Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA79-412 ° PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. WARREN C. GONNASON, P.E. • DIRECTOR °��' •. MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 90 �. D9gT �� 206'`235-2569 FD SEPCE INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR • Date: November 26, 1979 , To: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner From: Warren Gonnason, Public Works Director Subject: File No. R-412-79; Mull Rezone Request This letter is: in response to your letter of November 21 , 1979 ' relating to the slope of the above_stated property. ' After field checking and checking of topography maps in the office, it was , found that this property has a slope of approximately. 16% in the , area of Mrs. Hi 1 1 ' s north property 'line. The developer would have to furnish the City any new grades for on-site drainage as well as his proposed driveway access to and from Sunset Blvd. . If you have. need for additional information, please contact this • ' office. Very truly yours PL:jt • OF R4 . } e1 o THE CITY OF RENTON U `4 0 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 o ° CHARLES J. DELAURENTI,MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9.0 `D FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 o9gr�Q sePA '®�P November 21, 1979 To: Warren Gonnason, Public Works Director From: Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner RE: File No. R-412-79; Mull Rezone Request Slope and Field Survey The question of the topography, especially related to the slope of the subject property and the property of Mrs. Christina Hill has been raised at the October and 23, and the November 6, 1979 hearings concerning the rezone request. At the November 6 hearing Paul Lumbert of your department agreed to provide information relating to the slopes involved. The specific areas in question pertains to the slope between Mrs. Hill's property on its, northern boundary and the proposed access driveway of the Mull property. Further, the slope of the property line as it runs from Sunset Blvd. N.E. in a westerly direction is also required since the Police Department has recommended that the access driveway be raised to the level of Sunset Blvd. N.E. for a distance of at least 40 ft. in order to provide safe sight lines for turning. The. Public Hearing on this matter has been continued and will be heard on December 4, 1979. I would appreciate a written response to the information requested prior to that hearing date and as usual it will be most helpful it Mr. Lumbert or yourself can be available at the hearing to answer any questions and to provide useful__input. Fred J. Kaufman cc: Planning Department attachments ULVELOPEENI' APPLICATION REVIE!'I SHEET a Application:_A�+g¢el� 41/ 7 Av- Location: _ rj M.'" a_L�. ®----- ----- ____-_ Applicant: � lav `- ��c — TO: _Pa rks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE';//0, _ Police Department A. R. C, MEET IPJG 28 _ _--__Public Works Department .____Engineering Division _—_Traffic Engineering ___Building Division • / 'Utilities Engineering / . .,__Fire Department IONPF�IITS ,R_SWICT iL 1API'1 ICAi IViJII2EV1flMMS(:APPLHE TIe A SHOP.D" iF PROVIDED .�Z,g.. 17____ _--.-, AT 9:00 AM IN 'HIEI1 IiRD FLOOR LONI LI ON tLPJCE hlf0., IF Y 11R DEPARTMENT7DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT 11E AOL): TO • ATTEND THE ARC, PSF: PROVIDE' -ihE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DY �:110 PM ON _ REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: _ _rlj,prosed ----' -' Approved with conditions Not Approved /',i't /c./):Cry /` ','a:/c, //t-•l;jl- iv,„), /`Lz. /!'' . •7 T r-7 c7 J / i mature o. . �_,. .._ f Director or .u[doni4L(I.Q.pres enta[ive ---` _`b-1 /:' fEVLC64IPfG`.DEPARTPIENT DIV - . {� _._...... �:..- _ EV / ISION: /"o/rC_C. .. ` jay it ApprovedApproved with conditions - -- a Not A• prove L + =y,a s �r u trY� a.k, Op..' w r Il G-L Z-Pci. , j..... (7...4--v-1-7.- . eQ,Is4-A.we� riHit %....4.--&-).- ' !c -�v (` tip,`I-2A.iJe.L � � b'ignature of D _s � � t Jo�id 12 ti r n — icy - e cam' ,, Date_ • r • Mr. Blaylock indicat tat the powerline transmission could not be ut d for a dense evergreen buffer and required 50-foot natural landscaping area is ed on the steepest portion of the site which would mitigate visual impact from t..e west and protect aa. the stability of the slope. Mr. Johnson discussed methods of design which would utilize the steep slope to minimize scope of the building, and stated that the property is not ' visible from the freeway located to the west of the site. He noted that compliance with the Planning Department recommendations would eliminate at least one-third of the useable area of the subject property, and inquired regarding procedures for waiver of the recommendation. Mr. Blaylock explained the hearing process in which the applicant, parties of record and the Planning Department present their arguments, followed by review of all input by the Hearing Examiner who makes a recommendation to the City Council. The Examiner noted that it may or may not be appropriate to impose setback conditions upon a proposed rezone request, but that an environmental:Declaration of Non-Significance had been issued by the Planning Department based upon imposition of such requirements which precludes the Examiner from granting the applicant's request for elimination of the condition. Mr. Johnson requested clarification of emergency access provisions. Mr. Blaylock advised that due to the Comprehensive Plan designation of multifamily development for the entire area west of Sunset Boulevard N.E., provision of a long-range plan for emergency access had been deemed necessary, and upon subsequent development of adjoining properties connection of the proposed fire lane running north and south located on the westerly portion of the properties would provide adequate secondary access for emergency vehicles. The Examiner requested testimony in support of the application. There was no response. 'He then requested test' Res ng was: Christina Hill 801 Sunset Boulevard N. . Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Hill, resident located i o the proposed project, objected to the proposal due to proximity of her home and bedroom window 15 feet from the proposed driveway on the subject site. She noted that in consideration of the projected 85 vehicle trips Per day to and from the proposed complex, noise and exhaust fumes would create an intolerable living situation and destroy the value of her residence. Mrs. Hill referenced Section D.1, • Physical Background, of Exhibit #1, which states that the easterly one-third of the site slopes downward to the west at approximately a 5% grade, and advised that within a 26- foot distance from east to west, the elevation drops five and one-half feet and within 70 feet from Sunset Boulevard a much sharper drop occurs. Responding to comments submitted by the Police Department which recommend raising the access driveway a distance of 40 feet, she noted that a rockery of 12 to 14 feet in height would be required between the properties and would interfere with natural light into her home. Mr. Blaylock indicated his opinion that the proposed rockery would be a maximum height of seven feet since the proposed driveway would not necessarily be required to be level. Mrs. Hill inquired regarding proposed drainage facilities for the subject site. Mr. Blaylock advised that on-site drainage facilities would be required by the developer. Mrs. Hill stated that three mature trees currently exist in the location of the proposed driveway and removal would be required if development proceeds as proposed. The Examiner requested further comments by the applicant. Mr. Johnson advised that a recent survey of the property had disclosed a six-foot slope from east to west and would require a rockery five feet in height; however, he objected to the requirement for a level driveway for an excessive distance of 40 feet which would require removal of the existing trees, and he noted his opinion that a sight-distance problem does not exist. Mr. Blaylock discussed existing sight-distance and access problems on Sunset Boulevard N.E. which have been observed from other multifamily developments in the area. He noted that during inclement weather, vehicle traction is impaired when entering the highway from access roads which are of lower grade and traffic congestion results. Mr. Johnson felt that a traffic projection of 85 trips per day was excessive, and he noted that most traffic in apartments and condominium complexes is generated during peak morning and evening hours. He also noted that provision of a six-foot fence in compliance with requirements would minimize traffic noise and fumes. The Examiner requested further testimony in opposition to the proposal. Responding was: William Goodner 848 Sunset Boulevard N.E. . Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Goodner, resident located on the opposite side of Sunset Boulevard N.E. north of the subject site, opposed the application due to current existence of heavy traffic volumes on 'sunset Boulevard N.E. and potential for accidents would increase. He also expressed objection to impairment of views from existing single family residences by construction of a multi-level structure, citing the recent construction of a three-story condominium complex north of the subject site which has obstructed views. He indicated his opinion .� _. �r,$)�� o �� n residential design and contracting o 13010 Northrup Way,Suite#24 / Bellevue,WA 98005 / (206)454-7680 10/29/79 • City of Renton`- •,\\ Planning Dept. and Hearing Examiner 200 Mill rAve. S. Fenton ash. 98055 / g Re: -Rezone from G-7200 to R3 Ca �� -For Herbert Mull, File R-I412-79 -Buffer at rear of 50' plus 20' fire lane. At tn: Fred Kaufman `4) > > V Roger Blaylock• On Oct. 25, 1979, I, Craig Johnson of C.J.Designs, representing Herbert Mull, drove all around the Fenton area to visually analyze the impact a 3 or 4 story building would have on the environment around the mentioned property. My conclusions and facts are as follows: 1- From the freeway directly below the property mentioned you can barely see the roof of the house east of the property. In viewing angles, . I would doubt that one could see more than the top two floors of a proposed four story building. 2- The Puget Power access is over 100' wide where the property exists which in itself provides an excellent buffer due to its few trees, blackberry bushes and a wire fence. Please also note that the wire fence (edge of Puget Power) is at the top of a bluff 30' above the freeway. 3- You can see all of the proposed building site from Park and 6th, which is in an industrial part of town. Certainly, they produce a more negative effect on the community because of no buffers, whereas we propose a nice structure with 100' of Puget Power as buffer and our own 20' as zoning code allows. L;- Another example of a building of similar nature is the 'Highlander of Renton' off Bronson. It is a building of much larger scale with portions of its buildings only 25' from the bluff edge, • In conclusion, I have tried to present here data that would show how unnecessary a 70' building set back would be. We propose that. a 20' set back is plenty as our combined 100' of Puget Power and our own 20' is more that many bui rings on that side of the freeway. Please consider this opinion and submit t ' s ;letter at the November 6, 1979 hearing, % / , / Sine. el , is► ci a '—• �t esioft of C. J..' Designs, Inc. • RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER OCT 33. 1979 AM PM 718191100111211 E213141516 / r 378.081 • v 0 Tii �� — MUNSON INVESTMENT CORP. o u- 3r9.42' 115 O s. TURNBOW 0 : ' MULL 4 r. v ni ' �� SCALE In= 60' 260.79 1 CO cfi / 7/7,7/_i OF R ite PEVIIIEb it‘s SEP 479 UTILITY EASEMENT .-.* PORTION OF LOT 4 , HARRIES GARDEN 4f)f0ME TRACTS ,,,, ,,G pEf��'�%/r SEC. 8 , TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 E., W. M. __ LEGEND .4,y ate PROPOSED PERMANENT EASEMENT r:7--"r�- 7 i PROPOSED TEMPORARY EASEMENT , G \5`. .\ R4, .� 1 o THE CITY OF RENTON U t$ Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON.WASH.98055 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT ,0 235- 2550 °4).4, sEPtMc5�P MEMORANDUM November 28, 1979 TO: red Kaufman, Hearing Examiner FROM: ordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director By : Roger J . Blaylock, Associate Planner RE: MULL REZONE Please find attached additional information submitted by the applicant showing contours, elevations, a site plan, and proposed landscape areas. These have been distributed to other City departments, and we will have a supplemental staff report to you prior to the sched- uled meeting of December 3rd. RJB:wr Attachments RING crvr".. Aiy NoVe n , ER. 41/ . ..„ . A 1IN •!------- . -. 78' - a D' f_-,-12.1 ii...'C.i __r SEP 4 1979 r I __. ........„,„.........„„.„ it... • 4, ., . ' 1 4/41, i . ;-- 1 I I cN,91 1 1 -,-.1 \\\ \ \,1 .5r-r .- D'e.VEID11•1 ..1.1-r. PLA kJ \\\\\\ 1 AID ruo-r Fuw • Fr-OP0,55-r, . 1 \ i-ILL<-ingiL "If-q51Prligil', \ 1' \ , klll..1-1 NC, 1 OF Rh,� o THE CITY OF RENTON t$ MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 o ° CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER "90 `o- FRED I. KAUFMAN. 235=2593 0 9�TFD SEPtE�� November 27, 1979 Craig Johnson C. J. Designs 13010 Northrup Way Bellevue, WA 98005 RE: File No. R-412-79; Mull Rezone Dear Mr. Johnson: .. I am enclosing a copy of a response to a memo directed to the Public • Works Department. The question presented was the question of the slope at and near the northern property line of Mrs. Hill's property adjoining the subject Mull property. If you have any questions concerning the memo they may be addressed to the Public Works. Department and in particular Mr. Paul Lumbert. Mr. Lumbert will also be present at the December 4, 1979 Public Hearing and questions may be raised at that time. Sincerely,, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Planning Department Public Works Department Mrs. Christina Hill • 'i • • ffj, (gEm �j n residential design and contracting �jo 13010 Northrup Way,Suite#24 / Bellevue,WA 98005 / (206)454-7680 10/29/79 City of Renton Planning Dept. and Hearing Examiner ' EN 200 Mill Ave. S. , ®Renton, gash. 98055 600) Re: -Rezone from 0-7200 to R3 ;- -For Herbert Mull, File # R-1t12-79 0K, -Buffer at rear of 50' plus 201 fire lane. %; Attn: Fred 1 aufman ' -� Roger Blaylock - �' %� On Oct. 25, 1979, I, Craig Johnson of C.J.Designs, representing Herbert :Mull, drove all around the Fenton area to visually analyze the impact a 3 or L story building would have on the environment around the mentioned property. My conclusions and facts are as follows: 1- From the freeway directly below the property mentioned you can barely see the roof of the house east of the property. In viewing angles, I would doubt that one could see more than the top two floors of a proposed four story building. 2- The Puget Power access is over 100' wide where the property exists which in itself provides an excellent buffer due to its few trees, blackberry bushes and a wire fence. Please also note that the wire fence (edge of Puget Power) is at the top of a bluff 30' above the freeway. 3- You can see all of the proposed building site from Park and 6th, which is in an industrial part of town. Certainly, they produce a more negative effect on the community because of no buffers, whereas we propose a nice structure with 1001 of Puget Fower as buffer and our own 20' as zoning code allows. L- Another example of a building of similar nature is the 'Highlander of Renton' off Bronson. It is a building of much larger scale with portions of its buildings only 251 from the bluff edge. In conclusion, I have tried to present here data that would show how unnecessary a 70! building set back would be. eve propose that. a 201 set back is plenty as our combined 1001 of Puget Power and our own 20' is more that many bui Zings on that side of the freeway. Please consider this opinion and submit t 's /letter at the November 6, 1979 hearing. Snc ear, • 'resio- .:t of C. ,J. Designs, Inc. RECEIVED • RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON • HEARING EXAMINER 'CITY OF RENTON 0 J 197n HEARING EXAMINER AM / 7 PM O C T 3 1 1979 71819,IO,H 1I2,1,213,4,5,6 AM PM 7,819119:1111211 i213141516 A it• '.•°ft"tE' .•-s � apt-v,.•,+a+-, - rr.-.-,.•-•e>:w¢.•.R„e.,-,.....'^-. -,__,,...,.:•r=.c -.'flr-*,:-.--,-,- ,- -' .,•.x.-'s` ... ...x..q.' -..t x:r ••xr- ._r-cr-_ \ r+\\x I _} .. i .. •\ -. — ia_j„ �' .. Y �.11s• .1oQ., .%��s�M• • {a '';I \ - { {, ?�:1'' •L^ is 6:�„ ,1 ,a _ { ::+s•'�`°. (;/�- • , \\ \„„e III S• _ ,• nab sro L-'- :r I _ ` J Zl_ ---L_`�-. 5,J . 1. ; 58 ,, .5 -- u. •`C ) % .1,0)? . ' \\\ �— 1111 .,t i ._ ---.�- `T_ Ip i l \7-,:- WI l�\ eaL4.� w�-'is' --vr, ;�d •> • i • _ - I . . i 1 1 4 5 ,,., \ ,y5 , ai ` •1:.'L•'• jY 5!' -�a' T 291 I 3 I 1 i2 ,, - • 4i d i' o • a__I. ',„( t .' ,•,,,A,,,, • ,,, .. ,, , i-:-11„,,,,,,,,,•,_., ...--, .. . r,•••._.... _ ,,, .4_ m fL ' 1.( • L. 1J , _ •'i ••, { .I i ' t 2' «t z r.'E•sr. 0„ u wt.r�a l ) t ti +\ zea I zes ZG% • e.45' --z I - I i` e 1 1 ti " tfri--t -loft ,,,,,..4.". IA __ -;. .,.. . I za9 ; `� L, i ti -1 �.N 7 [ �" r„ ,-I• /j/ -- r pC vl l , 1 i 2�q: vd 7200, I� 43 , 4e6 a [] :J e i 1�J �6 i t I,/ ;a ,�,�r J:. l_.T _ilk i �e. ``�5v ' cy kZ ( �,o r/'/ , 7 rr d ��1 7n �I �U oi4 1 .r: /i 40 1,� •59 'a. ut-i IF-, 4/5"I. ,,,,,•77. .,,,,. �•/� j \•\ •\`\\'\ \� \ - _ ._-�'-1 i /` ,wtxaa--• ♦ PO 1.�T r .. / /� gyp\ 3C'�\ �I„ (' _$g ' =J ��` •0` — `• !'\ I =t h ,S." F r1.T1- • 'T -_.I- .�^--- ~ \ 1J,z _j ,2- ® \ \i ,- ,, _.-T , 1 1 15,..,. •_N''- 1r, -v.y. s• 5, -t, < b ICI �' a �d" e r'`a�'� � . 44' �= ; I L M ,\\4-)‘,. \ •••"` t i---- t. il:!:•,'.i.t;.4.;,-'.::;-: \h'i-:,--,'i;I 1: :-5 -'+',1:,,10'7 1 '", RciiiR , -, pit � , \ 1 \ (� �.T. .7. 4 .t „1 1p'( .... --.." . .. , , .;,_. IW; I4;1 \t\ '\ !o� 6y-1 _1,,r i,-�,fl_�ar.�a 9_I`_0,,41 ''-II ®.8 " .. IVI I j 11 1 , I \\ •�., i.,�».. I IN, . )4 - r,i fj :-if .I'' �.4 I 4.' ,,J I L_.1 --p,. S _El 1 I \' 1 \\' /�� I�Ir°�'i`'��, nr `I'?- 1 I �- N_ , I iT c i .Y7L 1...,•,.. r ? 'T • Z^/ I1 �l,�`'^•+•..r. LAN},, R ,t .: �O - t� ',} ,,: J_,-�,ice-�'..•. p-T'"' ', ' , -r-.. L,�„V • _,•, \,- 3 I� -.. .-•1 I I�. --��II \\�` li r"�,f�1,�tl�lc". "-��r` �{,.; ° 5� `• ,I = -L -:^•°`• i iI,1 - - i -T � , I \\1 09iEEoo , al¢ _ y�; "( . ' I V11`• ..'°r' •„ ,, �. v __l \\ i4 t�_ i 1' \•• i' •a 1• 'I •!, 1 I Iil) 1 \ \ I I I I \\,l _ 'a J`. 1 .1 f' ','• ,• d -,!~L °25� f i. ,.... .) 1� _ `�� 1 1.T5 u �t-�\ ✓19 1i�'1411n..i5. , JL --a , \\!, iI 1 I\!.-ti.s.,,7-1:_iin. G'1 A,1 r'6a,�._5��'_i�L „ . e! '1) 1. if , I t '1z r°I, r T ,)) ' . HERBERT E . MULL R-412-79 1 APPLICANT HERBERT E, MULL. _TOTAL AREA +21 ,475 sq ft 1 1 I F'R I Nl. t l'AL ACCE.ti:;_ Via Sunset Blvd NE - __ - ! E. xl '.3l Ira; Z. NIrIG G-7200 _ _—_ 1 I _ -- • i, Undeveloped 7 LXIST I r1G USE___ _—____-___-___-_ _ . 4 I Proposed future multi-family development 1-'1Z01)0sLL) USE! ----- - -- -- _ —_— -- - R COMPRLHENS I VE: LAND USE PLAN High Density Multiple Family _-� COMMENTS__—____ ii__—__-�. _.�_. ...-....,.. ...,,•,-,r .t.•,.,�.,---_�>:z_z•-.r xe,.l r..,t. r.:- .5-�.w�an.:��-. :e :rnsa>avr. *:a-a.:.v.r,•a ira�v_r�¢�r:rs :m=anima'c.:a'�i^s6c2!v=•er••-•r.rrr••••.n r::. • I)EVELOPf1ENT APPLICATION REVIEN SHEET ;, Application : ,.,“ �, _74) 6- Moo ..10 4-3 Location : A P P 1 i c a n t �I ,e- 6°A &____fd—.. _.—_— ____ TO : Parks Department ' SCHEDULED FEARING DATE,: A9/9/ _ Police Department A, R. C. MEETING ` ; ' `__Public Works Department Engineering Division Traffic Engineering __Building Division !_Utilities Engineering i Fire Department I Nf�pFN ' OR 4GcEST ONS REGARD I !G THIS S APPLICATION IT IG F(. i, THELIC rr . SHOU ,D BF �OVID AT ION REVILU CONFRENCE ND N Rt,i F YQUiz DEP___:„ AT NT7D I V 9 :00 AM IN THE THIRD FOOR CONFERENCE ISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ATT ND THE ARC, P _ SE i VIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE E LANN I,NG DEPARTMENT BY 3: $0 PM ON c AL______ REVIEIIING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: - —_ --^ -` - _ _— Approved Approved with conditions / r� ,- Lr �, Not Approved r e /J �G' CoA/c.5,2iire•-7jo:li si M Lei j /��Gl/i'"�`�!�/L%,S ��;�' 4GU,�1:�.r`. /t'//t�iv i/,S-Tj}L,G/' �,� ,S'///'Gc.. /��=-T C6//4c.ig i=ic //yde e Si crna —ure of Di rector or a thor'i z d -Representative mac; //- . _ E tative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : o /_� ------ - - -- �` • Approved Approved with conditions , � _ Not A�.�prove G r «‘ '' U ice, ®"7 p t2 k,. i ou ;~ 11 6..L. - Z-)c L& ( a ,, ILA.A- �- . 4 �,S ek•-• P-.71,..A..) Z....tn„,,,,L._ C.4....AiLre4,_ a••••••-•!--€1 r . I ,c:ejij 6,..k_ cy....../...v...A.-",-% '' . /° ;P WV �- - ---- - --__—_--_-_-- ---- /f.-%"-- --=--_-----=-`S cj. -- T�Snature of Dr c - t 0 d Rnr ve102 " Date . . . • . ., . . . . . • , . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . ' ' . • . • .' ' '•-•• '' - . . . . . . . . . • . , . . . . . .,_ ..:. .... . . , . . . • , . . . , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . , • . • , . . ' „ . . • , . , ., • • • . . • . . .. . . .,• . .. ,, • • . • ' .- . ..• . .. • . . • . . . . . • , . . . • .,, . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , • ',. • /. . . . . . . • . • . , . • . . . . . . . . • • • • . , . " ' •, • . ;''.'' . ,. ' 6 ,' ,. ,. .• . -•, . . • • . . ••. - ' . • . .• . . . . . . . . . . . . •• ' • • . . .'•• .• •. :•, .' , . . ' . . . ' • .' . . • . .. , . . . • .. . .. ,_.. ...., '--• . . . . . ••• . • . • . • • . 1 • . . . • • I . .• • . •'6 .. . ...rt •1• . AdLL 1 . . ••• • , • • • ....•.. ••.••• . • • .6 • . ••• • ' " .:" 7 '. :':: • •/21 a'S.41 ".'..1 1 . , ,. . • . . . . •. .r• • . . • .• • • . . • . • • • • • I • • . 6 • k • . . • • • • • . .. . ... • . • •• • • • • • • I • ' • .? . 6 •. I . , , •• . 1 • . • • • • • • • . . . • .. • • • • • . • • . • • .. •• • • •. • , • • . . , . . • • • • • • • ' .• •. • • • • . . • • • . N ' . • • • • . • • • • • ' • • • • . , I • • • • • •k . , . i. • • • . • • • • . . (.. :::::>* ' • •. I • • ..6 • . . I, , • • . • • ..''.. • . .., •'' •. • :•:'.,.''.. 6. . ,6,:...•..... ,.•. • : '.: : • ,,,•:.' ..•.. . • • • . • , . •••• . •'•,.•. ' I, ,... 11 " • .,. ; ...I, •,.. .: ... . ... : • . ' • k.:::..' k • • ,, . , • • . 1 % . • . 10 .. 4' •••• •••••••• . • . .. . • • • .6 • . •, . . • • . . ••.••••••• ... • I „...„....7.• A • • • , • • ,• . • ••' ' ' .A. .. .' f..'• • . •1 • '• ••••• ''...."' C2 ....„........•••••....,..R.. ......,. ............ ........••••••••• ••.... • , . I • k • • ••••••.. I I • k • • . •••••••••........••••••• • • • •• . • . ••k. '6,. , . ••••-••••• • • • . • . . • • • • • • . •• • I 1 . " . .•• ,• •• ' •••••••••••••.4 ••••.• I . ...••••• • • /......' , . 1 .41... ...P''''''''' _...•••.. '' .••••••••• •••••.• . . . • , ' :. • . • ........ • • • • . . ••.- • • • • •••,..• ./... ......'. •••••••••• ..,..••••••••_...... . • . • • . • I .•••e'r /"./.."... .. • O.' 1 . •••'',.. i-2, . • • 1 . • . • , • , . I ,„. • . • • .• • . .,••••(.. • •• . • • • . • • • N • ' . . • • •• •I • • • •. . • I • ' • . • / / ,••• . • I . I ) ... • •• • •.. • .. • I•••/ • • • • .• . • g / I(.. • •••• •' : • , •„ • I • N • •• • • • / , / 7..' • • • '•• • . • •• • .. .1 5 . • ., • • 4 *....'..' • • ' •. • , •. . r • .. • ••••• • • , •• ., • • ••••......''' . 1. • • • • . I'.. '' 1 I .. , I • 1 • . • . ; f • ',.• • • . . • _ .. .., . ,. •‘,.. .,. ,, • ..-e ..---- • • . .• . , ,.,.. . . . . . .. • . . . 12:------- / . . . • . „.. . .. . . ...• • : • ' .. ' • • . . . , . ----___,---- , . •• . , .. ... ., „ .... • . ,.,._ . .. /(' I---- ....-- / , . . . . . . . . .., . • 1• • • •••••••••• ••4..." . • .k • ., • . • • • • .• ...... ................... ".. " ,, ..........„ r • ' . . . . • • ' . • . . r - . • . a ...--...... ....... / I . .•,., ._ ,,,,./..7...'6-..'"2A. ' . .. - •.• . • ...... ......................-"'''. . . ''--....... , ...,. . , . •••••.........., . r .... . . . . i • , • • . . • . .. . - .r . r , ' ' ' . .... • .. . . . . „ . . . ' V . . . r . .. . . • . . , • .. • " ..•.' •• • ' . .. . . - . . . .•• . . . ei.7" . .. ... . . .. . , ' . . • . . , r ., • , , . ...,s, ._ , , , . . ,,, . , ,., ..„. , _.,•, ,, , r .. . .. ., . .• • . .• • . :-________ • ..... ......__________------ ...••• . . . . . • . . . : . " • - • , •• - ' ' . •., -,,.. •,• •, •' .„ „•..... . ,....., . . ... .• , ,..,.... .L . . , ,.. ' ... . , • .• . . . . .. . . , . . • k.- .. . • ., . - , •• • • • .- • • • .• •• •• . ••... ' .-•• • .• 1 • •••.••7‘ . • f... • . • -. • t•. . • ., . • ••••••'.'"6 • • . • 1 •, . • • • i''' '''" • . • • . . •• • . • • . • • • • 1 , ' • , • • . . . . ., • . . . . . . . • , q . . , • :..,...,..:...............''.. ' . " •• ..' ., . ' ' . . •• ,, . . .• .. , i 'I • ......-. 1 • • • • • , • • •• . .6 • . • • • • • • • ..........„....,•-••••. .. •• • • . • . • • . . • • • I.. • . ' • • •• • /• • •• • ••., • . •l . • • • - ..... , . • • . t • • • •‘• • • • • • • •.''' ''' '. • • • • . • • ••• • . • • • • . .....•••••••_.,7- .. ...• . .. . . . . • , . . . . • . , . . . , .. :• \\, ''s -.• . . 2— • \JJ '.7.'-....---- ....... ...-.- • . . . . . ... • , •- . ' ' . . • . •'`.. \,, \S'k:\ ' \\\.\,.: ;.... 1.6 .. .... , . 1 • •. •••••• •.. ' ' ••6.1.. '•, •.. •• ' . • • ,.') 1111IF . .... : '. 5i‘ 'N..i.(' ''..fig•'-' ... .• . • • 1'.'. o„ • •• „ . :.. .''•1. •• '. :.' '' • ..' .• • .• • • .. •• , •• • ••• • .6 . . • . . . • • .',.' • • : \ 1••••',S ., . • • • ..,,,,:s , . . „ . , . . . ... ./ .. . , • , _ .. . . ' 1 • _,,,..1--.: , • . . . . ' .....--.------.7.'" . -...... ..... "...... .......'"..---.---...------.----- ...... • '' - ... ' , ,...s. \ .., mi ',•;.: 1- • •• ' '' , , ....•.• ..• „ •• •. "..- ,.....-......--;-:::-------------- —, t . . , 4‘.. • -..'' \I . . • _ •. , . . ,., . .. , , • ., ..., ...-",, • • . . —.• . . _____,...----------.' • .1:.;•,....\\1\(\•'‘.\.-., ••,,,, \\• , : I • 1\`‘.''''' .\' ..\,\\\\ \- - •- . t•-•,,---7-----. •-- ------ . jr ..„---,-------.—.* . '' : , • :....' ..-' . . . . _,. . . . • . ;-- ' • - • ' •' -' • •"'-: ." ' • tig-6--- "•',A ' -',--. ' ' '..'- • •-- • _____ • . . ...• - ------.7:4 _- . . 1 .' . i .• . • . . • •' •• • • , • • , • • • N . • ,'- 6.• . • • • • •• , • • • • .• I • .• • . • •• -t..• •• • • . , • • • • ' • . •.6 • • . • • . • • • . .. . k . • • • ..• • . .• . . • ' •..6Z 5 i •''••. ..4 ,....,.,.. 4• • . . . , . , . .. . . . • , . . • . .• • • . . . • . • , . . . . . . . . .. ' • r . , ' ... .•' '..- '':'( .• R E.N?..,,. :. : ..::., •::...:,, ,:. ,,- :,., 2 . . . . . .. - •P c_.c .,.\\,,,,\,,c.,. .. .v4, , „ -, ,........ .,.-. . . ,. - • , . , • . . . . . • . • • . ..-...'..''''..:.