HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA79-279OF
CITY OF RENTON/ WASHINGTON k
r `^q/
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
R r' 1'ib O
Dec 2®
Z
0 1978
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY LNG DEPAR
Application No.
1
Environmental Checklist No.
PROPOSED, date: FINAL, date:
0 Declaration of Significance Declaration of Significance
Declaration of Non-Significance Declaration of Non-Significance
COMMENTS:
Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires
all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their
own actions and when licensing private proposals. The Act also requires that an EIS be
prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment.
The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a
proposal is such a major action.
Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information
presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where
you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your
explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should
include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele-
vant to the answers you. provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all
agencies involved with your. proposal to undertake the required environmental review with-
out unnecessary delay.
The following questions apply to your total proposal , not just to the license for which
you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers
should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed,
even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all
of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, with-
out duplicating paperwork in the future.
NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State
of Washington for various types of proposals . Many of the questions may not apply to
your proposal . If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the
next question.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent Thomas H. Cooke
2. Address and phone number of Proponent:
620 South 7th Street, Renton, WA 98055 (206) 226-3383
3. Date Checklist submitted December 20, 1978
4. Agency requiring Checklist Planning Department
5. Name of proposal , if applicable:
None
6. Nature and brief description of the proposal (including but not limited to its
size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate
2 erstanding of its scope and nature) :
AlieE
apartment units, ins—n buildings between three and five stories
high between 24 and 33 units per building, and nine single family town—
houses. 408 parking spaces will be provided totaling two spaces per unit.
The development will be laid out for minimum cut and fill, maximum undistubged
green belt.
2-
tfll/io
2:'
7. Location of proposal (describe the physical setting of the propose ,wel
as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impac, s, including 0
any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of hp pikt^^ Z
mental setting of the proposal ) :o CO 1878ThedevelopmentwillbeonthewestsideofI-405 on the . f'r''Whaue_
Lake Washington. The development is in an hourglass shape wi 1 % on
the southern end and 40% on the northern end including the nine. tp
E P Ikik
The' townhouses will be separated from the apartments by extensive green-
belt, no connecting access and a steep uphill grade.
8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal :
June 1980
9. List 'of all permits , licenses or government approvals required for .iv.,
federal , state and local --including rezones) :
Need rezone from G-6000 to R-4
10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes , explain:.
No ,
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal? If yes, explain:
No
12. Attac,h any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro-
posal ; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future
date, describe the nature of such application form:
None
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required)
1) Earth. Will- the proposal result in:
a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes .in geologic
substructures? X
YET- MAYBE NU-
b)• Disruptions, displacements , compaction or over-
Xcoveringofthesoil?
YES MAYBE NO•
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief
Xfeatures?
MAYBE Nib
d) The destruction, covering or modification of any X
unique geologic or physical features?
SET—
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site? X
YES MAYBE NO
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands , or
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X •
VET— MAYBE WExplanationb )Disruption, displacement, compaction or overcovering of the' soil
on the site will occur on that portion of the property where the proposed
s and
parking aligned and graded to minimize the surface area disturbed. Parking.
would be provid,.ed under all the buildings, again to minimize the extent of ,
site grading_
ll' -
The buildingo.and roade are- cited to take adventa_ge-of
suitable building areas so that the site can be used to advantage aestlutically
and :ecconomicaiiy. A certain amount of cut and fill will be necessary to con-
struct the project and to provide the proper slopes on the cut and fill areas.
Retaining walls would be provided where proper slopes cannot be maintained. In
general the existing site topgraphy would be altered only as necessary to provide
the facilities and maintain acceptable finished ground slopes..
7'M-61:11//t\ . 2‘6\2) Air.' Will the proposal result in: i 0
1
aia) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient r F ' 2°
quality? x 19 8
b) The creation of objectionable odors? P/ X 4'
c) . Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature,
or any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
FE5 RIM
Explanation:
3) 'Water. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of
water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? x
YES MAYBE Wo-
b) Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface .water runoff? X
YES )IAYBt
c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X
YES MAYBE wd"
d) Change in the amount of surface water •in any water
body?
