Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA79-392 BENTON-McCARTHY Sj Better REALTY, INC. I I N Homes_ and Gardens(r+ Renton Office•924 Bronson Way South,Renton,Washington 98055 •Telephone(206)255-2424 July 2, 197 r, Ir Mr. Gary Jackson, Architect C"� �� -te 1919 Dexter Ave. No. Seattle, Wa. 98109 4 Dear Mr. Jackson, Pursuant to your request for a market analysis on the Kohl - Christenson property located on the northerly side of Primary State Hwy. No.2 (Sunset Highway) , between 80th Ave. So. and 81st Ave. So. , Renton, Washington. It is our opinion that this site will justify a neighborhood office building, based on the following facts: 1 . The particular neighborhood justifies utilization of space for a modern attractive office building, complimentary to the neighborhood. 2. There is a scarcity of office space in the Renton area. 3. Our company has prospective clients at present, in- terested in office space in this particular area. 4. The highest and best use for this property appears to be for an office building that will enhance the property values of the neighborhood. 5. The type of tenants interested in this area includes professional users, such as Lawyers, Engineers, Architects, Accountants, Sales Representatives, etc. 6. Current prices for office building rentals vary from $6.00 per sq. ft. to $11 .00 per sq. ft. depending upon the building and the services required. 7. The property appears to be justified for an office build- ing of approximately 13,000 sq. ft. with ample parking provided. 8. The present zoning of the property is for residential houses. The traffic hazard and the noise of the cars, buses, and trucks are a serious detraction for residential uses. It is this company's opinion, being in the Renton area for 38 years, ® Bellevue • Bellevue East • Bothell • Everett • Federal Way • Issaquah • Kirkland • Lynnwood • Mercer Island • North Bend • Renton • Seattle • Airport PEALTOP -2- g t �d � ( II. LTh7"1.":7 14 I Lcii" ' July 2, 1979 0 ; that this property would better serve the community, by having a moakIn i��F�� r outstanding office building constructed on the property. Respectfully, Benton McCarthy Realty, Inc. .-----e42 §:0"1.70/,:!22f2e..4:(2, Glenn Wallin . Associate Broker & Chief Appraiser GW:bn OF R�� �1 (Eto z PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION • 235-2620 pA co MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WA. 98055 o'TFO SEP'�t70-� CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR . July 5, 1979 t' U �• - Mr. Gary Jackson ..••'" 1919 Dexter Ave. North Q Seattle, WA 98109 CN[NG @ Subject: Site Plan -- Kohl & Christianson Addition Dear Mr. Jackson: A review of your plans in regard to needed illumination as part of your off-site improvements has revealed the desirability to add one (1) luminaire near the intersection of SW Sunset Blvd. and 80th Ave. South. The luminaire should be located so as to project 3 to 4 feet over the curb of Sunset Blvd. Illumination for 81st Ave. South may be obtained by Puget Sound Power & Light Company installing luminaires on their existing power poles. This request can be accomplished by this office. The type of luminaire and pole standard mentioned above is to be compatible with the existing illumination equipment maintained by the city. The following recommendations should be followed to accomplish this: 1 . Pole standard is to be spun aluminum, davit style, with a 40-foot mounting height. 2. A concrete foundation 3 x 4 feet round or square. 3. Luminaire - regulator ballast 240 volts, 400 watts, mercury vapor. 4., Conduit - minimum size 1-1/2" PVC Schedule 40. 5. Circuitry - underground. 6. Fuses 10 amp. , waterproof, quick disconnect which is located in the handhole near the base of the pole. 7. Junction boxes J-20 ' Design B. ' Mr. Gary Jackson (PECHVEb Page 2 July 5, 1979 27 1979 8. Conductor - THW grade rated at 600 volts single condu Insulation with 5/64- inch plasticized polyvinyl chlorid <p •(�` Stranded copper conductor. Size according to code. LNG D EP r." 9. Install per Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Current Edition, Washington State Department of Transportation. 10. Submit all materials for review before ordering. If any questions arise, please do not hesitate to call . Very truly yours, Clinton E. Morgan Traffic Specialist CEM:ad "(REN-}---8 COLEMAN & MATTAINI �L Ernest R. Coleman 19 222 Williams Ave. South U �"� 14 r. Renton, Washington 98055. (206) 226-6462 July` 12 , Mr. Gary Jackson 1919 Dexter Ave . N . , Seattle , WA. 98109 Mr. Jackson : As to the tract of land fronting on S . W. Sunset Blvd. ( Dunlop Canyon ) and lying between 80th Ave . So . & 81st St. So . , having an area of approximately 59000 square feet , commonly referred to as Tax lots 62 and 64 , I would like to make the following suggestions : • This certainly is not adaptable to single- family residences . The four lane , heavily traveled highway front- ing with its noise factor is a major objection. Also , the diminsions of the tract would make it impossible to layout an attractive residential tract. There would be a very limited possibility of any view sites . There are other factors which certainly would dis- courage consideration of R-1 zoning . Aereas of this type if developed residential call for cheaper type of construction . This limits proper, if any , financing . This condition attracts only border-line buyers , and usually results into a fast deteorating, neglected slum area . In order to develope this property to its highest and best use zoning should be granted which would permit the con- struction of professional offices , clinics , electronics , or other related uses . There is a very limited amount of property in Renton having the utilities and access possibilities for a small business development this site has . In fact I know of none at the present which/ available . Sincerely cc: Kohl Const . E . R. C em n Real Estate - Commercial - Industrial - Vacant Land Bell-Anderson Real Estate 25230 104th AVE. S.E., P.O. BOX 5699, KENT,WA 98031 (206) 852-8180 • OF Rk-4- .�� eNED °2 a 27 1979 July 24, 1979 � """ 41 4, • Gary Jacksonr�G Dl 1919 Dexter Ave. N. Seattle, Wa. 98109 , Mr. Jackson: Have reviewed property located between 80th Avenue S. and 81st Avenue on Sunset Blvd. The property is bordered by three streets which separate:it' from homes in the area. The west portion of property is bordering SW Sunset Blvd. . which has a steadily growing high traffic volume. The property is located on the edge of a growing commercial business and shopping center. There is a growing demand in this area for office and professional business space. I feel we could easily sell or lease, based on demand, any office space made available in this area and that it would be of benefit to the community. If 1 can be of further assistance, please feel free to call . Sincerely, Lt (::,51 Jerry Prouty Sales Associate r7.--\,si. T04 ,eb r - �, Sherwood & Roberts Inc.. R os z a�7 SOLD Real Estate Sales S b o w 'Z3 0.. ,...".- Zi t\ i — V. \• ALANNING �� . • To whom it may concern, In regards to the highest and best use of the site located off empire Way between 80th & 81st So. in Renton Wn; ' One must first look 'at the factors effecting 'the site ei. physical characteristics, location, existing zoning, roads, trafic flows, neighborhood', etc. The site is level,and has-no espicailly difficult development problems. It is located on a highly traveled roed, -withaoceas from'three sides: .While the property to the East is primarily single family, the''property to the West'is planned 'to have some 638 condominium units, and along Empire Way there are several business sites. The noise from automobles trucks etc. would be' a very limiting factor when cdn-- sidering a single family residentail use. If homes here to be built there, marketing would be very'difficult unless the prices 'were in-low 40,000 '$ primarily. At todays building costs this-would-not be economically feasable: So 'next'one would consider multiple dwellings which would be 'economically fellable. But because of additional traffic and population density the neighborhood opposed this zoning and it was subsequently rejected. A business site suck as a-professional Office would seem-the best alternative. Several reasons seem to 'euppo=t this zoning; 1). the location along a highly travelled road with a large traffic count would be in favorof'a business that' relies on drive by traffic and good 'access. 2) the population density would not increase. a) traffic around the site would be minimal and Only exist during business hours.4) there is a growing need-for offices in -the lea :Therefore I would be in support:,of any rezone needed to allow a .tirofessional- office site. S ncerely• • al 06geogi Dan Nomura Sherwood & Roberts 3188 Sunset Blvd. N.E., Renton, Washington 98055 • (206) 255-2511 -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 ) : 104,04114s, comet sIL.�tt4�, {r� 1'( "I/ - 4• .r� _ . l►1 1... Pia, wo4e. , 7b 9are- "1,41 . ` .111E-+ors . 1 v . ,.2 8. Estimated date for comp etion of the proposal : f Akii .. • 14 t" — all 1 rr. 9. List of all permits , licenses or government'approvals required for the proposal (federal , state an local -;,j,rcluding rezones) : KirAiste4£ setlaa.. t f.l ti_aD 114,e" i ,i Ltr,i...,‘ 1 IT 10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion, or further activity • related to or connected with this proposal? If yes , explain: 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? MAYBE in- (b) Disruptions, displacements , compaction or -over- „---' covering of the soil? YES MAYBE NO (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief .�%"� features? yrs— MAYBE WC- (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? YES MAYBE 11-0— (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , �• either on or off the site? YE 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 the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? RI:- Explanation: riF4restrew 1. 14, 1.1. afteaA0 t .A ri..6.e.. a cent th • _''' ara,cs, - 1.. plc..' o �.1' .t. C. Our& t <.04, 4 .r��;. c.t...l�: .446, gc er Etc t'Sr444 rne. di • --,-- .ar.i...:^4. 1..,w L.. ,..,'T-s-t71 a ". A illr.e -..- , Ji Lam...- �. aZ"l • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ," `..;` , ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM • • FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ti _ Application No. - y " 7y • Environmental Checklist No. EC'f 4//4'7 f PROPOSED, date: FINAL , date: Declaration of Significance Declaration of Significance , Declaration of Non-Significance Declaration of Non-Significance COMMENTS: • Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their • own actions and when, licensing private proposals. The Act also requires that an EIS be prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your explanation in the space, provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele- vant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now 'will help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review with- out unnecessary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal , not just to the license for w ich you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answ rs should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is complet d, 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, ith- out duplicating paperwork in the future. NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the St to of Washington for various types of proposals. Many of the questions may not apply o your proposal . If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on t the next question. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I . BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent 11, Celli:20ST tA5144.1511014 AOl, rr 2. Address and phone number of Proponent: 6101 ett,VZ'. . AR:Adirt, 4JE . . cm) sa►A,, Rdiaa. 3. Date Checklist submitted Z7 JV1..� 7i 4. Agency requiring Checklist e,.d9.�a1.k'$11`�.t 1'2 'T CX1'( c r exattrdts. 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: 6. ' Nature and brief description of the proposal (including but not limited 'o its size, general design elements , and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature) : ds, Two • - m pru,- 411:). dog. at-3.4.1G4 Fik.1-044 MIRE .5 L I .�]. L r1. - ! .�.c_. -. may Sra` ems. y ri r..- • vyy2,,1 Cr = .MCC�'"'VA, /AIM . 1 Or Se�I1a �O 11 C� 1 6119 �e7 ac •'a « -• , ‘ 4 4V A W 4 $%2010CAGI ACOCNOS 15 44VP S.-L mwL 1.'3V4br icp4..., -4- (5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms , insects or microfauna)? YET- MITE NO (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? YES M BE 0 (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? .0"1- YES MAYBE NO (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? VET- 0 Explanation: (6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? ,0" YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 0 1i-kei 3i5►f s 11401.iAt 4C: s.1l:45 (7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? YES MAYBE T1 Y Exp��t n7 L�,Pd► 4 4.1 ay, am r�lbStw s'reb , ,�1"fib fir` p 14.1 ti:voca- 114.4:_oiatke-0 (8) Land Use. Will the proposal res It in he al erati n o the 6 1 present or planned land use of an area? Y S MAYBE N— Explanation: a1 g ' r x 4+w cC 1,amo (9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: ;� (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? YES MAYBE NO ,e„-7j/� (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? - YES MAYBE gr Explanation: (10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an F "` 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? VtV MAYBENO Explanation: (11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? MAYBE Explanation: t.te,\ .aA4c ' ,► ' l.. fa-S.Stoks"Her • -10.1 • -3- (2) Air. ' Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? B NO (b) The creation of objectionable odors? MAYBE NO (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? s� • fjE6 A1� YBE NO Explanation: 444 1.4r�,, r.� iaerr�a� � ' ® s � te�'Utt pt4A atastr.lias Aftara.6 wrodg •• • .6,;90 11,1-90 raA) (3) Water. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of 'r water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? YET— MAYBE NO (b) Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? MAYBE NO (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? �f YES MAYBE NO , (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water -�✓'� body? YES MAYBE 0 (e) Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration®<<� 00 surface water quality, including but not limited to vf( temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ,� MAYBE 0 (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? YES— MAYBE 0,1 (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals , or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ES MAYBE NO (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, v. phosphates, detergents , waterborne virus or bacteria, . or other substances into the ground waters? 0" EEC MAYBE NO (i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available J for public water supplies? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: �.4 Wt :) �I''�4�1� 0(L 1`' t6®►C:S;, t p!NTA,IL CM IT: t e" A. Co.Ca . _ NA co. c-mcvsicioa.42-100 (4) lora. 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)? S MAYBE AB (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? VEBY NO (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? NA YB E (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? irrf- mug. 4(''' E x p l a n a t i o n e'6.. 4 ur, (....e s"'t°'i tom, COl#MA, ?41 i.43,44yd S e.AS We/1A A'S TierkiA I WAS 4 t14 art)t4 PiAt4 4 -6- (d) Sewer or septic tanks? Y MAYBE NO (e) Storm water drainage? /fir f / (f) Solid waste and disposal? f. YES MAYBE `0 Explanation: v.. •or ¶Ojtdi ,iou.m. imputerouttsw 'iR.,NNA.t..> li eac.tsr 1 tam.. U:ru.1.ir11t , Atoot.T,004.� ,4 14 i4 t T •rt.. t,...t st g. i4 C© 'qv (17) Human H-alth. dill tneproposal result in the reation o any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? P MAYBE WU- Explanation: 'i;tz`!G"r Ake:Orr .•• S.l.n I 1 •_ itak4 ti4k-04- dstic..&4Tair.X.vb or strne.wev464.... dor pr2z-- (18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive y=`� site open to public view? YES MAYBE N Explanation: Tyre' €l0.611 W4e. t' ES11Dt 4' 1JQo4.,. $4€10#11SC 1 ... . . ay _C t,. _..' L_`"4 . ` I..c ►, .. G,L - 74 --101 L. �. I t4d.. AA o�,�t '*ems was "T ►tom (19) R eation. Ikri the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? TES— RATITE 4(7 Explanation: 11046 ?A& t4 Ct 1-40: ftit 1 fair S1 K. . _.__.. ..I_ �j...„,t ►,.- tr�..__,S±.'__ . e . . -;1 . (20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an ' alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? YE'5 MAYBE Explanation: ,� / I III. SIGNATURE ' al I , the undersigned, state that to the best o,fimy knowledge the above information is true and complete. , It is understood that the ll ad agency may withdraw any ;decla- ration of non-significance that it might issue in't eliance' upon this checklist should there be ny willful misrepresentation or willful lack of 'full disclosure on my part. 1oC0A4L- 13 � - � . .... V Ch i 60tp 'rio .: Proponent: (signed) tTVt7 X (n me print d) City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 R , 3 -5- (12) Housing. ' Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? YES M YBE NO �r+�� 9aft:c.r4.11"4047. Si Explanation: �3"'�"� 6' 1,41 (a��i..0 t . -r 1•#�. 04..1....6t A ►:4a"'�'t.1' 4.+�►1� + - (4., 406P i IN O 464 S►r4. (13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: `' (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? YE: M BE NO (b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for news parking? YE MAYBE N (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? 1T— MA BE FT�� (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? � FED MAYBE N0 (e) Alterations to waterbor'ne.; rail or air traffic? ' YES MAYBE 0 (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? YET— MAYBE NO Explanation: & b1.i\IZc1..4G% t 444 + teLiS1444CSS Wiv4.1 .1tAit„ uAs. mot'i,a a INc.c. S6 04-14,r.114, S err- . at)1, t')OINK . S. arc.! ,C..l4. -VI- .bC, 1 H'1�'o s c rr, li t► 1 o ' .(14) s 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? Y S M YBE NO (b) Police protection? • Y S MA BE Na,. (c) Schools? , YES MA BE Nb (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? • YES MAYBE NO (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? YES MAYBE NO (f) Other governmental services? YES M YBE NO Explanation: el4DN.,41440114K117I Lj.A .4 Starrt®'K. (1F;4.�.YLV a CE S l p'1aam &.`.... ,lam ma: ave. rock... to c44..,. o‘... rats- rs it.1 •... (15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? YES M' BE N (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, orsrequire the development of new sources of energy? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: V.4401..6. r.'�.i riot. 11Z•t4 A` ra eSS ...,,,.„, ...,„„„ . (16) Utilities.. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? NO' (b) . Communications systems? YE RATETE NO (c) Water? YES MAYBE N0 AFFIDAVIT I , 1/ 4"XA.c-� w, .w` , being duly sorn, declare that I am the owner of the property invold in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct t of my knowledge and belief. OF Subscribed and sworn before me � A 1 this 3 day of ,, l ? V 2I 1919 10- Notary Public in an for the State of •-'"''---� Washington, residing at . pEQQ' AtIA1,62-, n 44' /5 1 -r -) (Name of Notary Public) (Signature -4 7i'- TeP l' G/v2FY/ e..U-,er-f 33,30 £. of R- (Addres.$) - (Address) (City) ' (State) �—� C62 C) (Telephone) (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found to be thorough and complete in every particular and to conform to the rules and regulations of the Renton Planning Department governing the filing of such application . Date Received , 19 By : Renton Planning Dept . 2-73 - - - -- - ---- .Zeceipt # --- CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' . „ • NAME ,i) /11 5 DATE PROJECT & LOCATION Application Type Basic Fee Acreage Fee Total Environmental Checklist I {100 Environmental Checklist Construction Valuation Fee TOTAL FEES , 0 d Please take this receipt and your payment to the Finance Department on the first floor. Thank you. - - 1.206.282.3427 98109 washington seattle north avenue dexter 1919 designer environmental g.I. jackson of office architectural the ATTACHMENT ONE 7. Proposed use of site is to build a 13000 sq. ft . , two stories (6500 sq. ft . per floor) professional offices and/or clinics building on the western 1/3 of proposed site; constructing a an asphaltic paved 67 auto parking stalls on the remaining 2/3 of proposed site off of 81th Ave. S . Providing new landscaped areas with a earth berm and wood fence parallel along SR-900 or Sunset Blvd. Entrances into site are off of 81th Ave. S . or S.W. 3rd Place see site plan. 8, Location of the proposed new structure on site, the relationship of, the existing territory view of neighborhood to remain. The access of the new site off of 81th Ave S. or S.W. 3rd Place has reduce' the impact of traffic on SR-900 or Sunset Blvd. . The new land use of rezone charge to R-3 instead of a housing site has the backing of the local neighborhood for a reduce impact upon human health or potential health hazard. The design of the new proposed structure is of wood frame construction taking on a neighborhood style of architecture. Reducing the employment problems in the Renton area, please note the attached four marketing letters from local real estate companys; asking for a professional office use in this location of the city. CITY OF RENTONfnitb 4/(:):\ RE7ONE APPLICATION! FOR OFFICE USE ONLY -� LAND USE HEARING APPLICATION NO. / � 9.2 7Q EXAMINER 'S ACTION , APPLICATION FEE $ //.3 ( ZC ,e) %'�T ( 2/") APPEAL FILED ,\ 4/AVQ��?�� RECEIPT NO . /O 4:5S CITY COUNCIL ACTION FILING DATE ORDINANCE NO. AND DATE HEARING DATE APPLICANT ,TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 : 1 . Name Kohl & Christianson Addition Phone 226-6620 Address 3330 East Valley Road, Renton, Washington 3. Property petitioned for rezoning is located on S .W. Sunset Blvd. or SR-900 between 80th Avenue South and filth Avenue South or S .W. 3rd PLace 4 . Square footage or acreage of property 1 . 3 Arces 5 . Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach a separate sheet) That portion of Section 13 , Township 23 North, Range 4 East , W.M. , in said County lying West of the West line of Ryan ' s First Addition to Earlington, according to plat recorded involume 34 of plats , page 3 , in said county, East of the East line if R.L. Haddock Addition to Earlington , according to plat recorded involume 38 of plats , page 4 , in said county , North of the North line of Primary State Highway No . 2 , as conveyed to the State of Washington by deed recorded under Auditor ' s file No . 