HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA81-086BEGINNING
OF FILE
FILE TITLE
rr ILIVIED
08 - I
1.,rfe„ `r •
a
k t1'
1k
Om fps
ow eft,vr
Applicant ROBEF:1 SCHUMACHER
File No. R-086-81
Project Name
Property Location Vicinity of 223 Garden North
HEARING EXAMINER: Date June 22, 1984
Recommendation
Req./Rec. Date Received Date Response
Appeal - Date Received
Council Approval - Date
Ordinance/Resolution ft Date
Mylar to County for Recording
Mylar Recording #
Remarks: No further action to be taken.
1
OF RA,11,
t Co BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTORZLo
09 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540
0,
9gT6.0 SEP.T .
BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH
MAYOR
MEMORANDUM
June 21, 1984
TO: Maxine Motor, City Clerk
FROM: /, Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator
SUBJECT: /Robert Schumacher Application, File R-086-81
The applicant, Robert Schumacher, has not followed through
with this application for a rezone. There has been no action
on the application since January 19, 1982. Therefore this
application file is being transmitted to your office for
placement with the permanent records.
RJB:JMS:dm
tki " 1:2- , ,
January 19, 1982
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND DECISION.
APPELLANT: Robert Schumacher FILE NO. ECF-107-81
R-086-81 )
LOCATION: Vicinity of 223 Garden Avenue North.
SUMMARY OF APPEAL: An appeal by Robert Schumacher of a Final Declaration of
Significance issued by the Environmental Review Committee
ERC) for property proposed for rezone from R-2 to R-3.
SUMMARY OF DEICION: The determination of the Environmental Review Committee is affirmed.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the letter of appeal , 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 January 12, 1982 at 9:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the
Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The public hearing process for appeals of environmental determinations made by the
Environmental Review Committee was explained by the Examiner, and he noted that the
issue is not whether a rezone should or should not be granted but rather whether the
city has carried out its responsibility under the State Environmental Policy Act in
determining whether the proposal will have more than a moderate effect on the
environment, and if so, whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared
for the project. Testimony by ,the appellant 's representative was then requested.
Responding was:
Steve Swank
P.O. Box 66772
Seattle, WA 98166
Mr. Swank submitted a letter from the appellant, Mr. Schumacher, who was unable to
attend the public hearing, which stated his objections to required preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement. The letter and additional information was entered
into the record as follows by the Examiner:
Exhibit #1 : Appeal File containing pertinent documents
CITY OF RENTON including letter to Hearing Examiner from
Warren F. Vaupel , January 11 , 1982,
J A N 1 9 1982 indicating concern about property zoning
POCKYin light of reversionary zoning action of
DVALOPMENTMIT the city
Exhibit #2: Letter to Hearing Examiner from L. Robert
Schumacher, dated January 5, 1982
Referencing the concern of the Environmental Review Committee regarding adequacy of
sewer and storm drainage utilities, Mr. Swank advised that a representative of the
Public Works Department had informed him that an eight inch sewer line exists adjacent
to the subject site according to a commissioned study in 1968. The storm drainage
facilities are available but must be extended to the south into the N. 3rd Street system
on the northern side of the road, and Mr. Swank stated the applicant's intent to meet
design standards required by the city. Referencing the concern regarding land use in
the area, it was noted that the property designation on the Comprehensive Plan is R-3
Medium Density Multifamily) and similar rezones from R-2 to a higher density have been
granted by the city in the past. Cited were Ordinance No. 3228 on Factory Avenue N. ,
and Ordinances No. 3551 and 3370 on Pelly Avenue N. Mr. Swank observed that the city's
past rezone practices in the area should support approval of the requested rezone to
R-3 of the subject property.
Potential noise from increased development was raised by Mr. Swank, who stated the
applicant's willingness to restrict construction activity to daytime hours between
10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to prevent disturbance to neighbors. He described the
current state of disrepair of the existing residence on site and expressed his belief
that construction of a new nine-unit apartment structure with appropriate landscaping
would enhance and upgrade the site and create no additional environmental impact to the
surrounding area. Recreational facilities would be supplied by Liberty Park, located
ECF-107-81 Page Two
approximately three to five minutes from the subject property. Mr. Swank concluded his
comments by stating the applicant 's willingness to discuss the possibility of execution
of restrictive covenants with the city and adjacent neighbors to assure appropriate
design of the building or reduce the number of proposed units. He objected on the basis
of cost to preparation of an EIS for a site containing only one-third of an acre, and
suggested that a partial instead of a full EIS may provide sufficient information.
The Examiner requested testimony in support of the appeal . There was no response. He
then invited testimony by a member of the ERC, David Clemens, Policy Development Director.
Mr. Clemens designated the location of the subject site north of Bronson Way on Garden
Avenue N. between N. 2nd and N. 3rd Street in an area currently zoned R-2. Although
research has not yet confirmed the legal zoning categories, in reference to the letter
from Mr. Vaupel , available records suggest that rezones referred to by the applicant 's
representative were from the R-2 district to some higher zone. Mr. Clemens described
adjoining uses of single family to the north and south, a duplex on the east side of
Garden with remaining lots single family, a duplex at the corner of 2nd and Garden,
multifamily dwellings at the southwest corner of 3rd and Garden but the remainder of the
block, particularly lots adjoining, are single family residentially developed. The
submitted site plan, he advised, indicates a structure which would be located very close
to the south property line meeting minimum setback standards for the R-3 zone, and would
contain two stories over parking or a three story structure. Mr. Clemens discussed
concerns of the Environmental Review Committee regarding the design configuration of the
building, inadequate capacity of storm drainage and sewer utilities, noise impact from
construction phases as well as normal living activities, overcrowding of the neighborhood,
and increased traffic from the proposal . He also noted that the current density of
housing on the block will increase by nearly one-third upon construction of the development,
and approval of the rezone would set a precedent for future actions in the area. Also
discussed were the intrusion of the proposal in the middle of a single family residentially
developed neighborhood, visual impacts, and shading of the properties to the north of the
structure. Recreational aspects are also a concern of the ERC due to spillover effects
from the proposal onto neighboring lots. Mr. Clemens concluded by stating that the ERC
had taken into consideration other rezones in the area, but the ordinances cited by the
appellant 's representative were not current .
He then invited testimony by a second member of the ERC, Richard Houghton, Public Works
Director. Mr. Houghton stated that while there is no question that staff in the Public
Works Department had provided information to the applicant regarding the location and
possible extension of utility lines in the area, the concern of the ERC is whether lines
are adequately sized to accommodate additional effluence introduced by the proposal .
Downstream capacity of storm drains is unknown and water mains in the vicinity would not
provide necessary fire flow for a three-story, nine-unit apartment building. In the
past, a blanket rezone had been granted for the area north of the Cedar River to N. 6th
Street and from Logan Avenue easterly to I-405 without appropriate consideration given
to the capacity of utilities in the area. The residential ne i ghbPS1'hlo6d'was Q4el1 oped in
the 1900's, and sanitary sewers introduced in the 1920's were sized to handl.e ,existing
single family residential use. Since that time, an increasing volume of indiltrialization
has occurred in the area as well as a recent change to multifamily development which tax
existing systems. Mr. Houghton supported preparation of an EIS to 'd'dteYMftre' tha.downstream
capacity of the utilities and the precise impacts of the proposal upon the existing
neighborhood.
Responding to earlier comments provided by Mr. Clemens regarding the dates of previous
rezones in the area, Mr. Swank clarified that Ordinance No. 3551 , Woodcock rezone which
granted approval of R-2 to R-3 zoning on Pelly Avenue N. , was approved on June 12, 1981 .
The Examiner requested further testimony in opposition to the appeal . Responding was:
Dixon Long
131 Garden Avenue N.
Renton, WA 98055
Mr. Long expressed objection to approval of a three-story building in the center of a
single family residential block. He recalled that the Planning Commission had studied
the north Renton area in the past one and one-half years with the intent to stabilize
the area into single family use as much as possible with the aid of federal block grant
funds. He noted that many older homes have been upgraded with the aid of the funding,
and the community supports continuation of the program. Also discussed was the projection
in the mid-1950's that the area would undergo a transition to light industrial or business
use, and it was noted that such a transition has not occurred. Mr. Long indicated concern
with capacity of utilities, particularly water pressure, since it appears serious doubt
exists regarding whether lines can accommodate increased development.
ECF-107-81 Page Three
Responding was:
Ralph Robertson
235 Garden Avenue N.
Renton, WA 98055
Mr. Robertson inquired regarding proposed egress from the site. Mr. Clemens explained
that the submitted design indicates driveway access onto Garden Avenue N. Mr. Robertson
stated his opinion that congestion would result on that street if the development is
approved as submitted.
Responding was:
Ted Gatz
210 Garden Avenue N.
Renton, WA 98055
Mr. Gatz, adjacent resident to the site as well as owner of a business located at 200
Park Avenue N. , advised similar concerns regarding on-street parking, overcrowding from
multifamily dwellings, and utilities, particularly water pressure. He related
experiencing pressure problems in the past, expressed concern regarding fire flow, and
inquired regarding location of fire hydrants.
Responding was:
Howard Keene
227 Garden Avenue N.
Renton, WA 98055
Mr. Keene, resident located directly north of the proposed rezone, discussed the shading
effect of a three-story complex, noting that the existing single family home on the site
currently shades his property two to three months each year throughout the winter. If the
height of the building is doubled, shading will occur on his property five to six months
out of the year which he felt was totally unacceptable. Other factors which were
discussed were increased noise, traffic, loss of privacy, air pollution, and possible
irresponsible tenants. Mr. Keene indicated that the current value of his home would be
reduced by half if the proposal were allowed, and he supported reconstruction of another
single family residence on the site in lieu of the proposed multifamily complex.
Responding to Mr. Long' s comments, Mr. Clemens confirmed that the Central Area Committee
of the Planning Commission is continuing to review the north and south Renton areas and
the remainder of the central area to ensure stabilization of existing single family
residential development.
Mr. Robertson testified that the area behind the subject property currently being utilized
as an alley is a five foot walkway according to City of Renton records, and the plat maps
show the deep lots at 280 feet in depth when they are actually 275 feet deep.
The Examiner requested final comments. Since there were none, the hearing was closed at
9:57 a.m.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner
now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1 . The appellant, Robert Schumacher, applied to reclassify approximately one-third acre
of property from its current R-2 (Duplex Residential ) classification to R-3 (Medium
Density Multifamily Residential ) . The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) , after
its required environmental analysis determined that the proposal would have an adverse
impact on the quality of the environment and issued a positive Declaration of
Signifiance (DS) . The positive declaration requires the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) .
Pursuant to Section 4-3011 (B) , the appellant filed this appeal and a public hearing
was held on January 12, 1982.
2. The subject property is located in the vicinity of 223 Garden Avenue N. , just north
of the central business district of downtown Renton. The property is located on the
west side of the street and is one of a series of lots in this area which are about
280 feet deep. An alley runs to the rear of the subject property.
3. The appellant proposed constructing a nine-unit apartment on the subject site after
removal of the existing single family home from the site.
4. The sewer and water lines in the area are described as antiquated, and the ability
and capacity of these lines to carry additional loads is unknown. The lines were
ECF-107-81 Page Four
placed in the area prior to the large industrial expansion north of the subject area
and were originally sized to provide service to the existing single family neighborhood.
The lines were placed about 1920.
5. The water lines will not be sufficient to provide adequate fire flow for the proposed
nine unit apartment.
6. Storm water lines will have to be extended in some manner to reach the subject site.
The capacity of these lines is also unknown.
7. The subject site is located in an area almost exclusively developed and utilized
for single family dwellings. There are two or three legal duplex units established
in single family homes on the block front in which the subject site is located.
Single family homes are immediately adjacent to the subject site. Single family
homes face the subject site across Garden Avenue N.
8. The subject site is in a multiblock R-2 zone with no other zoning types immediately
adjacent to the subject site.
9. The most recent reclassification occurred three blocks away and was limited to
expansion of a parking lot to serve the adjoining medical clinic (Woodcock rezone,
File No. R-015-81 , Ordinance No. 3551 ) .
10. The nine-unit structure would increase the population in the block by a factor of
about 33%. The number of daily vehicle trips would increase about fourfold, to about
55, the trips per day. On street parking in the vicinity is limited.
11 . The proposal would not contain on-site recreational area and would provide minimal
open space. The feasibility of the proposed building and site plans is in doubt for
the lot size and configuration.
12. The proposed building would be three stories and contain parking on the first level .
The height of the building would cut off sun and light to the immediately adjoining
single family home during approximately six months of the year. The additional
effect of noise, light, glare and odors is unknown.
CONCLUSIONS:
1 . The determination of the ERC, the city's responsible official , is entitled to
substantial weight pursuant to RCW 43.21C.090 (State Environmental Policy Act , SEPA) ,
and, therefore, the appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the determination
of the ERC was erroneous.
Further, the burden has been defined as whether the decision of the acting agency
was "arbitrary and capricious" in light of the record. (Short v. Clallam County,
22 Wn.App. 825, 828, 1979) If there is no support for a decision in the record and
it is therefore a willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and
circumstances, a decision is considered "arbitrary and capricious." (Stempel v.
Dept. of Water Resources, 82 Wn.2d 109, 114, 1973) .
2. The issuance of a Declaration of Significance (DS) by the ERC resulting in the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement would fully disclose the environmental
impacts of a proposal . The policies of SEPA are more clearly safeguarded when an
agency action results in full disclosure, and therefore the agency action will not
be easily overturned. (Norway Hill v. King County Council , 87 Wn.2d 267, 1976)
3. The proposal comes within the definition of a major action, and there was no
contention that it was other than a major action which was subject to ERC review.
Therefore, the ERC had to determine whether the proposal would or would not have
a significant adverse effect on the quality of the environment.
