HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA78-2171, , „.. •... woe ... -,4.‘...v,- - : !.Air .-44 • -• :
f,":?,„ , ,-„„,,-•,,, ,
vr-4,44..-.;,..":5.,,.:;::: ,7,...,tiu,.., .-/*.4,1--. .',,-- . ...,
1........ .,.I ,9,3 -.7,..-. 4,4., ktiEPrlklitt:,‘7•‘:;•..;, , ."*. 4 '''''`'' 1 1-...:L,' tr. ',i',';'.4'..1/2,- ,--.f.,e,., t•'A ' ': .a. •L-;.%-. f',AA-- ' (1 . .
41. ' . ' i'4• . Ng::,/,,," ..':-'' - “-..: •• II.-„ii A. &;,--;•e,/ '..,;.P,'; ' 4., '
e.,;q1::::tztt.•'':' ..-•ir: -:' ,-..',1-i *.r.'4,--,4„;',„:,:',,..-..,r.' ' , ' .r., ..',--
1, .'14-,..'t A-t• '' .' .4'40•;,.9.r v f. , ' •-- ' ..-,, - •• ..
1* , •$.,..-,,,y.•- .,-,.... 1. '
1..I ,t2 .„,,,, kr:, -,- r _ :••-,... : , 't. •rr• ' -.., ,,,..•:., .. f, ', ; '' ', ,
t.%r;'...--'4'•• , ' '
r
I . i'!: ;A: , ki 4f- 4' ., ., , i ,,,,r1:,,,,,,, .;,, „,..,,i,,•,, • ,,,, , •,,/,_ .,,,,,,:.:
1,4 . t • A. , 1 ,v.*of,,t.',:,•:,'
1.- '1 ' ...•'. ••/.«. 1 r,i ., .,{',„,'• J.,-,4;"' '.''',- ,S,,*-1. 1-.. • •• *-- ',, .1, •
r ••• , • . , .- • -a 1 ,. ••$.:. ..• '!:,.. '., 1,*, 6-
41.,,,,:,.;;F:,,. , ' ,,. . „, •...-' : . ..,i ..- .r,. . ., 3- i).: - „
y. '...,.4 4, - -Jr -4
t .V.44. let*,P.A(''•4'' ''''...% . ' il•; P;,.• ' ••';'•P• . r • --. 4''A .: ll!,.ft,....
ft. .,!'., ,;..,,,,, Z,,,,,,i.," , . ''''"' ' , ' • '' :r t"4,
41,,y7,',A-4.a.?, ,}.i.,'''''t. -4• ..„,"'
1';'5.4 * . 4t ' - ' 1 . • 14 `" ril,.f '-'' il . 4 ' ..,,./.. 4. •'.''14, ;.„., *41°/,'. ,;',,,-- '. - , --''-''
r:2 '''/ 4,444.21:-',.:)'.4:1te,,n,-.,0 tI,of 4.02,,,,, . - -... ,..,;.,0, e., .•k...,,,,,,..( . , • , i„. .__-- .,....,14, ,e0, .. ir'w••••,.., ••'-, - 4.1 toiti , .•
f... 11 Or ,A.,,at--, t•''r'P
i l'••''
t PP'''. :.i':.;.'it .,I. • ••. .
r; ,; .: ••!•
110;.bi‘:. r
4.
L.ni.- i .4 P...... .'/
P;.•P• • i'• ' ; .1'••.:,.'•';.!;,.
P::?;r ,P•••P‘ • 4,:i*-„,,,,,.,it'.
4:ft' • kr.1 , '';'•. '` .
4...-0, , a,
IL --- . • "liC Ile `21;;,;,.. i • ,''•:-' - ..- ,,,AT., e, 7: :St*, " i.,1:-• A.• lc,,ts.,k)';•41,;,‘:' ' • , - , r-Toces
r '
ti "41 v: .'••••
i'.;,4 T.,'''''
r .„ ..
sir.:
4, 47,017.;...gf ,.". 'to(0, •-4; --•
1"-4 -"-•,,i I. ; p. ,,,t.--‘f••&-,••,..,.„.-.1,— ," 7 ,,If . , ,'....,. .1 - - if,...t• • -,,, . e, '4;A: 'I e:•,;' 1:*;, ot,'..-Jk) . '
r-4--4.'''',-;. F4 •,4'; ':- ''''•:-. • ,,, " ' ''''''
t
f • 4. .
4.. .., n oar,_ _" , .;,,,.• . ,,,„ , ..„,:ith,.
i
iik,`
1 Is:IL, , •.•., li,s1 '.•,,.. .•,4(
4 -
4'
r. 4c„. .i. iit ....,,,,,, -te•, . ..,4.,,,,p,7,,,-44 - ,-,r, "4.4*'' t.'S , -;44g2'4,' i''"$'''' .0'' ,.il i.:till i :,,,,,..Z.'4,'-'' 1"'"•-4. •41,04, ),,r., , , ,: ._,. ,,- 4,,,...
1,1,1 ,i„:-.1•,, "
v, .,,,,, •
4 ., ,,•
7,4i.,..,„1.'`,‘-4.T. : :: ' • '('-r., '''•••• ''' ,.' 70,a:.- .,, ,..
14:'.... .,...-:4••••••%%.-=4,4;4: 4',,--__ ,
It..,- ' •
4''' ° -""-t4c;,•!•"..,ii. .' I. ‘41,,,,. .47, , I i' ',•'•A . %4-4,- '- '- /vet:- r,.,•'
41.
7''- "1 rii.c•••:,47T4-.'• ' • ...- ;',,' ' , ••••••••••• ,, ,,,,,e, •.4.---#. , .
v., 7 ,KA:Li:I,: vi /,, ..... 1k. , ,,,t , , —. .: %ily•-. , .,i. .,--
tir• . A-t,.., ..- F-71, ;',,t,1:;;_'i i,...,1:::i''C'' s. -
IF tlr''s,',' SA'''iZ''' "#' '.4t.-tI, t "..
1**,x,•i ; Niitifith, '''' '''..•• . , ' „0,e•••••4•4... 1, .4-*, 4.(7...-. k it...." , , ---; I -- .-
I,Tfi• . ''".•ii.',. • .44--, ..• .. X 'dr ' .4' • . -...."•,;
A: 'I • :':* 'A'..f.„.; , r S:'!'4„ , 30 '..•41 :':''''''.. .
Ni,: 10. :iit 0 qtgr', ,i?,,,,*: - • ---,i1c.„-;‘,$. .44.• ..+,.'4,7..”.1.., ''.'ISO 4: I • •,,,,-, '',..",, r0,. ..,' ''''' :, . fi.t1°-4 , 0 1 • "f • ..,••it • ‘4....e,,, • .•-•....,.• •,-'-,', ••• 4-. t .1..• .•• i•‘ •;•s• ••.,r. .„ . • - .,
4'";'1- 'Z • 4.r''- :.4:4'4": - - •• :•-it,_,14. 1;.,. '. • /-' 4,--4,4 ....:- 4 .r,•i• , ,,,,---.. ••• d. ;•,,- ,.;...,•_$ .,,,,-•, r._ 0 1 -- A...,•-•., -.,...41,...,1( ....7,74,,,,,,, ,, ,,- ' , ,:.. .
IL rat ,"'• •, \ \
s''•'.•.•,•.. '' ''''..`' -' ''.
4.19a1• 4:,,,,,,' ' '
fr4 . ,, •,. , ,,,....,,,,--qv'i,t,...._ ,,, ; 44'44%iiir1:''
4' '
f0. . ,.
r:0 f,°,e,/;*14',.'" .-,,-.),,,..x,p,..,,A 4 . .`,-,•,:.,1
L'
1'''i '••• \ •:-.,i'''-'
5-1.440 -' ' , ' . ' .'41140'" t '' '' -- '" ' - e'' . v:i,,.,- ''^
t•'.-2.,..;:.'. '‘. irr-.- ••,,tko,-,,,,f.-,:•,••••, , ... 0-... ,1i.,,.. , ; :,,, -t4T- 11141-
1 ' ...
f - lir: I \ • 4 d7''.',1•:.:%,(yr - '•.•:-•1; ': . . • -. vt • , - p.ic4, ::.,.-...: \ I'' 1,. ,. 7'
t ••4-'.. , '',1';',4 • , `'.f,1!" ''''-', . -
4,40,471 ;11,
r.,4t,::::;.:,34::14 "\\,:,. . ' N,:-: -;"*.,
117-7.e.''''' ' '"
7 -
4''''
11. :
414.":::;'. '
P''''''' '.. .tic;'' '
f: . ''\''...' '''':
vir,
1
rNif'.
1.
1.`.1'.1,;,, i . 4 •: '
27,-.'• '
of;',4 A ,/,'',,
s, , \ .4..,,,,,...;4., . ,,,,,. • ,,. pc, ,,,,..,.... . ,, ... :'$.1.#';,
t,A,,,', p., 11'
4,-, .•
it . k ,,,,-• ,, :,.....," ,!'• * -' • ,•-• t ,,.: Jilt*..:104,r":" ,..`. it1';', ,,,..-- ,,:.,-,•; -,-..,;;;;,,I, .' -,- . ,' ..:- ''.. ''' '
ri7N7'f...T. '''''''' ::'-',.'''.fl, ''.•.' , ;11,44.4 ' ,•
IL. .• • 4 %..i
P. . •' r' Net 4.•*7..4
L, ..:.'"-...-. ''
1! -' V,e'.: .: ii -'-1r , i', • t„,,,..;,.,,-.. . •' ' •0,,,
i
4,,„:;,,,, ...V...;,,,,, ;•rf--, 'es:.-• ,•,,,,:•',,',N.'..4'. • ',L '../
41.4,,, t.4...
p.
A., 41,,t4.0014.4.4.:11I.,',,;.4- . Ir
4;4%4111'"Ir<'.1 ,;'-.,' .
1.6' .41'; ' . , '4,''''.','.:4%- ' ',: 64 i I.; '
1/4-7''''.1' ..
4c;.--' '**.S. ''Z,i
i‘,,,..•,_,/,w,,,.vp1"4 jek +6. 7 pi4g'.r,'4'..-' '
4"*-' -
Y-.1''': -,*,„-', 4. _4.4:•.:1!,'.- -, . . r. 4:''-':;:..1 .:, ,;.:4 t.,
4:,,,:!....-
te,'...t-',,,-. _fii,..404 'IL -.....t•
1,-‘..;;••;44.7,y,1, 4,4, ,... • t;,.. 4''...*-4.-
e',"... ....,,L1 ,.-1, . ..r.
Oi.o•r._,Z.;,..-.,'' ^ ,..'.k
till: ''':''!... 4-,1r,•,1',(0....-.1tC4g4Ae‘i"1',::::1-?,:,:li-Yij:::r,,,,,.,
s' -, ‘4% .
1;•4"‘?4t-il;Ref ..-
A.'-'10:.714"' °.'...--- -' 'i," ' .'.''''' i / •',..r,irV::::''''-'• *.. ' '' ".'#?.o7,,S,'It'i, '.,
i •
iiii, .. ;.,..,,
i7...
5;.::::,. ,
1,;.:,,..
7.:44.-.‘,,,,:...,-,z,A 74:4;;,, ,,,,,,t
e ,,,4::
f..1:
ri".;:r.,.,:r-
os...,......„);.•••;:,•,,,.r.`„ciri...: ..i,,,•:,111'4,Ai 2.07: •:,`
7';:., ,
t„'' .*,..,..,..,..• ..:?‘‘ *•!*„..r.../4'.....,,•-•;:
r4,,,,,_.;::
or,ot,:". ::::t.,
14,..
f4. f/t,"'44.
a...::,,
i,,,,i'. 4..,.z..,,,,....
iir• /1,..,,,:
r,k,,,;,..,:,`:.:
44, ... ..
ti)
6' A
t• Wg „h./0' ' , ,
4,44 - .
us. ..,1 A
Al'.
7
4.
7:, . /. . , :1111„, ,
44. .4,,,.., .•
k .f.1,. i"7,,,,,,
t.,'., ,..
11
tit
4,-'•
A
4.*. ''' ..,,, '.'', ''%"
2, ,..)"'it;'''.‘'1' '
4„, . 7,
fH.,,' •
r .
1•.:. - -.4„.-i., -;. ,
4.--' t -' •
t`"
k,,4
7.00,0••,,,A..1_ 7 ff''' ,„A,,, ." ,.. .. • „..4.0.
II
l' .-- Orithr'•,.;. ., 1.,li:-; -wo.or,-,/,.. • .,•3,-,,,,,,:„,,, ,..,_ .,-:.--•,.1, ,,;
e if .. ,...,,,,,,. I 1.40.4%
ott,,; '7'...,,o, -,,,,14...3., ,14`..7,••It'
1. .'1.... 'i\, 4:tr."''''-.71 •;;;...:,' , '' ('''...:".
1\‘`
g 1 47,4.14e f 'A 61in.'1,.',-, 'At ,1..,.. ,... • ..00,-,.11,---0,1"'t. f
2 ''1 ••.' .1.. ,Ptti, ft'.•c:. '• ... •.,....•4- ,.,7,41 • I ti f .:"...e-oetv -•-..:- '''.174441444.e....
i't"./4-1#:fr:'(3,
1\., 1 6t •• ::,
iik4.!, /-,) : 1 ',,:,7;'' ..•
6„,s• 4.,-. 1,5,44 -..,- .0,. .'d
t.„,,„ ,„-4.1);‘,..,A • Ts, ., ....,-.,, • , ",4
4-..4 , •
t•Nal. - ..-
ot '
41 ; )
4141401/[41*...
F.'
6"‘‘..
7004?,
1,11,,, !S ;,,,, , , .
41.- -.. ;144... " -, i Ar l'A.Tr; •,k4,..f.
NAL. -
4
n.,., 0...jr ••''''' .-4- "•,i41-. • '''''. ' .4..'-'.'1',•••.0;11.4' la 4.„
I , c40, .,•,'' ' ', .*.4, ,.4/t4/.10,ret.' A; ,o1PO.,t4.A.. i -'-'gr.."•••• • . ‘4•-•f••• .4 -.17,44:',1(s- .-'•1011,\,,o'
s?
4,;„..,.; ...?"...P•4'', ....;.. ,''0,L,440:"'''- • - ..,• *'ilt-'0'... '-••;•,•*'fIrr - 7 4
1 2.,t• .! :•-• 4, i :,;•::.•* .,,,,t.,-.,••- ..14.,,,t! , . t! , `
r • 4144:... ,41,,I.:-..".V :. , _ , ,i1‘
01',.- ,,,„, . .--;')
4,
r.23.0: ,..,, ,,
4•>
f,-
4:
70::r:..,,, . ':•!.......
4t, .1..v.-
6'.......:
1.
4;0', w-4 ,,:•:,. 4A?*'•4'.!•,,,cr,_
t 1.*, .r .<1 . . .,, •• ' .4' .
44,;.,.•--.4„„:
4.....•.;-*CA*, :10"• r 4% •,..,4
f. : 7.7" • -,A.,x lisYr•-•yz-e,-..... d -1( . 4"
kili. ••' ' .., . . •-4:
1- *---.
4'-', t.---t4i- 1 —. .
4
1i
4
l i ' '"',
t;;.,',' or, ,,.."117 4. , ,4.*.. ,i'r-.' *AV 5' A ' ,,,,,,.• t Ai.e,:e4,.......,,,, ..,,,,„", ,, ..,-. •,„,,,,,..„ _.' ,
q: , ,,,,..„....i.,,,
0.
4;., ?
1011.1 t ''''. Jr.; ,
0
1 • 4, ..,,,,,„, . — i . --4' -.ft :
0,4-.•:‘,„ii,,,„,. .,4;111
4t:'46' r
it 1 „..4.-..:,:- s.,,,,,ro ',A. . •,'',....;,4:A4:71,
4 ..--,a,
41)*• .. - .04=.
4;;; ''‘.
4 _,_. A ,,,,,of.4'r t.........,,•i4,7:,,..1-0.:,-Irti 7 :....--0,—, .:, '‘ . -14., ..s4....-. 4,-•- , l" .i• '. , ; .. 7°- .'
t t'.
7.'"'*"4 40;4. W.".;-.
A.'417.,47..7`,. ... 1174,,,'"`"*",,, : :r.-(44,..-4""*"*"."" ,--------“„bigt.' 'V . ,,-*••••.*41707:.,.... .7., ._. -,-,--:-. i . • p,lipik:' 1/4fdial ..,,,,i. , it
e:. * .. .,.
7' . ,. . .-.,,•. .,4- ,,;(;,s71:,,gf. _ 1., •.••.. .):,.•,0•(,, ,-.- z3/4;.,,, ,,-- .2,,•,1 slitA!. .,
4,...:.
4,,',1,,,.r'.: .. . . , •t.,-..,
t..,..4,„..,,,,,•,,,, ,,,,e,-,.. •...,. .- ,--..,-- :,T,.. 4
40,0• , -It.:-----. 'i-4,..
TL''''-..4r...;-...\,..... ...,,... .„ . ,
Iii ;AO- ''1:' . '11rt,' -' '4 4, -' • --" ' :
0,?
4.14.*N- ...„„,,, g'- ' . ;::,:-• ".*•,',t .. ','•-..-4.'• -.)'',
r..-,..)*4R. '''`'•
d i't.• ... 4.,
I,, Ar 4;7.,11/206,a. ...r;N:.4),,,, . .ft,,,,,, .4.:
e'.:.
4,-;;;.,4 r ..-..r 4 -,,' :, ,; ,',
peg. '1,...1",;,!irg•4N,,,,,•-. wii ' - ' ',,,f. • .• .' ' " '`!
4.. ''' .4 1,..4:!'''N'4!'+*
e,,,'*X.''.,,, "4%: .--,-,- ei..54e
1: .':„:,..„:••:,..:•'..:,:.:.:: ,'A''''''.4•!).•7.
43,4,. •,,,,
1.7T.t..,..,:.„T::,,..:.;::47.,:q'''L.
c:
4'''',
2:.::'.•'!'„',.;,::,'":.-,
r'iv.':',t,k.
t„E7',,t,,,'
4.'",'.. oe' :1:.,....:'.;:•'''''''.... ''
1.
1;14'-'
17,1k....:':',...
777.
A;A*-: :.:
1;
1:7:
4,',..1,:‘:;:1: 111''::.:
4
4.: :".
t:-
Iti:,11:,.11.:.1::',1--::.';',. ;:4'
1-.7.:7"-'-**-:"...
tr: •••$%:1:-;-4;<'*:*
1 ..';:
11'
1.7..
t '''''. ' .0 t4 4. .. If.W.- ' .'',,,it':7'''''';''2, 4,,IN:.,, 4.7,....., ,,,,,,g,..,7
a••,t,, , ' ,4„!0
1 It...:‘,,...,, .,4ts 1••• ,•,,...i
1,
r.. ,,,,,,... ,- - , tii,f,.•- , ,
si,,,,
s..:".-3,zt.•.45......--
w„,,, ,:.%•
2 ...,.... #- .1,Sir', 0 ' .4.k.—Voe .....
for 4p-t,,,,,
1,...„ z. ,,,,,P6C..."..•*AA4 ' '-"011tt.'' '''
A'''''' .-- 2 ''''''4.4' ''''' '.."-''''' tl'‘50.1'.. .... '
4 ''''''.".-' "
7.4.!.,,,': - .i!.
1 , , , • .; 7. :,Itt,„.
0-
4S*.sib., ,. ,,,. 4. 4 ., -..„4.4 ,..,,,. IV :.. id- .1 } likk_40 , ''''1- .,,. - ' ,,,,
i,,,,,,„,:::. 4,',':.4.,, ..i.44,- -, "?,. ."„aair
4.'
4,4 '•,,, '11,
44t4'4 ,' .,- ti".-.Z,,N• ;"..
1-‘44:M1/6, . . .- :....„ b.-. '',,..../7.1 : _ es..7:,.IC.44. ".
ill. '
144,;4414-;.<
1:, .
4..', ;7 .. i r'„''
5 I.i°,4.•,„_?4•Ak, rig 4 , dr.1t*4/4 '' ."
r ,.;."41.,. ..4 ..7./.. .t.to' '...'I,"'4 ;it....t.:A.,:;:•N ' ,. i ,, ' .4 AO t.':'44., ,,..' e li 4:x.:". ,;$ _Aiiii.LiVk.,‘:
L. :
44114.7 n,,,irt',''f:;::":...*4` .1 ..'-'484L.:-':'
s . . Ik"..
47,4' : : ' • ---
1..' ILL''.:A.-'.:14Ct"Iti''''.
44 ; ,:". .• :.-'• ' ',,
Plr S.V4:1,4Z7"4";seti,:
14;Es,.''''',e.e..,,•-4. :..0; ' - ,,''' '. ..-4' . ..-j".
r"-- , e*,'!: ''''' 'A.:
A''''•: ' w ,,,,I „,P ., ,-• : , • . . •' . ' o'''4r .„14,%,..7-,..#-';',,'...*.7.L,-...,„ - - • '. : • li•A, •
J'- #.'4.40'-',',•\:,
11 ,r, :,,. , ite. '..^'Y ' :,',*0,,.-.' ., •• ,,
1,,,,,,. A 4 f• 43 1, .6. l'''. ii- ,
la. . ..4.!'- :. ',, ,,- ..4 • . -
lie:,',/,:,-...„33,-,s.,-4,4,,,4 . ,,, .,. .
iv:.
IR, I, 444,tfirs.
ill'—* - •
t 41(
4114.,,. '
m,... ;.,1.....,..$ --4-41i1,-,',i'" ',fil4 IL*. i- ..o '.. :1,.'-' • i, , • -- . . 21. i,'1-44,..4,,, -,
t . At."44' • -'.''r'i " ' „..", t.,. .7r,, , ,, 4,44. ,, 4.44 4,, ••.4 to„„%,1 ••--,,,Nit .si,„- ik,,,,. 4p, i • ..,pit., .....,:... ,..,41 .•„,,V- :. '. '••,' •,:•-•. ,-,,:,,..„ •'„, •••. • ,.
V. :. ,..7.%,pk,L.„,,,,,,,,,,!' ,„,,,..„,"::is-,,•--0,,,„,!,.7,‘ ..• isi.. •e1 --. ' .
1.- -.. ,
4431441: '.hk.
0.- A r l'71, • - --• ' •44A tet..-'1 ' . ..., 1 4 ;;74t• ' .,.I
7;44f, - .. 4
1,,, 4;',...:' ,'•".#.'•.,1'.'''',t...,!'' .. :',`, ...OA', 4- /I.' ''4 -4••. > `,40.4m,, , , , * -t.,:trio,..t0,,,g.-11 ,.. 0 %kw aerie* • . ,v7rio'. ..41Zro .-'t.,,' 444g,**''''N. - - '1, ''''‘ -. .' ' 4 —N4 All., ',.' A .: • '1.0C.,411141,:,;,. ;fi,. , ..
i...61:-.... Iiii_. i ..
L'
14;'
4' ,2‘.1.;?;-":,:,,,...,,...,::
tt,"1,f.7,741‘1161117,..::',..
1 :,....',. .,....
4„,.,,;,..,
4,,ii.,,,... ''''..:,".:„.
r..;,;`,.:,
ti.,:..,..._44164.. iy:•,%••-,:•.V......
zik'.7",,..".:*!...:NtIr:"* "4,:::,..‘',17,:#.4:jr.ff,..:{1,;`k,:
ober,`'...... ..":„eq..,„,„.• ....
i5 letW:
coF „ ER4totk"..,,"";,;711,...,,' ..
7
s -
k;,A"ttl Dila& Ili," ei • mitl..4". ,•"11‘147kr:4*"fibtal4*• i ,.
4,-.- ', • ...licit,- . .....- ,,, -, '4 .1,-.-r..7.14,7401( 10,1 -c.1.1.-"siN, 1,,.., .,- ulz4- iftiki. . ,,,, ,... tip., 7911,,,..--,„,-.."."...% •.41. i . ,16. 74.A...,,,,,-, . • k,.- .st, .c**4 . „A- it,:1,,,,, t , 40,.. ; . ,.., , ,,,,,,,,
i., • ,...,
4.-..,' •:,
4.:41,114. -.14- L.' >,..
f4A .4 4,;:q.-. ..,• *41.' tk''' ' J.-4,,•p1,01, .t444,- • 44, . 4 • -
4. - V
4.'•
Ar.A., it.— or.40 ,44.4 ,, , ., , 44,, ;, 'At, ..,.' It, ,,•. 4,4r. - A tro 4 °`• ,- ilt4 1510.2:
0"
4 1•4
k 411.)V,,'' / •-•'4411. , ' •' -. .-.,r...,. •ik,. .•,f,,,„?„.• ..• -4.,
4.* ..,..• ••-:•:. , ,, . ,.., • „
si,;„; 4,,,-4 *ITI lit , . • ..:,•..... -.:..)
10 ,:.
