No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA79-394 r' ; -{+ ''•,+-i •�~ �- _.-+!. / c 'N ® 1. - -� —lam - - - i I I 7 ! i? , ,__ 40. ,,,.., . . - v ...) . • - .7,,. - 67 i , t c :,ilk ;°:a v ti „," ', ", �"« P om; Pei '.T - '. ! •• • • y' ; ,3C ,3�. E: 4 �r ._ � ` sl f 5 •'' .8 f•-', V7) i , 24 y �� !V_+ i h• I r` 9 , •3F 4.J e1. Cu! 01 s 4 '" • ' !'. 3 , x ;/ �e ��; • av a it if s ^� ! fz_:I if_.--� �' r "gyp _ �'• y !_ .-,. • 1 S Tf� ei ✓,' F T � - -t '.- _ !C -.._._.'/ e i✓j -71 - •11 `'A -1' / ,. 4c ' �` �. b -i" `+ U 2_„ i „�... v � �� f - r4 r rPt - ' > .A ..,.. / t 4.. 1 - :,.. _. ---, ea. 11 7 f (J ! y # { -j 1 ,Ef►4 !�l_- .._.... T_.. } r /, ,' / J� ,'x 1, (�/"-"3.`v _ 1 6 ,, Q ., i 7 ,: • 1, 6 . , ,...4,,,,,,,,i. . „ - - _ • i ..e.,..w. ....iy .,1,,,,j,„,,, , - "N 7, .-L 4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS , CITY HALL, RENTON , WASHINGTON, ON AUGUST 28 , 1979 , AT 9 :00 A. M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: 1. IRVING W. HULL, APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM R-3 to R-4, File R-394-79 ; property located at 421 Burnett Ave. So. 2 . WALL AND REDEKOP CORPORATION, HIGATE SUBDIVISION, File E-393-79, APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGARDING RELOCATION OF SIDEWALK ON MONTEREY AVE. N.E. ; property located on N.E. 20th St . and Monterey Ave. N.E. 3. SERVICE PAPER COMPANY, APPLICATION FOR FILL AND GRADE IN M-P ZONE , File SP-388-79; property located on northeast corner of Lind Ave. S.W. and S.W. 34st St . 4. SERVICE PAPER COMPANY, APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL IN M-P ZONE, File SA-389-79; property located on northeast corner of Lind Ave. S.W. and S.W. 34th St . Legal descriptions of applications noted above are on file in the Renton Planning Department . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 28, 1979 AT 9 :00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS . GORDON Y. ERICKSEN PUBLISHED August 17, 1979 RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I . STEVE MUNSON , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TI'REE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me , a Notary Public , on t h e 14th d a y of August 19 79 SIGNED �// OF RA, 4 Csi �y �� o THE CITY OF RENTON /< MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON.WASH.98055 n CHARLES J. DELAURENTI •,MAYOR ® PLANNING DEPARTMENT °9,$ ca. 235- 2550 91.e0 SEPO".�� August 15 , 1979 Irving W. Hull 13544 S . E . 161 P1 . Renton , WA 98055 RE: NOTICE OF APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR RE . APPLICATION FOR RtLONE FROM R-3 TO R-4 , File R-394-79 ; property located at 421 Burnett Ave . So . Dear Mr . Hull : The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on August 1 , I979 A public hearing before the City of -Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for August 28 , 1979 at 9 : 00 a . m. 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 B y: 9By11k C.-6.41,64, Associate Planner 1KVINU wW. r • HULL ,, #R-394-79 (8— f.. t qr Sr ;1'''' • a y + ' '- r ,1 a vb 4 A4 - ,tr • 7'� � M1^y ,m"��W 7 ' ' i'kn • a,� f "rW% y • ,,, p y x ilf, ..,-...,:;. -1:,, • >~ 'c' { r W l aC yy M1 ' iis ..,,. 1 :ii,..,,„ I �� 1 � 'L S �` '` �t kft�;" � '"4 t1.' \; iS, „T � '�• e 4 -- ,fb1' r . M k� 4r • { •}4 t::.::::11, �f 7 7 ks f jn �.i :1 ! > -1 }.� i k', 1,r r „4 k.3�•�i.t4},cilr•c`.T.-v i.'1::; ::.!..'''.1?;!;:,, ,,;;;,..,:i.ii:t...;:171,'",:. :i'•,r F'• • • — .t-. 1'" :r!; 1 :+, :-S`F` h,:,+,t,se•1, r't'.,)r;t$..0. 4,,;., _ GENERAL-``� pp,j��jI��� 3 f 4 Y t !C /;,�1.+..•. Li,::I;r,.{Y.r...,. .,.,.,t+':7ro•: r.7�..ie' • 1 �79��tl® '}'tt' X".�+ 5�. [y��{y � +... .,i v tA1:"�1,.. ! .x,t,, r{., '.lai 5''t � ,�.. �yr.._ ®17�[[,RR�{p��mm''' - :{":?;`Ai.,,2 A:r'ry•;;,1,,J `r),;4,'}r t. G.' '• - ;t,;, • - ,,...!. ' >:,rit' 'dn..,5i". 1^ 49-t' - • - .i Y..,S. .,v' � .:.X9i'ir,JS,�.ii'(i;, t.,:',:: '�'fi',t-d'.:�".At '1'll:l:�ll..'`.„�.rL "''t ,S4 fi ,;r�.�'i•�: ;. q,}'PROPER .Y LOC T •,;I,:^,l'. :,,,::_ : ih:' `' '�a• .6URNETT',�l1VENUE�:. SOU .�Q, �'� x,,:r'. ''� i,,, , ,,, },.. i� .,.,. �T. A► ED .AT .4.2 3,� U. �� '' ;,..,;'.: _:'',:'�°.i�.,; "ir, , . ' :': rf�r,- 5. • :�:. 1 ;fi�}' ; 1�, .i ti :Y• ir f• A ;} •,l I ' '(f':' . „ i . ) r Yl,: r, ,i ••.' G: �EG t,w -I® o* e.'.'.' �k ,i'"a"1.1. ., �. '}L;; 1' :f- . ::l. + i d+r :i L. - r • • • is � i" : , n• 1, At mot• :r:, t•ilY , r e • y j'i�'i':: . .: 5 . ....:..: ill.. ter).. DETAILED LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE IN THE• OFFICE OF',;TFIE ;, . ;, ., RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT • ▪ . 1S GI ST qq''���� T,j �fgs yp.! i►Py`` '19 } t t ,.., Y�II 'rr,,,.„ Y i• > iTO �' FI F! fi11,f ticsmil 6 H b �i"ry®�f�ppyrry. 14 � •`�•t ri �;•' ..1)^ :tag'' ,`j,`'.. .� • 9S'; ° ' ;.� _ f a111* '"ftf ,� } �( F ,' j Syr 5 ,zA , r ri, L. • . tti..06,1ii, , ' x./','.ta*.'"I: • It ' , ::. +• `•r' 'a r ! ,; g'O� v•;".: v;t;''4.'9 i 4-, II �1 ,S tr�;.il�9 h 51°;�'¢"�( �'.iti • 3 6 ''i } 1 vtir ! '� t k•-r. r 'I''s). Eldr r?;. "i f�. r� `V!{tl (j�_�1r�q� G.{yam �(,r/),!_. • '•1 ,,} ry1• .,2 :S1i:..1'.,�f:'. -s}'-t t+ • "ViV�•'® �, '�'6. (��,�+� piF�7i lq��w,�,,�,{tiyy"w'{[��,rE(��,}tpyy ��1 'j".i '.,l �}{a,^�. ,5/`Ij ��.: s S}'` ,�!i, .. ; : =1. �1/-� �G:ia sig/4 •U7 9;..e d +/5-., 1 [��jJt�t .h7V'!p''B(ip,��[ii■7� ({i�[�,�'[�@y'pay{p®�(Qyr(���,y�y�r;�yj q'] t, ".S•t',, i ..r 'l '.{ r" ".}t,' . � �' _C' 15 74 :�,..`Wl[�I.i�idi�r til�,V 4"fiYd.,3,....^i�-n.'; t er. 0 1 4" r,P "r. d -A .1, $`" ,,.'qiFAA' 'r pp� t i'.. ,S'° ,ro., ,t ,r'•'r,•y;. t, 'l. ;,i a'';1' .r•� E;i•'' !: . r, w;4;i, danm.w..•.:-i„ .. • �1��.'t' - • - "1. i AU , .C• y„ib :, ern .h . 1:.�f .ram. '(. .a", 4. �.ar,v, tt r k "r ''Ls1''V.:::.''.;:,.. ;tax, yt , • r { '.1, , VL'L 9 u y i ;. � 5 • Is r, },, s *a� a� q'.54;,4�'1 rxi '� ,p-•:S :-i i`i`'� ,•,e. .�,<,w'J",tt:;_,;'. i't� w'M1, �. p ` .t nerxt i a ,r.:rl. tr. .L..,t°r,Ai:, .:.i,,,fi: r;F;�Y, M'n.,° s• $ $'E- t rw+' A. • '',k.",'.r:'t,Gr„d.;,irl S,fic:^�q. ,:�1t5".1.f-,.,t*,r+'y,r.t ,` 7rF 4 ° "Mne' >' # `� ff ± ?.r. rG, ''. ,} RA 4,...;: .:f:.,Ff',t. d..'� a ?'; } 4 'rs, cr .r n "�. :.k aS 5d ----- 'ti,,,,.,„ ,;,r iJ- :N� ;; t `a L ., } cf::; ,I+L..i7t_3v;Y`^i-t tj {,{i;.r;�, .?•, a ''d,' 1:•"'i .h.),it- ',.%a. ,.9, •n4„ 'v g,, .,{.?,V,.L.,.i,4:^ ir,a:'.;: +'fit. 2.', ,s,. ,!,,, Cx'. :r q •.Ft it: .', :;;.,., ` Np. • ��)��• - .+.,Z;'K�i�';r:r,,�✓rS,-'`" „r�f,;.,;?f.,, :r,. 1 ▪ • ?'. OM Eb..s4 a, • 1 5'f''0°.;""' } ,;a;4'p >s z6,,; r,, i•iG �- FRlJ7"B l» • • '+'M;t ,1«•1:.7 t Ir.c 5i.5,....',:�,Fi' Y •i17'r' „rs'I dr�,:�,"`,'Is,.'M',; i+4'r,* �;r • ;11.•n,•.,.:;'::•, .1..: i t;'"'•'15'r.'" ,';„�i 5{iA r%, ,ie t.1. S.- Ill c. PECI4 . r1,..E1,-2•c. . iE * WdT '.i••..•,.r•‘,.,•:•,..•1•';..•..'„:,;•••.•',.••••..:••••',..:.."...':...,.,•...,...•,..,•::.,..._•,••,•.4,,-.,1.:•.:.,-„„.•..-.•',•,-,.•:,..,:.,,.1 ,,,•.„:.•.....:,•;4 tt jy,'.',,,,-. f ,• 1 .. 1• Y.S J...,;,•• ,2.:1;..,•....:..-...,..,'•'•.'.....„•.,.•,•,. ..•:..'•.••,,.,......•.... :,.-,-..,,,..,.1;,.:.e,..g..,'.„,.,.",„..-..,"'0..•••,:,,.:,:::'-,,::..','.,.:•,.::t:,,r,)0''".•,4.-;-.,•,,,r.' SITE. APPRIVAL '' • 'i' ^ti;4 ,. ,,::1='•,`.f'°' oi'3,}. •.i i, • '-, ,: WA1VER 1' • Ei I. .(', 1. ,.r• • ki-i'y .!' .a>; Y*, .ar, . Myaea�: �t ru j }sa) r ♦, , } g�{� 11 '' , N St ., Y r '- Ycx ti< 'G-�f t i r, a ...9 •: 1 •` ,t !%'b.�".� +,abk � �. ` ;`,; } Si yv:3Y } t 5 r� i.. f ,' �k -4' - 8;f, - - Y i v:,' J.} rt !k 4km; :: r:,7, j t� .r`tl�'t'�1'�'i. 1▪ $,in / . ' r, r Sc4 :N. t'etp [' '1'`'' six'. ▪ , ^r;t:: f Yr n. f i i' t v.Z.:t ,td:.'i {, FF ,:,� ail}, •�S't�'.`' .▪ r:J' r 4 • r t' y*` • r' F1, 'fir�f:!.' h?, y '•E • 1 "c,4= ,I S',,.- k'`;.;,.,;;,,,+";:; :�',° of ,d:,,'% i E'•. .t M1i `� r. ''�rt 'r. r)' jj s 'k1`�� Y A t'I, "1 1a ,W a. =t., , .. yy :y, 'r A�• ,. • -::,. „t. ,,:`.a , 7`-� .,}'',� 'a% 'tt ',,h i`�,,c:' .r�..$ .s. .t;;',, .1r"�7�,. ,��XF '�. _�ti 1 .,c, f. i�Xi,, Y• Y, yore 'ri a 4 :-Yf• S'C' A'`''I. rS.'� dt: G}�' e '..i,' ::•r.b v"; ',..t ;.r."S%a, .,}:,�� f,• ,, ''F1;; •:h `3 !" ®�a d'. at1 ' ..t. ,rz '•;�r ll;• J.A ,21-.., 'e cl'i' 't'� .�.p��p'p�xpp��tyy, 5�"d ll ''F;. ':a' .S ..pp �,! vS'�Y B 4.':� �'��j{ t�]�� }- t d, .b i' a>`: s,'. ._fir ��,,�.,l,�„�., � Y 'S"'+. :;1,! "`S' >if?fs J 'y ��f-r ::rl.- ^ .N, a X� �n -��", Y • :t',1°{ y k YID e 1Cf ri,, �..l;,v..,i ,.'�Y� � :fa,. ::t'.:v. ..4: 1 tA, ht Li 1•. ry 'f3i 1 '}''. -p, y'�.^ a<, 1, s Y,L� v ,. Ott P,3;ir'- !a t,�' j - zi �,{- rY f y,. iru 'u. '$r:,,,^t. 1 �{�yfJ-..tcy- Y`k .,.(.\,- .Y"' (,�,, .y,u .,,,. ��,1:#' `-�' a.¢ once,,,; a• ''i^ :11 �$',•• n vt, i' '1kr' {. .,.,V I7 'li is f�t��m�'jy,5{2'= sr•M ,L A":5, ; ,t{4 -r-:l::r. ,'4'�'; y^, �... f7' t .e ,%W.'r' 11 ' G, ,c ,{ c ror ''i a: -,9 .0 ti.'L 1:,1 _ 1 �` '�V r Qili• ./.''A(ryc.t - .�,i F ge,'.-1� x4 ;i▪ ,"; • tin .. - � ... , -. , , } $• ., , !- r.,. _...5 ,. ._, .. .. _.. "'i��-5 ... .. "�,,:.!;":8:r'�'•r .:t'.-. .-.zit" . K• .-a, .,n.�'`e".-.'t,<,.., o�':'a,- .x�`,,,,.,�-.":-. s ... ..., , �*. Y� '... 3 t. .�fr ,.. R K .' •^'R ,� -, gy. f ' k �4� , `a � :a apr i �fllini3 FOR RECORDER'S us: t{,k }gyp} w .go R x ,{ t 4 1'-' + i, 1'?i1 FEB ZS f�11.Q 8 30 }, .,.. '. "44,... - , ".�""5" "°.�`��"�b''''+''y•y�gpl(}r bb•L.1{ytitt__e/ —}to.--- - -y�.;���Y',s, -_ 1�;t,�-,e }/$ ' ?l .- ,- ' <.(,R pq�s�/yqi �pF�p.��"�//4�g1s�/�Y'i.Vb V��1 ., ,{-� rr�t'T�k 3�1 f _ � li.. Z,L'f, .Gam. i a0� V'rI19 H obi ; '''`' M1' t. 1.�.....-.. �^ ,.;.. ': . '- ':J ..;• --- - _ - t . '6Lii F 7 Cid� 173 •_ :- +-' V. ,4:q i •i w-i:,\, , _),1,a ' i, ' : 4�, . , i' ' r,f a•^ a ...':';‘?.'",;',-;,'Iv--, J 'wi. "' �' 4J7 �3A aC8a STATE tii{ �C�a �Y C.�VAQ1:u��, �6C. _ t + #3113 'L' RE _ ` `��RJE. •PH J09S5 ,. _ STATUTORY r 1 WARRANTY DEED • • Li • i THE GRANTOR LARRY E. RACKEWEG, as his separate estate 1 for and in consideration of TEN DOLLARS AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION inlhand paid,conveys and warrants to HULL AND HULL ENTERPRISES, a Washington Corporation the following described real estate,situated in the County of KING , State of Washington: South 50 feet of Lots 1,2 and 3, Block 32, Smithers 1st Addition to the Town of Renton, according to the Plat recorded in Volume 9 of Plats, page 76, in King County, Washington. Subject to all easements, restrictions and reservations of record, if any. 2/) FEB .1.27 ' r0520885 Dated February 12 , 19 79 • reC7 ? Cry . ' (Individual)�/ (((/// By (Individual) (President) By (Secretary) STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ss' COUNTY OF ss. • On this day personally appeared before me On this day of , Larry E. Rackeweg 19_, before me,the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,duly commissioned and sworn, to me known to be the individual described in and who personally appeared executed the within and foregoing instrument,and acknowl- edged that he and , signed the same as his .j to me known to he the President free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes and Secretary, respectively, of therein mentioned. the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument,and GIVEN under my h n and official seal this acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and volun- day of , 19'7 , tary act and deed of said corporation,for the uses and pur- poses therein mentioned,and on oath stated that authorized to execute the said a://27/A1 , instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of Notv}r'frutili a �f r the_$ f Washington, residing said corporation. at tip. �'...-� �' 5� _ Witness my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing . at , , — 1 ', ,. • c . f , u Q.N E TT 31. • ' . • • . -,--/--, .: • - •, ___ _ 0 /•Ilrilll'. c . PA 1.2.•lel F.19' 3 c..,,,Q4 / .' • I • i - '' • • • . / • • . ' `-"leeel //'.1 • . 1.7.4.°...., \ iv_ -4-, ,; •1 • -11' — -11----- : !l'i ' 0 ( _ c; --' U- ;- n •J i ;1 H= :I 1 ' ...•4 //`,'i ,••"—45 a iz ..,/,-J , 1 ,_ R.. .. • // Thi , — D--- ilr ! pii, -4.0". , ,,,, • '....' 1 ,Iiiiiiihni - , i ....--•-:- rte 17,41 i p, .. , , .. ' ! i• I, . r/ i n I"-IC, . : - - - .144A - .1t• I .-.1- _ , \‘ Vi ' --., , . - --; t• 1,1 / ' /.. ". t $ • 0 ' L121....: ___I .11—II I j I !_ 0.... , •'.7/i 1 . IP ii , ;„,,f2 ,,,...) !•—__,.•. ./ !i .1: . 1 • , 1° : 'et "-- ...',•//1. r :V.)". I 1 ' it)7. c, : . • • Z ' i• ! h' ' V• Ls"- : ' L.-..:A- ' ' Fa i l .. , . . I 1: . ;- • 0. / 1 .[ p,'',,, I 2' • • • i' 1. r-a- I 1 • IIMI _ . i.,...„ .C._',trir- Al 0 .0 1 r /// i r • ,,.. , ,,,, ,„ __. _.: ,, , , • ,), I , -' z . (\ f i 1 0 r 0 > , `2" 11 p R' r I o' 4 ,•--1, P • • 1 1 i ; •;;•1 I l' co , • ;; it ; -, r JH . • ,• , / ' :I-- CO el i • . • ,'. :5C, , l'"f7 ii ;I 1 .1 .• ti‘ 1 U . ) r . -- • • . I ii;•I'/.//•/./. . ..4 —'15'4. ii]] li 8- 1 1 • -‘,, - =-- 1' • I I I I ,,_ DI 01 I I t• . ". n ./.• 0 • ;1! r rl . . L , 'I] ' 1,9 ',3, _ . ,• • . •i, ----1/4. 1:: '• i. ) ._. .'• 0. i is, . f0, .... . . ,.: z z• ,.., . 1 • . f f. = 0. . _ . ./.. a • I • 1 1 ti' • • -0 . C e t ' 7 . ; to. ..p. . . ;fi — • so. _C\ :-‹ —: ALLEY' . , . • . , / . • ' •. . .. MN _ g IMBEELAND liC)AvlFq E z 9 • 2 0 RI' < I a 9 -P,› : , I: ' , -13 • ctiT' • I, l. 431, i; i !I :,. X I I KENT,WASHINGTON 98031 7418 SOUTH 212th STREET TELEX: 320-341 d PHONE: (206)-854-5410 . - *. . • } -2 • - 7. 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 mental setting of the proposal ) : INA-A-1.4:-.0-4 "". ruLdo-b-62.4\ a �i�y�iriC [$31b,t D� • 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : J � � 9. List of all permits, licenses or government approvals required for the proposal (federal , state and local --including rezones) : , P 10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? . If yes , explain: k10— • 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 form that has been completed regarding the pro- posal ; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some futur'e. 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 Wr (b) Disruptions, displacements , compaction or over- covering of the soil? YES M BE r (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? YES-- MAYBE (d) The destruction, covering or modification of .any unique geologic or physical features? VET— MAYBE (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion. of soils , either on or off the site? Y-E f- f Nil, (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? Explanation: YET- MAYBE V • is CITY OF RENTON, WASH I NGTON �'r Urn ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM �� CFI\!Etj AUG 1 1979 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 7 9 Application No. C- 4 �!f9-79 G Environmental Checklist No. PROPOSED, date: FINAL, date, Declaration of Significance Declaration of Significance Declaration of Non-Significance Declaration of Non-Significance COMMENTS: Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of- 1971, Chapter•43.21C, RC,W, 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 unnecessary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal , not 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 does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND • 1. Name of Proponent ..:�'I L/JZ( et) ® "—hi // 2. , Address and phone number of Proponent: aid 1/- / / r` / ate E h,t) 4/0 A S ,cJ. c v 9c 7c 3. Date Checklist submitted 4. Agency requiring Checklist 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) : t -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 MAYBE (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? YES MAYBE Nf (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 N 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? Tn.- MAYBE Explanation: (8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Y S MAYBE NO Explanation: �„-„r .,v.4e, ._40 e A • (5G3°/igrJ.f e A. imeti - 7`JIAerf (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 nonrenewable natural resource? YES MAYBE Nr 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 conditi-ons? YES MAYBE N Explanation: (11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? YES- MAYBE li- Explanation: I -- i_ r r. -3- (2) Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? YES FiWYYE NL (b) The creation of objectionable odors? IC YET— MAYBE NO (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, • or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? `y 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 MATTE NO' (b) Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ES M B NO (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? YES MAYBE NO (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ YES MAYBE NO (e) Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? YET— MAYBE N (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? - us-- MAYBE N - (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 NO (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, , phosphates, detergents , waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? ES MAYBE NO (i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? �g YES MAYBE N Explanation: J-;11-t-P adr4 0A 41 , (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 , kr microflora and aquatic plants)? YET— MAYBE ff (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? YES MATTE NO (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? YET— MAYBE N (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Yam- MAYBE NO Explanation: -:a -6- • (d) Sewer or septic tanks? YES MAYBE NO (e) Storm water drainage? YES (f) Solid waste and disposal? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: ^, 4 ie �t- ,Q�irsl ✓%00-4 C��..d-(ice JP nr-s)941/..)M,AN) GL.4. 641tAnv310-.4 Q (17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? T- MAYBE NO " 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 N Explanation: • (20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical 14, site, structure, object or building? YES MAYBE Fir 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 eyezie/ on my part. Proponent: t�,� e``��'� ` ��` (s,igned) y' '-. C4/11/16/ (.,0 /44e' (name printed City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 , -5- (12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? i... YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: ' (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? ° YE3 FaTITE NO (b) Effects on existing parking fa ilitie , or de and for new parking? thz4,,,eafraid.Pany /r. '6, . M S M NO (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? — -_ MAYBE NO (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? YET— MAYBE N (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? `� VET— RATITE NO (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? YES MAYBE NO E x p l a n a t i o n: l iC•tv24044i4/r f7/ Vt/ (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? YES MA B NO (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? YES MAYBE NO' (e) Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? AL YES MAYBE NO (f) Other governmental services? YES MAYBE N / .3 a Explanation: , "1 i[ N a G�w A'ael A0-4 fi�1AL,��, ".*f R. -*� OLiQ. ki Sty,° A ' U (15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? . YES MAYBE NO (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? r YES MAYBE N 1 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? YES MAYBE N6 (c) Water? YES MAYBE NO z Receipt # I lit'? CITY OF RENTON. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 I e')•/7(s NAME Tr. "V;Pe7 X-)• Alto/ /I/I DATE 177X4 / / PROJECT 6 LOCATION A /0 l.;./..-70E--: ro //"7/ / /5; s Application Type Basic Fee Acreage Fee Total (1 ti C Environmental Checklist Environmental Checklist Construction Valuation Fee TOTAL FEES Ni Please take this receipt and your payment to the Finance Department on the first floor. \ Thank you. c. - s. CITY OF RENTON RE7ONE APPLICATION FOR OFFICE USE ONLY LAND USE HEARING APPLICATION NO. ' %7 �I EXAMINER 'S ACTION • APPLICATION FEE $ / 7 `- APPEAL FILED RECEIPT NO. /D/' /6 CITY C D CIf TION FILING DATE 1///�/G 0.`�ORD CE Ifi DATE HEARING DATE C� � _D APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 : bVG i . Name _�ell///!/G GL/ . /-ht /1 N w Q` � � - JAG 7 C eN�h Address j- f- / 4 / A/0 e 3. Property petitioned for rezoning is located on - 2 / 6��ti j67 4' S'o , between fr/eal_. al S. and Sotrih ±ti 4 . Square footage or acreage of property C p62 5 . Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach a separate sheet) // Lo 7 /, , ,� 3 g�i 74,L-s /-% .sv D 1 >b o,tl 70 6,0 7'o aJ Sul// .c � 7 /Ci s c /Ai VOL 9 '4. ,ti 0,6u w GI/, 4 i/c/ '/4A.2 - ficB2 a �a/S 6 . Existing Zoning 3 Zoning Requested NOTE TO APPLICANT: The following factors are considered in reclassifying 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 S%x p)E ic 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? . i/4/mE /) , /9-T . l \ • 10 . Two copies of plot plan and affidavit of ownership are required. Planning Dept. • 1-77 AFFIDAVIT i , /V (,Q , l u / / , 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 .ate r� this / day of , 197r , Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at (Name/of Nota -Public) (Signatur f Owner) Z(Ic5L d� ✓ / 35 / / aL (Address (Address) (City) (State) (Telephone) (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found to be thorough and complete in every particular and to conform to the ruff tggly ulations of the Renton Planning Department governing the fi '4g tars ®i� placation . Date Received ! 91% 19 By: • `gNN�NG ` Renton Planning Dept . 2-73 i `' Thi "'.:mpany has not surveyed the premises I ribed in A 7O The sketch below is furr ____,d without charge solely for the purpose of assistingin locatingsaid Company assumes no liability for inaccuracies therein. It does not purport to show ALL highways, roads andes ne d tt ments adjoining j or affecting said premises, ease f i i r' �P� • • v. .(i-. '5 I L I , i I i--)- . CO Q ( Lv__ ,2--- .moo C�`��Lo 4 C� 10 1- g 4. ,INN1NG Off@ P WTI Co. 3 Map Dept. Reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: IRVING M. HULL, File No : R-394-79 AUGUST 28,. 1979 PAGE TWO 5. Water: No surface water was observed on the subject site. 6. Land Use : , A 2-story single family residence is located on the sub- ject . site. Similar structures are found on adjacent properties. E. .NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS : The surrounding properties are an area of older single family residences generally in transition to multiple family uses. F. PUBLIC SERVICES.: 1. Water and Sewer : A 4" water main extends north-south on Burnett Avenue South adjacent to the subject site while an 8" sanitary sewer parallels the westerly border in a north-south direction also. A 24" water main will be constructed on Burnett Avenue South during the next 4 to 6 months. 2 . Fire Protection : Provided by the Renton Fire Department as per ordinance requirements. 3. Transit : Metro Transit Routes 107 and' 240 operate along South 3rd Street at the Burnett Avenue intersection within one block to the north of the subject site . 4. Schools : Talbot Hill Elementary School is located approximately 12 miles to the south of the subject site while Fred Nelson Junior High is approximately 1z miles southeast and Renton Senior High School is approximately * mile to the northwest . 5. Recreation : Jones, Liberty and Cedar River Park are all located within 2 mile to the northeast of the subject site. G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE : 1. Section 4-709A, Residence Multiple Family. 2. Section 4-709B, Residence Multiple Family. H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1. Comprehensive Plan , Land Use Reports , 1965, Residential , Page 11. I . IMPACT ON THE NATURAL OR HUMAN ENVIRONMENT: 1. Natural Systems : Rezone of the subject site would have no direct effect on the property. However, the planned future development would probably remove the vegetation , increase storm water runoff , and have an effect on traffic and noise levels in the area. Through proper development controls and procedures , however, many of these impacts can be mitigated. 2. Population/Employment : The proposal would increase the population by approximately 15 persons (2 . 5 persons/unit times 6 units) . 3. Schools : The proposed multiple family structure would increase the school population by approximately 1. 5 students ( . 25 students per unit) . 4. Social : If the rezone is granted, future development will provide increased opportunities for social interaction among the area residents . 5. Traffic: The proposed use would increase traffic in the area by approximately 37 trips per day based upon the proposed construction of 6 units (6. 1 trips/unit times 6 units) . RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PLANNING DEPARTMENT i\U G 2 81979 P PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER ?+8i9+10,111121112i'3'" + . PUBLIC HEARING di AUGUST 28, 1979 APPLICANT: IRVING W. HULL EXiIEIT FILE NUMBER: R-394-79 ITEM NO. A. SUMMARY & PURPOSE OF REQUEST: The applicant requests a rezone from R-3 to R-4 on the subject site to permit construction of a 6-plex. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: IRVING M. HULL 2 . Applicant : IRVING M. HULL 3. Location : Vicinity of 421 Burnett Avenue (Vicinity Map Attached) South 4. Legal Description : A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department . 5. Size of Property: ±6, 000 square feet 6. Access : Via Burnett Avenue South 7. Existing Zoning: R-3 , Residence Multiple Family minimum lot size 5 ,000 square feet 8. Existing Zoning in the Area: R-3; R-4, Residence Multiple Family; L-1, Light Industrial 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 on August 17, 1979 and posted in three places on or near the si as required by City ordinance c August 16 , 1979. C. HISTORY/BACKGROUND: The subject site is part of the original plat of the City of Renton. D. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND : 1 . Topography: The site is essentially level . 2. Soils : Urban land (Ur) is soil that has been modified by disturbance of the natural layers with the addition of fill up to several feet thick to accommodate industry or housing. 3. Vegetation : The site consists of a well-kept yard with lawn grass and extensive perimeter landscaping around the existing residence . One medium-sized tree is located in front of the house on the east side of the lot and two similar trees are found to the rear on the west side, 4. Wildlife : The existing vegetation on the site provides suitable habitat for birds and small mammals. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: IRVING M. HULL, File No : R-394-79 AUGUST 28, 1979 PAGE FOUR 7. The requested R-4 zone' will permit a total of 6 units as proposed by the applicant . Parking required would total 9 units based upon the standard of 1. 5 stalls per unit . The site plan presented by the applicant is not usable because it does not provide for the. manuevering of automobiles on the site . 8. The subject site has remained zoned R-3 since the implementation of the City-wide zoning ordinance in 1953. This would seem to demonstrate that the designation has not been specifically considered in a previous area zoning or land use analysis (Section 4-3014-(A)-1) , other than the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1965. However, the apparent lack of rezones from R-3 to R-4 in the general neighborhood suggests that the Comprehensive Plan may have over evaluated the potential capacities of the neighborhood. 9. The items addressed in #1 and #2 appear to indicate that rezoning of the subject site may not be timely everthough it has an ultimate potential for the R-4 classification as r quested. M. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner find that the application ' for a rezone from R-3 to R-4, File Number R-394-79 ; is inappropriate at this time based on the existing nature of the neighborhood. . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: IRVING M, HULL, File No : R-394-79 AUGUST 28, 1979 PAGE THREE J. 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 environmental checklist has been received, and a negative dec aration of environmental impact has been prepared. ' K. 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 . 6. City of Renton Police Department . L. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS : 1. The subject request is consistent with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan which designates the site -and surround ng properties as High Density Multiple Family. However, both Noith and South Renton are presently under study by the Planning Co ' ission' : Central Area Study Committee. 2 . Although the area may be in transition from single family_ res dence to multiple family, this transition has been historically quire slow in this area. Certain measures to protect surrounding s ngle family residence, users should be provided as" conditions of an rezone and site development . Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report , 1965,. page 17, objective <4, states that "property values shou d be protected within the community for the benefit of its residents and property owners , through effective control of land use an ; enforcement and application of building and construction, code. . Objective 6 also encourages "the development and utilization of land to its highest and best use in such a.way as to promote ' he best interest of the community and contribute to its overall attractiveness and desirability as a place in which to work, ..hop , live and play. " 3. Although existing R-4 zoning is located uotest of the site , sev: ral more recent rezones to R-3 were approved on parcels approximately 400 to 600 feet west of. the subject site . 4. The subject site consists of the south�e 'n 50 feet of 3 lots Each of those parcels is 40 x 50 feet e 2 ,000 square feet . he house has existed on the parcel of property since the early 1120' s and is a legal non-conforming lot of record. 5, There is an existing single family residence located on the subject site together with two accessory: buildings. The properties immediately adjacent to the north and south also contain sing e family dwellings. A 16-foot wide alley adjoins the subject s to on the westerly border and a 'small linear parking lot is located to the east on Burnett Avenue South. 6. Single family residences, abut the property on both the north and south. The existing zoning of R-3 would allow the construction of a 4-plex. This resulting change would be four times that of he adjacent properties.. Change and the resulting impacts are dependent upon the existing development . Kenton Planning Department DE _OPI'SENT APPLICATION REVI E.. SHEET APPI ication : f�®,, e ( ? ) /Q / r v1 a%`' ;. Location : - Applicant : • Vur �a t/, III/ TO : Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:• /81 9/79 Police Department Am R. C. MEETING 7/6,7/79 • Public Works Department Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Ce tilities ' Engineering ire Department Rit'Tio[1,/j9R FORGT�ETAPPLICATAOD I REV H ISCONE 'ICATTIO� SHOO D PROVIDED ERENCE tARC) 10 3t HELD ON / 7 9 AT 9 :00 AM IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE I hYOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ATTNRI THE ARC, PLEASE PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 'BY 5:UO PM ON �Y/4/ REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DDIVISION : Approved ✓ Approved with conditions Not Approved V(k. i�i e ti Co.vs� C �Tlo�� �.i/i t-?Gc / <<•�u /26 43ci l"rift /!/.2ie/i/,-17- ic l�,7 "ClG!%�/F7ti S77 //72',- , Si(/aLL / CC . E,4' ���c'ti� i 5 0 �� /"r Gl' L?; ✓c �r-�c:c�, .,: p '7T /CG� ��C�I� i1 ii/� /'ii�c- C,//�c`C^ /'ii�C' i�Yi�i�=ifti 'i' /1-C / /IC'CZ1 J, L /de /�-S/%aLGCJ f1;%/,) SG.%viC� itiG /:2GV'u .3 j 42 C;.t/S-i. /--2,/S //« G 73 / /c_ GCC • Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date ------...-•---__----- .___•_ors. . REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved ✓ Approved with conditions Not Approved pBTF`tz empLOi il,.) w6U ems,141126 Wog Gn-s414 A.1 at (4,0170;4,i it V actzSl . tAJvie 66,11vEcAi aWI N:cr!l `d-- se-tam-as owe S • •OI/Sc2 Fr , W TCr... 4. .01/rra 1"'r Se..,eft_ Sysre&I Deb cif 44 . p oe4e,c/ e„4r1 covert; PCt: pzL tJ ' j c#OSC" ,egraret 0,4 &giverT ei,S a� F,r a 1 Signat re of Director or Authorized Representative Date At trW , `I-V •l/ 1�-I�ll'1 ® 6 L�fi 1 J :.�J.y..d �9r' ^ • '/ Y / � /.. t •MP T if-. 47:1: B_6 G L , ELo \ '�61J..{t 1 -_ - .. Ems' w� ` -4r! T.. . .- +_ {,:�� •„";t ? ; ,, ci8ERrr I//' / t,t! r� py f ,,�,� *s�,�9 ii�4r _ roa f t�_. -.; r• IPAPAL ` • Pa2K iS jX/ DIiti 8 I • ' ti j �y i- .r-1 - by i a N 6 ad, S M ,F, I I ri—2 7PN10R JUNIOR '• ....y 1. �L g '-_ 1] _ ..3 t.i- O\L.4 \ -' ..-,«. /�,1 1. V-M I 1 Y {L� NIGN 1 N,GN _y 1 ' 1 t! 1 1 •a• ��S ! 1 /// 1{ gyp• $J 1 1 . •�� L ,Sc NOOL IIs=,_ r. .1_.1l N*4--, 1.1 1. ..� \. 10 • llyy4�.� ! • wI "•, �i' i •; u .aL•ice ,. a w L =:' r • tl "`Ma. l: �'�� -.. a 1P1--r. f-L .l �'1: t1 g y I,(+ /� Y .`. J� �. w • `1 i �'a. 1:7f -J>p Q Q=.-4jp 4 n"� / �� --- 1 z,, fi— .r,s'Int 1 friTr+.1 Q. vim_ o� ;� t ~i r�l p.,.,..:::::-...., ,..._, , I •�� f..+..o.,»er,°` ! .' r-y 1l, r�t..J � - 1' 1 L ! l~ lJ t�' • 1__ ' L,J i. c ` 41 p ,._ WQu -jt—MQa.L 7. - 6 ., II� {'_,, 7 a - =— _.\ . j>, -(L"�G , S'•- - C,, prirts' ...qV. •• t-lyr i.' -i _t:�Tot t ft77 -1- 1 �" �) �' , t� A r ., _L`�� t 1 ]t �' ' \ l\p®Y Qil 1` 1 Cr' �t - ' , t _f� _7, , ... . _ / / , 3 �� IeawaLI • �, L i ,v ' _ - + — �� -!!!,(+ " _- - � Le e.•',1 s -1, 1 � s _ - -- I t- . . ! —— I / . � I, �pQ t � ll a ti I ut' ' . n .. tea., ' a ] . ® la • r �� .� La = rCZO ��� Q ''!/ / `4 i�- 0.,/�� , - .; ,g' 1 , r 'a s It i� to I]i a >.1 as 51 � j /t / /:/f $. .. ,s , 'tr E. .] tV _I1t �/,'/tt f.S •• i.r..n&. 7S I.. ' tt L 41, H .....i , ........ r • r r i 1 I h t I\ `, __ J .. 5 QENTCu VILLAGE PL. /,/ �r 11 ' ti'a �� r-- iTTT i�T..,I.;I: M ---- lit CM �„ ,11. I1 i �'1 i` ,^I. ^�.,, . , I^ ., t t`"`t '..psi . T IRVING M. HULL R-394-79 • • . 1.1 IRVING M. HULLAPLICANT TOTAL AREA ±6, 000 s• -et _ i� PRINCIPAL ACCESS Via Burnett Avenue South — EX151INC, ZONING R-3, Residence Multiple Family EXISTING USE 2-story single family residence located on the ite PROPOSED USE Construction of 6-plex COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN High Density Multiple Family I COMMENTS - • II -t-1,••••srz,—=/=:/•.......^"..•, __=+umiiW76Rffi=2..mi-sTTaIDffroLr_:s=nvs.itt== -arrctia.ea:n=lerravra=§=MICalararam asctr.azsrama-...4..�...•.•:, ,....,Z,f.su.,.arx—,.R «- •,•-••+•........,,., DECLARATION OF /NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No . R-394-79 ® PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . 489-79 EPINAL Declaration Description of proposal Request rezone from R-3 to R-4 to permit construction of a 6-plex. Proponent IRVING M. HULL Location of Proposal Vicinity of 421 Burnett Avenue South Lead Agency CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT This proposal has been determined to 0 have EX not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS ® is made not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 (2 ) (c ) . This decision was m ade after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency . non Reasons for declaration of environmental /significance : The environmental checklist has been received and a negative declaration of environmental impact has been prepared based upon a maximum of 4 units. Measures , if any , that could be taken to prevent or mitigate the environmental impacts to such an extent that the lead agency would withdraw its declaration of significance and issue a ( /final ) declaration of non-significance : (1) A landscaping buffer adjacent to single family residential (2) No obstruction of light and area to adjacent single family residences . Responsible Official GORDON Y. ERICKSEN Title P ,a,ein• Dir-ctor August 22, 1979 �,►� Date Signature � �_l . 74 WA I F.' _ 111 -11 f: r' City of Renton // J Planning Department 5-76 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/•DIVISION: , Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved ((}g • Atjz;_o Signat"ure of Director or authorized Representative- Da e REVIEWIPJG DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: lv��:j Approved X Approved with conditions �/ .{// ))�� J ) No•t Approved .a�C�'L-'L'L C.. L.��Cl 'L chAt. / /CC--- / F.,-0, d d • 1 .i6/020 • • • e4'23 .. 17 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative �//y Date REVIEWIPJG DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved • • 727/4 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: • Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved ' ..r Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date • d R-394-79 Page Two . ' advised that approval of a rezone must be• justified by findings contained in Section 4-3014 of the Hearing Examiner Ordinance, and accordingly, the Planning Department had addressed the issue of whether or not timing is proper for reclassification of the subject property. . • • The Examiner requested final comments from the Planning Department staff. David Clemens, • Senior Planner, stated that although the department would not object ,to continuance of the matter as requested by the applicant, concern exists regarding compatible use of the subject site with adjoining single family residential uses which would not apply to business uses on the eastern side of Burnett Avenue South. He noted that'a public park will be located in 'the median area of the street which will provide buffering and screening between uses on the east and west. Responding to the applicant's 'statement regarding economic infeasibility of constructing • a four-plex on the site, the Examiner advised the option of withdrawing the application. ' • Mr. Hull requested an opportunity to further review the tatter With the Planning Department and discuss the matter at a continued public hearing. • The Examiner requested clarification of uses allowed in professional office buildings. Mr. Clemens advised the interpretation of the Planning Department that professionals' requiring significant education, such as architects, land planners, and health professionals, would be qualified for that classification, and real estate offices would not bean allowable use. • The Examiner indicated his preference of withdrawal of the application by the'applicant rather than continuation of the matter since no action has been taken on the application. Mr. Hull indicated his preference for continuance for the purpose Of further discussion of the matter with Planning Department staff. , Responding to the applicant's inquiry regarding procedures for withdrawal of the application • Or alternatives if a recommendation for denial is issued by the Examiner, the Examiner advised that the applicant would have the option of reapplying for rezone after a period of one year if denial is recommended, ' or withdrawal may be submitted prior to September 18, 1979, the, date of the continued hearing. ' The Examiner requested further comments.' Since there were none, the hearing regarding • File No. R-394-79 was closed by the Examiner at 9:40 a.m. and continued to September 18, 1979 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. CONTINUANCE: The hearing was. opened on'September 18; 1979 at 9:40 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The Examiner advised that Exhibit #4, Site Plan for 12-Plex, previously submitted has been determined irrelevant to, the subject application, and he requested that the exhibit be withdrawn. The exhibit was subsequently returned to Mr. Hull and officially withdrawn from the rezone file: • The Examiner requested a status report from Roger Blaylock, Associate Planner, regarding review of new information supplied by the applicant. following the previous public hearing. Mr. .Blaylock indicated that evaluation of new information and review of existing recommendations' contained in Exhibit -#1 had occurred, but the position of the Planning :: Department staff remains as denoted in the exhibit due to potential impact to existing single family residences to the south if the requested R-4 zoning is granted. The Examiner requested testimony by the applicant. .Mr. Hull advised that recent research relating to existing uses surrounding the site had revealed the existence of several ;,. multifamily residential buildings west of Burnett Avenue South. He: submitted three photographs depicting these structures to illustrate existing uses in .the .area. The q photographs were entered into the record by the Examiner as follows: li - .; . Exhibit #14: Structure located at corner of Burnett Avenue S. ';'ri 'Exhibit #15: Multiplex unit on west side of Burnett Avenue S. ' ,,'a' ' Exhibit #16: Multiplex unit on Smithers Avenue S. located F: • • • west of the site p . Mr. Hull advised that although the structure depicted in Exhibit #14 appears to be a single ?:., family.residence, it is his understanding that it contains six small apartment units, and ''' , he ointed out in they hoto ra h the existence of four mailboxes ,in front of the buildin._:;; P� P g P �. blinding. a''' ' ' The Examiner re uested further'.comments in su-' or-,opposition to the request.' There was September 21, 1'.79 • OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON • REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICANT: •Irving W. Hull FILE NO. R-394- 9 LOCATION: Vicinity of 421 Burnett Avenue South. • SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests a rezone from R-3 to R-4 on the subjec. site to permit construction of a six-plex residential str cture. • • SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Denial • RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner.: Denial PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department preliminary report was received b the REPORT: Examiner on August. 