and advised that' incidence of slippage and slides on the property had been minimal in the past 60 year's as evidenced by existence of 60 to 70-foot cliffs, and soil were excellent due to past mining and landfill operations on the site. Referencing Sections 0.3 and 0.6 of Exhibit #1, Mr. Martindale reported that because the Comprehensive Plan designates the area as high density multi-family use and location of nearby parks is a desirable feature which distinguishes high density from low density districts, the proposal was consistent and acceptable. He noted that restrictive covenants recommended by the Planning Department would reduce the zoning to R-2 capabilities. Regarding the recommended dedication of an additional ten feet of right-of-way along Lake Washington Boulevard, Mr. Martindale indicated that as a result of meetings with representatives of the Public Works Department, a compromise had been reached to trade portions of Morgan Avenue and Lake View Boulevard to accomplish the 10-foot dedication. He noted that some adjustments in R-4 parking and setback requirements would also be necessary by the Planning Department to provide the R-162-78 Page Two required dedication. He advised that the proposed building plan had been developed to utilize existing views and topography to best advantage. The.Examiner asked for testimony in support of the request. There was no response. He then asked for testimony in opposition to the application. Responding was: Robert E. McBeth P.O. Box 26 Renton, WA 98055 Mr. McBeth indicated that he was representing Pauline Kirkman and her mother, Thea M. Hazel, adjacent property owners, as legal counsel. He explained the location of property owned by his clients to the west and north of the subject property and reported that because of a previous vacation of Lake View Boulevard in August of 1975, access to the subject property had been eliminated and the site was now landlocked. He explained that although Lake View Boulevard extends in a northerly direction, topography precludes it from remaining open, and therefore, access is required from the south. He noted that alternatives for provision of access consist of filing suit for prescriptive easement or obtaining access through properties in Lots 352 through 356, and expressed concern regarding the applicant's proposal for utilization of the unopened Morgan Avenue for trading purposes. Mr. McBeth stated a -preference for review of the proposed site plan prior to granting a rezone due to the existing topography and surrounding uses in the area. He encouraged close examination of the submitted site plans which should include building elevations, landscape plans, floor plans, and grading and drainage plans, and concurred with the Planning Department recommendation for setbacks and density. He emphasized that access problems resulting to his client should be reviewed during the rezone and site plan approvals. The Examiner asked Mr. Smith for additional comments. Mr. Smith clarified that soils and geology reports obtained from the Soil Conservation Service data are related to existing characteristics of the soils and slope on the site and to slippage potential resulting from building activity and development. He noted that the data is the only reference material available for review purposes unless additional detailed information is submitted by the applicant. Referencing previous comments regarding the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Smith stated that although the plan is a general guide for development, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as well as requirements related to SEPA and natural characteristics of the site are reviewed to maintain protection for property values in the area and establish compatibility with existing uses. He explained the purpose for setback requirements and landscaping along Lake Washington Boulevard to provide buffering for a proposed park extension and parkway boulevard. Mr. Smith concurred with previous comments relating to concern with final site development, noting that although a maximum density had been recommended to be included in restrictive covenants, allowance had been provided for increase in density dependent upon site development plans, Regarding the right-of-way dedication, Mr. Smith indicated that the department had not been notified of revisions in staff comments regarding the dedication and therefore, it would be assumed that previous departmental review':.comments would remain as submitted. He, advied that the subject of the prior street vacation of Lake View Boulevard would be a matter for review by the City Council and City Attorney and was not within the jurisdiction of the Planning Department. He noted that a site development plan had not been submitted to the Planning Department for review to date. The Examiner asked the applicant for additional comments. Mr. Martindale advised that the City Council had considered the severe slope of the property which would prevent construction of a roadway, in approving the vacation of Lake View Boulevard, and felt that the access problem encountered by adjacent residents was a result of construction of Interstate Highway 405. Regarding previous discussion, Mr. Martindale reported that an engineering and geology report is currently being prepared and will be submitted when complete. He also advised that the specific site development plan had been delayed because of heavy work responsibilities of architects and engineers involved in the project, but that submittal would be forthcoming as soon as possible. He noted that the subject of the hearing is rezoning, not site planning and indicated that density recommended by the Planning Department limits the site to R-2 zoning requirements. Mr. Martindate referred to Exhibit #4 in reviewing the proposed development and advised the location of the two proposed buildings, one containing 45 units in the lower portion of the site and the other consisting of 27 units located in the upper portion; of Lot No. 349. He noted that Lot No. 351 would remain undeveloped at the present time. Mr. Smith submitted an additional exhibit, Conceptual Grading Plan, which was labeled Exhibit #5 by the Examiner. The Examiner asked Mr'. Smith if soils and geology data had been utilized during environmental review of the site. Mr. Smith indicated that because of the necessity of site plan review in determining environmental impact and density, a negative declaration of significance was issued although a positive delcaration had been issued for a subsequent request for special permit for excavation on the site pending receipt of specific site plans. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding density R-162-78 Page Three determination, Mr. Smith indicated that soils and geology data had been one criterion in establishing the requirement, but that existing character of the site as well as surrounding uses had also been included in review. He also,reported .that additional soils information submitted by the applicant will be useful in further analysis of physical support capabilities on the property. The Examiner noted that recommendation for a possible increase of density depending upon physical environmental constraints in site planning was a unique situation in rezone approval, and asked Mr. Smith if the department had allowed similar flexibility in density in prior applications. Mr. Smith reported that the city's environmental ordinances as well as local and state requirements allow for conditional approvals. The Examiner asked Mr. Smith if provision of soils information would assist the department in making final recommendation on the density requirement of the rezone request. Mr. Smith indicated that submittal of that information as well as a specific site plan would provide the Planning Department and the Washington State Highway Department, if necessary, with sufficient information to make a final determination on unresolved matters regarding approval of the rezone. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry, Mr. Martindale reported that soils and geology data would be available within one week and explained anticipated procedures to be utilized in obtaining the geological information including height and weight-bearing strength of the soils. Mr. Smith and Mr. McBeth requested that to accommodate receipt and subsequent review of site plans and soils data, the.:hearing be continued. Mr. Martindale indicated his concurrence in the request. The Examiner subsequently continued the hearing until such time as receipt and review of the data can occur and advised that the Planning Department would provide legal notice to all parties of record of the date and time of the continued hearing. The Examiner asked for further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on File No. R-162-78 was closed by the Examiner at 10:30 a.m. ' 737.:-A \ 11,4( a-1- caAi'QN\ c ,„),),::, v.A.. \--,:),(.1 --)1(11 (II ‘ .