IC .- ..,.. 4.:'9,.4. '4TZ:.', . "---...t ;',... I • ' -,...,„ -' .. !N,,,
r...•-,g,,,,,,t... if .., " • -',- ,,Ilic-,4411/4.4t,, •4'. 14 . '‘ ',',.4 _ !Ie. _ AL iy.,,,4,,,lk 414 .., ,,, It',.lit 4'.'v.? ... ,.. .,', .:gr..ti-,,,i,.. ,,... ....OfrA,. ''. ' 7,1',Z•:' '1,..,... ki 4.4 • ` • '. ,f",..71.7. . :'' , ..- , i-,
I., ,., - • . . •' '.'. ..,.• .- :•
ft. t -ux.'
t":"/..
i.'"ii.4,•:1641° - -.' '' ''-
i I r,...,,,,,,-,...'• ', , ,4:401.kioltiriiriX1 44 li4 "7'4.: . 11'',,,;' 5--• . •,`Ati-20.,,,,,,,„41 '' • ' ••,•• • ,•-rr
I,• 71,.:.•,,Y.',t.'lk.1`;.'e-,‘I:',:.4. '.
i -'.'''. ,,:"•',', ' ..4 !, ..rA' '.4.',:
z
t stit . 7:-' '.
1..., , ...
r ' , ',tit! 4
4144011.t4k. 1:'*4th.,\V#1,S,444.(''
444
4t4"..' '• . 7.... :4., ,„ ' -'.4 "' '.1 ' ' . ,• 1,,,., oi 0 41,,,,,,I, . .
1,4,1r ?i, ,.. .,.:.,(..?j , , A.,.,„
1,,,.....
i. .0, . .',.. - 1.• 2...\,,,,, •,-, 1. Agilr. ' 0:'et,2 .' ".k.....4,..:, :,.,..,.,,.x., *
6' ..,:ii,,...*. , ii .:414.,,..-; „:410. ~ ' '„ '. .4, .., ,. .,.... 1?_,4,144,Iiiii .. 2 .., .., ,,i. ,,, . , , ,, ., . . , ov,... ,,..1 0:,'~ Ilk.--e ..A.0-,1,,, • , ,.4, ,. 1,- , '
011...x&
r. -- t",'•,a;It,. •. • 1,1,7_,..4.-':'•:.f i '' '4 * •t r
IN
e!... . ..'""4 . •,- f ' `,
k PT', ''' .V. 'ily..."444---.. ,.f.„,: .-, b-•--, , . • vor",...e40.*?*i .• ,
Art41,,,,..,. '1 .--,0:47 ,' ei,10..
v.',..".„
1,A.,.".4.,, '..:'•1/:"...c',.....:
10;
it"":"
4.:,„ :.--,, ,... ,, * It
47,,:
It . it -.
Y . r'.-,1T.V' ' I - '41' :-.:*'-.
44r -,• $1 ** - • 4-4 '
t."4-,; 155'..,
i •
11 3/' :,. ;
3‘ .33 , 'ot:,-,.•
0 t• Agiii, -••• ••••, ,•',.,', illi• 0 1 ' k itth 1,,..,-431,. 44 t,k 4'., • 0,
t,
Li iii. V „ ..41'.• * liillZa,:, ,,y.
11.' •.:i., .--3i ',..,,.„..-•1.A . 4 4.--, * !,... 4,-' ...k • ft. t•,,4" ,-' ' 1 .•••• '
0.1;.;,,7; . '‘
t fr. %
s
in ik WO.4, . .''. , 4411„4,'1 I ' -eft , 4- • . , r.‘,„ .i.„. . , , . :.-,,r, _--,,, ,, , e lok
41=i, "44. "•.`r,i Al- v 1'', ..: '•:' ''*'-.! "1,.: :,,,f .1 A ,al 0. , . ,..„:-..4 ),'. .-, yor*1/4, ‘• .-N , - . )., „, . .'' ,
A,, „,'.4''
1”
4:,''', '
1„.
01,41'. *
4.,,,,„ -
6,k.t
414 41,,":die,osel la_.,.. a ,,,,.„41
oP"&--0*.•- ,
144,4 .11 kVA,.,,*,,,,,,,::),,,, . ,...
ri)7' , ,,!Si , , •do'',....t :• .Y.'..
1
r el IT br,
is • •• •,,,r - • ,-...„!--4,. ,,• • sy...,..0,10,L
17 '1,fi•!4 iIi74.1-9.,..-;,,,i -
il . 1- , 41-,ii -, ,:,..„„ - r.' ''''. _.if :,r.A._.„„ ,"oe 4.7,. .,1,, .. *It•'4. 44t' .L. : ,.,t,'.-*AM. 4,- . 4 . 44 • - t ' r.":"% •''', ; '',
October 19, 1978
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL.
APPLICANT: May Creek Associates FILE NO. R-217-78
LOCATION:. ' On Lake Washington Boulevard N.E. adjacent to and north of•
S:E. 76th "Street: .
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests approval of a rezone from G-9600, Single
Family Residence District to R-3, Multiple Family Residential
District. This is to permit development on the subject site
of a proposed 47-unit condominium project.
SUMMARY OF Planning, Department: Approval to SR-1 or R-2 subject to
RECOMMENDATION: development by special use permit.
Hearing Examiner: Denial.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received by the
REPORT: Examiner on October 5, 1978.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining
available information on file with the application, and
field checking the property and surrounding area, the
Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as
follows:
The hearing was opened on October 10, 1978 at 11:15 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the
Renton Municipal Building.
Parties. wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed
the Planning Department report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1.
Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director,• assisted by David Clemens, Associate Planner,
reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered the following additional exhibits into the record:
Exhibit #2: King County Assessor's Map
Exhibit #3: Site Characteristic Map
Exhibit #4: Aerial Photograph, dated May 7, 1978
The Examiner inquired if the applicant concurred in Exhibit #1. " Responding was:
Frank Lindell
13240 Northup Way
Bellevue, WA 98005
Mr. Lindell indicated his concurrence in most of the report, but clarified that although
the requested R-3 zoning allows maximum density of 75 units, the applicant intends to
construct a maximum of 50 units on the subject site. He also indicated plans. to change
the contour of the land to preclude obstruction of views from surrounding properties by
the construction of condominiums. He concluded his testimony' by emphasizing that the
proposed development would be an attractive asset which will be beneficial to the
surrounding community.
The Examiner referred to the site plan displayed in the CouncilChambers and inquired if
the, plan was conceptual in nature since final plans are not required as part of a rezone
hearing. Mr. Lindell confirmed that the plan was conceptual in intent and the exhibit
was subsequently labeled by the Examiner as follows:..
Exhibit #5: Conceptual Site Plan ' •
Lindell objected to the,Planning Department "recommendation for S-1 or R-2 zoning for
reason of prematurity of development in a predominantly single family. residential
area. He. advised that surrounding' properties had not previously been developed;due to ,,.'.``: • ',
lack of existing sewer lines, 'but reported that installation of lines will expedite
development of commercial and, higher density zoned city and-'county;properties in the near
R-217-78 Page Two
future. He emphasized that development of single family residential homes on the site
would not be feasible due to the terrain and swamp area located on the property, and
indicated that R-3 zoning would provide a buffer between existing single. family
residential use and proposed commercial development to the south and east.
The Examiner requested further testimony in support of the application. There was, no
response. He then requested testimony in opposition to the request. Responding.was:
Jerry Slatter
5032 Lake Washington Blvd. N.E.
Renton, WA 98055,,
Mr. Slatter was affirmed by the Examiner. He opposed the rezone request for the three
following reasons: 1) inappropriateness of 'condominium development in a primarily' single
family residential area; 2) existing heavy traffic along Lake Washington 'Boulevard N.E. ,
a roadway which currently does 'not provide sidewalks or shoulder for pedestrians; and
3) existing drainage problems in the area of the hillside. He 'requested that geology -
tests be accomplished prior to development of the site to assess 'the cause and extent
of the drainage problems. The Examiner advised that storm drainage facilities will be
required and approved by the 'Public Works Department at the time of development.
Responding was:
Susan Hudson
808 N. 33rd
Renton, WA 98055
Mrs. Hudson indicated her opposition to the request due to allowance of multifamily
dwellings in a single family residential •area. . She recalled proposed plans by the
Planning Commission to review the north Renton area on 'the Comprehensive Plan and
requested that the rezone decision be delayed until such''a review.is accomplished.
She advised that existing traffic on Lake Washington'Boulevard N.E. is extremely heavy
from Lake Washington Beach Park to the N. 44th Street overpass and the roadway in
certain areas is lacking shoulders and contains soft gravel which disallows pedestrian
traffic. She requested that all rezones of property to higher density located north
of N. 44th Street along Lake Washington Boulevard N.E. stipulate requirements'for.
installation of sidewalks and street improvements to protect pedestrians and cyclists.
Mrs. Hudson felt that because plans have not been formulated to widen FAI-405 in the '
near future, motorists will utilize Kennydale as a short-cut to avoid congested
freeway traffic. She also objected to the applicant's intent to utilize R-3 zoning
to provide a buffer for existing residential areas because of the possibility of
allowing an additional R-2 zone for aSecond buffer which will allow encroachment 'of
apartment development upon existing single family residential uses.
Responding was:
Gloria Minnick
11215 S.E. 74th Street
Renton, WA 98055
Mrs. Minnick was affirmed by the Examiner. The Examiner disclosed being acquainted '
with Mrs. Minnick, a city employee, and reported that discussion regarding the proposed •
rezone had not occurred and the relationship would not affect his ability to render
an objective decision on the matter. He inquired if parties in attendance objected to .
proceeding with the hearing on the basis of the disclosure. There was no objection.
Mrs. Minnick indicated that she was not speaking either in support of opposition to the
request, but questioned feasibility of the. development in view of existing heavy traffic
on access roadways in the area. She referred to hazards created by narrow, winding
roads which limit visibility and create dangerous safety problems for pedestrians. Mrs.
Minnick also expressed concern regarding existing drainage problems in the area. She
corrected Exhibit #1, Sections G.4 and G-5 which report existing public-services of •
schools and parks' in the area, and noted that developments and schools such as Newport '"
Heights, Newport Glen, 'and Hazlewood Elementary provide schools' and parks to the
surrounding area in lieu of schools and parks listed' in the report which are located
far south of the property..
The Examiner inquired if off-site improvements would normally be required in any
development of the subject property. Mr. 'Ericksen reported that curbs, gutters and
sidewalks would be required along Lake Washington Boulevard N.E.: and..S.E. 76th Street
for. all uses.
Mr. Lindell .responded to previous testimony regarding. existing .quiet. neighborhoods and
indicated that.noise levels from traffic .on EAI-405 were high•and'the level.would not
be affected by an addition of 50 .residences on sthe subject .site. Referring to :concerns
regarding pedestrian safety, he advised that all _off-site improvements would be':provided
as well as construction 'of an attractive Metro..:transitshelterein.:the"area:.: >Regardiing ':;.
B
L
R-217-78' Page Three
the necessity of geology studies, Mr. Lindell indicated that such tests would be
accomplished if required by the city prior to construction, and conformance to city
requirements 'for storm drainage retention will occur. Regarding existing,traffic in .
the area, he advised that entries to the development have been designed in 'alternative
locations away from the intersection of Lake Washington Boulevard N.E. and S.E. 76th
Street to avoid' congestion. He noted that construction of 11 driveways ,would be
required if single family residences were recommended for the site and would •contribute, : '
to additional. congestion and traffic hazards .in the area.
The Examiner inquired if. ;i.mprovement "of,_Lake Washington.. Boulevard,NE. is included'i:n;.,
the city's Six-Year Street-Plan: Mr. Ericksen' indicated that since he 'was uncertain ,
of the status of the street, he would research the matter with the Traffic Engineering
Division•and provide the information to the Examiner subsequent-to closure of. the
public hearing.
The Examiner inquired, if. a buffer would be required between the existing single family
residential areas and the proposal if R-3 zoning were approved. Mr. Clemens 'indicated
a.minimum requirement fora high landscaped screen, but reported'concern that such a
visual screen would obscure views from property' located above the site. ' He advised
that building heights relating to the eastern property line would be carefully reviewed
as well as buffering in the form of fencing or landscaping of the proposed substantial
parking area on the eastern portion of the site. Mr. Clemens advised that the site
slopes down from east• to west and from north to south, the zoning ordinance would limit
building'heights to 40 feet adjacent to a single family residential area, and the
primary concern of the Planning Department is to evaluate the proposed plan to provide
buffering and screening between the buildings, the parking areas and the residential
areas to the east.
The Examiner inquired if the_ declaration of environmental; non-significance would be • .:•,;
revised if the property were rezoned.-to R-3.' Mr: Ericksen anticipated- that environmental
impact would be re-examined if the Planning Department recommendation for R-2 or •S-1
zoning were revised, and noted' that approval to an R-3 zoning category would allow the
applicant to apply directly for a building permit for construction on the site although
the Planning Department would have an opportunity to review the proposal and the
necessity of further environmental review. The Examiner inquired if zoning of the
property under the R-3 zoning category would qualify for a negative declaration of
environmental significance. Mr. Ericksen indicated that specific site development plans
would be reviewed in determination of density limitations and buffering requirements.
He also advised that based upon the 40-foot height allowance in' the R-3 zone, an impact
statement 'may be required to determine impact to the adjacent single family residential
areas.
The Examiner inquired if parties in attendance would 'objectito a time extension to 21
days to allow thorough review of the application in view of an existing backlog in the
Examiner's .'office. There was no objection.
The Examiner requested further. comments. Since there were none, the hearing on,File No.
R-217-78 was closed by the Examiner at 12:00 p.m. 1
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 2.52 acres from G-9600 to R-3
in order. to construct a 50-Unit condominium development.
2. The Planning Department report accurately sets forth the issues, applicable policies
and provisions, findings of fact, and departmental recommendations in this matter .
and is _hereby attached as Exhibit #1 and incorporated in this report by reference
as set forth in full therein. . ••
3. Pursuant to the City.of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental
Policy Act of 1971, as amended by R.C.W. ' 43.21.C. , a Declaration of Non-Significance
has been issued for the proposal by Gordon Y. 'Ericksen, responsible. official. This
declaration is based on further environmental review at the• time 'of site development, ' , .
reduction in site density, retention of significant natural.,features 'of site,
provision of adequate• buffers and site landscaping' and screening, together with
other developmental controls. Mr. Ericksen testified that 'a rezone'.to R-3 probably
may require an Environmental' Impact. Statement. . i
5.' All existing .utilities are available and in. close proximity', except sanitary sewer
which will be installed approximately December, 1978.
A
R-217-78 Page Four
6. A conceptual site plan was submitted (Exhibit #5) , but due to its nature was not
reviewed by staff for conformance to the applicable zoning regulations.
7. Existing structures on the site are to be removed.
8. Access to the development will be at the northwest and southeast corners of the
triangular site (Exhibit #5) . .
9. Per the attached memorandum of October 13, 1978, the Public Works. Department stated
after closure of the public hearing that the Six-Year Transportation Improvement
Program of 1979 'to 1980 includes the' portion of Lake Washington Boulevard .abutting
the site., ' However, the scheduled improvements depend upon funding.
10. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates the property to potentially be, Medium
Density Multiple Family and Commercial (Section 4-3014. (B)) . .
11. Testimony was not provided relative.to previous land use analysis of the area
Section 4-3014. (A) ) .
12. Testimony was not provided relative to significant improvements in the area since
the previous land use analysis (Section 4-3014. (C) ) .
13. Land uses in the immediate area east of FAI-405 and north of N.E. 44th Street are
single family (Exhibit #4) . The zoning in this same 'area is a mixture of commercial,
multifamily and single family zoning (Exhibit #2) . Single family development is the
only development witnessed in the aforementioned area in the recent past.
14. A stand of trees exists along Lake Washington Boulevard N.E. abutting the site.
The southwest corner of the site, contains a depression-where, storm.water and/or
surface water drainage 'accumulates (Exhibit #3) .. '
15. Off-site improvements are required in conjunction with development of the. property
according to staff. -
CONCLUSIONS:
1. While the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates the potential for the property
to be reclassified to Medium Density Multifamily (R-3) , it appears that in this
instance the issue of timing pertains. .The Comprehensive Plan is a "general guide"
Section 1.II.1, Ordinance No. 2142) . Land use principles, such as timing of
development, are appropriate for consideration (page 9, Summary, Comprehensive Plan,
Renton Urban Area, July, 1965) .
R-3 zoning would not constitute ". . .coordinated development.,. ." (Ibid) , ". . .orderly
growth. . ." (page 17, Objective No. 1, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July,
1965) , ". . .effective control of land use. . ." (Ibid, Objective No. 4) , and ". . .
promote the best interest of the community. .'." (page 18, Ibid, Objective No. 6) .'
This zone would be too intense relative to the surrounding land use of single
family at this time. Until the southerly commercial and multifamily zones are
developed, a rezone to R-3 appears premature and in conflict with the Comprehensive'
Plan (Section 4-3014. (B) ) .
2. It has not been demonstrated that:
a. The proposed rezone was not specifically considered at the last area land use
analysis and area zoning (S,ection 4-3014. (A) ) .
b. The proposed rezone is appropriate according to the Comprehensive Plan goals
and objectives (Section 4-3014. (B) ) , or
c. Circumstances have significantly impacted the property since the last area
land use analysis and area zoning (Section 4-3014. (C) ) .
3. From the record and testimony the Examiner is provided with insufficient evidence '
to substantiate a reclassification from the existing zoning of G-9600. It appears
that any change in the zoning will depend' upon the type of development and when it
is constructed in the immediate area., At present sufficient pressure, and circumstances
to change the existing land use and'zoning has not been' shown tO be'present•
4. . FAI-405 is located close to the property, separated 'by Lake Washington Boulevard N.E.
Noise from these .two roadways certainly impacts the property; however, the amount. . .
of noise impact was not quantified relative to residential living., Single family
uses exist on the property in the immediate vicinity and in the neighborhood. It
was not adequately shown that single'family residential.,living,,:is.incompatible,with
the.. adjacent_roedways.
y
R-217-78 Page Five
DECISION:
Based upon the record, testimony, findings and conclusions, it is the decision of the
Examiner to deny the requested reclassification from G-9600 to R-3 or other zoning
classification at this time.
ORDERED THIS 19th day of October, 1978.
4044
L. Ri k Beeler
Land Use Hearing Examiner
TRANSMITTED THIS 19th day of October, 1978 by Affidavit of Mailing to the.'
parties of ,record:
Mr. Frank Lindell, 13240 Northup Way, Bellevue, WA 98005
May Creek Associates, P.O. Box 622, Kirkland, WA 98033
Mr. Jerry Slatter, 5032 Lk. Wash. Blvd. N.E. , Renton, WA 98055
Mrs. Susan Hudson,. 808 N. 33rd, Renton, WA 98055
Mrs. Gloria Minnick, 11215. S.E. 74th Street, Renton, WA 98055
Mrs. Miriam Mendez, P.O. Box 2373, Renton, WA 98055
Mrs. Laura L. Pratt, 11235 S.E. 76th, Renton, WA 98055
Mrs. Susan Rendahl, 7805-113th S.E. , Renton, WA 98055
Mrs. Gayle Baumgartner, 7425-114th, Renton, WA 98055
Mrs. Hazel Williams, 344 W. 400 S. , Provo, Utah 84601
Mrs: Bonnie Platz, 6317 126th Ave. S.E. , Renton, WA 98055 •
Mrs. Clifford Hoof, 7420 Lk. Wash. Blvd. N.E., Renton, WA 98055
TRANSMITTED THIS 19th day of October, 1978 to the following:
Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti
Councilman Richard M. Stredicke
Councilwoman Patricia Seymour-Thorpe
Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director
Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Department
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 November 2, 1978. 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.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires
that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and
meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for
inspection in the City Clerk's office, first floor of City Hall, or same may be
purchased at cost in said office.
RECEIVED
CIS OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
OCT 1 01978
PLANNING DEPARTMENT AM PM
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER 7i8r3il0illi1Zile21a4156
PUBLIC HEARING
OCTOBER 10 , 1978
APPLICANT : MAY CREEK ASSOCIATES
FILE NUMBER: R-217-78 EXHIBIT NO. f
ITEM NO. 2 / 7- 71A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST :
Applicant requests approval of a rezone from G-9600, Single
Family Residence District to R-3 , Multiple Family Residential
District. This is to permit development on the subject site of
a proposed 47-unit condominium project.
B. GENERAL INFORMATION:
1 . Owner of Record : Hazel M. Williams
2 . Applicant: May Creek Associates
3 . Location : On Lake Washington Blvd. N. E .
adjacent to and north of S . E .
76th Street.
4. Legal Description : A detailed legal description
is available on file in the
Renton Planning Department.
5 . Size of property: 109 , 771 square feet or 2 . 52
acres
6. Access :Via S . E . 76th Street and Lake
Washington Blvd N. E .
7 . Existing Zoning : G-9600 , Residential Single
Family
8. Existing Zoning in the Area : G-6000 , Residence Single Family ;
B-1 , Business Use ; R-4 , Residence
Multiple Family; H-1 , Heavey
Industrial
9 . Comprehensive Land Use Plan : Medium Density Multiple Family ,
Commercial
10 . Notification : The applicant was notified in
writing of the hearing date.
Notice was property published in
the Record Chroncile and posted
in three places on or near the
site as required by City ordinance
C . PURPOSE OF REQUEST:
The purpose of the request is to provide zoning consistent with
proposed multiple family housing.
D . HISTORY/BACKGROUND :
The subject site was annexed into the City by Ordinance #1823
dated April 21 , 1960.
T
r
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING ; MAY CREEK ASSOCIATES , FILE No. R-217-78
OCTOBER 10, 1978
PAGE TWO
E. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND ;
1 . Topography: The site rises from west to east with slopes
varying from 14% near the south property line to 9% in
the middle portion and approximately 6% in the north .
2. Soils : Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15% slopes
AgC ) . Permeability is moderately rapid in the surface
layer and subsoil and very slow in the substratum. Runoff
is slow to medium and the hazard of erosion is moderate.
This soil is used for timber, pasture , berries , row crops
and for urban development. Bellingham silt loam, less than2% slopes (Bh ) . Permeability is slow, runoff is slow, and
the erosion hazard is slight. ' This soil is used mostly for
pasture and a few areas are used for row crops . Kitsap siltloam, 8-15% slopes (KpC ) . Runoff is medium and the erosionhazardismoderatetosevere . This soil is used for timberandpasture.
3 . Vegetation : The site consists primarily of fairly dense lowgroundcoverintheformofscrubbushesandgrass . Stands
of deciduous trees are also scattered throughout the site.
4 . Wildlife : Existing vegetation on the site provides suitablehabitatforbirdsandsmallmammals .
5. Water: No surface water is evidenced on the subject site.
6 . Land Use : The land use of the site consists of two existingsingle-family residences and an accessory building . To the
north and east are scattered a few single-family dwellings .The property to the south remains largely undeveloped . FA1 405islocatedtothewestofthesubjectsitewithamixtureof
residential and industrial uses to the west of the freeway.
F. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS :
The area east of FA1 405 is largely undeveloped with the existingusescomposedprincipallyofsingle-family dwellings . To thewestofthefreewaythelandusesareamixtureofindustrial,
commercial and some multiple family uses .
G . PUBLIC SERVICES :
1 . Water and sewer : Existing 12" water mains extend along LakeWashingtonBlvd . N . E. and S . E . 76th Street. No sewer lines existintheimmediatevicinityofthesubjectsite. However , the JonesAvenuesewerproject (which will be located immediately south ofthesiteacrossS . E. 76th Street) will extend north-south and becomposedofa12" pipe to be completed in December 1978.
2. Fire Protection : Provided by the Renton Fire Department as perOrdinancerequirements . Future development of the site will be
subject to the City of Renton standards .
3 . Transit: Metro Transit Route 240 operates along Lake WashingtonBlvd . N. E . adjacent to the subject site.
4. Schools : Kennydale Elementary School is located approximately11/4 miles southeast of the site and McKnight Junior High School is
within 2 1/2 miles to the southeast while Hazen High School is approx-imately 4 miles to the southeast.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING : MAY CREEK ASSOCIATES , FILE NO. R-217-78
OCTOBER 10, 1978
PAGE THREE
5 . Parks : Kennydale Lions Park is within 1 1 /4 miles to the
southeast of the subject site and the North Highlands Park is
approximately 2 1 /2 miles to the southeast while Lake Washington
Beach Park is within 2 1/2 miles to the southwest.
H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF 'THE 'ZONING CODE :
1 . Section 4-706 ; R-1 , Residence Single Family
2 . Section 4-709A; R-3 , Residence Multiple Family
I . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER
OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT:
1 . Land Use Report; 1965, Residential , P . 11 , and objectives
4 and 6 , pp. 17-18.
J . IMPACT ON THE NATURAL SYSTEMS :
Rezoning of the subject site will not have a direct impact upon
the existing natural systems . However , the proposed future
development of the site will cause an increase in storm water
runoff, traffic movement, noise levels , and disturb soil and
vegetation .
K. SOCIAL IMPACTS :
Development of the subject site will provide increased opportunities
for social interaction .
L . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION:
Pursuant to the City of Renton ' s Environmental Ordinance and the
State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , as amended , RCW 43-21C ,
a declaration of non-significance has been issued for the subject
rezone only, based on further environmental review at time of site
development ,reduction in site density, retention of significant
natural features of site , provision of adequate buffers and site
landscaping and screening , together with other developmental controls .