---.., . . . , . .....- • . . . . . . .. . , . . . • . . . .• (..). _. . . . . .-.01 . • .,,-.,• .. - . . . . . ' . . ... .. .. . •, . . • . . , . . . , • . . (Ile ./... ." ...., .... . . , . . . . . • . , .. . :. .. , . . . . . .. ,. . . . . . . ., . ,... . • . . , ./,•,.• .- . ....R0?-,,:?•,..- ,,. . • . . . . • . . . . . , . . , . . . . L, .,.. : , . • . . . : . . 'civiN a DN":-...:;.---';'• . ,.' - • '.• :*- • • • - . . , . , . , .,. --•_____-- 1• . t • . • • • . • • •• • . • • • • 1 . • • . • . . I •,, , . . • . • •, . ' •• • • • • . • .. . • • • . • • • k I 1 7 7 . 1 • • • N• • • • • • • . . . . • . • . ' . . ,.:. ' 1 • • .. .. • •• I•; A • • • • ' . • . • . • • .. .• • I 1 i 4 .101..........••••••ff•••••••,..........,.. .• ' 4. • 6 . •. . .• „ ... .S. I ' . 1 • I . • 1 • .. " • • '• • . .••.-..• .. • • . . • •• • • . • • • • . ' • • . • • . ' • • • . ; . • •• • . • . • . •• 7 • ' I 1 • • . _ . . , . _ _ . . -1 - -4-‘47__-ii . . , . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . , . . . . r !0. �/ --_ _ BZ, 10 Tr:t71 _,:. -lc-- -TU.ILL. . ,, . -__- , Q - - _ - - - - • l ",• ,, . , :, ', ', \ \i,W5,5E, 1.1. , . : \\::\\s "‘"if!N%,V V 1!4.-.. .,„.,...,. .. \ . t . . .. . , . . . . . , ...,..„...„..... ,,,,,...„, „.... • . . . , . . . I, \ . ..„,... ..... .„... . . . . . . . . . -\..\ N...‘.‘A.. . • . . . . . . . . . . , . . , . .. '. . ) . ._ ,,, , . • j IL 10 9 i . . 35 40 . 5 • . , 3 ,, .. \\--:: 1 r l t , — —1. n. • • 70 . , „ , . . .. _ ..... 1 . . mAtts1 st.' �; f , 1 1 1 1t Off 1 1, , - 10.- so., „ . ---_________ i . , , ' - ' I'r.' '. • •. 4 .- . . A. ' '1 �I - .0. / 71' f — .'.... 1: \ t ( ).(1 s'''''''.'''' '''' ''',,, c5 (1•'/1-/9 —LH c2 7 . : 14 �t . • ' �l L.l..... : .• , *, ..,-..,,..--11.7 4.., ' 4. ------ k-- ________--::- t- , . • 4 • • . • . • .., y . . , . ... ........ • ,\:- -\ ty_ . .,„ . _ - ...., :,. .1, . _ , . . . . . . . , .• . , . .. . . ,' ••• '...' . ,- . , . .., . .., ,'' . ..• L. . . ,,, , ,., ,,,, . . • ., . , --, . . • ' i .� i it . • ;:i1SI: ' . ,:'' • .•. : k'' • 1:.... ' I / • • • • rt ...._74:)..._____ . j a , I. , • • cl kg o.� Irr ! _ • • ...(ei> • • • • lI-Z7-79 -LI l02-99 ' . ipt # ! : ;� f CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT NAME . .';S . `'. ti V co fe` DATE irj'/ PROJECT & LOCATION i (4 .. )e_ C%t•' 3 i 5-,_""ze Application Type Basic Fee Acreage Fee Total rZ U• o� Environmental Checklist v 0 Environmental Checklist Construction Valuation Fee TOTAL FEES 47 t C C) Please take this receipt and your payment to the Finance Department on the first floor. Thank you. • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM �� ()• REFR�/i� RECEl��Q SEP 4 1979 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY P,P°"�"`"""�"°�• Application No. /'-�9/2,-- , ALik +� Environmental Checklist No. 5Z z 79 �G DEPA 4 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, RCW, requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals . The Act also requires that an EIS be prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action: - Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information presently available to you. • Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele- vant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the .required environmental review with- out 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 Norbert. • 2. Address and phone- number of Proponent: • TP O 110t.11 N. r P ellevue. Wash, 71176310 3. Date Checklist submitted 4. Agency requiring Checklist r_+•?• of Fenton 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) : .. l 1. ,4-G rYni' i' Trd1: �� n n,•,^ 1� -.1 = r eCifl re0 parkins • -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 environ- mental setting of the proposal ) : Property is set back 100 feet from ma jor arterial, bordering on bluff shove airfief ri 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : 9. List of all permits , licenses or government approvals required for the proposal (federal , state and local --including rezones) : • • • 10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes , explain: 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal ? If yes , explain: Inn 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 future date, describe the nature of such application form: rezone a-;cck o_n G720.0 to P3 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 X substructures? YES MAYBE ' NO (b) Disruptions, displacements , compaction or over- covering of the soil? . X YES MAYBE NO . (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ; Y1-7— MAYBE NO (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? ?: YES M YBE NB- (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or off the site? YES MAYBE NO (f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands , or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? .A Explanation: �� -, r ,,� l YES MAYBE NO i r ter' r' nezrj nE • r _ • 1l,,;u1 , in some orainac-e across -,.i ._L Lo. r'%l. -3- (2) Air. Will the proposal result in: • (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X YES MAYBE KU- . (b) The creation of objectionable odors? X • YES-- MAYBE ti0 (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate , either locally or regionally? F YES MAYBE 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? YET- MBE NO— (b) Changes in absorption rates ,- drainage patterns , or • the rate and amount of surface water runoff? 7' YES MAYBE NO • (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X .YES MAYBE WU- (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X 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? y" YES MAYBE NO (f) Alteration 'of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? 'f YE- MAYBE NO (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters , either through direct additions or withdrawals , or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? YES MAYBE 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 • (i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X YES MAYBE N0 Explanation: • (4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops , microflora and aquatic plants)? Yt MAYBE A u- (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? 4 • Y1•B MAYBE ATi (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? -r Yrs.- MAYBE KTi • (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? t Yt MAYBE R Explanation: :"erio:E1 of ex s _: iaC • -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 NO (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? YES MAYBE NO (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area , or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? YES Y.i,YBE t; (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? YES MAYBE NO Explanation • (6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? YES MAYBE WO xplanation_: • (7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or Y. glare? YES MAYBE NO— Explanation_: (8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of theX present or planned land use of an area? YES MAYBE NO Expla=ation: • • (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 NO • Explanation: (10) Risk of U set. Does the proposal involve a risk of an exp os on or the release of hazardous substances (including , but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? YES MAYBE NO-- Eplanation: • (11) Population. Will the osal ratealter thehhuman location, populationri distri- bution. density, or growth of an area? YES MAYBE Re Explanation: -5- ( 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing , or create a demand for additional housing? �> YES MAYBE NO • Explanation: ( 13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? - YES MAYBE NO (b) Effects on existing parking facilities , or demand for new parking? YES MAYBE NO • (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? 1: YET- MAYBE W (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? YES MAYBE NO X e Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? YES MAYBE NO (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists or pedestrians? YES— MAYBE NO Explanation: anr,r•ny 91 Tral,1rles 1lrovi ed nn site entrance on Sunset Blvd. North • (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? n YES MAYBE N� (b) Police protection? n YES MAYBE NO (c) Schools? YES MAYBE NO (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? • YES MAYBE NO (e) Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? X YES MAYBE NO (f) Other governmental services? X YES MBE NO Explanation: �ilrn�c;r s+nrk tir111 hp innrpasecl by 1J, units (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? X YES- MAYBE NO 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 M YBE NO (b) Communications systems? YES M YBE NO (c) Water? YES MAYBE NO -6- (d) Sewer or septic tanks? X YES MAYBE NO (e) Storm water drainage? YES MEYEE NU (f) Solid waste and disposal? -vr • YES MAYBE NO Explanation: may i h rc=.c-ir.4--n1-,-ial units will „e nrovideo with necessary services (17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding g mental health)? VT MAYBE 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? S'' YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: _ (20) Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? �S MAYBE NO Explanation: III. SIGNATURE I , the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any decla- ration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: (signed L--/e,e ,ems' E-. M O-(— name printed) City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 f rJf / „, J J�fI i � i 378.08 _c• 0 r to ri °) o MUNSON INVESTMENT CORP. o 319.42' 1-1'-s"-; '':1:: T URNBOW w cc - MULL 41. ili o dl °.1 \� �� SCALE 1' = 60 et _'1 .\ 260.79' v) 6 -k k of I vY RECEIVED '® Z. SEP 4 1979 U Tl L f T Y EASEMENT �"�'�-..-., •PORTION OF LOT 4 , HARRIES GARDEN HOME TRACTS ,��,r�,G D P�Ri � SEC. 8 , TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 E:, W. M. E LEGEND - 4 PROPOSED PERMANENT EASEMENT x-t PROPOSED TEMPORARY EASEMENT v 4 ''JNI \ • \ (1I1-1`9' '1C11I ,t) 1.11,1c1 f71 'xb1-1 .dodayi. N\rid J-c7k1 • CINV 'I l �a91=� ,s lyrnd -I��l�m��a �� I I � I N • VI "JIiIY'yia' 6i61 .cS ()• (13/IMP ) 7Q 1 'ins 62t 92J6 Due4 50� E, `-` `7 A•19G4 4 Pioneer National 1 Title Insurance'Company REAL ESTATE CONTRACT �~ :. WASHINGTON TITLE DIVISION �•'•' • • THIS CONTRACT,made and entered into this t11 day of Dee•cp. s LS&7 ,ii��` QE�D '''q, between . rl „_ J. FAUL A. TURNDOW and MARY K. TURNBOW, his wife, SEP cvhereinafter called the"seller,"and HERB E. FALL and FdILIPA IOU, his wife• cC\J w�ON • • f''G hereinafter called the "purchaser," • WITNESSETH: That the seller agrees to sell Co the purchaser and the purchaser agrees to purchase from the seller the following described real estate, with the appurtenances, in Zink; County, State of Washington: racy 4 e es l A114• .raceS,'ao gar .Fat retard t,• l S4 of plats, pan 3,.r~;= . of King ty i PT the moo th 73 g + -i 1 s ed ataag the s cot Lime- `s cog .thy ewe: 1l.5 t:, as e tc- a ,q. g the 1 time a thereof; 31. nee- fa tag- ;: og•E t".t s atr.m.€7 Og Flag; 0a c`'�G, 6tr.72. FREE E CLEAR OF ENCUM1RANCES EXCEPT mortgage dated March 1, 1965, auditor's file No. 5850645 which mortgage, sellar herein agrees to continue to pay according to its terms and conditions. Seller_ herein reserves an easement for installation, maintenance & repair of sewer line over the North 6 feet of subject property. Subject to ea e ..-mt_s, rests ctic.ls Ana resoTvatiols of record, IS any. sP .. ?� i. The terms and conditions of this contract are as follows: The purchase price is `�t'n>�•ks �� .�:;s�' �.r'.,.1;:��..� SU L'vr� C L D caf t .gym........... .. ._..s.®_...a, .{$ /2..67..83 .) Dollars, of which cbt`;ota .�•~e;- 3:€.-A ..,. ,'t's .. 2o0.1K44Q03 ) Dollars have been paid, the receipt la whereof is hereby acknowledged, and the balance of said purchase price shall be paid as follows: b AED !h75 "...s"...s.®®...•.®®® .....sw.,..... ....s.@a.....mo.....c;..a. s•3.00 ) Dollars, or more at purchaser's��_4� option, [�[yon. or before the FIRST day of January , 19 68 , d an y ::�'igr 6 EY j). .Oo..®m..m..- ...-. .BmYm....-...... -.1.0m.PdWO.D,s. $ 94•00 ) Dollars, or more at purchaser's option, on or before the FIRST • - day of each succeeding calendar month until the balance of said purchase price shall have been fully paid. The purchaser further agrees to pay interest on the diminishing balance of said purchase price at the rate of 61/2 per cent per annum from the 15th day of December , 19 67 ' which interest shall be deducted from each installment payment and the balance of+each payment applied in reduction of principal. All payments to be made hereunder shall be made at or at such other place as the seller may direct in writing. "'T sr-Ers T n X 1 it- '''' • DEC 14 ,11:1/ v. .j. R, v.!! , 1i. As referred to in this contract,"date of closing"shall be December 15, 1967 „;../4-F.. . ••(1) The purchaser assumes and agrees to pay before delinquency all taxes and assessments that may as between grantor and grantee hereafter become a lien on said real estate; and if by the terms of this contract the purchaser has assumed payment of any mortgage, contract or other encumbrance,or has assumed payment of or agreed to purchase subject to, any taxes or acsPscments now a lien on said real estate, the purchaser agrees to pay the same before delinquency. (2) The purchaser agrees, until the purchase price is fully paid, to keep the--buildings.now_and.hereafter-placed on-said real estate insured to the actu'1 cash value thereof against loss or damage by both fire and tvindstorm'in a company acceptable to the seller and for the seller's benefit, as his interest may appear, and to pay all premiums therefor and to deliver all policies and renewals thereof to the seller. (3) The purchaser agrees that full inspection of said real estate has been made and that neither the seller nor his assigns shall be held to any covenant respecting the condition of any improvements thereon nor shall the purchaser or seller or the assigns of either be held to any covenant or agreement for alterations, improvements or repairs unless the covenant or agreement relied on is contained herein or is in writing and attached to and made a part of this contract. (4) The purchaser assumes all hazards of damage to or destruction of any improvements now on said real estate or hereafter placed thereon,and of the taking of said real estate or any part thereof for public use; and agrees that no such damage, destruction or taking shall constitute a failure of consideration. In case any part of said real estate is taken for public use, the portion of the condemnation award remaining after payment of reasonable expenses of procuring the same shall be paid to the seller and applied as payment on the purchase price herein unless the seller elects to allow the purchaser to apply all or a portion of such condemnation award to the rebuilding or restora- tion of any improvements damaged by such taking: In case of damage or destruction from a peril insured against, the proceeds of such insurance remaining after payment of the reasonable expense of procuring the same shall be devoted to the restoration or rebuilding of such improvements within a reasonable time, unless purchaser elects that said proceeds shall be paid to the seller for application on the purchase price herein. (5) The seller has delivered, or agrees to deliver within 15 days of the date of closing, a purchaser's policy of title insurance in standard form, or a commitment therefor, issued by PI„NPf. n,n„NAI r,,,, ItiS1:RAN,I. COMPANY , insuring the purchaser to the full amount of said purchase price against loss or damage by reason of defect in seller's title to said real estate as of the date of closing and containing no exceptions other than the following: a. Printed general exceptions appearing in said policy form; b. Liens or encumbrances which by the terms of this contract the purchaser is to assume, or as to which the conveyance hereunder is to be made subject; and c. Any existing contract or contracts under which seller is purchasing said real estate, and any mortgage or other obligation, which seller by this contract agrees to pay, none of which for the purpose of this paragraph (5) shall be deemed defects in seller's title. . L .. 5024 5.1_0 (6) If seller's title to said real estate is subject to an cadging contract or contracts under which seller is pa chasing said real estate, or any mortgage or other obligation,which seller is to pay,seller agrees to rake such payments in accordance with the terms thereof, and upon default, the purchaser eh,ll have the right to make any payments necessary to remove the default, and any payments so made shall be applied to the payments neat falling due the seller under this contract. (7) The seller agrees, upon ic�uving full payment of the purchase price and interest in the manner above specified, to execute and deliver to purchaser a statutory warranty fly f.17-I._r,.r' $ deed to raid real estate,excepting any part thereof hereafter taken for public use, free of encumbrances except any that may attach after date of closing through any person other than the seller, and subject to the following: • (8) Unless a different date is provided for herein, the purchaser shall be entitled to possion of said real estate on date of dosing and to retain pose anion so long as purchaser is not in default hereunder. The purchaser covenants to keep the buildings and other improve- ments on said real estate in good repair and not to permit waste and not to use, or permit the use of, the real estate for any illegal purpose.The purchaser covenants to pay all service,instRnation or construction charges for water,sewer,electricity,garbage or other utility services furnished to said real estate after the date purchaser is entitled to possession. (9) In case the purchaser fails to make any payment herein provided or to maintain insurance,as herein required,the seller may make such payment or effect such insurance,-and any amounts so paid by the seller, together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum thereon from date of payment until repaid, shall be repayable by purchaser on seller's demand, all without prejudice to any other right the seller might have by reason of such default. - (10) Time is of the essence of this contract, and it is agreed that in rasp the purchaser shall fail to comply with or perform any condition or agreement hereof or to make any payment required hereunder promptly at the time and in the manner herein required, the seller may elect to declare all the purchaser's rights hereunder terminated, and upon his doing so, all payments made by the purchaser hereunder and all improvements placed upon the real estate shall be forfeited to the seller as liquidated damages, and the seller shall Lave right to re-enter and take possession of the real estate; and no waiver by the seller of any default on the part of the purchaser shall be construed as a waiver of any subsequent default. Service upon p trel-a-I-of all demands,notices or other papers with respect to forfeiture and termination of purchaser's rights may be made by United State Mail,poste pre-paid, return receipt requested, directed to the purchaser at his address last known to the seller. (II) Upon seller's elation to bring suit to enforce any covenant of this contract, including suit to collect any payment required hereunder, the purchaser age to pay a r sonable sum as attorney's fees and all costs and experues in connection with such suit, which sums shall be included in any judgment or decree entered in such suit. If the seller shall bring suit to procure an adjudication of the termination of the purchaser's rights hereunder, and judgment is so entered, the purchaser agrees to ply a reasoreble sum as attorney's fees and all costs end expenses in connection with such suit, and also , the rrtsonable cost of seearcching•records to determine the condition of title at the date such suit is commenced, which sums shall be included in any judgment or deers` entered in such suit. DI Wil'NFS-S WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument as of the date first written above. • 7. lee......_„....,......." - -/ice-/. .n,e,C: r'.r.."-----(Ta7er) a '__Ci/m_‘4Z:f (sr..ki.) • ---2-- ; ----- — -1:...... .Ztei.../Le/J471-4-4..,--- ,........)• ,./ •-tt hi.,4,..,.-Yz_ct -cl ..__._ (sr-aL) STATE OF WASHI GT(YN,-. — --- ------ -. as. County of King On this day personalty appeared before me.. Patti A. Turnbcsw and Mary•K. • arnbosE o Ci to me known to be the individual described in and who-executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that • aU they signed the-same as --..._ .__their . free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes= therein mentioned. cc „, _ �e c .� / S ' co GIVEN nde=r'"my hand and official seal this 77 day of �"'' i .-'-: S'il A i i ,t.6 T,z'... ........,_,„ ,P-a--._-_____ CD cZ Lti /IC r. •'+',2� 4.-a- 'e'�ee�ft • otory Public as and for the State of Washington, CC Q FC' } �' f 1 residing at_ 4 r� V.':,`ram. i:1.1 - 1- -J .:• �'r`:'��: _. -.-..._.._. �.......-...-.....-.._..-...-.. `, c/) 7- F C4`s 1,.. :f VOL 502 deed t. 1, > PAGE5 ,_ t- y Ur • - 10,., I-ern p r- its .� VP 1r* c`° .+ l 1 ;-; i,i -[�aia sus -.13 \ A A its:,ud'tOD�i73'7'--a.'`W•��[' "tSI•U al-LI1 P DR IBI -�'.:.z ROBEI? A. sic :. r�,ti'cc ��"f�_I�r, .c1 1. 3iV o:-ya►t 1u',1 trcnTd CV 'IS PUZ •S 60E T tGV xua 0 d 111 ^V '0tli'c!Ir'p i fi^'.?Nn1 ic�lltrlw," Ol. Jo p;anbau qu pioaaj aoj pa[i NOISIA10 81111 NOIDNIHSVM Al edwo3 e3ueJnsul CR11 Ieaolle1 i70u 3Sf1 S.1)a1oD321 M03 03AM3S3M 3JVdS SIR! SCHEDULE A NO. 323229 AMOUNT $ 12 ,871. 88 DATE December 15 , 1967 , at 8: 30 A.M. PREMIUM $ 76 . 50 1. INSURED HERBERT E. MULL and PHILIPPINA MULL 2. TITLE TO THE ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST INSURED BY THIS POLICY IS VESTED IN 'PAUL A. TURNBOW and MARY K. TURNBOW, his wife 3. ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST INSURED Fee simple estate &-N OF /y Prefilieb .00 SEP 4 1979 f' +41I G DEP PAR 4. DESCRIPTION OF THE REAL ESTATE WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS POLICY IS ISSUED Tract 4 of Harries Garden Home Tracts , as per plat recorded in Volume 34 of Plats , page. 38, records of King County; EXCEPT the North 78 feet, as measured along the East line thereof, of the East 115 feet, as measured along the North line thereof; Situate in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington. SCHEDULE B DEFECTS, LIENS,ENCUMBRANCES AND OTHER MATTERS AGAINST WHICH THE COMPANY DOES NOT INSURE: SI'E('I U. EXCEPTIONS • . • • FORM 80-R A-6 Order • • A • • c_)• 1 °c' • • • • • • • I 11 , 1 • • • • • • • • This map does not purport to show all highways , roads or easements affecting • , -- -__-_-- __ ' 1-41 ; r-.. 4 , .ra,-i nri nnc in rl r7Pnci nnc anr? AFFIDAVIT r I ( 7�� , 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 this „2-7 day of �� ,a` , 19 / , Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at -riti_,,�,,,-,/` . r 4-:-.. 4.-v- f:_es-g.4,,d, (Name -of Not y Pu c) S'igna Yi ture of Owner) (Address) f/ / J � —/ �' 0. . � (Address) /// dL-_<-/.-(City) (State) 7/7-- 6 -- , (Telephone) • (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify tha-t"-t egoing application has been inspected by me and has been found /5 �47 tR and complete in every y particular and to conform to the rul a9a i (�la i ns of the Renton Planning Department governing the fil o •.5, UappOoi ation . SEP 4 1919 Date Received I By: Ai o.. Renton Planning Dept . 2-73 f ORTil ' YEST ONDEII ESCROWS, INC. January 18, 1968 Herbert E. Mull REn, 11815 Sunset Blvd East RECEIVED ® Renton, Washington SEP 4 1979 etik 6.00.11 RE: Mull-Turnbow Escrow No. 38425 Transmitted herewith are the final papers to complete your file on the above transaction. We have enjoyed handling this transaction for you and sincerely • hope that if in the future you are in need of our services, you will not hesitate to call us. Very truly yours, NORTHWEST BONDED ESCROWS, INC. By s",,J44-4.4.4.. /4/ere--(1" Escrow Officer. TWILA HOCKOM Enclosed: X Title Insurance Policy 323229 Deed bearing Auditor's File No. X Contract bearing Auditor's File No. 6279296 Assignment of Contract bearing Auditor's File No. Bill of Sale Fire Insurance Policy X Sketch of property (21) t_. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIDPJ REy7EL'I SHEET Appl i cat on ( q7 )l J Location : Applicant :_, eV, e ' TO Department Parks ' SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:LVO' k' Police Department A, RoCaMEETING 5? 2 `r Public Works Department 'Q 6,E it ,\\T.,AN Engineering Division ` � Traffic Engineering " --er„��" L i 5� LI i3ui 3lding Division fill) a . 9,�1 Utilities Engineering `'� Fire Department 3rgNN1NG__ ! INIiI'I TI r'OPF(SlIGTESTIOS REEGAR I G �{IS A,pP ICAT Of SHOULD IG LIGATION REVTEN CONFERS LD ON NC�00 AM IN THE _ (ARC) 10 �� PROVIDED ON F Y UR DEPARTMENT WILLDIVISAION �REPRESENTATIVEHRI) FLOOR CONFERENCE ATTEND THE ARC, P yip VIDE THE. COMMENTS TO THE NOT BE ABLE TO BY 3: 00 PM ON PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved Signature o .reci�or- ci,,Authorized Representative Date RrVIEWIP ' :EPARTNENT/DIVISION : - -- - ___Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved S 7 gnature. of Director or-lITEITO-ri Zed Repntat i ve _ Date w ..r..;1>'4,I ;:g]'F;: `.'a;...'t,7iC��;. .,,5...1.,. •'`n:�;r.::�.t, ,.,,,.` r-- , s;F ;,,.;,>.,-^^^--•-1�,..,t ..'dz,�.?aet,�g_^.�_,, :.Y..s^:ta';:�ri:,l.k..eh.- :.�n....,..;«,.. ?f:';.._. r,.•a -- nFYELOPMENT APPLICATION REV-- SHEET Application : ®�t _7 I Location : /serseiP• Applicant: erdb/‘ r TO : Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE /® Police Department 7 A. R. C. MEETING_ Z 7� z9 Public Works Department Engineering Division 1, Traffic Engineering ; HI Building Division I' 7 . Utilities Engineering Fire Department WURIMRRIORTAREIRWEIWANEPIMAPTI.8' AOPSHOD DTT dRE� rJC (ARC) �0 PPXYPAT 9:00 ATT�NF Y UR DEPARTMENT DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE t�WILL FNOT RBEGA LE CONFERENCE D THE gC, P SE P VIDE THE� COMMENTS ABLE TO BY :OG PM TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: • Approved A _ - pproved with conditions Not Approved • Signature of Director or AuthorizedLe 7 epres nt tive REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Date Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved Signature of Director " ut orize Representative Date DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REvn SHEET I APPlication : I w } Locat ion : f re.ele _eteleca1 c2 `:? Applicant TO ; Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:z1V4Vj!0:__ Police Department AsR, C, PIEETING Public Works Department • Engineering Division Fa:AW L-- Traffic Engineering `I/ ''� Building Division � �` ~ `3 Utilities En7�!y�'- gineering --.