If more than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment would be a
reasonable probability then a major action is said to have a significant adverse
impact on the quality of the environment. (Norway, at 278) "The nature of the
existing environment is an important factor. The same project may have a significant
adverse impact on one location, but not in another location." (WAC 197-10-360(2))
It should also be remembered that proposals designed to improve the environment may
also have adverse environmental impacts. The question at the threshold determination
is not whether the beneficial aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse impacts, but
rather, if the proposal involves any significant adverse impacts upon the quality of
the environment. If it does, an EIS is required." (WAC 197-10-360(3) )
4. Subject to the criteria enumerated above as defined by the Washington courts and
additional criteria found in the state guidelines (WAC 197-10) , the decision of the
ECF-107-81 Page six
TRANSMITTED THIS 19th day of January, 1982 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties
of record:
Steve Swank, P.O. Box 66772, Seattle, WA 98166
Robert Schumacher, 11423 20th S. , Seattle, WA 98168
Dixon Long, 131 Garden Ave. N. , Renton, WA 98055
Ralph Robertson, 235 Garden Ave. N. , Renton, WA 98055
Ted Gatz, 210 Garden Ave. N. , Renton, WA 98055
Howard Keene, 227 Garden Ave. N. , Renton, WA 98055
Warren F. Vaupel , 400 Cedar Ave. S. , Renton, WA 98055
TRANSMITTED THIS 19th day of January, 1982 to the following:
Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch
Councilman Richard M. Stredicke
Richard Houghton, Public Works Director
Dave Clemens, Policy Development Director
Members, Planning Commission
Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator
Ron Nelson, Building Official
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 February 2, 1982. Any aggrieved person feeling that the
decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact , error
in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at
the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen
14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the
specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the
record, take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal is governed by Title IV, Section 3011 , which requires that such appeal be filed
with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within 20 days from the date of the
Examiner's decision.
ECF-107-81 Page Five
ERC in the matter must be affirmed.
The open issues of sewer and water capacity are such to require full analysis of the
impacts of the project on these vital public services. The fire flow was described
as insufficient and the capacity of both the sanitary and storm systems is unknown
except that they were originally sized for single family housing back about 60 years
ago.
5. In addition, conversion of the subject site to multifamily housing in the midst
of an area generally dedicated to single family uses would probably greatly modify
the character of the area. The duplexes in the area, if they can be called that, are
single family conversions of the "mother-in-law" type, that is, minor modifications
of scale to existing single family homes; they are not nine-unit structures which are
apartment buildings in appearance and function.
6. The impacts of shading on adjacent properties and the impacts of greater population
density, an increase of about one-third, as well as impacts relating to traffic and
noise, are not disclosed at this time. The inclusion of fireplaces would have a
potential impact on air quality in an area of industrial concentration.
7. The environmental impacts of a proposal are further defined to include indirect
impacts on an area. These would be the potential precedent value of reclassifying
a parcel and the potential of causing further such requests in an area. The SEPA
guidelines specifically cite the example of rezones for such precedent value.
The impacts of a proposal include its direct impacts as well as its reasonably
anticipated indirect impacts. Indirect impacts are those which result from any
activity which is induced by a proposal . These include, but are not limited to,
impacts resulting from growth induced by the proposal , or the likelihood that the
present action will serve as a precedent for future actions. (For example,
adoption of a zoning ordinance will encourage or tend to cause particular types
of projects.)" (WAC 197-10-060(3)) (Emphasis supplied)
8. WAC 197-10-060 makes it clear that the "total proposal including its direct and
indirect impacts" should be reviewed when making an environmental determination.
The total proposal is the proposed action, together with all proposed activity
functionally related to it. Future activities are functionally related to the
present proposal if. . . (b) The present proposal facilitates or is a necessary
prerequisite to future activities." (WAC 197-10-060(2) (b) )
Therefore, not only the impacts of the rezone request but the impacts of the
proposed apartment complex must be analyzed.
9. The ERC's determination that a full EIS is required is reasonable in light of the
record. Requiring an EIS is more consistent with the policies of SEPA. The provision
of an EIS will enable the decision maker to fully evaluate the project. The policy
enunciated in "Norway Hill" was that public agencies should foster the environmental
full disclosure goals of SEPA. "An affirmative threshold determination should be
overturned only if found to be arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law."
Short at 830) Whether or not a proposal should or should not be approved should
be based on firm environmental evidence before the decision is made. (Norway at
279) The decision of the ERC should be affirmed.
The action of the ERC is not willful and unreasoning action, in disregard of the
facts and circumstances. Only the preparation of an EIS would allow a reasoned
decision to be made on whether or not the proposal should be permitted and under
what circumstances. Therefore, the decision of the ERC is affirmed.
DECISION:
The determination of the Environmental Review Committee is affirmed.
ORDERED THIS 19th day of January, 1982.
lam'
Fred J. Kauf
Land Use Hearing Examiner
1`2
k 5
t«
r " 0 THE CITY OF RENTON
a.•,;: •.;,:r;;.... MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
90 O FRED J. KAUFMAN, 235-2593
0,
9ltEQ SEP1°'
February 5, 1982 j Ca)ti
Mr. Stephen F. Swank
PPrOPerty &
Box 66772d Planning Services BVrLOfA1!`'/zUNI G DEP7
Seattle, WA 98166
RE: File No. ECF-107-81 ; Robert Schumacher Appeal of
Environmental Determination; Request for Reconsideration.
Dear Mr. Swank:
I have reviewed your request for reconsideration in the above entitled
matter and find no reason to modify the original determination.
The decision of the ERC was entitled to be given substantial weight ,
and based upon that standard, their determination was upheld.
1 ) The capacity of the utilities to serve the proposed development is
not the sole determinant of the issue.
2) The designation of the map portion of the city's Comprehensive
Plan cannot be used alone without reference to the other stated
goals, policies and objectives of that plan.
3) If the structure were to be redesigned, the ERC could review the
plans and arrive at a new determination, but that was not the
object of the present hearing. Further, it is the potential
development which could occur under the requested zoning and not
only the proposed apartment which prompted the ERC ' s decision.
4) , 5) and 6) It was not necessarily any particular factor alone which
resulted in the ERC's determination, but a combination of factors
which indicate that the proposal will have more than a moderate
effect on the quality of the environment , and therefore the decision
of the ERC is once again affirmed.
Your right to appeal to Superior Court may be exercised not later than
20 days from the date of this decision. If this office can provide
further information, please do not hesitate to call .
Very truly yours,
Fred J. I< ufman
Hearing Examiner
cc: Parties of Record
February 2 , 1982 RECEIVED
Frea J. Kaufman
CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
Land Use Hearing Examiner
200 Mill Avenue South FEB 2 1982
Renton Wash. 98055 AM PM
71819ri MMht12t i t21:3i41516
Dear Mr. Kaufman:
r
As the agent for Robert Schumacher on the proposed rezone
at the vicinity of 223 Garden Avenue North I would like to
appeal the decision that was rendered by yourself on
January 12 , 1982 for the following reasons.
1 ) At the hearing it was pointed out by members of
thLi community and Mr. Richard Houghton, the Director of
tha Public Works Department that they were concerned with
the capicities of the utilities and particulary the water
pressure for the neighborhood. As I stated at the hearing
on January 12 , 1982 Mr. Schumacher would entertain the
possibility of having a study completed to determine to what
extent improvements need to be done and the costs involved.
WE both feel that the costs would be well below that of an
Environmental Impact Statement and would be more feasible
than a total E.I.S. for a subject site that is approximately
one-third of an acre.
2 ) The Comprehensive Plan shows clearly that the R-3
designation has been given to three particular streets
including Garden, Factory, and Meadow and that the Mari-Paul
Apartments now existing on Garden Avenue North would seem to
set precedence for allowing the property owned by Robert
Schumacher to be zoned R-3 along with past rezones in the area.
3 ) In designing the proposed 9 unit apartment building
great concern was given to the neighborhood residents. The
3 story building was decided on so not to burden the residents
on either side of the proposed complex to have to view
parked cars. The building could be re-designed to allow for
less units and no underground parking stalls and therefore
would reduce the problem of shading existing on neighboring
yards. Landscaping would also act as an effective buffer
between neighboring residents.
4) Parking as pointed out by one of the community
residents would be no problem as off street parking will be
provided by the apartment. Some residents may not have cars
because of the close proximity to bus service and the short
distance to downtown Renton to -meet their shopping needs and
this would also lessen the traffic impact that some of the
residents fear.
5) The apartment it is our contention that tennants
in the apartment would be either young professional workers
who chose to live there because of the close proximity to
dow:itown Renton, or surrounding employers such as Boeing or
Pacific Car and Foundry. The tennants may be also elderly
citizens or those who prefer not to drive because of the
closeness of the Central Business District. The apartment
complex will not have the amenities that young people look
for such as swimming pools , saunas, and party rooms .
Therefore noise will not be a major problem after the
apartment is completed.
6) Recreational needs for the tennants can be taken
ca:,e of a Liberty Park which is located nearby. A small
open space area at the apartments is also feasible for the
residents to enjoy.
These are the reasons why Mr. Schumacher and myself feel
that the project should be allowed to proceed. A study
of the sewer and water lines would be the appropriate
first step to determine if the increased demand on both
utilities could serve a complex and if not 9 units then
exactly how many units could be served and supported by the
system currently or what needs to be done to increase the
service of water and sewer to the area.
We therefore ask Mr. Kaufman that you please reconsider
your decision that was reached on January 12 , 1982 .
Fespectfully yours ,
Stephen Swank
OF R4,4
BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
Z RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR
09 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 58055 • 235-2540
es4,
TfD SEP1
BARBARA Y. EHINPOCH
MAYOF
DEcember 30, 1981
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
FROM: Roger Blaylock
Zoning Administrator
11E: SCHUMACHER, ROBERT REZONE
Xs requested, attached hereto is background information concerning
the subject rezone.
The photographs are the only copies that were provided, and it will
be necessary that they be returned.
Thank you.
wr
Attachments
January 19, 1982 ."*" _
RENTON BUILDING DEPARTMENT 7r`BUILDING
OUTH
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND DECISION .
APPELLANT: Robert Schumacher FILE NO. ECF-107-81
R-086-81 )
LOCATION: Vicinity of 223 Garden Avenue North.
SUMMARY OF APPEAL: An appeal by Robert Schumacher of a Final Declaration of
Significance issued by the Environmental Review Committee
ERC) for property proposed for rezone from R-2 to R-3.
SUMMARY OF DEICION: The determination of the Environmental Review Committee is affirmed.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the letter of appeal , 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 January 12, 1982 at 9:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the
Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The public hearing process for appeals of environmental determinations made by the
Environmental Review Committee was explained by the Examiner, and he noted that the
issue is not whether a rezone should or should not be granted but rather whether the
city has carried out its responsibility under the State Environmental Policy Act in
determining whether the proposal will have more than a moderate effect on the
environment, and if so, whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared
for the project. Testimony by ,the appellant 's representative was then requested.
Responding was:
Steve Swank
P.O. Box 66772
Seattle, WA 98166
Mr. Swank submitted a letter from the appellant, Mr. Schumacher, who was unable to
attend the public hearing, which stated his objections to required preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement. The letter and additional information was entered
into the record as follows by the Examiner:
Exhibit #1 : Appeal File containing pertinent documents
including letter to Hearing Examiner from
Warren F. Vaupel , January 11 , 1982,
indicating concern about property zoning
in light of reversionary zoning action of
the city
Exhibit #2: Letter to Hearing Examiner from L. Robert
Schumacher, dated January 5, 1982
Referencing the concern of the Environmental Review Committee regarding adequacy of
sewer and storm drainage utilities, Mr. Swank advised that a representative of the
Public Works Department had informed him that an eight inch sewer line exists adjacent
to the subject site according to a commissioned study in 1968. The storm drainage
facilities are available but must be extended to the south into the N. 3rd Street system
on the northern side of the road, and Mr. Swank stated the applicant's intent to meet
design standards required by the city. Referencing the concern regarding land use in
the area, it was noted that the property designation on the Comprehensive Plan is R-3
Medium Density Multifamily) and similar rezones from R-2 to a higher density have been
granted by the city in the past. Cited were Ordinance No. 3228 on Factory Avenue N. ,
and Ordinances No. 3551 and 3370 on Pelly Avenue N. Mr. Swank observed that the city's
past rezone practices in the area should support approval of the requested rezone to
R-3 of the subject property.
Potential noise from increased development was raised by Mr. Swank, who stated the
applicant's willingness to restrict construction activity to daytime hours between
10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to prevent disturbance to neighbors. He described the
current state of disrepair of the existing residence on site and expressed his belief
that construction of a new nine-unit apartment structure with appropriate landscaping
would enhance and upgrade the site and create no additional environmental impact to the
surrounding area. Recreational facilities would be supplied by Liberty Park, located
ECF-107-81 Page Two
approximately three to five minutes from the subject property. Mr. Swank concluded his
comments by stating the applicant 's willingness to discuss the possibility of execution
of restrictive covenants with the city and adjacent neighbors to assure appropriate
design of the building or reduce the number of proposed units. He objected on the basis
of cost to preparation of an EIS for a site containing only one-third of an acre, and
suggested that a partial instead of a full EIS may provide sufficient information.
The Examiner requested testimony in support of the appeal . There was no response. He
then invited testimony by a member of the ERC, David Clemens, Policy Development Director.
Mr. Clemens designated the location of the subject site north of Bronson Way on Garden
Avenue N. between N. 2nd and N. 3rd Street in an area currently zoned R-2. Although
research has not yet confirmed the legal zoning categories, in reference to the letter
from Mr. Vaupel , available records suggest that rezones referred to by the applicant 's
representative were from the R-2 district to some higher zone. Mr. Clemens described
adjoining uses of single family to the north and south, a duplex on the east side of
Garden with remaining lots single family, a duplex at the corner of 2nd and Garden,
multifamily dwellings at the southwest corner of 3rd and Garden but the remainder of the
block, particularly lots adjoining, are single family residentially developed. The
submitted site plan, he advised, indicates a structure which would be located very close
to the south property line meeting minimum setback standards for the R-3 zone, and would
contain two stories over parking or a three story structure. Mr. Clemens discussed
concerns of the Environmental Review Committee regarding the design configuration of the
building, inadequate capacity of storm drainage and sewer utilities, noise impact from
construction phases as well as normal living activities, overcrowding of the neighborhood,
and increased traffic from the proposal . He also noted that the current density of
housing on the block will increase by nearly one-third upon construction of the development,
and approval of the rezone would set a precedent for future actions in the area. Also
discussed were the intrusion of the proposal in the middle of a single family residentially
developed neighborhood, visual impacts, and shading of the properties to the north of the
structure. Recreational aspects are also a concern of the ERC due to spillover effects
from the proposal onto neighboring lots. Mr. Clemens concluded by stating that the ERC
had taken into consideration other rezones in the area, but the ordinances cited by the
appellant 's representative were not current .
