Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA96-156 r:?rrr.r., {rrFr:Syr..;;{rr{ ' ?ifr+r.?rrr,. ...Y'i•`.F.ry r. •,r:??r..;..yf ff f f f+•:` •??Yr'% "•?Yr l.'/r/ fr FF` 'fr.rr:,+frr{,.+r+`•.+?5`.•`•.;::r�.r..?!r?yr : "/.{iq?qi:.,:.+r,?.��+?;+ r+ {rrr • n!r!:?.E r! ....!lr7.•r:.r! l!! :...:/..•:..! r 9 i7/.!,::,.. ..rl/rr...f!!!Ii r..!/. ...!!!.r//!!..11fl./.:nf..rrr!/...rr.+r.f... r f r r�/. r...r.r r t.l.r{rl.++r.•:. r y v�.fffi:•;•i:•iiiii:?:%:rrii'ffi'f?ritii:rrrrxx:..rii}i:•iY�:•iii:•:isG}'r:4ii:??fi'f.•'fn??ir.{++iif?ffff.•'frFfii:+i??.nr:fffiiir.'+fffff?Jii:f{r%fl.+ii'f.•!r�/.F�i'fifi:•}iYf.r},•iiii i:•;•%ii%?%isiiiii'fyrF•frf iie•�iii:wiiiJrruri?i:;ii%f Yfff i'flS+iF;y+i •f {r CERTIFICATE OF lip CONDITIONAL APPROVAL 0 0. FOR A NONCONFORMING USE AND STRUCTURE 6 • 0 City of Renton File Number: LUA-96-156, CAP 0 Location: 636 Shattuck Avenue South Business Name (If applicable): Family Dentistry Clinic k King County Assessor's Property Identification Number: 784130-0525 0 Background: The City in June 1993 zoned the subject site to the Residential Multi- Family--Urban (RM-U) Zone which does not permit new medical or dental clinics. ri Formerly, the site was zoned B-1, Business District subject to restrictive covenants (City p file #R-098-84) which were intended to ensure that the structure would architecturally tie f 1 in with the surrounding residential area. The property owner request this conditional approval permit in order to permit the existing dental office use and building to be re- p established in the event of a catastrophic loss to the structure. 0 o p Description of non-conforming use and structure granted Conditional Approval; pi The subject site is approximately 7,572 square feet in size and contains a two-story , f dental office building. The dental office building is located in a mixed density residential p area that includes single family dwellings as well as some duplex and apartment p structures. The wood frame building is approximately 46 feet by 50 feet in size and was I designed to look like a traditional single family .dwelling. It has a sloping composition g shingle roof with an upper protruding partial story facing the street. The main entrance x > to the building is off Shattuck Avenue South and the building is setback approximately g o 12 feet from the Shattuck Street property line The side yard setback is approximately p 12 feet. o Date of Conditional Approval: City Council approved on April 1, 1996. Restrictive p Covenants recorded December 13, 1996. rii v: 3 111 Period of Validity/Date of Expiration: This permit is valid from 14 days after the date I • of approval listed above until April 1, 2011. During this period, the property owner must ; comply with all of the conditions listed on the attached "Declaration of Restrictive i Covenants" recorded with King County under #9612131187 in order,for this approval to remain valid. This permit will expire on April 1, 2011 unless the original approval body r ' grants an extension. f Transferability: This permit is transferable to, and binding upon, future purchasers, % J heirs and assigns and runs with the land. '' r gl Benefits of this Permit: This permit entitles the nonconforming structure and use to be 1 remodeled, reestablished, or rebuilt even though the cost to remodel or reestablish the it use or structure would exceed. 50% of the most recently assessed or appraised value. p iiiF> //V/ 4,,,,,4_, a y da 1 pproved by the City of Renton Date 1 Development Services Division Director f � � n4ff: ?O%??•f.•ff.4i?•i'f.??^iX?{.:f?!???ti?•'fifr%x+f.??•;%ry ?:f.?4'^ifr'f.+iY'frri:�::x:::�r::rrr::r•:rr•v • : .. v:£^: .....rf........n..rr.fr'????•ir.•'F.rfri'?,,..:???rc iY^::ii.::'i„:,:,f. f•i:?^if{r/.?f +f.+rf.+?....::,/4.•:%?•:??!...,,,Y?ly+.yf£R'r..,:„ ' „„,:..„ ..rf,�r?{�x..�...n.....::v:r.. ..rNrr.ti.....f....�..{,..:.....+.r..•'.............. ..f........{f{...n.:.: ';; ::r:x:::.�:::::::::?.:r.y:i:^i......rv+•:?•::r••:.... ... ........ ...•V:•.•:f:•.V w::: :•::::•{f••::m::r::4::::::?:v•:r:V:....... ..... ....... n... .. ....... .........r.:v+:?•.�•.�..:..........{..r........ r?f,.:::....r: .:.%:•::.:fx:^..:::.?•:::f.•:::�.,::. ..r?.:::i:::::r f.. r f. rf. ..f..r .:f n� :.ffvr r+,.f.+. r:•f.•? :•fit: ::A. r�1r:.i;;rr'w.san..r..a.rrw:...riw»r::i3f..,fv„ ...u.t.. .n :.: .�' ii}i: .f' .f .r:r.; •:::::.ii•.�.}.:n:...,....rr.:. • :•: ii •i '4'?•Y f{;. .:::: :::::::: +.lr/+!i�i:r.:.r::'fF;. :��rrs/?•::•riil?`• r.''Y :..:r:::iiifi:i • \\THEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Office of the city clerk / PLANNING DIVISION Renton Municipal Building CITY�� OF RENTON 200 Mill AvenueSouth 1 pp�0`/ Renton, DECLARATION OF 2 21996 A RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS RECEIVED . WHEREAS, Michael T. Donnelly.,DDS, PS is the owner of the • following real property in the City of Renton, County of • King, State of Washington, described as Lots 10 & 11, Block 6 Smithers 5th addition to the Town of Renton addressed as • 636 Shattuck Ave. South. • WHEREAS, the owner of said property desires to allow the • City of Renton to impose the following restrictive covenants running with the land as to use, present and future, of the' described real property. . • r NOW, THEREFORE, the aforesaid owner does establish, grant 00 and impose restrictions and covenants running with the land e-l- hereto attached described with respect to the use by the .. .404 undersigned, their successors, heirs, and assigns as -. c, follows: • • gel a. The conditional approval permit for the existing use, dental offices, shall be in effect for a period not :Q exceeding fifteen (15)years. if a catastrophic loss of the original structure occurs within the conditional . C') approval permit period and the site is not redeveloped within two years,the conditional approval permit for the non-conforming use shall be revoked. b. New tenants shall_be_.informied-inwriting about the non-conforming status-of the existing use and structure and the fact that this conditional approval permit for the non-conforming use is initially • granted for a period not exceeding fifteen(15)years,although subsequent permits might be issued if conditions at the time still warrant. c. The conditional approval permit for the existing structure, a two-story dental office building, shall be o; in effect for a period not exceeding fifteen (.15) years. If a catastrophic loss of the original structure • occurs within the,conditional approval permit period and the site is not redeveloped within two years of such a loss,the conditional approval permit for the non-conforming structure shall be revoked. x n, d. 'The extent of the existing non-conforming building that may be replaced with additional non- • conforming structure shall not exceed the amount of the structure accidentally damaged. In no case c. shall.any portion of a structure that has been found to have been intentionally damaged by the owner be W allowed to be reestablished unless done so consistent with all codes and regulations then in existence. CC e. An application for site plan review shall be made if a catastrophic loss or an accumulative loss • greater than fifty percent (50%) of the assessed value of the structure occurs during the life of.this permit. The replacement structure shall be reviewed to ensure that it is architecturally in charmcier in terms of its roof treatment • ca. , setbacks, etc., with the surrounding area at that time and,that it complies ni o with all relevant building codes and the existing zoning codes then in place. to the extent possibleR, r:-i iG A+ Nirn co ti c.; -- . cn _ cn �, — c:, -� DURATION These covenants shall run with the land and expire at the termination of the Conditional Approval Permits referenced herein. If at any time the said properties are made conforming as to use and/or structure during the stated life of these covenants, the portion of the covenants pertaining to the nonconforming use, structure, or both, shall terminate without necessity of further documentation.Any violation or breach of these restrictive covenants may be enforced by proper legal procedures in the Superior Court of King County by either the City of Renton or any property owners adjoining the subject property who are adversely affected by said breach. -�� //- / - STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that GO Michael T. Donnelly, DDS signed this instrument and rei acknowledged it to be his free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in he instrument . gri Dated: `/-f& •- �� t O r,-� No ary Public in nd for the State :fl oil Ili/k of Washington OQ kik hoGo,Ce 5 Aviv A //Az 5 r-V �Oo0NojAR Notary (print) G: ��. My Appointment Expires : �aoc� s pUBUG aso . 1 'iQ m ;, • rn 1 V U CITY OF RENTON CITY CLERK'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: 6-Jan-97 T� RENTON TO: Laureen NicolayjAN e 071997 FROM: Lisa Stephens, ext. 25011� �''��„r,� " ��!yV v/ ON SUBJECT: Recorded Document Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, Michael T. Donnelly, DDS Rec # 9612131187 The attached document has been recorded with King County, and is being returned to you. Please forward copies to parties of interest, and retain a copy for your file. Thank you. Enclosures: ( ) ‘ cps fVeltre/1-1/1'1d jriA i . i, CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: December 10, 1996 TO: City Clerk's Office FRO - Laureen Nicolay, Development Services Division, Extension #5594 • SUB . T: Restrictive Covenants Michael T. Donnelly's Conditional Approval Permit for a Nonconforming Use and Structure, 636 Shattuck Ave S, File #LUA96- 156-CAP Attached please find the above-referenced "Declaration of Restrictive Covenants" for recording with King County. Please send these via US Mail. The King County recording fees for this recording should be charged to account #000/07.532.22.49.14. Please call me at X-5594 if you have any questions. When we receive the recorded documents back, please let me know and place a copy in the above-referenced file. Please also send a copy to: Michael T. Donnelly, DDS 636 Shattuck Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Thank you. • 0 • Y c _ CIT' DF RENTON mill Office of the City Attorney Jesse Tanner,Mayor Lawrence J.Warren SON MEMORANDUM. . - DEC 0 6 1996 'r+`��araav�j DIVISION To: -. Laureen Nicolay,Associate Planner . . - From: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney - - Date: December 5, 1996 Subject Draft Restrictive Covenants for •Conditional Approval Permit for a Nonconforming Use and Structure Owned by Michael T. Donnelly at 636 Shattuck Avenue South I have reviewed the above-referenced document and the same is approved.as to legal form. • • Lawrence J. W en' LJW:as. cc: Jay Covington • • • Post Office Box 626 - 100 S. 2nd Street- Renton, Washington 98057 - (206)255-8678 • Co This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer , CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: December 2, 1996 TO: Larry Warren, City Attorney FROM: Laureen Nicolay, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Draft Restrictive Covenants for Conditional Approval Permit for a Nonconforming Use and Structure owned by Michael T. Donnelly at 636 Shattuck Avenue South Attached are draft restrictive covenants. Will these be adequate in conjunction with the Certificate of Conditional Approval for a Nonconforming Use and Structure? I have attached the conditions of approval. Please review the content and format and let me know what you think. Thank you. CITI' :JF RENTON LL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator August 20;1996 • Michael_T.Donnelly,DDS 626 Shattuck Avenue S. `Renton,WA 98055 • I SUBJECT:. CLASS A NONCONFORMING USE/STRUCTURE REQUEST,626 - SHATTUCK AVENUE S. • Dear Dr. Donnelly; .• .Although you were notified of the public hearing on February 19th of this last year, in reviewing my files it appears that you may not have been formally notified of the City Council's action this last spring in approving nine (9) conditional approval permits for nonconforming uses/structures • resulting from the adoption of the City's new zoning codes in 1993/1995. • • Your project, along with eight (8) others,'"was'approved by City Council. However, before the Development Services Division can issue a Conditional Approval Permit for your non-conforming :,use and/or structure a restrictive covenant will have to be'filed reflecting the conditions that were adopted for your dental office building:Count l:required this;m,order,that any subsequent owners or_tenants"at this property''will know'.that the approval was for specified number Of.years and mayor may not be renewed at the tune of reapplication. .The Council,=for;example, did not want to: ;;`;;.have.a situation rwhere;a tenant aughtbe' making`major.tenant=improvements,.only.a year or two -,. ,:..,;;.:••_ .;� �u, •.a.s::::. •gig: .t:.,... :-,=;before'a Conditional approval permit expired_ ithout knowing of.this'possibility,-if the permit was . . ;.'v k, alb.: y ..a.t£t.,;.: .! n _ • _ of e isued. Attached is'a sample of.restrictive covenant format if,you are.not*Millar with this type of legal instrument._ -Most applicantshaveaheirpersonal attorney draft;these up for them,although this is ; not •a:City requirement. ';,What 'is\:"important is that the restrictive covenants that .are filed incorporate the conditions of approval contained iathe attached staff report. Once these have been • prepared they should be submitted to Laureen Nicolay in'the;Development Services Section of the • Plannin uildin ublic Works Department:':She then-Circulate them to the City Attorneyfor• . lus review: .::: Once the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants are approved by the City,we will file them with the .King'County'.Elections & Records Division. ` Once recorded, we will be able to issue you your . - • . Conditional Approval Permit: . • If you have any questions about this process you should contact Laureen Nicolay at 277-5594;or, ::_:myself at 277-6181. Don nc `on;AICP Enclosures Sani le Restrictive"Covenants°:.:.':" ; Council Ado ted.Coriditions-for.:Conditional A' �roval Pemut at 626 Shattuck ' .. _ Avenue's, p - -- _ pP • 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,-Washington 98055 • This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer p A . . n Conditional Approval Permit Conditions • for Property at 626 Shattuck Avenue S. a. The conditional approval permit for the existing use, dental offices, shall be in effect for a period not exceeding fifteen(15)years. If a catastrophic loss of the original structure occurs within the conditional approval permit period and the site is not redeveloped within two years,the conditional approval permit for the non-conforming use shall be revoked. b. New tenants shall be informed in writing about the non-conforming status of the existing use and structure and the fact that this conditional approval permit for the non-conforming use is initially granted for a period not exceeding fifteen(15)years,although subsequent permits might be issued if conditions at the time still warrant. c. The conditional approval permit for the existing structure, a two-story dental office building, shall be in effect for a period not exceeding fifteen (15) years. If a catastrophic loss of the original structure occurs within the conditional approval permit period and the site is not redeveloped within two years of such a loss,the conditional approval permit for the non-conforming structure shall be revoked. d. The extent of the existing non-conforming building that may be replaced with additional non- conforming structure shall not exceed the amount of the structure accidentally damaged. In no case shall any portion of a structure that has been found to have been intentionally damaged by the owner be allowed to be reestablished unless done so consistent with all codes and regulations then in existence. e. An application for site plan review shall be made if a catastrophic loss or an accumulative loss greater than fifty percent (50%) of the assessed value of the structure occurs during the life of this permit. The replacement structure shall be reviewed to ensure that it is architecturally in character in terms of its roof treatment, setbacks, etc., with the surrounding area at that time and, that it complies with all relevant building codes and the existing zoning codes then in place.to the extent possible. • • 113PELLY.DOC/ • • r� . . - CITY' _ IF RENTON a ,..,, City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen • • February 8, 1996 • -'Michael T. Donnelly,DDS - - - -`626 Shattuck-Ave S - - --.: ,,:Renton, WA :98055 _ .