(_L_22_141 v vl 7/ 0 , •, , . v , r 5021 Ripley Lane North #307 Renton, Washington 98055 May 23, 1978 Mr. L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner City of Renton Renton WA 98055 Reference: File No.. R-162-78 Dear Mr. Beeler: Summary: Maximum density multi-family zoning is recommended by Renton's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Plan recognized the hillside topography of my property and specifically states that maximum density uses can often be easily adapted to hillside locations (page 11 ). Furthermore, the Plan specifies the views often available should be used to greatest advantage (page 11 ). The Plan also states that nearby . . .parks. . . are a desirable feature which may distinguish high density from low density residential. districts. My property is not subject to a slide problem as evidenced by the fact that nearly vertical , high cliffs have been present on the property for about 60 years. Therefore I respectfully request that my property be Zoned R4. The suggested restrictive covenants would effectively reduce the zoning to lower than the lowest R2 multifamily zoning. Since that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the covenants are not justified, they should not be adopted. The preliminary report to the Hearings Examiner, although generally correct has a few' key areas which must be clarified. In particular the report implies that due to the soils, adjacent single family zoning, adjacent park and topography the density should be restricted to less than half the density of the lowest R2 duplex zoning. I will address only these key areas in the following: Paragraph E2 Soils This data was taken from the Soil Conservation Service report (page .10). .While the report is generally correct in most areas, it is grossly in error for this location and all along the lower Kennydale area. The soils are excellent as testified by the fact that much of it has been mined and used for landfill . Also, the possibility that "slippage potential is severe" clearly does not apply to this area. The gravel pit and all along Lake Washington Boulevard has visible near vertical cliffs some of which are 70 feet high. The Lake Washington Boulevard. cliffs have withstood all conditions for about 60 years with no slippage. RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER MAY 3 01978 AM PM 718191181111121112 a 3 o 41516 t Mr. L. ,Rick Beeler -2- May 23; 1978 Paragraph 0.3 This paragraph states that because the area to the north (and east) is presently zoned G-6000 certain measures including setbacks, landscape/buffers, and density limitation may be necessary to provide suitable transition -to such single family zoning. No transition is required because the area is planned for R4 uses, both by the property owners (including the Hazels) and by the City of Renton as defined in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Paragraph 0.6 This paragraph states that due to the proximity of the park. . . ' it may be necessary to establish special setbacks, landscaping, height and density standards and cites the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan specifically. states on page 11 "The ' nearby convenience of . . .parks. . . is a desirable feature which may distinguish high density from low density residential dis- tricts." Therefore, the Plan instead of supporting a requirement for lower zoning recommends high density zoning near parks. Paragraph P - Staff Recommendation Several restrictive covenants are recommended by the staff to be conditional on granting of R4 zoning. The restrictive covenants on setbacks, and maximum density are so restrictive that they make the term R4 meaningless. Whereas R4 provides for high density multifamily uses with average density of 54 units per acre, covenant number 4 would limit the density to 12 units per acre. This is substantially smaller than that allowed even for the lowest density multifamily R2, which is 29 units per acre. Also, whereas R4 high density multifamily zoning provides for a 10 foot front yard building setback, the staff recommendation is for a 20 foot landscape setback. Whereas the 10 foot setback has generally been used for parking area and in some instances the 10 foot setback has been waived, here there is a recommendation for 20 foot landscape setback. The Public Works Department has recommended the acquisition of 10 feet of my property in order to widen Lake Washington Boulevard. I have met with Mr. Gonnason and Mr. Morgan. We have worked out a method where parts of the unopened Morgan Avenue and Lake View Boulevard would be traded, to accomplish this 10 foot acquisition. The acquisition could be made possible if some adjustment in the R4 parking and setback requirements were provided by the Planning Department. An excellent building layout has been developed by the builder and his architects. The layout makes maximum use of the hillside topography and beautiful view. The forward building is limited to three stories plus a basement with a flat roof. The rear building is placed up on the hill and all units have a view over the top of the forward building. . Key to utilizing this excel- lent building plan is the forward to rear lot dimension. Removal of 10 feet from this dimension may require some adjustments in R4 parking and setback requirements. Mr. L. Rick Beeler -3- May 23, 1978 Conclusion: It is agreed by all parties. that R4 zoning is consistent with present uses. The City of Renton recommends R4 zoning since it recommends high density multifamily in the Comprehensive Plan. The facts of the Park location and the topography were well known at the time of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and the Plan specifically states that R4 uses can often be easily adapted to hillside locations. The site is not subject to a slide problem as evidenced by the fact that nearly vertical cliffs have been present for about 60 years. Therefore, I respectfully request that the property be zoned R4 without the density and setback restrictive covenants since they would effectively reduce the zoning to less than R2. I am prepared to give a 10 foot strip of land to the City in return for some consideration. on R4 parking and setback requirements and land from the unused adjacent roadways. Appropriate pages of the Comprehensive Plan and Soil, Conservation Service Report were obtained from the City and are attached for your convenience. Sincerely, ,111"/"Wdl/4/4 Robert B. Martindale P. S. I: have an excellent solution to the Hazel access problem which I will continue to pursue. I will provide the soil study and site development plans as soon as they are available from the soil consultant firm and architectural firm. A site survey and engineered drawings have been ordered and will also be provided as soon as the work is completed. Attachments Permeability is mode: ly rapid in the surface Arents, Alderwood Material layer and subsoil and very slow in the substratum. Roots penetrate easily to the consolidated substra- tum where they tend to mat on the surface. Some Arents, Alderwood material consists of Alderwl roots enter the substratum through cracks. Water soils that have been so disturbed through urban- moves on top of the substratum in winter. Available ization that they no longer can be classified wi water capacity is low. Runoff is slow to medium, the Alderwood series. These soils, however, hav and the hazard of erosion is moderate. many similar features. The upper part of the so This soil is used for timber, pasture, berries, to a depth of 20 to 40 inches, is brown to dark- and row crops, and for urban development. Capability brown gravelly sandy loam. Below this is a. gray unit IVe-2; woodland group 3d1. brown, consolidated and impervious substratum. Slopes generally range from 0 to 15 percent. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent These soils are used for urban development. slopes (AgB) .--This soil is nearly level and undulating. It is similar to Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes, but in places Arents, Alderwood material, 0 to 6 percent sl its surface layer is 2 to_3 inches thicker. Areas (AmB) .--In many areas this soil is level, as a are irregular in shape and range from 10 acres to result of shaping during construction for urban slightly more than 600 acres in size. facilities. Areas are rectangular in shape and Some areas are as much as 15 percent included range from 5 acres to about 400 acres .ize s in Norma, Bellingham, Tukwila, and Shalcar soils, all Representative profile of Arents, Alderwood size. of which are poorly drained; and some areas in the material, 0 to 6 percent slopes, in an urban arc vicinity of Enumclaw are as much as 10 percent 1,300 feet west and 350 feet south of the north( Buckley soils. corner of sec. 23, T. 25 N., R. 5 E. : • Runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is slight. 