- ��.� 4 Fire Department ,c) - Of�l �^iJ `' iOP, S IGG ST OVS REGARDING r • APPLICATION CN N NIS �O FOR THE AR DI JG THIS A F LICATIOP SHOULD . AP LIC�TION ZEVI�_Il � - - JJ �I) �� HELD OND CU.iF��Rf=fJ(,LTHIRD (ARC) I U �3� - . AT 9 :00 AM I N THE (H I RD FLOOR III. FE N '�i' ', F YUU+Z DEPARTMENT L OR CONFERENCE ATTEND THE ARC, P SE P DIDESTHE COMMENTS1AIVE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BY 5: 00 PM ON � TOTHE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: _ _____�. LA P p r o��e d -- �� A Approved with conditions Not Approved Signature of Di rec>ror o •• -- --`- '"' �� 1. ► Auti�orized Repres ntative Date R VIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION --- ApprovedApproved with conditions Not Approved • 5i c�ratur� or Li r,�ctur oral ut��ozc�d ►lepi esentati ve _--- Uate OF R4,4 A, THE CITY OF RENTON 41 •?'÷•`,. z MUNICIPAL BUILDING ZOO MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. ,' 055 0 ,, ' CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR ® PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.0 Co' 235- 2550 Oyq'Eb SE1,1°1' September 19 , 1979 Herbert E . Mull 1830-130th NE Bellevue , Washington 98105 RE: NOTICE OF APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR REQUEST FOR REZONE FROM G-7200 to R-3 , File No : R-412-79 ; property located on Sunset Blvd N . W . between NE 7th and NE 9th . Dear Mr . Mull : The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on September 15 , 1979 . A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing xE am Fer has been set for October 9 , 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 BY : , j Roger 'ay oc , Associate 'Planner cc : C . J . Design 13010 Northrup Way Bellevue , WA 98105 CITY OF RENTON -A ®r PF7ONE APPLICATION CEI(DA/I "\® FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SEP 4 1979 o LAND USE HEARING APPLICATION NO. 141/2 79 • EXAMINER 'S ACTION 11 44, APPLICATION FEE $ / — APPEAL FILED RECEIPT NO . /d„��'7 CITY COUNCIL ACTION DEPp ` FILING DATE ORDINANCE NO. AND DATE HEARING DATE APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 : 1 . Name L-7�i_i t4 .. Phone 7ii 6, ,` /0 Address 1830 3 D AL� 3. Property, petitioned for rezoning is located on S1n'S�T eL✓D. /\, Wec,+ • between I 7 64,, and NE / `° 64. 4 . Square footage or acreage of property a(, '-{ 7�: 5 . Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach a separate sheet) r fI /_, ! ( ,� ' f�rs+:�=1:�.? `-?farr..�-'/..:��I T`t c E: wj.Ri-;:- c 4.?Er 00/ , .S'r ,c)f~ K,4-r P4,-4q(: 4 s Gf�1. E5 t <<!4► C�.'��,ti i y IS E % -1-1;i1 7 A? p-: r + > td L S ',_ c /t-- r.i r-c: r / � i (.a;14 ' F'r OP 4{ J r .!1 A- iv 71�(3 tL1 tT l..l%V ; Or''"Fa- h't rhh C-Il ? nF P. .r�i W f C.�✓>Idl y vF L IN4. -ems i,47"e. of W4.4 rohC e 6 . Existing Zoning 7 2., 00 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 fon" in duplicate. 7. Proposed use of site M1J1-il Fi-ttr,y � i ;I .I „�L IaITH l .:&:c) PA.t.�rn(c� 8 . List the measures to be taken to reduce impact on the surrounding area. NiA 9 . How soon after the rezone is granted do you intend to develop the site? _.lr "LE- 10 . Two copies of plot plan and affidavit of ownership are required . Planning Dept. 1-77 r " "r.VELOPMENT APPLICATION RE) ' W SHEET Application : sr (AY/ 7 6e x Location : #( r' ofg Applicant : Ai/1 AleZtort— TO ; Parks Department w SCHEDULED HEARING DATE :AY �9 Police Department A. R. Co MEETING, Public Works Department , ' RED ft Engineering Division (Y .� ®`/ 43- Traffic Engineering 1019 Building Division : -_ Utilities Engineering < Y ING P,e� i, Fire Department ?HNNSORSGGESTAS REEGDDIUrGTIS APpP MCAT OP SHOULD OPPLICATION REVILW CONF� J BE HVID� H�LD ON AM IN THE TID F Y UR DEPARTMENT DIVISION ®00 REPRESENTATIVEHWILLFLOTR CONFERENCE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ON P / SE, P VIDE THE. COMMENTS TO THE PLANNIINGBE DEPARTMENT 0 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: . Xu Approved � Approved with conditions Not Approved • Signature of Director or Authod e 9f �/79 pres nt tive Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Approved Approved with conditions Not Ap proved Signature of Directoror Authorized Representative Date j J u : n "'",;`Y.`,,,;'-:,.-- •h v u Wes. Y i ._. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION RE"-`-.N SHEET Application : -,,��r ®Z ii !,,1 Location ,ePer'.0/e' i ;07 e r., Applicant : er �,� T0 ; Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:4*!?____ fj Police Department A. R. C. J�lEETIJVG r} Public Works Department ' e I Engineering Division C e �E 1® laffic Engineering <("M Building �C. lg-Ic• Division 3 U w � ,. z Utilities Engineering ® '� �; �''�� Qom/ Fire Department AP `A=1NG _%e COMMIS IS �ORF(SUGTEST IONS R GARp I •JG THIS APPLICATION SHOULD �.. 3A L I CAT I0I41 REV I E�� CONFERENCE IIBEHELDPROVIDED _ _ (ARC) CO ON K F YUOR DEPARTMENT DIVISAION :REPRESINTAJTIVEHIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE AATTEND�TH'E ARC, p� P VIDE THE COMMENTS TO WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ON �` °� THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWING DEPARTMENT— /DI OIIV S N .� --_— -- i -tic v? , 'E — i g. Approved Approved with conditions — Not Approved 6,47,k---- 7. Signature of Di re� — — `=� �� ctor or Authorized Repres - ntative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: i Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved Signature of Di rector or u- ri zTcr-Rep1,esentat i ve Date ... r l :_st.r...t�,f4Ns.... `�ir••�.._-. .,.. t'f.-Y'�!i'y�r.. ., 9 i3 a.l.. .. • -.... .. .... . . S?'...:.n..++.� .. _---.__ PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING - - - OCTOBER 23, 1979 APPLICANT: HERBERT MTJLL FILE NUMBER: R-412-79 REVISED RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended based upon the above analysis, that the rezone request from G-7200 to R-3, File Number R-412-79 , be approved subject to the following conditions : 1. Setbacks -- A minimum 10-foot setback shall be provided along the north and south property lines excluding the pipestem access. A minimum 50-foot setback shall be provided along the west property line. 2. Creation of a 20-foot wide fire easement west of the proposed building site. 3. Site approval by the Hearing Examiner. 4 . Landscaping -- A minimum 10-foot landscape strip suitable for screening purposes shall be provided along the north and south property lines excluding the pipestem. A minimum 50-foot natural buffer shall be preserved and maintained along the west property line. A detailed landscape plan of the entire site development shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. No significant trees shall be cut or cleared without prior approval .of_ the Planning Department within the natural area. _. .(See also environmental impact declaration of non-significance. ) The pipestem access should be screened with a m!�,imum 6-foot high fence and landscaping. The single family residence located northeast of the subject site should also be screened by a 6-foot high fence with a 10-foot wide landscaping strip along the east boundary of the subject site with the single family residence. IV IQ I yi f r ; !i, -_ �- '')NI l-ra�l '- l,`z ;' I _ �� \ \ . \ .1 i : ncntl �I x\;i � ri\-ru yG`ld aNH �. \ ' I �i�lrs ,9 rrr I � � -\\\\ . \ I `r �.;6 �dee,41. •Sri 17r f ?1 6 1.Z. P 1 ��-sty p yr it / - / / 378.08' —-- P, MUNSON INVESTMENT CORP. -:_n_l _._ _ 319.42' _. ..� �..�. ��.��=� 115 it _�20: TURNBOW kv 14 J L. i� �°' �I(J SCALE 1"= 60• Si_ \ - it cb '- 260.79' LO cri o_ . •` - . . ‘0 F %\ . ,/, pgivb .,\ i/c, . (:)\ SEP 4 107.3 UTILITY EASEMENT -7 �" PORTION OF LOT 4 , HARRIES GARDEN j-1 w EM TRACTS ��G pE?��% / SEC. 8 , TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 E:, - LEGEND r - -:a PROPOSED PERMANENT EASEMENT �. •-" j PROPOSED TEMPORARY EASEMENT RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER OCT 231979 PLANNING DEPARTMENT AM PM SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER 71819110111112111213141516 - _ - _ -. = - _ PUBLIC HEARING - _ - OCTOBER 23, 1979 - - - --- APPLICANT: HERBERT MULL EXHIBIT NO. FILE NUMBER: R-412-79 ITEM NO. /z , REVISED RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended based upon the above analysis, that the rezone request from G-7200 to R-3, File Number R-412-79 , be approved subject to the following conditions : 1. Setbacks -- A minimum 10-foot setback shall be provided along the north and south property lines excluding the pipestem access. A minimum 50-foot setback shall be provided along the west property line. 2. Creation of a 20-foot wide fire easement west of the proposed building site. 3. Site approval by the Hearing Examiner. 4. Landscaping -- A minimum 10-foot landscape strip suitable for screening purposes shall be provided along the north and south property lines excluding the pipestem. A minimum 50-foot natural buffer shall be preserved and maintained along the west property line. A detailed landscape plan of the entire site development shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. No significant-.trees shall be cut or cleared without prior approval -of_ the Planning Department within the natural area. ._ _(See also environmental impact declaration of non-significance. ) The pipestem access should be screened with a minimum 6-foot high fence and landscaping. The single family residence located northeast of the subject site should also be screened by a 6-foot high fence with a 10-foot wide lanuLJcaping strip along the east boundary of the subject site with the single family residence. --.-"---.... '-'1-41.1,,,,_ ....7 �v, ._. _ . _ t _ r _ ___ _ .. OF R4';i;,\, Iy y RECEIVED )6\ �� - - I-- — — — — - — — SEP 4 1979 1 I f • 1 6 II Cv :: I I \\%\\ . \{ ADD D (I.DpI�JI-i'. (�'^,tJ FLA \\I'NOF0,s- D 1 -,DL-TI�AMIL` n.-51D5.lJT1AL . \ K y \ \ \ \ _ 1-f�;;f�'1 �. ku�W, INS, w �_ -- 'os FJ 2r'' ��11 J / / -' 378.08',,i 0) — - — __cr co _ __ _ _ _ _ __ , _ ,n ro o MUNSON INVESTMENT CORP. 319.42' _jull____ 0. 11/ !0. y ` v ,. �20� s. TURNBOIN rn , '1 �� SCALE 1 60' t 260.79' vi cL • , 4F frirna§ /()% alla "O\ SEP 4 1,979 UTILITY EASEMENT ��i PORTION OF LOT 4 ,.HARRIES GARDEN _HOME TRACTS •i�/�,. D��P� SEC. 8 , TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 E. , W. M. - LEGEND k-, --,,,.-14 PROPOSED PERMANENT EASEMENT F7---'7 - -1' PROPOSED TEMPORARY EASEMENT !. . DEVELOPI'UT APPLICATICPI REVT'1.1 SHEET Application , jg- -7 7,,o) V-. MOO 7S 4-3 Location : [�d----,�P• r• _ettlic a 1 c5;7;------'e7c v Appl icant : avid � --_� `. TO : Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE; /® Police Department • A. R. C. MEETIPJG Public Works Department Engineering Division .�. `'� � raffic Engineering 4lr '. = T7 Building Division t-.5 � Utilities Engineering'® �� `' � g Fire Department ` ii -.0vii\1G_p• ' OP�1 sEfJT OP, S�IGGFS�I- DVS RFGAP�I !(; THIS A P I - CO �JEI TS ,G RR 1 flCA f OP SHOULD � . E Af LICMTIOIJ REVIHI � _(( I JJ ( -OVIDND �� ' CO.,f-ERFP,CF_ (ARC) 0 13 �, I -7 - ._ AT 9 .00 AM .0 F ON F you DEf'ATHIENT I N 1 HE f H I RIB FLOOR 1 ATTEND THE ARC, P SE p DIVISION RE ESEN1ATIVE WILL NOT BE�ABLEETOE BY 5: OO PM ON COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT� _.", REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION !L_APproved Approved with conditions Not Approved (/),./6t7--- Signature ,0 Director o1 A _ ,- ` ��' �" _ utllor1zed Repre nt seative P TVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION - _ - - — __--ApproV ed% ---� _._Approved with conditions Not Approved S I fi aLur7,-? --of Di 51:CO1' U7-7\11Cl10}i Tilid--G-ii-F6T6rtif-a-f. l VC' ----------------iTaTiT— • i 8 PC"ELOPMENT APPLICATION REVI ySHEE TApplication : © Y e7 Location : / /..olr• 011 cld ® E— Applicant : evdp.4e T0 ; Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:4 Eg Police Department A, R. Ca MEETINGPIV Public Works Department Engineering Division Traffic Engineering �;? Building Division ��.. ... Utilities Engineering Fire Department OPTURRINIPTAPINIARRURIPERWORPPATWVNDSR GAR�I �J �IsIT O LC TIOR' W�✓ R II pp OVIDED CE PE H�LD 0 AT 9:00 AM IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ATTENF Y UR DEPARTMENT DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO D THE ARC, P SE P VIDE THE COMMENTS BY : OO', PM ON TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved Signature of Director or Authorized l2. epres nt tive Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: _Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved ignature of Director or utiorize Representative Date RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PLANNING DEPARTMENT O C 1 2 31979 AM PM PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER 71819110i)1i12i1.i213f415r6 PUBLIC HEARING ! OCTOBER 9 , 1979 EXHIBIT NO. / APPLICANT: HERBERT MULL ITEM NO. 12/). FILE NUMBER: R-412-79 A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST : The applicant seeks a rezone from G-7200 to R-3 on the subject site for proposed future multi-family development . B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: HERBERT E. MULL 2. Applicant : HERBERT E. MULL 3. Location : Vicinity of 821 Sunset Blvd NE (Vicinity Map Attached) 4. Legal Description : A detailed legal description is available on file in , the Renton Planning Department. ' 5. Size of Property : ±21 ,475 square feet 6. Access : Via Sunset Blvd NE ' 7. Existing Zoning: G-7200, Residence Single Family ; minimum lot ( size 7200 squa- feet 8. Existing Zoning in the Area: G-7200 ; B-1, Buainess Use ; R-1, Residence Single Family; R-3 , Residence Multiple ,Family 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 September 28, 1979 and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City ordinance on September 27, 1919 C. HISTORY/BACKGROUND : The subject site was annexed into the City by Ordinance #1795 of October 7, 1959 . D. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND: 1. Topography : The easterly one-third of the site slopes down- ward to the west at approximately a 5% grade. Tne remaining portion slopes downward at an 11-13 . 5% slope. 2 . Soils : The approximate easterly one-half of the subject site contains the Ragnar-Indianola association , sloping (RdC)-. ' Premeability is rapid, available water capacity is moderate to moderately high, runoff is slow to medium and the erosion hazard is slight to moderate. This soil is used for timber and for urban development . The remaining westerly portion contains Ragnar-Indianola association , moderately steep (RdE) . Permeability is rapid, available water capacity is moderate PFVELOPP°'ENT APPLICATION REV'r'I SHEET °- • Location /wCee9e' e'• e APP1icant • ecfoi. r �o TO ; Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:AW Police Department A. R. C. MEETINGP ' ` Public Works Department Engineering Division Traffic Engineering building Division Utilities Engineering g Fire Department OP, S iGGES1- VS REGARD IN �� IT ;G FORSTHE I JG THIS A PPLICATION SHOULD L I CAT IOH REV I E / CONFERENCE �3F PROVIDED OND _ (ARC) �0 it HELD O R�, IF Y U,7 DEPARTMENTTIVIAIOT N 9:R)0PAM INTTHE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ATTEND THE ARC, P SE Pfi. VIDE THE COMMENTS TOITHEVE ��PLANNIINGILL NOT DDEPARf TO EN BY 3: OO PM ON `� DEPARTMENT REVIEWING _ Approved Approved with conditions _ _Not Approved /,, C?‘ Wm' Signature n hector o► Authorized flepresentativel` _ Date PEVIEWIt' P1RTNENT/DIVISIIOON : Ap roved' __Approved with conditions _ Not Approved 777;natur-T Lf Lir-,TCtur oT Aut-lionized f 4-Fes—e-n tive --- Date PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: HERBERT MULL, File No R-412-79 OCTOBER 9, 1979 PAGE TWO runoff is medium to rapid, and the erosion hazard is moderate to severe. This soil is used for timber. 3. Vegetation : The easterly portion of the site is primarily scrub grass with light undergrowth while the westerly section consists of alder and heavier undergrowth (blackberries) . 4. Wildlife : Existing vegetation on the site provides suitable habitat for birds and small mammals . 5. Water :. No water was observed on the site (September 27, 1979) . 6. Land Use : The subject site is undeveloped at thus time. Immediately to the east and adjacent to the north and south are single family dwellings. To the west is a Puget Power Transmission Line right-of-way. E. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS : The area is principally single family residential in nature with somescattered' multiple family housing developing along the ridge line west of Sunset Blvd. NE. F. PUBLIC SERVICES : 1. Water and Sewer : A 12" watermain and an 8" sani.:ary sewer are located on Sunset Blvd. NE adjacent to the subject site . 2. Fire Protection : Provided by the Renton Fire Department per ordinance requirements. 3. Transit : Metro Transit Route #107 operates along Sunset Blvd. NE. adjacent to the subject site . 4. Schools : The Highlands Elementary School is located within 1/2 mile to the southeast of the subject site while McKnight Junior High School is approximately 1/2 mile to the north- east and Hazen Senior High School is approximately 12 miles to the east . 5. Recreation : Lake Washington Beach Park is approximately 3/4 of a mile to the northwest of the site with Windsor Hills Park located slightly over 1/2 mile to the south and Kennydale Lions Park within one mile to the north. G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1. Section 4-729, "G" , General Classification District . 2. Section 4-709A, R-3, Residential Multiple Family. H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1. Comprehensive Plan , 1965 , Land Use Report , Objective 6 , page 18. I . IMPACT ON THE NATURAL OR HUMAN ENVIRONMENT : 1. Natural Systems : Rezoning of the subject site will not have ,a direct impact on the natural systems. However, subsequent development will disturb soil and vegetation , increase storm water runoff , and have an effect on traffic and noise levels in the area. However, through proper development controls and procedures , these impacts can be mitigated. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: HERBERT MULL, FILE NO: R-412-79 OCTOBER 9, 1979 PAGE THREE 2 . Population/Employment : At a proposed development of, approximately 14 units , an increase in population of 30 persons can be expected (2 . 5 persons/unit) . 3. Schools : If the subject site is eventually developed at the proposed density of 14 units , an increase of 3-4 students may be expected in the school population . 4. Social : Development of the subject site would result in a small population increase and provide opportunities for increased social interaction among the area residents. 5. Traffic: The proposed use would increase traffic in the area by approximately 85 trips per day, based upon development on the site of 14 units (6. 1 trips per unit ) . 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, a declaration of non-significance is based upon provision of suitable development procedures and standards should the request be approved. 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 Utilties Division. 5. City of Renton Fire Department . L. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS : 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use element which designates the site and surrounding area as high density multiple family. However, single family resi- dential uses and zoning are located north, south and east of the property. Another multi-family development of 18 units has recently been completed approximately 300 ' north of the subject site . A second project of 24 units is planned within 1000 feet to the north. 2. There is some precedent for R-3 zoning in the vicinity. A parcel approximately 300' to the north was rezoned to R-3 by Ordinance #2318 of April 10 , 1967. A second parcel approxi- mately 600' north was also rezoned R-3 by Ordinance #3258 of October 27, 1968. If the subject request is granted, a gross density of approximately 15 units would be permitted. 3. The items addressed in #1 and #2 appear to indicate that the subject site is potentially zoned for the R-3 classification requested (Section 4-3014(A) (2) 4. Although the area may be in,transition from single family residence to multiple family, this transition has been historical: quite slow in this area. Certain measures to protect surrounding single family residence users should be provided as conditions of any rezone and site development . Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report , 1965 , page 17, objective 4, states that "property values should be protected within the community for the benefit of its residents and property owners , through effective control of land use and enforcement and application of building and construction codes. " Objective 6 also encourages "the develop- ment and utilization of land to its highest and best use in such a way as to promote the best interest of the community and contribute to its overall attractiveness and desirability as a place in which to work, shop, live and play. " This would suggest that special buffering of multiple family areas from the established single family residential areas should be required. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: HERBERT MULL, File No : R-412-79 OCTOBER 10 , 1979 PAGE FOUR 5. A number of significant trees are located on the subject site particularly in the westerly portion . These should be retained as much as possible as part of site development . A negative declaration of environmental impact has been issued subject to this provision as a mitigating measure of development impacts. Comprehensive Plan land use report , 1965, page 11, states that "residential development may be successfully planned to take good advantage of the amenities which such locations often provide. Natural features such as rock outcroppings , streams , stands of native trees , and views often available from these locations should be used to greatest advantage. " 6. The facts outlined in items 1, 2 , 4 and 5 establish the need for conditions which protect adjacent single family uses and the character of the site . Such conditions could include preservatio) of significant trees and vegetation , provisions of setbacks and landscape buffers suitable to protect adjacent properties , provisions of detailed site development and landscape plans . /„2.a-e rj 6. The subject site has remained zoned G-6400 since the property was annexed in 1959 . 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 . O. Comments from the Fire and Police Departments suggest two measures to mitigate potential problems developing from the construction of any multiple family developments along the west side of Sunset Blvd. NE in this specific area. First , the site slope immediately downhill from Sunee yd. NE to the west creates an access problem because of « clearance . The Police Department has recommended that the access road be raised to the same elevation of Sunset Blvd. NE for a distance of at least 40 feet west of the existing pavement . Since access is limited to Sunset Blvd. NE, the direction that the Fire Department can approach a fire is limited. There is a need to place a 20-foot wide emergency fire flow lane on the west side of any multiple family residential sturctures built west of Sunet Blvd. NE on the ridge. These would be linked together as the hillside develops. . M. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: It is recommendased upon the above analysis , that the rezone request from G- 000 to R-3 , File Number R-412-79 , be approved subject to the following conditions : 1. Setbacks -- A minimum 10-foot setback shall be provided along the north and south property lines . A minimum 50-foot 'setback shall be provided along the west property line. 2. Creation of a 20-foot wide fire easement west of the proposed building site . 3. Site approval by the Hearing Examiner. 4. Landscaping -- A minimum 20-foot landscape strip shall be provided along Aberdeen Avenue NE. A minimum 10-foot landscape strip suitable for screening purposes shall be provided along the north and south property lines. A minimum 50-foot natural buffer shall be preserved and maintained along the west property line . A detailed landscape plan of the entire site development shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department . No significant trees shall be cut or cleared without prior approval of the Planning Department . (See also environmental impact declaration of non-signficance. ) The single family residence located northwest of the subject site should be screened by a 6 foot high fence and a minimum of 2 feet of landscaping or 10 feet of landscaping. ICI _ i ! i ImLLI,_' /_`°`Mz -- A •IV. .. \ -' •,\----- ‘ LL-1',-..45,-,-\ , 7,+ ': k. .... , \„, 4 F 1 ., ,,\ t1 1 J '.69. .r"S K c� 1.1r•• fj ;' ` . 1e e+1 V, x-- I IJ U p~ 1 A I\i\\ K4. 1..t:-k'-F-+R.I bI,l 1 12', -i " + N:y�•%'� + . •'4•, k a. {17 1 ` 1 i +e.'1111 1 '+ 4 9-1ur 2,,1 1 •.„ `J5 ; as a •\F• ; 4_ ~i rl ^ t i - t =� ate ''• -� \tQ,�1p{�yE L n� ` +';� 1 I I 4�" }zn'-- 23...1, y "_s`�,� i a .+ 1s/' . IW 4 +I+-,i N, 1 {1[ }i .0 I j'260_ 1C'I r '�'- J 1 � . +E © =�ry _•'1l --J ii © l -a l� I g 1 l ` — e 7. r r1 -17 a_ —, — \ . oLp,Cri ttFtF; 111� j `" `9 N ,1,11'� T-- y Z I11� ®° !. q ;� M! J. C.t'G7l_is'Lh'ta.".. "'�t t f W —' - .: . / /,4., 4%04 ,, \ \ ii, 8 ,,,,i._, L --\\::. -- ..11/„I. . ,(....714.0.3' 5' 1 1- \\\ _____-.16„,...1--- ,...9.4. . ..-",,,,I.R, ___....I•-• 0.,...9 .. .., ..,........ ... i___------ ; . ,. , .—..i la . /,;! ..71.,,,,, \ .„„,, . .,=. r- (...N (a DS o. �/ z � 1 \ /- I �▪ ' ' � `\ \+ \ y �^ . J. ....— ---- „Jt � 7\ '�\ \ 0 ___ I _•- }1 s t .. c �r3d /-Th� k 7/i , 7\ ' \‘- ' \ f`' -j4.,:i _ _ ,,,.....,.,.. .„.„ 1,,, , • _ , , ...,,, •. I ' / ri-i_. , i 7 ,,,::). . 1 ( \,,,, 1• \ Imo, ��\\•, \\ e r,.:`T•'T'1 1' l '. 1 1 `� i v y \' mD 5 7� 4 Ty IFS• ,,; , ''_• ' • j .3=;�a • //'' WI I ( \» \1 -0\ \ i 6.. orr�r fcj; •, 01 + .., I t -ow•! 3 13' ]+ 7;1;-7-7,...,-.L.' 1,. ..., ZI..,/,,I, 's",•••••,,,,._ e)1%)10, 1 1 ��L'.11J� ' ; \- 3- ' ::.i , ,,, , _,„, "/„..,.,,,, „ :, "•,, • ; ,,,, .„.„..... .• , __-,,,, , , . P ' i ',i,--- -tit ', \ , !,,,?)1.0",, ,..y(1.1,,,,r1P A ,,....„ . th„. -.- 1, _ u...,./.;, ,,, ., ,, . . _7.1- r• ". I ri1" � Y i,p?t' ;J.•,• • ��.��,.• �: 5• I i --\L-1 L . '.01 'T ' 1 \ \ \ '' Ka''''Lrra:4:7:, -,):;?..."....,. s .', k„ .)' .,,,..... .--2".:1ira'';°' 1 1 a 2 1 I ' ` �, 1i't�Jm—p�`,''sr.- !43°y"�6�tCe ` ' zMhl; 14 F a 4` Z II \ ��_ 11 .' 1 1, n .C.Cv., ' e L��' ' O �, • Ip�. G40_�b' •.� � 1 �Pr \ wr� +•ple r,�, I � � — • Idl + \:�>'�,1•.�,_l-�z -TT-f '' ,S 1 . L JJI\��'/+9 - ,�i:Qla4--•^•„_.` I il _-J— > - ._! �1 �y�1=(/��z.,' T .I _ mo'C'T_ '" •7.7.5; . til _---.