Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA86-012 REN' d BUILDING & ZONING DER MENT I DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 011 - 86 APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE: R-012-86 PROPONENT : GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. PROJECT TITLE : GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. REZONE (LQRRAINE PARK I) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.17 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM B-1 TO R-4 TO ALLOW FOR THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT HAVING 104 UNITS, LOCATION ; LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. AT THE 4000 BLOCK. TO : El PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 3/5/86 Ei ENGINEERING DIVISION I ! TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : r' UTILITIES ENG . AIVISION ri FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU LI PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 11 POLICE DEPARTMENT n POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT n OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON FEBRUARY 27, 1986 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : UT//_/Ty 4-116-//✓E,Ze/�ll� APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 'NOT APPROVED Ninny APPROVAL SUBJECT TO I LATE MRS AGREEMENT-WATER _ NO LATE COMERS AGREEMENT-SEWER No SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-WATER YES )0/7S:12O.)v,«-e x /®f. $/7,20 • SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CE. !E-SEWER. VE;S 1/74 =° /', ZOO . °-0 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ARE F,: ".2rr-WATER N 3C�,4D0. OO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT MD MOO-SEWER 140 APPROVED WATER P[fN YES IZ (AJ, rg .wtamv �,/�cc 64% 1ze. c i4b i1.1 LiICOL►I APPROVED SEWER PL(td YES • 06 N6 (Pa.u64614 44•'"-Sr To ��. . se Bon' 5; AF,ROVED FIRE HYDRANT tx4TiOilS BY FIRE Den YE5 Ft -vSC-s Y65 4��77 gK 50,40M O:.ICro,r,, .0yvian D •. I 61"5 .rifore sC - up i'I I Clrrnr P Ovde �� 4 DATE : //6Q SIGNATURE OFyDIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 -2- i Finally, please supply us with the name, address, and phone number of the new property owner so we can ensure correspondence as the rezone is available to the property owner is a timely manner. If you have any questions, please call myself or Jeanette Samek-McKague at 235-2540. Si sly, . Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:csb:2421G I _ I � al Public Notice NOTICE OF AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Environmental Review Committee Renton,Washington The Environmental Review Committee Audrey De Joi e , being first duly sworn on oath states that (ERC) has issued a declaration of he/she is the Chief Clerk of the NON- SIGNIFICANCE for the following projects with additional conditions imposed as mitigating measures under their authority of Section 4-2822(D) of the Renton , VALLEY NEWSPAPERS Municipal Code: ECF-105-86 R-122-86 PHILLIPS AND GANNON. Ap- Daily News Journal, Daily Record Chronicle, Daily Globe News plication to rezone approximately 0.83 acre of property from B-1(Business Use)to L-1 Daily newspapers published six(6) times a week.That said newspapers (Light Industrial). Property located at 205- 235 Airport Way. are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six ECF-011-86 months prior to the date of publication referred to,printed and published R-012-86 GIBRALTER HOMES.Applica- tionto in the English language continuallyas dailynewspapers in Kingallow to rezone acres froms.ERC so edR- or gKent, allow 104 multi-family units. asked for County, Washington. Valley Newspapers have been approved as legal reduction to 84 dwelling units and then to newspapers by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for 70 dwelling units.Located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue N.E. and N.E. King County. 40th Street,if extended. Further information regarding this action is available in the Building and Zoning The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Daily News Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. Any appeal of Journal , Daily Record Chronicle ..1L, Daily Globe News , (and ERC action must be filed with the Renton not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its Hearing Examiner by March 9, 1987. subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice a Published In the Valley Daily News February 23, 1987. R2103. ,otice of Environmental Determination was published on February 23, 1987 R2103 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$ 23.07 Subscribed and sworn to before me this o th day of Ma r 19 87 Not Public for the State of Washington, residing at Federal Way, King County, Washington. VN#87 Revised 10/84 r\ l 1. —®cz- o$ c-i °-' g$mwe°D.4om -Togiom-•imogw3x a$ o $ DNS-Iromwo 4yc5..0t. ' Gaza m0 m _D.The 3g ,I ,G. rn� 2o, 'S-�x 33z-1 m c », ca, u, -,,mac, $ ao=wcn g�w $ m6m-1— c4,002 .moo nat4, x w ^2,43Q -1 m ?o3w.z zm AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLL �g' -_aw WD ` 3 ' ..s z. mg ctccc w °x- > > Drm 3 w-ri 'o�°: v », mw co �� Q��m�ZTm m a< 8 . •e R m o...� 3 T lg x D x S x ro *x m a3w2cmx g' to 4:22 al o. ,n - u, 4co iv§.3.gam m__3EDzv Audrey DeJoie mg` 67, x rnxz ro3 � o3m� �J ' -xc'r H -� �_-•-•v 3 xn x �' , being first duly swC m z�' m 3 y m v c 3=; o Ti m o-; m`� g z x= . he/she is the Chief Clerk of the j = •m g m m m m m m o z 3 o 0 w x y 0;3 a,9 a m m yoam _• 2yoz =rafg ox g- mama-2� o z0.1. ,1.v_ ,- , . m m d 7 wrl - mS=d'c xc VALLEY NEWSPA 'a ma000 ?'7m4 0 12o .!r: o2�wm Daily News Journal, Daily Record Chronicle, Daily Globe!Tele -nm x m.. - N. c) a w m D 5 i Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week.That said newspapers E i <'. 5 4, , are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six N m ?m a m c i months prior to the date of publication referred to,printed and published w a M'.0 w m c in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King w' a y•; m a m County, Washington. Valley Newspapers have been approved as legal g� o�° 4 5 n 33 newspapers by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for o m a x w a g m O King County. 8 c N O _-4 w o 10. 80 os.� `�~°oa wins-sn The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Daily News m p g m a— JournaL—, Daily Record Chronicle , Daily Globe News , (and z m y 0 f° go w not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its y ° 8 o A e, a subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice a Notice of Public Hearing was published on February 23, 1987 R2102 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$ 30.75 �7%, , Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of Ni a r 19 87 . i ..e, ee__,-,/ ' c-, Z N y�Public for the State of Washington, residing at Federal Way, King County, Washington. VN#87 Revised 10/84 ... NOTICE OF AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ENVIRONMENTAL ONMENTAL DETERMINATION REVIEW COM- MITTEE Audrey DeJoie RENTON, WASHINGTON being first duly sworn on oath states that The Environmental Review Committee he/she is the Chief Clerk of the (ERC)has issued a Preliminary Mitigated declaration of NON-SIGNIFICANCE for the following projects under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. The Applic- VALLEY NEWSPAPERS ants have completed a mitigation process pursuant to WAC 197-11-350. ECF-011-86 GIBRALTER HOMES Daily News Journal, Daily Record Chronicle, Daily Globe News R-012-86 Application to rezone 3.17 acres from B-1 to R-4 to allow 104 multi- Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week.That said newspapers family units.ERC asked for reduction to 84 are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six dwelling units anorthwed then o70dwel fLincng its. Located at the northwest corner of Lincoln months prior to the date of publication referred to,printed and published Avenue N.E. and N.E. 40th Street, if in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King extended. ECF-105-86 PHILLIPS AND GANNON County, Washington. Valley Newspapers have been approved as legal R-122-86 Application to rezone approxi- newspapers by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for mately 0.83 acre of property from B-1 King County. (Business Use) to L-1 (Light Industrial). Property located at 205-235 Airport Way. Further information regarding this action The notice in the exact form attached, waspublished in the DailyNews is available in theiBuilding Building,ag Zoning Department, Municipal Renton, Journal , Daily Record Chronicle X, Daily Globe News (and Washington,235-2550. he f y of Renton _ will not act on this proposal for 15 days. not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its Comments must be received by. ) subscribers duringthe below stated Published in the Valley Daily News, period. The annexed notice a February 4, 1987. R2074 'Notice of Environmental Determination was published on February Lj , 1987 R207L1 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $ 23.07 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of Feb 19 87 Nola Public for the State of Washington, residing at Federal Way, King County, Washington. vN#87 Revised 10/84 l L. okz AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL • • DETERMINATION e , being first duly sworn on oath states that ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE he/she is the Chief Clerk of the RENTON, WASHINGTON ♦ The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a declaration of signifi- VALLEY NEWSPAPERS canoe for the following project: t GIBRALTER HOMES (ECF-011-86) Application to rezone 3.17 acres from B- Daily News Journal, Daily Record Chronicle, Daily Globe News : I to R-4 to allow 104 multi-family units(file R-012-86). Located at the northwest corn- Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week.That said newspapers • er of Lincoln Avenue N.E. and N.E. 40th Street if extended. are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six Further information regarding this action months prior to the date of publication referred to,printed and published is available in the Building and Zoning Department, MunicipalBuilding, Renton,the English language continuallyas dailynewspapers in Kent, King Washington, 2352550. Any appeal of County, Washington. Valley Newspapers have been approved as legal ERC action must be filed with the Renton newspapers by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Hearing Examiner by May 12, 1986. Published in the Daily Record Chronicle King County. April 28, 1986. R1542. The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Daily News Journal—_, Daily Record Chronicle_., Daily Globe News , (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice a Notice of invironmental Determination _ was published on Ar-ri1 2b, 19t6 1d:15L12 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$ . . Subscribed and sworn to before me this 29th day of Apri 1 19 H..6 CITY OF RENT No ry Public for the State of Washington, -� ON residing at Federal Way, D LE © L G VED King County, Washington. VN*87 Revised 10/84 I'+r•� (�n BUILDING /ZONING DEFT. 2 June 1, 1987 Renton City Council Minutes Page 178 Parks: H&CD 1988-1990 Mayor Shinpoch submitted 1988-1990 Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Interlocal Agreement sharing of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds between King County and cities. Refer to Community Services Committee. CAG: 87-012, SW Grady Public Works/Traffic Engineering Department requested appropriation for Way from Rainier new Federal Aid Project, SW Grady Way from Rainier Avenue S. to Lind Avenue S. to Lind Avenue SW (Item #9 on Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program); Avenue SW Approved FAUS funds - $207,525, local match (1/2 cent gas tax) - $42,475. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY KEOLKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Finance Department requested authorization to surplus and sell or place in Finance: Surplus Bellevue auction, one envelope inserter and one NCR burster which are no Equipment longer being used by the City. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY CLYMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE REQUEST OF THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT. CARRIED. Claim: City of Renton vs. Finance Department requested authorization to accept minimum $650 to settle Cessna Aircraft claim against Cessna Aircraft for fence damage in the amount of $1,272 at Renton Municipal Airport. Moved by Clymer, seconded by Mathews, Council concur in the request. SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY HUGHES, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER TO THE TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Parks: H&CD Emergency Parks/Housing and Community Development Department requested Shelter Grant Funds authorization for the Mayor and City Clerk to execute contract for new Emergency Shelter Grant received from HUD in the amount of $16,533 for capital improvements to the Renton YWCA Family Shelter. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY KEOLKER, COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER TO COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Fourth of July Softball Added letter was read from Parks and Recreation Department inviting City Game Council members to participate in the annual Fourth of July City vs. Seniors Softball Game. Parks: City-Wide Trails Added letter was read from Block Grant Coordinator John Morris, Master Plan coordinator of the City-Wide Trails Master Plan, reporting that at community Sunset Boulevard Bicycle meeting on 5/28/87, residents were polled to determine support or opposition Trail to redesigning Sunset Boulevard to accommodate bicycle lanes, a sidewalk, left turn pockets and two lanes of travel. The proposal was defeated, 21 votes to 5. The letter reported comments of Public Works Director regarding the possibility of restriping the road at a later date to increase the width of the uphill lane and reduce the width of the downhill shoulder to provide bicycle access. Administrative Assistant Parness clarified that redesign of the lanes would delay the project until the summer of 1988 since all revisions require review by the Forward Thrust Board which does not meet until August of this year. Councilmembers Stredicke and Reed questioned inclusion of center turn lane since few turns are required along that portion of the roadway. MOVED BY REED, SECONDED BY KEOLKER, REFER THIS MATTER TO TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE PROJECT DESIGN. It was clarified that there was no intent to delay the project, but rather to apprise the Committee of design features. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS Planning and Development Committee Chairman Stredicke presented a report Plannine and regarding the Mark Goldberg Rezone appeal (formerly Gibralter Homes), File Development Committee No. R-012-86. In his recommendation issued on 4/8/87, the Hearing Appeal: Gibral_tear Hones. Examiner denied the applicant's request to rezone 3.17 acres located at the _Mark Goldberg) Rezone, northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue NE.and NE 40th Street, if extended, R-012-86 from B-1, business, zone to R-4, high density multifamily, zone, to allow construction of 70 multifamily units. Upon review of the appeal material,: the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner, and comments of-the participants and nearby landowners, it was the opinion of the Committee that there was no error of fact or law in the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner be affirmed by the City Council. John Deininger, Architect, 5524 157th Drive NE, Redmond; Oldrich Fryc, trustee for the property, 15015 SE 145th Place, Renton; Mike Amundson, co- owner of property, 4437 Lake Washington Boulevard NE #201, Kirkland; and Mark Goldberg, appellant, 4038 NE 58th Street, Renton, urged Council members to overturn the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner and grant • June 1, 1987 Renton City Council Minutes Page 179 the request for rezone to allow the proposed 70-unit multifamily development. They claimed the report contained misstatements regarding physical features on the site; the applicant has pursued downzone from B-1 to R-4 to expedite development of the property; the proposed development meets R-3 density requirements and provides a transition from higher density multifamily and business/commercial uses to low density residential uses in the area; similar multifamily development is proposed to the east of the site on property allegedly proposed for annexation; with one exception, owners of surrounding property support the proposal; and development of the property is desired since it is currently used for dumping purposes. For the record, Chairman Stredicke clarified that at the Hearing Examiner's public hearing, former Zoning Administrator Roger Blaylock testified in support of the application; however, Planning Technician Carrie Trimnell, representing Policy Development Department, testified in opposition. Responding to Council concerns, City Attorney reviewed specific findings which Council must make in order to downzone property. Discussion was held regarding 50-foot greenbelt which was imposed as a condition of prior rezone. It was also noted that, if approved, the rezone would allow full development and density allowed in an R-4 zone since a rezone is not conditioned by a binding site plan. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER, THE WORD "RECOMMENDATION" REPLACE ALL WORDS REFLECTING "DECISION" IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT, AND THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT BE ATTACHED TO THE COMMITTEE REPORT AS AN AMENDMENT: "IN • ADDITION, THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD REVIEW AND INVESTIGATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE B-1 REZONE (ORDINANCE NO. 3433) IN 1980, WHICH REQUIRED THE CREATION OF A 50-FOOT GREENBELT EASEMENT ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT THE CONDITION WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH BY THE THEN OWNER OR HIS SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST." CARRIED. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE COMMITTEE REPORT AS AMENDED. CARRIED. RECESS I ED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. Time: 10:14 p.m. Council reconvened at 10:20 p.m.; roll was called; all members were present. Transportation Transportation Committee Chairman Reed presented a report concurring in Committee the recommendation or the Public Works Department to participate in the PSCOG: Freeway Freeway Operation Study in the amount of $5,000, contingent upon the Operations Study for adoption of the Scope of Work and participation of all parties involved. The Valley Cities Committee further recommended that the matter be referred to the Ways and Means Committee for proper ordinance. MOVED BY REED, SECONDED BY KEOLKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. WSDOT: Storm Drainage Transportation Committee Chairman Reed presented a report concurring in and Roadway Capital the recommendation of the Public Works Department for approval of the Improvement Joint Washington State Department of Transportation City/State projects associated Projects/I-405 HOV Bus with the I-405 HOV lane widening. MOVED BY REED, SECONDED BY Lane Joint Project STREDICKE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Streets: 1988-1993 Six- Transportation Committee Chairman Reed presented a report recommending Year Transportation the public hearing to consider the 1988-1993 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program Improvement Program be set for June 22, 1987. MOVED BY REED, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Airport: Liability Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chairman Reed presented a report Insurance recommending that liability insurance for Renton Municipal Airport be covered by the City's insurance broker, Gallagher and Bassett. MOVED BY REED, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. • PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT May 28, 1987 TO: Renton City Council FROM: Planning and Development Committee RE : Mark Goldberg Appeal ( formerly known as Gibralter Homes) File No. R-012-86 The Planning and Development Committee met on May 28, 1987 to consider the appeal of Mark Goldberg from the decision of the Land Use Hearing Examiner dated April 8, 1987 . Applicant is requesting to rezone a 3.17 acre lot from B-1 to R-4 (or R-3 ) to allow construction of 70 unit multi- family dwellings. Upon review of the material submitted on appeal, the decision of the Hearing Examiner , and the comments of the participants and nearby landowners , it was the Committee' s opinion that there was no error of fact or law in the decision of the Hearing Examiner . The Committee concurs in the decision of the Land Use Hearing Examiner . The Committee recommends that the decision of the Hearing Examiner be affirmed. Rich d tredic-e AliaROZL__-/ Kathy Ke4ker hn Reed City2: 11/5/29/87:nd SHIDLER McBROOM GATES&LUCAS Seattle ATTORNEYS AT LAW•A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION Bellevue 3500 First Interstate Center 505 Honeywell Center Seattle,Washington 98104 600108th Ave.N.E. Telephone(206)223-4600 Bellevue.Washington 98004 Telecopier(206)622-5110 Telephone(206)453-0300 Telex:29-2988 Telecopier(206)455-9166 JOHNL.HENDRICKSON May 22, 1987 RECEIVED Bellevue Office MAY 2 6 1987 CITY OF RENTON Renton City Council CITY COUNCIL Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Appeal of Mark Goldberg/File No. R-012-86 Dear Council Members: This office represents the applicant, Mark Goldberg, and the owners of the property which is the subject of the above-referenced rezone application. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue N. E. and N. E. 40th Street (S. E. 84th Street), if extended. The applicant has proposed rezoning the subject property from the existing B-1 (business) zone to the R-4, multi-family residential zone. While the original application was for the R-4 zone, the reduction in density that resulted from the mitigation efforts of the Environmental Review Committee ("ERC") have eliminated the need for the R-4 zone. Consequently, rezoning to the R-3 classification is proposed at this time, as suggested by the Building and Zoning Department. -• The April 8, 1987 report and recommendation of the Hearing Examiner regarding this application contains numerous errors of fact and conclusion which should not be adopted by the City Council. Even in the event that the Council members determine that the rezone application should not be approved, it will be necessary to prepare substitute findings and conclusions to support that determination. The errors and omissions in the current recommendation are too significant in their effect to be a lawful basis for denying this application. The applicant has very thoroughly reviewed many of the errors and omissions in the appeal letter dated April 22, 1987. This letter is intended as a supplement to the issues raised therein by Mr. Goldberg.. The Council is urged to take into consideration the following principal points in considering this appeal: 1. Down Zone Proposed. The subject application, if approved, would result in a less intense use of the property than is now permitted by the existing zoning. This will beneficially serve the area as a transitional tse between the freeway and commercial uses Renton City Council May 22, 1987 Page Two to the west and north and the residential zoning and development to the east in King County. It should be emphasized that this is a rezone application only, not a development application. The applicant was requested by the ERC to present a site development plan for the benefit of the Committee's review. The applicant complied with that request. Site plan review will be required of any development proposal which will include further environmental review and mitigating conditions, if appropriate. 2. Environmental Concerns. The concerns regarding the existing drainage channel and topography on the site have been inflated by the Examiner's findings and conclusions. There is no "creek" or "stream" in the conventional sense on the subject property. This drainage channel enters the northeast corner of the property and exits approximately 50 feet later running parallel to the roadway on City property. This drainage channel is seasonal in nature and contains water on the subject property only on an intermittent basis. The channel is mostly in culverts and does not carry any real environmental significance. Notwithstanding this fact, the applicant has agreed to the recommended conditions of the ERC and Building and Zoning Department to take measures at the development stage to protect this channel. The reference to wet areas on the subject property by the Examiner is highly exaggerated. The Examiner may have been viewing the parcel to the north of the subject property which does contain more substantial wet areas. Only the northeast tip of approximately 2,700 square feet of the subject 138,000 square foot property contains any wet area. The slope conditions on the subject property are the result of man-made conditions and are not natural. The site was formerly a gravel pit. Whether the property is commercially or residentially developed, the site will be recontoured in order to provide suitable building areas. Therefore, the unnatural existing topography will not present an obstacle to development of the site. This factor is clearly unrelated to the proposed rezoning in that it is a feature that will be adjusted irrespective of the eventual zoning or development scheme for the site. 3. High Intensity Area. The Examiner erroneously characterizes the subject property and its surroundings in Conclusion 12 as being "predominantly single family, or more likely rural in character." Commercial zoning is to the west and north, substantial multi-family development is located 700 feet to the north of the subject property, Interstate 405 and fast food restaurants and a motel are located also to the west and north in close proximity to the subject property. Additionally, a 150 unit multi-family development is in the planning stages across the street to the east in King County. This hardly can be considered a single-family or rural area. It has evolved into an area of intense use. Under the circumstances a transitional use such as that proposed by the applicant is certainly appropriate. Renton City Council May 22, 1987 - Page Three The Building and Zoning Department and the ERC have recognized the beneficial nature of the proposed rezone in terms of providing a transitional zone and use which has not been recognized in the comprehensive plan. Consequently, the current proposal is an improvement upon the plan and should not be viewed as inconsistent with it. The proposed step-down from commercial to multi-family to single-family is consistent with traditionally accepted planning and zoning fundamentals. This apparently has not been recognized by the Examiner. 4. Seventy-Unit Density. The density of seventy units which was considered by the Examiner is substantially less than what was originally proposed by a prior applicant :for ,the subject property. The density was reduced on a number of occasions at the request of the ERC in an effort to mitigate the impacts of the original proposal. The 'resulting density is therefore not an arbitrarily negotiated one, as appears to be concluded by the Examiner, but is one which represents the density that is considered appropriate for the site by the ERC, the planning staff and the applicant. The record is quite clear in reflecting the substantial efforts of the ERC to mitigate the impacts of the original high density proposal and the resulting density of seventy units is an appropriate use of the subject property from an environmental,land use and planning perspective. 5. Rezone Criteria Satisfied. The proposed rezone is consistent with the public interest and will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. It provides for an updating of the land use plan for this area by providing for a step-down transitional zone and use. The proposed zone and resulting use is a less intense one that better reflects the current market demands and needs for the public. There is existing need for additional residential units in this area that will be partially fulfilled by this application. There is not a need for another fast food franchise nor would another one benefit the surrounding community. The subject property has long been designated for commercial development but there has been no such demand for this property. The needs and demands of the community and the market have significantly changed since this property was designated for commerical usage many years ago. In summary, it is respectfully submitted that the findings and conclusions of the Examiner are significantly erroneous and warrant reversal in this instance. The applicant is willing and able to comply with the recommended conditions of approval which were developed by the ERC and endorsed by the Building and Zoning Department. The Council members are therefore urged to affirm the recommendation of the ERC and Building and Zoning Department and reverse that of the Examiner by approving the rezone of the subject property to the R-3 classification, subject to the conditions referenced in the March 10, 1987 report of the Building and Zoning Department. We will be in attendance at the May 28, 1987 appeal hearing on this matter, and will be available to answer questions that the Council members may have regarding this application. Renton City Council May 22, 1987 Page Four Thank you for your consideration of this appeal. Sincerely, S oBLE - c OOM G TES & LUCAS ohn L. endrickson JLH:cb 4.20.02 cc: Mr. Mark Goldberg Mr. Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney ,May 4. 1987 Renton City Council Minutes Page 150 Citizen Comment: Webb - Sanford Webb, 430 Mill Avenue South, Renton, expressed appreciation to the Stop Sign at Sunnydale Administration for timely response to his suggestion that a stop sign be Avenue installed at Sunnydale Avenue. (See Administrative Report, Council Minutes of 4/27/87.) Appeal: Plaid Pantry Council action on 4/27/87 was questioned by Mr. Webb in which the Hearing Markets, Inc. Conditional Examiner's decision was upheld to deny the Plaid Pantry Markets, Inc. Use Permit, CU-117-86 request to install gas pumps as an associated use for a convenience center proposed on the northwest corner of NE 4th Street and Union Avenue NE. Mr. Webb disagreed with the decision since a gas station was successful on that site for many years, and by denying the request, he felt Council is interfering with private enterprise. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the Consent Agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Vacation: VAC-87-002, City Clerk submitted vacation request for portion of Rainier Avenue North, Rainier Avenue South, W. south of NW 2nd Place, petitioned by W. Stewart Pope, File No. VAC-002- Stewart Pope 87. Refer to Ways and Means Committee for resolution setting public hearing 6/8/87, and to the Board of Public Works. Vacation: VAC-001-87, City Clerk submitted vacation request for portion of Maplewood Place, south Maplewood Place, John of SE 6th Street, petitioned by John Dennis, File No. VAC-001-87. Refer to Dennis Ways and Means Committee for resolution setting public hearing 6/8/87, and to the Board of Public Works. Appeal: Atlantic Appeal filed of Hearing Examiner's decision to deny Atlantic Richfield Richfield Company Company conditional use permit to allow gasoline pumps in a B-1 zone along Conditional Use Permit, with a 24-hour convenience store west of NE 3rd Street and Jefferson CU-116-86 Avenue; File No. CU-116-86. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Appeal: Gibralter Homes Appeal filed of Hearing Examiner's decision to deny Gibralter Homes (Mark (Mark Goldberg) Rezone, Goldberg) request to rezone 3.17 acres from B-1 to R-4 for construction of R-012-86 70 multifamily units at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue NE and NE 40th Street, if extended; File No. R-012-86. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. CAG: 86-067, Highlands Parks/Housing and Community Development Department submitted CAG- Park Site Improvement 067-86, Highlands Park Site Improvement Project; and requested approval of Project the project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of $22,688.24, commencement of 30-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $5,330.19 to contractor, Fuji Hydromulch, Ltd., if all required releases have been received. Council concur. Personnel: 1988 Labor Personnel Department requested review of team appointments and bargaining Contract Negotiations parameters for 1988 labor contract negotiations. Refer to Ways and Means Committee for ongoing review. Annexation: Sierra Policy Development Department requested second public hearing be set on Heights, Rezone 6/1/87, to consider imposition of R-1, single family residential, zoning on Sierra Heights Annexation approved by King County Boundary Review Board on 4/21/87, for 33 acres located on the west side of Union Avenue NE westerly to 128th Avenue SE and from SE 102nd Street southerly to south of SE 106th Street; and refer Sierra Heights Annexation to Ways and Means Committee for ordinance. Council concur. CAG: 87-021, Removal City Clerk reported bid opening 4/29/87 for Removal of Asbestos from of Asbestos from Renton Renton Municipal Building; 5 bids; Engineer's estimate: $18,000.00. Refer to Municipal Building Community Services Committee. CAG: 86-059, 1986 Small Public Works Department submitted CAG-059-86, 1986 Small Bridge Repair Bridge Repair and Guard and Guard Rails; and requested approval of the project, authorization for Rails final pay estimate in the amount of $6,008.60, commencement of 30-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $5,295.21 to contractor, Coral Construction Co., if all required releases have been received. Council concur. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY HUGHES, COUNCIL ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. For.Use By City Clerk's Office Only A. I . # 4: 6d6 . AGENDA ITEM RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING SUBMITTING Dept./Div./Bd./Comm. City Clerk For Agenda Of 5/4/87 (Meeting Date) Staff Contact • M. Motor (Name) Agenda Status: SUBJECT: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Consent XX Recommendation filed by Mark Goldberg for Public Hearing Correspondence Gibralter Homes Rezone, File No. R-012-86 Ordinance/Resolution Old Business Exhibits: (Legal Descr. , Maps, Etc. )Attach• New Business Study Session A. City Clerk's Letter Other B. Letter of Appeal C. Hearing Examiner's Report, 4/8/87 Approval D. Request for Reconsideration/Response. Legal Dept. Yes— No N/A COUNCIL ACTION RECOMMENDED: Refer to. Finance Dept. Yes No. N/A• — Planning and 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 Mark .Goldberg., representing himself,: accompanied by required fee received on 4/22/87. . PARTIES OF RECORD/INTERESTED CITIZENS TO BE CONTACTED: SUBMIT THIS COPY TO CITY CLERK BY NOON ON THURSDAY WITH DOCUMENTATION. 41, CITY OF RENTON "LL FINANCE DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Maxine E. Motor, City Clerk April 24, 1987 APPEAL FILED BY MARK GOLDBERG FOR GIBRALTER HOMES (FILE NAME) RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Recommendation, dated April 8, 1987,•Gibralter Homes Rezone, File No. R-012-86 (Mark Goldberg) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 30, City Code, written appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision has been filed with the City Clerk, along with the proper fee of $75.00. 