Y SMAYBE ITO
e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
surface water quality, including but not limited to
temperature,- dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X
Y MAYBE t
f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters? X -
YES MAYBE
g) Change in the quantity of ground waters ; either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through X
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
YES MAYBE NO
h) • Deterioration in ground water quality, either through
direct injection, or through the seepage of •leachate,
phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria,
X
or other substances into the ground waters?
YE- WAYI3r
i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available X
for public water supplies?
YES RAY B` E NTT
Explanation: Some surface water drainage patterns will be changed and
amount of surface runoff would be increased within the project but the. off-
site runott iaould be held to the requirements as determined by the city. Ground
water flow mill rl he al tererl t small d.earoA by the construction of the buildings
4) '}ir/1y analG alief PoPWI eAW' 1V : cuts would be required to provide roads, parking(*
a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any
species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops,
microflora and aquatic plants)?
MAYBE W
b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of flora? X
YES Run Au-
c) ' Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or
in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing x
species?
vrs_ mom :R-
d), Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X
YES um RTC"`•.. -
Explanation:on:
No change in diversity will occur, only a reduction in number
consistent with the establishment of road, structures, and adjacent landscaping
which will be kept to a minimum. .
and structures. Indications are that the affect, if any, on ground water quatity and +.
ground water quality would be minimal.
4-
j RECFl185) Fauna. Will the proposal result in: O
a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of
1'EC 20
z
any species of fauna (birds, land animals including 1978
reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms , 7
insects or microfauna)? 1% X. ... 44.
b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or E P AR.1‘1\
endangered species of fauna?
VET— MAYBE NO
c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area,
or result in a barrier to the migration or movement
of fauna? X
Y! MAYBE NO
d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X
V! Wit NO
Explanation:
6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X
YES MAYBE . NO
Explanation:
7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or
glare2YET— MAYBE TO--
Explanation:
8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the, alteration of the
present or planned land use of an area? X
Y€5 RATTE NO
Explanation:
Change from Planned to high density, multi—family residential
9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X
YES MAYBE NO
b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
X
YES UTNE NO
Explanation:
10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil , pesticides,, chemicals or radiation)
in, the event of an accident or upset conditions? X
DES MMAYBE W
Explanation:
11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri-
bution, density, or growth rate of the human population
of an area? X
VEY— MAYBE !W
Explanation: The apartments will increase the density of people in the
area by accomodating the growth of the Boeing Co. and the City of Renton
in general.
REM/6 ///12) ;Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or Xcreateademandforadditionalhousing?
YES (.1AYcC -
Explanation: As stated reviousl it will. rovide a solutio01previouslyP
existing housing shortage 2
DEPAR\
13) 'Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? X
YES M YBE NO
b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand
for new parking?X
YES MAYBE NO
c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? X
YET— FUR. NU—
d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods? X
YET— MAYBE NO
e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X
Y RITE NO
f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles ,
bicyclists or pedestrians? X
YET— MAYBE NO
Explanation: The increase of population density in the area will affect the .
traffic density accordingly. The parking need, although greatly increased,
will be provided: for within the development. The hazard will only be increased
consistent with the increase in density, _ The increase in pnpiilztinn may result
in an additional burden on public transportation routes within the area and will
necessitate a bus stop in the access area on LK Washington Blvd. North.
14) ,Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services
in any of the following areas :
a) Fire protection?X
YES MAYBE NT
b) Police protection?
YES MITE NO
c) Schools? X
YES MAYBE NO
d)' Parks or other recreational facilities? X
YES MAYBE NO
e) Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? X
YES MAYBE NO
f) Other governmental services?X
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: An ,increase in fire and police protection will be necessary consitent
with the increase in population density. Schools in the area will have increased
population of unknown-size. Lake Washington Beach Park will benefit from this
development proximity. Maintenance of a small amount of S.E. 104th street and
04th Aye, gg gg will be re u' ed.
15 Y. ;Energy. Will the proposal re-suit i n:
a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X
YES MAYBE NO
lb) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy? X
YET— MAYBE TO—
Explanation:
16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new
systems, or alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? X
YES MAYBE NO
b) Communications systems? X
YES MAYBE NO
c) Water?X .