` - ;-' • • •_ •Re: Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit Approval . • - Dear Dr: Donnelly: . • " - . - • :The Renton City•Council has'fixed February 19, 1996, at 7:30p.m. as the: date and time for a: - public hearing to be held in the'second floor Council_Chambers of the Renton Municipal :. .: ;.: _ • y ,Building,-200 Mill Avenue South,'Renton 98055.. Your request for Conditional Use Permit ' ±approval will be considered to reestablish.use and structure for your property located at 626: . .. Shattuck Avenue S.'in the event'of a catastrophic:event where damages exceed'50% of the • : = :appraised valuation of the use and structure (Reference::Non-Conforming Use Ordinance).. : All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing and•present oral or written comments in support or:opposition to the proposal:- The Municipal Building is fully accessible, and . - : interpretive services for the hearing impaired will beprovided upon'prior notice.: Please call : -.235-2501 for additional information or 277-4453 TDD. - _ Sincerely,' Marilyn JI', 'sen, CMC - - : . " . City Clerk 'cc: .Don Erickson, Planning Division: . . •_ : • ' ' : 200 Mill Avenue South-Renton, Washington 98055 (206)235-2501 . ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,25%post consumer CONDITIONAL APPROVAL PERMIT APPLICATION FOR NONCONFORMING LOCATION: 636 Shattuck Avenue S. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Nonconforning Use/Structure not to exceed 15 year period. r • RECOMMENDATION FOR NONCONFORMING USE a. The conditional approval permit shall be in effect for a period not exceeding fifteen (15) years. If a catastrophic loss of the original structure occurs within the conditional approval permit period and the , r site is not redeveloped within two years, the non-conforming use shall t be re-established. Y DENTI b New tenants shall be informed in writing about the nonconforming status of the existing use and the fact that this conditional approval permit for the non-conforming use is initially granted for a period not exceedingfifteen (15) years, although subsequentpermits might be 9 q 9 issued if conditions at the time still warrant. ':.,w; .w, R PMMENC 1QN:1 PKNO PC3 lFQRM rfWEVR a. The conditional approval permit shall be in effect for a period not PO* q exceeding fifteen (15) years. If a catastrophic loss of the original structure occurs within the conditional approval permit period and the site is not redeveloped within two years, the nonconforming use shall be re re-established. b. The extent of the existing non-conforming building that may be replaced with additional non-conforming structure shall not exceed the amount of the structure accidentally damaged. c. An application for site plan review shall be made if a catastrophic or an accumulative loss greater than fifty percent (50%) of the assessed value of the structure occurs during the life of this permit. The replacement structure shall be reviewed to ensure that it is architecturally in character with the surrounding area and, that it complies with all relevant building codes and the existing zoning codes then in place, to the extent possible. 636SHTDB.DOC/ • • . . r • . RENTON CITY COUNCIL` REGULAR MEETING February 19, 1996 Monday, 7:30 p.m. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 12, 1996 4. PROCLAMATION: February 1996 Emergency Flooding Conditions :- g)PUBLIC HEARING: Nine requests for Conditional Use Permit approval to re-establish use and/or structure in the event of a catastrophic event where damages exceed 50% of the appraised valuation of the use/structure (Reference: Non-Conforming Use Ordinance) 6. AUDIENCE COMMENT (Speakers must sign up prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. The comment period will be limited to one-half hour. The second audience comment period later on in the agenda is unlimited in duration.) • When you are recognized by the Presiding Officer, please walk to the podium and state your name and address for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. 7. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are distributed to Council members in advance for study and review, and the recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further discussion if requested by a Council member. • a. Human Resources&Risk Management Department recommends that the part-time Accounting Assistant position in the Finance&Information Services Department be made full-time to provide • additional accounting duties for the golf course; and also recommends that the Open Space Coordinator position in the Community Services Department be reclassified and transferred to the • Finance&Information Services Department for this purpose and to establish a full-time Secretary II position to provide needed secretarial support. Refer to Finance Committee. b. Human Resources&Risk Management Department recommends approval of two reclassifications in the Community Services Department, as follows: Recreation Program Coordinator(grade 18)to Community Center&Recreation Coordinator(grade 20), and Recreation Specialist II(grade 14)to Recreation Coordinator(grade 18). Refer to Finance Committee. c. Legal Department submits draft Adult Entertainment Ordinance developed in cooperation with King County and a number of suburban cities to coordinate adult entertainment regulations in the area. Refer to Committee of the Whole. d. Property Services Division submits appraisal in the amount of$320,000 for VAC-95-001,Lake Ave. S. from S. 3rd St. to Seattle's Cedar River Pipeline Right-of-Way street vacation(Safeway, Inc.), and recommends the appraisal be approved and the applicant be directed to provide one-half the appraised value. Refer to Transportation Committee. e. Property Services Division submits appraisal in the amount of$342,916.20 for VAC-94-004, SW 13th St. &Maple Ave. SW street vacation(Jamie Pierre). Refer to Transportation Committee. f. Property Services Division submits appraisal in the amount of$28,660 for VAC-95-003, SW 12th St. & SW Grady Way west of Rainier Ave. S. alley vacation(Sound Mazda). Refer to Transportation Committee. g. Property Services Division submits appraisal in the amount of.$91,278,for VAC-95-005, street vacation in the area of SW 12th St., SW Grady Way, and Maple and Lind Ayes. SW(Good Chevrolet). Refer to Transportation Committee. h. Utility Systems Division submits CAG-95-048,Nelson Pl.NW and Rainier Ave.N. storm system (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) • replacement project; and mmends approval of the project, auth;,.—ation for final pay estimate in :. the amount of$3,787, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $7,571.72 to West Coast Construction Co., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. i. Transportation Division proposes an agreement with the Renton School District for the relocation of the school crosswalk at Talbot Rd. S. and S. 23rd St.by Talbot Elementary School. The City's cost share is $4,250. Refer to Transportation Committee. j. Utility Systems Division requests authorization to submit applications for Public Works Trust Fund loans with interest rates of 1%for the corrosion control treatment and the Rolling Hills reservoir projects(loans of$938,000 and $1,980,000, respectively). Council concur. k. Utility Systems Division recommends approval of an agreement accepting a Public Works Trust Fund pre-construction loan in the amount of$173,400 for corrosion control treatment facilities. The required City match is $96,600. Council concur. 8. CORRESPONDENCE a. Michael K. Hubbard, leasing manager for Trammell Crow Company, 5601 Sixth Ave. S., Seattle 98108, asks that Council consider the rezone application for the Pan Abode site, located at N. 44th St. - and Lake Wash. Blvd.N., from Light Industrial(IL)to Arterial Commercial (CA). b. Jeff Crockett,Emmett Koelsch Coaches Inc.,PO Box 3265,Redmond, WA, 98073, states his interest in purchasing property located in the Auto Mall area, and asks that an exception to the Arterial Commercial(CA) zone be made to allow the sale and distribution of buses. 9. OLD BUSINESS Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics marked with an asterisk(*) may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held by the chairman if further review is necessary. a. Community Services Committee: Sister City Committee Appointments b. Planning&Development Committee: 1996 Photogrammetric Mapping Services 10. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS • Resolution: Declaring an emergency due to excessive rains that caused flooding, slides and utility damage Ordinance for first reading: Approving reduced utility rates for low-income persons on home kidney dialysis treatment (Council approved via Utilities Committee report adopted 1/08/96) 11. NEW BUSINESS , . . (Includes Council Committee agenda topics-call 277-4430 for recorded information) 12. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:; 13. AUDIENCE COMMENT • • 14. ADJOURNMENT - _ • COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING . AGENDA . (Preceding Council Meeting) . . COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:30 p.m. . • Auto Mall Issues RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting February 19, 1996 Council Chambers Monday, 7:30 p.m. Municipal Building MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Tanner led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF TONI NELSON, Council President; KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER; DAN COUNCILMEMBERS CLAWSON; KING PARKER; RANDY CORMAN. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS TIMOTHY SCHLITZER AND BOB EDWARDS. CARRIED. CITY STAFF IN JESSE TANNER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Executive Assistant to the ATTENDANCE Mayor; DAN KELLOGG, Assistant City Attorney; MARILYN PETERSEN, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator, MICHAEL KATTERMANN, Planning & Technical Services Director; DON ERICKSON, Principal Planner; ABDOUL GAFOUR, Civil Engineer; COMMANDER ROB SOFIE, Police Department. APPROVAL OF MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 12, 1996, AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. PROCLAMATION A proclamation by Mayor Tanner was read declaring an emergency resulting Emergency Flooding- from major flooding of area rivers and creeks beginning on February 8, 1996; Related Conditions and directing and authorizing City departments to enter into contracts and incur obligations necessary to combat such emergency to protect the health and safety of persons and property, and to provide emergency assistance. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION. CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published Planning: Conditional Use in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Tanner opened the public Permit Requests (Non- hearing to consider nine requests for Conditional Use Permit approval to re- Conforming Uses) establish use and/or structure in the event of a catastrophic event where damages exceed 50% of the appraised valuation of the use/structure (reference: Non-Conforming Use ordinance). Mike Kattermann, Planning & Technical Services Director, explained that these requests are being processed according to the recently-adopted Non- Conforming Use ordinance. Because this ordinance is not yet effective, however, this matter will remain in Planning & Development Committee and be reported out at a later date. Therefore, no Council action is being requested this evening. Don Erickson, Principal Planner, said the nine requests to be discussed tonight affect existing non-conforming uses and/or structures whose owners seek authorization to re-establish the use/structure in the case of an accidental catastrophic loss or damage. All nine uses/structures were made non- conforming as a result of Renton's interim city-wide zoning plan adopted in 1993. Because they were previously conforming, but made non-conforming through Council action, they qualify as existing legal non-conforming uses and/or structures. Mr. Erickson described each of the nine applications, as follows: February 19. 1996 Renton City Council Minutes Page 54 1. Triplex located at 405 Williams Ave. N., owned by Darvin Thuringer. Previous zoning was R-4 (Residential/4 Dwelling Units per Acre); current zoning is R-10 (Residential/10 Dwelling Units per Acre). Although this is a permitted use, the particular structure exceeds lot size and permitted density. Staff recommends a conditional use permit be granted, with conditions, for a period not to exceed ten years. 2. Optometry office located at 112 Pelly Ave. N., owned by Neal S. Jensen. Previous zoning was R-3 (Residential/3 Dwelling Units per Acre); current zoning is SF (Single Family). Staff recommends a conditional use permit be granted, with conditions, for a period not to exceed ten years. 3. Medical/dental building located at 113 Pelly Ave. W., owned by Jim Tomer. Previous zoning was P-1 (Public Use); current zoning is R- 10. Staff recommends a conditional use permit be granted, with conditions, for a period not to exceed ten years. 4. Commercial/dental offices located at 626 Shattuck Ave. S., owner Michael T. Donnelly. Previous zoning was B-1 (Business District); current zoning is RM-U (Residential Multi-Family Urban). Staff recommends a conditional use permit be granted, with conditions, for a period not to exceed 15 years. 5. Warehouse (with offices above one building) located at 423 S. 7th St., owner Gary Castagno. Previous zoning was L-1 (Light Industrial); current zoning is CA (Commercial Arterial). Staff recommends a conditional use permit be granted, with conditions, for a period not to exceed ten years. 6. Four-unit apartment building located at 518 Williams Ave. N., owned by Ernest J. Tonda. Previous zoning was R-4; current zoning is SF. Staff recommends a conditional use permit be granted, with conditions, for a period not to exceed ten years. 7. Four-unit apartment building located at 530 Williams Ave. N., owned by Philip and Grace Chan. Previous zoning was R-4; current zoning is SF. Staff recommends a conditional use permit be granted, with conditions, for a period not to exceed ten years. 8. Sixteen-unit apartment building located at 435 Williams Ave. N., owned by Philip and Grace Chan. Previous zoning was R-4; current zoning is SF. Staff recommends a conditional use permit be granted, with conditions, for a period not to exceed ten years. 