0 to 26 inches, dark-brown (10YR 4/3) gravelly This Alderwood soil is used for timber, pasture, sandy loam, pale brown (1OYR 6/3) dry; berries, and row crops, and for urban development. massive; slightly hard, very friable, non. Capability unit IVe-2; woodland group 3d2. sticky, nonplastic; many roots; medium ac: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent abrupt, smooth boundary. 23 to29 inches slopes (AgD) .--Depth to the substratum in this soil thick. varies within short distances, but is commonly 26 to 60 inches, grayish-brown (2.5Y 5/2) weakl• about 40 inches. Areas are elongated and range consolidated to strongly consolidated gla from 7 to about 250 acres in size. till,, light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) dry; Soils included with this soil in mapping make common, medium, prominent mottles of yell 5/6)10YR moist; massive; no roots up no more than 30 percent of the total acreage. brown medium(acid. feet thick. Some areas are up to 25 percent Everett soils that Many have slopes of 15 to 30 percent, and some areas are up to 2 percent Bellingham, Norma, and Seattle soils, The upper, very friable part of the soil ext which are in depressions. Some areas, especially to a depth of 20 to 40 inches and ranges from d on Squak Mountain, in Newcastle Hills, and north of grayish brown to dark yellowish brown. Tiger Mountain, are 25 percent Beausite and Ovall Some areas are up to 30 percent included soi soils. Beausite soils are underlain by sandstone, that are similar to this soil material, but eit and Ovall soils by andesite. shallower or deeper over the compact substratum Runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is and some areas are 5 to 10 percent very gravel] severe. The slippage potential is moderate. Everett soils and sandy Indianola soils. This Alderwood soil is used mostly for timber. This Arents, Alderwood soil is moderately we Some areas on the lower parts of slopes are used drained. Permeability in the upper, disturbed for pasture. Capability unit VIe-2; woodland group material is moderately rapid to moderately sloe 3d1. depending on its compaction during construction The substratum is very slowly permeable. Roots Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep (AkF) .-- penetrate to and tend to mat on the surface of This mapping unit is about 50 percent Alderwood consolidated substratum. Some roots enter the gravelly sandy loam and 25 percent Kitsap silt substratum through cracks. Water moves on top loam. Slopes are 25 to 70 percent. Distribution the substratum in winter. Available water cap: of the soils varies greatly within short distances. is low. Runoff is slow, and the erosion hazar( About 15..percent of some mapped areas is an slight. included, unnamed, very deep, moderately coarse This soil is used for urban development. C: textured soil; and about 10 percent of some areas pability unit IVe-2; woodland group 3d2. is a very deep, coarse-textured Indianola soil. Drainage and permeability vary. Runoff is rapid t to very rapid, and the erosion hazard is severe to Arents, Alderwoodt This soil has material, 6 b convex to 151 slopes.percent very severe. The slippage potential is severe. slopes (AmC) .-- P A These soils are used for timber. Capability are rectangular in shape and range from 10 acr, unit VIIe-1; woodland group 2d1. about 450 acres in size. 10 14/. $// iZse,e-al eit. .5-ei-u/ ,-/ /o c/edA/r ,d;c/70 ,144- 7441 ,4-aPel,/rh Hfe /(4 4P,e (34(1uc) (� 3 2 �J Coix,ie-4gasoe gel _ . . .. Approximately 4% of the total land area has slopes of 25-40%. In these areas, . ;; isolated slide problems will be encountered which must be recognized and the land' utilized accordingly. In the area where slopes exceed 25% or more, future development of green "'" belt districts'might be envisioned for incorporation as part of the City, County, and Regional open space systems. Such open spaces may be of limited value for• . , active recreation uses but could form a part of the network of the park system, . Potential Slide Areas, In a number of general areas soil conditions are question- able :-,nd Flic'.es occ'.'r both frequently and infrequently. In the Maple Valley east of the mouth of the Cedar River, slides occur on slopes of 25% and over, except where underlain by mock outcroppings. North of the mouth of the Cedar River extending toward Kennydale, slides have occurred on slopes of 20-25% or over, , i'4 Along the slopes of the Green River Valley slides have occurred on lands with grades in excess of 10%. Extreme caution should be exercised in the utilization 'yy' of these potentially dangerous areas for residential sites or other permanent il,.' structures. Ample evidence of these slide hazards may be seen in the faces of the cut slopes along the Renton-Bellevue Freeway in the Kennydale and May Creek, • ' '. areas. COMPARISON AREAS: , . To aid in evaluating the land use data compiled for the 1-. U. A, , 1960 land , liuse information was obtained 'from the P. S. R. T, S, and compiled for the Renton, ., Bellevue, Southeast Seattle, Burien and Kent areas. These areas were also `= utilized for comparison purposes in the development of the Population Report. Since Renton serves as an employment center for much of the surrounding area`, 'it: is important to understand the interrelationships' which exist between the Renton . , area and the adjacent communities. As may be observed from the data in Table IIJ there are significant differences in land percentages between the '.;'A different community areas. These are especially noticeable in such categories as , industry and transportation. Also, significant similarities and differences may be noted in population density, vacant land, and commercial districts ratios. ''" Of special interest are comparisons which may be made between the Renton and ' S. E, Seattle areas. The land use trends evident in these adjacent communities, , and the comparison of related information, provides useful data for the development .;.; of land use requirements for Renton. This data will also contribute to a broader understanding of the Renton Urb n Area, its problems and its potential./7/-0e1 ,a P� ) i .5 Ake'-'r'tw e4 f.' e e � /�J,Asi iti %/ 7 ,� Al ' a GENERAL LAND USE REQUIREMENTS: The growth of the community is generally influenced by activity or increase in one of the major factors affecting land use,' such as (1) population growth and new residential development, (2) expansion of existing, or introduction of new basic industry, and (3) development of new commercial districts, whose service area. • .,4A may extend into the surrounding region. '[ ;' Growth activity in any one of these broad land use categories will normally be ' ,I reflected in growth in one or both of the other categories. ./�, �LD 6veve✓ !/mil-p ed/l feltie -C'.tt'/�f 0` COM,free0-1/06 P/41 A well balanced community will reflect in its general layout the proper application of planning principles and tools which may be used to guide growth patterns, prevent land use incompatibilities and conflicts and produce an optimum use of land. Ire:. Residential. The successful utilization of land for low density residential development will depend on the availability of easily accessible areas which are relatively free of recurring or potential hazards such as floods, slides, and land subsidence. Residential districts should be free of manufacturing or commercial uses which would be detrimental to the community and its residents. The natural features and amenities that may exist or can be developed should be utilized to best advantage for the use and benefit of the community. Convenience to place of employment, shopping districts, schools, parks and other cultural activities, should be inherent features of the location. In medium and high density residential use districts the proximity to major employment centers, shopping districts, financial districts and office centers is important, as is convenient access to major arterials and highways. The nearby convenience of a larger variety of cultural features such as libraries, museums, :• ;• parks, theaters and other forms of entertainment and relaxation is a desirable feature which may distinguish high density from low density residential districts. Other compatible or complementary intensive uses may include research and office centers, shopping districts and other functions which are not detrimental to the maintenance of desirable living conditions. While commercial or industrial uses are not easily adapted to hillside