Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA78-218
dAW, 74, DW fy AM RV; d3S SEP29a78 1001 z LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 200 Mill Avenue South e Renton, Washington 98055 Re/ gTFo SEPIC' CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PIO EXHIBIT NO44 ITEM NO. r- 70 t., /;11',/ ,', ,i''^Q111 f1.i-g 111 f Fe. il I 1111 ,11Jiib,1` 1 i 1/ / le (: r nal . : , .. , 1 f---. t 1. . . f: ; T I l.' its 41A.1 F4•'or mom o 1 i3, I •;•.. •I •. • : r.,,. ,, Eil • jr / a ! '1 C Al /; , 7I try, Y .l. 1 O. airit,-J, iv''.. tain z, .6,'4;...." lap litir Ai iiitilli,iiii 'I ,rrAlh .,...,.t. 00 Isola rani(,P. s .D: Cf. O li 'y RK r 1 [Epl RIYUA' IllInp. viii a Sill I r.- ''• Trip . ,„. PAIN liPiiii lilliiiti daI!' ay. RI w fir 7 s`.., wip ER, iii or NAIL ti E. 7l r w,'. UZI a wI (1 _ r k\' 41 fi t-'• 4'',.Jhgz. , - t;il •f •ti `', ° t.. I ,r i•,,,Ifs.'•'; 1' c • "PT ' + II ser to :,''y.e e 1 7:71)#j.. 7.1 i. j. . ' _j-ip .4„,..,..., ,g liewlii,---Tft,', :".1?.,...,.... . 0. ''''''11,-)....:,.z.,,,, i) . iti go. .0 =-= lin t.,i ,., • ..... ---. g si co..,' .,'',..V t'.,•• 4 .14•411 u. non stIE 4 a1. 1.1i1 e•i ` • .• p \ •f4 11• 21 41 .F1t ' .'(:el env ` t , , . .,11. \1 le . r I en 1 .1c, e '4:14.:' iU 1'. F- 34441i :1;1 es. 7:7'@'. flaille-.... 1 i..:..... 1., 1 a 1.,,;,,. .,,?:....r.,:• i:;. i....:;,t..,--,,...-.......:4.:.z..A:‘,.....-‘ , 4`i t I EP la- — r' .,' .i v;",, Flv,',1 ' ay'..1,q:r•Y•'t5•',•1, 1, , •',.\,• IC n J rye: r1' ,'>ti i)•j!j 11 ..`,'i:. ` ` 1] Lidi I .4 ri 4.4,2# 7....W.?i il, : 1' Ai . / ` 7,1 . K.. I T,ti .1 tc l f' ;....l— 1 f rl •4_L MI,. n_•L s 1:'r'• ., 4 1 iq '7 ^•' r. to eArsigi.1 el 13+CIO '"Ilk - 4, IllifV10,111,,/..„ v MI 13 • 1 rimi .,\ ..., 0 it,/ .. ' r?,i• ....•',.'r'".''• Sie IMP f L 111.4 4 0 4 • 46.41106111.6'.. ......0• 81F_.440 f....): if . .t 44.:. Ott Pflillie•0 .6) 111 :191fdLo.e , p,A, IItt rr.;, ii..,......,,, . . 11 A IV ..e.•°." 4'.. to..••••''''...' e I ci j .\. ,:•$.;:i - --_ \__ ............ ,; t Iw tiOri ;.., i1 .` ir/ S. V,6 i . 4 itlvgai4411 - ' JR) c ,` MoI oho®o COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - RENTON HILL AREA DESCRIPTION: THE RENTON HILL AREA IS THAT AREAGENERALLYBOUNDBYFAI-405 ON THE WEST, CEDAR RIVERONTHENORTH, THE HILLSIDE AND UNDEVELOPED AREA ONTHE ;EAST, AND THE POWERLINE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE SOUTH. ) LIGEND: MEDIUM-DENSITY GREENBELT ' RECREATIONAL . MULTI-FAMILY EXfld1 8ITA f of RA, 0 THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH. 98055 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9A Or 235-2550 0 94TFD SEPTEIt P MEMORANDUM September 7 , 1978 TO: C . J . Delaurenti , Mayor FROM: Gordon Y . Ericksen , Planning Director RE : RENTON HILL PUBLIC HEARING - BY LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER) This is to advise that the second round of publichearingsregardingzoningonRentonHillhasbeen scheduled for September 19 , 1978. Areas to be included are noted on the attached map. GYE :mas Attachment cc : " -City Attorney OF RA, A. 11, 0 THE CITY OF RENTONV_ Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 Immo CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9 235-2550 o9 TED SEP c_o MEMORANDUM September 12 , 1978 TO : Steve Munson , Assistant Planner FROM: Ola Shajuyigbe, Planning Intern RE : Renton, Hill Rezone Sound Measurements and Other Field Activities (Phases II & III ) Sound readings were taken on September 12 , 1978 , at different locations on Phase II and III areas of Renton Hill to gather data for the proposed rezone of the Hill . Although eleven 11 ) sites were pre-selected for measurement, only six (6) measurements were taken . In order to avoid trespassing on the other pre-selected sites , every effort was made to obtain permission from the property owner but all efforts proved futile. The six (6 ) measurements taken were recorded at different times as seen on the survey sheets . Principal noise sources , highest, lowest, average , and ambient levels of each site were recorded on different occasions . Finally , photographs were taken at the sites to support the data collected . OS ; sh r 4. 1 OF RA, T E CITY OF RENTON Nolo: Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 08055z CHARLES J. DEL IRENTI MAYORo '"PL4NIdING DEPARTMENT 90 0 235-25500' V4 SEPtE1,0 MEMORANDUM t '* September 15 , 1978 TO : C. J . Delaurenti , Mayor FROM: Gordon Y. Ericksen , Planning Director RE : RENTON HILL PUBLIC HEARING BY HEARING EXAMINER , PHASES II AND III This is to advise that the Renton Hill public hearinghasbeenrescheduledforSeptember16, 1978. The amount of staff time required for the hearing reports exceeded our original estimation : The staff report will therefore be distributed next week. GYE :wr cc : City Attorney City Clerk Public Works Director Traffic Engineer Hearing Exaniner a l' _ l f y NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON, QN SEPTEMBER 26 , 19 78 r AT 9:00 A. M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWINGPCTITIOW 1 . CITY OF RENTON , FILE NO. R-218-78, APPLICA- TION FOR REZONE FROM R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT , TO R-1 , SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT ; property located on the west side of Cedar Avenue South between South 6th Street and South 7th Street. 2. CITY OF RENTON , FILE NO. R-219-78, APPLICA- TION FOR REZONE FROM H-1 , HEAVY INDUSTRY , AND P- 1 , PUBLIC USE , TO S- 1 , SUBURBAN RESIDENCE DISTRICT , AND R-1 , SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT ; property located east of the existing Renton Hill single family residence neighborhood and north of South 7th Street in a northeasterly direction to the center of the Cedar River. Legal descriptions of applications noted above on file in the Renton Planning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 26 , 1978 AT 9:00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLISHED September 15 , 1978 GORDON Y. ERICKSEN RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I , STEV.E MUNSON HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, on the 13th day of September , 19 78 SIGNED #a"e71411,44,,,e3,,,i INV kC4 x 1 D01Ell DIQ E.F 1E1 D c=11E:iltf-S1vçf'n t 1 EllE1! 1 I 1 16 El ,t N 1 / c'" f k r I 1. I I1.1 tdt 1 f w eV o D cit ottvidobi oil ti . ita 2v .ve, , /--.0 "._ la V`"Eli 043 DO 0 i Ea I f=11 r--1 Di n , ri—'U.a II te3 0 p 1 I t . t 1 I 1 1 t . pt ii:1,1 D , =. 1 1 di ....— 2 ILI 0 11 t 1 f 1111EnI1I1iiiIuDtoti10:. 11310 rit0 D ID qi ED n El I I g rLL t 1 u-i I i E 1 DP-up F t Ds. _5AV v rai.2 yp g 1 1 0 _ f CAL ® CD f . 1 II 1 r_il 1 t'-'" ' e i l 1- i I .I -.44i.- 1 D\ ' I ID 1 orate 0000 D f 1 Er n- -3 6' 0t- s f eJ 1rs, I 1 auerson ld"'WO Tot! M.114321 i ai00'slikt 4rIVOSi 1 op .• • a.. II , a D El c?al 6 gli j 11 7 Qt : la A • -_ I19-7 0 I s+t1 I o LIINI LINI r- a Elite , 1_ _ L y Al b 4 a Ms •s , T a N 1, M 1 4,. N,. 011111 0 - T o I E1 itiikk rig " a I_ 4.• Nkit.i?‹< ..., , y. .i V.: , 1 ct i...q.al MI o wa 1-a p 1 I, D 1 1 , - Q / - I b ter.=' ® 411 fir,, 4 107 galu'ls -Q c3 Wi'• AMID ti-- MM MIN• MEMORANDUM TO . Files DATE 9/15/78 FROM W. Roberts SUBJECT Distribution of Notices 96 no.tices. provided Kathy Keolker , President , Renton Hill Community Assn . , for distribution to residents . Notices provided each owner. CITY OF RENTON) WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Application No. R-218-78 (Phase II ) Environmental Checklist N . ECF-383-78 PROPOSED, date: FINAL, date: Declaration of Significance Declaration .of Significance 0 Declaration of Non-Significance El Declaration of Non-Significance COMMENTS: Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals. The Act also requires that an EIS be prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele- vant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review with- out unnecessary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal , not just to the 'license for which you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed, even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, with- out duplicating paperwork in the future. NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State of Washington for various types of proposals. Many of the questions may not apply to your proposal . If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I, BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent CITY OF RENTON 2. Address and phone number of Proponent: MUNICIPAL BUILDING RENTON , WASHINGTON 98055 206) 235-2550 3. Date Checklist submitted 4. Agency requiring Checklist City of Renton ,. Planning Department 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: Renton Hill Rezone Proposal , Phase II 6. Nature and brief description of the proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature): The proposal is to review the R-3 , medium density multi -family residential district in view of the potential impact on the adjacent R-1 ,. single family area . 2- 7. Location of prgposal (describe tha physical setting of the propes4l , as wellastheextentofthelandareaaffectedbyanyenvironmentalimpacts, includinganyotherinformationneededtogiveanaccurateunderstandingoftheenviron-mental setting pf the proposal ) : The area under reivew is located on the west side of Cedar Avenue South between south bth Street and south 7th Street. the land slopes from east to westinexcessof20%. . Existing on the site are 4 family residences and an 8-unit . condominium with access onto Cedar Avenue South'. 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : N/A. No specific development proposed. 9. List of all permits, licenses or government approvals required for the proposalfederal , state and local --including rezones) : This is a rezone only, and no additional permits are anticipated. 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activityrelatedtoorconnectedwiththisproposal? If yes, explain: NO 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: NO 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro-posal ; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) 1) Earth. Will the proposal result in: a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures?X Y€Y' MAYBE t— b) Disruptions, displacements , compaction or over- covering of the soil? X YES MAYBE NO c) Change in topography or ground surface relief Xfeatures? d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X V- MAYBE N- e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? M YBE NO f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any. bay, inlet or lake? Explanation: This application will not result in Yt' MAYBE immediately development or physical impacts. The proposal may ultimately reduce impacts by the resulting reduction in developmentintensities and incompatibilities with adjacent land uses, zoning, and public improvements, and natural characteristics of the area. 3- 2) Air. Will the proposal result in: a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? vrr- WRIT far b) The creation of objectionable odors? yrs-- MAYS' c) Alteration of air movement. moisture or temperature. or any change in climate. either locally or regionally? X VEy MAYBE AU• Explanation:, The proposal may reduce potential impacts to air quality by ultimately reducing development intensity. 3) Water. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in currents. or the course of direction of Xwatermovements, in either marine or fresh waters? vrr- MAYBE. 1W5- b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or X the rate and amount of surface water runoff? VW- MAYBE N c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X YES MAYBE WU- d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? VT MMAY'BE F5 a) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration surface water quality, including but not limited to Xtemperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Vim"" MAYBE N f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X V E" MAYBE NE' g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through X interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? V MAYBE If h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents. waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? X MBE' FTh i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? vrr_ MAYBE Explanation: Development of the subject propertied would result in a change in the natural drainage system. However, specific development is not Wage and water may be reduced for similar reasons to those mentioned in #2. (explanation 4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops. microflora and aquatic plants)? X VETAYMBE tar X b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or Xendangeredspeciesofflora? VET- MA1B Wb" c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? vrr_ MAYBE A5" d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ITT' UM lEr- X Explanation: e• 4- 5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of ; ' any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, Xinsectsormicrofauna)? YES MAYBE (J b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or i Xendangeredspeciesoffauna? fIES _ , RITE , NO c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement X of fauna? YEr- MAYBE NO d) Deterioration to• existing fish or wildlife habitat? !' VE RATEE WO-- Explanation: 6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? : X YES MAYBE i Explanation:The proposal will reduce development oriented noise levels. Noise levels attributable tp Off-site. sources wi]l _be urleffected, but will reduce the potential number of persons adversely effected from off-site 7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or sources. glare? YES- M id Explanation: Ail 8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X YES WEE NO Explanation.: The proposal would result in less intensive development of the.. area. Less intensive development may result in a reduction in the potential environmental impacts, land use conflicts, and need for public utilities and services. 9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X ES MAYBE NO b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X f MAYBE P Explanation: Renton Hill has underlying coal deposits. Should the energy situation require that the remaining' coal be mined, potential conflict with developed areas could occur. I0) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X YES" MAYBE WU— Explanation: 11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area?X VW MAYBE WU Explanation: The proposal will result in a decrease in the number of housing units in the area under study from that available under the current zoning. Actual population increases will be negligible. 5 i 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or' create a demand for additional housing? • YES NO Explanation: The adjacent developed land uses consist primarily of detached single family dwellings on the east and apartment to the west. This proposal could reduce the degree of impact on the existing single family structures, by estab- lishing a zoning pattern compatible with existing single family homes. 13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: ', a) Generation of additional• vehicular movement? X YES MAYBE NO b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? . X YES RATITE NO c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? X Y€f- MAYBE W0 d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or Xmovementofpeopleand/or goods? Yam— MAYBE NO e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X YES WATEE NO f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists or pedestrians? X YES MAYBE NU Explanation: .The proposal will provide land use more compatible with' existing conditions, and sound planning and development principles. 14) Public Services. Will .the proposal have on effect upon, .or result in a need' for new or altered governmental services in any of" the- following areas : a) Fire protection? X YES ' MAYBE FU— b) Police protection? YES W NO • c) Schools? X YES MAYBE NO d) Parks o,r other recreational facilities? X YES • MAYBE ' NO e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X YES. MAYBE NO • f) Other governmental services? X YES M YBE" NO Explanation: Qemand• upon public services may be less with the proposed zoning than the potential under the existing zoning category. 15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X YES WET WO— ' b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require ' the development of new sources of energy? X YES' MAYBE Alf- 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 WIFE NO b) Communications systems? X YES RATTE FO c) Water? X YES 'MAYBE NO d) Sewer or septic tanks? I;X YES MAYBE NO e) Storm water drainage? X YES N- f) Solid waste and disposal? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: Demand upon utilities will be potentially less with the proposal than the existing zoning. 17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Yu- MAYBE. hfb Explanation: 18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public. -or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive. site open to public view? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: The proposal will substantially reduce the potential for aesthetically offensive and obstruction of views and scenic, vistas by zoning the site to categories more compatible with existing uses, natural characteristics and the comprehensive plan, 19) Recreation, Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Y 5- MAYBE N0 Explanation: 20) Archeological, Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical X site, structure, object or building? TE-g- MAYBE WC- explanation: III. SIGNATURE I , the undersigned. state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any decla- ration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: signed) Planning -Director Gordon Y . Ericksen name printed) City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 S 3 CA41 ' 3 OtuAfeaStarz).— setr s 1 it doll IV 1 S- A4 ["/4 v1 i d'e 10e...- ." e r/;) 6.. t+ycii.47 re Ae1 w141", Cala( Orfila;,142.4 L/• r• A1 I .. la-mi Aa4 . A 1 ..S. A.+.4.,s o.. .4,1 .'s_ Ar.. Te444.$l wme®ttJ'. q/1/7p ELS'ef. a S. sa.44' if.or !. R,Jeri tVpid ll I a...• • ,•.• * abase/vas br,415"a4 14. 1is' Po Io G Ver14611.001a C1 L•(. 9o&' 1( peel C gamierer Aloe S,S • $7•69' le s s d'E S. Sd.611' tifer,lai% . /4l?9 764v Se 6f I/ae.0 i$ ..# Al;., so.:) S,. $7• 4,a3 (emir Aue.S• V.'ti'we S. 1217.681 PeArs(141. Soss- 41 g'S_ aa.44,r.. f.,. ' 40( Cola.. .:, ,S. N.loos NA" tOk 711) sr 11.0t jb) rPkLE, IS A0•40 _.... .'l 2C: i.,gtvembr. S.ys'A* M. a3s' P4 s Val 1 : so-0-iticolp,Tine e 4fi 4/(JAW. OgfC S. (1 St gO4 N. !go' Platte% 1.4)4.99eiss 1• 1 - Renton Hill (Phase II) Tract 15 of Renton Cooperative Coal Company's Acre Tracts plat No. 1 as recorded in Vol. 9, page 29 of plats, records of King County, together with vacated street adjacent. (Ordinance 1408) Renton Hill (Phase III) All that portion of S 1/2 of Sec. 17 Twp. 23 N. R. 5 E. , W.M. , described as follows: W 1/2 of SE 1/4 of said section lying south of the centerline of the Cedar River; together with that portion of the SW 1/4 of said section lying east of the plat of Renton Cooperative Coal Company's Acre Tracts, Plat No. 1, as recorded in Vol. 9, Page 29, of Plats records of King County Washington south of the centerline of the Cedar;River and east of the east margin of I-405, and except that property which lies south westerly of a line drawn from the northwest corner of tract 38 said plat to the southeast corner of tract 26 said plat. CITY OF RENTON REZONE APPLICATION OR OFFICE USE ONLY LAND USE HEARINGR-218-78(PhaseNO. Phase II ) EXAMINER 'S ACTION PPLICATION FEE $ APPEAL FILED ECEIPT NO.CITY COUNCIL ACTION ILING DATE 9-7-78 ORDINANCE NO. AND DATE EARING DATE 9-26-78 PPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 : Name CITY OF RENTON Phone 235-2550 Address- Municipal Building , Renton, Washington 98055 Property petitioned for rezoning is located on the west side of Cedar Ave. So between S . 6th Street and S . 7th Street. Square footage or acreage of property +53, 619 or 1 . 23 acres Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach a separate sheet) Renton Hill (Phase II) : Tract 15 of Renton Cooperative Coal Company ' s Acre Tracts plat No . 1 as recorded in Vol . 9 , page 29 of plats , records of. King County, together with vacated street adjacent. Ordinance 1408 ) . Existing ZoningR-3, Residential Multiple Zoning Requested R-1 Family TE 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. Proposed use of site to establish zoning which is compatible with the existing comprehensive plan , zoning and land use (single family residential ) . List the measures to be taken to reduce impact on the surrounding area. Reduction in the development density is proposed to provide compatibility with existing uses and zoning and thereby reduce potential impacts to surrounding properties . how soon after the rezone is granted do you intend to develop the site? N .A. Development plans are not proposed as a part of this action to conform the existing zoning to the designation specified in the comprehensive plan . Two copies of plot plan and affidavit of ownership are required. Planning Dept. 1-77 s anton Hill (Phase II) ract 15 of Renton Cooperative Coal Company's Acre Tracts plat No. 1 s recorded in Vol. 9, page 29 of plats, records of King County, together ith vacated street adjacent. (Ordinance 1408) iter.ton Hill (Phase III) All that portion of S 1/2 of Sec. 17 Twp. 23 N. R. 5 E. , W.M. , described 3s follows: 4 1/2 of SE 1/4 of said section lying south of the centerline of the Cedar River; together with that portion of the SW 1/4 of said section lying eas: of the plat of Renton Cooperative Coal Company's Acre Tracts, Plat No. 1, as recorded in Vol. 9, Page 29, of Plats records of King County Washingtc-. south of the centerline of the Cedar River and east of the east margin of 1-405, and except that property which lies south westerly of a line dra,n from the northwest corner of tract 38 said plat to the southeast corner e: tract 26 said' plat. 1 ID I in a: _a' J h Peiri• 7 '= '. .- Z1 ,. 401 Ne:-..•-'-V. 1115E i , .'/ n. ' ' - , aR2 ! / L1 JJJJMIMInil I th!NION MION mensi hum- r" I. Rocco& 1 fa I., T' R-2tim,11,,.. i.,, RMCP" 1E•aIllua R III "lid iii Y iiijj'; t .1 R ' V P'i v i i l.ilitis... I n I W=S '\\! ' n • 01 ] F1. 7--IN SUBJECT SITE jai T1 .i© ji II 11•I 1 I' ' ; - \\ Y F.ImoI.' FM I ` FM IIMI l 1 aa lir 4 L 11 a I 7 j •• , 0'.',, a.. w..-:I _ zI _- pub ='rat s 1 4. Jr . r, Ara rr • ig 6 v1rImo' i r' II'' 1 TTT"'fTC, „ CAI E IrZ : R.,EOM i Cam`• L 1 i- K' MS r T 6 _w 7 I ow 1/' i • . . . yea,..' .... 1 I It_ . r 1 r_ I•II f_ L I""-_ t• 1. i i r it •s CI m as 1 I r ram - nip 1 I I J,r 4 s re 17 w IS ( s+I..~ 1G R-3 GiI1IN 'is LV p i .G . L.1.. i.. .1c-,:li . 1. 1 .1 1 6. RSNTOU VILLAcS OL 1, -.., 5 II f _ Tip E2 I pp.-fit 4 B- iv' I iiiiiiliesTH $Z i F APPL I CANT CITY OF RENTON TOTAL AREA ±1.23 acres PR I NC I PAL ACCESS Cedar Ave. South between South 6th and 7th Streets EXIS1 ING ZONING R-3, Residential Multiple Family Four single family dwellings, one 8-plex condominium, one• EXISTING USE undeveloped lot. To establish zoning classification compatible with the Comprehen- PROPOSED USE sive Plan and existing zoning and landys.es (Si1.q]e family residence) COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Single Family Residential COMMENTS The proposed rezoning will bring the zoning of the subject site into conformance with the 'Comprehensive Plan. ' No physical development is proposed at this time. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 26, 1978 APPLICANT : CITY OF RENTON FILE NUMBER: R-218-78 , REZONE - RENTON HILL , PHASE II A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST : The applicant requests a rezone of the subject property from R-3 , Medium Density Multiple Family , to R-1 , Single Family Residential . B . GENERAL INFORMATION : 1 . Owner of Record : Homeco , Inc . Lyman E . Riley Gene 0 . Farrell Walter Smith Theodore C . Cole Tillie Cole 2 . Applicant : City of Renton 3. Location :Property is located on the west side of Cedar Ave- nue South between South 6th Street and South 7th Street . 4 . Legal Description : Tract 15, Plat No. 1 of Renton Cooperative Coal Company's Acre Tracts. A detailed legal descrip- tion is on file with the Renton Planninn f1Fnartment. 5 . Size of Property : The parcels total approxi - mately 53 ,619 square feet or approximately 1 . 23 acres . 6. Access : Via Cedar Avenue South and South 6th Street . 7 . Existing Zoning : R-3 , Residential Multiple Family. 8 . Existing Zoning in the Area : R-1 , Single Family Residential District ; R-3 , Residential Multiple Family . 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan : Single Family Residential . 10. Notification : The property owners were notified in writing of the hearing date . Notice was properly published in the Record Chronicle and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City ordinance . C . PURPOSE OF REQUEST : The application was filed to review the existing zoning in rela- tion to the Comprehensive Plan . D . HISTORY/BACKGROUND : The subject site was part of the original plat of the City . E . PHYSICAL BACKGROUND : 1 . Topography : The site slopes downward from east to west at approximately a 24% grade. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : CITY OF RENTON , FILE NUMBER R-218-78 SEPTEMBER 26, 1978 PAGE TWO 2 . Soils : Beausite gravelly sandy loam , 15 to 30 percent slopes BeD ) . Runoff is rapid , and the hazard of erosion is severe . This soil is used for timber and pasture . 3 . Vegetation : The site consists of holly and fruit trees , some vegetable gardens, and other ground cover consisting of grass and blackberries . 4. Wildlife : Existing vegetation on the site provides suitable habitat for birds and small mammals . 5. Water : There was no water observed on the site at the time of field inspection . However , portions of the area do con- tain seasonal drainage ditches . 6 . Land Use : Of the six parcels involved , four contain single family residential structures , one remains undeveloped , and one multiple family structure at the corner of South 7th Street and Cedar Avenue South is a condominium. Adjacent to the west are two apartment buildings . The remaining surrounding properties contain single family dwellings except for the undeveloped land to the south that is included in Renton Hill Rezone , Phase I . F . NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS : Renton Hill was subdivided and developed prior to the turn of the century . When it was developed and for many years there- after , it was considered one of the nicer areas in which to live . This was due in part to being above the flood plain , having a view , being at a higher elevation than industrial activities , and a variety of other reasons . Over a period of years , the Hill began to decline . However , this trend has reversed itself in recent years . Some homes were converted to apartments and new apartments were constructed . During the early 1960 ' s , FAI -405 was constructed leaving only one access to Renton Hill . In 1953 , the City adopted a zoning ordinance which tended to segregate the single and multi -family residences on the Hill . This helped contain multi -family to Mill Avenue (along FAI-405 ) and to minimize the spread of multi -family throughout the Hill . During the early 1970 ' s , a sense of community pride began to redevelop which led to cohesive community action . Eventually , a community club was formed to represent Renton Hill . The City of Renton and the residents of Renton Hill have invested considerable amounts of money in the area since Janu- ary , 1976. Cedar Street between South Third and South Ninth Street was completely rebuilt with a new street , curbs , gutters , sidewalks , illumination ; and overhead utilities were placed underground . The project cost $200 , 162 . 04 , of which the resi - dents paid $43 , 310. 11 through a local improvement district LID 293 ) . Sixty-nine parcels participated in the LID , which calculates to an average of $627 . 68 per parcel . Since January , 1976 , considerable private investment has taken place on Renton Hill including five new single family dwellings , one new addition to single family residence , one new story on single family residence , two new private garages , one lowered basement , and a new eight-unit apartment . The new homes were erected on lots that were due either to demolition of a home , never had been developed , or were short platted from a larger lot . k 8 Dry th 4°:/ grl 40ury 70. yrt° r neAVieb 7c_ Freer ErZwrov,) WI-L- Phoebe. 2 Rm,7.a.J . 216-18 6EOLO&Y SLoPE. . Tr KE.I.rroN rbri ttznoN movegArt US 2 0) ARko55IC SrtJQ9T J ,MUD'xONM. 4 SibAt.G. CONTAINS eaLyei AL.CG'4_CEOS.MowNEAr.6.4166 d[ rrnvoc.a CP FOICPKTlor.l,.?JL 61SCUS FATS CP 5MALL. .............. 5TEEP (ZS 4ol®) DISPI.ACtM°r, wNrY 86pcWi4b.1Htuwe66: A.900r z,EcO. SCURCe.C F: Cam-4 CLJ.Y. fi U.6•[v.5. F'1.' I- 354 1 L Pr+on USC S. MA?* I-ess-e ; KWr1 I I vi. 1tii /, 11141 i. L7I e I ( . x . i ... i. . .. 1 I I 1 I ;1I li.. 1,-7J , A,),41/ .f, ./ A II. i bl. n' 1 . 1,1. I i II i4t . r. 11 , , I l ,l . I 0 Et . ill 1 , 1 iiiiiii . i/ I I ; I, • 1 j I I, 11 gi IfIL 1 ( sr •, prirJEii., ( 1.p 1 :11.1 1 l II / I l x IIllara, I: aSo' 1 I. I I I - o"Ii• or i; ,I II I. I Flill N N I iIIV 72 I jets nill 1-4---• . , -II Apill)iii boo' r ' 11 1'1' irehilt11'11111 1 ii/V-1 1:',. . el: 1 i i r 1, r. .' 1 • ( 11i, 11 'M. tI . I 1 la tii1J111U1rILI.V11 ill I i fim 1 ` I f / III :11 : I 1 NW i:ie:i ireI 1 .\ '') CS1 / 200 ' . 100 . 0 200 00 600 000 • • 1000 F..s OJ S 011101111411 iw/.rv.I=3 foot r mu . Gaje - Li 0 amitiii....... A 2 i Oce 1 WIIIIIIIIIN 111;1)10 in '.'. ..T..: . ' 111111t1 miltrigOm LiliVtimimummih.s....1•0 1 Z NW. 111111 linti - I . #s ti i .x, r. . ...• .,.:: is='?iirilig"t - , 1 g 433 ••: 11-.. - , :„ . hlui, A h 111-11•_, 111"Nittil 0 ,4 111. I 4 Otill k...rni.:::, -.Li ; . ' m .... !4,! ei; 1 7-•1?.bi .0.1.-_-:....—_:-.& —_=•_—_—_z....7.. Ira(nicbgniallaUlillr0 Ic_AL' , v -- --—-- [-----a'I, s i ,.______ . z.z.-----;.--;--:-... ----:-..._--. z-..-_-_-___ __ tusioti 4.—J Rat400.....„ 6 J, 1 L_____ Milik 111' 4 I,,, -if- s 11,,,,.., ivii Et i .o 1110.a 41witimi,etty i 18 ':---• lim a,...______ _ 711......---fin -: 7 ile.:"•-::1', ,-- ,p: -11ta e-*"-kiftI/ t1::::igi::::::::::,4--, a,:•:.::::::.*•:•::-.i::.:•::::::::*:ii,••:•-, ,- I . •Ialabessees 8 aiV, :—:i::.:::::::::::*.ftimi::::::::;::''''''.. __1. 1 1 4. 1. i%i.• N.. J..... 1...._.--. 1".__ _ r 4) 1 f•% a lr1g---0 tO CQ- PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON , FILE NUMBER R-218-78 SEPTEMBER. 26, 1978 PAGE THREE Two short plats .(two lots each) and one preliminary Planned Unit Development applications were received by the City from Renton Hill since 1976. In addition , a large tentative plat 2. 45 acres., 93 lots) application was received on a parcel south of and contiguous to Renton Hill ; this subdivision does not propose to have access via Renton Hill . Effective July 1 , 1978 , low and moderate home owners will be eligible for grants up to $2 ,500 for rehabilitation of their detached single family dwellings through the City of Renton Housing Repair Program. Renton Hill is designated as one of the City ' s target neighborhoods. ` G. TRAFFIC : Renton Hill is essentially a large cul -de-sac with one access , Mill Avenue South . The Seattle Cedar River Pipeline right-of- , way provides a secondary access for emergency vehicles. This : :. facility was closed in 1973 at the request of the residents of the Hill to eliminate the through traffic that came to and from the Cascade area to the south . The residents of Renton Hill considered the through traffic inappropriate and dangerous to the community. The streets are rather steep , and serious questions can be raised concerning traffic safety if too many cars use the streets. Between South Third and South Seventh Streets , Renton Avenue and Cedar Avenue average 9. 2% and 7. 7% slope respectively. Renton Avenue has a short stretch that has a grade in excess o.f 15% between the same streets . With the grid iron street pattern , a vehicle (and anything which the vehicle might hit) can be in serious trouble should a serious mechanical problem occur, such as brake failure . On January 22 , 1978 , traffic counts were conducted and a movement of 2 ,650 vehicles were found during a 24-hour period. This represents 1 ,350 vehicles entering and leaving the Hill each day. Burlington Northern Railroad has a major east-west track across Mill Avenue South, the sole access to Renton Hill . During the 16 hours per day that the, Renton railroad station is manned , there is an average of 14 trains that pass through the City . This does not include the numerous short blockages due to switching activities. Blockage of Mill Avenue can be critical should an emergency occur on Renton Hill while a train crosses Mill Avenue. H. SOUND : Sound:.:r'eading3s::were` taken in mid-September, 1978, at the two locations noted on the map in Exhibit . Readings from mid-May, .1978, of Phase I are also noted. , ,:The . detailed sound records are available on file in the Renton Planning Depart- ment. The freeway is the major source of sound in the subject area , with aircraft, automobiles , animals , and the usual neigh- borhood sources included to lesser degrees . Listed below is a Ppa snyopsis of the findings : dBA .LEVELS Site High Mode Low PHASE II , Site 1 66 51-62 49 PHASE II , Site 2 73 59-67 58 PHASE I , Site 3 79 65-76 63 PHASE I , Site 4 66 59-62 . 56 1P0S--- -- -'- '''-- N' 1 i r 1 ,,_ Rol - - riurdi r 1 se ii-,,,„,,,_, , ,7 WI... MT IMO_., jrla MI/ 0"..__ Irp, U.--- q__-___ 1.—) 4 No 1 611 7 r-,......--------- ft,, k0,,,,, 1 1 . in • 1 .-!..... ji 1111"' 0142 z3 w I PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING -EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON , R-218-78 PAGE FOUR Generally, the closer to FAI-405, the greater the sound. It is anticipated that traffic will increase as growth occurs in South King County on FAI-405 ; and , therefore , the sound levels on Renton Hill will increase also . Sleep interference occurs at 40 dBA; speech interference at 55 dBA; hearing loss with continuous exposure at 80 dBA, although some experts believe hearing loss happens at a lower level . As indicated by the above data , there is speech interference with outside activi - ties during the day and a potential loss of hearing if exposed for a long period of time. Sound inside a dwelling is generally 10 to 15 dBA less when the windows are open an.d 15 to 20 dBA quieter when the windows are closed . Dwellings constructed on the site could experi- ence sound levels that will cause interference with normal conversation and perhaps sleep. S I . PUBLIC SERVICES : 1 . Water and Sewer: A four-inch water main extends east-west along the south side of South 7th Street east of the inter- section of Cedar Avenue South and South 7th Street. A second four-inch main runs north-south along Cedar Avenue south of the intersection of South 7th and Cedar , and a third four-inch main extends east-west on South 6th Street adjacent to the southern boundary of the subject site. In addition , a six-inch main runs north-south along Cedar adjacent to the easterly boundary, and an eight-inch main extends east-west on the north side of South 7th Street. The existing ten-inch sanitary sewer extends north-south along Cedar adjacent to the subject site, and an eight- inch sewer runs east-west along South 7th Street adjacent to the north property boundary. 2. Fire Protection : Provided by the Renton Fire Department as per ordinance requirefents . 3. Transit : Metro provides bus service along the periphery of Renton Hill . Routes 107 and 240 operate north of the Hill on Mill Avenue outh. Bronson Way South is served by route number 142 and route number 155 serves Main Avenue South. All of these busses are within walking distance of Renton Hill . 4. Schools : Talbot Hill Elementary School is located within two miles to the southwest of the subject site, with Fred Nelson Middle School approximately two miles to the south and Renton Senior High School approximately one mile to the northwest. 5. Parks : Liberty , Cedar River and Jones Parks are approxi - mately one-half mile north of the subject site , while Phillip Arnold Park is one-fourth mile to the east. J . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE : 1 . Section 4-706, R-1 Residential Single Family District. 2. Section 4-706A, R-3, Residential Multiple Family District. 3. Section 4-725, Amendments . K. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS : 1. Land Use Report, 1965, Residential , pages 6, 7 , and 11 , and Objectives , pages 17 and 18. 2. Arterials and Streets Plan , 1965 , pages 2 , 3 , 4, 5. 3. Policy Statement , Comprehensive Plan , . 1965, pages 4, 6, 9, 10, 11 , 17 . NOISE L EVELS LOC4770AiS RE.CORDEL). RICORDt7D 19570A4 PHASE" Z. Iiii ..11 /, 2: 4:kif (, ,, 1 ( i 1_ _,. •x iro f 1./ II . Cit . .i it ' P ,. i 1 I "! 4'.7 • Ini h./ ! 1 •I I • i fli. I if P. •Ill a I , r , ! _ I . . ' i . V ,'1a I °I Iy2 no •Ill . .1 Alemo.Aqi•- it F-11° „ . ' A it 1 j . . i1 . ( \ . 4,..„ . i III i •I ,1 1 II I q e, • 1 erg)'b--"-- T- • — 1-11.) ,. Y.7wiroira WO 100 41 WO 400 MI INN 11••• a, 1111•11011110•••••111 IIINIMMI•MINNIM111 IV 111 II in COMINIMIIMMIIMUNIN innIMINIIIINI•11 in= PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON , R-218-78' SEPTEMBER 26 , 1978 PAGE SIX 4. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Report, page 17 , also has an objective number 4 , "Protect property values within the community for the benefit of its residents and property owners , through the effective control of land use and the enforcement and application of building and construction . codes . " The proposed rezone will control and regulate the land use of the subject area to a degree that is compatible with other property in the area , thereby encouraging and strengthening the livability, both physical and social , within the existing neighborhood. This would further the present character of the Hill as highly desirable single family residence area . 5. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Report., page 18, clearly states as a ,methoa of implementation (number 6) the need to "conduct planning studies on problems- of current interest or need as conditions change and revisions or ,amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are deemed desirable. " Conditions have changed in the area through the continued construction , revitalization , investment, and community involvement in the area as a single family neighborhood , as well as the lack of adequate access for multiple family residential being devel - oped , and the overall attitude of the legislative body and the community toward the retention of a viable and signifi - cant single family area through the revision to the Compre- hensive Plan . It is further noted in this implementation section that the purposeful and consistent attention to the overall purposes and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan will produce continuing and long term benefits for the commun- ity. " The proposed rezone is a reflection of the "overall purposes and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan" through the proper use of land use regulations and zoning to pro- tect the citizens of the community and provide for orderly and compatible growth trends . The "continuing" benefits to the community will be reflected by the proposed rezone consistent with the Comprehensive Plan . The aspect. of planning as a "continuing" process is important . As the City grows and changes in its physical character so also do the attitudes of its citizens . The Comprehensive Plan and its implementation methods ( i . e. , zoning , capital improvements , arterials and streets plans ) must reflect these changes to be an effective planning -tool . 6. The Policy' Statement of the Comprehensive Plan , page 6, E. , Traffic Ways , states that " It shall be the objective of the City to develop or require the development of its traffic-ways in accordance with their intended use . Generally , heavy and fast moving traffic will be routed around neighborhoods with only minor residential streets bisecting them. Right-of-way width standards for different classifications of streets shall be those developed in detail and contained in the Arterials and Streets Report of the R. U .A. Comprehensive Plan . The construction o.f streets shall be related to need and function as determined by traffic engineering studies . " Reference to. the Arter- ials and Streets Plan , as well as the City ' s Subdivision Ordinance , indicates that this access to the subject area is not, adequate for any higher density use than single family residential . However, it is one of the last remaining large undeveloped areas of the Hill and , there- fore, would not create significant additional traffic problems if developed as single family residential . 7. Access to Renton Hill is restricted to one entrance that is subject to blockage by trains . Several of the streets v_ PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON, R-218-78 PAGE FIVE L. IMPACT ON THE NATURAL SYSTEMS : Rezoning of the subject site will not have a direct impact upon the natural system. Development has already occurred on five of the six parcels. Development of the final lot is not pro- posed as ' a part of this rezoning. M. SOCIAL IMPACTS : Development of the subject site for residential use will increase the opportunities for social interaction . N . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION : Pursuant to the City of Renton ' s Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 ,, as 'amended, RCW 43-21C , a declaration of non-significance has been: issued for the pro- posal . 0. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION : A vicinity map and a site map are attached. P . AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED: 1. City of Renton Building Division. 2. City of Renton Engineering Division . 3 . City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division . 4. City of Renton Utilities Division . 5. City of Renton Fire Department. 6. Renton School District #403 7 . Department of Ecology Q. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS : 1 . The proposed rezone to R-1 is consistent with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan , which designates the subject site as single family residential . 2. The existing zoning around the site is R-1 in all directions except for a narrow corridor of R-3 on Mill Avenue South to the northwest of the subject site. The freeway to the west is not zoned and acts as a' physical barrier. The R-1 zoned property immediately west and south of the subject site was recently rezoned from R-3 to R-1 by Ordinance 3241 effective September 2 , 1978. The R-3 portions are developed as zoned , while the recently rezoned property to the south remains undeveloped. The other R-1 areas are developed as zoned. These patterns along with other elements seem to establish the subject site as a single family area which requires protection from other uses to retain its identity. 3. The goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Report, page 17 , objective number 1 , states : "Prevent blight by protecting residential and other exclusive dis- tricts from the unwarranted infiltration of incompatible uses which would contribute to premature decay and obso- lesence,. and prevent the development -of orderly growth patterns. " The majority of the Renton Hill area is an existing single family residential neighborhood . Rezone and development of the subject area to single family resi - dence density, either by standard subdivision or by P . U . D. cluster-type development , would be compatible with the existing neighborhood and consistent with such objective. Development to higher densities would result in infiltra- tion of incompatible zoning , land uses , and such Compre- hensive objectives. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : CITY OF RENTON , R-218-78 PAGE EIGHT of the R-1 zone would be more compatible with such objec- tives. 10. The site is subject to loud sound levels , especially from FAI-405. The Department of Ecology recommended that per- formance standards be applied to sleeping areas of the dwelling to permit sleep. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS : 1. Adopt the following findings : a . - The. property has been zoned R-3 , multiple family, since October 21 , 1963. b. That one parcel consisting of approximately one-sixth of the site has been developed in accordance with the R-3 district standards . The remaining parcels are single family homes and one undeveloped lot. c. That substantial changes and circumstances have occurred on the site in the form of construction of an eight-unit condominium as indicated in "b" above . Substantial changes also occurred in the vicinity of the site in the form of construction of FAI-405, construction of Phillip Arnold Neighborhood Park, and street improvements to Cedar Avenue South. 2. Approve R-1 , . single family , zoning for the subject area with the following additional considerations : a . The existing vegetation and other natural characteristics of the site should be retained as much as possible and incorporated into the site planning design and development. b. Access shall be limited to existing streets and improved as part of any site development. c. On-site soils and geologic investigations should be con- ducted to determine whether the site is safe to develop and under what circumstances . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON , R-218-78 PAGE SEVEN which provide access to the various areas on the Hill are steep , laid out in a grid arrangement , and as such should not be overloaded. The grades of the streets pre- sent a potential hazard not normally found in a residential development. Also , one street has had a small section sub- sidence. (Comprehensive Plan , Arterials and Streets , 1965 , Purposes and Objectives of Study, pages 2 and 3) . Both Cedar Avenue South and Renton Avenue South have a right-of- way width of forty feet with improvements less than that which is normally required. Standard residential access streets are 50 to 60 feet in width. Due to existing struc- tures and improvements , there is little likelihood that these streets can be enlarged . Given this situation , the proposed rezone would have fewer impacts to the existing streets than the existing zoning . In fact, the Streets and Arterials Plan , page 5 , states that "in the planning , design , and location of the major street system, considera- tion should be given to esthetics and community amenities in order that the system may provide attractive as well as safe , efficient circulation routes , and do the least dam- age to adjacent land uses and improvements . Conversely, the design and location of adjacent improvements should present the least possible interference with the traffic carrying capabilities of these traffic ways . " 8. The Streets and Arterials Plan also states as objectives page 3 ) : a . Provision,. for the safe , efficient and conven- ient movement of peoples and goods . b. Arterial and street patterns compatible with and complimentary to the general land use plan . c. Adequate and safe access to allow convenient and efficient utilization of abutting proper- ties . The proposed rezone would be consistent with these objec- tives by reducing densities and resulting traffic volumes and providing for land use more compatible with the Com- prehensive Plan and roadway system. Also , the intro- duction of any larger street system into and through the area would be contrary to these and other Comprehensive Plan objectives . ( i . e. , Policy Statement , Comprehensive Plan , page 4 , "These trafficways should be so designed that they function efficiently. . . their operation should not coni~lict or interfere with the functions of the resi - dential neighborhoods . " ) In addition , page 4 of the Streets and Arterials Plan says , "Traffic should be con- centrated on comparatively few roads which are adequately designed to accommodate the expected volume , rather than dispersed on many low standard residential roads . " 9. It is apparent from the attached exhibits that the site has physical characteristics such as. slope , mined-out coal beds , soils , and existing heavy vegetation which create potential problems in development and which should be considered when reviewing the size and intensity of development. Certain types of higher intensity develop- ment may in fact create potential hazards . Therefore , it would be in the public interest to minimize such possible hazard by proper planning , zoning , and develop- ment controls . The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Report designates the site as 15-25% slope (moderately steep) . Slopes. to the west are even steeper (over 25%) and the Plan indicates that " in these areas , isolated slide problems will be encountered which must be recognized and the land utilized accordingly. " The lesser density REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : 7;-: /47c-ApprovedDepartment :Z.,cm Not Approve Comments or conditions : eed. ce 4i -Zmpact P1044 tiff/7e Signature of Director or Authorized Repres tative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : /4574*// Q Approved p Not Approved Comments or conditions : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : p Approved Not Approved Comments or conditions : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : C Approved Q Not Approved Comments or conditions : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date ROUTING SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION TO: Finance Department Fire Department Library Department OPark Department Police Department 9// Public Works Department r- 0!) Building Div. 4 Engineering Div. (Please verify legal description) 0 Traffic Engineering Div. t Utilities Engineering Div. FROM: Planning Department, (signed by responsible official or his designee) alkb/o' , ente DATE : OV/a PLEASE REVIEW THIS APPLICATION FOR: X REZONE 2/e' Z ' MAJOR PLAT SITE APPROVAL SHORT PLAT SPECIAL PERMIT WAIVER . SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT OR EXEMPTION AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH ANY COMMENTS YOU MIGHT HAVE , BEFORE 9A1/7,6 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department: L_(7 & Approved CD Not Approved Comments or conditions : eir .e _. r—,t Signature • ' irector or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department: /,/'/ ;I i/e7i'1. i Qi 'Approved Hoyt Approve Comments or conditions : drdie ic-ixf AfL.47a4.4 Masi /'—/e5 S. o. /aVeltie& -tc 7S fa e f,,ec f=w, /•t'"G` /7/Y,o/2 .1Ts AXi4 9Ccc S /15 ,50u/i 7 c5 f/•ems Cf('f -,4 e.s7- ri,z---i G/i4c. 4uileti. 15-.c.,.. vz Signature of Director or Authorize Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department: 75Y6/17c 621, ki,der&.70ApprovedNotApproved Comments : oee dcze. L.r4,4072-ai4 eis Aerde4- e• eg417- z, Ar Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS: Department : 0 Approved Ej Not Approved Comments : Signature •of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : El Approved jNotApproved Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY. OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : CJ Approved . ENot Approved . Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO: O Finance Department 0 Fire Department Library Department Park Department Police Department Public Works Department 41) Building: Div. 0 Engineering Div.. a Traffic Engineering Div. 0 Utilities Engineering Div. FROM: Planning Department , (signed by responsible official or his designee) AS alga, SUBJECT: Review of ECF- 4 /~ 76 ; Application No. : R- Vi- lb Action Name : 8,1 )f /0/ Awe J,4I u( Please review the attached. Review requested by (date) : 00 Note : Responses to be written in ink. REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : pomartment : ZZ.,' men 6 A' s: roved Q Not Approved Je:7f---°. is-1mod/ Signaturctor or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : RT Department : 0,' Div 0 Approved O Not Approved Comments : 7. //(/S—vg-"1--gr--1061---- 9./ 6 /7,1 Sig /ure of Director or Authorized Representative Date PROPOSED/FINAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No. R-218-78 (PHASE II) PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . ECF-383-78 X FINAL Declaration Description of proposal The City initiated a rezone of seven contiguous parcels consisting of ±1.23 acres from R-3 to R-1. Proponent CITY OF RENTON Location of Proposal In the general area of Renton Hill . Lead Agency City of Renton Planning Department This proposal has been determined to 0 have © not •hav a si nificant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS U is x is not required under RCW 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 . Reasons for declaration of environmental significance : This negative declaration applies only to the rezone of the subject site. No physical development is proposed at this time, or as a part of this rezone. Further environmental review will be required as part of specific site development review. Measures , if any , that could be taken to prevent or mitigate the environmental impacts to such an extent that the lead agency would withdraw its declaration of significance and issue a (proposed/final ) declaration of non-significance : Responsible Official Gordon Y. Ericksen Title P1 'ng 'rector Date September 18, 1978 Signature City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 G a / ge,; R- 02/ 7 y RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER EXHIBIT AM SEF261978 PM 7,80110,11;l2;1;213,41516 TEM .NO. 4; 77 7 y pF R Five z`July 12, 1978 Z:\ (0\1D c\ OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARJ G EXAM I N FR v u - 13 5 8 CITY OF J ENTON REP RT ANILREC ENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. ICANT: 4 City of Renton FILE NO. R-178-78 LOCA N' Property is on the west side of Renton Hill south of S. 7th Street; east of FAI-405; north of the Puget Sound Power and Light Company transmission line easement and east of the subdivided property. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant initiated a rezone from R-3 District, Medium DensityMulti-Family to R-1, Single Family District. SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Recommend approval. RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner: Recommend approval with conditions. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received by theREPORT: Examiner on June 9, 1978. 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 June. 13, 1978 at 9:04 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the RentonMunicipalBuilding. The Examiner disclosed being acquainted with certain residents on Renton Hill although he advised that discussion regarding the subject application had not occurred and the relationships would not interfere with his ability to objectively reviewtherequestandrenderarecommendationonthematter. He asked if parties in attendanceobjectedtoproceedingwiththehearingonthebasisofthedisclosure. There was noobjection. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner, the property owners, and interested partieshadreceivedandreviewedthePlanningDepartmentreport, and the report was entered intotherecordasExhibit #1. Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director, reviewed Exhibit #1. Mr. Ericksen clarified the purpose of the series of hearings to review the zoning of the entire Renton Hill area inphases, beginning with the subject request, in response to recent amendments to theComprehensivePlanbytheCityCouncil. He noted a correction in Section E. , paragraphthreeofExhibit #1 in the first, fourth and sixth lines to change the word, "subsistence,"to "subsidence," and reported that the Goals and Policies Statement of the ComprehensivePlanshouldbeincludedasapplicablesectionsoftheComprehensivePlanorotherofficial city documents listed under Section K. of the report. Gary Kruger, Senior Planner, submitted and reviewed the following exhibits: Exhibit #2: Aerial Photograph of Renton Hill and Surrounding Areas Exhibit #3: Topography Map Exhibit #4: King County Assessor's Map Mr. Kruger presented a series of 24 slides depicting existing topography, streets, structures, park and coalfields of the Renton Hill area and the subject site. The slideswerelabeledExhibit #5 by the Examiner. Mr. Ericksen submitted an excerpt from Renton Planning Commission minutes, datedSeptember25, 1963, reporting approval of the original rezone of the subject property toR-3 designation. The minutes were labeled Exhibit #6 by the Examiner. He also referenced minutes of the Planning Commission and Renton City Council meetings relative to the recentamendmenttotheComprehensivePlanfor. the Renton Hill area. The minutes were labeledasMIMED CITY OF RENTON Exhibit #7: Minutes of the Planning Commission, datedNEARINGEXAMINERSeptember14, 1977 and October 12, 1977. AA S E P 2 61979 a 3ni,ii1 ' 1 s 2k00 l—'e c- F- 8-78 Page Two Exhibit #8: Minutes of the Renton City Council, dated November 21 & 28, 1977, and December 5 & 19, 1977. The Examiner reported receipt of a legal brief from James R. Irwin, legal counsel for Transamerica Development Corporation, dated June 9, 1978. Responding to the Examiner'sinquiry, Mr. Irwin indicated that the brief would be reviewed during his subsequent testimony. The brief was labeled Exhibit #9 by the Examiner. The Examiner requested testimony in support of the application. Responding was: Kathy Keolker 532 Cedar Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Keolker, President of the Renton Hill Community Association, entered copies of two petitions previously submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council during public hearings held during 1977 regarding the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the Renton Hill area. The petitions, labeled Exhibit #10 by the Examiner, contained a request for rezone of Cedar Avenue S. in its entirety for single family dwellings and expressed concern regarding traffic volume, parking, street width, access, safety, alleys, crime rate, childrens' safety, school busing, property values, quality of the neighborhood, noise level, community facilities and utility systems. To support her testimony concerningthecharacterofRentonHillasaself-rejuvenating, vital community, Mrs. Keolker entered the following exhibit: Exhibit #11: Photographs (39) of Renton Hill Residences She emphasized that establishment of R-3 zoning of the subject property in 1963 occurred prior to the existence of a comprehensive plan to promote orderly growth within the city.Mrs. Keolker stated that additional multi-family development on Renton Hill would destroytheunique, residential character of an established neighborhood consisting of many generations of residents. Referring to existing access roadways, she advised that residents on Cedar Avenue S. had recently participated in an LID which resulted in the creation of an inadequate, narrow street, and that existing steep grades and blind spots on S. 7th Street and Renton Avenue S. create dangerous safety hazards, particularly during winter months. Mrs. Keolker reported that condominiums constructed on Cedar Avenue S. during 1977 have not received final building code approval to date and remain vacant, and to illustrate residential opinion that the development had not contributed to the appearance of the neighborhood, she entered a series of nine photographs of development on the site, which were labeled Exhibit #12 by the Examiner. Mrs. Keolker emphasized that in addition to construction of new homes, many older homes had been remodeled in the Renton Hill community, and that the neighborhood did not require economic stimulation through development of multi-family residences. She indicated that residents did not oppose progress or growth, but felt that construction of apartments would destroy the characterofthequiet, family-oriented, residential neighborhood and could not be considered progressive action. Responding was: Ruth Bradley 709 High Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Bradley addressed the existing problem of increased traffic and insufficient access streets in the Renton Hill area. She submitted the following exhibits to illustrate problems of parking and access: Exhibit #13: Photographs of Cedar Avenue S. Exhibit #14: Traffic Count Data Referring to Exhibit #13, Mrs. Bradley advised that the actual substandard width of Cedar Avenue S. is 26-1/2 feet as a result of a previous LID formed to improve the street. She noted that on-street parking is mandatory for most residents because of the lack of garages in the area and advised that because of the existence of parked cars on the narrow street, it is impossible for two oncoming vehicles to pass simultaneously. Referring to Exhibit #14, Mrs. Bradley indicated that a 24-hour count totaling 2,745 trips had been taken in 1972 during a period in which the pipeline road was open, and reported that residential opposition to the open pipeline access roadway had resulted in subsequent closure. Exhibit #14 also contained 24-hour counts taken in the same location during1973followingclosureofthepipelineroad (1,547) , in June, 1977 on Cedar Avenue S. 1,263) , and in January, 1978 (2,650) . She noted dangerous situations created by winter conditions and existence of railroad tracks and trains which limit access to Renton Hill. R-17b ' ,-`, Page Three Responding was: Peggy Jernigan 412 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Jernigan addressed the matter of crime rate and residential safety. She advised that a neighborhood crime watch had been established for many years and close neighborhood relationships ensured safety for children. She submitted an exhibit comparing crime rates in Renton Hill to other areas of the city. The exhibit was labeled as follows: Exhibit #15: Crime Rate Statistics The exhibit denoted a total of 80 calls to the Renton Police Department during the first seven months of 1976 as well as the number of calls during the month of July, 1976 from the Highlands (36) , downtown area (94) , and Renton Hill (18) . She attributed the low rate to square block configuration of streets, single access, and proximity of the Renton Police Department. Mrs. Jernigan emphasized that apartments have a high turnover of tenants which was contrary to the established single family residential tenancy in the neighborhood, and she supported R-1 zoning to allow continued single family residential growth established for the past 70 years. Responding was: Ruth Larson 714 High Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Larson addressed the safety problems associated with the high number of children residing on Renton Hill. She indicated opposition to provision of additional access to the area which she felt would increase sexual crime rates and traffic fatalities. She stated that the Renton School District currently routes school buses to the top of the hill at Philip Arnold Park but that an increase in enrollment would relocate the bus stop to the bottom of the hill and would create a dangerous situation because of traffic, trains, and large, plate-glass windows of existing businesses in that location. Responding was: Amelia Telban 508 Cedar Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Miss Telban discussed history of Renton Hill and reported that she is residing in the same home in which she was born. She reviewed establishment of the Renton Hill community upon discovery of coal in the community in 1873 when miners purchased single acre tracts from the coal company. She advised that until the 1920's, a school and church were the only structures other than single family residences which existed in the area and at that time several homes were remodeled into multiple family dwellings. During World War II, she reported, a huge influx of workers created a need for additional apartments in the area. Miss Telban advised the existence of a high percentage of second and third generation residents in the area as well as representation of all age groups and income levels, and stressed the importance of maintaining the sense of community which has been established and perpetuated. Responding was: Jim Breda 1002 Grant Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Breda commended members of the Planning Commission and City Council for courtesy and competence during previous public hearings regarding the Comprehensive Plan revision in the Renton Hill area in arriving at a mutually satisfactory decision. He reiterated testimony previously entered during the hearing regarding access, quality of life, safety and crime rate, and orientation to single family living. Mr. Breda also advised that while 43 elementary school children reside in the area and utilize school buses, 30 middle school students board buses at Holmes Electric building and 20 to 25 high school students walk to Renton High School. He read a list of second and third generation residents in the area and emphasized that the character of the Renton Hill neighborhood would be destroyed if the zoning to R-1 was not approved and multiple family dwellings allowed. Responding was: Robert McBeth 1906 Rolling Hills Avenue S.E. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. McBeth, legal counsel for the Renton Hill Community Association, indicated receipt this date of Exhibit #9, legal brief filed by Transamerica Development Corporation, and requested additional time for review and response since he would be required to leave the hearing early in the afternoon. He agreed that the R-178-78 Page Four Examiner and the city must weigh the merits and benefits to be derived in a zoning change, and stressed that the more impact that is created for the property owner the more benefit must be derived from the zoning. In this instance, he felt that R-3 zoning would allow a tremendous benefit to the developer. He briefly reviewed history of the original request for R-1 zoning in the area resulting in a change in the Comprehensive Plan following many months of Planning Commission and City Council meetings. He noted that in its review the City Council had agreed that the change was desirable and necessary due to assurance of proper land use of property, existing circulation pattern, traffic volume, and narrow access streets. Mr. McBeth pointed out that existing traffic patterns must remain as currently designed due to heavy volume, inability to widen narrow streets because of proximity to property lines, and existence of railroad trains blocking access. He noted that additional access would not be possible due to the creation of an increase of through traffic from the south into Renton Hill instead of providing access from the area for residents. He objected to statements contained in the legal brief relating to diminished property value in an R-1 zone, and stated that residential property is highly desirable and valuable in Renton Hill due to the nature of the neighborhood and existing city view. Mr. McBeth referred to the existence of subsidence in the parking area of the recently constructed 8-plex condominium on Cedar Avenue S. and noted that the potential for slides existed when the property was rezoned to R-3 in 1963. He explained that the City Council has the authority to change zoning when substantial change has occurred to warrant such action. He concluded his testimony by indicating support of Planning Commission and City Council recommendations during previous Comprehensive Plan hearings and also statements contained in Exhibit #1 that multi-family development would create tremendous problems for the Renton Hill community. The Examiner called a recess at 10:45 a.m. The meeting was reconvened at 11:05 a.m. The Examiner requested further testimony in support of the application. Responding was: Dennis Stremick 2532 Smithers Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Stremick, President, Victoria Park Homeowners' Association, indicated his support for proposed R-1 single family residential zoning in the Renton Hill area. He felt that the issue was of city-wide concern and indicated agreement with previous testimony relating to traffic problems, soils, and narrow access. Regarding increased school enrollment due to construction of 90 condominium units, Mr. Stremick felt that although district-wide capacities could accommodate additional enrollment, local schools could not, and noted that a high transient rate accompanies multi-family developments. The Examiner requested testimony in opposition to the request. Responding was: Jim Irwin 1000 Norton Building Seattle, WA 98104 Mr. Irwin, legal counsel for Transamerica Development Company, indicated that in addition to his own testimony, an appraiser and a traffic expert would provide information to support retention of the existing R-3 zoning of the subject property. He noted that the pending application was not a typical request from a landowner requesting a rezone to upgrade the use of his property, and that because the City of Renton had downzoned the property on the Comprehensive Plan, the burden of proof rests with the city to show that substantial changes have occurred since the previous rezone of the property to R-3 in 1963 prior to purchase of the site by Transamerica in 1965 to justify such action. Mr. Irwin referred to Exhibit #9, legal brief, page 7, which references a recent Supreme Court decision of Parkridge v. Seattle and read portions of the decision into the record. The decision concluded that consideration of the evidence in a rezone must be based upon: • 1) There is no presumption of validity favoring the action of the rezoning; 2) The proponents of the rezone have the burden of proof in demonstrating that conditions have substantially changed since the original zoning; and .3) The rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. The Examiner noted that the case was settled in January, 1978. Mr. Irwin stated that the action of the city would create inverse spot zoning, and noted a difference in calculation of the size of the property by Transamerica of 11.25 acres and the city of 10.05 acres. He advised that 1.07 acres is owned by Mrs. Mary Tyrrell and a small sliver on the east owned by Puget Western which total 12.1 acres according to city calculations. Mr. Irwin stated that R-3 zoned property to the north of the subject site which contains a recently constructed 8-plex condominium is not owned by Transamerica. He compared access on Mill Avenue S. which contains multi-family development and has been R-178-40 Page Five exempted from the Comprehensive Plan change to access on Cedar Avenue S. and felt that Mill Street access was more limited than access to the subject property on Cedar Avenue S.' He reported his opinion that elimination of !dill Avenue S. from the Comprehensive Plan change was arbitrary and.discriminatory and directed the proposed downzone at one landowner utilizing no reasonable basis for making a distinction. He reviewed zoning designations of R-3 and R-4 in surrounding areas to emphasize the compatibility of the R-3 zoning of the subject site, and requested a definition of the Renton Hill neighborhood from staff. Mr. Irwin discussed limited construction on Renton Hill since 1963 and again noted that the burden of proof that significant change in the area has occurred remains with the city. He felt that testimony previously entered was contrary to that fact, referencing comments relating to longevity of residents in the area. He noted that downzoning would substantially destroy the value of Transamerica_ property without just compensation and discussed sales values of R-3 zoned property at $25,000 per acre versus $4,000 per acre value of R-1 zoned property which would result in a $236,250 loss to the company. He requested that the substantial loss in value to Transamerica be weighed against the city's gain if the • proposed downzone were approved. Mr. Irwin reviewed history of acquisition of the property in 1965 subsequent to the rezone to R-3 in 1963 and noted that taxes in accordance to the existing zoning had been paid to date. To support his opinion that the property should remain_ as R-3 zoning to provide a buffer between the freeway and the residential property, Mr. Irwin submitted,a series of 28 slides which were subsequently shown. The slides, which were entered as Exhibit #16 by the Examiner, depicted topography on the site, adjacent 8-plex condominium, existing residences surrounding the subject property, multi- family developments located on Mill Avenue S. , and access streets of Mill Avenue S. and Cedar Avenue S. In summary, Mr. Irwin indicated that as evidenced by the slides, Exhibit #16, land use of the subject property was more compatible with multi-family development than single family residential development because of existing topography. He noted that high noise levels emanating from existing FAI-405 created a need for a buffer area from residential areas, and felt that construction of multi-family dwellings had exceeded single family construction since 1963. He noted that subsequent testimony relating to traffic counts by an expert traffic witness would correspond with previous traffic studies accomplished by the city to prove that Cedar Avenue S. was currently being utilized at 50% capacity. He referenced a previous poll taken of residents on Cedar Avenue S. to elicit opinions regarding restriction of parking on that street and reported that results indicated that opinion was divided equally and action to restrict parking had not occurred. He concluded that traffic volume resulting from construction of 90 additional units on Cedar Avenue S. would not increase traffic to the established capacity. Mr. Irwin submitted the following additional exhibits: Exhibit #17: Map of Tracts'21 and 22 of Transamerica Development Corporation Property Exhibit #18: Memorandum, dated April 21, 1976, from Bob Hammond, Traffic Engineering Division, regarding Cedar Avenue S. Parking Survey Exhibit #18 was read into the record by Mr. Irwin and reported results of the Cedar Avenue S. parking survey. He then deferred further comments to the traffic expert. Responding. was: Ahmed Jaddi Consulting Engineer, Milligan, Anderson, Jaddi Building C-10, Fisherman's Terminal Seattle, WA 98119 Mr. Jaddi was affirmed by the Examiner. He reported that a traffic study had been undertaken by his firm in November of 1977 on Cedar Avenue S. during morning and evening peak hours and that the resulting traffic. count coincided with traffic counts taken by the city in 1976. He advised that the capacity of Cedar Avenue S. is estimated to be approximately 1200 vehicles and reported the total 24-hour traffic count computed by the city is over 600 cars. He estimated that a proposed 90-unit development would increase the count by 450 vehicle trips per day, and added to the existing traffic generation would total less than capacity of the roadway. He reviewed five alternatives to improve traffic circulation in the area and submitted a traffic study, dated November, 1977, which encompassed these alternatives. The study, entitled, Traffic Study by Joseph J. Milligan & Associates, Inc. , was labeled Exhibit #19 by the Examiner. The alternatives were briefly described as follows: 1) Restrict parking on the east side of Cedar Avenue S. during peak hours of traffic; 2) No parking on both sides of Cedar Avenue S. between S. 3rd Street and S. 4th Street and no parking on east side south of S. 4th Street; 3) Traffic circulation to make Cedar Avenue S. one-way southbound and Renton Avenue S. one-way northbound between S.' 7th Street and S. 3rd Street; 4) No left turn at S. 7th Street intersection with Cedar Avenue S. for the'eastbound traffic from Cedar Crest Condominium complex; 5) Remove sidewalk along east side of Cedar Avenue S. thus widening the road width to 33.6 feet between S. .7th Street and S. 3rd Street. , Mr. Jaddi reported R-.„,.,-.78 Page Six that location of railroad tracks in other areas of the city restrict access ind is notaproblemthatisuniqueonlytotheRentonHillresidents. He suggested that in lieuofadownzone, the city restrict density and impose controls to assure proper development.He reported that a previous study by his firm to determine soils and geology capabilitieshadbeenhaltedduringCityCouncilactionregardingtheComprehensivePlan, but that nopotentialdangerhadbeendiscoveredduringpreliminaryreview. Referencing a slidecontainedinExhibit #5 presented by the Planning Department depicting collapse: of parking.surface of the 8-plex condominium construction, Mr. Jaddi reported that the deterioration was not due to geological problems but had occurred because landfill had not been properlycompacted. He reported the demand for middle income housing in the area and noted thatthesubjectpropertywouldcreateabufferfromthefreewaytoexistingresidentialareas. Responding was: Frank Raney Real Estate Appraiser 16625 Redmond Way, Suite 206 Redmond, WA 98052 Mr. Raney indicated that appraisals had been made of the subject property in both R-3 andR-1 categories. He outlined the review process utilized to attain a viable appraisalforthesubjectpropertyentailingcomparisonswithsimilarsalesofproperties. - Hecitedfoursuchsaleslocatedasfollows: 6.6 acre site located on the north side ofS.E. 176th in the 1500 block, 3 miles from the subject site, which sold for $25,888/acre,located on a major street with good accessibility, but more remotely located from thecenterofpopulationandnotassteepasthesubjectsite; 28 acre site located on the eastsideof140thinthe17600blockwhichsoldfor $50,000/acre, level parcel ready forimmediatedevelopment; 2.9 acre site located off Interstate 5 on 188th Street at the southentrancetoSea-Tac Airport which sold forr$43,000/acre, level site, good access and noiselevelsimilartothesubjectsite. From these comparable sales, Mr. Raney indicated thatanestimatedunitvaluehadbeenestablishedat $25,000/acre in R-3 zoning designationforthesubjectproperty. To establish sales value in an R-1 zone, he referenced foursalesofsimilarzoningintheimmediatepropertytotheeastandsouthwhichsoldfor4,000 to $6,000 per acre. He explained the difference in value between a developedsinglelotandundevelopedacreagepropertywhichrequiresexpendituresforroads, sewers,utilities and other improvements and can increase the original cost of the property fromthreetofourtimes. Mr. Raney noted.that although the city view from the subject propertyisexcellent, the topography would create difficulties and expense in construction offoundationsandsinglefamilyresidences, and he noted that the four other sites consideredinappraisalweremoredesirablebecauseoftheleveltopographyoftheproperties. Headvisedthatthesefactorswereconsidereduponestablishingapotentialsalespriceof4,000/acre for the subject property under R-1 zoning. Mr. Raney summarized the totalvalueofthe11.25 acre site as $281,250 under R-3 zoning and $45,000 under R-1 zoning.He submitted an updated copy containing more recent sales information of a previousappraisalreport, dated June 12, 1978, and the report was entered into the record by theExaminerasExhibit #20. Responding was: Bill Montagne Vice President, Transamerica Development Corporation 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Mr. Montagne reported maintaining ownership and paying taxes on the subject property for13yearsandindicatedthathiscompanyhadparticipatedinLID293during1976forCedarAvenueS. improvements. He reiterated previous comments relating to zoning at time ofpurchaseandalthoughherespectedthespiritofresidentsinthecommunity, he emphasizedthatthepositionofthecompanywasreasonableandacceptableandencouragedcarefulconsiderationbytheExaminerofinformationsubmittedduringthehearing. Responding was: John Albertson 155 N. 35th Seattle, WA 98103 Mr. Albertson indicated that he was representing Mrs. Mary Tyrrell, an owner of recordinthesubjectapplication, and requested Mr. Ericksen to designate the property locatedonthesoutheastportionofthetotalsiteonExhibit #4. He reported that Mrs. Tyrrell,who is 77 years old, had invested a substantial percentage of her inheritance in thepropertyin1973andobjectedtocondemnationofthevalueofherestatebytheproposeddownzonetoR-1 designation. Responding was: Mrs. Ray Hansen 336 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 R-178-78 Page Seven Mrs. Hansen objected to the proposed rezone as unjust and unfair to residents on Mill Avenue S. because depreciation of their property would occur and higher taxes had been paid for R-3 zoned property. She indicated that she. sympathized with problems incurred by residents located on Cedar Avenue S. and enjoyed her residency on Renton Hill. Mr. Irwin submitted a page from an environmental checklist routing review request, dated November 28, 1977, containing comments from James C. Hanson, Building Division, referring to requirements for extension of streets for either single or multi-family development in the area; and comments from D. A. Monaghan, Engineering Division, recommending Grant Avenue connection to Puget Drive be retained as an alternative means of access to Renton Hill. The Examiner entered the checklist into the record as Exhibit #21. The Examiner requested further testimony in opposition to the application. There was no response. He then opened the period of the hearing for cross-examination and rebuttal. Mr. Robert McBeth referred to Mr. Irwin's comparison of Mill Avenue S. and Cedar Avenue S. and indicated that Mill had been previously developed and established as a multi-family residential area, but opportunity for control of development was still available. on Cedar Avenue S. He objected to Mr. Irwin's comment that property surrounding the subject site on three sides is currently zoned R-3 and felt that property located west of the freeway has no relevance to the subject property because the freeway provides a natural barrier between zoning designations. He noted that property to the south is presently zoned R-3 and R-4 which provides sufficient multi-family development in the area and objected to further incursion of that use into single family residential areas on Renton Hill. Mr. McBeth referred to the opposition's comment that no substantial development has occurred in the neighborhood since 1963 and reported construction of 10 to 12 new homes as well as extensive remodeling to existing residences. He objected to calculations of depreciation of land value provided by Mr. Raney as well as utilization of dissimilar properties for comparison purposes, and reported sale prices of lots on Renton Hill of approximately 15,000 or more. Utilizing that average price, Mr. McBeth estimated that the subject property could be sold for $150,000 locating one house per acre or $300,000 if two single family residences were located on each acre of property. He expressed the opinion that the property was highly desirable for single family residential development because of excellent city views and quality of neighborhood. Mr. McBeth questioned the specific time of day the traffic study was conducted in November of 1977 and felt that existing access streets would not accommodate additional traffic because of narrow widths and steep grades. Summarizing his testimony, Mr. McBeth emphasized that significant change had occurred in the area since 1963, the burden on Transamerica resulting from the rezone was minimal, and he requested that the proposed R-1 zoning be recommended. The Examiner called a lunch recess at 12:10 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 1:35 p.m. The Examiner inquired if Mr. Ericksen had further comments at this time. Mr. Ericksen introduced additional evidence pertaining to building permit data contained in a letter to Gary Kruger, Planning Department, from Building Division, dated May 24, 1978, which was entered into the record as Exhibit #22 by the Examiner. He advised that although the letter contained building activity information for the years 1976 through 1978, further information dating back to 1963 could be obtained if requested. Referencing Exhibit #21, Mr. Ericksen advised that the excerpt containing departmental comments had been included in the environmental checklist for the Comprehensive Plan amendment, and he subsequently submitted the entire final environmental checklist form, dated December 2, 1977 as Exhibit #23. Mr. Ericksen also submitted a copy of the Comprehensive Planning Committee Report, dated October 12, 1977, which had been submitted to Planning Commission members prior to a final recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan revision. The report was labeled Exhibit 24 by the Examiner. He also submitted a copy of the final declaration of non-significance for the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the Renton Hill area, dated December 2, 1977, which was labeled Exhibit #25 by the Examiner. The Examiner requested further comments in rebuttal of previous testimony. Mrs. Keolker reiterated Mr. McBeth's comments relating to comparison of development on Mill Avenue S. and Cedar Avenue S. , and objected to Mr. Irwin's comments relating to utilization of property adjacent to the freeway as buffer area since residents had not requested or desired construction of the freeway. Regarding the matter of significant development on the hill, Mrs. Keolker designated on Exhibit #11 the number of homes which had been remodeled or constructed since 1963. She clarified that Exhibit #19 contained only data relating to Cedar Avenue S. and other streets such as S. 7th, S. 3rd and Renton Avenue S. are utilized as access on Renton Hill. Regarding the five alternatives for access discussed by Mr.. Jaddi, Mrs. Keolker objected to each as follows: parking could not be restricted on Cedar Avenue S. due to limited parking space for many residents and guests; Cedar Avenue S. limited to one-way southbound traffic and Renton Avenue S. limited to one- way northbound traffic would not be feasible during winter months because of steep grade on S. 7th Street. She submitted two photographs taken of S. 7th Street illustrating steep grade which were entered into the record by the Examiner as Exhibit #26. The grade of S. 7th Street would also preclude utilizing the alternative which suggests restricting R-17` B Page Eight left turn movements onto Cedar Avenue S. at S. 7th Street, she noted, and removal of sidewalks on the east side of Cedar Avenue S. would be opposed by residents because of recent assessment for LID to install sidewalks and improve streets and removal would create inconvenience and safety hazards. Mrs. Keolker reviewed previous comments regarding topography of the site and noted that development of single family residences had occurred on Mercer Island and the California coast in areas of similar topography. She felt that the sales price of the existing 8-plex condominiums was not affordable to purchasers of middle income bracket who are impacted by the housing shortage, and noted that the Comprehensive Plan had not existed in 1963 during the rezone to R-3 designation. Responding was: Mary Lou Gustine 910 High Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Gustine reported that she has been a real estate salesperson for nine years in the Renton Hill area, and although she agreed with Mr. Raney that sales prices for property are established by comparing sales within a three mile radius she objected to the choice of properties which were utilized for the comparison as being dissimilar. She reported that two lots in the Renton Hill area had recently sold for more than $20,000 which totaled the same price as representatives for Transamerica had testified would be received for its 11-acre site under R-1 zoning. She advised that the demand for single family residential lots on Renton Hill existed and expressed willingness to sell 44 building lotsof1/4 acre each for $528,000 more than the lots had been appraised by Transamerica. Responding to earlier comments regarding ownership by Transamerica of the existing 8-plex condominium recently constructed on Cedar Avenue S. , Mrs. Gustine reported that the same builder had signed an earnest money agreement for purchase and development of the subject property. Mr. Jim Breda urged the Examiner to obtain additional traffic counts and building activity statistics as suggested by Mr. Ericksen, and reiterated previous concerns regardingtrafficcongestionandaccess. He noted that the property owned by Mrs. Tyrrell contains less slope and more accessible access and inquired if her property had been included in the appraisal and requested an estimate of difference in value for R-1 and R-3 zoningdesignationofthatproperty. Responding was: Manley Grinolds 308 Cedar Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Grinolds advised that he is also the owner of properties located at 310 Cedar Avenue S. and 1223 S. 3rd Street. He discussed difficulty in access for residential and emergency vehicles because of location of railroad tracks and opposed additional traffic created by development of multi-family dwelling units. The Examiner asked Mr. Irwin and his associates to respond to previous inquiries relatingtotheapplication. Responding to the question regarding inclusion of the Tyrrell propertyintheappraisal, Mr. Raney reported that only the property owned by Transamerica had been included in the appraisal. Before inquiring regarding specific proposals for development of the subject property, the Examiner advised that since the subject of the hearing was review of a rezone, consideration of specific development was not required but the option for discussion was open to the property owner. Mr. Irwin deferred the inquirytoMr. Montagne who indicated that no specific plan had been determined and sale of the land had not occurred to date. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding specific hours during which the traffic count was taken in 1977, Mr. Jaddi reported that a traffic count totaling 49 trips was taken between 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. on November 11, 1977 and a count totaling 27 trips was taken between 7:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. on November 12, 1977. Mr. Irwin requested clarification of testimony given by Mr. Ericksen regarding review of Exhibit #22, Renton Hill Building Permit Data. Mr. Ericksen indicated that all building activity, including remodeling and additions, had been reported and grouped as new residential construction. Mr. Irwin then made the following inquiries: location of each construction denoted on Exhibit #22 in relationship to the subject property; whether review was made of building permits on the property to the north in relationship to Mill Avenue S. or to the south or west of the subject site; if additional building activity review occurred of other areas than Renton Hill; date of construction of a large apartment complex on Mill Avenue S. ; if the city conducted a counter traffic study on Cedar Avenue S. during peak hours and results of that study if conducted; if property owners on Mill Avenue S. could obtain a building permit for multi-family construction or if an existing single family residence could be removed and multi-family dwelling constructed in its place; if consideration had been given for the need for multi-family development in the area or other comparable R-178-78 Page Nine Renton areas; and the city's definition of the neighborhood and if consideration of surrounding property had been given in addition to Renton Hill area as part of the neighborhood. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding Mr. Irwin's comment relating to building activity on Renton Hill, Mr. Ericksen indicated that the information is available from the Building Division of the Public Works Department. Regarding the original adoption date of the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Ericksen recalled adoption in the spring of 1965 but the exact date would be researched. Regarding zoning of the property prior to 1963, Mr. Ericksen reviewed various zoning categories previously established for properties contained in the application by Puget Properties, Inc. during the 1963 rezone action by the Planning Commission and indicated that the specific information would be subsequently obtained. The Examiner inquired if city staff had obtained traffic counts on Cedar Avenue S. Mr. Ericksen indicated that an updated traffic study was published on February 22, 1978, and although it did not contain counts for Cedar Avenue S. , traffic statistics for Mill Avenue S. , S. 3rd Street, and Renton Avenue S. were included. The traffic study was labeled Exhibit #27 by the Examiner. The Examiner asked if multi-family residences could be constructed if existing homes were . removed on Mill Avenue S. Mr. Ericksen reported the feasibility of construction if compliance with the existing Comprehensive Plan and various other city ordinances and requirements occurred. The Examiner inquired if consideration was given in the staff review of the need for multi-family development in the area and existing vacancy rates of other multi-family complexes. Mr. Kruger advised that according to a vacancy survey conducted during March, 1978, the vacancy rate was less than 1%. Mr. Ericksen clarified that the vacancy rate on Renton Hill was .8% and although the apartments on Mill Avenue . S. had been included in the survey, the newly constructed 8-plex which is vacant had not been included in the review to his knowledge. Mr. Kruger noted that during a recent population survey of a 15 square mile area, the vacancy rate for single family residential housing was approximately 2% but this information had not been included in the staff report, Exhibit #1, because of availability of undeveloped property in the area. The Examiner inquired if development on Renton Hill had been compared to other areas of the city. Mr. Ericksen indicated that although such a comparison study was not conducted, he felt that all residential areas in the city were developing at a comparable rate. The Examiner asked for the definition of the neighborhood utilized by the Planning Department during review of the Renton Hill area. Mr. Ericksen reported that the definition was based upon the service area of Earlington Elementary School site east of Philip Arnold Park acquired in 1963. . Other factors such as location of the freeway, hillside areas and existence of restricted access define the Renton Hill area as a neighborhood, he stated. He referenced the Comprehensive Plan, Community Facilities Plan, which describes the Renton Hill neighborhood as well as the adjacent neighborhoods of Rolling Hills and Thunderhill. The Examiner asked Mr. Irwin for additional comments. Mr. Irwin submitted additional photographs of property located on Mill Avenue S. and Cedar Avenue S. which were labeled Exhibit #28 by the Examiner. Mr. Irwin stated that according to law the City of Renton has the burden of proof to show a substantial change in the neighborhood and that a rezone is in the public interest. He felt that insufficient evidence exists to prove that fact for the period between 1963 and 1978 with regard to new construction comparing the Renton Hill area to other surrounding areas of the city. He referred to Mr. Raney's credentials as an M.A.I. appraiser in noting that testimony refuting his appraisals had not been substantiated, and entered a document designating Mr. Raney's qualifications into the record. The document was entered as Exhibit #29 by the Examiner. Mr. Irwin questioned the reason the zoning designation of the subject property had not been protested in 1963, and inquired if undeveloped areas existed on property adjoining Cedar Avenue S. for parking purposes. Mr. Ericksen indicated the existence of certain undeveloped areas consisting of alleyways and access roads located throughout the community between High Avenue S. and Grant Avenue S. and also between S. 7th Street and S. 9th Street, .but that only a 30-foot right-of-way located at S. llth Street existed directly adjacent to the subject property. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding the normal width of an alley, Mr. Ericksen advised the width to be from 10 to 16 feet. Mr. Ericksen corrected a statement made by Transamerica representatives that the company had been singled out individually during the rezone proceedings. He explained that three separate ownerships are involved in the subject hearing, and that although the original intent'of the Planning Department had been to review the entire Renton Hill area simultaneously, an agreement had been reached by attorneys for the city and property owners that separate rezone hearings would be conducted by the Hearing Examiner. He noted that an area-wide rezoning action would be required to be referred back to the Planning Commission, which had already recommended the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan regarding the area. Mr. Ericksen clarified previous comments relating to data pertaining to new construction versus remodeled dwelling units and noted that the building activity had not been segregated since it all related to substantial upgrading of the neighborhood. He reported that further data would be supplied if requested by the Examiner. He concurred with Mr: Irwin's statement regarding the nature of the area today compared to 1963 and that review of R-178-78 Page Ten Planning Commission minutes of September, 1963, indicated very little consideration had been given to extensive proposals and large tracts of property of which the subject property was a small part. Mr. Larry Warren, City Attorney, reiterated Mr. Ericksen's explanation of rezone hearing procedures in response to comments relating to spot zoning and discrimination to one property owner. He noted that public hearings for properties in question had been divided into manageable portions not only for the benefit of the Planning Department research, but because of lengthy transcripts which may be submitted to Superior Court since the decision on the Comprehensive Plan amendment was currently in litigation. He also advised that to avoid jurisdictional problems within the city which requires all area-wide zoning matters to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, properties had been separated for hearing by the Hearing Examiner to comply with city ordinance requirements. Referencing Section P.3 of Exhibit #1, Mr. Ericksen advised that the subject property had been rezoned in 1963 prior to adoption of a Comprehensive Plan, and that goals and objectives of that plan provide effective controls to prevent blight by protecting residents from unwarranted infiltration of incompatible uses. Since Renton Hill is predominantly single family residential use, he noted, high density development would create incompatible zoning and land uses in that area. Mrs. Keolker reported that traffic counts contained in Exhibit #10 including a count accomplished in June, 1977 on Cedar Avenue S. were obtained from the Traffic Engineering Division. She also requested that the Examiner allow submittal of additional rebuttal material from Mr. McBeth since he was unable to remain in attendance and wished to respond to legal brief, Exhibit #9, submitted by Transamerica. Referring to discussion regardingdevelopmentofalleyways, Mrs. Keolker indicated that such alternatives had been rejected by residents because of creation of disturbance by traffic and parking and substantial reduction of lot size necessary to increase width of alleyway. She emphasized the need for additional single family lots on Renton Hill and supported Mrs. Gustine's testimony regarding real estate values in the area. Mrs. Keolker concluded her testimony by suggesting that as an alternative the property be dedicated as a city park. The Examiner requested clarification of potential density on the subject property in the R-1 and R-3 zoning categories. Mr. Ericksen indicated that topography was of prime importance in determining density on the subject site, and although in an R-1 zone approximately five units per acre could be allowed, the topography could limit density to 3.5 units on this site. He advised that in the R-3 zone, the zoning ordinances allows 30 units per acre, but attaining that density would not be feasible because of requirements for parking, access and open space area which would reduce the approximate density to 14 units per acre on a site of average slope. He noted that the existence of steep slopes on the subject property would further reduce potential maximum density to 6 or 7 units per acre. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding construction date of FAI-405, Mr. Ericksen estimated that construction was commenced in 1963 and completed in 1966 or 1967 although he indicated the matter would be researched. The Examiner inquired if records were available to substantiate the status of the Renton Hill community in 1963 regarding existing characteristics, traffic volume and access. Mr. Ericksen indicated that an aerial photograph taken in 1963 was on display in the Renton Municipal Building which may be compared with recent aerial photographs of the area. The Examiner referred to a 99-year easement use permit issued to Transamerica by Puget Sound Power and Light Company, and inquired if the document included rights of access. Mr. Irwin read portions of the permit pertaining to permitted use into the record, but reported that the document was signed only by Puget Sound Power & Light Company and evidence of legal recording was not established. The Examiner inquired if Transamerica had reviewed the rights of use of the easement for provision of alternate access to the site to the south. Mr. Irwin was uncertain if review had occurred but felt it would be a matter which would be reviewed during sale of the property. The Examiner asked the Planning Department to clarify its intent of conclusions regarding sound levels in the area. He inquired if data indicated that only single family development or only multi-family development would be appropriate adjacent to the freeway or neither of the two alternatives. Mr. Kruger explained maximum noise levels allowed to prevent hearing loss and provide appropriate sleeping conditions, and reviewed requirements for specific design and construction methods to minimize noise from the freeway. He advised that because of the high level of noise, it had been determined that single family' residences could be designed more effectively to buffer noise and that impact to fewer residents would occur under this zoning designation. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding drainage problems, Mr. Ericksen referred to slides, Exhibit #5, which illustrated existing drainage problems in the area, and deferred the question to Mr. Kruger. Mr. Kruger reported that comparison of soils data and research of existing geological mines with the U.S. Geological Survey showed that although the soils were stable when not located on a steep slope, other factors such as 30% slope, mined-out coal beds and stability of foundations resulted in a recommendation R-178-78 Page Eleven for on-site soils and geology investigations to be conducted to determine whether the site is safe to develop; and if determination occurs that it is developable, recommendations for development procedures should be obtained also. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry, Mr. Kruger reported that test drilling could occur during environmental review of the specific development or during the building permit process. The Examiner advised that because acquisition of pertinent information was necessary from various city departments regarding questions relating to building permit activity since 1963 and traffic circulation, and also because of Mr., MeBeth's request for an opportunity to respond to Exhibit #9, he proposed continuance of the public hearing for one week. He asked for response from parties of record to his proposal. Mr. Irwin indicated his objection to the continuance. Mrs. Keolker also indicated her objection to the limited notice and ability of residents to attend a meeting held during the day. She requested that the subsequent continuance be scheduled in the evening. The Examiner explained that a spokesperson should be in attendance to relay the testimony of residents who are unable to attend and emphasized that testimony should be relevant and entered into the record only once. The Examiner asked for further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on File No. R-178-78 was continued to Tuesday, June 20, 1978 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of . the Renton Municipal Building. CONTINUED HEARING: The continued hearing regarding File No. R-178-78, City of Renton, was opened on June 20, 1978 at 9:10. a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The Examiner entered and read the following exhibits received in response to written inquiries for information. resulting from testimony at the previous hearing: Exhibit #30: Letter to Hearing Examiner from Planning Director, dated June 15, 1978, regarding date of R-3 zoning of subject property. Exhibit #31: Letter to Hearing Examiner from Building Division, dated June 16, 1978, regarding building activity on Renton Hill from 1963 to 1978. Exhibit #30 reported that the subject property was zoned GS-1 prior to October, 1963 when it was rezoned R-3; and Exhibit #31 contained building permit statistics for the Renton Hill area by year from 1963 until 1978 and listed building permits issued for a total of 22 new residences, 3 apartments, and 69 additions, remodels and garages. The Examiner asked Mr. Ericksen, Planning Director, for additional comments. Mr. Ericksen submitted a map designating the Renton Hill area by block and tabulated building activity which had occurred from 1962 through 1978 in each block. The map was labeled Exhibit #32 by the Examiner. Mr. Ericksen reported that information had been compiled by comparing aerial photographs taken in August, 1962 and March, 1978, not from building permit data, and the map notes changes which have occurred specifically at the southerly end of the area adjacent to the subject property. Mr. Ericksen entered and displayed two slides which compare aerial photographs taken in August, 1962 and March, 1978 of the Renton Hill area and designate significant changes occurring from construction of the freeway, apartment development and residential structures. The slides were entered into the record as Exhibit #33 by the Examiner. Mr. Ericksen also indicated that 1978 assessed values of the subject properties had been researched and he presented the following information regarding five tax lots comprising the subject request: Tax Lot 85 of 5.37 acres, owned by Transamerica, assessed at $21,400; Tax Lot 194 of 1.54 acres, owned by Transamerica, assessed at $7,100; Tax Lot 196 of 3.22 acres, owned ,by Transamerica, assessed at $16,100; Tax Lot 191 of 1.15 acres, owned by Mary Tyrrell, assessed at $28,800; and Tax Lot 195 of .81 acres, owned by Puget Western, Inc. , assessed at $2,000. Mr. Ericksen noted that the 1978 King County Assessor's Map contains a slightly increased tabulation for the property owned by Transamerica of 10.13 acres, but the acreage reported by representatives for Transamerica was 11.25 acres. Referring to previous testimony regarding land value and possibility of development of the subject property, Mr. Ericksen advised that the Planning Department had received a request for a tentative Planned Unit Development for single family and townhouse development on the Transamerica property from agent, Gene 0. Farrell, and he entered a drawing, dated April 28, 1978, labeled Cedar Crest P.U.D. The tentative Cedar Crest P.U.D. was entered into the record as Exhibit #34 by the Examiner. I R-178-78 Page Twelve Mr. Ericksen reviewed the request for townhouse development on the lower portion of the property at the south end of Cedar Avenue S. Mr. James Irwin objected to introduction of the exhibit and subsequent discussion on the basis that the property had not been sold to date, and discussion was not related to the proposed rezone. The Examiner recognized Mr. Irwin's objection since the property has not yet been sold and Transamerica is not a party to the transaction, but indicated that the tentative request would be accepted into the record although detailed discussion would not occur. He then asked Mr. Larry Warren, City Attorney, for a legal opinion regarding submittal of the tentative P.U.D. Mr. Warren advised that the exhibit was admissible if the purpose of introduction was to rebut prior testimony regarding potential use of the property. The Examiner asked Mr. Ericksen to clarify the intent of submittal of the exhibit. Mr. Ericksen confirmed the submittal of the request for rebuttal purposes. He explained that according to the signed and notarized affidavit, dated April 28, 1978, included with the proposed application, Gene 0. Farrell is indicated as agent for Transamerica Development Corporation although he could not verify the validity of the affidavit. He also submitted a letter addressed to Mr. .William Graham, consultant on the project, from the Planning Department, dated June 8, 1978, which contained comments from various municipal departments regarding the P.U.D. proposal. The letter was labeled as Exhibit #35 by the Examiner. Mr. Ericksen submitted an additional letter addressed to. Mr. Graham from the Planning Department, dated June 19, 1978, which contained comments relating to a meeting held with Mr. Graham and representatives of city staff on June 14, 1978, and noted acceptance of the Cedar Crest P.U.D. tentative plan subject to certain conditions. The letter was labeled Exhibit #36 by the Examiner. Mr. Irwin expressed a continuing objection to introduction and discussion of the Cedar Crest P.U.D. The Examiner advised that the matter could be addressed during Mr. Irwin's period of cross examination and rebuttal of testimony. The Examiner reported receipt of a letter from the Traffic Engineering Division, dated June 20, 1978, which he read into the record. The letter was labeled Exhibit #37 and contained responses to written inquiries from the Examiner resulting from the testimony at the public hearing of June 13, 1978. The Examiner requested testimony from Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director, regarding information contained in Exhibit #37. Mr. Gonnason was subsequently affirmed by the Examiner. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry, Mr. Gonnason reported that he had not received or reviewed Exhibit #37 although he would respond to inquiries regarding traffic volume and emergency vehicle access to Renton Hill. He reviewed the original comprehensive circulation plans for connection of access to the south to be accomplished as scheduled in the Six-Year Street Program in 1973-1974, but he reported that as a result of protests by property owners in the area, those elements of the program were subsequently deleted. He advised that an arterial plan for provision of circulation in the area of Renton Hill or access to the south via Grant Avenue no longer exists and limits emergency access to a single signalized controlled intersection containing a railroad crossing. Referencing Section P.9 of Exhibit #1, statements regarding potential hazard of grade of access streets in the area not normally found in a residential development, Mr. Gonnason noted that while streets in the Renton Hill area are fairly steep, similar street grades are not uncommon in the Puget Sound area and are difficult to avoid in development. He indicated that because of the narrow width of Cedar Avenue S. of 27 feet from curb to curb consisting of two parking lanes and one traveling lane, it would be necessary to provide a reasonable level of service if an additional 100 units were constructed by restricting parking on one side of Cedar Avenue S. to allow two lanes of traffic. He noted that from an interior circulation standpoint, such revision would provide an adequate capacity of that street. Mr. Gonnason reviewed the limited access from Renton Hill and suggested that adequate access to high density developments could be provided to the south to Eagle , Ridge Drive and Benson Road. He noted that Section P.9 of Exhibit #1 refers to the Streets and Arterials Plan and advised that although no streets in the area are currently iesignated as arterials, if there is a desire in the future to develop an arterial system n the area a compromise would be necessary to provide access service to abutting property owners and through traffic which should be designed to function effectively and yet not interfere with the existing residential neighborhood. Mr. Gonnason reviewed anticipated trip generation from an additional 100-unit development which he felt could be accommodated by Cedar Avenue S. in its existing condition although he noted that certain inconveniences and delays may occur. The Examiner called a recess at 10:10 a.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:35 a.m. Mr. onnason indicated that he had reviewed Exhibit #37 during the recess and felt that information contained in the letter represents an accurate account of the street capacity 4nd access problems in the Renton Hill area. Prior to Mr. Morgan's testimony regarding he letter Mr. Gonnason advised that as a result of meetings held to review possible aulti-family development on Renton Hill the Public Works Department had recommended that in environmental impact statement be required for any future development prior to issuance yf a building permit because of the probability of adverse impact of increased traffic ipon the area. R-178-78 Page Thirteen Phe Examiner requested testimony from Clint Morgan, Traffic Engineering Division, who was Subsequently affirmed. The Examiner referred to Exhibit #37, memorandum regarding traffic apacities and volumes on Renton Hill and requested clarification of certain terms and principles. Mr. Morgan reviewed the divisional analysis and reported that the traffic signalized intersection of S. 3rd Street at Mill and Houser Way could absorb an increase pf 36% and the anticipated increase generated by the proposed R-3 development would be approximately 18.5%. However, he noted that the increase would not be desirable because pf the minimum distance between traffic signals in that location for waiting vehicles and the division would prefer not to revise the signalization of these intersections. He listed the 24-hour traffic volume counts for Cedar Avenue S. , south of S. 3rd Street (511) ; Renton Avenue S. , south of S. 3rd Street (1,182) ; and Grant Avenue S. , south of S. 7th Street (171) ; and noted that although the streets can absorb increased traffic volumes it would increase the strain on the community and produce undesirable effects in traffic flow. He reported a critical situation on Cedar Avenue S. which contains parking provisions on both sides f the street resulting in an 11-foot wide space for access lane, and noted that although the streets could absorb an increase of 900 to 1,000 vehicles, an increase above that amount would necessitate restriction of parking on one side to allow a free flow of traffic. He reported tabulations of potential trip generation in R-1 zoning of 425 vehicles per day which would not necessitate restriction of parking on Cedar Avenue S. but would create undesirable restricted flow of traffic. The Examiner inquired if proposed densities of the tentative Cedar Crest P.U.D. had been utilized to compute trip estimates. Mr. Morgan indicated that the proposed P.U.D. had been utilized. In response to one of the Examiner's inquiries contained in Exhibit #37, he advised that records containing traffic capacities and volumes in 1963 are not available. Reviewing alternative access routes to the subject properties which had been studied in the past, Mr. Morgan discussed proposals for a straight connection between the two existing Grant Avenues, connection between Renton Avenue and Eagle Ridge Drive, connection between Cedar Avenue S. and Benson Road S. , and connection from Mill Avenue S. passing underneath the freeway, FAI-405, to S. 4th Street. He indicated that the proposed connection between the two existing Grant Avenues had been determined the most desirable during citizen committee meetings held in 1972. Responding to an inquiry regarding proposed density figures from Mr. Irwin, Mr. Morgan reviewed the computation method utilized to arrive at the projected trip generation figure of 1350 per day within full development of 245 units in the R-3 zone, and development of 53 units in the R-1 zone. the Examiner requested testimony from Mr. Robert McBeth, legal counsel for Renton Hill Community Association. Mr. McBeth submitted a legal brief from the community association in response to Exhibit #9, legal brief submitted during June 13, 1978 public hearing by Transamerica Development Corporation. The legal brief was labeled Exhibit #38 by the Examiner. Mr. McBeth advised that the brief contained different interpretations of previous Supreme Court decisions than had been determined by Transamerica as well as reporting factors that should be taken into consideration in weighing the competing interests of the general public and the property owner. He indicated that the determining factor of review is to establish whether substantial change has occurred since 1963 to warrant a revision in the zoning code, and expressed his opinion that changes and ircumstances had occurred to revise the existing zoning in the Renton Hill neighborhood co single family residential. He objected to inclusion of R-4 zoned property to the south and property across the freeway in review of zoning areas by Mr. Irwin and defined the Renton Hill neighborhood as separate from Rolling Hills, Victoria Park and other individual neighborhoods to the south established since 1963. Mr. McBeth reported that the change in development attitude and community sense was the most significant change in the area since 1963, and noted that the rezone in 1963 had been unopposed and occurred prior to adoption of a Comprehensive Plan. He indicated that building activity statistics contained in Exhibit #31 illustrate a tremendous upgrading of the neighborhood and demonstrate pride f ownership and sense of community. He also reported that traffic studies and aerial hotographs had provided indication of significant change. Referencing Exhibit #19 ontaining traffic count data compiled by representatives for Transamerica, Mr. McBeth toted that the count had been taken on November 11, 1977 which had been a legal holiday, eterans' Day, and could not be considered a valid indication of traffic volume in the rea. He objected to proposals to extend existing access streets on Renton Hill since Lopulation to the south had increased substantially in recent years and would generate rare traffic through Renton Hill than had occurred when the pipeline road was temporarily pened in 1972 and create many hardships and problems to the residents. ir. McBeth objected to proposals to restrict parking on one side of Cedar Avenue S. , toting creation of inconvenience to residents because of lack of space for all residential ehicles; objected to unknown factors of density and eventual dense multi-family development f the subject property; and objected to increased traffic due to statements made during he hearing that such increase would be undesirable. He felt that spot zoning was not ccurring because the Renton Hill area as a general district had been included in the omprehensive Plan amendment to revise zoning in that specific neighborhood. He objected o Transamerica's statement that the property was being devalued since property taxes had Lot been high and single family residential use of the property would be profitable. J A'• R-178-78 Page Fourteen The Examiner requested further rebuttal testimony in support of the application. Mrs. Ruth Larson reported that during 1972 when the pipeline road was open, an increase of traffic of 41% had occurred and noted that extension of access at this time would create traffic counts substantially higher at a rate of 41% increase even if additional residential units were not constructed. Referencing discussion of emergency vehicle access, Mrs. Larson reported that the City of Renton has a mutual aid agreement with Fire District 40 in Spring Glen during periods when trains block the access road to Renton Hill. She advised that in addition to personnel at Fire District 40, the Renton Fire Department, Renton Police Department and Renton Street Department personnel possess keys to the gate at the pipeline road and can gain entry for emergency purposes. The Examiner requested verification of the mutual aid agreement from Mr. Warren, who confirmed Mrs. Larson's statement. 0 Mrs. Kathy Keolker reported a significant change of attitude and political awareness by Renton Hill residents since 1963, and reviewed other changes as follows: construction of FAI-405; extensive remodeling involving more than one-third of all properties; change in population to provide younger, more active community; additional children; change in boundaries of the neighborhood and occurrence of massive development; increased value of properties as a result of the city view and neighborhood qualities; utilization of Philip Arnold Park by the entire community; and closure of 4th Avenue S. upon construction of FAI-405. She indicated that in 1963 the older community was expected to deteriorate in value, desirability and quality of homes, and zoning had been established with expectation of multi-family development. However, she noted, because of a reversal of that trend, a resurgence of pride has created a change in the community. She objected to traffic counts accomplished by Transamerica because of the choice of location since Cedar Avenue S. is not utilized by all vehicles, and time of day because peak hours for traffic in a residential area are much earlier than 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. In reporting a change in the neighborhood, Mrs. Keolker referred to Exhibit #24, Comprehensive Planning Committee Report to the Planning Commission, dated October 12, 1977, and read Finding No. 3 which notes that while the area has been in a state of transition, with increased land values, the physical amenities of the hill area such as view, makes the area highly desirable for residential development. She reported that during the LID on Cedar Avenue S. , residents were promised that parking on both sides of the street would be allowed and it was anticipated that the street would be widened to provide easier access. However, she noted, because of city requirements for sidewalk width, all sidewalks were replaced with 6-foot wide sidewalks which reduced the width of the street to a substandard 261 feet and created residential concern regarding additional traffic volume. She referred again to Exhibit #24 and read a section relating to circulation which indicated that extensive input on the part of the residents in the hill area indicates the desire to continue the limited access to the hill as it is presently constituted to enhance the amenities of the hill as a residential community and preclude through access. Mrs. Keolker also referred to previous City Council action deleting the Grant Avenue S. connection proposal from the Six-Year Street Program, noting that residents to the south are also opposed to such connection which would create problems significantly more severe than existed during the opening of the pipeline road in 1972. The Examiner requested further rebuttal tesimony in support of the application. Responding was: John Giuliani 1400 S. 7th Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Giuliani was affirmed by the Examiner. He reiterated previous testimony relating to limited access and traffic volume on Renton Hill, and noted severe problems incurred by location of railroad tracks blocking three major access roads from the area. He stressed that expert testimony had not provided alternatives to solve the problems which already exist and would increase with additional development or extended access to the south. The Examiner requested rebuttal testimony from Mr. James Irwin, representing Transamerica Development Corporation. Mr. Irwin submitted the following additional exhibits into the record which were labeled by the Examiner: Exhibit #39: Aerial Photograph of the Renton Hill area, taken April 12, 1977 by Walker & Associates, Inc. Exhibit #40: Aerial Photograph of the Renton Hill area, taken July 27, 1964 by Walker & Associates, Inc. The exhibits were displayed and reviewed by Mr. Irwin who requested his associate, Mr. David H. Binney, to designate the subject property on each photograph as well as the existing apartment complex on Mill Avenue S. as a point of reference. Mr. Binney noted the location of the recently constructed 8-plex condominium development on Cedar Avenue S. on Exhibit #39 and Mr. Irwin concluded that because of the similarity of the two photographs significant change was :lot evident to the viewer. He then entered,the following additional R-178- 78 Page Fifteen exhibits which were labeled by the Examiner: Exhibit #41: Aerial Photograph of the subject property and adjacent areas to the south,,dated April 12, 1977, 1-1500 scale. Exhibit #42: Aerial Photograph of the subject property and adjacent areas to the south, dated July 27, 1964, 1-1000 scale. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry, Mr. Irwin indicated that the exhibits encompassed a broader area than is designated on Exhibits #39 and #40. Mr. Irwin requested Mr. Binney to circle developments which had occurred to the south of the subject propertysince1964, to illustrate significant change which had occurred in other areas of the city.Mr. Irwin then entered a document which contains information from the Polk Directory from1963to1977forresidencesonMillAvenueS. , Cedar Avenue S. , and Renton Avenue S. The document was labeled Exhibit #43 by the Examiner. Mr. Irwin reviewed information contained in the directory noting decreases from 24 addresses on Mill Avenue S in 1963 to 20 in 1977; and decrease from 61 addresses on Cedar Avenue S. in 1963 to 55 in 1977. He also reported that certain addresses are listed as 1/2 indicating additional living units within the residence, and he felt the document evidenced that significant change had not occurred on Renton Hill since 1963. He referred to testimony reporting population figures totaling 650 to 675 residents on the hill and computed a percentage of increase adding 22 new residences as approximately 3.5% from 1963 to 1978, which he felt was not substantial compared to development in King County or to the south of the subject property. Mr. Irwin computed percentages of increase in relationship to additions or remodeling, although he felt the evidence was not clear regarding the nature of the improvements, which totaled approximately 11.5% and he felt that this increase did not indicate significant change in the area. He pointed out similaries in aerial photographs, Exhibits 39 and #40, and clarified Mr. Ericksen's review of Exhibit #32, noting Block No. 15 joins Puget Western, Inc. property and not Transamerica property. Referring to comparisons of aerial photographs and computations of increased building activity, Mr. Irwin maintained that the city had not met the burden of proof in showing that substantial change had occurred in the area. Mr. Irwin referenced Exhibit #6, excerpt from Renton Planning Commission minutes of September 25, 1963, and read a portion referring to a letter from Puget Properties, Inc. regarding the deletion of. certain areas designated for public use which included school sites no. 1 and 2, reservoir site no. 1 and a portion of the reservoir site and portion of proposed Benson Highway relocation area. He felt that the dedication of these public use areas was beneficial to the city and residents of the area and was met with public approval. He reviewed history of the purchase of the property in 1965 by Transamerica at $15,000 per acre in R-3 zoning and indicated that although a proposed sale of a portion of the property to Mr. Farrell had been discussed during the time of City Council public hearings on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, sale of the property had not occurred, and he felt introduction of Mr. Farrell's tentative plan was extremely prejudicial to the rezone hearing which should pertain only to the proposed downzone of the subject property. Mr. Irwin commented that because of existing terrain and situation of the site between the existing freeway and single family residential areas, use of the subject property for clustered, multiple family development and not single family is appropriate and desirable with limited density of approximately 90 units. He felt that traffic studies provided by Mr. Jaddi and the city were consistent and that existing traffic problems can be solved since it had been reported that capacities of Cedar Avenue S. would not be exceeded by addition of a proposed 90-unit development. He reviewed solutions to problems consisting of restricted parking and improved alleyways, but noted residential Dbjection to each suggestion and lack of concern that an 84% reduction in the value of rransamerica's property would occur if the downzone were approved. He indicated that testimony from Mr. Frank Raney, an M.A.I. appraiser, regarding value of the property under two separate zoning designations had not been refuted by representatives of similar background although much speculation regarding value of the property had occurred during the public hearing. Referencing the Parkridge v. Seattle case, he stated that Mr. .McBeth's testimony illustrated that a change of attitude had occurred in the Renton Hill neighborhood but not a physical or structural change, and he read a portion from page 461 of that Supreme ourt decision which referred to a contention that a significant change in attitude ias occurred in the surrounding neighborhood since previous zoning to RM 800 in 1959. He toted that while the court commended the residents for a changed attitude and strong ommunity spirit, it could not be found that the original rezone of these lots in 1959 Jas invalid at the time it was made. Mr. Irwin indicated that although he was aware the Aubject rezone request encompassed only three parcels of property of 12.1 acres, he felt hat the city was initiating spot zoning because the subject site was the only property n the general area for which the City Council was proposing a rezone and Mill Avenue S. sad been eliminated from the proposed downzone. R-178-78 Page Sixteen Mr. Irwin clarified an earlier reference to a 99-year use permit provided by Puget Sound Power & Light Company for easement rights, which was entered into the record as Exhibit #44 by the Examiner. He noted that the permit contracted limited use rights between Transamerica Development Corporation and Puget Sound Power & Light Company to be reassigned upon sale of the property. He advised that Exhibit #44 had not been recorded because transaction between Mr. Farrell and Transamerica had not occurred. Mr. Irwin referrec to a discrepancy noted by Mr. Ericksen on Exhibit #7'regarding size of the subject property, and reported that the property had been represented as consisting of 11.25 acres at the time of sale to Transamerica and the city had acquired its information from the King County Assessor's Map. The Examiner requested further rebuttal testimony in opposition to the request. Mr. Ahmed Jaddi, traffic consultant, reiterated previous comments relating to consistency of traffic studies accomplished by Transamerica and city staff. He reviewed traffic count figures and noted a traffic count reduction on Cedar Avenue S. from 691 in 1977 to 511 in 1978. He corrected traffic generation estimates provided by the Traffic Engineering Division testimony utilizing a density figure of 245 units, noting that the property would be developed. at a density of 6 to 7 units per acre which would result in an increase of 450 vehicle trips per day. Mr. Jaddi advised that testimony regarding the city's mutual aid agreement for emergency vehicle support eliminated that problem with railroad tracks and he reported that the traffic volume at Bronson Way and Sunset Boulevard where railroad tracks are also located as 10 times higher than at the subject intersection. He suggested restricting 7th Avenue to one-way southbound traffic to solve access problems on the hill. Mr. Jaddi concluded his testimony by reporting a typographical error in Exhibit #19, Traffic Study, and dates of traffic counts should be revised from November 11 & 12, 1977 to November 15 & 16, 1977. He submitted handwritten copies verifying the original date of the study. The Examiner indicated that corrections would be made to Exhibit #19. Mrs. Keolker corrected Mr. Irwin's percentage computations in utilizing existing number of residents and adding number of new constructions since an average of 3 to 6 people reside in each household and felt the comparisons were invalid. She also indicated that although building permit figures show that over one-third of the 280 homes on the hill have been remodeled, other remodeling has occurred without application for a permit and the statistics for building activity may be much higher. Referring to testimony regarding 90 units as being maximum proposed density on the site, Mrs. Keolker recalled a City Council meeting during which Mr. Farrell had stated that 180 units would be constructed on the subject property. She questioned the validity of the 1977 parking restriction survey taken on Cedar Avenue S. which resulted in an equally divided consensus, due to the fact that many residents had not been contacted, and concluded her testimony by stating that traffic congestion on Cedar Avenue S. occurs with only two cars attempting to pass in opposite directions. Mr. McBeth read a paragraph from the Parkridge v. Seattle Supreme Court case, page 462, in which the court states that they agree that the current views of the community urging rezone to single family use may be given substantial weight in matters of this nature, but they cannot be controlling absent compelling reasons requiring a rezone for the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. Mr. McBeth emphasized that community attitudes count for one factor to be taken into consideration and he urged the Examiner to review those supporting facts in the record. The Examiner asked Mr. Ericksen for final comments. Mr. Ericksen reiterated the purpose of the subject hearing, the first phase in a series of forthcoming rezone requests, to expedite consideration of the proposed cahnges in zoning as a result of the Comprehensive Plan amendments by the City Council. He referenced Mr. Irwin's testimony regarding donation of public use areas by Puget Properties, Inc. during 1963 rezone action, and clarified that the City of Renton and the Renton School District had purchased those sites on a per acre cost basis for public use and the purchase may have occurred prior to the rezone procedure. Mr. Ericksen submitted the Planned Unit Development application with attached affidavit for Cedar Crest P.U.D. , dated April 28, 1978, signed by Gene 0. Farrell and notarized by Gloria E. Medley. The application and affidavit were labeled Exhibit #45 by the Examiner. Mr. Irwin stated his continuing objection to the submittal of the document. Mr. Ericksen referred to the final recommendation denoted on page 9 of Exhibit #1 and indicated that the departmental report would remain as submitted. The Examiner inquired if recent review of the Comprehensive Plan accomplished by the Planning Commission and the City Council of the Renton Hill area constituted an area land use analysis and zoning consideration. Mr. Ericksen indicated that the review by the Planning Commission exceeded the specific area of Renton Hill and included Rolling Hills, Royal Hills and other areas to the south, and that action taken which affected the specific Renton Hill area occurred as a result of a request by residents in that area. Therefore, he noted, the review could not be considered an area wide consideration, but was confined to a smaller area. The Examiner inquired if a study of the area zoning was conducted. Mr. Ericksen responded that a study was not conducted. R-178-78 Page Seventeen The Examiner reported ordinance requirements to render a recommendation on the matter within 14 days from the date of the hearing, but inquired of the City Attorney if it would be legally possible to extend that deadline because of the volume of material to be reviewed. Mr. Warren referred to a building moratorium established by the City Council due to expire on July 5, 1978 and would place substantial pressure to provide a recommendation as soon as possible; however, he advised that a legal problem would not exist if all parties were amenable to the request. The Examiner inquired if parties of record would accept his proposal to extend the review period to 30 days. Mr. McBeth indicated his concurrence although he stated his intention to request an extension of the moratorium from the City Council. The Examiner advised that a 14-day appeal period as well as an additional 7-day waiting period is required following date of publication of the recommendation prior to placement of the rezone request on the Council agenda, which would occur after the expiration date of the moratorium even if the Examiner was able to render-a decision within the 14-day period. Mr. Irwin indicated his concurrence in the request, although he noted that action on the property had been delayed for a period of time and he encouraged the matter to be resolved expeditiously. Prior to closure of the public hearing, Mr. McBeth made, the following comments for the Examiner's consideration: 1) he is a resident of Rolling Hills and does not consider himself in any way a resident of Renton Hill; 2) the Polk Directory is totally inaccurate in its statistics and he feels the information is irrelevant and unworthy; and 3) trains divert in opposite directions at the bottom of Renton Hill and the situation should not be compared to the location of railroad crossings at Bronson Way and Sunset Boulevard. The Examiner requested further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on File No. R-178-78 was closed by the Examiner at 12:35 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND 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 12.1 acres from R-3 to R-1. 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 proposal. 5. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. 6. On December 5, 1977, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3186 amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from a designation of Medium Density Multifamily to a designation of Single Family pursuant to an analysis performed by the Planning Commission of area land use, which included the three properties contained in this application. The public hearing on this rezone application does not constitute a review of the validity of that decision by the City Council. 7. The Planning Department has found that the existing zoning of R-3 does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. A recommendation has been for the three properties to be rezoned to R-1. (Exhibit #1) 8. However, per the testimony of the representative of the Transamerica Development Corporation (TADCO) (Exhibit #9) an issue was the apparent selection of only three properties on Renton Hill for rezoning. The City Attorney testified and stated in the aforementioned attached memorandum that the selection was made to expedite and facilitate the current litigation concerning the December 5, 1977, change of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The Planning staff testified that this application containing the three subject properties was the first in a series of similar applications involving other properties in similar circumstances. 9. Per Section 4-3014, the Examiner's recommendation to the City Council regarding this application is to be rendered within fourteen (14) days. However, all parties in the public hearings expressed agreement to allowing the Examiner 30 days to render this recommendation in view of the substantial amount of material entered into the record. The City Attorney stated that this procedure was acceptable. Cy..., R-178-78 Page Eighteen 10. A tentative P.U.D. for residential development of the TADCO site was submitted as Exhibit #34. The application for this development was filed by Mr. Gene 0. Farrell as agent for Transamerica Development Co. (TADCO) (Exhibit #45) . Mr. Irwin (TADCO representative) testified that the property had not been sold and that Mr. Farrell did not represent TADCO. 11. In addition to the findings of Section 4-3014 (Hearing Examiner Ordinance) the case of Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn 2d 454 (January, 1978) presented the following findings: a. The presumption of validity of the rezone action by the City Council does not hold. Sufficient proof must be presented to support the rezone. The burden of proof for rezoning the property rests with the city to prove that conditions have substantially changed since the previous zoning. b. The rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. c. Current views of the community must be given substantial weight, but cannot be a controlling reason for the rezone. 12. The Carlson v. City of Bellevue, 72 Wn 2d 41, 51, 435 P. 2d 957 (1968) case set forth additional considerations for evaluating the rezone: a. The character of the neighborhood. b. Existing uses and the zoning of nearby property. c. The amount by which property values are decreased. d. The extent to which the diminution of values promotes •the public health, safety, morals or welfare. e. The relative gain to the public as compared with the hardship imposed upon the individual owner. f. The suitability of the subject property for the purpose for which it is zoned. g. The length of time the property has remained unimproved, considered in the context of the land development in the area. h. No single factor is controlling but each must receive due consideration. i. The aggrieved property owner must show that if the rezone occurs the consequent restrictions on his property preclude its use for any purpose to which it is reasonably adapted. j. The aggrieved property owner must show that there_ is no possibility for profitable use under the restrictions of the rezone, or that the greater part of the value. of the property is destroyed by the rezone. Economic and functional use is assumed and that some permitted use can be profitable. 13. All portions of the Comprehensive Plan apply to the proposed rezone; however, the specific circumstances surrounding the proposal render the following goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan most applicable: In planning neighborhoods the creation of residential districts free of overcrowding influences, arterial traffic, and the unwarranted encroachment of commercial and industrial uses are important objectives. (Page 4, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, 1965.) 1. Within the single-family detached dwelling residential areas, population densities should not exceed six families per acre. In single-family attached dwelling areas (townhouses) densities should not exceed ten families per acre. 2. Within the multiple-family areas, population densities should not exceed forty (40) families per acre. 3. Population densities recommended for any given area shall take into consideration the physical limitations of the soils and topography, the community facilities available, and the trends of existing development. (Page 5, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965.) I R-178-78 Page Nineteen It is the plan and policy of the City of Renton, through its physical, economic,and cultural development, to encourage the appropriate use of land throughout the municipality. To this end, the city will encourage proper employment of construction methods and land use principles, and promote the coordinated development of undeveloped areas. It will further give consideration to the prevention of overcrowding of land; the avoidance of undue concentrations of population; and provision for adequate light and air by securing open arrangements of carefully spaced buildings and building groups. It will be important for the city to reserve appropriate allotments of land in new developments for all the requirements of community life. At the same time, the conservation and restoration of the natural beauty of the community'sculturalandnaturalresourceswillbeaprimarygoal. As these, goals are achieved, the formation of functional, natural neighborhoods and community units will result. (Summary, pages 9 and 10, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965.) Residential. The successful utilization of land for low density residential development will depend on the availability of easily accessible areas which are relatively free of recurring or potential hazards such as floods, slides, and land subsidence. Residential districts should be free of manufacturing or commercial uses which would be detrimental to the community and its residents. The natural features and amenities that may exist or can be developed should be utilized to best advantage for the use and benefit of the community. Convenience to place of employment, shopping districts, schools, parks and other cultural activities, should be inherent features of the location. In medium and high density residential use districts the proximity to major employment centers, shopping districts, financial districts and office centers is important, as is convenient access to major arterials and highways. The nearby convenience of a larger variety of cultural features such as libraries, museums, parks, theaters and other forms of entertainment and relaxation is a desirable feature which may distinguish high density from low density residential districts. Other compatible or complementary intensive uses may include research and office centers, shopping districts and other functions which are not detrimental to the maintenance of desirable living conditions. While commercial or industrial uses are not easily adapted to hillside locations, residential development may be successfully planned to take good advantage of the amenities which such locations often provide. Natural features such as rock out-croppings, streams, stands of native trees, and the views often available from these locations should be used to greatest advantage. (Page 11, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965.) 1. Prevent blight by protecting residential and other exclusive districts from the unwarranted infiltration of incompatible uses which would contribute to premature decay and obsolescence, and prevent the development of orderly growth patterns. 4. Protect property values within the community for the benefit of its residents and property owners, through the effective control of land use and the enforcement and application of building and construction codes. 6. Encourage the development and utilization of land to its highest and best use in such a way as to promote the best interest of the community and contribute to its overall attractiveness and desirability as a place in which to work, shop, live and play. (Objectives, pages 17 and 18, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965.) L4. Zoning of R-1 would allow a maximum density of 6 units per acre and R-3 would permit a maximum density of 30 units per acre. Since the reclassification of the property in 1963, FAI-405 was completed (1967) , thereby eliminating all but one access point to Renton Hill. In addition, the LID for improvement of Cedar Avenue S. (LID 293) was completed, and the proposed extension of Grant Avenue S. was deleted from the Six Year Street Program. In the period from 1963 to 1978 a total of 22 new residences and 3 apartment buildings containing a total of 21 units) were constructed in the neighborhood. There also occurred during this period 69 remodels, additions or garage construction permits Exhibit #31) . Beacon Way S. was opened and closed (1972-1973) to the south over the Seattle Cedar River Pipeline (Exhibit #1) . R-178-78 Page Twenty 15. The subject properties are undeveloped and have remained so since prior to beingreclassifiedin1963. The topography of the TADCO and Tyrrell properties is of afairlysteepslope (Exhibit #1) which is in relative character with existingdevelopmentonthewesternslopeoftheRentonHill. The Puget Western, Inc. property is of a moderate slope. Underlaying much of Renton Hill is old, mined- out coal beds (Exhibit #1) . Soils on the subject sites present hazards for development as in other portions of Renton Hill (Exhibit #1) . Testimony indicated that the only slippage or slide occurrence was in the form of subsidence within Renton Avenue S. in the 600 block (Exhibit #1 and verbal testimony) . Substantial vegetation exists on the subject sites, predominantly on the TADCO property. = 16. Frank R. Raney, MAI, testified that based upon his analysis (Exhibit #20) the TADCO property possessed a value of $25,000 per acre (total of $281,250) for multi- family development and a value of $4,000 per acre (total of $45,000) for single family development. The King County Assessor's Office placed a total value of 44,500 on the property under existing R-3 zoning. He estimated that development costs would increase the original cost of the property three or four times. MaryLouGustine, real estate salesperson, testified that current sales of undeveloped single family lots with improvements is approximately $20,000. Mr. Raney indicatedthattheTADCOpropertywaspurchasedinNovember, 1965 for $171,492 ($15,246 per acre) . Expert or substantive testimony relative to property values was not entered into the record concerning the Tyrrell and Puget Western, Inc. properties. The King County Assessor's Office placed a total value of $28,800 upon the former and $2,000 upon the latter properties under existing R-3 zoning. 17. Traffic information (Exhibits #19, 27 & 37) indicated that existing streets on Renton Hill could absorb the projected amount of traffic from the three propertiesifdevelopedunderR-3 zoning. From testimony in the hearing it was apparent that traffic would not flow as easily as witnessed at this time. The main problem for vehicular circulation appeared to be the intersection of Mill Avenue S. and S. 3rd Street, the intersection of the only access to and from Renton Hill. However, the Public Works Department testified that modification of the traffic signal at this intersection could accommodate the projected increased traffic (Exhibit #37) . No costs were given concerning this modification. It was very apparent that a secondary access to and from Renton Hill was needed and preferred. Streets on Renton Hill are not designated as arterials. Public safety vehicles can reach Renton Hill via the Seattle Cedar River Pipeline. 18. Properties in the areas northeast, southeast, and south of Renton Hill have developed substantially since 1963 (Exhibits #2, 41 and 42) . 19. The view of the Renton Hill community was clearly expressed of supporting rezoning the property to R-1 and single family development on the three subject properties. A strong sense of community and identify was presented in testimony by residents of the community. Several generations have lived and are living on Renton Hill. The consensus appeared to be that the community is unique in these and other ways and that R-3 development would seriously impact and endanger the existing character and livability of the community. 20. Renton Hill is predominantly a single family community with a small "pocket" of multi-family located abutting the freeway. For the most part, the housing stock is older homes which have been restored, remodeled or in need of some maintenance or repair. The age of the homes is as varied as the style of architecture. But testimony indicated that revitalization of the homes has been most noticeable within the past few years. Most homes are constructed on sloped or fairly steephillsidelots. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Testimony and the evidence substantiated that the Planning Commission and City Council considered the area land use, not area zoning, of Renton Hill and the surrounding community. The result of their public hearings was a change in the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the subject properties to single family residential Section 4-3014. (A)) . 2. Since the property was rezoned in 1963, Renton Hill has experienced the significant changes of: a. Completion of FAI-405 which introduced .a large noise source and eliminated all but one access to the neighborhood. b. Completion of improvement of Cedar Avenue S. r` R-178-78 Page Twenty-One c. Inclusion and subsequent exclusion of the extension of Grant Avenue S. from the Six Year Street Program. d. Opening and closing of Beacon Way S. to vehicular traffic. e. Increased community awareness of and involvement in land use decisions. Taken together these changes appear to be sufficiently significant to apply to Section 4-3014. (C) . Most significant was the reduction of access to a single intersection of Mill Avenue S. and S. 3rd Street. All of the traffic from Renton Hill moves through this intersection, except for emergency public safety vehicles which can use the Seattle Cedar River Pipeline (Beacon Way S.) when the intersection is blocked. Several times a day trains block the intersection for several minutes at a time, thereby stopping all traffic to and from Renton Hill. In effect, the end result is a long and densely populated cul-de-sac which exceeds the limit of Section 9-1108.K Subdivision Ordinance) . Alternative access to the south was explored to help relieve the access problem. Opening Beacon Way to vehicular traffic produced a heavy through-traffic burden on Renton Hill without alleviating the intersection problem at S. 3rd Street and Mill Avenue S. Therefore, this access was closed except to emergency public safety vehicles. Finally, an extension of Grant Avenue S. was proposed, but was eliminated recently from the Six-Year Street Program. The access problems created by FAI-405 remain unsolved. Of some help was the first LID for improvement of Cedar Avenue S. While this improvement helped traffic movement somewhat, the traffic capacity and maneuverability of the street is restricted and impaired by the narrow pavement. The interest and involvement of the neighborhood in land use decisions has apparently increased substantially since the public hearings concerning rezoning the subject properties in 1963. As a result of neighborhood pressure the Planning Commission and City Council re-evaluated the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The conclusions of the City Council were to change the map from Medium Density Multi-family to Single Family Residential. Other changes have occurred but were not comparatively significant. Exhibit #31 showed that building permit activity has remained relatively steady and stable since 1963, not displaying the alleged substantial change in renovation or new homes in the neighborhood. However, testimony clearly indicated that the neighborhood was a vital, rejuvenating one which does not exhibit a transitional character often seen in areas experiencing pressure for a change in land use. The slope of the land has not been changed, and people continue to build upon moderate to steep slopes. The properties continue to appreciate in value for single family development. Some multifamily construction has occurred since 1963, most pertinent being the building at the northwest corner of Renton Avenue S. and S. 7th Street. The property was zoned R-3 since 1963, and apparently multifamily development has only occurred slowly in the neighborhood. At least since 1963 the subject properties, although zoned R-3, have remained undeveloped. Based upon these conclusions, it is apparent that the conditions on Renton Hill have significantly changed since 1963. Thereby, a test of Parkridge v. City of Seattle has been met. 3. The subject properties are potentially suited for reclassification pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan (Section 4-3014. (C) . Sufficient justification was given to warrant a reclassification from the existing zoning of R-3. It was apparent that the "overcrowding influence" (Pages 4, 9 and 10, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965) occurring on Renton Hill are primarily traffic related. Residents feel that existing streets will be overburdened by traffic from R-3 development. TADCO's expert witness testified that existing streets can absorb this traffic. The Public Works Department agreed that the streets could handle the traffic, but expressed the opinion that the projected volume of cars would not be desirable. Everyone was in agreement that inconvenience would occur to motorists using the streets on Renton Hill due to traffic produced by R-3 development. R-178-78 Page Twenty-Two The proposed R-1 is within the six units per acre density guideline of the Comprehensive Plan (Page 5, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban ARea, July, 1965) . Testimony of the Planning Department relative to the capability of the soil and topography to support this density was that 3.5 units per acre for single family residential development was probable and 6 to 7 units per acre probable for multi- family development. This testimony was not refuted. The Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, page 11, indicates that "low density residential development" should occur on land ". . .relatively free of recurring or potential hazards such as floods, slides, and land subsidence." Testimony has substantiated that subsidence has occurred near the subject properties. Uncontested information was supplied by the Planning Department in Exhibit #1 to indicate that severe hazards exist on the properties due to soil, topography and mining conditions. Therefore, it appears that "low density residential development" should not occur on the properties; however, this term is not defined in the Comprehensive Plan. These hazards present problems to any development on the sites. Zoning of R-3 is not compatible with R-1 when the two zones directly abut-under normal circumstances (Objective No. 1, page 17, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965) . Testimony touched lightly this issue and whether under the specific conditions of the subject properties the incompatibility could be mitigated. Sufficient documentation was given that vegetation and topography separate the subject properties, particularly TADCO, from the adjacent R-1 zoned properties. The most pertinent testimony given was that a PUD was appropriate for the site, which seemed to be agreed upon by all parties. But residents offered the unsupported contention that R-3 development would produce "decay and obsolescence. . ." (Ibid) in the neighborhood. In this case it is difficult to balance the impact upon property values of the property owners as well as the residents of the neighborhood (Objective No. 4, page 17, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965) . TADCO presented expert testimony to support that a rezone to R-1 would severely decrease the value of their property. No expert testimony refuted this evidence submitted by Mr. Raney, MAI. However, it was contested by residents that a reasonable profit could still be made from development of the property at a single family density. A concept of a P.U.D. (Exhibit #34) was submitted to illustrate the point that something else besides R-3 was possible for the TADCO property. It was apparent that the P.U.D. process would be an appropriate land use control method for this site. But similar testimony was not entered relative to the other two properties other than unsupported allegations that the value of the property would decrease if rezoned. Disagreement exists as to what constitutes the "best interest of the community" while providing the "highest and best use" of the subject properties (Objective No. 6, page 18, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965) . It was clear that not increasing the traffic problems in the neighborhood would be in the community's best interest and in the best interest of anyone developing on Renton Hill. Under the circumstances, it is also clear that R-3, while yielding the most profit, will conflict with this community's best interest. Something less than R-3 is more appropriate, but testimony was lacking relative to alternatives other than R-1 which TADCO showed as clearly impacting their investment. Testimony regarding the contribution of R-1 to the ". . .overall attractiveness and desirability as a place in which to work, shop, live and play. ... " (Ibid) seemed to substantially support the proposed reclassification to R-1. Again, traffic impact from a more dense development than R-1 appeared to cause the greatest concerns on the part of residents and the greatest detrimental impact upon the attractiveness and desirability" of the neighborhood. However, testimony did not explore to any great extent the effects that a planned unit development (P.U.D.) might have upon R-1, R-3 or other zoning. 4. Mr. Raney, MAI, substantiated (Exhibit #20) that the property was purchased in 1965 for $15,246 per acre and had a current estimated value of $25,000 per acre and $4,000 per acre as R-1. (It should be noted that TADCO and Mr. Raney used a total acreage figure of 11.25 acres while the King County Assessor's Map, Exhibit #4, showed that the TADCO property consists of 10.05 acres.) In his tesimony, Mr. Raney stated that development costs for single family lots would increase the property costs by as much as four times. This appraisal was not refuted by similar evidence or expert testimony. In applying the consideration of the decrease in property value of Carlson v. City of Bellevue it appears that development of single family lots on the TADCO property can yield a profitable use. Using the aforementioned estimate of $4,000 per acre the development costs (factor of four) would raise the cost of the property to R-178-78 Age Twenty-Three 16,600 per acre. The question becomes then of whether or not a profit can be realized from this type of development. Mrs. Gustine, real estate salesperson,. testified that single family lots in the neighborhood recently sold for at least 20,000 per lot. Mr. Erickson, Director of Planning, testified that a realistic estimate of the density of single family for the property would be 3.5 units per acre. This would mean a gross sale of $70,000 per acre. If the aforementioned analysis holds true, a potential developer would realize a net profit of approximately 54,000 per acre for the land ready for construction of' homes. This analysis does not include the economies available through development as a P.U.D. since specific testimony was not submitted relative to these savings in development costs. But this analysis sufficiently supports a conclusion that R-1 permits the property owner/developer a reasonable return on the original investment and reasonable use of the property. Although specific appraisal testimony was not provided regarding the other two subject properties, it can be reasonably assumed that their value would in all probability approach at least the appraised values provided by Mr. Raney. The valuation of the King County Assessor's Office appears to substantiate this conclusion. 5. Both Carlson v. City of Bellevue and Parkridge v. City of Seattle require that the loss of property value bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. Many opinions were presented that the safety of traffic movement, pedestrian movement, and general living were threatened by retention of the existing zoning of R-3. The Public Works Department testified that the projected increased traffic would not be desirable, but the neighborhood could absorb it with some inconvenience. Mr. Raney in Exhibit #20 submitted that a rezone to R-1 would reduce the value of the property by $236,250. While some disagreement existed with his appraisal, no other expert testimony was entered into the record to refute it. 6. Carlson .v. City of Bellevue requires addressing the suitability of the property for use as R-3. Testimony predominantly dealt with either the maximum density of 30 units per acre or Mr. Ericksen's estimate of approximately 6 to 7 units per acre (assumed reasonable development under existing circumstances on the site) . A P.U.D. (Exhibit 34) was submitted to illustrate that R-3 zoning was unnecessary and that less dense development was possible. However, this proposal must of necessity be discounted due to Mr. Irwin's testimony that the P.U.D. applicant did not possess authority or rights from TADCO for such application. Soils, topography, gology (including mining activity) , and noise information was submitted in Exhibit#1 by the Planning Department. This information indicated severe constraints upon development. However, specific soil studies or tests were not made to substantiate this information. It appears that this data was compiled from very general information and maps. However, no opposition to this information and its accuracy was expressed. Based upon the topography of the site and the aforementioned general information, it can be reasonably concluded that development will experience problems in the properties. But testimony did not substantiate or address whether or not these problems would be any greater, lesser or the same as experienced in development of other sloped properties in the neighborhood. It appears from the general information and testimony in the record, that perhaps the same problems will be experienced in single family development and that single family development is feasible, producing a stable condition on the properties. Relatively little multifamily construction exists in the neighborhood to draw the same conclusion with the same conviction. However, the multifamily structure at the northwest corner of S. 7th Street and Cedar Avenue S. appears to substantiate that multifamily construction can occur on the sloped properties with exercise of perhaps greater care and caution. In terms of land use, the Comprehensive Plan would indicate that transition is necessary between R-3 and R-1. The topographic and vegetation conditions on the subject properties, for the most part, provide some transition. The adequacy of the transition depends upon the proposed development for the properties. Specific testimony was not submitted of generalized or detailed nature to be able to draw any more specific conclusions except to indicate that less intense use of the subject properties would be more compatible with the adjacent and abutting R-1 properties. 1. The subject properties remain undeveloped. Other properties in the general area as well as the neighborhood have developed and are in the process of developing Exhibits #2, 41 and 42) within the past 15 years. R-178-78 je Twenty-Four 8. The final test for the proposed rezone is whether or not there exists a preponderance of proof supporting R-1 (Parkridge v. City of Seattle) . It appears that a preponderate amount of evidence is available in support of R-l. 9. The record substantiated that natural constraints of the site indicate that a P.U.D. would be a necessary approach to development on the site. This would mean common- wall (attached) units spread over the sites but located on the more stable, less impacted by natural constraints, areas of the sites. Therefore, the central issue becomes not the zoning category but the appropriate density for the properties based upon the natural constraints. Only Mr. Ericksen, Planning Director, provided testimony relative to this issue. He provided an estimated density range of 3.5 (single family) to 7 (multifamily) units per acre based upon his experience and knowledge of the site. Alternatives to achieving this density are: a. R-3, limited to 3.5 units per acre. b. R-3, limited to 7 units per acre. c. R-2, limited to 3.5 units per acre. d. R-2, limited to 7 units per acre. e. R-1, limited to 3.5 units per acre. Specific environmental data was not provided to select one alternative with great conviction. However, upon examination of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, the Zoning Map, Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives and the record, a specific recommendation was achieved. The R-1 zoning surrounding the properties, except at the northern edge of the TADCO property, would indicate that multifamily development at 7 units per acre is not the most appropriate in this location. Single family, R-1, is the most appropriate zoning and can be adequately buffered from FAI-405 (via vegetation and acoustical walls) and the R-3 zone abutting the TADCO property (via vegetation and space) via the P.U.D. process. Whether or not the property will support 3.5 units per acre depends upon receipt and review of more specific environmental information that can be included in review of the P.U.D. A need does not apparently exist to buffer the existing R-1 properties from FAI-405 and the transmission line easement by intermediate zoning of R-3 of the subject properties. Continuation of R-1 through the three subject properties is more appropriate under these circumstances. Noise data submitted in Exhibit #1 indicated the severity of impact from FAI-405 to be sufficiently significant to necessitate some acoustic treatment for noise protection on the site. Testimony mentioned special treatment of the building walls and windows to reduce the noise levels inside the residential dwelling units to acceptable standards. Any residential development, R-1 or R-3, would be impacted the same. Acoustical protection can be reviewed during the public hearings on the P.U.D. ; however, evidence was not submitted showing that the city has regulations requiring acoustical protection and treatment of buildings. For the purposes of this analysis it is sufficient to conclude that alternatives are available to reduce noise impact such that noise does not become an objection to residential zoning. 0. From the testimony and the record it can be reasonably concluded that reclassification of the subject properties would be of substantial benefit to the public health, safety and welfare. The existing traffic circulation and access problems would be lessened, including possible traffic or pedestrian accidents. Overcrowding of the neighborhood would not occur. Less potential harm to the future residents of the subject sites due to subsidence would occur. The neighborhood would not absorb a multifamily development which potentially conflicts with the existing single family character. Traffic would not be interrupted or delayed as frequently as predicted at the intersection of Mill Avenue S. and S. 3rd Street. The stability of at least a portion of the neighborhood would not be threatened. The benefits to the public health, safety and welfare appear, upon weighing the evidence, to be predominantly in favor of the rezone to R-1 as opposed to the loss in value of the subject properties. Predominantly, the benefit to the existing and future residents of Renton Hill and the general public rests in the relative reduction of traffic associated impacts upon existing streets and the intersection of Mill Avenue S. and S. 3rd Street. A reasonable use remains for these properties which appears profitable as well. R-178-78 Page Twenty-Five 11. The issue of spot zoning was raised by TADCO in Pxhibit #9. This does not appear tObethecaseinthisapplication. Pursuant to a change in the Comprehensive Plan the City initiated the rezone application due to its finding that the subject propertiesdidnotapparentlyconformtotheComprehensivePlan. It was stated by the PlanningDepartmentandtheCityAttorneythatthesubjectpropertieswerethefirstof several to receive such review for conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and that . TADCO was included in the first phase of this review mostly out of convenience tothecurrentlitigationinvolvingthatproperty. The Examiner's conclusion is that for this reason, not an arbitrary and capricious reason of selecting the propertiesforreasonsofdisbenefittothethreeproperties, this application was filed. Grounds for allegations of spot zoning or aribrary and capricious action by theCitywerenotsufficientlysubstantiated. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the testimony, record, findings and conclusions herein, it is the recommendation of the Examiner that the City Council approve reclassification of the three subject properties from R-3 to R-1 subject to occurrence of development under the Planned UnitDevelopmentOrdinance,, Chapter 27. ORDERED THIS 12th day of July, 1978. R. eeler Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of July, 1978 by Affidavit of Mailing to the partiesofrecord: Kathy Keolker, 532 Cedar Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Ruth Bradley, 709 High Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Peggy Jernigan, '412 Mill Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Ruth Larson, 714 High Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Amelia Telban, 508 Cedar Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Jim Breda, 1002 Grant Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Robert McBeth, 1906 Rolling Hills Ave. S.E. , Renton, WA 98055 Dennis Stremick, 2532 Smithers Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Jim Irwin, 1000 Norton Building,' Seattle, WA 98104 Ahmed Jaddi, Consulting Engineers, Milligan, Anderson, Jaddi, Building C-10, Fisherman's Terminal, Seattle, WA 98119 Frank Raney, 16625 Redmond Way, Suite 206, Redmond, WA 98052 Bill Montagne, Transamerica Development Corp. , 600 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111 John Albertson, 155 N. 35th, Seattle, WA 98103 Mrs. Ray. Hansen, 336 Mill Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Mary Lou Gustine, 910 High Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Manley Grinolds, 308 Cedar Avenue S. , Renton , WA 98055 John Giuliani, 1400 S., 7th, Renton, WA 98055 Dennis L. Linch, 320 Mill Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Jerry Glenn Dunnihoo, 434 Mill Ave. S. , Renton, WA 98055 Mr. & Mrs. F. G. (Mike) McCutcheon, 918 Renton Ave. S. , Renton, WA 98055 Eric Pryne, Seattle Times South Bureau, 320 Andover Park E. , Tukwila, WA , 98188 Nancy Sparrow, 316 Renton Ave. S. , Renton, WA 98055 Joe McCaslin, 17637 S.E. 123rd Place, Renton, WA 98055 Renton Record-Chronicle, P.O. Box 1076, Renton, WA 98055 Joan Walker, 1433 Monterey Ave. N.E. , Renton, WA 98055 ' TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of July, 1978 to the following: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Councilwoman Patricia Seymour-Thorpe Warren C. Gonnason, Public'Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Ron Nelson, Building Division Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney R-178-7$ page Twenty-Six Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration mustbefiledinwritingonorbeforeJuly26, 1978. Any aggrieved person feeling that thedecisionoftheExaminerisbasedonerroneousprocedure, errors of law or fact, errorinjudgement, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably availableatthepriorhearingmaymakeawrittenrequestforreviewbytheExaminerwithinfourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's ,decision. This request shall setforththespecificerrorsrelieduponbysuchappellant, and the Examiner may, afterreviewoftherecord, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requiresthatsuchappealbefiledwiththeCityClerkaccompanyingafilingfeeof $25.00 andmeetingotherspecified 'requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available forinspectionintheCityClerk's office, first floor of City Hall, or same may bepurchasedatcostinsaidoffice. ExH/n/r 8®® TE Y plaits 7 ViiYYi Y i 11 1. '' 11.1..... illr. .. : I if Immusemw •:• ::: ii:' 7/411 , g E.