2565554 and South of the Westerly production of the center line of South 138th Street , (formerly 5th Avenue) as shown on the plat of Earlington , according to plat recorded on Volume 14 of plats , page 7 , in said county. 6 . Existing Zoning R 1 Zoning Requestedi3'-3 , Sec .4-709A3-�:b� g' by special permit NOTE TO 'APPLICANT: The following factors are considered in reclassifying property. Evidence or additional information to substantiate your request may be attached to this sheet. (See Application Procedure Sheet for specific requirements . ) Submit this form in duplicate. "See Attachments" 7 . Proposed use of site 8. List the measures to be taken to reduce impact on the surrounding area. "See Attachments" 9 . How soon after the rezone is granted do you intend to develop the site? 60. - 120 Days 10 . Two copies of plot plan and affidavit of ownership are required. Planning Dept. 1-77 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 SEPTEMBER 18 , 19 79 , AT 9 : 00 A. M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: 1 . KOHL AND CR ISTIANSON A @ITION, APPLICATION FeR REZONE FROM R-I TO R-3, File R-392,-74; property located on S . W . Sunset Blvd ( SR-900) between 80th Ave . So. and S . W. 3rd P1 . (81st Ave . So. ) . 2. KOHL AND CHRISTIANSON ADDITION , APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT PROFESSIONAL OFFICE IN R-3 ZONE , File SP-407-79 ; property located on S . W. Sunset Blvd ( SR-900) between 80th Ave . So. , and S .W. 3rd P1 . (81st Ave. So . ) 3 . IRVING W. HULL , APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM .R-3 TO R-4 , File R-394-79 ; property located at 421 Burnett Ave. So. 4. DR. ANDREW DEAK, APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM G TO P- 1 , File R-405-79 ; property located at 4509 Talbot Rd. So . 5 . DR. ANDREW DEAK, APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL TO DEVELOP PARKING LOT IN P-1 ZONE FOR PARKING LOT FOR ADJOINING MEDICAL FACILITY , File SA-406-79 ; property located at 4509 Talbot Rd . So. 6 . BILL HEATH , APPLICATION FOR FOUR-LOT SHORT PLAT APPROVAL , File 401-79 , AND APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGARDING STREET WIDTH AND CONSTRUCTION OF CURBS AND SIDEWALKS , File E-408-79 ; property located in the vicinity of 1303 N . 26th St. • ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 18 , 1979 AT 9 :00 A. M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS . GORDON Y. ERICKSEN PUBLISHED —iepterober 7 , 1979 RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I , TEVE MUNSON , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to befo:•e me, a Notary Public , d on the 5th gay of Sept. 7#64444,or 1979 SIGNED 4 • r c) i + 1 . F`pi .\� ci GENERAL LOCATION: AND, OR ADDRESS: PROPERTY LOCATED ON S.W. SUNSET BLVD. (SR-9OO) BETWEEN 80TH AVENUE SO. AND S.W. 5RD PLACE . (MST AVENUE SO) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A DETAT_LED LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS AVAILABLF ON FILF IN THE RENTON PLANNING DEPT. I S POSTED TO NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS OF - 111."- Li . „ .10 I `:. TO BE HELD IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MUNICIPAL BUILDING ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1979 BEGINNING AT MO AM A.M. P.M. CONCERNING ITEM 3. REZONE FROM R-1 TO R-3 , FILE R-392-79 U SPEC! A PERMIT I-1 SITE i PPROVAL • i AIVER • S 'IS " ELINE M . NA : NT PEMFF U FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL 235 2550 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION OF R4,, A o THE CITY OF RENTON 6 © z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH.98055 a CHARLES J. DELAURENTI,MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9, �, 235- 2550 �,TfO SEPt0- September 7 , 1979 330 E. Valley Road Renton , Washington 08055 RE: NOTICE OF APPLICATION ACCEP ANCE AND, NDD,,j�`PUSK,B .."I.•.C'.,HE A RI NG., DATE FOR ' u .* ? °4 a 4F=; :,,ro ty located on S.W. Sunset Blvd. Letween 80th iv( . So. and 81st Ave. So. or S.W. 3rd P1 . Dear Sirs : The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on August 29 , 1979 . A public hearing before the City of Renton Nearing Examiner has been set for September 18 . 1979 at 9 :00 a _r, • Representatives of the applicant are asked to be present. All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing . If you have any further questions , please call the Renton Planning Department , 235-2550. Very truly yours , Gordon Y . Ericksen Planning Director By : _ ,I . >.. 6 Roger J . Blaylock , Associate Planner Note: Your rezone application , File R-392-79, was continued to this public hearing on September 4 , 1979. cc : Gary Jackson 1919 Dexter Ave. N. Seattle, WA 98109 OF R 0 THE CITY OF RENTON `$ MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON.WASH.98055 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR o PLANNING DEPARTMENT 235- 2550 0,9gT�D SEPSE���P August 15 , 1979 Kohl & Christianson 3330 E . Valley Road Renton , WA 98055 RE: NOTICE OF APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM R- 1 to R-3 , File R-392-79 ; property located on S . W . Sunset Blvd between 80th Ave . So . and 31st Ave . So . or S . W . 3rd Pl . Dear Sirs : The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on July 27 , 1979 . A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for September 4 , 1979 at 9 : 00 a . m . . Representatives of the applicant are asked to be present . All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing . If you have any further questions , please call the Renton Planning Department , 235-2550. Very truly yours , Gordon Y . Ericksen Planning Director By : C---?to-c041 (-f9 Roger J .glaylock Associate Planner cc : Gary Jackson 1919 Dexter Ave . N . Seattle , WA 98109 pF v 41 THE CITY OF RENTON © MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 nop = CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT Q 235-2550 4''it° SEP1�1.: August 29 , 1979 Mr. Gary L. Jackson 1919 Dexter Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98109 RE : REZONE APPL I CA7`I ON 392-79 Dear Mr. Jackson : Confirming our telephone conversation of today , I am requesting a continuance of the public hearing scheduled for September 4th to September 18th before the Renton Hearing Examiner to allow enough time to review a special permit application for a professional office building. We concur with your feeling that both the rezone application and the special permit application should be heard by the Hearing Examiner on the same day. This would eliminate possible confusion to the intent of the requested rezone. We will be sending you a new notice confirming the hearing date of September 18 in the mail . It is not necessary for you to attend the public hearing scheduled for September 4th. Very truly yours , Gordon Y. Ericksen Planning Director " Roger J. Blaylock Associate Planner RJB :wr cc: Fred Kaufman , Hearing Examiner egf.2-79 I)if e ASTM A I S o A/ ,i+ei d i 77 e 0 AP- ..,, 4tt, . - ''',if .e.,4i .: ,!, V., Jell.44444,'.04 t 4 v 4-44 e tei ",4V '':,.. l; )' 1: ::: 'Pt Pi '7'1:•, V,0 'L.,. 'z v 4.', 1,',„ , ,A;',:,.„...„:1), . ' , , . ,,...?. 4'441 f ';..,/, '? '(`'. . l ''1 '''';:e, ',, ,:o.,.-:„ ;+ Aiiii..4 :4,,. .;,.4. ., .4:4 ..d",'4. ...:':,*,r. :si.:' '''.i; •::., '',. ,1- ...4`;'' V'''-';;C :::: ,,';..,' ., .,,V,, e I • V t e: , %,, , ? 1 ""..; ,',,,,* ' ...., Ks.,* •'• 't t11 -'-,' 4;1 .4-, qf • , , 4 L-t., ., . - GENERAL LOCATION: AND, OR ADDRESS: PROPERTY LOCATED ON S.W. SUNSET BLVD (SR-900) BETWEEN 80TH AVE. SO. AND S .W, 3RD PLACE (81ST AVE. SO, ) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE IN THE RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I S POSTED Ti.! NOTIFY PROPE 'TY OWNERS OF i ,:10 t.. f+, , .. , :; ...,,t, „11 ,..., , ;;.i-4.,,,v LI .r . fit , ,-; , . . ..;.A. .,41, i-t44.. • 1.-.,,,,,- ,, TO BE HELD i IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MUNICIPAL BUkDING ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1979 BEGINNING AT 9:00 A AA 11-111•EVIG P.M. ' coNce• ,,ING ITEM 0 RE .., , ,ke 1 . ' . A " ' .'''. R-1 TO R-3.., , , 4.. . ,, ,,, ,,,.,,, ,.. , 1,,, , • III '4 'is.. X'," '1'''" ' ''. jalli.1 4. I r I L ,.: . - - -, Wr ' r 1/4444 ' t . 111 . , „z , , 4 „.; : P. t ,g. ;...., , , ..,,,,, . I. T PER. , I .. ., ,. „ i. y ' ..,„ ,P 4i, -,. ",:, A - 0- , .0; / 4 14 )44,. fis , , , ., ( , ,,, , ,,, t,' 4,„ , e4 a ,.. ., t 1 ,, ,.. ., - ., , ‘: ,, , .1111 FOR FURTHEP INFORMATION CALL 235 2550 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED P 4 ITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION 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 SEPTEMBER 4 , 19 79 , AT 9 :00 A. M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: 1. DONALD J. ROHRSSEN, APPLICATION FOR FOUR-LOT SHORT PLAT APPROVAL, File 399-79 ; property located in the vicinity of 4827 Talbot Road South. 2. DENNIS R. OSTER, APPLICATION FOR TWO-LOT SHORT PLAT APPROVAL, File 395-79 , APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGARDING PIPESTEM LOTS, File E-396-79 , AND APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS , File W-397-79; property located in the vicinity of 316 Union Ave. N.E. 3. FIRST CITY DEVELOPMENTS CORP. (VICTORIA HILLS - PHASE I) , APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL, File FPUD-372-79 ; property located between proposed SR-515 and Benson Road. 4. KOHL AND CHRISTIANSON ADDITION, APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM R-1 TO R-3, File R-392-79; property located on S.W. Sunset Blvd (SR-900) between 80th Ave. So. and S.W. 3rd Pl. (81st Ave. So. ) . Legal descriptions of applications noted above are on file in the Renton Planning Department . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1979 AT 9 :00 A. M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. GORDON Y . ERICKSEN PUBLISHED August 24, 1979 _ RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I , STEVE MUNSON , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST : Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public , on t h e 22nd d a y of August , 1979 SIGNED 4-- F PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 18 , 1979 APPLICANT : KOHL & CHRISTIANSON ADDITION FILE NUMBERS : R-392-79 , SP-407-79 A. SUMMARY & PURPOSE OF REQUEST : The applicant requests a rezone from R-1 to R-3 and the approval of a special permit to allow the development of the site with a professional office structure . The applications were submitted together to specifically limit the rezone use to a professional office building . B . GENERAL INFORMATION : 1 . Owner of Record : IVAN C . CHRISTIANSON 2 . Applicant: KOHL EXCAVATING , INC . 3. Location : Property located between 80th Avenue South and S .W . 3rd P1 . ; north of S . W. Sunset Blvd . 4. Legal Description : A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department. 5 . Size of the Property : Approximately ± 1 . 3 acres . 6 . Access : Via S .W. Sunset Blvd . 7 . Existing Zoning : R-1 , Residence Single Family 8. Existing Zoning in the Area : R-1 , Single Family Residence District 9 . Comprehensive Land Use Plan : Low Density Multi -Family 10 . Notification : The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date . Notice was properly published in the Record Chronicle on August 24 , 1979 and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City ordinance on August 23 , 1979 . C . HISTORY/BACKGROUND : The subject site and the surrounding area was annexed into the City of Renton by Ordinance #2913 dated February 10 , 1975 . It was rezoned to the present R-1 classification by Ordinance #3206 on April 15 , 1978 . D. PHSYICAL BACKGROUND : 1 . Topography : The site has a gentle slope of approximately ( 1 ) to two (2 ) percent from the north to the south . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : KOHL & CHRISTIANSON ADDITION , File Nos : R-392- ' 9 SEPTEMBER 18, 1979 SP-407 79 PAGE TWO 2. Soils : The site consists of Beausite gravelly sandy loam ( BeC ) . Permeability is moderately rapid . Available water capacity is low. Runoff is medium, and the hazard of erosion is moderate . This soil is used for timber and pasture and for urban development. 3 . Vegetation : The majority of the site consists of ligh.i brush and grass . Minor amounts of scrub brush and bushes ar: also evidenced on the site . 4. Wildlife : The existing vegetation of the site is sufficient to provide a suitable habitat for birds and small mammals . 5. Water : Prior to filling the site it appears that an intermittent stream crossed from north to south near the easterly one third of the site. It appears that surface drainage has been controlled as part of the fill operation . Even though there is no sign of a stream or surface water on the site at the present time , a high ground water table is probable. because there were no drainage improvements constructed with. the fill . 6. Land Use :' The site is currently in an undeveloped state . To the southwest , it abuts S . W. Sunset Boulevard , an extre ely busy arterial . The surrounding area consists primarily • f older single family residences . E. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS : The subject site is located in a marginal older single fami y residence neighborhood . The development of the site may ha e potential . spill -over effects in helping to upgrade the sur ounding area . F. PUBLIC SERVICES : 1 . Water and Sewer : An existing 6 inch water main is loca ed along N . W . 3rd Place near the northeast corner of the s bject site . An 8 'inch sewer main exists along S .W. Sunset Bo levard . 2 . Fire Protection : Fire protection is provided by the Re ton Fire Department as per ordinance requirements . Any future d : velop- ment of the site will be subject to the City of Renton • tandards . 3 . Transit : Metro Transit Route No . 107 operates along S . V . Sunset Boulevard within one block of the subject site. 4 . Schools : The site is within one-half (I ) mile of Earli gton Elementary School , three-quarters (3/4 ) of a mile of Di mitt Junior High School , and within one ( 1 ) mile of Renton High School . 5 . Parks : There are no recreational parks in the area . G . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE : 1 . Section 4-709A , R-3 , Medium Density Multi -Family Residence District. 2 . Section 4-706 , R-1 , Residence Single Family District . 3. Chapter 22 , Parking and Loading . 4 . Section 4-725 , Amendments . H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS : 1 . Land Use Report , 1965 , Residential , page 11 , and objectives pages 17 and 18. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : KOHL & CHRISTIANSON ADDITION , Files Nos : R-392-79 SEPTEMBER 18 , 1979 SP --407-79 PAGE THREE I . IMPACT UPON NATURAL SYSTEMS : The rezoning the property will not a direct impact on the natural systems . However , the proposed development of a professional office building on the site will disturb present soil and vegetation conditions , increase storm water runoff , and add to the noise and traffic levels . These conditions may be minimized by the application of proper development controls . J . SOCIAL IMPACTS : The development of the site for professional uses will not increase social interaction with the established single family residential area . K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION : Pursuant to the City of Renton ' s Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , as amended , RCW 43-21C , a declaration of non-significance has been issued for the subject proposal . L . AGENCIES/DEPARTMENT CONTACTED : 1 . City of Renton Building Division . 2 . City of Renton Engineering Division . 3 . City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division . 4 . City of Renton Utilities Division. 5 . City of Renton Fire Department . M . PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS : • 1 . The Comprehensive Plan provides limited specific guidance concerning the development of the site . The map element of the Comprehensive Plan is only a guideline for development and must be used in reference to the actual nature of the neighboring properties . Approximately 25% of the subject site was designated for low density multiple family develop- ment to provide a buffer from Sunset Blvd . West for the established single family residential areas on top of the surrounding hills . This relationship of Sunset Blvd . West , the surrounding single family development , the access , and tLe sites topographic setting does not support the develop- ment of the subject site with single family residences . Based on the unique characteristics the applicant has submitted a rezone request from R-1 to .R-3 along with an application for a special permit to limit the development of the site to a professional office building . A special permit does not limit the use of the property within a specific zoning classification . A special permit is normally granted to allow a use in addition to those allowed outright . The only method that the City can require that is effective is the filing of restrictive covenants . 2 . The present traffic volumes and noise levels along Sunset Blvd . West suggest that the site developed with single family residences would not be complimentary to the established single family residential area . The seven new residences would probably be of lower market value because of their location and thus would have a higher potential to develop into an area of localized blight . Residential objectives stated on page 17 of the Land Use Report , Renton Comprehensive Plan suggest that " residential and other exclusive districts " should be pro- tected from the unwarranted infiltration of incompatible uses . In this case , the addition of more single family residences would be considered as " incompatible" unless most • PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : KOHL & CHRISTIANSON ADDITION , File Nos : R-392-79 SEPTEMBER 18 , 1979 SP-407-79 PAGE FOUR of the property was used as a visual and sound buffer. In addition , Objective #6 , page 18 , would apply . Its specific intent is to "encourage the development and u ilization of land to its highest and best use in such a way as to promote the best interest of the community and contribute to i , s overall attractiveness and desirability as a place in hich to work , shop , live and play. " Development of an area that has a high potential for decay is not in the best interest of the City or the neighborhood . Thus the primary jus ification for the Hearing Examiner recommending a zoning classif cation of R- 1 for the property (R-114-77) is not appropriate if the potential single family residential development is not compatible with the existing single family residen ial and does not meet the intent of providing a buffer bet een Sunset Blvd . West and the existing single family residential area . In fact , the Hearing Examiner did not specifica ly address any of the potential problems of developing a s ngle family residential subdivision on the subject site . 3 . The proposed used of the subject site as a professiona office building to provide a buffer to the established single family residential areas is consistent with the Compre- hensive Plan . This would appear to indicate that the equirement of Section 4-3014 (A)2 has been met . 4 . The professional office building as proposed would hav: approximately 13 ,000 square feet on two floors with 67 parking spaces . The site plan attempts maximum use of the sit: with a 20 foot setback of the building from Sunset Blv. . and a 5 foot landscaping strip between the parking lot and Sunset Blvd . This location adjacent to Sunset Blvd . with its heavy traffic volumes necessitates additional setbacks and landscaping along this street for buffering and separation of uses . 5 . The intended use as a professional office building allows a variety of potential users from doctors to real esta e people . Access and traffic volume is critical to any development of this location . Plus some professional office would possibly result in more than just a daily use . 'eal estate offices could be open late into the evening , while a medical office would tend to limit itself to more of an 8 a . m. to 5 p .m. work day . N . DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS : The staff recommends based on the above analysis that the Hearing Examiner approve and recommend to the City Council the approval of the rezone as requested , File No . R-392-79 , from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-3 , Multiple Family Residential subject to the following conditions to be established •as restrictive covenants running with the land : 1 . The only permitted use of the site is for a medical professional office building . 2 . Setbacks - No building or structures shall be permitted within (a ) forty (40 ) feet from S . W . Sunset Boulevard ( State Road #2 ) ( b ) within thirty (30 ) feet of the northerly property 1One ; within thirty ( 30 ) feet of S . W . 3rd Place ; and within t ii'ty (30 ) feet of 80th Avenue South . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : KOHL & CHRISTIANSON ADDITION , File Nos : R-392- 79 SEPTEMBER 18 , 1979 SP-407-79 PAGE five 3 ' Landscaping/Buffer Areas - The first thirty ) feet adjacent to the northerly property line shall be approprriately landscaped to provide a dense evergreen screen . The first fifteen ( 15 ) feet adjacent to S . W . Sunset Boulevard , and the first ten ( 10) feet adjacent to S . W. 3rd Place and 80th Avenue South shall be appropriately landscaped . Detailed landscape plans for the entire site development shall be submitted to and approved by the Renton Planning Department at the time of site development review. 4. Height Limitation - Building or structure shall exceed a height of twenty-five (25 ) feet . 5. Access to the site shall be controlled with signed traffic safety along Sunset Boulevard and potential impacts to the adjacent residential streets . The staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner approve the request for a special permit as well , File No : SP-407-79 , subject to the above conditions . • fY 1 ./ ..... `s. i� 1� n - �^ 44 4 . •...l KC (� • ti t �.e.. jT � o _ /">; I 7-7- 1 1 ---i ". 1'-5'� $ ° -r,, . 5� 1i t r •`y • x w' k r'IL'N I r T ..1„4 , ! •••• , 1 , . ,..., .;, , .. .1,.‘„•••• i ., . • �- Z I ( �r 1 1 4 I IQ 15 E'�, '>1• 1yi0.� }J�•,I• ' 'LAJ .4.4.�.....w -1 _- y. • #.��" ;' 1 l 1 i t P • ,...-- 5 'z3•> _ et 1-1 i--i- , . > .I> Off\ —I \ 0 9� 7 .. _ r !! _� j li i f lVTll ' .''' '-` IC7 :' # d=ILD 1 of=- • ��{I,�[I- ^ IE—__ '3 I• 07�- 4 �I3I, 'I. cl, i• 31,1. IwT >; z1,• !,\ \ x 1„I —'6 xii , 4•11 451 .{ qc3 n.;, If - cl I I I `. Gi_L .1��Q _- �:� 1_ �i _ _ 5 ;". L d -, .�1r 11�,` .1< I:[ 1t 4^CS1' i �I. 1 -1%J l\• �®}�'�ttoy •: *Ht<'f o - -, 7 _ �a �f t 1 1 III it!!..., . .‘[17 Ls I 81ll\ ¢ c.1. rill _ - I 1 �� 1 I I _� I l .f71 1 ' —L1. l- L I__I--i L_1-�..T L� I -__ �.