Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA78-178 - Vol 3
�4 0 f R /t, RECEIVED •� 0 LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER U Cs Z .. . l q. 200 Mill Avenue South CITY OF NG PIENTON O ° ,. Renton, Washington 98055 HEAJUN 2 d�fN p$� ER 41FO SEP1646`'P J UN 0 1878 V AM PEA 718t9,t@,11o6211 b2i314t51e S EXHIBIT NOo 3 ITEM NO. 4'— ./I8- 7S 4 a fi rt-' 4 i -� RECEIVED .. CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER JUW131978 AM PM "s191IQ.11tiz,1.2s3141516 EXHIBIT NO. � ITEM NO. ( /71 7r .. i:' ' : ' At ) .44 10.0,..... t ) 4,, rii � l 1 � v.z 3 �- ur,; -a % t fi '. -r a' A:.. J'r: 0,; -r .. Li a c' a "� .L. gr .! t, . .i u .., 2 t.E...,;,td, •P' . '.• if i arl _ r Yam{ ,-r, ,•• ,' }N t \;., k p ia~!•° rirr;:' ii •iik . of i u- s. 4i-11i,'i.-.,f,i .' C s., .l• i,•�,,.[J t .... . t— ,-.iI..• 1 < ,--4,‘i,4 f _ me +µ .. r &kli.i.'." —0i..it,i_.t, .c_, S' •ii i,,,g f. l.' '' , .47 ‘ ' '' it• 1. ti 1 �..:a J,� , _ 3. ....• I Me �}j C. .. fr4 fit . . • . p. • _. . ei ,. . , ,...... . , f..i. . .. ..,, • ii. .. „,„ , •J 1.• . .4.4 i .,...m., .4„,,,,... . .., . . . . I s. . "ft ;Ie.', �. ' • a .F , • �J coli. = + ; /. i Vie• T / i 4.,..--. -.: 1 , . . . ., l' • t • I. ash. �4 illak-...' `s` • a ....- "� a i • -. ,,,..-,.e . . • . ., ... • ., • a 3 • "R7 r4 ' k n� ` • ..sr .airs t r• 4• „°' {♦ r ► r4it_ Tr + i �� . •l ^'r4 •• .1Y of n F AP �• • . , . , ..y i� ce! iiik t ♦ .r,a r. i.=4 •... • y tOr/ 1 ° Y�.. r� i ,r� fir :`~ ,� F ...III Oil! t .+- ..'•i�'St LL _ 1, r may- * ,h l • ' �y „._ �}. p .�:3� _ms ni'r R. r ': t� 1� ' 4;. y'- �� rt� �, firr1. •'{:' - 4? A:C (w•# '�I✓ �� tr #• C. /1r' �,, J 9 y ',• .•• a r� lli _ sew r ... ! . �Y. g ir.C,�, %y • r A - rC-a t r� t. • ' '4 , -31j. . lit , ' �aS'- ' fir-- _I I, P fb Pc 1 - : , . ....? f 1^ . # . °:• ' 1. • . . 1 ' 1. / y! Ca i •II•. :E,..:a.,•.! ; .c ,ate ° ° '• •. 2r •;Vi... ,i-,4.4...a.,1,N•,,w,t j ;,ate +s REcE464 CITY OF HEARING EXAMINER JUPv201978 s ITEM NO EX I1IjIT -12 _ 7 7 =!su0 6YH,K q & ASSOCI4Tr 682.232 105 P:3 c �:,c;:.E SEATTLE. WASHIN, c 81C4 .r _ , . K&P-I 8 .... -__ - \ , N. . , IF. 11.'' •i_.-4.- . -...., ."' • „..,..../.;,/, ....,Vt, - pope • 4, . • , . .. .1. 171:' " !I 14 . .0 ) `,.. _ " "..... .„...-Y _,......." ,,ic,,i. 4 ....4,..., , ... V 'k 4 . # ,Z • . , r 1 —. .. . . "›. . _ • • ' , • . ... '3, .' •. , . .-... -Ak r--- '•••• % • ‘.... • .,.., \ 1 _• _- - .. 4 , '-4 T . • \ .it • • — . ,!...5.• , - 1. \—_,L--::Yr- • .s .,:lr--.: ''' \ elk ' ''r% i: .i \ a a. •......,.. . • —i Au. . . ..... - . ot...„ ..... \ , -44..,..- -.. • "V-. ..=.X - \ \ . i 427 ..," .. 4 1- i- .;,- i _ . . , . ., .. \1 t „...t.... , •, ..- ,.. , . # *':#1, l‘Tio-11.•..,_..., ..... r. .''...— , " • . _ s .r- ----1•3:14010r: 7 . 111....- f. ilk.'" ,4? 4 ) \ /.. 6..., ...0 ...0 ._ . . 41 a . AI, , ........ .....4..•- ...; e, .,_ N---- 7 t- • ... ... ., . _— . s.... .......N i r • t 41- • 4 1 i .. — --- II . . ' 4 '-`'. '... Illr'`ft-4"'• ,--•i . . - -_----711d.'' i I, 1 I--..- • , 1 . • i • • A k IF 7 -4'k f , '. ", - .... =-- . ... .. . .i. . .......-' b • . ,,,,....4 1 .._.: ..i ,-1.4,0'.. (14 .... '.- .. ....., . .411. a 1 J.. I.. s,i•i--1::1 0,..--.'I - i. •* _ . . _ . . . . -• • , - .l•"A. '\. ..•11.• le '4 -V '' s-4k,-,e,"Ifir -41 _., .c. iik . 0- t• ' a ' Ill :. .? - _ _ !,,,•P ''`it ..... ,. , 1 ita..A. ... • '...' ' k-' . . „t- i... .,,.. 1,> • - ' ' iik , • l''' • It7''', -."•• '''y •11, „...4. .. •...i. -4....Ner . ,, -ti-r-a • ',...,... ..- _ . ..t.„, ........• . is, . : , • ' - --4.7p7...... r-----—'—-- — , . • .41' - "' • or ..'; - /4 - rrt- ts..t• "•,-, •1..'. V . - • .\ .. . .r., -.,, , . _ • .. „ .„.. i .- IL • -,- , • In . 4 V.4 44. •44. • • , • .'-,..' H.IBIT NO•....em....4....... ...................s.s.01% i ilEM NO. .- REcENED CITY OF RENTos HEARING Exammelo 'LIN'2 9 wir A411 1,C4:11.*:4144001"kti4.41 NA , . K gr p - ,,y _ 3 , 7- a "7 _ 0.zi . ._, "... .., _ p L. :,-;:•,:i .,;;-, CERTIFICATE • I ,. THE UNDERSIGNED , MARILYN J . PETERSEN ; HEARING ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER ; CITY OF RENTON,_ CERTIFY THAT THIS IS .A ' • TRUE AND CORRECT 'COPY OF LAND .USE HEARING TAPES'' . OF FILE NO. R-178-78 , CITY OF RENTON, REQUEST FOR • REZONE, FOR HEARINGS HELD ON JUNE 13, 1978 AND JUNE 20 , 1978 . • SUBSCRIBED AND SEALED THIS , 2oTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 1978 . 1, C. MARILYN ,'J .' E'ETERSEN . '. HEARING ADMINISTRATIVE • • . .ASSISTANT ' • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER • DIVISION CITY .OF RENTON, WASHINGTON • . , tk\_ NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE' OF WASHINGTON, RESIDING AT RENTON. 1\' OF I I C.) 4b Z OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY ® RENTON,WASHINGTON F e `:r: 1• POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING 0 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98055 255-8678 Z o 00 ® Es � LAWRENCE J.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY o ������� August 21, 1978 9�TFoSEP TO: RICK BEELER, Land Use Hearing Examiner FROM: Daniel Kellogg, Assistant City Attorney RE: Rezone No . R-178-78, (Renton Hill) . I have your memo of August 17, 1978 for reply. I do not think anyone should make any mistake that the Council ' s acceptance of the Planning and Development Committee report of August 14, 1978 establishes a precedent that the Hearing Examiner does not possess the authority to impose conditions under Section _._ 4-3010 (B) (1) , in appropriate cases, in order to make the application compatible with its environment and carry out the objectives and goals of the comprehensive plan, and other codes and ordinances of the City. Both Larry and I were present at the committee hearing at which time the committee recommendation was made. We both concurred in the opinion that there was no substantial evidence in the record to support a conclusion that a PUD was a necessary approach to development of the site. This is because the evidence concerning the PUD application was properly admitted for a very limited purpose of rebuttal of certain contentions made by Tadco . Our recommendation concernin the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the examiner is a little more difficult for me to justify. On reflection, I believe that it would have been more accurate to base the committee' s recommendation on the question of "substantial evidence" rather than "jurisdiction". I think it is clear that the committee felt that your decision should not have restricted the development of the property to a PUD since the only real question before us at this time was the appropriate zoning. The proper means of development of the site is more appropriately' addressed at the developmental stage, including a possible environmental impact statement. Mrs . Thorpe' s concern was over the possible implications to be drawn from the fact that the committee removed the restriction to a PUD development . She did not want the committee' s decision to be considered as evidence that a PUD was not an appropriate developmental control mechanism. In sum, I find nothing in the ordinanceHwhich you cite which restricts the jurisdiction of the examiner to attach any conditions which are reasonable to make the application compatible with the environment, and to carry out the objectives and goals of the comprehensive plan and the City ordinances . We are of the opinion in this case, however, that the jurisdiction of the examiner should not have been invoked to impose developmental limitations at this stage of the proceedings on such a scanty record. gt,u(9,,z4--‹; /L Daniel Kelldgg � ` z DK:bjm cc: George Perry Patricia Seymour-Thorpe Barbara Shinpoch Gordon Ericksen Mayor Delaurenti City Clerk . r 6 e. TOH f/I// P CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 3241 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R-3) TO RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R-1) (R...178-78) WHEREAS under Chapter 7, Title IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No. 1628 known as the "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton", as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as Residence District (R-3); and WHEREAS a proper petition for change of zone classification of said property has been filed with the Planning Department on or about May 23, 1978, which petition was duly referred to the Hearing Examiner for investigation, study and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about June 13, 1978, and which matter was continued to June 20, 1978„ and said matter having been duly considered by the Hearing Examiner and said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended; and the City Council having duly' considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto, NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I: The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Residence District (R-1) as hereinbelow specified; subject to the findings, conclusions and decision dated • July. 12, 1978 of the Cify's Hearing Examiner, as modified; the Planning Director is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof (Said property being located on the west side of . Renton Hill south of S. 7th Street; east of FAI-405; north of the Puget Sound Power and Light Company transmission line easement and east of the subdivided property. ) SECTION II: This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five (5) days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this28thday of August, 1978. • De ores A. Mead, ity erk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this28th day of August, 1978. Charle . Delaurenti, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: September 1, 1978 EXHIBIT A Ordinance # 3241 PORTION GOVERNMENT LOT 1 WITHIN SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5E., W.M., LYING NORTHERLY OF PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT TRANSMISSION LINE R/W AND EASTERLY OF PSH#1 (I-405). . PORTION OF H.H. TOBIN DONATION CLAIM #37 D.C. LYING IN NE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 SEC. 20-23-5. BEGINNING AT N 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION THENCE W. 67.02 FT. THENCE S. 01026-49 W. 1198.85' THENCE N 88-33-13 W 669.65' TO TPOB. TH. N 01-26-45 E 154.89' TH. N 88-33-21 .W. 319.83 FT THENCE S 01-24-21 W 92.42' TH. S 67-03-41 E 354.93' TH. N 07-22-33 W. 68.39 TO TPOB. PORTION OF H.H. TOBIN DONATION CLAIM NO. 37 NORTHERLY OF PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT RIGHT-OF-WAY SOUTHERLY OF N. LINE SEC. 20, TWP. 23 N., R. 5 E., W.M. AND WESTERLY OF W. LINE HIGHLAND ADD. AS RECORDED IN VOL. 17 OF PLATS, PAGE 32, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND SD. W. LINE PRODUCED SOUTH. PORTION OF H. H. TOBIN DONATION CLAIM #37 SOUTHERLY OF HIGHLAND ADD., AS RECORDED IN VOL. 17 OF PLATS, PAGE 32, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND S. OF S. LN. OF SD. ADD. PROD. E.,NLY OF PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY'S 200 FT. R/W AND EAST OF W. LN. OF GRANT AVE. PROD. S. AS SITUATED WITHIN SECTION 20, TWP. 23 N., RANGE 5 E., W.M. PORTION OF H. H. TOBIN DONATION CLAIM #37 SLY OF LOTS 4 AND 5 HIGHLAND ADD. AS RECORDED IN VOL. 17 OF PLATS, PAGE 32, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, WLY OF W. LN RENTON, ST. PROD. S., ELY OF WEST LINE CEDAR ST. PRODUCED S AND NLY OF PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT R/W AS SITUATED WITHIN SECTION 20, TWP 23 N., RANGE 5 E. W.M. U : Renton City Council 8/21/78 Page 2 Public Hearing - Cont. Vacation Portion in conjunction with duplex zoning, adding that city has never of NE 14th incurred any expense in re to street as it has been left vacant and unkept. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND STREDICKE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. *MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE THAT VACATION AS PROPOSED BE DENIED. Substitute Motion by Clymer, Second Perry to delay action on vacation until Mr. Bennett's final plat is filed. Roll Call : Aye - Clymer, Perry, Shinpoch; No - Thorpe, Stredicke, Shane, Trimm. 3 Aye's, 4 No's. Motion failed. Councilman Clymer noted loss of filing fee by the petitioner for the street vacation. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION BY THORPE, SECOND _STREDICKE THAT $100 FILING FEE BE REFUNDED TO THE APPLICANT." CARRIED. *ORIGINAL MOTION CARRIED TO DENY STREET VACATION. AUDIENCE COMMENT Vacation Portion Mike Hanis, 759 Dayton NE, explained his original request for vacation NE 14th of NE 14th and requested that portion be approved., Introduction Councilman Stredicke introduced Tom Larson, Scout, working on communication merit badge to become an Eagle Scout. OLD BUSINESS Eager Short Plat MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE TO SUSPEND RULES AND HEAR AT THIS TIME THE HEARING EXAMINER, DECISION, APPEAL, AND PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT RE EAGER SHORT PLAT. CARRIED. Subject before the council : Hearing Examiner's decision of July 21, 1978 re Russell Eager application for short plat 186-78 located approximately 150 ft. south of the southeast corner of Powell Ave. SW and SW LangstonRoad. Applicant requested approval of a proposed 4-lot short plat and an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance to allow two 20 ft. pipestems to provide access to separate rear lots. Hearing Examiner decision: approval of short plat with 50 ft. right-of-way. Appeal filed by Don E. Weitkamp,PH.D. of Moore and Moore Realty. The Hearing Examiner's decision, findings and conclusions, and appeal were reviewed by the Planning and Development Committee and a recommendation prepared. Planning and Development Committee Chairman Perry presented report recommending the Council concur in the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND SHINPOCH TO CONCUR IN COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. Renton Hill Councilman Clymer left the Council Chambers due to conflict of Rezone interest. Councilman Perry, Chairman Planning and Development Committee requested letter from Mr. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner, be read re Renton Hill Rezone, questioning intent of Committee' s recommendation and Council ' s action re PUD in the Renton Hill Rezone at August 14, 1978 Council meeting. Councilman Perry requested discussion by council re future and present considerations for a PUD in the area rezoned. Councilman Shane noted intent was R-1, single-family residental . Councilwoman Thorpe noted PUD can mean single-family development, does not necessarily mean other than single-family development; the ordinance stipulates it has to be compatible and allows for city and community involvement in the decision. Asst. City Attorney, Dan Kellogg, noted that council action does not imply that a PUD is an inappropriate means of development, just not required. MOVED BY .THORPE, SECOND STREDICKE THAT THE MATTER BE CLARIFIED TO THE HEARING EXAMINER IN A LETTER FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY. CARRIED. Councilman Clymer returned to Council Chambers. Appointment Ways and Means Committee report was read recommending council Part-Time •concurrence in the Mayor's appointment of Mr. Louie Gebenini as Airport part-time Airport Director. MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND PERRY TO Director CONCUR IN COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. Councilman Stredicke noted for the record his objection that position was not advertised. RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting August 21, 1978 Council Chambers Monday, 8: 00 P .M . Municipal Building M I N "U T E S CALL TO ORDER Mayor C.J. Delaurenti led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF EARL CLYMER, Council President, GEORGE Y. PERRY, PATRICIA M. COUNCIL SEYMOUR-THORPE, RICHARD M. STREDICKE, BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, CHARLES F. SHANE, THOMAS W. TRIMM. CITY OFFICIALS CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, Mayor; DAN KELLOGG, Asst. City Attorney; IN ATTENDANCE GWEN MARSHALL, Finance Director; MAXINE MOTOR, Deputy City 'Clerk; WARREN GONNASON, Public Works Director; GORDON Y. ERICKSEN, Planning Director; JOHN WEBLEY, Parks Director; RICHARD GEISSLER, Fire Chief; HUGH DARBY, Police Chief. PRESS GREG ANDERSON, Renton Record Chronicle MINUTE APPROVAL Councilman Perry requested addition of the entire Planning and Development' Committee report be attached to August 14, 1978 Minutes re Renton Hill Rezone-Page 2. Also recess listed on page -2 should not include Councilman Clymer as being present due to conflict of " interest re subject matter, returning after recess 10:05, page 3. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND PERRY THAT COMPLETE COMMITTEE REPORT BE ATTACHED.AS A PERMANENT RECORD OF AUGUST 14, 1978 MINUTES. CARRIED. - MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND THORPE TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 14, 1978 AS AMENDED. CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING - Vacation Portion This being the date set and proper notices having been posted, of NE 14th published, and mailed, Mayor Delaurenti opened the public hearing to consider closure of a portion of 14th Ave. NE, petitioned by (West of Hazel W. Chenaur, Mr. George Rusk, and Mr. Del Bennett. Letter Edmonds Ave. read from Mr. Warren Gonnason, Chairman Board of Public Works, NE) stating present and future city street circulation does not require this portion of NE 14th St. ; a utility easement. over the northerly 60 ft. is required; recommended vacation of the entire portion of NE 14th; vacation subject to sufficient ingress and egress for fire and emergency vehicles; and value of the property should be set at $.50 per sq. ft. Councilman Stredicke inquired re approval of proposed plat and planning for fire access. Mr. Warren Gonnason noted plat has been approved and. fire access was consideration of Hearing Examiner; who concluded no need for NE 14th. Councilman Clymer inquired if Hazel Chenaur would be landlocked. Mr. Gonnason noted technically she would. not be landlocked, because of the request to not include 30 ft. strip. Councilman. Shane inquired proposed , development in that area and width of easement to be reserved. Mr. Gonnason noted area probably would be developed with access to NE 16th and recommendation of a 60 ft. wide easement. Mr. Mike Hanis, 759 Dayton NE, Attorney for applicant Chenaur, asked council not to concur in recommendation to vacate whole north 60 ft. Mr. George Rusk, 1401 Edmonds Ave. NE, opposed amount of assessment and problem with blackberry patch and parking in that area. Mr. Gonnason modified recommendation so as not to leave Chenaur property landlocked. Councilwoman Thorpe inquired as to plat approval and how amount of assessment was figured. . Mr. Gonnason explained preliminary plat approval and county assessor's appraised value. Councilman ,Stredicke inquired about zoning in that area. Gordon Ericksen, Planning Dept. , noted various single and multi-family zoning. Councilwoman Shinpoch inquired as to leaving upper 30 ft. open to Mr. Rusk's property. Mr. Gonnason explained alternatives and that other property owners could purchase that property.. Councilwoman Thorpe inquired about intended use of the property if vacated. Mr. Hanis noted construction (?jL) , Renton City Council 8/21/78 Page 5 Old Business - Cont. r METRO Sewer Utilities Committee Chairman Shane presented report recommending Plans council concurrence authorizing Public Works Director to certify sewer plans to METRO. MOVED BY SHANE, SECOND THORPE. TO CONCUR IN . COMMITTEE RECOMENDATION AND REFER TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE FOR PROPER LEGISLATION. CARRIED. Complaint by Public Safety Committe Chairman Trimm presented report recommending . Downtown complaint filed by businesses not a part. of Renton Merchants Assn. Merchants be referred to the. Administration. MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND SHANE TO CONCUR IN COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION FOR RESEARCH TO BE DONE RE COSTS BY THE CITY. CARRIED. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS First Reading: Funds for Mill Ways and Means Committee report recommended first reading of Ordinance Ave. So. Property providing for appropriation of funds for Petermeyer property (Mill and Aerial Photo- Ave. So. ) and Aerial Photographs. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHANE graphs TO REFER BACK TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. first Reading: Councilman Clymer left Council Chambers due to conflict of interest. Renton Hill Ways and Means Committee report recommended first reading of Ordinance Rezone changing the zoning classifiation of certain properties on Renton Hill within the-City of Renton from Residence District (R-3) to Residence.. District (R-1) -MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHANE TO REFER BACK TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Resolution #2206 Resolution was read to transfer funds to provide for payment of .. , Funds - 100' 100' Aerial Ladder in the amount of $111,073.24. MOVED BY PERRY, Aerial Ladder SECOND SHANE TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution #2207 Resolution was read that surplus equipment be disposed of in a Surplus manner most advantageous to the city with funds from sales to be Equipment placed in the Senior Citizen' s Construction Fund. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHINPOCH TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution #2208 Resolution was read for authorization to certify Sewer Plans to Metro Sewer Plans METRO. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHANE TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. Re-appointments The Ways and Means Committee recommended concurrence in the Mayor's Board of re-appointment of Francis Holman and Gary Smith to the Board of Adjustment Adjustment and that council waive the requirement for residence . within the City limits for Gary Smith. Moved by Perry, Second Clymer to concur in committee recommendation. Councilwoman . Thorpe noted for the record voting against the appointment of someone outside the city limits. MOVED BY SHANE, SECOND THORPE TO TABLE MOTION FOR ONE WEEK. Roll Call : Aye - Clymer, Perry, Thorpe, Stredicke, Shinpoch, Shane; No - Trimm. MOTION CARRIED. Earlington Park Ways and Means Committee report recommended award of 'contract 'for Bid Award Earlington Park and a resolution be drafted for transfer of funds. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE TO CONCUR IN COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND. REFER TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are distributed to all Council Members and adopted by one motion without separate discussion (adopting motion follows agenda items). Life Safety Letter from Chief Richard Geissler requesting authorization to Conference attend a Life Safety Conference in Seattle October 23-25, 1978. Concur. Union Label Proclamation by Mayor Delaurenti , September 4-10, 1978 as Union Week Label Week. Concur. Renton City Council 8/21/78 Page 6 Consent Agenda - Cont. Funds for Request from Mr. John Webley, Parks and Recreation, for appropriation Senior Citizen's of $10,000 into the Park Department budget to add to funds granted Center from the Area Agency on Aging for the purchase of furniture and equipment for the Senior Citizen's Center. Refer to Ways and Means Committee for appropriate legislation. Fernwood, Hearing Examiner decision-approval with conditions of J & F Investment Preliminary Co. , Fernwood, Preliminary Plat application (file PP-192-78, E-205-78) . Plat Council approval of Hearing Examiner decision. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE TO REMOVE THE MATTER OF BITNEY REZONE FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. CARRIED. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE TO ADOPT CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. CARRIED. MOVED BY THORPE, SECOND PERRY TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND CONTINUE MEETING PAST 11:00 P.M. CARRIED. Bitney Rezone- Councilman Perry noted Bitney rezone request and referrals re Comprehensive comprehensive plan change or zoning change in area West of Union Plan - Public Ave. NE near Heather Downs. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND SHINPOCH Hearing PUBLIC HEARING BE HELD SEPTEMBER 18, 1978 FOR THE PURPOSE OF 9/18/78 REVIEWING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN THE GENERAL AREA OF REZONE REQUEST FOR POSSIBLE CHANGE OF LAND USE DESIGNATION. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE AND CURRENT BUSINESS Request for Letter from Warren Gonnason, Public Works Director, requested Demolition authority and funds to complete demolition and clean up of 501 SW Langston Road property. MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND SHANE TO CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. Condemnation Letter from Warren Gonnason, Public Works Director, requested of Property permission to condemn the necessary right-of-way through Mr. John Edwards property in re to LID 297 - Heather Downs. MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND SHANE TO CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATION AND REFER TO CITY ATTORNEY. CARRIED. Grant for Letter from Warren Gonnason, Public Works Director, recommended Study of High acceptance of Washington Traffic Safety Commission Grant to Accident study high accident locations involving motor vehicles. MOVED Locations BY SHANE, SECOND TRIMM TO CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Petition- Councilwoman Thorpe presented petition with 20 signatures protesting Highgate Highgate Development extension of sanitary sewers. Moved by Clymer, Development- Second Clymer to refer to Utilities Committee. SUBSTITUTE MOTION Sanitary Sewers BY THORPE, SECOND SHINPOCH TO REFER TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE IN ORDER TO BE .CONSIDERED AT 8-24 MEETING. CARRIED. Color Coding Councilman Stredicke suggested possible color coding of fire hydrants Fire Hydrants to verify pressure. Moved by Shinpoch, Second Perry to refer to Public Safety Committee. SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY TRIMM, SECOND THORPE TO REFER TO UTILITIES COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Time Begining & Councilman Stredicke requested city clerk record time in council End of Subject minutes of subjects before the council (whenever possible) . OF R4, C� do ; e� OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEYS RENTON,WASHINGTON POST OFFICE BOX 626 WO 2nd AVENUE BUILDING • RENTON,WASHINGTON 98055 255-8678 pswop ,3• 'E °' LAWRENCE J.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 10o August 14, 1978 94/1 0 SEP1 `# • TO: ALL CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RE: File No . R-178-78 - Transamerica Development Company Appeal of Examiner 's Decision •dated July 12, 1978 The Planning and Development Committee has considered the record and the Hearing. Examiner' s written decision, findings and conclusions in the above matter. The Counuittee finds that, except as noted below, each material finding and conclusion set forth in the Examiner ' s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Except as noted below, the Committee recommends that the City Council adopt all of the Examiner' s findings, conclusions and recommendations , The Committee finds that there was admitted into evidence an appli- cation for a tentative Planned Unit Development dated April 28, 1978 , for single family and town house development on a portion of the subject premises , and labeled as "Cedar Crest PUD" . (Exhibit No . 34) . The Committee finds that this application was properly admitted into evidence for the sole purpose of rebuttal of the property owners following contentions: A. That the rezone of the property to R-1 precludes use of the property for any purpose to which it is reasonable adapted. B . There is no p ssibility for profitable use of the property under the restrictions of the rezone. C. That the greater part of the value of the property is destroyed by the rezone. The Examiner' s conclusion that " . . . a PUD would be a necessary approach to development on the site" was beyond the jurisdiction of the Examiner and not supported by substantial evidence. Conclusion No . 9 . The first sentence of Conclusion No . 9 should be modified to read as follows: "The natural constraints! of the site indicate that a PUD would be a possible and economically profitable approach to development of the site" . Therefore, the Committee recommends that the City Council concur in the Findings. of the Hearing Examiner and the Conclusions as modified above, and that the City Council approve reclassification of the three subject properties from R=3 to R-1 . 4 eti �� z THE CITY OF RENTON col MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 z f o o -- CHARLES J. DELAURENTI • MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 4 Q. L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 O � /q). SEPIt�O August 21, 1978 TO: Councilman George J. Perry Chairman, Planning & Development Committee FROM: L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner SUBJECT: Rezone No. R-178-78; City of Renton (Renton Hill) Having received the Planning and Development Committee report of August 14, 1978 and reviewing the minutes of the August 14, 1978 City Council meeting regarding this application, I have one question which impacts future decisions on these properties. Does the Committee's recommendation and the City Council's action mean that a PUD is not appropriate or that a PUD should not be required for these properties? It appears that some confusion exists regarding this question, the answer to which has substantially different implications for development. L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Councilwoman Shinpoch Councilwoman Seymour-Thorpe RECEIVED AUG 2 1 1978 CITY COUNCIL RENTON, WA `�� cs7-7- — �3---- ----`� fir�� --7f \ Renton City Council 8/14/78 Page 2 Public Hearing - Cont Vacation- the guardianship of the public's right to use as a street and Portion of an easement; that the recommendation is to reserve the full So. 7th St.