22, 1979. • PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and f'eld • checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: • The hearing was opened on August 28, 1979 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of t e 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• review=d the Planning Department_ report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit # . Roger Blaylock, Associate'Planner, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered the following a.ditional exhibits into the record: • Exhibit #2: King.County Assessor's Map Exhibit #3: Site Plan as submitted Mr. Blaylock •corrected Section L.3 of Exhibit #1 in which the words "east" and "wes." in lines one and three, respectively, should be interchanged. The Examiner requested testimony by the applicant. Responding was: • Irving W. Hull 13544 S.E. 161st Place ' • Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Hull briefly reviewed the background of purchase of the subject property which 's designated as high density multifamily residential use on the city's Comprehensive .'lan, and advised his original intent for real estate office purposes or a 12=plex multif.mily residential use. He submitted an architectural rendering for the multifamily resid=ntial proposal which was entered as follows by the Examiner: ' Exhibit #4: Site Plan for 12-Plex • Mr. Hull stated that subsequent to discovery of existence .of density restrictions o the site, he revised the proposal to accommodate a six-plex residential building which ad • been currently denied by the Planning Department in its recommendation contained in Exhibit #1. Further discussion .with Planning Department staff had revealed that th . existence of L-1 zoning east 'of the site containing business uses had. not been consi•ered in the Planning Department analysis, which the applicant felt was pertinent in,support 'i;` • of the requested rezone. Mr. Hull reviewed business uses in the general.vicinity, . d to su ort his statements submitted ninephotographs de ictin surroundin uses 'which were Pp � depicting g. entered into the record by the Examiner. as follows: • • .Exhibit #5 - 13: Photographs of Site and Vicinity • Mr. Hull requested continuance of the hearing to enable further review of new infor ation F'r. by, the 'Planning Department and .the applicant, noting his objection to denial of the equest • . + The Examiner clarified that following review, he would provide a recommendation to m-tubers ' {',', . . of•.the, City Council who would make the final decision regarding the matter. He also • R-394-79 Page Four 2. A request to permit zoning to comply with the Comprehensive Plan's ultimate zoning designation for an area in which the subject property is located is not enough. - • The requested changes must also be suitable in terms of the 'character of the adjacent properties and the character of the neighborhood. That is, the proposal must be timed so that it does not lead to premature decay of an established land use type. The subject property is located in what is still basically a single family area. The block front along the' west side of Burnett Avenue S. is primarily single family • in character and is separated from the more intense zoning to the west along Smithers Avenue S. by a 16-foot wide alley. Traditional zoning principles generally prefer to have different intensities of zoning back each other rather than face or adjoin each other sideways. That is currently the case with the zoning districts in which the subject. property is located, R-3, and the R-4 district to its rear. In addition, while the property to the rear is zoned R-4, it is still .in single family development. . Only to the south has the use begun to intensify and only in a limited, manner. • . 3. While the area to the east across Burnett Avenue S. is zoned L-1, the uses developed • • are much less intense, retail, commercial and residential. Burnett in the vicinity • of the subject property is very wide and a linear park is scheduled to be constructed, thereby preserving the separate single family character of the west side in which the • subject site is located. . 4. The potential level Of development on the site varies from four units and six parking spaces to the proposed six units and nine parking spaces. The impact of the additional units, greater parking demands and smaller setbacks and yards, is inappropriate when the adjoining structures on three sides are single family dwellings. Even the present zoning (four-plex) permits development density four times as great as present use of adjacent property. 5. The transition of the.area in which the subject property is located has been slow • traditionally. The rezones which have occurred in the area east of the subject site in the vicinity of Williams Avenue S. have been to the less intense R-3 classification, further indicating that the area is not yet ripe for conversion to the Comprehensive Plan's ultimate designation of the area for high density multifamily residential. The • requested change is untimely. . 6. The requested rezone for R-3 to R-4 should be denied since it would not serve the public welfare and would mainly benefit the applicant and lead to premature decay of neighboring properties. RECOMMENDATION: The requested rezone should be denied. ORDERED THIS 21st clay of September, 1979. \C'43AlliaLli . Fred J. Kauf n ' Land Use Hearing Examiner . TRANSMITTED THIS 21st day of September, 1979 by Affidavit of Mailing to the party of record: ' Irving W. Hull, 13544. S.E. 161st Place, Renton, WA 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 21st day of September, 1979 to the following:. ' Mayor 'Charles J. Delaurenti . ,. Councilman Richard M. Stredicke ' Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director . "' Michael Hanis, Planning Commission Chairman. . . f;, Ron Nelson', Building Division . '�' Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney #:: R'F. Pursuant to Title IV,, 'Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must E `: be filed in writing on or before October 5, 1979. Any aggrieved person feeling that the 4L decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of- law or fact, error in judginent,, or.the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at `s the, prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen 1 (•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 ' r. ; ecord, take further action as •he deems proper. • • • • • R-394-79 Page Three no response. He- then requested final comments from the Planning Department staff. r. • Blaylock inquired if the structure denoted in Exhibit #16 is located directly behind the subject site. Mr. Hull advised the location of -the structure to the south of the s 'eject property. The Examiner requested further comments.. Since there were none,' the hearing regard'ng . File No. R-394-79 was closed by the Examiner at .9:45 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS:. Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: • FINDINGS: • 1. The request is fora rezone of +6,000 square feet of property from R-3 (medium eensity multifamily) to .R-4,•(high density multifamily) to permit construction of a six-,ilex. • 2. The Planning Department report sets forth the issues, applicable policies and provisions, findings of fact; and departmental recommendations in this matter, and is 'hereb; attached as Exhibit #1 and incorporated in this report by reference as set forth in full therein. 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's' Environmental Ordinance. and the State Environm ntal . Policy Act of 1971, R.C.W. 43.21.C. , as amended, a Declaration of Non-Significa ce has been issued for the subject proposal by Gordon Y. Ericksen, responsible off cial. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by t e . impact of this development. • 5. All existing .utilities are available and in close proximity. 6. The subject property is part of the original plat of the City of Renton. The c rrent zoning,, R-3, was applied with the enactment of the original zoning ordinance in 1953. 7.. The site is essentially level. . A single family residence is located on the subject property. 8. The present zoning for the site is' R-3 which permits the construction of medium density multifamily housing on the property. The present zoning would permit the construction of a four-plex on the subject property. 9. The requested reclassification would permit the construction of six units on th- subject property. • 10. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject property is potentially suit-isle for the development of high density multifamily housing in the area in which t e subject property is located. • 11. The zoning in the area is a mixture of zoning classifications. Burnett Avenue S. is the dividing,line between both more intense zoning and more intense actual dev=lopment. On the east side of Burnett Avenue S. , property is zoned L-1 (light industry) . The uses developed in the L-1 zone are mixed including single family residential, ulti- family apartments, and some commercial/retail uses. • The area to the west of the subject property fronting along Smithers Avenue S. is zoned R-4 but the predominant land use is single family residential with a cou'ele of recent more intense uses being developed. • • The property' directly. adjacent to the subject property from all outward appear-nces is single family residential. The area has been consistent in preserving its ingle. family character. ' • • 12. The six units which could be developed on the site would require nine parking .-paces. The site plan the- applicant submitted was inadequate since maneuvering space far the parking would be on-street and therefore in violation of the provisions of the Parking and Loading Ordinance (Section 4-2202;1) . !• 13. The uses fronting Burnett Avenue S. on the west side are separated from the R zoning along Smithers by a 16-foot wide alley. The Burnett Avenue S. Linear Park wil segregate the western block front -of Burnett from the uses on the east .side. CONCLUSIONS: • 1. The applicant'has failed .to demonstrate the appropriateness of the requested rezone of the subject property. The proponent of a rezone must. demonstrate that cond tions at the time of the request indicate that 'the requested change would serve the �'ublic ;welfare or that the changes would not have a detrimental• effect on neighboring • : j properties. R-394-79 Page Five . • 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 $25.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall, or same may be purchased at cost in said department. • • • • • • • • • • • • • L. • • Y'i. e.�' , _ :.... .cam.."1....- _ a .• a :z-.' ..::', . ., ..1,..,,,,..„- i n:risatti' •.---:1*4"..-1., 7 Sk I.;,,--:.::4-t•Paiiim:P"4.- ":L;, , N i 1.,..ic6,......,;47,.,,,-: .11 --. ..2.?...,. 'it. • ./-(0,•-..-,.., ....,...v- , •, .:.,. o..;:.c::...f4•,..--.c f•-'.^.-'4;'r. .:1Ii,.!.• •. „t..‘..,..A,—,,.''.,....i.r.t„,t.e........t„..'I,„ ,,..,..p-:.. . ,-4F,i,A-117.,:.;•-;..'...',.h,,.4.t..4.\o,.....'. ....1..1'... Rti4 ; 1'I111,i1 y -o',,s..RL,,• .i.l,•....•.••..l._,„4.......-.;.-.,.•.....';•.....•',.3 ,+ :S •N'1•'' , ,• 1/6ERTY /s.',/. ,,, 'i?-.•':•.1..c' ;.;1.1I hAi, •�....+� _ T- PARK `;' • ':,... .•/ f•,•"••••..'.•. 15 91 It S '• A C �J,, 1 • J Il 4 / - ice• 1� R�/ 7M Hr0Y lJyN104 it. y, i P .J �, � �'ay .. ' .''_. _I.: U • Y-w0.)1 •J1,M00L J i ;1 I� 4. �-e(' , L1 .a�i. • , mil, . _ ti.s,:r W, . 1._...� i 1..�t • ��j1' . Ai i J i 1 1 / . tt L .1 ti i. 1, a t • !1 .1,. '1. ' .f�,IPt+ a , • ' _ fb ol py • ,•.' tllsfldb'•'L11.ee1L'. • , • •`•--• � I C, L �v,'a:•a +'- .. 'i 1 a u tJ .' --m , ,t 0 . :?.Z.1 1-4-43' . :I Bi: '. ,,,•• ,r. , - ,,,,, f' as '• • �+a•• -_Itiaa' �' 1 -'�.r • tt r j4 q E3.7:17a ,L ! ..+ '-r -+ i N Z, _ �1,.�.� ', r„� - I ,� -' N nn y tit -i a �•�: • ' "-'�� ai.. flki:Fl.,-L,i-t. c '7� - -: � • `'7 ID '' ! I -••a-- tom, 1 l . " • 1/ 1. ,1 .� - • 4 • - I • �•5� • ILA- i +4-. w � `' . ei.4.Lii: , S•(1 I`--4..� • .i 1• 'a+ . `.!. I -., � I .. 'c b • •• • y, i .. _ _._ ,, r ,i Rom. !,1: , u / .rl �� n I u 1i .. 11 ' a (, • ,. / / , • ]•,�'R_ - ./ , 4 , S. ` ,, ,1 I M Si - M IS • �� I 1 ' r t , 1 H OD 1 . !•',1'I' �. a. , It 1\' ' `\ --'y-vcNrnulian o ,• _ '':. ,..:: ._ .- . . 4 , I •"''�f' 1- I I. 1 1:i, , ! , . .di, ':, • . :/ •'s:'- n,- •'''. 4..8x slw l nD•8 14 .ard,•• M..' O.\ ,1 AL--•-'-, .• 1 l 1 • •k IRVING M. 'HULL - + • •R-394-79 , • ,'11'f'L 1 CAN 1 IRVING .M. • HULL TOTAL AREA : 'l6 :000 sq_ fo-t ' t'a • PRINCIPAL ACCESS Via Burnett Avenue. South • ';'`'l Cxf'S•'1'INi: ZONII1G • ' R-.3,' Residence Multiple Family' . ' '. 2-story single family residence .located on the site •11 LX1STING 'USE ___ PROROS'EU, USE Construction of 6-plex • C E ' High Density Multiple Family ' COMPR' HN$1 V L.AND US •LAN g _ ' COMME,NT',5.' .. e • a ' .y ,a, �.f' .ti ,•. Z3 v{ti; 1.Si. , y 1 t i. t 4% .1 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING State of Washington) County of King ) Marilyn J. Petersen , being first duly sworn, upon oath disposes and states: That on the 21st day of September. , 1979 , of f iant 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. 5k" ` Subscribed and sworn this 2\\ - day of SP\ e vv\b P C 19 `l9 . k9,M91( \r\r\ - Notary Public in and forthe State: . of Washington, residing atIRenton ' f s, Application, Petition or Case: Irving W. Hull; R-394-79 (The minutes contain a .eat ob the panties of necond) • • OF • R8 THE. CITY. OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 9C.055 • o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 90 `O FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 0gTEO s•EFA°1'�P September 28, 1979 • Members, Renton City Council Renton, Washington • RE: File No. R-394-79; Irving W. Hull; Request for Rezone. Dear Council Members: Attached is the Examiner's Report and Recommendation regarding the referenced rezone, request, dated September 21, 1979. The appeal. period for the application expires on October 5, 1979, and the report is being forwarded to you for review by the Planning and Development Committee following the seven day period from the date of publication. The complete file will be transmitted to the City Clerk on October 8, 1979,, and will be placed on the Council agenda on October 15, 1979. .If you require additional assistance or information regarding this matter, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Fred J. .Kaufman Hearing Examiner. • cc: Planning Department City Clerk Attachment • • LAW ❑FFICES KARGIANIS & AUSTIN GEORGE KARGIANIS 2120 PACIFIC BUILDING TELEPHONE: JAMES S. MUNN • THIRD AVENUE & COLUMBIA STREET 624-5370 RUSSELL A. AUSTIN, JR. AREAI CODE 206 DON M. GULLIFORD SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9B104 CABLE ADDRESS: JOHN I.WESTON, JR. "LAWKAi U" SEATTLE RONALD P. ERICKSON BRUCE A.WOLF ANTHONY W. DOUGHERTY II October 4 , 1979 ' Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Land Use . Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 re: Irving W. Hull Dear Mr. Kaufman: This office has been retained by Mr. Irving W. Hull to represent him of his requested re-zone of his property in the vicinity of 421 Burnett Avenue South. The file number is R-394-79 . This letter is a written request of reconsideration of your recommen dation to the Renton City Council on this matter. This request , is based upon our •assertion that. certain errors of law and fact were made in coming to your decision. These will be outlined below. Insufficient weight was given to the fact that the requested re-zone would have changed the zoning of the property to comply ) with the comprehensive plan. The role of ,the comprehensive plan viz a viz zoning ordinances has produced a great deal of contro-1 versy around the nation. The Washington statutes on this subject are as follows : RCW 35 .63 . 090 provides : All -regulations shall be worked out as parts of a ' comprehensive plan which each. commission I shall prepare for the physical and other general 1 advantageous development of municipality. . . RCW 35.A..63 .080 and .100 provides : From the date of approval by the legislative body the comprehensive plan, its parts and modifications thereof, shall serve as a basic source of reference for future legislative and administrative action. RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER OCT 51979 AM p1A 7181911011111Z,1 o 213141'51&" Mr. Fred J. Kaufman October 4, 1979 Page Two Similarly for counties, RCW 36 70 .550 states : From time to time, the planning agency may, or if requested by the board shall, cause to be prepared official controls which, when adopted by ordinance by the board, will further the objectives and goals of the comprehensive plan. The planning agency may also draft such regulations, programs and legislation as may, in its judgment, be required to preserve the integrity of the comprehensive plan" and assure its systematic execution, and the planning agency may recommend such plans, regulations, programs, and legislation to the board for adoption. The Washington Supreme Courtin State ex rel. Standard Mining v. Auburn, '82 Wn. 2d 321, 330 , 510 P.2d 647 (1973) held: That a city which adopts such a plan should be guided by it in its zoning regulations until it is amended in the manner prescribed by statute or repealed. Similarly, the court in Shelton v. Bellevue, 73 "Wn.2d 28 , 35, 435 P.2d 949 (1968) "has stated: Planning, as - such, then in effect forms a blueprint for the various regulatory measures it suggests. Municipal "zoning" on the other hand, is, in effect, a part of and an end result or product of effective municipal "planning, " for it is through the medium of enacted and enforceable zoning regulations that the aims and objectives of the land-use classification facet of over- all municipal "planning" may be carried to fruition. Mr. Fred J. Kaufman October 4 , 1979 Page Three The California courts have stated that a comprehensive plan is a "constitution for all future development within the city. " O'Loane v. O'Rourke, 231 Ca.App.2nd 774 , 782 , 42 C.Rpt. 283 and 288 (1965) . The Oregon courts are in general agreement'. O'Loane v. O'Rourke was quoted with approval in Baker v. Milwaukee, 533 P . 