-\L./ _ _ f __�-�1 I Ij 1:: 1 i �I a., ?d ,I, ,T, j r\ " \p\ ®I II t -� a T,,—T -+TT^- - '�'-_,__ I> \.;,1 ,1 2I2 ! \, 1 zn I Zi0 I I , \�'''-\i \� • /I '�"'"k ' I 'r '' err,. r -L,4,--,--,• > z'' i -mot—'- e/- J 1\ -iC" -- --( , ii L-'41' —T. „ , ',. ,> I. I I ram- 5£ I J • I. 1 1 I t'_�e 0 , r ,21 i 1 \.F� T w�T, •J _'iT-i"T.: P i---- r s-1--LL 1 ..I'1 .4L ! `'Q r ,�„,'S-a' \ 67I • ,`j 1 1 4 -f•`!� I` �9 r f ryIf ice_ v� N '® i Z > I I ' I 1 I i /e >+'*'1 'it 11 0.�� tf:l._____ _� \,4` .. 1 1 1 • i 1�� e 5 .8\/ }-7� /,t- 1 f 1 •4/ P 4 ` 1 1-- 'n 2, / - --.rc I -'Y 1 '�J .-_ --`_.� '1 - y _� � , fi�rJrII �3��'J,77t� ,I�,II`, ifi. L__ a;1` ' r‘ I' i �� „,�> J CL' 1 //rIr'�'J/ y.�`,� '' `��l `b,., r/. 1 T7 ei 1 I. '1 ------ 'J4T -m 4 .., n7 V ,/ , '�,'7 L./ 1 f r i ~ JP<..,, # " + ., : z l!'�- racr. s� '�_ay N.J. !��J•;t`ktid r f• �.1tip.. .�r wr . 1 / _ I �taa \\ rq�,"a * "7C '„„ / 7r>� ,1 YF'Yl�` 1.. li,iq ,Z• fe.;..ii‘i/42,, • If.z,,,.7 N-N.: -„,,,,.,,"„ ,,,, , —1:4,,,,, , , ,, ,I.. ., f„.7 ,. ____. ,,_„ , 4 , , ,, „. _ ,,,, ,,,...--, , ........„,„,,_ \\w, sums£r ec vo �: � ' 2 x % ... mow. A• ('�° , W _ ,4 l " .,, /�. ` �,,���',���yy' '''' ter,t: 11 // y� , I - 1 { ,.GSS,=•>.tiq„g,.$'.T,ii,..#,cb'+88II"l,'*SamS ..,,....„- ,„„,.._•"'""'"- • KOHL & CHRISTIANSON ADDITION R-392-79 SP-407-79 APPLICANT KOHL & CHRISTIANSON ADDITION _TOTAL AREA ±1.3 acres • � Via S.W. Sunset Blvd. PRINCIPAL ACCESS E x I S1 I NG ZONING_ R-1, Single Family Residential EXISTING USE Undevelope• I Professional Office Structure PROPUSE_D USE ` _—_—�___ — __ _ — COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN LOW Density Multi Family COMMENTS — . msetcyr'S:-=::L.^'Sb.. '•:-.4-1 L -ssr.:acaxscc_2a^es^:t—raar;::ss-=xvizr..a-s<crsv v.aa---saw,44,4x1.5nraa'r'_a-camrassticr...1.-t..;.arszara.:..,.+.u-.,._.,.44aw24+1l DEVE TENT APPLICATION REVIEW . ET Application : ___(_ff7 -7! ik-A � '— Alve.,„c,_, 3-11/.149/ Location : h Applicant :_®A! earn95•01 di,Awl • -- TO : Par, s Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : ° ? `,' ` '' / Police Department A. R. C. MEETING V3,9/75? Public Works Department Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department ET N 2FrTHETAPvLICAl IONWVICIS ONFEIENCEO�(ARC) TO BE HELDIDED Id CO, F R �, LD ON AT 9 :00 AM IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE F YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, P, EASE PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:OD PM ON ;. ; ; '•` A� o REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved (';'-ife- '? ' Sianature ,of Director'or ,guthorized Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved / l +/ i ) _. 7W- 7 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date r — - - -. � i-st ii l d G l Ve -c ' � .•-•• •••••• . .�..... . ++y icpu I 611IC11 1. • DEVE" _.,''BENT APPLICATION REVIEW '_.: ET Application : t(R- 3cia-7? • . +� o ff..... • Location : OA $ 4,,q56' I34.11. 011weet,1 , � veS Applicant : ®6�� �°�� o +p9 44',Awl , TO : _Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE :, /i/J7q Police Department A. R. C. MEETING /3//f9 Public Works Department Engineering Division - Traffic Engineering . B 41"ding Division Utilities Engineering I0, Fire Department IN r�� EN- rjOR SWGTEET 1QNS R 5AR`J I UG THIIS AJP I CAT ON SHOULD pp OVJDED FOIA CONFERENCE (ARC) 10 BE HELD ON 7 • AT 9:00 AM IN THE TIRD F YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE HWILLFNOTRBEDABLEETOE ATT�N THE ARC, PLEAS PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY : UO PM ON g REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : I- 1(e Approved V Approved with conditions Not Approved Cc ,;-7c /C-1/71A"/ r—ie° /7/V1./Pi�/s i`Z 4''41/ %/GC- //� �cL %ti2 /�2�`7/el;�� %o A'A-ic/ /Jo.iG�.7/ice/G.- C U.✓S i/c_<tC: //c.<v, :2) /.4..S7/tLe-/ /'S /�`i� Ora % G �C;ic%ir`'�-L � ,eG� e_ir[ G` iTLzc--z-s. C;� c /Lc7cci /-14.;S . /c r /`/G 1. �Zri/Li )�/�G /`IsCS �iC�"l CurJC n / (P/S/77 Signature of Director or uthori Representative Date ,? --- REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : _Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved 11'[7T61,^1 1(t1 i�^d,,p,yS L ;141 p3� �1L C �tl,'�Ut� -r3 Fi'10:;" • j`k)SSId0 L Cy C Si CA_ 0 S' •:p ignature of Director or Authorized Representative Date .. / �i• \ . \ i-ii=�� 1 J �fi ,'/ \�/` '-(7],t.Y.--17,--,:-.'4,)•.:-';',/ /1 � !,' t� � - -a ,7P?;!. iIJi i.�• :;; � , \ ‘ ,:,,, \ -:.%. .7 1 --: P4.4fi.i:Ii.-:_lf,'4.--_,,,f if' :, . • \ ' \ r ,_ 44 -I r--...f-- d , .. .. ). \ • -,t.-..p.-i / : /,, ,�. \') ;?.i- -t,,-- , ._:..-f_-;TR7A---/:. 0 kV_T f 'r,„,'"/ / '/1 1 r.......,,.:__ ...„ ,_._:,-,.. t,..._ ,t „/ : , ,.. .,,......, 4'',"....,,,. /..// --\\ \.• -"L..... 1 c'''' - \� �-=� - -4./. / .',,%\:ii,;‘is,. :\ .. • • •' • : II [ -- .-\ 7---------7-7 "--:-........ \ . I,.. 71 . . • ' / /I/ . ./ ...') •. . s' ,,,, .,)c,". . ' .\\ . \• ,/ ( Ar7,7:7---.,*--•-7.----...._______:____! / --• s, ' I. ' •. /' , . , fr • • _I • _ / / •' .. Il ‘•: i/• ` ' /; • ' .r it! . .• / „- , > .1 /' / . _ I • / / w ' ^•f , of / / • • ' \ ,c/: ..-;--k .' / . ' • '.:,.,. ' ,x...,....;„..; :•%. "I-,..„,' -.., ,.g.„,11/ 5i,,,,, / / ) ..7 1 . ' . \ . 51 .4 1 • ,1,,\•' \ \ �( it?: //' �C, 1 ,-: • •71' ,. r ),_,. v.;,..)., / , c., ,. ,,,,,N .„ , ,c, . .•___• ‘; .4,, .._.„ , , . ., ,,,,,, /..„ .. __" . . ... \ 1 , ,, \ . , . ,...-, , ‘ • ,.._ . . , .\. .... .. r..... ter..\ '',... • � �� ///}) . - .. ,.,,)• . ..;,.._ .__. ., —\\_, ,__ , , . • • .. ...) . ,/,‘ ,,, ,,.?....--)._, .., . , . . ,..; , .t. .... _ , ...... ... - \....\ -. . ,__.,. . .... ..t. ,,. 1 0 i / . . , .. .. .. . AY.1>NN,\ its' I-1 al H Cs- JAL� •G / \`\\� `_ r•' 1/ I O • a is••. t N. / /..\\ •. �1-1 �w 'I• H C4 • rn 1 N a rn x M O 1 x DEW 'PMENT APPLICATION REVIEW I ET Application : 0 2 1.- 37Q-7 -- '6� � Location : al $ v iv � tO is. AveS �I � ,-� Applicant : roAl CAriLii 414411 _ TO : Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : W7 ' Police Department A, P, C, MEETING f.7/77'? • __Public Works Department - Engineering Division k' Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department CNf•1MEIJ_ PJOR SWGTHET IONS C -GAR I JG IS ASP I CATT ION SHOULD PROVIDED ATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO PE HELD / )4,7 AT 9:00 AM IN EN is 0 '�, . F YOUR DEPARTMENT ID VISION REPRESENTATIVE�IWILLFNOT RBED ABLE ETO • ATTENDTHE ARC, PEAS, PROVIDE THE. COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 PM ON i ' , REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION :_ A/ Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved • - �� - �iGz f Sinnature of Director or Authorized Representative of Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : })_,. T 06, Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved W .,,._-_,--'---.'71.----- (.'" / --/(.•:-;'71 .7 Z.-1_ Signature -of—Director or Miithorized Representativ �1 1 , / e Date�1 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : ,CF-488-79 FOR KOHL & CHRISTIANSON ADDITION, R-392-79 , SP-407-79 CONDITIONS FOR DECLARATION OF NON—SIGNIFICANCE • • 1 . The only permitted use of the site is for a medical professional office building . 2 . Setbacks - No building or structures shall be permitted within (a ) forty (40 ) feet from S . W . Sunset Boulevard ( State Road #2 ) ( b) within thirty (30) feet of the northerly property line ; within thirty ( 30 ) feet of S . W . 3rd Place ; and within thirty ( 30 ) feet of 80th Avenue South . 3 ' Landscaping/Buffer Areas - The first thirty (30) feet adjacent to the northerly property line shall be appropriately landscaped to provide a dense evergreen screen . The first fifteen ( 15 ) feet adjacent to S . W . Sunset Boulevard , and the first ten ( 10 ) feet adjacent to S . W . 3rd Place and 80th Avenue South shall be appropriately landscaped . Detailed landscape plans for the entire site development shall be submitted to and approved by the Renton Planning Department at the time of site development review. 4. Height Limitation - Building or structure shall exceed a height. of twenty-five (25 ) feet . 5. Access to the site shall be controlled with signed traffic safety along Sunset Boulevard and potential impacts to the adjacent residential streets. & ! /FINAL DECLARATION OF Nr ,a3ino NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No . R-392-79 SP-407-79 0 PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . 488-79 0 FINAL Declaration Description of proposal Requested rezone from R-1 to R-3 and special permit to allow development of the site with a professional office structure. Proponent KOHL & CHRISTIANSON ADDITION • Location of Proposal Between 80th Ave So & S .W. 3rd P1 ; north of S .W. Sunset Blvd. Lead Agency CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPT. This proposal has been determined to 0 have ® not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS ® is madis not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 (2 ) (c ) . This decision was e after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency . non Reasons for declaration of environmental /significance : Pursuant to attached conditions , in the form of restrictive covenants . Measures , if any , that could be taken to prevent or mitigate the environmental impacts to such an extent that the lead agency would withdraw its declaration of significance and issue a (proposed/f- na1 ) declaration of non-significance : Responsible Offi ial GORDON Y. ERICKSEN Title P A ING.IRECTA/ Date SEPTEMBER 14 , 1979 Signatur / 11/ e .,r City of Renton (!//// Planning Department 5-76 DEVELOP PENT APPLICATIOn REVIEU SHEET `t.e, fe iteo g oltsfyr, I h 40 '41(0.0Adv4,60 cygiesitrar. o � tUullcant : 1/ Sites mod• ,� ?. 9 • 'V. .;;) Park, Department SCHEt LED NEARING DATE: ',{W7 Police Department A. R. C. MEETING Public Works Department Engineering Division yaffic Engineering 4/Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department cOtir NIS OR SQGGD. O S R GARD INpG IS AppP``�ICAT IOP 0 0 I APrL I CAT IOf REV i LW CONFE - dd LLDD pE R V DAT R_NC� (A�r.) TO �E L1� �� F OUR IDAR'fMENT/DIVISION 'REPRESENTATIVE Ef�IILL FNOTR CONE FERENCE TO ATT N THE ARCS PLEASE PRO DF THE' COMMENTS TO THE WVLANNIINGBDEPARTMENT BY 5: UO PM ON`Ap ,.. ' , ''1 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ` . pproved Approved with conditions Not Approved Sig • 7:2 na tr.,e of r Director Authorized Representative 9` 5 —) 11, A tive Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Approved Approved with conditions Not Ap proved DEV-- -1PIpENT APPLICATIOPN REVIEII EET • r.;;pi catione f► efeaf fiPrrA t (SP 'o7 7c n !� e° en igfifp yeglEvit Orr r t Le/11 e 4.1(co cai 4pc).cwbeedia0-0 OP. OIL 61, ease _ ° Meq-451009) Tito pares Department SCHEDLLED HEARING DATE: ; . 2911 Police Department A, Ro C. I1EETING/1/7 Public Works Department Engineering Division Traffic Engineering g i"fding Division l U t i l i t•i e s Engineering Fi''re Department COMM NISNO RFSUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APpP I CAT ION SHOULD 3 AP LICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE{{ J � LDIOND Fine (ARC) 0 I3 AT 9:00 AM IN THE THIRD FLOOR FD EN IF YOUR DE ARTMENT DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT BECABLRETOE BY ATTF.ND THE ARCJ PLEASE PROV DF THE. COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ,6 V T REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: - Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved _ er l \ � (4•Ctj , T. ;� .� �< L, F. c • Signature of Dire ctor or Authorized iepresentative - �.- - - -- --- ---- - - -- - - _ % i i Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : '-Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved Signature A Di rector or ut on ze Representative Lf / I Date ' �T'„ •`i'P ";'YaieA' :3�.,hE'.. yK, f�' - �d .'i'.:• - rr r ,. --.-.•. ,.ate:.,:r ....- ,A::-s7'r. .�1•t.,,.,75'!Px .,r',.�?':�::i`.l;'�;,ct;V;�,u.:..._:4df".•:`:Fr::..ceE,:.. ..-:,_,s:.:-,_......,..-....,,,.,..r..... . -.,. .. ..°m...'^,"^,^i^ur>::n�............... • DEVEL1PVEnT APPLICATIO`! REVIE'( SHEET Pobsessismq.I co 4ikr .0/ Cr' ° , t e pp"05 • Parrs Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: 4441179 Police ce Department A. R. C. MEETING . / - f Publ ysWorks Department Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department cOMM NIS OP, IGG ST OS R GARDD I F!G THIS ASP I AT OP SHOULD SIG H HE AP (_ICATION REVT I�I C PROVIDED. ►y' UUFRNC (ARC) 0 N (_ ti —_ AT 9e00 AM D F YOUR DEPART-REFIT-MI-VISION REPRESENTATIVE(�WALL�NOTRBEr) RETOE AT! ND THE ARC, PLEASABLE TO BY 5:00 PM ONI, ver; PRO THE COMMENTS TO THELANNING DEPARTMENT { u r Y j �' ��'i REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ✓Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved Signaturef Director or Authorised Re res 9 / /7x- p e n tit v Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ;"+ Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved 1 - - DEVELOPMENT APPPLIICAT 1O REVI`EI1 SHEET ^:611 iCat i©n: 'o®uitil 0' 11 G� S'. 947°° 7r �m rAVoCs H rQV ia� �Yr owl? en I ewilt 0 0 e eft% pp1 icbn4 :k6 9- �ssy�2J :°, ,Jo �/ B a ° Ti: Par ©�� s Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE; 211 Police Department A. R. C. MEETING Public Works Department T E,'gineering Division 1 Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department CO I$ oR S1 GGESTpN S R GAR I IGTHIS APpP I CAT ON SHOW DE`y R, E APPLI CAT IOt REVIEW CONFERENCEdd i+1_ BEHPERLD PROVIDED � � o (ARC) TO BE HE T-- � Al �°0LI) ON F YOUR llE AR'i'MENT/DIVISION REPRESENTTHE THIRDE NOT FLOOR COE NFERENCE ABLE TO ATT NQ THE ARCa PLEAS PRO ItD THE COMMENTS TOI THE WVLANNIINGDDEPARTMENT BY :lO PM ON .,u tteAm REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: 4.____Approved Approved with con ditions Not Approved e/ 4/ i ' Signature of Director or Authorized Rel resenta i VDate( t he REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISIONS Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved DEVELOPEENT APPLICATIOn REVIEW! SHEET K® ram 0'® 6�� " Y * a `; ite *c * ® Wi 0 0e ctipA 'Q es# elm % °6111,50(PO . _ d- t,ulicbnt:1, -, F O . 41,��e3co' 47 i ICJ : P a b Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE ;`a'a'/?9 ar t Police Department tment A. R. Ca MEETING Public Works Department Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department PUP� R Ir�G �NIS ASP ICAOPSHOD D ° AT O� REVF�'d COVFREN �A ��^^ PPX'ap . RC) TO �� ii F OUR DE ARTMENT D Vlvd ISSION �REPRESENTA00 AM IN TIVE�'WILLFNOT�T CONFERENCELEO ATT N THE ARC, PLEASE PROV' D THE COMMENTS TO THE �LANNINGBDEPARTMENT E AE BY 5: UO PM ON10°6.0Vdrc i ' ' ' 1) $ REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ___—� Approved n Approved with condition I s Not Approved It would appear that this would be the best usage of this Imp property. However the entrances and e xits to the parking lot should be constructed so that they provide good visiblity onto Sunset S .W. Also some consideration should be given to reducing the speed limit on Sunset S .W. in the area from the 50 mph zone to a 35 zone, Also improvement of the shoulder so that cars traveling outbound on Sunset S .W. could slow on the shoulder area prior to entering the driveway. Consideration should be given to restricting left turns off of S1 Stnsetxixx into the parking lot. Lt : D.'k-:: Pers __.. son =---------____ ____ 9/5/7 9 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with conditions Not Ap proved • • >' King County •' ' `... Department of Community State of Washington j - 7. • ...- ,•,f • • )) i and Environmental Development John D. Spellman, County Executive ` Thomas M. Ryan, Director Building Division Robert L. Krueger, Director 450 Administration Building Seattle, Washington 93104 ' 203 344-4141 January 20, 1976 • • City of :Renton Building Division Public Works Department . City Hall • Renton, PA 98055 Attention: Jim Hanson ' Subject: Grading Permits Nos. 1836-35 and 1628-18 issued under King County Ordinance No. 1488 in the area annexed to the City of Renton, July 16, 1975, by Ordinance No. 2945 ' Gentlemen: As discussed with you, I am enclosing copies of two grading permits along with Ordinance No. 1488 which shows the general conditions required for all grading • permits. You will note Cash Operating Bonds have been posted for each permit. These bonds can only be released by the Manager of the King County Division of Building and Land Development. These releases will be- held up until such time as you advise this division of the City of Renton's disposition of these permits. Please advise if we can be of assistance. . Very truly yours, RECEIVED Edward B. Sand, Manager by: ant' 8` OF RENTON • HEARING �MMINER M. K. Lechelt SEP c . Aid EBS:t4KL:mo ` r8r9al0�1lcl2i1.�197gs3a o: ��, cc: Russell Collins 13706 Renton-Issaquah Rd. , Renton, WA 98055 Kohl Excavating, Inc. 3330 East Valley Rd., Renton, WA 98055 Enclosures • . . • - • • , . ( : . ( \ Cnie : •VE6 piRA- PF -Ft :. KI iCOUNTY DIVISION OF BUILDING •. - -: !. , g.,,r.., .•. '-7RING gv;'"if.rOfir - , - E .-.1-,..... . ER . ---..',.___ROBERT L.KRUEGER DIRECTOR -., . . .. 44.i. . _ S_ -- 1141fV -... l,'i p-IL 0 KING COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 8197 / ..:..---------- ----,---- - 344-4141 - APPLICATION-. FOR PERMIT V _ 4,5_p:__ f - - •--- "- DATE- 'May 31 1974 . _ .. __ • _ _ . __ _, . _ . PERMIT NUMBER WHEN VALIDATED TOTAL FEE t :'.:1836 if—-- - -.-- ----- ONE YEAR FROM - - -- ' / 41:)13 NUMBER EXPIRES VAL DATION MAY--3-74 9 0 Z 3 1,..: - - . . : -, 400,00.- ‘,.: 4' / • c-1.0' --- 7- --- ..-- ... • T RES COM PL-R MECH DEM F.C. GRAD H/Z- BOND S/M MN - P Kohl_ Excavating_ OA ERS NAME---- E ---,-- , , , 4,3pii...5-c._ le eul1/43(1,.4ZzsoeVa,0•044&a On SR 900 btwn 80th S & 81st S. )fibau) 3.3 C ADDRESSOF PROPERTYVV• Dunlap----canyon -Project- ---,-;---------:---- - -- ----.- ------=---7--.- 1,, ---5-,,TP- -3- -7 -g67; -z •- , • .,--, - - OWNERS MAILING ADDRESS 3330 East Valley Road : Renton Wa 98055 -i- PHONE 226-6620 ;_:•;.-.„ . r . \ LEGAL DEa ,CRIPTION_:- - - -- Northerly- 240 ft ttract9--of--the Joseph-Marshll Tracts - - - _.. ' - , .QVa '-•!. • • i! . , - 1 , - -7--- , . TAX.PARCEL NUMBER 25 st 000 cu yds 13- acres „,..• ! ' UC . PUC USE 7:7:;f - 'Filling (for--a building site) - ----- --------- - • TYPE OFCONST. OCC.GROUP v . 1 AR _- :' .:: -,_:,. ,•!c;-----L- 1 \ ,_„ VALUATION - E 1ST FL OR 2ND FLOOR BASEMENT CGAARRPAOGRET/ 7DECK COPVAETRIOED CsOTMO. RI EC)SF COMA.TROEATAL- ': ORD S F . H Z BP BOND'MECH - - ---- MECHANICAL :• - - - FEE DISTRIBUTION FEES P' 1 • . BUILDING ' PARKING STALLS '.;•,., PERMIT FEE 3.00 ; P• LAN REVIEW 200.00 , - - REQUIRED SHOWN . FURNACE . MECHANICAL PLAN TOUB.WORKS -- . . . . - - - - - 2 . - - - ,IRE PLACE - -- -•- - — - SENT RETURNED GAS PIPING . . A• MOLITION .1. V. -- PLAN TOVV 200.00 .IEALTH BOV'.., 1 I ,•••••: . : ;..,,- . - , SENT RETURNED ' • Gradin - - 400-.00 w :, ,.-:;:.,- --,;',:7'..':•.•• • BAL ONM* Cash Operatinli, BondTOT= 0-11000.00' for 18" ) Cc 1836 TOTAI he ab=Ativercl--- •, 0 PUBLIC WORKS I LAND USE MANAGEMENT STATE .. .... . . .. . . . — ... ... . .. . H PARKING . . ACCESS PERMIT * --.------- --. - .. . LOT AREA .• . .. . E . 'DR/11/41NA&..'7 ▪ R ' ---_ L _. . NO. OF UNITS , . . . . '1 •CURBING k HEALTH SCHOOL DISTRICT . • \d - APPROACH7.S _ . . • - V - • -- V. CENSUS TRACT ,g - • BOND TOTiL __ , 111 ... GRID NUMBER . C FC2D (SW/WA-SAMA) . _ ••+, * * * 4. BY - • - PLAT, PUD, VARIANCE 4 APPROVED E ,, HYDR/WLIC-30NDITIONS: - - _ ._ . . . .. - Vs IOTHER _ ..• , . CONTRACTORS NAME - REGISTRATION * PHONE - ADDRESS - - _ . _. - ---' KIN COUNTY DIVISION OF. BUILDING WANDLC BOER FIMEECTT :•'7+-:. ROBERT L. KRUEGER DIRECTOR ANI C E R THATIFY THAT THE THEApp I CABLEFOR M A KINGTl O N FURNISHEDCotiN T y REQUIREMENTSBY ME S-T IRUE WILL . 1 614:(1,:;‘, -1-Ze.-4--/-1,-0•2------- (.1k4ALL., 0-OWNER/AGENT I TURE " .---- - . BY -• F142 5/73 15-M ' .. - • ' PETITION AGAINST REZONE Reference: File Nr. R-114-77 (Previous hearing) File Nr. R-392-79 We, the adjacent and surround property owners are opposed to this land being rezoned to R-3 (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, APARTMENTS, AND BY SPECIAL PERMIT, PROFESSIONAL °OFFICE BUILDING, CLINIC, MULTIPLE HOME 'PAK AND ETC. ) . Rezoning to R-3 would adversely -affect the property values of single family residences in the surrounding area. The adjacent and surrounding properties are zoned R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, and this property, like-wise, should be zoned in consistency with the existing zoning. It does not have character separate and distinct that would justify an R-3 zoning. There are other parcels of vacant land near this site zoned R-1. Were this rezoning to come about for a "SPOT" area, additional applications may be expected and will , 'in turn, lead to the breaking down of the single family resident character this area has maintained for many years. . A year ago a request by the applicant (File Nr R-114-77) was denied becuase of the community desire to maintain an R-1 Zoning. The fact that the site is near a PROPOSED low density multiple residential belt along Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) on the Comprehensive Plan was -not considered to be a valid reason to rezone to R-2 at last year's hearing 'and it is noe now a valid reason to rezone it to R-3. Rezoning to R-3 would create a "SPOT ZONE" within an already existing R-1 Zoning. I -may be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan use element, which designates area in the VICINITY of the subject site along Sunset Boulevard as a low density multiple-family residential area, BUT we want it CONSISTENT with the surrounding property, which is Zoned R-1. Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) is a very heavily traveled highway. Vehicular traffic generated by the purposed development will add to the already hazardous condition at the intersection of SR 900 and S.W. 3rd P1 . Two (2) known deaths nd many serious accidents, and near accidents have already occurred at this lo- cation. Access to the site from Sunset.Boulevard (SR 900) is unrealistic. during peak traffic hours, it is already impossible to cross the highway and enter Renton-bound traffic without great risk; as a result of the volume and speed of the traffic in both directions, and, the blind nature of the area due to the curve on SR 900, 600 feet Southwest ,of S. W. 3rd P1 . Safe access to Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) to the proposed site would require' a traffic device, and a "storage lane". This may not be possible because of the East and West curves adjacent to this site. If this is possible, it would then place a severe traffic burden on S.W. 3rd P1 . , and Powell Ave. S.W. and other adjacent streets to the site. This would provide an over-the-hill route and create another art- erial similar to S. 132nd St. We do not want such an arterial , a steady flow of. traffice, marring the peace and tranquility of our existing single family res- idential neighborhood, and jeopardizing the safety of our children, who must walk .5 mile to the nearest elementary school , and over a mile to the Middle School , and High School . If means of safe access are not provided at Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) , the adjacent streets will have to accomodate the: increased traffic. Bus serive is NOT adequate, or near adequate, and exists only on Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) between Renton and Seattle. Again this necessitates people crossing a heavily travelled highway. Service is also limited to Carly morning and even- ing industrial shift changes, and even then the bus must be "flagged" by any in- dividual wanting to stop it. Both Utility and Fire Departments have previously indicated water mains and sewers will require extension and size increases for MULTIPLE ZONING: It is assumed, since these are tax related items, that it will be another additional burden on the Renton taxpayers, in the site vicinity,, which we do not desire. We wish to point out that the property was zoned R-1 a year ago in response to the request of the community. Because of the reasons stated above, which are similar to last year's, we are opposed to the purposed R-3 zoning (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, APARTMENTS, AND BY SPECIAL PERMIT PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING, CLINIC, MULTIPLE HOME PARK, AND ETC. ) , and recommend that it remain Zoned R-1, consistent with the zoning of the SURROUNDING properties. RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER p 1 81979 EXHIBIT NO. 6 • 7,8,9r1OSEr11,12,I,2,3,4,5PC�,. ITEM NO. 5ya- 79J =- q 7-7,7 f f T - � 3- 8j�'� rI PETITION AGAINST REZONING REFERENCE: FILE NR. R-392-79 PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO. ---, „ - I A,4_,, -..-e_ .i''''h‘_.,47.,i/ .., — P.,/ /1Z,7-e42-----,-,--/ , -2,5--,..,--:_ -/./.727 ZrciA.1)- F- ..f it, Gt. i 6 ,5 (,( P4iW- u_. 7 .s.s G i- 5 a,,,,...„- I ( Q J/i .. Q J 5 „Le) f/ 2 ;, - I, /t',D/o2` -- 0 i��' 94:3 s Uc/ 4„ _,./ '7 / / / cam- '-i mac_ G I. e 1__ __,,zia-__,-- ,_ l - y 1, ,/ U ()kW,- 0 _ :/,'//e. /'z- ii(iiii-L-fik._ r. ) _64,7, 34f pt 7.6,4i/on - t 1 () t 1PigPT '9A 14-brim A$ Atr S.(4 '.` .. 90,, ��) 22g l d'G � / 6/(--iCe 4:x . 77 th/21-i5. 40 ' Qeo , f ,, k-36'e) , paiLL./ (<•_,I)uvit,ip --i-s '" i 1 1 i ' )' .. /`� /' 'lid/ ,ram,,_ f,- -SLD. - 2.5.5" 3 6 t 3 e - 7). / / 61:,:-/4- 1 ' r '-`'-,' / =��A(� 77 ., 4,-3 n , 70 q' S(il /4 .A/G-s-Tr; v ( 2 /t/o ,J lM 1- `-/7/ z go( ,s ,,) -/AIA_ .. 1 /�Q,ems 1s A 'fir ,L k ?-7 ,11 / g 6 POA 414,.// 0 - c .5 _ _ / rJ e---, / :. ---;------ Q "Z-V - -----Per----1.4.1-/— a s-'‘ / , ..., 7 .i.,-.6/2.6„/ _ __ ZZ;;,4 ) ,-,-7 ,,,c-- F 62-e.,(/(-e ii".1 , J v l� � , /J/f %rJ (1/.7 �.J� ,q s.� o j, ifiL7Z U'l r� �71r�/f/%`�-�[X—�j(�. ,/,- / /,° iyily,t- 7,!;,,-,. : /9 .ilaciL,,, l- 4_ i ic..-cti, . jZ. Cf_a_A.14.ko , 0 ' ,:(c ( E'��- 64,�..(� dam-t Wit,( f -- `' Y z-c , �Clis.��v ��r!U�4'�- 0 ,2 7i' �n � � ( - 74/Li (7 . AJ-(/(fe°_,(14-,,e .i Jelissro aLef i _e.d- ,,,) #‘:_.7.6 .45_ , .) , ..___ iity_,-1" 4 _C,c -,_"_,/,, , /0/ S�6)-3 .-2 Ee O t-��r.-7i„r, , li\Y\kL&L_L,k 0 I W K-0--Aro— : (lib- s , w . s _4_t_41:,,c6 t.q() Qa-v-4 -,-tiJ • J 6-fi:.-‘--- 4)2a)r--- -- ' 6//15 GL1- /-44-)G-Si .eJ. eE7o ) //o ig0 �i `,J I / r/Ni s ' - PETITION AGAINST REZONING REFERENCE: FILE NR. R-392-79 PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS D TELEPHONE NO. 71 v ,ip J S a 6 "Fc y . , 78/7 . /es 0,a,74 c-LcS3.S 1 17 �C !35`� _� 7 7 2 5 S3S (/A' G i.1Z, 4,4f 7 g'd C 1, af5 Ile 3- 1-, /- S- 4.- 1"-Z' 47---/---71-1- 5 n ' _ � / �f, _ 7 (n G .b /.� -� /-) 1&Fl/('e "9 J .3:'( 0 iK / C, o " , /1" /e- rO o ,fig C /3� r c-4- A 77_/--,2YG: l' P-f.u, I A 6 I I - ( /g g(sr % J ,CV7g 4��j ' d U 3 r I?r 1/ / 3 "/ P. 7 - ?/ 9v6 L - �e t/44}� 7e X0 -,,Tft Ar& 6 s\c ' /Sa (9CdpAl Cb•Ps'' 013,- 7.g. ,0- �72. Gei / /y /-go'X ah. .Zw2a.li . re .-6e, 0 . G(Le,c,c_z___. /',, rf V. --.6Prc-, _ 4,,,,,,‘,,,—A_. e,/,,c .� / ,//7 V i-�u. _•. . .449--ert-f,?e,,,A._ et..A.--1*-_ _....t.„ 7_51_65 '_ / .. .-...,-- '7 5‘,/ , .--;"----L-7 ---- ' ' ' / �� _ AO d r /3s:2 j-7-i.-- - 6},i 4-iie,p W.,,,7 So gC-7-14 ge a (JU/9 _ 7(o Y0 c--S'r) / ,)-' (,cJa- .*go , 7o J A3 '1 .Z4-e-C., a32 - / * , Via - )a . :7)-0).., ,i,„_,__. _.2z„_ ,i�. . ,„, 7z23 o . / 3s_ -Th ,_ 2 .,� �� PETITION AGAINST REZONING REFERENCE: FILE NR. R-392-79 PRO, ERTY OWNER ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO. (PAtE Aga g/LS ({_ ) i (-" )C.47. a' 4Ji 1I a7 LC)e vai, 2z6 -bs87 26,(&;_P Z) h71-) S, dJ �J kgTex) 22� s,,, pe,„k„ ;z9 -0/10,1,1 Ns A --m cal }- ..)41•At z /:// 2 S c;J• ,3 PD 7/ lei, /s lie-j'n �C/ ZZss Zz(--5< r LY* ,P fidL ) /� d ‘1-6L/ki Jam-``' 7,1a-5`7y "zd /2±-e,k 44.4„, 74,24‘7v, ,7,20 7,76/ ---5 _5 .:)'5 j Se_2% (12-...s1; (7 7e s S /?,S SS 5-e 7i14- 6,/7 s (4 4/AQ,,r LO1 4m4 76.6 th 13 r ,C /76 41:6---eyoy i �� ,c)a-- 7 5--i:y 30 i. /3.S se/6 / OA/f zo-- % 7y. 71ta..,1( ri4m7L,",_ ci 21/.1-9 u-o( 19z-- 4/4., , � (� hc� ,/,2 cL � i - 7/ �2 .rJ - ��. �7 r �, -(�wLt� c� 5 7577 -- 7 / :P '/, 3 77 � - i • ) - PETITION AGAINST REZONING REFERENCE: FILE NR. R-392-79 PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO. t"L liLL;1 tAAA ��c)' - .S .I 3 --t�'1))/v. ,2 3-3 7 03 L MA_ pp , ) z-,3-1,4., 90 7 5-5--r'85- .4(4, 4 /, 72 3/ .S' /35-S-�,?/ ��i Kg-- 2 3s s i//J 1 4,2�f;,u / ._//7S te/' ,7 i�--e/J-X ' • (:--- --(7W A. y74,4,- , , 1 5,7 .-/`-`' ek. _g______s „/2/,-,-, ca,),Ls' l/'7v2 � l 3(/3 c7 Ps..7.---4 yip ..rd. .5,E-_,:?rrZ.e Witi ids/751 `?:Z9. ,,, °,/?-i,,, • - /3¢-31- /g-c ,.. ,, de.-sE_P'11 Cc L-a a14 R r�' I.7(S' __C., 7-A31� C> ca,e i4 I., Y VS ?/r i i3 S'. -ii V �f c )1- Yoe/21 \,--) if . r ,/' h1V-7--13Y7--:4- . -2 bi/g71-ft7d; , -; C " ' 3001) - / 3 a (j4 Cfl i 7 a, Xi -f',-.:. 13-4 I I S�--'A cO -;-Tcef- d - 58 l 78 N ,. a ,I\ • - 1 c 1 i'Lj .. _ re)-0-, ( lAq �' .1 r-:::;77/7 4.e pi Or:76 Zr., 4 6-441,A1/71041,),,, 8-7/3 i'7/G :.-3 -4--4.0 - A. 8,967c7(7 g 0 0 A),f:d- ..)it . v z- /Po), i-v-,-/ c 6✓S PETITION AGAINST REZONING REFERENCE: FILE NR. R-392-79 PRKPERTY OWNER ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO. � �J 1 s Sc.) 20 /C v 7 �i raja ri WI 07 s 2 .34 ••'� rp' ' .5",6 S—ccj . ,3,t..� 2 5 95 ked'(Z. -c5DO (.54e '?/60). 4:2/6/A. ietAA,A erviAti qc,(,) 3P2 5--?Ga /10.4si 34,, /,h ? ,0)1, S'CJ -289. 6 0g �S.[�a� • • -PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : KOHL & CHRISTIANSON ADDITION , File Nos : R-392-79 • . SEPTEMBER18, 1979 SP-407-79 PAGE TWO 2 . Soils : The site consists of Beausite gravelly sandy loam (BeC ) . Permeability is moderately rapid . Available water capacity is low. Runoff is medium, and the hazard of erosion is moderate . This soil is used for timber and pasture and for urban development. _, • • 3. Vegetation : , The majority of the site consists of light brush . . a,nd, grass .. . Mino,r.. amounts of scrub brush and bushes are also - evidenced 'o'h the site . 4 . Wildlife : The existing vegetation of the site is sufficient to provide a suitable habitat for birds and small mammals . 5. Water: Prior to filling the site it appears that an intermittent stream crossed from north to south near the easterly one third of the site . . It appears that surface drainage has been controlled as part of the fill operation . Even though there Is no • sign of a stream or surface water on the site at the present time , a high ground water table is probable. because there were . no drainage improvements constructed with the fill . 6. Land Use :' The site is currently in an undeveloped state . To the southwest , it abuts S . W. Sunset Boulevard , an extremely • busy arterial .• The surrounding area consists primarily of older single family residences . E. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS : The subject site is located in a marginal older single family residence neighborhood . The development of the site may have potential . spill -over effects in helping to upgrade the surrounding area . F. PUBLIC SERVICES : 1 . Water and Sewer : An existing 6 inch water main is located along N . W. 3rd Place near the northeast corner of the subject site . An 8 inch sewer main exists along S .W . Sunset Boulevard . 2. Fire Protection : Fire protection is provided by the Renton Fire Department as per ordinance requirements . Any future develop- ment of the site will be subject to the City of Renton standards . 3 . Transit : . Metro Transit Route No . 107 operates along S . W . Sunset Boulevard within one block of the subject site. • 4 . Schools : The site is within one-half (3 ) mile of Earlington Elementary School , three-quarters (3/4 ) of a 'mile of Dimmitt Junior High School , and within one ( 1 ) mile of Renton High School . .5 . Parks : There are no recreational parks in the area . • G. AP-P-LICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE : • 1 . Section 4-709A , R-3 , Medium Density Multi -Family Residence District. 2 . Section 4-706 , R-1 , Residence Single Family. District . 3 . Chapter 22 , Parking and Loading . 4 . Section 4-725 , Amendments . H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS : 1 . Land Use Report , 1965 , Residential , page 11 , and objectives pages 17 and 18 . RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEAR NG EXAMINER SEP 181979 PLANNING DEPARTME'JT AM PM 71819,10,11,12,1,2,3,4i5,6 PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 18 , 1979 APPLICANT: KOHL & CHRISTIANSON ADDITION FILE NUMBERS : R-392-79 , SP-407-79 EXHIBIT NO. I A . SUMMARY & PURPOSE OF REQUEST : ITEM NO. 37-2- 7?) 5107- 77 The applicant requests a rezone from R-1 to R-3 and the approval of a special permit to allow the development of the site with a professional office structure . The applications were submitted together to specifically limit the rezone use to a professional office building . B . GENERAL INFORMATION : 1 . Owner of Record : IVAN C . CHRISTIANSON 2 . Applicant: KOHL EXCAVATING , INC . 3. Location : Property located between 80th Avenue South and S . W . 3rd P1 . ; north of S . W. Sunset Blvd . 4. Legal Description : A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department. 5 . Size of the Property : Approximately ± 1 . 3 acres . 6 . Access : Via S .W. Sunset Blvd . 7 . Existing Zoning : R-1 , Residence Single Family 8. Existing Zoning in the Area : R-1 , Single Family Residence District 9 . Comprehensive Land Use Plan : Low Density Multi -Family 10 . Notification : The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date . Notice was properly published in the Record Chronicle on August 24 , 1979 and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City ordinance on August 23 , 1979 . C . HISTORY/BACKGROUND : The subject site and the surrounding area was annexed into the City of Renton by Ordinance #2913 dated February 10 , 1975 . It was rezoned to the present R-1 classification by Ordinance #3206 on April 15 , 1978 . D. PHSYICAL BACKGROUND : 1 . Topography : The site has a gentle slope of approximately ( 1 ) to two (2 ) percent from the north to the south . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : KOHL & CHRISTIANSON ADDITION , File Nos : R-392-79 SEPTEMBER 18 , 1979 SP-407-79 PAGE FOUR of the property was used as a visual and sound buffer . In addition , Objective #6 , page 18 , would apply . Its specific intent is to "encourage the development and utilization of land to its highest and best use in such a way as to promote the best interest of the community and contribute to its overall attractiveness and desirability as a place in which to work , shop , live and play . " Development of an area that has a high potential for decay is not in the best interest of the City or the neighborhood . Thus the primary justification for the Hearing Examiner recommending a zoning classification of R-1 for the property (R-114-77 ) is not appropriate if the potential single family residential development is not compatible with the existing single family residential and does not meet the intent of providing a buffer between Sunset Blvd . West and the existing single family residential area . In fact , the Hearing Examiner did not specifically address any of the potential problems of developing a single family residential subdivision on the subject site . 3 . The proposed used of the subject site as a professional office building to provide a buffer to the established single family residential areas is consistent with the Compre- hensive Plan . This would appear to indicate that the requirement of Section 4-3014 (A)2 has been met . 4 . The professional office building as proposed would have approximately 13 ,000 square feet on two floors with 67 parking spaces . The site plan attempts maximum use of the site with a 20 foot setback of the building from Sunset Blvd . and a 5 foot landscaping strip between the parking lot and Sunset Blvd . This location adjacent to Sunset Blvd . with its heavy traffic volumes necessitates additional setbacks and landscaping along this street for buffering and separation of uses . 5 . The intended use as a professional office building allows a variety of potential users from doctors to real estate people . Access and traffic volume is critical to any development of this location . Plus some professional office would possibly result in more than just a daily use . Real estate offices could be open late into the evening , while a medical office would tend to limit itself to more of an 8 a .m. to 5 p .m. work day . N . DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS ; The staff recommends based on the above analysis that the Hearing Examiner approve and recommend to the City Council the approval of the rezone as requested , File No . R-392-79 , from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-3 , Multiple Family Residential subject to the following conditions to be established .as restrictive covenants running with the land : 1 . The only permitted use of the site is for a medical professional office building . 2 . Setbacks - No building or structures shall be permitted within (a ) forty (40 ) feet from S . W . Sunset Boulevard ( State Road #2 ) ( b ) within thirty (30) feet of the northerly property line ; within thirty ( 30 ) feet of S . W . 3rd Place ; and within thirty (30 ) feet of 80th Avenue South . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : KOHL & CHRISTIANSON ADDITION , Files Nos : R-392-79 SEPTEMBER 18 , 1979 SP -40 -79 PAGE THREE I . IMPACT UPON NATURAL SYSTEMS : . The rezoning the property will not a direct impact on the natural systems . However , the proposed development of a p ofessional office building on the site will disturb present soil and vegetation conditions , increase storm water runoff , and add to the noise and traffic levels . These conditions may-be minimized by the application of proper development controls . J . SOCIAL IMPACTS: The development of the site for professional uses will not increase social interaction with the established single fa ily residential area . K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION : Pursuant to the City of Renton ' s Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , as amended , RCW 43-21C , a declaration of non-significance has been issued for the subject proposal . L . AGENCIES/DEPARTMENT CONTACTED : 1 . City of Renton Building Division . 2 . City of Renton Engineering Division . 3 . City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division . 4. City of Renton Utilities Division. 5 . City of Renton Fire Department . M . PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS : 1 . The Comprehensive Plan provides limited specific guida ce concerning the development of the site . The map eleme t of the Comprehensive Plan is only a guideline for development and must be used in reference to the actual nature of dhe neighboring properties . Approximately 25% of the subject site was designated for low density multiple family de elop- ment to provide a buffer from Sunset Blvd . West for the established single family residential areas on top of 'he surrounding hills . This relationship of Sunset Blvd . est , the surrounding single family development , the access , and the sites topographic setting does not support the develop- ment of the subject site with single family. residences . Based on the unique characteristics the applicant has submitted a rezone request from R-1 to R-3 along with . n application for a special permit to limit the development of the site to a professional office building . A special permit does not limit the use of the propert within a specific zoning classification . A special permit is normally granted to allow a use in addition to those allowed outright. The only method that the City can require that is effective is the filing of restrictive covenants . 2 . The present traffic volumes and noise levels along Sun - et Blvd . West suggest that the site developed with single family residences would not be complimentary to the established single family residential area . The seven new residences would probably be of lower market value because of their loc. tion and thus would have a higher potential to develop into an area of localized blight . Residential objectives stated on page 17 of the Land Use Report , Renton Comprehensive Plan s ggest that " residential and other exclusive districts " should be pro- tected from the unwarranted infiltration of incompatible uses . In this case , the addition of more single famil residences would be considered as " incompatible" unles . most � � T l � twit rim 1 7- Xx 4-3 3 Lk Mal -12 I IL 12 Li ZZ ------------ KOHL & CHRISTIANSON ADDITION ' KOHL & CHRISTIAN3ON ADDITION TOTAL AREA ±l.J acres �PYL \ CANT__ \ Via S.W. 8nuoet Blvd, . PRINCIPAL �[[����_________ L. X\ Sl | NG Z')NlNC;_ B-1, Single Family Residential ; LX | 6TlNG USE Undeveloped ____ ------ � yR0P0�LU USE Professional Office Structure / COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE P\.AN Low Density &�zIti-Fuoily � _-- i COMMENTS / PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : KOHL & CHRISTIANSON ADDITION , File Nos : R-39 ' - 79 SEPTEMBER 18 , 1979 SP-40 ' -79 PAGE five 3 . Landscaping/Buffer Areas - The first thirty (30 ) feet adjacent to the northerly property line shall be appropriately landscaped to provide a dense evergreen screen . The first fifteen ( 15 ) feet adjacent to S . W. Sunset Boulevard , and the 'first ten ( 10) feet adjacent. to S . W. 3rd Place and 80th Avenue South shall be appropriately landscaped . Detailed landscape plans for the entire site development shall be submitted to and a the Renton Planning Department at the time of site development review. 4. Height Limitation - Building or structure shall ex of twenty-five (25) feet . ceed a height 5. Access to the site shall be controlled with signed tra ; fic safety along Sunset Boulevard and potential impacts to the adjacent residential streets . The staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner approve the request for a special permit as well , File No : SP-407-79 , subject to the above conditions . �. a.pr ei r eey dp lA ppp� L!v_„p ddHC:iL DEVI PMENT APPLICATION REVIEW EET Application : A":„. (R- 30721 7 . Location : 007) , Appsd_a, 4t.430,/veS ° ,51-4,1491 Applicant : ® c rt a41 e900, eit9eliz4bei TO : Packs Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE :. 4 - Police Department A. R. C. MEETING 8/04,71 Public Works Department Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department �Nr�1W�II` NOP,F�,��GTHET��NLI CRIB Z��I �EVT�IJSCONFE�cAC�OP� SHOULD � '3OVIDED ARC) TO B_ - LLD ON f 14(79 AT 9:00 AM IN THE THIRD FLOOR RUUI�„ F YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT BED ABLE ETOE ATTEND THE ARC) PEAS,- PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 PM ON I *' rn • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved Sianature _of""Directo-r'or Authorized Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : v --- r Approved ,\;° Approved with conditions Not Approved r ' F ?, . P' / • A. . , 9.0/1/2 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date a — -- - dL1ve Jam_ • ---•• ��� . .•.... . guy vc Nu t.MCit DEVE: ?MENT APPLICATION REVIEW ET Application : "` " ® 1( 3? 7 ) i� f. �_.. fir:.., � Location : .I o - per® gg � - Applicant : ! CAr�°s4/43eq om d4®° o a1 TO : Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : Police Department A. R. C. MEETING // /17, • Public Works Department - Engineering Division Traffic Engineering • E3 .41ding Division t Utilities Engineering R Fire Department cNI,1MEN r,OR SWGGEFSTIO�JS R C�IRDIF THIS PPLIcAIION SHOULD BE PROVIDED wrlTHE LIC 1 N R 1 W CONF R N _ ARC) 0 HELD ON AT 9 :00 AM IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE F YOUR DEPARTMENTISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ATT N THE ARC, PEAS PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 3: UO PM ON 3' ' % g► REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Gra Approved , v Approved with conditions Not Approved // /P/7.e-ice !���r'�i��C�' i7/z7 ( ArsL /c'/c� �i C/r.i i /1� 7J 'C_r2 ri(/ " rl''`may C C UiLiS i✓Li. L:'/lulti �<61L� /-7Y/ /1 -•IJ lc i l`7Z/—l'.'fi 77G v /4.5" j26.0 /C474Gi 4-14,s'.' J�C� /°9G7. /2 ziL/ )//U( /L'•l?-C,f l /c/E ce PX)-7-77 Signature of Director or uthori . - • Representative Dote REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ( Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved 1ii.11)--C6U1 Ex TVA le,Vc 9, tlL •4?v ac iki,1 a 7J v-iC E( F1'lc Posspp i()1.L C O<.sL:-S cw a.SLt...C.- e,-144rN 0 • Sy/47; Signature of Director or uthorized Representative Date .. . .. ... . •. . . , • . . . , . • • . .•._...• ' _ . • , • • I 0 C...1 = 1•) I -4-11 - •-.1 . co c-) x •P:3 , • s...,.%,I—I .. • • . ,„: . • P V) . / e .t..•; / .1./ •1-3 _ "•;. 1-4 7:;,. • Z . G7 . `‘.. • . . . /4: CA ,I /• •,'('3 • . . a '71 0 • / • : • / ••• ,... .... . ., Z •• .._ . . .., 1 • . I -P• > • . . . 0 C., . • ---.1 0 • ---....; _ s. .'`.... • Ni (1' :•• . I i-4 • • ' . ..5".•''.•,''' . ' :. "--1 0-3 • '.. ' - • 4• .1 ./ .. ' . ' : • % ' / • • ik.: • • :, 0 LK 0 , .' ,... i .... . . ....,, `• _,. / _,/y ..... . ,.. „ . . ,..... , N\ ..,,,, 7 . i.• .. : • . I . 'co . I ... s.. • ‘ : .•,-.... ....:'. i ..6)/ (...., 40 : ------ •..,-.,0.., \ ,• , . .\NI \ .... .• . . ///4,9, .... ,1,.....: J . ........ ...___ ot- I; •1 '2, N••,/, ,•"-, .• /G/,...,c/.•. ••.•`/7. /•.,,,,,,, (• / , ,-/ -/////,,.i,••.-,.•t.•-,:c-_„..7 ..1'.•'c4.,..„.•...._.i‘,i.iz,.,,••.t,;z\7k•'.•,,/.-.-.•1 N•.,7-.:,''•'•-i,-'-k',-.c,.x.,.-.,•z•,•.,•; -•:-,:•s . ,,•.•.'. •... •••'•••'‘....-.4,.'1t,•..i's. ...v..-.-.!k..,.'...r,--.• ,,‘s,.t.,,„7`‘-,t.°-v,,•,°r;;,.. •,...' ‘1.•ii Ir.i 4', -•- • .;••••••'t'.';:i li V..\.:) •.. , / - r / 5 - . - A 1 - c / //i / ` , / • r . ),... •••,..„ ... /l41.- • ,• . s' . ) ''''1‘%•.\--•'; 71: (i 1 ; • . ,A\ , , ,,1„/ / \\\\ '•f•1. ".• ' • '/ 4' ,-.' ,,, ...:(•s-. \:• / / • \.: ,,- , A ,./ -.. .., . . ' • , . '\?