- 30 ft. for the use of locating utilities allowing Puget Power Cont. surface use. Motion by Shane to vacate the street. Motion failed. *MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHINPOCH THAT STREET BE VACATED FROM 60 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WEST PROPERTY LINE OF MILMANCO, THAT THE VACATION FEE BE ESTABLISHED AT a THE ASSESSED VALUATION AND UTILITY EASEMENTS BE RETAINED AS RECOMMENDED. Moved by Thorpe motion be tabled until a report is made from the City Attorney as to the city rights to the property. Motion failed. Roll Call : Aye-Clymer, Perry, Stredicke, Shinpoch, Shane; No- Thorpe. 5 Aye, 1 No. *MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Trim returned to Council Chambers . AUDIENCE COMMENT Renton Hil Councilman Clymer left Council Chambers due to conflict of interest. Rezone Jim Irwin, Attorney, Transamerica Development Co. 1000 Norton Bldg. requested opportunity to make an oral argument re appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision on the Renton Hill rezone. Robert McBeth, 1906 Rolling Hills Ave. SE, Attorney for Renton Hill Community Assn. asked to speak. Planning and Development Committee Chairman Perry explained notices of committee meeting were sent to all parties of record. Asst. City Attorney, Kellogg suggested that the council hear from both parties limiting the amount of debate by setting a time limit and the Planning and Development Committee report be distributed. Reports were circulated to those present. Recess MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHINPOCH TO RECESS, 8:55 P.M. CARRIED. Reconvened at 9:10 P.M. Roll Call : All council members present as previously listed. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE TO SUSPEND RULES AND HEAR AT THIS TIME THE HEARING EXAMINER DECISION, APPEAL, AND PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT RE RENTON HILL REZONE. CARRIED. Subject before the council Hearing Examiner' s decision of July 12, 1978 re application by City of Renton for rezone R-3 to R-1 for +12. 1 acres property in the area of the westside of Renton Hill , between power line right-of-way and South 7th and FAI 405. Appeal filed by Transamerica Development Co. The Hearing Examiner' s decision, findings and conclusions, and appeal were reviewed by the Planning and Development Committee and a recommendation prepared. Planning and Development Committee Chairman Perry presented report recommending the Council concur in the findings of the Hearing Examiner as modified, and that the council approve reclassification of the three subject properties from R-3 to R-1 and the matter be referred to the Ways and Means Committee for the proper ordinances. The Committee report recommended modification Of Hearing Examiner conclusion #9 to read as follows:"The natural constraints of the site indicate that a PUD would be a possible and economically profitable approach to development of the site."*MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND PERRY TO CONCUR IN COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. Jim Irwin, Attorney, Transamerica Development Co. , commented on appeal filed on the Hearing Examiner's decision. Following discussion Mr. Irwin claimed Transamerica feels that there is no credible evidence to support the Hearing Examiner's findings and decision. Robert McBeth, Attorney, Renton Hill Community Association, claimed Hearing Examiner' s decision is supported by substantial evidence to support the change of zoning on Renton Hill . Councilman Stredicke inquired about comprehensive plan for that area; widening of the street. Mr. Erickson, Planning Director, noted the comprehensive plan shows the area as single family residential with the exception of Mill Ave. So. Councilman Perry inquired about school transportation in the area. RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting August 14, 1978 Council Chambers Monday, 8: 00 P .M . Municipal Building MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor C.J. Delaurenti led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF EARL CLYMER, Council President, GEORGE Y. PERRY, PATRICIA M. COUNCIL SEYMOUR-THORPE, RICHARD M. STREDICKE, BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, CHARLES F. SHANE, THOMAS W. TRIMM. CITY OFFICIALS CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, Mayor; DAN KELLOGG, Asst. City Attorney; GWEN IN ATTENDANCE MARSHALL, Finance Director; MAXINE MOTOR, Deputy City Clerk; WARREN GONNASON, Public Works Direcotr; GORDON Y. ERICKSEN, Planning Director; JOHN WEBLEY, Parks Director; Jim Bourasa, Police Dept. Rep. PRESS GREG ANDERSON, Renton Record Chronicle; ERIC PRYNE, Seattle Times. MINUTE APPROVAL Councilman Stredicke requested amendment to Page 3 for the information requested from the Mayor to the Ways and Means Committee re the appointment of airport director; if the position had been announced openly or advertised, salary involved in the recommendation and whether full or part-time job. Also requested verification of Heather Downs LID 297 location, cost and design that were previously approved by the council at the public hearing. (See later discussion) MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND PERRY TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 7, 1978 AS AMENDED. CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING Councilman Trimm left the Council Chambers due to conflict of interest. Vacation - Portion Mr. Tom Cook, owner of Milmanco, reported that he had met with ' of So. 7th St. Puget Power to try and resolve problems associated with possible (Cont. from street vacation. In talking with Bill Arthur of Puget Power it 8/7/78) was suggested that the vacation of So. 7th St. start at 60 feet east of the west Milmanco property line. Councilwoman Thorpe inquired as to position of buildings to property line, requirements for set back. Mr. Gonnason, Public Works Director, explained location of building to the property line. Mr. Ericksen, Planning Director, noted that there are no set back requirements. Councilman Stredicke inquired as to ownership of property between present Burnett St. and the owners property line. Gonnason explained property is owned by the City and is proposed for a park development. Councilman Stredicke then suggested tailoring down of the proposed street vacation. Gonnason noted council can vacate all of So. 7th with the exception of the area lying within 60 ft. of the West property line. Councilman Shane inquired as to property owned by Puget Power and the utilities now in that area. Mr. Gonnason explained all utilities are within So. 30 ft. The existing ashpalt road appears to be about 30 ft. in width and has been opened and used by the public for a period in excess of seven years, which is required to give the public the right to use it. Shane questioned parking. Mr. Gonnason explained that the amount required by ordinance was present. Councilman Clymer inquired about area to be developed by the city. Mr. Gonnason explained it was a possible alternative to provide access to Milmanco property. Councilwoman Thorpe inquired about zoning. Ericksen noted L-1 zoning on both sides of So. 7th. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHANE TO CLOSE THE HEARING. Roll Call . Aye-Perry, Stredicke, Shinpoch, Shane; No-Clymer, Thorpe. 4 Aye's, 2 No's. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Thorpe inquired if the city could vacate street, but retain as property. Asst. City Attorney, Dan Kellogg, said he would research. Councilman Clymer inquired re acquisition of property for SR 515. Mr. Gonnason noted the city has d Renton City Council 8/14/78 Page 3 Audience Comment - Cont. Renton Hill Mr. McBeth noted the younger children go up the hill and older Rezone-Cont. children down the hill to catch the school bus. Councilman Shane noted the area is residential , that the streets are not capable of high density traffic and the city has the right to make certain requirements. Councilwoman Thorpe asked Mr. Irwin to explain his . use of the words "credible evidence". Mr. Irwin noted the meaning as substantial evidence. Councilwoman Thorpe noted for the record the action that the committee has recommended does not make a PUD mandatory, but even though we don't put that kind of stipulation on the property, it is important to know that the committee is not disagreeing with statements made by the examiner. ,Asst. City Attorney Kellogg confirmed for the record that at the committee meeting there was no discussion by either party outside the presence of the other. _ . Roll Call: All Ayes. *MOTION CARRIED. Recess MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND SHANE TO RECESS 9:55 P.M. CARRIED. Reconvened at 10:05 P.M. Roll Call : All Council members present as previously listed. OLD BUSINESS May Creek Community Services Chairwoman Thorpe presented report that the Drainage May Creek Drainage Plan is proceeding with funding from other Plan sources.. Councilman Shane inquired as to why this subject had not been referred to the utilities committee. Upon discussion. by council it was explained that this is a community project and council had made the previous referral to the Community Services Committee. MOVED BY THORPE, SECOND CLYMER TO CONCUR IN COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. 208 Areawide Community Services Committee report recommended council approval Water Quality of 208 Areawide Water Quality Plan formal statement. MOVED BY Plan THORPE, SECOND SHANE TO CONCUR IN COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. Earlington MOVED BY THORPE, SECOND PERRY TO REMOVE EARLINGTON' PARK BID OPENING. Park FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. CARRIED. August 4, 1978 bid opening, two bids received; Earlington Park Construction. Park Board recommended award of contract to Graham Landscape Co. Low bid htd in the amount of $26,139.20. Community Services Committee report recommended the council authorize awarding of the bid and transfer of funds as requested. Moved by Clymer, Second Thorpe to concur in committee recommendation. Substitute Motion: MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE TO AMEND THE MOTION AND REFER TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. Councilman Shane inquired as to financing. Mayor Delaurenti explained the money received from County for this project. Councilwoman Thorpe noted the moeny has been drawn from other projects that would not be completed this year. Mr. John Webley, Parks Director, explained projects that money would come from. Councilwoman Shinpoch inquired if the area people had been notififed of developments and changes made. Mr. Webley noted they were aware. MOTION CARRIED. • Main Fire Station Councilman Stredicke inquired as to reports requested last week from Administration re main fire station, and appointment of Airport Director part-time airport director. Mayor noted the fire station report Appointment was completed and distributed and report would be forthcoming on the appointment. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE THAT FIRE STATION REPORT AND MATTER BE REFERRED TO PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW AND REPORT UNTIL COMPLETION OF PROJECT. CARRIED. Renton City Council 8/14/78 Page 4 • Certification of Transportation Committee Chairwoman Shinpoch presented report State Highway recommending that Certification of State Highway Routes within Routes corporate limits of Renton be referred to the City Clerk and the Public Works Director for administrative purposes. Transportation Councilwoman Shinpoch noted recent committee meetings, in particular Committee Meeting extension of SR 515 which concluded that the Transportation Committee (Ext. SR 515) needs to coordinate with Community Services Committee and Park Board for, any plans the city may have for the South Renton Property and noted people in that area are applying for low interest federal loans to rehabilitate homes. Councilwoman Thorpe inquired if SR 515 exten- sion was on the State 6 Year Street Plan at this time. Mr. Gonnason noted not at this time. Award of Contract Utilities Committee Chairman Shane presented report .recommending LID #297 award of contract, LID #297, Heather Downs Sanitary Sewer Project Heather Downs to C. Ed Bowen Construction Co. in the total amount of $503,577.76. Sanitary Sewer Mayor and City Clerk authorized to sign contract documents. Councilman Stredicke requested response to previous questions whether costs, location, and design are as originally approved at public hearing. He also inquired if the J & K Development and. the possible extension of Leisure Estates would be utilizing the project. Mr. Gonnason noted that location, design, and construction were as approved . by council and a report was being prepared to include allocation of cost, which would be' reduced as developers will be paying part of the cost. MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND SHANE TO CONCUR IN COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. Appointment *Moved by Shane, Second Trimm to confirm part-time airport director Part-time appointment. Councilman Perry noted appointment was in Committee Airport Director awaiting information re rate of pay and how many hours the director would be working. Mayor added it would be part-time. Motion by Thorpe to table motion pending report of committee. Motion failed. Councilwoman Shinpoch noted that there was no objection to nominee, but awaiting additional information only. Councilman Stredicke added that council has not been able to meet with the individual . Roll Call : Aye-Shane, Trimm; No-Clymer, Perry, Thorpe, Stredicke, Shinpoch. 2 Ayes, 5 No. *Motion failed. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ordinance #3239 Ways and Means Committee report recommended first reading of Amending Time Ordinance amending time and place of council meetings. MOVED BY and Place STREDICKE, SECOND SHINPOCH TO ADVANCE TO SECOND AND FINAL READINGS. (Removel of CARRIED. Second and final reading of an ordinace of the City 11:00 Curfew) amending Section 1-503 of Title 1 (administrative) of Ordinance no. 1628 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton" relating to time and place of city council meetings. MOVED BY TRIMM, SECOND SHANE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE AS READ. Roll Call : Aye-Thorpe, Stredicke, Shinpoch, Shane, Trimm; No-Clymer, Perry. MOTION CARRIED. Resolution #2205 Resolution was read amending city of Renton Resolutions #1616, Adopting Forward 1624, and 1754 to change Item 23 to read "SR-515 Phase II (Puget Thrust Project Dr. S. to S. city limits). MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHINPOCH Listing Change TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTTON AS READ. CARRIED. Voucher Approval The Ways and Means Committee report recommended council approval of vouchers nos. 19172 thru no. 19420 (machine. voids 19167-19171) in the total amount of $510,108.42 as previously approved by department certification as to receipt of goods or services. Also includes payment of LID #297 Warrants: Revenue #R-6 $1,235.56, Cash #C-7 $35,56, Cash #C-8 $1,200.00; LID 302 Warrants: Revenue #R-21 $1,903.21, Cash C-44 $1,534.10, Cash .C-45 $369.11; LID 307 Warrants: Revenue #R-1 $85,359.31, Cash C-1 $75.90, Cash C-2 $85,283.41. MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND PERRY TO CONCUR IN VOUCHER APPROVAL RECOMMENDATIONS. CARRIED. • PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT AUGUST 14, 1978 • File No. R-178-78 - Transamerica Development Company Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision dated July 12, 1978 The Planning and Development Committee has considered the record and the Hearing Examiner's written decision, findings and conclusions in the above matter. The Committee finds that, except as noted below, each material finding and conclusion set forth in the Examiner's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Except as noted below, the Committee recommends' that-the City Council adopt all of the Examiner's findings, conclusions ,and recommendations. The Committee finds that there was admitted into evidence an application for a tentative Planned Unit Development dated April 28, 1978, for single family and town house development on a .portion of the subject premises, and labeled as "Cedar Crest PUD." (Exhibit NO. 34) The Committee finds that this application was properly admitted into evidence for the sole purpose of rebuttal of the property owners following contentions: A. That the rezone of the property to R-1 precludes use of the property for any purpose to which it is reasonably adapted. B. There is no possibility for profitable use of the property under the restrictions of the rezone. C. That the greater part of the value of the property is' destroyed by the rezone. The Examiner's conclusion that a PUD would be a necessary approach to development on the site" was beyond the jurisdiction of the Examiner and not supported by substantial evidence. • The first sentence of Conclusion No. 9 should be modified to read as follows : "The natural constraints of the site indicate that a PUD would be a possible and economically profitable approach to development of the site. " RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the City Council concur in the Findings of the Hearing Examiner and the Conclusions as modified above, and that the City Council approve reclassification of the three subject properties from R-3 to R-1 and that the matter be referred to the Ways and Means Committee for the proper ordinances. t // /; n _ f/9 / {-(-�� l:. {C: �`cf-1�"�L 1;�7YI 6.2C } lit.:. e ge Perry, Chairman Patricia Se moon/-Tho e Y � Barbara Shinpoch OF .v v 0 THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 z o op o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER p 42- L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 d4tE.D SEPSE�O July 21, 1978 Members, Renton City Council Renton, Washington RE: File No. R-178-78; City of Renton Rezone Request; Notice of Appeal of Examiner's Report & Recommendation. Dear Council Members: On July 20, 1978, an appeal of the referenced request was received by the City Clerk within the time period established by ordinance. We are forwarding copies of the letter which was filed by James R. Irwin, legal counsel for Transamerica Development Corporation as well as copies of correspondence pertaining to requests for clarification of the Examiner's recommendation by parties of record in the public hearing. In accordance with ordinance requirements regarding the appeal process, the matter will be scheduled on the agenda for the Renton City Council meeting of August 14, 1978, a period of 28 days following the publication of the report. If you require additional assistance or information regarding this matter, please contact the Hearing Examiner. Sincerely, (2_,f42- L. Rick Beel r Hearing Examiner MP:mp Attachments cc: Planning Department :City Clerk THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH.98055 2 0 °r' CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR DELORES A. MEAD �009 �� CITY CLERK 4TEDSEP1Ot July 20 , 1978 APPEAL APPEAL FILED BY : James R. Irwin. David H . Binney Shidler, McBroom, Gates & Baldwin 1000 Norton Building Seattle , Washington 98104 • 223-4666 Attorneys for Transamerica Development Company Re : Appeal of Land Use Examiner ' s Decision dated 7-12-78 , Transamerica Development Company, R-178-78, from R-3 to R-1 To Parties of Record : Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner ' s decision has been filed with the City Clerk ' s Office on July 20 , 1978 , along with the proper fee of $25. 00 , pursuant to Title 4, C.h . 30 , City Code , as amended . The City Code requires the appeal must be set forth in writing . The written appeal and all other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council ' s Planning & Development Committee . Please contact the Council Secretary, 235-2586 , for date and time of the committee meeting if so desired . NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above-referenced appeal will be considered by the Renton City Council at its regular meeting ;� •=' of August 14 , 1978 at 8 : 00 p .m. in the Council Chambers , 2nd Floor, Municipal Building , 200 Mill Ave . S. , Renton. Yours very truly , CITY OF RENTON 4d:eta)a 79y-ezeot Delores A. Mead , C.M. C. City Clerk DAM: fd • cc : Parties of Record YON w' 2. James R. Irwin • T of R-13' David H . Binney ZG- \ . 2 Shidler, McBroom, Gates & Baldwin 1000 Norton Building �� � tt..7 • 3 Seattle, Washington 98104 223-4666 RECEIVED • 4 Attorneys for Transamerica CITY OF RENTON Development Company HEARING EXAMINER 5 JUL 2 01978 6 AM PM 7,8,9,18r11112s11213141516 7 • 8 IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE L. RICK. BEELER, HEARING EXAMINER 9 In Re ) 10 CITY OF RENTON REZONE ) File No. R-178-78 APPLICATION ) • 11 ) NOTICE OF APPEAL OF EXAMINER' S DECISION TO 12 ) • CITY COUNCIL ) 13 14 ' Transamerica Development Company, pursuant to Section 4-3016 15 of the City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner Ordinance, appeals 16 to and seeks review by the City Council of the decision of the 17 Hearing Examiner, and the Findings, Conclusion and Recommendations 18 made in support of the decision, entered herein on July 12, 1978, 19 The specific errors relied on are: 20 1. The city, as the proponent of the rezone, did not 21 sustain its burden of proof to show that conditions have sub- 22 stantially changed since the original zoning of the subject 23 property, and that the :rezone was required in the public interest 241as a result of such change. 251 2 . The city did not sustain its burden of. proof to show 26 that the proposed rezone bore a substantial relationship to the 27 public health, safety, morals or welfare . 28 3. The decision of the Hearing Examiner to downzone the 29 subject property constitutes an unconstitutional taking of 30 Transamerica ' s property without just compensation. The expert 31 testimony given by Frank Raney, an MAI Appraiser, that the down- 32 zoning would result in a $236, 250 .00 reduction of the fair market LAW OFFICES OF NOTICE OF APPEAL - 1 SHIDLER, McBROOM,GATES & BALDWIN 1000 NORTON BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 223.4666 1 • value of Transamerica ' s property was unrebutted. The greater 2 portion of the value of, Transamerica's property is destroyed by 3 the rezone. 4 4 . The decision to rezone the property constitutes arbitrary 5 and inverse spot zoning. "6 5. The decision is arbitrary and "capricious and contrary to 7 law . 8 6 . The decision is unsupported by credible evidence. 9 7 . The examiner erred in considering the tentative P.U.D. 10 (Ex . #34 ) and application for' P.U.D. (Ex. #45) in the face of 11 testimony that the property subject to the P.U.D. had not been 12 sold to the party who submitted it, and .he had no ownership 13 interest in the property. 14 8. The examiner's conclusions that everyone was in agreement 15 that ( 1 ) "inconvenience would occur to motorists using the streets 16 . on Renton Hill due to traffic produced by R-3 development", and 17 that ( 2 ) "a P.U.D. was appropriate for the site" , were not based 18 on credible evidence and therefore arbitrary and capricious ' 19 ( Conclusion #3 ) . 201 9 . The examiner ' s conclusion that R-1 .zoning would permit a 21 reasonable return on the original investment and reasonable use 22 of the property was unsupported by ' any credible evidence 'and was 23 . clear-ly erroneous (Conclusion #5) .' There was no evidence (1 ) 24 that the cost of. de'velopment would be only '$12, 000/acre4 or (2) 25 that single family lots in the subject property (which is closer 26 to the freeway and steeper in slope than the rest of the neighbor- 27 hood ) would sell for $20, 000 .00 , and there was no evidence given 28 that justified this conclusion. 29 I 10 . The examiner' s finding that the benefits to the .public 30. health, safety and welfare outweighed the burden on the property 31 owner was not supported by substantial or credible evidence 32 (Conclusion #10 ) . Evidence submitted by the City of Renton was to LAW OFFICES OF NOTICE OF APPEAL - 2 SHIDLER,McBROOM,GATES & BALDWIN 1000 NORTON BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 223-4666 1 the effect that increased traffic.`-from R-3 development, at more 2 than 7 units per acre could be absorbed. w.ith some• inconvenience • 3 to motorists. A finding that such inconvenience outweighs the 4 burden on the property owner imposed by the downzone is clearly 5 erroneous. 6 11 . The: exami.ner's finding that the. application, for rezone 7 was not arbitrarily and capriciously filed for reasons of disbenefi , 8 to the subject properties, is not supported by credible :evidence ' 9 and is clearly erroneous, The evidence was, that property on Mill 10 Avenue South, which was not distinguished from ' the subject 11 property, retained its R-3 zoning. Furthermore, no evidence was •• 12 submitted regarding the nature 'of the ,other properties about ' ' 13 which a rezone would be initiated. : . 14 12. The: examiner erred in cons.ider'ing or giving ,weight to 15 the Renton City Council 's December 5, 1977 amendment ,to the . 16 Comprehensive Plan,. said amendment `and 'resulting plan being 17 invalid due to (1). inadequate notice• of public hearings, ( 2 ) • 18lfailure to comply with the State _Environmental Policy Act of 19 1971 , ( 3 ) interfering with Transamerica' s contractual rights . ' 20 and/or expectancies,. ( 4 ) encouraging the taking of Transamerica' s 21 land without. fair compensation, : ( 5 ) . acting in an arbitrary, 22 capricious and . discriminatory way toward Transamerica' s property, . 23 and ( 6 ) acting in violation of the appearance. of fairness doctrine. 24 The time and date when the Council will consider thet appeal "r`; ` . Y'T ''\a"x�rX-f�:� ' u. . ) -A i `(`'\ ) 'c-c S L:-c i� C .1-1�,,;., \ '•rr_C «_,_ 25 is ' ') 6" • 27 DATED . this 2. ^, day of July,. 1978. . ' 28 SHIDL,ER, MCBR00M, GATES'& BALDWIN 29 Q.. .. By �. E7a^^�`_ . 30 f mes R. .Irwin, Attorney . Pfor 'Transamerica Development 31 'Company ' 32 LAW OFFICES OF NOTICE OF APPEAL 3 SHIDLER,McBROOM,GATES & BALDWIN •' 1000 NORTON BUILDING . , SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 223-4666 ' ' 1 AFFIDAVIT OF' MAILING` 2 This is to certify that copies : of the Notice of Appeal were 3 mailed to Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney, and to Robert E. • 4 McBeth, attorney for the Renton Hill, Community Association, and 5 to the following parties on the mailing list: 6 Kathy Keolker,. 532:Cedar. Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Ruth Bradley, 709 High Avenue S. , ,Renton, WA 98055 7 Peggy Jernigan, 412 Mill. Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Ruth Larson, 714 High Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 8 Amelia Telban, 508, Cedar Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Jim Breda, 1002 Grant Avenue S , Renton, WA 98055 9 Robert McBeth,, 1906 Rolling.. Hi.11ls. Ave.' ,S..E. , Renton, WA 98055 Dennis. Stremick, 253'2 :SmithersAvenue. S. , Renton, WA 98055 10 Jim Irwin, 1000 Norton Building., ' Seattle, WA 98104 Ahmed Jaddi , Consulting Engineers, Milligan, Anderson, 11 - Jaddi , BuildingC-10, .Fisherman's . Terminal, Seattle, WA 98119 12 Frank Raney, 16625 Redmond Way, Suite 206, Redmond, WA 98052 . Bill Montagne, Transamerica Development Corp. , 600 13 . Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA.,94111 John Albertson,. .:,15.5 N. 35th,. -Seattle, .' A 98103 . 14 Mrs . Ray Hansen, 336 Mill Avenue S.., Renton, WA 98055. Mary Lou Gustine, 910. High Avenue- S. , Renton, WA 98055 15 John Giuliani, 1400 S. 7th, Renton, WA 98055 Dennis L. Linch, 320 Mill Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 16 Jerry Glenn Dunnihoo, .434 . Mill Ave: S„ Renton, WA 98055 Mr. & Mrs. F. G. (Mike) McCutcheon, ' 918 Renton Ave. S. , 17 Renton, WA 980,55 Eric Pryne, Seattle Times. South Bureau, 320 Andover Park E. , 18 Tukwila, WA 98188 19E Nancy Sparrow, 316 Renton Ave. So, Renton, WA 98055 Joe McCaslin, 17637 . S.E. 1'23rd Place, - Renton, WA 98055 20 Renton Record-Chronicle, P.O. Box '1076, Renton, WA 98055 . Joan Walker, 1433 Monterey 'Ave. 'N.E. , Renton,. WA 98055 21 and to: 22 Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti. Councilman Richard M. Stredicke 23 Councilwoman Patricia Seymour-Thorpe Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director 24 Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Ron Nelson,' Building Division 25 Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney • 26 27 UBSCRIBED AND. 'SWORN._to before me this ICJ day 'of 28 �/,...��� --' , 19 7 8. ,r") t l / 29 �_. 1., l .. L 30 Notary bl ' °.in and for 'the Sta a .of a. ton, resar7ii<ng e . 31 at � � 32 D18/2 JR/I : cz 7/20/78 LAW OFFICESOF SHIDLER.McBROOM,GATES & BALDWIN 1000 NORTON BUILDING NOTICE OF APPEAL -. 4.`., SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104 223-4666 • • • • OF Ft • -� � ' • 41 THE CITY OF RENTON V tb 4 Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 -4 z o o� CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 0 q. L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 ,P.itb SEP-W-O July 20, 1978 • Kathy Keolker, President Renton Hill Community Association 532. Cedar Avenue South Renton, 'WA 98055 • RE: File No. A-178-78; Renton Hill - City of Renton Rezone. Dear Mrs. Keolker: The Tyrrell and Puget Western, Inc.. properties do not meet the minimum size for, development of a Planned Unit Development (Section 4-2708, Renton Planned Unit Development Ordinance) . Therefore, unless an exception is requested and granted by the Examiner under Section 4-2714,, development of these properties would be under the R-1 zoning requirements of Section 4-706 (Zoning) which would permit single family. subdivision per Chapter 11, Renton Subdivision Ordinance. If an exception is granted, it appears that a P.U.D. may be possible if desired by the property owners. My intent in stipulating that the properties be developed under the P.U.D. Ordinance was that this would occur where the P.U.D. requirements (Section 4-2708) could be met. I trust this clarifies my recommendation. Since ely,�'7 feritirtiN - L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner CC: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Members, Renton City Council Lawrence' J. Warren, City Attorney Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director. Parties of Record 4OF 4 1 . 