Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA77-091
RENTON' CI,TY''COUN.CIL' PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ' COMMITTEE'-REPO RT January •9 1978 O ci;laMembersTCouri rR©l f.t•> .'' Planning and: Development;'':Committee.; RE': Fil-eF No..': R-091 7.7',,. S.`C.S:` .St rs'ls'ey.:,Holding.s. Appeal :ofr'the :Examiner's `Report and`• Recommendation The •Planning:' and;::Development' Committee.,";;after examination of the :record , and;:'the, Hewing,, Examiner:'s; written. decision, finda.ngs -and conclusions pursuant to ;Section 4301.7, recommends>.ghat the City;`Cou'ncil` concur i.n' the "recommenda- tion of!`' he Hearing Examiner for,•den.i°al::"of.:'the rezone re- ques;t `of t ;to :R3 and refer• the item to tl e::Ways,.;•.and Means Committee for open resoluta.on ar orda.nar ce preparation. Mk, s(. 1kJ f w. f i S r V i k l }k. Ge a Pe hairman• • , lQ t oJ e. arra Shinpoch .' MemberBba Riches e•iC .e,. .•Member i 3'r,:J; s y 4 1 nt °t( T<t 'i f Ir t 4 i 1 lW yk l ,, Ale--"--7,..., CITY OF RENTON 3286 FINANCE DEPARTMENT No. RENTON, WASHINGTON 8055 • e),,,,,3 19 RECEIVED OF Qy . Z,,S 7rJO TOTAL J J, i1 0. GWEN E. MARSH , FINANCE DIRECTOR B Cl y t RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER DEC 141977 A PM 7t8e9tiOilleae1 o243415,6 A 4 1 THE CITY OF RENTON 0 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI ) MAYOR ® LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER p L. RICK BEELER , 235-2593 4).' t0 SEP17- December 15, 1977 Members, Renton City Council Renton, Washington RE: File No. R-091-77, S.C.S. & Stirkskey Holdings; Appeal of the Examiner's Report and Recommendation. Dear Council Members: Attached are the referenced report and recommendation, dated November 14, 1977; letter requesting reconsideration from the applicant, dated November 25, 1977; and the Examiner's letter of denial of the request for reconsideration, dated November 30, 1977. Subsequently, a letter of appeal to the City Council was received by the City Clerk on December 13, 1977 prior to expiration of the second appeal date of December 14, 1977. The Examiner's Report and Recommendation in this matter was not forwarded to the City Council prior to filing of an appeal because of the decision to deny the request. Denials of applications do not require Council action unless the decision is appealed. This matter will be placed on the Council agenda of January 9, 1977. If you require additional information in this matter, please contact the undersigned. Si • r ,. L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner Attachments cc: Del Mead, City Clerk Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director r3t d9814 j 1`N 1 c, 7" Gov December 13, 1977 tot City of Renton City Council Ip Oz. st c/o Renton City Clerk co <9' Renton, Washington n Re: File 17 R-091-77 r' e. O Gentlemen: l`"915Z Zf2\. As the present owner of the subject property on SW 2nd Street near Hardie Avenue, and an aggrieved party of record, I am submitting this letter as an appeal to the city council to review and reject the ruling of the Land Use Hearing Examiner and grant the subject property the proposed R-3 zoning. I believe that upon review of the record and the report of the Hearing Examiner you will find that the decision of the Examiner was not logical and, in. fact; not based on the facts and testimony as required by city ordinance 4-3014 and was, in addition, based.partially on an error in fact, and largely on an error in judgement which is prohibited by article 4-3015. I appeal to the city council to overrule the decision of.the Hearing Examiner as provided for by article 1+-3016. First, I would draw your attention to several findings in the Examiners rep rt: Finding number 5 states that "there was no opposition to the proposal expressed". In view of the considerable effort to notify affected. parties of the proposal as evidenced by the staff report, i.e. notice in newspaper, postings on telephone poles, distributions to neighbors, this fact is highly significant. The findi fails to note that there was testimony actively promoting the proposals recorded earlier in the report. One of the proponents was the owner of the single family residence immediately to the south, the neighbor most affected by the proposed construction. Finding number ' 1 notes that "the property immediately west... . is zoned. .'. Single Family ) , but fails to no;:e two other factors. First, that these residences are removed by 100+ feet and some 75 'feet in elevation, providing a better natural buffer strip than any plantings or fence can. Second, that the properties immediately to the north and one lot removed to the south are each already zoned R-3 and the land one lot removed to the east is zoned p-1. K; City of Renton City Cotiincil 2- December 13, 1977 Finding number 12 notes that the proposed density of seven units is closer to an R-2 zoning which would allow 4-5 units than to the allowable under R-3 of 12 units. This observation becomes important in Conclusion number 2. All of Findings 1 thru 12 would support the rezoning to R-3 with the possible exception of number 3. . However, as noted in a preceeding paragraph, number 8 is an imcomplete observation which must be weighted against additional factors. Consequently, number 13 is the only finding which brings any opposition to the rezoning into play and it does so only obliquely and, as will be shown does so erroneously. Finding number 13 contains an error of fact. It states that the subject property, according to the Comprehensive Land Use Map, "could be considered low or medium Density Multi-family'.'. The property is in fact well within the Medium Density Multi-family area as noted in the city planning staff report and the Examiners response to the request for reconsideration. Hence, the proposed construction is clearly in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Conclusions in the Examiners report, all seem to be based upon finding number 13 with no consideration of findings 1 thru 12. Conclusion number 1 (the first two paragraphs on page 4 seem to be a continuation of number 1) discusses the compatibility of the proposal with the comprehensive plan. As noted earlier, the subject site does not; in fact, lie on a boundary between low and medium density, but lies clearly within the medium density multi-family. The proposal then is clearly in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. As far as transition is concerned, the applicant has attempted a proposal of density as close to R-2 as is economically feasible to develop. But if transition is really a valid prohiLitive, where is the transition between the five-plex at the corner of the subject site and the existing single family structure on the subject site? (See Attachment I) Where is the transition between the Convalescent Home to the north and the existing single family structure? Or between the church to the south and the single family structure immediately to the south? Or in any of the other instances noted in Attachment I? Or even between the business zoning across Hardie Avenue and the existing Single-family dwellings? I would suggest that the precedent has riot been strongly established in this neighborhood. And, finally, as far as buffering is concerned, the substantial gradient on the site and surrounding area and the considerable distance between the subject site and the nearest dwellings to the west provide a natural buffer which is more than sufficient. City of Renton City Council 3- December 13, 1977 Conclusions number 2 and 3 discuss the objectives of the Land Use Report. I do not believe that there is anything "inappropriate" or "incompatable" in the proposed units. The proposal is for low/medium density residential housing in a neighborhood of not just single family (which are in the minority), but also duplexes, a five-plex, church, and convalescent home. Furthermore, I don't believe there is any evidence that a well- designed and built structure of this type is going to "contribute to premature decay and obsolescence". The blight, if there is any, is that presented by the existing structure which is in a considerable state of disrepair. Objectives from the Land Use Report which were not discussed under Conclusion number 2 include the following: Number 4 intends to "Protect property values within the community for the benefits of its residents and., property owners". The proposed structure would, in fact, enhance the property values in the immediate vicinity, in contrast to the present structure which has the opposite effect. I know this to be an area of concern to the neighbors in this era of continued inflation. Land Use Report Objective number 6 intends to "Encourage the.. . utiliza- tion of land to its highest and best use in such a way as to. . . contribute to its overall attractiveness and desirability as a place in which to. . . live". The subject property, being on the hillside directly in line with 2nd street is a highly visable one. The present structure is hardly attractive. Frankly, it's an eyesore. The proposed structures are of a design which is attractive and pleasing to the eye, particularly with the incorporation of Planning Staff recommendations to use materials such as "cedar, brick, . . . and cedar shakes or similar appearing roof','. Finally, Conclusion number 4 discusses City Ordinance 4-3015. With respect to 4-3014 (A), the subject property was considred at the time of the last area land use analysis and is in accord with that analysis as evidenced by previous discussion of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Additionally, with regard to 4-3014(3), the land was potentially zoned for the requested 7i-3 as Medium Density Multi-family in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and conditions have been met according to the staff report that indicate that the change is appropriate.. In addition to these comments concerning the Examiners report, I would submit the observation to the city council that it is not always possible to have a perfect step-by-step progression from dense and heavy-use areas to single family and open areas. Expecting to establish this type of city structure, without exception, will only slow the progress and expansion of the city. The purpose of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is to establish general areas of ideal projected usage with respect to present use. In practice it becomes necessary to allow specific land uses to overlap and leapfrog each other slightly in order to allow for timely development and growth of the city and1consequently, reasonably progressive growth of the city tax base. If a certain amount of this leapfrogging is not allowed, the city will not experience planned growth, it unhappily will experience no growth. City of Renton City Council 4- December 13, 1977 The builder has made every effort to maintain a compatible use for the land in question and still remain financially solvent in this endeavor as any good businessman must. He has indicated a willingness both at the oral hearing and in his appeal to comply with those restrictions suggested to accompany the rezoning by the planning staff. In view of the fact that the proposal is clearly within the intent of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the fact that there was much active support of the rezonins and subsequent construction, i.e. city planning staff report and recommendation of approval, builder, present propert; owner, and, very importantly, adjacent property owners, and absol.ltely no objection of record to the proposal, and in consideration of all of the above findings, considerations, objectives, and conclusions, it would seem to me that there can be no other recourse on the part of the city council than to reverse the ruling of the city examiner and grant the applicant the proposed R-3 zoning. I respectfully request that they do so. Respectfully submitted, P- 01,494CS 6- 4143RogerE. Berg 209 Haride Ave. SW Renton, Washington 98055 001011.111111"1„;,;;; 4))- ii- _tiv.gvhivti,z_zy tt• 1 v 14 4 c .„'t i ..,--- , A.16 , 6 -. 11-1 --- acIINI 11 vy 5 A M5 qa' Qi CjvillisP n ivIls-'9A.'ir-I i 1ElCI04 r4 C 1..6.1 Arro do ..109r3 8 ...07 0%to 1.v, .5..),I. :w-72 (i id iihteg r e a. e r9if , s I0 55/2•,vil.s.0 1 0%-'s• To e it id • ,..1 1,13. L . Bw X 21', 7- .-;-:'---":"- • 4 r— .. .Lii R L> a)" 0/.2 l._ 4 g i 1I1:431 1. ID INIA1,1 I'''V, 17! Z. CI 4-i.: Al!ELA 7-7.77---A jz. CO APeo ti } P#T2 fir711V41 2 114 g " 46 0 NOJefirl C3alli1111616I0rlyir1... .401.+!S VA V-A 1 , ir y givit sp a Is 2.v lip 41 Aica0 LI rt K• tg' . .. 4. wp 4„ 4 1 ' ,•••• , 0VI ) 441* 5 twriol 5 4)\ ‹) 4te 0 0 N r.N s 4 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 14th day of November 19 77 , 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 k0 day of v\41,2_,1 19 s51/4" 1-( k,& 0-4k) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Renton Application, Petition or Case: S.C.S. & Stirskey, R-091-77 The minuted contain a tat of the paitt%es necond) JOHN ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES • ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS 25 November 1977 RECETVEb CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER NOV 2 81977 City of Renton AM Pil Renton, Washington 71819110413123162t3t91t.5,6 Attention: Mr. Rick Beeler, Land Use Hearing Examiner Re: File #R-091-77 Gentlemen: On behalf of S.C.S. & Stirskey Holdings, this letter is in request for reconsideration of the decision to deny reclassification to permit construction of seven townhouse units on SW 2nd Street near Hardie Avenue. The City of Renton Planning Staff recommended approval of the proposal with certain conditions. Many of these were acceptable and others we were permitted to debate or present our position and reasons. In the hearing examiner's conclusions, however, a number of additional considerations were brought out that we were not privileged to answer. Therefore, we petition that you review our response to your conclusion and reconsider the attached alternate proposed plan. 1. We believe that the existing R-2 area is really an island surrounded on three sides by R-3 and B-1 . With the R-3 land use on the north and south it could very consistly all be R-3 as per comprehensive plan of Renton which must have had some consideration and study. 2. It does not seem possible that new townhouse condominiums of attached single family could contribute to "premature decay and absolescence", but it should give new life and vitality to an old neighborhood. The proponent does not desire a full R-3 zoning with its implied density but approval of a modest planned unit development for the site. The alternate plans propose three spaced duplexes which should be in the spirit of the adjacent zoning. Their individual impact should be no greater than an average single family house. We believe we have accomplished adequate buffering through the reduced number of units, located the majority of the parking under the units, substantially increased the width of the perimeter planting, and reduced the bnd coverage of the site. 3. We cannot believe that three modest size duplexes that are more than 100 feet away from the existing single family (wider than typical houses facing across a street) and situated at a grade elevation of 45 feet higher can be considered "unjustified intrusion . into an adjacent single family district". 10620 N.E.8th • Bellevue,Washington 98004 • (206) 454-3096 I pF .R e 0 THECITY OF RENTON V t 00 Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH. 98055 p CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 4 Q- L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 OEo SEPlEtO November 30, 1977 Mr. John Anderson RE: File No. R-091-77 John Anderson & Associates Reconsideration Request 10620 N.E. 8th Bellevue, WA 98004 Dear Mr. Anderson: Upon receipt of your request of November 25, 1977, a review was made of the record of this application and the site was visited again. All of the reasons expressed for reconsideration were specific except for the claim that additional considerations" were made to which you had not responded. It was assumed that the intent of this claim was that the Examiner's recommendation of November 14, 1977 contained discussion of the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives and Land Use Map which was not made during the public hearing. You are correct that the Examiner's conclusions were not discussed in the hearing; however, the subjects of those conclusions were available prior to and during the hearing. It was impossible and disallowed by ordinance for the decision of the Examiner to be discussed in the hearing since that decision was to be made after the. hearing. Your letter also contained a revised proposal of reducing the density from seven duplexes to six suplexes. Since this revision is not a part of the record it cannot be considered at this time. It is reasonable to assume that this information was reasonably available during the hearing and does not constitute new information per se. The main issue raised in your letter was the Examiner's decision to not reclassify the property. Another look at the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map revealed that, in fact, the site lies well within the Medium Density Multifamily category and not between Low and Medium Density categories. However, the role of the Map is a general guide to land use decisions, and the goals and objectives come to bear specifically in these decisions. In this instance, the objectives indicate that the increase in density beyond the existing duplex density has not been adequately justified to foster an orderly growth pattern. The development in the immediate area displays transition of existing single family residences to duplexes bordered by a church (single family residential use) and a convalescent home (residential use - low intensity) . This site forms the westerly border of the multifamily transition from more intense easterly land uses to the existing single family residences immediately west of the site. Duplex zoning is intended and reasonable to accomplish this transition. If in the future the land uses in the immediate area change, this conclusion may also change. Mr. John Anderson Page Two November 30, 1977 It should also be clarified that "contract zoning" is not now occurring in the City of Renton. Contracts are not implemented. Instead, performance. • conditions are specified in restrictive covenants and these conditions are not duplicative of the available P.U.D. process or other development controls. The conditions attached to rezones are intended to respond to the individual physical constraints of a specific site, not •to circumvent the available zoning categories. In this instance the application was reviewed as a normal rezone proposal, but which also had a development concept that was flexible and did not tie down the applicant. The primary issue continues to be the zoning category, sought relative to the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives. Tailoring a zoning category •to specific constraints of the site and the development profile remains within the purpose and scope of the P.U.D. process.. Based upon the foregoing analysis, review of .the record and visit to the site, the Examiner's decision remains to retain the existing duplex (R-2) zoning. This decision may change when the land use picture in the immediate area changes significantly or new, significant testimony or evidence is presented. But in view of the information presented to date, this is the Examiner's conclusion in this matter. Res tfull yours, L. Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner LRB:mp cc: S.C.S. & Stirskey Holdings Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Parties of Record November 14, 1977 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICANT: S.C.S. & Stirskey Holdings FILE NO. R-091-77 LOCATION: Property located north of the City of Seattle Cedar River Pipeline R/W just south of S.W. 2nd Street and between the Renton City limits and Hardie Avenue S.W. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests rezone from R-2, Duplex Residence District • to R-3, Multiple Family Residence District to allow construction of a proposed five-plex and a duplex on the subject site. SUMMARY OF Planning Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions. ACTION: • Hearing Examiner Decision: Denial PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on October 25, 1977. 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 November 1, 1977 at 11:15 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were sworn. 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. Michael Smith, Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered the following additional exhibits into the record: Exhibit #2: Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit #3: Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit #4: Conceptual Elevations (2 sheets) The Examiner asked Mr. Smith if the conceptual site plan conformed to the 60% open space requirement contained in the R-3 zone. Mr. Smith indicated that the lot was comprised of 76% of open space. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the landscape buffer on the west property line, Mr. Smith indicated that the department had recommended a five-foot landscaping area on top of a rockery as well as a six-foot sight-obscuring fence. He advised that although location of the rockery on the outside of the fence was preferred, maintenance was difficult and indicated that the fence would be placed outside of the rockery. Mr. Smith also advised, responding to the Examiner's question, that the approximate density for the R-2 zone was 11 units per acre under a special use permit which totalled 4 to 5 units for the subject site. The Examiner asked'. the applicant if he concurred in Exhibit #1. Responding was the applicant's representative: John Anderson 9819 Vineyard Crest Bellevue, WA Mr. Anderson indicated nonconcurrence in several items regarding density and setback requirements. He emphasized that the steep grade of the site and requirements for retention of large trees made development of the site difficult and costly. He noted compatibility of the requested R-3 zone, which allows a 12-unit density, with surrounding zoned property and rgported that the requested density of seven units was a significant reduction from the recommended allowance. Regarding setbacks, Mr. Anderson- expressed preference for a five-foot setback rather than the recommended 10-foot requirement on R-vi-77 Page Two the west property line because of the continuing rise in the grade from the street, and indicated that revisions in building plans to construct buildings with daylight basements may eliminate the need for a rockery. He preferred a 5-foot minimum landscape buffer area on the south property line rather than the recommended 10 feet but reported no objection to the recommended 25-foot setback along the south property line. In response to the Examiner's question regarding the City of Seattle, GS-7200, zoned property located to the west in relationship to the subject property, Mr. Anderson felt that because the number of requested units exceeded the R-2 zone density limit only slightly, impact would be minimal. He also stated, in response to the Examiner's inquiry, that although the proposed buildings were located on the west property line near a single family residential area, the required setback on the property line would provide sufficient buffering for the proposed use. The Examiner asked for testimony from the applicant. Responding was: Siegfried Ullrich 115 Burnett Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 The Examiner asked Mr. Ullrich for an explanation regarding the requested density on the site. The applicant reported that because of the expense for installation of utilities, provisions for tree preservation, and maintenance of a reasonable selling price for the proposed condominiums, a minimum of seven units was required on the site. The Examiner asked Mr. Ullrich for the distance of the grade below the western property line for the ground floor of the units.. The applicant reported that the distance was approximately 18 to 20 feet due to the steep grade at the location. The Examiner expressed concern with reduction of the landscape buffer on the south property line to five feet because of requirements for parking areas and inquired if parking would be provided under the building structures. Mr. Ullrich indicated that necessary revisions would be made to conform to City of Renton codes. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding feasibility of development of the property for four units in an R-2 zone, the applicant responded that because of the expense it would not be possible to develop the property and would create a burden on potential condominium owners for maintenance of landscaping on the site. The Examiner asked for testimony in favor of the application. Responding was: Roger Berg 209 Hardie Avenue S.W. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Berg, present owner of the property, favored approval of the application because of contingency of sale. He reported that the large size of the lot creates difficulty for maintenance for one or two people. Responding was: William R. Smith 29604 S.E. 208th Maple Valley, WA Mr. Smith reported that he had purchased the duplex on the easterly property line from the applicant and felt that the new development would improve the appearance of the surrounding area. He stated that he was willing to discuss easement rights through his property for future utility purposes with the applicant. Responding was: Fred Hindley 217 Hardie Avenue S.W. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Hindley reported that as the owner of the property on the south side of the subject site he favored the development because it would improve the appearance of the area. The Examiner asked for testimony in opposition to the application. There was no. response. The Examiner then asked Mr. Anderson for final comments. Mr. Anderson submitted conceptual drawings of proposed building structures to clarify elevations for the rockery. The drawings were entered as Exhibit #5. The Examiner asked Mr. Smith for additions, corrections or modifications to Exhibit #1. Mr. Smith indicated his concurrence with the applicant's request for modification of the setbacks to conform to ordinance requirements for a five-foot landscape buffer along the south property line although he felt that landscaping on the easterly boundary. should be retained in the recommendation. Referencing previous discussion regarding maintenance of landscaping, he noted that condominium owners normally form a homeowners' R-091-77 Page Three association which was responsible for landscaping maintenance on the site. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding receipt of a title search for the north 25 feet of the site for right-of-way on S.W. 2nd Street, Mr. Smith reported that the report would be submitted that afternoon. The Examiner asked the applicant if he objected to integrating results of the title report into the Examiner's recommendation and report. Mr. Ullrich indicated he had no objection. The Examiner asked for further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on Item #R-091-77 was closed by the Examiner at 12:10 p.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 reclassification of approximately .4 acres from R-2 (Duplex) to R-3 (Medium Density Multifamily) . 2. The Planning Department report accurately 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, 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 official. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. There was no opposition to the proposal expressed. 6. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. 7. The, proposal is compatible with the required setbacks, lot coverage and height requirements of Section 4-709A (R-3) of Title IV, Code of General Ordinances. 8. Property immediately west of the subject site is zoned GS-7200 (Single Family) and lies within King County. 9. The northern 30 to 39 feet of the subject site is a of the public right-of-way for S.W. 2nd Street (Exhibit #3) per King County Auditors File No. 570618. 10. The site is on the west slope of the valley containing the CBD and municipal airport. This slope is of a substantial gradient, whereby the westerly single family residences overlook the subject site. 11. It was stated by the applicant that development under existing R-2 (Duplex) zoning would not be economically feasible. 12. Conceptual plans (Exhibits #2, 3, and •4) submitted by the applicant indicated a proposed density of seven units. 'This density is approximately five units less than what would be permitted in the R-3 zone and about 2 units more than that permitted, in the R-2 zone. 13. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates that the property could be considered Low or Medium Density Multifamily. These two land use classifications appear to meet at the subject property, thereby requiring interpretation via the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. CONCLUSIONS: 1. While the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates that the site is located in the area between Low and Medium Density Multifamily, the Map demonstrates that transition should occur between the Medium Density Multifamily and Single Family. The Map indicates that Low Density Multifamily would accomplish this transition on or near the subject site. 2. Objective No. 1, page 17, Land Use Report, states: "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. " R-091-77 Page Four The proposed R-3 (Medium Density Multifamily) is not normally considered appropriate transition from an existing R-2 (Low Density Multifamily) district to a single family district. A zoning classification of R-2 is a more appropriate land use to accomplish this transition. In this application no justification was made that transition is necessary between an established, existing R-2 zone and the adjacent single family zone. In instances where R-3 might be utilized to provide this transition, some buffering, e.g. landscaping strip of substantial proportions, is applied to the reclassification. The subject site is only 116 feet in width which must include the landscape buffer, parking, driveway, and structures. The property would be of insufficient width to accomplish the transition together with parking, access and buildings. 3. The proposal would present an unjustified intrusion of an inappropriate multifamily density into the adjacent single family district. Sufficient for transition purposes is the existing R-2 zone. 4. With respect to Section 4-3014 evidence was not submitted that ". . .the subject reclassification appears not to have been specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning. . ." (4-3014. (A) ) . Insufficient justification was presented that ". . .the property is potentially zoned for the reclassification being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and conditions have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate. . . " (4-3014. (B) ) . No evidence was submitted that ". . .authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstnaces affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. " (4-3014. (C) ) . Therefore, the Examiner is unable to make any one of these findings that are required for recommending a rezone per Chapter 30. DECISION: Based upon the record, testimony, findings and conclusions, it is the decision of the Examiner to deny the reclassification request. ORDERED THIS 14th day of November, 1977. h .'.ice -Zak, L. ick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 14th day of November, 1977 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: John Anderson Siegfried Ullrich Roger Berg William R. Smith Fred Hindley TRANSMITTED THIS 14th day of November, 1977 to the following: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Ron Nelson, Building Division Larry Warren, Acting City Attorney Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before November 28, 1977. 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 City Clerk's office., first floor of City Hall, or same may be purchased at cost in said office. r y 1 1 If' \'t I II., 1 f 11 y}. 1// r ; .. ,, [il, 1 1 `. 1..1.{1 L'1'•. I p , .', p:}r1.!Yr., N+ p' r: 11 %• I_` .I 1 I I I` . J.r li I ('•> r , -..' I O V 1 1 11 11, 1, 1-e000 .. r 1'r j. 6.- 1 t. i f I 1 f T Tv ,•t 1 •. it GI r v I.`b'; t,.. •. ' ^ f.` •4 • ,. ;ate ,p - ibt ? r O, 7 1 1 Ir 1, 1 : r. I N f•.1. r' I j yyjj f///' _ , 1 a r/ mill ;,, I f,, ul ' ilma'/1117c 1IT w .J.. ••/ h,r ,.yd, i.Dh1 t 1 R 4 S- 00 •r 1, o e,:* 4. ‘ , ., ..,. t;. ii,i.a r s"BJEcf I - 3 r. B_,. s fj G S;• y 14• JVN:OR alf R-i... jiff i, .. 11,11• .,. „....` 1. 444 p....,..)..6 rP 1 C.C•• ' V r N. ' It: at , A' sort.4a C is 'n'' • I•. / w y .. iL , lL 1 t ill' H rif7'.••!A'' .i.' • 4.7 '. J . tiff !y E3. --.1. A:, 1 v ~'• pro,-: :. ., ,-,..!!,.;: ..... a/ is'• mot• fo i }? i:: ram ....l f.." e 4-al i 1: REZONE : S. C . S . AND STIRSKEY HOLDINGS , REZONE FROM R-2 TO R-3 , File No . R-091- 77 ; property located north of the City of Seattle Cedar River Pipeline right-of-way just south of S . W. 2nd Street .and between the. Renton city limits and Hardie Avenue S . W. APPLICANT S . C. S . & STIRSKEY HOLDINGS TOTAL AREA .1 . 4 acre PRINCIPAL ACCESS Hardie Avenue S . W. EXISTING ZONING R-2 EXISTING USE Single Family Residential PROPOSED USE Multi -family Residential COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Medium Density Multi -family COMMENTS 1.1-11024 'DIV 21107111 SONI410H AV)15'415 525 Vic A7grenC 1007 V gift2c 4 I as l' ye A c LT0: 11.-h4.7- 0 .n, ••• L (t71‘ 5 ft, 0. ........ .., C i Vti ti% - Q iS 92i1 1 Cus. 0 0 t. 0 C3 itA 111111115 E3 a 9 V•\ 7h' orAtrimd leid 7 1.1.1.pog g •_ k 1 6. ft1r4 57i•s- ... O l'iMn. r E o1 D 3 " C Mk. , 14 iihoL 1111 ‘111411 2 rag' . .• . tau ill f•V Via 0 k FLi t u.r1;:;'.2I73." i Ei3,3, . 0 ‘li a,44' 514' PrTntlilIeVito, 0 0 1 d Poititi C3 i 441IIIIIII14Nil1St1,1 zt elk01kcolia- a,a_imiZialmiz.5.iL D1"1"15.1teen &to E3101r• 4.0.)41/i' ts. vego. 5 C) V. 4> 0 43,_ 1 RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 11971 PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER AIM 6 q 4 a a a a®e e e PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 1 , 1977 EXHIBIT NO APPLICANT : S . C . S . AND STIRSKEY HOLDINGS ITEM NO. FILE NO . : R-091 -77 , REZONE FROM R-2 to R-3 A . SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests rezone from R-2 , Duplex Residence District to R-3 , 'Multiple Family Residence District to allow construction of a proposed five-plex and a duplex on the subject site. B . GENERAL INFORMATION : 1 . Owner of Record : S . C . S AND STIRSKEY HOLDINGS 2 . Applicant : S . C . S . AND STIRSKEY HOLDINGS 3 . Location : Property located north of the City of Seattle Cedar River Pipeline R/W just south of S . W. 2nd Street and between the Renton City limits and Hardie Avenue S . W. 4. Legal Description : A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department . 5. Size of Property : Approximately 17 ,350 square feet or approximately . 4 acres . 6. Access :Via S . W . 2nd Street 7 . Existing Zoning : R-2 , Duplex Residence District 8 . Existing Zoning in the area : R-2 , Residence District R-3 , Residence District G-6000, General Classification District Single Family Residence B-1 ,. Business District 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan : Medium Density Multiple Family 10 . Notification : The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly published in the Record- Chronicle and posted in four places on or near the site as required by City Ordinance . Notice was distri - buted to the surrounding property owners . C . PURPOSE OF REQUEST : To obtain the zoning classification consistent with a proposed seven unit apartment complex on the subject . 4 . acres site . D . HISTORY/BACKGROUND : The subject site was annexed into the City on November 15 , 1956 by Ordinance #1580. The site was subsequently rezoned from R-1 to R-2 on March 12 , 1957 by Ordinance #1597. A duplex has been recently 1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF NOVEMBER 1 , 1977 PAGE TWO RE : R-091 -77 , REZONE FROM R-2 TO R-3 FOR S . C . S . AND STIRSKEY HOLDINGS built on a piece of property directly abutting the subject site on the west fronting on Hardie Avenue S . W. E . PHYSICAL BACKGROUND : 1 . Topography : The site slopes upward from east to west at an approximate average 18 percent grade . The existing topography will require a certain amount of cut and fill . 2 . Soils : Beausite gravelly sandy loam ( BeC ) . Permeability is moderately rapid , available water capacity is low, run-off is medium , and the hazard of erosion is moderate . This soil is used for timber , pasture , and urban development. 3 . Vegetation : . There are a number of significant Cedar trees and deciduous trees scattered throughout the site . These should be retained and perserved within the site development as much as possible . The applicant ' s proposed plot plan indicates a desire to dd so . 4 . Wildlife : Existing vegetation of the site may provide some habitat for birds and small mammals . 