Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA80-135
iQZ/®y 44 Planning 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application : Xxr C (t- 5: ..". 6 ("V e y r. reagnole satiecy- fi e rt ,MIi " b or ` �Q� d• d'ffe.Pt 9 A-d ai . � ( E+,P/a �Q y Location : , jj, Qof `A / ,.{� , d• .'_ _op,pio_k. ®,'00eS. a.s'edet3 °.I'., a. Applicant : , f°.r� lpi°' > el ' TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : c //7/ / 0 Police Department A, R, C. MEETING DATE : //) * 9/ Public Works Department E e % 1I II Engineering Division T affic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering - Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRIT G F THREVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON � ��� AT 9 :UU A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, IF YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PLEASE PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P .M. ON . REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 2,L1) 63, ' Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved • 4 Arta C- -, es-- ________ /-0-,d Sign) ure of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date r „,r,.:. •.u! . _ , 7 . . . • -1- s' , • . . . _ ,.. .. ... . . .. • it , . . .-, -- . '. • , 111 . cr.• .• . zitiV• •--. ':_if±*''• t ' 414. • .4 • d•-;(' A.,4 L. ii f Ifili f .. - 4 Or 1 46 A i*Nr %at ,... ;- . . 2 id - , t , de f• • t • . *i t..,P or• ' ' f ,104!)t .-:' wf.••• . ip/ k x. ,,,. .. t. . • , . . . . .,... . 4 • • IPS*# I . " • OP Ov`l -N.-_ . 1 ' T. . . • ' ''' ‘ :it • . • . ' 1 . . , .• +•: . ." , • • • li- i ir 'A ik • .4 . .. „ ) i... ' , . i -,, • - f . .. . . . i .• .•dr% till, F,*• , ' " • . . . r.•:..... 41 ,t2?.:74 41.4'..'..'74. t4 :,:I " . • t' 1' • • • • . . V if, ; — . ii , •,. ., i• . '•.• 4k,---.. :'-• .. 1 , .` -- i, . -... " ,• . ,• • . ••••;,,, .'‘.4,.,,• ‘ z.s•# 4: , ' • . 0 ,.. •- .. i p,„ . - ,-,,,,, , . . , • , , at '44 ''' ''' 1 . fre•id i., r . - • 'i 4 Ilk#(.1‘f*“•• '.41. ‘:;iit _: )14I-Y ! 3 4. ri • . . • ..... ... , . 4''k' *V `r.. 9' • ' ' • i jii:" lik :W • fi'ilii:*.es i 4 ; i ' ...,,41i. • t • , p t ; ' , at .-,.s, , -4 '..., . . VE ..-- 4 4 'a° t. '1 , '' . •.• aft , . • 6 .1 -'41 I ,100 14. ° b 141 V6• 411 -*MI • ,, .•10411W0 .. 't 'stiV . ' 1 t ' tii'. i --• ''•• .6, 4%, • t, ,,,...: ,•. •(' 4 P i:'''' ‘, t' W*- ... '. ' IP - • 4 401 1 i . \., .',. .., ,..' h.' 1...t.,,,,t'to 0 • 1: ;k t 1 p ,- , I • AO ' 01 .. .... , . ,s . ti is ;fr.' ' ....- t 440 -v .. , 1 I .-' . f' . i 0 , . ‘; r 4, 1 'V ', . :. r.4.. . v ... •• . !.,, ,...t. r ; iii i • i. ..,...-. ( • , 0., A si •' • ' IP 4 • 4.1111, 117, •••• • „, . • A ' • t t ile' ' • f . , :" .. t• • ,Or• t t, ' _ •il .... i A Tiofr t.... , . •, -.4. 1,1111b- ..f.,,, ' . to..,.,, A! • .• . ' • • , . il 1 I i ie tit . o r.. .. .... , ,.. , .., ..: . . di4 • ' •'• •' 4 , .. _ ..:: ,,,,, „ , • •. . i1/4 ,Ift , ...-,. . . ._. i - BEGINNINU OF FILE FILE TITLE al .I.I. iliirH C i F I LEA ED / 4 /3 --'° P. • / i ,. ..4 • 4 1 ....,... ..-.4 ,.. •-•• •:::',..'',;.,:•,,,,,,,:,,,,-•':.'":F!,!".•;.;:;','"i•;`, .*,.:,.1.",h-4 4',dr:.'','•;. 4.1, ''',lt,„..,,t4f,„',,,,r,,Z.q.^,y';::-iN.,,,..;,A„..±-4- -k6i$'7,?::,4,`',',.. 11,ftalrialfc .,..--.7::;. ,p--7.,..",:i.,;..,.,„.;:„.,,,,;,,,,,,..%,;:,„'.• •,,,,,,..,..1r:.•..,,,,, , .„.:-,.' "5 --,--•• '•• t f•'•;:.1':;',..,i.:‘,7!".7•:-..,--.!;•.'",7,,'•4.1.!•i'„',.'iti.','; :'‘'‘L'''k".4.1):r.411.;..PA ''..'it-7.'+ir,f4:1A:7".A*.it•:".e,'"FitgAV't.".' .1'''' 4''''',Y..eill‘R"alt,',. '",..0.4 '',""'.....;,'',''Vli.,',:,!,...:.i',..„.• ,.''4 L.,. -...'',•:',.,,'.,'. :," • ,ii f, .., :..:....:,...,:i......:e-1.:,,;,;-,.„-..rf-i0.,,:..-2.?-..„4,1',„:..".',pC"..,:,.43i,.ptg.it.."1 _V-Y. '.--;-•,-,..',44-1..'":1,v, ` .,,,,,-.. ,,i-,..;-",,,,-.-..„,fets,-5-,'",..;„,-'1,4"45‘...",e. ,1-;re,!--„:',,,,A.,--j,-,,'W,:----.:..E.;"7., ,,!',....,..1;:. . ,'..,4:.",'''f'.Z;e.Q};::. .',:i4.*:•=::..',','1,"i'''''':,':.WASi:,1,1:At-•.,15'A, ',/,''.•.'5gi.gr. ?1,,,,4",,l''',;)• :.,A*.fi•, ' ''•'— `4, ..:'#4,.w.0.1Ar:. ':•:.,.-4 .•••,.::: ,.:q.,,'.V4',..,, ,..;,':-''':-.,.'A,..n:•I''''''., -'. ',,e''',• - rt:t . . ti '.•„ • ....... ',,,.`,1•0'.i.i,' 't''''"ie'S'•-•-•41.:^ 4-r""'''''‘A;'.:I'' ' T''''-,,,NACO%';e'a4.,„„‘"....F0,114,....,•'45i,4.-Vit _,, ''''' ,.- ' . • k'''....., l•'4.• ,'' el.A!:j'I'''''''''''%::°:'''.11', ';'.i ',-,'::'''N..•'',;".•." ''''''''':- ' .• , '': •'' • ,"''''' "-f''';':',A'',.'2''''''''::i'Vf....iVree '414* :'%; '' ;i 7 V•4405".41tr,q ;:'Z:1";1 q''C','''.'i'Vr..irr,.'11-*;64';', '' ', i',,,t,'„t. ''''t ., . 10' :''1',,,,qta:4"?,,;:,;/;i0jr.,;.,-,,,,..:' .:,.24;4`:.,"•?.'" :...II,'..,•-, , , 1,1' - - --,'S'2:--'11,','","'''-'4-.6',"'i''', 4,-r,V!;.Vi,`-"Ii. ••'''4.rk4w,..jf,eo,,,,,,:a,,,qi..;.-4,0mv.,,12,.....g4- ,;,i4:-. „FP.-..,*, •. -..,; , •.1......-.1„-Aio-34.--.t.vii',. , ..:.,'::!,':'..,''.:.1...', ,",-.'.. - e .„ . . . .. ..‘ .- •• . •..,........"-. ....".7,-,.J,,,,, ,4,-,t;?,,,,,,,..:.,,,,,,.,,c.,4.1- ..-;, ..-,,,,o, 't,...,,,-.4,...p.a-wv.y.,,,,,,,....,p.....,-,,,,,v.:,,,,,,,,,,,,•.,.!,Ael„,, ,,,tir.., ",.. t...• .,„•;,..„,.4n.„.....,,z,. „.,...„.„„.,.... ..,.._y . ,.:‘,.:•••.• . . . ,. . .•,..:,.,.....,,..‹..r..m,:i.T,,,-,:T„,,,,,..,...,,,,,,.....,..,, r -,.,7 4,,-, • .a ,, Int 1,.,,,944,,,,,f41.,, ,A,,T..,,r:0,,,,i,4,4,1,,11,•,,11., t., jekli. 1,k:4r ,-1Tz. 129..?,.:0.1.,:,4,,,,,-...:...v, ,,..,,..,-.. -,•;•:...-•,,,• • .. •• - -- ' •,...-1,,,,,,,:•,,,,,-' , - •i-Ns.p.' '.,9-,,.•, .,414 lt-x-, '4••••',w7,-,a•••-•.•$,-,,,,,,,,,,..,,...,,Av, .,,,t,.......•—,• ,,,,1 .47.1,,, 41-1,,,,,,4,,,,,4,,g..,-,-,,,••...,....,,,,--,•,.•'--••,,i,•......,4•... ::. . . . . ....,,,p..;.;.i.pyg.,„:•=i„,,..74eLek-ptiort41,,t4,X413•,- '•/,-'".1,' 31 ''' 4:0S.*..,.,4":.'14,r-'.'4.:1,::',-,,,":7'-k-v,itg:43.,'.4-?::,,,,,-INV?..41-714974:7,4t5r.'1,,`':;1''' '''i,-;1'.!(`•',...:""11"',-','''',",'-''";'.., '-'"''' '- . ; • ''','',-'•,'F'i4-.s• ';',.`,-3'4,V.'-:'z'44riT.-41.*:.,',,!:t 'ai,04,,.;... -1.:.r.L. •,i..•6, -'1,,„,g, `,!4',,t't5,-,"?-;',',','-',.,t"''''-','P"`4'.::?'..-!.4K:54`A'7'-1,14'''')•4-1 -',';':- ,"---; .P./',-:',-.:-. ''''4'A, :.'','-' . 7.",1:: ' '. '''' '' •-:-' , i '1,4*,4411,4r-ektt.PZ4.-4 kr 1 '•:`,i',':'-',':'."1'-;i1,7.. ."-;.-.;',:`'-'7--•!.'1:,.=.1 .':'04...1'V.••';'t: '..-.,..:.:•;• '''4' ...., • 'l'.;„ •.• '..•.", '•-•'044. " , .'...''';",,JA-.";!t;',7,1,441-.50L'4; ' - -"4,"-3,'"iik,,;.--ict,,,,,,,,k tpg.,:tee4,17,,,,y, .t, ‘•..tf,15,-,.s..-J-:.„4,,,,,,:"V.1,-,,,. .,,-.'-,:,4 " "•-•.:,-'.- ' 4, -",:..",„,,..t.....;:..t'.- .....i.‘. .• ,: • •• , , ;,,,• ;.,,,,•,. itrle$114'144 ' ,..%••' l'''4'.*,-Wtt4J'''''.:1;',1•1:F",; ',,:.•-:..'.'.,''.'';'-';,?.?i,,'.1‘r'I'?'.''..,":::,'".".'.".' '• -,; ' : ' .:, ' . . 1 • •-•';'.1-:'-;:,''1”,';'-i:',4'5';',Iii,.11,0--'. itY)1f'' .',..., , .#;n1 _,:ir,„.„, .,A'''kl...'(-•g,k,,•',,lfg4''''41-.'. 1'".'''';':,,•':',..•:'•:::-.. V- ". .:'•• ). .k.;!'',;:1A451e,'W,,t '.". #1,,-JV:,' ::,A,• ':. %,,•• ,1,41,1pir ,,r 414T,;A:.. •I'.0.14:.',1,Z04..44g'in;?4•A'•'''•:;::::':•'..'''''';'.?.... . •' .' • 2:1.0 03:11:6•7iNk;46,4 :.."1f2 •. 24':',4tr,71'.1iNt10•42iQ:;:r•'.i.: ' ' •,;:t.',-., .': •': 4:', i;',.,..*11,7',.PU',,,,•'4,1 '4gi-.034:',...,• )1,4,-44, ,-.'....':...0.4 ,,:.,,,-.,471'.- : W ;1 -• ::•.,-6';',.:-•..',.'...4., ( 'I; !'''''''''-i.',:l',..':':.'''s'iii:1?. .-At'it;i,e 'g.,:t:.V.1'...V..1:-.'4.`:-,1-11., '-',1'-',-0., ..•'•b'''.:''.-r' -. I').1'VRs,,:,'N. . ..4,•.;..'.'.1 •:',''.4•61::%f•ti_TereY'R;;•:<i'd 46':'q ii.'•P 5,:''',..%•.'7-:..' 1. ","/M."4''''„Iye4'.':.' '..i•.1101.i."",,.4-'1'' A•PO...1,:Viii?,v ••';-!'"';';''')•':Vr,','',,t--,,.i'.A,,,,,t-: .t •:•.,,,i.-Orv:;-,,,74,0,1i•, ,'.-F.•i4,;--,?••• ,,,e.t••• ..V,44r,$ ',.i.-,:1,..!. . ;5S.-Aokai.i.,..-4,,-:?.'.:;,f4Ei•-i-.,It'f...:',:','•17::••- . : '.:'-'-';,:;,'''',',,'!Iiligs,t..igilt2;,,f t•:,4:.*54',..:ii,-041,5":tei*' !Vat:. •.'`,„,..•,'-,r--'.44.$ .../,-.41'',,A.,-,4„„,.,--4„..tzw•-titi-?.!.-7,,,i,y2,k,<, ..;:',,,;,;..k,,,r-i;s;-,,.... .,. ',. . 0 ''.'.:,,,,,T,r,..?-zMi,,,t1,1,:*.44sAt.-Ratr,..7 -4,,n4 ,R4V-A-4.--•;.•`..-OtV.',vi,' r, `.1•,,o.t, •Int.o'FAP-ri,."fit.,d1'''.A4V4,/*P14,...,,,H1,:q-ft- .• ..',:.': :. • • • •• - .P'..!;,;n,"0-A•';`.1-•,',7,41;e".4-!N;k:04,-.4%,;:,04t...4)',/,'1...c.z4ifj,,,4i!!'„,',:14,L.kif0.--z,...,7',.;::*; ;.7,'1A,'', .,,.,4 4-,,,, •., t'...,4, "4"?',44;0;',.',''.'4::.::•,•.,..•:.:•*-,.,•• •.•'i; ; ,' r:,r';', ...;•;',*-,,I,',, ,',..A•::,';;W:; •4.&'..4;„diii. .t.',..X4'4,Vg.f,';•tg.,,O-t1:443Atiii14',',j1A,,tf: '''''' '. %..• 4/-.. '':-,-* ‘,4--- ''A k.4-0.0t., ,,i.:',:.t-,;;:2.,:- -,'.'"! - -:'.',' . . .,4-4'), ,k.,q*.).4.: a:..:,,,,4,,cii:114.th.,•-,,-Af!5. ..V1. IIA'''1,1,;.•g.•,..:,.?„' 1,,,t,'*•,,,•'.,1; i..,',.‘.,' '' ,. ',.+Af.-,.1*.P., Al.M.411,f.,:":g.::::f1,.'4',‘.::':'',.':aVi-.'"!•'-:...'; •• . , .., ...-:•.. ,, , f, ,.p,;v0. . . 1 ..-.: '. '.- ii.4.,,.;', .,f-'w.v!-v,,,,,...-1,..-,:, .. . . . .. • .• t,,3^,,,r;:-.,•,'..,:.'..,,,y,'01,1,1,,,,,,,,t,:,,,f,,,c, ;t " . .: '.•,7'',",er'''.';.4.;',7"),-,:k......,,,,:,...,,,,.,-•.,.,,,,,.,„,..,,,i., . 11-...:ii.`5.J..-.•Y'',..'s,,P=r:.±..ilt.`,:',.:,:: . . ., • '•. ,. !:.'''";,:-,`;1'. ,;--;,t''.",,-41-'•-ti-'%;•`.2-'',;t1'.",',''.":, , . . ..." . „ !, ',.'t,i';)-.,4.-„•••.,...:,1:::„..co-,..4'.c.1":;',;,,o,,tt",' .' •-•-•-,,rl r.' . 1... :-,--... ,•,.,-,....,F.,,,'...-,,,•::•,,,-..-- . . . . . , - •....-,,,-,:,..,,,,.,..1",,-..,:,,,..1.,,,f:a'...,, 0 c.' gi . -. ., . ,:...,:.:...,..„,,,,,,...:„ ......,:.„.....,.,....., !„:v.,,.z.s.: iz.-30 v., 1.... ....• ..., . I ‘,;t, " ".,.'•:v,-.,....,,,,:..,.„,;,,,..,.;,.,.. .,.,, Applicant FRED' BOWS ER ., 1. . , . ....,, . - uC r i Jidtsi I . I File NO. R-135-80 A • .„ ..„ WARREN&KELLOGG Project Namej3y__________... _SAME . , , ,. . • . .,,,, ." .. . ..... • . • , .,. . . 1 I .11 Property Location West side of Talbot Road S :. . . . . 1 i 1 • i.: • : approximately one-fourth mile south of S.W. 43rd St. ., ,. ji. X . • HEARING EXAMINER: Date ! 7-28-81 )' . l- (q- i/ • • .', . /- : i 1 t . Recommendation Dismissed with prejudice (Reapplication t 1 ‘,./a_e....--/A-2_,:_s• _V: 1 . not to occur prior to July 27, 1982) .)if4 . 1,A1 Date.Req./Rec. Received '/.. 7 _r/ Date Response e4s—r.,... ....--,-,-e--....-1 .V.I' .,.:! Appea 1 - Date Received 1 • P''': . Council Approval - Date v• /—a.,L5--- f -,`bc.cb 67 8 9/v,f-, ..,- Yit . . ,.., Ord i nance/iiititookAssicen_if -3 4E24/ ale te cl:\c2 , . . ".•. . 41. . . t-,-, Mylar to County for Recording (..4,,,,cr,,...-, ) '''`"4`t*r ,. -,r/ ,0C3 \,, . ,;; •' ''.'.• , , gl'ib Mylar Recording # . „,... ... ,, ;a: ' cl>262eZ0v g`,...;: . . • . ,. , --::.,,,:-..i.i...' , • / , ., • i Renia rks: .._ ,:-,, .,-- ( ti,:.) 7))' . , _ ) c,./ -40_, _,,, VI , • / / %I'• ., / ,l/, , 1 .. • `4,'• . , ,;',,,'. . . • • • , . . lj'4' •171r1:)iL0/61glai=, . . :..'1. . . ::;.•• • .. .2':,-'--.. '• -. . • • .. ' - • , , . . • • I ...,. ... .;.. . . . ,1:',;,. ,.".':':' : ';" : ' •• ''• + . . , . • .1'. '' . . . . . , :.;':-', ' ',;'";. ' '• • r/,',;;', • . '-:::•',.,,;,, .. -.' . . , . . . ii.;..i:' '':.,''••••• ;-:::',.:-'',—'.• . . . :. . . , . :'•'...Q!''''• . . ",.,,."'' ,... .' • . , • . . , . , . . ,. . . ,.... , , .. . • .., . . , :.•.-:':', .',,,;'.' '• ., • . , • ,..ijii,. ' •- •.:.:',.:' ,,' , . , . • . . , ., , . 1...i . '...-.' 1''. . • . - . .. , . t..:,,, • '....1..' . '- . . . .. , ;7,,,ji.,'. • ',• !i,"- • . ,-- . •';',1-i-• ' '.'-• •' • • ''.' ' . • • .' •. ,. . , . . . . • . • . . . . ,.. ' • •..:•,'If 1• •••• • *1','•.•,•,'•:;*:•.•: ,.'." ''' • ' . • • •. • , . • .. .. , 'I 1:...''''''":.;;;:" '*: ' '" ''.• . • . I •• -I i .i 7: • •'.••,:::• ••*•f*•''.• '•••!... .-•'•• •.. • . . , • I . . • , . . •• ,•. ... .., • , . , . ,',,I,*;:f...,,'-,;:;'•;:,=-.;;,, ,:-;'--- ' -.: . , • . • • .• ; . . :,:.- I::::i-li-,•.;,-- -,,. ;,•,:,.. : -- • . . , .. .. '' 1.;''. • -.--:.'`-, •• •• • • : . .• . .— . .. • 2 — Os - g0 _ - CITY --�ENTON f classification of said prnrt . i WA GTON ilty has been filed with ti % ONDIN) 'NO.3604 ,Planning Department on't ' 'AN ORDINANCE OF THE t about December 24, 1980, i CITY OF RENTON, 'which petition was duly re- WASHINGTON CHANG- ferred to the Hearing Ex- 1: - ING THE ZONING CLAS- aminer for investigation, o, SIFICATION OF CERTAIN study and public hearing, Affidavit of Publication ' PROPERTIES WITHIN THE and a public hearing having i CITY OF RENTON'FROM been held thereon on or AP GENERAL CLASSIFICA- about June9,1981,andsaid L2 TION DISTRICT(G)TO RE- matter having been duly �'`� STATE OF WASHINGTON ss SIDENCE DISTRICT (R-2) considered by the Hearing COUNTY OF KING (R-135-80—BOWSER). Examiner and said zoning , ' WHEREAS under Chap- request having been or:. , ter 7,Title IV(Building Regu- proved and the matter q.v. lations) of Ordinance No. ing been appealed to the Ginny Rabago 1628 known as the"Code of City Council of the City of . being first duly sworn on General Ordinances of the Renton and said City Coun- she chief clerk City of Renton",as amend- cil having modified the Hear- oath,deposes and says that is the of ed• and the maps and re ing Examiner's Decision and ports adopted in conjunction said zoning request being in THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a therewith, the property 'conformity.with the City's- week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been hereinbelow described has Comprehensive Plan, as for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, heretofore been zoned as amended, and the City printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper General Classification Dis- Council having duly consi- • published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,and it is trict(G);and dered all matters relevant now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the WHEREAS a proper peti- thereto, and all parties hay- aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Daily Record lion for change of zone m9 been heard appearing in Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior �_ - support thereofor in opposi- Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County, tion thereto, NOW THERE- FOREOrdinance No. Washington.That the annexed is a - 3604 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO OR- DAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I:The following described property in the as it was published in regular issues(and i City of Renton is hereby not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period rezoned to Residence Dis trict (R-2) as hereinbelow specified; the Planning, Di- 1 • rector is hereby authorized of consecutive issues,commencing on the and directed to change.the maps of the Zoning Ordi- , 29th January 82 nance, as amended,to of ,19 ,and ending the dence said rezoning,to- it: ' The North half of Wit.: ' North half of the Noht 1;1' ' 29th January 82 west quarter of ilia. ' day of ,19 both dates Southeast quarter, 4�irY,' inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- Section 31,Township,423+�• scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee North, Range 5 Easir•x I W.M., in King Coity }o I charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $59•' 0, which Washington, Lying * -, of Kent-Renton RoacF has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the EXCEPT the East 300 first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent feet of the North half of . , insertion. _ „14:_et_i_. ea the North half of the • North half of the North- west quarter of the Southeast quarter in said - Section 31, and Except Chief Clerk that portion thereof con- - veyed to the State of - '' 29th i Washington for Primary- . Subscribed and,sw orn to before me this day of _ State Highway No. 5 by • - • deed recorded under au- January lq $� ditor's file No.5282262. Subject to: Easement, ' restrictions and reserve- , / ', / , tions of record. (Said property being lo- Notary Public in and / the t. - .f Washington, cated at West side of '` `'' King County. Talbot Road South 1/4 residing a ,fay mile South of Southwest ! 43rd Street.) --- ---- —Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June AND SUBJECT FURTH 9th, 1955. ER to that certain Declara- tion of. Restrictive Coven- -Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, ants executed by Petitioner- adopted by the newspapers of the State. Owners on or,_about, November 19, 1981 and recorded in the office of the Director of Records and Elections Receiving No. 8201120466 and which said Covenants'are hereby incor- porated and made a part V.P.C.Form No.87 Rev.7-79 hereof as if fully set forth. SECTION II: This Ordi- nance shall be effective up- onitspassage,approval and CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 3604 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON , WASHINGTON CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM GENERAL CLASSIFICATION DISTRICT (G ) TO RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R-2 ) (R-135-80 — BOWSER ) . 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 General Classification District (G ) ; and WHEREAS a proper petition for change of zone classification of said property has been filed with the Planning Department on or about December 24 , 1980 , which petition was duly referred to the Hearing Examiner for investigation , study and public hearing , an.: a public hearing having been held thereon on or about June 9 , 1981 , and said matter having been duly considered by the Hearing Examiner and said zoning request having been approved and the matter having been appealed to the City Council of the City of Renton and said City Council having modified the Hearing Examiner ' s Decision 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-2 ) as hereinbelow specified; 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 pair hereof as if fully set forth herein . APPEAL REZONE ORDINANCE PAGE 1 (Said property being located at West side of Talbot Road South 1 /4 mile South of Southwest 43rd Street . ) AND SUBJECT FURTHER to that certain Declaration of Restrictive Covenants executed by Petitioner—Owners on or about November 19 , Bland recorded in the office of the Director of Records and Elections Receiving No . 820112_0a___ and which said Covenants are hereby incorporated and made a part hereof as if fully set forth . SECTION II : This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage , approval and five days after its publication . PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 25th day of January, 1982 Delores A. Mead , City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 25th day of January, 1982 ..i64.) c.A.cJ • SG►.tn�o c.L Barbara Y. hinpoch , Mayor Approved as to form: • 1� J Lawrence J. Wa en, City ,Aftorney Date of Publication: January 29, 1982 • APPEAL REZONE ORDINANCE PAGE 2 a EXHIBIT "A" Bowser Rezone R-135-80 The North half of the North half of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter, in Section 31, Township 23 North , Range 5 East , W.M. , 'in King County, Washington, Lying west of Kent-Renton Road; EXCEPT the East 300 feet of the North half of the North half of the North half of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter in said Section 31 , and Except that portion thereof conveyed to the State of Washington for Primary State Highway No . 5 by deed recorded under auditor' s file No . 5282262 . Subject to : Easement , restrictions and reservations of record. i ...-, • -,_ - ---1 . _ •am,essorrmar•Senun: cispi_crEsxraa.,,, ,_ 1 I ' •;! ..?-.'".....97.4% f • IL-;) I-Will_11'1:.'. . . . E I .......7.f:100,5 I'r•,.. • I _.... .1.:_.. . ...._- i__.--- - -• 4' \ 1\4-. -- ii IT 61164=1 6116411DEMON611.1061.1•6.161616".1.4"4.'" . i ' ' : 1- •,.. 41.44,';'.:"...i'i.; 'I 1 , , .• .4 : ., •4''.1i,i.:4;'Ili : . . .___.___ _ i ; 1 ; • I . . ' ' - ' ••• 41' .ii!, 4. _L_I I•11 - ' I . . ' I '• - 'dp,'''!ii ' - 1 --4 -• 4'.;4:`,•," ' :- i -- - ilil ,- - I • • --' .- ' ''P'1'11 ... 4 6 e • . . p I • • ill '•' j ilii • . . • '''1:' ;';i: ' • . i,11)',•••.'i; r...... .„ . . i,-17. .4 , , ,i . . . r 1 .1'7-7--• 4_____ i .4 7 • II' S R7I -- . •E; • I l'''j:il'.1? 1 M!MD 4. • ._6.. 9. r 7 2 / ., /1../• is r• . i . 6 0 •i '•LL'17'Ili - . ..-' ;'•• 71'..r I;V;Ipc I P' ' .'E j 1 E'l.1i • '• ••-'• '''i ;''.A!I I. . ----r 7 --7 - - --r-- i •.-. - : .... •••=.4/.7••••:• \ - -•--;- : • • ;•1 i 1.4• •Ir 9 • - ''.:1 '•4.'11.IA' , 'i•.' ••:,,11 t, i•/i !.,I' ;I:I.9..,‘` .f s •.. •. t..ta I •..i A• •• 4. 44 of•.51 • ,48 39 56 1' 31.. '3. '64 ii• Si da i;" ' • •'• !.i I.... . • ''''i IIII•',.. iji';' 3"Yet . 7 .. .• • I 11. -• •a • .a ii i 1.._. . .: !t''.:' .....Vt../ ' ' .- •, ' -• '7.•! 99 80 S. .. 54 55 I .1. 5 56 55;.• . .1 .5: •• .5 l'• ''. i' . •It i:•N' 'i•, SR 1 • I r.. 1 ...,,.!.....1 4, .. , :., • , PZ'q d '-L--....2-;.---...----7:7-1.7,---1. j 7.--..-- - I --T1---4 .-.::::: , , •'At' .',..1] 'I ..-- ! .',.., i • •..'• I ,, c-1. ':' ' •t: ;; C':' I 63 S. 60 '9 '6 r•. iir i •6 •• ' • • i r•-• ioi .8 .• .. , I ' 711/ 4-ii--, ' . . 1' "t'ir.• 4 ; i 1 41:A2 -..:,-a. I ../..--...-.1---, i.--A--- . --a--_1----L-.1-__-L--:-__ p_ . ___ - --.- -- _ 7 .'•"!.k.!--7--.. L ::-. i'L1. li-.; --,...,,H.:11!•!..'.1c:.1-41-:::Iii::- ‘,'•'''•;‘ •' Nt' - 1.;' ,I 1 ' _.% ' I df':,,'•-i.,ii . It ••,. : , i': I . i 9/11 SO Si 3/ 33 \ '\ . 'i,;71".:•i I • ' . i i • I I . i t 17'''11; " • •i' . , • ,'iI i'•;'.'.•!• „' p.1 I /./.6 ,-„,!'7,''' t 7,1 - „ 1,.., . .,Kii,',11 '.1. :.213.1.'\.;41 . . ''' -1••••'•-•-' •••••;•-•i'''.'1:t4L:'''' I • . • ' ' I 9 ...PiaHI i;r-"if: . • i I .. • 1 li •is 4.9 „II 22/..,..,a' -____ di • •••• '''Hi':141--='.-1::.----- I 1 IRIMMilf:L.--.-=:-..;-.- D.:•..11-:-.--:1;•-•;-; - ..--- I. : •';.,,i'.., :j , . ••.=1. ••••-• •7._8••••••.. . •_19 .1.t I ' • . . ,.. ,1't-,1'1"‘" ..-- ,' / / ./ --. UM IMID3 : .. r :,r'l • • / .- I . ' ''' •. ,.;''; 1 '!.,19 •1 . CIO 40, 1 TZONN ,... .6.,:. 45 ' ‘1 I G .1341.1 • , • . • 't j •'V ‘'` • i '.4 : I - - .' -' ' '.- . ,. ,. ,•,: .,'11';',';;1. '' • I . . ' . • .A1 Al 10° I. F'' -IiI01°?r-i .dill0501: - • - ' • •- •.- - , • 11 ;, ' , . - FRED BOWSER _ R-.13 5-8 0 • . . •. ,.. • 1: ; • . . . - ! APPLICANT FRED BOWSER TOTAL AREA : +8.4E3 acres •!I„'!:.';' 1 _ . •I; i ;i•.!; •;• PRINCIPAL ACCESS , Talbot Road South • . EXISTING ZONING G, General Classification District : • • .I• i • . EXISTING USE Undeveloped • . .. ; ;,. . .! . ii 3 :iop : " • •PROPOSED USE Multiple Family Development COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Low Density Multiple Family; Medium DenSi•tY!,,,.!,, ... Multiple Family COMMENTS . • ,' : •.i .., J.:1 .1,, . . ..,;•,• v„ 1 , • ., I.•;• (; ! . :; , :;'• i . . ........_.... OF R�� 4.4 „ . 0 THE CITY OF RENTON �� © Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 n BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • DELORES A. MEAD 09A co. CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500 0gTED SEP'�° March 30, 1982 Mr. Daryl Connell C-D Debco Box 580 Bellevue, WA 98009 RE: City of Renton - Ordinance Nos. 3603 & 3604 Best/Connell Rezone (R-125-80) Bowser Rezone (R-135-80) Dear Mr. Connell: The Renton City Council at its regular meeting of January 25, 1982 has adopted Ordinance Nos.3603 and 3604 rezoning your property from General Classification District (G) to Residence District (R-2) and (R-3) . A condition of the rezones included a restrictive covenant recorded with King Co. Records & Elections,Recording No. 8201120466. Copies of the Ordinances and Restrictive Covenant are enclosed. Very truly yours, CITY O�F� RENTON� ,2-G'uo C.G. Delores A. Mead, C.M.C. City Clerk DAM:db ENC: 3 --_� ��51617f�gj9 �yZC ?aL SEP1931 0 RECEIVED op CITY of RENTON c s' September 15, 1981 �o CLERK'S CFFiCE„n Honorable Members of the City Council City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re: File #R-125-80 & R-135-80 Applicant: Herman Allenbach & Lucky Seven Investments Location: West Side of Talbot Rd. S. , 1000 feet south of S.W. 43rd Street, and West Side of Talbot Rd. S. , 1/4 mile south of S.W. 43rd Street. Dear Council Members : On August 19, 1981 the Hearing Examiner for the City of Renton rendered a decision with respect to the above project. On September 1, 1981 in accordance with Chapter 30 , Subsection 4-3015 of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, we requested a reconsideration. This reconsideration was rejected by the Hearing Examiner by letter dated September 11, 1981. We wish to take this opportunity to request the City Council review of the decision of the Hearing Examiner pursuant to Subsection 4-3016 , of the above ordinance. We are attaching for your review and/or files documentation regarding NEW EVIDENCE, and CONCLUSIONS. We trust that you will agree with your planning and engineering staff that all of the elements have been thoroughly reviewed and mitigating measures properly identified so that this project can move forward to the benefit of the City of Renton. The subject proposal is the rezoning of two adjacent parcels of property to allow a multi-family residential development of 325 dwelling units. Because these parcels are adjacent to One Valley Place, a commercial property, a single traffic report was prepared ad- dressing the combined impacts of the subject development along with One Valley Place and also other developments in the immediate vicinity including those in King County. This traffic report was found to be acceptable to city staff and the Hearing Examiner for One Valley Place. This property was thus rezoned. City of Renton September 15, 1981 Page Two How is it possible that the Hearing Examiner can approve one development (One Valley Place) and disapprove the adjacent development (R-125-80 & R-135-80) when both developments were based on the same traffic, analysis and the same traffic report complete with conclusions and mitigating measures all of which were found to be adequate and approved by staff? NEW EVIDENCE First, on August 31, 1981 the Washington State Highway Department, District 1 (Mr. John Klasell, P.E. ) was notified by headquarters administration that the "date for construction bid advertisement" for the reconstruction of SR-515 from Carr Road to Puget Drive had been fixed for October 19 , 1981. Further, that $5 . 7 million had been obligated for the project which would include "new construction on a new alignment" with a completion date scheduled for the spring of 1983. A copy of the announcement is attached. Second, in addition, the Washington State Department of Transpor- tation, District 1, has assigned Mr. Tom Brown, P.E. the duties of "location engineer" with respect to the preliminary engineering and design of the S. 212th Street interchange on SR-167. Money has been allocated for this specific purpose. Probable construction i•s expected in. the 1984-86 biennium. Third, the traffic signal at the intersection of SR-167 and S .W. 43rd Street is recognized by the Washington State Department of Transportation and appears as a "line item" in their priority program. " In other words , the need for the traffic signal has been recognized by its placement within the priority program system. Changing conditions such as increased traffic volumes will raise the priority although, at the present time, signalization is not expected before July, 1982 . Fourth, King County is planning to upgrade Petrovitsky to a five lane road from 108th to 140th. They have started property ac- quisition from 108th to 116th and engineering is also underway. In addition, King County has approved the rezone of Fairwood No. 7 subject to this widening which is holding up this project. Since it has been the traffic generated by King County' s rather liberal zoning policies that is impacting Renton' s streets , we are encouraged by these developments. City of Renton • September 15 , 1981 Page Three ERRORS IN FINDINGS (11) SR-515, which the State proposed construction between Carr Road and Puget Drive, is unfunded and is not expected to be constructed within the near future . . . This is incorrect, the project has been funded and a contract will be advertised on October 19 , 1981. (14) The LOS on S.W. 43rd Street is adverse today . . . Neither the loop ramp nor a traffic signal are immediately contemplated by the State in the current funding climate. • This is incorrect, the Washington State Department of Trans- portation recognizes the need of the traffic signal and has placed this within their priority program which is the funda- mental document for budgetary considerations. (15) The intersection of Rainier Avenue South and S.W. Grady Way is at capacity and would be expected to provide a link to employment areas North of the subject site in Bellevue or Seattle. It would serve as an alternative to SR-156/I-405 . This is incorrect. SR-156 is not in the immediate area. Also, the forthcoming construction of SR-515 provides an opportunity for bypassing the subject intersection. (18) The city 's traffic engineer disputed the historic growth figures which provide for background traffic growth not attributed to specific projects such as the subject proposal. The difference could amount to approximately 4,100 vehicles per day on S.W. 43rd Street between Talbot Road South and SR-167 . The amount is calculated on the applicant' s figure of 3% compound growth versus the city' s figure of 6% compound growth. • This is incorrect. The original traffic report prepared by the consultant' s traffic engineer (Christopher Brown, P.E. ) utilized an annual growth of 1.15%/year derived from examination of data generated by the permanent count station operated by the Washington State Department of Transportation. At the request of the City of Renton, City Traffic Engineer, made at a meeting attended by Gary Norris, Daryl Connell, David Clemens , and Christopher Brown, on March 16, 1981 the annual compound growth rate was requested of 3% per year, for this area. Never has the City of Renton suggested a "figure of 6% compound growth. " This is a significant error that should be correctec1 because it improperly suggests a difference . in growth rates by the applicant' s traffic engineer against the city' s traffic engineer when, in fact, both traffic engineers used the same growth rate and the city's traffic engineer has repeatedly testified that the mitigating measures are acceptable. City of Renton September 15, 1981 Page Four (21) The applicant proposes creating a roadway, Talbot Place, just East of SR-167 and West of Talbot Road which would intersect with S.W. 43rd Street. The roadway would serve as a primary access for the two subject properties and a northerly P-1 property. This is incorrect. The proposed Talbot Place would not neces- sarily be the primary access for the two subject properties . Figure 4 of the traffic report entitled 1982-83 Directional Design Hourly Volumes, noted in our letter dated July 16 , 1981 shows some ten vehicles per hour using Talbot Place against 217 vehicles per hour using an access from Talbot Road South. The influence of Talbot Place is delimited in this figure since turn restrictions have been assumed. CONCLUSIONS (1) The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest and will not impair the public health, safety and welfare . . . The proposed development is in the public interest in that it provides for increased housing opportunities within an incorporated community which, in turn, will reduce the need for housing in the more distant and unincorporated portion of the county. This, in turn, reduces travel demands, reduces energy consumption, reduces opportunities for traffic accidents due to increased travel distances, and provides for housing units more centrally located to job opportunities as well as retail-social-recreational centers. (2) While the applicant has demonstrated that the map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the areas in which the two parcels are located are suitable for the development of medium density multi-family dwellings . . . , the problems of traffic congestion and solutions to such problems presented the major issues. And while the Planning Department indicated the city has no control over growth outside of its boundaries in this area, and in addition, little or no say in growth issues beyond its boundaries, the city officials cannot beg the questions raised by the continuing deterioration in the levels of service on the various roads servicing this area. The major issues of traffic congestion must be confronted. Decreasing the development level will decrease demands on the roads. City of Renton • September 15, 1981 Page Five We believe that traffic flow can be improved on these streets and highways. King County is beginning to improve Petrovitsky Road. The construction of SR-515 is going to relieve 43rd Street considerably. Interstate 405 from Renton to Bellevue is going to be altered to accommodate an HOV lane in each direction in the near future. If all jurisdictions continue to responsibly plan to solve their traffic problems, the traffic system will not deteriorate. (4) The applicant' s argument that the percentage increase on I-405 generated by the subject proposal is predictably small is not persuasive. Even the samll increase on a roadway with little or no additional capacity cannot be ignored. Each additional proposal such as the subject proposal only causes a minuscule increase in proportion to the load now carried, but each is causing a new, small incremental decrease in service. . .therefore, in order to mitigate the impacts the potential' traffic on the area-wide network of roads, the proposal should be scaled down. Again, we ask, why was the traffic report for One Valley Place acceptable to the Hearing Examiner when it did not address any impacts to I-405? This traffic report outlined mitigating traffic measures for both projects in their entirety and was found acceptable by the Hearing Examiner and city staff. (6) Further reduction in peak hour traffic could be realized if the applicant provided three van pool vehicles as an initial asset to the Homeowners Association. Each vehicle would be capable of providing transportation to about ten to twelve in- dividuals. . . To recommend the provision of van pool vehicles to the Homeowners Association and, at the same time, suggest the delimitation of density cannot be balanced. Also, it appears to place a burden on the developer., a burden not shared by others . Van pool vehicles are a viable alternative if the project is of a sufficient size to be economically justified. • (10) Since the state appears to be unable to install a traffic signal at the intersection of SR-167 and S.W. 43rd Street, the applicants proposed Talbot Place should be restricted to right turn only movements as indicated by the city' s traffic engineering division. All parties agreed that there was a problem in this vicinity and the state indicated that the signal was warranted but cannot be provided at this juncture. Any additional demand for left-turning capacity could cause serious traffic hazard,. The applicant ,should provide any additional signals required as a result of . . . • City of Renton • September 15, 1981 Page Six Conversations with the State of Washington (Ms. Renata Prochaska) on September 1, 1981 indicates that the subject traffic signal is still on the priority list with a bid advertisement for July, 1982. The staff report outlined some funds to be paid by the developer towards a portion of this cost and we concur with their report. SUMMARY We believe this application should be approved for R-3 and R-2 subject to a maximum of 325 units. The Comprehensive Plan calls for this zoning and we have mitigated all impacts of this project including traffic. The Staff Report recommends that these properties be developed together as a P.U.D. due to their common configuration and topographical features. This will also encourage a creative design. We agree that these properties be developed together but would suggest that a restrictive covenant will achieve the same goal especially if this document requires planning staff approval of the final site plan. This method will shorten the approval period by up to six months which will be in the public interest to seek lower housing costs . TAnkyou for your attention in the above matter. �� J QI 1%, ' ,A00 • " "i A k LENB/ CH RED BOWSER, Acting General ek ' Partner ,...,...„......overnm.,.............„...,---...=-2- ,, ---- . --,..0.•,-y.....,:rwactven,ununtsvation Trom :1 • -7theledefal gent fof.70,unitt. A site is still-tci bechosen and.construction could notstait•before the ,13 es of,i., _ -.end of..1982,at the earliest.Bids on the Pike building g61.6.the authority office at:120 Sixth Ave -*here • , 1,:nars:' plans May be obtained"-for:$75:deposit The official:bid-advertisement as published in the Angi:.2l'lour,. t.gov_ lid;page 9. i 1!•-- - : -: ;:.,,,... . ,t7 Bi u ,-.:. ...,... .;, , : :, .e.th- i exxs, f ‘:.._ .. . tAA • : $VS EX- .;-1 '''. ' 98 _million4nbighwayiconstruction - F me 1;' .:p-- to—jects'.::?.-is',..,.--thithorizedby- state •rer .., . . . . . . . . , , ; , . .. • • , . ,, • ,Co Icon- .• . OLYMPIA--,••• ;1The • •State .,,...Route.16 from 12th Street•to the . Bridge which \will ::bypass the bic 'zison -Transportation Commission•this" Tacoma Narrows Bridge in Taco- t commercial area along TacoM6.'s -week authorized• work on six s.--. ma; f SR 151, the .:Watergrade ;'Sixth Ave. -Construction will -ka anti- :state-funded::highway:_construc-H Highway along' the Columbia I , , . .' - ; .'" • - :• River from':Chelan' Station to begin this:fall, with completion. Be The Can' ' scheduled for the 1983-135 bien: Sc t tion projects The six projects 'worth aP-: •;Hugo; .the• :Hamilton Street !:ople :,proximately f$98 -Million; •:had .. Bridge• on State Route 240 in Mum: : .Chelan, : SR i51, helan Station to CC !mi'''. ';...,originally, been .