The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCED Planning File i— ' o 0 i I �II i W � � ` E13nd t n w a� � z Q Q � > > � Q � o � � �- � � �- o � � SE 1 �6th St �� Q � � �- � Mosier II Annexation ��r� �� Exhibit F1: Proposed annexation boundary 0 400 800 ti�0 Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning �� Alex Pictsch,AdminisVator G.Del Rosario I . dRoo �FNT�� 7Apri12005 �v -= ' i i =_-. LAKE AORk:N .__"__'__ _ "' I� ._""'__"'_"_"""""""_ "". __ ��a c.e w � LAKi:\YA$lIINCiT()N � ___ __""_"-_ ___--- ...��... a � w m 0 c� , v4 � k -�P �' �,�—:�j Fo Y � g 4 F � � \ J� E � �i z U � e$ n � W� PANTHF.R LAICE � ILAKR YOUN(�S M os i e r i I An n exation Th`°�m�`�.��'�Y�'��m°� �o �a��Y. Da�M� Ns M�l Intamatbn awN�a�of N�tloG�own. m�e moP��ear at.qay purpoae o,iy Exhibit F2: Existing corporate limits 0 5000 10000 ti Y Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning �O♦ Alex Pietsch,Adminisvator I G.Del Rosario � . �0000 L�'N.tO 7 April 2005 . '- .- _ �AKf:I30Ni:N � _ � _-_-.-_ D __________________________ ___' ; ' ..____.___-__-__-._ n+a C`e k LAKE WASFIRvYiTON IW_.... ..�. � D 0 ... 90� 9 �y� 2 - F - E 0 Rm�� NE 4lh St. SE 128 St M A�S Air ort Wa NE xd ��"(�th�y k' d` S 2nd St ��e oP N� C� �� yPa k �,.,_-.-..r�'y �� yv��`�F� SW 7th Sl �� S� �ody Way n . SW Rentan�Ilag � � �� A � �rh`"r�r a��a � a� Q°¢ � �' Tukwila kwy � N B1 167 � Strander Blvd B� �" � — SS 8i o- > $W 34 h St � I� � ;t Petrohtsky R4 � SW 41st St. S i80th � S 179 SW bkd Sl. S 4 � 6 ,t e° ,,,o � i� � / = F _'— 3 PANTHERLAKE �oY ��9 SE.�'� LAKE YOI.?J(iS ■ ■ This documsrt ie pl�i p tation,rwt quaronteeA M o s i e r I I A n n e x a t i o n `� ��.�`m��wnY :��'Y m` �o.b�' tne ne.�inra.matw� �naeP. i tn.aot•.norrn. mro maa��ra.e��pay v��iy. Exhibit F3: Major streets and major physical features 0 5000 10000 ti�Y Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning �O• Alex Pietsch.Administrator G.Dcl Rosario ��NT�$ �APri12005 1 . 60000 --------- ---- -"_ ' _ �LAK�I)ORI:N """"""' _'_"''" . .. .. -. p1a CBk '---'-_--'_'-"-"-- LAKF:\lASFIMfTON .. V 1 L,110� _.... 12 � � ATION 0 11 , � � � ``� �o- STATION � 1 y � � N`'e`� F° AKE KA � � 9 STATION '� 13 ' ,�� STAT ON � 4 - y � � - S LAKE DESIRE A i$ t� � ..,._ I � � SHADYLAKF. PANTHFRLAKE ■ ■ Th's docummt is a phic totwn.nol quaranlesd M o s�e r I I A n n e x a t�o n '� �«Wr��.�`��w"Y ;� �Y�° �.:aM ��.s..��,�a�� aa�: <<�.�t.��. TAb mW i,�a 4i�WaY W�P^m on�% Exhibit F4a: Fire service area boundaries 0 5000 10000 1 Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning �O' Alex Pietsch,Administrator G.Del Rosario 1 L �ANT�� Apri12005 1 . VOOOO r= =:__::'_':__ _-_ -- - ----- -- '_'_'__ ' _ . - QLAKGllORF.N ______'____'"_"___-_____ ___________ . . __r_=__r_r___=___- . . . . . . Ms cF` '----""-'--'-- LAKFR'ASIIM(:?ON '''" . ,.._..,. � S � z 0 • � rq � � w a FO Y AKE � � , � � , � E .l Y • � 1� :7 � LAICE DESIRE ¢$ � a.._ QSHADYLAKE PANTHEft LAICE ■ ■ m�ea�m��tsY pnt mptuw�,�ot P,�t.se M os�e r I I An nexat�on �� m��p��Y :��Y�� 1�1ib map ia f 41epI�aY P�oan mI1b1� /M�tlab Mow�. Exhibit F4b: Sewer service area boundaries 0 5000 10000 ti Y Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning �O♦ Alex Pictsch,AdminisVa[or G.Dcl Rosario 1 �b'p.t0� 7 Apri12005 1 . �OOOO -'- _ "_' ' '_-' '_-' _'_ ___" __ � LAKF.�ORF.N ,. `_______________________________________ -=_=_=_- COAL CRffK O --=-=-===---=--==--=--=-=-==-=-=--=---- ==_= AT6t � SEWER DIST. ______________________________=_-=_=____= __==__=__=`= � ��..__ _ - __ ... . .. . �yQX �' _ t+,a C '-'-"-'-------- LAKFiIt':1SfIM(�Ti)N � __'-"'-_-_"-___- 6RYN MAWR - � O LAKERDGE WATBt 8 SEWER DIST. crtna r. SKYWAY WAT9t A ATBt DISTRICT 90 APD SEW6t DISTRICT p '� vn-nw ' �rnt A19t 09T. SEATTIE WA1Ht DBT. QIbO7Y Cedar . v� \aFk _s r�'��}�j�pp,vl �"e�`��F� n 1� � �' �� AfMlTA 1 �l�I/11W �A MAl1EWC00 AOOfIION � WAIH GOp9ATYE Gu]7�% CfTY � C�AR RIV6t WATBt APD TUKWL/�. SEWBt DIST. �wuo1�� dss+va � • z u ay :7 S $, $ �� W TER APD SEW DISTRKT as��sw GTY � '�0 KENT � _� K aa+�aoa PANTIIER LAK}: M o s i e r I I A n n e x a t i o n Th�°�m�`�. �� `�`�.�`��`� �o ��a,�.��Y :� �Y�d eo.:a`� tn.o..�i�ra„�ac� nonP: r�n.an..no.�. n,�m��eor enqoy p��ox�on�y. Exhibit F4c: Water service area boundaries 0 4500 9000 ti Y Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning �O♦ Alex Pietsch.Administrator 1 G.Dcl Rosario 1 . 54000 L'N.tO} 7 April 2005 - OLAKE l3nRk:N f-.- __-_--__-'__'-_'__--- I:� -_"_'_"__"_'_-__ 4_� --__""_"_"'_'"-__ _ _________ F1a��etk I ----'-_-"�"---'-'-- LnK1�.11:Ati!IW(�TCiN - "-'_-__ ____ _ ___ ! � � ..._,... Q �g : F ' I � I A � I � O I � . �� .� . � �� . � ,� � C I � � � . \'W�' "V-:j`�LA`:� I iR��et FWF� . � �E � � \ \ �` `� . � � �� r • v 1 J�� ,� • � � _ — � .� I � L . _ .I — ' j LA I�t>es�kr : ` �. — . _. —. . r \ � '�� \ �� ,�� — � � -- . I ' • � H AKE PANTNERLAKE . � ..T � '� . �� I�' �� • LAKF.YOUN(�S ,„,,.. M o s i e r I I A n n e x a t i o n Th��m�'�. �`�� `�'��`��m`� �a�a.a�. ��w,�Y�:�a.of��:Y�,:��. Da;.�M ,h.b..r��,�,a�� ,�o m��mw�e ra e�,par o��e«�y. Exhibit F5: King Co. UGA and Renton PAA 0 5000 10000 ti�0{, Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning � � � Alex Pictsch,Administrator Q Dcl Rosario 1 �t�'N.rp} 7 April 2005 1 . �OOOO ��il ___"""""_"""'"""""" OLAKE IH)RF.N ��I � .."______________"____ _____'___. i . - ._.._'_ -�� c�a«�k , i � .. . ..�� LAKFII'ASlIM(�TON �. I __..... -____ _'_"" � .._.... � � a � F 0 • Cq� �tr I \'�4 -' -•`f,- �"#.,F � � � I E , ��\ J� � I I - I L� C U � � `�� .� . PANTNEftLAKE � LAKF 1'Ol.�'GS ■ ■ This document is phi tation.rwt W�teeA M o s�e r I I A n n exa t�o n �«��°��Y ;� �Y�° ea.w�" in.e..�i�r�� naeP`� r m.aoi..nw�,. Thb mcp ia fv diaplay purpaee mly Exhibit G: Proposed corporate limits 0 5000 10000 ti Y o Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning *O+ Alex Pietsch.Administrator G.Del Rosario ��N.rO� 7 Apri12005 1 . 60000 �� -- �� l��1� ��+��i��i� • •��.�.��•�,�, �- ��, •• �i�� s • •�•�• �.��-�.+�:.:•i.i� � � 7� I .��i�i'i�� v'• ��L�.`.��i.-'�'� �� = � O�i!�!�.�i�� •• i ►O•v•:'�•�•0�•l,• � •.y-.-o:' ...-�..•• o.� � � � � ••p�•�; ...........:.. � '. • . ! ! • • • • a.ti:�:oo.� �.;,....,- �,. �..... .. .... ... �.•.��-:o•.:•-•.�.•a ...... ........-.�,. � � ••,•❖•,• ..--..,.__�.. ...... ..,;.;....:..�.. ...,.. ,�;:=•;;�:�;-�•B �� ; `�':'.:,:;:;:;:;:; p�•,•_••�•.•o--••��•. .00•-:❖.•.: 0.;'.:�•;•;..:.;o;• � .;•;.!.;:;.;.;.;.;: 3:�:';:❖:�9:'��•.� � .� r••°o:❖:❖:❖: .. .. .;... . � :. �i'�i�.❖.•o.00S ��...��• �• � •......--... �' ....,..._.��. �, .�......., .❖+`w00•.00e�•.� �i'��i0 Di'i�i0'i'i�i ��0� �r• "`"�"�i�i!i!�!� , ��:�:'it:. ;iJ�OJ��'�•�'rr�•••."" i��P��'v�-r•.�� . •��.� �� •��►��.i �� ' ♦��y •��• •��i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i!i�i�i�i�i�i��i�i!�'i'i�' •��. �.�.-��.�. �i��o�....'..�,_. � •��J��i '�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i� ��o��• •��• •i��•��o��♦ •��• •i��•��o��♦ •��• ��4•.�.�w.�e.�.��.. •��H��...."' •��1��'�"�' •��I��• � '�� •�.�. ��Io��• �.�_�_ �� : 1 1� ��• . •► ♦��♦ ♦ • 1 •� ,I. � �� •��1�� Y ��1��.1��.i�; ��0��p��Q��pQ��QQ��0�"'��i��i i!+��`!i!%%%%i�i�i�i�iO�i'%� ��.4�i� ��i�i0'i�i�i�i�i�i'i�i�i�i�i�i�i i�i�i!i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i��i�s�� iyi��i�i�i�i'i'i�i�i��i�i�i�i�i�i1 �i�!i�i�i!Pi�i: �❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.��❖.:•-��--•--'drs.�:❖:.•tii'ti.•O.❖.•.�.❖:.•00.❖.❖i`. 'r �i�.".❖.�.❖.S ��0��0��i��i�i�0� 'A.v..��O�O��O��!�� !��0�� %%%iO�i%%%%%%%%%%%%i!i!i!i!ii!i i�. ��i i':':':':'1:�:�aO�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i !i%%i i?%'o!i! •�•��•��•�•��•��••��••��• .��•�•��•��•�� •.• i�i�i'i�i�i�i�i�i'i�iO�i�i�i i�i�i�i i�i�i�iO�i�i�i�r �Y'�i��ii00�iO�i�i�i�i�i�iO�i�i�i�i�i�i'i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i i�i�i' �i�i i�i�i�i�i':t ,��r��ly�'fi�� : 1 �iifi i�:�iO�i�i°Oi�i i�i i�i i�i�i�i�i�i�i i�i�i�i i�i�ii`�i'y= r��i o i�i�i��i�i�i?i!i!i:i'o!i!%%i%%%QiO�i�i�i�=�i?i?i!Q�.��i �i��r�::�:r ti:�:�:� ��ii'�`��i'Pii�i'�'��i�i�i�i'�°i.-Oi�i�i�i�i��i�i�i�•�oa��'�i�i��.`,P��i�i�i�i�i�OJO�.�P�•��v-��rr� �.��C��Fi��i�►��i�O.�:�:�:��i�i� � i i��i'i�i�i�i�'i'OiO�i�i�i'i�i i�i�Pi�i�i�i i'i'i�i�i�i�i!i��iii�f•!i!i!a!i!i!i%%;Oi�i�i�i�i�i�i i�i'i�n'ii!i`i�i�i00;:�i�i�Pi i�i i�i�i�i�i�i�i'�O��'i i ,,..PO��.:!.!�•.O•.O•o!.O�P.'.0000•.0000•.O❖r• �O•/ti..�....•P0•.'O D�S�..i.......��... •........•.......� i�i i i�i�i�i�i�iO�i�i�i�i�i'i�i i�i i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i i�i�i�i�i��i��i i�i�i�i i�i�:�:�ii��?��i�iti��y%:i✓i�i�i��i i i�i�i i�i i�i�i�i i i i�i�i�ii'i! �i�i�i i i i�i��4��'i i i�i i i i�i i i�:':'.':'.:.:.::�%%i�!i!i!i!i!i!i!%%i0�%i%ii!:i!i!i!i i��ii�%%%i�i%i�%%%i�iy%%i�%%%%�%%%%%%i ��%:%%%%%%%%��0��%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%i�%%%�i4�0%i�%%%%%i4�Pi�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i•i�i�O�i�iO�S�i�i i�i�i�i�i�i i i i`�00�� .e.........:....-.S J..:��:�i v:.::::::::..a.�.a.a�6+.�.•a..❖.�.!.!.!.!.:!.!.!.:.:.�.�.;.;%y.;.;.;.;�.;.•.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.; - v��-�7-r�r� ��J�:.. �'n��y��..,... ai��.��Q:�.: �� I � � i• --��i�iO��i, �� :'��'�'��'��'��'��!��'�� `��'�'��'� - ♦��._-_ •��• i��•��-�-rr •�� /� f, �• , �� •..��• � � � � •��• �!�i'Oi�i�i�0i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i'Oi�i�i'�i i�i�i�i�i�i'O �i�i�i�i�iO�Oi � � ��Q��Q • � ��p��p� '�i'��i�iO�i�i�i00�i�i�i�i�i�i�i'�O�i�i'Oi!i�i�i�i�i�i�i '�-rr�: �i i�i�i�i'��i�i�i�i�i�i�i'�'�'�'��i�i�i�i�i�i�i!��i�i!Q�!�!� ��i�i�i�i'i'i'i! ��'i�i�i�i�i�i�0i�i�i�i�O��i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i'i'�� i�i�i�i�i�i�i! - •��•��.•�.•••••��♦ •••�•�••• •��•��•��.•••••��o��• • •��••• ♦.��• •��♦ • •��i � I � � ��i iO�i�i�i�i'i ii'i�iO�i�i�i'i�i'i'i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i��i�i�i�i�i�i�.��i��i, i ��i�i�i�i •�i i��i�i�i'i'i�i'i�i�i'i! �� i�i��ii'i i'�'�'�'�'�O'�'�O'�'�! ,� � Oi.�v.vr•-rrv.....:.��•��,��:��,y�� -��.��y��•��•�•��•�. ��i'��i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�iO�i��O�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�rr•�-��i�i� •��'�i��i�i�i i!�!��i!��i�i�i�i'��i� / •r��•�►•��i��• '� �H�.�-'--"""` i i'i'i�i�i�iO�i i�i�i�i'i i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i i�i�i�i i�i��•�ji*��i i!iO�i� �'�'� �i�i�i i�i�i�i�i i�0i�i�0i�� , 1I ��i�:��i��i�i��i�i� r �i�i'��i�i�i�i�i�i'O��i�i:! �0�i�i�i'��Oi�i'��i�i�i'��i�i'��i�0i�i�i'��i�i�i�i�i�i`�'P�ili�i�i!�i�i�i �i�i�i i�i'Oi�i�i�i'��i'�'�! �� i�i'i�i�i�i�i'i�i'i�i'ii%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%i4��i�%i��%%i %i�%�i�%%%%%%%%%%i � � ��y�i�i�i��i�i� . � �i i��if�� • I ,r�c,:,:,:,.,:,:,:,:,:�:,:�:,:,:�:�:�.,.�:e,:,:..,y..,.�:,r,��:�:�..�.,: c�:,.�c��,�.�.,:�:,:,:�:,: :•::❖:❖:❖:❖:❖:❖:❖:❖:❖:❖:❖:❖:❖:•::��:��:•::❖:� .❖,::=�-•::::r:; � � .•r.❖.❖.o❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.❖.O.O.❖o.o•oo.•;:.00•oo.•.� II 4❖..•,f�,•*�'�•�•�•,•,•�: Oi�O��i�Oi�i�iO�iO�i'��i�i�iO�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i°�!�!��i�i�0i�i! �i'O?'��i�i�i�i��iO�i�i'�! ��i OOOi'OOOi�i�i�i�i�i�iO�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�iO�i'��:i•�� 0��0�� O i�i�i'i'i�i�i�i i�i�i�i�i�i i�i i�i i�iO�i�i�i�i�i�i'i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i'i�i�i��• a �• ��6 � f� W i� i��i��i�i�i�i�i�i�iO�i�i�i�i�i�i'i�i ��•��.��•��•��•��•�e��%•�•��i��i��•�•��i�•��i��•��.�•��•�•��•��•�.�•��•��•��•� •��..��di��• ��e• •�� •��e.��►��• •��.:��.��• �i�0i�0i�i�i�i��i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i`i:(,��00��%��'��A'••.:�i�i?i!��i�i!O.��i�i:�j��j��+°�4��i i�i ri i i�%�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�: 'i'i'i'i'i'i'i�i`i`i'i�i`i`i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i�i'i'i'i�i'i'i'i�i�i�i�i'i'i�i�i�i'i'i�i'i'i�i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i�'i'i'i'i vi:i'i�i'i�i'i'i�i'i'i�i'i'��Pi �i�i�i�i'i�i'i'i�i�i'i�i'i�iO�ii'i'i�i'i�i�i i�i�i'i�i�i�i�i�i�i iO�i i�i�i�iO�iO�i�i�i�i�i�i�i4�i�i�i�i�i�iO�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�ri�i�i�i�i�iS i�i'i i�iO�i!Pi�i�i��i�i i�i ��•��•�•��.��•�•��•��.��•��•��•��•�� _�_w�0��0�0��0��p��O��p��pp��p��yp��p��d�O��p��0��p��pOi,P��pf4��Op� — �. �i�0i�i�i�i'Di�i�i�i'��i'OOOi'O�O'O�'O�'�'��i�i�i�:i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i'� �i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i'Oi�iO�i�i�i�i�i�i�0i�i�i�i�:.'��i��i��i�i��i�i�i�0i�i�i�i�i�i�0i ��i.•��r��%��i��-�� ♦��• ♦��♦ ��N��.H�• •��-�:"'� ♦��♦ r��• •��Y'�-i�� j�j��j��j��j��j��j��j�j��j��i�:�� j��j�j��j��j��j�j��j��j ` •1�1��1��♦ ��1��1��• •��.��_�_�� /. •��/��1��'�'�✓✓�"��, �. ��`::::��i��r��.�..��.�� ?.%�:�:�.�:�:�:%%3:�:�:�::�:�3:%�:�:�:%%5:�:�:•S:•��:•:�.�::�:�:�:�:�:�:•:�:%�.�3:�:�:�:�3:%�:�:�:�::�:�3:�:�:�:�r.::�'r!i�iOO�i�i�i�iL�i�i�i�i�i i0! � �i��i�i�i`i�i�i�i�i�i�i'i�i�i�i'i�i�i'i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�%%%%;%i�i�i�i O�i�i i�i�i'i'i'i'i'i'i`i�i�i'i�i�i'i�i�i'i�i'i�i�i�i�i'i�i�i�i��:�e�i'd i�i�i i�i�i�i i�i�i�i�Ji�i i'i ��i i i i i i i i i:::::':':':'�'�'�'a�e'='='='�'e°-��:�i�:�i!i�i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'%i'i'i`i'Oi'i'i'i'i'i'%i'i'%i'i�i�i�i'i'i�i`i:o�'!i�i�ii�P��'ri'�'i�i'i'i'i'i'i i��i'i�i�i�i�i�i'i i�i�i i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i'i�i�i�i i�i�i�i�i�i��i�i i�i'�'i�i�i'i�i�i�i�i'i'i'i�i'i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i i�i i i�i�i�!i�i�'�4�'�•i i ri=i i i:':: , �i i�i�i'i�i�i'i�i�i'i�i�i�i'i'i'i�i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i�i�i�::::::�i'i�i�i�i�i i�i�i�i'i'i�i�i�i'i i�i�i'i'i'i�i�i�i�i'i�i�i�i�i'i�i�i`i�i�i�i'i i�i�i'i i,dij��%i;i��%%%%� �i i i�i�i i�i�i�i�i�i i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i��i��i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i��i�i�i�i��i i i�i�i�i i i�i�i�i�i i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i!��i�i�i�i�� • •��• � �i iO�iO�i00�i�iO�iO'Di�i'��i�i�i�i'�'��i�i�i��O�i'O�'Oi'�'O�'�O�i�O'O��i�i:�iO�i'��i�O�iO�i�i�i�i�i�i'�O�i�i�i�i'i'i��'v'��i�i�i�iiri�Di�f�'�'�'�'i'i 'i i�i'OOi�iO�i�i�i�i�i'Oi�Oi�i�i�i�i�i'Oi�i�i�i'O��i'�'��i�i�ii'Oi�i Oi00�i00'Di�i'Oi�i�i�i�iO4�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�P��i�1�i.�i',i�i'�'O�'i •��• •��• •��O �. •�� •��!�• �� i�� • � �1 •:i•:!:!:•O:!:!:•i i:❖i:•i:❖:❖:❖:•i:❖i:•O:❖:❖:❖�!�O•::•i:❖i:❖i:•i:❖:•i i:❖:❖i i O:❖i i:❖:❖i:❖:'i•��'.:?i:'�!�f�j'`:':j.:: " �i i�:'i'i i'i'i`i'i'i�i'i'i'�i'i�i�:i�i i'i��i i�i!i i�i�i�i�i`i�i i�i�i i�i'i!i'i•o�i'i'i�i'i'i'i�i�i�i'i'i'i�i�i�i'i'i�i'i�i�i'i i�i'i�i i!f�i��!iri2��%%i i i�Jii'��i i�i�i'i'i�i'i'i�i�i'i�i�i i�i�i�i�i'i�i°i�i"i�i�i�0i�i�!i�i i i i'i i':!i�i`i i�i'i�i�i�i�i'i'i�i�i'i'i�i'i'i'i'i�i'i'i`i`i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i'�• � ��i�i i'i ��iP��•��i��J��0��Y�O4��0��i�iii i�ro%i:i�i`i�i�i�i i�i�i'i i i'i�i'i'i�i�i�i��i��if��.��d ��•i' •'.''.'':'':��• . ��%i ii!i!��•��D'�•�•�'i!i!i!ii!i!i�%i0��%%%.��=�±i��%i%%%%��%�%��:�:�:�:?:':i�s!i!i!i!i!i!i!i1n"�� 'i ��i�i�i�i�i'��i�i�i!�:��0:�:��i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�0'''''''•.• ''''•` ��i�i�0�i�i��i�i�i�i�i►��44'OJ�J��-rrr��:��, �� !i�i�i�i�i i�i�i�i'i`�604�J�P��i i i i i i i i i i::::.:":!i'i'i�i i�i i�i'i i�i�i�i�y�^�uy��:�Di�:?��i!i!�i!i!i!i!i!4'i 4 N��'i i�iv�i i:�::��'�'?s�i�,ir� . ;i, ��i��• •��• •• •��i♦ •��♦ •♦ ♦ ♦�♦ ♦ ♦♦ •��e��ri��a��9• • •�0i��i�• •��• • �� •;•,;•;•;•;•;•;•;a.;.;..�.�.�.�.�.�.,.�.�.�.�.,.,.,.,.,.r.�r��i �i, I i��o��ePi��i�� •��.��O�P�i��d • � �•�•,•�•,•,•�•,•,;t�•�•,•�o•�•�•,•��,o•,•�•,•,•,00•,,........�............ .............�.................. ..r. .� ♦��e• ♦ •�•��• •di •�• •• ��•�•��.�•��•��•�•��• ••.•.�.�.��.�e��•��• •� •��o��o •• •��..""- •��• • ��d •• •��• •��• ••��Oi��A ♦ ♦�, �i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i'��i�i�i�i�i��• ��ri��i��i�i�i�i�• • • •• •• ��i�i'�! ��f� ��i��4��y��'�� ::�::.::•:��P��•��•��y��0•0��0��' �i��v��-r,�i�i'�'Oi'�04'�'Oi'OO�OO�i'000�'000�0'POi�i'��•�i'Oi�i'•'�'O.O'0�00'Oi'�'00000• , •�•��•��•�.......��• •��.��•�•��•��, i��o��o��•��•��.� •i��•�••��•��.��•��• •��o��•��o��H.'� •� ••��r��H••�•��•��•••••. ��r��o��♦ 1��►��♦ ♦��1��• ♦��1�� I��1��• �'��1��• ��I�� i i��1�� I��o��u��• •��'�Yv w��1�� ♦�1��.1��1��• •1.��♦ I��1��• •��1�� , •��.1��1��1��• •/�� •��1��♦ ��. ♦��1��♦ ♦�� ♦��.��1��• • •1��1��I��r��1��♦ ��I��i� '��!�!�� •��11�� •��1��• . ,��.� ��1�� • �� r��y��r�� 0i��i��i��i, �sYs��aA�d't � ��ti ��►�w • ♦• • � L � � _r .. ...�. . ,!�I . . .. � � � !. . _ . .. . . . . :".' . . . . . .. . . . .. � � � � • • • - - - . • - � - • . • 1 11 • 11 — J • , , �- - ,. • .� ,�� . �r,::::::::;::,�::�:?>:�:•:�>:�;:�:�:>?::�:�;:�:�::>::•: _ . • , ., • , . . .............. - �:�;:;t;;;�:;�:{;:� � • 11 . �� i O � � ��i �, - - -�- - - -�--� � , ��-- , i �, � �� -._ � I ose 4y�,��b a,��ofi e P � � , , i i . Thia document is a yraphic ro�roaentation,not guwanteed to survey accurocy, tended for city purpoxa only and '�. boaed on the best informotion owilable aa of the data ehown. '�. This map is for diaplay purposes only. Proposed Mosier II Annexation � 400 g�� R-8 Zoning Map --- Renton City Limits 1 : 4g�0 Gti�Y o,,{, Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Annexation Boundary � Alex Pietsch,Administrator � "�� G.Del Rosario � Proposed R-8 ��'NTO� 30 September 2005 � i O o 0 � i __ I I � i �o�os� --� 4��fiab �ti,ofi e � � � , � , This document Ia a graphic representation,not gmronteed , to wrvey accuracy,Intended f�r dty urpoxa only and �� baaed on the beat intortnation awaaePe oe of the date ahown. ' This mop ie for diaplay purposea only. Proposed Mosier il Annexation � 400 g�� R-4 Zoning Map --- Renton City Limits 1 : 4g�0 Gti�Y �,,{, Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning Annexation Boundary Alex Pietsch,Administrator � + � * G.Del Rosario �� PfOpOSed R-4 ��NTO� 30 September 2005 -� Washington State Boundary Review Board For King Cot�nty Yesler Bicilding, Roorn 402, 400 Yesler Way, Seattle, WA 98104 Photte: (206) 296-6800 • Fax: (206)296-6803 • http://wzvw.rnetrokc.gov/nnrtexations August 4, 2005 City of Renton Attn: Don Erickson, AICP Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: NOTIFICATION OF OFFICIAL FILING File No. 2195 - City of Renton - Mosier II Annexation Dear Mr. Erickson: We have received approval from King County engineering staff of the legal description for the above-referenced Notice of Intention. The Notice of Intention is now considered complete and has been officially filed effective April 12, 2005. You will be advised of any further changes in the status of the Notice before the Board. Please be aware that any future final ordinance or resolution on the proposed action must incorporate the legal description approved by King County engineering staff, including any revisions made in response to the engineering staff review. Sincerely, Lenora Blauman Executive Secretary cc: Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council Lydia Reynolds-Jones, Manager, Project Support Services Debra Clark, Department of Assessments Bill Huennekens, Records and Election Division Paul Reitenbach, Department of Development and Environmental Services Michael Thomas, Office Management and Budget FORM 12 0 . _, �' ; Annezation Review Form [ ) 10% Notice of Intent [X ) 60%Annexation Petition TO : Finance Surtace Water Utility Fire Water Utility Parks Wastewater Utility Polioe Public Works Maintenance � � CuRent Planning FROM : Economic Development, Neighborhoods& Strategic Pianning (contact Don Erickson, x6581) SUBJECT . Mosfer 11-Expanded Annexatfon Bacicground/Loqtion: The Boundary Review Board held public hearings on July 18& 19, 2005 regarding the potential expansion of the 31-acre Mosier li Annexation to approximately$0-acres, pucsuant to the request of the City: .The expanded boundaries would include the east side of 140"'Avenue�SE on the west, SE 136�'Street on the south, the east side of 144�'Avenue SE west of Mapi�wood Elementary Schoo�on the east,and the existing City_boundary north of the school, and the existing City boundary on the north for those portions n.orth of SE 132"d Street(see attached map). Date Circulated: _ Julv 2_1: 2005 Comments Due: _. Julv 29. 2005 � General Informa#ion Area : +65 acres Street length : . 6;250 i.f. � Assessed Value - : $18,828,000 (current); $59,340,000 (full develoP) Estimated Population : 208 Currer�i Uses Residential , : 83 existing single-family detached dweliings Commercial • Industrial � . Public � Comp.Plan Designation : 50% Res. Single Family; 5Q% Res. Low Density Future Uses: : 221 single-famity dweilings at full developme�t of which 138 are expected to be new - Future Po ufation : 552 Reviewing Departmen Divisio _ T✓a�.Syov�'f`�Tlo�. �y�'�-�wcS � 1. Does this expanded annexation area represent any unique or significant additional problems for your department/division? �C .. �c.►,�ev�r� PoF�7a�s o-� 142►,d ,4�er�� 5E {�ho�{-�o� ►3zkd�«u� SE akd sF /3��f{.,� �b�t�� fi�c- �vopol�d �xf�aRd��aNrxa�w s�f� a�•c of k� / . � /�� l K e renf� o�eh � w,(��u,lat c*.rtttt �o� d��s adc��'�'t Y��f o�-1.��I !"kisT '� �dNST'k�' 9 S�T S�h ��c F� G��o��k'� s"�'a�,d a��s� A Fo'��,�u��r,b��e o� S� ►3`�f� S fie�fls f�� r�k�.�.�a S@c�it$�ior w1 a 6 C r�c,�r i r C� ��+'��n C� L u t'�"�t�w �c.KJ C�w w''� �u'{�1r� "�'h� S b 4� ��C �'f-�!S ST/�'�l � (Over)�J : : � A ' i . . 2• Are you aware of any probiems or deficienaes in existing infrastructure or service rovi ' to the enlarged area? p sion t ' �Cnut S� .y�� ,� / I � ,�` � � 4-2 n�l ��t�ln� ! n� X�c�h;.a 4 1 ��wf 11<Kd�l�k a1�a vtor�h n� SF (32«t� S+it�-�., aN�{ 5� ��Gf�, S'hFc'�f .-,-�, �l'Ir .s�K�{� e'4tG( ^f 1 7�tc �uPaa� c op�F�K' (n�c.��a �e�� r4,t.1�it1 ��,«� ��F" :�.�cf 1��yd /1��c�ur ��' �f � ev1 a�- _L yZ.�� , G'� K0� 7 H�' <,S '�Cr�� '��.1.:,�,Crl'+a",'` ✓:a��t-E~- a�-�ay .av,��!��II�'. �'-� � ..�s-�ru�f ,� s`�e�e`� s�cfr�-c ��'�.�f�� C-� � /� y n Sk�ry cier�.�' .F' 1 ' � 'f" /�e"�t.'�o� S�d{��e�,S, rT�So / v�k�-• -u.aj. �K SL 1,2H�J�Sf ��s�{' D^Fl40�t�►'eHk-t SF 1„S" ett�t7vdt�ab��e"� f��{'� �vEku� �� o'T�K�1`f�y 7 k� N�C'Odhd�q ��P�cl'.C�� ''f' !S BISo N oT o�oc"Yt T� / �L ��"' �,� d , VC��L �l l�J► TYJ-T71 G. I1l.�i" c31��.° �f't F �l�Gt�' -°r n .7 JB c^ :� �e^ iJ!'�r c t� �.�r �ei��lG lp �KE� ��`�: �h ��,� s�'r��'�r � b u l�i K� c�- u��-l��'�n �� ,e�oa KcIQ� a H H e X a Tl'D n d 1�a GU�cGk d v�� o�Cn 'ro V�� t� ��► T�oi ��i�J �a d�►y p�v��r�'�� tc>c e�-�j aKd -f�ti�c.kKcss �e� �e�� r�� t�� +t�H s-F��(��s . �ts� ��te� � �'� ��t�� Kc1 rtdewo/k ��c� �t��e -�c��cRx��K�:.. �c` .s. ��r_c-� l�►ti�F� �s ��M—f'xiS'�ak'�'o� SPntra�If��'�"rhe.e'�i�� Ci'�yo��'�'�r�bh G f�kc�a�sfS, Cr�.�r��{-l�. �,r� tok�+'f�• ��,� f'6ct ��, a��cn.�h �.�v� � �p/��s' �h 1�r+�F o v�'Nt t n�'.5� '�b � ��!��i fl�J" �`�E'l'�S i�'�lt 1�1!4� e�►7Q Ft�/��'►!it �G P/�orrd S� v �*��t'� 3Nn�Xa�h �?{-'�� `tst✓�' V/`i°'/ �"t1C N)'d�l-y[�Ivtq p^� �'�''�''�� l�/tM�S " CVC4-[4�in f"tTGatGt� /��.) `�' Ge��/t�G'�(/' �.h^'f fif°7� .S'�"7 r+��(+�L e��f.r'd�r c{ -�i�f L�/r t�"�'1.S l a i l a� i4Lkel �a�e.� 5�� <�A�'�craM A��tuc� A1 b�} ��'�ua��o� /lJ+��i' .�"�� 5�/3� �°� � /�C a 1 �a�c.�s r s�-�e� �,�K b� e.x p�'G�'c�� c� a �r`��i��a��.c.� �-� -��-��.ve �t e��o�r�c�.�". Glp�v�f�h� �f�t� �x�s�K s-�'�c�s a6H�"�, z.n,� W 1�"�ti n �''�c e �X�an dt.� �hK�'��r"�1vI, AvGa -�v. G��'� o��w"�'�on ,S-�.�ke 1�k c�1 �►r d h�,u9 �o c.a� 3�Ct.�fS S-�'v-�E-'�S� �v0 k�� 3 o b� �'�'-��t �'��GK�� O�C�ctSTi� ��'o�er-f'r bwneFs �Kd�v �tet�I c�evtloP�erc�"; 3. Does this proposed expanded annexation represent a logical extension of s by your department/division? ervices provided `/es , . � 4. What additional faalities or staff would be required to serve this eniarged area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? �Qdd��eKa� TvawsPov�'a-�-ta� S`/S�t►ats s'fa-�-� �orl'c�,+r�1� 6e rc,kir.cGj, t�l��ar(i:� ��2 +ac( f�Vtu.�c. 5�� l44dfi �vCK�.�'�«=� t..y�.�a /�v��rl��` 5[ 1�.+1,�l. 1°(��t SE i32h1Sfr�f a+�� E 1�G�f�i S�'Fe�� "{-�s a�^C� C��►a.� /�' y8��n ��n�a��.rC�'d '�+�►,�f �►�.y �w ��Ca� J accesS Sfrc �S urc f��h -�'t,.c ex�/�aNde��a�cnrx�r��vk �� Wo�ckf � a►� ¢&.e • ��hJG o��'rrs'�� eJ+w�,e'r�v oca�Es�� r../�`r► t.,rcc.r alc r�t/arrr�.e�t"�. �`"'�'.�' �-�STs �SSoGia'�t� w�� H�� ,�'��'� ��y�^Tt�rQ ?�►� to�'tS ��rmcr�T�� tu{t�Lc r�rK�'e,w�r�c.E n.� r�r�G� s�yh�� a.►d p av�n� v��lci�3_r1�oKlc� ht)�- jC z . -,Kahc�a� bur,��.rn. 5. Wouid the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities cuRently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements o� franchises be required as a result of this annexat�on? yes. The. �1�-y w�,.,.lel ass�,�� o��sti��/r.�s�oh s,b�I� -�'r S€ z �E l�2��t S"�rfG�F �� /�� 5 � l '�`�� /�� w r�rn "' .� f�t �+"eG+J 142..K�( hvc►tue� S� o'? N� I�'��E�C�' SG� �(a� �x a��t�� ,��►�e,��r.�.�� 2 . IU�w �a�ap��fa.�t a�►��,��s oa ��►Gk�s� wnK/J a -,�t(a��.�1 6. Would altemate boundaries create a more �i annex�t on for prov si n of C� ��xp��`��'� (if yes; plea s e i n d i c a t e o n t h e a tt a c h e d m a p,) t y s e rv i c e s. �►y�k,��a 7`to �o. ��t°� �f��vt� m� �,c � �r�b� ��, . t � ��,+ �1� �' �'� :�.�, ��1��( dedrea-�-t,h �wr `na.�,�fr� s'"a t b(E �a��P �� 'a a t T�1 S t 1��. �.F^ J'`��f w�'�►.�`i}�'�"�'"�h �C l k �t.�w"�' � �� • J dev�l�p 5�' ��G�`� �'�r�e�� Y �� 6�1�` -�r� General recommendation and comments�.�� e � C��''� ��'4"�°'' '�'��{��a��' � ---- ----- --_ .m��' '�va«��' �V"f��f�N � �t�at� � J� }�� /Vt�r�h �a 5 ftr� �,�d--Fr��r�- ►�c d r�t r�r cvhe�G�� f�.� ,�'��QsPd ��p��1 a ti��.e� �r�� o� ,.r .5 A d� �/t� l�t G> � '1F' r�'�c..tlr, �� C'r�L` Signature: � , Date: %'Z�� (� –T—� �� ti��' �r ��' �� !'�I� � �-", -._,. MM� � �' I� s1 �` �i. .� � � � �J�� ' �;� �. �� .:��1��. r�� ir1".� � .� .� ��:��► ��e'� � '.� �� .�1 .�1111' �7�� ' �a �� ' L � �7� � . ! I�;r� �� - . �� . � � � � �� '� � .' _� �� 1��N�� ■� � �.� � �1i�' i �� , � �� 11�1�' . �I �/i i � � �� .. �. � - w �' �� ■��'�.�► �■ � � � � ��,� ��r�►�,� � � - ,, �� f ��r1i l�7� � �, � �. � �� '�,�r '��'��"�r ■� � s�, ��-� � �� :� i ` ��-� � '� � ��. s �t � � 1 r � � � ¢ �` �� i �� •�.�i�� t�� . �� . „. ; �'".I�.e�� t �..f ., � .� �.�.��f� �► ��.��i _ ,� � ��.�� r , � .� �� =;�� r ' � y � �� -� �� 1�� _ �,�� .�� 11 "' �' �� '� � �'� � �� ' � � �� .�� ,� �� ' � � � �` � �� r � �:uE� . � � �� -.� f� ��,� r �� _ , . -� � .�� , ',,- , .�. � �� ,�� " � ��;. ��'�� ,,�'�� • �� . .�� .: . . �� I�i�►� ��4��,,��i � ' � � d � �'j � ` � :��i'' �� ■ I� °��f�il��!� �il �r-� �'�I t . �,� . �, .�- �; �' � � ,� , �! ■� � �� . � .��.�.,a�� - �'�"� �.o,�.«�.�.�'.�.��►`�.�--��.. �� i �� . '�� ' " r� . �� ":� � t� � F � i�� ,, - ,,, �'�'� �.�� T • -� . «rl�� tt,�� ' �� ,., �� !:r�f � � �� t� �a��..:�� ! � � � ` � � ' �l . � � � � ; .� _,;.<-;,;,;..:;. , � t .� '�"'" """"'�'�" ^ � + .1 -: . � . r;� � � . 5; / V ► iis i . . F. ,r� j ' - f:rM: � � .� - .� w h '� MOSIER II -EXPANDED ANNEXATION FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET � Units Po ulation AV Existin dev. 83 208 $18,828,000 Full dev. 221 552 $59,340,000 Assumptions: 2.5 persons/household $430,000 AV/new unit $226,843 Existing Average :Rev�rtia��::;::::::::�::: Total revenues Existin Full Rate Existing:;'::;:::::;:�};364;�4: Re ular le $59,120 $186,328 3.14 Full ::::�::::$�27'�;17�`��: Excess le $1,669 $5,260 0.08865 State shared revenues Rate er ca Existin Full Li uor tax $3.52 $732.16 $1,943.04 Li uor Board rofits $5.04 $1,048.32 $2,782.08 Fuel tax-roads $14.46 $3,007.68 $7,981.92 Fuel tax-arterials $6.47 $1,345.76 $3,571.44 MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cam er excise $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal 'ustice $0.36 $74.88 $198.72 Total $6,208.80 $16,477.20 Miscellaneous revenues Rate Existin Full Real estate excise* $40.86 $8,498.88 $22,554.72 Utili tax*'' $133.20 $11,055.60 $29,437.20 Fines&forfeits" $18.33 $3,812.64 $10,118.16 Total $23,367.12 $62,110.08 " Per capita "' Per housing unit-based on$2,220 annual utility billing @ 6%tax rate :�i�s�s:::;:::::':`:::':�`�:�;:: Total ongoing costs Per ca ita Existin Futl Existing;:;:::::::$9#}?4;��:�C Contracted Services Full:::::;::�:$28$��:�2: Alcohol $0.23 $47.22 $125.30 Public Defender $3.13 $651.87 $1,729.97 Jail $7.19 $1,495.94 $3,969.98 Subtotal $2,195.02 $5,825.26 Court/le al/admin. $57.08 -$11,872.64 $31,508.16 Parks maintenance" $14.90 $3,099.20 $8,224.80 Police $270.00 $56,160.00 $149,040.00 - -...-- -- Road maintenance" N/A $7,812.50 $19,256 Fire*"* $1.25 $23,535.00 $74,175.00 Total $104,674.36 $288,029.22 "See Sheet Parks FIA **See Sheet Roads FIA "*' Rate per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact Existing::;;:::::::�$��3fl9 4.2 Full�:�:::�::::�3'�;85$:'�� Jn�:`fii'i�e:�t�>: Parks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA): $149,849.14 Other one-time costs: Total one-time costs: 149,423.64'` *Actual cost would be less if City takes over adjacent undeveloped County park lands Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo � � RECE�VE� JUL 2 2 Z005 Annexation Review Form CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS ApMIN [ ] 10% Notice of Intent [X ] 60% Annexation Petition TO : Finance Surface Water Utility Fire Water Utitity Parks Wastewater Utility Police Transportation � "�' '��itt� y Current Planning FROM : Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning (contact Don Erickson, x6581) SUBJECT . Mosier II — Expanded Annexation Background/Location: The Boundary Review Board held public hearings on July 18 & 19, 2005 regarding the potential expansion of the 31-acre Mosier II Annexation to approximately 80-acres, pursuant to the request of the City. The expanded boundaries would include the east side of 140th Avenue SE on the west, SE 136`h Street on the south, the east side of 144�'Avenue SE west of Maplewood Elementary School on the east, and the existing City boundary north of the school, and the existing City boundary on the north for those portions north of SE 132"d Street (see attached map). Date Circulated: July 21, 2005 Comments Due: Julv 29, 2005 General Information Area : + 65 acres Street length : 6,250 I.f. Assessed Value : $18,828,000 (current); $59,340,000 (ful! develop) Estimated Population : 208 Current Uses Residential : 83 existing single-family detached dwellings Commercial : Industrial : Public : Comp Plan Designation : 50°/a Res. Single Family; 50% Res. Low Density Future Uses: : 221 singfe-famify dwellings at full development of which 138 are expected to be new Future Po ulation • 552 Reviewing Department/Division: 1. Does this expanded annexation area represent any unique or significant additional problems for your departmenUdivision? �� ,} 1 i kilY w', t ( h� �-4' c�.�..�,�o� w�-�. (Over) e 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the enlarged area? '�o 3. Does this proposed expanded annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your departmenUdivision? yeS 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this enlarged area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? �"�-�-�vn�� r �i,ct f�r�c.� -�r `Jc.w�r I 5'��n�. �gk'�-� Mct ir.-�. 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? y�s 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) General recommendation and comments: �, v�i ta..� Av.ri..-�c.�--�;-.�, Signature: Date: 7 a� a� .•� ~� �i, I� .1� , �� 'n�_� r'j�� ~' '� i � �` L�ii�� '� _ ��r' =`�1 �� _� � �'=• �1� i�1'r'', �' . �� * 1 � �? r • i� �'" • { �- � .�� -��-��r oi�C■° �� r �.� z t �� ; , �+ A� , • �1 � � ' R� �� i 1�� ■ �� _ .- � �.� � �, �� _ �� ., �r �� i��rr�� : : � � . ��. .. . . * �� r�,�. .w • �� M �" �.��;:�►►� ��'1�1r�� !� s' " �� i� l�T � �`` . �, � � ��+' � ,��"� �� .�'.�.� � ��., �rt!i�: � � � ��`�'�� -� r � �� -� . � <��` � � �� ,�, �.� � �'` _ '•��.�`��.� �11t.��L� �� ,�„� �.r' ,:�� , � � . ,,� ��,�� . �.�.�,��.��.��.��, , �.� ��.�'�`�� - � �� ,�� ,,� �'� r " ' �� ' ��'�� .�� r -� -"��l� � � �� '��" �� ' '; ' �� "�'� �� r • : � .�, � .�� ;�� 4 � �' • �1 _� � � '�� i ��,.1 ' .. � �� ..��'r� 11�► .. .. � � � ��'�� ,,�� Ill�i �� ' .�, � . � �,�' ' � � M►� � � ��'� � ��°' � � - r� `r��i�� !l �Ei r.l� � s , �� + ,. � � � •� � ��.�.��.��'�� - /�a..�_�,�.�-,�.�.�-------,�..� �� `�� r, � 4�-� w . �� , �!� t'� lu'�'r�i � �� .� F � �� .. - ,,� • -, . - �TJ' �,, �� ti`'�, � _` oQ ► �ti ��..�.��..��` '� � # i ' ! # '� � � . # ��.- .::_.._ :. .;..:-:_: . , � . .� � �� ► `� - S E } (l �t' }Y �� ` • .E� ,r• � �� ,rtK: �I �.• . � MOSIER II -EXPANDED ANNEXATION FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET Units Po ulation AV Existin dev. 83 208 $18,828,000 Fuli dev. 221 552 $59,340,000 Assumptions: 2.5 persons/household $430,000 AV/new unit ............... $226,843 Existing Average � �� Total revenues :��v��iiaes::.:::::::.:.:: Existin Full Rate Existing:::�;:::::::�;�4:94: Re ular le $59,120 $186,328 3.14 Full s:�:s;:;:$27�t1.�5�3�': Excess le $1,669 $5,260 0.08865 State shared revenues Rate( er ca Existin Full Li uortax $3.52 $732.16 $1,943.04 Li uor Board rofits $5.04 $1,048.32 $2,782.08 Fuel tax-roads $14.46 $3,007.68 $7,981.92 Fuel tax-arterials $6.47 $1,345.76 $3,571.44 MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cam er excise $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal"ustice $0.36 $74.88 $198.72 Total $6,208.80 $16,477.20 Miscellaneous revenues Rate Existin Full Real estate excise" $40.86 $8,498.88 $22,554.72 Utilit tax"* $133.20 $11,055.60 $29,437.20 Fines&forfeits' $18.33 $3,812.64 $10,118.16 Total $23,367.12 $62,110.08 " Per capita "* Per housing unit-based on $2,220 annual utility billing @ 6%tax rate �i3s#s::::::::::�:::��:�::�::: Total ongoing costs ................... ................... .................... Per ca ita Existin Full Existing;;;:::;;::$9�;�`{':4�C: Contracted Services Full:�:::::::$288;�:�2� Alcohol $0.23 $47.22 $125.30 ... ...... ... Public Defender $3.13 $651.87 $1,729.97 Jail $7.19 $1,495.94 $3,969.98 Subtotal $2,195.02 $5,825.26 Court/le al/admin. $57.08 -$11,872.64 $31,508.16 Parks maintenance' $14.90 $3,099.20 $8,224.80 Police $270.00 $56,160.00 $149,040.00 _... _._.. _ . . _ -- Road maintenance'" N/A $7,812.50 $19,256 Fire`"' $1.25 $23,535.00 $74,175.00 Total $104,674.36 $288,029.22 "See Sheet Parks FIA *"See Sheet Roads FIA *"' Rate per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact Existing:::::��::::`$��4,;�{��::4� F u I I ::::::�::::��';$53°:$� s�n�:tIi'i�e:��:::Parks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA): $149,849.14 Other one-time costs: Total one-time costs: 149,423.64* "Actual cost would be less if City takes over adjacent undeveloped County park lands Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo �' MOSIER II - EXPANDED ANNEXATION FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET Units Po ulation AV Existin dev. 83 208 $18,828,000 Full dev. 221 552 $59,340,000 Assumptions: 2.5 persons/household $430,000 AV/new unit .................. $226,843 Existing Average .................. Reveiiu�s's';:::::::::: Total revenues ............... ............. ..... Existin Full Rate Existing:::;'::::::�9n;�6'4::�4� Re ular le $59,120 $186,328 3.14 Full::::::::::$27`{1;1s7'�:��: Excess le $1,669 $5,260 0.08865 State shared revenues Rate er ca Existin Full Li uor tax $3.52 $732.16 $1,943.04 Li uor Board rofits $5.04 $1,048.32 $2,782.08 Fuel tax-roads $14.46 $3,007.68 $7,981.92 Fuel tax-arterials $6.47 $1,345.76 $3,571.44 MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cam er excise $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal 'ustice $0.36 $74.88 $198.72 Total $6,208.80 $16,477.20 Miscellaneous revenues Rate Existin Full Real estate excise' $40.86 $8,498.88 $22,554.72 Utili tax"* $13320 $11,055.60 $29,437.20 Fines &forfeits' $18.33 $3,812.64 $10,118.16 Total $23,367.12 $62,110.08 '` Per capita "' Per housing unit-based on $2,220 annual utility billing @ 6% tax rate ......... �dst�:::::::::::::::::::::':: Total ongoing costs Per ca ita Existin Full Existing;;:;::;::::$99;�1:'�:8f: Contracted Services Full ::::::::$28�2�6fi:;�2 Alcohol $0.23 $47.22 $125.30 . .. . .. . Public Defender $3.13 $651.87 $1,729.97 Jail $7.19 , $1,495.94 $3,969.98 Subtotal �' $2,195.02 $5,825.26 Court/le al/admin. $57.08 �$11,872.64 $31,508.16 Parks maintenance` $14.90 $3,099.20 $8,224.80 Police $270.00 $56,160.00 $149,040.00 Road maintenance"* N/A $2,750.00 $14,194 Fire""' $1.25 $23,535.00 $74,175.00 Totat $99,611.86 $282,967.22 '`See Sheet Parks FIA "'See Sheet Roads FIA "** Rate per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact Existing :::;�::::;:��;2�92 Full �::. :::��12��'3�:�� Jne;tir'i�e:�ii�ts>:Parks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA): Other one-time costs: $70,336.84 Total one-time costs: $70,336.84 Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo i � PARKS ACQUISTION AND MAINTENANCE COST CALCULATION SHEE Needs: MOSSIER il ANNEXATION Acquisition of land for new neighborhood &community park Development of new neighborhood &community parks Maintenance of neighborhood&community parks Assumptions: $60,000 per acre for land acquistion $125,000 per acre for development(both neighborhood &community parks) $6,000 per acre to maintain neighborhood parks $7,000 per acre to maintain community parks 1.2 acres/1,000 for neighborhood park(LOS in Comprehensive Park Plan) 1.1 acres/1,000 for community park(LOS in Comprehensive Park Plan) 553 population after 10 years (projected growth) 221 housing units after 10 years (projected growth) $530.76 per single family unit mitigation fees 161 New single family units Per capita annual and one-time costs: One-time Costs: Acquisition: Neighborhood: 1 " 1.2/1000`$60,000 = $72.00 Community: 1 * 1.1/1000*$60,000 = $66.00 Development: ' Neighborhood: 1 '" 1.2/1,000"$125,000= $150.00 Community: 1 " 1.1/1,000'`$125,000= $137.50 Total one-time costs: $425.50 Mitigation fees: New units'$530.76 = �85,452.36 Acquisition &development costs minus mitigation fees: $149,849.14 Ongoing costs : (1 " 1.2/1,000"$6,000)+(1 ' 1.1/1,000"$7,000) _ $14.90 (park maintenance) � .� � ROADS MAINTENANCE CALCULATION SHEET FOR SCENARIO A Zone AREA Linear feet R-4 9 0 4805 (assumes 155 linear ft/ac) R-5 31 0 (assumes 150 linear ft/ac) R-6 0 0 0 (assumes 150 linear ft/ac) R-8 0 R-8 0 R-8 0 R-8 0 R-8 0 R-8 30 4350 (assumes 145 linear ft/ac) R-10 0 0 0 (assumes 140 linear ft/ac) 9155 Estimated total linear feet of new roadway Existing 0 2200 2200 Total linear feet of existing roadway a2,750.00 Annual cost for existing roadways Total 11355 Total estimated linear feet of roadway at full development �14,194 Annual roadway maintenance cost at full develop. � ; Revised 8-29-03 per Finance Memo -� Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County Yesler Buildirig, Rooirt 402, 400 Yesler Way, Senttle, WA 98104 Pllone: (206) 296-6800 • Fnx: (206)296-6803 • lzttp://www.metrokc.gov/anriexntiofts August 4, 2005 City of Renton Attn: Don Erickson, AICP Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: NOTIFICATION OF OFFICIAL FILING File No. 2195 - City of Renton - Mosier II Annexation Dear Mr. Erickson: We have received approval from King County engineering staff of the legal description for the above-referenced Notice of Intention. The Notice of Intention is now considered complete and has been officially filed effective April 12, 2005. You will be advised of any further changes in the status of the Notice before the Board. Please be aware that any future final ordinance or resolution on the proposed action must incorporate the legal description approved by King County engineering staff, including any revisions made in response to the engineering staff review. Sincerely, Lenora Blauman Executive Secretary cc: Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council Lydia Reynolds-Jones, Manager, Project Support Services Debra Clark, Department of Assessments Bill Huennekens, Records and Election Division Paul Reitenbach, Department of Development and Environmental Services Michael Thomas, Office Management and Budget FORM 12 � � ,, �' r Annexation Review Form [ ] 10% Notice of Intent [X ] 60%Annexation Petition TO : Finance Surtace Water Utility Fire Water UtiGty Parks W�stewater Utility Police „��, Public Works Maintenance CuRent Planning FROM : Economic Development, Neighbofioods&Strategic Planning (contact Don Erickson, x65$1) SUBJECT . Mosler 11—Expanded Annexation Background/Location: The Boundary Review Board held pubiic hearings on July 18& 19, 2005 regarding ttie pot�ntial expansion of the 31-acre Mosier ll Annexation to approximately$0=acres, pursuant to the request of the Cit�r, The expanded boundaries would induds the east side of 140"'Avenue�SE on the west, SE 136"'Street on the south; the east side of 144�',Avenue SE west of MaplswoQd Elementary Schoo�on the east,and the ewsting City bou�dary nortt� of the school, and the existin� City boundary on the north for those portions north of S� 132'"'_Street(see attached map). Date Circulated: Juiv 21. 2005 Comments Due: _ . Julv 29. 2005 � General lnforma#ion Area : +65 acres Street length : 6;250 I.f. � Assessed Value - : $18,828,000 (current); $59,340,000 (full develop) Estimated Population : 208 CuRen#Uses Residential , : 83 ewsting single-family detached dwellings Commercial • Industrial - . Public � Comp Plan Designation : 50% Res. Single Family; 5Q% Res. Low Density Future Uses: : 221 single-famify dweilings at full developme�t of which 138 are expected to be new Future Po ufation : 552 Reviewing Departmen Divisio _ TraKsya,"1`�.T�o�. �yS},��rct 1. Does this expanded annexation area represent any unique or significant additional probiems for your department/division? NG .. �a,►.�cvLr` pnF'�7ores fl-� i42kd ,4�e�,� sE (�ho�{� o� ►3i,,d �4v«u� SE akd sE I�Gtt.� ��D��Ih �L �YD�O.f�d CJf�'dh�Rcl ar�Ntxa� .St�C o'tNC p'� fre� 1 � , � n G Yt�tT,S� Of7C/w � 1/�,�lt�t�81 �z� he� dves �dttc.��t v��f--o�F-war �xis� �► eonS�k� 9 a'�e,�S�t.�Ok r++eebJ G��,o��'Gk� s'�'s�+ela�e�s, /q po�,�t��b�GNt o� S� �36�'� Sf�te�f'Is 'f�'� rdkf_p�.w�J' Sec�i��T[or Wlay 6t hC'11�rCa oT Pr�� Lut'�4��. ic.Kt �iK+�.'�r $,�juTTlr� �� Sn4fll tdc ��c�s sfirc*F, `' . (Over)v : � _ . � 1 . _ 2- Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service ro ' ' to the enlarged area? p vision y<�$, 14�K�I ��nu� S� ��k��h �e �'x ��h�a4 � �-1' s� f32hc( S-t�e�.�- � r .`� �' < <�'vth�K� �k �l•e� �tcrl�_ o�` � r�� '� l�Gtf� Sf��f ,-,.,, �� .�'DK�� eti�( ^f ��c ��rPaa�ftc� �h s�E'� a'�"r�h �rea d e-�ww��► 'G ' ° �-, - �pen � ve(n�c.�1a� ,j, �j'� � 2+�Fi ��c��«e� .� f �.«f 1��c( /1�vc�cut S� ��c Ko�" r r�-'�`�- H'�^i` <.S l 'tCtfC :'�t-�"" .r� ;. � �f-�Cr�'.e r ✓ ��-f-- n _t�a�, ,�u��!a�ll�'. f<� � ..�S�ru�fd s`�ae�� s�cfr�-c � �t /� � /y� �' Tr.t�l C 0T' /E'ect'fph � Sk�hc�en.'� �.�k�--+�-wa>. �K S� i2�,{t�JkS'� e?S� OT �40��Hk�G� ,��N.af7�Vdl�abr.f'" t t / r l4'D-f'� /�yek�tC �� o7�K ?� �G �`�C�d„A �'t� �HH lX�TT�I�t �rf' I S �lSo h b� o�o["K � VC��L �t�d i► TYJ-�'PtG I1l�i' c��C'. �C"t C ��a�tt�' �;� :�11'�`/i :� ��'' V'!�1 o c, t,� �.�r ��1+��1C. <''� 'f`�� `(�: '�h �� STr��'�`r � bKT►tK� cw u.��-��h �e� E,�joa�de� ar�HeX2T�n �i�� GU�.c e-� d i�� o��I'1 'T�D VG?�+ �e�. ��► 'T'�02 �-�i�J 64e�e��/ j�a V�e�t«�t�� evt el�'� aKd fki��CKcss �o �t�� C'�-I� �.',��s e��,t'�H s-��.�c{��.�s . ��5�, ��te�i� �L!�i�r .�Kel rrdewa/k �wc� n��e --c�r��7'j,: �t�= � ��-e`�- l�►��f�n� rs kQh—f�ciS'fa�`�'o� S��a�l f��'�"vhC.C'�►��' ��"� �'�''r'�,�� f�k�av�S, C�1��'{Iti"T'"�� /�-i I49 �c�t r�'� '�r�C-� 'T yt{ �1� Q"C'"�G�t.�ft I1��1/�"' � �? f�k�' '7�h l�r+��V�tncn'��s`J� � ��,��t,�� "'�'F��s ��,.�u�i� �� r��r� �'3i,e �rofas� v e�ane(�i{ ahn�xa�tah a�-e�> � /�ew� v�w� f"j�t[ H�a�r�d�� c'� /�'�-�� v��S� ��acc4�w A,►c+��c� N'�') � c.�//�e��v 2.�rz�°�� s��r(�,a� � ,�t�� -��t Gx�°ns�oh r a� i 4Lk� �eakfi S� �l�f�+,�atro�M //��cooe� �ll F.a, ��ua��ot /I,J+G'��i �"1�;1 5"�' /�� Ca � .a�c�csr sfs-�� K �,r �".�p�^G`�'c�� c� a v��pNi�E��.c� �-� -�w-�u�e� �c��fa�r�c��". Gl��lrh� ��v� �x�s�K s�'�fs a6N�"�J 2n� W I�"�1in �"'�ce �xpa+nd�.� �nKEK�r'�<v�, �rGd -�o. ��'� o��w'Eon S��kef�tc�s� aticd I�t�J �o ca� �ee�fS S-�'v��-'�"5� Ev0 k�c� ��s o be a�`-��ir �'X�€nS� oT �'kiST Ky ��'��Er�y 6 w�e�s �Kd�6� �t�c�J �I�ve lo�v�c-��', �� 3. Does this proposed expanded annexatian represent a logical extension of se ' bY your department/division? nnces provided `/es , » 1 . 4. What additional faalities or staff would be required to serve this enlarged area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? � qdd��cxa � T�awspo��-�to� Sy,S-f��s s'�s�-� wo..lc�+r�f' 6e rc,k��cG�, t�{�Jr�ar(�� i1-2 �►� llv�wee. �f'� 14+��t� AvC�t�ct.�'P� i.-y�.►;: �v��rr /�.,�" SC �s-�J•�{. 1°(��t SE 132s�1 Sfv�f aMc� �E 1�G-f�i S�'�ec� {�e a�� C a'�y o� //'��`�n ��n��c��'� �n�( a►�.y �a�a �aCa� J zccess s'frc �s urc fG�h �f'�t e�ah�e��3-�cn�K��rvk �r.e� wouk( ��chr� o� � y�`{�i-e � �Y�3�� t�w+��'r�y �ewrre��.s� �r._�`r► u�i.r .rlc v�c/or++�K7., "� S'� S oG��'�t� w c 1�l t�� S'f V j -t � � G.o �5 �t�'� (r .t� '"" �t�� !�w ■�� E."�� I �"'� '-_-• �i�1i� � � i� �� "�'�` � � � � �� .::��1�� ru �r�'r'� � ��r ; ��s�; [rlt:�rll r 4 �.� �;t�1, � ,� � ,��1 1 Ql.�� s, -� � '�` 1 � �; � � � ! �+,.� �' .' ' ■ �" A� , � , � ., � ,- � �'� . �111� 1 � �� ' � � � �� i _ �� =� ,111 , '� � . � � . . '� .. . � � �� X �' �; �� Gr�',��; �■ �■ �� ,��""`��',� ��,��!►�,r,�� e� ,• . �� '',� �i� �� `:�� ,�,�"�` ;� ��`l ��;,'�'�i ■� �� . - .�� . � ��1"�.�«u3 ■ ��` 9�� : , �"�'",�""�� .� r � , r� 7 � �� '��p� � �{�� . �� . .�� . � , �r L�'d�0'iyY�,�r � ■ � ��E� , � ' ,.. .�� :.� �'"'� . ��!►��,3W'.aY7�� R.�.�� i�� r � �� -;.�� r ' ' �1�11 �,,�� ,� �� E: � ' � _�. � �� ,�,�`,�� , �111 � � �� ,�°�� '. ,� ��r.r •� �� - � � . �• � �`� � ��` .�� .��`« � � �� <�� . , �,.� � . �� '�' � . �� _.� ' � .. � �� ., . � , ��, � . ,�� t � � ��. �. ��t�� .� �;�� • �� . ` �� I�i�► '� � � ��` -�� _�� . ,, ��:�l�� r�� r..� _ . . �,�� , �. .� � t�9 � •� �� .�;�..,�.�i��,�� - �"�""'�► �_� �.,�...��.�.�.�.�.�.�.�------.�.� �� '►� �'� * r, .. . - �-� �� A� � �� : �`� i� �� , 1� . � � .. - �,. -� . ..� �� - �ri� �,.. �� i`�. � ` ��Q �' ► rr�t� �a��a�..�..��.:��_ �_�� # ! � . � � . � . � # r . :,, < �.� ::.; .: :-: , � t _� ...... , ........�� .� 11 ` <. , � . r�' � r ', '; �, iis t � .�. r � "l�,�M� � I1�,'i ' �.�1 A "S � � � MOSIER 11 -EXPANDED ANNEXATION FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET � Units Po ulation AV Existin dev. 83 208 $18,828,000 Full dev. 221 552 $59,340,000 Assumptions: 2.5 persons/household $430,000 AV/new unit $226,843 Existing Average R�v�itiia�?s::::::::::::: Total revenues Existin Full Rate Existing':::`::�::::.$9�};�{i4�: Re ular le $59,120 $186,328 3.14 Full;:::;:::::$27�;1?75:��': Excess le $1,669 $5,260 0.08865 State shared revenues Rate er ca Existin Full Li uor tax $3.52 $732.16 $1,943.04 Li uor Board rofits $5.04 $1,048.32 $2,782.08 Fuel tax- roads $14.46 $3,007.68 $7,981.92 Fuel tax-arterials $6.47 $1,345.76 $3,571.44 MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cam er excise $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal 'ustice $0.36 $74.88 $198.72 Total $6,208.80 $16,477.20 Miscellaneous revenues Rate Existin Full Real estate excise* $40.86 $8,498.88 $22,554.72 Utilit tax*" $133.20 $11,055.60 $29,437.20 Fines &forfeits" $18.33 $3,812.64 $10,118.16 Total $23,367.12 $62,110.08 ' Per capita " Per housing unit-based on $2,220 annual utility billing @ 6%tax rate :�i�s€s:::::::::::::::�:;::::::: Total ongoing costs Per ca ita Existin Full Existing;:::::;:;$9�4;&�4:�� Contracted Services Full ;:::::::::$28��t�:�2 Alcohol $0.23 $47.22 $125.30 Public Defender $3.13 $651.87 $1,729.97 Jail $7.19 $1,495.94 $3,969.98 Subtotal $2,195.02 $5,825.26 Court/le al/admin. $57.08 �$11,872.64 $31,508.16 Parks maintenance# $14.90 $3,099.20 $8,224.80 Police $270.00 $56,160.00 $149,040.00 Road maintenance'"` N/A $7,812.50 $19,256 Fire''" $1.25 $23,535.00 $74,175.00 Total $104,674.36 $288,029.22 "See Sheet Parks FIA *"See Sheet Roads FIA **'' Rate per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact Existing::�:::::�::�$��4;�d#'42 Full::��::::;:�a:�;8�:$� �7n�:tii'i�e:�tS:::Parks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA): $149,849.14 Other one-time costs: Total one-time costs: 149,423.64* 'Actual cost would be less if City takes over adjacent undeveloped County park lands Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo � � RECE�VEt� JUL 21 Z005 Annexation Review Form CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS AOMIN [ ] 10% Notice of Intent [X ] 60% Annexation Petition TO : Finance Surface Water Utility Fire Water Utility Parks Wastewater Utility Police Transportation �' '�� .;. ; v K Current Planning FROM : Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning (contact Don Erickson, x6581) SUBJECT . Mosier II — Expanded Annexation Background/Location: The Boundary Review Board held public hearings on July 18 & 19, 2005 regarding the potential expansion of the 31-acre Mosier II Annexation to approximately 80-acres, pursuant to the request of the City. The expanded boundaries would include the east side of 140th Avenue SE on the west, SE 136th Street on the south, the east side of 144�'Avenue SE west of Maplewood Elementary School on the east, and the existing City boundary north of the school, and the existing City boundary on the north for those portions north of SE 132"d Street (see attached map). Date Circulated: Julv 21, 2005 Comments Due: Julv 29, 2005 General Information Area : + 65 acres Street length : 6,250 I.f. Assessed Value : $18,828,000 (current); $59,340,000 (full develop} Estimated Population : 208 Current Uses Residential : 83 existing single-family detached dwellings Commercial : Industrial : Public : Comp Plan Designation : 50% Res. Single Family; 50% Res. Low Density Future Uses: : 221 singfe-family dwellings at full development of which 138 are expected to be new Future Po ulation • 552 Reviewing Department/Division: 1. Does this expanded annexation area represent any unique or significant additional problems for your department/division? I`�i ��{- 1 i k�l� v�', l ( h� �-�' cl�,"r�o� w►e��. (Over) � 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the enlarged area? �b 3. Does this proposed expanded annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your department/division? �eS 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this enlarged area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? ��'F'��cn.e�� f N�Gc al�v� � �Gs�^� � �J'�1�. /g'k'�"�' McE iri'�. 