9. Medical clinic located at 920 N. 1st St., owned by Dr. Ze've Young. Previous zoning was P-1; current zoning is R-10. Staff recommends a conditional use permit be granted, with conditions, for a period not to exceed ten years. Mr. Erickson noted that in the event of a catastrophic loss, these properties would be required to redevelop within two years. Should they fail to redevelop within the allowed timeframe, the conditional approval permit would be revoked. Responding to Councilman Parker, Mr. Erickson said the City will notify the property owners when the time period for the conditional use permit is about to expire. At this time, the owners could seek an extension of the permit. Mr. Parker asked if applicants must pay a fee to file for a conditional use permit, or to re-file when one expires. Mr. Erickson said no fee has yet been established although staff is considering this issue. In response to Councilman Corman, Mr. Erickson said a person considering purchasing one of these properties could research its conditional use permit, February 19, 1996 Renton City Council Minutes Page 55 including how much time remained on it, via covenants that the property owner will be required to record with King County. Audience comment was invited. Grace Chan, 7940-B Seward Park Ave. S., Seattle, 98118, stated that she purchased two multi-family properties in Renton as an investment, which she was interested in protecting. She emphasized her wish to re-establish these buildings in the event of a catastrophe. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Former Councilman Dick Stredicke, 1014 Tacoma Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, Citizen Comment: commented on Council discussion last week regarding handicapped parking Stredicke - Handicapped regulations and enforcement. Saying the fine for illegally parking in a Parking handicapped space used to be $57, he noted it is now $175. He distributed examples of violation notices that could be placed on the vehicles of those who appear to be parking illegally in handicapped stalls, and asked that this subject be referred to Council's Public Safety Committee. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL REFER THE SUBJECT OF HANDICAPPED PARKING REGULATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Mayor Tanner noted that the Administration is currently drafting an ordinance on this issue to be submitted to the Public Safety Committee for review and recommendation. • Citizen Comment Richter Marjorie Richter, 300 Meadow Ave. N., Renton, 98055, described violations - Handicapped Parking she,has personally observed of parking spaces reserved for the handicapped, Abuses particularly at the Medical Arts Building by Valley Hospital. She thanked Council and the Administration for looking into this issue. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are accepted by one motion which follows the listing. Finance: Personnel Human Resources & Risk Management Department recommended that the Changes (Accounting part-time Accounting Assistant position in the Finance& Information Services Assistant, Secretary II) Department be made full-time to provide additional accounting duties for the golf course; and also recommended that the Open Space Coordinator position in the Community Services Department be reclassified and transferred to the Finance & Information Services Department for this purpose and to establish a full-time Secretary II position to provide needed secretarial support. Refer to Finance Committee. Parks: Community Center Human Resources & Risk Management Department recommended approval of Position Reclasses two reclassifications in the Community Services Department, as follows: Recreation Program Coordinator (grade 18) to Community Center & Recreation Coordinator (grade 20), and Recreation Specialist (grade 14) to Recreation Coordinator (grade 18). Refer to Finance Committee. Legal: Adult Legal Department'submitted draft Adult Entertainment Ordinance developed Entertainment Ordinance in cooperation with King County and a number of suburban cities to coordinate adult entertainment regulations in the area. Refer to Committee of the Whole. 1 ' February 19. 1996 Renton City Council Minutes Page 56 Vacation:.Lake Ave S Property Services Division submitted appraisal in the amount of $320,000 for Street Vacation, VAC-95- VAC-95-001, street vacation on Lake Ave. S. from S. 3rd St. to Seattle's 001 (Safeway) Cedar River Pipeline Right-of-Way (Safeway, Inc.), and recommended the appraisal be approved and the applicant be directed to provide one-half the appraised value. Refer to Transportation Committee. Vacation: SW 13th Property Services Division submitted appraisal in the amount of $342,916.20 St/Maple Ave SW Street for VAC-94-004, SW 13th St. & Maple Ave. SW street vacation (Jamie Pierre). Vacation, VAC-94-004 Refer to Transportation Committee. (Pierre) Vacation: SW 12th St/SW Property Services Division submitted appraisal in the amount of $28,660 for Grady Way Street VAC-95-003, SW 12th St. & SW Grady Way west of Rainier Ave. S. alley Vacation, VAC-95-003 vacation (Sound Mazda). Refer to Transportation Committee. (Sound Mazda) Vacation: SW 12th/Grady Property Services Division submitted appraisal in the amount of $91,278 for Way/Maple & Lind Ayes VAC-95-005, street vacation in the area of SW 12th St., SW Grady Way, and Street Vacation, VAC-95- Maple and Lind Ayes. SW (Good Chevrolet). Refer to Transportation 005 (Good Chevrolet) Committee. , CAG: 95-048, Nelson P1 Utility Systems Division submitted CAG-95-048, Nelson Pl. NW and Rainier NW/Rainier Ave N Storm Ave. N. storm system replacement project; and recommended approval of the System Replacement, West project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of $3,787, Coast Const. commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $7,571.72 to West Coast Construction'Co., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. Transportation: Talbot Transportation Division proposed an agreement with the Renton School Elementary Crosswalk District for the relocation of the school crosswalk at Talbot Rd. S. and S. 23rd Relocation, Talbot Rd S & St. by Talbot Elementary School. The City's cost share is $4,250. Refer to S 23rd St Transportation Committee. Public Works: PWTF Utility Systems Division requested authorization to submit applications for Loans, Corrosion Control Public Works Trust Fund loans with interest rates of 1% for the corrosion & Rolling Hills Reservoir, control treatment and the Rolling Hills reservoir projects (loans of $938,000 CAG- and $1,980,000, respectively). Council concur. Public Works: PWTF Utility Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement accepting a Loan, Corrosion Control ' Public Works Trust Fund pre-construction loan in the amount of $173,400 for Facilities, CAG-96- corrosion control treatment facilities. The required City match is $96,600. Council concur. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Correspondence was read from Michael K. Hubbard, leasing manager for Citizen Comment Trammell Crow Company, 5601 Sixth Ave. S., Seattle, 98108, asking that Hubbard - Pan Abode Site ' Council consider the rezone application for the Pan Abode site, located at N. Rezone Request (N 44th 44th St. and Lake Washington Blvd. N., from Light Industrial (IL) to Arterial St/Lk Wash Blvd N) 'Commercial (CA). MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY KEOLKER- WHEELER, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. April 1, 1996 Renton City Council Minutes Page 124 Citizen Comment: Hlavka Correspondence was read from Rick Hlavka, 402 S. Tobin St., Renton, 98055, - Puget Sound Helicopters regarding the operations of Puget Sound Helicopters and asking that Council terminate the operating agreement for this business. Citizen Comment: Correspondence was read from Lisa Halstead, 420 S. .115th St., Renton, 98057, Halstead - Puget Sound communicating her continued opposition to the flight operations of Puget Helicopters Sound Helicopters and suggesting that Council terminate this operating agreement. Citizen Comment: Correspondence was read from Marsha Lammers, 1220 N. 4th St., Renton, Lammers - Use of Metro 98055, representing the Renton School District Transportation Division, to Bus Students expressing interest in transporting high school students via Metro buses. OLD BUSINESS Council President Nelson presented a report recommending that staff present Committee of the Whole the holiday lights proposal to the Park Board, requesting written comments Parks: Clam Lights Master and recommendations on the proposal to charge admission fees. The Plan Committee further recommended,that Staff investigate community and corporate interest and financial support for this event, with a report back to Council. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. L Planning & Development Planning & Development Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a Committee report recommending Council approval of the nine conditional approval Development Services: permit applications it heard at the public hearing on February 19, 1996. The Conditional Approval Committee so recommended noting that the enabling ordinance (#4584) for Permit Requests (9) the conditional approval permit process, adopted by Council on February 12, 1996, is now in effect and the resolution of this unfinished business is now timely. Approval of these nine initial conditional approval permit applications will be pursuant to the recommended conditions of approval that were presented to Council on February 19, 1996 for each of the applications. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. IOW Development Services: Planning & Development Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a National Electrical Code report regarding amendments to the National Electrical Code. The Committee and Other Uniform Code recommended concurrence in the following staff recommendations: Amendments 1. That Council adopt the ordinance to update the National Electrical Code with state-wide amendments to the 1996 edition. 2. That Council adopt the two minor revisions to the National Electrical Code. 3. That Council adopt amendments to the Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Electrical Codes to require a $20.00 service fee to duplicate permits, provided notice of this charge is given the applicant on all permits issued. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 128 for ordinance.) Transportation (Aviation) Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chair Schlitzer presented a report Committee recommending that Council adopt the resolution supporting the full King Metro: Six-Year Transit County Six-Year Transit Plan/Renton Early Implementation Project. The Plan/Renton Early Committee strongly supports transit service and recognizes the importance of Implementation Project this project to both the City and the region. Further, the Committee supports a refinement to the proposed transit routing to the downtown interim hub that would address citizen concerns yet provide regional transit service connections and alternatives to the single occupant vehicle, consistent with the City's PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CITY OF RENTON CONDITIONAL APPROVAL PERMIT APPLICATION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON City Sponsored Conditional Approval of Family Dentistry Clinic Site LOCATION: 636 Shattuck Avenue South SUMMARY OF REQUEST: City sponsored conditional approval of 0.17 acre site developed with a two-story rectangular-shaped residential looking building occupied by professional dental offices in order to legitimize this non- conforming use and structure against their premature termination in the event of a catastrophic loss to the structure. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Planning & Technical Services Recommendation: Approve RELEVANT REVIEW CRITERIA: Non-conforming Uses: Pursuant to Section 4-31-19.1.5., the following three use criteria are relevant to this application: • Community Need; • Effect on Adjacent Property; and • Timeliness with Existing Plans and Programs. Non-conforming Structures: Pursuant to Section 4-31-19.1.6., the following three structure criteria are relevant to this application: • Potential of the Site for Redevelopment: • Condition of Building/Structure: • Departure from the Zoning Code: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS. & RECOMMENDATIONS Having reviewed the relevant criteria in this matter, Staff make and enter the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, the City of Renton, is processing approximately ten conditional approval permit applications for projects that initially petitioned for Class 'A' - Non-conforming Use status in 1994 before this was changed to the Conditional Approval Permit process, October 10, 1995 Farr entistry Clinic, 636 Shattuck Ave • Page 2 2. Because there is no proposed change of use or modification of structures proposed as a consequence of these applications it was determined that these applications were SEPA exempt since these actions were seen as being administrative in nature. 3. Proposed enabling legislation for these applications has been reviewed by all departments with an interest in this issue. 4. The subject site is commonly known as the Family Dentistry Clinic site. The site is located at 636 Shattuck Avenue South in a predominantly mixed-density residential area that includes single- family dwellings as well as some residential duplex and apartment structures. 5. The. existing building is a one-story rectangular-shaped wood-frame structure that is approximately 46 feet by 50 feet along its outside perimeter, with a sloping composition shingle roof with an upper protruding partial story facing onto the street. The main entry of the building fronts onto Shattuck Avenue South. 6. The subject site is approximately 7,572 square feet in area. The existing building does appear to meet the required side yard of 12 feet for lots wider than 60 feet in the RM-U Zone. In "U"- designated multi-family areas such as the south downtown area, there are no required front or rear yard setbacks, although the existing structure provides both. 7. The front of the building facing onto Shattuck Avenue South is setback approximately 12 feet from the street property line and is landscaped with predominantly evergreen shrubs and lawn. This and the:buildings clapboard siding help to impart a residential feeling to the existing predominantly residential streetscape. 8. Single-family dwellings abut the subject site to the north and also exist across the street to the west. Also across the street to the west are two existing apartment buildings. To the south across SW 7th Street, the zoning is CA - Commercial Arterial. 9. The property owner is seeking a conditional approval permit that will allow the existing structure and professional dental practice to be re-established in the event that a catastrophic accident destroys or severely damages the existing building to the extent that their repair or replacement exceeds 50% of the latest assessed value of the structure. 10. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject site as Center Downtown which states that: "Development should be low and mid-rise with an overall average floor to area ratio (FAR) of 2:1 within the Center Downtown designation on the Land Use Map." Each parcel however, is not required to achieve this specific intensity. 