M . ADDITIONAL INFORMATION :
A vicinity map and a site map are attached .
N. AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED :
1 . City of Renton Building Division .
2 . City of Renton Engineering Division .
3 . City of Renton Traffic Division .
4 . City of Renton Utilities Division .
5 . City of Renton Fire Department.
0 . PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS :
1 . The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
map element which designates the site as medium density multiple
family an'd commercial .
2. The proposal is generally consistent with existing
zoning to the south ( i . e. B-1 zone , City of Renton Tract 185 ; also
B-C , Community Business-King County, for Tract 182 and RM 1800 , High
Density Multiple Family , King County for Tract 167 ) . Tract 168
located east of the site within King County is zoned RS-9600 or
equivalent to the zoning of the subject site , and is presentlyusedassinglefamilyresidential . It appears that the propertynorthofN . E . 44th Street both within the City of Renton and KingCountyhasnotbeendevelopedtoitspotentialzoning . Therefore
zoning of the subject site seems premature for the area considering
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING : MAY CREEK ASSOCIATES , FILE NO. R-217-78
OCTOBER 10 , 1978
PAGE FOUR
the present surplus of high intensity zoning. This does not
preclude the favorable rezone of the subject site in the future
depending on the pattern of development of the existing multiple
and commercial zoned land south of the site.
3. Although the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan , the existing land use in the vicinity is predominantly
single family residential . Certain measures to protect
these residential inhabitants should be provided as conditions
of any rezone and subsequent site development . (Comprehensive
Plan , Land Use Report , 1965 , Objective #1 , page 17 . ) Objective
4 also 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 development and utilization of land to
its highest and best use in such a way as to promote the best
interest of the community and contribute to its overall
attractiveness and desirability as a place in which to work ,
shop , live and play. "
4. The subject site is located across and north of S . E .
76th Street. Because of the lack of development south of the
site and the existing single family uses east and north , rezone to
R-3 may be considered an environmental intrusion into the area
at this time . However , R-2 with special development consideration
may be reasonable especially when considering the close proximity
of the site to FA1 405 .
5 . The site contains a considerable number of significant
trees along the Lake Washington Blvd . N . E . frontage and for the
length of the eastern boundary line . These should be retained as
much as possible as part of site development. The negative
declaration of environmental impact has been issued subject to the
item as a mitigating measure of development impacts . The
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 location 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 R-3 standards would permit a gross density of 75 units on
the subject site. Given the existing land uses and the topo-
graphic and other site characteristics a more compatible density
would be single family residential SR-1 (7500 square feet minimum
or possibly R-2 , 11 dwelling units per acre. )
7. Points 1 -5 demonstrate a need for conditions which insure
protection of the nearby single family uses and enhance the
existing character of the site . These conditions may include
density limitations , preservation of particular trees : and vegetation ,
provisions for setbacks and landscape buffers suitable to protect
adjacent properties and provisions for detailed site development
and landscape plans .
8. The applicant has submitted a conceptual site development
plan . This plan is quite sketchy and will necessitate considerable
refinement to provide compatibility with existing site conditions ,
adjacent land uses and recommended development conditions . Such
plans are usually not considered necessary as part of the rezone
application and review process . The staff recommendation therefore,
has not specifically addressed said plan . However, specific site
development review should be required as part of any rezone
approved for the site .
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING : MAY CREEK ASSOCIATES , FILE NO. R-217-78
OCTOBER 10 , 1978
PAGE FIVE
9. Suitable access is available to the subject site.
However, subsequent development of the property will require some
utility extensions (Jones Avenue sewer) and/or upgrading of
existing facilities . (See Utilities Engineering report for
comment. )
10. See also the Fire Department and Engineering Division
comments concerning Fire Code , access , storm drainage , and
utility requirements as part of specific site development.
P. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
Because of the existing conditions and large amount of
undeveloped high intensity zoned land available in the area
identified in items E through 0 of this report, rezone to SR- 1
is recommended . However, R-2. zoning subject to development by
special use permit may be a reasonable alternative based on the
above analysis subject to the following conditions to be
established as restrictive convenants which combined will serve
to mitigate environmental impacts of the property and fulfill
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as addressed in items
1 -6 including :
1 . Site development approval by special permit. Specific
site development plans including site plan , landscape plan ,
building elevation design , utilities plan , and parking and
circulation shall be reviewed and approved by the Hearing
Examiner.
e
I
t =
it t\
A-
tt \
k. 1: 1 \\S-- PI
F 72wiir 1
4r i,
v
IGL ui_
15j 1 lOb I!T I'!O
0
i,
i •..-`il• -9 00 - z '/
f -4/ //,);/, ,„, ,,,,,,
i
6rw
L sT---ij
i
4
IBS lez I If.7 `s"•'>-I T6L 2! 14e I35 uz
6 LS,
1l1,:C-_s
J B(9 ZB L9 j/1/0
t I 9
f
ebb Ib9 150 149 . ' :5 h'"-'e4 ,e!
e
i !•
6
Afl,
t
I /\.(tAi
1,(..rz _ .1 2 :::, 2 I 2
Q
Z I T ,Z ' e Li a
w
I 5 // - .0 9 I 1 10 I 9 .0 I
APPLICANT MAY CREEK ASSOCIATES TOTAL AREA 2 . 52 acres
PRINCIPAL ACCESS Via S . E . 76th Street and Lake Washington Blvd . N . E .
EXISTING ZONING G-9600 , Residence Single Family ; B-1 , Business Use
1'
EXISTING USE One single family dwelling , remainder undeveloped .
PROPOSED USE
Multiple Family Housing
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Medium Density Multiple Family, Commercial
i
COMMENTS
l
i
1
I
8L-L1 C-b/ 'OA'9*Qz.9
sa1v1,0$5v N&3Y hil w
Yll s 173.C905
00r „/ 37b' $
Csow- -- - - i
I
b
IIIIII1
1 .
r.:;
I-,
tZI\).''
a ,
Aa zsI 1 sa!
s L91 s
1441
1
1•
4S--i.t9L -9S RE£z
o 9
9.1
a ti
I s1
S91
x
obi, y
src C
c.
0 J
k
ramw WNW ww040.*s4.. t' A .. M3jIW17 1 I,,
bzos- N.
s12:7 a 1,, ........ i .,...
Lt% II pS
I 1 ir zq Srz30oeOit
veoS 7 v
o
44 o\."-- MS0/1Q1J0r \..
ell
Soil 1
0
vs
f
i
t1 1
ROUTING SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION
TO : O Finance Department
Fire Department
Library Department
OPark Department
Police Department
Publi Works Department
Building Div.
0 Engineering Div. (Please verify legal description )
g Traffic Engineering Div .
0 Utilities Engineering Div.
FROM: Planning Department, (signed by responsible official or
his designee)
1 I i7 0 ei,5 DATE : 4/1e/1/5
PLEASE REVIEW THIS APPLICATION FOR:
V.. REZONE r'' LI1--16 MAJOR PLAT
SITE APPROVAL SHORT PLAT
SPECIAL PERMIT WAIVER
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT
PERMIT OR EXEMPTION
AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT n d
WITH ANY COMMENTS YOU, MIGHT HAVE , BEFORE TJ
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department : f)(
CET—Approved fJ Not Approved
Comments or conditions :
25---A)72-...--p. ir
Signature -Director or Authorized Representative Date
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department : —/—/
En Approved Not Approved
Comments or conditions :
CCZ-SS S Qc-r i dy Fi4'- C71i'7=_
Gr " L /i2: IrGOG /f 42uI/45-0 /cJ /27 G7_
F/,q`_ gV/32 L7S f(3
Signature of Director or Authori ed Representative Date
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department : 7;2 G l z _p1 ti r.
Ae'llier=
oved Not Approved
Signature of Director or Authorize Representative 'Date
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
tpartment: en-e'ir,de'r°•io- e7
Approved 7LJ Not App1Foved
Comments :
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department :
Eamehlicoved El Not Approved
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department :
El Approved Ca Not Approved
Comments :
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Desartment : 777-4?4‹: J"?
RA Approved . E=3Not Approved
om ents 'or conditions :
14 .
1)6?
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative / Date
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department : ci-t.9 /eee-/...t
23 Approved 101:3 Not Appi.oved
Comments or conditions :
e:1• 4 s-1-6) . ) 4 d v_, cl p
da d"„J-r.. I I CArt C
z) RA 12 le'c s 6 -c-ivc-y .74)
tj
Ctr)
fieje"2) •
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department : UT) (-
1Z3 Approved 1=1 Not Approved
Comments or conditions :
T 0,3
co" l /I-weg Gi -n) 31),,,-;...s 1
L.AAT t-H
lr °;)
0°S..% Cu t"hr
C.r10:•: rftcy.,,r,A
2)-
Signature ofof Director or Authorized Representative Date
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department :
Approved 1=I Not Approved
Comments or conditions :
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS
TO: 0 Finance Department
Fire Department
Library Department
Park Department
Police Department
e Public Works Department
Building Div.
I. Engineering Div.
e Traffic Engineering Div.
4 Utilities Engineering Div.
FROM: Planning Department , (signed by responsible official or his
designee)
a , Duly e;
SUBJECT : Review of ECF- li2*--lb ; Application No . : e0//7.- 75
Action Name :NY CemK. vrtOM /Al/v tz,
Please review the attached. Review requested by (date) : 167"g'"Z5
Note : Responses to be written in ink.
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department : ZC1/ G
El Approved Q Not Approved
Comments :
9/9".2
I/h C Cfl--."- ---- .....- ---;-s--" c2,..e....qi—
c.,-..., cr-__ All-ex.,.__7=:).2--;Z))
Signature o aeector or Authorized Representative Date
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :
Department : C
FV Ap roved Not ApprovedComment:
ec4f sS fS ('Ecuree/J /SY fitec Cam'1,(i6
v/77-- Eh es . %Go&i ,2 u/4-crJ c--
h /7,//O, ,(- lS , 4'ci/, o
SignatuFDirector or Autho ized Representative Date
J -Iasn a.,av ems:+a::a i'YZ'.r,:.V.i
1101
III,,
I `• - I ,
1' . ' --'•
vir i' -`iii . . ! '. '. :, - '.: • .. .... .:. •.- -. .• • .,. .•.,••., . ..• .•• 1 li
1 Y 7 1,
I. .
r.,. . . . . • - • - ... -.. . ., . • : . . ..it,
i
q _ .., . 1. _ , ... .
666 011 0110 •
I ttt,.5.71114flW r
Rai A v • ... • • iv17, ......,: .b; ...: .„s.
J/$$i..-.. ,;
y . . .. ,. ,,,,, , //I .
9 00. :;_,:::::: •_____
I. .
6-4-
1.•—1 1 .„ .. .
Uiii /If ,. .
1', '.:''' .... :?ik,./7.1. te• a', 1 .:tO 7. • 44 i'l...
4‘ ''-'4.:*. -."..”"., ''. . ...1 ' '1'. ''. "..:.;::' - .: '- '•... ,. .'... .. 1.
r ..
1
fr
I / . 11,--I ; • • • .4- - 7
t
I
1 raso.
f ..[
4Ls • 1. . . •
I t t
II !
il ! 1 ,
t(1
o I t • . i . ' i ,a
f f f
rmr4,• .4
i;; . i
2-. l'
i '' ' At.' •.° 4
9. ' • • - . I 16'' 111
j ' .
0 . '
APPLICANT MAY CREEK ASSOCIATES TOTAL AREA 2652 acres .
PRINCIPAL ACCESS Via S.E. 76th Street and Lake Washington Blvd. N.E.
EX. Si Inks ZONING G-9600, Residence Single Family, B-1 ,. Business Use
EXISTING USE ' One • single family dwelling",' remainder undeveloped. ,
PROPOSED USE
Multiple Family Housing
COMPREHENSIVE, LAND, USE' PLAN Medium Density Nul,.tip1• ,Family• Commercial
COMMENTS -
ct: p
4,t 4 '.
o ,.1, ,,;,. . - 1 i.6
t.i
1; '41;:.'4,.',.-, :. .. 't i? k
se.
to
A.am me...•.••77 0. w .nm.•••
II•
UP aili ilie Min•One
Nor 0 wig.
III la
IS.
a n. •
Iii U i .
u OS
I i I
1 ae 166 01•••••
14a- •
1igib
Solst. , •1 sessaN1
766:y - csibir,
t,,,,,%.;I
II 049far . sow , 4 4
II
itwom>
01 . ..Nil
C84°0
e.:
7610a1.4f 11 k
i ail
4%4 %• I C
LI
1
I % A, '
ft. e• • - 0 479 \ As ine. .
0 k.
ft4
IN.
1 • •
y•
k• deci.....
lig, v ' els 17t •
dt. I hb. I 81•••• . OWIlb In IOW li, ,,
II
I 1 IP
I 0
I 1 'i9i •••••••• 14
f
sa,VC
ram lio••••••••••••
lel
1
iips
4111\..
16„. i
11‘
s i,e- 71,01-61%
II
I
NC I 1$l Ossea e•ow NO..eiwifil W as••••••mf NOP
S . 13 teI
I
1
L e........
a WW17 W all.
IIIWINIIIIIIMP
if .•
sc44.1- i. -200•
08.1Scir sinE'.
SIM aeilt ASSoclares •
AO. A 211.-7111 ' ' •
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 13, 1978
TO: Rick Beeler
FROM:Clint Morgan
SUBJECT: Construction Schedule
Lake Washington Blvd. North - North Park Dr. to NE 51st St.
As per your request, please be advised that the above-referenced
portion of Lake Washington Blvd. North is listed on the Six-Year
Transportation Improvement Program of 1979 to 1984. The schedule
for construction is estimated between the 4th and 6th years. The
type of proposed construction includes drainage, paving, curb, side-
walk, illumination and channelization.
There is no definite assurance that the project will be initiated.
It all depends on the availability of funds.
Should you need additional information, please. let .me know.
CEM:ad
RECEIVED
CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
bCT131978
AM PM
718,9,10111M12,1.2,3,4,5,6
6
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
State of Washington)
County of King
Marilyn J. Petersen being first duly sworn, upon
oath disposes and states:
That on the 19th day of October 1978 , 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.
Subscribed and sworn this \qt- day of OCA-p j e..r
19
X I) Au44/
Notary Public in and for the, State
of Washington, residing at Renton
Application, Petition or Case : May Creek Associates, R-217-78
The. minutes c.cnta4.n a tiis-t oti the pa/a-La o6 necond)
MEMO R. A N D U M
DATE: October 13, 1978
TO: Rick Beeler
FROM: Clint Morgan
SUBJECT: Construction Schedule
Lake ,Washington Blvd. North - North Park Dr. to NE 51st St.
As per your request, please_ be advised that the above-referenced
portion of Lake Washington Blvd. North is listed on the Six-Year
Transportation Improvement Program of 1979 to 1984. The schedule
for construction is estimated between the 4th and 6th years. The
type of proposed construction includes drainage, paving, curb, side-
walk, illumination and channelization.
There is no definite assurance that the project will be initiated.
It all depends on the availability of funds.
Should you need additional information, please let me know.
CEM:ad
RECEIVED
CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
OCT 131978
AM PM
718t9t10,1111211t2t.`3'a4t.5t6
tv.,..11.;q••.',•..1•.."...1,:','.;,•••,•.:',•,'"••••...•',,'••'.•.• . i.... '• ' ••; • ', ...:.
2.-.•:',...,',•,'...f:•.,.".••'.;:•.,,c,......,:.•,•:...• •• :••••,...-:•.;••••,..,,•.--•..•••••••i•.• , , : • , •
y,• ..,'••••••••••:;.......; ,..2.•:,••••i,•.•••••:,',....:.. 2. .
3411,,';.•.,••••.•:;... .1x.'-• .'.**,,1.',-:,.,":••••••;!.....1.:..,•,-.:,....!...:,:,,
L. .••,..!•,..,,...;.,-•..„,..,.,,,,• •.• •.. , ,. ,. , • , •,,,, .!
1.2...••'.:,;...:.•••••••••-:••••1%,''• •• •-',.;1:kt, •*'•ii:V. Sr-,.W••.f:';',-P.V1*,.."Wil.:,"• * ..' 41,V/Y.Vetil•t1,... ;',.:::' ii,',..-••' ti.11‘X''-'}.14"•;''••••' "•C'..'•'• . •' .• • • • ' ..
n:..'.'.''....'“,...7.''',, /..:i..g.':Ier, .:.'''1..•?',,,%/, I.2. .:'-V'T'''. . 4';.q::.. ' '''.''' ''i70-iZ' ''. '1' .
1.'1"C:, •• 3.1,0'''""''P.*,,.. • •,",':':'-''''-""','' '''. •.'•..'••:;*-:'•
1:• ..•• ' ' • • '4..,..'i',..i,,,:„Y.:J.•.,....!:•••;....• !,.• •‘......:',:.., .Vtlpe,, ."... .c.,,,irt .," ki-fli:,' l'i•i;',', .'• • • • 'IC!: .. '•M'';' '. 147,10.* --41.14. 14.1' • • -•'', .-" '' •
2''..".•','S1.'..;''•••"1--...';•'-'•5.-•••%•. `;11.4".11' '. ;06.; '...,-:fi 4.i • . • . '•• •1•
1 ' •'• ,i',11'$•:' '•g,',4/ •' ' • '4,-''' . •••; ••''''•''''' : -
1,.'g, •'.,.. ••is',:1;;;, • . "di,.1',... :3,.;11.., •• fit 4,4,v.?. ;" -';•!•?...,'••- •'• .. ..- - • • ...:.Ki,.............:.,••:::::-:•-•,,,,........,,,,•:.•••,.,.,,.. A.:: .,,,...q,„•. ...,,,-•:. ,,c:::,, 1.:•,:cec, ••••••.. !,.....;',.. • . ,-Fol ,4,,,f• :xt.r,; .'•• .47..;1,, • • •ft:c . Oa . •
5:...",,...1:T.;.:,,
r•:::
i..:..,,::,;.:.::,.;.•.."...::,-.::::.•,.it.4.
1,
i.".•::•••1',:,.':..,,,..';,,,,,,,,,itie -:.:,,.:,,,',./.,;.;::4'
ri,„;..,,,,,,,,,,,,..
1,,,,51.!;;;,,.,,ff: ,. ..l; , 74,4c*I,:., ., ' .i,ili.i...., . :, 1.„,.1,..;;..f.,.0 it.,,t,..zi.,..tf . i,,,4;-,...T..,,,,,,.,:...1,,i:..,ii..,11,/.4,,,.. .. ' ... :. :•...‘ . ,. • :r• . • •.,..,oi,,:0",...i'MY"),/P.,....,,.., : ,•• , •. -.. . . . . : •.•, -,...,•,.,,. , , •, , •. .. ,.. . , • •• . '••••••'
I''.'';';'''''...T.'Z':;•:.;..':::!'•:"....1,'-'•'',':Y'....":••"•:.4'!:::'.'',:.;*,'..."..:""',:•;;;),..s..':'••• 7:.'.•..i,..•:,'•,:. .,„",.'.'.•• :-.. • , ' • • .,, ,, • . . .. .
2"........:f•:'•''...•2'i,:.''',.,......''''...,..l. .'•'••:,".:;",'....":•'•:',...:. ..i!.....::',..,'•',..5''...',.'..••'" :'••'• .•,.. .;• ., ' : • . . :
if:ff.'''''11;'''.11:i'::3•":* '• ''''.-
ti i''''''C' 2 Y';•S''' '....'•':;k4f:7-•t: •C'''''';f4:•''.."*.•: .,..':';:•:3:;'•4J'1':1'4,' •'.• 'c.."...,',',..','Ci:::•.',.;,, .,••• ,/,1';',i".,'.-..t,.''.,'''''-'.'4.-‘::::&,4••" :01.i:4': ' tek.',';‘'.7:5,„ • ;.,•t:!'i‘,•• '•,;.,i4 4t...: ,,,'..,-•',.','.•..•:,, ..,••:..,',..,,:S•-"i,....,'.• •• -.1,::, ': ;:.1.4... 1.i.,,'' 40.,'.....V./Yr?,':'::t1.'',...:.;: !4, '4 ' Z):2.; ^4'1' ' '''' ;.:, ,`,/...
i. ,::j,a, ...,Pie :, i,
4 ..,:,,,,r ':..• y.••••• :',.•,.. , ,:...r. .. :...., . ..... „.
l.,...'.: Is
vea'.%..:,'. '';*',sitit: • ,y,'' , :',...'',.,''?,,. '....:',.':';!:-,'•,:•,...,..v '',''ig;•.'4:r'..- .0'4';',1*.;?. .'.e(.242• t•' '', g',';'%. k‘'..
i.' 4'4%7 . • '1,,}X'''':'•At'• ..•; :'s..'5";• '':•• ''::1:7', •'' ••••''''•••••••••••'•'''. .•:•:•;'•:••••••
1:::;.••••••,•.[. •;'...•:.4,,,t„ts.,v.. 11, 7,14%1.,••;;..,.;.;,,,,*.i:',;•;.!;:..1"•tlf.,W;‘• '."...0-.i.)•c•.'(. ' -.;,q :,•1,-., ••-•4•,,,•44.):,- , rer..0,• •553,-,,N,,-, •••••••-, ‘i'e'L ...::": :'''''''15' .'''''• ,'''''''.••.'•'-'L'''.;:'•;:.'•:.::- ••.:,'':;:..:2''.1'..%,;•.'.:.,..1 :-,...,'.; •'..,.V....',$ ..J;;'•i,.,(..•'.'
s''•'-',
i.":: f•':•;.'-,':.•':;:::..'....;';':'iY'..ii.c.,''.-',.,,',.• 7..q,4‘"-P,',C ..-,;.;.;.'; ii'...!:. i '..'""',.....•• Iii,•' ., ,;'.:if '-,%•:•,;:,•, ..;;.... ,..,,,..
1? '.,;,,,... t.y.4.,•-..,,,,,, „,.,.:•••,,,...:,....;,...,...!;....,-..
s.,,..... ..,...?„.i-,..,',:, -e.,. ...111.• ''.: !,i.:0'"..,',',i..•:. N ..';;'.4J,•f':'::',. ..1;....:•.......;-',.:',i:•?•..•.:..'i>,,f2 !;..;.;;;':1, 'A'L:1-: ..c, i ',. .-i*A:t .....7.....•: 4ii-.i.:!..... • ',1.-. ..•.: .‘. c.. ;1,1.. •',': "':.”, '9 ."..:.. ."..-.....,: .,.•,., - '"':,.';',....!•'•'''‘,.,••.:
iti„j.,,.;.t.i.,•.i,,,`,4 'i,c.,..,..:..4,,,..••,. ‘..,X,,,,,,,-;i. .!;...•1::: ;•?..,,V.:..•;•,...lif,;,'':?••:;..•;::,.. ;.,',,,';':, •:•••1:.•.. .'.. ,„,. .! S..4 .-•,-': :.;••• il'''. -'1,04: •'''..';•:11:,•}1,,',";! p',4 :::::•,,;.••••:•.......•I.':'.;""i..•:•:': .••••:•.;
M i:•••::•'::.. :1•1:%'l'';'..
1:•-',f"fili:•'':.-:1,-1-(••;..,:'1,."..''...•-••.N. ,- '-:.••.is:'1, ;4 -4-gy ....•)fi..':',f-
4).ci. ,,...s-„g'..‘*.i..:.;:-.-, :w,...-4 ,?, .:•,:t;;t5r,,i.. :ii:....;',.; ...,,,.V :::..:."...:,, .-.....,,..;;•••!?., ..
i,.,:.;...,:ri.,,.,:0,,::,',...,,...-z,-....,. ..:•;;;••....n,'',..,...,.?..oi..1"1",,!.,....,,-..,,,...,,,:,:,.--.:.,;,,,;;;;.•,::::-,..,..,..,..-:•,,:.,...-.„;:;.J:-:; ,,3:,.,:?..,:::,,..,..-.......,,,...
1;•,:t''..-4.-,1;''s""-3:.;•:!..,',.;.;.F;;;;,.•?,,",-:.;•:;!...f.-!;•",4*-',.•.•,.;1;.•,•:.:
i...';';',.,:•!;;;,,',,`-..,',,..,...,',..;,..:.•,.;:,...,,,.•', ..., •-',:::•..:,•-:';.:....,yi;:,;.„,.•..::.".:'•.2„,&.:,.,..."•,;.',.:•••• .....,' ;:-..,.•.j-,.-:;•,..;.•...;„„:,,..:, ..,..,,...,,,,:v:•,;:,..;,..•?, .,,‘...-;."..,)..:,.:, ,;:,,„•:,,:,,,,..,..,....,....;e:...,:.,,
4;•.•:.7.,,...*....;,.•,,y,'•J.•..;‘.;:;,.:::(,:r....i•••;„?,::,•; ...!,(„•:,-.-••,,F:"..f...:',.i.ts"..;• !;•';''.'.'.'i.:". .."::.‘•'..t.•!,•.,;•,:':',.'".,,'. ;•''''.;••••'";•;-;•::''..'•,...:'`ks......'...:.;::•.',i':...;.:,..'''.:"...<',:::•.,.f•?„,•,'..;'...e.i...;::%•••.....'...z.':,•;'.:•,. :•::.:.':' •:i:‘';'.'
