Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA78-2713e e\t`3 ffi__ Ix( 8 a I i x JI1 , n II I ill h,,,,„) i1xI fi v MI 20 \ ();;IA, ; 1 1 1 ii'Dill iEilg_. I J6, L : N3 J-Pi Ej. ai:U\'\\\5= o,'CE.1/71-,-,-::'. i• A) j 8 x '191 t9nD1-iT' e . it Ii1 l\,\ x., AVE Io'xer+ .p - a_*- -- 1 ( uSDl1 1 F o qEJ IIbit r--xI II PkX i 4‘,les 111 JA ‘ 7'? I X 0 335 11 " 111 = ' tillkirkiiii-X ___:- : 44 Ica I, II Ili x`- i. 116._.irv; 67D, , „ milk, Ira a„ ,,„ X i J irrsi a, a Ilitr,t3 0 k I I, II, • 07,0116-046.1 , ,i vii, ; \ 030 ' f,'0,i_D _ii._41 I__ :j: x 4- ; 3-..ei- \ -40. 42. t: \\ 399 1 millagr r 1111tV g it/ I ED x I I r0 liirli"Illigligg° -: rargjp 4b01/4:4INIV II' \ V, i I I R1 .,• t' i. 33s` Ar.n' II oo, A JAN 1 t i' s kl 11.,, ,fit II PM 1I rtl"- r , 011 iii Ittrorg*.Nlitt IIREES a>Il lM i"4 7is El i. .....t . i I a „,,,, c, v- A I 4,iti it A i i I IL x _- i I' X3N 1 4 , ' ix7\ i ' W ii:s--:7:51 ° / i k\L MON 1 . t ;": " -71 ; x 327 lh.. --., law IN _ 1 1 6*... la% 171001001.... 11100- -2 i 1 i re- Illei i I ‘noll 110 I ikis . TREES ORCHARD x II 1 i 1558 „......„..411 - --- I p, x325 S° s ,., roivrPNaPP,/I.„ .„ 0„,4 A........-:01 I i )111:74 IF A II:'I 1 III j,,,, , Fx 41 y 1 i .7 1-1- 71.7711 : ..- ' II f 10 I i1imI1 ... -'' 1 LifyI „=. 01.0. I Al33slII1I1p4. 410prifil 1 I IIy1 ( - I o xtiioIitI .- mil r I iIIII i , l 1 I , o d ; C II . x s41 I it o6 3401 A SNOQUALM j POWER -- I-- 'I -- -'I ( 6- ,- Iter 442--- u r c • r A c. 41 I 1. , *MA il I , ' I ' • j I 1 I I ii' al i LAP' ,.. ..'/'" j' h' i '. RA a j Li. i , ,. . dt&-zi , '. . lj. if, mill , i' I. zy f 1 r, r I' ' L i. ' 'Ij'Illj;; R,1d al{' ; I:, ' r)11 , r adlI Id , z. 1 ej t r j 0. i. e- -.)4. A A j Ds mil)? 6 1. Gli, "' J; j ' O 0..nI ! -_ •. 1 a.t. i Ili 5. 1., IL G i t ' i Ur !•n ti t a q 11111 t p j I. 4ti.- eli. ,_,„. • Ni - . V i' oh r----- 1 Fft CG' 3;itte:i1; ,#••ICY l!i AII . .r: 1. G J - fir l.. ' - * i j•• o • Ilercy I e % ll;.' J t a i i a g ; i::i'::::F::: 2:: i . Ir o Ei 1. kGON 11 AMI. I r i I ! • ! E r I ! '•' 1 fly I i - T I1 i A 4, ;.,„: i }uE7f A ,. ... Ai iv-, i f! i.. . e s i , IIIII ry £e,* 'a.•w lu. w iJlllll' A G I tG A G A.1A A A I L' III D• 2 0; Uy I• ll!l r. ll' r . I' i I., ,,,!,11 i . ll .. u1' ''l, ii!{I 1 i 1; li, 6P6,.. I! l,! l l .,lj Ili 1 /. 1 i n 1' ', 1 ;1i O i IL:, it . I II i1 • .:-• I ii5p_ ' EXHIBT NO. T r irgo_r04_A_ L , _ ___ff....27,GIP'7 . IP N i-44 I.' ,', 1:....; '''''..' .;'.1';';Ii, 1: 1 I: ' . .' .'' '- '' - iiii431111 j IIi1I i I Ili''i I 111'IV I 1, i' ' 1. I 1ii1 1 1. i h•.' i II . ' I:,::, 1,:, '' .1 *: k .•1" 0),,j,,,,,,,i Lam--- j Cain- I A!1' 7..,... ul eA1'W1FS•. .:,- .. I 41 IIi•i/ L..ryl. F 1 t r• L J rI IG L l c h u j• -raw 1, w,' lilIulll - 1. l I IA ' c'..,r, 11 •s. i.. 9.c Il li,I, 1 l r ! . -1„ u. I I 1,,, rl .'• 1 _141 f 1 LLI1 Q% , c'I It?I • 10 cil •; i. ,., I Ids* EPS I J ' I d. t I. iI ZII 1, 1 41„ J I'i. ) l.IK 4. I I l. i 16r I., i 1 k i. F I 1 b•,J:•ri Iill 0 1 r 1'i 11 y. 0• d 40 rrV r !fir, 7. F... 1 n.t F j c ° I"I •1 l , 0 1 Ds r t o 14 I G III A O I ;P.4':. Ili 1 111;' 4 liiI I j,l •I K • As fiswil J i7jV=c x f`- - 11 1:.1 1 • - 1 . . .vi k iiiki ,- , . , ,/ 1 bi i ' 1 I 1 RECEIVED 1 1 i i ,,CITY OF RENTONlir ,11 .' a , I. • , i,, 7, n HEARING EXAMINER i, kill„ e-filJAN 161979iAT .r Fillv•,,. t,1miLisi. ,',.,;,;,:ii;.1.,, t. I•II, ia : . 2'D', )II'III,II i I: AM PM. . 1 , ...i.: .•'.:4 . ..- •!..1'. y A Itiii10.. 8 AO 'c: 14 i 0 i1.,.,. , . 4.. 041 4 1 fill if IIIIf4 . , i, 1, ) ) 11,... ' i 1 11.4 ; ' 1 ....'".. 4-.....-, 1 0 1 iII A 1• ci 1 ' 1611 i 1 rIQ11 11L1 12 3 AA.1 . I,IiI till IIIIII 1 L, 1U i• 1111 1) 11 1, I IlU L.) 1 1 1`Y 516 1'. 111'1 I I •,1 ( I•, Ilili li:. .,1 _ II I "' Il ' !1 'I_ i1i i;j, Ili '1 , I I. I!.u I r. 1•t., . 11.1Jil'- fl .I, 1, ' 11,1 II tI,':1.. I.1. ki 0 e .f w11 Y 71.144171C IF,,1i7. EXHIBIT TAT maigiEl________-------Th,, I et i. e 1,*; 1.(C,"v i '7h„Ij 10:011 7.7‘......„-.1 11h I A r; A i ' ill A C. ' , ' ' ,'," , ,. . 'i•11: 'I ,..;‘ II111+1 ('0 r 7 L I is j I MIvi- II,I,.,{all 0 Wel .': , ,iii, f 'f. J is05 .. a ...., 14.1: 4 or -lai 1.. 1 AL.,i' ill. I' • :I 11'. Y I i i J 17111• 'lid_ : u.... ,, 1,:.::• ...7; 4:- I: I r\. 1 1 1•:,(* 1 . -1. I: 114 ,r,14, 1 . ' ,II I r13o.. ' t.J-.0 r if., q i-..r. ,,,,,,, .., i.11.6111"211161.6a. - 1O • ` xb~' Itir. 011 J t . , 7/Ir .. G A O tii1 ir A °A )IQ 4 iliqi. . • T IV i ZrYLd'.t ' i 111/4 J all 4P A lAlA I I. I s. #Rea _ i.,l Apt ado ill" Nike,. '1,1: J '. . i I illigm" f . a aim, i 1i 11. Irt.t- 1,1,1'' I', •• J .l,• 1.;1. , C) 1 I ll '. • j1,I Y Cv,11 IP' 4:1' i . 77—\ ii:,,,, 0 5 AL , RECEIVED a _ CITY OF RE NTONHEARINGEXAMINER OEN I', I rl 1 I. I r j;1 I I ; I v lip.'p Oia 1 JAN T 6' 1979MII I iI +I'i IM" iii• Ii ..en i1N_ G • ryp (, InPM, 1., I : - I „,', III III L.n 2•G. • ru s h I - ' lli: III:L• A i. i A a, 1C71 Jl lttl y !9i `nfe 1.)1,1i1ill 'III "j j,I GIB i i t 1 3.4 16 1 :*. :!!:[ i'If{I Y i.ra , ,III01, i/ eeelll / 1 ql .lr. A' ll ' I . " !jig . l: . i 1'•' 1,, I• ,. ''• . ll.,l 1'..l t.c'' Iilll !.II:I: ", I • r I„ 1 1 j I. . I I,... , 1;,1 I 1 I Iltl ? , FF EXHII h ' T JITEN to) I 11u1., T t I y` r,l- lla•'lf4 I l,. • f 47 -- ' • • I i• )1 I/1 i i i C ii.0 I 4_ ,. ii,i , ^L....: i I Ili/I l' • KM rl' I i C P till' ilial c..4 I:' If iijr. 1,.. , , 1 i.„ .,.„ r. o --- Ln t 1i;l,,l'I''•. 4. A i II J'„Illil;.O V4 Ill' , t ,] L 4 1;J I. I It :4 ' I V,I•:I1td r I, Ilil;' ._ I _I.1 • J ' + , '. lll, r1 .. RC 1' 1.1 i 1 ' ,.III Via,.... .0 ';,•I'• ''. H 1-111 t 1 P;ii.il, r, i 'll I i p 4,: ill' Ntio.I.a'M . I" 1' V r-. A4x .'.I.I. . 1 11----'-' 1- - . ' tmssalljIMIIIIIIIpeIIIIIIIIIIRL •14 154 ' 40)) 1 440 . r- , cod),A A 111 ti I tolp. ask I o. j, II' r i l # II,11'. 1. 1_.reil.'--j,imp t ! 4,, -•,s • • ANL . I 114111 A . 1 . 4 i t ' 11°°:P ' 4) 1. ar N •G I IIlr. a 4,1 sx. j rt I I 1,,,,, , ll f `"- Jr'/A RECEIVED 1' ljl.'i , r ,CITY OF RENTONiii i I , ''•nlei tli 0 — j. " HEARING EXAM{^; R I MIF I — r I I l r r 101 rPMSOOre.".. .. I ` 1r 3r 11rlvr1r2t3:4rJrs I illir••• I r / __ I, ill: 1;' It r_.J. I l J I I„1 I "I'I I s C III i''/ f p h 4 4 I. 1 _ 0.11a '' 1111 h L, M III+bIIi,' I ' _ 11'I11 r 4.7p u111 11h11 a G ` G T 4• 1 ra . I A - 1I;'1iu1 AlIV 1 1 '_c 401, 1. i lull ail i ,:, , i;,,1 u, , II I 1, f .; ; 1111 • 1 Oh'IIl11,ill ll lil1 . ILI,It, ,1{; I 111,, 1 1i1 I1 1, I I• , t; • '1lk h' 10 t' 1' ALA N u l al „ f iafSrii,AifBiiiiiHS ifillit- 1 w f• ._ di SITE. RAH gr4 ,4._0141. 1tworio..t 0._ 2 7 7 76\7 441111ft qr.4? ow i 1 4\ ff r, " - • 781P 1 L1\74. 1t4k -- All t ' iik" 4lItt,VII Az ab•„, t -441ap I uot ih* iti 1,........„ . tr t ris.........„ ..z._...., 4., ,,:;. „.,.,..,,„,,.....,,,„.,..4 / M,- 4111111111 1111111111111111.1111101L' i l 111111: 1 N N Po IIlk,s' iraNNIONIsaimm triftikiimis f lo• i Li.I • i*•A it im.v ell% 411° 11111111°." 3';- ' 1 t x 11 1 libel V-1 11, 414 O.° i •,,` I i-K „..OkkOtaitill4 r.A -• ' t ''. IP i 0 it i ') `. "•. 1 i a 4, • lik' 1k-.1.1Nos Ait I lish 4. mi.,.. , 4.21,,- . 34 1.- MS 42 `...,,, I:= 4../' 44.'. • 4 4 t t_• :A t f i t cpitiilb • :4 0e" 0 .." i (I # .6 . 1r 1' • If 0/ 0 EP . INTER-OFFICE MEMO 40- TO: PLAtf....)t.)t N Cs n i DATE CIAQ , /S FROM: t LE, ?Lertrion0IJ QT ,,SUBJECT: .n li . ' r-C.ISe V-1 K) GE.Q YR:o 9O'SED 1 .C.2..01 l 1..3 6 DE ca.oAre. a (,¢. S •JJ JST ll G P2oV I D ED . 1-10rZ A 2c . tLc'T. : A vPALA-ry ic wb- S PL9 . l s1- Qt‘) J ee-c-- l A.E. eW ti . 2 c 1 Q.k bIF Fov.. 1*E 1 `? PC oc O0.4..vPAp.)C-q \)Lp.t.)tz IA9bQA,.yr5 AV sT L C S r re- CAt;.L_' t-o cam ES), So AAA Ia to Y our%O J oc• Aar 6L—DG, t S :w t 1 v...). 3oo 1 o F 4 ,' 1.4 i(----..-144_)._ is o S AMC As; A A60vE Ii/m., ,j__ INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE Date March ?5, 1975 TO: Planning Department FROM: Utilities Engineering SUBJECT:Proposed Rezone: A. Robert J. Kinsen B. Gerald E. Schneider A. No sewer on water service available to this site to date. Nearest sewer and water along Rainier Ave. at N. W. 7th St. Water and sewer service may be made available from Water District 14 and the Bryn Mawr Sewer District on a temporary basis until City facilities are available. Water District 14 fire capacities should be invccti;;ated as entire water district is served off of an 8" Seattle meter. B. Water and sewer available on Monroe .Ave. N.E. and N.E. 6th Street. Water system is weak and chould'be some type of future tie between N.E. 6th and Olympic and Monroe Ave. N.E. Sewer facilities should be sufficient. Sewage load will have to be calculated to determine load on system. RB:pmp INTEROFFICE ME' O 'RANDUI DATE: .March 26, 1975 TO: Planning Department J F .'' AO . ri,- 4\4\\\ n FROM: Dave Hamlin,' Traffic Engineer • . Jf jl,j `C SUBJECT: Proposed Apartment Complex I : East Side of Monroe Avenue NE,, r -_ r', Vicinity NE 5th Street (Schnieder Application) • . .,1. ss `A, % j The- following comments are pertinent to the proposed development: 1. Monroe Ave. is 'classified as a collector arterial on "our arterial plan. A collector arterial is defined as •a roadway •which will have, at ultimate•development, an approximate road-way width of thirty-six. (36) feet. with provision for two lanes .of moving traffic. Monroe Ave. "NE is presently the City's fourth priority for improvement on the Six-Year Street Program forthecollectorsystem, .but we have no knowledge "of when funds • may be available to improve it. - . 2. We would recommend that access to the development' be confined . to Monroe Ave. .NE rather than to permit secondary access to •NE,_6th -Street. The residential streets in that vicinity are intended for local neighborhood access only and should not be used. to connect a multiple-residential area to the arterial, system. A properly designed access roadway onto Monroe should be adequate to handle traffic moving to and from"the development. 3. The development will, to some extent, increase traffic volumes _ on Monroe Ave. NE. We do not believe that it will overload that facility, but it will aggravate problems at the intersection . of NE 4th Street. and Monroe Ave. NE. This intersection already shows .signs of warranting a traffic signal, . and' we Will need to further investigate the intersection to determine if a signal should be installed in the near future: If a signal is required at this-. time, then we will request Council approval to install one as soon as funds are available. 4., We do-'not foresee -that the .proposed development will have any secondary adverse impact upon the City's transportation system other than those .identified above. Please advise us• if you -require any further information on this project. DIH:•ad David I . Hamlin. 11110 CITY OF RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 29, 1977 AGENDA COMMENCING 9 : 00 A. M. : COUNCIL CHAMBERS , SECOND FLOOR, RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING R-028-77 GERALD E. SCHNEIDER Rezone from GS-1 and S-1 to R-2 and R-3 ; property located on Monroe Avenue N . E. between N . E. 6th Street and N. E . 4th Street. R-031-77 JOHN ANDERSON Rezone from G to M-P ; property located on West Valley Highway between S . W. 43rd and S . W. 41st . SA-032-77 ALBERT HEGLUND JR. Site Approval in B- 1 zone; property located between Shattuck Avenue South and Whitworth Avenue South at South 4th Place. EMitt ED MAP' 2 3 1977 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC MEETING OF MARCH 29 , 1977 PAGE THREE RE : GERALD E . SCHNEIDER REZONE APPLICATION NO . R-028-77 5 . Parks : In addition to the vocational school grounds , Kiwanis Park is approximately one-half mile from the subject site . H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE : 1 . 4- 725 , Amendments 2 . 4- 729 , G , General Classification District 3 . 4- 707 , S- 1 , Suburban Residence District 4 . 4-706 , R- 1 , Residence Single Family 5 . 4- 708 , R- 2 , Residence District 6 . 4- 709A , R- 3 , Residence District I , APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS : 1 . Land Use Report , 1965 , Objectives , pages 17 and 18 , numbers 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , and 6 . 2 . Policy Statement , Comprehensive Plan , Renton Urban Area , pages 9 and 10 , Summary . 3 . Chapter 30 , Land Use Hearing Examiner , Section 4- 3010B and Section 4- 3014 . J . IMPACT ON NATURAL SYSTEMS : Rezoning of the subject property will not have a direct impact on the natural systems . However , eventual development may require disturbance of soil and vegetation through grading and cuttingandfilling , increasing storm water runoff , and have an effect on traffic and noise levels in the area . K. SOCIAL IMPACTS : Certain additional social interaction will be created through eventual development of the site . L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the City of Renton Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , as amended ( RCW 43 . 216 ) , a Declaration of Non-significance has been issued for the sub- ject proposal ( see attached ) . However , actual development of the site will require further environmental review . M. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: A vicinity map and site map are attached . N. AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED : 1 . City of Renton Engineering Division 2 . City of Renton Utilities Division 3 . City of Renton Building Division 4 . City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division 5 . City of Renton Fire Department The above departments approved the applications . Copies of memosfromcertaindepartmentsareattached . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC MEETING OF MARCH 29 , 1977 PAGE FOUR RE : GERALD E . SCHNEIDER REZONE APPLICATION NO . R-028-77 O. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1 . The proposed rezone does not agree with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan within the northerly 200- 300 feet of the subject site . The Comprehensive Land Use Plan indicates single family residential land use extending approximately 300-350 feet south of the centerline of N . E . 6th St . The southerly 330 feet of the subject site is indicated as medium density multiple family residential on the Com- prehensive Land Use Plan . 2 . Existing single family residences are located directly adja- cent to the northerly boundary of the subject property and immediately north of N . E . 6th St . Compatibility with the existing single family uses will be of primary importance , when considering the subject rezone request . Compatibility can be provided through various methods , including : less intensive residential zoning and land uses near the existing single family area , height controls , additional setbacks , access controls , greenbelt/buffer areas , screening , develop- ment as a P . U . D. , and progressive reduction in densities i . e . , the creation of transition zones ) . A combination of all of these methods may be necessary for the subject proposal . 3 . The same general site was considered for R-2 zoning in March , 1975 , and created much citizen opposition from the surrounding community . The rezone request was withdrawn in May , 1975 . 4 . There is an existing half-street (Olympia Ave . N . E . ) , which extends into the northern portion of the subject site from N . E . 6th St. Access from a multiple family complex onto the existing single family residential street will impact the existing residential area . Access controls will be necessary . Also , the southerly 30 feet of N . E . 6th St . , adjacent to the subject site , has been dedi - cated and improved . 5 . The Comprehensive Land Use Plan indicates multiple family residential area adjacent to the existing business zoning to the south . However , there is also a need to determine how much multiple family is desirable , the relative density , the proper transition to single family uses to the north , and the character and quality of the eventual site develop- ment . P. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of R-3 zoning for the southerly 330 feet of the subject site and R- 1 zoning on the remainder of the site subject to the following conditions to be established as restrictive covenants running with the land : 1 . DEVELOPMENT Any and all development of the subject property shall be subject to City of Renton approval and shall comply with all the requirements of the Planned Unit Development Ordi - nance , Chapter 27 , Title IV , ( Building Regulations ) of Ordinance 1628 known as "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton . " A master development plan for the entire property as described above shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Renton pursuant to the abovemen- tioned ordinance prior to preparation of specific develop- ment plans . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 29 , 1977 APPLICANT : GERALD E . SCHNEIDER FILE NO: R-028-77 , REZONE FROM GS- 1 AND S- 1 TO R-2 AND R-3 A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests rezone from GS- 1 and S- 1 to R-2 and R-3 to allow development of low to medium density multi - family housing . B. GENERAL INFORMATION : 1 . Owner of Record : GERALD E . SCHNEIDER_ FLORA E . McKENNEY 2 . Applicant : GERALD E. SCHNEIDER 3 . Location : Approximately 600 ' north of N . E . 4th St . on Monroe Ave . N . E . 4 . Legal Description : Detailed legal description available on file in the Renton Planning Depart- ment . 5 . Size of Property : Approximately 14 acres . 6 . Access : Monroe Ave . N . E . and N . E . 6th St . 7 . Existing Zone : GS- 1 and S- 1 . 8 . Existing Zoning GS- 1 , S- 1 , R- 1 , and 6- 1 . in Area : 9 . Comprehensive Medium Density Multiple Family on the Land Use Plan : southerly 350 ' of the subject site and single family residential on the northern portion of the subject site . 10 . Notification : The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date . Notice was properly published in the Record Chron- icle and posted in six places on or near the site as required by City ordinance . C. PURPOSE OF REQUEST : Subject rezone to R-2 and R-3 classifications is to permit future multiple family residential development on the site . D. HISTORY/BACKGROUND: An application for rezone to R-3 of a portion of the subject site was submitted on February 5 , 1975 . A revised application to R- 2 zoning was approved by the Planning Commission on March 26 , 1975 . However , a group of area residents opposed the subject rezone and appealed the decision to the City Council . The applicant with- drew his application for R-2 zoning on May 12 , 1975 . No further action on the subject site has transpired since this previous rezone request . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OF MARCH 29 , 1977 PAGE TWO RE : GERALD E . SCHNEIDER REZONE APPLICATION NO. R-028-77 F. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND: 1 . Topography : The subject site has a generally irregu- lar topography with several knolls and valleys throughout . 2 . Soils : Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam (AgC ) . Permeability is moderately rapid in surface layer and very slow in the sub- strata . Runoff is slow to medium , and hazard of erosion is moderate . This soil is used for timber, pasture , and for urban development . 3 . Vegetation : The site consists of brush and scrub grass ground cover , together with various sizes of Douglas Fir trees scattered throughout the site . 4 . Wildlife : Existing vegetation on the site provides suitable habitat for birds and small mammals . 5 . Water : Surface water and streams are not apparent on the site . 6 . Land Use : The subject site is presently undevel - oped . However, it surrounds two exist- ing single family residences located adjacent to Monroe Ave . N . E . Existing single family residential uses are located directly north and east of the subject site . The area south of the subject site consists of undeveloped property and various commercial uses . The Renton Vocational School is located west of the subject site across from Monroe Ave . N . E . F. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS : The area consists of a mixture of platted and sparsely developed single family residences , together with certain amounts of unde- veloped land and commercial uses . The subject site is within a transitional area from the business uses and zoning along N . E . 4th St . to the single family residential community along and north of N . E . 6th St . Careful consideration must be given in creating a reasonable and compatible transition in development intensity . G. PUBLIC SERVICES : 1 . Water and Sewer: Existing in the area are a 10" water main along Monroe Ave . N . E . , a 8" sewer main along Monroe Ave . N . E . , and a 12" storm sewer along N . E . 4th St . 2 . Fire Protection : Provided by the Renton Fire Department as per ordinance requirement . Any further development of the site will be subject to City of Renton standards . 3 . Transit : Metro Route No . 242 operates along N . E . 7th St . approximately 1/4 mile north of the subject site . 4 . Schools : The subject site is within 1/2 mile of Highlands Elementary School , within one mile of McKnight Junior High School , and within two miles of Hazen High School . INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE Date March 14, 1977 TO: Planning Department FROM:Engineering SUBJECT: Rezone: Gerald E. Schneider All offsite improvements will be required together with storm retention at the time of development. This includes extension of water, sewer and storm plus curb and gutter, side- walks and street paving. RCH:pmp r PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAVINER PUBLIC MEETING OF MARCH 29 , 1977 PAGE FIVE RE : GERALD E . SCHNEIDER REZONE APPLICATION NO. R-028- 77 2 . BUILDING HEIGHT No building or structure shall exceed a height of thirty- five ( 35 ) feet . 3 . DENSITY The maximum density within said southerly 330 feet shall not exceed 20 units per acre . 4 . GREENBELT/BUFFER A minimum 50 foot landscaped buffer area suitable for screen- ing purposes shall be established between the multiple family residential area and the single family residential area and between the subject site and existing developed single family residential property . Said buffer areas shall be included in a detailed landscape plan for the total site development subject to Planning Department approval at the time of development plan review . 5 . ACCESS Access from any multiple family development shall not be per- mitted onto N . E . 6th Street . 6 . DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY The northerly 30 feet of the westerly 630 feet of the subject site shall be dedicated to the City and improved to City requirements at the time of development of the subject property . 7 . SETBACKS No building or structure shall be located closer than 50 feet to any existing developed single family residential lot . 8 . DURATION These covenants shall run with the land and expire on Decem- ber 31 , 2050 . It is further agreed and covenanted by the undersigned that if a master plan for total development of the property is not submitted to the City of Renton pursuant to the Renton Planned Unit Development Ordinance within two 2 ) years and substantial construction begun within three ( 3 ) years of the filing of these covenants , and said construction and development diligently prosecuted toward completion thereafter , the zoning of said property shall without further City action revert back to the zoning which existed prior to the filing of this document , and these restrictive covenants shall become null and void . The term substantial construction" shall mean the physical altera- tion of the land for construction pursuant to City approved development plans as per the abovementioned Planned Unit Development Ordinance and a valid building permit , or con- struction of required utilities for such development . The abovementioned time periods may be extended for reasonable cause upon written request to and approval by the Renton Planning Department . Such reasonable cause shall include , but may not be limited to , the requirement of an environmental impact statement pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 . The above recommendation is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan for the area . It is also considered rea- sonable in that it attempts to establish a progressive transi - tion area from the business uses and zoning along N . E . 4th St . to the single family residential community north along N . E . 6th St . The recommended zoning pattern and conditions will ensure compatibility with the single family residential area , while the requirement for P . U . D . type development will allow flexibility and created a smooth transition in density and character of development . w 7:PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT A 37 rn TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION 235-2620 O ® .r9 o co- MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO.. RENTON, WA. 98055 O FO SEP • CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR MEMORANDUM March 15, 1977 • TO: Planning Department FROM: Traffic Engineering Division SUBJECT: • Gerald E. Schneider Rezone No Significant Impact CEM:ad A ° R 1/ THE CITY OF RENTO.N 4 e :;; ..CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR C. % s3 J Mat o IA ` FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS v MUNICIPAL BUILDING • 200 MILL AVE. S. • RENTON WA. 98055 • 235 26424lFUSEP1C-1*O CHIEF: GEORGE H.WILLIAMS ASST.CHIEF: DICK GEISSLER March 15 , 1977 TO: Planning Department FkOM: Fire Department SUBJECT: Gerald E. Schneider ' Rezone No objection to rezone. RG:bm li: .‘c_ OF RF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTJs$ ; BUILDING DIVISION 235 - 2540 0Q 40.MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 980550 4T SEPjE March 10, 1977 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR TO: Planning Department FROM: Jim Hanson SUBJECT: Gerald Schneider Rezone We have no objections to the rezone as proposed. JCH/mp D ss 1 I a N.F.7M h. y , ,`,\ ,r4 L , Nl• V''.... 1 1 1...4., I,'. •` .-,, a,' 1 l Q .t• .r 2. i• y•'.•..1 1 f,tiZ ' , • • r 18 i 1YA - ji e. i{ r '1 •.7 m --ia 1 1 ei .•2 '; .•n••, .S.f, wl•I 1.1,,..il. ..j.•}', i_ 1;; i '13 21 m R 1 r j r I i Z` 1 i . ,. 4, c, 1 - 1. 71 - ' -- --- --_ - _.- j - r,l.E. 4?M Si'. eel w., rBZim.""mmilL : T- 7-71AFGiI• GP ENW100D i I I i_ G t- r i_ ' Pro CE MET2Y i pie i a E N I f 1 L-1 I 1 I , , 1 I C. , o I r I f i 1 iIII1 a•.«.•...«.4.: i P ii i ce LL IENTON CITY. LIMITS I ,•; rr.,.,G•L`. i 44 1 ii` v j 11 i" NNM r yt st r i••!.. REZONE : GERALD E . SCHNEIDER ; Appl . No . R-028-77 ; rezone from GS-1 and S-1 to R-2 ' and R-3 ; ' •property located on Monroe Avenue N . E . between N . E . 6th Street and N . E . 4th Street APPLICANT GERALD E . SCHNEIDER TOTAL AREA_ ±14 acres PRINCIPAL ACCESS Monroe Avenue N . E . EXISI1ING ZONING GS-1 and S-1 Single-family residential i EXISTIING USE unimproved property Development of town houses under PUD Ordinance , PROPOSED USE Approximate density 120 - 14n units COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Single Family and Medium f)encity Mufti -Family . COMMENTS is o L. o p O 00 I o0QCIgo ip 1 Cloa o0 I o p d 1 I r- ,aoo Loa Q ei o 0 O c} I I 1 p oo 1 H 6,114 Pt,.. o I . I. i a 1:3 rilOG ©tic Ot 0onppv 0o1:3c c I N.LSA A gi A o dv 0 db® oa I SI.t4q$4 M `/ iIr'1. 41DINT1A1. I e9.o' No. 6'r 1-. I tip 5.F. Z 1 I se/ 1..11 --k I ifirerpdphimp ' `.Z. 4 Iffei? P ' c‘ I' 1 D SF, s to I I i 1 LJL I A 1 I 1 1 NI, . 10 ! S.F. s•F• CaLl ,i 4Ii116 I epl 0NI I II it 1'e—_.., 1 I 1 1 I.I 11 1 11 II 1 I 81' Vo r/ON L11 11 I U r u 1117-006Noottior i I 1 , 1' 5 OCN- 10 11 0 11 1 1 Ild/1+l> 11 . 1.A.,.........1 1 11 i 1...,. 1406 AO. 1 11 Lei I!I 1 Si1 V1 If 11 1 1 1 I wi1II 11 I n I 1 ' i I II t c 41..ALL I" g.00# U 14104ger 4rr APPIAconf. yew 1r. 'SG1411 a10l3iC KOsON1: No. R•02.977 I i L./..e-to- 1 'ON •attOzirA ztati mm4-* -2 et-iv-rah -..I.4te7r14401 1 1iP Joallati* 44!2oat11•1\07p 1, iI 1. 1• iii-il IN 1 Ii 1 ir I II L, timlatio-igniti , ig--, il t, I I 01A21110 1 l L_J s I I 49 I it1t " Fal II1itflt9K1IAONVW ! I it /__.1 I 1 vo AlAterM.'