2d 772 : The adoption of the general plan, is , in effect, the adoption of a policy, and in many respects , entirely new policy. The plan is of permanent general character, it is a declaration of public purpose, and, as such, supposedly sets forth what kind of a city the community wants and, supposedly, represents the judgment of the electors of the city with reference to the phy- sical form and character of the city is to assume. Whether referred to as a "blueprint, " "guide" or "constitution, " courts in Washington and other jurisdictions have stressed the controlling nature of the comprehensive plan. Similar impor- tance is placed upon the comprehensive plans by the Washington statutes quoted above. This is not to say that a request for a zoning change to comply with the comprehensive plan must always be blindly granted. Although not solely determinative upon the issue, the fact that the requested re-zone would be to comply with the comprehensive plan should have received considerable weight in the decision making process. In numerous court decisions it has been held that the comprehensive plan should not be undermined by the granting of re-zones that do not comply with the plan. It is submitted that the Renton comprehensive plan should not be undermined by the reluctance to implement the plan. A blueprint or constitution is of little worth if the proper authorities refuse to implement it. The Planning Department Report is incorporated into your findings and forms at least some part of the basis of your recommendation. I would like to take issue with their analysis . Mr. Fred J. Kaufman October 4 , 1979 Page Four I am referring specifically to Section L. of the Planning Department' s Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner. Section L.l: The Department correctly states that the requested re-zone is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It was inappro- priate to qualify that statement by stating that north and south Renton are presently under study by a committee of the Planning Commission. The unstated implication is that it is being studied with the view to change the comprehensive plan. It is inappropriate that this area should remain static on any ground that it is being studied. The above quoted decision of Standard Mining v. Auburn, supra, makes it clear that the comprehensive plan should be followed until it is changed. Your decision should not be based upon any anticipated change of the comprehensive plan may never occur. Section L.2 : The Department states that the transition in the area from single-family residence to multiple family has been historically slow'. Historically this may be true, but the facts in the record all indicate that the recent trend of change to multiple residence has incurred at an increasingly faster pace. This is especially true in the area to the south of the property. Section 'L.3 : It is stated on page 1 of the Hearing Examiner 's Report that in Section L.3 the words east and west should be inter- changed. It is submitted that rezones to R-3 located 400 to 600 feet 'east of the property are not relevant. Such rezones would be in the L-1 area across Burnett Avenue and behind the strip of commercial, and multiple family residences on Burnett Avenue. it is also submitted that if you consider these re- zones that are 400 to 600 feet to the east, you should also consider the numerous and recent changes to multi-family use that are located within a radius of 400 to 600 feet of the subject property. Mr. Fred J. Kaufman October 4 , 1979 Page Five Sections L. 5 and L.6 : These sections state that there is a single-family residence to the north of the subject property. This is factually in error. As pointed out by Mr. Hull in his testimony and in the picture he presented, the structure to the north has been divided into four to six apartment units even though it was originally built as a single-family residence. It is impor- tant to note that when the hearing reconvened after the con- tinuance, the recommendation of the Planning Department remained the same, but the reason was "due to potential impact to existing single-family residences to the south if the requested R-4 zoning is granted. " (emphasis added) I believe this is a tacit admission by the Planning Department that they made a mistake in the character of the property immediately to the north, and was relying solely on impact of the residences to the south. Section L.8 : The Department suggests that the lack of re-zones from R-3 to R-4 may show that the plan over evaluated capacities of the neighborhood. In the past, this area has been single-family residences. But the current trend of the area, especially to the south, is toward more intense multiple-residence uses. The area is changing, and beginning to change much more rapidly. We are at a point where the potential capacities of the neighborhood, as suggested on the comprehensive plan, are now starting to be fulfilled. The Planning Department's analysis of the situation is some- what weak. The complete failure to discuss the adjacent L-1 zone to the east, as well as their failure to discover the high density multiple-residence use immediately adjacent to the subject property, shows inadequate investigation and analysis. The errors in the Planning Department 's analysis and investiga- tion has lead to some errors in your findings as found in the report and recommendation to the City Council. More specifically, Finding No. 11 contains errors . Although I would take issue with several of the statements in Finding No. 11, the crux of the matter comes down to the statement that "the area has been consistent in preserving its single-family character. To refute this statement, I would Mr. Fred J. Kaufman October 4 , 1979 Page Six like to review the character of the neighborhood within a two-block radius of the subject property. The property immediately adjacent to the north is a unit built as a single-family residence, but is being used as a multiple- residence for four to six apartments.. The statement that the "outward appearance" of the property is that of a single-family residence is clearly inadequate. This is a very important point. Every means should be taken definitely to determine the character of this adjacent property. Further- more, with four mailboxes outside the house, not even the appearance of the premises is that of a single-family resi- dence. Continuing further to the north, there is a side street, railroad tracks, and some sort of railroad station. To the west of the subject property, there is an alley and the houses on the block abutting the alley are single-family. On the block immediately to the south of those single-family residences there are five four-plexes. Immediately- to the south of the subject property, there is a single-family residence, but three houses down there is a four-plex. The next block to the south also has a four-plex. Directly to the east, is Burnett Avenue. Across Burnett Avenue is a Veterans of Foreign Wars Club. Going south on that block, there are various businesses , single-family residences. The next block to the south, on the east side of Burnett Avenue, has five four-plexes and one large complex that appears to contain twenty to forty units. The above review of the neighborhood from a one to two block area shows that the area is not of single-family character. It is important to note that the Planning Commission's decision is based upon potential impact on the area to the south. Exhibit No. 16 pertains to a multiplex unit to the south. Even your own Conclusion No. 2 states that "only to the south has the use begun to intensify. . . " As my above review of the neighborhood graphically demonstrates , it is to the south that the uses are most intense. Mr. Fred J. Kaufman October 4 , 1979 Page Seven Finding No. 13 deals with the supposed buffer effect of the alley to the west and the planned linear park to the east. It is unclear how much of a buffer this sixteen-foot alley actually is between R-4 zone to the west and the subject property. It is submitted that if the alley does act as a buffer, then it will serve to separate Mr. Hull ' s proposed six-plex from the single family residence to the west. As for the linear park on Burnett Avenue, it is very unclear how much weight can be placed upon a park that is not yet built; but is, in fact, only in the design stage. Even if the park is built, it will not effectively segregate the subject property from the light industrial zone to the east. A few more points should be made. In Conclusion No. 2 , there is discussed a matter that traditional zoning principals preferred different intensities of zoning back to back rather than sideways. There is already a multiple resident to the north of the property. The difference in impact between a permitted four-plex and the requested six-plex, on the property to the south, is minimal. Furthermore, "traditional zoning principals" recognize that it is generally preferable that there be a gradual change in the zones from less intense to the more intense. Currently, this R-3 zone sandwiched in between two more intense zones; the R-4 zone to the west and south, and the L-1 zone to the east. In conclusion, this neighborhood is in the process of change into more intense multiple-residence uses. These changes have become more and more rapid in recent years . The adjacent property immediately to the north is already being used as a multiple residence unit. There are numerous multiple residence units within a close proximity to the subject property. The area is changing into more intense uses which is exactly what the comprehensive plan has stated for the area. The fact that the requested: re-zone would change the property into conformance with the comprehensive plan should be given the strongest possible consideration. The comprehensive plan, acting as a blue- print or constitution, should not be undermined and frustrated by the refusal to put it into effect. For these reasons, your Mr. Fred J. Kaufman October 4 , 1979 Page Eight recommendation to the City Council should be to grant the requested rezone. If I can be of any help to you as you reconsider this matter, please feel free to contact me, Very truly yours, KARGIANIS & AUSTIN #3:2721,--1,4r .,-. 7;tttr- rk Fortier MF:jd • ) • OF 1 0 THE CITY OF RENTON Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 n oa.m. CHA• RLES J. DELAURENTI p MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 90 43. • FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 O,Q• 17. 0 SEP1°4# October 9, 1979 ' • Members, Renton City Council Renton, Washington RE: File No. R-394-79; Irving W. Hull Rezone; Request for Reconsideration. • Dear Council Members: The Examiner's Report and Recommendation, dated September 21, 1979, was • forwarded to .you on September 28, 1979, and was scheduled for placement on the City Council agenda on October 15, 1979. On October 5, 1979, a request for reconsideration of the Examiner's recommendation was received within the appeal period previously. established. Subsequent to review, the Examiner found that no basis exists upon which to change the original recommendation and a letter to that effect was transmitted to'the applicant's attorney on October 9, 1979. The request for reconsideration and the Examiner's response are attached for your review. A new -Appeal period has been established to expire on October 23, 1979. If no further appeal of the matter is received, the Examiner's recommendation will be placed on the City Council agenda of November 5, 1979. If you require further information or assistance regarding.this matter, please. contact our office. • Sincerely, . 1.0)-4t-r' Fred J. Nufman Hearing Examiner cc: Planning. Department City Clerk O� • 4 f> � x.. 0 THE CITY OF RENTON • .. a MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 �. ma ; oMEMO CHARLES J. DELAURENTI ► MAYOR ® LAND USE.HEARING EXAMINER 9q co FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235:2593 0gt-D SEPq°' • October 9, 1979 • Mr. Mark Fortier Law Offices, Kargianis & Austin 2120 Pacific Building Third Avenue and Columbia Street Seattle, WA 98104 RE: • File No. R-394-79; Irving W. Hull Rezone; Request for Reconsideration. • • Dear Mr. Fortier: • I have received and reviewed your request for reconsideration and find as indicated below that there is no basis upon which to change the original • recommendation submitted to the City Council. • The facts and issues raised by your .request for reconsideration were more than adequately presented.by Mr. Hull at the hearing. The developments to • which you refer are occurring in areas already zoned for more intense' development. As you point out, there seems to be more than sufficient land zoned R-4 (high ,density multifamily) or L-1 (light industry) in the vicinity to meet the present demand and ,serve the public welfare. The request to rezone this parcel to R-4 is untimely, the block front in which it is located is still predominantly single family in character and the question of the intensity of use of the adjoining northern lot, if in excess of permitted density, has no bearing on the subject property. ' The requested rezone is not in the best interest of the public and the density on the lot would increase by a factor of 50% if the R-4 zone were granted. • Again, I believe the facts and issues were. fully explored in the hearing and in the deliberations. The Comprehensive Plan was considered and weighed along. with the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the parcel. Therefore, the recommendation to the City Council is still to deny the rezone. Pursuant to Title IV, Section 4-3016 of the City's Code, you may preserve your right to appeal to the City Council by filing a letter of appeal and associated fee • to the City Clerk on or before October 23, 1979. Sincerely, • Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Parties of Record City Council Members • Planning Department City Clerk LAW OFFICES KARGIANIS & AUSTIN • DEOPILr. KAROIANIS 2120 PACIFIC BUILDING TELEPHONE: JAnu.6 s. r-+UNN THIRD AVENUE. & COLUMBIA STREET624 6370 R 115S F.LI, A AUSTIN, JR. AREA LODE :206 6UIJ IA. T:UI.LIFORD SEATTLE. WAS HIN G'TON 9U104 CAR LE ADDRESS: •'LAWKAU" SEATTLE JOHN I. WESTON. JR. • RONALO P. ERICKSON U RU CE A,WOLF ANTHONY W. OCUGHERTY • • October 4 , 1979 • • Mr . . Fred J. Kaufman • • Land Use Hearing Examiner City of Renton • 200 Mill. Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 . • re: , Irving W. Hull Dear Mr. Kaufman: This office has ' been retained by Mr. Irving W. Hull to represent him of his requested re-zone of his property in the vicinity of 421 Burnett Avenue South. The file number is . R-394-79 . This letter is a written request of reconsideration of your recommen- dation to the Renton City Council on' this matter. This request is based upon our assertion that certain errors of _law and fact were 'made in coming to your decision. These will be outlined below. • • Insufficient weight was given to the fact that the 'requested re-zone . wOuld have changed the zoning of the property to comply with 'the comprehensive plan. ' The 'role of the comprehensive plan viz a viz zoning ordinances has produced a great deal of contro- versy around the nation. The Washington statutes on this subject are as follows: . RCW 35.63 .090 provides: All regulations shall be worked out as parts of a comprehensive plan which each commission, shall prepare - for the physical and other general advantageous development of municipality. . . RCW 35.A.63 .080 and .100 provides : From the date of approval by the legislative body the comprehensive plan, its parts and modifications thereof, shall serve as a basic source of reference for future legislative and • administrative action. . RECEIVED . CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER OCT 51979 AM • • 718191IO1111I211121314151f#' • A • • • 1f' Mr. Fred -J. Kaufman October 4 , 1979 Page Two Similarly' for counties, RCW 36 .70 . 550 states : From time to time , the planning agency may, or if requested by the board shall , cause to be prepared official controls which, when adopted by ordinance by the board, will further • the objectives and goals of the comprehensive • plan. The planning agency may also draft such regulations , programs and legislation as may, in its judgment, be required to preserve the integrity of the comprehensive plan and assure its systematic execution, and the planning agency may recommend, such plans, regulations , programs, and legislation to the board for • adoption The Washington ,Supreme Court in State ex rel. Standard Mining v. Auburn, 82 Wn. 2d 321 , 330 , 510 P.2d 647 (1973) held: That a city which adopts such a plan should be guided by it in its zoning regulations until it is amended in the manner prescribed by statute or repealed. Similarly, the court in Shelton v. Bellevue, 73 Wn. 2d 28 , 35 , 435 P. 2d 949 (1968) has stated: Planning, as' such, then in effect forms a blueprint for the various regulatory measures it suggests. • Municipal ."zoning" : on the. other hand, is , in effect, a part of and an end result or product of effective municipal "planning, " for 'it is through the medium of enacted and enforceable . zoning regulations that the aims and objectives of the land-use classification facet of over- all municipal "planning" may be carried to fruition. • • • Mr. Fred J. Kaufman October 4 , 1979 Page Three • The California courts have stated that" a comprehensive plan • is a "constitution for all future development within the city. " ' O'Loane v. O'Rourke, 231 Ca.App.2nd 774 , 782 , 42 C.Rpt. 283 and 288 (1965) . • • The Oregon courts are in general , agreement. O'Loane v. O'Rourke was quoted with approval in Baker v. Milwaukee , 533 P . 2d 772 : The adoption of the general plan, is , in effect, the adoption of a policy, and in many respects , entirely new policy. The plan is of permanent general character, it is a declaration of public purpose,' and, as such, supposedly sets forth what kind of a • city the community wants and, supposedly, represents the judgment of the electors of the city with reference to the phy- sical form and character of the city is to assume. Whether referred to as a "blueprint, " "guide" or "constitution, " • courts in Washington and other jurisdictions have stressed. the controlling nature 'of the comprehensive plan. Similar impor- tance is placed upon the comprehensive plans by the Washington statutes quoted above. This is not to say that a request for a zoning. change to' comply with the comprehensive plan must always be blindly granted: Although not solely determinative upon the issue, the fact that the requested re-zone. would 'be to comply with. the comprehensive plan should have received considerable weight in the. decision making process. In numerous court decisions it has been held that the comprehensive plan should not be undermined by the granting of re-zones that do not comply with the plan. It is 'submitted that the ,Renton comprehensive plan should not be undermined by the reluctance to implement " the plan. A. blueprint or constitution is of little worth if . the proper authorities refuse to implement it. The Planning Department Report is incorporated into your findings and forms at least 'some part of the basis of your recommendation. I would like to take issue with their analysis . • • Mr. Fred J. Kaufman October 4 , 1979 Page Four • I .am referring specifically to Section L. of the Planning Department' s Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner . Section L. 1 : The Department correctly states that the requested re-zone is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It ,was inappro- priate to qualify that statement by stating that north and south Renton are presently under study by a committee' of the Planning Commission. The unstated implication is that it is being studied with the view to change the comprehensive plan. It is inappropriate that this area should remain static on any ground that it is being studied. The above quoted decision of Standard Mining v. Auburn, supra, makes it clear that the comprehensive plan should be followed until it is changed. Your decision should not be based upon any anticipated change of the comprehensive plan may never occur. Section L.2: The Department states that the transition in the area from single-.family residence to multiple family has been historically slow. Historically this may be true, but the facts in the ' record all, indicate that. the recent trend of change to multiple residence has . incurred at an increasingly faster pace. This is especially true in the area to. the south of the property. Section L. 3 : It is stated on page 1 of the Hearing Examiner ' s Report that in .Section Sectio L.3 the words east and west should be inter- changed. �It is submitted that .rezones to R-3 located 400 to 600 feet east of the property are not relevant. Such rezones would :be in the L=1 area across . Burnett Avenue and behind the strip of commercial, and multiple family residences on Burnett Avenue. It is also submitted that if you consider these re- zones that are 4.00 to 600 feet to .the east,. you should also consider the numerous and recent changes to multi-family use that are located within a radius of 400 to 600 feet of the • subject property. • • • • • • Mr. Fred J. Kaufman October . 