GENERAL;:;'
i'.'•..:..,i';...::::•.•.;••.•.•,-'i!..i!.-::•„.. ..,..,..:.,.....,::...,•:••.:,.. ;•.'..,......,...
LOCATION..,.?.,..!...,•!
z....
AN.,.,:.D 'OR..., .ADDRESS: .••,::.‘;P••• R' O-• .•P:••E•R•..T:Y. LOCATED-•O,•.•N
LAKEWASHINGTOR:BLVD BETWEEN S,E1. 76TH AND LAKE
J.'.--•.,-....•.:.,:'.•,.-.....-,.-.
WAS H I NGTON•••••••....., .• .,.....- ‘..s.•••••••
i••,.
BLVD '...N.:E...'n'
t'i'''...';-..f.•':':?'••••••-,,•::•••••••••••,--...A.. -•'•••••••••••' •••-•••••••••': -, ....".. -:••• •••• - • : ••••••••' :•-•'• • ; ' • . • ...... '. . '•
2••,,4••,--•:•••"-,•,•-•-•••••,•••.•,'1,......,,,,..:[. ...••••••••••_•••••••:.'.:•••,.: • ••, .....• ...• •;.• ••••••'••••:••••,•,•....' • • . • ''• . • • ' •. "•••'• . . . .; • ; .
LEGAL,.DESCRIPTION.-.:'.:::,';:••-f•,,f,•-• ,......,-••••••—• , ... . •....
LEGAb DESCRIPTION-.:ON.. FILE..• IN...THE:. RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT.,
j::::‘:. .,..,:•,.'...-............f?,.;•:---J...,..:,.......,•;;:,•:,.......,-,,,:::-....',.o.:•••••,...:...,,',..--:-.....:•.--:•.• .• . ..: •,- •. L... . .
4-.,•-•-f...-....:•:=::.,:.,...,,....;,;•....-.?...:','...:‘,....,...(....,-,-,,,A.•,:,:';,-,......:.;.',.,.,,,....• ...; .••' .- ...-• . . ,.:. ...:• - • . ... ..: .. .. • -.. . .• :.
1;...•::.1.:,.'2',•';•,',,..,.;:•:':,::.'i•:::•-i•,';'-,......::-
1.,../....I.:•'2.4.,.••:••;•.:. ,;•••••:•,--.1.,...,,,,..- •:••,:,, . ...,. . -......:'-• •••.•• . .. ,. ..:..•..; -. . • • ..... -., .•'.••. - .. ,.....,,, ,. , . •. :... :... , , •..••
7.,•:::•••;.:::.,....r,,.;.;;;:,.,••=•,....,,..r.,i. ,:....,..,....,,,,,,,,:,:.?.,3•:„:, .....;,..,.....,,,..) ::,,,,•:., ,••-.. .;. -.Q..]..„,..,,.:.:..',.:•,•••,;',.-,•••:•,....,::.1.,:•.-...,•... ..,...• • ,..••••,....:,.• .• -.., . ,. ,, .„ • • ••. . -.. ::: ..• .,...-.• ::. ‘•-•....• . .. • . '•,•• . . ,;.• •
f...y.......•:.:::::::..:..;;,,;,•,...,k...,...,;,•,..,.....•,.,.:.........,,!;••,•••••-;', :•,.),...g '.i.'!.,;,,y,..:,:.-•.,,.:,.,...;••.,........,.....:?,,... ......,;.,:.... .......,,:::,::•::.... ..:•,::.,,..;•......,•,,,,,•••.:..,.....'...,.:.,.........,;.:.,:..i......:....„ ..,' ..,..•• -•;•. ..,'',.;..,,,,.. :.•,..,..::....,-.. ...,•;:;,::::•::::..:,•.. ,.. '.....,,•••,.,•••,..."..:••,•!: ;••.,?'....',.;.'.C!j;..14•;;..',•[St...:F7;:,,.S.,,•"••..:•.• ::.f.,...-:„.. .;•,h,:,.....ici.:•,,!,,,..4-.'1,•••;;,',`.:,..!,:•,•;••,,,"•.;;::,.1.•'",.''','7‘.'•••;:qi';','!:','..';•"'; !'; '•'.."•.;:;•;',•:,','••••,.„.•,.,,i-:;',.,-j:..:.,..',,...:',,'',',...:.•,.„'••.,:.:;•.-,•:,,,••,,i.:•. '.•,,'•'. ..;'. ...1:,....;','; ;,....!..:•:.-.••: '.....•:',.:"•;', •, ,- ••;' .•;•.''•: ..•:'.':•••',••,r‘':'1.•:;:•'::;.
ri.„1:,;;;.,•.,p.;,....K.,,..,:....•,,....,..,;,;..". . ,,,,+;.:;;;F.i.i,,,:., ...:;... ..,,...'..,4.,.;;;;;,,,•;,,.",:t.••:•.'...::: .•;.:.•:•,:i..51',".`','•t,":,';'••"•!-....•••; -''''.••;;,..'4•','••,..,. ...'?'-'.••••:".....".:''.••`,„••q:.•.;;'; ••''-':',.',,';,"•,'"::•1......•:.'•,':."....-•••'••••.'•••'.'..••;•••••;':•:-• "..•..,•;••''.
1 2,'4'...',,.:,....,..,,,,':,••••• ..;',....,...,.•.':;.1.•':.''...-'.,'.;:'';'''.•.;;;
jfil..:,*'1X1,;•• •••;:!:..,4'..:,•':;. 4.1•,, '.• ,' :`:‘,.PV'' ,;"M4• 11'''"j':'::•;':'''•'.'1,,'':?..: :: •!;,:'`•;.'' '.• •••••'..:•..../•:•';',.1;'
2',...!::::',',!•.,..V:•;•!...''''''..'-': ',..
s.'.•':'..''''';.•....'''.:•:.-'••ri''•'•‘.1';•:::2:::''....':•;;'.../.....::'.J.,':'''''''
1'.•.r'',.'!"....:•......''''''••;':"'.....:
1::.'.••''"'' '''•::113.'..-‘,,.:'''''!•::::
i'"•14:;..y..cif,•;•?,q::;..,!.-i,.., :,;`,.V.,:,;:.•.:.::..,.....'.y .:,7.•;;•,,,';.•;',:i.." .'1.-;.;:jr::::;;;;;,...f.V.‘.2'.iKii')Cjii,:i:',....,!,:i...!'. / '',•2.:• • .!...":.1':'..,...• :,.'•:•,,C,•:',..,:,,,..;::::::',.!•.,'...;;;F.',,;;;•,-:,•,::',1•,...'!;:i..'.::::-.'••••.,• •'.:.,•';:...S...;'',',::•,....•;-,'....r.i',.V,!'".'...'" i!!•:•'.'. i•'.;,••"::..-'''......'":,'''......)',:...-t, '•:?''.',..::,?•••••:;-52./i.:'.'
is•i:•,'".•;;;',•;;;;.:'i•'',''K'P;::::,-,!-,1••••1.:•;4';,.:..c.'. .'•,.;•,...'!..";.?,:,';''', .'16V;•.1.:
i',..'..4' . ...'1:-•••:;:i'.".••'..,"::,f';'...fA•:?•: '•••:::::'.':','';'.:•:::?!....''i::11,.: •)E '•'...'.''..''C:.',..7•'‘-•:,...;'...-.•:;,;:•'• -'•• ''•'' . :'S'''''••'''": ,:':,: ,- ,'-'......,-•••••'. .....'": ". •••:,".........;;:".'•'''''...;'':''';''''''.
1.. ..,i'':.:
1,;.i',.....f..i.?;..:4:..*,.;::,‘.C..f,';';',1,';',:i.\,•'.:;,:;','::',..1•‘."••••..::.',.'•:?,:;!•;.r.•,Th..;,'."•:•',•:•....i. •...••••••1•''••-;'.(:-‘,• • ,.,- -'• ••• -
r.""•;••..".-.- IS •POSTED TO NOTIFY PROPERTY. OWNERS. OF • - .
i y ',...,.. .,,•,:i •-:..: ........, :- zi.,*,. • .,,,,,. .....• ,,,,, 1,!.. .,..,,, : ;:sii,. ..;1 . ••-,''•''....., '.'. ,;,•; :.';' tr.'' "';.• ,..A.:. Vila'5""Vi,„ '..'.?.. .: .:,..'.'':.":,.. ,: . ,,, .•;,
44k .'•:', .,.....'.;
7';. '
4: . ''•:,? ... '..C.i. '•'.'.Pgrj • '.... "-' '..' Xt., „.,',:' IA,,,..,., ,1,4,,. . ..,-,,,,7,‘:=- 4. :i'sf ,•— A.;;,..F.....r. ., .,".;,,,, : •.'At: •...'.4)"'.,,1 tc: '.,: ''.:,'' . %• .. '. ,,V•es''''''''j %);;;,'""•'."' .,', '1, St,",R, . .... ':::,. t,.. ...:t ,..;;,„. ' ..•;,7,.''-*.',`,:,."'',.:.'.,E'..i....'7...-': '• i -•:- .• 9.. ....• 5 k •-•••: ,• ••• : ..„ ''. •.!.. • ,.• ..,.., qr. ,ri.'• .:!,' .";•
TO BE HELD
IN • CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MUNICIPAL • BUILDING ' • ••: ..:-:: '...,. .
s•••
ON •• ';''NOVEMBER ,28,:••••1978 •.,. . . BEGINNING AT , • . 9:00 AM •. •••-i. 111 M H.: ..,:•::.f.......--.....
2••'........,,,•••i.,'••••••,..,•':,....-c.-:•.•,....:•,....,-,•\:... ,),?..,..,',...;•',.;.,... - . ',-,• ... . ...,.........,• ".• .....- ,.,,,...J •.,.-,-• • ..... .. ,.•••••i!. ;........•...,..;. •;-;:-:',',...-.., '....•'•.''.•'. ..'-',...,.•••;1,,...:'.,,.,,,.;:.',..,•,;,...,...!i..'•,.............-.•:;'.-.....,'.i.,..;.:...,;•,.:;•:•••••••••.•(. •• '••••••••'?-4.•'••-•... s'..................',...:...4:.:••,........;„:12:-.....,1,,,,,-,..••-•,..,..,::..,•,•,.:•.:. .........•..
4.‘,:'.•;•,..•....:. • ;,,:,,.. •-,,..,..:,: ••,..,, ......•,, ....,. .,.;.• ..,,:....,,,;;,...!;.......,•.,..•,•.', •:......,,...• ....,...•••,...--,•:',
CONCERNING ITEM
i'..
I" • • lor,,,.. V. • :,ii,,,. .,'„v • .. t "),.‘ ''' • '' ' — q 600 TO R-3 (HEARING EXAMINER TOA .7-7. E 4, „. : ,4,:.'' • G".——-.!
i
7.1• ...
RECONSIDER A P.P. LIC'.:.A...T.....:.I..-'.,..O N. )
1 ECI PER IT
t.. - .,s. ROVAL
riik• . .''.,., .•.
1. .• - .• • : - .
1, .: ' " : • •••••• • •
0... ..mwmr,
1.,...,!/:.',.:',.:ii?..:::::•:':.:;'i'..:;:-:,'',...,:,: .•:.:..‘ ••;•:',:'....•,....;:'''.:::•':.l'.. ....;;;',•:'.....! .si i..,:'...,......;•,.• . ,:,. ....,;;I:''':'.:••••,.`.. •',.'..,:,::.',,..',...;,,t'::::.•',"•'7::;.'.':.:•.:::;...';:(,.' 1::::.i. :'i•'''.:!',1:!,:.:::,::::
6:::..':;.:,...,:j,,....;:%.",:,'' ',..'.-L':.,,,........- -.'2............'. .•'.',.::.% :.:':•-':',::,1.,.....'.' 'ili.I.P.:%.:•'.....:: :,:...i.:.::.: .'...,'•:,;....::':.• ':,;:•.c'........ :••:::'.;:.:.:'.';:::::!.•','-''.....'...::.'..::'::... '.''',.......-'-''...1::'.::;:'f.:•:.. ..::::.''i:Y•'''':::'''''.:'sr C:::::1'.. ..:::.:::;:'•••::'''':::. ;41: .
2.',.-'.%, .7..••••:•J.".:''',:•::::::%:Y(...:'.:-..;.. ..."..:;...:'....... ...:',...., :'...'-..-..;...-.:;::::...,'...,:::::;.:.!;'.....:.,.7:•'.,?'•:',•„:•,.. ..:C..,',:':'..';'••."...j,.'.1.'..r;:i.''.'...:..11...":.1'..:::::'''''..•*.•';T:',`.,,,,'•••••,:•.:..%•:-;•':-''''.',''••...:''•-•.:, : '.'.'.•...,s•-•-'';','...f:.::1;:T:f:-V,';':-'.';'•'*:::•'.'''''.••••:',''''''''' ."--'...::.:'...,::•1':'''':11;'/;i::.:J:1
c.,:,.!...;.,,••••••.:,Y, ;•.:;?.... , ,., ,.-;.•••:, ,.'••..,., :,...-...•:'.5i1.,.....:•, .,;•14 ..Y.., ,.:..,....,;..!.,: ..,.••-,
I::•.-. , .: .••••'..;', •-'... ...--:!':','.' ' .:::,.:. ••.:',..',.:••'''• ir:• ',-;.::','',...,'.." ".-;.....'.:'•:'' .::.: ;': ''.:":;:i.':::'.'51;:.:4,
n1:::',:'.1..c,-.:..:::'::.:::::'..,..,':.::::-..: ....:.::::'.:;';'........,,.:., •,,'....:,3:.'...:•:. ,...:....:•-:".:://:':.:,'.....:::::'.::::;*•.:....',:):".....'f. :.;....:.::•::::::'..[:;;.....1...'.:::::::".`:•..;;.•:.',...,:,!.'......:::::;f:::: ......:"':.:..-. .":....'••••'•.
I:. ;.. .':':": i.:?.......1.::.'•;.......!::',;‘::::*:.:,•:,.::.:':':::::•;'.....:,..
Y..•,':',•ji'l,'.. ...'..e.,...','•::'..",r.';':.... ,.,. .,.:.!.::.',;:..'i,:,4;:;-•;,:•:....,.,',.......;?.‘1,...;.'...,::::';'',:;':'... .....:'4',.-'..1'..'11 ,;;.t:•:..;:::::::;;P.j.! :•'..:':V.:.'';'•::::'•'; ',11.:;;'.:!:%..:: '::.::•'.-:;:,•,;;•1.-::.:'-,',:/1-:... :::':.?:':;:....::':!:'-..:1:.:;.';;'...:i...'•.:;' :::::...';•'4..:: :, ...:.'::.....:::.i.::•:'," ..;',.';'..::';.:,•-''.''..:::.;.!.:::,'';'.;'i....z.',%`:...:',
4,. iPt,. •. ...4.:;'1Zi:%:;•:'::''':• ;':1.'' '24.1!'`1.''. ,-i't-: .;.•.; 1 ,., 4.:•...,...,6 .,,...:V..., .••::., ,,..i•3 „fr,, ;•::„.... .;.,,...-.4...,...:..ii.,. 3.:,,„:.•,,,,,,.,•,,,:,,,,i ,.,„•,..,.i.•,::::,, ,,,.....i.::,:•:::,.',....:.--,,...,...,-.,..•,.::1:i.i::„..,42,‘,,. •-:''.;•.,:.;' •'..-...,-$.•,, I.,•-,,•.:.•,......, .,,,, i .... ..",-- ---Ti.., , .. . . i •".. - !..,,„ ,,c,-,,,-...,,,,,;ieia,..,:•.,4••",.--,,,..-:..,., ,,...,,.- ,:•••.,,,,,:•,, ,,,,..,..,,,,-,,,11.,...?,•v,iti•'.!.'ii.,7,,,';'!....
il,.0,,..],".,•;i.ia..,j;•:vi,-,r3',..A''FOR,..•FURTHER!,..INFORMATION..:CALL 55()'v,'•‘'i'.,?..wl.r.,•,,
f,:.;•,‘•-' ,•,-..,,,,,,,,.::.,...,,i.?,..r,....,,,,,,,x1,-
f ,•,..,,,,,, -,.1.i.:*;•,ci,..,.,-...v.,-.....i-.......;';••:',./::•::,,,,:y...,....,. ;...,,.•... ,,.. ....,.. .:1,.... ,;,..;:',:.!. .•••,• . ,T , , ..-...-.....,••••...,- f^,.........7.,•,•!!!!!.1,,,..4".,,..,..,,,',..,,:‘,,,.m. ..,,,•?...,,,T3:1::.(,,'1;c:1,1 ::i:f h-•i.,, •:,:.;,t•it1:;,(?,:,;.,,!:4;v:i.,,,:,.-,,,,,i.:.,....-,•,..,-,.•:;‘ ,,•...!.,„;.,i........,,,..,,...,.,,:,w;:,...../.s.j.......•,W1,....v,!:•,','.;-$•,,!:,:.•:4,-.xot,?;.,.,1;s.ty,!,,,,..:,,,;:!..„?,.c:.,,,,.....:,tk,...'..,f.:.;:;..1 ..•...,t,..,,,.....:;.:::••••,?..,i......:„,,J....,,,,,%f!'•:.,•,.:•,,...,, :••,:...',,•!.....:1•,..J.;;; ;..?r,,..ii-...,.,..•,-5-•.f.„4,;,.);,.,„: .,,...,
r,•:;:?,,Ax.,,,,;:,,,,,,:cr.,12,,,...,,!,,,,s,,A..,..,e., ..w..,,,,,F.,,t
e.1:414,,,,:%;,:,kr.i....-q;.••;,::.'.....,:,-,1.';•:•,1,....j„,•:;,:..,...,•]• ;.4., .11.:•;.!,.t•,,:..f.:,r,•:•..1,::.:ik :W±'.•.;t.'.•:..•.....f.i„,..!.„::•.... ..r.-',-, ...;...* . :;,..' . ',•;.,. ..!.)•••,:•.:.•:),.',:.•1?.',:.';•!:;1';',. ..7,e,,...!..v.:?.:;,,•A'•;:o,..t.,••;!!.:,,:•'....-.,:;;..;',..-:!... .5),;••.....'.v.,..-:?;(.,•Allt.:01Pi;IS,'.',,NOTICE• 140T,;'?.•.-.,T, 0',:. r.',FIEWV.8).'..11VITTI1OLJI'PROPERIAUTI4ORIZiCTIOP1.(1,ft4W
k.4•7,4:-Y.41,:iii...,4'..4:'•141:ii:4'.•,;;;P• iiio.,:ffa....*•.,-Iiii.,13....icli..;;FA,.. ',,,,•, ,,:g::;....oka. .- . . . ..,K.;',..;E .:.,..•.1.,.:;.,..;;;::•.2.1).:„.,'‘,4•4-4,7',iii'.44:i.-',;1,....:.,:•;::..;..4.i=:T..,:,, y"..;•.:A.,..;-.]; `•'.;,i'lk.•.,.0.:•,.4',?i..iit.).g.;:v4..-1,:•...:)P.i!e,: ;•,*,,..0e,,,.?.. .!.-..::7,,.....t•ft:•.,,..4.,„:!,:„.,.... .:?i;.kjj,1•..t.firk.44,-.1..,t, ,,k4s. z.; ;.,';4'..A1-- fi'•;., ,;.',. .,,...P;i,F•11;.c.:.;...,,,krt,.?,•e.f'ig.-..,.?,i•;.,:: k•„ •,7,4,,,.;..•!,f,...,•• Pcfse,':.',!...'• ,:i!!...t.,i,g,-..,F,..yi.:.:.;,„;.,-.,•,,,,;i'.•.•.).,..:.0•,,:...',-;.'••,v,: '..:,:01,';'il.,,v.i..4•,•;•,:„4..,L6.•.,',,,tR.,,,,,,...;,,..v,,,,../p,11-,,',,,,:,, ril.,..14,...5,', :f.,-.7.,fN,.::;:c;.);.,1;:;.,::;!.,:.::!::•,;',.. .,... ...y;L:
5:;-!;:g1.#1:ijX:;:::', .:.,, ,,;;:fi,:v.S,:.!*,?:.1,i,.4.4.:OVt',I';',74.Z .,j•I''.e7,,i,;=::';?.1., :•f.:'.,..'•••'.!'"''''''..';';''' '',,,'1,.7-.'T'..'''...i.'.:•t:•.''''..';'•!',`'-'PT'',..?.''.':;:''..',....".'.-2c,,''';.`.•,•'''.•,'''..'.•.:.....'...'.. .,:.:31?f•.'.•.,",'i''.1.i.'.?..',.;':•.`1:•''.3,;;N.•,..r;::,•
r`.:',.:....jj i•,,Cs•.••!;.•
LIVENGOOD, SILVERNALE, CARTER & TJOSSEM
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
GORDON A. LIVENGOOD POST OFFICE BOX L
GRANT J. SILVERNALE, JR.1313 MARKET STREET
PHILIP L. CARTER
KIRKLAND,WASHINGTON 98033
12061 822-9281
ROBERT P.TJOSSEM
JOHN HALLOCK
10031 MAIN STREET
SCOTT W. WYATT
BOTHELL, WASHINGTON 98011
206)486-2707
GERALD L. BOPP
REPLY TO KIRKLAND 1 1
JAMES S. FITZGERALD
REPLY TO BOTHELL I 1
R. PAUL TJOSSEM
OF COUNSEL
November 2, 1978 RECEIVED
CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
N O V 21978
AM PM
L. Rick Beeler 718r911011111211121314,5,6
Land Use Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
Municipal Building
Renton, WA 98055
Re: Request for Reconsideration of Denial of Rezone
Application of May Creek Associates
Dear Mr. Beeler:
By this letter, May Creek Associates hereby formally requests
reconsideration of the decision rendered October 19, 1978, which denied
reclassification of the May Creek property.
Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the Renton City Code, we
respectfully submit that the decision of the Examiner was based on
errors of law, fact and in judgment as set forth below.
1. The Subject Reclassification was not
Specifically Considered at the Time of the Last Area
Land Use Analysis and Area Zoning
The subject site was annexed into the City on April 21, 1960. At
that time, it was zoned by the county as G-9600. When the City annexed
the property, it did not change the zoning classification. In fact,
the zoning designation has not changed since the property was annexed.
The City has never specifically considered the propriety of the zoning
classification until this application was made.
In 1965, Renton adopted a comprehensive plan. At the time of
adoption of the plan, no request had been made to rezone the subject
property. Thus, there was no specific consideration of reclassification
of the property at that time.
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 10 19 78 , AT 9 :00 A. M. TO CONSIDER
THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS:
1 . MAY CREEK ASSOCIATES , File R-217-78 , REZONE
FROM G-9600 TO R-3 ; property located on
Lake Washington Blvd . N . E . between S . E . 76th
and Lake Washington Blvd . N . E . Legal descrip-
tion on file in the Renton Planning Department .
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 10 , 1978 AT 9 :00 A.M. TO
EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS .
GORDON Y. ERICKSEN
PUBLISHED September 29 , 1978 RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR
CERTIFICATION
I ,.,_ . ' a,. ..
STFVF 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 ,
on the 27th day of September ,
19_78 SIGNED ; 74
4
pF R- }
0 THE CITY OF RENTON
z NA N , 8 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
011 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT
0 235-2550re
Tf0 SEPI":
3
September 26, 1978
May Creek Associates
P . 0. Box 622
Kirkland , Washington 98033
RE : NOTICE OF APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE
AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR APPLICATION
FOR REZONE FROM G-9600 TO R-3 ; property
located on Lake Washington Blvd . N . E.
between S . E . 76th and Lake Washington
BlvJ. N . E. , File No . R-217-78
Dear Sirs :
The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above
mentioned application on September 19 , 1978 . A publichearingbeforetheCityofRentonHearingExaminerhasbeen
set for October 10 , 1978 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 \irectorD'`
h
B y f a i('`1
avid-R.
k
Clemens
Associate Planner
cc : Frank R. Lindell
13240 Northup Way - Suite 6
Bellevue , WA 98005
Hazel M. Williams
4904 Lake Wash. Blvd . N . E .
Renton , WA 98055
2-
1. 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 ) :
Wing shanedLbuilding set into hill around egist4,ug—primatioPant knoll will
maximize views from individual units while minimizing impact on adjacent
properties. Building located on site to maximize utilization of land
and provide attractive structure to passing motorists.
8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal :
June 1980
9. List of all permits, licenses or government approvals required for the proposal
federal , state and local --including rezones) :
City of Renton Building Permit and Grading Permit
10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain:
No
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal? If yes, explain:
No
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:
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required)
1) Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures? X
YET— 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?