11. Reflecting actual uses in the area, the zoning is RM-U to the north for approximately two blocks, and east of the site for approximately two blocks, with CA zoning to the west and south of the site (across Shattuck Avenue S. and across SW 7th Street). CONCLUSIONS: Non-conforming Use: 1. The proponent, must demonstrate that the request to continue the existing non-conforming use in the event of a catastrophic loss or damage to the premises is in the public interest and that it complies with at least three relevant criteria identified above and taken from Section 4-31-19.1.5: a. "Community Need: There is a community need for the proposed use at its present location." It appears that the existing facility does serve residents and employees in the surrounding South Downtown area as well as dental patients from elsewhere in the city. With many October 10, 1995 Farr' ')entistry Clinic, 636 Shattuck Ave Page 3 medical facilities having relocated to the area around S. Talbot Road and SW 43rd/Carr Road, it would appear to be in the community's interest to retain existing health care facilities that serve nearby larger residential/employment populations. b. "Effect on Adjacent Property: The existing non-conforming use has not resulted in undue adverse effects on adjacent properties from noise, traffic, glare, vibration, etc." There is no indication that the proposed use has created adverse impacts on the adjacent properties. This site was zoned to the B-1 Zone in 1984 with restrictive covenants (file # R- 098-84) ensuring that the structure would architecturally tie in with the surrounding residential area. Because of this the building was designed to look like a traditional single- family dwelling, even though it was a new structure designed to house a dental clinic. As such, the structure fits in quite well with the surrounding lower density single-family dwellings in the area. The existing use, including its off-street parking, is well landscaped and does not appear to create a nuisance in terms of noise, traffic or glare. c. "Timeliness with Existing Plans and Programs: Because of the anticipated market timing for permitted uses in the zone, retention of the existing non-conforming use would not impede or delay the implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan ." Given the relatively small size of the current lot, some 7,500 square feet in area, its location at the southeast corner of the RM-U Zone would indicate that it is unlikely to impede or delay the implementation of new multifamily residential elsewhere in the RM-U Zone, to the north and east. There appear to significant opportunities elsewhere .in this zone to accommodate projected residential absorption rates for sometime into the future. Therefore, it does not appear that retention of the existing non-conforming use would necessarily impede implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan. In fact, the strong residential character imparted by this building might help stabilize existing residential uses in this area. Also, given the substantial and fairly recent investment in the existing structure (1984), it does not appear likely that it would be converted to residential uses in the future unless there was an unanticipated market for these uses that would justify the additional expense of acquiring a profitable non-residential business and replacing it with a residential use. Non-conforming Structure: 2. The proponent, must demonstrate that the request to re-establish the existing non- conforming structure in the event of a catastrophic loss or damage to the premises, is in the public interest and that it complies with at least three relevant criteria identified above and taken from Section 4-31-19.1.6: a. "Potential of the Site for Redevelopment": Redevelopment of the site with a conforming structure is unlikely either because the size of the existing lot may be too small to be economical, or, because the characteristics of adjacent permitted uses preclude their expansion. Because of the size of the existing lot it may not be a preferred site, at least initially, for redevelopment with multi-family residential uses. Vacant lots and single-family residential sites are the most likely candidates for redevelopment under the RM-U zoning which allows densities of up to 75 - 100 DU/AC for market rate multi-family units. Typically such development starts out with a minimum lot size of 14,000 or 15,000 square feet since smaller lot sizes are less efficient at these higher densities. The likelihood of the redevelopment of this smaller, peripherally located site to RM-U uses in the foreseeable future seems somewhat remote. b. "Condition of Building/Structure": If non-conforming as to the provisions of the City's Building Code, the building or structure has generally been well maintained and is not considered to be a threat to the public health or safety. October 10, 1995 Farr "- Dentistry Clinic, 636 Shattuck Ave Page 4 From all exterior appearances, the existing structure is well maintained and is not considered to be a threat to the public health or safety. c. "Departure from the Zoning Code": If non-conforming with the provisions of the City's Development Regulations, the building or structure does not pose a threat to the public health, welfare, or safety, or, it could be modified so as not to pose such a threat. Again, there is no indication that the existing structure poses a threat to the public health, welfare, or safety. Although the interior side yard setback may be slightly less than the minimum 12 feet required under the RM-U Zone, it does not appear to be out of character with existing units in this older residential neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Based upon the above, the requested conditional approval permit to allow the existing use to be re-established in the case of a catastrophic loss or damage to the structure should be allowed subject to the following conditions: a. The conditional approval permit shall be in effect for a period not exceeding fifteen (15) years. If a catastrophic loss of the original structure occurs within the conditional approval permit period and the site is not redeveloped within two years, the non-conforming use shall not be re-established. b. New tenants shall be informed in writing about the non-conforming status of the existing use and structure and the fact that this conditional approval permit for the non-conforming use is initially granted for a period not exceeding fifteen (15) years, although subsequent permits might be issued if conditions at the time still warrant. 2. Based upon the above discussion, the requested conditional approval permit to allow the existing structure to be re-established in the case of a catastrophic loss or damage to the structure should be granted subject to the following conditions: a. The conditional approval permit shall be in effect for a period not exceeding fifteen (1 5) years. If a catastrophic loss of the original •structure occurs within the conditional approval permit period and the site is not redeveloped within two years, the non-conforming use shall not be re-established; b. The extent of the existing non-conforming building that may be replaced with additional non-conforming structure shall not exceed the amount of the structure accidentally damaged. In no case shall any portion of a structure that has been found to have been intentionally damaged by the owner be allowed to be re- established unless it is done in a manner consistent with all codes and regulations then in existence; and c. An application for site plan review shall be made if a catastrophic or an accumulative loss greater than fifty percent (50%) of the assessed value of the structure occurs during the life of this permit. The replacement structure shall be reviewed to ensure that it is architecturally in character with the surrounding area and, that it complies with all relevant building codes and the existing zoning codes then in place, to the extent possible. NOTES TO PROPERTY OWNER: 1) Prior to any subsequent consideration of a another conditional approval permit for this site, the surrounding area shall be reassessed by the City based on the review criteria and conditions in existence at that time. October 10, 1995 Fan, Dentistry Clinic, 636 Shattuck Ave' Page 5 2) The applicant shall prepare restrictive covenants satisfactory to the City Attorney that reflect these conditions and run with the site. These restrictive covenants shall be filed by the applicant or their representative with King County and verification of this filing shall be submitted to Development Services prior to this permit being issued. APPROVAL SIGNATURES: Non-conforming Use Conditional Approval The subject application was reviewed by the Renton City Council on and approved. Signed, on this , 1995; Marilyn Petersen, City Clerk Non-conforming Structure Conditional Approval Signed, on this , 1995; • Michael D. Kattermann, Director Jim Hanson, Director Planning & Technical Services Development Services 636shttc.DOC u -.slog _ 3, e M , I• s?. 4 �, ia! {, ru rtr''} . i , I.. i 1 1U! ��i' tt .ice tr I '' I 1 i', /,.. ' l' tz,.., , ,,,-- 4... M ',6��PJ c ' t 73 - i'1'•.. i. ''•.i 7 (q r yam• y - 'f.7}1J'�°�}.�rY tt �i`� �'y'"Sr s 1Y,�.s.� 1,t'. .ti, (/) l Irtt1� ,,fA,!I, `r -s'Tjrl 1i�,e)Y-{ yyy / Al a I d 4 ' 3'}" ,-; fir, ", 111 ‘t4(' Ali � �� •,.: I III ,.;--,� �'`:; , ,t� ,l ++ • .-rs.i'1 ++ II: '"A , hi, . �r «. . s� .0 t 4 � { S s M Mrt14::. c I ? t'ttifr �• 0 .11 • ' ca G ,z., Z `� ',1 t . E.'. i " LW HI LE /. 110•--5 . C A 4010 leD C co �- _y_ A-k- \ P1 girl f--„D I. , Ili. iv 40 _____ ____" i_i____ ---: = E____ ••••••0 isg 1 -11 1 "1 ix ... _15 h I 1 ;al i! a r ill--H, A. Illisv I" 1: sv iii .. 1 2 /r - L_______A 636 Shattuck Avenue South • t CONCURRENCE `� eV45- DATE - PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE D ) ',Vic/ ® CITY OF RENTON ►I`-%,.!i Aim-- o- .f I i-46 CONDITIONAL APPROVAL PERMIT APPLICATI•' -1/ti/iili �L1- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON City Sponsored Conditional Approval of • Family Dentistry Clinic Site LOCATION: 636 Shattuck Avenue South SUMMARY OF REQUEST: City sponsored conditional approval of 0.17 acre site developed with a two-story rectangular-shaped residential looking building occupied by professional dental offices in order to legitimize this non- conforming use and structure against their premature termination in the event of a catastrophic loss to the structure. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Planning & Technical Services Recommendation: Approve RELEVANT REVIEW CRITERIA: Non-conforming Uses: Pursuant to Section 4-31-19.1.5., the following three use criteria are relevant to this application: • Community Need; • Effect on Adjacent Property; and • Timeliness with Existing Plans and Programs. Non-conforming Structures: Pursuant to Section 4-31-19.1.6., the following three k)0L1 w , w'r;.` y A structure criteria are relevant to this application: ky i • Potential of the Site for Redevelopment: o t 5 • Condition of Building/Structure: In ,� (N' • Departure from the Zoning Code: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, & RECOMMENDATIONS Having reviewed the relevant criteria in this matter, Staff make and enter the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, the City of Renton, is processing approximately ten conditional approval permit applications for projects that initially petitioned for Class 'A' - Non-conforming Use status in 1994 before this was changed to the Conditional Approval Permit pro,ccss. October 10, 1995 Fan Dentistry Clinic, 636 Shattuck Ave Page 2 2. Because there is no proposed change of use or modification of structures proposed as a consequence of these applications it was determined that these applications were SEPA exempt since these actions were seen as being administrative in nature. 3. Proposed enabling legislation for these applications has been reviewed by all departments with an interest in this issue. 4. The subject site is commonly known as the Family Dentistry Clinic site. The site is located at 636 Shattuck Avenue South in a predominantly mixed-density residential area that includes single- family dwellings as well as some residential duplex and apartment structures. 5. The existing building is a one-story rectangular-shaped wood-frame structure that is approximately 46 feet by 50 feet along its outside perimeter, with a sloping composition shingle roof with an upper protruding partial story facing onto the street. The main entry of the building fronts onto Shattuck Avenue South. 6. The subject site is approximately 7,572 square feet in area. The existing building does appear to meet the required side yard of 12 feet for lots wider than 60 feet in the RM-U Zone. In "U"- designated multi-family areas such as the south downtown area, there are no required front or rear yard setbacks, although the existing structure provides both. 7. The front of the building facing onto Shattuck Avenue South is setback approximately 12 feet from the street property line and is landscaped with predominantly evergreen shrubs and lawn. This and the buildings clapboard siding help to impart a residential feeling to the existing predominantly residential streetscape. 8. Single-family dwellings abut the subject site to the north and also exist across the street to the west. Also across the street to the west are two existing apartment buildings. To the south across SW 7th Street, the zoning is CA - Commercial Arterial. 9. The property owner is seeking a conditional approval permit that will allow the existing structure and professional dental practice to be re-established in the event that a catastrophic accident destroys or severely damages the existing building to the extent that their repair or replacement exceeds 50% of the latest assessed value of the structure.' 10. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject site as Center Downtown which states that: "Development should be low and mid-rise with an overall average floor to area ratio (FAR) of 2:1 within the Center Downtown designation on the Land Use Map." Each parcel however, is not required to achieve this specific intensity. 