YES MAYBE NO
6- a Rf(,' P o
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X EC I
Z
YE YB NO978
0
e) Storm water drainage? X -----•
Y S AWF Nb-
f) Solid waste and disposal? X bE'PARl‘‘‘
YES MAYBE
Explanation: Power, communications, sewer, and solid waste and disposal will
have to be altered to accomodate the increase of population density. Water
i s „9 anned to coaa from the eitie' 16" main eoming de ' 1—'iO5 bJ meaans of
a 12" branch to this development.
17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of
any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)? gg
VW MAYBE NO •
Explanation:
18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of
any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view? X
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: This proposal is planned in such a way as to open an totally
unused area of the city to development and provide, rather than an eye-
sore, an aesthetically pleasing addition to the natural surroundings,
setting the tone for future development in the area.
19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the
quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? gg
YES FATTE NO
Explanation:
20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an
alteration o a significant archeological or historical
site, structure, object or building? X
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
III. SIGNATURE
I , the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information
is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any decla-
ration of non-significance that it,might issue in reliance upon this checklist should
there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
Proponent
signed)
TomA s
name printed)
City of Renton
Planning Department
5-76
Ay I
W.
4 .1.1 6 ty,ca4 RI+ er,4stno-aa AN AyuzliA41ziatt>
V67111.14 r v,/14 V31,1 lo'V Or** di)
R
V.V. 414:
1 Tr tiz,r0)
woki‘.9-
r
e)
N...s,-20 0( e z44..es 6169.47, *
I-;
IV, N9 ev,i7.3 7 lc 1, ) 6
ti PIP 5 klyptty)
lootro 1,14wie w4P .•,,N Grt y 04 yit %*,iP ad s",ive Ctif
7lSS/16/ y 7..y.izEi• a P elfr Vit
0.1 a 7 aya -t) r 7 rafyrate ro eq a 4 a nio 7 ',pi oprm,,42.
ppe,413, A,g lady AE1 Vitt#19 30?..4.001
v If tri-
ri -D4 el ru7)&revolo . ri 104-DA'g9
47 vt,A yr,v2)V19 tat4.-p r fir/
tele' 44' "..011, 4,41P-utd SS„y e 4,/
vi tvi
406,,,i 0/412 AO 114 M 01)4 5y,0 l&lia (E) untop..)s-
s1/4
4
166re'
j 0 Jrattva4.ev:5,D,v,_,,,m.42, 1.a,ant, ()Intl'? „eve) 1,0
PP
Priergoop No itycl,h- zryialhal •xvvi iravoi4) ;oral/
21;oxibrip 65".°0,/ v A ad 0 pa 411
rrnsairgooliert.
45-'d Old
5.4 7 v 4° .4
lei Qs%
I
e1°C°') 1.C.P5I Igr40,8 /iv '14 c“t V 7 ta a
3
515 70 IV ti 1 g icor-F.14W 01-5`'
pF h'F
AFFIDAVIT RIrLIRe://).\\
DEC 20 n8
I, k tv&N `A. KE Vicf IP2F 1°674-r . TPSu
N
being duly sworn, at I
am the owner of the property involved in this application and t he
foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information
herewith , submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
Subscribed and sworn before me
this / day of 19
d ,
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing at
I
C'g/L4 s e /i 772E-11Su2e
Nagle a No_t ry Public) Signature of Owner)
72Am/J LiT(JOGl2AArt4 c (Z•r •
A4.)141 44 AAte6 y ffi3
Address); Address)
City) State)
Telephone)
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me
and has been found 'to be thorough and complete in every particular and to
conform to the rules and regulations of the Renton Planning Department
governing the filing of such application.
Date Received 19 By:
Renton Planning Dept :
2-73
CITY OF RENTON G P[L[,I
RETIE APPLICATION FD Q\1
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
LAND USE HEARING r ` °
Et 2®
1978
APPLICATION NO. c-a/7/ --7y EXAMINER 'S ACTION
APPLICATION FEE $ APPEAL FILED
R
RECEIPT NO. 7,5 ,2 CITY COUNCIL ACTION
8EPA
FILING DATE 0/71 ORDINANCE NO. AND DATE
HEARING DATE
APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 :
1 . - Name Thomas H. Cooke Phone (206) 226-3383 .