locations, residential development may be successfully planned to take good advantage of ..., the amenities which such locations often provide. Natural features such as rock out-croppingsi streams, stands of native trees,and the views often available from these locations should be used to greatest advantage. • Commercial . Major commercial centers are dependent for continuing growth and expansion upon locations which are central to a relatively large pop- ulation. Access to the major circulation system is of paramount importance, The terrain for a commercial center should be relatively flat and large enough to provide potential expansion. An important factor in assuring the economic success of such districts are locations adjacent to or convenient to developed residential _; districts and other compatible uses of a complementary nature. Minor retail centers or neighborhood shopping districts commonly will be located near the perimeters of several neighborhoods and at the intersection of major roads and arterials. In contrast with the major shopping districts which provide comparison shopping, the neighborhood shopping centers should serve as convenient outlets for a limited number of goods and services. Such locations will normally contain grocery, drug, and hardware stores, restaurants, and other related shops and personal services. • Industrial. Basic industry, the main stay and the main'econom of many may largeenterprises Y communities include both and small a few :or man persons. Fundamentally, • basic industry exports its goods and services) j`. 11 A . . CaVgP2-Z?-717-F1/.-5/ e— >12/- Of Whereas 65. 28 acres ] thousand population was devl I to residential uses in 1960, it is anticipated that this ratio will steadily decrease in future years i J By comparison of Table III it may be seen that the S. E, Seattle area has relatively little vacant land left. It is highly probable that the Renton area will reach or even exceed the densities now existing in the 9:, 1h 1.7 ,st S._ •t+ l+ a <, before the year 1985. - Several new concepts such as the condominium (inherited from the ancient Romans) planned unit developments, cluster subdivisions, and townhouses on the green, are now in experimental stages in the Puget Sound area, and are expected to gain in importance and public acceptance. An important factor in the development of multiple residential districts in the Renton area will be the City's role as an employment center. In addition, an important potential is the opportunity for community development of high density residential districts in areas enjoying exceptional views and potential access to the Cedar River and Lake Washington. Much of the Kennydale lake— • front area now vacant or utilized for industrial purposes will in all p robability be developed to high density residential and related community uses. 11:- In the coming decades new commercial developments will be necessary to serve an expanding population. In the outlying districts the construction of one and two story structures will be predominant while in the area of the Central City, new multi-story buildings will be more common. This new trend will be generated in part by the need for ground area parking and the decreasing availability of land. Based on past and present'trends it is anticipated that over 600 acres for commercial and related services will be required by the year 1985. This represents an increase in total acres of about 700 per cent over that. existing as of 1960 . (See Tables III, IV, & V. ) • Closely related to growth projections for the commercial and residential U areas, are the anticipated industrial requirements over the same period of time. While much undeveloped land is currently available for industrial purposes much remains unsuitable because of poor drainage and unstable conditions in the Valley area. However, the conversion of sites to industrial purposes can be accomp- lished by filling and the use of special construction techniques to offset the in- herent disadvantages common to soils subject to poor drainage, shrinkage, or horizontal displacement. To alleviate the drainage problems common to the valley floor, the Soil Conservation Service, Corps of Engineers, King County, and the local municipalities have joined forces to study the problem. To date several proposals based on preliminary studies have been advanced which would eliminate many of the drainage problems and affectively lower the water table. This corrective action, if accomplished, will provide the only practical means whereby wide-spread development can logically occur. It appears impractical to attempt `7 a broad scale industrial site preparation through the single expedient of filling. In both Seattle and Renton large low lying areas have been reclaimed by filling. However, in most instances these filling operation were in large measure the outgrowth of major regrading projects. 15 ! Jy • • ii As borne out by detailed evaluation, this pattern would generate, because ;.. of greater travel distances and times, considerably more arterial and freeway • construction than would otherwise be necessary with a more desirable land use • pattern. The land use pattern "Continuation of Present Trends and Policies" -=,:, would produce a 15% increase in total vehicle miles (travel distances) beyond that anticipated for the Cities and Corridors Alternate land use pattern. Expressed in dollars many extra millions will be necessary for arterial and freeway con - struction if new and better regional and community development patterns are not adopted and implemented. After careful study and analysis of the preliminary alternative land use plans, The Planning Directors' Committee of the Puget Sound Governmental Conference recommended the development of a proposal which would embody the :,.; incorporation of green belt areas surrounding future communities with .L'1 approximate populations of 200-300, 000 persons. In this concept, expressed in the Cities and Corridors land use projection, communities such as Kent—Auburn, Renton, and Bellevue would be the focal points for these larger populations, Smaller communities, such as Maple Valley and Black Diamond, would have populations of 25-50, 000. Development of this land use pattern would aid in preserving community identity. These large community areas would be de- fined by surrounding green belts and open space areas. As such, they would con-- tain employment centers, community facilities, and residential areas in care- fully balanced proportions which would promote shorter travel times between home, work, shopping, recreation, and other social activities. In this way, the overall requirement for freeway construction and other major arterial routes would' be materially reduced. OBJECTIVES: The Preparation of the General Development Plan Maps has been accomplished" E to aid in guiding community growth and to give visual emphasis in defining the following community goals and objectives: 224 1. Prevent blight by protecting residential and other exclusive districts from the unwarranted infiltration of incompatible uses which would contribute • to premature decay and obsolecence, and prevent the development of orderly growth patterns. 2. Increase community livability by improving environmental factors which are closely related to the residential districts and other community areas: The incorporation of park and open spaces throughout the community plan will aid materially in avoiding overcrowding and achieving this goal. 3. Provide opportunities for employment of the City's residents within convenient walking or commuting distance. 1 4. Protect property values within the community for the benefit of its residents and property owners, through the effective control of land use and the enforcement and application of building and construction codes. 17 f" Y • • 5. Promote the development of a viable, progressive community which provides ample opportunity for citizen participation in a broad spectrum ; of economic opportunities, social achievements, educational attainments; { physical development, and political activities. 6. Encourage the development and utilization of land to its highest and best use in such a way as to promote the best interest of the community and contri:::ute to its overall attractiveness and desirability as a place in which to work, shop, live, and play. To achieve the foregoing objectives it will be essential, based on past "'';� experience in other communities and areas, to adopt and implement the land use plan by the following methods: ',`��' 1., Adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances which reflect the concepts of the Land Use Plan and other related elements, including the Arterials and Streets, and Community Facilities Plans. 