= s. • • _.:• V --._-_-_ 1 .•A •.f'J n•. \ a3l �'' 1i l..f.��.-•• I - ___ ^=, +•r•r.V�••'P--.^�yy=t....s^st 1 i HERBERT E . MULL • R-412-79 I I r 1 1 APPLICANT HERBERT E , MULL TOTAL AREA +21 ,475 sq ft I PRINCIPAL ACCESS____ Via Sunset Blvd NE , ' E x I S1 I NG ZONING G-7200 I • EXISTING USE Undeveloped PROPOSLD USE Proposed future multi-family development r COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN High Density Multiple Family i ft .COMMENTS , / I� .__ _ — , LJEvtLt)rriLt f ArFLICATION RFVTEW SHEET Application : A ''Ipo e ( W7 Q _ 7a400 61 A- Location : 0(r-eqr.14: , za i c �s�'8;; �� eve', Applicant : AY 4dkri TO : Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE :/'.I/* 9 Police Department A, R, C. MEETING ?:,/26/7, Public Works Department Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division /7, /i-Utilities Engineering 1 Fire Department INf 1W IT I lGPF:OR THEM AP3LI CAT IO a I REVTEI THIS aFERE NCE�r(ARC)) g0 13t H :i DD OND __ __ _ AT 9 :00 AM IN THE THIRD FLOOR CO, f-ERENCE IF Y UR DEPARTMENTTIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT BE BLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, P 1S PR VIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY : OD PM ON 4M?_ REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved / Approved with conditions Not Approved 1-2/7-2,-ci e Cc/l/s j ieG J%%U �'///zz" /i/z n�/tom //`//�/',t)3 Al,/iv / J r c ' / ?/ iti /A- ??7 C/' ,S7/4'G4- /N6=ieeSS /4A-d/.7 G=--/e Y 4S /r i7 Ft,,P, /I�C��/lv�S riie�� P=�G�✓ /!�• /Jz'i<' S 5/r' r%.-,S//Iz 70 A/tfc'I s'C�4c re,/C- joec-ii"r-_S iv dQ riGQ/ c/� /i ai)i.- /'i"GZr1 /9Lz. �.1,/.C.' G'�F�u/i�G�l�j✓TS �` a/ :c c /`'/�NC�' C —11 zo A'? 877 5 a ure of Di rectorvor uthori z d Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Po /►`C.�C� Approved er Approved with conditions, Not A. prive/ Pat RA u ; I �,c .�.-� L,12) Ai 4—Amin/ c2 Q-S 1. F J/ CoNsi _r- ,,,y i, j • .�. c52 S / -COT D r c t 0 A RI vc �� Datte PROPOSED/FINAL DEvLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/N___ -STGNIFICANCE Application No . R-412-79 PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . 502-79 III FINALDeclaration Description of proposal Applicant seeks a rezone from G-7200 to R-3 for proposed future multi-family development . Proponent .. HERBERT E. MULL Location of Proposal Vicinity of 821 Sunset Blvd NE Lead Agency CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPT. This proposal has been determined to 0 have 11 not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS 0 is 1is not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 (2 ) (c ) . This decision was mase 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 : Based upon provision of suitable development procedures and standards should the request be approved. 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 (proposed/final ) declaration of non-significance : See attached items 1-4. Responsible Official GORDON Y. ERICKSEN - Title PLANNIN {DI • 'TO• Date _ OCTOBER 4, 1979 Signatur- _ fi , • �, �' - , , City of Renton Planning Department _ Wa, 5-76 • • • • 1 . Setbacks -- A minimum 10-foot setback shall be provided along the north and south property lines . A minimum 50-foot setback shall be provided along the west property line. 2 . Creation .of a 20-foot wide fire easement west of the pr•posed building site. 3. Site approval by the Hearing Examiner. • 4. Landscaping -- A minimum 20-foot landscape stria shall •e provided along Aberdeen Avenue NE. A minimum 10-foot 1-ndscape strip suitable for screening purposes shall be provided along the north and south property lines. A minimum 50-foot natu al buffer shall be preserved and maintained along the west properly line . - A detailed landscape plan of the entire site developmeng shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. No significant trees shall be cut or cleared without prior approval of the Planning Department. (See also environmental im•act declaration of non-signficance. ) OF i? . ,� o THE CITY OF RENTON t$ MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH.98055 o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9 `O FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 o 4Q �4TFO SEPt��O November 21, 1979 To: Warren Gonnason, Public Works Director From: Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner RE: File No. R-412-79; Mull Rezone Request Slope and Field Survey The question of the topography, especially related to the slope of the subject property and the property of Mrs. Christina Hill has been raised at the October 9 and 23, and the November 6, 1979 hearings concerning the rezone request. At the November 6 hearing Paul Lambert of your department agreed to provide information relating to the slopes involved. The specific areas in question pertains to the slope between Mrs. Hill's property on its northern boundary and the proposed access driveway of the Mull property. Further, the slope of the property line as it runs from Sunset Blvd. N.E. in a westerly direction is also required since the Police Department has recommended that the access driveway be raised to the level of Sunset Blvd. N.E. for a distance of at least 40 ft. in order to provide safe sight lines for turning. The Public Hearing on this matter has been continued and will be heard on December 4, 1979. I would appreciate a written response to the information 'requested prior to that hearing date and as usual it will be most helpful it Mr. Lumbert or yourself can be available at the hearing to answer any questions and to provide useful_.input. Fred J. Kaufman cc: Planning Department attachments j'. OF R�� ;y . z THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 osoL MIND ° CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER -Po `O FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 94, SEPZE �P November 27, 1979 Craig Johnson C. J. Designs 13010 Northrup Way Bellevue, WA 98005 RE: File No. R-412-79; Mull Rezone Dear Mr. Johnson: • I am enclosing a copy of a response to a memo directed to the Public • Works Department. The question presented was the question of the slope at and near the northern property line of Mrs. Hill's property adjoining the subject Mull property. If you have any questions concerning the memo they may be addressed to the Public Works Department and in particular Mr. Paul Lumbert. Mr. Lumbert will also be present at the December 4, 1979 Public Hearing and questions may be raised at that time. Sincerely, • Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Planning Department Public Works Department Mrs. Christina Hill • OF 1 tIo .0 � PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WARREN C. GONNASON, P.E. • DIRECTOR smIL o rn MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 9-0 `o 206 235-2569 9�TED SEP1°4° INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR Date: November 26, 1979 To: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner From: Warren Gonnason, Public Works Director Subject: File No. R-412-79; .Mull Rezone Request This letter is in response to your letter of November 21 , 1979 relating to the slope of the above-stated property. After field checking and checking of topography maps in the office, it was found that this property has a slope of approximately 16% in the area of Mrs. Hill 's north property line. The developer would have to furnish the City any new grades for on-site drainage as well as his proposed driveway access to and from Sunset Blvd. If you have need for additional information, please contact this office. Very truly yours ; • • PL:jt PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING DECEMBER 4, 1979 PAGE TWO • 1 1. Creation of an access platform with a maximum grade of 5% for a distance of 20 feet from the eastern property line. 2. : Setbacks -= A minimum 10-foot setback shall be provided along the north and south property lines excluding the pipestem access. A Minimum 35-foot setback shall be provided along the west property line. • 3. Creation of a 20-foot wide fire easement west of the proposed building site, 4, Landscaping -- A minimum 10-foot landscape strip suitable for screening purposes shall be provided along the north and south •property lines excluding the pipestem. A mini- mum 10-foot natural buffer shall be preserved and main- tained along the west property line. A detailed landscape plan of the entire site development shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. No significant trees shall be cut or cleared without prior approval of the Planning Department within the natural area, (See also environmental impact declaration of non-significance. ) The pipestem access should be screened with a minimum 6 foot high fence and/or landscaping. The single family residence located northeast of the subject site should also be screened by a 6-foot high fence with a 10-foot wide landscaping strip along the east boundary of the subject site with the single family residence. EXHIBIT "' • ITEM No, Lo a --) 5 PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING DECEMBER 4, 1979 RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON flEAMNG EXAMINER DEC �,f1979 APPLICANT: HERBERT MULL AM PM FILE NUMBER: R-412-79 °�s8r9s1t1e1'd�I21li2c3.4s5+6 IEW ANALYSIS: The applicant has submitted detailed site plans showing grades, building location, cross-section, and proposed landscaped areas to provide the City with more information to reach a decision, The various City departments have reviewed the application at the ARC meeting on Thursday, November 29th. The comments cen- tered on the following topics : 1. ACCESS: The Fire Department felt that 16 feet of driveway was too narrow to service a multi-family residential development . Twenty feet ( 20 ' ) would only leave three feet ( 3' ) for landscaping of the pipestem access. The Engineering Divi- sion felt that 18 feet would be sufficient to service the size of the development proposed. This would leave five feet (5 ' ) for landscaping. 2. GRADE: The relocation of the building farther to the west allows the grade to be established at a maximum of 22% for the steepest part of the private drive. This would create a rockery which is approximately five feet (5' ) high adja- cent to the Hill residence to the south, The Fire Depart- ment has recommended that the maximum grade be 15%. How- ever this cannot be attained unless the 5% access platform requested by the Police Department is eliminated. A com- promise position would be to reduce the length of the access platform to 20 feet and thus reduce the grade to approximately 19% for 65 feet . This in turn would reduce the height of the rockery by approximately one foot ( 1' ) . 3. LANDSCAPE BUFFER: The western landscaping buffer proposed by the Planning Department in the original report can be reduced to a 35 foot setback, which would include a future fire lane of 20 feet in width. This allows the building to be set down into the ground approximately one and a half (1z) stories, thus reducing the visual perception of the com- plex. The fourth floor elevation of the building will be 38 feet . This is only two feet (2 ' ) above the first floor elevation of the Hill residence and six feet (6 ' ) less than the first floor elevation of the Turnbow residence. This will have a much reduced visual impact upon the existing single family residence. 4, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The declaration of non-significance has been modified to reflect the substantial changes in the applicant 's proposal. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that based upon the above analysis and the analysis presented in the staff reports to the Hearing Examiner dated October 9 and October 23, 1979, that the rezone request from G07200 to R-3, File R-412- . 9 , be approved subject to the following conditions : ---- *,-::•& _ . • . ._/-•-•-• _....- • .. 1 , .. _ ._... - - • . . 0 \ _--- .. - • - - Li'., __,A,(1-..:, E_N,\L--- . • , c- -- . • . ._ . . . . • • .. - 1 4)'\ . • , . . (6) . _.... .. .c....,-„,-....\-- .,-,,,..--,...-.-\\•.:\v„;.\\:--,,-7-„-,.7.,-..-,.• 7••••...;,,,-"•• ." _f__ _.— / • ',. .' '','''•''..\\•, ,,\s`,•••:-'`,• ,,.,_•• \ . • , ,. - • \ • \ • , \..,\\ -.. ,,.\\• ••• I. ,s • ,'„•, -,-..• .\ \\\ ,-,,,• -. ...\ ,s, \\-\\ . s..:•\.s.c •s• \'-...\\•\\w\-,.>. •\'•-•;',''••• ' ss, •„ .. • . '''s••` •‘ •:,•:••'si'•\'‘'s,.'-..'s\s•\`''' •••\\''-\‘'' \'' ‘•-••t . , . ,N.:•• :,...-\.•\•>, •,..:,...,.,...,...,„:„.:-::: :4•• •••._,..\,*:.,:s.,:.-, . . • :.•:,•\,,,,N:.\,.•• 1 popq. -:_-,c), laa-.\\••••••••• s i .. . . • •:•.\Y\\ •- • •• ' • 1 . y•\\: --,s;••'s;-,•!1• A''''' '.- III '"N\ \\\ \:''<••.: 1 ..;\...::,‘•-•\. ..: .,\.„:I„„1:7-7----.. ,,..„.7...- i 7.,..... ,(._,\,..,.,.:;,:...,...:1.-._,.. .',.:1-.:..,.:.‘.. :.,;.... .1 . . ti . ;.\•., ,\.\\ .:_i-,..-, ,,2 _&,.\. ,1 :,.. _. ,, . i . , . . . ,. . • 110 • • • _ : ______,-. _____ -_J __ _ 1 E . .. 1 • • • • P: • 1 . • •• . . ,_. . .. ... . _.... 1 . . . _ b— - . .. ., , - . 1. • •r--• i • • 5 1(0 I. 11 1?) —•••1 A-- .. . . • • • .,.1 .. . • • _______t . • 1 •—R - a , • - 3 , i - .• . .- . • i .. - • _.. .,• . __.„ ________ ,. . . , •• . 1 . . . .. • . --------.K-- • . _ .1 -.. ..) i ••,:l -1[7. .1 -7, -A,i-7,--7 - -, l'. z .21 • • . 11,..------"--- ( ___,___-......1 , 71- • •1.- ------.J....-.:_-::- _!...._ I • ; ' --t-Nt• .- - 4 , .. \ , , -.............- !•,),AW, r I ' I: I\ , . . .. . . • ,, . . . . . 1 L_ _• ..1 1•-- — — —1 . ! • 0.• • -A--- IL, I .11. 1 ..-- • \ •-,),::-./•1"..1-. -- I- -- - _........_____.... , ./‘. , 71- i I: 1 1 • I 1.V.!Ni Ark I , L.--/ . i . . L I , : :„...... .i_r,... - ....Ifty,Ni..... •------ I ) . • r-- ---. c>' . : -•••'---„, i , h . . *•...-Ar)••; .1 • . • -&,,,. , . ik 11 j i'l , • ._-••_ r . 4 i- ,, „ - r'\,.„ -............:, . . . • . . . • • . . . . • . . • . • . . • . . • . . . . • , •, . . • , . . . ..: • . • : .., - . . 4816 -ran . ----.�� j .--, • I ,, • \!\*1 . • _..._. _ z `; ^... .- - -._ '-...1.' • / - - -- - / / .•••-••••••.+_ n - nl / /, 17. .',7-1:51:47.. .R. ' 114' C.."702141°' L . ..........._.........— . �/ , " mil / f / . • • • • 4..) • • • • • • • • i ),,, ; r.. .t . . • ¢ / S y;.. i5T`vCi ';ii::+f:P'1}a:0.:'.w.t'` ... ..5'•` , , - ..-. . .. . - • . , , . .• ....... .. . , ...,', • . . . , . . • • . . •, . . .,. . . . . . . , . . ' . .. , . . . , . • . , .• , , . , .........7._ . . . . . • i•L•::-7,'1; . ' . . . • •.,___i . . . . . . . . .. • . .. • . . . ... . -, •. . 1. . • • ) . . . . . . . . . , . . . • . :. . . -.„.. , .. . . , . .., • . --..,.....„......,,, . • . . . . , . .. . . . • • . ,,? pt 1 . i . . . . • 1 • • • . • . . . . . . . , . • . . . ....... , . .. . • .- dos.—el • . . .. , . . • , _ -.1.----'.*-'1------'"'...: ' ,H------7---41 , ---• . . . .,:., :":1 2 • V-4..- -Lic, II t -------- . . .. . .. . .. ,,,,,L I. _.:(,y_ .k.. ._., . . •• • • — ....... • 1—. — -I r •- -1 I 1 1- - - -. , . . I . I - 3 1 , ‘,. • • .le- - _-__•__ _ _ _ Ii . iS r71 .,,_.. .:..__._ .... ... ..__ _........ _._...„e:.______ • •-:: 1,,..i e .i\.•, (,-.. . ....y, . ___... •< ..._..,, •. . . i ! • •. . . . ., . • . 1 . 1 51 • • ). -131•111,11* hi ,, • • ,. .„ ,.. ••• . . . . . G • • ii • . • • . r-- . .. ... 6 01 . •••..• • .. •, , . . . • rg , .. . . . . • . .. . . . . . . ,.. ,. ., .• . • .., . . •. . . ,, . . • •. . . • • `',‘.• \ ''..' " .•: '.'•N\\N\ , .• • . ,,A ••‘, '• . :, '• ‘,. '..• . . . :.'':\• \ \\\\\ . . . . • - , .,,,`.N• \.„,• \,\\ \\‘\‘....N,,,‘' N\\\`• . I\\"'•. \\\•'``•‘' . . . • .., •• '\\\\\\:•\.\• ' 1(50 'NOM '\.\\":i.„\\;M: . . . . . • 4 .s.,\IN:,',,. •••\.\\ •••,-'77,\ \ .ss \- ‘\.\-.. .c•: \.\\\',2: \•,:s.\.. \',•\` .- \>:', .` \ ‘ ''' , . .• . . \.... ._•.s -.:':‘'\'', —-' . ‘.1\, . , ,e•-• ._.- . • ' -4;'-----------f ..-(1,) , ---- 1\ . . •-i .....- • 0.7 \ . . . . - - . , - . • - .., • ---"*4-1 _ . ... • _...... . ..... ..._ .. • •• . . _ • --/\`' . . . . . • . , , .. .. , . • • _. „. . • • • cl . . .. . . . . . • . • 1 . , . ,. . ... . .. . . . i . • . . • . . 1k7- - A. .., ,. •. • .. ...• • • . . --nrin_ t___ • . . , , • , . • • . .. . „ , . . .. . . . . . . , .. • . . • . . , • -, . . • .• • 1:. , . • ., : ....____..... . _......._ . , , its.?� , .;;� ;• .,i:; AR- -4-12.- 19 t e-- to {cif-M f1i ...... ..'. :....'.....'..•:''''''':,'''''''',........ '''.....'.'. _4__ _.:_ 4___.:- 7----. • , .3 . . . --,-)f . . ,. . , • • • . . • , . . . . .. , i ---7,\%.\--- ( • • • �y • _ . ' ,) • , "Z''.---;. •:-...___1/ _ —T cz...:,...,.._.„.y 4. . • %) . r--- , L I %. . . . \.%ci }-______ ' . . • . . • • Yr1T /n � _ ______:___. 1 ilt71 ji-7 ' --.3" -4,-A- \--• '- • . ----4 2 •• I1 a _5?kil-:—I • . . (lit..r) • . •' r I ra - 1cA : ;- 5 1 . V . . . . . • , ••.','4..••••.,••', 1•'•;,...., (.;‘?..0, • - . •*. *;' ,*•'-',::-Ii•I•••••* *1•4•'•.: ' '*:.4 * - _._, , - .., •, •.•.-• ' • - • • ' • • * ' ,, : .• ' •".(•.'",:•'. •,' •';'.:. •..',1'!;1.• -'• ,'', •,•-.,•.•:,•/.*!1'Ac„%f,......t•lit.,,"' a ' ,. • : -••,....11;/•„••,4,4, ,Y.'7./4.1,1' ---.--- +iL1: 4er=rr MULL. • ',.. ',....,..'*I`..' A;',..'•.:;, 1:-.,`,tt.•1•9,..•:' .• ^! ;.;••, ;.1.'4,-.• 0:'''. ••, it5—°411•••• 19 "''',21',•',...,'"•,:••••,' • . .'; ." •' ,' .' .' ' . • I')‘‘.... . . . . . . : . , ... ..,. . .... ••• . .,. • . . • : . . .' . , • . • ,,, •, ,4. , .,.. . . 4*-4.4 4-4-44-,4 4 I -- k— . 1; , • . . t- \ ; . . . • . ' . \ 41 . . • . i i \ ' ; i • • . ' :• ; 1 ri ti t! I 1; IS)' ack.i . • . , I : • • . . • : • . . , ! \'‘ , . ;. , ; • . \. 1 ; !:. (0 . ; 1 e 1 ... , .: , . . .. , ..., . "7: \ i '0 7:7 I • — vi) 0 . . . .• ; . . 1 1 I, i t•'; . . . .... , II __ _. • . ' t•A t '\ 0 ; r.: . I • 111 . . .. . . . .1,. -4 . • • ,-f . : ..., . . .. . , In '•b . ' • „ . • • ' // l'' • . • /,/,„,•-. ,.i .\& A • • . . . . . .a , , • ...I / - , : : ,,, :::' 1 . - . , 4.isp.;:i, \S\ • . 1 P'g \ _ 1 ,.-:-.- , -1 1 iii;:o. •1 Y.: --Av • : .> .. ' • . b-g '. V. • . . . . . • :....i --..::t•1 •z1 • . . ... N.. .... . , 4 _ .._•_„_ ......_...„.. , . . , . . • . • „ ., d .. • - . •. . • . . .... , ., • • . , • . .• . , • • . . .IS , , • • . . . * • , . .1 , 1 .. I . r • , : . . it Z1 17 ' . . . 1 . . . ,. • ; • ............. . . , , . .1'''' ' .:..--'''''.'',':•T —'i •— •••••' ' 4 . ..''..'.7'.'—.:7,7•::.-‘.•'''.:.Y..•'71.7.*;e.s..'i.4";'''':'-!..`;•.'N:P`..!';• : 7:7-7'7'.."-177.7,ITt.,,r,v,!:-.7.'",—',,'-,': —,',.:.';',,, •,,'‘, 7 ' -`,.•.'; - - '-"i.-• •• '',',;•,,,,,,,,•:, :.. ,,': , ' .,,- • .11. : : ,.,:,...,' . - :",,:, ';..':.1 -'.'. ;',' .. ' 1 ` " .-m.,‘,''*!,k-. - ,''• : ' '' - . . .. ' • -, ,:',,4, ' "' . '' ' ,•:' ' ' '' :•., 2:' . ' . ', ' .f,,.••••,,•;., I -,'..'••-.7k.",• -f••i i-'0'••'4‘. :::/...,,,,„•-•-•,••.,,,,,...,:.:J.,);1,..:,,•:,,,, ,;•,•,,,••••:;•.,..•,".,..., ,.: ,•,,;., :. . -, , • ,";'-4• ;,..;;;; :.., ,,, !,,,ti.,„,, ,,: ,. :!-,''.''..i',, ,,,,,,A)i',1.•.: ,-.'s, . :'.. '>11",''','' ' •': '',::-"•:. 'I:, '. ''.. ' ' , ' ' ,,'''•,'-'`:, '''''.'",‘,-Y;'::' :V.i'-,,,,:. '-',,,:,!" ','7'176.';`.1:i''',''''•.*';':4% ),,•'', ,?':".,.2,,, ., ,.: - ,•, .., , , r., : ,. 0 , ,. , 41.:r,• :, . ` • ••: ; ' .;'-• '. :V,::'t ",•;!,."',.;,-.+.1','71t.'.,:,•''-!,,,,::;1•,1 t',,,i:i.:':,:2A,'4...k::ti,;:.,,r:7,:oi'Or,,,,'-',',..;,,i '* ' ' , '', ."'" • '', ,' ' ' , . ' • ,•,.; f','.„.,1*,',;t1 „CH i.Uh ,- i ann , tty Department DEVEI :MENT APPLICATION REVIEW _ iT Application . 4 —WeR-75,1 Location : ,SeaRgalaAfel. 4/4-40 AANOt,,Q ic - /46I -5? AfE50454,Z: Applicant : to - ord4 err ' T0 , Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:12 i Police Department A. R. CA MEETING Public Works �� Department Engineering Division Te i fic Engineering '.j %'• ----Building Division g ,a `j { Utilities Engineering w Fir � '�. e Department COflM NT QRF(UG7 EST IO S REG I RD I IG THIS f PiI I CAT jON SHOULD BE )R.OVI D=D EVIW COVFERENCL .(ARC) 10 BE -IE. col %��' M �=” `fi AT 9:00 AM IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE E YOJR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIV NFLABLE TOE ATTEND THE ARC, PLEASE PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE V�PLANNING DDEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 PM ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: `)� — � - _ _ T Z 0 -- ,\ Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved --6X Y Signature of Director or Authorized Representative _2 c1 Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved i gnature of Di rector or Authoy Tzed Representative Date 11�11 ��i1 a aiu ny uepartment DEVE_ 'I ENT APPLICATION REVIEW ET Application : 4 4 .--7F) Location : ep = ve f�A1d0 2 � 9 t;� �� `r. °6V - 'r Appl i cant P 2 TO : Parks Department SCHEDULED ED HEARING DATELMW2,9 Police Department A. R. Co MEETING_ Public t grks Department : "'"'"Engineering Division _Traffic Engineering • Building Division [f Utilities Engineering +' _ Fire Department • cOt11! NTs OR S IGG:ST pNHS REGARDING THIS /\ PII.--ICcATIOr SHOULD BE _OVID=D IN �4, JTIN� FOF� TIE AP'LICATION �CVIEH'd COVFERE m�Yfi NcL. �ARc)FLOOR�o � ��LD o1 -o1w. `�--�� AT 9 :00 AM I N THE h "i 1 i1 YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTAT I VEH�W I LLNOTBE�ABLEETOC ATTEND HE ARC' PLEASE PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY N REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION :` �� A .' Approved _Approved with conditions Not Approved Siunature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved • ignature of Director or Authorized— Representative Date nton .' 1 aiin i Fig Department DEVEL_ MENT APPLICATION REVIEW S.,...0 Application : ,F 263) .7As____,.-: e,..c'''''') Location : v 4 - 4,,.c,L,o.,„<,)e,„, s•sc 0 Ko......A4 47 Applicant : ' ' ' eZE:#__________— I .,TO : Parks Department $ „...,, t SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : / . .i/i Police Department A, R. Co MEETING__44 . Public Works Department • Enctitneering Division ::L.,?7'',,:'".,:,-':.,' ,'r::.,,,.r.,.-..i..,.(.,A r';,.r;.'..:,',i..-,):'Y,'-!•;.,-:',.:'':,!,',,';',,',',,'',r..:e,,V,,,'",„-,;?,,:''!:,':,',",,,I.:..,.:i:;'4,,='.,ir-'4.:c,'..,:,t,.!''-:,1,t,,::,4.1,t:i-l:':,'''4rt%,,.i r,VN,)..,t-,‘,i,,.:'.g-,.Ar—,(p-t,--.:.:,1s bTB'ku;..i.41'v4-i,i-ti A1fr,O,t 04i iriV44a,,A-r10f.Y*'--Ke,di f4.v,,1'tA.„rt.,'7,:,.:tin.ra',?-'4o:fg.,,4o.r.,,,-4::,,.14.;k,i;%4t..r.,1t„e1,4;,,:,t,-C:,.,%'s1n,*v,e FA,-,g'tI,t-.‘1.)'r,-.s-,,,:w..:'.4:::t-,,.x,..i',,',0,=114:,i.*„.,,:A,,'f,we—,,t,,,',i,-,:kf,k:..Ai,?kZi,,4,,,o,'il„4:,jzt','4i4.,7,igl:4jr4,;'.-,,;-t!7:,.,1,,,ks,4',,,!','.;'",i,:,'.?::o,41,11:::.,':,;-.::4;-,4-k3,4f;,,-,!i,,,:c,".i:.o'-.'0',,,,'"';i 21::-:1,,wt•,..:r:;,".:-:i3 4:4.,''2:.'::i'•.',c'':'::t,1...i44,:*'r,0,."::'t;i,,.'.:4-.&1t';l4-YVt,,,.:,':."";.444Z,..,.!,k,;;.„,1. 2,:;.`.,'z...k'„;,"V.g:.,t4;.7A...-!,;o,;d,':4',•1,:,,,',.s4.P:,.AdA,:..:N',':.-;-g*.,t4 a,.',.g.-.'4:;-1!f14;.'74-....l..,Xdfte? En9neeoTq ,:l4'c,'''..',.'',•':'1/4 c 1 ; ft:..;:\..o:t,:,',v,..',1.*...'' 1:• '-• .• , t:;s::e;?':A,„.:„c-,4,j..,7..":..,-;4:,'4-,,"%1.'1,t',-'r,'4„.?.'',''„'t,$,:.,,,...,`','.i-•'1 .. ( ( ,,:?,:,:-., ,,,,,,,,,,,',1,,,,,-,,-..,11,,,,:,,?:i,-;r•t7,':',*4.p.'1-**Argairiotorfrx.44t. isli-„N,10,a'4,4vs„oli4y1,,,,1,,,,7:,:''..,,,,,,,4.,4;-:;?.;.„;',,,P.,.,.,,..,,,,z,„; ,'!;:.: ,,,-,- K..' ,„,:•:.:::/':,..,#4:,, ,,,?::Nr.I :f?'...',Y'.,',;."';',.-"„':'--„:1,,!:• EV.;:.,,,,:.-;:'c'.i,1:;A-,, .''::,:.Foi,.,',;:P,',;,,.,,,,,•;,,s,,,,,A' ,2,g4fi'Od 4 .4.N4,4010040.1-7-7r!' 4,%, ,', '1„-':,',4'`'.:',;:4''4'sielt.:. e,',:',"0 Va;tit lyre ,,i:-.. „,,T,R,'-,-,,,,t,..,i,..,;,,,,,,w,,,,,,%,-„,,4,,,,4,,,,,4,:,,,!.,,,4„,......!,,,,!•!,,,,,,,,,,,,,•,,,•:,:,:,•,,, .•,,,,,e,i:„.z.;-,-, •-:-,-.;:,'•';.-f'-s,-:-.'',4:i';,,,4.,7 •••;e14iy-,,v,,:': i.•,:,,,t,i',.y,,.-41 'Y--:.";':: ;'''',';' ;.; ; '''' '''',- ';:',';','-''1''.:%'..'-;/:-!' r ';': :.' ' j:•1 ',::;''''' ',''.P',;` ''' '' ''. 7*;'4:1's't‘.:','1,,,,,,': ].,:.- - '' ...,., •,,,-'.,U '/', '', ' '.'6 ' '':-.•:`',.;;;,',-.Y,':;.;'-!:-;',,,',1„., ;'.';','f*,,,,.'".°.': ;,,':!'A'r'`.:-;,"• '',I',. ,' "-:!: •• '..,:-'-''',-,..'reC,) ilck,-,11‘,,rs-, [ ; '•- • . '-__, •• • ,,,., ,,,, ..': 2.•:' ' ..•)i,•''`'i..'•' ',:•-!,',','-'-'/•-,,,.i,"f, ;'•.., '',;. :,;••:,..• ,,, :,:•;-,-,,I.;-,,, .;:, ;:•,• ,, ,.: .., :;,:• -••::-, ', i•-.-',..,--- • ,,,tr-', -4";:, ' .• ',, •r. . '''f::...-::;461,illi•ii ',ijii.4isk:44k7'8:171P (11C) TO BL ON . ':, '• ''-'1 if I ' :-1 ItIrl Furl IF: A-rNSI:I'''131 AT'-q 00-AM IN. THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ;,.: •: ),:, ' , j-u. ,:,:,,, :,:.., ., , , . . )j ilti ... :, 9g, R,,,D : : . : , 4 Aloaon 1 III:Eillis, ,cA0Fp[RiEc.NATcEroilL sHOULD B--,. spoli I DED ' 4 ' r ; E A R TM E N Ti D I V I S 0 N• REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO :::•ATT -1111'TPF4ki .ii ' PLEASE PROVIDE :THE. COMMENTS TO' THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT :00:: Pti,ON :,„, , .......... .. . _ _ ___, , _ ------17.---- -..---:-.77-7--,— ' REIIIENING':DEPA,RIMENT/DIVISION: , , . 7 — . A .0 ppro01 ' ',.': 4,0X._ Approved with conditions 219t„ proved -- „,:-. ;, „.1 d,.,.; : • ,' : sea, ,, re . „. 0 , , , c...,,,--t;', ; . : , 2 -,i. '?Cya. ,C) C.-.:11-c-:-.---(4 ' - 0 p 4 . it. 'Q.. t A',. „ y),,.,-i-1,,,,,.i0 e„1--fi,,,,' .:, 0 47-- 61.-"' , '.''. 1, . - , , ,. —.. ' ' , 1 ' '!"', `. " ' '` '' '' i — t (+ ,/, 'L'- ' , 1 . ',f) ' .,`" .('' 1 C 1 t';'' ..•'14-11::•, ! . ',:,'.. .,';'''1..‘ p c',,.: f..-...:.,“ ' 47 '.....0 , .. 1 '... ':: . i-,''.:.1,:'::'..fs:r.:e4'51-''''•'.': ..- &•,', • 4 ' -' ' i . . „ :''': '- H':. . . ::'. ,.:• •,,,:.' , ',., ; '•":- -...: 1:.,; ''''':,',:,-' - ''''" •,' ' p://','-'.. --- 0114/14 ?7 ......j ,? '' 1'9n turCof: Director or Autliortzed Representative Date a', - -•1 ', 4,-,': ' : '' ' — • • ' RaTETE;175:—.67Df...T-7-7*A!3 IMF 0 "IP 1 Isi I,S ION:,,,.. /' . • •', Appr.' ov§4.,- , , . Approved with conditions Not Approved --,-,--,-. . , . , , . ,.0 , • . u • • I 0 • •'''e''' ''' V*e*'' . — ' 'l' ' * " : • • . • u •uu 0 . . . . . " . I H• • il 'u , ; I Signature of D'iiit-ec -or or Authori E e-z Representa.tive Date ,. , 1• , .,. , ..' , L., , , . i, V V . , Renton Planning Department _ • DEV ._,iPMEfdT APPLICATION REVIEW onEET A p p 1 i cat ion : o f- '/ m Location : � e` ` � D AC �L CP t a � • (-- Applicant : ,t; .>ifov‘--4 CP �e o TO : Parks Department F rr'� SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:Lai 4/ 7, ./col ice Department A. R. C. MEETING , Public Works Department Engineering Division • �.1',5,`rJ ''(2'.;%� ';':2 ii't,`_ J rv,1.,I� LI.: g'..teepTin ..'_'' .Y •;'�rv:,1'�:..i.. 9'Z1. ,,r^ ya:. :-v ' =li -r. ''(,. .,l f,d: .'1. 'ar...•-�,. _.!-6 .a"'ai^,' ..,�,, -[A(+:., +!„_, -to, T• , a y :r •t w, FF 'n'i i. II :.,,,r.' ry t y {..s. C'• �'t� '1 �:i'.:a t 'Z.,a:., g .j: 19� s s. �r r t �-�'.,�a . "1 aj�r.,.. `4� ��.r .1'i�d�a 'F •.C. ,'•�'��p:•1 .� :4.ir.,�':�6'.�.�1,Y'',1 .'.Y't `;•?.. �i ,f:ti!��Y'...r+w.