Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRezone File No 402-67~— STOP STOP STOP- STOP STOP! DOCUMENTS UNDER THIS NOTICE HAVE BEEN MICROFILMED, DO NOT REMOVE NOTICE FROM FILE. NEW FILING SHOULD BE ADDED ON TOP OF NOTICE, PAGES REMOVED UNDER THE NOTICE FOR COPYING MUST BE RETURNED TO THE SAME PLACE UNDER THE NOTICE. ST OP! STOP STOP STOP STOP gar a, N = ° » S 4 | | RENTON i” x | m ty om iy i 100° cS “ | Ie 100° | o/s = | = ae) ia i 700° > Ss Z 16 ae Ue AVE. SOUTH _ SCALE. Linck = SOfeer LoTs 14,15, 716 Block 3 Fenton View er sacmcid ity ene t { 64 cory ORDINANCE No. 275% AN ORDINANCE OF JHE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM GENERAL SUBURBAN DISTRICT (GS—1) TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-2) WHEREAS under Chapter VII, Title IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No. 1628 known as the "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton", as amended, and the maps adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as General Suburban District (GS-1); and WHEREAS a proper petition for change of zone classification of said properties has been filed with the City Clerk on or about May 16, 1967, which petition was then duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about June 28, 1967, and proper notice of hearing has been duly published and posted as provided by law; and the Planning Commission having denied said petition for rezoning and the petitioners having duly ap- pealed to the City Council as provided by law, and a publie hearing having been heki on said appeal on or about August 7, 1967, and the City Council having duly eonsidered said rezoning request, and same being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposigion thereto, NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON AS FOLLOWS SECTION I: The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Residential District (2-2); the City Engineer and the Planning Director are hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, as follows: Lots 14, 15, 16, Block 3, Renton View Addition, King County, Washington (Located on NE corner of intersection of S. llth St. and Morris Ave. S.) SECTION II: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and legal publication. 2) # PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this Meth day of August, 1967... Helmie Nel som :Giliy"Pl gre \. Sy ee A 433 < Lh I ds Fe APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this Hith day of Aégust, 19673. YTS 4 ~ Src a / _ Donald W. Custer, Mayor Approved as to ferm: ) Sn ha & LF \ av , i et Se ™~—. Date of publication: AUG.2 4 1967 John K. Pain, Jr. he Assistant City Attorney @ iJ Dreher’ My , AK eal 7, 1967 The Honorable Donald W. Custer, Mayor Members of the Renton City Council City Hall Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Donckers, Emmett J., Appl, No. R~402-67, rezone from GS-1 to R-2; property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of §. lith St. and Morris Ave. s, Gentlemen and Mrs, Dahlquist; The Planning Commission reviewed the application of Emmett J. Donc- kers at its. June 28, 1967 public hearing meeting. The property in question has the following general characteristics: Total Area--12,000 sq. ft. (includes site of existing : Single family residence)... Proposed Use-~multi-family residential Principal Access--Morris Ave. S$. and S. llth st. Comprehensive Plan--low density multiple family Existing Zoning--GS-1 ; : In their review of the property, the Planning Commission studied the area on a comprehensive basis in view of the future development that might be expected. The following features were noted: 1. The area is at the present time predominately single family residential. While there are many older homes in the area, new residences have been constructed in the vicinity and the area has for the most part been well maintained. It was roughly estimated that the value of existing residences in the area range from approximately $10,000 to $45,000. 