Y
g
FrATI
d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features? X
Yam— MAYBE TO—
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site? X
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?X
YES MAYBE 0-
Explanation: Intend to reduce high spot and fill in swamp area in
lower corner of property. Reduction of height will reduce obstruction
created by construction of buildings. Filling in of small swamp area
site.
fJ
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 0
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Pfi 1/1\h +®\
2978
FOR OFFICE' USE ONLY
r/
Application No. 211- /1 bEpt\
max=
Environmental Checklist No. - Er,F-3 2.-757
PROPOSED, date: FINAL, date:
Declaration of Significance Declaration of Significance
0 Declaration of Non-Significance O 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 MAY CREEK ASSOCIATES
2. Address and phone number of Proponent:
P.O. Box 622
Kirkland, Washington 98033
3. Date Checklist submitted September 6, 1978
4. Agency requiring Checklist City of Renton
5. Name of proposal , if applicable:
May Creek Condominiums
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) :
A 47 unit concrete and masonry building consisting of two levels of
flats and one level of townhouses in each of two wings. Structure to be
stepped into hill side and completed in two phases. Project will include
sitework, amenities and landscaping. Units will-be in the range of
100 square feet to 1700 square feet each. Amenities will include: club
room, sauna, swimming pool. Two parking spaces will be provided on
site for each unit.
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)? X
V! MAYBE NO
b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of fauna? X
YES MBE NO
c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area ,
or result in a barrier to the migration or movement X
of fauna?
VET— MAYBE NO
d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
X
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: Additional vehicular traffic due to increase in number
of residents in the area
7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or
glare? X
YES MAYBE WU—
Explanation: Some attractive lighting will be added near the vicinity
of the stiucture to illuminate parking lots and the building per a
8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the
present or planned land use of an area?X
YET— WEE NO
Explanation:
9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X
YES MAYBE NO
b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X
YES M YBE NO
Explanation:
10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation)
Xintheeventofanaccidentorupsetconditions?
YES MAYBE PTU—
Explanation:
11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri-
bution, density, or growth rate of the human population X
of an area?
YES MAYBE NU—
Explanation:Addition of condimium units will alter the number of
residents in the immediate area
3-
2) Air. Will the proposal result in:
a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality?
X
YES MAYBE NO
b) The creation of objectionable odors? X
TM MAYBE U.
c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature,
X
or any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
VET— MAYBE
Explanation:
3) Water. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of X
water movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
Y MAYBE NU
b) Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X
YET—
X
c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
YES MAYBE No
d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water X
body?
YES MAYBE NO
e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
surface water quality, including but not limited to X
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
YES MAYBE Wil—
f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters? X
t — MAYBE NO
g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through X
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, X
or other substances into the ground waters?
ES MAYBE AU
i ) ' Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available X
for public water supplies?VET— MAYBE AOl
Explanation: Portions of the site will be covered by buildings, or paved,
The resultant impervious areas will be drained, retained, .and discharged consistant
with present rates and amounts in accordance with City of Renton requirements.
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, X
microflora and aquatic plants)?
Y•EY— MAYBE Af
b) Reduction of the numbers of any, unique, rare or
X
endangered species of flora?
TEE— Mir wu—
c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or
in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing X
species?
Y MAYBE F(-
d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
X
V MAYBE W15— •
Explanation:
6-
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
YES MAYBE NO
e) Storm water drainage?
X
YES MAYBE NU—
f) Solid waste and disposal? X
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: Additional sewer and water lines have already been authorized
for installation in the area. Other utilities may require addition
in order to handle the increased number of residents.
17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of
any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
YES MAYBE Nx
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? X
YES MAYBENO
Explanation:
19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the
quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X
YES MAYBE NU—
Explanation:Increasing the number of residents in an area will
r
place an additional burden upon the recreational facilities.
20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an
alteration of a significant archeological or historical
site, structure, object or building? X
E- 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.
Proponen .
signe
FRANK R. LINDELL
name printed)
City of Renton
Planning Department
5-76
5-
r
12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or
create• a demand for additional housing? X
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? X
YES MAYBE .NO
b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand
for „new parking? X
YES M YBE NO
c) Impact/ upon exi•sti.ng transportation systems?
X
YE MAYBE NO—
d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation 'or X
movement of people and/or goods?
YEE- MATTE NO
e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? •
X
YES MAYBE NO
f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , X
bicyclists or pedestrians?
YET- MAYBE NO
Explanation: Addition of approximately 66 residences will increase the
vehicular movement when people occupy the units. As a result there
will likely be an increase in .traffic hazards
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? X
YES MAYBE N
b) Police protection? X
YES MAYBE NO
c) Schools? X
YES MAYBE ' NO
d) Parks or other recreational facilities?X
YES MAYBE NO
e) Maintenance of public facilities , including roads?
YES MAYBE NO
f) Other governmental services?
YES MARE NO
Explanation: Addition of 66 living units will cause a need to maintain ,
roads and other public facilities
15) Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X
YES MAYBE NO
b) D'emand upon existing' 'sources of energy, or require
the development of "new sources of energy? X
YET- MAYBE ITS
Explanation:
16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new
systems, or alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? X
YES MMY-BE NO
b) Communications systems?
YES MAYBE NO
c) Water?
X
YES MAYBE NO
AFFIDAVIT
J
ti,
gl'v
r `
fa"
h'z ! c Williams-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 day of aa, 102,
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing a L4
Name f Notary Public Sigture of Owner)
f-5.-tSLLIA iigey /ake Wash. tIvoia• (
Ad res ) Address)ss)
er,9-a-n Wash .
City) State)
2.26 -- i 73/
Telephone)
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me
and has been found to be thorough and complete in every particular and to
conform to the rules and regulations of the Renton Planning Department
governing the filing of such application .
Date Received 19 By:
Renton Planning Dept .
2-73
6CITYOFRENTON 2\i
1 ;. `
u _
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
0,REZONE APPLICATION
CEP n
LAND USE HEARING 1 T8
APPLICATION NO. r -...
yZ7"7 J'
EXAMINER 'S ACTION '
1
1'.
APPLICATION FEE $ 4 ;170 APPEAL FILED i„ A\ti/
RECEIPT NO.6.41.33 - C9-i9-71)Re CITY COUNCIL ACTION
UEPA
FILING DATE giffflt! 7g ORDINANCE NO. AND DATE
HEARING DATE
APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 :
1 . Name /°"/r S(2/ / Phone cCO
1 Address p }} 7! ('
r a z.z + 44-,I z 110-.1,A
boi . 9"go33
3. Property petitioned for rezoning is located on 1-Gr C RA/rS 1111UJ-'t 3%/ M
between , '/_ ;c
i.4 14.5andJa /61 )rr%sls/i'43 1,7ii B..ff/J /j, .5-
4 . Square footage or acreage of property /09 7 7/ 2 ..51).4.
1&ve9,. t<4.--,,v2Z.
5 . Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach aIseparatesheet) ,e M_ Sec 4 c TTU"V Z4- F g O
J
iv(24;2 g leof"(_t? I/1/7 S 4 iOf /
1
i, 617/Pawl
0i0-4 i0.,!/.7 ___-_-____-7
I
Existing Zoning gGOO -/}e Sje 424 Zoning Requested
1'
I vJOTETOAPPLICANT: The following factors are considered in reclassifying
property. Evidence or additional information to substantiate
your request, may be attached to this sheet. (See Application
Procedure Sheet for specific requirements . ) Submit this form
I in duplicate.
Proposed use of site
nn i
7r) fP t,%/ e J/i,{_,..0 ilT7
4
a/r/. Zrf5G % 1.54.j `F'/4, ,/p,1J //,. 'r
a 71/G% ' 4`kr 1 -isi OM
List the measures to be taken to reduce impact on the surrounding area.
I' 1
a 1i/ 47 .cif/r, 7 eiej'X°S /}..5 /i?SS//3,/G
f''• (3/
1
1 % l//`f,1
1 )3(' C/1,r/r )P P4.s. 'g/ 3 5/) 1_, '.14`/1)/ -/‹ i/-I I/ .1:v'2 2`' d'g'f lY '//%..,
t
I
A/i /4ct.. Uc/v1/t/ i /! 1
I .
How soon after the rezone is granted do you intend to develop the site?
14 ?i ii 3?ke _1,,6,, -2,0 t'.4-y- o itit7. ..P.Pie-i/ • 0 L'/-_S l7':'i 7/
51:::54,i/-71-/-o/iii/5, .-,-, A4, L. ,1,...Ly 0/ I i‘://_,.7-pi-7 4 72
Two copies of plot plan and affidavit of ownership are required.
I Planning Dept.
1-77
L. Rick Beeler
Page 2
November 2, 1978
2. The Proposed Rezone is Appropriate
According to the Goals and Policies
of the Comprehensive Plan
The 1965 comprehensive plan designated the subject property as
appropriate for medium density multi-family residential use, represented
by the symbol R-3. The definition of this classification per the
comprehensive plan is "an area intended for medium density/medium rise
residential uses such as apartments and.townhouses. " The 1965 designation
of this property as R-3 has continued through 1978. The Examiner
recognized in Finding Number 10 that the comprehensive plan indicates
the property to potentially be medium density multi-family and commercial.
In Finding Number 2, the Examiner incorporates by reference the preliminary
report by the Planning Department. The Planning Department in that
report states clearly at 0.1. that the proposed rezone is consistent
with the comprehensive plan map element which designates the site as
medium density multiple family and commercial.
The comprehensive plan, as revised August, 1976, makes the statement
that "the land use element of the comprehensive plan is an official
public document adopted by the City Council as a policy guide to decisions
regarding the physical development of the community. It indicates in a
general way what the people of the community consider as desirable
future land use development."
In Chrobuck v. Snohomish County, 78 Wn.2d 858, at page 72,
the court made the following statement:
Zoning merely for the benefit of one or a
few, or for the disadvantage to some and with no
substantial relationship to the public health,
safety, general welfare or morals, in conflict
with either the comprehensive zoning plan or
ordinance is arbitrary and capricious and unlawful.
Emphasis supplied. )
In State ex rel Standard Mining v. Auburn, 82 Wn.2d 32, at 330 (1973)
the court stated that ". . . it is, however, the plain import of the
statute, taken as a whole, that a city which adopts such a plan (comprehensive
plan) should be guided by it in its zoning regulations until it is
amended in the manner prescribed by statute or appeal." (Emphasis
supplied
The applicant respectfully submits that, in view of the importance
attached to comprehensive plans by the State Supreme Court and the
legislature, the recognized consistency of the proposed use to the
L. Rick Beeler
Page 3
November 2, 1978
designated comprehensive plan use should be a strong factor in reaching
a favorable decision on this application. It is an error in law and
judgnent by the Examiner to not give more weight to the comprehensive
plan in his decision.
The efficacy of the proposed use of the subject property was
demonstrated as far back as the 1965 comprehensive plan. In the policy
statement report, adopted by Ordinance No. 2204, the statement is made
several new concepts such as the condominium (inherited from the
ancient Romans) planned unit developments, cluster subdivisions, and
townhouses on the green, are now in experimental stages in the Puget
Sound area, and are expected to gain in importance and public acceptance."
1965 Land Use Report, at page 15.
In medium and high density residential use districts, the proximity
to major employment centers, shopping districts, financial districts,
and the office centers is important, as is convenient access to major
arterials and highwa s." (Emphasis supplied. ) Since the May Creek
interchange of FAI is immediately adjacent to the subject property,
a medium density zoning is entirely appropriate and consistent with
this segment of the Comprehensive Land Use Report. Furthermore, to
the south and southwest there is significant commercial and industrial
use providing employment to the area residents, as will be more fully
discussed below. Thus, the proposed use of the subject property
appears even more apropos.
3. Significant Circumstances and Changes
Have Impacted the Property Since the last Land
Use Analysis and Area Zoning
As stated above, when this property was annexed by the City of
Renton, it retained its original county zoning of G-9600. Several
parcels in the immediate vicinity, when annexed, also came in with a G
classification._ In 1969, parcels 184 and 193 were reclassified from G-
9600 to B-1 by Ordinance No. 2487. In 1970, parcel 185 was reclassified
from G-9600 to B-1. Those parcels are..to the immediate south of the
subject property.
Across the freeway, in 1966, the strip of land where the Misty
Cove Apartments now sits was rezoned from G-6000 to R-4. The property
immediately south of the Misty Cove Apartments was apparently annexed
at its present zoning of H-1, or heavy industrial.
It is evident that these zoning changes that have taken place in
the past are entirely consistent with the comprehensive plan. They
also indicate the changing nature of the area.
L. Rick Beeler
Page 4
November 2, 1978
A physical inspection of the subject property and its immediate
vicinity provides ample evidence that the development' of the area
indicates sufficient pressure and circumstances to change the existing
land use and zoning. Examiner finding number indicates that all
existing utilities are available and in close proximity, except sanitary
sewer, which will be installed approximately December, 1978. Installation
of sanitary sewer facilities is considered a significant change to
property for purposes of a rezone.. Also, Washington Natural Gas was
installing a gas main on Southeast 76th, the southern border road of
the subject property. Both of these changes will have an impact on how
the property is used in the future.
Even more important, Lake Washington Boulevard is currently
scheduled under the 6-year transportation improvement program of 1979
to 1984 to be improved. Improvements include drainage; paving, curb,
sidewalk, illumination and channelization. This is a significant
change which should help to eliminate any potential traffic problems
caused by any increase of residents in the area.
On property immediately to the northeast of the subject property,
there is a dozing, excavating and dump truck hauling business currently
being operated. This property is zoned G-9600. A conversation with
the owner of that property indicated that there was no substantial
opposition to the proposed reclassification of the subject property by
neighbors in the immediate vicinity.
South of Northeast 44th Street, a large steel building is presently
being erected. Across the freeway, immediately west_ of the subject
property, is a large log processing operation. To the north of those
commercial operations, there is a large apartment building. Standing
on the subject property at most hours of the day indicate substantial
freeway noise from FAI 405.
It is submitted that the proposed use of the subject property
would be entirely beneficial to those currently residing in the few
existing single family residences to the east and northeast. A condominium
project would provide an excellent transitional barrier to the commercial
uses presently on property to the south and west. It would provide a
buffer of noise to the residents, have minimal environmental impact,
and be vastly more esthetically pleasing than any possible commercial
use. The topography indicates steep hills, so there is virtually no
chance that any views of the residences on the hillside would be
affected.
L. Rick Beeler
Page 5
November 2, 1978
It is interesting to note that Mayor Avery Garrett and the City of
Renton proposed on April 30, 1970, that the property immediately to the
west where log processing operations are currently occurring, would be
an excellent location for a convention center, hotel, motel and marina
complex. See Renton's Community Profile and Proposed Projects, April,
1970, Project P-9. While the present status of this project is unknown
by the applicant, it is evident that this attitude towards development
in the area would be highly favorable to the proposed use of the
subject property.
On October 21, 1968, by Ordinance No. 2439, the comprehensive plan
for the North' Kennydale lakefront vicinity', to the west of the subject
property, was amended from medium:density multiple family use to heavy
industrial use. In April, 1977, by Ordinance No. 3126, the Renton City
Council amended the comprehensive plan for the area abutting Ripley
Lane located north of the Misty. Cove Apartments and' extending to the
northerly city limits. The comprehensive plan was changed from a
medium density 'multi-family-designation to a low density multi-family
designation for the apartment property and a portion' just,'north of the
apartment property, and the balance was changed to single family
residential. In a December 3, 1976, memorandum from the Land Use
Committee to the Planning Commission, the Committee' stated "A buffer or
transitional use between the apartment and the single family development
that is' proposed seemed in order." The above changes provide additional
significant support for the applicant's proposed reclassification.
There has been a decrease in R-3 'property in the vicinity, but an
increase in commercial and industrial use. Designation of the subject
property to R-3 would provide a buffer or transitional use zone between
the commercial and industrial use and the single family residents to
the east and northeast.
A significant change that has occurred in the county in the last
few years is a serious shortage of affordable housing. Developments
such as the May Creek Condominiums have the effect of alleviating the
housing shortage in an effective and attractive manner.
It is evident from the above facts and analysis that there should
not be any significant issueof timing in this proposed rezone. Signi-
ficant changes have occurred all-around the property, and continue to
occur. The proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive plan, and
would provide an' excellent'baffer or transition zone from the commercial
and industrial developments to the south and west. It is highly
unlikely that single family residences of any quality would be built on
the subject property; considering the 'development' of the immediate
vicinity over'the past years. The noise level can' be very disturbing
L. Rick Beeler
Page 6
November 2, 1978
at times. However, condominium units have been built in similar
locations, and shown to be largely successful, even when single family
residences would not be. The single family residences in the area for
the most part are set back further from the freeway, or have a buffer
of trees so as to reduce the impact of the noise and industrial property
uses. The subject property does not have this advantage. A condominium
development would be entirely appropriate on this type of parcel at
this time. The design, landscaping and amenities of a condominium
development will all serve to enhance the property values in the area
rather than detract. These same features can and will be designed so
as to reduce the weight that might be given by the Hearing Examiner to
objections made by some of the surrounding neighbors.
It is important to note that while an R-3 designation would allow
a gross density of 75 units on the subject site, the plan is only to
construct a maximum of 50 such units.
It is also important to note that the May Creek rezone application
was approved by every single other City department.
It is respectfully submitted that the proposed use of the property
would meet the following community goals and objectives:
1. Prevent blight by protecting residential and other
exclusive districts from the unwarranted infiltration of in-
compatible uses which would contribute to premature decay and
obsolescence, and prevent the development of orderly growth
patterns.
2. Increase community livability by improving environmental
factors which are closely related to the residential districts in
other community areas.
3. Protect property values within the community for the
benefit of its residents and property owners., through the effec-
tive control of land use and the enforcement and application of
building and construction codes.
4. Promote the development of a viable, progressive com-
munity which provides ample opportunity for citizen participation
in a broad spectrum of economic opportunities, social achievements,
educational attainments., physical development, and political
activites.
L. Rick Beeler
Page 7
November 2, 1978
5. Encourage the development and utilization of land to its
highest and best use in such a way as to promote the best interest
of the community and contribute to its overall attractiveness and
desirability as a place in which to 'work, shop; live and play.
See Objectives 1 through 6, Land Use Report, pages 17 and 18 (1965).
As demonstrated above, requiring the applicants to wait for rezones
of the immediately adjacent property would be unreasonable, arbitrary,
and capricious, particularly when considering the rapidly escalating
costs of construction. The proposed use of the property is beneficial
to the community.
For all of the above reasons, applicants respectfully request that
upon reconsideration of this application, the Hearing Examiner grant
the request for reclassification of the subject property.
Very truly yours,
L giGOOD, SILVERNALE,
CA'I nr & TJOSSEM
c - *.e-eligOZ,
FitzgeraldPhilipL. rter & James S. Fitz g
Attorneys for Applicants
PLC:JSF: :seg
RECEIVED
CITY O EXAMINERHEARADDENDUM
AM
DEG 51978
PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7,8i9,PO,pI,` L^ (" P d
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER
RECONSIDERATION PUBLIC HEARING
NOVEMBER 28 , 1978
APPLICANT : MAY CREEK ASSOCIATES
E
FILE NUMBER : R-217-78
ITEM NO.
A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST :
May Creek Associates has requested reconsideration of the
Hearing Examiner ' s action to deny a requested rezone from
G 9600 to R-3 Multiple Family.
B . GENERAL INFORMATION :
1 . Owner of Record : Hazel M. Williams
2 . Applicant :May Creek Associates
3 . Location : On Lake Washington Blvd N . E .
adjacent to and north of S . E.
76th Street .
4. Legal Dscription : A detailed legal description
is available on file in the
Renton Planning Department .
5 . Size of Property: 109 , 771 square feet or 2 . 52
acres .
6 . Access : Via S . E . 76th Street and Lake
Washington Blvd . N . E .
7 . Existing Zoning : G-9600 , Residential Single
Family
8 . Existing Zoning in the Area : G-6000 , Residence Single
Family ; B- 1 , Business Use ; R-4 ,
Residence Multiple Family ; H- 1 ,
Heavy Industrial
9 . Comprehensive Land Use Plan : Medium Density Multiple Family ,
Commercial
10 . Notification : The applicant was notified in
writing of the hearing date .
Notice was properly published in
the Record Chroncile and posted i
three placed on or near the site
as required by city ordinance .
C . PURPOSE :
The purpose of the request is to reconsider the Hearing
Examiner ' s action of denial of this rezone R-217-78 following a
public hearing on the matter on October 10 , 1978 .
D. HISTORY :
The subject site was annexed into the City by Ordinance #1823
dated April 21 , 1960 . The G-9600 zoning was carried from the
same classification in King County . A public hearing was held
on R-217-78 to rezone the subject site to R-3 . On October
19 , 1978 , the Hearing Examiner issued his Report and Recommendation
of Denial of R-217-78. On November 2 , 1978 , attorneys for the
ADDENDUM, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER
RECONSIDERATION PUBLIC HEARING : MAY CREEK ASSOCIATES , FILE NO : R-217-78
NOVEMBER 28 , 1978
PAGE TWO
applicant filed a request for reconsideration including
documentation to be considered . On November 7 , 1978 , the
Examiner determined to hold a public hearing to reconsider
this application R-217-78 on November 28 , 1978.
E . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION :
On October 6 , 1978, a declaration of non-significance was
issued for this project with the following stipulation :
This declaration is based on further environmental review
at the time of site development , reduction in site density ,
retention of significant natural features of the site , provision
of adequate buffers and site landscaping and screening , together
with other developmental controls . " (emphasis added )
The subject declaration of non-significance was predicated
upon the staff recommendation that the rezoning be to SR-1
or R-2 with conditions to mitigate environmental impacts of
the property, and fulfill objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan (Staff Report , page 5 , Section P ) . This consideration was
noted in the Examiner' s Report (Findings . paragraph 3) which
states , in part, that a rezone to R-3 would probably require
an Environmental Impact Statement .
Further consideration of the Environmental Checklist and review
Of facts contained in the applicant ' s request for reconsideration
has led this department to determine that an EIS will undoubtedly
be required if a rezoning to R-3 is recommended by the
Examiner. This determination is based upon , but not necessarily
limited to :
1 . Growth inducing impacts of a use of this intensity in an
area developed only sparsely with scattered single family
homes .
2 . Potential adverse traffic impacts in the area in light
of the lack of full street improvements for Lake Washington
Blvd . in the subject area , and none are expected for between
4 and 6 years ( Examiner ' s Report , Findings , paragraph 9 ) and
dependent upon available funding . Further, no plans are
proposed for improvement of other streets providing access
to community facilities such as schools .
3 . Adverse land use impacts of a use of this intensity
introduced into this sparsely developed area .
4 . Noise impacts of FA1 -405 and Lake Washington Blvd . along
with the necessary mitigation .
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS :
1 . In the applicant ' s request for reconsideration ,
considerable emphasis was given to the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map identifying the subject site as potentially
suitable for multiple family. It should be noted that ,
first, the Comprehensive Plan is a "generalized" document,
and further , that the Plan consists of both a map document
and goals , policies and objectives contained elsewhere which
must be given equal weight in the consideration of any specific
rezoning application .
2 . The original Planning Department analysis demonstrated a need
for conditions to be applied to this rezoning to insure
protection of nearby single family uses and was not contested
ADDENDUM , PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER
RECONSIDERATION PUBLIC HEARING : MAY CREEK ASSOCIATES , FILE NO . R-217-78
NOVEMBER 28 , 1978
PAGE THREE
in the original public hearing. .The applicant ' s request
for reconsideration fails to address these concerns .
3. On page 3 , paragraph 3 of the applicant ' s request for
reconsideration , the applicant places considerable
emphasis upon access from the site to FAI-405 . The Com-
prehensive Plan Statement : " In medium and high density
residential use district , the proximity to major employ-
ment centers , shopping district , financial districts , .
and the office centers is important , as is convenient
access to major arterials and highways , " this statement
places equal emphasis to five criteria . Shopping dis-
tricts , financial districts , and office centers clearly
are not in evidence in the vicinity , but are in fact
located a minimum of two to four air miles to the south .
4. In the applicant ' s analysis of "significant circumstances
and change" , a number of rezonings , and comprehensive plan
changes are identified. Further, a comment from Mayor Avery
Garrett indicating proposed uses of the Barbee Mill area
for intensive commercial activity is identified . Even with
these items in evidence, only minimal development has
occurred in the actual area of the subject site, and all
such physical development has been in the form of single
family homes .
5 . The appliiant concludes that the proposed R-3 development
meets the following objectives of the Comprehensive Plan :
1 ) Prevent blight by protecting residential and
other exclusive districts from the unwarranted
infiltration of incompatible uses which would
contribute to premature decay and obsolescence ,
a.nd prevent the development of orderly growth patterns .
2 ) Increase community livability by improving
environmental factors which are closely related to
the residential districts in other community areas .
3) Protect property values within the community for the
benefit of its residents and property owners , through
the effective control of land use and the enforcement
and application of building and construction codes .
4 ) Promote the development of viable , progressive community
which provides ample opportunity for citizen participation
in a broad spectrum of economic opportunities , social
achievements , educational attainments , physical
development , and political activities .
5 ) Encourage the development and utilization of land
to its highest and best use in such a way as to promote
the best interest of the community and contribute to its
overall attractiveness and desirability as a place in which
to work , shop , live and play .
The Planning Department in its analysis finds :
a ) That the proposed use ( R-3 Multiple Family )
introduced at this time into an undeveloped
and scattered single family neighborhood
constitutes in itself an " incompatible use , "
adversely impacting orderly growth .