�•:�was'. (� .v:�(,:�Y'.� •i': "i�r:l, r.j:,., 1'. a RY,i:.J'' .Y, ..i.�. lk :+�'( .n^.'r•:FI-'ri�'w tt ,rk.._,;, .est� .>i-> w'w',?L n i+t�'4. "KSit. ,:),�::;, 1 .SI":> � :.v+^ .a.."-'..: ��t.,:... F• �,, ,:ti'.. .h... �1rLk-"ti::' ':::=C .,,,.3 1':• ,.0 s _ r'•' ..�,:i ',� '.i'k ..5,� i�>;•�• ,.�'�4 k•. �:,... �'1.+-... :;i : -..,-�,,�..,-,,.-. .,.,:.,,.,:,.SiT.'tit,}}N - ,..p. ,�^ t'i• .,.il::,p Sy-aiA ;` tt ",v. ��tO,-'-2J �. �: ,✓i tit!r.,•:,.{ �... ,r i�t.),r_.• i�'r fc,l,i :Yif ,7 Y R.'4'J:J?.,,,,:;y.�C::-•. .�'d' r. .'4i pr.. ,Zp-.4. dd a4;A :{. , ,�e,Jit1- .,3''1��. .�:, .`'J�• v.{ :).� ;�:,. , tt { _ f7 ,.n'+ ..a fl,..gg ':';{",9>:J r'la�k .,.�,.., ,1F•..,s. .� .11: ,fix[-fit {.:,,+t:,�Ii'sr 1-' ..?ty.'"�,F,% Ey- ;29 1� '.i r.+lr.r�':. (},�'...w:..,y• .7 i.�.`r:JS• �4',i'1,. :U'�!'e.�'y f�xk,,, r.(°;,i , +'-: {'it. 1 �It, •.. .,r9 ,_{.. 4 ''.K:" ,,.'u,*..,, .1 ?l,•Y::�.t ! 1.. "I-i ::,< °f:. ,'2,5 4 .b.v. P •'L:�p ,1 .a. R(,A7, :+J'.. r14.,,,, l 'X..^:i;'� ,'x • +g`�. .9°;'id ,.r.rvN'. -�(•.5's�6-N. _tier„ ..r, .1...�.•�}. ( ir•• ,'�'It:, ,.f. r>< t, '.;1�1 ..;1'.: )"... ;E °';� ,'y)^. 'u °�'' :sC,,.�r.9sl?: >'s'+- .'-.r;,t� 5t ^:� r, ,,�'• .r;5•.: ,Ilt +,J�:.a,�(.i+> k''„�. ,,. rsz..�,r..ff ,�.s .�r1. ,,;h, �1 >:r •,I;.iif;6,Ft .r.?r ;1, ,T•k k' •gyR,,' '•y:?,i,t.,,,,A; '4;k,.,7, *;r:o,r,,:y:c ?,,,,t.kd,rt`. , ... .r,: r' ,,,,,,,; ,, .d. ;1i ` „,o-.•k,,,, .5.`e, ❑:t,. .t ji•., ,h9e7 ,�'; z"r,� 1, x.4.. 'Y• a_ ,a';�,. ,,.�,��•,, �.G may, ',;ltt, n ft 1,at�1 „S•t��',i1 ..rr,.P,:•,,�: 'v �,,�"i::. ..�.,4. t :.1'',-^..y, :k:r: ^$.1 ,.1P: �M`+.,i9�,.,� ..r<. i' y q. .r ;tn ,c,- .r.�:,•"i G�"' ,9'.+ R.• ,r,,? .•p.},.41 h"S�,•,T.,,, - 7,1,1'7. `�J�� xhs.t'Y�':,7, d{�`�" ,;y.�.l1a;'(I ,�. ;k�, '...1t,. ,s>, 'i$" xl •', r ;'.s.. )`,.�'::.,i:1;7( „x`'riti==`,:'.^"•p, :.I 1„a 7,l, 2�';d 4 A Ev.Sd. t.<`r5 .i.(.,,(^r. ..4�: t, ".,.: �ar. 'A:t� .4WI.,:'ti+,.- ..f t'?.:1�08.`�•'1�'�`�,:.'i y, �� o>�. �}^);, •'',"i,. .,.t, .,r� ,.t1�1'4 r,ri,.,p'I.', '� � taf.. ';i':1::''•..9 15�'d'f�, :, .,,J ,,, �} P:, ik., rj•� 'ab ,x •'.�,n, ,�3',.,t,.;.. ,iA 'fir. I., rdi't�i(.a. er .4•�{ et y r "'.=kfa.:',',,:'.i k,,,: � y ,:a.,.,�g, ,Ji ,t}, i.„ . pq.., :,•::• r."'.(+'-'vo;..,1�„1 4q �#t'tE,r,!, p;rr, k rr'• ef•. .��-,l.�l, ;1U �"'I. ,i�l. Id..r.:C,.., d, ,(C.�r'p�1G�p t.�.Y., t,,,d:.' :��s!.^,��, yy „.r E$s<a' .,� r•.i.�..�. 11�,•�.�:,:..,i•..,v.�,,= .il bt „�,•vZ. ,t-, .x-�::1,, , .ro:! '' ;..,�o$rk= ,,,,: ,.4. 41f;i:. ,,.✓. -:5` 1, , p° x t,(.a,. ,.t'r a'T�:'%'�... ' u:Ml:, 'r,:, yyt.k ,r�'r ,t r, .i}., ,rB;.!,9, ^Y:.n. �t�t ..Sa•„ [� rp..�..;+y C. r.,, it,,:rr ye.. d '^, In;�l r,. i5' •Ix ,fr F, �', 'ti: ,f. i t', f,l-r ':'V .ly, °fW _ '`.',1'f'Raa I- ^.r.�. aS..Jt 7• .^2, t `';v, h, •,�:.,SS.rrIi 4 t. ,5, ,:� { f ,i r• e, �St t ,,yl,. •;'s•:,'"# �' .59!'. !f.:.. :'11t'.',w. 'i` :,�l�y, �, 1 F .Y'r ,1 :•,',.t� i�f�.I' �. - "Y., Al�..j}�.�;i' l,�II// ''F��•„Y •A,. .1, `i= ,Y. �:>, r. .d. .,h" U',,:"i`�t. .� :�'Fi ^�! I. R�'�'' r,d`<;3•,•� 'm a}::•t,.., r.. _::�� u,t. .t':. !,,, ,?,., .s. �'i}``' ,.,)._,,:Ei' ..✓' .,:,.,, 7 4'�. .,1, '?,3,,i ';��', •n�n,- 1'K"' ,.,k�: ..,t, ;,V'�:` ,t•r.r? :r. } .�• �✓ .t � ;!b'.r.., 1•N� b. •,e, �h '.�..,,).,: �, f"irI', ::� .,•:. �,.,. `^:"rr.'r ,d<; 4- •.! alrf �,�: •+l�'=:f�:Q•, ��.l, ,.1.. - lFl Yam"' t':e-. ti<' - •rt t•• ;e:� .f,i. ,,�a";�. ,'r;°Sty �Rv ry,:',- %.a�'.. �. ,a•.., ..,':=^• , 55 v;j�r t..f•. ,aA •'Y.-: t.' .1 c:01', t,.i.., r�;A :e,: >:d'.,t . A11..5�7. 1e A t "9 '•y.`- r,t' r ''p)�I y.L.. .4, ..�i,k.��,''':u,f:. .v{:^ ,l �q g ;'ecx -.d„s ��s`: a�i:':.,-i( �. ..1 ,< ,a.- ',>s+..,,, a �y:i•� '. .I' ��}c^• ?i ..�:7' .'ik rv-,r l�'� "il t „iy;`I.oe (in p�yy�e n,;.:, :'�. <:'ki't i'n,t.1 •l:ri,.`n. J,: .(7:• _.:�. .r �4�^ ,'li- 'iY.i ,r a.%.tit:,` ' :'i:i•'' 'P:� uSt ( •f,..�.; i l' C :-U :.`'S'`. ;'�'Y„7;�,. ..b,•:4:'~ `k,l �.!:... h4'a^,r,` I,' ii+n' r . ._r,. -di,. ':�., „y'�r' 41. Y r�i,;,f ',I .d; �,,'a' ;s: " :a'>..,., a •:.• 'rr'. ti <t,. 9Fi'., JJ."',,SL.' n'' q .t': rtl•• r arrr'',;'ii': {k' d .:J, fi.� �.rY}• 0- .;:,1. y�'::r., 1.gat .,nt i :t[% '•i,',. (. 1 .'7; -'d . r. �``i,, ,rF• F'-'%i tJ CI c: r , .�jdi .r'.' 1 hC�=• .b� .;t' c'.t.., ` '•L: f�S �:I• �•f•. ,yr ., • raj 1' .2. '1, :'r' ,Y:;, 'r; i Y., 11/.. �+ ti. .�. Jf: `tI .f, r t'7 �r - 1 OP S I f ' i q: A Y aG IS``A A• :Ot :S , , . r T• fI3 FCC. . �Er � 'LIC t°'� p T HOUT 12X18i . =D' m 18 ilEt itt COlFtft 1 C i;' f (( RR Ot � R D PA ATq:00-.Am' IN: T,E;.THIRD •FLOOR CONFERENCE ' - R�MENT/DIVISION• REPRESENTATIVE'' VJ LL NOT BE ABLE TO' '-`ATTEND 'THE<-ARC PLEASE PROVIDE THE. COMMENTS TO .THE L.ANNING' DEPARTMENT BY b:00 PMkON REVIEWINGDEPRI'PiENI'lDrVISIUN:,___ L�` _— 1, --- �_ . _- �� r :t Approved „ • ' A Approved with condi t•i ores • Not Approved • • • • �� h� 1 • 1 }�-�',`1 `f ••�.� 9,._-::%'`,,..'!, _,.�L �•S,.'' '�...4.,('�:r�Lr.. �}"1•'"(.A,,. •(' 't•i-.- ..., of, !`', p/� ,t4.,,,, ,,,,..•y,.i _•s;,., i.—4.L ) ,,,.•ij • •• , .4•t%'��'-....�!..•% F` O• `, o ';is :r ..u; '•,i':.,,': ! .,1' tf dr, ';'x,"ai'u is". ;I.. i• ; '.1 1. f , Y:), %;fc 7 - Cl;1. r lye' ! ,,1 Signature 'o i 4ector or Autl `,' f aorized Re i 'r1". :� presentative. � .:,. . ;�: REV 1' b�tp REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION • Approved, __.____Approved t i th condi ti : r .' t,• ;;r, ons . Not Approved ' , • „ • • • • • • Signature of D, recfor or Authorized Representative Date `' _ r? °FINAL ,CLARATION OF gmlommum DN—SIGNIFICANCE Application No . R-412-79 11 PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . 502-79 r FINAL Declaration Description of proposal Applicant seeks a rezone from G-7200 to R-3 for proposed future multi-family development . Proponent HERBERT E. MULL Location of Proposal Vicinity of 821 Sunset Blvd. N.E. Lead Agency CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT This proposal has been determined to ® have not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS 0 is is not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 (2 ) (c ) . This decision was ma •e after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency . Reasons for declaration of environmental significance : Based upon provision of suitable development procedures and standards should the request be approved. 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 ( proposed/final ) declaration of non-significance : See attached items 1-3. Responsible Offic ' al GORDON Y. ERICKSEN Title Plan , n recto `,-2 Date December 3, 1979 Signatur . City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 1. Setbacks -- A minimum 10-foot setback shall be provided along the north and south property lines excluding the pipestem access. A minimum 35-foot setback shall be provided along the west property line. 2. Creation of a 20-foot wide fire easement west of the proposed building site. 3. Landscaping -- A minimum 10-foot landscape strip suitab e for screening purposes shall be provided along the nort. and south property lines excluding the pipestem. A min '- mum 10-foot natural buffer shall be preserved and main- tained along the west property line. A detailed landsc-pe ' plan of the entire site development shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department . No significant trees shall be cut or cleared without prior approval of the Planning Department within the natural area. (See also environmental impact declaration of non-significanee0 ) The pipestem access should be screened with a minimum 6 foot high fence and/or landscaping. The single family residence located• riortheast of the subject site should also be screened by a 6-foot high fence with a 10-foot wide landscaping strip along the east boundary of the subject site with the single family residence. • R-412-79 Page Two Mr. Blaylock indicated that the powerline transmission could not be utilized for a dense evergreen buffer and the required 50-foot natural landscaping area is located on the steepest portion of the site which would mitigate visual impact from the west and protect the stability of the slope. Mr. Johnson discussed methods of design which would utilize the steep slope to minimize scope of the building, and stated that the property is not visible from the freeway located to the west of the site. He noted that compliance with the Planning Department recommendations would eliminate at least one-third of the useable area of the subject property, and inquired regarding procedures for waiver of the recommendation. Mr. Blaylock explained the hearing process in which the applicant, parties of record and the Planning Department present their arguments, followed by review of all input by the Hearing Examiner who makes a recommendation to the City Council. The Examiner noted that it may or may not be appropriate to impose setback conditions upon a proposed rezone request, but that an environmental Declaration of Non-Significance had been issued by the Planning Department based upon imposition of such requirements which precludes the Examiner from granting the. applicant's request for elimination of the condition. Mr. Johnson requested clarification of emergency, access provisions. Mr. Blaylock advised that due to the Comprehensive Plan designation of multifamily development for the entire area west of Sunset Boulevard N.E. , provision of a long-range plan for emergency access had been deemed necessary, arid upon subsequent development of adjoining properties connection of the proposed fire lane running north and south located on the. westerly portion of the properties would provide adequate secondary access for emergency vehicles. The Examiner requested testimony in support of the application. There was no response. He then requested testimony in opposition. Responding was: Christina Hill 801 Sunset Boulevard N.E. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Hill, resident located directly south of the proposed project, objected to the proposal due to proximity of her home and bedroom window 15 feet from the proposed driveway on the subject site. She noted that in consideration of the projected 85 vehicle trips per day to and from the proposed complex, noise and exhaust fumes would create an intolerable living situation and destroy the value of her residence. Mrs. Hill referenced Section D.1, Physical Background, of Exhibit #1, which states that the easterly one-third of the site slopes downward to the west at approximately a 5% grade, and advised that within a 26- foot distance from east to west, the elevation drops five and one-half feet and within 70 feet from Sunset Boulevard a much sharper drop occurs. Responding to comments submitted by the Police Department which recommend raising the access driveway a distance of 40 feet, she noted that a rockery of 12 to 14 feet in height would be required between the properties and would interfere with natural light into her home. Mr. Blaylock indicated his opinion that the proposed rockery would be a maximum height of seven feet since the proposed driveway would not necessarily be required to be level. Mrs. Hill inquired regarding proposed drainage facilities for the subject site. Mr. Blaylock advised that on-site drainage facilities would be required by the developer. . Mrs. Hill stated that three mature trees currently exist in the location of the proposed driveway and removal would be required if development proceeds as proposed. The Examiner requested further comments by the applicant. Mr. Johnson advised that a recent survey of the property had disclosed a six-foot slope from east to west and would require a rockery five feet in height; however, he objected to the requirement for a level driveway for an excessive distance of 40 feet which would require removal of the existing trees, and he noted his opinion that a sight-distance problem does not exist. Mr. Blaylock discussed existing sight-distance and access problems on Sunset Boulevard N.E. which have been observed from other multifamily developments in the area. He noted that during inclement weather, vehicle traction is impaired when entering the highway from access roads which are of lower grade and traffic congestion results. Mr. Johnson felt that a traffic projection of 85 trips per day was excessive, and he noted that most traffic in apartments and condominium complexes is generated during peak morning and evening hours. He also noted that provision of a six-foot fence in compliance with requirements would minimize traffic noise and fumes. The Examiner requested further testimony in opposition to the proposal. Responding was: William Goodner 848 Sunset Boulevard N.E. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Goodner, resident located on the opposite side of Sunset Boulevard N.E. north of the subject site, opposed the application due to. current existence of heavy traffic volumes on Sunset Boulevard N.E. and potential for accidents would increase. He also expressed objection to impairment of views from existing single family residences by construction of a multi-level structure, citing the recent construction of a three-story condominium complex north of the subject site which has obstructed views. He indicated his opinion • December 14, 979 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER • CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO. THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICANT: Herbert Mull FILE NO. R-41 -79 LOCATION: Vicinity of 821 Sunset Boulevard N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant seeks a rezone from G-7200'to R-3, on the subject site for-proposed future multi-family development. • SUMMARY OF • Planning Department: Approval with conditions. RECOMMENDATION: • Hearing Examiner: Denial. • PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department preliminary report was receive• by the REPORT: Examiner on 'October 4, 1979. PUBLIC HEARING,: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examin ng available information on file with the application, an• field • checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on October 23, 1979 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the .Examiner. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and rev ewed the Planning Department report, and the report-was entered into the record as Ex ibit #1. Roger Blaylock, Associate Planner, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered the followin! additional exhibits into the record: Exhibit #2: Supplement to Exhibit #1 Exhibit #3: King County Assessor's Map • Mr. Blaylock corrected the following errors in Exhibit #1: Page 4, Section L. , 'analysis, numbering should be revised to 5, 6, 7, and 8; Section L.6, line 1, zoning of G-6000 should be revised to, G-7200; Section L.8, line 6, word "site" should be changed o "sight"; Section M. , second line, zoning should be changed from G-6000 to G-7200; Sectio M.4, second line, Aberdeen Avenue N:E. should be changed to Sunset Boulevard N.E. ; a d Section M.4, line 11, northwest should be changed to northeast. Mr. Blaylock also .dele ed the first sentence of Section M.4, regarding provision of a minimum 20-foot landscape strip along Sunset' Boulevard. N.E. from Exhibit #1, and noted that the correction had •een denoted in Section 4 of Exhibit #2. • The. Examiner referenced a site plan submitted by the applicant contained on the second page of the supplement, Exhibit #2, and noted that several revisions had been made b the Planning Department. Mr. Blaylock confirmed the Planning Department recommenda.ion that • the site plan be revised to reflect the recommended revisions and reviewed thro gh the public hearing process by the Examiner at a later date. The .Examiner discussed proposed conditions which include a 50-foot natural buffer on the western portion of the property as well as a 20-foot easement for emergency vehicle access, and requested furth:r explanation of, the location of the proposed access and landscape proposals for she buffer area. Mr. Blaylock indicated the location of the proposed 20-foot emergency access between •the proposed building and the 50-foot buffer. He noted that although the build ng would be located 70 feet from the western boundary, the existing slope of the propert ; would allow one story below street elevation. • The Examiner requested testimony by the applicant. Responding was: • Craig Johnson C. J. Designs 13010 Northrup Way. • Bellevue, WA 98005 • Mr. Johnson objected to elimination of 70 feet of buildable area on the site iah, ch would impair design potential of the structure and parking area. He noted the existe ce of the Puget Power transmission easement which provides a natural buffer between the s eject site and property to the west, and questioned whether additional buffering should be required. R-412-79 Page Four The Examiner requested further testimony. Since there was no response, the hearing regarding File No. R-412-79 was closed at 9:40 a.m. and continued to December 4, 1979 at 9:00 a.m. CONTINUANCE: The hearing was opened on December 4, 1979 at 9:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. The Examiner asked if people wishing to testify had received a copy of the Supplemental Staff Report. They affirmed that they had. The Examiner requested that Mr. Blaylock summarize the application up to this time. Mr. Blaylock stated that the original hearing was heard on October 9 and has been continued to seek additional design information because of the impact on adjacent sites and for clarification of the intent of the applicant. This has been provided and the Planning Department has responded in a Supplemental Staff Report dated December 4. He stated there were several major concerns, principally the buffering, the grade and the access and that the original Declaration of Non- Significance issued was predicated on the information already received and has some severe limitations. A new Declaration of Non Significance has been issued listing three of the items with reduced requirements because of the evidence submit- ted. Mr. Blaylock noted an error in the Environmental Impact statement regarding reasons for the declaration, stating that it was a typographical error and that "non" should be typed in there. The Examiner entered for the record: Exhibit #4 December 4 Supplemental Planning Report Mr. Blaylock entered the following additional exhibits into the record: Exhibit #5 Contour Map Exhibit #6 Site Plan Exhibit #7 Landscaping Area Exhibit #8 Cross sections showing both the east-west cross section and a north-south cross section between two adjacent residences and drive. Mr. Blaylock noted that these plans were reviewed by the Application Review Committee composed of various city departments including fire, police, engineering, traffic and building. Item #4 had already been discussed so it was not discussed' in further detail. On Item #1, the access - the Fire Department felt that the 16 feet of drive- way suggested on this proposal was too narrow to serve a multiple family residential development. They recommended 20 feet which would only leave 3 feet of landscaping for pipestem access. The Engineering Department felt that 18 feet would be sufficient to serve the size of the development. This would leave 5 feet for landscaping. They suggested 4 feet on one side and 1 on the other. Mr. Blaylock noted that the applicant is attempting to use the lot by dropping the building into the site approximately one and one-half stories and stated the relocation of the building farther to the west than originally suggested in the Planning Department's analysis of October 9 would allow the building to establish a lower grade. He remarked that there is a maximum grade of 22% as proposed for 45 feet distance and this would create a rockery adjacent to the Hill residence on the south of approximately 5 feet above the eleva- tion of the driveway. The Fire Department has recommended a maximum grade of 15%. The Examiner inquired if the maximum grade for public street was 15%. • Mr. Blaylock responded that there is nothing established for private drives, that there has been something in the Planning Development Committee for quite some time regarding this. Fifteen percent cannot be obtained, however, unless the 5% access platform in the front, as requested by the Police Department, is eliminated entirely, stating that this creates an access problem on Sunset Boulevard N.E. A compromise position would be to reduce the access platform 20 feet. This would allow an automobile to wait before going out into the street and would reduce the grade from 22% to approximately 19% for 65 feet. This in turn would reduce the rockery by approximately one foot. • R-412-79 Page Three that the size of the property would not allow construction of 14 units without providing ' a structure of four stories in height. The Examiner requested. further testimony in ,support or opposition to the proposal There was no further testimony. He then requested final comments from'. the Planning Department. There were no further comments. Due to issuance of a Declaration of Non-Significance by the Planning Department. based upon the departmental recommendation for provision of buffer setbacks, the Examiner advised concern regarding his inability to review or grant the applicant's request. He therefore proposed to continue the public hearing to allow the Planning Department to reconsider the Declaration of Non-Significance based upon he landscaping requirements and the applicant's request. Mr. .Blaylock indicated tha a • two-week period would provide sufficient opportunity to review with the applicant specific landscape materials and buffer requirements. Other parties in attendance concurr-d with the Examiner's proposal. Since there were no further comments, the public hearing regarding File No. R-412 79 was • closed at 9:58 a.m. and continued to November 6, 1979 at 9:00 a.m. for the sole • rpose of reconsideration of the Declaration of Non-Significance. CONTINUANCE: • The hearing was opened on November 6, 1979 at 9:25 a.m. in the Council Chambers •f the Renton Municipal Building. • Parties wishing to testify were affirmed 'by the Examiner. Mr. Blaylock indicated that additional information had, been received from the ap•licant since continuance of the previous hearing pertaining to analysis of environmenta impact resulting from development of a three or four story building, and he expressed t e desire to enter the letter, dated October 29, 1979, into the record in order to discuss the applicant's conclusions regarding provision of the 50-foot natural buffer. The :xaminer advised concern that responsibility for assessment of environmental significance is not within his authority, and he is precluded from making a determination regarding 'he' rezone until environmental significance has been assessed by the Planning Depar ent. Mr. Blaylock stated that the original. Declaration of Non-Significance including conditions would therefore remain as,prepared, and that receipt of additional detailed info ation regarding design and function of the building would be required to consider revision of the declaration. The Examiner requested testimony by the applicant. Mr. Craig Johnson indicated hat requirements for buffering on the western portion of,the property would severely impact the ability to construct the proposed building, and suggested the possibility of reducing the buffer area. The Examiner 'inquired .if the applicant was willing to alter deign plans to comply with Planning Department recommendations. Mr. Johnson advised his willingness to reach a compromise. Mr. Blaylock indicated the possibility of withdrawal of he Declaration of Non-Significance by the Planning Department and replacement with : proposed Declaration of Significance which would require revision of the proposal or prep:ration of an Environmental Impact Statement, but would also allow additional time for compromise and negotiation between the applicant and department. The. Examiner advised' that the applicant and the Planning Department staff must resolve the issue .of• environmen al significance prior to review and recommendation by the Examiner of the rezone request. • Responding to the Examiner's inquiry, Mr. Johnson stated that a two to three wee• period would be necessary to revise plans if required. . The Examiner subsequently dete fined a continuance date of. December 4, 1979 for completion of the public hearing. • Mrs. Christina Hill requested the opportunity to testify. She. was recognized by the Examiner. . Referencing the letter submitted by the applicant, Mrs. Hill stated teat although visual impacts to various westerly areas of the city had been addressed, the letter fails to consider the impact to her residence which would occur due to proximity and elevation of the access road, noise and fumes' from increased traffic, and 'i vasion of privacy. She indicated that requirements for landscaping and fencing would of properly mitigate the potential impacts, and noted the existence Of a much grea er elevation on the existing slopes to the west and south than that which is desig ated in the Planning Department report. Mrs. Hill advised that other residents in the .rea oppose the rezone request, and inquired if letters or petitions supporting thei opinions can be submitted to the Examiner at this time'. The Examiner suggested'that .Mrs. Hill and her neighbors either submit input to the Planning Department during review of t e • environmental assessment since revision may occur prior to the continued hearin• date, or at the continued public hearing. The Examiner requested .a representative Of the Public Works Department to measU4e various slopes, between Mrs. Hill's residence and the subject property prior to the continued public hearing. Mr., Paul Lumbert, Traffic Engineering Division, indicated conc rrence in the request. 