-'scheduled for -.,:Spokane; SR.500 in Vancouver - Hugo, 5:17: .miles •at ',$14.6 , I • -construction :•starts-I\durink the• from near 39th and!V Street to million This work will complete co icedt . .1979-81.biennium.:-However, de- :Andresen Road; SR:515 in Ren- the final segment:of a two-lane F .fills• ."clining fuel tax revenues'•forced ,ton between • Carr !Road, and , Watergrade route highway along gii l• tern- ..their deferral The work will poi! Puget Drive; and, SR 516 from the Columbia River from Chelan* 99 the -.., Proceed••'4ith luild1ngs.:7from• a,'" 'Reith Road to SR 181,in Kent.•' •••• Station north to Hugo, Ties ''.'.'$2254nillion'tond Authorization -:-' Preliminary :engineering .and - This five-mile segment will be a 33 ri to..... s for l'state-funded higliway .... P right-of-way acquisition.on the , , - - - s A - new two-lane highway on;mew• •bn ', • --.--proved by the Legislature-dining -.--- yrojeCts;has .already been au- alignment with connections to the ,. fic 1 re- its last session.'The bonds will be ::thorized.'The projects approved existing SR'151 at the south end :.ni; pro-. `:supported by the lOolo fuel tax.'; : :-,by the :Transportation Commis- • of the project and to U..S.-97 at .-cei hav-. ' . 'Action by :.the 1-conunisiithi 'i sion are: the north. Preliminary engineer- the and ' Tuesday authorizedi the •Depart- ' . :-.:SR Ilk $ 12th Street:to Nar- .ing work will continue with con- cei :or :meat of Transportation to spend , lows Bridge;2.14,miles,•at $22.8 ' struction slated for the fall of $37.6 million on the projects dur ': , . !.•Million.:This is a new four-lane•• ' 1983. Completion will come in - al re- ing the 1981-83 biennium. '. .: :highway between South 12th .- !the 1983-85 bienniuin. ne ....The 'projects include: ''State ...-Street and the Tacoma Narrows : ,. • (Continued on Page 8,Column 1) •,.....— . . ... .... . 'compieteu uy ..,..7 ____ __ ___._ I , . 'SR 515; Carr Road to Puget Y :•Drive, 1.17 miles,at$5.7 million. This project will•consist of con- , struction of a new ;.four-lane highway on new alignment from ' .Carr Road to Puget Drive inRen- , ton. The roadway work will in- '. dude construction of curbs and sidewalks. A pedestrian separa- tion structure will also be built. I •-Work will begin this'fall, with • completion scheduled for •.the, i 1983-85 biennium. - :• ' - : • I••• . •,SR 516,Reign-Road to SR 181,- 1,22 miles,at$1:0.7 million.Four . • STA• �`1 Z _ASTh JOHN SPELLMAN 6 I �. 41 DUANE BERENTSON Governor J•..21' p�„��' Secretary STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of District Administrator • D-1,6431 Corson Ave.So., C-81410 • Seattle, Washington 98108 September 14, 1981 Daryl Connell 2691 - 168th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98008 SR-167 CS 1766 Dear Mr. Connell : Thank you for your recent letter addressing traffic problems at the intersection of SR-167 and the S.W. 43rd Street northbound off-ramp. Since you have already discussed this with our staff, I won' t re- iterate the elements of the projected time schedule. As . I am sure you were told, we are also very anxious to complete this needed project. Very truly yours, J. D. ZIRKLE, P.E. District Administrator A. W. CARTER, P.E. Traffic Operations Engineer AWC:jk cc: J. Olson • PIONEER•NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE Policy of Title Insurance ATICOR COMPANY PIONEER NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, herein called the Company, for a valuable consideration, and subject to the conditions and stipulations of this policy, does hereby insure the person or persons named in item 1 of Schedule A, together with the persons and corporations included in the definition of "the insured" as set forth in the conditions and stipulations, against loss or damage sustained by reason of: 1. Title to the estate, lien or interest defined in items 3 and 4 of Schedule A being vested, at the date hereof, otherwise than as stated in item 2 of Schedule A; or 2. Any defect in, or lien or encumbrance on, said title existing at the date hereof, not shown in Schedule B; or 3. Any defect in the execution of any instrument shown in item 3 of Schedule A, or priority, at the date hereof, over any such instrument, of any lien or encumbrance not shown in Schedule B; provided, however, the Company shall not be liable for any loss, damage or expense resulting from the refusal of any person to enter into, or perform, any contract respecting the estate, lien or interest insured. The total liability is limited to the amount shown in Schedule A, exclusive of costs incurred by the Company as an incident to defense or settlement of claims hereunder. This policy shall not be valid or binding until countersigned below by a validating officer of the Company. Pioneer National Title Insurance Company by 2/„A) President Attest , U� Secretary Countersigned; By Validating Signatory TO 1483 PNTI WA (7.74) Washington Land Title Association Standard Form Policy • NUMBER + A-143212 WLTA DATE a OCTOBER 10 , 1975 AT 8 + 30 A.M. AMOUNT ' S100,000.00 PREMIUM + $384.00 SCHEDULE A 1. INSURED CENTER COURT SPORTS iNCORPORATED , A WAS,HINGTON CORPORATION 2. TITLE TO THE ESTATE + LIEN OR INTEREST INSURED BY THIS POLICY IS VESTED IN CHARLES 0. "SOREHEAD AND EVELYN M. MOREHEAD , HIS WIFE 3. ESTATE , LIEN OR INTEREST INSURED FEE SIMPLE ESTATE 4. DESCRIPTION OF THE REAL ESTATE WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS POLICY IS ISSUED THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER , SECTION 31 , TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH , RANGE 5 EAST , W.m. , IN !LING COUNTY, h'ASHINGTON , LYING WEST OF KENT—RENTON ROAD ; EXCEPT THE EAST 300 FEET OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER : AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR PRIMARY STATE HIGHWA.Y NO. 5 BY DEED RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR ' S FILE NC. 5282262. SUBJECT TO: AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS , EGRESS AND UTILITIES 1 OVER THE NORTH 30 FEET OF THE EAST 300 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 31 , AND TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER THE SOUTH 30 FEET OF THE EAST 300 FEET OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 31 , EXCEPT COUNTY ROAD. A-143212 PAGE 1 The. Comp has not surveyed the premises descri in A 1432 1 2 The sketch below is furnished without charge solely for the purpose of assisting in locating said premises and the Company assumes no liability for inaccuracies therein. It does not purport to show ALL highways, roads and ease- ments adjoining or affecting said premises. / 3__ 97G)± a exc. PIN W 0 1JVa- Nv2. NW - SE 3l- 23-5 r+ 70 m h i 0 rozs! + I 71 I • • 7 -7! c C 1 l - �." I SCHEDULE B DEFECTS , LIENS , ENCUMBRANCES AND OTHER MATTERS AGAINST WHICH THE COMPANY DOES NOT INSURE' GENERAL EXCEPTIONS ALL MATTERS SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPHS NUMBERED 1 TO 4 INCLUSIVE ON THE COVER SHEET OF THIS POLICY UNDER THE HEADING SCHEDULE B GENERAL EXCEPTIONS SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 1 . DEED OF TRUST TO SECURE AN INDEBTEDNESS OF THE AMOUNT HEREIN STATED AND ANY OTHER AMOUNTS PAYABLE UNDER THE TERMS THEREOF , RECORDED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF RECORDS AND ELECTIONS OF KING COUNTY , WASHINGTON. AMOUNT : S38 ,000. 00 DATED : OCTOBER 6 . 1972 RECORDED : OCTOBER 12 + 1972 RECEIVING NO. : 7210120477 GRANTOR : CHARLES 0. MOREHEAD AND EVELYN M. MOREHEAD , HIS w' IFE TRUSTEE : PIONEER NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY , A. CALIFORNIA CORPORATION BENEFICIARY : GUARANTY NATIONAL BANK OF WHITE CENTER , SPRING GLEN OFFICE , A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION 2. RELINQUISHMENT OF RIGHT OF ACCESS TO STATE HIGHWAY AND OF LIGHT , VIEW AND AIR . UNDER TERMS OF DEED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON . RECORDED MAY 10 , 1961 AUDITOR ' S NO. : 5282262 3. AN EASEMENT AFFECTING THE PORTION OF SAID PREMISES AND FOR THE PURPOSES STATED HEREIN , AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES. FOR : COMMUNITY DRIVEWAY RECORDED : MARCH 12 , 1963 AUDITORS NO. : 5554497 AFFECTS 8 NORTH 30 FEET OF THE EAST 300 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 31 , EXCEPT COUNTY ROAD 4. CONTRACT OF SALE VENDOR : CHARLES O. MOREHEAD AND EVELYN M. MOREHEAD , HIS WIFE VENDEE 8 CENTER COURT SPORTS INCORPORATED , A WASHINGTON CORPORATION DATED : OCTOBER 2 , 1975 RECOPOL77 : OCTOBER 10 , 1975 . AUDITOR ' S NO. ' 7510100367 RECEIPT NO. o E-322962 . . . END OF SCHEDULE B. . . TH TERMS OF THIS POLICY ARE MODIFIED BY THE ATTACHED WA 10 INDORSEMENT. • TO 1919.1 PN TI WA (5-75) ENDORSEMENT FORM WA 10- " OWNED:a INFLATION PROTECTION ENDOicEMENT • ATTACHED TO POLICY NO. A—1 t+3 2 12 ISSUED BY Pioneer National Title Insurance Company The Company,recognizing the current effect of inflation on real property valuation and intending to provide additional monetary protection to the Insured Owner named in said Policy,hereby modifies said Policy,as follows: 1. Notwithstanding anything contained in said Policy to the contrary, the amount of insurance provided by said Policy, as stated in Schedule A thereof, is subject to cumulative annual upward adjustments in the manner and to the extent hereinafter specified. 2. "Adjustment Date" is defined, for the purpose of this Endorsement, to be 12:01 a.m. on the first January 1 which occurs more than six months after the Date of Policy, as shown in Schedule A of the Policy to which this Endorsement is attached, and on each succeeding January 1. 3. An upward adjustment will be made on each of the Adjustment Dates, as defined above, by increasing the maximum amount of insurance provided by said Policy (as said amount may have been increased theretofore under the terms of this Endorsement) by the same percentage, if any, by which the United States Department of Commerce Composite Construction Cost Index (base period 1967) for the month of September immediately preceding exceeds the highest Index number for the month of September in any previous year which is subsequent to Date of Policy; provided, however, that the maximum amount of insurance in force shall never exceed 150% of the amount of insurance stated in Schedule A of said Policy, less the amount of any claim paid under said Policy which, under the terms of the Conditions and Stipulations, reduces the'amount of insurance in force. There shall be no annual adjustment in.the amount of insurance for years in which there is no increase in said Construction Cost Index. 4. In the settlement of any claim against the Company under said Policy, the amount of insurance in force shall be deemed to be the amount which is in force as of the date on which the insured claimant first learned of the assertion or possible assertion of such claim, or as of the date of receipt by the Company of the first notice of such claim, whichever shall first occur. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as extending or changing the effective date of said Policy. This Endorsement is made a part of said Policy and is subject to the schedules, conditions and stipulations therein, except as modified by the provisions hereof. Pioneer National Title Insurance Company gal2"Td) 91' President Attest: a" 7 al Secretary NOTE: In connection with a future application for title insurance covering said land, reissue credit on_premium charges (if applicable at all) will be allowed only upon the original face amount of ,t'd in Schedule A of -z d Poli y. li RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Municipal Building October 12, 1981 Council Chambers I Monday, 8 :00 P .M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch led the Pledge of Allegiance to the , flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. IRICHARD M. STREDICKE, Council President; RANDALL ROCKHILL, OUL CALL OF THOMAS W. TRIMM AND JOHN W. COUNCIL ROBERT J. HUGHES, EARL H. CLYMER, REED. Councilman CHARLES F. SHANE arrived at 8:02 P.M. CITY OFFICIALS IN BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, Mayor; DANIEL KELLOGG, Asst. City Attorney; ATTENDANCE DEL MEAD, City Clerk; MICHAEL PARNESS, Administrative Assistant; LT. DONALD PERSSON, Police; W. E. BENNETT, Acting Finance Director; DAVID CLEMENS, Acting Planning Director; RICHARD GEISSLER, Fire Chief; DON MONOGRAM, Public Works Department; M. MOTOR, Deputy City Clerk/Recorder. PRESS . GREG ANDERSON, Renton Record Chronicle MINUTE APPROVAL MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND CLYMER, APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 5, 1981 AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. PUBLIC MEETING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted Garrett Annexation and published, Mayor Shinpoch opened the public meeting to con- Duvall Ave. NE ' sider the 10% letter of intent to annex property to the City, north of contiguous on thewest side of Duvall Ave. NE (138th Ave. SE) , NE Sunset Blvd. north of NE Sunset Blvd. Acting Planning Director eClemensepused wall maps and explained the two single family pa rcels of an existing unincorporated island which was created by annexa- tion of property to the east in 1975. Clemens explained the two lots would need to be treated as two separate annexations with the King County Boundary Review Board unless tied together in some manner. Clemens noted it was the consensus -of reviewing depart- ments that annexation of the two lots would not be in the best interest of the City, causing further jurisdictional problems, especially with the Fire Department; however, favored annexation._.____— of the entire island. Clemens noted State law allows procedure to adopt resolution declaring election for annexation. Mr. Shannon O'Neil, 2259. 70th SE, Mercer Island, acted as spokesman for the annexation, explaining, dedication of 20 ft. on east Side of Duvall Ave. NE, plus installation of fire hydrant and water line for his _ development. O'Neil suggested that property on the west side of ____ -�--"-- Duvall would donate 20 -ft. , upon annexation, for the purpose co widening Duvall to four lanes. O'Neil noted area building mora=l_� _ - • torium; that sewers were out for bid._" 0 Neil noted one of annexa- tion lots was his daughter, other Steve Garrett and introduced_Mr.. and Mrs. McCloud. Discussion ensued. Public Works Representative - Don Don Monoghan explained re building moratorium and those properties proposed for sewer connection, noting that upon annexation connec- tion to sewer would not be permitted for property within the,Sunset 75% Petition Lift Station service area. Fire Chief Geissler noted mutual aid Authorized for agreement exists for County island. Mr. O'Neil acting as spokesman Annexation to agreed that upon annexation, the City's zoning and any pre-existing Include all indebtedness would be accepted. Motion to deny the annexation was Property fronting withdrawn. MOVED BYCLYMER, SECOND SHANE, COUNCIL AUTHORIZE CIRCU- P -- -- on Duvall Ave. NE I,ATIONOF THE 75% PETITION FOR ALL PROPERTY FRONTING O�NIID L AVE. NE (FROM SOUTH TO NORTH EDGE OF THE ISLAND) . - AUDIENCE COMMENT Robert Wilson, 720 S. 55th St. , requested reading of Planning Best/Connell and Development Committee report and three letters submitted re • Appeal of Appeal of Best/Connell Rezone R-125-80. MOVED BY ROCKHILL, SECOND Rezone R-125-80 REED, SUSPEND ORDER OF BUSINESS AND ADVANCE TO PLANNING AND DEVELOP- MENT COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee report noted consideration of appeal by David Best/Daryl Connel, of rezone application from G to R-3 for multiple family development; Requegt._wS denied by the Land Use Hearing Examiner in decision f August 19, 1981. " Renton City Council 10/12/81 Page 2 Audience Comment - Continued - Planning and Development Committee - Continued Best/Connell The committee report found the Examiner in error as a matter of Rezone Appeal fact and law and recommended mo.difiaatiion:;: (1). Last sentence of Continued Conclusion No. 1 should be modified to read: "The applicant has demonstrated requested rezone is in the public interest and will not impair the public health, safety and welfare. The requested rezone meets the criteria of Section 4-3014;" (2) Conclusion No. 4 should be deleted as it is in error in that, technical evidence before the Examiner from the traffic experts shows traffic generate by the proposal will not significantly affect the level' of service on I-405 or streets adjacent to the development; (3) Conclusion No.. 7 'is in error in that requested reclassification is compatible with the elements of the Comprehensive Plan and creates a reason- able transition between the P-1 zoning and proposed PUD to north and low•density 'single family uses located south and east. No. 7 should be modified; (4) Conclusion No. 9 in error•.teeding modifica- tion.:as the Examiner may not consider the impact of "other antici- pated projects" on the streets and freeways adjacent to project only present proposal. The committee recommended granting requested reclassification (R-3).. MOVED ROCKHILL, SECOND CLYMER, CONCUR IN • RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE.* • Continued Letters were read from: Nancy Purcell and Clyde Medlock asked consideration of the impact of increased traffic, increased recre- ational and open space demands, modification of existing neighbor- hoods adjacent to the hospital and increased school demands. The letter favored low density. G. Warren and R. Elaine Diamond, 4914 Talbot Rd. S, supported Hearing Examiner Kaufman's decision of 8/19/81 and recommended R-2 zoning. Robert D. and Doravin Wilson, 720 S. 55th, noted attendance for two days of discussion and testimony and agreed with the Examiner's recommendation for the lower density. The letter noted streets needing repair and ditching, worsening traffic conditions and questioned a one hour meeting which overturned the Examiner's decision. Continued Council discussion ensued. Daryl Connell, 2691 168th SE, Bellevue, Appellant, explained need for housing and area compatibility. *ROLL CALL: 4-AYES: ROCKHILL, HUGHES, CLYMER, SHANE; 3-NO: STREDICKE, TRIMM AND REED. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are adopted by one motion which follows the business matters included: King County Letter from Planning Dept. Housing and Community Development Consortium Coordinator Ed Hayduk presented agreement between the City and King County for continuance of the Housing and Community Develop- . went Block Grant Program from 1982 through 1984. The letter requested authorization for the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement. Concur. Final Estimate Letter from Parks and Recreation Dept. requested acceptance of Coulon Beach Park CAG 057-80 Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park Contract No. 1 by Aldrich & Hedman Aldrich and Hedman Inc. , approval of final payment in amount of $2,935.92 plus partial release of retainage subject to stipula- tions $35,255.30. The letter explained replacement of certain plant materials (value $1,656.00) is required but plantings must be deferred until the Fall season; therefore, in accordance with State law, the $1,656.00 has been deleted from the original con- tract to allow finalization. A separate contract will be arranged for deferred plant replacement work. Concur. Utilities - SR 515 Public Works Department Utility Division requests authorization for Carr Road to the Mayor and City Clerk to execute agreement with the State Dept. Puget Drive of Transportation to relocate and reconstruct utility facilities in connection with SR 515 from Carr Road to Puget Drive, CG 6681. Council concur. SR 515 Release Public Works Dept. Utility Div. requests the Mayor and City Clerk of Easement be authorized to execute Agreement and Quit Claim Deed to the State for utility relocation re SR 515, Carr Road to Grady Way. Concur. (See Page 3, Resolution #2426 adopted.) T+\ / I J PLANNING. AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT October 12 , 1981 TO: Renton City Council ' FROM: Planning and Development. Cd'mmittee Re: David Best/Daryl Connell/ Fred Bowser File No . R-125-80 and R-135-80 The Planning and Development Committee has considered the appeal of the recommendation of theLand Use Hearing Examiner dated .. August 19, 1981, in reference to the above matter, and finds that the Hearing Examiner is in error as a matter of fact and law in the following particulars : , 1. The last sentence of Conclusion No. 1 should be modified to read as. follows : "The applicant has demonstrated that the requested rezone is in the public interest and will not impair the public health, safety and welfare. The requested rezone meets the criteria of Section 4-3014." 2. Conclusion No.. 4 is in error in that the technical evidence before the Hearing Examiner from the traffic experts shows that the traffic generated by the subject proposal will not significantly affect the level of service on 1-405 or the streets adjacent to the development. Conclusion No. 4 should be deleted. 3 . . Conclusion No. 7 is in error in that the requested reclassification is compatible with the elements of the Comprehensive Plan, and creates a reasonable transition between the P-1 zoning and proposed PUD for the northerly properties and the low density . single family uses located south and east of the subject site. Conclusion No. 7 should be modified accordingly. 4. Conclusion No. 9 is in error in that the Hearing Examiner may not consider the impact of "other = . c anticipated projects" on the streets and freeways adjacent to the project . The consideration of the requested reclassification must be focused upon the impacts from the present proposal alone. The City Council should approve the requested reclassification. Conclusion No. 9 should be modified accordingly. The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the City Council modify the decision of the Hearing Examiner and grant the requested reclassification, subject. to the conditions set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. 6;7 /6i) Cr A i MEMO FROM: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE TO: L/241/ DATE: 9 3 -2/ //20-vkill RE: Ole526tt 2 60-( A-gQ4)V C ,- / 3S -f MEMO:AA, SIffree.44., li,,.-4Z-401 , TANK YOU, •Y‘'‘•-• • For.Use By City Clerk's Office Only A. I . 1Y AGENDA ITEM RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING c_== ==_ =-----z==- ==== ======= SUBMITTING Dept./Div./Bd./Comm. City Clerk's Office. For Agenda Of September 28, 1981 (Meeting Date) Staff Contact Delores Mead, City Clerk (Name) Agenda Status: XX SUBJECT: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Consent Reconsideration Denial Decision; Best/Connell Public Hearing Rezone R-125-80 and Bowser/Lucky Seven Invest. Correspondence Ordinance/Resolution Rezone R-135-80. Old Business Exhibits: (Legal Descr. , Maps, Etc.)Attach New Business Study Session A. Appeal Other B. Hearing Examiner's Decision 9/11/81 • C. City Clerk's Letter 9/21/81 Approval : Legal Dept. Yes No N/A X COUNCIL ACTION RECOMMENDED: Finance Dept. Yes No. N/A X Refer to Planning & Development Committee Other Clearance FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditure Required $ Amount $ Appropriation- $ Budgeted Transfer Required SUMMARY (Background information, prior action and effect of implementation) (Attach additional pages if necessary.) Appeal filed by Connell Co. for Best/Connell and filed by Lucky Seven Investment Co. for Bowser/Lucky Seven Investment received Setember 17, 1981. PARTIES OF RECORD/INTERESTED CITIZENS TO BE CONTACTED: OF R4,A 4-1 ,y THE CITY OF RENTON U `� Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • DELORES A. MEAD 09,0 co- CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500 0,9gr�D SE131°�P September 21, 1981 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss. COUNTY OF KING DELORES A. MEAD, City Clerk of the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 21st day of September, 1981, at the hour of 5:00 p.m. , your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail, to all parties of record, a true and correct NOTICE OF APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECONSIDERATION DECISION FILED BY FRED BOWSER, LUCKY SEVEN INVESTMENT FOR BOWSER REZONE R-135-80. '�°� ettd- Delores A. Mead, CitY Cle }c SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 21st day of September, 1981. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in King County OF R4� ;� z THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUI LDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 oammo rn BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • DELORES A. MEAD 9 `z' CITY CLERK • (206) 235-2500 o9grco SEP1°4' September 21, 1981 APPEAL FILED BY FRED BOWSER/LUCKY SEVEN INVESTMENT, FILE NO. R-135-80 RE: Appeal of Land Use Examiner's reconsideration decision dated September 11, 1981 denying Bowser/Lucky .Seven Investment Rezone R-135-80 from G to R-2; property located at S.W. Talbot Road and S.W. 43rd in the vicinity of Valley General Hospital. To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title 4, Chapter 30, City Code, written appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's decision has been filed with the City Clerk, along with the proper fee of $25.00. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee and will be considered by the City Council when the matter is reported out of the Committee. Please contact the Council Secretary, 235-2586, for date and time of the committee and council meetings, should you desire to attend. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON idhte4(1 (? Delores A. Mead, C.M.C. City Clerk DM/gh / C 9 -FQ- NE COPIES TO: - —'SENT CITY, ATTORNEY'S 'OFFICE q41 RECORD CHRONICLE (PRESS) MAYOR' S OFFICE 61- CITY COUNCIL I I 5'_a FINANCE DEPARTMENT HEARING EXAMINER (2) PLANNING DEPARTMENT '/C tea` ' IfOuf ' d UBLIC WORKS D _ CTOR 9-02/ PARK DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT 7 4.)/,evlr� r. t 1-,2-1 • Rat( ( : 4;"\ �5161 18 j9`) e. SEP1981 ;\ .0 RECEIVED tit co CITY of RENTON September 15, 1981 9S, LERK'S OFFICE25. Honorable Members of the City Council • City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South • Renton, WA 98055 Re: File . #R-125-80 & R-135-80 Applicant: Herman Allenbach & Lucky Seven Investments Location: West Side of Talbot Rd. S. , 1000 feet south of S.W. 43rd Street, and West Side of Talbot Rd. S. , 1/4 mile south of S.W. 43rd Street. Dear Council Members: On August 19, 1981 the Hearing Examiner for the City of Renton • rendered a decision with respect to the above project. On September 1, 1981 in accordance with Chapter 30 , Subsection 4-3015 of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, we requested a reconsideration. This reconsideration was rejected by the Hearing Examiner by letter dated September 11, 1981. We wish to take this opportunity to request the City Council review of the decision of the Hearing Examiner pursuant to Subsection 4-3016, of the above ordinance. We are attaching for your review and/or files documentation regarding NEW EVIDENCE, and CONCLUSIONS. We trust that you will agree with your planning and engineering staff that all of the elements have been thoroughly reviewed and mitigating measures properly identified so that this project can move forward to the benefit of the City of Renton. The subject proposal is the rezoning of two adjacent parcels of property to allow a multi-family residential development of 325 dwelling units. Because these parcels are adjacent to One Valley Place, a commercial property, a single traffic report was prepared ad- dressing the combined impacts of the subject development along with One Valley Place and also other developments in the immediate vicinity including those in King County. This traffic report was found to be acceptable to city staff and the Hearing Examiner for One Valley Place. This property was thus rezoned. City of Renton September 15, 1981 Page Two How is it possible that the Hearing Examiner can approve one development (One Valley Place) and disapprove the adjacent development (R-125-80 & R-135-80) when both developments were based on the same traffic analysis and the same traffic report complete with conclusions and mitigating measures all of which were found to be adequate and approved by staff? • NEW EVIDENCE First, on August 31, 1981 the Washington State Highway Department, District 1 (Mr. John Klasell, P.E. ) was notified by headquarters administration that the "date for construction bid advertisement" for the reconstruction of SR-515 from Carr Road to Puget Drive had been fixed for October 19 , 1981. Further, that $5 . 7 million had been obligated for the project which would include "new construction on a new alignment" with a completion date scheduled for the spring of 1983. A copy of the announcement is attached. Second, in addition, the Washington State Department of Transpor- tation, District 1, has assigned Mr. Tom Brown, P.E. the duties of "location engineer" with respect to the preliminary engineering and design of the S. 212th Street interchange on SR-167. Money has been allocated for this specific purpose. Probable construction is expected in the 1984-86 biennium. Third, the traffic signal at the intersection of SR-167 and S.W. 43rd Street is recognized by the Washington State Department of Transportation and appears as a "line item" in their priority program. " In other words , the need for the traffic signal has been recognized; by its placement within the priority program system. Changing conditions such as increased traffic volumes will raise the priority although, at the present time, signalization is not expected before July, 1982. Fourth, King County is planning to upgrade Petrovitsky to a five lane road from 108th to 140th. They have started property ac- quisition from 108th to 116th and engineering is also underway. In addition, King County has approved the rezone of Fairwood ' No. 7 subject to this widening which is holding up this project. Since it has been the traffic generated by King County' s rather liberal zoning policies that is impacting Renton' s streets , we are encouraged by these developments. City of Renton September 15, 1981 Page Three ERRORS IN FINDINGS (11) SR-515, which the State proposed construction between Carr Road and Puget Drive, is unfunded and is not expected to be constructed within the near future . . . This is incorrect, the project has been funded and a contract will be advertised on October 19 , 1981. (14) The LOS on S.W. 43rd Street is adverse today . . . Neither the loop ramp nor a traffic signal are immediately contemplated by the State in the current funding climate. This is incorrect, the Washington State Department of Trans- portation recognizes the need of the traffic signal and has placed this within their priority program which is the funda- mental document for budgetary considerations. (15) The intersection of Rainier Avenue South and S.W. Grady Way is at capacity and would be expected to provide a link to employment area North of the subject site in Bellevue or Seattle. It would serve as an alternative to SR-156/I-405 . This is incorrect. SR-156 is not in the immediate area. Also, the forthcoming construction of SR-515 provides an opportunity for bypassing the subject intersection. (18) The city' s traffic engineer disputed the historic growth figures which provide for background traffic growth not attributed to specific projects such as the subject proposal. The difference could amount tolapproximately 4 ,100 vehicles per day on S.W. 43rd Street between Talbot Road South and SR-167. The amount is calculated on the applicant' s figure of 3% compound growth versus the city's figure of 6% compound growth. • This is incorrect. The original traffic report prepared by the consultant' s traffic engineer (Christopher Brown, P.E. ) utilized an annual growth of 1.15%/year derived from examination of data generated by the permanent count station operated by the Washington State Department, of Transportation. At the request of the City of Renton, City ;Traffic Engineer, made at a meeting attended by Gary Norris, Daryl Connell, David Clemens, and Christopher Brown, on March 16, 1981 the annual compound growth rate was requested of 3% per year, for this area. Never has the City of Renton suggested a "figure of 6% compound growth. " This is a significant error that should be corrected because it improperly suggests a difference in growth rates by the applicant' s traffic engineer against the city' s traffic engineer when, in fact, both traffic engineers used the same growth rate and the city's traffic engineer has repeatedly testified that the mitigating measures are acceptable. City of Renton September 15, 1981 Page Four (21) The applicant proposes creating a roadway, Talbot Place, just East of SR-167 and West of Talbot Road which would intersect with S.W. 43rd Street. The roadway would serve as a primary access for the two subject properties and a northerly P-1 property. This is incorrect. The proposed Talbot Place would not neces- sarily be the primary access for the two subject properties . Figure 4 of the traffic report entitled 1982-83 Directional Design Hourly Volumes, noted in our letter dated July 16 , 1981 shows some ten vehicles per hour using Talbot Place against 217 vehicles per hour using an access from Talbot Road South. The influence of Talbot Place is delimited in this figure since turn restrictions have been assumed. CONCLUSIONS (1) The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest and will not impair the public health, safety and welfare . . . The proposed development is in the public interest in that it provides for increased housing opportunities within an incorporated community which, in turn, will reduce the need for housing in the more distant ,and unincorporated portion of the county. This, in turn, reduces travel demands, reduces energy consumption, reduces opportunities for traffic accidents due to increased travel distances, and provides for housing units more centrally located to job opportunities as well as retail-social-recreational centers. (2) While the applicant has demonstrated that the map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the areas in which the two parcels are located are suitable for the development of medium density multi-family dwellings . . . , the problems of traffic congestion and solutions to such problems presented the major issues. And while the Planning Department indicated the city has no control over growth outside of its boundaries in this area, and in addition, little or no say in growth issues beyond its boundaries, the city officials cannot beg the questions raised by the continuing deterioration in the levels of service on the various roads servicing this area. The major issues of traffic congestion must be confronted. Decreasing the development level will decrease demands on the roads. City of Renton September 15, 1981 Page Five We believe that! traffic flow can be improved on these streets and highways. King County is beginning to improve Petrovitsky Road. The construction of SR-515 is_ going to relieve 43rd Street considerably. Interstate 405 from Renton to Bellevue is going to be altered to accommodate an HOV lane in each • direction in the near future. If all jurisdictions continue to responsibly plan to solve their traffic problems, the traffic system will not deteriorate. (4) The applicant's argument that the percentage increase on I-405 generated ,by the subject proposal is predictably small is not persuasive. Even the samll increase on a roadway with little or no additional capacity cannot be ignored. Each additional proposal such as the subject proposal only causes a minuscule increase in proportion to the load now carried, but each is causing a new, small incremental decrease in service. . . therefore, in order to mitigate the impacts the potential traffic on the area-wide network of roads , the proposal should be scaled down. Again, we ask, why was the traffic report for One Valley Place acceptable to the Hearing Examiner when it did not address any impacts to I-405? This traffic report outlined mitigating traffic measures for both projects in their entirety and was found acceptable by the Hearing Examiner and city staff. (6) Further reduction in peak hour traffic could be realized if the applicant provided three van pool vehicles as an initial asset to the Homeowners Association. Each vehicle would be capable of providing transportation to about ten to twelve in- dividuals. . . To recommend the provision of van pool vehicles to the Homeowners Association and, at the same time, suggest the delimitation of density cannot be balanced. Also, it appears to place a burden on the developeri, a burden not shared by others. Van pool vehicles are a viable alternative if the project is of a sufficient size to be economically justified. (10) Since the state appears to be unable to install a traffic signal at the intersection of SR-167 and S.W. 43rd Street, the applicants proposed Talbot Place should be restricted to right turn only movements as indicated by the city' s traffic engineering division. All parties agreed that there was a problem in this vicinity and the state indicated that the signal was warranted but cannot be provided at this juncture. Any additional demand for left-turning capacity could cause serious traffic hazard. The applicant ,should provide any additional signals required as a result of . . . • ' i • City of Renton • September 15, 1981 Page Six Conversations with the State of Washington (Ms. Renata Prochaska) on September 1, 1981 indicates that the subject traffic signal is still on the priority list with a bid advertisement for July, 1982. The staff report outlined some funds to be paid by the developer towards a portion of this cost and we concur ' with their report. SUMMARY I 1 We believe this application should be approved for R-3 and R-2 subject to a maximum of 325 units . The Comprehensive Plan calls for this zoning and we have mitigated all impacts of this project including traffic. The Staff Report recommends that these properties be developed together as a P.U.D. due to their common configuration and topographical features. This will also encourage a creative design. , i We agree that these properties be developed together but would suggest that a restrictive covenant will achieve the same goal especially if this document requires planning staff approval of the final site plan. This method will shorten the approval period by up to six months which will be in the public interest to seek lower housing costs . Thank you for your attention in the above matter. .,-,. /7 11111 4. Or /AA Ali: ,mpaughtkaillidlik • . :1 ' Ter LENB..CH FRED BOWSER, Acting General i Partner 4110,7 • • — --••...s reuerven a turns.