-erAiii o. )rAWGit ; i II I I" ) 3 413p4ovaN 91.4ri_.;_ti o/ v, uNi.4. 14.110‘,.4... I Le-700 1. j—xlvvl I I I I t i tio/J- OA1I I % I ' aEl4.44y1-10 I i 11 1 1I 1 1I1iI11 t %.............• i ,• EJ I: Ir_, uIIvit I ' tI I 1 IREI I I11 L J 0 0 1: I I cf53 4 ITC' bcC3 • 1 IIiI 1 I 1 I I 0't 1 03J1/207VA 1 r iim 11 1 1 9941 i%viZEI 4 vl a I I 1 f 1 ii i ‘,1 1 6E9 2.01i 431404624 1 ‘--- ii•°p 1ws-0 I tx Id.5 riii3 0 lb 6 tt IJ I VO_IkV 'al 'Al ;1•S •••% '03 •A• 31 ._'A'S ii c..j nomotimmo,Vt.1-9 VN u4 cia.:1 1 it 1IIt/UMW filta kit*fled trihrts 4 II ,I41;:j I=1 C3 1:=1 qi Er] 0 cl C:i Cil 1:3 r=3 4c4‘ Lir 1;3 Eil V itil iii f V II? El 1 ul 1 1I ..•.. ri• F I \t 1 I 7- D [22 Oic;IE:3 in 0 Er.] 6 ci[3E3 ..1 cl ci Ci c3C::112:i c112:1 0 i1 I 1 0 1 I ie KO 114 i 1 11, I I c)'0 il C] 13 0 En cp 0 C3 E;3 El 0 0 k li i 1 1 1 El 0 0 1- C)' E3 1:1051012300 ° 1:11:1 1 1 i 1 0 c)4 I 1 0 1 0 0 Oc00131:1E:310C1 - gil 0 4 4 ID v PROPOSED/FINAL D .RATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/ -SIGNIFICANCE Application No . R-028-77 PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . ECF-219-77 0 FINAL Declaration Description of proposal Applicant requests rezone from GS- 1 and S- 1 to R-2 and R-3 to allow development of low to medium density multi -family housing . Proponent GERALD E. SCHNEIDER Approximate-Ty 600 ' north of N . E . 4th St . Location of Proposal on Monroe Avenue N . E . Lead Agency Renton Planning Department This proposal has been determined to 0 have ED not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS ® is Buis not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 ( 2 ) ( c ) . This decision was ma-de after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency . Reasons for declaration of environmental significance : 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 nin 7Diretor Date March 22 , 1977 J Jam, F Signature City of Renton Planning Department 5 -76 TILE CITY OF RE NTO N CHARLES J DELAURENTI MAYOR o - FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS 0, 94r NIC!PAL BUIL C!iNG • 200 Mill .AVE_. S. • RENTON WA. 96055 • 235 2642F0SEPS 4 CHIEF GEORGE H WILLIAMS ASST CHIEF DICK GEISSLER March 15 , 1977 TOE: Planning Department I Fire Department SUBJECT : Gerald E . Schneider Rezone No objection to rezone . I, M RG: bm 11.41110 R.e PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION • 235-2620 p P•. MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO.'RENTON,WA. 98055 o o14TEO SE PSE. e CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR MEMORANDUM March 15, 1977 TO: Planning Department FROM: Traffic Engineering Division SUBJECT: Gerald E. Schneider Rezone No Significant Impact CEI:ad I PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: GERALD E . SCHNEIDER , File No : R-271 -78 JANUARY 16 , 1979 PAGE TWO February 5 , 1975 . A public hearing was held on March 29 , 1977 " before the Hearing Examiner. The public hearing was closed and continued indefinitely . This application has expired . E . PHYSICAL BACKGROUND : 1 . Topography: The subject site has a generally irregular topography with several knolls and valleys throughout. 2. Soils : Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam (AgC ) . Permeability is moderately rapid in surface layer and very slow in the substrata . Runoff is slow to medium, and hazard of erosion is moderate. This soil is used for timber, pasture , and for urban development. 3 . Vegetation : The site consists of brush and scrub grass ground cover , together with various sizes of Douglas Fir trees scattered throughout the site. 4. Wildlife : Existing vegetation on the site provides suitable habitat for birds and small mammals .. 5 . Water : Surface water and streams- are not apparent on the site . 6 . Land Use : The subject site is presently undeveloped . However , it surrounds two existing single family residences located adjacent to Monroe Avenue N . E . Existing single family residential uses are located directly north and east of the subject site . The area south of the subject site consists of undeveloped property and various commercial uses . The Renton Vocational School is located west of the subject site across from Monroe Avenue N . E . F . NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS : The area consists of a mixture of platted and sparsely developed single family residences , together with certain amounts of . undeveloped land and commercial uses . The subject site is within a transitional area from the business uses and zoning along N . E . 4th St. to the single family residential community _Along and north of N . E . 6th Street . Careful consideration must be given in creating a reasonable and compatible transition in development intensity. G . PkLIC SERVICES : 1 . Water and Sewer : Existing in the area are a 10" water main along Monroe Avenue N . E . , a 8" sewer main along Monroe Avenue N . E . , and a 12" storm sewer along N . E. 4th Street . 2 . Fire Protection : Provided by the Renton Fire Department as per ordinance requirements . Any further development of the site will be subject to City of Renton standards . 3. Transit: Metro Transit Route #107 operates along Monroe Avenue N . E . adjacent to the subject site . 4 . Schools : The subject site is within 1 /2 mile of Highlands Elementary School , within one mile of McKnight Junior High School , and within two miles of Hazen High School . 5 . Parks : In addition to the vocational school grounds , Kiwanis Park is approximately one-half mile from the subject site . H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1 . 4-725 , Amendments . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 16 , 1979 APPLICANT : GERALD E . SCHNEIDER FILE NUMBER : R-271 -78 A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST : Applicant requests rezone from GS-1 and S-1 to R-2 and R-3 to allow development of low to medium density multi -family housing . B. GENERAL INFORMATION : 1 . Owner of Record : GERALD E . SCHNEIDER FLORA E . McKENNEY 2 . Applicant : GERALD E . SCHNEIDER 3 . Location :Approximately 600 ' north of N . E. 4th Street on Monroe Avenue N . E. 4. Legal Description : Detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department. 5 . Size of Property:Approximately 14 acres . 6 . Access : Monroe Avenue N . E . and N . E . 6th St: 7 . Existing Zoning : GS-l' and S-1 . 8 . Existing Zoning in the Area : GS-1 , S-1 ,- R-1 , and B-1 . 9 . Comprehensive Land Use Plan : Medium Density Multiple Family on the southerly 350 ' of the subject site and single family residential on the northern portion of the subject site . 10. Notification :The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly published in the Record Chronicle on : January 5 , 1979 and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City ordinance . C . PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Subject rezone to R-2 and R-3 classifications is to permit future multiple family residential development on the site . D. HISTORY/BACKGROUND: An application for rezone to R-3 of a portion of the site was submitted on February 5 , 1975 . A revised application to R-2 zoning was approved by the Planning Commission on March 26 , 1975 . However , a group of area residents opposed the subject rezone and appealed the decision to the City Council . The applicant withdrew his application for R-2 zoning on May 12, 1975 . A second application was submitted on March 7 , 1977 for a request similar to that of PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : GERALD E . SCHNEIDER , FILE NO : R-271-78 JANUARY 16 , 1979 PAGE FOUR 2. The applicant ' s proposal would allow approximately 280 dwelling units in the medium density multiple area and 50 units in the low density multiple for a total of 330 units . Reviewing the density allowed by the Comprehensive Plan , 180 units of medium density and 40 units of single family for a tctal of 220 dwelling units would be allowed . 3. Although the applicant ' s proposal provides a buffering of uses between the business activities to the south of the single family uses to the north, the proposal appears to exceed the area and intensity of transitional uses envi - sioned by the land use element . 4. Although the applicant ' s proposed rezoning would allow about 130 units , the application , schematic site develop- ment plan , and environmental checklist indicate that the proposed use of the property is 156 dwelling units . The proposed intensity of the zoning appears to exceed that desired by the applicant to achieve the desired develop- ment intensity of the property. 5. In addition to considering the specifics of the proposed use , certain goals and policies adopted as a part of the Comprehensive Plan must be considered. "A well balanced community will reflect in its general layout the proper application of planning principals . . . to guide growth pat- terns , (and ) prevent land use incompatibilities and con- flicts . " (Land Use Report 1965 , General Land Use Require- ments , page 11 ) Residential districts should be free of. . . uses which would be detrimental to the community and its residents . " Land Use Report 1965, Residential , page 11 ) . "Prevent blight by protecting residential and other exclusive districts from the unwarranted infiltration of incom- patible uses which would contribute to premature decay and obsolescence, and prevent the development of orderly growth patterns . Protect property values within the com- munity for the benefit of its residents and property owners , through the effective control of land use. " Land Use Report, 1965 , Objectives 1 and 4, page 17 ) These policies clearly suggest that a graduation of intensity of uses should occur in this area , commencing at the existing B-1 , commercial , uses to the south and extending to the single family, to the north. The land use element of the Comprehensive Plan suggests that the entire transitional area include approximately 200 dwelling units . 6. One transitional alternative would be as illustrated in K' the Comprehensive Plan consisting of a 300± foot wide strip of medium density with the remainder in single family. This alternate appears to potentially conflict with the policies identified in five above (Figure 2 ) . A potentially more acceptable solution would consist of a graduation from medium density to low density multiple and finally to single family. Using this concept , begin- ning at the north (existing south right-of-way line of N . E. 6th Street ) , zoning for single family should be provided to face the south side of N. E. 6th and back onto single family homes on the south side of N. E. 6th total depth 260 feet) . Due to existing single family homes on Monroe Avenue , R-3 should not immediately abut PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: GERALD E. SCHNEIDER , File No: R-271 -78 JANUARY 16 , 1979 PAGE THREE 2. 4-729 , G , General Classification District . 3. 4-707 , 5-1 , Suburban Residence District. 4. 4-706 , R-1 , Residence Single Family. 5 . 4-708, R-2, Residence District. 6. 4-709A, R-3, Residence District. I . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1 . Land Use Report , 1965 , Objectives , pages 17 and 18, numbers 1 , 2 , 4, 5 and 6 . 2. Policy Statement , Comprehensive Plan , Renton Urban Area , pages 9 and 10 , Summary. 3. Chapter 30 , Land Use Hearing Examiner, Section 4-3010B and Section 4-3014. J . IMPACT ON THE NATURAL SYSTEMS: Rezoning of the subject property will not have a direct impact on the natural systems . However , eventual development may require disturbance of soil and vegetation. through grading and cutting and filling , increasing storm water runoff, and have an effect on traffic and noise levels in the area . K. SOCIAL IMPACTS: Certain additional social interaction will be created through eventual development of the site. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION:- The applicant ' s submitted rezoning application would allow approximately 330 dwelling units . The applicant has proposed a schematic plan proposing approximately 160 units . 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 prepared for the rezoning only which is based upon` a reduction in density to a maximum of 180 dwelling units , buffering existing single family uses with medium and low density and retention of significant foliage, and site details in the final development plan. M. 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. N. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION : A vicinity map and a site map are attached. O. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1 . The applicant proposes to rezone to R-2, low density multi - family , the first 200 feet . south of N. E. 6th: Street and the remaining 450 'feet south of N. E. 6th Street to R-3, medium density multi -family. Comparing the proposal to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that single family uses will extend south of N. E . 6th Place approximately 300 - 350 feet with the remainder in medium density multiple family. ( Figure 2 ) PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : GERALD E . SCHNEIDER , FILE NO: R-271-78 JANUAR( 16, 1979 PAGE FIVE this area . By splitting the distance to the south property line ( 120 feet) , three acres of R-3 is available. The re- mainder of the site is appropriately designated R-2. SUMMARY (FIGURE 2) Single Family (north 260' ) 5 acres 25 units Low Density Multiple 6 acres 65 units Medium Density Multiple (south 120' ) = 3 acres 90 units 180 units This alternative appears to meet the transitional and site intensity objectives of the Comprehensive Plan , while meet- ing the applicant ' s desired dwelling unit density . Other alternatives consisting of similar acreage distribu- tion exist; however, they may conflict with existing homes surrounding the site (Figure 4) . 7 . The site has considerable topographic change from Monroe , over a knoll and then down into a. low area to the east. In addition to the interesting topographic features , the major vegetation on the site is also located on the higher knoll area. The following Comprehensive Plan policies relate to future site development : Residential development may be successfully planned to take good advantage of (site) amenities. Natural features such as rock outcroppings , streams , stands of native trees, and views . . . should be used to (the) greatest advantage. " (Land Use Report , 1965 , General Land Use Requirements : Residential , page 11 ) Therefore , the existing site amenities should be incorpora- ted in any final development plan . 8. Traffic Engineering indicates that traffic circulation in the area will be adversely affected until the traffic sig- nal at N. E. 4th and Monroe is completed . 9. The Engineering Division indicates that storm water deten- tion will be required. Off-site improvements will be required on N. E. 6th and Monroe Ave. N. E. along with dedi - cation. of 30 feet of right-of-way along N. E. 6th. 10. The Fire Department suggests that Olympia Avenue N . E. be extended into the site. 11 . Downstream analysis of sanitary sewer capacity is needed , and extensions of public utilities will be necessary to accommodate development . 12 . Other departmental comments are attached for consideration . P . DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS : BIsed upon the foregoing analysis , approval of the rezoning application as follows : a . The north 260 feet from S-1 to R-1 . b. The south 120 feet from GS-1 to R-3 c . The intervening 280 feet from S-1 and GS-1 to R-2 See Figure 2 ) . r IMO PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : GERALD E . SCHNEIDER, FILE NO : R-271-78 JANUARY 16, 1979 PAGE SIX Said rezoning to require as a condition of approval that at the time of special permit approval on the R-2 area that all significant natural topographic and vegetative areas be retained in the final site plan arrangement. 1 _ . &ill4arr 1 Y' a btL I Tit. I v:` •aL I ,.. 0.;,.. .. mr,;,lat 4 ' lt. V.1---'., ,1.,,Iiila 0 0 0 0 E:i1,...,„.::.::-: um.. _1 t.t. ....J....,,....:,,....:. ..- ,T i ' - 4 •• II ' 4,.' -.... .• I'.11:sI.II•leil '',: . ' ••••I II I.. 1,:1. 4 - •II.S.,. I. L. Ih:, t, a L. ',•Fa t; CfZi A....) --' 11M. ... ... 41.&.,......... 1 .711 it I tp.o ati • 41.I... i•t I J- • 0 . 7,s IN I 6t5.„. ,.... i ,. i gni I 1-- IcA/ took.. i:.-f r, .;...,..... 1111 .+-ir.. !• I'' • 1 Min ' I. ,!.. 1.14.4.4 .,.... • . .. I -.:- J Yj .. j* ' ': .Man a ""+his ril4, C a •-•LA., 5,11...• 7 --.. I'° 111111110 lir_... ..,! r- :. .', i nt. s c. 2 )I•, Ail. is 1I.!4 ^ A A t a .. 1 1,u'llIII i• .,,. , ,.II' i l' a. 111.1:!H;i,, I," I,iY t• 1,4i . .,..... . id i,.. ,• • , i. ar r' I :, i;,': II t......... k.4. .1.,,.0,.. il. .. 1 SITU i t•J"'ti g -- tiff-76 jam it rl•__ i, o, yi t..., _-_,_;:. t......... Iir .r„ t,.. rt.: w.,.. 1. 10 1.41 a I'M 'Fri:12-*•••• •• t."64-. 1•5 :4 A". 4.': 1::: "":: 4U t Gs0 • svxsN.:_.. , SR IgesVArAP7g 3wrig 9 rZi//4k2•i. e. r.c Sic R-3 A R i ‘,... 13-1yr Lc- . I A i G 1 x , GREENWOOD etF . It- 1, CEMETERY Al e.c M t j-1.. r, 4; il._c 0 I f Q 4, I PAa 9 T E A--cl qq• o.e.e•cp•-•- I•o._._•o•_•-.—.a y -ENTON CITY LIM ITS 1 r ' • 'ram' I lM• i , r'T 47111 f 1a4F1...IN ekue o REZONE : GERALD E . SCHNEIDER; Appl . No. R- 27.1-79; rezone from GS-1 and S-i to R-2 and R-3 ; property located on Monroe Avenue N .E . between N . E . 6th Street and N . E . 4th Street APPLICANT GERALD E . SCHNEIDER TOTAL AREA t14 acres PRINCIPAL ACCESS Monroe Avenue N . E . EX! SiING ZONING GS-1 and S-1 Single-family residential EXISTING USE unimproved orooerty PROPOSED USE Development of townhouses, approximate density 160 units. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Single Family and Uediu® Dpntity Multi -Family. COMMENTS 1 410 H I bid•4 Z al r a 0 NSo 0 egb ro 0-I 0_+ 0--0 I4' oho ai. x na . 1o41.6t' O Vr, No. _P___. fietedigos awNiN4 Riaairt}..:W.. 3WIZliM(AVD41'lOk) 29148 leiviovait I II* Z &ib r g lal 525' 0 0 o O. 0S I c . r foroitp f 1, ( .4 tx ,444) , ., 7x 34tF O 0 to41•at' If fitly. No. A__- AIA% lotiIik14 .aotr Sao” 0 Ii 1 a 60.44 o&= n r I Iii ifoiir.csfe0525 0 l r. uQ 0 461 1Tr1 ( `1(// J/rye vi n W ' ro41•fie'4 l.,a WiVrt Na L A crr ?(1 fD Nora itttailik4 it-271--16 I i dzi o 25' 6 o o I f0kItIlt fitiii1101/ (CI) O-O O o Irj4 w" r Or A 9COrrti 1 L pt'ig (i . ) F. ate- 7 101.01. fltiUr4 NO. g earlifitrA4 IZ F1141 4%.-. Ad) Ot War WW1% it-211-16 kr REVIEW.- BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department: 1 Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date 4 ` REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department: i Comments; Signatuie of Director or. .Authorized . Representative .. ' Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department: Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW aY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : 1Department: Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date I ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO: 0 , cance. Department 6 Fire Department Library Department Park Department Police Department 0 Public Works Department Building Div. Engineering Div. O fic Engineering Div. Utilities Engineering Div . FROM: Planning Departments (signed by responsible official or his designee) vie i ? SUBJECT: Review of ECF- 416 '1 pi pl ication No . : Action Name : dkilitekr Miro y A) egt40. Please review the attached. Review requested by (date) : 111 Note : Responses to be written An ink. REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department - Comments : 02_ L'j/S it y(-7/2/r F it (zs% /ZC //Ci ie6 d/9iU Jam/ l Signature of Director or Au horized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department: Url cr-a Comments : 26z Ot-.1 D¢a-S is1-U A.O% ill' 51'A_ 6IIA r--ti Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date ROUTING SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION TO: 0 Finance Department 8 Fire Department Library Department OPark Department i)(Police Department Public Works Department gilding Div. Engineering Div. (Please verify legal descriptior O Traffic Engineering Div. O Utilities Engineering Div. FROM: Planning Department, (signed by responsible official or his designee) I 1 eiWiltN4 DATE : 12 PLEASE REVIEW THIS APPLICATION FOR : APPLICANT : L j. . A) 4V LOCATION: 140AU t Iefa4 01 APPLICATION(S) : *fleljt 41I"0 44 .P A it '-i l gl ad IV, IN ORDER TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REPORT TO THE HEARING E (A INER , RETURN ANY COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY : REVIEW QY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS: Department: eY lle r-/ / En Approved Not>App oved Comments or conditions : v ,Jl LTid'"- TO cfeG'4 e- 5/ redp 7-// 4 /Gf aO ,ti. 4-(clJ4,1 h'OC. A i.,[-. At . T7 s/ c'. /j'yi r0 c_/!7t'yJ G!.,7 aid /v c. 5$ ell/lr w r'e9 al recZ d'vr1 /f e• C/7 6/ . GL ._<Y . 1S 2-/ 0ve_ in (-v, CJ`.Ce,, A.z,` d T Ci v- tii iv- /!Pro' _c,64 rnls// RA f e z -7, Date Signature of Director or Authorized Representative i UTING SCHEDULE FOR APIPLI4111I0N I ` REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS: ci)C---1) (7.7;Department : .: Approved in Not Approved om ents or conditions : 7 L. : _, 7- 7y-,7 a',--,--,_ 2.-- -27-7Y Sig lure of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS: Dep. rtment : j CS// fr C J1 C Y I MOB Approved En Not Approved liments or conditions : N E--)e- ;,5 111 L. f. z2 47( -1, 1-a_c_ - / 7 P_I s c7c/-)ct)4_,cac: firesal 10/ 71-4 //-1 X -di.c -l-t 0 ".1 e..--)51". Ai c t.'[...,) 7 i /11/c \ ..' 7 1...,,,I; a 1--- GUI 4 f iLi VC iL 3 ii..., . .,,, 4,,,/ ,,) Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS: Department : ur1L1 ri;' - Approved E:',I Not Approved Comments or conditions : l-t k l".. un- , . ir•.ff-- , t e..-,c1,,. ..„..,,,,c;-tr t ,", ilt, 12ti c. %., AU0( i1u, . , 7.: &.".'. co., ,c Si?wl l.. 5y5n)'-.5 w %.e,., U+g (41-. 410% 1'1:. o, t pc;I1.-•sfa. Li n j 1.,0 !'a I), ; • , 4 1 1"I/J,L_ e cpf,t - / -75 Fig-WiTi7Fi-iiT Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS: Department :4= El Approved Not Approved Comments or conditions : 04 yet/O//? /9k ! 6_C 07-2 L`-3 //11: E 41----(//°/-Z-- tc , / ( C`CS/ 4.//7 iC/' /%//itiS /: i3 % l//2L // `/r7/0_/1-iU-r_f 4 iHus ix .a U s7r7.= r,<<'(-i 4-r_S 4.zJ y t3L_,0G C;s- c`s ./ 1:-!<, / '[- L,%G i)/'?L:'.7 1.--//('r C'16 G-- G . < 4 t. i/ z J/l!v • 7 /%75 Signature of Director or Author 'id Representative Date / es • 1 i PROPOSED/FINAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/NON—SIGNIFICANCE Application No .R-271-78 PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . ECF-418-78 0 FINAL Declaration Descrip',tion of proposal Applicant requests rezone from GS-1 and S-1 to R-2 and R-3 to allow development of low to medium density multi-family housing. Proponent GERALD E. SCHNEIDER Approximately 600' north of N.E. 4th Street on Location of Proposal Monroe Avenue N.E. Lead Agency RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT This proposal has been determined to r have 0 not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS 0 is ex is ;not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 (2 ) (c ) . This decision was ma a 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 declaration of non-significance is for rezoning only, which is based upon a reduction in density to a maximum of 180 dwelling units, buffering existing single family uses with medium and low density and retention of significant foliage and site details in the final development plan. I f I 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 Offici 1 Gordon Y. Ericksen Title Planni Dir or Date January 9, 1979 o Signature Q City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 I REVIEW BY OTHER CITY 1PARTMENTS :4110 Department: Comments : REVIEW 6;41!-0 gnatu rector or Aut , or zed Representat ve REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department: Comments : 0 e:-)14'1."" a/ Ire/ 2, 6 7P/4/k e /5 ree74,-( re.i le2,1re)d-'4 -e2 al,,c/ e- 6/. 3 30 ci// ;L., 4-1/r-ed g a-IL r v- ve. 177 e)-± 61e,'L DA(1 IrLe( Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department :T2 4 E A/ 4,VN Eie .7Ai Comments : 1-7 -e. Lt) 1 I L€ 1.1 fr 74-e2 a_ciA)77) L. r a if( 2 71. 5,-- 1,Aect7 2el42( Signature of Director or Authorized Represen tive • Date F RO o Y. O THE CITY OF RENTON C7 t$ MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON.WASH.98055 0 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR 0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.10 235- 2550 OR47.FD sEP4E4O January 3 , 1979 Gerald E. Schneider 651110 Southcenter Blvd . Tukwila , WA 98183 RE: NOTICE OF APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM GS- 1 AND S-1 TO R-2 AND R-3 , File R-271-73 ; property located on Monroe Ave. N . E . between N . E. 6th Street and ILE . 4th Street . Dear Mr . Schneider : The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on December 20 , 1973 . A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for January 16 , 1979 at 9 : 00 a . m. Representatives of the applicant are asked to be present. All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing. If you have any further questions , please call the Renton Planning Department, 235-2550. Very truly yours , Gordon Y. Ericksen Planning Director By: , JL- d ' David R. (Clemens a1 Associate Planner cc : Robert H . Newell 1102 19th Ave . E . Seattle , WA 93112 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, RENTON , WASHINGTON, ON JANUARY 16 19 79 , AT 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: 1 . GERALD E . SCHNEIDER , APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM GS-1 AND S-1 TO R-2 AND R-3 , File R-271-78; property located on Monroe Ave . N. E. between N. E. 4th Street and N. E. 6th Street . Legal description on file in the Renton Planning Department. I ALL INTERESTED .PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON JANARUY 16 , 1979 AT 9:00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. GORDON Y. ERICKSEN PUBLISHED January 5 , 1979 RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION 1 , STEVE MUNSON HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE; ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE1PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, on the' 3rd day of January 1979 J — SIGNED I at.4.TY `oF •REN ONE• wASHI G'TRTN N , 1/:, 0.D1EEFN aE,, IR ('NTAL CHECKLIST FORM°.R•. A' iit:.RR2T`X,:DE t r lr•S'MJJw,I1v i s.•7.'I'9 1a.t-"FOR OF S t:.'E. U O LC II E N Y` f ti cat n 2 D ElioN.i o. `r 7' P yVI' I v, Env ronm nt C.JIheciealC v'i t' o. : G= b a. R 0 D daE tS e. A tiF.[ t Dec a a`e rton c'of' S i n1Significance,ce i :i 1 ec ^a1 o f;1 a i o Si ian. n Once9D P.:LAiCDelaioS crnNnf.i can e'at o on 1 i Dec.lar'ation:o o Si ni,f ca cf9. f.;N. n i n ;,a- F i: FB f eOMTS'G ME a rt:ei 1`=. I• — ,. — — — — — — —fir:.-' µ. 7 — d o h`i~ :nmme P'Intro ucti n The. ro m ntal: oli,cy Act" 'of'''1971,,';Chapter '43:21C, RCN, requires all state land local gov.ernmental.,agen'cies -to consi.der;=enviro:nmental';values 'both,<for their.,':;: :.;•„, .y-;;:;'; =own action,s' and when.licensing private proposals, 'The` Ac.t''a'lso .requires:'that :an. EIS,.... .':, ,=(.- prepared for all .major'actions signif.icantly -.affecting.the quality of the environment The purpose.of 'this •check1ist is, xo help, th,e• agencies° inYplyed;'deiwermine 'wheth.er';or. not .a' ' proposal. is, such': a`major •.action. F.' I AS,Please answer.- the following .questions:as 'completely:,'. ...-.ou ,can with"'.the Infor.ma'ti'on r:':. i :: ,• presently^'ava'i,lab'le-to' you_:-: .:Where.'expl'anations: of your''answers'are,requiredi, olr,wh'ere=a". `;,;:•'':'';°' you •believe an explanation wouldbe ,helpful ' to' governme'n.t decision=`makers',` include your explanation' in'the<space' provided,' or„:use additional''page,,--if,:necessa-ry• You .should include:'rehferences:.'.to any',reports:;or:.,studies';,of''which",'youar,e:aware.;^and' which are, rele- ' ;, ,` ' vant'''to'th'e answers you provide Completeanswers'to these questions: now' will; v fe4,,al1 agencies:'ilnvol v,ed°wi th,-your;p`r.oposal.. te-;undertake,,the;'r,equ,i,red:;env,1-ronmenta.l.'reviewi with- out unnecessary delay. y The following. questions`'app.ly .,to your total- proposal, not.just to the;.l-icense for''which :::`;`v you--are currently app'lying..or`'the' p,roposal'' for":which 'appr•ova'1',is'. sought.