5: Water : No existing streams or surface water are apparent on the subject site. 6. Land Use : There is an existing single family residence located on the subject site . Existing single family resi - dences are located west of the subject site approximately twenty feet in elevation above the subject site . There is an existing single family residence located directly adjacent and south of the subject site . There is an existing five-plex structure located near the northeast corner of the subject site . There are existing duplexes located east of the sub- ject site fronting on the west side of Hardie Avenue S . W. Renton Terrace Convalescent Home is located north of the subject site across S . W. 2nd Street.. The Renton First Baptist Church is located south of the subject site on the south side of the Cedar River pipeline right-of-way . F . NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS : The area is characterized by a mixture of single family residences , duplexes , and small apartment units together with certain quasi - public uses . G . PUBLIC SERVICES : 1 . Water and Sewer : There is an existing six inch -water main along S . W. 2nd Street . A ten inch and a six inch sewer main exists along Hardie Avenue S . W. Storm drains are not avail - able in the area . On-site storm water retention will be necessary. 2 . Fire Protection : Provided by the Renton Fire Department as per Ordinance : requirements . Any future development of the site will be ! subject to City of Renton standards . 3 . Transit : Metro Transit route 107 operates along Rainier Avenue South . 4. Schools : Subject site is approximately three-quarters of a mile east of Earlington Elementary School . Dimmitt Junior High School is located approximately one mile north of the subject site and Renton High School is located approximately one-quarter mile east of the subject site . L5 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF NOVEMBER 1 , 1977 PAGE THREE RE : R-091-77 , REZONE FROM R-2 TO R-3 FOR S .C . S . AND STIRSKEY HOLDINGS 5 . Parks : The school' facilities mentioned in item number four above provide recreation and open space areas . H . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE : 1 . Section 4-708 ; R-2 , Residence District 2 . Section 4-709A; R-3 , Residence District 3 . Section 4-725 ; Amendments 4. Chapter 22 , Parking and Loading I . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS : 1 . . Policy Statement , Comprehensive Plan , Renton Urban Area , 1965 , E , Traffic Ways , page 6, and Summary, pages 9 and 10. 2 . Land Use Report , 1965 , Residential , page 11 , and Objectives , pages 17 and 18. J . IMPACTS ON THE NATURAL SYSTEMS : Rezoning the subject site will not have a direct impact on the natural systems , however , eventual development of the site' will disturb soil and vegetation , increase storm water runoff and have an effect on traffic and noise levels in the area . However , these can be mitigated with proper development controls and procedures . K. SOCIAL IMPACTS : Changing the use from single . family residential to multiple family residential may result in additional social interaction at the site as well as the surrounding area . L . ENVIORNMENTAL 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-significane has been issued for the subject proposal ( see attached ) . 'This declaration is based on City requirements consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the area together with the proper development control and pro- cedures as well as retaining some of the natural characteristics of the site , and providing a density compatible with the sur- rounding area . M . ADDITIONAL INFORMATION : A vicinity map and site map are attached . N . AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS ' CONTACTED : 1 . City of Renton Building Division 2 . City of Renton Engineering Division 3 . City of Renton Utilities Division 4. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division 5. City of Renton Fire Department Copies of certain memoranda and comments are attached . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF NOVEMBER 1 , 1977 PAGE FOUR RE : R-091-77 . REZONE FROM R-2 TO R-3 FOR S . C . S . AND STIRSKEY HOLDINGS 0 . PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS : 1 . The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan which designates the area for medium density multiple family residential 2 . The existing zoning in the area is R-2 and R-3 . The sub- ject proposal appears to be consistent with the existing zoning in the area . 3 . Existing uses directly east of the subject site are low density multiple family in character . A single family residence exists directly adjacent and south of the subject site . Although it is zoned R-2 sufficient setbacks and buffering should be established along the south property line. 4. Single family residences exist directly west and uphill from the subject site. They are located within King County and zoned RS-7200. The existing elevation dif- ference, together with proper screening , setbacks , buffer- ing, and density limits will serve to mitigate potential impacts of the site development. 5 . The parking indicated at the northerly portion of the site and along the south property line per the conceptual site plan does not provide a five foot minimum ordinance required landscape buffering (Chapter 22 , Parking and Loading) . 6 . It appears that to adequately maintain suitable setbacks and buffering of adjacent properties and some usable open space on the subject site , the density should be reduced, to a maximum of six dwelling units . This would provide adjustments along the south property line adjacent to the single family residence , and allow for more flexibility in lot and parking arrangements . 7 . Minimum setbacks and buffer areas as well as landscape and design controls should be established to ensure compatibility with adjacent properties and development quality. 8 . The site contains a number of existing significant evergreen and deciduous trees that should be retained as a part of the site development . The conceptual site plan indicates preservation of a substantial number of existing trees . 9. Section 4-3010 ( B ) states that the Hearing Examiner has the prerogative of establishing conditions and requirements on all items subject to his review. 10. Adequate water and, sanitary sewers appear to be available in the area . Storm drains are not available . Alternative methods for handling storm drainage together with suitable storm water retention and oil /water separation facilities must be provided subject to approval of the Public Works Department . This !nay include the extension of existing storm drains to serve the subject site . The applicant owns the lot with the new duplex structure located near the southeast corner of the subject site . An easement for certain utilities may necessary across this lot . PLANNING DEPARTMclif PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF NOVEMBER 1 , 1977 PAGE FIVE RE : R-091-77 , REZONE FROM R-2 TO R-3 FOR S ,C ,S , AND STIRSKEY HOLDINGS 11 . The slope is such that a certain amount of cut and fill will be necessary. All such activity must conform to mining , excavation , and grading ordinance requirements . Any rockery or bulkhead should be setback from the property line to allow for a suitable landscape buffer strip , and fencing . 12 . Access to the subject site is provided via an existing 25 foot right-of-way. An additional 25 feet of right-of-way should be dedicated to the City with additional paving and improvements per Public Works Department approval . P . PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION : Recommend approval of a rezone to R-3 for the subject site based on the above analysis , the Comprehensive Plan , and the surrounding land uses and zoning , with the following conditions in the form of covenants running with the land . 1 . • Density--The maximum density permitted on the subject site shall be six dwelling units . 2 . Site DevelopmentReview--Specific development plans for the site shall be subject to site plan approval of the Land Use Hearing Examiner . This is to ensure design , setbacks , land- scaping , and associated development standards that will be compatible with adjacent residential uses . 3 . Building Setbacks--Minimum 25 feet along the south property line ; minimum 10 feet along the west property line. Minimum 10 feet along the south 79. 95 feet of the east property line . 4. Building Height and Design--The minimum building height shall not exceed 35 feet . Building design and architecture shall be approved at the time of site development review and shall include , but not be limited to , the provision of cedar , brick, or other approved masonry construction , and cedar shake or similar appearing roof. 5. Landscape/Buffering--Minimum 10 feet along the south property line ; minimum 5 feet along the west property line ; minimum 10 feet along the south 79 . 95 feet of the east property line ; minimum 10 feet along the north property line : A minimum 6 foot sight obscuring architectural -type fence shall be provided along the west , south , and east property lines . Such landscaping and fencing shall be included in a detailed landscape plan for the entire site and subject to Planning Department approval . All areas not utilized for structures , parking , and circulation shall be landscaped . 6. Tree Preservation--Any existing evergreen and deciduous trees shall be preserved as much as possible and incorporated into the site development plans . No trees shall be removed with- out prior approval of the Renton Planning Department. . The rezone shall be further subject to Public Works Department approval of suitable storm water retention and oil /water separation facilities , togetherwith dedication of an additional 25 feet of ' right-of-way along SW. 2nd Street with Public Works Department approval of minimum improvements . The above conditions are considered the minimal necessary to ensure compatibility with adjacent single family residen- tial uses . With the location and existence of single family uses in close proximity to the site (directly south and west) , anything less than the above conditions would be premature and inappropriate for the area , thereby justifying the reten- tion of the R-2 zone and development under its requirements . i ;f titi s RO1J1':NN1G FOR kl_VIFW OF ENVIRONMENTAL. CHECKLIST FORMS TO : C Finance Department Fi re Department Library Department f Park Department Police Department Public Works Department M Building Div . Traffic Engineering Div . j, Engineering Div . 0 Uti 1 i ties Engineering Div . FROM : Planning Department , (signed by responsible official or his designee ) 7f 77 Application No . : R- I -77SUBJECT : Rev.i ew of ECF- ` _ - Action Name : .C.. 4' ml J piN).0$ darzi,64.._..i-Z to d?_3 I Please review the attached . Review requested by '( date) :• / /779lL REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : ' '7 //2ec:'r'"-27 Comments : C41, rnere/ gy 6-- - "' "-e: 74 . S te 11" z/77 Signature of L') !r.tor . : Authori ,d Reprcsen t ati ve ate 1 E•. 'VI LW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Depart ,Cent :,_._.___..0 !` -iTu_diz S._-----_...__-.-..._. .. Comments : TO 5,ere-,-i FLc,u- Pvt.o-ti I4.C.t4.IfPi. ' 1714r4.s .r 7 P ri-O J/i,l , 'i+J::3 L-0 Ti it 0I rL,t C.IL/ ID 16.. J if w/8.t l J-I I/-1/4,LI7i if., 4,•.,rL S•4)". i j- IYLiz- Ft..(:wy (;fi,nr/r.iA-7'/!KJ I3/ 1-4tC1-4H."- 6i3F-.S.r7 L.a ,.- Itnc.virc_/L1 j /tofJ/4 at.•',_ ci/tc0(..Ar//46, CLcoprlo)' I/JAT-rT•,.- l'9Ai"--I I M pno-//7r-0/7i•/rS 0 e?~ZI.77 i! gnature of Di rector or Authori 7:e-J !tcpri- :,c•'n: ;i't `.e ate is is ii la fll 'hi I. 6'1' L, , isi ( i ) Y .1)1:._PMSVIEN:FS 1 7- Department : Comments : I", 4 S/ ;1' 1 i/C an/ e. nril-7/421;14;1 '' O Ho Yj a 2.. .Q24/ 1/7 Si gnature of Di rector or Authori zed Representative Date REVIEW HY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : D e p a r t me n t :_17.$j\_ .i. _ • . Comments : N..) • ; 1 - 1 H 1 !' ' ' ignature of Dire or or Authorized Representative bate REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : 55 . Department : ., 1 Comments : 1 1 II I ; I • I . - I ! 1 1 cignature of Director or Authorized Representative - Date T ,1 1.fl. i.: PV OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : , I Comments : 1 1 ; 1 Sillnilture of Director or Authorized Rcprosontctrivo 6-,-) H k 1 1? h 1.u1-1,1,,j .,—,a:1 af 1,..:i!.,--.,.,(/,.. ':.-1 --;_'_—_•,-_ 1, \.).\5--:,.. a,,',-„;„;„;,:_..: J U It. \\ '. ..C5rAtp/un..f) ' i T i j3 S 1 I l IAII yI < k illil,._ c. N\- ..(( kliI? I\ t I'6_._ Z as c,lk`C1 aQ.... v 4 J T 4 Y T A Dilli VA[ lL I t _ { 3 Q - t+ f tx 3 ,d, r 53 :- 1.-12 tlir t-_ ___ ,,, 2 \ ,....-am W j CL, VAG..I QC E it ;''.,fil l'I`1 1.1 ] j \rC`\ j p bl 62 0l` r[ . a ' lo— i / LifY l{ E f 1ma1 J rI J r 17 , T T T.1 T I r `f ` R il, O tir\ \\' ; acco I 1 14 1 II ,1,^mt . 's,_^ i i, ,, 7 —1 i— 1_ - it' I I r SOJ sILI 1. 1 a`•.E" - Y`1:-.,..-L , I, . rn I' 7j 1J q q r • f T 71 s oe I _,2 -- r - \ o \\ a_w , T`\ 1PIAR{'11 I J, _ " y lii1_; styNIORIGNHOOLièi 1_ if f I Y h'psi NM =i WI l l .` 1 #R` i/'.. f ' t4 .. 11.I•T_o.ti f s.' iliI1fit.i f 4 L 9 lAl,1 I .i A.- 11 r,.,,/74 1 1„:t.,. - \ (Th s\ 7 14' t .''''''' Cr' 111/4111.'i ... :,.... 9.J. ....'.. L., uj.....'.._::' ..• lkii ,,Lii1. j, j ' k;„ .At?4, A,,, .''' A / \ , - 7__ \ 1 ' 0 4.1".-r-il> uil ___. 1J---; C1Z% G s' L ysl a l Y I 5ET BLVD g Ei) \ P0\N \'', s fir', t P ` , Olt •4iil i n<„n' ,,,tr ®i E cE s\ t fi,. ' . E a1 -''' s' ; x', r. ` N rL tiOdr tip, .. k ,.,.z..,:r s. a t-5-"a i 444 7 o t yF`tn a 4"644 EKE d v a t s- i D" f ,? rwd,, 1:,Ie I nth. yy- . ; b l... 1, r.- i,):IL lik j . 1 2„. 7,- :' , ,- ' J-- -.-' SEIJ X- REZONE : S . C . S . AND STIRSKEY HOLDINGS , REZONE FROM R-2 'TO R-3 , File No. R-091-77 ; property located north of the City of Seattle Cedar River Pipeline Fight-of-way just south of S . W. 2nd Street and between the Renton city limits and Hardie Avenue S .O . APPLICANT S . C. S . . & STIRSKEY HOLDINGS TOTAL AREA ± . 4 acre PRINCIPAL ACCESS Hardie Avenue S . W. EXISTING ZONING R-2 EXISTING USE Single Family Residential Multi -famil ResidentialPROPOSEDUSEy COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Medium Density Multi -family I COMMENTS i I i I !I , 1 I ; I 1 , i 1 II 1 4 ' ATY°7157/I Li.••••rii-e OW I, 5.9rovoti 1,3>15WW 0 525 I1 ! P7 4 Vic jgaren° &t I I I 1:1 . or- i 0/105.t i 8, I i I I as i los i4i • N 41,1 Vi4 r4v4 f Cra' Aeojr,i II i1 I 1 v MgClr_i lel,f I 4 if ' A II30," .: '',,.. VD -JI, I P.""A I 41 CS cf.? e.: 1 4 MN c., S,I ti I 1 0 ICI a C:1 l'% A 4 lk 1 qvr fri- kih 1 III 0 rm EL, k 4 ,, ..r....i.• A tio Jolorat ep 1,-eitV‘ 7 NMI d lei ?MOW 4.: Imoall r liS''II4' x • I rp;,,,./-.";: i VS WS I 0 man" 70 :';`I • a, ,,,,?..g, , 1 0 027 '.'..:',I, 'iTOM "' .•Sql 0 A,.....,6=31 1291 1 S.• 44. 4,.. I or IA 't 0 k , liV011 1: CI 4. ED t vk If 0 Plit2 II' ' Netifirri C30II0 I",• 4% ' C:1 P:i4., r' ' ' a 0-1,44 1 0 5jekten Mr? 110-11,11 I 101 Arg\ITO 4ba I 411% tird) 5? •,o, 4 51 511 45 isngoi• 5 1 II•4 PROPOSED/FINA IECLARAITION OF SIGNIFICANT NON-SIGNIFICANCE 1 7ApplicationNo . R-091-7 PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No .! ECF-284-77 ID FINAL Declaration Description of proposal Applicant proposes to construct a duplex and a five-plex townhouse'. Proponent S . C. S . AND STIRSKEY HOLDINGS Property located north of the City of Seattle Cedar River Location of Proposal Pipeline right-of-way, just south of S.W. 2nd Street and beWeenithe Renton City limits and Hardie Avenue S.W. Lead Agency CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT . This proposal has been determined to ® have 0 not have. a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS 0 is is not required under R1CW 43 . 21C . 030 ( 2 ) (c ) . This decision was ma e after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency . non-significant ' Reasons for/declaration of 'environmental significance : This declaration is based on the compatibility of the proposed rezone with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the area. However, further environmental review may be necessary for spel1fic site development, which should utilize proper'' development standards and 'proce ures, retain some of the natural character of the site, and provide a density com atible with the surrounding area. 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 : i i 1' i Responsible Official Gordon . Y . Ericksen i 11 I Pla in erect r October 24 , 1977 11Title9Date i Signature 1 City of Renton l Planning Department ' '? 5-76 l 1 i r I i Y MEMORANDUM TO MICHAEL SMITH , PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE 10/24/77 FROM KURT PEDERSEN, FIRE DEPARTMENT SUBJECT S C S & STIRSKEY HOLDINGS REZONE No significant impact to Fire Department; Buildings on this site must meet I S 0 requirements for fire flow and proper access per Uniform Fire Code. Building plans required for additional requirements. Kurt. Pedersen MEMORANDUM 1'0 MICHAEL SMITH , PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE 10/24/77 FROM KURT PEDERSEN, FIRE DEPARTMENT SUBJECT S C S & STIRSKEY HOLDINGS REZONE No significant impact to Fire Department; Buildings on this site must meet I S 0 requirements for fire flow and proper access per Uniform Fire Code. Building plans required for additional requirements. Kurt Pedersen KP/jb VCs)( tlJny Z THE CITY OF RENTON o MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH. 98055 n 2 =Yr'.1 d CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR o PLANNING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 gTED SEPI - 48) October 19 , 1977 S . C. S . and Stirskey Holdings 115 Burnett Avenue South Renton , Washington 98055 RE : NOTICE OF APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR REZONE FROM R-2 , RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY , TO R-3 , RESIDENTIAL MULTI- FAMILY , File No . R-091-77 ; property located north of the City of Seattle Cedar River Pipeline Right-of-way just south of S . W. 2nd St. and between city limits and Hardie Ave . S . W. Dear Sirs : The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on October 10 , 1977 A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for November 1 , 1977 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 B y . Michael L . Smith -' Associate Planner MLS :wr cc : John Anderson and Associates 10620 N . E . 