%ocrvauon irom es of • the federal government for 70 units. A site is still to be chosen and construct'on could not itart before the b t new -. end of 1982 at the earliest. Bids on the Pike building go to the authority offc:at 120 Sixth Ave.N, where -dis- plans may be obtained for$75 deposit. The official bid-advertisement published in the Aug.21 Jour- gov- nal,page 9. , C2) •Q 'ed in - O l� .G f vs ex_ $98 million- in highway construction . 1 Co me projects is authorized by. state pr' some txical • con- OLYMPIA ;The. State Route 16 from•12th Street to the bic Cc nson Trans ortation Commission this Bridge which will bypass the b p Tacoma Narrows Bridge in Taco- • commercial area along Tacofna's week authorized work on six ma; SR 151, the Watergrade . Sixth Ave. Construction will ka anti- state-funded • highway construc- Highway along the Columbia begin this fall, with completion Be xn'i tion projects. - River from Chelan Station to • scheduled for the 1983-85 bien- S c �ople The six projects, worth ap- Hugo; the Hamilton Street nium. $3 any„ proximately $98 million, had Bridge on State Route 240 in • SR 151, Chelan Station to Cc originally been scheduled for Spokane; SR 500 in Vancouver Hugo, 5.17 miles at $14.6 need construction starts . during the from near 39th and V Street to million. This work will complete co 1979-81 biennium. However, de- Andresen Road; SR 515 in Ren- the final segment of a two-lane F ums dining fuel tax'revenues forced ton between Carr Road and em- their deferral.The work will now Watergrade route highway along gil Drive; and, SR 516 from the ColumbiaaRiver from Chelan 99 t the proceed with funding from- a Reith Road to SR 181,in Kent. Station north to Hugo. d'Piesto •$225 million bond authorization . Preliminary engineering and This five-mile segment will be a 33 .for state-funded highways ap- right-of-way acquisition on the new two-lane highway on new bu - •proved by the Legislature during projects has already- been au- alignment with connections to the fic I re- ..its last session.The bonds will be thorized. The projects approved existing SR 151 at the south end m; pro- supported by the 10% fuel tax. by the Transportation Commis- lay- Action by . the commission sion are: tli and Tuesday authorized. the Depart- SR 16, S 12th Street to Nar- the worknorth.will contrary engineer-- ce or ment of Transportation to spend str t d for thee fallconf Ce rows Bridge, 2.14 miles, at $22.8 struction slated for of $37.6 million on the projects dur- million. This is a new four-lane ; 1983. Completion will come in al$ re- ing the L981-83 biennium. . highway between South 12th :the 1983-85 biennium. ne ')- • The projects include: State Street and the Tacoma Narrows • (Continued on Page 8,Column t) • I completeu w •••- -- -- -- •--- ,, nium. SR 515, Can Road to Puget Drive, 1.17 miles,at$5.7 million. This project will consist of con- • , • struction of a new four-lane highway on new alignment from . Can Road to Puget Drive in Ren- ton. The roadway work will in- , elude construction of.curbs and sidewalks. A pedestrian separa- tion structure will also be built. • Work will begin this fall, with completion scheduled for the 1983-85 biennium. • • SR 516, Reith Road to SR 181, 1.22 miles,at$10.7 million.Four . .......1.:..1........inn... .... no.., ol:nn_ I �f .rA7r JOHN SPELLMAN ._ DUANE BERENTSON Governor ''�i 40 Secretary STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of District Administrator • D-1,6431 Corson Ave.So., C-81410 • Seattle, Washington 98108 • September 14, 1981 Daryl Connell 2691 - 168th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98008 SR-167 CS 1766 Dear Mr. Connell : Thank you for your recent letter addressing traffic problems at the intersection of SR-167 and the S.W. 43rd Street northbound off-ramp. Since you have already discussed this with our staff, I won' t re- iterate the elements of the projected time schedule. As I am sure you were told, we are also very anxious to complete this needed project. Very truly yours, J. D. ZIRKLE, P.E. District Administrator A. ti•1. CARTER, P.E. Traffic Operations Engineer AW C:j k cc: J. Olson OF R4,, • �� THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 o BARBARA'. Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9,0 co, FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 04 7' ED SEPI°1' September 11 , 1981 Herman M. Allenbach 17600 Talbot Road South Renton, Washington 98055 RE: File Nos. R-125-80 and R-135-80; Request for Reconsideration. Dear Dr. Allenbach: I have reviewed your request in the above entitled matter and can find no merit in your request. Your request presents facts which indicate that: 1) other developments in the immediate area have been held in abeyance pending the improvement of certain roads; and 2) that a rezone to allow greater density was denied by the county for property located east of the subject site. Each of these matters reflect the fact that the applicant in the instant case is not being subjected to special treatment but that there is a growing awareness of the traffic problems in the area. The recommendation to reclassify the subject property to R-2 permits the applicant to make reasonable use of the property and is reasonable in light of concerns for the public health, safety and welfare. The request for R-3 zoning on the northerly parcel is both untimely and inappropriate. Your right to appeal this matter to the City Council will remain until 5:00 pm on September 25,_ 1981 , upon expiration of the newly established appeal period. Very truly yours, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Fred Bowser Parties of Record NORTHWEST ORAL SURGERY ASSOCIATES, P.S. .Ir ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY N. ti W. RENTON CLINIC ORAL SURGERY 17600 TALBOT ROAD SOUTH • RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 . 226-5 940 HEADMAN M. ALLENEACH, D.D.S., M.S. • Sep.emben 1, 1981 CITYROFElvED , f HEArnNG ,NTON AN SEP 21981 7+8+9,%n ,Ii2t�.q�5 Mn. Fned J. Kausman `s Land Use Heaati,ng Fxam,in.en City oi Renton 200 ate Avenue. South. Renton, WA 98055 Dean Mn. Kausman: P.eeaae Sind attached own nequeat Son necanaidenati.on oi yowl. decLt,.Lan Son the nezonLng os oun. pnopext.iea (Fite #R-125-80 and Fite #R-135-80). We believe there have been s.ign.is.icant changes since yowl. S.Lnd-Lngs that w.iLL be £mpontant Soh you to evacuate .in rezoning own pnapenty to R7'3 and R-2 ne4pectsu.2ey. S.incexeey, , 7 i ( /1,eII L fM r , torch Fned Bawler, Acting Genena.e Pantnen • Re: File #R-125-80 & R-135-80 Applicant: Herman Allenbach & Lucky Seven Investments Location: West Side of Talbot Rd. S. , 1000 feet south of S.W. 43rd Street West Side of Talbot Rd. S. , 1/4 mile south of S.W. 43rd Street In accordance with Title IV, Section 3015 of the City 's Code, we are rbquesting reconsideration of the above decision. The request for reconsideration is based on new evidence and errors of fact. • NEW EVIDENCE First, on August 31, 1981 the Washington State Highway Department, District 1 (Mr. John Klasell , P.E .) was notified by headquarters administration that the "date for construction bid advertisement" for the reconstruction of SR-515 from Carr Road to Puget Drive had been fixed for October 19, 1981 . Further, that $5.7 million had been obligated for the project which would include "new construction on a new alignment" with a completion date scheduled for the spring of 1983. Second, in addition, the Washington State Department of Transportation, District 1, has assigned Mr. Tom Brown, P.E. the duties of "location engineer" with respect to the pre- liminary engineering and design of the S. 212th Street interchange on SR-167. Money has been allocated for this specific purpose. Probable construction is expected in the 1984-86 biennium. Third, the traffic signal at the intersection of SR-167 and S.W. 43rd Street is recognized by the Washington State Department of Transportation and appears as a "line item" in their "priority program" . In other words, the need for the traffic signal has been recognized by its placement within the priority program system. Changing conditions such as increased traffic volumes will raise the priority although, at the present time, signalization is not expected before July, 1982 . ERRORS IN FINDINGS 11. SR-515, which the state proposed construction between Carr Road and Puget Drive, is unfunded and is not expected to be constructed within the near future. . . This is incorrect, the project has been funded and a contract will be advertised on October 19, 1981 . • 14. The LOS on S.W. 43rd Street is adverse today. . . Neither the loop ramp nor a traffic signal are immediately contemplated by the state in the current funding climate. This is incorrect, the Washington State Department of Transportation recognizes the need of the traffic signal and has placed this within their priority program which is the fundamental document for budgetary considerations. 15. The intersection of Rainier Avenue South and S.W. Grady Way is at capacity and would be expected to provide a link to employment areas north of the subject site in Bellevue or Seattle. It would serve as an alternative to SR-156/I-405. This is incorrect. SR-156 is not in the immediate area. Also, the forthcoming construction of SR-515 provides an opportunity for bypassing the subject intersection. 18. 'The city's traffic engineer disputed the historic growth figures which provide for background traffic growth not attributed to specific projects such as the subject proposal . The difference would amount to approximately 4 ,100 vehicles per day on S.W. 43rd Street between Talbot Road South and SR-167 . The amount is calculated on the applicant's figure of 3% compound growth versus the city's figure of 6% compound growth. This is incorrect. The original traffic report prepared by the consultant 's traffic ' engineer (Chrisopher Brown, P.E .) utilized an annual growth of 1.15%/year derived from exam- ination of data generated by the permanent count station operated by the Washington State Department of Transportation. At the request of the City of Renton, City Traffic Engineer, made at a meeting attended by Gary Norris, Daryl Connell , David Clemens, and Christopher Brown, on March 16, 1981 the annual compound growth rate was defined as "3% per year" for the city. Never has the City of Renton suggested a "figure of 6% compound growth" . This is a significant error that should be corrected because it improperly suggests a dif- ference in growth rates by the applic ant,'s traffic engineer against the city's traffic engineer when, in fact, both traffic engineers used the same growth rate and the c ty' s traffic engineer has repeatedly testified that the mitigating measures are acceptable. The 3% per year rate was requested by none other than the City of Renton. 21. The applicant proposes creating a roadway, Talbot Place, " just east of SR-167 and west of Talbot Road which would intersect with S.W. 43rd Street. The roadway would serve as a primary access for the two subject properties and a northerly P-1 property. This is incorrect. The proposed Talbot Place would not necessarily be the primary access for the two subject properties. Indeed, Figure 4 of the traffic report entitled 1982-83 Directional Design Hourly Volumes, noted in our letter dated July 16, 1981 shows some ten vehicles per hour using Talbot Place against 217 vehicles per hour using an access. from Talbot Road South. The influence of Talbot Place is delimited in this figure since turn restrictions have been assumed. CONCLUS IONS 1. The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest and will not impare the public health, safety and welfare. . . The proposed development is in the public interest in that it provides for increased housing opportunities within an incorporated community which, in turn, will reduce the need for housing in the more distant and unincorporated portions of the county. This, in turn, reduces travel demands, reduces energy consumption, reduces opportunities for traffic accidents due to increased travel distances, and provides for housing units more centrally located to job opportunities as well as retail-social-recreational centers. Decreasing the intensity of development will inhibit opportunities for on-site rec- reational systems and preclude the full and potential populace from participating in and partaking of work, shopping, and recreational opportunities within the City of Renton and its immediate environs. Obviously, the demonstration of R-2 and R-3 zoning rather than solely R-2 as recommended by the hearing examiner is in keeping with other agencies such as City of Seattle and King County who are attempting to "in-fill" properties presently situated to major urban centers. 2. While the applicant has demonstrated that the map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the areas in which the two parcels are located are suitable for the development of medium density multi-family dwellings. . . , the problems of traffic congestion and solutions to such problems presented the major issues. And while the Planning Department indicated the city has no control over growth outside of its boundaries in this area, and in addition, little or no say in growth issues beyond its boundaries, the city officials cannot beg the questions raised by the continuing deterioration in the levels of service on the various roads servicing this area. The major issues of traffic congestion must be confronted. Decreasing the development level will decrease demands on the roads. We would suggest that while the "map element does not stand alone" , we believe that to assume "the traffic issues must override the map" is totally erroneous. Improvements in the arterial and highway network must be based on some document and the Comprehensive Plan is such a document. The very nature of forecasting future traffic which in the subject property was based on a worst case analysis does not make the traffic issue sufficient to override the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The hearing examiner must surely understand that the traffic report was based on the worst possible case, that future traffic forecasts were not delimited by virtue of transit and high occupancy vehicle uses including commuter pool and van pooling, and in fact did not consider (in developing traffic forecasts) the present moritorium on developments to the east of the project including Fairwood Division 7 and Carriage Wood. These developments, for example, have been held in abeyance pending improvements to Petrovitsky Road. Thus, to reiterate, even though the traffic elements were e ase, these ng considered were found acceptable t ltoccity staff and m capable measuuress of being fully implemented. We disagree that "city officials cannot beg the questions" on deteriorating levels of service since the city has, through various traffic signal timing stategies, every opportunity enhance levels of service by implementing alternative signal timing strategies which, at the least would inhibit vehicles from entering the city. This type of control strategy, the examiner may note, is about to be tested on Interstate 5. Fundamentally, it suggests that you can limit the number of vehicles entering a particular corridor and thereby improve the Level of Service. For the moment, this technique has not been explored beyond the discussion stage. Of course, it is recognized that this is a policy decision which would need to be addressed by the city council. s • First, we have been unable to identify "Fernwood 7" . Probably, the hearing examiner means Fairwood 7. Similarly, the project further east is not Doan, it is Daon. With respect to Fairwood 7 please note that the Fairwood 7 project is in a de facto moritorium status pending improve- ments on Petrovitsky Road. Thus , while the development has been approved, it cannot proceed until Petrovitsky Road has been improved. Next, the Daon organization was attempting to rezone a substantial portion of the area lying to the east of Carriage Wood from one D.U./5 acres to one D.U./acre. This attempt has failed. Thus, there is little doubt, due to moritoriums in King County; that this particular project "will dominate the housing markets" so that the hearing examinerg assessment is wrong. With respect to changes in peak hour demand, we acknowledge that "forty vehicles in only a small decrease" . As discussed earlier, this is not a measureable amount and would therefore have no significance in terms of improving roadway capacity. 6. Further reduction in peak hour traffic could he realized if the applicant provided three van pool vehicles as an initial asset to the Homeowners Association. Each vehicle would be capable of providing transportation to about ten to twelve individuals To recommend the provision of van pool vehicles to the Homeowners Association and, at the same time, suggests the delimitation of density cannot be balanced. Also, it appears to place a burden on the developer, a burden not shared by others. 10. Since the state appears to be unable to install a traffic signal at the intersection of SR-167 and S.W. 43rd Street, the applicants proposed Talbot Place should be restricted to right turn only movements as indicated by the city's traffic engineering division. All parties agreed that there was a problem in this vicinity and the state indicated that the signal was warranted but cannot be provided at this juncture. . Any additional demand for left-turning capacity could cause serious traffic hazard. The applicant should provide any additional signals required as a result of Conversations with the State of Washington (Ms. Renata Prochaska) on September 1, 1981 indicates that the subject traffic signal is still on the priority list with a potential bid advertisement for July, 1982 . This date could be accellerated if the developer would offer assistance in terms of funding. Accordingly, it is incorrect to note that, "the state appears to be unable to install a traffic signal. . . " This is a perception on behalf of the hearing examiner, a perception not shared by the Washington State Department of Transportation. RECOMMENDATION The hearing examiner recommends that, "The city council should reclassify both the northern and southern parcels to R-2 subject to the following conditions : . . . In conclusion, we would like to point out to the hearing examiner that traffic reports reflect all of the parameters requested by the traffic engineer of the City of Renton, has met all of the requirements of the ERC, contains mitigating measures sufficient for mitigating all of the adverse consequences occasioned by the development within the area of incluence defined by the Department of Public Works, and in view of the forthcoming work by the Washington State Department of Transportation attendant to the improvement of SR-515 should be approved, as originally requested. We believe that the above errors in findings, conclusions, and errors of fact particularly with respect to the imposition of mitigating measures without similar measures required of others, mandates the reconsideration by the hearing examiner. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING State of Washington) County of King ) Marilyn J. Petersen being first duly sworn, upon oath disposes and states: That on the 19th day of August , 19 81 , 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 VA - day of A cvj S{ , 19 gti . Notary Public in and for the State,{�- of Washington, residing at �e?.n\ovi Application, Petition or Case: Best/Bowser; R-125-80, R-135-80 (The minuwe4 contain a list of the pa ti.e4 o4 n.econd. ) 4 August 19, 1981 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICANT: David Best/Daryl Connell FILE NO. R-125-80 Fred Bowser R-135-80 LOCATION: West side of Talbot Road South approximately 1 ,000 square feet south of S.W. 43rd Street (Best) ; west side of Talbot Road South approximately one-fourth mile south of S.W. 43rd Street (Bowser) . SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant requests a rezone of the subject site from G to R-3 for purposes of future multiple family development (Best) . The applicant requests a rezone of the subject site from G to R-2 for the purpose of future multiple family development (Bowser) . SUMMARY OF Planning Department: (Best) Approval with conditions.. RECOMMENDATION: (Bowser) Approval with restrictive covenants.. Hearing Examiner: Approval of both properties to R-2 with restrictive covenants. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department preliminary report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on June 4, 1981 . MINUTES OF PUBLIC Upon dismissal with prejudice by the Examiner, the minutes of HEARING: • the public hearings were published and mailed to all parties of record on July 28, 1981 . HISTORICAL REVIEW: The publication of this report follows a complex procedural life. The items were heard separately at the original public hearing, but the record of each was incorporated by reference in the other in order to avoid repetitious testimony concerning the two adjacent parcels. The matters were then reopened for the taking of additional testimony. During the period of review which followed, the owner of one of the parcels withdrew the item from consideration. At that point both items were dismissed simultaneously since they had been constantly referred to as a . joint proposal , coordinated by one representative/agent and evaluated for all purposes as one item. The applicant then requested reconsideration of the joint dismissal , again submitting the applications for joint consideration. Upon reconsideration of the dismissal , it was determined that issuing the report at this time would be more expeditious and serve the public interest than holding new hearings in one year. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: The traffic report and analysis, as well as most of the testimony and exhibits reflected the close association between the reclassification of the Best and Bowser properties; and therefore one report was drafted to reflect that association. The applicants' representative indicated development of the subject parcels would be coordinated, and referred to the simultaneous development of these two parcels and some portions of the proposed P-1 property of One Valley Place (File No. R-047-81) as Phase I . The unity of the properties was therefore maintained for the report. 1 . The request is for -approval of reclassifications of two adjoining properties. The southerly property is approximately 8.48 and the request is for a change from G (General ;' Single Family Residential ; Minimum lot size - 35,000 square feet) to R-2 (Duplex , Residential) . The northerly parcel is approximately 8.71 acres and the request 'is for a change from G to R-3 (Medium Density Multifamily Residential ) . 2. The application files containing the applications, SEPA documentation, the Planning Department reports, and other pertinent documents was entered into the record. R-125-80, R-135-80 Page Two 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , R.C.W. 43.21 .C. , as amended, a Declaration of Non-Significance has been issued for the proposed reclassifications by the Environmental Review Committee, responsible official . • I 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. 6. _The subject property is located on the west side of Talbot Road South about one-fourth mile south of S.W. 43rd Street. 7. The sites are similar topographically and rise from west to east at an approximately 9 to 10% slope. Vegetation consists of predominantly scrub grass and blackberries with some scattered alder and cottonwood. The sites are generally undeveloped with a single family home located at the south end of the southerly site. 8. The area surrounding the subject sites is developed with predominantly scattered single family uses to the east and south. SR-167 is located immediately west of the property and forms the western boundary of the sites'. North of the northern property is about 11 .7 acres of land which has been recommended for reclassification to P-1 (Public/Quasi-Public) by the Hearing Examiner. Access to the residential- property would be via the proposed P-1 parcel . Further to the north is the Valley General Hospital and various clinics are north and east of the hospital . 9. The Comprehensive Plan amendment of the southeast quadrant designates the area in which the subject property is located as suitable for the development of low density and medium density multifamily dwellings. 10. The Comprehensive Plan, at pages 11-18, also indicates that the Talbot Road intersection with Carr Road (S.W. 43rd Street) experienced unstable traffic flows; that is, that peak hour traffic was exceeding capacity. This statement was drafted in 1979, and conditions have not improved greatly since that time. These conditions were attributed to the fact that these were rural roads which were not designed for the level of development which had occurred in the area. At page 11-21 the Comprehensive Plan indicates that without improved capacity, the road networks will be strained by any extra load. In that plan, Talbot Road is designated as a community arterial which would have a right-of-way of from two to four lanes and having a width of from 60 to 84 feet. Talbot Road north of the hospital is two lanes wide and there are no foreseeable plans for widening that roadway. 11 . SR-515, which the state proposed construction between Carr Road and Puget Drive, is unfunded and not expected to be constructed within the near future (letter to Mayor, March 20, 1981 , from Department of Transportation, J.D. Zirkle) . The Traffic Engineering Department indicated that as of July 20, 1981 , the situation is unchanged. 12. From 1974 to 1978 there was a 46% increase in average daily traffic volumes on S.W. 43rd Street between Talbot Road South and SR-167. There was another nine percent increase between 1978 and May of 1981 . Between Benson Road and Talbot Road there has been an increase of almost 6,000 vehicle trips per day since 1978. An increase of about 9,000 vehicle trips per day has been experienced on SR-167 north of S.W. 43rd Street. And approximately the same increase was experienced on SR-167 south of S.W. 43rd Street. (Traffic counts from the Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the Southeast Quadrant Comprehensive Plan and the Christopher Brown Traffic Reports, Exhibit #8.') 13. The traffic report did not attempt to provide analysis for traffic data for 1-405. The Level of Service on 1-405 is approaching LOS F, which is the worst calculable level of service, meaning that when the traffic moves, it moves at stops and starts. 14. The LOS on S.W. 43rd Street is adverse today with an LOS of D/E and expected LOS of F by 1985 if a loop ramp (which would avoid left turn movements across opposing traffic) is not constructed by the state. Neither the loop ramp nor a traffic signal are immediately contemplated by the state in the current funding climate. R-125-80, R-135-80 . Page Three 15. The intersection at Rainier Avenue S, and S.W. Grady Way is at capacity and would be expected to provide a link to employment areas north of the subject site in Bellevue or Seattle. It would serve as an alternative to SR-156/I-405. 16. The Environmental Review Committee has assessed a mitigation fee of $15.00 per vehicle trip (approximately 2,000 trips; see below) . The minimum improvements required in the vicinity of the hospital amount to $200,000, .broken down as follows: signal/lane modification at S.W. 43rd and Talbot Road - $50,000; signal at SR-167 and S.W. 43rd - $110,000; and widening of S.W. 43rd at hospital - $40,000. The mitigation fee would provide 13% of the total cost, or about $30,000. 17. An additional signal at the proposed intersection of S.W. 43rd and TalbotPlace would cost approximatley another $100,000. This intersection's need would be entirely attributable to the applicant. The loop ramp cost was not estimated but would be a state sponsored project as is the proposed signal at SR-167 and S.W. 43rd Street. As is indicated above these projects remain unfunded. 18. The city's Traffic Engineer disputed the historic growth figures which provide for background traffic growth not attributed to specific projects such as the subject proposal . The difference would amount to approximately 4,100 vehicles per day on S.W. 43rd Street between Talbot Road. S. and SR-167. The amount is calculated on the applicant's figure of 3% compounded growth versus the city's figure of 6% compounded growth. 19. The applicant proposes. developing the subject sites as an integrated Planned Unit Development (PUD) . Both parcels would be developed simultaneously as one large complex. Developed to full density, the proposed R-2 property would permit the development of approximately 85 units. The applicant has proposed to construct less units in a proposed PUD and reserve greenbelt areas on the western perimeter of the site adjacent to SR-167. Developed to full density, the impacts on the schools would be an increase of some 21 students (about .25 student per unit) . There would be an increase in the population of the city of some 210 people (2.5 per unit) . The increase in traffic could be 520 trips per day (6. 1 per unit) . 20. About 8.71 acres of proposed R-3 property to the north would be developed as part of the PUD, and the total units permitted would be about 260 units if developed to full potential . This would increase the population by about 650 persons (2.5/unit) . There would be about an additional 65 students (.25/unit) . The average vehicle count would increase by about 1 ,585 trips per day (6. 1/unit) . The PUD proposed by the applicant will provide 325 units instead of 345 units (85 on the R-2 portion of the property together with the 260 units on the R-3 portion) . The population increase would therefore be about 812 people; the student population would increase by about 81 students; and the daily vehicle trips would increase by about 1 ,983 trips per day. Approximately 10% of these trips would be associated with each of the peak hour traffic periods. 21 . The applicant proposes creating a roadway, Talbot Place, just east of SR-167 and west of Talbot Road which would intersect with S.W. 43rd Street. The roadway would serve as a primary access for the two subject properties and the northerly P-1 property.. The Traffic Engineering Division indicated that left turns should not be permitted from the proposed Talbot Place onto S.W. 43rd Street. Such movements would interfere with vehicles entering onto or exiting off of SR-167 and increase accident potential . If such movements are permitted, then a traffic signal would provide a better means of controlling such movements and the costs of same should be borne by the applicant. 22. The parks and other recreational facilities in the area surrounding the subject properties are limited. The Planning Department indicated that the Valley General Hospital grounds could provide for some recreational needs. Talbot Hill Park is one-& one-half miles north and meets limited recreational needs. The ERC imposed a mitigation fee of $150 per unit for a total of about $49,000 for 325 units. This amount will not provide many recreational amenities. 23. Methods of reducing traffic congestion were outlined by both the applicant's traffic consultant and the city staff. Modifications of signal timing and turning lane configurations were suggested for the Talbot Road and S.W. 43rd Street intersection; permitting versus prohibiting left turns from the proposed Talbot Place onto S.W. 43rd R-135-80, R-135-80 Page Four Street; the placement of a signal at and/or reconstruction of the exits and entrances from SR-167 as a cloverleaf; the availability of Metro service to the subject area; and the use of' vanpooling to decrease the number of single occupancy vehicles. Some of these methods may be achieved by the city with the applicant's cooperation and/or participation; some must be implemented by the state; and some may be provided solely by the applicant. CONCLUSIONS: 1 . The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest and will not impair the public health, safety and welfare in addition to compliance with at least one of the three criteria listed in Section 4-3014 which provides in part that: a. The subject site has not been considered in a previous area-wide rezone or land use analysis; or b. The subject site is potentially designated for the new classification per the Comprehensive Plan; or c. There has been material and substantial change in the circumstances in the area in which the subject site is located since the last rezoning of the property or area. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the parcels should be reclassified to R-2 and R-3, respectively; instead, both parcels should be reclassified to R-2. 2. While the applicant has demonstrated that the map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the areas in which the two parcels are located are suitable for the development of medium density multifamily dwellings (the northerly parcel) and low density multifamily dwellings (the southerly parcel ) , the problems of traffic congestion and solutions to such problems presented the major issues. And since the map element does not stand alone, the traffic issues must override the map. The Comprehensive Plan also indicates (Finding No. 10) that the roadways in this area were not intended for the levels of use now occurring or the levels of use anticipated to be generated by this and other development south and east of the subject site. The roadways were already at capacity in 1979. And while the Planning Department indicated the city has no control over growth outside of its boundaries in this area, and in addition, little or no say in growth issues beyond its boundaries, the city officials cannot beg the questions raised by the continuing deterioration in the levels of service on the various roads servicing this area. The major issue of traffic congestion must be confronted. Decreasing the development level will decrease demands on the roads. 3. Based on the record, the roads and traffic signals in the immediate area may be made to serve some amounts of additional growth by some alterations in signal timing and turning lane configurations. Other roads and intersections such as I'-405 and Rainier/Grady Way intersection are at capacity and cannot reasonably carry additional burdens without lengthening the peak hour flow or causing diversion of traffic onto other local streets which are not generally favored for arterial use and cannot accommodate higher levels of use. 4. The applicant's argument that the percentage increase on 1-405 generated by the subject proposals is predictably small is not persuasive. Even the small increase on a roadway with little or no additional capacity cannot be ignored. Each additional proposal such as the subject proposal only causes a miniscule increase in proportion to the load now carried, but each is causing a new, small incremental decrease in service. The level of service on 1-405 has been conceded by the applicant's traffic engineer as generally at E and more often. F. F is the lowest level of service and it indicates an interrupted traffic flow. The traffic generated by the subject proposal will further impair this already poor level of service. It will also. help to lengthen the peak hour flow of "stop or start" service, and will cause people to use alternative roadways. Therefore, in order to mitigate the impacts of the potential traffic on the area-wide network of roads, the proposal should be scaled down. 5. The statement of the May Traffic Report, page 5 (subtitled, Residential Sector) , that the subject residential development will dominate the housing market is incorrect. The Springbrook development is proposed just northeast of the site, Fernwood 7 is underway, and there is the potential development by the Doan organization further east. Therefore, in order to mitigate each of these project's effects on traffic, the precedent to scale down development intensity should begin now. So should the effort R-125-80, R-135-80 Page Five to decrease the number of single occupancy vehicles. Reducing the classification from R-3 on the northerly 8.71 acres to R-2 would reduce the potential units for the entire project to about 170.and reduce the number of trips from almost 2,000 per day to just over 1 ,000. The peak hour traffic would be reduced accordingly by about 40 vehicles. While 40 vehicles is only a small decrease, it is better than the corresponding increase on a roadway system which is already over design capacity. 