2. Adopt zoning maps which reflect the guide lines established by the Land' Use Plan and which are 'realistic in terms of current needs. c � 3. Maintain an up to date land use file system utilizing City and County ,'',,I:' t Building Department records. This will aid in keeping the Land Use Plan '. current and increase its effectiveness in the accomplishment of community .. ' ' goals. 4. Update by complete field inventory the existing land use data every five.. years. ;;.7. 5. , Completely update the General Development. Plan Maps at least every"'fiv`e;,�.-�jr?t , r, years following the completion of the land use survey and oth'er planning-;; ` ,, ,rf=t�`; studies. ^,,ti.,, 6. ' Conduct planning studies on problems of current interest or need as coni,,"ri ,,, ditions change and revisions or amendments to theComprehensive Plan .. ' ..�,:",�;',,.;1 r are deemed desirable ;yE„ } 7< ; Prepare a long range Capital Improvement Program and maintain it. in`'',a''°A '',%;'r ' ' current condition by annual review and extension of capital expenditure,` ;`•,";;: `.,i�_; '; projections 'one year each.year. " '°r.r a' ,1 ' ilk.:�' bFY111 The purposeful and consistent attention of the' legislative and planning'b'o ieYto�'4x the overall purposes and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan will produce; ,, mv � ��r continuing and long term benefits for the community, Among these will be tne,/ :',':•',_:.:-,:; .r,,, 1,N;>,s development of orderly growth patterns 'and the elimination orprevention of.n*-4 `' projects: Y":';r , tfz: costly mistakes in public works ro ects: Further, the community will more-'ne.::, 011, p}y realize an adequate reservation of space for future needs. These benefits:.will.'.:,,�`;,':;' �`{;,�u.,�� contribute much to the achievingof a desirable environment in the '.c,omxriunit`' z+ ' , 1'f''.',s:;a�L which ' � 1i1�t¢9}tf will Ju's tly p y�„.,Of ;,,...,ra fir; its citizens be rood, , of4t; _ 1i_ ' �,' I�FW ��kG RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAY 2 3 1978 PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER AM'�°18r9r10,11r➢211r2r ,q,,�,6 PUBLIC HEARING MAY 23, 1978 EXHIBIT NO APPLICANT: ROBERT B. MARTINDALEITEMNO,, FILE NO. : R-162-78 A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant requests the approval of a rezone from G and G-6000 to R-4 to permit the construction of condominiums and/or apartments. B. GENERAL IMFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: ROBERT B. MARTINDALE 2. Applicant: ROBERT B. MARTINDALE 3. Location: • Vicinity of 1400 Lake Washington Blvd. North 4. Legal Description: A detailed legal description is on file in the Renton Planning Department. 5. Size of Property: ± 2 acres. 6. Access: Via Lake Washington Blvd. North 7. Existing Zoning: G, General Classification District G-6000, Single Family Residential 8. Existing Zoning in the Area: B-1, Business District R-4, High Density Multiple Family H-1, Heavy Industry G, General Classification District GS-1, General Single Family G-6000, Single Family Residential P-1, Public Use District T, Mobile Home Park 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: High Density Multiple Family 10. Notification: The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly published in the Record Chronicle and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City Ordinance. C. PURPOSE OF REQUEST: To permit rezone of the subject site for future development of multiple family residences. D. HISTORY/BACKGROUND: The subject site was annexed into the City of Renton by Ordinance Numbers 1791, 1800 and 1804 dated September 8, 1959. E. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND: 1. Topography: The site varies considerably in slope ranging from 5% to 50%. A steep embankment exists in the northerly and southerly portions of the site generally parallel to Lake Washington Blvd. The applicant is in the process of applying for a special permit to excavate and grade the existing bank to allow for future development. 2. Soils: Alderwood and Kitsap (AkF) , runoff is rapid to very rapid, and the erosion hazard is severe to very severe. Slippage potential is severe. The soils are used for timber. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF MAY 23, 1978 PAGE TWO RE: ROBERT B. MARTINDALE; R-162-78, REZONE 3. Vegetation: The site is heavily wooded with a mix of alder and native maple. Ground cover consists principally of grasses with varied growth. 4. Wildlife: The existing vegetation of the site provides ample habitat for birds and small mammals. 5. Water: There is no surface water evident on the site. 6. Land Use: The site is basically undeveloped except for the location of an old tavern near the southwest corner. F. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: The area is fairly undeveloped with a variety of land uses. G. PUBLIC SERVICES: A 1. Water and Sewer: An existing twelve inch water main is located along Lake Washington Boulevard North within five hundred feet to the south of the subject site and an eight inch sanitary pipe is approximately the same distance away in that vicinity. In addition, a Metro Gravity Line is situated about 130 feet to the east. 2. Fire Protection: Provided by the Renton Fire Department as per ordinance requirement. 3. Transit: Metro Transit route 240 operates along I-405 within 200 feet to the east. 4. Schools: The subject site is located approximately 3/4 mile south of the Kennydale Elementary School and 3/4 mile west of McKnight Junior High School and 1 1/2 miles northeast of Renton Senior High School . 1 5. Parks: Lake Washington Beach Park is immediately west of the subject site with Kennydale Lions Park approximately 1/2 mile northeast and Mothers Park 3/4 mile to the south. H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1. Section 4-706, G, Residence Single Family 2. Section 4-709B, R-4, Apartment Houses and Multiple Dwellings. I. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS: 1. Comprehensive Plan, 1965, Land Use Report, Objective 6, page 18. 2. Comprehensive Plan, 1965, Land Use Report, Page 11 , Residential . J. IMPACTS ON NATURAL SYSTEMS: Approval of the request and subsequent development of the site will disturb soil and vegetation and increase storm water runoff and traffic and noise levels in the area. It will be very important that appropriate mitigating measures be undertaken to minimize these impacts. K. SOCIAL IMPACTS: A localized population increase will result from actual development of the site if the proposed rezone is approved. This will in turn create new social interactions in the area, and have an effect on community facilities. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended, RCW 43.21C, the subject proposal is exempt from the threshold determination and EIS requirements of SEPA. This declaration is for rezone only and is based on the provision of suitable development densities, setbacks, land- ; scaping, preservation of significant natural vegetation and site character, and other design and site development criteria that may be necessary to mitigate potential impacts. Further environmental review will be accomplished at the time of site preparation and development review. H PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF MAY 23, 1978 PAGE THREE RE: ROBERT B. MARTINDALE; R-162-78, REZONE M. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: A vicinity map and site map are attached. N. AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED: 1. City of Renton Building Division 2. City of Renton Engineering Division 3. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division. 4. City of Renton Utilities Division 5. City of Renton Fire Department 0. STAFF ANALYSIS: 1. The proposed rezone is generally consistent with the comprehensive plan, land use element, which designates the site and area for high density multiple family residential uses. 2. The proposed zone is generally compatible with existing zoning generally to the south and west presently zoned B-1, business district, R-4, multiple family residence, H-1, heavy industry, and P-1 public use district. 3. The area to the north is presently zoned G-6000 single family residence. Certain measures including setbacks, landscape/buffers, and density limitation may be necessary to provide suitable transition to such single family zoning. 