1 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? ��e-S 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) General recommendation and comments: �, v�i<..a., A,nn..-�c.�--�(-�,.�, Signature: Date: 7 �� 'r �� I�■ l..."�� ('"'� '"-" � �� : ,� �1R� �� - .r � � ��a�� :�� 1� �� !r!� �I � � �'�1 zi�M. �•� r r? r •� f�IJ � � � . �_,�.��. C_��-�,r��r � -,C.� �� - * � � � � � 1 � �J� . . , � �� A� „ � ' 13,;�. �:� ." ��ii , !1 r � �i ,� ,- �� ■■ � � � �� _ �;�� 11��. � �� . , � �� r,��'"��:�`'� �i��1!►��.►,� � � � � � � ��r ,. . �� ►� �� , � . �` r� ��.� !��,��, �►�� . . ��-��,..� �►�,, ��!�� .�� ,�' r � ��i, � � �� -J' i„` � � � � ��'�� _.�'; �,,�� `� �� ''��(� -� �� 0"' :�� . 1�'. .� . .... . �"eIT..�� E �':��. � � M��:�� .� ��.�� — � : ��,�'�� Y �� '� � � �1�1 � m�� y _�%��'�� , � �111 ' � -- �� '�- � .��"�;� �� '� ��i�� , •��3�� . � � �� . . '+�1� � �� ,� r� ��£� � • �� b�� >> �� e�� +�� '�.�� .�� .�� 111� ��'! �. � '"'. � � ��" �' ,a� � �� - � � � �� ` �M � � � �� ; ,, ��!�:�l�� _� � �� •� �� .�.�.�,��.�� _ ''�",�` ��.�__��.�.�.�.��-�-____ �� „ +'� � , �� .,-� .we �1 1:•'.r+� � t� F � lu'��ii� ., - �,: -� . �� - �`'� � ,, �� t� �ii��.��...��'� � � 1 # ' i +! " � • �. � + .� ::---_->.- .. : ; � � t .� ...:.. . ...�.. � � .� F H _ �� -`� � •q•� ��` �� .a � r i� X � �>>��" � ti.'I ' .'�1�! .` Y MOSIER II -EXPANDED ANNEXATION FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET Units Po ulation AV Existin dev. 83 208 $18,828,000 Full dev. 221 552 $59,340,000 Assumptions: 2.5 persons/household $430,000 AV/new unit $226,843 Existing Average :RevieitiuE�'::::::::::::: Total revenues �� Existin Full Rate Existing;:::::;:::::�;�:94: Re ular le $59,120 $186,328 3.14 Full;�::;:;:::$�*�;1;75:��: Excess le $1,669 $5,260 0.08865 State shared revenues Rate er ca Existin Full Li uortax $3.52 $732.16 $1,943.04 Li uor Board rofits $5.04 $1,048.32 $2,782.08 Fuel tax-roads $14.46 $3,007.68 $7,981.92 Fuel tax-arterials $6.47 $1,345.76 $3,571.44 MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cam er excise $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal 'ustice $0.36 $74.88 $198.72 Total $6,208.80 $16,477.20 Miscellaneous revenues Rate Existin Full Real estate excise" $40.86 $8,498.88 $22,554.72 Utili tax*" $133.20 $11,055.6D $29,437.20 Fines&forfeits" $18.33 $3,812.64 $10,118.16 Total $23,367.12 $62,110.08 " Per capita '* Per housing unit-based on$2,220 annual utility billing @ 6%tax rate :�i3sfs:::::`::::::'::��`::�: Total ongoing costs Per ca ita Existin Full Existing::::;::::;$1�:4;�'4:�� Contracted Services Full :::::�:;�:�8�i��:�2: Alcohol $0.23 $47.22 $125.30 Public Defender $3.13 $651.87 $1,729.97 Jail $7.19 $1,495.94 $3,969.98 Subtotal $2,195.02 $5,825.26 Court/le al/admin. $57.08 �$11,872.64 $31,508.16 Parks maintenance" $14.90 $3,099.20 $8,224.80 Police $270.00 $56,160.00 $149,040.00 - ---- - - ___ Road maintenance"" N/A $7,812.50 $19,256 Fire*''* $1.25 $23,535.00 $74,175.00 Total $104,674.36 $288,029.22 *See Sheet Parks FIA ""See Sheet Roads FtA "*' Rate per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact Existing :::::::::::�$��4;3{3&:4� Full :s:::::::::�$��';$�:� �ne:'tirrie t��Y:Parks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA): $149,849.14 Other one-time costs: Total one-time costs: 149,423.64* "Actual cost would be less if City takes over adjacent undeveloped County park lands Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo �'MOSIER II -EXPANDED ANNEXATION FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET Units Po ulation AV Existin dev. 83 208 $18,828,000 Full dev. 221 552 $59,340,000 Assumptions: 2.5 persons/household $430,000 AV/new unit ................ $226,843 Existing Average .................. Revie:riiiEs::::::::::::::: Total revenues ................... ................... Existin Full Rate Existing:::;:::;:'::�9n;�64::�4: Re ular le $59,120 $186,328 3.14 Full::::;:�';:$�7'£1;17':�:��'' Excess le $1,669 $5,260 0.08865 �� State shared revenues Rate er ca Existin Full Li uor tax $3.52 $732.16 $1,943.04 Li uor Board rofits $5.04 $1,048.32 $2,782.08 Fuel tax-roads $14.46 $3,007.68 $7,981.92 Fuel tax-arterials $6.47 $1,345.76 $3,571.44 MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cam er excise $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal 'ustice $0.36 $74.88 $198.72 Total $6,208.80 $16,477.20 Miscellaneous revenues Rate Existin Full Real estate excise* $40.86 $8,498.88 $22,554.72 Utili tax`* $133.20 $11,055.60 $29,437.20 Fines &forfeits" $18.33 $3,812.64 $10,118.16 Total $23,367.12 $62,110.08 " Per capita '" Per housing unit-based on $2,220 annual utility billing @ 6%tax rate ......... �ds�s::::::::::::::::::::::::: Total ongoing costs Per ca ita Existin Full Existing::::;:s:::;::�99;�1:'(:��: Contracted Services Full::::::�::$28��6fi::�2� � Alcohol $0.23 $47,22 $125.30 Public Defender $3.13 $651.87 $1,729.97 Jail $7.19 , $1,495.94 $3,969.98 Subtotal � $2,195.02 $5,825.26 Court/le al/admin. $57.08 �$11,872.64 $31,508.16 Parks maintenance" $14.90 $3,099.20 $8,224.80 Police $270.00 $56,160.00 $149,040.00 Road maintenance"'` N/A $2,750.00 $14,194 Fire"*" $1.25 $23,535.00 $74,175.00 Total $99,611.86 $282,967.22 *See Sheet Parks FIA "'See Sheet Roads FIA '`'`'` Rate per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact Existing�:::::::::::::��;�A:6:9�2 Full :::::::::::�32;7��:$� ��Jn�;tii'rie;t:4��>::Parks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA): Other one-time costs: $70,336.84 Total one-time costs: $70,336.84 Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo . � PQRKS ACQUISTION AND MAINTENANCE COST CALCULATION SHEE Needs: MOSSIER II ANNEXATION Acquisition of land for new neighborhood &community park Development of new neighborhood &community parks Maintenance of neighborhood &community parks Assumptions: $60,000 per acre for land acquistion $125,000 per acre for development(both neighborhood &community parks) $6,000 per acre to maintain neighborhood parks $7,000 per acre to maintain community parks 1.2 acres/1,000 for neighborhood park(LOS in Comprehensive Park Plan) 1.1 acres/1,000 for community park(LOS in Comprehensive Park Plan) 553 population after 10 years(projected growth) 221 housing units after 10 years(projected growth) $530.76 per single family unit mitigation fees 161 New single family units Per capita annual and one-time costs: One-time Costs: Acquisition: Neighborhood: 1 ' 1.2/1000'$60,000 = $72.00 Community: 1 * 1.1/1000*$60,000 = $66.00 Development: ' Neighborhood: 1 ' 1.2/1,000"$125,000= $150.00 Community: 1 " 1.1/1,000'$125,000= $137.50 Total one-time costs: $425.50 Mitigation fees: New units"$530.76 = $85,452.36 Acquisition &development costs minus mitigation fees: $149,849.14 Ongoing costs : (1 " 1.2/1,000 "$6,000)+ (1 " 1.1/1,000"$7,000)_ $14.90 (park maintenance) � � � ROADS MAINTENANCE CALCULATION SHEET FOR SCENARIO A Zone AREA Linear feet R-4 9 0 4805 (assumes 155 linear ft/ac) R-5 31 0 (assumes 150 linear ft/ac) R-6 0 0 0 (assumes 150 linear fUac) R-8 0 R-8 0 R-8 0 R-8 0 R-8 0 R-8 30 4350 (assumes 145 linear ft/ac) R-10 0 0 0 (assumes 140 linear ft/ac) 9155 Estimated total linear feet of new roadway Existing 0 2200 2200 Total linear feet of existing roadway a2,750.00 Annual cost for existing roadways Total 11355 Total estimated linear feet of roadway at full development a14,194 Annual roadway maintenance cost at full develop. � i Revised 8-29-03 per Finance Memo S- .�, , ANTHONE'ANNEXATION -EXPANDED FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET Units Po ulation AV Existin dev. 55 138 $17,875,000 Full dev. 70 175 $25,375,000 Assumptions: 2.5 persons/household $500,000 AV/new unit $325,000 AV/existing unit Rev�riues:::::::�:::::: Total revenues Existin Full Rate Existing::::::�`�::;ii 7;�2�:��: Re ular le $56,128 $79,678 3.14 Full:::';::::�$1#)$;�2.;�9: Excess le $1,585 $2,249 0.08865 State shared revenues Rate( er ca Existin Full Li uor tax $3.52 $485.76 $616.00 Li uor Board rofits $5.04 $695.52 $882.00 Fuel tax-roads $14.46 $1,995.48 $2,530.50 Fuel tax-arterials $6.47 $892.86 $1,132.25 MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cam er excise $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal 'ustice $0.36 $49.68 $63.00 Total $4,119.30 $5,223.75 Miscellaneous revenues Rate Existin Full Real estate excise* $40.86 $5,638.68 $7,150.50 Utili tax*" $133.20 $7,326.00 $9,324.00 Fines &forfeits" $18.33 $2,529.54 $3,207.75 Total $15,494.22 $19,682.25 * Per capita "* Per housing unit-based on $2,220 annual utility billing @ 6%tax rate '��5��:�: � :::':''�:�:� Total ongoing costs Per ca ita Existin Full Existing:::::::::::::�D;�3:.3�� Contracted Services Full�::�:::::'��:�$i�1s;03�: Alcohol $0.23 $31.33 $39.73 Public Defender $3.13 $432.49 $548.45 Jail $7.19 $992.50 $1,258.60 Subtotal $1,456.31 $1,846.78 Court/le al/admin. $57.08 $7,877.04 $9,989.00 Parks maintenance* $14.90 $2,056.20 $2,607.50 Police $270.00 $37,260.00 $47,250.00 Road maintenance"' N/A $0.00 $4,979 Fire*** $1.25 $22,343.75 $31,718.75 Total $70,993.30 $98,391.03 `See Sheet Parks FIA "`See Sheet Roads FIA "'"'Rate per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact Existing :;:;:`:::::::::��332:33 ............ .: .. . Fu I I :::::':.:::::�::��:9� ;�n�=time:t��:::Parks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA): Other one-time costs: $425.00 ............ Total one-time costs: :::::::::::::�GG�5��;1:(3: Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo % "'` �v c� Q " � �! � � � � � � � � G� -_��. �� - - �� - � , � � ��. -_ - . - : .. ` � C� f�� - - _ � - - � � - T ; _ � :� � � sp . - _ - :,;�= - _ a � :��{:�.:�ii�: ��_ _ - - _ _ '' �r� - Y .. . .-'�t: ,t,}{ _.'. v� � ., r "� \ _ l�r 'L{^ _ - V Q �� a ❑ - - � _ : <,� � � � {} � � D � � � � c, � �� rr t•• ''' 2. Are you aware of any roblems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the enlarged area? ��g'�-,- 3. Does this proposed expanded annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your department/division?�, � � � ��w ��-v 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this enlarged area? C n you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation?�!��'�� 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisd'ction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of his annexation? �J�/,p� ��r`�� ,�� 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) �Z��2� /s ,��.'�._ f General recommendation and comments: . Signatu : Date: � ♦ ri, �,� x �� . � �;�� Annexation Review Form Ju� � 2 <c�, a;�r.,=F;=<<_rvr [ ] 10% Notice of Intent [X ] 60% Annexation Petitio��t�TYSYS;�� TO : Finance Surface Water Utility Fire Water Utility Parks ��i . , : Police Transportation Public Works Maintenance Current Planning FROM : Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning (contact Don Erickson, x6581 ��- -A-�i� SUBJECT . Mosier II – xpanded Annexation Background/Location: The Boundary Review Board will tentatively hold public hearings on August 31S'and September 5 regarding the potential expansion of the 4.84-acr Anthone' nnexation to approximately 25.7-acres, pursuant to a re om the City. The expanded boundaries would include the Talbot Estates Subdivision to the south and the Springbrook Terrace and Hi-Park subdivisions to the east (see attached map). The proposed expanded annexation area is a peninsula, bordered by the City on its northern, western, and southern boundaries. Date Circulated: Julv 21, 2005 Comments Due: Julv 29. 2005 General Information Area : + 25.7 acres Street length : 3,400 I.f. (private roads) Assessed Value : $17,875,000 (current); $25,750,000 (fult develop) Estimated Population : 138 Current Uses Residential : 55 existing single-family detached dwellings Commercial : Industrial : Public : Comp Plan Designation : 50% Res. Single Family; 50% Res. Low Density Future Uses: : 70 single-family dwellings at full development of which 15 are expected to be new Future Po ulation • 175 Reviewing Department/Division: ��t�.J � �u.Ti��—' ��.,�� 1. Does this expanded annexati n area repres nt any unique or significant additional problems for your department/division? �,�� -- >l�,�`d� ��w��,j ,��'r,�;�� " :��°'-�- . (Over) .� � � � MOSIER II-EXPANDED ANNEXATION FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET Units Po ulation AV Existin dev. 83 208 $18,828,000 Full dev. 221 552 $59,340,000 Assumptions: 2.5 persons/household $430,000 AV/new unit .................. $226,843 Existing Average .................... ��=Y$►�!��::::�:;::�::: Total revenues .. .... ... Existin Full Rate Existing::::::�::::$�;�6:4:�?s Re ular le $59,120 $186,328 3.14 Full`::::s::::$27�;175:��': Excess le $1,669 $5,260 0.08865 State shared revenues Rate er ca Existin Full Li uor tax $3.52 $732.16 $1,943.04 Li uor Board rofits $5.04 $1,048.32 $2,782.08 Fuel tax- roads $14.46 $3,007.68 $7,981.92 Fuel tax-arterials $6.47 $1,345.76 $3,571.44 MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cam er excise $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal 'ustice $0.36 $74.88 $198.72 Total $6,208.80 $16,477.20 Miscellaneous revenues Rate Existin Full Real estate excise* $40.86 $8,498.88 $22,554.72 Utilit tax*" $133.20 $11,055.60 $29,437.20 Fines 8 forfeits" $18.33 $3,812.64 $10,118.16 Total $23,367.12 $62,110.08 ' Per capita *" Per housing unit-based on $2,220 annual utility billing @ 6%tax rate ................ :��s�&:'��:::::�::::::::::::: Total ongoing costs Per ca ita Existin Full Existing;:?:::'::;$1#�4;E�4��C: Contracted Services Full:::::�:::�$2$�3;�29::�2: ......................... Alcohol $0.23 $47.22 $125.30 Public Defender $3.13 $651.87 $1,729.97 Jail $7.19 $1,495.94 $3,969.98 Subtotal $2,195.02 $5,825.26 Court/le al/admin. $57.08 $11,872.64 $31,508.16 Parks maintenance` $14.90 $3,099.20 $8,224.80 Police $270.00 $56,160.00 $149,040.00 Road maintenance"' N/A $7,812.50 $19,256 Fire'"`* $1.25 $23,535.00 $74,175.00 Total $104,674.36 $288,029.22 'See Sheet Parks FIA '`"See Sheet Roads FIA "*'' Rate per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact Existing:::��::::::�$��;3{�4� F u I I:::::::::::��'�;8�'<�� :�7n�:tirrie:t�t�::Parks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA): $149,849.14 Other one-time costs: Total one-time costs: 149,423.64* "Actual cost would be less if City takes over adjacent undeveloped County park lands Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo .r� �� 1,1 I� �,�•, -� �� r•,� �� :J� � � �� ,i� �i L�,�� - �� .��1��. ra ��':.'� . �� •i�M�� r e�! r ► �«� � � . • +� ■' r!. ��":��,� �'r,�■� �� , 1� � �� 1 � �: ; w . ■ �x ��L'i� � ��11�� ,� ' r+ i � � •• y.,� � �� ■ �� =� 111I�',/'` . �I �1Ii : ��`�`"-`� ��= �■� � , � ' _ ;�� ■G��'„�� ■ � , � � « � �.�.�� r��t',��!►�,��rri '!�l ` ,. . �� !i7 � �, • � .��.�-� .�, �� • �, �' ��.��.� '` 't!'� '�� ■ �.'�. � � �'�'��.�� ;�".� �� '.�� - � � �<��",� �:� /� -�w ��i r�� r' � ��'�'��.� r�+��' �� 1� �� .. . h � � . �.�.�.��,��.�.�� ,.�� -;�� - �� ' ' �1�1 -,,�� , �,�� .� _-, �� '�� `,�� R� � . r111 �� :� � �� •� � ��:�� ',�� x # *� � -,r � _�,�� a� �� „ �ta . � �,. _ � • � � � � _� , - � � �� ..��'��'�'"" 111► •� � � y � � � ��sde�� ,�. �'�� i � � ; � _��,�' 111�1�►,� �� ►„� :,�� o�� ► � � � � � �� '�� ; `., ar��l�� ■« �r�i , �+ � � � �� .�� .� � ��.��.��m.��.��,��_ ��1�� `�`� �� w �'� - , �7�-� ' �'� �� ,�:� � �; ''"" � , �r�#'� i ,�� .. - . :,. �►�'� �-<� �'� � �M�� ,�� ' �--�a' � ., � �� r�. � i � � � ' �� . . '/ � �l� ��r.�ira�� .�;�ar,."`�� _� i • 1i : � � . �► . � � � ..�.......:: :...: .: � � � ., .�.. ............ � y . � .1 i �� ir r t � �� i�s r . :E, r�t,� •�' � :� �,i� � � � � Y . 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the enlarged area? �� 3. Does this proposed expanded annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your departmenUdivision? �/�5� ► �� Q�jz ��,��alGG�j��2�-. 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to senre this enlarged area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? ��/�� 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisd�tion� ould new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? � p, l 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) y��/ �� `��L �f--�o��'��'� ��'�- General recommendation and comments: / Signature: Date: �� d� J . � �1 A Annexation Review Form [ ] 10% Notice of Intent [X ] 60% Annexation Petition ��R TO : Finance Surface Water Utility � Fire Water Utility J(�( � � � Parks �� ': `� 200.; c,;Y,; Police Transportation �riz�rYs�`s�t��' Public Works Maintenance Current Planning FROM : Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning (contact Don Erickson, x6581) SUBJECT . Mosier II — Expanded Annexation Background/Location: The Boundary Review Board held public hearings on July 18 & 19, 2005 regarding the potential expansion of the 31-acre Mosier II Annexation to approximately 80-acres, pursuant to the request of the City. The expanded boundaries would include the east side of 140th Avenue SE on the west, SE 136th Street on the south, the east side of 144th Avenue SE west of Maplewood Elementary School on the east, and the existing City boundary north of the school, and the existing City boundary on the north for those portions north of SE 132"d Street (see attached map). Date Circulated: Julv 21, 2005 Comments Due: Julv 29, 2005 General Information Area : + 65 acres Street length : 6,250 I.f. Assessed Value : $18,828,000 (current); $59,340,000 (full develop) Estimated Population : 208 Current Uses � Residential : 83 existing single-family detached dwellings Commercial : Industrial : Public : Comp Plan Designation : 50% Res. Single Family; 50% Res. Low Density Future Uses: : 221 singfe-family dwellings at full development of which 138 are expected to be new Future Po ulation � 552 Reviewing Department/Division: ��Gf/— �c�177�5 — Gt��'157�1.-v��2 1. Does this expanded annexation area represent any unique or significant additional problems for your departmenUdivision? �fp� ��' �G/� /�L Dvie �F��1Z��lGl��-� � (Over) t � MOSIER II-EXPANDED ANNEXATION FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET � Units Po ulation AV Existin dev. 83 208 $18,828,000 Full dev. 221 552 $59,340,000 Assumptions: 2.5 persons/household $430,000 AV/new unit $226,843 Existing Average �Ey��s:�::::�:��:` Total revenues Existin Full Rate Existing;::�:::''::'�$�j;�4:;�i�: Re ular le $59,120 $186,328 3.14 Full::::::::::$�7�;1s7'��': Excess le $1,669 $5,260 0.08865 �� State shared revenues Rate er ca Existin Full Li uor tax $3.52 $732.16 $1,943.04 Li uor Board rofits $5.04 $1,048.32 $2,782.08 Fuel tax-roads $14.46 $3,007.68 $7,981.92 Fuel tax-arterials $6.47 $1,345.76 $3,571.44 MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cam er excise $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal 'ustice $0.36 $74.88 $198.72 Total $6,208.80 $16,477.20 Miscellaneous revenues Rate Existin Full Real estate excise' $40.86 $8,498.88 $22,554.72 Utili tax'* $133.20 $11,055.60 $29,437.20 Fines&forfeits` $18.33 $3,812.64 $10,118.16 Total $23,367.12 $62,110.08 ' Per capita ** Per housing unit-based on $2,220 annual utility billing @ 6%tax rate `�'��` ��_��'�� Total ongoing costs ................................ Per ca ita Existin Full Existing:::`:::::$1#3�;�4::3�; Contracted Services Full::;;`::�'�$28�;t�2,9::�2: Alcohol $0.23 $47.22 $125.30 Public Defender $3.13 $651.87 $1,729.97 Jail $7.19 $1,495.94 $3,969.98 Subtotal $2,195.02 $5,825.26 Court/le al/admin. $57.08 $11,872.64 $31,508.16 Parks maintenance" $14.90 $3,099.20 $8,224.80 Police $270.00 $56,160.00 $149,040.00 Road maintenance"` N/A $7,812.50 $19,256 Fire`*'' $1.25 $23,535.00 $74,175.00 Total $104,674.36 $288,029.22 "See Sheet Parks FIA "*See Sheet Roads FIA "`* Rate per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact Existing:'�::::::::��4;3d$'4� :............. .....:.........: Full ::::::s:::��7;$5:3:� '�n�;tirri;e:�t��::Parks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA): $149,849.14 Other one-time costs: Total one-time costs: 149,423.64* "Actual cost would be less if City takes over adjacent undeveloped County park lands Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo � � t� �i� �r �� ' ��s� � �'1� .. �� r � ,.�,��s�, �:��: f1� ��!~''' � �� 1 �,�;,`��.� �� r • : r ' �� *. �-sj -� !� �r�� ai.C: ' � - ( �.� 1 � r!; , 4 . ■ �� , � �1�1�,� � , �% �.. .- � �.� � �� 1��,�`�, '� �i i � , ��-, �■r � � "; �� '��: �■ � � " `� � ,�"�"�:�"� �_��►��'��1�'� �' , �� -� �� i �� e� • � �� s �r ,/► .�" �■ � `" ,� ,� � ��''�'':.�.� ''j ��' `��i�■ � �� . � �� ,� �� l� L'1�1 �"��'��"� ,�� ' '� �t'�� <��'`�" `�� !� � �� :. �� '� ''�.�i�� ' �.�� : � , M '� �� i� .... ��' � �� a��"`�`r�B�� /"��"�'�� f � �,�, •� �� .e�'.�� . � � ��" r � _�,r,�� `�� '�� " � � �. � � ,,� � r •� -�a,� ��' � �a� � :- � • �� ` `_�S ',,- , ., �� _ .�� 11r► ..�-��+�..,,,' ,. � ��.�� ..��.�� . � .� � � _ � III�i�►� ��,� �r►„�'�"�,,�• ��; � �� ' �- � � r d � �'� �� ;��`�, ,�� r I♦ t��i�l�� tI �c-� �� . �,�� i � '+ �� .� ��.�►`d.�,�� - �"� �.��..�..�.�.�.��.�.�-�---�.... �� '�'�� r! .. "` r� * — . �•�+�� L�,•�•i+ � f� � �. � �� .� - �� - -� . �� ' �, .. ��f� ,�� .1��.� t ��.� �. -� � � '�� l;:��■■r..��.f�_ � � � � ` � � i l . � � ! . �..�."��....�.: � � . i t : .� � •� � F � I J� �� + s� � F %1i • s . _ .€r r>>�r_•t � • � _� . .,� .a � . 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the enlarged area? � ; 3. Does this proposed expanded annexation represent a logical exterision of services provided by your department/division? `�=S . 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this enlarged area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? Gu�n a',,2 f C�5 n e,Z r2�}��Jc�+ �e�(�. �(e°�'� . 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) General recommendation and comments: Signature: �!� Date: 7�Z�•a� � Annexation Review Form [ J 10% Notice of Intent [X ] 60% Annexation Petition TO : Finance Surface Water Utility Fire Water Utility Parks Wastewater Utility � Transportation Public Works Maintenance Current Planning FROM : Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning (contact Don Erickson, x6581) SUBJECT . Mosier II — Expanded Annexation Background/Location: The Boundary Review Board held public hearings on July 18 & 19, 2005 regarding the potential expansion of the 31-acre Mosier II Annexation to approximately 80-acres, pursuant to the request of the City. The expanded boundaries would include the east side of 140�'Avenue SE on the west, SE 136�' Street on the south, the east side of 144�'Avenue SE west of Maplewood Elementary School on the east, and the existing City boundary north of the school, and the existing City boundary on the north for those portions north of SE 132"d Street (see attached map). Date Circulated: Julv 21, 2005 Comments Due: July 29. 2005 General Information Area : + 65 acres Street length : 6,250 I.f. Assessed Value : $18,828,000 (current); $59,340,000 (full develop) Estimated Population : 208 Current Uses Residential : 83 existing single-family detached dwellings Commercial : Industrial : Public : Comp Plan Designation : 50% Res. Single Family; 50% Res. Low Density Future Uses: : 221 single-famiiy dwellings at full development of which 138 are expected to be new Future Po ulation � 552 Reviewing Department/Division: 1. Does this expanded annexation area represent any unique or significant additional problems for your departmenUdivision? ��, (Over) r . •. Annexation Review Form [ ] 10% Notice of Intent [X ] 60% Annexation Petition ��r<�� ,��.,r�� TO : Finance Surface Water Utility Fire � � Jd)l.. 2 �,' 2C�?5 Parks Wastewater Utility Police Transportation ce:v�;� ��N-�orv Public Works Maintenance Current Planning �'r1L1T�'s�rs,�:n.A;; FROM : Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning (contact Don Erickson, x6581) SUBJECT . Mosier II — Expanded Annexation Background/Location: The Boundary Review Board held public hearings on July 18 & 19, 2005 regarding the potential expansion of the 31-acre Mosier II Annexation to approximately 80-acres, pursuant to the request of the City. The expanded boundaries would include the east side of 140�'Avenue SE on the west, SE 136th Street on the south, the east side of 144�'Avenue SE west of Maplewood Elementary School on the east, and the existing City boundary north of the school, and the existing City boundary on the north for those portions north of SE 132"d Street (see attached map). Date Circulated: Julv 21, 2005 Comments Due: Julv 29, 2005 General Information Area : + 65 acres Street length : 6,250 I.f. Assessed Value : $18,828,000 (current); $59,340,000 (full develop} Estimated Population : 208 Current Uses Residential : 83 existing single-family detached dwellings Commercial : Industrial : Public : Comp Plan Designation : 50% Res. Single Family; 50% Res. Low Density Future Uses: : 221 single-family dwellings at full development of which 138 are expected to be new Future Po ulation • 552 Reviewing Department/Division: � ��k/ tfii�1 k� i.��'2 • 1. Does this expanded annexation area represent any unique or significant additional problems for your department/division? �� , �� c� M�� 0�� u��r ?�►� Ze�aS (Over) 1 .- , � 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the enlarged area? 3. Does this proposed expanded annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your department/division? 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this enlarged area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) General recommendation and comments: S� �� M�'1` �"1 �� Si nature: �1�" ��'�� Date: �o� 9 �� .�� ~r �y, � �,� , ��_ _ ` �� M �� '�. �� _��:'=• �i� �� !�'� � �� 1 �r�M��.� ��:� r ' �� "!��' �► �� 3 ' � �s� . :r .� �i��♦1 Q�I:■ �� .� � � �� :. " � . �'� �;� . � � �1 I ,, � �� .� �� i '�� ,1��j�,�i � �� . � �� ■ � � r � � �� r� � �■ � i �� •� �` �.�.�,� �'��'�',��►�,�� - ~ s. ��,� ��' �� !ii !�7 � 4 � ♦'� � �.. �� ! �� I' � ■ � '. 4 "' � ��.� �I.�p,� ��! �� " ,�� r ,� ��+�!� � � �� , � ^� ��•!',� �= ��;R� �� '�� . .� �, s�r.�.��.� �..�■�• . �r „� � _ � :� �,�� .,�.�.,�.�.�.�,a��.�� 4 �� ' �ioi •,,�� III . � _ � � �� s � �:�� • � � �� ' •� � �:�r � ,�� ,x `�� . _. , , �_� � � :,�� , �„- , _ � �� ^ .�� r► �.■~�..� �� .�_�� • Ili�i�► �� , << � � � �� .� �� A � # �� - ,. ��P�;l:�l�� r�� r.� , E . , ��f�� . •e._� . , . � � � r7 5 . ' � � � � �� «�� 1�� '�� , � 4�� w . �''q �,�.+� ,r t�. � �„ � �� .. - ��. ,��,,� �Z� �r -� - -, . *�1�� tl,�� l.3• r ,, �� I��. � ` �� - � rl�� i��..r�..f„ i � � � ri � a � a � � �� ! �.�� ._ ..,.:.::,_;,:_, �www�< . -. -,' w�w�ww� „ ! 4 :t [ �. '..1 �{ � �� i = � � ,?., Y f � k Vr *.� . ��` ; i . ' _ .Ef � •r' f >>e*� �i " ��•-_� .,�� c� � z MOSIER II -EXPANDED ANNEXATION FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET ` Units Po ulation AV Existin dev. 83 208 $18,828,000 �uil dev. 221 552 $59,340,000 Assumptions: 2.5 persons/household $430,000 AV!new unit $226,843 Existing Average �Ey$�!��:::::::��:::� Total revenues ... ..... . Existin Full Rate Existing:;::`:�:::::;�;�6'4�� Re ular le $59,120 $186,328 3.14 Full ;:::::::::$�7'��1.�'�r3�:: Excess le $1,669 $5,260 0.08865 State shared revenues Rate er ca Existin Full Li uor tax $3.52 $732.16 $1,943.04 Li uor Board rofits $5.04 $1,048.32 $2,782.08 Fuel tax-roads $14.46 $3,007.68 $7,981.92 Fuel tax-arterials $6.47 $1,345.76 $3,571.44 MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cam er excise $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal 'ustice $0.36 $74.88 $198.72 Total $6,208.80 $16,477.20 Miscellaneous revenues Rate Existin Full Real estate excise" $40.86 $8,498.88 $22,554.72 Utili tax'"� $133.20 $11,055.60 $29,437.20 Fines&forfeits` $18.33 $3,812.64 $10,118.16 Total $23,367.12 $62,110.08 '` Per capita "* Per housing unit-based on $2,220 annual utility billing @ 6%tax rate '��'�:'�:�::�:�:`:':`:�:' Total ongoing costs Per ca ita Existin Full Existing;::;:�;�:$9#}?�;6,��4:'3C: Contracted Services Full :;�::::;::9►288�i�29:�2� Alcohol $0.23 $47.22 $125.30 Public Defender $3.13 $651.87 $1,729.97 Jail $7.19 $1,495.94 $3,969.98 Subtotal $2,195.02 $5,825.26 Court/le al/admin. $57.08 $11,872.64 $31,508.16 Parks maintenance' $14.90 $3,099.20 $8,224.80 Police $270.00 $56,160.00 $149,040.00 Road maintenance"i N/A $7,812.50 $19,256 Fire*"* $1.25 $23,535.00 $74,175.00 Total $104,674.36 $288,029.22 'See Sheet Parks FIA ""See Sheet Roads FIA "'" Rate per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact Existing��:::'�;;;��4�3{18:4� ..f:::.:.:... Full::::�:::�::��'�;�53:�� '�7n�;tiii�e:i��:::Parks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA): $149,849.14 Other one-time costs: Total one-time costs: 149,423.64* *Actual cost would be less if City takes over adjacent undeveloped County park lands Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo Proposed Mosier II-Expanded Annexation—60% Notice of Intent Reviewing Department: Water Utility Engineering July 29,2005 l. Does the annexation represent any unique or significant problems for your department/division? The proposed annexation is within the water service area of King County Water District No. 90(W.D#90) 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the area? The applicants shall contact Water District 90 and request a certificate of water availability from the District prior to any development within the annexation area. 3. Does this proposed expanded annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your department/division? Not applicable. The proposed annexation is within the water service area of King County Water District No. 90. 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this enlarged area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? Developer's extensions of water mains will be required to provide water for fire protection and for domestic use for development within the annexation area. The applicant shall obtain a certificate of water availability from KCWD#90. 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? No. Ownership of water mains owned and operated by KCWD#90 District will remain the same within their water service boundary. The District currently does not have a franchise to operate its water facilitie: within the City limits and rights-of-way. H:\File Sys\WTR-Drinking Water Utility\WTR-03 -Correspondence\Mosierll-annexation-60%.072905.doc\AG , � 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) No. Water service boundaries are established by existing coordinated water system plan and comprehensive water system plans. General recommendation and comments: Applicants shall contact KCWD#90 and obtain water availability certificate prior to any development within annexation area. Please notify WD#90 regarding proposed annexation. KCWD#90 15606 SE 128`h St Renton,WA 98059 Attn: Tom Hoffman—Manager 425-255-9600 �� (l�� Signature: Date: July 29, 2005 Abdoul Gafour �}�,�-Z�c.� Water Utility Supervisar H:\File Sys\WTR-Drinking Water Utility\WTR-03 -Correspondence\Mosierli-annexation-60°/o.072905.doc�AG �� . Annexation Review Form [ ) 10% Notice of Intent [X ] 60% Annexation Petitior��."°�f�=, F,.��yy ac�5`iA"'y¢,,lr,:uKV l �� a.�, TO : Finance Surface Water Utility�UL � � Fire �: �G��;7 Parks Wastewater Utility r 7�,''Li��:�;�,��nr;;,nt Police Transportation ��t;;,;�; Public Works Maintenance Current Planning FROM : Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning (contact Don Erickson, x6581) SUBJECT . Mosier II—Expanded Annexation Background/Location: The Boundary Review Board will tentatively hold public hearings on August 31St and September 1st, 2005 regarding the potential expansion of the 4.84-acre Anthone'Annexation to approximately 25.7-acres, pursuant to a request from the City. The expanded boundaries would include the Talbot Estates Subdivision to the south and the Springbrook Terrace and Hi-Park subdivisions to the east (see attached map). The proposed expanded annexation area is a peninsula, bordered by the City on its northern, western, and southern boundaries. Date Circulated: Julv 21, 2005 Comments Due: July 29, 2005 General Information Area : + 25.7 acres Street length : 3,400 I.f. (private roads) Assessed Value : $17,875,000 (current); $25,750,000 (full develop) Estimated Population : 138 Current Uses Residential : 55 existing single-family detached dwellings Commercial : Industrial : Public : Comp Plan Designation : 50% Res. Single Family; 50% Res. Low Density Future Uses: : 70 single-family dwellings at full development of which 15 are expected to be new Future Po ulation • 175 Reviewing DepartmenUDivision: � QI Pr✓ U1��1�� {ti � �, 1. Does this expanded annexation area represent any unique or significant additional problems for your department/division? �� iG�d�. �c�i e�l Comrn�� S�� dq,l��( 5a( Z�j ��S � (Over) , ' , � 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the eniarged area? 3. Does this proposed expanded annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your department/division? 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this enlarged area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) General recommendation and comments: . S,� a�c�tto�( I�e�� e�/ Ce,m,� 's Q�:� p(av�a( �'/�I a�' Signature: ��GU.I/ V�y� Date: �a� � � � �� n�� `� � � � � � � � � � � � �. � 4 `� � � �i �' > � Q � _. ��, � �r� � _.. � �� N � � � �� x �� - _ � � �� Qr *� � � � .- _ � - � '; . � � � - � � !� � CI � ._.. � � � �` � � � I � � � � � �� : � , � a � � � � � � � � . � ANTHONE'ANNEXATION -EXPANDED FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET Units Po ulation AV Existin dev. 55 138 $17,875,000 Full dev. 70 175 $25,375,000 Assumptions: 2.5 persons/household $500,000 AV/new unit $325,000 AV/existing unit Revsriues:::::::::::::i: Total revenues ... ................. Existin Full Rate Existing' $.77,325:64 Re ular le $56,128 $79,678 3.14 Full : $1t38,832:93 Excess le $1,585 $2,249 0.08865 State shared revenues Rate ( er ca Existin Full Li uor tax $3.52 $485.76 $616.00 Li uor Board rofits $5.04 $695.52 $882.00 Fuel tax- roads $14.46 $1,995.48 $2,530.50 Fuel tax-arterials $6.47 $892.86 $1,132.25 MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cam er excise $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal 'ustice $0.36 $49.68 $63.00 Total $4,119.30 $5,223.75 Miscellaneous revenues Rate Existin Full Real estate excise* $40.86 $5,638.68 $7,150.50 Utili tax'* $133.20 $7,326.00 $9,324.00 Fines &forfeits" $18.33 $2,529.54 $3,207.75 Total $15,494.22 $19,682.25 " Per capita '" Per housing unit-based on $2,220 annual utility billing @ 6%tax rate Gdsts:::::::::::::::::::::�;� Total ongoing costs _........ _.. . .. . . Per ca ita Existin Full Existing:;:';;;;:;$�D;993;:3f�; Contracted Services Full::;::::`i:i:$9$;3�1;:Q3: Alcohol $0.23 $31.33 $39.73 Public Defender $3.13 $432.49 $548.45 Jail $7.19 $992.50 $1,258.60 Subtotal $1,456.31 $1,846.78 Court/le al/admin. $57.08 $7,877.04 $9,989.00 Parks maintenance' $14.90 $2,056.20 $2,607.50 Police $270.00 $37,260.00 $47,250.00 Road maintenance"* N/A $0.00 $4,979 Fire"*" $1.25 $22,343.75 $31,718.75 Total $70,993.30 $98,391.03 * See Sheet Parks FIA `"See Sheet Roads FIA ''*� Rate per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact Existing : '$8;332:33 FuII :::::::::::: ::58;44�'<.97 �7n�:tii`i�ie:t�t�;::Parks acquisition & development(from Sheet Parks FIA): Other one-time costs: $425.00 Total one-time costs: :::;::::';:�66;�(k�>1�: Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo � I Proposed Mosier II-Expanded Annexation—60% Notice of Intent Reviewing Department: Water Utility Engineering July 25,2005 1. Does the annexation represent any unique or significant problems for your department/division? No. The proposed annexation is within the water service area of both the City of Renton and Soos Crook Water and Sewer District. A boundary of the water service area is shown on the attached map. 2. Are you aware of any problems or deticiencies in e�sting infrastructure or service provision to the area? No. Developer's extensions of water mains will be required to provide water for fire protection and for domestic use for development within the annexation area. The applicant shall obtain a certificate of water availability from the City and/or from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District based on the service area map 3. Does this proposed expanded annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your department/division? Yes. Water service will be provided by the City of Renton and/or by Soos Creek Water and Sewer Distric based on the service area boundary. Developer's extensions of water mains will be required to provide water for fire protection and far domestic use for development within the annexation area. The applicant shall obtain a certificate of water availability from the City and/or from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District based on the service area map. 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this enlarged area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? Developer's extensions of water mains will be required to provide water for fire protection and for domestic use for development within the annexation area. The applicant shall obtain a certificate of water availability from the City and/or from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District based on the service area map No additional staff or other costs are anticipated to provide water service to the annexation area. Development within the annexation area will be subject to all applicable water system development fees, water meter fees, and plan review and inspection fees. 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? No. Ownership of water mains owned and operated by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District will remain the same within their water service boundary. No new franchise agreement is needed. H:\File Sys\WTR-Drinking Water Utility\WTR-03-Correspondence\Mosierll-annexation-60%.doc\AG � 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) No. Water service boundaries are established by existing coordinated water system plan and comprehensive water system plans. General recommendation and comments: None. Signature:�� Date: July 25, 2005 Abdoul Gafour Water Utility Supervisor . H:\File Sys\WTR-Drinking Water Utility\WTR-03 -Correspondence\Mosierfl-annexation-60%.doc\AG Annexation Review Form [ ] 10% Notice of Inter�t [X] 60% Annexation Petition TO : Building Surface Water Utility Fire Water Utility Parks Wastewater Utility Police Transportation Public Works Maintenance Current Planning FROM : Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning SUBJECT . Mossier II — Expanded Annexation Reviewing Department/Division: PBPW/ Utility Systems — Surface Water Utility 1. Does this expanded annexation area represent any unique or significant problems for your department/d ivision? The proposed 65-acre Mossier Annexation is located in the Maplewood Creek Sub-basin of the Cedar River Basin. Maplewood Creek drains across the Maplewood Golf Course and into the Cedar River. A large part of the proposed annexation area is still undeveloped. There are existing drainage problems within the Maplewood Creek sub-basin, downstream of the proposed annexation area. These problems consist of flooding, erosion due to increased stream flows caused by urbanization, poor water quality and degraded fish habitat. Therefore, we recommend requiring use of the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual with level-2 flow control for any new development within the proposed annexation area, or stricter standard, to minimize increases to downstream impacts. There is an existing stream within the proposed annexation area. It is a Class 4 stream by the City's Stream Classification System and critical areas ordinance. The open channel of the stream should be maintained in the future, when the adjacent area is developed and buffers maintained along the stream. This Wetland reports for the properties within the proposed annexation area may be needed to verify if wetlands are present, at the time of development review. 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the enlarged area? The drainage from the proposed annexation area flows down to the corner of 142nd Ave SE and SE 136`h Street. The King County Drainage problem and complaint inventory identifies drainage problems within the proposed annexation area related to flooding. The reported drainage problems are mainly in the Puget Colony Homes Plat, and are primarily identified as flooding. These flooding problems may include ponding in the public right-of-ways of 142"d Ave SE and SE 136th Street. There may be a need to provide drainage system infrastructure improvements to these right-of-ways to solve drainage problems and provide better service. There is also a record of drainage problems located on the east side of 144`h Ave SE (Jericho Ave NE) associated with the unclassified stream that crosses the street and flows into the proposed (Over) annexation area. The existing culvert crossing of 144`h Ave SE and the culvert crossing of SE 136`�' St at 142"d Ave SE may need to be replaced to increase their capacity. 3. Does this proposed expanded annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your department/division? The proposed Mossier Annexation is a logical extension of services provided by the Surface Water Utility. 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this enlarged area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? The annexation of this area and eventual full build-out of this proposed annexation will incrementally require additional resources for maintenance of infrastructure from this annexation. At some point the City will need additional personnel and equipment for maintenance due to new development and annexations. Based on the current annual operation and maintenance cost of$238 per acre for the whole city, the operation and maintenance for the 65-acre expanded Mossier annexation area will be approximately $15,500 per year. Based on the current annual Capital Improvement Project cost of$227 per acre for the whole city, the added CIP cost resulting from the expanded Mossier Annexation is estimated to be approximately $14,800 per year. The total Surface Water Utility cost for O&M plus CIP is estimated to be $30,300 per year for the proposed annexation area. This assumes the same level of O&M and CIP service that is currently being provided in our existing City limit will have to be provided in the proposed annexation area. EYisting Surface Water Utility revenue for the 83 single-family residences is $5,368 per year. If the total number of new single-family homes under full build out will be 221, then the maximum revenue will be $14,294 per year. The proposed annexation financial analysis should include the costs associated with proving storm and surface water management services in the proposed annexation area. The eYisting culverts, storm pipe systems and ditches do not appear to have been maintained on a regular basis and are in need of maintenance. There may be a need to fund capital improvements to address existing drainage problems or improve the capacity of major culvert crossings to prevent flooding problems. 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? The Surface Water Utility would assume ownership and maintenance responsibility for the 36" diameter system from the 140`" Ave SE right-of-way to the culvert at SE 136`h Street and 142"d Ave SE. This system is the outflow line for the King County pond at Wetland I50, north of SE 132°a Street. The other storm systems within the public right-of-way in this annexation,would become our maintenance responsibility too, and include the following. There currently is approximately 3100 linear feet of existing storm pipe systems within the 138 Ave SE right-of-way, which would have to be maintained and operated by the Surface Water Utility. These pipe systems range in sizes of 12- inch to 42-inch. In addition, there are at least 17-Type I catch basins and 7-Type II (54"-72") catch basins within the public right-of-ways adjacent to the proposed annexation area. There are also ditches within the street right-of-ways that would need to be maintained. H:\File Svs\SWA-Surface Water Section Administration\SWA 26-Annexations\Mossier Annexat ion\Storm60%Mosier2expanded.doc No new agreements or franchises would be required. 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) None recommended. General recommendation and comments: The proposed Mossier Annexation area currently contains a fair amount of drainage infrastructure that the Surface Water Utility would be responsible for maintenance, repair, replacement and operation. There is an unclassified stream within the proposed annexation area. Culvert crossings associated with the stream may require the need for the expenditure of Capital Improvement Program funds. Other CIP improvements may be needed to address drainage problems in the public right-of-ways and improve service to the area. It is anticipated that some of these improvements would occur through developer improvements, when the area is developed. The culverts and the ditches in the proposed annexation area are in need of cleaning, based upon field inspection. We recommend that the 2005 King County Surface Water Manual, with Level 2 Detention, is required for storm water control design, for any new development within the proposed annexation. Signat re: Date: � � Cc: Gregg Zimmer an Lys Hornsby Mike Stenhouse John Thompson H:\File Sys\SWA-Surface Water Section Administration\SWA 26-Annexations\Mossier Annexation\Storm60%Mos ier2expanded.doc r �r �y, � '� ��'j t� ;� ��!� �i �+i"�` � ►_1 �I ��;� �_��1��r�� ir�'r" � �� +,r� � r r_ r ►- ��I� � � , • �,�:��:, ..�1��;1l11 ��.,��, �� i �i� � � � � �J; • , . . �� RM � . r �� .� � � ., .. .. _� �� . �� ■■ � y.� � ,�� ■ _ �� ■ �� =� 11�1�' ; � r: � � � � �, . � � ��, �� - , � �� ■�r��► �■ � y � ��.:�� e, , � �� .��' # ��r�� li� i � � � � �.�� #� �� r � ..��. � t�� ,�■ ��.� � ��,�► �.�!�� +�. � > 4�� y '� r '� � � � +� � ,� �r ►i�, � . �� ,,��€��' �,�� !�'� Iw �t� �� .�' �i�`.��i/'.�'.� �' e �� ' ., � M�,��.�� :�� _ . � ,-� ��. �� `��.��'.�.��'�� ;��' ��;�� r ' � �1�1 '��r��:� � �.�� __/ � ' `��°�� ' � � '� ,'� �� r� �-��,;. ,��, �'� � �� +�� F„r .a� / %4'0a°V � ~� �� ^9�,� � �i��`� h, i �Q� id' � � � � �� -�� .. R �:. �;;- , .. �� _x ��r► ■1��! t � ��' � . �� i � � � �'� .� �� 11 �� . :,� �� . � � 1�1�►� •��,� .� m �r; ,� � � � ��' � . `, ;r��:�l�'� �!l �` �R'i r'.!� �� r - � �� + .�. � .�- � � � _ � � ,� _ �f � 4� � � ��.�.�i��'�.�� 'r..r'� � ,�..�..��..-�.r.�.�.��--.r...�.� �� ; �� r� � �t�� . , �� i1 �i�.�►� � f� F � 1�� .. - ,,, �1�'1 �� -� -, . r • �� T,w i�� e:��` � � �� l��i�i�� . � � a ,� . � � �i ;..��. .. i��. :�.