0 THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 z o o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 'O � L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 o��l ED SEPSE'O July 19, 1978 Members, Renton, City Council Renton, Washington RE: File No. R-178-78; City of Renton Request for Rezone. Dear Council Members: Attached is the Examiner's Report and Recommendation on the referenced rezone request, dated July 12, 1978. The appeal period for the application expires on July 26, 1978, and the report is being forwarded to you for review by the Planning and Development Committee following the seven-day period from the date of publication. The complete file will be transmitted to the City Clerk on July 27, 1978, and will be placed on the Council agenda of August 7, 1978. If you require additional assistance or information regarding this matter, please contact the undersigned. Siny,E e L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Planning Department City Clerk July 18, 1978 Mr. L. Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner City of Renton Renton Municipal Building Renton, Washington 98055 Re : Renton Hill - File No. R-178-78 Dear Mr. Beeler: In addition to the request for clarification submitted by our attorney on July 17 , 1978, we have an additional question. Concerning the property owned by Mrs. Tyrrell and the property owned by Puget Western, we would like clarification of your intent for these properties. They do not meet the minimum acreage for development under the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. For parcels that do not meet the minimum requirements, do they fall under the general R-1 zoning classification and would they be available for traditional sub-division? We would appreciate clarification of this matter. Sincerely, Kathy Keolker., President Renton Hill Community Association 532 Cedar Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 RECEIVED CITY, OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER J U L 2 U 1978 PMAM 718o91 t0,111 t211'2131415,6 OF R� 'V THE CITY OF RENTON V �� Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 .2 ,�« - o o� ! CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 'O Q- L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 oeb SE PS*-'"?) July 18, 1978 Robert E. McBeth Gouge, McBeth & Faull Attorneys at Law . P.O. Box 26 Renton, WA 98055 RE: File No. R-178-78; City of Renton Request for Rezone. Dear Mr. McBeth: My intent in the condition of my recommendation regarding this matter is for only residential development to occur per the Planned Unit Development process of Chapter 27. The density of this development would be according to the recommended R-1 zoning classification. This would conform to Sections 4-2703.9, 4-2706, 4-2707, and 4-2709.2.C. 3 (Chapter 27) pursuant to the R-1 zoning designation (Section 4-706) . I trust this clarifies my recommendation in response to your inquiry. S inly._r ,, .;frvow .... . .... L. • '.ck Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Members, Renton City Council Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Parties of Record GOUGE, MCBETH & FAULL ATTORNEYS AT LAW H. DONALD GOUGE P.O. BOX 26 ROBERT E.McBETH SOS-B SOUTH THIRD STREET GARY F. FAULL RENTON,WASHINGTON 98055 ALPINE 5-5600 July 17, 1978 Mr. L. Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner City of Renton Renton Municipal Building Renton, Washington 98055 Re: , Renton Hill - File No. R-178-78 Dear Mr. Beeler: We are in receipt of your final Report and Recommendation to the Renton City Council, in the above referenced matter, dated July 12, 1978. We must advise you that some con- fusion has arisen regarding your phrase "subject to occur- rence of development under the Planned Unit Development Ordinance, Chapter 27" . Before responding to the Report and Recommendation, may we ask for some clarification or explanation regarding this phrase so that we will under- stand your intent in that regard. Your assistance in providing this clarification would certainly be appreciated. Very t ly y rs, zi? ROBERT E. McBETH Attorney for Renton Hill Community Association REMcB:mr RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER JUL 181978 AM • PM 7 e8e9relOelle12e1.e2e3e4e5e6 A PUGET W �TERN, INC. 1111111. Puget Power Building,Bellevue,WA 98009 (206)454-6363 July 12, 1978 Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: File #R-178-78; City of Renton Rezone Request Dear Sir: Puget Western,. Inc. , as property owner of Tax Lot 195 , concurs with your request to extend the review period for the above referenced project to 30 days. Very truly yours, ra/V6z--pc—pc.e.<_ Leslie A. Donner Vice President LAD/CRC:mm cc: Mr. L. E. Hall RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER ,.R L 141978 71819itOtili120112,30415►fr • +' (11 4OF � ::, o THE CITY OF RENTON o It)* f 7MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 NIL *. , p CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER • p L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 4tED SEP1 � July 10, 1978 Mr. Bill Arthur Land Management Division Puget Western, Inc. Puget Power Building Bellevue, WA 98009 RE: File No. R-178-78; City of Renton Rezone Request. Dear Mr. Arthur: The Land Use Hearing Examiner for the City of Renton recently conducted a public hearing for rezone of certain properties from R-3 to R-1 in the Renton Hill area, one of which is owned by Puget Western, Inc. , Tax Lot 195 consisting of .81 acres, located south of Cedar Avenue S. The public hearing was held on June 13, 1978, continued to June 20, 1978, and subsequently closed on that date with the agreement that the Examiner would be allowed more than the normal 14-day period to render a recommendation on the matter as a result of the large volume of material to be reviewed and researched. Representatives for two of the property owners involved in the rezone hearing, Transamerica Development . Corporation and Renton Hill Community Association, were in attendance at the hearing and indicated their concurrence in the Examiner's request to extend the period for review to 30 days. In order to comply with certain legal :requirements, it will be necessary to receive concurrence from your company, as an affected property owner, in this request to extend the review period. We would appreciate your written response to this matter as soon as possible. All correspondence should be directed to the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055, and reference made to rezone application, R-178-78, City of Renton. Sinc•e1y omit1`w ..„=4 L. Ric Beeler Hearing Examiner Ov' o O U \% el Z OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY • RENTON,WASHINGTON n NA O "1'1= POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING • RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 255-8678 ti /1 Co �Q LAWRENCE J.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 0 434Ttb SE FA JULY 5 , 1978 MEMORANDUM TO : Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner FROM: Lawrence J.Warren, City Attorney Re : Renton Hill Rezone Dear Rick: I have been asked to correspond with you concerning your stated inability to render an opinion on the Renton Hill Rezone within the time given to you by City Ordinance. It is my opinion that if it is in fact impossible for you to render that opinion within the required time, and, if there is no showing that the delay was unreasonable or prejudicial to any party, then you may have the additional time. I might note that this opinion is consistent with State case law. The Supreme Court of this State recently set down such a ruling in the case of In Re Donohoe, 90 Wn (2d) , 173 (June 1978) . In that case. the State said : "The delay was not unreasonable in view of the necessity of obtaining and reviewing 3 days of testimony, plus the exhibits . That fact, coupled with no claim or showing of prejudice, justifies denial of a dismissal . " In that particular case a hearing board of the State Bar Association was to be able to render an opinion within 20 days as required by Court rules . I find that situation analogous to yours and find that e delay ' appropriate. Lawrence J. Arren LJW;nd cc : Mayor RECEIVED Council Members Del Mead CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER JUL - 61978 AM PM 718t9d10t11t12tl1213141 516, I OC Ft �� z THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 4 (2- L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 04)4 O SE PI��0 . June 28, 1978 Mr. John Albertson 1555 N. 35th Seattle, WA 98103 RE: File No. R-178-78; City of Renton Rezone Request. Dear Mr. Albertson: As you know, the City of Renton Hearing Examiner recently conducted a public hearing for rezone of certain properties from R-3 to R-1 in the Renton Hill area, one of which is owned by Mary Tyrrell, whom you represented at the public hearing held on June 13, 1978. The hearing was closed on June 20, 1978 with the agreement that the Examiner would be allowed more than the normal 14-day period to render a recommendation on the matter as a result of the large volume of material to be reviewed and researched. Representatives for two of the property owners involved in the rezone hearing, Transamerica Development Corporation and Renton Hill Community Association, were in attendance at the hearing and indicated their concurrence in the Examiner's request to extend the period for review to 30 days. In order to comply with certainlegal requirements, it will be necessary to receive concurrence from Mrs. Tyrrell, as an affected property owner, in this request to extend the review period. We would appreciate your written response to this matter as soon as possible. All correspondence should be directed to the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055, and reference made to rezone application, R-178-78, City of Renton. Pkal L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner NOTE: Mr. Albertson verbally concurred with the Examiner's request per telephone conversation on July 6, 1978. OF R ,, t ;� OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY • RENTON,WASHINGTON POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING • RENTON,WASHINGTON 98055 255-8678 ml F.4' LAWRENCE I.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY o June 22, 1978 • D k �' SEP�� � MEMORANDUM TO : Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Re: Renton Hill. Dear Rick: In response to your Memo. dated June 9 , 1978 , concerning division of Renton Hill into separate portions for rezone consideration, please be advised that it is my opinion that such action will not pose any problems for your decision or the pending litigation. I do not believe the entire area should be considered as one entity as this might be considered as area-wide zoning under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Furthermore, I suggested that this one particular area be considered so as .to limit the number of pages of transcript that will be necessary if the area is rezoned and Transamerica follows through with its threatened lawsuit. To burden the record with pages of irrelevant testimony as to the Transamerica -property would be unduly time consuming and expensive to trans- cribe .. I hope this adequately answers your qu stion. I Lawrence J. Wa ren LJW:nd cc : Gordon Ericksen Mayor Council President Chairman, Planning & Development Committee Dan Kellogg RECEIVE® CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER JUN231978 AM �q e� PM 7181911®1111111l I2r13141.516 Tyrrell's Inc. NOTE: This letter was received and accepted by the 155 North 35th Examiner following closure of the public hearing P.O. Box 30756 regarding File No. R-178-78 due to the fact that Seattle, WA 98103 Mr. Albertson was unable to attend the continued hearing on June 20, 1978. June 22 , 1978 Mr. L. Rick Beeler City. of Renton, 2"00 Mill Ave. So. Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Mr. Beeler, In discussion with Mrs . Tyrrell she expressed great concerns over the possible re-zoning of her property. There was a great deal of emotionalism at the meeting on the 13th of June by some residents of the "first hill" . It was almost as if they had decided that there was a potential problem in their midst and that it might be in their own best interests to enlist the aid of the City of Renton to forestall any possibility no mat- ter the costs or hardships to others. It reminded her of a sort of "vigilante" group in reverse. In this case the creation of financial hardship and an injustice by selfish group actions at- tempting to take something of value from an individual without the individuals permission and without compensation. This, of course, really defines theft. It amounts to condemnation of her property and she should be compensated if it is allowed to happen. If the residents of first hill were requested to pay the cost of devaluation or suppose $250, 000 . 00 I suspect they would very quickly adjust to the idea of an imaginary changed traffic pattern, or more school buses . On the positive side, an attractive multiple dwelling complex would be an asset to the aesthetics of the community. There is a definite need for more and better housing in all communities . The cost of building single family residences prohibits lots of good decent families from owning their own homes and they should not be denied the proximity to good transportation and family ser- vices by a group of selfish people . The surrounding business com- munity would benefit from increased needs . I hope that you will be honest and fair in retgcomending that the R-3 zoning for which she paid for and paid taxes on these years and for which there is a need, be retained. Sincerely, RECEIVED o e CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AM JUN 2'31979 n c. Albertson /441'1 Er;144 PM 71819r10,11,I2il'213a415,6 • • • of it.eA • 4 v �dtoi • , • ® THE CITY OF RENTON z �.f-. MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,,WASH:98055, • ' a bilLo 0 ', CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER' ky • '®O �@ L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 4rEO SEPW° • June 21, 1978 • • • TO: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney , ' • • FROM: • L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner SUBJECT: ' File No. R-178-78, City of Renton Rezone Request, • • During the public hearing on this application, two legal briefs were , submitted outlining several court cases and their precedence (Exhibit #9 and #38) . • Please review these briefs and provide your conclusions.;.' for my consideration relative to this application. Your response will be needed as soon as possible. Tha you. . • • • L. 'ck Beeler Hearing Examiner • CiUV 1O0 613 Oe ilhur J(JLY 1,11178 cFt CXM sauv C .LS o pF f.. -3 o THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH. 98055 _ CHARLES J. DELAURENTI ► MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER P L. RICK BEELER , 235-2593 O4 f0 SEPitg®� • June 16, 1978 Mr. James R. Irwin Shidler, McBroom,. Gates & Baldwin 1000 Norton Building Seattle, WA 98104 • RE: File No. R-178-78; City of Renton Request for Rezone. Dear Mr. Irwin: Enclosed are copies of requested exhibits submitting during the public hearing on June 13, 1978. I have also enclosed a copy of the Building Division response to the Examiner's request for building activity data on Renton Hill since 1963. It is doubtful that other requested information will be available prior to late Monday afternoon, but I will contact you upon receipt. Sincerely, Marilyn J( etersen Adm. Asst. .� O/ „ ;W ' y 0 THE CITY OF RENTON U t� ': _ MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH. 98055 o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER po q- L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 O,EATED SEP1 ° June 14, 1978 TO: Warren C. Gonnson, Public Works Director FROM: L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner SUBJECT: File No. R-178-78; City of Renton Request for Rezone The public hearing on this application was continued to June 20, 1978 in order for your department to provide the following information: 1. Analysis of existing traffic capacities and volumes on Mill .Street at the access point to Renton Hill. , 2. Analysis of the existing traffic capacities and volumes on Cedar Avenue S. , Renton Avenue S. , South 7th Street, South 9th Street, South 10th Street, and South llth Street. Can these streets and the aforementioned absorb additional traffic? If so, how much? 3. Analysis of the traffic capacities, circulation and volumes on these streets in 1963. Please provide what information you have regarding this. 4. What date was FAI-405 begun and completed? 5. Analysis of alternative access to the subject properties in view of the existing R-3 zoning. What studies, if any, were done regarding the extension of Grant Avenue South? ,Please consult with the Planning Department relative to this request. This information will be needed prior to or during the hearing of June 20, 1978. Th. . ou. L. Rick Beeler cc: Planning Department • 4 .► o THE CITY OF RENTON ��• MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o '' CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER co- L. RICK BEELER , 235-2593 O,Q�TEO SE 131 7 June 14, 1978 TO: Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director FROM: L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner SUBJECT: File No. R-178-78; City of Renton Request for Rezone. Per the public hearing on this application, the following information is requested for consideration during the continued public hearing of June 20, 1978: 1. What zoning existed on the property prior to the rezone of 1963? 2. Analysis of the development characteristics on Renton Hill in 1963, e.g. , density, circulation, housing conditions, etc. This information will be needed prior to or during the hearing of June 20, 1978. Thank ypu. L. Rick Beeler 4 R � .� 41 o THE CITY OF RENTON V \/ et MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON. WASH. 98055 °f CHARLES J. DELAURENTI • MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 113 L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 44-0 SE Pit.- June 14, 1978 TO: Ron Nelson, Building Division FROM: L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner • SUBJECT: File No. R-178-78; City of Renton Rezone Request The public hearing on this application was continued to June 20, 1978 in order for your department to list by year from 1963 to 1976 the number of building permits for new homes and for remodeling in the Renton Hill area. Please consult with the Planning Department concerning this request. This information will be needed prior to or during the hearing of ' June 20, 1978. Thank you. L. Rick Beeler cc: Planning Department OC o THE CITY OF RENTON A/ Vr, MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH. 98055 Ilk op CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER co- 'O Q- L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 �e� O 'it°SEP�� June 9, 1978 TO: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney FROM: L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner SUBJECT: Renton Hill The Planning Department has divided this area into separate portions for my consideration. Next Tuesday, June 13, 1978, I will conduct a public hearing on the first portion. My question is, will this division of the whole area in. question pose any problems for my decision or the pending litigation? Shall the entire area be considered as one entity? L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Planning Department Chairman, Planning & Development Committee 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 12th day of July , .19 78 , 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 - day of r. 0\ 19 `% \\j) .§.. H(\ - kale Notary Public in and for the state of Washington, residing at Renton Application, Petition or Case : city of Renton, 'R-17.8-7.8 (The minutes contain a tint o6 .the panti.ea o6 necond) .. .a R-178-78 Page Two Exhibit #8: Minutes of the Renton City Council, dated November 21 & 28, 1977, and December 5 & 19, 1977. The Examiner reported receipt of a legal brief from James R. Irwin, legal counsel for Transamerica Development Corporation, dated June 9, 1978. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry, Mr. Irwin indicated that the brief would be reviewed during his subsequent testimony. The brief was labeled Exhibit #9 by the Examiner. The Examiner requested testimony in support of the application. Responding was: Kathy Keolker 532 Cedar Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Keolker, President of the Renton Hill Community Association, entered copies of two petitions previously submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council during public hearings held during 1977 regarding the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the Renton Hill area. The petitions, labeled Exhibit #10 by the Examiner, contained a request for rezone of Cedar Avenue S. in its entirety for single family dwellings and expressed concern regarding traffic volume, parking, street width, access, safety, alleys, crime rate, childrens' safety, school busing, property values, quality of the neighborhood, noise level, community facilities and utility systems. To support her testimony concerning the character of Renton Hill as a self-rejuvenating, vital community, Mrs. Keolker entered the following exhibit: Exhibit #11: Photographs (39) of Renton Hill Residences She emphasized that establishment of R-3 zoning of the subject property in 1963 occurred prior to the existence of a comprehensive plan to promote orderly growth within the city. Mrs. Keolker stated that additional multi-family development on Renton Hill would destroy the unique, residential character of an established neighborhood consisting of many generations of residents. Referring to existing access roadways, she advised that residents on Cedar Avenue S. had recently participated in an LID which resulted in the creation of an inadequate, narrow street, and that existing steep grades and blind spots on S. .7th Street and Renton Avenue S. create dangerous safety hazards, particularly during winter months. Mrs. Keolker reported that condominiums constructed on Cedar Avenue S. during 1977 have not received final building code approval to date and remain vacant, and to illustrate residential opinion that the development had not contributed to the appearance of the neighborhood, she entered a series of nine photographs of development on the site, which were labeled Exhibit #12 by the Examiner. Mrs. Keolker emphasized that in addition to construction of new homes, many older homes had been remodeled in the Renton Hill community, and that the neighborhood did not require economic stimulation through development of multi-family residences. She indicated that residents did not oppose progress or growth, but felt that construction of apartments would destroy the character of the quiet, family-oriented, residential neighborhood and could not be considered progressive action. Responding was: Ruth Bradley 709 High Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Bradley addressed the existing problem of increased traffic and insufficient access streets in the Renton Hill area. She submitted the following exhibits to illustrate problems of parking and access: Exhibit #13: Photographs of Cedar Avenue S. Exhibit #14: Traffic Count Data Referring to Exhibit #13, Mrs. Bradley advised that the actual substandard width of Cedar Avenue S. is 26-1/2 feet as a result of a previous LID formed to improve the street. She noted that on-street parking is mandatory for most residents because of the lack of garages in the area and advised that because of the existence of parked cars on the narrow street, it is impossible for two oncoming vehicles to pass simultaneously. Referring to Exhibit #14, Mrs. Bradley indicated that a 24-hour count totaling 2,745 trips had been taken in 1972 during a period in which the pipeline road was open, and reported that residential opposition to the open pipeline access roadway had resulted in subsequent closure. Exhibit #14 also contained 24-hour counts taken in the same location during 1973 following closure of the pipeline road (1,547) , in June, 1977 on Cedar Avenue S. (1,263) , and in January, 1978 (2,650) . She noted dangerous situations created by winter conditions and existence of railroad tracks and trains which limit access to Renton Hill. July 12, 1978 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICANT: City of Renton FILE NO. R-178-78 LOCATION: Property is on the west side of Renton Hill south of S. 7th Street; east of FAI-405; north of the Puget Sound Power and Light Company transmission line easement and east of the subdivided property. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant initiated a rezone from R-3 District, Medium Density Multi-Family to R-1, Single Family District. SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Recommend approval. RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner: Recommend approval with conditions. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on June 9, 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 June 13, 1978 at 9:04 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. The Examiner disclosed being acquainted with certain residents on Renton Hill although he advised that discussion regarding the subject application had not occurred and the relationships would not interfere with his ability to objectively review the request and render a recommendation on the matter. He asked if parties in attendance objected to proceeding with the hearing on the basis of the disclosure. There was no objection. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner, the property owners, and interested parties had received and reviewed the Planning Department report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director, reviewed Exhibit #1. Mr. Ericksen clarified the purpose of the series of hearings to review the zoning of the entire Renton Hill area in phases, beginning with the subject request, in response to recent amendments to the Comprehensive Plan by the City Council. He noted a correction in Section E. , paragraph three of Exhibit #1 in the first, fourth and sixth lines to change the word, "subsistence," to "subsidence," and reported that the Goals and Policies Statement of the Comprehensive Plan should be included as applicable sections of the Comprehensive Plan or other official city documents listed under Section K. of the report. Gary Kruger, Senior Planner, submitted and reviewed the following exhibits: Exhibit #2: Aerial Photograph of Renton Hill and Surrounding Areas • Exhibit #3: Topography Map Exhibit #4: King County Assessor's Map Mr. Kruger presented a series of 24 slides depicting existing topography, streets, structures, park and coalfields of the Renton Hill area and the subject site. The slides were labeled Exhibit #5 by the Examiner. Mr. Ericksen submitted an excerpt from Renton Planning Commission minutes, dated September'25, 1963, reporting approval of the original rezone of the subject property to R-3 designation. The minutes were labeled Exhibit #6 by the Examiner. He also referenced minutes of the Planning Commission and Renton City Council meetings relative to the recent amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the Renton Hill area. The minutes were labeled as follows: Exhibit #7: Minutes of the Planning Commission, dated September 14, 1977 and October 12, 1977. R-178-78 Page Four Examiner and the city ,must-weigh'the merits and benefits to be derived in a zoning change,. and stressed that the more impact that is created for the property owner the more benefit must be derived from the zoning: In this instance, he felt that R-3 zoning would allow a tremendous benefit to the developer. He briefly re'iewed history of the original request for R-1 zoning in the area resulting in a change in the Comprehensive Plan following many months of. Planning Commission and City Council meetings. He noted that in its review the City Council had agreed that the change was desirable and necessary due to assurance . of proper land use of property, existing circulation pattern, traffic volume, and narrow access streets. Mr. McBeth pointed out that existing traffic patterns must remain as currently designed due to heavy volume, inability to widen narrow streets because of proximity to property lines, and existence of railroad trains blocking access. He noted that additional access would not be possible due to the creation of an increase of through traffic from the south into Renton Hill instead of providing access from the area for residents. He objected to statements contained in the legal brief relating to diminished property value in an R-1 zone, and stated that residential property is highly desirable and valuable in Renton Hill due to the nature of the neighborhood and existing city view: Mr. McBeth referred to the existence of subsidence in the parking area of the recently constructed 8-plex condominium on Cedar Avenue S. and noted that the potential for slides existed when the property was rezoned to R-3 in 1963. He explained that the City Council, has the authority to change zoning when substantial change has occurred to warrant such action. He concluded his testimony by indicating support of Planning Commission and City Council recommendations during previous Comprehensive Plan hearings and also statements contained in Exhibit #1 that multi-family development. would create tremendous • problems for the Renton Hill community. The Examiner called a recess at 10:45 a.m. The meeting was reconvened at 11:05 a.m. The Examiner requested further testimony in support of the application. Responding was: • Dennis Stremick 2532 Smithers Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Stremick, President, Victoria Park Homeowners' Association, indicated his support for proposed R-1 single family residential zoning in the Renton Hill area. He felt that the issue was of city-wide concern and indicated agreement with previous testimony relating to traffic problems, soils, and narrow access. Regarding increased school enrollment due to construction of 90 condominium units, Mr. Stremick felt that although district-wide • capacities could accommodate additional enrollment, local schools could not, and noted that a high transient rate accompanies multi-family developments. The Examiner requested testimony in opposition to the request. Responding was: Jim Irwin • 1000 Norton Building Seattle, WA 98104 Mr. Irwin, legal counsel for Transamerica Development Company, indicated that in addition to his own testimony, an appraiser and a traffic expert would provide information to support retention of the existing R-3 zoning of the subject.property. He noted that the pending application was not a typical request from a landowner requesting a rezone to upgrade the use of his property; and that because the