8th Bellevue , WA 98004 X PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 1 , 1977 APPLICANT: S . C . S . AND STIRSKEY HOLDINGS FILE NO . : R-091 -77 , REZONE FROM R-2 to R-3 A . SUMMARY OF REQUEST : Applicant requests rezone from R-2 , Duplex Residence District to R-3 , 'Multiple Family Residence District to allow construction of a proposed five-plex and a duplex on the subject site. B . GENERAL INFORMATION : 1 . Owner of Record : S . C . S AND STIRSKEY HOLDINGS 2 . Applicant : S . C . S . AND STIRSKEY HOLDINGS 3 . . Location : Property located north of the City of Seattle Cedar River Pipeline R/W just south of ' S . W. 2nd Street and between the Renton City limits and Hardie Avenue S. W. 4 . Legal Description : A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department . 5. Size of Property : Approximately 17 ,350 square feet or approximately . 4 acres . 6. Access :Via S . W. 2nd Street 7 . Existing Zoning : R-2 , Duplex Residence District 8 . Existing Zoning in the area : R-2 , Residence District R-3 , Residence District G-6000, General Classification District Single Family Residence B-1 ,. Business District 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan : Medium Density Multiple Family 10. Notification : The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly published in the Record- Chronicle and posted in four places on or near the site as required by City Ordinance. Notice was distri - buted to the surrounding property owners . C . PURPOSE OF REQUEST : To obtain the zoning classification consistent with a proposed seven unit apartment complex on the subject . 4 acres site . D . HISTORY/BACKGROUND : 1 The subject site was annexed into the City on November 15 , 1956 by Ordinance #1580. The site was subsequently rezoned from R-1 to , R-2 on March 12 , 1957 by Ordinance #1597. A duplex has been recently PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF NOVEMBER 1 , 1977 PAGE TWO RE : R-091 -77 , REZONE FROM R-2 TO R-3 FOR S . C . S . AND STIRSKEY HOLDINGS built on a piece of property directly abutting the subject site on the west fronting on Hardie Avenue S . W. E . PHYSICAL BACKGROUND : 1 . Topography : The site slopes upward from east to west at an approximate average 18 percent grade . The existing topography will require a certain amount of cut and fill . 2 . Soils : Beausite gravelly sandy loam (BeC ) . Permeability is moderately rapid , available water capacity is low, run-off is medium , and the hazard of erosion is moderate . This soil is used for timber , pasture , and urban development. 3 . Vegetation : .: There are a number of significant Cedar trees and deciduous trees scattered throughout the site. These should be retained and perserved within the site development as much as possible : The applicant ' s proposed plot plan indicates a desire to do so . 4 . Wildlife : Existing vegetation of the site may provide some habitat for birds and small mammals . 5. Water : No existing streams or surface water are apparent on the subject site. 6. Land Use : There is an existing single family residence located on the subject site . Existing single family resi - dences are located west of the subject . site . approximately twenty feet in elevation above the subject site . There is an existing single family residence located directly adjacent and south of the subject site . There is an existing 'five-plex structure located near the northeast corner of the subject site . There are existing duplexes located east of the sub- ject site fronting on the west side of Hardie Avenue S . W. Renton Terrace Convalescent Home is located north of the subject site across S . W. 2nd Street.. The Renton First Baptist Church is located south of the subject site on the south side of the Cedar River pipeline right-of-way. F . NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS : The area is characterized by a mixture of single family residences , duplexes , and small apartment units together with certain quasi - public uses . G . PUBLIC SERVICES : 1 . Water and Sewer : There is an existing six inch_water main along S . W. 2nd Street. A ten inch and a six inch sewer main exists along Hardie Avenue S . W. Storm drains are not avail - able in the area . On-site storm water retention will be necessary. 2 . Fire Protection : Provided by the Renton Fire Department as per Ordigancelrequirements . Any future development of the site will bed subject to City of Renton standards . 3. Transit : Metro Transit route 107 operates along Rainier Avenue South . 4. Schools : Subject site is approximately three-quarters of a mile east of Earlington Elementary School . Dimmitt Junior High School is located approximately one mile north of the subject site and Renton High School is located approximately one-quarter mile east of the subject site . 1 i A PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF NOVEMBER 1 , 1977 PAGE THREE RE : R-091-77 , REZONE FROM R-2 TO R-3 FOR S .C . S . AND STIRSKEY HOLDINGS 5 . Parks : The school' facilities mentioned in item number four above provide recreation and open space areas . H . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE : 1 . Section 4-708 ; R-2 , Residence District 2 . Section 4-709A; R-3 , Residence District 3 . Section 4-725 ; Amendments 4. Chapter 22 , Parking and Loading I . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS : 1 . " Policy Statement , Comprehensive Plan , Renton Urban Area , 1965 , E , Traffic Ways , page 6, and Summary , pages 9 and 10. 2 . Land Use Report , 1965 , Residential , page 11 , and Objectives , pages 17 and 18. J . IMPACTS ON THE NATURAL SYSTEMS : Rezoning the subject site will not have a direct impact on the natural systems , however , eventual development of the site will disturb soil and vegetation , increase storm water runoff and have an effect on traffic and noise levels in the area . However , these can be mitigated with proper development controls and procedures . K. SOCIAL IMPACTS : Changing the use from single, family residential to multiple family residential may result in additional social interaction at the site as well as the surrounding area . L . ENVIORNMENTAL 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-significane has been issued for the subject proposal ( see attached ) . This declaration is based on City requirements consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the area together with the proper development control and pro- cedures as well as retaining some of the natural characteristics of the site , and providing a density compatible with the sur- rounding area . M . ADDITIONAL INFORMATION : A vicinity map and site map are attached . N . AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED : 1 . City of Renton Building Division 2 . City of Renton Engineering Division 3 . City of Renton Utilities Division 4. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division 5. City of Renton Fire Department Copies of certain memoranda and comments are attached . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF NOVEMBER 1 , 1977 PAGE FOUR RE : R-091-77 . REZONE FROM R-2 TO R-3 FOR S . C . S . AND STIRSKEY HOLDINGS 0 . PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS : 1. The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan which designates the area for medium density multiple family residential 2. The existing zoning in the area is R-2 and R-3 . The sub- ject proposal appears to be consistent with the existing zoning in the area . 3 . Existing uses directly east of the subject site are low density multiple family in character. A single family residence exists directly adjacent and south of the subject site. Although it is zoned R-2 sufficient setbacks and buffering should be established along the south property line. 4. Single family residences exist directly west and uphill from the subject site. They are located .within . King County and zoned RS-7200. The existing elevation dif- ference, together with proper screening, setbacks , .buffer- ing, and density limits will serve to mitigate potential impacts of the site development. 5 . The parking indicated at the northerly portion of the site and along the south property line per the conceptual site plan does not provide a five foot minimum ordinance required landscape buffering (Chapter 22 , Parking and Loading ) . 6. It appears that to adequately maintain suitable setbacks and buffering of adjacent properties and some usable open space on the subject site , the density should be reduced to a maximum of six dwelling units . This would provide adjustments along the south property line adjacent to the single family residence, and allow for more flexibility . in lot and parking arrangements . 7 . Minimum setbacks a!nd buffer areas as well as landscape and design controls should be established to ensure compatibility with adjacent properties and development quality. 8 . The site contains a number of existing significant evergreen and deciduous trees that should be retained as a part of the site development . The conceptual site plan indicates preservation of a substantial number of existing trees . 9. Section 4-3010( B) states that the Hearing Examiner has the prerogative of establishing conditions and requirements on all items subject to his review. 10. Adequate water and sanitary sewers appear to' be available in the area . Storm drains are not available . Alternative methods for handling storm drainage together with suitable storm water retention and oil /water separation facilities must be provided subject to approval of the Public Works Department . This 'may include the extension of existing storm drains to serve the subject site . The applicant owns the lot with the new duplex structure located near the southeast corner of the subject site . An easement for certain utilities may necessary across this lot . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF NOVEMBER 1 , 1977 PAGE FIVE RE : R-091-77 , REZONE FROM R-2 TO R-3 FOR S ,C, S , AND STIRSKEY HOLDINGS 11 . The slope is such that a certain amount of cut and fill will be necessary. All such activity must conform to mining , excavation , and grading ordinance requirements . Any rockery or bulkhead should be setback from the property line to allow for a suitable landscape buffer strip , and fencing . 12 . Access to the subject site is provided via an existing 25 fo,ot right-of-way. An additional 25 feet of right-of-way should be dedicated to the City with additional paving and improvements per Public Works Department approval . P . PLANNING DEPARTMENT :RECOMMENDATION : Recommend approval of a rezone to R-3 for the subject site based on the above analysis , the Comprehensive Plan , and the surrounding land uses and zoning , with the following conditions in the form of covenants running with the land . 1 . - Density--The maximum density permitted on the subject site shall be six dwelling units . 2 . Site Development Review--Specific development plans for the site shall be subject to site plan approval of the Land Use Hearing Examiner . This is to ensure design , setbacks , land- scaping , and associated development standards that will be compatible with adjacent residential uses . 3 . Building Setbacks--Minimum 25 feet along the south property line ; minimum 10 feet along the west property line. Minimum 10 feet along the south 79. 95 feet of the east property line . 4. Building Height and Design--The minimum building height shall not exceed ! 35 feet . Building design and architecture shall be approved at the time of site development review and shall include , but not be limited to , the provision of cedar , brick, or other approved masonry construction , and cedar shake or similar appearing roof . 5. Landscape/Buffering--Minimum 10 feet along the south property line ; minimum 5 feet along the west property line ; minimum 10 feet along the south 79 . 95 feet of the east property line ; minimum 10 feet along the north property line. A minimum 6 foot sight obscuring architectural -type fence shall be provided along the west , south , and east property lines . Such landscaping and fencing shall be included in a detailed landscape plan for the entire site and subject to Planning Department approval . All areas not utilized for structures , parking , and circulation shall be landscaped . 6. Tree Preservation--Any existing evergreen and deciduous trees shall be preserved as much as possible and incorporated into the site development plans . No trees shall be removed with- out prior approval of the Renton Planning Department. The rezone shall be further subject to Public Works Department approval of suitable , stor.m water retention and oil /water separation, facilities , together with dedication of an additional 25 feet of right-of-way along SW. 2nd Street with Public Works Department approval of minimum Improvements . h The above conditions 'are considered the minimal necessary to ensure compatibility with adjacent single family residen- , t tial 'uses . With the location and existence of single family uses in close proximity to the site ( directly south and west) , anything less than the above conditions would be premature and inappropriate for the area , thereby justifying the reten- tion of the R-2 zone and development under its requirements . 1! 1 4 ROU:f1. NG FOR I LVI [W OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO : 0 Finance Department 0 Fi re Department Library Department Park Department Police Department Public( q Works Department Building Div . 6, Traffic Engineering Div . Engineering Div . 0 Utilities Engineering Div . FROM : Planning Department , (signed by responsible official or his designee ) SUBJECT : Review of ECF- Appl i cation No . :_•_R-D91 -77 Action Name : .C. S n j c_.pi..._.._ __Ja_`_Z_ W 4—Z to CZ--3 I I Please review the attached . ! Review requested by ( dat(e) :' yS 7 __ REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : • '?f /'2e r/'-2 5' ^ Comments : Qsc r2 e r-p/ rn<7 y - ' '' cis 'e,f/ 74-' -, jrop-e--?"moo 2c5.-71 v^oti 74--' 1 Si (Jililt:UY'e or Q actor Aufifiori . . cdRGprscn f:afi i ve ate A,- LEVI LW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Depart went : tJT% L.-i LIiz ._.._.._._...._._._-... ._. Comments : TO Sui°F',r•..j FcowS r14.0.^.1 14Lcpt+l/K bois4c ir7 V/I.cJnn-1 'i+Juk-k) TA It (Ir1.ii LT•L 7 - ro /G" 3a""1.t / J-! N/-1/4 ft. U( It_ A‘.iZ s.v . 1- I!t/i Jz b w y 6 0n//1,1 A-V/l vJ Os" /-4 r Co I-!/4 Wii---i.s.r7 w i L-... Itfl 0.1/4)t rt./T P/tors/413.14_ Cl/tcuc..Arr/44 Cc.cop./0/0Y WArf=.L- t7A1 i i jII i ( I'Iat.•l1rG Of Director OJ' 1AIJt.,l(lrl .. d OtCrt l: r•1r c..11. i ' I' i I 1 ij i l 7 .1 i '.. i:'i` i, l 1( ( l 1 'Y 1 . i'AR ME:NTS : Department : rilic En s. edP le91 Comments : K, I Signature 'of Director or 'Authori zed Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : e:__A4.1_____ . .Department : i3 Comments : ikj 4.3. i , - c. ' a • N,N.t ZI-NYV.Ate,..e.- j %..1_\ r_:. '. _ f_-_Al..___ . _ALL:.. . \i' 1 -e. i. !\ 1. Si gnature of Di re or or Authorized Representative Date j REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department :I Comments : i 1 i 1 Signature of E)i re or or Authorized Reprr:;entat i ve Date i: E3;' OTHER CITY DEPARTP1E-NTS : Department :__ Comment, : j ' i it i I:ki i ,;;,+i;ure of Di rector or uthori zed (7r•i:;+r.I , ivc I) i {- 2. I ii I ft-'- u "" cam. O U 1 i i- j oiriI q O T gip" ME 49 .'.i2 r l: .• fi 39• ,(A Zip Q mil y ;.y, ro \ iI=f 1` 4•Rr 3 z i „77 6 44 Z 45 aq ';,, a%, yy,,,,',, 55T\ - \. _,,,,,,,,\ Y 3 i4ili'i-)- 1 1 v6 a t ;t 1 i ',‘„, id 53 Z , 1 Er i.. w °J, A1 • El 1 t Al' O. 0 jaii I I T .\FT 44- 153. `*- B- I i_'• --- Y . _, t —--- 1- —' -F 1 -\' I j. 3.or1 1- .7. sloe E" t `-` , T If l— z..1 V I s , f 1 7 ._.-L-_ .P G to.FoAu'1t tl 1 m n eNroa JUNIORfl-44.-'rir----•r\1 . Q® ' 1J I1L•1 ( _ /. ..}• So - 1 `+., I SCHOOL SCHOOL L ru L.• , 2 yisi, µs 1 [ Tam7r s ICY J a mil;Y ` ill I / .. l.__ u 347 3 MD I Ill. 771 • ' )7).:-.. •.1. /- 'figtfl i :- fiLlii.A--- ?--\ ---- E .j.77-,.1 P. Illit"' rn'f. ilin o' rpl,.-- II I a A1Fqb AY am'•a • O \ \it5 Ni 1_s cum w:L ; /1//:,1 rsn y y f uN P N L r env 4l/1 /491 JJr/ ' \ opt,\ '` j I' I./•/// `- '- e '-_' '`),` l,-/`"; r/'l l 1,li/ w I , o" Ea 71 , r1''.:+:' p '' ' •I j'1 _j l k„ IlJ /J C 1J'=T'-t 1 • a OC i y(ti„ R1 G..,,. M( 9 h 0. • f oya C _:(Y ' ' 4 1 q ` _ S.; v :.....!".4 7IA: tijel s'y- F ; f1 KEG „ d „—#e i'( `.6', Y s + T : ; pu OW 61r.' • > i ,—._mil , ,:,ct, ,..- '. , I REZONE : S . C . S . AND STIRSKEY HOLDINGIS , REZONE FROM R-2 TO R-3 , File No . R-091-77 ; property located north of tihe City of Seattle Cedar River Pipeline Night-of-way just south of S . W. 2nd Street and between the Renton city limits and Hardie Avenue S . W . APPLICANT S . C. S . & STIRISKEY HOLDINGS TOTAL AREA ± . 4 acre PRINCIPAL ACCESS Hardie Avenue S . W. EXISTING ZONING R-.2 EXISTING USE Sinigle Family Residential PROPOSED USE Multi -family Residential COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PILAN Medium Density Multi -family I COMMENTS i• II I I Cl 1 0 C3 i4v, 0 -- -'s• " , i, 0,0,1°64 At iff-igrofki e-1 TY 11 K11/ Mir5 1. Cro g m I-•.. S t2 1111L SWV/. r c atm iziocsie Ei I tii Ci ill s i eci p II, I.,, ,,,, zi...,,,, ,T., :, ,, .Ei A 1 0 n... 4.v.Az. .. , • - at, • El' rn. r.'.-•; Acei 1=,/Y.0 tik 1 r.its. 4/ qt.;:21., .i.....0 A !z ./‘',4., U.r vbs. . teAril.e. FIPEL/A/6I.-• -. gi 64 r OF b+/A1 V1 1 O4111661111inwiillillik 1 3 1 Mt 1.1 El 1 14 2,1b '''• 1 i', 1 I S. C:3 1•J t1 ,,,,,,,,.. i.- ,tt El 1:-vA 0 D 0 0GIri:3 it t, us 5 W 0 1 i -" F n' c. mk,• ,: .;.` kw 0............... t74414,6.s tit 4 fl.• 1.----1 f roN 1 4 4 14141 510 31. 1' 1r or I j41 r.--.144.1.4r 10' ' *• III 41 i 1.1.. , , if 3c.ALt , _ 2•2e) i i cE) yopiar 30-* , A C 5 4 51)/45XeY 1101-DIN6-5I 1 ieszoisa No• 1 , 111 11 l• I Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ss. NOTICE OF Ka x`. •?X•i ,H>^b a h PUBLIC HEARING" g u being first duly sworn on RENTON LAND USE • HEARING EXAMINER RENTON,WASHINGTON oath,deposes and says that S.h.e...isthe Chief Clerk of A• PUBLIC HEARING BTHERENTONRECORD-CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four(4) WILL RE O HLA DY .THE times a week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and H RINGN LAND U S E has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred HEARING EXAMINER AT to, printed and published in the English language continually as a news- HIS REGULAR MEETING paper published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington, IN THE COUNCIL CRAM and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained BERS, CITY HALL, RE- at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Renton NTON,WASHINGTON,ON Record-Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the NOVEMBER 1, 1977, AT Superior Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County, 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE, FOLLOWING PETI- IONS:Washington.That the annexed is a Notice of Public T 1.MacLAND,INC.,FAR- RELL'S FIRST ADDI- TION, FINAL APPROV- AL FOR 18 LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE as it was published in regular issues(and SUBDIVISION, File No. not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period FP-090-77; property lo- cated approximately 200 feet south of N.E. 23rd of 1 St. on the west side.of consecutive issues,commencing on the Duvall Ave.N.E. 2. S.C.S. AND'STIRS-: K •. , File1dayofOctober19...77..,and ending the moo. R 91- w •'f v --2-0R-3;prop- erty located north of the day of City of Seattle Cedar19bothdatesRiverPipelineRight-pt-inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- way just south of S.W.scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee 2nd St.and between the 7 Renton city limits and charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $.2-e.?.1,9,vhich Hardie Ave.S.W. has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the Legal descriptions on file first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent in the Renton Planning insertion.Department. ALL INTERESTED PER- II 1 SONS TO SAID PETITIONS A;ARE INVITED.TO BE PRE- AT THE PUBLIC C •,f ClerkHEARINGON'NOVEMBER ,1, 1977 AT 9:00 A.M. TO ' EXPRESS THEIR OPI- Subscribed and sworn to before me this NIONS. " day of GORDON Y. ERICKSEN RENTON Oc.t.obe.r 19 j... PLANNING DIRECTOR• Published In The Renton 3a-c..6,/- 21, Re 197- Chronicle October", 21, 1977.