2. The proposed development of the applicant's property would be for construction of a duplex in addition to the single family residence on the existing site (the Single family residence would be retained). The ex- isting zoning of the property is GS-1 which requires a 35,000 sq. ft. lot area. 3. The block to the west of the applicant's property is presently zoned R-2.. This zoning has been in effect Since April 23, 1957. Several. of the Planning Commis- Sioners indicated that the present R-2 zoning was fy.5 ; mo ~ 7 j . aaa 9 i 4 ! ; a ee a > ‘ eran , 2 ¢ 4 i ft toa faeea b EN : ‘ } Pa etd , y , > : , ; j ‘ ' : i mis Yaa Be aoe | * . Hi DK h ¢ piper ry pve i eal x y ¥ ee ’ i PR ‘ it i © é q * b ‘ a9 ¢ é VM i 3 ¥ Hy we ti — t ae Se Mayor and City Council August 7, 1967 Page 2. questionable in their minds and did not consider an extension of the R+2 zoning desirable. Inquiries re- garding the possibility of rezoning other properties in the vicinity for multiple use have been received by ‘the’ Planning Department, particularly with refer- “ence to, existing vacant tracts of land. 4. Several members of the Planning Commission also indi- cated their concern regarding the existing street development in the area and felt that existing streets would not handle the additional vehicular traffic that would result from the construction of apartment units in the area, and that the density should be held at a lower level until such time as street and sidewalk improvements are made. 5. The Planning Commission in itsxreview of the Comprehen- sive Plan felt that future development of this area should be for single family residential purposes and have so indicated on the revised Comprehensive Plan presently under review by the Commission. Upon completion of its studies, the Planning Commission moved to deny the rezone request on the basis that the development was premature — for the area and did not constitute good planning. « The Planning Com- mission further recommended to the City Council the R-1 eclassifica- tion as. the appropriate zoning for the subject property. Very truly yours, Gordon Y. Ericksen Planning Director RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 ¢ ALPINE 5-3464 al & } a C> O Z OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK +» RENTON, WASHINGTON Bt all, 2 CITY HALL, CEDAR RIVER PARK, % August 24, 1967 Mr. Bruce Mahler, Land & Tax Agent King County Assessor's Office County Court House, Room 201 Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Sir: Enclosed is a certified copy of Ordinance No, 2354, 2355 & 2356 changing the zoning of certain properties within the City of Renton, as passed and approved on this 2lst day of August, 1967 ” Very truly yours, CITY OF RENTON gi 7 ‘ y aA Le Lovet iP ha hleted pce Helmie W. Nelson City Clerk HWN/h Enclosure (1) D :7 4X Lor” - ORDINANCE No. 225 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM GENERAL SUBURBAN DISTRICT (GS-1) TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-2) WHEREAS under Chapter VII, Title IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No. 1628 known as the "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton", as amended, and the maps adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as General Suburban District (GS-1); and WHEREAS a proper petition for change of zone classification of said properties has been filed with the City Clerk on or about May 16, 1967, which petition was then duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about June 28, 1967, and proper notice of hearing has been duly published and posted as provided by law; and the Planning Commission having denied said petition for rezoning and the petitioners having duly ap- pealed to the City Council as provided by law, and a public hearing having been held on said appeal on or about August 7, 1967, and the City Council having duly considered said rezoning request, and same being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposigion thereto, NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON AS FOLLOWS SECTION I: The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Residential District (2-2); the City Engineer and the Planning Director are hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, as follows: Lots 14, 15, 16, Block 3, Renton View Addition, King County, Washington (Located on NE corner of intersection of S. llth St. and Morris Ave. S.) SECTION II: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and legal publication. 