`"'Yo;ur answers should' include" the, impacts ,which .wil,;l be' caused by:your.',proposal .when it is :completed,: .,, .,.. even<,though completion may not.•occur until;'.sometime in: the. fut'ure;..-. This wi'1.1-'allow all. ':- : ;-,' a,' o'f the agencies which will ..he involved' to completet;'thei-r environmental review now, with- out:duplicat'ing, paperwork in the'future: • ,, s : • ~: ,-NOTE:: This i.s •ar standard form being •.used.by: all.state` and: local ;agencies, in the State :F of Washington. for'._var,ious '',ty,p• p, pos`als. 'M'ans of.the uestions ma not apply to: your proposal., .:;If, a questione:does, not.,.ajpp,ly, ju,st.,a_nswer;'.It "no,":'-::and',;continue;'on- t6L'the• next, question 0 EV A: ' E 'I T+' ORM•''V' ENvI'R NM NT L CH CKL S :F B K ROUN 1'I' C G s r ald . `5eui ider' G ,1'• '' ame. o:f' =Proponent : y, 2 ' A r' '' ad hone number of. P,raP one t a zs d Pidn i,`j 6510 Soutticenter Blvd. 'Tukwila.,• i `. 931t8 3• ` -Date Checklist submitted Plannin ';Dep artmenf'x;'..' 4. i,. Agency-•regui ri ng:,Checklist . g P r ' 5'' Name f ro osal if;a l_icable: i, 6.;. Nature and brief des'cription;'of; the_proposal",Clncluding .but 'not' limited to .its size, :general. design elements, and other.-factors; that ,wi,ll ;gi.ve an' accurate;.':; :;; 'i,,i,x,; understanding .of",its scope and.',natu.re).: `' 156 units on approximately 14* a rrP. - north`{l/3"nronosPd RL-Z Inn i np wt 11 i..:,,,,,:•,,,,:::.;,, a -be 2 bedroom 'units,;' creating .a'. density:`of approximately'•'5..8, units/acre).' i''.and-will''include community center, tennis court &- pool...& .landscaped trans r:`a sirion z• one oetween development &;`existing single` family `residence.. `South;: ,.' 2/3 `units;, proposed R-3,:will be 2`. &'-:3":bedroom units; creating; 'a d-1isity, of::'; ' , t a roximateiy 1 4' unite acrepp4 . a . i 7. Location of proposal (describe the physical ',setting Of the proposal'as. wellasthe .extent of.:the land area affected by any environmental, impacts, _includinganyothe,r information needed to give :an eccurate,' Understanding :of :the environ-mental setting'of .the proposal)t. Approximately 14 acres of irregularmoundp of earth`:interlaced with dirt paths. Small.. Firs; Alders &:Madrone trees sparsely populate. the area Ground cover is dense and :consists mainly'-of,weeds,; berries & nettles bushes. _ General slope is plight' from north to south-with moderate slope onsouth'bodir dr where pevous excavation o adjoining. property::.has._reduced ground.8. tstitmate date: tor completion,' o the;proposal elevation,` 9: List of all, permits,- licenses or overnment ,a9 pp royals -required- -the proposalfede;ral,. state and. loca)--including rezones): Rezone, Pt1D,' grading & excavation. .street.` use permit,, bldg.. permit, state'elec. permit, county plumbing 'permit. 10. Do you have any plans for future additi_ons , expansion,-,or.' further activity.related- to or connected with this proposal•? G-If;:yes, expla n: No 11: Do-'you, 'know of any plans by others:which °ma .-,aff our. liro osa ? Y' ect,'the" pr.operay. cowered by ,y P P. 1 'If, yes, exPlain: Citys l-installation of a traffic signal, system. on N.E.:.:4'th Street and Monroe 'Ave. .N:E. s: Attach! any other application form that has been completed':regarding the pro-posal ;;.if none has been'';completed, but .is 'expe'cted,'to be filed:'.at.~some futuredate, describe the; nature of such application,tform: Rezone application R-802-75 . , Rezone application R-028-77 Preliminary.report to hearing examiner dated.:March .29; '1977,, attached II. EN.VIRONMENTAL .IMPACTS Explanations of •al l.;"yes"Nand. "maybe"''answers'.;-are' r.e "u,iredj:, 1) Earth. Will :.the 'proposal result .in a) Unstable earth 'conditions or in changes in -geologic. :.'':,.'...;:•,, .,, '. , :, a, substru'cturesl : '- X CO_ Disru,ptions,.:di sill a3cements:,. mp CCtipn q ver.•=.` covering o f the'_soi 1'Z: X' ES'I` MA BY E NO c): ' Change to o ra h or' round' surface r 'ef'P 9 P. y g eli features? X' d). The, destruction, :covering or. modification of,any unique' geologic or physica`.l :;features.? .;n:' x YES.:,MAYBE ge • . e), n' increase in wind or• water er.osio ' o o.A Y' n. f s i l s.,. either.' on or off .the ;site?.g Y E Alt BE•' 'NO f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands:, prchangesinsiltation. deposition or erosion which' May modify the.,channel of a' river;or''.stream.•or the bed of the ocea "or.''a bay,;in Xnnylet'.or`a.ake$>` Explanation: (b) & (c) , surface' relief will be temporarily disrupted : Derma Pnrly innrli fiat 'to' lines & 'grades for Gtree* aad building site: '(e) erosion of .sai]as,'i yll`.be •Dfi•n• temporary:.•nature• untitl drainage '-& landscaping 'ip instilled. 3- 2) Air. Will the proposal result in: a)' Air emissions or,-:deterioration of ambient air`' Xquality? 1 ES MA'rBE N bY The creation of'•objecti•onable •odors.?:'•• t AYs rho c') • Alteration• •of' air:movement;• moisture''`or temptera•ture,':;, '`•'= 1•"' or any change in: climat:e, either local.ly .or:X YES" IAYBE ' NO Explanation a) increase: .in• auto•.& house •fireplaces could result in n increased air..emissions. 3) Water. Will •the proposal result' in: t.q -• • 1..- I •- a) Changes in currents, or the course of direction.-Of:....:,- ,.f. water 'movements,'•in either marine or.,fresh waters? X r. > ...,. YES- HATB NO b) . Changes in absorption •rates , drainage patterns; or" '. the rate' and amount of..surface..water. unoff?, X yr MAYBE N0 • c)' Alterations to .the course or flowof flood -waters?: YES MAYBE : NO . d) ' Change in the amount of surface :water., .in .an y.water Ybod ? YES MAYBE NO . e)L Discharge into surface waters, or: in. any alteration'. Hsurface water quality, including but' not. limited .to . • .' Xtemperature, dissolved oxygen 'or _tur,bidity?. YrsT MAYBE N-o--- f) Alteration of the.direction or rate-..of',flow of. X ground waters? 1 r. .FIATTIT N0 • . g)' Change in 'the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or Withdrawals, or- through i -.interception.- of an aquifer by• cuts, or excavations?. ..- X YES: MAYBE, NO h); Deterioration in ground :water:qual:ity, ,either through direct injection, or through the seepage of'.leachate, _ phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus Or 'bacteria, X or.other substances into; the. ground waters,?.•, ES M BE NO i), Reduction in the amount of water otherwise. available : '". for publ i s water- supplies?; b) existing absorbsion,rates,.drainage..patterns,& rate of Explanation: runooff..will 'be .modified to some—ell-tent. by the.additions of• roofs and streets i,f', andlhardsurfaces (g) excavations for :utilities & :foundations could intercept quifer: n( 4) • Flora,. • W1,11 the proposal result in; a) . Change in the diversity of species:,' or numbers of any '• species of• flora :(including• trees, shrubs-_;..grass.,. crops,, ' X n flora and aquatic plants)? i cro YES' idAgg . b) ; unReductionofthenumbers, of any ique, rare.or'. X endangered species. of: flora?.'yam.: RAirti€ NO c) ; Introduction of new species. of flora into an area; or in a bar.rier to. the -normal. replenishment of existing ,. X species? VET- MAYBE 1k1 d) I Reduction in acreage. of .any agricultural,; crop?; MAYBE N0 a) changes will be in the:nature of .planned. landscaping, retaining',aE Explanation: _ many;.•existing ttrees`i& shrubs..as•:poss-Ible... ... (c); tuif;' beauth 'bark, rockeries and.;.;`;'' other'landscaping will be. used to 'provide a' planned landscape design. ,;..;: 4- 5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in: u) . ChanVeu in the diversity of -species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birdu , land animals including reptiles, fish and' shellfish, bmnthi organisms', - insectn or minrnfaunu)?X YES mAYW N7- b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare' ur en4anue e speciesas of fauna? T- `MTYBE NO c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? Y MAYBE 77- d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?. X W7 a) 6d) Imao ut dauoe covered areas of brush, berries and Explanation: ` ' `-^ 000aed ground areas, could result in the decreaoed concentration & diversity `. of small land amioalo & rodents. 0) Noise.' Will the prupusul increuse existing noise levwlsY X Y[3 MAYBE 7T- Explanation: inrrpane 1z aotoa ll1 Iv raise noise level dorio& certain portions of the day. 7) Light and Glare Will the, proposal . produce new light or. :X glare?. YES MAYBE NT- Explanation:Street, house & auto ll8bta will produce light -as required for ' safety convenience. 8) Land Use. Will the proposal, use proposul, result in the alteration of the present or pannepre d ld of an. area? YTS MAYBE NO plu»utiu»: we are requesting a reoon~ ro CS-1 to R- & n_3 9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: u) Increase in t-he rate of. use of anynatural. . rm u`urc s X YES ' 'MAYBE NO of- anyh) Depletion of- any nonrenewable natural, rreouucmY y ' 07 O NO Explanation:dec eaae open 000se6 space by approximately 14 acres. . Does the al invulvea risk of an explosion or the lU) Risk u[ Upset. U e propus release of hazardous substances including, but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals ur.radiation) id tor upset conditions? in the event of an a:c w nsY TE37 MAYBE N— Explanation: i Will theproposal alter the lucatiun dis ri- Population. r rowth rate of chm human population'.^density.— of an area?. YEi MAYBE. increase.' the of people as by R72 & R-3 zoning xplmna n; i rules. 12) iHousing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,. :or.. ` icreate a demand ,for. additional .housing?, .:,., X YES , MAYBE NO iExplanation: Possibly contribute in 'demandfor more goods & services, resulting in additional housing demand. - 1 13) Transportation/Circulation: Will the proposal•'resul;t'.'in: a) Generation of :additional '°,vehicular:movement?X'• . YES. MAYBE NO b) Effects on :existing parking fee!liti•es.,:"o,r demand` Xfornewparking?. YES . MBE , NO c): . Impact upon existing transportation systems?• X MAYBE t d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation' or Xmovement' of people and/or'goods? YES- '.M YBE NO e) Alterations t'o waterborne, rail or air .traffic? X f) -Increase in traffic hazards to motor.vehicles, bicyclists or-pedestrians?. X see' attached memo from Dave Hamlin, _Traffic. Engr. , dated:•3/26/75 MAYBE NO Explanation: (a) :315 new parking stalls'will be provided with increased traffic movement: (c) addition of 156.households' Will increase ;demand for• ;, public & school transportation (d) entrance.,to"development will alter existing circulation. ; (f). increase .in pedestrian & vehicular traffic will create cute• 14azacds. 14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an. ;effect,:upon, or ,,,.• ., result in a need for new 'or' alter.ed governmental ''services in 'any of the following areas: ' a), Fire protection? ; X' Y.ES MAYBE N b) -.Police protection?' X: YES.:' MAYBE t c) Schools? X YES MABE NO d), Parks or other recreational facili:ties? X YES MAYBE NO e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? x YES MAYBE NO f) Other governmental 'services? • X YES" MMAYbE N0 see attached memo from Fire Prevention, . dated.March '24, 1975 Explanation increase in population will create additional demand on items a) through• (e).• ••(f) possibly_ other undetermined services such as public health services since government is involved.;in nearly•.,.every level a Uileyour of human'existence. 15) Energy. Will the-proposal ,result in: X. 5'a) '(Use of: substantial amounts of fuel.' or,energy? YES N3 " b) Demand 'upon existing sources of energy. or'. require:. x the development of new sources' oft energy?.,:: Wr, Explanation: b) elec. & gas will be used to. heat & operate. household appliances using:existing facilities .of-Puget Power and Washington Natural. Gas;; 16) Utilities. Will the proposal' result in a need for systems. or alterations to the following utilities: X a) Power or natural .gas?.` '. YES : MAYBE NO b) Communications systems•YES MAYBE • NO c) .'Water? YES MAYBE NO 6- d) Sewer or septic tanks?' X Yu- MA— NO , e) Storm water drainage? X Y S _ f) Solid waste and disposal? YES. MAYBE NO Explanation: ( c) continuous water piping system may'have to be modified to accommodate development as indicated .utility engineering memo dated March 25,. 1975, .attached 17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or.,.potential :health ha.z.ard (excluding mental health)? X Vrf- MAYBE WU- 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 S MAYBE NO Explanation: 19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact'• upon the X quality or quantity of existing recreational -opportunities?YES- MAYBE NU Explanation: reduce the area available to dirt bikes. 20) Archeological Historical . Will the proposal .result in an alteration of a 'significant archeological or historical:, . ' . site, structure, object or building? ' X r MAYBE WU- Explanation: t:r l•:. ..t it '.f t'C ;u.i,' .., i.'' 't i; !o:, i 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,A t might issue in reliance' upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful , lack. of full disclosure on my part. . Proponent: si ned) eo ;626 53 name printed) 24;;-e. . 4;74a 01 eh6,b7. d City of Renton Planning Department a':1 .i l:.. ''I. ..`T: _ ,J i_.':3:. '.; 'ti'=. AFFIDAVIT I GERALD E. SCHNIEDER being duly. sworn, declare that I am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewithisubmitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me this ay of 012,A01:., 19.424 Notary Public in and for the State of L?erobe/010....,WashingtanN . residing at 1 ary;: ublic) Signature of Owner) 2 349 45-e e 6510 Southcenter Blvd. Address); Address) Tukwila, WA 98188 City) State) 248-2471 Telephone) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found to be thorough and complete in every particular and to conform to the rules and regulations of the Rent a Department governing! the filing of such application. 4'4/' Date Received 19 By: 2 DEC 20 Dm 3 ton ni ng Dept .t . QEPP Ts, , .. - . -- -. .... a CITY OF REN7 No. 7525 FINANCE DEPARTMENT RENTON, WASHINGT N 9 8055 19 2Z RECEIVED OF v 0 TOTAL GWEN E. MARSH .L, FINANCE DIRECTOR BY 1 CITY OF. RENTON DEC 20 'MP f REZONE APPLICATION FOR OFFICE USE ONLY LAND USE "HEARING LNG DE APPLICATION NO. g,".•1V-4G EXAMINER 'S •ACTION APPLICATION FEE $ .0F3S:°4 APPEAL "F"ILED RECEIPT NO. /4"-..ro CITY COUNCIL ACTION FILING DATE ORDINANCE NO. AND DATE HEARING DATE i if2D1 1 l ChedK £icr-Vey d 5. (Zr—11 ` 7P). APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH :lb : 1 1 . Name GERALD E. SCHNEIDER.. L a 2h, I>' Phone 248-2471 Address 6510 Southcenter Blvd. , Tukwila, WA 98188 3. Property petitioned for rezoning, is located on Monroe Ave, N.-E. N.E. 6th Street N.E. 4th Street between and 4 . Square footage or acreage of property 14 AC ML 5 : Legal description of property"" (if: more space is required, attach a separate sheet) All in Section 9, Township 23 N. , Range 5.E. 1. North. % of the Northwest y of the Southwest i4 les ouch 130 feet of the west 230."'feet less County road' less coal and' mineral right 2. North % of South 1 of. Northwest. 1 o outhwest 1 of Southeast 1, Except West 184 'feet of North 89.70 feet: 3. South % ,of South 1 'of Nort est 1 of Southwest 1 of 'Southeast'1, Except road. 4. West 525 feet of No;tIA of Northeast 1 of Southwest 1 of Southeast 1, Except roads, al EaLept ;N.,i Lh 139feeL. 5. West 460 feet-'of South of Northeast. 1 of Southwest 1of Southeast 1, Except roads. N 6 . Existing. Zoning 6:5-/ 4614 S-1 Zoning Requested 42 't /2-3 NOTE TO APPLICANT: The following factors are considered in reclassifying property, Evidence or additional information to substantiate your request maybe attached to this sheet. (See Application Procedure Sheet, for specific requirements..) Submit this forir in duplicate. . p7. Proposed use of site 156 unit appaxCnients with community can,tex ja ®el &" tennis court 8. List the measures to be taken .to reduce impact "on the .surrounding area.. Landscaped buffer zone between unit development & 6th Avenue N.E. '' Widening of Monroe Street. 9. How soon after the rezone is granted do you intend to develop the site? As soon as financing is available 0. Two copies of plot". plan and affidavit of ownership are required. Planning Dept. 1-77 OR --rr l_c, __ LAND US -nr:Kairu.. 'r ,.. .. EXAMINER ACTION.• N ; PPLI CAT ION L.,. ', 1. . Soo APPEAL S',. PP ICATION FEE $ FILE TI N i": d? !?•'. ': L CITY COUNCIL A.0 Q t,,: -, ••' ECEIPT N0 . Q ORDINANCE1 NO. AND DATE ICING DATE .—U—a q I TEARING DATE C> i? % i JL cheek i,S-i' e ie 0 T. n .. 1 THROUGH 10 . FPPLICANTTOCOMPLETEITEMS cQ.th/ Phone 248-2471.:, . . A E. SCHNEIDER GERALD Name s•,•,;` •.;:; , L . 98188 6510 Southcenter Blvd. , Tukwila, WA Address is located on Monroe Ave,' NiE. ' ` .-• petitioned for rezoning 3, Property p 4th Street N.E. 6th Street and N.E.y, between P or acreage of property 14 AC ML q , Square footage of property (if more space is required, attach_ a 5 • Legal description p P separate sheet) Township 23 N. , Range 5 E. W.M. - All in Section 9, Of k.rw 01cr i feet of the Southwest Z less South 130 feet of t e e North ' of the Northwest rights. V less County road less coal and mineral g st • Except West,-:18,4: feet of Southwest of Southea F7L' 2. North ' f South ' of Nortseast 'Z 'P of North 89570 feet. - 3, South outheast , Except .road. of South. 1 of Northwest 14 of Southwest 14 of S of Northeast 1 of Southwest 1/4 of Southeast .:,Excepoed1 M, 525 feet of North Y'1, 4. .West ofSouthwest of Southeast ofSouthNortheast 1• ' , v 5, West 460 feet of CdiM1itsf : A $_ zoning Requested 6 . Existing Zoning The following factors are considered in reclassifying.N=:` -:• : ': NOTE TO APPLICANT: property, Evidence or additional information,,SQ SAS. si tkOe this SSee A ,,thie your request may be attached to uirementst) ( PP 2,' Procedure Sheet for specific req in duplicate. center ool &tenn tour 156 unitppartmente with communit r 7 , Proposed use of site a aired..;, b e taken to reduce impact on the surrounding 8. List the measures to ment & 6th Avenue N.E. Landscaped buffer zone between unit develop Widening of Monroe Street. ed do you intend to develop'.;.the site?:. e.,nne is grant w zS4 I a'a a S. H PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: GERALD E . SCHNEIDER , File No : R-271 -78 JANUARY ; 16 , 1979 PAGE TWO February 5 , 1975 . A public hearing was held on March 29 , 1977 , before the Hearing Examiner. The public hearing was closed and continued indefinitely . This application has expired. E . PHYSICAL BACKGROUND : 1 . Topography: The subject site has a generally irregular topography with several knolls and valleys throughout . 2'. Soils : Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam (AgC ) . Permeability is moderately rapid in surface layer and very slow in the substrata . Runoff is slow to medium, and hazard of erosion is moderate. This soil is used for timber, pasture , and for urban development . 31. Vegetation : The site consists of brush and scrub, grass ground cover , together with various sizes of Douglas Fir trees scattered throughout the site. 4'. Wildlife : E;:fisting vegetation on the site provides suitable habitat for birds and small mammals . 5 . Water : Surface water and streams' are not apparent on the site . 6 . Land Use : The subject site is presently undeveloped . However , it surrounds two existing single family residences located adjacent to Monroe Avenue N . E. Existing single family residential uses are located directly north and east of the subject site . The area south of the subject site consists of undeveloped property and various commercial uses . The Renton Vocational School is located west of the subject site across from Monroe Avenue N . E . F . N,EIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS : The area consists of a mixture of platted and sparsely developed single family residences , together with certain amounts of undevelope'd land and commercial uses . The subject site is within a transitional area from the business uses and zoning along N. E. 41th St. to the single family residential community along and north of N . E . 6th Street . Careful consideration must be given in creating a reasonable and compatible transition in development i;ntensi ty . G . PUBLIC SERVICES : 1 . Water and Sewer: Existing in the area are a 10" water main along Monroe Avenue N . E . , a 8" sewer main along Monroe Avenue N . E . , and a 12" storm sewer along N . E. 4th Street . 2, Fire Protection : Provided by the Renton Fire Department as per ordinance requirements . • Any further development of the site will be subject to City of Renton standards . 31. Transit: Metro Transit Route #107 operates along Monroe Avenue N . E. adjacent to the subject site. 4 . Schools : the subject site is within 1 /2 mile of Highlands Elementary School , within one mile of McKnight Junior High School , and within two miles of Hazen High School . 5 . Parks : In addition to the vocational school grounds , Kiwanis Park is approximately one-half mile from the subject site . H . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1 . 4-725 , Amendments . H RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 1 6 1979 AM PM PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER •7,819110,11112111213141516 PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 16 , 1979 EXHIBIT ND. / APPLICANT : GERALD E . SCHNEIDER ITEM Nth;. rl - 27/ 7f FILE NUMBER : R-271 -78 A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST : Applicant requests rezone from GS-1 and S-1 to R-2 and R-3 to allow development of low to medium density multi -family housing . B. GENERAL INFORMATION : 1 . Owner of Record : GERALD E . SCHNEIDER FLORA E . McKENNEY 2 . Applicant : GERALD E . SCHNEIDER 3. Location :Approximately 600 ' north of N . E. 4th Street on Monroe Avenue N . E . 4. Legal Description : Detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning 'Department. 5 . Size of Property:Approximately 14 acres . 6 . Access : Monroe Avenue N . E . and N . E . 6th St . 7 . Existing Zoning : GS-1 and S-1 .. 8 . Existing Zoning in the Area : GS-1 , S-1 , R-1 , and B-1 . 9 . Comprehensive Land Use Plan : Medium Density Multiple Family on the southerly 350 ' of the subject site and single family residential on the northern portion of the subject site . 10. Notification :The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly published in the Record Chronicle on January 5 , 1979 and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City ordinance. C . PURPOSE OF REQUEST : Subject rezone to R-2 and R-3 classifications is to permit future multiple family residential development on the site . D . HISTORY/BACKGROUND: An application for rezone to R-3 of a portion of the site was submitted on February 5 , 1975 . A revised application to R-2 zoning was approved by the Planning Commission on March 26 , 1975 . However , a group of area residents opposed the subject rezone and appealed the decision to the City Council. The applicant withdrew his application for R-2 zoning on May 12 , 1975 . A second application was submitted on March 7 , 1977 for a request similar to that of S N PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : GERALD E . SCHNEIDER, FILE NO : R-271-78 JANUARY 16 , 1979 PAGE FOUR 2. The applicant ' s proposal would allow approximately 280 dwelling units in the medium density multiple area and 50 units in the low density multiple for a total of 330 units . Reviewing the density allowed by the Comprehensive Plan , 180 units of medium density and 40 units of single family for a tctal of 220 dwelling units would be allowed . 3., Although the applicant ' s proposal provides a buffering of uses between the business activities to the south of the single family uses to the north, the proposal appears to exceed the area and intensity of transitional uses envi - sioned by the land use element . 4.1 Although the applicant ' s proposed rezoning would allow about 330 units ; the application , schematic site develop- ment plan , and environmental checklist indicate that the proposed use of the property is 156 dwelling units . The proposed intensity of the zoning appears to exceed that desired by the applicant to achieve the desired develop- ment intensity of the property. 5. In addition to considering the specifics of the proposed use , certain goals and policies adopted as a part of the Comprehensive Plan must be considered. "A . well balanced community will reflect in its general layout the proper application of planning principals . . . to guide growth pat- terns , (and ) prevent land use incompatibilities and con- flicts . " (Land Use Report 1965 , General Land Use Require- ments , page 11 ) Residential districts should be free of. . . uses which would be detrimental to the community and its residents . " Land Use Report 1965, Residential , page 11) . "Prevent blight by protecting residential and other exclusive districts from the unwarranted infiltration of incom- patible uses which would contribute to premature decay and obsolescence , and prevent the development of orderly growth patterns . Protect property values within the com- munity for the benefit of its residents and property owners , through the effective control of land use. " Land Use Report, 1965, Objectives 1 and 4 , page 17 ) These policies clearly suggest that a graduation of intensity of uses should occur in this area , commencing at the existing B-1 , commercial , uses to the south and extending to the single family to the north. The land use element of the Comprehensive Plan suggests that the entire transitional area include approximately 200 dwelling units. 6. One transitional alternative would be as illustrated in the Comprehensive Plan consisting of a 300± foot wide strip of medium density with the remainder in single family. This alternate appears to potentially conflict with the policies identified in five above (Figure 2 ) . A potentially more acceptable solution would consist of a graduation from medium density to low density multiple and finally to single family. Using this concept , begin- ping at the north (existing south right-of-way line of N. E. 6th Street) , zoning for single family should be provided to face the south side of N . E. 6th and back onto single family homes on the south side of N. E . 6th total depth 260 feet) . Due to existing single family homes on Monroe Avenue , R-3 should not immediately abut 1111 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: GERALD E. SCHNEIDER , File No: R-2/1 -78 JANUARY 16 , 1979 PAGE THREE 2 . 4-729 , G , General Classification District. 3. 4-707 , S-1 , Suburban Residence District. 4. 4-706 , R-1 , Residence Single. Family . 5 . 4-708, R-2 , Residence District. 6 . 4-709A, R-3, Residence District. I . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1 . Land Use Report, 1965 , Objectives , pages 17 and 18 , numbers 1 , 2 , 4, 5 and 6. 2. Policy Statement , Comprehensive Plan , Renton Urban Area , pages 9 and 10 , Summary. 3. Chapter 30 , Land Use Hearing Examiner, Section 4-3010B and Section 4-3014. J . IMPACT ON THE NATURAL SYSTEMS : Rezoning of the subject property will not have a direct impact on the natural systems . However , . eventual development may require disturbance of soil and vegetation. through grading and cutting and filling , increasing storm water runoff , and have an effect on traffic and noise levels in the area . K. SOCIAL IMPACTS: Certain additional social interaction will be created through eventual development of the site. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION : The applicant ' s submitted rezoning application would allow approximately 330 dwelling units. The applicant has proposed a schematic plan proposing approximately 160 units . 