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 Committee. The Council Secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council Secretary at 235-2586 any weekday after 1:00 p.m. for information. Sincerely, CITY OF RENTON Maxine E. Motor, CMC City Clerk 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2501 •• Ro Development moo. .,; ' commercial real estate Acquisitions Development April 22,1987 Renton City Council : Please be advised that the applicant for the rezone file R-012-86 has been changed from Gibralter Homes to . . .Mark Goldberg. The current application (Gibralter Homes) was inadvertantly submitted as a hold—over from a previous applicant who no longer has any affiliation with the matter. Re act lly, Ma k Sol dber,g Rose Development 200 W.Mercer St . Suite 403 Seattle, Wa. 98119 200 West Mercer Street, Suite 403, Seattle, Washington 98119, (206) 283-0919 ~ - . Ro_ � Development ,,o. commercial real estate Acquisitions Development Renton City Council Municipal Building, 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, Washington 98055 To: Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiners Decision file R-012-86 (Gibralter Homes) In reviewing the decision of Mr. Fred Kaufman (Hearing Examiner) to recommend the Council deny our application for rezone, we have discovered many issues of fact and information which Mr. Kaufman mis—interpreted, or ignored, durring his discussion in his report of April 8th, 1987. The following is a response to Mr . Kaufmans conclusions: Conclusion no.2 The request is untimely and incompatible with surrounding residential uses. Response: The request is to change potential intensive commercial use to a less intensive residential use. . . .residential is compatible with residential . The request is timely because there is a ' demand' for the use proposed, whereas no demand has been generated to utilize this property for commercial uses . Conclusion no .3 The record does not demonstrate how 70 units could be supported on the site. Response: Evidently Mr. Kaufman ignored a site development study prepared by the apllicants Architect which clearly and in detail proved how a 70 unit development would fit upon this site. In fact , this time consuming and expensive design including floor plans and exterior architecture studies was a requirement of the ERC for rezone consideration. Conclusions no.4,5,6, Information in the record is quite limited and does not address the topographic, stream, or buffering issues. Response: Again Mr. Kaufman has overlooked the Architectural Plans submitted by the applicant . The site plan submitted clearly demonstrates how the proposed use would mitigate the issue of steep slopes and topography in a very conventional and acceptable method. John Deininger , Architect for the project explained in testimony that � � the site was a former borrow pit and that recontouring of the land would be required for any type of development . The Site plan not only addresses buffering but also reflects a requirement by the ERC to limit Densities on the southern third of the property. 200 West Mercer Street, Suite 403, Seattle, Washington 98119, (206) 283-0919 i 1 , . The proposed site plan does not alter the present course of the existing drainage ditch but merely enhances the aesthetic potential of the drainage channel with landscaping. Conclusion no.6 'In his comment no.6 Mr. Kaufman states the applicant commented that the knolls were "deposited" on the site . Response: The applicant stated that the knolls were probably the result of "excavation" of material ,not deposits. These mounds of dirt are partly the result of city activity when they installed a water main along the right of way known as SE.84th st . Conclusion no.7 The northern half of the site is dominated by standing water . Response: Mr. Kaufman was identifying another parcel of property (adjacent to the North) which is not included in this application. There is a small portion of wet area on the proposed site which will measure approximately 60ft .x 45ft . a simple matter to mitigate . Conclusion 8: It would be inappropriate to place residential uses next to existing business zoning. Response: More intensive residential uses have historically been preferred to abut commercial uses than have single family next to commercial . Conclusion no.9 is it reasonable to buffer single family with multifamily? Response: )I It seems more reasonable to buffer single family with multifamily than l to buffer with commercial uses. Conclusion no. 10 The requested zoning is not transitional and does not comply with the comprehensive plan of 61 . Response: The Site plan proposed by the applicant is transitional by design and respects the lower densities nature of the property to the south . this type of transition cannot be assurred with the commercial uses presently allowed on the property. The comprehensive plan is only a guide and allows for flexibility. Conclusion no. 11 The infrastructure is not ready for either multi family or business uses. Response: This argument is classic. "Which comes first . . .Chicken or Egg"? The applicant is a "user of the property" and has agreed to provide upgrade of the applicable roads and utilities. This certainly gives credance to the appropriateness of his request and reduces the argument of limited infrastructure. Conclusion no. 12 the area is predominately single family or rural in character . Response: go approximately 800' north and you will be in one of the highest density multifamily projects on the east side of the lake developed on extremely steep slopes. . .these apartments overlook a shopping facility a fast food restaurant , a motel complex and a freeway interchange the hillside directly east of the proposed site has preliminary design proposals for high density multifamily on very steep slopes . . . . I I A new McDonalds is under construction some 750 ft to the north 4 . . .hardly a description of "rural " ! Conclusion no. 13: an answer should be provided for the conflict between stream and public right of way improvement . Response: The conflict . . .which the applicant feels is being overrated. . .will exist no matter what is developed on the property and is simply a technical issue that can be delt with at development time. It is not a zoning issue. Conclusion no. 14: Topography and density discussion of previous applicant . no record of supporting data for 70 unit capacity. Response: Again Mr. Kaufman alludes to lack of information about our ability to develop this site . It is obvious that the extensive site plan information that the applicant submitted was either left out of the file Mr. Kaufman recieved or that he ignored it . Conclusion no. 15 nothing in the record justifies granting the request . Response: It seems to the applicant that Mr. Kaufman did not recieve the information the applicant gave to the city planning staff. Along with not reviewing all the information available it occurrs to the applicant that Mr. Kaufman may have been on the wrong property durring his field review.nor did he ask enough questions of the applicant to fairly assess the merits of this request . Conclusion no. 16: a repeat that the request is untimely and inappropriate. Response: it is timely because of demand. it is timely because the applicant is a user of the land and not simply a speculator . it is appropriate because using multifamily as a transition between commercial and single family is a proven land development practice. it is appropriate because there is multi family construction precedent in the vicinity. Conclusion no. 17 property should not be rezoned because there is confusion about the drainage system. Response: The confusion rests with Mr. Kaufman. The applicants civil Engineer is completely familiar with the drainage patterns and has designed the systems for Denneys and the Motel and knows the water courses around the interchange intimately. He feels confident that this site will experience normal engineering solutions . Conclusion no. 18 in this conclusion Mr. Kaufman is arguing with the City planning staff. r . Conclusion no.19: applicant has failed to justify steep slopes, protection of creek, and necessary access. Response: SLOPES The steep slopes ' within' the property are a creation of man due to excavation and city construction. . .These knolls have no inherent value and will be removed by anyone who develops this site. The slopes on the west boundary of the property are respected by holding an thesu buildings away from the bank as shown on the architectural si plbmitted. The site is a former sand excavation pit . . .thus the soil is an excellent building base; being well drained and having good bearing capacities. The site soils have been investigated with backhoe test pits. DRAINAGE CHANNEL The Hearing Examiner consistently refers to the water course in and near the property as a creek . , It is the opinion of the Applicant that this is merely a drainage , channel which runs a gamut of culverts before reaching the property and then is on the property for 50ft . and then is culverted again while running through city owned property. It is a storm water channel and requires a stretched imagination to conjure it as a valuable landmark. ACCESS As shown on the Architectural site plan access to the project is provided by two access points from 110th. . . Subsequent to this layout , meetings with the city streets and public works departments, assures us that additional access points can be obtained from 84th. . . Thus, there is no access problem with this site. SUMMARY: The applicant feels the recomendation by The Hearing Examiner was written without complete analysis of all the information available to him and in those areas where he was confused, he failed to ask for clarification. This property is ideally situated to be a natural buffer between the C;) commercial uses to the North and the residential uses to the South. The Enviornmental issues have been grossly exagerated and can be mitigated through "normal " construction methods. We hope the council agrees with Q&1L_xigw, the LgQQmmgn.dajiQn_for approval by ing_E1 nnins_iialf and En, the Dijy_BuilAin9_Dt2i• and dgishbjjins_ PLQ2gLhh_QwngL9 and approves this rezone from 81 to R3. Res ectfally, M rk Goldbe 5( ® CITY OF RENTON "LL FINANCE DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Maxine E. Motor, City.Clerk April 27, 1987 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss COUNTY OF KING ) MARILYN J. PETERSEN, Deputy City Clerk for 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 27th day of April, 1987, 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 DECISION FOR GIBRALTER HOMES REZONE (MARK GOLDBERT), FILE NO. R-012-86. Marilyn J to en, Deputy City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 9th day of February, 1987. Notary Public in and for th tate f Washington, residing in 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2501 y. • CITY OF RENTON • FINANCE DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Maxine E. Motor, City Clerk April 24, 1987 APPEAL FILED BY MARK GOLDBERG FOR GIBRALTER HOMES (FILE NAME) RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Recommendation, dated April 8, 1987, Gibralter Homes Rezone, File No. R-012-86 (Mark Goldberg) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 30, City Code, written appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision has been filed with the City Clerk, along with the proper fee of $75.00. 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 Committee. The Council Secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council Secretary at 235-2586 any weekday after 1:00 p.m. for information. Sincerely, CITY OF RENTON Maxine E. Motor, CMC City Clerk • 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2501 ri.7 . 1 I WRITTEN APPEAL 'OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL. I' APPLICATION NAME:.. Gibralter Homes FILE NO. R-012-86 Mark Goldberc 200 w. Mercer St. Suite 403 Seattle 98119 The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the Decision or Recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated April 8 . 13 7 1 . IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY) : Name: Mark Goldberg Name: John DeiningPr Architect Address: 200 W. Mercer St. Suite 403 Address: 5524 157th dr. ne. Seattle 98119 Redmond , Wa . 98052 Telephone No. 283 1747 Telephone No. 883-1411 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDINGS OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted • in the Examiner's Report) No. Error: ( SEE ATTACHED SHEETS ) • Correction: - 1 errY OF RENTON ; `, ' 1, 7tPR If.OBT • CONCLUSIONS: 1-1( CITY CLERKS NICE ) ` r (� 1 or. D No. Err �� � Correction: OTHER: No. ' Error: (1 Correction: •4 3. SUMMARY OF 'ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) X Reverse the Decision or Recommendation and grant the following relief: (Approve the rezone as requested ) Modify the Decision or Recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: 7/ '( April 22 , 1987 Appel'l nt/Representa ive Signature Date NOTE: Please refe to Title IV, Chapter 30 of the Renton Municipal Code, and Sections 4-3016 and 4-3017, specifically (see reverse side of page) for specific appeal procedures. CITY OF RENTC . N? 20817 FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHINGTON 9 8 0 55 g"--2,7 19 RECEIVED OF gACP, /2 Peeltn(42-/ S. , , . _ _ . . . ._ • .. . / /;7 Az*eiwy f(V2/ Received by TOTAL Z"() OF 't.ENTON • • 'APR -2-2' 198T ( • .CITV CLERK'S OFFICE. Ezguwg • J +i WRITTEN APPEAL,"OF HEARING EXAMINER' S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL. I.f ' FILE NO. R-012-86 APPLICATION NAtfiE,:,,_. Gibralter Homes Mark Goldberg 200 w. Mercer St. Suite 403 Seattle 98119 The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the Decision or Recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated April 8 1§7 . 1 . ' IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY) : !Name: Mark Goldberg Name: . John Deininger Architect Address: 200 W. Mercer St. Suite 403 Address: 5524 157th dr. ne. Seattle 98119 Redmond , Wa . 98052 Telephone No. 283 1747 Telephone No. 883- 1411 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDINGS OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted • in the Examiner's Report) No. Error: ( SEE ATTACHED SHEETS ) Correction: rAPR YE ingr -:- CONCLUSIONS: IR •Cni1CLE wsomFmCE. )]i' No. Error! E `'�u �. .. Correction: OTHER: No. Error: . (/:/ Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following ' relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) X Reverse the Decision or Recommendation and grant the following relief: (Approve the rezone as requested ) Modify the Decision or Recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: :6;,., April 22 , 1987 Appel'! nt/R resenta' ive Signature Date NOTE: Please refe to Title IV, Chapter 30 of the Renton Municipal Code, and Sections 4-3016 and 4-3017, specifically (see reverse side of page) for specific appeal procedures. 4-3016: APPEAL: Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the .• Exe 9r requires review thereof by the Superi- "'court, any interested party aggrieved by Examiner's written decision or recomn lation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with the Fee Schedule of the City. (A) , The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or lawl,which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. • (B) Within five(5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. (C) Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including; the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. • (D) No public hearing shall be held,by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council may remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (E) The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. f(F)--lf," upon= appeal:'bra decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application ) "Y- submitted pursuant to;Section 4-3010(A) and after examination of the record, 9'. !Thbr Ogu'ficirdettirmines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the • record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify;.:or reverse-:the-decision of the Examiner accordingly. (G) If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section 4-3010(B) or (C), and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application pursuant to Section 4-3010(B) or (C). (H) In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-3017: COUNCIL ACTION: Any application requiring action by the City Council shall be evidenced by minute entry unless otherwise required by law. When taking any such final action, the Council shall make and enter findings of fact from the record and conclusions therefrom which support its action. Unless otherwise specified, the City Council shall be presumed to have adopted the Examiner's findings and conclusions. (A) In the case of a change of the zone classification of property (rezone), the City Clerk shall place the ordinance on the Council's agenda for first reading. Final reading of the ordinance shall not occur until all conditions, restrictions or modifications which may have been required by the Council have been accomplished or provisions for compliance made to the satisfaction of the Legal Department. (B) All other applications requiring Council action shall be placed on the Council's agenda for consideration. (Ord. 3464, 7.28-80) (C) The action of the Council approving, modifying-or rejecting a decision of the Examiner, shall be final and conclusive, unless within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the action an aggrieved party or person obtains a writ of review from the Superior Court of Washington for King County, for purposes of review of the action taken. (Ord. 3725, 5-9-83) • Ro' Development T p ment Co . commercial real estate Acquisitions Development April 22, 1987 Renton City Council : Please be advised that the applicant for the rezone file R-012-86 has been changed from Gibralter Homes to . . .Mark Goldberg. The current application (Gibralter Homes) was inadvertantly submitted as a hold—over from a previous applicant who no longer has any affiliation with the matter . R/ e c t �i1 y 70-6 Ma k Soldbe`g Rose Development 200 W.Mercer St . Suite 403 Seattle, Wa. 98119 200 West Mercer Street, Suite 403, Seattle, Washington 98119, (206) 283-0919 • Ro f ,_ Development commercial real estate Acquisitions Development Renton City Council Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, Washington 98055 To: Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiners Decision file R-012-86 (Gibralter Homes) In reviewing the decision of Mr. Fred Kaufman (Hearing Examiner) to recommend the Council deny our application for rezone, we have discovered many issues of fact and information which Mr. Kaufman mis—interpreted, or ignored, durring his discussion in his report of April 8th, 1987. The following is a response to Mr. Kaufmans conclusions: Conclusion no.2 The request is untimely and incompatible with surrounding residential uses. Response: The request is to change potential intensive commercial use to a less intensive residential use. . . .residential is compatible with residential . The request is timely because there is a ' demand' for the use proposed, whereas no demand has been generated to utilize this property for commercial uses . Conclusion no.3 The record does not demonstrate how 70 units could be supported on the site. Response: Evidently Mr. Kaufman ignored a site development study prepared by the apllicants Architect which clearly and in detail proved how a 70 unit development would fit upon this site. In fact , this time consuming and expensive design including floor plans and exterior architecture studies was a requirement of the ERC for rezone consideration. Conclusions no.4,5,6, Information in the record is quite limited and does not address the topographic, stream, or buffering issues. Response: Again Mr. Kaufman has overlooked the Architectural Plans submitted by the applicant . The site plan submitted clearly demonstrates how the proposed use would mitigate the issue of steep slopes and topography in a very conventional and acceptable method. John Deininger, Architect for the project explained in testimony that the site was a former borrow pit and that recontouring of the land would be required for any type of development . The Site plan not only addresses buffering but also reflects a requirement by the ERC to limit Densities on the southern third of the property . 200 West Mercer Street, Suite 403, Seattle, Washington 98119, (206) 283-0919 • The proposed site plan does not alter the present course of the existing drainage ditch but merely enhances the aesthetic potential of the drainage channel with landscaping. Conclusion no.6 In his comment no.6 Mr . Kaufman states the applicant commented that the knolls were "deposited" on the site . Response: The applicant stated that the knolls were probably the result of "excavation" of material ,not deposits. These mounds of dirt are partly the result of city activity when they installed a water main along the right of way known as SE.84th st . Conclusion no.7 The northern half of the site is dominated by standing water . Response: Mr. Kaufman was identifying another parcel of property (adjacent to the North) which is not included in this application. There is a small portion of wet area on the proposed site which will measure approximately 60ft .x 45ft . a simple matter to mitigate . Conclusion 8: It would be inappropriate to place residential uses next to existing business zoning. Response: More intensive residential uses have historically been preferred to abut commercial uses than have single family next to commercial . Conclusion no.9 is it reasonable to buffer single family with multifamily? Response: It seems more reasonable to buffer single family with multifamily than to buffer with commercial uses. Conclusion no. 10 The requested zoning is not transitional and does not comply with the comprehensive plan of 61 . Response: The Site plan proposed by the applicant is transitional by design and respects the lower densities nature of the property to the south . this type of transition cannot be assurred with the commercial uses presently allowed on the property . The comprehensive plan is only a guide and allows for flexibility . Conclusion no. 11 The infrastructure is not ready for either multi family or business uses. Response: This argument is classic. "Which comes first . . .Chicken or Egg"? The applicant is a "user of the property" and has agreed to provide upgrade of the applicable roads and utilities. This certainly gives credance to the appropriateness of his request and reduces the argument of limited infrastructure . Conclusion no. 12 the area is predominately single family or rural in character . Response: go approximately 800' north and you will be in one of the highest density multifamily projects on the east side of the lake developed on extremely steep slopes. . .these apartments overlook a shopping facility a fast food restaurant , a motel complex and a freeway interchange the hillside directly east of the proposed site has preliminary design proposals for high density multifamily on very steep slopes . . . . A new McDonalds is under construction some 750 ft to the north . . .hardly a description of "rural " ! • Conclusion no. 13: an answer should be provided for the conflict between stream and public right of way improvement . Response: The conflict . . .which the applicant feels is being overrated. . .will exist no matter what is developed on the property and is simply a technical issue that can be delt with at development time. It is not a zoning issue. Conclusion no. 14: Topography and density discussion of previous applicant . no record of supporting data for 70 unit capacity. Response: Again Mr. Kaufman alludes to lack of information about our ability to develop this site . It is obvious that the extensive site plan information that the applicant submitted was either left out of the file Mr. Kaufman recieved or that he ignored it . Conclusion no. 15 nothing in the record justifies granting the request . Response: It seems to the applicant that Mr. Kaufman did not recieve the information the applicant gave to the city planning staff. Along with not reviewing all the information available it occurrs to the applicant that Mr . Kaufman may have been on the wrong property durring his field review,nor did he ask enough questions of the applicant to fairly assess the merits of this request . Conclusion no. 16: a repeat that the request is untimely and inappropriate. Response: it is timely because of demand. it is timely because the applicant is a user of the land and not simply a speculator . it is appropriate because using multifamily as a transition between commercial and single family is a proven land development practice . it is appropriate because there is multi family construction precedent in the vicinity. Conclusion no. 17 property should not be rezoned because there is confusion about the drainage system. Response: The confusion rests with Mr. Kaufman. The applicants civil Engineer is completely familiar with the drainage patterns and has designed the systems for Denneys and the Motel and knows the water courses around the interchange intimately. He feels confident that this site will experience normal engineering solutions . Conclusion no. 18 in this conclusion Mr. Kaufman is arguing with the City planning staff. Conclusion no. 19: applicant has failed to justify steep slopes, protection of creek , and necessary access. Response: SLOPES The steep slopes ' within' the property are a creation of man due to excavation and city construction . . .These knolls have no inherent value and will be removed by anyone who develops this site . The slopes on the west boundary of the property are respected by holding the buildings away from the bank as shown on the architectural site plan submitted. The site is a former sand excavation pit . . .thus the soil is an excellent building base; being well drained and having good bearing capacities. The site soils have been investigated with backhoe test pits. DRAINAGE CHANNEL The Hearing Examiner consistently refers to the water course in and near the property as a creek. It is the opinion of the Applicant that this is merely a drainage channel which runs a gamut of culverts before reaching the property and then is on the property for 50ft . and then is culverted again while running through city owned property . It is a storm water channel and requires a stretched imagination to conjure it as a valuable landmark . ACCESS As shown on the Architectural site plan access to the project is provided by two access points from 110th. . . Subsequent to this layout , meetings with the city streets and public works departments, assures us that additional access points can be obtained from 84th . . . Thus , there is no access problem with this site . SUMMARY: The applicant feels the recomendation by The Hearing Examiner was written without complete analysis of all the information available to him and in those areas where he was confused, he failed to ask for clarification . This property is ideally situated to be a natural buffer between the commercial uses to the North and the residential uses to the South . The Enviornmental issues have been grossly exagerated and can be mitigated through "normal " construction methods . We hope the council agrees with QS1L_Yigw, the LeLommgnslaiiQn_for approval by ing_E1_gnnin2_5iair and EEC, the DijY_DMilsiin9_DgPi• and NgighbQLin9_ PLQPgLiy_Qwngc5 and approves this rezone from 61 to R3. / :Res ectf,ul l y, P1 rk of dber, OF R.6 iv Ib O THE CITY OF RENTON c) 4$ . MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 NIL n ' BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER .0 co FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 o91 TED SEPSE (?) April 17, 1987 Mark Goldberg The M.S. Cavoad Company 200 West Mercer Street Suite 403 Seattle, Washington 98119 Re: Gibralter Homes R-012-86 - Request for Reconsideration Dear Mr. Goldberg: I have reviewed your letter of April 16, 1987 regarding a request for reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation. Please note that reconsideration is done based upon the written record, and generally no additional public hearings are required. In order for this office to reconsider the recommendation you must allege instances in which errors were made or introduce evidence which could not have been reasonably presented originally. This is not an open invitation to introduce new evidence, but merely an opportunity to convince the decision-maker that a mistake in interpretation or some other error occurred. Please cited specific concerns, and your request must be received in a timely fashion. If this office can be of any further assistance, please feel free to call. Sincerely, -tom FRED J. UFMAN HEARING EXAMINER cc City Attorney Ron Nelson Don Erickson Jeanette Samek-McKague The M.S. Cavoad Co. Incorporated commercial real estate _ * C : IVI APR 16 1987 April 16, 1987 CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER CERTIFIED MAIL Office of the Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue So. Renton, WA 98055 Reference: File No. : R-012-86 Gibralter Homes Gentlemen: Applicant hereby moves for reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's written findings dated April 8, 1987. Applicant hereby requests that a hearing be scheduled before the Hearing Examiner to present evidence and testimony in support of its motion. Respectfully submitted, sep „, M rk dildberg r President MG/mh Enclosure 200 West Mercer Street, Suite 403, Seattle, Washington 98119 (206)283-1747 } • RCV ApR 1s 1981 April 8, 1987 oN OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMpol t'y O� e.R CITY OF RENTON �d++ Hsp►R► - REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION APPLICANT: GIBRALTER HOMES File No.: R-012-86 LOCATION: Located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue N.E. and N.E. 40th Street, if extended. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request to rezone 3.17 acres -q from B 1 to R-4 to allow construction of 70 multi-family dwelling units SUMMARY OF ACTION: Building and Zoning Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions. Hearing Examiner Decision: Recommend City Council deny rezone from B-1 to R-4. BUILDING & ZONING The Building & Zoning Department Report was received DEPARTMENT REPORT: by the Examiner on March 3, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Zoning Department t 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 March 10, 1987 at 9:55 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit #1 - Yellow File containingapplication, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit #2 - Assessors Map. The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Senior Planner, Jeanette Samek- McKague. It was reported that the applicant is requesting this rezone to R-4 to build 70 multi-family dwelling units; the original request was for 104 units but the ERC determined the property would only permit a density of 70 units without harmful impacts; ERC issued a mitigated Declaration of Non- Significance on this request; Lincoln Avenue N.E. is a 2 lane road on the eastern end of the property with a right-of-way on N.E. 40th (which is undeveloped) located on the southern portion. .She referred to the letter from the Policy Development Department which states theydo support not this.proposal due to earth, hydrology, biology and traffic issues they feel have not been addressed. She stated it was staff's feeling this letter and its issues would refer to the site plan review for this applicant and not this rezone. The Examiner questioned why this request was not for R-3 due to its density, instead of R-4 zoning. It was learned that the applicant did not change the request nor did staff notify the applicant of this option. Continuing, Mrs. Samek-McKague reviewed the criteria to be considered for a rezone request and stated the property has not been considered for a rezone since the northeast Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1981 wherein the property was determined to have a commercial use, and since that time land uses have not been re-evaluated in the subject area; the applicant is requesting a multi-family flPQtonatinn which is innnne:etnnh t. • VA/C.) `1! Gar 'D • • wEio RfacEs • Nyvv3 OS 1`r Reece e' ` itlI7 pp,�j�y!!'� 4 e r !C .,, ;; . , r, pi41%ili51 r .. b a r C n,1 1—Filed for Record at Request of • . .—t City of Renton ,,. Name__—MN — _ .._.__.._...--_--...._.......... ._._ ''' % 0200 MI11Ave. S. ,TP "1� ;; Address Fi;:c,'.: i.,i �1;S i. '>< d" • '__ Renton, WA_ 98055 xrrlc•c ,��i '15 City and State _ _.._.._......_.._.._._.._....:�.» • >j' o .)" <n_ o Quit Claim Deed - , 0 "-� ICORPORATE FORM) O }n N THE GRANTOR Munson Investment, Inc. . i; O Or N., • r and in consideration of One Dollar and no/100 01.00) Clof Renton, a Municipality • • conveys and quit claims to ty I. the following described real estate,situated in the County of King State of Washington, together with all after acquired title•of the grantor(s) therein: t{i� • 7he.South 80 feet of Lot 2, Block 3, C. D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden %';� of Eden, Division No. 7 as recorded in Vol. 16 of Plats, Page 18 Records of I,i King County, Washington. , t .. - .. .. . . • • i' w. .. ' 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said corporation has caused this instrument to be executed by its proper officers and Its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed this J day of C•2 9 7-!) • 0l a 1 ... ':i .ti By01 ' l //2 A4.22 t-t.{. ...� .• :: .- • R t, Nuns n c 3,?. 1Presidi4 By ey. :i dr.;Seqlhi ,y STATE OF WASHINGTON, ,, r ss. County of •" "`f, i ,i On this / C' day of l(«2• ,19 %..5 before me, the undersigned, • ,; • 4 a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and swor,per,t ally appeared + ir', li , '2/ I?z.t.�--,c� and —c' -eZ v.I.€t. • / f to me known to b ,�,,.' ' ' A,..., .resident and Secretary, respectively,of �// t I'?2-% :i the corporation that--kaul a i eacgegoing instrument, and acknowlbdged the said instrument to be the free and • voluntary act saistikecf of slid: 9ration, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that <f r-dutborl tp';execUle the said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said • corporal on- 't—i's , ;..• . , • . Witness my 3hti;aitd okaal"seal hereto affixed the .ay an year first above written. fir..'•.... - !. te - .C.J '/eC e- ,• Notary Public in for the State of f'Vathington, 1 , , 66-if_ ° " 297. 23 y -E_ _� ret 11 ,« 'Z v ' 294' 67 tn 5.1 -.\ -. ^r N 61 Ul N h CO , a - 't c', N 0 _ OW R�• 'p9� 60 A�' OP r AY 6 ---� ••-t z_.,i-_- _ - " o o z 'o ., I ti v.ti �V `` % --�-► 0 _ r 29c L4 0 �� : ,L.. 2 9b 99 D ` U' V A o,0' rr ►) �Q 8 N °ti :,,,,,\ bGPr/0� o A 2JS 7.. 0 r 7 iA 00-o NI 'Z , • �� 7 h — ' � , , • 'y , n / 7e �' 561 J A" Q 9+ 'r• ( � ,30f a�`i 0° ti Q 0 297 26 /48 64 4 b 0 . J /49a4 ql / V CA yq ti N 8, , h ti fer.17— ltii : h i Z 49 e/ S 1,IP \V /o ry i, 0 . i's ft /i j y7, CoI ,e0,D G.) .iI o v Ay ��a o k b pv 0 .,‘\ • i fi, 110 . , LI I ‘• 96 .4/99- SS /1' 252 i 3 /\ N v C� 2 o cu 308 4 -e T ,- I 4 ', SE 84TH. ST, N -4 ? , „, r—,„ / '., N A,V I• 0 \J not 297 46 96 +Z296 g� Z O • 124 • D o AOC° •�� � Z� 0° ‘..Z.'‘ a h ¢ h A0 hNg � 0:G� � N 3 �23�, 3 �,� o A ✓4 o 5 2 mN II \.4 . o43 pLr — y y 94ofl 5 \ ftI b •j1 0 �(1� IV297. 97 ~, v /I • k "k"— ,) )4\ V w 0111 S ti vi G b cn —3 — — - - • lis N N � �. R O VI i p 00 U i—,e z G s 4' > ti as ri /.�5' 3 ', 13 A < 4S'pig° Z Oi30 �:z5 � 298.27 7 �- vi vi o ` O i �/ m 8 7 N G ____ v o E G (�l 60,9/G of G2,q O 3 ,G I li 1 . 1 299. s7 1 oak} A!69- ssH; 1 294 ,i35 91 i5�. W (:). 0 328. 08 0r—il 5 S E. 867H. ST. V �30 �e /66 � ( ) 242.97 ' V w _ n April 8, 1987 • OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION APPLICANT: GIBRALTER HOMES File No.: R-012-86 LOCATION: Located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue N.E. and N.E. 40th Street, if extended. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request to rezone 3.17 acres from B-1 to R-4 to allow construction of 70 multi-family dwelling units SUMMARY OF ACTION: Building and Zoning Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions. Hearing Examiner Decision: Recommend City Council deny rezone from B-1 to R-4. BUILDING & ZONING The Building & Zoning Department Report was received DEPARTMENT REPORT: by the Examiner on March 3, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Zoning 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 March 10, 1987 at 9:55 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit #1 - Yellow File containing application, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit #2 - Assessors Map. The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Senior Planner, Jeanette Samek- McKague. It was reported that the applicant is requesting this rezone to R-4 to build 70 multi-family dwelling units; the original request was for 104 units but the ERC determined the property would only permit a density of 70 units without harmful impacts; ERC issued a mitigated Declaration of Non- Significance on this request; Lincoln Avenue N.E. is a 2 lane road on the eastern end of the property with a right-of-way on N.E. 40th (which is undeveloped) located on the southern portion. She referred to the letter from the Policy Development Department which states they do not support this proposal due to earth, hydrology, biology and traffic issues they feel have not been addressed. She stated it was staff's feeling this letter and its issues would refer to the site plan review for this applicant and not this rezone. The Examiner questioned why this request was not for R-3 due to its density, instead of R-4 zoning. It was learned that the applicant did not change the request nor did staff notify the applicant of this option. Continuing, Mrs. Samek-McKague reviewed the criteria to be considered for a rezone request and stated the property has not been considered for a rezone since the northeast Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1981 wherein the property was determined to have a commercial use, and since that time land uses have not been re-evaluated in the subject area; the applicant is requesting a multi-family designation which is inconsistent with its current zoning of B-1; and stated most surrounding uses are single-family or undeveloped property. She also advised that commercial uses on the site would have a higher impact on surrounding properties than would the multiple-family proposal, and could be in the public interest by providing a transitional buffer to the surrounding properties. In conclusion, it was recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions imposed by the ERC. The Examiner called for testimony in support of the proposal from the applicant or their representative. Testifying was John Deininger, Architect, 5524 - 157th Drive NE, Redmond, Wa. 98052 who stated the applicant is attempting to rezone to R-4 but will accept R-3 zoning; feels the rezone should be granted as it is in a predominantly residential community; and stated for the record that the application is still called Gibralter Homes but Mark Goldberg has nothing to do with that Company. The owner of the property is Radford and Company, the applicant is Mark Goldberg and Gibralter Homes, initially the applicant for the rezone, is no longer involved in the project. Mr. RI GIBRALTER HOMES R-012-86 April 8, 1987 Page 2 I ' Deininger mentioned the stream referred to in the mitigated conditions by the ERC stating the stream j is only a drainage ditch and may dry up in the simmer, but feels the condition is being over-ruled by the city's Public Works Department in their request that the roads to the east and south of the property be improved. If Lincoln Avenue is to be improved it would overlay the existing water course. He feels this condition is a city conflict. He also feels the letter from the Policy Development Department was written based on the added density the former applicant had requested of 104 units; the property appears to have been some type of excavation site due to the nature of the current topography and the mounds located thereon; the site has a slope from a high of 90 ft. to a low of 50 ft.; and the steam referred to begins off-site, is culverted three times before it comes onto the property for about 20 ft. then runs through the public right-of-way past their property. The portion of the stream that could be impacted from their site is a portion approximately 30 - 50 ft. in length. Continuing, Mr. Deininger advised the Public Works Department wants to add additional lanes on 110th with improvements, and when that occurs, the stream will no longer be visible. Improvement of NE 40th was discussed with Utility Engineering and the applicant was requested to build 1/2 of the road as it exists on the south end of their property, but no mention was made to build the road to Jones Avenue. In conclusion, he stated since the; property was zoned commercial in 1964, nothing has developed on the site to indicate a desire for commercial uses, and feels the requested rezone is justified. Testifying in support of the application also was !Roger Blaylock, 10717 NE 4th Street, Suite #9, Bellevue, Wa. 98004 who was representing Ivan Shaw, a resident east of the subject property, lot #7, which is across from the northern portion of the subject site. Mr. Blaylock referenced the water in the area of the site noting it does not go into May Creek but is a part of the storm drainage basin that drains to the north of the Denny Restaurant site and out underneath 1-405 to.Lake Washington. He stated Mr. Shaw does not object to this rezone request; believes it does add to the transition from commercial areas to the north; the sensitivity of the site should be looked at in relation to the remaining single family residences; noted Lincoln Avenue is an unimproved dedicated right-of-way on the east side of the site; and to protect the stream corridor on the west side of the site, Lincoln Avenue could not be constructed without deleting the stream. In closing, Mr. Blaylock requested that Mr. Shaw be permitted to be involved in the review of the site plan when submitted. Speaking in opposition to this application, representing the Policy Development Department for the City of Renton was Carrie Trimnell, Assistant Planner. Miss Trimnell referred to the memo dated February 11, 1987 from the Policy Development Director indicting their concerns with this rezone request which included earth, biological, hydrology and traffic impacts. She also pointed to the placement of the adjacent arterial in relation to the on-site stream corridor and concluded with a request from the department that this rezone be denied. When asked if the department would have objections to a R-2 or R-3 zone, Miss Trimnell stated the Policy Development Department would recommend further ERC review, they would not recommend R-3 zoning. She had no further comments. Also testifying in opposition to this proposal was Charles Deitch, 4108 Jones Avenue NE, Renton, Wa. 98056, owner of 2 parcels of property to the west of the subject site, currently zoned B-1. He expressed concern over the future development potential of his property, and requested any site plan for the applicant's property not place development restrictions of any fashion on his property. He stated further that all property on Jones Avenue to the west and north of the subject site is currently being used as business property with businesses in place and operating, not single family uses as had been previous stated; feels the topography drop on the property is more than the stated 60 ft.; does not agree with the statement that this rezone complies with the Comprehensive Plan and feels it permits an opening for lesser development of his property in the future. He closed with a request that the record reflect that there were no postings for this hearing on Jones Avenue consequently he feels those property owners were not given the opportunity to question this proposal. He stated Lincoln Avenue was posted, and he learned of the hearing through the notice in the newspaper. Closing comments were received by Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator for the City. Mr. Erickson referred to the determination made by the ERC of 2/18/87 which was published in the local newspaper on 2/23/87 and mailed out to the applicant directly; drainage; stated under B-1 zoning the applicant is permitted up to 65% coverage of the site including services; and the fact multi-family zoning would permit more open space on the site. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:45 A.M. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1 1. The applicant was originally Mark Goldberg, for Gibralter Homes. The application is now being pursued by Radford and Company, the owner of the subject site. The request is to ,i. ' ' GIBRALTER HOMES R-012-86 April 8, 1987 Page 3 reclassify approximately 3.17 acres of property from B-1 (Business/Commercial) to R-4 (High Density Multiple Family). 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance (DNS) for the subject proposal. The DNS was a mitigated DNS and subject generally to the following conditions: a. A limit on development to not more than 70 dwelling units "assuming impacts associated with such development can be adequately mitigated." b. The protection and integration of the existing stream into the overall development. c. To the greatest extent possible, existing trees would be integrated into the development in consultation with the City's landscape architect. d. One-half of the cost of street improvements for N.E. 40th Street (S.E. 84th in King County) and Lincoln Avenue N.E. (110th Avenue in King County) would be contributed by the applicant. 4. The subject site is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Lincoln Avenue N.E. and N.E. 40th Street, as extended. The site is southeast of the N.E. 44th Street/I-405 Interchange. The site is located just northwest of the junction of 110th Street (King County) and Lincoln. 5. The subject site was annexed into the City by the enactment of Ordinance 2079, adopted in February, 1964. The site was rezoned from G (General) to B-1, its current classification in June, 1980 with the enactment of Ordinance 3433. A condition of'that rezone was the establishment of a 50 foot wide greenbelt easement along the south property line. That condition had no particular time limit but has not been complied with, and the language said the site was rezoned subject to the creation of the easement. It does not say subject to the "eventual creation of an easement." Subsequent readoption of the City's Zoning Map clouds the issue. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of Commercial use, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the plan. 7. The Comprehensive Plan for this area shows it as one of transition between the commercial uses located near the I-405 interchange and the extensive single family areas just east and south of I-405 and 44th Street. 8. The area remains primarily rural in character with a minor shift toward commercial or light industrial uses just southeast of the interchange. The newer development just east of the interchange includes an apartment complex and small shopping center. Denny's Restaurant is also located in the general vicinity north of the subject site. Most of these more intense uses are clustered near the freeway interchange. These new uses are more or less "frontage road" uses. The predominant uses east and particularly south near the subject site are scattered single family homes on generally large lots. 9. The May Creek stream course defines a particularly rural environment just west and south of the subject site while a small stream which flows next to and across portions of the subject site similarly defines a less developed, more rural, scattered single family home area. 10. The interchange area and frontage road along Jones Avenue N.E. is zoned B-1, the subject site's current zoning. North of the subject site is an R-1 (Single Family) district. The extensive R-1 Kennydale district begins just south of the subject site. An intervening area between the Kennydale R-1 district and the subject site is located within King County and is also zoned for single family uses. Maps demonstrate the King County area is set aside for single family homes on 9,600 sq ft lots. This single family King County zoning district is quite extensive, running a substantial distance to the east. 11. The subject site contains a complex topographical mixture of steep slopes ranging up to 40%, a stream course meandering along the east margin of the subject site along its south half and re- entering the northeast quadrant of the site, and a large wet area containing standing water in the north central portion of the site. 12. Elevation differences on the site range from approximately 44 feet to over 100 feet. The topography for the southern half of the site could be described as a northerly facing 'U' shaped GIBRALTER HOMES R-012-86 April 8, 1987 Page 4 amphitheater with walls approximately 25 to 40 high on the east and a little lower on the west. The floor of the amphitheater slopes downward to the north and merges with the low area of standing water. The east wall of the amphitheater lowers_slightly and accommodates the stream course. The subject site is located steeply above its westerly neighbor. 13. The applicant indicated that the stream flows intermittently, but the record would appear to reflect that the stream flows year-round. 1 The applicant also indicated that the site's very steep areas were created by filling of the subject site, but this does not explain how a stream course was created at elevations of approximately 80 feet, when the low areas are approximately 44 feet. While portions of the site may have been artificially altered, it does not appear likely that the stream was raised above its natural course. 14. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. The Policy Development Department strongly 'dissented from the ERC's mitigated DNS and from the recommendation of the Building and Zoning Department. They cited the clear deviation from the Comprehensive Plan, the incompatibility with the existing zoning and uses in the area, the 40% slopes on the east, south and west margins of the site, the central wetland area, the separate natural stream on the site, and traffic safety issues. 15. An adjoining property owner expressed concern regarding any change of zoning which would impact his adjoining and currently compatible B-1 zoning. This neighbor was concerned that a change to residential zoning would require changes to his potential development patterns for his B-1 property. 16. Public Works has indicated that the right of-way along Lincoln Avenue needs improvement, including widening. The rights-of-way for Lincoln and 110th apparently coincide in some locations and diverge in others. The right-of-way on one or both streets may also coincide with the stream flowing on and adjacent to the subject site. This stream is the one which the ERC required be maintained by the applicant. 17. The Building and Zoning Department recommended that the rezone be approved, citing a flexible Comprehensive Plan, further environmental analysis when a particular plan is submitted, the potentially less intense coverage permitted in the R-4 zone and the absence of development under the current zoning. CONCLUSIONS II 1. The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest, that it will not impair the public health, safety and welfare and in addition, complies with at least one of the criteria found in Section 4-3010, 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 a material and substantial change in the area in which the subject site is located since the last rezoning of the property or area. The requested classification is unwarranted by the facts presented. 2. The request appears untimely. The requested zoning is out of place and incompatible with surrounding classifications and uses, and in conflict with the designations in the Comprehensive Plan. While staff.urges flexibility, flexibility in this case would result in outright disregard of the Comprehensive Plan, surrounding zoning and surrounding uses. Even if the site were considered suitable for multifamily development, it is one thing to suggest that low density multiple family, say R-2 (Duplex Residential) might provide a suitable transition between the commercial uses proposed to front I-405 and the existing single family uses east and south of the subject site - and completely another thing to suggest R-4 or even R'-3 is a reasonable zoning category for the subject site. 3. There is simply no reason to reclassify thel site from its current B-1 to R-4, even R-4 conditioned to allow R-3 development as the ERC required. This last factor alone, the condition of R-3 density on an R-4 parcel, shows the lack of sufficient justification for the applicant's original request. The applicant originally requested 104 units which was scaled back to 84 units, which was again scaled back to the currently requested 70 units. The record does not demonstrate how the lesser number was realized nor why it is suitable except as a concession. While it materialized in repeated ERC analysis, there is no basis in the record reflecting why a density of 70 units could be supported on the subject site. • / GIBRALTER HOMES R-012-86 April 8, 1987 Page 5 4. There is no analysis of what densities the site might be able to sustain if the creek and steep slopes were maintained. With the existing and new vesting principles enunciated by the Courts in Washington, it is incumbent upon the City to analyze such factors before rezoning a site, not after rezoning it. Site plan review is no substitute for a complete review of whether or not the site should be rezoned at all. 5. Simply stating that the 40 to 50 foot high knolls will be removed to allow development ignores the affects such reconstruction might have on the stream course which is immediately adjacent to the easterly knoll. It also ignores that the stream is located at an elevation of approximately 80 feet, while the low wet areas, presumably the elevation which would be matched by restructuring and recontouring the site is approximately 43 feet. Based upon the information now in the record, information which is quite limited, any modification of the site would have extreme affects on the stream course. Also ignored in the analysis are the effects the elimination of the natural buffering aspects of the topography would have upon adjacent property and uses, generally single family and undeveloped to the east and south, and commercial to the west. If these natural buffers were maintained, what would be the carrying capacity of the site? 6. Again regarding these existing complex topographic features, this office finds it difficult to accept the applicant's comments that the steep knolls on the site were deposited on the site and could be just as easily removed. The knolls range from approximately 40 to 55 feet higher than some of the surrounding terrain. It would be all but impossible for the creek course to have been created on the raised portions of the site. With information of this sort in the record, rezoning is inappropriate. 7. The northern half of the site is dominated by a large area of standing water or wetland soils, while the southern half of the site is dominated by extremely steep slopes on the east and west side of the site. In addition, a creek identified on the applicant's topographic map meanders along the eastern edge of the southern half of the site and re-enters the northeast corner of the site. Is this site suitable for 70 dwelling units? Again, not with the information now in the record. 8. Practically - what would be the affect of developing another Denny's Restaurant immediately west of the subject site while permitting residential development of the subject site? The current B-1 zoning west of the site would permit such an inappropriate mix, if the current request were approved. As the adjacent owner indicated, he should not have to worry about protecting residential uses from any commercial development which is now permitted as of right on his adjoining westerly property. 9. Beginning one parcel to the north is an R-1 district. Similarly, beginning two parcels to the south is the extensive R-1 district of Kennydale. The record is not clear, but maps indicate - that the district to the immediate south, in King County, and extending easterly is zoned for large 9,600 sq. ft. lot single family uses. Is it reasonable to buffer these low density single family areas with R-4 zoning? Not with the information provided. 10. A rezone to-R_= not exactly a moderate transition between the single family uses and zoning north, east-and-south of the site and the B-1 zoning west of the site. Nor does the proposed zoning appear to provide any staged transition. It simply locates an isolated parcel of R-4 zoning, or at best R-3 zoning, in an area in which the Comprehensive Plan foresees B-1 or low density multiple family zoning. 11. While there has been no development on the subject site, any arguments that the current zoning does not reflect a reasonable zoning category for the site can be answered readily. The action which reclassified the site to B-i specifically pointed out it was in an area with limited infrastructure, especially regarding roads. Rather than concluding that the site should again be rezoned, it might be more reasonable to conclude that the earlier action rezoning the site to B-1 was a bit premature. This office is not tempted, at least with the evidence now in the record, to conclude that the site is now ripe for R-4 zoning or even the R-3 density now suggested. 12. The area is currently still quite unaffected by development comparable to the greater densities proposed by the applicant. The area is predominantly single family, or more likely rural in character. Based upon the information now available this office would now hazard to suggest that the reclassification to B-1 seven years ago was probably premature. 13. The applicant has pointed out some obvious problems with the request and the City's current response and recommendations. Conflicting demands were presented regarding right-of-way creation/development versus stream course preservation. The ERC has mandated the protection and integration of the Creek running along and through the eastside of the subject site in any project design, while Public Works wants a wider alignment for Lincoln Avenue. It would appear that the applicant has correctly stated that such a wider right-of-way would significantly affect the Creek. Actually the record reflects confusion about the alignment of the existing street, the actual dedicated right-of-way and the stream course and where they coincide and • GIBRALTER HOMES ' R-012-86 April 8, 1987 Page 6 diverge from each other. This may be.based upon the fact that Lincoln and 110th merge in this location and the rights-of-way may or may not coincide with each other and the as-built roadway. There appear to be conflicting lvisions for this stream/road alignment - stream preservation by the ERC and road development by the Public Works Department. There is no certainty that both requirements can be accomplished at the same time. An answer should be provided prior to rezoning the subject site. 14. The site's existing complex topography does not seem to demonstrate a capacity for multiple family dwellings. The record is devoid of any basis for determining that the site is suitable for multiple family housing in the numbers ultimately arrived at by either the applicant or the ERC. This office cannot understand how a request which was originally submitted for R-4 zoning could travel through the.ERC process, be scaled down, resealed down, and still be found suitable for an R-4 zoning category with, separate constraints imposed which would reduce it to R-3. Talk about.a confusing zoning map - this would epitomize confusion. Then there remains a vague reference in the ERC decision to a possible lesser density if the impacts of 70 units can't be(mitigated - and still the request is couched as a request for R-4 zoning which would permit more than 100 dwelling units. 15. The zoning process is not well served by a continued recommendation to rezone the site to R-4 when vesting principles, could well permit the maximum development. And while the applicant has now indicated a willingness for the lesser R-3 zoning, nothing in the record justifies granting the request. 16. Without question a reclassification of the''subject site to permit 70 units on the 3.17 acres is untimely and inappropriate. The Comprehensive Plan indicates if residential is appropriate for the site at all, it would be low density multiple family - a designation which would permit at its maximum 36 units by conditional use permit, and at its low end about half that number, or approximately 18 units. 17. Conflicting information was introduced regarding the drainage pattern for the run-off and the drainage basin serving the site. May Creek crosses under I-405 southwest of the site, while drainage patterns north of the site cross near Denny's on I-405. If this site truly is in the so- called "Denny's Drainage" then more information is required before allowing any additional development since that.drainage system has been known to fail. The applicant indicated that the stream is intermittent. An adjacent neighbor and staff suggest that the stream flows all year. The lack of clear information on these and the other issues demonstrates how unreasonable it is to recommend the course of action requested by the applicant. 18. The record does not demonstrate the basis'for either Building and Zoning's or the ERC's recommendations, especially the density reductions. The only justification might be that the Comprehensive Plan would appear to indicate less intense use on the subject site. If that is the basis then why the protracted negotiation leading to an R-4 designation. with a contradictory R-3 density on a site with severe topographic constraints, and which is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for B-1, or at most R-2 uses? 19. In conclusion. the applicant has failed to justify the request to rezone a site with 40% slopes with'a Creek running through it, with inconclusive data on the ability to protect the creek and to provide the necessary access for multifamily development. Therefore, the City Council should deny the requested rezone. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should deny the request;to rezone. this site from B-1 to R-4. In addition, the City Council should review and investigate compliance with the conditions imposed with the adoption of the B-1 Rezone (Ordinance 3433) in 1980 which required the creation of a 50 foot greenbelt easement along the south property line. The record reflects that the condition was not complied with by the then owner or his successors in interest. ORDERED THIS 8th day of April, 1987. ral/Ift-61 FRED J. KA FMAN HEARING EXAMINER ' I GIBRALTER HOMES R-012-86 April 8, 1987 Page 7 TRANSMITTED THIS 8th day of April, 1987 to the parties of record: John Deininger, Architect 5524 - 157th Drive NE Redmond, Washington 98052 Roger Blaylock 10717 NE 4th Street, Suite #9 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Carrie Trimnell, Assistant Planner Policy Development Department Charles Deitch 4108 Jones Avenue NE Renton, Washington 98056 TRANSMITTED THIS 8th day of April, 1987 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director Larry M. Springer, Policy Development Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Glen Gordon, Fire Marshal Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Renton Record-Chronicle Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 P.M. April 22, 1987. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a 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 $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. '^"g,&j",y.. a sA .+ �y't`„ti s ,{.. xkf,,y'ra i'F v, +:, y.., p- ,,,{t(c#,,k.r+ 4g%:F,k' r+c1 ,fit r 'At,, d•�._ ,y ,M" ° t.- -i; `-. ' •* '.. g'tray 'a "';. '�+,�.'. ,r* "F',,,,,',• �,, ` rt;ZI'4.4+; � kti,' r„ ' a' '' lfill ,, t, n'i. .,ry aP V''' S �i„A h 4":, t; A. et{ i,tr', -t: k S 5:,,j `ra .. ina �e J st t" A tr1 .; o#y .,tip 41 ,P r.�.,s- ;J . o'4•r ha.fit + k.,'+�r 1 F s.r Ff �',,,,,Zoo. r! "" s; Ytt •'' � fie;: ," -, H'�i.,.. 4 1'"A•'' ;£ �i3YgK r�, L• .1stt+... ... y�'"y w,:y ,� a „ a i'' {"'xt Yi p E .. xrY *.. 7•'74r�. Yy ap ^t der ; 4. rf..•{S, .,, 't'> 4�• ' 30,-,v "�.•1., l'; J.k. r,. , a 0t-,, r' ''--4 t • , . , i`r `k . I Y °, t k."• , • ." •..w-,.. c•. ter. c‘,. '', 4440i!' '''2 I: ' , . • . - _ . —--•-—-- ------ '`,,_,./,:i 'I.t P-;-,i,' :-7,,,,---,r7------="-----;,________ ,. .f$,,, IV N ''VS %'1. '. *YA','.(.0,... ...,44.,.. ,.e. ip,, ,...-.Tyl.p. - -.-...s.. ' NizoPopp.. „\ ,i 'Al 3 Akt.. .te,'41,,.: .. , , , ., .tea 1a #' i1dk -1r ���y' �• 1• _ .. °'S'',i,• r't',t,-�.'t,i.? eppr �� ry/ i 1 -- ' ' '\ v {.. t� Jrc� , \ � k 1ii '�.(an, d "9f t ,i?,xa.�l�h�c �t 11ll1t • , ,r�:•, F ,4 ,/✓5,• Ow; •, fr � ,' d .\ _\ I� "a` .fie . ---'1\ "15 �c F ..f S { tf,; : f A d ,,tv El `y \ " Ss 1 :`c .n rya° •� Ltd{ a'#'a;y,".a?r, t \�14 t y �� • ..',..i.„,:,* ,4,-. ,.„. ,,,:„ :,:, '4,,,t.,igc,-.,,,,-4.-1,;14,4;; i() 7y }' 41p Jviq ' 1 1.i 4 'i}:4,';.k i ▪'44 �` ,°' „• ! tY' 11 v ?.PY`" �L t. '�\\\\,\ pw.'T ••,t• q' 1,k\:,,, I \rn5 ?',. ; ' t', ' at e r�pPY? 1'{t a. >' " `\ 1 a/ `_ `�+ C`' 4� .� •t If:-',''':,!::iti a�� a p t�S t�Ay �� 7.\� r y • , {'nr i�P p3's�r .,'�- 't lr 1;y F. wr E r '4, ij� a:i. ,`�'rr" ^i, ;' f?k•y�'�•." '4:Y�-i;;'ala+4:`i".1 A .r ,fit a; x .t %• „..„,,,, ,... tt'`1 .p-. „y A4�'f 4• a 5 , 4 • r Nrt• ',., ,F'"Y40 S�rg„ T T ''q P7 isf a'kt, / ` ••^ • .:air 5 d k * ,r i. Wr ter s, Y p I ". .g•,4i,',40i'!•PiC,,7N.,;:4<ka' ‘.:---,' 412`;':-;;t:.•6g, e , �Aii,ti�. to 4 ( ;=:., ,.i,,e., �`• la a,rfp ti• y ! ?.�R�� r t !• a `►7¢r +1 {<,." f'wiAt. 1� ^i.rr rt .. n • .� 1 ti, . • :Bsil'ggO^�'l.,+ ' 1 �,t}ff` " .-C. '.;;•;( \•'.t r ryy°`kN? /,4'tdISi , Via',.•' y'4.t' T1 �ij, \ 1`�..1'Rr� + l �{ :"z r herd �. �•'+e },�y x +S .a\ lr K a i r ip , \ •y I• °"i.1,,, �• �� �µ?* ;t1d3 Y4p ': , t' d 6 {k.� od •�'qC..?,C�'fi''v t•'' ;! f�'.K'as ° o'• ;i to w1 i tsr§9 f,yy�r"`f r iv, ,r 's ' 4 a .A r 'i. / t y eR u {Jia r l ly t'�i .ir7vT.' tt.A y !k`, '`, t \u ara b/ e '' °ti � !^;i' y'S, �• & r{I yy vr�y? tlt :i E4 a t L{ La } 1 A r "'' i; •ILx .'a' g/ha '� '"s ! ,��'t'„'n t .r'.. �. �5 p(' ><5-- I1 i\7j I:.,,, . ------ P I r 6�' t x,, i?� .�,. �,•s* , } y 3 .y' R\a^ 6 Il „fit t - ''-'q„,4,0/44 4: •,,,1*,. t_i,'1, 1:5.::,:-...!:/•'..,r.,•[.i!,r;',,' t4;,'''P,k r''`,444,70,-V "1-44,, 1,,-;,)::•.t,.‘-.7,- , t° >r�K l,c4.,0r�x h�' M�"•ct,°�.�`r• e. #FE ,p a \ t` ^k ar •r- -?9•*;�M4r°"'D'1•.� r(�3 ' 1 .1 •I Kai t�1�r;C "+'i, 1 C ,:i J° tas nu? y K t d{ i;il y .'.; k,'';7 ' }4si�' ii^,''+"/ii ,a�°:r` y r Arp�aq ,(u r, -'`' s i.rr,,,,,,,03," ,�w,,ar.,lsi,,,iot.44.,: 5 c+•'. + .3- —t•°�Rx ,•-- di''i L f $ �,y,� {/ k�g^''.s�'"'R'.c" LYx�`. VW, � t I _J1C"_ .J, Y 4 :�xi•.':Try^ ':x'4 ' 'a .1•1 • 4"..,r \,. -.4�A 'lc;'f`:_, • 4 ¢ .t •�,..,�,�,jnA .a _<y� .i'eb'}#,t US�'3X', Ay-1- f l!::ems' S��f ::' ',4'S }. TI'i. a,,.r`,, 4. ,'r A Y; rid'' , L J7`,'a:'r.a'',.} d, ` 4 I .n. x jk.{ r`P �Aa`'2�:^'k:.�;, �,,r� r �,#eJt.,ta ,y. x •p .i°.•.:u,�i, .ik`'i': 3a.n ''�C r�Yji'•{. : 'x: �t .11d:,•''r3. \ 'tom ll\',a $" 1 %ta';:;. 7 , \ l- py�•',�'''t . �i ,.•• xs,k ap -s�4" +c �a ►l ! i v r fit �r .�'"u1 y, Y f.•it,� �_ \p��' .}.a1 +,.. 1•d^: $ +r. ,ICJ r 1 S �3i t .r ri 1t �a,,,s 'itr:y °a t'r. r• ' if¢:. Y?kar3yu,Xri„;:� "a ••4�. >'; 1 t #ef trf(.;. ; re �`?(f ,,k f �' #`�;a i°^y' \ \. 1 I ,1( '��'' f,. f x M' •p,��' S�j YA L1 ! r 4::‘,11 , . , , ,s , , .: t.,. .,, ::,,,,,.. �7. .r .ct e i4r,T;; trtl {', a z.., V 7•r�2; "�..a ( a AZR'• '. ',r.�.,'.': ,..A;- i, \�., \ ,f,. !/ l �i*..,`r i LS 0 ,' `q° 'r S ++i rJ esxi i'' \x,,tii `pi_ ► tit"` :'1--ra I . , _ :.'' i. 4e .'1 }g p'z r ''. 'P{ r C 1 5%J T.:' 4. ','— 1fi'•y1 r , rr"v e.,•kp th r.;!-".,;?•l ��� �} •' 'i wu, • to. n 4 �1���I '' fit , r+ /` �A o __..:T— ' _ 0, ‘-t. .'. p'y' •10 a•w'y,••,_c 2t',,pq"'t•.,". r t ,,: •� • Corr. Zo -IT ,;:f.:,-s,...;:,-,,.., qk• t17 •v ^� b §'-j :- : ifr4 '4 �• a '`•' \i„ �\.a,,t ft ,`•� 4; V s \r •ii.''•!)1',i:•`.. .:. 4f \` --____.. •L•?...?; %,,., ...Z....- -' ; °*Y•r 6'� t .:l, ,:3 t` 'T�,,}"v�rc"e tF`ra,°S•\tet ix 1',, r ? ' Yy a• , pr.: Yf N,.1''�*t' t°0, q,, . ` ya:, ?. 4. . - a� Ya� .�,,� -.t' �,.+itj. ,.�. • ,�Y,4vw df<t•�+x�`-*,� - :6 a•117, ,' `s{r°�.; 4—4.q� �'' `& •A a. 4- ,x•,>, " rs'•-•• ii �{{+� s. r ▪ ;ems.,, �t, 9t �t ''�A,.;'r^ gri'�� k to- ,?,3�°.,�;*k,� ; �_ ,�. '', °(ter s4r'' ",� ,r" r * 1 'a y'c •i %3., ';'f.'u�r, '`,y, J•' gt, H{ •.� F.0.;,t.,%„,;: 'i,p�.,',..-„• 7- ",�rs� S • �� ^.. 1:' ' Y "r ' ' y'-A: �f" +�$,,.,,vi 1 t ; ,', a _1y„Y4::Z 1,lr]WS,1,-, '., `' „x k.'". �`; ��1-.;. • CY •',S:,4_, Y , fr • A.i� tX',•I Pat't' A'4i//. r ',1 ➢•k�. fie•`/',t�••a,: Itp..' otx`•'',C•" ,i,„,.w. ,-Y k ...,,,,A,tr :5�.>P[,m,,,,,,,,,:.,e„t..,,, .h ;4;:Ma `,•r�; +','_'.# ',,,,:i r4,e„ti,t,; ,' k..., .,t.. 41 P"e`', H;.;.'�i *btl+; ..,A'..,i'Ft> r . , 4. ,...„_:,...____404 , 7 !7 i ,.lz. , .4i 11 ' /70(00/7/7 / I/ ii 0,, I fi,.ka • E)_ ® �LL11 + I! II)5 - fa a7 y e' ,y'- .ZL 175_ 140 135 132. 1 J T 7 1 >t rn_.nt t ,. W Y. 04 1 y _ N i F. 1" � r.�,gg� H `{ _' to 7J1_ 0 o .31 1. .1 - ��to z ^ �G III. // Z bi! 2 I Z I I ' // R_1 'F, I :� , + 3 a e��� 9 4 1 a � I It :11 I' ,iI tt,�'j^^'yy i 1' I i. .W t, 5 I , a 1� 5 b44 5 r s/.+ n f ., I .q .t fry' ^. __—. : 9 i t�fJ 1',,:1 .0 7 1 I O 9 Ir—� - .. t .�rwf .,` . G..+.;4Z ? :: I , � r- I I , 9 1 a I' , r ,I , 1 0 f .1 Z ', 1 \ ,o _L't L,j. , . _ _,,,..., . . , ..--- - ,, ,1---, f T.1.4 II 1, 9 I _. I ► ' :7 'l44) 1 ` r + 1 c 1 .. I IW — _',. - \ •o 71 r ti- ▪ 'I'1 i -} • .+R �� sw€f f 5' x Oy'l� #fit. if, 4 SE 99 ST ,,, •,, I u7 I ._ \,VOA'.�; . PISJLI:lit4 • � . GIBRALTER HOMES REZONE: R-012-86 I 1 APPLICANT - GIBRALTER HOMES TOTAL AREA 3. 17 ACRES PRINCIPAL ACCESS LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. EXISTING ZONING B-1, BUSINESS USE i EXISTING USE UNDEVELOPED j PROPOSED USE REZONE':TO• R-4,'. (RESIDENTIAL MULTI—FAMILY) COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMMERCIAL COMMENTSTHE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY WITH SEVENTY 70 ( ) MULTI—FAMILY UNITS IN THE FUTURE. , 1 , i 1 - 1 1 . T , ' ' ., .• 1 r . . • :: '' , • :* . . .• • • SE UV'ST IIII i ' • • 1,,"4° ___ . Ila ,1 . ii . 1.1 ,..- . e ... e . , , •, ...a e r.,,.....,:9)(-- -A ; • . . ,,,, , ,6 , s, , \,.. , / . Mt ). .1 t : • ..;\ \..,). -, i' Are.•:'%:•• roll ,... •,* immth.-,:s INK , --I ,•:' (--------/ 17 .... ( \ P i • NC411111190 lb: ..... 1 ' .::i:i::•.;VIII.Ith, snob .:::::::: ‘1 ••••:::::::::::::::.:*:”T.4.-i. ..nr.== ::::::::: - r . . „ ._.___: _.. rF • 1 , ;;"- .. .j ,1.11:::i., . , ‘.., , ..4\ ‘,..... ,i 1 . \0.0.., ,,.... .-. , - 1 Aft, ' %IN,,,..it:..::::•:; • ? t. -, Thar-•..,_ ''''4.1.4' ''''f NI..1/4e1ilkokTd. L / _ . F r . .., ,• 1 i . . .•.),mg.,1:.1.00 • ‘-'111 .-. „ . • ;,,,-,., 0, V ,.._ _.Niii. ' t-AL, 4 •t ,,, 1 i . nog 1:':,:W._ ik,vmova -.Arra) '..'', il Is/' •••,:•:'•,\:-.:1-::;-....:,,..,,,:, , 1• i. "• 11‘ ,....,,.., , • . . . . ,. ...„....,„... ....._ , ,. . f . , . , , .... ... , . . ..... _ .. .. .. . ,.._ " • ... ,,,, . ,,,,.... ..c.,., • a-ao i I, ' ...c:',.5.;...,..-.•:'t7.?e-0,L.".:..?,f2:::.-'-'. :;•: . ... . . ... . -. . .. • • . . • .-.1:-;:::;;;;:,,r ,. v„..,„..: ..-.C--;,:-L.,.,, r,•••:-. n: ......;, ;C ,."--4.,,,• • ' • -.A . . * ' - -..' • .. ' •. ! .Ili if li 1 elkii':'7,1,a;:.C.Z.. .....-.f.:•.: :'. - -:"3 .. '.. .:. .rr 4.,.......:1111111050 1 FA g ._,', .'.7....:,..i f.,•,..:,,,.:;.1;,? '.ft..;. •:, ..,,...',.',..-j:.,•-z,„,:•,..•:_!7,;...V.; f",::,:e..C,:•;;;;,.,i••••••:: . ..,-.....!. - • •, •. • I.%\\\'I= • 1. ':,1•.1:., • ',:. ' '"'-.. II"'1' •• 'Lk ---..-r--.- 7.(11`:;:ri.-.. •`;'-','C,6',:•'...e..."... s ::''' .0. ... r - e. 4. , ,... '-.." -:•77:..:'..^...91..-. al e ,9 00.000.0%.00 ° %. .1.0.!%e S. dieV • e. It .,. J:::: • -7, %lin i-.- • • •*;&••,• : II! ' . ,. • .'t '-:" ir:.:,,::t• ., .. • .. - ... , _ - o ek4, . ..:::•:•:..."'- ::!i••:'11]. Alb , LAKE ut AV'. ' ' ,:•;.? .4%,, .:. ' :*:':::°" Ti!:'?•;."!'.::A.1:'T=3"-•;.,,,.: '::,•k . '1 -—1 OP.11:i:?!.:::!.7)..,,,r•'•'-:,:, , -,, ,, .,..• ,• r -- ;...0%. :ill: ::•.,•:‘;,,.:,:,. ,f...,.. .qk . .1.3 . . ..._. ,c3....;.„..il: ,..., ,,,,,, . , : . .,. . r- - - SHINGTON ,.,.,,..x 10.,,te,* ::..,:;::,,,.! . .-is,...:,,...: 1 111 ....,Lt:._ . , . r ... . 1 ; ... •' _,. Q.\ III 1 .?•41 ' r:Ill fret; lip nm. •a 0. 9:7I,t\- 1 MMIli 1 , p7- rl-fi .-1. 1'. \ .111.1115 ' Li • '. 1 1.• 0,3,30,) • -,00.00%).:i .• r cli .. ,,,./...,,,,0'o eo 0 , .•.,_ , • I, ' ' 1r '‘,,- ,, NI 11:7•777.77FMNIIIKiPiii •,w,i::.M: I i /0°0'0°0°0°0°4''' 'T. ' •-• wm iHii;. . it,:r4:F7 F MI I. \ 1 ! I A. ' . 'irs•:::•:•:..• •.-..... •--•---:4 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 0• '' '\, : ::•: " . ... --- •--.---- 410' ' ° ° ° ° ° ° '''' ° ° 'c,i , - . :::i:i* `77in. kli .* :::::i: tiatiOmar.inwe ; 1. i • 0 , 0 ,.., 0 0 0 , • 0 0 , _ .:::::::::: 416.. 1 ,.::::::v..mr.,..,,, . . , • .go,`'o' TV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 *,. ‘ :.:*::i::: /pr.7..:.:.V .2.' .H:.:.:::.. 0./kr, stilf por II Iftk, -• • • ), • 2.20,.... . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •., 0 0 0 0 :• •: •i: :i*::i: ‘.••••••:— :-::::••:.•:.::.:. di i ''• , 3 I' .6'o,'5o;c.,3 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 • , .:i:::::*i::./ ,". ( ::•:..... :.':I li a mil:I I ,1' t )--- 0 0 0 0 0 c3 0 01 0 0 •4, % , ::i:i::*::* 0000000000 tc3000000.00001?00000 ,. ,,.:?:.:.:.:, r , .:::II har, !'.• , ,,I.4'g,g.f,FscAcic-lit,o40.0000000,0000000.m000dl00000 4,..:, Jiang , .,?g5.:.ggEg'&:c ••;o 0 .o• o o o o o o o o o o o o :,-, OM ,6'1;,-•.U.1 ...,,,:u',-; „z.,g,i,6 :) .o0o0o0o0,0o0o0o04.0•i.613_00.506 k,•. , Millmi fp .o.o.1.....111 , •.`..t, o o 0 rook 44:. a..._i . . .. . . ... o'gogo•,:,,,,,. ,...„ 0 0 . 0 4 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 .,..i.,.i . . 1 i • g,gogc,gog.,,,. 0000000 o o o 0, 00•00 el ca c• • - 11 "gS9, ge,g len 0 0 0 0 ,' .°°°'' >, . i , - - ' •- ,--- -- ' --- - - - ... ." .. 41.:,gg ,.., i 0 0 0 1,00 00 00 00: 41.0.0 1411,M'.giigFigc r.;C7°°.67°71".?!°7 r'',4si i°•'3: ( LAND USE ELEf• ENT p4fn'fl, ,' ::t:4, H. .•0! , .:i°, EgN, ,.4 I 0o, TiT " le ,1 ' Single Family • i Commercial II ._.), SD 9,0g0'2o?.,o'6)o,'•-: ..,41,:e°g°'' _..„ mimmaffilfirli Ummilimmat , lig .;0‘'3.6ggP'gcV fs c, r I 11111111111E 4 ',Ssi:*%gg,%'''i-, ..tg .It ''.11'69 ' v,g,sg•ggD,`i*gog,',:kt '''gtj.) 11111131//1 i i Aq I. El,M4.nti4.1k1,,• 4‘411.111{11torl . go. , -it :-- -az'.4,7,7..--„-•,„..,-. I. th:6,A, , -..........:-...--.r k cotts Multl-Famaly k , __ Office / Office Park 0.0000000 •,... ,,,, • ',.0.006C6006 '.41•11•21 ,-..1 ' .p. . ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Medium Density ,...0,10.0.....,3cr: Public/Quasi-Public . mi 3,c,„0„0,,,,,. ,._.....4........, . ...,....