6. Further reduction in the peak. hour.'traffic could be realized if the applicant provided three van pool vehicles. as an initial asset to the homeowners' association. Each vehicle would be capable of providing transportation to about 10 to 12 individuals. The development itself would not have to provide the total ridership. Other developments in the area will also be generating commuters such as the Springbrook development. The effects of such vanpooling could remove another 30 to 40 single occupancy vehicles from the system. The applicant should coordinate any effort in this direction with the commuter pool organizations of this area. 7. 'The reclassification to R-2 of the two parcels would be compatible with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan including the map element. The creation of low density multifamily dwellings woul.d provide a reasonable transition between the P-1 (Public/Quasi-Public) zoning and proposed PUD for the northerly properties and the low density single family uses located south and east of the subject site. The single family uses would be buffered by the R-2 uses (Policy Element 4.C.4) from these more intense uses. 8. The less intense developments would also lessen the impact on the park and recreational facilities which are limited in this area. The grounds of the hospital cannot really provide recreational outlets as such hospital areas are generally required to be quiet, and further, hospital expansion may decrease open space on the hospital grounds. 9. To conclude, the City Council should approve the reclassification of the two parcels to R-2 in order to mitigate to some extent the impacts of this proposal and other anticipated projects on the strained roads in the immediate vicinity and to lessen the impact of the proposal on the severely overused highway systems of 1-405 and Rainier/Grady Way north of the project. R-2 will allow a reasonable use of the property and will have a less deleterious effect on various public services in the area. 10. Since the state appears to be unable to install a traffic signal at the intersection of SR-167 and S.W. 43rd Street, the applicant's proposed Talbot Place should be restricted to right turn only movements' as indicated by the city's Traffic Engineering Division. All parties agreed that there was a problem in this vicinity and the state indicated that a signal was warranted but cannot be provided at this juncture. Any additional demand for left turning capacity could cause serious traffic hazards. The applicant should provide any additional signals required as a result of any of its activities. If a signal becomes warranted on Talbot Road at the intersection of the project 's access road, costs of such signal should be borne by the applicant as should the cost of any signal erected at the Talbot Place and S.W. 43rd Street intersection. Such requirements should be included within any homeowners' association covenants. 11 . The subject properties should be developed as a PUD and covenants filed to reflect such requirements. Coordinated development was reflected in the applicant's traffic analysis, illustrative site plan, and internal circulation pattern. Coordinated development would limit the access driveways onto Talbot Road and thereby increase the safety due to limited access and help maintain the rural character of the area. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should reclassify both the northern and southern parcels to R-2 subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the two parcels as a PUD reflecting the common circulation and access patterns exemplified in Exhibit # 3 (File No. R-125-80) . - 2. The provision of three van pool vehicles to the homeowners' association and the provision of a maintenance fund for same in homeowners' association covenants. 3. Coordination of vanpooling with the commuter pool organization. 4. Full cost responsibility for the installation of any traffic control device or lane configuration necessary at the intersection of Tal.bot Place and S.W. 43rd Street. • R-125-80, __-135-80 Page Six 5. Full cost responsibility for any traffic control device or lane modifications or roadway expansion at the intersection of access roads to the subject properties from Talbot Road S. 6. Covenants drafted to reflect the above required conditions. ORDERED THIS 19th day of August, 1981 . 17-Cs..91(00' Land Use aring xaminer TRANSMITTED THIS 19th day of August, 1981 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Don Lochner, 3540 128th Avenue S.E. , Bellevue, WA 98006 Daryl Connell , 2691 168th Avenue S.E. , Bellevue, WA 98008 Thomas Emrich, Mithun Associates, Architects, 2000 112th N.E. , Bellevue, WA 98004 Doravin Wilson, 720 .S. 55th Street, Renton, WA 98055 Nancy Purcell , M.D. , 10006 S.E. 192nd, Renton, WA 98055 Grover Shegrud, 4518 Talbot Road S. , Renton, WA 98055 Christopher Brown, 9688 Rainier Avenue S. , Seattle, WA 98118 Douglas L. Morell , D.M.D. , 1015 Houser Way S. , Renton, WA 98055 Vincent Ferrese, Mithun Associates, Architects, 2000 112th N.E. , Bellevue, WA 98004 Robert Page, 4907 Talbot Road S. , Renton, WA 98055 Roy Fournier, 4700 Talbot Road S. , Renton, WA 98055 Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer, City of Renton Lt. Don Persson, Renton Police Department Ronda Johnson, 17818 98th S. , Renton, WA 98055 Mike Cvitkovic, Valley General Hospital , 400 S. 43rd St. , Renton, WA 98055 Fred Bowser, 22737 72nd Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98031 Ellyn Sylvia, c/o Wallace & Wheeler, 12433 Bellevue-Redmond Road, Suite E, Building A, Bellevue, WA 98005 TRANSMITTED THIS 19th day of August, 1981 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Acting Public Works Director David Clemens, Acting Planning Director Michael Porter, Planning Commission Chairman Barbara Schellert, Planning Commissioner Ron Nelson, Building Official Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before September 2, 1981 . Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous..procedure, errors or law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall , or same may be purchased at cost in said department. t3a .^un , 0 ,: "• ='' - FRED BOWSER REZONE - R-135-80 :V r.- • .•'xo • 11* .. ____ 1 . -. .±4ort . j7L0TLt1— - . 43rd Ave.-- -- - - — / ^• _ ! _______Y f , / ti fl - j 1 • cc 1fff2 ' ro // I h• — !I/ , I IIIJj j� ii /441 - 1UI# j II f —_ i / Ill ;/ / y, ./... : ./ I li,,,,,i / /e..,4,.. j i ff 1,4 _ ,i • • , . rff . 1 . , , i ,r( ,=__41. -- ,''. --* - • • c L.,• _ ,.1 ' • 4 , / j‘e i ril II.1110 j-- r ti(": At (‘Ii I i • / -_:_—:4.- re;-,,,-7 ____ 11 1 i' .y*7 ./ -. - ) ii is .i 7., ____...--_-- , �• l _1 ....s..r0 ;*•• hit rJ 1 I`1 •rw W r V.....-•. '741 Th.......,W ,r�/1 II - .� - I I II -- -R: 1: !1. 1' -,- Ny '� -—•}gljT�1 Jii 11llll / . ,- : Lo ..=.----Q••• ;.,..WIT' a ii-r. ,..,,,.„. I -•• truce: . -,ei: " u • Ni n...'. kgI•`T- '{:•i .�-...-1 •iV'- •r....++..r :- ..-r...W' I) r • ' 1 . - - '- n I 3 1. `.� �. —^-r1•� 1I 1,'._ �III // I i rr .' i : e..r-:0 I! T. s- .! ___ - '--- �f)11 • •� 1 �' •111 i ` t: d .� �. ,z. r;{a4 5 4°x `.^' -,'a4,,,4�4r'Xa- ..i -s T;:'1 rt4�', a'•5�, 1:.,Yr•';"7.,,ta ;_ r. r ., x '"' t '4 "a •frL�'' "F^'�gi 1 ;r.. �4 Yhh..,,:,(::�'? III ,2 J., -�,7. 'C-ia,r.t.%0'.. 1 4v_�.:rA i r In44;i 1 N w. r a A. Gm •` a `hz"�upl (.� :`'e .,„ ,_,t •o _ � _. �r\ „� �.� �I � f;.��f-1 � s rs:��. �:�0': �: in . F . ' - ,e�o�x,•:,';: t;,4rr a::to t?,-.4- ... J\ ,ra x;. 1 i, �! ; b,,t 1PCL,+• ,f,..�1,14, %,d,.ft '.?`;' Y f is ' �s' �.--C.kt.i.t,5b,r'". .17:k.-'Ci=.''..'� ';'. Yi,n:c3�px. "' c�}�;5t��.e;'�rl'1'M x�:;.• ...tur4:Y,•vtir' t• ":ta:�'.:y M�2•�'E7.,'.s�=�f,`' •a�%.tw �a•�'A" 's^ i el-ni f.'X' r;�P '� �.t:dt..r..�r1r ,. ,1if^sa�,S o .+_`t'`4 y,,"'.as r.E.p�t-+ 4.` ''. - d.'�:�.;1`syr' 'fr` 4j'.>'"1wv'-'i�; 'c.-y8 ; riii� .dc -7 •.a+4`.';;,y T 5 Y y f.•Y Z?,:" Yf; n... s T:t'A r y.,1 ^ f0.. .'� `t•tt- ')T-r r YTs' -•!'.y- .cr<7rs'• 'Fs1•0+.4 .:: ` ta'r: ._ �; ty�4.:',P, ill `"1 I _ f • - 1R1 r (�::a°;1L A uou� .rti�� n _ ;.li 0 • 0 DAVI 1EST RE ZONE R-125-80 " to. R-3 ..• . • . • • , . • .....0 .. . .4 . •' . . 0 -- Nort _ . • • • .• . • • • • . VALLEY, GENE—RAL____ HOS• ,PilTg. . ._ _ .• - p . _ • I . ,. • , ..." r-e , e , • -. .•••••-'4".. --- I ....• .....- , ,..-- • A • • , gra vo,1+1 ,,,-.M."V":..ttr,... • \`‘....-4-_._....7:-::-s--- . 'c rd, Avo. _ . :,, , i I ( • • . — — --......... 1 r , / ITI i sir.,., e...H / ...i iv .....,. v.........,.. .,... . . .).... , ...1 c , ..e.vit. .. ... ... I 1 /;,. /, I,G. /,....., v .:. , .. if IIII) / 1 .... ,......1 ale 0/ Okt •IN / ../.... , 1. i f . ify mitiiirs.,,, 114 . 1 , lir . I ii.... eit: si /If it . 1 :•il 4 4/ wee...ne . / ...r: •;is ,,,, it. 1 f 11 WWII / :I .4:11 - c't l't (( Air --- ,...,0. „:„.,,,,,,,..1...,.......„..,........„„.....,„ ,...,„ 11) ' I read . i t / 0 j Q--11 4 Comig.,1701.4 7,...p int air to , ... -Tim,.....e.p.7111110M, . . a I • 1 r / r r- .... .4, anlm - t. IN wain unummisis a • I I 'I— :7-- ....,„_/i• \....lit / . . Ph)id tt, 1 ,111 ...o. •f• .,..,2( '71 • 11 i I 1 i t _ill.tt.,. 1• •,.-i,,.•4 47' '....J .t. . '' ' --.. - li ' \••••-• ..... .. \ ,‘ f?' '-'1"If eA:` . :''. ',fp''Al k,"e., v:';i4,-.1',1,1./iiktv',..,tefe4i-,' q?...V.,.',.....; fiq•(,* 4,1t;'!' r-,,';‘-i,:,..„itt,,,,, .„,.0..,,, • .., ...... _ _ . ,,,ftp r,% n 11/5. ''.'1". .4.1...ess...•.11,?.• • ;42Wr;S.Y.:';'`.'W iill.'.. '-,a 1.a , .4:45e4i:. ki '4...lit '/ . ),I '..,', • 14+,1,•' ' la r li44,itiitkite;i , ' '‘lAt,„,,'P‘t*iq.1.*V4.414;0,Varilii fp 4:01404744''.•44.:'4 V11,:;7:V;41 0' ti''',‘.14.. . - • •• '3.- 4:,014)i i:,7 -14,,le,t'beik"44:Pi 44.,it;7; P•444Mrg•Wgiv.:••tteV.144;1$, f%iTA,44.7,S,1-1,14:01,,k,}7;$'.c`l:;, / i ''4&Cif ti4TIV''' '1S41111 ,i4.''V-illte4AAAY5144f41141F;Ki itlirlW•V *40:"g-1:1 :1 1111 • ' -1;'',V,'• ?t' '.71.4...-kf.,-,4,c;' '9- ,..„:1. 1•tta, C•ign-A-ViVti 7.'s':* .,:pikIkk44t,tiptfirri .4 At..'1.',71, * 15441 .'61.*,..k:;•;.Xi::. ..Z:,A On ' ' w..Ltiti' •, .v>..*'14%...' At t,;ts.4,4 z. it:','ct.;'•V: '7AY--' ,i' . ' '.'"' .3. 11 '.V. kiv:‘, .,i,.,;,..),..!•,ip,,,,t,..,.5i.FA.,, tg.,, . 4:.,... t5 -'I,•ciy Iv t,-•,•,•‘: .9: iti,,,-'Jr k: ii. ii..4.!„ i,-,...... - , .f0,r4,14-1.' • l'uccr 1111 ' I .., ,i4... .,ip ,•:,1,..4.4 -7-4,..H.ii.... ct. .. .4‘...,•1.-4M-..41,1r.'...,-01„.tz +1,11 lk: 01,41i . ,- „ 4 r _v_ri.,•,,i,:je•.:: xt,..., : . 7x.k loc..: •{, v•,..,-;?,,,,r,„-..; • 0.r. k5g,..3••••• -•, ; A; .:Pil• 3„li ,I; v,,,,..,,,, ,:, . .... .........-. ..... . i...,"°'''.:`,41.• S.::1De.‘'Ir-.Itpri''vkl...-.A.,1"-"1...--t-49'.24,J11,41.'.* '.:PiOrs',i'.--k...-rk:i.'ig: 7,4,‘4';4 e'V‘tk.,''C. k‘'S'l .7-.'1,,'7411,'1':1' t '11. ‘*1'I" 51.elittigliN V>‘Nit(WV't:04 1)!qt.*i tte4-741041# VIUateiNe\4411 4''!'' . 10 • — •- • it-21s.'4.,‘1?:314t1; . .•••••V‘J, IP f."4:. ''1?fn.!'" 7 Frt:*,,44-',Sii4d.A.*!. .1.1.:::*-.14V6*:4,1':, 1,44..Aqi4.1(.4747',;; •rkitqlq41.4tKr;I::' ;:ltiemY't.. .7.;•".. .Iri,'.1i '''.!N 4e-IIVA:f0 1 '•V'''Li.4131,*::ik.'4h0143'="03. '4* ''''.`''.; I% ' '1,,:i.,.,,,a ,..}' I:. ;••-•.:•'4,f;•,•..; *" ,„I f r 4; :, ;:,,•. •,, '' ...-,,., -i:7.4,;.• 1_ • ' i '71"N ' IS/7.. li ,,,. t III [144 1, I ., .1. I / "t• , 4 . .. ,,,..,, A •, ), , iliii I 1 • Y 'I,„(• ' El rq„ Pt kill 1 \ Ibi, - -.-- * ..• 1 T‘ 1 iirt,' ..,.. . E• • . 1111114) i zi i 1 1 "sill 1 in.- . -•, 10' . - ....is< ...1_____ .--1... ....• ! T 1. .\\,.- IL,„„,,,,,, P',...L. 11,., riEl it IINFRINF Mpg r 1s.?"1": .1111 I I i ) 1 : ' • 1101 : • :14 \.1 N ai diet SITE PLAM SCALE _1:50_ _ 47.2". 'a 114 "• ••G - =II I OP ... 1 ,• -2- 0 - • , i ..4--- ......---. restr,CINI (.... • I i rr(c(T11 (c--- (C7-- \ r"( .111 L \ I .. &I ,..... ... ! le it 1 i • IL 1 1 '', I * --4;..*----°° L. _ . El _____ 11 I 1 • valley General Hospital 11M)SOL FFI4 RO�1REEI RE ION 1\-1'0I;; 4If,-2.28-1110 ('ununi..Iontr.'LEOPO\\ERS )'.•••:• • \1ORTON I li\hl)\\ICh. '.• '••••: CI \RLOI TE I\URTH;COOPER R\ \1\. •• I-\Ch 11 KICK I()FI\R SHIELDS \tn lrinlini.trItcir \\\t E \IL'KR.A\ August 13, 1981 - ' '1'• . J CP V \S''‘‘Ogc ):\j-71 The Renton City Council c- �'\�,\``� `.% Municipal Building p.E L C�� 200 Mill Street South Renton, Wa 98055 Gentlemen: The Hospital has reviewed the report and recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner regarding the zoning request by One Valley Place Properties . I Our abiding concern regards the traffic control between the on/off ramps from Highway 1.67 east to the intersection of Springbrook Road and 43rd Street. Development! of the property will result in additional traffic to and from that project, plus our current hospital expansion will be generating more visits to our facility. The recommendation of the applicant to position a traffic light between Highway 167 overpass and the intersection at Springbrook Road and 43rd Street, at such a location as to serve the entrance to both properties, is supported by the Hospital . Such a signal device will permit safe access to our Emergency Room entrance. Also, we support the renovating of the traffic signal at the intersec- tion of Springbrook Road and 43rd Street to include a quick response left turn signal when traffic volumes permit. This will facilitate speedy access to the Hospital 's Emergency Room for physicians and personnel who are responding to urgent situations. Sinc rely, • '1 .E E. M'u rray Administrator WEM/mt cc: Richard Lomas, MD Mr. Daryl Connell 1 OF J %4 o THE CITY OF RENTON U `� © Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 n aL BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • DELORES A. MEAD 00 o CITY CLERK 0 9,47,60 SEPl-�e�P MEMORANDUM August 12, 1981 TO: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner FROM: Delores Mead, City Clerk RE: Fred Bowser/David Best, Daryl Connell/Allenbach R-125-80, 135-80 , Dear Fred: Letter requesting that you rescind dismissal action,concerning the above-referenced matter, was filed with this office on August 11, 1981. The petitioner advised this was the deadline date and the • Hearing Examiners office was closed. (This was the day of our heat problem) . We forward herewith the subject file folders. In the event dismissal is not rescinded please return the folders in order that appeal can be forwarded to the City Council, $25.00 appeal fee filed in the event of your denial. Dm/gh RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AUG1 3 1981 AM PM 7,8i9110,1111211,2i31415,6 u;1i112j(3J 4, y t rO 'vim ' AUG 1981 ;t RECEIVED CITY of RENTON r% ec`' CLERK'S OFFICE V'`c City of Renton August 11, 1981 Renton City Council Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, Wash. 98055 Subject : Request for appeal of the hearing examiners decision on file # R-135-80 Fred Bowser rezone dated`; 7-28-81. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council. We are writing this letter of appeal as a back up to our primary effort which is to seek a continuation and completion of the hearings on our rezone and joint development with Dr. Herman Allenbach. If our recon- sideration request is approved then this appeal maybe set aside; but in light of the 14 day appeal period (land use code 4-3016) we deemed it necessary to submit this appeal. We are appealing the hearing examiners decision to dismiss our rezone petition with prejudice which will delay our resubmittal of a new app-. licationfor one year. We had nothing to do with the withdrawal of the David Best ( Dr. Herman Allenbach ) rezone file # R-125-80. We were not advised consulted or understand the reason for the application withdrawal yet: we are being penalized to the same extent as the indivi- dual who has withdrawn his application. Our rezone requests were submitted at separate times and are assigned. separate file numbers and should be treated as such. We realize that the hearing examiner could not render a decision on only one rezone request with the information which was available to him through the previous public hearings. All information regarding the rezone petitions was consolidated and it would be difficult to analyze on an individual basis. We believe a more reasonable course of action for the hearing examiner to have taken would be to dismiss the David Best petition as requested and reschedule a hearing on the Fred Bowser petition to examine the merit of that petition when it stands alone. City of Renton August 11, 1981 Renton City Council Page 2 After consulting with the City Attorney Mr. Larry Warn it was concluded that our only recourse was to appeal the hearing examiners decision to the City Council which is the intent of this letter. We are asking that you rescind the hearing examiners dismissal of our rezone petition with prejudice and allow us to haveanother public hearing scheduled to eval- uate our petition as it was orginally submitted. Thank You Very Much. .red Bowser Lucky Seven Investment Copy: Larry Warn, City Attorney Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner David Clemens, Planning Director ' I • • sq., �C= AUG 1981 ,.,\ ,r RECEIVED jirj CITY of RENTON \?-.,CLERK'S OFFICE,'i'•' '(,??? 925Z7?c�' August 10, 1981 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Allenbach/Talbot Property File No. R-125-80 File No. R-135-80 Dear Mr. Kaufman: This letter is to formally request that you rescind the dismissal of the above-referenced matters, which you ruled in your letter of July 28, 1981 . The undersigned parties have resolved their differences and are now willing to proceed with development of the properties on a joint basis as was recommended in the staff report. Your letter cited the unfairness of future public hearings, but it is our understanding that no further hearings were to be held by you, and indeed that you were prepared to render your written decision when you received Dr. Allenbach' s letter of July 27, 1981. Thus, continuation of the matter and the rendering of your decision will serve the public interest in resolving zoning matters in an expeditious manner. We feel that your failure to reinstate the applications, particu- larly in light of the fact that all hearings have been held and your decision is ready, would be arbitrary and not in the public interest. Mr. Fred J. Kaufman August 10, 1981 Page 2 i While we believe that your decision should and will be rescinded, a of this letter is being delivered to the Renton City Co -ncil and should .e considered by that body as a notice of a. .eal of y• • ''dism' sal of the above-referenced file. V= y . • y you a, /I, - /.it. / It: t'tc �• No R 48! UC INVESTMENTS By �-,-.72 red owser, Partner File No. R-135-80 DISMISSED July 28, 1981 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICANT: David Best/Daryl Connell FILE NO. R-125-80 LOCATION: West side of Talbot Road South approximately 1 ,000 square feet south of S.W. 43rd Street. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant requests a rezone of the subject site from G to R-3 for purposes of future multiple family development. SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Approval with conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner: Dismissal with prejudice. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department preliminary report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on June 3, 1981 . 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 9, 1981 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department preliminary report. Roger Blaylock, Associate Planner, presented the report, and entered the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit #1 : Application File containing Planning Department report and other pertinent documents Exhibit #2: King County Assessor's Map Exhibit #3: Schematic PUD Map (Not binding upon the applicant or the city) Also displayed was a colored diagram identical to Exhibit #3 for illustrative purposes only. Responding to the Examiner's numerous inquiries regarding aspects of the proposal , Mr. Blaylock stated that the sewer system is currently sufficient to carry the increased demand, the entire area is being upgraded with a pressure water pumping plant, approximately 150. to 200 feet of the property is estimated to remain -for passive recreational purposes, improvements are planned over the next two years at the SR-167 interchange, the width of Talbot Road S. narrows down to approximately 22 feet adjacent to the site although the width at the intersection of Talbot and S.W. 43rd Street is four-lane, the parcel of property located approximately 350 feet north of the subject site is utilized for a medical facility under special permit, all costs of improvements would be re-evaluated at a later date if construction does not occur immediately, shopping services to serve residential development are proposed through development of a major commercial center near 108th and Carr Road by King County, and the applicant is proposing restaurants and banks in, the adjacent development. The Examiner requested testimony by the applicant. Responding was: Daryl Connell 2691 168th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98008 Mr. Connell gave a brief overview of the proposal , noting that overall needs of the area were considered with regard to the proximity of Valley General Hospital . He indicated that an ongoing problem with traffic exists in the vicinity, and delay in growth in the area has occurred due to inadequate water pressure. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the area the proposal will serve, Mr. Connell stated that a survey of 1100 employees of Valley General Hospital indicates that within five years, 25% of the people living in the area will be involved with the hospital or providing medical health care in Page Two R-125-80 some manner. Responding for the applicant was: Vincent Ferrese Mithun Associates, Architects 2000 112th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 Mr. Ferrese discussed the development proposal and location of two to three story structures in clusters on the site and provision of landscaping to screen the development from surrounding areas and the freeway. Briefly discussed were means of access to the site and location of parking areas and berming. He indicated that two to two and one-half acres of open green space have been reserved for a 3500-foot recreational center in addition to provision of interior recreational facilities. Mr. Ferrese advised that many of the firm's projects have won national awards in the Bellevue-Redmond area of Washington. Responding for the applicant was: Christopher Brown 9688 Rainier Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98118 Mr. Brown advised that three separate traffic reports have been prepared for the subject project. In the first, he noted, no major growth was assumed outside of the subject proposal which was projected at 180,000 gross square feet of commercial area and 350 dwelling units. Then, responding to a request by the city's Traffic Engineer, a 3% compound growth rate was taken into account in the second report in which 160,000 gross square feet was projected with a residential dwelling unit count of 325. He advised that the project had been split into two components, commercial and residential . In the third report , dated May 15, 1981 , it was expected that there would be some adverse levels of traffic service, in fact , as they exist today. However, he stated, by the time the second phase of construction is completed, the Department of Transportation should be making improvements to the interchange at SR-167 and possible construction of a loop ramp. He noted that all three reports contain a series of traffic forecasts, and the final report incorporates the projected demands on a phase by phase basis which he reviewed in detail . Mr. Brown stated that by the time the fifth phase of the commercial development is completed in 1985, it is anticipated that the loop ramp will be constructed. The Examiner inquired regarding traffic impacts if that assumption is not fulfilled. Mr. Brown responded that the level of service would probably drop down to LOS F, but he indicated the possibility that Talbot Road can be improved from the existing intersection adjacent to the hospital further to the north into Renton to provide a bypass from SR-167. He also noted several differences of opinion regarding traffic improvements held by the applicant and the city's Traffic Engineer, the applicant being in favor of widening S.W. 43rd from Talbot Place to SR-167 and providing a westbound right turn lane which gives added capacity; also, provision of a signal at Talbot Place and S.W. 43rd Street; and finally, channelization at S.W. 43rd Street and Talbot Road S. to enhance the turning movements on Talbot Road. The Examiner inquired if sufficient right-of-way is available to widen S.W. 43rd Street and Talbot Road in the future. Mr. Brown stated his belief that sufficient width does not exist, to which the Examiner noted that widening would not be possible without ;ondemnation of property. Mr. Brown discussed positive aspects of provision of a signal at Talbot Place such as enhancement of emergency vehicle access to the hospital , enhancement of movement out of bound, and enhancement of pedestrian travel across 43rd during off-peak hours which might become significant, particularly during lunch hour when substantial commercial food enterprises become available. The Examiner inquired regarding cost of improvements. Mr. Brown advised that the signal at SR-167 and 43rd is planned by the Department of Transportation in the 1981-1983 biennium; the modifications such as the signal at S.W. 43rd and Talbot Place would be borne by the developer, and if this improvement occurs, he suggested that the only modification necessary at Talbot Road and S.W. 43rd would be signal timing. He summarized by stating that the important improvements would be the signal at Talbot Place, the westbound left turn lane from Talbot Place to SR-167, and ultimately, the loop ramp from 43rd down to SR-167. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding timing of improvements, Mr. Brown suggested that improvements be in place prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, and that with the Phase I , commercial development, and completion of the residential sector, channelization be removed from Talbot and 43rd, the signal retimed, and conduits placed underneath Talbot Place for signalization and implementation of the westbound left turn movement. He also recommended that the signal be operating into the third commercial phase. The Examiner requested testimony in opposition to the proposal . Responding was: Robert Page 4907 Talbot Road S. Page Three R-125-80 Mr. Page indicated his concern that provision of a left turn northbound lane on Talbot Road would cause inconvenience to motorists who would be forced to go a considerable distance to turn around and return. He also noted his opinion that sufficient space does not exist to provide a loop ramp off of SR-167. The character of the residential neighborhood was noted by--Mr. Page, who advised that large lots and small population currently exist. Referencing the poll taken at Valley General Hospital , he advised that a response to questionnaires was received from 88 of 1100 employees, and he felt that existing residents should be queried regarding the impact of the development, noting his opinion that such impact would be detrimental to both their residence value and lifestyle. Mr. Page questioned whether the developer or existing residents would bear the financial burden of improving Talbot Road S. , and he felt that the estimated traffic generation rates were low at five trips per unit since most households consist of two employed persons who both drive. The Examiner requested further testimony in opposition. Responding was: Nancy Purcell , M.D. 10006 S.E. 192nd Renton, WA 98055 Dr. Purcell was affirmed by the Examiner. She indicated concern that access to Talbot Road without stop signs or signals would further deteriorate an already existing dangerous traffic situation on that arterial . Also cited were difficulties entering Talbot Road from 192nd, a feeder arterial , after 2:30 p.m. , and impaired safety for pedestrians near the hospital . Dr. Purcell requested that the area remain low key in intensity to allow patients who are confined to the hospital for months at a time to remain in a pleasant environment. Dr. Purcell submitted a letter of protest from residents in the neighborhood. The letter was entered as follows by the Examiner: Exhibit #4: Letter of Protest, dated June 4, 1981 , containing 13 signatures Following further discussion regarding proposed access to Talbot Road S. from the proposal , it was clarified by the applicant that the primary access to the project would be onto that roadway, with an additional access which would be opened only to the Fire Department in the event of an emergency. Dr. Purcell stated her opposition to an unsignalized access to Talbot Road S. Responding in opposition was: Roy Fournier 4700 Talbot Road S. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Fournier indicated concern regarding water pressure in the area; supported landscaping, setbacks, and berming on the east side of the proposal ; questioned the financial burden for widening Talbot Road; and inquired whether fast food restaurants would be allowed in the proposal . Mr. Blaylock indicated that water pressure would be increased through installation of a separate water line connecting to the proposal . The Examiner stated that Mr. Fournier's additional inquiries should be addressed during subsequent public hearings to review the commercial portion of the development. Responding in opposition was: Grover Shegrud 4518 Talbot Road S. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Shegrud stated his opinion that development in the area is satisfactory as it exists, and indicated his concern that proposed density is excessive at 20 urtiits per acre and incompatible with the existing neighborhood character. He advised other concerns related to traffic, recreational facilities, and the overall impact of the development upon the natural and human environment of the community; and questioned impact upon schools which are already crowded since only one grade school serves the community. Responding to Mr. Shegrud's concern regarding water pressure on the east side of Talbot Road, the Examiner asked Mr. Blaylock if the fire flow is, sufficient at this time to meet Fire Department requirements. Mr. Blaylock advised that the subject development would not impact the water pressure on the east side of that street. Mr. Shegrud emphasized that access should be provided from each individual property in the development; otherwise, from 70 to 90% of the traffic will utilize the access road to Talbot Road at the location of his driveway, and a traffic control device should be considered to alleviate congestion. Page Four R-125-80 The Examiner requested testimony by the city's Traffic Engineer. Responding was: Gary Norris 'Traffic Engineer Mr. Norris discussed his objection to installation of a traffic signal at Talbot Place and S.W. 43rd Street, noting that S.W. 43rd Street is a principal arterial in the city, and the primary purpose of a major arterial is to provide through access for vehicles and limit access to adjacent property. He advised the city's policy to orient access from adjacent properties to side streets as the most feasible and desirable method, and consent has been given to allow the concept of right in, right out turning movements at Talbot Place. He stated the city's concern regarding accident potential at signalized intersections and the fact that a two-phase signal at the intersection of Talbot Place and S.W. 43rd Street would have to be coordinated with a multi-phase signal at Talbot Road and S.W. 43rd Street. Mr. Norris explained the two-phase versus multi-phase signal process at the Examiner' s request. Responding to earlier testimony regarding enhancement of access to the hospital site, Mr. Norris clarified that median barriers prohibiting such access would probably be constructed in that location to reduce accident potential , and further access at this point would not be encouraged. He also indicated concern regarding the operation of the freeway and access from the subject site to the freeway in a northerly direction towards 1-405, Rainier Avenue, and Grady Way intersections because of existing traffic congestion. He noted that unless major action is taken to improve the capacity of these facilities, it would not be desirable for people living in the area of the site to commute to work utilizing these roadways. Mr. Norris advised that although provision of a signal has been identified in the state's construction program, total funding has not been designated at this time. Responding was: Lt. Don Persson Renton Police Department Mitigation of safety concerns by the Police Department was discussed by Lt. Persson, such as installation of a traffic signal at the on ramp to SR-167, improvement of S.W. 43rd Street and Talbot Road to provide more efficient operation, prohibition of left turn movements from Talbot Place onto S.W. 43rd Street, and improvement of both sides of Talbot Road the entire length of the development. He also encouraged installation of security locks, properly placed lighting, provision of large addresses on the buildings for patrol identification purposes, and installation of prewiring to allow provision of burglar alarm systems at a later date. The Examiner asked Mr. Norris to discuss the improvements necessary to allow construction of the project , and whether improvements will retain a reasonable level of service or if the level will deteriorate on Talbot Road and S.W. 43rd Street. He also inquired if the city has control over any intersection which provides state highway access. Mr. Norris indicated concurrence in the mitigation measures provided by the developer, such as the right turn lane from Talbot Place to the freeway ramps, and the widening and signalization of the ramps. He also stated concern regarding overall intensification of this area because of traffic impacts, and levels of service may drop to LOS D and possibly E, although the applicants have indicated a strong desire to mitigate those impacts. The Examiner inquired if concerns' should be mitigated with each phase. Mr. Norris indicated his understanding that mitigating improvements can be provided in Phase I , but as surrounding growth occurs, he is not convinced that mitigation measures can be provided during Phase II construction as a 3% regional-wide average growth occurs. Mr. Page discussed the infeasibility of providing a right in, right out turning movement on S.W. 43rd Street from Talbot Place, noting heavy traffic from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. which will prohibit lane changes. Responding to testimony by Lt. Persson, Mr. Page indicated concern that the development will create incidence of crime in the area. Lt. Persson stated that the subject development would not necessarily lend itself, to crime any more than any other kind of proposal ; however, burglaries should be deterred at the commencement of construction of commercial development. The Examiner noted that a driveway exists just east of the S.W. 43rd Street off ramp, and inquired regarding ownership of the property for which it provides access. Mr. Connell indicated that a residence, which will be removed, is located in the center of the 1 .09 acre property. He also responded to various concerns indicated by the Traffic Engineer and existing residents in the area, and reiterated previous comments regarding traffic mitigation measures through signalization and controlled access. He noted that sufficient space exists to enable widening of the loop ramp to SR-167., the applicant has proposed a lesser density on the site than is allowed by code, and signalization is necessary at Talbot Place to expedite traffic and pedestrian access from the proposal . Mr. Connell noted that existing traffic congestion on Talbot Road has occurred not because of the Page Five R-125-80 150 residents but because other proposed roadway projects have not commenced, i .e. construction of SR-515 and improvement of 212th to provide alternate routes for traffic, and it would be infeasible to widen Talbot Road due to location of existing rock retaining walls and sidewalks. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry, Mr. Connell advised that the distance between Talbot Road and Talbot Place is 430 feet on center which he felt was sufficient to allow installation of the second signal . Responding to Mr. Connell 's discussion of impacts from additional school age population in the area, which he felt would be minimal in view of reduced enrollment in past years, Dr. Purcell clarified that Talbot Hill Elementary School currently is overcrowded. She further discussed increased traffic congestion from other developments in the area, and stated that although only 150 residents actually live in the vicinity of the subject site, their concerns should be carefully considered. Responding to the Examiner's request for final comments, Mr. Blaylock submitted a letter of support into the record, which was entered by the Examiner as follows: Exhibit #5: Letter to Roger Blaylock from Virginia and Arthur Ealy, dated June 7, 1981 Mr. Blaylock discussed mitigation measures imposed by the Environmental Review Committee, responsibility of King County in providing street improvements, and timeliness of the proposal in view of availability of public services and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Examiner requested final comments. Responding was: Rhonda Johnsen 17818 98th S. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Johnsen submitted a letter of opposition which was entered as follows by the Examiner: Exhibit #6: Letter to Hearing Examiner from Mrs. Johnsen, dated June 9, 1981 The letter discussed existing traffic congestion, impaired safety for pedestrians and capability of emergency services to accommodate increased development if the subject application is approved. Noting the length of associated public hearings and the bulk of the material to be reviewed, the Examiner requested a 21-day period in which to publish a recommendation regarding the matter. Since there was no objection, the hearing regarding File No. R-125-80 was closed by the Examiner at 11 : 15 a.m. Page Six R-135-80 • Dun,ing neview o .th,i,e ma..tet, the Examine& deWenmi.ned that addi ti.oncl .in6onma Lon wa4 • neeedaany to ctatiliy .cmpaetA o 6 tab 6 Lc to ex at i.ng an tet at . M.inwte4 o 6 the n.eopened pubtAlc hearing 6oUow. REOPENED HEARING: The hearing was reopened on July 21 , 1981 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. The Examiner explained the purpose of the hearing to gather further information regarding traffic conditions in the area surrounding the subject site and up to and including 1-405,' a major freeway which may be impacted by ultimate development. He requested testimony by the city' s traffic engineer pertaining to various levels of service on surrounding streets from the city's perspective, and noted that the applicant's most recent submission indicates that roadways in the area are sufficient to carry extra traffic from the subject proposals. Because both the Best and Bowser rezones are directly related, he advised that the hearing would consolidate testimony into a single record. Responding was: Gary Norris Traffic Engineer fir. Norris advised that although he did not have a detailed traffic analysis of the major arterials surrounding the subject site, it was apparent in field observations that 1-405 as well as arterials feeding to it , particularly Rainier Avenue and Grady Way and the ramps from SR-167 to 1-405, are operating at a low level of service due to congestion, and any backup on freeway facilities creates long lines and delays which carry through the peak hours of operation. However, Mr. Norris did not feel that the generation of 62 vehicles from the proposed development would severely impact the functioning of the operation, but the cumulative effect of several different developments may. More acceptable alternatives than requiring one developer to make extensive improvements to correct current problems were discussed by Mr. Norris, such as requesting developers to participate in the funding of a traffic study to determine what types of improvements will be necessary or propose certain measures to mitigate those problems. The Examiner noted that the applicant has considered a 3% historic growth rate for the area in assessing traffic generation rates , and inquired if the percentage provides a sufficient projection for purposes of review. Mr. Norris advised that the rate had been suggested by the Planning Director and himself and was based upon regional growth rates for overall trips, not site specific growth. The Examiner asked which specific developments the 3% rate includes, since it does not include the subject development or the Springbrook development to the northeast. Mr. Norris indicated that the percentage would include developments which are not defined at this time to reflect the overall growth rate of this area as it has been occurring in the past. He noted that the applicant had been requested to identify developments which are occurring immediately adjacent and in the immediate area of the proposal in addition to that 3%, which could result in an 8 to 10% increase in traffic generation on a specific arterial ; the developer, through economic analysis, determined a reasonable absorption rate for residential growth in that area and arrived at certpin proposals for levels of growth which may be anticipated at the time of his development and are included in the traffic analysis submitted into the record. The Examiner requested Mr. Norris' opinion of whether the roads in the immediate vicinity of the subject site, Talbot Road, Talbot Place and S.W. 43rd Street, can handle traffic from all three phases of the proposal and whether certain improvements are slated to allow all phases. Mr. Norris advised that Phase I and possibly Phase II are being proposed in 1982-1983. Beyond that, he declined to comment, but he indicated his opinion that the immediate development within the next two years can be accommodated on existing arterials with modifications proposed by the developer. The development proposal and timing of Phase I were discussed, and it was clarified that it would include the entire 325 multiple family proposal which is expected to be completed in late 1982 with occupancy projected for the spring of 1983. The Examiner then inquired if the roads can adequately accommodate traffic generated from the Phase I residential development. Mr. Norris felt that the improvements denoted in the traffic report, such as signalization of the SR-167 ramps, modification to the signal at Talbot Road, and widening of S.W. 43rd Street would alleviate congestion; however, he declined to comment regarding problems at 1-405, Rainier and Grady since a detailed analysis is unavailable and it is Pay Seven R-135-80 unknown whether traffic will divert away from those locations. The Examiner noted, that the report also alluded to the fact that SR-515 will be going oJt to bid in August, 1981 . Mr. Norris clarified that the statement is incorrect; although the Location Engineer of District 1 of the Department of Transportation had indicated that it is included in their plans, final determination will not be made until September when the Transportation Commission meets again. He noted that some question still remains regarding revenues which may jeopardize the project and construction is till an uncertainty at this point. The Examiner noted that the applicant had referenced the Highway Research Report, '87, in stating that the level of service on 1-405 is LOS D, and he inquired if the predictions were based on the size of the highway or if an actual field inspection had been accomplished. Mr. Norris indicated that he had not reviewed calculations which state that the level of service is at D, and it was his impression that the freeway was operating at closer to level E at peak hours. The Examiner referenced the Department of Transportation predictions contained in the Environmental Impact Statement for the Earlington Park development which `indicate the level of service at E or F. He then inquired regarding the approximate number of trips per day the proposed 325 units will generate, noting that the applicant had utilized low rise development ratios. Mr. Norris stated that the approximate 6. 1 trips per day projected by the applicant is an acceptable figure for the area and would create approximately 2,000 trips per day. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding whether Mr. Norris had insight into which direction those trips would flow from the development, he indicated that the majority would be' directed north on SR-167 to 1-405 where they would travel either north or south. The Examiner requested testimony by the applicant. Mr. Daryl Connell stated his opinion that the roadway system developed by the applicant and mitigating measures proposed for kite development would accommodate traffic generated from the proposal . Mitigating measures -.ere discussed and include limiting access points, providing Metro service to reduce the umber of vehicle trips, as well as other measures previously discussed. Mr. Connell concurred with Mr. Norris ' opinion that the developers of the proposal should not be responsible for correcting the entire existing traffic problem and the arterial system should not be impacted by traffic from the subject site. The proposed signal at SR-167 ramps was discussed by Mr. Connell and Mr. Norris, and it was stated that the signal is programmed in the state's 1982 budget, although funds are not available for construction. The Examiner inquired if the city would have authority to install the traffic signal at SR-167 if it could provide the funding. Mr. Norris advised that although signalization is under control of the state, the state would be willing to cooperate with the city if funding were provided by the city or developer. Mr. Connell responded that because funding for the signal would equal 15% of the value of the land, the developer could noL afford to Finance the entire project, but would be willing to pay his fair share. The Examiner inquired regarding traffic impacts to the area from the proposal if the ramp is not signalized. Mr. Connell discussed existing traffic volumes entering S.W. 43rd Street from SR-.167 in the a.m. hours, noting that the proposal would contribute approximately 8% to that volume. He further discussed proposed signals, signal modifications, and channelization to mitigate traffic problems, and advised his concern that the state is unaware of existing problems and methods to correct them have not been implemented. The Examiner inquired regarding the effect of attempts by exiting traffic to make left turns from Talbot Place to SR-167 during morning and afternoon hours, and what the queueing space"would be between Talbot Place and the freeway ramp. Mr. Norris stated his position that left turn access would not be allowed out of the development from Talbot Place. Mr. Norris was asked by the Examiner for the effects of left turns onto S.W. 43rd Street by northbound traffic on Talbot Road and the problem with backup from the freeway ramp blocking the hospital access dr •l.W. 43rd Street. Mr. Norris indicated that heavy left turn movements will result in queues backing down S.W. 43rd Street to the freeway bridge and eastbound traffic on S.W. 43rd turning north on SR-167, but the flow for right turning vehicles will not be impeded. He also noted that the gap which drivers are willing to accept will decrease the longer they wait which creates accident problems at locations where heavy turning movements occur. Mr. Connell discussed the traffic study submitted for the proposal , and indicated that it does not include a traffic signal at Talbot Place, but projects left turning movements on Talbot Road. He noted that the queueing problems exist only in the afternoon for vehicles making left hand turns to head north on SR-167 and those wishing to around channelization and head north on Talbot Road. He added that the approximately 10% additional traffic from the proposal would not significantly increase the existing problems. David Clemens, Acting Planning Director, was affirmed by the Examiner. Mr. Clemens stated that traffic volumes will inevitably increase in the future on S.W. 43rd Street regardless of whether the proposal is constructed, the hospital expands or additional development occurs within King County. He indicated his opinion that it would be preferable to allow the proposed development to proceed since mitigation measures have been identified to solve some of the problems which are in the applicant's and city's best interest rather than taking a stand that the problems are insoluble. Problems which exist in King County were Pa,-: Eight R-135-80 reviewed by Mr. Clemens, and relate to issuance of building permits without Hearing Examiner review of traffic impacts from county development. He concluded that the city' s policy towards close-in development in the community should be a positive one and if solutions can be addressed to potential problems, the development should be approved. The Examiner stated that potential solutions to the traffic problems on 1-405 and various intersections had not been addresssed, and since it is highly unlikely that SR-515 will be built or that Metro will expand its service, the addition of 2,000 vehicle trips per day in the area should be carefully considered. Mr. Clemens agreed that the question is a difficult one, but he felt that some of the concerns can be addressed, such as reprogramming the signal at Talbot Road and S.W. 43rd Street, making improvements to lane widths and the state right-of-way on Talbot Road and S.W. 43rd, and achieving signalization at the off ramp at S.W. 43rd Street. Responding to the Examiner' s inquiry regarding what will occur when vehicles enter 1-405, Mr. Clemens felt that people living within the subject area will avoid I-405 just as people living in southeast King County are ignoring that freeway whenever possible. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the impact to Grady Way and Rainier Avenue, Mr. Clemens concurred that the situation would worsen. The Examiner requested further comments regarding traffic. Responding was: Elaine Diamond 4914 Talbot Road S. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Diamond, a 17-year resident in the area, indicated concern regarding increased traffic and questioned responsibility for funding for inevitable improvements to the arterials in the area. She requested specific answers to be provided in a plan for the future. The Examiner inquired if the applicant would be willing to provide van pools as part of the development as a progressive solution to the transportation problem. Mr. Connell advised that representatives of the van pool program had been contacted and the feasibility and cost benefit had been discussed. He stated that the matter would be investigated further since he had no objection to provision of v.an pools as a transportation alternative to and from the site. Chris Brown, Traffic Engineer for the project, read a letter which he had sent to Daryl Connell confirming a telephone conservation with Washington State Department of Transportation representative, Bill Carter, in which Mr. Carter stated that the contract for improvement of SR-515 would be put out to bid on August 3, 1981 . It was noted that the information was incorrect. The letter was entered into the record by the Examiner as follows: Exhibit #7: Letter to Daryl Connell from Chris Brown, dated July 14, 1981 The Examiner advised that a letter had been sent by J. D. Zirkle, Department of Transportation Administrator, to the Mayor of Renton in March of 1981 , which stated that no future plans were in effect for construction of SR-515, and he assumed that the Mayor would have received updated information if the project were set up for bid. Mr. Brown discussed the growth rate percentage of 3% utilized in determining traffic impacts in the area, and noted his opinion that incorporation of the Springbrook project would result in an overestimate in the figures. He referenced page 4 of a letter addressed to Daryl Connell from himself, dated July 16, 1981 , in which he cites Table 9-1 , Levels of Service and Maximum Service Volumes for Freeways and Expressways Under Uninterrupted Flow Conditions, page 252, Highway Research Board, Special Report '87, Highway Capacity Manual , 1965, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. , which states that the percentage increases on both the east and west legs. of..I-405 are sufficiently small as to be non-computable in terms of changes of levels of service. The level of service will be D with traffic flow conditions "approaching unstable flow." The Examiner noted that the optimum level of service is not at issue, but rather, the practical level of service which exists on 1-405 on an average daily basis. Mr. Brown indicated that the LOS is reduced to F on a routine basis, but the addition of traffic from the subject proposal would be insignificant. The Examiner questioned whether 1-405 could accommodate traffic from even one more project, however insignificant. Mr. Brown discussed alternatives such as vanpooling, future construction of SR-515 and transit access to N.E. 4th Street in Bellevue which should • alleviate congestion in the future. He then referenced Figure 4 attached to the July 16 submission which describes the 1982-1983 directional design hourly volumes on completion of the residential and first phase commercial sector. The submission was entered into the record as follows: Exhibit #8: Letter to Daryl Connell from Chris Brown, dated July 16, 1981 The Examiner requested additional time of 21 days in which to make a recommendation in the matter. Since there was no objection, the hearing regarding File No. R-125-80 and R-135-80 was closed by the Examiner at 10:07 a.m. . J OF R4+ ;� • ) THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o BARBARA' Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9,0 `O FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 011l?ED SEP1t34. P July 28, 1981 Herman M. Allenbach, D.D.S. , M.S. Northwest Oral Surgery Associates, P.S. 17600 Talbot Road South Renton, WA 98055 RE: File No. R-125-80, David Best/Daryl Connell ; File No. R-135-80, Fred Bowser; Request for Withdrawal of Best Rezone; Dismissal of Files. Dear Dr. Allenbach: In response to your written request for withdrawal of the David Best rezone application as the owner of the property, the item has been dismissed under the conditions outlined below. At this point in the proceedings two public hearings have been held on the matters and the public has been required to attend these hearings to present its views and indicate opposition to the requests; and such testimony has helped to form the public record. The applicants' representative and the property owners also had the opportunity to represent the owners' viewpoints during the entire course of the proceedings, and at this late date, one of the reclassification requests has been withdrawn. During the course of the hearings, the Best and Bowser rezones were treated by the applicants' representative as one matter for purposes of development potential . Issues of access, internal circulation, utilities, integrated development and traffic analysis were handled as one. Therefore, it is impossible at this point to separate the items for consideration, and it is only proper to dismiss both items. The matters were presented by a developer/agent who represented both interests and presented to the city an integrated development proposal for not only these two parcels but also a northerly parcel which was to provide both primary access points for the Best and Bowser properties. The integration of the three proposals was to provide a unified solution to the traffic problems which development in this area was expected to generate. As is indicated above, both matters were already opened for public hearing and public hearings held, and the question of the public interest must prevail in determining whether the items should be dismissed. It would be both unfair and unfortunate to have to reopen the matters for public hearing again within the near future. The general public and the immediate parties with an interest in this matter have now on two occasions presented their respective views on the proposal , and it would not be fair to wear down the general public by repeated . hearings on these applications. Rather than subject the parties to such eventualities, the rezone applications will be dismissed with prejudice, and Dr. Herman M. Allenbach Page Two July 28, 1981 will not be heard again for a period of one year. When and if the application or applications again are scheduled for public hearing, public notice shall be sent to all parties of record in the above matters and to all property owners within 300 feet of the affected property. The notice shall be sent ;by the applicant(s) via certified letter and an affidavit of mailing shall accompany the application(s) . The record of the proceedings will be available as a public record reflecting the testimony of the various parties to' the proceedings and mailed in the near future. • Therefore, File No. R-125-80 and File No. R-135-80 are ordered dismissed with prejudice this 23th ;day of July, 1981 . Reapplication may not occur prior to July 27, 1982. Yours truly, 'ice •� Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Parties of Record -4LI."i NORTHWEST ORAL SURGERY ASSOCIATES, P.S. ORAL AND MARILLOFACIAL SURGERY N. �� W. RENTON CLINIC ORAL SURGERY 17600 TALIIOT ROAD SOUTH • RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 226-5940 HLRMAN M. ALLLNRACH, D.D.S., M.S. Jay 29, 1981 FRED J. KAUFMAN Heahi.ng Exami.nen Mun.ic i.pa.Z Buitd.i.ng 200 Mitt Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 • Dean Mk. Kaubman: I hen.eby nequeat that the appti,cati.on tion nezoning- os my pnopenty (Fite #R-125-80, Beat Attenbach) be w.i thdnawn. We do not wish to deveeop aun pnopen ty An conjunction with the adjacent pnope. tty (Fite #R-135-80, Lucky Seven Investment) .to the south oli auk pnopelcty as nequiked by the ataiiii nepont. . cetety yowls, / , 41, 1111111 H, 4 M. 1(!!!1, , • RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER JUL 2 71981 AM PM 71819,I0,11112,11213,4,5t6 OF 0$ THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o P.) BARBARA` Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9'O FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 O94TEo SEPS *��P June 30, 1981 Mr. Daryl Connell 2691 168th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98008 RE: File No. R-125-80, David Best Rezone; File No. R-135-80, Fred Bowser Rezone. Dear Mr. Connell : After a thorough review of the above entitled matters including a review of the composite testimony and the traffic reports submitted by the applicant, it has been found necessary to reopen the hearings in these matters. Because of the nature and scope of the proposed development, traffic impacts are treated as one, and the matter will be consolidated for review purposes. The specific reason for reopening the hearing is to further consider the traffic impacts on the arterial network which would serve the proposed residential PUD. The consideration of the impacts should not be limited to impacts on just the adjacent roadways, as the impacts on I-405, a major route through and around the city, must be analyzed. Further, analysis of other potential traffic generators should be incorporated into the report, such as the Springbrook housing proposal which may include up to 225 units, and is located in King County just northeast of the Talbot Road S./S.W. 43rd Street intersection. The applicant for a rezone has the burden of demonstrating not only that the Comprehensive Plan maplelement designates the subject area for the purposes proposed, but that the rezone is timely, that is, public services including roadways are capable of handling the proposed development, and, finally, that the rezone request is in the public interest. In this case, the matters relating to traffic are most important to any such determination of the public interest.' The applicant must be prepared to clearly elucidate the traffic impacts of the proposal and demonstrate that concrete methods are currently available or will be in place to handle the potential traffic when the proposed units are occupied. The applicant should come prepared with large display maps and clear, concise charts of roadway configurations which aid in illustrating testimony. Such submittals must be available for review by the city Traffic Engineer prior to the public hearing. Copies must also be available to members of the public prior to the public hearing for their considered review. Comments and questions of other interested parties will be limited to those pertaining to the traffic impacts of the proposal . A Daryl Connell Page Two June 30, 1981 It is incumbent on the applicant and his representatives to demonstrate . that the rezone classifications requested for the two sites are appropriate at this time. Therefore, it is hereby ordered this day that the public hearing in the above entitled matters be consolidated and reopened at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, July 21 , 1981 in the City Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. For further information or assistance in this matter, please contact the office of the undersigned. Very truly yours, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Parties of Record Planning Department _} • i , Wi,-.111)am E. Bennett, Acting Finance Director, City of Renton, do hereby certify ,that t.h,e below shown Receipt 19399 was received • -August 1 a'1 , 1981 ter '4:0O P.M. thereby falling- into'•following -, •. day receipts for bookkeeping purposes and dated the following day. 0"`:` ,'• Fred Bowser Appeal .. received 8/11/81 . Dated this 12th day of •August; 1981 y� �����fi.C/� • Wi ll iam E. Bennett �. � �. •'cam;-c:,;iY::;,.:'�s-���= ;�• -., - �,,...• �; i ;1c.,:....0 Actin Finance Director `l. •=4} . ;^ r Ka•: g -`?�n :ems s .n CITY • OF RENTON ,,� _ 1 '-398 _ FINANCE DEPARTMENT 11 3 - 1 _ 19�_- ._ RE 1 i T O N, WASH S i i i.NCI L 3 l�,. 9 8 0 5 — ----SC Y6/�a• 1 C73.(:)‘3"1N R. 0 E I.V E D OF __-_.-----_1 l&a --- 7t _..�— TOTAL _. GWEN E MARSHALL,l , _\FIN NCE DIRECTOR BY l X l�J p_/}'Y)C�-'y---__ i I ` :.•. •.. .t•. '',•' ty.-. ,4-'- • M^`t. .,.%.•,,.. - c,. . 'jar;c •=."l• 1z v' 1 `'M4!fY % _ t t . chrikopher brown p7. 9688 rainier avenue a Le7a2314567Uashing98118� July 16, 1981 EXHIBIT - �4,O. O' -__ ITEM NO. /.SS--g6 J F- /3S f'o • RECEIVED Mr. Daryl Connell CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER The Daryl Connell Company -2691 - 168th Avenue S.E. JUL 2 0 1981 Bellevue , WA 98008 AM PM '18191101111121112130415,6 Re: City of Renton File Numbers R-125-80 and R-135-80 • Best/Bowser Rezone Additional Testimony Dear Mr. Connell : We have reviewed the June 30, 1981 letter by Mr. Fred Kaufman, Land Use Hearing Examiner, City of Renton. We note that he is requesting additional information concerning traffic impacts without limitation to adjacent roadwas'•btit . extend- ing to I-405 , has requested the analysis of potential, traffic generators such as "Springbrook" , and has requested. that we demonstrate that the project is timely, services will be in place prior to occupancy, ,and that it• is in the public interest. _Particular attention has been requested by the hearing examiner towards the traffic impacts and)'to demonstrate that "concrete ,nethods are currently available or will be in place to handle the potential traffic', when the proposed units are occupied. " The traffic study dated May 15, 1981 entitled "One Valley Place" addressed not only the various- phases of the corn- mercial sector but also the residential sector. Essentially, the traffic study synthesized impacts from all proposed on-site developments and considered, in addition, adjacent residential developments in the following, expected schedule. 1985 55 dwelling units 1986 1 160 dwelling units 1987 155 dwelling units Further, in order to encompass other developments more distant from the site, an overall compound annual traffic growth rate was applied. This was the 3% compound rate discussed in the report and described at the last public hearing . Mr. Daryl Connell July 16 , 1981 page two • It is our understanding from the architects associated with "Springbrook" that the total development will amount to some 216 residential dwelling units in both townhouse and multi- story structures. The anticipated schedule provides for the first phase to be completed in the 1982-83 biennium compris- ing 60 townhouses. The 60 townhouses are expected to produce the following traffic : "Springbrook" First Phase Development Trip Production AWDT 366 A.M. , Inbound 6 A.M. , Outbound 24 P.M. , Inbound 24 P.M. , Outbound 12 (This data assumes ITE Land Use Code 220 . Apartment, General . ) Excluding commercial , on-site residential , and off-site residential developments the increase in traffic demand on S.W. 43rd Street between SR-167 and Talbot Road South will amount to about 1800 vehicles per day. That is, between 1981 and 1983 current traffic volumes will increase from 30,040 to 33,870 vehicles per day. The 1800 vehicle per day increase is due to the three percent compound growth rate. If the "Springbrook" project is considered as a part of that growth rate, it would account for about 20 percent of the demand. This is probably in keeping with expected absorption rates- of residential units in the general area. From a planning standpoint, it would be incorrect if not entirely inappropriate to segregate the "Springhrook" project and, at the same time, utilize a three percent compound growth rate. Indeed, the three percent compound growth rate was selected in that it would include external developments such as "Springbrook" . To conclude this particular aspect, since the three percent compound growth rate can be considered to include the in- fluence of developments such as "Spr_ingbrook" ; all of the mitigating measures identified in the traffic study of May 15, 1981 can only be considered complete. To arbitrarily Mr. Daryl Connell July 16 , 1981 page three increase traffic 'volumes by including a compound growth rate and non-adjacent developments along with adjacent develop- ments would be misleading . Next, considering the impacts to I-405 the following ref- erences may be recalled. On March 16, 1981 we forwarded to you (Daryl Connell from Christopher Brown, P.E.) a relatively lengthy letter definirrg expected commercial and residential development, impacts associated with the three percent per year compound growth rate, and on page 3 of that 'letter identified the two types of distributions that were made with respect to both residential and commercial de- velopments.. These. were, respectively, 1980-90 employment and 1980-90 population forecasts . The trips associated with the residential sector were allocated on the basis of 18 . 5% employment and 81.5% non-employment (social-recreation- shopping) . The trip distribution was attached to that letter and represented by Figures 2-A (Employment) and 3-A' (Population). ' In addition, Figure 4-A described the resi- dential trips -- the matter under discussion at the moment, as requested by ,Mr. Kaufman. Those estimates showed SR-167 receiving approximately 74 trips per hour during the evening peak hour (northbound) and producing 134 vehicles per hour (southbound) from SR-167 to East Valley Road and thence to S.W. 43rd Steet, etc . Of the 74 northbound/134 southbound trips, about 60%. are oriented to the north via: I-405, 30% to the west via I-405, and 10% continue on Rainier Avenue South and then disperse on the local Renton/Bryn Mawr/South Seattle system. This is schematically represented in the diagram, below.2/2g r isog (Ai) (8) 66v 9.6b All�G� Cab) (2v) 4& . ! 5) lye St, bb 3 XX eX/f(lhf �C�r �1 //oar 7f a1 68 (xx) r /WI • Mr. Daryl Connell July 16 , 1981 page four With respect to the ramp volumes on the full cloverleaf interchange of SR-167 and I-405 , there will be no sub- stantial change in levels of service. Essentially, freeway operations are not associated with ramp volumes but, rather, with congested conditions on the mainline system itself, with the ramp/mainline merge/diverge maneuver and, in the case of SR-167 with the signalized intersection of Grady Way. • 4 The east leg of 1-405 at SR-167 will experience increase -in traffic demand of 124 vehicles per hour raising the traffic volume from 7110 vehicles per hour to 7234 vehicles per hour or a percentage increase of 1.17% . On the west leg of I-405 the increased demand will amount • to some 62 vehicles per hour increasing total demand from 7040 vehicles per hour to 7102 vehicles _per hour represent- ing a percentage increase of 0 .9% . The percentage increases on both the east and west legs of I-405 are sufficiently small as to be. non-computable in terms of changes of levels of service. The Level of Service will be "D" with traffic flow conditions "approaching un- stable flow" . (Table 9-1, Levels of Service and' Maximum Service Volumes for Freeways and Expressways Under Uninterrupted Flow Conditions, page 252 , Highway Research Board, Special Report 87, Hihway Capacity Manual , 1965 , National Academy of Sciences , Washington, D.C. ) Considering the" traffic impacts associated with the resi- dential sector, Figure. 4 of the May 15, 1981 traffic report is reproduced. ,. This Figure also includes the first phase development of the commercial area amounting to some 20 iG00 g.s.f. situated in the vicinity of Talbot Place at S .W. 43rd. Within the same context, the "Springbrook" project is expected ,to have 60 townhouses completed as noted before. • Note that we are not recommending the inclusion of these since they would be more than accounted for in the three percent annual growth rate. However, if they were included as an additional element over and above the three percent annual growth rate the following changes would be suggested to Figure 4 . The changed demands are noted in () 's. Mr. Daryl Connell July .16 , 1981 page five Including the "Springbrook" development traffic as an addi- tional demand on Figure 4, no changes in terms of mitigating measures are suggested other than those previously described in the May 15th study and approved by the City of Renton' s Environmental Review Committee. The mitigating measures are : 1. Signalization at northbound off-ramp, SR-167 at S.W. 43rd Street. (This will be under construction by April , 1982 according to Mr. Bill Carter of District 1, DOT) 2. Internal signal modifications at S .W. 43rd Street Talbot Road .South signal . (This signal modification is based on a 120-second cycle length, changing the signal to a 4-phase operation with northbound and • southbound movements on Talbot Road proceeding under their own, exclusive phase. Note that the utilization of a 120-second .cycle length would be in keeping with probable'' signal timing at SR-167 off-ramp and, there- fore, ensuring reasonable progression on 43rd) . We are attaching copies of the Capacity Computations for your files. These show the proposed phasing, timing, and other matters relating to the computational procedures . Last, please note that while we discussed channelization modifications at 43rd/Talbot and the adding of a Right Only lane on the east leg of S.W. 43rd at SR-167 , these are not necessary for the matter under discussion. Also, since SR-515 is going' to "bid" on August, 3rd, 1981, we would suggest holding back on those two mitigating measures until the area is restudied on completion of SR-515. I believe that we have covered the elements requested by Mr. Kaufman in his June 30,' 1981 letter. Essentially, we do not believe that the residential portion of this project will materially impact. .traffic operations on Carr Road given the recommended revisions discussed above. In addition, while it is recognized that additional demands will be placed on SR-167 '.and I-405, the demands will be relatively small when contrasted against current demands to the extent that no measurable changes in levels of service can be expected. Naturally, the cumulative impacts of many other developments and overall growth will adversely impact all highway and arterial facilities . However, considering the Best-Bowser rezone and the residential sector proposed for the properties in concert with the three percent annual Mr. Daryl Connell July 16, .1981 page six growth rate . and "Springbrook" , there should be no measureable change in traffic operations in the 1982-83 biennium given the mitigating measures discussed above particularly in view of current, published Wash. DOT construction such as SR-515 . If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact us. Yours truly,. ; C. . Brown, P.E. CVB/ap • Enclosures : 1. Capacity Computations 2 . Figures 2-A, 3-A, 4-A of March 16 letter report 3. Figure 4 of May 16 study report 4 : ' Modified Figure 4 of May 15 report describing "Springbrook" demands . • if SIGN ZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS • ��YZ• 'C.. 2f • /' / • pry �y si, y • ��A'y PROJECT (a2,Te!/ Ø� /9 2—d.� �s� .2�� d 29 INTERSECTION 7 3?fa lQ 4/4- ISVo ?rol(edi- AO BASIC CONDITIONS: . )`Gi • / METRO POPULATION / �f1/11O� PHF Ziy * NOrt. AREA: CBI) FRINGE OBD SELOw RESIO. RURAL (Curdle Onel hh ' C •'SIGNAL CYCLE ./2bSEC. A/C•1�././ .. C.c',. PHASE I PHASE PHASE PHASE , . cz.4 t,......> . . . _...., , . . (--, CC W W V.7 CC W W 4 s i a Q 4 4 Q G/C • 0 •/C G/C ■ ally G/C■ G/C • G • SEC. SEC G • SEC. SEC. G • SEC. SEC. G • SEC. sCC • • APPROACH ..Jfr 4 T■ / % R■/7 x L• 7% , BUS STOP .... MOVEMENT WA CHART G/C CAPACITY j DHV ' REMARKS FELT REFERENCE.. REO'D USED CO ' Cp iv--/k/ /2 /�FA 0.. 6- d• sr- JQ 2` d /�6 • id/ ��s 241 ' <f ' g•yy 4•4' / W) 670 /27? APPROACH 4.. T• / x R•S% L■ / % BUS STOP . . WA CHART G/C CAPACITY DHV f • MOVEMENT FEET REFERENCE REG.() ,USED CD Cp REMARKS r'-s /2 /P 0 0.03 0 Jr NM ,2.. . . .'-w/� 2. 1 4' • o •IC o•yi S APPROACH .-r T. / x R•A %.. L■j9% BUS STOP .. • MOVEMENT TWA CHART D O G/C - ,'CAPACITY DHV( REMARKS II: REFERENCE RE USED • CD C. .r#50v 21 U./Z l2/2 270 - .2c., 276 .