PLANNING DEPARTMENT , ADDENDUM
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER
RECONSIDERATION PUBLIC HEARING ; MAY CREEK ASSOCIATES , FILE NO : R-217-78
NOVEMBER 28 , 1978
PAGE FOUR
b) Such an intrusion without_ specific develop--
ment controls would clearly have a signifi -
cant adverse effect upon the environment
and neighborhood .
c ) An adverse environmental impact upon the
neighborhood is expected to adversely
affect property values , and deter the
neighborhood from achieving the physical
and social amenities envisioned by the
Comprehensive Plan . These conclusions
are drawn from the overall potential
development impact allowable on the subject
site (75± dwelling units ) . The applicant
desires to introduce a less intensive use ,
at this time . The proposed site development
is now, however , an issue of this rezoning
hearing and the applicant is not bound to
any development plan by approval of the
requested rezoning . Thus any discussion
must address the most intensive land use
condition .
6. At least two previous rezoning applications at other
locations but under similar circumstances evaluated
in a similar fashion to number three above . Both of
the following applications were for the introduction
of intensive uses in lightly developed neighborhoods .
The following are excerpts (typed in italics ) from
R-050-77 and R-114-77 :
R-050-77 : G (SINGLE FAMILY ) TO R-3 (MULTIPLE
FAMILY ) ; NORTH SIDE OF N . E . 4TH , 800 FEET EAST
OF UNION AVENUE
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates
some justification for the change of land use,
but the Map is ' a general design for future
growth' and the policies must be applied (p. 2,
Comprehensive Plan) .
According to the Comprehensive Plan , page 9,
the City is to utilize land use principles to
promote the coordinated development of undevel-
oped areas . ' The neighborhood of the subject
property is essentially rural in character and
not developed to the density allowed by zoning.
Several parcels remain undeveloped, some of
which have been previously rezoned to R-3 . These
characteristics indicate that the principle of
timing, a fundamental of land use planning, must
be applied to this rezone application .
The existence of two parcels of already zoned
R-3 property which have yet to be developed pro-
vides a strong indication that the timing of the
subject application is premature and that multi-
family development is not yet feasible/marketable
for the immediate neighborhood. As witnessed by
existing development , it appears that higher density
single family is somewhat premature as well . However,
given possible changes in the development picture at
some future time, the timing of development of the
property may become more favorable .
In terms of the Objectives of the Land Use Report,
Objective number 1 requires protection of residential
PLANNING DEPARTMENT , APDENDUM
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER
RECONSIDERATION PUBLIC HEARING : MAY CREEK ASSOCIATES , FILE N . R-217-78
NOVEMBER 28 , 1978
PAGE FIVE
districts from incompatible uses . It seems that
the proposed medium density multifamily would
require buffering adjacent to the existing low
density single family.
Objective number 4 specifies protection of
property values. The proposed R-3 zoning category
will raise the property value of the subject parcels ,
but may not so favorably impact the values of adja-
cent parcels. A scaling down of land use intensity
of other adequate buffering techniques would be
needed.
Objective number 6 requires development of land to
its ° highest and best use. " In this case , R-3 is
probably the highest intensity of land use accept-
able in this area.
However, R-3 appears to be less than the best use
owning to existing development, the timing of the
proposal , and the need for a scaling down of land
use intensity .
Therefore, while the application specifically con-
forms to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and
generally conforms to the Comprehensive Plan poli-
cies which would seem to require scaling down of
the proposal for buffering purposes, the proposal
is premature in terms of timing for the existing
neighborhood. As the area continues to develop,
including access and utilities, it is very probable
that the timing will become more favorable for a
reclassification to multi-family at least along a
portion abutting N.E. 4th Street.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based upon the record, findings and conclusions,
it is recommended that the rezone application be
denied. "
The Examiner ' s records indicate no appeal was requested ,
and the Examiner ' s action was final .
R- 114-77 : G (SINGLE FAMILY ) TO R-2 ( LOW DENSITY
MULTIPLE FAMILY ) , NORTHWEST CORNER OF SUNSET
BOULEVARD WEST AND 81ST AVENUE SOUTH
5. Two considerations of the Comprehensive Plan
would 'indicate that the proposed rezone which con-
stitutes an island within a single family area should
receive the area zoning and land use analysis . The
change in land use should be an ' . . . orderly and
well planned use of the land within and adjacent to
the City. ' (Page 1 , Comprehensive Plan , Renton
Urban Area, July, 1965) . The proposal should
represent ° . . . coordinated development of unde-
veloped area . ' (Ibid, Page 9. ) It is difficult
to find that the proposal meets these two guidelines
of the Comprehensive Plan .
6. A reclassification to R-1 would meet the density
guideline of six units per acre (ibid, page 5) and
be more compatible with the existing residential
neighborhood. (Objective No. 1 , Comprehensive Plan,
Land Use Report, July, 1965, Page 17) . R-2 would
be less protection of the property values within the
community , but would be of disproportionate benefit
PLANNING DEPARTMENT , ADDENDUM
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER
RECONSIDERATION PUBLIC HEARING : MAY CREEK ASSOCIATES , FILE NO . R-217-78
NOVEMBER 28 , 1978
PAGE SIX
solely to the applicant (Ibid, page 17, Objective No.
4) . On the other hand, R-1 would be' preserving and
continuing the residential community.
The rezone to R-2 represents a "higher" use of the
property than currently allowed under G zoning;
however, it was not shown that this would be in the
best interest of or contributary to the community
Ibid, page 18, Objective No. 6) . Clearly, the
interest of the individual property owner/applicant
has been demonstrated, but the best interests of the
community in general would seem to be served by a
reclassification to R-1 .
RECOMMENDATION:
Based upon the record, testimony, findings and con
clusions, it is the recommendation of the Examiner
that the City Council approve a reclassification of
the subject property from G to R-1 . Such reclassi-
fication would be in the best interests of the com-
munity and public health, safety and welfare and in
the most conformance with the Comprehensive Plan . "
The Examiner ' s record indicates that no appeal was
filed , and the City Council adopted the recommended
zoning .
G . PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION :
Based upon the foregoing analysis , the Planning Department
recommends , as it did at the initial hearing , a rezoning
to SR- 1 , Suburban Residence , or R-2 , Low Density Multiple
Family subject to conditions to be established as restric-
tive covenants which will serve to mitigate environmental
impacts of the property and fulfill the objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan :
1 . Site development approval by special permit.
2 . Specific site development plans including site plan ,
landscaping plan , building elevation design , utilities
plan .
3 . Parking , circulation , and access shall be reviewed
and approved by the Hearing Examiner.
The applicant ' s letter requesting reconsideration is
attached .
R'
1'
y EN®LIVDOD. aILVERNALE. CARTER A TJOi11EM
c THE CITY OF F$ENTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P' Z
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE SO. RENTON.WASH.98055 GO•GOM A Ur[r 0000
e.6ca`
1 CHARLES J DELAURENTI,MAYOR ® LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER c• ,• a' •"'r°•"^
IO66 Cr r,•6r•66••a•,
L. RICK BEELER, 235-2593 O.' 1O°°a• r•rr
6
COTT r..TATT
r
age,•ba1o ••G,r
SE PS n6•A.,o 4. •oor
A0.1p 6 Trtt,. TO a.•al•ro.r
November 7, 1978 o66cr
i6
Of ce.rc..
Mr. Philip L. Carter
Attorney at Law
0 O. Box L November 2, 1978 RECEIVED
rkland, WA 98033 CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
RE: File No. R-217-78; May Creek Associates Request for Rezone. NOV 2 1978
AM PM
Dear Mr. Carter: Rick Beeler d1$19110.1111111121314w16
Land Use Hearing Examiner
Pursuant to your request for reconsideration, dated November 2, 1978, City of Renton
I am reopening the public hearing on this application in order to take Municipal Building
additional testimony. The information you supplied should be made a Renton, WA 98055
part of the record, and the opportunity allowed for comment and/or
rebuttal by staff and/or other interested parties. Re: Request for Reconsideration of Denial of Rezone
Application of May Creek Associates
The public hearing will reconvene at 9:00 a.m. on November 28, 1978
in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Dear Mr. Beeler:
Respec" ul,_, By this letter, May Creek Associates hereby formally requests
reconsideration of the decision rendered October 19, 1978, which denied
1 reclassification of the May Creek property.
IN: --r ",
Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the Renton City Code, we
L. Rick Beeler respectfully submit that the decision of the Examiner was based on
Hearing Examiner errors of law, fact and in jud gment as set forth below.
cc:
May
Creek Associates 1. The Subject Reclassification was not
avid Clemens, Associate Planner Specifically Considered at the Time of the Last Area
Parties of Record Land Use Analysis and Area ZonirXpt
The subject site was annexed into the City on April 21, 1960. At
f that time, it was zoned by the county as 0-9600. When the City annexed
t.:the property, it-did not change the zoning classification. In fact,
IIJ
v 2 . the zoning designation has not changed since the property was annexed.
The City has never specifically considered the propriety of the zoningjiclassificationuntilthisapplicationwasmade.
r
In 1965, Renton adopted a comprehensive plan. At the time of
adoption of the plan, no request had been made to rezone the subjectr: ^=-j°'F, roperty. Thus, there was no specific consideration of reclassification
f the property at that time.
L.ru=f. Beeler Rick heeler
Fade _ Page 3
ov=-:er 2, 197E Sovember 2, 1978
2. e Proposed Rezone is Appropriate designated comprehensive plan use should be a strong factor in reaching
a favorable decision on this application. It is an error in law andAccordingtotheGoalsandPolicies
Judgment by the Examiner to not give more weight to the comprehensivecftheComprehensivePlan
plan in his decision.
The 1965 comprehensive plan designated the subject property as The efficacy of the proposed use of the subject property wasappropriateformediumdensitymulti-family residential use, represented demonstrated as far back as the'1965 comprehensive plan. In the policyeethesymbolR-3. The definition.of this classification per the
statement report, adopted by Ordinance No. 2204, the statement is mademprehensiveplanis "an area intended for medium density/medium rise several new concepts such as the condominium (inherited from thesidentialusessuchasapartmentsandtownhouses. The 1965 designation ancient Romans) planned unit developments, cluster subdivisions, andofthispropertyasR-3 has continued through 1978. The Examiner
townhouses on the green, are now in experimental stages in the PugetrecognizedinFindingNumber10.that the comprehensive plan indicates Sound area,.and are expected togain inthepropertytopotentiallybemediumdensitymulti-family and commercial. importance and public acceptance."
In Finding1965 Land Use Report, at page 15.Number 2, the Examiner incorporates by reference the preliminaryreportbythePlanningDepartment. .The Planning Department in that
In medium and high density residential use districts, the proximityreportstatesclearlyat0.1. that the proposed rezone is consistent to major e to shopping districts, financial districts,with the comprehensive plan map element which des employment centers,agnates the site as
and the office centers is important, as is convenient access to majorradiumdensitymultiplefamilyandcommercial,
arterials and hi s." (&.phasis supplied.) Since the May Creek
The comprehensive plan, as revised August, 1976, makes the statement
interchange of F is immediately adjacent to the subject property,
a medium densityf zoning is entirely appropriate and consistent withthat "the land use element of the comprehensive plan is an official this segment of the Comprehensive Land Use Report. Furthermore, topublicdocumentadoptedbythe.City Council as a policy guide to decisions the south and southwest there is significant commercial and industrialregardingthe_physical development of the community. It indicates in a use providingemploymentgeneralwaywhatthepeopleofthecommunityconsiderasdesirableyment to the area residents, as will be more fully
future land use development." discussed below. Thus, the proposed use of the subject property
appears even more apropos.
In Chrobuck v. Snohomish County, 78 Wn.2d 858, at page 72, 3. Significant Circumstances and Changesthecourtmadethefollowingstatement:
Have Impacted the Property Since the last Land
Zoning merely for the benefit of one or a Use Analysis and Area Zoning
few, or for the disadvantage to some and with no
As stated above, when this property was annexed by the City ofsubstantialrelationshiptothepublichealth,
Renton, it retained its original county zoning of-G-9600. Severalsafety, general welfare or morals, in conflict
parcels in the immediate vicinity, when annexed, also came in with a Gwitheitherthecomprehensivezoningplanor
classification. In 1969, parcels 184 and 193 were reclassified from G-ordinance is arbitrary and capricious and unlawful.
9600 to B-1 by Ordinance No. 2487. In 1970, parcel 185 was reclassifiedemphasissupplied.)
from G-9600 to B-1. Those parcels are to the immediate south of the
Ln State ex rel Standard Mining v. Auburn, 82 Wn.2d 2 at subject property.3 330 (1973)the court stated•th—a.t . . it is, however, the plain import of the
Across the freeway, in 1966, the strip of land where the Mistystatute, taken as a whole, that a city which adopts such a plan (comprehensive Cove Apartments now sits was rezoned from G-6000 to R-4. The propertyplan) should be guided by it in its zoning regulations until it is
immediately south of the Misty Cove Apartments was apparently annexedamendedinthemannerprescribedbystatuteorappeal."—emphasis
at its present zoning of H-1, or heavy industrial.supplied
The applicant respectfully submits that, in view of the importance It is evident that these zoning changes that have taken place in
attached to comprehensive Plans-by the State Supreme Court and the als pi are entirelyt ginginatur withf the comprehensive plan. They
legislature, the recognized consistenc of thealso indicate the changing nature of the area.gal- y proposed use to the
r
r'+,
L. - Beeler FickBeeler
Pace Page
ove:l . _, ly;: November 2, 1975
It is interesting to note that Mayor Avery Garrett and the City ofAphysicalinspectionoftheaubje:t prop•rty and its ins diate
Renton proposed on April 30, 1970, that the property immediately to thevicinityprovidesampleevidencethatthedee'c :rent of the area west where logprocessingindicatessufficientpressureand •:its ;stars.. to change the existinglocation for
operations are currently occurring, would belanduseandficianexcellentforaconventioncenter, hotel, motel and marinazoning. Examiner finding number :: indicates that all complex. See Renton's Camunity Profile and Proposed Projects, April,existing utilities arm available and in close proximity, except sanitarysewer, which will be Installed approximately December, 1978. Installation
7t, Project Pt While the present status of this project is unknownnr
sanitary sewer facilities'is considered a significant change to
by theh applicant,
aw ite is evidenty thatb this attitude towards development
operty for purposes of a rezone. Also, Washingtonin the area would be highly favorable to the proposed use of the
stalling a s Hair on Southeast 76th, the southern border road ofsubject property.
the subject property. Roth of the.ie changes will have an impact on how
On October 21, 1968, by Ordinance No. 2439 the' comprehensive planthepropertyisusedinthefuture.'
for the North Kennydale lakefront vicinity, to the westt ooff the subject
Even more important, Lake Washington Boulevard is currently property, was amended from medium density multiple family use to heavyscheduled•
E
under the 6-yearns, k Washington improvement i 1979industrial use. In April, 1977, by Ordinance No. 3126, the Renton Cityprogramof
Council amended the comprehensive plan for the area abutting Ripleytc1984tobeimproved. Improvements include drainage, paving, curb,
Lane located north of the Misty Cove Apartments and extending to thesidewalk, illumination and channelization. This is a significant
northerly city limits. The comprehensive plan was changed from achangewhichshouldhelptoeliminateartypotentialtrafficproblems
medium density multi-family designation to a low densityrtulti-familycausedbyanyincreaseofresidentsinthearea.
designation for the apartmentpropertyand a portion Just north of the
On property immediately to.the northeast of the subject property, apartment property, and the balance was changed to single family
there is a dozing, excavating and truck hauling business currently
residential. In a December 3, 1976, memorandum from the Land Use
beingo erated. This Committee to the Planning Commission, the Committee stated "A buffer orFpropertyiszoned0-9600. A conversation with
transitional use between the apartment and the single family developmenttheownerofthatpropertyindicatedthattherewasnosubstantialthatisproposedseemedinorder." The above changes provide additionaloppositiontotheproposedreclassificationofthesubjectpropertybysignificantsupportfortheapplicant's proposed reclassification.neighbors in the immediate vicinity.
There has been a decrease in R-3 property in the vicinity, but an
South of Northeast 44th Street, a large steel buildingis
increase in commercial and industrial use. Designation of the subject
oeinC outhtof Across the freeway, is large sy el bolt subject property to R-3 would provide a buffer or transitional use zone between
property, is a large log processing operation. TO the north of those
the ea andindustrial use and the single family residents to
commercial operations, thel is a large apartment building. Standing
the easterst and north east.
on the subject property at east hours of the day indicate substantial
A significant ct nge that has occurredewaynoisefromFAI405.
few years is a serious shortage of affordablenhousing. Developthecountyin
ments
last
It is submitted that the proposed use of the subject such as the May Creek Condominiums have the effect of alleviating thewouldbeentirelybeneficialtothosecurrentlyjpropertyhousingshortageinaneffectiveandattractivemanner.residing in the few
existing single family residences tc, the east and northeast. A condominium
It is evident from the above facts and analysis that there shouldprojectwouldprovideanexcellenttransitionalbarriertothecommercial_
not be any significant issue ofusespresentlyonpropertytothesoutnandwest. It would provide a timing in this
proposedproperty, and
cont. eitobufferofnoisetotheresidents, have minimal environmental impact,
fccurt changes have occurred all around the
ompr plan,
continue to
and be vastly more esthetically pleasing than any possible commercial
occur.
l
The proposeduse is consistentr withn the comprehensive
mme
and
se. The topography indicates steep hills, so there is virtually no would provide an excellent buffer or transition zone from the commercial
r:r,r'e that any views of tie residences on the hillside would be and Industrial developments to the south and west. It is highlyeffected. unlikely that single family residences of any quality would be built on
the subject property, considering the development of the Immediate
vicinity over the past years. The noise level can be very disturbing
Rick Reeler L. Rick Beeler
Page 6 Page 7
November 2, 1978 November 2, 1978
at times. However, condominium units have been built in similar 5. Encourage the development.and utilization of land to its
locations, and shown to be largely succesful, even when single family highest and best use in such a way as to promote the best interest
residences would not be. The single family residences in the area for of the community and contribute to its.overall attractiveness and
the most part are set back further from the freeway, or have a buffer
desirability as a place in which to work, shop, live and play.of trees so as to reduce the impact of the noise and industrial property
uses. The subject property does not have this advantage. A condominium See Objectives 1 through 6, Land Use Report, pages 17 and 18 (1965).Aevelopment would be entirely appropriate on this type.of parcel at
ais time. The design, landscaping and amenities of a.condardnium As demonstrated above, requiring the applicants to wait for rezonesaveloprentwillallservetoenhancethepropertyvaluesinthearea
of the immediately adjacent property would be unreasonable, arbitrary,rather than detract. These same'features can and will be designed so and capricious,
as to reduce the weight that might be given by the Hearing Examiner to
s
particularly.
The wheno consideringt the rapidly ssbeneficicostsofconstruction. proposed use of the property is beneficialobjectionsmadebysomeofthesurroundingneighbors.
to the community.
It is important to note that while an R-3 designation would allow For all of the above reasons, applicants respectfully request that
a gross density of 75 units on the subject site, the plan is only to
upon reconsideration of this application, the Hearing Examiner grantconstructamaximumof50.such units. the request for reclassification of the subject property.
It is also important to note that the May Creek rezone application Very truly yours,
was approved by every single other City department.
SILItisrespectfullysubmittedthattheproposeduseoftheproperty
ID,
C"+i n" & TJ0SS 4
cNALE,
SSEM
would meet the following community goals and objectives:
1. Prevent blight by protecting residential and other
exclusive districts from the unwarranted infiltration of in- Philip L. ter & James S. Fitzgerald
compatible uses which would contribute to premature decay and Attorneys for Applicants
obsolescence, and prevent the development of orderly growth
patterns.
2. Increase community livability by improving environmental PLC:JSF::seg
factors which are closely related to the residential districts in
other conrunity areas.
3. Protect property values within the community for the
benefit of its residents and property owners, through the effec
tive control of lard use and the enforcement and application of
building and construction codes.
4. Promote the development of a viable, progressive com-
munity which provides ample opportunity for citizen participation
in a broad spectrum of economic opportunities, social achievements,
educational attainments, physical development, and political
activites.
November 18, 1978
L. Rick Beeler RECEIVED
Land Use Hearing Examiner
City of Renton . CITY OF RENTON
Municipal Building
HEARING EXAMINER
Renton, Washington 98055 N O V 2 71978
AM PM
RE: Rezone Application of May Creek Associates 7e8r9,10o11,12,1,2,3,4,5,6
Dear Mr. Beeler:
The undersigned parties to this letter are residence and property owners in the immediate
neighborhood surrounding the parcel of land shown on the enclosed exhibit. We, for the
most part, were present at the original hearing and made what we feel were very
significant and important points as to our objection to the proposed rezone of this parcel.
The decision by yourself as Hearing Examiner to deny the rezone was entirely proper and
correct, and we ask that this decision stand.
To summarize some of the objections as to the rezoning of the parcel are:
A school system that is at full capacity, with no plans or financing available for
immediate future expansion, a totally inadequate road system, in particular the steep
hill known as S.E. 76th, which by the county's own admission is impossible to keep in
good repair due to the unstable soil conditions and natural springs on the hillside.
Related to this is an already overburdening traffic condition that has produced a
serious accident potential on the very narrow existing roadways of which a further
intensification would be intolerable. Lastly, the condition on the soil surrounding the
entire hillside is one of extreme unstableness and landslide potential. Due to
numerous springs, any disturbance of the soil to the magnitude of a development the
size of the one proposed would seriously impair the property of those above. These
soil and water table conditions can be verified through the local King County Health
Department and Soil Conservation Service. As further proof, a most superficial
examination of the property in question along with the property immediately across
S.E. 76th street to the south, will show an abundance of spring and run-off activity
even in the driest months.
In closing, we respectfully request that these points be given the utmost consideration and
that the rezone denial stand. We are single family property owners who have invested
heavily in homes for our families in the immediate neighborhood. Thank you for your
consideration.
RECEIVED Sincerely,
CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
DEC 51978
AM PM The Undersigned
7,8,9,10,11,12,1,2,3,4,5,t Neighborhood
Property Owners
Attachment: Signature Pages
EXHIBIT NO. 7
ITEM NO. _7 7A/
PROPERTY OWNER'S Nit ADDRESS
ZO
cLiL,C' c., /7046-C4k i-O t _5- 7 7/Jf- //`? r(4 F
s',e". 7 7. ioc3/,
i°/2 sE 76±k S.
a/As 114- 1-
L_ r1(0+it
4-i,
4, G=
c
ZVa-20 / 0/6 SO_
i
ati,,r A f, 7614
77, 4,/eys-,s4----
J A„,),todt,:b J 3
2 3 is 72 —
PROPERTY OWNER'S N 0 ADDRESS
n 7-) /
7VVI,4
7 ,r';'"7/
11-.L.cz,40,(-•.., 114
V
75z2.1- //x:
z-4 -5E-•
7.-
VL ,-.• \,--/,
i
I 2. L y s-E 765-' (SY-- i
x,
0 g -c--- -. - X
27, 3-(t-
5, --, 7C 7t7t
t,"...oe ,f9 - 1 1.2_0 s-E. 7
r-. A. . 7‘-
64-
i
L 14.
4 451.
0
lIE! I i ti;
A I 1 11005
l -_
61X
1.\, s
I S/O/
c
p 5032 I i
6.5;7 t woos
oa a9 b. l i a
S I, JJ
5031 e Cf. .
e
zoz 111
arc" ``% ‹/ •41
4-45029
S •?
i
i
69 CITV
l
It 1
4. s
libill
LIMITtyframpsomarirOrocoauloramoIDMDor ..
ior
f f
t' 4 ,
k„
k
7
c1f .
Av 0
iei k\ 4.
i x y' .Y90- f it,i
191\
il
t,
1.1
1. „rx
fi j
I
r337' 5E ?440-St
4 i
I
2 1 I ku
t3,-
4,
I
0116
tt
ell'h
L .. i mi.ir Mira '
C/k E if=2 00'
u SUBTEcT s ITE SO
Ylll4 CREEK /tSSDCMTE5
IQEzo4/6-No. /q-2!7-78
OF RA,
y ;•- - • o THE CITY OF RENTON
0. Z' MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
n
c'
S CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT
9, Q3• 235- 2550
0,
9q'6'D SEPS -
P
November 28 , 1978
CITE OFREC 1VE®
HEARING EXAryflryJE®
MEMORANDUM AM
0re 51978
IO,1 a I2 pp ccp Ap
Pm
9 A 8 le t`41.+.IYrTO: Larry Warren, City Attorney A
FROM:Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director
By: David R. Clemens, Associate Planner
RE: THRESHOLD DETERMINATION; REZONING
Per our discussions of Monday, November 27 , we are requesting
further clarification of the legal issues and/or the require-
ment for a threshold determination on a rezoning.
The subject request involves rezone application #R-217-78 for
May Creek Associates which is under reconsideration by the
Hearing Examiner at this time. Due to the concern- over the
legal issues and E. I.S. requirements, the reconsidertaion
public hearing was continued from November 28 to December 5.
An early response to the following items would be appreciated:
1) Does a rezoning as an "action" . (WAC 197-10-040 (2) (c) (ii)
require a threshold determination (WAC 197-10-100 (3) ) ?