Address 620 South 7th Street, Renton, WA 98055
3. Property petitioned for rezoning is located on C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington •
between warden of Eden. Div. 5/ end 1405 Lake Washington Blvd. North
4 . Square footage or acreage of property Approximately 12 acres
5. Legal description of property (if more snace is required, attach a
separate sheet)
Parcel 1: Tax lot 39, and lots 334, 335 and 336 of C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden
of Eden, Division #5
Parcel 2: Tax lot 34, and lots 345 and 346 of C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden
of Eden, Division #5
Parcel 3: Lots 357 and 358 of C.D. Hillmans Lake Washington Garden of Eden, Division #5
6 . Existing oning
G-6000 Zoning Requested R-4
NOTE TO APPLICANT: The following factors are considered in reclassifying
property. Evidence or additional information to substantiate .
your request may be attached to this sheet. (See Application
Procedure Sheet for specific requirements . ) Submit this form
in duplicate. .
7. Proposed use of site
95% high density, multi-family, residential, 5% single family
residence
8. ' List the measures to be taken to reduce impact on the • surrounding area.
All apartment tenant vehicular traffic will utilize Lake Washington Blvd. North access
exclusively. Only 9 units of single family residence will use Kennydale access.
9. How soon after the rezone is granted do you intend to develop the site?
As soon as feasibly possible.
10. Two copies of plot plan and affidavit of ownership are required.
Planning Dept.
1-77
9
THE CITY OF R,EI TT®1 T
1" 01, Z
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON.WASH.98055
o Iezil
1 'q- CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR o PLANNING DEPARTMENT
9 co' 235- 2550
0,
9gTe0 SEP'M°
January 11 , 1979
Thomas H. Cooke
620 South 7th Street
Renton , Washington 98055
Dear Mr. Cooke :
As previously discussed , we have completed our analysis of
your project and will need an Environmental Impact Statement
EIS ) . Attached is a copy of the declaration of significance .
This requirement will involve the City and your consultant in
the preparation of the EIS document . This Department must concur
in your consultant selection , and we will be happy to assist
you if you so desire. We would suggest that a meeting be held
following consultant selection to provide for focusing of the
necessary work on the EIS .
If you should have any further questions regarding this matter ,
please contact this Department.
Very t 1y yours ,
Gord n Y . Erickse .,
Pla ping Direc
i
I /.,• (
1(7I itel 6-kb(eC4%(.%7
fd R . Clemens ,
Associate Planner
GYE : DRC : sh
1
4,"
PROPOSED/FINAL uECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCti'rr10N-SIGNIFICANCE
Application No. R-279-79 PROPOSED Declaration
Environmental Checklist No. 422-79 x FINAL Declaration
Description of proposal Rezoning of 12± acres from G--6000 Single Family to
R-4 High Density Multiple Family to provide for construction of 230± apartment units.
Proponent THOMAS H. COOKE
Location of Proposal Between Lake Washington Blvd. and Interstate 405 south of N.
24tn St. and Meadow Avenue N.
Lead Agency CITY OF RENTON
This proposal has been determined to ® have 0 not have a
significant adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS in is
0 is 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 : (1 ) Potential
land use impacts of high density adjacent to single family, (2) Potential soils, geologic,
topographic, and hydrologic impacts on the steep slopes of the subject property, (3) Noise
and other impacts of FA1-405, (4) Esthetic impacts on views from Lake Washington and
5) Impacts on runoff and utilities.
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 : (1 ) Significant reduction in overall
density, (2) Submission of detailed soils, geologic, topographic and hydrologic
analysis reports, (3) Noise analysis of FA1-405 area, (4) Detailed site development,
architectural elevation, landscaping and parking plans, and (5) Detail storm drainage
and utility plans and profiles.
Responsible Official GORDON Y. ERICKSEN
Plannin Dire tor
eTitl Date / -is // ! 77
Signature „%_
City of Renton
Planning Department
5-76
l
OF R4„
THE CITY OF RENTONU
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON.WASH.98055
z
CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR 0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
0 Q3' 235- 2550
O611T D SEPSE
P
February 8 , 1979
Mr . Thomas Cooke
620 South 7th Street
Renton , Washington 98055
RE : Environmental Impact Statement
for R-279-79
Dear Mr. Cooke :
Per our discussion of February 5 , 1979 , we have compiled a list
of possible environmental impact statement preparation consultants .