- Elie' 7 ;Pi-,l'i if is,vin now rumor Alk ::012.:ili: ftig. ./.11.4.i. ................ t, 3,..:1:-. 13E 4 IiiE WSW" A-- 2_____-.4 2_61=k,_,_ s. r+ =r 'Ir` ;u!,r ___ 7.%. . ....-''-''':;,, i1,'. sir+ r i if1 i11 ice" . 07 / : gam' rtivoretitt. , It , . ..E, 1 4 N, filii ' 1 i q,, R' 44, . H-I it . it +_. r t -'1•1, 31 It m.-t. •?.t mg ' . E.. . ,w_man ,41.,di ,, ,r,mg Tom 1 Ta t G 1 NW 1 ...., -4V .-.- i.,.. A i /43 , . 1 :, 1 ,-,-... . ei„.,„, ,,,,., u u 19:di 4._. R". 7). ). yiliall EP:RailA' "/ Es du ' . . ‘-','. Ng • lh 1 - a mo 1 1 o or NC. y.: .-.---. - R y GSA 74„,.." 1- AMA ipii . 1 tA1.7,.... 011\ B..1. .,,,, ,1 atioklh,„ '.R7,11.it, IIiiif41,, 411.1r" ' s, 1111P-7„ r A , 1 REZONE : R.178_7g pppLICATION FOR REZONE FROM R-3 TO File 'No. an situated CITY p RENTON , north i t the Pugettt Sound property ocated on the WeSofsFAl-405Renton H R- 1 ; p P east and ofh SouthTraTransmission Street, and east of the subdivided and Light Transmission Line Easement, property . 2 , 1± acres CITY OF TOTAL AREA 1 RENTON APPLICANT PRINCIPAL ACCESS Cedar, Renton , and Grant Avenues South E X?S"' I NG ZONING R-3 Vacant EXISTING USE Residential PROPOSED USE Residential COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Single Family COMMENTS This is the first phase of an area-wide rezone initiated by the City of Renton . Three ownerships are involved in this phase. OF R.e 4. A. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY• RENTON,WASHINGTOI d ropT mina tom on 100 2nd&maws wILGINR . 011PINN.wASHNGITON MOP! #s-WTIall 0 eml. LAWRENCE J.WARREN, CITY ATTOANIY DANIEL K ELLOGG, A$ SYNsT CITY ATTd• ORMtY June 22, 1978ITE® sm4 MEMORANDUM TO: Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Re:, Renton Hill Dear Rick: In response to your Memo dated June 9, 1978 , concerningdivisionofRentonHillintoseparateportionsforrezoneconsideration, please be advised that it is my opinion thatsuchactionwillnotposeanyproblemsforyourdecisionorthependinglitigation. I do not believe the entire area should be considered as one entity as this might be consideredasarea-wide zoning under the jurisdiction of the PlanningCommission. Furthermore, I suggested that this one particular area beconsideredsoas -b limit the number of pages of transcriptthatwillbenecessaryiftheareaisrezonedandTransamericafollowsthroughwithitst''reatened lawsuit. To burden the record with pages of irrelevant testimony as to the Transamerica nroperty would be unduly time consuming and expensive to trans-cribe.. I hope this adequately answers your. qu stion. Lawrence J.ren LJW:nd cc : Gordon Ericksen Mayor Council President Chairman, Planning & Development Committee iDan Kellogg RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON NIAAING EXAMINER JUN 2 31978 AM PM 71819119,11112111213.415,6 0V He,v4 U tti CD OFFICE OF THE CI ATTORNEY. RENTON,WASHINGTON 00 POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING I RENTON. WASHINGTON 90055 255-067. p e Q LAWRENCE I.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 414TFvSEPl_ JULY 5 , 1978 MEMORANDUM TO: Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner FROM: Lawrence J.Warren, City Attorney Re : Renton Hill Rezone Dear Rick: I have been asked to correspond with you concerning your stated inability to render an opinion on the Renton Hill Rezone within the time given to you by City Ordinance. It is my opinion that if it is in fact impossible for you to render that opinion within the required time, and , if there is no showing that the delay was unreasonable or prejudicial to any party, then you may have the additional time . I might note that this opinion is consistent with State case law. The Supreme. Court of this State recently set down such a ruling in the case of In Re Donohoe , 90 Wn (2d) , 173 (June 1978) . In that case the State said : The delay was not unreasonable in view of the necessity of obtaining and reviewing 3 days of testimony, plus the exhibits . That fact , coupled with no claim or showing of prejudice , justifies denial of a dismissal . " In that particular case a hearing board of the State Bar Association was to be able to render an opinion within 20 days as required by Court rules . I find that situation analogous to yours and find that the delay is. appropriate . 4 ( l Lawrence J. WArren LJW:nd cc : Mayor RECEIVEDCouncilMembers Del Mead CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER J U L 61978 AM M PM 718191g11I112,1 121i;,41 516 A R Tyrrell's Inc. NOTE: This letter was received and accepted by the 155 North 35th Examiner following closure of the public hearing P.O. Box 30756 regarding File No. R-178-78 due to the fact that Seattle, WA 98103 Mr. Albertson was unable to attend the continued hearing on June 20, 1978. June 22 , 1978 Mr. L. Rick Beeler City of Renton, 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Mr. Beeler, In discussion with Mrs . Tyrrell she expressed great concerns over the possible re-zoning of her property. There was a great deal of emotionalism at the meeting on the 13th of June by some residents of the "first hill" . It was almost as if they had decided that there was a potential problem in their midst and that it might be in their own best interests to enlist the aid of the City of Renton to forestall any possibility no mat- ter the costs or hardships to others. It reminded her of a sort of "vigilante" group in reverse-. In this case the creation of financial hardship and an injustice by selfish group actions at- tempting to take something of value from an individual without the individuals permission and without compensation. This, of course, really defines theft. It amounts to condemnation of her property and she should be compensated if it is allowed to happen. If the residents of first hill were requested to pay the cost of devaluation or suppose $250, 000 . 00 I suspect they would very quickly adjust to the idea of an imaginary changed traffic pattern, or more school buses . On the positive side, an attractive multiple dwelling complex would be an asset to the aesthetics of the community. There is a definite need for more and better housing in all communities. The cost of building single family residences prohibits lots of good decent families from owning their own homes and they should not be denied the proximity to good transportation and family ser- vices by a group of selfish people . The surrounding business com- munity would benefit from increased needs . I hope that you will be honest and fair in rexcom'Pnding that the R-3 zoning for which she paid for and paid taxes on these years and for 'which there is, a need, be retained. Sincerely, RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON Cr L "6 HEARING EXAMINER AM JUN 2 31978 n C. Albertson fl 24 PM L4e 7,R,9,10,11,I2,1,2,3,4,5,6 F/7 ,01; PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING 1 JUNE 13, 1978 RECEIVED APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON NEARING EXAMINER FILE NUMBER:R-178-78; REZONE SEP 2 61978 AM PM 718t9110,11r12111213o415o6 A. SUMMARY: Applicant initiated a rezone from R-3 District, Medium Density Multi-Family toR-1 , Single Family District. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1 . Owner of Record: Transamerica Development Company Puget Western, Inc. Mary Tyrrel 2. Applicant: City of Renton 3. Location: Property is on the west side of Renton Hill south of South 7th Street; east of FAI-405; north of the Puget Sound Power and Light Company transmission life easement and east of the subdivided property. . See Exhibits B-1 , 6-2 (not included in this report), B-3 not included in this report) , and B-4 (not included in this report). 4. Legal Description: Detailed legal descriptions are available on file in the Renton Planning Department. 5. Size of Properties: The parcels total ± 12.1 acres. 6. Access: Primarily via Cedar Avenue South with less access available on Renton Avenue South, Grant Avenue South, High Avenue South, and Jones Avenue South. 7. Existing Zoning: R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District. 8. Existing Zoning in Area: R-1 , Single Family Residential District and R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Single Family. 10. Notification: The property owners were notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly- published in the Record Chronicle and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City Ordinance. PURPOSE OF REQUEST: The rezone was initiated to review the existing zoning in relation with the Comprehensive Plan. 72_7>k 2</ EXHIBIT- 8--/ r. i 4 a 4,I F- r P11RK 1 7_. . CEvf re..,,, 44 1 Zge , Z, .'. ,, y14a". IV i i-1 - t. V1-.-'4 R 2 R 3 ' . AO a Inliiri r .., ,... q 44•.,4 .• 4 wor gaT-4 .- . / ____141 R-I 1 i F wilt!' ai. ii '• _Atim: t ,i ' " I ice- Ft'- 4 f 2 r j Ate.- kY1 , I,I 11 l :Ian , H I J ra N - : , t.rat -- ff d ill_ NOG t -.. C7 1 a",IMF.' S y R iti, I / IIr u © CI 0 .. : ,,,,,or-' ' . dil- ' 4- . .; - do oorIillSR-IcmGS. 1 F 7 -1 ,/' /,,,,' E 13 " " Ow IP i 1 .-. 44 r- 7. , :(B.4:' ,,'-___1' R SI wi G ® REZONE : CITY OF RENTON , File No. R- 178-78, APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM R-3 TO R- 1 ; property located on the west side of Renton Hill and situated south of South 7th Street , east of FAI -405 , north of the Puget Sound and Light Transmission Line Easement , and east of the subdivided property . APPLICANT CITY OF RENTON TOTAL AREA 12 . 1± acres PRINCIPAL ACCESS Cedar, Renton , and Grant Avenues South EXISTING ZONING R-3 EXISTING USE Vacant PROPOSED USE Residential COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Single Family Residential COMMENTS This is the first phase of an area-wide rezone initiated by the City of Renton . Three ownerships are involved in this phase. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON, FILE NUMBER R-178-78 JUNE 13, 1978 PAGE TWO D. HISTORY/BACKGROUND: The subject site was annexed by Ordinance Number 1547 in May, 1956. E: PHYSICAL BACKGROUND: 1 . Geology - See Exhibit E-1 Ground Moraine Characterisitc Artificial Fill Renton Formation Deposits Special Feature Partly cemented, Intimately graded but contains mixture of clay to uncemented beds. gravel sizes. Drainage Highly variable. Runoff excellent. Runoff variable. Foundation Stability Highly variable. Excellent, but Excellent. subject to limitations of. slope. Slope Stability Higly variable. Stands for long Stands in steep periods in steep natural and cutslopes natural and for long periods. articifial cuts. Dip of beds may affect slope stability. Seismic Stability Very poor. Good. Good. Information Source: Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington by D.R. Mullineaux (Map GQ-405). Renton Hill is underlain with coal deposits, much of which have been mined out. The remaining deposits are considered marginal quality and are usually in thin, twisted beds at great depths. It is not economically feasible to mine this coal at the present time due to a variety of reasons. Although it is possible that the coal could be mined someday as energy demands increase, technology, economic feasibility, and political realities ,would have to be taken into consideration. There are approximately 50 million tons of reserve coal in the Renton Coal Field, of which Renton Hill is a portion. The mined-out coal beds are under most of the area except in the south western corner (contiguous to FAI-405). These mined-out coal beds are approximately 150 feet below the surface of Renton Hill . The south western corner is probably underlain by unmined coal . (Source: Map showing nonmetallic mineral resources in part of West-Central King County Washington by William Rice; Map I-852-D. ) See Exhibit E-2 for illustration of coal beds. A few years ago there was subsistance of a street in front of 611 Renton Avenue South undoubtedly due to the collapse of an abaridonded coal mine shaft. Several truck loads of material over a period of time was required to fill the shaft. The rate of subsistance has declined substantially and periodic resurfacing of the street is necessary to fill the depression. See red dot on Exhibit B-2 for location. of subsistance. 2. Topography: Ths site has moderate to very steep slopes. The northerly portionhasslopes30% and greater; the center portion has slopes ranging from 17 to 20%; and the extreme southerly portion has a 10% slope. See Exhibit E-3 for slopes. a-rs ? - dpw H 1 N o N o:••••••••••.s••••—e:.`-- y7 co.•o••ae.o. Ay S 9 's'!/ 1•••••••••••••- ari=Y=r •,••••:e•••.0 a•:,t ` t:.... r` e o.+ p.•••.••.\e"4' TA17Of C,.,.,. 1 ' t •••• ,.• •Y.e* ••'•••. .. 0. J ld '„' IL• '•• •. ••• • o••••••: ; f r•'•••• \+L \ Tastily 1 ••• -••• • • • • ,.•.....•• •40. d p camngy -rr1N NvJ.4311 • ••}•••• • • ••• I•.' •• s,J 1 •W.. •4 •p•• I -r • •p•{i r ••; ••••••• .., O• !•• d ! ••••••••••' ii Nmil..• ., •....••.• 2A I . e•.• I. ••• ••••••••i •• , ••••••••• •• Y • •w.• 11 A:.'1'' . ........ .. 1.•V. , tI . • q •«•.. r •.• .• , f, p •• ••09,` o.!••• •.• •w •••••• • ,• i r• • 1 •• •...1o.eoo• ‘,• • 0••• • 4 fB••4p• I••4 P'•-P••••L•, . • •••••• • •• •••• a ••••r+ •• • e• a •.•.es.' • e j••. of •q.•• .•.•o•$b ••.•••• j.1 ' o •'{!• .• • •• ••b.••••• •kill e •••••e •:•• aqQ •a•.• .. . ••• 0 PP •••••••':••. I y. .:6 - ..• •1•,..le•A.4.a Tj.e. •••• . , •••••••.,• ' r •• •, fp• '•• e .• 6 •i tpR•}•• • •• •• el, . • •.{e,-•• ••ki•• • A•• •••• • ••••••• ,, .s a9 )bo) ,..e...7.1, •• ••• • Y•• •.• •o.••;• •.• •• ••• •- •••.•o•.• 1 •• • • , :•`.•1* •oeeeS o. 0 •• "••• • dY •• •••• > • Ztiv-py1W ,•••••. •• .••/•1• p• N.o ge .• p• p? • a• w•• %% .••e •/ o•..•.'.•.-06•*L. t •••e•••••••••••i••• DRt'9 +v•• i y• . . • "o' ••••.ID•• • •.•••4 ••A•••• ••. .I N 9 3 1• ! • :• ' .-•••••1•• "•••:• ••Vv..•i :: V.41• k . •:r'•} o 41 ••®.: • •e.•.• •• I i•••* • ••Q ••i •.•..•.• ••••••• sQ7g -7'O7 .lno QgN/W e'- 3 . 11 S/hi X 3 H1a0N 906 - b9 deg,, o,\ S '-9 'S .T7 A A • I '' : •••••••••• . pima ri • : r=aSYH Ssrw.jy 771H NoLT13u mi•lt '• •..••.• 'J/A .ii' . 60 •• i •r• • ,•• i)•• r 7 ''• 41:%: p a'f:a-w'4 5' D: ' •• e•••I••••• ; j *':•:6 ••••.r/•) • C j ,-„,y l • c': .. ''• 2 40 Isi It ' _ I • , fr/•••••• G • ••''':: e Ali iiii/. /l ili r f r J J.4. ifw i i11Q::000-:. :; g`` .:0. ;'•••• fie.,yi N .fit .. Wog vA,,.oj t • 1:: : 0••fl no ., it f/ ' j. .( - c C .• .• :iS RJ r::: 0 `1 ••,, i ,. •...tit) ^ l, 4e, - rr .lee 41 17.17.'' y 1• M 1 J[27MJ %'is y f1 f O{A1;'. (,(. t7f 1/, i lli, rb.'-(,.V NJ99 1 • 0• • • • .:.' l , Auk. ! t 41 •e ',•: A9O7031 I- 3 11gIHX5 1 'j + . 1 X 3.7 7 : T H 338 X AVE r',EL'cAr PILL. REsa. y t I. ; IC I 1 I I II t I I i I I it 1 j I Ram._FL.w..,+L[•ri. I . 1pi I ' i' ! I '' I I I I ' J OEIII1IIi ! L! I1 '; c I II I NORTH i I I r 30% I I i I ' I; I I l i Ij )_, I',,,.. fIi1 JI`'I ; 4I! I i ! II I I I II I i I3 I T( 1 : III \ ;' • \ ,' •, ' e ' d 1 o y i 2y% I I ( , I l 1i , 11 I ,.o II I G} 1 , x Li ass i I I I I I I©, , %r 7 , 4 [I I I J //A/A;: 'c I I ' I O I Iv+ II a I I x / J : .^• t J ,,,I I' 1 l l ;I 1 Ion f Ii' f w 1 4 •0 c4 ,Q,. , , L_J . -D , 1j I no iiI1 I! I 1 II I! I(30 f w A. 7 hi i r It, - 363t AVE _xiII ' 2O 1 a - 60/ TkJ7yx1 \\ \ r" 1 111 T' f ri-fl I c] it f7h 1 IQ il(- 1J I " 1 I ' I •" 1-? i \ I / pI I I// hIIfILI 7/ z. c1 I T — A[ — r` rx 1,/ i 0 I! 1 1 I Jr / fx^ b x lIl t w I I y- x-.--fix x ' 1+ I i r,. am C PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER - PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON, FILE NUMBER R-178-78, REZONE JUNE 13, 1978 PAGE THREE 3. Soils: The site has four soil classifications which are illustrated on Exhibit E-4. The northerly most portion is Beausite gravely sandy loam, 15 to 30% slopes (BeD); foundations for low buildings is considered severe. In the south western corner is Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep (AkF) ; foundations for low buildings is considered severe with moderate and severe slippage potential . A small portion of the site by Grant Avenue South has Arents, Everett soil (An); the hazard for foundations to low buildings is slight to none. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15% slopes (AgC) occupies the south easterly portion of the site; this soil has moderate limitations for foundations of low buildings and a seasonal high water table. Considerable erosion has occured on property (multi-family) to the north of the site which apparently does not adequately control surface drainage. 4. Vegetation: The site has alder, maple and willow trees with blackberry, ferns, hazel and ivy for shrubs and ground cover. The vegetation is con- sidered abundant except where the land has been clearcut for an apparent road west of and parallel to Cedar Avenue. 5. Wildlife: Due to the surrounding development, the site would be suitable for only small birds and mammals. 6. Water: There are two seasonal drainage ditches on the site. Both appear to have their primary sources of water east of the site from developed single family areas. 7. Land Use: FAI-405 lies to the west and lower in elevation than the site. A Puget Sound Power and Light Company transmission line right-of-way is contiguous to the south. Established single family dwellings lie to the east of the site. To the north of the site are apartments and condominiums. F. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: Renton Hill was subdivided and developed prior to the turn of the century. When it was developed and for many years thereafter, it was considered one of the nicer areas in which to live. This was due in part to being above the flood plain, having a view, being at a higher elevation than industrial activities, and a variety of other reasons. Over a period of years the Hill began to decline. However, this trend has reversed itself in recent years. Some homes were converted to apartments and new apartments were constructed. During the early 1960's, FAI-405 was constructed leaving only one access to Renton Hill . In 1953 the City adopted a zoning ordinance which tended to segregate the single and multi-family residences on the Hill . This helped contain multi-family to Mill Avenue (along FAI-405) and minimize the spread of multi-family throughout the Hill . During the early 1970' s a sense of community pride began to redevelope which lead to cohesive community action. Eventually, a community club was formed to represent Renton Hill . The City of Renton and the residents of Renton Hill have invested considerable amounts of money in the area since January 1976. Cedar Street between South 3rd Street and South 9th Street was completely rebuilt with a new street, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, illumination and overhead utilities were placed underground. The project cost $200,162.04, of which the residents paid $43,310.11 through a local improvement district (LID 293). Sixty nine parcels participated in the LID which calculates to an average of $627.68 per parcel . Since January 1976 considerable private investment has taken place on Renton Hill including 5 new single family dwellings; one new addition to single family residence; one new story on single family residence; two new private garages; one lowered base- ment; and a new eight unit apartment. The new homes were erected on lots that were due either to demolition of a home, never had been developed, or were short plated from a larger lot. EXHIBIT E — 1 SOILS Ni 1{ * : a c,,, L E 6 E N 1 1'1'4!;l I f. 0 J 1 1Jb • •JA f•A `l Jf:'::{.,:;f ::••••V\ ti: ti}ti • ::f %`1• C j7 t sti:. .ti •:,::.'•• : {ti:}.::':•y+f..{f.;f:•.:ti:Jfj:•::J:a: ir..t:.Y:i::}::1. M r.f. . 4: ti Y: :L sir fi'+ h :h: 4y::Jyh+ f Y•.•. y tS: r-/,•;; f Fa L.h + : + 7 :}!. :`1+• h:h•'::: {v,.y' L,'., , 4 i i +w•7r]SQ'N1h• L : I! + } I O rk'• ly n 7r Q J /. , {+ k:+ ``p 4 l[ t! y:ly:++Aa: h: :Srf +l : er : qii' :•` yea'a+y:'W yrp+{h•s :.'r 1 't ` C, r ,4tis{+yr.+ a> }::.` h h{{:vf>":::,:.:•:•:•:•,,::::::•:.:1, ; b Q tit x:'ih.•7 J7 C 1:1:11:::1:1,:.j.??...),,fiV;:l'. 0 0 Rem-Tom n..,.. RE...4.s lfr; r O A/.p R RgigJ NORTH EX/1131T N--1 SOU Al D ,l.FASuRaMENTS o 0 f Op O p a ° o O o `'ti LEGEND o pUs°r co 0 O asp 5 I 2 M p o 0 p 0 2 Lo .4 /Oi s o ',4 ° o r,1,eYe sour a I B a 0i. 0 o a El Yeaa[ln s were. a V O , [3 Q 0 b y'a K h t fa o o C. " o I Q o it w N id c o t\5 9rn 5r 0 c;6 0 o CS d a 0 II crs 6._ j s,,.f 0` g ErtteN HILLRE a, C:r 44• i'Y^ IMQ AIlD a awwi1 d R .b•...Pf s1,ro. t M i irn. er Megglif NORTH PLANNING DEPARTMENT• PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEI IG EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF iwi TON, FILE NUMBER R-178-78, RE 'u„' JUNE 13, 1978 PAGE FOUR Two shortplats (two lots each) and one preliminary Planned Unit Development applications were received by the City from Renton Hill since 1976. In addition, a large tentative plat (2.45 acres, 93 lots) application was received on a parcelsouthofandcontiguoustoRentonHill ; this subdivision does not propose tohaveaccessviaRentonHill . Effective July 1 , 1978 low and moderate home owners will be eligible for grants up to $2,500 for rehabilitation of their detached single familydwellingsthroughtheCityofRentonHousingRepairProgram. Renton Hill is designated as one of the City's target neighborhoods. G. TRAFFIC: Renton Hill is essentially a large cul-de-sac with one access, Mill Avenue South. The Seattle Cedar River Pipeline right-of-way provides a secondary access for emergency vehicles. This facilitiy was closed in 1973 at the request of the residents of the Hill to eliminate the through traffic that came to and from the Cascade area to the south. The residents of Renton Hill considered the through traffic inappropriate and dangerous to the community. The streets are rather steep and serious questions can be raised concerning traffic safety if too many cars use the streets. Between South 3rd and 7th Streets, Renton Avenue and Cedar Avenue average 9.2% and 7.7% slope respectively.Renton Avenue has a short stretch that has a grade in excess of 15% between the same streets. With the grid iron street pattern, a vehicle (and anything which the vehicle might hit) can be in serious trouble should a serious mechanical problem occur such as brake failure. On January 22, 1978 traffic counts were conducted and found movement of 2,650 vehicles during a 24-hour period. This represents 1 ,350 vehicles entering and leaving the Hill each day. Burlington Northern Railroad has a major east-west track accross Mill Avenue South, the sole access to Renton Hill . During the 16 hours per day that the Renton railroad station is manned, there is an average of 14 trains that pass through the city. This does not include the numerous short blockages due to switching activities. Blockage of Mill Avenue can be critical should an emergency occur on Renton Hill while a train crosses Mill Avenue. H. SOUND: Sound readings were taken in mid May 1978 at six locations on or near the site as illustrated in Exhibit H-1 . The detailed sound records are available on file in the Renton Planning Department. The freeway is the major source of sound at the western side of the site while airplanes, dogs, the city park, and other urban sources were more important as the loud-sound generators at the eastern extremity.Even at the eastern end, the freeway provided audible background sounds through- out the site. Listed below is a synopsis of the findings: dBA LEVELS Site High Averages Low 1 79 76 - 65 63 2 66 62 - 59 56 3 73 61 - 58 55 4 68 54 - 53 52 5 59 55 - 52 51 6 61 56 - 44 44 Generally, the closer to FAI-405, the greater the sound. It is anticipated that traffic will increase as growth occurs in South King County on FAI-405 and therefore the sound levels on Renton Hill will increase also. Sleep interference occurs at 40 dBA; speech interference. at 55 dBA; hearing loss with continuous exposure at 80 dBA, although some experts believe hearing loss happens at a lower level . As indicated by the above data, there is speech interference with outside activities during the day and a potential loss of hearing if exposed for a long period of time. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON, FILE NUMBER R-178-78,REZONE JUNE 13, 1978 PAGE FIVE Sound inside a dwelling is generally 15 to 20 dBA less when the windows areopenand20to25dBAquieterwhenthewindowsareclosed. Dwellings con- structed on the site could experience sound levels that will cause interferencewithnormalconversationandperhapssleep. I. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1 . Water and Sewer: There are existing 4 inch water mains located in Cedar andRentonAvenueSouthandSouth10thStreet. An 8 inch water main is locatedinSouth9thandllthStreets. An 18 inch sanitary sewer line is located in the Puget Sound transmission line right-of-way that could serve the site. 2. Fire Protection: Fire protection is provided by the Renton Fire Department as per ordinance requirements. Any future development of the site will be subject to the City of Renton standards. 3. Transit: Metro provides bus service along the periphery of Renton Hill . Metro Transit route numbers 107 and 240 operate north of the hill on MillAvenueSouth. Bronson Way South is served by bus route number 142 and route number 155 serves Main Avenue South. All of these busses are within walkingdistanceofRentonHill . 4. Schools: Renton Hill is served via school bus by the Bryn Mawr ElementarySchool , and Dimmitt Junior High School . Renton High School. serves RentonHill . 5. Parks: Phillip Arnold Park, a neighborhood park, is within walking distanceofallareaswithinthesite. Three additional city parks, Liberty, Cedar River and Jones Park, are approximately half a mile north of the site. J. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1 . Section 4-706, R-1 Single Family District. 2. Section 4-709A, R-3 Medium Density Residence District. 3. Section 4-725, Amendments. 4. Chapter 22, Parking and Loading. K. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS: 1 . Land Use Report, 1965, Residential , Page 11 , and Objectives Pages 17 and 18. L. IMPACT ON NATURAL SYSTEMS: The rezoning of the property will not have a direct impact on the natural systems. However, any development of the site will disturb present soil and vegetation conditions, increase storm water runoff, thereby increasing the possibility of erosion, and add to the noise and traffic levels. These conditions may beminimizedbytheapplicationofproperdevelopmentcontrols. M. SOCIAL IMPACTS: The development of the site for residential use will increase opportunity forsocialinteraction. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON, FILE NUMBER R-178-78, REZONE JUNE 13, 1978 PAGE SIX N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the City of Renton Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended (RCW 43.21C), a declaration of non-significance has been issued for the subject proposal . 0. AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED: 1. City of Renton Building Division 2. City of Renton Engineering Division 3. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division 4. City of Renton Utilities Division 5. City of Renton Fire Department 6. United States Geological Survey 7. Renton School District Number 403 8. Puget Sound Power and Light Company 9. Pacific Northwest Bell 10. Department of Ecology P. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. The proposed rezone to R-1 is consistent with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan which designates ;the site and area as single family residential . 2. The existing zoning around the site is R-1 to the east, R-3 to the north, and GS-1 to the south. The freeway ;(FAI-405) to the west is not zoned and acts as a physical barrier. The R-1 and R-3 zones are developed as zoned; the GS-1 zone is developed as an electrical transmission line which pre- cludes more intensive development. These circumstances together with other elements appear to establish the subject site as a single family area which requires protection from other uses to protect the existing single family area. (Comprehensive Plan Land Use Report, 1965, Objectives 1, page 17; Policy Statement, Summary, pages 9 and 10) 3. The goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Report, page 17, objective number 1, states: "Prevent blight by protecting resi- dential and other exclusive districts from the unwarranted infiltra- tion of incompatible uses which would contribute to premature decay and obsolesence, and prevent the development of orderly growth pat- terns." The majority of the Renton Hill area is an existing single family residential neighborhood. Rezone and development of the subject area to single family residence density, either by standard subdivision or by P.U.D. cluster-type development, would be compati- ble with the existing neighborhood and consistent with such objective. Development to higher densities would result in infiltration of incom- patible zoning, land uses, and such Comprehensive Plan objectives. 4. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Report, page 17, also has as objective number 4, "Protect property values within the community for the benefit of its residents and property owners, through the effective control of land use and the enforcement and application of building and construction codes. " The proposed rezone will control and regulate the land use of the subject area to a degree that is compatible with other property in the area, thereby encouraging and strengthening the livability, both physical and social , within the existing neighborhood. This would further the present character of the "Hill" as highly desirable single .; family residence area. 5. Such rezone to R-1 will continue the present trend for new single family residential construction and remodeling of existing residences in this community, which further indicates the desirability ofthe area as a separate single family residence area. It would, therefore, be consistent with the objective number 6 of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Report, page 18, to "encourage the development and utilization of land to its highest and best use in such a way as to promote the best interest of the community and contribute to its overall attractiveness and desirability as a place in which to work, shop, live, and play." PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON, FILE NUMBER R-178-78, REZONE JUNE 13, 1978 PAGE SEVEN 6. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Report, page 18, clearly states as a method of implementation (number 6) the need to "conduct planning studies on problems of current interest or need as conditions change. and revisions or amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are deemed desirable. " Conditions have changed in the area through the continued construction, revitalization, investment, and community involvement in the area as a single family neighborhood, as well as the lack of adequate access for multiple family residential being developed, and the overall attitude of the legislative body and the community toward the retention of a viable and significant single family area through the revision to the Comprehensive Plan. It is further noted in this implementation section that "the purposeful and consistent attention to the overall purposes and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan will produce continuing and long term benefits for the community." The proposed rezone is a reflection of the "overall purposes and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan" through the proper use of land use regulations and zoning to protect the citizens of the community and provide for orderly and compatible growth trends. The "continuing" benefits to the community will be reflected by the proposed rezone consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The aspect of planning as a "continuing" process is important. As the City grows and changes in its physical character so also do the attitudes of its citi- zens. The Comprehensive Plan and its implementation methods (i .e. , zoning, capital improvements, arterials and streets plans) must reflect these changes to be an effective planning tool . 7. The Policy Statement, Comprehensive Plan, defines the ideal neighborhood as an area "consisting of a relatively solid pattern of homes, linked by by quiet streets and centered around an elementary school and park. " Although this concept has changed somewhat in recent years, the Renton Hill neighborhood basically reflects such a concept. This portion of the Plan also states that "in planning neighborhoods the creation of residential districts free of overcrowding influences, arterial traffic are important objectives." Such objectives will be significantly upheld by the proposed rezone. 8. The Policy Statement of the Comprehensive Plan, page 6, E. , TRaffic Ways, states that "It shall be the objective of the City of develop or require the development of its traffic ways in accordance with their intended use. Generally, heavy and fast moving traffic will be routed around neighborhoods with only minor residential streets bisecting them. Right-of-way width standards for different classifications of streets shall be those developed in detail and contained in the Arterials and Streets Report of the R.U.A. Comprehensive Plan. The construction of streets shall be related to need and funtion as determined by traffic engineering studies. " Reference to the Arterials and Streets Plan as well as the City' s Subdivision Ordinance, indicates that this access to the subject area is not adequate for any use higher density than single family residential . Even as a new single family residential area the access would be questionable. However, it is one of the last remaining large undeveloped areas of the "Hill" and, therefore, would not create significant additional traffic problems if developed as single family residential . 9. Access to Renton Hill is restricted to one entrance that is subject to blockage by trains. Several of the streets which provide access to the various areas on the "Hill" are steep, laid out in a grid arrangement, and as such should not be overloaded. The grades of the streets present a potential hazard not normally found in a residential development. Also, one street has had a small section subsidence. (Comprehensive Plan, Arterials and Streets, 1965, Purposes and Objectives of Study, pages 2 and 3) Both Cedar Avenue South and Renton Avenue South have PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON, FILE NUMBER R-178-78, REZONE JUNE 13, 1978 PAGE EIGHT a right-of-way width of forty feet with improvements less than that which is normally required. Standard residential access streets are 50 to 60 feet in width. Due to existing structures and improvements, there is little likelihood that these streets can be enlarged. Given this situation, the proposed rezone would have fewer impacts to the existing streets than the existing zoning. In fact, the Streets and Arterials Plan, page 5, states that "in the planning, design, and location of the major street system, consideration should be given to esthetics and community amenities in order that the system may provide attractive as well as safe, efficient circulation routes, and do the least damage to adjacent land uses and improvements. Conversely, the design and location of adjacent improvements should present the least possible interference with the traffic carrying capabilities of these traffic ways." 10. The Streets and Arterials Plan also states as objectives (page 3) : a. Provision for the safe, efficient and convenient move- ment of peoples and goods. b. Arterial and street patterns compatible with and com- plimentary to the general land use plan. c. Adequate and safe access to allow convenient and effi- cient utilization of abutting properties. The proposed rezone would be consistent with these objectives by reducing densities and resulting traffic volumes and providing for land use more compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and roadway system. Also, the introduction of any larger street system into and through the area would be contrary to these and other Compre- hensive Plan objectives. (i .e. , Policy Statement, Comprehensive Plan, page 4, "These trafficways should be so designed that they function efficiently. . .their operation should not conflict or interfere with the functions of the residential neighborhoods.") 11. It is apparent from the attached exhibits that the site has physical characteristics such as slope, mined-out coal beds, soils, and existing heavy vegetation which create potential problems in development and which should be considered when reviewing the size and intensity of development. Certain types of higher intensity development may in fact create potential hazards. Therefore, it would be in the public interest to minimize such possible hazard by proper planning, zoning, and development controls. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Report designates the site as 25% - 40% slope with certain portions over 40% slope. The Plan indicates "that extreme caution should be exer- cised in the utilization of these potentially dangerous areas for residential sites." The lesser density of the R-1 zone would be more compatible with such objectives and present fewer hazards, especially if developed by P.U.D (Planned Unit Development) within the single family residence density which would provide for clustering of units within more appropriate areas of the site, preserving steeper areas, significant trees, and natural open spaces. The Comprehensive Plan, Policy Statement, page 6, infers such a relationship between land use, topography, and other physical conditions of the terrain when it states that "properly designed plats related to terrain conditions will be pleasing to the eye, economically sound, and safe for the residents." 12. The site is subject to loud sound levels, especially from FAI-405. The Department of Ecology recommended that performance standards be applied to sleeping areas of the dwelling to permit sleep. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON, FILE NUMBER R-178-78, REZONE JUNE 13, 1978 PAGE NINE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Based upon the above background data, analysis, and the Comprehensive Plan recommend approval of R-1 zoning for the subject area. It is further suggested that reasonable development of the area can and should be pursuedbymeansofaP.U.D. (Planned Unit Development). Existing vegetation and other natural characteristics of the site should be retained as much as possible and incorporated into site planning, design, and development. Access shall be limited to existing streets and approved as part of any sitedevelopment. On-site soils and geology investigations should be conducted to determine whether the site is safe to develop; and if it is safe to develop, to obtain recommendations on how to develop. ROUTING SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION TO: Finance Department Fire Department Library Department OPark Department Police Department Public Works Department Building Div. 0 Engineering Div. Traffic Engineering Div. Utilities Engineering Div. FROM: Planning Department, (signed by responsible official or his designee ) ily 117..-•,},, DATE : 3=.26.-78 PLEASE REVIEW THIS. APPLICATION FOR: p- / 78- 7Q REZONE et)714,. 1/1,4,,,_-.-43-A--x- MAJOR PLAT SITE APPROVAL SHORT PLAT SPECIAL PERMIT WAIVER SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT OR EXEMPTION AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH ANY COMMENTS YOU MIGHT HAVE , BEFORE iL,.41. .f.)/ ig7y REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : c: 4..ram. c-— S_3 C7 -? Signature irector or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : (> r ,%. I rue_ Comments : No if-ir,n=-r Signature of Director 'or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : C11.j ,_22.: 1-,,,_ r J Comments :. e(ITli cite e Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : i )i; 474,-1 ; ;F= irjc Comments : J fy/'C' .ti-jam a C LAC./r' L< ! V ll e‘ 7 Signature of Director or Authorized Opresentative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : . Department :e7-- - Comments : 1 12,g '-e-. it"r"`c' Zyd Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date 41ENN0 sc..cM.% TO U 5•0 9 QP V ,,/• t h_7.y, c v, 1 2 . 3^ 7 Fr• ThL el? 1 •f<:- !•A-1_, e,' ,t.ine.• 1/ i':r c,_ c /J. fir t—/ ' ' !;... • t%,. Ili /T/ i. t,J f!e . J'! i'J e(!t s r?:Ji h Ye , C7;JC,J : rJ::7Y • y': .1 -y• c t '', l 1) : U• '> Ai' f'-/ 't /1 Act le Y'r`,-•JL •/..1x. r 7.1_U. ! 7 r!r t'• 1 :( .i l f•• • 47 /!t l:` ' 3. . ,.i• 7 i.- fJ /, , _• J1.t 11 . ,•. t .r 1 j !<< (c .rr•_- l7. COPY OF THE ABOVE MEMO ; ok' d by - WCG ) 6/5/78) Engineering Department Gary Kruger , Planning Department Subject : Renton Hill Rezone The drainage basin encompassed by the proposed rezone area ,and a large portion of already developed portion of RentonHill , empties into an already overloaded system. Anydevelopmentinthisareawouldrequireextensivestorm waterdetentionand/or other means of controlling the run-off .The rezone as proposed would in effect reduce the possibleimpactofstormwaterrun-off over the present zoning . Signed-- ) BOB BRAY 1 ROUTING FOk REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CH - _."CLIST FORMS TO: O Finance Department Fire Department Library Department Park Department Police Department CS Public Works Department Building Div. Engineering Div. Traffic Engineering Div. k3 Utilities Engineering Div . FROM: Planning Department, (signed by responsible official or his designee) 8r./A. z4t...r4„„ __,<L,.4.-„r _./.p.z„,t,1/2, SUBJECT: Review of ECF- 35/-78 Application No. : R —/,3 ->s Action Name: .R .,.,d_,,,, ,e4 Please review the attached. Review requested by (date) : Q 24/in Note : Responses to be written in ink. 1 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : 3L.U6;. Comments : 7"he r'/ X'/ arcc.F cue a 6:t.LZ.i-. -e dettliKQ r mac>.u 70 d_..... erC7 ..ce-•c rreArt cJ di20 Signature of Director r Authorize Representative Date 4,,,..r 7 1,---•---6—?y REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : E---)./7 „t ,c-4-,„ Comments : `J __ ,r is Jie/, C-47 5-._.3e) .....