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 prepared' for the rezoning only which is based upon a reduction in density to a maximum of 180 dwelling units , buffering existing single family uses with medium and low density and retention of significant foliage and site details in the final development plan . M. 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. N. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION : A vicinity map and a site map are attached. 0. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS : 1 . The applicant proposes to rezone to R-2, low density multi - family , the first 200 feet south of N. E. 6th Street and the remaining 450 feet south of N. E. 6th Street to R-3 , medium density multi -family. Comparing the proposal to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that single family uses will extend south of N. E. 6th Place approximately 300 - 350 feet with the remainder in medium density multiple family. (Figure 2 ) 4111 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : GERALD E . SCHNEIDER/, FILE NO : R-271-78 JANUARY 16, 1979 PAGE SIX Said rezoning to require as a condition of approval that at the time of special permit approval on the R-2 area that all significant natural topographic and vegetative areas be retained in the final site plan arrangement. NO PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : GERALD E . SCHNEIDER , FILE NO : R-271-78 JANUARY 16, 1979 PAGE FIVE this area . By splitting the distance to the south property line ( 120 feet ) , three acres of R-3 is available. The re- mainder of the site is appropriately designated R-2 . SUMMARY (FIGURE 2) Single Family (north 260' ) 5 acres 25 units Low Density Multiple 6 acres 65 units Medium Density Multiple (south 120' ) = 3 acres 90 units 180 units This alternative appears to meet the transitional and site intensity objectives of the Comprehensive Plan , while meet- ing the applicant ' s desired dwelling unit density. Other alternatives consisting of similar acreage distribu- tion exist; however, they may conflict with existing homes surrounding the site (Figure 4) . 7 . The site has considerable topographic change from Monroe, over a knoll and then down into a low area to the east. In addition to the interesting topographic features , the major vegetation on the site is also located on the higher knoll area. The following Comprehensive Plan policies relate to future site development : Residential development may be successfully planned to take good advantage of (site) amenities . Natural features such as rock outcroppings , streams , stands of native trees , and views . . . should be used to (the) greatest advantage. " (Land Use Report , 1965 , General Land Use Requirements : Residential , page 11 ) Therefore , the existing site amenities should be incorpora- ted in any final development plan. 8. Traffic Engineering indicates that traffic circulation in the area will be adversely affected until the traffic sig- nal at N. E. 4th and Monroe is completed . 9. The Engineering Division indicates that storm water deten- tion will be required. Off-site improvements will be required on N. E. 6th and Monroe Ave. N. E . along with dedi - cation of 30 feet of right-of-way along N . E. 6th . 10. The Fire Department suggests that Olympia Avenue N . E. be extended into the site. 11 . Downstream analysis of sanitary sewer capacity is needed , and extensions of public utilities will be necessary to accommodate development . 12 . Other departmental comments are attached for consideration . P . DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS : Based upon the foregoing analysis , approval of the rezoning . application as follows : a . The north 260 feet from S-1 to R-1 . b. The south 120 feet from GS-1 to R-3 c . The intervening 280 feet from S-1 and GS-1 to R-2 See Figure .2 ) . 1-. . ... .. .. 4 , f e.. Rol OSP 0 11, 416, --'. a IL. 04 I' Vi• y4.,.. 10,--. . t . k. ., . ., _ . - 74 - ----- ---__- *:- ` 11. 0. i........ 12. t L. , 10431...-,.., Aire -- : -• - -: - ' 1...:.,' ind k..,;..„, 17, ',„:-. ..::::::_ - 071 _ _-_,', : '. .-- - 4,... 7, , ------= - ' f-- 4.--'# A.o IA .' r--- F.--"--"-- 1 ''' lk . i...: Ame - 1 L:-- —- 4. 4ftcl i/ ... •4 . - : UPI" -..... I A. ,,,, 1, .__ OSI immar -:.:; -- 1. 41, _... 1411. 111r .-! D r.i'.;..,:1140 W. . ' g 01 COM - 4 i.- 1 11* E:::: 1 Obit 1 CRP P.-- tv- - „ . , .. 7. t 4mill MOD 2.. A., . ,,, T- Not!:• A 1 a he-, , r . E: 1 L a ' i': 7 ' •'' t' ' .-' • I 0 SP, ••.. 4 1. ma, ci.,_ - 1 • lhi Doi . ,, _ . __ :•,,, i,„, . ,„__. _,,,,,, 4„,‘, „„ -, 2 - r - CHMilii 3' 1';•...‘,:-.,-- ,_.- re: f,L, ._ 4. - - nr- v.:.. ...: 5-..-•-_ 27- . .',._.--.-__: :-,,,,.-.. i.- , gym_ - • . 40, - Aida n- 0 0 F74, :- f 44 . % L. , r. _•:, 1. . liaii4 ...,ow t.,.; t 1 Willith A 4 . 4 4113 4 1. 45ZS I li... ici`::: 7• - , 1 '' A , .. ' . 211%• ;,: .. , ,, t , . . _ min _ WIT ....,--- 7, 1) . 1. 7 . 1 \ 1 flal ' '''' I: 4, .. L.::- ......• l'.. 41. - . . Met • • 2 • 4. 1 11 0 7 • 1 1 1••IV / 7..- 1. 7. '- A . 7, • I * 4 4 C, '- I 1 t NMIu . 4 ilk aM1 Lit • • z...' -. • . V. 1 A.. , - }, .. .- J__ , - 4-- - - mi 1 1 : ri- Ti , i 4 r' 0i,... ,... i i . . ....... . 1 - 7 44, , ' --•• i ' kt ( ji, , I 4".„ -...: . ...- -:. ' '' 2: • , ' . Li, I I I 40 -; . t! - -: v;- t! 4. tr) l I j ! d". • a. i : /. 1. a r- zrirc Tc. WI 6' 17171 a... --..-.--...------- -- s--.---.--.----------. 0„........ .......,..„.................................-............ II 1 4 9:. ‘° • , ' 0 • :- ' • : '•, ,:ilt:Crtr.bi\-9.7.:t:: : 1_.'t• i 4j :7i :11, f,'.1"- • :.:.;":14 itz1 .0 " I tiii'2 4 I: d.. ".: •a.. r•.7.•1 I° 4l•• '•••j.,~t ihz.,,t..b., .„. ,s .,,, p. . . . n :: X..,,,,,‘,. ., 4„.4„...-:',.„'-. 1... 444. 11.1:• 1 res Sit .' ':'. t Ga-1 ca G '. :1 f . 4.ril/i/ill1 W i. R-5 4 A- iir f ••• • r 1 I N" C 0 Z• s r• • d0 IIII I sal Z F GREENWOOD 1-- i to ,i.. G CE.METE.RY I A l t r c 0 1 i 477 A.1 • Ti N i i ENrON CITY LIMITS LI 114••'- --'• an'° Ir- •r ni..•i Trrr •. ` i I . • i H[ L... .•'-+a4• I1 • REZONE : GERALD E . SCHNEIDER; Appl . No. R- 271-79; rezone from GS-1 and S-1 to R-2 and R-3 ; property located on Monroe Avenue N . E . between N . E . 6th Street and N . E . 4th Street APPLICANT GERALD E . SCHNEIDER TOTAL AREA ±14 acres PRINCIPAL ACCESS Monroe Avenue N . E . EX! SIING ZONING GS- 1 and S-1 Single-family residential EXISTING USE unimprgved _property PROPOSED USE Development of townhouses, approximate density 160 units. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Single Family _and Jledi um Dpnc i ty Multi -Family. COMMENTS a I b•44, Z a 01' r 04 Si D 0 52y' . a ro61 0pl n if.n.v. v a ir, ..0 feopow e-z , 1: i 1 ' Y1 « 3' 4+' '. ` „ ^.'4"4`rM4k S. Ma qt fa 61. 4 '... U4 No. WO:for. s rOCZON114 kkorti at aitI i1 DA-rQ0k) le-271-16 J.4cNuraMI I 60.4 eri1al 1,10 : 0 525oSE0a 4F.,. ...-.. ......-. 1 1 A c ' fro. le-2 4 1 0, 0._-_____11, Cr- 010X944) a. 122i *OAP f to41•bi' 4 .... 114dr4 NO. 4- - AIJA1 29141N4 Norri4 S. . I o bo•44 l i OOP— r v 0 52o o zed _ 0 y. 't ..a'. w.iw.1': ':u.'? 2 t . m „ `.' . '',. i t% '' 0— _ 0-o 1 , a I :pee,i fop f,,) 11 1-7 N {} d'y tin:•_+. AmeillinV o o 10461' fliitlIZt NO. A 6 ri)Dr7t42 4.> hiorrii jitfaalh 291-7F letiliOGOC i 0 0r_______0,, 0 0 7!!r-ofo0 6 1AM Ir,Y (el)411 4 I c, 0.________„ p -,—, 64, h idol f O tili t AsLg 0 0 ro41.6r L > Asir. NO. _e- itz-ra4 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 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date 4110 1111 ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS r TO: Hance Department Ard Fire Department Library Department ID Park Department I II Police Department Public Works Department Building Div. i ..,...,,,,,,theil Engin eying Diva ffic Engineering Div. grUtilities Engineering Div . FROM: Planning Department, (signed by responsible official or his designee) VIQ a SUBJECT: Review of ECF- 40 -1E, IAPplication No . : 11 7g Action Name : 45q101 , _'r, *Nto 0 .- kiS favif - Please review the attached. Review requested by (date) : Ito? Note : Responses to be' written 'in ink., j t REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : O'G y,-t ,G. ,u . ,-i 'S 7— /?C G ic-GD v v ro/-7/L-k - / eG SS Le /1 2 / / tom S /'-x-,0 F,4_ //y7-7/0j--iciI' Afczs i /c /v s'i- "r-ia P 6/ ir 7' Ai A- GEC c' vs? pus % i t i-zr , ` uc` c ' 4 f 4, —(._2- ci/''1iu -,2, /y 7 Signature of Director or Au horized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : VrIL.iTdli. S Comments : IZ.1% 2..c'a-1A'I Cam^-<,-'a ikl)`rpi(LSId ,1.1 P°0r..,:r" 00 .1 '-3-7 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative . Date i WING SCHEDULE FOR APPLI•N_ 1_ REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS: Department:C—D Approved... Not Approved om ents or conditions : a„.....,---z7,--, .....,:r_.7 C.----7/(/'- v 2'— Sn ure of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS: Dep. rtment : t r ( - JVAApprovedtNotApproved ruments or conditions : tr-se/6--/j --- -- 4161, A-6 /- / . b .e s c7c4.,--i„..),11-c - 1„........ ,. .....1 to, w cf /.1.1 _;7L0,1G1 1 ,„,C); Al c"eta.J /' 0,Y/ - C i' 11 27,____________. C Z----- . . sk ',5_ A-le vii;-' --1 veP/ -) Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS: Department : uric__ . ri,.. Approved E1 Not Approved Comments or conditions : ai.( As G:1-. Li;,-. , . ., S1,4-•,c1 .it,+-'.M,_; 1-f ,.. , , i 1 12t; cat:, Aout nu, . ,, •;- c,..e,,CO., S17w0:.1%. S.-iST7) 'w1 ut:. (4.f-' ia 1:'. 1:,. '._ 0, . „. tit;1L- 1:. t.1n ., I.i ., 6- 1)`-.is•. , ,. t )' i)vrr, i,. We t ii - I_5 Signature o Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : /— / El Approved Li Not Approved Comments or conditions : o) '. /,- (/°i>? /1 ` . A..L- _ /"v( S%— o c--/ f4-_if rc yt-i/ =k , /4000-S._.S/ Cc. /9%C/C /t% i,c S /f/(_ /.3 %—/.L /-/ /%G/1"2/7:1 t- r17c.., S'%?L. . 6-c7 / ;(C %C,.-< ..s 1, /L.-,7' /SG_7-)6' C'vtiS /• /(- (.r.S7 Signature of Director or Author4,2ed Representative Date N11010 ROUTING SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION TO: Q Finance Department Fire Department Library Department Park Department 8/ Police Department Public Works Department O Uilding Div. Engineering Div. (Please verify legal descriptior 0 Traffic Engineering Div. O Utilities Engineering Div. FROM: Planning Department, (signed by responsible official or his des11Ak1fl2 ignee) el, ew % 4 DATE : 10 06 PLEASE REVIEW THIS APPLICATION FOR : APPLICANT : •6 1 . 14Ait-W LOCATION : 14OI009t tit6 01103 era er /0 th APPLICATION(S) : fe4nolr, et1I-"11. I .-1 l gl Ad Z12 IN ORDER TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REPORT TO THE HEARING E A INERD RETURN ANY COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY : REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS: Department: E :,,ye1''r-A o'vedApprovedNotAppr Comments or conditions : AID e1)e.c..71)6:' `" /0 er&GC'/') Cam' 571:()K ? trt-Ic.r /e L., 614-: 'krr/4"z-,.... ,v,l/Ge- re7 :./ ,A--d A' /c'G/aI6"C'1 v _ 4-2, ,,'OG ALA-e.. A/ g a,,zd / G /l7/ / l 7. Ao A 6. /-A 6/ . 1 ri)"' •t.0l/C r>, e.-11 C,,,,, c, ,s/ i.e1: 3 d -1- Civt v bi Jv 71,,,, Sic/E ,fie:/./i/ Y'+"Y1V• -, 4 C/v-et ( )i R`, L ez,•.. ,lllc v/!,_1 2 - /9 Si —` . Date Signature of Director or Authorized Representative r V U 1 i tli W u ,4., ..... .' ....... __ _ MENTS :REVIEW! BY OTHER CITY DEPART Department : 4 --,-- Comments : 6)-0 4J 2' 6) O d n e%7 2 L- 1..--/i .-Date gnatu irector or Aut prize Representat ve REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department :2., Comments : /)/v r,/je,b,,;,„...:, /v re: :),t. , ir l " am U/Pr;c/ G l..i1,7 (l.?G L 1 G"t-' Cr'l (! .;//i'.:; L2.: // f,c. / r P/ y, 2 Y, /5 i-Ca,://reci c",•c /11J-7.-1 rl,c% Crci /,/L`. G-// 5f 3. ,3C..) c...• /e /G,1//0 I,v -Z:' -l.'/62:c" '„f'L. /,/. L C/// Jl V"E) 1 cti II<:, .S c(% (n)' /k. ,S7-O.,- /,-_ r:„ : J 6._ .? J i), 2. - 7G,j Signature of Director or Authorized Representative . Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department :Zil FF T L n/ :GIN1 /=Eir. _iA/ G Comments : 1'1 7F'y car-c, i. .s I--' T.:-d I`" ,._ fj. //L-,`,c.S 4,1 C-4i E'X/s f'` 747 d qd Gci<. / r a. i ! /. Q cam ' l l Signature of Director or Authorized Represen -ative Date 1111400 PROPOSED/FINAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/NON-SIGNIFICANCE Application No .R-271-78 PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . ECF-418-78 El FINAL Declaration Description of proposal Applicant requests rezone from GS-1 and S-1 to R-2 and R-3 to allow development of low to medium density multi-family housing. Proponent GERALD E. SCHNEIDER Approximately 600' north of N.E. 4th Street on Location of Proposal Monroe Avenue N.E. Lead Agency RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT This proposal has been determined to ® have 0 not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS 0 is 0 is not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030 (2 ) (c ) . This decision was made 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 declaration of non-significance is for rezoning only, which is based upon a reduction in density to a maximum of 180 dwelling units, buffering existing single family uses with medium and low density and retention of significant foliage and site details in the final development plan. 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 0ffici '1 Gordon Y. Ericksen Title Plannip, Di/r-% or Date January 9, 1979 Signature .' T: r a i City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 41.7n Qrr ,_r r, i rr Cp ti'ncfr7 ra d J a lvtt i ,re k/te idcir le 6- tv hw • V eV), Iirc (4///-- D rr e `fa Gam ' 6('Yir `raj • 7/- Fla'? a n cl a 3 nc1 RECEIVED N P Crnn Cg RENTO d r,- -14i e 7-f- HEARING EXAMINER PX s- JAN 161919 2' ` . /9/ AM 71819,1Q111112111`Z+31415r6 C 6 r-a P do . Jrn ra r ,rr P a n4 ! f J rce-i- LAJ i1 <e 6-)-1 areas 4oe,cierrvg rrSld en cvJ 7c hDyr,•PJ° Q•r SJh//O 0 ,-" ; jy 3 0i2e a q now use y P a:.:. t;lsr- ( °P7 7hrr Qrt aJ 6r c•n c"r,d p r"7sffe O .c-/-rr J 04r4 w r Ll Y . A l/ jd-1,./'1 s JpccY a L./ -I r /'CQh.1,, A l i-219L1 1-"Ji Y y• un S 3 P r a JP r P -s 's- IP 14' S 726/—/7"Jel W(1-71 P l'-' n 0 (..A.., c:i ra. j 0 "I )15 ' -cr i- 0-1.,-,.. i Si TP i Gv /1 d2/1(- d lbr' G6Y Q9 // P 4 S.I P:sf ...,..A---C .22, ic.P ,_4(_„OdiP tic,-4-i `dcr' fa."7 S / d Pe+/'S. a , / 9. e.^-71a %s-, 1"i .4 Y„- P y d1 1 h a N ( f ,pre der' Va. 'I/ O r\ zr4 4 C.'e t"-1"Cr•-7 ci, L 0 j /ci, j At f l mil d .f TI^% .A7Orrv.-"a P { C'4 /l' SC S`/Y1 L P e",„,s-% a C',,'+ fo r H. `1s Q Jr j f j-rr- ar-c c, iel `S?• 7-r 0-J 4 , y r jo d i, h p a U asJiz) l' J I Y /. 7 1- 0--,'""t .y r• e e74.1 le- e.09 ry, r-rY7 C O"1 y S A C (Pr,7-1 a -71:PI 1 Y 1---f.r . ke 4.0--') '4'kt-1 13 P 42 -- 11,171. Aeij -I) ail L.C 1 4 c_ Qc'Jt f u f)lrIl fprO V4( I. RECEIVED January 16, 1979 CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER JAN 161979 0 To : LAND USE EXAMINER AM PM 718,9s10,11,12,1t203+4,5,6CITYOFRENTON ITEMEM NO /— 7/- 7g RENTON, WASHINGTON We, the undersigned residents of N.E. 6th Street, Renton, Wa. , are deeply concerned over the proposed property rezone now before you. We do—not want to stop development, but we will be effected by the development . We live here and will suffer from overcrowed streets , traffic congestion, loss of play area for our children, possible water and runoff problems, noise pollution, increased need for police and fire protection, to mention only a few. Many of us moved from apartments and other crowded areas and invested a great deal of money in our present homes . We do not wish to move again to get away from conditions that could become intolerable . We feel that development should be based on the quality of life for all concerned. ,; Overcrowding ispot quality living and must be avoided. Development plans should"Ve based on the maximum amount of money that can be made by the developer and/or the city through taxes . 4 The comprehensive plan calls for an area of single family residential directly south of N.E. 6th Street and a strip of R3 or multiple family on the south side of the property. We have discussed and examined the possible rezone alternatives and have decided that for the above reasons we believe any rezone should be in strict accord with the Renton Comprehensive Land Use Plan. We believe that for the most part the plan is acceptable and should be followed. We can support a rezone that is in accordance with it . In addition we are convinced that the development of this property could result in water runoff problems due to the particular way in which storm water is drained from President Park. The 'fore, we also insist that restrictive covenants state that the developer is solely responsible for the storm water runoff that is presently drained onto the property and no L. I. D. or other assessment can ever be made on surrounding., residents for costs incurred because of the storm runoff. We also ask that a representative from our community be included in, and have an active voice in the development of, and the final approval of the site plans for this property . In addition, we ask that the restrictions of the City of Renton as to the preservation of trees in the proposed development be part of the restrictive covenant . Name (printed) Signature Address p 7 4 /y:E_ 6 d Sit/ di// a.tM /5, Via Oarr Q- 1 4. 9Y>OS PL EA.re 1 711 Vrn -6W-71:4/ J l S n vJ 0/ "I f 1.‘A 1 V 6r/ -ZTI m• 7r1 9 1.1" 7 7 9—P-14471-. a l 1 re q,,J 7a._a-isi a7 2.. 27 v 7-^ aJ' 9,l'Yk M M January 16, 1979 To: LAND USE EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON RENTON, WASHINGTON We, the undersigned residents of N.E. 6th Street,. Renton, Wa. , are deeply concerned over the proposed property rezone now before you. We do not want to stop development, but we will be effected by the development . We live here and will suffer from overcrowed streets , traffic congestion, loss of play area for our children, possible water and runoff problems, noise, pollution, increased need for police and fire protection, to mention only a few. Many of us moved from apartments and 'other crowded areas and invested a great deal of money in our present homes . We do not wish. to move again to get away, from conditions that could become intolerable . We feel that development should be based on the quality of life for all 'concerned. • Overcrowding is, ot quality living and must be avoided. Development plans` shouldnoe based on the maximum amount of money that can be made by the developer and/or the city through taxes . The comprehensive plan calls for an area of single family residential directly south of:N.E. 6th Street and a strip of R3 or multiple family on the south side of the property. We have discussed and examined the possible rezone alternatives and have decided that for the above reasons we believe any rezone should be in strict accord with the Renton Comprehensive Land Use Plan. We believe that for the most part the plan is acceptable and should be followed. We can support a rezone that is in accordance with it . In addition we are convinced that the development of this property could result in water runoff problems due to the particular way in which storm water is drained from President Park. Therfore, we also insist that restrictive covenants state that the developer is solely responsible for the storm water runoff that is presently drained onto the property and no L. I.D. or other assessment can ever be made on surrounding residents for costs incurred because of the storm runoff. We also ask that a representative from our community be included in, and have an active voice in the development of, and the final approval of the site plans for this property . In addition, we ask that the restrictions of the •City of Renton as to the preservation of trees in the proposed development be part of the restrictive covenant . Name (printed) Signature Address f? - 0//fr .4, 7_ r,x „.1_,...,,,- e77_1,77,9q2J . J .D.0-t-of. 77:rd ri 9 s A/ D P Pe P iei'so cv.i.s 2 C -bi 1\f i /1-U -r 51,--fc----- --e-77*-,7-17-0 2/ 7/ . ,--;)--,-)--4- 1---"--.- '' - g-7, cf. 02 .ku,--ci tu,r0flyrro_. zotys-q, ,r4 W. 7 IP a O 1-1 id 72-9 '3 •Tv ' 1.2. E --Asrairev3u4.1 .-?,h „-0,-upo um u 03-yampitt s? i tiOUOI\I v ‘- •2 ,i" ";) ii2 1 3- f n Q Y 0 011, )0078 3170 ?or? ,30.7 7000,2/2 TY903 002-1.1-1-3g rvi 3-21t71 3/17 011/6) fybo& N-y-_-2.780-dz, ,A(ayievi- 90,2, , ii.z_ i ___72_ 0-70_09 g3izz ,26. i_z__ _ 0_?(7-1g. ?ra._ 9 777 /,;) W Z?frit oeLLS\ LI )ypie January 16, 1979 To : LAND USE EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON RENTON, WASHINGTON We, the undersigned residents of N.E. 6th Street, Renton, Wa. , are deeply concerned over the proposed property rezone now before you. We do not want to stop development, but we will be effected by the development . We live here and will suffer from overcrowed streets , traffic congestion, loss of play area for our children, possible water and runoff problems, noise pollution, increased need for police and fire protection, to mention only a few. Many of us moved from apartments and other crowded areas and invested a great deal of money in our present homes . We do not wish to move again to get away from conditions that could become intolerable . W.e feel that development should be based on the quality of life for all concerned. Ove, crowding is pt quality living and must be avoided. Development plans should ,. - based on the maximum amount of money that can be made by the developer and/or the city through taxes . The comprehensive plan calls for an area of single family residential directly south of N.E. 6th Street and a strip of R3 or multiple family on the south side of the property . We have discussed and examined the possible rezone alternatives and have decided that for the above reasons we believe any rezone should be in strict accord with the Renton Comprehensive Land Use Plan. We believe that for the most part the plan is acceptable and should be followed. We can support a rezone that is in accordance with it . In addition we are convinced that the development of this property could result in water runoff problems due to the particular way in which storm water is drained from President Park. T. erfore , we also insist that restrictive covenants state that the deve -o: er is solely responsible for the storm water runoff that is presently drained onto the property and no L. I.D. or other assessment can ever be made on surrounding residents for costs incurred because of the storm runoff. We also ask that a representative from our community be included in, and have an active voice in the development of, and the final approval of the site plans for this property . In addition, we ask that the restrictions of the City of Renton as to the preservation of trees in the proposed development be part of the restrictive covenant . Name (printed) Signature Address ics r - IS : 0U-, , ; ;a, 3>6 NE: 6 Sr: M,- >97 e371//cg- 33/ Al: .. 6,' Szl. K7cam;e11 c'33/0 rD E. 6) r, January 16, 1979 To : LAND USE EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON RENTON, WASHINGTON We, the undersigned residents of N.E. 6th Street, Renton, Wa. , are deeply concerned over the proposed property rezone now before you. We do not want to stop development , but we will be, effected by the development . We live here and will suffer from overcrowed streets , traffic congestion, loss of play area for our children, possible water and runoff problems, noise pollution, increased need for police and fire protection, to mention only a few. Many of us moved from apartments and other crowded areas and invested a great deal of money in our present homes . We do not wish to move again to get away from conditions that could become intolerable . We feel that development should be bas.ed on the quality of life for all concerned. Overcrowding is not quality living and must be avoided. Development plans shouldni°te based on the maximum amount of money that can be made by the developer and/or the city through taxes . The comprehensive plan calls for an area of single family residential directly south of N.E. 6th Street and a strip of R3 or multiple family on the south side of the property . We have discussed and examined the possible rezone alternatives and have decided that for the above reasons we believe any rezone should be in strict accord with the Renton Comprehensive Land Use Plan. We believe that for the most part the plan is acceptable and should be, followed. We can support a rezone that is in accordance with it . In addition we are convinced that the development of this property could result in water runoff problems due to the particular way in which storm water is drained from President Park. Therfore, we also insist that restrictive covenants state that the developer is solely responsible for the storm water runoff that is presently drained onto the property and no L. I.D. or other assessment 'can ever be made on surrounding residents for costs incurred because of the storm runoff. We also ask that a representative from our community be included in, and have an active voice in the development of, and the final approval of the site plans for this property. In addition, we ask that the restrictions of the City of Renton as to the preservation of trees in the proposed development be part of the restrictive covenant . Name (printed) Signature Address P ‘ cv-k-ifsa-b 64 4 January 16, 1979 To : LAND USE EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON RENTON, WASHINGTON We, the undersigned residents of N.E. 6th Street, Renton, Wa. , are deeply concerned over the proposed property rezone now before you. We do not want to stop development, but we will be effected by the development . We live here and will suffer from overcrowed streets , traffic congestion, loss of play area for our children, possible water and runoff problems, noise pollution, increased need for police and fire protection, to mention only a few. Many of us moved from apartments and other crowded areas and invested a great deal of money in our present homes . We do not wish to move again to get away from conditions that could become intolerable . We feel that development should be based on the quality of life for all concerned. Overcrowding is not quality living and must be avoided. Development plans should? e based on the maximum amount of money, that can be made by the developer and/or the city through taxes . The comprehensive plan calls for an area of single family residential directly south of N.E. 6th Street and a strip of R3 or multiple family on the south side of the property. We have discussed and examined the possible rezone alternatives and have decided that for the above reasons we believe any rezone should be in strict accord with the Renton Comprehensive Land Use Plan. We believe that for the most part the plan is acceptable and should be followed. We can support a rezone that is in accordance with it . In addition we are convinced that the development of this property could result in water runoff problems due to the particular way in which storm water is drained from President Park. Therfore, we also insist that restrictive covenants state that the developer is solely responsible for the storm water runoff that is presently drained onto the property and no L. I.D. or other assessment can ever be made on surrounding residents for costs incurred because of the storm runoff. We also ask that a representative from our community be included in, and have an active voice in the development of, and the final approval of the site plans for this property . In addition, we ask that the restrictions of the City of Renton as to the preservation of trees in the proposed development be part of the restrictive covenant . Name (printed) Signature Address fogt-Rr h . & oAiiU January 16, 1979 To : LAND USE EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON RENTON, WASHINGTON We, the undersigned residents of N.E. 6th Street, Renton, Wa. , are deeply concerned over the proposed property rezone now before you. We do not want to stop development, but we will be effected by the development . We live here and will suffer from overcrowed streets , traffic congestion, loss of play area for our children, possible water and runoff problems, noise pollution, increased need