` , • / / ., , • ..; 0 •- .• • ....„ . • • . 4 ,,., .. ,. , , i „ ,...,\,/ „., . ' -,,./ .• , , ,,,, ,. ,-,"c";\‘ - . , ..-. •••-. ,. .-- • ... re-----•-:-.— •:-.---. . ... si ,', / fr.'.. / /* ' (. . ?:' • .„,, ,/ /I / - -=''' • " . / ‘ 4, r/ ,. (...),• .‘ ,/ ...' ,•.,„.1 / \ / •••:.:.- N •.1 .• (/ J''S I 1., • / 1 / / 1 '. r- 1.-:. ,-..:'... .• / • /..••' \ ,..- e.to . - ,.. - .. ..., y .,/i-c‘,e•,- .,,; .. .. , x .: \ . , -, . • ........ ..• - // .) 4,:.:.:.........'... 1 .. • , . ..-.-.... , , 6...t.,-) • ‘..../ •• •• I ....--.1 I ' \I ••ss )1.' 7, ....• / /)\ \ '. ..•,7'''' - •e' .1 •' -... ,i / .s.. / , , t. . • --...,.....,...... .........,......... .., .., _... _ ..., . .. \ , • • ,• ..•._. . / ••:•- ,,•-. ....\:4), - --: -._ ••• •• • . ......, •• .; ... , :•••-•.: -•,..4 0 .. ., . .. • . • , • • • (: ,i t , • . ,• \ . , •,,ri , ... ., ./. . \\.. . •:.\ \ • , ...• —.....,...... • . , .. —.-.—„ ' ./ .s.,...,y, ...t, . ...., . • 1..,... ,....., .... • ---•••••••••••__,:•.___..,......., ,., 1\(,:,„ •,, • •-• . / , ‘‘. k .., ,• / ,•• .. . • . ..._. 1 . •1 , , . NK.. . .' . .. .. I• . li, , . • • . • . • • ,. .. \ -..„..,.' •/ '-‘,.. • . . • r • - 11-- ....,_ \ . • ...., . • • . ....,,„ •.• .„...... • ,•,,_. _ .4.„. „ . . .. . • ..4,1 , ,, -. . ,..2... • . . ...... \:...„:„••.,- -- -_—__-__1- . 1. , •., k,,..... • • 1 ..., ... 1-%,. --4......---,-7-------7.__:-- ,...„,.._-......_.•• •,_ ----------,..; • . . ._ •• -0's I 't : 'as --- -!" • • -7-- ---fo' .......„ • -----,_ i --7\ • ,Pr, • ' • '.'.. '1111i. 'ir . r • )1 '4. • -----,I.__L ; ..• • •.% )•\./.; ---- - . -,I.— - II.\ — ._, • s, . \\.. 7. .. . , ,1 10_, _..-4-11 ..-1- :.._-.:: . CIa• \ 4--- c"''‘ .... , :-) •,c, ./(..... i .., ....,-0,, A,---• .,,..- , i p _-•:•7 ,-• --• — •,,••.• A CI \• .--.'...'N)-1-: 4...e.."". .. .,_/ :: ''/ 1 i-,-- - '' .e, \ ‘`.\ '''''k,,.. ' .. • ./.:'-•'':: \ ''t /.7.)\1`': - 7.'N\rill:',';• -- -117,7 • .., . ‘• \ \.`:( k, i , (. • 1 ' 411• ,1i..1:3.k-TP,,,,',1-•R --,- _ --2:::::. \ • z.\ ',1 . . flr:••••‘-.1.k--A141/F7/1 -7: ,/::-,l,E... i•Iti ? :i . ti• I 1 ..-r,',;.•..11-',,11.. -7 r l'- i( 'y •.',.,:v.',..-_,[ .' .- -.I"1-.. i 1 Vilflf1111) al - ii C • .'A. ----..= - \\ F71/ r— Irir-111-1 1 . \ II / :. .... ..—.. - •• • ••.... . " , VcNu ! LIIICII (. ,. DEVE --?MENT APPLICATION REVIEW ',ET Application : _ 37,114F I-co 4 Location : Oil /4/%'eon 49 ,�4. og O r� ',cvp.S I 1/1"./ 49 o / I Apol icant :�� ® d L4Ag �0610_AWi_ t N - TO : Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : Police Department A, R. C. MEETING V3///75P Public Works Department . - _7 Engineering Division d► Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department N rOS ETA IA IN VW S CA E U PE E VI D l79 AT 9 :00 AM IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE EF YOUR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ATTgNp THE PM ARC)' P EAS. PROVIDE THE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT . BY N "' REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ' a' Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved :-;-6,--/'2--r t: LA-z-/7- liz=c‘1 fj ff/Yhy S i c�nature of Director or Authorized • Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : — — -- Approved Approved with conditions Not Approved W ii Wiz_ YL %ec = - r I _ —j ., --7 C Sienature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : . � _,CF-488-79 FOR .KOHL & CHRISTIANSON ADDITION, R-392-79 , SP-407-79 CONDITIONS FOR DECLARATION OF NON—SIGNIFICANCE 1 . The only permitted use of the site is for a medical professional office building . 2 . Setbacks - No building or structures shall be permitted within (a ) forty (40) feet from S . W . Sunset Boulevard ( State Road #2 ) ' ( b ) within thirty (30) feet of the northerly property line ; within thirty ( 30) feet of S . W. 3rd Place ; and within thirty ( 30 ) feet of 80th Avenue South . 3 . Landscaping/Buffer Areas - The first thirty to the northerlyproperty line shall be a (30 ) feet landscaped P P Y appropriately landscaped to provide a dense evergreen screen . The first fifteen ( 15 ) feet adjacent to S . W . Sunset Boulevard , and the first ten ( 10) feet adjacent to S . W. 3rd Place and 80th Avenue South shall be appropriately landscaped . Detailed landscape plans for the entire site development shall be submitted to and approved by the Renton Planning Department at the time of site development review. 4. Height Limitation - Building or structure shall exceed a height of twenty-five ( 25 ) feet . 5. Access to the site shall be controlled with signed traffic safety along Sunset Boulevard and potential impacts to the adjacent residential streets . . r ' 'l+V' 1./FINAL DECLARATION OF . " N . "f-/NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No . R-392-79 SP-407-79 0 PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . 488-79 FINAL Declaration Description of proposal Requested rezone from R-1 to R-3 and spacial permit to allow development of the site with a professional office structure. Proponent KOHL & CHRISTIANSON ADDITION Location of Proposal Between 80th Ave So & S .W. 3rd P1 ; north of S .W. sunset Blvd. Lead Agency CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPT. This proposal has been determined to 0 have ® not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS 1, is ` is not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 (2 ) ( c ) . This decision was mase after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency . non Reasons for declaration of environmental /significance : Pursuant to attached conditions , in the form of restrictive covenants . Measures , if any , that could be taken to prevent or mitigate the environmental impacts to such an extent that the lead agency would withdraw its declaration of significance and issue a (proposed/final ) declaration of non-significance : Responsible Official GORDON Y. ERICKSEN Title P Al- I NG ► RECTA � `v Date SEPTEMBER 14 , 1979 ( / Signatur A l; A. w.i.,:.,,,esiaiir City of Renton . Planning Department 5-76 September 27, 1979 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON . REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICANT: Kohl & Christianson Addition FILE NO. R-392-79, SP-407-79 LOCATION: Property located between 80th Avenue S. and S.W. 3rd Place north of S.W. Sunset Boulevard. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant requests a rezone from R-1 to R-3 and the approval of a special permit to allow the development of the site with a professional office structure. The applications were submitted together to specifically limit the rezone use to a professional office building. SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Approval with restrictive covenants. RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner: Denial. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department preliminary report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on September 20, 1979. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on September 4, 1979 for the purpose of review of the rezone request. However, due to necessity of preparation of a special permit request to be reviewed concurrently with the request for rezone, a continuance was requested by the Planning Department and subsequently granted by the Examiner. CONTINUANCE: The hearing was opened on September 18, 1979 at 10:05 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. Roger Blaylock, Associate Planner, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered the following additional exhibits into the record: Exhibit #2: King County Assessor's Map Exhibit #3: Site Plan as submitted Exhibit #4: Site Plan with staff comments The Examiner noted that the Planning Department recommendation requests approval of the rezone with a condition of execution of restrictive covenants to restrict the use of the site to a medical professional office building. Mr. Blaylock corrected a typographical error in Section N.4 from ". . .structure shall exceed. . . " to ". . .structure shall not exceed.. . ". Referencing comments submitted by the Police Department regarding reduction of the speed limit on S.W. Sunset Boulevard from 50 m.p.h. to 35 m.p.h. , the Examiner advised that modification of speed limits is a responsibility of the State Highway Department and not the Examiner. The Examiner inquired if consideration of the P-1 zoning designation which would allow the proposed use without restrictive covenants had been considered by the applicant or the Planning Department. Mr. Blaylock advised that because the P-1 zone also allows high-density residential hotels, the department had determined that the P-1 zone would not be appropriate for the proposal. The Examiner requested testimony by the applicant. Responding was: . Gary Jackson 1919 Dexter Avenue N. Seattle, WA 98109 p • R-392-79, SP-407-79 Page Two Mr. Jackson indicated concurrence with the recommendations contained in Exhibit #1. He advised that many studies had been performed to determine proper use of the site which would be compatible with the neighborhood and allow best use of the land. He noted that subsequent to the previous rezone of the site to R-1, a seven-lot plat had been prepared and submitted to the Planning Department; however, departmental staff had directed the applicant to consider an alternative zoning classification more in conformance to the Comprehensive Plan designation of low density multifamily. He requested the opportunity to respond further following audience comment. The Examiner requested testimony in support of the application. . There was no response. He then requested testimony in opposition to the proposal. Responding was: • Steve Eastman • 317 Powell Avenue S.W. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Eastman inquired regarding responsibility for payment 'of an extension of the watermain to the subject site. He also indicated opposition to the proposed rezone of the property to R-3 which will 'set a precedent for further reclassification of surrounding property to multifamily categories and jeopardize the existing character of the neighborhood. . Mr. Blaylock advised that all costs incurred for extension of the watermain will be borne by the developer. • Responding was: • Pat Texeira _ . 1013 S.W. 3rd Place. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Texeira submitted a petition containing 138 signatures representing 96% of the adjacent, surrounding property owners, and a map designating properties owned by petitioners. The • map and petition were entered into the record by the Examiner as follows: Exhibit #5: Map designating property of petitioners Exhibit #6: Petition Mr. Texeira read the petition into the record which denoted opposition to the proposed rezone due to detrimental effect on surrounding single family residential character. It noted that previous review of. an application for rezone had occurred the previous year and the current zoning category of R-1 had been determined by the Examiner- to be appropriate. The petition further objected to the proposal due to creation of spot zoning within an already existing R-1 zone, and noted existing hazardous conditions on S.W. Sunset Boulevard (SR-900) , a heavily traveled highway. The petition'also stated that due to congestion on SR-900, access to the subject site would be unrealistic from that highway and would cause traffic to utilize S.W. 3rd Place and Powell Avenue S.W. , adjacent streets to the site, and consequently jeopardize ,safety of children and disturb the peace and tranquility of the existing single family neighborhood. It also reported the inadequacy of bus service in the area, and noted that cost of extension of watermains and sewer lines will be an additional burden to taxpayers. Responding was: • Wayne Kappenman 1004 S.W. 4th Place Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Kappenman inquired regarding the necessity for property owners to attend a public • ' hearing regarding rezone of a site which had ,been reviewed and rezoned the previous year. He noted that an increase of traffic on SR-900 was the :only change in the area since that time. He read excerpts from Conclusions 1, 3, 6 & 7, denoted in the Examiner's Report and Recommendation, dated February 15, 1978, File No. ,R-114-77, relating to Comprehensive Plan goals to maintain single family neighborhoods from encroachment of commercial and industrial uses,. overcrowding influences and arterial traffic; creation of spot zoning by approval of the proposal; rezoning not being in the best interest of the community in' general; and nonexistence of similar zones in the immediate area. Mr. Kappenman reported a discrepancy in the site plan, Exhibit #4, which designates access to S.W. 3rd Place, and Section B.6 of Exhibit #1, which states that access is proposed via S.W. Sunset Boulevard. He advised that the City of Renton Building Division does not have a record of release of the permit for grading in compliance with a. request from the King County Building .Division, and he questioned whether the fill operation was accomplished with appropriate permits. He also questioned the directive from the Planning Department for development of the site for a use other than single family residences. Responding to Mr. Kappenman's inquiry; Mr. Blaylock advised that when the applicant submitted his basic .drawings for the proposal of a seven-lot plat, the Planning Department had felt tl-at an alternative use, may be appropriate for the subject site, and had reviewed the possibility • R-392-79, SP-407-79 Page Three • of a medical clinic with the applicant, who subsequently applied for such use. . Mr: Kappenman inquired if the Planning Department or the applicant had contacted the State . Highway Department regarding revision of the speed limit on S.W. Sunset Boulevard. He reported that he had contacted King County and had been advised that the speed limit could not be reduced due to potential creation of congestion in that location. Noting that 67 -- parking spaces are proposed on the site in conjunction with a medical clinic, Mr. Kappenman felt that additional congestion on an already dangerous corner would be created. He advised that a rezone of property west of the site on S.W. Sunset Boulevard had been requested in King County and'.subsequently denied, which supports his statement that no multifamily residential use exists in near proximity to the site. Mr. Kappenman also noted that an existing steep bank on the site which has evidence of seepage had not been addressed in the Planning Department report. Responding was: Linda Texeira 1013 S.W. 3rd Place Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Texeira reviewed the history of the existing neighborhood in which some of Seattle's original families resided, and noted that retention of the character is of historic value . to,the City of Renton. She advised that new construction as well as moving of other homes in- to"the area is occurring, others are in the process of being remodeled, and the number of children is also increasing. She indicated concern regarding traffic patterns and congestion which endanger the safety of children walking to school without benefit of sidewalks or curbs on existing streets. Referencing Section F.5 of Exhibit #1, which , states that no recreational parks exist in the area, Mrs. Texeira advised that the site of the former Earlington Elementary School is now a designated city park which has been well-maintained by Park Department employees during the summer for the benefit .of children residing in,.-the single' family residential area. The Examiner requested further testimony by the applicant. Mr. .Jackson advised his opinion that the Planning Department has reviewed the surrounding area and the proposal would be in the best interest Of the neighborhood in establishing a use.which would provide employment and a neighborhood service between the hours of eight to five on weekdays only, and disallow construction of single family housing in a location which is not suitable for that purpose. He indicated that solution to problems of traffic congestion and safety hazards would be required for any use on the subject property and could be resolved by the State Highway Department. He noted that a seven-lot plat would contain lots of small size, and due to existing noise, traffic, topography and shape, the site is undesirable for single family living and a turnover in residency would occur which would consequently devalue the surrounding residences. Responding to earlier testimony, Mr. Jackson advised that the seepage problem existing on the bank on the site is correctable. He indicated that the site cannot remain. undeveloped, and the proposal will be properly designed to provide compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Jackson felt that spot zoning can be allowed if the proposed use ties in with the community. The Examiner clarified that if a proper'use is allowed in a proper zone, it is not defined, as spot zoning. ,Mr. Jackson indicated that he had contacted neighboring residents and it was their opinion that the site is not suitable for residential use due to existing traffic noise. The Examiner noted that the submitted petition, Exhibit #6, had contained 138 signatures and he inquired regarding the identify of the residents contacted by the applicant. Mr. Jackson declined to identify the residents, but stated that their concerns related to railroad and highway noise which could not be controlled by barriers on a single family plat.- ' The Examiner inquired if alternative business and professional uses for non-commercial, . non-retail services had been reviewed for the site. Mr. Jackson advised that the proposal had been submitted for.professional offices and a clinic, and if restriction 'to medical clinic use could be eliminated, other non-commercial uses could be proposed. Regarding water pressure in the area,, Mr. Jackson indicated that pressure' is currently adequate, and no additional systems would be required. The Examiner requested further comments. Pat Texeira noted his 'opinion that the public hearing regarding the proposal is very similar to the hearing held the previous year, and the Planning Department and the applicant had neglected the human element, concerns of those residents surrounding the site. The Examiner inquired if Mr. Texeira believes the site which . has an .elevation level- with the roadway. is appropriate for single family'residential development in consideration of noise emitted from'the highway. Mr. Texeira felt that the problem could be mitigated by provision of a wall and tree plantings, and reiterated previous' comments regarding retention of the existing single family character of the area. Responding was: Mike Wilson . • 915 S.W. Langston Road Renton, WA 98055 R-392-79, SP-407-79 Page Four Mr. Wilson felt that the applicant should not economically profit at the expense of' the surrounding residents. He cited various problems resulting in accidents due to blind Spots in existing streets, deadend streets, and traffic congestion, and noted that additional traffic from a proposed clinic would further impair the existing situation. ' Mr. Kappenman inquired if the applicant had explained to those residents he had contacted that 'a rezone to .R-3 would allow other uses including multifamily residential as well as the proposed medical clinic. The Examiner advised that the application was submitted concurrently with a special permit to restrict the use of the site to a medical clinic by execution of restrictive covenants, but the extent Of information relayed by the applicant to surroundingr.esidents is unknown. Mr. ,Kappenman referenced Finding No. 13, .Examiner's Report and Recommendation regarding previous rezone, File No. R-114-77, dated February 15, 1978, which states that it is not shown that the City of Renton had provided King County with final review of the landfill prior to release of performance bonds associated with the landfill permit or release of bonds, and inquired if the possibility exists for the applicant to apply for a rezone if compliance with the grading permit has not been met. The Examiner stated that he is uncertain if discussion regarding the grading permit is relevant to the subject of the rezone, and. that all filling and grading would be required to meet approval by the Public Works Department prior to development. He also noted that the fill permit may be. a. complicated matter of cross-jurisdiction since the fill permit was issued to the applicant by King County prior to annexation; and the City of Renton would have no jurisdiction in the county. He advised that approval of further filling and grading oh the site would be required by the City of Renton. Referencing the King County application for fill permit, dated June 24, 1974, which he submitted to the Examiner with a copy of a letter from the King County Building Division to the City of Renton Building. Division, dated January 20, 1976, regarding the same subject, Mr. Kappenman noted a restriction had been imposed requiring a 50-foot setback from the'creek, and he advised that the creek no longer exists on the site due to the fill project. • The Examiner requested testimony from'the Traffic Engineering Division. Responding was: Paul Lumbert • . Traffic Operations Engineer • The Examiner requested review by Mr. Lumbert of traffic problems on S.W. Sunset Bculevard and access .to the site and surrounding areas from Sunset and S.W. 3rd Place. Mr. Lumbert _ indicated that definite traffic and access problems. exist in the area partly due to joint jurisdiction by the City of Renton within the city limits and the State Department of Transportation and the State Highway Commission Outside the city limits on S.W. Sunset 'Boulevard. He advised that turning movements to Sunset, S.W. 3rd Place and. 80th Avenue S. were added after the roadway was originally constructed, and the original roadway contained drainage, facilities in the center- section in a raised median. He stated that the temporary connection with .slightly different grades across the median barrier does not create a safe crossing. Mr. Lumbert advised that the city does not have jurisdiction at the intersection which falls outside the city limits on' the easterly. side of N.W. 3rd Place and the State Highway Department would be the responsible agency to take corrective action, if any. He noted that off-site improvements including curbs, gutters and sidewalks on three sides would be required on N.E. 3rd Place if the request is approved. The Examiner inquired regarding access to and from the site. Mr. Lumbert advised that very limited. access could occur on S.W. 3rd Place, and certain access would be possible on S.W. Sunset Boulevard; however, because of terrain and topography, it would be doubtful if access could be allowed to 80th Avenue' S.W. , and no left turns would be permitted