4 , 1979 Page Five • • Sections L. 5 and L.6 : • These sections state that there is a single-family residence to the north of the subject property. This is factually in error.. As pointed out, by Mr. Hull in his testimony and in the picture he presented, the structure to the north has been divided into four to six .apartment units even though it 'was originally built as a single-family residence. It is impor- • • tant to note that when the hearing reconvened after the con- tinuan,ce, the recommendation of the Planning Department remained the same, but the reason was "due to potential impact to existing single-family residences to the .south if the requested R-4 zoning is . granted. " (emphasis added) I believe this is a tacit admission by the Planning Department that they made a, mistake in, the character of the property . immediately to the north, and was relying solely on impact of the residences to the south. • Section L.8 :' The Department suggests that the lack of re-zones from R-3. to R-4 may show that the plan over evaluated capacities of the • neighborhood.. In .the past, this area has been single-family residence's. But the current trend of the area, especially to the south; is toward more intense multiple-residence uses. The area is changing, and beginning to change much more rapidly. We are at a point where the potential. capacities of the neighborhood, as suggested on the comprehensive plan, are now starting to be fulfilled. The Planning Department's analysis, of the situation ,is some- what weak. The complete failure to discuss the adjacent L-1 zone to the east, as well as their failure _to discover the high density multiple-residence use immediately. adjacent to the subject property, shows inadequate investigation and analysis . The errors in the Planning Department 's analysis and investiga- • tion has lead to , some errors in your 'findings as found in the report and recommendation to the City Council. More specifically, Finding No. 11 contains errors . Although I would take issue with several of the statements in Finding No. 11, the crux of the matter comes down to the statement that "the area has been • consistent in preserving its single-family character. To refute this statement, I would • • • Mr. Fred J. Kaufman October 4 , 1979 Page Six • • like to review the character of the neighborhood within a two-block radius of 'the subject property. The: property immediately adjacent to the north is a unit 'built as a' single-family residence, but is being used as a multiple- residence for four to six apartments.' The statement that the "outward appearance" of the property is that of. a single-family residence is clearly inadequate. This is a • very important point. Every means should be taken definitely to determine the character of this adjacent property. Further- more, with four mailboxes outside the house, not even the appearance Of the premises is that of a single-family resi- dence. Continuing further to. the north, there is a side street, railroad tracks, and some sort of railroad station. To the west of the subject property, there is an alley and. • the houses, on the block abutting the alley are single-family. On' the block immediately to the south of those single-family residences there are five four-plexes. Immediately to the south of the subject 'property, there is. a single-family residence, but three houses down there is a four-plex. The next block to the south also has. a four-plex. Directly to the east, is Burnett Avenue. Across Burnett Avenue is a Veterans of Foreign Wars Club. Going south on that block, there are various businesses , single-family .residences. The next block to the south, on the east side of 'Burnett Avenue, has , five four-plexess and one large complex that appears to contain twenty to forty .units. The above review of the neighborhood from a .one -to two block area shows that the area is not of single-family character. It is . important to note that the Planning Commission' s decision is based upon. potential impact on the area to the south. Exhibit No. 16 pertains to a multiplex unit to the south. Even your own Conclusion No. 2 states that "only to the south has the use begun to intensify. .." As my above review of the ' neighborhood graphically demonstrates, it is to the south that the uses are most intense. • • • • Mr. Fred J. Kaufman October 4 , 1979 Page Seven • • • Finding. No. 13 deals with the supposed buffer effect of the • alley to the west and the planned linear park to the 'east. It is unclear how much of a buffer this ,sixteen-foot alley actually is between R-4 zone to the west and 'the subject property. It is submitted that if the alley does act as a buffer, then it will serve to separate Mr. Hull 's Proposed six-plex from. the. single family residence to the west. As for the linear park on Burnett Avenue, it is very unclear how much. weight can be placed upon a park that is not yet • built; .but is , in fact, only in the design stage. Even ' f.ithe park is built, it will not effectively segregate 'the subject.•property from the light industrial zone to the east. • A few more points should be made. In Conclusion. No. . 2 , there is discussed a matter that traditional zoning principals preferred different intensities of zoning back to back rather than sideways. There is already a multiple resident to the north of the 'property. The difference in impact between a permitted four-plex and. the requested six-plex, on the property to 'the south, .is ,minimal. Furthermore, "traditional zoning principals" recognize that it is generally preferable that there be a gradual change in the zones from less intense to the more. intense. Currently, this R-3 zone sandwiched in between two more intense zones; the R-4 zone to the west and south, and the L-1 zone to the. east. • In, conclusion,• this neighborhood is in the process of change into more intense multiple-residence uses. These changes have become more and more rapid in recent years. The adjacent property immediately to the north is already being used as a multiple residence unit. There are numerous multiple residence units within a• close proximity to the subject property. The area is changing into more intense uses 'which is exactly what the comprehensive plan has stated for the area. The fact that , the requested re-zone would change the property into conformance with the comprehensive plan should be given the strongest possible consideration. The comprehensive plan, acting as a blue- print or constitution, should not be undermined and frustrated by the refusal to put it into effect. For these reasons, your • • Mr. Pred .J, Kaufman October 4 , 1979 Page Eight • recommendation to the City Council should be to grant the requested rezone. If I can be of any help to you as you reconsider this matter, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, KARGIANIS & AUSTIN 974,=,4r -, d;,r— rk Fortier MFsjd • LAW OFFICES KARGIANIS & AUSTIN G EORGE KARGIANIS 2120 PACIFIC BUILDING TELEPHONE: JAMES S. MUNN THIRD AVENUE & COLUMBIA STREET 5zCODE RUSSELL A. AUSTIN, JR. - AREA CODE 206 DON M. GULLIFORD SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 9B104 CABLE ADDRESS: JOHN I.WESTON, JR. . . ., "LAWKAU" 5EATTLE RONALD P. ERICKSON BRUCE A.WOLF ANTHONY W. DOUGHERTY October 18 , 1979. Menton City Council rat2223(2, unicipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South ,k)J'l°' Renton, WA 98055 � c'' re: Requested Rezone by Irving W. Hull cf? <�6 t����rG ®' (73 Dear Sirs : G �‘,,Ca This office represents Mr. Hull in the matter of his requested rezone of his property in the City of Renton. Please consider this letter as a written appeal of the hearing examiner' s decision. Our request to the hearing examiner to reconsider his recommendation on the matter was denied. Enclosed please find a check for $25 . 00 to cover the fee for this appeal. The hearing examiner had recommended that the proposed rezone of Mr. Hull 's property be denied. Our request for a reconsidera- tion to the hearing examiner included a detailed analysis of both the planning department's preliminary report to the hearing examiner and the •hearing examiner' s report and recommendation to the City Council. The request for reconsideration outlines in detail the legal and factual reasons why the rezone should be granted. It is herein incorporated into this letter of appeal . by this reference, and a copy is attached for your ready reference. Although the attached analysis deals with our legal and factual arguments in detail, I would like to emphasize several points . 1. The requested rezone would bring the subject property into compliance with the comprehensive plan of the City of Renton. . 2. Washington statutes, and court decisions in Washington and other jurisdictions have stressed the controlling nature of the comprehensive plan. 3. The subject property is located in a narrow R-3 zone that is • Renton City Council October 18, 1979 Page Two only one lot wide. This zone is sandwiched between two more intense zones of R-4 and L-l. 4 . The neighborhood, especially to the south of the subject property, is in the process of 'change into more intense multi- residential uses. 5. The adjacent property..to the north is REN multi-residence use, either as a' four-plex or six-plea. I would also like to point out that although the recommendations of both the planning department and the hearing examiner remained constant throughout these proceedings, the reasons appear to change to meet the facts. The planning department's original recommendation .that the denial of the rezone was based, at least in part, on the incorrect belief that adjacent property to both the north -and south were single-family residences. After a continuance in the hearing where Mr. Hull pointed out to the depart- ment the multi-residence use of the adjacent property to the north, the department's recommendation remained the same but the reasons changed to the "potential impact to existing single family residences to the south. " (Hearing Examiner' s Report, page 2) . The hearing examiner in his report and ' recommendation' to the City Council heavily relies upon his finding that both adjacent pro- perties "appear" to be single family residences. In his letter denying our requested reconsideration of his recommendation, it appears that the intensity of the adjoining northern lot "has no bearing on the subject' property. " Even a casual reading of the reports of the planning department andthe hearing examiner will show that they both heavily relied upon the incorrect assumption that both 'adjoining, properties were single family residences. Now that they apparently agree that the property to the north is within multiple-residential use, its intense use is downplayed. For the reasons outlined in this letter and in the document requesting reconsideration, we submit that both the law and the • • Renton City Council October 18 , 1979 Page Three facts should impel the City Council to grant the requested rezone. The neighborhood is in transition into multiple- residential use. The record shows recent changes to multiple-residential use, not only on the adjoining property, but throughout the neighborhood. Recognizing this trend, Mr. Hull merely requests that you zone his property according to the recommendation of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If I can be of any further assistance to you in reaching. a decision, please contact me.. Very truly yours, KARGIANIS & AUSTIN Mark E. Fortier MEF:jd encs. cc: Irving W. Hull P. S. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter of appeal on the enclosed copy and return said copy via the envelope we have enclosed for that purpose. • • • • • • LAW OFFICES • KARGIANIS & AUSTIN G EORGE KARGIANIS 2120 PACIFIC BUILDING • TELEPHONE: •JAMES 5. MUNN • THIRD AVENUE & COLUMBIA STREET ' 62A.677O RUSSELL.A. AUSTIN, JR. • AREA CODE 206 • DON M. GUI.LIFDRD SEATTLE. WASHIN GTO'N 9BI04 GABLE ADDRESS: • JOHN I.WESTON• JR. •'LAWKAU" SEATTLE • RONALD P. ERICKSON • BRUCE A. WOLF ANTHONY W. Dn1.1017FRTY ' • • • October 4 , 1979 • • • Mr . Fred J ., Kaufman • Land Use Hearing Examiner • • City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 • • re: I.rving W. Hull • Dear Mr, Kaufman: • • This office has' been retained by Mr . Irving W. Hulh' to represent. • • him of his requested re-zone of his property in the vicinity of • 421 Burnett Avenue South. The file number is R-394-79 . This letter is a written request of reconsideration of your recommen- dation to the Renton City Council 'on this matter . This request • is based upon our assertion that certain errors of law and fact were made in coming to your decision. These will be outlined below. Insufficient weight was given to the fact that the requested • re-zone would have changed the zoning of the property to comply with the comprehensive plan. The role of the comprehensive plan viz a viz zoning ordinances has produced a° great. deal of contro • versy around the nation. The Washington statutes on this subject are as follows : RCW 35 . 63 . 090 provides : • All regulations shall be worked. out as parts • of a comprehensive plan which each _commission • shall prepare for the physical and other general • advantageous development of municipality. . . RCW 35 .A. 63 . 080 and .100 provides : • From the date of approval by the legislative body the comprehensive plan, its parts and • modifications thereof, shall serve as a basic • source of reference for future legislative and ' administrative action . Mr. Fred J. Kaufman October 4 , 1979 • Page Two • • Similarly for counties ,. ROW 36 . 70 . 550 states : • From time to time , the planning agency may, • • or if requested by .the board shall , cause •to be prepared official controls which, when • • adopted by ordinance by the board, will further the objectives and goals of the comprehensive. • plan.. The planning 'agency may also draft such regulations , programs and legislation as may., in its judgment, be required to preserve the • integrity of the comprehensive plan and assure • its systematic execution, and the planning • agency may recommend such plans , regulations , • programs , and legislation to the board for • adoption. The Washington Supreme Court in State ex rel . Standard Mining . v.. Auburn, 82 Wn. 2d 321 , 330 , 510 P . 2d 64.7.. (1973) held: That a city which adopts such a .plan should be • guided' by it in its zoning regulations until it . is amended in the manner prescribed by statute - • or repealed . Similarly, the court in Shelton v. Bellevue , 73 Wn. 2d 28 , 35 , • 435 P. 2d 94.9 (1968) has stated: • Planning, as such, then in effect forms' a . blueprint for the various regulatory measures it suggests . • Municipal "zoning" on the other hand, is , in • effect, a part of and an end result or product of effective municipal "planning, " for it is • ' through the medium of enacted and enforceable zoning regulations that the aims and objectives • . • of the land-use classification facet of over- • all municipal "planning" may be carried to fruition . . • • • • Mr. Fred J. Kaufman. October 4 , 1979 Page Three • • The California courts have stated that a 'comprehensive plan is a "constitution for all Luture development within the . • city. " O 'Loane v.' O ' Rourke , .. 231 .Ca.App. 2nd 774 , 782 , 42 C. Rp't. 283 and 288 ( 1965) . The' Oregon. courts are in- general agreement. 'O 'Loane v. O' Rourke was quoted with approval in Baker v. Milwaukee:, 533 P . . 2d 772 : • The adoption of the. general plan, is , in effect, the adoption of a policy, and in many respects , entirely new policy. The plan .is of permanent • general character, it is a declaration of public purpose, and, as such, supposedly sets forth What kind of. a city the community wants , and, • • supposedly, .represents the judgment of_ the electors of the city with reference to the phy- • sical form and character of the city, is to • assume . Whether referred to as a "blueprint, " "guide" or "constitution, " courts in Washington and 'other jurisdictions have stressed the controlling nature of the comprehensive plan. Similar impor- • tance is placed .upon the comprehensive plans ,by the Washington statutes, quoted above. This is not—to say; that a request for a . zoning change to comply with the comprehensive plan must always • be blindly granted . Although not . solely determinative upon the issue, the fact that the requested re-zone would be to comply with the comprehensive plan should have received considerable • weight in the' decision making process'. ' In numerous court decisions it has been held that the comprehensive plan should not be undermined by the granting of re-zones that do not comply with the plan. It is submitted that the Renton comprehensive plan should not be undermined by the reluctance to implement the plan . A blueprint or constitution is of little worth if • the proper authorities refuse to implement it. The Planning Department Report is incorporated into your findings and forms at 'least some part of the basis of your recommendation. I. would like to take issue with their' analysis . • • Mr. Fred J. Kaufman October 4 , ' 1979 . Page Four I. am referring specifically to Section L. of the Planning • ' Department ' s Preliminary Report to the hIearing Examiner . Section L. 1 : The Department correctly states that the requested re-zone is consistent with the comprehensive plan. ' It was inappro- priate to qualify that statement by stating that north and • south Renton are presently under study by a committee of the Planning Commission. The unstated implication is that • it is being studied with the view to change the comprehensive plan. It is inappropriate that this area should remain static on any ground that it is being studied. . The above quoted decision of Standard Mining v. ' Auburn, supra; makes '. . it clear that the comprehensive plan should be followed until it is changed: Your decision should not be based upon any , anticipated change of the comprehensive plan may never occur. . . Section L: 2: . The Department states that the transition in the area from single-family residence to multiple family has been historically slow. Historically 'this may be true, but the facts in the record all indicate that the recent trend of change to multiple residence has incurred at an increasingly faster . pace. This is especially • true in the area to the south of the property. , Section L. 3 : It is stated on page 1 of the Hearing Examiner ' s Report that in Section. L. 3 the words east and west should be inter- changed . . It is submitted that rezones to R-3 located. 