19,-41 9 Page Six Mrs. Hesting stated that she lives across the street from Mrs. Hill. She noted that in addition to her property there are other apartment and rental places and that the traffic would be a problem. The Examiner requested further testimony in support or opposition of the application. Mr. Johnson asked to respond to the opposition. He stated, in regard to the developers, that there was no possible way to negotiate. He pointed out, in terms of the sound, that there is a great deal of noise off Sunset Boulevard which will increase in the future and that their project will not significantly increase the noise. With regard to a solid 6 foot fence vs. a 42" fence and combination landscaping, he indicated that the reflection of sound would be worse. He remarked that 3 feet of solid brush for landscaping would be better than a solid wall because it would muffle the sound rather than reflect it. The Ekaminer inquired regarding the possibility of planting mature shrubs and trees in that area rather than trees that will take 4 to 6 years to mature. Mr. Johnson responded that he would have to review that with the landscaper. The Examiner replied that if landscaping is a condition of the rezone, they would have to submit a plan that would meet with the Planning Department recommendations. The rezone would be approved conditionally and it is not final until landscaping plans are submitted. Mr. Johnson stated that the only other recommendation he would have is that, since the building has not been fully designed, waiting on approval of the actual land- scape plan until just prior to the issue of the building permit. Mr. Blaylock responded that there would be no problem with that. He pointed out that it might be possible to use something like trees or a concrete wall to push the noise over the house instead of into the house. He suggested the possibility of using mature trees. He stated that the landscaping plan could be approved by the Hearing Examiner based on the Planning Department's recommendation to assure that there is public input or that the Planning Department could be directed to satisfy the property owners on the development of the land. The Examiner requested further, testimony in support or opposition or neutral of the application. Mrs. Hill responded that the noise could still be heard and that landscaping would not deaden the sound. The Examiner requested further comments. There was no response. The Examiner closed the hearing of Herbert Mull on File No. R-412-79 in the Council Chambers at the City of Renton Municipal Building on December 4, 1979 at 10:25 a.m. and stated that a recommendation will be issued in 14 days and that the City Council will have final approval. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The request is for approval of a reclassification of +21,475 square feet of property from G-7200 (General; Single Family Residential; 7200 square foot minimum lot size) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential)'. 2. The Planning Department report sets forth the issues, applicable policies and provisions, findings of fact, and departmental recommendations in this matter, and is hereby attached as Exhibit #1. 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, R.C.W. 43.21.C. , as amended, a Declaration of Non-Significance has been issued for the subject proposal by Gordon Y. Ericksen, responsible official. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. 6. The subject site was annexed into the city by Ordinance No. 1795 on October 7, 1959. The current zoning category, G-7200, was applied at that time. 7. The subject site is located west of Sunset Boulevard N.E. and' east of 1-405. The . . , . . . . . . • . 11412,-'79 Page Pive •. , ' . . . . The Examiner requested information as to the grade proposed for the roadway. M . Blaylock . stated it Would be. 5% for the, first 4 feet; 19% for the next. 65 feet .and 6% fo the • • parking lot.: . ' . -, . • -. . • . .. . . • . • . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Blaylock •reviewed,point•.1:of the analysis in the supplemental. report of the Planning , .• • Department dated December 4 regarding Landscape Buffer, The Examiner asked for clari- fication as to whether the 38 feet. requirements were in regard to the floor or .he Ceiling. . Mr Blaylock responded that it. was the,finished. floor, that it was. ee.imated the finished toof. elevatiOnWould .bp• about '15 feethigher..and that this is subs.antially .. different than the coMPIqx,..t6*the:hoith.which:Was, builton,tirade and not worked into • • .the hillside: . : -• :-:',-.-.' -' ''- • - -'. . ' --‘ : . . ',. .'-•,!•.• ,' . . . .. . . .. ' :,':•-• The Examinei;a6ked'whethervthe. Fire.DepartmentliadjridiO40*.that 18 feet is sui- . . • • • • ' , ficient as theyshadindiCated :that 16 feet:OfAiriVeie:ItO4E.riarrOw. Mr. Blayloc • responded that:that:is :4'T:ill:ilia Works Department analysis • . ., . . . • . . • . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H.,, •Mr. Blaylock discuSsed:0Ohditioneof the Planning'bepartment4ecommehdatiOn. W th ' regard to Condition 4, Landscaping, he pointe& ont:t.hat.the .lan4scaping. strip i% a minimum of 10 feet'beO*Use .a:future lane will take up 20- feet; .The Examiner re :. . • queSteciclaiificatiOne,to4what is. being.done with the remaining 5 feet. Mr. :laylock responded that the.. .5"feet will be adjacent to .the -buildirig and .will be landscap-d. • He remarked that ,..it-i$:Wider.on the north side, - 15 feet rather than 5 and stated that the 6 foot screening fence should not be that high' bebauee * 6 foot fence "n top, of a rockery would :Create quite a barrier. It was suggested that landscapi g • should be used extensively in conjunction. with that fence and that the single f.:' ily residence lOcated- northeast.of the subject site should also be screened by a 6 ! . . foot fence with a 10. foot wide landSCaping strip *long the eastern boundary. i • . . . .. : . , , . ' The Examiner asked if the applicant had any testimony to present. Testifying W:s: . . . .. . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . - . . - • . ' . . . -:• •. . - : ' Craig Johnson- • CJ. Designs . . .. . . . • . . . . . . . • . 13010 Northrup Way . . _ . . . . , . Bellevue, Wri: 98005 .. . •i . .. . . . • • •. :. . • . . ... . . Mr. Johnson stated they haVe.po•disagreement with anything that has been presen ed • with the exception of the 6 foot fence and asked for comments about the possibi ity . of landscaping on that: ' . • . • , . ' . • . ' . . . . . Mr. Blaylock 'responded that .the code requires that where the landscaping is less than 5 feet, in ordertO:protect single family residential areas, that a minim , of 42 inches fence plus landscaping be used and remarked that this might be sl'ghtly •Y. ilegotiable. Ne- statecl-the,problem is with the additional;rightof,way with '‘• access to 18,20 feet leaving very little area, tobelandscappd on the north ,.',. - .• side of the piPesteM. HTheie ;should be. a '6 foot fence on' that site and because • .',... : a 6 foot high fence.:.hae-"to beHlandscaPed,. thieshouldbe negotiated between th: ... • , prOperty owners. - . • • •••••• •• • - . . . . . . . • . . .. .• . _ . .. . . ' • . . . . . . , The .ExaminerreqUeSted44rther testimony in eiIPPort.ofthe:appliCation. , There- Was I : • no response Be' alSoaskedfor .further testimonyin:.OPpositiOn.. . ..,., : :,''. :.• -, - . . , ' • • Mrs. Christina •Hill::0estiOned the pipestem Width; She said that she:.1.2ndersto.d '': '. • it was 25 kaet-at.:,thatartok the-hearihq- apd.nOW• iti0:23:feet.. Mr: Blayloc : -.,-: responded that- the-frontage:As 25feet 'so it ,will 'opMe 'down•to 23 feet Mrs . ill .. expressed cohcerp':abOut-theYnoise'frOM-.Oateclimbihg *:1.9%:grade 15' feet from .he • • • • ..-. . .. - - walls of her hOU00:arid'statedthat' if-the appliCation_ gbeethrough-ehewould h.ve _ . .. ., . , •.,.,, • , , •,. . , . ' to Insist thatthere.be.a:s0Iid.:fende:on tbp:54::the driVewayhe'stated that , ..._ - , .., ... . • she. would like tO„rhaVe' sOMe:*UggeStiorie About: hOW•thingsare:goirig to be handl-d . . • :„ ' 'and. asked aboUtthefpoSSibilitypf',00tting:therOckery: beak' ..3Y-feet Allowing folandscaping. , . .4 . .. v„-,t •. - . . Mr.-..Blaylot .re'SpOndOdOnt....;,6#kt4n',:typeSof..Veget4t*onCanbuseduOi-40:c .ress . and•pyrmidalit;1::*h0:!::0'40.8. 0W,:tO *000t2tO'.3feetYin;Widtb:'*h&:lb.:feethigh •and could be triminedint0/4:1-hedgeOrill 'H. . ..;,: y... ..--,:h. ,- ,,. '.. :- • . • .- . :.;.+3,-;,:Hy.'..: :...,- , — . :,,,,:,,1 :.:., ..1,':'', ...., -;":,., -"::-. 7. ,';': ',: '.::.*• ''':*,:'.'. ..-" ':; -A',,,, ,.•': '1:',;.v::.'''...' , • . :• - . ...t''..-:-•'-",•'',•'•.L. .':'' -''' '•• '-- •'''i7.•••' .1:'' t4 h ,•1•.i'::, .:? ,, ::,:.'!': 1-.';!.;:''%,,,,...-,•.,,,;-.]:-;4•..i';'•, ,.;.-..•,,•::....:..,•-•';' %•:';•,;,:,'`'V.•:"'.*',".•''I',.• •'...' '',::; ". :'.','''',':'.'"-: ; ::•:'• '...-., ' -•' . ••: . - -: v„,i:::!1;-.:,',',Nrs, H1.11 replied .,: .Athis'sJiubbl&tAke2:1140i6-tithe';ind;thatHshe.leels-thats." ol 4- . - feOpe-ip,.ilped0ac4511604.004:4C.Oetell4i114.1ie,144pos,04,15iLtiltak;:thepk.Op#tyt, the'•nOrth*otil&nm!dOnWbeA061,61n0:(00i/.04thetiO.'rdeVel:OpeS.,-,,cOnld34et.,.. • $1 ,together.-aiid,;13itt,:'F.4 4,1;deltitalitaif",'!betivelincthdt,,two." ' ' . .'•'(,!,, •''q'''",,4".:','-i',•..:',,..,....'::, ,'','"''''''.'',.':,''' ''''.'•'''''',.",'''..-• • - . ' . •' • .'' ' '''Y''' ''- ''.1.:: ,,i..,•;;;K, :',:•;V;'61,.;.;, ,..,,,,.;..,i,,.-.:..,,, i,.:,..,. .E',.... ., ,,..,..,.-.. :, • ; '• :, .::..1 '4,18.-M,,,-!',1 .';••:#?5 ;•1AFRPIPPq01.11;;,'OT44 ,014f9rir'4P..:;.:9X4P90.40kfi',;: :;141PP411 •W.';: P:t,"..ic. -:', ,:.-.:% ::•. '... '. . -. . ?.') glA,::,?.'',-&_.iV,141 ', ",-:AAqY'l.:Ft'CiA10,k.W,2','41ViMPA'‘, ?.;,W.2.gP;Mi,:,-K:'.,',:Nti.Y6V,j,',',',V(PP,,W;;:iA.;%:-F.';, ,M,.::47.Ni:.,-,'.,.',.,!::';:,..i.;:.. 0 - ... :. .: :,.. ..,:.:•.. ::, .:.. ',; ,,„ ,L.;;'.!i' ;VI , ::',';',.'3i,1:TW:,i; .,Ii:',:,, : ,,••,..-,.,: .:;,:.;,-..ii-.:',',1, .',:: ' :, • ...-.,., ,,' .-.:,:,-.,,, ' .,I' ,tP4)[Itt*Y4Y6',3M,V00i3O'gt:a'kft:i;Ar/X",r;;PS 04...RPLI*4R0:4Vtiee,.. .,:,;e., ,,i.,, ,,c, i,ii::4 ,,A.11%,::,,,.:,-,:7:.. ,,re,,;,!iu. ,i ..,..1..,.:; , ; . ;•,: ... ,; ,,0,) ,:0,cjqs411,,Y4,,, piP.14:t:,•.;,AtiEzaiv;,:v. *;,.,;,,r;.}1:tzx,;(11:,212,,pi 4 ..;,,,,;,:, „;,-,, ,-,1,,,,:,,,,;,,;.0,,,,y,,,:4,,t,, :: ,•X;44.'W:',•g, :•1,1,- ;:ti7r,"ON-ri.'4'nkOV:regW4,4:M.TiW:',.°1,,th-tv(-?14,19,,,e.,FR.I,..q9,q,P. . .W4:t,1!*140:',. . r.k:'.:.,'R' L''!;;,:::1::,:;: .:'•''...'., ..1'.'' .'.....'-:.•''',''',' -PM i'',r*,gA:''WV,tiN')fVW,L'AqAq'AKVP4t.M,M.qi; iiiiii<,? wiiA0,"1;,9t8ttiSt 4 1 14''',404,N.WWNiUtr.7 .10,00:,0',it*4:54.01, zr--A4ri4 ,4;$-: :. 'Y'Ok'''A‘,1!iVFOVrAil;4!m:f'31M''',-':-?;i,'''''', 'r,":' . ;'':'-;.,:•:'':::'•.'',.','-',4 %t;4**11,' 4t,-.45::-f-C,;\41,.•4a.--.‘'',.;;11-A'Z';‘41,-,;;,;;',.,;,,'32;;;Aq'X'4.,,..';'!1A'1,-;',; .‘....:4;15-iiii:=:;,.)':''il,z!,",.,- .:.:, .:':,":.`,,:..i:.;,,:.,,:,,,,,",::.;;;c,,,,;'.,y.i.I.,,,,,,,,1 0719,1401.14A.f:!;.4.0.,!4..: ' •f.' ',ett,'''' ,' .lir Mitgitia,AP24.gAtOkv,ZW0),WreM;!':!4'4UAIP':AY,TOMPi.;,;': :Y.;3::,''j,*I,) R:,' :i'- .'i '-,,,,,,,'4.-'?°+-"A&%, . :a., ..t•Nt ' • ,ii 4w,- • , if i...,-..,!it,4,d4kVi-444.1%ilovv*,140. -140.11.4W:1!;;,,,X.',,,11,1c:,;.,,,V.,,.. 01,4\$-ST3',;mi-:..,f. •'.A`ri,,. .,'.:'- '4;-,...:s,;',E,,:5 , ,V.-f r,q,,i,4e.,';•4i4F/T,,v: Isc4,4:,7 v,,„'. .,z, .. q.,i,, ,. .,yik,;fwf 434,:y•exme'..1, ,,,,UvE,,,t04,,,,;..-,,,:;vov,s.1;1-4:15%;r4f:/4:-'4;,•i''''iloZ: t':::::i';',:Li..','.0.), -,,,.;-,,,,,i!:4-1-4,-.,,,q-.!..',.,,.,i,;:414 I ii;44‘ ,,..;;;. ' -'.1'.' 10!''*'1 :!it ,l'. 4 ...„ 1W.44,%4MOSe:O.W..45ahkggkieTi,t.M.9,0atatNAIVI?;&;gi61-!lkYR: q. :!ini;44 • R-412-79 Page Seven site is on a rather steep slope which descends from Sunset Boulevard N.E. to I-405 at slopes ranging from 5% to about 20%. The property also slopes upward from south to north at the eastern end of the property in the vicinity of Sunset Boulevard N.E. • 8. The hearing was continued to permit the applicant and Planning Department to resolve eventual site development problems anticipated in the environmental analysis. These problems have been discussed and a number of conditions have been recommended by the• Planning Department to mitigate the impact of the project on the site, neighboring properties, and the view from I-405 and the Boeing complex. • 9. The subject property is actually a pipestem lot with approximately 25 feet of frontage on Sunset Boulevard N.E. The pipestem segment of the subject lot is approximately • 70 feet deep by 23 feet wide. The main portion of the subject lot is approximately 102 feet wide by 190 feet deep, although steep topography would limit placement of the building and 'required parking area. 10. The topography :of .the subject property is complicated by the dual slope and the applicant submitted conceptual plans for development of the access, parking area, building and landscaping. 11. The property to the west of the subject property consists of power line right-of-way and below that, I-.405. Views extend out over Lake Washington. 12. The area. surrounding the subject property is developed, almost exclusively with single • family dwellings; and the property is zoned,G-7200. The area across Sunset Boulevard. N.E. is zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential; Minimum lot size - 7200 square feet) . There are two B-1 (Business) districts along Sunset Boulevard N.E. One of these districts is: south of the subject property at the corner of Sunset and N.E. 7th Street. The other B-1 district straddles.N.E. 10th Street on the east side of Sunset. There are also two R-3 districts north of the subject property along Aberdeen Avenue N.E. as well as an R-4 district (High Density Multifamily) . 13. The Planning Department has recommended that the rezone be approved subject to a number of conditions. These conditions would impose landscape, screening and buffering requirements to protect both the adjacent properties and the view of the hillside from I-405 and the industrial area at the south end of Lake Washington and the adjacent beach park. • 14. The Parking and Loading Ordinances provides for certain minimum requirements. Parking lots must be landscaped with a. minimum of five feet of landscaping on the perimeter. This would leave only 13 feet for a driveway. Driveways must be at least five feet from neighboring property lines (Sections 4-2204.8(B) (1) and 4-2204.2. (A) ). A 42- inch screening fence may be provided in lieu of the landscaping, but in no case may landscaping conflict with traffic safety concerns (Sections 4-2204.8(B) (1) and • 4-22044.8-(A) ) . ' 15. :The Police Department indicated that the driveway would approach Sunset Boulevard N.E. at too steep an angle and recommended that the driveway be constructed on a raised roadbed to be level with Sunset Boulevard N.E. for a distance of at least four to five car lengths. They modified this requirement to about 20 feet. Such construction will result in a five foot high rockery along the southern property line adjacent to the existing single family residence on the south. Together with the required landscaping or screening, a visual barrier of about 11 feet would result. The, proposed driveway would have grades varying between 5% and 22%. • The main portion of the driveway would be at least 19%. • 16. 'The Fire Department ,requires two means to access multifamily apartments in the city. The Planning Department indicates that a fire lane could be constructed along the western. portion of the property above the power line right-of-way. The intent would ' be that as other properties in the area develop, they too would build fire lanes eventually'connecting with a public right-of-way and eventually permitting emergency access. 17. Section 9-1108.7(F) provides that the grade on lesser public streets be no greater than 15%,. This provision was recently amended at the .request of the Fire Department because they have difficulty with the fire apparatus on steeper slopes. 18: The Uniform. Fire Code requires access to be at least 20 feet wide and unobstructed (Section 13-208(a) - Uniform Fire Code; Section 9-901 - City Code Of Renton) . The , applicant proposed an access driveway of 18 feet in order to effectively screen and landscape the driveway. The screening is necessary to avoid the adverse effects ' of noise arid fumes of cars accelerating up the 15% to 22% grade of the driveway less than 15 feet from the bedroom of the property to the south. R-412-79 Page Eight 19. The rezone would permit potential development of a fifteen unit apartment bu' lding on the property. The anticipated number of trips by car from the subject sine would be approximately six trips per day per unit or 90 trips per day on the drive ay. 20. There is no on-street parking available in the area. 21. There is no pedestrian access for the subject site other than the proposed driveway. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The subject property is almost entirely surrounded by single family uses. T ,e land surrounding the subject property is similarly restricted by zoning to single family uses. To permit the reclassification of the subject property ignores the be .t interests of the surrounding property owners and the public welfare. The public welfare suffers when property is uncharacteristically reclassified for the benefit of the petitioner and at the expense of the adjacent properties in contravention of public safety. While there are a few similar land uses to the north, permitting greater den.ity on this particular lot, with its topographic and access problems and considerini; the adjacent uses, would be detrimental to the quiet enjoyment of the existing homes by their occupants, and would create potential fire and other safety problems (..ection 4-725(c)) . The only access is a steep, narrow 80-foot long, 23-foot wide pipestem with trades varying from 5% to 22%. The requested reclassification would allow up to 15 units on the subject property; therefore, the access would serve the same 15 units. An analogous situation would be a 15-lot subdivision. Access for even short plats serving four single family homes must be at least 40 feet wide and the grade_ must not be greater than 15% (Sections 9-1108.23. (A) (6) and 9-1108.7(F) ) . 0 Five feet of landscaping and screening is required on each side of the drive ay because of the close proximity of single family uses on both the north and t e south (Section 4-2204.8(B) (1) ) ; therefore, the proposed access would be only 13 feet wide. The Planning Department has recommended an 18-foot driveway with less landscaping and screening in lieu of landscaping pursuant to Section 4-2204. : (B) (1) . But pursuant to Section 13-208(a) , Uniform Fire Code, 1976; Section 7-901, C'ty Code of Renton, the driveway must be 20 feet wide and the grade should not exceed 15% (Section 9-1108.7(F) ) . The Fire Chief has indicated that less width and grea er grade would not be acceptable either separately or together in combination. 4. The Fire Department has also noted that this development requires a second access from a public street. The proposed development plans indicate that a fire lane would eventually be constructed along the hillside, west of the proposed de elopment. The requirement of a second access cannot be successfully met with an illusory roadway which may or may not be constructed and which is dependent on the possibility of subsequent development of adjacent properties to the north. These prope ties are currently zoned and used for single family purposes. Until such a roadway can, in fact, be constructed and used as primary acces- to this property, the subject property and surrounding property would best be -erved by maintaining the current G-7200 zoning. 0 The construction of such a road on the west would serve this and other simi arty landlocked parcels and would eliminate the need for inadequate, steep, narrow and intrusive pipestem roads between the existing single family homes along the west side of Sunset Boulevard N.E. It would also eliminate nodes of heavy turni g maneuvers to and from these driveways onto and off of Sunset Boulevard N.E. Similarly, such a road would eliminate the concern of the Police Department for the turning hazards generated by the cars entering and exiting from the sub ect property. The Police Department has recommended a raised roadway for the s eject property to mitigate somewhat the steep grade and visibility problems assoc ated with the proposed driveway. 6. The topography of the site has generated the most problems. In attempting to solve certain problems, such as the Police Department's recommended raised oadway, other difficulties arise. The raised roadway would require a rockery of about five feet. It will also increase the grade of the road along the remainder of its length. The steep driveway will require acceleration and strained motors aid these in turn will generate noise and fumes adjacent to the single family homes i ediately north and south of the driveway. The bedroom of the home to the south is a•out fifteen feet from the proposed driveway. R-412-79 Page Nine • o the screening and landscaping recommended, : four feet on the south and one foot on the north, would itself be intrusive. The screening and rockery would create a visual barrier about eleven feet in height. As indicated, even this minimal amount of landscaping. causes the driveway to be less than the required 20 feet in width. In addition, the driveway would be closer than five feet from both the north and, south property lines and would violate Section 4-2204.2(A) which requires that a driveway e at least five feet from all but one property line, exclusive of the curb cut. 7. The Comprehensive Plan does not operate in a vacuum. The proposed reclassification must be analyzed in light of the existing topography, public right-of-way, city ordinances, and adjacent uses. Approximately 10 years ago the,entire area adjacent to Sunset Boulevard N.E. was designated for high density multifamily residential ' development. Over the ensuing years there has been some infiltration of more intense uses but the area remains predominantly single family,in character. Further, those uses which have been developed do not have the logistical problems associated with , the subject site and none of 'them is surrounded to the same extent as is the subject property by single family uses. • 8. The City Council recently denied a requested rezone to R-3 (File No. R-400-79; Betz) . In that case the reclassification would have been less intrusive than the reclassification proposed in this request. Single family. uses in that-case were, protected from the intrusion of more intense development to prevent premature decay of a viable single family area. The reclassification proposed here should be denied for similar reasons. For the subject site to be rezoned to R-3 prior to the conversion to R-3 of the properties fronting on Sunset Boulevard N.E. and prior to the development of adequate access would be unwise and would lead to the premature deterioration of the single family homes now established in this area and would endanger the public health, safety and welfare. 9. When the proposed rezone ,is analyzed with reference to the various ordinances, the' Comprehensive Plan, and the public welfare, it is apparent that reclassification of the subject property should be denied. RECOMMENDATION: The requested reclassification of the subject property from G-7200 to R-3 should be denied by the City Council for the reasons enumerated above. ORDERED THIS 14th day of December, 1979. • 4144 Fred J. Ka man Land Use H ring Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 14th day of December, 1979 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Craig Johnson, C.J. Designs, 13010 Northrup Way, Bellevue, WA 98005 Christina. Hill, 801 Sunset Boulevard N.E. , Renton, WA 98055 • William Goodner, 848 Sunset Boulevard N.E. ,• Renton, WA 98055 Mary Hesting, 812 Sunset Boulevard N.E., Renton, WA 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 14th day of December, 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 Ron Nelson, Building Division Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney • . Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before December 28, 1979. Any aggrieved .person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, , or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the .Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. R-412-79 Page Ten An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requi es 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 inspec, ion in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall, or same may be purchased at co .t in said department. • . C', . .„ _ ... . sk:,\.. .. ......_ ,,,..„„„.„4„, . Vi\I 1 I ' •1 . \\\, I : ; s•. 1 ls7z•A • `. \ ; • t +y i • ,. c 1 1\, '( ,141�� 1 .L '' ��11IIy' ,s �W'. -• �1 •_9 • i9! • • �, . • ; la /J/\ \ l ! • ;W jRyR•s• \ , a tj _L t „_:_.1.j( , ' '' . . ' 1 ' +I I � a "TT Ay 1 .N, ,\. ts\ I... L• • 1 , '1 1M r• _,` • oi.stit[!L A i.l l �j,R 1 ° , '+ ;` •1 1 ram'"_: 1 :1. - i •2.�"-Il... _'. _ I{.i q� �� .i,. ;0. • , a, +•.a" 3) • I e a I ` Y'- J t /• i/ \ r1I • ,• /d i• O \ Ea/o + �o: 3 , . i '/ ^ , !2...\' • ._ j .a , ,[ 15 1� �I,� ;r`3' / r'? • t..{I / • 1 7 , • \ ' r• • •� 1',.�1 •l IaF} 3S2r a--• '' e �h , f r fi- 1Q h 4''• 11 Yl ,mill r 4 %, v.. • \11 1. flH Y'' .' "r i ''YP:; ;`. ' ,` ! .—.-IC1 (:r.'.'',.1.'.`.i.;.i 11 ,• J i1 •If'.''_+¢�:L ,ypm� ti44". q - 4Jt O ' w 3U9c1V • 1 7\ z+ ' • ,: ' . e•`•.-1�,:1''is , r ,r r %,,„ rot ; � , .y- � 4' �• • V{ .. , 11' I I ,• \ � bya° H . .,.1. : •• r • il C • i. • •rl� \._. I 11 1 J '".-,y• a` 1 f^I l l + _ ; Zn ' i \ 3 1 -t.--- 7.. _,_\.- '1 ' IL __7 4 I��-'i�u�.=�co1 �T—_ , '‘: , h N. .f .+11c— ,�• II !J•.//•� ..�• of �I7 '� d I II I.• cc \ i ...,- 1 �I .r • ( .,t� '. r4\• �� . EG /i :•' ' iSi1. r�' 1 ,1 . �.�1 ,1 fir, s. HERBERT E. MULL R-412-79 i • L . . . APPLICANT HERBERT E . MULL TOTAL AREA +21 ,475 sq ft I PR INC' r'AL. Ac•('1. 5 Via Sunset Blvd NE E x 1 S 1 I Nk; ZONING .G-7200 — EXISTING USE Undeveloped PRProposed future multi-family development il • COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN • High Density Multiple Family _ 1 -.COMMENTS ___ • - ---= 4 I'... • �T ' ili, . T ,. • . . . . . . . . IN . . . .. , . . . . . . . . . • • . . s . .. , . , , RF��. . aD: tz...--t- ,:%... 1,5 , �; orcElvED �o\ -- r - - I I SEP 4 1979 • • I • ‘-\I ......—...........,. 1.- • - T o • `v 7I I \ ` Ty p�. • .,l\ \' .\ \'� { Its DSV r.L. rilt i J� r l. f'J ' '{ AIII F RAO �tAX\ ;Tt r..,51dV.,11AL, y • y —\� {-fCr%47,1 .... i-:Jw, INC-, --- $0. .M J'( AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING State of Washington) ) County of King Fred J.Kaufman , being first duly sworn, upon oath disposes and states: That on the izirdaday of December 19 79 , affiant deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below-entitled application or petition. Al+ Subscribed and sworn this N .' day of19 , \-\\ Notary Public in and for t 'e State of Washington, residing at Rehton - Application, Petition or Case: R-412-79; Mull Rezone (The minate4 contain a £A.4t otf the pa/Lau o hecond) OF R4' 41 ' z THE CITY OF RENTON ® MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON.WASH.98055 o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI,MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9,0 FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 D,914 ED SEP'cE- 4Q • December 21, 1979 Members, Renton City Council Renton, Washington RE: File No. R-412-79; Herbert Mull Request for Rezone. Dear Council Members: Attached is the Examiner's Report and Recommendation regarding the referenced rezone request, dated December 14, 1979. The appeal period for the application expires on December 28, 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 December 31, 1979, and will be placed on the Council agenda on January 7, 1980. 