11. Reflecting actual uses in the area, the zoning is RM-U to the north for approximately two blocks, and east of the site for approximately two blocks, with CA zoning to the west and south of the site (across Shattuck Avenue S. and across SW 7th StreeI CONCLUSIONS: Non-conforming Use: 1. The proponent, must demonstrate that the request to continue the existing non-conforming use in the event of a catastrophic loss or damage to the premises is in the public interest and that it complies with at least three relevant criteria identified above and taken from Section 4-31-19.1.5: a. "Community Need: There is a community need for the proposed use at its present location." It appears that the existing facility does serve residents and employees in the surrounding South Downtown area as well as dental patients from elsewhere in the city. With many October 10, 1995 Far Dentistry Clinic, 636 Shattuck Ave Page 3 medical facilities having relocated to the area around S. Talbot Road and SW 43rd/Carr Road, it would appear to be in the community's interest to retain existing health care facilities that serve nearby larger residential/employment populations. b. "Effect on Adjacent Property: The existing non-conforming use has not resulted in undue adverse effects on adjacent properties from noise, traffic, glare, vibration, etc." There is no indication that the proposed use has created adverse impacts on the adjacent properties. This site was zoned to the B-1 Zone in 1984 with restrictive covenants (file # R- 098-84) ensuring that the structure would architecturally tie in with the surrounding residential area. Because of this the building was designed to look like a traditional single- family dwelling, even though it was a new structure designed to house a dental clinic. As such, the structure fits in quite well with the surrounding lower density single-family dwellings in the area.,,�The existing use, including its off-street parking, is well landscaped and does not appears'to create a nuisance in terms of noise, traffic or glare. c. "Timeliness with Existing Plans and Programs: Because of the anticipated market timing for permitted uses in the zone, retention of the existing non-conforming use would not impede or delay the implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan ." Given the relatively small size of the current lot, some 7,500 square feet in area, its location at the southeast corner of the RM-U Zone would indicate that it is unlikely to impede or delay the implementation of new multifamily residential elsewhere in the RM-U Zone, to the north and east. There appear to significant opportunities elsewhere in this zone to accommodate projected residential absorption rates for sometime into the future. Therefore, it does not appear that retention of the existing non-conforming use would necessarily impede implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan. In fact, the strong residential character imparted by this building might help stabilize existing residential uses in this area. Also, given the substantial and fairly recent investment in the existing structure (1984), it does not appear likely that it would be converted to residential uses in the future unless there was an unanticipated market for these uses that would justify the additional expense of acquiring a profitable non-residential business and replacing it with a residential use. Non-conforming Structure: 2. The proponent, must demonstrate that the request to re-establish the existing non- conforming structure in the event of a catastrophic loss or damage to the premises, is in the public interest and that it complies with at least three relevant criteria identified above and taken from.Section 4-31-19.1.6: a. "Potential of the Site for Redevelopment": Redevelopment of the site with a conforming structure is unlikely either because the size of the existing lot may be too small to be economical, or, because the characteristics of adjacent permitted uses preclude their expansion. Because of the size of the existing lot it may not be a preferred site, at least initially, for redevelopment with multi-family residential uses. Vacant lots and single-family residential sites are the most likely candidates for redevelopment under the RM-U zoning which allows densities of up to 75 - 100 DU/AC for market rate multi-family units. Typically such development starts out with a minimum lot size of 14,000 or 15,000 square feet since smaller lot sizes are less efficient at these higher densities. The likelihood of the redevelopment of this smaller, peripherally located site to RM-U uses in the foreseeable future seems somewhat remote. b. "Condition of Building/Structure": If non-conforming as to the provisions of the City's Building Code, the building or structure has generally been well maintained and is not considered to be a threat to the public health or safety. • October 10, 1995 Fa' Dentistry Clinic, 636 Shattuck Avi- - Page 4 From all exterior appearances, the existing structure is well maintained and is not considered to be a threat to the public health or safety. c. "Departure from the Zoning Code": If non-conforming with the provisions of the City's Development Regulations, the building or structure does not pose a threat to the public health, welfare, or safety, or, it could be modified so as not to pose such a threat. Again, there is no indication that the existing structure poses a threat to the public health, welfare, or safety. Although the interior side yard setback may be slightly less than the minimum 12 feet required under the RM-U Zone, it does not appear to be out of character with existing units in this older residential neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Based upon the above, the requested conditional approval permit to allow the existing use to be re-established in the case of a catastrophic loss or damage to the structure should be allowed subject to the following conditions: 6)-I)°o a. The conditional approval permit shall be in effect for a period not exceeding ten (10) r wifir years. If a catastrophic loss of the original structure occurs within the conditional 33\ril`-9 ov, ,01 ,k- approval permit period and the site is not redeveloped within two years, the non- \ 66 C conforming use shall not be re-established. U} 11� r" b. New tenants shall be informed in writing about the non-conforming status of the existing use and structure and the fact that this conditional approval permit for the � 1 e / non-conforming use is initially granted for a period not exceeding ten (10) years, 0 , �� although subsequent permits might be issued if conditions at the time still warrant. 6'0 5 2. Based upon the above discussion, the requested conditional approval permit to allow the 1 t / existing structure.to be re-established in the case of a catastrophic loss or damage to the structure should be granted subject to the following conditions: a. The conditional approval permit shall be in effect fora period not exceeding ten (10) ‘ . ^ years. If a catastrophic loss of the original structure occurs within the conditional nJll [eaV e approval permit period and the site is not redeveloped within two years, the e10 non- conforming use shall not be re-established; ia2 re-etil46O r5 p b. The extent of the existing non-conforming building that may be r placed with YOU U(• 4' additional non-conforming structure shall not exceed the amount of t e structure accidentally damaged. In no case shall any portion of a structure th t has been found to have been intentionally damaged by the owner be allowed to list-- CA Al'll e#.'44sunless it es-se consistent with all codes and regulations then in existence; and 1, •16 �GY►•C rA a MAN c. An application for site plan review shall be made if a catastrophic or an accumulative loss greater than fifty percent (50%) of the assessed value of the structure occurs during the life of this permit. The replacement structure shall be reviewed to ensure that it is architecturally in character with the surrounding area and, that it complies with all relevant building codes and the existing zoning codes then in place, to the extent possible. NOTES TO PROPERTY OWNER: 1) Prior to any subsequent consideration of a another conditional approval permit for this site, the surrounding area shall be reassessed by the City based on the review criteria and conditions in existence at that time. October 10, 1995 Fa Dentistry Clinic, 636 Shattuck Av= Page 5 2) The applicant shall prepare restrictive covenants satisfactory to the City Attorney that reflect these conditions and run with the site. These restrictive covenants shall be filed by the applicant or their representative with King County and verification of this filing shall be submitted to Development Services prior to this permit being issued. APPROVAL SIGNATURES: Non-conforming Use Conditional Approval The subject application was reviewed by the Renton City Council on and approved. Signed, on this , 1995; Marilyn Petersen, City Clerk Non-conforming Structure Conditional Approval Signed, on this , 1995; Michael D. Kattermann, Director Jim Hanson, Director Planning & Technical Services Development Services 636shttc.DOC CITE .3F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer,Mayor - Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator October 25, 1995 Mr. Michael T. Donnelly, DDS 636 Shattuck Avenue South • Renton, WA 98055 • RE: CONDITIONAL APPROVAL PERMIT FOR NONCONFORMING USE/STRUCTURE, 636 SHATTUCK AVE. S. Dear Dr. Donnelly: Enclosed is a copy of the staff report that was heard by.the Planning & Development Committee this afternoon. As I explained to you over the phone the Conditional Approval Permit Process allows an existing non-conforming use and/or structure to be replaced up to 100% of its most recent assessed value in the event of a catastrophic loss due to fire, earthquake or other event. Any existing legal non-conforming use and/or structure is now allowed outright to replace it self in case of a major loss if the • replacement value does not exceed 50% of the last assessed value of the structure. Unlike a conditional use permit which allows certain specified uses within a zone to be permitted, typically subject to conditions, the conditional approval permit allows uses that would not otherwise be permitted in a zone (even as a conditional use) for specified periods of time and in some cases subject to conditions. By allowing these uses to continue on an interim basis and, even be replaced in the case of a catastrophic loss, the City is not seen as violating the intent of the underlying zone which is to ultimately phase such nonconforming uses out. In response to your question about why your existing use could not be treated as a conditional use as it was previously in reviewing the RM-U Zone in which you are now located I could find no provision for dental uses as either an administrative or hearing examiner conditional use. If I can answer any further questions either about the staff report (enclosed) or the RM- U Zone, please feel free to call me 277-6181. Don Erickson, AICP Principal Planner Enclosure 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton,Washington 98055 C: This paper contains 50%recycled material,25%post consumer c. p4:. CITY OF RENT ON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor June 13, 1994 Dr. Michael T. Connelly DDS Family Dentistry 636 Shattuck Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 SUBJECT: Class "A" Non-conforming Uses Dear Dr. Connelly: Thank you for your letter of April 29, 1994 regarding your non-conforming use at 636 Shattuck Avenue South and your request for the issuance of a Class"A" Non-conforming Use Permit for this property. The Renton City Council on May 16, 1994, after hearing'back from it's Planning & Development Committee that the Committee would like to continue working with staff to resolve several legal and planning issues related to the granting of Class "A" Non-conforming Use status on certain uses, adopted the Committee's recommendation that all future requests for Class "A" Non-conforming Use status be referred to the Committee. This was so staff could conduct an analysis for each use/site and report back to the Committee on its findings before the Committee forwards it's recommendation on each request to the Council. In addition, the Council adopted the Committee's recommendation that it be allowed to .continue working with staff on resolving the several legal and planning issues before bringing a final. process before the City Council. Staff are currently working on these issues with the Planning and Development Committee and will let you know when the Committee holds further discussions on a final process for Class "A" Non-conforming Uses. You will also be notified when your specific request is under consideration. • If you have any questions either about your specific request or, how Class "A" Non-conforming uses will be handled in general, in the future, please contact Don Erickson, the planner in charge of this project. Don can be reached at 277-6181. Sincerely, • Michael Kattermann, AICP Planning Director *, :•''� MICHAEL T. DC sIELLY, D.D.S., P.S. `J FAMILY DENTISTRY �� �LANNI CITY FREn,-�SlpN MAY 31994 Renton City Council EC 'IV c/o Michael Kattermann Interim Planning Director City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Wa 98055 April 29, 1994 • RE: CLASS A NONCONFORMING USE PERMIT Renton City Council Members : In 1984 the Land Use Hearing Examiner granted me a B - 1 zoning with restrictive covenants (file # R-098-84) . The legal description of the property in question is Lots 11�� �� ��� 10 & 11 Block 6 Smithers; 5th Addition to the Town of 6/ Q tl Mlle :11UL Renton; Recorded Vol . 16 of Plats,. pg. 33,, King Co. WA. 6 AI/,( _ The completion 'of the current dental office 1989 followed two years of painstakingly slow communication with the , planning and building departments . Two years of mortgage payments on an unoccupied property were necessary due to the cumbersome, slow and inadequate communication from the planning department . An unexpected seventy percent more funds were needed to finish than originally was estimated in 1984 . The additional funds brought every aspect of the site planning, building construction, offsite road curb and sidewalk, fire hydrant, and power relocation into agreement with the restrictions and requirements of the planning and building departments . In short I have personally paid a considerable price and taken on considerable debt in order to run a small business in Renton. This was done with the written assurance by the City of Renton Land Use Examiner that the property would be properly zoned for my specific business use if all restrictive covenants were met . I have met those requirements . My use has been in compliance with the hearing examiners vision but is"currently. non-conforming. The original restrictive covenants prevented the creation of hazards, nuisances, or retail business _impacts on the surrounding neighborhood: Esthetic compatibility with the 636 SHATTUCK AVENUE SOUTH RENTON. WASHINGTON 98055 TELEPHONE(206) 271-8644 residential nature of the neighborhood was required by the planning department prior to construction. My nonconforming use is an excellent buffer between the light industry activities on the South, commercial (CA) zoning on the West, and multiple family zoning on the North and East . Potential adverse impacts do not exist in this situation due to my previous compliance with the restrictive covenants . I urgently request the issuance of a Class A Nonconforming Use Permit to ensure my ability to rebuild and continue my livelihood in the event of damage to my building. Sincerely, Se4a1/7":-. Michael T. Donnelly 11 Ket4laki:5 -5 ' l‘elPr., S' 5307 ■J IS€ 4 CITY OF RENTON 41-n J -1 4 = P-1 ® ZONING MAP LEGEND 4 -� Illil RC Resource Conservation — SVL Single Family Low Density Q ® p �/ 14 • Sr Single Family — AIRPORT WY T Trailer (Single Family) I N —fin � \ A -�LiT'■.,'� NR Mixed Residential 4. S 132nd ST _ rum_ .C'4 P:iu s:1 PNR Planned Neighborhood Residential 4 Ni, • �������` =.t PiF-[ Multi-Family Intill „,, a 11 ,limull t i is a.� '• NF-U Multi-Fsmfly Urban Center 4 IN . � ill I i _I.- .., Mr-C Multi-Family Community Center IV M P-1 -. - �-N Multi-Family Neighborhood Center •� 1" '� ,�;I , . — � - IL industrial - Light .--� tM a(14//ill • .. _- __Z-K \ C, S 2nd ST 1 W IN Industrial - Medium ,, IH Indus trial - Heavy ,®,��� , ©� - -\ -1 J v CM MixeCommercial --- (74 to / L An' N _ — — CO Comercial CILE Majo 1 EA Il.:li' �:.i1 I'.�a� • PM Major Medical Institution ��, J* !,� ra,� !? !! MG E IPP • ir �'hf g Neighborhood Commercial - .1 . ` �- CA rr — r CC Convenience Commercial .�1/. II 11. ,o POR Planned Office/Residential ,:. a Q�C� P Public Use 4 4� Qu _ - _ —� ��Renton City Limits -ea •�Q�ill j �� f ' 11 1 3 -- _1 I 0 600 1200 __ IM IM C • . s�er k � F o'l '.n LONG RANGE PLANNING SW 7th ST WI 0.4140 A," , • -�'�� + �/ 93TECHNICAI SERVICES �UI ���iii �' t PAGE 1 I f� 1 1 � .• ' `+ 5318 5319 '/ "' a pp,c*Ay Criteria Compliance for Non-conforming Uses/Structures Address: 636 Shattuck Ave S Existing Use: Dental Offices Existing Zoning: Multi-Family Criteria for NonoonfomiIng Uses Comments Community Need Average or better. • • Effect on Adjacent Properties Minimal impacts, if any. Historic Significance None. Economic Significance Average. • • Consistency w/ Existing Plans/Programs Criteria for Nononformlng Stiuctures ' Comments Architectural Significance N/A. Arch. Compatibility w/ Surrounding Uses Good, building was designed to look like an area single- family house. Potential of Site for Redevelopment Low to Moderate at present time. Condition of Building/Structure Appear to be good. • Departure from Zoning Code Use currently is a prohibited use, under the CO zoning. • Document3/CoR L 'K'y 1 4 -- — YNi'y:^' Ar l .6,17....0."