- • • • APPROACH /t T. / i. R=2r L• x BUS STOP . . • ' WA CHART G/C. CAPACITY DHV' 0 MOVEMENT FL[T REFERENCE RED.!) USED CD Cp REMARKS iv-Viv I ?y /./ Q is air /4' �'5° yy) 57$-/s/ice 1Bh ore . _ • DESIGNATE EACH APPROACH HY LETTER; l-W OR 2-W (I- OH 2-WAY); PKG., N.I'. (NU PKG.); ENTER OHV'• BY �f —.I MARK A.M., OK COMP. (CUNPOSI'1'E PEAK.) / r CHECKED i TURN LANE LENGTHS -- U2, U3; TRUCKS -- T2, T3; HIUENEU APPROACH LENGTHS -- II•, DU, ETC. - • iI SI•GNA !ED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Lj 'C__2� fi,` • • /51 26/ -PROJECT [ 911e .f (/10.2 i IINTERSECTION /4A� j43 ' rjV/s s. ,.-oJ P C `7.-> T�, a . BASIC CONDITIONS: • • / /o RO / A 'r METRO POPULATION .. /211�/ PHF 3V7 �I ��J •Hot[ AREA: COD FRINGE OND •ILOV ' RESID RURAL (Circle One . • ��JJ/�� ' C C . SIGNAL CYCLE •/.20SEC. A/C• '� /.'2�..0�.. . PHASE I PHASE PHASE PHASE . . <---'-''' *4 . cc W .. W Wc • <1 ite.--1, c . . al co W 22 i 3 G/C ■Q./S-- G/C ■ a 417 G/C ■ 0 ./2 G/C ■ 0./6 G • SEC. SEC G • SEC. SEC. G • SEC. SEC. G • SEC. SF.0 APPROACH ... A.4.T• % R. % L■ x ' - BUS STOP - . MOVEMENT WA CHART G/C CAPACITY DHV 9 0 Fitt REFERENCE REO'D USED Cp Cp REMARKS r- - 9 o./2 Q/2 . 6 9/ 53 a< APPROACH . . . .. T• x R• % L• x BUS STOP • MOVEMENT WA CHART; G/C CAPACITY DHV T REMARKS i FEET REFERENCE REQ.!) USED CD •Cp fir- 2r .90, /‘ O./ yqo . sSo ysD 44440//d/= . cif., e 7 r Ro. . /',. APPROACH T. x R• x. L. x eus sroP • WA CHART G/C CAPg01TY t MOVEMENT FEET REFERENCE REO'D USED CD Cp DHV NEMAkKS a tv—N /2 /M D-/c 6.15- //° .. 2/O /C° 4. w-Pf1'' 2 9 9 D. 1/7a?? ._1_5)8O /00 l v78 _ ..]' APPROACH T. x R• x L• x • BUS STOP MOVEMENT WA CHART G/C CAPACITY DHVr gEMAHKi4 FEET. REFERENCE REO'D USED Cp Cp if.' 1.'j- /2- /F4 p. ' d,/3" /10 2/1) r6 f ✓-A/ ' 2 9 y o./! o.4/7 /3J0 /6'O 9P51 1 • DESIGNATE EACH APPROACH IlY LETTER; 1-W OR 2-W (I- OR 2-WAY); PKG., N.I'. (NU PKG.); ENTER DHV'• BY_ -. .... t HARK A.N., OR Cd7P. (COMPOSITE PEN(.) CHECKED—__- TURNN LANE LENGTHS -- D2, DT; TRUCES -- T . T3; WIDENED APPROACHL.ENG1'HS -- U•, Db, ETC. / t • t' /ncY'uL)/e.f 01 -,4 Z 0•7r vv/2i1sw/// • I a d al to R. O tn 0 _ 0 •1 •u x H x o rtd A O 0 E1 a) a r W 0 o • p.2 S.W. 43rd b IMF 72. 6 f Th/ • .) , It di) J7111.1FJ) . ., Distribution is expressed in terms of percent of all trips for the. category. 4 FIGURE 2-A Distribution by 1980-90 chrisLopher !gown p Employment 0. .*:'• 9688 rainier rivcnuc K _ �i; al tle wash i rI��r Id.7234567 `-`1 11 N ro od v) a r-I a tr 4-1 b •H a cn a, o x � a 0 0 971 o H A m °' H 67.9 41 (Ti 7 111111111111\vin- S.G . 43rd 0 • . .. Srfv -) . . . ,. , . . c rr •• .., ........ . .. . .. I , cir.D tip Distribution is expressed' in terms of , percent of all trips for the category FIGURE 3-A . ii � c hri��Lopher iw�r n per, Distribution by 1980-90 i I 9688 rainier �ivcnu� ti p Population �/ h4'�lI.tic Wil+,fllll�'� ;II t I c.72'34567 ��ti I I,� • % r, . T-1 ro % as o co • >1 • co cd >1 3 o 4 '8 tr •H lk H : a) M insig) 4-) • u) LI u) rd iN . H pzi El CCI 4n, , 1 :-..‘.., . • q. \iii. .:-.1 ,, t.. 7p pg. ....... . , „........ ..?s-- 20/ . A 2 89 Y.2.... g IN, . vfj ..tiiz /41)) • \ i ?) \I A-44.) ace .th,\ )C /11(,, Atilie s r t,rl 1 Ofr c . • Distribution By Population 81. 5 % By Employment , 18. 5 % FIGURE 4-A , --,-,. chrikopher 15rowil peN, 1987 Peak Hour - Residential Trips : 9688 rainier avenue 67 6';Tatile wai Aln6lotii} ic:72'345 q811,_ !I N 01 N c7 4 Talbot. Road S. __� 43' �� �N V 1\ lk ,,, • kl cl ., Rs 0 s� a; 41 ' j i b n t P 1. .______ --v.- v N. .... .. rC b a U W Data describes the b N aai H design hour volumes �r N on completion of the • \. u residential and first s phase commercial sector. m KI-) ) .....C\f-1 ?). I r '... --- . , �--.�_ S. R.. 167�_ N_____•:/// n _....4).- 1..%)N ‘10 L. ',-' 110 y Rd. T Cal ... -..--A.. .(f_v C` FIGURE 4 � hri��Lopher ►�ro\rn p.c',,r-- \ 982-83 Directional Design qo 9688 rainier avenue Hourly Volumes M ",,�,ti' lt`r ' ,K:c,aLtie W%iAi114 LII ICI 72'34567 0N N / S� _ : ,, ,3•_•!.-— , , ., . . (I ) fr_7/) - ..... ,t., .11 1 4,3 No, Qi 0 . )1 kc v) . } .c. n i1.bot Road S. , --,7-\ it: M �� ^N N . 0) NI 1(1 ( I_ 22) . rd K fa -J 1• ralbot Pl. c -I In I m r� U W E. Data describes the 1MmH design hour volumes , �"� rs1(7Z) on completion of the 3 �j 8. residential and first phase commercial .sector. ( VC) re"/ri�befir+t 2'1 , 41 Di / .. orin9 6roat CO Is , (7) 71/24-ft 7. �,. 'ft / AfJv�c,f i . ‘ 14 _rwrsc 00r7.` 0 • 0 1 -- ) iYer !i! 13 W t . (I t .i ) , M K1 ad..—„,........ S S. R R. 16 7 N___ _a„ 4) 3 ‘t (,-?-__-} � ./ �^ E. Valley Rd. ' ,..L_____,,...) (..___,..A/ 01 t-----!: -. cm r, ..,,, c_o ,.,, .. cie,e, „ , FIGURE 4 Christopher brown 1982-83 Directional Design 1 117 ( tip. 9688 rainier avenue s. Hourly Volumes. -- ,rf Sattle WashtngLon f jl vki/rr -�ri>r 1 A.. to:7234567 981 l8 „ • �ir..+ o+a t fi 4. (Z) OF R�� 4, 7..10 0 THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 Z '4 o o MIND BARBARA'. Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR a LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 114, co. FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 oR�rEo sEP1����P July 7, 1981 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Land Use Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, is reopening the public hearing on the following petitions for the purpose of discussion of traffic impacts in the vicinity: DAVID BEST Application for rezone from G to R-3, multiple family residential of approximately 8.7 acres, File No. R-125-80; property located on the west side of Talbot Road S. approximately 1 ,000 feet south of S.W. 43rd Street. FRED BOWSER Application for rezone from G to R-2, low density multiple family residential of approximately 8.5 acres, File No. R-135-80; property located on the west side of Talbot Road S. approximately 1/4 mile south of S.W. 43rd Street. If approved, the aforementioned proposals will be developed concurrently with an approved planned unit development consisting of 11 .7 acres in a P-1 zone to allow the construction of approximately 140,000 square feet of office and commercial space as support activities for Valley General Hospital ; property located south of Valley General Hospital , southwest of the intersection of Talbot Road S. and S.W. 43rd Street. Because of concerns regarding the potential traffic impacts to S.W. 43rd Street, Talbot Road S. , and freeway ramps to SR-167, a representative of your department may wish to attend this public hearing. For further information regarding the applications, please contact Roger Blaylock, Associate Planner, at 235-2550. The hearing will be held at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, July 21 , 1981 , in the Council Chambers of Renton City Hall . t y .. OF R4,f1r THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o ° BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 0,917-E.0 SEP100 June 30, 1981 Mr. Daryl Connell 2691 168th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98008 RE: File No. R-125-80, David Best Rezone; File No. R-135-80, Fred Bowser Rezone. Dear Mr. Connell : After a thorough review of the above entitled matters including a review of. the composite testimony and the traffic reports submitted by the applicant, it has been found necessary to reopen the hearings in these matters. Because of the nature and scope of the proposed development, traffic impacts are treated as one, and the matter will be consolidated for review purposes. The specific reason for reopening the hearing is to further consider the traffic impacts on the arterial network which would serve the proposed residential PUD. The consideration of the impacts should not be limited to impacts on just the adjacent roadways, as the impacts on 1-405, a major route through and around the city, must be analyzed. Further, analysis of other potential traffic generators should be incorporated into the report, such as the Springbrook housing proposal which may include up to 225 units, and is located in King County just northeast of the Talbot Road S./S.W. 43rd Street intersection. The applicant for a rezone has the burden of demonstrating not only that the Comprehensive Plan map element designates the subject area for the purposes proposed, but that the rezone is timely, that is, public services including roadways are capable of handling the proposed development, and, finally, that the rezone request is in the public interest. In this case, the matters relating to traffic are most important to any such determination of the public interest. The applicant must be prepared to clearly elucidate the traffic impacts of the proposal and demonstrate that concrete methods are currently available or will be in place to handle the potential traffic when the proposed units are occupied. The applicant should come prepared with large display maps and clear, concise charts of roadway configurations which aid in illustrating testimony. Such submittals must be available for review by the city Traffic Engineer prior to the public hearing. Copies must also be available to members of the public prior to the public hearing for their considered review. Comments and questions of other interested parties will be limited to those pertaining to the traffic impacts of the proposal . 0 Daryl Connell Page Two June 30, 1981 It is incumbent on the applicant and his representatives to demonstrate that the rezone classifications requested for the two sites are appropriate at this time. Therefore, it is hereby ordered this day that the public hearing in the above entitled matters be consolidated and reopened at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, July 21 , 1981 in the City Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. For further information or assistance in this matter, please contact the office of the undersigned. Very truly yours, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Parties of Record Planning Department c I DOUGLAS L. MORELL, D. M. D. 1015 HOUSER WAY SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 TELEPHONE AL 5-4450 7/5/81 City of Renton, Municipal Bldg. , 200 Mill Ave. South, Renton, Wa. 98055, Attention Hearing Examiner Dear Sir:- s v: - My wife and I live on a 4 s/re parcel of land on the East side of Talbot Rd. South, about 400 yards of the Valley General Hospital. 10. We are in receipt of the enclosed letter, and werheartly in favor of rezoning and liberalizing the building code in this area. Further we believe that increased vehicular traffic will not be a problem which should deny anyone the right to. build dwellings or commercial buildings thereon. 4 ,111I •ur s/trul AV•/ •4(...‘4 Do as L. Morell f . RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER dy ;-' 98 AM PM 7181%t1011111211 o2:3141316 A 0F d THE CITY OF RENTON U `� Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 Z sdL o ° BARBARA'. Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9A `O FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 01'4). SEP1°'�P June 30, 1981 Mr. Daryl Connell 2691 168th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98008 RE: File No. R-125-80, David Best Rezone; File No. R-135-80, Fred Bowser Rezone. Dear Mr. Connell : After a thorough review of the above entitled matters including a review of the composite testimony and the traffic reports submitted by the applicant, it has been found necessary to reopen the hearings in these matters. Because of the nature and scope of the proposed development, traffic impacts are treated as one, and the matter will be consolidated for review purposes. The specific reason for reopening the hearing is to further consider the traffic impacts on the arterial network which would serve the proposed residential PUD. The consideration of the impacts should not be limited to impacts on just the adjacent roadways, as the impacts on 1-405, a major route through and around the city, must be analyzed. Further, analysis of other potential traffic generators should be incorporated into the report, such as the Springbrook housing proposal which may include up to 225 units., and is located in King County just northeast of the Talbot Road S./S.W. 43rd Street intersection. The applicant for a rezone has the burden of demonstrating not only that the Comprehensive Plan map element designates the subject area for the purposes proposed, but that the rezone is timely, that is, public services including roadways are capable of handling the proposed development, and, finally, that the rezone request is in the public interest. In this case, the matters relating to traffic are most important to any such determination of the public interest. The applicant must be prepared to clearly elucidate the traffic impacts of the proposal and demonstrate that concrete methods are currently available or will be in place to handle the potential traffic when the proposed units are occupied. The applicant should come prepared with large display maps and clear, concise charts of roadway configurations which aid in illustrating testimony. Such submittals must be available for review by the city Traffic Engineer prior to the public hearing. Copies, must also be available to members of the public prior to the public hearing for their considered review. Comments and questions of other interested parties will be limited t'o those pertaining to the traffic impacts of the proposal . ' r s� ! • Daryl Connell Page Two June 30, 1981 It is incumbent on the applicant and his representatives to demonstrate that the rezone classifications requested for the two sites are appropriate at this time. Therefore, it is hereby ordered this day that the public hearing in the above entitled matters be consolidated and reopened at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, July 21 , 1981 in the City Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. For further information or assistance in this matter, please contact the office of the undersigned. Very truly yours, •‘6041"°0^' Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Parties of Record Planning Department • .„ . . • ' • 'Eop ..71i.e...11L— • • ' . . e's.57., ,'',, ,:.,... '''',,;;: ....A„,-" ' ",0,,, kqe -"''' .';'5,6,,-.,. ,:.ii'l q-',4'''' • ;', -1 ..;,. • „..-„, .;k,L; . , I { • t j E71,77, ',.: ' 1,,.. V, 0:',4, -,77-1 ',.•7,4.• ..7773.A.- k7,,,,,, P.)•, , , (i, , .'-f-t.,. -,,,,. ,':.y, ,"--,, ,-,.,,. ,,',A-1,.;0 ,•?:".111::: ,,:::fi :-.:-1,1 ,o, .4,;:T Vi4 ( i 'ki '.'" .,:ti 4,,,1 i , . • ::r'',:,, ,,,141• - ' ;., :-..4.*"' .4';'..tM IP, i‘,'.,' ,.;,.-G.. ,;',f:-',, ,„ii,f-i ii.,.-, . ;-, .A,,,. ! .. [ ;.,, ;7-4.: * r ,: ..„4.,,,,,, ,,:, „A ,,,,,..„ „,„ ,,,:,,,, .„.:;,, , ,,, „,,,, ,, ,, ,. :• „, , 4 "C... ,:o,..-. 1, 331 A':21 1 Vf,',.,1,,.”40,' 1:),4 ',40.t t ,..t, it..., . /,.. ' • . ' alL... ",,,t.> .,..•11% -i,:Axt ai. . 4-4.;',,... , : 46.1,0q.30 ettAN liID:7L LOCATIOM :M9 OR ADD . "ROPERTY, LOCATED,,ON THE WEST SIDE OF TAIBOT ROAD SOUTH APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE S@JTH or ..S. W, 43RD STREET 1 , .. ;. • 1: i ' ,• . •., • . :: .: : I : .. LEGAL. DEMRIPTION: , , . . . . ii •• '• . , 1 , • : . t.!' .. . . . , . • i DETAILED LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE 7. "1"11,, O , F",COF THE \ \ , RENTON. PLANNING DEPARTMEN1. . . •, : . , . • ,.. I . • , . , . • i: . . , . .•. , . ,, • ' ' I . . , , ' ( . I, • , , •. ., . , • . , ' " ' i"! • !, : , : i .. „• • . ,• , • „. . . , , , • .'. . , . , .. . , . . 1 S POSTED TO NOTOFY PR'',.. :,;PERTY -OVLAE133:, OF. . • :' !, .. •-. , , - , ,..• .: ;- •:.;:- ; :liva IA .:•.:' - ' "I. *'' ''''' ' 0, . ,:;• , ,:. ; ... -: 1• '4;;: ,,,v. :. . ' ,ne-3 i,:, ' .j . '44. ' ;:-..,.. -.; ': i ,Y•..,‘-..,',., ! ,ir:- :,44. ,:r. c.. '.! , .:i*„.,-.„-t, it.. 4,.! .4.;.fi,.,:.:, !„,„: • , 4L:, . l:: ''';' -it', •..: . ri:'.,. NI TO BE HELD • . • ,.-. . i . , ..,.% : Ciartif COLP,IC1L CHAMBERS9 MINgt:4;11PP-4L, thULANU ON JUNE 9, 1981 BEGINNilit.1 AT ....._...,\LL01. . , ,,'‘ ,41'44.1 ..nraga . ' . .........,... ......_____. , 7----- . Ii • .. •• P xacazarsaarmas....r....... ,..,. . 6 Pet 0 1 , 1 . . . f ,•. ) '1 ' '12:'?A,!--- ' -2.'''' 'I, , : Hi:0) C 11/ LA, \--:,, NI G !I II ic' Fmk - 'cl'f..,...., ., r-2.' 'L Y.,.., i ! . ., I .,,,,.. - 1 , • . : ,, ! . , : ,., . : • . k .: i.:-:::1;: FROM G TO R-2„ APPROXIMATELY 815 ,ACRESf: (FILE 'il.F)-135.-80) . , ,: ,...,,,,A 0 0 .- . ( . 1 ,47:::Y 4:..:,. '' ,..„,-, .P-:-' ', -;`,,z, tr- ,..,.,.: : B 1 . t - ih i ,,, , , . A Eii0 . :.NIC 10 ..r. ' • tuj ., . .. ' . , ,; : 1 • 1 , , . , . .:., • ..,•,-- A .„ . E . . • , , ,,,, ,, , . • , . . , . i1, ,1; 1ni , ,tri. , . ' ' '''' ' .7 ' ''''' ''''' 7::) '''' I 1 *:''. r,,, Al ..:, , ,,,: ,,, ,.,:, „.,.•:.,„:: , • , .. ,.,.• „ . .... . „.., ,,, E. ,,,,, ..., .,,,. , , .:,. ,, ..4 1) 1 ..'..',. I ,, i,,, ..,,,i ,.ti: 4. '. ''', '''''' 1 .0 C i..,.,.; .,,..0 r ,;',,,..,,,,, 5 .3: ..3-"r:•?,,,.-. 4 ri'r''-'... r.i',-.,.41' ' -, .! vi:. ::' - '.. 1 t. , i i.' . .. , .i;., ;I !, ,‘,1.., • THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW tOMMITTEE , HAS ISSUED A FLPI4YDEciaARATIOt,:y •01: 'NON- , . It „oil ! '-'411 SIGNIFICANCE TilITH.1(1011LTIM___ i: , . .:- : , . .! . i I , 1 0. ANY APPEALS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE HEARING EXAMInER .3-,,Y iD v :oo pm.i, JUNE 8, 1981 . • =.1 AA, 5, SO 1 • FOR FURTHER INFORMATM CALL 13S" . ; II _.; THIS NOTICE NOT TO A',1E :4'i..'::'areOV't,':'!:t via-HourPI0PS., IA.AUTHORIZATION l''LANNINGDEP!\1 i M E H T PRELIMINARY REPORT TO Th mrAR {EG EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 9, 1981 APPLICANT: FRED BOWSER FILE NUMBER: R-135-80 A. ',I1J Mi'q!•\feY PURPOSE OF I:+ti)>11 ST: The applicant requests a rezone of the subject site ' from G to R-2 for the purpose of future multiple family development. B. GENERAL Iffy'® i'i!,TON: 1 . Owner of Record: LUCKY SEVEN INVESTMENTS 2. Applicant : FREDERICK R. BOWSER Acting General Partner • 3. Location: (Vicinity Map Attached) West side of Talbot Road South approximately 1/4 mile south of S.W. 43rd Street 4 . Legal Description: A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department. 5. Size ,bf Property: +8. 48 acres 6. Access : Via Talbot Road South 7. Existing Zoning: G, General Classification , District; minimum lot size 35, 000 sq. ft. 8. Existing Zoning in the Area: G 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Low Density Multiple Family, Medium Density Multiple Family 10. Notification: The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly published in the Daily Record Chronicle on May 25 , 1981 , and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City Ordinance on' May 28 , 1981 . C. lIS'7L"®I Y/ms'\=Romp : The subject site was annexed into the City by Ordinance No. 3031 of May 17, 1976, at which time the present zoning classification was applied. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: FRED BOWSER, R-135-80 JUNE 9, 1981 PAGE TWO D. 1„':YSICAL ILACKG OUND: 1 . Topography: The subject site rises from west to east at approximately a 9% slope. 2. Soils: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgC) . Perme- ability is moderately rapid in the surface layer and subsoil. Runoff is slow to medium and the erosion hazard is moderate. This soil is used for timber, pasture, row crops, and for urban devel- opment. 3. Vegetation: Much of the subject site is composed of scrub grass and blackberries with some alder and cottonwood scattered throughout. 4 . Wildlife: Existing vegetation on the site provides suitable habitat for birds and small mammals. 5. Water: No surface water was observed on the subject site (May 27, 1981 ) . 6. Land Use: The subject site is largely undeveloped except for a single family dwelling in the extreme southeast portion. Similar dwellings are scattered on parcels to the north, east, and south. State Route 167 lies to the west. E. iN EIr,r;r:;o,:m OOD CHARACTERISTICS: The surrounding properties are a mixture of clinic and other medical related uses along with some scattered single family housing. F. m eal.IC SERVICES: 1 . Water and Sewer: A 12-inch water main and 8-inch sanitary sewer extend north-south on Talbot Road South adjacent to the subject site. 2. Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton as per ordinance requirements. 3 . Transit: Metro Transit Route No. 145 operates along S.W. 43rd Street within one-half mile to the north of the subject site. 4 . Schools : Talbot Hill Elementary School is within 11/2 miles to the north of the subject site while Fred Nelsen Junior High is within 2 miles to the northeast and Lindbergh Senior High School is approxi- mately 31 miles east. 5. Recreation: The subject site is approximately 1z miles south of Talbot Hill Park. In addition, the grounds of Valley General Hospital may provide some recreational opportunities. G. M PPLICya1LE SECTIONS OF THE Z S KING CODE: 1 . Section 4-729 , G, General Classification District 2. Section 4-708, R-2, Residence Two Family PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: ! FRED BOWSER, R-135-80 JUNE 9 , 1981 PAGE THREE H. APPLE ' ;:,TM-SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PICK OR OTHER OFFICIAL AL CITY DOCUMENT: Comprehensive Plan, 1965, Land Use Report, Objective 6, Page 18. I. IMPACT On THE IA'7 UAL OR M ui i,i.\i\I ENVIRONMENT: 1 . Natural Systems: Rezoning the subject property will not directly affect the subject site. Future development will, however, disturb the soils, remove the vegetation, increase storm water runoff and have an effect on traffic and noise levels in the area. Through proper development controls and • procedures, however, these impacts can be mitigated. 2. Population/Employment : If the subject site were developed to the maximum permitted under the proposed R-2 zoning (Special Permit) , the area..population • would increase by approximately 210 persons (85 units x 2. 5 persons/unit) . 3. Schools : The school population would increase by approximately 21 pupils , if the site were devel- oped to 85 units. 4 . Social: Increased opportunities for social interaction would be available for residents of the proposed development. 5. Trafic: Construction of 85 units would increase traffic in the area by approximately 520 trips/day (6 . 1 trips per unit x 85 units) or an' 8. 6% increase • over present levels on Talbot Road South. J. ENV>I ICAPInI:WTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the City of Renton ' s Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended, RCW 43-21C, a final declaration of non-significance was issued for the subject proposal by the Environmental Review Committee on May 25, 1981 . The appeal period expired on June 8, 1981 . K. AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED: 1 . City of Renton Building Division. 2. City ' of Renton Engineering • Division. 3. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division. 4. City; of Renton Utilities Division. 5. City of Renton Fire Department. 6. City of Renton Parks Department L. PLANNING 4'ETPAR"IPNIIEHT ANALYSIS: 1 . The proposed rezone to R-2 is' consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of medium density multiple family for the subject site and • surrounding area. (Sec. 4-3014C-1b) PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: FRED BOWSER, R-135-80 JUNE 9, 1981 PAGE FOUR 2. A parcel of property approximately 650 feet north of the subject site was rezoned from G to R-3 by Ordinance 2433 of September 23, 1968. In addition, two parcels on the east side of Talbot Road South • approximately the same distance and farther north were rezoned in 1968 to R-3 by ordinance numbers 2431 and 2442 (Sec. 4-3024C-1C) . 3. Proposed development of the site through a Residential Planned Unit Development would include 325 units in a series of two and three-story buildings with associated parking (covered and uncovered) . 4 . Off-site improvements will be required on Talbot Road South as well as storm water retention/detention as advised by the Engineering Division. 5. The Utilities Engineering Division indicates that approved utility plans (water and sewer) are neces- sary and any special utility fees or assessments will also apply. 6. The following traffic improvements and associated costs have been determined by the Environmental Review Committee to be necessary in the vicinity of Valley General Hospital. a. Signal and lane modifications at S.W. 43rd Street and Talbot Road South estimated at $50, 000. b. New signal installation at S.W. 43rd Street and SR-167 estimated at $110, 000. c. Widening of S.W. 43rd Street adjacent to the Hospital estimated at $40, 000. Total anticipated traffic improvements would cost approximately $200, 000. Traffic studies by Christopher Brown, P.E. , show present volumes of 30, 040 trips per day. The Environmental Impact Statement of the Southeast Renton Comprehensive Plan anticipated a volume of 38, 825 trips per day in 1990. The anticipated increase is therefore 8,785 daily, trips . Using this figure and the estimated improvement cost of $200,000, a cost figure of $22. 77 per vehicle trip is established. Because all of the future impacts will not be generated by developers wholly within the City, the Environmental Review Committee has assessed a cost of $15 per trip for the subject proposal and other projects in this sub-area with the remaining one- third to be borne by other developments contributing traffic to this intersection. This fee is to be paid at the time of building permit application. (If the cost of improvements has increased, the mitigation fee will be recomputed at the time of building construction. ) 7 . Ingress and egress requirements of the Fire Marshall must be met. A pre-construction conference with the Fire Marshall will also be necessary. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: FRED BOWSER, R-135-80 JUNE 9 , 1981 PAGE FIVE 8. Future buildings are to be marked with three foot high letters for ease of location in emergencies. The Police Department also will require that all exterior lighting be placed away from the buildings and shine on the structures. 9 . During the application review, the Environmental Review Committee also expressed concern over what recreational facilities may be provided by the applicant. To insure that those impacts of the proposed development are mitigated and facilities provided for, the Committee determined that the proponent will be subject to a fee of $150 per unit for park acquisition and development fees for off-site recreational requirements. This is to be paid at the time of building construction. 10. The subject site is more than 21/2 times as long as it is wide; This configuration results in design, access and internal circulation problems. These can ,only reasonably be resolved by combining the site with the proposed R-2 rezone to the south. The applicant has submitted a schematic site plan for 325 unit residential planned unit development on the two sites. It may be advisable to combine these two parcels into a single application for future review. M. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS: Based upon the above analysis, it is recommended that the Hearing Examiner recommend approval of the rezone request tb the City Council subject to the filing of restrictive covenants that both parcels develop under the Planned Unit Development process. 2P_"e-T,t^'�'i".S.^'s•ec,-rr•.._LILT.�,.�'.:,.__ _ .�1�.___ �.-,. _-._.. -_-.C___ 'F'*L•a• CS 1"i --- _y — .� eqa___. _. 1 \ .\ I `-'-'. .4 P"..c7 ' `4 G.r,el 1— — r — -- -- T— w® oar„®®®mm.m®e®.o��se�aa�..a 1 1 i e - d• ®__, j '© .. 11 ill F 6 . t . I ilt I y l i B-I k e z n ea• n . .9 , -- -I 4 - y f�� —T ,--,- . -• .1 --, - ,- ;__.:,_ .- - ---,— I I I. / . • 1 . _ I (; a.S OA, 2 ] _ I 117 a ar .,. y•. as 41 .or a ac 39 )B ,- 3. t t�� 3a St JJ9 � f?� , + • • •9 53 9 l •, so `.3 Z .e 3' 59 SS .r .1 .[ ( I, ;. w of . (. .a. �- r t -. -�,: T T ._.- �f I p y I Y 82 B. 80 '9 'N „, fy 5 [ } r fS .S .0 •. ..•p r }I • I l.._ . • ` } O '29 30 Si 3Z 33 ,\ yy I i 3� M F i ® `9_p f j t r- I ' L , �Qt 9r- % 15 .:n %i. 2a 2 22 "21-3 �qj� s 1JJ �.a_.a�. 1.....•sar•.0.2•Sa• — � e�c 1 1 e, , i . ...... . 0. ziNING . : 5 ,- u r. ..r i ICI .p..1 l GF __ in !I -e="2.--%, ,er e . ) .ri."k . / 1 FRED BOWSER APPL I CANT .FRED BOWSER TOTAL AREA +8.48 acres PRINCIPAL ACCESS Talbot Road South EXISTING ZON,I NG G, General Classification District EXISTING USE Undeveloped 'PROPOSED USE Multiple Family Development COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Low Density Multiple Family; Medium Density Multiple Family ? COMMENTS 3 r�fin:ti.`.7;-:e',i ,.,..- • '+' .Y"+ _ "' ;'; 'FRED BOWSER REZONE - R-135-80 (QJ, r • Y))I 1i..%'i iv t /} 1 .... .. • • J •ill • ' - —-..JS-s- ----:• 1. •---. ...._ VALLEY G__ NERAI. —-Air. imilr MI 1 _ _ , -0-- 1 1-`r 1 ��� _43rd_= Ave._.:- _ �� / i .. F.;,,—"•"%i I i,,,,' iii ,--- 1 . , ,i�J, r If_ r, ,,,, ,, ��.• CUG�cY/IANJd7 - 1 III -griiV 1 r if O Ai", „ . . . „ . , • ;, �� �iil. / �- � .____ _ , /- .------ . 7,- 4,, it Alivi, 1 /tit f • . 1 i 1 i :44 ..,..r . ..../... ? i! . . / ,„,,,f .. , Y .• jakle .=-;.t'1-rt_" - - .1 - So / , a/MMILMIRint/MI Mina 1 /ell I I 1 egia / Iii) 1 - ' ' i*• . M 111 1 i' a} ,...o..,.o. iae..n-.M'I� 1. m..• Mo 7n,.. 1 7e>. ,1���1 -+ �r Plit • it:- 1 S+_,,,,. i • • • , _� I. -ri i �''r --- '), i `' i� AN 4 n... ` ...py• �j • r t'.,.; .z..s.e,( •i 7........,=�'. -.T yi , ,,, ir _ 1._. fqtrti 41 i n„e,J5jZJUa..y175\ tV : U h f a `.! „'1't z"Y, tsiel.'y}J, oei' f"`"1•;P-4: e "5� "`f 3 A as" ",xs _ — I/ - 1..sa : ,' , „".}} BSI' ft ..1* ^ 14' r 9 , "c �� I_6 Y4 -, a n am G,'+rFk" t,. 4- I "Yo 4 nr m6� , - _ i '- -('` ''i..1 4 t" ",4 :**,,,,fl''131,,,•;11,,:114':''''"4*,i,..M,..• i:„:. • "' hJ L ii �•.+"f AA ,'`Rl�, ,1I �i q_L �,t?5� ^F"• 1 J�� ' '/'Y� Fr /lt '�511�Y :.:L":,fr'Oe'll' 14"Y..4ti ` r spy 00, w''6¢ 11 yyK',S '■JI�� f , 4 I 4. rpK 7' .'-j,` 1�,, , r'f. ' Ff`�t a.�i _ t' u ..30.;;Avt.F.,,,,f,,y-f° "e * r Sri. 1 .Jr. .F,i4,-4: h �'' d iI ��'� w t41'�"` �`, *F'tcti " 4 " ,} zX •k'� c '-'1 ya ,,- ' 1' IKI ``��"" ,' 6��@*'` "f � t � �Ci� ;�,15 f g '+k+.w£,1f• y L'`�ni� a'C`w.� �!�*d- xr*f S r.. w,:,. ,1 1- ujv iAtj,P1 '1 Pf.4 ra�aY [ eV ,.:,a4 'i .4.e 1 t `' ON.,':.. ' ' .44, 11,7 vs•:,;, . r i' ,F"fi *[ �, r S'� "�.�.<s'' Ar a�t ` •„- ��4 'a',1` ' `"4 • ^, . �,c. " ' mot. "' r r!^, ',A L. . n i.* —r, y , e' 'k� i Y li t 4.0" 1 s ,..yr t fryer .f�.,�}, - + *.;,Sf.{�. , x e'�,pr,,. ,o w ... S ' ,,v .,e{a• 3� �9/} ii'n:, .'X M ?w7.;�:1 •=il�:A '.:.'3. '4_1.'•- .',' ,. '.. e' ..i„ ».A!'Wje .�.r° SF s- �� {4 ��\ ummommis 1 ,I — e +�a• 0 od tjp. tj • ' i \ 11 • S rI I AI, �v pq y �±•• . ij kd t.�'': . ED E A ._ . Se r LE._L:6O1_ t "_ Ai ' rel 1111 c • \ 41 • -,... f` r Sill• _ _ III III ! ��,I�. mR�ou _ �I I� . It e'���1 • ...,:-....,,. ,r a_ • ' :ram-,:..°•$nLq • - i•_-r r. ,,, np ., 1'. -:-:-.71:1/4:' Le ''', { -s'r::.'- '- -ti 'rn' rf Y`• rAy 'r. t";r.-s" �a ,.f1.' _ 7 r� ser,a,>.t s , J • / . . >,, { n \ _ _ a .. . .. � _ ``'' )). ":''.:i . '-' • t !, 1.•.4. i, ; • ...__ , • L_.i,... I i , it yill) :� �, "I ( �u ".f ii i ¢y ' t " it:Imo ~� , v �,� _ e 1 rC 7�,,, ,,v �.�_,;:._,4 . ,,x,� ,..._ r .v.,jj,� I Ii _.-��. _ �'. . .—i.....i /!' t ' `,,/ `•7` ' '- -=-' M 1. -emu - --�-- 5 1 ••�.1 ram. kk' • I / r. t • ••Ft •V 1. d. - .: 1; 1• rf ,11 a q (( f Hili - , .0•••���ppp.--...,,, -'."'C\ f�ljl164- \ /r• • y _.7„,,,....„....,1',':.,,c.:1/• ,„, , !I'IIt g� • \7. '�f .'' �7,s . �.J ':" Ijt:;t t+± lC..'La- te ,\� ,,,,..,.„.,p,. , / _,.... 1 -'# *;".7, i ., t y- { ..LSG., -. d•"'` ' ,+1' 1~ v �n',f 12 Pr 1 r .-'--_,•( ‘, , ,• ,__E' ,,,,,.:. ---it,./d •,:l . Apr . • • 1 .p=;. "� jj I I G'I Id • . y., F L... ;;+} •,/ �Il!(! ',. - �':F�. a rP, a?,' F- ,Y:.. Y. ram f'Fz" ,h . . ,, ) _ _ _--:-L f,'--_.--( • r----'-—., ti''. 1. pry, \ .,. I• ,:i / _ F'. P 1 • Sera 17o2. QC. _ ' 1 ``' PL .Ril FRED BOWSER REZONE ta 6\,..q B� I R-135-80 "G" to R-2A � `' ! • SCHEMATIC RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT • - I RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application : :.2o CR-- 1`< -- SO ‘, it5 eDarae gWif. ►5ev'e ' " � ._� �, Ifi :,d 1. ' 6 r rlt tvhl cr <Oa� y Pa 4E a?(� ti A e�'�n�4E,dal ° Location : V. 1>00 , o /COO ® - ki cm, t z wd'- Applicant : Bafte6 r" Fied TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : 47,' Police Department A. R. C. MEETING DATE : , , Public Works Department 9a 08 Engineering Division ' ' Traffic Engineering BC ding Division it Utilities Engineering • V/ Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING FO THE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON AT 9:UU A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC PLEASE PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:OU P.M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ; •--- " Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved l / �L�i , %, j ;/,L i` , ., ' L ? //Y- FZ (/ls'( '9 l u /L"�G L-/ 7 (i�,t:- /`" ;(//c.s(j'lt /CC' j', ,'(1: :/L t•. _) j-,1,L //�/l. .f .-IS - C /�.`.� C-D,1 c e,/,L,"S '/,: C. < / e„s ;:,_5 ( ,i- ,- ,--7' i( .C" [ t"C"f.C=1(/ 'C J7 GL./ /,'t f/1'C_e- /i , 5 iii l6 %�..i•,/ • /2( I 6.c c / is /6;4Li .Sir//GL. /--lc.`G � /CL /1f%--ai '/�/�c, 1,--. J`S ///s-1). c:/L.')>,,ti,.4j'J.c. ('L- -s , /1 L 1 / c- 1 - cz-- - Y " t - --- /-___ 4774/ Signature of Director or Autho ized Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 07-", urY Approved ( / Approved with Conditions Not Approved -!?-"LJ4 .i'- CC'.. ,)'��t` .0 i �� ,i.,��-LU "1.w1-- �1,,`-e-t-- '1— /j..)a,.l:,C-L— 0 Al Signature oflDirector or Authorized Representative Date „t,,.c c ri/'LC/ • ` Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved CO / /oriceze.(4 . /7 e c >7, / /c--e.e/,•'�� //Cr,'t� G:-!S;t?c2.T 4 pt- i„.. °`-- '7-- - - At. 42 ...,.._ 7. mc„,, i,e_____,,,, 3) Ivi ei.4._ kit-rt.,--.- -.,-:-------g--6e' c: „,,,(4,1_, Signature of Director or Authorized Representative die .� ate REVIEWING. DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : c ��:b • X Approved . Approved with Conditions Not Approved • a'y'Q: C //12-:,e•-- �' /, —d Sign ure of Director or Authorized Representative. • Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : POLICE Approved XXXX Approved with Conditions Not Approved 1) Talbot Road whould be improved to its full width prior to any construction being started on the project . The improvements should go all the way to the South property line both sides of st] xg) - 2) Roadway should be kept clean at all times during construction & $5,( cash bond should be posted to insure that roadway is kept clean. Even though there may not be any land filling this area has general. caused a lot of problems during past construction projects due to Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date e uippfnt & work personel going in & out of const . 'site. • Lt . r.75Vdrsson 1/9/81 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : lya/.{7� Ei f i- C :'i'lj Approved L-Approved with Conditions ' Not Approved L, A 1 4 7_, . . 6-..:.z/,._ ,,„ , -:--- 0, ,,,--, ,_, _ , re of Director or Authorized Re resentati /e I Date Signature p REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved MEMORANDUM DATE : January 6, 1981 TO: Planning Department FROM : Traffic Engineering Division - SUBJECT : Fred Bowser Rezone (R-135-80) West Side of Talbot Road South, Approx. 1 ,500' South of SW -43rd St. Please advise developer that before building begins there will be an assessment for future environmental and transportation improvements required to accommodate new developments. This assessment will be $20 per average daily trip generated by the development. Trip generations are determined from ITE standards. Estimated assessment is as follows: No. of x Trip Generated x Assessment Value = Total Assessment Units Per Unit 90 x 6. 1 x $20 = $10,980 The estimated assessment value will be more or less than $10,980 depending on the number of units in the final planning stage and type of building use. )14)1/1/V.// Gary A. N'prris , P. E. CEM:ad UU o e. i• f` +ti. • • • FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No (s) : R7125-80 Environmental Checklist No. : ECF-634-80 Description of Proposal: Request to rezone 8. 7 acres from "G" to R-3 ' to permit future 'construction of multiple family dwellings. Proponent:]� Dave t3est/Daryl Connell Location of Proposal: West side of Talbot • Road, south approximately 1 ,000 feet south of S.W; 43rd Street, Lead Agency: Renton Planning Department This proposal was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee on the following dates : December 17, 1980 • January 21 , 1981 March 40' 1981 March 11 , 1981 March 25, 1981 May 13, , 1981 May 20, . 1981 Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-634-80 are the following: ' 1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheet, prepared by; Roger J. Blaylock DATED: December 17, 1980 2) Applications:' , Rezone R-125-80 3) Correspondence: • Dated To From • January 23, 1981 Daryl Connell Roger Blaylock February 27, 1981 Roger Blaylock Daryl Connell March 16, 1981 Daryl Connell Christopher Brown, PE May 15, 1981 Daryl Connell Christopher Brown, PE May 21 , 1981 Files Environmental Review Committee 4 ) Proposed Declaration of Non-Significance DATED: December 17, 1980 5) Recommendations : A declaration of non-significance was recommended by the Engineering and Traffic Divisions and the Fire Department. A declaration of significance was recommended by the Planning Department. • Both the Building and ' Police Departments ' requested more ' information. R-125-80 ECF-634-80 • I This Declaration of Non-Significance is provisioned on the following mitigating measures : 1 ) The mitigation of off-site traffic impacts specifically at the intersections of Talbot Road South and S.W. 43rd Street and S.W. 43rd Street and SR 167 as outlined in the memorandum of May 21 , 1981 . Mitigation is to be payment of $15 per vehicle trip generation at time of building permit application. (If the cost of improve- ments has increased the mitigation fee will be recomputed at the time of building construction. ) 2) The mitigation of off-site recreational impacts is subject to the payment of $150 per unit park acquisition and development fees at the time of building construction. Signatures: "1/7 ..ZW40; • /&(( (.0114/3 Ronald G. Nelson David R. Clemens, Acting Building Director Planning Director r r "!