across the median on S.W. Sunset Boulevard. The Examiner inquired regarding control of turning movements. Mr. Lumbert indicated that signs could be installed prohibiting turning movements and regulations enforced by the Washington State Patrol, King County Police and Renton Police Department. The Examiner inquired if the city had considered installation of a pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection of S.W. 3rd Place. Mr. Lumbert indicated that the matter had not 'been considered because of the dangers to pedestrians similarly experienced at an existing crosswalk further east on Sunset Boulevard due to excessive speeds of vehicles traveling from the unincorporated area of King County. ' The Examiner inquired if a traffic signal had been considered for correction of the problem. Mr. Lumbert advised that because the intersection, is not within the city limits, determination of the necessity of a signal would be.in the jurisdiction of King County and the Department of Transportation. The • Examiner inquired regarding intersections east of the subject site on S.W. Sunset Boulevard. ' Mr. Lumbert reported that the nearest intersection to N.W. 3rd Place is located approximately one-half'mile to -the east. He noted that in a new proposal for development in the Earlington area south of the site, installation of a traffic control device has 'been recommended on Sunset to allow traffic gaps and safe entrance for vehicles and pedestrians. • • R-392-79, SP-407-79 Page Five Mr. Kappenman noted that in view of the testimony by Mr. Lumbert, the bulk of traffic from the site will utilize S.W. 3rd Place for access. Mr. Lumbert indicated that the larger number of vehicles would exit from the site onto S.W. 3rd Place but would eventually access onto S.W. Sunset Boulevard which would not create congestion during non-peak traffic hours. • Mr. Texeira reported that two fatalities have occurred at the subject intersection. Mr. Lumbert indicated awareness of pedestrian and motorcycle-related fatalities, but responsibility for safety in that location. falls outside the jurisdiction of the City of Renton. Mrs. Texeira reported existence of a sign designating the city limits halfway • between 80th Avenue S. and S.W. 3rd Place which would locate the intersection within the city limits. The Examiner explained the direction of the city boundary which follows the north side of S.W. Sunset Boulevard and' makes a jog at 80th Avenue S. , noting that the intersection at S.W. 3rd Place remains within the jurisdiction of King County. Mr. Texeira inquired if a traffic study had been accomplished by the city in the location of the intersection. Mr. Lumbert advised that traffic had been observed and a determination made that turning movements are not safe. Mrs. Texeira stated that S.W. 3rd Place deadends four blocks north but several other routes are available prior to that point to allow traffic to proceed through a residential area in which no sidewalks exist. • The Examiner requested further testimony. There was no response. He then requested final comments from the Planning Department. The Planning Department had no further comments. Mr. Texeira requested a continuance of the hearing regarding the special permit pending the decision on the rezone request. The Examiner advised his preference to close the public hearing since all issues had been •thoroughly addressed for purposes of review. • The hearing was subsequently closed by the Examiner at 11:40 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter; the Examiner now makes and enters the following: • FINDINGS: 1. The request is for approval of a rezone of +1.3 acres of land.from R-1 (single family • residence) to R-3 (medium density multifamily residence) together with a request for approval of a special permit to permit the construction of a professional office building on the site. • 2. The Planning Department report sets forth the issues, applicable policies and provisions, findings of fact, and departmental recommendations in this matter, and is hereby attached as Exhibit #1 and incorporated in this report by reference as set forth in full therein. 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, R.C.W. 43.21.C. , as amended, a Declaration of Non-Significance has been issued for the subject proposal by Gordon Y. Ericksen, responsible official. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. All utilities may be extended to the subject site. • 6. The proposal is compatible with the required setbacks, lot coverage and height requirements of Section 4-709A of Title IV, Ordinance No. 1628, Code of General Ordinances. 7. The subject property is located along S.W. Sunset Boulevard between 80th Avenue S. and S.W. 3rd Place. The site has been filled under a permit issued by King County prior to annexation to the City of Renton. The property slopes about one to two percent from the north to the south. The site is covered with grasses and brush. There was an intermittent stream coursing . through the property from north to south prior to filling. The site is currently undeveloped. 8. The subject property and surrounding property were annexed into the city in February, 1975. The property was classified at that time as G (general - single family residence) . In April, 1978, the subject property with the concurrence of the City Council was rezbned to R-1• (File No. R-114-77; see attached) . The applicant at that time had requested an R-2 (duplex residence) classification. • 9: The record indicates that the applicant had applied for a long plat of the subject property in order .to construct seven single family units on the subject parcel to comply with the R-1 designation of the property. The record further indicates that R-392-79, SP-407-79 Page S x the Planning Department suggested that a single family development will be ina.propriate along heavily traveled S.W. Sunset Boulevard. That department then suggested. he alternative proposal of a professional office building which can be constructee with a special permit in an R-3 zone. Wherein this rezone request was initiated to rezone the subject property from R-1 to R-3. The special permit request, if approved would allow the construction of a two story, 13,000 square foot professional office •uilding with parking facilities for 67 cars. • 10. The nearby residents submitted a petition signed by 138 property owners object ng to the rezone,request. 11. The property surrounding the site on three sides is zoned R-1 which is the prevent classification of the subject site. The nearest multiple family residence .zon-s either in the city or King County are over one-fourth of a mile to the west and to th- east of the subject site. One single family residence north of the subject site lies at the same elevati.n of the subject site. Other homes in the adjacent area lie above the general elevation of ,the subject site. New single family development has occurred in the area a d . home remodeling is also occurring in the area. 12. The Traffic and Engineering Divisions indicated that traffic along S.W. Sunset Boulevard ' is very heavy during peak hours. The Police Department indicated that access o and from the site should be limited to S.W. 3rd Place to prevent turning. movements directly off of and onto S.W. Sunset Boulevard. 13. The Comprehensive Plan for the area in which the subject site is located appea s to designate•about one-fourth of the subject site for potential low density multifamily development. • 14. King County denied a rezone request for multifamily classification for the Was ington Horse Breeders' Association property west of the subject. site. ML (King Count, designation of light manufacturing) property in King County is across S.W. Sun-et Boulevard and isolated by a rather steep slope. CONCLUSIONS: • 1. The applicant for a rezone must demonstrate that the request for the reclassification is appropriate. The 'applicant has failed tb.demonstrate that there have been .ny changes in circumstances since the previous rezone either relating to the prop-rty itself -or the neighboring area which would justify the request, The property as rezoned just Over.one year ago and the operative facts and conclusions of that rezone (see attachment) have not undergone any significant and material change which ould justify a rezone at this time (Section 4-3014(A)1 & 3) . 2. The single family nature of the area adjacent to the subject site on three sid-s remains unchanged. Significantly, further single family development has occurred in ti e area. Home improvement and remodeling also indicate that the area remains a strong a' d vital single family area which would be breached by the intrusion of the R-3 zone an• associated professional office building proposed on the subject parcel. The intrusion of the more intense use would place pressure on adjoining property, zoned R-1, developed in single family uses and also along S.W. Sunset Boulevard- to reques reclassification. This result would be contrary to the Comprehensive Plan obj-ctive which is to: "1. Prevent blight by protecting residential and other exclusive districts . from the unwarranted infiltration of incompatible uses which would contribute to premature decay and obsolescence, and prevent the development of orderly growth patterns (Page 17) . 4. Protect property values within the community for .the benefit Of its residents and property owners, through the effective control of land use and the enforcement and application of building and construction codes (Page 17) . 6. Encourage the development and utilization of land to its highest and • best use in such a way as to .promote the best interest Of the communi , and contribute to its overall attractiveness and desirability as a place in which to work, shop, live and play (Page 18) ." (Land Use Report, Comprehensive Plan, July, 1965) • Therefore, the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed rezone would eet the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan as required pursuant to Section 4-3014(A)2, Hearing Examiner Ordinance. • R-392•-79, SP-407-79 Page Seven 3. A similar multifamily rezone request was rejected by King County for property in the area because of the single family character of the surrounding area and because of the impact of added traffic to an already hazardous roadway. The ML property south of the subject property is well separated from the subject property by the steep slope on the south side of S.W. Sunset Boulevard and does not, in fact, intrude physically or visually into the single family district in which the subject property is located. 4. The rezone would not be in the best interests of the surrounding community nor would it further the public welfare. The proposed rezone and proposed clinic would greatly increase traffic on both S.W. Sunset Boulevard and through the residential neighborhood surrounding the subject site. A 13,000 square foot building on two floors and a 67- , space parking area would be developed per the proposal. This more intense use would be both out of character and visually out of scale with the adjacent single family neighborhood. The proposed rezone would be for the express benefit of the applicant but continued classification of the subject property as R-1 would be in the best interests of the community. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should deny the rezone. ORDERED THIS 27th day of September, 1979. Fred J. Ka an Land Use Hea ing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 27th day of September, 1979 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Gary Jackson, 1919 Dexter Avenue N. , Seattle, WA 98109 Kohl & Christianson, 3330 E. Valley Rd. , Renton, WA 98055 Steve Eastman, 317 Powell Avenue S.W., Renton, WA 98055 Pat & Linda Texeira, 1013 S.W. 3rd Place, Renton, WA 98055 Wayne Kappenman, 1004 S.W. 4th Place, Renton, WA 98055 Mike Wilson, 915 S.W. Langston Rd. , Renton, WA 98055 Virginia Shimm, 1124 S.W. Sunset Blvd. , Renton, WA 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 27th day of September, 1979 to the following: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Michael Hanis, Planning Commission Chairman Ron Nelson, Building Division Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before October 11, 1979. 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 to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall, or same may be purchased at cost in said department. - • ..• �ll l' - \ ,i-'.r a , � ` is `19 T�,!''� II 54�7i •r 14Vh. i�•- . . • ; IVc•— . , 7rr'ri ..e, ``a . ,- .�'zT'i_4 iiyi o� - ' .iil },. -+y .�} ••' ,. ...•. 1..l r..r�; ..`� . I ., .\J , • _ 1 t i • �® a� •' •ti i;., S r y.. 1 1 I ' _ ' • • — I' T ra. .� r5' V `y' T • !{ s . . ,`r s „ 1 g°auF • s \ '- �� - Z • • • t/,' • 1 , i \ pip I ` •. 'L._� .{° ..I 4') , r. ,f• •`:rt '� I li I I r� d i.��� Ii• �._'« �`• t t. II ��+ •4.91 -,u,°� i,r'i• ,y„• `''al ,r ILL .q^, '.• •, , ,7•t I ..Jl,, oQY w , IrV-:• 1 IK i , 1. '.L . , • taa7;° 1s j .J'.', ,1+ A .. • i -! • l ,,'‘ ✓ ,t .. _1_ y^y u , etRD',, I L-1.,s i .1. .4..t. �'�. . , , . . . , •�. :'- ' `• ` '••� r�JJ')# ,N 1rid �T .. .L _ ____ _._...__. . •- _ 114I' . • 1' ' • • • , , yam,• / r~� .a I I•• i. I to \\5,\ iz� ✓tr �j a/�°��,," E y•I 1 9 I L•F. P,nE- .��+,sob sr 1—el_ V 2.1 1' . ^� y w•I. • i w�'�t• i. , .. t1 l;t �_ , • , `.�47 • �\Q,� c.. 1. ' s.,, 1.1- ` 1 ' '61 1 it a /-' .:,,"'hi•ar. ,!r. ,s .�'��,,,:,,,,� '1 E—,___ } • , _--._ - 1 ,� t' 42.,Il•,. • - y • '• 1 r,,, .l`� pf,,,, Li}]ti4i t SeVeq 40 r x' • ' t,..a,,..•• �,•......aiP3iiea•a+:y..•\.. •'O 1`v •I •.,,.y 1-,y Y,,�r''j� , r i ,r4'L, Irr , • • ;' � ce. „�..,�++. � ' ' �A1rr4. � `� ,. �: . 1 ?cMt, • 344••., . z,/.., 'A • , ,-• ! • ,; G E , L. ' . • • ,/ t 'r 1 'naaa.:jl:a..e,ra+-,a..n:w,mia�aa>J�,•7 .. -. y i KOHL & CHRISTIANSON ADDITION ' R-392-79 SP-407-79 . , I • KOHL & CHRISTIANSON ADDITION TOTAL AREA ±1.3 acr' s t • Via S.W. Sun:;et Blvd. • h cll: I rat: I t'Al t I ' `;____�__. _— ____.________---.-- fr C -']t_1 S.inl;le i_amily ltcr�;idc�nt:i.al _-.,_,_— _- -- t ;1J `71 Ir.i, ::I'rIIrJ., 7 . Undeveloped - -----'-- -- • c.,t:i,Pil`,t.0 USE __ Professional Office Striic,iurr.�,___� �.-_- .--.-_- _— • Iow Density Multi- ami.1y _.-..�__— Lt�MI'RE'.NE�:`, l 1'(. l.r.r:(, U5( }'I.l1 ! --- COMMtr-I'l a. ____ ___...._._ _ ______.__ __. ___ p _ ' ____ --- — — —— —-- —_ -- ' — -- --- • • I \ • I'll .11 '1i__.1/. \ , • Il 1 11 \ 1 II • Dil •l)Ji .' :1/ /. ,, 3. . , ,,...7r7,.,... i !ii 1 . /i ‘‘‘. ..' .. • \ . /I:W''.. ---.,/,/,(1"1;:// -'1,4; , \Ns: "6\ \ -4f7--7-5.:lit" • ., , i , ,. \ [ --,1,.. -: r-. / ."' -:: t .r. i ,/ \/ . , '') ,...7 i: '''' .1/4".,1—,•.,, `. .„ \ r.' . ,... *) / .4,,(,,,,,, N,\ . ( / \ f....1.f/".,f.„.1!::-......t E..-.1.,..i:::: /,' : ' N:':•."/ _-t.:".4,i-1- /.....--,1-:' 14/,... I 1 : )/ • >x P \\ �,� 1Jf= �r 1 . .E /N • • I I, I L ) \. ./ • •, '''''\\ •' . \,\ . l ! . l;:•I• • ; ) . .. (,.. . .,..,. ... , ' 11 e. ' \:':' '''' • I r / lip ' /i 1 ,1;'j '+ $1 �` / \ 1,.` / % Vo;:•‘ i' s* '''°:f \ sN•.. ..'.. '••••., 'Ns, /' ••) ** ...)• , .77 ,/ •........ / ., f :\\. \ • ..-.,--, ....,, ./ 1 .. 1 „ ,..., 1 -k,, / )'':: 9.III NI •-. N bl(` IZI/• % `a 9) \.;. (., .( .., , . '7. ' \ '‘ K ---f •. 0-A-:ii‘,4 ,/,' • \\ .// j \\� N'' • 0.,, !./! 1 • . \ . . ' '`..1.•:, ....-----�} f /� e � / •AI y .• i U J� E . r• .N. i/it, • . '4, • /• s.,..., ,.....3• -..' • // , 7•:c / ca s•. CZ C) o o a / u) rry. • r NN• ..',' ..•..• N. /. • / :i\-• ....., • Cil CV, r` Lk" I .a CI C, q. • , p; B-414-77 Page Seven b i s I . Thi, ._empre'hei.:iive i l.al. ( fesi_ es limited specifies guidance regarding this. site. ;1 -11 e ly about. 25, ',f the site i.; indicates on the Land Use Map as potentially being .suited fur low density multifamily as opposed to the existing single family use. k But the map is only a general guide to land use decisions (Section 2, Ordinance No. 2142) . The goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan take precedence over the e map. . The purpose of the plan i.s to promote ". . .orderly and well-planned 'use of the land i within and adjacent to the City." (Page 1, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965) Neighborhoods are to be as much as possible ". . .free of overcrowding influences, arterial traffic, and the unwarranted encroachment of commercial and industrial uses. . . " (Ibid, Page 4) . Within single family areas the density should not exceed six units per acre (Ibid, Page 5) . The ". . .coordinated development of undeveloped areas" is to be promoted (Ibid, Page 9) . In the Land Use Report, Comprehensive Plan, July, 1965, the following objectives s. apply: "1. Prevent blight by protecting residential and other•exclusive districts from the unwarranted infiltration of incompatible.uses which would contribute to premature decay and obsolescence, and prevent the development of orderly growth patterns (Page 17) . 4. Protect property values within the community for the benefit of its residents and property owners, through the effective control of land use and the enforcement and application of building and construction • ' codes (Page 17) . 6. Encourage the development and utilization of land to its highest and best use in such a way as to promote the best interest of the community and contribute to its overall attractiveness and desirability as a place in which to work, shop, live and play (Page 10) . " 2. It seems appropriate and timely for the existing zoning of G (35,000 square foot minimum lot size) to change to a more appropriate zoning classification. The topography of the site has been drastically altered through the landfill operation (Section 4-3014. (C) ) . Utilities .common to the neighboring R-1 zoned properties are available. The property was probably not specifically considered in an area zoning and land use analysis (Section 4-3014. (A) ) . The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates that the property is potentially zoned for some low density • multifamily but mostly single family uses (Section 4-3014. 03) ) . Goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan indicate the possibility of a change in the zoning (Section 4-3014. (B) ) . 3. No zoning district similar to the proposal or of more intensity than the proposal exi.st' contiguous to or near the site, except for some King County zoning of ML on the south side of S.W. Sunset Boulevard. But a substantial slope exists on this ML property which is owned by some railroad companies. It is a reasonable assumption that any development within the ML zone would not be visible to or impact the subject site sufficiently to produce pressure for a change in land use or zoning. Therefore, the proposal on the surface implies a "spot zone" of only this island of property that is completely surrounded on three sides by several blocks of single family zoned properties. 4. This fact that the site. has not beeli given specific consideration in a land use or area zoning analysis implies that the Comprehensive Flan Land USe Map designation of low density multifamily May be inapplicable in this instance. It can be assumed that the many factors considered in review of the Comprehensive Plan have not been applied to this specific property. Therefore, justification of the requested reclassification rests in the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives which were mentioned in the aforementioned Conclusion No. I . 5. Two considerations of the Comprehensive Plan would indicate that the proposed rezone which constitues an island 'within, a single fame ly area should receive the area .uiriiny and land use analysis. The change in land use should be an ". . .orderly and well planned use of the land within and adjacent to the City. " (Page 1, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965) . The proposal should represent ". . .coordinated development of undeveloped area." (Ibid, Page 9) . . It is difficult to find that . the proposal tweets these two guidelines bf the Comprehensive Plan. . F p r ;}b A ( 1 -114-7_'. Page Six •, . _ 4d. i• 1 i.Nb Vic, ? :,11d;•:1:Jr�1I.di: i{iVlnr? reviewed Chit teL in this it4'att$'t , the Fe, at ,• t t t)�, follows r.,;: . make:, e:r Rn E ;,;;i: I ins- r;.:1uest 1s for approval of a rezone of 1. 1 acres from G to R-2. . The Planning Department report accurately sets forth the issues; applicable po ivies and provisions; findings of fact, and departmental recommendations in this mat er and is hereby attached .as Exhibit #1 and incorporated in this report by refere ce as set forth in full therein. . I. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environ ental Policy Act of 1971, as amended by R.C.W. 43.21.C. , a Declaration of Non-Significance has been issued for the subject proposal by Gordon Y. Ericksen, responsible of icial. 4: Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by he . impact of this development. 5. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. 6. The 'proposal is compatible with the required lot area and dimension requirements of ' Section 4-708 of Title IV, Ordinance No. 1628, Code of General Ordinances. 7. The site was annexed into the city in 1975. This site was apparently not specifically considered. in preceding land use or area zoning analysis (Section 4-3014. (A) ) . Possibly in 1971 some consideration was given to the general area during revi w of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. 8. since the last area zoning and land use analysis the site 'was filled to the approximate level of S.W. Sunset Boulevard, and some storm drainage provision were made on the site. Utilities have existed on the site for several years ,rior to annexation of the site. (Section 4-3014. (C) ) • •). At the northwest corner of the site exists a substantial ground elevation dif erenc" from the remainder of the site which possesses a gradual, 'slight slope. At this corner the ground creates a bank which forms the ground elevation for the hou e immediately northwest of the site. In. Access to the site is available on S.W. Sunset Boulevard or S.W. 3rd Place (81st Avenue South) . No testiMony from, the Traffic Engineering Division was given regarding either of these access points. , 11 . The existing single family residence north of and. at the approximate middle of the site is 'at the approximate same ground elevation as the subject site. Other omen in the immediate vicinity lie above the elevation of the site. 12. No 'multlfamily zoning exists adjacent to the site or in close proximity to tit'. site. The nearest multifamily zones are around 1/4 mile westerly and easterly of the site. . The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates only the southwesterly approxi.. •tct • . 25% of the site as low density multifamily and the remainder is designated as single family. 