-:.:ru":Ilif s'..".1' ,- .....r ,_ . *.„. ,. .....--.4.r. 1 - „.........,.. . ..... • 95 1 2S 636 Shattuck Avenue South ,l. LIJ LIJ =11 C Aj)d C_D C 636 Shattuck Avenue South February 19. 1996 Renton City Council Minutes Page 55 including how much time remained on it, via covenants that the property owner will be required to record with King County. Audience comment was invited. Grace Chan, 7940-B Seward Park Ave. S., Seattle, 98118, stated that she purchased two multi-family properties in Renton as an investment, which she was interested in protecting. She emphasized her wish to re-establish these buildings in the event of a catastrophe. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Former Councilman Dick Stredicke, 1014 Tacoma Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, Citizen Comment commented on Council discussion last week.regarding handicapped parking Stredicke - Handicapped regulations and enforcement. Saying the fine for illegally parking in a Parking handicapped space used to be $57, he noted it is now $175. •He distributed examples of violation notices that could be placed on the vehicles of those who appear to be parking illegally in handicapped stalls, and asked that this subject be referred to Council's Public Safety Committee. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL REFER THE SUBJECT OF HANDICAPPED PARKING REGULATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Mayor Tanner noted that the Administration is currently drafting an ordinance on this issue to be submitted to the Public Safety Committee for review and recommendation. Citizen Comment Richter Marjorie Richter, 300 Meadow Ave. N., Renton, 98055, described violations - Handicapped Parking she,has personally observed of parking spaces reserved for the handicapped, Abuses particularly at the Medical Arts Building by Valley Hospital. She thanked Council and the Administration for looking into this issue. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are accepted by one motion which follows the listing. Finance: Personnel .Human Resources & Risk Management Department recommended that the Changes (Accounting part-time Accounting Assistant position in the Finance & Information Services Assistant, Secretary II) Department be made full-time to provide additional accounting duties for the golf course; and also recommended that the Open Space Coordinator position in the Community Services Department be reclassified and transferred to the Finance & Information Services Department for this purpose and to establish a full-time Secretary II position to provide needed secretarial support. Refer to Finance Committee. . Parks: Community Center Human Resources & Risk Management Department recommended approval of Position Reclasses two reclassifications in the Community Services Department, as follows: Recreation Program Coordinator (grade 18) to Community Center & Recreation Coordinator (grade 20), and Recreation Specialist (grade 14) to Recreation Coordinator (grade 18). Refer to Finance Committee. Legal: Adult Legal Department submitted draft Adult Entertainment Ordinance developed Entertainment Ordinance in cooperation with King County and a number of suburban cities to coordinate adult entertainment regulations in the area. Refer to Committee of the Whole. February 19, 1996 Renton City Council Minutes Page 56 • Vacation:, Lake Ave S Property Services Division submitted appraisal in the amount of $320,000 for Street Vacation, VAC-95- VAC-95-001, street vacation on Lake Ave. S. from S. 3rd St. to Seattle's 001 (Safeway) Cedar River Pipeline Right-of-Way (Safeway, Inc.), and recommended the appraisal be approved and the applicant be directed to provide one-half the appraised value. Refer to Transportation Committee. Vacation: SW 13th Property Services Division submitted appraisal in the amount of $342,916.20 St/Maple Ave SW Street for VAC-94-004, SW 13th St. & Maple Ave. SW street vacation (Jamie Pierre). Vacation, VAC-94-004 Refer to Transportation Committee. (Pierre) Vacation: SW 12th St/SW Property Services Division submitted appraisal in the amount of $28,660 for Grady Way Street VAC-95-003, SW 12th St. & SW Grady Way west of Rainier Ave. S. alley Vacation, VAC-95-003 vacation (Sound Mazda). Refer to Transportation Committee. (Sound Mazda) Vacation: SW 12th/Grady Property Services Division submitted appraisal in the amount of $91,278 for Way/Maple & Lind Ayes VAC-95-005, street vacation in the area of SW 12th St., SW Grady Way, and Street Vacation, VAC-95- Maple and Lind Ayes. SW (Good Chevrolet). Refer to Transportation 005 (Good Chevrolet) Committee. CAG: 95-048, Nelson P1 Utility Systems Division submitted CAG-95-048, Nelson Pl. NW and Rainier NW/Rainier Ave N Storm Ave. N. storm system replacement project; and recommended approval of the System Replacement, West project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of $3,787, Coast Const. commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $7,571.72 to West Coast Construction'Co., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. Transportation: Talbot Transportation Division proposed an agreement with the Renton School Elementary, Crosswalk District for the relocation of the school crosswalk at Talbot Rd. S. and S. 23rd Relocation, Talbot Rd S & St. by Talbot Elementary School. The City's cost share is $4,250. Refer to S 23rd St Transportation Committee. Public Works: PWTF Utility Systems Division requested authorization to submit applications for Loans, Corrosion Control Public Works Trust Fund loans with interest rates of 1% for the corrosion & Rolling Hills Reservoir, 'control treatment and 'the Rolling Hills reservoir projects (loans of$938,000 CAG- and $1,980,000, respectively). Council concur. Public Works: PWTF Utility Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement accepting a Loan, Corrosion Control Public Works Trust Fund pre-construction loan in the amount of $173,400 for Facilities, CAG-96- corrosion control treatment facilities. The required City match is $96,600. Council concur. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED 'BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Correspondence was read from Michael K. Hubbard, leasing manager for Citizen Comment Trammell Crow Company, 5601 Sixth Ave. S., Seattle, 98108, asking that Hubbard - Pan Abode Site ' Council consider the rezone application for the Pan Abode site, located at N. Rezone Request (N,44th 44th St. and Lake Washington Blvd. N., from Light Industrial (IL) to Arterial St/Lk Wash Blvd N) 'Commercial (CA). MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY KEOLKER- WHEELER, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. April 1, 1996 Renton City Council Minutes Page 124 Citizen Comment Hlavka Correspondence was read from Rick Hlavka, 402 S. Tobin St., Renton, 98055, - Puget Sound Helicopters regarding the operations of Puget Sound Helicopters and asking that Council terminate the operating agreement for this business. Citizen Comment: Correspondence was read from Lisa Halstead, 420 S. .1.15th St., Renton, 98057, Halstead - Puget Sound communicating her continued opposition to the flight operations of Puget Helicopters Sound Helicopters and suggesting that Council terminate this operating agreement. Citizen Comment: Correspondence was read from Marsha Lammers, 1220 N. 4th St., Renton, Lammers - Use of Metro 98055, representing the Renton School District Transportation Division, to Bus Students expressing interest in transporting high school students via Metro buses. OLD BUSINESS Council President Nelson presented a report recommending that staff present Committee of the Whole the holiday lights proposal to the Park Board, requesting written comments Parks: Clam Lights Master and recommendations on the proposal to charge admission fees. The Plan Committee further recommended_that Staff investigate community and corporate interest and financial support for this event, with a report back to Council. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. \""--"----- Planning & Development Planning & Development Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a Committee report recommending Council approval of the nine conditional approval Development Services: permit applications it heard at the public hearing on February 19, 1996. The Conditional Approval Committee so recommended noting that the enabling ordinance (#4584) for Permit Requests (9) the conditional approval permit process, adopted by Council on February 12, 1996, is now in effect and the resolution of this unfinished business is now timely. Approval of these nine initial conditional approval permit applications will be pursuant to the recommended conditions of approval that were presented to Council on February 19, 1996 for each of the applications. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Development Services: Planning & Development Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a National Electrical Code report regarding amendments to the National Electrical Code. The Committee and Other Uniform Code recommended concurrence in the following staff recommendations: Amendments 1. That Council adopt the ordinance to update the National Electrical. Code with state-wide amendments to the 1996 edition. 2. That Council adopt the two minor revisions to the National Electrical Code. 3. That Council adopt amendments to the Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Electrical Codes to require a $20.00 service fee to duplicate permits, provided notice of this charge is given the applicant on all permits issued. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 128 for ordinance.) Transportation (Aviation) Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chair Schlitzer presented a report Committee recommending that Council adopt the resolution supporting the full King Metro: Six-Year Transit County Six-Year Transit Plan/Renton Early Implementation Project. The Plan/Renton Early Committee strongly supports transit service and recognizes the importance of Implementation Project this project to both the City and the region. Further, the Committee supports a refinement to the proposed transit routing to the downtown interim hub that would address citizen concerns yet provide regional transit service connections and alternatives to the single occupant vehicle, consistent with the City's PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CITY OF RENTON CONDITIONAL APPROVAL PERMIT APPLICATION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON City Sponsored Conditional Approval of Family Dentistry Clinic Site LOCATION: 636 Shattuck Avenue South SUMMARY OF REQUEST: City sponsored conditional approval of 0.17 acre site developed with a two-story rectangular-shaped residential looking building occupied by professional dental offices in order to legitimize this non- conforming use and structure against their premature termination in the event of a catastrophic loss to the structure. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Planning & Technical Services Recommendation: Approve RELEVANT REVIEW CRITERIA: Non-conforming Uses: Pursuant to Section 4-31-19.1.5., the following three use criteria are relevant to this application: • Community Need; • Effect on Adjacent Property; and • Timeliness with Existing Plans and Programs. Non-conforming Structures: Pursuant to Section 4-31-19.1.6., the following three structure criteria are relevant to this application: • Potential of the Site for Redevelopment: • Condition of Building/Structure: • Departure from the Zoning Code: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, & RECOMMENDATIONS Having reviewed the relevant criteria in this matter, Staff make and enter the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, the City of Renton, is processing approximately ten conditional approval permit applications for projects that initially petitioned for Class 'A' - Non-conforming Use status in 1994 before this was changed to the Conditional Approval Permit process. October 10, 1995 Farr,n` `)entistry Clinic, 636 Shattuck Ave ` Page 2 2. Because there is no proposed change of use or modification of structures proposed as a consequence of these applications it was determined that these applications were SEPA exempt since these actions were seen as being administrative in nature. 3. Proposed enabling legislation for these applications has been reviewed by all departments with an interest in this issue. 4. The subject site is commonly known as the Family Dentistry Clinic site. The site is located at 636 Shattuck Avenue South in a predominantly mixed-density residential area that includes single- family dwellings as well as some residential duplex and apartment structures. 5. The existing building is a one-story rectangular-shaped wood-frame structure that is approximately 46 feet by 50 feet along its outside perimeter, with a sloping composition shingle roof with an upper protruding partial story facing onto the street. The main entry of the building fronts onto Shattuck Avenue South. 6. The subject site is approximately 7,572 square feet in area. The existing building does appear to meet the required side yard of 12 feet for lots wider than 60 feet in the RM-U Zone. In "U"- designated multi-family areas such as the south downtown area, there are no required front or rear yard setbacks, although the existing structure provides both. 7. The front of the building facing onto Shattuck Avenue South is setback approximately 12 feet from the street property line and is landscaped with predominantly evergreen shrubs and lawn. This and the buildings clapboard siding help to impart a residential feeling to the existing predominantly residential streetscape. 8. Single-family dwellings..abut the subject site to the north and also exist across the street to the west. Also across the street to the west are two existing apartment buildings. To the south across SW 7th Street, the zoning is CA - Commercial Arterial. 9. The property owner is seeking a conditional approval permit that will allow the existing structure and professional dental practice to be re-established in the event that a catastrophic accident destroys or severely damages the existing building to the extent that their repair or replacement exceeds 50% of the latest assessed value of the structure. 10. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject site as Center Downtown which states that: "Development should be low and mid-rise with an overall average floor to area ratio (FAR) of 2:1 within the Center Downtown designation on the Land Use Map." Each parcel however, is not required to achieve this specific intensity. 