•R4613 Notary Public in for the State of Washingjo , residing at Kent, King Cole y. O e t Q r1' F Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June V`` r1L(f 9th, 1955. O Western; Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, OCT adopted by the newspapers of the State. b 2Q ,, e nJTICE 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 NOVEMBER 1 19 77 , AT 9 : 00 A. M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS : 1. MacLAND, INC. , FARRELL ' S FIRST ADDITION , FINAL APPROVAL FOR 18 LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SUBDIVISION , File No . FP-090-77; property located approximately 200 feet south of N. E. 23rd St. on the west side of Duvall Ave . N. E . 2 . S . C. S. AND STIRSKEY HOLDINGS , File No. R-091-77 , REZONE FROM R-2 TO R-3 ; property located north of the City of Seattle Cedar River Pipeline Right-of-way just south of S. W. 2nd St. and between the Renton city limits and Hardie Ave . S . W. Legal descriptions on file in the Renton Planning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON NOVEMBER 1 , 1977 AT 9 : 00 A. M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS . GORDON Y . ERICKSEN PUBLISHED October 21 , 1977 RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION MICHAEL L. SMITH 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 the 19th day of October 1977 SIGNED PROPOSED/FINAL E,_LAR ,TION OF SIGNIFICANCE/ , -SIGNIFICANCE 1 691-77ApplicationNo . R-0 PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . ECF-284-77 0 FINAL Declaration Description of proposal Applicant proposes to construct a duplex and a five-plex townhouse . 70 Proponent S . C. S . AND STIRSKEY HOLDINGS Pr;'opert, located north of the City of Seattle Cedar River Location of Proposal Pipeline right-of-way, just south of S.W. 2nd Street and between the Renton City limits and Hardie Avenue S.W. Lead Agency CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT This proposal has been, determined to ® have ® not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS ® is is not required under RGW 43 . 21C . 030 ( 2 ) (c ) . This decision was ma—de after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency . non-significant Ij Reasons ' for/declaration of environmental significance : This declaration is based on th€ compatibility of the proposed rezone with the City's Comprehensive Land Use ran for the area. However, further environmental review maybe necessaryfccr s ecific site development, which should utilizeproper'p , p development standards and procedures, retain some of the natural character of the site, andprovide a densitycompatible with the surroundingarea.P 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 : I I' Responsible Official; GordonY . Ericksen Title Pla ing IArect r Date October 24 , 1977 Signature City of Renton Planning Department 11576• tee li INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW REQUEST TO : PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR BUILDING DIVISION ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION UTILITIES DIVISIO FIRE DEPARTMENT , HEALTH DEPARTMENT FROM : PLANNING DEPARTMENT Contact Person RE : 4. -1.1 4C / 440L Ci AJA14,. 2e7-OJE 12-2•-rb C- 4' Ie-091-77 Please review the attached information regarding the subject proposal and return it to the Planning Department by 0/2477 with your written recommendation . Your response will be included as part of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner. 5 Thank you , PLANNING DEPARTMENT 0:41V 1 Date /p 77 ROUTING FOR NLVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO : Finance Department I.i re Department Library Department Park Department Q Police Department Public Works Department 1Building Div . Traffic Engineering Div . Engineering Div . 0 Uti 1 i ties Engineering Div . FROM : Planning Department , ,(signed by responsible official or his des i gnee ) SUBJECT : Review of ECF-_ . 2g _77_; Appl i cation No . :_g-0y1 -77 Action Name : ..C. S_ 4- grie6,-_1 Dt iarzo,45i.YZ _lb 1z 3 Please review the attached . Review requested by ( date) :_ l /7,'9lZ REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department :.-erg'/fie&'""-22' Comments : C41c-,2-2e,y7/ rn97 oc,ir0,2/ 2,—77 Signature of D • ctor ) Authori _d Repr•esen tati ve Date UV I EW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Departnwcnt :___----•t:i%-Lt LL its---_______ Commonts : To Sera T r-L c.,:.,S r--'LO 1 •Cyi-{ lr1 biri., .r-7 9'Lc,Jn. ( J1r0uL-0 1 kI1 0 I adet CiL-7 Tv i d 3'' liw jsa Il-1 l-iAfl17i ILL. A'.it Sw . 17_-. I ILA re-Lbw 5 (y/3i.//lei.. -T/7 r I3/ /- 'G,l-f/yfr,- (.2)4,--Sti 7 W i Lq.. I1/fQ0iri-it. ?/tor3/ti3L,s CIA.CuL.Arir46. Cc_c:olart0) lA-)A'Met- l"1A.i/`-I 1 M Pnc-ri7f.--%/7/-rrs O•-Zf SI gnature of Di rector or Authori zed Repro";,:,n :at i ve Date O :'. ) kL '' 1 t.t: BY () . k C i 1 Y Utl}ARTMENTS : Departtmlent Comments : Signature of Di rector or Authori zed Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department :__c—jA.j, • Comments : ( ) c 'r—s,_-\ ,,,,,‘,. Ai,,,,_\....6..,..k, 6 --)4 ----77 Si nnature of Di re or or Authorized Repr,,, A, esentative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Si•gnatiure of15irectoror Authorized Representative Date I E.i; [Pi OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department Comments : i ciP1tit,uro of D1 rector or \ut.hori l,`?!I Ill'`) s•e$r'iryt t: 7 v/l'. ri.-) i- :' pF RENT, CITY OF RENTON V REZONE APPLICATION U 6 V° E- FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Q LAND USE HEAR G APPLICATION NO.l ' d f/ - 77 EXAMINER 'S ACT Q` APPLICATION FEE $//0-D APPEAL FILED ifrNIING RECEIPT NO.o.75aJ CITY COUNCIL ACTION FILING DATE 4r' `' 7, ORDINANCE NO. AND DATE HEARING DATE // //ff' APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 : 1 . Name 1b4t(b. T` P„(• Y HoLot c.i Phone 2.24,''ST f Address 11'S. 602,14 VV 4b001-141 1 >cxsts 3. Property petitioned for rezoning is located .on > , 2.*413 between e-r LI \{TS and 14Ap.O1t. Ave- %Nei, 4 . Square footage or acreage of property 11 rjQI 5 . Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach a separate sheet) 6.. Existing Zoning 2.Zoning Requested R- NOTE TO APPLICANT: The following factors are considered in reclassifying property. Evidence or additional information to substantiate your request may be attached to this sheet. (See Application Procedure Sheet for specific requirements . ) Submit this form in duplicate. 7. Proposed use of site Qt2OPO€. Tb CA'wSTZLIT (1) DUPt EX `y CV) Fl\l IG.f'LF_X Cc*I Obtit tt-$1 u NI -r t-E Haim S EA fl Mgm-Kft 8. List the measures to be taken to reduce impact on the surrounding area. C cl5t lWc "MESS Tb TLTA1t-!LD \n/E.S/r_R. PODS14k.7:. fi t tt-IG S ?o i AiDDED.. 9 . How soon after the rezone is granted do you intend to develop the site? Irtiwlr tANTV--r 10 . Two copies of plot plan and affidavit of ownership are required. Planning Dept. 1-77 PARCEL 2 That portion of t! southeast quarter of the ...vrthwest quarter of Section 18 , Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington, described as follows : Beginning at a point on the westerly line of a county road running northerly through the farm of Mrs . Kitty Glen said road now being known as 91st Avenue South, which point is 83 feet northerly of the center line of the City of Seattle Cedar River water right-of-way said point being 2146 feet east and 134 . 5 feet north of the west quarter corner of said Section 18 , said point to be called point A, for reference purposes;. thence north 10°50 ' 45" east along said westerly line of county road, a distance of 207. 5 feet; thence north 79°09 ' 15" west 92. 37 feet to Point B, for reference purposes; thence north 79°09 ' 15" west 67 . 63 feet to the true point of begin- ning; thence south 10°50 ' 45" west 85. 00 feet; thence south 37°34 ' 31" east 90. 41 feet to a point which bears south 10°50 ' 45" west 145. 00 feet from aforesaid Point B; thence south 10°50 ' 45" west 79. 95 feet to a point on a line parallel with the north line of the Cedar River right-of-way and passing through aforesaid Point A; thence westerly along said parallel line 116 feet to a point 210 feet westerly, as measured along said parallel line, from aforesaid Point A; thence north 10°50 ' 45" east 246 . 49 feet to a point which bears north 79°09 ' 15" west from the true point of beginning; j thence south 79°09 ' 15" east 46. 35 feet to the true point of beginning. IRECEIVEb F RFC o OCT 6 N77 F AFFIDAVIT I , being duly sworn, declare that I am the owner o property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn of re me this day of 19 177? Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at/14/27. CY. AL, Nam or Notary blic) Signature f Owne iaiwevA (2e.L,LS0. 1 2- tivxm.X\ 1Addres f Address) Si0q F - tdOTARO; z 41\AWA A ss aeo .,p,,;.1 . City) State) p ,B L .• N.Ve 2,6 _ vNin Tele hone) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been fou thorough and complete in every particular and to conform to the u s '0s gulations of the Renton Planning Department governing the .1 IULrfb ` application . CJ Date Receiv OCT 6 1g 19 By: b v N DPP Renton Planning Dept . 2-73 CI.TY:1OF".RENTONI' WASHINGTON.. Y 1 FOR OFFICE-.U'SE 0'f.{:CYt _--. eL Application { Ioy: 7*-:: -j`' Q G. Env.i ron nental Checklist Not- _ L - 1T-%' P'ROPOSED,,-;date•FINAL-,' date':. n- Declaration ' of-°S:-ignif-icance _ - Declaration. of Significance • LiDeclaration- of',Non-'Signifi.canc'e- - Dec-l.ara'tio.n of Non-Sign:i.f-i'can-c:e - . . .•'•..' COMMENTS Introduction The:State Environmental. Policy -Act of 1971 , Chapter 43.?IC,. RCW,-- requi--es . all state- and local. governmental. agencies to consider environmental values both 'for theirJ... own actions and: w hen licens.in.g private proposals: The Act also requi-res that an E.I•S be prepared-.for-'all ,-major:action& signific:antly.:affecting .the_' quality of-'the environment. The• purpo'ses.of"this. check list 'i s•:to: Kelp..the .a.gen.ci es'.::i;nvol-v'ed de-term-in w•h,ethe'r or not a proposal .is su•c-h•'•a •:me- o:r -action. ' Please. answer..the follow inpingr:quesfi'oris...-as con p.l.€.tr.l.y- as•;'you_.c.an with==ttie<:informatiorr .:'' r,--'`" - presently available to you: Where explanations- of-your-?answers :a.r.e r.equ'i red, -or_-.where you believe an explanation would be ne-lp.ful to.'-gover•nment decision=makers ; include your explanation: •in th-e -space provide.d; :or :u.se. add'i'ti:onal pages- i f necessary. You shou'•l d include re-fe'rences' to. a.ny-'•:reports: or studies .of -whi ch• you".are aware. and. which 'are rele- vant- to. 'the answers. yo;u provide_.' '•Complete answers• to- these .quest•ior.s now. will help all- agencies =.in'vol ved`"wi th your-. proposal to undertake the requi red envi ronme-ntal review wi th- out unnecessary'-delay The following questions- apply'-,to :yo,u.r ..total..pr.oposal ono:t'.:aj.ust. to.'th.e 'l icense' .for• which:=;.-: :; , you are: currently- applying or:the:''prop.osal :for-•which, app'rov'a-1.-.is sought:=- Your' an'sv:err-;<:-.':: ;;_ ,;_ • .t should include the .impacts which will be • caused by' your: proposal when it is: completed, even -tho.ugh completion may not occur' until sometime- in' the future. This will 'al low• al1 of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, with--- - • out- dupl.icating'` paperwor.k. in the future : NOTE : ' This it a standard form being. used by all. s-tate:-`and 1ocal ''agencies. in the State of Washington for 'various types of proposals . Many of the questions may not. apply to your proposal . If a, question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to• the. next question. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ' I - • BACKGROUND 1•. Name of .Proponent 5. 1: . Address -and phone number of Proponent: K. 4,. .N iO9t S - l ._F" Zo b :.?. _ TT1 u 3_: Date Checklist submitted t0• '11 •' q ---, 4: Agency requiring' Checklist.- . 1 1ti, ' ®}. i 'tom, 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: . 6. 'Nature and brief description of the proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will gibe. an accurate understanding of its scope and nature) : F tP( reF2‹rRAt 0' e. Cst.ts7zcx—r U) DUc Cct.1toi-4-iLI1vi-,t: := c..1/4)1.-1 44o045 '3-'. 1 W0 7-t'OZ' IRAM int• o N'3T R.ocri o I.- - Z-. 7 Location= o'f.: propos.al_,(descr.i be. the..physical =setting 'of th.eproposal ,.- ..` as.:.the extent:of-.the`l.and'.a=rea :af.f-ected- by:'. any:-enva ronme-n.tal i mpa.c:ta:,.:_including- .. Lany other.: information -needed. ta:•gi;ve. an accurate- understanding of.-th.e. envi r.on',- ': .: me.n.tal z setting of• the p r•o p osal Mit. Imo. i :j'C,Pi 6f....( • 5 . .Wtt-^T1: -- K y.y. _-i-4 : 1_. —J tD ' Ca.S.i' 1• tic,_ _ F c(-r-( `i CT t 4-r-4 .4411 -r =rwt: ern-. urei rr . rt' lEr P- p Y t r.' I '' CalV15r,. 7.f-P4,A.T L1 3'=S: wwit"tJ a`sl . ..O(Pt . d..3" F/V'J. 8. - .Estimated. date for completion of the proposal :- -:.. - - 9- Li=B-t__of "all permits , licenses or government approvals required for the'-proposal -federal , -:state, and-local =-including •rezones):, Gt`T'"° off' i i fa-Ellt tk- a"4 IT 10. Do you have any plans- for fut• ure addi.t.ions , expansion , or further activi y related to or connected with this :proposa.1? - If yes., explain:- 11. ":=Do.`you know'of' any pla,n_s -by.--others which may affect`°the-. p'roperty covered 'by your. proposal? 'If'yes-; expla'.i.n: ' - -- .. 12'-.;:.Att:ach 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 ature of-s.uch application •form: date' describe the n mow• t. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are re• quired) 1) Earth• Will the proposal result in: . a),. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in''-geologic substructures:?- . , . YES MAYBE NO— b) ' Disruptions , displacements ,:_camp-a.c.t.i.on.,-o.r.:_.o.ver ofcoveringofthes 1" YES MAYBE NO c)- Change in topography or ground surface- relief:' features? d) --The -destruction,`--covering or- modification -of" any 4 unique; ge•ologic'°•or.'phy-s•ic-al,.'features? t YES: MAYBE NO e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils ; either on or off the site? YES MAYBE N_ • f) Changes in deposition or• erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the - bed::of ,the-'ocean 'or- any bay ,`;i nl et:-or 1 ake? '- X Al ICE.. . YES - ' 707 E NO Explanation:- POG OH `Tii --• FN T - Clt et tz.A016Jc=, ttS VccAvisirli,et L44a t u4 tA3 Iic.,: -ego agN t• 12,z5o(,T 1 C cA Ctt.4Ct 1 `r .. -t)Poc,ZAPt-iY 2) Air.._ :WI proposal result, in 7: • a) Air emision. or deterioration :of altibi ent air YES ABE NO b) The creation of objectionable odors? c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either' locally or regionallx? YES MAYBE Expil Erna t i on 3) Water. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements in either marine or fresh waters? YES MAYBE NO b) Changes in absorption rates ,1 drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?. YES MAYBE NO Alterations to. the course or. flow of flood. waters' YES MAYBE Change in :the 'amount.: of surface Water in any 'water body' YES MAYBE 40 e) 'Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration surfaces water• quality including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? fF. 7: • YES MAYBE N'O f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of . r,;-; „ r: •-• ground waters? YES MAYBE NO g) Change in• quantity of ground waters , either through,'direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of•an aquifer by cuts, or excavations? YES MAYBE NO h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct; fnjecti on, or through the-7 seepage of 1 eachate,.' --•••• phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria,. or.other substanEe's hit() the ground waters? T 4 ' • YES MAYBE NO i ) Reduction. in the amount of water otherwise available for public water. supplies? YES MAYBE ND . . Explanation: 1.QC_A4P4.1 D tzOOP ibc-rreri-rb Lot-L. 4114Jo L j %rrr.; -r4e..oc.)G-14, IZZTW1100 FACt LI ITES 4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity' of species, or numbers of any species of flora (includi ng trees , shrubs; .grass'..,crops, • mi crofl ore and aquatic plants)? MAYBE- NO b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? YES 'MAYBE- NO c) Introduction of new species -of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? if YES MAYBE NO d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? YES MAYBE NI— Explanation: ?;,„,crvik.9_, epLyb44- "terCIS tPtLL talcuin "Tt3 (2)t. jcJD 507 t-tr.1.- 19.44•Lxr-s tztt.J., 5-) - .Fauna. ,Wi 11 the--pro o'sa•l_resul't.--:in: Changes •in:,•th'e -diversi=ta, y.•''of;'speci:es'r.:or:.n.urtber.s of. any species:"of-,fauna- ,(birds , land animal,s:including -" re.p,ti'l:es„" fish- and: shel1fish,..:.henthic .org-anisms , insects. or m"icrofauna.)?. •.. r_i_, . -_. : .. ..: ....., b.)' Reduction: of. the numbers of ..any unique, rare _or. - Endangered . uspecies. of na? s - -. _ YES . MAYBE' NQ} d 1(.c): 'rrtroduction-- of new species of fauna into an area:,. or result .in a barrier to the mig-ration or movement ' of auna•. YES-. --MAY-BE N d)-_._Deteriorati.on `to existing fish or Wild] ife• habitat? S MAYBE Explanatio.n: 6) Noise. Wi11 the proposal inc,reas'e• exi'sti,ng• noise: levels?. .: YESA DMAYBEYBE Explanation: . 7) Light and Glare. ' Will. the proposal produce new' light or glare? - nn YBE N 0 Explanation: _W1-``t_ 171._ ZILIC)._: M10 A ADD 4'r 8) Land Use.