They are as follows :
CH2M Hill , 453-5000
Harstad Associates , 285-1912
Jones & Jones , 624-5702
VTN , 747-8442
Clark , Coleman , Rupeiks , 325-9729
URS , 623-6000
John Graham Associates , 447-5600
As noted during our discussions , the City must concur in your
selection of a consultant. Therefore , two or three should be
chosen and discussed with this Department including qualifications
and past work . Upon selection of a consultant , a pre-draft
consultation fee of $100 plus $25 per acre shall be paid to provide
for coordination of the consultant ' s work with this Department.
Upon completion of the draft and final EIS , a fee for services in
the amount of $100 plus actual staff time for circulation ,
and review of the EIS , will be required prior to any public
hearings on your proposed project.
If you should have any further questions on this matter, please
contact this department.
Very t uly. yours ,
Gor' on Er ' k
Pl n ''ng i ec
r4"( R . Cl mens ,
Associate Planner
OF 1
U If 0 THE CITY OF RENTONd0
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON.WASH.98055
rally•, o
o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT
9co. 235— 2550
0,
9gr
O
MEMORANDUM
June 3 , 1980
TO: Fred J . Kaufman , Hearing Examiner
FROM: Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director
By: David R. Clemens, Senior Planner
RE: UNPROCESSED APPLICATIONS
The attached applications are more than one year old .
This department would recommend that they be dismissed .
They are
PALZER, CHRIS, R-832-75 , rezone from
from G to M-P and H-1
TRI-STATE CONSTRUCTION CO. , SP-029-77 ,
special permit to construct maintenance
and equipment storage facility in M-P
zone
TRI-STATE CONSTRUCTION CO. , SA-030-77 ,
site approval for maintenance and
equipment storage facility in M-P zone
KELLY , LLOYD W. , R-147-78, rezone from
R-4, R-1 , B-1 to B-1
COOKE, THOMAS, R-279-79 , rezone from
G-6000 to R-4
KOHL-CHRISTIANSON , PP-335-79 , application
for preliminary plat approval _ of 7 lot
single family subdivision
DRC : wr
Attachments
OF 1?
A
O THE CITY OF RENTONUtry ' Z
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055gbh.
o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH. MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT
94 235- 2550
9AiTFD SEP-ce°
CERTIFIED MAIL 733830
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
June 10 , 1980
Thomas H . Cooke ,
620 -South 7th Street
Renton , Washington 98055
RE : R-279-79
Dear Mr . Cooke : 1
The above referenced application has been inactive for a
period of more than six (6) months . In order to clarify
our files , we wish to know if you will be proceeding on this
application . If you propose to proceed with the application
as submitted , please- forward a schedule which you propose
to follow to complete the application.
If you do not wish to proceed with the application , or if
we do not receive a response to this letter within fourteen
14) days, we will request that the Hearing Examiner dismiss
the application . If the application is. dismissed , any renewal
will require a new application and fees .
If you should have any further questions regarding this letter ,
please do not hesitate to contact. this department .
Very truly yours ,
Gor o , Y. Erick ,en,
P1 nning Di or MA
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED POSTMARK
7)OR DATE
TTO ooke/r0 oma s H. C
vid R . Clemens,
Senior Planner
STREET AND N0.
620 South 7th St
p
p,p„ STATE AND ZIP CODE 6-1,0 80
00
DRC :sh Renton WA 98055
00
OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES
y
t, Shows to whomand date delivered .......... rye
RETURN Wdh restriet
datedeand where delivered yi
RECEIPT 2. ShoWW thW tncted delivery -------''-'"""•-- gS
SERVICES
RESTRICTED DELIVERY......_. ------"'"'-"-..-.--".-.-.-----
See other side
f ® SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required)..............................
PS Form 3800
NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED—
Jen.1970 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL GPO:1915-0 591 4!