for police and fire protection, to mention only a few. Many of us moved from apartments and other crowded areas and invested a great deal of money in our present homes . We do not wish to move again to get away from conditions that could become intolerable . We feel that development should be . . sed on the quality of life for all concerned. Overcrowding is ndt‘ '•uality living and must be avoided. Development plans should be based on the maximum amount of money that can be made by the developer and/or the city through taxes . The comprehensive plan calls for an area of single family residential directly south of N.E. 6th Street and a strip of R3 or multiple family on the south side of the property . We have discussed and examined the possible rezone alternatives and have decided that for the above reasons we believe any rezone should be in strict accord with the Renton Comprehensive Land Use, Plan. We believe that for the most part the plan is acceptable and should be followed. We can support a rezone that• is in accordance with it . In addition we are convinced that the development of this property could result in water runoff problems due to the particular way in which storm water is drained from President Park. Therfore, we also insist that restrictive covenants state that the developer is solely responsible for the storm water runoff that is presently drained onto the property and no L. I.D. or other assessment can ever be made on surrounding residents for costs incurred because of the storm runoff. We also ask that a representative from our community be included in, and have an active voice in the development of, and the final approval of the site plans for this property. In addition, we ask that the restrictions of the .City of Renton as to the preservation of trees in the proposed development be part of the restrictive covenant . Name (printed) Si natur Address Oidint 5(, e_ 7A-IE S January 16, 1979 To : LAND USE EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON RENTON, WASHINGTON We, the undersigned residents of N.E. 6th Street, Renton, Wa. , are deeply concerned over the proposed property rezone now before you. We do not want to stop development, but we will be effected by the development . We live here and will suffer from overcrowed streets , traffic congestion, loss of play area for our children, possible water and runoff problems, noise pollution, increased need for police and fire protection, to mention only a few. Many of us moved from apartments and other crowded areas and invested a great deal of money in our present homes . We do not wish to move again to get away from conditions that could become intolerable . We feel that development should be based on the quality of life for all concerned. Overcrowding is .riot quality living and must be avoided. Development plans should The based on the maximum amount of money that can be made by the developer and/or the city through taxes . The comprehensive plan calls for an area of single family residential directly south of N.E. 6th Street and a strip of R3 or_ multiple family on the south side of the property . We have discussed and examined the possible rezone alternatives and have decided that for the above reasons we believe any rezone should be in strict accord with the Renton Comprehensive Land Use Plan. We believe that for the most part the plan is acceptable and should be followed. We can support a rezone that is in accordance with it . In addition we are convinced that the development of this property could result in water runoff problems due to the particular way in which storm water is drained from President Park. Therfore, we also insist that restrictive covenants state that the developer is solely responsible for the storm water runoff that is presently drained onto the property and no L. I.D. or other assessment can ever be made on surrounding residents for costs incurred because of the storm runoff. We also ask that a representative from our community be included in, and have an active voice in the development of, and the final approval of the site plans for this property . In addition, we ask that the restrictions Of the •City of Renton as to the preservation of trees in the proposed development be part of the restrictive covenant . Name (printed) i nature Address oo \ems L. Ste; 3,/7 G 411/ January 16, 1979 To : LAND USE EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON RENTON, WASHINGTON We, the undersigned residents of N.E. 6th Street, Renton, Wa. , are deeply concerned over the proposed property rezone now before you. We do not want to stop development, but we will be effected by the development . We live here and will suffer from overcrowed streets , traffic congestion, loss of play area for our children, possible water and runoff problems, noise pollution, increased need for police and fire protection, to mention only a few. Many of us moved from apartments and other crowded areas and invested a great deal of money in our present homes . We do not wish to move again to get away from conditions that could become intolerable . We feel that development should be based on the quality of life for all concerned. Overcrowding is not quality living and must be avoided. Development plans should3°be based on the maximum amount of money that can be made by the developer and/or the city through taxes . The comprehensive plan calls -for an area of single family residential directly south of N.E. 6th Street and a strip of R3 or multiple family on the south side of the property. We have discussed and examined the possible rezone alternatives and have decided that for ,the above reasons we believe any rezone should be in strict accord with the Renton Comprehensive Land Use Plan. We believe that for the most part the plan is acceptable and should be followed. We can support a rezone that is in accordance with it . In addition we are convinced that the development of this property could result in water runoff problems due to the particular way in which storm water is drained from President Park. Therfore, we also insist that restrictive covenants state that the developer is solely responsible for the storm water runoff that is presently drained onto the property and no L. I.D. or other assessment can ever be made on surrounding residents for costs incurred because of the storm runoff. We also ask that a representative from our community be included in, and have an active voice in the development of, and the final approval of the site plans for this property . In addition, we ask that the restrictions of the City of Renton as to the preservation of trees in the proposed development be part of the restrictive covenant . Name (printed) Signature Address 37/2 ,') 7% kgn1734) vg/9/t)67-7 Mr&7 72 r W7t, January 16, 1979 To : LAND USE EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON RENTON, WASHINGTON We, the undersigned residents of N.E. 6th Street, Renton, Wa. , are deeply concerned over the proposed property rezone now before you. We do not want to stop development, but we will be Affected by the development . We live here and will suffer from overcrofied streets , traffic congestion, loss of play area for our children, possible water and runoff problems , noise pollution, increased need for police and fire protection, to mention only a few. Many of us moved from apartments and other crowded areas and invested a great deal of money in our present homes . We do not wish to move again to get away from conditions that could become intolerable . We feel that development should be based on the quality of life for all concerned. Overcrowding is<not quality living and must be avoided. Development plans shouldebe based on the maximum amount of money that can be made by the developer and/or the city through taxes . The comprehensive plan calls for an area of single family residential directly south of N.E. 6th Street and a strip of R3 or multiple family on the south side of the property. We have discussed and examined the possible rezone alternatives and have decided that for the above reasons we believe any rezone should be in strict accord with the Renton Comprehensive Land Use Plan. We believe that for the most part the plan is acceptable and should be followed. We can support a rezone that is in accordance with it . In addition we are convinced that the development of this property could result in water runoff problems due to the particular way in which storm water is drained from President Park. Therfore, we also insist that restrictive covenants state that the developer is solely responsible for the storm water runoff that is presently drained onto the property and no L. I.D. or other assessment can ever be made on surrounding residents for costs incurred because of the storm runoff. We also ask that a representative from our community be included in, and have an active voice in the development of, and the final approval of the site plans for this property . In addition, we ask that the restrictions of the .City of Renton as to the preservation of trees in the proposed development be part of the restrictive covenant . Name (printed) Signature Address 49 3 G 2 a' 74,E ( tIA- D/F-4 e 6, /eo ,v50.E LA, 3 b o Jr/VaA4 Akewv,sro v 54'41 364,5" 9V S7 lb -MO January 16, 1979 To : LAND USE EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON RENTON, WASHINGTON We, the undersigned residents of N.E. 6th Street, Renton, Wa. , are deeply concerned over the proposed property rezone now before you. We do not want to stop development, but we will be effected by the development . We live here and will suffer from overcrowed streets , traffic congestion, loss of play area for our children, possible water and runoff problems, noise pollution, increased need for police and fire protection, to mention only a few. Many of us moved from apartments and other crowded areas and invested a great deal of money in our present homes . We do not wish to move again to get away from conditions that could become intolerable . We feel that development should be based on the quality of life for all concerned. Overcrowding la,not quality living and must be avoided. Development plans shoulne based on the maximum amount of money that can be made by the developer and/or the city through taxes . The comprehensive plan calls for an area of single family residential directly south of N.E. 6th Street and a strip of R3 or multiple family on the south side of the property . We have discussed and examined the possible rezone alternatives and have decided that for the above reasons we believe any rezone should be in strict accord with the Renton Comprehensive Land Use Plan. We believe that for the most part the plan is acceptable and should be followed. We can support a rezone that is in accordance with it . In addition we are convinced that the development of this property could result in water runoff problems due to the particular way in which storm water is drained from President Park. Therfore, we also insist that restrictive covenants state that the developer is solely responsible for the storm water runoff that is presently drained onto the property and no L. I. D. or other assessment can ever be made on surrounding residents for costs incurred because of the storm runoff. We also ask that a representative from our community be included in, and have an active voice in the development of, and the final approval of the site plans for this property. In addition, we ask that the restrictions of the .City of Renton as to the preservation of trees in the proposed development be part of the restrictive covenant . Name (printed) Signature Address men e f/Gc n Brun GU i7l 2 041`4,bu xtt 067& n.E 6* . gkgr, . ) hASLCC:=4") J S5 , Nl l lash le la`s . n . ` Kam- C'( 7 L Z Z p b 4110- M January 16, 1979 To : LAND USE EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON RENTON, WASHINGTON. We, the undersigned residents of N.E. 6th Street, Renton, Wa. , are deeply concerned over the proposed property rezone now before you. We do not want to stop development, but we will be effected by the development . We live here and will suffer from overcrowed streets , traffic congestion, loss of play area for our children, possible water and runoff problems, noise pollution, increased need for police and fire protection, to mention only a few. Many of us moved from apartments and other crowded areas and invested a great deal of money in our present homes . We do not wish to move again to get away from conditions that could become intolerable . We feel that development should be based on the quality of life for all concerned. Overcrowding is_.not quality living and must be avoided. Development plans should"rbe based on the maximum amount of money that can be made by the developer and/or the city through taxes . The comprehensive plan calls for an area of single family residential directly south of N.E. 6th Street and a strip of R3 or multiple family on the south side of the property. We have discussed and examined the possible rezone alternatives and have decided that for the above reasons we believe any rezone should be in strict• accord with the Renton Comprehensive Land Use Plan. We believe that for the most part the plan is acceptable and should be followed. We can support a rezone that is in accordance with it . In addition we are convinced that the development of this property could result in water runoff problems due to the particular way in which storm water is drained from President Park. Therfore, we also insist that restrictive covenants state that the developer is solely responsible for the storm water runoff that is presently drained onto the property and no L. I.D. or other assessment can ever be made on surrounding residents for costs incurred because of the storm runoff. We also ask that a representative from our community be included in, and have an active voice in the development of, and the final approval of the site plans for this property . In addition, we ask that the restrictions of the City of Renton as to the preservation of trees in the proposed development be part of the restrictive covenant . Name (printed) Signature Address 5 a Mo/&fRaE D-1,c- N E Aik1-1PaS 101101/4N tlAccia5r ,mgei,,,a97----40,4) Rlfd„s G R 3.s rep. /2! " tv5 R ti/2-17- k - 6d1.94 v 6 Z o e cv e id hfi-6 eti t(e50 -Z 3 y/g/t), 7rPL. s-,;tne7-7 ,are_r CceJ -F v-0 Jr-. fcry ep 1/44 e ( 1°, 71 f net-he re a dir-r S.J rf‘e\ Q-1)1711 Rholf\f\-OL_da- 90-""L'aiagd-it- ce6°5 ? (0-64T itYg/i(4tex' e.tC 41V- c'y CITY OF RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 16, 1979 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9: 00 A.M. : COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SECOND FLOOR, RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING R-271-78 GERALD E . SCHNEIDER Application for rezone from GS-1 and S-1 to R-2 and R-3; property located on Monroe Ave. N. E . between N. E. 4th Street and N. E . 6th Street. riMilschneder homes, inc, 6510 Southcenter Boulevard • Suite #1 •Tukwila, WA 98188 • (206) 248-2471 January 18, 1979 Mr.: L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Gerald E. Schneider hearing, January 16, 1979 Dear Mr. Beeler: I would like you to consider our objection to the final zoning scheme (Fig. #4) endorsed by Mr. Clemens of the City Planning Department. Endorsement of this scheme at the very last minute of the meeting caught us by surprise, without sufficient time to weigh the possible impact. It now appears to us that it could prejudice future P.U.D. hearing participants, forcing us to use building arrangements and development access to conform to the adopted zoning scheme. We strongly support the zoning scheme originally recommended by the Planning Department (Fig. #3) , one which meets all the requirements of the January 16th hearing participants and a scheme which allows us to spread the units and provide access as shown on our site plan. I respectfully request that you consider this information in rendering your decision. Sincerely,, 4- R'Z Gerald E. Schneider President RECEIVED cc: David Clemens CITY OF RENTONRogerNewell HEARING MANNER :file JAN 1 0 1979 AMin 88r9110,11112a I a` :3:/2-f °i : 9 4110 4111.• R-271-78 Page Two Referencing Section E.5 of Exhibit #1, which states that surface water and streams are not apparent on the site, Mr. Clemens indicated that according to residents in the surrounding neighborhood, standing water is evident in small valleys on the property. Referencing Section 0.8 regarding future installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of N.E. 4th Street and Monroe Avenue N.E. , Mr. Clemens reported that completion of signalization will occur within the next two to three months. Prior to accepting testimony, the Examiner disclosed that he is an acquaintance of the architect retained by the applicant, although• no discussion regarding the application , had occurred, with that individual prior to the hearing and the relationship. would not • interfere with the Examiner's ability to provide an objective decision on the request. He inquired if parties in attendance objected to proceeding with the hearing upon receipt of the disclosure. There was no objection. The Examiner asked the applicant if he concurred in Exhibit #1. Responding was: Gerald E. Schneider 6510 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Mr. Schneider indicated concurrence in the report. He inquired if the submitted site plan, Exhibit #2, would be acceptable in view of zoning proposed by the Planning Department on the site. Mr. Clemens indicated that because Exhibit #2 is. a schematic Planned Unit Development Plan, .proposed density and land use had.been reviewed conceptually, but more specific detail including location of proposed structures would be required. The Examiner advised that a specific site plan is not usually provided in a rezone application because development would then be required to conform to the submitted plan at a later date. Mr. Schneider requested clarification of the Planned Unit Development process in an..R-1 zoning category. The Examiner explained the provisions of the P.U.D. Ordinance which would be required in the R-1 zoning category as well as the' R-2 zone if more than two units are attached.. He also indicated that the special permit process may be utilized as an alternative process in the R-2 zone. Mr. Schneider.inquired if the process would be conducted administratively or would require further public hearings. The Examiner indicated that a P.U.D. request would require both a. preliminary and final public hearing,. although only one hearing would be required for a special permit. Mr. Schneider objected to provision of a 'street on the southern boundary of the proposed R-1 zoning due to inadequate, roadway width to provide a cul-de-sac for proper vehicle turnaround area. He referenced a requirement for retention of significant natural topographic and vegetative areas in the final site plan arrangement per the Planning Department recommendation, and indicated that due to the necessity of a substantial amount of grading and filling in the lower areas of the subject site, ' it would be difficult to meet the requirement. He also stated that substantial trees exist in the northeast corner of the site but other vegetation was immature and would probably not survive as a result of grading activity. Mr. Schneider inquired if extension of Olympia Avenue N.E. would be required during the rezone process in response to Fire Department comments attached to Exhibit #1. Mr. Clemens indicated that comments from the Fire' Department would apply during site plan development to provide access along N.E. 6th . Street near Olympia Avenue N.E. He noted that if the proposal were developed through the P.U.D. process which combines allowable density, the proposed access may be utilized for emergency vehicles only. The Examiner requested a King County Assessor's Map to be entered as part of the record following closure of the public hearing. The map was entered as follows by the Examiner: Exhibit #8: King County Assessor's Map The Examiner requested further testimony in support of the application. Responding was: Roger H. Newell 1102 19th Avenue East Seattle, WA 98112 Mr. Newell was affirmed by the Examiner. As architect for the proposal, he indicated concurrence in Exhibit #1 but inquired if the Planning Department recommendation would require -utilization of the P.U.D. process for development. Mr. Clemens advised that only the zoning pattern was being recommended by the department, not a development process. Mr. Newell commented that due to widths of zoned land, separate development is difficult to design. He noted that although existing contours of the land would be considered in site development, substantial grading must occur. He also reported the applicant's concern regarding restriction of traffic to the north of the site and questioned the staff comment from the Fire Department requesting such access onto N.E. 6th Street. 1100 : . January 23, '1979 OFFICE OF THE LA11D USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICANT: Gerald E. Schneider FILE NO.. R-271-78 LOCATION: Approximately 600 feet north:of N.E. 4th Street on Monroe..:!:.-.":'. - Avenue N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests rezone from GS-1 and S-1 to R-2 and R-3 to allow development of low to medium density multi-family housing. SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Approval with conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner: Approval with restrictive covenants. PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received by the REPORTi Examiner on January 10, 1979. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public. hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on January 16, 1979 at '9:05 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. For the benefit of those in attendance, the Examiner read into the record three specific circumstances contained in Section 4-3014 of the Hearing Examiner ordinance of which'one must exist in order to grant a rezone; including 1) that substantial evidence was presented demonstrating the subject reclassification appears not to have been specifically considered at the time of the first area land use analysis and area zoning; 2) that the property is potentially zoned for the reclassification being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and conditions have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate; or 3) that since the last previous land.use analysis of the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department report, and the report was entered into' the record as Exhibit #1. Prior to review of Exhibit #1, David Clemens, Associate Planner, disclosed that he had recently purchased from the applicant's company a single family residence located outside of the. Renton city limits. He indicated that since he had not met the applicant personally; discussion regarding the application with him had not occurred, and inquired if parties in attendance objected to proceeding with the hearing upon receipt of the disclosure. There was no objection. The Examiner requested confirmation that the staff report is a product of joint review by several Planning Department staff members. Mr. Clemens responded affirmatively. . Mr. Clemens reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered. the following additional exhibits into the record: Exhibit #2: Schematic Site Plan Exhibit #3: Topography Map Exhibit #4: Illustration of Applicant's Proposed Rezone Exhibit #5: Illustration of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the Immediate Property Exhibit #6: Illustration of Staff's Recommended Zoning Exhibit #7: Illustration of Alternate Staff Recommendation 411, R-271-78 ' Page Four Responding was: Sandra Keyashian. 3404 N.E. 6th Street Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Keyashian indicated that the proposed rezone would result in a sacrifice of quality of life for many residents for the economic gain of a few, and emphasized that the existing N.E. 6th Street is inadequate at the present time. . She stated her opinion that the alternative proposal contained in Exhibit #7 appears to be the only acceptable plan. Responding was: Doug. Sweeney 3617 N.E. 6th Street Renton, WA 98055 ' Mr. Sweeney expressed concern that existing residents would be assessed for sewer, water or replacement of streets as a result of the proposed development. .He indicated his support for alternative zoning plan, Exhibit #7. Responding was: Sandra Robinson 3605 N.E. .6th Street Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Robinson requested consideration of the requests of existing residents by the applicant since it would not be possible for most of them to establish new residency out of the.area. Responding was: Jeanette Mayer 3712 N.E. 7th Street Renton, WA . 98055 Although Mrs. Mayer supported retention of the area as it is, she indicated willingness to accept Exhibit #7 as proposed. She objected to overdevelopment of the area and future deprivation of play areas for children who currently utilize the site. Mrs. Mayer advised that the subject property provides 'a natural habitat for many animals and birds. She expressed concern that due to lack of sidewalks in the area, children would utilize the streets for play which creates a dangerous situation. She also noted that existing apartment complexes in the area have experienced a fast rate of deterioration and a high volume of police calls. Mr. Jacobs inquired if residents should take for granted that one of the proposed plans would be accepted or if the alternative exists for disapproval of the rezone. The Examiner explained that the burden to substantiate the request for rezone rests with the applicant, and following closure of the public hearing .the Examiner will weigh all of the evidence and provide a recommendation to the City Council to make a final . determination on the matter. He then called a recess at 10:30 .a.m. The meeting was reconvened. at 1G:55 a.m. The Examiner requested testimony from a representative of the Traffic Engineering Division. Responding was: Clint Morgan Traffic Engineering Division Mr. 