2) Assuming a threshold determination is required,
does not the rezoning as "The beginning of the pro-
cess" constitute the time when an E. I.S. , if
required, should be completed (WAC-197-10-055) ?
3) You have indicated that case law may exist clarifying
these issues. Could you elaborate on those caes
and their implications? Does the final detemination
of an E. I. S. rest with the responsible official?.
As this matter is under review at public hearings, your prompt
consideration .would be appreciated..
GYE:DRC:ms RECEIVE®
cc: Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner0 c' of:
47-
0, HEARINGNER
EXHIBIT NO. AM
N°v2
ITEM
8r9,10,)di12pTc4
I .1 EM NO, i5
4
4
Of
o THE CITY OF RENTON
Z
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055
CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
O Q' L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 '
4IFD
O
November 30, 1978
Mr. Philip L. Carter
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box L
Kirkland, WA 98011 eff0 3
RE: File No. R-217-78; May Creek Associates Request for Rezone.
Dear Mr. Carter:
Per your request at the public hearing held, on November 28, 1978, please
find enclosed a copy of the letter and petition from neighboring
property owners, dated November 18, 1978. The letter will be read into
the record at the continued public hearing on December 5, 1978 and will
be entered as an exhibit.
Sincerely,
Marilyn J/, ersen
Hearing Administrative Assistant
OF
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY • RENTON,WASHINGTON
POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING • RENTON,WASHINGTON 98055 255-8678
Z o
00 mi.
am'
LAWRENCE I.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
9'
Oo
CO'
December 4, 1978
911-ED SEP-re°
TO: DAVID R. CLEMMONS, Associate Planner
FROM: Daniel Kellogg, Assistant City Attorney
RE : Threshold Determination; Rezoning
We have received your memorandum dated November 28, 1978
concerning the above matter. We understand you question
to be whether a proposed rezone is an "action" requiring
a threshold determination of a significant adverse effect
upon the quality of the environment.
The adoption or amendment of comprehensive land use plans
or zoning ordinances is defined as a governmental action of
a non-project nature and is an activity protentially subject
to the Environmental Impact Statement requirements of RCW
43. 21C.. WAC .197-10-040 (2) (c) (ii) . In the recent Supreme
Court Case of Lassila vs City of Wenatchee, 89Wn2d 804
March 16, 1978) , the Supreme Court held that a municipality' s
amendment of its Comprehensive Plan without such a threshold
determination violated the requirements of SEPA. That case
also involved the question of whether a "negative threshold
determination" in relation to a proposed rezoning was "clearly
erroneous" . The record indicated that the City' s legislative
body- considered the Planning Commission' s findings of "no
environmental impact" and found that the rezone would substantially
eliminate the negative impact of incompatible uses . Therefore,
the court was not left with a definite and firm conviction that
the legislative body had made a mistake in reaching their
threshold determination of "no significant impact" . The court
limited the application of this holding as follows :
We 'do not suggest, however, that all rezones will have
an insignificant effect upon the quality of the
environment. Rather, we specifically hold only that this
rezone and this record do not suggest such an impact. "
E F1VED RECEIVED
C'a '2 OF RENTON 9 C911( OF RENTON
HEARING LamEXAMINER i ' ;v u % HEARING EXAMINER
1L - 5 1978 D E C 41978
Am
PIS ITEM O@ 7„F
1 r10111t12t 112131415,E 748t /10111a12/1
Therefore, it is our opinion that a threshold determination
of environmental significance must accompany any rezoning
proposal as well as any proposed comprehensive plan change .
You have also inquired concerning the authority of the
responsible official in making the threshold determination,
and the timing of the EIS , if required. It is clear that the
final determination of the necessity of an EIS does rest with
the responsible official. WAC 197010-040(30) .
The responsible official is required to make the threshold
determination ". . . at the earliest point in the planning and
decision-making process when the principal features of a
proposal and its impacts upon the environment can be reliably
identified. " WAC 197-10-055(1) . The responsible official
is required to consider a direct impact of a proposal as well
as reasonably anticipated indirect impacts which are likely
to result from any activity induced by the proposal. These
impacts may include growth induced by the proposal, or the
likelihood that the proposed action will serve as a precedent
for future actions . WAC .197-10-060(3). . , At any' rate', the
threshold determination must be completed prior to the
undertaking of any proposed major action. . WAC 197-10-055 (2) .
Therefore, having determined that a rezone is an "action"
requiring: a threshold determination, we are of the opinion
that an EIS, if required, should be completed at the first
point in the decision making process that the relevants can
be identified as having a significant adverse impact upon the
environment.
If you have further questions , please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Ver ours ,
Daniel Kellogg
DK:bjm
cc: Mayor
Council President
Gordon Ericksen
Rick Beeler
v.
PROPOSED/FINAL`- .,,LCLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE., 'JON-SIGNIFICANCE
Application No . R-217-78 PROPOSED Declaration
Environmental Checklist No . ECF-382-78 FINAL Declaration
Description of proposal Applicant requests rezone from G-9600, Single
Family Residence District, to R-3, Residential Multiple Family.
Proponent MAY CREEK ASSOCIATES
Location of Proposal Lake Washington Blvd. N.E. adjacent to and north of
S.E. 76th Street.
Lead Agency CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
This proposal has been determined to El have 0 not have a
significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS ® isnoisnotrequiredunderRCW43 . 21C . 030 (2 ) (c ) . This decision was
ma a 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 : (1) Growth inducing
impacts of a use of this intensity in an area developed only sparsely with scattered
single family homes. (2) Potential adverse traffic impacts in the area in light of the
lack of full street improvements for Lake Washington Blvd. in the subject area, and none
are expected for between 4 and 6 years. (3) Adverse land use impacts of a use of this
intensity introduced into this sparsely developed area. (4) Noise impacts of FAI-405
and Lake Washington Blvd. along with the necessary mitigation.
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 : Reduction of residential density to R-2
11 units per acre) and retention of natural amenities and other development
techniques to mitigate the above impacts.RECEIVED
CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED
HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTONE2-
ter`.. `
V D 1`: 51978 HEARING EXAMINER
AM PM DEC 41978ITEMNO. k- 02/ 7— 7/ i8,9,10o11e12i1.i2s3o4i5o6AM
7a8e9:nne12115213141516
Responsible Offici 1 Gordon Y. Ericksen
Title Plan nq Doctor _door. Date December 4, 1978
Signature eL/tA. ' i
City of Renton
Planning flenartmant
17 - 7. S
1
Hearing- on I
1
Mayy Creek
condo
i :plan. 1scheduled
Residents of the May Creek area in
I
i
North Renton`will have to wait
awhile longer to know whether a 50-
unit`condominium will be construct-
ed in a single-family home neighbor-
hood.
In October, Hearing Examiner
I Rick Beeler held-a public hearing to
1 consider an application to rezone a'
2.5-acre parcel of land on Lake
f Washington Boulevard and South-
east! 76th Street to allow for con-
struction of multi-family residences.
Beeler recommended denying the
rezone on the basis it would be"too
i 'intense relative to the surrounding
land use of single-family."
But the applicants for the rezone, ,
1 May Creek Associates,applied fora
reconsideration and Beeler granted ,
jthe
request.I
May Creek Associates claims con- ;•
struction of condominiums would be •
beneficial" to the neighborhood `
r because it would serve as a buffer
between single-family homes and' f
commercial development. (Land ac- 1 .
k ross the street from the 2.5-acre j
I parcel is zoned for commercial de- 1
1 velopment.)
Residents of the area are opposed !
J to the condominiums.About 25 com-
munity members sent a letter to ,
1 Beeler stating the rezone'would be ,
inappropriate. The citizens say
schools in the area are already "at
full capacity" and that the road 1
1 system in the neighborhood is"com- I
pletely inadequate."They say more
traffic would be "intolerable." j
They asked,that the denial of the
rezone application stand.
1 The reconsideration hearing is
scheduled for Tuesday at 9 a.m
Hearing Examiner hearings are held
in the-council chambers,-Renton City
1
Hall. I
LIVENGOOD, SILVERNALE, CARTER & TJOSSEM
ATT RNEY5 AT LAW
GORDON A. LIVENGOOD POST OFFICE BOX L
GRANT J. SILVERNALE, JR.
1313 MARKET STREET
KIRKLAND,
PHILIP L. CARTER September 25, 1979822-9-9
2
2261
9BD33
2061
ROBERT P.TJOSSEM
10031 MAIN STREET
JOHN HALLOCK BOTHELL. WAS HIN GTON 980II
JAMES S. FITZGERALD 2061 486-2707
R. PAUL TJOSSEM
REPLY TO KIRKLAND I 1
OF COUNSEL
1 REPLY TO BOTHELL I 1
City of Renton
Municipal Building
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, Washington 98055
Attn: Marilyn J. Petersen
Hearing Adm. Asst .
Re : File No. R-217-78; May Creek Associates ;
Request for Rezone
Dear Ms. Petersen :
Thank you for your letter of September 21, 1979 . From an
examination of the communications from Lawrence J. Warren,
City Attorney, it would appear that the applicant can move
to reopen the public hearing and have his new request heard
and that that matter should be presented to the Hearing
Examiner and a new public hearing scheduled. You may treat
this letter as a request to utilize that procedure. If the
procedure is acceptable, as soon as the determination on
the SEPA issue has been made , we would request that a new
public hearing be scheduled with a new notice published
and the like . We would appreciate your confirmation of
this procedure.
Ve truly yours ,
LI GOOD, SILVERNALE,
CA'1 ' R & TJOSSEM
P, lip L. arter
PLC/maf RECEIVED
CITY OF RENTONcc : Mr. Norman W. McCue HEARING EXAMINER
S EP 2 61979
AM PM
718a91101111121112131415,6
L VENGOOOo S0LVERNALE, GARTER & TJOSSEM
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
GORDON A. LIVENGODD POST OFFICE SOY.L
GRANT J. SILVERNALE, JR. 1313 MARKET STREET
KIRKLAND.WASHINGTON JDO:x3,
PHILIP L. CARTER I2061 022.97.81
ROBERT P. TJOSSEM
JOHN HALLOCK
10031 MAIN STREET
BOTHELL, WASHINGTON 9OO41'
SCOTT W. WYATT 12061 413 G•2707
GERALD L. BOPP
REPLY TO KIRKLAND I 1
JAMES S. FITZGERALD
REPLY TO BOT/HEI.L I 1
R. PAUL TJOSSEM
OF COUNSEL
RECEIVED
CITY OF RENTONNovember2, 1978 HEARING EXAMINER
NOV 21978
AM PM
718.r9ft0i11112111213i415 6
L. Rick Beeler
Land Use Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
Municipal Building
Renton, WA 98055
Re: Request for Reconsideration of Denial of Rezone
Application of May Creek Associates
Dear Mr. Beeler:
By this letter, May Creek Associates hereby formally requests
reconsideration of the decision rendered October 19, 1978, which denied
reclassification of the May Creek property.
Pursuant to Title N, Section 3015 of the Renton City •Code, we
respectfully submit that the decision of the Examiner was based on
errors of law, fact and in judgment as set forth below.
1. The Subject Reclassification was not
Specifically Considered at the Time of the Last Area
Land Use Analysis and Area Zoning
The subject site was annexed into the City on April 21, 1960. At
that time, it was zoned by the county as G®9600e When the City annexed
the property, it did not change the zoning classification. In fact,
the zoning designation has not changed since the property was annexed~
The City has never specifically considered the propriety of the zoning
classification until this application was made.
In 1965, Renton adopted a comprehensive plane At the time of
adoption of the plan, no request had been made to rezone the subject
property. Thus, there was no specific consideration of reclassification
of the property at that time.
i
L. Rick Beeler
Page 2
November 2, 1978
2. The Proposed Rezone is Appropriate
According to the Goals and Policies
of the Comprehensive Plan
The 1965 comprehensive plan designated the subject property as
appropriate for medium density multi-family residential use, represented
by the symbol R-3. The definition of this classification per the
comprehensive plan is "an area intended for medium density/medium rise
residential uses such as apartments and townhouses." The 1965 designation
of this property as R-3 has continued through 1978. The Examiner
recognized in Finding Number 10 that the comprehensive plan indicates
the property to potentially be medium density multi-family and commercial.
In Finding Number 2, the Examiner incorporates by reference the preliminary
report by the Planning Department. The Planning Department in that
report states clearly at 0.1. that the proposed rezone is consistent
with the comprehensive plan map element which designates the site as.
medium density multiple family and commercial.
The comprehensive plan, as revised August, 1976, makes the statement
that "the land use element of the comprehensive plan is an official
public document adopted by the City Council as a policy guide to decisions
regarding the physical development of the community. It indicates in a
general way what the people of the community consider as desirable
future land use development."
In Chrobuck v. Snohomish County, 78 Wn.2d 858, at page 72,
the court made the following statement:
Zoning merely for the benefit of one or a
few, or for the disadvantage to some and with no
substantial relationship to the public health,
safety, general welfare or morals, in conflict
with either the comprehensive zoning plan or
ordinance is arbitrary and capricious and unlawful.
Emphasis supplied. )
In State ex rel Standard Mining v. Auburn, 82 Wn.2d 32, at 330 (1973)
the court stated that ". . . it is, however, the plain import of the
statute, taken as a whole, that a city which adopts such a plan (comprehensive
plan) should be guided by it in its zoning regulations until it is
amended in the manner prescribed by statute or appeal." (Emphasis
supplied.)
The applicant respectfully submits that, in view of the importance
attached to comprehensive plans by the State Supreme Court and the
legislature, the recognized consistency of the proposed use to the
L. Rick Beeler
Page 3
November 2, 1978
designated comprehensive plan use should be a strong factor in reaching
a favorable decision on this application. It is an error in law and
judgment by the Examiner to not give more weight to the comprehensive
plan in his decision.
The efficacy of the proposed use of the subject property was
demonstrated as far back as the 1965 comprehensive plan. In the policy
statement report, adopted by Ordinance No. 220I, the statement is made
several new concepts such as the condominium (inherited from the
ancient Romans) planned unit developments, cluster subdivisions, and
townhouses on the green, are now in experimental stages in the Puget
Sound area, and are expected to gain in importance and public acceptance."
1965 Land Use Report, at page 15.
In medium and high density residential use districts, the proximity
to major employment centers, shopping districts, financial districts,
and the office centers is important, as is convenient access to major
arterials and hi wa s." (Emphasis supplied. ) Since the May Creek
interchange of FAI is immediately adjacent to the subject property,
a medium density zoning is entirely appropriate and consistent with
this segment of the Comprehensive Land Use Report. Furthermore, to
the south and southwest there is significant commercial and industrial
use providing employment to the area residents, as will be more fully
discussed below. Thus, the proposed use of the subject property
appears. even more apropos.
3. Significant Circumstances and Changes
Have Impacted the Property Since the last Land
Use Analysis and Area Zoning
As stated above, when this property was annexed by the City of
Renton, it retained its original county zoning of G-9600. Several
parcels in the immediate vicinity, when annexed, also came in with a G:
classification. In 1969, parcels 184 and 193 were reclassified from G-
9600 to B-1 by Ordinance No. 2487. In 1970, parcel 185 was reclassified
from G-9600 to B-1. Those parcels are to the immediate south of the
subject property.
Across the freeway, in 1966, the strip of land where the Misty
Cove Apartments now sits was rezoned from G-6000 to R-4. The property
immediately south of the Misty Cove Apartments was apparently annexed
at its present zoning of H-1, or heavy industrial.
It is evident that these zoning changes that have taken place in
the past are entirely consistent with the comprehensive plan. They
also indicate the changing nature of the area.
L. Rick Beeler
Page 4
November 2, 1978
A physical inspection of the subject property and its immediate
vicinity provides ample evidence that the development• of the area
indicates sufficient pressure and circumstances to change the existinglanduseandzoning. Examiner finding number 5 indicates that all
existing utilities are available and in close proximity, except sanitary
sewer, which will be installed approximately December, 1978. Installation
of sanitary sewer facilities is considered a significant change to
property for purposes of a rezone. Also, Washington Natural Gas was
installing a gas main on Southeast 76th, the southern border road of
the subject property. Both of these changes will have an impact on how
the property is used in the future.
Even more important, Lake Washington Boulevard is currently
scheduled under the 6-year transportation improvement program of 1979
to 1984 to be improved. Improvements include drainage, paving, curb,
sidewalk, illumination and channelization. This is a significant
change which should help to eliminate any potential traffic problems
caused by any increase of residents in the area.
On property immediately to the northeast of the subject property,
there is a dozing, excavating and dump truck hauling business currently
being operated. This property is zoned G-9600. A conversation with
the owner of that property indicated that there was no substantial
opposition to the proposed reclassification of the subject property by
neighbors in the immediate vicinity.
South of Northeast 44th Street, a large steel building is presentlybeingerected. Across the freeway, immediately west of the subject
property, is a large log processing operation. To the north of those
commercial operations, there is a large apartment building. Standing
on the subject property at most hours of the day indicate substantial
freeway noise from FAT 405.
It is submitted that the proposed use of the subject property
would be entirely beneficial to those currently residing in the few
existing single family residences to the east and northeast. A. condominium
project would provide an excellent transitional barrier to the commercial
uses presently on property to the south and west. It would provide a
buffer of noise to the residents, have minimal environmental impact,
and be vastly more esthetically pleasing than any possible commercial
use. The topography indicates steep hills, so there is virtually no
chance that any views of the residences on the hillside would be
affected.
L. Rick Beeler
Page 5
November 2, 1978
It is interesting to note that Mayor Avery Garrett and the City of
Renton proposed on April 30, 1970, that the property immediately to the
west where log processing operations are currently occurring, would be.
an excellent location for a convention center, hotel, motel and marina
complex. See Renton's Community Profile and Proposed Projects, April,
1970, Project P-9. While the present status of this project is unknown
by the applicant, it is evident that this attitude towards development
in the area would be highly favorable to the proposed use of the
subject property.
On October 21, 1968, by Ordinance No. 2439, the comprehensive plan
for the North Kennydale lakefront vicinity, to the west of the subject
property, was amended from medium density multiple family use to heavy
industrial use. In April, 1977, by Ordinance No. 3126, the Renton City
Council amended the comprehensive plan for the area abutting Ripley
Lane located north of the Misty Cove Apartments and extending to the
northerly city limits. The comprehensive plan was changed from a
medium density multi--family designation to a low density multi-family
designation for the apartment property and a portion just north of the
apartment property, and the balance was changed to single family
residential. In a December 3, 1976, memorandum from the Land Use
Committee to the Planning Commission, the Committee stated "A buffer or
transitional use between the apartment and the single family development
that is proposed seemed in order." The above changes provide additional
significant support for the applicant's proposed reclassification.
There has been a decrease in R-3 property in the vicinity, but an
increase in commercial and industrial use. Designation of the subject
property to R-3 would provide a buffer or transitional use zone between
the commercial and industrial use and the single family residents to
the east and northeast.
A significant change that has occurred in the county in the last
few years is a serious shortage of affordable housing. Developments
such as the May Creek Condominiums have the effect of alleviating the
housing shortage in an effective and attractive manner.
It is evident from the above facts and analysis that there should
not be any significant issue of timing in this proposed rezone. Signi-
ficant changes have occurred all around the property, and continue to
occur. The proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive plan, and
would provide an excellent buffer or transition zone from the commercial
and industrial developments to the south and west. It is highly
unlikely that single family residences of any quality would be built on
the subject property, considering the development of the immediate
vicinity over the past years. The noise level can be very disturbing
L. Rick Beeler
Page 6
November 2, 1978
at times. However, condominium units have been built in similar
locations; and shown to be largely successful, even when single family
residences would not be. The single family residences in the area for
the most part are set back further from the freeway, or have a buffer
of trees so as to reduce the impact of the noise and industrial property
uses. The subject property does not have this advantage. A condominium
development would be entirely appropriate on this type of parcel at
this time. The design, landscaping and amenities of a condominium
development will all serve to enhance the property values in the area
rather than detract. These same features can and will be designed so
as to reduce the weight that might be given by the Hearing Examiner to
objections made by some of the surrounding neighbors.
It is important to note that while an R 3 designation would allow
a gross density of 75 units on the subject site, the plan is only to
construct a maximum of 50 such units.
It is also important to note that the May Creek rezone application
was approved by every single other City department.
It is respectfully submitted that the proposed use of the property
would meet the following community goals and objectives:
1. Prevent blight by protecting residential and other
exclusive districts from the unwarranted infiltration of in-
compatible uses which would contribute to premature decay and
obsolescence, and prevent the development of orderly growth
patterns.
2. Increase community livability by improving environmental
factors which are closely related to the residential districts in
other community areas.
3. Protect property values within the community for the
benefit of its residents and property owners, through the effec-
tive control of land use and the enforcement and application of
building and construction codes.
4. Promote the development of a viable, progressive com-
munity which provides ample opportunity for citizen participation
in a broad spectrum of economic opportunities, social achievements,
educational attainments, physical development, and political
activites.
L. Rick Beeler
Page 7
November 2, 1978
5. Encourage the development and utilization of land to its
highest and best use in such a way as to promote the best interest
of the community and contribute to its overall attractiveness and
desirability as a place in which to work, shop, live and play.
See Objectives 1 through 6., Land Use Report, pages 17 and 18 (1965).
As demonstrated above, requiring the applicants to wait for rezones
of the immediately adjacent property would be unreasonable, arbitrary,
and capricious, particularly when considering the rapidly escalating
costs of construction. The proposed use of the property is beneficial
to the community.
For all of the above reasons, applicants respectfully request that
upon reconsideration of this application, the Hearing Examiner grant
the request for reclassification of the subject property.
Very truly yours,
LIVENGOOD, SILVERNALE,
CARTER & TJOSSEM
Philip L. Carter & James S,, Fitzgerald
Attorneys for Applicants
PLC:JSF: :seg
pF Rk
stir
41 o THE CITY OF RENTON
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055
z ; . ..
o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR ® LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
cry
O L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593
44TED S E P1 V'
November 7, 1978
Mr. Philip L. Carter
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box L
Kirkland, WA 98033
RE: File No. R-217-78; May Creek Associates Request for Rezone.
Dear Mr. Carter:
Pursuant to your request for reconsideration, dated November 2, 1978,
I am reopening the public hearing on this application in order to take
additional testimony. The information you supplied should be made a
part of the record, and the opportunity allowed for comment and/or
rebuttal by staff and/or other interested parties.
The public hearing will reconvene at 9:00 a.m. on November 28, 1978
in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building.
Re spe c
L. Rick Beeler
Hearing Examiner
cc: May Creek Associates
David Clemens, Associate Planner
Parties of Record
LIVENGOOD. SILVERNALE. CARTER & TJOSSEM
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
GORDON A. LIVENGOOD POST OFFICE BOX L
GRANT J. SILVERNALE. JR.1313 MARKET STREET
PHILIP L. CARTER
KIRKLAND.WASHINGTON 98033
12061 G22•9201
ROBERT P. TJOSSEM
JOHN HALLOCK
10031 MAIN STREET
BOTHELL. WASHINGTON 98011
SCOTT W. WYATT 12061 4B6.2707
GERALD L BOPP
JAMES S. FITZGERALD
REPLY TO KIRKLAND I 1
REPLY TO BOTHELL I 1
R. PAUL TJOSSEM
OF COUNSEL
November 2, 1978 RECEIVE®
CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
NOV 21978
AM PM
L. Rick Beeler 718,911011111211121314,5,6
Land Use Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
Municipal Building
Renton, WA 98055
Re: Request for Reconsideration of Denial of Rezone
Application of May Creek Associates
Dear Mr. Beeler:
By this letter, May Creek Associates hereby forMally requests
reconsideration of the decision rendered October 19, 1978,. which denied
reclassification of the May Creek property.
Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the Renton City Code; we
respectfully submit that the decision of the Examiner was based on
errors of law, fact and in judgment as set forth below.
1. The Subject Reclassification was not
Specifically Considered at the Time of the Last Area
Land Use Analysis and Area Zoning
The subject site was annexed into the City on April 21, 1960. At
that time, it was zoned by the county as G-9600. When the City annexed
the property, it did not change the zoning classification. In fact,
the zoning designation has not changed since the property was annexed.
The City has never specifically considered the propriety of the zoning
classification until this application was made.
In 1965, Renton adopted a comprehensive plan. At the time of
adoption of the plan, no request had been made to rezone the subject
property. Thus, there was no specific consideration of reclassification
of the property at that time.
L. Rick Beeler
Page 2
November 2, 1978
2. The Proposed Rezone is Appropriate
According to the Goals and Policies
of the Comprehensive Plan
The 1965 comprehensive plan designated the subject property as
appropriate for medium density multi-family residential use, represented
by the symbol R-3. The definition of this classification per the
comprehensive plan is "an area intended for medium density/medium rise
residential uses such as apartments and townhouses. " The 1965 designation
of this property as R-3 has continued through 1978. The Examiner
recognized in Finding Number 10 that the comprehensive plan indicates
the property to potentially be medium density multi-family and commercial.
In Finding Number 2, the Examiner incorporates by reference the preliminary
report by the Planning Department. The Planning Department in that
report states clearly at 0.1. that the proposed rezone is consistent
with the comprehensive plan map element which designates the site as
medium density multiple family and commercial.