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 Renton City Council 1/14/80 Page 5 CONSENT AGENDA - Continued Bid. Opening City Clerk Bid Opening 12/17/79 for, Signal controller 1 ' 12/17/79 replacement for SW sunset Blvd and 'SW Langston Rd intersection; one bid received from Signal Electric, 9012 S. 208th, Kent. Bid in amount of $12,704.30; Engineer'sestimate $16,020. Refer to Transportation Committee. (See Page 3,.) Cascadia Notice from King County Review Board reported Public Hearing Annexation 1/24/80 for appeal of Cascadia Annexation (located east of Appeal NE City) . Refer to Planning Director. ' • ;'} Water Agreement Letter from Kohl Excavating, Inc. , 3330 East Valley Rd. , II requested a Developer Agreement for, water main installation i� at S. 116th and Rainier Ave. N. Refer to the Public Works �; • Department and Utilities Committee for recommendation. Claims for The following Claims for Damages were received: Refer to • i.i Damages the City Attorney and Insurance Carrier: Claim filed by Michael W. Lemmon, 1640 .SW 165th, Seattle, 1 sewer overflow alleged loss of business property. irI Claim filed. by Pacific Northwest Bell , damage to underground ! cable alleged. Claim filed by Mitchell Alan Brand, 1029 Lynnwood NE, auto • 1'' damage alleging open man-hole $583.57. 1.1 • Claim filed by Melvin E. Mackey, tire damage allegedly due , , to hitting of chuck hole $21 .53. i Summons and Summons and Complaint $79-2-08742-4 filed by Glendale Oil Co. '' Complaint vs City, Washington Natural Gas and .Mid-Mountain Contractors ' Glendale Oil in amount of $21 ,845.93; claiming roadway dangerous (Lake Washington Blvd. ) . and caused injuries. Refer to City Attorney. Summons and Summons and Complaint has been filed by Lillian Mitchell Complaint vs the City for damages due to injury during ball game, amount of $378.79 plus attorney fees. Refer to City Attorney, Rezone Land Use Hearing Examiner Kaufman recommended approval Gustafson . subject to restrictive covenants for rezone R-292-79 from R-292-79 . GS-1 to SR-1 property ' located on the west side of Union NE, • south of NE 10th St. ; Arthur D.-Gustafson. Refer to the Ways • . and Means Committee for ordinance. . Hearing • Letter from Mayor Shinpoch reappointed Fred J. Kaufman to the Examiner position of Land Use Hearirg Examiner, effective to 1/20/82. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. ' • Planning Letter from Mayor Shinpoch reappointed Anita Warren to the • Commission Planning Commission for a three-year. term: effective through 1/31/83. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. . . Council Vacancy Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Frank Cenkovi'ch recommended Patricia Thorpe to fiKl`1 vacant Council position. Refer to Council President. Equipment Letter from Finance Director Marshall presented revised Rental Rate Equipment Rental rate' schedule for year 1980. Refer to the . . Ways and Means Committee for ordinance. Tiffany Park Land Use Hearing Examin'er 'Kaufman recommended approval with #5 Final Plat conditions for Tiffany Park No. 5 final plat FP-438-79 which is • 43 lot single family subdivision by Development Coordinators , Inc. located on the south side. of SE 16th Pl . on Pierce SE. Refer to Ways and Means Committee for resolution. Mull Rezone (Attorney representing Herbert Mull , 1830 130th NE, Bellevue, Appeal requested change ofhearing date from 1/14/80 to 2/11/80 for . appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision -regarding Rezone R-412-79 re property located near '821 Sunset Blvd. NE.. Council concur.. I ! /1 C1 I ! Vv" � 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 OCTOBER 23 , 19 79 , AT 9:00 A. M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS : 1. ` �n 1 his 5 m it+ 7�v - ��. ��t-; �r �vn r Imo :Id property located on .inset Blvd. N.E. between N.E. 7th St . and N.E. 9th ' St . 2 . JAMES M. MANLEY/INVEST WEST CORP. , APPLICATION FOR TWO- LOT SHORT PLAT (WIRTH SHORT PLAT) APPROVAL, File 426-79 , AND APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVE- MENTS, File W-429-79 ; property located on Puget Drive South and Benson Road So. 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 OCTOBER 23 , 1979 AT 9 :00 A . M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS . GORDON V. ERICKSEN PUBLISHED ' October 12 , 1979 RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I , ST SE MUNSON , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE 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, r on theioth day ofOctobor °�` 19 79 . ; SIGNED JA� s. ti. 4,- ». �. 1 fi • wt :414:::71' q �n 1• �, '',:., �* Sty ,rH t A, w {, F Syr g , !W y, 3 i G 174 ., �`� 3.ir+N':': d• � u 1 e' n:rr � � ; !.� rye + 1 a.'�' ly'Gt •� �r 4 hn S t iui t w, Ursa r� � h i \5,,,t, .. i rW' . ''w :1 .� ra 1 9[*•fin': , f! ., F '.nF�' �N 3.�y f'„�rr�* "4 k b I I F • I GEN E•� L. • OOA'TION: AM, OR ADDRESS: . PROP TY LOCATED O�J SUNSET 1 LVD. iIE BETEWEEI4 iJE 7.111 ST, AND 9 'IST. LEGALDE RIP11ON: . I ii' LEt , ,J SCRIPTIO�JS OF APPLLIC. TIvi�S NOTED ABOVE ARE ON FILE IN ,�� - E�4TU�J iJLA�J�J1�J(� �EPAi��i'iEoJ . 11 11 /7 i( I+1 /7 IS )' STED TO NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS OF ARING. . +'!�i TO BE HELD IN CITYfi( COUNCIL GHA RS, MUNICIPAL BUILDING ON _.tGIUliE3 .L _� BEGINNING AT 9 :00 q .M. i - P.NI. , Il 0 ONCERNING IT M Z 1' " S E FROM t�-1200 TO R-3,FILE R-41.2-79 IT pI 1ni 1 ;k PE ' MI El SIT 1 APPROVAL • , ' If A 1VER Li . ,, , , . LI:. . . . ,i. • EliGEMENT PERMIT 1r I, I �l 1� • II II , 1 L ' FOR FURTH ER .INFORMATION ;�CALL 235 5 THIS NOTICE T TO EE V WI T O RAT I 1°I 9-010 • INSLEE, BEST, CHAPIN, UHLMAN & DOEZIE, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW David Alpheus Best SUITE 900,ONB PLAZA James F.Hoover Jerome D.Carpenter 10800 N.E.8th Evan E.Inslee Richard U.Chapin P.O.BOX 4185 William C.Irvine Don E.Dascenzo BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98009 William J.Lindberg,Jr. E.Michael Doezie Patricia A.Murray Stanley E.Erickson John T.Rassier 2720 RAINIER BANK TOWER Michael M.Fleming SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 Milan Gail Ryder Thomas H.Grimm Wes Uhlman Henry R.Hansen,Jr. PLEASE REPLY TO: BOX C—9 0 0 1 6 January 9, 1980 (206)ass-123a Bellevue, WA 98009 Ms. Delores A. Mead City Clerk, City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Re: Appeal of Land Use Examiner' s Decision dated December 14, 1979, Herbert Mull, R-412-79 Attention: Ms . Dunphy Dear Ms. Mead and Ms. Dunphy: This will confirm my telephone conversation with Ms. Dunphy of yesterday concerning the above appeal. Pursuant to our telephone conversation, the appeal will be con • - tinued to February 11, 1980 at 8.: 00 o'clock p.m. Please give me a call if you have any further questions concern- ing this matter . Very truly yours, INSLEE, BEST, CHAPIN, UHLMAN & DOEZI ' , P.S. n _ Rassier _ JTR/du f1 �U�1�21�71 1f cc: Mr. Herbert Mull • A 1 V) ID leco ° ��s��x `tip N LAW OFFICES OF T�� i1V SLEE,BEST,CHAPIN,UHLMAN&DOEZIE,P.S. SUITE 900,ONB PLAZA �� G 10800 N.E.8rx—BOX C-90016 > t:S.P u S i a u BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98009 JAN-g'80 \ aG eta ti 5 1, _= . -�. � � i r. • Ms, Delores A, Mead ' City Clerk, City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue S. • Renton, WA 98055 • INSLEE, BEST, CHAPIN, UHLMAN ( DOEZIE, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW David Alpheus Best SUITE 900,ONB PLAZA James F.Hoover Jerome D.Carpenter 10800 N.E.8th Evan E.Inslee Richard U.Chapin P.O.BOX 4185 William C.Irvine Don E.Dascenzo BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98009 William J.Lindberg,Jr. E.Michael Doezie Patricia A.Murray Stanley E.Erickson 2720 RAINIER BANK TOWER John T.Rassier Michael M.Fleming SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 Milan Gail Ryder Thomas H.Grimm Wes Uhlman Henry R.Hanssen,Jr. PLEASE REPLY TO: Bellevue (206)455-1234 December' 28 , 1979 City Clerk Renton City Council Renton City Hall Renton, Washington Re: File No. R-412.-79 Applicant: Herbert Mull • Dear Sir: The undersigned, attorney for the Applicant,' hereby appeals to the Renton City Council from the report and recommendation of the Hearing Examiner in the above captioned file. This appeal is based on errors of fact and law in the Hearing Examiner ' s report. Specific reasons for the appeal will be forthcoming. Please notify the undersigned of the date that the appeal will be considered by the City Council. Sincerely, •INSLEE, BEST, CHAPIN, UHLMAN & DOEZIE, P.S. • Richard U. Chapin Attorney for Applicant RUC/chv � pF 1V 41) 0 THE CITY OF RENTON CD MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH.98055 6111. CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR .. DELORES A. MEAD �.o • CITY CLERK '41 O SEPIE`‘'O January 2, 1980 APPEAL FILED BY RI:CHARD U. CHAPIN, ATTORNEY FOR HERBERT MULL RE: Appeal of Land Use Examiner's Decision Dated December 14, 1979, Herbert Mull , R-412-79 To Parties of Record: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner' s decision has been filed with the public records office '12/28/,79 along with the proper fee of $25.00, pursuant to Title 4, Ch. 30, City Code as amended. The City Code requires the appeal must be set forth in writing. The written appeal and all other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council ' s Planning and Development Committee. Please contact the Council Secretary 235-2586, for date and time of the committee meetings if so desired. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above-referenced appeal will be considered by the Renton City Council at its regular meeting of January 14, 1980 at 8:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, Second Floor, Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Ave. South. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON aaehte&Q. Delores A. Mead, C.M.C. City Clerk DAM/st a A OF I THE CITY OF R,ENTON t$ 0 z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH.98055 o mm. CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR ® LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9A `O FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 O �P 917 oSEP1.0° January 2, 1980 Members, Renton City Council Renton, Washington RE: File No. R-412-79; Herbert Mull Request for Rezone; Appeal of Examiner's Recommendation. Dear Council Members: The referenced report was forwarded to you for review on December 21, 1979, prior to placement on the Council agenda on January 7, 1980. On December 28, 1979, an appeal of the Examiner's recommendation was accepted by the City Clerk within the appeal period previously established. In order to allow appropriate review of the report and appeal the matter will be rescheduled on the Council agenda o January l � 1980. If you require additional assistance or information regarding this matter, please contact our office. Sincerely, "V:1 Fred J. Kaufman �, `�. Hearing Examiner 1_' 4 cc: Planning Department J AN /980 sa ti City Clerk "c RECEIVED CITY of RENT ON c=', CLERK'S OFFICE .: c y 1 y\ 'V�/; 4 ti,f).4 . I)�i/e/G dJi e YI f C C) /�i /Tree l e(/�)d %fir/? P eu-/M: /l l71 -U �/,�I oc iv TIDE CITY OF RENTON Ar"hvikaw7 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 Z o CHARLES J.-DELAURENTI , MAYOR ® DELORES A. MEAD �-o CITY CLERK 41. 05 ED E SEPI January 2, 1980 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 nore interested in this matter. That on the 2nd day of January, 1980, 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 RICHARD U. CHAPIN, ATTORNEY FOR HERBERT MULL, Rezone R-312-79. Delores A. Mead, City lerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 2nd day of January, 1980. - e >>, Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in King County Renton City Council 1/14/80 Page 5 CONSENT AGENDA - Continued Bid Opening City Clerk Bid Opening 12/17/79 for Signal controller 12/17/79 replacement for SW sunset Blvd and SW Langston Rd intersection; one bid received from Signal Electric, 9012 S. 208th, Kent. Bid in amount of $12,704.30; Engineer'sestimate $16,020. Refer to Transportation Committee. (See Page 3.) Cascadia Notice from King County Review Board reported Public Hearing Annexation 1/24/80 for appeal of Cascadia Annexation (located east of Appeal NE City) . Refer to Planning Director. Water Agreement Letter from Kohl Excavating, Inc. , 3330 East Valley Rd. , requested a Developer Agreement for water main installation at S. 116th and Rainier Ave. N. Refer to the Public Works Department and Utilities Committee for recommendation. Claims for The following Claims for Damages were received: Refer to Damages the City Attorney and Insurance Carrier: Claim filed by Michael W. Lemmon, 1640 SW 165th, Seattle, sewer overflow alleged loss of business property. Claim filed by Pacific Northwest Bell , damage to underground cable alleged. Claim filed by Mitchell Alan Brand, 1029 Lynnwood NE, auto damage alleging open man-hole $583.57. Claim filed by Melvin E. Mackey, tire damage allegedly due to hitting of chuck hole $21 .53. Summons and Summons and Complaint $79-2-08742-4 filed by Glendale Oil Co. Complaint vs City, Washington Natural Gas and Mid-Mountain Contractors Glendale Oil in amount of $21 ,845.93; claiming roadway dangerous (Lake Washington- Blvd. ) and caused injuries. Refer to City Attorney. Summons and Summons and Complaint ha$ been filed by Lillian Mitchell Complaint vs the City for damages due to injury during ball game, amount of $378.79 plus attorney fees. Refer to City Attorney, Rezone Land Use Hearing Examiner Kaufman recommended approval Gustafson subject to restrictive covenants for rezone R-292-79 from R-292-79 GS-1 to SR-1 property located on the west side of Union NE, south of NE 10th St. ; Arthur D. Gustafson. Refer to the Ways and Means Committee for ordinance. Hearing Letter from Mayor Shinpoch reappointed Fred J. Kaufman to the Examiner position of Land Use Hearirg Examiner, effective to 1/20/82. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. Planning Letter from Mayor Shinpoch reappointed Anita Warren to the Commission Planning Commission for a three-year term effective through 1/31/83. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. Council Vacancy Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Frank Cenkovich recommended Patricia Thorpe to fill vacant Council position. Refer to Council President. Equipment Letter from Finance Director Marshall presented revised Rental Rate Equipment Rental rate schedule for year 1980. Refer to the Ways and Means Committee for ordinance. Tiffany Park Land Use Hearing Examiner Kaufman recommended approval with #5 Final Plat conditions for Tiffany Park No. 5 final plat FP-438-79 which is 43 lot single family subdivision by Development Coordinators, Inc. located on the south side of SE 16th P1 . on Pierce SE. Refer to Ways and Means Committee for resolution. Mull Rezone Attorney representing Herbert Mull , 1830 130th NE, Bellevue, Appeal • requested change of hearing date. from 1/14/80 to 2411/80 for appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding Rezone R-412-79 re property located near 821 Sunset Blvd. NE. Council concur. Renton City Council 1/14/8Q Page 6 CONSENT AGENDA - Continued Pro Tem Letter from Mayor Shinpoch reappointed Municipal Court Judges Judges Pro tempore for the year 1980 as follows: Robert Anderson, Peter Banks, Richard Conrad, Gary Faull and Robert McBeth. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. Consent Agenda MOVED BY SHANE, SECOND CLYMER, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE CONSENT Approval AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Mayor Shinpoch Mayor Shinpoch reported update re: John Webley has agreed Update to serve as City rep on study committee to determine closure of elementary schools in area due to low enrollment; King County Park Director also serving on committee. Councilman Rockhill will join Councilman Trimm on the LEOFF Board. Councilman Hughes has accepted appointment to the Puget Sound Council on Government. The City Attorney will no longer hold office hours in the Municipal Building, but. will be available along with Assistants Kellogg and Irwin. The National League of Cities will be meeting in Washington, D.C. 3/16-18/80 re revenue sharing and energy conservation; any interested member contact the Mayor's office, some travel funds available. Public Hearing re SR 515 was cancelled due to snow and will be readvertised. King County plans to allocate funds re low cost housing 40-70 units .- trade of Highlands property for City Shops has been suggested - no commitments made. January 7, 1980 Council meeting was cancelled due to snow and unsafe conditions by mutual agreement with Council President; City Hall closed Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday; policy statement issued: employees receive pay for Wednesday; paid for Tuesday if on job at time of closure. Hearing Examiner Fred Kaufman and Planning Department Rep. Dave Clemens have • been asked for suggestions for improvements to Examiner ordi- nance in order to better accommodate the public. The eight foot snowman outside City Hall was built by two young men working all night 1/9; friendliest face seen all week. CORRESPONDENCE AND CURRENT BUSINESS Radio Station Letter from Dale A. Owens, Newbury Park, Calif. , owner of radio station KSCR, requested to enter into a land use agreement with the City of Renton for placement of two broadcast towers on City property located off the end of 19th St. adjacent to 167 freeway. A 99-year lease requested; no change in wetlandsa.nticipated. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND TRIMM, REFER CORRESPONDENCE TO COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Annexation Letter from Jack L. McIntosh & Associates requested annexation Requested of 25-acre parcel adjacent to the west of the Empire Estates West of City property on Renton Ave. S. The letter requested annexation of clients property on pipe stem basis using the highway as a corridor. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND ROCKHILL, REFER TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. South Renton Letter from Mayor Shinpoch recommended public hearing 2/11/80 Fire Station for purpose of annexation of newly acquired property south of Renton adjacent to 108th SE for use as a fire station Public Hearing per RCW 35A. 14.300. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE, CONCUR IN 2/11/80 RECOMMENDATION OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND REFER TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE FOR RESOLUTION. CARRIED. Legal Publication Letter from City Clerk Mead submitted informal bids for the 1980 City's 1980 legal publications. Bids received from the See Attached Record Chronicle and the Seattle Times. The Clerk recommended Tabulation that the low bid of the Seattle Times be accepted for the 1980 City, legal publications. Upon Council inquiry, City Clerk Mead reported no impact forseen by any City department and that the Seattle Times has reported daily pick up of lega.ls.. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE, CONCUR IN RECOMMENDA- TION OF THE CITY CLERK. CARRIED. idL'it' : 4(11°.4111-4-1”7- / - Renton City Council 2/11/80 Page 2 AUDIENCE COMMENT'' Continued Drainage re Alec Book, 1726 Duvall NE, commented regarding Consent Agenda Development < Item 8.f. Rezone 456-79(Shannon O'Neil) . Mr. Book noted his Sunset Blvd. NE ! property to the north, that natural drainage is across property Duvall NE, j ;to be rezoned. Book requested sufficient storm drainage system 'o there will be no run off problem created. (See later motion.) 4 r Mull Rezone Tina Russell , 851 Aberdeen NE, spoke against Herbert Mull rezone R-412-79 (see Page 1) , reporting anxiety would be caused her by loss of view and added conjestion. MOVED BY STREDICKE; SECOND ROCKHILL, COUNCIL REFER THE COMMENTS OF MR. BOOK TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE AND MRS. RUSSELL TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS BY COUNCIL Unanticipated MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHANE, ENTIRE SUBJECT OF AMENDMENT TO Revenue THE 1980 BUDGET DUE TO RECEIPT OF UNANTICIPATED REVENUE BE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR DISCUSSION. CARRIED. Executive In accordance with request of Community Services Committee, MOVED Session BY TRIMM, SECOND STREDICKE, COUNCIL HOLD EXECUTIVE SESSION AFTER AGENDA ITEM 10 to discuss Cedar River Trail Acquisition. CARRIED. Community Community Services Committee Chairman Stredicke presented report Services regarding request of Dale,Owens for the placement of two broad- Committee Report cast towers on City property with 99 year lease. The report Broadcast Towers stated 2/19 meeting to discuss matter. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND HUGHES, CONCUR IN REPORT. CARRIED. Ways and Means The Ways and Means Committee recommended that the Council Agenda Committee Report include an "Administrative Report" following the Consent Agenda. Mayor' s Report MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND ROCKHILL, COUNCIL CONCUR. CARRIED. Energy Councilman Stredicke called attention to Administrative report regarding energy consumption in the City and asked special recognition be given for departments cutting back energy, use: Park Department cut back 19%, Street cut back 12%, Executive Office 17%. Voucher Approval The Ways and Means Committee recommended approval of Vouchers No. 26817 through..27047 in the amount of $395,570.50 having received departmental approval . Vouchers No. 26812 - 26816 were machine voided. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND ROCKHILL, COUNCIL CONCUR IN REPORT AND APPROVE VOUCHERS FOR PAYMENT. CARRIED. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means The Ways and Means Committee Acting Chairman Stredicke submitted Committee Report report recommending second and final reading of an ordinance Ordinance #3400 appropriating $22,522.55 for airport improvements. Following Airport reading it was MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND SHANE, ADOPT ORDINANCE Appropriation AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. (First reading 2/4/80) Ordinance 3401 An ordinance was placed on second and final reading as recommended Lazetti annexing property to the city, known as the Lazetti Annexation. Annexation Following reading, it was MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND SHANE, ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. (First reading of the ordinance 2/4/80) CONSENT AGENDA The following items of business are adopted by one motion which follows the business included: Damages Claim Claim for Damages was filed by Anna M. Phelan, 506 S. 17th St. , ' in amount of $120 for damage to carpet alleging snow storm run off damage. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Carrier. Damages Claim Claim for Damages filed by Lowell E. Smith, 2425 NE 25th St. , for tire damage alleging open man hole. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Carrier. Claim in amount of $80.87. RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting February 11 , 198,0 Municipal Building Monday 8 :00 P . M . Council . Chambers MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF THOMAS W. TRIMM, Council President; ROBERT J. HUGHES: RANDALL COUNCIL ROCKHILL, RICHARD M. STREDICKE, JOHN W. REED. MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND HUGHES, ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS CHARLES F. SHANE AND EARL CLYMER BE EXCUSED. CARRIED. Charles F., Shane arrived at 8:05 p.m. CITY OFFICIALS BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, Mayor; MICHAEL PARNESS, Administrative IN ATTENDANCE Assistant; LAWRENCE WARREN, City Attorney; RICHARD GEISSLER, Fire Chief; GORDON ERICKSEN, Planning Director; RICHARD HOUGHTON, Public Works Department; DON PERSSON, Police Department. MINUTE APPROVAL MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND HUGHES, APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 4, 1980. Councilman Stredicke inquired re Ordinance Park Bonds No. 3399 adopted 2/4, Coulon Beach Park bonds. Mayor Shinpoch advised total bond issue $6,000,000 reduced from. $7, 125,000 also, that any additional funds received will be deducted; also that Park Director Webley successfully obtained State grant. CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted Annexation and published according to law, Mayor Shinpoch opened the public Fire Station #3 hearing to consider annexation of property for the proposed Property site of Fire Station No. 3; property located on the east side of 108th Ave. SE (Benson Hwy) between SE 170th St. and SE 173rd St. Letter from City Clerk Mead called attention to Resolution No. 2314 'adopted 1/21/80 declaring City's intent to annex for municipal purposes and set public hearing 2/11 . The letter recommended the Council at the close of the hearing, authorize the Planning Department to proceed and file necessary documents with the King County Boundary Review Board. Planning Director Ericksen used wall maps and explained the area single family residential , that proposed use would be allowed; that the annexa- tion will provide service to South Renton residential areas, Valley General Hospital and Green River Valley industrial areas; area 20,000 sq. ft. (0.05- acre) . Ericksen pointed out close proximity to proposed SR-515. Continued Fred Heisterman, Commissioner, King County Fire District No. 40, expressed concern whether the station included in Fire Comprehen- sive Plan for King County; noting he was not necessarily opposed. Councilman Shane inquired of City use of King County #40 Station and Heisterman noted previously correspondence and opposition. MOVED BY SHANE, SECOND STREDICKE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY SHANE, SECOND TRIMM, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE PROPOSED ANNEXA- TION. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Rachel Christianson, 469 Grandey Way NE, requested matter of Agenda item 9.a be presented (Mull Rezone Appeal) . MOVED BY Herbert Mull STREDICKE, SECOND SHANE, COUNCIL CONSIDER ITEM 9.a. CARRIED. Rezone R-412-79 Land Use Hearing Examiner Kaufman recommended denial of applica- and Appeal tion for rezone by"Herbert Mull from G-7200 to R-3 for proposed multi-family development in the vicinity of 821 Sunset Blvd. NE. City Clerk Mead recalled appeal filed by Attorney for Mull and subsequest request for postponement of hearing of appeal to the 2/11/80 meeting; Council granted request 1/14/80. Mrs. Christianson presented a letter for the Planning and Development Committee. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHANE, REFER THE CORRESPON- DENCE TO THE PLANNING AID DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee Chairman Rockhill reported meeting with Attorney for Mull 2/7/80; Attorney not prepared and requested continuation for two weeks which 'was granted (2/21 Com- mittee meeting; 2/25 Council meeting). See later Audience Comment. RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting February 11 , 1980 Municipal Building ,Monday 8 : 00 P .M . Council Chambers MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF THOMAS W. TRIMM, Council President; ROBERT J. HUGHES: RANDALL COUNCIL ROCKHILL, RICHARD M. STREDICKE, JOHN. W. REED. MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND HUGHES, ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS CHARLES F. SHANE AND EARL CLYMER BE EXCUSED. CARRIED. Charles F. Shane arrived at 8:05 p.m. CITY OFFICIALS BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, Mayor; MICHAEL PARNESS, Administrative IN ATTENDANCE Assistant; LAWRENCE WARREN, City Attorney; RICHARD GEISSLER, Fire Chief; GORDON ERICKSEN, Planning Director; RICHARD HOUGHTON, Public Works Department; DON PERSSON, Police Department. MINUTE APPROVAL MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND HUGHES, APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 4, 1980. Councilman Stredicke inquired re Ordinance Park Bonds No. 3399 adopted 2/4, Coulon Beach Park bonds. Mayor Shinpoch advisedtotal bond issue $6,000,000 reduced from $7, 125,000 also, that any additional funds received will be deducted; also that Park Director Webley successfully obtained State grant. CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING, This being the date set and proper notices having been posted Annexation and published according to law, Mayor Shinpoch opened the public Fire Station #3 hearing to consider annexation of property for the proposed Property site of Fire Station No. 3; property located on the east side of 108th Ave. SE (Benson Hwy) between SE 170th St. and SE 173rd St. Letter from City Clerk Mead called attention to Resolution No. 2314 adopted 1/21/80 declaring City's intent to annex for municipal purposes and set public hearing 2/11 . The letter recommended the Council at the close of the hearing, authorize , the Planning Department to proceed and file necessary documents with the King County Boundary Review Board. Planning Director Ericksen used wall maps and explained the area single family residential , that proposed use would be allowed; that the annexa- tion will provide.,service to South Renton residential areas, Valley General Hospital a+d Green River Valley industrial areas; area 20,000 sq. ft. (0.05- acre) . Ericksen pointed out close proximity to proposed SR-515. Continued Fred Heisterman, Commissioner, King County Fire District No. 40, expressed concern whether the station included in Fire Comprehen- sive Plan for King County; noting he was not necessarily opposed. Councilman Shane inquired of City use of King County #40 Station and Heisterman noted previously correspondence and opposition. MOVED BY SHANE, SECOND STREDICKE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY SHANE, SECOND TRIMM, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE PROPOSED ANNEXA- TION. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Rachel Christianson, 469 Grandey Way NE, requested matter of Agenda item 9.a be presented (Mull Rezone Appeal) . MOVED BY Herbert Mull STREDICKE, SECOND SHANE, COUNCIL CONSIDER ITEM 9.a. CARRIED. Rezone R-412-79 Land Use Hearing Examiner Kaufman recommended denial of applica- and Appeal tion for rezone by Herbert Mull from G-7200 to R-3 for proposed multi-family development in the vicinity of 821 Sunset Blvd. NE. City Clerk Mead recalled appeal filed by Attorney for Mull and subsequest request for postponement of hearing of appeal to the 2/11/80 meeting; Council granted request 1/14/80. Mrs. Christianson presented a letter for the Planning and Development Committee. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHANE, REFER THE CORRESPON- DENCE TO THE PLANNING NO DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee Chairman Rockhill reported meeting with Attorney for Mull 2/7/80; Attorney not prepared and requested continuation for two weeks which was granted (2/21 Com- mittee meeting; 2/25 Council meeting). See later Audience Comment. V Renton City Council 2/11/80 Page 2 AUDIENCE COMMENT - Continued Drainage _reAlec Book, 1726 Duvall NE, commented regarding Consent Agenda Development Item 8.f. Rezone 456-79(Shannon O'Neil ) . Mr. Book noted his Sunset Blvd NE property to the north, that natural drainage is across property Duvall NE. to be rezoned. Book requested sufficient storm drainage system so there will be no run off problem created. (See later motion.) Mull Rezone Tina Russell , 851 Aberdeen NE, spoke against Herbert Mull rezone R-412-79 (see Page 1) , reporting anxiety would be caused her by loss of view and added conjestion. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND ROCKHILL, COUNCIL REFER THE COMMENTS OF MR. BOOK TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE AND MRS. RUSSELL TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS BY COUNCIL Unanticipated MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHANE, ENTIRE SUBJECT OF AMENDMENT TO Revenue THE 1980 BUDGET DUE TO RECEIPT OF UNANTICIPATED REVENUE BE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR DISCUSSION. CARRIED. Executive In accordance with request of Community Services Committee, MOVED Session BY TRIMM, SECOND STREDICKE, COUNCIL HOLD EXECUTIVE SESSION AFTER AGENDA ITEM 10 to discuss Cedar River Trail Acquisition. CARRIED. Community Community Services Committee Chairman Stredicke presented report Services regarding request of Dale Owens for the placement of two broad- Committee Report cast towers on City property with 99 year lease. The report Broadc Towers stated 2/19 meeting to discuss matter. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND. HUGHES, CONCUR IN REPORT. CARRIED.. Ways an. Means The Ways and Means Committee recommended that the Council Agenda Committee Report include an "Administrative Report" following the Consent Agenda. Mayor's Re .rt MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND ROCKHILL, COUNCIL CONCUR. CARRIED. Energy Councilman Stredicke called attention to Administrative report regarding energy consumption in the City and asked special recognition be given for departments cutting back energy use: 'ark Department cut back 19%, Street cut back 12%, Executive Ofice 17%. Voucher Approval The , ays and MeansCommittee recommended approval of Vouchers No. 2.: 17 through 27047 in the amo t of $395,570.50 having receive, departmental approval . Touchers No. 26812 - 26816 were mach'ne voided. MOVED BY REDICKE, SECOND ROCKHILL, COUNCIL CO CUR IN REPORT AND ).''PROVE VOUCHERS FOR PAYMENT. CARRIED. j ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS - Ways and Means The Ways and Means 6mmittee Acting Chairman Stredicke submitted Committee Report report recommendi,rg econd and final reading of an ordinance Ordinance #3400 appropriating $. ,522 55 for airport improvements. Following Airport reading it wa- "MOVED B TRIMM, SECOND SHANE, ADOPT ORDINANCE Appropriation . AS READ. RO'L CALL: AL. AYES. CARRIED. (First reading 2/4/80) Ordinance .3401 An ordin.:` ce was placed on econd and final reading as recommended Lazetti annexi :" property to the cit known as the Lazetti Annexation. Annexation Following reading, it was MOV 0 BY TRIMM, SECOND SHANE, ADOPT THE ,%RDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. (F'' st reading of the ordinance 4/80) CONSENT AGENDA ' he following items of business are -dopted by one motion which follows the business included: Damages Claim , Claim for Damages was filed by Anna M. ' elan, 506 S. 17th St. , in amount of $120 for damage to carpet al eging snow storm run off damage. Refer to City Attorney an. Insurance Carrier. Damages aim Claim for Damages filed by Lowell E. Smith, 2. 25 NE 25th St. , for tire damage alleging open man hole. Refer o City Attorney and Insurance Carrier. Claim in amount of $80.8' . Renton City Council 2/11/80 Page 2 AUDIENCE COMMENT - Continued Drainage re Alec Book, 1726 Duvall NE, commented regarding Consent Agenda Development Item 8.f. Rezone 456-79(Shannon O'Neil ) . Mr. Book noted his Sunset Blvd NE property to the north, that natural drainage is across property Duvall NE. to be rezoned. Book requested sufficient storm drainage system so there will be no run off problem created. (See later motion.) Mull Rezone Tina Russell , 851 Aberdeen NE, spoke against; Herbert Mull . rezone , R-412-79 (see Page 1) , reporting anxiety would be caused her by loss of view and added conjestion. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND ROCKHILL, COUNCIL REFER THE COMMENTS OF MR. BOOK TO THE WAYS AND MEANS • COMMITTEE AND MRS. RUSSELL TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS BY COUNCIL Unanticipated MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHANE, ENTIRE SUBJECT OF AMENDMENT TO Revenue THE 1980 BUDGET DUE TO RECEIPT OF UNANTICIPATED REVENUE BE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR DISCUSSION. CARRIED. Executive In accordance with request of Community Services Committee, MOVED S'ession BY TRIMM, SECOND STREDICKE, COUNCIL HOLD EXECUTIVE SESSION AFTER AGENDA ITEM 10 to discuss Cedar River Trail Acquisition. CARRIED. Community Community Services Committee Chairman Stredicke presented report Services regarding request of Dale Owens for the placement of two broad- Committee Report cast towers on City property with 99 year lease. The report Broadcast Towers stated 2/19 meeting to discuss matter. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND HUGHES, CONCUR IN REPORT. CARRIED. Ways and Means The Ways and Means Committee recommended that the Council Agenda Committee Report include an "Administrative Report" following the Consent Agenda. Mayor's Report MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND ROCKHILL, COUNCIL CONCUR. CARRIED. Energy Councilman Stredicke called attention to Administrative report regarding energy consumption in the City and asked special recognition be given for departments cutting back energy use: Park Department cut back 19%, Street cut back 12%, Executive Office 17%. Voucher Approval The Ways and Means Committee recommended approval of Vouchers No. 26817 through 27047 in the amount of $395,570.50 having received departmental approval . Vouchers No. 26812 - 26816 were machine voided. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND ROCKHILL, COUNCIL CONCUR IN REPORT AND APPROVE VOUCHERS FOR PAYMENT. CARRIED. ORDINANCES AND .RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means The Ways and Means Committee' Acting Chairman Stredicke submitted Committee Report report recommending second and final reading of an. ordinance Ordinance #3400 appropriating $22,522.55 for airport improvements. Following Airport reading it was MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND SHANE, ADOPT ORDINANCE Appropriation AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. (First reading 2/4/80) Ordinance 3401 An ordinance was placed on second and final reading as recommended Lazetti annexing property to the city, known as the Lazetti Annexation. Annexation Following reading, it. was MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND SHANE, ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: 'ALL AYES. CARRIED. (First reading of the ordinance 2/4/80) CONSENT AGENDA The following items of business are adopted by one motion which follows the business included: Damages Claim Claim for Damages was filed by Anna M. Phelan, 506 S. 17th St. , in amount of $120 for damage to carpet alleging snow storm run off damage. Refer to. City Attorney and Insurance Carrier. Damages Claim . Claim for Damages filed by Lowell E. Smith, 2425 NE 25th St. , for tire damage alleging open man hole. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Carrier. Claim in amount of $80.87. RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting February 11 , 1980 Municipal Building Monday 8 : 00 P . M . Council Chambers MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF THOMAS W. TRIMM, Council President; ROBERT J. HUGHES: RANDALL COUNCIL ROCKHILL, RICHARD M. STREDICKE, JOHN W. REED. MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND HUGHES, ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS CHARLES F. SHANE AND EARL CLYMER BE EXCUSED. CARRIED. Charles F. Shane arrived at 8:05 p.m. CITY OFFICIALS BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, Mayor; MICHAEL PARNESS, Administrative IN ATTENDANCE Assistant; LAWRENCE WARREN, City Attorney; RICHARD GEISSLER,, Fire Chief; GORDON ERICKSEN, Planning Director; RICHARD HOUGHTON, Public Works Department; DON PERSSON, Police Department. MINUTE APPROVAL MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND HUGHES, APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 4, 1980. Councilman Stredicke inquired re Ordinance Park Bonds No. 3399 adopted 2/4, Coulon Beach Park bonds. Mayor Shinpoch advised total bond issue $6,000,000 reduced from $7, 125,000 also, that any additional funds received will be deducted; also that Park Director Webley successfully obtained State grant. CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted Annexation and published according to law, Mayor Shinpoch opened the public Fire Station #3 hearing to consider annexation of property for the proposed Property site of Fire Station No. 3; property located on the east side of 108th Ave. SE (Benson Hwy) between SE 170th St. and SE 173rd St. Letter from City Clerk Mead called attention to Resolution No. 2314 adopted 1/21/80 declaring City's intent to annex for municipal purposes and set public hearing 2/11 . The letter recommended the Council at the close of the hearing, authorize the Planning Department to proceed and file necessary documents with theKing County Boundary Review Board. Planning Director Ericksen used wall maps and explained the area single family residential , that proposed use would be allowed; that the annexa- tion will provide service to South Renton residential areas, Valley General Hospital and Green River Valley industrial areas; area 20,000 sq. ft. (0.05- acre) . Ericksen pointed out close proximity to proposed SR-515. Continued Fred Heisterman, Commissioner, King County Fire District No. 40, expressed concern whether the station included in Fire Comprehen- sive Plan for King County; noting he was not necessarily opposed. Councilman Shane inquired of City use of King County #40 Station and Heisterman noted previously correspondence and opposition. MOVED BY SHANE, SECOND STREDICKE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY SHANE, SECOND TRIMM, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE PROPOSED ANNEXA- TION. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Rachel Christianson, 469 Grandey Way NE, requested matter of Agenda item 9.a be presented (Mull Rezone Appeal) . MOVED BY Herbert Mull STREDICKE, SECOND SHANE, COUNCIL CONSIDER ITEM 9.a. CARRIED. Rezone R-412-79 Land Use Hearing Examiner Kaufman recommended denial of applica- and Appeal tion for rezone by Herbert Mull from G-7200 to R-3 for proposed multi-family development in the vicinity of 821 Sunset Blvd. NE. City Clerk Mead recalled appeal filed by Attorney for Mull and subsequest request for postponement of hearing of appeal to the. 2/11/80 meeting; Council granted request 1/14/80. Mrs. Christianson presented a letter for the Planning and Development Committee. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHANE, REFER THE CORRESPON- DENCE TO THE PLANNING Ap DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee Chairman Rockhill reported meeting with Attorney for Mull 2/7/80; Attorney not prepared and requested continuation for two weeks which was granted (2/21 Com- mittee meeting; 2/25 Council meeting). See later Audience Comment. F THE� CI Y OF REN TON S, '; :MUNICIPAL'.BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR_ •. DELORES A. MEAD -14, Pao CITY CLERK • EO SEP1E�� February 28, 1980 Mr. Herbert Mu.l1 . 1830 130th NE Bellevue, WA 98105 " RE: Appeal of Land Use Examiner S Deci s i on Dated December 14, 1979, Herbert Mull ,- R=412-79 Dear Mr. Mull . The Renton City Council :,-: at -its regular-meeting of February 25, 1980, concurred in the "Planning: and Development Committee recommendation modifing the conclusions of the Hearing Examiner as follows: To delete conclusions Nos,, =2,: 3,.;:4, 5,. and the ,second paragraph of conclusion 6, the matter ,hereinbeing immaterial to the considerations properly before'`the,".Hearing Examiner as set forth in the City 'Code.` • The committee further recommended ;concurrence in the recommendations of the Land Use Hearing, Exami-ner•,'of_;,'deni,al of the rezone upon the ' modified findings and conclusions :, I you have any questions, ,prease: feel; free;;to' contact this off ice, , , -Yours very truly, ' CITY OF RENTON 'III • Delores A. Mead, .C.M.C. . City Clerk DAM/st t" refz' 411 • • • PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT FEBRUARY 25, 1980 HERBERT MULL APPEAL - R-412-79 The Planning and Development Committee has considered the appeal of the Land Use Hearing Examiner dated December 14 , 1979 and recommends that the City Council modify the con- clusions of the Hearing Examiner to delete conclusions Nos. 2 , 3, 4, 5 and the second paragraph of conclusion 6 , the matter therein being immaterial to the considerations properly before the Hearing Examiner as set forth in • Sections 4-725 and 4-3014 of the City Code. The Committee further recommends that the City Council concur in' the recommendations of the Land Use Hearing Examiner upon • the modified findings and conclusions so modified. Ran y Ro ill, Chairman • • Earl Clyme {/11 7 • John Reed fifQ. (cc4/07 77 7- Renton City Council 2/25/80 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING - Continued L. I .D. #302 Del Bennett, 18004 SE 147th, represented BEMP Assoc. , owners of Final Assessment property formerly known as Summers and Edwards and recalled the history of the project and protested increased costs of 263%, claiming increased costs due to combined projects with no added benefits, that not all property owners were in attendance at meetings to determine continuation of project. Joel Benoliel representing Jack Benaroya Company stated objection to inclusion of $17,438.33 change orders as not direct benefit to their property and should have been included in original contract; also objected - to inclusion of cost of additional work $1 ,818.72, claiming the contractor refused or neglected to complete. Benoliel also ob- jected to the method used for computing front footage which included the width of intersecting streets. -Jim Gordon, Property Manager, Glacier Park, Seattle, did not protest but explained financial budgeting problems due to increased costs. Ron Allison, 12124 238th SE, Issaquah, registered complaint that he was not notified of property owner meeting to determine whether or not project would proceed; also objected to increased costs. Continued Deputy Finance Director Bennett explained 30-day prepayment option and 4/30/80 deadline for $5, 100,000 interim financing and commitment from Seattle Northwest Securities to buy the LID bonds the middle of April . Dick Kennedy, Seattle Northwest, further,explained acute time table for bond sale and the very poor status of the bond market and any consequences for future bond sale. Upon Council inquiry to raise interest above the 9% outlined in the ordinance for the LID bonds,, City Attorney.Warren explained consultation with City 's bonding counsel , Roberts, Shefelman, Lawrence, Gay and Moch and advised the Council could legally make that determination. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND BY STREDICKE, THE CITY COUNCIL INCREASE RATE OF INTEREST FOR L. I .D. #302 BONDS TO 12% AND INCREASE TIME PAYMENT PERIOD FROM 10 YEARS TO 15 YEARS. Discussion ensued. ROLL CALL: 5-AYE: CLYMER, HUGHES, ROCKHILL, STREDICKE, REED; ONE NO: SHANE. CARRIED. Hearing MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND STREDICKE, CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING FOR Continued to 3/3 ONE WEEK AND REFER QUESTIONS ASKED TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR RESEARCH. CARRIED. 9:40 p.m. Recess MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND REED, RECESS . CARRIED. All Members present at Roll Call following recess. 9:55 p.m. AUDIENCE COMMENT Dick Chapin, ONB Plaza, Bellevue, representing Herbert Mull Herbert Mull ' requested Agenda Item 10.a. be presented. MOVED BY CLYMER, Rezone 412-79 SECOND HUGHES, HERBERT MULL REZONE AND APPEAL BE HEARD AT THIS and Appeal TIME. CARRIED. Land Use Hearing Examiner, Fred Kaufman, decision of 12/14/79 recommended denial of application by Herbert Mull for rezone from G-7200 to R-3 property located in the vicinity of 821 Sunset Blvd. NE. Appeal was filed by Chapin on behalf of Herbert Mull . Planning and Development Committee Chairman Rockhill Planning and presented report recommending modification of Hearing Examiner Development Conclusions by deletion of No. 2 through No. 5 and the second Committee Report , paragraph of Conclusion No. 6; and further that Council concur Herbert Mull lin the recommendations of the Hearing Examiner (denial ) . Chapin Rezone explained intended high density use, less than 1/2 acre, that Denied Planning Department had recommended approval with conditions; rezone was denied based on technical requirements which committee ' agreed should be designated with buildin' Hermit . Chapin claimed error regarding Examiner's recommendation that property develop multiple at time surrounding single family develops multiple and asked that Comprehensive Plan be followed for. rezoning to R-3. Following discussion, it was MOVED BY ROCKHILL, SECOND BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT June Leonard, 12444 Beacon Ave. , Seattle, requested Agenda Item Renton Area 10.b. be read. Letter from Renton Area Youth Services, 1025 South Youth Services Third, June Leonard, Exec. Director and Antonette Nelson, Board Funding of Trustee Chairperson, recalled that the City's request for "Needs" monies for RAYS through the Housing and Community Develop- ment Grant was not approved, of which $20,000 had been allowed 2 RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting !1/./ February 25 , 1980 Municipal Building Monday , 8 : 00 P .M . Council Chambers MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF EARL CLYMER, ROBERT J . HUGHES, RANDALL ROCKHILL, RICHARD M. COUNCIL STREDICKE, Council President Pro tem; JOHN W. REED AND CHARLES F. SHANE. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND REED, ABSENT COUNCIL PRESIDENT, THOMAS TRIMM, BE EXCUSED. CARRIED. CITY OFFICIALS BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, Mayor; DEL MEAD, City Clerk; TED BENNETT, IN ATTENDANCE Deputy Finance Director; LAWRENCE WARREN, City Attorney; GORDON ERICKSEN, Planning Director; WARREN GONNASON, Public Works Director; JAMES BOURASA, Police Department. PRESS GREG ANDERSON, Renton Record Chronicle MINUTE APPROVAL MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHANE, APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF February 11 , 1980 AS WRITTEN. CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted L. I .D. #316 published and mailed according to law, Mayor Shinpoch opened Improvements the public hearing continued from 1/21/80 to consider Local Garden Ave. N Improvement District No. 316 construction of sidewalks , embank- Park Ave. N ment compaction, . paving, curbs, gutters, drainage, water mains, Preliminary sanitary sewers, street lighting and appurtenances on Garden Assessment Roll Ve. N from N 4th St. to N 8th St. and Park Ave. N from N 6th St. to N 8th St. Preliminary Assessment roll was considered in amount of $606,690. 16. Letter from Gary M. Riffle, Gary's Automotive and Tire, 6th and Park, felt expenditure not warranted due to limited amount of foot traffic and existence of sidewalk on the west side of Park Ave. N. Letter from Public Works Direc- tor Gonnason reported three protests received representing $56,870.45 or 9.75% of the L. I .D. (Gary's Automotive and Tire, Renton Boiler Works and Skyway Towing) . Continued Phillip Gladfelter, PacCar Counselor, presented letter of pro- test on behalf of Pacific Car and Foundry Co. , 1400 N 4th St. , concluding that the benefits are not sufficient to warrant the additional cost. Public Works Director Gonnason reported pro- test raised protest to 63.65%. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND HUGHES, L. I .D. #316 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND Terminated' STREDICKE, L. I .D. #316 BE TERMINATED AS LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY DIVESTED BY 63.65% PROTEST (According to Law) . CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted, L. I .D. #302 published and mailed according to law, Mayor Shinpoch opened Improvements the public hearing to consider the final assessment roll in Lind Ave. SW the amount of $6,060,376.48 for construction and improvement, SW 41st & 34th grading, draining, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights Final and underground utilities on portion of Lind Ave. SW lying Assessment Roll between SW 16th and SW 43rd St. , SW 34th St. and SW 41st St. lying between Lind SW and East Valley Hwy. Protest letter was received from Attorney for Olympic Pipe Line Co. re Item #10 claiming no special benefit. Letter from Public Works Director Gonnason reported that one protest from Olympic, total $17,056.94 and represented 0.28% of the assessment roll . Public Works Director Gonnason noted Council sits as Board of Equalization to determine whether or not assessments as levied are fair and equitable. Gonnason recalled history of the L. I .D. from original petition filed 2/23/77, total assessment roll $1 ,895,793.80; that LID 308 was combined with LID 302 and totalled $2,406,371 . 13. Gonnason explained employment of Gardner Engineers, high construc- tion bids and meeting with property owners to determine whether or not to proceed with the project. Gonnason explained costs borne equally on front footage basis. Gonnason noted possibility of merit to Olympic Pipe Line Co. protest.