4. Two existing single family residences are located south of the site together with a fenced R.V. storage area. However, these uses are within the B-1 and R-4 zoned areas. Lake Terrace Mobile Home Park and a golf driving range are located approxi- mately 1,400 feet north of the site. 5. The site is presently situated on a steep heavily wooded slope. Certain clearing, excavation and grading may be necessary for development. This will require a special use permit per Seciton 4-2303. The applicant is in the process of preparing this application. Given the existing physical conditions of the site and adjacent land use (i .e. , the park) it is important that such clearing and excavation be related to specific site development plans, and be required to be reviewed by the Hearing 'Examiner as a condition of rezone approval and a mitigating measure of the environmental ;mpanigt(ZiCzrehensive Plan, Land Use Report 1965, Potential slide areas, page 6. Given the location of the existing park directly across Lake Washington Boulev r -- from the site and the existing G-6000 single family residence zoning north Hof e site, it may be necessary to establish special setbacks, landscaping, height and density standards as part of rezone approval , and to be more specifically reviewed as part:of future site development review by the Hearing Examiner. (See land use • report, 1965, objectives 1 , 4 and 6, pages 17 and 18. ) 7. The site is approximately two acres in area. If the property is rezoned to R-4, the gross allowable density would be approximately 87 dwelling units if all the units are two bedroom. However, this figure may be in reality unatainable because of topographic conditions, soils and geology, parking requirements, lot coverage limits, or other factors as part of specific site development. (See Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, 1965, Residential , paragraph three page 11 and Potential Slide Areas, page seven. ) 8. The utilities division indicates that suitable utilities are available to the subject site. However, as part of site development such utilities will require extension north along the frontage of the property. It may be necessary for the site to be included in a future LID for utility upgrading in the area. A maximum of 3,200 gallon per minute water is available to the subject site. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF MAY 23, 1978 PAGE FOUR RE: ROBERT B. MARTINDALE; R-162-78, REZONE 9. The Fire Department has also indicated that I.S.O. fire flow requirements must be met together with other fire code requirements as part of specific site development. 10. The traffic division has reviewed the right of way needs along Lake Washington Boulevard in conjunction with the proposed rezone and the potential saturation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation for high density multiple family residential use in the general area. A report and recommendation regarding such right of way needs is attached to this report. 11. The site is near a major freeway interchange and substantial employment center (i .e. , Boeing, Pacific Car and Foundary, North Renton industrial area, downtown Renton). This is consistent with the residential section of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Report, 1965, page 11 which states, "In medium and high density residential use districts the proximit 'to major employment centers, shopping districts, financial districts and office centers is important, as is convenient. access to major arterials and highways." This section also stipulates that such uses can often be easily adopted to hillside locations but that certain site amenities should be integrated into the site planning. This is another reason for specific site plan review by the Hearing Examiner. P. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Given the topography,'soils, and natural conditions, densities may very well be limited to that of an R-2 zone or possibly R-3. However, the R-4 zone may be approved with the following conditions in the form of restrictive covenants running with the land: 1. Site Development Approval : Specific site development plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Hearing Examiner. Such plans shall include site plans, landscape plans, building elevation drawings, schematic floor plans, grading and clearing plans, drainage plans, and other information as required by the Planning Department. 2. Setbacks: A minimum 20 foot landscape setback shall be required along Lake Washington Boulevard. All other setbacks shall be reviewed and approved by the Hearing Examiner. 3. Landscape Plans: A detailed landscape plan for the entire site development shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department at the time of building permit approval . No clearing or grading on the site shall be accomplished prior to approval of site development plans. 4. Maximum Density: The maximum density shall be 12 dwelling units per acre. Density beyond such maximum may be approved by the Hearing Examiner upon review of specific site development plans and the resulting impacts of such plans. It is further recommended that an additional ten feet of right of way along Lake Washington Boulevard be dedicated per the Public Works Department report and recommendation. 1 L ..g. _ 1 • _— ___ i I \ , t N 6 _ligzvi ST __ ___ . 7, 4 , 1 \ . T ak"E5T- 1 331 id • j♦ ' ; i. \ Q pNE 2l.o{T _ -_ ,!»o Z93'- 283 273 262 r253 242 235 224 IImi•-La l \ •3. i• \ 339 - Z )2B O I _ Q�� 3so, 7 ... 293 42.4I 2 2 263 52t 243 234 225 4 4r 41 \ I v / a 361:..;. :. I 1 { r C1 I i 1/4 i oTN, DT• .I .� !'• • z9z'•• zas 271 244 zs1 � � 3Q 217 zoD 1 ` ® • — 291 Zaro 270 265 > 24 En,,123 � © 214 209 , \ ® r0• z _ [© • 5► N .zo N. . 1bTM 1- , . 1 ,--z:--eLm.fs,,:l!,466.----L---1'if — — — 290 �' ^ , ...L v.,,• Z49 pl 246 231 228 213 210 (/----;A 7 ----H. 1---7-'1 tr,g,, ,--... -Yta-r-Tro-tom F Q L It.KG sVVA1H. i 289 218 `a Z6B 247 24r, 247 230 {, 21a // BEACH � 'ie 1 {`_-• IVA //// , 0 . 4f a 0 v�cK /. / e ° Is �I! _ �I /, / -i\ 1 ,_ r ...ill ' ' . z 0 \ .��0ii _ C. :O L N \\ ,1 _ 0 _._ - ,1'.'I.... -\„,„ \ \-- .._ C M 1r *hIIt1 0 P \\ vs (% J_._. APPLICANT Robert rno in t TOTAL AREA _ (2 gcres PRINCIPAL ACCESS ga L,a.Le G()_as4Jrtlloy, 8Ivd1 /Yerlt/j E X I S1 ING ZONING 6, 5_6000 EXISTING USE LJ,1de.Ieloped LL// J PROPOSED USE f/)0f�,p/e 15;04;4eAI0osinq COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN A'q,�j be.,,,f;ir / )L,(Avde. Fai l J / COMMENTS 1 o e 3�� 3`�7 1 ��®`� rh 36� G c1 ill LV1' S i0 4 Etij [If 2 vit [) ,a @ flf Illir i / ®�b may1. 5tkib I il 4 . .%, 3 4:i,04e, . �.'.. _,o :� ° s159�s Clay°� *ir. �.0 CI CI. ; ° I--V :::::.".., Ek,., 0,01 is -' k� d5 `k yea` � v IV. [-- ti , '0 4 ( ' ' 1 • CU:I Sv Are CTS/TE i R6BEAT MftRTINDRnc j REzo&,C R-Iba-1% i • { PROPOSED/FINAL LL.:LARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE;,,.A-SIGNIFICANCE Application No . R-162-78 ❑ .PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . ❑ FINAL Declaration Description of proposal Rezone from G and G-6000 to R-4 Proponent Robert Martindale Location of Proposal Vicinity of 1400 Lake Washington Blvd. N.E. Lead Agency. City of Renton Planning Department This proposal has been determined to 0 have ❑ not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS ❑ is. d is not' required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 (2 ) (c ) . This decision was ma a after, review by the lead agency, of a completed environmental checklist Land other information on f�lle with th'e lead agency . non Reasons for declaration of environmental significance : This declaration is for rezone only and is based on provision of suitable development standards and specific site development plan review and approval that will provide mitigating measures for potential impact of site development. Further environmental review will be required as part of site grading and specific development review. • Measures , if any , that could be taken to prevent or mitigate the environmental impacts to such an extent that the lead agency would withdraw i'ts declaration of significance and issue a (proposed/final ) declaration of non-significance : Responsible Official Gordon Y. Ericksen Title Planning. lire Ar • Date May 17, 1978 Signature . PlCiatynningofRe Depantorntment 5-76 • • • • • • i - MEMORANDUM DATE: May 17, 1978 TO: Michael Smith, Planning Department FROM: Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Rezone - Robert Martindale R-162-78 (Lake Washington Blvd.) When we consider Lake Washington Blvd. between Garden Ave. North and Burnett Ave. North with its existing 60 foot right-of-way and the full possible development of high rise apartments plus 'the new park development, we can project that the existing roadway will be at capacity for a two-lane facility. (2,000 vehicles per hour is capacity; 2,150 is project volume at peak hour) The projected volume does not include possible increase in Boeing 's employment. The roadway capacity for a service level 'C ' should not exceed 1400 vehicles per hour. Therefore, we recommend the acquisition of ten additional feet of right-of-way as a condition of this rezone to facilitate a future roadway design. This would provide a full right-of-way width of 70 feet which is required in the plat ordinance under community arterials, Table I , Section 9-1108. CEM:ad ', 9-1108 9-1108 1 TABLE I i MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT Right of Improved Planting Way Street Strip Sidewalk Width Width Width Width 2 sides 1 side Expressways and Parkways 100' -- -- -- -- Major Arterials and Highways 80' 60' 4' 6' -- I Community Arterials 70' 44' 4' 5' -- 1 Neighborhood Collectors 60' 36' 4' 5' -- Residential Access Streets: 1. For streets less than 800' long 50' 32' 4' 5' -- 2. For Hillside Areas (one-way traffic) 40' 4' -- 5' 3. For Hillside Areas (two-way traffic) 50' A 4' 5' -- Commercial Areas 60' 8' -- Alleys 20' -- -- Industrial Arterial 90' . 