••••• , ;:i:::i:i:i*:::i::i::*1 ,.00.00.00. .....= ,';-30e-gg',.--;08g, isoilintiniic •;,...'.1.t ' ! :ii: :::iii:: 1 Multi-Family 1 4.?0.3....., 1 I 1 rallisliallail isse.lemesielm,*.°00,('' AI . 1. ,. . ,, . t.•1 1. I'I e. I MOM, 111111111001MOSI..,..o. .."‘ ‘, ' Hogh Density l00000• •.....0 .i Light Industrial - -. 1 __kiii..Ai.. .......-., ...viiiiiiii-witlir. • ,,,, %.4.04:v- .416,11• WIMP ega,•News. _:::-.-r". .W.L., ._ .11111 12.11811 MiXillien a .,..AaIMIIIIIIIIP --: . : . ..1%11SITri..:•01000007,91. 17:1Aglifistr \ . .- . -, 0 0 a• ' i, •,:c.(N.., 11,111;lie: 'Ir....:•:•\`;',' 4,614 I '4.-YCI: Recreation ;°0°0°0 Heavy Industrial ii....M.I.T ..„ ::;,.i: v.:.• f pri : ,..A.' L0 0 1 1 . . ., ,: • . - . •••44 -.qv• : , Manufacturing ParIIt . - innrAv ncrisvo.4..-!, ‘ • ••..- .•,.....•.,-,-, -,%--",---".. Greenbelt . ,.,„n, ,:- ,L . ...... •oog • ,2 _. , i14111 4.4111:111111 . 1 ,'..:'''',.5'.-.;-..; . • . / MRO. Option osmium 9.c°)•••-idiemes, ' ..1 I \ / AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss. County of King ) DOTTY KLINGMAN , being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 8th day of April , 1987 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. AI. .1/-'1';'...r,' ''.2 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this S II-4 day o'0. i e 1. B%F�e , 1987. 9;•9�4,80C 0•..,,0 rDL. _ lid�-� k_a . %�;F'••�';• 8,•3°.•�.��il► Notary Publi in and for the State of Washington, „OF W4 S'r\ , i residing at '.a_,. ,� , therein. "-i----irri///fli Application, Petition, or Case #: R-012-86 - GIBRALTER HOMES (The minutes contain a list of the parties of record.) / gi< , ' OF I ® ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Z c RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR 9 � MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 � 0,9gT�D SEP�E�O�P BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR, ,;�.'� MEMORANDUM MAR 27 1987 DATE: March 27, 1987 i CITY pF, ENTON HEARING EXAMINER TO: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner FROM: Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Compliance with Previous Rezone Conditions for Gibralter Homes Site. 1In your memo of March 20, 1987, for the above referenced property you state that it appears the conditions of the previous rezone on the property were not , complied with. You suggest that if this is true, then the actual zoning of the site might not be B-1, but may in fact be G-1. Our review of the old rezone file (file R-029-80) also raises the same question of non-compliance with the 50' buffer condition. However, the record appears to show compliance with •the conditions of rezone approval. The staff recommended a 50' buffer strip of natural vegetation supplemented with additional evergreen plantings along the south boundary of the property to buffer nearby single-family residences. In the. Public Hearing staff stated that the plantings were to be done "at the time of development". Neither staff nor the Examiner stated when the easement needed to be completed. In addition, the Examiner, in a letter dated April 28, 1980, to the applicant's representative stated that the request was approved subject to the conditions in the Examiner's report and that the application was being sent to Council since there had been no appeal. The Council approved the rezone with the ,Examiner's conditions also without stipulating when the greenbelt easement ,should be recorded. Thus, it appears that the conditions of the rezone in 1980 have been complied with. At the time that any commercial development were to occur on site, the 50 foot buffer would be required. If one looks at the R-4 and B-1 zones, we find that the B-1 zone requires either a 15 foot landscaped strip or a 5 foot wide landscaping strip and a solid 6 foot high barrier when adjacent to a residential lot designated residential on both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. When an R-4 zone is developed to the density and development requirements of an R-3 zone, only 'a 20 foot setback is required if the abutting properties are zoned and designated on the Comprehensive Plan as low density-multiple family. This would then suggest that something" less than the 50 foot buffer, including Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner Compliance with Previous Rezone Conditions March 27, 1987, Page 2 setback, would be appropriate for the given case. However, some sort of buffer may be deemed appropriate at the time of site plan approval for development on the site. In addition, City policy has been that conditions of previous land use actions can be changed through a similar review process. This is exactly what we are doing with this rezone request, we are looking at conditions to mitigate multiple family impacts rather than those of commercial development. Also, the Zoning Map has been adopted by City Council which clearly shows the subject property as B-1! If it were not, there is a very high likelihood we would be sued for any damages suffered during the interim by the previous owners who thought it was so zoned. We therefore conclude that in our opinion the subject property is properly zoned B-1 because: no time limit was imposed for the establishment of the greenbelt easement; and the easement that was provided for was to act as a buffer between commercial and low density multi-family and single-family uses, not between medium density multi-family (R-3) and low density multi-family and single family uses. I hope this helps to clarify things a bit. If you disagree with our findings from our review of the files I would appreciate knowing. T nk you, DKE:JSM:3616Z 00 19a� P. 0. Box 71 . t�� ' Kirkland, Wash. �N March 18, 1987 Hearing Examiner Building and Zoning Department 200 mill Street S. Renton, Wash. Dear sir; As owner o" property located on lots 6 & 7 on Jones Ave., N. E., I would like to suggest that exit ' 7, being midway between South Center and I-90 on 40 , is becoming a viable interchange with considerable recent commercial development. To describe exit 7 as a dormaiit 'area of weeds and a few scattered houses is deceptive . Such commercial development, not residential development, is the life blood of the city and the loss of part of this B-1' commercial would be permanent, would be a long term loss, and would reduce the possible options available . •Future commercial development is dependant upon assemblage of commercial land, not the reduction of this potential.. A natural barrier such as a street, river or ridge is better than an artificial line, especially when the distance between the two jtreets is only about 200 yards . And why use residential units as a buffer for residential units? That isn' t creating a buffer but merely moving the line . Would not office buildings along the western side of Lincoln Avenue be a better buffer between apart- ments and more intensive B-1 use? The existing zoning allows apartments on the upper floors of commercial 2 buildings and' is another possibility. The B-i zoned property in this area is not large to atart with, and there is nothing to gain and every to :Lose by doom zoning, fragmenting, short sighted milking, and not adhering to an overall comprehensive plan. Peter W. Johnson 1 OF I 46 :_ O THE CITY OF RENTON U `b ilipt 4 Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 0a '4 iye ,' �! o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER ° Co' FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 94, SEPTE� MEMORANDUM March 20, 1987 TO: RON NELSON, DIRECTO' , BUILDING AND ZONING FROM: FRED J. KAUFMAN /` RE: Gibralter Homes R-012-86 In reviewing the evidence in the rezone request of Gibralter Homes, Inc. (File R-012-86) it has come to my attention that conditions which were required under the previous rezone, File R-020-80, were not fully complied with by the then applicant. The particular condition required "The creation of a 50 foot greenbelt easement along the south property line. " If there was non-compliance, then the actual zoning of the subject site might not be B-1, but may in, fact still be G (General) which might change the nature of the current review. There is precedent both in recent City actions and in Case Law for either nullifying rezones where conditions were not fulfilled or rezoning and reverting the site to its original classification. Until I have information which resolves this issue I will refrain from taking action for at least 30 days per Section 4-3014 (B) . I hope this matter can be resolved as quick as possible. If this office can be of further assistance please feel free to call. cc: Mayor Shinpoch City Attorney Parties of Record OF R4, tO ® z THE CITY OF RENTON sal POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 235-2552 p � MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 9,0 09gTEQ SEPSE���P BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH - MEMORANDUM MAYOR DATE: February 11, 1987 FEB 121987 TO: Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER FROM: F arry Springer, Policy Development Director •SUBJECT: /f Gibralter Homes, File R-012-86 The Policy Development Department has serious concerns about the proposal to rezone the Gibralter Homes site from B-1 to R-4, primarily due to the impacts on land use and the environment. These issues were raised during staff discussions at the ERC and were considered during deliberations. At that time this department prepared written comments, site analysis and formal memos for staff consideration. This information is in the official file. Based on extensive departmental review, the Policy Development Department recommends that this proposed rezone be denied. Neither would this Department support a rezone to R-3, Medium Density Residential. LAND USE The Gibralter Homes project is a proposal to rezone 3.17 acres from B-1 to R-4. The ERC is recommending approval with a maximum of 70 multi-family units for a density of 22 units per acre. The Policy Development Department believes that this recommendation is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, incompatible' with the existing uses and zoning, and incompatible with the constraints of the site itself. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is Commercial on the northern 60% of the site and Low Density Multi-family on the southern 40% of the site. The proposed rezone to R-4 (High Density Multiple Family) is clearly inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Gibralter Homes property is in a transitional area between more intensive commercial uses to the north and low intensity single family and greenbelt uses to the south. For this reason the property has a mixed designation with the southern portion planned for low density multiple family. Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Gibralter Homes, File R-012-86 1 February 11, 1987 Page 2 The proposed rezone does not appear to be appropriate in relation to existing zoning and land uses on the adjacent parcels. The existing land uses are exclusively single family dwellings on large lots of 1 acre or greater. The surrounding zoning is B-1 to the north and R-1 to the west. The easterly and southerly boundaries are bordered by properties which are in King County and which cannot be developed unless annexed to Renton because they lack sewer service. As part of the rezone submission, the applicant prepared a site plan, although they are specifically not asking for site plan approval at this time. The informal site plan shows a reduction in building heights along the southern property line from three stories to two stories. However, this reduction does not significantly lessen the substantial lack of conformance between this use and other uses in the area. The Gibralter Homes proposal appears to be premature. It would establish land use precedents whi Jnappropriate due to the severe environmental constraints of the area. This area a city is currently undeveloped and this property would be the trend-setter. Preliminary analysis using the policies proposed in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance would restrict the development potential in the immediate vicinity to low density uses because of steep slopes, unstable soils and potential water quality impacts, particularly to the salmon spawning habitat in May Creek. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The Policy Development Department disagrees with the issuance of a Declaration of Non-significance for the proposal. The issues which this department believes could be significant are earth, hydrology, biology and traffic. There is not adequate information to properly assess the degree of impacts on biology and traffic. There is not sufficient mitigation to reduce the impacts on earth and hydrology. Earth Impacts The Policy Development Department has analyzed the site using the topographic map supplied by the applicant and the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map Folio. The property has 40% slopes on the eastern, southern and western boundaries, and along the northwestern corner.. The center of the property has been excavated in the past which has resulted in moderate slopes. Springs and low areas with standing water are present. On-site soils have severe hazards for erosion, landslides and seismic hazard. The applicant's site plan which accompanies the rezone application proposes to substantially grade the site, eliminating the southern knoll, the western 40% slope, and substantial portions of the 40% slopes on the eastern edge. The center wetland areas would be filled. No information has been provided on the impacts of this proposed grading on surrounding properties or on the water quality of the on-site stream course. If this property were designated Greenbelt in the Comprehensive Plan, no development would be allowed on the 40% slopes. The applicant has not submitted soils reports, geotechnical reports or hydrology reports to evaluate the capability of the site to support the proposed development. No information is available to evaluate the mitigation which should be required. Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing E.._..iiner 1 Gibralter Homes, File R-012-86 February 11, 1987 i Page 3 Biological Impacts The site includes a natural stream course running northerly to southerly along the eastern boundary. The checklist provided by the applicant states that runoff from the development will not contribute to a surface stream. This information was clearly inaccurate, and the ERC identified surface drainage as a significant issue. The ERC specifically requested that the applicant discuss their proposal with the State Fish and Game Department to find out if the proposal would have significant adverse impacts on the stream. The applicant responded with a brief letter dated August 13, 1986, which stated that he had contacted Fisheries and they made the following observations: The construction of a three lane road would have minimum impact on the existing stream due to the ability to ensure a reconstruction of any potential habitat removal. A five lane road section would impact the stream and could also be reconstructed at a greater expense again with plantings and some modification of the stream bed, placement of rocks, logs and the creating some pools. (sic) Unfortunately, this letter did not address the key issue: What would be the impact of the rezone, proposed project and the road section on the stream course, evaluating components of water quality, water quantity and habitat viability. Moreover, even the sparse information in the letter was not confirmed by staff. No biological assessments were provided. The inadequacy of the response is reflected by the repeated requests by staff to provide further information on the integration of the stream course and the problems with the proposed road alignment. This information was not provided. The ERC mitigated this impact by conditioning the project as follows: The existing stream must be both protected and integrated into the overall development concept for the site in a way that maximizes its amenity and is consistent with State regulations. This department believes that this condition begs the underlying issue which is: Is it possible for a development plan which includes 70 dwelling units on 3.17 acres to be constructed with no significant adverse impact on the stream? SEPA clearly states that mitigation must be feasible and reasonable. There is little question that this proposal would impact the stream course. There is not sufficient information to evaluate the degree of impact clearly or to define appropriate mitigation. Without more biological evaluation it is not possible to determine an appropriate density for the site. Hydrological Impacts The proposed project includes an on-site stream course which flows from north to south along the eastern boundary of the property. This stream eventually feeds into May : , r _ / Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing E;.....iiner Gibralter Homes, File R-012-86 February 11, 1987 Page 4 Creek. No information has been provided in the checklist about the volume of water ,, currently carried by the creek, or the impact of this development on the creek including impacts on water quality, water quantity, turbidity, and biological habitat. Apparently, it is the intent of the ERC that the drainage issues be handled during the final design and construction stage of the project. Unfortunately, this does not provide decision makers with adequate information to appraise the degree of impact of this project on hydrology. Initial evaluation indicates that this impact would be significant and would require extensive mitigation. Traffic Impacts The property is bounded on the east by 110th Avenue (Lincoln Ave). The road is a primary access route in the vicinity and is currently over capacity with dangerous road sections. The alignment for this road coincides with the stream course on site. The ERC was concerned about the feasibility of constructing this road while preserving the stream course. No information has been submitted which demonstrates that the road can be provided safely and without causing significant adverse impacts. The ERC was provided with a map which illustrates that the current alignment of the road is not in the designated right-of-way. No information has been provided by the applicant which evaluates the feasibility of constructing their half of a five lane road section without significant adverse impacts to the stream course. This issue appears to be significant and as yet unresolved. The SEPA process is a mechanism to evaluate all pertinent information prior to giving ' discretionary approvals. This project does not appear consistent with the Comprehensive ` e Plan, the goals and policies of the City for development, or with the natural constraints of the site. This department would therefore recommend denial. 1 LMS:NLM:2427G cc: Environmental Review Committee 3528,Z - BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 10, 1987 APPLICANT: Mark Goldberg (Gibralter Homes) FILE NUMBER: R-012-86 A. SUMMARY & PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Application to rezone 3.17 acres from B-1, Business Use, to R-4, Residential-Multiple Family, to allow 104 multi-family units. ERC asked for reduction to 84 dwelling units and then to 70 dwelling units. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: Radford and Company 2. Applicant: Mark Goldberg 3. Location: (Vicinity Map Attached) Located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue N.E. and N.E. 40th Street, if extended. 4. Existing Zoning: B-1, Business Use 5. Existing Zoning in the Area: R-1, Residential-Single Family, and B-1, Business Use, and King County Zoning 6. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Commercial 7. Size of Property: 3.17 acres 8. Access: Lincoln Avenue N.E. 9. Land Use: Undeveloped 10. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Undeveloped Property, Single Family Residences East: Single Family Residences South: Single Family Residences West: Undeveloped Property, Single Family C. HISTORY/BACKGROUND: Action File Ordinance Date Annexation 2079 February 12, 1964 Rezone G to B-1 R-020-80 3433 June 2, 1980 D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities: a. Water: An 8" waterline runs down Jones Avenue N.E. A 6" waterline runs down S.E. 80th Street. A 12" waterline runs down S.E. 84th Street. b. Sewer: An 18" sanitary sewer runs down Jones Avenue N.E. An 8" sanitary sewer runs down S.E. 80th Street. c. Storm Water Drainage: No storm water drainage lines are available in the area. BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 10, 1987 PAGE 2 2. Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton as per ordinance requirements. 3. Transit: Metro Route #240 operates along 110th Avenue S.E. 4. Schools: a. Elementary Schools: Hazelwood b. Middle Schools: McKnight c. High Schools: Hazen High School 1 5. Recreation: Kennydale Beach Park is located 0.72 miles to the west. Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park is located 1.52 miles to the southwest. E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1. Section 4-711, Business Use (B-1). 2. Section 4-709B, Residential-Multiple Family (R-4). F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1. Residential Goal and Objectives, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, March, 1986, p. 14-16. 2. Northeast Renton Plan, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, March, 1986, p. 55-60. 3. Section 4-3014(c), Change of Zone Classification (Rezone). G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. The applicant, Mark Goldberg, seeks approval to rezone 3.17 acres of property from B-1, Business Use, to R-4, Residential-Multiple Family, to allow multiple family development with a maximum of 70 dwelling units. 2. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act (S.E.P.A.) of 1971 (RCW 43.21C) as amended, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-significance on February 18, 1987. The following mitigating conditions were imposed by the E.R.C. for the proposed rezone: a. The maximum density the site can accommodate would be 70 multi-family dwelling units assuming impacts associated with such development can be adequately mitigated. b. The existing stream must be both protected and integrated into the overall development concept for the site in a way that maximizes its amenity and is consistent with State regulations. c. All significant existing trees on the site are to be protected and integrated into future development plans to the greatest extent possible. The applicant or his/her assignee shall work with the City's landscape architect in determining which trees will be retained. d. The applicant or his/her assignee shall be responsible for contributing one-half the cost of street improvements to 40th Avenue and 110th Avenue as identified by the Department of Public Works. I BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ' PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 10, 1987 PAGE 3 As noted in the file, the Environmental Review Committee in a letter dated May 16, 1986, determined that there was "probable adverse environmental impact" and an impact statement should be prepared believing the density was too great for the site. The applicant working with the E.R.C. reduced the maximum density for the site from 104 dwelling units to 70 units. In a letter from the Policy Development Development Director to the Hearing Examiner dated February 11, 1987, the director notes that his Department disagrees with the issuance of a Declaration of Non-significance for the rezone proposal. He further states that the Department believes there are significant issues with respect to earth, hydrology, biology and traffic. In response to the comments from Policy Development on these issues, it is important to remember that the application is only for a rezone, and not for a specific project. The applicant did submit a conceptual site plan for the site, but again, this was not considered as part of the application and thus binding upon the developer. Any development of the site, if rezoned to R-4 or left B-1, will require site plan review before any building permits can be issued for a project (Ref. Section 4-738(B). At that time, a new environmental checklist will be submitted and reviewed. In addition, staff will review .criteria listed in the site plan approval ordinance to evaluate any development of the proposed site. 3. The Hearing Examiner must review three specific criteria under Section 3014(c) to determine that circumstances surrounding the request are adequate in determining that the request is in the public interest and will not have a detrimental effect on the public health, safety, and welfare. Discussion of the criteria follows: a. That substantial evidence was presented demonstrating the subject reclassification appears not to have been specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning. The subject property was annexed into the City of Renton on February 12, 1964, and received B-1, Business Zoning, on June 2, 1980. The site is part of the Northeast Renton Plan approved on December 23, 1981, at which time the property was designated commercial on the Comprehensive Plan Map. Appropriate uses for the area have not been looked at since 1980-1981. b. That the property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and conditions have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate. The subject property is designated as commercial on the City's Comprehensive Plan Map. This designation was also on the site prior to the land use review and Comprehensive Plan Revision for the Northeast Renton Area Plan in 1981. The applicant is requesting R-4 zoning on the property. This is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map designation of Commercial. Even though this inconsistency exists, one must remember that in the State of Washington, the Comprehensive Plan is a guide for development, not an absolute requirement for the type of land use allowed on a property. Thus, if a proposal appears reasonable, flexibility is allowed to vary from the Comprehensive Plan. In the case of the proposed rezone application, the applicant has proposed less intensive development on the site than would be allowed under B-1 f • BUILDING ,AND ZONING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 10, 1987 PAGE 4 zoning. In fact ap plicant's the applicant s agreement to limit the number of dwelling units on the site to a maximum of 70 dwelling units is more compatible than the existing commercial designation, with the surrounding existing and proposed uses. The area is surrounded by single family and undeveloped property. The proposed uses, as shown on the Comprehensive Plan, shows medium density multiple family to the east and low density multiple family to the southeast and south adjacent to the property. The applicant's proposal, which is the equivalent of a R-3 zone, is more compatible than commercial uses to the low density multiple family designation (equivalent to R-2 zoning) and medium density multiple family zoning (equivalent to R-3 zoning). Finally, the proposed rezone, as modified, provides a better buffer between the low intensive uses (low density and medium density multiple family) and more intensive uses (commercial). It may be that if the City had an updated Comprehensive Plan for the area, the revised Plan might show transitional land uses with respect to intensity rather than placing high intensity uses abutting low intensity uses. If this were the case today, the applicant's request would be consistent or less inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. c. That since the last previous land use analysis of the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. Since the last land use analysis in 1981, development has been slow to occur. However, in the last two years development has occurred around the interchange area north of the site. Several commercial establishments have developed which can be surrounded by the surrounding residential neighborhoods. In addition, the Public Works Department has been working on an LID to the north along Lake Washington Blvd. North and propose establishing an LID at sometime in the future for Lincoln Ave. 4. Another criteria under which rezones are evaluated is whether it is appropriate to rezone the subject property at this time. It would appear from the above disucssion that the request is timely since development is beginning to occur in the area once again. 5. Finally, as discussed above, the proposed rezone application as modified will actually be the equivalent of R-3 zoning and this will be more in the public interest than the existing zoning since the rezone will provide a transitional buffer between less intensive uses and more intensive uses in the area. H. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above analysis and discussion, it is recommended that the rezone application, file R-012-86, be approved subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant complying with the mitigation condition imposed by the Environmental Review Committee in the Mitigated Determination of Non-significance document. . � s ft/i 0,/,,,.;i°(7., Z ® � e / �I '- i-1.- -\--, 23 140- 135 132 ' P / j� , , IHS AZ a7 S .. -�I•�T �, I f 7 ♦ i7 71F I¢iI llI _`-___ —_ w In IO fi TA . - ' to I I Wi 7 ,b,, t, es6/ � . •�'`1 i1q4 .., la,, `I ISM 1.19 - `rr } -� �/, / IJ i l- ! x y 4 I ii / ILL 2 : , . ci., z 3 I/ y, 1 4 3 I ° 3 4 41 I T I 6 5 1,14( e ., 1 5 S l+ I /n �y I 5 y � �IM,` I- kin MJ F. I _ Y_-P , fZ : 4 3 i Z �' t _ I 4 . i , , ; i 1 '..' i i' l- ___ __ ;i 1 " IR '1 'r s, I N. ,� xx '�I Q '� I •1 J 4 I� ! ,i. ` t S 4; S T . _. - t iI JYl Y I I I f• j 2, 1 't o f -/ 6 j 5 �+ 64 S Ys�z V f 441. x"� Loll I t _ 11 I er° it d ,B o w 9 Q.9 \\' Ar - - � TiTs I 70 71 * � rR 5ti' ' fDa' CE* � _ 5•1 ' III S� Q - - -- C /\ -_ / �ie...lit v •1Io_� S GIBRALTER HOMES REZONE: R-012-86 APPL I CANT GIBRALTER HOMES TOTAL AREA 3. 17 ACRES PRINCIPAL ACCESS LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. EXISTING ZONING B-1, BUSINESS USE EXISTING USE UNDEVELOPED PROPOSED USE REZONE TO. R-4,'. (RESIDENTIAL MUL II—FAMILY) COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMMERCIAL COMMENTS THE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY WITH SEVENTY (70) MULTI—FAMILY UNITS IN THE FUTURE. . .I --• L _.!• • T ( - •. ,• ' • '• . , . • SE 68-ST IIIIII 1 • ' 1• *.s• . .. c•uo,.. .. .Doucwo t I i\.\ D000000 000000 , • 0000000, ' (--. • ,E'll'•li... ' II MI% \ ri ...." o i • • ' ( rak 4 ) \ ,,, ,,:, ...„, ,•• , ...:.::::,:,:,:,:,:. i i. , . , .,,. -;: • ,----/ ,.# Alibi ...,:•:*.:::' MI °-- .1 1:01 #4,'4111111111111111e,. ap 411.1.1 •:•,:•:::• . c•-4 \ .:•-v.comr..; imirqs• —I •no.:/.1‘ b, Ink%, :.!..' "( _ +Hai\ F,Atoomm .::.:::.,:, I -:•:•:•:•:•:.:•:':'::' mutt miliimme,,::::::: ; ----1 • . moilf Imiminam: :.:•:•:•' 0 1:i ::''',.," • .•••• , 111111311111111N, •:•:::::: SY* 4'. a •,.*Zr -•A. - 1111:PI ;iii ' a,r7rsy is..1 • / • ''' - - ' - 1404M ,e, !°. • .....),,kii.43,kmes.„...,,, 0: ' s 11,:;!"400, 0. . • L ill.8 •'It. .-. lik _ cx i-, 1 •.,'.;\ 4 - __ -:. -t " . •. -., xi; '"*.•••\...-.;..•. *:.•. .i • t".=,:/••.:-*, i C. . L.-1 . .. ,,..._. •, ;,...‹,..N..r.•...---:......c:..:. ,.,. ft:..- . ‘.. • '-'-',..::-.'.....;/...-r...:..... . ..:.- ,... . 1 . - z....,....:.c.•"....,':g.'.•. - •.:7:". .;,.''...• ., . • ..:::.".- -7.:,:f4,-"_.. ,',..)-K,• :'...7..:.'i.";'f....! ..c.....„..,_, ,c S..,'•c r:.''.1-..7;< ',....4‘.....,_.:.:.....: ,.: •-•Icr.:"•:" / IL._ . lionti _.,:,- ... ..;_.--4:.,*.,-,...„„......-.,,, - 0‘f.;,:•-..--...";-.,..7•• ••-.....:-•,,,,,: ;. a mi itomiipt • . e •• •• ''' , .• -- ......- • . . • . quomptia.gt,„ ...•• .. .,„.......„. .. ,..0.,..„......,„ .,...,„:„..-0_-- 1 , .,. . „,,,, .,:„.„.c,:„..,,-,,,,,,,,.: % ., . ,11L------ -- ... -----._.______,.z.;_.,„:,:.r..„, D ....., t A, 4,.s. . 4000. . ,44 000000000ti • + Igr•:::' I '•,, .,,_: , \.(,..'P'..;,4Aocpoo.o.o.o.o.c!! . ..4.•' 4t, '''I.- , fii, .: .;•,.., ._._ , . 1, •. 't '• ,&:.;• _ 0 - '.\:: :.•'',;. , * "-•- '•.:4. c. :.•' ^-,' . •---c„ -. . .... ' . .'i ' ts... . * , • .0.1". ;.::•: •:::**:: :•.1:',L;;:..':' LAKE ar• I's.:4'. ..'4%';'.- -„ .1 elk, -..--1 Pit ..:: : ( * \ i. r • 1 i.',.- .00, 0-:-:-:'-,(!!‘:.4.1•(t. n , .% • , , — --,- r No• . •p..;,z., i., ,..e... . . . .. . .c.ocv erri.::.!. .: .,:.1 .•...).,....,...,.:,, • 111 1 SHINGTON , -,• •• ,_ ., ,. . -.--4, 4.,{.::..:„ !-,, -•-....,c,..,, • j . _ . . . .1 ,4:,,ttsve ! ?if •r ,_ „ ,‘, wiP' 7 # 2•,lif':1!' at I -•.: linill p,,....,., Ihitini ,,,. ,...i.„. • , .........000„ , ..,,,,,,,„,, , I , ,,,1 . } ant , ..4.1i14,47:7 '4.1 . iii : 0000. yam, 110,--. .1• ieria.,ile". •• alm_to#k _. /a o '-_I'•• i II .. ,i000t. " -, ,..:.. ." 12'& ' .. ........... VI. • •••••••••••Mr iitirial-i• I: ::ii:.:;::::, i':ii :,' ° ° °,6. . - ''•• Ill '"'"'k:•:.:.:.:.:.: ' .peostii:r •ri i IN .--- 0 0 0 0 0 0 4, 0..14‘•'''• • ! 0 ,:::::•:..... da, *I-NAM,/,.,... .. .4 :"""i--• , ..- * 0 ce 0 0 0 0 ,• 0 0 ` ;,- ''2..'iM ?7,11,0 :::i: 4fte-4.°--I 1' 1 ,, .--' 45 4.' '' •.:i:::i:::: 0,grr,'0,(c),... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... 0 0 0 .0,„.,' ::: iiii: :.:.1•0000,„•,11',0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 l'.,. \ .,::::::::::::::( APA'Arift; , 0202. o o o o o o o .. o 0 o a .•• ;:*i:.::i*: •••••••,. ....-:,•.* :•::::::.::' Amu, ' 1 • •*•60•60•6•0;,-,. •,. o o o o o o o o o o o \o o o :: •1:::::::::::::::, - '••• WHIM 4 4 •,.gog.24,0,7,- e. o o o o o o o o o .. o a o o •...„, ',,, /°- ir it), rissona'1 ,,o0Q000°00,-,t, 00000000000 oo ", ••::::::::::: 1..0°0°0°0°0.+4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 41 0 0;0 0 0''i, • L.:: :::'4 .. . 4 111111111144 14'4, !nogogoM0a„t: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. .. •,':ii:..1 / 1 1 A A00.0. 0 0 _.lit'•er ma•0 0 4 0 0 0 4. 0 0 0 0 0 .• •'':' ! gni '-,„;--•":-...".•0.017 l ''' ''''/ *°.°:°°.°°.°F0°,4°.,4 ',,i,..g.ggggg- •I'vJo •o' 00000000ci000\.::' ,' '' cri,c.,.- .0.. MIT .. 1 i i - 'Igt, 2020.90000.-t. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CI 171 '-.' `•-• 0 0 .•. •..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0°0°CO 0°CO i'!.;•16 • ( ::....10i0egggo ° °.°., ....,:\":.1.` ' .li, °a el, .. k I LA Ni USE ELEP,.1Ei ,T --.), . omgggog . 0 0 . .. ito --- i,a;..gag.go,s,og..:::• , 0 1,.: .: ,,,,,,, Nil 4 1 ,. .: ii'1,44gggggogo• 24 00000 1 .,2...4 .0,i :. re - - ill '' lirggriNg• ...-•:. i )6 la t : , :i::i::::: ,,er, . :a ff,' gggg'gggggg,; t._,,;'gr..aggc.',- ...,.....4L.:„ ..X.V.,;.,.,:: ) Singie Family .i. :. i; Commercial 3 4 14,..ms4444•41 .sic,000,,00000„,0,,, •••F-',0606 ,i 1 Ile, timil gog'occ-,'ogogogool ?o•0-..., I 4 if; :II ill ' • 1 ; ..•.•.•.•.•.•.•• • \ . Office / Office Park .,' •:•:•:•.::•:•.::•. Multi-Family ' IP, „,• '..1.',.....'.. .:°,°,' •.'°•141111 . ,11...r.i ,. . ' r ,V.I. :=- 4,11110*....3swgrommito. 0e-0g0Aoo,0.,..go0.ogo,g.o..goo..„c_...1 i, lo1m3t:oi:st:s4-raw„„..,.ito"fi rp..,w•p-,.: 1 •:•:•:•:•:;.:.:.•:.:•:•:.i:•:•:.1 iu ni „1.0.90.,00000 ..,0. o gLi . ,.i : M , Medm Desty ,. . 0000._.4.000...0.. Public/Quasi-Public .,•„1:1:1111:kii, .., ......e.C. ,, ••••••••••••• 9 yik mis ern, 9,000,c;0....,, t r.limeggiggryti-- :sr C. ' I 8,4•4- ,.. . .-'aleii-me notaimdit'eo--,,-/":.et- . saimms, --- ,—......c...,-.0.7::-..72-..mr-•0 0,, ..„ ' , . . .,..., , , gam"'Inninitsa":1:111111:10:111:11:1111•%°- .k . I- ALUN•23___i___ThamooteefigniSionotticaNL:IW ,- '‘.% ' ' High D0118111/ '000000. 10000004 Light industrial ......... ,• _............. ....-11301Ift.M. 44.1.4454,2•4.44. 04 4,04 :' 1"1.4*:‹\.... ..asiss—',WatiaftenermunmiliiiiiesesiellitV Jn1• moeto m,...:-;:!;:........., Multi-Family :,AILMW......°€"16,11111111310; ligiiiiirt'fr ,„ ,:?. . ‘• t A 0 . soniv REF,..temessW,vaimisaut ouseelentril OOP' • sannetmuti ," .1. krote --..- • f 0 mama yawns , . L.'::.. '. .d. • ,0 000, Heavy industrial • semumemes „.,•.• :44 Agar ''` VOIMMIIIIVIIIMItt4i,,,,k'S';.' ' iri IIIIIIIVIrt /4,,'$•'•• fp I ,,.: ............,...„ ..,,,... .,,,, ,,,J,.F. k37.: , Recreation '.....:: - fainisinutes' .::•,',,w.':',,,,,, .4,, 2•.!,Ili • Nal -4110 ANACiIiir ' ' m. ..WI.••-!..."...'e. ,.'- Greenb.it --•-•-:,==--. IT...___4......,....:, 81111,11.4111111111/11/ 0 0 rintilireN•O MMMMMMMMM , d; i'.4S;I%r;' ; Manufacturing Park,1' SWANS ,..-.!'`', ....-.. ...: 7,: -.7-. 0 c ,... / Multiple Option /1 Lax . . lip,, ,-444•440111M ,_,_ REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DI ION : l-- � n APPROVED I- PROVED WITH CONDITIONS ri NOT APPROVED / `�9 r r.J•._cam �i s—� •� c•i l!.'` ��i /z!-i•�, J �_ ( �''2- y r ,' F,; Ti ` �' /1--"' a: A A.v- v l- �<. -- .,�C. ) YG, G„ (•. Ls-�--=L--C 5 -L) L< ' /_ fS ( - 6 c3.r— / "�= TcG_: !mi- T-P<_/ / .. c. 1 �.