13. Land fill that was recently completed exists over all but the westerly approximate . une-half of the site. Testirrany was given that the easterly, one-half of the site would k;e suitable for only parking but not for structures. The applicant in ends, .to locate the dwelling unit.(, on the westerly one-half of the site. Per Exhi it 04 the King County Department of Community and Environmental Development in .Tent aty of 070 requested from the City of Renton- final review of the landfill prior to release of performance bonds associated with the landfill permit; •Exh.ibit N1 . It was not shown that the City of Renton had provided King County with this final review at. the time of the hearing nor was it shown that the applicant had rep eiveci the released performance bonds from King County. .The site area totals around 1 . 3 acres. . If approximately one-half of the tit ., will not support structures, then perhaps 0.65 acres would remain for buildings. The existing G (single family) zoning would allow one .single, family home. They r Niie(aced 14,-2 (duplex) zoning •would permit a iraxiinum' 6f 14 multifamily units under ,a :',vr:i.il • . . . Permit. The Special, Permit procces of Section 4-108 might allow cOMmon-wall structures oh this portion of the site, depending on the decision of the ilea •ii"J Exa*iner. . ' _ . . • ri-11.3- 77 Page Eight - •.•`r3 rer:lnstflt.;at i ';n to P-1 wc,u11 meet the density guideline of six units per acre AiPq ) neighborhood ;t,l i, i'::.): 5 • in•.1 to more oml at lk;l� with t le xi.. residential :,,.y :. I, ;•,,jr Lve rkk). 1 , . orr4:rehenar ve flan, Land Use PeE ot '. , July, 1965, Page 17) . The N would :;€e leas protective oI the property Valuea within the community , but would be of drslatul;ortionate benefit solely to the applicant (Ibid, Page 17, )blect.lve No. 4) . On the other hand, R-1 would be preserving and continuing the residential Lommutlity. The rezone to R-2 represents. a "higher"- use of the property than currently allowed under G zoning; however, it was not shown that this would be in the best interest of or contributary to the community (Ibid, Page 18, Objective No. 6) . Clearly the interest of the individual property owner/applicant has been demonstrated, but' the best interests of the community in general would seem to be served by a reclassification to R-1. 7. Based upon the aforementioned conclusions, it seems that the Comprehensive Plan and existing conditions would justify a reclassif,ication• bf the property to, R-1, the same zoning category of the surrounding single family properties. These surrounding properties encompass the site on three sides and interrelate directly with the proposal. ,Land uses of any greater intensity are quite removed from the property or, as in the case of the King County M1 zoned property across S.W. Sunset Boulevard, separated by a severe slope difference and the arterial. Any more intensive land use than R-1 would create an island in the midst of the existing R-1 neighborhood, thereby creating the distinct possibility of spot zoning. Sufficient legal precedence regarding spot zoning has occurred to justify avoiding such implications. At some time in the future the land use considerations affecting this site may change sufficiently to justify a more intense zoning category. The record established in this specific application did not justify the more intensive land use change. h. With respect to the physical limitations of the site, a Planned Unit Development approach would be appropriate. Section 4-2708. 1 (POD) requires a minimum four- acre. site in instances of undeveloped property; however, Section 4-2714 provides for exceptions to be requested. The effect of the PUD could be to achieve more development than possible under G zoning (approximately five additional units which is five times the density) without being penalized by the "unbuildab.le" landfill area. • A traditional single family plat would be unable to allow for the landfill area. 99. Access is an important consideration in this application because of the heavy traffic on S.W. Sunset Boulevard and'the limited capacity adjacent residential streets. It seems appropriate to limit access from the site. Testimony was not entered into the record by the Traffic Engineering Division as to whether access ' should or should not be limited. During review of the specific POD or plat of the site, the analysis and recommendation of the Division would be critical. Rl:l_r MMENDATION: Based upon the record, testimony, findings and conclusions, it is the recommendation of the Examiner that the City Council approve a reclassification of.the subject property from 0 to R-1. Such reclassification would be in the best interests' of the community and public health, safety and welfare and in the most conformance with the Comprehensive Elan. ORDEI&EU THIS 15th day of February, 1978. �, �,���1- �Q4 ____..-_ __._.--- • R ck Be er Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 15th day of February, 1978 by Affidavit of. Mailing to the parties of record: Ivan Christianson, 3230 E. Valley Rd. , Renton, WA 91W5`, Robert Kenkman, 924 Bronson Way S. , Renton, WA 98055 Virginia Shinn, 1124 5.W. Sunset Blvd. , Renton, WA 98055 S. E. Eastman, 317 Powell Ave. S.M. , Renton, WA 98055 Mr. h Mrs. Pat Texei ra, 1013 S.W. 3rd P1. , Renton, WA 'M3055 Wayne Kappenmar•., 1004 S.W. 4th Place; Renton, 'WA 93U5`• Mr. & Mrs. Wm. Nielsen, 13475 Blat S. , Renton, WA 99055 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING State of Washington) County of King ) Marilyn J. Petersen , being . first duly sworn, upon oath disposes and states: That on the 27th day of September , 19 79 , affiant deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below-entitled application or petition. Subscribed and sworn this /0-day of SeP�emUt' 19 `( \ . " k,q) M \\14 4 Notary Public in and for;,the- State = of Washington, residing;,`at" Renton' .:-- Application, Petition or Case: Kohl & Christianson; R-392-79, SP-407-79 (The minutes contain a List of the panties of necond) • OF R4. y 0 • THE CITY OF RENTON u ♦$ . z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 • o ° CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9.0 `o. FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 0 . 9'11 p SEPT��O(P • October 4, 1979 • • Members, Renton City Council Renton, Washington RE: File No. R-392-79, SP-407-79; Kohl & Christianson Addition; Request for Rezone and Special Permit. • Dear Council Members: Attached is the Examiner's Report and Recommendation regarding the referenced rezone and special permit applications, dated September 27, •1979. . The appeal period for the application expires. on October 11, 1979, and the report'is being forwarded to you for review by the Planning and Development Committee following the seven day period from the date of publication. • . The complete file will be transmitted to the City Clerk on October 12, 1979, and will be placed on the Council agenda on October 22, 1979. Because the Examiner has recommended denial of the application, if the Council concurs in that recommendation, no legislation will be required. If you require additional assistance or information regarding this matter, please contact our office. • Sincerely, • Fred J. Kau an Hearing Examiner cc: Planning Department City Clerk Attachment OF k4;A 11/ l� THE CITY OF RENTON U t$ 4-, 1 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 09gtE0 SEPTctO October 12, 1979 • Members, Renton City Council Renton, Washington RE: File No. R-392-79, SP-407-79; Kohl & Christianson Addition; Request for Rezone and Special Permit; Appeal. Dear Council Members: The Examiner's Report and Recommendation, dated September 27,, 1979, regarding the referenced application was forwarded to Council members on October 4, 1979 and scheduled for placement on the City Council agenda for October 22, 1979. On October 11, 1979, an appeal was filed with the City Clerk within the 14-day appeal period. A copy of the appeal letter is attached for your review prior to rescheduling of the application on the City Council agenda of November 5, 1979. If you require additional assistance or information regarding this matter, please contact the office of the Hearing Examiner. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Planning Department • City Clerk Attachment GEORGE V.POWELL LANE, POWELL, Moss & MILLER KINNE F.HAWES GORDON W.MOSS MARK E.JOH NS ON PENDLETON MILLER ATTORNEYS AT LAW G.VAL TOLLEFSON RAYMOND W.HAMAN JAMES L.ROBART WILLIAM J.WALSH,JR. C.WILLIAM BAILEY G.KEITH GRIM 3800 RAINIER BANK TOWER EVAN O.THOMAS III WILBUR J.LAWRENCE MICHAEL E.MORGAN D.WAYNE GITTINGER R.MICHAEL SMITH BARRY H.BIGGS SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 JAMES B.STOETZER RICHARD F.ALLEN JULIE BROOKS MURRAY THOMAS S.ZILLY DAVID G.JOHANSEN ROBERT W.THOMAS (206)223-7000 MICHAEL H.RUNYAN HARTLEY PAUL DEBORAH D.WRIGHT JOHN F.SHERWOOD CABLE EMBE TELEX 32-8808 DALE W.HOUSE DAVID C.LYCETTE RICHARD C.SIEFERT ROBERT J.FREDERICK - LARRY S.GANGNES MATTHEW R.KENNEY STEPHEN J.HILL JOHN R.TOMLINSON COUNSEL BRIAN P.ABURANO ROBERT L.ISRAEL ANNE MCDONALD ARTHUR DAVID DANIELSON AN,JR. W.BYRON LANE DOUGLAS J.SHAEFFER ROBERT R.DAVIS,JR. WILLIAM T.JACOBSON BRUCE SHORTS EUGENE R.NIELSON CHARLES R.EKBERG KENYON P.KELLOGG RA.SCHA L.PA. October 11, 1979 MICHAEL D.OWYER CRAIG S.PALMOUIST , 910 11 p, Coco �J 4 NOTICE OF APPEAL I, QCT 1979 RECEIVED RE T • ` '^��CLERK g NTO City Council of' the City of Renton .�� OFFI 200 Mill Avenue S. \,k ..:, . '` Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mayor Delaurenti and Members of the City Council : On behalf of our clients, Kohl Excavating, Inc. and Ivan C. Christianson, and pursuant to Section 4-3016 of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, we submit this appeal of the decision of Land Use Hearing Examiner, Fred J. Kaufman, dated September 27, 1979 . That decision concerns our clients ' request to rezone his property and concerns file nos. R-392-79 and SP-407-79 . We believe Mr. Kaufman' s failure to recommend approval of the request to rezone our clients ' property from R-1 to R-3 was attributable to an error in judgment. We have enclosed a check in the amount of $25. 00 payable to the City Clerk, for the fee required in connection with this appeal. Please contact this office, as well as Mr. G. L. Jackson, the appellants ' environmental designer, when the hearing date on this matter has been scheduled. The appellant feels that the hearing examiner made the following errors in judgment: 1. Conclusion 1. is in error. The appellant did demonstrate that the request for reclassification was appro- priate. The testimony of Wayne Kappenman in opposition to the proposal conceded that there had been an increase in traffic on SR-900 since the last rezone of the property in April of 1978. In addition, Mrs. Texeira testified con- cerning the construction of new housing in the area, which would add to the traffic problem. This change, when con- sidered along with the fact that the site, unlike the Renton City Council October 11, 1979 Page Two surrounding residential areas , lies at the same elevation as S.W. Sunset Boulevard, justifies a rezone of the site at this time. The appellants representative, Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Blaylock of the- Planning Department both testified that the impact of the traffic noise on residences constructed on the site would be likely to give rise to localized urban blight. This danger is contrary to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, in particular to the concept of providing a buffer be- tween existing residential neighborhoods and S.W. Sunset Boulevard. 2 . Conclusion 2. is in error. The site is surrounded on 3 sides by existing single family residences. However,. with one or two exceptions, those houses are shielded from the traffic lights and congestion on S.W. Sunset Boulevard by both distance and elevation. The rezone of the site to R-3 is logical and consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. It will prevent the "blight" described in goal 1. , which appears at page 17 of the plan and which is quoted by the hearing examiner in his 2nd conclusion. The appellants proposal is also consistent with goal 6. of the Comprehensive Plan, as quoted by the hearing examiner. Development of the subject property as seven residential sites is not in the best interest of the community. . . , particularly the interests of the residents of those seven dwellings. The residents of single family dwellings on the site would be constantly bothered by the lights, noise and fumes created by the traffic on S.W. Sunset Boulevard. The appellant and the Planning Department believe these conditions would cause high turnover and give rise to low cost, poor quality housing, which would be likely to rapidly deteriorate and decay. In addition, the children living in those seven houses would be in close proximity to the high speed traffic on S.W. Sunset Boulevard, a danger which would not exist if the site were rezoned and developed as a 13, 000 sq. ft. medical pro- fessional building. Contrary to the hearing examiner' s conclusion, the appell- ant asserts that it has demonstrated that the proposed rezone advances the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Conclusion 4. is also in error. The appellant did show that the proposed rezone and clinic is in the best interests of the surrounding community and that it would further the public welfare. Sone of the neighbors who testi- fied complained that their children must walk to school without Renton City Council October 11 , 1979 Page Three the benefit of sidewalks or curbs on existing streets. However, nothing in the record shows neighborhood children actually walk down 81st Avenue S. and S.W. 3rd Place towards Sunset while going to and from school. In fact, the local elementary school is to the North and away from the site. The record does show that the safety of pedestrians along 81st and S.W. 3rd Place would be enhanced by the development of the site. Traffic Operations Engineer Paul Lambert testified that curbs , gutters and sidewalks would be required on three sides of the proposal. The proposed development would not increase traffic in the surrounding residential areas because clients and patients of the proposed medical professional building would have no reason to drive any further than 250 feet up 81st Avenue S. to one of the two entrances to the parking lot. That route only passes 3 existing dwellings. The record also shows that there would only be a minimal increase in the existing traffic dangers along S.W. Sunset Boulevard because , as Mr. Lambert testified, no left turns would be permitted across the median on that street. The hearing examiner' s conclusion that the proposal would "greatly increase traffic on both S.W. Sunset Boulevard and through the residential neighborhood" is based upon vague speculation by the neighbors testifying at the hearing, rather than on facts and traffic study analysis. The proposed medical professional building would provide a much needed buffer to the ever-increasing traffic and noise from S.W. Sunset, is consistent with the stated goals of the Comprehensive Plan and, given the usual topography of the site and the surround- ing neighborhood, will promote the interests of the community as a whole by avoiding construction of single family dwellings in an area wholly unsuited for that purpose. For the reasons stated above, the appellant respectfully re- quests that the City Council reverse the decision of the hearing examiner and adopt the recommendation of the City of Renton' s Planning Department by approving the rezone of the subject property from R-1 to R-3 , subject to the restrictions set forth in the Planning Department' s Preliminary Report to the hearing examiner. Very truly yours, LANE, POWELL, MOSS & MILLER .3-0‘,1+) '4 •RY-`1%"0-4-11-L-----' Evan 0. Thomas III EOT:skh cc: Gary L. Jackson Ivan C. Christianson Kohl Excavating, Inc. w�hv.'dau'ii6nuoi#s"ss'wmtiYw�wia. ••••• r•••.—.•• ••• •., ., �. .... ......a....�...n...�u.u.....«.aa.....«..r«.rrn«..�rni•.r..�+r.nw•ru�u4uaW+Ni x�r.»+✓ic:.•�.�...�• ....,.�.r..:...��.�4.:.�.r..._...:.., � .. ..,.. _. ...-......................... .. .. , • 4s` ITY. OF RENTC ,,, :` • No. 11045 "` tt.r �:. _. • , ' • FINANCE . DEPARTMENT • ?'>! RENTON, WASHING 9 80 i9id (/ 19 77 RECEIVED OF �71 / & - ' t • • :..f,;,,:,..:.i.::!,,, • "tyc---)-b2--,:. ..., f`- i . TOTAL , 5-V;(; ; k GWEN E. MARSH ,1FINANCE IRECTOR _ . . BY /2r �. Via,' F > 0 i -` 4 O F RSA 44. THE CITY OF RENTON `$ MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 z _ o o °; CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • DELORES A. MEAD '13 CITY CLERK 0 42- 44TfD SEP1*- ' October 11 , 1979 APPEAL FILED BY EVAN 0. THOMAS, III , ATTORNEY, ON BEHALF OF KOHL EXCAVATING, INC. AND IVAN C. CHRISTIANSON RE: Appeal of Land Use Examiner' s Decision Dated September 27, 1979, Kohl & Christianson Addition, Rezone R-392-79 and Special Permit SP-407-79 To Parties of Record: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's decision has been filed with the public records office this date, along with the proper fee of $25.00, pursuant to Title 4, Ch. 30, City Code as amended. The City Code requires the appeal must be set forth in writing. The written appeal and all other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council ' s Planning and Development Committee. Please contact the Council Secretary 235-2586, for date and time of the committee meetings if so desired. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above-referenced appeal will be considered by the Renton City Council at its regular meeting of November 5, 1979 at 8:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, Second. Floor, Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Ave. South. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON dziote.i. 97/4,,e,o,( Delores A. Mead, C.M.C. City Clerk f DAM/st % „ . F R v i$ 7 THE CITY OF RENTON Q. MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 2 o o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR ® DELORES A. MEAD �.o CITY CLERK (<, 4TfD SEPIt' October 12, 1979 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss. COUNTY OF KING DELORES A. MEAD, City Clerk of the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 12th day of October, 1979, at the hour of 5:00 p.m. , your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail , a true and correct NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY EVAN 0.- THOMAS, III , ON BEHALF OF KOHL EXCAVATING INC. AND IVAN C. CHRISTIANSON REGARDING REZONE R-392-79 AND SPECIAL PERMIT SP-407-79, TO ALL PARTIES OF RECORD. Delores A. Mead, City Cl rk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 12th day of October, 1979. - Notary Public in and for the State Of Washington, residing in Renton st OF RA / rb' 7f IP THE CITY OF RENTON `/ Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI ► MAYOR ® LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9A `O FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 O �P 91rED SEP1- October 12, 1979 Members, Renton City Council Renton, Washington RE: File No. R-392-79, SP-407-79; Kohl & Christianson• Addition; Request for Rezone and Special Permit; Appeal. Dear Council Members: The Examiner's Report and Recommendation, dated September 27, 1979, regarding the referenced application was forwarded to Council members on October 4, 1979 and scheduled for placement on the City Council agenda for October 22, 1979. On October 11, 1979, an appeal was filed with the City Clerk within the 14-day appeal period. A copy of the appeal letter is attached for your review prior to rescheduling of the application on the City Council agenda of (November 5, 19 9 If you require additional assistance or information regarding this matter, please contact the office of the Hearing Examiner. Sincerely, +LES Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner . cc: Planning Department City Clerk Attachment ►/ OF R'' her 0�i . 