• Will. the proposal result i-n.the alteration• of: th•e : present or planned-,l'and use of an area?; YES MAYBE" NO Explanation: 'a t•.21u4. (at uGc -niv.r. l_.Uc'S . F>Qert-1 _61 .,3 r-4=4-461,2-1' - •-. rn d-4,0 LTA.r C.tillL9A, tt_ ' tit_.P 'bri 1..,)6C ,"j 1 eo1 T gt t 0t[-5s fit% 244 Tti r uzU kr`C:•°f'tzoP f`"i'R'f - f't E L.Zcisr9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in : ' a) Increase in the rate'of use of any natural • reso'urces? ' YES MAYBE ' N6 D y no a e n re rceb)' e'pleti'on of :an rt;renew b1 atura.l sou ?` ` YES BEM4Y xx-( VG Explanation 10) Risk of Upset,. Does the-- propos'al involve a:•risk •of an-:: . explosion or the release of hazardous-substances: (including,..,- -- but„no't limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) . in the event of an accident or upset conditions? YES - MAYBE- .NO.- Explanation: 11) " Population.' Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an .area'?: YEc- M YBE Explanati on, 12) " Housing. Wi'll 'the: proposal affect exiting housing,' or y : : : ' ceacreate a.• demand for',additional. housi'ng? YES hiP,YBE NO p ana o tuEEk1tirte. •_E lf. .(+ f `, L.. .I R-1:. '. L ' 13) '' Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result- in: a)- . Generation of additional vehicular movement? F b) Effects on existing "parking -fa.c'ili.ties', or: demand .. -..,_ .- _ fi5rr new•.parking? MAYBE NO c) :' Impact, upon existing transportation systems? ' - - YES ... MAYBE NO d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or - s movement of people and/or goods? - YES . MAYBE NO e) Alterations to waterborne,-'ratl 'or air traffic? YES MAYBE NO f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?. • • YES MAYBE NO Explanation: ; ' "t.a IC1.,,_ ADO ' 3 ,A1[ ' Illy c'l. 4 c c 14) Public Services.. '.Wi11 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? YES -- MAYBE NO b) Police protection? x YES MMMBE NO c) Schools? YES._.. .MABE NO d) Parks or other recreational facilities? YES . MAYBE NO e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? YES MAYBE NO f) ,..Other governmental services? 1rES .. MAYBE NO Explanation: c.2 AS. 11401,..(e :op Q1 6 tea? it-§ ', 2-r-YA• Ckor OE-GerT.. .- r rAMteTc.% cat ' 15) Energy. Will the proposal result_in:. Usee-) Us of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? YES,;. MAYBE NO b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new-sources of energy? YES MAYBE N - Explanation: 16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? YES MAYBE NO b) Communications systems? YES MAYBE NO c) Water? YES MAYBE NO 6 Sewer:or`;":ep i I'ESaf:.;:MAYBEE.'.: A B e-), Storm,water -drainage? :''. f) - Solid waste and pp E-xplanation: : 17)' Human Health.. Will: the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? YES MAYBE Explanation: 18) . Aesthetics. Will' the proposal result in the obstruction of , . any. scenic vista .or- view open to;the-_publ;i c.; or ,wi,l 1 the proposal- result'=in':-the`creation-'`of' an aesthetically".offensiv.e • . ta.,., ub'lic .v.iaar?_. 3 F.7 YES MAYBE NO 19) Recreation.: Will the proposal result in. an impact upon the quality or quantity-°of existing-recreational opportunities?C YES MAYBE N0, Explanation: 20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an' alteration of a signi•ficant.archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? YES MAYBE Explanation: III.- SIGNATURE I , the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the- above information - is' true-and complete. It is .understood -that the- lead agency may withdraw -any decla— ration' of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist- should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: `,31):I signed name printed, City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 Renton City Council 1/9/78 Page 3 Correspondence and Current Business - Continued Transamerica records for review by the Court. Trial date to be given, Attorney Court Case Warren anticipating early date. The letter noted the Attorney Continued would be going back to the Court to obtain clarification as wording would prevent the City from taking any action on Renton Hill and the Attorney was of the opinion the intent was to limit the City's right to act strictly to the Transamerica property. Councilman Perry inquired of Planning Director Ericksen re P.U.D. application, being advised that consultant working for Mr. Farrell had indicated intent to present plans for P.U.D. but plans have not been received. Appeal of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision was filed by Roger E. Berg SCS & Stirskey re SCS & Stirskey Holdings Rezone 091-77 from R-2 to R-3 for Holdings R-091-77 property located north of the Seattle Pipeline R/W just south of Rezone Denied. SW 2nd St. and between the City limits and Hardie Ave. SW. Hearing Examiner Land Use Hearing Examiner recommendation: Denial . The appeal Denial Upheld alleged Examiner was not logical and decision not based on facts and testimony and claimed error in judgment. The Planning and Development Committee report submitted by Chairman Perry reported examination of the record and the Examiner' s decision, findings and conclusions pursuant to Section 4-3017, and recommended that the City Council concur in the recommendation of the Hearing Exami- ner for denial of the rezone request of R-2 to R-3, and refer to the Ways and Means Committee. MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOP- MENT COMMITTEE, CONCUR IN EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OF REZONE. CARRIED. Appeal of Appeal of the Hearing Examiner' s reconsideration decision dated Examiner' s 12/9/77 was filed by Richard and Arlene Ross for Short Plat Reconsideration 088-77 and Exception 089-77, property located in the vicinity of R. P. Ross et ux 516 SW 3rd Pl . along the north side of SW 3rd Pl . approximately Short Plat 088-77 midway between Earlington Ave. SW and Stevens Ave. SW. The appli- and Exception 089 cant had requested approval of a two-lot short plat and approval of exception allowing access to one of the two lots via existing 20 ft. easement road in lieu of standard frontage on a dedicated public right-of-way. The appeal charged error in judgment or law and explained being owners of the property for 13 yrs. ; prior to change in ordinance in 1971 owner had right to short plat and build on the lot; noting three adjoining owners have developed their property using the easement road in the manner now being denied and without request to furnish 40 ft. r/w. Planning and Develop- ment Committee report was presented by Chairman Perry noting review of record according to City Code and recommended that the Council concur in the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner for denial of the short plat and exception and refer the item to the Ways and Means Committee for proper resolution or ordinance. Moved by Shinpoch, Second Perry, Council concur in the committee report. Councilwoman Thorpe inquired regarding dedication of the right-of-way. Councilman Perry used map showing area and discus- sion ensued regarding access to the subject property. Mr. Ross, being present, advised perpetual 20 ft. easement providing ingress and egress and utilities had been submitted with the application. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND THORPE, THE ROSS APPEAL MATTER BE REFERRED BACK TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FOR ONE WEEK. CARRIED. Human Rights Letter from Y.W.C.A. President Sharon Wylie, Committee of Manage- ment of the East Valley YWCA, complimented the City for continu- ing interest in human rights for the community. The letter noted emphasis on the goal by the YWCA to eliminate prejudice and in- justice and went on record supporting the adoption of the revised Human Rights Commission ordinance. Introductions Mayor Delaurenti introduced newly appointed State Senator "Bud" Shinpoch and State Representative Avery Garrett. r Renton City Council 1/9/78 Page 4 OLD BUSINESS Committee on Council President Clymer presented Committee on Committees report Committees Report recommended change in committee structure to six committees and the matter be referred to the Ways and Means Committee for incorp- Council Committees oration of ordinance changes. Committee assignments were also re- for 1978 ported (first name listed being chairperson) : COMMUNITY SERVICES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Patricia Seymour-Thorpe George Perry Richard Stredicke Barbara Shinpoch Thomas Trimm Patricia Seymour-Thorpe WAYS AND MEANS PUBLIC SAFETY Richard Stredicke Thomas Trimm George Perry Charles Shane Barbara Shinpoch Patricia Seymour-Thorpe TRANSPORTATION UTILITIES Barbara Shinpoch Charles Shane Charles Shane Thomas Trimm Richard Stredicke George Perry MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES. CARRIED. Council Agenda Committee on Committees report made recommendation to the Committee of the Whole that the Council Agenda be established on Wednesday by 5:00 P.M. and the Council packet and Staff report be placed on each Council Member's desk by Friday, 12:00 noon. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Committee The Committee on Committees report recommended that the referrals Referrals to the Public Services Committee still remaining from 1977, be separated and referred back to the appropriate committee: Public Safety Committee 11/3/75 Tow Truck sates 3/22/76 Taxi Regulations 10/25/76 Fire Protection Master Plan 9/19/77 Ambulance and Aid Car Fees Utilities Committee 8/29/77 Talbot Crest Dr.S. Residents' request - Surface Water 10/3/77 Ray Brown lequest for latecomer's agreement Tl/7/77 McElroy sewer connection request 11/21/7 Miller/Cline request to connect to City sewer 12/5/77 Loveless/Powell request water/sewer latecomer's agrmt. Transportation Committee 4/11/77 Talbot roa 'way construction overrun 6/20/77 Monitoring 6-Year Street Construction Program 9/19/77 Amtrak Passenger service information 11/7/77 Brown/Strand petition for alley vacation in Kennydale 11/14/7 South Renton Park & Ride Facility - Review/Report back 12/19/7 Renton Center traffic signals f•IOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES RECOMMENDATION REGARDING SEPARATION OF REFERRALS. CARRIED. Ways & Means The Ways and Means Committee concurred in the Mayor' s reappoint- Committee Report ment of Peggy Ziebarth to the Municipal Arts Commission for three Appointment year term expiring 12/ 1/80. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE, COUN- Peggy Ziebarth CIL CONCUR IN COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning and Planning and Development Committee Chairman Perry presented com- Development mittee report noting review of the request for reconsideration Committee Report and request for appeal , filed by separate parties , regarding the E.Coleman SP-078 Ernest Coleman Short Plat No. 078-77 and recommended that the Reconsidered matter of reconsideration be remanded back to the Nearing Examiner for review and response. The committee further recommended that Council action on the 1ppeal request be postponed until the com- pletion of the Hearing Examiner' s reconsideration review. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND PERRY, COUNCIL CONCUR IN COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RENTON CITY COUNCIL _ . PLANNING. AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT January 9 , 1978 TO: Council Members FROM:Planning and Development Committee RE File No. R-091-77, S .C.S . Stirskey Holdings : Appeal of the Examiner's Report and Recommendation The Planning and Development Committee, after examination of the record and the Hearing Examiner's written decision, findings, and conclusions pursuant to Section 4-3017 , recommends that the City Council concur in the recommenda- tion Of the ;Hearing Examiner for denial of the rezone re- quest of R2 to -R3` 'and refer the •.item to the Ways and Means Committee. for. proper.;resolution :on ordinance preparation. Ge a Pe y, .0 airman Barbara Shinpoch, Member Richa• ' e•ic e, Me •er, RENTON CITY COUNCIL January 6, 1978 Office of the City Clerk REFERRALS CITY ATTORNEY AND INSURANCE CARRIER Claims for Damages (2) Washington Natural Gas MAYOR Matter of information to Council Members Data Processing Services to Renton School District PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Ross Appeal of Examiner's decision SP 088-77 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE Matter of burning permits Portion of Public Services Committee referrals DATA PROCESSING Services to Renton School District TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Portion of Public Services Committee referrals UTILITIES COMMITTEE Portion of Public Services Committee referrals WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE Appointment of James Dalpay to Bd. of Adjustment Werstiuk Rezo Stirskey Rezone (Den'one - no action needed ata »`fit ices to Renton SchooT6is ri Equipment Rental Ordinance (first reading 1/9/78) Comprehensive Plan South Renton (first reading 1/9/78) CETA Funding and Extension of programs PUBLIC HEARINGS 2/27/78 Springbrook Annexation 3/6/78 Preliminary Roll - LID #302, Lind Ave. SW construction APPOINTMENTS LEOFF Board - Thomas Trimm and Barbara Y. Shinpoch, effective to 3/1/80 Municipal Arts Commission - Peggy Ziebarth, effective through 12/31/80. lir N' CITY CLERK' S OFFICE INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Larry Warren, Acting City Attorney DATE : 1/3/78 FROM: Del Mead, City Clerk SUI3JE CT : Appeal of Land Use Examiner's Decision - S.C.S. & Stirsky Holdings, Rezone 091-77; Ernest Coleman, Short P1it71178-77TRia Richard & Arlene Ross, Short Plat 088-77 and Exception 089-77 The above appeals will be discussed at the Planning & Development Committee meeting to be held Wednesday, January 4, 1978, at 4:30 p.m. Chairman Perry has requested that you be present. Attached are copies of the Appeals and the letters that were sent to the parties of record. 1 41 © THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR DELORES A. MEAD 13 to• 0 CITY CLERK 4D SEP1E1O December 23, 1977 APPEAL FILED BY ROGER E. BERG on December 13, 1977 Re: Appeal. of Land Use Examiner's Decision., dated 11/14/77, S.C.S & Stirskey Holdings- Rezone 091-77, from R-2 to R-3 To Parties of Record: Appeal of Land Use Hearing Examiner's decision has been filed with the City Clerk's Office on December 13, 1977, 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. January 9, ' 978 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor; Municipal Building, 200 Mill Ave. S. , Renton. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON 69.7 Maxine E. Motor Deputy City Clerk MEM:j t pF R• , THE CITY OF RENTONU , MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR DECOKES A. MEAD co* O CITY CLERK 4TFD SEP1° December 23, 1977 APPEAL FILED BY ROGER E. BERG on December 13, 1977 Re: Appeal of Land Use Examiner's Decision, dated 11/14/77, S.C.S & Stirskey Holdings- Rezone 091-77, from R-2 to R-3 To Parties of Record: Appeal of Land Use Hearing ,Examiner's decision has been filed with the City Clerk's Office on December 13, 1977, 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 January 9, 1978 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, Municipal Building, 200 Mill Ave. S. , Renton. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON Maxine E. Motor Deputy City Clerk MEM:jt cc: Mayor Planning & Development Committee (3} Planning Director Public Works Director Land Use Hearing Examiner Finance Director Ron Nelson, Building Division pF 4 o, f= 0 THE CITY OF RENTON• MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 op CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER oR L. RICK BEELER , 235 -2593" ItED SEP1to December 15, 1977 Members, Renton City Council Renton, Washington RE: File No. R-091-77, S.C.S. & Stirkskey Holdings; Appeal of the Examiner's Report and Recommendation. Dear Council Members: Attached are the referenced report and recommendation, dated November 14, 1977; letter requesting reconsideration from the applicant, dated November 25, 1977; and the Examiner's letter of denial of the request for reconsideration, dated November 30, 1977. Subsequently, a letter of appeal to the City Council was received by the City Clerk on December 13, 1977 prior to expiration of the second appeal date of December 14, 1977. The Examiner's Report and Recommendation in this matter was not forwarded to the City Council prior to filing of an appeal because of the decision to deny the request. Denials of applications do not require Council action unless the decision is appealed. This matter will be placed on the Council agenda of January 9, 1977. If you require additional information in this matter, please contact the undersigned. Sincer L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner Attachments cc: Del Mead, City Clerk Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Y t,,, ,j 4 CITY OF RENTON No. FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHINGTON 8055 j.,/,'_ / 19 272_ RECEIVED OF 1K . TOTAL , ,..25. /20 GWEN E. MARSHAL, FINANCE DIRECTOR sr cg C- ii.4-40.447ri A , 014,4.4/i °W) , A coeir„71,,_ k9ifilcce,,, 1/3/7s" 9- 7 y December 13, 1977 147 City of Renton City Council AFC c/o Renton City Clerk r9) Renton, Washington can !,e o /A' Re: File 4R-091-77 0 Gentlemen: l 91 ga' `ti As the present owner of the subject property on SW 2nd Street near Hardie Avenue, and an aggrieved party of record, I am submitting this letter as an appeal to the city council to review and reject the ruling of the Land Use Hearing Examiner and grant the subject property the proposed R-3 zoning. I believe that upon review of the record and the report of the Hearing Examiner you will find that the decision of the Examiner was not logical and, in fact, not based on the facts and testimony as required by city ordinance 4-3014 and was, in addition, based partially on an error in lfact, and largely on an error in judgement which ispprohibited by article 4+-3015. I appeal to the city council to overrule the decision of the Hearing Examiner as provided for by article 4+-3016. First, I would draw your attention to several findings in the Examiners report: Finding number 5 states that "there was no opposition to the proposal expressed". In view of the considerable effort to notify affected parties of the proposal as evidenced by the staff report, i.e. notice lin newspaper, postings on telephone poles, distributions to neighbors, I this fact is highly significant. The find-,- f zils to note that there was testimony actively promoting the proposals recorded earlier in the report. One of the proponents was the owner of the single family residence immediately to the south, the neighbor most affected by the proposed construction. Finding number 