He then invited testimony by a second member of the ERC, Richard Houghton, Public Works
Director. Mr. Houghton stated that while there is no question that staff in the Public
Works Department had provided information to the applicant regarding the location and
possible extension of utility lines in the area, the concern of the ERC is whether lines
are adequately sized to accommodate additional effluence introduced by the proposal .
Downstream capacity of storm drains is unknown and water mains in the vicinity would not
provide necessary fire flow for a three-story, nine-unit apartment building. In the
past, a blanket rezone had been granted for the area north of the Cedar River to N. 6th
Street and from Logan Avenue easterly to 1-405 without appropriate consideration given
to the capacity of utilities in the area. The residential neighborhood was developed in
the 1900's, and sanitary sewers introduced in the 1920's were sized to handle existing
single family residential use. Since that time, an increasing volume of industrialization
has occurred in the area as well as a recent change to multifamily development which tax
existing systems. Mr. Houghton supported preparation of an EIS to determine the downstream
capacity of the utilities and the precise impacts of the proposal upon the existing
neighborhood.
Responding to earlier comments provided by Mr. Clemens regarding the dates of previous
rezones in the area, Mr. Swank clarified that Ordinance No. 3551 , Woodcock rezone which
granted approval of R-2 to R-3 zoning on Pelly Avenue N. , was approved on June 12, 1981 .
The Examiner requested further testimony in opposition to the appeal . Responding was:
Dixon Long
131 Garden Avenue N.
Renton, WA 98055
Mr. Long expressed objection to approval of a three-story building in the center of a
single family residential block. He recalled that the Planning Commission had studied
the north Renton area in the past one and one-half years with the intent to stabilize
the area into single family use as much as possible with the aid of federal block grant
funds. He noted that many older homes have been upgraded with the aid of the funding,
and the community supports continuation of the program. Also discussed was the projection
in the mid-1950's that the area would undergo a transition to light industrial or business
use, and it was noted that such a transition has not occurred. Mr. Long indicated concern
with capacity of utilities, particularly water pressure, since it appears serious doubt
exists regarding whether lines can accommodate increased development.
ECF-107-81 Page Three
Responding was:
Ralph Robertson
235 Garden Avenue N.
Renton, WA 98055
Mr. Robertson inquired regarding proposed egress from the site. Mr. Clemens explained
that the submitted design indicates driveway access onto Garden Avenue N. Mr. Robertson
stated his opinion that congestion would result on that street if the development is
approved as submitted.
Responding was:
Ted Gatz
210 Garden Avenue N.
Renton, WA 98055
Mr. Gatz, adjacent resident to the site as well as owner of a business located at 200
Park Avenue N. , advised similar concerns regarding on-street parking, overcrowding from
multifamily dwellings, and utilities, particularly water pressure. He related
experiencing pressure problems in the past, expressed concern regarding fire flow, and
inquired regarding location of fire hydrants.
Responding was:
Howard Keene
227 Garden Avenue N.
Renton, WA 98055
Mr. Keene, resident located directly north of the proposed rezone, discussed the shading
effect of a three-story complex, noting that the existing single family home on the site
currently shades his property two to three months each year throughout the winter. If the
height of the building is doubled, shading will occur on his property five to six months
out of the year which he felt was totally unacceptable. Other factors which were
discussed were increased noise, traffic, loss of privacy, air pollution, and possible
irresponsible tenants. Mr. Keene indicated that the current value of his home would be
reduced by half if the proposal were allowed, and he supported reconstruction of another
single family residence on the site in lieu of the proposed multifamily complex.
Responding to Mr. Long's comments, Mr. Clemens confirmed that the Central Area Committee
of the Planning Commission is continuing to review the north and south Renton areas and
the remainder of the central area to ensure stabilization of existing single family
residential development.
Mr. Robertson testified that the area behind the subject property currently being utilized
as an alley is a five foot walkway according to City of Renton records, and the plat maps
show the deep lots at 280 feet in depth when they are actually 275 feet deep.
The Examiner requested final comments. Since there were none, the hearing was closed at
9:57 a.m.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner
now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1 . The appellant, Robert Schumacher, applied to reclassify approximately one-third acre
of property from its current R-2 (Duplex Residential ) classification to R-3 (Medium
Density Multifamily Residential ) . The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) , after
its required environmental analysis determined that the proposal would have an adverse
impact on the quality of the environment and issued a positive Declaration of
Signifiance (DS) . The positive declaration requires the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) .
Pursuant to Section 4-3011 (B) , the appellant filed this appeal and a public hearing
was held on January 12, 1982.
2. The subject property is located in the vicinity of 223 Garden Avenue N. , just north
of the central business district of downtown Renton. The property is located on the
west side of the street and is one of a series of lots in this area which are about
280 feet deep. An alley runs to the rear of the subject property.
3. The appellant proposed constructing a nine-unit apartment on the subject site after
removal of the existing single family home from the site.
4. The sewer and water lines in the area are described as antiquated, and the ability
and capacity of these lines to carry additional loads is unknown. The lines were
ECF-107-81 Page Four
placed in the area prior to the large industrial expansion north of the subject area
and were originally sized to provide service to the existing single family neighborhood.
The lines were placed about 1920.
5. The water lines will not be sufficient to provide adequate fire flow for the proposed
nine unit apartment.
6. Storm water lines will have to be extended in some manner to reach the subject site.
The capacity of these lines is also unknown.
7. The subject site is located in an area almost exclusively developed and utilized
for single family dwellings. There are two or three legal duplex units established
in single family homes on the block front in which the subject site is located.
Single family homes are immediately adjacent to the subject site. Single family
homes face the subject site across Garden Avenue N.
8. The subject site is in a multiblock R-2 zone with no other zoning types immediately
adjacent to the subject site.
9. The most recent reclassification occurred three blocks away and was limited to
expansion of a parking lot to serve the adjoining medical clinic (Woodcock rezone,
File No. R-015-81 , Ordinance No. 3551 ) .
10. The nine-unit structure would increase the population in the block by a factor of
about 33%. The number of daily vehicle trips would increase about fourfold, to about
55, the trips per day. On street parking in the vicinity is limited.
11 . The proposal would not contain on-site recreational area and would provide minimal
open space. The feasibility of the proposed building and site plans is in doubt for
the lot size and configuration.
12. The proposed building would be three stories and contain parking on the first level .
The height of the building would cut off sun and light to the immediately adjoining
single family home during approximately six months of the year. The additional
effect of noise, light, glare and odors is unknown.
CONCLUSIONS:
1 . The determination of the ERC, the city's responsible official , is entitled to
substantial weight pursuant to RCW 43.21C.090 (State Environmental Policy Act , SEPA) ,
and, therefore, the appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the determination
of the ERC was erroneous.
Further, the burden has been defined as whether the decision of the acting agency
was "arbitrary and capricious" in light of the record. (Short v. Clallam County,
22 Wn.App. 825, 828, 1979) If there is no support for a decision in the record and
it is therefore a willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and
circumstances, a decision is considered "arbitrary and capricious." (Stempel v.
Dept. of Water Resources, 82 Wn.2d 109, 114, 1973) .
2. The issuance of a Declaration of Significance (DS) by the ERC resulting in the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement would fully disclose the environmental
impacts of a proposal . The policies of SEPA are more clearly safeguarded when an
agency action results in full disclosure, and therefore the agency action will not
be easily overturned. (Norway Hill v. King County Council , 87 Wn.2d 267, 1976)
3. The proposal comes within the definition of a major action, and there was no
contention that it was other than a major action which was subject to ERC review.
Therefore, the ERC had to determine whether the proposal would or would not have
a significant adverse effect on the quality of the environment.
If more than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment would be a
reasonable probability then a major action is said to have a significant adverse
impact on the quality of the environment. (Norway, at 278) "The nature of the
existing environment is an important factor. The same project may have a significant
adverse impact on one location, but not in another location." (WAC 197-10-360(2))
It should also be remembered that proposals designed to improve the environment may
also have adverse environmental impacts. The question at the threshold determination
is not whether the beneficial aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse impacts, but
rather, if the proposal involves any significant adverse impacts upon the quality of
the environment. If it does, an EIS is required." (WAC 197-10-360(3) )
4. Subject to the criteria enumerated above as defined by the Washington courts and
additional criteria found in the state guidelines (WAC 197-10) , the decision of the
ECF-107-81 Page Five
ERC in the matter must be affirmed.
The open issues of sewer and water capacity are such to require full analysis of the
impacts of the project on these vital public services. The fire flow was described
as insufficient and the capacity of both the sanitary and storm systems is unknown
except that they were originally sized for single family housing back about 60 years
ago.
5. In addition, conversion of the subject site to multifamily housing in the midst
of an area generally dedicated to single family uses would probably greatly modify
the character 'of the area. The duplexes in the area, if they can be called that, are
single family conversions of the "mother-in-law" type, that is, minor modifications
of scale to existing single family homes; they are not nine-unit structures which are
apartment buildings in appearance and function.
6. The impacts of shading on adjacent properties and the impacts of greater population
density, an increase of about one-third, as well as impacts relating to traffic and
noise, are not disclosed at this time. The inclusion of fireplaces would have a
potential impact on air quality in an area of industrial concentration.
7. The environmental impacts of a proposal are further defined to include indirect
impacts on an area. These would be the potential precedent value of reclassifying
a parcel and the potential of causing further such requests in an area. The SEPA
guidelines specifically cite the example of rezones for such precedent value.
The impacts of a proposal include its direct impacts as well as its reasonably
anticipated indirect impacts. Indirect impacts are those which result from any
activity which is induced by a proposal . These include, but are not limited to,
impacts resulting from growth induced by the proposal , or the likelihood that the
present action will serve as a precedent for future actions. (For example,
adoption of a zoning ordinance will encourage or tend to cause particular types
of projects.)" (WAC 197-10-060(3) ) (Emphasis supplied)
8. WAC 197-10-060 makes it clear that the "total proposal including its direct and
indirect impacts" should be reviewed when making an environmental determination.
The total proposal is the proposed action, together with all proposed activity
functionally related to it. Future activities are functionally related to the
present proposal if. . . (b) The present proposal facilitates or is a necessary
prerequisite to future activities." (WAC 197-10-060(2) (b) )
Therefore, not only the impacts of the rezone request but the impacts of the
proposed apartment complex must be analyzed.
9. The ERC's determination that a full EIS is required is reasonable in light of the
record. Requiring an EIS is more consistent with the policies of SEPA. The provision
of an EIS will enable the decision maker to fully evaluate the project. The policy
enunciated in "Norway Hill " was that public agencies should foster the environmental
full disclosure goals of SEPA. "An affirmative threshold determination should be
overturned only if found to be arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law."
Short at 830) Whether or not a proposal should or should not be approved should
be based on firm environmental evidence before the decision is made. (Norway at
279) The decision of the ERC should be affirmed.
The action of the ERC is not willful and unreasoning action, in disregard of the
facts and circumstances. Only the preparation of an EIS would allow a reasoned
decision to be made on whether or not the proposal should be permitted and under
what circumstances. Therefore, the decision of the ERC is affirmed.
DECISION:
The determination of the Environmental Review Committee is affirmed.
ORDERED THIS 19th day of January, 1982.
41•4--irin\/4:0-4siv""'
Fred J. Kauf
Land Use Hearing Examiner
ECF-107-81 Page six
TRANSMITTED THIS 19th day of January, 1982 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties
of record:
Steve Swank, P.O. Box 66772, Seattle, WA 98166
Robert Schumacher, 11423 20th S. , Seattle, WA 98168
Dixon Long, 131 Garden Ave. N. , Renton, WA 98055
Ralph Robertson, 235 Garden Ave. N. , Renton, WA 98055
Ted Gatz, 210 Garden Ave. N. , Renton, WA 98055
Howard Keene, 227 Garden Ave. N. , Renton, WA 98055
Warren F. Vaupel , 400 Cedar Ave. S. , Renton, WA 98055
TRANSMITTED THIS 19th day of January, 1982 to the following:
Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch
Councilman Richard M. Stredicke
Richard Houghton, Public Works Director
Dave Clemens, Policy Development Director
Members, Planning Commission
Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator
Ron Nelson, Building Official
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 February 2, 1982. Any aggrieved person feeling that the
decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact , error
in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at
the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen
14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the
specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the
record, take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal is governed by Title IV, Section 3011 , which requires that such appeal be filed
with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within 20 days from the date of the
Examiner's decision.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
JANUARY 6, 1982
AGENDA
COMM LACING AT 10:00 A.M.
THIRIi FLOOD CONFERENCE ROOM
APPELLS:
ECF-C91-81 CARNER, GARY L. AND TOM
R-081 -81 Appeal of final declaration of significance :
application for rezone from G to B-1 to allow
expansion of existing floor covering store
business; property located in the vicinity of
4508 N.E. 4th Street
ECF-107-81 SCHUMACHER, ROBERT
R-08E-81 Appeal of final declaration of significance:
application for rezone from R-2 to R-3 to
allow for future construction of a 9-unit
apartment building; property located in the
vicinity of 223 Garden Ave. South
OLD EUSINESS:
ECF-C13-81 HOMECRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. (THE TERRACE)SA-010-81 Response from Hearing Examiner regarding ERC
request for reconsideration of his decision
regarding application for site approval to
allow construction of 280 dwelling unit multiple
family complex; property located between N.E.
3rd Street and N.E. 4th Street and west of
Edmonds Ave. N.E.