'Morgan was affirmed by the Examiner. The Examiner explained residential concerns regarding traffic problems at the intersection of N.E. 4th Street and Monroe Avenue N.E. , • and inquired regarding the impact of installation,of a traffic signal within the next two to three months. Mr. Morgan reported that left-turn accidents will be alleviated, and safer, easier access will be provided to and from Monroe Avenue N.E. during peak traffic hours. The Examiner requested comments from Mr. Clemens. Mr. Clemens emphasized that although the Planning Department was not requiring utilization of the P.U.D. process 'of the applicant, the method of development was suggested as an approach which could be reviewed with 'the department. He advised that an alternative method of development for the single family and R-2 zones could be accomplished by the platting process, and acquisition of a building permit could be obtained for development of the R-3 zone. Mr. Clemens also indicated concern that grading proposals provide for control to maintain • ' the general physical character of the site and retain the existing natural vegetation of significance. Regarding traffic impact 'in the area as a result of the future development, Mr. Clemens stated that the existing 4800 vehicle' trips per day would be increased by 1100 trips with construction of additional residences consisting of approximately one- fourth ,of the total' trips to the north and three-fourths to the south with a proposed increase of 12 to. 15% at the intersection of N.E. 4th Street and Monroe Avenue N.E. R-271-78 Page, Three The Examiner requested testimony in opposition to the request. Responding was: John Tilton 3511 N.E. 6th Street Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Tilton indicated that residents in the community had met and studied the proposal and agreed that recommended zoning should not allow higher intensity than the proposed number of units on the site since the immediate area is already overdeveloped. with small lots, narrow streets, and inadequate driveways_. He indicated that the majority of business owners and residents located south of the subject site support the Planning ' Department alternate zoning recommendation, Exhibit #7, which would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan for the area and would provide compatibility with the single family residential area .to the east of the site as well as create a better designed development. Mr. Tilton summarized the residential preference for alternate zoning contained in Exhibit #7 by stating that the plan would allow a proper transition of zoning in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, maintain a fairly wide strip of single family residential zoning, allow a large section of R-2 zoning in the low area on the eastern portion of the site, and restrict heavy traffic from N.E. 6th Street onto Monroe Avenue N.E. He submitted proposed restrictive covenants supported •by residents regarding the proposed development. The covenants were entered as follows by the Examiner: Exhibit #9: Restrictive Covenants Proposed by Mr. Tilton The covenants recommend that access be restricted from the R-3 or R-2 zoning areas on the site onto N.E. 6th Street and all access be limited to Monroe Avenue N.E. ; all R-3 and R-2 zones be fenced with seven-foot chain link, slatted fencing to separate single family residential areas, and construction cleanup will be the responsibility of the developer; provision for .storm water drainage from President,Park.community to the and agreement that existing residents would; hot be assessed for such•provision; ordinances pertaining to the preservation of trees on the site be strictly enforced; only access from single family residential areas be allowed onto N.E. 6th Street because of the ' narrow configuration; and request that a community representative be a member of a committee to review and approve the final site plan. Mr. Tilton also submitted a letter and petition from existing residents in the area. The letters were entered as follows by the Examiner: Exhibit #10: Letters from Residents The Examiner requested, further testimony in opposition to the request. Responding was: ' Philip Nangle 614 Queen Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Nangle expressed concern that existing topography would be altered which may result in an extension of Olympia Avenue N.E. to the site, and inquired if N.E. 6th Street would„ be widened. He reported that a real estate agent had recently purchased property east- ,.. of the proposal and would provide access to the subject development. Mr. Clemens indicated that the half-street that exists between Monroe and Olympia Avenue N.E. would be developed to a full street, and the applicant would be responsible for the lower, western portion. Mr. Nangle. expressed concern regarding existence of dry timber adjacent to the site during the summer months and the necessity for adequate fire protection.. Responding was: Norman Jacobs 550 Monroe Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Jacobs reported existing problems of backing vehicles from his driveway due to heavy traffic volumes on Monroe Avenue N.E. , and noted that problems would be increased with the proposed development. He inquired regarding requirements for rezoning his property.. The Examiner advised that Mr. Jacobs would be required to submit a separate application in order to request rezone of. his own property. Responding was: Nola Tilton 3511 N.E. 6th Street Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Tilton indicated support of Exhibit #7 as a viable plan for future development. She expressed concern regarding protection of the quality of life, for residents .in the area and cited problems created by inadequate parks, heavy traffic, speeding vehicles, inadequate crosswalk protection, and narrow streets which would increase -with proposed development. . R-271-78 Page Six be reviewed by the Planning Department prior to commencement of activity on the site. He indicated that such review be accomplished by the Hearing Examiner if subsequent public hearings for the P.U.D. or special permit process are held. The Examiner summarized the revised Planning Department recommendation for proposal of Exhibit #7 as well as all conditions outlined in the Planning Department recommendation contained in Exhibit #1. He also advised for the benefit of Mr. Jacobs that any development of the site would require installation of off-site improvements along Monroe Avenue N.E. which may improve sight-distance on that roadway. The Examiner requested further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on File No. R-271-78 was closed by the Examiner at 11:30 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The request is for approval of a reclassification of approximately 14 acres from GS-1 and S-1 to R-2 and R-3 to permit multifamily development of about 160 residential 'units. 2. The Planning Department report accurately sets forth the issues, applicable policies and provisions', findings of fact, and departmental recommendations in this matter, is uncontested, 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, based upon a reduction in density to a.maximum of 180 dwelling units, buffering existing single family uses with medium and low density and retention of significant foliage and site details in the final development plan. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. 6. The proposal is compatible with the required lot area and dimensions of Sections 4-708 (R-2) and 4-709A (R-3) of Title IV, Ordinance No. 1628, Code of General Ordinances. 7. Previous area wide Comprehensive Plan analysis occurred in 1965. Some general area Comprehensive Plan analysis also occurred during the period of 1966 to 1968 Section. 4-3014. (A) ) . The Planning Commission is currently reviewing the Comprehensive Plan for this area. 8. The Comprehensive Plan Land .Use Map indicates the southerly one-half of the property to potentially be medium density multiple family and the northerly one-half to be single family (Section 4-3014. (B) ) . 9. Within two to three months, installation of a' traffic signal will be completed at the intersection of N.E. 4th Street and Monroe Avenue N.E. (Section 4-3014. (C) ) , which is expected to lessen back-up on Monroe Avenue N.E. and traffic accidents. 10. Concerned citizens expressed their opposition to the applicant's proposed rezone and their agreement with the alternative reclassification (Exhibit #7) offered by staff. This alternative was acceptable to the applicant, who subsequent to the public hearing submitted the attached letter of January 18, 1979, objecting to Exhibit #7 and favoring Exhibit #6. 11. Storm drainage and grading plans were of concern to adjacent residents. These specific plans are a part of the normal review of the development proposal whether through the building permit process or public review of the site plan or planned unit development. 12. The applicant's proposed access to N.E. 6th Street was not acceptable to the area residents. An emergency access to N.E. 6th Street was recommended by the Fire Department but opposed by the applicant. This issue is most appropriately handled in review of specific development plans. 13. The northerly abutting development of President Park and the northerly one-half of the site is zoned S-1 which permits a single family lot. of 44,000 square feet or 7200 square feet depending on interpretation of the zoning regulations that conflict in this matter. Existing GS-1 on the approximate southerly one-half of and east of the 4111: R-271-78 Page Five The Examiner requested the applicant to respond to previous testimony from residents: Mr. Schneider objected to imposition of restrictive covenants on a rezone request, but indicated his willingness to provide fencing of his choice, storm water detention systems which would be ,enforced administratively by. thePublic Works Department, and existing vegetation required to be removed would be replaced with supplemental landscaping. He indicated he did not object to allowing a representative of the community to review the final site plan, but felt that the final determination remained a matter between the .city and the developer. He reviewed access alternatives from the R-2 zoning district, and ' did not feel that it would be possible to obtain access as recommended by the Fire Department .to N.E: '6th, Street. He also indicated: that an alternative access at the. ,:'; northern end of_ the: si.te ,onto Monroe Avenue ,N.E.`'would not be in conformance with city ' standards due to the proximity to N.E. 6th Street. Mr. Schneider advised that he was not aware of future plans for dedication of access at the eastern end of the :site. The Examiner asked Mr. Clemens to.review future plans ,for improvement of Monroe Avenue N.E. Mr. Clemens indicated that improvement of the roadway toa full 60-foot, two-lane collector street containing curbs, gutters and sidewalks is included in the city's Six- Year Streets and Arterials Plan, although he was uncertain of the exact timing of the project. The• Examiner requested further comments. Mr. Roger Newell noted that the testimony of residents did not indicate opposition to the rezone since almost .100% supported the alternative zoning contained in Exhibit #7, but that concerns related to potential problems which could be created by development of a proposal on the property,. such as traffic, access, screening, retention .of vegetation and architecture. Mr. Newell indicated that he would bewilling to accept input from residents regarding the site proposal and noted that if the P.U.D. process were utilized, further opportunity for input would be available to residents during subsequent public hearings. He advised that the proposal would be oriented towards family living .to perpetuate the existing, neighborhood character, and.preferred. es.tablishing conditions of .development, rather: than restrictive:covenants on the rezone. Mr. John Tilton reiterated previous comments regarding placement of restrictions upon the land to assure mitigation of. residential concerns. He also indicated his opinion that. the applicant had not satisfied the requirement' of proof that a rezone should occur. Mr. Schneider stated that due to the location of the property between a single. family residential area and commercial property, a rezone is required to provide development compatibility and justify cost of the land. The Examiner referred to the applicant's concurrence with Exhibit #1 at commencement of the hearing and inquired if concurrence applied to the staff analysis or the recommendation contained in the report. Mr. Schneider indicated that his concurrence pertained to the recommendation. Mr. Newell stated that, due to a strong demand for housing. in' the Puget Sound area and the high . purchase price of homes, the rezone and subsequent development provided a residential alternative for the community and would establish a buffer between single family residential areas and business zoning to the south of the site. He noted that development of single family lots on the site would have occurred in the past 'if existing zoning were considered appropriate for development. . Mrs. Nola Tilton objected to consideration ,of multiple family development as a reasonable housing alternative for families with children, and felt that sufficient multiple family development exists in the Renton Highlands area: The Examiner referenced Section L. of Exhibit #1 pertaining to environmental assessment/ threshold determination of the proposed development and inquired if an Environmental Impact Statement would be required if more than 180 units were proposed on the site. Mr. Clemens responded affirmatively. The Examiner inquired if the previous request for rezone, File No. R-028-77, had been abandoned by the applicant. Mr. Clemens indicated staff's opinion that submission of a new application in effect withdrew the previous application,. The Examiner requested confirmation, from the applicant. Mr. Schneider concurred with Mr. Clemens' interpretation. The Examiner inquired regarding the date of the last area wide zoning or land use analysis : , • in the immediate area. Mr. Clemens reported that the last area wide analysis was accomplished in 1965 at the time of adoption' of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Renton. He also advised that rezoning analysis of properties located to the south and east of the subject site had occurred in the past and the area is currently being studied • by the Planning Commission in review of the Comprehensive Plan for, the. northeast_quadrant„ of the community. He noted that geheralized. Comprehensive Plan analysis had occurred between 1966 and 19'68, The Examiner requested a final ,recommendation from the Planning Department. Mr. Clemens indicated that in consideration of the desires of the community and the analysis performed by the. Planning _Department, the alternative zoning proposal contained in Exhibit #7 was recommended by the department, and would concentrate medium density, R-3, zoning in the southwest corner of the site. He also 'recommended that topography and .vegetated areas ' be preserved as conditions of the rezone,' and actual grading and vegetation removal plans R-271-78 Page Eight GS-1 property. R-2 (Exhibit #7) is more appropriate at that location and abutting the westerly adjacent GS-1 and S-1 property. Both recommendations utilize R-1 (minimum 7200 square foot lots) to buffer and form transition from the northerly abutting S-i zoned and developed property. The allowable density of S-1 is uncertain depending upon one's interpretation of the zoning regulations ranging from 7200 to 40,000' square foot lot sizes. But President Park has been platted and developed into approximately 5,000 square, foot lots. This intense of single family development is not permitted in the city's zoning regulations but was probably permitted while the property.was within King County and prior to annexation. Therefore, the R-1 appears to be an appropriate response to the approximately 5,000 square foot lot size development: • S-1 'might also be appropriate if it weren't for the ambiguous and conflicting density limitations. It appears that either alternative does not form the optimum transition and graduation of land use intensity. Only slight modifications to each alternative would produce the optimum reclassification configuration desired by the Comprehensive Plan per Conclusion No. 2. For the aforementioned reasons it appears most appropriate that Exhibit #6 be the configuration of the. reclassification subject to some mitigating conditions. The R-3 zone should be enlarged to 150 feet to provide sufficient land area for additional site planning flexibility. To sufficiently buffer the easterly GS-1 zoned properties, the easterly 100 feet should be preserved in open space for landscape 'screening and to a lesser extent. recreational uses. The easterly 50 feet of the R-2 zone should be utilized in the same way as a buffer of the GS-1 zones on the eastern and western portion of the R-2 area (Objectives No. 1, 4 and 6, pages 17 and 18, Comprehensive Plan, Land Us,e Report, July, 1965) . 4. The applicant's proposal is for approximately 160 individual dwelling units on the property. Staff's recommended density .(Exhibits #6 and 7) is approximately 180 dwelling units. The aforementioned Examiner's conclusion would permit slightly greater density. Due to the unique topography of the site (Exhibit #3) and required excavation .and grading operations, it appears appropriate that the maximum density be established at 180 units (Objectives No. 1, and 4, page 17, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965) . 5. The existing area of substantial vegetation at the northeastern portion of the site and any other suitable vegetation should be retained as much as possible to maintain a buffer between the development and existing residences and single family property. This would protect the property values of these residences through effective land use control ( page 17, Objective No. '4, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965) . 6. Access to and from the site may or may not significantly affect the surrounding properties. Since the applicant will be required to dedicate and improve an additional southerly 30 feet of right-of-way for N.E. 6th Street, it is reasonable for the applicant- to utilize 'this street for access from at least the northern single family portion of the proposed development. Public review of access to N.E. 6th Street will occur since at least preliminary and final plat applications will be required of any single family subdivision per the Subdivision Ordinance. The R-2 portion of the proposal will require public review if a density approaching, but less than, 11 units per acre is proposed. The R-3 zone, may necessitate only a building permit without a public hearing. A Planned Unit Development for any portion or all of the property will require preliminary and final plan public hearings. The most logical resolution of ,the access question lies in coordination of a circulation system among.all portions of the proposed development. However, insufficient justification has been given to warrant so conditioning the reclassification. Sufficient flexibility exists to address the question in the Subdivision Ordinance, building permit process, or Planned Unit Development Ordinance. 7. The Planned Unit Development approach is very logical for the property. Needed flexibility of building arrangements, setbacks, open spaces, landscaping, etc. are available in the Planned Unit Development Ordinance that are not available in other development approaches. However, perhaps an equally acceptable development could be accomplished through the Subdivision Ordinance (R-1 zone) , building permit process (R-2 and/or R-3 zone) and special permit process (R-2 zone) . The record does not clearly establish that the approval of the rezone should be conditioned upon utilization of the Planned Unit Development process. R-271-78 Page Seven the subject site allows individual single family lots of 35,000 square feet. South of and abutting the property is B-1 zoning with small parcels of L-1 and T zoning. Development of slight intense commercial enterprises has occurred south of the . subject site. President Park is fully developed in approximately 5,000 square foot lots adjacent to the property, and the easterly single family area is underdeveloped with only scattered residences. The Renton Vocational Technical School is located west of the proposal and across Monroe Avenue N.E. 14. The previous rezone application, heard and,continued.indefinitely by the Examiner. File No. R-028-77) , has been withdrawn by the applicant and is no longer active. 15. Traffic expected from the proposal will increase the volume at the intersection of N.E. 4th Street and Monroe Avenue N.E. approximately 12 to 15%. 16. Although not made a part of the recommendation, staff suggested that the applicant utilize the Planned Unit Development Ordinance for the proposal. 17. The proposed reclassification would yield an ultimate density of approximately 330 units; however, the proposed site plan (Exhibit #2) indicates only 156 units. Staff's recommendation (Exhibit #6) and alternate (Exhibit #7) would yield approximately 180 units. All parties appeared comfortable with a total of 160 units on the subject property. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Sufficient justification has not been .presented to substantiate that the original proposal conforms to the Comprehensive, Plan (Section 4-3014. (B) ) . Evidence was not submitted demonstrating' that this proposal was. not considered during previous area land use and zoning analysis (Section 4-3014. (A) ) . Testimony has not addressed ' the impact of public and/or private improvements upon the property since previous area land use and zoning analysis (Section 4-3014. (C) ) . 2. Sufficient demonstration has been made to conclude that the Planning Department recommendation (Exhibit #6) and alternate recommendation (Exhibit #7) conform to the Comprehensive Plan (Section 4-3014. (B) ) . These rezone configurations represent an orderly and well planned use of the land—"1 which are more reasonable, logical and within appropriate land use principles2 than the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. This map is only a ". . .general design for future growth."3 The, rezone configurations and attendant density of 180 units appears to form a graduated intensity of land uses, an appropriate land use principle.4 They also do not unduly, unexpectedly or unreasonably contribute to ". . .overcrowding influences, and) arterial traffic. . . ".5 The density is within the guideline of the Comprehensive Plan of 220 units.6 1. Section 1, page. l, Comprehensive Plan, Renton, Urban', Area, :July, 1965, Objectives No. 1 and 4, page 17, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965:' 2. Summary, page 9, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965. 3. Section 2, page 2, .Ibid. Section 1.II.1. , Ordinance No. 2142. 4. Summary, page 9, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965. Residential, page 11, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965. Objectives No. 1, 4.and 6, pages 17 and 18, Ibid. 5. Section 4.A.1. , page 4, Comprehensive Plan, Renton Urban Area, July, 1965.. Summary; pages 9 and 10, Ibid. 6. Section 4.B. , page 5, Ibid. 3. The alternate recommendation (Exhibit #7) places less intense R-2 zoning adjacent to the easterly GS-1 zoned property but more intense R-3 zoning against the westerly abutting GS-1 zoned property which the proposal surrounds on three sides. However,. the GS-1 density of apprxoimately one unit per acre. is almost the lowest single family: density zoning .category. The contrast between R-2 (maximum of less than 11 units per acre) and GS-1 could be substantial without other considerations. In addition, R-2 is located adjacent to the southerly B-1 zoned property where normally a more intense zoning category would be situated. The recommendation of staff (Exhibit #6) places R-3 adjacent to the southerly abutting B-1 zone, which is appropriate transition to occur on the subject site. However, at the eastern portion of the. site it is inappropriate for R-3 to abut R-271-78 Page Nine RECOMMENDATION: Approval of configuration of Exhibit #6, subject to: 1. The southerly 150 feet of the property being rezoned to R-3. 2. The easterly 100 feet of the R-3 zone being a landscaped buffer area with some recreation facilities per approval of the Planning Department or the Examiner if a subsequent public hearing is held. 3: The easterly 'and westerly 50 feet of the R-2 zone abutting single family zoned property being preserved in a landscaped buffer area with some recreation facilities' per approval of the Planning Department or the Examiner if a subsequent public hearing is held. 4. A maximum total overall density of 180 individual dwelling units on the subject site. 5. Preservation of as much of the existing vegetation as possible. Clearing of existing vegetation and grading shall conform to approved development and occur after approval of site plans. 6. Incorporation of these conditions in and completion of restrictive covenants. 7. Compliance with all other applicable ordinances and regulations of the City of Renton. ORDERED THIS 23rd day of January, 1979. 7 i L. Ri k Beeler Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED, THIS 23rd day of January, 1979 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Gerald E. Schneider, 6510 Southcenter Blvd. , Tukwila, WA 98188 Roger H. Newell, 1102 19th Avenue E. , Seattle, WA 98112 John & Nola Tilton, 3511 N.E. 6th St. , Renton, WA 98055 Philip Nangle, 614 Queen Ave. N.E. , Renton, WA 98055 Norman Jacobs, 550 Monroe Ave. N.E. , Renton, WA 98055 Sandra Keyashian, 3404 N.E. 6th St. , Renton, WA 98055 Doug Sweeney, 3617 N.E. 6th St. , Renton, WA 98055 Sandra Robinson, 3605 N.E. 6th St. , Renton, WA 98055 Jeanette Mayer, 3712 N.E. 7th St. , Renton, WA 98055 Lewis Pappas, 3517 N.E. 6th St. , Renton, WA 98055 Walt Muodusquewski, 3428 N.E. 6th St., Renton, WA 98055 . TRANSMITTED THIS 23rd day of January, 1979 to the following: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Ron Nelson, Building Division Clint Morgan, Traffic Engineering 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 February 6, 1979, . Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available ' at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen 14) days from the 'date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action ,as he deems proper. An appeal to the City 'Council is governed by Title IV, Section, 3016,. which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting Other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in the City Clerk's office, first floor of City Hall,, or same may be purchased at cost in said. off ice. ri •Ischneider homes, inc. 6510 Southcenter 6oulevo:orrt a Suite !r? • Tukwila, WA 98188 J (206) 248-2471 January 18, 1979 Mr. L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Gerald E. Schneider hearing, January 16, 1979 Dear Mr. Beeler: I would like you to consider our objection to the final zoning scheme (Fig. #i4) endorsed by Mr. Clemens_of the City Planning Department. Endorsement of this scheme at the very last minute of the meeting caught us by surprise, without sufficient time to weigh the possible impact. It now appears to us that it could prejudice future P.U.D. hearing participants, forcing us to use building arrangements and development access to conform to the adopted zoning scheme. We strongly support. the zoning scheme originally recommended by the Planning Department (Fig. #E3) , one which meets all the requirements of the January 16th hearing participants .and a scheme which allows us to spread the units and provide access as shown on our site plan. I respectfully request that you consider this information in rendering your decision. Sincerely, Gerald E. Schneider President RECEIVED cc: David Clemens CITY OF RENTONRogerNewell file HEARING EXAMINER JA N 1 fl 1,)79 AM r. 3n i819r101111121iF`"„' , Ili ' IMO• 1 - . ... i 42: ..,: • :,i. i • :d: •4i. i ..: " . , , 6;1 ; 1,131 iaff,L,14..; ;A.. 1:... i.,: ....k:i i prl:f.t.i,. : ..::::1 4::.- • 1 , 8 1 4. dyfritk,_ ., .7-- -- 1--n. --:1-.---: ii.....;... i ; #4 j 0.....7.....? FS: li .; i '4 ":.• ;',- ,fitt fiPAIIM. 4/1 Of t.: ..i...' II s ""-...".. 1.--..--•-.-, IQ . ...... -. . . '!.. t.1111X\NINISIL liAL".106%,. S.....1R-1kni11 frjrAFAf/FAev,' i 0rjiviI -GS I G • 11....., e• ::-. IF • /.1.04/70 v'i -ardula"Lilzii . . R-31.. . 1 L.-,1 n1,-, i r4 B al ;to il T , . r S1 4 cr .IP ''''''' 4 16.1 T I 1 1 GREENWOOD 1CE_METERY c G6 • 11Lirl C 0 IVL 1 0 7 A 4 T 4' i w 1 I w....,i 6...013,7".7%.".7.1;;;ITS-' 1 1',,- . ......... . w . ,•uo!, . .',v..; 4 : • '.' . jj 7 • " "''.'•\ e %,...-ce• . ' ...ow"-, - c . .0.,-.>„.1 1 \-. •,.. ... ' 04,- • . f° I 1 i. ......;"ro, • ..,,,, ,...„....- 1 r • • .tl.t....-- • ,'ila%. .'-'" •• . • t" L• • .- Lt.A'-- W - ---- B -I Sti .if .. liv.W4 qc.--.A-Z!*4‘ 7 REZONE : GERALD E . SCHNEIDER; Appl . No . R- 271-79;_ rezone from GS-1 and S- 1 to R-2 and R-3 ; property located on Monroe Avenue N . E . between N . E . 6th Street and N . E . 4th Street APPLICANT GERALD E . SCHNEIDER TOTAL AREA t14 acres PRINCIPAL ACCESS Monroe Avenue N . E . EXIS ' ING ZONING • GS- 1 and S- 1 Single-familv residential EXISTING USE unimproved_ property PROPOSED USE Development of townhouses, approximate density 160 units. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Single Family andiiediva Opecity Mul ti -ramily. COMMENTS 1___ t • vvi.lt,•.. .• ii • 1 : .,. 6 , r. 144e.. vtgrorm t 3r AL 3 i.. 171. 1 1.r,1 s- • 1 - . VIIili•r 1 'lir . 2 .VI% . i 19, k1 I - i i a i . L.: IR L-, I i . MIL : Urat:0:---.