11. Reflecting actual uses in the area, the zoning is RM-U to the north for approximately two blocks, and east of the site for approximately two blocks, with CA zoning to the west and south of the site (across Shattuck Avenue S. and across SW 7th Street). CONCLUSIONS: Non-conforming Use: 1. The proponent, must demonstrate that the request to continue the existing non-conforming use in the event of a catastrophic loss or damage to the premises is in the public interest and that it complies with at least three relevant criteria identified above and taken from Section 4-31-19.1.5: a. "Community Need: There is a community need for the proposed use at its present location." It appears that the existing facility does serve residents and employees in the surrounding South Downtown area as well as dental patients from elsewhere in the city. With many October 10, 1995 Fan. " =)entistry Clinic, 636 Shattuck Ave Page 3 medical facilities having relocated to the area around S. Talbot Road and SW 43rd/Carr Road, it would appear to be in the community's interest to retain existing health care facilities that serve nearby larger residential/employment populations. b. "Effect on Adjacent Property: The existing non-conforming use has not resulted in undue adverse effects on adjacent properties from noise, traffic, glare, vibration, etc." There is no indication that the proposed use has created adverse impacts on the adjacent properties. This site was zoned to the B-1 Zone in 1984 with restrictive covenants (file # R- 098-84) ensuring that the structure would architecturally tie in with the surrounding residential area. Because of this the building was designed to look like a traditional single- family dwelling, even though it was a new structure designed to house a dental clinic. As such, the structure fits in quite well with the surrounding lower density single-family dwellings in the area. The existing use, including its off-street parking, is well landscaped and does not appear to create a nuisance in terms of noise, traffic or glare. c. "Timeliness with Existing Plans and Programs: Because of the anticipated market timing for permitted uses in the zone, retention of the existing non-conforming use would not impede or delay the implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan ." Given the relatively small size of the current lot, some 7,500 square feet in area, its location at the southeast corner of the RM-U Zone would indicate that it is unlikely to impede or delay the implementation of new multifamily residential elsewhere in the RM-U Zone, to the north and east. There appear to significant opportunities elsewhere in. this zone to accommodate projected residential absorption rates for sometime into the future. Therefore, it does not appear that retention of the existing non-conforming use would necessarily impede implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan. In fact, the strong residential character imparted by this building might help stabilize existing residential uses in this area. Also, given the substantial and fairly recent investment in the existing structure (1984), it does not appear likely that it would be converted to residential uses in the future unless there was an unanticipated market for these uses that would justify the additional expense of acquiring a profitable non-residential business and replacing it with a residential use. Non-conforming Structure: 2. The proponent, must demonstrate that the request to re-establish the existing non- conforming structure in the event of a catastrophic loss or damage to the premises, is in the public interest and that it complies with at least three relevant criteria identified above and taken from Section 4-31-19.1.6: a. "Potential of the Site for Redevelopment": Redevelopment of the site with a conforming structure is unlikely either because the size of the existing lot may be too small to be economical, or, because the characteristics of adjacent permitted uses preclude their expansion. Because of the size of the existing lot it may not be a preferred site, at least initially, for redevelopment with multi-family residential uses. Vacant lots and single-family residential sites are the most likely candidates for redevelopment under the RM-U zoning which allows densities of up to 75 - 100 DU/AC for market rate multi-family units. Typically such development starts out with a minimum lot size of 14,000 or 15,000 square feet since smaller lot sizes are less efficient at these higher densities. The likelihood of the redevelopment of this smaller, peripherally located site to RM-U uses in the foreseeable future seems somewhat remote. b. "Condition of Building/Structure": If non-conforming as to the provisions of the City's Building Code, the building or structure has generally been well maintained and is not considered to be a threat to the public health or safety. October 10, 1995 Far. )entistry Clinic, 636 Shattuck Ave Page 4 From all exterior appearances, the existing structure is well maintained and is not considered to be a threat to the public health or safety. c. "Departure from the Zoning Code": If non-conforming with the provisions of the City's Development Regulations, the building or structure does not pose a threat to the public health, welfare, or safety, or, it could be modified so as not to pose such a threat. Again, there is no indication that the existing structure poses a threat to the public health, welfare, or safety. Although the interior side yard setback may be slightly less than the minimum 12 feet required under the RM-U Zone, it does not appear to be out of character with existing units in this older residential neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Based upon the above, the requested conditional approval permit to allow the existing use to be re-established in the case of a catastrophic loss or damage to the structure should be allowed subject to the following conditions: a. The conditional approval permit shall be in effect for a period not exceeding fifteen (15) years. If a catastrophic loss of the original structure occurs within the conditional approval permit period and the site is not redeveloped within two years, the non-conforming use shall not be re-established. b. New tenants shall be informed in writing about the-non-conforming status of the existing use and structure and the fact that this conditional approval permit for the non-conforming use is initially granted for a period not exceeding fifteen (15) years, although subsequent permits might be issued if conditions at the time still warrant. 2. Based upon the above discussion, the requested conditional approval permit to allow the existing structure to be re-established in the case of a catastrophic loss or damage to the structure should be granted subject to the following conditions: a. The conditional approval permit shall be in effect for a period not exceeding fifteen (15) years. If a catastrophic loss of the original structure occurs within the conditional approval permit period and the site is not redeveloped within two years, the non-conforming use shall not be re-established; b. The extent of the existing non-conforming building that may be replaced with additional non-conforming structure shall not exceed the amount of the structure accidentally damaged. In no case shall any portion of a structure that has been found to have been intentionally damaged by the owner be allowed to be re- established unless it is done in a manner consistent with all codes and regulations then in existence; and c. An application for site plan review shall be made if a catastrophic or an accumulative loss greater than fifty percent (50%) of the assessed value of the structure occurs during the life of this permit. The replacement structure shall be reviewed to ensure that it is architecturally in character with the surrounding area and, that it complies with all relevant building codes and the existing zoning codes then in place, to the extent possible. NOTES TO PROPERTY OWNER: 1) Prior to any subsequent consideration of a another conditional approval permit for this site, the surrounding area shall be reassessed by the City based on the review criteria and conditions in existence at that time. October 10, 1995 Fan ` )entistry Clinic, 636 Shattuck Ave, Page 5 2) The applicant shall prepare restrictive covenants satisfactory to the City Attorney that reflect these conditions and run with the site. These restrictive covenants shall be filed by the applicant or their representative with King County and verification of this filing shall be submitted to Development Services prior to this permit being issued. APPROVAL SIGNATURES: Non-conforming Use Conditional Approval The subject application was reviewed by the Renton City Council on and approved. Signed, on this , 1995; Marilyn Petersen, City Clerk Non-conforming Structure Conditional Approval Signed, on this , 1995; Michael D. Kattermann, Director Jim Hanson, Director Planning & Technical Services Development Services 636shttc.DOC 1 r\ti r ��'Gtii Tr -� -ti- �r, s'`.r. •V t"+;,i3`-• 'r :_. ,ram;.=;, = 1.1.-4-f.- -�,�AlMryliY Duuis7QY� ate•, ' xe ....�.c • s44 ���i -4 • y :A/4�fi 1..44 ' •4 111 tS �y>) .;• i•Iri e*Z..^v m.m7:tea.- I r�tr r.\ iY.rG'vo ' � .i ►S.x,'t1 J4<`t',, :� ".vbi'�'® f a-4T:0t7'a 'AY; Y3 -3x`,,,, n'4 J ', 1r ;a ' ,a 4. x . 1" `f r \ 1. Y , J„� 4--.4vc Nti,� " ,ri�'` ..,`4 h ` I , I ssin' ayi - t ttg4.4 ?.,, n i; y,i „,44 1 636 Shattuck Avenue South LIJ 1=11 CA Ack\e\ t„.1 P\ 11111117 F lb) _ - ig , 636 Shattuck Avenue South CO CURRE CE DATE /O-a45- PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE rye /�'/�� `'�%- CITY OF RENTON® o- .16,5,J '� /-/.6 CONDITIONAL APPROVAL PERMIT APPLICATI' . i#4* nl"-r-c-a-/-fa7 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON City Sponsored Conditional Approval of • Family Dentistry Clinic Site LOCATION: 636 Shattuck Avenue South SUMMARY OF REQUEST: City sponsored conditional approval of 0.17 acre site developed with a two-story rectangular-shaped residential looking building occupied by professional dental offices in order to legitimize this non- conforming use and structure against their premature termination in the event of a catastrophic loss to the structure. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Planning & Technical Services Recommendation: Approve RELEVANT REVIEW CRITERIA: Non-conforming Uses: Pursuant to Section 4-31-19.1.5., the following three use criteria are relevant to this application: • Community Need; • Effect on Adjacent Property; and • Timeliness with Existing Plans and Programs. Non-conforming Structures: Pursuant to Section 4-31-19.1.6., the following three /�l structure criteria are relevant to this application: �Q i � • Potential of the Site for Redevelopment: , � tOTICI • Condition of Building/Structure: V " • Departure from the Zoning Code: Y `� FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, & RECOMMENDATIONS Having reviewed the relevant criteria in this matter, Staff make and enter the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, the City of Renton, is processing approximately ten conditional approval permit applications for projects that initially petitioned for Class 'A' - Non-conforming Use status in 1994 before this was changed to the Conditional Approval Permit process. October 10, 1995 Farr' Dentistry Clinic, 636 Shattuck Ave Page 2 • 2. Because there is no proposed change of use or modification of structures proposed as a consequence of these applications it was determined that these applications were SEPA exempt since these actions were seen as being administrative in nature. 3. Proposed enabling legislation for these applications has been reviewed by all departments with an interest in this issue. 4. The subject site is commonly known as the Family Dentistry Clinic site. The site is located at 636 Shattuck Avenue South in a predominantly mixed-density residential area that includes single- family dwellings as well as some residential duplex and apartment structures. • 5. The existing building is a one-story rectangular-shaped wood-frame structure that is approximately 46 feet by 50 feet along its outside perimeter, with a sloping composition shingle roof with an upper protruding partial story facing onto the street. The main entry of the building fronts onto Shattuck Avenue South. 6. The subject site is approximately 7,572 square feet in area. The existing building does appear to meet the required side yard of 12 feet for lots wider than 60 feet in the RM-U Zone. In "U"- designated multi-family areas such as the south downtown area, there are no required front or rear yard setbacks, although the existing structure provides both. 7. The front of the building facing onto Shattuck Avenue South is setback approximately 12 feet from the street property line and is landscaped with predominantly evergreen shrubs and lawn. This and the buildings clapboard siding help to impart a residential feeling to the existing predominantly residential streetscape. 8. Single-family dwellings abut the subject site to the north and also exist across the street to the west. Also across the street to the west are two existing apartment buildings. To the south across SW 7th Street, the zoning is CA - Commercial Arterial. 9. The property owner is seeking a conditional approval permit that will allow the existing structure and professional dental practice to be re-established in the event that a catastrophic accident destroys or severely damages the existing building to the extent that their repair or replacement exceeds 50% of the latest assessed value of the structure.-- 10. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject site as Center Downtown which states that: "Development should be low and mid-rise with an overall average floor to area ratio (FAR) of 2:1 within the Center Downtown designation on the Land Use Map." Each parcel however, is not required to achieve this specific intensity. 11. Reflecting actual uses in the area, the zoning is RM-U to the north for approximately two blocks, and east of the site for approximately two blocks, with CA zoning to the west and south of the site (across Shattuck Avenue S. and across SW 7th Stre4 CONCLUSIONS: Non-conforming Use: 1. The proponent, must demonstrate that the request to continue the existing non-conforming use in the event of a catastrophic loss or damage to the premises is in the public interest and that it complies with at least three relevant criteria identified above and taken from . Section.4-31-19.1.5: a. "Community Need: There is a community need for the proposed use at its present location." It appears that the existing facility does serve residents and employees in the surrounding South Downtown area as well as dental patients from elsewhere in the city. With many • October 10, 1995 Far Dentistry Clinic, 636 Shattuck AVEr Page 3 medical facilities having relocated to the area around S. Talbot Road and SW 43rd/Carr Road, it would appear to be in the community's interest to retain existing health care facilities that serve nearby larger residential/employment populations. b. "Effect on Adjacent Property: The existing non-conforming use has not resulted in undue adverse effects on adjacent properties from noise, traffic, glare, vibration, etc." There is no indication that the proposed use has created adverse impacts on the adjacent properties. This site was zoned to the B-1 Zone in 1984 with restrictive covenants (file # R- 098-84) ensuring that the structure would architecturally tie in with the surrounding residential area. Because of this the building was designed to look like a traditional single- family dwelling, even though it was a new structure designed to house a dental clinic. As such, the structure fits in quite well with the surrounding lower density single-family dwellings in the area._,The existing use, including its off-street parking, is well landscaped and does not appearito create a nuisance in terms of noise, traffic or glare. c. "Timeliness with Existing Plans and Programs: Because of the anticipated market timing for permitted uses in the zone, retention of the existing non-conforming use would not impede or delay the implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan ." Given the relatively small size of the current lot, some 7,500 square feet in area, its location at the southeast corner of the RM-U Zone would