City of Renton had downzoned the property on the Comprehensive Plan, the burden of proof rests with the city to show that substantial changes have occurred since the previous rezone of the property to R-3 in 1963 prior to purchase of the site by Transamerica in 1965 to justify such action. Mr. Irwin referred to Exhibit #9, legal brief, page 7, which references a recent Supreme Court decision of Parkridge v. Seattle and read portions of the decision into the record. The decision concluded that consideration of the evidence in a rezone must be based upon: 1) There is no presumption of validity favoring the action of the rezoning; 2) The proponents of the rezone have the burden of proof in demonstrating that conditions have substantially changed since the original zoning; and 3) The rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. The Examiner noted that the case was settled in January, 1978. Mr. Irwin stated that the action of the city would create inverse spot zoning, and noted a difference in calculation of the size of the property by Transamerica of 11.25 acres and the city of 10.05 acres. He advised that 1.07 acres is owned by Mrs. Mary Tyrrell and a small sliver on the east owned by Puget Western which total 12.1 acres according to city calculations. Mr. Irwin stated that R-3 zoned property to the north of the subject site which contains a recently constructed 8-plex condominium is, not owned by Transamerica. He compared access on Mill Avenue S. which contains multi-family development and has been R-178 -._ Page Three Responding was: Peggy Jernigan - 412 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Jernigan addressed the matter of crime rate and residential safety. She advised that a neighborhood crime watch had been established for many years and close neighborhood relationships ensured safety for children. She submitted an exhibit comparing crime rates in Renton Hill to other areas of the city. The exhibit was labeled as follows: Exhibit #15: Crime Rate Statistics The exhibit denoted a total of 80 calls to the Renton Police Department during the first seven months of 1976 as well as the number of calls during the month of July, 1976 from the Highlands (36) , downtown area (94) , and Renton Hill (18) . She attributed the low rate to square block configuration of streets, single access, and proximity of the Renton , Police Department. Mrs. Jernigan emphasized that apartments have a high turnover of tenants which was contrary to the established single family residential tenancy in the neighborhood, and she supported R-1 zoning to allow continued single family residential growth established for the past 70 years. Responding was: Ruth Larson 714 High Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Larson addressed the safety problems associated with the high number of children residing on Renton Hill. She indicated opposition to provision of additional access to the area which she felt would increase sexual crime rates and traffic, fatalities. She stated that the Renton School District currently routes school buses to the top of the hill at Philip Arnold Park but that an increase in enrollment would relocate the bus stop to the bottom of the hill and would create a dangerous situation because of traffic, trains, and large, plate-glass windows of existing businesses in that location. Responding was: Amelia Telban 508 Cedar Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Miss Telban discussed history of Renton Hill and reported that she is residing in the same home in which she was born. She reviewed establishment of the Renton Hill community upon discovery of coal in the community in 1873 when miners purchased single acre tracts from the coal company. She advised that until the 1920's, a school and church were the only structures other than single family residences which existed in the area and at that time several homes were remodeled into multiple family dwellings. During World War II, she reported, a huge influx of workers created a need for additional apartments in the, area. Miss Telban advised the existence of a high percentage of second and third generation residents in the area as well as representation of all age groups and income levels, and stressed the importance of maintaining the sense of community which has been established and perpetuated. Responding was: Jim Breda 1002 Grant Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Breda commended members of the Planning Commission and City Council for courtesy and competence during previous public hearings regarding the Comprehensive Plan revision in the Renton Hill area in arriving at a mutually satisfactory decision. He reiterated testimony previously entered during the hearing regarding access, quality'of life, safety and crime rate, and orientation to single family living. Mr. Breda also advised that while 43 elementary school children reside in the area and utilize school buses, 30 middle school students board buses at Holmes Electric building and 20 to 25 high school students walk to Renton High School. He read a list of second and third generation residents in the area and emphasized that the character of the Renton Hill neighborhood would be destroyed if the zoning to R-1 was not approved and multiple family dwellings allowed. Responding was: Robert McBeth 1906 Rolling Hills Avenue S.E. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. McBeth, legal counsel for the Renton Hill Community Association, indicated receipt this date of Exhibit #9, legal brief filed by Transamerica Development Corporation, and requested additional time for review and response since he would be required to leave the hearing early in the afternoon. He agreed that the R-178-78 Page Six that location of railroad tracks in other areas of the city restrict access and is not a problem that is unique only.to the Renton Hill residents. He suggested that in, lieu of a downzone, the city restrict density and impose controls to assure proper development. He reported that a previous.study by his firm to determine soils and geology capabilities had been halted during City Council action regarding. the Comprehensive Plan, but that no potential danger had been discovered during preliminary review. Referencing a slide contained in Exhibit #5 Presented by the Planning Department depicting collapse of parking surface of the 8-plex condominium construction, Mr. Jaddi reported that the deterioration was not due to geological problems but had occurred because landfill had not been properly compacted. He reported the demand for middle income housing in the area and noted that the subject property would create a buffer from the freeway to existing residential areas. Responding was: Frank Raney Real Estate Appraiser 16625 Redmond Way, Suite 206 Redmond, WA 98052 • Mr. Raney indicated that appraisals had been made of the subject property in both R-3 and R-1 categories. He outlined the review process utilized to attain a viable appraisal for the subject property entailing comparisons with similar sales of properties. He cited four such sales located as follows: 6.6 acre site located on the north side of S.E. 176th in the 1500 block, 3 miles from the subject site, which sold for $25,888/acre, located on a major street with good accessibility, but more remotely located from the center of, population and not as ,steep as the subject site; 28 acre site located on the east side of 140th in the 17600 block which sold for $50,000/acre, level parcel ready for immediate development; 2:9 acre site located off Interstate 5. on 188th Street at the south entrance to Sea-Tac Airport which sold for $43,000/acre, level site, good access 'and noise level similar to the subject site. From these comparable sales, Mr. Raney indicated that an estimated unit value had been established at $25,000/acre in R-3 zoning designation for the subject property. To' establish sales value in an R-1 zone, he ,referenced four sales of similar zoning in the immediate property to the east and south which sold for $4,000 to $6,000 per acre. He explained the difference in value between a developed single lot and undeveloped acreage property which requires expenditures for roads, sewers, utilities and other improvements and can increase the original cost of the property from three to four times. Mr. Raney noted that although the city view from the subject property is excellent, the topography would create difficulties and expense in construction of foundations and single family residences, and he noted that the four other sites considered in appraisal were more desirable because of the level topography of the properties. He advised that these factors were considered upon establishing a potential sales price of $4,000/acre for the subject property under R-1 zoning. Mr. Raney summarized the total value of the 11.25 acre site as $281,250 under R-3 zoning and $45,000 under R-1 zoning. He submitted an updated copy containing more recent sales information of a previous appraisal report, dated June 12, 1978, and the report was entered into the record by the Examiner as Exhibit #20. Responding was: Bill Montagne • Vice President, Transamerica Development Corporation 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Mr. Montagne reported maintaining ownership and paying taxes on the subject property for 13 years and indicated that his company had participated in LID 293 during 1976 for Cedar Avenue S. improvements. He reiterated previous comments relating to zoning at time of purchase and although he respected the spirit of residents in the community, he emphasized that the position of the company was reasonable and acceptable and encouraged careful consideration by the Examiner of information submitted during the hearing. Responding was: John Albertson 155 N. 35th Seattle, WA 98103 Mr. Albertson indicated that he was representing Mrs. Mary Tyrrell,' an owner of record in the subject application, and requested.Mr. Ericksen to designate the property located on the southeast portion of the total site on Exhibit #4. He reported that Mrs. Tyrrell, who is 77 years old, had invested a substantial percentage of her inheritance in the property in 1973 and objected to .condemnation of the value of her estate by the proposed downzone to R-1 designation. Responding was: Mrs. Ray Hansen 336 Mill Avenue S. . Renton, WA 98055 R-178-78 Page Five exempted from the Comprehensive Plan change to access on Cedar,Avenue S. and felt that Mill Street access was .more limited than access to the subject property on Cedar Avenue S. He reported his opinion that elimination of Mill Avenue S. from the Comprehensive Plan change was arbitrary and discriminatory and directed' the proposed downzone at one landowner utilizing no reasonable basis for making a distinction. He reviewed zoning designations of R-3 and R-4 in surrounding areas to emphasize thei compatibility of the. R-3 zoning of the subject site, and requested' a definition of the Renton Hill neighborhood from staff. Mr. Irwin discussed limited construction on Renton Hill since 1963 and again noted that the burden of proof that significant change in the area 'has occurred remains with the city. He felt that testimony previously entered was contrary to that fact, referencing comments relating to longevity of residents in the area. He ;noted that downzoning would substantially destroy the value of Transamerica property without just compensation and discussed sales values .of R-3 zoned property at $25,000 per acre, versus $4,000 per acre value of R-1 zoned property which would result in a $236,250 loss to the company. He requested that the substantial loss in value' to Transamerica be weighed against the city's gain if the ' proposed downzone were approved. Mr. Irwin reviewed history of acquisition of the property in 1965 subsequent to the rezone to R-3 in 1963 and noted that taxes in accordance to the existing zoning had been paid to date. To support his opinion that the property should remain as R-3 zoning to provide a'buffer between the freeway and the residential property, Mr. Irwin submitted a series of 28 slides which were subsequently shown. The slides, which were entered as Exhibit #16 by the Examiner, depicted topography on the site, adjacent 8-plex condominium, existing residences surrounding the subject property; multi- family developments located on Mill Avenue S. , and access streets of Mill Avenue S. -and Cedar Avenue S. In summar y, Mr. Irwin indicated that as evidenced by the slides, Exhibit #16, land use of the subject property was more compatible with multi-family development than single family residential development because of existing topography. He noted that high noise levels emanating from existing FAI-405 created a need for buffer area from residential areas, and felt that construction of multi-family dwellings had exceeded single family construction ' since 1963. He noted that subsequent testimony relating to traffic counts by an expert traffic witness would correspond with previous traffic studies accomplished by the 'city to prove that cedar Avenue S. was currently being utilized at 50% capacity. He referenced a previous poll taken of residents on Cedar Avenue S. to elicit opinions regarding restriction of parking on that street and reported that results indicated that opinion was divided equally and action to restrict parking'had not occurred. He concluded that traffic volume resulting from construction of 90 additional units on Cedar Avenue S: would not increase traffic to,.the established capacity. ;Mr. Irwin submitted the following additional exhibits: Exhibit #17: Map of Tracts 21 and 22 of Transamerica DevelopmentiCorporation Property • Exhibit #18: Memorandum,' dated April 21, 1976, from Bob Hammond, Traffic Engineering Division, regarding Cedar Avenue S. Parking Survey • .Exhibit #18 was read into the record by Mr. Irwin and reported results of the Cedar Avenue S. parking survey. He then deferred further comments to the traffic expert. Responding was: Ahmed Jaddi Consulting Engineer, Milligan, Anderson, Jaddi Building C-10, Fisherman'ls Terminal Seattle, WA 98119 • Mr. Jaddi was affirmed by the Examiner. He reported that a traffic study' had been undertaken by his firm in November of 1977 on Cedar Avenue S. during morning and evening peak hours. and that the resulting traffic count coincided with traffic counts taken by the city in 1976. He advised that the capacity of Cedar Avenue S. is estimated to be approximately 1200 vehicles and reported the total 24-hour traffic count computed by the city is over 600 cars. He estimated that a proposed 90-unit development would increase the count by 450 vehicle trips per day, and added to the existing traffic generation would total less than capacity of the roadway. He reviewed five alternatives to improve traffic circulation in the area and submitted a traffic study, 'dated November, 1977, which encompassed these alternatives. The study,, entitled, Traffic Study by Joseph J. Milligan & Associates, Inc. , was labeled Exhibit #19 by the Examiner.' The alternatives . were briefly described as follows: 1) Restrict parking on the'east side of Cedar Avenue S. during peak hours of traffic; 2) No parking on both sides' of Cedar Avenue S. between S. 3rd Street and S. 4th Street and no parking on' east side south of S. 4th Street; • 3) Traffic circulation to make Cedar Avenue S. one-way southbound :and Renton Avenue S.• one-way northbound between S.' 7th Street and S. 3rd Street; 4) No left turn at S. 7th Street intersection with Cedar Avenue S. for the'eastbound traffic from Cedar Crest Condominium complex; . 5) Remove sidewalk along east side of Cedar Avenue S. thus widening the road'width to 33.6 feet between S. 7th Street and S. 3rd'Street. Mr. Jaddi reported • R-178-78 Page Eight left turn movements onto Cedar Avenue S. at S. 7th Street, she noted, and removal of sidewalks on the east side of Cedar Avenue S. would be opposed by residents because of recent assessment for LID to install sidewalks and improve streets and removal would create inconvenience and safety hazards. Mrs. Keolker reviewed previous comments regarding topography of the site and noted that development of single family residences had occurred on Mercer Island and the California coast in areas of similar topography. She felt that the sales price of the existing 8-plex condominiums was not affordable to purchasers of middle income bracket who are impacted by the housing shortage, and noted that the Comprehensive Plan had not existed in 1963 during the rezone to R-3 designation. Responding was: Mary Lou Gustine 910 High, Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Gustine reported that she has been a real estate salesperson for nine years in the Renton Hill area, and although she agreed with Mr. Raney that sales prices for property are established by comparing sales within a three mile radius she objected to the choice of properties which were utilized for the comparison as being dissimilar. She reported that two lots in the Renton Hill area had recently sold for more than $20,000 which totaled the same price as representatives for Transamerica had testified would be received for 'its 11-acre site under R-1 zoning. She advised that the demand' for single family residential lots on Renton Hill existed and expressed willingness to sell 44 building lots of 1/4 acre each for $528,000 more than the lots had been appraised by Transamerica. ; Responding to earlier comments regarding ownership by Transamerica of the existing 8-plex• condominium recently, constructed on Cedar, Avenue S. , Mrs. Gustine reported that the same builder had signed an earnest money agreement for purchase and development of the subject property. Mr. Jim Breda urged the Examiner to obtain additional traffic counts and building activity statistics as suggested by Mr. Ericksen, and reiterated previous concerns regarding traffic congestion and access. He noted that the property owned by Mrs. Tyrrell contains less slope and more accessible access and inquired if her property had been included in the appraisal and requested an estimate of difference in value for R-1 and R-3 zoning designation of that property. Responding was: Manley Grinolds 308 Cedar Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Grinolds advised that he is also the owner of properties located at 310 Cedar Avenue S. and 1223 S. 3rd Street. He discussed difficulty in access for residential and emergency vehicles because of location of railroad tracks and opposed additional traffic created by development of multi-family dwelling units. The Examiner asked Mr. Irwin and his associates to respond to previous inquiries relating to the application. Responding to the question regarding inclusion of the Tyrrell property in the appraisal, Mr. Raney reported that only the property owned by Transamerica had been included in the appraisal. Before inquiring regarding specific proposals for development of the subject property, the Examiner advised that since the subject of the hearing was review of a rezone, consideration of specific development was not required but the option for discussion was open to the property owner. Mr. Irwin deferred the inquiry to Mr. Montagne who indicated that no specific plan had been determined and sale of the land had not occurred to date. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding specific hours during which the traffic count was taken in 1977, Mr. Jaddi reported that a traffic count totaling 49 trips was taken between 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. on November 11, 1977 and a count totaling 27 trips was taken between 7:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. on November 12, 1977. Mr. Irwin requested clarification of testimony given by Mr. Ericksen regarding review of Exhibit #22, Renton Hill Building Permit Data. Mr. Ericksen indicated that all building activity, including remodeling and additions, had been reported and grouped as new residential construction. Mr. Irwin then made the following inquiries: location of each construction denoted on Exhibit #22 in relationship to the subject property; whether review was made of building permits on the property to the n ;rth in relationship to Mill Avenue S. or to the south or west of the subject site; if additional building activity review occurred of other areas than Renton Hill; date of construction of a large apartment complex on Mill Avenue S. ; if the city conducted a counter traffic study on Cedar Avenue S. during peak hours and results of that study if conducted; if property owners on Mill Avenue S. could obtain a building permit for multi-family construction or if an existing single family residence could be removed and multi-family dwelling constructed in its place; if consideration had been given for the need for multi-family development in the area or other comparable • . I R-178-78 Page Seven Mrs. Hansen objected to .the proposed rezone as unjust and unfair to residents on Mill Avenue S. because depreciation of their property would occur and higher taxes had been paid for R-3 zoned property. She indicated that she .sympathized with problems incurred by residents located on Cedar Avenue S. and enjoyed.her -residency on Renton Hill. Mr. Irwin submitted a page from an environmental checklist routing review request, dated November 28, 1977, containing comments from James CI Hanson, Building Division, referring to requirements for extension of streets for either single or multi-family development in the area; and comments from D. A. Monaghan, Engineering Division, recommending Grant Avenue connection to Puget Drive be retained as an alternative means of access to Renton Hill. The Examiner entered the checklist into the record as Exhibit #21. The Examiner requested further testimony in opposition to the application. There was no 'response. He then opened the period of the hearing for cross-examination and rebuttal. Mr. Robert McBeth referred to Mr. Irwin's comparison of -Mill Avenue S. and Cedar Avenue S. and indicated that Mill had been previously developed and established as a multi-family residential area, but opportunity for control of development was still available on Cedar Avenue S. He objected to Mr. Irwin's comment that property surrounding the subject site on three sides is currently zoned R-3 and felt that property located west of the freeway has no relevance to the subject property because the freeway provides a natural barrier between zoning designations. He noted that property to the south is presently zoned R-3 and R-4 which provides sufficient multi-family development in the area and objected to further incursion of' that use into single family residential areas on Renton Hill. Mr.. McBeth referred to the opposition's comment that no substantial development has occurred . in the neighborhood since 1963 and reported construction of 10 to 12 new homes as well as extensive remodeling to existing residences. He objected to calculations of depreciation of land value provided by Mr. Raney as well as utilization of dissimilar properties for comparison purposes, and reported sale prices of lots on Renton Hill of approximately $15,000 or more. Utilizing-that average price, Mr. McBeth estimated that the subject . property could be sold, for $150,000 locating one house per' acre or $300,000 if two single family residences were. located on each acre of property. He expressed the opinion that the property was highly desirable for single family residential development because of excellent city views and quality of neighborhood. Mr. McBeth questioned the specific time of day the traffic study was conducted in November of 1977 and felt that existing access streets would not accommodate additional traffic because of narrow widths and . steep grades. Summarizing his testimony, Mr. McBeth emphasized that significant change had occurred in the area since 1963, the burden on Transamerica resulting from the rezone was minimal, and he requested that the proposed R-1 zoning be recommended. The Examiner called a lunch recess at 12:10 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 1:35 p.m. The Examiner inquired if Mr. Ericksen had further comments at this time. Mr. Ericksen introduced additional evidence pertaining to building permit data contained in a letter to Gary Kruger, Planning Department, from Building Division, dated May 24, 1978, which was entered into the record as Exhibit #22 by the Examiner. He advised that although the letter contained building activity information for the years 1976 through 1978, further information dating back to 1963 could be obtained if requested.. ,Referencing Exhibit #21, Mr. Ericksen advised that the excerpt containing departmental comments had. been included in the environmental checklist for the Comprehensive Plan amendment,• and he subsequently submitted the entire .final environmental checklist form, dated December 2, 1977 as Exhibit #23. . Mr. Ericksen also submitted a copy of the Comprehensive Planning Committee Report, dated . October 12, 1977, which had been submitted to Planning Commission members prior to a final recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan revision. The report was labeled Exhibit #24 by the Examiner. He also submitted a copy of the final declaration of non-significance • for the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the Renton Hill area, dated December 2, 1977., which was labeled Exhibit #25 by the Examiner. • The Examiner requested further comments in rebuttal. of previous testimony. Mrs. Keolker reiterated Mr. McBeth's comments relating to comparison of development on Mill Avenue S. and Cedar Avenue S. , and objected to Mr. Irwin's comments relating to utilization of property adjacent to the freeway as buffer area since residents had not requested or desired construction of the freeway. Regarding the matter of significant development on the hill, Mrs. Keolker designated on Exhibit #11 the number of homes which had been remodeled or constructed since 1963. She clarified that Exhibit #19 contained only data relating to Cedar Avenue S. and other streets such as S. 7th, S. 3rd and Renton Avenue S. are utilized as access on Renton Hill. Regarding the five alternatives for access discussed by Mr. Jaddi, Mrs. Keolker objected to each .as follows: parking could not be restricted on Cedar Avenue S. due to limited parking space for many residents and guests; Cedar Avenue S. limited to one-way southbound traffic and Renton Avenue S. limited to one- way northbound traffic would not be feasible during winter months because of steep grade on S. 7th' Street. She submitted two photographs taken of S. 7th Street illustrating steep grade which were entered into the record by the Examiner as Exhibit #26. The grade of S. 7th Street would also preclude utilizing the alternative which suggests restricting R-178-78 Page Ten Planning Commission minutes of September, 1963, indicated very little consideration had been given to extensive proposals and large tracts of property of which the subject property was a small part. Mr. Larry Warren, City Attorney, reiterated Mr. Ericksen's explanation of rezone hearing procedures in response to comments relating to spot zoning and discrimination to one property owner. He noted that public hearings for properties in question had been divided into manageable portions not only for the benefit of the Planning Department research, but because of lengthy transcripts which may be submitted to Superior. Court since the decision on the Comprehensive Plan amendment was currently in litigation. He also advised that to avoid jurisdictional problems within the city which requires all area-wide zoning matters to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, properties had been separated for hearing by the Hearing Examiner to comply with city ordinance requirements. Referencing Section P.3 of Exhibit #1, Mr. Ericksen advised that the subject property had been rezoned in 1963 prior to adoption of a Comprehensive Plan, and that goals and objectives of that plan provide effective controls to prevent blight by protecting residents from unwarranted infiltration of incompatible uses. Since Renton Hill is predominantly single family residential use, he noted, high density development would create incompatible zoning and land uses in that area. Mrs. Keolker reported that traffic counts contained in Exhibit #10 including a count • accomplished in June, 1977 on Cedar Avenue S. were obtained from the Traffic Engineering Division. She also requested that the Examiner allow submittal of additional rebuttal material from Mr. McBeth since he was unable to remain in attendance and wished to respond to legal brief, Exhibit #9, submitted by Transamerica. Referring to discussion regarding development of alleyways, Mrs. Keolker indicated that such alternatives had been rejected by residents because of creation of disturbance by traffic and parking and substantial reduction of lot size necessary to increase width of alleyway. She emphasized the need for additional single family lots on Renton Hill and supported Mrs. Gustine's testimony regarding real estate values in the area. Mrs. Keolker concluded her testimony by suggesting that as an alternative the property be dedicated as a city park. The Examiner requested clarification of potential density on the subject property in the R-1 and R-3 zoning categories. Mr. Ericksen indicated that topography was of prime importance in determining density on the subject site, and although in an R-1 zone approximately five units per acre could be allowed, the topography could limit density to 3.5 units on this site. He advised that in the R-3 zone, the zoning ordinances allows 30 units per acre, but attaining that density would not be feasible because of requirements for parking, access and open space area which would reduce the approximate density to 14 units per acre on a site of average slope. He noted that the existence of steep slopes on the subject property would further reduce potential maximum density to 6 or 7 units per acre. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding construction date of FAI-405, Mr. Ericksen estimated that construction was commenced in 1963 and completed in 1966 or 1967 although he indicated the matter would be researched. The Examiner inquired if records were available to substantiate the status of the Renton Hill community in 1963 regarding existing characteristics, traffic volume and access. Mr. Ericksen indicated that an aerial photograph taken in 1963 was on display in the Renton Municipal Building which may be compared with recent aerial photographs of the area. The Examiner referred to a 99-year easement use permit issued to Transamerica by Puget Sound Power and Light Company, and inquired if the document included rights of access. Mr. Irwin read portions of the permit pertaining to permitted use into the record, but reported that the document was signed only by Puget Sound Power & Light Company and evidence of legal recording was not established. The Examiner inquired if Transamerica had reviewed the rights of use of the easement for provision of alternate access to the site to the south. . Mr. Irwin was uncertain if review had occurred but felt it would be a matter which would be reviewed during sale of the property. The Examiner asked the Planning Department to clarify its intent of conclusions regarding sound levels in the area. He inquired if data indicated that only single family development or only multi-family development would be appropriate adjacent to the freeway or neither of the two alternatives. Mr. Kruger explained maximum noise levels allowed to prevent hearing loss and provide appropriate sleeping conditions, and reviewed requirements for specific design and construction methods to minimize noise from the freeway. He advised :that because of the high level of noise, it had been determined that single family residences could be designed more effectively to buffer noise and that impact to fewer residents would occur under this zoning designation. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding drainage problems, Mr. Ericksen referred 'to"slides-, Exhibit '#5, which illustrated existing drainage problems in the area, and 'deferred 'the question to Mr. Kruger. Mr. Kruger reported that comparison of soils data and, research of existing geological mines with the U.S. Geological Survey showed that . although the -soils were stable when not located on a steep slope, other factors such as 30% slope, mined-out coal beds and stability of foundations resulted in a recommendation R-178-78 Page Nine Renton areas; and the city's definition of the neighborhood and if consideration of surrounding property had been given in addition to Renton Hill area as part of the, neighborhood. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding Mr. Irwin's comment relating to building activity on Renton Hill, Mr. Ericksen indicated that the information is available from the Building Division of the Public Works Department. Regarding the original adoption date of the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Ericksen recalled adoption in the spring of 1965 but the exact date would be researched. Regarding zoning of the property prior to 1963, Mr. Ericksen reviewed various zoning categories previously established for properties contained in the application by Puget Properties, Inc. during the 1963 rezone action by the Planning Commission and indicated that the specific information would be subsequently obtained. The Examiner inquired if city staff had obtained traffic counts on Cedar Avenue S. Mr. Ericksen indicated that an updated traffic study was published on February 22, 1978, and although it did not contain counts for Cedar Avenue S. , traffic statistics for Mill Avenue S. , S. 3rd Street, and Renton Avenue S. were included. The traffic study was labeled Exhibit #27 by the Examiner. The Examiner asked if multi-family residences could be constructed if existing homes were removed on Mill Avenue S. Mr. Ericksen reported the feasibility of construction if • compliance with the existing Comprehensive Plan and various other city ordinances and requirements occurred. The Examiner inquired if consideration was given in the staff review of the need for multi-family development in the area and existing vacancy rates of other multi-family complexes. Mr. Kruger advised that according to a vacancy survey conducted during March, 1978, the vacancy rate was less than 1%. Mr. Ericksen clarified that the vacancy rate on Renton Hill was .8% and although the apartments on Mill Avenue S. had been included in the survey, the newly constructed 8-plex which is vacant had not been included in the review to his knowledge. Mr. Kruger noted that during a recent population survey of a 15 square mile area, the vacancy rate for single family residential housing was approximately 2% but this information had not been included in the staff report, Exhibit #1, because of availability of undeveloped property in the area. The Examiner inquired if development on Renton Hill had been compared to other areas of the city. Mr. Ericksen indicated that although such a comparison study was not conducted, he felt that all residential areas in the city were developing at a comparable rate. The Examiner asked for the definition of the neighborhood utilized by the Planning Department during review of the Renton Hill area. Mr. Ericksen reported that the definition was based upon the service area of Earlington Elementary School site east of Philip Arnold Park acquired in 1963. Other factors such as location of the freeway, hillside areas and existence of restricted access define the Renton Hill area as a neighborhood, he stated. He referenced the Comprehensive Plan, Community Facilities Plan, which describes the Renton Hill neighborhood as well as the adjacent neighborhoods of Rolling Hills and Thunderhill. The Examiner asked Mr. Irwin for additional comments. Mr. Irwin submitted additional photographs of property located on Mill Avenue S. and Cedar Avenue S. which were labeled Exhibit #28 by the Examiner. ' Mr. Irwin stated that according to law the City of Renton has the burden of proof to show a substantial change in the neighborhood and that a rezone is in the public interest. He felt that insufficient evidence exists to prove that fact for the period between 1963 and 1978 with regard to new construction comparing the Renton Hill area to other surrounding areas of the city. He referred to Mr. Raney's credentials as an M.A.I. appraiser in noting that testimony refuting his appraisals had not been substantiated, and entered a document designating Mr. Raney's qualifications into the record. The document was entered as Exhibit #29 by the Examiner. Mr. Irwin questioned the reason the zoning designation of the subject property had not been protested in 1963, and inquired if undeveloped areas existed on property adjoining Cedar Avenue S. for parking purposes. Mr. Ericksen indicated the existence of certain undeveloped areas consisting of alleyways and access roads located throughout the community between High Avenue S. and Grant Avenue S. and also between S. 7th Street and S. 9th Street, but that only a 30-foot right-of-way located at S. llth Street existed directly adjacent to the subject property. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the normal width of an alley, Mr. Ericksen advised the width to be from 10 to 16 feet. Mr. Ericksen corrected a statement made by Transamerica representatives that the company had been singled out individually during the rezone proceedings. He explained that three separate ownerships are involved in the subject hearing, and that although the original intent•of the Planning Department had been to review the entire Renton Hill area simultaneously,. an agreement had been reached by attorneys for the city and property. owners that separate rezone hearings would be conducted by the Hearing Examiner. He noted that an area-wide rezoning action would be required to be referred back to the Planning Commission, which had already recommended the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan regarding the area. Mr. Ericksen clarified previous comments relating to data pertaining to new construction versus remodeled dwelling units and noted that the building activity had not been segregated since it all related to substantial' upgrading of the neighborhood. He reported that further data would be supplied if requested by the Examiner. He concurred with Mr. Irwin's statement regarding the nature of the area today compared to 1963 and that review of R-178-78 Page Twelve Mr. Ericksen reviewed the request for townhouse development on the lower portion of the property at the south end of Cedar Avenue S. Mr. James Irwin objected to introduction of the exhibit and subsequent discussion on the basis that the property had not been sold to date, and discussion was not related to the proposed rezone. The Examiner recognized Mr. Irwin's objection since the property has not yet been sold and Transamerica is not a party to the transaction, but indicated that the tentative request would be accepted into the record although detailed discussion would not occur. He then asked Mr. Larry Warren, City Attorney, for a legal opinion regarding submittal of the tentative P.U.D. Mr. Warren advised that the exhibit was admissible if the purpose of introduction was to rebut prior testimony regarding potential use of the property. The Examiner asked Mr. Ericksen to clarify the intent of submittal of the exhibit. Mr. Ericksen confirmed the submittal of the request for rebuttal purposes. He explained that according to the signed and notarized affidavit, dated April 28, 1978, included with the proposed application, Gene 0. Farrell is indicated as agent for Transamerica Development Corporation although he could not verify the validity of the affidavit. He also submitted a letter addressed to Mr. William Graham, consultant on the project, from the Planning Department, dated June 8, 1978, which contained comments from various municipal departments regarding the P.U.D. proposal. The letter was labeled as Exhibit #35 by the Examiner. Mr. Ericksen submitted an additional letter addressed to Mr. Graham from the Planning Department, dated June 19, 1978, which contained comments relating to a meeting held with Mr. Graham and representatives of city staff on June 14, 1978, and noted acceptance of the Cedar Crest P.U.D. tentative plan subject to certain conditions. The letter was labeled Exhibit #36 by the Examiner. Mr. Irwin expressed a continuing objection to introduction and discussion of the Cedar Crest P.U.D. The Examiner advised that the matter could be addressed during Mr. Irwin's period of cross examination and rebuttal of testimony. The Examiner reported receipt of a letter from the Traffic Engineering Division, dated June 20, 1978, which he read into the record. The letter was labeled Exhibit #37 and contained responses to written inquiries from the Examiner resulting from the testimony at the public hearing of June 13, 1978. The Examiner requested testimony from Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director, regarding information contained in Exhibit #37. Mr. Gonnason was 'subsequently affirmed by the Examiner. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry, Mr. Gonnason reported that he had not received or reviewed Exhibit #37 although he would respond to inquiries regarding traffic volume and emergency vehicle access to Renton Hill. He reviewed the original comprehensive circulation plans for connection of access to the south to be accomplished as scheduled in the Six-Year Street Program in' 1973-1974, but he reported that as a result of protests by property owners in the area, those elements of the program were subsequently deleted. He advised that an arterial plan for provision of circulation in the area of Renton Hill or access to the south via Grant Avenue no longer exists and limits emergency access to a single signalized controlled intersection containing a railroad crossing. Referencing Section P.9 of Exhibit #1, statements regarding potential hazard of grade of access streets in the area not normally found in a residential development, Mr. Gonnason noted that while streets in the Renton Hill area are fairly steep, similar street grades are not uncommon in the Puget Sound area and are difficult to avoid in development. He indicated that because of the narrow width of Cedar Avenue S. of 27 feet from curb to curb consisting of two parking lanes and one traveling lane, it would be necessary to provide a reasonable level of service if an additional 100 units were constructed by restricting parking on one side of Cedar Avenue S. to allow two lanes of traffic. He noted that from an interior circulation standpoint, such revision would provide an adequate capacity of that street. Mr. Gonnason reviewed the limited access from Renton Hill and suggested that adequate access to high density developments could be provided to the south to Eagle Ridge Drive and Benson Road. He noted that Section P.9 of Exhibit #1 refers to the Streets and Arterials Plan and advised that although no streets in the area are currently designated as arterials, if there is a desire in the future to develop an arterial system in the area a compromise would be necessary to provide access service to abutting property owners and through traffic which should be designed to function effectively and yet not interfere with the existing residential neighborhood. Mr. Gonnason reviewed anticipated trip generation from an additional 100-unit development which he felt could be accommodated by Cedar Avenue S. in its existing condition although he noted that certain inconveniences and delays may occur. The Examiner called a recess at 10:10 a.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:35 a.m. Mr. Gonnason indicated that he had reviewed Exhibit #37 during the recess and felt that information contained in the letter represents an accurate account of the street capacity and access problems in the Renton Hill area. Prior to Mr. Morgan's testimony regarding the letter Mr. Gonnason advised that as a result of meetings held to review possible multi-family development on Renton Hill the Public Works Department had recommended that an environmental impact statement be required for any future development prior to issuance of a building permit because of the probability of adverse impact of increased traffic upon the area. R-178-78 Page Eleven for on-site soils and geology investigations to be conducted to determine whether the site is safe to develop; and if determination occurs that it is developable, recommendations for development procedures should be obtained also. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry, Mr. Kruger reported that test drilling could occur during environmental review of the specific.development or during the building permit process. The Examiner advised that because acquisition of pertinent information was necessary from various city departments regarding questions relating to building permit activity since 1963 and traffic circulation, and also because of Mr: McBeth's request for an opportunity to respond to Exhibit #9, he proposed continuance of the public hearing for one week. He asked for response from parties of record to his proposal. Mr. Irwin indicated his objection to the continuance. Mrs. Keolker also indicated her objection to the limited notice and ability of residents to attend a meeting held during the day. She requested that the subsequent continuance be scheduled in the evening. The Examiner explained that a spokesperson should be in attendance to relay the testimony of residents ' who are unable to attend and emphasized that testimony should be relevant and entered into the record only once. The Examiner asked for further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on File No. R-178-78 was continued to Tuesday, June 20, 1978 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. CONTINUED HEARING: The continued hearing regarding File No.. R-178-78, City of Renton, was opened on June 20, 1978 at 9:10 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The Examiner entered and read the following exhibits received in response to written inquiries for information. resulting from testimony at the previous hearing: Exhibit #30: Letter to Hearing Examiner from Planning Director, dated June 15, 1978, regarding date of R-3 zoning of subject property. Exhibit #31: Letter to Hearing Examiner from Building . Division, dated June 16, 1978, regarding building activity on Renton Hill from 1963 to 1978. Exhibit #30 reported that the subject property was zoned GS-1 prior to October, 1963 when it was rezoned R-3; and Exhibit #31 contained building permit statistics for the Renton Hill area by year from 1963 until 1978 and listed building permits issued for a total of 22 new residences, 3 apartments, and 69 additions, remodels and garages. The Examiner asked Mr. Ericksen, Planning Director, for additional comments. Mr. Ericksen submitted a map designating the Renton Hill area by block and tabulated building activity • which had occurred from 1962 through 1978 in each block. The map was labeled Exhibit #32 by the Examiner. Mr. Ericksen reported that information had been compiled by comparing aerial photographs taken in August, 1962 and March, 1978, not from building permit data, and the map notes changes which have occurred specifically at the southerly end of the area adjacent to the subject property. Mr. Ericksen entered and displayed two slides which compare aerial photographs taken in August, 1962 and March, 1978 of the Renton Hill area and designate significant changes occurring from construction of the freeway, apartment development and residential structures., The slides were entered into the record as Exhibit #33 by the Examiner. Mr. Ericksen also indicated that 1978 assessed values of the subject properties had been researched and he presented the following information regarding five tax lots comprising the subject request: Tax Lot 85 of 5.37 acres, owned by Transamerica, assessed at $21,400; Tax Lot 194 of 1.54 acres, owned by Transamerica, assessed at $7,100; Tax Lot 196 of 3.22 acres, owned by Transamerica, assessed at $16,100; Tax Lot 191 of 1.15 acres, owned by Mary Tyrrell, assessed' at $28,800; and Tax Lot 195 of .81 acres, owned by Puget Western, Inc. , assessed at $2,000. Mr. Ericksen noted that the 1978 King County Assessor's Map contains a slightly increased tabulation for the property owned by Transamerica of 10.13 acres, but the acreage reported by representatives for Transamerica was 11.25 acres. ' Referring to previous testimony regarding land value and possibility of development of the subject property, Mr. Ericksen advised that the Planning Department had received a request for a tentative Planned Unit Development for single family and townhouse development on the . Transamerica property from agent, Gene 0. Farrell, and he entered a drawing, dated April .28, 1978, labeled Cedar Crest P.U.D. The tentative Cedar Crest P.U.D. was entered into the record as Exhibit #34 by the Examiner. R-178-78 Page Fourteen The Examiner requested further rebuttal testimony in support of the application. Mrs. Ruth Larson reported that during 1972 when the pipeline road was open, an increase of . traffic of 41% had occurred and noted that extension of access at this time would create traffic counts substantially higher at a rate of 41% increase even if additional residential units were not constructed. Referencing discussion of emergency vehicle access, Mrs. Larson reported that the City of Renton has a mutual aid agreement with Fire District 40 in Spring Glen during periods when trains block the access road to Renton Hill. She advised that in addition to personnel at Fire District 40, the Renton Fire Department, Renton Police Department and Renton Street Department personnel possess keys to the gate at the pipeline road and can gain entry for emergency purposes. The Examiner requested verification of the mutual aid agreement from Mr. Warren, who confirmed Mrs. Larson's statement. Mrs. Kathy Keolker reported a significant change of attitude and political awareness by Renton Hill residents since 1963, and reviewed other changes as follows: construction of FAI-405; extensive remodeling involving more than one-third of all properties; change in population to provide younger, more active community; additional children; change in boundaries of the neighborhood and occurrence of massive development; increased value of properties as a result of the city view and neighborhood qualities; utilization of Philip Arnold Park by the entire community; and closure of 4th Avenue S. upon construction of FAI-405. She indicated that in 1963 the older community was expected to deteriorate in value, desirability and quality of homes, and zoning had been established with expectation of multi-family development. However, she noted, because of a reversal of that trend, a resurgence of pride has created a change in the community. She objected to traffic counts accomplished by Transamerica because of the choice of location since Cedar Avenue S. is not utilized by all vehicles, and time of day because peak hours for traffic in a residential area are much earlier than 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.. In reporting a change in the neighborhood, Mrs. Keolker referred to Exhibit #24, Comprehensive Planning Committee Report to the Planning Commission, dated October 12, 1977, and read Finding No. 3 which notes that while the area has been in a state of transition, with increased land values, the physical amenities of the hill area such as view, makes the area highly desirable for residential development. She reported that during the LID on Cedar Avenue S. , residents were promised that parking on both sides of the street would be allowed and it was anticipated that the street would be widened to provide easier access. However, she noted, because of city requirements for sidewalk width, all sidewalks were replaced with 6-foot wide sidewalks which reduced the width of the street to a substandard 261 feet and created residential concern regarding additional traffic volume. She referred again to Exhibit #24 and read a section relating to circulation which indicated that extensive input on the part of the residents in the hill area indicates the desire to continue the limited access to the hill as it is presently constituted to enhance the amenities of the hill as a residential community and preclude through access. Mrs. Keolker also referred to previous City Council action deleting the Grant Avenue S. connection proposal from the Six-Year Street Program; noting that residents to the south are also opposed to such connection which would create problems significantly more severe than existed during the opening of the pipeline road in 1972. The Examiner requested further rebuttal tesimony in support of the application. Responding was: John Giuliani 1400 S. 7th Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Giuliani was affirmed by the Examiner. He reiterated previous testimony 'relating to limited access and traffic volume on Renton Hill, and noted severe problems incurred by location of railroad tracks blocking three major access roads from the area. He stressed that expert testimony had not provided alternatives to solve the problems which already exist and would increase with additional development or extended access to the south. The Examiner requested rebuttal testimony from Mr. James Irwin,. representing Transamerica Development Corporation. Mr. Irwin submitted the following additional exhibits into the record which were labeled by the Examiner: Exhibit #39: Aerial Photograph of the Renton Hill area, taken April 12, 1977 by Walker & Associates, Inc. Exhibit #40: Aerial Photograph of the Renton Hill area, taken July 27, 1964 by Walker & Associates, Inc. The exhibits were displayed and reviewed by Mr. Irwin who requested his associate, Mr. David H. Binney, to designate the subject property on each photograph as well as the existing apartment complex on Mill Avenue S. as a point of reference. Mr,. Binney noted the location of the recently constructed 8-plex condominium development on Cedar Avenue S. on Exhibit #39 and Mr. Irwin concluded that because of the similarity of the two photographs significant change was not evident to the viewer. He then entered the following additional R-178-78 Page Thirteen • The Examiner requested testimony from Clint Morgan, Traffic Engineering Division, who was subsequently affirmed. The Examiner referred to Exhibit #37, memorandum regarding traffic capacities and volumes on Renton Hill and requested clarification of certain terms and principles. Mr. Morgan reviewed the divisional analysis and reported that the traffic signalized intersection of S. 3rd Street at Mill and Houser Way could absorb an increase of 36% and the anticipated increase generated by the proposed R-3 development would be approximately 18.5%. However, he noted that the increase would not be desirable because of the minimum distance between traffic signals in that location for waiting vehicles and the division would prefer not to revise the signalization of these intersections. He listed the 24-hour traffic volume counts for Cedar Avenue S. , south of S. 3rd Street (511) ; Renton Avenue S. , south of S. 3rd Street (1,182) ; and Grant Avenue S. , south of S. 7th Street (171) ; and noted that although the streets can absorb increased traffic volumes it would increase the strain on the community and produce undesirable. effects in traffic flow. He reported a critical situation on Cedar Avenue S. which contains parking provisions on both sides of the street resulting in an 11-foot wide space for access lane, and noted that although , the streets could absorb an increase of 900 to 1,000 vehicles, an increase above that amount would necessitate restriction of parking on one side to allow a free flow of traffic. He reported tabulations of potential trip generation in R-1 zoning of 425 vehicles per day which would not necessitate restriction of parking on Cedar Avenue S. but would create undesirable restricted flow of traffic. The Examiner inquired if proposed densities of the tentative Cedar Crest P.U.D. had been utilized to compute trip estimates. Mr. Morgan indicated that the proposed P.U.D. had been utilized. In response to one of the Examiner's inquiries contained in Exhibit #37, he advised that records containing traffic capacities and volumes in 1963 are not available. Reviewing alternative access routes to the subject properties which had been studied in the past, Mr. Morgan discussed proposals for a straight connection, between the two existing Grant Avenues, connection between Renton Avenue and Eagle Ridge Drive, connection between Cedar Avenue S. and Benson Road S. , and connection from Mill Avenue S. passing underneath the freeway, FAI-405, to S. 4th Street. He indicated that the proposed connection between the two existing Grant Avenues had been determined the most desirable during citizen committee meetings held in 1972. Responding to an inquiry regarding proposed density figures from Mr. Irwin, Mr. Morgan reviewed the computation method utilized to arrive at the projected trip generation figure of 1350 per day within full development of 245 units in the R-3 zone, and development of 53 units in the R-1 zone. The Examiner requested testimony from Mr. Robert McBeth, legal counsel for Renton Hill Community Association. Mr. McBeth submitted a legal brief from the community association in response to Exhibit #9, legal brief submitted during June 13, 1978 public hearing by Transamerica Development Corporation. The legal brief was labeled Exhibit #38 by the Examiner. Mr. McBeth advised that the brief contained different interpretations of previous Supreme Court decisions than had been determined by Transamerica as well as reporting factors that should be taken into consideration in weighing the competing interests of the general public and the property owner. He indicated that the determining factor of review is to establish whether substantial change has occurred since 1963 to warrant a revision in the zoning code, and expressed his opinion that changes and circumstances had occurred to revise the existing zoning in the Renton Hill neighborhood to single family residential. He objected to inclusion of R-4 zoned property to the south and property across the freeway in review of zoning areas by Mr. Irwin and defined the Renton Hill neighborhood as separate from Rolling Hills, Victoria Park and other individual neighborhoods to the south established since 1963. Mr. McBeth reported that the change in development attitude and community sense was the most significant change in the area since 1963, and noted that the rezone in 1963 had been unopposed and occurred prior to adoption of a Comprehensive Plan. He indicated that building activity statistics contained in Exhibit #31 illustrate a tremendous upgrading of the neighborhood and demonstrate pride of ownership and sense of community. He also reported that traffic studies and aerial photographs had provided indication of significant change. Referencing Exhibit #19 containing traffic count data compiled by representatives for Transamerica, Mr. McBeth noted that the count had been taken on November 11, 1977 which had been a legal holiday, Veterans' Day, and could not be considered a valid indication of traffic volume in the area. He objected to proposals to extend existing access streets on Renton Hill since population to the south had increased substantially in recent years and would generate more traffic through Renton' Hill than had occurred when the pipeline road was temporarily opened in 1972 and create many hardships and problems to the residents. Mr. McBeth objected to proposals to restrict parking on one side of Cedar Avenue S. , noting creation of inconvenience to residents because of lack of space for all residential vehicles; objected to unknown factors of density and eventual dense multi-family development of the subject property; and objected to increased traffic due to statements made during the hearing that such increase would be undesirable. He felt that spot zoning was not occurring because the Renton Hill area as a general district had been included in the Comprehensive Plan amendment to revise zoning in that specific neighborhood. He objected to Transamerica's statement that the property was being devalued since property taxes had not been high and single family residential use of the property would be profitable. R-178-78 Page Sixteen Mr. Irwin clarified an earlier reference to a 99-year use permit provided by Puget Sound Power & Light Company for easement rights, which was entered into the record as Exhibit #44 by the Examiner. He noted that the permit contracted limited use rights between Transamerica Development Corporation and Puget Sound Power & Light Company to be reassigned upon sale of the property. He advised that Exhibit #44 had not been recorded because transaction between Mr. Farrell and