-7e Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : 7-d /tic E cqr ,E'eYfyt Comments : J a /J C1012f Signature of Director or Authorized Repr sentative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date PROPOSED/FINAL '7CLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE,/NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No . . - ' R-178-78 0 PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . ECF-351-78 0 FINAL Declaration Description of proposal City initiated rezone of five contiguous parcels consisting of 12. 1± acres from R-3 to R-1. Proponent CITY OF RENTON Location of Proposal • Renton Hill Lead Agency City of Renton Planning Department This proposal has been determined to 0 have x not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS is is not required . under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 ( 2 ) (c) . This decision was midde after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and Other information on file with the lead agency . non Reasons for declaration of environmental/significance : This negative declaration only applies to the rezone of the subject site . Additional environmental review will be required as part of specific site development review. Measures , if any, that could be taken to prevent or mitigate the environmental impacts to such an extent that the lead agency would withdraw Ats declaration of significance and issue a (proposed/final ) declaration of non-significance : Responsible Officia" Gordon Y . Ericksen Title P, J' nin; sir: or Date June 5 , 1978 Si gnat City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 filLi - a ; •i i h., ,,r`N1 V Z/QCK/r p i oi c gri., r" 1 pat n LI- 14k,-; P 12 K F -4 I • a if/eip Lr. IL .u.gt qmori mompal hh..N- SC.a7Dl SCMOOf_ RiM 171 iMaI= raM L 7 .'f.1 271Z:1Zia—i-g4-In atil•11ISM on no 3 VIAan OM irrirmel I 1160111111 iglus s h,;w D us aak'! sr, E=. '. 7 ie Erni W v ,301fi L. i i,I Ij! its l/,41:1i; a,* I Wm'E .,, r r,,., k i-.i la it rI 4"Ill SUBJECTi I 4* SITE M mmI — - imp• —" _— In IR ME MEI! I n 1l;!p I I S1!7 lg.sA2A,w. plial° ' EiC V: PiA- 4 s \ Vi54t' = I E . i I i as-' ' I ll . 4.124I 7 r•-_ ..__—_ ST tam I 4 t0 `` III a I, CI , a, la J as ` I c I u NIn „ SR" a•1 i. R-3 :. C ii17 t7 ra a~,a Q P_ INN 6. QHNTO14 VILLAGE PI; j 1 R A 4 i1, _ r I 7 J: P. GS— IA1iTaap.L!.. 1. 'sr.= g S®I 11 1 1 APPL I CANT CITY OF RENTON TOTAL AREA ±1.23 acres PRINCIPAL ACCESS Cedar Ave. South between South 6th and 7th Streets EX! S1 ING ZONING R-3, Residential Multiple Family Four single family dwellings, one 8-plex condominium, one EXISTING USE undeveloped lot. To establish zoning classification compatible with the Comprehen- PROPOSED USE sive Plan and existing zoning and land uses (single family residence) COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Single Family Residential COMMENTS The proposed rezoning will bring the zoning of the subject site into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. No physical development is proposed at this time. RECEIVED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER SEP261978 PUBLiC HEARING AM PM SEPTEMBER .26, 1978 7,8r9,10,11,12i11213s4i516 EXHIBIT NO. / A APPLICANT : CITY OF RENTON TEANO, /FILE NUMBER: R-218-78 , REZONE - REIt '01"'I'LL , PASE IIz/ 78 A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST : The applicant requests a rezone of the subject property from R-3 , Medium Density Multiple Family , to R-1., Single Family Residential . B . GENERAL INFORMATION : 1 . Owner of Record : Homeco , Inc . Lyman E . Riley Gene 0 . Farrell Walter. Smith Theodore C . Cole Tillie Cole 2 . Applicant : City of Renton 3 . Location :Property is located on the west side of Cedar Ave- nue South between South 6th Street and South 7th Street . 4 . Legal Description : Tract 15, Plat No. 1 of Renton Cooperative Coal Company's Acre Tracts. A detailed legal descrip- tion is on file with the Renton P1anninn D nartment. 5. Size of Property : The parcels total approxi - mately 53 , 619 square feet or approximately 1 . 23 acres . 6. Access : Via Cedar Avenue South and South 6th Street. 7 . Existing Zoning : R-3 , Residential Multiple Family. 8. Existing Zoning in the Area : R-1 , Single Family Residential District ; R-3 , Residential Multiple Family . 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan : Single Family Residential . 10. Notification : The property owners were notified in writing of the hearing date . Notice was properly published in the Record Chronicle and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City ordinance . C . PURPOSE OF REQUEST : The application was filed to review the existing zoning in rela- tion to the Comprehensive Plan . D . HISTORY/BACKGROUND : The subject site was part of the original plat of the City . E . PHYSICAL BACKGROUND : 1 . Topography : The site slopes downward from east to west at approximately a 24%' grade. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : CITY OF RENTON , FILE NUMBER R-218-78 SEPTEMBER 26, 1978 PAGE TWO 2 . Soils : Beausite gravelly sandy loam , 15 to 30 percent slopes BeD ) . Runoff is rapid , and the hazard of erosion is severe. This soil is used for timber and pasture . 3 . Vegetation : The site consists of holly and fruit trees , some vegetable gardens , and other ground cover consisting of grass and blackberries . 4. Wildlife : Existing vegetation on the site provides suitable habitat for birds and small mammals . 5 . Water : There was no water observed on the site at the time of field inspection . However , portions of the area do con- tain seasonal drainage ditches . 6. Land Use :. Of the six parcels involved , four contain single family residential structures , one remains undeveloped , and one multiple family structure at the corner of South 7th Street and Cedar Avenue South is a condominium. Adjacent to the west are two apartment buildings . The remaining surrounding properties contain single family dwellings except for the undeveloped land to the south that is included in Renton Hill Rezone , Phase I . F . NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS : Renton Hill was subdivided and developed prior to the turn of the century . When it was developed and for many years there- after , it was considered one of the nicer areas in which to live . This was due in. part to being above the flood plain , having a view , being at a higher elevation than industrial activities , and a variety of other reasons . Over a period of years , the Hill began to decline . I/owever , this trend has reversed itself in recent years . Some homes were converted to apartments and new apartments were constructed . During the early 1960 ' s , FAI -405 was constructed leaving only one access to Renton Hill . In 1953 , the City adopted a zoning ordinance which tended to segregate the single and multi -family residences on the Hill . This helped contain multi -family to Mill Avenue (along FAI -405 ) and to minimize the spread of multi -family throughout the Hill . During the early 1970 ' s , a sense of community pride began to redevelop which led to cohesive community action . Eventually , a community club was formed to represent Renton Hill . The City of Renton and the residents of Renton Hill have invested considerable amounts of money in the area since Janu- ary , 1976. Cedar Street between South Third and South Ninth Street was completely rebuilt with a new street , curbs , gutters , sidewalks , illumination; and overhead utilities were placed underground . The project cost $200 , 162 . 04 , of which the resi - dents paid $43 , 310. 11 through a local improvement district LID 293 ) . Sixty-nine parcels participated in the LID , which calculates to an average of $627 . 68 per parcel . Since January , 1976 , considerable private investment has taken place on Renton Hill including five new single family dwellings , one new addition to single family residence , one new story on single family residence , two new private garages , one lowered basement , and a new eight-unit apartment . The new homes were erected on lots that were due either to demolition of a home , never had been developed , or were short platted from a larger lot . 1 h L__ ___It Q Ae oliri-l-r----7 4 r 8 r{ e st ,e qJaifr cd 4.1 Ini° qo // rer gvlob 75' T 'er VgaTzOrV Fi iCCALat I"is Iao' M.CIMI }iiLL- Phwax.. 2 RezO1 2 5-7S EOLO&Y SLOPE Tr . KEMTON rOKMATi ON NAode Us 2s10] ARkO IC 6frwo`aroi- :,MUDAoNE 4 swa1.G. c 4 T?IN6 eL -CA. .CeDb,NW-Jr NEAR.eva6e.de. 4-4001-- Ce2 FORI.I&•TIoN.NUMB 1s Fy uLT5 cP 51/41K1- 5rege (ZS-4olo) DISPt.ekCE.ME4-r, ma/iv BBDQINb.1 WUwe6+S: Myr 2,50f," SouriM Gr Cam-* U. Y. r -i U.S.('.4. IMI' I-354,i 1 P U14L 6, wee, I-psi- j 14?S j! /? II I i II Ail r/i kiltkI ( 1 '.i 4.'. I 0. llI / I • Cif 1, 1 a. P , 10 ,,I ,ii:ill, 1 1 li. I !fiffi " II., 1 ! , I `I In H . 1NIH / 1 Ii I I / 41 I effi 11, I I . o 7 1 I, = I I i i or 1 I: = Itit•., I 44 I it o'yI li o y 1• , Ii .. i 1 1 1 ill o 'rev r Xi tiitsm. 1 3, x _k it J x k. it -I, 1 itri J „, : . . I fry(iI1II 044 I 1 2) IIIIt ilii l,i • I I i il L--,-- 1/ , i i I. I 11 •t 11 ' lisi 1 0 40-1 ditnii i 1 a lig! r it - .E1 1 bi r I Pi' 11111 Ili f y ' I i ! III + I 1 I I /i.:....:ca_C! . Isi I . I' in il 200 100 0 100 400 G00 O . • 1 000 Fee e Contour interval=f fe ii 1. 4% Lf\ ail 604 1 6 i 1. - - -, 1.41 lb LI ftt I, a 4 iLl%% or.• Os v 3 i 1. 044lwv. wwwisii 1 t ! 0 7 8 g irx.- pr.,„ _-___-, -_-_-__ 1: 1 es 4111111%% 1I' 1111114"111141111. 1111111141111111"-".1111g' --: ..= G- 4- 1: 11: 1111.'-''.••:::—• ilev... 12 L • •••--- 11.-- 44- " milit--- tillill7- 1. 1111rMk 1.-. 111: 1 ' 41' .....: 11.: 6::. 11; r".'"---,-. arz-- T, , .-,. ice. 0 111: 11 i• t f-,. - i-- S J fy o 2' 70‘..‘ imilusin- : . :. . g may( : a: PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON, FILE NUMBER R-218-78 SEPTEMBER. 26, 1978 PAGE THREE Two short plats (two lots each) and one preliminary Planned Unit Development applications were received by the City from Renton Hill since 1976. In addition , a large tentative plat 2. 45 acres., 93 lots) application was received on a parcel south of and contiguous to Renton Hill ; this subdivision does not propose to have access via Renton Hill ., . Effective July 1 , .1978 , low and moderate home owners will be eligible for grants up to $2 ,500 for rehabilitation of their detached single family dwellings through the City of Renton Housing Repair Program. Renton Hill is designated as one of the City ' s target neighborhoods . G. TRAFFIC : Renton Hill is essentially a large cul -de-sac with one access , Miill Avenue South. The Seattle Cedar River Pipeline right-of- way provides a secondary access for emergency vehicles. This facility was closed in 1973 at the. request of the residents of the Hill to eliminate the 'thr`ough traffic that came to and from the Cascade area to the south . The residents of Renton Hill considered the through traffic inappropriate and dangerous to the community. The streets are rather steep, and serious questions can be ' . raised concerning traffic safety if too many cars use the streets . Between South Third and South Seventh Streets , Renton. Avenue and Cedar Avenue average 9. 2% and 7 .7%. slope respectively. Renton Avenue has a short stretch that has a grade in excess of 15% between the same streets . With the grid iron street pattern , a vehicle (and anything which the vehicle might hit) can be in serious trouble should a serious mechanical problem occur, such as brake failure. On January 22 , 1978, traffic counts were conducted and a movement of 2 ,650 vehicles were found during a. 24-hour period. This represents 1 ,350 vehicles entering and leaving the Hill each. day . Burlington. Northern Railroad has a major east-west track across Mill Avenue South, the sole access to Renton Hill . During the 16 hours per day that the Renton railroad station is manned , there is an average of 14 trains that,. pass through the City . This does not include the numerous short blockages due to switching activities . Blockage of Mill Avenue can be critical should an emergency occur on Renton Hill while a train crosses Mill Avenue. H. SOUND : Sound-:readin`gse-,.taken in. mid,-,September, 1978,. at the two locations noted on the map in Exhibit . Reading.s from mid-May, 1978 , of Phase I are also noted. The detailed sound records are available on file in the Renton Planning Depart- ment. The freeway is the major source of sound in the subject area , with aircraft, automobiles , animals , and the usual neigh- borhood sources included to lesser degrees . Listed below is a snyopsis of the findings : dBA LEVELS Site High .. Mode Low PHASE II , Site 1 66 51-62 49 PHASE II , Site 2 73 59-67 58 PHASE I , Site 3 79 65-76 63 PHASE I , Site 66 59-62 56' iI6I Jr Wit i . AllVitirs11. 11, 11 1 . j 1..... i! — 1... , 311111% 1144- 114- 111 tillitla IR: :' 1 g , a, sk4___. iiNarn---- i- vt....... 4101101 -_-- - 2- 16"---:---------- If 4) N 1 1 : - 41. - II- " N I kill . Ir_.-, / // -- 1:. ., ' Jtw ti 00 II M/ ///,// ///• i.. 0. t----..-_----- 11111-_ All" III - - .. id I liftit- — s 1• PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON , R-218-78 PAGE FOUR Generally, the closer.. to FAI-405, the greater the sound. It is anticipated that traffic will increase as growth occurs in South King County on FAI-405; and , therefore , the sound levels or Renton Hill will increase also . Sleep interference occurs at 40 dBA; speech interference at 55 dBA; hearing loss with continuous exposure at 80 dBA, although some experts believe hearing loss happens at a lower level . As indicated by the above data , there is speech interference with outside activi - ties during the day and a potential loss of hearing if exposed fo'r a long period of time. Sound inside a dwelling is generally 10 to 15 dBA less when the windows are open and 15 to 20 dBA quieter when the windows are closed. Dwellings constructed on the site could experi- ence sound levels that will cause interference with normal conversation and perhaps sleep. I . PUBLIC SERVICES : 1 . Water and Sewer:. A four-inch water main extends east-west along the south side of South 7th Street east of the inter- section of Cedar Avenue South and South 7th Street. A second four-inch main runs north-south along Cedar Avenue south of the intersection of South 7th and Cedar, and a third four-inch main extends east-west on South 6th Street adjacent to the southern boundary of the subject site. In addition , a six-inch main runs north-south along Cedar. adjacent to the easterly boundary, and an eight-inch main extends east-west on the north side of South 7th Street. The existing ten-inch sanitary sewer extends north-south along Cedar adjacent to the subject site, and an eight- inch sewer runs east-west along South 7th Street adjacent to the north property boundary. 2. Fire Protection : Provided by the Renton Fire Department as per ordinance requirements . 3. Transit: Metro provides busservice along the periphery of Renton Hill . Routes . 107 and 240 operate north of the Hill on Mill Avenue outh. Bronson Way South is served by route number 142 and route number 155 serves Main Avenue South. All of these busses are within walking distance of Renton Hill . 1 4., Schools : Talbot Hill Elementary School is located within two miles to the southwest of the subject site, with Fred Nelson Middle School approximately two miles to the south and Renton Senior High School approximately one mile to the northwest. 5. Parks : Liberty, Cedar River and Jones Parks a.re approxi - mately one-half mile north of the subject site , while Phillip Arnold Park is one-fourth mile to the east. J . AP1PLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1. Section 4-706, R-1 Residential Single Family District. 2.1 Section 4-706A, R-3, Residential Multiple Family District. 3. Section 4-725, Amendments. K. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS : 1. 1 Land Use Report, 1965, Residential , pages 6, 7 , and 11 , and Objectives , pages 17 and 18. 2. Arterials and Streets Plan , 1965, pages 2 , 3 , 4, 5. 1 3. Policy Statement , Comprehensive Plan , 1965, pages 4, 6, 9, 10, 11 , 17 . NOISE LEVELS Q L OC4 T/ONS RECORDED. RECORDED. PRom BASF I. I til I 1:- 1- ,df- kti ( r 61114 ,i' 1 i. , 1 I 11 x r I j j : 1 I •• . li, ( 4v, - i ev N 1 II11 /IlI 1 s 1-di ji 1 111ly/ l o g. 11 MI if r j , i; ' 1 nii j itIin1 o x. I AP!' O/ 1 r N td r k J .1 r \ f /hi Ile. , 1 4') 1 S I 1 li hi, I 1 Ilitf, I 1, 41 . • J 1 11\ :\ ' 1 Ira,. , i ' . i . i i MI . -- s>, 4 NO IN 110 .M• M• bN M•«• PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : CITY OF RENTON , R-218-78' SEPTEMBER 26, 1978 PAGE SIX 4. The Comprehensive Plan Land. Use Report, page . 17 , also has an objective number 4, "Protect property values within the community for the benefit of its residents and property owners , through the effective control of land use and the enforcement and application of building and construction codes . " The proposed rezone will control and regulate the land use of the subject area to a degree that is compatible' with other property in the area , thereby encouraging and strengthening the livability, both physical and social , within the existing neighborhood . This would further the present character of the Hill as highly desirable single family residence area . 5. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Report., page 18, clearly states as a method of implementation (number 6) the need to "conduct planning studies on problems of current interest or need as conditions change and revisions or ,amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are deemed desirable. " Conditions have changed in the area through the continued construction , revitalization , investment, and community involvement in the area as a single family neighborhood , as well as the lack of adequate access for multiple family residential being devel - oped , and the overall attitude of the legislative body and the community toward the retention of a viable and signifi - cant single family area through the revision to the Compre- hensive Plan. It is further noted in this implementation section that the purposeful and consistent attention to the overall purposes and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan will produce continuing and long term benefits for the commun- ity. " The proposed rezone is a reflection of the "overall purposes and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan" through the proper use of land use regulations and zoning to pro- tect the citizens of the community and provide for orderly and compatible growth trends . The "continuing" benefits to the community will be reflected by the proposed rezone consistent with the Comprehensive Plan . The aspect of planning as a "continuing" process is important . As the City grows and changes in its physical character so also do the attitudes of its citizens . The Comprehensive Plan and its implementation methods ( i . e. , zoning , capital improvements , arterials and streets plans ) must reflect these changes to be an effective planning tool . 6. The Policy' Statement of the Comprehensive Plan , page 6, E. , Traffic Ways , states that " It shall be the objective of the City to develop or require the development of its traffic-ways in accordance with their intended use . Generally , heavy and fast moving traffic will be routed around neighborhoods with only minor residential streets bisecting them. Right-of-way width standards for different classifications of streets shall be those developed in detail and contained in the Arterials and Streets Report of the R. U .A. Comprehensive Plan . The construction o.f streets shall be related to, need and function as determined by traffic engineering studies . " )Reference to the Arter- ials. and Streets Plan , as well as he City ' s Subdivision Ordinance , indicates that this access to the subject area is not adequate for any higher density 'use than single family residential ,? However, it is one of the last remaining large urnd veloped areas of the Hill and , there- fore , would not create significant additional traffic problems if developed as single family residential . 7. Access to Renton Hill is restricted to one entrance that is subject to blockage by trains . Several of the streets 1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON, R-218-78 PAGE FIVE L. IMPACT ON THE NATURAL SYSTEMS : Rezoning of the subject site will not have a direct impact upon the natural system. Development has already occurred on five of the six parcels. Development of the final lot is not pro- posed as a part of this rezoning. M. SOCIAL IMPACTS: Development of the subject site for residential use will increase the opportunities for social interaction . N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the City of Renton ' s Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , as amended , RCW 43-21C, a declaration of non-significance has been: issued for the pro- posal . 0. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION : A vicinity map and a site map are attached. P . AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED: 1 . City of Renton Building Division. 2. City of Renton Engineering Division. 3. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division . 4. City of Renton Utilities Division . 5. City of Renton Fire Department. 6. Renton School District #403 7 . Department of Ecology Q. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS : 1. The proposed rezone to R-1 is consistent with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan , which designates the subject site as single family residential . 2. The existing zoning around the site is R-1 in all directions except for a narrow corridor of R-3 on Mill Avenue South to the northwest of the subject site. The freeway to the west is not zoned and acts as a physical barrier. The R-1 . zoned property immediately west and south of the subject site was recently rezoned from R-3 to R-1 by Ordinance 3241 effective September 2 , 1978. The R-3 portions are developed as zoned , while the recently rezoned property to the south remains undeveloped . The other R-1 areas are developed as zoned. These patterns along with other elements seem to establish the subject site as a single family area which requires protection from other uses to retain its identity. 3. The goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Report, page 17 , objective number 1 , states : "Prevent blight by protecting residential and other exclusive dis- tricts from the unwarranted infiltration of incompatible uses which would contribute to premature decay and o.bso- lesence, and prevent the development .of orderly growth patterns . " The majority of the Renton Hill area is an existing single family residential neighborhood . ' Rezone and development of the subject area to single family resi - dence density , either by standard subdivision or by P . U . D . cluster-type development , would be compatible with the existing neighborhood and consistent with such objective. Development to higher densities would result in infiltra- tion of incompatible zoning , land uses , and such Compre- hensive objectives . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC 'HEARING: CITY OF RENTON , R-218-78 PAGE EIGHT of the .R-1 zone would be more compatible with such objec- tives . 10. The site is subject to loud sound levels , especially from FAI-405. The Department of Ecology recommended that per- formance standards be applied to sleeping areas of the dwelling to permit sleep . STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS : 1. Adolpt the following findings : a. The property has been zoned R-3 , multiple family, since October 21 , 1963. b. . That one parcel consisting of approximately one-sixth of the site has been developed in accordance with the R-3 district standards . The remaining parcels are single family homes and one undeveloped lot. c . That substantial changes and circumstances have occurred on the site in the form of construction of an eight-unit condominium as indicated in "b" above . Substantial changes also occurred in the vicinity of the site in the iform of construction of FAI-405, construction of Phillip Arnold Neighborhood Park , and street improvements to Cedar Avenue South . 2. Approve R-1 , single family, zoning for the subject area with the following additional considerations : a . The existing vegetation and other natural characteristics of the site should be retained as much as possible and incorporated into the site planning design and development. b. Access shall be limited to existing streets and improved as part of any site development. c. On-site soils and geologic investigations should be con- ducted to determine whether the site is safe to develop sand under what circumstances . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF. RENTON , R-218-78 PAGE SEVEN which provide access to the various areas on the Hill are steep , laid out in a grid arrangement, and as such should not be overloaded . The grades of the streets pre- sent a potential hazard not normally found in a .residential development. Also , one street has had a small section sub- sidence. (Comprehensive Plan , Arterials and Streets , 1965 , Purposes and Objectives of Study, pages 2 and 3) . Both Cedar Avenue South and Renton Avenue South have a right-of- way width of forty feet with improvements less than that which is normally required. Standard residential access streets are 50 to 60 feet in width. Due to existing struc- tures and improvements , there is little likelihood that these streets can be enlarged. Given this situation , the proposed rezone would have fewer impacts to the existing streets than 'the existing . zoning . In fact, the Streets and Arterials Plan , page 5 , states that "in the planning , design , and location of the major street system, considera- tion should be given to esthetics and community amenities in order that the system may provide attractive as well as safe , efficient circulation routes , and do the least dam- age to adjacent land uses 'and improvements. Conversely, the design and location of adjacent improvements should present the least possible interference with the traffic carrying capabilities of these traffic ways . " 8. The Streets and Arterials Plan also states as objectives page 3 ) : a . Provision for the safe , efficient and conven- ient movement of peoples and goods . b. , Arterial and street patterns compatible with and complimentary to the general land use plan . c. Adequate and safe access to allow convenient and efficient utilization of abutting proper- ties . The proposed rezone would be consistent with these objec- tives by reducing densities and resulting traffic volumes and providing for land use more compatible with the Com- prehensive Plan and roadway system. Also , the intro- duction of any larger street system into and through the area would be contrary to these and other Comprehensive Plan objectives . ( i . e. , Policy Statement , Comprehensive Plan , page 4 , "These' trafficways should be so designed that they function efficiently. . . their operation should not confilict or interfere with the functions of the resi - dential neighborhoods . " ) In addition , page 4 of the Streets and Arterials Plan says , "Traffic should be con- centrated on comparatively few roads which are adequately designed to accommodate the expected volume , rather than dispersed on many low standard residential roads . " 9. It is . apparent from the attached exhibits that the site has physical characteristics such as slope , mined-out coal beds , soils , and existing heavy vegetation which create potential problems in development and which should be considered when reviewing the size and intensity of development. Certain types of higher intensity develop- ment may in fact create potential hazards . Therefore , it would be in the public interest to minimize such possible hazard by proper planning , zoning , and develop- ment controls . The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Report designates the site as 15-25% slope moderately steep ) . Slopes to the west are even steeper (over 25%) and the Plan indicates that " in these areas , isolated slide problems will be encountered which must be recognized and the land, utilized accordingly. " The lesser density REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : e Department : 17-4,2 l c. oheeYl p Approved C7 Not Approved Comments or conditions : ec4 e,1ce4 ZmPact 4,414L' enttpa 1 f/I!d! 81 Signature of Director or Authorized Repres tative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : /457`r E:3 Approved 0 Not Approved Comments or conditions : f 71 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : p Approved d Not Approved Comments or conditions : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : C Approved Q Not Approved Comments or conditions : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date ROUTING SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION TO : Finance Department Fire Department Library Department OPark Department Police Department g Public Works Department - Building Div. 4 Engineering Div. (Please verify legal description) Traffic Engineering Div. 0 Utilities Engineering Div. FROM.: Planning Department , (signed by responsible official or his designee)/ And L. e/Itige DATE : OV/7X PLEASE REVIEW THIS APPLICATION FOR: X REZONE AR 2!9— 7,g MAJOR PLAT SITE APPROVAL SHORT PLAT SPECIAL PERMIT WAIVER ' SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT OR EXEMPTION AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT' 0/625WITHANYCOMMENTSYOUMIGHTHAVE , BEFORE REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : 0(._-D CO, Approved Not Approved Comments or conditions : eir..er...e.sii‘Alw..v o-i---_5?—tr-7/ Signatures• ' irector or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department: f/A 'A i”,ei 773-*Li E:grApproved EnliNot Approved Comments or conditions : d,e Af Za.c 2 .— Ma,c /'" C ' Z. S. O. /ec 61/ /+-fcxv.S Fo, , i, z-cJGc.d, /A'6` /.(>',0 iv73 AX/C 9CcesS /9S , Qu/ .2 ay, riot- Crf) 5,-- -/I-4esi i 7 c: r6-'e--v--- f/ /7cP Signature of Director or Authorize Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : De artment: Thdi c E i ACC= Y[ Approved D Not Approved Comments : rig"e fad s-- 74fre Signature of , Director. or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : El Approved Q Not Approved Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY' OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS: De artment : _ Approved EiNot . Approved Comments : Signature; of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS :. . ' Department : 1 fJ Approved Not Approved IComments : Y Signature' of Director or Authorized Representative Date 1 ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO: O Finance .Department Fire Department 1 . Library Department Park Department Police Department Public Works Department 4 Building Div. 1` Engineering Div. 4 Traffic Engineering Div. a Utilities Engineering Div. FROM: Planning Department, ( signed by responsible official or his designee) Z6g/ Z7 aiRa, SUBJECT: Review of ECF- 2,1 ..- /Ig ; Application No. : e' z/i' 7b Action Name :AfA/ AI,/ "fat!, e'i LIr Please review the attached. Review requested by (date) : 0/* Note : Responses to be written in ink. REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : pomartment : G' me '': roved Not Approved j7c, Pic 6.-,474 ^ _.--c--,-„ l/ 9 1 Signature o irector or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : / 7/ e/ Q Approved J Not Approved Comments : Th7f 1, Si.grra-ure of Director or Authorized Representative Date J f PROPOSED/FINAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/NON—SIGNIFICANCE Application No . R-218-78 (PHASE II) PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . ECF-383-78 X FINAL Declaration Description of proposal The City initiated a rezone of seven contiguous parcels consisting of ±1.23 acres from R-3 to R-1. Proponent CITY OF RENTON Location of Proposal In the general area of Renton Hill . Lead Agency City of Renton Planning Department This proposal has been determined to 0 have © not hay a si nificant adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS ] is x is not required under RCW 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 . Reasons ;for declaration of environmental significance : This negative declaration applies only to the rezone of the subject site. No physical development is proposed at this time, or as a part of this rezone. Further environmental review will be required as part of specific site development review.' Measures , if any , that could be taken to prevent or mitigate the environmental impacts to such an extent that the lead agency would withdraw its declaration of significance and issue a (proposed/final ) declaration of non-significance : Responsible Official Gordon Y. Ericksen Title P1. ing I 'rector _ Date September 18, 1978 jt` / Signature City of Renton 4,Planning Department 5-76 g' R-218-78 Page Two if parties in attendance objected to proceeding with the hearing on the basis of the ' disclosure. There was no objection. The Examiner requested testimony in support of the request. Responding was: Kathy Keolker 532 Cedar Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Keolker, President of the Renton Hill Community Association, indicated her .support' . for the proposed rezone. She reported submittal of two petitions at previous Planning . Commission, City Council, and Hearing Examiner meetings which indicated support for the rezone and opposition to zoning, planning or buiding of multiple family dwellings • or industrial concerns on Renton Hill or in adjacent areas which might" require access . through. the. existing neighborhood. She advised that the previous rezone of the property had 'occurred prior to the existence of a Comprehensive Plan for the City of Renton to establish orderly and appropriate growth. Mrs. Keolker reviewed the physical changes ' which had occurred on Renton Hill since the 1950's and 1960's including the construction of FAI-405, reduced access, new street improvements, undergrounding of power. lines, a new park, new homes, remodeling activity, as well as increased concern with community needs and increased political awareness. She stressed that Renton Hill is not a planned housing development, but is a self-maintained community bound together by a sense of belonging, feeling of family orientation, and rights to individuality. She reported existence of .a strong sense of responsibility for other neighbors which. provides security. and friendship to the residents, and noted the existence of second and third generations of original residents on the hill. . Mrs. Keolker advised that a federal grant is currently available for the, purpose of improvement 'of older Renton Hill homes for residents with limited incomes and provide for continued improvements and revitalization of the neighborhood. Mrs. Keolker reported that -condominiums constructed on the subject property inearly 1977 required destruction of an existing single family residence which would have been eligible for a federal improvement grant, the condominiums-remain vacant and minimum building 'code inspection approval has not been issued by the City of Renton. On the other hand, she noted', single family homes and lots are being expeditiously sold and extensive remodeling is occurring in the neighborhood. Mrs. Keolker referred to residential concerns related to high traffic volumes, parking limitations,' narrow street widths, limited access, pedestrian safety, unuseable alleys, low crime rate, childrens' safety concerns, school busing, retention of property values, retention of peace and quality of neighborhood, potential overcrowding of existing park, and capabilities of existing sewer and drainage systems if multiple family dwellings are allowed on Renton Hill. She submitted and.read a letter from two of the owners of the subject property which was labeled as follows by the Examiner: Exhibit #6: Letter to Hearing Examiner from Tillie Cole and Theodore C. Cole, dated September '25, 1978. The letter indicated the support of the owners in the proposed rezone to R-1, single family residential classification. The Examiner requested additional testimony ih support of the application. Responding" was: Robert McBeth P.O. Box 26 Renton, WA 98055 Mr. McBeth, 'legal counsel for the Renton Hill Community Association,' indicated his support of the proposed rezone from R-3 to R-1. He advised that although a tremendous amount of testimony had previously been submitted in support of the Phase I rezone, certain facts should be reiterated to provide a complete public record for the subject request. " 'He reported community concern for maintenance. of single family residential character of the neighborhood with the exception of Mill Avenue S. which contains multiple family use. Mr. McBeth referred to Exhibit #5,. King County Assessor's Map, and clarified that 6th Avenue does not go through from Mill Avenue S. to Cedar Avenue S, and side streets located between Mill Avenue S. and Cedar Avenue S. are not through streets, thereby limiting access to the subject property to Mill to two one-way streets, ' He reported' that the neighborhood had been developed as a' single" family 'residential , . . ' neighborhood; there is existence of a desirable city 'view, and residential lots are sold" expeditiously at high prices. October 3, 1978 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL, APPLICANT: City of Renton FILE NO. R-218-78 LOCATION: Property. is located_ on-the west. side ;of Cedar Avenue South between South"6th:.'Street and South -7th Street-. ' SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant requests a rezone of the subject property ' ' • from R-3, Medium Density Multiple Family, to R-1, Single ' Family Residential. SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Approval with conditions. . RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner: Approval. with conditions.' PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received'by the REPORT: Examiner on September 20, .1978. • PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the • • Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on September 26," 1978 at' 9:07 a.m, in `the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal-Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry to property owners in attendance regarding receipt of the Planning Department staff report, it was reported that the 'report had not been received prior to the hearing. Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director, indicated that copies had been mailed, on Wednesday, September 20., 1978. The Examiner asked the Assistant City Attorney, Daniel. Kellogg, if the hearing should proceed in view of the information that property owners, had not received prior copies of the staff report. Mr. Kellogg indicated that the city had met legal requirements of publication and notification if copies of the report,had been mailed to the last known address of the property owner. Upon receipt of this information, the Examiner proceeded with the hearing, and reported that he had received and reviewed the Planning Department report. The report was subsequently entered into the record as.Exhibit #1. Mr. Ericksen reported his' intent to briefly review general background information contained in, the staff report and additional. technical informatioulad be reviewed byDavid Clemens, Associate Planner. He 'noted that' the subject application' consisted ' . of Phase II of a rezone action Initiated 'by the City Council in accordance with recent changes on-the.Comprehensive Plan for the subject Renton Hill area. He requested • clarification from the Examiner regarding procedure for submittal. of exhibits previously reviewed during public hearings for Phase I rezone application. The Examiner indicated that exhibits may be submitted but, if requested, copies of all exhibits would be made available to interested parties. Mr: Ericksen submitted the following exhibits which were labeled as follows by the Examiner: Exhibit #2: Planning Department Staff Report, File No. R-178-78, dated June 13,,•1978 (Exhibit #1) Exhibit #3: Hearing Examiner Report and Recommendation, dated July 12, 1978, File No. R-178-78. Exhibit #4: Aerial Photograph, dated June 1, 1978. • Exhibit #5: King County Assessor's Map Following review of Exhibit #1, the Examiner noted that ,the Declaration of Environmental Non-Significance, dated'September 18, 1978i. signed by the Planning Director, is.. '. .' contained in,Exhibit #1. . " Prior to opening the hearing to testimony, the Examiner,disciosed, bei'ng acquainted with a resident on .Renton•Hill,`::although he advised that discussion•.regarding; the-. subject application had not occurred 'and the relationship-would not interfere with his 'ability to.objectively review the .request'and:render•"a':recommendati.on'.:on 'the.matter, He`,asked Y;, R-218-78 Page Four indicated her support, if this was the case, for rezoning the property to R-1 to provide compliance with existing single family uses. She disagreed with Mr. Farrell's statement that he owns 500 of the block, and opposed exempting his property from the rezone proposal because it would constitute spot zoning. Mrs. Keolker reitereated previous statements regarding protection of property values and maintenance of single family pattern of development on Renton Hill, availability of federal grant funds to improve existing homes on the subject site, and support of property owners in the • request for R-1 zoning. Mr. Farrell clarified that his property encompassed approximately,48% of :the site. He„ felt that the potential increase of density under R-3 zoning would_be ,minimal and.would' not impact the Renton Hill area. Following additional discussion, he indicated he had no objection to the rezoning if his property would not be affected other than becoming ' a non-conforming use, and emphasized that cost of developing the lots would be equal for single family or multifamily residential use. Mr. McBeth clarified that utilizing existing lot size figures denoted on Exhibit #5, Mr. Farrell's property comprises 31% of the total rezone site. Mr. Ericksen indicated that he wished to submit Section 4-726. (B) into the record for purposes of clarification of non-conforming uses. The Examiner advised that since the section was part of the zoning code and had already been reviewed and discussed, it would not be necessary to enter it into the record. The Examiner asked either Mr. Ericksen or Mr. Clemens to provide comparisons of maximum densities allowed in either multiple or single family residential zones excluding Mr. Farrell's property. Mr. Ericksen indicated that although the R-3 zoning would allow 30 units to the acre, steep slopes, provisions for off-street parking and open space would limit density to 10 to 12.units on the subject site. Under R-1 zoning, he reported . that five single, family residences could .be constructed. The Examiner requested clarification of an earlier. statement that prior to 1963 the Comprehensive Plan did not exist. Mr. Ericksen referenced Exhibit #1, page 8, Recommendation No. l.a. which denotes the date of the previous rezone which occurred prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1965. The Examiner referenced Exhibit #1, page 3, Section G; Traffic; referring to traffic counts conducted in a 24-hour period on January 22, 1978, and inquired if the volume reported reflected a maximum capacity at the crossing of 3rd Street and Mill Avenue S. Mr. Ericksen and Mr. Clemens indicated that lengthy testimony had been entered during the public hearings on Phase I, File No. R-178-78, regarding traffic volume data received from the Traffic Engineering Division and were included in Exhibit #2, Planning Department staff report, and Exhibit #3, Examiner's Report.. Mr. Clemens referenced . comments introduced by Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director, in previous testimony during Phase, I hearings, denoted on page 12 of the Examiner's Report, which stated that ' anticipated trip generation from an additional 100-unit development could be accommodated by Cedar Avenue S. in its existing condition although certain _inconveniences and'delays may occur. The Examiner referenced Exhibit-#1, page 3, Section H; Sound; which relates to sound readings taken in mid-September, 1978, and inquired if sound readings for Phase i and II were taken under identical circumstances. Mr. Clemens indicated that the same equipment had been utilized under identical circumstances for both readings. The Examiner referenced Exhibit #1, page 6, Section Q.6. , which states that reference to the Arterials and Streets Plan, as well as the City's Subdivision Ordinance, indicates that this access to the subject site is not adequate for any higher density use than single family residential. He inquired if clarification had been received from the Public Works Department to differentiate from impact from single. family or multifamily residential use. Mr. Clemens reported, that lower density would be less likely to exaggerate existing conditions in single family rather :than multifamily residential zones. • The Examiner referenced a request for clarification by Mr. McBeth regarding Staff Recommendation, Item 2.b. , denoted on page 8 of Exhibit#1. Mr. Clemens indicated that the phrase, ". . .and improved as part of any site development." should be deleted and the line revised to read: "Access shall be limited to existing streets." Mr. McBeth reiterated previous comments relating to capacity of the streets' to accommodate additional traffic, and' stressed that the intersection of Mill Avenue S. ' and 3rd Street cannot accommodate additional traffic. Mr. Farrell,referred to Exhibit #3 regarding previous discussion regarding traffic studies, and' indicated' that statistics received from the City's Traffic Engineering Division were utilized 'by both staff 'and the opposition in the hearing and .the .record contained complete .information: The Examiner."inquired if the report contained a ,synopsis or , R-218-78 Page Three Mr. McBeth referred to traffic and access problems currently existing. in the area, noting street patterns create a large cul-de-sac to provide access for traffic. He reported high traffic volumes which occurred when the pipeline road was opened in 1972 which were , reduced by half upon •closure, and expressed opposition to provision, Of an additional access to the south which would allow traffic through the existing neighborhood. Mr. McBeth discussed, existing parking problems created because of narrow, 26-one-half foot width of Cedar Avenue and unavailability of off-street parking, noting that two .cars cannot pass each other in opposite directions concurrently. ferencing the, r.ecommendat on denoted in ,Exhib t #1, page 8 , Item 2•b• , ' ". . . andreimproved ,qu clarification of tent of the phrase referringto access, as part of any site development.", noting that streets, not access., could be improved. He advised that due to changes which have occurred on the hill since the previous rezone - in 1963, such as construction of FAI-405 which eliminated the 4th Avenue access, development of parks and traffic patterns, improvement of Cedar Avenue S. through an LID, and change in attitude of residents, the rezone should be approved to retain Renton Hill as ,a viable single family residential neighborhood. He noted that one-third of all residences on the hill have been remodeled since 1963 demonstrating the intent to revitalize the . area, and reported. that the rezone in 1963 encompassed an' extensive area of which Renton Hill was one individual area and given very little consideration. The Examiner requested testimony in opposition to the request. Responding was: Gene O. Farrell • 11112 Rainier Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98178 Mr. Farrell, property ,owner of the existing ,8-plex condominium development located"; at 629 Cedar Avenue S. , indicated his opposition to.,the'..rezone request. .He advised that ,' .; . his 'property, owned since 1968, comprises 50% of the entire parcel and-was developed under R-3 zoning. He clarified that the structure previously existing on the site was a tri-plex, 'not a single family residence. He reported that the use of the subject property had been multiple family since 1945' and the purpose of the previous rezone request was to provide zoning ,in accordance to the use. He explained that construction and completion of the 8-plex was halted until completion of pending litigation on the property to the south'of the site, and referring to previous comments regarding crime rate, he reported that five burglaries and excessive vandalism had occurred to the structure since construction: Mr. Farrell emphasized that his development is a natural extension of existing multiple family uses to the west, and current zoning allows the highest and best use of the property.. He discussed limitations in development' of existing lots under R-1 zoning such as below. minimum lot square footage and width, ' inability to provide off-street parking, and unuseable property located on steep slopes. He indicated that the balance, of.the parcel is uneconomical for any type of development, either residential or .mUltifamily. Mr. Farrell. suggested a better zone for the balance ' of the property would be R-2 which would allow duplexes or townhouses and felt that downzoning would perpetuate the existing blighted ,situation currently existing and would not allow for improvements in the future. Mr. Farrell requested exemption of the existing'8-plex from the current rezone request for the .economic life of the building to allow a conforming use for purposes of financing and insurance. He advised that taxes in accordance to R-3 zoning had been paid on the property since 1968 and reported participation in the Cedar Avenue S. LID. He noted that the proposed downzone would affect the welfare of existing residents on.the subject parcels by destroying economic value of the property, and retention of the R-3 zoning would not increase density by more than two units and.would not impact the access problems or traffic volumes in the area. He stated that due to the existing topography, noise, from the freeway and costs of development„multiple family development was the only feasible use of the property, and the existing condominium should be exempted to preclude the existence of a non-conforming use on the site. Mr. Ericksen clarified the intent of the zoning code, 'Section 4-726. (B) ; Non-Conforming Uses; which states that the existing use of the structure would continue for its . lifespan on a non-conforming basis provided certain conditions are met. He noted that while undertermined reuse at some future time would be affected by the provisions' of the code, other conditions would allow property owners to maintain, and improve the facility up to 50% of the value of the structure, although increases .in size or. additions would not be allowed. Regarding 'provision of off-street parking, Mr. , Ericksen felt that impact would _be. much greater in a multifamily .zone than in single family residential zoning. Regarding Mr, Farrell's comments relating to excessive noise, Mr. Ericksen indicated. that developmental methods were utilized to reduce impact and to limit density so that a minimum, number of people are affected by detrimental factors. Mrs. Keolker referenced a comment made by Mr. Farrell that the balance of the parcel is uneconomical for any type of development, either residential or multifamily. ' She R-218-78 Page Six a. The character of the neighborhood. b. Existing uses and the zoning of nearby property. c. The amount by which property values are decreased. d. The extent to which the diminution of values promotes the public health, .safety; morals or welfare. e. The relative gain to the public as compared with the hardship imposed upon the individual owner. . f. The suitability of the subject property for the purpose for which it is zoned. g. The length of time the property has remained unimproved, considered in the context of the land development in the area. h. No single factor is controlling but each must receive due consideration. i. The aggrieved property owner must show that if the rezone occurs the consequent restrictions on his property preclude its use for any purpose to which it is reasonably adapted. j. The aggrieved property owner must show that there is no possibility for profitable use under the restrictions of the rezone, or that the greater part of the value of the property is destroyed by the rezone. Economic and functional use is assumed and that some permitted use can be profitable. 10. All portions. of the Comprehensive Plan apply to the proposed rezone; however, the following goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan are most' applicable: In planning neighborhoods the creation of residential districts free of overcrowding influences, arterial traffic, and the unwarranted encroachment of commercial and industrial uses are important objectives (Page 4, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, 1965) . 1. Within the single family detached dwelling residential areas, population densities should not exceed six families per acre. 'In single family attached dwelling areas (townhouses) densities should not exceed ten families per acre. 2. Within the multiple family areas, population densities should not exceed forty (40) families per acre. 3. Population densities recommended for any given area shall take into consideration the physical limitations of the soils and topography, the, community facilities available, and the trends of existing development (Page 5, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965) . It is the plan and policy of the City of Renton, through its physical, economic, and cultural development, to encourage the appropriate use of land throughout the municipality. To this end, the city will encourage proper employment of construction methods and land use principles, and promote the coordinated development of undeveloped areas. It will further give consideration to the prevention of overcrowding of land; the avoidance of undue concentrations of population; and provision for adequate light and air by securing open arrangements of carefully spaced buildings and building groups. It will'be important for the city to reserve appropriate allotments of land in new ,developments for all the requirements of community life. At the same time, the conservation and restoration of the natural beauty of the community's cultural and natural resources will be a primary goal. As these goals are achieved, the formation of functional, natural neighborhoods and community units will result. (Summary, pages 9 and 10, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965) . Residential. The successful utilization of land for low density residential ' development will depend on the availability of easily .accessible areas which are relatively free of recurring or potential hazards such as floods, slides, and land subsidence. Residential districts should be free of manufacturing or commercial uses which would be detrimental to the community and its residents. The natural features and amenities that may exist or can be developed should be utilized to best advantage for the use and benefit of the community. Convenience to place of employment, shopping districts, schools, parks and other cultural activities, should be ,inherent features of the location. R-218-78 Page Five conclusions relative to traffic studies that were reported in testimony by the Traffic Engineering Division. Mr. Clemens referenced Exhibit #3, Finding No. 17, page 20,'.which indicates that the existing streets on Renton Hill could absorb the projected amount of traffic from the three properties if developed under R-3 zoning (Exhibit #19, 27 & 37. of File No. R-178-78) . The Examiner requested further comments. . Responding was: Martha Wiberg 1201 S. 3rd Street Renton, WA '98055 ;.. Mrs. Wiberg was affirmed by the Examiner. She reported that although she had not made an official count of traffic from her residence, she had obs.:rved traffic on 3rd Street ' backed up for more than six blocks 'from Mill Avenue S. past :ier home. The Examiner requested a final recommendation from the Planning Department. Mr. Ericksen indicated that the staff report, Exhibit #1, would remain as submitted with a deletion. of the phrase "and improved as.part of any site development." from Recommendation 'No. . 2..b. ' The Examiner requested further comments. Since there .were none, the hearing on File No. R-218-78 was closed by the Examiner at 11:50 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS& RECOMMENDATIONS: ,Having reviewed the record in this matter, •the ' Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The reques:t 'is 'for approval of a reclassification of 1,.23 acres from R-3• to R-1. 2. The Planning 'Departtent 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 Exhibit #1) . 4. The proposal has been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this proposal. • 5. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. ' 6. On December 5, 1977, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3186 amending the ' Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from a designation of 'Medium Density Multifamily to a designation of. Single Family pursuant to an analysis performed .by the Planning . . Commission of area land use, 'which included the six properties contained in this. application (Exhibit .#3) . The public hearing on this ,rezone application does .not constitute a review of the validity.of that decision by the City Council. 7. The Planning Department has found .that .the existing zoning of R-3 does'not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. A recommendation has been made to. rezone the six properties to R-1 (Exhibit #1) . 8. In addition to the. findings of Section 4-3014 (Hearing Examiner Ordinance) the case ' of Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn 2d 454 (January, 1978)' presented the following , findings (Exhibit #3) :, a. . The presumption of validity of the' rezone action by the City Council does not hold.. Sufficient' proof must be 'presented to .support the rezone. The burden of proof for rezoning the property rests with the city to prove that conditions have substantially changed since the .previous zoning. b. The rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety. morals or welfare. c. Current views of the community must be given substantial weight, but cannot be' a controlling reason .for the rezone. 9. The Carlson v. City of Belleuve, 72 Wn 2d 41, 51, 435 P. 2d 957. (1968) case set forth additional considerations for evaluating the rezone ',(Exhibit #3) :, x-2irs-its 'age Eight 16. Renton Hill is predominantly a single family community with_a small "pocket" of , multifamily located on Mill Avenue S. abutting the freeway. For the most part, the housing stock is older homes which have been restored, remodeled or in need of some maintenance or repair. The age of the homes is as varied as the style of architecture. But testimony indicated that revitalization of the homes has •been most noticeable within the past few years. Most homes are constructed on sloped or fairly: steep hillside lots. 17. The existing 8-plex building owned by Gene 0. Farrell at the .northwest corner of Cedar Avenue S. and S. 7th Street would become anon-conforming use per'Section 4-726 if the property were rezoned to R-1. According to the Planning' Director, Section 4-726 would allow continued use of the 8-plex as it is currently constructed and intended; however, future additions or remodeling may be affected. Therefore, Mr. Farrell expressed concurrence with the proposed rezone. 18. Exhibit #6 was a letter stating agreement with the rezone by Theodore C. Cole and Tillie Cole, owners of some of the subject property. CONCLUSIONS: . 1. It was substantiated in Exhibit #3 that the Planning Commission and City Council considered the area land use, not area zoning, of Renton Hill and the surrounding community'. The result of their public hearings was a change in the, Comprehensive• Plan land use designation for the subject properties to single, family residential Section 4-3014. (A) ) . 2. Since the; property was rezoned in 1963, Renton ,Hill has experienced the significant changes of: a. Completion of FAI-405 which introduced a large noise source and.eliminated all ' but one access to the neighborhood. b. Completion of improvement of Cedar Avenue S. c. Openi'ng and closing Of Beacon Way S. to vehicular traffic. d. Increased community awareness of and involvement in use decisions. e. Reclassification of the southerly adjacent property from R-3 to R-1 (Ordinance No. 3241)' (subject of current litigation) . f. City of Renton Housing Repair Program prioritization for Renton Hill. Taken together these changes appear to be sufficiently significant to apply to Section 4-3014. (C) ) . Most significant was the reduction of access to a single intersection of Mill Avenue S. and S. 3rd Street. All of the traffic from Renton Hill moves through this intersection, except for emergency public safety vehicles which can use the Seattle Cedar River Pipeline (Beacon Way S.) when the intersection is blocked. In effect, the end result is a long and densely populated cul-de-sac which exceeds the limit of Section 9-1108.K (Subdivision Ordinance) and is often interrupted by' train traffic. Alternative access -to the south was explored to help relieve' the access problem Exhibit #3) , but the problems created by FAI-405 remain unsolved. Of some help was the first LID for improvement of Cedar Avenue S. While this improvement helped' traffic movement somewhat, the traffic capacity and maneuverability • of the street is restricted and impaired by the narrow pavement. The interest and involvement of the neighborhood in land use decisions has apparently' increased substantially since the public hearings concerning rezoning the subject properties in 1963. As a result of neighborhood pressure the Planning Commission and City Council re-evaluated the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. ' The conclusions ' of the City Council were to change the map from Medium Density Multi-family to Single Family Residential. Building permit activity has remained relatively' steady and stable since 1963, not ' displaying the alleged substantial change in renovation of new homes in the neighborhood (Exhibit #3) . However, the neighborhood. is a vital, rejuvenating one which does not exhibit a transitional character. Most of the properties have'not been substantially changed, and people continue- to • build upon moderate to steep slopes: R-218-78 Page Seven In medium and high density residential use districts the proximity to major employment centers, shopping districts; financial districts and office centers is important, as is convenient access- to major arterials and highways. The nearby convenience of a larger variety of cultural .features such as libraries, . , ' museums, parks, theaters and other forms of entertainment and relaxation is a desirable feature which may distinguish high density from low density residential districts. Other compatible or complementary intensive uses may include research, and office centers, shopping districts and other functions which are not detrimental _to _the maintenance of desirable living conditions. • While commercial or industrial uses' are' not easily adapted 'to hillside locations:, residential._development may be successfully•planned to take good advantage of the amenities which such locations'often provide. , Natural features such as rock out-croppings, streams, stands' of native trees, and the views often available from these locations should be used to greatest advantage (Page 11, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965) . 1. Prevent blight by protecting residential and Other exclusive districts from the unwarranted infiltration of incompatible uses. which would contribute to premature decay and obsolescence, and prevent the development of orderly growth patterns. . 4., Protect property values within the community for the .benefit of its, residents and property owners, through the effective control of land use and the" enforcement and application of building and construction codes. 6. Encourage the development and utilization of land to its highest' and best use in such a way as to promote the best interest .of the community and_ contribute to its, overall attractiveness and desirability .as a place in which to work, shop, live and play' (Objectives, pages 17 and 18, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965) . . 11. Zoning of' R-1 would allow a maximum density of 6 units per acre and R-3'would permit a maximum density of 30 units per acre (Exhibit #3) . The Planning Director testified that the subject sites could practically support 5 units under R-1 zoning or 10 to 12 units under R-3 zoning. 12. Since the reclassification.of the property in 1963; FAI-405 was completed (1967) , thereby eliminating all but one access point to Renton Hill (Exhibit #3) . In the period from 1963 to 1978 a total of 22 new residences ,and 3. apartment buildings containing a total of 21 units) 'were constructed in the neighborhood (Exhibit #3) . There also occurred during this period'69 remodels', additions or garage construction permits (Exhibit#3) . Beacon Way S.. was opened and closed (1972-1973)- to the south over the Seattle Cedar River Pipeline (Exhibit #3) . The property immediately south of the subject sites was rezoned from R-3 to R-1 by the City Council on August 29, 1978 (Ordinance No. 3241) . East of the existing multifamily developments on Mill Avenue S. remains only the subject sites in multifamily', not;single family R-1, zoning. Renton:Hill is a "target area" for the City of Renton:Housing Repair Program (Exhibit #1) . 13. All but one of the subject properties is developed. The topography of the properties is of a fairly' steep slope (Exhibit #1) similar .to the western, slope of Renton Hill. Underlaying much of Renton Hill is old, mined-out coal beds (Exhibit #1) . Soils on the subject sites present hazards for development as in other portions of Renton Hill (Exhibit #1) . 14. Traffic information. (Exhibits #1 and '3) indicated that existing streets on Renton Hill could absorb the:projected amount of traffic from 'the properties if developed under R-3zoning. Traffic would not flow as easily as it now does, but the main problem for vehicular circulation appeared to be the intersection of Mill Avenue S. and S. 3rd Street, the intersection Of th'e Only access to and from Renton Hill. ' However, the Public Works Department testified (Exhibit #3) that modification of the . traffic signal at this intersection could accommodate the projected' increased traffic. It was very apparent that a secondary access to. and from Renton Hill was needed and preferred. Streets on Renton Hill are not designated as arterials. Public safety vehicles can reach Renton Hill via the Seattle; Cedar River Pipeline.,. Exhibit #3) . 15. The view. of the Renton .Hill community was clearly expressed' of supporting rezoning the property to R-1 and single family development. A' Strong. sense of community and identify were presented. The consensus appeared to be that .the. community is • unique in' these and other,ways and that R--3 development would seriously impact:.and endanger the existing'character' and livability of the community._ R-218-78 Page Ten comfortable with the impact of R-1 zoning on their property. 5.. Both Carlson v. City of Bellevue and Parkridge v. City of Seattle require that the loss of property value bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare (Exhibit #3) . Many opinions were presented that the safety of traffic movement, pedestrian movement, and general living were threatened by .retention of the existing zoning of R-3. , The Public Works Department testified that the projected increased traffic would not be desirable, but the neighborhood could absorb.it with some inconvenience (Exhibit #3) . 6. Carlson v.' City of Bellevue requires addressing the suitability of the property. for . use as R-3. (Exhibit #3) . Soils, topography, geology (including mining activity) , and noise information was submitted in Exhibit #1 by the Planning Department. This information indicated severe constraints upon development. It appears that this • data was compiled from very general information and maps. However, no opposition to this information and its accuracy was expressed. Based upon the topography of the site and the aforementioned general information, it can be reasonably concluded that single family and multifamily ,development will experience problems on the properties. But testimony did not substantiate whether or not these problems would be any greater, lesser or the same as experienced in' development'of 'other sloped properties in the neighborhood. Multifamily construction exists on Mr. Farrell's property. In terms of land use, the Comprehensive Plan would indicate that transition is necessary between R-3 and/R-1. The topographic and vegetation conditions on the subject properties, for the most part, provide little transition. Less intense use of the subject properties would be more compatible'with the adjacent R 1 properties. 7. The final test for the proposed rezone is whether or not there exists a, preponderance of proof supporting R-1 (Parkridge v. City Of Seattle; Exhibit #3).. It appears that a preponderate amount of evidence is available in support of R-1. At the end of the public hearing there was no opposition, to R-1. 8. Single family,, R-1; is the most appropriate zoning and can be adequately buffered via vegetation, acoustical walls, etc. from FAI-405 and the abutting westerly R-3 zone which is located, due to slope, below the subject properties. The westerly abutting R-3 development exerts some pressure for transition to the existing R-1 east of Cedar Avenue S. However, the slope gradient between these two zones and the intervening subject property is sufficient' to accomplish this transition with the assistance of the landscape screening that exists along the westerly border , of the subject property. 9. From the,testimony and the record it can be reasonably concluded that reclassification of the subject properties would be of substantial benefit to. the public health, safety and welfare. The existing traffic circulation and access problems would be • lessened, including possible traffic or pedestrian accidents. - Overcrowding of' the • neighborhood would not occur. Less potential harm to the future residents of the • subject sites due to subsidence would occur. The neighborhood would not absorb additional multifamily development which potentially conflicts with the existing single family character. The stability of at least a portion of -the neighborhood would not be threatened. The benefits to the public health, safety and welfare appear, upon weighing the . evidence, to be predominantly in favor of the rezone to R-1. Predominantly, the benefit to the existing and future residents of Renton Hill and the general public rests in' the relative reduction of traffic associated impacts upon existing streets and the intersection of Mill Avenue S. and S. 3rd Street, A reasonable use remains for these properties which appears acceptable to the property owners. 10. Sufficient mechanisms (e.g. building permit) appear available to safeguard development of the site as opposed to regulating the retention of vegetation on the properties Staff Recommendation No. 2.a.) 11. Access from the properties is essentially established, 'and further control of access is not necessary (Staff Recommendation No. 2.b.)'. ' 12. Uniform Building Code regulations adequately respond to 'concerns regarding detailed studies. of'soil.and geology conditions pertaining to actual development .(Staff. . Recommendation No. 2.c.) . The staff can also require such information in connection . with the environmental checklist and review. R-218-78 Page Nine The reclassification of the southerly properties (Rezone No. R-178-78; Ordinance No. 3241) to R-1 leaves the subject sites as the only remaining R-3 zoned land on the west side,of Cedar Avenue S. All but .one parcel (containing an 8-plex) and an undeveloped lot are developed in single, family residences. ' . Continued renovation of existing residences is expected and desired in the City of Renton Housing Repair Program. Based upon these conclusions, ,it .,is ,apparent:that-the. conditions on 'RentonHill :, have significantly changed since '1963.: Thereby, a 'test of Parkridge v. "City 'bk.' Seattle has been met (Exhibit #3) . ' 3. The subject.properties are potentially suited for reclassification pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan (Section 4-3014. (C) . Sufficient justification was given to ' warrant a reclassification from the existing zoning of R-3. It was_ apparent that the "overcrowding influence" (Pages 4, 9 and 10, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965) occurring on Renton Hill are primarily traffic related. Residents feel that •existing streets will be overburdened by' traffic from R-3 development. The streets can handle the traffic. Inconvenience will occur to motorists using the streets on Renton Hill due to traffic produced by, R-3 development. The proposed R-I is within the six units per acre density guideline of the Comprehensive Plan (Page 5, Comprehensive-Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965) . . . In Exhibit #1, staff questioned the capability of the soil and topography to support higher density (Also see Exhibit #3) . The Comprehensive Plan; Land Use Report, page 11; indicates 'that "low density residential development" should occur on land ". . .relatively free of recurring or potential hazards such as floods, slides, and land subsidence." Subsidence has occurred near the subject properties (Exhibits #3 and 3)`.' Uncontested information was supplied by the Planning Department in Exhibit #1 to indicate that severe hazards exist on the properties due to soil, topography and mining conditions. Therefore, .it appears that "low density residential development" should not occur on the properties; 'however, this term is not defined in the Comprehensive Plan. These hazards present problems to any development on the sites. Zoning of R-3. is ,not compatible with.R-1 when the two zones directly abut. under normal circumstances (Objective No. 1,. page 17, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965) . Residents offered the contention that R-3 development would produce "decay and obsolescence. . ." (Ibid) in the neighborhood. After consideration of non-conforming status (Section 4-726) the impact upon property values Of the property owners appeared of little concern (Objective No. 4, page 17, Comprehensive.Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965);.. : It was clear that not increasing the traffic problems in the neighborhood would be'. in the community's best interest and in. the best interest of anyone developing on . Renton Hill (Objective No. 6, page 18, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965) . Under the circumstances it. is also clear that R-3, while yielding the most profit, will conflict with this community's best interest. Something less than R-3 is more appropriate, but testimony addressed R-1 almost exclusively. Testimony regarding the contribution of R-1 to the ". . .overall attractiveness and desirability as a place in which to work; shop, live and play: . ." (Ibid) seemed to substantially support the proposed reclassification to R-1. Traffic impact from a more dense development than R-1 and the impact of R-3. upon adjacent zoning appeared to cause the greatest concerns on the part of. residents relative to. the ' attractiveness and desirability" of the neighborhood. .Testimony did not explore alternatives to mitigating these impacts.-. Sufficient transition via ,existing ' topography and vegetation is present between the westerly abutting .R-3 developed properties and the subject sites. 4. Relative to the decrease in property values (Carlson v.. Bellevue;' Exhibit #3 - , testimony was received only from Mr:' Farrell who indicated a _loss in value : estimated at approximately $50,000. However:, this .estimate was not revised per, ` ' ' . the explanation of non-conforming status under Section 4-726. . .After this. explanation by the Planning Director, Mr. Farrell'.s concerns about this estimated loss in value appeared satisfied as he subsequently agreed to the reclassification` : . of his property to il-l: Other testimony relative to impact upon.property values: .: : was'not provided.. However, it can be concluded that the property owners (Mr..: ::;,';. . Farrell, Theodore C.. Cole and Tillie.Cole) were, at ,the end of the public:hearin g., i PARK P / r rMILaE11, 11 NI:SC etrlDL KYOOL I !•7i, ma4a1 •1,J• lif• 7 1L_ II I1, *'3' 7 a]ri $ al n 1/4 SS Ire' WilEdJ'JP ;5r>(41113_ vim - J'' i g `-ial!a v '• ;43:~ t r `` ram • n ryr,! lcriViefib' ,a •. 7e• SUBJECTi,r'1 „ __`* ' '' SITE e V --- ......,,i wet 3 I 7. 1.:4-it "IlSs I,' 'J.` , I; ' 4‘ . 41 I I 1L7 J 1 H-I i l'Q- - ,. :z ip ilk,: I cam• hiH e>. b:•r I"a:%C=r 7A firwr 1T• c..f" r` •1 00 i r\--.1 ' aer. a Or 1: I t ACM • r.,Ural. MP1. •I _.•cam : • . r—=--- 1 j,i /g.,,'„, A I et r+I e L a 1ui• R/ 11. 411 G S\ R-3 12 .'' 'it .'" :1- P 11 ID ei. . H ! i i.. .: . i 11 , , 2, , R 4 I. ...11.10 r • - '. 4--- . d GS—I1 l, iot• -er - ' 10 ntit 111 a' r Al,- D'L n ,i 1 " lisl •.._1 . ., , I I f APPL I CANT CITY OF RENTON TOTAL AREA. ±1.23 acres PR I NC I PAL ACCESS Cedar Ave. South between South 6th and 7th Streets Ex! 51 ING ZONING .R-3, Residential Multiple Family Four single family dwellings, one 8-plex condominium, one EXISTING USE undeveloped lot. PROPOSED USE 0ve To SPlan'andzonzoning classificationzoniigaandnlaompasiblg with therpsedence •1X 1D9 Pfl 1 @5 (S fl fig 1Y 1 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN .Single Family Residential COMMENTS The proposed rezoningwill . bring the zoning of the sub.iect site into, ' conformance with the Comprehensive. Plan. No physical _development is proposed • , at this ;time. i 1• I R-218-78 Page Eleven RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the testimony, record, findings and conclusions herein, it is the recommendation of the Examiner that the City Council approve reclassification of the subject properties from'R-3 to R-l. ORDERED THIS 3rd day of October, 1978. Or L. Ri k Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 3rd day of October, 1978 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties . of record: Kathy Keolker, 532 Cedar Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Robert McBeth, P.O. Box 26, Renton, WA 98055 Gene 0. Farrell, 11112 Rainier Avenue S. , Seattle, WA 98178 Tillie & Theodore C. Cole, 601 Cedar Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Homeco, Inc. , 12721 Renton Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 Lyman E. Riley, 3 Limetree Dr.', Palos Verdes Peninsula, California 90274 Walter Smith, 623 Cedar Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 3rd day of October, 1978 to the following: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti '. Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Councilwoman Patricia Seymour-Thorpe' Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Ron Nelson, Building Division Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before October 17, 1978. 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. 1411/11/ 6 - Er 1/4, t do id. fie ,. to i4./4 ' JG'0 ate'/ dri h oatil 10'1- T r V,¢Cir/D4 K.R1JT 1 RILL- 0r4ANE. ?.16 1Sr l:r 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 3rd day of October 1978 , 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 9j' day of Wo9,..e 19,(6 . Notary Public in and for the State Of Washington, residing at Renton Application, Petition or Case: City of Renton, R-218-78 The minutes c.onta k a £Ls-t (: .the paAtieb o6 necond) c THE. CITY OF RENTON Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 Z m]J , '', O 0 ,.• ' :,t : ' CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 4 Q` I L. RICK BEELER , 235-2593O 4ttb SE PIti O October 10, 1978 I Members, Renton City Council Renton, Washington I RE: File No. R-218-78, City of Renton, Phase II; Rezone Request. I Dear 'Council Members: I Attached is the Examiner's Report and Recommendation on the referenced rezone request, dated October 3,• 1978. The appeal period for the application expires on October 17 , 1978, and the report is being forwarded to you, for review by the Planning and Development Committee following the seven day period from the date of publication. I The complete file will be transmitted to the City Clerk on October 18, 1978; and will be placed on the Council agenda on November 6, 1978. . If you require additional assistance or information regarding this matter, please contact the undersigned. Sincerelyr-Th i / milI. L. Rick Beeler Hearing .Examiner cc: iPlanning Department City Clerk I Rer on i ty Council 11, 1/7E Page 3 Old Business ,Continued Councilman Shane Councilman Shane requested the following items be indicated in Inquiries the record: His opposition to proposed support for liquor license for "non-union" restaurant. Motions by Shane failed for lack of a second: Senior citizens living in own home receive up to $50 reduction An property taxes; Place 2% tax on para mutuel betting at Longacres; All salaries be discussed on the council floor. Upon inquiry by Councilman Shane re budget items, Councilman Stredicke requested the record show both his and Councilwoman Shinpoch' s request that budget items not be re-reviewed- at Council meetings for members who have not attended the scheduled budget meetings. Councilman Councilman Stredicke called attention to stop sign on Perimiter Stredicke Road,south bound traffic from the restaurant appears to be stop Inquiries for turn only, being confusing. Stredicke also requested written report on occupancy permit issuance and waiving of same. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means Ways and Means Committee Chairman Stredicke presented the follow- Committee Report ing ordinances for first reading: First Readings An ordinance was read rezoning property from G to Trailer Park T Bitney Rezone located 1000 ft. south of NE 4th St. and adjacent to Union SE and R-179-78 the existing Leisure Estates Mobile Home Park, known as the Dean Bitney Rezone Ordinance. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE REFER ORDINANCE BACK TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Renton Hill An ordinance was read rezoning property from R-3 to R-1 single Phase II family residential district for property located on the west side Rezone 218-78 of Cedar Ave. S. between S. 6th St. and S. 7th St. , known as the Renton Hill Phase II Rezone. Councilman Clymer left the Council Chambers prior to reading of the ordinance and took no part in any action or discussion on this matter. due to conflict of interest. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL REFER ORDINANCE BACK TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Councilman Clymer returned to the Chambers. Time Extension An ordinance was read relating to extension of time for Hearing Examiner's decision. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE, REFER THE , ORDINANCE BACK TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Resolution !#2221 The Ways and Means Committee recommended adoption of a resolution Alley Vacation setting 12/11/78 as public hearing for vacation of alley located Hearing 12/11/78 within Block 11 , Car Works Addn. (Vacation #8-78) MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE, ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. VOUCHER APPROVAL The Ways and Means Committee recommended approval for payment of Vouchers No. 20231 through No. 20430 in the amount of $362,450.18 having received departmental approval as to receipt of merchandise and/or services; plus LID #297 Revenue Warrant R-9 $5,555 and R-10 in amount of $157,559.94 and Cash Warrants C-11 $5,555, C-12 $715.40, C-13 $156,844.54. Also approved for payment LID #302 R-27 $3,750 and C-62 $3,750. (Vouchers #20226 through 20230 cancelled during processing. ) MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND CLYMER, APPROVE VOUCHERS AS DRAFTED BY ADMISTRATION. CARRIED. Oil Recycling The Ways and Means Committee report recommended that the subject of containers for used oil be referred back to the Council without action. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHINPOCH, COUNCIL CONCUR. CARRIED. Following discussion, Councilman Perry explained need for' 50-gallon drum as container for disposing of used oil from "home mechanic auto oil change." MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE, COUN- CIL ENCOURAGE ANY BUSINESS INTERESTED IN RECYCLI'1G GIL TO DO SO BUT IN NO WAY MAKE IT MANDATORY. CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA The following items were adopted by one motion without discussion: i Renton City Counull 11/13/78 Page 4 Consent Agenda Appointment Letter from Mayor Del.aurenti. appointed John J. McLaughlin, Jr. to the position of Lieutenant in the Renton Fire Department effective November 16, subject to the customary six-month proba- tion period. Council concurrence. Kennydale Letter from the Kennydale Community Club, President Dave Biggar, Comprehensive requested suspension of the Club's letter of August 9,8 Plan which had requested review of the Comprehensive Plan, until such time as the Club presents proposed plan for Kennydale. Refer to Planning Commission. Tiffany Park Letter from Hearing Examiner Beeler recommended approval with con- FP 233-78 ditions for Tiffany Park Division #3 Final Plat 233-.7.8. by Develop- ment Coordinators, Inc. Refer to Ways and Means Committee for approving resolution. Consent -Agenda MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS Approval PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Public Works Director Gonnason presented proposed SR-515 agreement with the State re SR-515 roadway construction from Agreement Puget Drive to Carr Road which covers the City's participation with State in cost of traffic control devices including sidewalks and illumi- nation in amount of $254,585.97. The letter noted amount includes construction engineering and contingencies and payment will be made only for actual costs incurred. The letter noted the City is awaiting action by King County in form of Resolution or OrdinanceconfirmingamendmenttotheForwardThrustArterialStreetlist-ing which substituted this SR-515 project for an original Benson , Road project; bid advertising scheduled by: the State 1/15/79. The letter recommended the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign agreement. Moved by Stredicke, Second Thorpe, refer to the Transportation Committee. SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY CLYMER, SECOND SHINPOCH, CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. Consolidation Letter from the Fire Chiefs addressed to Honorable Mayors of of Fire Auburn, Kent, Renton and Tukwila proposed merger of the four Departments Valley Fire Departments to give, better service to citizens with advantages and disadvantages. The letter noted three step study: 1 ) by Fire Chiefs (completed) , (2) by Elected Officials and (3) by Outside Concern or People. The letter noted problem area of difference in salary, hours and benefits; as well as possibility that some cities would not have to build new fire stations until more development of area,MOVEDwith THORPES spareSECONDapparatusCLYMER, andREFERoffice THE spaces needed, etc. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE TO REVIEW. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Councilman Stredi.cke inquired re SR-515 agreement with State 'dis cussed earlier, concerning payment for installation of signals SR-515 Agreement in the Talbot annexation area. Glenn Garrett, 1006 S. 30th Ct. , recalled public hearing and disrission wherein the State would pay, for installation of signal t2' st and urged City to obtain that assurance upon annexation of c.aea, Councilwoman Thorpe made further inquiries of the agreement re SR-515 and was advisedbyPublicWorksDirectorGonnasonthattheStatehasfullresponsi- bility in unincorporated areas, but not within the City boundaries. Executive Session MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND. THORPE, COUNCIL MOVE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL PROBLEMS REGARDING 21R AND CITY. CARRIED. The Council held 'an executive session commencing at 10:25 p.m. All Council Members were present at reconvening into regular session; Adjournment the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. 10:45 P.M. c&i:nee, Q. 7r Delores A. Mead, CMC City Clerk OF R A. 9i 11:- OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY • RENTON,WASHINGTONtlf, tea POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING • RENTON. WASHINGTON 98055 255-8678 im C LAWRENCE J.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY. DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 0 9gTFo sEP-0 November 6 , 1978 MEMO RAN D U M TO: Del Mead, City Clerk FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Re: Rezone Ordinance - Renton Hill - Phase II Dear Del: Enclosed Please find the original. of a proposed Ordinance as above captioned. Please have the correct=_legal description attached. Lawrence J. Warren LJW:nd - . Encl. cc: . Ways' and Means Committee Planning Dept. Mayor Council President 70 IC RECEIVED / 1\ C' NOV 8 18bb G'D ES . a er CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R-3) TO RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-l) ( (R-218-78) WHEREAS under Chapter 7, Title IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No. 1628 known as the "Code of General Ordinances of the_.City:-ofc,Renton"_,nas, amended, ''and,,the maps.:.,and"::reports _3 adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as Residence District (R-3) ; and WHEREAS a proper petition for change of zone classification of said property has been filed with the Planning Department on or about September 7, 1978 which petition was duly referred to the Hearing Examiner for investigation, study and public hearing, and a public wring having been held thereon on or about September 26, 1978 , and said matter having been duly considered by the Hearing Examiner and said zoning request being in conformity with the City' s Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto, NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : SECTION I: The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Residence District (R-l)as hereinbelow specified; the Planning Director is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit : See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth. 1- q Said property located on the west side of Cedar Avenue South between South 6th Street and South 7th Street) SECTION 'II: This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five ( 5) days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of November , 1978 . Delores A. Mead, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of November, 1978 . Charles J. Delaurenti, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: y 77 OF R., 4, 0 ' 0 THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENTo) 0 235-2550 0, 9gT 0 SEP E e P MEMORANDUM November 9 , 1978 TO : Del Mead , City Clerk FROM: Planning Department RE : RENTON HILL (PHASE II ) REZONE ORDINANCE The proposed ordinance has been verified as written . Attached are the legal description , as confirmed by the Engineering Division-, and a' site map for inclusion with the ordinance . wr Attachments 11 iki;s jv t' • OF R- v U ;i A OFFICE OF THE. CITY ATTORNEY e RENTON,WASHINGTON POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING . • RENTON,WASHINGTON 98055 255-8678 Z o LAWRENCE J.WARREN,,CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY o9greD sEPlE° P November 6 , 1978 MEMORANDUM TO: Del Mead, City Clerk FROM: Lawrence J . Warren, City Attorney Re: Rezone Ordinance - Renton Hill - Phase II Dear Del: Enclosed Please find the original of a proposed Ordinance as above captioned. Plea have the correct='_legal description attached. Lawrence J arren LJW:nd Encl. cc :. Ways, and Means Committee Planning Dept. Mayor Council President OPEED LETTER TO:Ql% 4 z /DATE: 7 — C PROJECT: Cee,7arki. Oleat Ci 1Z- SUBJECT: c,2/t - 7 66 re e 4 16 Sianedi t Rer on ity Council 11, 1/7c Page 3 Old Business Continued Councilman Shane Councilman Shane requested the following items be indicated in Inquiries the record: His opposition to proposed support for liquor license for "non-union" restaurant. Motions by Shane failed for lack of a second: Senior citizens living in own home receive up to' $50 reduction in property taxes; Place 2% tax on para mutuel betting at Longacres; All salaries be discussed on the Council floor. Upon inquiry by Councilman Shane re budget items, Councilman Stredicke requested the record show both his and Councilwoman Shinpoch' s request that budget items not be re-reviewed at Council meetings for members who have not attended the scheduled budget meetings. Councilman Councilman Stredicke galled attention to stop sign on Perimiter Stredicke Road,south bound traffic from the restaurant appears to be stop Inquiries for turn only, being confusing. Stredicke also requested written report on occupancy permit issuance and waiving of same. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means t Ways and Means Committee Chairman Stredicke presented the follow- Committee Report, ing ordinances for first reading: First Readings An ordinance was read rezoning property from G to Trailer Park T eazong located 1000 ft. south of NE 4th St. and adjacent to Union SE and Bitney R-179-7 the existing Leisure Estates Mobile Home Park, known as the Dean Bitney Rezone Ordinance. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE REFER ORDINANCE BACK TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Renton Hill An ordinance was read rezoning property from R-3 to R-1 single Phase II family residential district for property located on the west side Rezone 218-78 of Cedar Ave. S. between S. 6th St. and S. 7th St. , known as the Renton Hill Phase II Rezone. Councilman Clymer left the Council Chambers prior to reading of the ordinance and took no part in any action or discussion on this matter. due to conflict of interest. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL REFER ORDINANCE BACK TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Councilman Clymer returned to the Chambers. Time Extension An ordinance was read relating to extension of time for Hearing Examiner's decision. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE, REFER THE ORDINANCE BACK TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Resolution ..W2221 The Ways and Means Committee recommended adoption of a resolution Alley Vacation setting 12/11/78 as public hearing for vacation of alley located Hearing 12/1.1/78 within Block 11 , Car Works Addn. (Vacation #8-78) MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE, ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. VOUCHER APPROVAL The Ways and Means Committee recommended approval for payment of Vouchers No. 20231 through No. 20430 in the amount of $362,450. 18 having received departmental approval as to receipt of merchandise and/or services; plus LID #297 Revenue Warrant R-9 $5,555 and R-10 in amount of $157,559.94 and Cash Warrants C-11 $5,555, C-12 $715.40, C-13 $156,844.54. Also approved for payment LID #302 R-27 $3,750 and C-62 $3,750. (Vouchers #20226 through 20230 cancelled during processing. ) MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND CLYMER, APPROVE VOUCHERS AS DRAFTED BY ADMISTRATION. CARRIED. Oil Recycling The Ways and Means Committee report recommended that the subject of containers for used oil be referred back to the Council without action. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHINPOCH, COUNCIL CONCUR. CARRIED. Following discussion, Councilman Perry explained need for 50-gallon drum as container for disposing of used oil from "home mechanic auto oil change. " MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE, COUN- CIL ENCOURAGE ANY BUSINESS INTERESTED IN RECYCLING OIL TO DO SO BUT IN NO WAY MAKE IT MANDATORY. CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA The following items were adopted by one motion without discussion: i Renton City Count:11 11/13/78 Page 4 Consent Agenda Appointment Letter from Mayor Delaurenti appointed John J. McLaughlin,. Jr. to the position of Lieutenant in the Renton Fire Department effective November 16, subject to the customary six-month proba- tion period. Council concurrence. Kennydale Letter from the Kennydale Community lCClub,r PrPresidentsident DDave 9BBiggar, Comprehensive requested suspension of the C8 Plan which had requested review of the ,Comprehensive Plan, until such time as the Club presents proposed plan for Kennydale. Refer to Planning Commission. Tiffany Park Letter from Hearing Examiner Beeler recommended approval with con- FP 233-78 d.itions for Tiffany Park Division #3. Final .Plat. 233-78. by Develop- ment Coordinators, Inc. . Refer to Ways and Means Committee for approving resolution. Consent Agenda MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS Approval PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Public Works Director Gonnason presented proposed. SR-515 agreement with the State re SR-515 roadway construction from Agreement Puget Drive to Carr Road which covers the City's participation with State in cost of traffic control devices including sidewalks and illumi- nation in amount of $254,585.97. The letter noted amount includes construction engineering and contingencies and payment will be . made only for actual costs incurred. The letter noted the City is awaiting action by King County in form of Resolution or OrdinanceconfirmingamendmenttotheForwardThrustArterialStreetlist-ing which substituted this SR-515 project for an original Benson Road project; bid advertising scheduled by the State 0/15/79., The letter recommended the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign agreement. Moved by Stredicke, Second Thorpe, refer to the Transportation Committee. SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY CLYMER, SECOND SHINPOCH, CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED., Consolidation Letter from the Fire Chiefs addressed to Honorable Mayors of of Fire Auburn, Kent, Renton and Tukwila proposed merger of the four Departments Valley Fire Departments to give. better service to citizens with advantages and disadvantages. The letter noted three step study: 1 ) by Fire Chiefs (completed), (2) by Elected Officials and (3) by Outside Concern or People. The letter noted problem area of difference in salary, hours and benefits; as well as possibility that some cities would not have to build new fire stations until more development of area, with, less spare apparatus and office spaces needed, etc. MOVED BY. THORPE, SECOND CLYMER, REFER TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE TO REVIEW. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Councilman Stredicke inquired re SR-515 agreement with State dis- cussed.':earlier, concerning payment for installation of signals SR-515 Agreement in the.{Tal.bot annexation area. Glenn Garrett, 1006 S. 30th Ct. , recalled-_:public hearing and disc sion wherein the State would pay for installation of signal t. list and urged City to obtain that assurance upon annexation of eeea, . Councilwoman Thorpe made, further inquiries of the agreement re SR-5.15 and was advisedby'Public Works Director Gonnason that the State has 'full . responsi- bility in unincorporated areas, but not within the City boundaries. Executive Session MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL MOVE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL PROBLEMS REGARDING 21R AND CITY. CARRIED. The Council held an executive session commencing at 10:25 p.m. All Council Members were present at reconvening into regular session; Adjournment the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. 10:45 P.M. a ' - Q. 7?€'a Delores A. Mead, CMC City Clerk d CAL ..., (%)-- A,LA..,. icip___,,., 6-7g OF R., C..)..... a ' z THE CITY OF RENTON z o MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 p CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER Ap 4, e- L. RICK BEELER , 235-2593 4434tEDSEP' ' October 10, 1978 Members, Renton City Council Renton, Washington File No. R-218-78, City of Renton, Phase II, Rezone Request. Dear Council Members: Attached is the Examiner's Report and 'Recommendation on the referenced rezone request, dated October 3, 1978. The appeal period for the application expires on October 17, 1978, and the report is being forwarded to you for review-by the Planning and Development Committee following the seven day period from the date of publication. The complete file will be transmitted to the City Clerk enOctobe 18, 1978', and will be placed on the Council agenda on ,No dg,er 6, 1978. If you require additional assistance or information regarding this matter, please contact the undersigned. Sinc'- -ly lt;I"liti iUtRAINIP L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: 'Planning Department City Clerk r Renton City Council 11/6/78 Page 4 Old Business Continued Cedar River Trail matter to the Ways and Means Committee for appropriate legislative Natural Zone action. The report noted the IAC Committee has approved the City's request for funding of property acquisition for extension of the Cedar River Trail east of 405; IAC grant total is $192,119; reports to be submitted to Council for approval re negotiated price prior to purchase. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND CLYMER, CONCUR IN COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND AUTHORIZE INITIAL PURCHASING ACTION. CARRIED. Planning and Planning and Development Committee Chairman Perry submitted report Development recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Code Committee Report Section 4-3014 to provide extension of time for filing of the recom- mendation or decision of the Land Use Hearing Examiner in extra- ordinary cases for not more than thrity days after conclusion of hearing if the Examiner requires the extension due to nature of evidence, information which cannot be made available, etc. The report noted the notice of extension stating reasons would need to be forwarded to all parties of record. The Committee report recommended referral to the Ways and Means Committee for ordinance. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND CLYMER, CONCUR IN COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Ways and Means Ways and Means Committee Chairman Stredicke submitted report recom- Committee Report mending that the resolution regarding interties for water with Water line the City of Tukwila and City of Kent,and the agreement be referred Interties with to the Utilities Committee for recommendation. MOVED BY SHINPOCH, Tukwila/Kent SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are reviewed by Council and adopted with one motion which follows the items: Disorderly Police Chief Darby requests revision of the disorderly conduct Conduct ordinance. Refer to Public Safety Committee. Police Officer Police Chief Darby requests approval for advance travel funds and Travel authorization for attendance of Sgt. File and Detective Nibarger to attend Northwest Officers' Training Conference at Portland 11/9; funds budgeted. Concur. Surplus Vehicles Bid Opening 10/25 Surplus vehicles; tabulation attached. Letter from Finance Director Marshall recommends award to highest bidder. Council concur. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Beeler recommended approval, with conditions, of Rezone R-218-78 City of Renton Phase II, Rezone R-218-78; Renton Hill ; R-3 to R-1 . Refer to Ways and Means Committee for appropriate ordinance. Dean Bitney Hearing Examiner Beeler recommended approval with restrictive covenants, Rezone R-179-78 , Dean W. Bitney Rezone R-179-78 General to Trailer located along existing entrance road to Leisure Estates Mobile Home Park. Refer to Ways and Means Committee for ordinance. Request for General Partner, George Gurs, requests latecomer' s agreement for Latercomer' s water main, Eastridge Apartments, 907 Aberdeen Ave. N.E. Refer 'to Agreement Utilities Committee. Final Payment Public Works Director Gonnason requests approval of Roadway Safety Roadway Marking Marking Project and final payment $9,246.55 to contractor Paint-A- Line, Inc. and requested release of retained amount if within 30 days no claims or liens filed against project and proper receipts received. Concur. Alley Vacation City Clerk Mead reports petition filed by Carl A. Olson, et al , requesting alley vacation of Block 11 , Plat of Car Works Addition. Refer to Ways and Means Committee for resolution setting Public Hearing 12/11/78. Refer to Public Works Department, Board of Public Works and Transportation Committee re appraisal and easements. Renton City Council 11/6/78• Page 3 Audience Comment Continued Parkwood Homes SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY PERRY, SECOND CLYMER, REFER MATTER OF TRAFFIC Traffic Pattern CIRCULATION FOR PARKWOOD HOMES NO. 3 TO THE HEARING EXAMINER TO Continued CONSIDER AT THE TIME OF CONSIDERATION FOR TIME EXTENSION ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION CARRIED. Recess MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHINPOCH, COUNCIL RECESS. CARRIED. The Council recessed at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 10:05 p.m. ) Roll Call : All Council Members present. OLD BUSINESS Committee of the Whole report submitted by Council President Committee of the Clymer recommended that the proposed ordinance defining flood hazard Whole Report regulations be referred to the Community Services Committee for Flood Hazards review and recommendation. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND PERRY, COUNCIL CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. Transportation Transportation Committee Chairman Shinpoch presented report of 10/25 Committee Report meeting concerning Renton "loop" problems and noted City response has been inconvenient to some, however, barricading has diminished Barricading for loop traffic by approximately 75% with comparible reduction in Loop Traffic irresponsible behavior, illegal activities and the time period to Continue citizens are subjected to this inconvenience; with hope continued procedure will alleviate the problem entirely. The committee recom- mended Council take no action at this time. MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SEC- OND STREDICKE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN REPORT. CARRIED. Councilman Shane Councilman Shane inquired of Forward Thrust Funds the City received Inquiries in 1968 and questioned projects. Shane further questioned discussion of employee wages favoring discussion on Council floor; being, advised by the City Attorney that under State's Open Meeting Law, discussion may be held in Executive Session or on the Council floor. Upon fur- ther inquiry, Shane was advised that reply has not been received from Attorney General concerning taxing of para mutuel betting. Airport Signs,Councilman Stredicke inquired concerning traffic signs at the Airport and Street being advised by Mayor Delaurenti of determination to keep signs Banners as they ,are and request the Police Department to check speeding. Following Councilman Stredicke' s inquiry re authority for place- ment of ,a banner over the City street, it was MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND BY SHINPOCH, THE MATTER OF STREET. BANNER SIGNS AND FEES BE REFERRED TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE FOR RECOMMENIDATION'. CARRIED. MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND PERRY, COUNCIL APPROVE RETROACTIVELY THE PLACEMENT OF "HIRE. THE HANDICAPPED" STREET BANNER ON 3rd S. CARRIED. 1 Tax Levy Councilman Stredicke called attention to forthcoming letter from Ordinance King County, that City Council may wish to reconsider action taken on adoption of tax millage ordinance until complete information received. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND CLYMER, COUNCIL REFER TAX LEVY ORDINANCE RECONSIDERATION MATTER TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE FOR RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. Community Community Services Committee Chairman Thorpe presented report Services recommending approval of Puget Power request that City sign a stipu- Co ttee Report lation and easement agreements over the proposed marsh acquisition Cedar River area, having been approved by City Attorney and Staff as not det- Trail Acquisition rimental to the proposed trail system or surrounding natural environ- and Easements ment. The report recommended Council. approve stipulation and ease- ments and refer matter to the Ways and Means Committee for proper resolution. MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND THORPE_, COUNCIL CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. Councilman Stredicke noted for the record that Committee Member Trimm did not participate in discussion of the matter due to his employment. The Community Services Committee report recommended that the Admin- istration be authorized to proceed with negotiations for property acquisition for the Cedar River Trail Natural Zone and refer the A CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 3263 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON CHANGING THE ZONING :CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R-3 ) TO RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-1) ( (R-218-78) (Renton Hill , Phase II) WHEREAS under Chapter 7 , Title IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No . 1628 known as the "Code of General Ordinances of the 'City of Renton" , as amended , and the maps .and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has heretofore been zoned as Residence District (R-3) ; and WHEREAS a proper petition for change of zone classification of said property has been filed with the Planning Department on or. about September 7 , 1978 which petition was duly referred to the Hearing Examiner for investigation, study and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about September 26, 1978 , and said matter having been duly considered by the Hearing Examiner and said zoning request being in conformity with the City ' s Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto , NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON , WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : SECTION I : The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Residence District (R-1)as hereinbelow specified ; the Planning Director is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance , as amended , to evidence said rezoning, to-wit : See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth. 1 Said property located on the west side of Cedar Avenue South between South 6th Street and South 7th Street) SECTION II : This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage , approval and five ( 5) days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 20th day of November , 1978 . oatidtte Delores A. Mead•, City Cle k APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 20th day of November , 1978 . d'. r / -// /' t- ‘--1c--p / Charles Delaurenti, Maycr Approved as to form: i t L/ci- 3„ Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: November 24 , 1978 EXHIBIT " A' " R-218-78) RENTON HILL TRACT 15 OF RENTON COOPERATIVE COAL COMPANY ' S ACRE TRACTS PLAT NO . 1 AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 9 , PAGE 29 OF PLATS , RECORDS OF KING COUNTY , TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREET ADJACENT . (ORDINANCE 1408 ) 9rtZakt 1-1144 NQLN fiVilei2g4 13 14 if37 . 2/.73 ' 641/ o----_-—a IVY P4'//YOZ9; Ch U j7c: 4 9 flJflPP II 2SVHd '`IZIH NO,LNH2i - bi.-b12-H r.77-" OF R . 0 THE CITY OF RENTONU ,$ " Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON.WASH. 98055 oI- rn CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4 go• 235-2550 0 947.F0 SEP1ctif MEMORANDUM September 15 , 1978 TO : C. J . Delaurenti , Mayor FROM: Gordon Y. Ericksen , Planning Director RE : RENTON HILL PUBLIC HEARING BY HEARING EXAMINER, PHASES II AND III This is to advise that the Renton Hill public hearing has been rescheduled for September a6_, 1978. The amount of staff time required for the hearing reports exceeded our original estimation . The staff report will therefore be distributed next week. GYE :wr cc : City Attorney City Clerk Public Works Director Traffic Engineer Hearing Examiner y1 g" I ke 2 ,+ iC 14tz Rf NTgN}WASFIINGTON Cedar 4 5' TvE i - : c'^t ,08)4 ORDINANCEPNO.3263 (Saidproperty located on Affidavit of Publication • AN ORDINANCE OF Avenuethe west Southsiu ofetween THE CITY:OF RENTON, between WASHINGTON South '6th Street and CHANGING THE ZON- South 7th Street) STATE OF WASHINGTON ING CLASSIFICATION SECTION II: This a up-, COUNTY OF KING ss• OF CERTAIN PROPER- nance shall be effective up- TIES WITHIN THE CITY on its passage,approval and OF RENTON FROM RE-five(5)'days after its publics tion.SIDENCE DISTRICT(R-PASSED'BY THE: CITY 3)TO RESIDENCE DIS- COUNCIL this 20th day ofeX°';;.,`aa...A0 ,?,nd.(3,.ri.3o1 being first duly sworn on TRICT (R-1) (R-218-78) November, 1978. Renton Hill, Phase II) Delores A. Mead. oath,deposes and says that •- is the of WHEREAS under Chap- P y ' O 7 •t?F ("'I ` ter 7,Title IV(Building Re u- City Clerk g g APPROVED BY -.THE THE RENTON RECORD-CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four(4) lations) of Ordinance No. MAYOR this 20th day of times a week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and 1628 known as the"Code ofg November, 1978. has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred p General Ordinances of the Charles J. Delaurenti to, printed and,published in the English language continually as a news- I City of Renton",as amend- Mayor paper published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington, ed, and the maps and re Approved as to form: and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained ports adopted in conjunction Lawrence J.Warren, at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Renton therewith, the property + City Attorney,Record-Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the hereinbelow described has Published in The Rentonecord-Chronicle Novemb- er Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County, heretofore been zoned as i R Residence District (R-3); er 24, 1978.'R5250 Washington.That the annexed is a Ordinance 2 6 and WHEREAS a proper peti- tion for change of zone i classification of said proper- ty has been filed with the Planning Department on or as it was published in regular issues(and about September 7, 1978 not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period which petition was duly re- ferred to the Hearing Ex- aminer for investigation, study and public hearing, of 1 consecutive issues,commencing on the and a public hearing having been held thereon on or 2 da of "ovnmi:'r'r' 19 7 ,andthe I about September 26, 1978, y ending k and said matter having been I duly considered by the Hear- ing Examiner and said zon- day of 19 ,both dates ing request being in cantor- inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- mity with the City's Com- scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee prehensive Plan,as amend ed, and the City Council having duly considered all charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $:..).s. .., which matters relevant thereto, has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the and all parties having been first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent I heard appearing in support insertion. NI thereof or in opposition thereto,NOW TR leA...u..6(,_0.THE CITY COUNCILHEREFOOEF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO OR- t,c .4 L 1crk DAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I:The following described.property' in the Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24 day of City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Residence Dis- NoV£' '` 8 trict (R-1) as hereinbelow 19 specified; the Planning Di- rector is hereby authorized 49:, and directed to change the UQiC_ maps of the Zoning Ordi- Notary Public ' and for the State of Wash' on, Hance, as amended,to evi- residing at Kent, Kin nty. dence said rezoning,to-wit: > EXHIBIT"A" S R-218-78);RENTON HILL , -.2.. TRACT 15 OF RENTON .',' r Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June i COOPERATIVE COAL \I'' lr' 9th, 1955. COMPANY'S ACRE r\,b •/s Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, TRACTS PLAT NO. 1 AS \4 adopted by the newspapers of the State. RECORDED IN VOLUME 9, PAGE 29 OF PLATS, RE- CORDS OF KING COUN- TY,TOGETHER WITH VA- CATED STREET ADJA- V.P.C.Form No.87 7rl&Renton City Council 11/20/78 Page 2 Old Business Continued Right-of-Way SECOND CLYMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN REPORT. Upon inquiry by Council- Turnback woman Thorpe, Public Works Director Gonnason explained that upon turnback the City would be responsible for maintenance and if not maintained, the State would deduct costs from gas tax funds. Councilman Stredicke noted the City would than have guarantee of open space. MOTION CARRIED. Utilities ; The Utilities Committee report recommended Council concur with the Committee Public Works Department and accept the easement from Puget Power Vantage Point which is needed to provide sewer service to Vantage Point Condo- Condominiums mi.niums. by installation of sewer main from NE 5th and Bronson Way Sewer Service to approximately NE 4th and Lakeview Ave. NE. The new sewer would be built within Puget Power's Shuffleton right-of-way and require the easement. The report also recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign the easement. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND SHANE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. ORDINANCES, AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means Ways and Means Committee Chairman Stredicke presented committee Committee Report. report recommending second and final readings of the following ordinances which had been on first readings 11/13/78: Ordinance #3262 An ordinance was read extending time for Hearing Examiner' s Hearing Examiner decision from date of hearing 14 days to 30 days in event of Time 'Extension unusual circumstances. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND PERRY, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: 4-AYE: CLYMER, STREDICKE, THORPE, PERRY; ONE NO: SHANE. MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance #3263 'An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of property Renton Hill Rezona from R-3 to R-1 located on the west side of Cedar Ave. S. between Phase II R;-218-78 S. 6th St. and S. 7th St. .Councilman Clymer left the Chambers and took no part in any discussion or any action regarding this matter due to conflict of interest. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES: SHANE, STREDICKE, THORPE AND PERRY. CARRIED. (Clymer returned to Chambers. ) Ordinance !#3264 An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification from G to Bitney Rezone Trailer Park T for property located south of NE 4th St. adjacent R-179-78 ; to Union Ave. SE and the existing Leisure Estates Mobile Home Park. Committee Chairman Stredicke noted signed restrictive coven ants were received. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHANE, ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: 5-AYE: CLYMER, SHANE, STREDICKE, THORPE AND PERRY. CARRIED. Ordinance #3265 The Ways and Means Committee recommended reading and adoption of an 1979 Amendatory ordinance_ amending the 1979 Budget Ordinance (#3259) which increases . Budget Ordinance amount of taxation from $3.372 to $3.472 per $1 ,000 and sets the maximum 1979 Levy (based on 106% cal' ulations as required by law) 3,260,727.21 . Following first reading, MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE, SUSPEND RULES AND ADVANCE ORDINANCE TO SECOND AND FINAL READINGS. CARRIED. Following readings, MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND CLYMER, ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: 4-AYE: CLYMER, STREDICKE, THORPE, PERRY; ONE NO: SHANE. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE, THAT THE MATTER OF THE $89,960.21 GRANTED BY THIS COUNCIL ACTION BE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR BUDGET DELIBERATIONS. CARRIED. Street Vacation The Ways and Means Committee recommended first reading of an South 7th St. ordinance vacating a portion of S. 7th St. (VAC 3-78) having width Near Burnett S. of 30 ft. westerly of S. Grady Way near Milmanco, vacation fee of 7,948. 10 paid by Puget Power. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND CLYMER REFER ORDINANCE BACK TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Interties with Chairman Stredicke called attention to resolution authorizing Cities. of Kent agreement re interties with the Cities of Kent and Tukwila and Tukwila to provide additional water flow which resolution was referred to the Utilities Committee on 11/6/78. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND SHANE, IF THE'MATTER IS NOT REPORTED BY THE UTILITIES COMMITTEE BY 11/27/78, THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE BE INSTRUCTED TO REPORT. CARRIED. i RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeti:ng November 20 , 1978 Municipal Building Monday , 8: 00 P . M..Council Chambers M I N U T - E S. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the Renton City Council meeting to order. ROLL CALL OF EARL CLYMER, Council President; :ARLES F. SHANE, RICHARD M. COUNCIL STREDICKE, PATRICIA M. SEYMOUR-THORPE AND GEORGE J. PERRY. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE,' 'XCUSE ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH AND THOMAS .W. TRIMM. CARRIED. CITY OFFICIALS ' C. J. DELAURENTI, Mayor; DEL MEAL City Clerk; LAWRENCE WARREN, IN ATTENDANCE City. Attorney; WARREN GONNASON, Public Works Director; W. E. BENNETT, Deputy 'Finance Director; RICHARD GEISSLER, Fire Chief; MIKE SMITH, Planning Representative; CAPT. JOHN BUFF, ' Police Rep. PRESS'GREG ANDERSON, Renton Record Chronicle. MINUTE APPROVAL MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL APPROVE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 1978 AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS Council President Clymer presented Committ of the Whole, Budget Committee of Whole Committee report recommending purchase of new typewriter for the Budget Committee Legislative 'Department using funds from Legislative Travel: and Conference for 1978; also recommending the Fire Department type- writer which will be replaced by the Legislative typewriter, be used for trade-in. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND THORPE, CONCUR• IN RECOMMENDATION AND REFER THE MATTER TO THE WAYS AND MEANS 'COMMITTEE FOR, RESOLUTION. CARRIED. Building. Division The report of the Budget Committee recommended that the matter of Reorganization the Building Department reorganization be referred to the Committee of the Whole and the Planning and Development Committee for review. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND THORPE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN RECOMMMENDATION. • Upon inquiry by Councilman Shane, Councilman Perry notes, a recom- mendation had been made to committee'.for one-stop permit fee. MOTION' CARRIED. Councilman Shane requested his .no VC - 2 be recorded. Salary Study The Budget Committee report recommended that all salary adjustments Adjustments included An the 1979 Budget as presented .to Council members be referred to the Ways and Means Committee for study along with the salary study made by the Personnel Department. MOVED BY' PERRY, SECOND CLYMER, CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. City Attorney The Budget Committee recommended that the Ways and Means :Committee conduct a study to determine for the 1980 Budget whether the City should obtain the services of a full-time City Attorney or continue ' with part-time services. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND CLYMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. Unemployment The Budget Committee recommended that the Ways and Means Committee Compensation establish a cumulative reserve fund for unemployment compensation and prepare the necessary ordinance. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND PERRY CONCUR AND REFER MATTER TO WAYS AND MEANS' FOR ORDINANCE.' CARRIED: Councilman Shane Councilman Shane made the following motions which failed for. lack of a second and requested they be entered into the record: A 2% tax be placed on wagering .at Longacres. The .City' grant up to $50 tax reduction to Senior Citizens who own and live in that home. The City establish standards and advertise for Lity Attorney. Transportation Transportation Committee report noted review of map and' agreements Committee pertaining to turnback .of State highway right-of-way to the City, explaining the right-of-way was secured by the State in the Kenny- dale area for FAI-405. The committee recommended the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign agreements. MOVED BY STREDICKE 7) /7 /J71/7 GOi7e, P/%a SZ1L OF R.4, aV -71. o . THE; CITY OF RENTON U kttlIt MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. S®. RENTOd, WASH. 98055 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR o PLANNING DEPARTMENT I, t.• 235- 2550 r ' r--1 I^7 r_.. February 22 , 1979 Mr . Richard Sprague FEB 23. 1919 Attorney at Law Bogle and Gates 4, pN argri Bank of California Center Seattle , Washington 98164 RE : INTERPACE COVENANTS Dear Mr . Sprague : Enclosed , as requested , are Exhibits "A" and " B" for the Interpace and Puget Power covenants previ - ously transmitted by the City Attorney . We believe these exhibits to be as previously dis- cussed for the subject property . The Planning and Development Committee would like to resolve this issue as quickly as possible . If we can be of assistance , we will be happy to do so . Very truly yours , Gordo Y . Ericksen Plan i g Di rec o 7 id 1_,mens Associate Planner DRC : wr Enclosures EXHIBIT "A" That portion o6 .the (U 1/2 06 the SE 1/4 o6 Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 5 East W.M. desck ibed as 6otiows: Beginning at the SE eonnen o6 the West 1/2 o6 .the SE 1/4 o6 said section 17; Thence nonthetty along .the east tine o6 said subd.i.v c.6-Lon a di,6.tance o6 750 6t.; Thence wes.tenly on a .tine pa.ka net with and 750 beet nonthe'ily a6 measured at night angles 6nom south .tine o6 said subdivision a distance o6 600 bee, move on Zess; Thence nonthwestenly along a tine .to a point on the west tine.o6 the SE 1/4 o6 said Section 17, said point being 1400 beet non-then.ly o6 the SW comet o6 said section; Thence southekty along .the west tine o6 .the SE 1/4 a d.illance o6 1400 bee move on less to the SW eonnen .theneo6; Thence eas.tenly along .the south tine o6 .the SE 1/4 o6 Secti,.on 17 to .the SE eonnen. o6 .the LU 1/2 o6 .the SE 1/4 .theteo 6 and the point o6 beginning; Except .thece6nom the 6ottow.i.ng debckibed pancet: Beginning at -the SW eonnen o6 SE 1/4 o6 said section 17 .thence nonthehly along .the west Line .theceo6 a distance o6 500 beet mote of .less; Thence sowtheas.ten.ly along a Zane to a point on .the south tine o6 the SE 1/4 o6 said Section 17, which point ties -1200 beet make on .less east o6, az mea4uked along .the south tine o6 said subdivision 6kom the Sw eonnen o6 said SE 1/4; Thence we6.tenly along .the south .tine o6 the SE 1/4 o6 Section 17 a distance o6 1200 beet mote on .less .to .the SW connen theeeo6 and the point o6 beginning. . Interstate Mill Ave . South S ! J . co an J. J. Cedar Ave. South z.. co I / 1A cn Renton Ave. South o c ci- J Grant Ave . S . N1 I „ N, N„. 7 rp Hlah Ave . S . m 47)) m al 0' 4 ca/ 7 7 F.-- 5 0 p-- c` 7 ;; i O i- J. r7 i NJ- ND I t CD r° ) 0 77 c rn m • f 1 i 1 0 o; f 7509 EastlLine of Renton Annexation Resolution No . 9537cv g O x CDO c SD o) DC c ill m _ R. 4 0 EXHIBIT "'A" PARCEL "A" : That portion of the Tobin Donation Claim No . 37 lying within the SW 1 /2 of Section 17 , Township 23 North , Range 5 East, W. M . , described as follows : Beginning at the intersection of the east line of the donation claim and north line of the Cedar River Pipeline right-of-way ; thence north to the northeast corner of the donation claim; thence north 594 ' thence north to the Puget Sound Electric Railway; thence westerly along the railway to -the north line of Plat #1 Renton Co-op Coal Co . Acre Tracts ; Thence east to the northeast corner of Tract #43 thence south 5 ' , thence east 310 ' ; thence south to the northeast corner of tract #25 of said plat, thence southeasterly to a point 40 ' east of the northeast corner of Tract 37 of said plat , thence east 300,' thence south to the northwest line of the Cedar River Pipeline right-of-way thence southeasterly on said right-of-way to the beginning less a portion south of the north line of Tract 38 plat #7 of the Renton Co-op Coal Co . Acre Tracts extending east except coal mining rights less the state highway . PARCEL "B" : Also that portion of the Tobin Donation Claim No . 37 lying within the SW 1 /2 of Section 17 , Township 23 North , Range 5 East , W. M . , described as follows : 55 ' of right-of-way of the Puget Sound Electric Railway Co . beginning at the intersection of the east line of the Plat of Town of Renton and the south line of the right-of-way of the Columbia and Puget Sound Railway right-of-way to the east line of the Donation Claim less the state highway. PARCEL "C" : Also that portion of the SW 1 /2 of Section 17 , Township 25 North , Range 5 East , W. M . , described as follows : Beginning at a point north of 08°41 ' 00" west 30 ' from the northwest corner of Gladding McBean property in Government Lot 5 , thence south 26°55 ' 00" east 216 ' , thence south 41 ° 25 ' 00" east 160 ' , thence south 79° 35 ' 00" east to the east line of Government Lot 5 , thence south to the southeast corner thereof , thence west 594 ' to the southwest corner thereof , thence north to the south line of the Pacific Coast Railroad right-of-way , thence easterly along the south line to the point of beginning less the northerly 30 ' of and parallel with Pacific Coast Railroad right-of-way . EXHIBIT "'B" Municipal PST POWER Building S• al Naafi e eC 0' F- _ ._ CPdd y, E.,-. 7.,-,--:..,( 7_ i ver fii\' NlI*- r.-- i t` lrliF: k/ o, NORTH Nor:° fr) scale 1" equals rdapprox. 450 ' INTERPAC S. o y Facilities - d s PARCEL C e X o o N.IcoofN GREENBELT o PARCEL A N Ili o Q in ¢ c N C n r b C Ol C •r O N N 4- Z N O - n C w O cC J- = Q r- C L N 0 0'I f6 N 1 r Wcc C 4 .\\ NJ i 1) southjl 7th I (Street 1