400 .to 600 feet east of the property are not relevant. Such rezones would be in the L-.l area across Burnett Avenue- and behind. the strip of commercial , and multiple ' family residences on Burnett Avenue. It is also submitted .that if you consider these re- zones that are 400 to 600 feet to the east , you should also consider the numerous and recent changes to multi-family use that are located within a radius of 400 to 600. feet of the subject property. • • • Mr. Fred J: Kaufman •October 4 , 1979 Page Five • Sections L. 5 and L. 6 : • These sections state that there is a. single-family residence • to the north• of the subject property. This is factually in error . As pointed out by Mr. Hull in his testimony and in. •• the picture he presented, the structure to the, north has been • divided into four to six apartment units even though it was originally built as a. single-family residence. It is impor- tant to note that when the hearing reconvened after the con- • t-inuance , the recommendation of the. Planning Department ' remained .the same, but the reason was "due to potential impact to existing single-family residences to the south if • the• requested R-4 zoning is granted." (emphasis added) I believe this is a tacit admission by the Planning Department that they made a mistake in the character of the property ' immediately to_ the north, and was relying solely on impact • of the residences to the south. • Section L. 8 : The Department suggests .that the lack of re-zones from R-3 to R-4 may show that the plan over evaluated capacities of the • neighborhood. In the past, this area has been single-family residences . But• the current trend of the area, especially to the south, is toward more intense multiple-residence 'uses . The area is changing , and beginning to change much more rapidly. We are at a point .where the potential capacities of the neighborhood , as suggested on the comprehensive plan, are now starting to be fulfilled . The 'Planning Department ' s analysis of the situation is some- . what weak . The complete failure to discuss the adjacent .. L-1 zone to the east, as well as their failure to discover the ' high density multiple-residence use immediately adjacent to -the subject property, shows inadequate investigation and analysis . The errors in-the Planning, Department ' s analysis and .investiga- ' ' tion has lead to some errors in your findings as found in the report and recommendation to the City Council . More specifically, Finding No. 11 .contains errors . Although I would take issue ' • - . with several of the statements in Finding No.. 11 , 'the crux .of the matter comes down to the statement that "the area has been ' consistent in preserving its single-family •.cha.racter. To refute. this statement , I would . • • • • Mr. Fred J. Kaufman October 4 , 1979 Page Six like to review the character_ of the . neighborhood ,within a ' two-block radius of the subject property. The property :immediately adjacent to the north is a unit built as a single-family residence , but is being used as a multiple • - residence for four to six apartments . The statement that the "outward appearance" of the property is that of a single-family residence is clearly inadequate.. This is 'a • very important point. Every means .should be taken definitely to determine the character of this • adjacent" pr_operty. Further- . more, with four mailboxes outside 'the house , not even the _ appearance of the premises is that of a single-family resi- dence: Continuing further to the north, there is a side street, railroad tracks., and some sort of railroad station. • To the west of the subject property, there .is an alley and the houses on the block abutting the alley are single-family. • On ,the block immediately to .the south of those. single-family residences there are five four-plexes . . • Immediately. to the south •of the subject property, there 'is • . a single-family residence , but three houses down there is a. four-plex. The next block to the south also has a four-plex. Directly to the east, is Burnett Avenue. Across Burnett Avenue is a Veterans of Foreign Wars Club. Going south on that block, there are various businesses , single-family residences . The . • • next block to the south , on the east side of, Burnett Avenue , has five four-plexes and one large complex that appears to contain twenty to forty units . • The above review of the neighborhood from a one .to two block • area shows that the area is not of single-family character . It is important to note" that the Planning Commission ' s "decision is based upon potential impact on the area to. the south. Exh.ibi t No. 16 pertains to a multiplex unit to the south . Even your own Conclusion No. 2 states that "only to the " south has • the use begun to intensify. . . " As my above review of the neighborhood graphically demonstrates , it is to the south that the uses arc most intense. . • • • • • • Mr. Fred J. Kaufman October 4 ; 1979 • Page Seven Finding No. 13 deals with the supposed buffer effect of the • alley to the west and the planned linear park to the east. It is unclear how much of a buffer this sixteen-foot alley actually is between R-4 zone. to the west and .the subject • property. It is submitted that if the alley does act as a buffer, then it will serve to separate .Mr. .Hull ' s proposed six-plex from the single family . residence to the west . As for the linear park on Burnett Avenue , it is very unclear. how much weight can be placed upon a park that is not yet built; but is , in fact, only in the design stage. Even if the park is built, it will not effectively segregate the subject property from the light industrial zone to the east. • A few more points should be made. In Conclusion 'No. 2 , there is discussed a matter that traditional zoning principals . . preferred different intensities of zoning back to back . rather than sideways.. There is already a multiple resident to the north of the property. The difference in impact between a permitted four-plex and the requested six-plex , on the property . to the south, is minimal . Furthermore , ''traditional zoning principals" recognize that it is generally preferable that there be a gradual change in the zones from less intense to the more intense. Currently, this R-3 zone sandwiched in between two more intense zones; the R-4 zone. to the west and . south, and the L-1 zone to the east. • In conclusion , this neighborhood) is in the process. of change into more intense multiple-residence uses . These changes have ' become more and more rapid in recent years . The adjacent • . property immediately to the north is already being used as a multiple residence unit. There are numerous multiple residence units within a close proximity to the subject property. The area is changing into more intense uses which is exactly what the comprehensive plan has stated for the area . .The fact that • the requested re-zone would change the property, Into conformance with the comprehensive plan should be given the strongest • possible •consideration . The comprehensive plan, acting as a blue- print or constitution, should not be undermined •and frustrated by the refusal to put it into effect. For 'these reasons , your • Mr . Fred J. Kaufman October 4 , 1979 Page Eight . recommendation to the City Council should be to grant the requested rezone. If I can be of any help to you as you reconsider this matter , please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, KARGIANIS & AUSTIN rk Fortier MF : jd i " • CITY OF HEN JN No. 1 1 155 FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHING ON 98055 1 C 19 RECEIVED OF f z =4,/---_-J lr' / U ' TOTAL • GWEN E. MARSH , FINANCE DI TOR B /�� v 7 THE CITY OF RENTON . ' MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o NIL CHARLES J. DELAURENTI 1, MAYOR ® DELORES A. MEAD co- CITY CLERK SEP1 -�O October 19, 1979 APPEAL FILED BY MARK E. FORTIER, ATTORNEY, FOR IRVING W. HULL RE: Appeal of Land Use Examiner' s Decision Dated September 21 , 1979, Irving W. Hull , Rezone R-394-79 To Parties of Record: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's decision has been filed with the public records office this date, along with the proper fee of $25.00, pursuant to Title 4, Ch. 30, City Code as amended. The City Code requires the appeal must be set forth in writing. The written appeal and all other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council ' s Planning and Development Committee. Please contact the Council Secretary 235-2586, for date and time of the committee meet i_ngs if so desired. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above-referenced appeal will be considered by the Renton City Council at its regular meeting of November 19, 1979 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Second Floor, Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Avenue South. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON O. 7719" Delores A. Mead, C.M.C. City Clerk DAM/st cc: Mayor Planning Dept. Planning & Development Committee Public Works Director Michael Hanis, Planning Commission Ron Nelson, Building Dept. Lawrence Warren, City Attorney Rutherford, Kargiania & Austin Attorneys at Law 21st Floor, Pacific Bldg. Third & Columbia Seattle, WA 98104 Irving W. Hull 13544 SE 161st P1 . Renton, WA 98055 I s Y pF RA 7 THE CITY OF RENTON CO .. MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 p •°,' CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR ® DELORES A. MEAD �-o (tyCITY CLERK 4TFD SEPtt° October 22, 1979 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss. COUNTY OF KING DELORES A. MEAD, City Clerk of the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 22nd day of October, 1979, at the hour of 5:00 p.m. , your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, a true and correct NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY MARK E. FORTIER, ATTORNEY, FOR IRVING W. HULL REGARDING REZONE R-394-79. adibted Delores A. Mead, City C . SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 22nd day of October, 1979. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in Renton • st • 9 C-11-4 Cs,_ .' ' LAW OFFICES ! , KARGIANIS & AUSTIN • GEORGE KARGIANIS 2120 PACIFIC, BUILDING • TELEPHONE: JAM'ES S. MUNN • THIRD AVENUE & COLUMBIA STREET 624.5370 RUSSELL A. AUSTIN, JR. AREA CODE 2,06 DON M. GULLIED RD SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 CARLE ADDRESS: JOHN I.WESTON. JR. • "LAWKA U•' SEATTLE RONALD P. ERICKSON -t---.y , BRUCE A. WOLF H��� r������ �� ANTHONY W. DOUGHERTY Oft �� CI L6 November 19 , 1979 -,,, ,s_ .' �' dayNOV1 91979 h� 't�aTON c; Renton City Council � CLEd�'(�Fs dFFfC > t 'Municipal Building �, _ CITYCOUNCIL 200 Mill Avenue South C? ' : R NT( � � Renton, WA 98055 . re: Requested Rezone' by Irving W. Hull . .Dear Sirs : . • The matter of Mr. Hull ' s rezone will come before you at the meeting of the Renton City Council on .November 19 , 1979 . I have been informed that each of you has been presented with • the relevant documents in this case, more specifically the Report of the Planning Department, the Report of the Hearing Examiner , and our letter of appeal. I am sure that you are • , aware that under the Hearing Examiner Ordinance , Section 4-3016 , that when the Hearing Examiner 's decision is appealed, the • Council 'is to review the matter to see if "substantial error in fact or law" may be found. The purpose of this letter is . . • to outline in summary fashion the errors of fact and law which • appear throughout the entire record: • ' The area or neighborhood involved is isolated from surrounding areas by various physical barriers . The area is irregularity shaped and runs approximately three to four blocks long by' two to three blocks wide. To the ,north are railroad tracks . To the west is the Renton Shopping Center. -The south is an L-1 (light industrial) zone with a trucking company 'and some other businesses . To the southeast _is a utility sub-station. The eastern "barrier" is 'Burnett Avenue upon. which the eastern • side is also an L-1 zone. This entire isolated area is zoned R-4 except a narrow strip one lot wide and two blocks long -. which abuts Burnett Avenue on the west. That narrow strip of land is zoned R-3 . It is sandwiched between the R-4 zone to . ' the west and south., an L-1 zone •to the east, and a B-1 (business) • zone to the north. Mr. Hull ' s property is located in the northern portion of that narrow strip of R-3 which was previously described. It is important to note that the Renton Comprehensive • Renton City Council November 19 , 1979 Page Two Plan has determined that this narrow R-3 zone is to be zoned R-4 to bring it into conformity with the surrounding area . Mr. Hull ' s requested rezone would bring his property into line with that of the Comprehensive . Plan. Error No. 1 - The Character of the Neighborhood. The fundamental basis of a Hearing Examiner ' s Recommendation is that he believe the area to be single family in character. See Finding of Fact No. 11, Conclusion of Law No. 2 , and Conclusion of Law No. 5 . This basic premise is incorrect. The area,- although once single family in character, is now recently and rapidly developing with multiple residence uses . Numerous multiplex residences can be found throughout the described area. The Planning and Development Committee of this Council has agreed that this area is one in transition. Without this basic underpinning, the Hearing Examiners Recommendation should fall. Error No. •2 - Ignoring the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hull ' s requested rezone would bring his property into confor- mance with the Comprehensive Plan. The basic and controlling nature of the Comprehensive Plan was outlined and described, with reference to both statutes and court decisions , in previous documents presented on behalf of Mr . Hull. A requested rezone should not be blindly granted based upon its conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, but neither can the Comprehensive Plan be ignored and slighted as it has been in these proceedings. Court decisions have called a Comprehensive Plan a constitution upon which zoning is to be based. Throughout these entire proceedings , the Renton Comprehensive Plan has been dealt with lightly and summarily dismissed.. This is an error in law. Error No. 3 - The Burnett Linear Park. When the Planning Department first informed Mr. Hull that they were going to recommend a denial of his rezone, he discovered that they were ignorant of the fact that across Burnett Avenue was an L-1 zone, and directly across from his property were businesses and the Veterans of Foreign War ' s Club. After the acquisition of • • • • • Renton City Council November 19 , 1979 Page Three this information, the Planning Department refused to change its recommendation because they believed that "a public park will be located in the immediate area of the street (Burnett) which will . provide ' buffering and screening between the uses • of the East and West (Hearing Examiner' s Report, page 2) . ' The Hearing Examiner adopted this in his Finding of Fact No. 13 in which he found "The Burnett Avenue S . Linear Park will segregate the western block front of Burnett from the uses on • the east side. " In Conclusion of Law No. 3 , the Nearing Examiner concluded that the linear park would preserve the supposed single family character of the west side from the more intense' business uses across the street. We have recently • learned that the proposed Burnett Avenue linear park will rot extend to the block opposite Mr. Hull ' s property. The median area is currently used for parking and will continue to be used as parking. This supposed. buffer is non-existent. This is an error of fact. • Error No. 4 - Mischaracterization of Adjacent Properties . • In Finding of Fact No. 11, the Hearing Examiner stated that the adjacent. properties were "from all outward appearances" single family residences . This unusual terminology is because .Mr. • Hull had pointed out to the Hearing Examiner that the adjacent property to the north was a , house that had been converted into multiple .residence use. Another major basis for the Hearing Examiner ' s denial of the rezone is that it would adversely effect the supposed single family residences to the north and south of the subject property. In Conclusion of Law No. 2 , it is dis- cussed that the rezone must be suitable in terms of "the character of the adjacent properties; " and in Conclusion of Law No. 4 , the • rezone is deemed inappropriate when the adjoining structures are single family dwellings . It is now conceded by the Planning • Department that the adjacent property to the north is in multiple residence use. There is. some question as to the legality of that use as it pertains to the particular dwelling, but the only relevant point is that it is not in single family use and there will not be an adverse impact upon it. This .is another . error of fact. • • Renton City Council • November 19 , 1979 • Page Four Error No. 5 - Consideration of Irrelevant Facts . • Finding of Fact No. 12 states that a .site plan. submitted by Mr. Hull did not satisfy parking requirements for a six-plex. That may well be true, but is totally, irrelevant to the con- • sideration of whether the property should be rezoned. Mr. Hull would not ,be able to build his proposed six-plex unless he meets all building and parking requirements. Acceptability of those plans has nothing to do with a rezone. Such plans are often and easily changed. The use by the Hearing Examiner of such findings as a basis for his decision was error. Such a use of irrelevant facts to buttress his decision. is unreason- able and constitutes an. error of law. Error No. 6 - Consideration of Irrelevant Facts . Conclusion of. Law No. 5 is based upon the fact that rezones in the vicinity of Williams Avenue South have been down to' an R-3 classification. Williams Avenue South is east of the subject property across Burnett Avenue and beyond the L-1 zone fronting Burnett Avenue. As discussed above, the subject pro- perty is in an area that is isolated from the surrounding areas . Williams Avenue South is outside the isolated area. Rezones beyond the barrier of Burnett Avenue and ,the' adjacent L-1 zone on the east are no more relevant to the subject property than rezones occurring beyond the Renton Shopping Center to the west. The Hearing Examiner was factually in error to consider such facts in his decision and would be legally in error to base his decision upon irrelevant facts . Error No. 7 - Reliance Upon the. Planning Department 's Report. Finding of Fact No. .2 , Incorporates in full the Planning Depart- ment' s Report. The Planning Department' s Analysis , found in Section L of their Report 'to the Hearing Examiner , is full of legal and factual error's also. Paragraph .No. 1 of the Department 's Analysis states that north and south 'Renton are presently under study by a committee of the Planning Commission.: . In Paragraph No. 9 of the Analysis, the concluding paragraph, Paragraph No. 1 and No. 2 are sited to show that the rezone is not "timely. " The Renton City Council November 19 , 1979 . Page Five . obvious implication is that the area should remain static until some unstated time in the future when the Planning Commission may decide on suggested changes in the Comprehensive Plan. Such actions are contrary to law. The Washington Supreme Court in State, ex rel. Standard Mining v. Auburn, 82 Wn. 2'd 321 , 330 (1973) held: That a. city which adopts such a (comprehensive) plan should be guided by it in zoning regulations until it is amended in the manner prescribed by statute or, repealed. . It is inappropriate and illegal to hold an area static in such a manner that is suggested by the Planning Department' s Report. Any decision by the Hearing Examiner with this as a basis is an obvious error of law. • Paragraph No. 2 of the Planning. Department'.s Analysis quotes objectives from the Comprehensive Plan dealing with the protection. of property values and the encouragement to develop land to its highest and best use and to contribute to 'the overall attractive- ness and desirability of the area. Property values certainly will not be hurt by the addition of one more multiple residence building in the area. On the contrary, single family houses left in the area are in a state of decline and the newer multiple residence units in the area are by far the most attractive'.. Paragraph No. 2 of. the Analysis in no way lends support to a deci- sion to deny the rezone. The subject matter of several of the other numbered paragraphs of the Planning Department ' s Analysis has already been discussed above when they appeared in the Hearing Examiner ' s Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Briefly the errors will be pointed out. Paragraph No. 3 of the Analysis deals with down zones to the east of the subject property across Burnett Avenue and the L-1 zone adjacent to it. Such matters are irrelevant to the subject property. Paragraph No, 6 of the Analysis deals with the supposed single ,family character of the adjacent properties to the north and south. As pointed out above, this is incorrect. • • • • • . Renton City Council • • November 19 , 1979' Page Six • • In Paragraph No. 7 of the Analysis, they discussed inadequacies of a presented site plan. Any such matters are irrelevant in consideration for a request for a rezone. Paragraph No. 8 attempts to discredit the current designation .of the Comprehen- sive Plan. Again, .as discussed above, it is law that the Comprehensive Plan is to be followed until it is either changed or repealed. It is plain. to see that Paragraph 1 through 3 and . 