The comprehensive plan, as revised August, 1976, makes the statement
that "the land use element of the comprehensive plan is an official
public document adopted by the City Council as a policy guide to decisions
regarding the physical development of the community. It indicates in a
general way what the people of the community consider as desirable
future land use development."
In Chrobuck v. Snohomish County, 78 Wn.2d 858, at page 72,
the court made the following statement:
Zoning merely for the benefit of one or a
few, or for the disadvantage to some and with no
substantial relationship to the public health,
safety, general welfare or morals, in conflict
with either the comprehensive zoning plan or
ordinance is arbitrary and capricious and unlawful.
Emphasis supplied. )
In State ex rel Standard Mining v. Auburn, 82 Wn.2d 32, at 330 (1973)
the court stated that ". . . it is, however, the plain import of the
statute, taken as a whole, that a city which adopts such. a plan (comprehensive
plan) should be guided by it in its zoning regulations until it is
amended in the manner prescribed by statute or appeal."(Bhasis
suppliedT
The applicant respectfully submits that, in view of the importance
attached to comprehensive plans by the.State Supreme Court and the
legislature, the recognized consistency of the proposed use to the
L. Rick Beeler
Page 3
November 2, 1978
designated comprehensive plan use should be a strong factor in reaching
a favorable decision on this application. It is an error in law and
judgment by the Examiner to not give more weight to the comprehensive
plan in his decision.
The efficacy of the proposed use of the subject property was
demonstrated as far back as the 1965 comprehensive plan. In the policy
statement report, adopted by Ordinance No. 2204, the statement is made
several new concepts such as the condominium (inherited from the
ancient Romans) planned unit developments, cluster subdivisions, and
townhouses on the green, are now in experimental stages in the Puget
Sound area, and are expected to gain in importance and public acceptance."
1965 Land Use Report, at page 15.
In medium and high density residential use districts, the proximity
to major employment centers, shopping districts, financial districts,
and the office centers is important, as is convenient access to major
arterials and hi wa s." (Emphasis supplied. ) Since the May Creek
interchange of FAI 0.5. is immediately adjacent to the subject property,
a medium density zoning is entirely appropriate and consistent with
this segment of the Comprehensive Land Use Report. Furthermore, to
the south and southwest there is significant commercial and industrial
use providing employment to the area residents, as will be more fully
discussed below. Thus, the proposed use of the subject property
appears even more apropos.
3. ' Significant Circumstances and Changes
Have Impacted the Property Since the last Land
Use Analysis and Area Zoning
As stated above, when this property was annexed by the City of
Renton, it retained its original county zoning of G-9600. Several
parcels in the immediate vicinity, when annexed,, also came in with a G
classification. In 1969, parcels 184 and 193 were reclassified from G-
9600 to B-1 by Ordinance No. 2487. In 1970, parcel 185 was reclassified
from G-9600 to B-1. Those parcels are to the immediate south of the
subject property.
Across the. freeway, in 1966, the strip of land where the Misty
Cove Apartments now sits was rezoned from G-6000 to R-4. The property
immediately south of the Misty Cove Apartments. was apparently annexed
at its present zoning of H-1, or heavy industrial.
It is evident that these zoning changes that have taken place in
the past are entirely consistent with the comprehensive plan. They
also indicate the changing nature of the area.
L. Rick Beeler
Page 4
November 2, 1978
A physical inspection of the subject property and its immediate
vicinity provides ample evidence that the development of the area
indicates sufficient pressure and circumstances to change the existing
land use and zoning. Examiner finding number 5 indicates that all
existing. utilities are available and in close proximity, except sanitary
sewer, which will be installed approximately December, 1978. Installation
of sanitary sewer facilities is considered a significant change to
property for purposes of a rezone. Also, Washington Natural Gas was
installing a gas main on Southeast 76th, the southern border road of
the subject property. Both of these changes will have an impact on how
the property is used in the future.
Even more important, Lake Washington Boulevard is currently
scheduled under the 6-year transportation improvement program of 1979
to 1984 to be improved. Improvements include drainage, paving, curb,
sidewalk, illumination and channelization. This is a significant
change which should help to eliminate any potential traffic problems
caused by any increase of residents in the area.
On property immediately to the northeast of the subject property,
there is a dozing, excavating and dump truck hauling business currently
being operated. This property is zoned G-9600. 'A conversation with
the owner of that property indicated that there was no substantial
opposition to the proposed reclassification of the subject property by
neighbors in the immediate vicinity.
South of Northeast 44th Street, a large steel building is presently
being erected. Across the freeway, immediately west of the subject
property, is a large log processing operation. To the north of those
commercial operations, there 'is a large apartment building. Standing
on the subject property at most hours of the day indicate substantial
freeway noise from FAI 405.
It is submitted that the proposed use of the subject property
would be entirely beneficial to those currently residing in the few
existing single family residences to the east and northeast. A condominium
project would provide an excellent transitional barrier to the commercial
uses presently on property to the south and west. It would provide a
buffer of noise to the residents, have minimal environmental impact,
and be vastly more esthetically pleasing than any possible commercial
use. The topography indicates steep hills, so there is virtually no
chance that any views of the residences on the hillside would be
affected.
L. Rick Beeler
Page 5
November 2, 1978
It is interesting to note that Mayor Avery Garrett and the City of
Renton proposed on April 30, 1970, that the property immediately to the
west where log processing operations are currently occurring, would be
an excellent location for a convention center, hotel, motel and marina
complex. See Renton's Community Profile and Proposed Projects, April,
1970, Project P-9. While the present status of this project is unknown
by the applicant, it is evident that this attitude towards development
in the area would be highly favorable to the proposed use of the
subject property.
On October 21, 1968, by Ordinance No. 2439, the comprehensive plan
for the North Kennydale lakefront vicinity, to the west of the subject
property, was amended from medium density multiple family use to heavy
industrial use. 'In April, 1977, by Ordinance No. 3126, the Renton City
Council amended the comprehensive plan for the area abutting Ripley
Lane located north of the Misty Cove Apartments and extending to the
northerly city limits. The comprehensive plan was changed from a
medium density multi-family designation to a low density multi-family
designation for the apartment property and a portion just north of the
apartment property, and the balance was changed to single family
residential. In a December 3, 1976, memorandum from the Land Use
Committee to the Planning Couurission, the Committee stated "A buffer or
transitional use between the apartment and the single family development
that is proposed seemed in order. " The above changes provide additional
significant support for the applicant's proposed reclassification.
There has been a decrease in R-3 property in the vicinity, but an
increase in commercial and industrial use. Designation of the subject
property to R-3 would provide a buffer or transitional use zone between
the commercial and industrial use and the single family residents to
the east and northeast.
A significant change that has occurred in the county in the last
few years is a serious shortage of affordable housing. Developments
such as the May Creek Condominiums have the effect of alleviating the
housing shortage in an effective and attractive manner.
It is evident from the above facts and analysis that there should
not be any significant issue of timing in this proposed rezone. Signi-
ficant changes have occurred all around the property, and continue to
occur. The proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive plan, and
would provide an excellent buffer or transition zone from the commercial
and industrial developments to the south and west. It is highly
unlikely that single family residences of any quality would be built on
the subject property, considering the development of the immediate
vicinity over the past years. The noise level can be very disturbing
r
L. Rick Beeler
Page 6
November 2, 1978
at times. However, condominium units have been built in similar
locations, and shown to be largely successful, even when single family
residences would not be. The single family residences in the area for
the most part are set back further from the freeway, or have a buffer
of trees so as to reduce the impact of the noise and industrial property
uses. The subject property does not have this advantage. A condominium
development would be entirely appropriate on this type of parcel at
this time. The design, landscaping and amenities of a condominium
development will all serve to enhance the property values in the area
rather than detract. These same features can and will be designed so
as to reduce the weight that might be given by the Hearing Examiner to
objections made by some of the surrounding neighbors.
It is important to note that while an R-3 designation would allow
a gross density of 75 units on the subject site, the plan is only to
construct a maximum of 50 such units.
It is also important to note that the May Creek rezone application
was approved by every single other City department.
It is respectfully submitted that the proposed use of the property
would meet the following community goals and objectives:
1. Prevent blight by protecting residential and other
exclusive districts from the unwarranted infiltration of in-
compatible uses which would contribute to premature decay and
obsolescence, and prevent the development of orderly growth
patterns.
2. Increase community livability by improving environmental
factors which are closely related to the residential districts in
other community areas.
3. Protect property values within the community for the
benefit of its residents and property owners, through the effec-
tive control of land use and the enforcement and application of
building and construction codes.
4. Promote the development of a viable, progressive com-
munity which provides ample opportunity for citizen participation
in a broad spectrum of economic opportunities, social achievements,
educational attainments, physical development, and political
activites.
L. Rick Beeler
Page 7
November 2, 1978
5. Encourage the development and utilization of land to its
highest and best use in such a way as to promote the best interest
of the community and contribute to its overall attractiveness and
desirability as a place in which to work, shop, live and play.
See Objectives 1 through 6, Land Use Report, pages 17 and 18 (1965).
As demonstrated above, requiring the applicants to wait for rezones
of the immediately adjacent property would be unreasonable, arbitrary,
and capricious, particularly when considering the rapidly escalating
costs of construction. The proposed use of the property is beneficial
to the community.
For all of the above reasons, applicants respectfully request that
upon reconsideration of this application, the Hearing Examiner grant
the request for reclassification of the subject property.
Very truly yours,
GOOD, SILVERNALE,
C i+i or & TJOSSEM
Philip L. ter & James S. Fitzgerald
Attorneys for Applicants
PLC:JSF: :seg
PROPOSED/FINAL Dt.CLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/NON—SIGNIFICANCE
Application No . R-217-78 PROPOSED Declaration
Environmental Checklist No . CF-382-78 X FINAL Declaration
Description of proposal Applicant requests rezone from G-9600, Single
Family Residence District, to R-3, Residential Multiple Family.
Proponent MAY CREEK ASSOCIATES
Location of Proposal Lake Washington Blvd. N. E. adjacent to and north of
S.E. 76th Street.
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 ! is
0is 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 : (1) Growth inducing
impacts of a use of this intensity in an area developed only sparsely with scattered
single family homes. (2) Potential adverse traffic impacts in the area in light of the
lack of full street improvements for Lake Washington Blvd. in the subject area, and none
are expected for between 4 and 6 years. (3) Adverse land use impacts of a use of this
intensity introduced into t is sparse y eve ope area. oise impac s o 405
and Lake Washington Blvd. along with the necessary mitigation.
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 : Reduction of residential density to R-2
11 units per acre) and retention of natural amenities and other development
techniques to mitigate the above impacts.
Responsible Offici 1 Gordon Y. Ericksen
Title Plan n D' ctor_ Date December 4, 1978
Signature
dd
w
City of Renton
Y 6 P1 Anni nn Ilona rtmor,+
OF R4 A
o TH•E CITY OF RENTON.
4$ 0 z
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.08055
o .
CHARLES J. DELAURENTI,MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
9.
00 P
FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593
e
47F13 SEPt '
O •
September 21, 1979
Mr. Philip L. Carter
Attorney at- Law
P.O. Box L
Kirkland, WA 98033
RE: File No. R-217-78; May Creek Associates; Request for Rezone.
Dear Mr. Carter:
Following our telephone conversation on September 20, 1979, I reviewed
all correspondence and information contained in the Planning Department
and City Clerk's files regarding your request for reconsideration of
the Examiner's recommendation, dated November 2, 1978, pertaining to
the referenced application. '
It appears that a legal Opinion was obtained regarding the question
of whether a new application would be required or if reopening the
hearing regarding the previous application would be allowed. It is
the opinion of the City' Attorney that submittal of a new application
shall berequired for the alternative zoning classification to be
reviewed at a new public hearing.
We trust. the attached correspondence will clarify this matter and
answer any questions you may have: Further contact. should be made
to the Planning Department for assistance in processing your request.
Sincerely,
Marilyn J. Petersen
Hearing Adm. Asst.
Attachments
fy y V,Pr4 ryss0 e.
OF R4,
ao o THE CITY OF RENTON
K>,:. , ,.,. MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
o S." CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR m PLANNING DEPARTMENT
9 c' 235- 2550
O'9
T
D SEP1,
t4k#
January 22 , 1979 co('' k
McCue Associates C
C
Real Estate , Management o53A. o`' ..
P . O . Box 622 02,, C4 S
C
Kirkland , Washington 98033 tr,., c" fie)
RE : MAY CREEK ASSOCIATES REZONE
it`y`—
R-217-78
Gentlemen :
It has been several weeks since I indicated that the City
Attorney had concluded that a new application would be required
on your project located on Lake Washington Blvd . Since we have
not received a new application , I am wondering if this department
can be of any assistance to you . Our staff is available to
consult with you and to otherwise provide assistance that you
may require .
Please , if you have any further questions on the above matter ,
feel free to contact this department.
Very truly yours ,
Gord , Y . Ericksen ,
Pla ning Dire)ire t 2
i 7 (
i'ni 6W
1 remens ,
Associate Planner
GYE : DRC : SH
cc : Hazel Williams
344 West 400 South
Provo , Utah 84601
rj
OF I?.
U ;b = 0 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY . RENTON,WASHINGTON
POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING • RENTON.WASHINGTON 98055 255-8678
nEEC LAWRENCE J.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
09,0
CO' January 3,1979
091TEo SEP1 0TO: Dave Clemens, Associate Planner
FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Re: Request for Amendment of Application for Rezoning
Dear Dave:
In response to your Memo of December 22, 1978, received by this office December
27, 1978, please be advised that it is the opinion of this office that any amendment
to an application for rezoning, filed after the public hearing has been held would
require a new application. The public had notice of a hearing for rezoning to a certain
classification and under certain conditions. After the public had made its decision
either to appear \and testify, or not to, the applicant cannot change the ground rules
and apply for totally different zoning. The public hearing has been closed after all
testimony was taken. Reconsideration is limited to the issues that were presented to
the hearing examiner and not to other matters. The applicant can move to reopen
the public hearing and have his new request heard but that must be presented to the
Hearing Examiner and a new public hearing scheduled.
Lawrence J. Warr
LJW:nd
2Ge 't j' . it'lr/Y/• ev-
4111 lib
OF I
o THE CITY OF 'RENTONUZ
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT
0 to' 235-2550
0 Q,
9
TFO sEP December 22 , 1978
MEMORANDUM
TO : Lawrence J . Warren , City Attorney
FROM: Gordon Y . Ericksen , Planning Director
By : David R. Clemens , Associate Planner
RE : REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF APPLICATION FOR REZONING
Our department has received the attached letter regard-
ing a rezoning application . As history , the application
was considered by the Hearing Examiner on October 10 ,
1978. His decision recommending denial was published
on October 19 , 1978. The applicant requested reconsidera-
tion on various grounds , and a public hearing was sched-
uled . The Planning Director ultimately found that an
EIS was required , and the reconsideration hearing was
continued to await the EIS.
The applicant has now determined that he does not
desire to prepare an EIS , and proposes to amend the
application to conform to a zoning classification for
which this department is prepared to issue a negative
declaration .
QUESTION : Since the matter is still under reconsidera-
tion , even though the application was recommended
for denial , does the applicant have the right to
amend? This seems to be reasonable , since an appli -
cant has the right to amend at the time of an origi -
nal application public hearing . Please note that
although recommended for denial , the denial was
never concurred in by City Council action .
DRC :wr
Attachment RECEIVED
CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
U. 2 978
tgrgi,tilh.FFc1211c2.241..E1.6-
40 .lib
McCue & Associates
r n
Real Estate• Management
McCue & Associates P.O. Box 622 • Kirkland, Washington 98033•Telephone:.(206) 822-6064
December 20, 1973
Nr. Dale Clemens Re: File # R-217-78
The City of Renton May Creek Associates
Nunicipal Building Rezone Application
200 Mill Ave. South
Renton, Washington 98055
Dear Mr. Clemens:
This letter follows our visit with Doctor Frank Rice and myself on December 14th
and our subsequent telephone conversation of December 18th concerning the rezone
to R-3 of the property as per the above file and the continuance of our appeal
for reconsideration of the Land Use Hearing Examiner.
Due to the need of an Environmental Impact Statement for the R-3 request, it is our
desire to request permission to modify our original application for R-3 rezone to
the recommended lower density zoning of R-2. This request is partially made due
to the fact that the owner is out: of State and we would be able to process an
amended application of lower density without further delays.
Please advise us of your decision as soon as possible. Thank you.
Sincerely,
l
NcCuan W. socia Eroker
Ce
cu ty Asocates
RiH\'rb
i WM/bmo l c,
DEC 21 1918
9
N
NG pEP Pam
9717 Juanita Drive N.E. • Kirkland, Washington 98033
LIVENGDOD. SILVERNALE, CARTER & TJ®SSEM
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
GORDON A. LIVENGOOD POST OFFICE BOX L
GRANT J. SILVERNALE,JR.1313 MARKET STREET
PHILIP L. CARTER
KIRKLAND,WASHINGTON 98033
12061 B22-9281
ROBERT P. TJOSSEM
pL p
JOHN HALLOCK q R4;1
10031 MAIN STREET
TON
JAMES S. FITZGERALD IFiBW/
J BOTHEL1L WAS206) 96-
HIN
707
90011
R. PAUL TJOSSEM
1)VEb REPLY TO KIRKLAND ( 1
F COUNSEL REPLY TO BOTHELL 1 1
A.U15 28 1919
11,
August 27, 1979 C'
y
City of Renton RECEIVED
Office of Zoning & Subdivision Examiner CITY OF RENTON
Municipal Building HEARING EX!1M l`R
200 Mill Avenue South AUL 2 8 3979
Renton, WA 98055
AM7
Attn: Mr. Fred Kaufman
a8c9Il0o1111201 t
tb;
Dear Mr. Kaufman:
Please be advised that the undersigned has been contacted by
May Creek Associates regarding a pending application for re-
classification under the City° s File No. R-217-78.
I would like to present some brief history regarding this
matter. Initially, May Creek Associates applied for a reclas-
sification from G-9600 to R-3. The proposal was to construct
approximately 50 condominimums on the subject property. Your
predecessor, Mr. L. Rick Beeler, on October 19, 1978, recommended
denial of the proposed request. I should mention that prior to
that the Planning Department issued a recommendation of denial
and a negative declaration. Thereafter, on November 2, 1978,
the applicant, through our offices, sought reconsideration of
the denial of the application. Prior to a scheduled hearing
before the Examiner' s office, the Planning Department on
November 28, 1978, issued a report indicating that if the R-3
zone were approved for the kind of development contemplated by
the developer, that an EIS would undoubtedly be required. In
order to not run into the difficulty of having the EIS follow
the decision, but rather to be certain that the EIS preceded
the decision, the Examiner, with the consent and acknowledgement
of the applicant, continued the hearing on the requested recon-
sideration, which hearing had been previously scheduled by the
Examiner' s office, to await the outcome of the environmental
impact analysis. Since twat time, the applicant has decided to
scale down the proposal to some 36 to 40 units, with appropriate
Mr. Fred Kaufman
August 27, 1979
Page 2
site development constraints, such as, landscaping, screening,
building locations and the like and has been advised by the
responsible official, Mr. Gordon Y. Ericksen, that such scaled-
down proposal may not require an environmental impact statement.
I am communicating with the Planning Director' s office to
confirm this in writing. As soon as a negative threshold
determination is issued in conjunction with the scaled-down
project, we would appreciate your office scheduling a hearing
on our Motion to Reconsider.
If you have any questions regarding our proposed procedure,
kindly advise.
V y truly yours,
L \VNGOOD, SILVERNALE,
CA TER & TJOSSEM
uay - A
Pilip L. arter
PLC: 1i
cc: Gordon Y. Ericksen
Norman W. McCue
LIVENGOOD, SILVERNALE. CARTER & TJOSSEM
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
GORDON A. LIVENGGDD POST OFFICE BOX L
1313 MARKET STREETGRANTJ. SILVERNALE. JR.
PHILIP L. CARTER
KIRKLAND.WASHINGTON 913033
2061 822-9281
ROBERT P. TJOSSEM
JOHN HALLOCK
10031 MAIN STREET
BOTHELL. WASHINGTON 98011
JAMES S. FITZGERALD 12061 486-2707
R. PAUL TJOSSEM REPLY TO KIRKLAND I
OF COUNSEL REPLY TO BOTHELL f 1
August 27, 1979 f
et)
MCd susr. Gordon Y. Ericksen
Planning Director 1
City of Renton v!
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, WA 98055 k/NG iaS
Re: May Creek Associates
File No. R-217-78
Dear Mr. Ericksen:
I have been advised by May Creek Associates that they are willing,
under the R-3 Classification to develop their property under a
medium density zoning of 36 to 40 units, depending upon site layout
to be determined in the future. They are willing to undertake said
development with appropriate physical constraints such as landscaping,
setbacks, and other screening and site development conditions. I
have been advised that with this reduction in density and the
willingness of the applicant to undertake reasonable measures to
mitigate any potential adverse impacts of the proposal, that your
office, being the responsible official under the State Environmental
Policy Act, will reconsider its decision and issue a negative
declaration based upon the prior assessment submitted and the
reduced scope of the project. If this is the case, I would appre-
ciate your so advising so that I might follow up with the office of
the Hearing Examiner and request a hearing be scheduled to reconsider
the decision of the Hearing Examiner on the larger project.
If you have any questions regarding the procedure, kindly advise.
For your references, I am enclosing herewith a copy of the letter
which I have sent this date to the Office of the Hearing Examiner.
Ve4 truly yours,
LI, NGOOD, SILVERNALE,
CA 'rER & TJOSSEM
P ilip L. Carter
PLC: 1i
cc: Mr. Norman McCue
0 If
4
sz THE CITY OF RENT Ntee ' - 7. •
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON. WASH. 98055
calN.
CHARLES J. DELAUREN ] , MAYOR 0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
235-2550
4)9r O SE Pz
tI`
August 30 , 1979
Mr. Philip L. Carter
Livengood, Silvernale , Carter & Tjossem
Post Office Box L
1313 Market Street
Kirkland, Washington 98033
RE . '
FILE R-217-78
Dear Mr. Carter :
We are in receipt of your letter of August 27 , 1979 , indica-
ting a proposal for a rezoning classification of R-3 with a
density limit of between 36 and 40 units on this site. We
have reviewed the files on this application , and it would
appear that prior to amending the current Declaration of
Significance, we would have to review a more specific site
development plan.
The environmental concerns which are expressed in the Declara-
tion of Significance remain , although the proposed reduction _
in density will have some positive effect in this regard. Upon
submission of a more specific plan , we will be happy to further
review your request for a determination of non-significance on
this proposal . Should you have any questions , please feel free
to contact me.
Very truly yours ,
Go don Y. Eri n
Planning Direc r
t(/.
avYd R. Clemens
Senior Planner
DRC:wr
OF 1?
TH1R CITY OF ' ENTON
st v: MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. REN TON.WASH.08055
2 CHARLES-J. DELAURENTI MAYOR o PLANNING DEPARTMENT
95 235- 2550
Q,g
T
Q SEP E
P
October 25, 1979
Mr. Norman W. McCue, CPM
McCue & Associates
P. 0, Box 622
Kirkland, Washington 98033
RE: MAY CREEK ASSOCIATES REZONE
Dear Mr. McCue :
We have completed review of your schematic site plan and,
after carefully reviewing the site , it does appear that
the proposed density exceeds that which would be acceptable
on. the site at this time. Therefore , it is our feeling
that we would continue to support a rezone application to
a R-2 classification.
We have reviewed the need for a new rezone application and
have concluded that a new application is required. The new
application should include a revised environmental checklist
with specific emphasis on the area of impacts of this devel-
opment on adjoining properties. This can be in the form of
a discussion of the intensity of this use compared to the
adjoining uses, illustrative sketches, or other means.
Utilizing the R-2 zoning classification will negate the need
for either a planned unit development or covenant concept of
minimizing the density on the site. A future application for
special permit to allow a cluster development is , however,
required in the R-2 district . Should you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Gor on' Y. Eric, en
Planning Dire or
David R. Clemens
Senior Planner
DRC:wr
Enclosures
Of R
s
o THE CITY OF RENTON
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH.9805
mi. , CHARLES J. DELAURENTI ,,MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
0,
9gT t
e' BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR
FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 ,
FD SEPIA
January 21, 1980
May Creek Associates
P,O. Box 622
Kirkland, ,WA 98033
RE: File No: R-217-78;' May Creek Associates,; Request for Rezone. •
Dear. Sir:
The Examiner may grant a continuance, to a time and date certain for
good cause, shown. More than, a year has elapsed since the above
captioned item was heard; and no' further action has occurred which
would allow the matter to be resolved finally. .Therefore, in.order
to'.resolve the matter, it' is appropriate to dismiss 'the application
arid send, the ,report to the City Clerk for final disposition. •
Because more than 12 months has elapsed, the applicant may refile the
application' (Section 4-725(c) (6)'(3) ) . The matter then is set for a
hearing by:the Planning Department as is any other new item, and legal
notice is posted arid published,
If: this office can be of further assistance in the matter, please do
not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Fred J. • Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
cc: Planning Department
City 'Clerk