2/2 PASSED BY THE CLTY COUNCIL this Mth day of August, <1987. Helmie Me TEEN 4 Ges 1 2 | ae =A 3D APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this luth day of gu bs 1967. i: lig, We — LMM f _# Donald W. Custer, Mayor Approved as to farm: ff \ fy , i re ‘ ' set” “Ni Date of publication: AUG? 4 1967 John K, Pain, Jr. ‘ Assistant City Attorney INTER-OFFICE MEMO DATE: SL 4 oe 7 TO: Helmie Nelson, City Clerk PROM: Jack Wilson, City Engineer RE: ees Oe I hereby certify that the legal description contained in the attached Tat SS OWI on the [7S npcCicuwee SD __ property aac. Lb l Wilson, City Engineer is correct. TO: INTER-OFFICE MEMO Mrs. Helmie Nelson, City Clerk ; Date August 1, 1967 From: John K. Pain, Jr. Assistant City Attorney Dear Helmie: We are handing you herewith stencils of proposed rezoning Ordinances for Donckers, Holmes and Mathieson, which we ask you, the City Engineer and the Planning Director to check over carefully to be sure that they are correct, including the legal descriptions and the dates in ques JKP:hb. Encls. cc: Mayor City Engineer Planning Director Chairman Law & Ord. Committee President of Council foyer“ bm A boeken Minutes - Renton City Council Meeting 8-7-67 PUBLIC HEARING: Emmett J. Donckers appeal of Planning Commission decision in rezone denial, from GS-1 to R-2, property located at NE corner of South 11th Street and Morris Avenue South. This being the date set, the hearing was declared open. Communication from Planning Director Ericksen outlined features studied by the Planning Commission in its review of the matter with outlook to the future development that might be expected in the area, now predominantly single family residential with homes valued from $10,000.00 to $45,000.00. Concern was expressed regarding additional vehicular traffic and access, and although R-2 exists in the block to the west, extension of the R-2 was not considered desirable, it being noted that additional inquiries have been made with reference to existing vacant tracts of land in the area. Other rezone requests are anticipated if this one were granted. The R-2 zoning has existed since 1957 with no multiple construction being effected and the Commission felt that the future development of the area should be single family residential so indicating on the Comprehensive Plan presently under revision. Audience comment was invited and Mr. Donckers, 606-llth Avenue South, advised that the property now complies with Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan and it would be just if the Council would grant the requested rezone. Mrs. Donckers added that they do have ingress and egress provisions and the area would be enhanced by / the updated construction. Further comment was invited and Mr. Tony Mola, 516-11th Avenue South, read his | letter of protest to the rezone as presented to the Planning Commission which stated that the proposed duplex would be detrimental to his property valuation and to that of other residences in the area. It was noted that the block in which Mr. Mola \ resides is zoned R-2 and no request has been filed for R-1l zoning. Inquiry followed \ regarding the lot size and a sketch was shown of the 12,000 sq. ft. lot with duplex \ unit and existing residence. It was noted that the Commission had voted unanimously ‘for denial of the rezone feeling that 4 or 5 years hence would be a more appropriate timing. Mrs. Donckers inquired as to basis for determination that multiple use is premature or right for the area citing the need for hausing for school teachers and others at the present time, deeming it discriminatory that one block is R-2 and the other restricted. Discussion ensued regarding zonings in other areas of the City and the justification of the findings of the Planning Commission in its review of best interest of a whole area rather than a single lot or block. Moved by Hulse, seconded by Morris, that the hearing be closed. Carried. Moved by Perry, seconded by Garrett, to concur in the R-2 rezone request. Hulse noted that it would seem to him to stretch a point to get a multiple unit on the lot along with the present residence and he would uphold the Planning Commission decision. Schellert noted that the Ordinance would need to state compliance of the rezone to the Comprehensive Plan and it was pointed out that the rezone to the zoning of that property across the street was before the Council at this time and not its use. Question was called for on the pending motion to grant the rezone and verbal ayes being in majority, the motion carried. Moved by Garrett, seconded by Perry, to refer the matter to the Law and a Ordinance Committee for proper Ordinance. Carried. —_— PUBLIC HEARING: Florence B. Mathieson rezone request from R-1 to R-3 amended to R-2 on property located in vicinity of the NE corner of Sunset Blvd. North and 116th Avenue S.E. This being the date set, the hearing was declared open. Letter from Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director, reported review of the revised rezone request by the Commission which felt that the R-2 would be more feasible than R-3 primarily due to the access problem, approval of which was now recommended