Transamerica had not occurred. Mr. Irwin referred to a discrepancy noted by Mr. Ericksen on Exhibit #7 regarding size of the subject property, and reported that the property had been represented as consisting of 11.25 acres at the time of sale to Transamerica and the city had acquired its information from the King County Assessor's Map. The Examiner requested further rebuttal testimony in opposition to the request. Mr. Ahmed Jaddi, traffic consultant, reiterated previous comments relating to consistency of traffic studies accomplished by Transamerica and city staff. He reviewed traffic count figures and noted a traffic count reduction on Cedar Avenue S. from 691 in 1977 to 511 in 1978. He corrected traffic generation estimates provided by the Traffic Engineering Division testimony utilizing a density figure of 245 units, noting that the property would be developed at a density of 6 to 7 units per acre which would result in an increase of 450 vehicle trips per day. Mr. Jaddi advised that testimony regarding the city's mutual aid agreement for emergency vehicle support eliminated that problem with railroad tracks and he reported that the traffic volume at Bronson Way and Sunset Boulevard where railroad tracks are also located as 10 times higher than at the' subject intersection. He suggested restricting 7th Avenue to one-way southbound traffic to solve access problems on the hill. Mr. Jaddi concluded his testimony by reporting a typographical error in Exhibit #19, Traffic Study, ,and dates of traffic counts should be revised from November 11 & 12, 1977 to November 15 & 16, 1977. He submitted handwritten copies verifying the original date of the study. The Examiner indicated that corrections would be made to Exhibit #19. Mrs. Keolker corrected Mr. Irwin's percentage computations in utilizing existing number of residents and adding number of new constructions since an average of 3 to 6 people reside in each household and felt the comparisons were invalid. She also indicated that although building permit figures show that over one-third of the 280 homes on the hill have been remodeled, other remodeling has occurred without application for a permit and the statistics for building activity may be much higher. Referring to testimony regarding 90 units as being maximum proposed density on the site, Mrs. Keolker recalled a City Council meeting during which Mr. Farrell had stated that 180 units would be constructed on the subject property. She questioned the validity of the 1977 parking restriction survey taken on Cedar Avenue S. which resulted in an equally divided consensus, due to the fact that many residents had not been contacted, and concluded her testimony by stating that traffic congestion on Cedar Avenue S. occurs with only two cars attempting to pass in opposite directions. Mr. McBeth read a paragraph from the Parkridge v. Seattle Supreme Court case, page 462, in which the court states that they agree that the current views of the community urging rezone to single family use may be given substantial weight in matters of this nature, but they cannot be controlling absent compelling reasons requiring a rezone for the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. Mr. McBeth emphasized that community attitudes count for one factor to be taken into consideration and he urged the Examiner to review those supporting facts in the record. The Examiner asked Mr. Ericksen for final comments. Mr. Ericksen reiterated the purpose of the subject hearing, the first phase in a series of forthcoming rezone requests, to expedite consideration of the proposed cahnges in zoning as a result of the Comprehensive Plan amendments by the City Council. He referenced Mr. Irwin's testimony regarding donation of public use areas by Puget Properties, Inc. during 1963 rezone action, and clarified that the City of Renton and the Renton School District had purchased those sites on a per acre cost basis for public use and the purchase may have occurred prior to the rezone procedure. Mr. Ericksen submitted the Planned Unit Development application with attached affidavit for Cedar Crest P.U.D. , dated April 28, 1978, signed by Gene 0. Farrell and notarized by Gloria E. Medley. The application and affidavit were labeled Exhibit #45 by the Examiner. Mr. Irwin stated his continuing objection to the submittal of the document. Mr. Ericksen referred to the final recommendation denoted on page, 9 of Exhibit #1 and indicated that the departmental report would remain as submitted. The Examiner inquired if recent review of the Comprehensive Plan accomplished by the Planning Commission and the City Council of the Renton Hill area constituted an area land use analysis and zoning consideration. Mr. Ericksen indicated that the review by the Planning Commission exceeded the specific area of Renton Hill and included Rolling Hills, Royal Hills and other areas to the south, and that action taken which affected the specific Renton Hill area occurred as a result of a request by residents in that area. Therefore, he noted, the review could not be considered an area wide consideration, but was confined to a smaller area. The Examiner inquired if a study of the area zoning was conducted. Mr. Ericksen responded that a study was not conducted. l I � R-178-78 Page Fifteen exhibits which were labeled by the Examiner: Exhibit #41: Aerial Photograph of the subject property and adjacent areas to the south, dated April 12, 1977, 1-1500 scale. Exhibit #42: Aerial Photograph of the subject property and adjacent areas to the south, dated July 27, 1964, 1-1000 scale. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry, Mr. Irwin indicated that the exhibits encompassed a broader area than is designated on Exhibits #39 and #40. Mr. Irwin requested Mr. Binney to circle developments which had occurred to the south of the subject property since 1964, to illustrate significant change which had occurred in other areas of the city., Mr. Irwin then entered a document which contains information from the Polk Directory from 1963 to 1977 for residences on Mill Avenue S. , Cedar Avenue S. , and Renton Avenue S. The document was labeled Exhibit #43 by the Examiner. Mr. Irwin reviewed information contained in the directory noting decreases from 24 addresses on Mill Avenue S in 1963 to 20 in 1977; and decrease from 61 addresses on Cedar Avenue S. in 1963 to 55 in 1977. He also reported that certain addresses are listed'as 1/2 indicating additional living units within the residence, and he felt the document evidenced that significant change had not occurred on Renton Hill since 1963. He referred to testimony reporting population figures totaling 650 to 675 residents on the hill and computed a percentage of increase adding 22 new residences as approximately 3.5% from 1963 to 1978, which he felt was not substantial compared to development in King County or to the south of the subject property. Mr. Irwin computed percentages of increase in relationship to additions or remodeling, although he felt the evidence was not clear regarding the nature of the improvements, which totaled approximately 11.5% and he felt that this increase did not indicate significant change in the area. He pointed out similaries in aerial photographs, Exhibits #39 and #40, and clarified Mr. Ericksen's review of Exhibit #32, .noting Block No. 15 .joins Puget Western, Inc. property and not Transamerica property. Referring to comparisons of aerial photographs and computations of increased building activity, Mr. Irwin maintained that the city had not met the burden of proof in showing that substantial change had occurred in the area. Mr. Irwin referenced Exhibit #6, excerpt from Renton Planning Commission minutes of September 25, 1963, and read a portion referring to a letter from Puget Properties, Inc. regarding the deletion of certain areas designated for public use which included school sites no. 1 and 2, reservoir site no. 1 and a portion of the reservoir site and portion of proposed Benson Highway relocation area. He felt that the dedication of these public use areas was beneficial to the city and residents of the area and was met with public approval. He reviewed history of the purchase of the property in 1965 by Transamerica at $15,000 per acre in R-3 zoning and indicated that although a proposed sale of a portion of the property to Mr. Farrell had been discussed during the time of City Council public hearings on the proposed amendment to the. Comprehensive Plan, sale of the property had not occurred, and he felt introduction of Mr. Farrell's tentative plan was extremely prejudicial to the rezone hearing which should pertain only to the proposed downzone of the subject property. Mr. Irwin commented that because of existing terrain and situation of the site between the existing freeway and single family residential areas, use of the subject property for clustered, multiple family development and not single family is appropriate and desirable with limited density of approximately 90 units. He felt that traffic studies provided by Mr. "Jaddi and the city were consistent and that existing traffic problems can be solved since it had been reported that capacities of Cedar Avenue S. would not be exceeded by addition of a proposed 90-unit development. He reviewed solutions to. problems consisting of restricted parking and improved alleyways, but noted residential objection to each suggestion and lack of concern that an 84% reduction in the value of Transamerica's property would occur if the downzone were approved. He indicated that testimony from Mr. Frank Raney, an M.A.I. appraiser, regarding value of the property under two separate zoning designations had not been refuted by representatives of similar background although much speculation."regarding value of the property had occurred during the public hearing. Referencing the Parkridge v. Seattle case, he stated that Mr. McBeth's testimony illustrated that a change of attitude had occurred in the Renton Hill neighborhood but not a physical or structural change, and he read a portion from page 461 of that Supreme Court decision which referred to a contention that.a significant change in attitude has occurred in the surrounding neighborhood since previous zoning to RM 800 in 1959. He noted that while the court commended the residents for a changed attitude and strong community spirit, it could not be found that the original rezone of these lots in 1959 was invalid at the time it was made. Mr. Irwin indicated that although he was aware the subject rezone request encompassed only three parcels of property of 12.1 acres, he felt that the city was initiating spot zoning because the subject site was the only property in the general area for which the City Council was proposing a rezone and Mill Avenue S. had been eliminated from the proposed downzone. R-178-78 Page Eighteen 10. A tentative P.U.D. for residential development of the TADCO site was submitted as Exhibit #34. The application for this development was filed by Mr. Gene 0. Farrell as agent for Transamerica Development Co. (TADCO) (Exhibit #45) . Mr. Irwin (TADCO representative) testified that the property had not been sold and that Mr. Farrell did not represent TADCO. 11. In addition to the findings of Section 4-3014 (Hearing Examiner Ordinance) the case of Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn 2d 454 (January, 1978) presented the following findings: a. The presumption of validity of the rezone action by the City Council does not hold. Sufficient proof must be presented to support the rezone. The burden of proof for rezoning the property rests with the city to prove that conditions have substantially changed since the previous zoning. b. The rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. c. Current views of the community must be given substantial weight, but cannot be a controlling reason for the rezone. 12. The Carlson v. City of Bellevue, 72 Wn 2d 41, 51, 435 P. 2d 957 (1968) case set forth additional considerations for evaluating the rezone: a. The character of the neighborhood. b. Existing uses and the zoning of nearby property. c. The amount by which property values are decreased. d. The extent to which the diminution of values promotes the public health, safety, morals or welfare. e. The relative gain to the public as compared with the hardship imposed upon the individual owner. f. The suitability of the subject property for the purpose for which it is zoned. g. The length of time the property has remained unimproved, considered in the context of the land development in the area. h. No single factor is controlling but each must receive due consideration. i. The aggrieved property owner must show that if the rezone occurs the consequent restrictions on his property preclude its use for any purpose to which it is reasonably adapted. j. The aggrieved property owner must show that there is no possibility for profitable use under the restrictions of the rezone, or that the greater part of the value of the property is destroyed by the rezone. Economic and functional use is assumed and that some permitted use can be profitable. 13. All portions of the Comprehensive Plan apply to the proposed rezone; however, the specific circumstances surrounding the proposal render the following goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan most applicable: In planning neighborhoods the creation of residential districts free of overcrowding influences, arterial traffic, and the unwarranted encroachment of commercial and industrial uses are important objectives. (Page 4, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, 1965.) 1. Within the single-family detached dwelling residential areas, population densities should not exceed six families per acre. In single-family attached dwelling areas (townhouses) densities should not exceed ten families per acre. 2. Within the multiple-family areas, population densities should not exceed forty (40) families per acre. '3. Population densities recommended for any given area shall take into consideration the physical limitations of the soils and topography, the community facilities available, and the trends of existing development. (Page 5, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965.) R-178-78 Page Seventeen The Examiner reported ordinance requirements to render a recommendation on the matter within 14 days from the date of the hearing, but inquired of the City Attorney if it would be legally possible to extend that deadline because of the volume of material to be reviewed. Mr. Warren referred to a building moratorium established by the City Council due to expire on July 5, 1978 and would place substantial pressure to provide a recommendation as soon as possible; however,' he advised that a legal problem would not exist if all parties were amenable to the request. The Examiner inquired if parties of record would accept his proposal to extend the review period to 30 days. Mr. McBeth indicated his concurrence although he stated his intention to request an extension of the moratorium from the City Council. The Examiner advised that a 14-day appeal period as well as an additional 7-day waiting period is required following date of publication of the recommendation prior to placement of the rezone request on the Council agenda, which would occur after the expiration date of the moratorium even if the Examiner was able to render a decision within the 14-day period. Mr. Irwin indicated his concurrence in the request, although he noted that action on the property had been delayed for a period of time and he encouraged the matter to be resolved expeditiously. Prior to closure of the public hearing, Mr. McBeth made the following comments for the Examiner's consideration: 1) he is a resident of Rolling Hills and does not consider himself in any way a resident of Renton Hill; 2) the Polk Directory is totally inaccurate in its statistics and he feels the information is irrelevant and unworthy; and 3) trains divert in opposite directions at the bottom of Renton Hill and the situation should not be compared to the location of railroad crossings at Bronson Way and Sunset Boulevard. The Examiner requested further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on File No. R-178-78 was closed by the Examiner at 12:35 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND 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 approximately 12.1 acres from R-3 to R-1. 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 subject proposal by Gordon Y. Ericksen, responsible official. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this proposal. 5. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. 6. On December 5, 1977, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3186 amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from a designation of Medium Density Multifamily to a designation of Single Family pursuant to an analysis performed by the Planning Commission of area land use, which included the three properties contained in this application. The public hearing on this rezone application does not constitute a review of the validity of that decision by the City Council. 7. The Planning Department has found that the existing zoning of R-3 does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. A recommendation has been for the three properties to be rezoned to R-1. (Exhibit #1) 8. However, per the testimony of the representative of the Transamerica Development Corporation (TADCO) (Exhibit #9) an issue was the apparent selection of only three properties on Renton Hill for rezoning. The City Attorney testified and stated in the aforementioned attached memorandum that the selection was made to expedite and facilitate the current litigation concerning the December 5, 1977, change of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The Planning staff testified that this application containing the three subject properties was the first in a series of similar applications involving other properties in similar circumstances. 9. Per Section 4-3014, the Examiner's recommendation to the City Council regarding this application is to be rendered within fourteen (14) days. However, all parties in the public hearings expressed agreement to allowing the Examiner 30 days to render this recommendation in view of the substantial amount of material entered into the record. The City Attorney stated that this procedure was acceptable. R-178-78 Page Twenty 15. The subject properties are undeveloped and have remained so since prior to being reclassified in 1963. The topography of the TADCO and Tyrrell properties is of a fairly steep slope (Exhibit #1) which is in relative character with existing development on the western slope of the Renton Hill. The Puget Western, Inc. property is of a moderate slope. Underlaying much of Renton Hill is old, mined- out coal beds (Exhibit #1) . Soils on the subject sites present hazards for development as in other portions of Renton Hill (Exhibit #1) . Testimony indicated that the only slippage or slide occurrence was in the form of subsidence within Renton Avenue S. in the 600 'block (Exhibit #1 and verbal testimony) . Substantial vegetation exists on the subject sites, predominantly on the TADCO property. 16. Frank R. Raney, MAI, testified that based upon his analysis (Exhibit #20) the TADCO property possessed a value of $25,000 per acre (total of $281,250) for multi- family development and a value of $4,000 per acre (total of $45,000) for single family development. The King County Assessor's Office placed a total value of $44,500 on the property under existing R-3 zoning. He estimated that development costs would increase the original cost of the property three or four times. Mary Lou Gustine, real estate salesperson, testified that current sales of undeveloped single family lots with improvements is approximately $20,000. Mr. Raney indicated that the TADCO property was purchased in November, 1965 for $171,492 ($15,246 per acre) . Expert or substantive testimony relative to property values was not entered into the record concerning the Tyrrell and Puget Western, Inc. properties. The King County Assessor's Office placed a total value of $28,800 upon the former and $2,000 upon the latter properties under existing R-3 zoning. 17. Traffic information (Exhibits #19, 27 & 37) indicated that existing streets on Renton Hill could absorb the projected amount of traffic from the three properties if developed under R-3 zoning. From testimony in the hearing it was apparent that traffic would not flow as easily as witnessed at this time. The main problem for vehicular circulation appeared to be the intersection of Mill Avenue S. and S. 3rd Street, the intersection of the only access to and from Renton Hill. However, the Public Works Department testified that modification of the traffic signal at this intersection could accommodate the projected increased traffic (Exhibit #37) . No costs were given concerning this modification. It was very apparent that a secondary access to and from Renton Hill was needed and preferred. Streets on Renton Hill are not designated as arterials. Public safety vehicles can reach Renton Hill via the Seattle Cedar River Pipeline. 6 18. Properties in the areas northeast, southeast, and south of Renton Hill have developed substantially since 1963 (Exhibits #2, 41 and 42) . 19. The view of the Renton Hill community was clearly expressed of supporting rezoning the property to R-1 and single family development on the three subject properties. A strong sense of community and identify was presented in testimony by residents of the community. Several generations have lived and are living on Renton Hill. The consensus appeared to be that the community is unique in these and other ways and that R-3 development would seriously impact and endanger the existing character and livability of the community. 20. Renton Hill is predominantly a single family community with a small "pocket" of multi-family located abutting the freeway. For the most part, the housing stock is older homes which have been restored, remodeled or in need of some maintenance or repair. The age of the homes is as varied as the style of architecture. But testimony indicated that revitalization of the homes has been most noticeable within the past few years. Most homes are constructed on sloped or fairly steep hillside lots. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Testimony and the evidence substantiated that the Planning Commission and City Council considered the area land use, not area zoning, of Renton Hill and the surrounding community. The result of their public hearings was a change in the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the subject properties to single family residential (Section 4-3014. (A) ) . 2. Since the property was rezoned in 1963, Renton Hill has experienced the significant changes of: a. Completion of FAI-405 which introduced a large noise source and eliminated all but one access to the neighborhood. b. Completion of improvement of Cedar Avenue S. R-178-78 Page Nineteen It is the plan and policy of the City of Renton, through its physical, economic, and cultural development, to encourage the appropriate use of land throughout the municipality. To this end, the city will encourage proper employment of construction methods and land use principles, and promote the coordinated development of undeveloped areas. It will further give consideration to the prevention of overcrowding of land; the avoidance of undue concentrations of population; and provision for adequate light and air by securing open arrangements of carefully spaced buildings and building groups. It will be important for the city to reserve appropriate allotments o'f land in new developments for all the requirements of community life. At the same time, the conservation and restoration of the natural beauty of the community's cultural and natural resources will be a primary goal. As these goals are achieved, the formation of functional, natural neighborhoods and community units will result. (Summary, pages 9 and 10, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965.) Residential. The successful utilization of land for low density residential development will depend on the availability of easily accessible areas which are relatively free of recurring or potential hazards such as floods, slides, and land subsidence. Residential districts should be free of manufacturing or commercial uses which would be detrimental to the community and its residents. The natural features and amenities that may exist or can be developed should be utilized to best advantage for the use and benefit of the community. Convenience to place of employment, shopping districts, schools, parks and other cultural activities, should be inherent features of the location. In medium and high density residential use districts the proximity to major employment centers, shopping districts, financial districts and office centers is important, as is convenient access to major arterials and highways. The nearby convenience of a larger variety of cultural features such as libraries, museums, parks, theaters and other forms of entertainment and relaxation is a desirable feature which may distinguish high density from low density residential districts. Other compatible or complementary intensive uses may include research and office centers, shopping districts and other functions which are not detrimental to the maintenance of desirable living conditions. While commercial or industrial uses are not easily adapted to hillside locations, residential development may be successfully planned to take good advantage of the amenities which such locations often provide. Natural features such as rock out-croppings, streams, stands of native trees, and the views often available from these locations should be used to greatest advantage. (Page 11, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965.) 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, and prevent the development of orderly growth patterns. 4. Protect property values within the community for the benefit of its residents and property owners, through the effective control of land use and the enforcement and application of building and construction codes. 6. Encourage the development and utilization of land to its highest and best use in such a way as to promote the best interest of the community and contribute to its overall attractiveness and desirability as a place in which to work, shop, live and play. (Objectives, pages 17 and 18, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965.) 14. Zoning of R-1 would allow a maximum density of 6 units per acre and R-3 would permit a maximum density of 30 units per acre. Since the reclassification of the property in 1963, FAI-405 was completed (1967) , thereby eliminating all but one access point to Renton Hill. In addition, the LID for improvement of Cedar Avenue S. (LID 293) was completed, and the proposed extension of Grant Avenue S. was deleted from the Six Year Street Program. In the period from 1963 to 1978 a total of 22 new residences and 3 apartment buildings (containing a total of 21 units) were constructed in the neighborhood. There also occurred during this period 69 remodels, additions or garage construction permits (Exhibit #31) . Beacon Way S. was opened and closed (1972-1973) to the south over the Seattle Cedar River Pipeline (Exhibit #1) . R-178-78 Page Twenty-Two The proposed R-1 is within the six units per acre density guideline of the Comprehensive Plan (Page 5, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban ARea, July, 1965) . Testimony of the Planning Department relative to the capability of the soil and topography to support this density was that 3.5 units per acre for single family residential development was probable and 6 to 7 units per acre probable for multi- family development. This testimony was not refuted. The Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, page 11, indicates that "low density residential development" should occur on land ". . .relatively free of recurring or potential hazards such as floods, slides, and land subsidence." Testimony has substantiated that subsidence has occurred near the subject properties. Uncontested information was supplied by the Planning Department in Exhibit #1 to indicate that severe hazards exist on the properties due to soil, topography and mining conditions. Therefore, it appears that "low density residential development" should not occur on the properties; however, this term is not defined in the Comprehensive Plan. These hazards present problems to any development on the sites. Zoning of R-3 is not compatible with R-1 when the two zones directly abut under normal circumstances (Objective No. 1, page 17, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965) . Testimony touched lightly this issue and whether under the specific conditions of the subject properties the incompatibility could be mitigated. Sufficient documentation was given that vegetation and topography separate the subject properties, particularly TADCO, from the adjacent R-1 zoned properties. The most pertinent testimony given was that a PUD was appropriate for the site, which seemed to be agreed upon by all parties. But residents offered the unsupported contention that R-3 development would produce "decay and obsolescence. . . " (Ibid) in the neighborhood. In this case it is difficult to balance the impact upon property values of the ,property owners as well as the residents of the neighborhood (Objective No. 4, page 17, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965) . TADCO presented expert testimony to support that a rezone to R-1 would severely decrease the value of their property. No expert testimony refuted this evidence submitted by Mr. Raney, MAI. However, it was contested by residents that a reasonable profit could still be made from development of the property at a single family density. A concept of a P.U.D. (Exhibit #34) was submitted to illustrate the point that something else besides R-3 was possible for the TADCO property. It was apparent that the P.U.D. process would be an appropriate land use control method for this site. But similar testimony was not entered relative to the other two properties other than unsupported allegations that the value of the property would decrease if rezoned. Disagreement exists as to what constitutes the "best interest of the community" while providing the "highest and best use" of the subject properties (Objective No. 6, page 18, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965) . It was clear that not increasing the traffic problems in the neighborhood would be in the community's best interest and in the best interest of anyone developing on Renton Hill. Under the circumstances, it is also clear that R-3, while yielding the most profit, will conflict with this community's best interest. Something less than R-3 is more appropriate, but testimony was lacking relative to alternatives other than R-1 which TADCO showed as clearly impacting their investment. Testimony regarding the contribution of R-1 to the ". . .overall attractiveness and desirability as a place in which to work, shop, live and play. . . " (Ibid) seemed to substantially support the proposed reclassification to R-1. Again, traffic impact from a more dense development than R-1 appeared to cause the greatest concerns on the part of residents and the greatest detrimental impact upon the "attractiveness and desirability" of the neighborhood. However, testimony did not explore to any great extent the effects that a planned unit development (P.U.D.) might have upon R-1, R-3 or other zoning. 