indicate that it is unlikely to impede or delay the implementation of new multifamily residential elsewhere in the RM-U Zone, to the north and east. There appear to significant opportunities elsewhere in this zone to accommodate projected residential absorption rates for sometime into the future. Therefore, it does not appear that retention of the existing non-conforming use would necessarily impede implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan. In fact, the strong residential character imparted by this building might help stabilize existing residential uses in this area. Also, given the substantial and fairly recent investment in the existing structure (1984), it does not appear likely that it would be converted to residential uses in the future unless there was an unanticipated market for these uses that would justify the additional expense of acquiring a profitable non-residential business and replacing it with a residential use. Non-conforming Structure: 2. The proponent, must demonstrate that the request to re-establish the existing non- conforming structure in the event of a catastrophic loss or damage to the premises, is in the public interest and that it complies with at least three relevant criteria identified above and taken from Section 4-31-19.1.6: a. "Potential of the Site for Redevelopment": Redevelopment of the site with a conforming structure is unlikely either because the size of the existing lot may be too small to be economical, or, because the characteristics of adjacent permitted uses preclude their expansion. Because of the size of the existing lot it may not be a preferred site, at least initially, for redevelopment with multi-family residential uses. Vacant lots and single-family residential sites are the most likely candidates for redevelopment under the RM-U zoning which allows densities of up to 75 - 100 DU/AC for market rate multi-family units. Typically such development starts out with a minimum lot size of 14,000 or 15,000 square feet since smaller lot sizes are less efficient at these higher densities. The likelihood of the redevelopment of this smaller, peripherally located site to RM-U uses in the foreseeable future seems somewhat remote. b. "Condition of Building/Structure": If non-conforming as to the provisions of the City's Building Code, the building or structure has generally been well maintained and is not considered to be a threat to the public health or safety. , • October 10, 1995 Far Dentistry Clinic, 636 Shattuck Alit' Page 4 From all exterior appearances, the existing structure is well maintained and is not considered to be a threat to the public health or safety. c. "Departure from the Zoning Code": If non-conforming with the provisions of the City's Development Regulations, the building or structure does not pose a threat to the public health, welfare, or safety, or, it could be modified so as not to pose such a threat. Again, there is no indication that the existing structure poses a threat to the public health, welfare, or safety. Although the interior side yard setback may be slightly less than the minimum 12 feet required under the RM-U Zone, it does not appear to be out of character with existing units in this older residential neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Based upon the above, the requested conditional approval permit to allow the existing use to be re-established in the case of a catastrophic loss or damage to the structure should be allowed subject to the following conditions: e,61.6 a. The conditional approval permit shall be in effect for a period not exceeding ten (10) �o��" years. If a catastrophic loss of the original structure occurs within the conditional \) 0I' * approval permit period and the site is not redeveloped within two years, the non- J 1d�'' conforming use shall not be re-established. \d---v -\f"\ a 1� V� b. New tenants shall be informed in writing about the non-conforming status of the �( 1 J1 existing use and structure and the fact that this conditional approval permit for the r n� 1-91 1 non-conforming use is initially granted for a period not exceeding ten (10) years, 'd" , � although subsequent permits might be issued if conditions at the time still warrant. 1 `� rre A- `� 2. Based upon the above discussion, the requested conditional approval permit to allow the ���e existing structure.to be re-established in the case of a catastrophic loss or damage to the structure should be granted subject to the following conditions: a. The . If aconditional catastrophicapproval losspermit ofshall the be originalineffect structurefora occursperiod withinnotexceeding the conditionaten (10)l kaV.- approval permit period and the site is not redeveloped within two years, the non-U e- conforming use shall not. be re-established; l2 re-ehl�13 414 ' rs P b. The extent of the existing non-conforming building that may be r placed with YOU u(. 4' additional non-conforming structure shall not exceed the amount of t e structure accidentally damaged. In no case shall any portion of a structure th t has been °A found to have been intentionally damaged by the owner be allowed to A( 4tseF-unless it trees-se consistent with all codes and regulations then in existence; �� and 2. c. An application for site plan review shall be made if a catastrophic or an accumulative loss greater than fifty percent (50%) of the assessed value of the structure occurs during the life of this permit. The replacement structure shall be reviewed to ensure that it is architecturally in character with the surrounding area and, that it complies with all relevant building codes and the existing zoning codes then in place, to the extent possible. NOTES TO PROPERTY OWNER: 1) Prior to any subsequent consideration of a another conditional approval permit for this site, the surrounding area shall be reassessed by the Cy based on the review criteria and conditions in existence at that time. • October 10, 1995 Fa Dentistry Clinic, 636 Shattuck Avg Page 5 2) The applicant shall prepare restrictive covenants satisfactory to the City Attorney that reflect these conditions and run with the site. These restrictive covenants shall be filed by the applicant or their representative with King County and verification of this filing shall be submitted to Development Services prior to this permit being issued. APPROVAL SIGNATURES: Non-conforming Use Conditional,Approval The subject application was reviewed by the Renton City Council on and approved. Signed, on this , 1995; Marilyn Petersen, City Clerk Non-conforming Structure Conditional Approval Signed, on this , 1995; Michael D. Kattermann, Director Jim Hanson, Director Planning & Technical Services Development Services • 636shttc.DOC •• :0 CIT1 3F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer,Mayor - Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator October 25, 1995 Mr. Michael T. Donnelly, DDS 636 Shattuck Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: CONDITIONAL APPROVAL PERMIT FOR NONCONFORMING USE/STRUCTURE, 636 SHATTUCK AVE. S. Dear Dr. Donnelly: Enclosed is a copy of the staff report that was heard by the Planning & Development Committee this afternoon. As I explained to you over the phone the Conditional Approval Permit Process allows an existing non-conforming use and/or structure to be replaced up to 100% of its most recent assessed value in the event of a catastrophic loss due to fire, earthquake or other event. Any existing legal non-conforming use and/or structure is now allowed outright to replace it self in case of a major loss if the • replacement value does not exceed 50% of the last assessed value of the structure. Unlike a conditional use permit which allows certain specified uses within a zone to be permitted, typically subject to conditions, the conditional approval permit allows uses that would not otherwise be permitted in a zone (even as a conditional use) for specified periods of time and in some cases subject to conditions. By allowing these uses to continue on an interim basis and, even be replaced in the case of a catastrophic loss, the City is not seen as violating the intent of the underlying zone which is to ultimately phase such nonconforming uses out. In response to your question about why your existing use could not be treated as a conditional use as it was previously in reviewing the RM-U Zone in which you are now located I could find no provision for dental uses as either an administrative or hearing examiner conditional use. If I can answer any further questions either about the staff report (enclosed) or the RM- U Zone, please feel free to call me 277-6181. Don Erickson, AICP Principal Planner Enclosure 200 Mill Avenue South- Renton, Washington 98055 t: This paper contains 50%recycled material,25%post consumer r4Eiii, CITY OF RENTON 641. ? ` Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor June 13, 1994 Dr. Michael T. Connelly DDS Family Dentistry 636 Shattuck Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 SUBJECT: Class"A" Non-conforming Uses Dear Dr. Connelly: Thank you for your letter of April 29, 1994 regarding your non-conforming use at 636 Shattuck Avenue South and your request for the issuance of a Class"A" Non-conforming Use Permit for this property. The Renton City Council on May 16, 1994, after hearing•back from it's Planning & Development Committee that the Committee would like to continue working with staff to resolve several legal and planning issues related to the granting of Class "A" Non-conforming Use status on certain uses, adopted the Committee's recommendation that all future requests for Class "A" Non-conforming Use status be referred to the Committee. This was so staff could conduct an analysis for each use/site and report back to the Committee on its findings before the Committee forwards it's recommendation on each request to the Council. In addition, the Council adopted the Committee's recommendation that it be allowed to continue working with staff on resolving the several legal and planning issues before bringing a final. process before the City Council. Staff are currently working on these issues with the Planning and Development Committee and will let you know when the Committee holds further discussions on a final process for Class "A" Non-conforming Uses. You will also be notified when your specific request is under consideration. If you have any questions either about your specific request or, how Class "A" Non-conforming uses will be handled in general, in the future, please contact Don Erickson, the planner in charge of this project. Don can be reached at 277-6181. Sincerely, P / '% Michael Kattermann,AICP Planning Director MICHAEL T. DC JELLY, D.D.S., P.S. FAMILY DENTISTRY •�nIH C/Ty pr.urP/ /SOON N: MAY 3190, .31 Renton City Council ' '�1 s c/o Michael Kattermann ED Interim Planning Director City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Wa 98055 April 29, 1994 RE: CLASS A NONCONFORMING USE PERMIT Renton City Council Members : In 1984 the Land Use Hearing Examiner granted me a B - 1 zoning with restrictive covenants (file # R-098-84) . The legal description of the property in question is Lots 414.1.,, 10 & 11 Block 6 Smithers; 5th Addition to the Town of �/ j l�l./I ,. Renton; Recorded Vol . 16 of Plats, pg. 33 , King Co. WA. fif The completion 'of the current dental office 1989 followed 1 Oitwo years of painstakingly slow communication with the planning and building departments . Two years of mortgage payments on an unoccupied property were necessary due to the cumbersome, slow and inadequate communication from the planning department . An unexpected seventy percent more funds were needed to finish than originally was estimated in 1984 . The additional funds brought every aspect of the site planning, building construction, offsite road curb and sidewalk, fire hydrant, and power relocation into agreement with the restrictions and requirements of the planning and building departments . In short I have personally paid a considerable price and taken on considerable debt in order to run a small business in Renton. This was done with the written assurance by the City of Renton Land Use Examiner that the property would be properly zoned for my specific business use if all restrictive covenants were met . I have met those requirements . My use has been in compliance with the hearing examiners vision but is currently non-conforming. The original restrictive covenants prevented the creation of hazards, nuisances, or retail business _ impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Esthetic compatibility with the 636 SHATTUCK AVENUE SOUTH RENTON.WASHINGTON 98055 TELEPHONE(206) 271-8644 residential nature of the neighborhood was required by the planning department prior to construction. My nonconforming use is an excellent buffer between the light industry activities on the South, commercial (CA) zoning on the West, and multiple family zoning on the North and East . Potential adverse impacts do not exist in this situation due to my previous compliance with the restrictive covenants . I urgently request the issuance of a Class A Nonconforming Use Permit to ensure my ability to rebuild and continue my livelihood in the event of damage to my building. /Xeila Sincerely, � Michael T. Donnelly . �� � 3� magi, ,S 5307 • �J _ --E= I I,i I CITY OF RENTON � F ,1, �" p-1 = ZONING MAP - _ LEGEND 11 . g y i RC Resource Conservation ill E 1 — i P 1--\ SFL Single Family Low Density rs - 4-2nd _ AIRPORT WY ��\ SF SF Single Family () \ 1' _ ' �'. T Trailer (Single Famllyj ICI -2nd �1MIv .�� -.©u11^ • \ MR Mixed Residential r S 132nd S,T ; . ic A ra yt !uit ! !! pE "I'MN R Hill OM ... - lRiA \ , Multi-Fames Urban Center /'1 • s .. Mr-C Multi-Family Community Center ar S 134` � 'iI' p-1 -g II : N Multi-Family NeighborhoodCenter, 1 anni `,� , ��.� S 2nd ST ( IN Industrial - Medium �,, ®,It' -F ,�• Z.:\ �� ._ V IN Industrial - Heavy OA - -. CH Mixed Commercial CO Commercial Office -.ar NI, -- C ,�e /cam IS 3rd S�Tj zell`�- if Major Educational Institution Q m l i1 I C:! BEN v PM Major Medical Institution 7itilitz �sII CA / : ial 14 qo Ne x - ■, CA Arterial Commercial iiita, � `\� N� — _ CB Community Commercial � �' � CN Neighborhood Commercial -_ _' .J *A:- CA �M•'"' OI +T • CC Convenience Commercial Jamftiiii' ,. ,, ` • U 0 P A ' d POR Planned Office/Reeidentiel .,5_ ; sr rl Hi IE P Public Use 4 •tt Q ' _ __ _ Renton City Limits 1 s 00 mon � 1:7 2 0 0 I 1�-- / IM `I CA all 03 _ 0 0�� °.6 LONG RANGE PLANNING i SW IM 7th ST 0 fi, m f P/B�w TECHNICAL SERVICES i'� 09/30/93 PAGE ;' 11 II it 1 Ind I u � 1 1l �, n 5318 5 319 U ,(,a. w z> Criteria Compliance for Non-conforming Uses/Structures Address: 636 Shattuck Ave S Existing Use: Dental Offices Existing Zoning: Multi-Family CrIt [a for Nononfofmlng Uses ' Comments Community Need Average or better. Effect on Adjacent Properties Minimal impacts, if any. Historic Significance None. • Economic Significance Average. • Consistency w/ Existing Plans/Programs Architectural Significance N/A. Arch. Compatibility w/ Surrounding Uses Good, building was designed to look like an area single- family house. Potential of Site for Redevelopment Low to Moderate at present time. • Condition of Building/Structure Appear to be good. • Departure from Zoning Code Use currently is a prohibited use, under the CO zoning. • Document3/CoR • • • =- - • ! ' ; - ,—.11•1112191... - , - • .) , away wihmsata.m....-x ... 111111111.1111.1Mile, 1 1 itat • - ekes, _ • . • f , •-••=t at' fe.f.+;7-e i m• • t " - • .44— • .. . - - _ - . , . , . 95 1 29 .••_• •_ _•• _ • 636 Shattuck Avenue South L-.11 • , CAICDDDICD CD __ Ab \ ?\J pill ! !! 444 rs=1 411.11 itt 636 Shattuck Avenue South