ECF-101-81 KOERING, HOLVICK deREGT (WASHINGTON TECHNICALSA-094-81 CENTER)
Application for site approval to locate four
one-story buildings (12-15) to be used as a
business park or for light warehousing; property
located at the southwest corner of S.W. 7th St.
and Powell Ave. S.W.
ECF-132-81 KOERING, HOLVICK deREGT (WASHINGTON TECHNICAL
SA-095-81 CENTER)
Application for site approval to locate five
one-story buildings (1-5) to be used as a busi-
next park or for light warehousing; property
located at the northwest corner of Powell Ave.
S.W. and S.W. 7th Street
King 2ounty LIBERTY VIEW
265-81-R & 1081-24 Proposed reclassification and plat (King County)
Rezone from SR (7200) , SR (9600) , SR (15,000) to
RS 7200 and RS 9600; 97 lot single-family subdi-
vision with clustered lots & townhouses; property
located between Talbot Road South and 102nd Ave.
South (extended) south of approximately So. 168th
St. (extended) .
REVIEW OF TRAFFIC COUNTS AND STORM WATER INFORMATION
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
January 6, 1982
Page `:'wo
NEW BUSINESS:
ECF-099-81 CITY OF RENTON
SM-09E-81 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Application for substantial development permit
for construction or development of alterations
to paving and parking located at Cedar River Trail
adjacent to Riverside Drive near the mouth of
the Cedar River
ECF-100-81 UNGER, CHARLES R.
SM-O°7-81 Application for substantial development permit
for construction of mechanical boat lift which
sets on lake bottom adjacent to 75' dock at
single family residence; property located at
3717 Lake Washington Blvd. North
ECF-: 14-81 WILGEO COMPANY
B-26E Application for building permit to allow construc-
tion of one-story shopping center, two buildings,
VILLAGE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER; property located
at Bronson Way North
y e
r
rn ,% % 1
1 1
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE I ,
JANUARY 6, 1982
I
1 :1 ..__ L----
A1.1 - 1i
a-.1 \(__
e" 11
I 1 c Iii .....,_--„st„......____7
7-
r.••.
LAKE
11111',
Igor.i- \
4,,, WASHINGT0N UNGER 1fiyP117:6‘3:; ` -
3
IT 1_1fliralliripi's
CITY
w4 fe l `
ii . II
11 E 1
1 it r, I 1t ___
VIEW )11111 -cm - \ \
C_ /oxi,L r I, Nl,—..„1.;, -. l' GARNER
ri
1 -"11111.51=`
s II' SCHUMACHER HOMECRAF'r II!L
g irM•A I
Nir weir sr. ---_-.4...,
LILZ.' -
IIIel)
lit.o gnu Ard‘ i%,...,L____., ..:., .... ....
4,..„,,_,PAC' • r
m"1
f i,
1: Z I I;'n. c,,
1.
unwir 1' 1
NI=
IN ' ' .
ii&Iit
I
k MIILAWAYA silrot
UPI
LIBERTY VIEW
I
rib, , Le .,U 1
a,_ ,
cdf I V
I:
1 1 H i
1 i
I
LAKEir
NW4l :Yo S
i r II\
I . I s
1- ----4 w•JL i I rl,1
f
December 21 , 1981
Fred J. Kaufman
200 Mill Avenue South
Land Use Hearing Examiner
Renton, Wash. 98055
Dear Mr. Kaufman:
As the represnative for Mr. Schumacher I wou d like to
appeal the ERC decision rendered on Decembe2, 1981 .
We feel that the ERC decision should be reversed for the
following reasons .
1 ) Storm water and sanitary sewer capacity is present
according to Mr. Armstrong of the Public Works Department.
2) R-3 zoning request is compatible with the R-3 designa-
tion in the Comprehensive Plan.
3) There have been R-2 to R-3 zoning changes in the area.
4) Noise will only be a factor during the construction
phase of the project.
5) Asthetically we are replacing a old structure with a
new building and providing landscaping.
6) Recreation will not be affected as most residents will
go to Liberty Park to pursue their activities.
It is our beliefethat Mr. Schumacher is within his legal rites
to have the zoning change allowed. The Comprehensive Plan
shows R-3 zoning in the area which means that the subject
property could be developed for apartment use.
Therefore we are requesting that the ERC decision be reversed
and that we may continue on with our project.
If you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate
in trying to reach me at the phone number listed on the
enclosed business card.
Respectfully yours,
1 CITY
RECEIVE()
ENTTON
Stephen Swank HEARING EXAMINER
D I i931
AM FAA
7181910,14120
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
RENTON, WASHINGTON
A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING
EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON JANUARY 12, 1982, AT 9 :00
A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS:
1 . CARNER, GARY AND TOM APPEAL:
An appeal by Gary L. Carner of a Final Declaration
of Significance issued by the Environmental Review
Committee (ERC) for property proposed for rezone
by Gary and Tom Carner from "G" to B-1 , files
ECF-091-81 and R-081-81 , located in the vicinity
of 4508 N.E. 4th Street.
2. SCHUMACHER, ROBERT APPEAL:
An appeal by Robert Schumacher of a Final Declaration
of Significance issued by the Environmental Review
Committee (ERC) for property proposed for rezone
by Robert Schumacher from R-2 to R-3, files
ECF-107-81 and R-086-81 , located in the vicinity
of 223 Garden Avenue North.
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 JANUARY 12, 1981 , AT 9 :00
A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS.
PUBLISHED: January 1 , 1982 RONALD G. NELSON
BUILDING OFFICIAL
CERTIFICATION
I, STEVE MUNSON, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE
ABOVE DOCUMENTS WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES
ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW.
ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to
before me, a Notary Public, in
and for the State of Washington
residing in King County, on the
30th day of December, 1981 .
O
c e\JL\--\ SIGNED: W,
W
P 4 i, ', '-
p i1
T -_">
N
1.,
4
I
t„ ,
ty, 4` --
t,it--,
K ",t•
ts'At
w
Ig7
ek
R'F i a s
i
y • .., y,
y±
s- ,, '
r .A, a, .h 4t • *i+ ;y 1- W..
yam,
It
4411
3i
WEIN E t.ri,k7 '' a 1 A CriAl ADDRESS"!
ri.l....4 t`r‘C or. 2: 3 s:a:; YLs. ,N. .NUE uuizTi7
LentAL s a O ON_
j4h
FRILE'f t T''
RE .',TON 4
t:-. \.'-•Me/
6i 4''„-;..-
yet , cP +t!'}^+
11i--A P. L M l..Wlc 1 IN
AM Lr 1`q4't f"ND.) ZuI' tNG
E C T = PROPERTY OWNERS
OF
T HELD ifk,i CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
s NC4 PAL ILDI
ON ,....,:' ,Nt!,:a_''«_....., 6:__„,.,..., BEGINNING AT 9 :C C ...., A.M.
P.M.
C,C)NC wise-40ND 1 - ' .
s;w ,a APPEAL OF FINAL 1?.CL.AR:i'rION Of SICN.1FLC.`.,_,r E
044 ROPOSFD REZ:.?. E I ROM R-2 TO i -3
1LES EC:'- 07--81 and .R-086-81
t :
tretiV
4.,
k4.
O L
D fA T PLAT/.... SUBDIVISION
0 . UNIT L PMEN`i
El FVI lF 4 T +
OF - L i t-410- NiFIC AN.. T DIdDI'* SIGNIFICANT
I E T AL TOTHE HEARING
v'irCr, FUr411-i iti4FCL ;RATION CALL THE CITY CF RENTON
f -" ; G CEcPARIiV: NT AT 235_22,3! 0
NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHDUr..
4 "' `.. • ,,.,,
TH RI TIOt'
OF I
A
o THE CITY OF RENTON
a z
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 2Q0 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055
o
BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
90 O FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593
o94,
ED SEP
G1,0'
December 29, 1981
TO:David Clemens , Policy Development Director
Richard Houghton, Public Works Director
Ron Nelson, Building Official
FROM: Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
RE:Appeal of Environmental Determination;
File No. ECF-107-81 ; Robert Schumacher
Request for Rezone.
An appeal of the determination of the Environmental Review Committee
was received by this office in the above entitled matter on
December 21 , 1981 . A public hearing to review the appeal has been
scheduled for Tuesday, January 12, 1981 at 9:00 a.m. in the
Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building.
Please forward two copies of all official documents and correspondence
concerning this application to our office no later than 5:00 p.m. ,
Monday, January 4, 1981 , for review prior to the public hearing.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Fred J. ufman
r'
v "
E
ri"rD
v
t
go1981
r,...... --- /
zl.
f,/',
FINAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
Application No (s) : R-086-87
Environmental Checklist No. : ECF-107-81
Description of Proposal : Request to rezone
site from R-2 to
R-3 for future construction
of a 9-unit apartment
building.
Proponent: SCHUMACHER, ROBERT
Location of Proposal: Vicinity of 223 Garden
Avenue No.
Lead Agency: Building Department
This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on November 4 , 1981
and December 2, 1981 , following a presentation by Roger Blaylock
of the Building Department. Oral comments were accepted
from: Richard Houghton, David Clemens, Ronald Nelson, Roger
Blaylock, James Matthew, Steve Munson, James Hanson, and
Gary Norris.
Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings
of the ERC on application ECF-107-81 are the following:
1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheet, prepared by:
Steve Munson DATED: November 4 , 1981
2) Applications : R-086-81
3) Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance:
Fire Department, Building Department, Planning Department,
Design Engineering Division and Traffic Engineering
Division.
More Information: Police Department.
Other: Utilities Engineering Division.
Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined
this development does have significant adverse impact on
the environment. An EIS may be required under RCW 43. 21C. 030 (2) (c) .
This decision was made after review by the lead agency of
a complete environmental checklist and other information
on file with the lead agency.
Reasons for declaration of environmental significance:
1 ) Land use incompatibility.
2) Unknown storm water and sanitary sewer capacity.
Signatures :
7
G/
C/a-/ (4-
Ronald G. Nelson D id R. Clemens, Acting
Building Official Planning Director
Richard C. Houghton,
Public Works Direcbbr
DATE OF PUBLICATION: December 7, 1981
EXPIRATION OF APPEAL PERIOD: December 21 , 1981
t
Date circulateu . October 29, 1981 Comments due : November 2, 1981
ERVIRONH['lIAb CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET
ECF - 107 _ 81
APPLICATION No ( s ) . R-086-81
ROPONENT : SCHUMACHER, ROBERT
PROJECT TITLE :Rezone
brief Description of Project : Request to rezone site from R-2
to R-3 for future construction of a 9-unit apartment building.
LOCATION :Vicinity of 223 Garden Avenue N.
SITE AREA : ± 14 ,000 Sq. Ft.
BUILDING AREA (gross)
DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (°b) : --
IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE
INFO
1 ) Topographic changes : X
2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : X Potential if fireplaces
3 ) Water & water courses : X
4 ) Plant life : X
5 ) Animal life :X
6 ) Noise : X
7 ) Light ;Y glare : X
8 ) Land Use ; north : Single Family
east : Single Family
south : Single Family
v vest : Commercial
Land use conflicts : Buffering of single family use
View obstruction : Yes
9 ) Natural resources : X
10 ) Risk of upset : X
11 ) Population/Employment : 1/3 increase tp block
12 ) Number of Dwellings :1 1 X
13 ) Trip ends ( ITt ) • 55 average daily trips
traffic impacts : Local traffic and emergency access
14 ) Public services : X
15 ) Energy : X
16 ) Utilities : X*
17 ) Human health : X
18 ) Aesthetics : X
19 ) Recreation : X
23 ) Archeology/hister : X
COMMENTS :
Storm water and sanitary sewer capacity unknown
1 ) Land use incompatibility
2) Utility capacity.
Recommendation : 0N`, 1 DOS X
M e I n f rma
i:
d
Reviewed by : -4. , /;, :c'jI 7•
l itle irreff hJ
Date :
FORM: LRC-ut
NOTICE
ENVIRONMENTAL
DECLARATION
PROPOSED ACTION APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM R-2 TO R-3
TO ALLOW FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF A 9-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING.
GENERAL LOCATION AND OR ADDRESS
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF 223 GARDEN AVENUE NORTH.
POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED
PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION.
THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
COMMITTEE C E.R.C. VAS DETERMINED THAT THE
PROPOSED ACTION, OES DDOES NOT. HAVE
A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRON-
MENT.
ligirM Y BL
AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT,
WILL NOT, BE REQUIRED.
AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY
BE FILED WITH THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER
BY 3:00 P.M., DEGEMBER 211 1981
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON -
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
235-2550
DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE
WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION
NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
RENTON, WASHINGTON
The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a final declaration of
non-significance subject to conditions for the following project:
C.A. PARKER (ECF-085-81)
Application for approval of preliminary planned unit development
comprising 26 buildings, 2-3 stories in height, 344 dwelling units
flats and townhouses) , file PPUD-078-81; property located in the
119th block of S.E. Royal Hills Drive.
The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has also issued final declarations of
significance for the following projects:
67
RJBERT SCHUMACHER (ECF--O95-81)
Application for rezone from R-2 to R-3 to allow future construction
of a 9-unit apartment building, file R-086-81; property located in
the vicinity of 223 Garden Avenue North.
LARRY M. BROWN AND DONALD A. MOODY (ECF-097-81)
Application for rezone from G to L-1, file R-091-81; property located
on the north and south sides of S.W. Grady Way between Oaksdale Avenue
S.W. and Longacres Drive S.W. ,Tax Lots 53 and 54) .
Further information regarding these actions is available in the Planning
Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. Any appeal of
ERC action must be filed with the Hearing Examiner by December 21, 1981.
Published: December 7, 1981
OF RA,
0 THE CITY OF RENTON
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055
BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT
00 CO' 235- 2550
0 P
94 7.EQ SEPS
g
November 13 , 1981
Robert Schumacher
11423 20th South
Seattle , Washington 98168
Dear Mr . Schumacher :
On November 4, 1981, the City ' s Environmental Review Committee
examined your proposed rezone from R-2 to R-3 and determined
that additional information will be required from you in the
following areas :
1) Sewers
2) Storm Drainage
3) Access (Both Vehicular and Emergency)
4) Buffering Adjacent Land Uses
Please submit the above information no later than December
1st in order that the ERC will have sufficient time to review
it and render an environmental determination. If you have
questions , contact this office .