4,
OF R
0 THE CITY OF RENTON
U 0® O, Z
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055
BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR a PLANNING DEPARTMENT
9, co- 235- 2550
o9gT6D SEPI -s-
c5 June 26, 1980
MEMORANDUM
TO: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner 1
FROM: . Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director j
BY: David R. Clemens, Senior Planner ' 1
RE: UNPROCESSED APPLICATIONS
The attached applications are more than one year. old. This department
has reviewed the dismissal process with the City Attorney who indicates
that following notice to the applicants, that the Examiner should act
to dismiss the applications.
Pursuant to the Attorneys recommendation, on June 10, 1980 each
applicant was notified by certified mail that the application was
inactive, and would be recommended for dismissal unless comments to
the contrary were received by June 24th. With the exception of the
application for rezone by Chris Palzer (R-832-75) no camments have
been received. Mr. Palzer has not responded to my letter of June 18th
which indicated that he had not provided sufficient information to
reactivate his file.
Therefore, it is recommended that the following applications be dismissed
by the Examiner:
PAIZER, CHRIS, R-832-75, rezone from G to MP and H-1
TRI-STATE CONSTRUCTION CO. , SP-029-77, special permit
to construct a maintenance and equivalent storage
facility in the MP zone
TRI-STATE CONSTRUCTION CO. , SA-030-77, site approval
for maintenance and equipment storage facility in the MP zone
KELLY, LLOYD W. , R-147-78, rezone from R-4, R-1, and B-1
to B-1
COOKE, THOMAS, R-279-79, rezone from G-6000 to R-4
KOHL-CHRISTIANSON, PP-335-79, application for preliminary
plat for a seven lot single family subdivision (superceded
by PP-008-80)
DRC:dc FARRELL, GENE 0. , PPUD-355-79 preliminary PUD for 54 unit
condominium development
Attachments
OF R4,1,
A.
0 e ° THE CITY OF RENTON
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO.. RENTON.WASH.98055
omem BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
9A O FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593
9gr O SEP1E4
t'
June 27, 1980
Mr. Thomas H. Cooke
620 South 7thStreet
Renton, WA 95055
RE: File No. R-279-79; Thomas Cooke Request for 'Rezone.
Dear Mr. Cooke:
Pursuant to the certified letter, dated June 10, 1980, transmitted to
you from the City of Renton Planning Department. regarding inactivity
of the referenced file, the application is being officially dismissed
by the Hearing Examiner this date, as further response has not been
received by the city.
If we can be of further assistance to you in this matter, please
contact either this office or the Planning Department at 235-2550.
Sincerely,
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
cc: Planning Department
City Clerk
OF I
A.
41 0 THE CITY OF RENTON
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055
o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT
9
ggT
t' June 26, 1980
235- 2550
FD SEP1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Fred Kaufman., Hearing Examiner 1i
FROM: Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director
BY: David R. Clemens, Senior Planner
RE: UNPROCESSED APPLICATIONS
The attached applications are more than one year. old. This department
has reviewed the dismissal process with the City Attorney who indicates
that following notice to the applicants, that the Examiner, should act
to dismiss the applications.
Pursuant to the Attorneys recommendation, on 'June 10, '1980 each
applicant was notified by certified mail that the application, was
inactive, and would be recaanended for dismissal unless cam ents to
the contrary were received by June 24th. With the exception of the .
application for rezone by Chris Palzer (R-832-75) no cannents have
been received. Mr. Palzer has not responded to my letter of June 18th
which indicated that he had not provided sufficient information to
reactivate his file.
Therefore, it is recom: nded that the following applications be dismissed
by the Examiner:
PALZER, CHRIS,. R-832-75, rezone from G to'NP and H-1
TRI-STATE CONSTRUCTION CO. , SP-029-77, special permit
to construct a maintenance and equipment storage
1 facility in the MP zone
TRI-STATE CONSTRUCTION CO„ .SA-030-77, site approval
for maintenance and equipment storage facility in the MP zone
KELLY, LLOYD W. , R-147-78, rezone from R-4, R-1, and B-1
to B-1
COOKE, THOMAS, R-279-79, rezone from G-6000 to R-4
KOHL-CHRISTIANSON, PP-335-79, application for preliminary
plat for a seven lot single family subdivision (superceded
by PP-008-80)
DRC:dc FARRELL, GENE 0. , PPUD-355-79 preliminary PUD for 54 unit
condominium development
Attachments