to the City Council. The proposed use is in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan. Dahlquist inquired as to why the R-3 originally requested was not granted when the property is surrounded by the nursing home and 40 unit apartments. Planning Director Ericksen pointed out that the access problem was the main reason Sunset being the only one and with widening of Sunset an even greater problem might result. Applicant had indicated her intent to keep within low density use and the R-2 would therefore suffice. Moved by Poli, seconded by Hulse, that the hearing be closed. Carried. Moved by Poli, seconded by Trimm, to concur in the Planning Commission recommendation for R-2 zoning with referral to the Law and Ordinance Committee for proper Ordinance. Carried. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Ordinance providing procedure for the vacation of streets and alleys; imposing processing fee and authorizing compensation to the City. This being the date set, the hearing was declared open. There were no written communica- tions nor verbal comment and it was moved by Delaurenti, seconded by Schellert, that the hearing be closed. Carried. Moved by Schellert, seconded by Delaurenti, to refer the proposed Ordinance to the Law and Ordinance Committee. Carried. -2- July LI, 1967 Mr. and Mrs. Emmett J. Donckers 606 - llth Avenue South Renton, Washington Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Denying Request for Rezone 7 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Doneksrs’ The Renton City Council, at its regular meeting of July 10, 1967 has set the date of August 7th at 8:00 p.m. in the Counce?) Chambers, City Hall as the time and place for hearing on your appeal. You are invited to be present for the hearing to discuss the matter with the Council. Yours very truly, ‘CITY OF RENTON Helmie W. Nelson City Clerk HWN /din July 11, 1967 Mr. Antone Mola 516 - llth Avenue Sow STOP Renton, Washirigton 8055 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision by E. Donckers Dear Mr. Mola: : The Renton City Council, at its regular meeting of July 10th has set the date of August 7th for hearing on the appeal as captioned above, Since you have expressed interest in the matter you are hereby invited to be present at the hearing meeting which will be held in the Council Chambers, City Hall, Renton, Washington at 8:00 p.m. : Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON - Helmie W. Nelson City Clerk HWN/dm ai e AH Woh e 67 July 3, 1967 Renton City Council City Hall Cedar River Park Renton, Washington 98055 Gentlemen: We are herewith submitting an appeal to our recent request of rezoning View Lots 14, 15, and 16 located at the N.E. corner of S. llth Street and Morris Ave. So. We believe the are: Commission's rejection of our rezoning request is unfair. The one protest entered is unjust and unmerited. Our rezoning request is in compliance with the City of Renton's ordinances as well as their comprehensive plan. We wish to have the Renton Council Members review our rezoning request. Please let us know when this request will be placed on your agenda. oe LA (8H nD if ( Mr. & Mrs, Emmett 606 - 11th Ave. So. Renton, Washington a ue KE a « Donckers Phone: AL 5-4426 7 at Dreaded Pick APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE IN THE CITY OF RENTON FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Application No.: Ve. Hog. et Sec.-Twp.-R. Date of Filing: 5-\b-61 Area Map © Pian.Com. Action: Nene A Kroll Page Date: lb -2%-W1 Receipt No. Sil > City Council Action: i Date: Ord.: APPLICANT TO ANSWER ALL THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS NEATLY AND ACCURATELY: Name of Applicant Emmett J. Donckers Address 606- 11th Ave. So. Property Petitigned for rezoning is situated on 1%¢h=kver=Ser Street E of 2 WS Sx. and Worries Ave. Ss. ’ n } Street..and Smithers Street. Legal Description of Subject Property Lots 14-15-16 Blk 3 Renton View Existing Zoning GS1 Zoning Requested R-2 What are the uses you propose to develop on this property? Duplex Number of permanent off-street parking spaces that will be provided on this property? 1 1/2 per unit Number required 1 per unit NOTE TO APPLICANT: The following factors are considered in reclassifying property. Evidence or additional information you desire to submit to substantiate your request may be attached to these sheets. 1. In what way is this proposed change in zoning in the public interest? It helps fulfill a housing need in an aréa that the need is the greatest. 