Very truly yours ,
Steve Munson
Assistant Planner
SM:wr
Date circula : /D/Zc g/ Corr its due :
LiNVIROXHEINTAL CHECKLIFT REVIEU SHEET
geECF - fib- St_
APPLICATION No (s ) . 9—
PROPONENT : AVAigt VE) Amp
PROJECT TITLE :__IQguAKer
Brief Descript;iun of Project : Ittirg eopmsaille1001444
1furt 66 SAW eta 9•1)itrlet 014 IS ldf
LU'.:ATION :
SITE AREA :I N/ 000 BUILDING AREA (gross ) •--•.
DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : .r
IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE.
INFO
1 ) Topographic changes :
2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality :
3)
1,
Water & vater courses :
e ) Plant life :
6) Animal life :
6 ) Noise :
7 ) Liyht & glare :
8 ) • Land Use ; north :
east :
suuth :
vest :
land use conflicts :
1Vie, obstruction :
9 ) INntural resources : G-
10 ) iRisk of upset : t/
11 ) iPopulation/Employment :
12 ) Nuc.ber of Duelling :
13 ) !Trip ends ( 1IE: ) : SS"-
traffic i,npacts :
14 ) public services : I /
1 `' ) Energy
16 ) Utilities :
17 ) Duman health :
18 ) Aesthetics :
19 ) Recreation :
20 ) Archeology/history :
COMMENTS :
R commerrdd ; ion : DNSI /' DOS More Information
He icusd by : L'%7e i
Da ,a -fo /?U/
Date circula : /042 gI Con its due : ifdIV8,
EX'VIROXI W'wi1TL CIlECR:LI-T REVIEU SHEETe,7
E C F - Al
APPLICATION No ( s ) .Ra.a " u l
PROPONENT : jalie.046
ROJECT TITLE :_411
Brief Descript;iun of Project : Ropipvettprezosed Ileac 444
e
b vre a ruSie.+ eta Q•vfFlay Z< AU, ,
LOCAi ION : Uieis 'fyQf az 's 6i.. rieate• /1/•
SITE AREA :IN/ CVp7 BUILDING AREA (gross) •-•.
DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : ails•
IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE
INFO
1 ) Topographic changes :
2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality :
3 ) Water h vater courses : 1/
v ) Plant life :
5) Animal life :
6 ) Noise :
7 ) Light & glare :
8 ) • Lsnd Use ; north :
east :
south :
J and u:;e cunfl its :
IViov oh:;truetion :
9 ) Natural re iurces : e/ I
10 ) Itisk or upset :
11 ) Populat ionjt m4±loymrnt.
12 ) Nui.,ber of Duel1iny
1 3 ) IT rip ends 1 I E ) :
kraffic ialpacts :
14 ) Public services : I 1/
1 ' ) ELnergy :
16 ) Utilities :
17 ) Hunan health : v/
18 ) 4esthetics :
19 ) Recreation :
20 ) Archeology/history :
CO!liEN i S :
d7 i4e—
R,,cimme;idat ion : D\SI X DOS More Information
Nct .teved 5y : litle :
D a „: 040/e/
Date circulate Atzivg/ Comm,,,,,,s due : /// / i
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLI.`'T REVIEU SHEET
ECF - c - Al
APPLICATION No (s ) .g-^Qe_8/
PROPONENT : v Remit
PROJECT TITLE :_
Brief Description of Project : Rftyeil ID rezomeatielacvm4 f
etbka 40r' uxe_ftee ftgriles de& Q•b n r lat 4fi ..
LOCATION : Ole tod r oil' 422.3 670. r1001 ike• 44
SITE AREA :I/$F1OO BUILDING AREA (gross ) •...
DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : .r
IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE
l INFO
1 ) Topographic changes :
2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : v
3 ) Water & eater courses :
I
4 ) Plant life :
5 ) Animal life : v
6 ) Noise : v
7 ) Light & glare :l'/ !
8 ) Land Use ; north :5i,1114
east : I. ' '
south :
nest : I• • •
Land use conflicts : 1h.. L
View obstruction :_
1.-
9 ) Natural resources :
1,/'
A
10 ) Risk of upset :
11 ) Population/Employment :
12 ) Nui;iber of Dweilingc:
Y
13 ) Trip ends ( 1IE ) : 41prOX. S.Sa.odYridde
traffic impacts :
14 ) Public services : 1 v
15 ) Energy :
16 ) Utilities :
17 ) Human health :
w
18 ) Aesthetics : 4‹
19 ) Recreation :
20 ) Archeology/history :
COMMENTS :
4..- ol4u-' ^ e c esh`- ^4 /ru A qs wou(d) !e o tOoVe ig2 ^v... .
h 'We v b'C e'rt('7.
Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information
Reviewed by : cte rd5Or1 l itle :AA/64044 PiaA6er..
Da e . Iliti 1
FORvM: ERC-06
6A'. A:t % i
1$ 24Ci
syseAs
40.4K43,914N VIVVA
ivto%/ Lq„ .•%h,141 A').a r ffkikr"')U1Vt NS') %1•s `u1'• 4P1.4®;
4 . ./4.:`Nt % ,;2s 4 •4 f
y 0 t
1
Date circula : /o/ q/ge Con its due :_ 'f/.28e
EXVIRO,hHENTAL CHLCKLI'-T REVIEU SHEET0
E C F -cb - $1
APPLICATION No ( s ) . R_
PROPONENT : SclumiaeArri Re
PROJECT TITLE : REZONEE
Brief Description of Project : RfgVtisti0u''IZONI sibt4 I/rll 4
e Q-341Dirfelltre ~Sri)di.. elta If i slat 7 4/4
LUCA [ION : Ui mi4 .f a33
SITE AREA : 1y100 BUILDING AREA (dross) •ten
DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : ....
IMPACT REVIEW NUN[MINOR MAJOR MORE
INFO
1 ) Topographic changes :
2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality :
3 ) ;dater & eater courses :
4 ) Plant life :
65) Animal life :_
6 ) Noise :
7 ) Light & glare : x,
8 ) Land Use ; north :
east :
south :
ucst :
Land use conflicts :
iUlev obstruction :
9 ) IV:1tur:11 re.,Jurl'e:i
10 ) !risk of upset :
1+
II ) Pofu1 tionif mp1oy men t .
F
12 ) NuHbrr of i?vel 1 iny.. :
13 ) !Trip ends t11E ) :
traffic impacts :
11= ; Public service;; : X
1 ` ) t-nerdy : k
16 ) Utilities :
17 ) Human health :
18 ) Aesthetics :
19 ) flecreation :
20 ) Archeology/history :
COMMENTS :
fi c ommo l at ion . JN; I DOS More
242),‘ —) (1-4
Date circula : 1Q/4/gi Con its due : ///?/ '
ENVIROk'NE,tvTAL CItLCIKLI''T REVIEll SHEETi7
ECF - 81
APPLICATION No (s ) , V
PROPONENT :SCAkattickcArRoLory.
PROJECT TITLE : REt
Brief Description of Project. :Rfty regaille des4fPlaciet44.
gerifeethire- 9-bnilcied f
LOCATION : ZP-3 ai !'i'e V•
SITE AREA : MQO0 BUUILDING AREA (gross ) .—.
DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : .r
IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE
it'i C
1 ) Topographic changes :
2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : •
3) Water h eater courses :
4 ) 11 Plant life :
6 ) Animal life :
6 ) Noise :
71 Light & glare :
8 ) - Land Use ; north:
east :
suuth :
vest
land use conflicts :
View obstruction :
9 ) 11N1tural re3jutl.'cs :
10 ) Risk of upset :
11 ) Population/Employment :
12 ) Number of Duellinys :
13 ) Trip ends ( 11E ) :
ltraffic impacts :
14 ) T'ubl is services :
i.//
15 ) Energy :
16 ) Utilities :
17 ) Human health :
18 ) Aesthetics :
19 ) Recreation :
y
20 ) Archeology/history :
COMMENTS :
li commendat ion : I D S More Information
d
Hevieved by :ram- Title : P./Siftzd1
dJe/
t -O6
hate circula : 1oc Con Its due : /// /i
iv 7 EXVIRONNENTAL CHCmI`-T REVIEU SHEET
E C F - 81
APPLICATION No (s ) . Ru'Oebogt
PROPONEN T : 5CA ametche'1 Ro/er,+
PROJECT TITLE : Rezeote
Brief Descripiun of Project : APIVe,j1 stprez•Ne_div 4 4i4
I'kk gebr*Iv re c. elirti eh eea gahunilegione.
r E' a a,S 6' 4LOCATION : UK
SITE AREA : /S, 0010 BUILDING AREA (dross ) ••-.
DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : .r
IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE
INFO
1 ) Topographic changes :
2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality :
3 ) Water t4 vater courses :
4 ) Plant life :
6) Animal life :
6 ) Noise :
7 ) I Light & glare : 1
8 ) • [ L•and Use ; north:
east :
south :
land use conflicts :
V• iev obstruction :
9 ) jNlltural reoJllrt.'es
10 ) P1sL of upset :
11 ) iopul .ltion/i mployment :
12 ) (Nuc.ber of Duelling:, :
j
13 ) rip ands ( l IE ) :
traffic i:Npacts : xxxx
l. ) I uhl ie Services : xxxx
1 `' ) Energy :
16 ) Utilities :
17 ) Haman health :
18 ) Aesthetics :
19 ) Recreation :
201 ) Archeology/history :
COMMENTS : The project raises concern over the impact that it will
have on traffic and the need for public service. The .area fits an
R-3 zone, however the traffic that will use the alley way behind the
apts. is of major concern. If access is allowed to the alley the entire
alley way should be upgraded to accomadate the increased traffic.
Also parking on Garden No. will become a further problem if apt. dweller
are allowed to park on Garden No.
ri. rl m ,da ; lun : J\'; 1 DOS I1,,re Informaiionxxxxx
Also need good outisde lighting & security locks.
L .'C .' 9 bile
PtribbUir---
10/29/8
Date circula : Atzf/gi Con its due : /// / P
07 EXVIRQNHEfNTAL CI CCtLI`-T R[VIEU SHEET
ELF -St_
APPLICATION No ( s ) .R4•Q .8`
PROPONENT :A ij crilo•, aeLed"
PROJECT TITLE :
Brief Descript;ion of Project : R,q j ZONCa1 l C1M a
ka_4jyrseihtrctsyreired dea Eq. e Rif
LOCATION : Windy of 2.3.3 6aI4#0
SITE AREA :iti% COO BUILDING AREA (gross) 0.1.0.4,
DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (? ) : ••++
IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE
INFO
1 ) Topographic changes :
2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality :
3 ) Water & water courses :
4 ) Plant life : vT
Animal life :
E ) Noise :
V
7 ) Light 4 glare : l/
b ) Land Use ; north :
east :
south :
west :
land use conflicts :
r-----
View obstruction :obstruction :
9 ) Natural res,Jurc.'eu
V/./
10 ) Risk of upset :
V _
11 ) Population/Fmployrne. nt : Not
12 ) Nur. her of Dwellings :V
13 ) Trip ends ( ITC ) :
traffic impacts :
V
1. ) Public services : 1
1 ` ) Energy : 1/
4
16 ) Utilities : 1 .ego& 7
0
17 ) Human health : 1.7
18 ) Aesthetics :
19 ) Recreation :
1///
Ztt ) Archeology/history :
COMMENTS :
R;ommendri , ton ; JN C I DOS Flu e Information
e.vieued by :_ !' GL ` title:
t`t;
ENVIkONIIENTAL REVIEV COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 4, 1981
AGENDA•
COMMENCING AT 10 :00 A .M. :
THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
PENDING BUSINESS
Carner, Gary L . and Tom
Parker , C . A.
NEW BUSINESS
ECF-G -81 SCHUMACHER , ROBERT
R-086-81 Application for rezone from R-2
to R-3 to allow construction of
a 9-unit apartment building ; property
located at 223 Garden Avenue North.
HIGHLAND VILLAGE
For distribution: Preliminary draft
for Highland Village EIS .
ERADCO ROAD
Request by Mr . Colt of Mt . Olivet
Cemetery regarding City ' s position
on existing road leading to ERADCO
property .
1 ,
1
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
COMMITTEE 1
November 4 , 1981
1
1
T./ .di l
1
16 ti, 0 _,
lr ,
NA
k,„ i; ......____\f;______:--
k___.„_„._\__,_
e__,_,,, ,
1 1 i ..
LAKE
N
1.
i
WASHINGTON izince
isrga _sue .
ff .III;-- IT
rl
eirrAI '—a .t z5 4iiA. ( ar-Tow151 Ii0 11k
h.8 f RIO ! iL-. \\ \ i 11411.irse°
6 'r.'k.) j 1 E L
L:\.. ,11%,
4
s, J I 1 I .\ , C CARNET 04.:MT. OLIVET/ERADCOI! ,... t
wl '/91411 I SCHUMACHER, ROBERT
L
1 IIIIR
ft04** 1-[Th 1
i
1i ‘! I
r
ill / 'Ill PARKER I
1 i • .N.
4
A
Nt.- _ _ii.-$: i i .`- •. t
gi- '
HIGHLAND VILLAGE I
Nr-____It A 1,,,..i.r
liMi 4 , ,
Au
LtH1
n. ,,.
4 i I Milli I -
IWO Ir\ N
to
v.
i i 1--------1 F, 311 lige ' rearliP r i ..
N 1-,-r--. • L
II ;j J.
IIILAKE !4)
c,." i \
I-
i
i
L___...