60' 6' 6' -- Industrial Collector 80' 44' 6' 6° -- Industrial Access 60' 36' 6' 6' -- ' IMPROVEMENTS IN PUBLIC l RIGHT- OF - WAY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 4. '1 STREET WIDTH SIDE PLANTING PLANTING SIDE WALK STRIP .1 CURB i CURB STRIP VALK t , viai t I. Full Width Streets. All streets shall be platted at full width, and no boundary streets at less than full width shall be allowed unless required to provide right-of-way for streets and arterials designated by the official plan. J. Increased Right-of-Way Requirements in Commercial Districts. The City may require that street widths in commercial areas be in- creased to provide for traffic movement and to reduce or eliminate traffic congestion. 1171 • • . • COL E SCFE : ._ E • PLANNING DEPARTMENT Vf?)/17) DATE . ROUTED PLEASE REVIEW THIS APPLICATION FOR: rt- REEON Ktegia QUAr2TWDAL MAJOR PLAT SITE APPROVAL SHORT PLAT SPECIAL PERMIT WAIVER H) ' LINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT OR EXEMPTION AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH ANY COMMENTS YOU MIGHT HAVE , BEFORE ‘ %0/7P SIGNATURE OR INI A DEPARTMENT . PPROVAL DENIAL DATE LDi� G 3-)EUiSI- Ar:FTRAFFIC EN /V.4 ;75 - 7/-7,ff 1"1,,4 3- ENGINEERING <-5Yg1/2• �,.... FIRE �/.5 (71 41' HEALTH REV: E'''EP. 'S COMMENTS OR APPROVAL CONDITIONS : 1;:y _ #- i s - / -- p PLEASE SIGN THE E . I .W. : f • • • • ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS II TO : Finance Department Fire Department Library Department Park Department Police Department Public Works Department Building Div . • Traffic Engineering Div . Engineering Div . Utilities Engineering Div . FROM : Planning Department , (signed by responsible official or his . designee ) M1 c14k L_ Sik,l l -- • SUBJECT : Review of ECF-_ '3•3‘, - 78 ; Application No . : le-/(oi-1 Action Name : ° IQOpErT Ler taZdA.) rr /ova 113 j Please review the attached . Review requested by ( date) : 5/4014 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : • Department : ' a Comments : • Signatur Director or uthorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : /K Comments : /i % i 1•SSG. i/e 7')-2- iec`Q-ct�� i t -ZS 014-0 Fv/C /tt/`7 Co-A.;Sj,7Cac7io& /g Signature of Director or Autho ized Repros2nf. ative Date • (Ov►_,! ) ,� i RE:VJ1. J BY 01HLR C ► 1Y DEPARTMENTS : • . Department : .2, • Comments : ,(�/�,7 S ram- =- - --' • 01-ie T'o !I,f 17 . /C./Se 2 aL, /V / 7-O)-2o$r' ya— Ho a y. . p?f/L p ! ProJe c_la o/ . a r ��E iv:0/2/i.ws / f lr �, -J � � /6/ / ,','-;--- i o ,9 y 7 1/��2 l71€— !e/A7.-te i 5-i-)re t.f _.y/f%7_2-eov e,o;7/ ✓,eeci /U !�"r ?� oa'cl%/„H.d�afe — d`S`%!S • Si gnature of Director or Authori zed Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : • • • Department : uT«.�nwz.5 . Comments : 5,ric ♦Z.r4Qv.pkJ t-v"-n -s2- ,a._ t/sw1E-rc- 1 It -�ii.--z-,,o-,-S - i-z n�,,_ .�,4c4. II n i Signature of Director or Authorized Representative • Date 1 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : i. 1 Department : c----et��.= Comments . .,- ,� 1 i • • i - A ._ /5/?cf Signature of Director or Authorized Reprec;entatiye Date , E_'V'I EW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : . • 1i Department : • I 1 Comments :: . , I • Si • dnature of Di rector or Authori zed Rep resontat. i ve [?,I r. st • Cj> fiffik /1//k CITY OF RENTON APR 1� Z . 1978 REZONE APPLICATION �2 For Office Use On1y : . DEPO1 APPL. NO. 71 -/‘� - 75 • PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION $REF RECEIPT NO. 42 Ac7.5'; yZei,IAPPEAL FILED • FILING DATE .W),„ 7f CITY COUNCIL ACTION HEARING DATE ORDINANCE NO. & DATE w APPLICANT TOK� COMPLETE ITEMSy,�� 1 THROUGH 10 : 61. Name /[ [,�-:,�j' i�/tit ,f/�� ��� phone 7?i-`' 2. � i�C�7-sl�� • 2. Address 6 O Z/ JG/,' y G4 6.-- 4' • 3'v 7 2 I7 ' 4/ frim 3. Property petitioned .for rezoning is located on LAeLS' (;he/1 414, U2) 4, between i4'Ol) S 9(<< and 4 . Square footage or acreage of property ,QG/0e--3" 5. Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach separate sheet) Z UT � �; 3 CO �0'f/D .�SI PPGs r ��r'��Q/✓"c� 1 �'�(i SIC?:? 1�1�1�Gfic-?`TJ �� �' Aa/D ?5n} • (' , • A,/ z <<:4 /.0 :cebfil 24 (>-0 Z`c-)c7/ of /1`1)��7� 0 /•fry-' • 6 . • Existing zoning 4,4V 0)03D ' Zoning Requested J2 ' NOTE TO APPLICANT: The following factors are considered in reclass- ifying property. Evidence or additional information to substantiate your request may be attached to this sheet. (See Application Procedure sheet for specific requirements) . Submit this form in duplicate. 7 . Proposed use of site. C'D.+700/1.il//'f//‘lf4%,S ,4 //7 (2 z r/747--/`�f /j 8 . List the measures to be taken to reduce impact on the surrounding area. • 9 . How soon after the rezone is granted do you intend to develop the site? //vir/ll,D/4%c� 1 10 . Two copies of plot plan and affidavit of ownership are required. i i i i AFFIDAVIT I [?f3�tz�' ���P/�DOGC� , being duly sworn, declare that I am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief . Subscribed and sworn before me A this 12thday of April , 1978 , Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Edmonds • . Gi--)Li2_4c-4-,cis Az", /21-4-<-<-1 ---4-, ...41,Z,kiak . (Name ofWAary Public)( (Signature of Owner) 6-7) Z/ /P(/ //04/e-- ...? ? (Address) (Address) (City) (State) • • (Telephone) (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify tha the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found 'e .rough and complete in every particular and to conform to the r As .`Lotions of the Renton Planning Department governing the f ' 4 g f J1fflh• . ,. .lication . Date Received APR 14 l913 . 1.9 By: '� DEP���~ �.. Renton Planning Dept . 2-73 • CITY OF. RENTON, WASHINGTON F ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM. � � Lb 0 � • APR lenn • FOR OFFICE USE ONLY • 4 — -- / dip Application !o. 1, r Z E Environmental Checklist No. -3 w . • PROPOSED, date: _ FINAL , date : DDeclaration of Significance - O Declaration of Significance • Declaration of Non-Significance Declaration of Non-Significance -COMMENTS : • Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of. 1971 , Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when- licensing private proposals . The Act also requires that an EIS be prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the ,environment. The -purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal. is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your explanation in the space provided, or-use additional pages if necessary. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele- vant to the answers you provide . Complete answers to these questions now will help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review with- out •unneces.sary delay. The, following questions apply to your total proposal , riot just to the license for which you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers • should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed, even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, with- out duplicating paperwork in the future. • NOTE : This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State of Washington for various types of proposals . Many of the questions may not apply to your' proposal. If a question doe': r.ot apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question . ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM • I , BACKGROUND • 1 . Name of Proponent � -y =� p [. Address and phone number of Proponent : 3. Date Checklist submitted 9/C-/L6 • . 4. Agency requiring Checklist _— Griot,7/ p ow 5. Name of proposal , if applicable : - • • 6. Nature and brief description of the proposal (including but not limited to its • size, general design elements , and other factors that will give an accurate • • understanding of its scope and nature) : • • U TUAc' VD`�i l`'/Yl l�— -0,10Q/ /1//Jl/_S 'doh. ' 'z", • 2- • • ?'. ' Location of proposal (describe the physical setting of the. proposal , as well- • as the .extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts , including • any other information needed to give .an accurate .understanding of the environ- mental setting of the proposal ) : • _L41 D ©�/ _��IIG�Gy tuiez, fi/wz w ED4l. 7/kizT) Nd rgiV . • • • 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal :' /• Y,y�,,/ $KLci)/^1.