2. On what basis is there a real need in this community for more zoning of the type you request? There are relatively no duplexes which are new and make for desireable living in comparison to other multiple units. 3. Do you consider the property involved in this application to be more suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone than for the uses permitted in the present classification: Please explain. Yes, because it is very unlikely that it would be developed under the present zoning. 4, What provision would you make to protect adjacent and surrounding prop- erty from the detrimental effects of any uses permitted in the proposed zone: I don't know of any detrimental effects that the proposed zoning will bring. I, Emmett J. Donckers being duly sworn, declare that I am the owner of the property invoived in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in ali respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me this 15th gay of May , 19 67, Notary Public in and for the State ma residing at Seattle 2 a : Littih Ps Lawacabla eect! bA Lik (Name) CO (Signature of Owner) 620 S.W. 149th 606 11th Ave. So. (Address) (Mailing Address) Renton, Washington 98055 RY U E: : ; ae © 4 a ‘ a : ery URRY a (City) (State) Sif me eH 722 pygys: AL 5-4426 2 ap a? i. Par ee Ms foe (Telephone) (OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing appiication has been inspected by me and has been found—t thorough and complete in every particular and to conform t and regulations of the Renton Planning Department gove g of such application. 19 BY: Ah Renton Planning Dept. Rev. March 1967 Renton Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 1967 Minutes Page 4 in the vicinity of the cul-de-sac area will be out of line with adjacent buildings. Mr. Tjossem stated that granting of these variances would impose no detrimental effects on the public welfare. Some discussion then ensued as to whether it should be the appli- cant's responsibility financially or the builder's to install side- walks. The Planning Director stated that it was his opinion as well as that of the City Engineer that sidewalks around the entire property were unnecessary, but that they both felt that sidewalks should be provided on S. 7th Street and 87th Avenue S. There being no further comments, it was moved by Denzer, seconded by Racanello, that the hearing be closed. Motion carried unanimously. ACTION: It was moved by Racanello, seconded by Denzer, that a variance be granted on the setback requirements in the vicinity of the 95-foot turnaround area of the cul-de-sac (85th Ave. S.) and that a variance from the sidewalk requirements be granted with the exception of S. 7th Street and 87th Avenue S. Mr. Brower asked for a division of the motion; that is, one motion covering the setback variance with a separate motion covering the Sidewalk requirements. Mr. Racanello agreed to this. Mr. Stone asked that the motions be amended to read as follows: "The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the granting of a variance of 17.5 feet to the setback requirements in the vicinity of the 95-foot turnaround area of the cul-de-sac (85th Ave. S.) because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict appli- cation of the zoning code is found to deprive subject property of rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification; the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is.situated; and the granting of any variance shall be sub- ject to the approval of the City Council and the City Council may prescribe any conditions upon the variance deemed to be necessary and required". Regarding the variance for sidewalks, Mr. Stone asked that the motion be amended to read as follows: "The Planning Com- mission recommends to the City Council the granting of a variance eliminating the requirement for the construction of sidewalks on subject property with the exception of S. 7th Street and 87th Avenue S. as there are special circumstances or conditions affecting said prop- erty such that the strict application of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a sub- stantial property right of the petitioner; and that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injuri- ous to other property in the territory in which said property is situated". Mr. Racanello and Mr. Denzer agreed to the above changes in the wording of their motions. The motions carried with Stredicke and Brower dissenting. REZONE APPLICATIONS ee (c) DONCKERS, EMMETT J., APPL. NO. R-402-67, REZONE FROM GS-1 TO R-2; PROPERTY LOCATED ON NE CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF S. 11TH ST. AND MORRIS AVE. S. The Chairman described the rezone application and asked for staff comments from the Planning Director, The Planning Director pointed Renton Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 1967 Minutes Page 5 KF out the location of the property on the zoning map and stated that the | area is predominately single family residential and that the develop- ment of a duplex unit as proposed on the property could have some detrimental effects on the surrounding properties. Slides of the property in question were shown. . The Chairman read a letter which had been presented to the Commission Signed by Mr. Antone R. Mola objecting to the proposed rezone, citing reasons of depreciation of value of his own home as well as other homes in the -srea. Comments from the audience were called for. Mr. Emmett J. Donckers, the applicant, spoke on behalf of the rezone stating that his plans for development of the property would improve the area rather than depreciate property values. As there were no further comments, it was moved by Cordell, seconded by Denzer, that the hearing be closed. Motion carried unanimously. ACTION: It was moved by Sterling, seconded by Stredicke, that the rezone ap- plication of Emmett J. Donckers be denied as the proposed development is premature for the area and does not constitute good planning. Motion carried unanimously. The Chairman advised the applicant of his right to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council by letter within 10 days. Brower moved to recommend to the City Council that R-1 zoning would be the highest zoning recommended by the Planning Commission for this property; seconded by Stredicke. Motion carried unanimously. (d) NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, APPL. NO. R-403-67, REZONE FROM G TO H-1; PROPERTY LOCATED ON 72ND AVE. S.:° (OR MONSTER ROAD), FORMERLY SANITARY LAND FILL SITE, LOCATED SOUTHWESTERLY OF METRO TREATMENT PLANT. The Chairman read the rezone application, The Planning Director pointed out the location of the property on the zoning map and stated that in his opinion a similar type of development to that of the Metro Treatment Plant with regard to setbacks and landscaping should be main- tained in the area and said that perhaps an M-P zoning classification should be considered. Slides of the property in question were shown. Mr. Gordon Adderson stated that he planned to lease the property from the applicant subject to the rezoning and indicated he planned to use most of the property involved; therefore, the setback requirements of an M-P classification might be too stringent for his operation. It was noted that the property in question was not located directly on 72nd Ave. S., but that the old Black River channel ran between 72nd Ave. S. and the subject property. Ownership of this strip of land was undetermined. It was moved by Stredicke, seconded by Ster- ling, to continue the hearing to July 26th in order to get clarifica- tion of ownership of the strip of land described above and pursue further the matter of zoning. The motion was defeated. It was then moved by Racanello, seconded by Stone, that the hearing be held in abeyance until the meeting of July 12, 1967. Motion carried, with Stredicke dissenting. (e) BUTKO, GEORGE C., APPL. NO. R-404-67, REZONE FROM R-1 TO R-2; PROPERTY LOCATED SE CORNER OF EARLINGTON ST. AND 4TH AVE. W. Vonckers ve20ne agplicakion R- Yo2r-bt 516 1lth Avenue, South Renton, Washington June 28, 1967 Renton Planning Commission Renton, Washington Res Proposed Rezoning of Property at Ne E. Corner of llth Avenue, Set Yor pie as, Gentlemens For personal reasons and interests, I would like to go on record as being very much opposed to the above-mentioned rezoning of property, which is on the Northeast corner of llth Avenue, Soe, while my own is on the Northwest corner of the same street. It is my belief that coincident with the rezoning of said roperty, that the value of my own home will depreciate inasmuch as the owner plans to construct a multiple dwelling on the site. Not only do I feel that my own home's value would be lessened, but also the value of the homes in the neighborhood generally in close proximity to the area. I would sincerely appreciate it if your Commission would thoroughly investigate this matter before approving such a rezoning request. Thank youe Veby truly yours, Renton Planning Commission Meeting June 14, 1967 Minutes Page 2 again. He stated further that it was his belief the applicant wished to use the site for off-street parking which is a use allowed. by special permit. Sterling asked if the applicant was aware of the. alternative procedure.available. Mr. Ericksen replied: that-.the applicant has been advised that he could apply for special permit for parking. 