7-7 ii i-; ---1...., I
4 r" j -.1-r-
I t, 1 I I 1 41
I i 1
i_ I i
erty& Land
SCHUMACHER, ROBI
n ~ tr
R-095-81 C`\~\ ^vr'\\ lilUllg Services"
Stephen F. Swank
P.O.Boo[08772
Seattle,Washington Mee
206)453.1292
October 14, 1981
Roger Blalock:
200 Mill Avenue
Renton, Wa3h. 98055
Dear Roger:
Mr. Robert Schumacher who resides at 11423 20th South,Seattle, Washington 98168 is applying to the City of Rentontohavehispropertywhichislocatedat223GardenAvenueNorth, Block4 , Lot7, in the Satorisville Addition be rezonedfromitscurrentzoningdesignationofR2toR3whichallowsforresidentialmulti-family that would allow a 9 unit
apartment complex be built on the subject site in accordancewiththeZoningOrdinanceSection4- 709A.
As the agent for the rezoning request being made by Mr.Schumacher I would like to indicate why this rezone applicationisbothappropriateandtimely. You will note that we are
asking for R3 zoning to allow for a 9 unit apartment buildingtobeconstructedonthesubjectproperty. We feel that theR3zoningwouldbelinewiththeproprosedComprehensiveLandUsePlanwhichwasrevisedinJanuaryof1980thatshowsthesubjectsiteashighdensitymulti-family.
Condition 1 - Please note that all public services areavailableonthesiteandfurtherthatMr. Schumacher is will-
ing to meet all conditions if any are to be set forth by thePublicWorksDepartment.
Since the current R2 zoning has been held on the subjectsitesincetheComprehensivePlanof1965, it should be pointedoutthatsimilarrezonesfromR2toR3havebeenapprovedintheareaofthesubjectsitewithinthepastfewyears.
A- Ordinance-3228
R2 to R3 June 12th, 1978
Factory Avenue North
r B- Ordina 355
R2 to n> June 12th, 1981
Woodcock Rezone- 123 Pelly Avenue North
Block 24 Lot 4
C- Ordinance- 3370
R2 to R3 November 9th, 1979
Weihmann Rezone- 110 Pelly Avenue North
Block 2 Lot 18
Condition 2- The subject property is located in Census
Tract 256 according to the Population and Housing EstimatesofthePugetSoundCouncilofGovernments. The population of
the surrounding area is 4,700 according to the 1980 census
data. The population base will grow significantly because of
the expansion plans of Boeing who have applied for numerous
building permits in the area. Pacific Car and Foundry is also
near the subject property and is a major employer of residents
in the area. The site is located extremely close to the
downtown Renton business district therefore it would lend
itself ideally for easy access for a variety of services for
those tenants who reside in the apartment building. Residents
of the apartment will be made up of diversified tenantssuch
as young executives, blue collar workers, and elderly citizens
because of the close proximity to the basic 'services.
It is our thatnotat housing demand will increase in
the area and that the proposed rezone will help alleviate the
problem by providing a 9 unit apartment to create housing and
not to eliminate housing to help meet the increased demand for
housing in the future.
In the past year building permits have been issued in the
area of the subject site.
A- August 1981 , B-8545
2913 Park Avenue North
3 Unit Condo
B- August 1981 , B-8544
12 5 Pelly Avenue North
2 Story Duplex
New construction in the area consists of a Hair Styling
Shop, Hobo Enterprises, and a new office building which is
located on Factory Avenue North.
K^r W
Condition 3- The Comprehensive Land tTcn Plan whic-i was
Wx * - revised in Janu of 1980, designates the tbject site as
high density mul w1-family which is consistent with the
requested R3 reclassification.
It seems quite clear that by the conditions listed above
that the proposed rezone on the subject site is both timely
and appropriate.
Furthermore the R3 classification is consistent with rezones
that have been approved in the past few years surrounding the
subject site and the revised Renton Urban Area Comprehensive
Plan which was altered in 1980.
A glance at the land use map shows that the requested rezone
is appropriate and timely. Considering the subject site has
never been proposed to be rezoned ani that the Comprehensive
Plan allows for high density multi-family, please allow your
consideration for rezoning the subject property located at
223 Garden Avenue North.
Please do not .hesitate to call or correspond with me if
any questions arise.
Respectfully yours,
Stephen Swank
F!.____. t
o
to
Mt t
ma CI, iii
N.
a s' o
z
p /o CC
ar Jo
CC
M CrillQrj
i OP .I 4
ll;
ov.j 1 rozA
OS60 ' 0il0 '
Q
too sy j;91 •
SO pieortl ' orQ+/ 4 el2
S
3Rps
rt s' $0/99 756460P. I o MrLrT
OW j 4 cvl . /j " o
o '" JOBso• 1
0 29
0/95
11
12 ao36So3,ro * I o175 o/s
oi
o:io 0
S. sr.,
r 2
DUO 0935 /I t
1 . // WOr`a
a
7
e 0220 0215 9 • t
0345 0330 /O , t
o oz 5 r S
0310 I 0230
4
a
p3 f • *1 ' 9 0240
029f '
s S
0140
le
A
90 5 0315 7 o Q o •
1461
3 tom'!• 0 4 S
7
i,45 OW OI
i 6 i 5
02S0 7 a • 1 8.
0
9
4.90 0305 •f
11.5 014; O2SS
6
soS 03
4 ' 0240 9
r Mil \ t 2
I/O $ 1 g .L 0 • 3 e,
0165
0 . Z i
go,0
7
2 w
Ir I f1
f 10
R0- OL90 • ORQS • 0215 Ot70 I
3 /
420 s a s
r
NlL_' U
o/QS M M moo °
i osao Pi;dr____i2 oAo so 2
1 : 70J N 2No
S 4-0. 1/ S T 14 O / Oa
J Ay
I 1 I01
Eli
v). Irs. in
A
t 1o5Q3l0j M W031
s
xp t s
Qp0yoNo03152 •
z 4 J
0 0045 /o
01as ' ;
4...." •
2320 3
0 6 001
5 0090 1 3 s /D 000 ti 0310 4 r
0 7
rLai in
SCHUMACHER, ROBERT
R-095-81
C
SCHUMACHER, ROBERT
R-095-81
I inole
ti
R
I
I iJY
Ik•
z
tee•.+' U
if
4-1676-&
rift, M".—v 4'es"...+i 1=w%nu- v ri=...Z a f,,,
Y.b _ - • _- ---
I
rs...• 4.(F r a71 IIIle_
r`+., _
AO'
oi•rs...7.r7 .( .'le
1
1 r 3
I Ti 1III
I I I I I I I I I I
1 0
I I I I , 1
I I I 1 I II I I Y I I 1 1` .,...' W
1 1 ( 1 ',1 I I Lee w 6 f ..,,,1, A/+arg..sr.. I 1 I Y I f IIY ' I I I I I I I I I`
I I I i i 1 i
i I 1 t o
y r/-
l'ar/sY.n - )-.../”.• MEM e...rr .•.. it iN'WA/ sTi.vY.MOJ,—
y
1
1..
iv i
t`1 I
III
1.
I
3.
I
S/T6 PL.7N•f+. spa)
q U 2Je
T err T/ eT/ .,0
V/eI
0
N/ 7Y Mi. I O
e,T0 O/Of.If Al sr/errs As'e•t/me-.— -- rra A/4 sA o/tw .0t• 3 4 R
Ai1.elf/fT./1 it MVO • /4e R/iO.Na AMP&A•TWO RA O /
Luz I•d D*.4 t troy d er.I .,/ Z
r Z--` 1
1117• M/f.NI IAIWN // fLff6l or/p II
1
I.
w
il..—Tom'armI o
eMt
POerty & Land
Planning Services
Stephen F. Swank
P.O.Box 66772
Seattle,Washington 98166
208)453-1292
41T5404fL04'.111
est
4AWING O
October 14, 1981
Roger Blalock:
200 Mill Avenue
Renton, Wash. 98055
Dear Roger:
Mr. Robert Schumacher who resides at 11423 20th South,
Seattle, Washington 98168 is applying to the City of Renton
to have his property which is located at 223 Garden Avenue
North, Block4, Lot7, in the Satorisville Addition be rezoned
from its current zoning designation of R2 to R3 which allows
for residential multi-family that would allow a 9 unit
apartment complex be built on the subject site in accordance
with the Zoning Ordinance Section 4- 709A.
As the agent for the rezoning request being made by Mr.
Schumacher I would like to indicate why this rezone application
is both appropriate and timely. You will note that we are
asking for R3 zoning to allow for a 9 unit apartment building
to be constructed on the subject property. We feel that the
R3 zoning would be line with the proprosed Comprehensive Land .
Use Plan which was revised in January of 1980 that shows the
subject site as high density multi-family.
Condition 1 - Please note that all public services are
available on the site and further that Mr. Schumacher is will-
ing to meet all conditions if any are to be set forth by the
Public Works Department.
Since the current R2 zoning has been held on the subject
site since the Comprehensive Plan of 1965, it should be pointed
out that similar rezones from R2 to R3 have been approved in
the area of the subject site within the past few years.
A- Ordinance-3228
R2 to R3 June 12th, 1978
Factory Avenue North
B- Ordinance- 355
R2 to R3 June 12th, 1981
Woodcock Rezone- 123 Pelly Avenue North
Block 24 Lot 4
C- Ordinance- 3370
R2 to R3 November 9th, 1979
Weihmann Rezone- 110 Pelly Avenue North
Block 2 Lot 18
Condition 2- The subject property is located in Census
Tract 256 according to the Population and Housing Estimates
of the Puget Sound Council of Governments. The population of
the surrounding area is 4,700 according to the 1980 census
data. The population base will grow significantly because of
the expansion plans of Boeing who have applied for numerous
building permits in the area. Pacific Car and Foundry is also
near the subject property and is a major employer of residents
in the area. The site is located extremely close to the
downtown Renton business district therefore it would lend
itself ideally for easy access for a variety of services for
those tenants who reside in the apartment building. Residents
of the apartment will be made up of diversified tenants such
as young executives, blue collar workers, and elderly citizens
because of the close proximity to the basic 'services.
It is our intention that housing demand will increase in
the area and that the proposed rezone will help alleviate the
problem by providing a 9 unit apartment to create housing and
not to eliminate housing to help meet the increased demand for
housing in the future.
In the past year building permits have been issued in the
area of the subject site.
A- August 1981 , B-8545
2913 Park Avenue North
3 Unit Condo
B- August 1981 , B-8544
125 Pelly Avenue North
2 Story Duplex
New construction in the area consists of a Hair Styling
Shop, Hobo Enterprises, and a new office building which is
located on Factory Avenue North.
Condition 3- The Comprehensive Land Use Plan which was
x
revised in January of 1980, designates the subject site as
high density multi-family which is consistent with the
requested R3 reclassification.
It seems quite clear that by the conditions listed above
that the proposed rezone on the subject site is both timely
and appropriate.
Furthermore the R3 classification is consistent with rezones
that have been approved in the past few years surrounding the
subject site and the revised Renton Urban Area Comprehensive
Plan which was altered in 1980.
A glance at the land use map shows that the requested rezone
is appropriate and timely. Considering the subject site has
never been proposed to be rezoned and that the Comprehensive
Plan allows for high density multi-family, please allow your
consideration for rezoning the subject property located at
223 Garden Avenue North.
Please do not ,hesitate to call or correspond with me if
any questions arise.
Respectfully yours,
Stephen Swank
0ErAmi)
CITY CIF ONTON
1.11
RF7011E APPUCATIuN
OR OFFICE USE ONLY
O( - )/ xAMINER '$ATIONL11141 .USE
PPLICATION NO, /(- d
1PPLICATION FEE $ //D,
O`arn
d
ED
ECEIPT NO. "Arb! 0°//0,
cc
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
ILING DATE ORDINANCE NO. AND DATE
TEARING DATE
10FPPLICANT To COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 :
Name P0 ck Phone -_U-b-j5-1 Z_C 2-]3 1-1$Z1.
Address 111-12 - SC)Q H S t 1`rt L L * 8\
3. Property petitioned for rezoning is located on 11,3(.4ARDE1,LA11r= 1i-1
between QD 5T and 1-3 S
Square footage or acreage of property 1 1 )003 SQ. FOCTA (.
Legal description of property (if more soace is required, attach a
separate sheet)
ti- l,Dc.r o V_1sv \\ \ o u f i K L P hi
R, co R L I tom \.I A 'FD c' P LA Ts p N ur2`1
y
cGu c i \L.1 _st 11`1.(.ZGq
3 . Existing Zoning Zoning Requested
TOTE TO APPLICANT: The following factors are considered in reclassifying
property. Evidence or additional information to substantiate
your request may be attached to this sheet. (See Application
Procedure Sheet for specific requirements . ) Submit this form
in duplicate.
1. Proposed use of site (t=SCNUh1 KCHr ZO L1
11 PzoPF UAU Fc12_ t - C\ V1-AvFa)zTM. >t j
BUL. Obi 1 SU 3 C1 S n E
9. List the measures to be taken to reduce impact on the surrounding area.
T11-)E S 11 \A 1 u _ID_scRID D TO A DDT 1 C A t cS
C?uAi1T`( GG ) PA LA
9 . How soon after the rezone is granted do you intend to develop the site?
1 u 1\i Aci 1Z_\L[I t_tT5 10 C 1 u A P1)2c)\l iN
px u F I Ti-T.1 VI 11 L_ 'D z-C1,DE_\J-4 v to TU op 1 F 1 E_ s 1
0 . Two copies of plot plan and affidavit of ownership are required.
Planning Dept.
1-77
AFFIDAVIT
IIII
I l l7 ,C 1-I[ r , + '1 being duly sworn, declare that IIS,'
am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the
foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information
herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
Subscribed and sworn before me
this /1'/- day of () 0(iC?ber 19 55 / ,
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing at , P,1 - y\--
tk--tk-- \at tT1 L., , c 1,,,,,,,,„,..,,A
Dame of Notary Public Signature o wner)
1
Ci(' r,:
t 4of tc.P-erdrA Lop. q z?SS-- 1 t (7 2j _lot+ S u`,
Address) „ce,.,-
Address)
fe
l BR0 w
t -fit z tjp s P ?P1
mac,® NoTAR9N: City) State)
A".7 Pt/BL1C 0:; ,,
L9\' 15 1.... alit 2 Z/ (;- 57Z
G
Z
Telephone)
jillWAS
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the foregozn'g -application has been inspected by me
and has been found to be thorough and complete in every particular and to
conform to the rules and regulations of t e Renton Planning Department
governing the filing of such applica-tioz .`\
Date Received x3• P:
Q'
gi'NING O
Q/
Renton Planning Dept .