\)4-<-12 Richard C. fra- 7E3R7 Acting Public Works Director DATE OF PUBLICATION: May 25L 1981 EXPIRATION OF APPEAL PERIOD: June 7, 1981 "eINAL DECLARATION OF NON SIGNIFICANCE Application No (s) : R-135-80 Environmental Checklist No. : ECF-642-80 Description of Proposal : Request to rezone 8. 5 acres from "G" to R-2 to permit future construction of multiple family dwellings. Proponent : Fred Bowser/Daryl Connell Location of Proposal: West side of Talbot Road, south approximately 44 mile, south of S.W. 43rd Street_. Lead Agency: Renton Planning Department This proposal was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee on the following dates : January 21 , 1981 March 4 , 1981 March 11 , 1981 March 25, 1981 May 13, 1981 May 20, 1981 Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-642-80 are the following: 1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheet, prepared by: Steve Munson DATED: January 13, 1981 2) Applications : Rezone: R-135-80 3) Correspondence: Dated To From January 23, 1981 Daryl Connell Roger Blaylock February 27, 1981 Roger Blaylock Daryl Connell March 16, 1981 Daryl Connell Christopher Brown, PE May 15 , 1981 Daryl Connell Christopher Brown, PE May 20, 1981 Files Environmental Review Committee 4) Recommendations : A declaration of non-significance was recommended by the Engineering and Utilities Divisions and the Fire and Planning Departments. Both the Building and the Police Departments requested more information. This Declaration of Non-Significance is provisioned on the ,following mitigating measures : 1 ) The mitigation of off-site traffic impacts specifically at the intersections of Talbot Road South and S.W. 43rd Street and S.W. 43rd Street and SR 167 as outlined in the memorandum of May 20, 1981 . Mitigation is to be R-135-80 .,ECF-642-80 payment of $15 per vehicle trip generation at time of building permit application. (If the cost of improvements has increased the mitigation fee will be recomputed at the time of building construction. ) 2) The mitigation of off-site recreational impacts is subject to the payment of $150 per unit park acquisition and development fees at the time of building construction. Signatures : (iyi(7.4 -ezocfe Ronald G. Nelson D d R. Clemens, Acting Building Director Planning Director Richard C. Houghto)i, Acting Public Works Director DATE OF PUBLICATION : May 25, 1981 EXPIRATION OF APPEAL PERIOD: June 7 , 1981 __ ' "491 ,. Planning 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Appli cation : kg70Al CR%- /3S- S0 v,...yelo 'e.... 5c.4jec? $/fe 4,8in " " -et`ear Cf v 0 Le/rtfiaeGtGeatihi;dsdmd ykkfisiii Location : kP Slip et la /let A4• S. 4011,p 1x. 'COO 'S.el%red y 3 'bid SY, r Applicant $emsl c.: TA;e40/ TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : a/P7/8/ Police Department A, R, C, MEETING DATE : //. 'i/ Public ks Department E.R.C. 1741/,/g/ Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN .> WRIW GZ ��$�FO THE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON AT 9 :00 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, IF YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PLEASE PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P .M. ON i/27/8/ REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : — Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved CO hirdraul G pe,r.-y-,r 71 ✓'e7t4 teed -"row, �J5.v v,T. 4 ea.&_ /..-„------ -- ia-4-y-- la_ 3) C4r-t- clvirIt'Z'r: •42-e°444 "— S —:714 $1--' 4-0..--- 1/7/ senta . Signature of Director or Authorized Representative ate -4S REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved \\\\\Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date ® a Planninc 12-l979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application : M40,4 47 - /33 9 '',.., ecit tio S0 ee1C?1 Qpr4' p deo.r 7 Ae e'en Location : 1 Applicant: 4966,07) Fie- ' TO: P s Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : ,, 4'6 Police Department A, R,C, MEETING DATE : OAKIV " Public Works Department CAL. 1 ! ti: , ',71 Engineering Division Traffic Engineering _ Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED "IN WRITING FORTHE APPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON `/ AT 9: 0 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, IF YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE Tp ATTEND THE ARC, PLEASE PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P .M. ON ® 'a /V . REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : POLICE Approved XXXX Approved with Conditions Not Approved • 1) Talbot Road whould be improved to its full width prior to any construction being started on the project . The improvements should po all the way to the South property line both sides of stree x t) 2) Roadway should be kept clean at all times during construction & $5 ,000 cash bond should be posted to insure that roadway is kept clean. Even though there may not be any land filling this area has generally caused a lot of problems during past construction projects due to Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date ,uippicnt & work personel going in & out of const . site . Lt . r.gRjf-");ersson 1/9/81 P REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date 44 Planning �� ��� 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Appli cation : kg7® '' (Re- au '" ',) /.#.4 owlet tc 'e tenve 't, , :'tattl $ Ile "Ow IV 10 kva r(a r 4Calocio, (Am f604Ainerntet4/016asice/7 4 0,0 Location : 1. SideerraIit J. ,"m etepip6F?, /COO ,afSU493 ftokSif. I.. d Applicant.: '"i�-�1 �'I'/ �tia TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE ; `' '`r, Police Department #'F '' P A. R. C. MEETING DATE : Public Works Department A r� P E r 8 % 11 En neering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITiO.� �G FOs �'E APPLICATION REVI CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON TH EW AT 9 :UU A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO A TEND THE ARC, PLEASE PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:OU P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : / y4;; En,: ,��/j Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved 5-e-_ c _-_. --- Yla (--k-LA-A-Q-4- 1,___4-- ---2 - 8 Signature of Director or Authorized Representati e I Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date / MEMORANDUM DATE : January 6, 1981 TO : Planning Department FROM : Traffic Engineering Division SUBJECT : Fred Bowser Rezone (R-135-80) West Side of Talbot Road South, Approx. 1 ,500' South of SW 43rd St. Please advise developer that before building begins there will be an assessment for future environmental and transportation improvements required to accommodate new developments. This assessment will be $20 per average daily trip generated by the development. Trip generations are determined from ITE standards. Estimated assessment is as follows: No. of x Trip Generated x Assessment Value = Total Assessment Units Per Unit 90 x 6. 1 x $20 = $10,980 The estimated assessment value will be more or less than $10,980 depending on the number of units in the final planning stage and type of building use. a• )7/01/147'4/ Gary A. rris, P.E. ,eglt CEM:ad 76 PECFNEb 26 N 8 1991 JA 1 1J /gl 5%. Pl anni n 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application : Ocetg2® C,Q.- /, ® t?) ei e�rebae p seeiiit't? et op ® d r 1,42 016 1, ' eft-diva ° ReA Location : side act ��-. O iat liet g. lop,tot, /Coo ®�o0''f Stee it93°d t: Applicant : $Pr e r d TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : c72/POZe Police Department A, R, C, MEETING DATE : /f , ,,, Public Works Department E.R.C.9 4 1 0 ,;; ,'' Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Bu ' ding Division Ili Utilities Engineering Fire Department (Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRIT G FO THREVIEW E APPLICATION CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON �� �' �' AT 9 :UU A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PLEASE PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ; 5.- Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved 12CSiu/ 1 4--/?f(-KS ga(e�t_O 4) Q. jet-:V4G`70 /> A �7 (JZL' ix. /<lleS7/' -S /ez--0.) r i N/C,c)73 r�2 /Av6::,6-c`sS 4-- zG/2c`� 74 - cl/K/S l-CiC -GS /j Cc1/1"%G`n�ii- `Y=-&�c-e( Z-7 4„ 6.7/ fiJc-- /i/'2S//J L /_,%//ZG 9 i',G--d/e/- 6z-x / (-9/- 7k-L- 1-ie e/ / -LL_ /1/"Ze C,&6 Cc)10b 47-10 a ` / tiGL C f '�— /4;4% Signature of Director or Autho ized Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : IA-pi-try Approved '/ Approved with Conditions Not Approved j14..j it), alr*iri Athtli fLi-- „4011E1L1-- 4,04,ye-i- . c„,,,JL afit ,4rej -{JUi- lw_ .,t) ago4.4_e—_,,h l 7/o Signature of 'Director or Authorized Representative Date 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 9, 1981 , AT 9: 00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS : 1 . DAVE BEST App] iction for rezone from G to R-3, multiple family residential of approximately 8. 7 acres , file number R-125-80; property located on the west side of Talbot Road South approximately 1 ,000 feet south of S.W. 43rd Street . 2 . FRED BOWSER Application for rezone from G to R-2 , low density multiple family residential of approximately 8 . 5 acres, file number R-135-80; property located on the west side of Talbot Road South approximately 1/4 mile south of S.W. 43rd Street . 3. ONE VALLEY PLACE PROPERTIES Application for rezone from G to P-1 , Public Use of approximately 11 . 7 acres, file number R-047-81 ; property located south of Valley General Hospital , southwest of the intersection of Talbot Road South and S.W. 43rd Street . 4. ONE VALLEY PLACE PROPERTIES Application for a preliminary commercial planned unit development to allow the construction of approximately 140,000 square feet of office and commercial complex as support activities for Valley General Hospital on a 11 .7 acre site, file number PPUD-032-81; property located south of Valley General Hospital , southwest of the intersection of Talbot Road South and S.W. 43rd Street . 5. ONE VALLEY PLACE PROPERTIES Application for a preliminary plat to accompany the proposed rezone and commercial planned unit development of 11 . 7 acres into 12 lots, file number PP-044-81 ; property located south of Valley General Hospital , southwest of the intersection of Talbot Road South and S.W. 43rd Street . Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Renton Planning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 9, 1981 , AT 9 : 00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS . PUBLISHED: May 25, 1981 DAVID R. CLEMENS ACTING PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I , STEVE MUNSON, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing in King County, on the 15th day of May, ?981 . SIGNED: I pF R4,4 4y 0 THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 NAL BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR ® PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9A co' 235- 2550 094rF0 SEP�„.10- May 28, 1981 Mr. Fred Bowser 16044 16th Avenue S.W. Seattle, Washington 98166 Re: Application for rezone from G to R-2, low density multiple family residential of approzimately 8. 5 acres , File No. R-135-80; property located on the west side of Talbot Road South approximately one-fourth mile south of S.W. 43rd Street. Dear Mr. Bowser: The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on December 24 , 1980. A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for June 9 , 1981 , at 9 : 00 a.m. Representatives of the applicant are asked to be present. All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing. If you have any further questions, please call the Renton Planning Department, 235-2550. Very truly yours , Roger J. Blaylock Associate Planner RJB:gh NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a final declaration of non-significance for the following projects : DURWOOD BLOOD (ECF-601-80 and ECF-001-81) Application for a rezone from R-1 to R-2 along with a special permit to construct ten townhouse condo- minium units; property lying west of Edmonds Avenue N, E . between N . E . 13th Street and N. E. 14th Street . The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has further issued a final declaration of non-significance with conditions for the following projects : PIETRO ' S GOLD COAST PIZZA PARLOR (ECF-048-81) (PIETRO ' S CORPORATION) Application for building permit to construct an approxi- mate 4300 sq. ft . wood frame, single story building to house a family restaurant; property located on the south side of N. E . Sunset Boulevard, east of Whitman Court N . E . DAVE. BEST (ECF-634-80) Application for rezone from G to R-3 to permit future construction of multiple family dwellings; property located on the west side of Talbot Road South approxi- mately 1, 000 feet south of S .W. 43rd Street . FRED BOWSER (ECF-033-81) Application for rezone from G to R-2 to permit future construction of multiple family dwellings; property located on the west side of Talbot Road South approxi- mately 1/4 mile south of S . W. 43rd Street . ONE VALLEY PLACE PROPERTIES (ECF-033-81) Applications for rezone from G to P-i to allow development of office complex and preliminary plat approval for 12-lot commercial plat; property located south of Valley General Hospital, southwest of the intersection of Talbot Road South and S .W. 43rd Street . Further information regarding this action is available in the Planning Depart- ment, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 234-2550. Any appeal of ERC acton must be filet' with the Hearing Examiner by June 8, 1981 Published: May 25, 1981 FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No (s) : R-125-80 Environmental Checklist No. : ECF-634-80 Description of Proposal : Request to rezone 8. 7 acres from "G" to R-3 to permit future construction of multiple family dwellings. Proponent : Dave Best/Daryl Connell Location of Proposal: West side of Talbot Road, south approximately 1 ,000 feet south of S.W. 43rd Street. Lead Agency: Renton Planning Department This proposal was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee on the following dates : December 17, 1980 January 21 , 1981 March 4 , 1981 March 11 , 1981 March 25, 1981 May 13, 1981 May 20, 1981 Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-634-80 are the following: 1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheet, prepared by: Roger J. Blaylock DATED: December 17, 1980 2) Applications : Rezone R-125-80 3) Correspondence: Dated To From January 23, 1981 Daryl Connell Roger Blaylock February 27, 1981 Roger Blaylock Daryl Connell March 16, 1981 Daryl Connell Christopher Brown, PE May 15, 1981 Daryl Connell Christopher Brown, PE May 21 , 1981 Files Environmental Review Committee 4) Proposed Declaration of Non-Significance DATED: December 17, 1980 5) Recommendations : A declaration of non-significance was recommended by the Engineering and Traffic Divisions and the Fire Department. • A declaration of significance was recommended by the Planning Department. Both the Building and Police Departments requested more information. I \ • R-125-80 -- ECF-634-80 This Declaration of Non-Significance is provisioned on the following mitigating measures : 1 ) The mitigation of off-site traffic impacts specifically at the intersections of Talbot Road South and S.W. 43rd Street and S.W. 43rd Street and SR 167 as outlined in • the memorandum of May 21 , 1981 . Mitigation is to be payment of $15 per vehicle trip generation at time of building permit application. (If the cost of improve- ments has increased the mitigation fee will be recomputed at the time of building construction.. ) • 2) The mitigation of off-site recreational impacts is subject • to the payment of $150 per unit park acquisition and development fees at the time of building construction. Signatures: 7 i49Yr-) . //d/(;; Ronald G. Nelson David R. Clemens, Acting Building Director • Planning Director Ri hard C. Houghton Acting ' Public Works Director DATE OF PUBLICATION: May 25, 1981 • EXPIRATION OF APPEAL PERIOD June 7, 1981 • • • • li OF l'?4 ,1 .; , . 0 THE CITY OF RENTON U 4� ,,' MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 oielL :I BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR ® PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4 235- 2550 0•9g7- fio SEP���' May 21 , 1981 TO : Files FROM: Environmental Review Committee • RE : ERC POLICY STATEMENT/TRAFFIC IMPACTS RESULTING FROM GENERAL GROWTH AROUND VALLEY GENERAL HOSPITAL During the next ten-year period, the land in the vicinity of Valley General Hospital will undergo substantial development . At the present time , water and sewer services are under expan- sion to service this anticipated growth . However , specific traffic impacts can only be estimated through a comparison of projected traffic volumes suggested in the Environmental Impact Statement for the Southeast Renton Comprehensive Plan and recent field work done by Christopher Brown, P .E. The specific traffic improvements considered necessary include (1) signal and lane modifications at S .W. 43rd Street and Talbot Road , estimated at $50 , 000 ; (2) new signal installation at S .W. 43rd Street and SR 167 , estimated at $110 , 000 ; and (3) widening of S .W. 43rd Street adjacent to the hospital , estimated at $40 , 000 . Total anticipated traffic improvements would cost approximately $200 , 000 . In determining an equitable pro rata cost for new development to make these necessary improvements , the difference in anti- cipated daily traffic volumes and the present traffic volumes were considered on the segment of S .W. 43rd Street between Talbot Road and SR 167 . The field studies of Mr . Brown showed a present volume of 30, 040 on an average week day , while the Comprehensive Plan E . I . S . anticipated a volume of 38, 825 trips in 1990 . The increase is therefore anticipated at 8 , 785 trips per day over this segment. A cost figure of $22 . 77 per vehicle trip is generated, when the estimated cost of $200 , 000 is divided by the anticipated increase in traffic volume of 8 , 785 trips . However , this fee is not realistic , when we consider that the intersections are impacted by growth outside of the City of Renton' s control . Therefore, the Environmental Review Committee has determined not to burden the developer within the City of Renton with the total cost of traffic improvements . It has taken the Memorandum to _ es May 21 , 1981 Page Two i a official position that on these specific improvements that the cost should be $15 . 00 per vehicle trip, shared by this sub-area, and the remaining one-third from other developments contributing traffic to this intersection. David R. Clemens, R. chard Houghton, Acting Planning Director Acting Public Works erector .4/W/40:2 Ronald Nelson • Building Director • • Files : List, then add to as necessary. 1. Best Rezone 2 . Bowser Rezone 3 . One Valley Place Rezone 4. Ive Clinic OF JJ THE CITY OF RENTON V `� © z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 N BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT °94 co• 235- 2550 ° January 23, 1981 'TE � D SEP ,jk Mr. Daryl Connell P.O.Box 580 Bellevue, Washington 98009 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (1 ) DAVID BEST REZONE R-125-80 (2) FRED BOWSER REZONE R-135-80 Dear Mr. Connell: The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the additional information that was submitted and has found it insufficient to make a final environmental determination. Their primary areas of concern are (1 ) impacts to adjacent uses, (2) recreation, (3) traffic, (4) access, and (5) drainage. The traffic analysis being prepared by Chris Brown should address both the access question and traffic impacts from the proposals. The City is concerned about recreational impacts including integration into on-site design and more specific methods of mitigating those impacts which should . be submitted by the applicants. In addition, the Public Works Director has raised the question of adequate downstream drainage capacities. An engineering analysis addressing this drainage question is necessary prior to the final en- vironmental determination. Since the rezoning of the subject parcels is the first step to construction, issuing a Declaration of Non-Significance could suggest to the applicants that the proposed densities would also be acceptable from an environmental impact point of view. Therefore, the Committee wants their points of concern adequately addressed. Disclosure of this information will determine the ultimate positions of each of the Cities departments . The Committee is in a borderline position between requiring an Environmental Impact Statement or issuing a Declaration of Non-Significance. The responses to the points of concern are critical. They must include specific methods of mitigation. Preliminary responses should be submitted within 30 days. Sincerely, Roger J. Blaylock, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE JANUARY 21, 1981 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 10: 00 A.M. : THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM PENDING BUSINESS: JAMES BANKER (ECF-623-80, SP-111-80) MT. OLIVET CEMETERY COMPANY (ECF-567-80, SP-047-80) OLD BUSINESS: SP-047-80 MT. OLIVET CEMETERY COMPANY ECF-567-80 Application for special permit to fill and grade 11-acre expansion area; property located north and east of existing Mt. Olivet Cemetery, east of N.E. 3rd Street, in the vicinity of 100 Blaine Avenue N.E. NEW BUSINESS: R-125-80 DAVE BEST ECF-634-80 Application for rezone from G to R-3 to permit future construction of multiple family dwellings; property located on the west side of Talbot Road South approximately 1,000 feet south of S.W. 43rd Street R-135-80 FRED BOWSER ECF-642-80 Application for rezone from G to R-2 to permit future construction of multiple family dwellings; property located on the west side of Talbot Road South approximately 1/4 mile south of S.W. 43rd Street R-001-81 DURWOOD E. BLOOD ECF-001-81 Application for rezone from R-1 to R-2 to permit future construction of ten townhouse condominium units; property located on the south side of N. E. 14th Street approximately 130 feet west of Edmonds Avenue N.E. R-137-80 RENTON VILLAGE VETERINARY SUPPLY COMPANY V-007-81 Applications for rezone from GS-1 and R-4 ECF-646-80 to B-1 to allow parking for commercial business and variance for reduction of required setback from 20 feet to 10 feet, relocation of required 5 foot landscaping requirement to portion of right-of-way of SR-515, and lease of 20-foot strip of SR-515 right-of-way for relocated 5-foot landscaping strip; property located on the east side of Talbot Road South, south of FAI-405 and north of Puget Drive South SME-110-80 CITY OF RENTON ECF-002-81 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Application for exemption from the Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit to allow maintenance dredging of sedimentary deposits from the bed of the Cedar River from the mouth of the Cedar River to the Logan Street Bridge (approximately 1. 2 miles) • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE JANUARY 21, 1981 PAGE TWO SP-451-7.9 BURLINGTON NORTHERN, INC. ECF-523-70 Review of Declaration of Significance regarding application for special permit to fill approximately 24. 35 acres situated between Lind Avenue S.W. and Springbrook Creek and. .between S.W. 27th and S.W. 30th Streets SM-86-80 PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY ECF-630-80 Application for Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit to allow installation of steel 18" OD casing pipe within the Bronson Way Bridge that crosses the Cedar River west of City Hall SA-008-81 WM. S. TSAO & CO. (POITRAS) ECF-005-81 Application for site approval for develop- ment of small shopping center to be situ- ated on three lots; property located on the south side of N.E. 4th Street approxi- mately 600 feet west of Union Avenue N.E. I / • / • Date circulated : 11a/g/ Comments due : /43/9/ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIE19 SHEET ECF - 6'/ APPLICATION No (s ) .2-f3- -Re) PROPONENT : R,i4i e,- FI- Z . PROJECT TITLE : P el.76 ,— Brief Description of Project : (4a ctuesF p �pyl� SU jc'c7cSi�e �� if il f ,,(( 'Crpw� � 1 e g-oZ `Eor-Euellor- cOnSt.trc2�C�'e)h /I lPif, 1,�l asaa°'l� OCvf<rj LOCATION : U Side To-lh0t a d.S. as09 r-o • /SSOD' 5 . 0fSW SITE AREA : egfiggtei-e g BUILDING AREA (gross ) DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3 ) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : v� 5 ) Animal life : 1� 6 ) Noise : 7) Light & glare : 8 ) Land Use ; north : Opletce(owed east : cn e//ve •s/y!6' NCI-41 J y south : Cca rl west : erg 6t2/7LiiSA'//7 Land use conflicts : View obstruction : /Jo1 fA e(� • 9) Natural resources : ! 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( I T E ) iin p s/4, �h s J-"s. �oro/ Joi ?.z traffic impacts : ' .I%Oi�Hevc ;e in i�A1 U 'e pa�rOr�s ���'�@ set r3./6®79d.- 14 ) Public services : 15 ) Energy : • 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : p� 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : 1t ezee���av� (4) r1t COMMENTS : rllf.5fore osc,i Q°tOl f'�lo�dS�c/ r J= f®rma 6On (st d9r•cm-tQ,`✓s y r [ ..lam �.,.t / � Q�I 'G1 714 ild/e t i !rt^^'- jr4 '` k G eirLS'reu l a i�� ®r~+ r fit fl/a/e 5 4ti1'riarailu5 O (nvi1-(e Lc,° ���� frei 'a(pn j443tv(�c's /fee'0(,fra4�17I evi/l(h," CD-c�'-4 '-// jve,a g 15®� e u,•-zrGf m,11a-'t,-eca-�s'.ar -( Oafc,'/[7C'e5 �f4''[': /me 45 . Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information Reviewed b y : c71�ug GLILo rr Title : /T5 Si.41- t Zi,,,c<r- Date : /fp/gl // ALk,5u6.1. �- 7�o S.�V�'�t e �' f C Parsdiscusse FORM: ERC-06 Oil1 (r(oo4n1evrl5 IF /7 NPR / CITY OF RENTON • RE7ONE APPLICATION ' FOR OFFICE USE ONLY APPLICATION NO. A /3 S". 0 LAND USE HEARING APPLICATION NO. EXAMINER 'S ACTION APPLICATION FEE $ APPEAL FILED RECEIPT NO . CITY COUNCIL ACTION FILING DATE ORDINANCE NO. AND DATE HEARING DATE . APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 : . 1 . Name FRED BOWSER Phone 872-5398 Address 16044 - 16th Ave. S.W. Seattle, Wa. 98166 3. Property petitioned for rezoning is located on TALBOT ROAD SOUTH .® between 43rd and 55th Avenue South 4 . Square footage or acreage of property 8.48 Acres 5 . Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach a separate sheet) • T `The North half of the North half of the Northwest quarter ' -, • of the Southeast quarter, Section 31, Township 23 North, ;. •Range 5 Haat, W.M., in King County, Washington, lying West • '.r -' .-or Road; except the East 300 feet of the North - L',. . • :half of. the- North haft-of the North half of the Northwest 44 -quarter of the Southeast quarter; and except that portion thereof conveyed to the State of Washington for PSH No. 5.. N^`; ~� by Deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 5282262. - a.. i , M^ . ! TOGETHER WITH an easement for ingress, egress and utilities u7 c" over, through and across the following described'property: '� -' ' `..! 1. The'N. 30' of the E. 300';of the.S. 1/2 of the N. 1/2 of 6 1 1 ".�' .the N. 1/2' of the NW 1/4 of the SE1/4; Section .31, T. 23 N„ , C1-4 A s72 R. 5 E...W.M., in Ring County, Washington, EXCEPT that portion .. • ; thereof -lying within Kent-Renton Road. AND the S. 30'r. ' of '1:':;� s �; the E.:300' c!` 'ha N. 1/2 of the N. 1/2 0 the N. 1/2 of the. ' ' •.:c,, •: :NW 1/4 of the SE 1/v; of .said Section 31, T. 23 N., R• 5 E., y.• "ti;;.,'; W.A.,. in King-County, via• ;,�cf+trre...z}4<L=EPT that portion thereof s 'lying within Rent-Renton Ro.;4 t. . ,. 6 . Existing Zoning G Zoning Requested R-2 , NOTE TO APPLICANT: The following factors are considered in reclassifying property. Evidence or additional information to substantiate your request may be attached to this sheet. (See Application Procedure Sheet for specific requirements . ) Submit this form in duplicate. 7. Proposed use of site MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 8. List the measures to be taken to reduce impact on the surrounding area. The development will be constructed to all building ordinances of the City of Renton including such ordinances as grading and filling, storm water run-off, utilities, landscaping and site density as well as aesthetic standards to enhance the surrounding area. 9 . How soon after the rezone is granted do you intend to develop the site? Within one year if financing is available. 10 . Two copies of plot plan and affidavit of ownership are required. Planning Dept. 1-77 . •.-.7 .51 1 , 41W, - 6.17-i, 1 ,1 /I.':• 4 Iri( .,111 , ,:., # '' " . , j 4.`.'1' ,..,-e,... .,,, - ,,-." ; ' �A., i.,.... :,..,,,it,iti,,,F,4.ii."...„,,i::;:,..,40:11e.4. .roo>ic.-: j //t 0 ..'-a,, A• - , e ,, . . .. -.- ...,-- _ .4 It ' 1 • P1' l !7 i , ,/` , j 1 I i jr �' i '.1 ��' • ..„,...: • I It I r ` t f ` J' ei t f I f t '�a ' • .�; . ip.N 2,':' : / • • 4 x CCC • 4 t± R ,4 .,,'4 j , °, -• !,, , . ..i, . 4 .4 a a• ' < I ! } •1 j .: . -,‘ , ,m_ ' - �. y :f 3: t t [ Ow it - . _ +> _. r t 71,.. . Og. k.\ I ' $ • DEC24 .11 -Atf§: 4 i � G DE.PNp.� / , • • , i.- 60\1) PO.'"si... 6z _._ ®Ev _ _ , . . . , . • . . . /al .. . .. . . . . : i.1 .. • . : . 4. . it/ .: . . .. - .. ....:.A . - i • :. . . . - • VAL L E Y_� .N�ER.A L • -Mort • _�F7LOS_P_• Y�.L -Stair . m.I 1 I im 11.41 ilariJdOrr /it .LI I . • . . :•• • maw . •4 3 rd Ave. .__ ���� — 7 _ 1 -11 ir7rif). trip,: .,•:, :.. .r. . . jr_1::.. /.7. . . .. / r119"_____Ed . • :......: : ...:...i..-.:..... :.......:.:. . . ...„...: /4-.)?(-. .,-.c,i. .: '. / :..r_ 4 0� 1 • - ILI ii,!.,,i,1 ' . -.-: . , , ,_ . , . , .. . . • ide.d) • + ,,..-3, . . 4P,,, 7....:-......:- i�I J• ......• ...:. . . 111 .. mirmir. . ��� ♦ :: ...., .;. "Lir Fic,f2fili.) A i ! • n„, :: : al, Aff _ Ar /_.,:l • ..: . . it..i, 1 . .. . „ ... . •• . . . .. .. . .. . . • . . . . . . . . .. . .. . ,, ..fii, A.,-,_ . . .. --. . . . , . ..-:.. _,B . ,:,, I AlEvammon.- . . I:,:.I ''—',- • . — 7.. .7 - ". . . I rill llr i :.-.i... ... .i. ':• .. / 0 i: .011/A3,1=C*4 — if • , I • _ — - Toll e• 1/1*.11 'I) ...::: '.1:'..-'''---:•*.. . • 1 1 : 'If 0•e f IP ioArti___JI ,:-, • .. .- ijo -• . . .., 3. ,• ,„,../ tiro °raj ::11.....01!;...::::01111.56Pia. riki: . iihr:1 riP NrigNAILIW , . .• '.. .1 ' 1 111M4114.1 Iii:9"°111ti" ---11511141i. .r - Magl... i ':1'(** It' 'M1111. 11.rli iig ':2:ji! I 1- “ .. ' ‘,.11 Ii)., \';'.4.1-'c - i ,' O as -, t Aligii.74 1:::::::41 targirimgay 1 Ili \Amu igr. . II- .4.1vi I,- "111 II i , N . . .1\ re MIMI— !.,.*.r -'-'_.AC , t ___,!. , me p l r ` Y •Os Oe OeOxOh - I i1iiqi 6,.. ti. -\_ lit ,inareei 'El - rl. r'''' 'MilliAllrn tYt) In—Mlimmig •-• '• 03 LE 4--' 1. Ti . el .__--- ___-, O o.•i_._ O�.p i 0 A :* tily�l k� . ( .. . . [ ...\1 iontoi '- iii •7- fp; , Millinnimmin I INC: Tzg-. ,... 5 Paa 040 -11° 714 r L l!' _se. LE_ :50 1 11 4111111111 . \ (.' A ii tai l IIJW. 1 L , _ ....4, %111041114 .b.,4'' ,. .____ • i r Ili 0 / r(a' • ( .. . —71 -... ö1 *L 'fIII \ \\t \ I ( '1 ( \ [ - — - Ii - ® I i j f 7 J' c` i t.. , ( • REZONE APPLICATION Nov. 16,1980 ''A RE: REZONE 8.48 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF VALLEY GENERAL HOSPITAL TO R-2 CLASSIFICATION. I. APPLICATION The proposed rezone of this property is in compliance with both the plan and the policies of the City of Renton as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Existing conditions indicate that this application is appropriate and timely and should be favorably received. In December of 1979, the City of Renton amended its Comprehensive Plan for this area. At that time Alternative C was adopted which called for R-2 .I,ow,..• Density Multiple Family Residential for this property (See Exhibit A- Proposed Site C Area attached) . The environmental impact of Alternative C was discussed on Pages 111-3 through 111-12 in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Southeast Renton Comprehensive Plan by the City of Renton Planning Department dated July, 1979 which is attached. ' In particular, the selection of this site for multiple family sites was based mainly on its location. First, the site is immediately adjacent to 43rd Avenue, a major arterial connected to the Renton Valley Industrial Area and to the freeway.S.R. 167. Second, the site is within walking distance of the rapidly expanding Valley General Hospitalwith a present payroll of over 1100 employees. Third, multiple family housing on this site will dramatically shorten the driving time for those working in the immediate area and in the Renton Valley. It is logical to put multiple family homes as close as is feasible to work centers. Last, the selection of this site for multiple family homes is in keeping with the City's policy of encouraging in-filling of central areas to slow down urban sprawl and to minimize the environmental damage associated with urban growth. II. ENVITONMENTAL IMPACTS As mentioned earlier, the environmental aspects of this application were discussed in the Draft Statement. There are some items in that discussion, however, that we would like to relate to this application in particular. 1--"---'17.-ii:A/7-0 -s, c0- . 4/ '\'‘, oEo 7� 19 w-• .e..-'''.-- �CyNINGpQF r i 4 -2- A. Geology and Topography (Page 111-9) The existing slopes will be modified slightly to accommodate..this .development. Only slight grading and filling will be used to construct parking areas and landscaped berms along Talbot Road. Except for the possible detention pond location at the bottom of the greenbelt, no alteration of the steep westerly slope along the freeway s will occur. B. Soils (Page 111-9) Slight alteration of soil will occur for berms, 1 leveling of parking areas and footings. C. Erosion (Page 111-9) Most of the existing pasture will be removed which will increase erosion slightly during construction but the finished development - L will be full landscaped. ' D. Water (Page 111-9) Storm water run-off from this pasturelani is presently draining westerly to the State Highway 167 property. The run-off is then culverted across the road to East Valley Highway and then flows to the Green River which ultimately flows into the Puget Sound. The increased run-off from this development will be retained to prevent flooding according to City Ordinance in either a detention pond along our west property line or by means of an underground storage system. The metered discharge will then proceed as at present. E. Air (Page 111-9) It is true that air quality within the vicinity of this site will decrease since the site is presently in pasture. On the other hand, the reduction of driving time due to housing made available closer to work centers should increase the quality of air in the over-all area. F. Noise (Page 111-10) Likewise, it is true that the noise level within the area will increase due to its present usage. On the other hand, the reduction of driving times and increased ability to walk or bicycle to work should lower the over-all noise levels. G. Economics (Page 111-11) There is a definite market demand for residential unite in this area. The City of Renton has the lowest vacancy rate in King County and all condominium projects in this area are selling well in spite of , !9l interest rates. Quality housing is in short supply for hospital staff . " \\_1V6 °4'- ' 2,tk1 O _ -3- and for the adjacent industrial commercial areas. there is no doubt that this development will be a market success. Additionally, .this development should be beneficial to the retail area at Benson and Petrovitsky. This development will also upgrade the surrounding residential area which, compared to new developments, has not had any new construction as of late. This should spur the neighborhood to improve its streets and utilities. . H. Transportation/Circulation (Page 111-11) It is true that this project will increase traffic on Talbot Road and will also increase morning and evening turning movements at the 43rd and Talbot intersection. On the other hand, 43rd is slowly but surely being upgraded. It will be widened this coming year across the Valley to the west. It is also inevitable that it will be widened to five lanes going east from the intersection. Placing these homes close to the work centers will help to reduce driving times all along Petrovitsky and will encourage others to walk or bicycle to their work. The over-all result will be beneficial in our opinion. In accordance with the Planning Department, we believe it is necessary to construct a public road across our property that will connect to Talbot Road at one location. This road will serve to discharge the increased traffic associated with this site and the adjacent sites in one controlled location instead of many isolated points along Talbot Road. We have set aside a 60' R.O.W. as shown on the site plan with a 34' road to be constructed at our expense and according to the ordinances and plans of the City of Renton. This road will significantly mitigate the impact of traffic associated with this development. III. SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN STANDARDS Although the finished product is never identified till the plans receive final approval from all involved parties, certain planning and design standards have been determined already. A. Site Planning. Numerous smaller buildings of two storey height ® ,; ••N south or west for maximum view and energy savings will predominate. -� s �a ntation along Talbot Road will also keep the site visually open to• aECFI�� \., � 4 198� " DEG Z "'A/A,�NGDEP P� ( - 4 - (. vehicular and pedestrian traffic. In addition the setback along Talbot Road has been increased by 10' to further remove and lower the buildings as well as to provide more space for landscaping and berming. Parking areas will be adjacent to the units and as many spaces covered as possible subject to a 35% site coverage restriction. All buildings along the greenbelt and steep Llopes on the western periphery have been set back to preserve the area in its natural state. B. Design Standards Wood frame construction over concrete footings or covered concrete parking will be the basic structural system. All buildings will be wood-sided. with sloped roofs covered with shingles or wood shakes. All units will have private patios and separate walls for maximum sound insulation. Insulation will consist of a minimum R-11 factor in the exterior walls and a minimum R-19 factor for ceilings. All windows will be anodized thermopanes for minimum heat loss. IV. CONCLUSION As shown by the preceeding discussion, we believe this rezoning application is both timely and appropriate. Both the plan and policies of the Renton Comprehensive Plan indicate that this site is intended for the R-2 classifi- cation. In addition, the environmental impacts of this development have been substantially mitigated to the extent that this project is a benefit to the area and to the City of Renton. Last, the site planning and design standards will assure the acceptance acceptance of this project by the inhabitants, by the surrounding area and by the City of Renton. c5 R Eivi.. ) ,.