4, NEW BUSINESS OPECTAL PERMIT (a) REPP, WILBUR L., APPL. NO. SP-408-67, REQUEST TO BUILD APART- MENT IN R-2 ZONE; PROPERTY LOCATED AT 813 N. 35RD ST. The Chairman described the special permit application. The Planning Director stated that the applicant does not intend to erect an apart- ment building as such, but wishes to build two basement apartments below a single family residence which will be moved or which has been moved onto the vacant lot in question. Mr. Houk of the Engineer- ing Department stated that a portion of N. 3rd Street is slated for widening some time in the future. Racanello asked for a report on this from the Traffic Engineer in time for the Public Hearing Meeting. VARIANCE APPLICATION (b) PACIFIC COAST R.R. CO., APPL. NO. V-409-67, APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM SIDEWALK AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE CEARLINGTON INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 1); PROPERTY LOCATED VICINITY OF SW CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF S. 7TH ST. AND 877TH AVE. S. The Chairman described the variance application and stated this concerned the preliminary plat of Earlington Industrial Park No. 1 approved at the. last Public Hearing Meeting. The Chairman asked why the Board of Adjustment was not hearing this particular variance application. The Planning Director stated that two items are covered in the application--sidewalks and setback requirements; that sidewalks come under the jurisdiction of the Subdivision Ordinance and should be heard by the Planning Com- mission; that setback requirements come under the Zoning Ordinance and should be heard by the Board of Adjustment. He-.stated further that the City Attorney agreed that the Planning Commission's hear- ing of both these items contained in one variance application was unusual, but he felt that the Planning Commission had initial jurisdiction, Stredicke stated that the railroad companies sat in on the hearings conducted when the ordinance was passed and met with the Commission during the drafting of the M-P zoning; that they are aware of all the requirements and could have made objections to them at the time the ordinance was drafted. REZONE APPLICATIONS (c) DONCKERS, EMMETT Je, APPL. NO. R-402-67, REZONE FROM GS-1 TO R-2; PROPERTY LOCATED ON NE CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF S. LITH ST. AND MORRIS AVE. 5S. Renton Planning Commission Meeting June 14, 1967 Minutes Page 3 The Chairman described the rezone application. The Planning Director pointed out the location of the property on the zoning map and stated the existing Comprehensive Plan indicates multi-family residential but the Comprehensive Plan under study for revision cuts back this area to single family residential use. (d) NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY CO., APPL. G TO H-1; PROPERTY LOCATED ON 72ND AVE. FORMERLY SANITARY LAND FILL SITE, TREATMENT PLANT. NO. R-403-67, REZONE FROM S. COR MONSTER ROAD), LOCATED SOUTHEASTERLY QF METRO The Chairman described the application and stated the area would be reviewed on the next field trip. (e) BUTKO, GEORGE C., APPL. NO. R-404-67, REZONE FROM R-1 TO R-2; PROPERTY LOCATED SE CORNER OF EARLINGTON ST. AND 4TH AVE. W. The Chairman described the application and indicated the applicant had previously petitioned the Commission for R-3 zoning which had been denied. (f) ROCCHIO CROCKEY), LOUISE, APPL. NO. R-405-67, REZONE FROM R-~2 TO B-1; PROPERTY LOCATED VICINITY OF NE CORNER OF S. 2ND ST. AND LOGAN AVE. S. The Chairman described the rezone application and stated that this is the third lot to be purchased by Washington Mutual Bank as a part of the.site.of their new structure. (g) TO R-3; SUNSET BLVD. MATHIESON, FLORENCE B., APPL. NO. R-406-67, REZONE FROM R-1 PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF THE NE CORNER OF N. AND 116TH AVE. S.E. The Chairman described the rezone application. The Planning Director stated that the property in question is adjacent the convalescent home in the Highlands area and pointed out the loca- tion of the property on the zoning map. Mr. Brower stated he felt the Commission should get a statement from the Engineering Depart- ment regarding Sunset Blvd. inasmuch as this street is the only access to the property