2-73
to
ITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
OF REINj,
L4, celbCT
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ' 1 \`
Application No. o 7 t—I1 ocT 14
4J)
Environmental Checklist No. d/c "ipg _- "
4t ...----------„` ,
r
PROPOSED, da:e:FINAL , date: c, DEQP•
Declaration of Significanceit] Declaration of Significance
aDeclaration of Non-Significance El Declaration of Non-Significance
COMMENTS:
Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires
all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their
own actions and when licensing private proposals . The Act also requires that an EIS be
prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment.
The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a
proposal is such a major action.
Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information
presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required , or where
you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your
explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should
include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele-
vant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all
agencies irvolved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review with-
out unnecessary delay.
The following questions apply to your total proposal , not just to the license for which
you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers
should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed,
even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all
of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, with-
out duplicating paperwork in the future.
NOTE : This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State
of Washington for various types of proposals . Many of the questions may not apply to
your proposal . If a question does not apply , just answer it "no" and continue on to the
next question.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent PrES-3C& ) '1 :\ €5' _
2. Address and phone number of Proponent:
1 \U-? — 2-6. Sc -
5r Ky-fi-\_ V-I P _)1+ 95\
3. Date Checklist submitted C)C C)"f3 _ 1 V, 19EI
4. Agency requiring Checklist 1ZF=--TOJt 1"LImN111xL. \ P
5. Name of proposal , if applicable:
C% U M KIA EZ WJ O I,1&
6. Nature and brief description of the proposal (including but not limited to its
size, general design elements , and other factors that will give an accurate
understanding of its scope and nature) :
III m p SCI.tU M NCI\ k''C u --,-f1 J( 11-1 i N CS
P C r'f fr C_ INR Ur--a i IN C -ti E. GukD
F-Porl-2 4--c-) ?---"-3 - , I\\ \c\c_t Iv - Q--I i I\(7 - PA -,.
G\-.1--ME SUBj lit_ \0vktc11 1S 1(2
4.3c)oc_) 3q y T
2-
7. Location of proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal , as well
as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts , including
any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environ-
mental setting of the proposal ) :
T11 PQ_c)P C1`Y IS L -1 ICI- fl3 co E--, A-NF
SITt L So 1186 - 1 u.,C O 3,F3o 7\ _.
L11ONit_\kJ T Ft
8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal :
1-11 NPPuUi1ictt VAAuLBE_ Sup,Iv(u Dgy to-14 zie
9. List of all permits , licenses or government approvals required for the proposal
federal , state and local --including rezones) :
k L 1 N t- P"r=b-1`) 1-T
30. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion , or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal ? If yes , explain :
T11 C r.i u 1'k( IOLTN-E..
D W 1
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal ? If yes , explain:
12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro-
posal ; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future
date, describe the nature of such application form:
II . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required)
1) Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures?
YES MAYBE NO
b) Disruptions, displacements , compaction or over-
covering of the soil? J
YES MAYBE NO
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
YES MAYBE Nal
d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
YE- MAYBE NO
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , J
either on or off the site?
YES MAYBE NO
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands , or
changes in siltation , deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the410
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? J
YES ikY EExplanation: IF' DI5 +C ( C `CS L \L11_1 Vd
V)UQ T1 ccA -A`-)TRvcC-101.1 P4# C -Vt4 E_
PA Ti hF{•rV P- (off RIBS TO
831 -Q-0\1 CQL CcC11 P1-1c--T1,0i- .
2) Air. Will the proposal result in:
a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air.
quality?
YES MAYBE NO
b) The creation of objectionable odors?
YES MAYBE NO
c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature ,
or any change in climate , either locally or
regionally?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: ThL(=)1 L Cgs -CT 1G,ANSLECCria___ M NY
DVel1_iL 1-1-3E_ Pjv 11.1(_, or- -I-flu PAQlU1,l( LOT
3) dater. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in currents , or the course of direction of
water movements , in either marine or fresh waters? J
YES MAYBE NO
b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns , or
the rate and amount of surface water runoff? J
YES MAYBE NO
c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? J
YES MAYBE NO
d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
YES MAYBE NO
e) Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration
surface water quality, including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? J
YES MAYBE NO
f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters?
YES MAYBE NO
g) Change in the quantity of ground waters , either
through direct additions or withdrawals , or through J
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
YES MAYBE NO
h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through
direct injection , or through the seepage of leachate,
phosphates , detergents , waterborne virus or bacteria,
or other substances into the ground waters?
YES MAYBE NO
i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available
for public water supplies?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
4) Flora. Will the proposal result in:
a) Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any
species of flora (including trees , shrubs , grass , crops ,
microflora and aquatic plants)?
YES MAYBE NO
b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of flora?
YES MAYBE NO
c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area , or
in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing J'
species?
YES MAYBE NO
d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
YET-FX7Nr NO
Explanation: 3CM-1U _SH Qs- Ll_
T (3 R 1\1 c)\r) f ly hL I T 1-t
T14€ N \cl 1 (w_x \Li A tcv-i \LI.1 LL t\ TC) pociD
k r P t l—i C-AA \at-\AT- 1 OLts, k P\S-10 QV=NI CN1 t=
4-
5 ) Fauna. dill the proposal result in:
a) Changes in the diversity of species , or numbers of
any species of fauna (birds , land animals including
reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms ,
insects or microfauna)?
YES MAYBE NO
b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of fauna?
YES MAYBE NO
c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area,
or result in a barrier to the migration or movement
of fauna?
YES MAYBE NO
d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
YES MAYBE 4-
Explanation:
6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels?f
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: C:J1`ILam( St-tCot-1( bV(i I(C,T}i [UtLD1h(L
p}A-Y C C F 1 N
7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or
glare?
YES MAYBE N
Explanation:
8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the
present or planned land use of an area?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: T\ It-sL v.imm OM \/
v'lyk o\l c I) t-t- 1 1 t-I fL UN C--*_
9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in :
a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
YES MAYBE NO
b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? v
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation)
in the event of an accident or upset conditions?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri-
bution, density, or growth rate of the human population
of an area?
YTS-- RTTrE N/
Explanation:
5-
12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing , or
create a demand for additional housing? J
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation : T+r- P120PCLSAL\SILL( E lLj I GT
FL11 1i is l C,P rT 1-to i
13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in':
a) Generation of additional vehicular movement?
YES MAYBE NO
b) Effects on existing parking facilities , or demand
for new parking?
YES MAYBE NO
c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? J
YES MAYBE NO
Id) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods? J/
YES MAYBE NO
le) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
YES MAYBE NO
f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles ,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: } k_t_\.3 PN211 J \L LB P _O\[ !GED Fb1L
AT.Tt1\-INCT5 C i THE s Ec Sly KS kt
14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon , or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services
in any of the following areas :
a) Fire protection?
J
YES MAYBE NO
b) Police protection?
YES MAYBE NO
c) Schools? d
YES MAYBE NO
d) Parks or other recreational facilities? N/
YES MAYBE NO
e) Maintenance of public facilities , including roads?
YES MAYBE NO
f) Other governmental services? I
YES MAYbE NO
Explanation:
15) Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
YES MAYBE NO
b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation :
16 Utilities . Will the proposal result in a need for new
systems, or alterations to the following utilities :
a) Power or natural gas?
YES MAYBE NO
b) Communications systems?
YES MAYBE NO
c) Water?
YES MAYBE NO
1
6-
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
YES MAYBE NO
e) Storm water drainage?
YES MAYBE WU—
f) Solid waste and disposal ?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of
any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
YES MAYBE
Explanation:
18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of
any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: —1-l1 C. \V_S-11-1 F tJ L_L_ID P20\I
CAP-RTi.( CN. VYIZ_ ISTS
1TE - 13`f 1._L',1—s- SGA 1D cam,.
19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the
quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
20) ArcheologicalfHistorical . Will the proposal result in an
alteration of a significant archeological or historical
site, structure, object or building?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
III. SIGNATURE
I , the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information
is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any decla-
ration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should
there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
Proponent:
signed)
name printed)
City of Renton
Planning Department
5-76
I 8 0
00" t
SJ ' o o /o-._
p44' 4¢
1
O S S
Z • O 241
t
4.. W
DO 0 s /2 02.DP-o 3 ' -
05104,0 - 9 : dr
CC 1 r40
I •
4
l f 1e 1T 1 l9
3 02.,
Jo4
e
a ...1 J'i I - 1 I 10-1
t f 4.
o:
0 / b b •I, 05G0 .e
o.f 'i IOZ! io
0180
O)BI
itD 0it2 Ol24•/
Z o /
a JJ I f0 I sr l° J sb 74.
S e,
3 Ra °
N 5, 0/ s _) 756460
MILITARY)7•5 l-- Io7.5
boo b• r
4 /
3 61 0h j`02 b
I.0195 0/94 / V 0095
b
rT
035 334°
a /
2 t IZ 0115 p197
O/9 u
2o:io
0090
s. s, a
j 3 009!
0 0120 0215 3 . t ,
0345 0330 /Q N• , p Q2G50)1 : f O/B
0310 1 0230
4 - a
03s5 9 + n t . g 0244 zap 5 0105
y
d' r
0235. I 0140CJr
O
3g' 0310 8 4 a 4 h a 02.Slo 4- L.,/ I r27 6 OiiO
1 e M
w'_ k
5
Cr
30 0315 7 '0 7a. .' 4 0 245
7
OILS
Q kD tt°
r
b N t e wzo
395 03/0 6 0250 7 1
6 0t45 1 AS0
9 0/13
0.305 5 + S 0 t4D L.
O S5
8 '
1- I J
304 \\ 11/4
JsoyN4 ' in . 4 0.),35 o2co 9 =
2
i 621.5 -
ry
N
f/o I _ 3 0 3e1
0245 0 Z z /2 o,so
It
c p2 1 f 0125 0190 dries* 0275 D,t90 I
r o.?
420 1 rr s
1
v
0 / 0t10 0
f , » I o:
N.
r
1 `1 0i85 '' V)I 01042 9S
2L /o''$ , 3Q 3o to I z o
Si +--=•i J 'l rOo IMARTIN
le7 [ 1 N 2 S T. . os
s ,a-fto. / 00
S - -Avg)
D r roy.l f
s
V.8a
lc 2.v0 .L.a.4,l
sa I s,-5 I 17/.g 4 Z
0U0 h
IS14,b0305I g310 j 0311 W
3i' 275
0100 / ,ah it /4
D,y O 0315 2
4
1
ill.)
0 0095 /O
0205 1 ; 0320 j
Z
6 002$
5 090 5 - r /O owb o110 4 4' i;
r w ckg — n
U
ncj 14 19
Revision J/ 19 c1 /0/z7(8I
RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
Appiication:486-V p li ,Ccre_!lr! tS'r pie 1A60 04
441P foR•3 for f ofucm_C.Q s s idri.tc.--q itexid .Alai ._—
Location:
Applicant: Ghonus_e-AVP"i_ROSerf
TO:public Works Department
21Englopering Division SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ///J/ /
raffic Eng. Division
SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:AI/ f /
Utilities Eng. Division
Fire Department
Parks Department
Building Department
Police Department
Others:
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULL BE PROVIDED IN
WRI TIIN G.. PLE'.SE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON
144
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
DATE:
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
D Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
DATE:
Signature_of Director or Authorized Representative
Revision 3/1981 /Q/.27($I
RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
Application : REZo__t/ Q 6• ift tlsene S%AIM
tiLa f1R•3 fa r'E r_e_C.r tt+sA'aA__ a._q_!fd exp7e•4/ .
Lccation: ' • • Q'C fie?3 Ck r'LL'uk--Ahe • 04'i,
Applicant: SGhL/fle Lc4t, of rt
TO :public Works Department
Engi ering Division SCHEDULED ERC DATE: /1f.8!
T ffic Eng. Division
SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:lB/1 tilities Eng. Division
ire Department
Parks Department
Building Department
Police Department
Others:
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN
W :ITING. PLE".SE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON
J/ia/9L _
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:--- -'
Epproved 0 Approved with Conditions [' Not Approved
TE-zvA/ ok/Ly
f
f--7:777(71-._DATE: l4 , %
t' e of erector or Aut orized Representative
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: IT/./Ty ,E1./ /A/ , 71‘.1‘
pproved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
tt14.0- Diai DATE: //— — W
Signature of Director or Aut rized Representative
SISA1VNV , 18'1
ld30 MIA 8
r
NCI11101 1NV80A11 MIl 01.s.•,•
HVId 83M3S C
Wild 831VM
IRIS • 39LVB V 8V IN3WSS3SSU ::: •
831VM • 33SVA 8V 1N3WSS3SS€ , .
8.43S • SUN 101VdU13A39 At':,
831V • 398VH9 .3WdO13A30
3M3S • 1N3W3 9V S830101 3+t r
831VM • 1113113311' Wilk• •
101 1331a0S TVA ddV 1141111
UTIIIIT APPROVAL SUBJECT TO
LATE COMERS AGREEMENT - WATER No
LATE COMERS AGREEMENT SEWER NO
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE - WATER comm. FAc. COHN C1471G •
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE • SEWER
u
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE • WATER !
J
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE • SAER A/O
APPROVED WATER PLAN YES
APPROVED SEWER PLAN YES
APPROVED FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS N/4- Fp/e 47,620J44 69M4Y./
BY FIRE DEPT. YES
FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS Y°S
Revision 3/1981 /Q/•24($!
RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
Application: Ezepivr '07kf(,efi7I1e7,n.. erdie4 113M
fo Ri •3 for r_e_comArtt e_A•it + of cc q-eiAitexp e•Zia/ .