- ,C�%�i G //G7.L:' '5)-2.2 c? .S�- DATE : f / • • > _ SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 n APPROVED /� APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 1-1 NOT APPROVED 5/z s s� e•-e-- A-6 e-e--c-e-s-7-- 3) �-� / s DATE : SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : n APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ❑ NOT APPROVED )1\`-' H' ((eAdY\ la( :JciA7 outi-c0 our 1969\LI,AaQ cdw- ) -4-oi \ut uu(-\ V\ ( .e‘e-Y C;�ci�tJ` DATE' IGNATUR OF DIRECTOR OR 3/57 C9 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 l'. .0 t 1 F I. I --J HrIKUVUJ WITH CONDITION`' U NOT APPROVED / /1L/ 6,e,„0/A-6 DU,•,7 /,r, 000 .eE¢6/14e'9 io " SP. r,v/rrE,PEp 4 /00,Ai-I-f- 1 • ,<7 «o J'Ac-rFsset .eEq/ 4rF F0 /A/C ,a-P;. G' Ov»,o /Ei,• 3 (U/J7EP Sys7F.�+ F�a0 ,dym.Pll.�e7- MA,. N�tO yp ,��®4R%d /o /nfET ,et 9-)e/ro•l0 / .-r,';F �/o"-/• <F4:30/2o✓i 0,,4,TP ,- /oci e. -" i Urk,E.0 ,e,C.e rlr-s . O.c/A'S 37S0 `. Ate. </ r`1EE7-5 „oz.c 077r .P /2 c p ui,e;o A-7,ee" 0 0.AD G--s t�< 1 `' DATE ; A-4-g. /F /9f SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : OT///Ty �N -/N.'4- /A1(9- I ( APPROVED flAPPROVED WITH CONDITIONS SNOT APPROVED O ICH tilk7 SUDlfCT TO LA«CI?tZ AGREEMENT-WATER , NO LATE COMB A SEWER NO AGREEMENT sEwJ� 1y SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE WATER • VEs r o0 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT C.. . .::-:,ZWER VE . SENIOR /F, 2©D . o-° FPECIAL ASSESSMENT I • .:'E-WATER NO MIMI3fo,40 • °D SPECIAL ASSESS::.T Atia CIJA -SE;•JEr. WO r'aP"S'::O WATER F!,6J 1._ —_ _..._ -+.._.,. l ,� -- YES 1 Z I,✓AtJLWl404 LAfic.c_ ►3& (W C4(nv0 In/ L 1NCvL nI P,? SE EPPi. P! YES au€ NE (P2U V F O PAC aa"�` sr ID f"i-, ..u«D Elk 1:2�;NT lO0a1107:S ; ..� se 8413' Sr.ev El:^_;EnT yC5 3 . 7:Y-/ G'. Coe: erg �o-e.,. O Cr:,•::, '4'�•)nrlG`O .-)1 )(ape.,",. / ,?;-%n .-,r'1,.Air: J,r-frrm? .. _ ,rl„ Il;If �./rf.,/`.• - pe,,, (I,/i 'rJP (�(S 1-c1/4. it DATE ; / ) ; ,F(//; SIGNATURE OF )DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : fete-40( DEbe o. 61EFA( T— 111 APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS OT APPROVEDc �. :(L t_ /L G(/y7(9JL12-� 6_1/1 g 6)w ,/7�r7 i, __( c\S 1 7----'-z. , / -- .. -6-i' c--j- . , f(x" , i _LI1„/ 5 f _ -64 fre,vi=7/' ' -,_., v , - l''-lit- 1 ,-) f• •-,, 1 - 0a.„,.1 _Ja, 2,,,t, ,)61 - 72,414/4;1 4-7S-:-.4 C":"--' e-••••61_ , 1 z''.. • ) • r (614.-- : P i 6a1- - . LJ(t1;(, 4 L I Pt.IL (n.I':'''11 7' _,<i:+4:/:;L:1Z. ./ ' - _____,(i,?..::-.,- -4.,:•,Le.-=,-1.r ' . 4 cf; ) ) -;tf fir- --j ' 1-etrj ✓ 3��..,�� ,ram r,,;,— t� /1_,.....y-ls---72-1114 I� —' / "E �r � % �� 1� .:v 'd r, 5 r ��fL:.•�V tit. _ f- 'cz Q-,c.�.c.q . , 44iI2 . SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE DATE ; [3/ REVISION 5/1982 • N APPROVED L APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ID NOT APPROVED 1 �— C h/_� i 1 7 C c s Wit,o 3 cri (_Aj I l 0/>2/": J." C/ 1 /7,/_)r}J //Cj cc"CC�C1�` ,� _ /1L=_ S : c/S � > `j . r."7- J`e ,, / 'L-, /q cz c= �.] /-/J)A- `�r27/2r �-lJL S /1/1(--E•:- i -Jc5(- (3c- Y�l--f ('7 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR �' DATE :______ � __ t1fiHORIZED REPR SENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : /,z C '7-2'!t-�' F1 APPROVED flAPPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ri NOT APPROVED , • ' CC `C:f--/ Z'/-a C.--,_G!�e<%��� ('),--!e- C-�C'C--C -/ k�-" / " i-, i /' f' 7/4 - / ' /• j-•(c. ./ :� --- ,,. /� �: L-CCU/ '.4,,� /.:'-i e- L-- : e e 6_ 9,',,'�/,' , c Ct'Z- C�i:c2i1 u, ( ,..-`/�, c' /' .C/ ; - / /-C ��r ✓ 4-� /• ,,/', C. L e-/! - C 2 ' ,i"%a'2L ,e- C - C(•- ,2-7 L-1:::6-2 "c' .r-- e-/'! C�=(`t'! i' _ , ,'t!-;-<.-/ i/ / .- ) // is-,--- - C/Gc:Y-/'"7 DATE : - ' .% .` SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : APPROVED [1 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS \M NOT APPROVED I. l' thli\ 3\f\.(1)0 kD \r( ( 1.ecc\- ay\ .' �C, L DATE : SIGNATURE OF 'DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 V IC-1 co • .2144N CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST NO.: ECF-011-86 APPLICATION NO(s).: R-012-86 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Application to rezone 3.17 acres from B-1 to R-4 to allow 104 multi-family units. ERC asked for reduction to 84 dwelling units and then to 70 dwelling units. PROPONENT: Gibralter Homes LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue N.E. and N.E. 40th Street, if extended. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton, Building and Zoning Department. The lead agency for this amended proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information including 1. The maximum density the site can accommodate would be 70 multi-family dwelling units assuming impacts associated with such development can be adequately mitigated. 2. The existing stream must be both protected and integrated into the overall development concept for the site in a way that maximizes its amenity and is consistent with State regulations. 3. All significant existing trees on the site are to be protected and integrated into future development plans to the greatest extent possible. The applicant or his/her assignee shall work with the City's landscape architect in determining which trees will be retained. 4. The applicant or his/her assignee shall be responsible for contributing one half the cost of street improvements to the 40th Avenue and 110th Avenues as identified by the Department of Public Works. on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Additional conditions were imposed as mitigating measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-2822(D) Renton Municipal Code. This DNS is issued under 197-11-34092); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by March 9, 1987. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 235-2550 , •• CITY OF RENTON =icJ I DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) PAGE 2 APPEAL: You may appeal this determination in writing to Renton Hearing Examiner no later than March 9, 1987. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact City of Renton, Building and Zoning Department to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. DATE OF DECISION: February 18, 1987 PUBLICATION DATE: February 23, 1987 Ronald G. Nelson Mr 4.. Spri ter Building and Zoning Director Policy Develo•ment Di ctor • ichard C. Houghton Public Works Director ' ,; • • 2144N CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST NO.: ECF-011-86 APPLICATION NO(s).: R-012-86 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Application to rezone 3.17 acres from B-1 to R-4 to allow 104 multi-family units. ERC asked for reduction to 84 dwelling units and then to 70 dwelling units. PROPONENT: Gibralter Homes LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue N.E. and N.E. 40th Street, if extended. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton, Building and Zoning Department. The lead agency for this amended proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information including 11. The maximum density the site can accommodate would be 70 multi-family dwelling units assuming impacts associated with such development can be adequately mitigated. 2. The existing stream must be both protected and integrated into the overall development concept for the site in a way that maximizes its amenity and is consistent with State regulations. 3. All significant existing trees on the site are to be protected and integrated into future development plans to the greatest extent possible. The applicant or his/her assignee shall work with the City's landscape architect in determining which trees ' will be retained. 4. The applicant or his/her assignee shall be responsible for contributing one half the cost of street improvements to the 40th Avenue and 110th Avenues as identified by the Department of Public Works. on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Additional conditions were imposed as mitigating measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-2822(D) Renton Municipal Code. This DNS is issued under 197-11-34092); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by March 9, 1987. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 235-2550 • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) PAGE 2 APPEAL: You may appeal this determination in writing to Renton Hearing Examiner no later than March 9, 1987. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact City of Renton, Building and Zoning Department to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. DATE OF DECISION: February 18, 1987 PUBLICATION DATE: February 23, 1987 1/111116 Ronald G. Nelson Tr '� Spri er�� '- . , Building and Zoning Director Policy Develo•ment Difctor ichard C. Houghton Public Works Director F// T I ts')-14-7-12 2141N NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON ON March 10, 1987, AT 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: ECF-088-86 THOMAS GARRICK (TALL FASHIONS NORTHWEST) TP-104-86 Application for temporary use permit to allow a retail specialty shop for tall womens' fashions to be run out of a single-family house in a R-4 zoned district for a maximum of two years. Property located at 602 Burnett Avenue South. ECF-105-86 PHILLIPS AND GANNON R-122-86 Application to rezone approximately 0.83 acre of property from B-1 (Business Use) to L-1 (Light Industrial). Property located at 205-235 Airport Way. ECF-011-86 GIBRALTER HOMES R-012-86 Application to rezone 3.17 acres from B-1 to R-4 to allow 104 multi-family units. ERC asked for reduction to 84 dwelling units and then to 70 dwelling units. Located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue N.E. and N.E. 40th Street, if extended. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Renton Building and Zoning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 10, 1987, AT 9:00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLISHED : February 23, 1987 Ronald G. Nelson Building and Zoning Director CERTIFICATION I, a(ZR.1 F. LIED• HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON OR NEARYBY THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Pub ' , in and fpr the State of Washington residing in ,(7p ,I , on the3 'day ofk'l,QZ,-lam lg ��t��.pRES.C - /41 17 A ��:r 1 � ��ssio,yc,F��� : t ,' • . ► sue',, • `a 8, 1pj1 \�+ �� '�Si-i1 • I •`rY , : • _ olor ENviRoNmE : . TAL r 'f DECLARATION APPLICATION NO. ECF-011-86, R-012-86 APPLICANT GIBRALTER HOMES PROPOSED ACTION APPLICATION TO. REZONE 3.17 ACRES FROM B-1 TO R-4 TO ALLOW 104 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, ERC ASKED FOR REDUCTION TO 84 DWELLINGS AND THEN 70 UNITS. GENERAL LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS NORTHWEST CORNER OF LINCOLN AVE. N.E. AND N. E. 40TH STREET, IF EXTENDED. POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (E.R.C.) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NI DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPAC '-ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL / WILL NOT it �„• BE REQUIRED. THE CITY OF RENTON WILL NOT ACT ON THIS 'PROPOSAL FOR 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE BELOW. COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED 'BY MARCH 9, 1987 . AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY 'BE FILED WITH THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER IBY 5:00 P.M., • MARCH 9, 1987 . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT AT 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION. y(--__LC.-0 ,--.) U i Z • �` A # . k " • _e� I0r r F€` J1 � fi `t''y. t� r tl a. a. '*�G'Yp. t i�f Ire.° r np ar ". " F'.. 1 �TED SErCe°-V City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner will hold a . . , 'r. if,. Roi 444z, t.. :..:,,,. p, i . , , , r .„ 4„1, ,,,,,, . • ..• . ,,. ::. -Ii‘* , ,, : , , : 4. 1r k a , e , , ,. � x:,1„ :1;4r .,4:p.;.. , -, y . .. .,.. 40 ,,,, t.: ` e � L 1 x�. ‘ ;., �'e.j P:'!I., , � 4 ,,,,w,, 4,04 . ., 4 .. ,,,, ': .4 s',i, ,...'7.-";.• , 0 a° gyro t w �t ,' * A tiN .' "i. i Y .I. t xu l �k; r•: �h.. t f. ',f a� tM1 rN ;fy} V'rt .,„`. ir.L*,: `. t,t0 in CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 9 CITY HALL ON MARCH 10, 1987 BEGINNING AT 9 :00 A.M. P.M. C D N C E F. u r , ECF-011-86, R-012-86 GIBRALTER HOMES APPLICATION TO REZONE 3.17 ACRES FROM B-1 TO R-4 TO ALLOW 104 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, ERC ASKED FOR REDUCTION TO 84 DWELLING UNITS. AND THEN TO 70 DWELLING UNITS. GENERAL LOCATION AND/DR ADDRESS: NORTHWEST CORNER OF LINCOLN AVENUE N. E. AND N. E. 40TH STREET, IF EXTENDEI FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL. THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING&ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT ®CDAKM=® A . a-rim.elIMI ®lrIf 1fl\.I R. -0�2 OF RA, �y ; ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR Z ammo 0 �vg? MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 O 9�rED SEP-W' BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR February 20, 1987 Gibralter Homes Douglas A. Steinhauer 11 - 105th S.E., Suite 10 . Bellevue, WA 98004 Re: Application to rezone 3.17 acres from B-I to; R-4 to allow 104 multi-family units. ERC asked for reduction to 84 dwelling units and then to 70 dwelling units. Located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue N.E. and N.E. 40th Street, if extended. Dear Mr. Steinhauer: The City of Renton Building, and Zoning Department formally, accepted the above, mentioned application on February 13, 1986. A public hearing before the City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner has been scheduled for March 10,, 1987. The public hearing commences at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you before the hearing. If you have any questions, please call the Building and Zoning Department at 235-2550. Si ely, Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DE:DB:cb 3502Z o\de Z • • NOTICE OF • ti AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 'ENVIRONMENTACP4T ONATIQN• r environmental,Ijeview Commuter ;; ;''• ,• . '•s •Renton,Washington a • �•`t The'Environmental Review Committee; Audrey DeJoie , being first duly sworn on oath states that I,'(ERC),has issued..a declaration:of NON,'r he/she is the Chief Clerk of the • c;,SSIGNIFICANCE-for,she.following'prole s 'with:;:additional-conditions imposedt as;, !::,Mitigating measures under their authority, . • Of Section.:4-2822(13),;••of:`.the•+.ftehtor N VALLEY NEWSPAPERS Municipal Code: ;.:•1," t.: • ; R-122-86 PHILLIPS'AND GANNON:ApV Daily News Journal, Daily Record Chronicle, Daily Globe News plicetionto'rezoneapproimately9..83,acre of property from B-1(Business Use)to L-1 Daily newspapers published six(6) times a week.That said newspapers ;.(Light Industrial).Propert)r located,at11�5� 235,Airport Way. • are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six ECF-011416 1 months prior to the date of publication referred to,printed and published R-012-86 GIBRALTER'HOMES.Applica- in the English language continuallyas dailynewspapers in Kinglion to rezone 3.17 acres from B-1 to R-4 to gKent, allow 104 multi-family units.ERC asked for County, Washington. Valley Newspapers have been approved as legal reduction to 84 dwelling units and then tol: newspapers by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for 70 dwelling units.Located at the northwest��; KingCount goner of Lincoln Avenue,N.f.�;� nd N.E. t Y• Oth Street if,�extQnded.:;;`: 'Further information regarding this action, ie available in the Building and Zoning The notice in the exact form attached,was published in the Daily News .Cepartment, .Municipal Building, Renton; (Washington, 235-2550.:'Any•appeal of.6! Journ al__, Daily Record Chronicle X , Daily Globe News , (and RC action.must be;filed with the enton not In supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its Hearing Examiner by March 9,1987 : ;";, subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice a •Published in' the 'Valley•Dail'.N.e s • Notice of Environmental Determination was published on February 23, 1987 R2103 • The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the SUMO $ �3.07 . • Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6 th day of Mar 19 87 • • Not Public for the State of Washington, residing at Federal Way, King County, Washington. VN#87 Revised 10/84 • • • 9• 8 om w o 33m C°.a 3omu uti gt mimB 6-�, =3 aaF c 671cn�cv 'nn° a ' 2 T� ' ° >' (0. *g or,36>za{��?a cc •32 11a. . 2omo -go as v m-• cfc o 3 g ,ndo w 2-4 o-0a° 5.o sm u F. Zi°1do,7p8 -0 ci m-I0 • o a:n R ;w ao°'*o.a N 2a' ,�w o� oiw ow S20m. .woy w� wz3or" ow�cZ go � m - w -IZ AFFIDAVIT OF PUBL. . ° aw �, '•° y oo . ° 0 w zoo » Dom3•w-rl w � ;, mw1° wm �3 F��� ma- � v, ao -.Eam o..v 3 -� D 5- x xcc m m w ac a Oo� D �.-3 2N co cow cci m >2C: M•ac "cc o w x c o Z �§ w F : m m _3 f DZ� r m c�c y�2 cn 0 N3 3,0 3 m� a v�na-2G�r Audrey DeJoie , being first duly swc• 7, z-"-•m° 3 a) 3 `.;3 o.33. gw ; ' Qzmn he/she is the Chief Clerk of the inmw70wm L1s1 D 30oN'!v.. 33 ' p83 °-�' 9 w � ao my'< Z x " ccn -5 .51 $- m moKP CO ate»co>_in ��� Do •? v *ie aZm VALLEY NEWSPA m rt Q � m o r o c P. Daily News Journal, Daily Record Chronicle, Daily—Mae News . "ay= N w Qom;' owW.DBg Daily newspapers published six(6)times a week.That said newspapers a.'' m '_' are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six O m m CND' months prior to the date of publication referred to,printed and published w a =�' m " wo C `t in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King a P. a.�.m Count Washington. ValleyNewspapers have been approved as legal v m s.o ° C)''' Y, gPP g e, newspapers by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for -� �' Z; King County. N °a': °▪D ' �,�� .O� air.a 9• w'.N'r The notice in the exact form attached,was published in the Daily News ;'I••;:�•`°'�?r;,, $m Journal , Daily Record Chronicle___I, Daily Globe News , (and x y g: ,t not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its w,r .• '1�:./J:�=:ta{�'J1J1 AJ iLaa�l:�p,,,'��L subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice a Notice of Public Hearing was published on February 23, 1987 R2102 • • The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $ 30.75 . • Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of Fit;r _19 87 . • • • • • C -€0-Z N y Public for the State of Washington, • , • residing at Federal Way, • • King County, Washington. VN#87 Revised 10/84 • • I �•- r \'rv� • 'AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION • NOTICE OF • ' ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Audrey DeJoie , being first duly sworn on oath states that ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COM•: • MITTEE • ' he/she is the Chief Clerk of the RENTON,WASHINGTON 'The Environmental Review Committee (ERC)has Issued a Preliminary Mitigated ' • VALLEY NEWSPAPERS declaration of NON-SIGNIFICANCE for j the following projects under the authority of- 1,. I the Renton Municipal Code. The Applied Daily News Journal, Daily Record Chronicle, Daily Globe News ants have completed a mitigation ptocpS44 pursuant to WAC 197-11-350. • . • -012- Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week.That said newspapers R 1-86 •GIBRALTE HOMES 7; -012-86 Application to rezone 3.17: are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six acres from B-1 to R-4 to allow 104 multi, months prior to the date of publication referred to,printed and published family units.ERC asked for reduction to 841 in the,English language continuallyas daily-newspapers in Kent, Loc ted at theits and thwestthen to 70 dwelling L units; King ;'Located at the northwest corner of Lincoln County, Washington. Valley Newspapers have been approved as legal • Avenue N.g. and N.E. 4gth Street, if a ers by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for extended. news P P P g ECF-105-86 PHILLIPS AND CANNON:r King County. • R-122-06Application to rezone approxi,, mately 0.83 acre of property from 131 • (Business Use) to L-1 (Light Industria The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Daily News Property located at 205-235 Airport Way:: Further Information regarding this action Journal___, Daily Record Chronicle_, Daily Globe News , (and is available in the Building and.Zoning not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its : Department, Municipal Building, Renton,II subscribers duringthe below statedperiod. The annexed notice a Washington,on2 this p proposalhe forty 1f Renton � will not act this for 15 days.", Notice of FnvironmRntRl DAtArminati on waspublished Commentsh in be receivedl Deily. Published in the Valley Orilly. Newsr.) on February 4, 1987 B2074 4Fai?Rtia9.4!.,:11�7t.R2o?1,t'i The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$ 23.07 • Subscribed and sworn to before m this day of.4e.b 19 87 NotaccPublic for the State of Washington, residing at Federal Way, •• King County, Washington. VN 087 Revised 10184 • • • I2143N NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a declaration of NON-SIGNIFICANCE for the following projects with additional conditions imposed as mitigating measures under their authority of Section 4-2822(D) of the Renton Municipal Code: i • ECF-105-86 PHILLIPS AND GANNON R-122-86 Application to rezone approximately 0.83 acre of property from B-1 (Business Use) to L-1 (Light Industrial). Property located at 205-235 Airport Way. ECF-011-86 GIBRALTER HOMES R-012-86 Application to rezone 3.17 acres from B-1 to R-4 to allow 104 multi-family units. ERC asked for reduction to 84 dwelling units and then to 70 dwelling units. Located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue N.E. and N.E. 40th Street, if extended. Further information regarding this action is available in the Building and Zoning Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the Renton Hearing Examiner by March 9, 1987. Published: February 23, 1987 OF R4, �� ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR NAL 9 co� MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 09gr6-O SEPSEM��P BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR February 2, 1987 John Deininger 5524 157 Drive N.E. Redmond, WA RE: Application to rezone 3.17 acres from B-1, Business Use to R-4, multiple family, property located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue N.E. and N.E. 40th Street, if extended, file R-012-86. Dear Mr. Deringer: This letter is to inform you that the Environmental Review Committee completed their review of your application on January 28, 1987. The Committee issued a preliminary Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the application with the following conditions: 1. The maximum density the site can accommodate would be 70 multi-family dwelling units assuming impacts associated with such development can be adequately mitigated. 2. The existing stream must be both protected and integrated into the overall development concept for the site in a way that maximizes its amenity and is consistent with State regulations. 3. All significant existing trees on the site are to be protected and integrated into future development plans to the greatest extent possible. The applicant or his/her assignee shall work with the City's landscape architect in determining which trees will be retained. 4. The applicant or his/her assignee shall be responsible for contributing one half the cost of street improvements to 40th Avenue and 110th Avenues as identified by the Department of Public Works. There is a 15 day comment period following the publication of the preliminary decision. During this period, comments are solicited from agencies, jurisdictions or individuals who may have an interest in the Committee's decision. The comment period ends February 18, 1987. Following this date, we will publish for a 14 day appeal period. During this time you may appeal the decison of the Environmental Review Committee. Following the appeal period, a Final Determination will be issued unless an appeal is filed. In addition, by the end of the comment period we should be able to establish a public hearing date before the Hearing Examiner. -2- F inally, please supply us with the name, address, and phone number of the new property owner so we can ensure correspondence as the rezone is available to the property owner is a timely manner. If you have any questions, please call myself or Jeanette Samek-McKague at 235-2540. ( \\ / \Donald I<. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:csb:2421 G /C OF R4,A 0 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT `$ ® Z DESIGN/UTILITY ENGINEERING • 235-2631 111=1111, FP. MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 9,0 co- 0 94'Eb1, SEP�Goe4 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR MEMORANDUM, IJ r 1 , I1 \77 .r , DATE: January 30, 1987 U(J TO: Environmental Review Committee Fc8 21087 Dick Houghton Don Monaghan 3UILO1NG/zow,G DCRT Gary Norris FROM: Bob Bergstrom SUBJECT: STREET IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS FOR 'GIBRALTER HOMES APARTMENT SITE__ S.E. 110TH - c n y of N.E. 44th St. and I-405 Freeway Interchange The street improvement requirements for the Gibralter Homes site for the street frontage improvements, are as follows: The developer will be responsible for 1/2 of the street improvements. N.E. 40th Street (presently unopened) 36' wide curb to curb - curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and storm drainage. Lincoln Avenue N.E. (110th Avenue N.E. ) 58' wide curb to curb - curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, and storm drainage. Install street along present alignment. For additional information, Renton Public Works is obtaining signatures on a proposed street LID in the area. Gibralter Homes is welcome to join the LID. A petition form is attached for their use. (e04 11-1- 1D.3.18.REB:mf 1 / A(-1( /"LA Go, , 7/4741e1/4(ry OF R4, 11/ �� ® 0 THE CITY OF RENTON POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 235-2552 Z o p MM. MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 90 co. 0,9gTE0 SEP1dc-P BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MEMORANDUM MAYOR January 14, 1987 TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Policy Development Department SUBJECT: Revised Site Plan for Gilbralter Homes, File R-012-86 Regarding the revised drawings submitted for the above project, we would offer the following observations: 1) The dwelling unit count has been reduced to 70 units from 104 and 84 as requested earlier by the Environmental Review Committee. 2) It would appear that the buildings along the south property line have been reduced to two (2) stories from three (3) as requested by ERC. 3) The Policy Development Department has analyzed the site using the proposed Environmentally Sensitive Area regulations and subsequently identified significant areas of sensitivity on the site. This together with our previous concerns about mitigation measures for the significant grading involved establishes serious reservations about the viability of this proposal (in its present design) on the subject site. 4) The proposed recreational facility may be better sited if it were relocated to a more centrally placed position. 5) There is a separate policy issue on the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Commercial in the subject site. The proposed rezone to R-4 (High Density Multiple Family) is clearly inconsistent with this designation and may in fact not be appropriate given existing zoning13- B-1) and land uses on adjacent properties. Perhaps a rezone to R-3 may be more appropriate if any multiple family is desirable. The proponent should address this in greater detail. - 2 - 6) The ERC also specifically asked that the proponent address the matter of providing a 5-lane road section to prepare the stream corridor. If this matter has been addressed, the information submitted needs to be distributed to all departments. If not, the request should be reemphasized. To summarize, there remain several unanswered questions about this proposal. Those items identified above are the key issues and they suggest that additiional concerns may be there. We would recommend, therefore, that the proponent address in specific detail these issues based upon a specific time frame established by the ERC. SM:2378G:wr Attachment (Map) - Please return to Policy Development. /XX 2135N NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Preliminary Mitigated declaration of NON-SIGNIFICANCE for the following projects under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. The Applicants have completed a mitigation process pursuant to WAC 197-11-350. ECF-011-86 GIBRALTER HOMES R-012-86 Application to rezone 3.17 acres from B-1 to R-4 to allow 104 multi-family units. ERC asked for reduction to 84 dwelling units and then to 70 dwelling units. Located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue N.E. and N.E. 40th Street, if extended. ECF-105-86 PHILLIPS AND GANNON iR-122-86 Application to rezone approximately 0.83 acre of property from B-1 (Business Use) to L-1 (Light Industrial). Property located at 205-235 Airport Way. Further information regarding this action is available in the Building and Zoning Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. The City of Renton will not act on this proposal for 15 days. Comments must be received by . Published: February 4, 1987 ►3415Z MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON SIGNIFICANCE Effective Determination Date: February 4, 1987 File: ECF-011-86, R-012-86 Proponent: Gibralter Homes Description: Application to rezone 3.17 acres from B-1 to R-4 to allow 104 multi-family units. ERC asked for reduction to 84 dwelling units and then to 70 dwelling units. Location: Located at the northwest ;corner of Lincoln Avenue N.E. and N.E. 40th Street, if extended. The above-referenced proposal has completed a mitigation process pursuant to WAC 197-11-350. ,The following agreements made with the project applicant or conditions imposed by the Building and Zoning Department are now a part of the proposed action. The conditions or agreements are deemed necessary or beneficial to mitigate environment impacts identified during the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and City of Renton Environmental Ordinance review processes. Conditions or Agreements: 1. The maximum density the site can accommodate would be 70 multi-family dwelling units assuming impacts associated with such development can be adequately mitigated. 2. The existing stream must be both protected and integrated into the overall development concept for the site in a way that maximizes its amenity and is consistent with State regultions. 3. All significant existing trees on the site are to be protected and integrated into future development plans to the greatest extent possible. The applicant or his/her assignee shall work with the City's landscape architect in determining which trees will be retained. 4. The applicant or his/her assignee shall be responsible for contributing one half the cost of street improvements to the 40th Avenue and 110th ' Avenues as identified by the Department of Public Works. The Building and Zoning Department has determined that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file at the Zoning Division's office. Agencies, affected tribes and other interested parties may submit written comments on this proposal for fifteen (15) days from the above determination date. Written comments will be accepted until February 18, 1987. This determination may be appealed within the fifteen (15) day comment period. Any appeal shall state with specificity the reasons why the determination should be reversed. Mitigated Determination of Non Significance Gibralter Homes February 4, 1987 Page 2 Comments and/or appeal arguments should be addressed to: City of Renton Building and Zoning Department 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Arifj( 1// Signature of Responsible Official or Designee Published: February 4, 1987 OF R.4, ;� e 0 THE CITY OF RENTON • POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 235-2552 p ammo °' MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 9,0 co- 0,9gT�0 SEPT ���P BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MEMORANDUM MAYOR January 14, 1987 TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Policy Development Department SUBJECT: Revised Site Plan for Gilbralter Homes, File R-012-86 Regarding the revised drawings submitted for the above project, we would offer the following observations: 1) The dwelling unit count has been reduced to 70 units from 104 and 84 as requested earlier by the Environmental Review Committee. 2) It would appear that the buildings along the south property line have been reduced to two (2) stories from three (3) as requested by ERC. 3) The Policy Development Department has analyzed the site using the proposed Environmentally Sensitive Area regulations and subsequently identified significant areas of sensitivity on the site. This together with our previous concerns about mitigation measures for the significant grading involved establishes serious reservations about the viability of this proposal (in its present design) on the subject site. 4) The proposed recreational facility may be better sited if it were relocated to a more centrally placed position. 5) There is a separate policy issue on the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Commercial in the subject site. The proposed rezone to R-4 (High Density Multiple Family) is clearly inconsistent with this designation and may in fact not be appropriate given existing zoning (R-1, B-1) and land uses on adjacent properties. Perhaps a rezone to R-3 may be more appropriate if any multiple family is desirable. The proponent should address this in greater detail. - 2 - 6) The ERC also specifically asked that the proponent address the matter of providing a 5-lane road section to prepare the stream corridor. If this matter has been addressed, the information submitted needs to be distributed to all departments. If not, the request should be reemphasized. To summarize, there remain several unanswered questions about this proposal. Those items identified above are the key issues and they suggest that additiional concerns may be there. We would recommend, therefore, that the proponent address in specific detail these issues based upon a specific time frame established by the ERC. SM:2378G:wr Attachment (Map) - Please return to Policy Development. fNTEROFF ICE MEM .'0 fJTRAFFIC ENG DIV. TO: DATE: MgMowg --1\ -Wt5PICi Ei•l &ii\reeK,11\)& Diu)siok7 FROM: 4 , JAN 9 REM! Z. D8 11 r I • SUBJECT: 7r-E- - 14CMY)e5, -17118 - 012_ - No ruciN , -P<Afiu0 i\ ui,..) \-'LNN -1-1-hs 15 •Kc30-1--600L‘o -Fo-i . -1.-Fe'i 1F ,0 Dki —SNO i411- „-_____) — 1 ..n., io ( , , , c e, ,i) , ,i ( ,•—/ , i Pi , (Q ,,. -e : / / ../ ili :INTEROFFICE MEM ,) - • TO: DATE: 1 RE, ri'o K) '50 K 4(A, A N 9 i997� lJ FROM: y 3,/ SUBJECT: I� I 0 � &) \-Varlic9 -0 i 2,--E5(0 KA5-e )Z.cQleuo \ 'OAK), \s 1s 3C OUL 6O I�o�� ��- ►:.� N �� , \ kY° RENTAlN BUILDING & ZONING DEPATNAENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF _ - APPLICATION NO(S) : . - O 12 -g6 PROPONENT : G 1 BeA-L-re ,e, S PROJECT TITLE : BRIEF DESCRIPTION. OF PROJECT: LOCATION : TO: • PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : El ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : ri UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION ' !FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU ELPARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT CITY Qf RENTON • BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT D 1j f ‘Y1N, 'POLICE DEPARTMENT BAN 12 gg7 1• POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ,13UILOING;ZtiN1NG OEPT: ri OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE. PROVIDED IN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING &.ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : cir-c- ifireU214/ D �I El APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED - de /re. //i! u�' men I TurvJ 4'"O ua Jt 7 rJ Ge e C eaZ nor OP;ye._ 01 " gain , �� be f access 7 ie /W.h/Mu m nokSfrHc.7 -C) / - <tr SS�AtS hC uir& 5 /'i4/� 1�li11 s ova /a dd� s • Vi w if y �,l� / i 51 2 d 'C'i r e S fn K7 � 2 � .!�©� Cr/-�- �Q I'Icy-NC it)pi. '� i fG • Ayraft. �i✓G bl�Gt y a I-dte 5 leer; a Va e i aM C e I/Upr1ci® / I a cce55 /-0a tia S Will b e /� Q�l ���' Nyd,-aK a ,2 'tU l� / if DATE: /- l2- SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR A T RIZED REPRO ENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 ' Form 1 • t - Gibraltar Homes, Inc. 11 - 105th S.E., Suite 10 Bellevue, WA 98004 CITy 206-454-4515 , L •� �' •5 ' i I' Lr i November 4 , 1986 :\101/ 1( d • Building $ Zoning Department City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave. So . Renton, WA 98055 Attention: Mrs . Jeanette McKague Subject : Rezone /R-012-86/environmental review Dear Mrs . McKague : As stated in Roger Blaylock' s letter dated September 4, 1986 and as we discussed by telephone of the 29th of October, Gibraltar Homes , in lieu of filing an EIS Review, will accept the environmental review com- mittee suggestion of seventy (70) units for the above rezone application. Cordially yours , GIBRALTAR HOMES , INC . 