�U��L/! 9. List of all permits , licenses or government approvals required for the proposal (federal , state and local --including rezones ) : • . 10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion , or further activir.y related to or connected with this proposal? If yes , explain: • • 11•. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by • your proposal ? If yes , explain : • • • 12. Attach any other application for that has been completed regarding the pro- posal ; if none has been completed , but i5 expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: • • • • II . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS • (Explanations of all 'yes" and "maybe" answers are required) ( 1) Earth. Will the proposal result in: • (a.)' Unstable earth conditions or in changes in. geologic substructures? YES MAYBE NO (b) Disruptions , displacements , compaction or over- covering of the soil ? •/ZeWeo Zi.l4 GIP MAYBE NO (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? MAYBE NO • (d) The destruction , covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? YES.- MAYBE 411, (e) Any• increase in wind or water erosion of soils ,-- either on or off the site? • YES - MAYBE NO • .(f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands , or . changes in siltation , deposition or erosion which • may modify the •channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay , inlet or lake?' YES MAYBE N0-_ Explanation: .S../r6. ,Q IiV A(/g -12.2/4/ -3- , • (2) Air. Will the proposal result in : • (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air • • . quality? YES MAYBE (.2::) • (b) The creation of objectionable odors? YES MAYBE ENO / (c) Alteration .of air movement , moisture or temperature, �✓ or any change in climate , either locally or regionally? • YES MAYBE NO Explanation: • • ' (3) . Water. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents , or the course of direction of water movements , in either marine or fresh waters? YES MAYBE NO • (b). • Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? • YES MAYBE NO (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? YES MAYBE NO (d) . Change in the amount o.f surface water in any water body? • YES MAYBE 0 (e) Discharge into surfg,ce wa-ters, or in any alteration surface water quality; including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _YES M Nls (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of • ground waters'? _ YES MAYBE NO • • (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters , either . through direct additions or withdrawals , or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? • YES MAYBE N,0 (.h).' Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection , or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates , detergents ,• waterborne virus ur bacteria , or' other substances into the ground waters? YES FIKTETT NO • (i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? • ES MAYBE N� Explanation: Og4 /. 4 A0l2x17r wwelle /A v 41,4,4• (4) Flora. Will the proposal result in : (a) .Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any • species of flora (including trees , shrubs', grass , crops , microflora and aquatic plants)? YES MAYBE NO (b) Reduction of the numbers of 'any unigue, rare or- • endangered species .of flora? • • 1 E' 'MAYBE NO (c) Introduction of new species of flora into' an area , or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? YES MAYBE (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? • • YES MAYBE NO Explanation: j�,/j�' G �� note, • ,. • -4- • • (5) Fauna. . Will the proposal 'result in: • • (a) Changes in the diversity of species , or numbers of • • any species of fauna (birds, land animals including • . reptiles , ,fish and shellfish, benthic• organisms , • insects or microfauna)? • YES M YBE NO (b) . 'Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or • endangered species of fauna? • • YES MAYBE OP . (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area , or result in a barrier to the migration, or movement • of fauna? • YES MAYBE NO (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: • • (6) Noise.. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? • YES MAYBE NO • Explanation: — • -- - — - -------- • (7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or • • glare? ' MAYBE NO Ez�lanation: /frOgif1'i�G_ alejOl 4_.._ elD. P' ,/e..41i,_11128! • • • (8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of are area? _ MIA YY BB E (9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in : • (a) Increase in the 'rate of use of any natural resources? YES- MAYBE NO (b) Depletion of any nunr•enewable natural resource? • YES. MAYBE 4110 • Explanation: • • • (10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an • explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including,. • but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) • in the event of an accident or upset conditions? • - YES MAYBE 4 . Explanation: ' • ( 11 ) Population. Will the proposal alter the location , distri • - bution, density, or growth rate of, the human population of an area? YES MM YBE NU • • Explanation: • ' ( 12) . Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: • • • • (13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: G (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? o��4 40110 MAYBE . NO (b) Effects on existing. parking facilities , or demand for new parking? YES MAYBE NO (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? . • MAYBE NB (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or. . movement of people and/or goods? • YES MAYBE NO • (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? YES MAYBE NO • . (f) • Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists or pedestrians? . YES MBE NO i Explanation: 1.37,,((,U//f 4 iviCZLer • • • • (14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services • in any of the following areas : (a) Fire protection? YES . MAYBE NO • • (b) Police protection? YES MAYBE NO ' • (c) Schools? • • • (1, MAYBE NO (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? YES MAYBE NO • (e) Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? MAYBE NO (f) Other governmental services? YES MMAYBE .NO • Explanation: 54/60/A• • • • (15) Energy. Will the proposal result in : (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? • YES MAYBE • (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? YES MAYBE011111 Explanation: • • • (16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new . systems , or alterations to the following utilities : (a) Power or natural gas? • YES MAYBE NO (b) Communications systems? • YET- MAYBE OPP (c) Water? . • YES MAYBE NO • ti -6- (d) Sewer or septic tanks? YES MAYBE Q • (e) Storm water drainage? YES MAYBE 67 (f) Solid waste and disposal? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential 'health hazard (excluding mental health)? • YET— MAYBE ' S Explanation: • (18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the • proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive • site open to public view? YES MAYBE " NO • Explanation: • • • (19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the • quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: • • (20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or -historical site, structure, object or building? yr M BE Fr Explanation: • • III . 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 decla- • ration 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: ,,,, ! �'i,"" "s`� signed) (name printed) • • City of Renton • Planning Department • 5-76 4 OF -v u t$ ,� THE CITY OF RENTON ' ''%> ' c MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 0A CHARLES J. DELIIURENTI MAYOR • PLANNING DE PARTMENT 044Tf0 SEPS�v 235-2550 May 5, 1978 Mr. Robert B. Martindale 5021 Ripley Lane North, #307 Rento';n, Washington 98055 RE: NOTICE OF APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM G AND G-6000 TO R-4, File Number R-162-78; property located along the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard east of Lake Washington Beach Park and north of undeveloped Morgan Avenue North; also just north of 1322 Lake Washington Boulevard. Dear Mr. Martindale: The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on April 14, 1978 A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for May 23, 1978 at 9:00 Ail Representatives of the applicant are asked to be present . All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing . If you have any further questions , please call the Renton Planning Department , 235-2550 . Very truly yours , Gordon Y . Ericksen Planning Director By : `� Michael L. Smith, Associate Planner