-� �_ \1 ®1 C� 2,4 195) • - . , . • .• , • • _ .._ -717..e. ";" :•::;.••:::::: '''•Alriv'•••••..•.:........•;•;•••:•:''''.1•C''' .:':':•%11.•;.:!'"':W.•*":::s..". 1,:10::••••••:.• *::',..:.;::::!:”.•:•::'•:•.....:•:•x::',. •:,.:.•••....:-..:: .:.•:••.•:.....:•..................:i.. .. ''''Vial NM VIP WI tow •.•::eir 4i-A. .:.::::,::::::::::::::::::::::. ,$),.;• ::::::::.:•:•: .•:,•••••••.•:•:••••:•.- ••••••••••••• ••". • • 1---6 41....1:•:;.:8iiiiiiiINNAtirapill. .), ._ ':.':. „irsi,,-. 7.4F:,:it4-0.:.:,..- „, „ ................. .I .. '..:;::::....:k.i.,..........-..-.....;:::::;:, \,,..,,,,,.. . :.........: :9 ie4.- .4....:•.• •,v•i',.,, .. •qtg,4::,:..:.:::::.. . .c.•44I, .: - ...:.: .4.f_K-.)., ilif"to •_:.i:::: ::1: . ..,...4-:-.:•.::••:•: :: ...•,•::::•:„.„, -:-. -44444:: : •i„:,.iti:1::::;•::..i:::::::,,i::::,:::::•:•:„.:•:.:•:•.. :•:.:. . ,, .::ii,.i,.:•i:;•/41•.•,-v: i-•-'::!. •• _: ,••,.... :•:.:•••:. :.:i:,.:i . .„.......„.:..s.:...:•::*:•:::::::im,:•;:i::.::::: . t •:::::: ?mg.•:?. .4::;._.:*::::::i:::::::::::........izi:::::,:ti:::::: , •::::!!: ., -:).:ii,..pii. i.41,01/2:A,,,::iii:•:%: •.‘, ..:.:::::::: :::.. ,..,„. . ielg 1::•!.:::NiniiiiirNi-ii.:-: \ ii: Ap•••:,,,-,,,A., ...._,2,..:i:i:4::: .:•:::.:*::::.:, i ..,.-• cot.4putte. Ive. ft••••. .-1:p....4wr-.. ,,,T.,,,'.i,4.....:zi:K: . - ... ii!;:i!'..':":::-:x•''':•:-.:::'.--ii4, c'• -'...- .-:0 ,01,4•., :.•:f:T. P'%-i:?•,..;.':••-4.,:.:s.,' : .;. •• tI.::..P.010.-11.41:11 1 40•s 't:•••••.....s. •--''.,-.:.:::.::.,r:: ...f•T? ...,0,,,:i,:iii,::,,.•,•, ... •-.. , .- • .... • • . ..., ....._-.0„,,...rw , •••cs ...r.;‘,.......:,,,--- --,N,-.44 Alternoctive -Iv •tte 1:::.i...., .k.,,,:,:.•1:.„...EN a :::,.i:,i::::• .i ::..f:lir A. -p: 1 e ,:•1•• .,,,,,„,,,.. ::.,:.,....4.. .:„.1 „ .:4•.v.r :-,••:-.. ,•*. . ......,..:.....a:i:;•!. *i::. •;i:i:i:-,, . aggig 41..?,!, • . -9' • -:'. :,%;•..ri. -:.:•,:::..•,.,,,,,,w, Parade1 Plan• :::.::::::.• ifs.0 ..,k, •-•.•:,..1,.::s..,...::::: :::.::1, - ..:,... ..,........4--, 4.7 4:...,,ot:i4R,-,;:i.*•::::::::.-. ,., 1 ,';•,,,? a. ••••N. ••41..r.ALL...7._ :::::•,::::...'.I ... , :!.:i:•:.i:U:!,.‘......• .::1:;;;:::::::*ii 1 p•Ir..„:::::; II ,, .......„.../N,._, ?... ..::::,:,..„:,: '*E:5;:::::::Wiii.•"::V:::•'; _.:,.- .:;:ii•ii:,:. .,- :'. '1 ',,. ...11-5.1F INCKF.AVD MULTifta -r.,...„ ,:timip:::•.:,:-::::, •:•:. ::•••• . ., *,L.::::K4.0::::". .-....::•::i.*::::,:::f.:i . •?,,' . FAMILY ALTEKNATIv _ r., 1,,,:y:• ....:•:. •:...... :•:•:.: .•:.:•, 1-, p- ,..:„. . . : .„..,, c_..... ,..,.... . .. ,... ....:...:::„.1:41.. ttl'.7,--; ,: • . • • , • •• - •:.i.:::; v•::::•t::•:.,:f•::::::::::*,iiiii§iv..:i. •:.....::::::::::::;:::,qrz, I ;.:;-....r. 1, .. " ..o.. • Rtreit. 1b THE. I.ANIDVec:Z AND . .ii;:::i:•iiii:::. .:::•%•::i i::1:ir:::::*:.:::::::::::::::::::: .:.• ..„::::,::::::::::v....i,rr, .. • -,- 17.. kfft:,.x..;tialiPiiiii'...:.::.............:::i ..,iii'...::iiii:......,:-ilz- • k-I.d,...,?,• . . • -,• GOMP-tUNITY PAGit..rrlaea MAP Feole. .„....,.... „,,,,„,„,„,::....:......... •• .. ..:.:::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:.:.:.: :.:.:.: ..:. ._,„,,, i:.,,. •.,,,,,,.,,,,..,..„.... as LANIPPbZ l&P•013•01, ;:...• • ...• ...:.:.:.:. ;*:,:•0:::::;x::::::::::::::: :::::••.::. -.,41, • • ,.......:•:.:.:. .:.:.:,......:•3:4:.:k.,>%•:.:-:•:•:.: ...."• ,..,,,t• ••••••••••••••4;li ''• . • : :••:-:•::'-Mi:i:::;.,SX:ge*M•54::::::::::::::- • ya-;',.Z."'',:..• •/ . • 0 'ter • •0:::::•'•• :'::X:if::it:::0•:::i*i:X:4:iiiii:;:iiiii':iii:•::::f.cr..W-./,- ; k pr ,. . •• . .. .......:::::::::: •y:::::.i,..:iigeif:i,.:i!..::::,;::i.:..... .:.•,,L,A-2•.:,..*:..-.':/ /7 •• it... --- .....1 . .* . :a::•.;.;e4 la•:•"*::i.:::..e•' '.•::•••:?-67-••:: r el:,'' / / / . • tS. .. 0 4. 4. I f.-11Le .'At MIK..!.'• ,..4 •:'.. . • s'., ...-e 2,4,,,,,,5*.r,,,--%-,--- -.. i '4::.,7:,.:.$4,:5',.•.• - .... • 14tiOtt•':.• f • 7....""•••••••to.._.1Z-r;/,. 'i ' r 1 .• Nq:'%4....----*r, :::::::..s.4 i.-.1,. • ,;. :-.....',; , --..;f;...4...4; : • . . 7r. . ..,... , .0 le... • PPP .ti 'FA-MI.4°1P Pe..:. h6f• .:}°"-ii ''.. '-'''' '.-:la' flP1' ..i .,-....,.....0 • f. ::::;:i:i11-"-Fz".• . " - • 4--,4, •' . .'::4::,...: -,- • ... • CID. • •... ...,. iiii::!:;:::N:. • . 1044;Sf, ,. •:•••.:,%::::.„,..". • . - r ‘ -.it, „ • wie.,:.'. " / :,- n,f44, k. .,; . - -;;;:. •••, S' . '.. ' ' 4 ..i.•!•• . . L. ..%44s- . r:;?.::i::::-A.' • ....t• • ........ . .-- .... • •••., A ‘,..t- /...;',./y/k, ;};;.! •.. •.4e, • Clit,Sti ''. ix • . ..: • " •• .,•"-z&--___11...., .. • -.. '..--P_. ::*.g::•:-,.. .-:. •• • ti 44 v:.,:v.,•••4, •dr•r!'%•: 4. '‘.."...,so• .. "Virlog2 . : .;" '`.: , ' . ; 716,-10.41...._ . -....;,.... -: ::::).:::::: ,... . . t. t'i ' k Af•••i"::ltri../4.64.a..;,,t.t;Iji. : ' '•'AS ' ',- . .. ,.r., .., • .7--,-.... 44.....4. ..., :iig:?i1:-;f•.-: • ' 1 g..--.• i , •i, ". . - ' . , 4 • • - •1"- A. I .4... ."..• . ••• -:.::::,::::::i::::',. • . Sa!I '4..\..,.. .... . .. , " ::;:::i::.:::i: 41., \ • ! V, . ' • 1 . • . ASf. . 1:, .' . . Sect...fly i. :::::::*:*1.,.`I`z ' .1 • i; .:!•:•:•::::..,,. r.P,X t• , ;•::::::•:::::::4 .3.,...ft ..C.,....:,..--.- : .r .1 i. rar4jeel til Main Derr4hi . :::i:Xii:K 11•I't - I e„" .41 fil.::;.4 1 • A Ll' .; ., . • ,.. N. . V• - /i 'tiWili -if.:4L • " A •.''..**."'11 I..' - .. -; it70:1:"! H VI h '. 6111/1 •..-....‹. ''', t c)..-• r*.i--.._21.-•''.:: ..r. -.v../ ....._,_........ ..:\ // Ik'iii:*: ii;, i .1. .`••••"••P`'"--."\ Ft .: i _, ;; I • "i i 5::::::::::::: ::',,..,.- t Lg.t • \ t''• . •-• i '...."4----.....,.. :•:•:.:.:.:-:. :.:;-.., • • • , \ '''''• , 4 • . .., ........ . .... , ,.. 4 • • • • .,• • '.•: :,.:.X g IA,. ,• \ ,, ..... .,.. ........., .-. ... .4 • 1. t..-7,..!...r.., : N:ii. e:::,•..-..„., . ; • .. • . \ !4 . • .-.• •:.:::::i:.::i:i:.:::*iii:::::.::ii-:::"i:'::.:•..::=::.U":)::..:;4:::e::.:--:.,::;:::':!:..:•::;:i:-::Ki::-:i::.::_:,::,:..:,:•-..'4•:'-w,.';.z-•s,„; :.1i•1_\-,.N'-1•••••• • . •a 1 •••4.'t1 , -:),7....•; e r• ‘r.•... . . \.-11.4•i:rt-;'1-.).4•.•.7310;:\ . . . , - • 1' ••..•' t 1, 1x: 23Cr;; t ..it _,.3'i..4...,.......,..",..e:t,,.•x ,:i ' i . •-•.- „ •-..__' • • • . ; %. i• I •,'.,,y,„•,..\:.:.m.-::-*:..':::.;,:::•::::.i::::.:.i:::•::::iiii,::i:il:1:i::•.;:i444l.:•:::i.i-a1:.:i•:i:1;:;•:::,:...;:....•:i.:*:.::i-t:,.:1.1:i:;•'.:i,-•.x:.:l ",-.."..1.,''...,4..L,.•.?:1,4.1.,.,:.2;::.!•,':,,•':.•:/'.i ,I b.,•• a.../ic.•x,. J-46. . • .' ep.‘..i,.//•/7•/:,.-.';'.'.".N,.,t....•:..7 a.j-.l7'..',..::.17-....;.•'•„.:*:•.9:.-:4.:..-r 1&..-:;•.•1.•;*.:.'•.1:,,•'4.1 ,A..‘..,I•.....\..,e\ ..i.r.-•..1,I•-,•z•-&,i•.••I,,y_.._.0•\\,\..,... \v,c v.z•y\rc\r--ss -.4:r:.:ie\a c-. riS°. •..-.•...P....:,..- . : : -' 0 1 - Irr : \ \ t 4- rop1 / /"'f " Vl Ns\ Ha wn r19 - - "...,1,:•; To.r.-..._.•i, • •. ..,\N • .. ..... .,....„ ,;,•:,..,-.., . ".".• -••••!•:•::!•:•:tric. ' • ,...‘ ( "....\'\ •:::•;ii;ii:i . ii.:,1 AN Ftni 1 I, Mufti - • ...-...,:ji; . .i ',..?4 12/ -, .,... .I .!: •..., . .. •.... ' .. .:. ..•••. r., i t . . Cr3—k \ •o... •xf a\raiii ,Pr: 5", ' \ ..... . - \\ ':'... -St' ..• " ' t . `- \ ... . • ....- ...•-• i re; • . • . • • ••••••• ...... . ......,, -,, • ,...(: •:0 I ,,,.. ,, . , . I e ...2.) I " ;Y ia r 41"17 t,___ArPi- • kr" \ 41 . • • ips -11, _ 1 r—-- '-- \ \ cl' • /1/ .., . . 1 areallit , ' •///- .4•• • ...... . ‘.`‘ ,, • . 1 ......-ne. 0 ..,,:,..- ._ . . 0 /000 2_cco 'con 4oco c00 Peer ::I:, Frvivetl 1-0c0. -renr-415/ g r----7---- ..:.:.::, .,...3.:„., multi - Family •. ...,e., . .:.:.,::,?i , . 0 -----il I -1';',,'' Z'' . ' I g. . .::.,,,ti. . • III - 5 • , . .. . PROPOSED (-' RESIDENTIAL USE ACRES @ UNITS/ACRE HOMES @ PERSONS/HOME PERSONS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (WEST OF TALBOT) 71 4 units/Ac 285 ,'3.5 persons/home 1000 (EAST OF TALBOT) 55� 4 units/Ac 220 3.5 persons/home 770 MEDIUM DENSITY 81 30 units/Ac. 260 2.5 personslhome 650� MULTIPLE LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE .(WEST OF TALBOT) 81 11 units/Ac 90 2,5 persons/home 225 (EAST OF TALBOT) 61 11 units/Ac 70 2.5 persons/home 175 TOTAL PERSONS: 2820 The population projected by 'this amendment represents a 35% increase over current projected population. Schools: The following table compares the current Comprehensive Plan to the proposal of this report: . CURRENT .. . RESIDENTIAL USE HOMES @ STUDENTS/HOME STUDENTS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (WEST OF TALBOT) 350 0.5 students 175 (EAST OF TALBOT) 245 0.5 students 120 TOTAL STUDENTS: 295 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USE HOMES @ STUDENTS/HOME STUDENTS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (WEST OF TALBOT) 285 0.5 students 140 (EAST OF TALBOT 220 0.5 students 110 MEDIUM DENSITY 260 0.25 students 65 MULTIPLE . LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE (WEST OF TALBOT) 90 0.25-students 25 (EAST OF TALBOT) 70 0.25 students 15 TOTAL STUDENTS: 355 The student population projected is a 20% increase over the current Comprehensive Plan. 1II-7 CURRENT RESIDENTIAL USE HOMES @ TRIPS/HOML TRIPS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (WEST OF TALBOT) 350 10 trips/home 3500 (EAST OF TALBOT) 245 10 trips/home 2450 TOTAL TRIPS: 5920 : PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL. USE HOMES @ TRIPS/HOME • TRIPS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL • (WEST OF TALBOT) 285 10 trips/home 2850 (EAST OF TALBOT) . 220 10 trips/home 2200 MEDIUM DENSITY 260 6.Ti tri ps/home ]5q0 MULTIPLE _ LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE . (WEST OF TALBOT) 90 6. 1 trips/home ccn (EAST OF TALBOT) .7U 6.1 trips/home 430 TOTAL TRIPS: 7620 Assuming that traffic generated in the north half of the subject area will go north to 43rd, and the traffic generated at the south will go southerly to ' 55th, the current Comprehensive Plan will add 1920 trips northerly (31% over the current 6,000 trips at Talbot and 43rd). The proposed Comprehensive Plan under the same assumption will add 4240 trips northerly or 70% over the current traffic, due primarily to the concentration of multiple family at the north. Due to the fact that S.W. 43rd provides both freeway access and a direct route to both shopping and employment centers to the. west, the traffic in- crease at Talbot and 43rd will almost certainly be greater than in the pre- ceding '. paragraph. In either case, the traffic demand will be greater for the proposed Plan amendment than under the current plan. COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS BY ALTERNATE PLAN The following table briefly compares the environmental impacts of. the three alternatives as they relate to the Southeast Quadrant Study Area - Proposed Plan, Increased Multiple Family, and No Action (Maintain Current Plan). • III — 8 4 EMENTS OF THE PROPOSED PLAN INCREASED MULTIPLE FAMILY "NO ACTION" - MAINTAIN NVIRONMENT (PP) (IMF) CURRENT PLAN (MCP) OLOGY & Modified slopes and geologic Some increase in grading or filling Some areas designated POGRAPHY structure will occur due to will occur in the specific site Greenbelt in the PP grading and filling of individual proposals. could be adversely development. activities. • altered under the MCP. ILS Individual developments will alter Same as PP Same as PP except those or remove soils, although areas areas designated Green- where the adverse effects of such belt in the PP, if action 'are most critical have been developed under the MCP, designated Greenbelt (no develop- could experience adverse ment). soil modifications. OSION Some increases in erosion because Same as.PP Same as PP of construction activity, � . 1 removal of vegetation and increases in total runoff volumes, however, City ordinances affecting - drainage, grading and filling, provide for erosion reduction ' measures. TER Storm water runoff from develop- Same as PP Same as PP ments will be controlled in accordance with City ordinances. However, surface water and ground- water may be modified due to place- • ment of impervious surfaces and soil and vegetation modifications. Surface water quality may be affected by increased sedimentation and urban pollutants, but the requirement for connections of developments to sewers should protect groundwater quality. ' I i J R Some adverse air quality impacts The IMF will have greater The MCP will have the • will be attributable to increased air quality impacts then the PP least added impact, al- vehicle trips and dust during • within the vicinity of the though some air quality development. •This alternative will three specific sites because of degredation will still have some increase in air quality increased traffic movement. occur 'as a result of impacts over the MCP. ,development allowed by the MCP. )RA/FIUNA Development under the PP will 'alter Same as PP. Only minor Greenbelt • floral and faunal patterns mitigation is proposed (e.g. vegetation and habitat • in the MCP, thus displacement) although maintenance some species may be of the Greenbelt areas will serve adversely affected. _ to lessen the impact. _ ._.._ . , • THREE ALTERNATE SOUTHEAST RENTON COMPREHENSIVE PLANS COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ELEMENTNS OF MENTT PROPOSED I�D PLAN INCREASEIMU(PP) TIPLE FAMILY "NOCACTION"URRENT - MAINTAIN N INTAIN ENVIRO NOISE Noise increases are directly The IMF will have greater noise The MCP will have the related to traffic and popu- impacts than the PP within the least added noise impact ' lation density. The PP will vicinity of the specific sites although some noise . generate increased noise because of increased traffic increase will still (above that generated by MCP) and population density. occur as a result of ' due to both. factors. . development allowed by the MCP. LIGHT & GLARE Light and glare impacts are The IMF will have greater light The MCP will have the related primarily to develop- and glare impacts than the PP least added light and meat intensity: 'The PP will in the vicinity of the glare impact, alto h increase light and glare more three specific sites as a result some increase will , 'cm than the MCP. of increased development intensity. as a result of develop- • meat allowed by the MCP. NATURAL RESOURCES • Natural• resources include those Because of its greater development The PP will have the that can be derived from an area, intensity, the IMF will consume least impact upon . those resources (land, soils) more of these resources. resource consumption, • used within an area, as well as although some resource . , those resources consumed by locations may be lost a: 1-4 construction and by consumers. a result of continuous H development allowed by ~ . Natural resources are affected - the MCP. • both by development intensity and location. The PP will be somewhat N - more intense in development and consume more resources than. the - . MCP, but will preserve some crucial • • • resource areas as Greenbelt. • LAND USE I.1 The PP identifies a diversified About 50 additional acres are Same as PP with tl• j mix of land uses. Much of Planning designated for multi-family exception that so_-.- f Area is designated for single- use rather than lower density • those areas identified family- residential use, with smaller, uses. as Greenbelt in the PP more accessible areas designated for are designated for multiple-family and commercial use. possible•development Extensive greenbelt areas are indicated. which could have advers Conversion of land from vacant or land use impacts. , rural uses to urban uses is the primary impact. . POPULATION & HOUSING By 1990 population- is projected to Same as PP with a greater multiple The MCP has the lowest increase from 22% to 44% above 1978 'familyhousing supply available, and projlytho multiple family housing areas levels. The PP provides for a a somewhat increased total population available, yet this is variety of housing types which, at capacity. still larger than the full development, could accomodate expected population at least four times the single • growth by 1990 +. ' family growth expected and almost two times the multi-family • • growth, thus assuring an adequate .. —a.a..m-..�e_. _,�•,.....--_,�._d• r.,tir....Var...sx 1.+. ...cvMr • . ,... _ - —. .._.." . .-.. - .EMENTSMOFTTHE PROPOSED(PP) PLAN INCREASE!)(IMF)MULTIPLE FAMILY "NO CACTION"PLAN INTAIN , OF ECONOMICS The PP envisions a broader variety Same as PP with slightly increased The MCP has the smallest of economic opportunities and larger economic opportunities from variety of uses--most of _ population capacity than the increased multiple family develop- Area is single family . , MCP due to greater land use ment. with very little diversity. Variety should in- commercial or multi- crease economic growth. family designations. So the variety of economic opportunities is smaller than PP, although significant economic growth will still occur. TRANSPORTATION/ The PP will create a greater The IMF will create areas of The MCP has the smalls CIRCULATION number of vehicle trips than increased traffic in the vicinity expected traffic incr the MCP because more higher of the specific sites, each of which and therefore has the density land uses are allowed. may add to adverse impacts of the PP. smallest adverse impact Increased traffic in key corridors Such impact will vary with each upon traffic, although such as Petrovitsky Road, SR 515 specific area, - some adverse effects will and SE 140th may create adverse occur because of impacts. extensive single-family development allowed by the MCP. PUBLIC SERVICES/ Services, utilities and energy Expanded delivery of public The MCP has the least UTILITIES/ENERGY impacts are closely related to services and utilities will be intensive development and population growth. The PP has required to serve development can be expected to have a greater population capacity at the three specific sites. the least adverse impact and allows more intensive Energy consumption will also be although significant development and thus can be slightly increased, impacts will still occur expected to hive a greater as a result of the MCP. impact on services and utilities and energy than the MCP. HUMAN HEALTH Sanitary sewers would be required, Same as PP. Same as PP. thus no adverse impact on health is expected. AESTHETICS Aesthetic (visual and sensual) Same as PP except more Aesthetic impacts will impacts associated with vege- adverse aesthetic impacts in be greater than under PP tation removal, modification of the vicinity of the three because fewer greenbelts natural landscape and conversion specific sites. and park areas are of rural land to urban uses will designated to preserve be experienced, However, Green- steep hillsides and belt designations and development natural drainage. standards of appropriate City ordinances and policies will mitigate impacts. UNAVOIDABLE ADVER:,.r IMPACTS If the proposed Plan is implemented, a number of the adverse impacts discussed above in the Environmental Impacts section will be unavoidable. Generally, these are the adverse impacts associated with development and population growth, wherever this process occurs. Unavoidable adverse impacts include all of the following, to some degree: additional filling and grading; soil modification with ensuing erosion; alteration of runoff ;and other natural drainage characteristics; water quality deterioration because of erosion, sedimentation and urban pollution; increased air pollution resulting from traffic growth; removal of natural vegetation and reduction of wildlife habitat; increased noise, light and glare; conversion of open space and vacant landito urban uses; reduced potential for natural resource extraction; and greater traffic congestion hazards. Population growth -under the proposed Plan also will produce some unavoidable impacts. Population growth will require the construction of new housing and neighborhood commercial services and the expansion of fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, social and health services. Energy consumption for residential and transportation needs will increase and sewer, water, natural gas and electricity extensions will be necessary. These impacts will require greater public expenditures. Higher land values throughout most of the Planning Area will likely result from continued urbanization. Likewise, under the proposed Plan, most of the Planning Area will be committed to urbanization--mainly residential growth. All of the effects mentioned in the above paragraphs will have the adverse impact of reducing the natural aesthetic qualities of the Area, especially the qualities associated with a rural and natural landscape. To some degree this impact is unavoidable, however, each of the above effects is indirect and their intensity is unknown. To the extent that mitigating aspects of Renton development guidelines and ordinances and proposed policies are effective, the unavoidable adverse impacts of urbanization can be moderated. On the other hand, these development standards, guidelines and policies may increase the costs of development. III - 12 ^te a a NN.6�aa - -\ ... ?,?„,\ y •.�,'-ism•* i , 1 .>4 k _ t- x. .4 ♦t,% 4,.4 4 + �` ' :1 • •,.,. b .. 1♦3f■ '�O «, t7 „� .+ • •a• s.. ,..'., t !,�''.3 F T 1 f , +4i„ y *J1{ '2 G.r . - 1. J, a r- i. w.r, H i. .4. %.,A; 7 L1^�C. r''. d _ �'. `r * {. r �: '�l • —, -.. r' a ale a e. { t +� � w / I 1. •qi'''. is f s` -'1 + 1 4 •. i LB mot. a r y j �'` . ` s w+:a `d` , y'•a . .' tom i ^� 'T y } ,' '}, 7 , # Y $ r • M 1 t s x f w_ ,Y '1 :. S 9`'r x'.. ilia'•_ . - , t ' s` 1'N :: .Lar ` S. •4.r .Y, , , 't to./I ..f, f err 0'.."-11•11111".` . ,., - i ,-, c- 0 .. . ., , , zi , , . , ., : 4, .„,,,s. . . cg I ' r? 'tilt ,..f. , - -4 -3 _ t p , , . . ,,,,,, is ..-,..• . ... . , ,,,,, ).,. _A ir 4, ..1 A '� e ilk,.,. ��pf�. �`. ..,,r''X - ` f,1 .i •I/S, '���• g..r: .t 1 Yi 1 j +i J,h ,; �� • ,, , A {� Y 1 • I l t ram. I,ii.1 il . \..1 .:.7 ., cti; -- .A. - : ..-, . , . 0 - .,,,, .4, Al .._,..4-. . „:s. .F. .;4.'1 a'''......, . -' . ' i'l. '• '' )- ' 11 i . _, . . gip,.1, zi ! ,4 • —.4• ,,,.1V• ::- trl,.. lr. dre ep... --...,, ,,,. .7 :.- ,I.,, ... . Hi . , .,I rt.' -, • , ,,„i, . , ,,. ,,,1 / li'�.•r. C}iI • t !,:::r,' — "/ , ,/ _, t i 1 NY•,• } � off• L ti.. ..-,....��•, s, ,.4i. , ,H - _,f , , r . - .E.: ('� '_,✓•.1 1. • L •=:TY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Application No. A36--SC3 Environmental Checklist No. V/2---- C��� � • PROPOSED, date:' . FINAL , date: EiDeclaration of Significance . . .- 0 Declaration of Significance 0 Declaration of Non-Significance 0 Declaration of Non-Significance . COMMENTS: . ,:,; ' t ( : - • - .. . • 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 delays -. - _... . . .. - 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 FRED BOWSER • 2. - Address and phone number of Proponent: 16044 - 16th Ave. S.W . • • Seattle, Wa. 98166 • - 3. Date Checklist submitted 12/12/80 4. Agency requiring Checklist City of Renton Pinning Depa.rtmpnt • • 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: NONE _ ' . 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) : . _ ,&._low density multiple family residential project limited to a maximum of CR ` CLt.1 <�'� (/j1Y/� ,units on 8.48 acres. Present plans consist �f^tom-s}nr�y units with v6 c�f ed or enclosed parking surrounded by open space. -A'1���/ -2- I. 7. Location of proposal (describe the ,physical setting of the proposal , as well as the extent of the land area affected by' any :e;n•.vironmental ,impacts , including any other information needed to give an accurateunderstanding of the environ- mental setting of the proposal) : .,, ., Located along Talbot Road South in the vicinity of Valley General Hospital . The site is primarily open pastureland sloping down to the west with a dense greenbelt along the west property line. • 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : ' . Estimated completion date in 1982 subject to financing ava:ili.bii,ity. 9. List of all permits , licenses or government approvals required for the proposal (federal , state and local --including rezones) : All applicable building and zoning ordinances of the City of Renton 10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal ? If yes , explain: • No 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal ? If yes , explain: No . 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- . posal ; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: None 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? TES MAMAAY NO (b) Disruptions, displacements , compaction or over- • X covering of the .soil? YES MAYBE NO ti (c). Change in topography or ground surface relief X features? YES MAYBE N— (d) The destruction , covering or mddification of any unique geologic or physical features? VET— MAYBE NO • (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils ,either on or off the site? X YES MAYBE N • (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 . 7' bed. of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? YES , M YBE NO o \��D E�tp l.an a t i o n: No major changes in the existing topograNhy or soils will occur 4 Q��' they\than the norm 1 tc,, `� lg0 landaping to recover exposed areas. No constructionwork will occur in the CO) -•' stezp western portion that will be retained as greenbelt. .�+ ''` Q om: •. `A .!hI,'{„.G ��% . • -3- (2) Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X YES MAYBE NO (b) The creation of objectionable odors? X YES MITE NO (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate , either locally or X regionally? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: Since this site is pastureland at present, the air quality 'at the site will be lower. The•overall air emissions of the area should decrease if driving time to and from work is redfl ed_ (3) Water. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes -in currents, or the course of direction of water movements , in Other marine or fresh waters? YES MAYBE. NO (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X YES MAYBE NO (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? YES MAYBE NO (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water X ' body? YES MAYBE NO • (e) Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X YES MAYBE NO (f) Alteration of the direction ,or rate of flow of X ground waters? YES MAYBE NO (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals , or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? 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? 1C YES MAYBE A (i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? 7� YES MAYBE NO Explanation: The absorption rate and on-site drainage Ilatterns will r,han&p but the rate of run-off will be the same due to City stnrm. water retention standards. (4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs , grass , crops , microflora and aquatic plants)? X YES MIT NO (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? YES MAYBE NO Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or • R E N 7' . in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing p � O ��`\s O s ecies. X_ �/ .YES MT NO 0) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 71:4 YES FAITE N0 At!Ng i • - -4- (5) Fauna. Will the proposal r.esultiin: , r ., (a) Changes in the,•diversi'ty of species ; or`numbers of any species of •fauna (birds . land ' animal,s,' includ1ng • reptiles , fish and shellfish, benthtic organisms , • insects or mi.crofaunal? YES MAYBE NO (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique , 4rare or X endangered species of fauna? • YES MAYBE NO (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area , or result in a barrier to the migration or movement • of fauna? YES MAYBE NO X (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? YES MAYBE X O Explanation: • • (6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X YES MAYBE NO • Explanation: Since this site is pastureland at present, the noise level will increase on the site. The area in cp.inPral ,.will here ne neticoablo change however. • (7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or X glare? YES MATTE NO . Explanation: (8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the X present or planned land use of an area? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in : (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? YES MAYBE NO (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including , • but not limited to , oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X — M—ATgE N • Explanation: r �',..opu '..ation. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- • u , dens'ity, or growth rate of the human populationX.f4a area? • Y MAYBElanation: Hopefully some people will now live closer to #.heirb qN-/NG DE4P location. l y l _ -5- C' ( 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: (a) Generation of additional vehicular .movement? 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 YES MAYBE NO (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X YES MAYBE NO (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X . YES MAYBE NO (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists or pedestrians? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: The project will increase traffic on Talbot Road but it will lower the future `increase in traffic movements up Carr Road. (14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or — result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas : (a) Fire protection? X YES MAYBE NO (b) Police protection?... . :_ , . X YES . MAYBE NO . (c) Schools? X YES MAYBE NO (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? X YES MAYBE NO (e) Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? X YES MAYBE NO (f) Other governmental services? . YES MAYBE NO Explanation: • • (15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X YES MAYBE NO (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X YES MAYBE Explanation: R N. cf ('1$ 1� lities. Will the proposal result in a need for new • � A� ``�GD s s, or alterations to the following utilities : ��' 1� m a) Power or natural gas? X 01°14 F' � YES MAYBE NO �C ( -). ,communications systems? YES MAYBE NO 9� ���9. Water? HANG YES MAYBE NO 3. (d) Sewer or septic tanks? YES MAYBE NO (e) Storm water drainage? YES MAYBE NO • (f) Solid waste and disposal? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: • (17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? YES MAYBE N Explanation: • (18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public , or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: . (19) Recreation. Will the 'proposal result in an 'impact upon the quality .or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: This project should increase demand for a park. in this area in spite of the open space available on the site. • (20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical X site, structure, object or building? YES MAYEIE tX Explanation: III. SIGNATURE I , the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any decla- ration of non-significance, that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent:. '' � '- ecy signs F D R. -e, (name printed • ;171 -6'("N . . O I.D O4, City of Renton • (i.. (1�Ck. ) Planning Department 1C�� �� �Q �1 5-76 t 0- ) . • V Iyy� INNING /� . . , , ro, ,, ,,rEIVED ,,C 24 1980 ' • `-- — ar} • • • •• /N� �FPA I • — -- -- t . --Vi4.LLEY_ N, RAL - -,IiO S_P �` i ,. - --Nort - ' • \ 7g- � I 4 3_rd_Ave,-- 4 . ifr.- • . • :._. , . • ,.... , „,i.... __ /1 . 1 - ....a /20.,,,,.......,=:__ , ,,i.ccp i. • 1;) -..,.( i -0-0 I Cr' CC.14 ---:-.7=- �. • �• 1 0 . ile IP' • . i ir,/ ‘• /if. . 11 ( _ � I , yy ! „,,,,,..__,-. ig., i Ai II , . /47 1 :, . .,.. .,... .:: . .. • . , , , . r 9i .jt 'a1 _ . - -- - toS .1 I 4 Ii�, �f►tom ••, ,k. . -. . er ff',.. . " ,,, mr i ii 0 if)I C4,,!, Lr--7 ,m) i jr Lric,, ;:::::‘,__iilt Aar ,A. _. :;::,,-e"viA. it:i h . -----ICL:1 / I I I IS �- I 1 irg, T� • '', _; w. L------__ of I1,, a. • ) off ; • • r- III '-.7 k• w M'' - — ' 4,71. ' Ir ow } , r______ id 1� ____ ___ ____,k r :1.442— (I hT __ �� i `1........ .•.•GV/,.,7i.�•.a•rgip i , Tb.Sr..r( �M- T ...r hp I' I 1 •� •E. li k.\ • )41c ••• 44...........4.... j 1 I` tii�n�+- -i {'I .r.. 'r Q3 I ' '' CI I1 ..1. r < J 1 I4' s LT+- r(L V iTI boJ I I .T 5 `J L_�_� o obO0000 �` i sl I _ J � I� 1l1''.�•—II��I IIII43 P..w� �•�I II� .� � 1 0 • o __`.- O p O O rikr n O 00010 g --C Z 6 0 O s O•U n O d 11 ++ 1111 -% \ --' : �1 •a Op t Sil i F- LAM.M. _6C' LE_. .� ;50. -w� �� -' 1� m.J ,� It'�4.1 1 11 1 63 V .. )� p I1/ 0 ).y- -- . i 11 \� \ \ ( \ ( , Ii___ _ 11'H \ �g2 • December 12, 1980 To Whom It May Concern: On December 5, 1980, the attached questionnaire was distributed to all employees of Valley General Hospital by inserting the questionnaire in the. pay envelopes. We had 60 responses out of approximately 1100 which. is quite good for the method employed for this sampling. The results of this questionnaire are as follows: 1) 82% preferred numerous smaller structures for living units versus a few larger structures. . 2) 69% preferred ownership versus renting • -3) 62% could afford:to pay less .than $60,000. per unit. • 4) 76% could afforda: rent o00./mos. 5) 63% thought a bank would be beneficial 6) 84% thought a motel and restaurant would be beneficial. 7) 82% thought a pedestrian overpass would be beneficial. • 8) In rating the amenities they thought very important, security and a day-care center were most preferable. • DARYL CONNELL DO/mc / - _ :ember 1, 1980 QUESTIONNAIRE Plans are being made to develop some commercial and multiple residential land within two blocks south of Valley General Hospital . We have been given this opportunity to make this inquiry by the Administration of the Hospital , so as to do a better job of constructing what is most desirable in this area. Would you please fill out this questionnaire and return it to the suggestion boxes located outside the cafeteria or located outside the communication center at your earliest convenience. Thank you, Daryl Connell 1. Would .you prefer the living units to be in: ( ) Numerous smaller structures with private walk-up entry and attached parking for each unit, or: ( ) A few larger structures with internal hallways, elevator and underground parking? 2. Would you prefer to: ( ) Own ( ) Rent . 3. If you owned a unit, could you afford to pay: ( ) $50,000 - $60,000 per unit ( ) $60,000 - $70,000 per unit ( ) $70,000 or more per unit 4. If you rented a unit, could you afford to pay: ( ) $400"per month ( ) $500 per month ( ) $600 or more per month 5. Do you think that a bank in this area would be beneficial? ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Maybe 6. Do you think a Motel and Restaurant in this area would be beneficial? ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Maybe 7. Do you think that a pedestrian overpass to avoid traffic on 43rd would be beneficial in this area? ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Maybe 8. Please rate the following amenities as you value them: (1) Very important (2) Important (3) Not necessary ( ) Security ( ) Open-Space w/extra Landscaping f ) Enclosed Parking ( ) Recreation Building with Pool ( ) Fireplaces ( ) Day-Care Center ( ) Smaller units of 800 sq.ft. ( ) ( ) Larger unit,$ of 1,000 sq.ft. 9. Please give us your comments : • cms i AFFIDAVIT I , „ �i..i Gk V' 'SE:e .) < , being duly sworn, declare that I am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me this o2�aday of �,,,t,�f J , 19 10 , Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at/� t�-cc_... .4 (Name of Notary Public) Signature of Owner ova 771_- -ei a.-..„e aJ. /.v YF' r -o 4 4 1 6 , ek e &/; (Address) (Address) &r3 (City) (State) (Telephone) (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found to be thorough and complete in every particular and to conform to the rules • l:ations of the Renton Planning Department governing the fili ' f ��vyplication . / ç \M VV4# Date Received _ , '9 By : fe O 4A, FQQ Renton Planning Dept . �C' 2-73 ENDING • OF FILE FILE TITLfia-/55 --w ;•• •