� �� ', ! A 1 .1 � y 1 . y, i� -_ �r�,� r r �, y, � � t- %// • • . � :E r 1 ♦A ��al4M. i � ��._i � .1R MOSIER II -EXPANDED ANNEXATION FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET Units Po ulation AV Existin dev. 83 208 $18,828,000 Fuil dev. 221 552 $59,340,000 Assumptions: 2.5 persons/household $430,000 AV/new unit $226,843 Existing Average Revie�ii��':::::':::::: Total revenues ............... .................. .........:::............::...:. Existin Full Rate Existing':;:;:::?:;:$��};�&4;'�: Re ular le $59,120 $186,328 3.14 Full:::::�::;:$�7�;1_7:��37: Excess le $1,669 $5,260 0.08865 State shared revenues Rate er ca Existin Full Li uortax $3.52 $732.16 $1,943.04 Li uor Board rofits $5.04 $1,048.32 $2,782.08 Fuel tax-roads $14.46 $3,007.68 $7,981.92 Fuel tax-arterials $6.47 $1,345.76 $3,571.44 MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cam er excise $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal'ustice $0.36 $74.88 $198.72 Total $6,208.80 $16,477.20 Miscellaneous revenues Rate Existin Full Real estate excise" $40.86 $8,498.88 $22,554.72 Utili tax"` $133.20 $11,055.60 $29,437.20 Fines&forfeits' $18.33 $3,812.64 $10,118.16 Total $23,367.12 $62,110.08 * Per capita '* Per housing unit-based on $2,220 annual utility billing @ 6%tax rate ��i�s#�::::::::::::::::::::::::: Total ongoing costs ................... ............. ..... ........... .................... Per ca ita Existin Full Existing:��:::::::$1#�4;��4`3�: Contracted Services Full::::::::::$�$�;�:�2� Alcohol $0.23 $47.22 $125.30 Public Defender $3.13 $651.87 $1,729.97 Jail $7.19 $1,495.94 $3,969.98 Subtotal $2,195.02 $5,825.26 Court/le al/admin. $57.08 �$11,872.64 $31,508.16 Parks maintenance' $14.90 $3,099.20 $8,224.80 Police $270.00 $56,160.00 $149,040.00 Road maintenance"` N/A $7,812.50 $19,256 Fire*"* $1.25 $23,535.00 $74,175.00 Total $104,674.36 $288,029.22 ''See Sheet Parks FIA ''`See Sheet Roads FIA *"' Rate per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact Existing ;:::::::;:�$�A;3�49:4� Full::��:�:~:�:�7;85..3<8� �n�:tiri�e:t�ists>::Parks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA): $149,849.14 Other one-time costs: Total one-time costs: 149,423.64* "'Actual cost would be less if City takes over adjacent undeveloped County park lands Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo a r �� t "r s�e-s�r ; � '_i t �°f� r `' jf-k € � ��:e�'e , {�s.r�k�� .�� `�1'2"� �' 7�#;� Y ��r-�--'Y.'.ry r� .^f +4r' f j� 1 � { �t �.'� �� „� 3' { I "e :; . C*� � iwe i T �j, . � � ; �'� �.( � . ��.9� �,'. �"za"_ 'A.��^ - � -� .. �:��. a. ' � "�� . 5. '<6 , f",[s,�� }.. � �^-�-�r�r "v'.. '"". �� .�� 19i,G2'20 ��^ b� c�� E '•A k • ..._ � .�,_ � .� �/' �':S ".� �`� � �1�-'9,�19,E2-3t� � � �'"` ��c . , . < �� g A x �!. � � . � o �� r� � � ._ s .� � ti ' /. x -- - � 3 ♦ � ' �'` l �f � � f i a'.9,G�22-�� / y�e�- � �"""1�{ � � x��„s- �5.��•�y,,�r`fi ,��z„ _ E 4' . l. 1 9.n3��P_ \ � I .� .��:�..:.� ,L e � ��CE� ..� a � .1YG 7 14G3aRa. � 19kg.-2g,i� h2 25.: I�` „c ` P �,�P` �i � .�p.w � �, '- � 'i� �_ 79 L�3 I .i } y vq� � d -�fi � t 'y�' - .s s�.� � �� : F � . �'{ �f � � � � - F�a,� r x`n +, ,'lt'�'c:'� _.� .. �. '� � .a 19 G y:P'�` k9,G '2`� i .� ' . � y 'A'", ^ �� ,-r ��,�.,�..,,"{'��..� � � �Y,��` e � r j `_ .. . f a ,�..'�, �i�..�'^'n \;i. \\i3�,�?6�i �`��: *��& � $ '. �� -5'�L �a,�. � *'�,n iq�� 'sq;"q °i ,t' t Y � �- , _ .. ._ ! t9,C3�t.� '`�3,G3-2�}�� --"�'��.�*,.,,. � : c,._� k�`4 °�� -.s�� x j .G3 15 .-- � .�..29.G3-22� 9,Ff3:14�i3',�,,.. se�; �,� � � qw� �� • ' { �� k ts,r�-� � 49.c�^� r \ � � 'k'fim4�N�'r` �C � . . --�/,'�y��L j � ��,. �� ' �� E�C3_ y _.+ �� - �9 t,�-�� , . .�--.9 -- � �-.»� ' � - �f ''. .:�a,. ,�-.�--� ,�` ' -- '� a" � �a�) � 4�f ' ; , .aiyP { +tH � {, `.sv : ti ._ -��a�.t �`. �, � I • a � *. 'x. �v �. F9� :�.��S,ira�26 . � t I�.�. � :Y r� �; � ��. � �.�w �4,( i��'a'� �� .r;y i, ... � ILL_s�•:, ,39Jt3-27 �\ �'"'�`.-. . �� .�`:.�c�- � -&` >�„�� ,�3:'�� .-� � t . . _ YJ �^ . :14;1�1=28 \�J , �-+---'^�,'��.- � e�' LAg�►"` f �....�* ,�s�, �� ' i`# .. . .' - ��v, .:,�. .. ,/y.H3-24-9"�,H; Y � - E . � -,t +�_ � �-�*M=� i� " �, F -'s� � i9k�3-ZR - „��a4'�t s�� -^��r� \ , �`,�1 rr ,� �� r�'�� t�6„ , ,$ k ;'�' 6 ' �� x.y :. '�,-�'•�Wf.,,._�.. 9Et- �„ �� '� � _ "IX.,.. --»tii�� t yi, }�� `�. a'3+ ,� . __ w` �� ;84_� �9'Gi-i .ffA-3�� H4;2 ,�'s z€ e `�. t � � �� .`�& -.i t i 3��".."�,a=; `� a-2 t ts�.1#4=5 � � a . �r x t � '4 . � ^'�� _� 1� �� 1�, .,r� '� i '�'ry.-` � 3 !f�' _ Y9.H4^4 . �, � ' �p; �+ � �� ' «, c�� r, ��i �� ,� '�a �,,,� � ... ,s=r� �' , 1 ,E+-8 �' 4 i% ' � �, � w � � ' _� � `�C . .� #" .. . � �' � � � ,ra � .,.a ` f-:. �..�, -f°^#t�'��^-.�,,,��:�A' Y �('", i �.. --�—'�� : `=-* � •y�'� . � .� • �� T � { _ . : ..�' ��. �- :t�.._^�� r.✓ t! ;i ' ��_` ,�:��„ ��4 � ��v. �i� . f,�7 � ' .a+ � T i ♦ !, r ;, i I t - � '."�»b �� -�.�._ �,.___�_ 4 '" i � :.: �� l � ��. .,t' a�' � �� ` �i . r y =.<. t i � f+�' .z .--� ^. �,.�—��'^ .,x.� I -"p'' � � ^-*�'�-----�-� '�� i,. - 9 �'�&„t �--.ya-q�"��':i�' �� .��^��j�.,'L'f ` � "�:_"�. -� .. x: � y�'�'... �/ .��w wnu �3 � `� f 'e4� �� *e {�:� �� " 'rf�Jl`i �'.cd �; � �r ' � _4�� a_....--- de�+-� � '� � '� '�., . . � ..�' _ . ` _ - - ��4.'�� V `�� ; ; , - -. 0 5�'• a ' �. � G4-5;� '�a q, '�„' . - 1.�,;:� t Fs �. , • I9ri4-i,- �� '�� "' �� _ 4f t9,r4-4\ v +»,'� �. ' �� `� , � �. "',� � ��,., � �+r t �;,r..� ' "'�`� , .,`!5= �,;�•r ,tr - � "� �_- � '` ,a t �zv es-i ��"s � Y°� "'� i� � �e� x ..w .' �:y/}�r �;�,$ } ,�. �, it 1 �� " �j.. { ��'. .. � }1A1�-S, .i� -� "�, � � 7,a .�, � �(CY �z�y � � �1 19.Fr? �- �� }� w.. '� � y�. .'i '_,�*�C �,a � � �''�'i. -..r--,.,�.-�ew�'^`_a LY 3� $. T�w. r �� ,.� "` °'�4#� ...1 �.._.,,. t I "�"�_- r ' : � � ��. �� , v '� � �,2i .n - Y i :i t � � ' �_� .,v �-. "'.L��`�" ,� -.}��--�'--r---� " ��..-.�. 1 � � ��`3'�"�� J � .�� y .. .� t� ��g ��# �_ � - tA� � {5 �`+c�^^�� Nf,t'S- 9.F 9x ,��«'�...,�:rn,+w..:�1",�r"��T' . 3,uj�.+ .. � �S9lti 2� � 6 .� -( Y^e•�� ,k�' . � 4 M,. _ �.� �, ;.. �asli aY _ .,,,y� a ., '� ,z,,.e` � ��i.� `„��, y r ,�',�" s , `�' �, � . .-v �: � � i ,��,�� . ` �� , ��> + ��Y��'� � '� r. 9Fs-S;';a,+�� `•�= `� �-�"�,.�� t.� Ai � � �i a� ��"� ._�a., -; � �t , j�(,�':.,%ii-�� g �� •'�i. ��.�, V� �°� � ��.;4 f �- f ✓,�"� ��s�'S-5 �� '7I��.k'�'j'1'�Gg.�� _��S'^�Ti . f. , '�`" �Pi� {t,a � � �� _ �/r'i ..e �--iQ'--v.�_ I *.`�it;�� ^,,�'. i�`:3� x� . . � � g,�;,'� "� . ��`.;��4'1 �� +s � �; .. . . � , °�` .- .. ,.. \�� Z..a�..-. .�� : f�.. }�_r��A�� ' � 3 ,3- � ��b e,,��' .19�.E6 \ .o i � , �r� � } �'� � � �,y � � y,,� :��,,�, ..r`��`t�A��` � �� }u*' � � ` � c ` "_s � - � ' � a: �+�„� �,��'� Sg,i#. � �<�• � �� 4`1��E..,,.�1 �'� �� '�"`� } 3� �c `� � , � . � � � � :��.��`Y, t--� ;�i�y, �({ "i�� .`�*'� �� {5 " ��: �.�.. t,�11�� \ YA°`.h� ',C�A C }��{ �t1��. �✓'�� ;�� _ wB -�T�+l ' �"`�� i� `g. � i ..; ' .'� �`+{�,�;.� t' *� ' s . t � i� � r r �'� �'� i��, , r�r ��m� J' � �, r� ; "�r "�t��`�'y'°�,�;( � i� ti a.3� �, ;�A41�r��_t�''�g4�6�_„r\ §V` t;�'-� �,. ��'�_ �� -�. ,� � �`�. `.1�9ll� py� ' �1�v 1 i#�%''�� ; � �"` '"� /'M�' �Lr*'i� �a �+r"'� l. .t�. �w ,. #i �Yy� q�s'-,i �✓,'.'�-W � j'i 'j4� �i CEr} , p � �'1�3 ° � e� � r 7 'a`�f . ,,,� ,�:�^'"'�w .�?"�r � � „ '°� ; � �E 14�� "'� _�� ' qc. �/�� . rJ 3 i � V. .x� � w r "4`'�F.#`x�`si` ny ,a �' `1! � ' `��1� t1'E� ` � �"< ' �'�(%�Z��` �:� �� t s n J.r. �,�� .�� .:.�"`s �. � �, �� r� �iii'��t ( , ,�1" � rt' � r (�` �e,�✓�� & _., i , : a � a,r� ;� ,� � `t � < � f � � { t �� 1s' � `.. ��f'.-7�f 1 �i�7�� i 1 ..�.:- r ,. �,�� :'t �y"S.�io-,' �t -�`"� ;' � ��„. � ��:y z . � , . , �� f � ��l,l�,� � �� _ s ��"S.. � ,��z � � �a � p� �F,=.`'E' �'�L", .':� i9 ttfi�,, ,�s`��t§�x t�.�� t ��.� ��+�'�- 'v .. �'"•-�;:.:"'�c r�f `�`�.'__-�-8#e--��,�-- �_...... '� t S^�'i �� i�ti-•- r , � `;,r-w i . �''� ...» . �q � �a. � - - - �. Y'� l f1C �,� . �' �� r� "-*�- � �- � �� ` � '`�� :� ".` � ,, —y ',� } � f ,� r`s � �,�� 4-`s ,� � , 'r � '� t ' ' � � � #.�� " ��t� � ,�' �yzq.e ar � # � � _:;�� _ � �,+ �g�* �c� -j rt �6'f �.�` ��, �A�t>>I 3�.�� h.,i � � � .' �� . �� nk p'., ��; � 7r..s"� �""�,, ra-,4 � � ��`�� ' � � �✓;lr�1�` ��J�� 'k'�""==.j �k�s . r.; ��'� �5.�,, �fr o �' +si'` ��. �<<,'�� 3' ��--l�7 ✓/ { , 7 1 �`,=- ✓ �,./i J'�If;f i� !7f�t�F�� T �.� }��c ��t� �� ';t '�,yii��` -m_! :..'�� .��.� X< ,t 1 �" � � i f ,�.. 1 7 f }�'�{�� h�� ' .fh f � �,� .:+Y �� y� i�j 9 '� � a.4''�'��"'� I�� F�"�` ��'� � y L- ', --- .r-r':-f :r i�� ,r s 3 w. �/ �L- e�h / _- -z�F� �. 'e.�„ ; �4�, ^ �- �7 ' f �� ,r , � � � �- a t *ir„� t - �.�,� �� '^l�ri� s*� �`:`-.-. ,r +w.�, `'a` �,+ti'*"'�yftst.! a+ � � ,��i^�"�'-� <-£'g�4 �,"�.' • �a, ��r�-�--,� v ° r�'� i ``��,� �a '�� _ �-� � -��r�f, . `I � , � �"`� � ' � �� i �� `�-`-�-� . '�,- .r:�-*' __ ' ;� :,,v "��.� §' � � ,f�rX �� .+-''� - � _s#� "��.��.. _ .� .Y'�� .____.' — i � n �� yw� 4;. � "�� ` "�� - F"`- #i '�,��, `�%'M` C �..�5, dp.. M ❑ SSIER � P� �1NEX � TI ❑ �l , EXPANDED 0 400 800 1 : 4800 � !� � �4 + ��tl � t � � .�� .�1 ��t �e�� i ' �;;�' j � :+�,' '�'. ,. : � 11t� �:�. �+;-,,,.. � •��k � �:.�; - ' �,. , ': �' t` �.,�. g}.� \�� . ! � 'i� � }�i+'a' Background , • 10%Perition initially submitted to City of Renton Mosier II Annexation lune 2003 as a 35.24 acre annexation • Resubmiued in Jtme 2004 as 10.40 acre annexation befor�boundaries acp�ded by Council to 31 acres Boundary Review Board • 60°�,pedtion submitted co City September 2004 Public Hearing • First+of two requiteci�blic heazings on zoning held Feb�ary 2005 July 18, 2005 • Noti�e of Intent package for annexation sent to BRB April,2005 • City of Renton invokes urisdiction in May,2005 requesting expansion o�boundaries Existing Conditions Existing Conditions - Vicinity • PAA-Wifhin Renton's Potential Anne�cation Anea • ati -Between 142nd Ave SE on the west and 144th Ave SE(Jericho Ave NE)on the eagt,sarth - - of NE 2°a Street,if ezten�d. a '" �� • Size-±31 acres,i�luding abutting street ROW • Uses-Eight existing single-family dwellings ' • Boundariea-site abuts Renton on portion of its `' eastern bovnd�y. Separated on no�th by existing 13 unit subdivision. ° ' Vicinity Map � �� R S�,_>ip:�"+� � �i1 � ] t� � �,��ei � 1 �{ �� '? I, � o `�� :.. � �'- �f ` #� �; � _: ;IRI r „ � �" o � f- � � r� � � H +�, t a' � $ � �r+� . � y � � { �� ; , o � � � ; � - �� .� � �+� ! .o � '� �t. �.!a`•y ., .?4 . � � ,� N �i �'i � i � � : �rne. . �f��_� °a� 'r� t�� ° �,� � � G �� 6 i �....,�. �.. '� � y � � G.1 > ' � v � �� z .� a i Q �, � � r�� }� � � t��' �' o z a`� `�i ,� "� � �T•i..1 � � m •� w - �� = � �y�, •� = 1' � e '� �I :�I 3� 3� gl � w � � � �, �,� g W �;, i i v � �v' < .a+ � . ,� . . . � o- • .v N � Q � -`� , �` £ � a� ` w � �� z ..� C/� � � �-+ '��m � N r., � _:�;t�.+v' a�, on ,/� � � � � C/� v', �' rny Q� . � k,- X L prn � � r,, .; ;,.. �a' p i��.. "O O V � T � .� bA•? � o� O 'd � � V � � ^ ��s� � � a U � a •� w � � v.e > a a '� �" � ¢ � :$ � � �' :: a (� � � Yt�y e, � � 6� �+ '�," 3 �'�n £ a °o � 3� ""' S � '�..�.+ ° V a Q ,Q �,�c��o W � � � �~ C = � = O ie C p i: C C a"i W �v �n yC .�c �^ ca = F c W �m U� 3 w o �x y � . . Z [il r i ___._..._______. ,�--�, King County Comp P�an R ` 4 f�_ ''�- ' . ... Designation and Current Zoning � ', ' and ra► � o�rig , Renton Comp Plan I..aod _ Use Man-ResideMial law ' � . K.C.Land M - Densiry � Use aQ �" Urban ResidenNa141Zdn/sc Proposed Renton Zoning s.�i' Man- R-4(4 du/cet�re) K.C.Zoning- � �� v�:S�elameojdmaeJw�wR- R-4-ResideaWl 4 ddgr.sc Ssues�nl-far�evr�k�e ro daRa1�d a wu� a�rryojsa�r«,r � Site { C000ty Zoning Msp Site Renton Zoning Map Relevant Countywide ' Relevant Boundary Review Planning Policies � Board Objectives • Policv FW-13. States lhat cities are the ' • Presgrvation of natuial�ighbofioods- uppropriate provider of/ocal urban services to � nnnexation presen�es existing homes wMle Urban Areas,either directly or by contract , allowing siz vc�ant loJs to develop because af # avail'ability of sewer a»d otl�r r�rbme services • Policv L U-32 States thot a city may annar a territorv only within i1s designated PA.l. Citfes tN�e ' • Use '�f phvsical boundaries inchidin�hi wa required to phase annexation to coincide wilh their and land contours-annexation relies on existing ubiliry to provide a fu/l range of urban services i municipal boundaries • Policv L U-33. States that land withi►r a cfry"s PA.f' � • Creation and preservati�of lonical service azeas shall be deve%ped according to that city s�d King - most service arear db not change as a resu/t of County's growth phasing plans. U+rdeve%petl l� ; �his anne.ration udjucent to a crty.chould be unnered ut the time �lri�elupnre�u ic proposetl. Relevant Boundary Review Rel�vant City Annexation Policies Board Obj ectives • Policv LU-36. Enc»urage annawtion wlrere the avoilabiliry vf infrastructure and services allow for development of ur6a�t densities. • Prevention of abnormallv irre¢utar boundaries- interim boundaries would besanewhat inegular, ' � Tf1e�'��p"O�'4'"��AD� however,future annexations would eventua!/y fill Ciry o enton should be thase contlgumrs with the bauadarld in edges creating more regular boundapc °f 1�c'�' • Policv LU-37 Prioriry areas include: • InCot,pOt8tlOtl Oi S1ITICXBhOiI to C1tiCS Of —Lands subject to develupment pressure thal might ben�t unincorporated areas which are urban in character from Ciry Deve[opr,�nr Src,ndards -areo is within ihe urbrar gmwth batatdary arxl ; -Lands that are avatabre,)6r��nda�crw�; therefore considered to be urbrat in characler � �omp"e�*^�P�� '��.. � • PolicvLU-3d. Sr+ppa7mueesdlmnNlatwnr��_'` j improvements 10 City s¢rvlces�elimirtate ddpltedkNt by service providers. � Fiscal Impact Analysis Mosier II Annexation Fiscal Impact ; i • Generai Fund cost and revenue implica6ons j Current Full Devel ent Dexe —Assumes potential of+118 single-famity homes Reveriues $8 672 ��' based upon density of 5 units/net acre ' , e z;�� #n_ �,,, —Assumes ave,Kage as�d new 6ome val�of Costs' $7,49�4 �r � � � $425,000 for 110 cew dwellings —Asswnes 6 dwellin�remaining on site with � Surplus/ $1,578 $28,249 average assessed value of$257,167 � Deficit � a i Estimated one-time pazks acquisition/developmeM fee of 566,077 Conclusion Conclusion, continued • Proposed annexation generalty consistent with . p,np��Zoning is consistent widE Re�toa's City annexation policies Comprehensive Plan • Proposed annexation generally consistent with ,� • Except for parks no major city service is�es were Boundary Review Board criteria identified • Proposed annexafion only somewhat • Renton anticipates spending S66>077 to bring�ea consistent with relevant Countywide Plarnting up to City standards for parks and apen space POIiCies • Remaiuing islands and peninsulas abutting • Projected minor revenue surplus at curret►t and � �►n atioo site cannot be served efficiently by King at full development � Recommendation • That the Boundary Review Board: Approve the proposed Mosier II ' Annexation,but also consider expanding its boundaries to include the 13-lot subdivision to the north,the 63-lot Puget � Colony Homes Subdivision to the west, � and,the ten acre area abutting and north of � Maplewood Elementary School in order W create a more logical service area. Questions about Annexation Questions about Annexation • Witl I 6ave to 600lc up to se�ver upon coming ia�o ' � • Will[have toe�10�of Renton SarbaSe t6e City?-No. Whether yrw are re�gurred ta 1�a�ir service?-Not for 7ysars.-Cbruege of service up to sewer or rrot is�ternrtned by the Xirrg remains under th�cwr�tp�vr for 7 years County Health Deparlmen;rat the City of under state law. Renton. Their decuion,f you have a failing septic decisions is irrespectfNe of whether you • How will my ta�ces be affected by annexation to reside in a city or unincorporated King County Renton?-Normally,property tares decline upon annexallon and evex with the City s 6%utiJity kar • Will I have to send my irids to another school?- there is usually a ta�t saving�. T�ie a�acA�dml�te No.annexations ltaae ra bearingat sc/tool shows the anticipated savirtgs,fo�ruhar�t w�tle a district boundaries or the sci�aaL4}+�tr'children $250.000 assessed valu� will anend Annual Cost Comparison Annual Property Taxes COUNTY CITY (Based upon$250,000 home) $2,99g,2g $2,966.69 Annual Utility Fees Surface Water SI02.00 564.68 Wastewater(Metro Fees) 5548.94 5468.36 Garbage Collection $255.60 5161.28 Annual Utility Fee Taxes �6%p�Y�, Tckphone Bill @ 53�i0/yr � ��'� EI r:tricity�iA$�M(1/yr 0 557.60 Cablc(a.S�SRO:yr 0 52R.80 Gas rw S(,00/yT. 0 536.00 R'atcr hi�0.(Dis[rict#90) 0 0 Sewer I na requved to hook up) 0 S2A.10 Subtotal: $3,904.82 $3,805.01 Estimated Annual Savin $99.81 \ -------_ _ __ . I�r,.N8 4 a V,.` �� :�,�, �=:11�;■'�. _ �. .. _ • :: ='-_��'�i �, ' � ..c �. \ �� ri3 �._'_" �� I� �' � "' � E •' ' �� ■ ��_�'-■. .�i .iL 7�� r n �� 1 • ' � N g.� �n : �i• pix q 's�_ir�<,�� : � � �� ,�, e:�lui- n,. 's:.;.:::S:= �►5� � �!A/S� ��q� ..ti N � N Q i J CP.'.�r� 'yi� t: ^7�=�� Y \�J �� '� e.} ��n m�mn�••,� n_ 1;�:° .. N► �j9 a::3, � � g �:F , � ., :: � ...... �� ,.�� . � �� a QQ� ,, (� . ii .,� ""� 1i. Q e • �i $ � Cy) G t0 :��1� .1�31�.11\:i��p��n,l'I��\�,,, , � �►tp j � '1 , � � •7 F'i O g d� � •-�^p xin- m � �� n u�m�� eD w' � �p u Cf��G� rir.� ��..�,�,m� « � � �j � �,� �� o.� �, �;',�_ "=° ��__�- �;.�s;, ��. b ., . . ;t. __� � '_�°°� -r . �a� , , . � � • T � O� 0.' d �� IS�� 3 °'�� . ,�r�vir ��,��t�0��r� �:� � ��LS� ,p .�i n• ��'r 0 � C� \ .� 'wg'.q m�i��. - � ha;\i:�� \;��J_�, n.�`'i \�--• \ `� �, �� ..,�., !'�".:..,�. �I��:��;,; ..-;,_ ��. � Nqg� � .ta� .�C :wi��y��"�� '� j gY a�"- � � � o 'o „�� ..,iG�ii�� n I- j / I ` ♦ ,P,, � � a �� •.q�n.- �y: 'i � pq , ..� �[� iii�� ..,_-; : _ o ,. � :, � ° � 5�'' �i � -''_�:i ��'16'�'r'�,��I i%s% - k � .� o o a, 5 -€-�__�� •,'�� r,;� � � 0�.0. �ci � a�� "" `� s �� v. ` �J ' `= ��j�QJ � � � '�' � .r-... ��.- _ Y ,. .. .` ..��....� �.b'O 'D �,� c� �=w�� U ��i rL+W �� -114. ��■ ',;��\�� .. '� • • . . . � � /a1 i��=-e�iC ■ - - p = ' '��.y � ��' o � � CQ � a3i �� a � a 3i �� w� w � � � g�� +�� w eD � W o... S 0 0 � � � •� � �� o ,�• � , .. ,� rn o .. ^ � o� o m YQ eo � ; .p 3 ��^:`'{j! oo � � �z�� e��n � 9d'�7�`fi Q ° �s �'S � (. � �.d � 1�`+�y N Q vJ � �j�✓ .� y q � �M � � i . � � � Q v k �_ yp � � � c � �.��r d� � e w� Q O t�.. � A •y y N bg O � «� � �� 0: ��"'.^� �j .7 �� %� � � 3 b00 � � � •y C �� p � •� � � y � y �. � �� •.-+ .0 Ra �j � � .� N y r�'� � '8•... � p°o W 3 gQ� � +� ; a• � ;�a � �o�� o N pp, � y �+ �I f�jl s Z� � � ��Q 3 �'�' "'!' .y+ � N i�C N - O�4r M Q Yp• ', U,N•N �'� Vi G'C C! N '�" ..—i 0. �l.— O.-. C/> > LC 0.� �La> >�o+...� �C y C � F'L�G 3 N F' C�J L e�d O . . . . . � . • i � � � �,�q w � —9 V ��^�y Q F, ir w I� °' °' :IRI � > ,..,.., , �n �.. � ,� � t � � � � �K I i � � � � � � � � � i -• ,O � o i i � � .,.., ! ,i'",� � ',�� N E'i �i � i V �•� � C : p �' � �� bA � a �� U '� i �' V � �� z .� � � � � x� � � � � � � � 3� �� +-� � g�v p 85 �,?3 � „� u, g 2 g y, _ 3 ..�-� � ea� •a�.,• ts •� 3 V e 'a y , . �5°Ji �5� p e W � � � V� v� v� � on o � 'k �I ; 3� 3a � a .s �C �v�i � `� .v, c£a - W � j OI a, °' � y..- W ' • ;? . . . x ;, e �.0 W Cc] i f � a - u i i � y � ��i��MII � U .� �P a ` _ '� c. y� ,+ ' N, K' jr" �. '.1.� �. �� i i � � �. �i �+ }� � � �� 'V O ..�, �� },1�:, - �"" r �.-+ _ z s§t . . �. � �p "�'� � � �� a' �" �. � it�:,�,�+�x> � � o � �� e .. � � � �� o p� � � b � �� W � � � ��* �r' � i� �� - 8 � � `s� ,w . � 4�� .++�! � d ro O � � �#y , � T `� � � i „ Y pp � a ,,a � �' d �� a � W � •Q � ; � 1 � �a .� q • p� Q � . y •� - A � � � � 7 S' YG �o �8 v� ,.,_ W g� ��S � 'y< '� E° . �f i ({� � � C � W N '�" �t-.� . !4�$, O �j F CC �m ._ , .��- ,. � . . � � r�] _._._..__,_,__._ ' .1 King County Comp Ptan � Renton Comp Plan Designation Designation and Cunent Zoning and Proposed Zoning Renton Com�P1a�Land Use Meo-Reside�lsl Low K.C.Land Use Man• � " ��3' Urban Residentiai 412du/ac , , Pioposed RentOn ZOriillg •y ' Man K.C.Zoning- "-:Iµ`• -R-4'�(4 daloet acre) R-4-Residential 4 du/gr.ac 'R^��1 (equal to 8 du/net acre) � Su�;�� Site'' Rens��mm��/e�j�S du/net acre County Zoning Map Site Consistency with Countywide Consistency with Countywide Planning Policies Planning Policies • Policv FW-J�states that cities are the appropriah provider of local urban services to Urbsn Areas, • Policv LU-32 shtes that a city may annex either directly or by contnct. Counties are the territory oaly within its designated PAA. All appropriate provider of most countywide eervica, cities are required to p6ase rnnexations ro coincide wit6 the abiliry of the city to coordinate Renton notes that the adjacerot wnieco�porstsd ams ' � the provisions of a tnll range of orbsn scrvices. are within ifs desrgnated PA.1,irs�ksignated sewrr ;, , ! ' se�vice urea,and within on area where it currcnlly , prnrides frre suppression service.e und�'corrtraet. ' The swbjed upansron a►ea.s arc oU�hue Rentoa's '��.► Remm�a/so nofes thaf it is prepanrM prevlle e fd! designal�PAA. Also,the City has st�d that it/ms L� array ojwrban services iruluding locat governance, �� the ca biti to coordinate mu! tde a ! � a_� nG ry n�' h�� fibrarv und pnlice services,couRs,jai/s,slreer tie3 qJ'urban services i�luding potice.fere,sewer,loca! maintenanee,humm�services.recr�eatla�n mid prwhs� ��yentance.parks and npen spaee. � services,und transporlaHon a�d Iwid reseptannixg �_� i�� sen�ice.c. • . , I I Consistency with Countywide ' Planning Policies ? • Po/icv L U-33 shtes that land with a city's PAA ? shall be developed in accordance with that city's and the County's growth phasing plana. Ondeveloped � lands adjacent to s city shouW be annexed at t6e Nme � development is proposed to recelve a full range ot urban services. Renton has anticepaudgrowfh in dYis amtjor• number ofyears having provlded tAitlnfie�lrrdin � �o ezand sen+er[o wo�vt ojNYs F.mt RaOaw Moew�r. /�hac also been providingfirr serviee to du aea for year.s under cantract with Fire Dishict No.23 w+d irr r n�anp cases,rs first resporrder jor emeigeney pnlice �� sr�vices The Cih�states that it i.s prepared to prnvide '�'/�� N��y�� u J�d1 run�;c:n/urhun services to the espunded ureu Relevant City Annexation Folicies Relevant Boundary Review ; Board l�bjectives I • Policv LU 36� Encourage annexation wher�dre m+ailability oJ i i��raslructure and services aJlow for de►+elopnent ojwbmr • Preservation of ngt�inil��ciaLt �oods-u exparded densities. annexation includes exuti�g�acent s br�ivisions, i • Policv L U-37 The highest prinrity areas j�r annexatinn fi the giving reSt[le!!ts SbO�a��whCll/1CW a�VC/O�!ltptt � Cih•ojRentai shuuld be lhose conti�us with�he lwunclaries occurs on nearby u �pt�CCIS qf tlre Cih�. • Po[icv LU-37 Priori areas include: • USC O�hVSIG1)bQlllt�tlt�1A�1�14�ing��Wax4i t1 I �' land cuntours- a�»eacation bound�uies are -Laiuls sahject tn development pressure that might bencf t more F¢qsOnR/�¢��gilM/Mosfe7ll bouRlfA►y fn,m Ciry Developnrent Sttutdards with nlore Contig7tity Wfllf elcisting Ctty bOu/edary -Gnnds thut are availab/e jor urbanizatinn under camty • Crea n and of lo ,al setv e � comprehensrve plan,zonirr�and svbdivrsiais regulotians � �� +� i ai most service areas cb not chan e ac a�sult of t ris • Poliev L U-38. Suppor!anne.catiMrs that would resu/t in.future annexatiolt>/row¢►�¢l,ex�vJ'eYt Cl�Aes MOrE � inrproveu�ems!n City=sen�ices or eliminute duplicu/ion!ry (ogteal Ctty/COtNlly bO�tlt[�OTy sal�ice yrovider.c. Relevant Boundary Review Fiscal Impact Analysis Board Objectives . • Prevention of abnortnall}�i�,'ggular boundaries- • General Fund cost and revenue implicarions e.rpanded anneration would resu/t in more regular -Assumes potentiat of+221 single-famil�+homes houndarres and,if the adjacent Lindberg based upon an average density of 4.3 umts/net Annexntion is successful,a much improved city �� hounctniy for Renlon -Assumes avetage assessod new home value of • Incorporation or annexation to cities of $430,000 for 138 new dwellings unincorporated areas which are urban in character -urea is within the urban growth b�ndary and -Assumes 83 dwellings�ining on site with �here/'ore considered to Ge urbcm rn character average assessed value of$226,843 Mosier II Annexation Fiscal Impact Conclusion • Proposed annexation generally consistent Current Full with Boundary Review Board criteria Develo ment Develo ment Revenues $90,365 $270,175 • 1'roposed annexation consistent with relevant Countywide Planning Policies Costs $99>612 $282,967 • Proposed annexarion generally consistent with City annexarion policies Surplus/ ($9,247) ($12,792) • Projected minor reven�deficit at current Deficit development and moderate deficit at full development ' Estimated wx-time patics acquisitaddevelop�Batt�dS14�'9' I { Conclusion, continued ; • Proposed future zoning is consistent with Renton's � Recommendation Comprehensive Plan ; ! • That the Boundarv Review Board: • Except for parks no�jor city secvice issues were i iden�ified expand the boundaries of the Mosier II • Renton nceds to eventually spend$149,849*to Annexation to include the 13-lot bring area up to City stattdards for parlcs�d op� space subdivision to the north,the 58-lot Puget • Annexa[ion of remaining isl�ds and penins�ilas wilt Colony Homes Subdivision to the west, result in area being served more et�iciently and,the 9.8-acre area abutting and north • Even with City's 6%Utility Tax avetage of Maplewood Elementary School to the homeowner will save close to$100/yr and receive east improved urban services , '�Durc nnt renrct rulue nfpark land tran.q/'erred tn CiN/i»m Counh•in(ulure Questions about Annexation • Will l have to hook up to sewer unon comin¢inu> the Ci ?—No. R'heJher you are►equired to hook trp to sewer or not rs determrned by the King � Cozmn�Health Depur�ment, not the Ciry o/ 2e��ton. Their c%rision, if�•ot�ha�-e c�Ji�iling ec�ptir cleci.��ion.s i.r it•recpective o/1chelher rou ,� i•eside rn u city or unincorporuled King County ti � • Will I have to send my kids to another schooi7— No,annerations have no bearing on school district Goundarie.s or tke sclaols,yiour clrildren tiri!!ntlend Annual Cost Com arison Questions about Annexation A„�,,,�,�y T�� courr�r�r crrv • Will I have to chan tae o C•rty of Renton ga�gg ��"�°O��,��) $2,998.28 52,966.69 service?—Not for 7 yecnx Change of serviee Annual Utility Fces remains under the cune»t purveyor for 7 years S°��W�' S 102'00 564.68 under state law. wastewater(Metro Fces) �•� �•� Garbage Colledion 5255.b1} 5161.28 AnnualUtiGtyFeeTaxes C�36%P�Y�• • How will what[pay in taxes be aftectefl bv Tclephone Bill C E360/yr o ��.� annexation to Renton?—Nor»tally,pmpet'ty taxes el�ricity @ E9eo/yr 0 E57.60 decline upon annesation and et+ert wldt die Giry's c�nic L sasoin o 5�� e ere e 6%utili tc�r there is usnal a tar sav TJwe ��C�0°��` lj� h' lpgS. TJ C �� Watcr�u�0.(District#90) 0 528.10 attached table shows the anticipated savings for a s�w�i��rey,,;rea m noot uP) home with a$250,000 assessed valt�e. Subtotal: $3,904.82 S3,8USA1 ` Estimated Annual Savin $99.81 I_ r A � 6 i . Annexation Review Form [ ] 10% Notice of Intent [X ] 60% Annexation Petition TO : Finance Surface Water Utility Water Utility Parks Wastewater Utility Police Transportation Public Works Maintenance Current Planning FROM : Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning (contact Don Erickson, x6581) SUBJECT . Mosier II — Expanded Annexation Background/Location: The Boundary Review Board held public hearings on July 18 & 19, 2005 regarding the potential expansion of the 31-acre Mosier II Annexation to approximately 80-acres, pursuant to the request of the City. The expanded boundaries would include the east side of 140�'Avenue SE on the west, SE 136th Street on the south, the east side of 144�'Avenue SE west of Maplewood Elementary School on the east, and the existing City boundary north of the school, and the existing City boundary on the north for those portions north of SE 132"d Street (see attached map). Date Circulated: Julv 21. 2005 Comments Due: July 29, 2005 General Information Area : + 65 acres Street length : 6,250 I.f. Assessed Value : $18,828,000 (current); $59,340,000 (full develop} Estimated Population : 208 Current Uses Residential : 83 existing single-family detached dwellings Commercial : Industrial : Public : Comp Plan Designation : 50% Res. Single Family; 50% Res. Low Density Future Uses: : 221 single-famify dwellings at full development of which 138 are expected to be new Future Po ulation � 552 Reviewing Department/Division: ��,.p� 1. Does this expanded annexation area represent any unique or significant additional problems for your departmenUdivision? �1 (Over) r 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the enlarged area? �` ��►v ��r � � ' �- �j-v 1�c �,u�� j b e �/�r`�� r' ��-f' 3. Does this proposed expanded annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your department/division? �L � 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this enlarged area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? ��- , 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? v�� 1.. 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) General recomme ation and comments: � � � ��n � � � Signature: �Zv✓� Date: D� � 'd' M..� �'�:' ': ■11�'s� ii �.��..-3.� � r�� - � �*� . .. s �� _��_• !i� i�l�^ � � ��1 �,�� r e� r ► +�� , • ��, .� F�. C��;�i�r o�-,C■° �� .� 1 � '�J� :, � - . �'� �� . , � !1 ! . ■■ �� .- �� . 11� � � � �� ' -�� ,�� i �� -��, �Ifl�',�',�_ � �i� : � , ��- �� ■G��' �- �■ • �� *v � �"�".��+''� ��4'�►��,,� � � �� i' � ��r ,. , �,�� ,� �1i l�7� � � � � � ��1� '' ��'� ��'� r �� .,�y"-`"'��.+$� i ��r1 �� .�.�yp,t � �# / � J r � �,�. �-'�� SQ �� t'� �� .'f P . � f� �� '��';��.,,+� �� *' :�� .�,� �� "�"�*.�`�.��'��.�".� �.�� i� �� * �� ` ;� �'� �. ' � y� . ., � � � ��,�� . _� � �� OI _��''��.�� ..��,�� . �" . �111 � -� -�� .� �� . ��, � �� . ^�� E� � ~� �� . � ��.� !�� ' ..,: � � �{� � � � • '_..� �,�9i� '�f�� .'�.I ' " � � � ��[�3�� .: �� , ., � � .� � � � ��'�:�� ,�� ,�� a 111�� . � �►..� ' # �`"��`%� �� . ► v �, ,cl� - ,� �� B ; ,, t.l��!�:�l�'� � r � r� �� •t� . � ... � � � r� S � �� 7 � ��.�� _ ��,....�.�.�.,.�'`.�.F!"�""�''�""""'�'�.�..�. �� ' r, "' : r� �`�1 �'� � t,� � � � �� i�, ��,� � ,� � �� . , - ,,, -, . .r�� s.�� ;� ,. ��t fi�.. . �'� �� - t �t� Ta��1■■�r.��.:��_ � � � � ' � � . 1 � • � � ■��- :,;:-,.-:.;._:.,,. :.�.. _ ....:. �.�.. � � i r .� � .� . . +� -_ J'f' ` � ` E� iis • � .F, 'rl,,, •, � � ��.:., . � MOSIER II -EXPANDED ANNEXATION FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET Units Po ulation AV Existin dev. 83 208 $18,828,000 Full dev. 221 552 $59,340,000 Assumptions: 2.5 persons/household $430,000 AV/new unit $226,843 Existing Average ��u��'s::�::::�:::::� Total revenues ............. ...... ... Existin Full Rate Existing ::�::':;::�°::$�:p;�6:4:�: Re ular le $59,120 $186,328 3.14 Full ::::::::::$27'�;1.��`��' Excess le $1,669 $5,260 0.08865 State shared revenues Rate er ca Existin Full Li uortax $3.52 $732.16 $1,943.04 Li uor Board rofits $5.04 $1,048.32 $2,782.08 Fuel tax-roads $14.46 $3,007.68 $7,981.92 Fuel tax-arterials $6.47 $1,345.76 $3,571.44 MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cam er excise $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal'ustice $0.36 $74.88 $198.72 Total $6,208.80 $16,477.20 Miscellaneous revenues Rate Existin Full Real estate excise" $40.86 $8,498.88 $22,554.72 Utili tax*" $133.20 $11,055.60 $29,437.20 Fines&forfeits" $18.33 $3,812.64 $10,118.16 Total $23,367.12 $62,110.08 ' Per capita ** Per housing unit-based on $2,220 annual utility billing @ 6%tax rate ................... ��#�:�::�:�::�:�:�:�:`�� Total ongoing costs Per ca ita Existin Full Existing:::�:;'::`$1�:4;�'{:4��f.�.: Contracted Services Full::::::::::$28�32t�29:�� Alcohol $0.23 $47.22 $125.30 Public Defender $3.13 $651.87 $1,729.97 Jail $7.19 $1,495.94 $3,969.98 Subtotal $2,195.02 $5,825.26 Court/le al/admin. $57.08 $11,872.64 $31,508.16 Parks maintenance' $14.90 $3,099.20 $8,224.80 Police $270.00 $56,160.00 $149,040.00 Road maintenance'* N/A $7,812.50 $19,256 Fire'`*'` $1.25 $23,535.00 $74,175.00 Total $104,674.36 $288,029.22 *See Sheet Parks FIA **See Sheet Roads FIA '`*' Rate per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact Existing :.::::::::`$��;�� Full:::::�:��:��:a�';853:'�� ;�n��tii'i�e:�os�s>�:Parks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA): $149,849.14 Other one-time costs: Total one-time costs: 149,423.64* ''Actual cost would be less if City takes over adjacent undeveloped County park lands Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo Annexation Review Form [ ] 10% Notice of intent [X ] 60% Annexation Petition TO : Finance Surface Water Utility Water Utility Parks Wastewater Utility Police Transportation Public Works Maintenance Current Planning FROM : Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning (contact Don Erickson, x6581) SUBJECT . Mosier II— Expanded Annexation Background/Location: The Boundary Review Board will tentatively hold public hearings on August 315t and September 1st, 2005 regarding the potential expansion of the 4.84-acre Anthone'Annexation to approximately 25.7-acres, pursuant to a request from the City. The expanded boundaries would include the Talbot Estates Subdivision to the south and the Springbrook Terrace and Hi-Park subdivisions to the east (see attached map). The proposed expanded annexation area is a peninsula, bordered by the City on its northern, western, and southern boundaries. Date Circulated: Julv 21, 2005 Comments Due: July 29, 2005 General Information Area : + 25.7 acres Street length : 3,4001.f. (private roads) Assessed Value : $17,875,000 (current); $25,750,000 (full develop) Estimated Population : 138 Current Uses Residential : 55 existing single-family detached dwellings Commercial : Industrial : Public : Comp Plan Designation : 50% Res. Single Family; 50% Res. Low Density Future Uses: : 70 single-family dwellings at full development of which 15 are expected to be new Future Po ulation � 175 Reviewing DepartmenUDivision: �..P 1. Does this expanded annexation area represent any unique or significant additional problems for your department/division? � � � (Over) 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the enlarged area? 1U�� O� � ��fJ. > UlL^ �� /�Zl� 'T� �� '-� ��1�i.1S � � 3. Does this proposed expanded annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your department/division? 1� S � 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this enlarged area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? �� 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? � � 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, plea�e indreafe on the attached map.) N/� General recommendation and comments: . � � � �� .- Signature: �. Date: a�� .s , , ;; ,�.. CITY OF RENTON .,u Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler May 9,2005 State of Washington Boundary Review Board for King County Yesler Building, Suite 402 400 Yesler Way Seattle,WA 98104 Subject: NOTICE OF INTENTION TO EXPAND THE CITY OF RENTON CORPORATE LIMITS BY ANNEXATION Dear Board Members: As required by Chapter 36.93 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the City of Renton gave notice of intention to annex territory hereafter referred to as the "Mosier II" on April 11, 2045. That annexation was proposed under the direct petition method in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 35A.14 of the RCW. The City Administration believes that it is in the best interest of the City to expand the boundaries of this annexation to include properties to the north and west that, with their inclusion, would result in more reasonable service areas and efficiencies for both the City and King County. These properties, like the annexation itself,are located within Renton's designated Potential Annexation Area. By invoking the Board's jurisdiction hopefully there will be an opportunity to consider the inclusion of these properties at the same time the Board considers the annexation itself. A$200 fee for invoking the Board's jurisdiction is enclosed. Should questions arise during the review of the information and exhibits provided with this Notice of Intention to Annex,please contact Don Erickson, Senior Planner,at(425)430-6581. Also,please send notices and other communications regarding the proposed annexation to: Don Erickson,AICP; Senior Planner Deparhnent of Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, � ��Q.l�e� , ��`2¢�.�, Kathy eolker-Wheeler Mayor 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6500/FAX(425)430-6523 R E N T O N AHEAD OF THE CURVE This papercontains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer , , , REPORT TO THE WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY IN THE MATTER OF THE CITY OF RENTON'S MOSIER II ANNEXATION Boundary Review Board File No. 2195 July 19,2005 Public Hearing I. BACKGROUND The Renton City Council approved a 60%Direct Petition to annex for this annexation on February 7,2005 and autharized the City Administration to forward the Notice of Intent Package to the Board. The Renton City Council, also at that time authorized the City Administration to request that the Boundary Review Board invoke its jurisdiction in order to review and hear arguments in favor of expanding the subject annexation to the north to include an additiona134.5- acres of unincorporated King County, surrounded by the City on more than eighty percent of its perimeter. II. COMMI11vITY BACKGROUND AND ANNEXATION PROPOSAL The Mosier II—Expanded Annexation is located within Renton's Potential Annexation Area and abuts Renton on its western,northern,and eastern boundaries. It is bordered by Hoquiam Avenue NE(138"'Avenue SE)on the west, SE 132°d Street on the south,the City of Renton corporate boundary on the north, and Lyons Avenue NE on the east. Annexation in this and other unincorporated pockets of the East Renton Plateau is primarily driven by development. The resulting development patterns are deternuned by smaller scale annexations in the five to twenty acre size,often with discontinuous streets and cul-de-sacs. Because of this,the resulting municipal boundary in many cases is convoluted, as it is in this case. This annexation pattern results in an irregularly shaped areas that present service and other challenges to both the City and the County. The City, for example,receives many complaints from residents within the Puget Colony Homes subdivision about poor surface water drainage in the area, even though King County constructed a stormwater detention facility at the northeast corner of the intersection of SE 132°d Street and 140"'Avenue SE. III. CONSISTENCY WITH STATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT AND COUNTYWIDE PLAN1vING POLICIES State law(RCW 36.93.157) stipulates that Boundary Review Board decisions must be consistent with three sections of the state's Growth Management Act(GMA)-planning goals,urban growth areas, and countywide planning policies. The City believes that the originally configured Mosier II Annexation does not fully meet the intent of a number of these goals and policies. It's expansion,however,would. a. Plannin��Goals: Both the City and the County have adopted comprehensive land use plans as required by GMA. Each of these plans has been determined to be consistent with the GMA by the state Department of Community,Trade,and Economic Development. These plans support the Act's various goals including those related to planning for urban growth,reducing urban sprawl,meeting diverse housing needs,as well as addressing transportation,open space,and Mosier II Annexation BRB File No.2195 1 recreation. Renton's 2004 Mandated GMA Comprehensive Plan is also consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies of King County. b. Urban Growth Areas: The City of Renton adopted a Potential Annexation Area (PAA),which includes the subject area as well as large areas to the south and east. A portion of Renton's PAA on the south side of the Cedar River and east of 128"'Avenue SE is proposed for incorporation as the city of Fairwood. It is the City's intent to provide urban levels of services and development,through annexation,to those portions of its PAA that do not incorporate. c. Countywide Planning Policies: King County,through the ratification of its cities, adopted its Countywide Planning Policies,Phase II(CPP), in 1994. The CPPs are part of a hierarchy of directive and substantive policy. As directive policy, the CPPs guide the comprehensive plans of cities and counties,which in turn provide substantive direction regarding the content and exercise of local land use regulations. One of the primary aims of the CPPs is to `;facilitate the transformation of local governance in the urban growth area so that urban governmental services are provided by cities and rural and regional services are provided by counties." [Central Puget Sound Hearings Board, Snoqualmie, 2304c,FDO]. Besides defining service provision responsibility,the CPPs also stipulate that development must be directed to urban areas,thereby reducing the opportunity for sprawl to occur. Some of the more relevant CPPs include: Policy LU-29,which states that all jurisdictions shall develop growth phasing plans consistent with applicable capital facilities plans to maintain an Urban Area served with adequate public facilities and services to meet at least the six-year intermediate household and employment target ranges,consistent with LU-67 and LU-68. Policv FW-13,which states that cities are the appropriate provider of local urban services to Urban Areas, either directly or by contract. Counties are the appropriate provider of most countywide services. Policv LU-32,which states that a city may annex territory only within its designated PAA. All cities are required to phase annexations to coincide with the ability of the city to coordinate the provision of a full range of urban services. Policv LU-33,which states that land within a city's PAA shall be developed according to that city's and King County's growth phasing plans. Undeveloped lands adjacent to that city should be annexed at the time development is proposed to receive a full range of urban services. Renton notes that both the annexation area,as well as the unincorporated areas to the north,west, and east, are located within its PAA,are undergoing development pressure, and are within an area where Renton is the designated sewer service provider. Although water service will continue through Water District No. 90,Renton currently provides fire suppression and prevention services under contract through Fire District No. 25, and is prepared to provide a full array of urban services including local governance,library and police services,courts,jails,detective services, street maintenance,human services,recreation and parks services,and planning and transportation services. Renton is already providing these urban services to city residents Mosier II Annexation BRB File No.2195 2 adjacent or abutting the annexation area,and can,unlike King County,easily extend these services to the area. Under Renton's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation this area is classified as both Residential Single Family(RS)and Residential Low Density(RLD). RS areas would support R-8 zoning,with a maximum of eight units per net acre and RLD areas would support R-4 zoning,with a maximum of four units per net acre. Current King County zoning is R-4,which allows up to six units per gross acre. The latter density is comparable to Renton's R-8 zone, in terms of maximum allowed density. Although annexation is anticipated to continue incrementally in this portion of Renton's PAA,the expanded Mosier II Annexation would remove an unincorporated peninsula that is difficult for the County to serve,particularly as County budgets decline and services are reduced. The annexation would also allow residents to benefit from reduced taxes and service related fees, while receiving increased urban services. The current 31-acre proposal fails to address the needs of the larger community that can be more efficiently met through the annexation of the whole unincorporated peninsula to its west,north,and east. IV. CONSISTENCY WITH BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FACTORS AND OBJECTIVES The Boundary Review Board must also evaluate annexations based upon the set of nine objectives set forth in RCW 36.93.180. In doing so,the BRB is allowed to consider a host of factors(RCW 36.93.170)including,but not limited,to land use,population,availability of municipal services,cost of local services,economics,and development regulations. These nine objectives are listed below along with along with findings to help the Board determine whether an objective is met, or, in some cases,relevant. Staff's analysis includes conclusions based upon the current annexation,as well as an expanded annexation,including the unincorporated peninsula to its west,north,and east. Objectives: 1. Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities. The proposed 31.0-acre annexation by itself would exacerbate the existing situation in the immediate area since it does little to address service levels for the existing older subdivisions,to the west and north, or facilitate their annexation into the city. Although it brings the Mosier II Annexation into the city as an entity,it does not bring in the surrounding unincorporated neighborhoods,which continue to exist in further isolated pockets,with deteriorating urban services. By expanding this annexation to include the unincorporated pockets to the west,north and east,more consistency,in terms of land,use would result. Renton's Comprehensive Plan shows this area as both Residential Single Family(RS)with subsequent R-8 zoning and Residential Low Density(RLD)with subsequent R-4 zoning, at the time of annexation. King County's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows this peninsula as Urban Residential,Medium,4-12 du/ac. Current zoning includes R-4. The County's R-4 zoning bonuses up to six units per gross acre(approximately equivalent to eight units per net acre). Clearly, future development under Renton's R-8 zoning would be more consistent with the area's existing character than development under the County's R-6 zoning. Mosier II Annexation BRB File No.2195 3 2. Use of phvsical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water,highways, and land contours. The proposed annexation relies on property lines and street right-of-ways for its boundaries. The inclusion of the unincorporated peninsula to the north and east would result in both a more reasonable municipal boundary and service area. It would also facilitate more orderly future annexations in the area. 3. Creation and preservation of logical service areas. The proposed annexation by itself does little to create or preserve logical service districts in the area. Other than for water and schools there currently are no logical service areas here. King County notes that the costs of servicing urban unincorporated areas is not necessarily going down with annexation because of the increased inefficiencies of serving these remaining unincorporated pockets. They also point out that because of voter approved initiatives; their ability to raise taxes to provide the same level of service, previously provided,has been seriously jeopardized. Cities,unlike the county,have been afforded by the state,legislative taxing authority for business and occupations taxes, as well as utility taxes,to support the provision of local urban services. As a consequence,cities are better able to provide a broad array of services such as local government, senior housing,parks and recreation,libraries,land use and transportation planning,police and fire, street and utility maintenance, garbage collection, and other services synonymous with urban living. This is one of the main reasons both the Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies designate cites as the logical provider of urban services. � (�, - The 31-acre annexation site and the surr ing areas,as noted above, are within Renton's designated PAA, and are a cipated to be annexed into the City in the foreseeable future. If the larger 65. acre of unincorporated area to the west,north and east is not included at this time,the existing inefficiencies of servicing this unincorporated peninsula will continue,and possibly increase the County's costs of servicing the residual area. 4. Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries. This annexation, as initially proposed,does not prevent abnormal or irregular boundaries. Because most annexations are incremental within a city's PAA, and are driven by development pressures including willing sellers,the availability of urban services such as sewer and expeditious plan review,the resulting municipal boundaries often are going to be irregular. This,however,is typically an interim situation. In rare instances, unincorporated peninsulas can remain for a number of years,resulting in inefficient service areas and increased servicing costs. 5. Discouragement of multiple incorporations. Mosier II Annexation BRB File No.2195 4 This objective is not relevant in this case. The annexation proponents are not considering incorporation nor is there a proposed or likely incorporation in the immediate area that they could join. 6. Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts. This objective is not relevant in this case. There are no inactive special districts in either the proposed annexation area or the unincorporated peninsula to its north and east. 7. Adjustment of impractical boundaries. The annexation as initially proposed does not adjust or normalize impractical boundaries. If anything, it further isolates two existing subdivisions within this unincorporated peninsula. This includes the existing 13-lot subdivision along SE 129�'Place immediately to the north,and Puget Colony Homes,to the west. The City believes that the best way to adjust the boundaries in this area would be to expand the Mosier II Annexation to include the 35-acres of unincorporated residual parcels to the west,north, and east,at this time. The resulting boundary would be more logical and result in more efficient service for existing and future area residents. 8. Incorporation of cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincomorated areas,which are urban in character. The proposed 31-acre annexation area as well as the 35-acre unincorporated surrounding residual parcels to the west,north, and east, are also urban and located within the County's designated urban growth area as well as Renton's designated PAA. The City is requesting that the Boundary Review Board expand the proposed 31.0-acre Mosier II Annexation to include these unincorporated adjacent pockets, at this time, for a total annexation area of approximately 66 acres. 9. Protection of�icultural and urban lands. This objective is not applicable in this case. The subject annexation site and the surrounding peninsula of unincorporated land are designated"urban"on the County and City's comprehensive plan land use maps. There are no designated agricultural lands within the subj ect area. In summary,the proposed Mosier II Annexation does not appear to meet objectives 1-4 and 7. However,with the inclusion of the adjacent unincorporated pockets of land to the west,north, and east,the resulting enlarged 65.5-acre annexation would meet the Boundary Review Board's objectives that are relevant in this case. V. CONCLUSION The City of�enton is ready to assume this area and can provide a high level of urban services to its residents.I The initially proposed 31-acre annexation area,however,will do little to expedite the annexatibn of residual unincorporated pockets,including two existing subdivisions to the west,north, �nd east. These latter areas are not adequately serviced now, according to King County, andl service is likely to decline even further in the future. These left over pockets of unincorpora�ed land are also likely to be difficult for the public and emergency responders to find. � Mosier II Annexarion �I BRB File No.2195 ! 5 � �. � Street numb ring will be confusing as motorists pass through the City with its four digit house numbers an NE street designation,to only come right back into unincorporated King County with five digit house numbers and numbered SE street designations. The cost of servicing this isolated pocket will obviously be higher for the county than if it were coterminous to a larger unincorporated area. Also,both the Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies designate cites, such as Renton,as the logical providers of urban services to these areas. Expanding the Mosier II Annexation to include the two unincorporated subdivisions to the west and north,as well as the residual parcels north of SE 132°d Street and west of 140�'Avenue SE and those east of SE 132"d/NE 2°d Street,west of 144�'Avenue SE, would result in more efficient service areas for both the County and the City. The result should be reduced costs to both. It also appears that annexation to Renton would reduce taxes and service fees paid by residents of the enlarged 66-acre annexation area. Arguments supporting an enlarged annexation include: l. The City's Potential Annexation Area designation represents the future intention of the city,which includes this area as well as areas east to the Urban Growth Area boundary. Unless incorporation occurs,this whole area will eventually come into the City. 2. Expanding the current annexation boundaries to include the remnant pockets to the north and east would result in a more reasonable municipal boundary for the City while reducing confusion regarding service responsibilities,public notifications,calls for emergency response and the like, for residents. 3. Whereas subsequent annexations are anticipated in the area,particularly in response to increased development pressures and the reduction in County services, such annexations are typically citizen initiated, incremental,and often do not represent the most logical service areas or municipal boundaries. Such an incremental approach is often time consuming and costly to both the City and King County. Using the Board's authority, in special situations such as this,to expedite the transference of urban unincorporated areas to urban incorporated areas,appears to provide a more efficient way to realize adopted regional planning goals,while remaining in compliance with state law. 4. The City of Renton has planned for and is able,at this time,to provide a full complement of urban services for both the current annexation proposal as well as the proposed expansion of it to include the unincorporated residual pockets to its west,north,and east. 5. Consistent with GMA and CPP policy,cities are the logical provider of urban services and counties are the logical provider of regional and local services within rural areas. 6. Incremental annexation,with large delays between annexations,can set the stage for different development standards being applied within the same community, leading to very different development patterns and infrastructure such as streets and utility fixtures. VI REQUEST State law authorizes the BRB to approve the annexation proposal as submitted, deny the annexation proposal as submitted,or modify the annexation proposal by adding or deleting Mosier II Annexation BRB File No.2195 6 y � . M territory and approving as modified. RCW 36.93.160 also requires the Board to issue a written decision, setting forth the reasons for their decision, and indicating whether proposed changes are approved,rejected, or modified and,if modified,the terms of the modification. The City of Renton respectfully puts forth the following request to the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County, for its consideration: The City of Renton requests that the Boundary Review Board modify the Mossier II Annexation,as submitted,to include all of the territory(with the exception of the pending Lindberg Annexation to the northwest and the Maplewood Elementary School Annexation to the southeast)within the unincorporated peninsula north of SE 136�'Street between 140`�'Avenue SE on the west and !46"'Avenue SE on the east, as depicted in Exhibit 1 and described in Exhibit 2,attached. Mosier II Annexation BRB File No.2195 7 } . �'��",�� ;:, CITY OF RENTON � Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Kathy Keolker-wheeter, Mayor Alex Pietsch,Administrator June 20, 2005 State of Washington Boundary Review Board for King County Yesler Building, Suite 402 400 Yesler Way Seattle,WA 98104 Subject: BRIEF SUPPORTIl�TG NOTICE OF INTENTION TO EXPAND THE CITY OF RENTON CORPORATE LIMITS BY ANNEXATION Dear Board Members: As required by Chapter 36.93 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCV�, the City af Renton gave notice of its intention to annex territory refened to as the "Mosier II" Annexation. That annexation is proposed under the direct petition method in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 35A:14 of the RCW and would incorporate into the City of Renton approximately 65.5 acres of territory for the provision of urban services. To assist in your consideration of the proposed action,staff has prepared the attached brief. Should questions arise during the review of this information please contact Don Erickson, Senior Planner, at(425)430-6581. Also,please send notices and other communications regarding the proposed annexation to: � Don Erickson,AICP; Senior Planner Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning City of Renton ` 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Alex Pietsch Administrator 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 R E N T O N �This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer A H E A D O F T H E C U R V E + 'R REPORT TO THE WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REV�W BOARD FOR KING COUNTY IN THE MATTER OF THE CITY OF RENTON'S MOSIER II ANNEXATION Boundary Review Board File No. 2195 July 19, 2005 Public Hearing I. BACKGROUND The Renton City Council approved a 60%Direct Petition to annex for this annexation on February 7,2005 and authorized the City Administration to forward the Notice of Intent Package to the Board. The Renton City Council, also at that time authorized the City Administration to request that the Boundary Review Board invoke its jurisdiction in order to review and hear arguments in favor of expanding the subject annexation to the north to include an additional 34.5- acres of unincorporated King County, surrounded by the City on more than eighty percent of its perimeter. II. COMMiJNITY BACKGROUND AND ANNEXATION PROPOSAL The Mosier II—Expanded Annexation is located within Renton's Potential Annexation Area and abuts Renton on its western,northern,and eastern boundaries. It is bordered by Hoquiam Avenue NE(138�'Avenue SE)on the west, SE 132"d Street on the south,the City of Renton corporate boundary on the north,and Lyons Avenue NE on the east. Annexation in this and other unincorporated pockets of the East Renton Plateau is primarily driven by development. The resulting development patterns are determined by smaller scale annexations in the five to twenty acre size, often with discontinuous streets and cul-de-sacs. Because of this,the resulting municipal boundary in many cases is convoluted, as it is in this case. This annexation pattern results in an irregularly shaped areas that present service and other challenges to both the City and the County. The City,for example,receives many complaints from residents within the Puget Colony Homes subdivision about poor surface water drainage in the area,even though King County constructed a stormwater detention facility at the northeast corner of the intersection of SE 132"d Street and 140�`Avenue SE. III. CONSISTENCY WITH STATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT AND COUNTYWIDE PLAN1�tING POLICIES State law(RCW 36.93.157)stipulates that Boundary Review Board decisions must be consistent with three sections of the state's Growth Management Act(GMA)-planning goals,urban growth areas,and countywide planning policies. The City believes that the originally configured Mosier II Annexation does not fully meet the intent of a number of these goals and policies. It's expansion,however,would. a. Planning G� oals: Both the City and the County have adopted comprehensive land use plans as required by GMA. Each of these plans has been determined to be consistent with the GMA by the state Department of Community,Trade,and Economic Development. These plans support the Act's various goals including those related to planning for urban growth,reducing urban sprawl,meeting diverse housing needs,as well as addressing transportation,open space,and Mosier II Annexarion BRB File No.2195 1 -� Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County Yesler Buildirig, Room 402, 400 Yesler Wny, Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206)296-6800 • Fnx: (206)296-6803 • http://wzvw.metrokc.gov/annexr�tions June 6, 2005 City of Renton Attn: Don Erickson, AICP Senior Planner 1�55 aouth �rady Way Renton, WA 98055 IN RE: NOTICE OF HEARING File No. 2195 - City of Renton - Mosier II Annexation Please see attached Notice concerning new dates for a public hearing to consider a modification to the boundaries of the above-referenced file. Sincerely Lenora Blauman Executive Secretary Enclosure: Notice of Hearing CC: Address on file label(s) CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Form HE2 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF RENTON- MOSIER II ANNEXATION FILE NO. 2195 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR ��f��:�?�:�.,�:. Y�i�g �t :F�e�h;o�:�.��: ��rI+�3��_`��;.,�. The hearing will take place '"�`��`'��;�'�-�•l��"`�� E, Akf�it�rit�M, , . ., �.�.i�..�.;�� Qi�:��.:��:�'��s. . .:�-�"�si��t�exa#.i�i�� '��tt��+r�€a�t�k�� "Mc�sier'�" �31 ��s}'��t in��ng�t�trt�+;��t�n. At the conclusion of that hearing, the Boundary Review Board will determine whether to also conduct a public hearing to consider a request by the City of Renton to modify (to add territory of 35 acres) to the "Mosier II" Annexation. If the Board agrees to consider Renton's request for modification of the "Mosier II" Annexation then •h�'r�' .-:��....., ._ •;` . �•� ��<,J�1,��1:�.�; ��• ;��=.�: ,lo�tie�,:The total area including the original 31 acres and the 35 modification acres is generally described as follows: To reclassify certain Real Property within Unincorporated King County, described as a portion of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian in King County Washington, North of SE 136�'Street, West of 144"'Avenue SE, South of SE 128�'Street, and East of 142`� Avenue SE. A COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS ON FILE AND AVAILABLE AT THE OFFICE OF THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD. The Boundary Review Board conducts all meetings and hearings in locations that are wheelchair accessible. Any person requiring other disability accommodations or special assistance should contact the Boundary Review Board staff at least two business days prior to the meeting. The Boundary Review Board telephone is 206-296-6800. For TTY telephone services, please call 206- 296-1024 Each request for accommodations or assistance will be considered individually according to the type of request, the availability of resources and the financial ability of the Board to provide the requested services or equipment. DATED at Seattle, Washington, this 6�'June, 2005. WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY Lenora Blauman Executive Secretary -�° Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County Yesler Buildirig, Room 402, 400 Yesler Way, Senttle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 296-6800 • Fcrx: (206) 296-6803 • ltttp://zvww.metrokc.gov/anriexcttions June 23, 2005 City of Renton Attn: Don Erickson, AICP Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION TO LEGAL DESCRIPTION File No. 2195 - City of Renton - Mosier II Annexation Dear Mr. Erickson: Enclosed please find a copy of the letter from King County engineering staff reviewing the legal description submitted with the above-referenced Notice of Intention. We are assuming that you will be in accord with the recommendations made by County engineering staff and are continuing to process this file. However, if you should disagree with the requested corrections, please notify our office immediately. Any questions regarding these recommendations should be directed to Nicole Keller, Road Services Division, at (206)296-3731 Please send a copy of the corrected legal description to our office as soon as possible. We need to have the corrected legal description on file prior to issuing a letter of approval. Also, please be advised that the corrected legal description must be used on all future documents related to this proposed action. Sincerely, Lenora Blauman Executive Secretary Enclosure: Letter from King County Road Services Division, dated June 23, 2005 cc: Lydia Reynolds-Jones, Manager, Project Support Services (w/o enclosures) Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council (w/o enclosures) FORM 7 � Washington State Boundary Review Board . For King County Yesler Building, Room 402, 400 Yesler Wcty, Seattle, WA 98204 Phone: (206) 296-6800 • Fnx: (206)296-6803 • {tttp://zvwzy.rnetrokc.gov/rrnriexations ,�.=.� ' . :;��..�;: .A._ , May 13, 2005 � ' � ;�� `� � b ;��y'�� t' , _,...:.`,. ,. �. �, � �- ... -� City of Renton T'" "�y •�. ... Attn: Don Erickson, AICP Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Wa_y Renton, WA 98055 RE: REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION TO LEGAL DESCRIPTION File No. 2195 - City of Renton - Mosier II Annexation Dear Mr. Erickson: Enclosed please �nd a copy of the letter from King County engineering staff reviewing the legal description submitted with the above-referenced Notice of Intention. We are assuming that you will be in accord with the recommendations made by County engineering staff and are continuing to process this file. However, if you should disagree with the requested corrections, please notify our office immediately. Any questions regarding these recommendations should be directed to Nicole Keller, Road Services Division, at (206)296-3731 Please send a copy of the corrected legal description to our office as soon as possible. We need to have the corrected legal description on file prior to issuing a letter of approval. Also, please be advised that the corrected legal description must be used on all future documents related to this proposed action. Sincerely, Lenora Blauman Executive Secretary Enclosure: Letter from King County Road Services Division, dated cc: Lydia Reynolds-Jones, Manager, Project Support Services (w/o enclosures) Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council (w/o enclosures) FORM 7 _ . ... _ . .. .. . `Donald Erickson -Mosier II NOI � �W � Page 1 °: . E ^ ! f��.�---, . From: "Blauman, Lenora" <Lenora.Blauman@METROKC.GOV> � ,`` `� r ` To: 'Donald Erickson' <Derickson@ci.renton.wa.us> �i'�:;,,/ ��' � Date: 04/14/2005 9:40:08 AM Subject: Mosier II NOI ------_.__._____-----"�� Good Morning Don: Please look at the Mosier II NOI -specifically: * Section II (1)and II (2) (Page 2), "' U-208 (narrative beginning R-4 zoning...) Page 4; and * Section IV.A(Page 7). There are discrepancies in the data re housing units and the data re population. If you will please send me reconciled data corrected pages I can move forward to correct the file and provide an accurate Summary. Also, you may want to scan the document as-at least on Page 1 -6A (Exhibit E)there is a reference to Maplewood East --there may be others that I did not catch. As soon as I get the corrected information from you, I can complete and launch the file. Thank you. Lenora . �► . MOSIER II ANNEXATION FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET Units Po ulation AV Existin dev. 8 20 $2,080,000 Full dev. 124 310 $51,380,000 Assumptions: 2.5 persons/household $425,000 AV/new unit $257,167 Existing Average F�i�v��i:�i�s:::::::::::::: Total revenues ........... ....... Existin Full Rate Existing :::;:;::':`$�;�6'1';9�: Re ular le $6,531 $161,333 3.14 Full::::::::::��`1O;i7Q7:�� Excess lev $184 $4,555 0.08865 State shared revenues Rate er ca Existin Full Li uortax $3.52 $70.40 $1,091.20 Li uor Board rofits $5.04 $100.80 $1,562.40 Fuel tax- roads $14.46 $289.20 $4,482.60 Fuel tax-arterials $6.47 $129.40 $2,005.70 MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cam er excise $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal 'ustice $0.36 $7.20 $111.60 Total $597.00 $9,253.50 Miscellaneous revenues Rate Existin Full Real estate excise* $40.86 $817.20 $12,666.60 Utilit tax"" $133.20 $1,065.60 $16,516.80 Fines&forfeits* $18.33 $366.60 $5,682.30 Total $2,249.40 $34,865.70 " Per capita "* Per housing unit-based on $2,220 annual utility billing @ 6% tax rate �Qsts:i:::::i::':':':':':':: Total ongoing costs Per ca ita Existin Full Existing:;:':':':;:;:$1:�;�'1:�;4�: Contracted Services Full:::::::::��:8i�;a85:��: Alcohol $0.23 $4.54 $70.37 Public Defender $3.13 $62.68 $971.54 Jail $7.19 $143.84 $2,229.52 Subtotal $211.06 $3,271.43 Court/le al/admin. $57.08 $1,141.60 $17,694.80 Parks maintenance" $14.90 $298.00 $4,619.00 Police $270.00 $5,400.00 $83,700.00 Road maintenance*'" N/A $968.75 $6,975 Fire""* $1.25 $2,600.00 $64,225.00 Total $10,619.41 $180,485.23 "See Sheet Parks FIA ""See Sheet Roads FIA ""'` Rate per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact Existing::::::::::::::$1;�5?:�42 Full::::::::::::$�9;��"�rQ� f.'�ii�:=tiiti�ecists�: Parks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA): Other one-time costs: $70,336.84 Total one-time costs: $70,336.84 Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo .� � , . MOSIER II ANNEXATION FISCA�ANALYSIS SHEET Units Po ulation AV Existin dev. 8 10 $2,080,000 Full dev. 118 295 $49,143,000 Assumptions: 2.5 persons/household $425,000 AV/new unit $257,167 Existing Average Rev�t��i�;s:::::::::::::: Total revenues .. Existin Full Rate Existing ;: ::: :::$f�;�i7�;�9' Re ular lev $6,531 $154,309 3.14 Full';;'; ;�2Q0;8�9:9�: .... Excess lev $184 $4,357 0.08865 State shared revenues Rate er ca Existin Full Li uor tax $3.52 $35.20 $1,038.40 Li uor Board rofits $5.04 $50.40 $1,486.80 Fuel tax- roads $14.46 $144.60 $4,265.70 Fuel tax-arterials $6.47 $64.70 $1,908.65 MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cam er excise $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal 'ustice $0.36 $3.60 $106.20 Total $298.50 $8,805.75 Miscellaneous revenues Rate Existin Full Real estate excise" $40.86 $408.60 $12,053.70 Utili tax"" $133.20 $1,065.60 $15,717.60 Fines&forfeits" $18.33 $183.30 $5,407.35 Total $1,657.50 $33,178.65 ` Per capita "'` Per housing unit- based on $2,220 annual utility billing @ 6%tax rate ��t5;;:;;;;:;':?::;: ;: Total ongoing costs Per ca ita Existin Full Existing ::::::::;'�7;p9�#;p$ Contracted Services Full::::::�i�:i�;�400:99: Alcohol $0.23 $2.27 $66.97 Public Defender $3.13 $31.34 $924.53 Jail $7.19 $71.92 $2,121.64 Subtotal $105.53 $3,113.14 Court/le al/admin. $57.08 $570.80 $16,838.60 Parks maintenance" $14.90 $149.00 $4,395.50 Police $270.00 $2,700.00 $79,650.00 Road maintenance"" N/A $968.75 $6,975 Fire""* $1.25 $2,600.00 $61,428.75 Total $7,094.08 $172,400.99 '`See Sheet Parks FIA *"See Sheet Roads FIA """Rate per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact Existing ;;;';;::':;;:$1;;5�7:�� Full: :::::::::$�$��4$:�6 C�i�e�tEiiie:costs�:Parks acquisition &development(from Sheet Parks FIA): Other one-time costs: $66,077.00 Total one-time costs: $66,077.00 Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo LLO`99� �o aa� �uaLudojanap�uot�tsinb�� s��d aLut�-auo pa��uit�s� �t�t�aQ 6�bZ` g Z� g L,S` t � /snld�ns I0�`ZLI � �b60`L� s�so� OS9`OOZ� ZL,9`S � sanua�a� �uau,ldoja�aQ �uaLudolanaQ Itn� �ua.�n� � �. �� ..:�� .�� . � ► ° i _ NOTICE OF INTENTION PROPOSED MOSIER II ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF RENTON I. BACKGROUND/MAPS 1. The description of and reason for seeking the proposed action: The proposed action is to annex approximately 31.0 acres to the City of Renton. Annexation is sought by the proponents to develop under City of Renton regulations and processes and to receive Renton public services. The annexation was initiated through the Direct Petition method under RCW 35A.14.120, 130, 140,and 150. The proposed annexation area is located in the E 1/2 of W % of Section I5, Township 23 North, Range S East. 2. Copies of the Renton City Council minutes for actions taken relative to the proposed annexation: A. E�chibit A: Certified minutes of then August 23, 2004 public meeting of the Renton City Council accepting the Mosier II 10% Notice of Intent to annex petition and authorizing the circulation of the 60%Petition to Annex. B. Exhibit B: Certified minutes of the February 7, 2005, public hearing of the Renton City Council accepting the 60% Direct Petition to Annex and declaring the City's intent to annex the area, subject to the actions of the Boundary Review Board. 3. Exhibit C: Certification of Sufficiency for the 60% Petition to Annex made by the King County Department of Assessments dated September 22,2004. 4. Exhibit D: Legal description of the proposed annexation boundaries. 5. Pursuant to RCW 43.21C.222,annexations are exempt from SEPA. 6. The following maps are enclosed: A. Exhibit E: King County Assessor's maps (two sets) displaying the proposed annexation boundary. B. Exhibit F: Vicinity maps displaying: 1) The proposed Mosier II Annexation boundary. 2) The City of Renton existing corporate limits relative to the proposed annexation area. 3) All major streets and other major physical features. , � - Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Mosier II Annexation 04/15/OS Page 2 4) The boundaries, including future service area boundaries, of all cities or special service districts having jurisdiction in or near the proposal. NOTE: The City and County library service area boundaries are coternunous with the City's corporate boundary. 5) King County Urban Growth Area and City of Renton Potential Annexation Area boundaries established under the Growth Management Act. C. Exhibit G: A map of the current City of Renton corporate limits upon which the proposed Mosier II Annexation boundaries have been delineated. D. Exhibit H: City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations. II. FACTORS THE BOARD MUST CONSIDER 1. Overview A. Population: The population of the proposed Annexation area is estimated to be about 310 persons at full buildout based upon 2.5 persons per household and a total of 124 households. 'The City of Renton population as of Apri12004 was 55,360. B. Territorv: The proposed annexation area includes approximately 31.0 acres. C. Population Densitv: The proposed population density of the Mosier II Annexation area is estimated to be about 10 persons per gross acre. D. Assessed Valuation: The current assessed value of the properties proposed for annexation is approximately$2,080,000. 2. Land Use A. Existin�: Existing uses include eight single-family homes with an estimated population of 20 persons. B. Proposed: A portion of the subject annexation has been looked at as a preliminary application for a preliminary plat. The annexation is proposed to facilitate th* development of these properties for single-family residential uses at up to five (5) units per net acre. 3. Comprehensive Plans/Franchise(s) A. Conformance with County Countywide Plannin�Policies adopted b,y King Count� The proposed action is consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies in general, and the following policies in particular: . The Mosier II Annexation is one of three annexations that were"vested"in under most of the provisions of the former R-5 Zone. These include density at 5 du/net acre,7,200 sq.ft.lots, 15 foot front yards for primary structures,etc. � Washington State Boundary Review Boazd for King County Proposed Mosier II Annexation 04/15/OS Page 3 LU-31 In collaboration with adjacent counties and cities and King County, and in consultation with residential groups in affected areas, each ciry shall designate a potential annexation area. Each potential annexation area shall be specific to each city.... LU-32 A city may annex territory only within its designated potential annexation area. All cities shall phase annexations to coincide with the ability for the city to coordinate the provision of a full range of urban services to areas to be annexed. The City of Renton has designated a Potential Annexation Area in the City's Comprehensive Plan (Eachibit H). Renton has the ability to provide a full range of urban services to the area proposed for annexation and is the designated sewer service provider for the East Renton Plateau. LU-33 Undeveloped lands adjacent to that city should be annexed at the time development is proposed to receive a full range of urban services. New development is likely to proceed upon annexation into the City of Renton and the availability of sewers. Sewer certificates have already been issued for new housing developments to the north and east of the site and can be extended by developer extension to serve the subject annexation site at the appropriate time. FW-13.Cities are the appropriate providers of local urban services to urban areas either directly or by contract. With the exception of water, Renton is prepared to provide a full array of local urban services to the area including police, fire, local government and an array of other community services. Water District No. 90 is the designated water purveyor for this area,under agreement with King County. B. Kin Countv Comurehensive Plan/Ordinances 1) King County Planning under the Growth Management Act. The subject area is designated Urban - 4-12 du/ac in the King County Comprehensive Plan and is identified as being within Renton's Potential Annexation Area on the County's Potential Annexation Areas Map. King County planning efforts under the Growth Management Act have included ensuring that development in the Urban Growth Area occurs at urban densities and with urban level services available. The City of Renton has planned for urban densities for this area and can provide urban services within its negotiated service areas should annexation occur. 2) The following adopted King County Comprehensive Plan policies specifically support the proposed annexation: Chauter Two, Urban Land Use, Section II.B, Directing Crrowth to Cities and Urban Areas U-203 King County should encourage most population and employment growth to locate in the contiguous Urban Growth Area in western King County, especially in cities and their potential annexation areas. � Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Mosier II Annexation 04/15/OS Page 4 Annexation would allow development of the subject properties to occur within the City of Renton with urban services such as wastewater, police, libraries, local government,and parks. Chanter Two, Urban Land Use. Section II.C, Urban Growth Area T�ets U-208 King County shall provide adequate land capacity for residential, commercial and industrial growth in the urban unincorporated area. This land capacity shall include both redevelopment opportunities as well as opportunities for development on vacant lands. Renton's proposed R-4 zoning for the subject properties would normally be somewhat less than the capacity represented by the existing King County R- 4 zoning. Because Renton's R-4 zone calculates density based upon net density it would result in approximately 20% less capacity than the current County zoning which determines density based upon oss acreage. An estimated 186 units could be provided under the County's R-4 zoning, with bonuses (6 du/ac), and approximately 99 units could be provided under Renton's proposed R-4 zoning. However, because this annexation site was vested with Renton's former R-5 zone densities, an estimated 124 units could be built on it. Chapter Two, Urban Land Use. Section III.A, PlanninQ with King Countv's Cities for Future Annexation U-301 King County should work with cities to focus countywide growth within their boundaries and should support annexations within the Urban Growth Area when consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan and Countywide Planning Policies. U-304 King County should support annexation proposals when: a. The proposal is consistent with the King Counry Comprehensive Plan; b. The proposed area is wholly within the Urban Growth Area and within the city's designated Potential Annexation Area (for annexations); c. The city is planning for urban densities and efficient land use patterns consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies and King County land use plans;and, d. Adopted Countywide goals and policies for urban services, environmental and cultural resource protection will be supported. The proposal is generally consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map. The area proposed for annexation is wholly within the Urban Growth Area and within Renton's Potential Annexation Area.. The City's Comprehensive Plan policies and development regulations support countywide goals and policies for urban densities,urban Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Mosier II Annexation 04/15/OS Page 5 services and environmental and cultural resource protection. The proposed R-4 zoning, with vesting modifications, is urban, small lot zoning, which will achieve urban densities and efficiencies consistent with adopted countywide goals and policies for urban services. 3) Adopted King County Comp Plan designation: The adopted King County Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the proposed annexation area is Urban Residential - 4-12 du/ac. This designation is implemented with the County's R-4 Zone on the subject site. 4) Comparison of City and Countv re�lations for sensitive areas, etc: With annexation, King County ordinances and regulations would be supplanted with those of the City of Renton. City of Renton ordinances and regulations applicable to the proposed action include the following: a. Regulations for the protection of sensitive areas: The City of Renton's Critical Areas Ordinance (RMC 4-3-050) describes permitted and prohibited activities and uses,waivers,modifications and variances,and additional criteria and permit processes for development in critical areas. Critical areas regulated by the Ordinance include aquifer recharge areas, flood and geologic hazard areas, native habitat and wetlands. Although specific regulations vary, Chapter 21A.24, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, of the King County Code provides comparable regulatory protection of sensitive areas. The City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance is available upon request. b. Re�ulations for the preservation of agricultural or other resource lands: Regulations preserving agricultural uses are not applicable to the subject area, as the proposed annexation area is not within any of the agricultural districts identified for first, second or third priority for the purchase of development rights. Further, the property is not designated for agricultural producrion or other resource lands in the King County Comprehensive Plan and is not currently under agi-icultural use. The City of Renton does not have a program authorizing transfer or purchase of development rights. c. Preservation of Landmarks or Landmark Districts: The City of Renton has no regulations comparable to Chapter 20.62, Protection and Preservation of Landmarks. Landmark Sites and Districts, in the King County Code. However, no landmark sites or districts are idenrified in the Newcastle Community Plan or are known to exist in the subject annexation area. d. Surface Water Control: The City of Renton has adopted the 1990 Kin� County Surface Water Design Manual, by reference, in the City's Drainage (Surface Water) Standards (RMC 4-6-030) as the design standard for surface water control in development projects. Higher standards such as those of the 1998 King Countv Surface Water Design Manual. Level 2 standard are often applied through environmental review. Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Mosier II Annexation 04/15/OS Page 6 C. Citv of Renton Comprehensive Plan/Franchise 1) Citv Plannin�Under the Growth Management Act Renton City Council adopted the current Comprehensive Plan in 1995, consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act. The 1995 Comprehensive Plan was updated in the 2004 Mandated GMA Comprehensive Plan Review. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map identifies Potential Annexation Areas,including the area currently proposed for annexation, and shows land use designations for such areas. (See Exhibit H,City of Renton Land Use Designations) The proposal is consistent with the Land Use Element policies of the Renton Comprehensive Plan that support annexation of lands: • that are within Renton's Potential Annexation Area where the availability of infrastructure and services allow for the development of urban densities(Objective LU-1); • that are vacant and subject to development pressure(LU-37.3); • that are available for urbanization under county comprehensive planning,zoning,and subdivision regulations(LU-37.5); • for which the City of Renton should logically be the primary provider of urban infrastructure and services(LU-36); • that would include those who already use City services or who impact City infrastructure(LU-41); and • that includes environmentally sensitive areas and vacant land where future development could adversely influence the environmental and land use character of Renton(LU-42). 2) PAA status and PAA agreements with other cities if anx: The City of Renton has adopted Potential Annexation Areas. These areas are identified in Renton's Comprehensive Plan and on the King County Interim Potential Annexation Area Map. T'he City has also negotiated a PAA boundary agreement with the City of Kent. No PAA agreement was necessary for the area currently proposed for annexation. 3) Required Comprehensive Plan amendments if a�: No amendment to Renton's Comprehensive Plan is necessary to process the current proposed annexation. 4) Comprehensive Plan a�proval date: Renton's current Comprehensive Plan was initially adopted on February 20, 1995, with annual amendments in subsequent years. The latest, 2004 Mandated GMA Comprehensive Plan Review,is a comprehensive update of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. 5) Required franchises to serve area: No franchise will be required for the City of Renton to provide services to the subject area. 6) Pre-annexation Zoning Agreements: The subject area has not been the subject of a pre-Annexation Zoning Agreement. 7) Proposed land use desi ation: The subject area is designated Residential Low Density in the City's Comprehensive Plan. R-4 zoning is proposed to Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Mosier II Annexation 04/15/OS Page 7 supplant the existing King County R-4 zoning, consistent with the adopted Residential Low Density land use designation upon annexation. However, because this is one of three annexation sites that were vested under many of the former R-5 zoning provisions, densities and lot sizes will be more similar to those of the former R-5 zone than the current R-4 zone. Under Renton's annexation process, zoning is typically adopted concurrent to adoption of the annexation ordinance. 4. Planning data A. Revenues/Expenditures This analysis identifies the General Fund revenues and costs associated with annexing the subject properties as they are currently developed, as well as estimating the annual fiscal impact of their full development at some undetermined point in the future. "Full development" includes an assumption that a portion of the subject properties may not develop within the foreseeable future due to market forces and the choices of individual property owners. All assumptions regarding revenues and costs are based on existing standards or other comparable data, but actual results are likely to vary from these estimates. Assessed Valuations Units Population(est.) Assessed Valuation Existin conditions 8 20 $2,080,000 Full develo ment est. 124* 310 $51,380,000 *Assumes new home value of$425,000 per unit. 1) Estimated City Exuenditures City Services Current Full Development Development Contracted services Road Maintenance Police Protection Parks Maintenance Court,Legal and Other Stormwater Maintenance Total ongoing costs $10,994 $181,188 2) Estimated City Revenues to be a� Current Full Revenue Source Development Development Regular Property Tax Levy $6 531 $161 333 State-Shared Revenues $597 $9 253 Miscellaneous Revenues $2 249 $34 866 Excess Le $184 $4 555 Total revenues $9,561 $210,007 Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Mosier II Annexation 04/15/OS Page 8 3) Estimated Net Fiscal Impact Net f scal impact Existing ($1,433) Full $28,819 3) Estimated County revenues lost: The estimated reduction in County revenues would be$4,917 at current development(road and library levies, excluding library bonds). 4) Estimated reduction in Count�exvenditures: T'he estimated reduction in County expenditures is anticipated to be minimal, as only a minor amount of improved King County roadway exists in the proposed annexation area. 5) Estimated fire district revenue lost: The area proposed for annexation lies within Fire District No. 25. The City provides fire services under contract to Fire District No. 25. As consequence there is no estimated loss of revenue to this district. 6) Estimated fire district expenditures reduced: The estimated savings to Fire District No. 25 because of this annexation is only about $25 or what they are now paying the City for services for the estimated 20 residents in the area. B. Services 1) Water Service The proposed annexation is within District No. 90's water service area. The service area would not change as a result of the proposed annexation. a) Direct/Contract: The area will continue to be served by District No. 90 for the foreseeable future. Future development will have to notify District No. 90 regarding water availability and obtain a certificate of water availability. b) Storage locations/Capacitv: The zoned residential capacity under the existing King County zoning is slightly higher than the capacity under the proposed City of Renton zoning. Since population growth under the City of Renton's R-4 zoning is about 50% less than the County's current R-4 zoning with bonues(up to 6 du/gross acre), and approximately 33% less with the proposed R-5 zone densities Renton is allowing in this case, the District's capacity should be more than adequate to meet the water demand generated by post-annexation development of the subject area. If anything, the change in zoning that would occur upon annexation would theoretically increase storage capacity. c) Mains to serve the area: Water District No. 90 will require developers to extend mains into the annexation area as part of their development proposals. Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Mosier II Annexation 04/15/OS Page 9 d) Financing of proposed service: This will be financed by developers and normal user fees for existing and new residents. 2) Sanitarv Sewer Service a) Direct/Contract: Sewer service would be provided directly to the proposed annexation area by the City of Renton. b) Mains to serve area: None of the annexation site is currently being served by the City of Renton. c) Di'sposal: Sewage disposal will be through METRO's treatment facilities. d) Capaci ,ty Available: Renton's sanitary sewer system has sufficient capacity to accommodate full buildout of the proposed annexation area. e) Financin��roposed service: Improvements within this annexation area would be anticipated to be made through developer extensions since the annexation area is primarily undeveloped at this time. 3) Fire Service a) Direct/Contract: The City of Renton currently provides fire suppression services to the annexation area under contract with King County Fire District No. 25. Following annexation, the City of Renton would directly provide prevention and suppression services to the subject area. ��'� ,�Nearest stations: The annexation area is located between fire station #12 in the City of Renton and Fire Station #25-1 in District No. 25. Fire Station #12 is located at 1209 Kirkland Avenue NE and Station #25-1 is located approximately 3/4 mile east of the site at the corner of 156'�Avenue SE and SE 128�'Street. �, , Response time: Response time to any point within the proposed annexation boundaries could range from four to six minutes. Since Fire Station #25-1 is very close to the subject site and will not change because of this annexation. T'herefore there should be no change in the response time. �;��Staffins: Station#12 is fully manned, with�ve firefighters on duty per shift. Station #25-1 is also fully manned and has three firefighters on duty per shift. � :�`.°' " Major equinment: Major equipment located at Station#12 includes two 1,500 gallon per minute pumpers and one aid car. � Certified EMT/D-Fib personnel: All shift personnel at Station #12 are certified EMT/D-Fib. Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Mosier II Annexarion 04/15/OS Page 10 g) Fire Ratine: Renton's fire rating is three, as determined by the Washington State Survey and Rating Bureau. h) Source of dispatch: Valley Communication 911 service is the source of emergency vehicle/aid dispatch. 5. General A) Annexation ag�reements for extensions of service: No applicable annexation agreements are in effect for the subject area. � Topog�raphy and natural boundaries: The site slopes upward to the northeast from its lowest point at its southwest corner. The average slope is 6.1%or approximately a 45-foot change in elevation between the northeast and southwest corners of the site. B) Projected 10-year rg owth: The area is too small to make reasonable inferences from large-area growth forecasts. The City projects about 116 new single-family homes in addition to the existing eight units on the site. This is based upon existing citywide R-5 densities and assumptions regarding identified physical and regulatory constraints to development of the site and the probable market availability of land for new development. D) Municipal or community services: With annexation, the property owners and residents would have access to a full range of urban services including police, fire, parks, libraries, community services, the City's neighborhoods program, annual community events,and local,readily accessible, government. E) Potential delays in implementin� service deliverX: The area is currently underserved in regards to park facilities according to the City's adopted level of service standards. This shortfall is identified in the City's Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan update. Staff estimates a one-time cost in excess of parks/recreation mitigation fees of$70,337 as well as on-going maintenance costs of$4,619 as the prorated share for new parks associated with this annexation. The current waste hauler would continue to provide solid waste removal for seven years after annexation, according to State law. At the end of that time, the area would then be included in the contract with the City's waste hauler. With the exception of parks and solid waste removal,no delays are expected in implementing service delivery to the area. City deparhnents reviewing the annexation proposal indicated that they would be able to adequately serve existing and future development. Water District No. 90 is expected to continue to provide water service,and has indicated no major obstacles to service delivery at this time. F) Evaluation of adequacy, costs, or rates of service to area: Existing services to the area appear to be generally adequate. As development occurs in the proposed annexation area, demand for services will increase. It is assumed that the cost of such services will be largely offset by increases in property taaces, services charges and other revenues based on population. If the City were to assume this annexation at current levels of development it would have to subsidize it for approximately $1,433 per year. At full development, in an estimated 10 years, the City would realize an annual surplus of an estimated$28,819 per year, in today's dollars. Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Mosier II Annexation 04/15/OS Page 11 King County is the only alternative service provider for services that would be assumed by the City of Renton upon annexation. Fire suppression services will not change as a result of the proposed annexation since the City is already providing these services to Fire District No. 25 on contract. And, school district boundaries are not affected by annexations. As a result the subject area will remain within the Renton School District. III. OBJECTIVES The proposed Mosier II Annexation generally complies with all of the objectives of the Boundary Review Board. These include the following: 1) Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities. No detrimental impacts to existing neighborhoods or communities are anticipated to result from the proposed action. 2) Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodfes of water, highways and land contours. The proposed annexation follows the existing city limits on a portion of its eastern boundary. The western boundary of the annexation is defined by the eastern edge of the Puget Colony subdivision and south of SE 132°d Street the eastern boundary of the annexation is the east side of 144�'Avenue SE. These boundaries are somewhat irregular but reflect the fact that this portion of Renton's PAA is in transition and the City expects surrounding properties to be brought into the City in the fareseeable future. As a result, these boundaries should be viewed as being interim only. 3) Creation and preservation of logical service areas. City staff that have reviewed the proposed annexation have stated that the proposed boundaries represent logical extensions of City of Renton services. Also,the Countywide Planning Policies state that cities are the appropriate providers of local urban services to Urban Areas. The proposal would therefore further both the intent of the City annexation objectives and Countywide Planning Policies. 4) Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries. T'he boundaries do create somewhat irregular boundaries,particularly for the 13-lot subdivision to the north. Again,this is seen as an interim situation as the City intends to annex surrounding properties in the foreseeable future or invoke jurisdiction and ask the BRB to include them in this annexation. 5) Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas. Not applicable. 6) Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts. Not applicable. 7) Adjustment of impractical boundaries. Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Mosier II Annexarion 04/15/OS Page 12 T'his annexation is not being undertaken to adjust impractical city boundaries. 8) Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas,which are urban in character King County has designated this area for urban development. 9) Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority. Not applicable. No portions of the proposed annexation area are designated Rural or designated for long term productive agricultural or resource use in the King County Comprehensive Plan. finis � ' - Exhibit A , ' CERTIFICATE l,the understgned City C1erk of the City of Renton,Washington,certify that this is a true and��rec�t copy of 8',�3 a �aun�;�1/I"Ic�h,�ti��'�`".'�u�scribed an sealed this`7�day of ri i ,20 05 RENTON CITY COUNCIL Q��uk�City Clerk Regular Meeting August 23,2004 Council Chambers Monday,7:30 p.m. M I N U T E S Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler called the meeting of the Renton City Council � to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF DON PERSSON,Council President;MARCIE PALMER;T'ERRI BRIERE; COUNCILMEMBERS DENIS LAW;DAN CLAWSON;TONI NELSON;RANDY CORMAN. CITY STAFF IN KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER,Mayor;JAY COVINGTON,Chief ATTENDANCE Administrative Officer;LAWRENCE J.WARREN,City Attorney;BONNIE WALTON,City Clerk;GREGG ZIIviMERMAN,Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator;KAREN MCFARLAND,Engineering Specialist;ALEX PIETSCH,Economic Development Administrator;DON ERICKSON,Senior Planner;SHAWNA MiJLHALL,Development Manager;COMMANDER KENT CURRY,Police Department. PUBLIC MEETING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Annexation: Mosier II,NE 4th accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keoiker-Wheeler opened the St& 142nd Ave SE public meeting to consider the 10%Notice of Intent petition for the proposed Mosier II Annexation,which consists of 8.72 acres,including the abutting street right-of-way,located on the south side of NE 4th St.and bounded by 142nd Ave. SE on the west, 144th Ave.SE(Jericho Ave.NE)on the east,and SE 132nd St.on the south. Don Erickson,Senior Planner,pointed out that this annexation site was part of the larger Mosier I Annexation,which did not proceed for lack of signatures. He reported that four single-family dwellings exist on this essentially flat site, and a branch of Maplewood Creek runs southwest of the site,draining wetlands to the west of 142nd Ave.SE. In regards to public services,Mr.Erickson said the site is served by Fire District#25,Water District#90,Renton sewer,and ' Renton School District. Continuing,Mr.Erickson stated that the area's zoning under King County is R- 4(four units per gross acre). Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates this area Residential Low Density,and R-5(five units per net acre)zoning is proposed. He noted that,if approved,the proposed new R-4 zone would replace the R-5 zone. Mr.Erickson reported that the fiscal impact analysis indicates a surplus of$3,826 at fuil development,assuming an increase to 33 single-family homes. In conclusion,Mr.Erickson stated that the proposed annexation furthers City business goals,and is consistent with City annexation policies and policies for lower density rezones. However,questionable consistency exists with relevant Bounda.ry Review Board criteria such as logical service areas. He also noted that the Surface Water Division indicated some potential flooding in the area, and suggested mitigation with future development. Public comment was invited. John Skochdopole,Conner Homes Company, 846 108th Ave.NE,Bellevue, 98004,requested that six more parcels be included in this annexation proposal. He explained that his company has under contract,approximately 13 acres that were originally part of the first Mosier Annexation. The properties he wants � August 23,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 283 included are two large parcels located north of SE 136th St.,for which he has authorization from the property owners for their inclusion. Additionally,Mr. Skochdopole indicated that there are four parcels between the proposed Mosier II annexation boundary and the two aforementioned parcels. He pointed out that when combined with the other four parcels, the assessed valuation of the two parcels is in excess of 65%of the combined parcels. Therefore,it is possible to proceed with annexing all six parcels,and he requested that they be included in the Mosier II Annexation. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETIlVG. CARRIED. MOVED BY CLAWSON,SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL ADD THE PROPERTIES LOCATED SOUTH OF SE 132ND ST.AND NORTH OF SE 136TH ST. TO THE MOSIER II ANNEXATION AREA. CARRIED. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL: ACCEPT THE MOSIER II ANNEXATION 10%NOTICE OF INTENT TO ANNEX PETITION; AUTHORIZE CIRCLTLATION OF THE 60%DIRECT PETTTION TO ANNEX;REQUIItE THE ADOPTION OF ZONING CONSISTENT W1TH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP; AND REQUIIZE THAT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSUME A PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF THE CITY'S BONDED INDEBTEDNESS. CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARINGS This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Annexation: Tydico, 136th accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the Ave SE public hearing to consider the Tydico Annexation,the proposed R-8 and R-10 zoning,and the proposed development agreement restricting development under the R-10 zone. The Tydico site consists of 9.61 acres generally bounded by NE 3rd Pl.to the north,NE 2nd St.to the south,and 136th Ave. SE(Bremerton Ave. NE)to the east. Don Erickson, Senior Planner,stated that the annexation area contains a single- family dwelling that is used as a nonconfornung heavy construction equipment office. The topography of the site is essentially flat,with a seasonal stream along the westem property line. The site is served by Fire District#25, is within the Renton water and sewer service area, but is currently served by Water District#90. He noted that roadway and stormwater improvements are likely. Mr.Erickson indicated that existing King County zoning is R-4, and Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Residential Options. He explained that at the annexation election held on 9/16/2003, voters approved the annexation and R-8 zoning,which was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan at that time. On 11/24/2003, Council approved amendments to the Comprehensive Plan,resulting in the Residential Options designation for this area,and the zone most consistent with this new land use designation is R-10. Mr.Erickson stated that because of concerns raised by nearby residents regarding the potential impact of higher density housing near their lots, the applicant will enter into a development agreement(considered by Council on 11/17/2003), which contains restrictions that makes the R-10 zoning more compatible with the abutting R-8 zoning to the south and east. The site-specific restrictions are as follows: August 23,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 284 • All residential buildings shall be detached single-family residential buildings; • All future residential lots within the site that directly abut the site's south boundary shall have a minimum lot width of 50 feet; and � The net residential density of any development of the site shall not exceed ten dwelling units per net acre. Mr. Erickson pointed out that since the election ballot stated "annexation with R-8 zoning," staff recommends that the site be initially annexed into the City with R-8 zoning and then be rezoned to R-10 in order to be consistent with Comprehensive Plan designation and the provisions of the development agreement. Mr.Erickson stated that the proposed annexation furthers City business goals, is consistent with City policies,and is supported by the Boundary Review Board. He noted that the fiscal implications, except for parks,appear to be relatively minor. Mr.Erickson concluded that the best interests and general welfare of the City appear to be served by this annexation. Public comment was invited. David Halinen, 10500 NE 8th St.,Suite 1900,Bellevue,98004, stated that he represents the property owner,Liberty Ridge LLC, and thanked City staff for their cooperation throughout this extended process. He urged Council to move forward with the annexation as proposed. There being no further public cotrunent,it was MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY BRIERE,SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL: ACCEPT THE 9.61-ACRE TYDICO ANNEXATION SUBJECT TO THE VOTER APPROVED PROVISIONS OF THE ELECTION BALLOT;REZONE THE SUBJECT SITE,EXCLUDING PUBLIC STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY,TO R-8 CONSISTENT WI'TH THE APPROVED BALLOT MEASURE;AND SUBSEQLJENT TO THE R-8 REZONE,REZONE THE SITE R-10, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COUNCIL AUTHORIZED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT RESTDENTIAL OPTIONS COMPREHENSNE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION.* Council President Persson noted that the integrity of the existing community will be protected,and he thanked the Administration for responding to the adjacent neighbor's concerns. *MOTION CARRIED. (See page 291 for ordinances.) Vacation: Lyons Ave NE, This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Bales,VAC-04-002 accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the public hearing to consider the street vacation petition submitted by Steve Beck on behalf of Bales Limited Partnership for a portion of approximately 100 feet of the remaining unopened 30-foot right-of-way of old Lyons Ave. NE, an unimproved road located between NE 3rd and 4th Streets, and between Jericho Ave. NE and Nile Ave.NE(VAC-04-002). Karen McFarland,Engineering Specialist,explained that this vacation request is associated with the Amber Lane Short Plat currently in preliminary development. She relayed that the petitioner said this vacation serves the August 23,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 285 public benefit by removing unusable right-of-way that will allow for a better configuration of lots. Ms. McFarland reported that no objections about the proposed vacation were received from City departments and outside agencies. The City will obtain an easemenc at a later date through the development process after it has been determined where to place the facilities. Currently, no public facilities are contained in the right-of-way. In conclusion,Ms.McFarland stated that staff recommends Council approve the request to vacate the street right-of-way. If approved,the applicant will submit an appraisal, and the matter will come before Council again once the appraisal is reviewed,for deternunation of the compensation. Public comment was invited. Myles Ostheimer, 353 Lyons Ave.NE, Renton, 98059, stated that he lives east of the area to be vacated. He indicated that he thought if the area to be vacated were ever sold, he would have the ability to bid on at least 15 feet of the 30-foot property. Ms. McFarland noted that a portion of a previous vacation(VAC-01-006) attached to Mr. Ostheimer's property. She stated if the subject vacation request is approved,it would most likely attach to the property on the west. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY PALMER,COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. Council President Persson clarified that when there is a full-street right-of-way, it is divided in two and the abutting property owners may buy the half that attaches to their properties. He pointed out that a previous vacation dealt with one-half of this right-of-way, and the subject vacation concerns the other one- half. Therefore,the subject vacation would attach to the property on the west. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL APPROVE THE REQUEST TO VACATE THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY. CARRIED. APPEAL Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report on the Planning &Development appeal of the Dalpay Estates Division II Short Plat(SHP-03-125). The Committee Committee met on 8/19/2004 to consider the appeal of Paul Barfknecht and Appeal: Dalpay Estates Susan Bledsoe. 'I'his is an appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner Division II Short Plat, dated 4/13/2004. The subject property is located at 3801 NE 19th St. The Barfknecht, SHP-03-125 proposed land use action is a short plat, subdividing a 2.52-acre parcel into five lots,for the development of five detached single-family residences. The Comtnittee found the following facts: • The appellants are the neighbors of the subject property. • There is a dispute between the appellants and the applicant regarding an apparent encroachment on the applicant's property by the appellants. • The 2.52-acre parcel could support the proposed short plat despite whether the property encroached upon is awarded to the appellant in a civil action, if any,between the parties. • The Hearing Examitier did not render a decision regarding the legal rights of the parties as they relate to the encroachment. The appellants appealed this absence. August 23,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 286 • The appellants requested reconsideration. A clerical matter was corrected as a result. Based on the foregoing findings,the Committee reached the following conclusions: • The Committee has no jurisdiction over the issue of the encroachment and who has what rights to the property. • The short plat proposal meets the City's criteria and if there is a loss of property due to the encroachment,the proposal still meets the City's criteria. • The Hearing Examiner was right not to decide the encroachment issue. Appellants raised two other issues on appeal that were clerical in nature. The Hearing Examiner made one clerical change after the appellants asked him to reconsider. As to the second issue, it related to the Hearing Examiner's summary of the appellant's testimony. The testimony involved(the distance the trees were from the garage)was not material to the decision and did not constitute a substantial error of fact or law. The Committee found no error in fact or law in the Hearing Examiner's decision. Therefore,the Committee recommended that the Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner. MOVED BY BRIERE,SECONDED BY CLAWSON,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMTTTEE REPORT. CARRIED. ADMIIVISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2004 and beyond. Items noted included: � The latest edition of CityView is now airing on Renton cable channel 21, featuring Freddie's Fabulous 4th Celebration, Kidd Valley Concert Series, Renton History Minute on the Black River,2004 Renton River Days, 2004 Summerfest for Kids,Dive Rescue Team,Gene Coulon Beach Park Amenities,Moment with the Mayor on the Farmers Market,Personal Safety Class for Women, and Renton's public art. � On August 20th,the King County Health Department closed Gene Coulon Beach Park for swimming through August 24th, at which time the water will be retested and s decision made as to whether or not to reopen the beach. This action was taken when water samples exceeded the acceptable water quality standards for fecal coliform and E. coli. � As of August 18th, the City Maintenance Shops collected 221 abandoned shopping carts throughout the City. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. At the request of Councilwoman Palmer, item 8.b. was removed. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of August 16, 2004. Council concur. August 16,2004 Community Services: Sunset Community Services Department recommended approval of the purchase and Court Park,Playground installation of playground equipment at Sunset Court Park,located at 1150 Equipment Purchase Harrington Ave.NE,by Architecreation,Inc., in the amount of$69,787.58. Council concur. August 23,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 287 Plat: Honey Brooke Division Development Services Division recommended approval, with conditions, of the III,NE Sth St,FP-04-067 Honey Brooke Division III Final Plat; 22 single-family lots on 4.42 acres located in the vicinity of NE Sth St.,Ilwaco Ave. NE,NE Sth PI., and Jericho Ave. NE(FP-04-067). Council concur. (See page 290 for resolution.) Finance: Bond Issuance, Finance and Information Services Department recommended the issuance of Water, Sewer&Stormwater $10,000,0U0 of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2004,for water, sewer, and Projects stormwater construction projects. Refer to Finance Committee. Transportation: Commute Trip Transportation Systems Division recornmended approval of an agreement in the Reduction Program Services, amount of$36,342 with King County Department of Transportation to provide King County Commute Trip Reduction(CTR)services to 22 affected employers in the City of Renton for 2004-2005. Council concur. (See page 291 for resolution.) CAG: 04-033,Monster Rd Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of a contract Bridge Inspection Services, supplement in the amount of$69,794.02 with INCA Engineers,Inc., to conduct INCA Engineers inspection services for the Monster Rd. Bridge repair. Council concur. Airport: AT&T Lease, Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of Addendum#3 to Addendum#3,Fiber Optic PAG-87-001,AT&T's lease for its fiber optic line that runs through the Airport, Line,PAG-87-001 to extend the time period of the lease to 10/31/2012 and to increase the rental rate from$0.30 to$0.3473 per square foot per year. Revenue generated is $10,533.14 annually. Refer to Transportation(Aviation)Committee. Utility: Water System Utility Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement in the amount Emergency Power Study, of$16,056 with Casne Engineering, Inc. to conduct a water system emergency Casne Engineering power study that looks at providing Wells 1, 2,and 3,Mt. Olivet Booster Pump Station,and North Talbot Booster Pump Station with dedicated emergency power supply. Approval was also sought to fund this project through the Emergency Response Plan Update project budget. Council concur. MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED WITH THE REMOVAL OF ITEM 8.b. CARRIED. MOVED BY PALMER,SECONDED BY BRIERE,COUNCIL POSTPONE ACTION ON TTEM 8.b.,AIl2PORT APRON C LJTILITIES PROJECT CONTRACT,UNTIL THE END OF UNFINISHED BUSINESS. CARRIED. (See page 290 for item 8.b.) Added At the request of Councilman Corman,a letter was read from Lany Brosman, CORRESPONDENCE 3625 NE 9th St.,Renton, 98056, asking for a reduction in the penalty fee from Citizen Comment: Brosman - $250 to$100 for cats not wearing a pet license. Pet License Penalty Fees Councilman Corman questioned the current pet licensing and penalty procedures. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler informed that this correspondence has been referred to the Administration. She suggested that Council wait for the response, and then deternune if the matter should be referred to committee for discussion as to whether to change City Code. UNFIIVISHED BUSINESS Transportation(Aviation)Committee Chair Palmer presented a report regarding Transportation(Aviation) the proposed street name change of SW 41st St. to SW IKEA Way. The Committee Committee evaluated issues surrounding the proposed name change. Business Streets: Rename SW 41st St to response was mixed and almost evenly divided. Additionally,discussions with SW IKEA Way the Washington State Department of Transportation(WSDOT)concluded that WSDOT could not change the sign on SR-167 unless the street name was formally changed for the full length of the street. August 23,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 288 To make a balanced decision, the Committee also reviewed the contributions that IKEA has made to the City. These contributions are extraordinary and unique. Besides a major source of retail sales tax, IKEA contributes to the Renton School District,Renton Technical College,Renton River Days, and the Perfornung Arts Center. These contributions go beyond expectations and are important elements to creating a diverse and vibrant community. The Committee understands the concerns of the businesses along SW 41st St. At the same time,IKEA's contributions to the community at large affects hundreds of people and positively changes their lives through education,arts, and community festivities. Changing the street name is a way of recognizing these extraordinary and unique contributions. Consequently, the Committee recommended that SW 41st St. be renamed SW IKEA Way. MOVED BY PALMER,SECONDED BY BRIERE,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Councilwoman Palmer stated that IKEA did not ask for the street name change. The City offered this in preparation for IKEA's ten-year anniversary. She noted the City's surprise that some of the affected businesses objected, and emphasized that the City does respect and appreciate the small businesses. Ms. Palmer explained that IKEA has contributed to the community in many ways, and this is a way of recognizing those contributions. Airport: Apron C Utilities Transportation(Aviation)Cominittee Chair Palmer presented a report Project,2004 CIP Amend, recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve an 2004 Budget Amend amendment to the 2004 Capital Improvement Program for the Apron C Utilities project for the purpose of completing the final improvements due to changed conditions and a modified scope of work in the amount of$420>968 coming from the Airport Reserve Fund. The Committee further recommended that the Council appropriate and adjust the 2004 Budget for the Apron C Utilities project to$740,605. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY BRIERE,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning&Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report Committee recommending concurrence in the recommendation of staff to approve the Planning: Owner-Occupied extension and mddification of Owner-Occupied Housing Incentives for the Housing Incentive Extension Center powntown(CD)and Residential Multi-Family Urban(RM-U)zoning and Modification areas downtown(City Code 4-1-210 Waived Fees)to expire on 10/O1/2007, unless otherwise extended by the Council. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 291 for ordinance.) Annexation: Public Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report Meeting/Hearing Notices recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to continue to follow the legal requirements for annexation public meeting and hearing advertisements and postings, and to provide information to citizens as follows: • 10%Notice of Intent to Annex Petitions -the public meeting notifications to be mailed to the submitter and signers of the petition,will consist of a copy of the legal notice as advertised, a map of the annexation area, and a letter from the City Clerk requesting attendance at the public meeting. August 23,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 289 • 60% Annexation Petitions -the public hearing notifications to be mailed to all property owners in the annexation area, to all property owners within 300 feet of the annexation area, and to all other interested parties on record, will consist of the legal notice, a map of the annexation area,and a handout describing the annexation process and comparing services and tax implications for residents in unincorporated King County and in the City.* Councilwoman Briere stated that the recommended notification procedures will make it easier for the public to understand the annexation process. *MOVED BY BRIERE,SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCII.CONCUR IN THE COMMTTTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Finance Committee Finance Committee Chair Corman presented a report recommending approval Finance: Vouchers of Claim Vouchers 229387-229832 and four wire transfers totaling $2,972,758.30; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 52709-53093, one wire transfer, and 614 direct deposits totaling$1,939,377.94. MOVED BY CORMAN,SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. AJLS: Mayor City Vehicle Finance Committee Chair Corman presented a report recommending that the Benefit Modification Council authorize the modification of the Mayor's city vehicle benefit from a City-provided vehicle to a monthly vehicle allowance, for an annual savings to the City of$4,899.96. In addition to the financial savings to the City,this change will provide the Mayor with more efficiency in her travels to and from City events in evenings and on weeker.ds. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY LAW,COUNCII.CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Human Resources: Finance Committee Chair Corman presented a report recommending Reclassification of Seven concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the reclassification of the Positions following positions within the Administrative,Judicial and Legal Services Department, the Finance and Information Services Department,and the Planning/Building/Public Works Department: Lead Judicial Specialist,grade a10 to a15, $27,059 budget change through 2004; Community Relations Specialist,grade n 12 to n 15, $10,944 budget change through 2004; Accounting Supervisor,grade a13 to a19,$16,916 budget change through 2004; Utility Accounts Supervisor, grade al3 to a19, $15,419 budget change through 2004. The above changes are effective 1/01/2002. These reclassifications will not require additional budget appropriations. Construction Inspector II, grade a18 to a21, $33,485 budget change through 2004; Lead Construction Inspector,grade a21 to a24,$9,084 budget change through 2004. The above changes are effective 1/O1/2003. These reclassifications will not require additional budget appropriations. City Council Liaison,grade nl l to n12,$3,109 budget change through 2004. The above change is effective 7/O1/2003. This reclassification will not require additional budget appropriations. August 23,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 290 The Administration also recommended that the City Council allocate$116,016 from unallocated fund balance in the General Fund among the individual department's budgets to cover the additional costs of these reclassifications.* Councilman Corman said the Finance Committee concluded that ihe reclassifications were held in abeyance by the previous Adminstration,and the correct action is to apply these reclassifications retroactively. *MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY LAW,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler thanked Council for approving the reclassifications as presented, and noted that the funds were set aside at the first of the year from the ending fund balance. Public Works: Fitness Room, Finance Committee Chair Corman presented a report recommending Maintenance Shops concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the reprogramming of $25,000 from nine accounts to pay for the creation of a fitness room above the garage at the Planning/Building/Public Works Maintenance Shops. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. CAG: OZ-177,Fire Station#12 Finance Committee Chair Corman presented a report regarding the completion Construction,E Kent of the Fire Station#12 construction project(CAG-02-177). The Committee Halvorson concuned in the staff recommendation to authorize the Administration to approve the final pay application,to accept the completed project,and to start the 60-day lien period. After the 60-day period,the retained amount of $166,912.92 will be released to E. Kent Halvorson, Inc.,contractor, upon verification that all taxes have been paid and all liens resolved. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY LAW,COUNCII.CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Having been postponed until the end of Unfinished Business,the recommendation to approve Consent Agenda item 8.b was now again before Council: Postponed City Clerk reported bid opening on 8/18/2004 for CAG-04-098,Airport Apron Consent Agenda Item 8.b. C Utilities Electrical Conversion;three bids;engineer's estimate$393,605.76; CAG: 04-098,Airport Apron and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder, C Utilities Electrical Potelco,Inc.,in the amount of$360,372.69. Conversion,Potelco Inc Ms. Palmer explained that the funding for the project needed to be approved (see page 288)before going forward with the award of the contract. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 8.b. AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution#3711 A resolution was read approving the Honey Brooke Division III Final Plat; Plat: Honey Brooke Division approximately 4.42 acres located in the vicinity of NE Sth St.,Ilwaco Ave. NE, III,NE Sth St,FP-04-067 NE Sth Pl.,and Jericho Ave.NE(FP-04-067). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON,COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. August 23,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 291 Resolution#3712 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Transportation: Commute Trip interlocal cooperative agreement with King County entitled "Commute Trip Reduction Program Services, Reduction Act Implementation Agreement." MOVED BY BRIERE, King County SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COLTNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLi1TION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3713 A resolution was read authorizing providing a car allowance to the Mayor in AJLS: Mayor City Vehicle lieu of providing a City vehicle. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY Benefit Modification LAW,COLTNCII,ADOPT THE RESOLLTTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 9/13/2004 for second and final reading: Annexation: Tydico, 136th An ordinance was read annexing 9.61 acres of contiguous unincorporated Ave SE territory known as the Tydico Annexation,by the election method, setting the taxation rate, and fixing the effective date of the annexation. The site is generally bounded by the centerline of NE 3rd Pl., if extended,on the north; the centerline of SE 132nd St., if extended on the south; 134th Ave.,if extended on the west; and Bremerton Ave. NE(136th Ave. SE)on the east. MOVED BY CORMAN,SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCII.REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 9/13/2004. CARRIED. Annexation: Tydico,R-8 An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification of R-8 Zoning (Residential-eight dwelling units per acre)for the Tydico Annexation; 9.61 acres generally bounded by the centerline of NE 3rd Pl.,if extended, on the north;the centerline of SE 132nd St., if extended on the south; 134th Ave., if extended on the west;and Bremerton Ave. NE(136th Ave. SE)on the east. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CORMAN,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 9/13/2004. CARRIED. Annexation: Tydico,R-10 An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification of R-10 Zoning (Residential-ten dwelling units per acre)for the Tydico Annexation; 9.61 acres generally bounded by the centerline of NE 3rd Pl.,if extended,on the north;the centerline of SE 132nd St., if extended on the south; 134th Ave., if extended on the west; and Bremerton Ave.NE(136th Ave. SE)on the east. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 9/13/2004. CARRIED. Planning: Owner-Occupied An ordinance was read amending Section 4-1-210, Waived Fees,of Chapter 1, Housing Incentive Extension Administration and Enforcement,of Title N (Development Regulations) of and Modification City Code by extending and modifying the waiver of certain development and mitigation fees. MOVED BY CLAWSON,SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCII. REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 9/13/2004. CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 8:46 p.m. �3��,'� Gv�r�� Bonnie I. Walton, CMC,City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann August 23,2004 � � Exhibit B , � CERTIFICAT� I,the undersigned City Cl�rk�f the City of Renton,Was1�a�8ton,certify that this is a true and corr��t copy of , ��n tr�n C�tnu i l�t�hv�y�'1��,� ubscribed �-I ��'' ,- and sealed this�►�day of ►'�� 20 a� �� RENTON CITY COLTNCII. �� City Cterk Regular Meeting February 7,2005 Council Chambers Monday,7:30 p.m. M I N U T E S Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF RANDY CORMAN,Council President Pro Tem;DENIS LAW;DAN COUNCILMEMBERS CLAWSON;TONI NELSON;DON PERSSON;MARGIE PALMER. MOVED BY CLAWSON,SECONDED BY LAW,COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMEMBER TERRI BRIERE. CARRIED. CITY STAFF IN KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER,Mayor;JAY COVINGTON,Chief ATTENDANCE Administrative Officer;ZANETTA FONTES,Assistant City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON,City Clerk;GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator;ALEX PIETSCH,Economic Development Administrator;DON ERICKSON,Senior Planner;REBECCA LIND,Planner Manager;SHAWNA MULHALL,Development Manager; DEREK TODD,Assistant to the CAO;CHIEF LEE WHEELER and DEPLJTY CHIEF LARRY RUDE,Fire Department;CHIEF GARRY ANDERSON, COMMANDER CHARLES MARSALISI,COMMANDER KATIE MCCLINCY,COMMANDER TIM TROXEL,and COMMANDER KENT CURRY,Police Department. PROCLAMATION A proclamation by Mayor Keolker-Wheeler was read declaring the day of Rotary International Day- February 23,2005,to be"Rotary International Day"in the City of Renton and February 23,2005 encouraging all citizens to join in recognizing Rotary International for 100 years of service to improving the human condition in local communities around the world. MOVED BY LAW,SECONDED BY PERSSON,COLTNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION AS READ. CARRIED. Dr.Dolores Gibbons,Rotary Club of Renton President,accepted the proclamation with appreciation. She explained that over the past two years,the Renton Rotary Club has donated several hundred thousand dollars to local and international causes including the technology building at Renton Technical College,the Rotary Salvation Army Food Bank capital campaign,Rotary First Harvest(food gathering program),Communities in Schools,the Vision House capital campaign,and the City of Renton's Summer Camp and River Days. Additionally,Dr.Gibbons noted Renton Rotary's partnerships with the City of Renton for the Senior Activity Center Thanksgiving Dinner and with the Renton RotaCare Clinic. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Police Chief Garry Anderson explained that Washington State law enforcement Police: Special Olympics personnei are the largest contributors to the Special Olympics of Washington. Contributors&Employee Last year,police department employees statewide helped raise more than Recognition $275,000 for special athletes. Chief Anderson recognized the following Renton community members for their assistance in fundraising efforts for this program: Jeff and Melinda Lawrence,Whistle Stop Ale House owners;Renton Fred Meyer Store employees;and Renton DeMolay. Chief Anderson then announced the following Police Department Employees of the Quarter awards for 2004: February 7,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Pa�e 38 Employee of the First Quarter: no one was selected Employee of the Second Quarter: Dianne Ford,Traffic Controller Employee of the Third Quarter: Detective Christine Mathews Employee of the Fourth Quarter: Tina Harris, Domestic Violence Court Advocate Chief Anderson noted that Ms. Harris was also chosen as the Police Department Employee of the Year for 2004. Continuing, Chief Anderson presented Shirley Rickman, Crime Analyst, with the Chiefs Special Recognition Award for her exemplary analytical skills. Additionally,Tracy Wilkinson was recognized for his promotion to Sergeant. Finally, Chief Anderson announced that Officer Marty Leverton was the recipient of the first Distinguished Service Medal ever awarded by the Renton Police Department, for risking his (ife to rescue a woman who attempted to commit suicide. RECESS MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL RECESS FOR THREE MINUTES. CARRIED. Time: 8:02 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:05 p.m.; roll was called; all Councilmembers present except Briere, previously excused. PUBLIC HEARINGS This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Annexation: Mosier II, 142nd accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the Ave SE& 144th Ave SE public hearing to consider the 60%Notice of Intent to annex petition and R-4 zoning for the proposed Mosier II Annexation consisting of 31 acres, including the abutting street right-of-way, located between 142nd Ave. SE on the west and 144th Ave. SE(Jericho Ave.NE)on the east, south of NE 2nd St., if extended. Don Erickson, Senior Planner,explained that the original 35.24-acre petition submitted in June, 2003, was unsuccessful in achieving signatures representing 60°Io of the area's assessed value. The petition was resubmitted in June, 2004, for 10.40 acres. At the public meeting on August 23,2004, the Council agreed to expand the boundaries, increasing the annexation area to 31 acres. Mr. Erickson pointed out that as it stands now, if this area were annexed, a 13-lot subdivision located to the north of the annexation area will become an unincorporated island. Staff recommends including this subdivision with the annexation area by invoking jurisdiction at the Boundary Review Board and requesting its inclusion. Mr. Erickson stated that eight single-family dwellings exist on this relatively level site, and noted that a branch of Maplewood Creek runs southwest of the site draining wetlands to the west of 142nd Ave. SE. He reported that the site is served by Fire District#25>Water District#90, Renton sewer,and the Renton School District. Continuing, Mr. Erickson indicated that current King County zoning for the site is R-4 (four dwellings per gross acre). Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Residential Low Density, for which R-4 (four dwelling units per net acre) zoning is proposed. He noted that the site is one of three former R-5 sites grandfathered in as to density at a maximum of five dwelling units per net acre. February 7,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 39 Mr. Erickson stated that the fiscal impact analysis indicates a surplus of $28,249 at full development, assuming a potential of 118 single-family homes and an assessed new home value of$425,000. The estimated one-time parks acquisition and development cost is$66,077. In conclusion,he said the annexation proposal furthers City business goals> and is consistent with Renton policies. Public comment was invited. Brian Leitch, 14217 SE 136th St.,Renton, 98059, stated that his five-acre parcel is located directly south of the proposed annexation area, and he requested the inclusion of his property in the annexation. Mr. Leitch indicated that his property,consisting of two taxation parcels, is bounded by SE 136th St. on the north, and 143rd Ave. SE on the east. Mr. Erickson explained that staff is already requesting authorization to invoke jurisdiction at the Boundary Review Board to expand the boundaries for the subdivision to the north, and Mr.Leitch's property could be included in that request. Alex Pietsch,Economic Development Administrator, suggested that to allow for further staff investigation,the staff recommendation be changed to state "invoke jurisdiction at the Boundary Review Board requesting the expansion to more reasonable boundaries." Mayor Keolker-Wheeler clarified that the intent is to include the 13-lot subdivision,Mr. Leitch's parcel, and any other contiguous parcels that may want to annex. Alan Miller, 13568 139th Pl. SE,Renton,98059, expressed his concern regarding traffic flow along SE 136th St.,noting that the increased density along Duvall Ave. NE has led to increased traffic in this area. He also noted that the misaligned intersection of Duvall Ave. SE and NE 4th St. creates traffic problems. Pointing out that continuing SE 136th St. all the way through would result in increased traffic flow,Mr. Miller requested that continuation of the street not be allowed. Additionally,he expressed his appreciation for the R-4 zoning of the area. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler explained that this public hearing concerns the annexation proposal, and pointed out that citizens will have opportunity during the development process to express concerns regarding development issues. There being no further public comment,it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON,COUNCIL,ACCEPT THE MOSIER II 60%DIRECT PETITION TO ANNEX; SUPPORT R-4 ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT COMPREHENSNE PLAN � LAND USE DESIGNATION; AND AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO SUBMIT THE NOTICE OF INTENT PACKAGE TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD, INVOKE JURISDICTION AT THE BOLJNDARY REVIEW BOARD REQUESTING THE EXPANSION TO MORE REASONABLE BOUNDARIES,AND PREPARE THE NECESSARY REZONE AND ANNEXATION ORDINANCES. CARRIED. February 7,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 40 Planning: Medical Institution This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Definition,City Code accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the Amendment public hearing to consider City Code Title N (Development Regulations) amendments to the definition of"Medical Institution." Alex Pietsch,Economic Development Administrator, stated that a property owner and an interested business wanted to request a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone of a property to take advantage of a particular land use at a single location. Upon review of City Code, it was discovered that some of the existing definitions were out of date with evolving medical industry practices; thus a City Code amendment is being sought that will address this matter and also be applicable Citywide. Rebecca Lind, Planner Manager, explained that the proposed land use is for a holistic health clinic involving non-traditional medical practitioners and a short- term in-patient facility, with massage, non-traditional therapy,retail, and gardens as accessory activities. She indicated that the existing zoning code definitions of"Medical Institution," "Medical Office," "Office," and "Convalescent Facility" were not appropriate for this use; however, the definition "Medical Institution" most closely described the proposed activity. Ms.Lind pointed out that "Medical Institution" includes physical or mental health services,in-patient accommodations, medical and surgical care, and hospitals; and excludes medical and dental offices, convalescent centers, retirement residences, and group homes. Ms. Lind stated that staff recommends adding a definition of"Holistic Health Center" as a type of activity to the zoning code, and then add it into the "Medical Institution" definition as an included use along with hospitals. The new definition combines a number of activities intended for the improvement or maintenance of health, allowing both outpatient and inpatient care and various supporting accessory activities. Continuing,Ms.Lind explained that the proposed City Code amendment includes the holistic health activity within the "Medical Institution" land use. The amendment also continues the Hearing Examiner conditional use pernut for this type of land use activity in all zones. Additionally, the amendment includes moving the hospice facility from the "Convalescent Center" definition to the "Medical Institution" definition, and removing the term sanitarium from the "Medical Institution" definition. Public comment was invited. There being none, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW,COUNCIL SUSPEND THE RULES AND ADVANCE TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT ON THIS SUBJECT. CARRIED. Plannin� & Development Planning and Development Comrnittee Chair Clawson presented a report Committee recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve an Planning: Medical Institution amendment to the definition of"Medical Institution." The Committee further Definition, City Code recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first Amendment reading. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW,COUNCII, CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. February 7,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 41 ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2005 and beyond. Items noted included: � Last week, students from Renton High School helped put together a display in the lobby of City Hall showcasing Black History Month. The display will be featured through the end of the month. � A Fitness Pass Special is being offered through March at the Renton Community Center. A monthly pass is$19.95, and a one-year pass is $200. Rates vary for Renton residents, students and seniors, and non-residents. � As part of Renton's required 2004 Growth Management update, the City's draft Critical Areas Ordinance is now available for public review and comment either electronically on the City's website at www.ci.renton.wa.us or at the Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department on the 6th floor of City Hall. AUDIENCE COMMENT Roy Bala, 1416 NE 30th St.,#4,Renton,98056,expressed his interest in Citizen Comment: Bala- renting a house located on City-owned property at 1404 NE 30th St., which is House Rental Proposal, City- intended for future Fire Station#15. Mr.Bala stated that he submitted a Owned Property, NE 30th St proposal regarding the matter that includes improving the structure. He also noted that the Fire Department intends to seek a permit to conduct a practice burn on the house, and before that occurs, he asked Council to consider his proposal. Councilman Clawson stated that the income generation is appealing; however, there may be a request for proposals requirement. He suggested that the Administration investigate the matter. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler indicated that it would cost approximately $20,000 to bring the house up to code before it could be rented out. She explained that while the City has considered rental agreements with non-profit organizations, the City is not interested in renting to individuals. The Mayor stated that the City dces intend to demolish the house. Councilman Corman encouraged Mr. Bala to find other distressed properties to rent and fix up, especially if he has those types of skills. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of January 24, 2005. Council concur. January 24,2005 Appointment: Civil Service Mayor Keolker-Wheeler reappointed James Phelan, 2401 NE 24th St.,Renton> Corrunission 98056,and James Matthew,223 Garden Ave. N., Renton, 98055,each to the Civil Service Commission for a six-year term expiring 12/31/2010. Council concur. Appointment: Park Board Mayor Keolker-Wheeler reappointed Troy Wigestrand, 2102 Queen Ave. NE, Renton,98056 to the Park Board for a four-year term expiring 6/1/2008. Council concur. Streets: Nishiwaki Lane Administrative,Judicial and Legal Services Department recommended adoption Rename from N Riverside Dr of a resolution formalizing the Nishiwaki Lane street name change approved by Council in June, 2001. Council concur. (See page 44 for resolution.) February 7,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 42 Vacation: NE 4th St, City of City Clerk submitted petition for street vacation for portion of NE 4th St., east Renton, VAC-04-006 of Rosario Ave. NE; petitioner City of Renton (VAC-04-006). Refer to PlanninglBuilding/Public Works Administrator; set public hearing on 3!7/2005 to consider the petition. (See page 44 for resolution setting public hearing.) CAG: 04-145>Sunset Court Community Services Department submits CAG-04-145, Sunset Court Park Play Park Play Equipment, Equipment Purchase and Installation; and requested approval of the project, Landscape Structures authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of$66,580.43, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $3,207.15 to Landscape Structures,Inc., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. Community Services: City Community Services Department recommended approval of a contract with Center Parking Artwork, Richard C. Elliott in the amount of$45,894.11 for the creation, provision, and Richard C Elliott installation supervision of artwork for the City Center Parking garage. Approval was also sought for the total project budget of$52,774.11; funding for the total project budget is available from the 1% for Art Fund. Refer to Community Services Committee. Plat: Cedar Avenue,Wells Development Services Division recommended approval, with conditions, of the Ave S,FP-04-137 Cedar Avenue Final Plat; 50 single-family lots on 9.5 acres located in the vicinity of Wells Ave. S., S. 36th St., and Cedar Ave. S. (FP-04-137). Council concur. (See page 44 for resolution.) Planning: I-405 &Port Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Quendall Redevelopment, recommended acceptance of$300,000 in Housing and Urban Development HUD Grant Brownfield Economic Initiative(HCTD BEDI)grant funds for plans and designs related to the I-405 and Port Quendall redevelopment work. Council concur. Finance: Outstanding Balance Finance and Information Services Department recommended approval of two Search Fees&Special Water ordinances-one for new fees for utility outstanding balance searches, and one Meter Read Service Fees for new fees for special water meter read services. Refer to Finance Committee. Finance: Signatures for Finance and Information Services Department recommended approval of a Banking Transactions resolution updating signature authorities for depositories and electronic fund transfers for the City,due to personnel changes. Council concur. (See page 44 for resolution.) Finance: Information Finance and Information Services Department recommended approval of an Management Services,GM2 agreement for information management services with GM2 Systems (George Systems McBride) in the amount of$113,628 for 2005. Refer to Finance Committee. Plat: Kennydale Court, Hearing Examiner recommended approval, with conditions, of the Kennydale Edmonds Ave NE,PP-04-085 Court Preliminary Plat; 29 single-family lots on 4.38 acres located on the east side of Edmonds Ave. NE between NE 20th St. and NE 22nd St. (PP-04-085). Council concur. Lease: Kaynan Addendum Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an addendum to the #10,Airport,LAG-84-003 airport lease with Kaynan, Inc. to reflect an overall increase in the leased area, increasing the annual rent by $2,050 for a total of$25,945.59(LAG-84-003). Refer to Transportation(Aviation)Committee. Lease, Bosair Addendum#3, Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an addendum to the Airport,LAG-86-003 airport lease with Bosair,LLC to reflect an increase in the leased area and the Consumer Price Index-Urban rate increase,for a total annual lease of $15,89029 (LAG-86-003). Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. February 7,2005 Renron City Council Minutes Page 43 Lease: Bruce J Leven Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an addendum to the Addendum#7,Airport, LAG- airport lease with Bruce J. Leven to reflect the reduction of the leased area, 88-001 crediting the lessee approximately$2,173.17 for the difference from 1999 to present(LAG-88-001). Refer to Transnortation(Aviation)Committee. Transportation: FlexPass Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of a contract with Program,King County& King County, Sound Transit, and Pierce Transit to continue the F1exPass Sound Transit&Pierce Transit Commute Trip Reduction Program for City employees in the amount of $21,450 for 2005-2006. Council concur. (See page 44 for resolution.) MOVED BY CORMAN,SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was read from John&Stacy Tribble, 2106 Lyons Ave. NE, Citizen Comment: Various- Renton, 98059;Robert&Susan Oki, 2406 Lyons Ave. NE,Renton,98059; R-1 Zone Community Dennis Noland, 14326 SE 100th PI.,Renton,98059; Wayde Watters, 11608 SE Separators 286th St., Kent, 98030; and Julie Bonwell, 9616 146th Ave. SE, Renton, 98059; concerning the R-1 zone community separators, and expressing support for 50%contiguous mapped open space,reforestation of that open space, 35% limits on site clearing, and clustered development. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCII..REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Walser- Correspondence was read from Paul Walser, 817 Monroe Ave. NE,Renton, Variance Denial for Deck at 98056,regarding the denial of a variance to build a deck on the back of his Residence,Monrce Ave NE house. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COLTNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATION. CARRIED. Councilman Clawson commented that Council has no authority to overrule the decision,and Mr. Walser can pursue the matter via the appeal process. The Mayor noted the potential of the matter coming before Council on appeal, depending on what happens during the process. UNFI1vISHED BUSINESS Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending Finance Committee concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the contract with EDNSP: HoteUMotel Tax Hamilton/Saunderson Marketing Partnership,marketing consultants, for a Revenue Allocation to seventh year of the Renton Community Marketing Campaign, and partner with Community Stakeholders, other key community stakeholders by allocating$50,000 of hotel/motel tax Hamilton/Saunderson Contract collections towards that effort. The allocation will be leveraged with additional financial contributions from the Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department's "business recruitment" budget and other community agencies, organizations, and businesses to total $120,000. The Corrunittee further recommended that the Mayor and Citv Clerk be authorized to sign the contract.* Councilman Persson noted that the hoteUmotel tax is collected from the rental of hotel and motel rooms, and per State law,can only be used for purposes such as this. *MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Lease: Iron Mountain Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending Information Management, City concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the five-year lease Hall 4th Floor, LAG-00-003 amendment with Iron Mountain Information Systems, Inc., with options for two five-year extensions, for continued tenancy of the fourth floor of Renton City February 7,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 44 Hall. The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and Citv Clerk be authorized to sign lease amendment No. 2 with Iron Mountain Information Systems, Inc. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON> COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Plannin� &Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report Committee recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to set a public hearing Planning: Development date of 2/28/2005 for the 2004 Title N(Development Regulations)City Code Regulations(Title N)2004 docket and related amendments. This subject will remain in Committee for Docket Work Program further review and consideration. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Utilities Committee Utilities Committee Chair Corman presented a report recommending Utility: Water System Plan, concurrence in the staff recommendation to adopt the 2005 update to the Water 2005 Update System Plan and to forward the plan to King County and the Washington State Department of Health for approval. The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See later this page for resolution.) RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution#3734 A resolution was read renaming a portion of N. Riverside Dr. to Nishiwaki Streets: Nishiwaki Lane Lane in honor of Renton's Sister City relati�nship with Nishiwaki,Japan. Rename from N Riverside Dr MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COLTNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3735 A resolution was read setting a public hearing date on 3/7I2005 for vacating a Vacation: NE 4th St,City of portion of NE 4th St.,east of Rosario Ave. NE(Petitioner: City of Renton; Renton,VAC-04-006 VAC-04-006). MOVED BY CLAWSON,SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3736 A resolution was read approving the Cedar Avenue Final Plat consisting of Plat: Cedar Avenue,Wells approximately 9.5 acres located in the vicinity of Wells Ave. S., S. 36th St., and Ave S,FP-04-137 Cedar Ave. S. (FP-04-137). MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3737 A resolution was read authorizing signature for depositories and electronic fund Finance: Signatures for transfers on behalf of and in the name of the City of Renton. MOVED BY Banking Transactions LAW,SECONDED BY PALMER,COLJNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3738 A resolution was read au[horizing the Mavor and City Clerk to enter into an Transportation: FlexPass interlocal cooperative agreement with King County,Sound Transit,and Pierce Program,King County & Transit for the sale of F1exPasses to City of Renton employees by King County. Sound Transit&Pierce Transit MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON, COL7NCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3739 A resolution was read adopting the City of Renton's 2005 Water System Plan. Utility: Water System Plan, MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COLJNCIL ADOPT 2005 Update THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. February 7,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 45 The following ordinance was presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance#5124 An ordinance was read amending Sections 4-2-060,4-2-070, and 4-2-080, of Planning: Big-Box Retail Uses Chapter 2,Zoning Districts -Uses and Standards, and Section 4-3-100 of Design Guidelines &Urban Chapter 3,Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, and Chapter 11, Center Design Overlay Definitions, of Title IV(Development Regulations)of City Code by revising Regulations the Urban Center Design Overlay Regulations for development in the Urban Center. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW,COLTNCIL. ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCII.REFER ITS Council: Filling Council POLICY AND PROCEDLJRE ENTITLED "FILLING COLTNCIL Vacancies Policy(#800-10) VACANCIES" (#800-10)TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. CARRIED. EXECUTIVE SESSION MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL RECESS AND ADJOURNMENT INTO EXECUTNE SESSION FOR 30 MINLITES TO DISCUSS LTTIGATION WITH NO OFFICIAL ACTION TO BE TAKEN AND THAT THE COUNCIL MEETING BE ADJOURNED WHEN THE EXECUTNE SESSION IS ADJOURNED. CARRIED. Time: 9:07 p.m. Executive session was conducted. There was no action taken. The executive session and the Council �eting�djouC�:37 p.m. �/ (�/ Bonnie I. Walton,CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann February 7,2005 Exhibit C � King County Department of Assessments Scott Noble King County Adminislration Bldg. f�SSeSS01� 500 Fourth Avenue,Room 708 Seattle,WA 981042384 (2(16)296-5]95 FAX(206)296-0595 Emsil:assessor.lnfo(a�metrokc.=ov www.metrokc.�ov/assessor/ 1�l�TNEXATION PETITION CERTIFICATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the petition submitted September 20, 2004 to the King County Department of Assessments by Don Erickson, Senior Planner for the City of Renton, supporting the annexation to Renton of the properties described as the Mosier II Annexation, has been examined, the property taxpayers, tax parcel numbers, and assessed value of properties listed thereon carefully compared with the King County tax roll records, and as a result of such examination, found to be sufficient under the provisions of the New Section of Revised Code of Washington, Section 35.13.002. The Department of Assessments has not verified that the signature on the petition is valid through comparison with any record of actual signatures, nor that the signature was obtained or submitted in an appropriate time frame, and this document does not certify such to be the case. Dated this 22nd day of September, 2004 Scott Noble, King Co nty Assessor ��1202M Exhibit D MOSSIER II ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION The east half(1/2) of the west half(1/2)of the northeast quarter of Section 15,Township 23 North,Range 5 East,W.M., King County, Washington, lying southerly of the north line of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said subdivision; EXCEPT the east 30 feet of said subdivision lying northerly of the southerly right-of-way margin of NE 2"d St. (SE 132"d St.)extended westerly across Jericho Ave. NE(144`h Ave. SE); and EXCEPT the west 30 feet of said subdivision lying northerly of the southerly right-of-way margin of SE 132"d St. extended easterly across 142"d Ave. SE; TOGETHER WITH that portion of 142"d Ave. SE within the south half(1/2) of the west half (1/2) of the west half(1/2)of said northeast quarter, lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way margin of SE 132"d St. extended westerly across 142"d Ave. SE, said extension terminating at the beginning of a curve to the right with a radius of 20 feet; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of 144`h Ave. SE within the west 30 feet of the east half(1/2) of the northeast quarter of said Section 15, lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way margin of NE 2"d St. extended westerly across Jericho Ave.NE(144`h Ave. SE); and TOGETHER WITH that portion of SE 136`h St. within the north 30 feet of the east half(1/2) of the east half(1/2) of the west half(1/2)of the southeast quarter of said Section 15; and TOGETHER WITH the north 30 feet of the west 30 feet of the east half(1/2) of the southeast quarter of said Section 15. H:\File Sys\LND-Land Subdivision&Surveying Records\LND-01 -Legal Descriptions\0063.doc\SE1jw 0 0 th d St E13nd t n w � � � Q Q � > > � Q � o � U, �- � � � o � � SE 136th St w � � � Q � � d-- � Mosier II Annexation �`�� a�� .��.�.,�p.�.»«� Exhibit F1: Proposed annexation boundary 0 400 800 Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning �.' Alex Pietsch,Administrator G.Del Rosario 1 . i1 000 NT� 7 Apn12005 1 `'f� OLAKF.BOItEN �e C�� I' - - -LAKE WASHiNC70P1 i _ __ _ - _ _ ___ _� � � � P I O � �i I � � C��irq I / � b�� ,aa'.,F�y I `� ' � I � � I �i � I i �'� ' i i� i �� i � I . � I � U I i � I I � i i8 � i F �_ i I �, PANTHER LAICE j .� I I LAKEYOUNG$ Mosier I I An nexation �`��`p� k� �t��`�`� boM�an tM��DnI N(ormatbn aw�oW�rw�of tMY��Nown. Th'r mop is far dbplaY P��X Exhibit F2: Existing corporate limits 0 5000 10000 Eco�omic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning �O♦ Alex Pietsch,Administratw G.Del Rosano �NTO 7Apri12005 � . 60000 .= D AKF.I30RLN {' a 0 � - - - . �R�t . �.58 ' - - LAKE lKASFIRlG70N- ' � i �� 9W ��i 2� n A Y. ¢ _ ' � $ _ — .i � E Y Ref�� NE 4th St SE 12B St q d .y MS A✓ort Xb NE� � °frm��c Ky� 5 2nd St i ��P 4 i � a C��a �9d il V�` '��- �--t� , �ina ,�F°�ry SW 7lh 5t i �,� � Wa i 4j yq^ SW� y Rmton Ydlag 8 1 \� Z � � I S�r��t4 B1� � `� �u � ' TukMla kwy y 167 i 81 i Strander Blvd - I - �i ' 3 �� 515 ,� I� 3 � � 6 I � li $W 34 h S( i ' z PelmHtsky Ra �I � SW 41st St. 5 180th V S 179t I SW 13rd Sl. S� 'n �D � < J\ � ' � I �M / � _" I 3 �I PANTHERLAKE i �.� � , ��,�95�y ow ��" LAKE 7'Gl?JfiS M o s i e r i I A n n e x a t i o n Th"�"�� `�`��``�`� �� te wrwy oearx Ften0ed�la dty oNy md Do�sd�p Dn��fdma��dM tlob eliarn. Exhibit F3: Major streets and major physical features p 5000 10000 Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning ♦O♦ Alex Pietsch.AdmmisVator G.Del Rosario FpTo 7 April 2005 1 . 60000 I � _ __ - DLAKE BOREN I L __- _-__. _-_-_- '_ "-. ____ ____ �_ � i --- " -_- _- - M��K� . i - � STATION �nKs�r.srit�ma� - - � 1� I j ` i _ � , "_-->-< ' _ i $ r � � ATION ' 11 a i I � � ``� � STATION �_.� �'°� F 16 � � �� ' STATION � ! � 13 � � � I � �� STAT ON i 4 � - � w � � S F LAKE DESIRE I /� C] A "'— QSHADY LAKE IPANTHER LAICE � � Mosier I I An nexation ��`��°��`�`��°�� m ed m tM DM�N/pmalbn a�w o/tM tlote�hmm. ro a tar acaq,r wvo�.��x Exhibit F4a: Fire service area boundaries 0 5000 10000 Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning �.♦ Alex Pietsch,Administrator G.De1 Rosario NT� 7 April 2005 1 . 60000 1 �, ' �LAKE BOIiFN j CRc ` M' -_- --_- _- -__. _ - -- . - "-- .. - . ---.-- _- . "_ - �- --�---- — —- -- � - -- - - �---�--_--.--GAICE�pnSti[iic7otg: - - - � � i _-___-_ __ I � � I A I I � I I I . Cq�i �Q i � .. �.s,ri ��•`FO� � AKE � � I \ 2 � I I i' \ , I I i I �� t i � � I � V I i � LAKE DESIRE � I 1� I � � � SHADYLAKE PANTHERLAKE � �� I Mosier II Annexation Th6 docums�l in a apr�n�bptuiorpnw,nsost quarmtw0 Eo��l�anY flr��Iw�wPaN�o�of tl��iYAob Mown. Thb miq a hr diapleY pvpoan oMy Exhibit F4b: Sewer service area boundaries 0 5000 10000 Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning �O• Alex Pietsch,Administrator G.Del Rosario N�fO 7 April 2005 � . �OOOO . ' �LNCF.R(�RFN COAL CREHC ATER & SEWER DIST. ' ros+mo� ��' _ ___ .. . _ _ ___ __ _ _ __ �n��,K � "_ �I .___ _ __ ____ _ ___ _ __ _ _______ _ _ _____". _'_ ___ _ _'_________ _ ' _ _ _ '_ _ _ __ _' ' _ ________________ _ ' ' __ _ . . _ ' '___ _ _____'�_- - �� '� '-- -' - '�'LAKfi W.45H[_N(i(OW--- - -_- � � � - - -_ _ _ - - � _ ' ' ' ' _ _ _ __ ' _ � � BRYN MAWR � , IAKERDGE - �� WATER 8 - ' SEWER DIST. i �� ATBt DISTRKT 90 ; SKYWAY WATHt � I At� SEWER DISTRICT � an-».ro � s�rnF AT9t DBT. SEATiIE WAIHt OBT. (�aWY i i . c�,� . a laG� s-�.��S�-1 �J��,�� I 11 � i " � ASMtTA 1 � AA iT{IW A� � MAlINY00C Mpllp� WA19�OqBAAVE � rob'�+n I pTY i OF CEDAR RIV9t WATHt ANO I �W�� SEWBt DIST. � � � • � i � � � e S 5 CR�C i W TB! AI�D i SEW DISTRICT au� CiTY � �� F ��. w¢�oa P.4NTNERLAKE � Mosier I I An nexation Th��°��Y�`��`��°`� ��.a.��,��;�.�.,�. mo mao�.w a�r owv�a�x Exhibit F4c: Water service area boundaries 0 4500 9000 ti Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning ♦O• Alex Piefsch,Admmistrator G.Del Rosario 1 : 54000 NTO 7 April 2005 � DlnKt HORf.N _ _ _ _ -- ___ M*�K� - �� .� � -bAKE-1YA5!i1NG70ti� - �� , -� --_ _ . _-- � � � ' _� __ �s�1 ! � '', _- ___. � I � q I A , A I ' O � � • i �' ' .�.. .� . � I �� , Cq�, . I < � =�ci.',,.40�� ( � I � n �AKE � � �• � / � I { R 1 � . I ; ``�� I � � ` I ` � � � I � �� _ .� i � � I J �� - . — .� �i � � . _ .I - • � � LA!�ESIFtE I € r � - �� : � �� f!� I . _ t� I � \ � � F I ! � � I PANTHER LAICE . � ._� � • —y � � '� � r� • IAKE YOUNGS ,._._ I I • � Thi Axum�nt b a armhk rapmnyal��:�'y ta s0 Mos�er II Annexat�on °��,�°�.��. n,4 m�o ra�a.aar a•v��x Exhibit F5: King Co. UGA and Renton PAA 0 5000 10000 Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Shategic Planning ♦.• Alex Pietsch,Adminisvator G.Del Rosario � To �^�,�2�5 1 : 60000 � , , � DLAKF.f30REN � 1 - � _� ��_� -.. � _ 6� ' - - ------ - - ��> C I -- - = -' _ _ - � - ---- - - -= -=---LAr.�yvr_sr+�cioi�-_:c": - - -_ i � - -- --= .--_-_-_-- I � i --_ -'--_-_--__ -__-- j =--_ --_ -- - I I � a e P I � I � � I I I i . C� . � • O � �� a� pap" � 1 $ � � � \ ( �� o- i i � 3 v ( (� 0 R ""' PANTHERLAKE I ILAf.E YGUN(3S Mosier II Annexation ��t�°��`�.�`�Y�°� ��a��ti,��o..�;,�.�.��. �Y W�7� � Exhibit G: Proposed corporate limits 0 5000 10000 Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning ♦O♦ Alex Pietsch,Adminiurator G.Del Rosario TO 7 Apri12005 1 . �0000 i �J-'�'.yO�Pi�� Oi��+�Oi�i�i�i�i�i� �� ii�i:':�i:!i!i!i%i:!i'i i:: •�. •��• �� ..�.•., �'� � ��.�.�y,.�•��•�♦ • • •• • �•r ��_�i�i�i�i�i�i�i� ��i::'::�i i��i i�i 0'', s . .��-"6�::.�i` �!'�'i v�'��i��0'.'��'�'v�� >'.'vv� - - I� _ � •��• �i�i::'��i��•.i�i4i – �i i�i�i��0.�0��'��i0:i0��i i� ��.c��r.o• • I •, ��, •�,��._.%.�y p� A �Q �i�i:�i�i�i��:iii � � ' • � �i i�i o��!:�i�y:�`��: e V ]! i �Oi�.i�i�i�r.�� i .�•.: ��.��• �•��-'-��•��• � � 'i'i'..•i'i i=•::'i � � �i�i�-��i�i�i�i i�i �• ��.-.��--o♦ � � � ��..��..�� 'i��r�� . � �i�i��i��i�i'�'i�i�i ��,.,.��.�,n♦ I . � �i�i i�i�i��i i i I �i�O:4�i�i�Oi�i�i I �i�,i:�i�i�i�i�i�i'��i i%:�:��%.'i�i�i!i�i� ��. �.�.�.fA.1 , I I I� i ' �L� ,� �� , � � _ � �� .�� - �,� � : ,_� �� ' •y � �3�i ' � i r = ��"��'`�. s � � � 1�� ' ��t � ��t �� ,�j�l�. � , e,ii��`, ��1. J.e��.�� i' �1'.�, r dr.� _ � � I�s'4��►�/ � ♦♦ , �-�'�P ��►-_y�,• � ��. :.fr�� '� � • 1�;�'�`• :1►:�� , a� '�' ��e �_'��' � .:�_.s's`i__ � '�� • '� ,,� '`7' � r R ��f'i+��i � -r� '.�� V3�7 ��:SSY� �,�1iti i�iS`r��'�i��'4 �"�'�j � ��5�� 'iE�'L � �.7_�ia!i!��:'$'i:i�� O��N10L�� .J� •�'��y�� ► �ii�b"�i�i�i��i9Ti i�i"S-r. r•y i �Vi �� •��0��d� � � Y ..� , , O �`��i�'+R�'.'iS Ai�� y�ir�►;�ti�� • • �• ♦ • •• • I • i ♦ • �•s• • '� �i Oi�if�ir'i�i��i�'�• �� ♦ i��i • �d • �.�!��L�i��.t:y�i��.� �i` • r��• • • r ��i, •♦ • b • � • i'• • �� r�yc�i�r�-�= r�..� '�i�J'�tii�'�Oi !►�t�►e�i r i ♦• �i-��'��i -r • •�r ♦• ��• i�. f� f� �. •• •Oi • • � �i P .��♦ �f► .••• ��.� ' • .�� p'i�� .Qi J��J��i�'�* �� ,•',�ry�� t'�• • •• • •� i�i • .s��.d L',� i�;',� • �' �r� � (� � � • • �i'�lPii��O��y i Di 'i`.:� �-�-�'r.'��i�'� �� ♦ ��,��.�9► � • � • �i�y�i�i,iii i�iTi9 0i�� p��i�•��,��:9�`'�:� • i• 7 r � • � 3i��y•�� i�P 4S!i}!i`v'yY,�*i'ti�i�i�'Ji�Pi�'�i' O,�' � � �i ��i�f S�i_��.►.►3��i� .�is.ws.��i►� y � r � ��' •ai�v��v-� �i�i i�i�i 3i�i� �'�"�P r��i 6 • ' � � � V Pi�• S,� • �i�y`i�i 0��.'i�i��'�ifi' • E��"ri ► - � � � �'� ��9��• ��i�i��i�S�i��O��?i�.��i �• • • •.�d d• • • 0 • �0�.'.. - . - - , �..��..•��f.�.��r,�,r��•.��.�• .��; ti•..�.-.�►-,.:.< . . �, _��.�..59�.. a��i��i��,��a��►J'ea��i�%i�i a0�i��i`�iti�i � � ��i i� ��i� ,� � � �v-��v-rrs-�'s-:. � i��i��r��fr0��iY��:i�i i�i�O�i i✓��i�i�i�i�i��" �- ��r� '``_!'-��,►. ��L r �i ��i .��: �i��i�fi�i��O• •�� O�►��i'i�'��i�►��ri��i'y�i�r�� G"• '�i'�r rir�r�y-��7.i��.� , 1) b'i'i�i�i�i��'�di�iM��fiO�ii��i is i�•i'i i�ili�i'i i�%i�i�rir�iO�Pi i�i�i�i"i��'i�i i i�i•i�i�.��' i!iL�� '.r";��'-'f�i�✓'i�i�r� •��• di�i'Pi�i�i�i��i�i��i�i�i�i��i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i'0i�i�i�i�i�i�i��i�i��i�i�i��i�i�l��i�i.�i�i��i�i�i�!!�. •r'y P ��i��i�• �� • I � �i�,rif�'i'i��ib�i�i�i:�ii,��%i ii�ii'i�i'i��i i'i'i'i�i�i'��i s'i i i'i'i'i'�i�•�Q�.��O,�i'��i 0�,��yd��ir�}t►��fff�i�i'�� •��• •�• ♦ 0 di •��• ��a��d.,��, �� • O�� • � O � ��'i'i�i4'��'i�i�i�i�i�9�i�'�i�'i�i i�i��i��i!��ti:�i�i�Pi'��+��i�__:: !fa n_. �_�.!�1 ��'i,��i�'i Pi��iP��+►A ' ' �i i��i s�i�i�'0��i��1�i��i�i�i'i'i�i�i�o�i��i i�i�i'�i��i'i J��i�i i�i��O�i�i�'�i��•y��'�i�i �i��i0� � �"� �i�i.��j� �• �� i 4�i�i�i�i�i�i�00��i��i��i�i��60��4�O�i4��!0��40��df�r�i riir►ti�� id 4��if�4�i.yc� ��t f�� i �i%%%%�%%i��%i�i�i i •i i��i�ii��i�i�i'i�O��i�i i�i'i�i�Oi��i�•�i� y%S��ir� �i�ia ��{, '4>� �� i��i�i�i'��sO�i�iO��yi�i��► i�0��1 ♦��..i i�Pi�i��'��i�i,i�i��Wi�i�}i�'�i.��!�y��7i�y�� i i�i i�i i�i i��%i!�i�Ori��r�ip�i��`i��'i'Oi��'��i*i��0: ►:.�i"i►3_• ��$� ��J�r.�t�� i� • Ji��Pi�Oi�i�iti� �0A�0�i ��Oi i�i�i�i�i i�i��i�i!y�i�i��i'-�-'i •�'�• � •�-r�r... �Ii�:� ►�i ♦ ��i ��i� �O��i 5�s�� • •��i�i��i� �i�if � Yi�• � •y�� 'r � ��i�0yi�ii• •P�• ♦ •Ii�• •��Pi'i�• • • �i � • ? �i ► � • �i�i�i�i�i�yi��O�i1yi�i•r�a•��`',�'•*rr•g•,•�•�•�•�•�•�•�•��•��►��i��O��ir� f � � '��`�'. � ��4�i�i��i�i�i i i��iy fi�i�i�s��i�i�ifPiP�i�i�ti�i��i�i�i'i��i�i�i�i �i� �i��i��• y�y�i� �iO�i ti �iiSO��yiti�i%%��r�'y i'�?i%Oi 1�i'i'�i�%ri Pi�i'i�i�i��,�Ri'��..':'*✓�i'�b'C'O�'tid.'r'f �� i ii �i'r - ��i�ii��i�r`►��?i • e- •� •�.�i�i�'��i.��I�i�O�f• �i! .tii .i�S r��',� •�S�i��yi i�i�i�i�i�i i�i��i�i��i��iO1i�i��'i'ii�i��i��i�i�i�i i��i�y Oi�i�i��i��I`"�I�►f�r �i ��i��i3Ti�� tiil�i�f�i�i�i�i��i��f��p��y�• ��Ii�i� �. � ' I ��►'�' �-r�-�ti•�' ` . ,� •��i►•••�•�.•��•�•��•�•�.��•�•�•��•�"L'.'�•J:.di�i•'?•.�•�s S��;�•�4�iDO��Y�A'�'i�' .r• � ; �Si•y:i•��•�•.�.; •�iO�itia�I��i��f��i�i�i i�ifdii�%%%:!,%%%i�/�%%i�%��s��i��"�'�•9�'i'�'ii.'•Y.��.� ��`��i'••, i�i��%��i��i i% • •�04�• �ri'• •s�•��i��Pi •• '�� 4• �i��Y P•�y � �► �PW�i • ��:�•fi�1��.?��Si��i�w�i�%�t!%i��v i"�i i�iS i�i i��i��r:��i0i..i� ,�''� ' �i i��d�i�P��,�iwi , •• fi •��• • � �• •�• •fA�i• �f�.rA�• ��r' � •✓�� y�� • i i�i�i��i�'i'� 7! O��"i• �r�•�=i►=.;�'::�.��i�i��i�i�d��i�� Oii�0• `'yfi' r'�i�. •�P�i�� ,'✓�•.ir��i.��'�.dff o�:r•�i► ❖.❖.•0.:0•o�'�r•.�.,.,.�.��.,.�..r��I�s�'�: .��..d_s��i�!�P,�.��.. � �� J •�.p• �r��J�i�O��ii��''�''�r.;,�,.r,.r�fi�0i�d�idv�i�� y♦ �r�T�ji vr i Oi�i'-� ��ii��f��dO��P�•i��i��i��i��O��P��i�i��i�i�P�4�� i�� `��1��I�r6 ��r��i��fi��y• �� f��f��f y��e��di9��ii�Js �i �' •i P ��"�� d�� •�i�i�i i �i'�i��i�i�i�i�ii' �'��i9�'��i�0 i'�i��i��i��i��'i�i • � '+�- j��Oi�I'�• ♦ I •�j��i�i�iPrr��i�i�ii4��0��i��i��r��df �� • � �i��`Ii e�.P- �� • �i�i��✓��,��►��p��i�i��i,�� y�� i�d��i � �i+��ji,'��d • ��i �1 i i��i�i�i'��i�ij0-'i�is��i�f-�i�i�i��i�i i��i�•��i'i iO��irYfi� ��i'_•.��!�ii'�1�Z�t'•�. � •� i�i'��i��i i��i�i�i�0ii�I . O�'`i�iR��i�i�i��f1�4�i��i�f0i��i�i�i �i � � � ., f� ��•��' •��LsI •r� t�I��♦ •O��♦ •�� PP.�i . �� iy� 1��Ye'.F� ��o�arir��i � ��d��y�i�i y0i�i�il!��i r4�0i� � M �i �� •.^ • ��i�i��%�i�f'� ��r��✓O�i��i��i�i�i��i�P'di.� �► • • �6 if �i _ �f:�'�d�i!i�i��i��' ��,�,�i��i�i�O�i�i��Irf��`�,, ��i .Y��;�,, .��, � ��id��S�� • i ��.�• "y1i .�i$�L��,�d Oi 0 i��i Of� �i'�+'�i!0 •I�� •R��, r!�i��i��L�:�. i:.�,O�s��i��%ii��:�ii�i�Vi�ii�� ♦ • �i�t• • !��i'J�i i i��i�di�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�• •�� •'�i!i?i i�i�i!��:$r.��.::ri��i�yi��i�i O��i i'L��i�� s��a�� i�� : � �� 3ti��' ��•�i�i i�i�i�%i��JP�i i i�i ii•i i i i�i�s:�::':':�:!f�i�i�i��i��iiJi�i`�i�i�i�i�!i��r��-�-��.�.�.d�i.�.�::..�.��:��i��-��i!�.��.�d��'��:�.t�S�`J:rJN�'f0i1 • �. i�i��i Oi i�i��O'iO�i�Oi�i'i i�i�i'�O�i�i�i�i�i�i�i i�i�i i�i��i i� ��i��i'�iM�i�i i'�i OP��i'v��--r�+�►- �� i��i�i�i�i�i�iri'i�i�0i'��i�i��Di�i i�i'Oi�i�i�i�i�i'��i�i�i�i�i�� O O�i Y �j��f0�i�i��O• � i'�ii��►S��•��r►�� • • �i� ��0��I�i�f��d,. ��i�i�i�i��i��di�i�� O � . ��d�.�.�Oi�_•S►_•_' ��i��i��i0i��i�' ��S� � •��I�!�i r'�� • , :;:.��r�'':�.r��:_:::%�%��%�i�i�i'��i':O�ii'i'i�i�ii�AiO%i 1�� ,'M� � ��.fr�A�f.PI�.�J�� 1 ' �`; �i`� �'��i�i�i�1 r ••�••� '�d��s�iDs'Oi i�i'O��i�i�i�i A. • ��i �o ' � ��,� '� �'I�� i �� i��s�i�i�i�i�y:•O�•r:':•::::❖::.•d.;.�'.;.;.j.;..•:•:'i❖:�ii�i�i • �i1,� � ��y •, r�.a� � ��i ii�:�:i•i•i'i'i':•i':❖'i��0i'P�`•i'i❖:'i'i'O:O:•i•i i� , �i s�,� ' f' � i �' •• �•�♦��✓i�ri��• d♦ ♦• � '�*� � ,'',�� ii i� �i,� �i � i�ii �� ri ri�i'i'i�i'�'��ZiR��O��'��i��i��y�ri�• � � il 1�,i � i��i i �� i / Oi�i�3�•'r'•S.tiW.�'r.,o.r,.;rf•.:❖:;• �O�M�� i • � • � � � •i��'��0��kili��Odi�O Y�� J��i�si Pi'�y�i i�'�'0tiy�iti�i tii ��i d , yi��i Oi •• ��'i• • • � � ��i�'��If�i ia:'�r4'tif`�� 'i� � I � ''��'� �� `:'�.��::�•�':�L':e��':�'a�.�'�a�'•�:�e :�� •• , ►� .. � � � . . I � r � • • - � ` . • - � - • . • � � � • � � • � � �- - �� .�:::;.�>•,,. _ _ � - : : . -: � . : ..�..:�•::•::::•:•:;•::•::•:•:>::•::•::�>;:;� . . . . .„ �. , ��;:�;<:::,>:;.::::::; , • � �• �� . r t -= Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County Yesler Bi�ildirig, Roorrt 402, 400 Yesler Way, Serzttle, WA 98104 Phorie: (206) 296-6800 • Fax: (206)296-6803 • http://wwzv.irietrokc.gov/anriexrrtiorrs .�- '�..,�.� „ April 18, 2005 �� '� � 0 �� ,�.��:� r.�. . . _i`:,"'i. , City of Renton Attn: Don Erickson, AICP Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: SUMMARY File No. 2195 - City of Renton - Mosier II Annexation Dear Mr. Erickson: Enclosed is the Summary prepared by Boundary Review Board staff for the above-referenced Notice of Intention. The Summary will be sent to the Boundary Review Board members, along with the Notice of Intention, as part of the agenda packet for the next regular monthly Board meeting. If you see any corrections or clarifications which should be made in the Summary, I would appreciate hearing from you at (206) 296-6801. Sincerely, Lenora Blauman Executive Secretary Enclosure: Summary FORM 11 SUMMARY FILE NO. 2195 Thomas Guide Map No. 656 Date Received: 04/12/OS Date Distributed: 04/13/05 ENTITY City of Renton Date Filed: ACTION Pefition for Land Annexation Expiration 45 Days: OS/27/05 TITLE Mosier II Annexation Board Meeting: 05/12/OS Location The Mosier II Annexafion is located on the east side of the City of Renton. The southern boundary of the site is generally formed by SE 2nd place/SE 136th Street. The northern boundary of the site is generally formed by NE 2"d Court (if e�ctended.) The eastern boundary is formed by 144th Avenue SE/Jericho Avenue NE and the site is bordered on the west by 142"d Avenue SE. Portions of the western boundary of the site and portions of the eastern boundary of the site abut the existing City of Renton. Land Area Approximately 31 acres Land Use Ex�•stinq: 8 single-family homes. Esfimated Future: Approximately 110- 124 total residences Population Existinca:Approximately 10-20 persons Estimated Future: Appro�mately 275—310 total persons Assessed Valuation Ex�•stinq: $2,080,000. Estimated Future: $51,380,000 County Comprehensive Plan Designation Urban Residential Use(4—12 dwelling units per gross acre) County Zoning Residential (R-4—4 dwelling units per gross acre) City Comprehensive Plan Proposed: Residenfial Use City Zoning Proposed: Residenfial (R-4 Zone: maximum 4 dwelling units per net acre) Note: The Mosier ll Annexation Site was vested with R-5 zoning which wou/d permit an estimated 124 units) District Comprehensive Plan City of Renton Comprehensive Water&Sewer District Plan District Franchise No franchise is required. . . SUMMARY (File No. 2195) The City of Renton proposes the annexafion of 31 acres, known as the Mosier II Annexation. This annexation was proposed under the 60% petition method), pursuant to RCW 35A.14. Renton City Council adopted the petition for annexation in February of 2005. The Mosier II Annexation is located on the east side of the City of Renton. The southern boundary of the site is generally formed by SE 2"d Place/SE 136th Street. The northern boundary of the site is generally formed by NE 2"d Court (if extended.) The eastern boundary is formed by 144th Avenue SE/Jericho Avenue NE and the site is bordered on the west by 142"d Avenue SE. Portions of the western boundary of the site and portions of the eastern boundary The unincorporated area is included in the "Annexation Element"of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and is located within the Renton Potential Annexation Area. The proposed action is consistent with City of Renton Comprehensive Plan policies addressing annexation, including those provisions which call for inclusion of urban areas within the City and provision of services to incorporated areas (e.g., LU-1; LU-36; LU-37; LU-41; LU-42). The Mosier II property owners are seeking annexafion in order to develop properties under City of Renton regulations and to receive public services (e.g., sewer senrices) from Renton. Presently the area includes eight single-family residences. At full development, Mosier II would include a total of approximately 110- 124 homes. The City of Renton has planned for growth at this level of urban density and has established standards to guide ongoing uses and new development on the Mosier II properties following annexation. Annexation would also permit protection for environmentally sensi�ve areas (e.g., storm water/flood management). More specifically,the City of Renton is prepared to provide development review and environmental review to the annexation area based upon local, regional and state regulations for protection of environmentally sensitive areas. The City of Renton can directly provide (or contract for) urban services to the area. For example, the City of Renton would provide police services. The City will provide sewer senrice;d'storm water management� . The Ciiy will continue to contract with Fire Protecfion District No. 25 to provide fire service and emergency service. King County Water District No. 90 will continue to provide water service to the Mosier II Annexation Area. Library facilifies and recreation facilides would be available to the community. Children would attend schools in Renton School District No.403�r� ^ ' t No._� The City of Renton reports that the proposed annexation conforms to the State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.) For example,the annexation is supported by RCW 36.70.20,which requires community planning goals, for urban growth, services and infrastructure, and environmental preservation. Additionally, the application reportedly is consistent with RCW 36.70A.020 (1), encouraging development in urban areas where there are adequate public services. It is also consistent with RCW 36.70A.020 (12), which calls for pub�ic services to support permitted development. Annexation would also permit development of primary land uses and corollary public services (e.g., roadways) envisioned in the Act. Environmentally sensitive areas would also be presenred under the provisions of this annexation. Further, the Mosier II Annexation is reported to be consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan. Following are examples of King County Comprehensive Plan/Countywide Planning Policies that are addressed by the proposed Mosier II Annexation: FW-13:Cities are the appropriate providers of Iocal urban services to Urban Areas. LU-31: The County should identify urban development areas within the Urban Growth Area LU-32: The County should encourage cities to annex territory within their designated potential annexation area LU-33: Land within a city's potential annexation area shall be developed according to local and regional growth phasing plans U-203: Population growth should be encouraged in Urban Growth Areas U-208: Land capacity shall be provided for residential, commercial and industrial growth U-304: Growth should be focused within city boundaries. The proposed Mosier II Annexation is reportedly consistent with the provisions of RCW 36.93(Boundary Review Board Regulations). City of Renton officials note that, following the Mosier II Annexation,there would be some remaining adjacent unincorporated urban areas that are within Renton's Potential Annexation Area. The City anficipates that, in the near term, these areas will be proposed for annexation to Renton. City officials report, however,that the currently proposed Mosier II Annexation would be consistent with Objective 1, which calls for the preservation of neighborhoods. This area is linked to east Renton by social fabric (e.g., similar land uses and open spaces, shared sense of community) and by natural/built geographic features (e.g., relatively flat to gentle sloping terrain). This annexation would also be consistent with Objective 3, which calls for creafion of logical senrice areas, and Objectives 4-7,which call for the achievement of reasonable boundaries for a jurisdic6on. Local residents have petitioned for annexation in order that all senrices and land use regulations affecting their area may be efficiently coordinated by a single local government unit. This annexafion would also be consistent with Objective 8,which calls for inclusion of urban areas within municipalities. The City of Renton has conducted fiscal analyses related to the proposed Mosier II Annexation. There are sufficient funds to serve the area. The addition of Mosier II is not expected to have a signiflcant impact on revenue or upon cost and adequacy of senrices, finances, debt structure or rights of other govemmental units. Upon annexation, property ov�rners will assume their share of the regular and special levy rate of the City for capital facili�es and public services. At present development, City expenditures are estimated at$10,994 and revenues are estimated at$9,561. At full development,City expenditures are estimated at $181,188 and revenues are estimated at $210,007. Future capital needs and costs will be examined and funded through the Renton Capital Investment Program. The City of Renton supports this annexafion in orde� to serve citizens of the area. New residential development and coordinated services would reportedly be consistent with goals and objectives established for the benefit of the greater Renton community. Urban Growth Area(UGA) The site is located within the Urban Growth Area as identified under the State Growth Management Act, King County Comprehensive Plan and City of Renton Comprehensnre Plan SEPA Declaration The proposed annexation is exempt from SEPA pursuant to RCW 43.21 C.222 ENTITIES/AGENCIES NOTIFIED: King County Council Member(s) Dwight Pelz; Reagan Dunn King Gounty: Clerk of Council, Qepartment of Assessments, Fire Marshal, Health Division, State Department of Ecology, Puget Sound Regional Council, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) Cities: Not Applicable Fire Districts: King County Fire Protection District No.25; City of Renton Fire Department Water Districts: King County Water District No. 90; City of Renton Water Utilities Department Sewer Districts: City of Renton Sewer Department School Districts: Renton School District No.403; Issaquah School District No.411 -� Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County Yesler Buildirig, Room 402, 400 Yesler Way, Senttle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 296-6800 • Fnx: (206)296-6803 • http://zvwzv.tnetrokc.gov/rtrtrtexcrtiorts �... � ° April 18, 2005 ' ��`'��-� , � �"��-�-.. CORRECTED COPY - DESTROYED ALL OTHERS �: ;, ,.�� City of Renton � Attn: Don Erickson, AICP Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: SUMMARY File No. 2195 - City of Renton - Mosier II Annexation Dear Mr. Erickson: Enclosed is the Summary prepared by Boundary Review Board staff for the above-referenced Notice of Intention. The Summary will be sent to the Boundary Review Board members, along with the Notice of Intention, as part of the agenda packet for the next regular monthly Board meeting. If you see any corrections or clarifications which should be made in the Summary, I would appreciate hearing from you at (206) 296-6801. Sincerely, ��',�.u-�.`J Lenora Blauman Executive Secretary Enclosure: Summary CORRECTED COPY - DESTROY ALL OTHERS FORM 11 .. * Annexation Review Form [X] 10% Notice of Intent [ ] 50% Annexation Petition TO : Building Surface Water Utility Fire Water Utility Parks Wastewater Utility Police Transportation Public Works Maintenance Current Planning FROM : Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Pl�� ., _ u _ � �� ,;�� : a SUB.IECT . Mossier Annexation � JUL 2 3 �pp,� � 3 Location : This proposed + 31 acre annexation area is located b�tv��"��.�'��`!-��ti"� � Avenue SE on the west and Jericho Avenue/144th Av�i��:�o�t"the�n: < ; east. It is bordered by SE 136`h Street on the south and abuts the City boundary on the north. Date Circulated: Julv 14, 2003 Comments Due: Julv 18, 2003 General Information Area : Street length : Assessed Value : Estimated Population : Current Uses Residential : Commercial : Industrial : Public : Comp Plan Designation : Future Uses: : Future Po ulation � Reviewing DepartmenUDivision: PBPW/ Utilitv Svstems—Surface Water Utilitv 1. Does this annexation represent any unique or significant problems for your The proposed Mossier Annexation is located in the Maplewood Creek Sub-basin of the Cedar River Basin. There are existing drainage problems within the Maplewood Creek sub- basin, downstream of the proposed annexation area. Maplewood Creek drains across the Maplewood Golf Course and into the Cedar River. These problems consist of flooding, erosion due to increased stream flows caused by urbanization, water quality and degraded fish habitat. Recommend requiring use of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual level 2-flow control for any new development within the proposed annexation area or stricter standard to minimize increases to downstream impacts. The area is relatively undeveloped. Th is an lassified stream within the ro osed annexation area. It would be robabl a Class b the ' ' ical areas or inance standards. since there is flow in it only during the rainv season. The open (Over) � . � channel of the stream should be maintained in the future when the site, upon which it is located, is developed. Wetland reports for the properties within the proposed annexation area my be needed to verify if wetlands are present, at the time of development review. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the area? The King County Drainage problem and complaint inventory identifies drainage problems within the areas adjacent to proposed annexation area related to flooding. The reported drainage problems are primarily in the Puget Colony Homes Plat adjacent to the proposed annexation. These problems primarily are identified as flooding. These flooding problems may include ponding in the public right-of-ways of 142th Ave SE and SE 136th Street. There may be a need to provide drainage system infrastructure improvements to these right-of- ways to solve drainage problems and provide better service. The drainage from the proposed annexation area flows down to the corner of 142nd Ave SE and SE 136th Street. There is also a record of drainage problems located on the east side of 144`h Ave SE (Jericho Ave NE) associated with the unclassified stream that crosses the street and flows into the proposed annexation area. The existing culvert crossing of 144th Ave SE and the culvert crossing of SE 136'h St near the intersection of SE 136th St. and 142"d Ave SE may need to be replaced to increase their capacity. Does this proposed annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your department/division? The proposed Mossier Annexation is a logical extension of services provided by the Surface Water Utility. 2. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? There currently is approximately 3100 linear feet of existing storm pipe systems, located primarily within the 138 Ave SE right-of-way, which would have to be maintained and operated by the Surface Water Utility. These pipe systems range in sizes of 12-inch to 42- inch. There are also approximately 17-Type 1 catch basins and 7-Type II (54"-72") catch basins within the public right-of-ways adjacent to the proposed annexation area. There are also ditches within the street right-of-ways that would need to be maintained. The existing culverts, storm pipe systems and ditches do not appear to have been maintained on a regular basis and are in need of maintenance. Due to the amount of existing storm systems and the potential for drainage problems within the proposed annexation area, the annexation will have a minor impact on staff needs and cost, primarily associated with the Maintenance of the storm systems. There may be a need to fund capital improvements to address existing drainage problems or improve the capacity of major culvert crossings to prevent flooding problems. 1. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? The Surface Water Utility would assume ownership and maintenance responsibility for the public storm systems within the public right-of-way that would be included in the proposed annexation area. No new agreements or franchises would be required. : , • 3. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) None recommended. It is unclear from the information provided as to which streets would be included in the proposed annexation area and needs to be clarified with the 60% petition. General recommendation and comments: The proposed Mossier Annexation area currently contains a fair amount of drainage infrastructure that the Surface Water Utility would be responsible for maintenance, repair, replacement and operation. There is an unclassified stream within the proposed annexation area. Culvert crossings associated with the stream may require the need for the expenditure of Capital Improvement Program funds. Other CIP improvements may be needed to address drainage problems in the public right-of-ways and improve service to the area. It is anticipated that some of these improvement would occur through developer improvements, when the area is developed. The piped storm system and ditches in the proposed annexation area are in need of cleaning, based upon field inspection. 1 Signatur,� Date: � �j �3 / Cc: Lys Hornsby John Thompson I � ;; ,� CITY OF RENTON .� Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler November 10,2004 Larry Phillips, Chair Metropolitan King County Council 516 Third Avenue,Room 1200 Seattle, WA 98104-3272 SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON'S MERRITT II PROPOSED ANNEXAT�ON Dear Councilmember Phillips: Thank you for your interest in the proposed Merritt II Annexation and for your comments about the important issue concerning protection of the urban separator in the May Valley area. I would like to reassure you that Renton elected officials and staff are aware of the status of the May Valley urban separator. It is our policy to put in place appropriate zoning, consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies, upon annexation of portions of the area. The Renton City Council already took the following actions supporting that position. • Revised Renton's Comprehensive Plan, as part of the 2004 GMA update,to strengthen urban separator policies, including specific policies guiding development in urban separators. • Designated the May Valley "Residential Low Density"which is comparable to King County's "Greenbelt Urban Separator"classification. � Pre-zoned approximately 133 acres of the Potential Annexation Area south of May Valley Road,to the R-1 zone in 1998. The maximum density allowed in this zone is one single-family detached dwelling per net acre. This is slightly less than the County's R-1 zoning on the Merritt II annexation site which allows one dwelling per gross acre. • Adopted the May Creek Basin Action Plan in February 1998 to address environmental and surface water management issues in the May Valley corridor and require use of the 1998 King County Surface Water Manual for review of development. • Adopted development standards that exclude designated critical areas from density credits and encourage clustering of actual developed area away from steep slopes, wetlands, and floodplains. The Renton system does not allow transfer of density from these areas to other portions of the site. While this system does not mandate clustering, it does encourage both cluster development and creation of Native Growth Protection easement(open space)tracts on the preserved critical areas. . In the case of May Valley,many parcels are constrained by the floodplain as well as wetlands, slopes, and soil conditions. The preliminary sketches for plats submitted to us for evaluation prior to annexation include cluster designs. Nevertheless, due to the importance of this issue,we are currently re-evaluating our clustering provisions for the R-1 zone. The Council Planning and Development Committee is now reviewing a proposal to make Renton's regulations more consistent with the mandatory cluster provisions in the King County code. A public hearing before the Renton City Council is scheduled on this issue on December 6,2004. We anticipate adoption on December 13,2004. 