4 D Douas A. Steinhaue DAS:ns • • pF I is ��` " ; ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 0. ,n. RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR z al o 0 Co- MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 O941, SEPS,140 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR • September 24, 1986 Mr. Colin Radford RADFORD & COMPANY 110423 Main Street Bellevue, Washington 98004 RE: GIBRALTAR HOMES. INC./R-012-86 Dear Mr. Radford: I brought to the attention of the Environmental Review Committee for the City of Renton the fact that Mr. Douglas Stienhaur, President of Gibraltar Homes is no longer pursuing the rezoning of property owned by your clients. The Committee's position is that to keep a land use application active a response must be made to their September 4. 1986 (Copy attached) request for more information by Friday, October 24, 1986. If the Committee does not recieve the additional information requested they will issue a Declaration of Significance and require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. For the Environmental Review Committee: tet - Roger J. Blaylock, Zoning Administrator 2067N y OF R4,A '4•4 di ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON — DIRECTOR o sal MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 o947.et) SEP"'%se ARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR September 4. 1986 Mr. Douglas A. Steinhauer. President Gibralter Homes, Inc. - 11 105th Avenue S.E., Suite 10 Bellevue, Washington 98004 RE: REZONE/R-012-86/ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Dear Mr. Steinhauer: The Environmental Review Committee of the City of Renton has reviewed three (3) proposals for the development of the subject site. The last two proposals have reduced the initial proposal by approximately 20% from 104 to 84 dwelling units. The property is limited by natural features such as the stream corridor, slopes, and location as it relates to the public right-of-ways along with the fact that the site is within a designated transitional area of the Comprehensive Plan. The Committee wants to see specific design treatments for the preservation of the stream corridor with the construction of a five (5) lane road section. However, the major problem in the mind of the majority of the Environmental Review Committee is the density. This is clearly a transitional area that is suggested to be developed to a maximum density of R-2 (12 units per acre) on the southern portion of the suject site. Exact implementation of the Comprehensive Plan would reduce both the project density and scale of buildings on the southern portion of the site. The majority of the Committee holds that the present proposal's basic design is acceptable, but the total project development of 84 dwelling units is not acceptable and is .. . in fact a significant environmental impact considering the environmental limitations of the subject site and the Comprehensive Plan. If the buildings on the south half of the site were reduced to two floors in height, it would appear that the specific intent of the transitional area would be met. This would reduce the total project development to 70 dwelling units. Response should be made to the Committee within approximately three (3) weeks. but no later than Monday. September 21, 1986. For the Environmental Review Committee, . 5CfCtArk. Ro er Blaylock, Zoning Administrator RJB:rjb 2054N / y 1� DenneIi PS _1 s INC. SURVEYORS AND ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 1031 • PUYALLUP,WA 98371 PUY: 845-8833 SEA: 838-3474 August 13 , 1986 Doug Steinhouer 11 - 105th S .E . , Suite 10 Bellevue , Wa 98004 Re : Exit 7 Site 81-1903 Dear hr . Steinhouer: We have checked with Fisheries in relationship to preserving the existing stream along the east portion of the property . The area encumpassed by the stream can be preserved and added to with planting for fish habitat . The construciton of a three ( 3) lane road would have minimum impact on the existing stream due to the ability to ensure a reconstruction of any potential habitat removal . A five (5) lane road section would impact the stream and could also be reconstructed at a greater expense again with plantings and some modification of the stream bed , placement of rocks , logs and the creating some pools. The approach has been taken on other projects and been very successful through the Fisheries Department . Cordially , Robert A . Bennett , PLS • Gibraltar Homes, Inc. 11 105th S.E., Suite 10 CTYDTC::1 A Bellevue, WA 98004 `Y � 206-454-4515 --6 -AUG 1. 41986 ;E5'121;1 D,1N W: 0 N l NsCri ;C C,PT August 13, 1986 Building & Zoning Department 200 Mill Ave. S. Renton, WA. 98055 Attention: Mr. Roger J. Blaylock - Zoning Administrator Subject : Exit 7 Dear Roger : Enclosed please find a letter from Robert Bennett addressing the stream at our Exit 7 property, the letter is self-explanatory and should address all the concerns of the environmental review committee Thanks for your help ! Cordially Yours , GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC . Douglas A. Steinhauer President DAS/kkn /e } OF RA A 4 ;a .'••-. 0 BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT o$ RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR 9INMEIP " MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 • 235-2540� 0 Q, 9�TF0 SEPSE#� BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR August 5. 1986 Mr. Douglas A. Steinhauer, President Gibralter Homes. Inc. 11 105th Avenue S.E.. Suite 10 Bellevue, Washington 98004 RE: REZONE/R-012-86/ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Dear Mr. Steinhauer: The Environmental Review Committee has looked at your proposal on several occassions including a series of modifications that you have shown on the project since February of this year. The Committee is concerned with one last issue as it relates to the off-site. improvements along 110th Avenue S.E. The additional information that you provided to the Committee only highlighted the ,problem associated with the actual construction of a major arterial on this very unusual right-of-way. The Committee's concern is can the existing stream be preserved or enhanced? The engineering problem that needs to be addressed before the Environmental Review Committee can proceed is: Can either a three-lane or five-lane arterial section be constructed on the eastern-most right-of-way without impacting the stream? If it does impact the stream, can mitigation occur to create a new habitat acceptable to both the City of Renton and the State of Washington Department of Fisheries? The City believes that your engineering consultant should contact Mr. Joseph L. Robel. Habitat Manager. Habitat Management Division. 115 General Administration Building. Olympia, Washington 98504. phone-753-6600. • / I rrl Douglas Steinhauer August 5. 1986 Page 2 The intent is not to have you design the arterial street improvement but to analyze the impact of a general improvement upon the stream course. The result may be to relocate the stream or require enhancement of the stream course for both fishery resources and wildlife habitat. Please provide the additional information by Friday. August 15, 1986 or a schedule of when you will be able to address the issue. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me directly. For the Environmental Review Committee. ----Vere4S/te--(=: I ecol Roger J. Blaylock Zoning Administrator RJB:ss 2022N F I OF RA C.) �y€5 , ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT - r . � o RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR NIL0 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH.98055 • 235-2540 43. 0947'ED SEPle° BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR June 27. 1986 0 Mr. Douglas A Steinhauer, President Gibraltar Homes, Inc. 11 105th Avenue S.E., Suite 10 Bellevue, Washington 98004* RE: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RECONSIDERATION R-012-86 Dear Mr. Steinhauver: The Environmental Review.Committee considered your letter of June 24. 1986 reducing the scope of proposed multiple family development on Wednesday, June 25, 1986 approximately 20 percent. The reduction from 104 dwelling units to 84 dwelling units represents a significant positive environmental change in the project. This modification is generally supported by • the Environmental Review Committee in that it brings the development with the general development limits, established by the Comprehensive Plan landuse designations of Commercial and Low Density Multiple Family. The Committee before issuing a new environmental determination wants to evaluate: (1) a revised site plan, (2) off site street improvements along both Lincoln Avenue N.E. and North 40th Street, (3) secondary access onto North 40th Street should be shown near the southwest corner of the subject site, and (4) basic landscape plan along with the calculation percentage of the site that is left in landscaped open space. Could you please provide this additional information no latter than Thursday, July 17, 1986. I will be on vacation for the next two weeks. I will be back on Monday. July 14, 1986. If you need additional information, please contact Jerry Lind in the Building and Zoning Department Office. For the Environmental Review Committee, Ok itiCteCTS Roger J. Blaylock, 1 Zoning Administrator RJB:rjb . 2502Z Gibraltar Homes, Inc. 11 - 105th S.E., Suite 10 Bellevue, WA 98004 206-454-4515 CITY OF RENTON ec {IVE1 JUN 2 11986 June 24, 1986 BUILDING / ZONING DEPT. Building F Zoning Department 200 Mill Ave . S. Renton, WA. 98055 Attention: Mr. Roger Blaylock Subject : Pickle Property Dear Roger : As you can imagine we are disappointed that our last proposal did not make it through the commission. However, you win! We are now prepared to ammend our application to 84 units which at 3 . 2 acres because of the building configuration is two units over R- 3. We would propose doing this by eliminating 3 units each off of Buildings A, B, and D. This would obviously reduce the parking accordingly. I hope you will find this proposal satisfactory. Cordially Yours , GIB AR HOMES, INC. n rJ y Douglas A. Steinhauer President DAS/kkn � A �s ' "" n ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT e/ RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR OMUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 ® 235-2540 o,9,„FQ SEP1. .$�P BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR June 23, 1986 Mr. Douglas A. Steinhauer, President Gibraltar Homes, Inc. 11 105th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004 RE: FILE NUMBER R-012-86/ERC RECONSIDERATION Dear Mr. Steinhauer: The Environmental Review Committee considered the additional information and site plan • that you submitted on June 6. 1986 during their regular meeting on Wednesday. June 18, 1986. The issue is still density. Eventhough your proposal reduced the density by approximately 10 per cent, the project still has a significant impact because of it's intensity as it relates to both the existing development in the area and the planned development under the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The subject site is located in an area that is identified as transitional in nature between two land use classification: Commercial and Low Density Multiple Family. This dual potential zoning designation makes your proposal even more difficult because it must be sensitive to all of the objectives of both classifications. The Comprehensive Plan suggests that approximately the northern 60 per cent of the subject site as to be Retail Commercial while the southern 40 per cent should be Low Density Multiple Family. This would allow a density of approximately 35 units per acre on the northern portion and 12 units per acre on the southern. A total development of approximately 80 to 82 dwelling units would be more appropriate. Another alternative proposal would be to designate the entire site as Medium Density Multiple Family. This would allow the development of approximately 79 to 80 dwelling units. Your current proposal respresents almost a 20 per cent development intensity over either one of the above two scenarios. r Gibraltar Homes/Doug Stiennaur June 23, 1986 Page2 The City of Renton considers the Comprehensive Plan to be a strong planning tool in guiding the development of the City. Therefore. the Environmental Review Committee has determined that the proposal has a significant impact. The applicant has the ability to request that the Environmental Review Committee reconsider their decision by either submitting new information or a revised application. The applicant also has the ability to appeal this decision directly to the Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the date of this decision. For purposes of the previous reconsideration requested the formal date shall be considered to be Monday, June 23, 1986: therefore. the appeal dated would be 5 p.m. on Monday, July 7. 1986. Appeals must be set forth under procedures established section 4-3011(B). For the Environmental Review Committee: (------C f 4; A/i" :I $ . , Roger J. Blaylock Zoning Administrator 2487Z RJB STATE Art ANDREA BEATTY RINIKER Director ' ;888 aoy STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 • (206) 459-6000 C1T,' 1)R 17 fl May 20, 1986 '- MAY 22198 - tt� r-!r Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Sirs : Thank you for the opportunity to comment during the scoping process for the rezone of 3 . 17 acres and construction of 104 multifamily apartment, units by Gibralter Homes (ECF-011-86) . We note that this project is in the Municipality of Metro- politan Seattle sewer service area and we have the following comments . Please be advised that a hookup ban may be imposed on the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) on August 1 , 1986, if planning for secondary treatment is not completed by July 31 , 1986. The hookup ban, if imposed, would apply to the entire Metro service area. This means that there is a pos- sibility that sewer service may not be available for the proposed project . The draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) should address sewage disposal for the project , as well as the potential sewer hookup ban. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Robert Sylvester of the Northwest Regional Office at (206) 885-1900 . Sincerely, Barbara J. Ritchie Environmental Review Section BJR: cc: Marlene Wylie, NWRO 04R>3 OF R4' il ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ° ` 90t RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR ail ..,* p9 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 O,9gTeO SEP-CE�O�Q, BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR May 16. 1986 Mr. Douglas A. Steinhauer, President Gibraltar Homes. Inc. 111 105th Avenue S.E., Suite 10 !Bellevue. Washington 98004 RE: REZONE REQUEST/FILE R-012-86 1 Dear Mr. Steinhauer: The Environmental Review Committee considered your reconsideration request of May 9, 1986. The Committee believes that the proposed intensity of 32.8 units per acre creates a significant impact upon recreational needs and the general development density in the 'area. The Committee believes that the density is approximately 30 percent greater than of potential residential development in the general area. The density that you have proposed is the highest that has ever been proposed within the City of Renton and creates ,a dilemma since the subject site is in an undeveloped section of the City. The Environmental Review Committee sincerely believes that the proposal has a "probable adverse environmental impact" and an environmental impact statement should be prepared: however, the Committee will also allow you the opportunity to make a presentation before the Committee if it is your desire to argue the specific design points of the proposal. The Committee has reserved 11:15 a.m. on Wednesday. May 28, 1986, for your presentation. It is very important that the presentation stress the design amenities and the character of the site. This is necessary to show that on-site amenities are adequate to meet the high density of 32.8 units per acre of the subject proposal. It would also be wise to include a map showing all adjacent uses within approximately 500 to 1.000 feet to promote the idea that there is relative change in the area and the project is not out of character. I would also suggest that a larger scale schematic drawing be provided along with possible renderings if you have them available. If I can be of any further assistance, please contact me directly. For the Environmental Review Committee, r9�iQ2. �o RogerJ. Blaylock Zoning Administrator Gibraltar Homes, Inc. 11 - 105th S.E., Suite 10 Bellevue, WA 98004 206-454-4515 May 9, 1986 Building and Zoning Dept. Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave. 'S. Renton, WA. 98055 Attn: Mr. Roger J. Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Subject: Rezone request / File No. R-012-86 Dear Roger, Enclosed is a cross section showing the elevations of our proposed apart- ment site. The satisfying thing is that in looking at our original proposal the site is exactly like we said it was. If you take note of the cross section you will notice very little change in grade. The buildings follow with very few cut and fills, the natural topography of the land. As a matter of fact the print also shows a very pleasant looking site with good open space. Again, it would be a shame not to take advantage of the land. Per our discussion about the approximate sixty-five thousand dollars that Gibraltar is going to give to the city for the Kennydale area, it would be our wish that we ear mark it for construction rather than putting the money in to a general fund. We are very high on the area, and I think that the city has done a great job on planning, so lets get on with the improvements. Thanks again for your consideration on this project. C r ially Yours, ibrattaifl Homes, Inc. � z Do . .s A. Steinhauer President CRY OF RE,i7.02 r 1 DAS/kkn friel • `; { mg 0 91986 Bu;LnI; Gi Z.oNING DEPT. -C FORM 115 ?:44 ENviRia MENTAL Diem ATIoN I L } 6 APPLICATION NO. ECF-011-86 C IBRAI TFR HOMES PROPOSED ACTION APPLICATION TO REZONE 3 ,17 ACRES FROM B-1 TO R-4 TO ALLOW 104 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS (FILE R-012-8E S GENERAL LOCATION AND OR ADDRESS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LINCOLN AVENUE N . E. & N . E. 4CTH STREET . IF EXTENDED, POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE [ E.R.C. 9 HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DES DDOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. THE CITY OF RENTON WILL. NOT ACT ON THIS PIROPOSAL FOR 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE BELOW. COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER BY 5:00 P.M., MAY 12. 198E . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 L ` ' DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE / \A/ITLJ R'1i I l ►P1/••\11C 11 A■ ~II MA Wm%. N.■ 1111N CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF EIS FILE NUMBER(S): ECF-011-86 R-012-86 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Application to rezone 3.17 acres from B-1 to R-4 to allow 104 multi-family units. PROPONENT: Gibralter Homes LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue N.E. and N.E. 40th Street if extended. EIS REQUIRED. The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. An environmental checklist or other materials indicating likely environmental impacts can be reviewed at our offices. The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS: density, topography, storm drainage, and on-site recreation. SCOPING. Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before May 12, 1986. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 235-2550 APPEAL: You may appeal this determination of significance in writing pursuant to RMC 4-3016 accompanied by a $75.00 appeal fee no later than May 12. 1986, to: Land Use Hearing Examiner c/o City Clerk 200 Mill Avenue South Renton. Washington 98055 You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the Building and Zoning Department to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. PUBLICATION DATE: April 28, 1986 DATE OF DECISION: April 23. 1986 (SIGNATURES: e- t _�7 J .:_ onald G. Nelson M. S Mpr •-r Building and Zoning Director Policy Devel►T ent Director `cd1-4-(-eLt--/L_ Ri and C. ughton Public Work Director ®F 1 J A iv ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT C.) t$ lam z. , -'1" P4x, RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR cs) IMMO O� � MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 O94, SEP�,,s0 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR May 7. 1986 Mr. Douglas Steinhauer, President Gibraltar Homes 11 - 105th S.E.. Suite 10 Bellevue, Washington 98004 RE: REZONE REQUEST/FILE NO. R-012-86 Dear Mr. Steinhauer: The Environmental Review Committee has issued a declaration of significance for your proposed construction of 104 multiple family residential units on 3.17 acres of property located on the west side of Lincoln Avenue N.E. at the 4000 block. Based upon the information originally presented in the application and supplemental information provided by your firm. the Environmental Review Committee has determined that there is a probable significant adverse environmental impact that needs to be totally disclosed through the preparation of an environmental impact statement. The Committee based their findings upon the following facts: 1. The onsite topography did not appear to lend itself to the proposed site plan. Onsite springs. streams, and standing water do not appear to have been adequately addressed in the site plan. The plans as submitted did not show how the topography lent itself to your proposal. 2. The issue of the introduction of a major residential development into an undeveloped and low density residential neighborhood was not adequately discussed. It is obvious that proposing a development of almost 33 units per acre when the existing density is approximately one unit per acre is a significant change to the existing environment. In fact. the Comprehensive Plan may not support the R-4 multiple family residential zoning classification requested by the applicant. R-4 zoning has not typically been utilized by the City to create a buffer between a commercial area and an adjacent single family residential area. 3. Onsite recreation appears to have been inadequately addressed by the introduction of a sports court. It appears illogical that over 200 people could be adequately served by the onsite recreation proposed. It appears both inadequate in area and in diversity. Mr. Douglas Steinhauer May 7. 1986 Page 2 4. In general. the proposal appears to be incompatible with the existing environment and untimely because it appears to set a trend that is not encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan or sound planning practices. The applicant has the 'ability to request reconsideration of this decision from the Environmental Review Committee or appeal this decision directly to the Hearing Examiner under authority granted in Section 4-2823 (Appeals) within fourteen days of the date that the DS is final. Therefore, the appeal date would be Monday. May 12, 1986. at 5 p.m. Appeals must be submitted in the form prescribed by the Environmental Ordinance of the City of Renton and the Hearing Examiner Ordinance. Section 4-3011(B). For the Environmental Review Committee, 1\14,4e_90 (.61 CV& Roger J. Blaylock Zoning Administrator RJB:ss 1114N 0 1109N NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON. WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a declaration of significance for the following project: GIBRALTER HOMES (ECF-011-86) Application to rezone 3.17 acres from B-1 to R-4 to allow 104 multi-family units (file R-012-86). Located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue N.E. and N.E. 40th Street if extended. Further information regarding this action is available in the Building and Zoning Department. Municipal Building. Renton.' Washington. 235-2550. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the Renton Hearing Examiner by May 12. 1986. Published: April 28, 1986 li AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL AudreY DeJoie , being first duly sworn on oath states that REVIEW COMMITTEE , WASHINGTON he/she is the Chief Clerk of the The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a declaration of signifi- cance for the following project: VALLEY NEWSPAPERS GIBRALTER HOMES (ECF-011-86) Application to rezone 3.17 acres from B- 1 to R-4 to allow 104 multi-family units(file Daily News Journal, Daily Record Chronicle, Daily Globe News R-012-86). Located at the northwest corn- er of Lincoln Avenue N.E. and N.E. 40th Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week. That said newspapers Street if extended. are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six Further information the on regarding this action gis available in th Building and Zoning months prior to the date of publication referred to,printed and published Department, Municipal Building, Renton, in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King Washington, 235-2550. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the Renton County, Washington. Valley Newspapers have been approved as legal Hearing Examiner by May 12, 1986. newspapers by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Published in the Daily Record Chronicle April 28, 1986. R1542. King County. The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Daily News Journal , Daily Record Chronicle , Daily Globe News , (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice a loti_ce of Environmental Determination was published on t=:pri1 28 , 1966 I-d 54 2 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $ lL}'65 Subscribed and sworn to before me this `9th day of A Aril 19 86 Notary Public for the State of Washington, CITY residing at Federal Way, (,cam ��Q, F RENTO/v King County, Washington. /5) , © G Q "� 1-� VN 087 Revised 10/84 V L:� JUN z 'r 1986 BUILDING /ZONING DEPT. AFFIDAVIT DOCUMENT DETAIL PUBLICATION DATE o i-t c ; o r- U'12 Q N►1(-_, A)-7 GteRA T �1 A ti av 2 g — THE ABOVE LIST D DOCUMENTS WERE RECEIVED FOR LEGAL PUBLICATION ON _ ! - BY��„54,. c1 P1� .1 DATE SIG U E • REN1 I BUILDING & ZONING DEN rMENT r DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 011 _ 86 APPLICATION NO(S) ; REZONE: R-012-86 PROPONENT : GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. PROJECT TITLE : GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. REZONE (LORRAINE PARK I) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.17 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM B-1 TO R-4 TO ALLOW FOR THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT HAVJK 104 MITS. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. AT THE 4000 BLOCK. TO : n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 3/5/86 ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : n UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION n FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU n PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT El BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ri POLICE DEPARTMENT El POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT n OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M, ON FEBRUARY 27, 1986 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 7 _/ /c ' n APPROVED n� ROVED WITH CONDITIONS fl NOT APPROVED /57,2 - �i;7,J 5� zJ Iteuz_ `� Jr ,e tiL _� ry Ce C.2 uJ` ) .Pyok-41 `-7/, o DATE: / -70 f /S g ‘ SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 RENT __tI BUILDING & ZONING DEN__,'MENT . 4 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 1011 - 86 APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE: R-012-86 PROPONENT ; GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. REZONE (LORRAINE PARK I) PROJECT TITLE : BRIEFjDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.17 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM B-1 TO R-4 TO ALLOW FOR THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJiECLHAVING 104 UNITS- LO CAT;ION : LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. AT THE 4000 BLOCK. TO : Li PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 3/5/86 ENGINEERING DIVISION � ITRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : FUTILITIES ENG . DIVISION n FIRE IPREVENTION BUREAU ® PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT . II POLICE DEPARTMENT • POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • OTHERS : COMMENTS O,R SUGGESTIONS REGARDING .THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON FEBRUARY 27, 1986 REVIEWING ,DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ; • APPROVED M APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ONOT APPROVED at_ 512.3 .s/Af ,,i-d Zt/ 3 a Z n 351 ‘f err `D w S j I U DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 J4 RENT „i BUILDING & ZONING DEPL__ fMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECFI - 011 - 86 APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE: R-012-86 PROPONENT: GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. PROJECT TITLE ; GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. REZONE (LORRAINE PARK I) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3. 17 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM B-1 TO R-4 TO ALLOW FOR THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT HAVING 104 UNITS. LOCATION ; LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. AT THE 4000 BLOCK. TO : II PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 3/5/86 El ENGINEERING DIVISION 1=1 TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION El FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU E PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 0 BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 0', POLICE DEPARTMENT EPOLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT flIOTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:I00 P .M. ON FEBRUARY 27, 1986 REVIEIWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : APPROVED g 0APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 0 NOT APPROVED 3-(NAIR\- SXN -AN/`?-( \r- (( a( 1 OLt�c Qcw� 69 VA ta QUA- ) ) -ktnnk ( RA f Q • II fi ' iQr 64 DATE:NATUR; OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 REN- ,kl BUILDING & ZONING DER__ TMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET EC( - 011 _ 86 APPLICATION NO(S) ; REZONE: R-012-86 PROPONENT: GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. PROJECT TITLE : GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. REZONE (LORRAINE PARK I) I . BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.17 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM B-1 TO R-4 TO ALLOW FOR THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT HAILING 104 UNIT. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. AT THE 4000 BLOCK. TO: , ® PUBLIIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 3/5/86 ENGINEERING DIVISION n (TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : OUTILITIES ENG , DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU IIII PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ® POLICE DEPARTMENT • POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • OTHERS : I � COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON FEBRUARY 27, 1986 REVIEWING IDEPARTMENT/DIVISION ; flAPPROVED ETAPPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ONOT APPROVED / Li' SP c/N/t-,CE,�ED y �U%c o�.�� ou E.e it, 00 0 � et-9 u�,e Eo T� g Esser •'E d We N7-'2 /47210i. e or»e /EX �! C21A7 P SysT6.M Ayv® /41/AA's/ `,rs Mny Nee yio . /Aav,A4 /O BEET I fppp,eo,r,.n A TF e%c., ,eEp w,a ,. .e E_ ,2E a/eEo /�/,!F �'/otc/. "woes , .37so 4, A!nJ <1.. HEETS ,.I, o7t/ ,P /2 E p U,,eEo Fief a o.o,Es ��•— DATE: A 9. /7, /7$ SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 F(1rm 1$ 9 REN . J BUILDING & ZONING DEP _ TMENY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 011 _ 86 CITY OF RENTON APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE: R-012-86 DEB 18 1986 GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. npiPt opmF r PROPONENT , Cp PROJECT TITLE ; GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. REZONE (LORRAINE PARK I) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT; APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3. 17 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM B-1 TO R-4 TO ALLOW FOR THE FUTURE CQNSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT HAVING 104_ UNITS. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. AT THE 4000 BLOCK. TO : n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 3/5/8� 0 ENGINEERING DIVISION I ( TRAFFIC ENG . DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : ri UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION n FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 0 PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT LI BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT nJPOLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT IIII OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 ; 00 P .M. ON FEBRUARY 27, 1986 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ; %Lic ( ,Dava_tsAn /YT n APPROVED I ] APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS RIM APPROVED /gez-vivt/1/1- 1,1.1‘67,6f.,z, ()r-r r%u ,A�.�Q 7� �! p%tea °'' /61111-€4 ; 6."'"j " • . CS= d a 1 6014 46;3 - 6 -/° '.*14)446 "e ` DATE: 131g4, SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 REN N BUILDING & ZONING DEPL, MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF -� O11 - 86 APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE: R-012-86 GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. PROPOiNENT : PROJECT TITLE : GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. REZONE (LORRAINE PARK I) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.17 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM B-1 TO R-4 TO ALLOW FOR THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT HAVING 104 UNITS LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. AT THE 4000 BLOCK. TO : PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 3/5/86 ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG . DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION Ell FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 1111 POLICE DEPARTMENT 1111 POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ® OTHERS : I . COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M. ON FEBRUARY 27, 1986 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : L� C� I . rg APPROVED 111 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS El NOT APPROVED l rnR lr'C/a /roes - a3 Ct� - / v z ,a -f /%41-ki 6,4/1 , G et. pius T✓,4;7 U 2 tO/22 li/aHAJ G G✓ /7 /d ���� DATE; `/ 4/C SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR HORIZED REPR SENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Farm 182 REN' BUILDING & ZONING DEP, TMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 011 _ 86 APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE: R-012-86 PROPONENT : GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. PROJECT TITLE ; GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. REZONE (LORRAINE PARK I) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3. 17 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM B-1 TO R-4 TO ALLOW FOR TFjE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT HAVING 104 UNITS. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.F. AT THE 4000 BLOCK. TO : 'PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 3/5/86 ENGINEERING DIVISION n TRAFFIC ENG . DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : ( UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION F-1 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU OPARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT r1 .BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT mi POLICE DEPARTMENT ® POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FlOTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON FEBRUARY 27, 1986 REVIEIWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISIONy : (FIAPPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ONOT APPROVED /?7-6/(/' Get--& Ct�(_PGG2 A-e-e)- - DATE : SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 . REND I BUILDING & ZONING DEPI, FMENT ' DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 011 - 86 APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE: R-012-86 PROPONENT : GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. PROJECT TITLE ; GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. REZONE (LORRAINE PARK I) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3. 