5 through 9 have been shown to be either legally or factually in error. • The remaining Paragraph No. 4 of the Analysis deals merely with the lot size. The Planning Department' s Report under close scrutiny does not support the denial of this rezone. As a matter of good land-use planning,• what action. should be taken? • As the previous discussion in this letter indicates , errors of . fact and law are found throughout this entire record. Certainly enough errors are present for this Council to find that. there was a substantial error in fact or law. as required by Ordinance Section 4-3016 . Since the Council does have a basis overturning the Hearing Examiner ' s decision, the question remains what should be done to implement a good planning decision. It is submitted to this Council that the only logical decision would be to grant the requested rezone. You are faced with a situation where a• very narrow strip of land with a less intense zoning, is sandwiched between two more intense zones . Such a • situation is exactly opposite normal, practical , . and logical zoning practices. As a• place for single family residences , the • area is in decay. .The trend is obviously towards more intense • • uses such as the proposed .six-plex. It is entirely illogical to have this narrow R-3 zone where it is, but it is eminently logical to follow the . Comprehensive Plan and grant this rezone. The best . • thing that can happen to the area involved is ' to have .an influx. .. of new multiplex units . The houses are decaying, whereas the Renton City Council . November 19 , 1979 Page Seven new multiplex units are attractive and neat. The public will best be served by the fostering of new multiplex hous- ing in the area and by the Granting o.f this requested rezone. Very truly yours, KARGIANIS & AUSTIN lark E. Fort er MEF :jd S cc : Irving W. Hull 1 qi /1441'4 OF R�� A, 4, THE CITY OF RENTON CJ `$ ® Z. MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 o ° CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 o �P 17- D SEP1E�O October 19, 1979 Members, Renton City Council Renton, Washington RE: File No. R-394-79; Irving W. Hull Rezone; Appeal. Dear Council Members: Due to receipt of the attached appeal within the appeal period established by ordinance, the Examiner's Report and Recommendation will be delayed on the City Council agenda until(flovember 19, 19 to allow appropriate review by the Planning and Development Committee of•all pertinent data. If you require additional assistance or information regarding this matter, please contact our office. Sincerely, 4-1/4-01-19- •VC/"4" Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Planning Department City Clerk Attachment iy �' ', j� 'Y. i ` l 5 r..Y; • I'i.. .ra�,,,.: r' i1 �- . w. 1 - ` • F. ,ss •' F. % Y OF�- Ni,tJ ` „ �CtT' � E "�t.,fi ,t , :V ,, . . .4-3 � , t. 806s'' :' G� : •Mi ° A�VE' � O:�; ENTON', NAH::, f7" '' U Ca4 a I {N ' : A. MEAD r u' - • r ' ; • ELOR ES. '-E • R• K`r r o 'J E URA : AA O IT' t - • P i.L.. i`1z� J • • r- t. � �° . '•�r: v. '(a' 4 X : ^ , ' ,3 X'0t5'Y , e t1 } ` "fr tE ' � s 'v : A.yli ', , i "t : _ 1ti3 ,� r. i' :3 't� `t. e e 9 x :4d v Jy;:a e:S' & :Au' tin'a s` s Kar i 'i n +4" Law Offs.cc.s• :;i:- • f d'gin' 'd P• c ic.'�Bi 'l Y 2 a i i :t 2 1 0 t f. ,y' y4 5,: um :a.:;:'. ': ' a ;:�<,.., 1,.,. �rr; v �iu'e':••& Col bi �:t r t: 'T'- J ;{R- ti .1!1,J jl. �y? i' I z'i 1 - ,^, na,. O r - U W 9 .Y4 : S le A� 0 :'eat t 7; :fit"J.;1�'' tiff^> ort' er TN Ma k i • 'T Mr,: x F :�,�x A , <�'• pit 4. 'e P_ '• 1'9 s . a ?c.'1� ' '• ' '1 ' ir ii `ryExaminer� ecis3ou iAa] eiiial.:'�' I4-4J .i G •.SePtem ar :2 �7.9_'.� ' . r"U n.tl 'T$r. 1 I! f:•, Y e b ov 9,J ha' ar'�m t n', �,; The, Renton t,`� t}n .:;°�! �.. �,.., ' . � �:. ��;' � 'ff '`n•'er'`: r a i m o tt> re•a (C i 'concur_ed `a`"e`�p.lannn' �uii e e �'�- zrim e, gs-;.'>'•,.• - >xf.'1 f , - e e' �a'' Yn :Exami:n x e"a �Us ,H :.om''t� °L x' eco.' d'a't o"s�'f'r Iie-' yid' ?s. Rezonedenial' r zzazien i tt _ �,: •.'�:: ' '1 ¢ ^n `'L: "f' o�d.`:a o '1 ai m 3.fi e s7 1 s:.,.erl� od azid;.�`V--:'•;..;g.,. .: ,;=:',...':::'f'.--,-.'.,, 'ons`;'w e '�Ex mi er `f'•ridin• �nc s'� O?, .X �'i''is .t. +t: �d, s�4 :,, 'ect Q.d" r. .:ad ��' f i• res7 en `, 'd:;- 'est are r' 'zz le: sia l i. '` �i t. e 'sub' ec t :ro. , ,Ca: 'air"'�he`�"aou`fti�;iu'ai� w s B. old'':a 1 Y' � O� t, t! • '�3s n� The ro ert �,d direct ''ad, :aceri�.t�;"to'': 'hs s b: a .t�' y, �' ,: �' - ls :'a11 f e o:'-a- t �t0`�.axenl' ":i �, r•�4 �`•t airi re deic e � n �s t:�• eri: 1 �1 large -sri "le,. il'. sa,. h h; # pp X' .8 y;.' N The'^:: ':v' o. a 'on��o t i a v4�.'` oe con�e.rted',,into.;'a .m lt�:,' s � �,.';. : - .y, ' '.,r. azu'e. l`za` is :�.,;1 ea'.izi• Wh Ch``:.t e`4.•S.0• G Y.t7,:•,e,,t. > '1 t �..�. �'_:, �Y i� u� i :ii` a '''ra`u';' airsiy gAV7ft. l.k�� :uses' .tAs ''i.n`r' d aX�^:tX ��,. P.. .d Y._, , ';;��,^'�: .�}..�-.,, s ruc ure ad' tii ,,. �e: t t 0 1 th 2. (:onclus 'ori�s�4.. s���3 �':e dz, :�`. 1...: �:::.` f:S "1; s: G am are'. <� �: i ,, s t.,a�, �:s tti' :s n e w ��� ., the.. sub'ect' 'ro e�.t�..:.on.::tti�`'�aie ou g X..-: fir%$' ry ' a `ea i�tb ile hey: rE''.t' ���:: :,ro�'� 'n 't :n�o ��: �` rt'' ad'oiniai `Ch'e�` 'b': Ec�:< 'eic, '' •.p h � �,�;. S$, ri: `e �h"f' w Thi 1; anvil• :d � ,.,, .•,. , mu t'i e. ,�",:1 : • ,r `w 'if f +:1 i54P. ' F• ,IAJ nL. ''ar;<;�•„ Yip:,- .;x;;,';'rn, �,;`.a3`i:"hi,%::�,.,,'�.�' - 'Y t ''1 `r e' YS .,1 F�` 1 _ I r a'`b' to' t> nd`�ih`ot su s�� n a 1<:,:, 0� 'a"4�gw�arex�n It� iaas'•-:determned' •tiia '`�tte;_ xors''�"b�E=::;'� .�-;�'`� �. � "�5, �de�t 'e D1 e. :h:C: •1 e: •e, n w i .i"i �to''�.d ." t i r zo b -( - no't coin e`'1 r:e�ersal:>o�;">.�ti'e`:';�ecouwien, 8� ox� Y.':-� • '•zne 'f t=:o �s frozi zz , ;.,:< d r u 'd'�>>R=4 :�us`e':ao:`� a�te�';,detri na`a1��::e e. ri'�, �_ reznature"'an re. est.e h g;::�•,: ,r:�n:,;..,' si4 1 �l 'es s'k;2'n .7 J v r't' ifs �':'g;'sH'''>''; f ,S �1 L ,4 K�; cC` t.'•, ,4 ' 'a.l� e':` ec� '. C. 1:i.`. eal`�is.'acco:` 1 n J.y`� tip: :r x 3 " S�'�':, 4t' C:, W:. tv '.1' "'tii - •n: `r. o t 1' u :a' :1, `r„ 1'i. , 1 i'n: r �'ir•�A• is f. ,1'.! f t"sa i '•,1517: '0 ON. J., �t '=ti` } ;�i a j��, L -F. Vt ,Y ?10 4 t J�. r Y. -fr:o �1 n: Jf.. �7i is'' f�. s :.v 'S :: s . �.:. ... , .i�.. . �.. ., i� �'l:�. • !'a ' N y�.'I:n.. 1 :� t t, • ,fi'` ' ''t `1'e. .k' �• llAM st' ',1 �t. i• x`f+� ,1 f r�Y'�� • :•ili - '1`4i b.J" ...1" 1.',,.r,. •1. N.` r.• i'� 7:• (r,,,�; .,.: ' i:.rr: , a t<.0 .. r' T f 'Hu 1. t% `n 1 cc. _-rv.i t1' ' 1" ia:: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE REPORT NOVEMBER 19, 1979 HULL APPEAL - R-394-79 The Planning and Development Committee has considered the appeal of the above- mentioned recommendation dated September 1 , 1979, and recommends that the City Council modify the following findings and conclusions : 1 . Finding No. 11 is in error in that the properties directly adjacent to the subject property on the south and west are single family residences. The property directly adjacent to the subject property on the north is an old, large single family residence which has been apparently illegally modified to be converted into a multiple residence, in violation of the City Code. The • area in which the subject property is located is in predominantly single family uses, but is in a gradual transition to multiple family uses. 2. Conclusion No. 4 is in error in that only the structures adjoining the subject property on the west and south are single family dwellings. The property adjoining the subject property on the north appears to be an illegal multiple family dwelling. The Committee finds that the above-mentioned errors of fact and law are not substantial and do not compel a modification or reversal of the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner which is to deny the requested rezone. The proposed rezone is premature and the requested use would have a detrimental effect on surrounding properties. The Committee recommends that the City Council affirm the recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner. rs/ George Perry, Chairman Earl C y mer Renton City Council 11/19/79 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING -Continued LID #315 Councilman Clymer noted area B-1 and part of the central Sidewalks business district area and inquired of wheelchair ramp require- Burnett S. ment, being advised by Gonnason.of the legal requirement. Continued Councilman Trimm noted that bids could be rejected if too high. Alternate sources of funding were discussed. Moved by Clymer, Second Perry, close the public hearing. SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHINPOCH, CONTINUE HEARING UNTIL DECEMBER 17. Councilman Stredicke requested information for the 12/17/79 continued hearing from the City Attorney re delayed or deferred assessments for elderly and from..the Administration re alternate Hearing Continued funding/federal funds for project to accomodate elderly citizens. to 12/17/79 MOTION CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND CLYMER, SUSPEND RULES AND PRESENT AGENDA ITEMS 9.a. and b. CARRIED. Kohl & Christianson Hearing Examiner Kaufman recommended denial of rezone from Addition Rezone 'R-1 to R-3 property located between 80th Ave. S. and SW 3rd R-392-79 & Special Place, north of SW Sunset Blvd. ; Kohl and Christianson Addition Permit SP-407-79 R-392-79 and SP 407-79. Appeal was filed by Attorney E. 0. Appeal Thomas, III , on behalf of Kohl Excavating, Inc. and Ivan C. Christianson claimining errors in judgment by the Hearing Planning and Examiner and stated reasons. Development Committee:Report Planning and Development Committee Chairman presented report Kohl & Christianson noting consideration of Kohl and. Christianson Addition Rezone Rezone and and recommended that Council upohold the decision of the Special Permit Hearing Examiner denying rezone application R-392-79. MOVED Denied BY PERRY, SECOND CLYMER, CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATION OF THE COM- MITTEE.* Gary Jackson, 1919 Dexter Ave. N. , Seattle, Architect representing the owners/applicants, explained site not well suited to single family residences and would create problems. Planning Director Ericksen used wall maps and explained area and proposed use of a professional office building. Upon Council inquiry it was noted those opposed to the rezone were present and petition opposing rezone had been filed with Hearing Examiner bearing signatures of 438 area residents. *MOTION CARRIED AND Rezone denied. Irving W. Hull Recommendation of Land Use Hearing Examiner, Fred Kaufman, ezone R-394-79 for Irving W. Hull application for rezone was denial . Property Appeal located in vicinity of 421 Burnett Ave. S. ; rezone from R-3 to R-4 requested to permit construction of a six plex residential structure. Appeal was filed by Attorney Mark E. Fortier for Planning and Irving W. Hull claiming error in fact and law. Development Committee Report Planning and Development Committee Chairman Perry submitted • Irving W. Hull report noting consideration of the Hull appeal to Rezone 394-79 Rezone ' and recommended the Council modify the following findings and Denied conclusions: Finding No. 11 and Conclusion No. 4 are in error but the committee found not substantial and not compelling for modification or reversal of the Examiner's recommendation to deny the requested rezone. The report stated the proposed rezone is premature and the requested use would have a detrimental effect on surrounding properties and recommended Council affirm the. recommendation of the Hearing Examiner. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND CLYMER, CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOP- MENT COMMITTEE.* Mark Fortier, Applicant's Attorney, outlined errors in facts and law, claiming area in transition; adjacent to central business district; proposed rezone within Comprehen- sive Plan for area; not adjacent to linear park but to parking lot;' adjacent property illegally converted to multiple dwellings; • impact would be from 4-plex' to 6-plex. Discussion ensued. *MOTION CARRIED and rezone denied.. Executive Session MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND SHANE, COUNCIL HOLD. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATIONS. Council President Shinpoch requested attendance of Mayor Delaurenti , and Assistant Parness, Personnel Director Green and Negotiator Treverton. CARRIED. Time: 9:30 p.m. RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting November 19 , 1979 Municipal Building Monday , 8 :00 P . M. Council Chambers MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting to order. ROLL CALL OF BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, Council President; CHARLES F. SHANE (ar ived COUNCIL at 8:25 p.m.) , THOMAS W. TRIMM, EARL CLYMER, GEORGE J. PERRY. MARGARET PROCTOR, RICHARD M. STREDICKE. CITY OFFICIALS C. J. DELAURENTI , Mayor; LAWRENCE WARREN, City Attorney; WILlIAM IN ATTENDANCE E. BENNETT, Deputy Finance Director; DEL MEAD, City Clerk; . GORDON Y. ERICKSEN, Planning Director; WARREN GONNASON, Public Works Director;. MICHAEL PARNESS, Administrative Asst. ; BRUCE PHILLIPS, Fire Department; JOHN BUFF, Police Department; JOH WEBLEY, Parks Department • PRESS GREG ANDERSON, Renton Daily Record Chronicle MINUTE APPROVAL MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND TRIMM, APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 5, 1979 AS WRITTEN. . CARRIED. I , SPECIAL AWARD Mayor Delaurenti displayed Special Civic Award to the City Landscape from Washington Chapter American Society of Landscape Architcts Architecture for developing a unique trail system along cedar river from Cedar River Trail Lake Washington to City Hall , as well as developing Planning Ordinances which specifically refer to landscape requirement. . The Mayor commended,.the Planni,nq, Department work on the proj ,ct. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been poste. , L. I .D. #315 published and mailed \according to law, Mayor Delaurenti openid Sidewalks the public hearing to consider Local Improvement District Nol. Burnett Ave. S. 315 to construct and install concrete sidewalks on the east 1 side of Burnett Ave. S. between S. 2nd St. northerly to a point 88.5 feet north of the north margin of S. Tobin St. Letter •f protest was read from Minnie Ellison, 88 Burnett Ave. S. , claiming property owners on east side are being asked to pay for sidewalk that will benefit only the people on the west side; also that property owners adjacent to he.r south boundary hav- installed a sidewalk several inches above the natural ground , level and above her walk and above existing walks on Tobin S . Letter from Public Works Director. Gonnason reported the one protest received constituted 5%' of the total dollar amount o, the LID which is $23,938.84. Continued Persons present making inquiries: Alex Cugini , 6i.1 Renton A e. . So. , questioned $25 per linear foot cost. Public Works Director Gonnason explained the cost of appurtenances charged against all properties: four wheelchair ramps ($2,000) and 50' curb and, gutter. Ivan Tangen,rManager of Cedar River Terrace, noted traffic hazard, need for marked crosswalk, dead end street sign and possible stop sign. Minnie Ellison, 88 Burnett S. , note. walk will be four to five inches higher than property level . ,, Mrs. Dahl , daughter of Ellison's, complained of high cost for- Seniors on social security. Public Works Director suggeste. HUD Block Grant funds be investigated. Sandy Webb expressed' the opinion that when improvements are for the benefit of th- newly built retirement home, it appears unfair to assess the adjacent properties. C. Ellison, 88 Burnett S. , inquired as to liability for anyone injured by stumbling on raised. sidew= lk. City Attorney Warren advised that once design and constructi .n accepted by the City, liability rests with property owner. Discussion ensued. Upon Council inquiry, Public Works Director explained the L. I .D. was started by City, initiated by resolution. • ' • • • (Copy Receipt) (G�} ills a StAL . 2 SUPERIOR COURT. Of • AS`HINGTON: :OR` KING, COUNTY: 3 5• IRVI1'G `W. HULL, ` ' T • �y 8 02 7 • • Plaintiff. . . No:'. . • 7 8. vs: - , CITY OF RFNTON, SUMMONS o:a Defendant• 10 . • • • 1.1 12 `.. A lawsuit has.be'en"started against you in the above entitled court.;by Rt�ING ca: HULL 13 plaintiff 'Platnt'i'ers _cla�m'-is atated :in, •the 1-" 0 c`a� •ri .f Sar �' A or: is ';�' '�w:. •'wit n � a o�. ,,i. -�i_ w�t� x� eo h. �h user ed=�`�'-; ,w` c u ''`on:":ou' tti>� i `s��suirimo• p'Y Y. ,t.. v in order. o'defe� d'a' inst hi :la':' u .fit?,. r iu ,'',,''x'':15 ,`t ri ga t s ws kt, y©u mit i ,respondA o i�t b ,,It ti hi r �.� •tii ,,,y• '� ix .:�"F�4w � it �, i'_ �5 �o,.. .��..-- w b<� :i. z: i;. �.-f f. ,5R �,5.v?. fi'�.�', ct-: 8�. �. „v.. fin.., L� o•S f. �`tlefense�i!n ritin' �'d°' `r "'ir d'° i~,�•ari 5tr e�iii�co"� u o'ii'�'tfi�e, n erg nerl'�att:oi�ne ,1'or"t�fi'e".`lanfff•:wt'liri.2`U`.•. ,,` days after the service of this summons, :excluding;the day of`sere'ce, or.a default judgment '.' 17.' ay be cntercd against you without notice A defaplt Judgment is one.where the plaintiff is entitled to what he'asks for because yo.0 ha•ve not responded'.'I-f,you se'rve,•a notice`of a'ppear- .s>.1 .r211k. g y J . g . Y . �.;�•�s�,,�_ r: ance on the undersi ned'attorne :,you:are ei%titletl;;fo:,n.gt;ice:before;a.defaulf:'ud merit,ma ..be Y5 �sU�S �r entered. ''' '• You may demand that• the • latnttff'file this lawsuit with the court. .If•' ou do so,.the d'e- ' ' xi Y p:• Y , ,,:.,,, . . mand must be in'writin acid must be serveii u!:. Et e.'; laintiff:'W.ithin 14 da s:after ou .�_ ,;r g 1? ,,. p _ Y Y . serve . c,:y ., . ,w,., ; the demanc,�, theplai, tiff"in st`fi ta ''s.aawsuit with`_tte _court;;'or,the'service,-on:you.of this: s "t Application'' tor: ri •°` k f,F�r summons and c&ii will be void ‘4,4'4€ G1 -t If you wish to.seek the a.dvice.of an'attorney in•'this matter,;:you-should do so promptly•so 0kt. = r;�„�T±.;� that your written response, if.aiiy,..may';be •aerved on ;tune: '': '�*``"'y This summ• ons •is issued,pursuant to:Rule 4'.of`• th.e"Super:iiio.r ;Court-Civil Rules,of,the State k°�=u=``"' of Washington. �;rt ".;' :a.. K,A[tGiANIS &.`AU.ST[`N , t, • k r .,' 't • <�.zn"wv ;y; = ,�; FtK`:E 'OFZT.I R ;;; w` Attorneys• fog lilaintiff'. x4' v `' 2'1',2� Pacific Building . sY` ;~, :; Washington• 98104 - r',,,;j;Y_: Seattle 'W • �fl y 3w. s,1,4 t Stcy ..wARI.I A'Y16AAhti11N 1'.1,.•t`ud G - • _,.' 2110Pui11cA 11dlnq. . . "u.•. .,(z 4j�� - _ _ ?t' StraUe:WNoginn9EIM . ,,, , December 10 197� • 1• , W �'f' ',fi1'-:`.} ;'T;`; ' • 3 IN THE .SUPERIOR"-.COURT ::OF WASHINGTON IN ;'AND:'FOR` KING. COUNTY. ' . 4 IRVING .W. " HULL, ) 8 1 O 4 - 7 S Petitioner,1. k i+',! - yNO. 7 J l T APPLICAT.ION, FOR WRIT .CITY . OF RENTON,. ) OF:_CER.TIORARY . . , :" 8 ) Respondent: , ) 9 - )' r COM£S. NOW THE,, petitioner; by and through"his attorney, i2 MARK E•. ' FORTIER;,''`and 'petitions' the above c,ap.tioned" ,.•court; for 'a: . Writ of Certiorari directed to the, espondent in., File -.N:o: R-394. ,79 , 14 entitled,: Hull Rezone -Appeal, "requiring ';thef.,:,J pondent.'to certify, l5 •to this court',at a specified time acid placea a< 'full transcript of Fs � , y a, t '''''''''''''''''''''I'-"''''''''':: ,-,' ` ,' ..'.. - ; n r .t r,g}us.i1-,: 1�.i.:• ? trr' t i .: - -/ . the record and proceedings had 'in said 'cause for review .herein, . and that:. on the . count revs ew.,;t 17 ;< p . he:..same as, to the, claim by, ..':. IS said petitioner that ..the -respondent has ;exceeded; its jurisdiction • 19 • by 'acting, arbitrarily wand capriciously and by committing other. 20:. errors o£ >law r.2a . This application:.is. based upon. the aff%davit •off•" MARK, E. f FO:RTIER 'hereto attached,"and by .this reference made. a:part.; of 23.: this application Respectfully; subm t. KA•RGIAN.IS.. &'',AUST:IN:,` • .. t, M � dt ..]rm t 3fi Ft.. 4 a4„y ti i.iji."ig, r�ti P i.4 t y .t T '1:m 13, ,s � � �, r r.tir 'r�£ �'�ta 3,t!x�l v'•4� '�� � t C" L t �' _ _ F C�i ,�tik i }, • �;z ! �% ,�$ t rT�`} •�`aar ti.F ,, #.'