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6500/FAX(425)430-6523 R E N T O N �This paper contains 50%recycled materia�,30%post consumer A H E A D O F T H E C U R V E � November 10,2004 � Page 2 In conclusion,these revised clustering provisions should be in place before the Washington State Boundary Review Board far King County reconvenes on December 15,2004,to further consider the proposed Merritt II Annexation and possible expansion of the annexation to the larger area. The City of Renton has every intentiot�of working with property owners in the area to insure the integrity of the May Valley urban separator. If you have any further questions on#he cluster zoning proposal or Renton's position on this annexation,please contact Alex Pietsch, Administrator of the Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning _ Department,or his staff inember, Rebecca Lind at 425-430-6588. � f.�� Sincerely, � �,�!°�'9'C� � � Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor 04-155lAP/KK W:mp Attachment: Proposed R-1 Cluster Code Language cc: Jay Covington James Benton Dwight Pelz jtob McKenna �/Alex Pietsch Lenora Blauman Kurt Triplett Rick Bautista Rebecca Lind Don Erickson � � R-1 Cluster Code Amendment Draft November 3,2004 4-2-110A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS (Prima and Attached Accesso Structures) RC R-1 R-4 R-8 DENSITY(Net Densi in Dwellin Units per Net Acre Minimum None None None 4 dwelling units Housing Density per net acre'�2 for proposed short plats or subdivisions Maximum 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit per 4 dwelling units Housin Densit 2 13 8 dwelling units _ g y per 50 net 1 net acre per 1 net acre per 1 net,a�cre acre NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PER LOT Maximum 1 dwelling with 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit Number per legal 1 accessory lot� unit LOT DIMENSIONS Minimum Lot 10 acres 1 acre 8,000 sq. ft. � 4,500 sq. ft. for Size for lots 4,500 sq. ft. for except where parcels greater created after cluster small loto than 1 acre. November 10, development3 clusters are 2004 allowed, R-8 5,000 sq. ft. for standards shall parcels 1 acre or apply. less. Minimum Lot 150 ft. for 75 ft. for interior 70 ft. for interior 50 ft. for interior Width for lots interior lots. lots. lots. 80 ft. for lots. created after corner lots."�13 November 10, 175 ft. for 85 ft. for corner except where 60 ft. for corner 2004 corner lots. lots. small lot lots clusters10 are allowed, R-8 standards shall apply. Minimum Lot 200 ft. 85 ft. 80 ft. � except 65 ft. Depth for lots where small lot created after clusterst0 are November 10, allowed, R-8 2004 standards shall apply. C:�Documents and Settings\mpullar�I.ocal Settings\Temp�E. 4-2-110 A.docLast printed 11/10/2004 1:29 PMPage 1 of 5 .� R-1 Cluster Code Amendment Draft November 3,2004 � RC R-1 R-4 R-8 SETBACKS Minimum Front 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. � except 15 ft. for primary Yard where smali lot structure. clusters10 are allowed, R-8 20 ft. for attached standards shail garages accessed apply. from front or side Unit with Alley Yard street. Access Unit with Alley Garage: The Access Garage: front yard set- The#�on�-�lard back of the set-back of the primary primary structure structure may may be reduced be reduced to to 10 ft. if all 20 ft. if all parking is parking is provided in the provided in the rear yard of the lot rear yard of the with access from lot with access a public right-of- from a public Way or alley.s right-of-way or alley.6 Minimum Side 30 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. � except 15 ft. for the Yard Along a where small lot primary structure Street clusters10 are and 20 ft. for the allowed, 15 ft. is attached garages allowed. which access from the front and side yard along a street. Minimum Side 25 ft. 15 ft. 15 combined 5 ft. Yard ft.i2,'3 are allowed with a minimum of 5 ft. for any side yard, except where small lot clusters10 are allowed, 5 ft. C:\Documents and Settings\mpullar�I,ocal Settings\Temp�E. 4-2-110 A.docLast printed 11/10/2004 1:29 PMPage 2 of 5 � r • R-1 Cluster Code Amendment Draft November 3,2004 RC R-1 R-4 R-8 SETBACKS Continued Minimum Rear 35 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. Yard Where small lot clusters10 are allowed, 20 ft. Clear Vision Area In no case shall In no case shall In no case shall In no case shall a a structure over a structure over a structure over structure over 42 42 in. in height 42 in. in height 42 in. in height in. in height intrude into the intrude into the intrude into the intrude into the 20 ft. clear 20 ft. clear 20 ft. clear 20 ft. clear.vision vision area vision area vision area are�,defic�t�d in defined in RMC defined in RMC defined in RMC RMC 4-11-030. 4-11-030. 4-11-030. 4-11-030. Minimum 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. landscaped Freeway landscaped landscaped landscaped setback from the Frontage Setback setback from the setback from the setback from the street property street property street property street property line. line. line. line. BUILDING STANDARDS Maximum 2 stories and 30 2 stories and 30 2 stories and 30 2 stories and 30 Building Height ft. ft. ft. for standard ft. and Number of roof. Stories, except for uses having a 2 stories and 35 "Public Suffix" (P) ft. for roofs designation9 having a pitch greater than 3/12. Maximum Height See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- for Wireless 140G. 140G. 140G. 140G. Communication Facilities C:\Documents and Settings\mpullar\Local Settings\Temp�E. 4-2-110 A.docLast printed 11/10/2004 1:29 PMPage 3 of 5 � .� R-1 Cluster Code Amendment Draft November 3,2004 '� RC R-1 R-4 R-8 BUILDING STANDARDS (Continued) Maximum Lots 5 acres or 35%. Lots greater Lots 5,000 sq.ft. Building more: 2%. An than 5,000 sq. or greater: 35% Coverage additional 5% of ft.: 35%or or 2,500 sq. ft., (Including primary the total area 2,500 sq. ft., whichever is and accessory may be used for whichever is greater. buildings) agricultural greater. buildings. Lots less than Lots 10,000 sq. Lots 5,000 sq. 5,000 sq.ft.: ft.to 5 acres: ft. or less: 50% 50%. 15%. On lots �. .��' greater than 1 acre, an additional 5% of the total area may be used for agricultural buildings. Lots 10,000 sq. ft.or less: 35%. Vertical Fa�ade All dwelling units Modulation shall provide vertical fa�ade modulation at least every twenty horizontal feet (20'), including front, side and rear fa�ades when visible from a street. C:�Documents and Settings\mpullar�I,ocal Settings\Temp�E. 4-2-110 A.docLast printed 11/10/2004 1:29 PMPage 4 of 5 « • R-1 Ciuster Code Amendment Draft November 3,2004 RC R-1 R-4 R-8 LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE Minimum Off- 5 ft. wide irrigated 5 ft. wide irrigated Site or drought or drought Landscaping resistant resistant Abutting Non- landscape strip landscape strip Arterial Public provided that if provided that if Streets for Plats there is additional there is additional and Short P/ants undeveloped right undeveloped right Submitted on or of way in excess of way in excess after November of 5 ft, this shall of 5 ft, this shall 10, 2004 also be also be landscaped. landscap�d. Minimum Off- 10 ft. wide 10 ft. wide Site irrigated or irrigated or Landscaping drought resistant drought resistant Abutting landscape strip landscape strip Principal, provided that if provided that if Minor and there is additional there is additional Collector undeveloped right undeveloped right Arterial Streets of way in excess of way in excess for Plats and of 10 ft., this shall of 10 ft., this shall Short P/ants also be also be Submitted on or landscaped, landscaped, afterNovember unless otherwise unless otherwise 90, 2004 determined by the determined by reviewing official the reviewing during the official during the subdivision subdivision process. process. Minimum On or At least two (2) At least two(2) Off-Site Street trees ot a City- trees of a City- Tree approved species approved species Requirements with a minimum with a minimum for P/ats and caliper of 1 %" per caliper of 1 '/z" Short Plants tree shall be per tree shall be Submitted on or planted in the planted in the after November front yard or front yard or 10, 2004 planting strip of planting strip of every lot prior to every lot prior to occupancy. occupancy. C:\Documents and Settings\mpullar�I,ocal Settings\Temp�E. 4-2-110 A.docLast printed 11/10/2004 1:29 PMPage 5 of 5 M1 � 4-2-110D To be amended by the following changes 4-2-110D CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS 1. a. Phasing, shadow platting,or land �Cluster development is subject to the I reserves may be used to satisfy the following standards "�� minimum density requirements if the ` � applicant can demonstrate that the current a. �''�•�*��a��'�„m�„*� �'��" '�� ':m�*�a *� ( development would not preclude the ^�'� '^*� : �^'„�*�r provision of adequate access and infrastructure to future development and b. The maximum net density requirement would allow for the eventual satisfaction of shall not be exceeded. minimum density requirements through future development. c. The area of individual lots shall not be less than 4,500 sq. ft. b. In the event the applicant can show that the minimum density cannot be d. Except for density,the remaining achieved due to lot configuration,lack of development standards of the access,environmental or physical Residential-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre � constraints,minimum density requirements Zone)shall apply may be waived by the Reviewing Official. e. Within desi�ated Urban Separators: 2. �—Use-related provisions are not variable. Use-related provisions �i)All subdivision and short subdivisions that are not eligible for a variance shall be clustered. include: building size,units per (ii) Development shall be clustered awa� structure/lot,or densities. Unless from sensitive areas or the axis of bonus size or density provisions are desi�,nated corridars ar community specifically authorized,the separators to the extent possible. modification of building size,units (iii)The open space created bv clustering per structure,or densities requires a shall be placed in separate permanent tracts legislative change in the code that may include critical areas and shall provisions and/or a Comprehensive total as least fiftypercent of the site. Plan amendment/rezone. (iv) O�en space tracts shall be confi urg ed to connect greenbelt or wildlife corridors where possible. 3. Clustering�is allowed to meet (v) Open space tracts shall not be altered or objectives such as preserving disturbed. Passive recreation(with no significant natural features, development of recreational facilities and providing neighborhood open space, natural-surface pedestrian and equestrian or facilitating the provision of sewer trails are acce�table uses within open space setvice. Within urban separators tracts. designated in the Countywide (vi) The tracts may be: Planning Policies clustering is (a)retained by the subdivider required,—: C:\Documents and Settings\mpullar\Local Settings\Temp\4-2-1 10 D.docu.��nn�co�T�i ��r�o , ri �+o,.;..,.�,, � ,in I B:�es -l- � t � , (b conveyed to the residents of the WIDTH OF 1VIINIMUM development EXISTING SIDE YARD (c)or conveyed to a third partx LEGAL LOT WIDTH ALONG A STREET 4. Allowed Projections into Setbacks: RC ZONE 150 feet or less 25 ft. a. �replace Structures,Windows: R-1 ZONE Fireplace structures,bay or garden Less than or equal 10 ft. windows,enclosed stair landings, to 50 ft. and similar structures as Zoning 50.1 to 51 ft. 11'ft. Administrator may project 24"into 51.1 to 52 ft. " 12 ft. any setback;provided,such 52.1 to 53 ft. 13 ft. projections are: 53.1 to 54 ft. 14 ft. 54.1 to 55 ft. 15 ft. (i) Limited to 2 per fa�ade. 55.1 to 56 ft. 16 ft. (ii) Not wider than 10'. 56.1 to 57 ft. 17 ft. b. Fences: See RMC 4-4-040. 57.1 to 58 ft. 18 ft. 58.1 to 59 ft. 19 ft. c. Steps and Decks: Uncovered steps 59.1ft. and eater 19 ft. and decks not exceeding 18"above R-4 or R-8 ZONE the finished grade may project to any Less than or equal 10 ft. property line. Uncovered steps and to 50 ft. decks having no roof covering and 50.1 to 52 ft. 11 ft. not exceeding 42"high may be built 52.1 to 54 ft. 12 ft. within the front yard setback. 54.1 to 56 ft. 13 ft. 56.1 to 58 ft. 14 ft. d. Eaves: Eaves and cornices may 58.1 ft. or eater 15 ft. project up to 24"into any required setback. However,in no case shall a structure over 42"in height intrude into the 20' 5. In order to be considered detached,a clear vision area defined in RMC 4-11- structure must be sited a minimum of 6' 030. from any residential structure. 6. A front yard setback of less than 20' is 8. In no case shall building height exceed allowed if equal to or greater than the the maximum allowed by the Airport average of the front yard setback of the Related Height and Use Restrictions,for existing,abutting primary structures; uses located within the Federal Aviation however,in no case shall a minimum Administration Airport Zones setback of less than 20'be allowed for designated under RMC 4-3-020. garages which access from the front yard street(s). 9. "Public Suffix"(P)properties are allowed the following height bonus: 7. For pre-existing legal lots having less Publicly owned structures shall be than the minimum lot width required by this permitted an additional 1 S' in height Section,the following chart shall apply for above that otherwise permitted in the determining the required minimum side yard zone if "pitched roofs,"as defined width along a street: herein,are used for at least 60%or more of the roof surface of both primary and C:\Documents and Settings\mpullar\Local Settings\Temp\4-2-1 10 D.docu:1°n��co�T:.io r�no i ri .�.�.-:.,,.�� in I ��4es -2- , accessory structures. In addition,the 11. a) Lot size width and depth may be height of a publicly owned structure reduced by the reviewing official when, may be increased as follows,up to a due to lot configuration or access,4- maximum height of 75' to the highest dwelling units per net acre cannot be point of the building: achieved. The reduction shall be the minimum needed to allow 4-dwelling a. When abutting a public street, 1 units per net acre and shall be limited to additional foot of height for each the following minimum dimensions: additional 1-1/2' ofperimeter building setback beyond the Lot size -7,200 sq. ft minimum street setback required; Lot depth—70 feet � and/or Lot width -60 fee� -�" b. When abutting a common property 12. When lot size is reduced for the purpose line, 1 additional foot of height for of achieving maximum density, setbacks each additional2' of may also be reduced. Setback reductions perimeter building setback beyond shall be limited to the following: the minimum required along a common property line. Front—20 feet. Side yard along a street— 15 feet 10. In order to serve as a transition between primary structure,20 feet attached the lower density R-4 zone and the garage with access from the side yard. higher density R-8 zone"small lot Minimum side yard combined setback— clusters"of up to a maximum of SO lots 15 feet. shall be allowed within 600 feet of an R- Minimum for one yard—5 feet. 8 zone when at least 30%of the site is permanently set aside as "significant open space." Such open space shall be 13. For properties vested with a complete plat situated to act as a visual buffer between application prior to Nov. 10,2004,and for small lot clusters and other development the Mosier II,Maplewood East and in the zone. The percentage of open Anthone,the following standards apply. space required may be reduced by the Vested plats must be developed within 5 reviewing official to 20%of the site years of preliminary plat approval and/or when: annexation. a) Public access is provided to open space, M�imum Density-5 dwelling units per net acre _b) Soft surface trails are provided within wetland buffers,and Minimum Lot Size-7,200 sq.ft c) Store water ponds are designed Minimum Lot Width-60 feet for to eliminate engineered slopes interior lots, 70 feet for corner lots requiring fencing and enhanced to allow passive and/or active recreation. Minimum Lot Depth-70 feet C:\Documents and Settmgs\mpullar\Local Settings\Temp\4-2-1 10 D.docu �Gnn�co�-r;ao �v�o � r-i„��,.,.,,.�n � �in I B:des -3- ► r Minimum Front Yard- 15 feet for the primary structure,20 feet for an attached or detached garage. For a unit with alley access garage,the front yard setback for the primary stc-ucture may be reduced to 10 feet if all parking is provided in the rear yard of the lot with access from a public right of way or alley. Minimum Side Yard Along a Street- 15 � � feet Minimum Side Yard-5 feet (Amd.Ord.4963,5-13-2002) C:\Documents and Settings\mpullar\Local Settings\Temp\4-2-I10 D.docu.�Gn�.�co�T;.io �v�o � ri„��o,:.,,,�n � �,n I �:�es -4- Donaid Erickson - Data sheet for Maplewood Addition Page 1 From: Abdoul Gafour To: Erickson, Donald Date: 01/07/2005 3:16:48 PM Subject: Data sheet for Maplewood Addition Don: May I suggest the City water fees to be changed to: $25.83/month (incl. 3/4" meter base charge and 200 gallons of water/day) or$309.96/year. ****Water provided by existing out of City provider, i.e.: Maplewood Water-co-op . Thanks Abdoul 1/7/05 � � • --� � � ,1 � ' ? ��,� .� � ' ' �G,��' I��/�'�'r� ��'��'�G� C!� �'r` � .� rj/' 4� �,w� _`.'v�� '.�.-. ' �' �� J`�,�� _ � , � ,I _ �, ,., � .� �� l �C �C -- � ,� �. ..i � � �'�,2'� -� J , � ,�, �� `J - �'7� j �, �, t1� �' `-..t'��7� �l � � �� .� � _ �' � / � '� J � � X %�� = � � ` � � ?�� 1 t �,�,,r i � /�/� 1 - � J _' � f , t,/� t( �`,' �,i � �i � �J1 ��(..�',y�J�� / ,�"� / /I-a -l l � ��t� i,j�'. ` � ��1 '1' U� �r ��/�/�' � ' j / � r J ;� .�� ..�� Department of Assessments Seott Noble King County Administration Bldg. Assess�r 500 Fourfh Avenue,Room 708 Seattle,WA 98104-2384 (20�296-5195 FAX(20�296-0595 Email:assessor.lnfo@metrokc.gov wwtiv.m et ro kc.gov/ass ess o r/ ANNEXATION PETITION CERTIFICATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the petition submitted August 5, 2004 to the King County Department of Assessments by Don Erickson, Senior Planner for the City of Renton, supporting the annexation to Renton of the properties described as the Mosier II Annexation, has been examined, the property taxpayers, tax parcel numbers, and assessed value of properties listed thereon carefully compared with the King County tax roll records, and as a result of such examination, found to be sufficient under the provisions of the New Section of Revised Code of Washington, Section 35.13.002. The Department of Assessments has not verified that the signature on the petition is valid through comparison with any record of actual signatures, nor that the signature was obtained or submitted in an appropriate time frame, and this document does not certify such to be the case. Dated this 11+� day of August, 2004 �� ----- Scott Noble, Kin County Assessor �R�1202M } �'�:n"ti..i?�T's"+x�t C � AU� 2 5 2004 � Econ�o�st�cEv��or�P�sr�aT. � r�-i�,��t��a�_.,,��. p Ar•!Ll Sr�3i .�_ .'�e..,e,.m�. MOSIER II ANNEXATION FISCAL ANALYSIS SHEET Units Population AV Existin dev. 4 10 $800,000 Full dev. 33 83 $13,050,000 Assumptions: 2.5 persons/household $450,000 AV/new unit $200,000 Existing Average Reveti�ies ::: Total revenues Existin Full Rate Existing ' ::;;::�4;tJ4�i�9 Re ular lev $2,551 $41,613 3.18871 Full::::;:;:;';:$54;5.70:9�: Excess lev $71 $1,157 0.08865 State shared revenues Rate (per ca ) Existin Full Li uor tax $3.52 $35.20 $290.40 Li uor Board rofits $5.04 $50.40 $415.80 Fuel tax- roads $14.46 $144.60 $1,192.95 Fuel tax- arterials $6.47 $64.70 $533.78 MVET $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cam er excise $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Criminal 'ustice $0.36 $3.60 $29.70 Total $298.50 $2,462.63 Miscellaneous revenues Rate Existin Full Real estate excise'` $40.86 $408.60 $3,370.95 Utilit tax'* $133.20 $532.80 $4,395.60 Fines & forfeits* $18.33 $183.30 $1,512.23 Total $1,124.70 $9,278.78 * Per capita *" Per housing unit- based on $2,220 annual utility billing @ 6% tax rate ;�p�t�::::::::::::::: Total ongoing costs Per ca ita Existin Full Existing;:::;:::�5;02�'33: Contracted Services Full::::`:::::::��0;684.�7: Alcohol $0.23 $2.27 $18.73 Public Defender $3.13 $31.34 $258.56 Jail $7.19 $71.92 $593.34 Subtotal $105.53 $870.62 Court/le al/admin. $57.08 $570.80 $4,709.10 Parks maintenance* $14.90 $149.00 $1,229.25 Police $270.00 $2,700.00 $22,275.00 Road maintenance** N/A $500.00 $5,288 Fire"** $1.25 $1,000.00 $16,312.50 Total $5,025.33 $50,684.47 *See Sheet Parks FIA *' See Sheet Roads FIA '"'* Rate per$1,000 of assessed valuation (FD#25 contract) Net fiscal impact Existing;;;;,;;;;;;;;;; ;�$9$Q:24 Full:: ' ::!$3;82f.48 One-tirii�eQsts<: Parks acquisition & development(from Sheet Parks FIA): Other one-time costs: $0.00 Total one-time costs: $19,924.00 Revised 8-29 per Finance Memo � : ,��`�:�,, / �� ✓ `��`�'. Annexation Review Form �� l �;�f}�;.. ��1 � �-��°�, � [X] 10% Notice of Intent [ ] 60% Annexation Petition ,"`> �� `"O��'`� 5. �� ye �� TO : Building Surface Water Utility �O�s�, Fire Water Utility 4.'`�' Parks Wastewater Utility Police Transportation Public Works Maintenance Current Planning FROM : � Don Erickson (x6581) � Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning , SUBJECT . Mosier 2 Annexation (revised Mosier Annexation) Location : This proposed + 7.89 acre annexation area is located between 142nd Avenue SE on the west and Jericho Avenue/144`h Avenue SE on the east. It is bordered by SE 132"d Street on the south and abuts the City boundary on the north. Date Circulated: Julv 14, 2004 Comments Due: July 22, 2003 (to Don Erickson, EDNSP) General Information Area : 7.89 acres Street length : N/A Assessed Value : $1,201,000 Estimated Population : 10 Current Uses Residential : 4 dwelling units Commercial : Industrial : Public : Comp Plan Designation : Residential Low Density Future Uses: : 50 Single Family Dwellings Future Po ulation � 125 residents Reviewing Departmen Divisio :_ YraKs.,nr'f"a'E'loti Sys I-err►s 1. Does this annexation represent any unique or significant problems for your department/division? l�o. �owe�� l4zwd Aveh�+e SE �buff��ve p►bjraS�gMKP.r��ieK st�c ts �car��e,x"��'tr' 4f eh ! a T�aYe�k VGklc4�7Y��'. /`l+3b��,.��f�p i�t�1�'f'-p�-��r Glsesal��J'C�,Sf"�b GokSiK�G� a� $7'1�'�' s�on Nte2'�(kq ��l�r o��'1eK s'f��s. ✓ 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the area? yes. 142wd AueK� Sfe ab��x� f�'�rr.�.s�d a`►Kexa�eK s��'� �s .�'�' ��a�.� ve�u�ul�r f�i�� ►� �s�thu�t su�'F�«cM#'1goW =✓a�labl�c �c•ns�iK+4t a s�w�ecf sc��rQw�Fi�GclyofQe��+s�a�Js�s. G�r(��9u�fe�� an� s�d¢tv�lk a'he. Non-e,qsl"er�'a�+- �"e}�ckeAr►��xeivEa.�( SE132•►d s�F�tabuh�i�y a� ��C'•IHso ►ro?lw� pzvew,��'w�tfk s•�dtAsckMcs�r e,� �ftse �s do.eet rKetJf" �+e pr�r.s�da►u�ex�r S r' � �y �•�,e,�l�K'�►,S'�h�►,,�f� f'�g�' ��k��+� rS �o��•dct�'er��r,2,��.c� /t��'� C�1�e'�iQeK.�'! 3`�'_ '"`� �ur�c..+iy�Ki�yCauw�y s,,,��f�►e C��.o�,�'�f'o.�.(nzv�hoP��►S{�r ��"P'-'v��ew�sV��l42,el.�tre SFj�'�r�J10 A��+u+t.N��+�,dS¢E a,b v�t �dwt�a��il� llp�r�r+� S'�!3 we4 �'ert�.4o r4ve N�.�«d. l4�2t�d M►e.Sf �,d P.�cl�•��a�wrk�.�k .d�e.a�,ttxad�a sif'��(h.�r+�c�c��ro�Fiei.�,,�sf2�dr�d�•urr�a�!�G ah�-�-�u► �.[au3o uAW.IAJIi/e�l.wl^a��eP nr�c�lvrs er�ea �al�Jw.�r�<_ -�, 3. Does this proposed annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your department/division? y�s� 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? Adclr�'iox�I Ti-aKsrcrta�t�k Sysfc�.f �f�' weuld�ot�r�ykrnr,�l. U�dt.Ky t4udAv�s� �r«.�o 14vc N�� S� i32.+c1 aKd htw laal acccss wr�u.« �ic prq�xd akkexa�ok 5��'c wou Id be a-f-Ka� exP��se o-F �ew ele�ebp�'a�/or t�c[��q�p�ow�. �iee�Y cos�s assoc�a�ed w[{�t v�c,w rh�e.�fl��i�i�N��g•�d�os� ass�.rztc�wr� nta��cfcna�c.e efs�.lf's��e�dpsv��w�`' �t,ar!(i�s'1tk�+--,�,�Y 6c�nr�.ac by� Gfy sl�d wo.,7' be a�K2�wal duhde�. 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? �1e5', �. G-(�r �,vsul� asst�r�.� vwae►.,�,p a.�d G�s/�a�6�/,�'� �/3I�( s�t' abu�F�� -I�t p�r�sed aaKexa.fion sr New �Ks�s��f��-�(� ��ws� 6� a�►��..fs cuou��'b��1 as a rtsulf o��bls��pe$� atwtcx.a��c.. 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) GU�Q a�o �c�f �iave ,a+l� GCy1LL�NKs Y�'�I� fke�r�,o��.ce.��7'�'�n bo�K��-�,�s. General recommendation and comments: 1 �'!� l V'du.S�pf�' �af1 S�5'le�S' �(Y�Slat �oeS _al �avt �N y/ Cv n ce�r,�.s �9g►��K� �.ul,�.-l�ieh f-ije�o`n,�os ed a�exa�c ak a!des ah c�aes h�'o�u r, Signature: � '�ct�,K. Date: 7 �� - . T�akspor'�$fl�h SYs'f'eMai �IYtft�M ,. Reu�cw Leo,.�I�Na�r . � . 11 9th > Q � 0 0 � � � � SE �2 S — w > 0 � � N �r E 6th St w ID �� w � ¢ � a� a� _ w > Q � � > �� o_ _ � � � E 4t St th � i St , � � w �, —.�__ � _� � , � �� Q � � d St � � � � �' E 1 nd t SE 13 nd t w , � ° �, U, z I ' ¢ � > I Q ' � � _ � � `� � � � � � � � I SE 136th St � � '�' -- � E 13 th t. � > 1 t Q � � � t P. S 1 9t I 9t � > Q � 1 � � � w � � n t � � � — — 2n St. i � � d _�_� � � 1 This document ia a yraphic re�resentotion,not guarantead S I I, to survey accuracy, ntended for city Curpoxa only and based on the best information awiloble oa of the date shown. This map is for Oisplay purposes only. Proposed Mosier II Annexation o loo0 2000 � Figure 1: Vicinity Map 1 : 12000 Gti�Y �,�, Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning __ � �i� � Alex Pietsch,Aam�n�scTator — Renton City Limits "�� G.Del Rosario � Proposed Annexation Area ��N.rp$ 14 March 2005 . V � ` ` Annexation Review Form [X] 10% Notice of Intent [ ] 60% Annexation Petition TO : Building Surface Water Utility Fire Water Utility Parks Wastewater Utility Police Transportation Public Works Maintenance Current Planning FROM : Don Erickson (x6581) Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning SUBJECT . Mosier 2 Annexation (revised Mosier Annexation) Location : This proposed + 7.89 acre annexation area is located between 142"a Avenue SE on the west and Jericho Avenue/144th Avenue SE on the east. It is bordered by SE 132"d Street on the south and abuts the City boundary on the north. Date Circulated: Julv 14, 2004 Comments Due: Julv 22, 2004 (to Don Erickson, EDNSP) General Information Area : 7.89 acres Street length : N/A Assessed Value : $1,201,000 Estimated Population : 10 Current Uses Residential : 4 dwelling units Commercial : Industrial : Public : Comp Plan Designation : Residential Low Density Future Uses: : 50 Single Family Dwellings Future Po ulation � 125 residents Reviewing Department/Division: PBPW/ Utilitv Svstems—SurFace Water Utilitv 1. Does this annexation represent any unique or significant problems for your department / division? The proposed Mossier Annexation is located in the Maplewood Creek Sub-basin of the Cedar River Basin. Drainage problems do exist within the Maplewood Creek sub-basin, downstream of the proposed annexation area. Maplewood Creek drains across the Maplewood Golf Course and into the Cedar River. These problems consist of flooding, erosion due to increased stream flows caused by urbanization, water quality and degraded fish habitat. We recommend requiring use of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manuat level 2-flow control and basic water quality treatment for any new development within the proposed annexation area, or the City adopted standard at the time of development, if it is a higher standard that will better control the quantity and quality of (Over) � ' • storm water runoff from new construction within the proposed annexation area. The area is . relatively undeveloped. Wetland reports for the properties within the proposed annexation area may be needed to verify if wetlands are present, at the time of development review. 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the area? Except for the ditches along SE 132"d Street, few drainage facilities exist within the Mossier 2 Annexation. The drainage from the proposed annexation area flows southeast, down to the corner of 142nd Ave SE and SE 132"d Street. Downstream, 135 feet to the south end of 142"d Ave SE, the drainage enters Maplewood Creek. The existing culvert crossing of SE 136th St near the intersection of SE 136th St and 142"d Ave SE may need to be replaced to increase its capacity. Per the 1993 Cedar River Conditions Report, we know that Maplewood Creek is sensitive to erosion and sedimentation caused by land development. 3. Does this proposed annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your department/division? The proposed Mossier Annexation is a logical extension of services provided by the Surface Water Utility. 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? There currently is approximately 100 linear feet of existing 12" diameter, concrete culvert along SE 132"d Street, and 1150 linear feet of grass lined ditch, which would have to be �maintained and operated by the Surface Water Utility. The existing culverts and ditches do not appear to have been maintained on a regular basis and are in need of maintenance. Therefore, the annexation will have a minor impact on staff needs and cost, primarily associated with the maintenance of the ditches. The incremental addition of infrastructure that requires staffing and funding for maintenance associated with this single proposed annexation is not significant and would not trigger the need for new staff. However, the accumulative addition of infrastructure over time, due to the number and size of new annexations, will eventually require the addition of staff or a reduction in the level of service. 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? The Surface Water Utility would assume ownership and maintenance responsibility for the ' public storm systems, within the public right-of-way, that would be included in the proposed annexation area. No new agreements or franchises would be required. 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) We do not recommend alternate boundaries. H:�F'ile Sys\SWA-Surface Water Section Administration\SWA 26-AnnexationsV�lossier Annexation\Storm 10%REVUFORM-R.doc�RStp " � General recommendation and comments: The culverts and ditches in the proposed annexation area are in need of cleaning, based upon field inspection. In the event of future development, engineering review must stress downstream analysis, and require storm water control facilities in order to protect the sensitive Maplewood Creek basin per the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual level 2-flow control or a stricter standard to minimize increases to downstream impacts. ,, � _.. ,i� // � ' -�7 � ��- Signature� , �� ' Date: / r �` � Attachments cc: Lys Hornsby Mike Stenhouse John Thompson H:�File Sys\SWA-Surface Water Section Administration\SWA 26-Annexations�lvlossier Annexation\Storm 10%REVUFORM-R.doc�RStp ,:�r. �. ��ir°� �y .�ti4. �la�` �� '�� a �'a �� '�� 4� � .. r��T .. � � � � �� . �� r, €tt �� ,i'k F�` � °v.. ,•�, k,:� y. �" o ,�r M � � � � "F „ � �- I �' m� _ ��:�. . y,�,� , ��_ -��.! I �`d'�1'i�`ze '{+w` "2 S�, i'¢ t . �t,,F, 3 ti '�.�£r 1. 9pp ^4, r,`R `. - C._ � . �� . � � � �� '�i" ��+4 . . . } �f � � ��• �y:� �+ .�k � �h TI & f •'�.. `�� y�� . �.i 4 � _� yf `sr �4' � � . R��u� � �: j��„a� ��` � ° �,�: � ;`4 �-�`�} �� y� '.�� :a'$'*�+ ��"� . � �1 ''� ��.. �.�,� ,� ,��+� .� ....�—T' ,�+#.#,. M �� _�: a 'ta�� x �k I. � c«.....m, � .�;. . ' � a ..� � s,. ,m- � � � ._ �`, . '��,� . � �_� „�;� � �" , t �� " ��, � , } t < �, �r� +r�� ,�� t ��a`� ` � ��r� � C � � . ' �..r�� n �� 3.,� x� � , �� , -A� . ; �";�i* � � �+�l / '� L"J�� I T . 4 „ � .. , � .. �� o- � r� � , �s_•'��,,�r3� ,'��,,*�; - �� - � ��: +�. �° ,_�-�-- �, ��j. . . � . . _- ^I �. // ...:�,x� �� yqF .a* . �.n.��s ... . - .kr � y I �''"I I `/, � rti i '��'l��:.P� }� �a'eq.�.L� •��e"#*� `3" . ___ .%:t�,» � , c�t'—�v� \,`� �� .. ----�;_�-��- -� .�f�'. '��a�`�` gF�� " t �r��-:� �'f �,''��y r .� '� ( , � �k.;4� �. ��@ �'x , � / � s��'�= '�� '�� '�,�` ��i r��*�.. ,� n.�.� � �'�� '. ' -�?`� � '%`.:�. �` ��".�� y'��r � ' �4�. "� �� a � y!"�� t' .� r" £xe�..`�'l '.� (.. ` j .. ,� �.`` *f�+,��-.-9�,�' ,-£-ef:_,.��,.��'�°'�'?'�,'T'�'�.�� . d�r,r ..� �.�':.. ,y �'� _�.. � e.l ._.r. $�� g � �:. � . . � s �. b� .j p� �' .• 7"d'_ *4. f .�.�t�.�•i N� :. } p,M .,� :a� �. V aAt� .v y�� ^�d� L�S�;+: ^S 4 '�� d'�� a�':'�'. �� Sg .� , � .'d4d�'�(�t �'�: �q5�d} �� ,�.y ,�b .R 1�.� �h � ,;�',�m . i � �#�� 1 {. * v. � �' gi��t " � > �: p �n f '"k�. f� " .�' �`. ` � .� . [=S.3kls �f..t�i�" �rj»�� w,�' � �� #I k �'�} (µy{ 's^� . � � ' t �� ,p � � �yi1. �`k; i.��"�� ,. — �.wH=,, ��` ��'a��'i$�ti,f:: "')Yy+`�. �a"#,.� - �, � �`..�'_-I-- ., . +T ' �, � F x �u 1�� y,a��4�± �"t ,.k�r*'`��'�' �� '�� d��.`�� °`�� "��"t° � ss . � � '� �/ / � �\ � #q� °i4a �lt��g�#� k �.a ' `. t�,s�,±. ' ,�� ,:�' ��( , ^�. , � �;. Ig � . i.,,a.k"3, �'c�" I5 P e��F�Y.� . i . Yi: y�D{. t . __—__ _ �� } .. p` ,}.§. � '.� I } t� � t� � �,�:x i �, � �7 E .. � °� �� a'�•� 9 �y�. �:�,tk.. �. � � f i ** �µ, l o I qp, "^3: i ��'„ �b��.t �+��`� . 14M�� '�}5)`4N.1 � SRn� �� *iY}:� �+.�� ,j�:: u � Y �� . - *t��;�� M$�_�� q . i� J e.� , y b .y�,�,.�2�p., <i. Y.P. ,�,r y n '�4 � � whs�'� '�JF `#� � �, � * £� k ��sa� �� „�, �,,� � :��,f;.,` '��`��+„�_�„ ,�,�' � 4 " V �_ . . � } '� ��,`� `" ., �� / � •�:.� ...rr ,..a - � � `_ �. ��#� ,��I ,,, <�. ��s��d�, �• I --- � �� s,�,�:� ;�� ._' � �'`�'��.��`' ., yyL______��' � ..�''� 6� �±, �' , �a .�.,. �,,..i1,�,�"�� .. �''S�� a,s�.. . �` � � �`^.',��*:� � _I , `" I; � f"� S .. '.,q, . ix��:� -� ';a,::. . . ----=—�,-.— _. ... m �,,. j�.�`'` � ��'y � r•� � ✓a ��' � %` �n, c " �� ..��., �ay$ � '+N `�'�• , , • �.� ��,;:.� ; � , � '� �� ; � ' , . -- � — —— i'� � ,:R'" :.6 � ' �� t " ..`� � � �i ., � � , �' � ��. t � � .j l � "�..'��"�� ,�' ��;�T� � �+"'�,`¢t'� ',�k��` f� '��, '` �.;:� � , , �L '--�_...._=�� .��'�'� " ,. aa "S°'t"5� :L� ..�:u ,:�. . ��r { � . . . - ., v'" .'`:,. .;,: � , .. �."�,�— �'�-�^ ; � �� :,�,�.. " ---�---�-�� "�"`,� '�^�" � ,:� , � �,- �,�" �- ��, �- �,- ' `�-. �'.�' _ I '. _-�.�� #_ . �,=, �.yr ,,�;,,—, " ... I( � .�"}£. � ' .. � �. g`:�BW� & �i, i.�k' 4; , �i" Ci�� "� +i 4 r ~ � ��^.la 3�� •!*� �:��:..�.....,..R� � � �� - "'b,y+x � �,r .& � --�----�� '�� : � a �� 1 � i , � sik �iy ' '—"��—!i .-•---- .. ,� � € a� < . ; ... �� . . � ... g - � �� ("�,�, °i� L ��m�.r°� � � '�#<. .. .,; � , }H b c " „, { '3 3 fy.y�w�� ( � •. ' 'a , i iti�,.:��.. J. t " . u .. . . . , i ��. . �� . .. , r- , . � p [ � � �t � ;r:- , } � . . . y . T�} • �i9 ... � \� �t �� R�M" � ..ttYR�:. . ' �� .. . .. � '�. . . . �y ��~ �� . .n,v . . _ e. . c'C.''',v^h� 64 ��t $G � ;�#"r!4-'*`_� � � .iy. ��, .. y. 3. 6§� .. . n�*`� „ �� --�_ ., Y a r . �t i _�rt �' R,., S 9k,�� "��..� .,��,� � ,� ��. � �, - �,"'�'`� �� '� "� �'��Y �. K�. �` � � ,�„��. ! .�,�#. . . . � � a� � q. _. � � � � x � ""' ' .� I',^l4 s"t� ._z �� . � �r{��}�j([�,. �_�l �y _ +bri a . vb. � > � �`��'^' � "� Y.�i, . f . A . - �. ,}�f �xt � �� ,R � .r� �� r. . � � ^ � TPI�. y.�� m . . � ��:�'�s.t�� ' '� ,,.�K.: � �.� � w �#dr�„p.x, .. �f�,. (�'�. L_�� " , �- { � � ; � � I q� ` �� _ I �� l/� b"� � � y �.. - i 0 200 400 M � SSIER � ANNEXATIDN 1 : 2400 Map Output Page 1 of 1 r�' King Ctr�nty � � � � - ��1 Mossier II Annexation � ��:�•r,•�ooua�r ' �;_� tia�r,�,;�{�r��;� �., _�3�i,u u(� i��2t!�u+.i' !�'3Cr�"�^�4'v 'a:=�L��S�J!'J 16�'3U`�S�J4; i � �� _ � 3J�,yG:�i 7'�1?GSyP?J �?6 S�yupg; 08d,':�Cu,lr�,:, �gi•1��UJt4 x '�� ` �61.iL�54�d� 4�tl•r1+J�.�+6 �f10t1UJU23 � ,-_� , ,. . � _�.� .�., � � ! a ._____w � �I p....�.�-a 513[JS�J!13 °�r -.._7 � � , z�`. t 32.f0597G1$ r � � , � �._ � 791+��4G99 ; � ` i51�G�u91t5Q � ,'7'.�tl9U�5J 11r3184�Ju1'G p 4 _ � � � � 15�fJ�a99{79�;��151�.?59?��3��9t ,rFfiIf19C�669 � � t/S��f9i13?U 7787$�1JG,L�� ,: __-=- ` ��i �._ TP8fF3�..�f1ti� <, � .,�__�a�__ SE 1191`.N.�'T ` '• ME .aFiG S7 .. . _�. ._.. :� ; , �___..� _�_ 1ISfb90G3J '� ;.�, �, tf£iTByfl,',' � �� ; � � � 3�v23J5y�39 ,'!BlBS�'��1_� �` IfHIH5P63U � � �5�:3t�89t5•t �513G5�7aP � -� �' 1b23l�557�3t7 � 75$3C15�Ji98 i�1:iC159t��J8 � 1l9 r8�J4Ll:fJ ��' � � � � �� ' � i 152�fl59i7T i � _ �• ' _ �......_. : � ,y � �Ie�J_6f1 a;'j78I84t1d�f0 �� rt -° ,, . � -� Ei � J'�rtt4�i �� „Y`,*,'{3J£i4U430 � �,... �4 I i 152305t�025 ; ; 1. C] i � ` � '�` r"�_7787fJ�0$60 � � ; __ � . �llti,tf9{!�[20 -;. . � �' � W' " �rer��aou a1_;�i;y��, � �r. . � " . t �s2aos�z �: � ��re i�ev��r�� ;��t'1�� rrs�g�r��a ` 7S? D4d7t<°7._.,I T ��------_______-._._. Q# �W . .. ,i'f8l�3�(l1�8l81i�1��j IIS;'69L�3t30 f � � � � l/BIEyUG10 .r t�� ,_____ t' � � � �523C169!?6 ,, ., '� . '. � 1523Q59lJ65 ��7905�t59f! � ( `li�lE+9�!TJ , � � ! -.____. � ,___ � /,'8/84Ji°�1 i , , � � ; � � (JB�i!?L�PfJSi( �t�9'L�1 fiJ ' x ; � ! _. � /I�il�ty�i fr'. E _.._.. __.__.�._ � ---`� i � 77B%CiyQ6dG ; �9Se�3G59{��f�;7813fJ'+411! � � GB�t)?fJ0(1�2 E � , i'�2�U�9249� I�Sl�tyriign � ' ,C,d3f.4i4299 , � � _. f � � � �32305HU61 US!f7lUGOdL — � � � /fti�fiy�6JJ t8 ?y�'yJ r______ l7d.rg4457U ---� _.__ GS?1iL�J>>L� I .____..,��L ._ ^ ,�._._�_��--____�_ G$dPt�Ud9 IIBIFt�J5E30 fJB,'8yJ2G{J _.._.___..__�� _ 'l,'£�?ti4U5�f.1_.. _ i _ SE� t t1NU S1 a �s18wu��t0 --.LL....--�`_^�u� _ _ 681�i0UGrn i � t ( `�8d;"��5� ` � E �928UU4060 eif i -- " � 6y1�G�G�G�!l.�i ; � 69�F100Ut170 � � ABi�`9AOiA5 ' �b�d£�C10GG5d i ' '� r E�84Y7(1fJ0�.f lc.� � �d� i �- � � OS�1f+J�1�ifi9� �� G9 Sl��0�3!! i��j1—�� i C?8d"P?G�q?d15 , �� L�S??1(lOUC�G _��_'4 Cy<SL�'_�0?RL� . 6B.5L��1Q0 � ; ! UBRT14fJ7E�� J81l7Ck10�'0 �1 � rt � � tz91�40i 7.. � �� . ..�._ r {CJ 26D9 King Couniy 6�''8��'an _ 0 403f{i;tGG{J6.i �y' Leqend � 5WS Pieighbofiood D�a�age l�.r Pro�ects �_�� Parct�l� I._,_._� � SW5 Re�g�onai 5taratr�vater � Lakes anci Lar�� Rivt�rs Fac�ties Streams � 5W5 Resideni+a!5iommater �I 1'S'etlands(1390 Surveyj Fac�ties WLRD Drainaye:+�mplainis i_ �auniy 8aundary Inc:o�Uraieci Ar�a Stree ts .�`�w,>*' ti'�ft�'a�. .. � .. ArOs'r�t� ;c�r;�. he information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties,express or implied,as to accuracy,completeness,timeliness,or rights to the use of such information.King County shall not be liable for any general,special,indirect,incidental,or consequential damages including,but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information wntained on this map.Any sale of this map or information on i his ma is rohibited exce t b written ermission of Kin Count . King_Coun��GI_S_Center�News�Services�Comment_s_�Search I, By visiting this and other King County web pages,you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site.The details. http://www5.metrokc.gov/servledcom.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=overview&ClientVersio... 07/21/2004 E6 - 10 T23N R5E E 1/2 - � •�� ' - ,-, ------- ,_ _� . _ _ -- r . , ----� I -�- _..� Q" �� -� �I : ' I -'� i I _ � -- — � I � � ' I� � � _�" � --• ' : ��PWD __'._.. � . . 1._L _ , \' . . . _ ___ �� . i 19.EE?10 '-� � _ , _._ .. _:_. � �_ � f.___-_ � \_ _ � � . , . :i .�_�:.._ 2_ , 9 �_ . �� _� � 19.G 1C. '.I -____' '. --\ ___.`_'� ♦ _4- ,. .. -'._19.E2-1 19,E2-13 . ._ ...._.._. � 9 - 1B 9.GE-13. .,'.19.H2- � 19 4�� / 19'I � \ . .. EE-2 _ ._-�.� ._ � - . 2-119� }4. 3 19.�'�.-9 2'8 ' � , ". . ,. . . 19.G2'14 . . �. 9,E2-9 19.�E- - � 19 3 19 F2-3 ��. 19,G8-9 19 -8 19 'IS 1. '2 . . 19,I2-1 r , , _r_... . . ,r-�'? 19 G2-6 ' 19M2-G. . / . . , , , ' , ' i . .. . ... . �.. -4 1 . �I ��. �19 -10 9 �196. � 3 .M2" 1.H2��'1� 2' I � i , .. '__.,' I. � r� -.. i �. �� .�-e� I , � " 1� —. �JE j 3 d t � , I � , --- , . _ � i ----- � l__ I , _--- -- - - _ ._, __ W . ? � � I �. I ,�� l9 2-� I . ,. . _.- . , _ . . l . . i � , � i � �_ T_ � �. ;__ �.. .._ . ,��o -� - �-.-- -----.�L _ ,�__---1- — I9.E2- 9.E2-30 9,E2'31 � ... � � . , � I 1_ � .. .. . ; I �_._A_.�. � ...�� -_.. __. _ __ _`- _-- ,, I _'__ - _._.___,.._.__.___..___ � ... .__ / i \ �-/ ' _ _ E 2 h _l �-,-- NE 3rd St <<, � � ��.--- � � < d � r_..\ , i i i i / r ___ _---- �--- � J -� I _..__-l_�__I _ I -- � �t ' �� i � , Q.,� NE 3r f. St I--� --- i I � , -�,-�_._.?..�� _ �-_ __-_�--- _ ____ �_ l.�_,�_ - -------- ___ ! � - =---� - �\�` , , i '; :-., \y `_. i . �. 1 \ � \ � i � ---- � ,- � � � � � � � � \ � � ` \ J � I �s�..—.-__ \, �\ j 1 . / � I . � �� 1\ ` \� : ( , _ _ _.._._._ . � ��hQ/^ . . . .. ' , � _ � (,2t . , _._ _ ___ ' . � . � . � , � � � i - -----_ � , -f- , . ` ' ` ---1-- - -- --- ___ �_.__ � - -- -- \ � ._...__ _ ' I E 131 t St t � �� _- - � -- � :' - -. -- � -__ ___ --1- 'I I ' '� ' , � _. _ , �� , �� . 1 , , - -__ _ I--- , � - --- - -- � � ', 1 - �_'� ' _j E 132nd St� � � � 1 2 d�St-�.� � � � � I�E �nd �t � �,�.� I i i I �� -� -� � ---- � �� __ � ' , - - - --- ', - - -� - - - i � ', , ,' �- ----- ��s�en __ -r; � , ,�, �_�___._,- , ` --- - , . ; _ 5 , _ , _-- .P, � _____� __ � �. , �' ' --- - -- o, .. ---- . -----�-=-- --- - � `; _ ' 1 ' �� - /, ¢ , , �., , J --- -__ -�-_-____--_- ' - ------ ---�- ,.,__-- , � _` i ,______.-_._.---�'_ ___ -'" /� u -� - -- --__--- �-------- :_ � � - -- '� / i _.. ------ ' ,\ �i �� I\l _.. a _ � a \ V,S � --- --. ._. �_.., �__- --.. N , - ---- --___-_-- / , �-r , -' ------------- -----r .; ) , ,�� 1 � • � � y , � i � � �-__ - - �� ¢ � � �. . i'�� ,:., �/� 1 .. . � t � � � . � --- ''--�-- '�'� � /-"- � . � ' � /y-'� '< � w ' � � , , � , V1 �� ... `' -- ----- -- -- - �-- f---- -- - - _ _ _-__ _ .�� . _�._. � � �,,, i �•�-` v� -- � -=r ` a � � ' \� � � � I I � ,� .i\. � _ -� �; \�� I. � � � � � � � Z � � _ ; -- - - _, 1__ - - � ` - i � ... '., ��" NE`�t 36th - - -- 1 i �� 136th St � �I � �� I � � ��i�� ,_, � � �`C� � � /�` L�1.�L.�Li��1 . �� J� ' � ��..,. . I 1��i��.��lN.� �� /� ;�;�, S� 3 'th 4 �-- - ,�, ` ,-------� � 31 rI �.. �g�b_ . .� . . � , �__ � �� .�, � � W� ,. ��, � -�..----- � � I 1 �\�1\Y�� '\ , � -_ ' V� � --- .. N��.. � � i . . : � � I �__•-- . 1 1 -`.�. � '. - ... _._:------ I 'w I��.\�\`'� �-- \\.�1�� \��1. . ¢ � �\ �i•��i,� _ . .� J.I\ _ � � . . i, �� 1 � ��,� � � I 1` 1 1 � .� . ., -- -- ' . � �y �t �� , � '�'� t�� . �! � _. � ' �� . � 1 � � 1 `19.E6-E � . � ' .� � 'L7.. � � . � I , � � 1 � 1 'I, , .�_: � ' . ,'4„ , ,�- —= --' , `' ;� , ':' , � � , �\�1 � ; r,,� �.��, ` \� � r I i, � �' , - �. i � �_ i � �— r ,,�> 1�.a , __,_- � � �� ;,I�, 1. c I _ .�` ,�� . . , . . ��.� II I� ___..-. ��, ��'� �, a � '�;.�� ,�__ �_ --.,, - � � ��i� r, f ,c � r, ' C � � � r � ,,��,� � � � -�--�- �� 4,"' � � �-- �I� , �o �� . -_ _ ' �,; � � � -- --- ----- ---- - — _._ �, � i i i � � vr--- _ _— -- - ___-----�...��—tzt ----- -- - - - — --- � '/ -- � � tTt < ,...�;�r .r� �1'-, � �. , _. � _. ' i � � �.� � �, �� _ � n,� � �! � \,�1 __ � ',�'...",.>�� I � ,.�� ii , '� ' li � � � , ,.. __a , , E 13 th Pt ` � i�� ii rt � -- �. I --- � �yc�� ` ` � _ __�_ � /�I�t�'�i i i "i � � � �� i � �� - �� ..—�. ! �;,��i � � � � ��41 __ � � ' - - � �-; ��;�� ; � �p � � _ F� � � �,r �t t� �� ' .. -, i . -i- -- --� � �t- �'��d��; � "� l r � � �� i � � _ � -� � � -- , � — � � � � -� . i �,�, / I �� v`� � ___ • �:� �, _ ��r�+�-�ar }--- --_____ — --- , '� -- - -� _ ` - � ' i i - _ i '- -=;�, _.��--_ r ' - i �. �;� � r� ,i �' ��'- .�_��j�,+a"`�'��i �/ � . ��4��n' �� .-__ _ / -- 1v� � / i ..,. �-�RFS^�{��'r � '��i' __----- � ' / - - --_�.. �` „ ' . � _ h , �.. __ _ , � �. _.�: _ ,�, , _ � ,. . _„ __� , �. ... .__:_ __.� � ,,; � SE� 13 t ` � `�i. ,.�� _ , ,, �� ._ � �- - - ---- �.,:-- ` �.-r ''-___ ___-- - � , „� �- ,- .� -�---- �_ .`:' C,'�\; -_ ,�� . : - ., -. ; ,;;, :, j _W.....� �` i ---- -- _'� ....,. ,,'y '- _ ,�„� __-___-SE--1�IIth!S#�. ___- _�_ � � �:_ � :.. � ... �-�-�-r- ---- • , __ __ .---1------ _,_.� _- . �_ �__ _--- - _..-- - - �" ..w �......w '�. -_/ i,:� ,. . �' . ..'_'__- . � ' __..:�_ ,. . . �.� _ __ __ .. .. . ""1 . . _ _, � - ,�.- i , .. „.. «�-- .. . .: ,. . �. '.--- �, ' � � .. �. .w- . � ..-. .. ��. � . �-- . . • ---- ._ . �, _w... „ ., ... '---- ____._..-- ------ ' � ��W � (WjJ...� -'-- -'- --�' / �-- - - .w E _� - - �� " -' � ----- -�; ---.:-�: -- --- --- � -. -_ _.. -�--- _ r 1 l -.-.. , + _- - ---- _� . 19� y ,� � �. �.I� - ,t -'-. . � �--.: ._.. l�. L__J__,_. . ..-- -- . .. --- � I ��..��=,I J �L �-�-'- '..` /1� . � ¢ � ~ __._ - --- _.._ .�� .�.. I: . � 1 -- ._ ____.. ---f� SE �140 h ,Pt ... ._i__W_ ----1 .-N- _..._ c, - — _ �' ; �- .�.. , ._._.��., i � :�: �i ;�� --•�--, � - --� -a: ---- a:- - -- _ - � _-- -- ---- - ' L --- `^ ' 1 - 3 � � ___. .___. .,_� ._._-1.___. .__ �� .. -___ _ - � .__ _. . J �. � _,_ � ,�� - r�_ �,,,� � �__.�.- � � � ; � --- --� --- i 1. - f r � ( ; , � : , ------ ------- --- -- - _,, � -_ __ __1-�- _� : __ � � ___ _ ISE �142nd St � i � I I � i ___,_� �� i� �; } 1 �......_.._..- - � i i _t 1 T-- , I I i i - - - - -.-..-. _.._ _ � , i I I / _._.._._.._.._.. . _.._ _. 1 -- �' �� .._ � f 4 is,re-i t I i _-�__._._ I � 8 p ____ --- , _ � � - -' � � �� _..--= SE d Pl W - �--- W -._ __W _ __ __ ___ �---- �__ _.__... _ i ----��I I. � � � ' -- �----tA - y -- �� W .. r ��-- r--�-- -- . , - �� I I � . , � �L�L I I — �- - ,. - ';_N 1 � . \ II'r I : 1 I -i ��N-� ' - -- .. .. . ._� - � --- --- i ._. ._-- � ..., , �+- - -� d q•c ,;�, � � � _`- ��I i i __ �, � � (-� . r-= _._ \ ,� s ., - -- .-s�, --- -'�*�' --. - ----- -- { � - _.� ' ' - /C i i y - - � ` -*' r� s i i - � ._ i i- - , ¢ i i { '� -- _ � -- - --� ---� --- - '� ' m -- R , --� � � __._ � �- � � � , a � �-._ Pl `, ..• F� � --'�..�___ �, I- � � SE `� i i _�_ __ _ r, _ -- --._ i ---- -- � I � �.. 1 ;a -�---- v� � I i � •r � � _ _ L �,t , � � ,�-_ __�, i _ _ _. tis� . + .__ � �, �__� .� � r� o - __ � r— - f�;. ,� -- __.--- ---- --- -- ;\ /` � � E � 14 th �St -- \ ,I , � \ � .---- -- � �� _vWi __ �/ � , I � � , , I 4 � � s� -- \�` --- � � (.-' _ 1 %. I �_ � � � � _� __ - , :�1 . r,� �, _._.d. i _ x \- \ � \ i / ( � -- � _ ._ , t � --1� � ` , �.. � � ` � .. ,�__ „ ,. .. „I _ I S tA �� j ! � ' � � ��-� � +, - � .,- �.._-� ' ; �, ��, , �, , � �._.,i__--' Sf,�_- --_� - - ___-i- - __ `1-l_. _�,�_ ,r,J.��-""' .' � ;-_ �.. \Y�.__ , _..__ � i _:.I � , ....� _ _. I � \ � ...�._ . � , __ ,�.�_- ; _.._-- i ,�� \�� i .,�, T�-�� `� � �� i f--y_ -----�_- r ,� /� � _t" 1 _.., __ ---- `�\.\ �I`i i i y'., .__,...,'�� ' � i " G6 • 22 T23N R5E E 1/2 � Q 2Q0 4Q0 �� Y , +;, °� Storm System �� ,r►� 1:4800 , � p/g/pW TBCHNICAL 3ERVIGFS - � � 15 T23N R5E E 1/2 � '��o'� un�io2 5315 � i�i ` Annexation Review Form ��'��, X 10% Notice of Int nt � JU� �� [ ] e [ � 60/o Annexation Petition � ciT-�, 6?004 Lr � OF TO : Building Surface Water Utility ��<<t'v`�?'c NTp Fire Water Utility f r�dfSN Parks Wastewater Utility Police Transportation Public Works Maintenance Current Planning FROM : Don Erickson (x6581) Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning SUBJECT . Mosier 2 Annexation (revised Mosier Annexation) Location : This proposed + 7.89 acre annexation area is located between 142nd Avenue SE on the west and Jericho Avenue/144th Avenue SE on the east. It is bordered by SE 132�d Street on the south and abuts the City boundary on the north. Date Circulated: Julv 14, 2004 Comments Due: Julv 22, 2003 (to Don Erickson, EDNSP) General Information Area : 7.89 acres Street length : N/A Assessed Value : $1,201,000 Estimated Population : 10 Current Uses Residential : 4 dwelling units Commercial : Industrial : Public : Comp Plan Designation : Residential Low Density Future Uses: : 50 Single Family Dwellings Future Po ulation • 125 residents Reviewing DepartmenUDivision:��T� �� UT� / 1. Does this annexation represent any unique or significant problems for your department/division? �� `.r��s„� �� `��, 2. Are you awar of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the area? �____�j��,,`,✓�� `�� !�. - �'�'� �� /o�� (Over) r t 3. Does this proposed annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your • department/division? �/� r v�2��'�T..�_��>,��'�- I 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation?� �/ /i��a 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? �✓ `�D 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) \ ,�l �� M'J 0� �� ,_ ��/��''�� 1� ��,r � � Gv�� ,�c�� %�� General recommendation and comments: �� " `""� �� -��y�i'��i�� Ui�';�� 'f��y/'��i�� 'h� ' �0'�� /��G�/��D�� l f,, / Signature: Date: J D . A-oy ooy Ci7Y OF R��1T4�d JtlN ' 8 2CG��, NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ��c�iVED � ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS v'�Y c��'s°G�� 3,�.m UNDER RCW 35A.14.120 (Direct Petition Method) �10°Io PETITION— ��5/Pi�Z Z. ANNEXATION� TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF SUBMI'Tri'ED BY: c7�t�1/t ,�3�dG THE CITY OF RENTON ADDRESS: '�il�I� �� City Hall, c/o City Clerk �%��d'_��; �t11�= i�� 1055 South Grady Way PHONE: �Z�'"��/y'�'��6/ Renton, WA 98055 The undersigned are the owners of not less than ten percent (10%) of the acreage of property for the proposed annexation area which they desire to annex to the City of Renton. We hereby advise the City Council of the City of Renton that it is our desire to commence annexation proceedings under the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120 and SB 5409, of all or any part of the area described below. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is contiguous to the City of Renton. A legal description (Exhibit A) and map (Exhibit B) are included as part of this petition. The City Council is requested to set a date not later than sixty days after the filing of this request for a public meeting with the undersigned. 1. At such meeting, the City Council will decide whether the City will accept, reject or geographically modify the proposed annexation; 2. The City Council will decide whether to require simultaneous adoption of a proposed zoning regulation, such a proposal having been prepared and filed for the area to be annexed as provided for in RCW 35A.14.330 and 35A.14.340; and, 3. The City Counci] will decide whether to require the assumption of existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed. This page is the first of a group of pages containing identical text material. It is intended by the signers that such multiple pages of the Notice of Intention be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention. It may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. Page 1 of 2 ; WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or sigris a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilry of a misdemec�nor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the name that appears on record in the title to the real estate.) �:;��. i�',:, .�'��P ,' a :��. '.r' +� �.�.�,�r... �� .. _-.�:.� s,�.a_ <.�'*,�t. �s�e�%'..�. ':�? '=5- ;�` :� � (,�� , .o�or.�,•�o,,, c�., ►�+-r-e�.,.�o.,, t30�.�;. : y :�� ,.�.�"Z30��T06� `�yZ 1. �°� vR,E�v i�/, /�o s iE 12�1�l O�UU' Prt9�9, 9i�4D� �C�S L.� 2 / 2. �� .�'�� /�/I Z a�v uJ�q�� .�z3c��d�o ,� �� ve� �� i►fl , ,��s j346d" 1�� l�v�s�, d�2305 9'I6(, . 6� 3. ��O y (� ��/i��oti', t�� 9b'oS9 Cf�� /�p�w,�/ Si✓u.eX /� `` ds�a o l�'9 �� s� 4. 6 a��` ��.�` c.c� f.�2�9�' �{6 �� ! �'�/Ja a`� �" '��, o �='�G=S 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Page 2 of 2 H:\DIVISION.S\P&TS\PLANNING\ANNEX\10%Notice of Intent(rev's).doc\DE O1/05/04 t _ . EXHIBIT A TO PETTTION Lega! Description PARCEL A: STR 152305 TAXLOT 64 E 310 FT OF S 200 FT OF FOLG: SE 1/4 NW 1/4 NE 1/4 STR 15-23-05 LESS S & W 30 FT PARCEL B: STR 152305 TAXLOT 90 POR SE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 BEG NW COR SD SUB TH S 88-22-52 E ALG NLY LN 30 FT PARCEL C: STR 152305 TAXLOT 116 E 280 FT OF N 117FTOFS417FTOFSE 1/40F NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 LESS E 30 FT LESS PARCEL D: STR 152305 TAXLOT 65 LOT 3 OF KC SHORT PLAT NO 488038 RECORDING NO 8909120157 SD SHORT PLAT DAF - SE • LM1 s rr.+�• .} � �.\�yd1.�J �-�� • i 'li �i1Y M1Y►1 i ' i 7t 7AV Nlo�l f�H► �7Iw) � � •IW � N y i wr.r Jr J r i= '�� '} `t ti�. � 4tii, �'�� at t t �v-f '�r�i�v.- s `�\ v. ri• ' + ♦♦ j w ' ► � q .,._.,, jt `�` t I =��"�7 � ��y�yi�i� � � t 1• ; V}� , `1; i�� 1 •` • a • ' I � � t ``� ��'F N � _,,,,,,� f � • � � +.�, � «�,..•.�,.g • ' � 3 Y t � � � � �i'b � •� --��.r � � ��.. � ,.— .� , 4► �`rJ1 '�l' � ; � `�� v �� •� `I Y . .�•.,, � _� � � �� #s +—�=,; .�� , ��\ y�t �', e�� `b b; � +t�� ' , t ...�, �� ,� � � ;s IM'i � N �I � ��'r f ., �Nf�f W �'�� N'i1t1 �..�� . ��'Clp ..�.�� 1[]J+� NL►r v'• • .1t. �f A 1►fl �iJ�M�.i') � � w .--�;,,,,�� 'E �,m � '�.�� '�• t°(,, j �,m'�A � �.o �~3't. ��` � • ��' � .J {-- " K c� � � � �t� � z .. �� o � � r �t .:Y. . ..,,� _. � . . � � �-{ � � � �� J � � �..,—� � � -�:� ,o L�1 �:�...1 � �. � �. �� ""�=o j z —�..�.-- ,. µ ��'�' „ : � � s� r � --�'-'�� i , f � t O r . '�� `�� ,'�« � � '',m „ . E,, � , �q� � �,t �� z �� '� � �: � � ; o . � s M �� a� = N M ==' —na� �..�. ,.•». �. q ...... ... �.... '� .:.....x'�" ...... �,, Z �w.r ` , . J.w/.^ ♦.�. ��f��. .�. -�-� , � .. 4� ' t� ' ��r'��B ��'��°'� ' ' � � � i� �� " i � i..�� , j' ( � � -�„y"`' � t • `,} s � a s� r'� � t �3..: � �.. �.t rw�� i ��-'�-'T'��' � 'a.. t02 I • I ��" � i� � � 1.� + �.� �Z � 'l. : �'i �:'' •� r c � _�� _ -�S �i� + �• ' �.� •"'",,, y� : � � �.�'��:•�'� :��..: :�` ' ....}. ......L...1 ,� �� '►�Q � M � QF� . � � , ~ ~ � ' A,, ,' ' � i� +► `' a �1 � ��9 ; i• ��'' � (+ 4 � f ; �t� � � � �:... � : --var ' „�'''�-----�ir".+ � �. t�� . e � ; �,�+ �� i, t� �t ' � , k�� I 1� � _ '':;� � "�t �`• ` ♦ � � ` I, c � � � � x � .. P g , •�i �' "'� eti �' �R „ t'�' s� _._...n►..__. _._,�,,.__..�_... Y:. ' ... J ...., ti '_'. •,••w •w•r If7W�+w+�. �w 7.N .��rwrV�►�►Mr�tiAYw�•wi�t 7AYMLOM hiV�+MJ ��r�_�� • . .w►v�..rr�raw f't��NMN � '�i��0!'YO�r�.�..��. i • � > - _ Q I ' J �I i p � o � U o � � � o o �o � ' Q � � th � � � � b � � Q a Q o � a a � a � d C�9 � � i ry� � LJ � � I, � � d oa ' � d St w� � � o � o 0 0 b � i p� � E n o a o , C� �r► � dfS ��t�� o � a rar� ❑� , � p ° w Q �� ° Q o� Q � � o � �c7 f� C', c� rt o� � � oo au Q � a� � 6 � s � Q � o a � �, � �►- � -�--� � � �- � � o � � �h q ❑ p SE 136 t� �t � � f ..J� � This document Is o qraphic represd�tation,not quamteed ti,J� � to aurvny xwracy,fntmded far cHy only and baaed on tha best informat{on owi�the data ahown. � 7AI5 map is for diaplay purposes mly. Proposed Mosier II Annexation � 400 g�� Figure 3: Existing Structures Map 1 : 4800 ZY Gti �,,{, Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning � Exlsting StrUcture �� + Alex Pietsch,Administrator --- Renton City Limits G.Del Rosario �°NTo 15 July 2004 � Proposed Annexation Area . � t � � Annexation Review Form `�E�E'I�E� � �� 6200 ' (X ] 10% Notice of Intent [ ] 60% Annexation Petition�l�Y�� 4 TO : Building Surface Water Utility `r��`�T�`RS��N Fire Water Utility Parks Wastewater Utility DUi ��Zl j6f Police Transportation � � �„ , Public Works Maintenance Current Planning FROM : Don Erickson (x6581) Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning SUBJECT . Mosier 2 Annexation (revised Mosier Annexation) Location : This proposed + 7.89 acre annexation area is located between 142nd Avenue SE on the west and Jericho Avenue/144th Avenue SE on the east. It is bordered by SE 132�d Street on the south and abuts the City boundary on the north. Date Circulated: Julv 14, 2004 Comments Due: July 22, 2003 (to Don Erickson, EDNSP) General Information Area : 7.89 acres Street length : N/A Assessed Value : $1,201,000 Estimated Population : 10 Current Uses Residential : 4 dwelling units Commercial : Industrial : Public : Comp Plan Designation : Residential Low Density Future Uses: : 50 Single Family Dwellings Future Po ulation � 125 residents Reviewing Department/Division: �p�(�r,i �,(Cu�� '��Iu�E'A.�k� 1. Does this annexation represent any unique or significant problems for your department/division? No . 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the area? NG - �Nx6�i � ,� w�^r� 4C;�st� Ca� �lf�, ��-� �a �s t� s�� • (Over) . ► 3. Does this proposed annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your � departmenUdivision? j tJU�r(� S�.uTc� 7v �� PRc� ��7� (�y 1�.C . t,�.0 rn a 0 . 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? (,p u1�C �;C • UJ�D• �A U �1 w C C�1 fti�i� 01= t�l��/ P�A i t� MS i u�`1 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? _ I�o Pu►�x� P�a�o�Ro�l o�F lt,c . �.p, q�� AGu�i�S a� Pf��s6� Qi�b, _ �.�• �.fl �t q� �� S6'1 14� A� �A I.cCk.�� Ul� �E1CC'� —t'b OQ�M+'C'L� 'f�i x. (u�rtlew ult�S Uurf)++�1 (LE�r7�►�i (L�ts�G"-o.��wpn c - 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) K IA General recommendation and comments: � C�it,tl�i Ln-t� d� Urn��vv Dr��i�a�si N'�'1 ►�V��f t5E rr��r,�►r>» �l6Lo*� 1zC w� �l o PtUU�, -c� A�'1 O��EI.o On�u� �ri 11u*► 'rkE prr�.► �x� A�t� � CC�1srAc� I�SD ��U Ir` 4Zf- 2.�- �i 6 90 b �S�t�'1 'fht^h fI.E�kG.on� Pn.o Pis� A-�tn�b'�a-'.--c°`'� ' Signature: ��(i �i�'�� Date: 5�"� ��a�'" . A-oy ooy " , �CtTY OF RL�l7Q�! , �UN ' 8 2CG��, NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ��E� ,� ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS ��Y��`��'�°`�� ,m UNDER RCW 35A.14.120 (Direct Petition Method) (10% PETITION— ,��tS/Pi�Z .Z ANNEXATIONI TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF SUBMITTED BY:c�'�� THE CITY OF RENTON ADDRESS: '��-'� �� City Hall, c/o City Clerk ��a� �t1�'= 5'��' 1055 South Grady Way PHONE: �T.��"'�1/�``��f(�� Renton, WA 98055 The undersigned are the owners of not less than ten percent (10°Io) of the acreage of property for the proposed annexation area which they desire to annex to the City of Renton. We hereby advise the City Council of the City of Renton that it is our desire to commence annexation proceedings under the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120 and SB 5409, of all or any part of the area described below. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is contiguous to the City of Renton. A legal description (Exhibit A) and map (Exhibit B) are included as part of this petition. The City Council is requested to set a date not later than sixty days after the filing of this request for a public meeting with the undersigned. l. At such meeting, the City Council will decide whether the City will accept, reject or geographically modify the proposed annexation; 2. The City Council will decide whether to require simultaneous adoption of a proposed zoning regulation, such a proposal having been prepared and filed for the area to be annexed as provided for in RCW 35A.14.330 and 35A.14.340; and, 3. The City Council will decide whether to require the assumption of existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed. This page is the first of a group of pages containing identical text material. It is intended by the signers that such multiple pages of the Notice of Intention be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention. It may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. Page 1 of 2 , WARNING: Every person who signs this petitio�i with any other than his or her true name, or who , kriowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she ' is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the name that appears on record in the title to the real estate.) �,;. ;. ;��:�;,�., _� '�� . � „�(t �. ° ,�;: .� � �4'+;„�� 'pF. �a , . . �� .;�i. -t.. S�•,-h a,'�i'` r.A �S^�X. .}. � o�ou,,�o,�, c.., ►�►-,-�., 130� �y D�� r�Z30��1064� ,��Z/Z 1. °� �„�vR,�n� w►/"lo s.E2 ��iv l a�v'� Ir�N�� 9�� cl�s �y�T .�� /�I Z�' ��`'l4� . z, �.��d�o * �'�' 2. D �u�r ,�-cf� ��a�, t.U�O�q�DS� �c�s j346�" 1�! /�U�S�, d�2305=�1'llC� i 6� 3. ��Oy ��I��d.U, �e�t 9�o5q C �S �¢eW��l Si✓Ge.� � !�- d�'�o ��'�' 6F� S� 4. 6 a��` ��.� �,,� r.�z�9�s �{a �� -� �� "`� o �='�=S s. 6. 7. 8. 9. lo. Page 2 of 2 H:\DIVISION.S\P&TS�PLANNING\ANNEX\10%Notice of intent(rev's).doc\DE O1/05/04 . EXHIBIT A � TO PETITION Legal Description PARCEL A: STR 152305 TAXLOT 64 E 310 FT OF S 200 FT OF FOLG: SE 1/4 NW 1/4 NE 1/4 STR 15-23-05 LESS S & W 30 FT PARCEL B: STR 152305 TAXLOT 90 POR SE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 BEG NW COR SD SUB TH S 88-22-52 E ALG NLY LN 30 FT PARCEL C: STR 152305 TAXLOT 116 E 280 FT OF N 117 FTOFS417 FTOFSE 1/40F NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 LESS E 30 FT LESS PARCEL D: STR 152305 TAXLOT 65 LOT 3 OF KC SHORT PLAT NO 488038 RECORDING NO 8909120157 SD SHORT PLAT DAF - SE � 4� d"�� • i • �t �I1I MlYYI j� �- ••�W.tt.eZ �N • ��.. '{ t��w � � i � 1 yf 3AV NlOYI f,� ►�v/�✓� Z i �j 4 'i � `,. w' }• 4.t *t,� .,...�, a„ t t f ,.,' ' ��- S � , • �S� �_ ..I ��.1.-��3 � ' � � : � x ' � � � �. � r�.�ri�. � r�<f " .T. l � t 1 � Y ' •� t \ � `�VI , `'; '(� `� : � ;� +A � � —""- t � + � .. .� � «. g .., � � � � �b � .;� ...•.�. ' � i x t �¢ � � � �- r t �',� _i �''� � ' " ��' — .: ,T_... � � � r � �-. . N kN � ��` ��t � ~� � d� t� . i � ,, �• , � $ ..,.� ' a +..... �-- ...•�. ,,, '� v� �,,,�,� j • �I 'Y fw J�f.fil ,w 3 M'4t1 j �' ` as aw w r. » r,,..__ .... ��'^fs�5�i "1 nTuY�a �� ;� � j� r w .� lil�V�J� .�evL�� `�, � �.� �� I i y.m��,A � '\,0 i �•t� �� • � O .�T"' �� `O F � � il �t ( :Y.� �Y� , �. • ~ � •�rr� �y�� S ' � � ' � t . . � �'''' � �� ,� �.-�, �:�� ,.- . - � (� ' •�.,{—� � i�� ;,!��- z —sw.Pi.-- '� µ �� '�� ry � �S7 � j a � ♦ �} �r�--1 ��+ S i . i � v � _ W � . �Q1 �j,� t� I'ti O t+ �4.� �� .. . �� -�� . � - $ � � � * °_ �s � � .,.� o : ��, �� _ . . � W � Mwn.� �+�i.` •�- �rw. t. � w. rw .r ; ` ..�.T3�i��' .�'��1R1( • �T�r• . , hv,�� • .►�w a� ' �t� • �� .. ' '.�I �, ;, ( S�0 � � �°0 r � • i t� , y�'� " : 1� :.1 .a�� "4 t � . '�� T��„,�.'.- ` , �rw� l • �'^ � i � �� : y a� �� , � � Z.. t;� tiQ •17 �� { . e-•.. w ,� I � i � � � a. �• �� 3 �41 � 1.f � ��1 �� C �� ; �fi� �`� w Y •r � ic 1� ....}. ...... ...J� � I�= .�t �It � �� 1. � ....r,o, W : � � R�►�I •'�i;.r'�� t� 'I (3" « �'�.0 . (� �i � 01.t .� �}. � Z :'� �� i I� r `� a �+ R 1 �t S�� ' _"„°� ` � �"�--�-�Gj # , �. :�p . �r �,M ��k, ...�. ,'ti. �.� � r—. � e � : ., t,. a� I �l� _ s�� r�� >> �` ..� ..S � t �F � ! � j I � �� '�...r<��' _•_1ts�!•��•.�..�_.._.'u'.•: � "'� 1 s � � �`� � �� t� �� _� ,�i.. t .,. '�� __ � . , . t:. �n� �.w...��...s« +.-...� . w��. i�i-a w�i��vw i.�..w:.:w«�:.:is��r Ottl t�tJO��+��.....�� . � i � � i � — � '' J �I ', : � o � o � � � _ � �� a�o ; � o � Q � a l� o � b � � Q a i � a � � � ❑ 0 ❑ c' C�0 � � d [r]� p � d n d St oa �� d o � o 0 � � �� Q� � E n o �] o 0 Q �tr C7 �� n o � � [��} � ❑� o 'L.I � � w Q �� ° Q o,� � `� � o � �df� C, c� o o❑ z L7 0 ° a Q � a� � 6 � � � Q � o a � �, ; � � � � � � �, �- o � q � � � p SE 136 t� S�t � Q O Thia dowmant ia a qrcphic reprsaentation,not quarmteed � I 1—Il to wrvey xarocy,(ntmded for city purpoxe mly and u L_f�' bosed on tha bast infortnotian awilable as ot the dote ehown. � � This mop is fa diapioy purposes only. Proposed Mosier II Annexation � 400 g�� Figure 3: Existing Structures Map 1 : 4800 Gti�Y o.,;, Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning � Existing Structure �� * Alex Pietsch,Administrator --- Renton City Limits G.Del Rosario ANT� 15 July 2004 0 Proposed Annexation Area ✓ Annexation Review Form [X� 10% Notice of Intent [ ] 60% Annexation Petition TO : Building Surface Water Utility Fire Water Utility Parks Wastewater Utility Police Transportation Public Works Maintenance Current Planning FROM : Don Erickson (x6581) Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning SUBJECT . Mosier 2 Annexation (revised Mosier Annexation) Location : This proposed + 7.89 acre annexation area is located between 142nd Avenue SE on the west and Jericho Avenue/144"'Avenue SE on the east. It is bordered by SE 132"d Street on the south and abuts the City boundary on the north. Date Circulated: July 14. 2004 Comments Due: Julv 22, 2003 (to Don Erickson, EDNSP) General Information Area : 7.89 acres Street length : N/A Assessed Value : $1,201,000 Estimated Population : 10 Current Uses Residential : 4 dwelling units Commercial : Industrial : Public : Comp Plan Designation : Residential Low Density Future Uses: : 50 Single Family Dwellings Future Po ulation � 125 residents Reviewing Department/Division: `�s �t. � ✓ � 1. Does this annexation represent any unique or significant problems for your department/division? � � a 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the area? �•� �v� (Over) 3. Does this proposed annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your department/division? , �� 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? � � 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? /1 /J /U/T 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) /(/ /� General recommendation and comments: Signature: �r�.� - Date: � � ✓ ,� aiti�F H RE�EIVE� Annexation Review Form JU� 1� 2Q�� [ X� 10% Notice of Intent [ ] 60% Annexation Petiti��DiN�p��S�On,� TO : Building Surface Water Utility Fire Water Utility Parks Wastewater Utility Police Transportation Public Works Maintenance Current Planning FROM : Don Erickson (x6581) Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning SUBJECT . Mosier 2 Annexation (revised Mosier Annexation) Location : This proposed + 7.89 acre annexation area is located between 142nd Avenue SE on the west and Jericho Avenue/144t'' Avenue SE on the east. It is bordered by SE 132"d Street on the south and abuts the City boundary on the north. Date Circulated: Julv 14, 2004 Comments Due: Julv 22, 2003 (to Don Erickson, EDNSP) General Information Area : 7.89 acres Street length : N/A Assessed Value : $1,201,000 Estimated Population : 10 Current Uses Residential : 4 dwelling units Commercial : Industrial : Public : Comp Plan Designation : Residential Low Density Future Uses: : 50 Single Family Dwellings Future Po ulation � 125 residents Reviewing Department/Division: �,�c-(��,c` 1. Does this annexation represent any unique or significant problems for your department/division? !Y `� 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the area? ��i (Over) 3. Does this proposed annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your departmenUdivision? �� 4. What additional facilities or staff would be required to serve this area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? �� 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? �l��, 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logicai annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) C��/K�. General recommendation and comments: Signature� Date: ��,� lJ �� A-o�oo� � � -cfrr oF��r�ra�a .�U!V � 8 2CG��.,, NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE R�c��vED � ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS ��'Y��'�°`��u= 3,�.m UNDER RCW 35A.14.120 (Direct Petition Method) {10% PETITION— �D�S/Pi� 2• ANNEXATION) TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF SuslvtlTTED BY: ��r/t ,�3�cdC THE CITY OF RENTON ADDRESS: '��-3� �� City Hall, c/o City Clerk ��:�� fitllt�= i�� 1055 South Grady Way PHONE: ��`-��/y�'Q�C�� Renton, WA 98055 The undersigned are the owners of not less than ten percent (10%) of the acreage of property for the proposed annexation area which they desire to annex to the City of Renton. We hereby advise the City Council of the City of Renton that it is our desire to commence annexation proceedings under the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120 and SB 5409, of all or any part of the area described below. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is contiguous to the City of Renton. A legal description �Exhibit A) and map (Exhibit B) are included as part of this petition. The City Council is requested to set a date not later than sixty days after the filing of this request for a public meeting with the undersigned. 1. At such meeting, the City Council will decide whether the City will accept, reject or geographically modify the proposed annexation; 2. The City Council will decide whether to require simultaneous adoption of a proposed zoning regulation, such a proposal having been prepared and filed for the area to be annexed as provided for in RCW 35A.14.330 and 35A.14.340; and, 3. The City Council will decide whether to require the assumption of existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed. This page is the first of a group of pages containing identical text material. It is intended by the signers that such multiple pages of the Notice of Intention be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention. It may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. Page 1 of 2 . �'- WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the name that appears on record in the title to the real estate.) �g��. �:,,� - •a�� ,� } '�� j� '� 9 ' � 'f� 'i 4�Y `.a �':� � �",.t?�.Y", t3 :�L� ''s=3�:^ �,P�.d' 'b R ✓� ./e ��a,,, c�.� M-i-e�., -t302��:,. ,`� _ �� l�,�Z30�-gf'16� `��Z 1. 7��/� vR,E.,r w/`7os.E ��lvl a�u� Gt9�9� 9�44� �c�"s L� � l�7� .�� /�/Z`� v1�`��4� . 5� l�'Z3C1��C� .- �'� 2. ��a� L.c1d0�q�D�i � �vel� �?c� ` ��s �346d" 1�l�l Rv�s�, 1�23c�5-�'�<� , 6'� 3. ��Oy ��/v7-orv, t,�to�� 9�osq l�ee+a•�J ,5'�/u.� �QC��S 4. 6��` d�`��9 �� s� t.�z3�9� �{` l� ! �'�/�� "" a`� r.e�'��, o �'�S 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Page 2 of 2 H:\DIVISION.S\P&TS\PLANNING\ANNEX\10%Notice of Intent(rev's).doc\DE O1/05/04 ,� � , . EXHIBIT A TO PETITION Legal Description PARCEL A: STR 152305 TAXLOT 64 E 310 FT OF S 200 FT OF FOLG: SE 1/4 NW 1/4 NE 1/4 STR 15-23-05 LESS S 8� W 30 FT PARCEL B: STR 152305 TAXLOT 90 POR SE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 BEG NW COR SD SUB TH S 88-22-52 E ALG NLY LN 30 FT PARCEL C: STR 152305 TAXLOT 116 E 280 FT OF N 117FTOFS417FTOFSE1/40F NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 LESS E 30 FT LESS PARCEL D: STR 152305 TAXLOT 65 LOT 3 OF KC SHORT PLAT NO 488038 RECORDING NO 8909120157 S� SHORT PLAT DAF - SE ��.r�..�.�f�tltLp11.i0.�r..e� i INMJf.f . . �.�� CN,rIMJ �0111�Mt iC �r.wwAVw.�Mh�+►rww��~ N'�� rs�.� r�.�+.w . �� ww�.r• Tt.��, qrLJ� .� ' i.: `�� y� ��R � �l� � � ' i:l."�....��,��.�,.� •��wYt�'� � , �x � k � � 5 3� � � �} '. � I -•• � �t yt� t �a':. �1 I N�t . ; � �':' ,{ ` �` M`� Z ;� � �`; �L Y *LS'�7"�� _(�r"� � r A .. ,;•. i'� • � r � 1 � It — . -M- ;': �C$7kt, L� � �l t t 0 �, e .�t � � �*.� ''�= L � �. ;� ,.y�,..,� .' � "oM � � � ` , �j ` �''S,. " � i�f.t ; @ t........�...... � .�' � 1 = "0�-M..' 't � ?� ,s4'i�ye._ = I ,. . ;� �. . �.. e �, � + � y '--;P I `= . �� ' , : �.i� �it k �0 1 ti �.t � �.� � � Q` � i I . I {iea r. � ,3: _� �� } •_° ,�� '�� a � _ �,� • : � :.,;��„�- --=� L_;..... � c= � � � , � � � 1 '� •' � •, � � `t � �R ' �l�! • . � �;,�a�. ; � 011 �' '� ''�,�� ,::�:_'_ ?—•,�rst—• ; • ..... '°''"'� � . .'"" : ^ �w � M� �v � 1 W.�1 = • •y �'11�� •�J a/�/�M �� • '� ��y� 1�' �" t �� 0� ^ N '� Y � � � _� �. . �i � t'..�. �� " ; ,ap► � ' m�4s fi� � � � • ►'3 � � • • �N � � O �'' �� w O ; !t � r i z � s�. �j� • �e � ; : t �' . --9�'�— • �.,� � > > 4 . .. '�"�'�'� .�t •t.�� , y 1 . 1 ,r--= � r-�,:-� ''m`-� � • ' � (� � r�� t� �`},,... ��• � ,"� ►� . --.- �.,._��.. � v' 1� � `-�� ' p+ � �� , �� Z � . .+� '; � ♦ I � ii � ;� s ---1 (— 3 ,..-e_. w � 1C ��.�M{ O'�, a'�'m� ! I��. �'�►t 3�'yf a �; i.�-�►�-" ��.. 4t+rw�JYl tM AV! t ,� ~ •• . Uli�� Si.�� •sn .. �Nt tt � � 1' , �* i.s.n = �. �'� �se.w ��tr �� aw.i ti � +` .✓ . s.l.r.i 1 � . � I• �..nr ; ! � • � I _.r.`, �9 � ��M.�� I� `�� { � � nJ+ 7r��r , --.� ..:.�.. ^ �� t , � �c I� �� . � , � � �j � . 1 T' F ; � , ��. �a.vJN,�,N • � � ��i� � C � • � � � �RR� Z . � t� �' i;` '� � � ( I ' � � �� i � ��• r�.�._ I i �Tr�:..,, . : , � � x`*'�' '`� i1 ` � t 4 � t i •'t� � i � , .� • e t , � tii�� il l 7� � � i � l rr. .�.n.. �' G Z � C�K� +'N � 140 TM AVE SE 1~ t 'r� �.v.��r L ' �( r��T�T.�.�� IalTM Mf fC t �� i� , �: * � Annexation Review Form [X] 10% Notice of Intent [ ] 60% Annexation Petition TO : Building Surface Water Utility Fire Water Utility Parks Wastewater Utility Police Transportation Public Works Maintenance Current Planning FROM : Don Erickson (x6581) Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning SUBJECT . Mosier 2 Annexation (revised Mosier Annexation) Location : This proposed + 7.89 acre annexation area is located between 142nd Avenue SE on the west and Jericho Avenue/144th Avenue SE on the east. It is bordered by SE 132�d Street on the south and abuts the City boundary on the north. Date Circulated: July 14, 2004 Comments Due: Julv 22, 2003 (to Don Erickson, EDNSP) General Information Area : 7.89 acres Street length : N/A Assessed Value : $1,201,000 Estimated Population : 10 Current Uses Residential : 4 dwelling units Commercial : Industrial : Public : Comp Plan Designation : Residential Low Density Future Uses: : 50 Single Family Dwellings Future Po ulation • 125 residents Reviewing DepartmenUDivision: G�� (�.�[g-, ��v��e„�a,•�c,e. 1. Does this annexation represent any unique or significant problems for your department/division? Uv � 2. Are you aware of any problems or deficiencies in existing infrastructure or service provision to the area? /� d (Over) . i 3. Does this proposed annexation represent a logical extension of services provided by your department/division? \( ,„ W`�� 4. What addi#ional facilities or staff would be required to serve this area? Can you identify any other costs the City would incur as a result of this annexation? 1 V V *`"' 5. Would the City assume ownership or responsibility for facilities currently owned or managed by another jurisdiction? Would new agreements or franchises be required as a result of this annexation? N (� 6. Would alternate boundaries create a more logical annexation for provision of City services? (If yes, please indicate on the attached map.) ('�' General recommendation and comments: � Signature:�jr1�,�e,,,., . Date: �— Z � �Y w . A-oy ooy �cf-r�oF�=�-r�a�a .�UN ' 8 2CG��., NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ��c`;,�� " ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS 41�Y��'��'�� 3.�.m UNDER RCW 35A.14.120 (Direct Petition Method) (10% PETITION— �t�t5/�i� .Z ANNEXATION) TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF SUBMITTED BY: c�'�� -� THE CITY OF RENTON ADDRESS: '�lt�-�� City Hall, c/o City Clerk ��/; l�it1/�� i�� 1055 South Grady Way PHONE: ��-�� Renton, WA 98055 The undersigned are the owners of not less than ten percent (10°Io) of the acreage of property for the proposed annexation area which they desire to annex to the City of Renton. We hereby advise the City Council of the City of Renton that it is our desire to commence annexation proceedings under the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120 and SB 5409, of all or any part of the area described below. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is contiguous to the City of Renton. A legal description (Exhibit A) and map (Exhibit �) are included as part of this petition. The City Council is requested to set a date not later than sixty days after the filing of this request for a public meeting with the undersigned. 1. At such meeting, the City Council will decide whether the City will accept, reject or geographically modify the proposed annexation; 2. The City Council will decide whether to require simultaneous adoption of a proposed zoning regulation, such a proposal having been prepared and filed for the area to be annexed as provided for in RCW 35A.14.330 and 35A.14.340; and, 3. The City Council will decide whether to require the assumption of existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed. This page is the first of a group of pages containing identical text material. It is intended by the signers that such multiple pages of the Notice of Intention be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention. It may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. Page 1 of 2 . 1 WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true narne, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes hereiri any false statement, shall be guilry of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the name that appears on record in the title to the real estate.) �� :. .. '.. ;# : � :��: e � ��,: .._��; , :�,., ��. � u, �� i � ��_�,'�i:" i�^' ;i.:..��' ;i:�" x��s�'"<-� �:�:_ �."-.a;:: - �y`.:s<-�5'<; G� p�a,�..s,o� L✓� I'�'l-e�...a-� �3��..: � �I�� z30J�`f�� t�Z 1. '�o� °� ��R,�� w,�Jo s.�� iv l a�u� ��, 9�� c�s 2. ��T .�� /ell Z o��0 q�C� ��z3cl��o�o � �'� � c�t1� �c� �� :�5 j�o��' 1� �v�s�, 1�-a��s=�itG . 6'7 3. ��Oy ��v7ra.v, t,�� 9�os9' C�� /�Q,cw.�/ ,5'�/u,� f7 4. 6 a��` ��'a o ��9 ��- s� j�z3�9�' �` �� .��, cc�,d�, ��"S �J--1 �'�JJ� o 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Page 2 of 2 H:\DIVISION.S\P&TS\PLANNING\ANNEX\10%Notice of Intent(rev's).doc\DE Ol/05/04 EXHIBIT A TO PETITION Legat Description PARCEL A: STR 152305 TAXLOT 64 E 310 FT OF S 200 FT OF FOLG: SE 1/4 NW 1/4 NE 1/4 STR 15-23-05 LESS S & W 30 FT PARCEL B: STR 152305 TAXLOT 90 POR SE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 BEG NW COR SD SUB TH S 88-22-52 E ALG NLY LN 30 FT PA.RCEL C: STR 152305 TAXLOT 116 E 280 FT OF N 117FTOFS417FTOFSE1/40F NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 LESS E 30 FT LESS PARCEL D: STR 152305 TAXLOT 65 LOT 3 OF KC SHORT PLAT NO 488038 RECORDING NO 8909120157 SD SHORT PLAT DAF - SE . __....... ...... .rr•.•� i 11wM.O.t ' ' irs�r. �...«.r �.��.��r= C�l�A1RJ0 �O Ti MIl fC i�:..wr.��►�MN�+►vM��M M'L�+�^�� -�� . nrl.1/i�� w�• �.� � �� ..� � � iil_R....��'��. ��wr+� � ' 'nrrr.'� ' _�ye.._'_ ":' '�,� t�: t .�; � `tia et�, ,, !�` ' s , k � : ;� 1� � � ,t , �� x 1 ' ��R �`� : ��: � � '• � ,� ' ,t .. 'y i '� � ��---- ' ��—`` - ' !�,# �t -t �ti '� " � � I' 1 :�� ,� I .�. n� _�«• ��, ,ti t ��t t rt a � ,, ,�, y M �►I !� �'� � �. " '�o t " �' ' o�'. � ��fI i; :...............{... � ..�.,�.• �,� � 1 = M �,,,.,• n,t R ,� � �I� ,�qt4yer-.—Y I I � 31 a � :� '�r.:� 'i+1 � �'0 �. �; �•1► � " � Q` � � �� ' �:Ba „ " 't a. � �'� „ ` � �Y/� �i• � ,3• �h � � �� a ♦ Z t 1 i v i = ��j�-�� !� � ►• �� • � � . �. �'� ,`y Z w ��R �� ♦ ` ♦ l ��e�� t I 9i}�,t ' �j ' 3 .. 1 ' '�L�.�.11dt�.� ��!YSL�• n•♦ irw..e � � r•�. t . �� • �:��M� .�. NM�► MM • �rAIM• � � �Y��1 �� I� w� N . ` �� ,�� • �y � � Z � YQ �f— �i O �. • � • � � 'b� • � y � ��' '� O �` .-. OT „�--�.�c. �� Q ,, Q �� b ; � � � „ � ;N � z --�'�°�— z ��i�—� ,�� ' C�7 , � , p ,�`��, � •, � ��i� �� 1SL� i . , i . � � =1 � � �� QS � �� .� at.�.+L.. � � - �. , � �• ,� � ----1 r-� �; ' �' � � +.�.L. . .� :� ':�� :� i o, ��'� ! ' ��1 �'�`� 3�� '�; 3, �"'""_`" �.. ce.w.+r� 'ma.n ItITM AW[ sS..�._ ~ ,� __....^'� +�rH w+c st __ .� � Z sn.w M IlNI �M� F� t M I/1.MI • � � , F , , •• �, .,:.. j . � � I �� 9 �, �M � �� '�� •� � „ ,..J_r _.J : ..;.». � � , � �. ;�.� � � � » j� -. � � t � .,y,r� A � ; I F � � . �MHN� . � 7�,+ J : . ' Y ♦ � �� t • t �'�1 b'4 > > [ � , , ,L�. 'A, ` 'R _ � 1..V..� I a T%ri.Iri , � � j � � '� �` `1� � �`'� i , . � � ' w '•'2 J ""' �—�- � � �S� t � � �I i!� �t`.� !� '�1 �' 4' � 'L! t w I �f w+�y ! 'M ♦ ANI♦ �t �rr.K� aY�l 140 TM AVE M � t t 'j 14lTN IME 3( t ' � � ��7pT�1�� i. � . �t � ! L� � � Q�o � � � � � ��' �� Q � � l h � b � � Q � O a Gs Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c' �o � � --- _ � �� ,p �, � d � �- '�-� d S t o a -- o � � -- o — � � � � � � � — Q� � � � n d � n o --- — �1 0 � � ------ �d ��t o � [� ❑ , a � ----- - � _ �� o , Q 4�� ° p ,' ❑ W � � � ° ❑ i, ° �' �c7(� a U-� o � o a� � � o � � o Q � a� > 6 � � � Q � �--J � � CI� � � I � � � � � _ � y � O �� 0 � � � q ❑ p SE 1 �6t� �t � '� Q � � o - - - ° c� � �� a � � i d a � i o � Q � � Q I � � � � This documant is a grophic repreaentation,not guaranteed � to wrvey accurocy, f tended for city purpoxa only ond baaed on tha baet information awilable an of the data ahown. This map is fw display purpoaea only. Proposed Mosier II Annexation � 400 g�� Figure 3: Existing Structures Map 1 : 4800 Uti�Y o,,{, Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning � Existing Structure � � � Alex Pietsch,Administrator --- Renton City Limits G.Del Rosario ��'NTo'� 26 August 2004 � Proposed Annexation Area •� � ,1�� ,� ,• � `� � �� IID ��:' i� � ' �111� � �� ` • 1��1 . ��II��1 ■ I�I � • .. ► �� . ■ 1 �IIII , � r: : . � - � �� . �� . �� _ ��,►�.' � �, �� T . _ � �� `j� � � 1�� - � �� I ��• . � �I �� - � 1� � � � r . � � - ! ��ri ' ' '��OC� � �� .. � �. .� ��11� ; ��I�t�� .� � � __ �. � III ; __ � � � �,/�� _ �� . .. r�"' - - � _ ■ ��II � _ � �� _ � � • ► i �II �r��a�� _ _ � � , : � � �� . � �� . ■ a .. � • �� , � , � � �• � • . ■ � �� ■ � �� ■ �■� ��;J �� j '��1 �_ �r%'�� ... �� ' � � ' � ' . � � � � � : � � .:�::: , � � ,� �m., �1' .�• -:.: ::: '::•:: :.: r � � i � � • . � �- - �� .. .�. � J ' �- •� . � � � • . 11� � ' •�• -• ` � _� o 0 0 � � I�� E t h � -�.. } . r �. � �� ; ; , �- _� d St �� „�y , �; � � �� :� � � - - . E 1 � n d t r n , w : � �� - * �, ; , c� � :� � a� � � � �C > > � � � �� s . Q ,: --+--� . t k�,. O , x � _ � cn � ��, � • ---�--� _ �.. � � � . � � O � , `.,. . _ . _ . _ . ti , k:k�..,+', �— � ..@x..:� . . Sr I J� 6 �h � t I - - --- - -1 — — �� .,� a ��,K��,�.W��'��: C� '`�` � 'r' ,�-' � * '�`i �� , �:� .,,�1� �.��'"�' �� k nl :�`�;;�� '� , �;�,y � VJ � �'�i 4a� M d. If#.- W��sr \ n� �e R / ��Y �' Q x �.: �. �.'y"-i'� �' ," �..{ � , ,'� ��.��:��r �:zd ., �` ��''"��' .,.�z� -«. ,�` +�y, ��:� � �, ^�Iw,..� ~-�.�+s� =,+",,,'_� . . '�' This docummt is a 9rophic ro�rosentotion,not quoranteed � �— '"'��'��,�.,,�hh�: to survey ocwrocy, tended for dty purpoxa only and r . " . . based on the beat intormation awiloble oe of the dote shown. r� � - 'A,��. � � This map is for display purposes only. Proposed Mosier II Annexation � 400 g�� Figure 5: Aerial Map 1 : 4800 Gti�Y �,,{, Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning __ � � � Alex Pietsch,Aam�n�sc�co� — Renton City Limits G.Del Rosario Proposed Annexation Boundary ��N.rO� 26 August 2004 �� CITY OF RENTON � Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Alex Pietsch,Administrator April 11,2005 State of Washington Boundary Review Board for King County Yesler Building, Suite 608 400 Yes2er Way Seattle,WA 98104 Subject: NOTICE OF INTENTION TO EXPAND THE CITY OF RENTON CORPORATE LIMITS BY ANNEXATION Dear Board Members: As required by Chapter 36.93 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the City of Renton hereby gives notice of intention to annex territory hereafter referred to as the "Mosier II Annexation". This annexation is proposed under the direct petition method in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 35t1.14 of the RCW. The perition has been certified by the King County Department of Assessments. This annexation would incorporate into the City of Renton approximately 31 acres of territory for the provision of urban services. To assist in your consideration of the proposed acrion, the required articles and exhibits are enclosed and numbered in accordance with the Board's suggested format. 'I'he $50.00 filing fee is also enclosed. Should questions arise during the review of the information and exhibits provided with this Notice of Intention to Annex,please contact Don Erickson, Senior Planner, at(425)430-6581. Also,please send notices and other communications regarding the proposed annexation to: Don Erickson,AICP; Senior Planner Deparhnent of Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Renton City Hall,6`�Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Mayor 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 R E N T O N �This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer A H E A D O F T H E C U R V E E� ;,, CITY OF RENTON � Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Alex Pietsch,Administrator May 2,2005 State of Washington Boundary Review Board for King County Yesler Building, Suite 608 400 Yesler Way Seattle,WA 98104 Subject: NOTICE OF INTENTION TO EXPAND THE CITY OF RENTON CORPORATE LIMITS BY ANNEXATION Dear Board Members: As required by Chapter 36.93 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCV�, the City of Renton gave notice of intention to annex territory hereafter refened to as the "Mosier II" on April 1l, 2005. T'hat annexation was proposed under the direct petition method in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 35A.14 of the RCW. The City Administration believes that it is in the best interest of the City to expand the boundaries of this annexation to include a sundry of properties to the north and west that, with their inclusion, would result in more reasonable service areas. These properties, like the annexation itself, are located within Renton's designated Potential Annexation Area. By invoking the Board's jurisdiction l�opefully there will be an opportunity to consider the inclusion of these properties at the same time the Board considers the annexation itself. A $200 fee for invoking the Board's jurisdiction is enclosed. Should questions arise during the review of the information and exhibits provided with this Notice of Intention to Annex,please contact Don Erickson, Senior Planner, at(425)430-6581. Also,please send notices and other communications regarding the proposed annexation to: Don Erickson,AICP; Senior Planner Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way ' Renton,WA 98055 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Mayor . 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 R E N T O N �This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer A H E A D O F T H E C U R V E PIEASE DETACH BEFORE DEPOSITING CITY OF RENTON,�IVA 98055 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK N0.237410 INYOt�NUMB$R DATE DESCRtP710N P.O.NUMBER 075COUNT' AMOUNT Mosier II 05/02/2005 Request for BRB to invoke jurisdiction 0.00 200.00 200.00 ��5�.�"�� - Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County Yesler Buildirig, Room 402, 400 Yesler Wn�, Senttle, WA 98104 Phone: (206)296-6800 • Fax: (206)296-6803 • http://wwzv.metrokc.gov/annexcrtions May 10, 2005 ;;:.�� 6��i�Y 1 2 ��5 � City of Renton � �� -°� Attn: Don Erickson, AICP Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: REQUEST FOR REVIEW File No. 2195 - City of Renton - Mosier II Annexation Dear Mr. Erickson: Enclosed is a copy of a request received by the Boundary Review Board for a public hearing on the above-referenced file. The Board is expected to discuss the date for the Ma�2�, 2005. If you have any comments to make regarding scheduling of the hearing, please transmit them to this office prior to the meeting. You will be notified of the date and time of the public hearing. Sincerely, Lenora Blaumail Executive Secretary Enclosure: Request for Review cc: Anne Noris, Clerk of the Metropolitan King County Council Bill Huennekens, Records and Elections Division Diane Murdock, King County Department of Assessment Lydia Reynolds-Jones, Manager, Project Support Services Paul Reitenbach, Department of Development and Environmental Services Michael Thomas, King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning FORM HE1 + � . � RECEIV�'D �;�g ��,� MAY 1 3 2005 Road Services Division WA State Boundary Review Department of Transportation 808rd For King Co. KSC-TR-0231 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-3856 May 12, 2005 Lenora Blauman Executive Secretary Boundary Review Board YES-BR-0220 RE: Citv of Renton—Mosier II Annexation (File 2195� Dear Ms. Blauman: Thank you for the opportunity to review the legal description for the proposed Mosier II Annexation to the City of Renton transmitted with your April 13, 2005 letter. Staff has reviewed the enclosed legal description and found it to be satisfactory, except for a few minor concerns listed below. Staff also found that the boundaries of the area described by the legal description are the same as highlighted on the accompanying Assessor's map. Page 1, Paragraph 1, at the end of Line 3, where it reads "northeast quarter of said subdivision", should read "northeast quarter of said section." • Staff was unable to locate information on Jericho Ave. Previous annexations refer to this right-of-way as 144th Ave. SE (also known as Cedar St.). Please change references to Jericho Ave. to maintain consistency. Page l, Paragraph 4, Line 3, where it reads "margin of SE 132nd St.", please add "(also known as NE 2nd St.)". Page l, Paragraph 5, Line 3, where it reads "NE 2nd St.", please change it to read "SE 132nd St. (also known as NE 2nd St.)". In the review of legal descriptions for annexations, staff attempts to identify islands of unincorporated County and/or marginal road rights-of-way that may have been overlooked by the City in developing the legal description. For this particular annexation staff recommends that the entire right-of-way of 142nd Avenue abutting the annexation area, and the island of a dozen ar so parcels north of the annexation area, between the current City of Renton Boundary Line, also be included in this annexation. ��20TM Lenora Blauman May 12, 2005 Page 2 This annexation does not include a portion of a County park nor conflict with any other municipal boundaries in the vicinity. If you have any questions, please contact Nicole Keller, Vacations and Boundaries Engineer, at 206-296-3731, or via e-mail at Road.R/Wvacations@metrokc.gov. Sincerely, �1� � ��, ___-_ -�,."''' � �� ydia Re olds-Jones Manager Project Support Services LRJ:NK:mr Enclosures cc: Paulette Norman, P.E., County Road Engineer, Road Services Division Anne Noris, Clerk of the King County Council (w/enclosures) Nicole Keller, Engineer II, Engineering Services Section, Roads Services Division ��c� - Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County Yesler Building,Room 402,400 Yesler Way,Seattle, WA 98104 Phone:(206)296-6800 • Fax:(206)296-6803 • http://www.metrokc.gov/annexations April 13, 2005 �EC�I�.�� ^ � d ' C�.�(sj rf C,RO�CjS Fn r. TO: Ms. Lydia Reynolds-Jones Servicesl��ering Department of Transportation Manager, Project Support Services KSC-TR-0231 FROM: Lenora Blauman, Executive Secretary SUBJECT: File No. 2195 - City of Renton - Mosier II Annexation Enclosed please find the legal description and related Assessors map(s) submitted to our office as part of the above-referenced Notice of Intention. We would appreciate your reviewing the legal description and reporting your findings and recommendations back to our office. The copy of the enclosed legal description is for your use and files. It would facilitate processing of revisions to the legal description, however, if you would return a copy of the legal, with any notations you choose to make, along with your report. We would appreciate your response within the 45-day waiting period, which is expected to end Mav 27�2005. The deadline for requesting that the Board invoke jurisdiction and hold a public hearing can only be changed by a revision to the legal description or rnodification of the original Notice of Intention. The support and expert assistance which you and your staff provide on legal descriptions is essential to Board processing of proposed actions. Please let us know if we need to provide you with any further data. Enclosures: Legal Description/Maps R.S.V.P. Max 13, 2005 FORM 5 Exhibit D MOSSIER II ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION The east half(1/2) of the west half(1/2)of the northeast quarter of Section 15,Township 23 North, Range 5 East,W.M., King County,Washington,lying southerly of the north line of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said subdivision; EXCEPT the east 30 feet of said subdivision lying northerly of the southerly right-of-way margin of NE 2"d St. (SE 132°d St.)extended westerly across Jericho Ave.NE(144`h Ave. SE); and EXCEPT the west 30 feet of said subdivision lying northerly of the southerly right-of-way margin of SE 132'�St. extended easterly across 142"d Ave. SE; TOGETHER WTTH that portion of 142"d Ave.5E within the south half(1/2)of the west half (1/2)of the west half(1/2)of said northeast quarter,lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way margin of SE 132"d St.extended westerly across 142"d Ave. SE, said extension terminating at the beginning of a curve to the right with a radius of 20 feet; and TOGETHER WITH that portion of 144`�Ave.SE within the west 30 feet of the east half(1/2) of the northeast quarter of said Section 15,lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way margin of NE 2"a St.extended westerly across Jericho Ave. NE(144`h Ave.SE); and TOGE'THER WITH that portion of SE 136`h St. within the north 30 feet of the east half(1/2)of the east half(1/2)of the west half(1/2)of the southeast quarter of said Section 15;and TOGETHER WITH the north 30 feet of the west 30 feet of the east half(1/2) of the southeast quarter of said Section 15. FILE N0. 2195 - CITY OF RENTON - MOSIER II ANNEXATION H:\File Sys\LND-Land Subdivision&Surveying Records\LND-01 -Legal Descriptions\0063.doc\SFljw C'� �j th d St E13nd t n w � � - � Q Q � � Q � � o � U, d-- -�--' � � � o �-- —, SE 136th St w U� � > Q � � � � Mosier II Annexation �`°�". �°�� 7M�m�Y/ar 6�107 WD��ri Exhibit F1: Proposed annexation boundary 0 400 800 Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Shategic Planning � dl� O♦ Alex Pietuh.Adminisaaior N� G.DelRosario FILE N0. 2195 - CITY OF RENTON - MOSIER II ANNEXATION 1 : 4g�� O 7 Apri120p5 - Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County Yesler Building, Room 402,400 Yesler Way, Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206)296-6800 •Fax: (206)296-6803 • http://www.metrokc.gov/annexations May 31, 2005 I�ECEIVED JUN 0 � 2�05 KC.Roads En�ineering Services TO: Ms. Lydia Reynolds-Jones Department of Transportation Manager, Project Sugport Services KSC-TR-0231 FROM: Lenora Blauman, Executive Secretary SUBJECT: File No. 2195 - City of Renton - Moiser II Annexation (Expanded Version) The copy of the enclosed legal description is for your use and files. It would facilitate processing of revisions to the legal description, however, if you would return a copy of the legal, with any notations you choose to make, along with your report. We would appreciate your response by June 17, 2005. The deadline for requesting that the Board invoke jurisdiction and hold a public hearing can only be changed by a revision to the legal description or modification of the original Notice of Intention. The support and expert assistance which you and your staff provide on legal descriptions is essential to Board processing of proposed actions. Please let us know if we need to provide you with any further data. Enclosures: Legal Description/Maps R.S.V.P. June 17, 2005 FORM 5 , 1 � E�CEII�� er�� c�unty JUN 2 3 2005 Road Services Division Department of Transportation �,$t8t�8 Bouixl.a�'Y R�`�� KSC-TR-0231 �p8(d For FCing Co. 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-3856 June 23, 2005 Lenora Blauman Executive Secretary Boundary Review Board YES-BR-0220 RE: Citv of Renton—Mosier Annexation (Expanded Version) (File 2195) Dear Ms. Blauman: Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised legal description for the proposed Mosier II Annexation to the City of Renton transmitted with your May 31, 2005 letter. Staff has reviewed the enclosed revised legal description and found it to be satisfactory, except for a few minor concerns listed below. Staff also found that the boundaries of the area described by the legal description are the same as on the accompanying map. Page 1, Paragraph 1, Line 5, where it reads "margin of SE 132nd St.", please add "(also known as NE 2nd St.)". Page 1, Paragraph 6, Line 3, where it reads "NE 2nd St.", please change it to read "SE 132nd St. (also known as NE 2nd St.)". In the review of legal descriptions for annexations, staff attempts to identify islands of unincorporated County and/or marginal road rights-of-way that may have been overlooked by the City in developing the legal description. For this particular annexation, the revisions have satisfied staff's concerns, provided that the proposed Lindberg Annexation area, not yet reviewed, is approved to include the public roads and parcels outlined in the enclosed map. Approval of the Mosier II Annexation without, or prior to, the proposed Lindberg Annexation will create an unincorporated island of parcels and road right-of-way. This annexation does not include a portion of a County park nor conflict with any other municipal boundaries in the vicinity. �•�1202M r f Lenora Blauman June 23, 2005 Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact Nicole Keller, Vacations and Boundaries Engineer, at 206-296-3731, or via e-mail at Road.R/Wvacations@metrokc.gov. Sincerely, t: f 3 f `� � �' ydia Reyno -Jones Manager Project Support Services LRJ:NK:mr Enclosures cc: Paulette Norman, P.E., County Road Engineer, Road Services Division Anne Noris, Clerk of the King County Council (w/enclosures) Nicole Keller, Engineer II, Engineering Services Section, Road Services Division