17 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM B-1 TO R-4 TO ALLOW FOR THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION. OF A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT HA_1L1NG 104_ UNITS. LOCATION : LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. AT THE 4000 BLOCK. TO : ® PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 3/5/86 El ENGINEERING DIVISION a TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION 0 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 0 PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 0 POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ❑; OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON FEBRUARY 27, 1986 REVIEIWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Ei �APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED fl411\ s ,ems (6,4 DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW MEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ��IzYI Ni\J.() h6A-ri N DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 18, 1986 COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 27, 1986 ECF - 011 _ 86 APPLICATION NO(s). REZONE: R-012-86 PROPONENT: GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. PROJECT TITLE: GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. REZONE (LORRAINE PARK I) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3. 17 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM B-1 TO R-4 TO ALLOW FOR THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT HAVING 104 UNITS. LOCATION: LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. AT THE 4000 BLOCK. SITE AREA:_ 3.17 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services_ 16) Utilities COMMENTS: No .kxc S*5 l rL —E- nn,nee cO &A czo cU AwIiCa e, d he d Q rovccf2-,2, dvS w. C x_AA3 C��,e�i c t�c i Q� ��vLc.Q, uzAin on -r r t �lrNrl� . Aca «t,001 cc\i 0r� rqQ C0.04 RECOMMENDATION: DNS MI T I GATED DNS EIS REVIEWED BY: &M:rd TITLE: _ "�(�, DATE: tl Si 96 FORM 114 REVISED 9/10/85 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEV IEET go r REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: )N )kJ r.. I A)6 D i L) DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 18, 1986 COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 27, 1986 ECF - 011 _ 86 APPLICATION NO(s). REZONE: R-012-86 PROPONENT: GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. PROJECT TITLE: GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. REZONE (LORRAINE PARK I) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.17 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM B-1 TO R-4 TO ALLOW FOR THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT HAVING 104 UNITS. , LOCATION: LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. AT THE 4000 BLOCK. SITE AREA:_ 3.17 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross) : IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air !/ 3) Water !/ I 4) Plants �✓. 5) Animals C/ 6) Energy and Natural Resources l� 7) Environmental Health (/ 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing '✓ 10) Aesthetics ✓ 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation ✓ 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation �✓ 14) Transportation �✓ 15) Public Services_ 16) Utilities L./ COMMENTS: s/zs � � 4 �) ""_ e__,4 rN'� � 0,�- Z z-X 3 `f of�� RECOMMENDATION: DNS MITIGATED DNS EIS REVIEWED BY: TITLE: DATE: FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW c"EET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: PN 016 DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 18, 1986 COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 27, 1986 ECF - 011 _ 86 APPLICATION NO(s). REZONE: R-Q12-86 PROPONENT: GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. PROJECT TITLE: GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. REZONE (LORRAINE PARK I) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3. 17 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM B-1 TO R-4 TO ALLOW FOR THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT HAVING 104 UNITS. LOCATION: LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. AT THE 4000 BLOCK. SITE AREA:_ 3.17 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants r/ 5) Animals li 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 1� 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation J 14) Transportation L 15) Public Services_ 16) Utilities v COMMENTS: G g y nc�-. ���� �r l/�� �r� //// ) ! / / � a � f 7.. 7 7� /yJ� 5 nsi <67 �✓ /it��QJ a�_-c�/ S RECOMMENDATION: DNS MITIGATED DNS EIS REVIEWED E3Y: � ,. ` 1\--TITLE: DATE: v r' "� �l FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIENC-"MEET I .. 'µ PD1«1 beuebapmeel REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 18, 1986 COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 27, 1986 ECF - 011 _ 86 cm, OF - ENTON APPLICATION NO(s). REZONE: R-012-86 F F g tsb PROPONENT: GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. • POLIC`! I PROJECT TITLE: GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC: REZONE (LORRAINE PARK I) 1 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3. 17 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM B-1 TO R-4 TO ALLOW FOR THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT HAVING 104 UNITS. 1 LOCATION: LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. AT THE 4000 BLOCK. SITE AREA: 3.17 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): . IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 1 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health !/ 8) ! Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) . Historic and Cultural Preservation G� 14) Transportation s G/ 15) Public Services_ 16) Utilities COMMENTS: • 1 • +e-e-d M6teA*Lot - Le) -6g-tig"o 1 00L47 i;lup er/deti AS '44 / .;frtoyes2J ke-61 "gle. °Aro-4A t 1 • RECOMMENDATION: DNS MITIGATED DNS EIS I / REVIEWED BY: 6404 4Q1 TITLE: /1551S il—fr.lann - DATE: ��.. FORM ##14 REVISED 9/10/85 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEH EET •-I' REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: T LA-6 L DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 18, 1986 COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 27, 1986 ECF - 011 _ 86 APPLICATION NO(s). REZONE: R-012-86 PROPONENT: GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. PROJECT TITLE: GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. REZONE (LORRAINE PARK I) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3. 17 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM B-1 TO R-4 TO ALLOW FOR THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT HAVING 104 UNITS. LOCATION: LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. AT THE 4000 BLOCK. SITE AREA: 3.17 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross) : IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services_ °/ / _ 16) Utilities COMMENTS: lI ee�env._ 3. -up 4-VP' O_CfrA .S,' ` 6.' °-`4 U"" I RECOMMENDATION: (DNS MITIGATED DNS , EIS REVIEWED BY: 1;. TITLE: OrALffy 41Vc/1 E,ER DATE: / 20 /s76, FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEV EET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: fJ R r IZG UO\I-fI C, -- DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 18, 1986 COMMEN -DUE: FEBRUARA4, 1986 ECF - 011 _ 86. APPLICATION NO(s). REZONE: R-012-86 PROPONENT: GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. [FEB 11 8 1986, PROJECT TITLE: GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. REZONE (LORRAINE PARK I) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3. 17 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM B-1 TO R-4 TO ALLOW FOR THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT HAVING 104 UNITS. LOCATION: LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. AT THE 4000 BLOCK. SITE AREA: 3.17 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation _ 15) Public Services_ 16) Utilities COMMENTS: ,-UTd' 17 •ec14E e"APT c/47-7 Ec 7- ie, ie eooEs, RECOMMENDATION: 'DNS 1 MITIGATED DNS EIS REVIEWED BY: -�O� 0( 4 _ TITLE: / 5'ir-.45 /`7e -s�'•�'t DATE: /9 /9JG FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEV IEET t r - REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 6 UI V O w6 DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 18, 1986 COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 27, 1986 ECF - 011 _ 86 APPLICATION NO(s). REZONE: R-012-86 PROPONENT: GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. PROJECT 'TITLE: GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. REZONE (LORRAINE PARK I) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3. 17 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM B-1 TO R-4 TO ALLOW FOR THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT HAVING 104 UNITS. LOCATION: LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. AT THE 4000 BLOCK. SITE AREA: 3.17 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air I( 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services_ _. 16) Utilities COMMENTS: RECOMMENDATION: fyi DNS n MITIGATED DNS EIS REVIEWED BY: - TITLE: DATE: oG - / el% FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 I . ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW EET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: rObl(le DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 18, 1986 COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 27, 1986 ECF - 011 _ 86 APPLICATION NO(s). REZONE: R-012-86 PROPONENT: GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. • PROJECT TITLE: GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. REZONE (LORRAINE PARK I) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3. 17 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM B-1 TO R-4 TO ALLOW FOR THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT HAVING 104 UNITS. LOCATION: LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. AT THE 4000 BLOCK. SITE AREA: 3.17 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross) : IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Usp 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services_ 16) Utilities COMMENTS: //7Z /�i /2,a j7X ,)23:7, e e;7/:a -•- G RECOMMENDATION: DNS MITIGATED DNS EIS REVIEWED 8 �`� TITLE: DATE: FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW EET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 12,k7 DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 18, 1986 COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 27, 1986 ECF - 011 _ 86 APPLICATION NO(s). REZONE: R-012-86 PROPONENT: GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. PROJECT TITLE: GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. REZONE (LORRAINE PARK I) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.17 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM B-1 TO R-4 TO ALLOW FOR THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT HAVING 104 UNITS. LOCATION: LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE N.E. AT THE 4000 BLOCK. SITE AREA: 3.17 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross) : IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services_ _ 16) Utilities COMMENTS: fka, Gt I CaA/L (11CSup o --\- msz ylatir\ (U� sv- 1 vi„vi•J.Q, — f i RECOMMENDATION: DNS MITIGATED DNS , EIS REVIEWED BY: � TITLE: AT "afV147761) DATE: FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 mEirMunicipality TRD of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Bldg. • 821 Second Ave.,Seattle,Washington 981O4 March 19, 1986 Roger Blaylock Zoning Administrator City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Roger: I am writing to provide my comments on the Lori Anne Place One development (Gibraltar Homes ) . The project proponent is apply- ing for a rezone to construct up to 104 apartment units, with a total of approximately 220 residents . A residential develop- ment of this size would be subject to the following conditions under our proposed TSM Ordinance: 1. Commuter Information Center - A commuter information display should be located in a common area. If no common area exists, information should be distributed through a homeowner ' s association if there is one or at time of purchase or rental agreement if there is not. 2 . If the local jurisdiction has determined the cumulative traffic impacts of development in the area to be critical, the developer/landowner may be asked to participate in a transportation association that will address potential mitigation measures to the impacts and how the developer/landowner will participate in that effort. 3 . Transit pass subsidies and/or borrowing of passes. 4 . Vanpools or shuttle service to a nearby Park & Ride or transit center facility may be implemented if enough interest exists and transit service directly to the site is poor. CITY OP RyNzOs' ._ 0 4 ID SWc co • L MAR l 9 1986 BUILDING, _ .. ,._ _JEP i. Letter to Roger Blaylock March 19, 1986 Page Two 5 . Periodic promotions and distribution of ridematch applications by on-site managers or agents . While Renton does not yet have a TSM Ordinance, the conditions listed above would help reduce the number of single-occupant vehicle trips to and from the site. Meanwhile, Metro service planners are examining the possibility of restructuring existing routes to directly serve the complex. We are interested in being kept informed of all new developments being proposed for that area in order to better tailor our public transportation services to accommodate the growth in north Renton. Very truly yours, '6,1e & 4- Eileen Kadesh Transit Planner EK: jn cc: Mike Bergman CITY OF REMO 0: 1-0, IP il Wl 0 UIUMAR 191986 BUILDING,.._..,`:':iNG DEFT. r Gibraltar Homes, Inc. 11 - 105th S.E., Suite 10 Bellevue, WA 98004 206-454-4515 April 8, 1986 Building and Zoning Department ni Municipal Building API-c 198b 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, Washington 98055 BUtLDttJ U,,, Attention: Mr. Roger J. Blaylock . Subject: Rezone Request File No. R-012-86 Dear Roger: In response to your letter of March 11, 1986, you will find attached a letter by Bell/Walker Traffic Engineers. As you can see, the impact of the traffic development is negligible. Regarding the density, it was not our intention to jam the site. with units but to make a pleasant, highly landscaped community in which to live. If you notice, the topography of the land just happened to lend itself very nicely to walk down, walk up units. The new site plan enclosed shows a new recreation area. The plan calls for heavy landscaping which will create a park like setting. I visited with Don Monihan about the site drainage. He did not like the idea of giving the City a Carte Blanche determination of how the drain- age should be worked. However, we both decided that it would be the most feasible for the drainage to, be finalized by the City at the time of work- ing drawings, therefore eliminating a study that might not be totally accurate. Roger, this particular site is a strange piece of ground. The architecture is very pleasing as Vassos Demetriou is one of the best in the business. As you can see, we did not use the same type of building all the way through. The neighbors will be much happier looking at out site than a group of com- mercial buildings. Thanks for your consideration. Cordially Yours, TB LTAR HOMES, INC, Douglas A. Steinhauer Presi;de.nt DAS:hb [_JD D 1D DD BELL-WALKER ENGINEERS in . 3633 136th Place S.E. (206) 643-2002 Suite 210 Bellevue, Washington 98006-1451 =� STY R NTON D ir-J33 [el \ 0 April 8, 1986 - APR 9 1986 Mr. Doug Steinhauer Gibralter Homes, Inc. BUILDING/ZONING DEFT. 11 105th St. N.E. Suite 10 Bellevue, WA 98004 Re: Exit Seven Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Steinhauer: As per your request, the purpose of this study is to assess the impacts of the proposed Exit Seven development on the existing traffic system. Of specific interest are impacts on the adjacent street, 110th Avenue S.E. , and on the two nearby inter— sections to the north and to the southeast. The site of the proposed development, as shown on the attached vicinity map, is located between 110th Street S.E. and I-405, north of undeveloped N.E. 40th Street, within the limits of the City of Renton. Access to the development would be off of 110th Street S.E. , via N.E. 44th Street and 1-405 to the north, and S.E. 86th Street to the south. 110th Street S.E. is a two—lane asphalt—paved roadway with 5—foot to 8—foot earth shoulders. The speed limit on 110th Street S.E. is not posted, except on curves, where the caution speed is 25 miles per hour. Near the southeast corner of the proposed development, 110th Street S.E. curves to the southeast, with the street changing to 110th Place S.E. , then 112th Place S.E. , and finally S.E. 86th Street. 110th Street S.E. continues south, as a narrow dead—end driveway, branching off of the main roadway near the southeast corner of the development. Whereas the development lies within the city limits of Renton, the city limit line runs along the east side of 110th Street S.E. adjacent to the proposed development, with the land directly to the south and east, as well as 110th Place S.E. being in King County. The 3.2 acre development would contain 104 units in ten 2 to 3 story buildings. A total of 156 off—street parking stalls would be provided, at 1.5 parking stalls per apartment. A driveway entrance to the development is proposed to be located on the east side of the property, near the southeast corner, abutting 110th Street S.E. The intersections of interest are as follows: 1. The intersection of S.E. 86th Street and 116th Street S.E. , to the southeast of the proposed development. This is a 4—leg intersection, with S.E. 86th Street being the through street and with stop sign control on 116th Street S.E. Bellevue, Washington • Boise, Idaho i • I I 2. The intersection of N.E. 44th Street and; the ,I-405 interchange. This is actually twol' intersections, as follows: aL Easti of the N.E.i 44th Street overpass over 1-405, N.E. 44th Street is intersected on the . north, by Lake Washington Blvd. N. and on the south by the northbound 1-405 on and off ramps. N.E. 44th Street is the through street, with stop sign control of cross traffic. Left-turn lanes are provided for ,turns to the north and south off of N.E 44th Street. In addition, an exclusive right-turn lane is provided from ! westbound N.E. 44th Street onto Lake Washington Blvd. N. b: West of the N.E. 44th Street overpass over 1-405, N.E. 44th Street is a intersected by the southbound I-405 off-ramp from the north and on- ramp to the south. N.E. 44th Street consists of single eastbound and westbound lanes, separated west of the intersection by a traffic island. The southbound off-ramp of 1-405, on the north side of the intersection, provides an exclusive right-turn lane onto N.E. 44th Street westbound. Current traffic volumes for the vicinity were provided by King County for the S.E. 86th Street/116th Street S.E. intersection, and by the Washington State Department of Transportation for the on/off ramps of 1-405 at N.E. 44th Street. The City of Renton had no current traffic volume information for the vicinity. As per the King County Traffic Engineer's office, average weekday traffic volumes (AWDT) for the S.E. 86th Street/116th .street S.E. intersection for 1985 were as follows: S.E. 86th Street - East Leg: 1668 West Leg: 1784 • , 116th. Street S.E. - North Leg: 1089 South Leg; N/A As per the Washington State Department of Transportation, peak hour A.M. and P.M. weekday traffic volumes for the on/off ramps of 1-405 at N.E. 44th Street for 1986 were as follows: A.M. P.M. AWDT Northbound - On Ramp: 210 683 2743 - Off Ramp: 152 256 2604 Southbound - On Ramp: 306 156 2580 - Off Ramp: 484 204 2486 To estimate traffic volumes resulting from the proposed development, trip generation rates per dwelling unit were established using as a basis the Institute of Traffic Engineer's Trip Generation Manual, as follows: Generator: Low-rise Apartments - 104 dwelling units Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends = 6.6/d.u. x 104 v 686 AWDT Peak Hour of Adjacent Street: Trip Rate Vehicles Per Per D.U. Peak Hour A.M. - Enter: 0.1 10 Exit: 0.4 42 Total: 0.5 52 P.M. - Enter: 0.4 42 Exit: 0.2 21 Total: 0.6 62 On the basis of the above traffic volumes, intersection capacities were calculated for the two nearby intersections as well as for the intersection of the proposed development's driveway with 110th Street S.E. In calculating intersection capacities, the method was used as is described in the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual. Basic assumptions used in the analysis were as follows: 1. Traffic volumes for the S.E. 86th Street/116th Street S.E. intersection were adjusted upward to reflect 1986 volumes, assuming a 3% per year increase in traffic. This adjustment is consistent with the City of Renton Traffic Engineer's estimate of yearly traffic volume increases. 2. Using ratios of average weekday trip rates to peak hour enter and exit trip rates for residential developments, the average weekday traffic volumes for the S.E. 86th Street/116th Street S.E. intersection were converted to peak hour volumes. 3. It was assumed that the peak hour volumes for the west leg of the above intersection represented volumes further to the west, on 110th Street S.E. , in the vicinity of the proposed development. 4. It was assumed that the on/off ramp volumes for the I-405 intersection represented 90-95% of all traffic at these intersections. It was also assumed that I-405 on/off traffic was distributed with 70% via west of 1-405 and 30% via east of I-405. 5. It was assumed that 90% of traffic generated by the proposed development would be travelling to and from the north, toward the I-405 interchange. 6. Traffic volumes from the proposed development were added to applicable legs of intersections in proportion to existing traffic volume ratios. The results of the above intersection capacity analysis are summarized as follows: LOCATION LEVEL OF SERVICE EXISTING DEVELOPED S.E. 86th St. & 116th St. S.E. A A N.E. 44th St. & I-405 (west) D D N.E. 44th St,' & I-405 (east) D D 110th St. S.E. & Exit Seven driveway A A • Delay of vehicles was calculated for vehicles exiting from the Exit Seven driveway, as well as for left-turning vehicles into the driveway, as follows: Exit Delay: 1.22 sec. Enter Delay: 1.15 sec. FINDINGS 1. Capacity analysis of the intersections within the scope of this study indicates that the projected increase in site-generated traffic resulting from the proposed development would not lower the present levels of service of any of the inter- sections. The analysis did indicate that the I-405/N.E. 44th Street interchange, with a level of service D, is presently near full capacity. 2. According to the City of Renton's Traffic Engineer's office, in light of plans for extensive development of vacant land in the vicinity of the I-405/N.E. 44th Street interchange, the city foresees the construction of traffic signals at that interchange in the not too distant future. Signalization of this interchange could mitigate the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent traffic system. 3. Based on on-site observations, it appears that there is adequate visibility for vehicles entering and exiting the proposed development. Considering the proximity of the development to the curve of 110th Street S.E. to the southeast, as well as the proximity to the intersection of the N.E. 40th Street right-of-way with 110th Street S.E. , traffic safety might best be maintained given future development and increased traffic volumes if the proposed driveway for the development were located away from the southeast corner of the site. Very truly yours, BELL-WALKER ENGINEERS, INC. Theodore T. Bell, P.E. President gm • . . . • ,., ;: I • :t I • j' y a •1 _ •�; �VM„rs laV pl >? '� 1~ 'el 'kq,,NN I _ .. I M • V MOnl[ oL ' •+l•J - Y y 1 Ti'fOH I _ Y r N+ - .s•IY.- .� y. wa E[L.000 llt. h • Nlc•, •v NCI , Dp,I • ...- r • \ t`. s_I�-`.,�y. C v E•x•• 1DNES aY NE ' Es , BE WS ® I(Tr__ v x E.71 Ob ',aa r [,7•101 ENE t~ W 1M1E Y 1 - lurwnu Q11--w ev SE' L z 7JY.- ^I •[wry r.•v�[ # F _j1 KOLA av N[ N I um fi"1 ' '�T al NC I 'f: . ' ^ 1101.1.t "' ..a.1 n1;�F;yz vow z t v ,' K1 r, ... ylllrw- v)n bi •(;�- lJ I Eha m nL. ,Bti _, I T m + 1 ^ aE, I �: 1110. _ 21 1�`4 jj Y SE • Ir P' �� Eat N s y.. __--_ WASHING S(� AOFRDEEN AV NEYO�s 7 aOFRD=[N AV w[ ........_...• tn - _ z •r••: e( n X BLAINE'^ an wF M ^e1W:yL - t t SII,w.A 11)1 rt` D f e x x 1 •V n n Nl r.. [ x:. 7 i i . ,.•p,1•rpt [.wal 'A.v__I^ p[— $ AV [ NM �{� • I1r TI , z � �A�---7 Z� N •(v a� ^I:�� __ y_ ; '_ P lure .., q tIn r sf 1r C 1'. E•■• _ r; a y Da Y1P, n: ITTD,r^ wE -7 +;' .�L _ 1 V _ S,up ar[[ ti y 3. D•1,Dw•v r,"r _ .; x7 ..w+' 4 4)p O ^ AY ,� tv 1111- r MEDNOND$ i E •Y ®i.^-ME ..� ^)• Z II •. t2. g3 •. ZZ • r I■r7 '�i 1 . _El Y tttwrit.'j..+4sC1'I : 1[ $ I ` x ; amE F'.F !' 1rw� :... st! SC'' J 2F 1�' y.r [ •.Im !.v[1 -:q i z111TN~ i[Y 1 S d ,-` � -' ...• . wIc 6I M 9 `a .iwnY-,oa M ^ tt'.. r1 �.SK•1 _ ..` K - �a s[ R' Ott • (ad • 'wl S• . 1. .wS, _ z.. .. 7u unp 120 AVSE(p..' • s, : K • ^^„ pu¢I= g • .. "...I E6 "I,YR. • Id 'j((yyII S IX L.4. „� (( • $m �"c 17: it.tM IrwT •Z•: ..:..tar -- • :.:• , ...Qi 2$- -L' . ^..17,•1)•1 • i _ .;,.. ..---... ,'11/1 d Z ... , ID�O i' [ • A;•2: �Tt t .. '4 vJ L •'1i1y L. . :pct." r 9r . 7 fzrp r u >.!.• -••.IbAO �+'-�h I },):.D.1[[ �I it-e}/,�Sa O"G _ O • _ .LTw•'0D0 •Y.• 4 _ -� +a F��? ~'�. :T� •t';11 ///r •� P. _ 777 rr�t �'l �i .. 1... • i i ,4 aY •' •— " ,_y�yr[Y •7.,.x )„n! 14.{`~ Nl l0 x �--o• '�V>11 .,.:1 l� 5 - •�•' + W :i Z ?r ,,`�b°• ° °1 .11=:• rrt.-4; -'r- vs IC SE Y •t o 5� �1 i^'°^ "// K�� • ':.- C t;p ^. .,a^ lilw•.� ., I y.� §SIE -2 w".k. -r Y E7•-. ��� r' / a.. • ^ = 2 i1 2. E.. . i. .• f[ i �+•- •j 1..� _ •T''- 1-• �:y . " :.. 1111-.. ` • I_ .' T'a 1' .rr.w t,-[Y 'z :,j'S''i� _� -•ll..r••:.t C !' �' I= �.[o.wY pv :. • tu!w..,a.K K'•Ku I I $ . 12(Tp...._._................•`!!v....'u__'.-� r ir, _ _ 1 .s ..r�� 1,�. •' '.YQl..: z��- • ,(S'1�' rr : f G . I - K t4 • .. . �291r.: 4v,aPsr o+ a, �- _' �..__ _S:_/' 4. '. ^ • r, I i^ 1711wI - _ t• re iIi S : i ,w1D.:A. J.wr V`- ! r ...... °v ^ (Tl r. fi ..r .0 ,la4 . I. 1-_� ti - l 1^ •'•s •' `(t�"L"°'^t,1[ ( �,,,• ,7aa se °- ^D. ... ..._. :_J /----^•;';,••� c�'T ' �+,11•._._....;• ^Zf� -_ r•Ya1•rl -Z. [E . Ft •r. i. .a r.pj f1I.� _bf al[rO• •�00 Owv l ' •• rC SDNERSt �,o w mt.. Z 5 1+ i rl ft I 6' • f• . tp 4, 4-; '� .D i °+, it t• )`'i y � • • � .' ^..Zit_ l4 1 N a 1, •C"rt['-°.-' pt •. ..�.z p • t . �y�..,.S+S f ,'�I sEl_ d : in �'::' + ' ( I •'.' S'tIr,w Ilsrle s[ r n I ° e'[ z WI.•r ft ~ I (�� 1 .:I -t' pr�1 d'_• luhOprt sE II E •r.b. a ! I• W uv1•[t[ Z ./ 1 ��, I .•I) • .. j .o : flI! I �� E,: •I., , f [ ..MfpPtl 1 ['t. _ ' �'(��+ ` i 1I /a 6r.•PV I nil 4 1111M•r SF If p I I 1 f I ,r • _ r�C,b,^I� �. ,. O,'�` ay x •'_ • 1nV Nln W UM. F �yQ I tunw•Y i�((1_ Z`^ Ill ,4t1M4r[I • [ Y a' Y t ;150,11 .1 •ar O / • 4 I • tyt, � Z N ,w K H • Idly j,, 1 = / I • • /,r� : > t to 0. { � • / ^ " �t� 7-6 .=t l?a t j pyc OF R4,A �e ® ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR O MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o 235-2540 1 co- 0,9q�ED SEP�E���P BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR March 11. 1986 Mr. Douglas A. Steinhauer, President Gibraltar Homes. Inc. 11 105th Avenue S.E.. Suite 10 Bellevue. Washington 98004 RE: REZONE REQUEST/FILE NO. R-012-86 • Dear Mr. Steinhauer: The Environmental Review Committee considered the environmental checklist and the comments from various City departments concerning the proposed rezone of 3.17 acres located on the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue N.E. and N.E. 40th Street if extended in the City of Renton. The environmental information submitted in the environmental checklist was not adequate to determine the actual environmental impacts from the project in the areas of traffic. recreation. density, and storm water drainage. - The checklist states approximately 400 vehicle trips per day would be generated in the area. This is not supported by either the Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual standards or the typical volumes observed by City staff. Greater disclosure showing actual impacts to the traffic circulation system are necessary. The study and information that you provide should specifically address the impact on the N.E. 44th Street interchange. Several departments were extremely concerned about the density impact of the proposed 104 units as they affect not only the subject site but the general neighborhood. This project is the first development within this area and it appears that it represents the extreme development potential of the site (33 units per acre). Please address possible impacts on the residential area to the south. The site plan does not show any onsite recreation. The Committee would like specific information showing how onsite recreation will be provided for both indoor and outdoor activities. There is a designated King County regional park near the subject site. but it is undeveloped and there are no neighborhood parks to provide recreational activities for the future residents. The last item of concern was storm water drainage. The Public Works Department is concerned that adequate storm water drainage facilities be provided because of the possible complications with the site's topography. It appears that the western portion of 4 Mr. Douglas A. Steinhauer March 11, 1986 Page 2 the site will be substantially modified. which may create drainage problems on adjacent parcels. The removal of the one knoll on the site doesn't appear significant, but the preservation of the stream along the eastern side of the site is critical and we are pleased to see that the applicant has included that in the basic design. The Environmental Review • Committee, therefore, would request that cross sections be provided showing the subject site in its modified topographic form and the drainage plans showing how storm water drainage can be handled in the vicinity of the site. The Committee also wants to clarify the statement that the applicant has made on page 2 Of his letter dated February 13, 1986. The previous owner did not obtain approval for 188 residential units. The Environmental Review Committee required that an environmental impact statement be prepared because of the intensity of the proposal. Therefore, the statement appears misleading and inappropriate in the application. ,The additional information should be provided not later than 5 p.m. on Tuesday, April 8, 1986. If I can be of any assistance, please contact me directly at 235-2550. For the Environmental Review Committee, q-SUNAIA)A_ • Roger J. Blaylock Zoning Administrator RJB:ss 1063N • • Gibraltar Homes, Inc. 11 - 105th S.E., Suite 10 Bellevue, WA 98004 206-454-4515 February 13, 1986 Mr. Roger J. Blaylock CITY OF RENTON9 Associate Planner n City of Renton ® 1?) j . ;., s Municipal Building _ _ 200 Mi986 lle Avenue S. FEB 1 ' Renton, Washington 9.8055 BUILDING/ZONINC3 P ST, SUBJECT: Rezone -- Lorraine Park Place. I_ Dear Roger: As we have discussed in your office on several occasions, the property in question is currently zoned B-1 under the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. You and I have agreed that this. particular piece of property would not be suitable for B-1 due to the. following reasons: (1) Its exposure away from Highway 405;, (2) The traffic congestion that would develop from semi-,trucks going up and down the road if warehousing were put there; (3) The noise impact from such trucks to the surrounding area; (4) The need for sidewalks and other improvements- that are not now present nor planned for if retailing were to be put on the. property. The reasons for changing the zoing to R-4 would be as follows: (1) The said development would act as a buffer to the B-1 Zone; (2) We are in the process of negotiating to buy the Stone proper- ty to the North, which we will use for garden court office space. The architectural design would be compatible with our multiple site and make a very nice transition. (3) We have purchased the six plus acres across the street in which we will very shortly begin the annexing process. This will make both pieces compatible. Rezone - Lorraine Park Place I Page 2 • Roger, the original zoning of 188 un.i:ts was approved by the City for this piece of property. We are. now proposing a maximum of 10.4 units, a decrease of forty-four (44) percent. I: think that th.i:s Kennydale area is going to be a dynamite addition to the City and the. City's image. T also think that the City' s future. growth_ in the 80''s and 9.0's is also very exciting. . We hope to be a part of that growth, (/;:7)ally yours, Douglas A. Steinhauer Pre.si:d e.n t DAS:hb :TY OF '�, ` Co r�r� �� • ��-^ �Ll �IT�, �' FILE NO(S): '� ��- /rllJ f �; !. . 13 : .DING & ZONING DEPAR'TML. L. -®I 'ii1. -N�p ),ASTER APPLICATION NOTE TO APPLICANT: Since this is a comprehensive omp application forms only those items related to your specific type of opplication(s) are to be completed. (Please print or type. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) APPLICANT r"."."7"-""'.'""—"*"..'"..""'.."7""m". ..."""....'".""""n"mi TYPE OF APPLICATION NAME . • GIBRALTAR HOMES, INC. FEES 0 ADDRES REZONE*(FROM r-B 1 TO ' R4 ) 11 105th S.E. , ui to 10 0 SPECIAL PERMIT* CITY ZIP 0 TEMPORARY PERMIT* Bellevue, ington 98004 0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT* TELEPHONE 0 SITE PLAN APPROVAL (2 454-4515 0 SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GRADE AND FILL �--'-°� No. of Cubic Yards: VARIANCE* CONTACT PERSON l_.1 From Section: NAM` * Justification Required Douglas A. Steinhauer - ADDRESS SUBDIVISIONS; 11 - '.05th S.E. , 'ui to 10 0 SHORT PLAT CITYI ZIP Bellevue, • :shi ngton 98004 �' TENTATIVE PLAT 0 PRELIMINARY PLAT TELEPHONE .0 FINAL PLAT 06) 454-4515 0 WAIVER t (Justification Required) OWNER NO. OF LOTS: . NAME ' James-i . Eun-ds r.om, •O(dri ch 1-ryc & PLAT NAME: Thomas R. Nichols, Trustees 4 ADDRESS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: -- • RADFORD & COMPANY 10423. Main .St..: Q PRELIMINARY CITY I ZIP 0 FINAL Bellevue, Washington 98004 • . P.U.D. NAME: TELEPHONE (206) 454-4200 0 Residential 0 Industrial laCommercial 0 Mixed LOCATION MOBILE HOME PARKS; • PROPERTY ADDRESS • • Same..as::.Legal. Descri otton-:on back of page. 0 TENTATIVE EXISTING USE PRESENT ZONING CD PRELIMINARY FINAL < _ , • • PROPOSED USE PARK NAME; , NUMBER OF SPACES: . • I;2] ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE , , _ SQ. FT. ACRES •. . AREA: I l3d 0 g 5 1 7 TOTAL FEES cr Y OF RED' TOIlqN F USE ONLY -- ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING 1 le 11 DATT 9r1 13, APPLICATION RECEIVED BY; • APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: FEB 131986 0 Accepted • 0 Incomplete Notification Sent On By: (3U)LDING/ZONING DEM (Initials) DATE ROUTED ADDITIONAL MATERIAL RECEIVED BY: 2- APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE; I 0 Accepted . Incomplete Notification Sent On By: 1 (Initials) ROUTED TO: Building 1, inDesign Eng. Fire 0 Parks Police Policy Dev. EA Traffic Eng. CM Utilities . - Yo. Legal description of property (if more space Is required, attach a separate sheet). Parcel A - Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addi-' tion to Seattle, Division No. 7, as per plat recorded in Volume 16 of Plats, Page 18, records of King County, Washington; EXCEPT the South 80 feet of said Lot 2: TOGETHER WITH that portion of vacated Lincoln Place Northeast and Northeast 41st Street as pro- vided under City of Renton Ordinance No, 2961, • Parcel ,B - Lot 8, Block 2, C. D. Hillman' s Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle, Division No. 7, as per plat recorded in Volume 16 of Plats, page 18, records of King County, Washington. , • • f DUi60 MR- 000&c,A5 S16IM14Au 2 5 3•-80 -King County, WashincLon. All situate in the County of King, State of Washington. AFFIDAVIT,• i, -I'D Ref LcS TA, . S4e1h ho.uec , being duly sworn, declare that I am Elauthorized representative to act for the property owner,®owner of the property Involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the 1 information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS i 2th DAY . OF VehrViekr4l , 19gG. • NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF ' WASHINGTON, RESIDING AT '-- , -6A.'-- ,' ,_,2.....g...12______ ,(046_,V, ,,,_L,___ . ,, Name of Notary Public) (Signature of Owner) II .. 2- 1 PiQyt SIB V 11. - 1„n 5th. S.E. , Suite 10. i (Address) ' l'PJxe at gobti (Address) Bellevue, Washington 98004 (City) (State) (Zip) 1 (206) 454-4515 (Telephone) Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other materials required to constitute a complete application are listed in • the "Application Procedure." OFT• i ECF: VC" —0 I I-oC9 1 City of Renton .009gT� ��O�Q�, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST o SEPT Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43,21C RCW, requires all !governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making 'decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for aliproposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose lof this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts !from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) 'and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does 'not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impacts. Use of Checklist for Nonproject Proposals: (Please Type or Print Legibly) Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. Al. BACKGROUND Name of proposed project, if applicable: Lori. Anne. Place One 21 Name of applicant: Gilbraltar Development Inc. 3j Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 11-105th. S.E. Bellevue, Washington 9_8004 206-454-4515 4 Date checklist prepared: February 10, 1986 5.I Agency requesting checklist: Renton Planning Department 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The construction will begin on this project once the rezone has taken place and the building permit is issued. I suspect we are looking at the duration of 10-12 months CITY Op giENTON , rtri \\)711 FEB 131986 -s BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. 