4. Mr. Raney, MAI, substantiated (Exhibit #20) that the property was purchased in 1965 for $15,246 per acre and had a current estimated value of $25,000 per acre and $4,000 per acre as R-1. (It should be noted that TADCO and Mr. Raney used a total acreage figure of 11.25 acres while the King County Assessor's Map, Exhibit #4, showed that the TADCO property consists of 10.05 acres.) In his tesimony, Mr. Raney stated that development costs for single family lots would increase the property costs by as much as four times. This appraisal was not refuted by similar evidence or expert testimony. In applying the consideration of the decrease in property value of Carlson v. City of. Bellevue it appears that development of single family lots- on the TADCO property can yield a profitable use. Using the aforementioned estimate of $4,000 per acre the development costs (factor of four) would raise the cost of the property to R-178-78 Page Twenty-One c. Inclusion and subsequent exclusion of the extension of Grant Avenue S. from the Six Year Street Program. d. Opening and closing of Beacon Way S. to vehicular traffic. e. Increased community awareness of and involvement in land use decisions. Taken together these changes appear to be sufficiently significant to apply to Section 4-3014. (C) . Most significant was the reduction of access to a single intersection of Mill Avenue. S. and S. 3rd Street. All of the traffic from Renton Hill moves through this intersection, except for emergency public safety vehicles which can use the Seattle Cedar River Pipeline (Beacon Way S.) when the intersection is: blocked. Several times a day trains block the intersection for several minutes at a time, thereby stopping all traffic to and from Renton Hill. In effect, the end result is a long and densely populated cul-de-sac which exceeds the limit of Section 9-1108.K (Subdivision Ordinance) . Alternative access to the south was explored to help relieve the access problem. Opening Beacon Way to vehicular traffic produced a heavy through-traffic burden on Renton Hill without alleviating the intersection problem at S. 3rd Street and Mill Avenue S. Therefore, this access was closed except to emergency public safety vehicles. Finally, an extension of Grant Avenue S. was proposed, but was eliminated recently from the Six-Year Street Program. The access problems created by FAI-405 remain unsolved. Of some help was the first LID for improvement of Cedar Avenue S. While this improvement helped traffic movement somewhat, the traffic capacity. and maneuverability of the street is restricted and impaired by the narrow pavement. The interest and involvement of the neighborhood in land use decisions has apparently increased substantially since the public hearings concerning rezoning the subject properties in 1963. As a result of neighborhood pressure the Planning Commission and City Council re-evaluated the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The conclusions of the City Council were to change the map from Medium Density Multi-family to Single Family Residential. Other changes have occurred but were not comparatively significant. Exhibit #31 showed that building permit activity has remained relatively steady and stable since 1963, not displaying the alleged substantial change in renovation or new homes in the neighborhood. However, testimony clearly indicated that the neighborhood was a vital, rejuvenating one which does not exhibit a transitional character often seen in areas experiencing pressure for a change in land use. The slope of the land has not been changed, and people continue to build upon moderate to steep slopes. The properties continue to appreciate in value for single family development. Some multifamily construction has occurred since 1963, most pertinent being the building at the northwest corner of Renton Avenue S. and S. 7th Street. The property was zoned R-3 since 1963, and apparently multifamily development has only occurred slowly in the neighborhood. At least since 1963 the subject properties, although zoned R-3, have remained undeveloped. Based upon these conclusions, it is apparent that the conditions on Renton Hill have significantly changed since 1963. Thereby, a test of Parkridge v. City of Seattle has been met. 3. The subject properties are potentially suited for reclassification pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan (Section 4-3014. (C) . Sufficient justification was given to warrant a reclassification from the existing zoning of R-3. It was apparent that the "overcrowding influence" (Pages 4, 9 and 10,. Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965) occurring on Renton Hill are primarily traffic related. Residents feel that existing streets will be overburdened by traffic from R-3 development. TADCO's expert witness testified that existing streets can absorb this traffic. The Public Works Department agreed that the streets could handle the traffic, but expressed the opinion that the projected volume of cars would not be desirable. Everyone was in agreement that inconvenience would occur to motorists using the streets on Renton Hill due to traffic produced by R-3 development. R-178-78 Page Twenty-Four 8. The final test for the proposed rezone is whether or not there exists a preponderance of proof supporting R-1 (Parkridge v. City of Seattle) . It appears that a preponderate amount of evidence is available in support of R-1. 9. The record substantiated that natural constraints of the site indicate that a P.U.D. would be a necessary approach to development on the site. This would mean common- wall (attached) units spread over the sites but located on the more stable, less impacted by natural constraints, areas of the sites. Therefore, the central issue becomes not the zoning category but the appropriate density for the properties based upon the natural constraints. Only Mr. Ericksen, Planning Director, provided testimony relative to this issue. He provided an estimated density range of 3.5 (single family) to 7 (multifamily) units per acre based upon his experience and knowledge of the site. Alternatives to achieving this density are: a. R-3, limited to 3.5 units per acre. b. R-3, limited to 7 units per acre. c. R-2, limited to 3.5 units per acre. d. R-2, limited to 7 units per acre. e. R-1, limited to 3.5 units per acre. Specific environmental data was not provided to select one alternative with great conviction. However, upon examination of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, the Zoning Map, Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives and the record, a specific recommendation was achieved. The R-1 zoning surrounding the properties, except at the northern edge of the TADCO property, would indicate that multifamily development at 7 units per acre is not the most appropriate in this location. Single family, R-1, is the most appropriate zoning and can be adequately buffered from FAI-405 (via vegetation and acoustical walls) and the R-3 zone abutting the TADCO property (via - vegetation and space) via the P.U.D. process. Whether or not the property will support 3.5 units per acre depends upon receipt and review of more specific environmental information that can be included in review of the P.U.D. A need does not apparently exist to buffer the existing R-1 properties from FAI-405 and the transmission line easement by intermediate zoning of R-3 of the subject properties. Continuation of R-1 through the three subject properties is more appropriate under these circumstances. Noise data submitted in Exhibit #1 indicated the severity of impact from FAI-405 to be sufficiently significant to necessitate some acoustic treatment for noise protection on the site. Testimony mentioned special treatment of the building walls and windows to reduce the noise levels inside the residential dwelling units to acceptable standards. Any residential development, R-1 or R-3, would be impacted the same. Acoustical protection can be reviewed during the public hearings on the P.U.D. ; however, evidence was not submitted showing that the city has regulations requiring acoustical protection and treatment of buildings. For the purposes of this analysis it is sufficient to conclude that alternatives are available to reduce noise impact such that noise does not become an objection to residential zoning. 10. From the testimony and the record it can be reasonably concluded that reclassification of the subject properties would be of substantial benefit to the public health, safety and welfare. The existing traffic circulation and access problems would be lessened, including possible traffic or pedestrian accidents. Overcrowding of the neighborhood would not occur. Less potential harm to the future residents of the subject sites due to subsidence would occur. The neighborhood would not absorb a multifamily development which potentially conflicts with the existing single family character. Traffic would not be interrupted or delayed as frequently as predicted at the intersection of Mill Avenue S. and S. 3rd Street. The stability of at least a portion of the neighborhood would not be threatened. The benefits to the public health, safety and welfare appear, upon weighing the evidence, to be predominantly in favor of the rezone to R-1 as opposed to the loss in value of the subject properties. Predominantly, the benefit to the existing and future residents of Renton Hill and the general public rests in the relative reduction of traffic associated impacts upon existing streets and the intersection of Mill Avenue S. and S. 3rd Street. A reasonable use remains for these properties which appears profitable as well. • R-178-78 Page Twenty-Three $16,4b0 per acre. The question becomes then of whether or not a profit can be realized from this type of development. Mrs. Gustine, real estate salesperson, testified' that single family lots in the neighborhood recently sold for at least . $20,000 per lot. Mr. Ericksen, Director of Planning, testified that a realistic estimate of the density of single family for the property would be 3.5 units per acre. This would mean a gross sale of $70,000 per acre. If the aforementioned analysis holds true, a potential developer would realize a net profit of approximately $54,000 per acre for the land ready for construction of homes. This analysis does not include the economies available through development as a P.U.D. since specific testimony was not submitted relative to these savings in development costs. But this analysis sufficiently supports a conclusion that R-1 permits the property owner/developer a reasonable return on the original investment and reasonable use of the property. Although specific appraisal testimony was not provided regarding the other two • subject properties, it can be reasonably assumed that their value would in all probability approach at least the appraised values provided by Mr. Raney. The valuation of the'King County Assessor's Office appears to substantiate this conclusion. 5. Both Carlson v. City of Bellevue and Parkridge v. City of Seattle require that the loss of property value bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. Many opinions were presented that the safety of traffic movement, pedestrian movement, and general living were threatened by retention of the existing zoning of R-3. The Public Works Department testified that the projected increased traffic would not be desirable, but the neighborhood could absorb it with some inconvenience. Mr. Raney in Exhibit #20 .submitted that a rezone to R-1 would reduce the value of the property by $236,250. While some disagreement existed with his appraisal, no other expert testimony was entered into the record to refute it. 6. Carlson •v. City of Bellevue requires addressing the suitability of the property for • use as R-3. Testimony predominantly dealt with either the maximum density of 30 units . per acre or Mr. Ericksen's estimate of approximately 6 to 7 units per acre (assumed reasonable development under existing circumstances on the site) . A P.U.D. (Exhibit #34) was submitted to illustrate that R-3 zoning was unnecessary and that less dense development was possible. However, this proposal must of necessity be discounted due to Mr. Irwin's testimony that the P.U.D. applicant did not possess authority or • rights from TADCO for such application. Soils, topography, gology (including mining activity) , and noise information was submitted in Exhibit #1 by the Planning Department. This information indicated severe constraints upon development. However, specific soil studies or tests were not made to substantiate this information. It appears that this data was compiled from very general information and maps. However, no opposition to this information and its accuracy was expressed. . • Based upon the topography of the site and the aforementioned general information, it can be reasonably concluded that development will experience problems in the properties. But testimony did not substantiate or address whether or not these ' problems would be any greater', lesser or the same as experienced in development of other sloped properties in the neighborhood. It appears from the general information and testimony in the record, that perhaps the same problems will be experienced in single family development and that single family development is feasible, producing a stable condition on the properties. Relatively little multifamily construction exists in the neighborhood to draw the same conclusion with the same conviction. However, the multifamily structure at the northwest corner of S. 7th Street and • Cedar Avenue S. appears .to substantiate that multifamily construction can occur on the sloped properties with exercise of perhaps greater care and caution. In terms of land use, the Comprehensive Plan would indicate that transition is necessary between R-3 and R-1. The topographic and vegetation conditions on the subject properties, for the most part, provide some transition. The adequacy of the transition depends upon the proposed development for the properties. Specific testimony was not submitted of generalized or detailed nature to be able to draw any more .specific conclusions except to indicate that less intense use of the subject properties would be more compatible with the adjacent and abutting R-1 properties. 7. The subject properties remain undeveloped. Other properties in the general area • as well as the neighborhood have developed and are in the process of developing (Exhibits #2, 41 and 42) within the past 15 years. • R-178-78 Page Twenty-Six Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before July 26, 1978. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgement, 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. R-178-78 Page Twenty-Five 11. The issue of spot zoning was raised by TADCO in Exhibit #9. This does not appear to be the case in this application. Pursuant to a change in the Comprehensive Plan the City initiated the rezone application due to its finding that the subject properties did not apparently conform to the Comprehensive Plan. It was stated by the Planning Department and the City Attorney that the subject properties. were the first of several to receive such review for conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and that TADCO was included in the first phase of this review mostly out of convenience to the current litigation involving that property. The Examiner's conclusion is that for this reason, not an arbitrary and capricious reason of selecting the properties for reasons of disbenefit to the three properties, this application was filed. Grounds for allegations of spot zoning or aribrary and capricious action by the City were not sufficiently substantiated. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the testimony, record, findings and conclusions herein, it is the recommendation of the Examiner that the City Council approve reclassification of the three subject properties from R-3 to R-1 subject to occurrence of development under' the Planned Unit Development Ordinance, Chapter 27. ORDERED THIS 12th day of July, 1978. . Ri :eeler Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of July, 1978 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Kathy Keolker, 532 Cedar Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Ruth Bradley, 709 High Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Peggy Jernigan, 412 Mill Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Ruth Larson, 714 High Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Amelia Telban, 508 Cedar Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Jim Breda, 1002 Grant Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Robert McBeth, 1906 Rolling Hills Ave. S.E. , Renton, WA 98055 • Dennis Stremick, 2532 Smithers Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Jim Irwin, 1000 Norton Building, Seattle, WA 98104 Ahmed Jaddi, Consulting Engineers, Milligan, Anderson, Jaddi, Building C-10, Fisherman's Terminal, Seattle, WA 98119 Frank Raney, 16625 Redmond Way, Suite 206, Redmond, WA 98052 Bill Montagne, Transamerica Development Corp. , 600 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111 John Albertson, 155 N. 35th, Seattle, WA 98103 Mrs. Ray Hansen, 336 Mill Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Mary Lou Gustine, 910 High Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Manley Grinolds, 308 Cedar Avenue S. , Renton , WA 98055 John Giuliani, 1400 S. 7th, Renton, WA 98055 Dennis L. Linch, 320 Mill Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Jerry Glenn Dunnihoo, 434 Mill Ave. S. , Renton, WA 98055 Mr. & Mrs. F. G. (Mike) McCutcheon, 918 Renton Ave. S. , Renton, WA 98055 Eric Pryne, Seattle Times South Bureau, 320 Andover Park E. , Tukwila, WA 98188 Nancy Sparrow, 316 Renton Ave. S. , Renton, WA 98055 Joe McCaslin, 17637 S.E. 123rd Place, Renton, WA 98055 Renton Record-Chronicle, P.O. Box 1076, Renton, WA 98055 Joan Walker, 1433 Monterey Ave. N.E. , Renton, WA 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of July, 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 Director Ron Nelson, Building Division Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney EX II/B/T El-I EIII, sr _ W52-...wv.4,. , fi CEMRM.I \\\ PA ii -La 1 le, cm 7-..,i h /4/ Illral... .::::::::!::.:. !:::".:.:.."---.....".::::::...:.:..:.;:.:.:.....:.::.: aCaim 'z a.- im Tr.ra.pe,R f-v X1'gp M,sue lf7�1 f='�T T• Z-T 'r71�'+ 7i'7 lt.imsl.i iiiiiiwidi :Milt) 1iE "4 CI:r 7 w 7 ...J,_:- - - t. �1@� ism" ��l�?7 R; ` - .. Cal 4.24;i4 ti j ris v.w,• 4irs; IS Aliv.... .:. . <tliv7r f Fa ii' \ "� . N r i _ •i 8_I • �•r a. s,�` Rw� air,. 1 a` `I N ., o C IM, r�a raiz ofaz. 11(it i 1 Ski ii wra,, il, !�"�""r \ " • _ G � s • r,Ei: N II 7.7 _ .. - cr iiii, . I 1 ' ...moms .. -—7 III a. ____. '57 r . . _ . ci ., N . /5 a s s\s,,,, LIMMMIOOW /Al e ' R- ) r ...,. ,. „„, . .. .. ., \s„s • -7 GSA . , , . ', ,...,20. . .- n. �'' M al ` I �` Q 5 Pn 1 I ! e. , ,.....„ . ,_:„. ,•••\ „0,..., ,„__.._ _ „ . -_,._, ____._____________.....----- :..„:„.:___- • \.., ._. _ ... . _____ . 1/, : • - . . ...„.... \ s F / I R— e r -� 0 � ' ;tAN)10-16;701 ._..0 , CAS—I \ -►Q'v I r / \ r . . REZONE : CITY OF RENTON , File 'No. R- 178-78, APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM R-3 TO R- 1 ; property located on the west side of Renton Hill and situated south of South 7th Street , east of FAI-405 , north of the Puget Sound and Light Transmission Line Easement, and east of the subdivided property. • • APPLICANT CITY OF RENTON TOTAL AREA 12 . 1± acres PRINCIPAL ACCESS Cedar, Renton , and Grant Avenues South • EX? S1ING ZONING R-3 • • EXISTING USE Vacant • • PROPOSED USE Residential COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Single Family Residential COMMENTS This is the first phase of an area-wide rezone initiated by the City of Renton . Three ownerships are involved in • this phase. • OF -v U t CD Z OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY• RENTON.WASHINGTON POST OfFICE SOX 11216 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING • RENTON,WASHINGTON 'BOSS 2SS-K7S SA n LAWRENCE I.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY o, June 22, 1978 ?Eb sons MEMORANDUM TO: Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Re: Renton Hill Dear Rick: In response to your Memo dated June 9, 1978 ; concerning division of Renton Hill into separate portions for rezone consideration, please be advised that it is my opinion that such action will not pose any problems for your decision or the pending litigation. I do not believe the entire area should be considered as one entity as this might be considered as area-wide zoning under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Furthermore, I suggested that this one particular area be considered so as to limit the number of pages of transcript that will be necessary if the area is rezoned and Transamerica follows through with its t'ireatened lawsuit. To burden the record with pages of irrelevant testimony as to the Transamerica property would be unduly time consuming and expensive to trans- cribe I hope this adequately answers your qu stion. Lawrence J. ren LJW:nd cc : Gordon Ericksen Mayor Council President Chairman, Planning 8 Development Committee Dan Kellogg RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON MIMING EXAMINER JUN 2 3 1978 AM PM 71819110111,12111263.465,6 O 4 F F �4 :: ' z OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY e RENTON,WASHINGTON A NA POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING • RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 255-8678 13 41- LAWRENCE J.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY'ATTORNEY 047- ED SEPS DULY 5 , 1978 MEMORANDUM TO : Rick Beeler , Hearing Examiner FROM: Lawrence J.Warren, City Attorney Re : Renton Hill Rezone Dear Rick: I have been asked to correspond with you concerning your stated inability to render an opinion on the Renton Hill Rezone within the time given to you by City Ordinance . It is my opinion that if it is in fact impossible for you to render that opinion within the required time , and , if there is no showing that the delay was unreasonable or. prejudicial to any party, then you may have the additional time . I might note that this opinion is consistent with State case law. The Supreme Court of this State recently set down such a ruling in the case of In Re Donohoe , 90 Wn (2d) , 173 (June 1978) . In that case the State said : "The delay was not unreasonable in view of the necessity of obtaining and reviewing 3 days of testimony, plus the exhibits . That fact , coupled with no claim or showing of prejudice , justifies denial of a dismissal . " In that particular case a hearing board of the State Bar Association was to be able to render an opinion within 20 days as required by Court rules . I find that situation analogous to yours and find that the delay Ls. appropriate . 11 Lawrence J . WArren LJW:nd cc : Mayor • RECEIVED Council Members CITY OF RENTON Del Mead HEARING EXAMINER J U L 61978 AM PM 718191$h11i12i1121H,4'56 • Tyrrell's Inc. NOTE: This letter was received and accepted by the 155 North 35th Examiner following closure of the public hearing P.O. Box 30756 regarding File No. R-178-78 due to the fact that Seattle, WA 98103 Mr. Albertson was unable to attend the continued hearing on June 20, 1978. June 22 , 1978 Mr. L. Rick Beeler City of Renton, 200 Mill Ave. So. • Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Mr. Beeler, In discussion with Mrs . Tyrrell she expressed great concerns over the possible re-zoning of her property. There was a great deal of emotionalism at the meeting on the 13th of June by some residents of the "first hill" . It was almost as if they had decided that there was a potential problem in their midst and that it might be in their own best interests to enlist the aid of the City of Renton to forestall any possibility no mat- ter the costs or hardships to others . It reminded her of a sort of "vigilante" group in reverse. In this case the creation of financial hardship and an injustice by selfish group actions at- tempting to take something of value from an individual without the individuals permission and without compensation. This, of course, really defines theft. It amounts to condemnation of her property and she should be compensated if it is allowed to happen. If the residents of first hill were requested to pay the cost of devaluation ' or suppose $250, 000 . 00 I suspect they would very quickly adjust to the idea of an imaginary changed traffic pattern, or more school buses . On the positive side, an attractive multiple dwelling complex would be an asset to the aesthetics of the community. There is a definite need for more and better housing in all communities. The cost of building single family residences prohibits lots of good decent families from owning their own homes and they should not be denied the proximity to good transportation and family ser- vices by a group of selfish people . The surrounding business com- munity would benefit from increased needs . I hope that you will be honest and fair inretscominding that the R-3 zoning for which she paid for and paid taxes on these years and for which there is a need, be retained. Sincerely, RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON e off" HEARING EXAMINER n C. Albertson JUN 2 31978AM PM novi3 ry-1.441 718(9110,1111211 42,3,4,5,6 a . . G, %I/ d'- � co. o THE CITY OF RENTON U '' . MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 O CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT St- 235- 2550 O,Q4T fD SEPI - MEMORANDUM June 13, 1978 • TO : Ronald G . Nelson , Building Division Supervisor FROM : Gordon Y . Ericksen , Planning Director By : Gary R. Kruger , Senior Planner `=F RE : RENTON HILL REZONE - PHASE I BUILDING PERMIT DATA SINCE 1963 The public hearing held today on the Renton Hill Rezone was continued until next Tuesday , June 20. The Hearing Examiner requested that all building permit data from October 1963 to the present time be compiled by type and dollar amount for each year be presented at the June 20 hearing . This data will be employed to assist in the determination whether Renton Hill has changed substantially since 1963 when the property was rezoned to R-3 . Should you need a clarification of this request , please contact this department .• GYE : GRK:ms cc : C . J . Delaurenti , Mayor Warren C . Gonnason , Public Works Director RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER JUN141978 AM PM 7t8t9e(O1IluI2ol i213e4,5,6 ckg'.\\\ CIT Y OF RENTON � 1^liFii REZONE APPLICATION - • ee. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY, ,e - �. --- [� ,! APPLICATION NO. n LAND USE �7 � � , `�I 17Y- 7d" EXAMINER 'S S ACTION APPLICATION FEE $ Not Applicable APPEAL FILED RECEIPT NO . CITY COUNCIL ACTION FILING DATE - 5 -7 ORDINANCE NO. AND DATE TEARING DATE '�.-�. ._� ,APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 1Q : • . Name City of Renton Phone 235-2550 Address Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055 • 3. Property petitioned for rezoning is located on Renton Hill between Power line right-of-way and South 7th Street and FAI-405 1 . Square footage or acreage 'of property + 12 .1 Acres Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach a separate sheet) See attached sheet. • • H . Existing Zoning R-3 Multi Family Zoning Requested R 1 - i' .JOTE TO APPLICANT : The following factors are considered in reclassifying property. Evidence or additional information to substantiate your request may be attached to this sheet. (See Application Procedure Sheet for specific requirements . ) Submit this form in duplicate . 7. Proposed use of site Residential 3. List the measures to be taken to reduce impact on the surrounding area. Reduction in the development density is being reviewed in view of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Renton. • How soon after the rezone is granted do you intend to develop the site? • • j) . Two copies of plot plan and affidavit of ownership are required. Planning Dept. 1-77 • 'fax Lot 85 - Section 20-23-5 (NW 1/4) Renton Hillside Properties Transamerica Development Co. 1111 S. Grand Avc. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Portion Govt . Lot 1 lying northerly of Puget Sound Power and Light Transmission line R/IV and .easterly of PS11It1 (1-405) . Cont . 234,000 sq. ft . L = 21 ,400 • Tax Lot 191 I ITDC 1137 Mary 'I'y rre 1 155 N. 35th • Seattle , WA 98103 Portion of D.C. lying in NE 1/4 o NW 1/42Sec.9 atW. of Section thence W. 67.02 ft. thence 669.65' to tpob. Th. N 01-26-45 E 154.89' th. N 88-33-21 W. 319.83 ft . thence S 01-21-221 W 92.42' th. S 67-03-41 li 354.93' th. N 07-22-33 W 68. 39 to tpob. I ' Cont . 50,260 sq. ft. L = 28,800 Tax Lot 19.1 Renton Hillside Properties Transamerica Development Co. 1111 S. grand Ave. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 • i0., Portion of H. 11.A /onat i on Claim No. 37 northerly of PSPt;l. R/W southerly of N. line Sec. 20 , 'I'wp.. 23 N. , R. 5 E. , W.M. and westerly of W. lino Highland Add. and Sd. W line produced south. Cont . 67, 150 sq. ft. L = 7, 100 Tax lot 195 Puget Western Inc. Puget Power Bldg. Bellevue, WA 98004 • Portion of H. H. 'Tobin Donation o�s112OU3ft�QIZ/W`rly and casltto1f11Vrldln�doftI S.Grant}Ave. In. prodi. tid. add. prod. E,�nly. of I S1 t,l. Co'S. s 35 ,400 sq. ft . Tax Lot 196 • Renton Hillside Properties Transamerica Development Co. 1111 S. Crand Ave. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Lp w } Por. of H. H. Tobin Donation Claim 1137 sly of lots 4 and 5 llighal+}d Add. wly of W. In Renton St. Prod. S., ely. of C/1. Cedar St . produced S t; Nly of l'SPt;I. R/W Cont . 140,341 sq.ft. L = 16, 100 • • •.i.I II gill"t. •- • , "' ,i1/1/Li/ - -- % . • r. .. _,� �11• am. =='Ie>+�alEta C..r =�' ..... ar- • elf •� , ••I .. .ate .• 1'11 7 mr er 7amI r°.• Eli/;". : — - ' iIIoPppri r.7...7,1ir!rskoi4:e1 47pr,x,i_'i'51ga1ol f I ,.. n -ter 7os, m . / �` ' \ i . ->t .eaatie. •7�! ,. i 7 ea•, T .+. 1 7 1 ` 7 7 1 ii �fI' ILSERTY \ =I■ r , . MTQLtvfr 11Iar `Cr, eam1t / l r� T �! RLiJ I i f•77 f..1 'r tee.• =�• .ar city • 1 •� .r Is r• -. 1!•^. MIN Ili:- 1 ■■n 's - - awl ma r, me r HALL �---`_ I 1 er maw, ram ear - r lei r1,r `�-_ ' , ''•'Pe Teter 1 a r —r'I,•7A mar \ \ r' 11m1 Wr' ir•• mrf4'i ir C . ! 1 a. 111 liar ' 1.,, a " ,eelA : 111111 �i�"A \. * -••,e ; ___ I • , is •cc•am�� 7•�� ,••••i, rs:ry ,. ..%• ,••s 1 111.�I,� fir• /�1.1 .- �- .. 'S8o•a' �•u..o.•••• •...' r .♦•,e•. , % LC. iE:' 1■ 1 .: ,a-4 'i•o° ,S�1.,;• ,n},i ..et-`-;{•r�. 1 1:,� • •e'•e •a;j, r`•' ,• i' a •+r R- ,'-+Is;AL'� .'r'!i A '1•01•�"j !r •4 �•f•fir. _ • I It cr.-.�� 7eA, ak , ••eel ..— HM . ..q .,:r• .e''1'ai l Z'/-.4/?' 1" .12`g7.,..7'1^ :y r7•."") .I s i•-• ��pp '7 r I .Oh i.— '�• tY;:•r '..Tip 7 n"'C' ^1 i_s,m . 'L_� ` C; , ' •� .1'ar'�,'''''�,'i.,I%,..s-•11".1 ,1VIM, �„` " tl?wf�.�'1' '\.'�i"I,-• OF' • • : '6� ' , ir . • ' i� . "� • .i. j•lt. ..� .,:-,* • #. ; '�"iY' " \ I �1mil1 > , r :A,^ ri4,41- i I— • • I II «„ � ' i. 3 1' "i ,vt'� + ► z:t •) I, •0000° . Ell I e' 0000°O •1IINi . •,• V _ � ' F:-..--.:-"' tig�rPhaoz_oe_o_I° � • o•.�t•_ e .•.: •• : 0000000 e. •ce ,• • e .•.-• / � 0, 71 I (\ \. S� °P0000 °o ' et •i•• ',•• . • /- P "- i le � o : • � W \� 774M/5. `/N4 Mf i — 00 r "'VI;; �� y — / .�• . ' of • --• - ---- \-- .-_-• --- -I `` . 4.1 .::: !... __I.._ 1.I-- \ s••,,, ! 4, .'— ----- •• - - .\ 44 , • \ ( 7._-- 7 l r,4l9p ao10r•,e.:i.I,tt• •, 1.'):.3_. _ `'�•'ht i ��p, . boo-``!{'* ": ,,...„'-, •CI,'\ 4. I 'I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — RENTON HILL AREA ' ,• (DESCRIPTION : THE RENTON HILL AREA IS THAT AREA ' GENERALLY BOUND BY FAI-405 ON THE WEST, CEDAR RIVER ' ON THE NORTH, THE HILLSIDE AND UNDEVELOPED AREA ON THE EAST, AND THE POWERLINE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE SOUTH. ) - LEGEND: MEDIUM-DENSITY . GREENBELT RECREATIONAL MULTI -FAMILY C� Q - EXHIBIT A RED o .\1 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON `1 ��� ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Igo FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Application No. -1‘7p 76 Environmental Checklist No. 2_51- �� PROPOSED, date: FINAL, date: Declaration of Significance a Declaration of Significance 12 Declaration of Non-Significance Declaration of Non-Significance COMMENTS: - Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals. The Act also requires that an EIS be prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele- vant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review with- out unnecessary delay. • The following questions apply to your total proposal , not just to the license for which • you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed. even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, with- out duplicating paperwork in the future. NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State of Washington for various types of proposals. Many of the questions may not apply to ' your proposal . If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I . BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent City of Renton 2. Address and phone number of Proponent: Municipal Building • Renton, Washington 98055 Telephone 235-2550 3. Date Checklist submitted 4. Agency requiring Checklist City of Renton Planning Department 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: Renton Hill Zoning Review 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): The proposal is to review the R-3, medium density multi-family residential district in view of the potential impact on the adjacent R-1, single family, area. The area under review consists of approximately 12.1 acres and is divided into five . contiguous parcels consisting of three different owners; one owner has title, to three parcels.. } -2- 7. Location of proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal , as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environ- mental setting of the proposal ) : The area under review is located on the westerly side of Renton Hill (Note on attached map) . The proposed action will not have a direct physical effect on the land. Actual development of the land could have an adverse impact. 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : August, 1978 9. List of all permits, licenses or government approvals required for the proposal (federal , state and local--including rezones) : None required at this time. 10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: Not with reference to the property under study. I. . 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: A tentative planned unit development for a portion of the area is under study. 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 V S MAYBE 170 (b) Disruptions, displacements , compaction or over- covering of the soil? X YES MAYBE NO (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X YEr- MAYBE Rlf (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X YES- MAYBE NU— (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , X- either on or off the site? YES M YBE 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 YT MAYBE Ao Explanation: Present zoning review..will not result in immediate development or impact. - • -3- (2) Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air X quality? TM MAYBE WU— (b) The creation of objectionable odors? • X VET- MAYBE N (c) Alteration of air movement. moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X Yrs MAYBE iF Explanation: (3) Water. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements. in either marine or fresh waters? X VET— MAYBE (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 'or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X 1 s- MAYBE AU— (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X 1 YES MAYBE (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? YES MBE NO (e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration H surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? XX— Yrs- MAYBE W (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of X ground waters? yrs- MAYBE (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X YES MAYBE NO-- (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? vry- MAYBE (i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X YEs- MAYBE AU— I ' Explanation: Development of said properties would result in a change in the natural drainage system. (4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: • is (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops . microflora and aquatic plants)? X . PES- MAYS AU- (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or X endangered species of flora? YET MAYBE Fi- I. (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area. or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing X species? Yr s- MAYBE AU (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X vry- MAYBE N • Explanation: -4- •I (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 VT MAYBE NO (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? X E MAYBE NO (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? X VEY- MAYBE WU— (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X YE Y- MAYBE WO-- Explanation: (6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? YES M YBE NO Explanation: (7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or X glare? YES MAYBE Explanation: (8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X Yes MAYBE NO Explanation: The 'proposal would result in less intensive development of the area. Less intensive development could result in a reduction in the potential environmental impact. (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 MAYBE Nb— Expl anati on: Renton Hill has underlying coal deposits . In the event the energy situation required that the remaining coal be mined, potential conflict with developed areas could occur. (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) X in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Yam- MAYBE NU Explanation: (11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location. distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X YET- MAYBE WU- Explanation: The proposal could reduce the potential number 'of housing units for the area under study. • -5- (12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing. or X create a demand for additional housing? " YES MAYBE NO Explanation: The adjacent development is primarily detached single family and one multi—family structure. The proposal could reduce the degree of impact on the existing single family dwellings . • (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 MAYBE NO (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? X Yam- MAYBE (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X Yam— WAYEE NO (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X yrs`— MAYBE NO (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: Renton Hill is basically a large cul—de—sac with more than the recommended number of housing units for only one access. This access is directly affected by trains that block the entrance several times per day. The proposal could reduce the number of trips generated by hill residents . �• (14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: (a) Fire protection? YES MAYBE W (b) Police protection? X YES ATTET TO-- (c) Schools? X YES MAYBE NO (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? X YES MAYBE NO (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X YES MAYBE NO (f) Other governmental services? YES WITE NO Explanation: A reduction in the development density would place less demand on public services . (15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X YES (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require X the development of new sources of energy? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (16) Utilities. Will the proposal result. in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? X YES MAYBE NO (b) Communications systems? X YES NO (c) Water? X YES MAYBE NO • -6- i (d) Sewer or septic tanks? , X YES MAYBENO (e) Storm water drainage? X YES 3 (f) Solid waste and disposal? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (11) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding X mental health)? YES MAYBE (FIT Explanation: Any development of the property in question involves a degree of risk due to steep slopes and geology. A reduction in density involves a lesser degree of risk than the higher densities . (18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruttion 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 MAYBE NO Explanation: A lower height limit could result. (19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X YES MAYBE A reduction Additional development could have Explanation: pimpact. in density should lessen impact. (20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical X site, structure, object or building? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: I • 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 lac of f 11 disclosure iy part Proponent: .L....Y.L!`1. .`gned arming Director 1111(i Gordon :jEricksen for City (name pri ed) of Renton City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 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 JUNE 13 , 19 78 , AT 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: CITY OF RENTON , FILE NO . R- 178-78, APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM R-3 TO R- 1 ; property located on the west side of Renton Hill and situated south of South 7th Street, east of FAI-405 , north of the Puget Sound ! and Light Transmission Line Easement , and east of the subdivided property . Legal description on file in the I - Renton Planning Department. i i1 • • ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 13, 1978 AT 9.00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. • June 2, 1978 GORDON Y. ERICKSEN PUBLISHED RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION , I, STEVE MUNSON , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES • �I ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, on the XPt day of C-l.y. , 19 . SIGNED ,i, PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON JUNE 13, 1978 AT 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE ITEM DESCRIBED BELOW: • CITY OF RENTON , FILE NO . R-178:*6, APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM R-3 TO R- 1 ; property located on the west side of Renton Hill and situated - south of South 7th Street , east of FAI-405 , north of the Puget Sound and Light Transmissior Line Easement , and east of the subdivided property. le .; ' ,--- ,,' - :1,,,,): - 14 1- Jr., '- 311*- -,=--, '.--k's•-,----- -,_-_,--- ,•, 5,„ E _ ',Jo 1 4 r , A ,. ',II e -1, -;_, , MI : s -, , • i-jot+.-,,..,:,1,,Iii ; 1..., E ,..1 ,„,,,,,+,-.0, ,./ , a ,i, , I„. i ._,-•-•-• „,,i II 1 .,,,,....,...,. ........_....,... 1,kN))14, k*'''' '''`•k'''\ -.' , . „ ".,,Z.,,,S, ,. . — -..- ,i .,.. re B-1 :.-1 li A, ''''s-• ''::.,±— ''' '$k'''''' F? i 411111,1,1 1 Ill. -— 1 H.----- ' ',1 III [-- 7 si r\-- vizi , .-. '''- - HI 1n 'i' le '-g ; • • , t ' , 4 : * . '7.-- ------- - ,ir,. ; - !,-; 11 t ' ' '- —+- s sli,i;-• - ........,. G up.. ,_ — i ,.... -, ., _ i A , 4 14. { s,- . 11,A : , 'mm44 - a Iwra-t. tg ‘itugi 41 ^ , R- 1I r "VI P F , , l..., -01 ip. A tr Mb . set , ...,04 G SUBJECT S I TE 47 Atitowsim,- ii-,,,,, _ i , ,.„,,..0-cr ,', 0--- • ' t,-' ,- • , .. -- st... ' E3-1 llgq4111111k \ ?,_-,,,i-w, Id ; VeZNPSEMPM ES-Z-r214",,14..111616111.M.MOOMMIMMIM., ' ''... THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND AND TO EXPRESS OP ';NIONS OP SUBMIT COMMENTS IN WRITING. IF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS DESIRED, CONTACT : CITY OF RENTON - PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 235-2550 MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 200 MILL AVE. S. RENTON, WA. 98055 f.l Public Notices mailed as follows 5/31/78 : Renton Hillside Properties VicWong Transamerica Development Co. Pacific Northwest Bell 1111 S. Grand Ave. 300 S.W. 7th - Room 212 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Renton, WA 98055 Mary Tyrrel Pushpakant R. Patel 155 N. 35th Division Engineer Seattle, WA 98103 Puget Sound Power & Light Co. { 620 South Grady Way Puget Western, Inc. Renton, WA 98055 Puget Power Bldg, Bellevue, WA 98004 Wm. A. Montagne Vice President Transamerica 600 Montgomery St. 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Craig Wentz° Attorney for Transamerica Shidler, Mc Broom, Gates & Baldwin 1 1000 Norton Building Seattle, WA 98104 Patricia J. Parks Attorney for Transamerica Shidler, McBroom, Gates & Baldwin 1000 Norton Building Seattle, WA 98104 Kathy Keolker President, Renton Hill Community Assn. 532 Cedar Ave. Renton, WA 98055 Robert McBeth 505-B South 3rd Renton, WA 98055 Renton City Council Mayor Delaurenti Renton City Clerk 175 copies of Public Notice re. hearing delivered to Kathy Keolker for delivery to neighborhood through Community Assn. on June 1, 1978. I; r, p, l.� J� . r I'ax Lot 85 - Section 20-23-5 (NW 1/4) Bunton Hillside Properties Transamerica Development Co. 1111 S. Grand Ave. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Portion Govt . Lot 1 lying northerly of Puget Sound Power and bight Transmission line R/W and easterly of PS11111 (1-405) . 23 4,000 sq. ft . L = 21 ,400 Tax Lot 191 IlTDC 1137 Pia ry.'Ty r re 1 155 N. 35th • Seattle , WA 98103 • Portion of D.C. lying in NE 1/4 of NW 1/4 See. -49 20-W. 13-5.-5.851'eginningNat8N31/13corner of Sect ion thence W. 67.02 ft. thence S.669 .65 ' to tpob. 'I'h. N 01 ,20541 G5354O93'11thN NS07322133 W368.39 to tp19.83 ft. S 01-21-21 W 92.42' th. S ( 7 03 • Cont . 50,260 sq. ft. L = 28,800 'fax Lot 194 Renton Hillside Properties Transamerica Development Co. 1111 S. grand Ave. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 19 61 L' rly Portion of IL ll.A�l)onation Claim No.and wosterlyyofllVhsllincltllli'ghlantic�dl. and Sd. of N. 1 line line produced south. Cont . 67, 150 sq. ft. L = 7, 100 Tax lot 195 Puget Western Inc. Puget Power Bldg. Bellevue, WA 98004 • Portion of ll. H. Tobin Donation H37 soutWerlyd ofsh igflandW. lAdd. lS.. of of S. in. of sd. add . prod. E,�nly• of I SI f,l, Co'sO0 t S. I, = 2,0O(� Cont . 55 ,400 sq. ft . lax Lot 196 Renton hillside Properties • 'I'rantiamerica Development Co. • 1111 S. Grand Ave. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Per. ci II. H. 'Tobin Donation Claim 1137 sly of lots 4 and 5 Iligha-14d Add. wly of W. In Itenton St . Prod. S., ely. of C/l. Cedar St . produced S l Nly of PSP(;L R/W Cont . 140,341 sq. ft . L = 16 , 100 • . 7 Ln. I! . I'1 ui - 4 2..,Z.,--/-:), /4 • . , L -r�Yl wi-ti�E Lam/ - z � 10141el .1: l-Pv -Jol 1J . L . . , Li 0 , . , I 19 (// Luvlay0-el 8 . . . . . . 7— 1 ---Q-t f; ralart . , -vQls . J. boet ! ,i: . ,, ' , p9 fi 1 ci. QS lE • • .6so� l; 41,S. . 4171P ie if)701,4(ity: hj aP?W(( ' Y' 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 JUNE 13 19 78 1� THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: AT 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER . I. is CITY OF RENTON , FILE NO. R- 178-78, APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM R-3 TO R- 1 ; property located on the west side of Renton Hill and situated south of South 7th Street , east of FAI-405 , north of the Puget Sound and Light Transmission Line Easement , and east of the subdivided property . Legal description on file in the Renton Planning Department. ' II I . III .I' it ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 13, 1978 EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. AT 9.00 A.M. TO June 2, 1978 GORDON Y. ERICKSEN PUBLISHED RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION 1, STEVE 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. f :. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to beforeL me, a Notary Public, on the_:L• day of, EA?-y , 1 19 SIGNED 2*,„4_,,) OF 4 v �$ - z THE CITY OF RENTON quoZ $ MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 0 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER O �Q` L. RICK REELER , 235-2593 4TEO SEP1-� June 9, 1978 TO: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney FROM: L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner SUBJECT: Renton Hill The Planning Department has divided this area into separate portions for my consideration. Next Tuesday, June 13, 1978, I will conduct a public hearing on the first portion. My question is, will this division of the whole area in question pose any problems for my decision or the pending litigation? Shall the entire area be considered as one entity? L. Rick Beeler cL Hearing Examiner k \�� Y cc: vPlanning Department H Chairman, Planning & Development Committee ct �e pCA111, • •�� R FC J „ © 0 THE CITY- OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON. WASH 2 p . 98055 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT • 235-2550 o4))Tfo1 SEPE' MEMORANDUM June 5, 1978 TO : Gary R. Kruger, Senior Planner FROM: Steve Munson, Assistant Planner RE : RENTON HILL REZONE SOUND MEASUREMENTS & OTHER FIELD ACTIVITIES Sound readings were taken on various dates at several locations to gather data for the proposed rezone of the General Renton Hill area . Six (6) sites were preselected and measurements taken on separate days at four (4) pre- determined times . Measurements were recorded for the ambient, highest, lowest , and average levels of each site . The start and stop time for every reading was also noted . On the days indicated, a windshield was utilized . Principal noise sources were identified and weather conditions des- cribed. On these same occasions , numerous photographs were taken at the sites for supportive data . SM: lml NOISE SURVEY Date: / '' Time: Start/Stop Weather: ; <; . Equipment : Calibration: g 'os /%A' ,' -, SKETCH Start/Stop LOCATION: AMBIENT LEVEL: yS— dBA MEASUREMENT LOCATION PRINCIPAL NOISE SOURCES SOUND LEVEL dBA ✓, 1 I REMARKS: • Recorded by: ECY 030-1-1 Signature NOISE SURVEY Date: Time: Star /Stop Weather: / , Ic«-1 C.) ( ,;1--/ ,C) Equipment : Calibration: SKETCH Start/Stop LOCATION: AMBIENT LEVEL: /13 dBA MEASUREMENT LOCATION PRINCIPAL NOISE SOURCES SOUND LEVEL dBA / s( , • s , 91.Z41' t r REMARKS: Recorded by: ECY 030-1-1 Signature NOISE SURVEY • Date: • Time: 1 / • Start/Stop Weather: t Equipment : Z/V•A_,k_ • Calibration: SKETCH Start/Stop • LOCATION: AMBIENT LEVEL: dBA. • MEASUREMENT LOCATION PRINCIPAL NOISE SOURCES SOUND LEVEL dBA /_ ,Ne r Aa "a, , ti _ •"•:•.••: .• .( , ! • • • • • • , 3r..; QJ , • • • , • , • : 6 • ) •• • 7;', . - A A REMARKS: Recorded by: ECY 030-1 - 1 Signature • - . . . .„ . . - . . NOISE SURVEY Date: Time: 7/5: Start/Stop Weather : ro: r - o / Equipment : Calibration: Calibration: SKETCH 0 Start/Stop LOCATION: AMBIENT LEVEL: dBA • MEASUREMENT LOCATION PRINCIPAL NOISE SOURCES SOUND LEVEL dBA , (6) • • t-1 pr-/1/ ,„ A F r( 17/..;: :1/--, e1/111:.,.- . 41- KY, ,5-r! --' ) (". ,57 ••)-. t? (47 • , ‘1 REMARKS: Recorded by: ECY 030-1-1 Signature NOISE MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE Or- Instrument: Portable hand-held sound level meter (i.e. , GR 1565, B & K 2205) . Procedure: 1. Always check the battery before the instrument is used by turning the appropriate knob to BAT position. 2. Remove the microphone dust cap before the measurements. 3. Select the weighting scale to be used (usually A-slow) . For impact noise, the FAST response scale is used. 4. Hold the sound meter out in front of you, keeping as far back of the meter as possible. The meter is pointed at the sound source with the microphone at an angle to the sound source (an angle that allows easiest viewing of the meter scale is about correct) . Stand at least six (6) feet from any nearby object and hold the meter at least four (4) feet above the ground. 5. Read the dBA reading to the nearest decibel. For continuous- type noises, watching the meter readings for a brief period of time will probably suffice. If the noise intensity varies, the range of the levels should be noted. See Note - NOTE: For intermittent noise (such as traffic) an additional measurement procedure must be used to account for the statisti- cal distribution (see MANUAL NOISE MEASUREMENTS) 6. Obtain all the necessary information required on the NOISE SURVEY FORM. 7. The ambient (background) sound level reading is important and should be obtained whenever possible. Measurement of the ambient level will require that the principle noise source be shut off or else a reading should be obtained outside the range of the principle noise source. 8. If there is any wind or breeze present, a windscreen should be used. Wind will affect the reading. +1 / ` _ ; 1 ! I I ' 1 iX , �`- �• ^x3 77 T 3 -yAV '-r---- -- \` • -. 2. t>.. y.• ."-�� H� 38 tx,' E ram' TX�6� YI. - 144 1.`_ �' ` , ` , , .I I 1 :{" I. 1 ,. '1.'4•1 I I i ii I \37r -_� � gr - 4 //, - .. 1 �; 1 j +; ; x: ID 4`� 1j1; -,, j :'':•_ I I •II I I f II ❑ L_� 1.� - \`i t ' — — tY1 4Z_ �, • i./ rim. 1 I 'I r.,, AV I I •-• 11= ,1 El I I I I-r P. S. P. '1, p ' Il. l i,a ;: • 1 i Iz` 'c Ji-1 r� I , I I •{ I 1 1 I „ :' • 1: 1 t:•E I 1 1 r Ir. 1 .>:y. I :� I I 1 .\ � ' R%/.' i;� ' i I I I '' ; I I El r" "'I Ili f I ��� I p ,I�, O. 1 I 1 �I; Ell `., •.� 1 1 � • 1` vi / I II J::) , : I 1 • I I I I I 1 • t I I 1' ;a- /-• -' �`.vy •�: j • I r "• i .I ( • I •,•� I;,,1 \.) • . \ —, j 1. .,� IIIF-:I 11. i l H y, ,J^ 1• c�;* �?` / // ?�; ;a I + `; :� 1, : 'Il Ivy `r' i cn I( ;� Icn C 11-1 \ 1� rJ: tia ,/ I ! :� r ; li� I ;.` 1 ! , I I I I I I/ F I1 I L 1 I1 I •❑ J J �( { fki ' • T I I v ••\ •, i,11 I i I t C I II; I y ILi I x �-II �i' r I \ x le ` • / i 1 'r j • I I ii I I i i I r ! 1 I ► / \ \ 'u; x 1.4 `' \. • / • ` 1 ': • ` 1 1 I !I I; I 1 )-i I I ❑ I X\ • rfi i,,. �: , -, �,+, ;': I � t IZr Ii J I=I /•'El7. , , ., y W� ���;• 1. • I j 1 �1j I ' , . • W; , � 4 i- i ;zI ' IzII a , � 0 ,I=1 IZ ; � , \�\ �fAr • �;, ,fay ► • 1i ftgl h D a •!cp I . ® • 0 _ � �:�de .{ , ;.,;,/// , ti.. :>� t� • \ � �_ • 47ii \`• _-, ..,•,), ; 1 1= 2 Lr I �� j I 1 1 / • \� / a I /. I j :.\ X - 4- +-•- x 9 TH _ max - -'- -- i I. hi;j / --�` '(. I L, 0o iN'I: , JC, + , i r- _r363` AVE •-- --381_XI %U i • / • / / • f:. 1 % ` U, �I \ \ r i I t-� �If I Ii 11 D / • / �� /'� 1,-.-., {'.� \1�1 li . \�, r 'i/A . 1 O rsj IL] I� I I D _ _ j. .�. . ! I l 0 I J j B A L L .13/ . . .•.; ,• ._•. .. i f `,{ / / •ti• 1 `.,� �� • , s3 ` : • -`� I I ❑ -`, I•'I•.H 1 I • PARK ^ , . � - is \ 1 ` I / I I 10 I J J . .6 i ' •/.. ' ' Nk o ' 11 • ` l ❑if I 1 I I ,, . r, ,,,. , ;''' I I '! I i H I L p , . ..„ . I ;\ I I I ii �} . .r -/ r/ f� f 11 .) . �. � , .. " �/ I I 1 ., !, II. 1,1I I'ill_ I 5 ), , .. • . w 2\ . ( \ ,_ o•—•14 I - . • Xla i'• •••...„:;'' i.:-• .,. \4t. --4- ....4.1L , \\ L 1 -—-.....—••• If- 0 ri . ) 1 .. i.. . . . :____. _ ....,.....\,, . , -2,--- :. -_,•,_,_., . %, . . ._ _ . • \ , 2 ; , , , . i ,..., 1 1 „.„..,r-/ ,I. . 111.,, .,1- , 11. [ :- .,..: . y /// • /• . ; ` 1 -.`� / ) r \�.,, `11 1 x�` 1, t.l x 0j l l �08 T R •E - , '•' / '• ' ?: /- .:.a i -. , ,...,,6•./...,.,..,.. :. :...2......<:::•. • . \ ' f-- ,.., ....1 . . iiiimpsiir-irs - . ..'. i I 100 11- . • .- _ _0._ . :�' t � D . .,..- N ,.ss, /, / i` 'i - _ am u ,_ ... • ..„ ...,...::..... ....7 .,.:,, . .,.. .. , ..\, \ \ \\, 4.. . -4- I , . I I . i . , .- '- '. -. : 1 _er._'':(j'I'?::::...7*.1.1;,'1.7,.....'':-_:_,:...::::-:::....,...,,,,...i..:,..::.',,. � i s - {:. ///..,/' r •I -. _.,.._, —— t AKAq ——\ x 179 \ \..••\ . , „ `.\ , , , 441 • 4C44111\* / \\ . f IFI ^ •---\:--- 4p6.\ ,• I I • • f. ;.' I e i ! -�x T11 J . /� '� \\, Op' \C,, ' I \1 ) 21);2 I , I 1 , ! \ 1 �.\\ „--.. \ , \ • ? / j// \ LA ' --- --1-1 . _ ii I f-' ' I�I"• \ \ \ 1 \o .,( zr \�'► I .r ` u, T R .E f= S \ - i ' ; . 'fir 1 11 I TREES \ \� I� \\ - ) i l o I1' •` \, .\ -.t \\\� �� i • I °�� : r-►, 1 ; : • • // I I ?o \, I ( t I II ' I ( 1 11II 1. 1 ( �J�'3�',xkr/1 - (I i _ p 111 /i((I) 1 i1 \\ '. " ' ro4. 0 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION 235 -2540 pA (o MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 O44). SEP1E � May 24, 1978 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR TO: Gary Kruger, Planning Department FROM: Building Division SUBJECT: Renton Hill Building Permit Data Per your request of May 23rd, following is the information we have on file: 1976 - 1 New Private Garage 1 New Single Family Residence v 1 New 2nd Story on Single Family Residence< 1 New Addition to Single Family Residence✓ 1977 1 New Private Garage and Lowered Basement'l 2 New Single Family Residences v' 1 New 8-Plex 1978 2 New Single Family Residences • RGN/mp PTFP/Pb • WY 24 1978 l _ e/ ! - -4-2:/- --e-:e- ,--7 /- ‘- p ...1 r (X---.C.17471, ,••4".1:7,..E___Zae- W //9--. 71 - 2,7 /.11-so _.-e_L,...../- ,. ,z-, ....,,,-7' ,,._o/iezzz---,( ..... 2--„e. --, 7 - ...d,/ ' , ...?- .p : Zi • ....---*_e_,-_, / „2 6 - 7 i' - L--6--/ :1.-1-/z_e< z>i LX:fe,--i _./1 _,„"(...-.2-7/7 -z-4.5---i-,,, C--C-7-(--el • --v 6' - -7/: (lie -- ,•••• .‘"" t_ '' • --- e,L ---e__--/ Y' - 41 •,._.4.._,--.- .4.....ez, 2Ze (-/a , /cc" -(2"-) _a... .0. 'V : -e,- ,. • 4-/ (--54e., ' e...., 7 a <i.: --A- • • • • • • • • • • o iL71- . ��i/ y✓--1'ZY-L7.�-fir' v ici 47,04 2 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY • RENTON,WASHINGTON Q e .;J .y'w POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING • RENTON. WASHINGTON 98055 255-8678 A O LAWRENCE I..WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 4177. E0 SEPIt May 25 , 1978 MEMGRANDUM• TO : Gary Kruger, Senior Planner FROM: Lawrence J . Warren, City Attorney Re : Renton Hill Rezone Dear Gary : I have reviewed the documents you had sent to my office and would note that on the front page, item No. 6 , where the zoning requested is listed, you have "Not specified" . I would suggest that this be changed to R-1 Zoning. I do not know if. there is additional documentation that will be prepared by the Planning Department which would include the aerial photographs I had suggested, a map of the streets in that location, together with -a topographical map - All of those items need to be placed in the record if we are going to adequately present our case . • If you have any questions on this , please feel free contact me. / (.__rence J. War _n • LJW:nd //N4‘ MAY 26 1978 v Of Ftit, e. THE CITY OF RENTON J mimoR " Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 8 �,o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • PLANNING I)EPARTMfENT 0 �' 235-2550 �•'tO SEPIt'v5 MEMORANDUM May 23, 1978 TO : Ron Nelson , Building Division Supervisor FROM: Gordon Y . Ericksen , Planning Director By: Gary R. Kruger, Senior Planner 6-a" r' RE : RENTON HILL REZONES BUILDING PERMIT DATA As background information for the rezones initiated on Renton Hill by the City, it would be very helpful to obtain building permit data for Renton Hill since January 1 , 1976 . The information should be collected for new single family dwellings and rehabilitation of single family construction by year. The same informa- tion plus the number of housing units shou-ld be gathered for multi -family dwellings . Should you have any questions , please contact this department. GRK:wr cc: C. J . Delaurenti , Mayor Warren Gonnason , Public Works Director MEMORANDUM • TO , GORDON.Y. ERICKSEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE 5/4/78 FROM RICHARD GEISSLER, FIRE CHIEF • • SUBJECT RENTON HILL REZONES -- PHASE I REGARDING THE RENTON HILL REZONES, PHASE I (ZONED R-3), WE FEEL THAT PROBLEMS WILL BE ENCOUNTERED IN 3 BASIC AREAS: 1 . THE RENTON HILL REZONE AREA IS ONLY ACCESSABLE FROM SOUTH 3RD STREET WHICH IS UP-HILL ALL THE WAY AND IS FREQUENTLY BLOCKED BY TRAINS. 2. THE PRESENT WATER SUPPLY IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR ANY LARGE BUILDING COMPLEXES. THE WATER SYSTEM FOR THIS ENTIRE AREA WILL HAVE TO BE UPGRADED TO MEET I .S.O. REQUIREMENTS. 3. As THIS AREA DEVELOPS, THE NEED FOR AN ADDITIONAL FIRE STATION IN THE SOUTH END WILL INCREASE. THERE WILL ALSO BE A NEED FOR AT LEAST ONE ADDITIONAL ACCESS ROAD (POSSIBLY GRANT AVENUE SOUTH). RICHARD GEISSLER, FIRE CHIEF RENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT • 7 �t, r,• ,,i • • R N of eel\\Ic O,