and is heavily traveled now. (h) DELLOSO, DOMINICK, APPL. NO. R-407-67, REZONE FROM R-1 TO R-4; PROPERTY LOCATED ON 5TH AVE. W. BETWEEN EARLINGTON ST. AND THOMAS ST. The Chairman described the rezone Director pointed out the location the zoning map. Stredicke stated that the original Butko appli- cation for R-3 was denied because it did not conform to the Com- prehensive Plan and yet this property is less than a block away from the Butko property. The Planning Director stated that the applicant was advised that while the Comprehensive Plan indicates multi-family residential use, rezoning to R-4 at this time would probably be questionable; but the area might be feasible for low density multiple residence use (R-2, apartments by special permit). application. The Planning of the subject property on The Planning Director stated that for 1985 and because a particular hensive Plan does not necessarily We are trying to project land use range plan the Commission has the of timing. the Comprehensive Plan is a plan use is indicated on the Compre- mean that use is feasible now. into the future, and on a long right to interpret the question NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION AT ITS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 19.67 _, AT 8:00 P.M. TO CONSIDER XX X2EXXOIXDONK ORK THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: . GEWRRNGODESORDEX DONS WEGRROD EO ORDER NON: X Vonckers 3% 1. REZONE FROM GS-1 TO R-2, property located on NE corner of intersection of S. llth St. and Morris Ave. S. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 14, 15, 16, Block 3, Renton View Addition, King County, Washington. 2. REZONE FROM G TO H-1, property located on 72nd Ave. S. (or Monster Road), formerly sanitary land fill site, located southeasterly of Metro Treatment Plant. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That portion of Govern- ment Lots 5 and 6 of Sec. 24, Twp 23N, Range 4E, W.M., lying between the centerline of the old channel of the Green (formerly White) River and the Main Line right of way of Northern Pacific Railway Company; together with a private access road along the northeasterly 16' of said right of way extending about 180' northwesterly from the exist- ing "Monster Road" grade crossing of said right of way in Government Lot 8 of said section, township and range. 3. REZONE FROM R-1 TO R-2, property located S.E. corner of Earlington St. and 4th Ave. W. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Northeasterly 81' of Lots 11 through 14, Block 7, Earlington Addition, King County, Washington. 4. REZONE FROM R-2 TO B-1, property located ficinity of NE corner of S. 2nd St. and Logan Ave. S. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3, Block 4, Motor Line Addition to Renton, records of King County, Washangton. 5. REZONE FROM R-1 TO R-3, property located in the vicinity of the NE corner of Sunset Blvd. N. and 116th Ave. S.E. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: W 1/2 of SW 1/4 of NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 lying northeasterly of Sunset Highway less portion northerly of line running south 60°35'05" W from point 121.20' south of NE corner thereof, Sec. 9, Twp 23, Range 5E, W.M., records of King County, Washington. 6. REZONE FROM R-1 TO R-4, property located on 5th Ave. W. between Earlington St. and Thomas St. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 20; northerly 146' of Lot 21 and westerly 1/2 of Lot 22; northerly 136' of easterly 1/2 Lot 22 and Lot 23; including southerly 118' of Lots 4 and 5, less south 20' of Lots 4 and 5 for street. All in Block 6, Plat of Earlington, King County, Washington. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT, request to build apartment in R-2 zone, property located at 813 N. 3rd St. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 11, Replat of Block 22, Renton Farm Plat No. 5, according to plat recorded in Vol. 18 of Plats, Page 75, in King County, Washington. ANY AND ALL PERSONS INTERESTED OR OBJECTING TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON JUNE 28 7 1967 , AT 8:00 P.M. TO VOICE THEIR PROTEST OR OBJECt TION TO SAME. JAMES E. DENZER,SECRETARY PUBLISHED June 15, 1967 RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATION I, ; Hereby certify that three (3) copies of the above document were posted by me in three i Ee places on the prop- erty described above as prescribed by law. Fo a ATTEST: Subscribed and Sworn to sven 200 hee before me, a notary public, on the Pd 16th day of June, 1967. fe // ee ee eee _£