7. Do you have any pla;.-'';or future additions, expansions, or'-rurther activity related • to or connected with this proposal? if yes, explain. NO 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. !. • NONE 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. NONE 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. if known. NONE 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the prop :3,ed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Our Proposal is to change the zoning on this property from B-1 to R-4. R-3 would allow for 88 units of apartments, under R-4 we would not use the maximum units allowed but go up to 104 units due to the topography of the land and the available parking. � . 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section. township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description. site plan, vicinity map, and topography map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with 'any permit applications related to this '! checklist. Location is on Lincoln Avenue N,E, and maybe referred to as tile. Pickle Property P.U.D. under a' previous file number by the city of Renton, file No. 81-190.3 d i West.side of Lincoln Avenue N.E. , South of N.E. 44th, Street B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Rol l ing , b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? With cuts and fills the site is about .se.ven percent c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, caly, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The site area has been a sand pit in the past, d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so. describe. No - 2 -, II t e. . Describe the -Nurpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Excavation of approximately 6000 yards of earth will occur in the area on the total site. All material will stay on site. There should be no import. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction. or use? If so, generally describe. With the removal of some vegetation and placement of surfaces by construction of both buildings and roads there will be an increased potential of erosion. The City of Renton controls the site drainage and will prevent erosion. The ciAt�ro�to uires that a drainage plan be accompanied by a grading plan. g. what percent otthe site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 80percent h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: refer to "f" 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. The work on the site with heavy equipment will have a.short term localized effect as to air quality. Automobile traffic from the residents in the newly created dwellings will have an effect on ai.r quality but the new Federal laws have increased the cleanliness of the air on all autos. b. Are there any off-site sources of.emission? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: The emissions from the home heating will be minimal due to electric heat. 3. WATER a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. None 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. None 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None - 3 - i 4) Will the propu al require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give ' general description, purpose, and approximately quantities if known. The amount of groundwater will be less due to the impervious surfaces. The water which is perced into the ground water system will not be redirected. There will not be any withdrawals from the ground water system or exisiting �vell , 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. As far as we can tell-no 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the . type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. The flow of surface water will remain the same, due to the erosiong and sedimentation control plan. I ' b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, '!or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and appaoximately quantities if known. Ground water will have a minimum perced from the surface due to the increase, in impervious surface. The ground water will continue to flow in the existing pattern. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals . . .; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if,'applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. There will be no waste material ';Idischarged into the ground as the site is served by sewer. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The ultimate destination of the runoff from the site will be Lake Wash- ington. The location of Lake Washington is directly to the west. The water from the site will not contribute to a surface stream or change the. direction of flow. The. water of Lake Washington outlets into Lake Union and then to Puget Sound.. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. If waste materials enter ground or surface waters it will be from household pets or birds and should have no effect on runoff. Ii - 4 - • • d. Proposed me , res to reduce or control surface, i, ind, and runoff water impacts, if There should be no change in the flow of flood waters. The erosion control plan will not allow water to leave the site an excellerated rate from the sites originial condition. The lake which is the ultimate destination does not have a flooding flow action. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other o evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other o Shrubs grass ❑ crop or grain o Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other o water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other O other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Development of the property will reduce the density of species only on this site. The site consists of small trees and ground cover. There are no aquatic plants on this site to my knowledge. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are no unique, rare or endangered species of flora to my knowledge. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The site will be cleared and regraded. It will be replenished with grass, evergreens and plants native to the Northwest area/ 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are none to my knowledge. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No - 5 - i • • - d. Proposed rneasu...- to preserve or enhance wildlife, if • . None 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. All energy will be electric. The heating system will be electric also. b. Would your, project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, 9enerally describe. It will enhance the possibilities of solar energy as it will open up the area for light. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Energy conservation will come from good building techniques such as insulated glass and insulated walls, attics and floor spaces. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. None 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. The only emergency service that I think would be required other then local fire and police would be the 9.11 system. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: All environmental health hazards should be handled through the local sewer systems. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? The construction of utilities, roads and buildings will create a noise pattern which is standard for this type of 'project. Maximum noise levels should range from 79 to 91 dBa. City of Renton has no noise level limitation f6r the construction phase. The working hours will be from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00 AM to 1:00 P.M. on weekends. The increased noise level is short term. The long lasting noise level will come from the people residing in the un4ifs- automobile traffic, power landscaping tools home appliances and entertainment. • fi • 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by` or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic. construction. operation. other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. See Page 6 7:b;1 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Minimal noise but can be reduced further through berm type landscaping for sound retention. • 6 Land and Shoreline Use • a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? typical single and multiple family residences. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so. describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. . None. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A, h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No • i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 220 people. would live at the project j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A - 7 - I 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal Is compatible with existing and 3 , projected land uses and plans, if any: The prolject would be compatible with the apartments and exisiti.ng single family dwellings i.n the area. 9. Housing i a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. • ii b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate f' whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. The tallest building would be approximately 30 feet and the exterior siding would be cedar and T 111 b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None I� c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: • The site would be well suited iin aesthetic impact in the area and would blend very nicely 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will i the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None . d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: NONE - e - • ` 1'2l . Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, • describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant. if any: The new development will have walking paths and mini-athletic facilities 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The public road running in front of the project is Lincoln Ave. It's access to the freeway is direct and easy and should have no impact on freeway egress and regress. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximately distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes I ' c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 156 total parking stalls d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The proposal will require a new road through it and it will be private - 9 - I = J 4A Jy e. Will the project u,:,e (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail. or •: air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known. indicate when peak volumes would occur. The project will increase the th.e traffic in the area by approximately 400 trips per day' • g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Due to the light traffic volume on Lincoln Ave. T doubt if this project will impact traffic flow very much.. • 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)?" If so, generally describe. The proposed project will increase the res:pons-ibil ites of the. pol ice and fire departments of the City of Renton. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. By building to strict codes wil l reduce fire loss and having a project that is well lit will keep police protection to a minimum. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Electric, natural gas,water refuse service, sanitary sew,e.r b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity-Puget Power; Telephone-U.S. West; Sewer and Water-City of Renton C. 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 declaration 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: Name Printed: Douglas A. Steinhauer-Executive for Gilbraltar Development Corp. • - 10 - I ICI llt^// 11 h AA A, f \�/'_x Lam:,h R�'f 4.:**V\IS-. .. - .ci : C' .X 45-‘.i 4 AV . „, !\v, .o) . '.L.:.; !D .!'!10 i.N1 —.11n \,0, x. I v ‘,001/0 ' itiit ! Ia %. a{ 3'3.,, il t. 1 `, 1- C..' i: el is' 7 !. .•T-(.:A '4'41 i : ' r jir. :1`c I i� � � � j-✓Ij jrYJ�. � ,1,.i. I ;`; o-e;l rlIN, N if .Y' b10�� J / I "fq i . i il,.; . :',11,.,,,,‘,‘. .t .-11 4 -\ ;it, . 41 ,:, . A\ . , ,,. io90' -- , . , , • ..4 •o•I . • , i 46, .. t 4.49' f 1 11/) ''.. :', \\s ,, , '..1 :\t. N. ss... X :TIVr VC' 04 ,• :. . . �I yrV • p• o r+ yew y II1y�r ;. J1.1,;,, II .. . .,, ,,. .1). , ',1,. 7 ', 4. r' .L .. , : . c-: /ft/ Ab \le At ! lid ' 14 iyi t y ,,,, ,,. ._.... „. • • , •3 • ., ., • \ :„.., • .44-,-, , .• . .! .., , , ... f yr'x .� F4t P 'I \ t i\ \\r 10,,:„.,. • \ \ 3. 4 • , •). •.\., • 1 " . VI \\kir' .. 11 ti . . • T. ., .,... . • f ` \ii id ., . :, ., J . X, 416 . . ... ,.. ....„. , I 1 _a o415yy •i1 - x. tA I ilillik ^ r sl �Or y - _. ! I Li'. • S - ..- 2 I'.. •- a ma . . •••1 :I • _.....,,...: . ___a____!. 4:9. <I _. tn. -_ :1 ..lçJ •, •t ' . ! 4 :: S. 3 . - (..) I . zn ----1jL..--I I :.• , . ..__ , _ •:.*' -i , * • ____`, ______i ___L_Di ._.___;:-.ti .___ _ . I I 1 .) e • " ..: 5‘: . . 44, ..•-• (:_j, 1) 5 ..- ?:' . 5 .,• ••• i • t..__--J . •. .. - 1.1 ... C: 1 D. Fisf - AN ' 51 ,. . . ..,, - - . . , 4•'-..? ' • ,.' 71: ' . -. . •:. I 1 to.,•' --............•:.' t,. 4 , . i . ._ __ 7 _J- ••• 7 . 8 r.i, , .. . t - "' 4. 1 0 ! i ••• , : r .' 1" '1—.7.. . 0.: ---:: ' • A'I---0:- . L K : ... W •, 5 ' I N 6 T N ,,. , 1 3 ' 9 ; /.' -•4•••• -!-- i0 E' 9 7. *-, 'i. > rr.,1... 4. 1 l''a • - • 151 Ns... 0 .55t / •t ' 'I..-...-_:..:...::. • '111 . .. U. i-'•— r',‘..1;rs COR ORATE ,' --0 S.E. •••, 8 4TH''''••• ST.: —---•-•4-- -• -- • . • .•,.. *---f-•-•-'--''''-:'-','''-- -' ,), , ••T---,C ' .... L..—.) • 6A D E Ni,',, t , -s-, E D E N, ••.- soLL11-3 : ci-. 2 • I I o• , 0 ...'• ..0 -5 :: Ir• IL (... z DIS CN .N-9- 7 [3, : : .. - ---- 71- :;"---:,5,..4_32E la: t4 J 2 L. 5 ',. 6 ....: > ; 3 - < s . .t1' ,,_ • .7 4: I _ r E4 'CO ..".1 , '.•. • — ‘.. 8 5 7 43 :, t3 -.. : _ - , .„-,---"••,• --1/- - .-' •-- - .'.... ,,. . -----;-••! - 51E...44 8GTH•,`1,, ST, . a / , •• '-'-'"''.1! ( - /c•,. ' '• -'2..-,Li 1---- - 7 : 8 . . . .. \ • ,r"--r-.4 ' ;.• .T D' • . 6 , 10 z ,!, 3 4 .. • ' z r• t. ‘,r......\ r '. SO ik • el • - I _J ,,:, \.-4 . -: : :. ••• •-•;) • • k , 7..-:. 0 --------—10 . 9 - lf; 6 il 5 .. .: . . ry\ _J•, "t rda, , -• , ..L ox \ I ' NE. 36TH ST - .. 2\ . • S---F7-----7.._,., ___ Z" : 111 .i.,.T.'':'1,,Y.-71.k.,3!:•.:3: . ) 69 ‘•' , : • : .:.,,..,„.:•,ey-,_•.•!:•,..„..,,,Ky:•.•,•,••,• , ! Lli 9X4'0,. . 'N . „ - ,. ->w-••:,•.•.•,,,wi..••••••;4. . . z 1.s. \ •',' /7,0 i,•:..;:l si;INkt,&.1_;;.N,...?4,.) :.,-;, .., .. ii•-• 44-4// 1;•••-,•:.--,4k•,.4.:::.4,,a •,.••• • .•• <•,'Z•:-.1.:!•,!'Or-c..i:',41ii";i,:' ',. •,• ';• .• • -4, 4c • ( ., /69 •;.: -., ., . ,_ / -..,t . - ' ••:•',' '-•‘..-. %.i;;,-/,-..'- ,•- . 1-'1 (\si‘ ....'s "t9 zo .. 1.-. •.''''''7•,r,,s i_• 1, ! > -5-....,\('‘. . A...._—.--- -- J/1/1 . ' :r,; 1.Vr*.;;•:::,,i.,‘'.,'!. -:`,::'-.., <7t , ii:1-271".:ri.:4%;L:':• . : C Z \ J 6 , . ,-;,,:, ',,Y<4',.s'W.;•;',.' • ' 365 ,,,,, --- , •;L:....N., _.;,...- . _.. . - : 73 :-. 7 '7"c' ",''6'; x .: s • , . , • . -! :,...,4,.ii•r.;1•,•-.J..• z . . • „,r•-__0 661 • :-.... ;.1-'••••-•:,-;i4:F. ,'..;;;,',::;., : . 1.,..1 .. -.___--- ' 4.1 j > - ' 1 --- '" • • •A .It ,,,,. •i.,,, ,, 1 I I ! 1 , I I 1 1 1 ' I I . I 1 . , I , • ; i I • I I I ' I ; ! 1 I I ' 1 i I 1 I , CITY 0.1, ,,,LE 'TOIN 1 : I I 1 FEB 11 6 BUli DIN6/Z0 NY DE,T, i I iI , I , ! , I A , , , „ , ,, . , , , . , „ , , , , , , • -` - i . , —� ..!..,4i it -i - I r �,k•71 • - 2 ,+ L l . Z 2 1 r I`e. i , .�' , , 1 1 , --•--- - 1, '=F , . �'4_ Q ?°6 2fe..i ,r am 'I - -- - so 1 246 i� — Tl(O� RENT Z N II ,. DL • .... I 4 O 3 , L-14- - -- - - FEB� � 13 -fls:,a� j966 • • z :II y. i _ - - `J �i - J:ILdiliti; ;<iiNING DEPT, / - . _- _-1- ---- % , as- -�__ : — - ,r,p4, 1, — — 5 n_I ^ i , 5 J ii'41 •�i it 6 _i •o.63 "c,l •. C • ' ' D• H-1. ANSI � ,. ' 4' La t .._ . _ , VI t • w -- - - - .7 .__iX • z•, r `�� 7 8 ' !.:,. '1nt ! P �rYlgt.e, 4h r o n a .. 1 oSt�3 • 16. ‘i--ii•.i ,,I.-. - _ ] - J--lieil-- -- -- r ,rs�, A K' ' WAS' ' I N 6 T O N � y ��^a I i 3 w 9 ,------ ----- 10 `.di 9 -� W . I.. { 'S -% , ti , / 2 0 ..�� ;o5 !/1 _ U. COR ORATE �' �p S.E. vt„ 84TH `'F' '� ST.: — — j-`=;� 1:%y u_ J1 Z r•c I :o'2.1 ,.' 1 _ 5 . '0' 6 A D Ets. .-s, E I) E N , :�'.: I i, �' 1. r Z • DIcVISION _N 7 o • :j7 sty•3 • -- „.r i" -.. 2".��—_ --- - • ' .t `tr J.0 8 / T I r---' - -5-- O ` •i ♦. r _ - ` _i.0 ri-- S.E. :"r 86TH ,)r(, ST '-� / 9 / - ...1.,_ r-- /� • ,�j / 7lII I� \ • *.[ \ I t;; .I , /2\-:; 2 �`fi �• \ Jr- 'i If.•1.;1 L(y /► . . ' _i J >J_._ . I �iA _ •-lr..___.. 1. Q �.I1 _ T-o---"---1,--.06 44 a. 10 2 3 4 _ Zpv r I -- ----I 10 9 -\ s ,-i Z ' ^ - L ; ;. N E. 36TH ST .7—• \ _ ,. S. E , • - ]:c ZCO 1• '�O(� i 3 470 1 rl :59= T \ t\ LT� . •i 1 }a' 4' I ' \ •26r3 •,-. -, • ....:A', •':- , . „....t:..tt:"'•1 .:,'.'"'-...,,' • .' ., st • • . , } • • 1!Z 2 I )so • 1 n,Y.11n,..r i Z > ' S K • • , s, , , ,• 365 66 ' " 73 72. '.A_ �� '/ i 66 ' • • ^ • • r�7 roc ° + Z `_ �' -- --- - - Q no.j , . 1 c : ,� D ; HILLMAN '`S w . n H II I AA \T ' COMMONWEALTH 1? (206)343 zsoo ' ta:ft TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PHIL .PNIA • DELTA MORTGAGE & ESCROW 301 SW Grady Way Your Order No. • 841034 Renton, WA 98055 CONTTIINENTAL INVESTORS/ Attn: Debbie _ • Our OrderNo.ER 613402-2 • PRELIMINARY COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE • Washington Land Title Association Form • AMOUNT PREMIUM SALES TAX $850 , 000 .00 $1942 .5'0 $153. 46 (�Ownei s standard coverage r ,f]put chaser's standard coverage • • 0 Mortgagee's standard coverage . ❑Mortgagee's ALTA coverage • 0 Tax Registration , ❑ P Date' May 16., 198.4 , at 8 :00 A.M. • • CONLM ONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY of Philadelphia,Pennsylvania agrees to issue on request and on record- ing of any appropriate documents,its policy or policies as applied for,with coverage as indicated,based on this preliminary commitment that title to the property described herein is vested on the date shown above in CONTINENTAL INVESTORS CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, in trust , as to Parcels A and B; and in EDWIN S . STONE, as his separate estate, . as to Parcel C • subiect only to the exceptions shown herein and the terms,conditions and exceptions contained in the policy form.This report and commitment shall have no force or effect except as a basis for the coverage specified herein: , 4afit,,...............' •• Tale Officer Description: SEE EXHIBIT •"A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. .. .wi•awe hdi: nS:;' P.m , ‘117 IF 77-0 • • Lu FEB 3 798� ` • BUILDING/ZONING DEFT ' NOTE: 1. Investigation should be made to determine if there are any service,installation,maintenance,or construction . charges for sewer,water or electricity. • 2 In the event this transaction fails to close,a cancellation fee will be charged for services rendered in accordance with our rate schedule. . 3. This company is a Pennsylvania Corporation and is in no way-affiliated or connected with Commonwealth Title Insurance Company or Commonwealth Title Company of Pierce County,Washington. • ,i Vie.;...v-: �',�.• �ir Order No . 613402-2 Page 2 EXCEPTIONS: 1: DELINQUENT GENERAL TAXES : • Years : 1982 , 1983, 1984 Amounts Billed: $220 . 18, $321. 67 , $361. 24, respectively Amounts Paid: $ 0 . 00 , $ 0 .00 , $ 0 . 00, respectively Amounts Due : $220 . 18 , $321. 67 , $361.24, respectively, plus interest Tax Account No . : 334570-0075-03 (LC2151) Affects: Lot 5 , Block 2 DELINQUENT GENERAL TAXES : Years : 1982 , 1983, 1984 Amounts Billed: $130 . 27 , $209 . 26 ,: $235. 00 , respectively Amounts Paid: $ 0 . 00 , $ 0 . 00 , $ 0 . 00 , respectively Amounts Due : $130 . 27, $209 .26 , $235 . 00 , respectively , plus interest Tax Account No . : 334570-0076-02 (LC2151) Affects : Lot 8, Block 2 DELINQUENT GENERAL TAXES : . • Years : 1982 , 1983 , 1984 Amounts Billed: $210 . 08 , $297 .46 , $334 . 05 , respectively Amounts Paid: $ 0 . 00 , $ 0 . 00 , $ 0 . 00 , respectively Amounts Due: $210 .08, $297 .46, $334 . 05 , respectively , plus interest Tax Account No : : 334570-0100-02 (LC2151) Affects : Lots 1 and portion_ of Lot 2 , Block 3. 1'. Excise tax, if unpaid. . - NOTE 1: For purposes of determination of the amount of excise tax due , said property is situate in: City of Renton. 3. JUDGMENT: Against: Lyle Pickle , et ux, et al , In Favor of: Bennett P S & E; Inc. , a Washington corporation ; Frank Lindell For: • $15 , 896 .00 , plus attorneys fees of $2 , 600 . 00 ,' plus interest and any other amounts due thereunder. Entered: • March 18, 1983 King County Judgment No . : 83-9-04065-1 Superior Court Cause No . : 81-2-17119-2 Attorney far Judgment Creditor: A. Robert E. Thomson (Copy attached) Judgment lien assigned to Edwin S . Stone. - -continued- • i"_.'^+:i` � 11 G 1 19 V . V 1✓`f V L-L Page 3 EXCEPTIONS: -4. The terms of the trust under which title is claimed are not disclosed of record, and the Company is unable to determine whether or not said trustee has full power to sell and convey (or mortgage , lease, contract to convey) . 5. There is no recorded means of ingress or egress to a public road from said property; and it is assumed that there exists a valid and subsisting easement for that purpose over adjoin- ing properties ; but the Company does not insure against any _ rights based on a contrary state of facts . NOTE 2: According to the application, title is to vast in Douglas Steinhauer, presumptively subject to the community interest of his wife if married. We find no pertinent natters of record against the name of' said Party. aw/RR • a • Supplemental Report COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA YOUR LOAN NO. 841034 TO: Delta Mortgage & Escrow 301 S. W. Grady Way OUR ORDER NO. 613402-2 Renton , WA 98055 PURCHASER Attn : Cahty MORTGAGOR Steinhauer ' The following information affects the title to the property covered by our preliminary report,BUT IS NOT INTENDED TO -- REPRESENT A COMPLETE REPORT TO DATE: _ • • XXXXD;Paragraph No(s). 5 . Pg 3 of our preliminary report is/are . now deleted. • ❑ Paragraph No(s) are NOT yet clear of record, please advise. ❑ Owner's/Purchaser's Standard Coverage liability has been added/amended to $ ; new premium is$ , plus$ for tax. G Mortgagee's ALTA/Standard Coverage liability has been added/amended to $ ; new premium is$ , plus$ for tax. ❑ Matters dependent upon inspection of the premises have been cleared for ALTA Mortgagee's Policy. ALTA Mortgagee's Policy when issued will contain the No. 100 Special Endorsement Form. • ❑ Our tax paragraph is amended as follows: 198—taxes are half paid/fully paid, amount of • 198_taxes are now certified in the amount of ❑ Paragraph/Note No. (s) is added/amended to read as follows: • • • Dated as of the dayof 4� ,1 ,8 A.M. T,r mrprry..rwaw nnInU Cvoaron NV s n no way G. Inerw a carrcvo wh Cam,aw+m,Toe pwaence Ga,ory C amvw+Mn Toe Gantry ar FWD.Casay.weurq,m b a FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Fourth and Blanchard Building • Seattle, Washington 98121 . I fii) IE C �I 11 r' EI 206-382-0400- ' L ref; ) f`2? „,r,�� REPORT FOR COURT PROCEEDINGS . Our No: 75388 Robert E. Ordal 2200 - 4th Avenue • Seattle, Washington . This report is restricted to the use of the addressee for the . purpose of determining necessary parties defendant in an action to foreclose the Deed of Trust recorded under Recording No. 8110120252, . noted at Paragraph No. 3 below and is not to be used as a basis for closing any transaction affecting title to said property. Liability is hereby limited to the charge made for this certificate. Upon request, within 120 days, this report-will be extended to the day • following the date of filing complaint and notice of lis pendens, without charge. . • Records examined to: November 30, 1982 at 7:30 a.m. Title to the property hereinafter described is vested in: LYLE L. PICKLE and MAXINE V. PICKLE, husband and wife • The land referred to in this report is described as follows: Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, C. D. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN • ADDITION TO SEATTLE DIVISION NO. 7, according, to the plat thereof . - recorded in Volume 16 of Plats, pace 18, records of King County, . i�7ashington; • EXCEPT the South 80 feet of said Lot 2; • .TETHER WITIi that portion of Lincoln Place N.E. and N.E. 41st Street vacated under City of Renton Ordinance No. 2961; - -- `-- �€P b a rtaca_ AND R.� I t" .:_,� ,i �_j iL! t +I f dl i' h, FEB J 1986, :— BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. •mot' .-.J . (Continued . . . Report for Court Proceedings) Page 2 Order No. 75388 Lot 8, Block 2, C. D. HILL,MIAN'S LAKE WASHINGTCN GARDEN OF EDEN . . ADDITION TO SEATTLE DIVISION NO. 7, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 16 of Plats, page 18, records of King County, Washington. _ Situate in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington. • ' SUBJECT T0: 1. DELINQUENT GENERAL TAXES Year: 1982 . Amount Billed: $210.08 Amount Paid: None Amount Due: S210.08, plus interest Tax Account No.: 334570-0100-02 (Affects Lots 1 and 2) DELINQUENT GENERAL TAXES Year:- 1982 Amount Billed: $130.27 • Amount Paid: None Amount Due: $130.27, plus interest Tax Account No.: _334570-0076-02 (Affects Lot 8) 2. ASSESSMENT FOR RENTON Original amount: $8,898.99 plus interest at 7.77%. Original number of installments: 10 Number of installments paid: 2 • Number of installments delinquent: None Local Improvement District No. : 284 Filing Date: ..September 9, 1979 Improvement: Sewer - • 3. DEED OF TRUST AND ADDITIONAL ADVANCES, IF ANY, AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS' THEREOF: Grantor•:_ .Lyle -L. Pickle and Maxine V. Pickle, husband and wife Trustee: Chicago Title Insurance Company, a corporation • Beneficiary: . Continental Investors Corporation, a Washington corporation Original Amount: $360,000.00, plus interest • • yam+ • ::' (Continued . . . Report for Court Proceedings) Page 3 Order No. 75388 • • Dated: October 2, 1981 - • - • • • Recorded: October 12, 1981 . Recording No.: 8110120252 (Affects Lots 1, 2, 8 and vacated street) • • • Said .Deed of Trust has been assigned by instrument recorded • January 13, 1982 under Recording No. 8201130028. A copy of which is hereto attached. • Said instrument is a re-record of Recording No. 8112080028. 4. LIEN • • Claimant: F. R. Lindell & Associates Against: Lyle Pickle Amount: $25,889.57 • For: Labor, or to furnish material • Recorded: October 22, 1981 • • • Recording No. : .,8110220532 • 5. LIEN • Claimant: Bennett P.S. & E. Inc. , (formerly known as Bennett & Fox Inc. ) Against: Lyle Pickle Amount: $27,661.98 . • For: Labor, .or to furnish material • • Recorded: October 23, 1981 • Recording No. : 8110230503 • • • 6. PENDING ACTION IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT • Plaintiff: Bennett PS&E Inc.., a Washington corporation, Frank Lindell • Defendant: Lyle Pickle and Maxine Pickle, ; Harold J. Storm; and • • Continental Investors Corporation, a Washington • corporation • • • Cause No.: 81-2-17119-2 • • Filed: November 24, 1981 • Action for: Foreclose lines shown in Paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 above Attorney for Plaintiff: A. Robert E. Thompson . • Lis Pendens was recorded on November 24, 1981 under Recording No. -.-77 • 8111240549. • • (Continued . . . Report for Court Proceedings) Page 4 • .Order No. 75388 . _ • • . 7. JUDGMENT: In favor of: Seattle-First National Bank . • . Against: . L.A.E. Developers; Inc. and Lyle L. Pickle and Maxine • AV. Pickle j. • . Amount: (a) $90,914.33 together with interest thereon in the • . 2 . total amount of $40,003.50 . •(b) in the sum of $2,773.48 for attorney's_ fees.and other costs for a total sum of. $133,691.31 together with costs and disbursements herein to be taxed with interest • thereon at 12% .per annum until paid • 'Dated: April 1, 1982 • Entered: April 1, 1982 • Judgment No.: 82-9-04840-8 Cause No.: 81-2-12621-9 • j .. Attorney.for Judgment Creditor: Davis, Wright, Todd, Riese & •• Jones 8: Pending action in King County Superior Court Case No. 82-3-03547-9 • ' •between•.Maxine V. Pickle and, Lyle L. Pickle, -being an action for dissolution of marriage. f • Attorney for Petitioner: Donald G. Holm . Attorney for Respondent: Robert J. Hall • Order granted May '21, 1982 in said action restrains either party . from disposing of separate or community property. • . 9. JUDGMENT: • In favor of: Maxine V. Pickle ' Against: Lyle L. Pickle Amount: Attorney's fees and court costs in the amount of $200.00 Dated: May 21, 1982 • . Entered: May 21, 1982 Judgment No.: 82-9-07368-2 • Cause No.: '82-3-03547-9 . • Attorney for Judgment Creditor: Holm& Glessner • 10. JUDGMENT: • . . - _ In favor of: Maxine V. Pickle • Against: Lyle L. Pickle• Amount: Attorney's fees and court costs in the amount of $300.00 Dated: June 4, 1982 . Entered: June 4, 1982 - • . • Judgment'No.: 82-9-08048-4' Cause No.: 82-3-03547-9 5 _ , Attorney for Judgment Creditor: Holm & Glessner • • • i . (Continued . Report for Court Proceedings) Page 5 Order No. 75388 I — 11. JUDGMENT: is In favor of: Sea Galley Stores, Inc. (formerly Blake & Walter Corp. ) Steven B. Dowen, Steven B. Walter and John - ' ' . M. Cox, doing business as Western Investors • Against: 'Lewis-Frei, 'Inc. and Lyle and Maxine Pickle Amount: $2,700.00 for attorney's fees and costs Dated: June 17, 1982 • • • - Entered: June 17, 1982 • . Judgment No.: 82-9-08978-3. • • Cause No.: 82-2-04275-7 Attorney for Judgment Creditor: 0. J. Humphrey III 12. JUDGMENT: In favor of: George M. Smith and Patricia Ann Smith,' husband' and wife Against: Lyle L. Pickle,..individually and against the marital " community of Lyle L. Pickle and Maxine Pickle, husband and wife Amount: $10,600.00, together with. interest in the amount of $2,056.69; for the plaintiff's attorneys fees in the sum _„- of $450.00; and for plaintiff's costs herein 'in the sum of $91.00 Dated: November 8, 1982 • ' Entered: ' November 8, 1982 • ' Judgment No.: 82-9-16286-3 " Cause No. : 82-2-15056-8 Attorney for Judgment Creditor: Charles R. Branson 13. Pursuant to the automatic homestead provisions of R.C.W. 6.12, any conveyance or encumbrance of the property of a married person'will require the joinder of both husband and wife providing said property qualifies- as a homestead as defined.:in, the statute. _ • - Execution of any conveyance• or' encumbrance of homestead property . must be personally executed by both husband and wife and not by use of a power of attorney. • j _ • • • Lance Lewis, Title Officer • CHARGES: $260.00' : TAX: $ • ,- I-• . ______ . . .---- -- • . • , ' 1 1.•;- - -- , .. ........11. --•-t- . _. ./ --` . -e `---•- .".."., , . --1-- .-.4.4 T4.••,„. •• '._— • •-mi,- .,....._ ,.. I st.. . titt-f,s1TIctr-i srut-It.:711.- --; 44, i.., - ALI-illt•-t, < t • < _ ___ ...._ ,..-,r,r,...,-,-1,,-, eL•it..“:.--1..-Ar-,- N -- ---- i. - •- ..-00-.-- . " ' - ,e--- --% - ..;,...-- ; -• .. . i ...... ...-/ . .:, . _ _......_.:i_ , .. .,.. 1, . fici4. 7' --- - ----, dri... ....i.: - .-- • •1--_-_- ..'41 -17' IT lr. .1,-.-_—„i 1 IIT • - I - . ..,„... .,‘,.•,-.... .t.„-.. elf li -\ I, / • 4-r• ., •• I--'r .44 1 1 ..-1•-•,-..i.. _I„ - ,...,...' ,.._•• ..,_it.,....,\-.., . -ti 4-1 1 -I., ----_ i• k 7 4,;t4T-•.:;.-, --_---- i i . i 1 •,- 1 i rr---1--- --rt- '4-1 i•L ' --,-; ' lit i .. • t)- _.„, ..s;\ • •• _ -.1 . • '''.!./ l- • __ <L. _ • _ „..„...c„....._ ,..,._.„-:,_, ,..— _ • • lt,, , /t ..4,--,-/ ,....t.,? : . •••_.—A1m-sr:Om [ :•••••/1/41.-"a-C -4-1- ' /It/ / /......... . , 1.,..-/ vs,\\A ______).1 , „-------- __r__.__ ., ...___ . , (ks• ''l • -,C) _L____- ! -i--------- t.1 1 •• ----=_—_„1,,-, , _, . • (-4 - .k :M4 - ...,..... ,. .#. • ':''".. - -- --. ' * . , ' ,...I • . -. . ...2‘.4., .?-.: 1 r.....N...,,,-.1 ',./:, --7,:-.F. i.".'• .. • *tit -' ' tit !.. ----- ..„-_--- 4. , r.,,------ . . . . , __ • • ___ ____ ________ ..N. 1 I ). 1, ' • ' / I 1:.---_-1—,-_.=1-. s.,;;•;•, . •.,. , . , ...,.., - ‘ J • ! --,,,..,- . IT, • , , !A F.,•,:=• .7.---: • •-., - . ,g_ : : _—__,..., ,iiii.,- _.---.-,,,._,„... ..._.-,_ • ..„.. .....: -,_,..,;-.:,- ,.1! rf c`- ..--- ' . - ! .7 i L. -..21___I ..,i—- --.• r-.,k 1 . - it - I •, .1 . -- ---- m 1_ , ,• _ T, .\ *- v -- . __ —. ,---— . _ ' - Irr:41 c•-, -,--'-' i i - - ------ 1-1 • .. .4" I -1 011h I.\ • at : 1 -'-ir -;:".--- F-t-if-- -- i';-,--, -r--- i I _ i.I.:-:-:,-, . , 1.. , IVA ri ....1 : 4 _- ....--,m.. Er _- _try' --r- ,,,--...„.-. ....L-i . _.) Ill :.1.'\ .,1: 1,414 il i".. ,•_.,,,i . _..• , i .--1_, li '..- -T2. ,-.-I %It) 1 -IR ,----4.t."-- t ..-_-• 4-.4.11.L.-- : 1 4 ut_."1 =_ ;1_,: C.1.-WL a::: •7'._7:','''.i7-4•N . rai--- rp ii) t7i, n w ti [6 • ',,• 0..1j tS 0 1 . . . ,1 _,:---) -- - , - - 0 -----c- . --_, ,-L.._ --_-:-1..... ..4 -71-1.e,,,,,..1 [1 )1 [1 FEB 1 3 1986 ----s • BUILDWG/ZONiNG DEPT. • - _ - . / • i -- 11, - .{ V + t..•t-7, _,.v.7•• •. -• .,. _4t {1,y}.i.*i \ e li t..: diE�r _ /..- -_ - F . \-.>...., -, ,i,---.J,:i\'',?i J.: Nawial,„Vsjk ---..... ,' • !: ..s�.T4 s s . 1=M '--.1:.:•--:I!Uri--.7.---,ti T2..---'1011. ' .; +40:2- i, ,L. -. ..... '" t,i -:-t.:.-. II11 �,.0 s `©1 .ii •II! :* .IiII rdr-``) - i' Ip _4' )...t , - -,..t,...-',..•_ __-: ... 0 :ram - i1 m. y/: r M _a t A , _... -.. . irA = ,I' iff•s..16-114,,, Bit ._ mi ff., . 11.„ .e7--.67.* etiyar it. 1.4 :0..r.„ .. ‘-1-. L,_,_, .._:" -•"*,)-7..-r:.-1 '0147(0•41111Pligil_ :lid. 13- '''. °lc ,_4_ ,j L: I 1 4 - - -I ::•-11.1.1 Z- . 4 i B linizammisn � fjr4o' dad b �i�ga , s—. Z.Renton rpi-d s17c pL - - GiNIT t�-Tn.. 110 TH ,mow• -= , Sci.La s -�O••p - .. ._ - • I' j'.GV P,PTI 'N G� G:usTPfis - 'p`I rS G J �'T B t P ^! H j�_i__ I l_ i--� + r�u� 5e -'�r.r Kn.Fr T _ 4 _ :fR....w.. ;ti p 3 .STOIc'j UNITS. - • . • • I • • --- f t s+ v:6 :nr� I., "EF �In^ v�•t- t i.G.. �� `!� T`•`_ l-- — — ,--___— } —_ 11— r- t P Fr , 1 I flcv. Vie. rt;B�- �i — 3 5T0! J^ T: w/ S7O�zY UF1i7S 'v� EN'— • --- — ---t---- --_- I It rv:��,a- �.:� i- •rz- <- c Yr .-. 2 ST UNITS i % _-G' :i v;K.` Ii • i H i Z , i - TOT--4- - =-a of° s- _ 's`� �G-X-- ii ) r ri Ili—011, FL- f7-3 ,.1 VI 1. -0-' . L t t i L( t ,t • H ' ., •LE CAL OE5 217,f:^, "� FEB 131986 `— `( ' < 1 l t \ ( (lic t I ( + ~ • Lots S anC O of Block Zan!Lots 1 en]2 0!aec• 1 or C.9. ':I11+an, La.f.. �� a 1 ? f I 1 :.ardrn Of Eden.Oi.xsion ! •olet.er.:%•acatN t .scree!.: :ess re .o.^ I i _1 ; 01 d i A d ' ilriO I_1 '1- 1 `�i Lot B Uil..D1NLII,�-�-ONING DEP11 . - - ' I - ... • ,-.. - ( • . ; . ... _ • , . ...__ . . . , - -14• ,r____ . --- e-, • - -- _ ----\ ' 1 - . --k---- tr _._ 4----- ,, , • L_ , • - • ; . , . • __I ... : •__; \.. . . • ---- • 1` — . ' '' _. . .. . _: _ —• . • ,-- 4. - . ' . •'-' • . ' • r_:f.L — — . . • ..— ..41-4-1—. ---# ' 11-` , • :-1 .! •: '—'1- t• • I I . -I t + ---- -i ---/ - II-. _____ - : _I• : i : i : I I; - 1---71 ;I . IL -4-'----7- ---4 i:1 . • . I—' L• t -11 ?;kly - ! ' , , , r._.! 1 : - lik , - . - . , - 3z.ytat-.11 _ • , -i-. . . ,_;, , ,, iv --4 I I I F . - . , r I 11 ,-, '-+-- -- •_.: , -- --L-t,51.--->r---4 • st. . . • ------7--11 1 ' . - • • - -- . .. __ • — it 1'f- .1 FL I „._ ... .2..r\ . . _ •. •. --Q-) 1 j . • I .: I ,--'------ •_.• I '1-- 1-' .'• . . . .. •••/- 1 . . ,t :'L111• .1 .1 11 i1-1 ,„Ki i ....--ITT v., ... ; .!„ s, ---i) ; .i.! ; i• ; :.1. •, . ..-. ! :-.. . - . . 1 i t.1.1'--- -•- ; ' *- - • - -: ' ..-V 4--, . , , ., .. . ._ ' ''' ,. . 7-` • . ' . - I 0 i -1 • _,_-.1. .1:::_'. ..ii ::. mf . • .. '„ .i . 1 . ' - . • , . --_,-_____I-- i - _ i \e- • . ••, I1 _ . . • . - - If , •. - ., . • - , , - - - . I _i_:---H--"-• • ' ! . . _ • ....is.1...1.1...1.. .1.1...— . • ——-•-. . =--.."P7r-X•••S'T.....1:. .1°. / rref---44..,-. i ' - " • 1 . _ i . • • • it 1''; , ,-__--.;..-. ------",... ;-- ----,,, t--o- 1 1 1 / : • ; . • : :, , I!II, __—-----_-C-- • — . • .:I; ;•• r --r 20 i__ , 13.c-:" .4__ ; - . • =...- 1- --t, I - ) \ • . ''' * ) • ' r- - " . V -,,. J •• • i i .. . f > _, ,_____, — . ' • (. • 6c„,. \.- 'te, • • .43 ' . -- /1 •'1: : ..-- '- -, .. \ $'."1 C;‘ . i . ..1_4; -• • ,:i " v 0,. .. ! e ) . ). . . • • . .) . 2 X7 . '-i''..1f.c. tZ4 i', . .-, -td.1 . . • ,... s i'\,....___, \._____. , ,,,s,____,, ,., ,. . / - I ,, .- • - '• ..' (- .. **irtto.ori.- .e...-ki•Z---re• .- - . ,_' ''----"- , 7.....—. .............. '1 I , i ' I I • -. -' 1 1 i . 1 ,. . . 1 . _ --CiTY:OP ONION „], ;i I ‘ . . : . . - ti 1 P 10 -:ttn2 • 1 -41 r I : . • _J . 4,- 1 --,..., 1 1 1 ..A.za.g....-, isT =f,p-i, .. : ill. FEBI I 1-31986 '---Tj , i 1 , . 1 B.111...DINdiZ-OHNING DEPT. i I I I i - 61.-'