�',y° i P,r,- - e' � i' �°0` ;7, ri ':*1iI'n44 -� "$rid x v fr: +St a it i ';+,�^' 7F'1'• F7t r{*'�,,'{.'a kr� a�=fi�'ti35Ajkt° y a St - ,x t , f z v s �r 7 t{ a s r+ z try to`� ,` k • : ,c' v r ? • s y zF }'Y�S, s '• :�:'' d. k'i4y e ., v x ��3 2 i '' r�ii ,'.4, `' �r tar c,. s- • K t y�v} xf3A '`t��M y� .jtt`k; `�'�,knt-ter t } , �17 xi z rr t 11 d +h1. '�y�'4�T�tF ca t"aur{ s t?.,FS ,, x '4 4, }fit-4 r9rc vk fl•.r, x .',f: Y• . d9!1�,kV *z r t pj,fNVii1 f`u s�`• �_' S '�$• .Y3G I!s��� ^ii 5 W F / h N f �Y _. `� d"�br r xi.C'�,s r'�+,i a s`3 f• tt` z ' c by r,4 t ` 4 to '.ir' 'ay' 91 . 'h'•<i 1a1$ 4 %. "nw4 ),..-'1t `--' t�1;y or{fy, 'hY''; ''�k ` t..# ,,r� a,14 a,� { 't i ..s - ' '',:r r e h1 . '. Stt- `"1"N',,ai rz 1 ., `r�"�u'kn+ '�✓ n� [t 't ! tLwjM�Cy ''¢�'� tr e'K�^; t r t �, irf y, • 'c +�� ,y 4 4r�-�`V y5 itf� y7 ` f9`1{: �'A`5. F r, . - i � r w rti1�{�+y�yPP �#a�,f�k J� it'r. t Y y} Al'. ,°Yr r c •' �' ti" a ' '''' 3: .' IN .THE' SUP RI .R'. OF.,,: J. E 0 COURT . ;4A$HI,I�GTON';T'N':AND;�::�F.O.I� 'KTNG, :CO.UtJTY=-:.:,' :. ' , a IRVING W:. UL ;,, Petitioner;,/ '.. M a Nj '. 7 it •52 °,':Q �i,. .f!., -vs- ) 1:',-.'-:7:. ) AFFIDAVIT.,.IN SUPPORT 'OF;. CITY .OF RENTON'► .' ' )- APP,I;ICATION .FOR' WRIT ,.OF` 8 ) CERTIORARI. Respondent. . ) 9 ) j I I STATE OF WASHI;NGTON :)"" i2 ',County of King ) ss r� 13 PIARK E. FORTIER, "being first duly sworn. .on.`,oath, .deposes. 14 and states..as follows , IS That =he ''is the attorney for petitioner,;above named ;'and IG h • respectfully shows the 'court I.?.. I 18 That ;on 'the -l.st day ,.of Augusta :1.97,9', an,''applicaton ''for „` ' 19 rezone- was formally accep ted by-.' h te 'Rent,on P_la n'ing ,Departmen-t., . 20 File No. R-394-79 -of the records of 'said department,. ,.-'.-',':-..-:'...,,-. -.-., ,--',. ,-.',, .., .'H '.f. .,-; . ' I . . That the; '.petit.ioner :.i.s. ,gin -int0es;t:ed'.party 'in t'he' :afore'' 23 mentioned' proceeding . 24 I.I I . 25 caring Examiner„denied the .re'2one That th,e Renton Land Use H , ,:, ,, .,',- ,'., 26 applicat'ion., arid` that the" Renton City Cou'nci.a ujptield that dc'r i,e i on to deny the ' request-ed'' rezone' wit ' ..27 . . _ - _'a-:,dew'. t0.n94;-7.0anges, in ,ii),,e.: -.,, .. , . ,,, . , Examiner s f indin' s and conclusions.. 7V:' ,=��I : That in. makin'g., the aformenl zoned:";d.i silos tion, of _said roceedin s, said.. Hearin Examiner:-:and ;Reri 31' .. ,,,,,,,..,,,,,,,.:„..„ p g g ton City Council erred 3'2 by acting ''arbitrarily and' capriciously and. commi'tting- other errors, :.::' ''''''' hniii.l,iNt}.x t. :lls t rni AFF`. IN SUPPT,. OF ' 11) P FOR JPTT OF rwiIQRARI 1'' n r.l atl"„ /I of law and thus.-have exceeded 'their, jurisdiction, y That .the 'petitioner has exhausted all of his `administrative 4 remedies, '. 5� y VI. ; ate`�� il C �+ 1 } - _ �r 4lf" �.r art _�{2, v t' ;�, _ � -, � -i-� ,5 �.' r t i'- , l $ - , S,kka.`t :„;6. i^7 Yb .r 4 `? < -i ,9' A F-1+ �t .^!' , : t 4 .•: , - 'That thi"s 'is "a proper` case; toy.; the issuance''.'of 'a, Writ :o:f Certiorari because: th'e respondent has exceeded ,its jurisdiction, 8 and there is no other., pla'in, speedy, ald ade"quate;'remedy t law. WHEREFORE,;' ! ',ra ,5,.=,th`at';a' Wr-it :.of 'Certiorari, .issue Ito ': out of : the above;-cap"-tioned'.court''.d;ire:ctin the`"res' .onde.nt. to i1 . P g P certif its records`,in:,' said' :. roceedin",s:f;to: such court so that 9 P 13 ' the reasonableness and lawful ess:.":of its_. ,denial th'er.e n ,ma,y be'' inquired. into," and. determined 14 " IS r4A E: F.OP.TIER .. • RK. 17 18: SUBSCRIBED. .az d SWORN ,.to before, me;"this day of•-December, , 19 • 1979. 2Q S • 2-1 n=: and; f the State OTARY PUBLIC .i or f Washingto n, residing at Seattle. 22, - 23 ; • 2 2S . . : ,,,,,,_:,..,. ,,1.: i ,::::, •., ,,..,:.'„, .i-,:: '..:;.,,,..,':',Ir.,::',.:,,:' 1:,; ,:;:',..„,:‘,....::1'ir,:::. ',:" i,::.:, .,,, .,:..i.:. ,,:, '' : ' :. '. .:• ,, .. 25 2.g I 2`) 30 3:1 -. AFF. IN SUPP OF..APP; FOR ;WRIT,'OF ,CERTI:ORAR'I/2' . I.,i',.' (lffiec.t'nf I.\'I(( I:\NI' A A11ti1'IN r. 2 ' IN• THE;.:SUPE RIOR, COURT_ OF WAS.H ING'T.O N;:,'I.N`.'AND<'_'FOOR KING.,'COUNTY' , , , �7�y 8 �0 I` RV_IP G._.W .' HU' S G�. ,'',V.c::( war ! P '•,, ti. }sexy. ,XY,�S 1' t J� :p"'yt�O "4y'11Y;, .7.. .. ^y' � ..�? ti tii��i■Gi`.� .,.v?,..a'�•"�{�i Y•:.r,`:C,'�,a1^�Y�,�:1^ .J' y;. �ry Il. it'. , ry 7 ).. `' ::;ORDER:FOR<' ISSUANCE• OF..:,`•,: -.. • , ' • CITY OF RENTON., )`: :,,WRIT: OF CERTIORARI • R ) Respondent. ) , 10 „ I'I f2HIS' MATTER `havin . ``come. on`'re'=ul.a .:1 :for.,, rin :..0 on...t.he • g g Y g p • r rhea 12' application 'of IRVING.`:.W. HULL, and••;a,ffidav ..t:'..;:.i --,,•support thereof, 13 for a writ Of, certiorari directed to; Ci:•.ty' of. Renton :'the.,:Ren'ton. •. CityCouncil' .o�r.' an other. er• . r . .. - the;-�c.us.tody `of the � Y. . P ng s'on�:::,O av i . 15 record,:'•o'r: roeedin s.:to.'be `cent -f'ied�` . ., ,P g reqiiir,ing: said person or 16 ersons •to certify :.to: this: court the transcript =and record: of , 17 . the proceedings. 'had by the City, of Renton i.n F'i,le:..No.' •R-394-7,9, ' ' 1.s he: .' entitled Irving •Hull Rezone, upon t h grounds that as''.st.ated 19 • • in said affi:dav,it. .that' .the .City;;::and;_ .:a'gens''-.and employes.... , y- ,and-:ca riciousl a'nd:: om c. mit;ted;. Other... errors• of..„..., 20 •" acted arbitrarily � -21 _law, and it appearing' from�'said.:`app,l°icatj;.Ori 'and .affidavit...that .:, .-22 • this is a proper cause for-,•the` 'issuance', of. .such -a writ; now 23 therefore, 24 IT IS HEREBY• ORDERED that 'a':Wr;it o'f`O.Cer•,tidrari issue out: of .• •25 and under the seal' of•-this: Court directed to,.,5the .City of. ;Renton, ,:., • y ,. . "2 '•` The Renton .City:'Council:,,`:orr: an�,..o'ther. :Per'son.=.,having the .custody • • 27 • -• of the record of proceedings -to.--be certified',: .c:omman•ding. them etur y . ,, 28 • r n '.to •th` :: at the •King ' . forthwith to 'certif: •fully and s court' , 29' County Superior„.Court.; -King 'C;ou'nty_ Courthouse,.' 3rd & James,' Seattle, �� . . ..' ( . _- 0 Washington, on .or�•be�fore'.;the" , . 4 ' da, of �7— • 1 :31 a., full and complete transcript ;of' :'the, records. ;a.nd .proceedings in ..32, i. • said .application' before; them had;:_.with `the:,,-4, tent;_=th'at the "same I.�wltlfig,'� nr : •+• : ';' + � , �,,..., ' 4'•,e: : . •r5' 1111.}I;IN , UI(1)1.1 ..I''U_IZ LS5 OL....V11Z.,I:T. OI. .Cl IZ I I O1tn1s;T/1 ;I;n I•pr•,„,; '1i„,1,1 - i it} .C, t i ,r c 5, b '1_';ry' .rx ,.,,. r} -t/ a {. �,` 'ori'er th a`t'` '.it1• • �t :1 t�G x'�,v10wc.di 'b,y .tli1.�: 'ccauzita.u��o s �. 1 y :P �,a.ic Pro::ce•cdin'irs;..and denial of s�aad application were,:-arbitrary r , - ` 3 and ,`capricious, c.onta ni:ng other errors:of':: law ,.and.,exceedin'g r , ,a a*t:Y. ..,, to-: - 'i 1 ei:. U dZ t ,: , . . . ;i`y:. :,f`mow' -:r. ::yr,;. 7..�- ., .,n... ram...,. ..,.,•..,. .:,..... � ..,...-,.,. �.a-` , J - 'r j.l yi .�b a, dac. ,: - `tuber'. 9 9 ;,ur iL1 .;° a^.S' 1, - t 7 , - ;nr y4: - D M. • N 1.1.E JUDGE/COURT. 'COMM'I'SS'IONER 8' E �: COURT:• COMMISSIONER, ',:: • . . 10 Presented by KARGIP.NIS :.& .'AUSTIN .• 11 • 12_ . Byjf 13 MARK E. FORTIER' Attorneys for Petitioner A f�tee,1 ��i Tn QO•VTE". T • isr'4. .4VC;e;_`; of r e. • frtt i j 177i� 18 t��. • 20 • .21 • ._ . • • • : . 24, • 25 • • 3fi 27 . . , • 2� 30 .. . • • 31 . OR[)E'R FOR ISS;. OP WRIT, or CPR.7'T`U.RAR'I%2 ' :';.: I :r„ c ' i> r 1` Renton Ci.ty. Council. _ 12/17/79 Page 5 C-onsent Agenda -' Continued: e i ourt: Su Aff,'day; Summons and Writ Su:p r or,.� C mmo,ns,�;; ts and. rder for Issuance`, of, Certiorari of Wr:it'.of; Certiorari 79-2-081'.02-•7. Irvi'ng W. Hull . alleged • arbitrary, and cape i cous actions on the part of the City re H011. Rezone R-394-.79(v i c i n i ty of ,421 Burnett Aver S.) . Refer. to City Attorney. Energy Letter from Dan ^Poli ,; .420:SW,",Langston Rd , requested revision • Conservation of :the 1ighting system in the downtown area.. Refer to the Energy: Conservation. Comm'i,t tee. Consent Agenda MOVED BY ,CLYMER,' SECOND,:SHINP.QCH:, ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA Adopted AS PRESENTED r'CARR'IED. OLD BUSINESS ParkSupt;,..Ron: Heiret , reported the Park Board had met Wells Ave regarding "the':Welis Ave:' Bridge replacement and that final Bridge ;report Was-:forthcoming for 1/7/80Council meeting. Hill crest Upon- ,inqu:try' of Councilman Stredicke regarding pet Ft ion Residents from'" H i l l.crest sen i or citizen residents .regarding harassment Pol i:ce",R'epresentat ive<.Per.ssons explained awaiting court' order to :move one of the offenders out of the community. • Fire Code Counc i loran Hughes5 n' oted''',f.-i re:,co de:',Violet ions :at. new Senior,' " . '" VioletViolation :Center`and: asked correction of ;three ,doors.:opening inward Plane `ng..Director an 1, Park Suet stated yiolation has been reported•:for," follow through by <:the .Fi're "Department. Exec :'MEET IN_ EXECUTIVE cutive MOVED`BY:,SHINPQCH, SECQND�,;CC`YMER .000NCI.L Session SESSION` TO•DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATIONS AND LAND ACQUISITIONON. MO-VED'. BY :SIREDI`CKE.; S-ECOND: TRIMM, AMENDMOTION TO REQUEST ATTENDANCE., OF NEWLY-ELECTED COUNCILMAN .:ROCKHI LL. CARRIED. CARRIED-, T.i me i.}'°l'1.:;50 ': .:m.'. P ADJOURNMENT The.;:Counc i.l` resumed regular ,.Council' .Meeting' at 12:30 a'.m. Ro,l:l Call Al l:-present as previous.ly' shown; MOVED BY •SH I NP.00H,,.:;,SECOND CLYMER,:;:MEET ING ADJOURN. 'CARRIED-. • Delores A. Mead C. C • • .. ., --, . , . .. . ,,,. . t•• . . .. ;".-"..--„:,-.;'.-•••1. • ..:-' :.-• - . ' : -••'- : - ' .- ' , ,-. •''',••::,'''-'.1.,:i;'••-.•- • $ Or:V;T-r: ; .,'‘--" • • . . ",;?-i:;.2',.;',"•''''., '„.. .. . . . ., . • •.... •- - .. . •,,-.- ,••-',:•,..;'''•• - • -,',. •t'rf`-.--;,!,ez,'-'-."-- •-• ." , , -.;•.1.11.,',..,...;1. ...• '- . • ‘ . ,f, ..,, .. . . . . . ,.,. , . . , . , ••:..-.. .."1."':' . . ' • '-,:-,f,',."' ,,. . • ,,,& • ' ''It . . - . ,..,/ 7,,s‘ • .''''''..,i!,-; - f ''. , . - — ---T "'1-. .24,=.1.3111%, .."........ • , ,' ,. .,,.,• 1. - '1. „..`i,ta,f ...............--........e. — • , •• . ., ,,,,,t. ...., ' ' ' -'4441F7410/4-i' ; :r. . ","..v.r.. , ,• .r. - • ‘ ' --`.04tr'9, -0-Arv•it• •,.•r - r• '. . . . ...,t„-.. ,.- . , . . t • -tctt,',4."...-• .- • 47-7..,' , • . ...'' ; . , • -.l'- - ' • , ! • . .,.. , . • rt..7,„:4-aotel . . , . • , • . . . , . •, . • • . . . , ?,,,,, . . • • .. . , . • =,' . . • . . • — , ________,_______•,_____ •. , • ... . • • . . „ • . AW4.:4,:k..*".•,.-.,,,,. •, • • ,, . .• . .. , . . 1_,,,,,,1'. --„q•*•=,,,,'..-r---.-..,.-, -:' . . . . , . • . • , r.--,4-,,,,,,,,..r.r..,,-,•;, ; • ." -" . ,. - ,,,-, .,;•,•- M.7,4r.,",":;,....--•':.'..", '--:- . . . , . : . . ,. . • . g$4,1'0,.r.r'X'.2.4. -.--'2'... - :' e . • . . • •• -:-.,-;;;;4.,tr,:t4.,1 . • .. , . -• •71.v..1,-,r,p2,-,,,,,t;;,,,,,1-'''. • -• - .r.,..:;;1'1,-„41-1-,•:-..----,,-;;;-:•-,:t-...• • .- •e • • .:..,,' ; ., . . _e,;:.,7:g;`.•...- 43 ..• .'. .'" - I . , t.„4,,,,',..-,,e,'.',.,..,•'5'.,::'. - . , ,. . .. . ,. . , ''',"•,,,47'-eA;.,','„';•'..'"'''s'.'': . . . . „ . . .• , .. . • "".',..,,04.,,.,,'; •.,,,.. .,- . • • •' . . - - .- • , , .. . 1 ", 'i'l,,,u',,.;:,'?',T,'";::1-.:,',.-4-''.' ' - • . •. .. . i 0a:';,',it'6',' '''' •r.-:•,;,..,,,,', . . , .0,..S4,'.,'i•.:,''.:;.-. •'• • , - " •.. .0(,,i;,:,,;:.,,;•-;:',‘ ••'5'r-,;.,,,, . . ••, -11,.. -..-:,,,',..,,...;.",,,,' t ,..=,-,,- - . . . , ,, _...... , .. . •• 4.-",.:1;,:P c''-'`-:-: .';- '. • ' ,.- ,. ,q,;;11.--;•‘•„.' .,,,,,,,x,.& . , ,. . . , .••• t., .. "•i'..,,',';.•ion ''. :., . .qiii.';',7; 7 ••.14„,,,,-.„... "...".....-..n.a... .' "•';',..'''' ta - ..,. • ... ...____ • . "*"."-'''.•-•-• .......-..., --.7:7......, 'L. " '" • L ''''' ' • i 4". - '" - ' _- "" :"tt.4.1.,/,g,a;i••• . . ,• '. .? • - • . , • A 14,,,4=1A.1......' .,, • ,.. ,, : ' ''t:.T.f.V : I • ..';',.„",',,,".. .. • . ,,, . ., , . ... . . .. ,.:*.- ,';‘'',.-1.''..., "• , ' , . ' • '..;7;:'4, , .• • • 'i. . • '' - ..- , • -.. • , ' • -..,..,7,.A.!. '• • ., . "-*"".* • - SI A • 'ie.' 1'41 %),,fi: ...',..,2V,',:40.14^..14.1.-,"..=0 ..... P .12'.9h"..•, ;o'",',....- .1,04'kv.-yi..,.k.-...,, ,..", • ' , - --44'4-k,,..4444., ' -;'''.;1`. ,. . it.;:,\r",,',?.?..,:'..'44.‘,'.Y.'.,,f, , • „ '•••4•Nt'r, ;.,;......"'..f,....,-. .r. • • • • . • , . . . . . • , . . ,.•."". . . „-, • • • ..,--- . -- _. . .r.".-•:...•;•"... . .. . . • ;,-!,....f......?,.;••4'..,...,';',..4 . • •.•"". ' . .•- :.-. • - - ' "'..-';'`''''-..,;;.-N.-"r".',M.3. 'Ar.'1,4gil."5•:.-Vi,•,.. ,.."-..",r.. ,,.;.. ' . , . :'',,-.,.. .., - •' A•'.*'''''.•4,"?1.11•,.5:14'isl: .'.'.0--.--''..--. .•;. .'..."....'.' ••,,,'''...?".`f.:,.'"i/.',,k,..`''',.'V.t5,!:1A'',"*.i,tila4,g ,, • .. ... ,,-, -, .....' ''''F'14"4 '1454.•,I,'.1,.. ••?..z.....,",•.2::';..,;•••,.,1;;,;',"..,:-•,..,,,,.;.,-..;,r-vi;,,;',;;;;....,.w ',.z.,,,,i),:;.;,...:§41,;.;&, , ..,.. . ;, . ..' . t• 41, : '&'''''1.:4,1•'•"'.,f4.:,,...,f;':.''''':','"?..,"• :". ..•....,;,'..,.z-. "1.• ',.„ • ..-,,',., ,i.'''" ";;..7 ",7'.';5:',".1."..",‘,'','-';,,::;.(4,79,A, 1•1`.:5'-''''41.' li.t,4•.:,,gk$ '.''j1;1"Z''''•;;.'•0.7';'‘.i. ili";'-•;',16 '"'j!',"-if),E frL•`',%'.55:Zii?qii:`,.-:".1:,"",4;:-:;•41,30,i;'44b",'"' . r''';'•'0''.'''''";''''J'Cr'.A:.,-.;;,-":.'''. '-ii--e.41‘.1i?„:1-.,'.:2',.i. ..''''.A.',.,.'"‘" -`...,".•.X*,•.1. ,4,,ii'6•,•„,1i:.•" ;;AL'i,"•'","'4;,-•-•,..',.i. ;. :: .. . ., •;Of, ',",".,,,,",`.3,.....•:'-"...':•.::.' ' -•''a'r.'","'"'-•• „ '..'•' .'. ..- ' • "• •.'.'''"1..'-'',.'•,••.:'.,:,!..‘h1;`,',Y,Ci)". .'•,,,A 4.'. . i.. • ., .....,"" • '. . . '.',":4Y4i-'•-:".". .".i."'...---".".. .-,,. ,•.".•- .,... ' .". ' . ' . .,....;•'_'...'."..,';`,";.:-`4,,-"-.,,,f"'';',..-1,0 A' ..4- .,,,,,,,,,v...rel'. ' ,,. , . ''.,„:,,,,,...4. ,,.....:-.:",,,I,.:-.4.1 I t • •• : .•.,..,•:.,.., , . -.. =-.,.. -,,c,,,,,,:;,:•-•....-,,,,,i,,,-k:::-•; ,..,,,,, ., ' ''' , .. , - 't * 11. . ,: :.,....;, ''..,,,''-' .. . ...••', - -. ..' ...-- : -', -,. ';-;.•-,„,,:::;',,,,,• c,-...•F:'?!,t. --. • - • g # . ,,, , .%.ie .- • .. t.:‘' ' ..-'''1. '''""• • " - . . .., . ,,,,,,..(.6,..,;:•,,,,,g1_1,:•. .;.:,i4,,. *.-;,., "; .• ' . ., ' .7`•:;40.1;."4 : p.1..I," "••..,..?",..,..,•,'"•',.'. '• ." .,. ,.... .— ,. . „ • . • I ,_.4,, . '.';','.• ',";4'i-,',ir--,'"••- ',,rf . . • 4 .—Ittt— . a.e../.04 ,„,, 1 t. ,. ... , „,_,, . •;., , :•` ' .....', ,• 4. ......... . . , ..4.: :' -..:f2i.-,'",.- • ',,..• ' , . . , '7'-'-'' ' • . ,'„,'‘k±,-':'""i P.,:."''•' ' -,,, . ' •— - . ' , ..-'''...,:.-7,''''''„''''',.'' -.:', '''-, . ''.' • •t',." *V.,‘, ........„, 1 , ,• • .• , s:::•,•'e..'-:I:,., ,'` . .,.:' " • '-'N-'', -, ..1_,.... --'.;''''. • ,,'.1.,,1,,,,..;,• , , , '''.4.:1•', "':`',;''..-,%:. • ‘ •''.4. .....', :'' '..,•: ", . '':-?.; , „ • . • - ..'; "..4.'fIzt,..4., ...;. •,, ... r. ,1., ' • . - -,' , ,,,, • • . . .. • • . . . .. . , . . ' • . , . .• . . • . . , . - .,..,:--•1,3, 41;ffit,"040Z:1,,*•40, , • , • ..., ,,4 d s.4,,,,-,,* .,„.. ...1,. ,A.,,ly.X.1,,,,,,,, •i•.—f.„„,,,, ..A.. to . ; ''' '.:, •, ‘:,- :, ... . ,• '' 4),,,4''S.,4',A.141+1% ' :''''''''4,-'^':' -.':'t • t;-c.,,, V.,''''‘i‘#-”V",l•-•,......:‘,..v;;:-... , .:.•,,'"','ic.,r4.,IPArt:',7):".4.00 ; ..,; . -. • , .,•;.,, ift-,... ,••..-:p.--,-.t,,..t,':,,: -7-5?!'":.4.:Itcrk,;:!.4!..:.el,f4,-}#,,..--:. •--,.. ....i.rimw-akrry.-., - -r" .:- • ":-'0•4'''' V'T .• -4t3C 'I'' '--.--, l•'''''''' ,.:,„.. sgrlAzyi. 144,-; l ,.!, ,...0-,:ilti ',1° "°,.-4.4'.11kvfl: '::.„„4,41 t''.,,t;',/;4',,,, • . ''''''Mit'74Pati-''' " ' t- . ' -''',"•;',7%,.15.--,:' .:','N•fiV143' ."`':4:1?1'; •. '"-'e?,'-`F;. " . , rt • • , . • ' ':'I . . . . • , -,. ''t • . 04 'a . . • • '1.1.;. . . . • . . . - . . , . - , 'lot' . • , • , . , . . . . ',,,,. 4I'V' . , .-4''' ",,fi 'f'r. —.--.-.........,.------_-.--- ,. .._ ...,---- . . • •-.. . , . : , , • • . . •••"...,--.....<.;-,Itty- .....::',.,•;:?Vt... x!'. 441, ct.,,,, e'':.• . `Z,:'.1.;:',,../7-.",:-:..,9,74';3. .... 'itT,.Z.,,..„*., 1.... • , • • , .1,..177.4:4':1 ,..0.,,,,v--....,,,w .. ••:,, . r -,.§.-4.%pi., _'.`-t'''',. . - • ,, ',; ''',4):Tr--.6.,;'.:---qr":".0 -.`'.•...-4.;',.. • ' '-'Sic,' • -7 --4'3 ,`-' '-F4',.-1 e';•,t,-,4-fi.. ,'•-,s-Attt I— . t-:-'1 •%.;rf...;;">4.•,ft- •:•--,"': '''... . . , "."- 'ctt ,z' '.-4,-- ,-#'-,6 .,,, tt-i5,,, tbt k. ,t• ks, .1".•'-10,4^47'. ' -,.. ' .,•,," .V.'. . • ':'-'•;:l...`,;4a4:46tV "',.. ' ., ' - , - ".0,;''''''A?tget4V.,(.14`4,,..ttZ 'It*:e:P4V..,,4:gt ': 11,:-',‘.4.PietIgtt''-',,-'-.• ' ' , • — ••'''''',..t.'-1., ',,,rttir-i-tu,,./tt ti.:.,t't". -.4*,.."*.•'-,,,,,---'4.-"- . . . ,,,'- '•:'.,;-,.1::': %il''.''',''I',, 1 • i.,-'7fvcvlitTO2:. - 4, 4 : •7'' 4 '.. '. ••',7'11''''•-t4-'''VO-f-'1•44.isZOr.•;-;...-u.'"'"'"'"-- -' .." •,......?ir';-.;.:,.., ,,,,..-C,:tr,),L',.:,1:4.;;; ,„4:4,,,.. ,rr.....:. . '''.' .:•1 -" ,#::•;4.4.• -:' •-•'...,f:';'1. ''' . F. :''' . ,:: .. . .. - - ,:,..:- .41,4.'• :: --•:,.';',-• •41M''' : .. ,,• - '....,,,a';'r'A...-tr,'',i-l- '&44 , •;:./1"••.,•,..44.`4;,.•-,7,,,...,•,',,....'.. „,—„,,,,, -- ,-.%$•:,.!'ft;4',',4,106r10,q:' ,.,„....„,—;0-,...: ,-,04, ;-,,,r i,.,,,,;-;o .;,., --';•m:4-4.,i-,,,I,°, ....,-•"^ 's •.-'••'''''"-'-" • ;:•..,,, ,t;i:‘''''''N't..4-r',, .1"''''''''' '. •*40K.... ....."' • 1: ''.. ..,i,• " i " ' " r.'-'4'4•VO•,''''' '''-;14.10,4$4t"44;er r .." " - .a., i:. r, .-....;;;- „ •......, ::..1„,,,,,40p.,4 ..err,pre).. ...:.-- ...,414'4,,,romeumb..;.. ..... I. • • t li:-' 7.>II ,.. ',5 '..4.0 ..„1 • „ .,_..- ., , . . le.''' 1 11;....„....*- .-' ,W, ''. i • '• 111 i 111" ..) . - ,...,..„- , -,/„.44„-. . ..,........„,,, . s , . • -; T.-....-_____I ,:.,111...- _ -42 •, 7:.1...40, . , , ..s.,,,,,.0 ,- .- , • - ..,, .•z.,..4. '-- ..,':,'.:":,-,,e,'?,.2?.:Mci'..,:•:',.' . , . . .. _. ...- ' - - -• -..::,..t-- --..-tit:?,'",.k.',Itzt.:..' , i-. ''. . 1".(;:"t3.4:.:`:-.. ..-- , , ....„ , ' . . , ,.,,, .. - . •,...,.....?3,-,:...,...,.,,•-.:-... ,,t'q,,201t4,, . —, . . . t" , :" :-::-.,-.-.'ttr!;;;:-, ..?-.'t-i!..;4‘:.•-:.vi,',; -t-t.'. t •••,. t• ' iii,...,,,,..-6,,,,,e.,r- i',- ' - , . -, . : : , , .ra•*;;•'. .‘-eqr;fk''..".=''..4.•...:(.--'..:".-;%.7,-"-•-!;- _.' .,---' ' , .:' .,.'•--;'..,;:-',-,-,;',-.',-,,c;':;,::-;r;:..thl:',t,--.)A., .f.4;L-,1 -: --,--- rrr, ,.., : . , . . 2.: t . ( ... , r .r- , _. :r:.„.r..„r,,,,A.,.. ''''t,r4f0A-Z•%-;'-' 4'1,):'-i".r..:-;'31T-Za•;,' *fi''''''.'.'. ' '.:.'' '•,•.''.'-_,:-:!'::',,•5-•,-,..',7.,---'-•;&.••!,':::-,-_,'.;%';',t*„.i,,,, N .. ..; ,-,..',,,,.": .-- • . .c, . — . . .-t.-4,-,-,,':,,,,-.,,f.:.!•-!...r,„,;,,,,,,,,,i,.;,,,,•••---,, ,. . , ... .-L,,,--•.• .,_-_,---,..--,,,,..,,,,,,,,,...,...,akai, ,. ,: ,,,,,,k0.---.,-,.:.:7: . . , ., . .. . , -- .-P,..v--,-..,,,,.,:.'•-..3-...,- .1-:,..-..-.--• ...•-• -,.:,-.;. .' • . ..:.,•,....L...,:,--:-..',--,.--•-,>_,.....:e.-•,,y,,,.;,.,,,,,,,vA, -,,t,..).',,h---g.:,,,,,-,-•. ••. .• ,. ....:•.-.-•:.,•_,-:---:::,.,....,.....,-.,,,,,,--P,,,,,,,.,,,a • %-:,4',-,..),,....44-;.,y,.;,,:w..,.-;,.:',. •,,. • _ - _: _ , -.. •-.,. :-•.--..,,,,_,,,,..,..,.,,,.=,,,,,, , ;,..v.:1-..,?'.:-.:...,_,:-.. ':....J., . . . . • .- - . 1„_:40. ,,..,e;'-.•:A es', ..•,.-. .. .. ,..;•.,,,,"::::',..-,,,,,J.. .. .•- •'•.j'4.,,,...; ,,,,,,:_i--7-`ri,".'...:!!.,.:•..:, . : . • ...:-...,:,'t. ;.,:_-. •- : . . . . . ..' ., .ra.�+K e a i 4 - , $yw �d is pirr} r r -t =a x - h i o ter . tr ,Yk�Myo- & �. .. Ct. „._ '+�s +` 6 �k :.e + 4 �tf�',b4r , tr t�k k r' liyr r. n,., ' <.P i .+,r f f: ' r tt Yi'zt ' "'.' -, + SN�..�•,` t`a¢ " r ri r w% i %'+�+ r S. i �,rb., 3''44�• �'} Z'i+� �h. �.r. 4 •, V ..raw ~ r 4r j, + , ;'fit �� . t ;<_s c C, 'e r, s:A d .�, �. i'yg�,.�� t,YtY r •z,.s } `., ,,,; y,_ 4 .>r, w , ry 4 t� w X' KL J(;� U 9'x ,C 4 Yet 75x' "'�!-`7.i n,,;,`�". s.. ,, r ad 4s k ' , d i .y 4: �r t ,,1 w3'i r+ru' 1,yr 3t t • 11�"4,< ^a�yi•;1�,f£y �G ,?a: `i,. &G`" +r: r : .1. ,t b i,Y.�x'�Tv. S''c�'� .:ir�'�'Cx°.\itti �vdl:-ySn ':l;� r��'.i. .,.�, U�y�''"jFt%I�,�r'(. _ y. � eta'; .*:�::''�+ ,:I'�'�r:i'�?%�k,',f�'P=:``a'�r.' r''s� r a,.• Yg�n zyf �y 014i i .t�.y'lt sA,'O'n +s':t,��-g4 SS:;0 I.�? <'S'iF°y'c `:,,fit. i,b,ei „ �C ni�e2•F�r'r} ! t,�r�y m.�``.�.5"y2;'M.�`4 y 'r Sil � ��-*+F .�%3a`�ra '.;.5 a r` . ,4!;,�t�:,� ,:- " 't , i, :,hl. +ate ':'. M • • a„ g, - ., r4;;i .;:}tT1,5'.;. s`,.,,Y.^3 -•-- ,••+` • t{a •�,. kv .SS, -.•:,„,,.,�'>P�x c • kf _ lie. 44. Many i r.,i ,!'... g l ..k ` • r 414 1. by '.� xw,t7 h +� '`'.£`i' 'dr'. A`�t"'� 0;t:�' .M `^ +. n vz - 4N.. --" 5 :Kt � �,9-`t"h0-74 Y+>f+. 11 YY t wu `t ,, y t'1. ''.''„'a4 • S,.°.�"4 N -1;