Location: • • • _ Q'C
Applicant:_ et-RO4rt
TO : Public s Department
gineering Division SCHEDULED ERC DATEWPA1
Traffic Eng. Division
SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:la/VWUtilitiesEng. Division
Fire Department
Parks Department
Building Department
Police Department
Others:
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN
WRITING. PLE'.SE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON
illal t
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Approved , 'Approved with Conditions Not Approved
D -c„-f.0— S'/•r
z) Sw 6f'-r( elfrVe Sv17r1.^- dry. fly
DATE: _ /d/%
Signature of Director or A orized Representative
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION :
Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
DATE:
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative
RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
Application : CE' I
7 IV eespee7i p tAipne eSi*_ Iir
41f41113___f&r_____<441,C4LCAPitrie_4PriedDi_lar_l_g...___q_!gl-11410.11371,Zield
Lccation: ' ' ' e _Raa ML.rierh_dittiletes___
Applicant : S.gth ijAfbG1.Gheln t Dilr t_
IQ:Public Works Department
Engi ering Division SCHEDULED ERC DATE: /®f.?/9/
T ffic Eng. Division
SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:AWVAtilitiesEng. Division
Ire Department
Parks Department
Building Department
Police Department
Others:
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN
Lti::ITING. PLE-.SE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. OP
Nale
U
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : --J1&
pproved 0 Approved with Conditions Not Approved
VE.1---v/t.'L: 0!(/L7
6itiaT rector
M_- DATE: l
e of or Aut on zed Representative
R VIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION :
Approved Approved with Conditions [' Not Approved
DATE:
ijnatureof Director or Authorized Representative
1
Revision 3/1981 Walla/
RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
Application: Rz_._ WFcQD86$e tl[! 6714 144 M_1_
AzieRt.3 •Eo e ‹iftti r_g_Croltlit_iwYea it Of 4:z. gee& i taidi•4/c/
Location: v%Gt/ti 1y d e/Q.3 C_rJev J¢tK . .
Applicant: SGh e .diojee±
Public Works Department
Engineering Division SCHEDULED ERC DATE:40/
Traffic Eng. Division
SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:/ / s'&/
Utilities Eng. Division
Fire Department
Pa Department
Building Department
Police Department
Others:
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN
WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P.M. ON
I2/
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Approved Approved with Conditions [' Not Approved
DATE:
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
D Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved
DATE:
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Y l \ea 1
J
I
I*iat
1 i1 13
3 y 1
9c. % %NW, •. ' w' INpCe.ti.t
c+0%.,. -.,: t;w4. G.au bt.g.," aN V -4- cvc..+" crtio • 'Q. it 4 •
Revision 3/1981 /10/209/
RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
Application: K O4 Ar64?
j_14-3 r ft itt C,attt /me ert e F .-v 1`a7•4/I
Location:
y" 0•
Applicant: Gonus.cAe.te_tRehtiert
Public Works Department
Engineering Division SCHEDULED ERC DATE: NO,
Traffic Eng. Division
SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:A0101 /Utilities Eng. Division
Fire Department
Parks Department
Bui g Department
Police Department
Others:
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN
ti;ITING. PLE'.SE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P.M. ON
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: POLICE DEPT.
Approved ® Approved with Conditions J Not Approved
1) Either the alleyway behind the building be improved all the way from No . 2nd to
No. 3rd or the apt. not be allowed access to the alleyway. The alley is narrow
in bad repair & dangerous to allow additional traffic from an apt. bldg. on.
2) Proper security lighting be placed in the parking a was.
3) Security locks, solid core doors, and pre-wire for burglary alarms should be
accomplished to les en impact on the police dept.
Lt- won DATE: 10/29/81
Signatur _ f ector or Authorized Representative
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Approved DApproved with Conditions :pot Approved
DATE:
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative
Property&LantiPlanningServic
Stephen F. Swank
P.O.Box 66772
Seattle,Washington 98166
206) 243-4030
L
November 24, 1981
Steve Munson
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton Planning Dept.
Renton,Wash.98055
Dear Mr. Munson:
On November 17, 1981 Robert Schumacher received a letter
that the City's Environmental Review Committee determined
that additional information was needed in the following
areas:
1 - Sewers
2- Storm Drainage
3- Access (Both Vehicular and Emergency)
4- Buffering Adjacent Land Uses
Condition 1- Sewer it appears will be no problem according
to Mr. Joe Armstong as there is a 8 inch line by the
subject property. This was confirmed by the 1968 study
performed by Lewis Redford.
Condition 2- Storm Drainage is available and must be
extended south in order to come into the 3rd. Street system
on the northside of the road.
Condition 3- Traffic Access is available to the subject site
from Garden Avenue North which functions as a two way street
and access is also available from the alley way for both
vehicular and emergency traffic.
Condition 4- A 5 foot buffer strip on both sides of the
subject site will be addressed with both side yards being
landscaped with Evergreen types of materials and a
possible fence.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me
at the enclosed phone number or write to the address on
the business card.
Respectfully yours, oF REA
Stephen Swank q' 0
V INOV251912.
ems ...w2
9NINjyb
A 9'
b
1
yZ
4t.4
t + '
got
14 C
g6Z
IC
TT
a.
4 o rL
ti' boo«o o oezo 0/ , oEao
SspO 9 E OLED I SOLO //
I s
A,
4
7 5/E0 00'0 /
4
V
0 0topoQ1
N
Sc a 0 r
1 r'1 % / fs° I 01E6 I5otoq..J
h alsoC/ l 74, t/
2 . J'Ul T-car 1 br ' s
t.
l 0...., tve S r ,lY,, r
e
s .
A ' r/„
O y— off w..9rr,l90001SONNrotgr
ssNI.L 2IV VI t„
oc1 I f[ { '5 rS
ik
ovl oQ tjE0Z/ I M o txv t s
96Yo onto r
o p110 / o 0 58fo
z.
ortN
r,. s, } 1* Il 10s
yto
I
OLYo • SLzo . 58!!Q
P630
511° 4F/
SII L IS It r
z
Sl1l
Ov[J) r
os o Z/ c Z • o/
y'ro f ' opt° F • o, • E.L 0/t
siao —
it
7 6 o,zo L../ e 5r.' I' ' w _ .. Ste.
A
e
SSlo et;0 c ' a
1- s0f 0
von
Stio
P t
oor S zo 9 ,
56EMr '2 L ogre l 9 O/f 0
oz/o
O
nryaa ,
Soo
v
SfLO
t44 • L 1,o ° a L Slsa S
O6
L 9tial3
1 eft14jr
S a
151
o*so j 5ES0
5010 9 : Ovl O'fz0 6 ' !
0 ' s EO
P 06L0 Es
20/0 * C S,LO 0/ : ;
0 11
o/ 0££0 y/co
2
S Ssi°
I•
0L10 4
5600 E a
a c{i fit obit // 4 i S£E0 04£0
4 t 7,p
Imo._
CS- 1 .r
060o t o z oiso
sio
L6lo
S tiO 2/ 1 r/0/.4Oti£0
5 £o5
sw a I '—/C
17, IDO
i fd/O
S6 0
fo/5 T/ Of 0
s.
0 E/ 09E°
r A?lb1/71W)
O9 9c [' 86/0-r c-
tea'
wr S.co/it, s•ccti
Lo
rt.)
I.
s[ 1 4s i0 1 O 1 s`r 4. soi
P
SS/ 0 o /*810 off 1810r08 0LP sco, rso.
A
II co
D?b0 ./. o u / 0
offy0
3s°S
6L' E/
D ' 0 .4
I o s .Ps D7 r\t
0 / aQaP4 o pc50
E •6L0 0
rrn t_5
4 L0
tI
Z
6 0so k. ' t°
o
0,1'3
10/
0 9
r s JP 05
s- _
i
nee toff
O• sifus AOOREs3 CITY ZIP TAxI AIIA
756460 02S0 0 ,223 GARDEN AVE N 98055 SCHUMACHER L ROBERT RV)78 00806 E 071
T "
xp 91025 MIA 031 sue 002 pp mg 1 of 2 Fot iAMCNWsic17rrh23Noc05lr'J 2 1 4 5
t -- REN
rLEG
IFGA1 OFSCRMTgM
LOT 7 BLOCK 4 SARTORISVILLE ADD
4°4.\ \),F /1/ l01
I ' C?
I CO 1
1.1
AS,
9NNING /
ili
ASSESSEO vuu*HISTORY SALES NISTOAY
TIAN LAM_ CNAIMPTOTAL —Lit OAT! NE MO. REASON OATS MOM I AMUIMT AEA
rim73 ` 5600 1200 6800 T 2100 03/16/73 817511200240013600T210008/01/73 100%VALUELAW 73 827611200560016800T210012/07/74 REVALUED
77 10100 4000 14100 T 2100 04/10/76 REVALUED
81 26900 16000 42900 T 2100 03/08/80 REVALUE
1 1
LAND DATA BUILDING DATA
ZONE ACTUAL MIN MOLT WATER FRONT NO GRADE R1-04•00% TOTAL ROOMS 5 OPEN PORCH AREA 14
JURISDICTION RENTON YEAR BUILT 1903 DINING YES
SITE VALUE 21000 VIEW NO FAMILY-DEN-REC NO
LOT SIZE 14000 SO FT BEDROOMS 2
LOT WIDTH 50 NO. OF STORIES 1.5 BATHS:FULL 1
LO1 DEPTH 780 FIRST FLOOR AREA 940 3/4 NONE
STREET FRONT DED/IN VIEW UTILIZATION 1/2 NONE
STREET SURFACE PAVED PERM REVIEW HALF FLOOR AREA 280 HEATED AREA 1220
SEWER AVAILA8LE YES HEAT SOURCE OIL
UNOGRND UTILITIES NO HEAT SYSTEM FLR WALL PARKING STALLS NONE
DATER SYSTEM YES ' i BASEMENT AREA NONE FIREPLACE NONE
EXTERIOR BRICK NONE CONCRETE AREA NONE
E x'E R I OR STONE NONE ASPHALT AREA 1400
1
vsTiwb .f'*' ..ua+Y /
ie .'
I. ' r. , . ..,L...:...,. ,: .
A
AIIit
N4It6
ea ,
It4F`'
mar'
itiI
4
0 1v1
1
i
h4N ---€
a0
i^
l'k
Eit " — `. — As
3aD
1t. tAL
s (":"
1.* \'''..
1
1
I,
y _ IIrIA
Ili
ILkil
JppZ'
2. re
a -' A. LO
s1liT _I
T
2im
it oawf ,-
i , .
1 [ IliiI1- ,` bi1I
i‘ ilit ‘ 1
1iIItl ;
IIHJ..I /.fA. k
ils!,i`
iII ! , . i .1 . I
siy •
lfi./
di)
wa !
a
pwas'w..rJ----__.-
3 ( iII7topo5&0 /JSWAe.ICTnEN7Et//co/.vimEDWARDAMCHUGHJR
L.e.r.. A7
A'aa• s....aW ..W. AA ,e.. ON1.4.Architect
t
yR..rMY.... .r.•...MI
a/rfc.O...cM ( t.l .•. ff.,,L( , ...f. I...I.N•MMMM.
eceipt #
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NAME DATE
PROJECT & _OCATION
Ap)lication Type Basic Fee Acreage Fee Total
Environmental Checklist
Environmental Checklist Construction Valuation Fee
TOTAL FEES
Please take tiis receipt and your payment to the Finance Department on the first floor.
Thank you.
r, R ENT--,
s:lcaD 1•••\
U
00 14 1ol1
E-
w
f
4010011.11°4'*%f ''
41Wpf!ye/
C '''
tilill n'
N \\
In
2 p
r,\ )
1
77 S1
4 ' 1
o
44 tatalogar___________
7,, ,,. VI 1
7i LT a
Ft
0JJJ111
d
A y
FORM LS[T
Deed
I Statutory Woman
d Califf, his wife9
Harry E. Califf and Nary H.
THE GRANTORSI
10.00) Dollars
identbe of Ten and No/100- -
1•r and In cons a single man
V he+d peld•convey'and warrants to Leo Robert Sehtmtueher,lest•d
C\ the Idbwln[described real estate,situated in the County of King
to Plat recorded In I
W ulin[t o°'. according ton. r,
Block Lys Sartoriavil e. ac c
County, Washington.
tutay
t 7rIIt f
Volume 8 of plates page 7, C .•.
J /i
U:GSU OM TAX PAID ON CONTRACT ATT. HI\___..i
rr ,
s= =
l
4ErlT1g1 PER,KING COUNTY 1\4i;SURFR
e
2••r""`k-29 "_ artlea hereto,
This deed Is [
ntract bet see t e p
1[62 , and .ondilloned for the con••7anc f the above
title.Lee fn fulttllm ent of that e•Kafoin-re-al •da •
datedescApril 13th warranty herein contained shall not applya
to
shall not
ro embr1n
the covenant* of
due duDa•
l
t
described D D torou[h or under the Du`:
eased or becoming
ntrae .
applyto
or Ien
nee arising by.
r
Og wdue `
aDD17 and tales, ueeumenU or other charges levied,
to the date of said contract. It arV• k `;lions of record.
restriction; and naer
F [
Subject to all easements. aeoRtiiH`'
s..ec-
dayof April, 1962.. fie'
OaNasTAII 07 t 7 thy>tent ST' ' eared this
fv^\ t (if asts)
rt • tea.)
I
STATE Olr WASHINGTON,
la
CountyCountyof Ting
Calif( and Nary H. Califf
red befon me Harry E.
Oe ibis dal DeTf0
the
a who executed the wlthln and fort-ring Instrument, and
imam
h
be Irylvtdu
rived
describedsa
In and ire the
to am si[ned the sales u tholr
free and voluntary act and deed,
t,
aeydo,rkd.[ed that they
uaeI and p5 poses therein mentioned.
o-
Jyt[ day of April, 1962.
and official oral ibis+eGIVENsw+der ef7 Mad
WA eJ Wu ta[t^•Nary rablk re eel Jr,Ow
midis/r Renton.
FLAY h--tQcg— 8 30("'• in-
ENDING '
OF FILE
FILE TITLE
77/11.d.,