8 notes.that "the property immediately west.. . is zoned. .. Single Family 3", but fails to note two other factors. First, that these residences are removed by 100+ feet and some 75 feet in elevation, providing a better natural buffer strip than any plantings or fence can. Second, that the properties immediately to the north and one lot removed to the south are each already zoned R-3 and the land one lot removed to the east is zoned B-1. o THE CITY OF RENTON Z 10" ; o MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 op MEM CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER p q- L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 4rfD SEPI$ December 15, 1977 Members, Renton City Council Renton, Washington RE: File No. R-091-77, S.C.S. & Stirkskey Holdings; Appeal of the Examiner's Report and Recommendation. Dear Council Members: Attached are the referenced report and recommendation, dated November 14, 1977; letter requesting reconsideration from the applicant, dated November 25, 1977; and the Examiner's letter of denial of the request for reconsideration, dated November 30, 1977. Subsequently, a letter of appeal to the City Council was received by the City Clerk on December 13, 1977 prior to expiration of the second appeal date of December 14, 1977. The Examiner's Report and Recommendation in this matter was not forwarded to the City Council prior to filing of an appeal because of the decision to deny the request. Denials of applications do not require Council action unless the decision is appealed. This matter will be placed on the Council agenda of January 9, 1977. If you require additional information in this matter, please contact the undersigned. Sincer L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner Attachments cc: Del Mead, City Clerk Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director RECD . ' ED DEC 151977 CITY COUNCIL RENTON, WA le CITY OF RENTON No 3286 FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHINGTO 8055 4( 1) 400_. RECEIVED OF 6, 1 TOTAL c GWEN E. MARSH , FINANCE DIRECTOR Y RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER DEC 141977 AM FM 7,H,9,10,11112il,2,341 i,fy December 13, 1977 0 ti 910 iir! City of Renton City Council 63 4F 1p I c/o 3enton City-Clerk e'j l,9 JRenton, Washington F/ le: File ; -^91-7; V ' ' Gentlemen: 9 As the present owner of the subject property on SW 2nd Street near Hardie Avenue, and an aggrieved party of. record, I am submitting this letter as an appeal to the city council to review and reject the ruling of the Land Use Hearing Examiner and grant the subject property the proposed -3 zoning. I believe that Upon .review ofthe record and the report of the Hearing . Examiner you will find that the decision of the Examiner„was not logical and,, in fact., not based on the facts and testimony as required by city ordinance 4-3014 and was, in addition, based partially on an error in fact, and largely on an error in judgement which is prohibited by. article 4-3015. I appeal to the city council to overrule the decision of the Hearing ?.xa:.iiner as piovided for by article 4-3016. First, I would draw your attention to several findings in the Examiners report: 1 indii:g number 5 states that "t.iere was no opposition to the proposal expressed". In view of the considerable effort to notify affected perties of the proposal as evidenced by the staff' report, i.e. notice in newspaper, postings on telephone poles, distributions to neighbors, this fact is highly significan,... The find fails to note that there was testimony actively promoting the propose s recorded earlier in the report. One of the proponents was the owner of the single family residence immediately to the south, the neighbor most affected by the proposed construction. 4, Findi;i, number " notes that "the property immediately west... is zoned. . . 3inele Family )'', but fails to node two other factors. First, that these residences are removed by 100+ feet and some 75 feet in elevation, s., t r eoviiine a better natural buffer strip than any plantings or fence can. s.•._ Second, that the properties immediately to the north and one lot removed to the seeith are each already zoned 3-3 and the land one lot removed to the east is zoned D-1. y . City of Renton City Council 2- December 13, 1977 Finding number 12 notes that the proposed density of seven units is closer to an !-2 zoning which would allow 4-5 units than to the allowable under a-3 of 12 units. This observation becomes important in Conclusion number 2. All of Findings 1 thru 12 would support the rezoning to R-3 with the possible exception of number 3.. However, as noted in a preceeding paragraph, number 8 is an incomplete observation which must be weighted against additional factors. Consequently, number 13 is the only finding which brings any opposition to the rezoning into play and it does so only obliquely and, as will be shown,does so erroneously. Finding number 13 contains an error of fact. It states that the subject property, according to the Comprehensive Land Use Map, "could be considered low or medium Density Multi-family`.'. The property is in fact well within the Medium Density Multi-family area as noted in the city planning staff report and the Examiners response to the request for reconsideration. Hence, the proposed construction is clearly in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Conclusions in the Examiners report, all seem to be based upon finding number 13 with no consideration of findings 1 thru 12. Conclusion number 1 (the first two paragraphs on page 4 seem to be a continuation of number 1) discusses the compatibility of the proposal with the comprehensive plan. As noted earlier, the subject site does not, in fact,lie on a boundary between low and medium density, but lies clearly within the medium density multi-family. The proposal then is clearly in accord with the Comprehensive Flan. As far as transition is concerned, the applicant has attempted a proposal of density as close to R-2 as is economically feasible to develop. But if transition is really a valid prohi'uitive, where is the transition between the five-plex at the corner of the subject site and the existing single family structure on the subject site? (See Attachment I) Where is the transition between the Convalescent Home to the north and the existing single family structure? Cr between the church to the south and the single family structure immediately to the south? Or in any of the other instances noted in Attachment ,I? Or even between the business i . zoning across Hardie Avenue and the existing Single-family dwellings? I would suggest that the precedent has not been strongly established in this neighborhood. And, finally, as far as buffering is concerned, the substantial gradient on the site and surrounding area and the considerable distance between the subject site and the nearest dwellings to the west provide a natural buffer which is more than sufficient. p City of Renton City Council 3- December 13, 1977 Conclusions number 2 and 3 discass the objectives of the Land Use Report.. I do not believe that there is anything "inappropriate" or "incampatable" in the proposed units. The proposal is for low/medium density residential housing in a neighborhood of not just single family (which are in the minority), but also duplexes, a five-plex, church, and convalescent home. Furthermore, I don't believe there is any evidence that a well- d esigned and built structure of this type is going to "contribute to premature decay and obsolescence". The blight, if there is any, is that presented by the existing structure which is in a considerable state of disrepair. Objectives from the Land Use Report which were not discussed under Conclusion number 2 include the following: Number 4 intends to "Protect property values within the community, for the benefits of its residents and property owners". The proposed structure would, in fact, enhance the property values in the iranediate vicinity, in contrast to the present structure which has the opposite effect. I know this to be an area of concern to the neighbors in this era of continued inflation. Land Use Report Objective number 6 intends to "Encourage the. .. utiliza- tion of land to its highest and best use in such a way as to.. . contribute to its overall attractiveness and desirability as a place in which to. . . live". The subject property, being on the hillside directly in line with 2nd street is a highly visable one. The present structure is hardly attractive. Frankly, it's an eyesore. The proposed structures are of a clesi,;n which is attractive and pleasing; to the eye, particularly with the incorporation of Planning Staff recommendations to use materials such es "cedar, brick,. . . and cedar shakes or similar appearing roof". Finally, Conclusion number 4 discusses City Ordinance 4-3015. With respect to 4-3014 (A), the subject property was considred at the time of the last area land use analysis and is in accord with that analysis as evidenced by previous discussion of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Additionelly, with regard to 4-3014(3), the land was potentially zoned for the :•equested -3 as ;tedium Density 14ulti-family in the Comprehensive Land Use Flan and conditions have been met according. to the staff report that indicate that the change is appropriate. In addition to these comments concerning the Examiners report, I would submit the observation to the city council that it is not always possible to have a perfect step-by-step progression from dense and heavy-use areas to single family and open areas. Expecting to establish this type of city structure, without exception, will only slow the progress and expansion of the city. The purpose of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is to establish general areas of ideal projected usage with respect to present use. In practice it becomes necessary to allow specific land uses to overlap and leapfrog each other slightly in order to allow for timely development and growth of the city ands consequently, reasonably progi•essivn growth of the city tax base. If a certain amount of this lenpfroing is not allowed, the city will not experience planned g;rnl.r1,11, it unhappily will experience no growth. City of Renton City Council 4- December 13, 1977 The builder has made every effort to maintain a compatible use for the land in question and still remain financially solvent in this endeavor as any good businessman must. He has indicated a willingness both at the oral hearing and in his appeal to comply with those restrictions suggested to accompany the rezoning by the planning staff. In view of the fact that the proposal is clearly within the intent' of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the fact that there was much active support of the rezonin;;; and subsequent construction, i.e. city planning staff report and recoa endation of approval, builder, present p:•opertL' owner, and, very. importantly, adjacent property owners, and a::so?.ltely no .objection of record to the proposal, and in consideration of all of t';e above findings, considerations, objectives, and conclusions, it ,.;ould seem to me that there can be no other recourse on the part of the city council than to reverse the ruling of the city examiner and grrnt t':e applicant the proposed 1-3 zoning. I respectfully request that they do so. Respectfully submitted, . h%% 14)9#124• 7oger E. Berg 2n9 Haride Ave. Sh enton, ;•:ashin, ton 98055 4 ' 0-ZG - .97 r i,Vt.... ,. r,;.ro:('. ail d 1-- 51, CI ON06* tii\e' -, e, roisi44i 1..« Ker It._6r1 Won s'Y. t• 0 Nit 514/ Vic ) 1.? l Sv i 5r ea a 4 A -I- i IrrAvasi4iob% -, k CP Aft Al - 1 Tifffs :.a/tem qt. aPla r.t 1110"641.11104110 a c• i 445, •ii, e. ga. 4Irst NOM! lrr , ' r/,',, 114,,_c1/4. 7- ti I i• I te, 4 C. .. :Ilic.We 4 . r t4 m"a T1.• IT.r as' ti: k iS.e eAr.N. I 4i i gmFealj, 14a1i 4 0) a r 110: h % W 7 C)cosi -_ 7711•• 111711ril it..., 111MIMIP •••••0111 ~MEP 01.1.1.111 07;7 4 CArti-t PsPELovitA44. r — 1 c- cvAs.4 17 f 4-re. V tierior OF 6441 I% 5 IL, 1 •......1 CAO v a 1 ] ti E3 D vi Inb etb 1 • C3 ; 354„,,Ira Ci \ u. co D0z- 14 4 6419epsC? pi Nel dr:3 "fr ' 7124 . Rb 311 \\CZ, k Lei Ilk VA t114°P4 f 1.•: IlkTh4*7. 7.......................q, *A 6 Ito .5/ 9.C0 \. Olt\ C:10 i L.: 11t 9. 30/1 4%kla ir.I ‘1 ArrAcWNIENT I 1 344. • A. 0 THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI I MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER p' OR L. RICK BEELER , 235-2593 4TtD SEPItNt November 30, 1977 Mr. John Anderson RE: File No. R-091-77 John Anderson & Associates Reconsideration Request 10620 N.E. 8th Bellevue, WA 98004 Dear Mr. Anderson: Upon receipt of your request of November 25, 1977, a review was made of the record of this application and the site was visited again. All of the reasons expressed for reconsideration were specific except for the claim that additional considerations" were made to which you had not responded. It was assumed that the intent of this claim was that the Examiner's recommendation of November 14, 1977 contained discussion of the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives and Land Use Map which was not made during the public hearing. You are correct that the Examiner's conclusions were not discussed in the hearing; however, the subjects of those conclusions were available prior to and during the hearing. It was impossible and disallowed by ordinance for the decision of the Examiner to be discussed in the hearing since that decision was to be made after the hearing. Your letter also contained a revised proposal of reducing the density from seven duplexes to six suplexes. Since this revision is not a part of the record it cannot be considered at this time. It is reasonable to assume that this information was reasonably available during the hearing and does not constitute new information per se. The main issue raised in your letter was the Examiner's decision to not reclassify the property. Another look at the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map revealed that, in fact; the site lies well within the Medium Density Multifamily category and not between Low. and Medium Density categories. However, the role of the Map is a general guide to land use decisions, and the goals and objectives come to bear specifically in these decisions. In this instance, the objectives indicate that the increase in density beyond the existing duplex density has not been adequately justified to foster an orderly growth pattern. The development in the immediate area displays transition of existing single family residences to duplexes bordered by a church. (single family residential use) and a convalescent home . (residential use - low intensity) . This site forms the westerly border of the multifamily transition from more intense easterly land uses to the existing. single family residences immediately west of the site. Duplex zoning is intended and reasonable to accomplish this transition. If in the future the land uses in the immediate area change, this conclusion may also change. Mr.' John Anderson Page Two November 30, 1977 It should also be clarified that "contract zoning" is not now occurring in the City of Renton. Contracts are not implemented. Instead,, performance conditions are specified in restrictive covenants and these conditions are not , duplicative of the available P.U.D. process or other development controls. The conditions attached to rezones are intended to respond to the individual physical constraints of. a specific site, not to circumvent the available zoning categories. In this instance the application was reviewed as a normal rezone proposal, but which also had a development concept that was flexible and did not tie down the applicant. The primary issue continues to be the zoning category sought relative to the Comprehensive Plan Goals and: Objectives. Tailoring a zoning category to specific constraints of the site and the development profile remains within the purpose and scope' of the P.UI.D. process. Based upon the foregoing analysis, review of the record and visit to the site, the Examiner's decision remains to retain the existing duplex (R-2) zoning. This decision may change when the land use picture in the immediate area changes significantly or new, significant' testimony or evidence is presented. But in view of the information presented to date, this is the Examiner's conclusion in this matter. Res' •tfull yours, L. Rick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner LRB:mp cc: S.C.S. & Stirskey Holdings Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Parties of Record r November 14, 1977 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARL1G EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICANT: S.C.S. & Stirskey Holdings FILE NO. R-091-77 LOCATION: Property located north of the City of Seattle Cedar River Pipeline R/W just south of S.W. 2nd Street and between the Renton City limits and Hardie Avenue S.W. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests rezone from R-2, Duplex Residence District to R-3, Multiple Family Residence District to allow construction of a proposed five-plex and a duplex on the subject site. SUMMARY OF Planning Department Recommendation: AACTION: pproval with conditions. Hearing Examiner Decision: Denial PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received by theREPORT: Examiner on October 25, 1977. 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 November 1, 1977 at 11:15 a.m. in the Council Chambers oftheRentonMunicipalBuilding. Parties wishing to testify were sworn. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewedthePlanningDepartmentreport, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. Michael Smith, Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered the followingadditionalexhibitsintotherecord: Exhibit #2: Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit #3: Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit #4: Conceptual Elevations (2 sheets) The Examiner asked Mr. Smith if the conceptual site plan conformed to the 60% openspacerequirementcontainedintheR-3 zone. Mr. Smith indicated that the lot wascomprisedof76% of open space. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding thelandscapebufferonthewestpropertyline, Mr. Smith indicated that the department had recommended a five-foot landscaping area on top of a rockery as well as a six-footsight-obscuring fence. He advised that although location of the rockery on the outsideofthefencewaspreferred, maintenance was difficult and indicated that the fencewouldbeplacedoutsideoftherockery. Mr. Smith also advised, responding to theExaminer's question, that the approximate density for the R-2 zone was 11 units peracreunderaspecialusepermitwhichtotalled4to5unitsforthesubjectsite. The Examiner asked the applicant if he concurred in Exhibit #1. Responding was theapplicant's representative: John Anderson 9819 Vineyard Crest Bellevue, WA Mt. Anderson indicated nonconcurrence in several items regarding density and setbackrequirements. He emphasized that the steep grade of the site and requirements for retentioniof large trees made development of the site difficult and costly. He noted compatibility of the requested R-3 zone, which allows a 12-unit density, with surroundingzonedpropertyandreportedthattherequesteddensityofsevenunitswasasignificant reduction liIfrom the recommended allowance. Regarding setbacks, Mr. Anderson expressed A preference for a five-foot setback rather than the recommended 10-foot requirement on HA 1, R-091-77 Page Two the west property line because of the continuing rise in the grade from the street, and indicated that revisions in building plans to construct buildings with daylight basements may eliminate the need for a rockery. He preferred a 5-foot minimum landscape'buffer area on the south property line rather than the recommended 10 feet but reported no . objection to the recommended 25-foot setback along the south property line. In response to the Examiner's question regarding the City of Seattle, GS-7200, zoned property located to the west in relationship to the subject property, Mr. Anderson felt that because the number of requested units exceeded the R-2 zone density limit only slightly, impact would be minimal. He also stated, in response to the Examiner's inquiry, that although the proposed buildings were located on the west property line near a single family residential area, the required setback on the property line would provide sufficient buffering for the proposed use. The Examiner asked for testimony from the applicant. Responding was: Siegfried Ullrich 115 Burnett Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 The Examiner asked Mr. Ullrich for an explanation regarding the requested, density on the site. The applicant reported that because of the expense for installation of utilities, provisions for tree preservation, and maintenance of a reasonable selling price for the proposed condominiums, a minimum of seven units was required oh the site. The Examiner asked Mr. Ullrich for the distance of the grade below the western property line for the ground floor of the units. The applicant reported that the distance was approximately 18 to 20 feet due to the steep grade at the location. The Examiner expressed concern with reduction of the landscape buffer on the south property line to five feet because of requirements for parking areas and inquired if parking would be provided under the building structures. Mr. Ullrich indicated that necessary revisions would be made to conform to City of Renton codes. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding feasibility of development of the property for four units in an R-2 zone, the applicant responded that because of the expense it would not be possible to develop the property and would create a burden on potential condominium owners for maintenance of landscaping on the site. The Examiner asked for testimony in favor of the application. Responding was: Roger Berg 209 Hardie Avenue S.W. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Berg, present owner of the property, favored approval of the application because of contingency of sale. He reported that the large size of the lot creates difficulty for maintenance for one or two people. Responding was: William R. Smith 29604 S.E. 208th Maple Valley, WA Mr. Smith reported that he had purchased the duplex on the easterly property line from the applicant and felt that the new development would improve the appearance of the surrounding area. He stated that he was willing to discuss easement rights through his property for future utility purposes with .the applicant. Responding was: Fred Hindley 217 Hardie Avenue S.W. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Hindley reported that as the owner of the property on the south side of the subject site he favored the development because it.would improve the• appearance of the area. The Examiner asked for testimony in opposition to the application. There was no response. The Examiner then asked Mr. Anderson for final comments, Mr. Anderson submitted conceptual drawings of proposed building structures to clarify elevations for the rockery. The drawings were entered as Exhibit #5. d: rt' ' The Examiner asked Mr. Smith for additions, corrections or modifications to Exhibit #1. ' Mr. Smith indicated his concurrence with the' applicant's request for Modification of the setbacks to conform to ordinance requirements for a five-foot landscape buffer along . e.;. the south property line although he felt that landscaping on the easterly boundaryshouldberetainedintherecommendation. Referencing previous discussion regardingLmaintenanceoflandscaping, he noted that condominium owners normally form a homeowners': ;.' R-091-77 Page Three association which was responsible for landscaping maintenance on the site. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding receipt of a title search for the north 25 feet of the site for right-of-way on S.W. 2nd Street, Mr. Smith reported that the report would be submitted that afternoon. The Examiner asked the applicant if he objected to integrating results of the title report into the Examiner's recommendation and report. Mr. Ullrich indicated he had no objection. The -Examiner asked for further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on Item #R-091-77 was closed by the Examiner at 12:10 p.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 reclassification of approximately .4 acres from R-2 (Duplex) to R-3 (Medium Density Multifamily) . 2. The planning Department report accurately 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, 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 official. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. There' was no opposition to the proposal expressed. 6. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. 7. The proposal is compatible with the required setbacks, lot coverage and height requirements of Section 4-709A (R-3) of Title IV, Code of General Ordinances. 8. Prope'rty immediately west of the subject site is zoned GS-7200 (Single Family) and lies within King County. 9. The northern 30 to 39 feet of the subject site is a part of the public right-of-way for S.W. 2nd Street (Exhibit #3) per King County Auditors File No. 570618. 10. The site is on the west slope of the valley containing the CBD and municipal airport. This slope is of a substantial gradient, whereby the westerly single family residences overlook the subject site. 11., It was stated by the applicant that development under existing R-2 (Duplex) zoning would not be economically feasible. 12. Conceptual plans (Exhibits #2, 3, and 4) submitted by the applicant indicated a proposed density of seven units. This density is approximately five units less than what would be permitted in the R-3 zone and about 2 units more than that permitted in the R-2 zone. 13. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates that the property could be considered Low or Medium Density Multifamily. These two land use classifications appear to meet at the subject property, thereby requiring interpretation via the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. CONCLUSIONS: 1. While the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates that the site is located in the area between Low and Medium Density Multifamily, the Map demonstrates that transition should occur between the Medium Density Multifamily and Single Family. The Map indicates that Low Density Multifamily would accomplish this transition on or' near the subject site. 2. Objective No. 1, page 17, Land Use Report, states: "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." y .{ R-091-77 Page Four The proposed R-3 (Medium Density Multifamily) is not normally considered appropriate transition from an existing R-2 (Low Density Multifamily) district to a single family district. A zoning classification of R-2 is a more appropriate land use to accomplish this transition. In this application no justification was made that transition is necessary between an established, existing R-2 zone and the adjacent single family zone. In instances where R-3 might be utilized to provide this transition, some buffering, e.g. landscaping strip of substantial proportions, is applied to the reclassification. The subject site is only 116 feet in width which must include the landscape buffer, parking, driveway, and structures. The property would be of insufficient width to accomplish the transition together with parking, access and buildings. 3. The proposal would present an unjustified intrusion of an inappropriate multifamily density into the adjacent single family district. Sufficient for transition purposes is the existing R-2 zone. 4. With respect to Section 4-3014 evidence was not submitted that ". . .the subject reclassification appears not to have been specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning. . ." (4-3014. (A) ) . Insufficient justification was presented that ". . .the property is potentially zoned for the reclassification being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and conditions have been met which would indicate the Change is appropriate. .'. ". (4-3014. (B) ) . No evidence was submitted that ". . .authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstnaces affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change." (4-3014. (C) ) . Therefore; the Examiner is unable to make any one of these findings that are required for recommending a rezone per Chapter 30. DECISION: Based upon the record, testimony, findings and conclusions, it is the decision of the Examiner to deny the reclassification request. ORDERED THIS 14th day of November, 1977. l Mk 1111110.01W L. ~ick Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner r. TRANSMITTED THIS 14th day of November, 1977 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: fit:' John Anderson Siegfried Ullrich Roger Berg William R. Smith Fred Hindley i;;.;. • TRANSMITTED THIS 14th day of November, 1977 to the following: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti sw'` Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director 1" Ron Nelson, Building Division Larry Warren, Acting City Attorney 4.;• Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must F )''be filed in writing on or 'before November 284 1977. Any aggrieved person feeling that xTA.. 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 L other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection.in ii the City Clerk's office, first floor of City Hall, or same may be purchased at cost in said office. a i'.........5. f iw.....4 ta4,t a }..,:., •. .., i I \\2 4!:. •' •; ,. 4 ; : ......,.. , ,. • , • • ,.. ,4, ...• ....• iia...'"t.'-i..,:• . GI, ' ' .' t $ !IV 0. -, ; ft : ..,..f r" i ., , 1 1 • • • .••; ., .'• . 1 ..4 • -is ii. ..F'" 11.. • . . ''.,,._.._.. .._..,. • •• I,-•-, 4..1 '''• , :.I i/P, . • . "t• .:;. 1 . :!.. ... . '..• -"-..,.....' 41- i.,--, 9,. 4;. 4'..,,..,+.1..`. 4. G• 4, i,.„' 0t s,,-- 4'4, TQ-, 7: 4..-! 1.,.', 0 1:. 1 4. 04-..,-< C- 7C., Y., 1 ;.o.. i. r 2.. 3,: 4. 4',.•4,._'...; 1,.'''.. 4•7._'. i......t•.'..." 9,441 1Mirm . % , 6s4 l 4 :. 0-_ 1 i,,,,:t. I'::. i 2. 7...'. 4 14".. 4: i:-...• 5. iPii.„ z:,•.`: 1, 4:•,:.,:.-.:...• ; i.' 10•..1.- 4,51•N. 1:„'71....:.,k.l' 7.;.; i,:,.-_ e*.!..:. I. 1 4.41i4i.'.,‘,•. I g1,-•'._ 4..,. i',:. i.••, T3:1411641.,g,..:.. ck SZ,441..,.,1 , ck _ Kr"-.• •_ I1\ 1 i? t1•.• j 00! I J, , l 1. i, • • • •-, • •• !•• .‘t••'.. , 1.-' 1, .)11-,••••4 : -_-__„,w, rib° , .4C. •• IX L.1 • ...I r3 . ' •-s•71. .:'" .Z ss l FP.i ‘ "i• 4.if i - . --, I i r AR 2. To .04744t'511 11..I: • , iI . gale••••• • 3i IMF. iirr "r• , .•4, , •I 1 11,pq i •am. 3,, ,•••• . :,. . IL. " • , 1; .• - ".....•.. •• ei A B-1 -,,,..1. H- 1Y..,,, - -"I't •S...I :1 11R p.114 .„. , 11: • ..\ ,., ,,,j i 4„.•.g-Tc, e' Li 6 0 0 0,-.-RT-.4 c„.4:, 'mit,i ! • * ". i , r '11 4;14-4,.... 1,. 00 . i'','' li ' • • ' ..- • . . 1 • • s'‘•7411-41" 4* ::-•••:; r'\ • 11JEC:r• 1 01 3 i). I>t • B-I . P i Li„ 4. 4 u,, it 4„4 ....,,, . ,... •• • . lf;., „„,.....,....._•z, • :, 1-• '.Et a ,,rn R 2.' SeNOOR JUNIOSI . '.. 4 HIG1.1 • oliG*4I,•I.. . ,..1%-t,.. • ---_ ''•, ••: J. ---• al: R 2113-4, •. ..,,,,;. 7-,,.., • 1.-----,.. - • - - .h. r- ' •, .., . . . SC 4004- 544001- lia'•1 ,.. P",' i.A.,: . r - s.,, , •. i• it_17 " 7 illialaps,,_'un 1 .7 . . 2.4. r frn, , . t_ ..,,, A•"I :‘ e 4PIZ) : L' 1----Y-4 N••-i 4.4.•-i, ..! itePq4i744:7 4.'.;• . !• '‘i'' i .-4.4,--. •ry ''. kti .. pi,i. .Alsi'.• _. • 4. ; : - ili I.- .4 441P ' •11 4i r•-i' r: L gl- 1 I /.• .kart'Ll -‘).'' *‘' -''.0•4. .,,ii,;•, .,. .: :.• ..• ", . ,/,,, i.lf:t.f7...4 rr--• .d. r-rf. f!: I • 7-4.,i... . 1 ,,,,44,, .-• . - Pt •,-. ,,.....•.y, 'IV • '7. • . • .- . 1"•J....A t2.11ai!ilil.I ••Illgli_Li 1.......1 ii f.,'. joy: •••.1, 444 ,;_„.„.a." l• :.; ,...1...-ciaii) j .. . , , .. ... 7 •1 f!•! .i 7. 7..qe,r1 r..ri-7.1.f.1.1 f,y.l.firl.F.7,......... I 74-,....., ''i. r., ;.1;'“;',• //'-'44 !.f..: • . • • '''''.- ., 7•-, . . ‘ •__ --- ‘,1..7.:.i.1 I. .44.•'.;_11%.1.#,..ko6,..:”.7.,. 4.4. , . 1 , ... .,::'. V,. ..'• , l'4..t:sti i CI 1 ,.,\. •. ;:,..:.14,, , r,- Tr . •-"Fai; _i_P .ir w ': ,, L 4(''" 44.°R ."-‘'''',./. •-s. .r.Z1,-R..t • R‘3 (3- 'f. 0••- .4;Vi."0-- • . ;: ! -4 . ,,•-..f• c;il fui :' 7 a... 7-• , 1 11. ,. )1 4 4>'I . 114 1: •7 C\ it•• . 41.1•.1,,,? , 4 it.;,(1...J.,,i• .1.-.0„,,, s' ..'• , 4. ••.,.YI•••„. 11,/ • 1, 4. 4„ ..' ., . Ai „ti;, . .. . 4i34., 1-. .- 0 1: . , , .• • r,-..5er BL,,•0 14'Az' ' Fitlrid?°'" 6 0,. • "- W44144'44 :YIN . 7-,••74-•;13 l:,;:,N,.,',..,•.,7.".!.2 IR ', 4 . ' /1 ' t.„,...', ri,Til .-..- ,7-./11.••": •e54.-..4: ''' ''.I UnrY 4 C. 4 • .1 -F3 r011 4 ts It,L • - 4- ' 71: ' ,ty,..••••••• ..47,i-.... .„...,..7., ii, •,,..:.,,. , „, . W.; „-• ,•it' eligt-le r ',. : co [.... • 4 .:;:fia-, 1'' • ', t'.'' '' ' 'f'clil T•, , , . : . .:z...,.,7,- ,,, ...:„..,„._.1 v,,, IF*". , ',.j! - f.•,- .1, tn,r, . . :, 1 N • • . -., •'•••$'•.~',44 : 4...j.-?, i 41-• I' ' ...,: •;'-''.! 1' t cit4 ' -1 tp; .• ki 4. • . "' 7.., 1.10,1:•si-h; i Z•2,•.•''f Ep.re., a . . !i' ,' ' 10-1i. ci'l ii7 Eii!--.*....* • '1! '1,,... „-• - ---,.... 7. ,- i7(., . ''..1' 1 "-'••• , , "- ....4 .''• r".. 1.. , ... y , 1, .1 • k.I • W.W mm 44444Mi. ..... I trg'.1. I 111 i•.-- ' ii ' 71,7 i1 . i 1- 1': !) ; 1'T.:: 1;f4 i [ t.•. I i -: 14 'i• •1 l +0 4,1 ? . i I ' 2 ' • 9 2. •• ..i•• 4 1 1; 1 ! r -••,•A- ' 4• f:411' ' i g. . I - REZONE :•1 ' S.L . S . AND:STIRSKEY HOLDINGS , REZONE FROM R-2 TO R-3 , File No . R-091-77 ; 0 • property located north of the City .of Seattle Cedar River Pit-TiTine iglit-of-way just south of S. W. 2nd Street and between the Renton city ' limits land Hardie Avenue S .W.. . APPLICANT S . C. S . & STIRSKEY HOLDINGS TOTAL AREA -it . 4 acre PRINCIPAL ACCESS Hardie Avenue SAL E X I Si, I NG ZONING R-2 i,i;:i, EXIST ING USE. .Siftgle. Family Residentialt•.;. Multi -family ResidentialPROPOSEDUSE 1 . ii,,,, Medium Density Multi -familyCOMPREHENSIVELANDUSEPLAN 1,•'. COMMENTS T., ,ft.:,., 1;1 • i t:,1,', • i t..q• i'.4,. 1, 1_,___L_IIN f. p y S. ..% apt'..,. t ,; font. v. G 4M1"s.0 O !t sr. • • : % b tf.r.!...r„, hialliillLMrom ' a0, tv f Nam!!• n Q 1 tr h [], d,','., L ' D, 5w . i''';e L k : 0, .. S:a ST. if„E, -..7 .,.."-P ,. rn •—•C aWiti .: , \JIM, t le k.........' 3 . o.eu e g'6 1 r OF WAd t 13 , , y a 0 vJ 2nD . N 3 gip 1 0 sw t kill a 1 Tod 14l,gb ,. ,ki., y 'P. Q H iials,..„. 1:1„. A : iiiiiir S. i v 1 skv. r e'S* fic ::.) V .. 3. .• J . ' C:::), \:\4iI Ft°2, '1 .. 1) '• ,3t1 • I. 1 1 SC4Lt l F 2OO' ufJec Pre /// C5 4 yf1RslEY Poz.D, s scoww NO.. Roll-i9 i \ y' JOHN ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES • ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS 25 November 1977 l RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER NOV2 81977 City of Renton AM PM Renton, Washington 748191W,11112,1,2134,5 6 Attention: Mr. Rick Beeler, Land Use Hearing Examiner Ai Re: File #R-091-77 Gentle men: On behalf of S.C.S. & Stirskey Holdings, this letter is in request for reconsideration of the decision to deny reclassification to permit construction of seven townhouse units on SW 2nd Street near Hardie Avenue. The City of Renton Planning Staff recommended approval of the proposal with certain conditions. Many of these were acceptable and others we were permitted to debate or present our position and reasons. In the hearing examiner's conclusions, however, a number of additional considerations were brought out that we were not privileged to answer.. Therefore, we petition that you review. our response to your conclusion and reconsider the attached alternate proposed plan. 1L We believe that the existing R-2 area is really an island surrounded on three sides by R-3 and B-1 . With the R-3 land use on the north and south it could very consistly .all be R-3 as per comprehensive plan of Renton which must have had some consideration and study. 2r It does hot seem possible that new townhouse condominiums of attached single family could contribute to "premature decay and absolescence", but it should give new life and vitality to an old neighborhood. The proponent does not desire a full •R-3 zoning with its implied density but approval of a modest planned unit develpment for the site. The alternate plans propose three spaced duplexes which should be in the spirit of the adjacent zoning. Their individual impact should be noigreater than an average single family house. We believe we have accomplished adequate buffering through the reduced number of units, located the majority of the parking under the units, substantially increased the width of the perimeter planting, and reduced the bnd coverage of the site. 3: We cannot believe that three modest size duplexes that are more than 100 feet away from the existing single family (wider than typical houses facing across. a street) and situated at a 'grade elevation of 45 feet higher can be considered "unjustified intrusion into an adjacent single family district". 10620 N.E.8thi • Bellevue,Washington 98004 • (206) 454 3096 I 25 Nov 77 City of Renton page 2 4. It is our considered opinion that one of the fundamental reasons for the existence of P.U.D. or "contract zoning" is the flexible tool it provides in permitting logical and practical solutions to land use without committing to rigid specific zoning. Very truly yours, JOHN M. ANDERSON, AIA Architect JMA: lh I cc: S.C.S. & Stirskey Holdings