-----a7rc (- - C7-1 N. ... ... 1111e- --110—) 4.- ,_, . ., .7•.- i : '' 4 rilli°4. a411'l1.1r, 1. •,7_, Y-. , j: 6•4 i ,• • I.,. I...., i.,_'''111111•..10,72a. .,._ri I" .,..•_. C..---...._--..-..l"..•.••r••;.--...,-„. S W t„ ..", NI ga,F j 7a• aftli I I', .... 4..... 9 Mb • .. t.r' 2 iziLi e t , •; : • 11.11. —... I 7 ; • - . k.. .w. Lt, cit)i.i w..... .,. 6.. c • 1i . ,.. ,t . cg r„..rc,_...... S1 s E . 1 4„..,...I i._) IPpst., . _..., . . . 4., c .... e.,,,fr.... , 4. , _. 4 tr.,1 gp: ,•.1 • i 1 r4-7 I. i. 4.•*,-,19111111 IV• ) ' - I.,:''''sAltrt_. ••t a , - e ' • '- t J I J • •*-:--- . - --'• • - MI • . ••• - , , —tia C.t)14 EL It 4 4t-va• .:1 . i _ •"$-IPMP je-0..• e... • 1 I I %-- • i--. .. .:4E1A ThtiI 4. ,. •4 C. I..,'. 1r v 11111211 • *. **:.' :Ej ci. 13 ..0 D x ,„....4•11 I, i Isl..la i:Z.._.; 4, i L . 3>c Ft 1 r., i . c. a>. ‘ r' 41MtLATtt. TO SY.M5k'srgW4) b..44 Iii &LIL lam-r 0 el 10411 1 641 1 ffOralft7 WV 1/2' Tx ik drt NO. I_ -- AM CAArrI6 fOsfroxitt7r oxr tiflAilii/6 te-Z71-76 i i b41.44 OILI z: 525 c OS 11° 1 1 1 1blf a NIIL1 ( 0 O'o 0_,` o 4 1 I n 0 xipivpi iwn-q , i ow% cAtAILY (.5.- -) 0 ro0. . C Cie rt NO. ___— iv RAW ftril jlittk)D IA War It-Z11-16 lagorxIC stmtwieg i 1111 0 : , smog it) eykvitsrr 04) a 141.44 1 i Oh 51 ."r zi 00 0' o co' o tV6ro4612 ft-I adil t i A e 7 Mr iii0 i frO RAW e• lam. v No. P frOftt0 awmik4 [ MWA1bJ t11J 117EK i L 61.441 i (1ih `-' 'r sE i 4J ° p W r l6 IL-.I 2 o-'o o--.o 10 I fro roo tt-2 08 i forop iil 4ox944) 0 Alt' G1‘1 WIVrt No. ' - AA1'e loklikl4 tarrn jAXACAS.12-271-76 1G1110PVC Sk WiLAITE IIT ? AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BYMAILING State of Washington) County of King Marilyn J. Petersen being first duly sworn, upon oath disposes and states: That on the 23rd day of January 19 79 , affiant deposited in the .mails of the United States a sealed envelope Containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below-entitled application or petition. fl)217 Subscribed and sworn this A day of (-- te v 2,,\-,../ 19 -1q . V‘,Y;01 0149A) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Renton r Application, Petition or Case: Gerald E. Schneider; R-271-78 .1 '. The. mi.nutte,4 contain a tint of the pa ti.e6 o6 necond) 110010 erald E. Schneider File No. R-271-78 DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHEREAS, Gerald E. Schneider and his wife Gail M. Schneider, are the owners of the following real property in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, described as follows: All in Section 9, Township 23 N. , Range 5 E. W.M.; 1. North # of the Northwest 4 of the Southwest 4 of Southeast 4 less South 130 feet of the West 230 feet less County road less coal and mineral rights. 2. North / of South / of Northwest of Southwest 4 of Southeast 4, Except West 184 feet of North 89.70 feet, less County road. 3. South / of South 1 of Northwest 4 of Southwest l of Southeast 4, Except road. 4. West 525 feet of North / of Northeast 4 of Southwest l of Southeast 4, Except roads, and Except North 130 feet. 5. West 460 feet of South 1 of Northeast 4 of Southwest l of Southeast 1 . WHEREAS, the owners of said described property, hereinafter "the property," desire to impose the following restrictive covenants running with the land as to use, present and future, of the property; NOW, THEREFORE, the aforesaid owners hereby establish, grant and impose restrictions and covenants running with the land as to the use of the land hereinabove described with respect to the use by the undersigned, ,their successors, heirs and assigns, as follows: PERMITTED USE Permitted uses of the property shall be limited to the uses allowed as follows: The north 260 feet of the property shall be limited to single family uses allowed in the R-1 Residence Single Family District of Section 4-1706, Title IV, Ordinance No. 1628, Code of General Ordinances, City of Renton, King County, Washington. The southerly 150 feet of the property shall be limited to uses allowed in the R-3 Residence District, Section 4-709A, Title IV, Ordinance No. 1628, Code of General Ordinances, City of Renton, King County, Washington. The remaining middle portion of the property shall be limited to 'uses allowed in the R-2 Residence District, Section 4-708, Title IV, Ordinance No. 1628, Code of General Ordinances, City of Renton, King County, Washington. DEVELOPMENT Development of the property shall be limited to a maximum density of 180 individual dwelling units and shall not occur in the specified landscaped areas, except as specified herein. LANDSCAPED AREAS The easterly 100 feet of the R-3 portion of the property and the easterly 50 feet of the R-2 portion of the property, herein described, shall be reserved for landscaping and a small amount of recreational uses, but not recreation buildings. If development on these two portions of the property occurs through only the building permit process in the City of Renton, King County, Washington, the Planning Department of the City of Renton shall approve the landscaping and recreation plans for the landscaped areas. y t' S If development on these two portions of the property occurs through one or more public hearings before the Land Use Hearing Examiner, City of 'Renton, the Land Use Hearing Examiner shall approve the landscaping and recreation plans for the landscaped areas. The intent of the landscaped areas is to constitute a landscaped buffer between development on the property and the abutting and easterly single family zoned properties while permitting a small amount of the landscaped areas to be also used for recreational activities excluding recreation buildings. CLEARING AND GRADING As many as possible of the existing trees on the property shall be retained. Clearing and/or grading of the property shall only occur in accordance with approved plans for development of the property and after approval of the plans for development on the property.' DURATION These covenants shall eun with, the land and expire on December 31, 2025.. If at any time improvements are installed pursuant to these covenants, the portion of the covenants pertaining to the specific installed improvements as required by the Ordinances otthe City of Renton shall terminate without necessity of further documentation,. Proper legal procedures in the Superior Court of King_.County may be instigated by either the City of Renton or any property owners adjoining subject property who are adversely affected by any violation or breach of these restrictive covenants. Reasonable attorneys' fees incurred during an enforcement proceeding will be borne by the parties whom the court determines are in error and shall be entered as a judgment in such action. 1 Gerald E. Schneider, Owner Gail M. Sc eide9 e f STATE OF WASHINGTON) v / if;i:t. .. COUNTY OF' KING y On 'thistv;` ; iday of ,- --,_t,l t, 19 77 , before me personally appeared r_/,.., / S3 y•7c iGr r the persons who executed the within and foregoing .instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said persons for the uses and 'purposes therein mentioned. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public in and fdr the State of Washington,._res..ding 2- R d.0 THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON. WASH. 98055 p CHARLES J. .DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND, USE HEARING EXAMINER 90 co- L. RICK BEELER . 235- 2593 0947.fO SEPS E O P February 7, 1979 Mr. Gerald E. Schneider 6510 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: File No. R-271-78; Gerald E. Schneider Request for Rezone. Dear Mr. Schneider: This is to notify you that the above referenced request, which was approved subject to restrictive covenants as noted on the Examiner's report of January 23, 1979, has not been appealed within the time period established by ordinance. Therefore, this application is being submitted to the City Clerk for placement on the City Council agenda on February 26, 1979 for final approval. You will receive notification of approval upon adoption of an ordinance by the City Council. Sincerely, -i L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Planning Department City Clerk ya OF I 1 0 THE CITY OF RENTON 0 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 ousl CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 90 C"` O L. RICK BEELER , 235-2593 94rD SEPS-ts' January 30, 1979 Members, Renton City Council Renton, Washington RE: File No. R-271-78; Gerald E. Schneider Request for Rezone. Dear Council Members: Attached is the Examiner's Report and Recommendation regarding the referenced rezone request, dated January 23, 1979. The appeal period for the application expires on February 6, 1979, and the report is being forwarded to you for review by the Planning and Development Committee following the seven-day period from the date of publication. The complete file will be transmitted to the City Clerk on February 7, 1979 and will be placed on the Council agenda on February 26, 1979.> If you require additional assistance or information regarding this matter, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely,.; L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Planning Department City Clerk Attachment CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 3293 AN ORDINANCE OF. THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM GENERAL CLASSIFICATION DISTRICT (GS-i) and SUBURBAN RESIDENCE DISTRICT (S-1) TO RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R-2 and R-3) R-2 71-7 8 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 General Classification District G S-1) and Suburban Residence District (S-1); and WHEREAS a proper petition for change of zone classification of said property has been filed with the` Planning Department on or about December 20,1978, 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 January. 16, 1979, 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 R-2.'' and R-3) hereby rezoned to Suburban'Residence District ' (s R=1) : ;';; ; ,as._.hereinbelow specified; subject to the findings, conclusions and decision dated January 23, '1979; 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 herein. Said property being located' at approximately- '600 feet. north of N.E. 4th Street on Monroe Avenue N.E.), AND SUBJECT FURTHER to that certain Declaration of Restrictive Covenants executed by Petitioner-owners on or about January 31, 1979 and recorded in the office of the Director of Records. and Elections, Receiving No, 7.9.0 3 0 5 0 6 5 4 and which•. said Covenants' hereby incorporated and made a part hereof as if fully set forth. SECTION II: . This Ordinance. shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication PASSED BY THE' "CITCOUNCIL,-thisCILtY COUNCIL'''this 12ah day of March, 1'979: ' e ores C. Mead, City APPROVED 'BY.•THE' MAYOR this 12th of Mth, 19790 ar .es e aurentl, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence 3. filar ri,City' Attorney_. Da te of Publication: March. ,1 197.9: L. 15 EXHIBIT "A" ORDINANCE NO. 3293 SCHNEIDER REZONE R-271-78 PARCEL 1 . R-1 That portion of the SW 1/4 of theSE 1/4 of Section 9, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. described as follows: Commencing at the NW corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 9, thence easterly along the north line of said subdivision a distance of 30 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing easterly along the north line of said subdivi - sion to the NW corner of the plat of Albert Balch' s President Park No. 2 as recorded in Volume 50 of plats , page 39,, records of King County Washington ,a distance of 630.44 ft. ; thence southerly along the westerly line of said plat a distance of 130 feet to the SW corner thereof; thence easterly along the southerly line of said plat a distance of 525 feet to the SE corner thereof; Thence southerly along the easterly line of the westerly 525 feet of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 .:of :said, Section 9 to the south line of the North 260 feet of the North 1/2 of the North" 1./2of the.'SW 1/4• of the SE 1/4 of said Section 9; a distance of 130' more or less';, thence westerly along said south line a distance of: 955 feet more or less .to the.: east ;.line of the. west 230 feet of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 9; , thence northerly along said east line a .' distance of 60 feet more or less: to the 'south line of the north 200 feet more or less of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 Of the SE 1/4 of said Section 9; Thence westerly along said south line a di stance` of 200 feet more or less to the easterly right-of-'way line of: Monroe Ave.. NE; ' thence northerly along said' right-of- way line a distance of 200" feet;more or less :to the true point of beginning. PARCEL 2. R-2 That portion of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of. Section 9, Township 23. North, . Range' S '. : :: .' r East, W.M. described as 'follows: Commencing at the NW corner of '"the S 1/2' ofthe. NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the SE. 1/4 of said Section 9;' thence easterly 'a long; the-north line::of sai d subdivision, a d tance '"of' 184 feet to the true point of beginning; thence;cQnti,nuing easterly .along,' the north .1 i ne of said subdivision .a distance' of 46` fleet'more or less;'- then:ce northerly on a line; paral'lel with and 230 :,feet easterly as measured at rightangles`; from 'the west line .of the .SW 1/4 of `the'.SE 1/4 'of ..sai d .Sect i;on 9 a distance of 70 feetmore or less; thence:. eas`terly'on 'a' line. parallel .with and.:260 feet souther.,ly:_.;as measured at right angles 'from"`.the north line Of the SW 1/4.:of. the .SE 1/4''of. said '_.,; Section 9, a distance,, of .9.55 feet:'more or;`-,less, thence southerly on .a with. and 525 feet easterly as measured at:;right' angles from the west lineof', the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 :Of the SE. 1/4" of said Section 9, a distance of. 70feetmore" or less to the north line of the south ` 1/2; of the: NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 ". of said Section 9; " Thence westerly along said north line a distance of .65 .feet more ,or les;s: to, a l parallel with and 460 feet'•easter1y as measured ''at right angles: from the'",west` lrne of ' the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the SE :1,4/4 ,o.f' said Section 9; thence southerly along said 1 i ne to the south ."line of,the ,NE',1/4 of the SW 1/4:;of-the SE 1/4 of. said.: Sec=. t ion" 9 a distance of 400:-feet more 'or;: less, thence. westerly along said south ;Linene,,:to;,:,;;,; an intersection with the easterly right-of-way:':margin"'of".Monroe Ave. NE a"distance' 1165' more or less; thence northerly along the easterly right-of-way margin of 'Monroe Ave. NE a distance of 240' more or less; thence easterly a 'diestance of`:.154 feet; Thence northerly along a line parallel with and 184 feet easterly as measuredat right angles from the west line of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 9, a distancetiof 89..70- -feet to the true point of beginning. Less. the south -;- :; 150 feet thereof. PARCEL 3 R-3 2 o e d'f e •of r 2 z nt 1 0 e t'e BoutThe 5 e-- -311t3illt7C. 1 .,9L-1L2 4 taltiti j • . 1 101boi .. . q• -••,•-,,•••,••••••,.....,.,....,,,,„.„,.4„...:•,,„,..,..,......, ,.......,„..„...„„•,..,.-„,:.::; •,',.%,. 4.,.:, ? 4.0 420410*.. i 06:1 IF 1141r g•'''''' ''',• '',"05,54.44t,.., ,.,1,0•.4,,v,...,,,,,Pit.r.q..-,rf>,".,• er.,.:.0:4.-4,1::‘•:10,..i:4.iet,,,v,,,,,c,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..:,,,4,,, ,. . 1) 4c/ 4' OK)6*' q 0" "•0 41,,, 0 -----......— 4:5ielli ft1; Iv.1.:,-.. ,..f..,:..4:i t•:,e4.0444(lie.4;',Vele:10,41 1 Ot 401€161.4 61141 .- ' ' <1::)1 0.......................... ‘, /italb 0 10,6 i 31.1 . • .1, •.. . J-litieXe 15/ • It• t Wall 1 . ,.,. . i.•., , i Renton City Council 2/26/79 Page 5 Ordinances & Resolutions - Continued Ordering , Ordinance was read ordering the construction and installation of Construction- curbs, gutters and sidewalks, storm drains, catch basins, together LID 312 with left turn lane and all necessary appurtenances in the vicinity of West Valley, West Valley Highway from SW 43rd St. to the City Limits, all in Highway accordance with Resolution #2234 providing the method of assessment in said district, providing that payment for said improvement be made by special assessments upon property in said district, payable by the mode of "payment of bonds", or "notes" in lieu thereof as determined by council ; providing for the issuance and sale of LID warrants redeemable in cash and LID bonds or notes. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND CLYMER TO REFER BACK TO WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Ways and Means Committee report recommended the following Resolution for reading: RESOLUTION '#2247 Resolution was read setting the date of public hearing of request Street Vacation for street vacation of a portion of California Ave. (N. 7th St. ) .west California Ave. of Garden Ave. N. and vacation of alley between Garden Ave. N. and and Alley Between Park Ave. N. to be held March 26, 1979. Petition filed by the Garden Ave. N. & Boeing Co. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND STREDICKE TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION Park Ave. N. AS READ. CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are distributed to all Council Members and adopted by one motion without separate discussion. (Adopting motion to follow agenda items. ) MOVED BY SHANE, SECOND STREDICKE TO REMOVE ITEM. REGARDING SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, RAMAC, INC. VS. THE STATE AND CITY FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. CARRIED. Summons & I Councilman Shane left the council chambers due to conflict of interest. Complaint-RaMac, MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND TRIMM TO REFER THE MATTER OF SUMMONS AND Inc.Shane vs. COMPLAINT, RAMAC, INC. VS. THE STATE AND CITY TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. State and City CARRIED. Councilman Shane returned to the council chambers. Schneider Rezone Hearing Examiner's recommendation of approval with restrictive R-271-78 covenants Gerald E. Schneider request for rezone R-271-78. Rezone GS-1 & S-1 to R-2 & R-3, property located on Monroe Ave. NE between NE 4th & NE 6th Streets. Refer to Ways and Means Committee for ordinance. Preliminary Plat Hearing Examiner's recommendation of approval with conditions of Koll/Intereral NW preliminary plat .PP-266-78 of Koll/Intereal Northwest, B/N Orillia PP-266-78 , Industrial Park of Renton Div. No. 1. Property located northwest corner of East Valley Road and SW 43rd Street. Council concur. Permanent Letter from Mayor Delaurenti noted Firefighters Robert Deines and Appointment' of William Scott Brewster have completed their six-month probationary Firefighters periods and recommended their permanent appointment to the position, of Firefighters effective February 16, 1979. Council Concur. Appointment of Letter from Mayor Delaurenti appointed Steven J. Schneider to the Lieutenant position of Lieutenant in the Fire Department effective March 1, 1979 Fire Dept.and subject to the six-month probationary period. Council concur. Police Letter from City Attorney Warren and Ordinance to update. or delete Regulations , sections of the police regulations. Refer to the Public Safety Committee. A.P.W.A. Letter from Warren Gonnason, Public Works Director, requested a Specifications resolution adopting the latest edition of the A.P.W.A. specifications. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. Request to Attend ' Letter from Darlene Allen, Court Administrator, requested permission Clerks Seminar for Susan Castor Scholes to attend the clerks seminar in Vancouver, Washington on February 20-21, 1979. Council concur. Renton City Council 2/26/79 Page 6 Consent Agenda - Continued Request for Letter from Hugh R. Darby, Chief of Police, requested transfer Transfer of Funds- of funds in the amount of $1,890.00 from the auction of firearms Jail Maintenance to the Jail Maintenance Budget for replacement of refrigerator/ Budget freezer, revising interior of Evidence Room,and other unanticipated costs of operation. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. Transfer of Letter from Gwen Marshall , Finance Director, requested resolution Funds- Tax for temporary transfer loan from Street Forward Thrust Fund to Supported Funds Tax Supported Funds in the amount of $900,000 pending receipt of property taxes. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. Claim for Claim for damages, Boeing Co. , PO Box 3707-Seattle, for alleged Damages damage to 12" high pressure water line. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Carrier. Claim for Claim for damages, Sambo's, 610 Rainier Ave. So. , alleged Damages water/drainage problems. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Carrier. Intent to Letter from Deputy City Clerk Maxine Motor noted receipt of 10% Annex-Honeydew Letter of Intent to Annex Property to the city,which was certified by the Planning Dept. that signatures represent 13.56% of the Public Meeting assessed value, which is in excess of the minimum required by law. March 12, 1979 The letter recommended date of March 12, 1979 for public meeting with the initiating property owners when the Council will determine whether to accept the letter of intent, require adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, zoning ordinance and pre-exsisting bonded indebtedness and circulation of 75% petition. Known as Honeydew Annexation in the vicinity of 140th Ave. SE to Union Ave. NE, Hazen High School to Honeydew Elementary. Council concur. Requests for Letter from Mayor Delaurenti requested revision of Resolution #2063 Travel Funds regarding requests for travel funds, with the Mayor to authorize in state travel and council approval required for out of state travel requests. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. Request to Letter from Maxine Motor, Deputy City Clerk, request for Del Mead Attend Municipal and one member of her staff to attend Municipal Clerk's Conference Clerks' in Kennewick April 27-27, 1979; and for funds to cover expenses. Conference Council concur. Bid Opening- Bid opening, February 21, 1979, for Monster Road asphalt resurfacing, Monster Rd.Asphalt two bids received. Refer to Transportation Committee and Public Works Resurfacing Department. (Attached) Appointment Letter from Mayor Delaurenti appointed Michael Joseph Foley to position of Firefighter firefighter. Effective March 1, 1979, subject to the customary six-month probationary period. Council concur. Request to Attend Letter from Richard Geissler, Fire Chief, request for E.V. Wooton, Jr. Fire and Arson to attend Fire and Arson Investigation Seminar in Portland, Oregon, Investigation Sem. April 30 - May 4, 1979. Council concur. Request to Letter from Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director, request to appropriate Appropriate Funds- Referendum #29 funds to Senior Citizens ' Center Construction Fund in Senior Center the amount of $85,014.33. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. Request to Attend Letter from Hugh R. Darby, Chief of Police, request for Detective Backster School of Donald I. Dashnea to attend Backster School of Lie Detection to be Lie Detection held in San Diego, California, March 6 - May 8, 1979; and for advance travel funds. Council concur. Request for Letter from Mrs. J. Frandsen, President, Garfield Associates Ltd. , Vacation of request for vacation of utility easement located at the south 10 feet Utility Easement of Lot 9 and the north 10 feet of Lot 4 of Block 1, Division 1 of the Burlington Northern Orillia Industrial Park Subdivision. Refer to Public Works Department and Utilities Committee. OF I o THE CITY OF RENTON c). $ ® MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR DELORES A. MEAD A ro CITY CLERK 0 March 14 , 1979 Gerald E. Schneider 6510 Southcenter. Blvd Tukwila, Wa 98188 ' Dear Mr. Schneider, Re; Ordinance No. 3293 for Rezone The Renton City Council, during its regular meeting on Monday, has adopted A copy is enclosed for your, information. Yours very truly, CITY OF RENTON Delores A. Mead, C.M.C. City Clerk DAM:jeb/dh Enclosure 1 41 THE CITY OF RENTON T L MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 CHARLES J..DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER co L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 IT fD k0 March 16, 1979 Mr. Gerald E. Schneider 6510 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: File No. R-271-78; Gerald E. Schneider Request for Rezone. Dear Mr. Schneider: This is to notify you that the above referenced request was approved at the meeting of the Renton City Council of March 12, 1979, by adoption of Ordinance No. 3293. Sincerely, L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Planning Department VCity Clerk YtiLi/G Renton City Council 3/12/79 Page 3 OLD BUSINESS - Continued - Planning & Development Committee Report - Continued Multiple Family at the discretion of property owner subject to exclusionary Parking agreement if such space is not provided (all RV parking screened) . Requirements Following discussion, MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND SHINPOCH, COUNCIL.. CONCUR IN RECOMMENDATION AND REFER THE MATTER TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. May Creek Utilities Committee Chairman Shane submitted letter from Public Works Interceptor Director Gonnason to Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) re May Creek Interceptor Agreement recalling City' s and King County Water District #7 (Newport Hills) agreement with Metro 1/16/75,- modified 12/76. The letter noted no outside funding available and requested METRO proceed with construction, explaining 2,013 con- nections in the city would contribute to proposed interceptor. MOVED BY SHANE, SECOND CLYMER, USE EVERY METHOD AVAILABLE TO HAVE METRO START CONSTRUCTION OF SEWER LINE IN HONEY CREEK AND MAY CREEK AREAS IN RENTON. CARRIED. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means Ways and Means Committee Chairman Clymer presented committee report Committee Report recommending second and final readings for the following ordinances: Ordinance #3293 An ordinance was read rezoning property located on Monroe Ave. NE R-271-78 600 ft. north of NE 4th St. from GS-1 to SR-1 , R-2 and R-3. MOVED BY Schneider Rezone CLYMER, SECOND SHINPOCH CONCUR IN COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: 6-AYE: SHINPOCH, SHANE, TRIMM, CLYMER, PERRY, PROCTOR; 1-NO: STREDICKE. MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance #3294 An ordinance was read appropriating funds from Referendum #29 Grant Appropriation 85,014.33 unto account for Senior Citizens' Center. MOVED BY Senior Center PERRY, SECOND CLYMER, ADOPT ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: 6-AYES: SHINPOCH, TRIMM, CLYMER, PERRY, PROCTOR, STREDICKE; 1-NO: SHANE. MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance #3295 An ordinance was read appropriating unanticipated revenue from sale Appropriation of firearms to revision of jail facilities in amount of $1 ,890. Jail Revisions MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND PERRY, ADOPT ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: 6-AYE: SHINPOCH, TRIMM, CLYMER, PERRY, PROCTOR, STREDICKE; 1-NO: SHANE. CARRIED. (Above three ordinances on first reading 3/5/79) , First Reading The Ways and Means Committee recommended first reading and referral Sign Design back to committee of the following ordinances : An ordinance was Review Board read revising Building Code omitting Sign Design Review Board. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE, REFER BACK TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. First Reading An ordinance was read appropriating funds for demolition of the Demolition Petermeyer House located on Mill Ave. S. in amount of $1 ,700. Petermeyer House MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND PERRY REFER BACK TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. First Reading An ordinance was read appropriating $8,000 for traffic accident Appropriation study. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND SHANE, REFER BACK TO THE WAYS AND Traffic Study MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. First Reading An ordinance was read amending the Subdivision Ordinance relating Amendment to to tentative, preliminary and final plat requirements. MOVED BY Subdivision CLYMER, SECOND PERRY, REFER ORDINANCE BACK TO WAYS AND MEANS Ordinance COMMITTEE. CARRIED. First Reading An ordinance was read amending the Building Regulations relating to Code Revision jurisdiction of applications for variances. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND Variances PERRY, REFER ORDINANCE BACK TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Ordinance #3296 The Ways and Means Committee recommended first reading, suspension Appropriation of rules and second and final readings of an ordinance appropria- Continued ting $600 emergency funding for installation of conduit in under- ground facilities NE 12th St. Following first reading of the ordinance, it was MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND PERRY, SUSPEND RULES AND ADVANCE TO SECOND AND FINAL READINGS. CARRIED. Following readings of ordinance for purchasing conduit for installation in trenching it was MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND PERRY, ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Renton City Council 3/12/79 Page 4 ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS - Continued Ordinance #3296 Letter from Public Works Director Gonnason was withdrawn from Conduit the Correspondence portion of Agenda for reading, which requested Installation funding appropriation so that the City can install underground Appropriation conduit in Pacific Northwest Bell trenches on NE 12th St. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND SHANE, CONCUR AND REFER THE MATTER TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Public Hearing Letter from agenda read from Attorney William Baron representing Street Vacation The Boeing Company re request for vacation of portion of alley between California Ave. N. Garden Ave. N. and Park Ave. N. , also portion of California Ave. VAC-4-79)N. 7th St. ) west of Garden Ave. N. The letter requested change of public hearing date from 3/26/79 to 4/9/79. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND TRIMM, REFER MATTER TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Upon advice of City Attorney Warren, a resolution was not required and in order to save publication costs, upon opening, the public hearing on 3/26 will be continued to 4/9/79. MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND SHINPOCH, REFER THE COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE. CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND CLYMER, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS WRITTEN. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND TRIMM REMOVE THE FOLLOWING ITEM. CARRIED. MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED. Fire & Arson Letter from Police Chief Darby requested approval for travel and Seminar advance funds-Police Detective McKenney attend Fire and Arson Attendance Investigation Seminar in Portland 4/30 - 5/4/79. Funds budgeted Approved and department approved. Upon inquiry by Councilman Shane, Fire Chief reported attendance of Fire Inspector Wooten had been approved at last week' s meeting. MOVED BY SHINPOCH, SECOND TRIMM, COUNCIL APPROVE. CARRIED. Consent Agenda The following Consent Agenda items are approved by one motion without separate reading and discussion. (Approving motion above. ) Appropriation Letter from Finance Director Gwen Marshall requested appropriation for Art Work in amount of $500 received from Rotary Club to the Municipal Arts Commission for Fire Station art work cost overrun. Refer to Ways and Means Committee. Fire Lane Letter from Fire Chief Geissler presented ordinance from City of Establishment Tukwila relating to fire lanes. Refer to Public Safety Committee. Final PUD Hearing Examiner decision recommended approval with conditions Kennybrook on Final Planned Unit Development 280-79 of Mr. and Mrs. Ivan Townhouses Werstiuk located along the east side of Kennewick Place NE between NE 30th and the old Pacific Coast Railroad R/W. Council concur and refer to the Ways and Means Committee. Rezone Hearing Examiner decision for approval with restrictive covenants Turner for Rezone 234-78 property located southwest corner of NE 12th St. Banchero/Florer and Edmonds Ave. N. Mike Turner for Mr. and Mrs. John Banchero and Dr. and Mrs. Robert Florer; rezone R-1 to R-3. Concur and refer to the Ways and Means Committee. CORRESPONDENCE AND CURRENT BUSINESS Taylor Ave. SW Letter from Martin A. Seelig, 300 120th Ave. NE, Bellevue, re Street Vacation street vacation of a portion of Taylor Ave. SW between SW 21st and SW 23rd St. (VAC-2-79) , claiming no notice was received and there- fore did not attend public hearing 2/26/79. The letter noted that Mr. Seelig was adversely affected and requested the vacation be placed in abeyance pending further review. Letter from City Clerk Mead informed Mr. Seelig that his letter would be placed on the 3/12 agenda, that transmittal letter and resolution/public hearing notice had been mailed to Mr. Seelig on 1/26/79, hearing notices posted in five places at the property and notice published in the City's legal publication newspaper meeting all requirements of the law. The letter noted that since it was indicated that e-,..k,v,- 84. 4. 0 - .••„ - s$• Q . z THE CITY OF REN•TON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 n e rn p CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR •• LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER p Q L. RICK BEELER . 235 -2593 9 O SEP gg) February 7, 1979 TO:FILES FROM: Marilyn J. Petersen, Hearing Adm. Asst. SUBJECT: File No. R-028-77; Gerald E. Schneider Request for Rezone, Public Hearing Held on March '29, .1977 The public. hearing on the subject application was continued indefinitely on March"29;, 1977 to allow a period ,of review and compromise between residents in the adjacent area and the applicant. A new application for rezone was submitted,, File ,No. R-271-79, Gerald E. Schneider,;`and a public hearing held on January 16, 1979. It was . determined that the. previous application was no longer valid as a result of submittal of the new request. Therefore, File No. R-028-77 is inactive. j l a ,L' • L' •((/ '' `" e •y, A5691U 11p77 cc: City Clerk 19 Planning Department PD Fy 1g 14 p . s 1 1 OF RED o THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO..RENTON, WASH. 98055 o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR ® LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9 O•L. RICK BEELER , 235-25930, 94 Q0 January 30, `1979" ., Members, Renton City Council Renton, Washington RE: File No. R-271-78; Gerald E. Schneider Request for Rezone. Dear Council Members: Attached is the Examiner's Report and Recommendation regarding the referenced rezone request, dated January 23, 1979. The appeal period for the application expires on February 6, 1979, and the report is being forwarded to you for review by the Planning and Development Committee following the seven-day period from the date of publication. The complete file will be transmitted to the City Clerk on February 7, 197.9 and will be placed on the Council agenda on February 26,' 1979. If 'you•require additional assistance or information regarding this matter, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, arta L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Planning Department ' City Clerk Attachment ti R-028-77 Page Two The Examiner asked Mr. Knotts, representing the applicant, if he wished to speak on the application. Responding was : Roger Knotts 3508 S. 180th Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Knotts asked Mr. Smith if clustered multiple family units may be constructed in an R-1 zone under the PUD Ordinance, and inquired about the density requirement. Mr. Smith indicated multiple family units may be constructed and reported that the density for the R-3 zone, which is contained in the southerly 330 feet of the site, would be limited to 20 units per acre with units limited to 7 units per acre in the R-1 zone. He stated that in both zoning designations , clustering, would be allowed for placement on the site. Mr. Knotts indicated that his primary concern was , the setback requirement on the north portion of the site and stated that while 25 foot setbacks were required on other boundaries , a 50 foot setback had been required on the northern portion. Mr. Smith reported that requirement had been imposed because of the existence of two residences to the west of the site and also from a design consideration because of a requirement for open space which will create an attractive addition to the development. Mr. Knotts felt that a 50 foot setback from an existing single family residential zone to another single family zone was restrictive. He indicated that under the proposed staff recommendation the site would be required to be developed under the PUD Ordinance and objected to the restricted density from 30 to 20 units. Mr. Smith noted that the department felt that 30 units would be overly dense in relation to existing single family residences to the north. Mr. Knotts indicated that the proposal in the R-3 zone would be acceptable , but objected to setbacks for 20 units in an R-1 zone as being restrictive, and reported the desire to consider another 110 feet on the north property. The Examiner asked for further testimony in favor of the application. Responding was : George Pasco 1900 N.E. 16th Street Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Pasco asked if it was the past practice of the Planning Department to require 50 foot setbacks for multiple family residential zoning abutting a single family residential area. Mr. Smith indicated that the requirement is part of rezone requests in areas where a suitable transition is required to protect the existing single family residential area and reported that a 50 foot setback would be an acceptable minimum. Mr. Pasco asked if the proposed request is the first PUD established in the city. Mr. Smith indicated that it was the second such request. Mr. Pasco felt that the PUD Ordinance was adopted with the understanding that the concept would prevent complications for builders and felt that the restrictions imposed did not conform to the original purpose of the PUD Ordinance in regard to the density requirement. Mr. Smith noted that the Planning Department felt in reviewing the history of the site with regard to previous attempts for rezoning, the restrictions were applicable. He reported the intent of creating a smooth transition from the commercial area to the residential area and felt that it was a reasonable recommendation. Mr. Pasco reported that the single family residences in the adjacent area were 30 years old and objected to placing a new single family residence adjacent to older homes. He felt that the overall factor of transition was not the key problem, but was a problem of number of units and their placement. The Examiner asked for testimony in opposition to the application. Responding was: John Tilton 3511 N.E. 6th Street Renton, WA 98055 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. APPLICANT: Gerald E. Schneider , . FILE NO. R-028-77 LOCATION: ` Approximately 600 ' north of N.E. 4th Street on Monroe Avenue N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests rezone from GS-1 and S-1 to R-2 and R-3 to allow development of low to medium density multi-family housing. SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Recommend approval with RECOMMENDATION: restrictive covenants. Hearing Examiner: PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received REPORT: by the Examiner on March 22 , 1977. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on March 29 , 1977, at 1: 30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were sworn. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and Mr. Roger Knotts, representing the applicant, had received and reviewed the Planning Department report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. Michael Smith, Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit #1 , and entered the following additional exhibits into the record: Exhibit #2 : Plot Plan. Exhibit #3 : Vicinity Map. Mr. Smith indicated that a previous application for the subject property was submitted on February 5 , 1975 , which excluded the northerly property and recommended R-2 zoning to the City Council. The request was subsequently withdrawn. The Examiner inquired about Item 0. 4. of Exhibit #1 regarding the southerly 30 feet of N.E. 6th Street. Mr. Smith indicated that regardless of the proposed development, the city would require the street to be widened and dedicated. The Examiner asked Mr. Smith to designate the setback and buffer areas in the requested zoning areas. Mr. Smith reported that a 50 foot setback in the form of a landscaped buffer is proposed to be established between the multiple family residential area and the single family residential area and also between the subject site and existing developed single family residential property.. R-028-77 Page Four In response to an inquiry from Mr. Tilton regarding the reason Mr. Knotts was representing the applicant at the hearing, Mrs. Ylova McKenney indicated a desire to speak on the application. Responding was : Ylova McKenney 4140 S. 130th Seattle , WA 98168 Mrs. McKenney stated that she is the owner of the subject property and had coordinated possible development of the site with Mr. Knotts for the past two years. She reported that the property would be developed eventually, was a financial burden in its present state, and hoped that residents would cooperate in arriving at a compromise in the matter. The Examiner asked Mr. Knotts for an estimate of time required to produce a site plan for the proposed development. Mr. Knotts felt two weeks would be sufficient. The Examiner stated that he would continue the hearing until such time as the neighborhood committee and Mr. Knotts had reviewed the proposal. He indicated his anticipation that all parties -would keep an open mind regarding the proposal and arrive at an acceptable compromise. He asked Mr. Tilton to contact Mr. Smith when a decision had been made to enable the application to be scheduled on the subsequent Land Use Hearing agenda. The Examiner asked Mr. Knotts to review the total parcel of property, indicate minimum setbacks that could be maintained to enable development, but stated that minimum density need not be reported at this time. Mrs. Gist asked if a PUD would consist of units which are purchased or rented. The Examiner indicated it could consist of condominiums in clustered units which could be purchased, and would provide landscaped open space for the area and stipulated in a PUD when it is granted. The Examiner asked for further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on Item #R-028-77 was closed and continued to such time as a compromise is reached. Time: . 3 :30 p.m. R-028-77 Page Three Mr. Tilton presented a petition signed by 39 residents of the President Park area which was entered into the record as Exhibit #4. Mr. Tilton read the petition into the record. The objections included lack of neighborhood concept as .developed in the policy statement of the Comprehensive Plan and incompatibility with the Comprehensive Plan; rights of neighborhoods to remain .in 'present configuration; and 90% of proposed site presently bordered by single family residential zone. Mr. Tilton also read a statement into the record which was labeled Exhibit #5. The statement enlarged- upon objections listed in the petition and quoted page 4 of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan policy statement regarding the definition of the neighborhood in the community. He stressed the opinion of residents in his area to retain the site for single family residences. The Examiner asked for further testimony in opposition to the application. Responding was: Marion Frampton 3622 N.E. 6th Street Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Frampton reported that he resides on the opposite side of the row of houses abutting the new construction. He expressed objections to multiple family dwellings and possible undesirable tenants. He reported that the property contains tunnels under the land which would create a drainage problem. Responding was: Sandra Gist 1025 Monroe _Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98055 Mrs. Gist reported .residing three blocks to the north of the proposed site on Monroe Avenue. She questioned Mr. Smith regarding review of the application by the 'utility .department concerning storm sewers , reporting previous problems relating .to drainage already in existence in the area. Mr. Smith read a letter from the Engineering . Division and indicated that the city requires. that no additional runoff be created by the development and imposes requirements for storm drainage. Mrs. Gist objected to further multiple family residential development in the area• and felt that property should be maintained as single family residential zoning due to demand for such property in the area. The Examiner asked for further testimony in opposition. Mr. John Tilton concurred in Mrs. Gist' s comments regarding drainage and stated that a problem already exists in the area following a heavy storm: The Examiner asked for comments in rebuttal from the applicant. Mr. Knotts had no comment. The Examiner asked Mr. Tilton if he had comments on behalf of the petitioners and stated that he hoped a compromise could be reached by both parties in creating a smooth. transition between the existing single family residential area and the subject property. Mr. Tilton indicated' .that the neighborhood was committed to disallow apartment development on the property and to maintain the area as single family residential zoning: Discussion ensued between the Examiner and Mr. Tilton regarding alternatives. for: development including requirements for density, setbacks, buffers and landscaping in various zone classifications. The Examiner suggested an alternative .to form a neighborhood committee to review the matter with the developer and arrive: at a reasonable compromise to benefit all parties involved. Mr. Knotts reported that previous attempts to compromise with the neighboring residents had proven unsuccessful, but indicated a willingness to cooperate. Gerald E. Schneider File No. R-271-78 L DECLARATION OFQRESTRICTIVE COVENANTS 23 WHEREAS, Gerald E. Schneider and his wife Gail M. Schneider, are the owners of J the following real property in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, described as follows: ri All in Section 9, Township 23 N. , Range 5 E. W.M. ; 1 1. North 11 of the Northwest a of the Southwest 1 of Southeast a less South 130 feet of the West 230 feet less County road less coal and mineral rights. r) 2. North ' of South 12 of Northwest a of Southwest la of Southeast a, ri Except West 184 feet of North 89.70 feet, less County road. Q 3. South 11 of South 1 of Northwest a of Southwest a of Southeast a, Except road. 4. West 525 feet of North 11 of Northeast a of Southwest a of Southeast a, Except roads, and Except North 130 feet. 5. West 460 feet of South 1 of Northeast a of Southwest a of Southeast a. WHEREAS, the owners of said described property, hereinafter "the property," desire to impose the following restrictive covenants running with the land as to use, present and future, of the property; NOW, THEREFORE, the aforesaid owners hereby establish, grant and impose restrictions and covenants running with the land as to the use of the land hereinabove described with respect to the use by the undersigned„ their successors, heirs and assigns, as follows: PERMITTED USE Permitted uses of the property shall be limited to the uses allowed as follows: The north 260 feet of the property shall be limited to single -family uses allowed in the R-1 Residence Single Family District of Section 4-706, Title IV, Ordinance No. 1628, Code of General Ordinances, City of Renton, King County, Washington. The southerly 150 feet of the property shall be limited to uses allowed in the R-3 Residence District, Section 4-709A, Title IV, Ordinance No. 1628, Code of General Ordinances, City of Renton, King County, Washington. The remaining middle portion . of the property shall be limited to uses allowed in the R-2 Residence District, Section 4-708, Title IV, Ordinance No. 1628,- Code of General Ordinances, City of Renton, King County, Washington. DEVELOPMENT Development of the property shall be limited to a maximum density of 180 individual dwelling units and shall not occur in the specified landscaped areas, except as specified herein. LANDSCAPED AREAS The easterly 100 feet of the R-3 portion of the property and the easterly 50 feet of the R-2 portion`.of the property, herein described, shall be reserved for landscaping and a small amount of recreational uses, but not recreation buildings. If development on these two portions of the,property'occurs through only the building permit process in the City of Renton, King County, Washington, the Planning Department of the City of Renton shall approve the landscaping and recreation plans for the landscaped areas. 41, If development on these two portions of the property occurs through one or more public hearings before the Land Use Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, the Land Use Hearing Examiner shall approve the landscaping and recreation plans for the landscaped areas. The intent of the landscaped areas is to constitute a landscaped buffer between I7 development on the property and the abutting and easterly single family zoned properties CCD while permitting a small amount of the landscaped areas to be also used for recreational C activities excluding recreation buildings. C CLEARING AND GRADING r-' As many as possible of the existing trees on the property shall be retained. Clearing and/or grading of the property shall only occur in accordance with approved plans for development of the property and after approval of the plans for development on the property. DURATION These covenants shall run with the land and expire on December 31, 2025. If at any time improvements are installed pursuant to these covenants, the portion of the covenants pertaining to the specific installed improvements as required by the Ordinances of the City of Renton shall terminate without necessity of further documentation. Proper legal procedures in the Superior Court of King County may be instigated by either the City of Renton or any property owners adjoining subject property who are adversely affected by any violation or breach of these restrictive covenants. Reasonable attorneys' fees incurred during an enforcement proceeding will be borne by the parties whom the court determines are in error and shall be entered as a judgment in such action. Gerald E. Schneider, Owner Gail M. Sc tYneider Ow*r, 7/41' STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY. OF KING I On this ;i day of `,L, 19 7/ , before me personally appearedj .' the persons who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said persons for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,, res).ding in ._r, -r 2- S k _ c9 7/ 76 v'w. : :.: Public Notices Publ study and public hearing, of the St Affidavit of Publication and a public hearing having Township been held thereon on or East, WI about January 16,1979,and follows: I said matter having been duly Comm( STATE OF WASHINGTON uual considered by the Hearing corner of I COUNTY OF KING ss' ds a Examiner and said zoning 1/4of said le u request being in conformity easterly a with the City's Comprehen- of said a s_sive Plan,as amended,and .tance of I being first duly sworn o. CITY OF RENTON the City Council having duly point of hilo'Ci lur a ,Tjq,'uyxp i WASHINGTON considered all matters relev- continuing gg ORDINANCE NO.3293 ant thereto, and all parties the north THE RENTON RECORDoath,deposes and says tC ONICLE, a newspaper lockpuonsned four l AN ORDINANCE OF having ubepn t thereof heherrd appear- plan otf th, Chief ' THE CITY OF RENTON, ing in support thereof or in plat of All W A S H I N G T 0 N opposition thereto, NOW dent Park ' times a week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now al . THEREFORE in Volume ' has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referr CHANGING THE ZON-THE CITY COUNCIL OF 39, recori to, printed and published in the English language continually as a nel ING CLASSIFICATION THE CITY OF RENTON, Washirigti paper published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washingtc OF CERTAIN PROPER- WASHINGTON, DO OR- 630.44 ft. and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintain!, TIES WITHIN THE CITY DAIN AS FOLLOWS: along thE,at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Rent • OF RENTON FROM SECTION 1: The follow- said plat i'Record-Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of t} GENERAL CLASSIFI- ingdescribed e in the feet to th4'Superior Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King Count! CATION DISTRICT(GS- propp 1) and SUBURBAN RE- City of Renton is hereby of;thence, SIDENCE DISTRICT(S rezoned to Suburban Resi- southerly; Washington.That the annexed is a....-. , ardence District(SR-1)to(R-2 distance 1 ,t3 ,t i'ia:axlfi.G4"" "' i 1)TO RESIDENCE DIS- and R-3) as hereinbelow SE corne! TRICT(R-2 and R-3) R- specified;subject to the find- Thence 271-78 ings, conclusions and deci- the easte'. WHEREAS under Chap sion dated January 23, terly 525 ter 7,Title IV(Building Regu 1979;the Planning Director the SW 1 as it was published in regular issues(an lations) of Ordinance No. is hereby authorized and Section 9: not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a perio; 1628 known as the"Code of directed to change the maps the NorthGeneral'Ordinances of the I City of Renton,"as amend- of the Zoning Ordinance,as North 1/2 q ed, and the maps and re amended, to evidence said SW1/4 oft', of 1,consecutive issues,commencing on th ports adopted in conjunction rezoning,to-wit: f Section 9 • therewith, the property See Exhibit"A"attached more or,I i hereinbelow described has hereto and made a part ly along li 1.5 day of....,v arc 11, 19 7. ....,and endingth hereof as if fully set forth distance c heretofore been zoned as I General Classification Dis herein. less to 41i I trict (GS-1) and Suburban (Said property being lo- thewestSW 1/40+Residence District (S 1); cated at approximately , SW day of 19 ,both date' and 600 feet north of N.E.4th Section 9 inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sut Street on Monroe Av- along sat scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fe WHEREAS'a proper peti- enue N.E.) 'tance of 6.. tion for change of zone EXHIBIT"A" to the sou classification of said proper- 200 feet rl charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $ q ,.47vhic; ty has been filed with the ORDINANCE NO.3293 NW f1/4eof{ has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundredwor s forthSCHNEIDER REZONEPlanningDepartmenton'or a of said first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequen about'December 20, 1978, R-271-78 insertion. I. which petition was duly re- PARCEL 1. Thenc$ ferred to the Hearing Ex- R-1 said sou aminer for investigation, That portion of the SW 1/4200 feet jyy,( P e y A AAOAI.O.I(lb,awcnt,n.a,u,__ Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3.6 day of Margit 1979... Notary Pub ' i and for the tate of Washingt r- SS;;t,t jr - '1 residing at Kent, King Co ty. LE Eo c? s i-i w,M_, -v qq i Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June PR 4 197J Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, 1— L} J adopted by the newspapers of the State. CITY CLERK V.P.C.Form No.87