0 THE CITY OF RENTON CD 7 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR DELORES A. MEAD • 4 CITY CLERK 91 ..'tp SEPSV�O November 8, 1979 /2 ,4/)u6^Y11S of i PCC'i-r/ RE: Appeal of Land Use Examiner' s Decision Dated September 27, 1979, Kohl & Christianson Addition, Rezone R-392-79 and Special Permit SP-407-79 To Parties of Record: The above referenced subject, scheduled for review by the Renton City Council , November 5, 1979, has been held in the Planning and Development Committee. The appeal will be considered by the Renton City Council at its regular meeting of November 19, 1979 at 8:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, Second Floor, Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Ave. South. r If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON azab-ta_ a iic.c2z, Delores A. Mead, C.M.C. City Clerk DAM/st INTER—OFFICE MEMO TO: City Clerk DATE November 19, 1979 FROM: Billie RE: The attached letter was presented at the November 15 Planning & Development Committee meeting. Mr. Texeira requested that a copy be placed in the original file. c00212,- G`I.! o� q\c[c November 14, 1979 City Council of the City of Renton 200 Mill Ave . S. Renton, WA. 98055 Ref: Letter of Notice of Appeal from Lane, Powell, Moss and Miller, Attorneys, to the City Council of the City of Ren- ' ton, date October 11 , 1979 regarding file Nos . R-392-79, Sp-407-79, request for rezone and R-114-77, the previous request for rezone . Mayor Delaurenti and Members of the City Council: In the referenced letter of appeal, the appellant states that he feels that the hearing examiner made errors in judgement in arriving at his conclusions and provided his reasons. The contents of the appeal letter certainly does not show that errors in judgement by the hearing examiner exists . I provide the following to substantiate this claim that errors in judge- ment in the hearing examiners conclusions do not exist and that -- his conclusions were reasonable and fair. The appellant says in his letter that the hearing exam- iner's conclusion 1 is in error because "The testimony of Mr. Kappenman in opposition to the proposal concede that there has been an increase in traffic on SR-900 since the last rezone of the property in April of 1978. Inaddition Mrs . Texeira testi- fied concering the construction of new housing in the area which would add to the traffic." The appellant considers this as changes in circumstances since the last rezone hearing. Traffic has increased and Mrs . Texeira did advise the hearing examiner that new construction as well as moving of other homes into the area is occurring, others are in the process of being remodeled, and the number of children are increasing. Mrs . Texeira did not say that the increase in residential homes has or will generate a traffic problem. In the context of the hearing this was said to demonstrate that this is a growing single fam- ily residential area, The appellant states this addition of res- idential homes "would add to the traffic problem" creating a change. Certainly there is no comparison in limited increased traffic volume generated by scattered new residential construct- ion, or moving of other residential homes into the surrounding area, zoned R-1 , as compared to a commercial building such as a zoning of R-3 would support. The Appellant further states that : "This change where considered along with the fact that the site unlike the surrounding residential area, lies at the same ele- vation as S.W. Sunset Boulevard justifies a rezone of the site at this time ." As the hearing examiner stated in his conclusion 1 • there has been no changes since the previous rezone either re- lating to the property itself or the neighboring area which would justify the request. In describing what the appellant considers as errors in conclusion 1 . and. of 2 . of the hearing examiner, the appel- lant makes reference to testimony from Mr. Jackson and Mr.Blay- lock. Both testified that the impact of the traffic noise on residence constructed on the site would be likely to give rise to localized urban blight. They believe that the environment created by the traffic on S. 4 . Sunset Boulevard would cause high turnover and give rise to low cost, poor quality housing. Certainly if the appellant is allowed by the City of Renton to build low cost, maximum density for the given area, no environ- ment buffer, poor quality housing, they would rapidly deteri- orate and decay. However, the impact of the traffic on resi- dences on the site can be controlled Lz a buffer zone adjacent to SR-900, •e .g. walls, trees , and schrubs . Homes do exist, all for many years , adjacent to SR-900 for most of the distance from the site East to one block from Rainier rive.A home ad- . &acent to the property and boardering SR-900 has such a buffer. With regard to what the appellant regards as errors in conclusions 1+ of the hearing examiners conclusions, the appel- lant did not show that the proposed rezone and clinic is in the best interests of the surrounding and it would further the public interest . The records of the two rezone hearings will show that no one supported the appellant effort to rezone , on the contrary, exhibit fi6 contains 138 signatures of adjacent pro- perty owners opposed to any rezone . The appellant states that some of the neighbors who testified complained that their children must walk to school without the benefit of sidewalks or curbs on the existing streets . The record will show that the neighbor was Mrs . Texeira, who was not complaining about the lack of existing sidewalks and curbs . She was stating a fact that because sidewalks and curbs do not exist in the surrounding area, the large increase in traffic load will endanger our children. The appellant states that nothing on record snows neighborhood children actually walk down 81st Ave . S. and S.W. 3rd. Place toward Sunset while going to and from school. Let the record show that 2 children walk to Earlington Elementary School from a home on the East side of 81st. Ave . S. on school days . I 'm sure the appellant and the city has no idea of the number of children that walk to school on our streets . The appellant states that the proposed development would not in- crease traffic in the surrounding residential areas because clients and patients of the proposed professional building would have no reason to drive any further that 250 feet up 81st. Ave. S. to one of the two entrances to the parking lot. He also states that Mr. Lambert testified that no left turns would be permitted across the median on Sunset Boulevard. 2 The appellant makes no mention as to how clients will leave the facility . Since I know the area contrary to the appellant and - Mr. Lambert, I can tell you wnat will happen. If you go to the site from Renton you would probably go up Sunset to 81st. Ave . So. and turn right . Also coming from Renton on Sunset Boule- vard, some would come up S. W. 4th. P1 and go by way of S . W . 4th. Pl. and S . W. 3rd . Pl. , or S. W. 4th. Pl. , Thomas S .W . and S. W. 3rd. Pl. through our residential neighborhood . This would be favored over the right hand turn at 81st . Ave. S . because it is a natural angled right hand turn as opposed to the curve that exists in the Renton direction on Sunset Boulevard adjacent to 81st . Ave . S . W. . Some will go up Langston Road and cut down through our residential area by way of P,arlington S . W. , Powell S. W . , or Thomas S .W. and cut across on to S . W. 3rd. Pl. . If . - you desire to go back to Renton you cannot make a left turnion to Sunset Boulevard, consequently you must start at S . W. 3rd. Pl. and weave back to Renton through our residential neighbor- hood. If you go to the site and return from the North, you must go through our residential neighborhood . If you come from Sea- ttle , you cannot make a left hand turn on Sunset Boulevard across to 81st Ave. So. , therefore, you will turn off further west onto 132nd. St . , right onto Langston Road and pass through our neigh- borhood by way of Powell or Thomas S . W. to the proposed clinic . If you assume at least ten offices with six appointments per hour, plus additional services , such as delivery trucks , in an eight hour day, this amounts to approzimately 500 ve- hicles most of which will be traveling on our residential streets . • The hearing records will show that Mr. Lambert advised that. very limited access could occur on S. W. 3rd . Place, and certain access would be possible on S. W. Sunset Boulevard and because of terrain and topography, it would be doubtful if access would be allowed to 80th Ave . S.W. and no left turn would be permitted across the median on S. W. Sunset Boulevard . Mr. Lambert and the appellant have vague concepts of what would be the resulting traffic pattern as a result of this rezoning. Contrary to the appellant the above is not based upon vague speculation by the neighbors testifying at the hearing. We live there. • In the appeal letter it is very amusing that the appellant found it fitting, when citing errors , to the hearing examiner' s conclusion 1 , to use Wayne Kappenmans and Mrs . Texeiras testi- mony to come up with supposably a change in circumstances since the last rezone hearing because of the traffic related items . Yet the appellant states , Conclusion 4 is in error, "The hearing examiner's conclusion that the proposal would, "greatly increase • traffic on both S.W. Sunset Boulevard and through the residential neighborhood" is based upon vague speculation by the neighbor' s testifying at the hearing, rather than on facts and traffic study analysis ." • 3. • Again, I consider the conclusions of the hearing examiner reasonable and fair. In reviewing the appeal I felt compeled to respond. If you are not familiar with the petition signed by 138 property owners opposing the rezone, please review it and the map showing the adjacent and surrounding property owners who signed. I remind you that 96% of the adjacent and surrounding property owners canvassed opposed the request for rezone . • . Patrick D. Texeira 1013 S. W. 3rd. P1. • Renton Wa. 98055 Ail ,_, _ ii ov ii_ A `� Alnh%ER7 THE CITY OF RENTON 8MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o .., CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR e DELORES A. MEAD 134 CITY CLERK 4'4t D SEP1� November 8, 1979 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) DELORES A. MEAD, City Clerk of the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 8th day of November, 1979, at the hour of 5:00 p.m. , your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail , to all parties of record, a true and correct NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY EVAN 0. THOMAS, III , ON BEHALF OF KOHL EXCAVATING INC. AND IVAN C. CHRISTIANSON REGARDING REZONE R-392-79 AND SPECIAL PERMIT SP-407-79, AS CONTINUED BY COUNCIL UNTIL NOVEMBER 19;, 1979. odde-te Delores A. Mead,qty erk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 8th day of November, 1979• 7 )- ---7 r am'/<Buz_. (c� -z . G 2(-A NotSry Public in and for the State of Washington, residing, i'n King County 1 ' PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT November 15 , 1979 KOHL AND CHRISTIANSON ADDITION REZONE, R-392-79 The Planning and Development Committee has considered the appeal of the above referenced decision dated September 27 , 1979 , and recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Hearing Examiner denying said rezone application. • G ge P rry, Chairman EarqVr r Barbara Shinpoch 1 ) f� ''k :r . .. . . . ,t' 2' ,,,,...,4.,.,..... ..:. .� F'': :'vy ' y;j1,:' Fi ::•':` .t ;�::�. ,,,„.••;,,,,...„.•,•,,,,„.,.•:..•••• .. r- 'i. 'Xr,t-r 1 r i ,1' w'�n �ti • ,F I. r... ''i' a ,�.,. 4 . u!�+as'�hi �.%7 .J • -?l `i t�: f Or � �i s ,..x is' t.. ar.i •t wa<a 'S 4 '.:�li'y .v� t • ' f y "4, y� 41c1. r j". 'i+: st ,■ r''i, - e� O di _.'� �KF it,t,i�'::..., „ 1 - .t �'t ,::"J "'tt' '`fi,' ;f,.`, S!iC �:Y.. r!3 1 n : p�`t.Q • - t. •- N O 9 ARE =L A {M1 ,•,I� 1.`IPA f�''=?:�M.tIN1�C L^_aUCc�o , J}! yj7 •I CS... ii+,. X %f� EA 'O ES'r4 'MEAD, ;:t-k L - .,�'. :'DEL' UR�hk�T +p i• 'o' w:: ' 1 - �' IT '-C .:5,�x v:y:, Gk•:+ i. z'rst J l\ 8%I:. ,'-1 e'�' o'ctc A.1.:,, ! 0- 4 } { y ".'pi'>(i:'y t=°. �i ` \f E sr 'S ,�5 r tc P ck;p • rt'�,: r` 1 Y'is ,:f'>s'.:': ip;"�;z;'.:`;'� �'CS',{:i:': ;:. Y . , _ :1 f::• i-1 S .s, :v }, 47 P7• i i•d ,1. 7:• er;:2p. g. _�' e'`b 9"�. No t. 1.. ;r .1, �4 ▪ 1'- „ ,� _: -. - - ``:'-:". - `'k ,6': :'.3:,:' u„ ( 1 � .. .'•�:,..+.. :;.rt_:+'- oa , rr .. � • ,• �rt ,Y i, S'•• j!' ,1'_': 17 W:. Sy„ TI. Jj =.9�'.,�•.rr•. f.C ei 4'. t 3 u, o:z a O �� 'le :�k;i L n ,ri'. y`5 1'f,'S} s . . t aw'. - •• ' A .to rn t : �'ii" k: Towe '"Ban ('= 'Rainier'-Bank... ':�`��;:` ,. r 8 0'3 0 ,1. �:.:: �:. r � .:` i. :':...:,.'" ,ah:y{;:: •,Ray: • f �.i.I , • ni�ly _ A•wti .�S Mr Ivan ''Q' ,� l`"'j,' rj _ i, R- ."4r F`, ' � vy` I: -hr''�'star R..' oh' � r'' �Deiial� Itezo �. :f> j:. 3 2=79 n SP=4>k .R • 9 - "S Ce ntl einen !7 i, 15n ,'F•`, �- 1 7_ of. :o em a ,�' z`'•� `eetiri N v ;:�; • a en on-Cit Cbitiicil': Lat":'� 'ts�`re' ttla. .1tt ,;, .:� e`'P,lann n ;'and:Development went Committee ..recommendation; has concurred in th 8,'. p. e' d ..,;: bo` a-xef rence to u uph old rezone denial: de-cis 'on; .as':,a v 44' r.nM i F:� j,, 2.• o .-t'e T" 7 a ay, 9: ifl� :'d 9,,: `d':Us• e-`Hearin E :n � ��dec' s n�- 1 F. °A eal o1�.ahs ;T,an g: ami. ,t PP - r r, •., a,.:::7-,,. t,-- - denied E. ''i. is f'r-,-.,.coutic,,it,meeting are attached •.hereto-..a.,:,;.,„--•,.. .�;�h 'youforma' '��' n f - or urtle �. ��;', itl 'i'G X E ..rev,-,,`:::: ,I n4 i. r Y,. •ll. i l' c i+ "i:�l ,Y ry X• 'ei` ''t r:u u �'v r>5�: , ` � r�: .t Y" NTON"' rx'r !, "0�iCIT :RE F. t r w+t• "' t,` y' Ti,'+ 7Y;er - _ �..Z:ry,'.:tom..�• e 're a C '..• lo. s 'A'' .1 YJ + • . - : :A .Czt Y' C e r k-.' 5: �:r..r 'S :T • D � s i c :�..R': :Q 't. t; Ei Sur e -> ,1 J - �-.� tip r1 i,Vy st nso` ` � :. isWit, ^ rrt Y •.( c Kohl & Chrii k , ' ' f : i. . .:: e} ,L1",,. ,:.s c ^ .; .. .',imS. 1.j.' ' • 1! ,~.�''. '1� 1 , A :1� � ' • '"` ',.I.. .r, i +^r.tWs4: . , .. - ', , _ • ° t M1, r{•e Z, 13� a'.: - ,Z�ii _ .if i" _ .yi: r•i:, i4.,: ,;r J• - �y II ��1:'sci. !D ie+ �4' r hi '`tf� -: :r.r Si • iF liy _ dt C• J'' Renton City Council 11/19/79 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING -Continued LID #315 Councilman Clymer noted area B-1 and part of the central Sidewalks business district area and inquired of wheelchair ramp require- Burnett S. ment, being advised by Gonnason of the legal requirement. Continued Councilman Trimm noted that bids could be rejected if too high. Alternate sources of funding were discussed. Moved by Clymer, Second Perry, close the public hearing. SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY STREDICKE, SECOND SH.INPOCH, CONTINUE HEARING UNTIL DECEMBER 17. Councilman Stredicke requested information for the 12/17/79 continued hearing from the City Attorney re delayed or deferred assessments for elderly and from the Administration re alternate Hearing Continued funding/federal funds for project to accomodate elderly citizens. to 12/17/79 MOTION CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND CLYMER, SUSPEND RULES AND PRESENT AGENDA ITEMS 9.a. and b. CARRIED. Kohl & Christianson Hearing Examiner Kaufman recommended denial of rezone from Addition Rezone R-1 to R-3 property located between 80th Ave. S. and SW 3rd ;PR-392-79 & Special Place, north of SW Sunset Blvd. ; Kohl and Christianson Addition Permit SP-407-79 R-392-79 and SP 407-79. Appeal was filed by Attorney E. 0. Appeal Thomas, III , on behalf of Kohl Excavating, Inc. and Ivan C. Christianson claimining errors in judgment by the Hearing Planning and Examiner and stated reasons. Development Committee Report Planning and Development Committee Chairman presented report Kohl & Christianson noting consideration of Kohl and Christianson Addition Rezone Rezone and and recommended that Council upohold the decision of the Special Permit Hearing Examiner denying rezone application R-392-79. MOVED Denied BY PERRY, SECOND CLYMER, CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATION OF THE COM- MITTEE.* Gary Jackson, 1919 Dexter Ave. N. , Seattle, Architect representing the owners/applicants, explained site not well suited to single family residences and would create problems. Planning Director Ericksen used wall maps and explained area and proposed use of a professional office building. Upon Council inquiry it was noted those opposed to the rezone were present and petition opposing rezone had been filed with Hearing Examiner bearing signatures of '138 area residents. *MOTION CARRIED AND Rezone denied. Irving W. Hull Recommendation of Land Use Hearing Examiner, Fred Kaufman, Rezone R-394-79 for Irving W. Hull application for rezone was denial . Property Appeal located in vicinity of 421 Burnett Ave. S. ; rezone from R-3 to R-4 requested to permit construction of a six plex residential structure. Appeal was filed by Attorney Mark E. Fortier for Planning and Irving W. Hull claiming error in fact and law. Development Committee Report Planning and Development Committee Chairman Perry submitted Irving W. Hull report noting consideration of the Hull appeal to Rezone 394-79 Rezone and recommended the Council modify the following findings and Denied conclusions: Finding No. 11 and Conclusion No. 4 are in error but the committee found not substantial and not compelling for modification or reversal of the Examiner's recommendation to deny the requested rezone. The report stated the proposed rezone is premature and the requested use would have a detrimental effect on surrounding properties and recommended Council affirm the. recommendation of the Hearing Examiner. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND CLYMER, CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOP- MENT COMMITTEE.* Mark Fortier, Applicant's Attorney, outlined errors in facts and law, claiming area in transition; adjacent to central business district; proposed rezone within Comprehen- sive Plan for area; not adjacent to linear park but to parking lot; adjacent property illegally converted to multiple dwellings; impact would be from 4-plex to 6-plex. Discussion ensued. *MOTION CARRIED and rezone denied. Executive Session MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND SHANE, COUNCIL HOLD, EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS- LABOR NEGOTIATIONS. Council President Shinpoch requested attendance of Mayor Delaurenti , and Assistant Parness, Personnel Director Green and Negotiator Treverton. CARRIED. Time: 9:30 p.m. • RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting November 19 , 1979 Municipal Building Monday , 8 :00 P. M. Council Chambers M 1 N U TE S CALL TO ORDER Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti led the Pledge of Allegiance t. 2 the flag and called the meeting to order. ROLL CALL OF BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, Council President; CHARLES F. SHANE (=rrived 4 COUNCIL at. 8:25 p.m.) , THOMAS W. TRIMM, EARL CLYMER, GEORGE J. PER'Y, MARGARET PROCTOR, RICHARD M. STREDICKE. CITY OFFICIALS C. J. DELAURENTI , Mayor; LAWRENCE WARREN, City Attorney; WILLIAM IN ATTENDANCE E. BENNETT, Deputy Finance Director; DEL MEAD, City Clerk; GORDON Y. ERICKSEN, Planning Director; WARREN GONNASON, Public Works Director;. MICHAEL PARNESS, Administrative Asst. ; BRU E PHILLIPS, Fire Department; JOHN BUFF, Police Department; JINN WEBLEY, Parks Department " PRESS GREG ANDERSON, Renton Daily Record Chronicle MINUTE APPROVAL MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND TRIMM, APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES 0 NOVEMBER 5, 1979 AS WRITTEN. CARRIED. SPECIAL AWARD Mayor Delaurenti displayed Special Civic Award to the City Landscape from Washington Chapter American Society of Landscape Architects Architecture for developing a unique trail system along cedar river fro Cedar River Trail Lake Washington to City Hall , as well as developing Planning Ordinances which specifically refer to landscape requirem-nts. The Mayor commended the Planning Department work on the p oject. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been po ted, L. I .D. #315 published and mailed according to law, Mayor Delaurenti osened Sidewalks the public hearing to consider Local Improvement District No. Burnett Ave. S. 315 to construct and install concrete sidewalks on the ea-t side of Burnett Ave. S. between S. 2nd St. northerly to a point 88.5 feet north of the north margin of S. Tobin St. Lett;r of protest was read from Minnie Ellison, 88 Burnett Ave. S. , claiming property owners on east side are being asked to .ay for sidewalk that will benefit only the people on the west side; also that property owners adjacent to her south boundary ave installed a sidewalk several inches above the natural gro nd level and above her walk and above existing walks on Tobi St. Letter from Public Works Director. Gonnason reported the o e protest received constituted 5% of the total dollar amount of the LID which is $23,936.84. Continued Persons present making inquiries: Alex Cugini , 611 Rento Ave. . So. , questioned $25 per linear foot cost. Public Works Director Gonnason explained the cost of appurtenances charged agai st all properties: four wheelchair ramps ($2,000) and 50' curb .:nd gutter. Ivan Tangen,rManager of Cedar River Terrace, not.d traffic hazard,. need for marked crosswalk, dead end stree sign and possible stop sign. Minnie Ellison, 88 Burnett S. , n.ted walk will be four to five inches higher than property lev 1 . Mrs. Dahl , daughter of Ellison's, complained of high cost for Seniors on social security. Public Works Director sugge .ted HUD Block Grant funds be investigated. Sandy Webb expres •ed the opinion that when improvements are for the benefit of the newly built retirement home, it appears unfair to assess he adjacent properties. C. Ellison, 88 Burnett S. , inquired as to liability for anyone injured by stumbling on raised. si 'ewalk. City Attorney Warren advised that once design and constru tion accepted by the City, liability rests with property owner Discussion ensued. Upon Council inquiry, Public Works Di ector explained the L. I .D. was started by City, initiated by res•lution. ni r •W••i'•'•' 2 ',..' • •••L':'• .•:7,`',.4,'=;•:‘;',':'•' ';:'.. .- ;"'LL :'' • '••r,:.''''• .'.: • :."•--.,r"-:-.:,:'7,`,..A‘',,tfir,';;;•::;,f;',..ri'''':"','',',-":r.,::':•:. -.•;‘,..•,•.,,,"'..-i,.,•;;;-:.::'',...:: rr• t:'•-•• - .::_:... ..., . • • •.• • • . .-- ',..,..., • il .. i- Counc . Renton ;C t . . Y :Poe.6' / 7 .: , • •Page..: ,9 •. i ued A EN D ont n SN T G CONE r d 'ener. conservation '..Dan. Po'1''.i " •Rehtori';t requests 9Y ,. Ener Letter'��f�r.om� , �;' • . , Conservation' `i n%ahe -:d`ownt own'::bus.ti'nss 'di,str,;ict noting= great. `number 'of`'street _ ,•: -r.e ues,ted'...Pug et' Ttie�,1.a t.te r':;'a.l.s,o' g , d:. matle,•,S;W; .est�i;ons' q . r„ •+ �. : :"' "' ,�.�•- Conservation' Commi't:tee. . "�i` '-?<t��`cons'�i:'dereo'':'r ::Refer':to"'f=rider• � :„Ctinsot.‘,/at ve,. gy..� "'NOV• D.",BY -"CtLYMER :;;SECOND;:.PERRY, COUNC-,I,L ADOPT:THE CONSENT AGENDA. .;......_` Consent' .Agen'da • :•,;, _ CARRIED # v al. C A' ro P N E E: t)ND C RE SP ,." CORRESPONDENCE • • :�'•NPOCH 'THE'.FOLLOWING ITEM BE HELD OVER`, ' .•'.,,. ; '`',`,,, ` Ko ,and ;.>, j�:`;�`,;,'; MOVED:,1#Y` PERRY;�.>SECOND`r,:SHI .. _ - ' Christianson Addn F0.R PRES;ENTATION',AT' THE MEETI`NG,OF 'NOVEMBER.'-'19., 19.79: CARRIED. , Rezone '392-79`and',,, Land.';:Use'_Hearing'.;Exami,ner Kaufman recommended' ,denial of rezone .,. ,;R-l`,`to' R- for::;pro'erty`-:l:ocat'ed on SW,' Sunset B-1 vd: Appeal;":' '.Spec;��a;l` 'Re rm i t' r'orri 3: P P , ti g�',' hr i st i anson <' v i;n inc: ':an' -ivan: C. C °; ; :` f i'aed -By: Kohl: ;Exica._at. ,g:r; d' rra 'e r s Te c ;i: Hri`:l l c e t S�=re s.i n' n' �:i'; 'ten- `;' .. "'s i-�`�nedr,,by-"� `42''e �t 9' Re .uest,`''for' Petit g :,';'Protection. from'. • ' ;;'aske`d' assistance,',.:+to;,,overcome::',,deplor,abl,e,_°situation with vandalism, •`" "' 'i' n MOVED' BY SH I NPOCH,, "f :,a d;.harassmen:t�oE.�'aenaor;'ci to s Hara�ssmen,tix'an,d, ',.., h'e,�t°=:'. �.. .1,,, t,: s°',", R''.;. TTE'R°:%,TO..'ADM,I:NIrr.STRATI:ON'.,FOR REPORT BACK' ;•TO: �.,, Vanda i,i•sm SE:CONO, PERRY °::REFE MA, f {L A RRI,ED :dUNC �l'C d. d for . s �•Annua 1 Bud et =i- resented."'.hi. g ��'- �;� Ltter``.firom''>hia ,or.�:.Delaut':en.E p -'' ' " ed'.and'`to``ta'lled''a.t"°:$24':838 .4'98•:r.epresenting an - °-><:'' s. �the `l Budget et. =l8'. `over:.` l�a t 979. 9 ,: rease'•.of. : �8 `442'�or, 5��. , ;' presented t:, d: be , 1 ud 't' w�ou > . e�-b e. r'.Oeff�u'ren� ':r �annS,u .o+er. ,g. . Mayo �,,. z' �'u -l>l:�an''�'Ttiu rs a ,7`:`3 S` a , s •, •NEW:BUStNES . ; ° -:ano"n�ced `=her"��'offis s�ta f uldbe tabula t i n 9'El ect ion°�� �Ci tY ;'.Cperk':-Mead nu i � _'' h :'Gnerl` ection '..'1 h/6/`79after�-;p`ol ,cloe 'a.t 8:00 P.m. • !' ' Teiulat; on tee , .:, ' n ' ' ,r and 'ivited:;afte�da e: r.. , �il ,;, ;' of bud et hearin s` Budget,�Nea i ngs' 'Coilric•�;}-'Pees,{'dent�.Sh r.epoch..,anhounce'd';s`chedu l:e . g 9 . . • bl`\ %`7?tc.ol``:Counci``,"l S,ecretary, „6th _'Floor•.. •,- was'awa'i-la e';: ADJOU RNM E NT,' • ;z.' PO` H C,O'UNC IL' M EET I'N G ADJOURN:':, : •• 'MOV.CD: B,Y''STRED:I CKE.;;`,SE'C�OND'=SH:1 N C ,. •ui' 1`� 11 :2 RI:E � ' k, , t , � Fyn; `.F •F,V' a.:t,"'. � I AJ ,Y. i: r s' Mead t , .Deal oe V 7ij 4. Y: "' - :.tia •rtK„ > - s` r..' > is • vP=�; • ;,:Viz, • 5�` J.; 5': ` e y. ti: .4 "ir' •4 r - ;‘,.V.': ,i... i.4 .f ,• i i•n !t ,e •L` vj;'• `j :4� Y.• lit'•""i'''':Y v_ Y y Y nru,• +r lf, ti, "ry ut"- ..��,' `t,it N .(ti. .If ,�Z'n"i :1 �r <yZ" slu t l fir• 1 'i:t2 4 - - Div`'•`:,. :r.' %�zt F•! •1 .k.. 1. �i�y'yy f • "'I �tr:•. +4 r..w,rr. 5• Jc; _ r4. v,y:a.3:i. .'r .,J 4 =�tf. } t, ,b' I' :ar .�t:'t at i, a